::mm 
 
EGYPTIAN  CHEOiNICLES 
 
 YOL.  11. 
 
LONDON- 
 
 PEINTED    BX    SPOTTISWOODE    AND  CO. 
 NEW-STEEET  SQUABB 
 
IV. 
 
 8cJiEi\rE  of  PTOi,r.:\iY  of  IVIrndes  (h.c.  100?) 
 
 As  if  in  (II  +  tv=)  VI  Sotliic  Cycles  with  (2922  +  5841  =)87fi6  full  Egyptian  years,  of  which 
 (2822  +  311=)  3263  are  purely  fictitious,  and  the  remaining  5503  ending  as  if 
 in  n.c.  332  contain  470  years  of  the  current  Cycle  tlirown  up. 
 
 30,G72  nominal  ycnrs  of  the  Old  Chronicle  reduced  as  months  =  2556  full  years  ♦  9  more  trerted 
 as  full  years  +  [341  and]  16  fictitious  =  2!»22. 
 
 Then  [341  and]  16  before  Menes  +  2906  +  217  ■♦■  (27  •♦•  443=)  470  of  the  current  Cycle 
 thro\m  ni>+  1881  +  13  to  u.c.  332  =  5844  mix.vl  oi5u33  chronological  years. 
 
 V. 
 
 Scheme  pbeser-'.tid  by  Diogenes  Laertius  (ending  in  b.c.  332) 
 
 One  month  of  xxx  Great  Days  or  Cycles  of  1401  Egyptian  years  each  given  to  the  Sun  =  43,830 
 fictitious  years  +6033  (=2922  +  217  +  1881  +  13)  to  b.c.  332  are  48,863  mixed  or  5033  chronolo- 
 gical years. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Scheme  of  Anianus  (a.d.  412) 
 
 Of  36,027  mixed  (really  5346  full)  Egyptian  years  of  the  Chronicle  ending  in  b.c.  360.  rciJuced  as 
 if  to  5141  fixed  Alexandrian  years. 
 
 12,696  as  if  months  of  30  days  =  1058  years  +  11,984  as  if  months  of  29i  days =908  years  208  days 
 [969  years]  +  2574  as  months  of  30  days  =  214-j|  [215]  years,  in  all  2242.  Then  the  remaining 
 <i349  nominal  years  and  59  of  the  [341]  fictitious  years  of  the  Chronicle,  treated  as  months  of  30 
 (^ays  =  534  years ;  and  with  72  of  Mizraim  +  (210  +  21"  +  1866)  =  2293  years  of  kings,  the  whole 
 sum  is  5111  to  Aug.  29  in  b.c.  360. 
 
EGYPTIAN 
 
 CHEONICLES 
 
 WITH  A  HARMONY  OP  SACEED 
 AND  EGYPTIAN  CHRONOLOGY  AND  AN  APPENDIX  ON  BABYLONIAN 
 AND     ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM  PALMEE,  M.A. 
 
 AND     LATE     FELLOW     OF     MAGDALEN     COLLEGE,  OXFOED 
 
 In    Two  Volumes 
 VOL.  II. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 LONGMAN, .  GREEN,  LONGMAN,  AND  ROBERTS 
 1861 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 OF 
 
 SECOND  VOLUME. 
 
 CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES,  THE  MANETHO  OF  AFRICANUS  (b.C.  100  ?). 
 
 This  scheme  reduces  as  months  the  nominal  years,  but  adds  to  the  full  years 
 of  the  Old  Chronicle,  p.  419.  Its  author  ?  p  421.  Why  the  Clironicle  was 
 preferred  for  reduction  to  Manetho,  p.  427.  Comparison  of  the  three  schemes, 
 p.  430.  Outline  of  Ptolemy's  scheme,  p.  436.  His  Greek  lists  (given  in  English 
 at  p.  93)  as  copied  by  Syncellus  from  Africanus,  p.  441.  Apparent  chronology 
 of  his  kings  from  bc  5345  to  B.C.  332,  p.  450.  Remarks  on  the  foregoing 
 exhibition,  p.  451  ;  on  the  synchronisms  of  Petubast  with  01.  1  (p.  457),  of 
 Tiiouoris  with  Troy  (p.  458),  of  Sethos-Rameses  with  Danaus  (p.  460),  and  of 
 Amosis  with  Inachus  and  the  Exodus  (p.  461).  Ptolemy  adds  yii  dynasties  of 
 kings,  all  anonymous,  to  the  xxiii  of  Manetho:  and  these  new  dynasties  are  not 
 wholly  fictitious,  p.  465.  Of  Herodotus's  number  of  330  kings  from  Menes 
 to  Raraeses  III.,  p.  465.  Of  the  Turin  Papyrus,  which  seems  to  have  had  the 
 same  number,  p.  468,  &c.  Nubian  group  in  the  Papyrus,  p.  493.  Nubian 
 names  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI  (XIV  of  Ptol.)  in  that  half  of  the  Karnak 
 Chamber  which  is  to  one's  right  (the  names  of  the  other  half  are  given  at 
 p.  294),  p.  501.  The  xviii  Columns  of  the  Papyrus  as  reconstructed,  in  Eng- 
 lish, p.  508.  Remarks  on  its  groups  or  dynasties,  and  on  the  diflferent  average 
 length  of  the  reigns  in  each,  p.  512.  Tabular  comparison  of  the  same  with 
 those  of  the  original  Manetho,  p.  532.  Comparison  of  the  scheme  of  the 
 Papyrus  with  that  of  Manetho,  p.  533.  Motive  of  Manetho  for  ejecting  certain 
 reigns  and  making  of  them  his  four  dynasties  of  Manes,  p.  534.  Examination  of 
 Ptolemy's  vii  new  dynasties,  showing  how  far  they  are  a  restoration  of  kings 
 and  years  ejected  by  Manetho,  and  how  far  they  are  fictitious,  p.  536  to  552. 
 His  own  fictitious  additions  consist  chiefly  of  new  "  Shepherds,"  p.  552. 
 Parallel  Tables  of  the  kings  and  years  of  the  Papyrus,  of  Manetho,  and  of 
 Ptolemy,  p.  554.  Also  of  the  years,  whether  nominal  or  full,  of  the  five 
 schemes  of  the  Papyrus,  the  Old  Chronicle,  Manetho,  Ptolemy,  and  Diogenes 
 Lacrtius,  p.  556. 
 
vi 
 
 CONTENTS  OF 
 
 CHAP.  V. 
 
 STATEMENTS  OF  GREEK  AUTHOES. 
 
 I.  Of  Herodotus.    Herein  — 
 
 Of  the  Nubian  reigns  of  only  3  or  4  years  each,  p.  562,  &c.  Reigns  of  the 
 Ethiopian  Dyn.  XXV  from  Herodotus,  the  Old  Chronicle,  Manetho,  and  the 
 Monuments,  &c.,  p.  580.  Of  an  Apis  bull  which  lived  from  39  to  45  years, 
 p.  581.  Of  the  early  part  of  Dyn.  XXVI  before  Psammitichus  I.,  p.  585.  Of 
 the  mummy-case  of  the  daughter  of  Mycerinus  seen  at  Sais,  p.  588.  Series  of 
 XXV  generations  of  the  Chief  Architects  of  all  Egypt  from  the  time  of  the 
 Sesostris  of  Herodotus  (Rameses  III.)  to  that  of  Darius  Hystaspes,  the  eleventh 
 of  the  XXV  indicating  the  interval  between  Shishonk  I.  and  Darius,  p.  593.  Of 
 the  Egyptian  reign  of  Cambyses,  and  the  Apis  stabbed  by  him,  p.  597. 
 
 II.  Of  Plato,  pp.  601  to  609. 
 in.  Of  Eudoxus,  p.  604. 
 IV.  Of  Aristotle,  p.  609. 
 
 VI.  Of  Alexander  the  Great,  p.  611. 
 
 VII.  Of  Dicasarchus  of  Messene,  p.  615. 
 
 VIII.  Of  Diodorus  Siculus.    Herein  — 
 
 Of  the  mythology,  and  vast  sums  of  years  of  the  Gods,  &c.,  p.  619.  Of  the 
 sum  of  "above  10,000  years"  from  the  Flood,  p.  626.  Sums  of  Diodorus 
 explained  from  the  Hieratic  scheme  and  from  that  of  Manetho, p<  629.  Of  the 
 age  of  the  Delta,  p.  634.  Of  the  number  of  470  kings  and  5  queens  and 
 "  above  4700  "  years  of  kings  to  Alexander  or  "  nearly  5000 "  to  B.C.  58, 
 pp.  635  to  643,  Of  Diodorus's  more  detailed  historical  notices  in  a  series 
 parallel  at  once  to  that  of  the  original  Manetho  and  to  that  of  Herodotus, 
 p.  443.  Of  Seti  I.  the  father  of  Rameses  II.  and  his  blindness,  p.  652.  Of 
 the  Egyptian  Babylon,  p.  652.  Of  the  Hebrews,  p.  653.  Story  of  the  tyranny 
 of  the  first  kings  of  Dyn.  XVIII,  and  the  Cushite  Aktisanes  or  Chousan  Atin, 
 p.  658.  The  Memphite  pyramid-builders  depressed  by  Diodorus  to  a  date 
 lower  even  than  that  of  Herodotus,  p.  665.  How  the  Exodus  came  to  be  put 
 by  some  under  Bocchoris  of  Dyn.  XXIV,  p.  670.  It  what  sense  four  Ethiopians 
 were  said  to  have  reigned  at  intervals,  and  in  all  only.  36  years,  p.  672.  Com- 
 position of  the  135  years  given  to  the  Persians,  and  dates  hereby  indicated, 
 p.  676.    Comparison  of  Diodorus's  whole  series  with  that  of  Manetho,  p.  677. 
 
 IX.  Passages  respecting  the  year  and  the  Sothic  and  Phoenix  Cycles,  pp. 
 679  to  695. 
 
 CHAP.  VI. 
 
 JULIUS  AFRICANUS.     HEREIN  — 
 
 His  sacred  chronology,  p.  699.  His  Egyptian  lists  those  of  Ptolemy,  p.  707. 
 His  view  of  the  vast  periods  of  the  Gods  and  of  the  numerous  dynasties  of  the 
 kings  such,  that  he  had  no  need  to  curtail  them,  p.  708.  Statement  of  this 
 view  preserved  in  Eusebius's  Chronicon,  p.  709.  Africanus's  joint  sacred  and 
 Greek  chronology,  p.  716.    Compared  with  his  Egyptian  lists  from  Dyn. 
 
THE  SECOND  VOLUME. 
 
 vii 
 
 XVIII  downwards,  p.  719.  Signs  of  his  honesty,  p.  720.  Scheme  of  S. 
 Hippolytus,  p.  725.  Africanus's  treatment  of  particular  synchronisms,  p.  727 ; 
 especially  of  that  of  Amosis  and  the  Exodus,  p.  732.  True  date  of  the  Exodus 
 either  exactly  or  nearly  indicated  in  passages  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  p.  736, 
 and  later  by  Epiphanius,  p.  741.  Chronology  of  S.  Theophilus  of  Antioch, 
 p.  742;  and  his  list  of  the  reigns  of  Dyn.  XVIII,  p.  747.  The  dynasties  of 
 Ptolemy  are  not  merely  miscopied  from  Africanus  by  Euscbius,  but  altered  and 
 recast,  so  that  they  must  be  regarded  as  a  distinct  scheme  of  his  own,  p.  754. 
 
 CHAP.  VII. 
 
 EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI.     HEREIN  — 
 
 His  sacred  chronology.  It  falls  short  of  the  true,  as  that  of  Africanus  exceeded 
 it,  pp.  756  to  770.  His  Egyptian  dynasties  based  upon  those  of  the  Old 
 Chronicle,  cut  down  so  as  to  begin  from  his  own  a.  abr.  1,  in  B.C.  2016,  the 
 names  being  from  Africanus,  p.  770.  Composition  of  the  xv  dynasties  of 
 kings  allowed  by  him  and  recast  so  as  to  suit  his  Canon  examined  in  detail, 
 pp.  771  to  800.  His  sacred  reckoning  compared  with  the  true,  p.  800.  Also 
 his  Egyptian,  p.  802.  Of  his  Greek  and  other  heathen  chronology,  p.  804. 
 His  Assyrian  lists,  p.  805.  Examination  of  his  text  of  those  first  xv  dynasties 
 of  Africanus  which  are  admitted  only  into  his  First  Book,  p.  806.  His  motive 
 for  making  some  changes  even  in  these,  p.  814.  Greek  text  of  all  the  xxxi 
 dynasties  of  Africanus,  as  altered  by  Eusebius  and  given  in  Book  I.  of  his 
 Chronicon,  p.  816.  Lists  of  Kings  prefixed  to  his  Book  II.,  p.  824.  An 
 epitome  of  his  Canon,  in  which  the  same  lists  are  worked  up,  p.  828. 
 
 CHAP.  VIIL 
 
 ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  GEORGE  SYNCELLUS. 
 
 Sacred  schem  ef  Anianus,  p.  842.  He  compared  with  this  the  sum  of  36,525 
 nominal  years  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  p.  844.  He  first  cut  ofi*  the  483  years  of 
 the  Cycle  thrown  up  by  the  Chronicle,  p.  845.  Then  he  threw  back  the  end 
 of  the  Egyptian  monarchy  by  15  years  from  b.  c.  345  to  360,  that  Alexander 
 might  be  the  son  of  Nectanebo,  p.  846.  Above  this  point  he  allowed  2293  years 
 for  kings  beginning  72  years  below  his  date  (b.  c.  2725)  for  the  Dispersion  and 
 the  settlement  of  Egypt,  p.  846,  &c.  And  the  rest  of  the  years  of  the  Chronicle 
 he  reduced  with  such  contrivances  as  to  make  of  them  (2242  +  534=)  2776 
 years  to  the  Dispersion,  p.  852.  Exhibition  of  his  Egyptian  scheme  in  Greek 
 and  English,  with  its  number  of  xxx  dynasties  and  cxiii  generations  borrowed 
 from  the  Old  Chronicle  ;  First,  for  the  time  before  the  Flood,  p.  863.  For  the 
 time  after  the  Flood,  p.  871.  Recapitulation,  p.  890.  Comparison  of  the 
 chronology  underlying  all  the  Egyptian  schemes  with  that  of  Anianus,  p.  891. 
 Difference  between  his  process  and  a  true  and  legitimate  reduction  of  the 
 nominal  years  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  p.  893.  Agreement  of  the  Egyptian 
 reckoning  with  that  obtained  from  the  Scriptures  and  Josephus,  p.  895. 
 
 A  Harmony  of  Sacred  and  Egyptian  Chronology,  p.  896,  &c. 
 
YlU 
 
 CONTENTS  OF  THE  SECOND  VOLUME. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ON  BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES. 
 
 The  Clialdasan  chronology  was  probably  all  but  identical  with  the  Egyptian: 
 notices  of  it  are  from  two  sources,  Ctesias  and  Berosus,  p.  907.  Of  Ctesias 
 (from  Diodorus  Siculus),  ib.  Abydenus,  p.  912.  Castor,  p.  918.  Barbarus, 
 p.  920.  Ccplialion,  p.  922.  The  Christian  Chronographers,  p.  924.  State- 
 ments of  Herodotus  and  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  irreconcilable  with  those  of 
 Ctesias,  p.  925.  Of  Berosus,  p.  931.  He  made  to  the  Flood  in  sari,  neri,  and 
 sossi  of  day-jQQXS  22.58  full  Nabonassarian  years,  viz,  1058  before  monarchy, 
 and  1200  under  ten  kings  who  reigned  at  Babylon,  p.  933.  Below  the  Flood 
 he  had  again  146  years  without  monarchy,  p.  935.  These  were  probably  in- 
 cluded or  repeated  in  a  sum  of  34,080  mo7ith-y ears,  or  2840  full  Nabonassarian 
 years,  which  was  connected  with  Ixxxvi  generations  of  kings,  reaching  from  the 
 Flood  (B.C.  3100)  to  the  end  of  the  last  year  of  Antiochus  Soter  (b. c.  262), 
 p.  936.  A  similar  sum  of  month-years  had  perhaps  been  named  to  Callisthenes, 
 p.  941.  The  interval  from  the  Flood  to  the  Median  capture  of  Babylon  is  no- 
 where quoted  from  Berosus  in  one  uniform  reckoning  of  day-jesiYS  ;  but  by 
 the  parallel  Egyptian  reckoning  it  should  be  (146  +  745  =  )  891  full  Nabo- 
 nassarian years,  p.  939.  Scheme  obtained  for  Berosus,  p.  945.  Examination 
 of  certain  mixed  sums  seemingly  derived  from  him,  viz.  one  of  "  above  150,000 
 years"  (Polyhistor),  p.  946;  one  of  153,075  (Apollonius  Dyscolus?),  p.  948; 
 two  of  490,000  and  480,000  (mentioned  by  Pliny  from  Critodemus,  and  by 
 Africanus),  p.  951;  one  of  470,000  (Cicero),  p.  953;  one  of  473,000  (Diodorus 
 Siculus),  ib.;  and,  lastly,  one  of  720,000  (mentioned  by  Pliny  from  Epigenes), 
 p.  954.  The  historical  period  of  Berosus,  reckoned  by  him  in  full  years,  begins 
 from  the  Median  capture  of  Babylon,  seemingly  in  b.  c.  2209,  p.  956.  Group  I. 
 of  viii  Medes,  224  years,  B.C.  2209  —  1985,  ib.  Group  II.  of  xi  kings,  48? 
 years,  B.  C.  1985 — 1938,  p.  958.  Group  III.  of  xlix  Chaidasans,  458  years, 
 B.  c.  1938— 1480,  ib.  Group  IV.  of  ix  Arabs,  245  years,  b.  c.  1480—1235, 
 p.  959.  Group  V.  of  xlv  Chaldaeans,  526  years,  b.  c,  1235—709,  p.  960. 
 Lists  of  Ctesias,  Abydenus,  Castor,  Eusebius,  Barbarus,  and  Syncellus,  with 
 xlv  fictitious  names  answering  to  the  xlv  Chaldeans  of  Berosus,  p.  966. 
 Group  VI.  of  vi  or  v  Assyrian  kings  named  by  Polyhistor  and  by  Abydenus 
 as  if  from  Berosus,  ending  at  the  destruction  of  Nineveh,  p.  973.  Group  VII. 
 Babylonian  reigns  of  the  Astronomical  Canon  from  Nabonassar,  209  years,  b.c. 
 747—538,  p.  986.  Group VIIL  of  iv  Medes,  150  years,  b.c.  709—559,  p.  988. 
 Group  IX.  of  X  Persian  reigns  from  the  Astronomical  Canon,  207  years,  b.c. 
 559 — 332,  p.  990.  Group  X.  of  iv  Macedonian  reigns,  70  years,  b.  c.  332 — 
 262,  p.  991.  An  account  of  modern  discoveries  bearing  upon  the  above  groups, 
 extracted  and  abridged  from  Mr.  Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  p.  991 — 1032.  Re- 
 mai-ks  on  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  the  annals  of  Sennacherib  with  what  is 
 related  in  Holy  Scripture  of  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  p.  1033;  also  on  the  true 
 character  and  chronology  of  Berosus's  group  of  xlv  Chaldceans,  and  on  the 
 chronology  of  the  Assyrian  and  Median  kings  and  empires,  p.  1040. 
 
EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES ;  THE  MANETHO  OF  JULIUS 
 AFKICANUS. 
 
 After  the  Old  Chronicle,  the  original  Manetho,  and  the 
 Theban  list  of  Eratosthenes,  there  still  remains  the  latest  of 
 all  the  Egyptian  schemes,  that  namely  which  is  represented 
 by  the  lists  of  Africanus.    And,  taking  it  thus  in  its  true 
 order,  we  shall  find  no  great  difficulty  in  accounting  for  its 
 origin  and  construction;  while  on  the  other  hand,  after 
 such  of  its  kings  and  years  as  are  merely  fictitious  have  been 
 distinguished,  its  remaining  peculiarities  will  both  throw 
 light  on  the  original  Manetho ;  and  in  conjunction  with  the 
 original  Manetho  and  with  the  Turin  Papyrus  they  will 
 help  us  to  make  out  in  detail  that  Hieratic  scheme  itself 
 which  was  above  1000  years  older  than  the  Old  Chronicle, 
 and  which,  so  far  as  appears,  was  never  fully  exhibited  in 
 any  Greek  form.    At  present,  whenever  Manetho  is  spoken 
 of,  the  lists  and  dynasties  meant  are  either  those  of  Africanus 
 and  Eusebius  together,  as  if  they  both  represented  one  and 
 the  same  scheme  (whereas  they  differ  widely),  or  at  best 
 they  are  those  of  Africanus,  as  more  faithfully  transcribed 
 by  Syncellus.    The  "  Manetho  "  of  Africanus  is  taken  to  be 
 older  than  the  list  of  Eratosthenes,  and  both  these  together  are 
 taken  to  be  older  than  the  Old  Chronicle ;  so  that  the  latest 
 of  the  three  documents  is  made  to  be  the  earliest  and  the 
 earliest  the  latest,  while  the  genuine  and  original  Manetho 
 is  unknown  and  omitted.     The  result  has  been  the  envelop- 
 ment of  the  whole  subject  in  such  uncertainty  as  has  em- 
 boldened some  modern  writers  even  to  introduce  a  new 
 VOL.  ir.  *  E  E 
 
418 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Manetho  of  their  own  who  is  not  Egyptian  but  German. 
 Hence  the  inexperienced  reader,  when  he  finds  mention,  for 
 instance,  of  "  Dyn.  XIX,"  either  thinks  of  Dyn.  XIX  of 
 Africanus  (when  in  truth  the  allusion  is  to  the  later  kings 
 of  Dyn.  XVIII),  or  accepts  as  if  from  authority  a  senseless 
 innovation,  by  which  a  confusion  needing  before  only  dis- 
 entanglement is  rendered  hopeless  and  irremediable.  These 
 vagaries  are  mentioned  only  by  way  of  caution.  But  even 
 without  them  it  is  difficult  to  be  always  distinct  and  in- 
 telligible in  referring  to  the  Egyptian  dynasties  of  kings  by 
 any  scheme  of  numeration.  With  this  preamble  let  us  go 
 on  now  to  the  Manetho  of  Africanus. 
 
 Apollodorus  of  Athens,  who  may  be  called  the  continuator 
 of  Eratosthenes,  ended  his  own  chronography  with  Olymp. 
 clviii.  h' ,  in  B.C.  144,  or  according  to  himself  1040  years 
 after  Troy  (Troy  being  put  at  B.C.  1184),  in  the  year  of 
 Kome  610,  the  2nd  of  Ptolemy  Euergetes  II. j  and  the  16th 
 of  Attains  Philadelphus.  From  him,  as  we  have  seen  above, 
 Syncellus  transcribed  that  portion  of  the  Theban  list  of 
 Eratosthenes  which  has  been  considered  in  the  last  chapter ; 
 and  Eratosthenes,  or  his  assistants,  in  constructing  it,  had 
 used  the  genuine  work  of  Manetho,  whose  xxiii  dynasties 
 of  kings,  covering  in  appearance  3555  years,  had  been 
 abridged  and  placed  by  them  as  if  in  one  chronological 
 series  within  the  limits  of  (xv  +  LXXVi  =  )  xci  generations 
 and  (443  +  1881  =  )  2324  years  of  the  scale  of  the  Chronicle. 
 
 So  until  after  the  time  not  only  of  Eratosthenes,  but  also 
 of  Apollodorus,  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect  that  the 
 Kl'^virriatca  of  Manetho  had  been  abridged  or  re-edited  with 
 alterations.  But  Josephus  the  Jewish  historian  in  the  first 
 century  of  our  era,  towards  the  end  of  his  life,  when  he 
 was  Avriting  against  Apion,  having  occasion  to  name  Ma- 
 netho, may  be  thought  to  distinguish  between  the  original 
 Manetho,  a  copy  of  whose  genuine  work  had  then  recently, 
 as  it  seems,  been  brought  from  Alexandria  to  Rome,  and 
 some  other  compilation  going  under  the  same  name  which 
 was  popularly  better  known,  and  which  had  been  cited  by 
 his  adversary.  And  in  the  second  century  after  Christ, 
 Julius  Afi'icanus,  bishop  of  Neapolis  in  Palestine  (who  tells 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 419 
 
 US  of  himself  that  he  had  visited  Egypt  and  had  bought 
 there  at  least  one  Egyptian  book),  inserted  in  his  Chronicon 
 those  lists  of  Manetho  which  have  been  preserved  to  us 
 from  him  by  Eusebius  and  by  George  Syncellus.  Eusebius 
 indeed  has  so  altered  them,  in  order  to  make  them  agree  with 
 the  last  fifteen  dynasties  of  the  Chronicle  and  with  his  own 
 scheme  of  sacred  and  profane  chronology,  as  to  lead  Syncellus 
 into  the  error  of  supposing  that  he  must  have  had  before 
 him  some  separate  edition ;  but  by  Syncellus  the  same  lists 
 have  been  transcribed  faithfully.  And  these  lists  on  exami- 
 nation exhibit  the  outline  of  a  re-edition  of  Manetho  dif- 
 fering in  a  number  of  points  from  the  original,  but  probably 
 the  same  with  that  which  was  best  known  and  most  cited  in 
 the  time  of  Apion  and  Josephus. 
 
