coadjutors in this edition. In the Bibliotheca (Tom. i. p. 24) Assemani says of this life, Syriaca S. Ephraemi acta nemo hactenus publicavit, aut illa apud Syros extare credidit. Hæc nos in optimo Codice Vaticano annorum fere sexcentorum nuper reperta, hic magnâ ex parte subnectere prætium operæ duximus.' The present German translation is very literal, and is accompanied by a few notes, and also an inquiry as to the chronology of Ephraem, which has always been a doubtful matter. While Alsleben proposes to publish a translation of the whole Syriac works of Ephraem, he appears to confine himself to those which are printed in the Roman edition; but, as it is presumed others of his productions exist in manuscripts, and especially in Liturgies, it is hoped he will endeavour to make the collection as complete as possible. Many of the metrical pieces have already received a German dress by P. Pius Zingerle in three worksDer heilige Muse der Syrer, Gesänge gegen die Grübler, and Die Reden des H. Ephraim gegen die Ketzer;-The Sacred Muse of the Syrians, Poems against the Scrutators, and Discourses against the Heretics. These translations appear to be executed with great taste, and are accompanied by valuable notes. Alsleben, in the catalogues he gives of the Syriac works of Ephraem, mentions the Exegetischen Hymnen oder Sermonen, Sermones Exegetici, contained in the fifth volume of the Roman edition, and in a note conjectures that they are but fragments of a large exegetical work. He would probably be more correct in saying that they are remnants of a mode of pulpit address common in the Syrian Church in Ephraem's time, when long discourses in metre appear to have been delivered to popular assemblies. From these Discourses the piece is selected which Dr. Burgess is preparing for publication under the title of The Repentance of Nineveh,' referred to in the last number of the Journal, p. 392. It will not be out of place to insert here the specimen which has been circulated in a prospectus of that work, which is intended to throw light on the mode of pulpit address just mentioned. "The King convoked his armies, He wept with them and they with him. The battles in which they had been crowned; He also brought to their remembrance In what perils they had conquered. But now his soul was feeble, and he was humbled, For there was none to redeem nor help. He began thus to address them :— 66 This, my friends, is not a war That we can go forth and conquer as we have been wont, For even heroes are now trembling At the mighty rumour which is proclaimed abroad. One Hebrew now conquers us Who have conquered many : He hath made kings, even us, to tremble; And his word hath greatly disturbed us. Is afraid of a solitary feeble one. Trembles at the Hebrew. Asshur has roared against the world, But the voice of Jonah roars against her. * "Who is there, my friends, who is not acquainted With the overwhelming deluge? The history is familiar to us Of the inundation in the days of Noah; Cried aloud of the inundation. They derided the voice of the axe, They mocked at the voice of the hammer, Then Justice was revealed; And Justice being revealed, Presumption was condemned. The fountains were opened and roared Against the wicked mockers. Suddenly the flood cried out Against the ungodly who had derided. EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY. Hora Egyptiaca; or, the Chronology of Ancient Egypt. Discovered from Astronomical and Hieroglyphic Records, &c. &c. By REGINALD STUART POOLE. Murray, 1851. WE introduce this publication to our readers with a rather strong opinion that it has settled for ever the whole outline of early Egyptian chronology. That it professes to do so is clear. That Sir Gardner Wilkinson, the Duke of Northumberland, and the gifted historian of the Rephaim think so too, they have, either by word or deed, themselves informed the public; and the only formal objection hitherto, as far as we know, brought against it in the article, namely, in the Revue Archæologique' (Feb. 1853) by M. De Rouge-has by no means shaken our confidence. 6 If so great and so difficult a work as this has really been at last effected, and by so young a man too as Mr. Poole, we may well congratulate not only himself and his country, but even the world at large; for the chronology of the great early nations is a study not barren in results, but, on the contrary, fertile in fruit, and of very great importance to human disputations, human strivings, and human progress. On chronology hangs history; on history, to a considerable extent, hangs theology; and on theology hangs social no less than individual progress. The result of Mr. Poole's system as a whole, is a very strong confirmation of the Septuagint chronology of the Old Testament; one of his alleged discoveries also, namely, that of the great panegyrical year, with its months and other subdivisions, throws considerable light upon the day-year system of dating, the use of which is so strongly affirmed and so strongly denied by different writers upon the Scripture prophecies. A few words, then, upon the first of these two subjects will serve to introduce us into the more difficult department, whence the chief of Mr. Poole's arguments are derived. Now, for our part, as far as chronology is concerned, we own ourselves to be perfectly willing to use either the present Septuagint version or the present Hebrew text of the Old Testament, exactly as we should the records of any heathen early nation; and in saying this we say it simply because it is an undeniable fact that the present copies of both these authorities were made by fallible men