The reader will be pleased to suppose the right end of the lower cut to be joined to the left end of the upper, and he will then have a view of the picture as it is in the original.

at the first view; the complexion, physiognomy, and beard, permit us not to be mistaken in supposing them to be Hebrews. They wear at their hips the apron which is common among the Egyptians; and there is also represented, as in use

among them, a kind of short trousers or drawers Among

the Hebrews, four Egyptians, very distinguishable by their mien, figure, and color, (which is of the usual reddish brown, while the others are of what we call 'flesh color,') are seen. Two of them, one sitting, the other standing, carry sticks in their hands, ready to fall upon two other Egyptians, who are here represented like the Hebrews, one of them carrying upon his shoulders a vessel of clay, and the other returning from the transportation of brick, carrying his empty vessel to get a new load."

The diminished size of our representation is necessarily such, that we must request the reader to turn to our cut, while we attempt to supply, by explanation, its deficiencies on a comparison with the much larger picture of Rosellini.

The three figures on the right of the upper part of the cut are all represented by Rosellini with such wigs as are usually painted on Egyptians. One of these bears a stick; and the other two are Egyptian taskmasters, who, by their failure to exact the required amount of work from the Israelites, are compelled to perform servile work themselves, as a punishment. One of them bears a load, and the other (the righthand figure, with the yoke) proves that they had not come forth for labor of this kind; for it will be observed that he has not yet girt his loins, like all the other laborers seen in the picture, and according to invariable Eastern usage, but wears his dress loose, like the overseer with his stick raised, and the taskmaster who is sitting (No. 6).

n

The hieroglyphical inscription at the top of the cut reads, "Captives brought by his majesty, to build the temple of the great god." On the left of the lower cut, is the tank or cistern from which water was obtained, and in which one laborer is seen standing, while another is dipping his vessel into the cistern. Most of the laboring figures are represented by Rosellini with hair and beards; their complexion also, in the original, is painted of a different color from that of the Egyptians: there is no doubt they are meant for foreigners of some kind; and, to our eyes, the physiognomy is unmistakably Jewish. They are marked also with splashes of clay, and their whole appearance indicates the most servile degradation. Three of the laboring figures, however, seem to be Egyptians, and of equal degradation with their companions.

It is not surprising that this remarkable picture should have attracted much attention among the students of Egyptian antiquity. Heeren remarks of it, "If this painting represents the servitude of the children of Israel in these labors, it is equally important for exegesis and chronology. For exegesis, because it would be a strong proof of the antiquity of the Mosaic writings, and especially of the book of Exodus, which, in the first and fifth chapters, gives a description which applies most accurately to this painting, even in unimportant particulars. For chronology, since it belongs to the eighteenth dynasty, under the dominion of Thothmes Mceris, about 1740 B. C, and therefore would give a fixed point both for profane and sacred history."

Indeed, the striking character of this painting seems to have caused an intimation, if not a positive expression, of doubt as to its genuineness. The question has been asked, " Is it not probably a supposititious work, prepared after the Pentateuch was written?' Rosellini first gave it to the world; afterward.

Sir Gardner Wilkinson made a new examination of it on the spot, and his acknowledged sound judgment deliberately decided in its favor, as being a genuine production of the eighteenth dynasty. His judgment, it will be seen, is entitled to the more weight when we add, that he is not prepared to say the picture refers to the work of the Israelites in their bondage; but rather questions it; remarking, however, "it is curious to discover other foreign captives, occupied in the same manner, overlooked by similar 'taskmasters,' and performing the very same labors as the Israelites described in the Bible; and no one can look at the paintings of Thebes representing brickmakers, without a feeling of the highest interest." We will now state the grounds on which the application of the picture, to the story of the Hebrews, has been questioned.

First. How came this picture at Thebes, in the tomb of Roschere? Rosellini answers thus: Roschere was a high court officer of the king; that the tomb was his, is plainly proved, indeed it is not questioned, and it was built in the time of Thothmes IV., the fifth king of the eighteenth dynasty. Roschere was the overseer of the public buildings; and had, consequently, charge of all the works undertaken by the king. In the tomb are found other objects of a like nature, two colossal statues, a sphinx, and the laborers who hewed the stoneworks, which he, by virtue of his office, had caused to be made in his lifetime. All this, it is believed, is conceded as being true.

Secondly. How came the Israelites to be represented as laboring at Thebes? This, as it seems to us, is Sir Gardner Wilkinson's greatest objection. The scene of the labor represented is in his view undeniably at Thebes, for the lower hieroglyphics state that the bricks are made for a "building at Thebes." It is with great diffidence we venture to entertain an opinion on this subject, different from Wilkinson's. Yet here, we must confess that the objection does not seem conclusive. It is true that the Israelites, during their bondage, occupied their ancient home (so far as the men were allowed to enjoy a home) in Goshen, which was far distant from Thebes: but we know of nothing either in Scripture or elsewhere, which confined their labors to Goshen. On the contrary, when they were ordered in this very business of brickmaking, to find straw for themselves, we are constrained to believe that they were at work for the royal monopolist and brick merchant, in almost all parts of Egypt; for in Exodus v. 12, we read, "so the people were scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt to gather stubble instead of straw." This certainly does not convey the idea that they were making bricks in Goshen only.

Beside, according to Rosellini, the inscription does not so plainly declare that these bricks in the picture were made for a "building at Thebes;" and if they were, as Egypt formed then but one kingdom, and as there is reason from other testimony to believe that the usage in working the Israelites was to send them out in gangs, or classes, under overseers for a considerable time, making these classes successively relieve each other, we cannot see any objection to the opinion that they may have been sent as far as Thebes for the sake of their work: certain it is that no considerations of humanity, or of the convenience of these poor bondmen, would have prevented it. Beside, it is not unlikely that they were sent out of Goshen for agricultural purposes, inasmuch as we read they were employed "in all manner of service in the field;" and their numbers had so much increased at this