 As  regards  the  details  of  its  composition,  we  see  or  infer 
 that  this  scheme  was  in  three  books,  like  the  AlyviTTiaKa  of 
 the  original  Manetho,  of  which  it  was  in  point  of  bulk  an 
 abridgment,  Manetho's  work  having  been  written  in  a 
 diffuse  style,  while  this  is  sometimes  called  a  "  ChronicW^ 
 We  see  too  from  internal  evidence  that  it  was  composed 
 after  Eratosthenes  and  Apollodorus  had  reduced  Greek 
 chronology  to  a  scientific  form,  with  an  eye  to  their  chrono- 
 logy, and  with  a  special  attention  to  Greek  synchronisms. 
 Also,  that  it  attempted  to  defend  or  account  for  the  "myriads 
 of  years "  of  Manetho  and  of  the  Old  Chronicle  (which  last 
 document  its  author  seems  to  have  inserted)  by  reducing  the 
 first  XXI  Cycles  or  30,681  years  of  the  Chronicle,  as  if  tliey 
 were  only  months,  to  one  twelfth  part  of  their  apparent 
 bulk.    The  number  of  full  years  thus  obtained  being  2556, 
 with  a  remainder  of  9,  and  this  number  not  suiting  exactly, 
 357  more  fictitious  years  were  added,  and  these,  with  the  9 
 above  mentioned,  making  366,  hinted  their  own  fictitious 
 character  by  the  likeness  of  the  whole  sum  to  one  solar 
 year,  consisting  of  365  dai/s  and  part  of  a  366th.     In  the 
 (2556  +  ^66  =  )  2922  years  thus  obtained,  answering  to  the 
 first  2922  years  of  real  time  given  by  the  Chronicle  to  its 
 XIII  Gods  of  the  family  of  Cronus,  the  author  of  the  scheme 
 placed  the  Gods,  Demigods,  and  Manes,  or  perhaps  the  Gods 
 and  Demigods  only  of  Manetho.  This  space  was  intended,  no 
 
 E  E  2 
 
420 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 doubt,  to  answer  to  the  older  and  distinct  world  of  the  ante- 
 diluvians, some  knowledge  of  which  must  have  been  diffused 
 in  Egypt  both  through  the  long  settlement  there  of  multi- 
 tudes of  Jews,  and  by  the  septuagint  translation  of  their 
 sacred  books  from  the  Plebrew  into  the  Greek  languag-e. 
 At  the  same  time,  as  if  in  anticipation  of  the  question  how 
 any  knowledge  of  the  times  of  the  Gods  had  been  preserved, 
 a  fable  borrowed  either  now,  or  it  may  be  earlier,  from 
 Berosus  was  put  forward  (still  probably  without  any  direct 
 mention  of  the  Flood),  mentioning  how  certain  pillars  or 
 stelas  inscribed  in  sacred  characters  by  the  first  Thoth  in  the 
 land  of  Assyria  had  afterwards  (Berosus  says  plainly  "  after 
 the  Flood  ")  been  translated  into  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  by 
 Agathodiemon,  son  of  the  second  Thoth,  and  father  of  a  son 
 also  named  Thoth  or  Tat,  and  so  preserved  in  the  sanctuaries 
 of  Egypt,  till  at  length  their  contents  were  made  known  in 
 the  vulgar  or  in  the  Greek  tongue.    While  the  awkward- 
 ness of  asserting  an  unbroken  succession  of  kings  in  Egypt 
 from  the  first  Gods  to  Menes,  and  thence  downwards,  in  an 
 incredible  space  of  time,  was  thus  palliated,  Egyptian  anti- 
 quity helow  the  Gods  and  Menes,  instead  of  being  curtailed 
 to  something  like  the  meagre  dimensions  of  the  Chronicle,  as 
 Eratosthenes,  in  the  spirit  of  a  sceptical  and  envious  Greek, 
 had  attempted  to  curtail  it,  was  extolled  and  amplified  far 
 beyond  even  the  scheme  of  the  original  Manetho.    As  if  to 
 make  amends  for  having  confessed  the  myriads  of  years  of 
 the  Chronicle  and  of  Manetho  to  be  only  months,  it  was 
 thought  fair  and  reasonable  to  represent  at  any  rate  all  the 
 XXX  dynasties  of  the  Chronicle  and  of  Manetho  (instead  of  only 
 fifteen  or  twenty-three  of  them)  as  dynasties  of  mortal  kings, 
 successors  of  Menes,  who  had  reigned  consecutively  after 
 him  during  a  space  of  (1932  +  1674  + 1881  =  )  5487  years,  a 
 sum  devised  for  this  end  that,  with  the  357  fictitious  years 
 above-mentioned  prefixed,  it  might  exhibit  four  cycles  or 
 (357  +  5487  =  )  5844  years.    And  the  two  sums  of  (2556  + 
 9  +  357  =  )  2922  of  the  reduced  myriads  of  the  old  world  being 
 added  to  the  5844  of  the  exlstino;  world  made  a  total  of  8766 
 years,  reminding  one  of  the  8000  or  9000  of  Plato,  and  of 
 the  330  generations  of  Herodotus,  to  which,  it  may  be  sup- 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 421 
 
 posed,  he  attributed  only  by  a  mistake  of  his  own  too  high  an 
 average,  when  he  made  of  them  11,000  years.  The  date  of 
 this  work  should  not  be  earlier  than  the  reign  of  Augustus ; 
 at  least  not  if  the  title  ^'Augustus''  (l^s^aaros)  is  given  in  it, 
 in  a  letter  purporting  to  be  written  from  Manetho  to  Ptolemy 
 Philadelphus.  And  the  same  letter  shows  that  it  was  cast 
 in  a  cyclical  form,  like  the  "  astrological  period "  of  the 
 dTTOKardaraats  of  the  Chronicle,  of  which  in  its  earlier  part 
 it  was  a  reduction.  For  the  author  sends  it,  accompanied, 
 no  doubt,  with  other  matter  which  has  not  reached  us,  as  if 
 in  answer  to  certain  inquiries  of  the  king  respecting  events 
 still  future  ;  that  is,  according  to  Egyptian  ideas,  respecting 
 the  recurrences  to  be  expected,  under  celestial  influences,  of 
 events  already  past.  The  letter  itself  shall  be  given  below 
 when  we  come  to  treat  of  the  pseudo-Manetho's  Book  of 
 SothiSf  from  which  it  is  extracted  by  Syncellus. 
 
 Putting  together  a  number  of  indications  which  all  point 
 in  one  direction,  we  may  infer  with  probability  that  the 
 real  compiler  of  the  "  Manetho  "  of  Africanus  was  the  same 
 person  who  is  otherwise  known  as  Ptolemy,  a  priest  of 
 Mendes."  In  one  passage  of  Tatian,  a  Christian  writer  of 
 the  first  century,  where  any  one  from  the  context  would 
 have  expected  Manetho  to  be  named,  the  writer  named  as 
 the  great  authority  for  Egyptian  history  is  "  Ptolemy  of 
 Mendes :"  AIjuttticov  Ss  sIctlv  at  sir  aKpiBss  ')(^p6vwv  dva^pa- 
 (paly  KoX  T(ov  Trap'  avrols  irpay/jbdrajv  Ep/juTjvsvs  iari  UToXsfxatos, 
 ov')(^  6  (SaaCkevSi  ispsvs  8s  MeVS/^ros"."  And  already  in  this 
 passage  his  name  and  work  are  connected  with  a  certain 
 cLKpl/SsLa  or  exactness  in  respect  of  chronology  and  Greek 
 synchronisms.  The  same  quality  of  aKpi^eia  is  alluded  to  by 
 Africanus  and  by  Eusebius  (who  transcribes  from  Africanus) 
 in  connection  with  an  attempt  to  explain  the  myriads  of  the 
 Chronicle  and  Manetho  by  reducing  them  as  if  frommonths 
 to  solar  years :  "  AIjvtttiol  fjusv  ovv  sirl  to  KOfiTrcohsarspov 
 ')(^p6vwv  irspLTrds  iTzpiohovs,  kol  /jLVptdSa9  stmv,  KaTa 
 BscTLV  TLva  TOiV  Trap  avTOis  do-rpoXoyov fjLsvcov,  i^sdsvro*  as 
 Ttvss  ro)V  Tama  aKpu^ovv  Eo^dvTcov  avaTsXkovTSS  askrjvLaiovs 
 sLTrov  kvLavTovsy  And  he  proceeds  to  mention  more  particu- 
 larly the  sum  of  years  made  by  the  authors  or  author  alluded 
 
 E  E  3 
 
422 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 to,  the  plural  form  (tcvss)  meaning  perhaps  no  more  than  this, 
 that  the  author  alluded  to  was  not  alone,  nor  the  first,  in 
 saying  that  the  vast  periods  were  really  for  the  most  part 
 composed  of  months,  and  were  to  be  divided  by  12  if  it  were 
 wished  to  obtain  the  true  sum  in  solar  years  :  — "  ot  ovBsv 
 sXarrov  siii  to  /jluOmSss  clttovsvsvkots^  avixirlTrrovai  rah  oktoj 
 Koi  svvsa  ')(^L\tdaLv  stwv  as  AlyvTrrlcov  ol  irapa  TVKdrcdVL 
 LspsLs  sis  SoXcom  KaraptOixovvTzs  ovk  ak7]6evovcnv.^^  The 
 myriads  of  nominal  years,  being  said  to  be  connected  with 
 "a  certain  astrological  •period^''  we  may  put  this  together 
 with  the  fact  that  Africanus,  in  that  re -edition  of  Manetho 
 which  he  followed,  found  the  Old  Chronicle,  with  its  astrolo- 
 gical period  of  36,525  years,  brought  forward  and  used  in 
 such  a  way  as  to  suggest  the  idea  that  it  was  the  source  of 
 those  myriads  of  years  of  the  original  Manetho  which  were 
 equally  stated  in  the  same  work.  The  "  myriads  of  years  " 
 he  found  reduced  as  months,  not  from  the  sum  of  Manetho, 
 but  from  the  sum  of  their  older  source  the  Chronicle,  and 
 conjoined  with  this  reduction  a  series  of  xxx  dynasties  of 
 kings  (instead  of  the  xxiii  of  the  original  Manetho  or  the 
 XV  of  the  Chronicle),  a  thirty-first  dynasty  even  being  added; 
 and  the  whole  still  professed  to  be  originally  from  Manetho, 
 being  a  Chronicle  consisting  mainly  of  lists  extracted  from 
 his  three  books.  And  here  we  can  see  why  the  reigns  of 
 the  Gods,  Demigods,  and  Manes,  though  enumerated  by 
 Africanus  and  Syncellus  as  if  from  Manetho,  are  yet  not 
 expressly  numbered  at  the  same  time  as  dynasties,  because 
 those  numbers  of  the  xxx  dynasties  which  belonged  to 
 them  in  the  original  text  of  Manetho  had  been  detached 
 and  transferred  to  seven  new  dynasties  of  mortal  kings  after 
 Menes. 
 
 That  the  form  of  Ptolemy's  work  was  similar  and  parallel 
 to  that  of  the  original  Manetho  in  this  respect,  that  it 
 contained  the  history  of  the  kings  of  Egypt  in  three  books, 
 we  learn  from  a  passage  cited  from  Apion,  an  Egyptian  by 
 birth,  and  as  such  a  hater  of  the  J ews,  a  contemporary  of 
 Josephus,  against  whom  Josephus  himself  wrote.  In  the 
 passage  in  question  Apion  also  mentions  one  of  the  Greek 
 synchronisms  fixed  by  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  viz.  that  of  the 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 423 
 
 Egyptian  king  Amosis,  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII,  with  the 
 Exodus  and  Moses,  (the  original  Manetho  being  followed 
 in  confounding  the  expulsion  of  the  Shepherds  by  Amosis 
 with  the  later  Exodus  of  the  Hebrews  under  Moses,)  and 
 also  with  Inachus  of  Argos :  — "  ''A.iriwv  6  ^paixfjuaTiKos,  6 
 
 7r\SL(TT0VL/C7J9  SIT LK\r]6 sls ,  £V  TTJ  B'  TOJV  AlyVTTTLaKCOV  laTOpLMV, 
 KULTOL      (ptXaTT  8^(^97}  fJLOVCO  9      '7Tp09     'Yi^paiOVS     BtaKSLflSVOS,  UTS 
 
 AlyvTTTLOS  TO  ^ysvos,   6)9  Kol  Kara  ^lovBalcov  Karard^aaOaL 
 
 /Sl/SXIoV,   ^AflCOaL09   TOV  AlyVTTTLCOV  ,8aaL\£a)9   /JL£/JLV7]fjLSU09,  KoX 
 
 Tcov  Kar^  avTov  irpd^swv,  fjbdprvpa  irapaTLdzraL  TLToXs/jialov  rov 
 M.svSrjaLOV,  KoX  id  Tr]9  \s^£(09  avTOv  mSs  s-)(£t '  Karsa-Kayjrs  rrjv 
 AvaptVf  Kara  rov  Apjstov  'ysv6fJi£V09  "Im^oz/,  coy  sv  T0I9  ')(p6voL9 
 [i.  e.  ^poi^t/cois']  dviypayfrsv  6  MsvSr)aco9  IlToXs/jLaL09,  'O  8s 
 llTo\siJLaL09  0VT09  i£psv9  fjLsv  Tjv,  Tttj  TMV  AlyvTrTLcov  ^aatXicov 
 7rpd^£L9  £V  Tpialv  6\at9  £K6£/jb£V09  l3Lj3\oL9,  Kara  "Afxcoalv, 
 (prjat,  AljvTTTOv  jSaarCkia,  Mwucrecoy  r)'yovfjL£voVf  y£yov£vaL  roh 
 ^lovSaLoi9  TTjv  AlyvTTTov  7ro/)£tay."  "  Apion,  the  man  of 
 letters,  he  who  is  surnamed  Pleistonices,  being  himself  an 
 Egyptian  by  birth,  was  naturally  no  lover  of  the  Hebrews — 
 nay,  he  hated  them  so  heartily  that  he  even  wrote  one  of 
 his  books  ^Against  the  Jews,''  This  writer  in  Book  I  v.  of 
 his  Egyptian  Histories,  while  mentioning  the  Egyptian  king 
 named  Amosis  and  the  events  of  his  time,  quotes  as  a 
 witness  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  using  these  words :  '  He  de- 
 stroyed Avaris,  being  himself  contemporary  with  Inachus  of 
 Argos,  as  is  stated  in  his  Chronicles  by  Ptolemy  of  Mendes.' 
 This  Ptolemy  was  a  priest,  who  wrote  the  acts  of  all  the 
 Egyptian  kings  in  three  books ;  and  he  says  that  it  was  at 
 the  time  when  Amosis  was  king  that  the  Jews,  led  by  Moses, 
 went  forth  from  Egypt."  (^Clem,  Alex.  Stromat,  i.  c.  21. 
 p.  138,  ed.  Pott.  p.  378.)  And  Tatian,  writing  before 
 Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  the  same  passage  which  has  been 
 given  in  part  above,  continues  in  similar  words  respectino- 
 Ptolemy  of  Mendes :  "  Ovto9,  ray  tcov  ^aaCkscov  7rpd^£t,9 
 aKTi6£fJL£V09,  KaT  " Aficoaiv  IBaaCkia  Aly vtttov  y£y ovivao  'lovSaicov 
 
 (^rjCTL  TTjV  £^  AlyVTTTOV  7r0p£LaV,  £19  dlTSp  TjXOoV  J((Dplaf  WwVCF£0}9 
 
 rjyovfjbivov*  \£y£i  hs  ovtco9'  'O  Bs  "AfjbCi)(TL9  iysvsro  Kar^  "Iva^oi/ 
 paatXsa.^^  Tatian  perhaps  followed  Justin  Martyr  (Ex- 
 hort, adv.  Grcecos,  §  ix.  t.  ii.  p.  38,  ed.  Otto),  and  from  Tatian 
 
 E  E  4 
 
424 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Clement  of  Alexandria  probably  borrowed  this  quotation, 
 which  is  reproduced  also  by  Eusebius  {PrcBp,  Evang.  x.  ii.), 
 by  S.  Cyril  (lib.  i.  Contr.  Julian,),  and  by  TertuUian 
 {Apol.  §  xix.).  Tertullian  adds  that  Ptolemy  of  Mendes 
 followed  Manethor  We  may  go  further,  and  collect  from 
 Suidas  that  the  work,  and  even  the  person,  of  Ptolemy  of 
 Mendes  were  confounded  with  the  true  Manetho,  and  the 
 true  INIanetho  with  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  so  that  there  came 
 to  be  two  Manethos,  both  of  them  authors  of  a  work  called 
 Al'yviTTLaKa  in  three  books,  but  one  of  them  (^which  was  the 
 true  and  original  Manetho)  a  native  of  Sebennys,  the  other 
 (who  was  Ptolemy)  a  native  of  Mendes.  For  in  Suidas  we 
 find  the  following  notices :  "  Mavsdws  AioairoXsa)?  [read 
 'HXcovTToXscos']  TTis  AlyvirTGv,  ^  Xs^svvvTTjs'''^  in  like  manner 
 as  he  is  made  to  style  himself  in  the  spurious  letter  to 
 Ptolemy  Philadelphus  both  jsvsl  Xs^£vvvT7]9y^  and  "  'HXt- 
 ouTToXtViys"."  And  again  Suidas  has  the  following:  "  Ma- 
 vaiOws  MsVSt^s-."  We  have  another  hint,  perhaps,  of  the 
 close  union  of  the  two  works  and  their  authors  in  the  desig- 
 nations of  the  last  two  dynasties  (the  last  two,  that  is,  of 
 the  original  xxx  dynasties)  in  the  Manetho  of  Africanus, 
 which  we  suppose  to  be  the  compilation  of  Ptolemy,  Dyn. 
 XXIX  being  there  named  Mendesian,  as  if  in  compliment 
 to  the  native  city  of  the  author,  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  while 
 Dyn.  XXX  is  named  Sehennyte  as  if  in  compliment  to  the 
 native  city  of  the  original  Manetho  of  Sebennys.  Whatever 
 pretexts  may  have  been  available  to  justify  these  designa- 
 tions (and  it  is  possible  enough  that  there  were  pretexts), 
 there  is  no  trace  elsewhere  of  either  of  the  two  cities 
 Mendes  or  Sebennys  having  ever  been  the  capital  of  any 
 Egyptian  king  or  dynasty ;  and  in  the  Chronicle,  the  oldest 
 document  on  the  subject,  the  same  two  dynasties  are  de- 
 signated simply  and  alike  Tanite,  from  Tanis,  which  was 
 the  most  ancient  capital  of  the  Delta  and  of  all  Egypt. 
 Africanus,  and  Eusebius  who  copies  from  him,  ascribes 
 certain  things  to  the  author  of  the  Chronicle,  certain  others 
 again  to  Manetho,  and  lastly  other  things  to  some  authors 
 or  author  unnamed  who  had  a  reputation  for  exactness," 
 which  last  we  infer  to  be  Ptolemy  of  Mendes.     But  some- 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 425 
 
 times  they  ascribe  to  Manetho  what  certainly  belonged 
 rather  to  the  last  of  the  three  above-named  and  not  to 
 Manetho.  And  this  is  intelligible,  if  the  work  of  Ptolemy 
 was  in  fact  a  re- edition  of  Manetho,  and  yet  contained 
 passages  and  notices  in  which  its  compiler  alluded  to  the 
 true  Manetho  and  to  the  author  of  the  Chronicle  as  distinct 
 from  himself  and  from  one  another.  As  for  Syncellus,  he 
 naturally  follows  Africanus  and  Eusebius  in  identifying  the 
 work  used  by  Africanus,  or  at  least  the  lists  and  other 
 matter  extracted  from  it,  with  the  work  of  the  original 
 Manetho,  though  in  so  doing  they  are  all  sometimes,  at 
 variance  with  the  testimony  of  others  respecting  Manetho, 
 and  even  at  variance  with  their  own.  So,  for  instance,  when 
 Syncellus  says  that,  Manetho  in  his  Book  iii.  brought 
 down  a  series  of  thirty-one  dynasties  to  Ochus  and  Nec- 
 tanebo "  (elsewhere  he  says  more  correctly  "  to  Darius ") 
 "  in  1050  years,"  it  is  plain  that  he  is  here  speaking  not  of 
 the  original  Manetho,  of  whom  Africanus,  Eusebius,  and 
 Syncellus  himself  all  testify  that  he  ended  in  xxx  dynasties 
 (the  number  of  the  Chronicle)  at  Ochus  and  Nectanebo,  but 
 of  a  later  writer,  the  compiler  of  a  book  which,  as  being  an 
 abridgment  and  re-edition  of  Manetho,  Avas  liable  to  be  con- 
 founded with  the  original  and  genuine  work. 
 
 But  Syncellus  confuses  with  the  original  Manetho  not 
 only  the  Manetho  of  Africanus  and  Eusebius,  but  also 
 another  distinct  and  later  work  of  the  same  kind,  which  he 
 found  in  the  Chronographies  of  Anianus  and  Panodorus. 
 This  seems  to  have  been  entitled,  the  "  Book  of  Sothis," 
 and  to  have  been  cast  in  a  cyclical  form,  based  like  the 
 scheme  of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes  on  the  period  of  the  Old 
 Chronicle.  And  it  is  from  this  latter  work  that  Syncellus 
 copies  the  spurious  letter  of  Manetho  to  Ptolemy,  which 
 may  nevertheless  possibly  have  belonged  also  to  the  older 
 work  used  by  Africanus.  But  whether  the  letter  itself,  the 
 contents  of  which  certainly  point  to  the  Book  of  Sothis,  was 
 copied  by  the  author  of  that  book  from  Ptolemy,  or  fabri- 
 cated by  himself,  the  work  of  Ptolemy,  and  even  as  it  seems 
 that  of  the  true  and  original  Manetho,  contained  something  of 
 a  similar  kind,  to  which  Josephus  may  allude  when  he  intro- 
 
426 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 duces  Manetho  himself  as  professing  to  have  followed  the 
 monuments  and  archives  of  the  Egyptian  sanctuaries,  and  to 
 have  translated  from  the  hieroglyphic  and  hieratic  writings 
 into  Greek  for  the  information  of  the  king  his  master. 
 
 The  last  instance  wliich  we  shall  adduce  of  the  name  of 
 Manetho  being  applied  either  to  the  work  used  by  Afri- 
 canus  or  else  to  the  Book  of  Sothis,  which  last  is  here  rather 
 the  case,  is  a  passage  from  Jamblichus: — "  Tas*  fjusv  ovv 
 o\as  ap^as  'JLp/bLip  hv  /Sl/SXlols  [read  sTsat]  TpL(7fjLvpL0i9,  a)p 
 ^s\svK09  dvsypdylraro,  7)  Tpiajjivpiois  rs  koI  s^aKta'^tXloLS  koX 
 TTSVTaKoaloLS  Kol  ELKoaL  TTSVTS,  6)s  Maz^s^ws  laropsl,  TsXsays 
 dirsSsL^s.^^  "  Now  as  regards  all  the  first  principles  and 
 beginnings  [of  the  universe],  Hermes  (Thoth)  wrote  a 
 complete  account  of  this  whole  subject  in  30,000  books 
 [read  years\  according  to  Seleucus,  or  in  36,525  according 
 to  the  assertion  of  Manetho."  (Jambl.  De  Myst.  j^gypU 
 sect.  viii.  c.  i.)  On  this  passage  it  is  to  be  noticed,  first,  that 
 the  30,000  years  named  by  Seleucus  and  the  36,525  named 
 by  the  author  called  Manetho,  are  both  equally  to  be  re- 
 ferred to  the  sum  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  whether  it  be  that 
 Seleucus  expressed  himself  in  round  numbers,  or  that  he  dis- 
 tinguished the  30,000  years  given  in  the  Chronicle  to  the 
 Sun-god  alone  as  the  proper  period  of  the  formation  of  the 
 universe  or  cosmogony.  Secondly,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the 
 reduction  of  the  Old  Chronicle  being  the  common  basis  of  the 
 schemes  both  of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes  and  also  of  Anianus  and 
 Panodorus,  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from  the  mere  fact  that 
 its  period  is  here  ascribed  to  Manetho  towards  showing  that 
 the  author  intended  is  the  one  followed  by  Africanus  rather 
 than  the  one  personated  by  Anianus  and  Panodorus.  Only 
 the  word  'EpfMrjs  seems  to  connect  itself  with  the  epistle 
 quoted  by  Syncellus  from  the  Book  of  Sothis,  and  with  the 
 notice  contained  in  this  same  epistle  of  Manetho  having  de- 
 rived his  information  about  the  earliest  times  from  the  stelas 
 of  the  first  Hermes,  translated  in  Egypt  by  the  son  of  the 
 second  Hermes,  who  was  also  the  father  of  Tat. 
 
