of Interest and Amount; and the State of Cash remaining in their Treasury, and Britain and Afloat Outward, on the 1st May 1825. TERRITORIAL BRANCH. ASSETS. By Exports of Military Stores, &c. and remaining unshipped 294,640 4,726 121,899 Owing from sundry Persons, for Advances repayable in England .................... 32,754 245 99,000 £1,196,245 BRANCH. By what due from Public to Company, East-India Annuities engrafted on the 3 per cent. reduced, per Act 33 Geo. 3. c. 47................ £1,207,560 Cargoes from England of 1823-24, not arrived in India and China ... ... Owing from sundry Persons for Advances repayable in England 859,394 1,114,103 55,239 7,288 1,901 *8,109,659 1,699,576 £23,476,278 * Memorandum : This Balance is subject to reduction, by the Amount of the Advances made in India from the Territorial Branch to the Commercial Branch, in the Indian Official Years 1823-24 and 1824-25; the Documents whereby the Amount of these Advances is to be ascertained, have not as yet been received from India, but which it is estimated, may amount to £4,591,000; which will leave a Balance due to the Commerce, of £3,518,659. In the period from the 1st May 1814 to 1st May 1825, there has also been advanced or set apart from the Surplus Commercial Profits in England, the sum of £4,754,902 towards the liquidation of Indian Territorial Debt, which being a payment under the 4th head of Appropriation of the 57th Section of the 53d Geo. 3d. is not held to constitute a claim upon the Territorial Department for repayment, upon the principle observed in respect to other Territorial Advances. The Home Bond Debt is stated, without specific application to either branch of the Company's Affairs, it not being determined to what extent the Debt had its origin from political causes. East-India House, 25th May 1825. (Errors excepted.) THOS. G. LLOYD, Review of Books. Origines; or, Remarks on the Origin of several Empires, States, and Cities. By the Right Honourable Sir W. Drummond. [Concluded from Vol. XIX. p. 820.] The second Volume of this work is, as we before intimated, devoted to the history of ancient Egypt. The author first examines the opinion adopted by the ancients, that the Delta, or Lower Egypt, was formed by the alluvial soil brought down by the Nile from the mountains of Ethiopia and of Upper Egypt : an opinion in which many modern writers concur. But Sir W. Drummond adduces various considerations which render the opinion questionable: he shows, from the statements of Pococke, that either there has been no elevation of the soil of Egypt since the time of Herodotus, who declares (1. ii. c. 5) that the territory was a gift of the Nile; or that the increment is too trifling to favour his hypothesis. He adds geological evidence to the same effect: it appears that the slime deposited by the river, in its periodical inundations, is black, and that all the arable soil of Egypt is likewise black; but this stratum of black soil rarely exceeds two or three feet in depth, and the substrata are, first, a reddish earth, about the same depth, resting, secondly, upon a bed of sand and gravel. He finds likewise a coincidence between ancient and modern geographers in regard to the extent of the country; and proves that the coast of the Delta has the same, or nearly the same, extent as it had almost twenty centuries ago. Sir Wm. Drummond next investigates the ancient names of Egypt and the Nile. The scripture name of Egypt, Mistrim (not Misraim, according to the Masorites and Bochart), which denoted Upper, Middle, and Lower Egypt, was that of the second son of Cham; but from an analogy (which we cannot help regarding as fanciful) between certain words in the Hebrew and Egyptian tongues, our author is led to adopt the tradition recorded by St. Jerome, that Cham was the original name of Egypt; and concludes that the son of Noah derived his name from fixing his habitation in this country. There can be little doubt that Sir Wm. D. is right in rejecting the hypothesis, which refers the name of the natives of Egypt to the town of Coptos in the Thebais, and in deducing the term Copts from a corruption of A'iyʊTIOI. The Greeks could not have meant by A'iyvaτos the Land of the Copts, because it was the name given to the Nile, as appears from Homer. The adventurous spirit of our learned author impels him to endeavour to trace the origin of that name, which, by a process ingenious, though not convincing, he decides to have been formed from the Coptic words Ikh-Ptah, or the genius Ptah of the Egyptians, which, he says, may have been corrupted into Aigupios, Gups-Pta, perhaps Aigups-Ptas, and finally into Aiguptos. 