*

porary Theban, and 76 Xoïte Kings; and 260 + 518 + 151 = 929 years. The thirty Kings of the right compartment of Karnak are understood to represent (in the same general way as the left compartment the previous dynasties) the succession of native sovereigns for this period; whether the Theban line alone, or the whole 129 of Thebes and Xoïs united, is left doubtful. The thirty of the Table are supposed to have been selected by King Thutmes as especial objects of veneration; for what reason, or upon what conceivable principle, it would baffle Edipus himself to conjecture. The first fourteen, as we formerly remarked, are also swelled to some 50 in the papyrus, while the sequel of the two documents offers no correspondence whatever. In readily admitting the ability here displayed by M. Bunsen in his series of subtle combinations, yet, as the foundations on which they rest appear to us essentially insecure and problematical, we feel the less disposed to enter upon any closer analysis of the process by which they have been attained. For the further elucidation of this obscure period, we must look to a better supply of monuments, of a more specific and intelligible character, than those we at present possess.

From the XVIIIth dynasty downwards, M. Bunsen, on a retrospect of his previous course, may be likened, if not to a traveller in a beaten track, at least to an engineer engaged in constructing a road through a comparatively easy country, already in part surveyed to his hand. His readjustment of the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties, reducing the former to but nine successive Kings, and discarding, here and in the sequel, the supernumeraries of Manetho, is a masterly piece of criticism; and the whole remainder of the series is treated with equally happy effect. This period comprehends about 1300 years; to which, adding 929 for the middle era, and 1076 for the Table of Eratosthenes, we have about 3300 for the whole Egyptian Empire,from Menes down to the conquest by Darius Ochus, about 340 years B.C. This gives 3640 B.c. for the epoch of Menes. M. Bunsen, however, further assumes, what is indeed self-obvious, that the Egyptian people must have existed for a long period,

This we presume to be the substance of the author's system, although there is certainly some ambiguity in the mode of its statement. We do not understand, for example, how, after having assumed the period of the 53 kings of Apollodorus to be equal to that of the 43 Shepherd kings, viz. 929 years, he should be at pains, in the sequel of the same pages, (21, 36,) where it seems to be so settled, to account for the small average length of reigns that results for each Theban King, on dividing by their sum 53, not the 929 years of the whole period, but the 453 of the XIIIth dynasty alone.

say, at the least, five centuries, in their early less settled state,before they reached the point of civilization at which Menes consolidated them into a great united Empire. This brings us back to upwards of 4000 years B.C. Such a result may possibly prove a staggering obstacle, with some of our readers, to the admission of M. Bunsen's claim to any authority whatever in such matters; from its incompatibility with what is familiarly called the Mosaic chronology.' If at one with our author upon all other points, we shall not be disposed to differ with him upon this. We admit his general rule, that upon no rational principle, historical or doctrinal, can the chronology of the Jews be considered as part of the inspired element of Scripture. In the case more immediately before us, we have qualified, as above, the term Mosaic chronology', from a belief that many of those who habitually use it as a watchword of orthodoxy, have no clear notion of its import. Are they aware that there are three versions of this chronology-the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagintall professing to represent the genuine Mosaic tradition; all advocated by authorities in high odour of orthodoxy; yet dif fering from each other to the extent of some thousand years? Are they aware, that between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, (the two most popular of the three,) the discrepancy, in the reckoning from Adam to Abraham, amounts to nearly 1400 years; in that from the Deluge to the latter patriarch, to nearly 800; and that proportional variations are observable in respect to later periods? For long, the Hebrew dates were held as infallible in the Protestant churches. Of late, however, the tide of orthodoxy has turned, and continues to set strongly in favour of the Septuagint, the numbers of which were formerly condemned as forgeries of Alexandrian Jews. This stigma is now transferred to the Hebrew, and its Rabbinical compilers of the Byzantine age. Now we hold it to be a primary article of true Christian orthodoxy, that those portions of Scripture which embody the divinely inspired truths essential to human salvation, have been, and will be preserved, in their genuine integrity, by the same Providence which ordained and promulgated them. Those, on the other hand, who believe them to have been delivered to us in a corrupt form, are heretics of the rankest description ;-as denying the purity of God's word-making God himself, as it were, a party to the delusion of his worshippers. This sin must, demonstrably, lie at the door of those who attach the authority of divine inspiration to systems of numbers, thus liable to be rejected, in their turn, by truly pious Christian professors, as cheats or forgeries. It is obvious that systems differing from each other, to the amount of a thousand years or two, cannot all be right; but it is a legitimate inference that they may all be wrong; and it were surely a service to the cause of religion,

as well as of history, could the common error be corrected by the aid of authentic monuments, whether derived from the banks of the Jordan, the Euphrates, or the Nile.

The strange part of the matter is, that, while the advocates of any one of these conflicting versions stigmatize its rivals as Rabbinical impostures, those who are the dupes, and in so far the accomplices of the fraud, escape the charge of heresy. But no sooner does an impartial enquirer, with a judgment free from all Rabbinical trammels, propose to adjust the dispute by an appeal to other testimony, than all parties combine against him, as a common enemy to this most paradoxical standard of orthodoxy! We find it difficult to perceive in what respect the man who is deluded from its paths by lying Jews, is better than one who errs on the faith of Egyptian monuments. We think it strange that an interpreter who transforms the days of Daniel into years, should be entitled to brand as a heretic one who supposes the nine hundred years of Seth or Canaan to denote primitive eras or stages of human development, rather than the life of a single natural man ;-as M. Bunsen, we expect, will do, in his ensuing volume on the Scriptural connexion.