 Assuming  that  the  general  idea  of  the  reduction,  as  stated 
 above,  is  intelligible  to  tlie  reader,  and  that  it  seems  in  itself 
 likely,  the  question  will  suggest  itself, — Why  should  Ptolemy 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 427 
 
 of  Mencles,  or  any  other,  have  gone  back  to  the  Chronicle  as 
 the  original  source  of  Manetho's  incredible  myriads  of  years, 
 in  order  to  reduce  its  sum,  rather  than  that  of  Manetho  ? 
 Or,  if  this  were  because  the  original  and  unaltered  sum  was 
 more  suitable  for  division  by  12  than  that  of  Manetho,  which 
 had  been  altered^  then  why  did  he  go  back  only  to  the  Chro- 
 nicle, which  was  not  itself  the  true  original,  but  altered  from 
 the  original  no  less  than  that  of  Manetho  ?  These  questions 
 are  natural,  and  demand  an  answer ;  and  the  answer  is  not 
 difficult  to  find. 
 
 The  myriads  of  Manetho,  viz.  those  24,900  years  which  he 
 gave  to  the  Gods,  Demigods,  and  Manes,  and  which  Ptolemy 
 of  Mendes  might  assign  tacitly  to  the  old  world,  divide  cer- 
 tainly by  12  without  a  remainder,  but  they  produce,  on  being 
 so  divided,  a  sum  of  only  2,075  years,  falling  short  by 
 (2922 — 2075  =  )  847  of  the  two  cycles  which  in  the  original 
 scheme  of  the  airoKardo-TaaLS  were  given  to  the  old  world, 
 that  is,  to  the  antediluvians,  including  something  more  than 
 the  years  by  which  they  outlived  the  Flood.  On  the  other 
 hand,  if  the  sum  of  the  oldest  and  truly  original  scheme  of 
 an  aTTOKardaraa-Ls  in  XXV  cycles  and  36,525  years  had  been 
 adopted,  and  its  first  xxiv  cycles  had  been  divided  by  12, 
 the  result  would  have  been  a  return  to  the  naked  historical 
 truth,  2922  years  being  so  produced  for  the  Gods,  and 
 (217  +  903  =  )  1120  more  bringing  one  on  to  the  cyclical 
 epoch  of  B.C.  1322,  and  needing  only  the  insertion  of  341 
 fictitious  years  to  make  time  seem  to  have  run  from  the  first 
 in  Sothic  Cycles,  and  to  complete  the  xxv  cycles  and  36,525 
 years,  the  whole  "  astrological  period  "  of  the  diro/cardaTao-L^. 
 And  for  the  real  historical  time  which  had  been  added  since 
 B.C.  1322,  in  the  reign  of  Rameses  III.,  viz.  978  to  Nec- 
 tanebo,  +  40  more  to  the  date  of  the  Chronicle, -|- 300  more 
 (as  we  may  guess)  to  the  date  at  which  Ptolemy  of  Mendes 
 wrote, — making  in  all  1318  years,  there  would  have  been  no 
 room  in  the  scheme.  But  such  results  as  these  were  far 
 from  suiting  the  purpose  of  the  Egyptian  author,  who 
 wished  to  maintain  and  to  recommend  by  his  ingenuity, 
 not  to  expose,  the  pretensions  of  his  predecessors  and  his 
 colleagues  to  an  antiquity  far  surpassing  that  of  other  na- 
 
428 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 tions.  What  was  plainly  necessary  to  concede  to  the 
 Greeks  was  alone  to  be  conceded ;  so  that  on  the  one  hand 
 neither  should  the  sums  of  years  exhibited  be  any  longer 
 regarded  by  them  as  simply  incredible  and  ridiculous,  nor  the 
 distinction  between  the  old  and  the  present  world,  now  be- 
 come more  familiar,  be  so  entirely  ignored  as  before ;  nor 
 yet,  on  the  other  hand,  should  the  antiquity  claimed  for  the 
 Egyptian  dynasties  of  kings  after  Menes  be  curtailed,  as 
 Eratosthenes  had  sought  to  curtail  it.  In  point  of  fact,  so 
 it  might  be  said  to  Greek  inquirers,  even  Manetho  had 
 omitted  or  consolidated  many  of  the  331  kings,  predecessors 
 of  Sesostris,  who  had  been  named  by  the  priests  to  Hero- 
 dotus and  Hecataaus,  and  who  were  still  enumerated  in  the 
 hieratic  papyri,  or  on  the  walls  of  the  temples.  It  was  not 
 indeed  necessary,  nor  reasonable,  to  reckon  to  every  king  a 
 full  generation  of  33^  years,  as  had  been  done  by  Herodotus, 
 so  as  to  make  11,000  or  12,000  years  from  Menes  to  the 
 time  of  Augustus ;  but  the  kings  themselves  were  named  in 
 papyri  above  a  thousand  years  old,  and  had  no  doubt  existed. 
 They  might  therefore  reasonably  be  added  to  those  whom 
 Manetho  had  enumerated,  it  being  understood  that  he  had 
 omitted  some  subordinate  but  numerous  dynasties,  and  had 
 imitated  the  author  of  the  Chronicle  in  transferring  to  Gods 
 and  Demigods  some  of  the  earlier  of  those  xxx  dynasties  of 
 kings  which  had  really  reigned  in  Egypt. 
 
 For  both  the  purposes  of  Ptolemy  the  Chronicle,  which 
 though  not  itself  the  original  cyclical  scheme,  was  yet  the 
 immediate  source  followed  and  altered  by  Manetho,  offered 
 a  convenient  basis.  It  already  contained  in  germ  that  redu- 
 plication of  two  cycles  of  solar  years  which  was  now  to  be 
 more  distinctly  exhibited. 
 
 First  it  had  a  sum  of  30,681  years,  derived  indeed  from 
 the  month-years  of  an  older  scheme,  but  in  it  no  longer  really 
 months,  nor  divisible  by  12,  but  rather  fictitious,  or  nominal, 
 or  cosmical  years.  And  these,  if  treated  again  as  months 
 and  divided  by  12,  would  give  2556  full  years,  besides  a  re- 
 mainder of  9,  a  sum  short  of  2  cycles,  or  2922  years,  by  only 
 366  ;  or  if  the  9  were  allowed  to  retain  their  character  of 
 years,  and  were  added  to  the  2556,  by  only  357  ;  that  is,  by 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 429 
 
 only  16  years  more  than  the  341  necessarily  to  be  inter- 
 polated somewhere  if  all  time  was  to  have  commenced  from  a 
 cyclical  epoch,  and  to  have  run  from  the  first  in  the  mould 
 of  the  Sothic  Cycle.  So  that  in  this  space  (given,  it  is  true, 
 by  the  Chronicle  to  the  Sun-god  alone,  but  by  others  before 
 and  after,  as  by  Manetho,  to  the  Gods,  Demigods,  and 
 Manes),  the  period  of  the  old  world,  for  such  as  knew  any- 
 thing of  its  existence,  might  be  conveniently  shadowed ;  and 
 the  Gods,  Demigods  or  Heroes,  and  Manes  of  Manetho 
 might  reign  over  an  antediluvian  Egypt,  while  all  the  kings 
 from  Menes  downwards  should  people  the  existing  world. 
 
 Then,  for  the  existing  world,  there  followed  in  the  Chro- 
 nicle two  whole  cycles  or  2922  years  of  Cronus  and  the  xii 
 Gods  his  descendants,  being  in  their  origin  those  very  years 
 of  the  antediluvians  which  had  been  multiplied  by  12  and 
 expanded  from  2922  solar  into  (30,681+2922  +  1461  =  ) 
 35,064  month-years,  and  being  equal  to  the  quotient  of 
 30,681,  divided  by  12,  with  the  remainder  of  9  and  357 
 besides  added.  These  then,  being  vacated  in  a  manner  by 
 the  translation  of  the  xiii  Gods  of  the  Chronicle  into  the 
 30,681  years  of  the  Sun,  might  all  be  occupied  by  kings,  as 
 1000  of  them,  or  (which  comes  to  the  same  thing)  22  of  them 
 with  978  other  fictitious  years,  fabricated  by  reduplication 
 from  another  source,  had  already  been  covered  with  kings 
 by  Manetho. 
 
 These  2922  years,  with  341  fictitious  years  needed  to 
 make  time  seem  to  have  run  from  the  beginning  in  Sothic 
 Cycles, +  217  of  viii  Demigods, +  483  of  the  cycle  current 
 under  the  Ptolemies  thrown  up  from  between  B.C.  345 
 and  A.D.  139,  +  1881  of  kings  from  Menes  to  Nectanebo, 
 amounting  in  all  to  5844  years,  make  the  last  four  of  the 
 XXV  cycles  of  the  Chronicle,  to  parallel  which  Manetho  (if 
 the  years  of  his  Gods,  Demigods,  and  Manes  be  set  apart) 
 has  only  the  3555  years  of  his  kings.  Ptolemy  therefore,  if 
 he  wished  to  retain  the  cyclical  scheme  and  to  exhibit  four 
 complete  cycles  below  the  reigns  of  the  gods  answering  to 
 the  last  four  of  the  xxv  cycles  of  the  Chronicle,  would  have 
 to  convert  into  reigns  of  kings  those  1922  years  of  the  gods 
 of  the  Chronicle  which  Manetho  had  not  either  directly  or 
 
430 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 indirectly,  converted  already,  also  those  26  years  of  the  in- 
 terval between  Alexander  and  the  Lagidae  which  Manetho 
 had  not  followed  the  Chronicle  in  throwing  up  (though  he 
 threw  up  the  14  between  Nectanebo  and  Alexander),  and 
 lastly,  the  341  fictitious  years  needed  to  make  time  run  from 
 the  first  in  the  mould  of  the  Sothic  Cycle.  So  the  whole 
 sum  to  be  added  would  amount  to  2289  years. 
 
 But  thus,  it  will  be  noticed,  (341  +  16  =  )  357  of  those 
 (341+26  =  )  367  years  of  the  Chronicle  which  are  omitted 
 by  Manetho,  are  added  not  once  only  but  twice  in  the 
 scheme  of  Ptolemy.  For  first  357  years  are  added  to  make 
 up  the  sum  of  the  Gods  from  (2556  +  9)  to  2922  ;  and  again 
 the  same  sum  of  357  years  is  prefixed  to  the  existing  world. 
 In  this  last  exhibition  of  it,  it  intervenes  between  the  Gods 
 and  Menes,  and  commences  the  sum  of  5844  years  or  four 
 cycles  which  is  to  be  completed  by  an  addition  of  1932  years 
 to  the  3555  of  Manetho's  kings,  in  like  manner  as  Manetho's 
 sum  of  3555  had  been  made  up  by  an  addition  of  1674  to 
 the  original  number  of  1881  years  of  the  kings  as  it  stood 
 in  the  Chronicle.  So  Ptolemy  made  in  all  5487  years 
 of  kings;  and  the  357  years  prefixed  to  these  and  given 
 tacitly  perhaps  to  the  Manes,  at  any  rate  not  given  to 
 kings,  allowed  time  (for  such  as  understood  the  need  of  an 
 interval)  for  the  repeopling  of  the  earth  and  the  growth  of 
 nations,  languages,  and  religions  between  the  Flood  and 
 Menes.  The  three  schemes  of  the  Chronicle,  of  Manetho 
 (without  the  years  of  his  Gods,  Demigods,  and  Manes),  and 
 of  Ptolemy  will  stand  parallel  one  to  another  as  follows; 
 the  additions  made  by  each  of  the  two  later  schemes  to  the 
 years  of  the  kings  being  printed  in  red :  — 
 
 Chron.  12)  30,681=('2556.  +  9+     [341  +  16 +10]+(1922  +  1000)  +  [14]  +  217  +  [443]  +  1881 
 
 Man   —    —    —   1OO0+    14+  217f  443+1881 
 
 f    2556  +9+ r[341+16]=2922. 
 
 t   ^341  +  16]+  jfH-  1922+  lOOOf      H-  217|-  443+1881+1^5844. 
 
 The  real  purpose  of  Ptolemy  being  in  eflfect  to  reduplicate 
 the  first  two  cycles  of  the  earlier  schemes  so  as  to  gain  two 
 new  cycles  of  his  own  for  the  old  world,  while  the  whole 
 four  cycles  of  the  Chronicle  being  vacated  completely  by 
 the  antediluvians  should  be  available  for  postdiluvian  kings, 
 it  may  seem  at  first  sight  a  clumsy  and  round-about  process 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 431 
 
 towards  this  end  to  divide  by  twelve  30,681  nominal  years 
 of  the  Chronicle,  wliich  in  it  are  not  months  nor  divisible 
 by  12  without  remainder,  and  which  even  though  divided 
 by  12,  and  having  the  remainder  of  9  units  added  to  the 
 quotient,  do  not  produce  the  sum  needed,  when  the  sum 
 needed  might  have  been  obtained  at  once  by  dividing  the 
 original  35,064  month-years  of  a  scheme  older  than  the 
 Chronicle.    And  if  this  had  been  done,  the  difficulty  caused 
 by  the  myriads  of  years  of  later  schemes  being  so  explained 
 and  removed  in  its  very  source,  it  would  have  been  just  as 
 easy,  one  might  think,  and  simpler,  for  Ptolemy  to  forge  and 
 insert  if  he  pleased  two  whole  cycles  of  fresh  years,  as  to 
 forge  a  supplementary  sum  of  357  years  to  help  out  the 
 insufficiency  of  the  (2556  +  9  =  )  2565  years  obtained  by 
 reduction  from  the  Chronicle.     But  it  is  to  be  borne  in 
 mind  that  though  the  schemes  of  Eratosthenes,  of  Manetho, 
 and  of  the  Chronicle,  were  extant  in  Greek,  and  known  or 
 accessible,  the  older  scheme  which  had  served  as  a  basis  to 
 the  Chronicle  was  most  likely  altogether  unknown  to  the 
 Greeks;  and  it  was  for  the  Greeks  alone  that  Ptolemy 
 wrote.    And  the  Chronicle  being  both  the  oldest  document 
 of  the  kind  in  Greek,  and  the  document  followed  more  or 
 less  both  by  Manetho  and  by  Eratosthenes,  while  its  myriads 
 of  years  seemed  to  exceed  those  of  Manetho,  it  was  natural 
 that  the  method  of  reduction,  which  had  been  hinted  to  some 
 of  the  Greeks  long  before,  should  be  applied  to  this  docu- 
 ment rather  than  to  any  other.    And,  the  origin  of  the  first 
 XXI  cycles  or  30,681  years  given  by  the  Chronicle  either 
 expressly  or  indirectly  to  the  Sun-god  being  unknown,  these 
 years  seemed  to  he  distinct,  though  they  were  not  really 
 distinct,  from  the  two  cycles  following  them,  viz.  the  first 
 two  of  human  time,  given  by  the  Chronicle  to  Cronus  and 
 XII  other  Gods  his  descendants.    Thus  these  30,681  nominal 
 years  of  the  Chronicle  offered  to  Ptolemy  something  like 
 the  reduplication  w^hich  he  wanted,  or  the  greater  part  of  it, 
 ready  made  to  his  hand ;  and  when  the  bulk  of  the  years 
 really  created  by  himself  seemed  to  have  been  obtained  by  a 
 plausible  explanation  and  reduction  of  an  incredible  sum  not 
 invented  by  him,  but  pre-existing  in  an  older  document,  and 
 
432 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 already  in  possession  of  the  ground,  the  fabrication  and  addi- 
 tion of  any  small  supplementary  sum  of  his  own  would  pass 
 unnoticed.  Whereas,  if  he  had  begun  by  reducing  all  those 
 nominal  years  which  were  really  in  their  origin  only  months, 
 and  therefore  in  their  complete  sum  the  proper  subjects  of 
 such  reduction,  he  would  at  once  have  overshot  his  mark  in 
 the  amount  of  reduction,  as  has  been  already  explained 
 above,  and  any  subsequent  fabrication  and  insertion  of 
 fictitious  cycles  would  have  been  too  bold  and  open  an 
 imposture. 
 
 The  supplementary  sum  needed  to  help  out  the  2565 
 years  obtained  by  reduction  from  the  Chronicle,  so  as  to 
 bring  them  up  to  2922  (which  would  have  been  produced  by 
 dividing  the  original  35,064  month-years),  being  357,  this 
 number,  as  has  been  remarked,  exceeded  by  only  16  the  sum 
 of  those  341  fictitious  or  cosmical  years  which  were  ne- 
 cessarily to  be  added  to  true  human  time  (and  chronolo- 
 gically to  be  prefixed  at  the  head  of  all)  in  every  scheme 
 which  pretended  to  make  time  run  from  the  first  in  Sothic 
 Cycles.  And  some  such  space  as  341  years,  at  least,  it  was 
 necessary  also  to  leave  vacant  at  the  head  of  those  four 
 cycles  originally  lying  (whether  as  time  past  or  as  time 
 anticipated)  between  the  creation  antedated  by  341  years 
 and  A.D.  139,  but  now  given  solely  to  the  existing  or  postdi- 
 luvian world  ;  and  so  given  as  to  end  with  the  fourth  year  of 
 Darius  Codomannus,  i.e.  470  years  too  early.  Hence  it 
 may  have  seemed  to  Ptolemy  that  it  would  be  at  once  conve- 
 nient and  symmetrical,  and  in  some  sense  an  improvement 
 upon  the  older  schemes,  if  he  took  (341  +  16  =  )  357  years 
 instead  of  341  of  those  standing  at  the  head  of  the  four  cycles 
 of  the  Chronicle,  where  the  341  ought  to  be  reckoned  and 
 prefixed  chronologically ;  and  made  of  these  357  a  joint  or 
 hinge  as  it  were  of  double  application ;  to  unite  into  one 
 series  both  the  2565  years,  the  creation  of  his  own  ingenuity, 
 which  he  meant  to  give  to  the  old  world,  and  the  remain- 
 ing (5844  —  357=)  5487  years  of  true  human  time  in  the 
 Chronicle  which  he  meant  to  give  to  Egyptian  kings. 
 
 Standing  thus  in  the  midst  between  the  two  parts  of 
 Ptolemy's  scheme,  the  fictitious  of  the  old  and  the  chro- 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 433 
 
 nological  of  the  existing  world,  these  357  years  might  be 
 equally  made  to  coalesce  with  the  2565  fictitious  years 
 above  (so  as  to  bring  them  up  to  2922,  that  is,  to  two  cycles), 
 or  with  the  5487  chronological  years  below  (so  as  to  make 
 with  them  an  exhibition  of  5844  years,  that  is,  of  four  Cycles). 
 And  the  whole  scheme,  if  the  357  years  were  reckoned  only 
 once,  would  consist  either  of  (2565  +  357  =  )  2922  +  5487,  or 
 of  2565  +  (357+5487  =  )  5844,  according  as  the  357  were 
 used  to  fill  up  either  the  fictitious  sum  of  the  antediluvian 
 or  the  chronological  sum  of  the  postdiluvian  world,  to  two  or 
 to  four  perfect  Cycles  respectively.  But  if,  which  would  be 
 optional,  and  which  would  rather  be  the  case,  the  357  years 
 were  reckoned  twice  over,  once  as  the  supplement  and  com- 
 plement needed  by  the  antediluvians  above,  and  again  as  the 
 cyclical  commencement  necessarily  to  be  prefixed  to  the  un- 
 cyclical  aggregate  of  human  time  given  to  the  postdiluvians 
 below,  then  the  whole  scheme  would  consist  of  (2565  +  357  =  ) 
 2922 +(357  +  6487  =  )  5844;  and  the  two  sums  2922  and 
 5844  together  would  make  8766,  feigned  to  end  not  with  the 
 last  year  of  Nectanebo  in  B.C.  345,  but  with  the  Egyptian 
 accession  of  Alexander  in  B.C.  332  (since  13  years  between 
 Nectanebo  and  Alexander,  which  had  been  throw^n  up  by  the 
 Chronicle  and  by  Manetho,  were  reckoned  by  Ptolemy  in  their 
 true  place  and  given  to  a  thirty-first  dynasty).  And  if  to 
 the  sum  of  8766  again  we  were  to  append  those  historical 
 years  which  had  intervened  between  the  feigned  cyclical 
 epochs  of  B.C.  345  or  332  and  the  date  of  Ptolemy's  writing, 
 which  we  may  guess  to  have  been  about  340  years  later,  we 
 may  collect  that  in  the  time  of  Augustus  the  scheme  might 
 be  said  to  claim  for  Egyptian  records  an  antiquity  of  (8766 
 +  340  =  )9106,or  at  the  least  of  (9 106 -357  =  )  8749  years, 
 so  exhibiting  that  coincidence  with  the  8000  or  9000  years 
 of  Plato  and  Eudoxus,  which  is  noticed  by  Africanus. 
 
