58 Notices respecting Ncuo Books. 



but regard it as a very valuable contribution to the study of Egyp- 

 tian antiquities; as throwing much new light on the processes to 

 which that singular people were accustomed to subject the bodies 

 of their dead, and as vindicating the authenticity, on this point, of 

 the venerable historians to whom we have hitherto been chiefly in- 

 debted for our knowledge of the early history of Egypt. The infor- 

 mation communicated by Messrs. Osburn and George and their coad- 

 jutors, respecting the specimen of Egyptian embalming which they 

 have examined, illustrates many important particulars discussed in 

 Dr. Granville's paper; while the condition of the mummy so well 

 described by that physiologist, affords, in its turn, the means of con- 

 firming and explaining many circumstances attending the former. 

 In a train of researches upon a single mummy, it was probably im- 

 possible for either Dr. Granville or the gentlemen of the Leeds So- 

 ciety, to avoid forming erroneous conclusions on some minor points 

 of the inquiry; but the works they have respectively produced mu- 

 tually explain and correct each other in these respects. The im- 

 provement which the pursuits of the natural philosopher and those 

 of the antiquary may reciprocally impart to and receive from each 

 other, is also evinced in an interesting manner by contrasting these 

 two publications. Dr. Granville, by the anatomical examination to 

 which he subjected the mummy in his possession, and the chemical 

 experiments he subsequently instituted, succeeded in discovering 

 the process by which the Egyptians, at a period no less distant than 

 three thousand years, had efiected its preservation. Mr. Osburn, 

 on the other hand, by deciphering the hieroglyphical inscriptions on 

 the case or coffin of the mummy belonging to the Leeds Society, and 

 ascertaining the name and occupation of the person embalmed, and 

 the time at which he lived, has imparted to many of the probable in- 

 ferences drawn from the physical history of both specimens, the so- 

 lidit}' and precision of actual knowledge. 



The interest excited by researches like the present, depends, in 

 great measure, upon circumstances peculiar to the archaeology of 

 Egypt, which requires for its investigation the united labours of the 

 philologist, the historian, and the naturalist. These circumstances 

 have originated, principally, in the singular and complicated system 

 of mythology entertained by the Egyptians; in which all nature, 

 animate and inanimate, was called upon to bear a part, either as a 

 manifestation of deity, or as a symbol of superstition. 



" Quis nescit, Voliisi Bithynice, qiialia demons 

 yEgyptiis portenta colat? Crocodilon adorat 

 Pars htcc: ilia |)avet saturani serpentibus ibin. 

 Effigies sacri nitct aiirca cercopitheci, 

 Dimitlio magicas resonant ubi Meninone chordae, 

 Atque vetus Tlicbc centum jacct obruta portis. 

 Illic caenileos, hie pisccm flimiinis, illic 

 Oppida tota cancm venerantur, nemo Dianam. 

 Porrum et ca;pe nefas violare, et frangere morsu. 

 O sanctas gentcs, quibiis ha2c nascuntur in hortis 

 Numina!" Juvenal, Sat. xv. 



But with this mythology, debased and absurd as it must have been 

 as a system of religious belief; was necessarily interwoven an exten- 

 sive 