66 The ancient name of the celebrated Egyptian river, and the comparatively modern name of Neîños, Nilus, or Nile, are investigated at some length; and Sir William's conclusions are specious, and perhaps as satisfactory as the nature of the subject admits. The inquiry which follows, "whether any reminiscences of the Deluge can be traced in the Mythology or in the Monuments of the ancient Egyptians," possesses more interest than the subjects of the two preceding chapters. It is natural to expect that, as the immediate descendants of Noah fixed their residence residence in Egypt, some records or tradition of that great event would be found in that country. But the author observes that the posterity of Cham soon lapsed into the errors of Tsabaism; this apostacy totally corrupted the stream of history, as well as diverted the attention of mankind from the truths of pure religion. The doctrines of the Tsabeans were plausible and even fascinating. Their system was formed to unite the interests of the priesthood with those of the monarch, and to give stability both to the altar and to the throne. They represented the universe as governed by an innumerable host of spiritual agents of different ranks, who all acted under the guidance and by the authority of one supreme and infinite being, who was the primary cause of all things, and who is the eternal ruler of the world. They considered nature as nothing else than as the manifestation of the Deity in his works; and all the powers of nature they held to be produced by the direct agency of beings that emanate from the Divine essence. But this theory, which supposes the universe to be governed by a being, who can only be defined by abstractions, as infinite, immaterial, invisible, and immortal; and who guides Nature in all her ways by the intervention of spiritual effluences, and divine emanations, as difficult to be comprehended by human understanding, as the source whence they spring; this theory was not easily intelligible to the people, and was not perhaps, as it stood alone, entirely suited to the views of their rulers. Symbols were soon sought and found, which, it was thought, might help to explain to the vulgar and illiterate the abstruse language, and the metaphysical doctrines, of the wise and the learned. The Sun, the most glorious object which the material world presents to our admiration; as the source of heat and light; and as the apparent cause of many of the blessings which this earth enjoys; was considered as the visible type of the invisible God. The Moon became the symbol of the passive principle; and represented material Nature acted upon by the Divine Mind. Matter being considered as inert in itself, and in its original state as void of form and of motion, was supposed to have received its primary as well as its present impulses, with all its qualities, forms and organizations, from energies communicated to it by the spiritual demiourgos. This doctrine was illustrated by a reference to the lunar orb, which shines only by the light which it receives from the sun. The five great planets were selected to represent the principal and most brilliant of the etherial spirits that stand in the presence of the Deity. The multitude of fixed stars was compared to a mighty host; and according to their different magnitudes, degrees of rank were assigned to these celestial bodies, which were considered as the types of the immaterial agents, who in countless myriads perform the will and execute the mandates of the supreme Governor of the universe.-II. 82-84. Hence Sir W. D. supposes their historical facts to have been mixed with fictions; and maintains, though apparently with some degree of hesitation, that "the fables fabricated concerning the gods were originally and partly founded on some obscure traditions concerning the Patriarchs." The practice of placing the image of Osiris in a chest, and leaving it to float on the waves, as well as a ceremony somewhat analogous in the deification of Apis, is an evidence, in our author's opinion, that some traditions of the deluge existed amongst the Egyptians. Apis was worshipped under the figure of a bull; and Sir William remarks that Taurus was the leading constellation when the deluge happened; but Taurus rose achronically when Noah entered the ark. These circumstances are of weight, considering the supposed skill of the Egyptians in astronomy. A further argument (useful as an auxiliary, though perhaps of little value per se), is extracted from the number of great gods in Egypt, which was eight, corresponding with that of the persons saved in the ark. The most ancient of these gods, Herodotus tells us, was Pan, whose name Sir W. D., line of the letter ; just as upon the medal the is thrown in a singular manner into the middle of of the word hall in the preceding word and are written in a manner which prevents the أنت ,lastly ; عبد last letter being distinguished from that immediately preceding it. Besides several errors in the wording of the inscription, Dr. F. states that Tychsen inserted, in 1788, a small treatise on the Arabian rings employed as seals, in the Supplémens Littéraires aux Nouvelles de Mecklembourg-Schwerin, p. vi.; and whilst he speaks of many seals which he had explained, he says not a word of this, which, if it had been authentic, deserved particular mention; but it is, in fact, only a miserable counterfeit, executed by some European, of the seal spoken of by Elmacin. After pointing out another piece, as a clumsy attempt to palm upon the curious amateur a false coin of the celebrated Bajazet I., he proceeds to notice a still more barefaced attempt at forgery. A There is, says he, just above the seal, in the same plate, another very singular coin; on one side appears: شاه جهان بادشاه غازي ١٦٠١ Shah Jehan Padshah Ghazi 1601. There is nothing particularly remarkable here but the date; and it might happen that 1601 was written for 1061. But on the reverse appears: لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله علي ولي الله "We are naturally induced to inquire how it happens that we find here the symbol of the Shyites? The descendant of Babour, Shah Jehan, wasra Sunnite, as well as his predecessors and