 This  scheme,  however  strange  the  assertion  may  sound,  is 
 the  first  and  only  one  out  of  six  Egyptian  schemes  with 
 which  we  are  acquainted,  which  is  irreconcilable,  not  only 
 on  the  surface  but  internally,  with  historical  truth.  The 
 rest,  though  designed,  no  doubt,  to  impose  upon  strangers, 
 and  even,  it  may  be,  upon  the  unlearned  of  the  Egyptians, 
 
 F  F 
 
434 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 contained  no  mere  falsehoods  for  the  priests,  who  understood 
 the  secret  of  their  construction.    But  the  scheme  of  Ptolemy 
 of  Mendes,  in  aiming  after  a  certain  end  which  regarded 
 Greek  readers  only,  admitted  for  the  first  time  a  plain  false- 
 hood and  fabrication,  placing  it  in  contradiction  with  the  true 
 Egyptian  reckoning  of  time  preserved,  under  whatever  super- 
 ficial variations,  by  all  his  predecessors.    It  amounts  to  the 
 same  thing  as  if  Ptolemy  had  openly  pretended  that  whereas 
 hitherto  all  had  reckoned  three  Sothic  cycles  only  (short  at 
 their  head  by  341  years)  from  the  beginning  of  human  time 
 to  the  cyclical  epoch  of  B.C.  1322,  which  would  grow  into 
 four  whenever  the  Cycle  current  under  the  Lagidse  and 
 under  Augustus  should  run  out, —  or,  in  other  words,  whereas 
 they  had  all  reckoned  of  time  past  or  future  four  cycles  from 
 the  beginning  to  the  year  139  of  our  vulgar  era,  they  ought 
 on  the  contrary  to  have  reckoned  two  cycles,  or  2922  years 
 more ;  the  truth  being  that  the  whole  four  cycles  given  by 
 the  Chronicle  to  human  time  belonged  to  the  postdiluvians 
 alone,  and  were  covered  (all  but  the  341  inserted  to  make 
 time  begin  from  a  cyclical  epoch  and  1 6  years  besides,  mak- 
 ing together  357  years)  by  Egyptian  kings ;  the  Gods  and 
 Demigods  having  occupied  two  earlier  cycles  of  years  sup- 
 pressed by  Egyptian  chronologers  till  the  time  of  Ptolemy. 
 And  whereas  in  the  older  schemes  the  341  years  inserted  to 
 make  time  seem  to  have  run  in  the  mould  of  the  Cycle,  and 
 those  years  of  the  Cycle  current  under  the  Ptolemies  which 
 were  anticipated  and  thrown  up,  were  understood  by  the 
 learned  to  be  years  merely  nominal,  unchronologically  placed, 
 and  easily  distinguishable  from  the  true  chronology  em- 
 bodied in  the  same  schemes,  —  this  in  the  scheme  of  Ptolemy 
 of  Mendes  was  no  longer  the  case^    Six  cycles  (a  false 
 number)  being  exhibited,  instead  of  four  (the  true),  there 
 was  no  longer  any  object  to  be  answered  in  understanding 
 (if  any  one  still  understood)  that  some  of  the  dynasties  of 
 kings  were  placed  in  years  anticipated  and  thrown  up  from 
 below,  and  that  the  whole  series  of  cycles  was  only  feigned  to 
 begin  and  to  end  at  epochs  which  were  not  really  cyclical. 
 Nor  could  even  the  341  years,  at  least  not  those  341  years 
 which  had  been  inserted  by  the  older  schemes  for  a  cyclical 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 435 
 
 purpose,  and  which  in  truth  though  not  ostensibly  were  now 
 prefixed  at  the  head  of  the  four  postdiluvian  cycles,  be  re- 
 garded any  longer  as  a  merely  nominal  addition ;  for  if  they 
 were  so  regarded,  then  instead  of  an  interval  of  357  years 
 between  the  Flood  and  Menes,  we  should  have  Egypt  already 
 repeopled,  its  language  and  religion  formed,  and  Menes 
 founding  its  monarchy  in  the  1 7th  year  after  the  Flood.  If 
 the  subject  were  capable  of  being  canvassed  seriously,  and 
 Ptolemy  had  pretended  that  the  341  cosmical  or  nominal 
 years  necessary  to  make  time  run  in  the  mould  of  the  Cycle, 
 and  inserted  in  the  older  schemes,  had  been  retained  from 
 them  by  himself  mutatis  mutandis,  and  were  to  be  looked 
 for  and  reckoned  chronologically  in  his  own,  as  in  those 
 older  schemes,  at  the  top  of  all,  then,  these  years  being  so 
 reckoned  first,  it  would  follow  that  his  own  peculiar  addition 
 of  two  cycles  to  the  four  of  the  Chronicle  commenees  only 
 after  the  341  years  have  been  reckoned,  and  ends  only  with 
 the  341st  year  of  his  third  cycle,  answering  to  the  341st  of 
 the  first  cycle  of  the  older  schemes.  And  beginning  hence, 
 if  we  parallel  the  scheme  of  Ptolemy  with  that  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle, it  will  appear  that  at  that  point  at  which  the  Chro- 
 nicle places  or  indicates  the  commencement  of  the  17  th  year 
 of  Cronus,  or  as  we  should  say  of  Adam,  Ptolemy  of  Mendes 
 places  the  accession  of  Menes ;  and  those  (2922  +  217  =  )3139 
 years  which  in  the  earlier  schemes,  whether  divided  among 
 XIII  Gods  and  viii  Demigods,  or  in  any  other  way,  represent 
 the  whole  time  of  the  antediluvian  world,  and  of  the  post- 
 diluvian too,  until  the  growth  of  nations  and  the  rise  of 
 monarchies,  are  in  the  scheme  of  Ptolemy  covered  all  alike 
 by  kings,  successors  of  Menes.  If  Manetho  could  have  re- 
 turned to  life  to  see  Eusebius  or  Syncellus  calculating  how 
 many  of  his  3555  years  of  kings  were  to  be  disallowed  as 
 running  up  before  the  Flood,  and  how  many  more  as  cover- 
 ing the  space  between  the  Flood  and  Abraham,  or  between 
 the  Flood  and  the  Dispersion,  he  might  have  told  them  with 
 a  smile  that,  if  they  had  had  more  wit,  they  might  have  saved 
 themselves  this  trouble,  since  all  those  dynasties  and  reigns 
 really  contemporaneous  which  he  had  exhibited  as  consecu- 
 tive he  had  at  the  same  time  ticketed  and  labelled  for  such 
 
 F  F  2 
 
436 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 as  understood,  by  giving  to  them  years  of  tlie  current  Cycle 
 reduplicated  or  thrown  up,  or  years  previously  appropriated 
 in  older  documents,  which  he  alluded  to,  to  the  Gods  or 
 Demigods.  But  if  Eusebius  or  Syncellus  had  lopped  away 
 after  their  fashion  some  of  the  5487  years  of  kings  feigned 
 by  Ptolemy  of  Mendes  to  commence  in  the  year  of  the  world 
 17,  according  to  Egyptian  reckoning,  and  yet  to  end  at  the 
 cosmocracy  of  Alexander  with  the  year  of  the  world  (5503  — 
 470  =  )  5173,  which  implies  again  that  they  began  (470 — 
 16  =  )  454  years  before  the  first  year  of  Cronus  or  Adam, 
 or  before  the  creation,  Ptolemy  would  have  had  no  means  of 
 defending  himself,  the  chronology  of  Egypt  from  which  he 
 had  departed  agreeing  much  more  nearly,  though  still  far 
 from  exactly,  with  the  reckoning  of  Syncellus,  and  much 
 more  closely  even  with  that  of  Eusebius  than  with  his  own. 
 
 Perhaps  he  would  have  said,  that  for  such  as  were  in  the 
 secret  the  2922  years  given  by  him  to  the  old  world,  if  he 
 were  understood  to  give  to  it  two  cycles,  were  all  separable 
 as  fictitious,  or  all  but  16,  and  those  16  reduplicated  and 
 thrown  up  from  between  Nectanebo  and  the  year  B.C.  329 ; 
 and  that  the  learned,  after  thus  setting  aside  the  fictitious 
 space  given  to  the  old  world,  would  find  no  difficulty  in  the 
 fact  that  he  had  covered  the  four  previously  known  and  re- 
 cognised cycles  (all  but  341  years  fictitious  or  cosmical,  and 
 16  of  the  years  thrown  up  from  between  Alexander  and 
 the  Lagidae)  with  kings,  seeing  that  in  so  doing  he  had 
 only  followed  the  example  of  Manetho  and  others,  who  had 
 placed  unchronologically,  for  whatever  reason,  reigns  and  dy- 
 nasties of  which  many  might  be  contemporaneous,  but  which 
 perhaps  had  all,  nevertheless,  a  true  historical  existence. 
 
 THE  INTRODUCTION 
 
 of  Ptolemy's  own  composition,  in  which  he  either  spoke  in 
 his  own  name,  or  at  least  did  not  affect  to  personate  Mane- 
 tho, probably  gave  the  reader  to  understand  that  the  ridicule 
 often  directed  by  Greeks  against  the  myriads  of  years  of 
 Manetho  and  other  Egyptian  chroniclers  was  prompted  by  a 
 misunderstanding.  It  explained  that  those  myriads  of  years 
 consisted  originally  only  of  months,  which  might  be  reduced 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 437 
 
 by  division  to  true  civil  years,  and  that  when  so  reduced 
 they  gave  to  Egypt  an  antiquity  greatly  transcending,  no 
 doubt,  that  of  other  nations,  but  still  not  exceeding  the 
 bounds  of  credibility.  It  gave  the  outline  of  the  Old 
 Chronicle  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  reached  us  through 
 Africanus  and  Syncellus  (printed  above  in  Greek  at  p.  9), 
 as  the  oldest  Greek  document  of  the  kind,  the  source  which 
 Manetho  had  followed  in  some  respects,  though  he  had 
 varied  from  it  in  others ;  and  it  proposed  to  reduce  the  first 
 30,681  of  its  years,  as  if  these  had  been  the  original  and  full 
 sum  of  month-years  from  which  the  24,900  of  Manetho  were 
 derived  as  a  variation  and  curtailment. 
 
 This  reduction  having  been  made,  and  the  product  being 
 a  sum  of  2556  civil  years,  with  a  remainder  of  9, — wliich,  as 
 seeming  not  to  have  been  obtained  by  multiplication,  might 
 be  treated  as  being  originally  and  of  themselves  full  years, — 
 these  9  with  the  2556  made  2565  civil  years ;  to  which  357, 
 taken  from  the  full  years  which  follow  next  in  the  Chronicle 
 after  the  30,681,  being  added,  there  was  obtained  a  sum  of 
 (2565  +  357  =  )  2922  civil  years,  or  two  complete  cycles, 
 over  which  probably  were  distributed  those  Gods,  Demigods, 
 and  Manes  which  Manetho  had  placed  in  the  first  vii  of  his 
 XXX  dynasties,  and  in  the  first  of  his  three  books. 
 
 From  this  part  of  the  Introduction  it  might  be  that  Afri- 
 canus took  that  enumeration  of  the  seven  groups  of  the 
 Gods,  Demigods,  and  Manes,  with  Manetho's  own  sums  of 
 their  years  unreduced,  which  has  been  given  already  in 
 English  at  p.  91,  and  which  in  the  Latin  translation,  made 
 from  the  old  Armenian  version  of  the  Chronicle  of  Eusebius 
 {Cliron.  1.  i.  c.  19,  ed,  Mai,  Rom.  1833),  is  as  follows: — 
 
 ..."  Ex  Manethone  .  .  . 
 
 "  Primus  ^gyptiorum  Deus  Vulcanus  fuit,  qui  etiam 
 ignis  repertor  apud  eos  celebratur.  Ex  eo  Sol :  postea  Agatho- 
 dcemon ;  deinde  Saturnus  :  turn  Osiris  :  exin  Oslridis  frater 
 Typhon  :  ad  extremum  Horus,  Osiridis  et  Isidis  filius.  Hi 
 primi  inter  ^gyptios  rerum  potiti  sunt. 
 
 "  Deinceps  continuata  successione  delapsa  est  regia  potes- 
 tas  usque  ad  Bytin,  per  annos  [Deorum  omnium]  tredecim 
 mille  ac  nongentos.    Lunarem  tamen  annum  intelligo,  vide- 
 
 F  F  3 
 
438 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 licet  triginta  diebus  constantem :  quern  enim  nunc  mensem 
 dicimus,  ^gyptii  olim  anni  nomine  indigitabant. 
 
 ^'Post  Deos  regnavere  Heroes  annis  MCCLV  [mccxxx.] 
 "  Rursusque    alii    Reges    dominati  sunt 
 
 annis   MDCCCXVII. 
 
 *'  Turn  alii  triginta  Reges,  Memphit(B  annis  mdccxc. 
 
 Deinde  alii  TliinitcB  decern  Reges  annis  CCCL. 
 "  Secuta  est  Manium  Heroumque  Domi- 
 
 natio  annis   .mmmmmdcccxiii. 
 
 "  Summa  temporum  in  undecim  millia  consurgit  annorum, 
 qui  tamen  lunares,  nempe  menstrui  sunt." 
 
 "  Sed  revera  dominatio  [quam  narrant  Egyptii]  Deorum, 
 Heroum,  et  Manium  tenuisse  putatur  lunares  annos  omnino 
 viginti  quatuor  mille  et  nongentos,  ex  quibus  fiunt  solares  anni 
 MBiccvi."  [Correct,  and  read  "  mmlxxv  ;"  though  in  truth 
 Manetho's  sum,  of  24,900  is  a  mixed  sum  made  up  of  900 
 full  years,  which  need  no  reduction,  but  were  once  themselves 
 in  the  older  schemes  multiplied  into  10,800  month-years  to 
 which  they  are  equivalent,  and  from,  which  they  were  re- 
 duced again  by  Manetho,  and  24,000. month-years  reducible 
 to  2000  full  civil  years.   So  the  true  value  of  the  whole  sum 
 
 is  MMDCCCC] 
 
 What  may  have  been  the  distribution  of  years  made  by 
 Ptolemy  to  each  of  the  above  seven  groups  or  classes,  sup- 
 posing him  to  have  retained  from  Manetho  the  classes 
 themselves,  one  cannot  say,  because  the  sum  of  the  years 
 which  he  had  to  distribute  was  not.  that  obtainable  directly 
 by  division  from  the  24,900  of  Manethp  (this  would  have  been 
 2075),  but  that  obtained  from  the,  30^681  of  the  Chronicle, 
 viz.  (2556  +  9  =  )  2565,  either  alone,  or  as  increased  by  357 
 to  2922,  the  sum  which  would  have  been  obtainable  from 
 35,064  month-years.  The  sums  of  Manetho,  though  men- 
 tioned as  it  appears  by  Ptolemy,  are  neither  themselves 
 divisible  without  remainders  by  12,  nor  are  there  any  indi- 
 cations that  the  whole  space  corresponding  to  their  sum 
 total  in  the  scheme  of  Ptolemy  was  divided  among  the 
 seven  classes  named  by  Manetho  in  the  same  proportions. 
 
 If  indeed  any  inference  were  to  be  drawn  from  the  dis- 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 439 
 
 tribution  of  Manetho,  it  would  be  this,  that  Ptolemy  gave  in 
 his  Introduction  to  the  seven  groups  above  enumerated  the 
 following  sums  of  reduced  or  full  years  :  — 
 
 To  Group  I.  900.  —  reduced  [by  Manetho]  from  10,800 
 To  Group  II.  1083.  4°^.  reduced  [by  Ptolemy]  from  13,000 
 
 These  two  groups  together  making  1983  full  years  and  4 
 months,  reduced  from  23,800  month-years.  Or,  if  the  two 
 methods  are  mixed  together,  as  they  are  by  Manetho,  the 
 900  being  reckoned  in  full  years  and  13,000  in  month-years, 
 they  make  together  Manetho 's  nominal  sum  of  13,900. 
 Then 
 
 To  Group  III.  102.  6°^.  reduced  from  .  .  .  1230 
 To  Group  IV.  151.  5™.  reduced  from  .  .  .  1817 
 To  Group  V.  149.  2^^.  reduced  from  .  .  .  1790 
 To  Group  VT.  29.  2°^.  reduced  from  ...  350 
 To  Group  VII.  484.  5™.  reduced  from  .  .  .  5813 
 Besides  22.  —  reduced  [by  Manetho]  from  264 
 
 2922.  0.  35,064 
 
 But  whatever  were  in  truth  in  Ptolemy's  own  scheme  the 
 subdivisions  of  this  space  of  the  Gods,  Demigods,  and  Manes, 
 one  thing  is  clear,  viz.  that  they  did  not,  as  in  the  work  of 
 Manetho,  fill  vii  of  the  xxx  dynasties,  nor  enter  distinctly 
 into  the  composition  of  what  was  still  called  in  Ptolemy's 
 work  the  "  First  Book  of  Manetho."  On  the  contrary  they 
 were  treated  of  only  in  Ptolemy's  own  Introduction,  which 
 was  then  followed  by  his  re-edition  and  abridgment  of 
 Manetho's  three  books,  or  rather  by  the  chronicle  or  lists  of 
 regal  dynasties  contained  in  them,  extracted,  altered,  and 
 added  to  by  the  compiler.  For  Ptolemy  transferred  to  kings 
 the  first  seven  mythological  dynasties  of  Manetho's  thirty, 
 besides  appending  a  thirty-first ;  and  he  inserted  as  belong- 
 ing to  his  new  dynasties  a  sum  of  1932  years. 
 
 After  those  notices  taken  from  the  mythological  part  of 
 Ptolemy's  Introduction  which  we  have  given  from  Eusebius, 
 the  lists  of  kings  extracted  by  Africanus  are  given  both  by 
 him  and  by  Syncellus ;  by  Eusebius  with  such  extensive 
 alterations  of  his  own  as  to  render  his  Manetho  a  new  com- 
 pilation, but  by  Syncellus  faithfully.    And  as  the  lists  of 
 
 F  F  4 
 
440 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Africanus  according  to  the  text  of  Syncellus  have  been 
 already  printed  above  in  En2;lish  (p.  91  to  p.  98),  so  far  as 
 they  were  needed  for  illustrating  the  scheme  of  the  original 
 Manetho,  they  shall  now  be  given  in  Greek. 
 
 Eusebius  introduces  them  with  these  words :  Sequitur 
 Triginta  Dynastiarum  a  Mene  ad  Nectanebum  qnumeratio, 
 quam  statim  addimus :  "  and  Syncellus  with  these  : 
 
 "  JJspl  TMV  fjbsra  Tov  KaraKXya/jLov  Alyvirrov  AvvaaTSLCoVf  ojs 
 6  'A(f)pLKavo9  • "  For  Africanus,  as  we  learn  indirectly  by  a 
 passage  of  Eusebius  probably  borrowed  from  him,  and  as  is 
 here  stated  by  Syncellus,  considered  that  the  years  of  the 
 world  before  the  Flood,  and  those  after  the  Flood  to  the 
 Dispersion  and  to  Mizraim  or  Menes  (the  two  names  being 
 identified),  were  covered  by  those  vast  periods  of  the  Egyp- 
 tians which  consisted  really  of  months,  and  which  were  to  be 
 reduced  to  as  many  years  as  the  Hebrew  reckoning  might 
 allow ;  while,  as  regarded  any  excess  still  remaining  in  the 
 years  given  to  the  kings,  it  was  to  be  carefully  remembered 
 that  there  might  have  been  in  early  times  a  number  of 
 dynasties  contemporary  with  one  another  in  different  parts 
 of  Egypt,  besides  joint  reigns  in  one  and  the  same  local 
 dynasty,  both  which  causes  together  might  easily  produce  a 
 vast  sum  of  years. 
 
 We  are  to  bear  in  mind  then  that  the  last  357  of  the 
 mythological  years  contained  in  the  Introduction  of  Ptolemy, 
 those,  that  is,  which  were  meant  to  be  reckoned  ambiguously 
 either  to  the  end  of  the  old  or  to  the  beginning  of  the 
 existing  world,  or  to  be  reduplicated  and  reckoned  to  both 
 at  once,  are  understood  by  Africanus  to  cover  the  interval 
 between  the  Flood  and  Menes.  And  the  same  perhaps  may 
 be  hinted  by  a  peculiarity  in  the  designation  of  the  seventh 
 and  last  of  the  seven  mythological  groups  given  by  Ptolemy 
 from  Manetho,  which  is  repeated  by  Africanus.  For  after 
 two  groups  of  Gods,  and  after  a  third  expressly  given  to 
 "  Heroes  "  or  Demigods,  who  came  "  after  the  Gods,"  there 
 follow  next  three  groups  of  kings,  who  should  therefore  be 
 Ne/cuss'  or  Manes,  especially  as  some  of  them  are  named 
 Thinites  and  Memphites,  names  which  show  them  once  to 
 have  been  men,  natives  of  two  Egyptian  capitals.    But,  after 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 441 
 
 these,  the  seventh  and  last  group  is  described  as  a  "  Domi- 
 natio  "  or  dynasty  "  of  Heroes  [i.  e.  Demigods]  and  Manes^'' 
 so  that  some  have  taken  occasion  hence  to  suspect  an  error 
 in  the  text,  and  that  this  last  group  and  its  sum  are  really  only 
 a  recapitulation,  adding  up  together  the  sums  of  the  four 
 distinct  groups  of  Heroes  and  Manes  which  have  preceded. 
 But  Africanus  in  passing  on  to  the  dynasties  of  kings  takes 
 up  and  repeats  this  same  mixed  designation;  for  he  continues 
 thus :  "  Msra  NsKvas  tov9  'HfjicOsovs,^^  that  is,  as  we  may 
 paraphrase  it,  "  After  the  Manes  who  are  the  Demigods, " 
 or  "  after  the  Manes  who  are  also  called  Demigods ;  "  and 
 this  too  has  been  altered,  as  if  by  the  help  of  Eusebius, 
 because  he  distinguishes  the  Gods,  and  Demigods,  and 
 Manes,  as  three  separate  groups,  as  no  doubt  every  author 
 did  who  named  them  at  all.  But  this  by  no  means  shows 
 that  the  double  designation  of  the  last  mythological  group 
 was  unintended,  or  that  the  group  itself  is  only  a  recapitula- 
 tion. On  the  contrary,  if  the  years  of  this  group,  or  part  of 
 them,  were  meant  to  cover  the  interval  between  the  old 
 world  and  the  commencement  of  the  Egyptian  monarchy,  the 
 double  designation  has  a  meaning ;  since,  whatever  might  be 
 the  origin  of  the  Thinite,  Memphite,  or  other  Manes  of  Ma- 
 netho,  the  true  holders  of  the  chronological  space  between 
 the  Flood  and  Menes  are  the  viii  Demigods  of  the  Chronicle, 
 whether  considered  as  living  on  the  earth  together  with  the 
 still  surviving  antediluvians,  or  as  living  and  "  reigning  "  on 
 after  their  departure.  So  the  addition  of  the  title  "  Demi- 
 gods "  to  Manes,  who  may  really  perhaps  be  Nubians  from 
 the  hieratic  lists,  may  be  a  hint  that  their  (484 -f  22  =  )  506 
 years  are  identical  chronologically  with  those  506  years  of  the 
 Gods  and  Demigods  which  immediately  preceded  Menes. 
 
 TOMOS  A'  MANEea 
 
 M£rd  'Nsicvag  tovq  'HfiiOeovg 
 
 BaffiXeia  A' 
 KaTapiQfiHTai  fSaaiXsojv    oktoj,  wv 
 
 TrpWTOQ 
 
 a',  MyvTjg  QeiviTjjg  i^aaikevaiv  tTi) 
 ^/3'*  ovTog  viru  'nnroTrordfjLOV  ^i- 
 uOdprj.  Mena. 
 
 l3'.  *A6o)9ig  v'log  trrj  v9''  6  to.  tv  M'efi- 
 (pti  (BacriXfia  oiKoSofirjcragy  oi)  0£- 
 povTai  (3i(3Xoi  dvaTOfiiKai^  iaTphg 
 yap  i]v,  Athoth. 
 
 y'.  )LtvKkvr]g  v\6g  tTrj   Xa''   but  the 
 sum  total  given  for  the  years  of 
 the  dynasty  requires  /ca'. 
 Ovtvf({>r]g  vlog  ht]  Ky' '  iij,^  ov  Xifiog 
 
442 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHKONICLES. 
 
 KUTtaxe   Tj)v    A'iyvTTTOv  fi'tyaq' 
 
 ovTOQ  TCLQ  irspl  Kwx^^H'W  ^/yftpe 
 
 TTvpan'iSag. 
 t.  Ovaatpnidog  v'log  trrj  k.  Ouazepha  ? 
 <r'.  MtfjSi^oc  ^'lOQ  err}  ic<r'.  Bad'Si  ? 
 'S.inkfi-^riQ  vioQ  trrj        e^'  ov  <p6o- 
 
 pa  fxeyiCTij  Karkoxs  rtjv  Ai'yvTr- 
 
 rov. 
 
 1) .  BiJ/a\'j/c  vioc,  trr)  k-' . 
 
 'O/ioD  tTT]  avy.  (62  +  57-1-21 
 +23+20+26  +  18+26= 
 253.) 
 
 Syncellus  adds :  Ta  ttiq  a  dwaa- 
 reiag  o'vtoj  Trwg  Kai  FjV(je(3iog  ujg  6  'A(ppi' 
 Kavhg  i'i'iQtro. 
 
 AvvaffTua  B' 
 
 Qstviru)!/  (BaffiXecjv  9\  wv  TtpCjTog 
 a.  Bor]96g  irr]  Xtj'*  £0'  ov  xac/ia  icaTci 
 
 BoifSadrov  lytvsTO,  Kai  CLTrojXovro 
 
 TToXXo'i.    Baiou  .  .  ? 
 (5'.  KaiExJg  err)  XO' '  t(t)   oi  oi  ^otg 
 
 'ATTtf  tv  Msfifei,  Kai  Mvsvig  Iv 
 
 ^HXiovTToXeiy  Kat  6  Mevdfjdiog  rpa- 
 
 yog  tvofilaOr](yav  tivai  Beoi.  Ka..? 
 y    Biv(o9pig  trr/  fx'C '  tcf  ov  eKpiOt]  Tag 
 
 yvvaiKug  (SaciXeiag  yspag  tx^iv. 
 
 .  .  neter? 
 B'.  TXdg  iT)]  it.    Tsats  ? 
 e.  'SeGevrjg  err)  p.a'.  Sent? 
 t'.  Xaiprig  trr}  i^.   Aakar  f 
 Z,'.  N£f/)£jOX£jO>jc  ST")/  Kt'*  l(p'' OV  fivOev- 
 
 erai  tov  ^fiXov  jxeXiri  KSKpafikvov 
 
 r'ifikpag  evdeica  pvijvai.  Nefer- 
 
 kar? 
 
 ri'.  '!^sa(x)xpi-Q  H-V  '        v\pog  tlx^ 
 
 Tvrix^v  f',  TraXaicrrajij'  y  . 
 y.  Xiveprjg  err]  X\    Kar-en-re  f 
 
 'Oixov  tTT]  t(5'.  (38+39+47+ 
 17+41  +  17+25+48+30 
 =)  302. 
 Syncellus  adds :  'Oixov  a  Kat  (3' 
 BvvaTTfiag  fxsTa.  tov  KaTaKXvofiov  tTrj 
 (pve  (253+302=555),  /cara  r?)v  [/3'] 
 iK^ocnv  '' A(pptKavov. 
 
