« PreviousContinue »
EGYPTIAN. CoPTic. HEBREw.
The identity of the pronouns, and especially the manner in which they are treated in the two groups of languages, he considers a remarkable fact, and goes on to say that this identity is observed even in the details which seem the most secondary. Several apparent irregularities of the Semitic pronoun, as for example, the changing of the n into T in the affix, even find in the theory of the Coptic pronoun a satisfactory explanation. The analogies of the nouns of number pointed out by Lepsius are not less striking, for example:–
The conjugation itself is not without some analogies in the two languages; the present tense in Coptic, like the imperfect of the Semitic languages, is formed by the agglutination of the pronoun at the beginning of the verbal root, and the other tenses are formed by means of a composition like those which the Aramean languages make use of. Having admitted these facts, Renan goes on to say that the problem whether these resemblances are merely such things as are to be found in all languages, or analogics which spring from a common origin is, to say the truth, almost unsolvable. We must then make for the language and civilization of
Egypt a family by itself, which may be called Hamitic." According to Prof. Max Müller and others, “the Egyptian and the Semitic languages belong to quite different stages of language, the former to what Prof. Max Müller calls the second or Terminational, the latter to the third or Inflexional stage. In the Terminational stage, two or more roots may coalesce to form a word, the one retaining its radical independence, the other sinking down to a mere termination. The languages belonging to this stage have generally been called agglutinative. Now the Egyptian language has indeed reached this stage as regards the pronominal and one or two other suffixes. But in all other respects it most nearly resembles the languages of the first or Radical stage, in which there is no formal distinction between a root and a word.”* A theory has been put forth by Dr. Strassmaier that a relationship exists between the Accadian and Egyptian languages, and he printed a small list of Egyptian, Coptic and Accadian words which he thought to be identical. If Egypt and Mesopotamia were conquered by branches of the same Accadian-speaking race this is only what might be expected. See his paper, Akkadisch und Aegyptisch, in the Album” presented to M. Leemans.
* Renan, op. cit., pp. 84, 85, 89.
The land of Egypt was commonly called by its inhabitants 2T) \ 3. Kamt, because of the dark colour of the soil, and
if the colour of the ground for a few miles on each side of the Nile be compared with the Arabian and Libyan desert the appropriateness of the name Kam or Kamt is at once evident. Another old name of Egypt is Ta-merá, “the land
two other names for the country are J Z! Q & Beqet, apparently C
having reference to Egypt as an olive-bearing land, and
* Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, pp. 55–61. The question of Pronominal forms in Egyptian has been discussed by this writer in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, March, 1888, pp. 247–264, and in this paper he states that pronouns like anuk, entuk, entus, etc., are formed of a series of demonstrative elements; anuk = i+nu + k, entuk = en + tu + k, entus=en + tu-f.
* Etudes Archéologiques, Linguistiques et Historiques, dédiées à Dr. C. Leemans, Leide, 1885, pp. 105-107.
Native names of Egypt.
and Babylonians Mugur; it is given this latter name in the cuneiform despatches of Tushratta, King of Mitani, about B.C. 1550. Upper Egypt extended from Aswän (Syene) to Memphis, and Lower Egypt, beginning at Memphis, included the Delta and sea-coast.
From the earliest times Egypt appears to have been divided into a series of districts which the Egyptians called hesp HE, and the Greeks Nouot or Nomes. Each nome had its capital city and temple for worship, its own feasts, its own sacred animals and trees, and its own protecting deity. The limits of each nome were most carefully marked, and the amount of cultivated land, the amount of land available for agricultural purposes after a high Nile, and the canals with their various branches, were all known." Each nome with its independent administration, formed, practically, a small but complete state. -
The number of the nomes according to classical authors variés; Diodorus, who says (i. 54) that the nome dates from the time of Sesostris, gives thirty-six, Pliny” forty-five. The number usually given in Egyptian lists is forty-two: twentytwo in Upper Egypt, ahd twenty in Lower Egypt. Heptanomis, or Middle Egypt, appears to have been the district between the Thebaid and the Delta; its seven nomes are said to have been Memphites, Heracleopolites, Crocodilopolites, Aphroditopolites, Oxyrhynchites, Cynopolites, Hermopolites. The Greater and Lesser Oases were considered to be parts of Heptanomis.
1 A list of the nomes is given at the end of the chapter on Egyptian History.
* He calls them praefecturas oppidorum, (v. 9, 9). The nomes and their chief towns are given by Ptolemy, Geographiae, iv. 5, ed. Mercator, pp. 105-108.
Over the early history of Egypt there hangs a mystery The greater than that which shrouds the origin and home of the . Egyptian ; of the period which preceded Mena (Menes), the Egyptian first historical king of Egypt, nothing is known. According History. to Manetho a race of demi-gods and kings from This, near Abydos, and from Memphis ruled over Egypt before the advent of Mena, and these may possibly correspond with the såesu Heru or “followers of Horus” of the Turin papyrus, the list of kings on which begins with god-kings and ends with the rule of the Hyksos at the end of the XVIIth dynasty or about B.C. 1700. The work of Manetho of Sebennytus on Early Egyptian history is, unfortunately, lost. He was alive about historians. B.C. 271, and is said to have been a contemporary of Ptolemy I.; his Egyptian history was composed during the reign of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus, B.C. 286–247. Extracts from this work are given us by Josephus (contra Apion. I., 14), which refer to the reigns of the kings of the XV-XIXth dynasties. In Eusebius and Julius Africanus (fragments of whose work TrevrabišXtov Xpovox.oyuków are preserved in Eusebius) there are given a list of Egyptian dynasties, and the number of the years of the reign of each king. This list is one of the most valuable documents which have come down to us, for Manetho, by reason of his position as priest and his knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language, had access to, and was able to make use of, the ancient Egyptian literature in a way which no other writer seems to have done. The thirty dynasties of Egyptian kings he Lists of divides into three periods, thus: Dynasties I.-XI., Dynasties Kings. XII.-XIX., and Dynasties XX.-XXX. It must, however, be understood that the Egyptian did not group the kings into dynasties, and this fact is evident from the Tablet of Abydos and the Tablet of Sakkârah. The Tablet of Abydos, discovered by Dümichen in the Temple of Osiris, at Abydos, in 1864, gives the names of seventy-five kings, beginning with Mena or Menes, and ending with Seti I., the father of Rameses II. ; it is not a complete list, and there is nothing to show why certain names are omitted. The Tablet of Sakkarah, discovered by Mariette at Sakkârah, was inscribed during the reign of Rameses II., and it gives
*... ss. U × . . . . . . . . ."
the names of forty-seven kings, agreeing closely, in the matter
Mena or Menes, the first historical king of Fgypt, came from This near Abydos in Upper Egypt. He left This, and journeying northwards, arrived at the head of the Delta, where, having turned the Nile out of its course, he founded the city of Memphis and built the temple of Ptah.