like ourselves. There must most certainly have been some great human corruptions fallen into in handing down to us so many different readings, all of which cannot be the same as what Moses originally wrote. Now a Jewish or Christian corruption or mistake, if it really be a corruption or mistake, is no more sacred in our eyes than if the copyist had been a very heathen; and it seems to us perfectly obvious that when manuscripts vary, people must do just the best they can with them, and that, by the very nature of the case, the art of going back to an original manuscript is one and the same, whether that original manuscript be an inspired book of God, or the work of a common historian. Doubtless, knowing that Moses originally wrote truly, we may choose from among our many variations that one which makes him speak what we from other sources suppose to be right. But should we not do the very same thing with Manetho or Herodotus? Should we not reject a copy of Thucydides, which put the battle of Salamis a thousand years before Pericles? Why so? Because, if he wrote thus he wrote what was false, which we have no reason to suppose. May we not, then, in the same way reject a Hebrew date of Moses, if we happen to be sure that it is wrong, and if Greek versions, very much older than our copies of the Hebrew text, give a date which we are confident is right? Now this brings us to one of the very points which we would desire our readers most particularly to examine; for the common opinion doubtless assumes what, it seems to us, we have no business whatever to assume, namely, that the authors of the Septuagint had our present Hebrew dates before them, which they intentionally altered. The oldest of our Hebrew manuscripts is many hundreds of years junior to the Septuagint version, and how we can be sure that the translators had our present dates before them it is hard to say. But we care not to dwell upon this matter. Either hypothesis will suit us equally well. Either the Septuagint writers altered advisedly our present Hebrew, or the present Hebrew did not then exist. If the present Hebrew dates did not then exist, it follows that they have at present no lawful authority. But if they existed and the Seventy altered them, then Mr. Poole's system must have been accepted among them, for Mr. Poole and the Seventy are agreed. Which of these two hypotheses is most probable we know not; for, to say the truth, our reading is not extensive in this direction. The popular voice accepts the latter. Eadie's railway book on the subject is excellent of its kind, but such manifest corrections,' it says, 'are not in accordance with that honest and simple narration of dates which must have distinguished the original Hebrew chronicles. The Septuagint or Alexandrian version is corrupted by a similar system, and bears upon it the marks of its Egyptian origin; for to the period elapsing between 6 Adam and Abraham the translators have added 1460 years, or the famous Egyptian Sothic period. Perhaps this was an early attempt to synchronize the Hebrew epochs with the long and traditionary periods of Egyptian antiquity. On the whole, then, it is plain that, where Jewish masorets, Samaritan separatists, and Greek versionists have so plainly modelled their chronology according to a foregone conclusion, and where accounts of time have been so plainly "cooked," their dates, epochs, and intervals cannot be implicitly trusted.' We really consider the argument we are now using to be a strong one. We assume certainly that the present Septuagint dates are identical with those originally written by the translators; this not being denied, we respectfully ask the advocates of a longer system of chronology than Mr. Poole's, how, on their supposition, the Seventy could have walked in the streets of Alexandria without being ignominiously pointed at? Their version was made for use among great bodies of men, and for six hundred years it was the vernacular Bible, which the Hebrew never seems to have been. They lived in a busy, intellectual period, in a metropolis of learning, among gigantic remains of antiquity, and among a people fully conscious of their own chronological history, or else all our modern Egyptology, drawn from sources visible to them, is a mere delusion. If, then, all Egypt coincided with Mr. Bunsen in their date for Menes, how could these translators make so small an alteration while they were about it? Though six hundred more years would have cleared them, they made no scruple of flooding the Chevalier's pyramid builders, and dispersing the whole of mankind about four hundred years afterwards. We think, then, that if these Greeks might easily have 'cooked' the chronology of Moses and did not do so, the fact shows that Moses has since their day been corrupted, and if they might have done so and did so, then they have thus testified to what the Egyptians themselves soberly believed. We now hasten to explain some few of those alleged discoveries by means of which Mr. Poole has either greatly advanced us if they be substantiated, or greatly delayed us in our search for truth, if they be but mere fancies after all. And that our readers may know at once the worst that has been said of him, we quote here the words of a redoubted champion-who would fain hew our warrior to the ground-as an encouragement to him to arise and contend once more: 'After these great works I have yet to make mention of a recent attempt which seems to have found some favour in England. Mr. Poole, a young "savant" attached to the British Museum, while studying the lists of festivals engraved on the tombs (the arrangement of |