 ^vvacrreia  T' 
 
 MefjLcpiTujv  (^aaiXsojv  ivvka' 
 a,  'Ntx^pocpijg  tTrj  kt]  '  kcp'  ov  Aif3vsg 
 aTck<7Triaav  AiyvTTTuov,  Kai  TF/g  as- 
 Xrivrjg  Trapd  X6yov  av^riQt'Kjrig  did 
 
 Bsog  eavToiig  Trapedocav.  Jta' 
 kherph  ? 
 
 j3'.  TocropOpog  tTt)  k6' '  ovTog  ^ AaKXij- 
 iriog  AiyvTTTioig  Kara  Tt/v  Unpi- 
 K))v  vevonicrai,  Kai  Tr/v  did 
 'iwToiv  XiQh)v  o'lKodoixiav  tvpuTo- 
 ciXXd  Kai  ypa(f.iig  iirsfjitXriOr].  Ra- 
 tseser? 
 
 y.  livpig  tTi]  r. 
 
 o'.  Mrcdjxpig  irr]  i?'. 
 
 e'.  '2b)V(pig  tTT}  t<r'.    Aan-Hoyphou  ? 
 
 t'.  ToakpTaaig  tTr}  i9'.  Tseserirenra  f 
 
 r.  "^X''^^  -    Aakou  ? 
 
 1).  Hicpovpig  irt]  A'.    Snefrou  ? 
 
 5/'.  Kep(j)spr]g  tTT]  /cr'.  Ass-herph? 
 
 'Opov  tTT]  md'.  (28  +  29  +  7  + 
 17  +  16  +  19+42  +  30+26 
 =214.) 
 
 Syncellus  subjoins  :  'Opov  tmv  y 
 SwaaTiiuiv  kuto.  ^A(ppiKavdv  tTt]  ip^9' 
 
 (555+214=769). 
 
 AvvatTTela  A' 
 
 MifKpiTwv  avyyeveiag  hkpag'  (3a(n- 
 Xelg  r( . 
 
 a',  ^(ijpig  iTTf  k9'.    Sora  and  Sorti  ? 
 (5'.  '2ov<pig  tTr]  S,y''   og  Ttjv  ntyiaTrjv 
 i'jyeipt  TTvpapiSa^  r]v  ftjcnv  'Hpo- 
 doTog  VTTO  UtOTTog  ytyovevai'  ov- 
 Tog  de  Kai  vTrepoTrTrjg  fig  Sreovg 
 ey&vfTO'  Kai  ti]v  hpdv  <jvv'sypa'\ps 
 (3i(3Xov         [syw,  o  ^A(ppiKav6g^ 
 ojg  fxkya  XPVI^^      AiyvTrTCp  ytvo- 
 p,tvog  tKTr]adpi]v.  Khoufou. 
 y.  ^ov(pig  tTt]  4^'.  Khaphra. 
 d'.  MtvxkpvQ  '^T^  iy''  Menkaura. 
 e.  'PaToi(yr]g  tTr]  ks.  Ra-tseser? 
 =r'.  Bixipig  trr]  k(3'. 
 Z'.  ^tjSepxkprjg  tTt]      Saouch-ra  ? 
 T],  Qap.(p9\g  tTt]  9'. 
 
 'Opov  tTij  aod'.  But  the  actual 
 sums  of  the  reigns  make 
 (29  +  63  +  66  +  63+25  + 
 22+7+9  =  )  284;  and  the 
 scheme  of  Ptolemy  of  Men- 
 des  requires  (t-h-S'  for  the 
 sum  of  this  dynasty :  Syn- 
 cellus, however,  reckons  up 
 277,  which  was,  seemingly, 
 '  the  sum  of  the  original 
 Manetho ;  for  he  subjoins  : 
 
PTOLEMY  OP  MENDES. 
 
 443 
 
 "0/iOU  T(jjV  5'  SwaOTiKov  Toiv  (.ItTci  ' 
 
 Tov  KaraKXyafiov  trri  aix'^'  (769  +  177 
 =  1046)  KaT  ^A<ppiKavdv. 
 
 AvvaffTsia  E' 
 BaffiXscov  1]'        ^EXtpavr'ivrjg'  [^'" 
 two,  perhaps,  being  colleagues.] 
 a.  OvaepxspriQ  'irr]  ki}' .  Outseserlierf? 
 /3'.  ^ecpptjg  'irri  ly.    Sahou-ph-re  ? 
 y'.  ^t(ptpxhnQ   cr»?   k'.  Nefer-iri- 
 har-ra  ? 
 
 d'.  Sifftpije  tTT]  [X]s  •  [tlie  sum  of 
 the  dynasty  showing  that 
 30  years  have  fallen  out, 
 either  from  this  or  from  the 
 seventh  reign.]  Tseser-iri- 
 U'Va  ? 
 
 i.  XsptjQ  tTij  K.    Karhar-re  ? 
 'PaGovpjjc  Ity}  III'. 
 Mivxf^pm  f^Tn  Q'-    Menkar-re  and 
 Hor-nienkar  ? 
 »}'.  Tapx^priQ  'irri  fid'.  Assa  Tat-kar- 
 re. 
 
 "OjSvoQ  irr)  Xy'.  Onnos. 
 
 'Ofiov  err]  (TixT]''  (28+13  +  20 
 +  [3]7+ 20+44 +9+44 
 +33=248.) 
 
 Syncellus  subjoins  :  rivovrai  avv 
 Toig  TrpoTtrayixivoiQ  a/tfr'  enai  tQv  d' 
 dvvaaTeidjv  trri  ,a(7^d''  (since  1046  + 
 248=1294.  But  if  he  had  reckoned 
 the  sum  of  Ptolemy,  viz.  284,  to 
 Dyn.  IV.,  instead  of  reckoning  the 
 277  of  the  original  Manetho,  he 
 would  have  had  1053+248=1301). 
 
 AvvaffTEia  XY' 
 
 (SaaiXkcjv  f|  Me/xf/itrcJt'* 
 a.  ^096i]Q  err]  X''  dg  vtto  dopv(p6po)v 
 
 dvypeOr].    Ati  ? 
 j3'.  $tog  err]  vy.    Teta  ? 
 y\  MeQovaoxxpig  err]  I'.    Imhotep  ? 
 S'.  e^aerrfg   dp^afievog  (3a(TL- 
 
 Xtveiv  Sieysvero  fxexptg  triSv  p'. 
 
 Papa  Maire. 
 e.  MevQeuov^ig  trog  ev.    Meranre  ? 
 7'.  'Nir(t)Kpig'  yevviKOjrdrrj  Kal  evfiop- 
 
 (porctrr)  rojv  Kar  avrrjv  yevou'evr}^ 
 
 ^avGrj  rrjv  xpoiav,  rj  rrjv  rpirrjv 
 
 f/ydpe  TTvpafiila  '  tj3a(TiXfV(nv  err] 
 tj8'.   Neplierchere  and  Nitocrit. 
 'Ofiol)  tri]  ay' '  (30  +  53  +  7+ 
 100+1  +  12=203.) 
 Syncellus  subjoins  :  rivovrai  avv 
 roig  Ttporerayix'ivoig  aalfQ'  rojv  e'  Ivva- 
 ar€iiZv  'trt]  avl^^'  (i.e.  1294+203= 
 1497.  But  it  should  have  been  1301 
 +203=1504.) 
 
 .Ivt^affTtia  Z' 
 MtfKpiTMV  l3aaiX'tiav  0',  vi  tlSatriXtv- 
 aav  iju'epag  0'    (70  days.) 
 
 AvvaartLa  H' 
 Mt/i^irwj/  (iaaCKmv  fc^  [or  i'/?]* 
 01  ii^aa'iKivaav  irri  pfig. 
 
 Syncellus  subjoins :  Tivovrai  avv 
 roig  rrporerayu'evoig  errj  ax^^'  '''^'^  vi 
 dvvaarsiujv'  as  if  142,  and  not  146, 
 were  the  sum  of  the  dynasty ;  since 
 1497  +  142=1639.  But  the  scheme 
 of  Ptolemy  seems  to  require  the  sum 
 given,  viz.,  146  ;  and  Syncellus'  to- 
 tal should  have  been  (1497+7)  + 
 146=1650. 
 
 HpaKXtoTToXiTui^  jSaaiXtiov  lO',  01 
 i(3ttai\tvaav  errj  v9'  *  S>v  6  irpCtTog 
 
 'A-xGotjg^  SeivoraTOQ  riov  irpb  avrov 
 ytvofitvog^Toig  kv  Trdatj  AiywTrr^  kuko, 
 tipydaaTOf  'oarepov  de  fiavig.  Trtpitirtae, 
 Kal  VTTO  KpoKoSiiXov  ducpOdpt], 
 
 The  sum  total  to  be  subjoined 
 would  have  been,  when  corrected, 
 (1650+409=)  2059:  but  Syncellus 
 here  ceases  to  give  the  sum  total ; 
 perhaps  perceiving  that  he  has  got 
 wrong  above. 
 
 Avyaortia  1 
 HpaKXioiroXiTutv  (3a<n\t(*>v  '0',  oi 
 ffiaaiXtvaav  trt]  pirf'- 
 
 The  sum  total,  when  corrected, 
 would  have  been  (2059  +  185=) 
 2244. 
 
 AvvaffTEta  lA' 
 AioairoXirojv  (3aaLXs(ov  it'j  oi  t(3aal- 
 Xfvaav  'err]  ny. 
 
 Mi0'  ovg  ^ Afififv'eixrjg  err]  i<7'. 
 
 /BaaiXsls  pi^\  STT]  ^^ttJ  [^/^ty'],  rjjjbipai,  o\ 
 
444 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 This  notice  is  not  from  Syncellus,  but  from  Africanus, 
 since  Eusebius  gives  the  same  numbers,  except  that  he  has 
 2300  years,  instead  of  2308,  a  corruption  for  2303.  That 
 2303  is  the  true  sum  of  Ptolemy  appears  from  the  sums  of 
 the  dynasties  as  reckoned  previously,  since  2244  with  (43 
 +  16  =  )  59  added  make  2303  ;  and  it  seems  to  be  required 
 for  the  sum  total  of  Ptolemy's  scheme.  So  the  sum  of  the 
 kings  as  now  given  for  Book  I.  may  be  made  out  thus :  — 
 8 +  9 +  9 +  8 +  8?+ 6 +  70+ 19? +  19 +  19+  16(=  65 +  127 
 =  )  192 ;  and  that  of  the  years  in  the  same  Book  thus  :  — 
 253  +  302  +  214  +  (277  +  7)  +  248  +  (177  +  6)  + 146  +  409  + 
 186+(43  +  16)  =  (1550  I  753=)2303. 
 
 TOMOS  B'  MANEGE 
 
 Avmoreta  IB' 
 
 AiooTToXiTuiv  iSacriXsMV  Z!' 
 a.  TtaovyoaiQ^  ^ Amxavsfxov  vtog.,  irr) 
 
 /3' 
 
 'AfifxaveixrjQ  tru)  Xr{ '  og  virb  tujv 
 idiojv  tvvovx<^v  avypkOr}. 
 y.  'Es.(X(ij<7Tpig  irt)  jxr]' '  og  IL-n  aaav  ix^i- 
 poxjaro  Tt)v  'Atrt'av  Iv  kviavTolg 
 ivvka^  Kai  rrjg  ^vpojTrrjg  rd  fxexpi- 
 OpaKTjg^    Travraxone  fivrnioauva 
 kyt'ipag  Trig  "^^"^  l^vwv  ax^^^^S^ 
 BTTi  fiei/  Toig  ysvva'ioig  dvdpioVj 
 Itti  ^£  ToTg  dytvvkai  yvvaiizCjv  fxo' 
 pia  ratg  ariiXaig  iyxdpdaacjv,  (bg 
 VTTO  AiyvTTTiMV  fisra  "OmpLv  TTjOw- 
 Tov  vonioOtjvai. 
 d'.  Aaxdprig  trrj  tj' '  og  tov  Iv  ^Apai- 
 voLTrj    \a(3vpijf9ov  tavrcp  rmpov 
 KareaKSvaasi^ 
 t.  ^Afifitprjg  tTTf  rj'. 
 <r'.  ^AntvsfiTjg  'irrj  rj'. 
 
 ^KEfjiiocppig  ddeXcpr/  err)  tV. 
 
 'Ofiov  ETv  pK'-  (46+38  +  48 
 +  8  +  8  +  8  +  4  =  160). 
 
 AioaTToXiriHv  ^aoiKtutv  ^\  oi  i/3a<yt- 
 \tvaav  trrj  vvy\ 
 
 So'tVwj^  ^8a(jiXs(jjv  o~\  \X'^'  i*-*?]  o'i 
 t^aa'iKiVGav  err)  p7rd'. 
 
 AvyafTTEia  IE' 
 ''Haav  de  ^oiviKtg  ^kvoi  jSaaiXiig  t', 
 
 01  Kai  MsfKpiv  tlXov'  ot  Kai  kv  tc^  St- 
 
 OpoLTT]  vofi^  TToXiv  eKTLCTav,  d<ij'  rig  6p- 
 juoijuevoi  AiyoTtriovg  tx^^P^'^^^'^^^'  '^^ 
 7rpu)Tog 
 
 a.  Sa't-jjc  e(5a(TiX£V(rev  err}  i9' '  d(p'  ov 
 i:ai  6  'S.aiTrjg  vo[x6g- 
 
 y'.  UaxPOLv  err]  ^a. 
 d'.  "SiTadv  err]  v  . 
 t'.  "kp^r]g  'irr]  fiO'. 
 "A(p(i}(3ig  'irti  . 
 
 'Ofiov  trri  (TTTi)' •  (19  +  44  +  61 
 +50+49+61=284). 
 
 Avvaarela  1ST' 
 iioiftivt£  "EWtivtg    ^amXtts  X/3'' 
 rftaciXtvtrav  err}  ^itf'. 
 
 LvvaaTEia  IZ' 
 lloijueveg  aXKoi  fiaoiKtiQ  fJiy',Kai  Bt}' 
 flaiot  AtoffTroXlrat  fiy'  ofiov  oi  TLoi" 
 nkvfQ  Kai  oi  Ori^aioi  ij^aviXtvaav  trtj 
 
 pva\ 
 
 Avvaarda  IH' 
 
 Aio(t:toXltu>v l3acnX((i}v  t<r',  [jT  ?'](hv 
 TrpojTog 
 
 a.  "Afjiuxng  [err]  kj']  t^'  ot'  Mu)V(Tr]g 
 l^t]XSr{v  £^  AlyvTTTOv^  i)g  rifielg 
 [^ST]Xadi)  6  ^ A(ppiKavbg']  aTrodsiKvv- 
 
 OjXEV. 
 
 ,3'.  XfjSpwc  frr]  ly. 
 
 y  .  ^ AfiEvioipf^ig  trrj  ko'  ['ca']- 
 
 S'.  ^Ajitvaig  trr]  k/3'. 
 
 f'.  Mi(Ta(ppig  err]  ly  . 
 
 t'.  Mi(T(ppayuovd(t><Tig  tTi]  /ct'. 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 445 
 
 C  TovOfiuxrig  err)  6', 
 
 1)'.  *AfiivuKpiQ  (.TT]  \a''  ovroQ  tcriv  6 
 
 ./3'.  XePpyjg  ^TT]  t/3'. 
 
 iS'.  ^Apfiecrarig  err]  t  [^']. 
 'PajUf(T(T/jc  eroQ  a. 
 
 i^'.  ^ AfjL£i>w(liQ  erri  i6'. 
 
 09eyy6fifvog  XLOog, 
 
 I.  'Axeppng  tTT] 
 la.  'PaOwg  iri)  t'. 
 
 The  Slim  of  0-^7  (263)  belongs  apparently  to  a  text 
 which  had  dropped  out  Amosis  and  Rameses  Miammous, 
 and  for  the  other  names  had  13  +  (21  +  3)  +  22  +  13  +  26  +  9 
 31  +  37  +  32  +  6  +  12  +  12  +  5  +  1+20  =  263.  The  sum  re- 
 sulting from  actual  addition  of  the  reigns  as  copied  by 
 Syncellus  from  Africanus  with  only  21  years  (which  is 
 certainly  the  true  number)  for  Amenoph  I.,  and  19  to  the 
 last  reign  of  the  dynasty,  is  259,  which  on  the  restoration  of 
 his  25  years  to  Amosis,  and  of  both  the  name  and  66  years 
 of  Rameses  Miammous,  become  350.  But,  on  comparison 
 of  the  reigns  as  filled  up  in  this  list  to  whole  years  with 
 the  years  and  odd  months  of  the  original  Manetho,  it  ap- 
 pears plain  that  Horus  should  have  36  not  37,  and  Armesses 
 4  not  5  years.  The  last  reign  of  the  dynasty  might  indeed 
 seem  to  claim  20  years ;  but  the  text  of  the  MSS.  gives  it 
 only  19,  and  if  another  year  were  added  it  would  have  to  be 
 retrenched  from  some  other  reign,  as  the  sum  of  the  dynasty 
 certainly  did  not  exceed  MS,  But  [25]  +  13  +  21 +22  + 13 
 +  26  +  9  +  31  +  36  +  (12  .  20)  +  (9  -  3)+ 12  + 12  +  4  +  1[  + 
 66] +  19  make  together  the  sum  348.  In  the  number  of 
 XYi  kings  there  is  no  necessary  error,  though  the  reigns  may 
 be  XVII,  since  in  these  there  are  xvi  kings  and  one  queen, 
 who  did  not,  like  Nitocris  of  Dyn.  VI,  reign  in  right  of  an 
 unnamed  husband,  but  jointly  with  her  brother,  Thothmes 
 III.,  one  of  the  xvi  kings  named  for  the  dynasty.  The  note 
 to  the  8th  name  hints  the  time  of  Au2:ustus.  Then  followed : — 
 Avvaarsia  10' 
 
 l^aatkscov^  AioaTToXLTCov,  [c5z^  Trpcoros  ^sOcos,  6  kol  'Va/jLsaarjSy 
 i/SaalXsvcrs  ra  iravra  sry  va  . 
 
 ToVTWV  TO)V  vol  TCL  ITpMTa  fCJ  STT)  KaTapiO jJiOVVTaL  Tft)  TplTW 
 TOfjLW  MaP£d(x).~\ 
 
 It  seems  that  23  years  of  Dyn.  XIX  were  included  in 
 Manetho's  Second  Book,  which  ended  with  the  23rd  year  of 
 Sethos,  intended  perhaps  originally  to  indicate  his  8th, 
 
446 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 since  15  years  prefixed  to  Dyn.  XIX  by  Manetho  really 
 belonged  to  Dyn.  XVIII,  into  wbich  they  were  reinserted 
 by  Ptolemy,  though  Manetho's  sum  for  Dyn.  XIX  was  at 
 the  same  time  retained.  Both  Eusebius  and  SynceUus  have 
 copied  from  Africanus  the  following  notice  placed,  where  it 
 cannot  possibly  stand,  at  the  end  of  Dyn.  XIX  :  — 
 
 Evrt  Tov  avTov  Esvrspov  tojulov  MavsOo)  ^aaCksts  [Euse- 
 bius has  ^/3'],  ST7)  ^iSpKa-''  that  is,  "  Total  in  Book  II.,  96 
 kings,  2121  years." 
 
 The  peculiarity  of  the  Book  ending  not  exactly  with  the 
 end  of  Dyn.  XVIII  of  the  original  Manetho,  but  after  the 
 23rd  year  of  his  Dyn.  XIX,  was  likely  to  cause  some  doubt 
 about  the  proper  place  for  inserting  the  notice  ;  and  this  ac- 
 counts for  its  being  postponed  till  after  the  end  of  the  dynasty, 
 instead  of  interrupting  it  at  its  beginning. 
 
 What  may  have  been  the  true  number  of  kings  added  to 
 the  (7  +  36?  + 6 +  17  =  )  66,  which  perhaps  was  the  num- 
 ber of  the  original  Manetho,  is  dijB&cult  to  guess,  the  sum 
 total  given  as  if  from  Africanus  being  96  according  to 
 Syncellus  and  92  according  to  Eusebius,  while  the  number 
 actually  resulting  from  the  text  is  (1  +  7^  60  +  (36  40)  + 
 6+:r>  i  (43  !-43  j  +17  =  )  285  ;  to  which  if  we  suppose  Afri- 
 canus to  have  added  for  Dyn.  XIX  7  more  kings,  whom  he 
 would  be  likely  to  add  if  he  put  the  sum  total  of  the  kings 
 and  of  the  years  of  the  book  after  the  completion  of  that 
 dynasty,  we  should  obtain  the  sum  of  (1  +284 +  7)=  [2]92, 
 agreeing  in  its  decads  and  units  with  that  given  by  Euse- 
 bius. Or,  if  instead  of  those  in  the  present  text  the  numbers 
 of  the  kings  were  in  any  garbled  edition  7  -  [-er  forf  ]26  + 
 [^r  for  or']  16  +  6^-22  +  3  +16,  they  might  make  up  the 
 96  of  Africanus,  with  an  average  length  of  22  years  to  each 
 reign,  intended  to  appear  reasonable  and  historical. 
 
 The  sum  given  for  the  years  will  be  made  out  thus: 
 160+453  +  184  + (259.  10°^.+ 24.  2^.  )+ 518  +  151  +(333i^ 
 15  )  +  23  =  (960^1  161  =)  2121. 
 
 TOMOS  r'  MANEea. 
 
 [Mfra  TO  Ky'  tTOQ  rrjQ  tavTov  (jaai-    y'.  ^ Afxev'scpOrjg  trr)  k'. 
 
 a.  "EsOMg  [af^aaiXevaev]  err)  sTfpa  Kt]'.]  a.  'Afinsvefirjg  s' •  [but  tO  suit  the 
 (3'.  'Pa\pdKr)g  trrj  sum  (t9'  read  «'.] 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 447 
 
 t'.  Oovojpt^f  0  nap'  'Ojju'ipcf  KaXovfitvog 
 n.6Xvl3oQ  ^AXKavSpag  dvi/p,  t^'' 
 ov  TO  "'iXiov  eaXw,  tTt] 
 
 'Onov  trr)  aO' '  (51+61  +  20 
 +  60+5  [+5] +7  =  209, 
 of  which  in  Book  iii.  were 
 contained  186.) 
 
 Avynarela  K' 
 BamXeujv  AwjttoXituiv  //3',  oi  IjSaai- 
 \sv(rav  Itt]  pXt, 
 
 Avj  aoreta  KA' 
 BaciXsaJV  Havirijjv  Z,'' 
 a,  ^fiivd-ng  irrj  k-'. 
 /3'.  "irova'cVTjQ  err)  p^' '  [but  the  sum 
 pX'  below  requires  pa,  the  read- 
 ing of  Eusebius.] 
 y.  ^e(pfpxfpr)c  eti]  c'. 
 S'.  *App,evu}(pBig  sTrj  9'. 
 a'.  '0(Tox<jijp  errj  <r'. 
 t'.  "^ivaxflQ  iTT)  9'. 
 r.  S^ovakvjjg  e-Tj  tc''  [but  the  sum 
 pX'  below  requires  Xt\  the  read- 
 ing of  Eusebius.] 
 
 'Opovi-))  pX'-  (26+41+4  + 
 9+6+9+35=130.) 
 
 Avyaareia  KB' 
 BovlSacTTiTiov  fSaaiXkuji'  9'' 
 a.  ^iffoyxig  art]  Ka. 
 (3^.  '0(rop9u}v  art}  la'. 
 
 i-  --l  
 
 5  .  ...  r  aXXoi  y  ,  aTT]  Ka  ,  \_k9  .] 
 
 <r'.  T!aKiXX(t}9ig  art]  ly  . 
 
 J7  .  .  .  .   r  dXXoi  y  ,  arr)  p(3  . 
 
 y.  . . .  J 
 
 'Opov  irr,  pK'  (21  +  15  +  29? 
 +  13+42=120.) 
 