successors. Tavernier, who was in India during the reign of this prince and Aurengzebe, expressly says: "the great Mogul, and all his court, are followers of the sect of the Sunnis;" and the very coins of Shah Jehan support the truth of this assertion. I have, says Dr. F., now before me two of these coins, of the years 1037 and 1044, both of which bear the symbol of the Sunnites; and in the Introduction of M. Tychsen appears a similar coin of 1064, with the same symbol. The reverse which the engraved plate gives of this coin of Shah Jehan, cannot belong to him; it must be that of a coin belonging to a Persian monarch. It is impossible to conceive how it came upon a piece of Indian money. After what has been advanced, observes Dr. F., we must be constrained to admit, that but little confidence can be placed in almost the whole contents of the plate; particularly the medal of Abdul-Malik, the seal of Walid, and the coin of Bajazet. It is very difficult to regard them in any other light than as counterfeits. Here occurs the question whether M. Tychsen was the dupe of some artificer, or whether he performed the part of forger. Let us consider how far either supposition can be justified. M. Tychsen says, in his Loisirs Butzowiens, that he received these oriental rarities from a minister of state of high rank; and remarks, with respect to the seal, that Tavernier had brought it from India, which gives room for conjecture that the others came from the same source: in point of fact, the two pieces of Indian money are of the age of the sovereigns during whose reigns Tavernier was in India. This traveller, as is well known, was a jewel merchant, and made, in that capacity, during a succession of years, very extensive journies journies in India, Turkey, and Persia. In this sort of traffic, he must have had many opportunities of procuring coins and seals with oriental inscriptions; and consequently he would be aware how they were made, and what form was given to them. The advantageous sale of some medals, which he may have brought with him to Europe, might subsequently have induced him to make these articles an object of commercial speculation. What he met with not answering his purposes, he might endeavour to supply them by his own means. It must also be admitted, that during his stay of several years in the East, he must have acquired some knowledge of the languages, different modes of writing, and history of Asia. He could not be ignorant, therefore, of what would be of a nature most to interest European orientalists, and amateurs of the antiquities of that country, in Europe; and he must have considered himself better qualified than any other person to gratify their curiosity. A coin of that period when the Arabs first began to issue their currency, or the seal of one of the most celebrated caliphs of the house of the Ommiades, under whose reign the Arabs extended their vast conquests towards the East and the West, in Transoxania and in Spain, or a coin of an Ottoman sultan, who had been once the terror of Christian countries, and who, according to fabulous accounts, had been enclosed by Tamerlane in an iron cage; such articles must naturally have appeared to him to possess interest in the eyes of the learned and of collectors of antiquities, and to be certain of a profitable sale in Europe. He had not the smallest reason to apprehend that his deception would be discovered, if he fabricated these pieces himself, or procured oriental artists (Armenians or Jews) to make them according to his directions. At this period the study of palæography and oriental literature was yet in its infancy. Probably, however, he might have had no interested object in his proceeding: his trade might have yielded him profit enough to leave no temptation to increase it by these expedients. Perhaps he might have had no other design in manufacturing these curiosities, than to indulge himself in an innocent mystification of some European orientalist, whose weakness he was acquainted with. With respect to the second supposition, namely, that M. Tychsen himself manufactured the coins of Abdul-Malik and of Bajazet, as well as the seal of Walid, the following considerations may perhaps give room for believing it. 1. In the first place, the mysterious conduct of M. Tychsen upon the subject of the source whence he received these articles, which would have been superfluous if the person had believed in their authenticity, or if Tychsen, at least, imagined that what he had in his hands had been genuine. 2. The variation in his statements; declaring first that he had seen the coin itself of Adul-Malik, and then that he had seen only an impression. 3. That the only genuine coin in the plate (which contains five) is placed first (to discourage further scrutiny). 4. That in the Loisirs Butzowiens, he does not, upon the subject of the medal of Abdul-Malik, say a single word about Elmacin, whom, however, he has elsewhere cited; and does not apparently call to mind that, according to his author, it was Heddjadj who began in 76 to strike derhams, which bore, like the piece in question, this legend, all, and which were bad, both as to weight and alloy. It is difficult to believe that this ignorance of the passage in Elmacin was not pretended; and that he did not wish to leave to others the office of pointing out the perfect resemblance between this piece and those mentioned by Elmacin. 5. That |