Such attempts to stifle free enquiry into the real nature of that connexion, we consider as among the most serious obstacles to the elucidation of Christian truth; and we feel grateful to M. Bunsen for his efforts to expose and resist them. The real danger here lies, much less frequently in the speculations denounced as dangerous, than in the illiberal spirit in which they are met. We need scarcely remark, that we have not here to deal with a scoffer, or insidious enemy to Revealed Religion, but with a most zealous and successful labourer in its cause. If his doctrines be true, proclamations of their danger will not disprove them. If they be false, they will yield to the force of reason and argument. But we can hardly imagine a more fatal blow to the real interests of Religion, than the establishment, by incontrovertible evidence, of facts, which are declared by the accredited keepers of the Christian conscience of the community, to be incompatible with the fundamental articles of their faith.

We will conclude by tendering M. Bunsen our best thanks, for the distinguished services he has rendered to this important and interesting branch of historical enquiry; and by expressing our sanguine wishes for the further successful prosecution of his labours. Should the objections we have urged to any portion of his system contribute to its improvement or correction, it will not be to us a source of greater satisfaction, than, should they, by provoking more stringent researches, tend more firmly to es tablish his own opinions, and convince us of the fallacy of ours..

ART. VI.-Narrative of the United States' Exploring Expedition, during the Years 1838-1842. By CHARLES WILKES, U.S.N. Five volumes 8vo. London: 1845.

THE HE work before us contains a history of the only expedition hitherto undertaken by the Government of the United States for the purposes of maritime discovery. Its principal objects, as stated in the official instructions received by its Commander, were, to explore the Southern and Pacific Oceans; to ascertain, with as much accuracy as possible, the situation of that part of the great Antarctic Continent which was supposed to extend to the southward of Australia; and to resolve various questions respecting the navigation of the Polynesian seas,-important to all vessels engaged in commerce beyond Cape Horn, and especially to those employed in the Southern whale-fishery. Upon these important services the Squadron was employed nearly four years; three of which were passed in the unknown and perilous seas which separate Southern Asia from Western America; and it completed the entire Circuit of the Globe before its return to the United States.

We cannot promise much amusement to our readers from the brief account of the Exploring Expedition,' which we are about to lay before them. There is little romantic adventure, and still less picturesque description, to be found among the technical and scientific details which chiefly fill Captain Wilkes' pages. But his work contains some geographical and nautical information, and some sketches of manners and customs, calculated to recommend it, notwithstanding its rather cumbrous and unattractive style, to those who take an interest in these branches of knowledge.

It was scarcely to be expected that a Government, the western frontier of whose territory borders upon the largest and richest wilderness in the world, should have much attention to bestow upon unknown rocks and islands at the Antipodes; and it was still less probable that a people, whose interest is each succeeding year becoming more completely diverted from maritime affairs, by the vast field of adventure which lies at its very door, should display any general anxiety for information about the coral reefs and sand-banks of the Pacific Archipelagos. Accordingly we find, that the present expedition had been so long and abortively planned, and so repeatedly deferred, as to be regarded, by all who had concerned themselves in its objects, with disgust and disappointment. It was in March 1838 that it was placed under the command of Captain Wilkes; and we presume that we are

justified in ascribing its after rapid and successful organization principally to his zeal and ability. The vessels placed under his orders were the Vincennes and Peacock sloops of war, the Porpoise brig, and the Seagull and Flying-fish tenders. It is a somewhat remarkable, though not, we believe, an unprecedented circumstance, that Captain Hudson, the officer in command of the Peacock, was superior in rank to his temporary chief; and that, with a readiness equally creditable to his own liberality and to the high professional and scientific reputation of Captain Wilkes, he consented to waive his seniority for the purposes of the expedition.

On the 18th of August 1838, the Squadron got under weigh from New York, and proceeded on their voyage. Their first destination was Madeira, and they afterwards recrossed the Atlantic, visited Rio Janeiro and Buenos Ayres, doubled Cape Horn, and touched at Valparaiso and Callao. We shall not follow Captain Wilkes through his prolix description of these wellknown scenes; nor through his long, and in our opinion irrelevant, digressions respecting the political history of Brazil and Peru. Nor do we consider any of the events which occurred to the Squadron, during the eleven months occupied in this part of the voyage, as worthy of particular notice; except the disastrous loss of the Seagull, supposed to have foundered in a gale off Terra del Fuego.

On the 13th of July 1839, the Vincennes, Peacock, Porpoise, and Flying-fish, sailed from Callao; and on the 10th of September, after touching at some of the small islands composing the Paumotu group, they arrived at Tahiti.

The dreams of Rousseau and Condorcet, which represent man as weakened and depraved by the artificial training of civilization, have been by no means so universally forgotten, at least in France, as some of our readers may imagine. Sentimentalists are still to be found, who delight in contrasting the moral and physical excellence of some imaginary barbarian, with the frivolous mind and enervated body of the modern European. Some Parisian Novelists of the day have eagerly embraced an opinion so well suited to their liveliness of fancy, to their love of glittering novelty, and to that incredible ignorance of foreign nations, by which they have so frequently merited the derisive astonishment of their contemporaries. One of the most popular of their number-noted alike for the inexhaustible fertility of his invention, his meretricious style, his vehement prejudices, and the grotesque extravagance of his imagination-has lately been pleased to adopt, as one of his favourite characters, a youthful Hindoo Rajah, the patriotic victim of English ambition; and