 Avvaa-eia  KF' 
 Tavtraii'  fSaaiXacov  c' 
 a.  HarovfSnrtjg  aT)j  p  •  i(p'  o<\  'OX?'/i- 
 
 TTidg  iix^n  a. 
 /iT.  'Oaopx*^  eri]  r\  '  ov  'HpaKXsa  A/- 
 
 yvTTTioi  KaXovai. 
 y'.  ^app.ovg  aTr)  i. 
 d".  7jr/T  art]  Xa. 
 
 'Opov  i-T)  7r0''  (40  +  8  +  10  + 
 31=89.) 
 
 AvvaffTEia  KA' 
 Boyxopig  ^aiTTjg  arr)  t'.  (6  yrs.) 
 Africanus  here  notes  "  art] 
 i.e.  "  990  years." 
 
 AvvaffTtia  KE' 
 ki9i6iTMv  ^aaiXkiov  y' 
 a.  'S.afSaKujv  err]  t]'. 
 /3'.  "EavTJxog  v'log  art]  id", 
 y  .  lapKog  err]  it]'. 
 
 'Opov  aTi)  fi'-  (8  +  14+18  = 
 40.) 
 
 AvvaffTeia  KST' 
 SaiVuiv  (SaaiXacjv  9'' 
 a.  "Appapig   Ai9io^  arrj  tj3' •  [from 
 Eusebius;  not  in  the  copy  of 
 Syncellus.] 
 /3'.  ^Ta(j)ivdrrjg  art)  Z,'. 
 y'.  'iiax^^'i^g  (TT] 
 d'.  Nf^aw  aTT]  r] . 
 a'.  "'Urapp.'iTixog  Itt]  vv. 
 -'.  ^axao)  art]  t''  ovTog  (Africanus 
 adds)  aiXa  tijv  'lapovaaXijp,  Kai 
 'lfjdx«4  Tov  jSatJiXsa  aixpdXojTov 
 alg  Aly viTTOv  dm'iyaya. 
 '^dppov9ig  aTapog  fTr\  <r'. 
 T).  Ovdppig  aTT]  iQ' '  Trpoaacpvyov, 
 dXovarjg  vtto  'Aaavp'nov  'lapovaa- 
 X//ju,  01  riZv  \ovlaibJV  vtz6Xoi~oi.'\ 
 3'.  "AuMOig  a-T]  po. 
 
 'Opov  aTT)  pv\  Koi  pijvag  <r'. 
 [This  may  be  tbe  sum  of 
 the  original  ]Manetho  ;  but 
 Ptolemy  rounded  otf  frac- 
 tions, and  his  scheme  needs 
 here  the  12  years  of  Am- 
 meris.  So  his  sum  was  pro- 
 bably p^y'(12  +  7  +  6  +  8  + 
 54+6+  7  +  19  +  44=  ) 
 163 ;  for  Eusebius  gives  the 
 sum  163,  and  his  7th  reign 
 has,  in  the  place  of  units, 
 7,  instead  of  the  6  of  Syn- 
 cellus: but  he  has  made 
 changes  of  his  own.  If 
 Dyn.  XXYIhas  163,  Dyn. 
 XXIX  must  have  had  19 
 only  instead  of  20.] 
 Avvaareia  KZ' 
 Uapauiv  paaiXUov  r\'  [really  6'*] 
 a  .  Kapj3vaT]g  trtt  a'  Tt)g  aavrov  fiani- 
 
448 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Xfiag  Utpffun'  tl3a<Ti\(:V(Ttp  Aiyvir- 
 
 TOV  eTI] 
 
 (3'.  Aaptlog  'YtTTaaTrov  ert]  X-'. 
 y'.  Stp^i]Q  6  fiEyag  err]  ku. 
 d".  ^AprajSat'og  ixrjvag 
 f'.  ^ Apra^Sfj^ijg  ert]  fia, 
 <r'.  !Siiphjg  1X1] vag  (5'. 
 
 EoyOiavog  fiijvac  T. 
 1)'.  AapeTog  Sep^ov  errj  id' . 
 
 'Oixov  tri]  picd',  firjvag  d' '  (6-j- 
 
 36 -I- 2 1  +  7'" + 4 1  +  2""  +  7"* 
 
 +  19=124,  4"^.) 
 Ptolemy  would  not  reckon  any 
 odd  months,  but  made  a  sum  of  124 
 full  years,  even  if  he  did  not  correct 
 Manetho's  unchronological  trans- 
 position of  3  years  from  Artaxerxes 
 Mnemon,  who  is  not  named,  at  the 
 end  to  Cambyses  and  other  kings  of 
 the  dynasty. 
 
 Avyaareia  KH' 
 ^Af^vpraZog  'Eu'iTijg  trr)    '  [6  years, 
 which  are  only  concurrent,  reckoned 
 
 above  by  Manetho,  but  not  reckoned 
 separately  in  the  scheme  of  Pto- 
 lemy.] 
 
 ^vvaareia  K9' 
 Mft-^j/fTiot  i5a(jikCiQ  d'' 
 a.  'Ns^.epiTrig  '^'^^1 
 /3  .    Axiopig  iTjj  ly. 
 y.  ^afi^ovOig  'irog  a. 
 d'.  'Ne(pepiTr}g  fxrivag  d'. 
 
 'OfjLOV  tTT]  k',  firivag  (6  +  13  + 
 l+4'"=20.  4"'.)  But  here, 
 again,  1  year  and  the  odd 
 months  are  unchronologi- 
 cal, and  Ptolemy,  no  doubt, 
 reckoned  only  19  years  to 
 the  dynasty. 
 
 Avvaarela  A' 
 '2f(3ivi'VTu>v  3aaiXf(DV  y'' 
 a.  l>SeKTavii3rig  trr)  it]'. 
 8',  Tsijog  trr]  |3'. 
 y'.  'i^eKTavilirjg  frr)  iij'. 
 
 "OjuoD  trnXri'-  (18  +  2+18  = 
 38.) 
 
 in  compensation  of  others  omitted  I 
 
 Eusebius,  in  his  Chronicon,  adds  here  these  words:  — 
 "  Ochas  ^gyptum  tenuit,  Nectanebo  in  ^thiopiam  pulso, 
 in  quo  ^gyptiorum  regnum  destructum  est.  Hue  usque 
 Manetho."  And  here  should  be  placed  the  notice  and  sum  of 
 Africanus  for  Book  III.  of  Manetho,  as  named  and  inserted 
 in  his  own  scheme  and  compilation  by  Ptolemy  of  Mendes. 
 
 "  TaOro.  Tov  rpLTOv  Mavs6co;^^  and  '^'O/jlov  stt]  tov  rptrov 
 TOfMov  az^'."    Which  sum  may  be  made  out  thus: — 186  + 
 135  +  130  +  120  +  89  +  6+40+  163  +  124+19  +  38  =  1(50. 
 What  follows  is  Ptolemy's  own  addition : — 
 Avvaarsla  AA' 
 Hspacdv  PaaCKswv  7'* 
 a.  ^n')(ps  SL/co(TTQ)  STSt  Tr]9  avTov  ^aaCksias  Hspadyv  i/3a- 
 
 aiXsvasv  AlyviTTOv  stt]  f. 
 0.  ^Apay?  STT)  7'. 
 
 7'.   Aap£L09   STT}  S'. 
 
 'OfMOV  STT]  [restore  lj,  tov  8s]  y  t6/jlov  av  . 
 But  this  last  sum  of  1050  is  misplaced,  as  the  scheme  of 
 Ptolemy  requires  us  to  reckon  13  years  more  than  the  (2303 
 +  2121  +  1050  =  )  5474  of  the  three  books.    Africanus  then 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 449 
 
 adds: — '^Msxpi'  tmvBs  MavsOco'  [i.e.  the  work  of  Ptolemy, 
 containing  Manetho's  three  books  re-arranged];  ra  Bs  /ulsto, 
 
 So,  besides  the  two  cycles  of  the  Gods  for  the  old  world,  viz. 
 2556  +  9  +  341   H-  16  =  2922  years,  and 
 
 [341]  +  16  =  357  other  years  of  the 
 Demigods,  or  of  the  Demigods  and  Manes,  intended  to  com- 
 mence the  four  cycles,  or  5844  years,  of  the  existing  world, 
 (all  which  we  suppose  Ptolemy  to  have  placed  in  his  Intro- 
 duction,) the  "  Chronicle  "  of  the  kings  digested  by  him 
 from  Manetho's  three  books  in  xxxi  dynasties  and  (5844  — 
 357  =  )  5487  years,  has  now  been  made  out.  It  begins  with 
 that  year  which  in  the  Old  Chronicle,  and  in  all  other 
 schemes  earlier  than  this,  is  the  17th  of  Cronus,  or  of 
 human  time,  which  we  shall  call  the  Egyptian  a.m.  17,  and 
 it  ought  to  end  at  July  20,  A. D.  139 ;  but  by  the  artifice  of 
 cutting  olF  and  throwing  back  (483  — 13  =  )  470  years  of 
 the  Cycle  current  when  the  scheme  was  made,  it  is  made  to 
 end  apparently  at  Nov.  13,  in  B.C.  (345  —  13  =  )  332,  as  if 
 that  had  been  the  cyclical  epoch.  So  we  may  reckon,  as  we 
 please,  either  four  j95^M6/o-cycles,  beginning  470  years  before 
 the  true  cyclical  epoch  of  July  20,  B.C.  6702,  that  is,  from 
 Thoth  l,  =  Nov.  13,  in  B.C.  (6702  +  470+)  7172,  and  ending 
 470  years  before  the  true  cyclical  epoch  of  July  20,  in  a.d. 
 139,  that  is,  at  Nov.  13,  in  B.C.  332 ;  or  we  may  reckon  four 
 true  cycles,  beginning  34 1  Egyptian  years  before  human 
 time,  but  from  a  true  cyclical  epoch  in  B.C.  6702,  and  end- 
 ing apparently  at  Nov.  13,  in  B.C.  332,  but  really  at  the 
 true  cyclical  epoch  of  July  20,  a.d.  139,  470  years  being 
 thrown  up  and  given  to  kings  where  they  would  escape 
 notice,  so  as  to  avoid  the  absurdity  of  seeing  the  occupation 
 of  Egypt  by  Alexander  the  Great  depressed  to  a.d.  139. 
 
 The  summary  of  Ptolemy's  kings  made  out  in  English, 
 and  with  the  dates  according  to  the  Egyptian  years  of  the 
 world,  or  of  human  time,  and  according  to  our  own  reckoning 
 of  anticipated  Julian  or  Canicular  years  B.C.,  is  subjoined,  and 
 needs  no  further  explanations  than  these,— that  the  additions 
 made  by  Ptolemy  to  the  xxiii  dynasties  and  3555  years  of 
 Manetho's  kings  are  printed  in  red ;  and  that  in  consequence 
 
 G  G 
 
450  EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 of  the  Sothic  epochs  being  at  July  20,  and  in  the  anticipated 
 Julian  or  Canicular  years  B.C.  8622,  7162,  5702,4242,  2782, 
 and  1322,  while  the  Julian  year  begins  from  Jan.  1,  the 
 803rd  and  804th  Egyptian  years  of  each  cycle  begin  both  of 
 them  within  one  and  the  same  anticipated  Julian  or  Canicular 
 year.  Hence,  for  the  four  cycles  which  are  covered,  all  but 
 (  C^'^^]  +  16  =  )  357  years,  by  Ptolemy's  kings,  one  year  of 
 Egyptian  reckoning  will  seem  to  be  lost  in  the  anticipated 
 Julian  years  B.C.  4899,  3439,  1979,  and  519.  To  the  sums 
 containing  each  of  these  years  an  asterisk  is  attached.  This 
 being  borne  in  mind,  Ptolemy  has  of  kings,  from  Menes  :  — 
 
 In  Book  I. 
 
 From  Thoth  1,  in 
 
 No.  of 
 
 From 
 
 Canic.  yr.  B.C.  (5702 
 
 Dyn. 
 
 Kings. 
 
 Years.         Egs^tian  A.M.  17, 
 
 _  557  =  )  5345  to 
 
 8 
 
 Thinites   -   -   -  - 
 
 253           toendofA.M.  369 
 
 Thoth  1  in  5092  B.C. 
 
 II. 
 
 9 
 
 Thinites   -   -   -  - 
 
 302 
 
 571 
 
 4791* 
 
 in. 
 
 9 
 
 Memphites    -   -  - 
 
 214 
 
 785 
 
 4577 
 
 IV. 
 
 8 
 
 Memphites    -   -  - 
 
 V^i  t     •  ) 
 
 1069 
 
 4293 
 
 V. 
 
 9 
 
 Elephantinites  -  - 
 
 248 
 
 1317 
 
 4045 
 
 VI. 
 
 6 
 
 Memphites    -   -  - 
 
 1520 
 
 3845 
 
 VII. 
 
 70 
 
 Mei'iiphilea    -    -  - 
 
  70 days' ; 
 
 
 
 VIII. 
 
 27 
 
 Memphites    -   -  - 
 
 146 
 
 1666 
 
 3696 
 
 IX. 
 
 19 
 
 Heracleopolites  -  - 
 
 409 
 
 2075 
 
 3288* 
 
 X. 
 
 19 
 
 Heracleopolites  -  - 
 
 185 
 
 2260 
 
 3103 
 
 XI. 
 
 (16+1) 
 
 Diospolites    -   -  - 
 
 (43+16) 
 
 2319 
 
 3044 
 
 Sum,  (66+135 
 
 =).201  kings,  (1550+ 75' 
 
 ^  =)  2303  years. 
 
 In  Book 
 
 II. 
 
 XII. 
 
 Diospolites   -  -  - 
 
 2479 
 
 2884 
 
 xiu, 
 
 60 
 
 Diospolites    -   -  - 
 
 I  10 
 
 2922 
 2932 
 
 2431 
 2441 
 
 XIV. 
 
 184 
 
 3116 
 
 2247 
 
 3139 
 
 2224 
 
 XV. 
 
 6 
 
 Shepherds    -  -  -  | 
 
 259.10m.  \ 
 
 from  5033 
 
 from  B.C. 332 
 
 1.  2m.) 
 
 to  5294 
 
 to  B.C.  71 
 
 XVI. 
 
 32 
 
 Shepherds     -   -  - 
 
 (•209 
 i309 
 
 to  5503 
 3329 
 
 to  A. D.  139 
 1916* 
 
 XVII. 
 
 [43+43] 
 
 Shepherds     -    -  - 
 
 151 
 
 3599 
 
 1765 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 16 
 
 Diospolites   -   -  - 
 
 (333+15) 
 
 3947 
 
 1417 
 
 XIX. 
 
 [1+5] 
 
 Diospolites    -   -  - 
 
 370 
 
 1394 
 
 rSumofBooklI.,(66  -  ^'^  )=284 kings," 
 
 if 
 
 L 
 
 (960  ^nr.!)=2121  yrs.  . 
 
 4156 
 
 Then  in  Book  III 
 
 C186 
 
 1208 
 
 XX. 
 
 12 
 
 Diospolites    -   -  - 
 
 135 
 
 4291 
 
 1073 
 
 XXI. 
 
 7 
 
 Tanites    -    -   -  - 
 
 130 
 
 4421 
 
 943 
 
 XXII. 
 
 9 
 
 Bubastites     -   -  - 
 
 120 
 
 4541 
 
 823 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 4 
 
 Tanites     -   -   -  - 
 
 89 
 
 4630 
 
 734 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 4636 
 
 728 
 
 XXV. 
 
 3 
 
 Ethiopians    -   -  - 
 
 40 
 
 4676 
 
 688 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 9 
 
 (15&t^  ) 
 
 4839 
 
 525 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 8 
 
 Persians    -    -   -  - 
 
 124  [4<a.3 
 
 4963 
 
 402* 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 1 
 
 [6] 
 
 XXIX. 
 
 4 
 
 Meudesian^  '       _  - 
 
 19  [+1.4n3.] 
 
 4982 
 
 383 
 
 XXX. 
 
 3 
 
 Sebennytes    -   -  - 
 
 38 
 
 5020 
 
 345 
 
 Sum,  66  kings,  (1045-^   )    =  1050  years. 
 
 XXXI. 
 
 3 
 
 Persians  
 
 5033 
 
 332 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 451 
 
 Those  allusions  or  statements  of  Africanus  from  which  the 
 scheme  now  before  the  reader  has  been  reconstructed,  are  no 
 doubt  only  meagre,  and  the  materials  supplied  by  his  lists 
 for  the  details  of  the  reconstruction  are  derived  from  two  or 
 more  sources  mixed  together,  and  sometimes  only  doubtfully 
 distinguishable.  It  is  true  that  their  inconsistencies  and 
 ambiguities  are  to  some  extent  explainable  by  the  hypothesis 
 that  Ptolemy,  while  professing  to  compile  his  chronicle  from 
 the  larger  work  of  Manetho,  stated  and  reproduced  unal- 
 tered, in  citations  and  extracts,  some  part  of  those  materials 
 which  he  used  with  alterations  in  the  construction  of  his 
 own  scheme.  This  hypothesis  will  account  for  the  fact  that 
 Africanus  found,  in  the  book  which  he  followed,  both  a 
 notice  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  and  the  full  unreduced  sums 
 of  years  belonging  to  the  seven  mythological  groups  of  the 
 original  Manetho.  It  will  account  for  the  division  of  the 
 lists  of  kings  into  three  books  under  the  name  of  Manetho, 
 and  for  all  the  incidental  confusion  thence  arising,  both  as 
 to  the  works  themselves  and  their  authors,  and  as  to  the  de- 
 tails of  their  contents.  It  will  account  very  well  for  such 
 double  notices  as  are  now  given  by  Eusebius  and  Syncellus ; 
 once,  for  instance,  after  Dyn.  XXX,  we  read  "  Hue  usque 
 Manetho ;  "  and  again  after  Dyn.  XXXI,  "  Cuncta  hcec  e 
 Manethonis  tertio  WbroT  It  may  even  account  for  such  an 
 inconsistency  as  this,  that  in  the  text  under  Dyn.  YI  Phiops 
 is  said  to  have  reigned  from  the  age  of  six  years  "  to  that 
 of  a  hundred,  while  in  the  figures  attached  for  his  reign, 
 and  in  the  sum  of  the  dynasty,  the  whole  hundred  years 
 of  his  life  are  reckoned  as  a  reign;  for  the  notice  might 
 have  been  retained,  as  if  through  inattention,  from  the  ori- 
 ginal Manetho ;  and  the  list  of  Eratosthenes  had  already 
 prepared  the  way  for  Ptolemy  to  treat  the  whole  life  of 
 Phiops  as  one  reign.  But  in  the  lists  of  Africanus  there  is  a 
 mixture  of  figures  and  sums  proper  to  the  scheme  of  the 
 original  Manetho,  and  needed  by  it,  but  incompatible  with 
 the  scheme  of  Ptolemy  (one  may  instance  the  sums  of  277 
 years  given  for  Dyn.  IV,  and  150.6°^.  for  Dyn.  XXVI), 
 with  others  proper  to  the  scheme  of  Ptolemy,  but  incom- 
 patible with  that  of  the  original  Manetho  (instances  of  which 
 
 G  G  2 
 
452 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 are  the  sums  of  284  years  made  by  adding  up  tlie  reigns 
 enumerated  for  Dyn.  IV,  that  of  203  given  for  Dyn.  VI, 
 and  that  of  284  given  for  Dyn.  XV).  And  this  mixture  of 
 the  two  schemes  cannot  be  explained  in  the  same  way ;  for 
 Ptolemy  cannot  well  be  supposed  to  have  exhibited  in  detail 
 the  lists  of  the  original  Manetho  unaltered,  and  side  by  side 
 as  it  were  with  them  the  same  lists  as  altered  and  added  to 
 by  himself.  We  are  driven  therefore  to  suppose  (since 
 there  is  no  sign  that  either  Eusebius  knew  anything  of 
 Manetho  except  through  Africanus  or  Josephus,  or  Afri- 
 canus  except  through  that  one  edition  or  compilation  which 
 he  used,  and  which  we  ascribe  to  Ptolemy),  that  Ptolemy's 
 work  had  already,  before  the  time  of  Africanus,  been  al- 
 tered in  places  by  transcribers,  who,  having  seen,  or  having 
 before  them,  the  original  work  of  Manetho,  or  other  com- 
 pilations or  extracts  made  from  it  not  identical  with  that  of 
 Ptolemy,  and  seeing  Ptolemy's  lists  of  kings  to  be  profes- 
 sedly a  chronicle  extracted  from  the  three  books  of  Manetho, 
 thought  that  they  were  merely  correcting  errors  and  cor- 
 ruptions of  the  text  when  they  substituted  anywhere  for  its 
 figures  or  sums  others  which  they  knew  to  be  from  the  ori- 
 ginal source. 
 
 Owing  to  the  insufficiency  of  our  positive  information 
 respecting  this  scheme  and  its  author,  and  the  uncertainty 
 sometimes  attaching  to  the  materials  used  in  reconstructing 
 it,  a  number  of  conclusions  involved  in  our  attempted  recon- 
 struction may  seem  open  to  suspicion  or  objection ;  especially 
 at  first  sight,  and  so  long  as  they  are  considered  only  se- 
 parately. Some  assumptions  may  seem  altogether  arbitrary; 
 others,  even  though  probable  in  themselves,  are  unproved ; 
 while  in  some  cases  some  other  method  than  that  followed 
 may  appear  to  be  equally  admissible  or  preferable. 
 
 Even  though  it  be  admitted  that  Ptolemy  or  some  other 
 author  took  for  the  basis  of  his  scheme  the  principle  of 
 reduction,  applied  this  method  to  the  myriads  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle, and  exhibited  a  sum  total  of  8000  or  9000  years,  it 
 may  not  be  perceived  at  once  that  there  are  sufficient 
 grounds  for  asserting  that  Ptolemy,  or  the  unknown  author 
 alluded  to,  left  16  years,  and  16  only,  of  the  2922  of  the  xiii 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 453 
 
 Gods  of  the  Chronicle,  that  is,  the  first  16  of  its  human 
 time,  untransferred  to  kings ;  while  his  addition  to  Mane- 
 tho's  3555  years  of  kings  consisted  of  precisely  1919  years 
 above  and  13  below  Nectanebo,  making  in  all  1932  years. 
 
 Or,  supposing  this  general  outline  of  the  scheme  to  be 
 admitted,  at  least  as  an  hypothesis,  it  may  seem  to  need  ex- 
 planation why  the  sum  of  2300  years  (the  common  reading) 
 for  the  years  of  the  dynasties  and  kings  in  Book  I.  should 
 be  departed  from,  and  2303  substituted,  while  the  sums  of 
 2121  and  1050  years  given  for  Books  11.  and  IIL,  are  re- 
 spected and  retained;  though  it  was  possible  to  retain  and 
 exhibit  also  the  sum  of  2300  for  Book  I.  by  cutting  off  the 
 two  units  from  the  reign  of  Menes,  and  a  third  unit  from 
 another  reign  of  the  same  dynasty,  justification  for  which 
 might  be  obtained  from  variants  offered  by  Eusebius.  And 
 if  this  had  been  done,  Eusebius,  as  if  in  compensation, 
 would  have  justified  us  also  in  giving  16  instead  of  13  years 
 to  Dyn.  XXXI. 
 
 If  one  casts  an  eye  over  the  dynasties  in  detail,  on  coming 
 to  Dyn.  lY,  it  may  seem  at  first  sight  arbitrary  to  adopt  the 
 sum  of  284  made  by  adding  up  the  reigns  as  they  stand  in 
 the  present  text  of  Syncellus,  rather  than  the  sum  given, 
 which  is  274,  or  that  found  by  Syncellus,  which  was  277. 
 As  regards  Dyn.  VIII  a  less  plausible  objection  may  occur, 
 if  any  one  think  that  the  aum  found  by  Syncellus,  which 
 was  142,  was  rather  to  be  trusted  than  the  sum  of  146  as 
 merely  given  for  the  dynasty  and  unchecked  by  any  enume- 
 ration of  names  and  reigns. 
 
 On  Dyn.  XII  a  more  important  question  may  be  raised. 
 For  if,  it  may  be  said,  in  spite  of  our  general  distrust  of 
 Eusebius,  we  have  been  unable  to  fill  up  the  outline  of 
 Ptolemy's  scheme  without  the  assistance  of  variants  supplied 
 by  him,  (for  in  Dyn.  XX YI  we  have  taken  the  name  of 
 Ammeris  with  12  years,  and  one  other  year  besides,  from 
 the  lists  of  Eusebius,)  why  did  we  not  rather  notice  another 
 reading  afforded  by  Eusebius  much  earlier,  in  Dyn.  XII, 
 where  there  is  so  much  less  reason  to  suspect  him  of  altering 
 for  purposes  of  his  own  ?  For  in  Dyn.  XII  the  5th  king^ 
 Amenemhe  IIL,  whose  45th  year  is  marked  on  the  monu- 
 
 G  G  3 
 
454  EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 ments,  and  to  whom  the  list  of  Eratosthenes  gives  43  years, 
 has  according  to  Manetho,  in  the  lists  of  Africanus  and 
 Syncellus,  only  8  years ;  and  this  by  no  mere  error  of  the 
 text ;  as  the  sum  given  for  the  dynasty,  and  made  out  by 
 the  reigns,  is  only  160  years.  But  in  the  lists  as  given  by 
 Eusebius  the  last  three  reigns  of  Dyn.  XII  have  together 
 42  years,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  to  say  that  Amenemhe 
 III.  has  to  himself  30  instead  of  8  years,  22  more  than  in 
 the  lists  of  Africanus.  Now  if  this  reading  had  been 
 adopted  and  ascribed  to  Ptolemy,  so  that  Dyn.  XII  should 
 have  had  182  instead  of  160  years,  it  might  have  been 
 assumed  that  his  sums  for  Dyn.  XVIII  and  Dyn.  XIX 
 were  333  and  209,  identical  with  those  of  Manetho ;  and  so 
 the  2121  years  of  Book  II.  of  the  Manetho  of  Ptolemy 
 would  have  been  completed  with  the  16th  instead  of  the 
 23rd  year  of  Dyn.  XIX;  thus:  182+453  4-184  +  284+518 
 +  151+333  +  16  =  2121.  And  in  Book  III.  the  1050  years 
 would  have  been  made  out  without  any  necessity  of  again 
 having  recourse  to  Eusebius  to  supply  years  to  be  added  to 
 Dyn.  XXVI.  Only,  it  is  true,  the  odd  months  of  Manetho's 
 Dynasties  XXVI  and  XXVII,  and  one  unchronological 
 year  as  well  as  the  odd  months  of  his  Dyn.  XXIX,  would 
 have  been  suppressed  as  unsuited  to  the  method  of  Ptolemy, 
 while  the  6  years  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XXVIII,  equally  un- 
 chronological, would  have  been  retained  and  reckoned.  (For 
 193  +  135  +  130+120  +  89  +  6  +  40  +  150  +  124  +  6  +  19  +  38 
 make  1050.)  A  further  recommendation  of  this  method 
 might  be  suggested  by  the  circumstance,  that  if  it  had  been 
 followed  the  synchronism  of  Petubast  (the  first  king  of  Ma- 
 netho's Dyn.  XXIII)  with  the  commencement  of  the  Olym- 
 piads would  have  been  just  exhibited ;  whereas,  if  Ptolemy's 
 scheme  was  really  such  as  we  have  made  it  out  for  him,  the 
 40  years  of  Petubast  would  seem  to  end  in  the  7th  year 
 before  the  first  Olympiad.  For  if  from  B.C.  345  we  go  back 
 38  +  19  +  6  +  124  +  150  +  40  +  6  +  89  Egyptian  years,  they 
 give  us  March  16,  B.C.  816,  for  the  head  of  Dyn.  XXIII  and 
 the  accession  of  Petubast,  if  antedated  so  as  to  commence 
 from  Thoth  1.  In  that  case  his  40th  year  would  end  on  the 
 eve  of  Thoth  1,  March  6,  b.  c.  776,  the  Olympiads  com- 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 455 
 
 mencing  in  July,  above  4  months  later,  in  the  same  year. 
 But  the  40th  year  of  Petubast,  as  reckoned  from  his  actual 
 accession,  might  fairly  be  understood  to  end  some  months 
 later,  so  as  to  include  the  Olympic  era.  But  with  that  other 
 method  which  we  have  preferred,  38  +  19  +  124  +  163  +  40  + 
 6  +  89  years  reckoned  from  B.C.  345,  give  March  18,  B.C. 
 823,  for  the  head  of  Dyn.  XXIII  and  the  accession  of  Petu- 
 bast as  antedated  from  Thoth  1 ;  and  so  his  40th  year  would 
 end  in  B.C.  (823—40  =  )  783. 
 
 Again,  as  regards  Dyn.  XVIII,  it  may  be  objected  that 
 the  sum  of  348  years  given  to  it  by  us  is  justified  neither  by 
 the  sum  of  the  original  Manetho,  known  from  Josephus  to 
 have  been  333,  nor  by  the  sum  given  for  the  dynasty  in  the 
 lists  of  Africanus  as  copied  by  Syncellus,  for  this  is  only 
 263  (to  say  nothing  here  of  Eusebius) ;  nor,  lastly,  by  the 
 sum  obtainable  from  the  reigns  as  they  stand  in  the  same  lists 
 of  Africanus,  for  this  sum  would  be  259.  But  it  is  manifest 
 that  the  figures  for  the  reign  of  Amosis,  the  head  of  this 
 dynasty,  and  both  the  name  and  the  figures  of  the  last  reign 
 but  one,  have  been  dropped  out  from  the  lists  of  Africanus  in 
 the  copy  of  Syncellus;  and,  when  25  and  66  years  are 
 restored  for  these  two  reigns,  the  sum  exhibited  is  raised  to 
 (259  +  25  +  66  =  )  350  years,  and  then  by  a  slight  and  neces- 
 sary correction  of  two  reigns  it  becomes  348. 
 
 But  if  348  were  the  sum  of  Dyn.  XVIII,  this  would  seem 
 to  imply  as  a  consequence  that  the  sum  of  Dyn.  XIX  also 
 should  be  reduced  from  the  209  years  of  Manetho  to  194, 
 the  sum  of  the  Chronicle ;  since  the  first  15  years  prefixed 
 to  Dyn.  XIX  by  Manetho  have  been  shown  to  be  abstracted 
 and  transposed  by  him  from  Dyn.  XVIII,  to  which  in  the 
 Chronicle  they  belong.  Else,  if  Ptolemy  not  only  retains 
 uncorrected  Manetho's  unchronological  suppressions  and 
 compensations,  but  even  inserts  fresh  unchronological  sums 
 of  his  own,  what  is  to  be  said  of  that  reputation  for  ^*  exact- 
 ness "  which  is  ascribed  to  him  by  Africanus  and  by  others  ? 
 
 What  has  been  said  above  on  Dyn.  XII  has  anticipated 
 for  the  most  part  such  objections  as  may  be  excited  by 
 finding  in  Dyn.  XXVI  Manetho's  sum  of  150  years  and  6 
 months  filled  up  to  151  years,  and  further  increased  to  the 
 
 G  G  4 
 
456 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 sum  of  163  by  an  additional  reign  obtained  from  the  lists  of 
 Eusebius.  The  synchronism  of  Petubast  with  the  first 
 Olympiad,  which  may  have  been  given  first  by  Manetho,  but 
 which  at  any  rate  seems  to  have  been  retained  by  Ptolemy, 
 cannot  with  this  arrangement  be  exhibited.  And  either,  it 
 may  be  said,  Ptolemy  would  retain  all,  or,  to  be  consistent 
 with  himself,  he  would  suppress  all  the  unchronological  years 
 and  odd  months  of  Manetho.  In  the  latter  case  only  the 
 omission  of  Psammicherites,  with  his  6  months,  at  the  end 
 of  Dyn.  XXYI  would  be  justifiable;  but  then  the  reigns 
 of  Dynasties  XXVII  and  XXIX  also  should  be  recast, 
 so  as  to  exhibit  124  and  19  years  respectively,  without 
 fractions ;  and  Dyn.  XXVIII  with  its  6  years  ought  to  be 
 suppressed  altogether,  unless  some  of  the  years  of  Dyn. 
 XXVII  were  cut  off  to  make  room  for  it,  as  seems  to  be 
 attempted  by  Eusebius.  And,  even  if  all  these  changes 
 could  be  made  with  less  violence  than  is  possible,  there 
 would  still  remain  other  unchronological  years  above,  need- 
 ing, not  indeed  to  be  cut  off  like  those  below,  but  to  be 
 transposed  to  their  true  places,  if  "  exactness  "  were  really 
 aimed  after.  But  as  it  is  unlikely  that  Ptolemy  would  sup- 
 press Dyn.  XXVIII  so  as  to  disarrange  the  numbering  of 
 the  later  dynasties,  it  is  rather  to  be  supposed  that  its  six 
 years  entered  into  his  scheme  and  were  reckoned,  and  that, 
 if  we  have  made  so  many  other  years  as  to  be  obliged  to 
 exclude  them,  at  least  from  reckoning,  the  fault  is  probably 
 with  ourselves. 
 
 Lastly,  as  regards  Dyn.  XXXI :  —  Why,  it  may  be 
 asked,  is  this  dynasty  to  be  reckoned  separately,  after  the 
 completion  of  the  sum  of  1050  years  given  for  Book  III., 
 when  yet  the  notice  respecting  the  end  of  Book  III.  and  the 
 sum  of  1050  years  is  put,  both  by  Eusebius  and  by  Syncellus, 
 not  after  Dyn.  XXX,  but  after  Dyn.  XXXI,  and  so,  no 
 doubt,  was  put  also  by  Africanus  ? 
 
 The  above  and  other  similar  objections  and  suspicions 
 which  are  likely  to  present  themselves,  some  or  other  of  them, 
 to  the  reader  in  the  first  instance,  need  not  perhaps  to  be 
 discussed  further,  nor  to  be  all  replied  to  at  length,  because 
 answers  will  occur  of  themselves  after  a  while  to  any  one 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 457 
 
 who  considers  each  point  not  only  as  if  it  stood  alone,  but  in 
 its  connection  with  others,  and  with  the  general  reconstruc- 
 tion of  the  scheme.  But  there  are  one  or  two  other  synchro- 
 nisms, besides  that  of  Petubast  and  the  first  Olympiad, 
 Avhich  seem  to  have  been  indicated  by  Ptolemy,  and  which, 
 whether  they  were  retained  from  the  original  Manetho  or 
 introduced  by  Ptolemy  himself,  deserve  a  more  particular 
 attention. 
 
 As  regards  the  synchronism  of  Petubast,  it  makes  little 
 against  the  method  we  have  preferred  that  it  fails  to  exhi- 
 bit it  for  Ptolemy,  if  it  be  allowed  that  Ptolemy  in  all  pro- 
 bability did  not  originate  but  merely  retained  the  notice  of 
 it  from  Manetho ;  for  Manetho,  when  his  lists  are  digested 
 into  a  series  apparently  chronological,  does  not  himself 
 exhibit  this  synchronism.  If  we  go  up  from  B.C.  345,  ac- 
 cording to  the  lists  of  Manetho,  38  +  20.  4"^.  +  6  +  124.  4°^.  + 
 150.  6°^.  +  40  +  6  +  89  years,  to  the  head  of  Dyn.  XXIII,  we 
 arrive  at  B.C.  818  ;  and  if  we  reckon  downwards  from  thence 
 40  years  for  the  reign  of  Petubast,  we  find  it  to  end  in  B.C. 
 778,  two  years  before  the  Olympic  era.  In  order  to  bring  it 
 down  low  enough  to  include  the  summer  of  B.C.  776  (or 
 777),  one  must  omit  in  reckoning  the  8  unchronological  years 
 inserted  by  Manetho  in  his  Dynasties  XXYI,  XXVII, 
 XXYIII,  and  XXIX;  and  even  then  the  synchronism 
 will  be  exhibited  only  in  appearance ;  since  we  are  as  far  as 
 ever  from  a  true  chronological  reckoning  if  we  only  omit  to 
 reckon  Manetho's  unchronological  additions,  unless  we  also 
 reinsert  those  years  which  he  has  unchronologically  omitted ; 
 and  when  this  is  done,  Petubast  will  rise  up  again  far  above 
 the  Olympic  era.  For  38  +  19  +  124  +177  +  44  +  44  +19 
 years  (reckoned  upwards  from  B.C.  345,  according  to  the 
 scale  of  the  Chronicle  as  if  equivalent  to  Manetho's  lists 
 between  Nectanebo  and  Petubast),  take  us  to  B.C.  810 
 (which  is  no  less  than  34  years  above  the  first  Olympiad)  for 
 the  death  of  Petubast  and  the  accession  of  Osorchon.  Close 
 accuracy  then  is  not  to  be  looked  for  in  the  lists  when  Ma- 
 netho is  the  authority  ;  but  any  such  statement  as  this,  which 
 was  taken  probably  from  the  text  of  Manetho's  narrative, 
 not  from  any  portion  of  hieratic  lists  such  as  he  interposed  at 
 
458 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 intervals,  is  to  be  considered  by  itself ;  and,  so  considered,  it 
 may  very  likely  turn  out  to  be  true.  Indeed  we  have  al- 
 ready seen  (at  p.  246)  that  the  name  of  Petubast  is  itself 
 transposed  by  Manetho  so  as  to  seem  to  stand  above  the  two 
 •reigns  of  Osorchon  and  Psammous,  identifiable  with  the 
 two  generations  of  Dyn.  XXIII  of  the  Chronicle,  while 
 the  Chronicle  by  its  number  of  three  generations,  instead  of 
 one  only,  and  44  instead  of  only  6  years  for  Dyn.  XXIV 
 implies  that  Petubast  from  above  and  Zet  or  Technatis  from 
 below  are  the  first  and  second,  and  Bocchoris  the  third  and 
 last  king  of  that  Tanite  dynasty.  But  as  its  44  years  com- 
 menced in  B.C.  790,  the  Olympic  era  is  at  once  seen  to 
 belong  to  the  beginning  of  the  15  th  year  of  Petubast,  and 
 the  synchronism  asserted  in  Manetho's  narrative,  and  copied 
 thence  into  Ptolemy's  lists,  is  justified  as  true  and  historical, 
 though  to  a  Greek,  who  did  not  take  it  simply  upon  trust,  it 
 would  appear  to  be  irreconcilable  with  the  lists,  unless  he 
 knew  that  they  contained  transpositions.  Africanus  seems 
 to  have  had  some  idea  of  this  truth,  to  judge  from  a  note 
 attached  by  him  to  Dyn.  XXIY,  the  first  king  of  which 
 was  really  Petubast,  as  has  been  said  above,  with  two  suc- 
 cessors, but  which  in  the  lists  of  Africanus  has  only  one 
 king,  Bocchoris,  and  only  6  years.  For  Africanus  has  marked 
 as  a  note  or  calculation  at  this  dynasty  990  years,"  an  in- 
 dication probably  that  he  was  seeking  for  the  synchronism 
 of  Petubast  and  the  Olympic  era,  and  that  he  made  990 
 years  from  the  date  at  which  he  was  writing  up  to  that  to 
 which  he  meant  his  memorandum  to  be  attached.  But  from 
 B.C.  776,  990  years  would  take  us  to  a.d.  213  for  the  date  of 
 Africanus'  writing  ;  or,  if  we  take  the  year  a.d.  221  as  the 
 probable  date  of  his  writing,  990  years  would  take  as  up  to 
 B.C.  770  in  the  20th  year  of  Petubast  and  of  Dyn.  XXIV 
 according  to  the  Chronicle.  So  then,  in  order  to  suit 
 exactly  the  Olympic  era,  either  Africanus  should  have 
 marked  ^^^r'  (996)  instead  of  990,  or  he  should  be  supposed 
 to  have  been  already  writing  in  a.d.  213. 
 
 Asain,  there  is  a  notice  connected  in  the  lists  of  Afri- 
 canus  with  the  last  name  of  Dyn.  XIX,  Tliouoris,  that  "  he 
 is  the  Polybus  of  Homer,  in  whose  time  Troy  was  taken." 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 459 
 
 This  notice  too,  like  the  last,  may  probably  be  from  the 
 original  Manetho,  and  only  retained  by  Ptolemy.    In  any 
 case  it  offers  no  difficulty.  For,  on  the  one  hand,  it  would  be 
 almost  a  matter  of  course  that  Manetho  should  put  the 
 taking  of  Troy  somewhat  higher  then  B.C.  1183,  the  date 
 which  afterwards  prevailed  through  the  influence  of  Erato- 
 sthenes ;  while  Ptolemy,  if  the  synchronism  had  originated 
 with  him,  might  have  been  likely  to  assign  rather  the  later 
 date.    And  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  as  the  choice  of  a  name 
 to  identify  with  Polybus  may  have  weighed  somewhat,  it 
 would  be  nothing  wonderful  if  either  Manetho,  for  some 
 reason  connected  with  the  sound  of  a  name,  should  have  as- 
 signed a  date  later  by  20  or  30  years  than  that  which  he  had 
 found  in  Herodotus  (i.  e.  than  B.C.  1250  ?),  or  Ptolemy  a  date 
 20  or  30  years  earlier  than  that  to  which  the  taking  of  Troy 
 had  been  brought  down  by  Eratosthenes.    The  chronolo- 
 gical dislocations  of  Manetho  below  Dyn.  XIX  compensating 
 one  another  within  a  little,  his  apparent  date  for  the  end  of 
 Dyn.  XIX  is  in  B.C.  1203,  only  3  years  short  of  that  of  the 
 Chronicle,  which  is  in  b.  c.  1206  ;  and  that  of  Ptolemy, 
 according  to  our  reconstruction,  is  in  B.C.  1207,  one  year 
 above  the  date  of  the  Chronicle.    So  there  is  no  great  dif- 
 ference. And  Manetho's  apparent  date  for  Troy,  if  Thouoris 
 reigned  7  years  ending  with  the  end  of  the  dynasty,  would 
 be  in  one  of  the  seven  years  between  B.C.  1210  and  B.C. 
 1203;  that  of  Ptolemy  would  be  in  one  of  the  seven  years 
 between  B.C.  1214  and  B.C.  1207;  while,  according  to  the 
 true  chronology  of  the  Chronicle,  it  should  be  in  one  of  the 
 seven  years  between  B.C.  1213  and  1206;  though  the  king 
 named  Thouoris  in  the  lists  with  the  short  reign  of  7  years 
 does  not  appear  to  have  reigned  historically  during  the  last 
 7  years  of  the  dynasty ;  but  rather  he  seems  to  have  been 
 associated  during  7  years  with  the  king  named  next  before 
 him  in  the  lists,  who  also  survived  him  and  reigned  in  all 
 not  less  than  17  years.    So,  if  the  synchronism  were  meant 
 to  be  attached  strictly  and  inseparably  to  one  of  the  seven 
 years  of  Thouoris,  it  should  be  carried  back  in  all  pro- 
 bability to  some  year  of  the  seven  lying  between  Thoth  1  in 
 B.C.  (1206  +  17  =  )  1223,  and  B.C.  1216.    But  perhaps  in 
 
460 
 
 EGYPTIAJSr  CHRONICLES. 
 
 this  case  the  year  intended  was  connected  only  with  the 
 apparent  reign  and  with  the  garbled  name  of  Thouoris,  and 
 was  in  itself  one  of  the  last  seven  years  of  the  dynasty,  lying 
 between  B.C.  1213  and  B.C.  1206  according  to  the  Chronicle, 
 but  according  to  Ptolemy's  apparent  chronology  between 
 B.C.  1214  and  B.C.  1207,  the  last  year  of  Thouoris  beginning 
 in  B.C.  1208. 
 
 And  going  back  from  B.C.  1203  or  1207,  that  is,  from  the 
 apparent  end  of  Dyn.  XIX  of  jManetho  or  of  Ptolemy, 
 209  years  to  the  apparent  head  of  Dyn.  XIX,  where  we 
 know  from  Josephus  that  Manetho  put  ostensibly  the  syn- 
 chronism of  his  Armais  or  Danaus,  and  his  Sethos-Rameses 
 ov  ^gyptus,  we  should  obtain  either  B.C.  1412  or  B.C.  1416, 
 with  an  interval  of  about  200  years  for  the  eight  Greek 
 o^enerations  reckoned  between  the  flight  of  Danaus  and 
 Troy,  while  the  common  Greek  reckoning  gave  to  this  in- 
 terval, 316  years.  Here  again  it  is  probable  that  the  ori- 
 ginal IManetho,  whose  Sethos-Pameses  is  only  a  mythical 
 personage,  and  whose  first  15  years  prefixed  to  Dyn.  XIX 
 are  unchronological,  alluded  in  his  text  under  the  surface 
 and  indirectly  to  Rameses  II.,  Miammous,  and  to  a  brother 
 Armais  or  Pameses,  whom  that  king  really  left  to  govern 
 Egypt  for  some  years,  while  he  was  himself  absent  and  pur- 
 suing his  conquests  in  Asia.  And  Ptolemy  may  have  done 
 in  this  case  as  he  did  in  that  of  Petubast,  retaining  from 
 Manetho  a  synchronism  not  justified  by  the  lists,  and  under- 
 standing with  Manetho  what  historical  persons  and  events 
 vv^ere  really  pointed  at.  That  Ptolemy  did  thus  retain  the 
 synchronism  at  the  head  of  Dyn.  XIX  by  implication,  if 
 not  expressly,  is  rendered  probable  by  the  changes  he  has 
 made  in  INIanetho's  first  two  reigns  of  this  dynasty,  cutting 
 off  8  from  that  of  Sethos,  as  if  in  allusion  to  the  8  years  of 
 Armais,  and  13  from  the  first  and  second  together,  as  if  in 
 allusion  to  the  13  of  the  exile  of  Sethos  and  his  father  Ame- 
 noph  in  Ethiopia.  And  besides,  as  we  shall  see  presently, 
 that  place  in  the  lists  where  Manetho  had  put  the  syn- 
 chronism, that  is  about  B.C.  1400,  suited  well  Ptolemy's 
 Greek  chronology  as  a  midule  point  between  Inachus  and 
 Troy,  whereas  the  historical  date  alluded  to  by  Manetho 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 461 
 
 and  understood  by  Ptolemy,  which  was  86  years  higher, 
 about  B.C.  1486,  would  have  been  quite  incompatible  with 
 Ptolemy's  Greek  chronology  for  Inachus.  This  is  the  more 
 to  be  considered  because  Eusebius  has  actually  attached  the 
 synchronism  to  that  part  of  Dyn.  XVIII  really  alluded  to  by 
 Manetho,  identifying  Rameses  11. ,  Miarmnous,  son  of  Sethos 
 I.,  with  j^gyptus,  and  Armessou^  who  stands  next  but  one 
 before  him  in  Manetho's  lists,  and  who  really  is  his  grand- 
 father, with  his  "  brother  Armais^''  and  with  Danaus.  But 
 this  synchronism  of  Eusebius  is  probably  no  more  copied 
 from  Ptolemy,  that  is,  from  the  Manetho  of  Africanus,  than 
 that  of  Achencheres  and  Moses,  which  Eusebius  also  gives 
 just  before,  and  which,  as  Syncellus  remarks,  is  peculiar  to 
 himself,  and  asserted  only  because  it  suits  his  own  system. 
 So  according  to  the  synchronism  ostensibly  asserted  for 
 ^gyptus  and  Danaus  at  the  head  of  Dyn.  XIX,  there  would 
 be  by  the  lists  both  of  Manetho  and  of  Ptolemy,  apparently, 
 (B.C.  1203  or  1207,  to  B.C.  1412  or  1416)  209  years  between 
 Danaus  and  Troy ;  but  according  to  the  chronology  under- 
 stood and  alluded  to  by  Manetho,  there  would  be  (b.c.  1486 
 —  1212  =  )  274  years  between  Danaus  and  Troy,  giving  an 
 average  length  of  34 1  years  to  the  eight  Greek  generations. 
 
 Lastly,  there  is  a  synchronism  which  is  known  with  cer- 
 tainty to  have  been  given  by  Ptolemy,  being  repeatedly 
 quoted  as  from  him,  and  being  found  also  in  the  lists  of 
 Africanus,  but  which  we  have  no  reason  for  ascribino;  to 
 the  original  Manetho,  viz.,  that  of  Amosis,  the  founder  of 
 Dyn.  XVIII,  and  of  Moses  and  the  Exodus  with  Inachus, 
 the  first  king  of  Argos.  The  apparent  date  for  the  acces- 
 sion of  Amosis  and  the  expulsion  of  the  Shepherds,  with 
 whom  Manetho,  and  Ptolemy  as  it  seems  after  him,  pur- 
 posely confounded  the  Hebrews,  is  according  to  Manetho  in 
 B.C.  (1412  +  333  =  )  1745;  according  to  Ptolemy,  in  B.C. 
 (1416  +  348  =  )1764;  according  to  the  true  chronology, 
 understood  by  both,  in  B.C.  (1400  +  348  =  )  1748.  But 
 between  Troy  and  Inachus  the  Greeks  commonly  reckoned 
 in  the  time  of  Manetho  xvii  generations ;  viz.  ix  to  the 
 flight  of  Danaus,  thus ;  —  Inachus  with  50  years,  +  Phoroneus 
 60, -f  Apis  35,  + Argus  70,H-Criasus  54,  +  Phorbas  35, -f- 
 
462 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Triopas  46,  +  Crotopus  21,  +  Sthenelus  11,  making  382 
 years ;  and  then  vii  more  to  the  taking  of  Troy,  thus :  — 
 Danaus  58,  +  Lyncens  35,  +  Abis  37,  +  Proetus  17,  +  Acri- 
 sius  33,  +  Pelops  53,  +  Atreus  65,  +  Agamemnon  1 8  ;  making 
 316  years.  So  to  the  whole  xvii  generations  they  gave  a 
 sum  total  of  698  years,  being  an  average  length  of  41  years 
 to  each  generation.  With  this  sum  of  years  for  the  interval, 
 the  accession  of  Inachus  would  be  at  B.C.  (1250  +  698  =  ) 
 1948,  or  at  B.C.  (1183  +  698  =  )  1881,  or  at  some  interme- 
 diate point,  according  as  the  capture  of  Troy,  the  basis  of  the 
 upward  reckoning,  were  put  with  Herodotus  about  B.C. 
 1250,  or  with  Eratosthenes  at  B.C.  1183,  or  at  some  inter- 
 mediate point.  And  even  if  the  date  assigned  for  Troy  were 
 that  of  Eratosthenes,  still  the  accession  of  Inachus  would 
 be  put  136  or  117  years  above  that  of  Amosis  according 
 to  the  apparent  chronology  of  the  lists  of  Manetho  and  of 
 Ptolemy;  and  133  years  above  it  (1881  —  1748  =  133)  ac- 
 cording to  the  true  chronology.  But  if  Manetho  or  Ptolemy 
 had  allowed  to  the  xvi  full  Greek  generations  an  average  of 
 only  33-1-  years,  and  had  so  reckoned  up,  Manetho  from  B.C. 
 1204,  or  Ptolemy  from  B.C.  1213,  (233^+ 18  =  )  251,  and 
 again  300  years,  they  might  have  placed  the  flight  of  Danaus 
 at  B.C.  1455,  or  B.C.  1464,  and  the  accession  of  Inachus  at 
 B.C.  1755  or  B.C.  1764  respectively:  and  then  the  accession 
 of  Amosis  and  the  expulsion  of  the  Shepherds  would  have 
 seemed  to  be  for  Manetho  in  the  tenth  year  of  Inachus,  and 
 for  Ptolemy  in  the  first.  And  from  Eratosthenes'  date  for 
 Troy,  B.C.  1183,  xvii  similar  generations,  all  full,  v^ovXdi 
 give  for  Danaus  B.C.  1449,  and  for  Inachus  B.C.  1749,  only 
 one  year  above  the  true  date  for  the  accession  of  Amosis. 
 So  then  a  synchronism  of  Inachus  with  Amosis,  and  with 
 the  Exodus  (of  the  Shepherds)  might  have  been  asserted  by 
 the  original  Manetho,  if  it  had  pleased  him,  but  not  that  syn- 
 chronism of  the  accessions  of  Inachus  and  Amosis,  which  was 
 generally  understood  to  be  asserted  by  Ptolemy  of  Mendes. 
 
 But  whatever  Manetho  might,  or  would,  have  done, 
 Ptolemy,  writing  after  Eratosthenes  and  Apollodorus,  would 
 not  be  likely  to  give  to  the  xvii  Greek  generations  between 
 Inachus  and  Troy  an  average  of  nearly  41  years  each,  so 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 463 
 
 greatly  exceeding  any  allowed  to  his  own  Egyptian  kings. 
 And  Ptolemy  knew  as  well  as  Manetho  that  Moses  and  the 
 Exodus  of  the  Hebrews,  and  the  king  under,  whom  they 
 went  out,  by  whatever  name  miscalled,  were  really  neither 
 698  years  before  the  end  of  Dyn.  XIX  of  Manetho  or  the 
 capture  of  Troy,  nor  1020,  nor  969,  988,  or  972  years  be- 
 fore the  first  Olympiad.    And  Tatian,  the  earliest  Christian 
 writer  (a  native  too  of  the  East)  who  quotes  from  Ptolemy 
 the  synchronism  of  Moses  Amosis  and  Inachus,  was  so  far 
 from  understanding  like  Africanus  after  him  any  such  anti- 
 quity, that  he  remarks  that  "  if  IMoses  was  20  generations  " 
 [he  should  rather  have  found  19,  if  the  Egyptian  genera- 
 tions XIV  +  V  =  XIX  of  Dyn.  XYIII  of  the  Chronicle  were 
 meant,  as  is  probable,  for  the  Greek  names  are  only  xvii] 
 "before  Troy,  he  w^as  therefore  400  years  before  Troy." 
 But  400  years  would  give  to  20  generations  only  20  years 
 apiece.    This  is  no  doubt  too  little  ;  and  Clemens,  in  follow- 
 ing Tatian,  either  quotes  him  more  fully,  or  explains  and  cor- 
 rects the  inadequacy  of  his  expressions,  writing  "  twenty 
 or  more  generations,"  [the  Egyptian  generations  of  Manetho 
 would  be  XVI  ■+  v  =  xxi,  even  without  reckoning  Thouo- 
 ris,  the  last  king  of  Dyn.  XIX,]  "  and  400  years  and  above^^ 
 (fysvsal  fjLsv  scKoatv  t)  ttXslovs,  ett]  5s,  cos-  sttos  sIttslv,  Tarpo^KooriaKal 
 irpocrod),  which  will  suit  any  number  over  400  and  under  oOO. 
 And  the  average  of  the  Egyptian  Chronicle  adopted  by 
 Eratosthenes,  if  applied  to  the  xix  Egyptian  generations 
 of  the  Chronicle  between  Amosis  and  Thouoris,  as  if  iden- 
 tical with  xviii  Greek  reigns  allowed  between  Inachus  and 
 Agamemnon,  would  give  (24^  x  18  =)  441  years  for  xviii 
 whole  generations,  to  which  if  we  add  18  years  only  of  a 
 nineteenth,  answering  to  the  18  of  Agamemnon,  we  have  in 
 all  459.  But  we  have  found  Dynasty  XIX  ending  according 
 to  Ptolemy's  apparent  chronology  (which  here  differs  by  only 
 one  year  from  the  true)  in  B.C.  1207.    And  if  we  name  the 
 beginning  rather  than  the  end  of  the  7th  and  last  year  of 
 his  Thouoris  or  Polybus  as  intended  for  the  synchronism 
 of  Troy,  and  go  back  from  thence,  that  is,  from  B.C.  1208 
 (which  was  Castor's  date  for  Troy,  and  may  have  been  fol- 
 lowed by  Ptolemy),  459  years,  they  take  us  for  the  acces- 
 
464 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 sion  of  Inachus,  to  Thoth  1,  in  B.C.  1667,  which. is  81  years 
 after  the  accession  of  the  true  Amosis  and  tlie  expulsion  of 
 the  Shepherds.  And  Clement  of  Alexandria,  deriving  his 
 information,  whether  directly  or  indirectly,  from  some  Egyp- 
 tian source,  most  probably  through  Tatian  from  Ptolemy, 
 writes : — Tlvsrat  rj  s^oBos  Kara  "lva')(^ov,  wpo  ttjs  %co6caKr]s 
 TTspcoBov  s^skOovTOs  aiT  AlyvTrrov  M^coascos  stsctl  irporspov 
 T/x£  •  "  "  Moses  went  out  from  Egypt,  in  the  time  of  Ina- 
 chus,  345  years  before  the  Sothic  Period  that  is,  before 
 the  cyclical  epoch  of  July  20,  B.C.  1322.  But  345  added 
 to  1322  give  also  the  year  B.C.  1667. 
 
 So  then  it  seems  that  Ptolemy,  in  coupling  together  the 
 names  of  "  Amosis "  and  Moses,  followed  Manetho,  who 
 had  purposely  confused  the  Exodus  of  the  Hebrews  with  the 
 expulsion  of  the  Shepherds ;  but  that  in  his  synchronism  of 
 both  too^ether  with  Inachus  he  had  in  view  the  true  date  of 
 the  Exodus  of  the  Hebrews  rather  than  that  of  the  com- 
 mencement of  Dyn.  XVIII  and  the  expulsion  of  the  Shep- 
 herds. And  yet  he  has  not  hit  exactly  upon  the  true  date 
 for  the  Exodus,  but  has  missed  it  in  so  peculiar  a  way  as 
 seems  to  show  that  he  had  some  acquaintance  with  the  sacred 
 books  of  the  Jews.  For  his  calculation  of  the  date  of  the 
 Exodus,  making  an  interval  of  exactly  81  years  from  the 
 head  of  Dyn.  XVIII,  seems  to  go  upon  the  supposition 
 that  Moses  was  born  in  the  first  year  of  this  dynasty,  and 
 that  80  years  were  to  be  reckoned  from  the  year  of  his  birth 
 to  the  Exodus.  This  same  error  precisely  has  been  fallen 
 into  by  Christian  writers,  and  is  embodied  in  the  Egyptian 
 lists  of  Anianus  and  Panodorus,  and  of  Syncellus.  Yet  the 
 inference  that  Ptolemy  was  following,  though  inaccurately 
 and  without  acknowledgment,  the  writings  of  ?vJoses  him- 
 self, when  he  put  the  Exodus  in  B.C.  1667,  is  certainly  open 
 to  some  slight  doubt,  owing  to  the  synchronistic  coincidence 
 of  his  Greek  reckoning;  since,  if  we  assume  Ptolemy's 
 date  for  Troy  to  have  been  fixed  on  independent  grounds 
 of  its  own  to  B.C.  1208,  then  the  date  B.C.  1667  seems  to 
 result  of  itself  from  the  calculation  upwards  of  xviii  Greek 
 generations,  allowed  as  parallel  to  as  many  Egyptian,  at  the 
 average  length  of  24 J  years,  besides  18  years  of  a  nine- 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 teenth  to  parallel  the  18  years  of  Agamemnon.  And  this 
 date,  B.C.  1667,  being  near  to  the  true  date  for  the  Exodus 
 (which  is  B.C.  1654),  the  joint  accessions  of  the  mythical 
 Amosis  and  of  Inachus  might  be  fixed  to  this  date  without 
 any  knowledge  or  consideration  of  the  accident  that  it  marks 
 also  the  80th  year  of  Moses,  and  so  far  is  the  very  same 
 which  Jewish  and  Christian  writers  would  be  likely  of  them- 
 selves, and  erroneously,  to  fix  upon  for  the  Exodus,  by 
 calculating  as  if  Moses  was  born  in  the  very  first  year  of 
 that  dynasty  the  founder  of  which  had  not  known  Joseph. 
 But  the  assumption  that  B.C.  1208,  rather  than  any  other 
 year  of  the  seven  of  Thouoris,  was  fixed  upon  by  Ptolemy, 
 and  on  independent  grounds  of  its  own,  for  his  synchronism 
 of  Troy  rests  upon  no  sufl&cient  foundation ;  and,  besides 
 that,  XIX  generations  reckoned  back  from  B.C.  1208,  with 
 the  average  length  of  24|-  years  to  all  of  them,  would  take 
 us  back  not  precisely  to  B.C.  1667,  but  to  B.C.  1674. 
 
 After  the  principle  of  reduction,  the  main  peculiarity  of 
 Ptolemy's  scheme  consists  in  the  creation  of  seven  fresh 
 dynasties,  with  a  vast  number  of  anonymous  kings,  instead 
 of  the  seven  mythological  dynasties  of  Manetho,  or  in  addi- 
 tion to  Manetho's  xxiii  dynasties  of  kings  after  Menes. 
 This  addition  was  prompted,  most  likely,  as  has  been  con- 
 jectured above,  by  a  desire  of  compensating  in  some  sense 
 for  the  sacrifice  of  antiquity  made  by  admitting  the  prin- 
 ciple of  reduction,  and  by  surrendering  those  myriads  of 
 years  which  had  been  scoffed  at  by  the  Greeks.  But  a  joint 
 or  contributing  influence  may  probably  be  traced  in  the  ex- 
 istence of  certain  materials  which  seemed  suitable  for  facili- 
 tating and  justifying  such  an  amplification :  what  these 
 materials  were  we  proceed  to  consider. 
 
 We  are  told  by  Herodotus,  that  when  he  was  in  Egypt, 
 about  B.C.  450,  the  priests  of  Phthah,  at  Memphis,  read  out 
 to  him  from  a  book,  that  is,  from  one  of  their  hieratic 
 papyri,  330  or  331  names  of  kings  from  Menes  to  the  im- 
 mediate predecessor  (not  really  Moeris)  of  Sesostris;  and 
 from  the  death  of  the  predecessor  of  Sesostris^  he  was  told, 
 to  his  own  time  there  had  intervened  "less  than  900  years." 
 So  the  accession  of  this  Sesostris  was  put  at  a  point  of  tim(? 
 
 H  II 
 
466 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 somewhat  later  than  B.C.  (450  + 900  =  )  1350.  This  date, 
 as  well  as  the  mention  of  the  naval  poiuer  of  the  king  and 
 conqueror  alluded  to,  fix  the  compound  and  mythical  per- 
 sonage of  Sesostris,  so  far  as  these  particulars  are  concerned^ 
 to  be  neither  Sesortasen  I.  nor  Rameses  II.,  but  Kameses 
 III.,  whose  ships,  as  well  as  his  cavalry  and  his  conquests, 
 are  mentioned  also  by  Manetho,  though  under  a  double  and 
 mythical  name  i^sOaxris  6  koI  'Fa/msacrTjs),  and  at  a  false 
 date,  viz.  at  the  head  of  Dyn.  XIX,  of  which  he  was  really 
 the  third  legitimate  king. 
 
 As  rescards  the  assertion  that  the  name  of  Rameses  III. 
 was  preceded  in  the  hieratic  lists  by  330  or  331  other  kings, 
 some  doubt  is  thrown  on  the  exact  accuracy  of  this  number 
 by  the  fact  that  Herodotus  reckons  downwards  from  this 
 Sesostris  only  eleven  kings  to  the  abdication  of  the  Ethi- 
 opian Sabaco  and  the  deliverance  of  Sethon ;  and  to  these 
 eleven  kings  he  gives  341  years,  as  if  they  represented  ten 
 perfect  generations  of  33^  years  each,  and  one  similar  im- 
 perfect generation;  whereas  really  from  B.C.  1350  (which 
 is  900  years  before  Herodotus),  or  from  some  date  a  little 
 later,  to  the  retirement  of  the  Ethiopian  Tirhakah  (the 
 three  Ethiopians  being  blended  together  under  the  name 
 of  Sabaco),  in  B.C.  702,  which  is  the  historical  event  and 
 date  alluded  to,  there  are  not  341  only,  but  648  years  (or 
 something  under),  during  which  the  lists  of  Manetho  (from 
 Rameses  III.  to  Tirhakah  inclusively)  give  the  names  of 
 not  11  only  but  (5  +  12  +  7  +  9  +  4  +  1  +  3  =  )  41  kings ; 
 and  the  hieratic  papyri  are  not  likely  to  have  contained  a 
 less  number.  And,  after  Sethon,  Herodotus  having  still 
 according  to  his  own  showing  something  under  (900  —  341  =  ) 
 559  years,  but  according  to  the  truth  about  (900  —  648  =  ) 
 252  years,  out  of  900  to  account  for,  names  only  the 
 "  Dodecarchy  "  in  which  Psammitichus  I.  was  a  partner, 
 and  six  kings  of  Dyn.  XXVI,  from  Psammitichus  I.  to 
 Psammenitus  inclusively,  with  a  sum  between  them  of 
 (according  to  his  reckoning)  146  years ;  and  after  these 
 again  he  names  the  Persian  kings  from  Cambyses  to  Arta- 
 xerxes  Longlmanus,  with,  as  we  may  presume,  their  true 
 vo^V^ijjnnr  in  vears.    So  that  in  all  he  names  or  reckons 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 467 
 
 below  Rameses  III.  fewer  kings  than  are  contained  in 
 Manetlio's  lists,  and  fewer  than  were  contained  in  the  papyri, 
 by  at  least  33  ;  and  it  maybe  suspected  that  this  number^of 
 names  by  which  he  falls  short  belo^n  Sesostris,  was  thrown 
 lip  and  added  by  the  priests  in  enumerating  the  kings  above, 
 so  that  there  were  really  in  their  papyri  only  about  (331  — 
 33  =  )  298  names  before  Rameses  III.  instead  of  331.  But 
 on  tlie  other  hand  it  is  not  expressly  said  that  *'the  priests 
 continuing  read  out  eleven  and  only  eleven  names  from  Sesos- 
 tris to  Sethon ;"  but  it  may  be  that  Herodotus  heard  only  of 
 those  eleven  whom  he  names,  and  collected  for  himself  that 
 this  was  the  whole  number  ;  whereas  in  truth  those  eleven 
 names  were  mentioned  only  in  connection  with  three  subjects, 
 viz.  the  foundation  of  the  Propyljea  and  other  monuments 
 which  Herodotus  had  before  his  eyes  at  the  moment,  the 
 origin  of  the  neighbouring  pyramids,  and  the  origin  of  that 
 dynasty  under  which  the  ancestors  of  his  Greek  interpreters 
 first  settled  in  Egypt,  the  last  native  Memphite  or  Saitico- 
 Memj^hite  dynasty,  which  had  reunited  all  Egypt  after  the 
 rule  of  the  Ethiopians,  had  obtained  supremacy  by  the  help 
 of  Greek  mercenaries,  and  had  immediately  preceded  the 
 Persians  who  were  then  masters.  The  first  of  these  three 
 subjects  was  connected  with  the  later  Sesostris,  whether  as 
 Rameses  II.  or  III.,  and  his  immediate  successors;  the 
 second  with  the  successors  of  Sesostris  as  Sesortasen  I., 
 (whose  predecessor  was  IMoeris  or  Papa  Maire) ;  and,  one 
 mythical  personage  having  been  made  out  of  three  or  more 
 kings,  the  Memphite  pyramids,  transposed  so  as  to  follow 
 after  18  Ethiopians  and  even  after  the  latest  Sesostris,  who 
 w^as  Rameses  III.,  served  to  cloke  the  suppression  of  long 
 dynasties  and  years  really  filled  with  the  glories  of  Theban 
 supremacy.  These,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Memphite  priests, 
 it  was  best  to  leave  strangers  to  discover,  if  they  could,  for 
 themselves. 
 
 There  is  yet  another  ground  for  suspicion  against  Hero- 
 dotus' sum  of  330  or  331  kings  before  Rameses  III.  in  a 
 story  related  by  him  concerning  Hecataeus  of  Miletus,  who 
 visited  Egypt  a  little  earlier  than  himself  in  the  same  cen- 
 tury.   For  he  says  that  the  priests  of  Ammon  at  Thebes, 
 
 H  H  2 
 
468 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHEONICLES. 
 
 on  Hecatasus'  boasting  that  the  sixteenth  ancestor  of  his 
 countrymen  was  a  god^  took  him  into  their  temple  and 
 showed  him  there  345  wooden  images  of  priests,  who  had 
 had  exactly  as  many  kings  for  their  contemporaries,  "  all  men, 
 sons  of  men,"  {piromis,  sons  of  piromis,)  who  had  followed 
 one  another  in  succession  since  the  last  of  the  gods  and 
 demigods  who  had  reigned  before  them  over  Egypt,  "just," 
 adds  Herodotus,  "  as  the  priests  of  Phthah  showed  to  myself 
 in  their  temple  at  Memphis."    But  345  kings  and  priests, 
 reaching  down  as  it  seems  (for  there  is  no  question  here  of 
 any  Sabaco  or  Sethon)  to  the  time  of  Hecataeus,  are  fewer 
 by  about  38  than  the  (330  +  41  +  9  +  3  =  )  383  kings  which 
 the  hieratic  papyri  ought  to  have  had,  if  there  were  really 
 330  names  before  Kameses  III.,  and  afterwards  the  same 
 number,  viz.  53,  which  are  now  found  for  the  same  space  in 
 Manetho's  lists,  without  counting  the  name  of  Artabanus, 
 any  more  than  that  of  the  pseudo-Smerdis  who  is  omitted  by 
 Manetho.    So,  then,  if  the  series  of  wooden  images  shown 
 to  HecatiBus  corresponded  exactly  to  that  of  the  written 
 names  of  the  hieratic  papyri,  these  latter  would  seem  to  have 
 had  only  about  (345  —  53  =  )  292  names,  instead  of  having 
 330  or  331,  before  RamesesIII.    But,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
 is  not  certain  that  the  number  of  the  wooden  images  did  cor- 
 respond exactly  to  that  of  the  written  names ;  and  even  if 
 they  did,  it  is  not  certain  that  there  was  a  perfect  agreement 
 between  the  numbers  of  the  written  names  and  images  of 
 the  priests  of  Phthah  at  Memphis  and  those  of  the  written 
 names  and  images  of  the  priests  of  Ammon  at  Thebes. 
 
 Leaving  it  then  optional  to  suppose  either  330,  or  298,  or 
 292  to  have  been  the  true  number  of  royal  names  in  the  hie- 
 ratic papyri  from  Menes  to  Rameses  III.,  and  adopting  for 
 ourselves,  provisionally  at  least,  the  first  number  of  the  three, 
 we  proceed  next  to  compare  with  the  notices  of  Herodotus 
 certain  other  indications  afforded  by  the  fragments  of  a 
 hieratic  papyrus  near  a  thousand  years  older  than  his  time, 
 and  undoubtedly  of  the  same  family  with  that  from  which 
 the  names  of  the  330  kings  were  read  out  to  him  at  Memphis. 
 This  papyrus,  now  preserved  in  the  Turin  Museum,  is  one 
 of  a  number  which  were  probably  found  all  together  at 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 469 
 
 Thebes,  and  which  may  well  have  belonged  to  some  temple. 
 Their  contents  and  the  names  of  the  writers,  sometimes 
 added,  show  that  they  were  written  some  of  them  during  the 
 reign  of  Eameses  II.,  towards  the  end  of  Dyn.  XVIII,  and 
 others  in  the  time  of  Dyn.  XIX.  That  one  of  the  group 
 with  which  we  are  now  concerned,  and  which  contained  a  list 
 of  the  Egyptian  dynasties  and  kings,  was  certainly  written 
 before  the  time  either  of  Kameses  II.  or  of  Kameses  III., 
 or  of  Rameses  XIII,  or  XIV,  for  the  back  or  blank  side  of 
 the  papyrus  has  been  written  over  with  figures  and  accounts, 
 among  which  the  first  part  of  a  name,  Ra-tseser-ma,  and  the 
 surname  Mi-amon,  common  to  these  kings,  is  discernible.  To 
 judge  by  two  sums  of  13,420  and  23,200  years,  or  more,  placed 
 between  the  divine  reigns  and  Menes,  and  making  together 
 about  100  years  more  than  the  xxv  cycles  or  36,525  years 
 of  the  airoKaTdaraaLs,  the  papyrus  may  perhaps  have  brought 
 down  its  reckoning  low  as  the  year  B.C.  1209.  Unhappily 
 it  has  been  doubled  up  and  crushed  either  by  the  Arabs  who 
 found  it  or  by  others  ignorant  of  its  value,  and  afterwards 
 knocked  about  in  such  a  way  that  of  its  beginning  and  its 
 end,  and  of  the  lower  part  of  almost  all  its  coluiims,  only 
 some  isolated  fragments  remain ;  while  the  fragments  from 
 the  upper  parts  of  some  of  the  more  central  columns  were 
 still  sufficiently  large  and  numerous,  when  Champollion  in 
 1824  first  noticed  their  contents,  to  allow  of  their  being 
 joined  together,  as  was  done  two  years  later  by  M.  SeyfFarth, 
 into  something  like  a  continuous  surface.  But  on  no  one  of 
 the  frao;ments  remaining  is  there  discoverable  the  name  of 
 ary  king  known  to  be  later  than  Dyn.  XVI  of  Manetho 
 (XIV  of  Ptolemy  and  Africanus) ;  unless  indeed  M.  Brugsch 
 be  right  in  his  conjecture  that  the  three  beginnings  of  names 
 in  fragment  112  are  those  of  three  Shepherd  kings.  If  so, 
 the  papyrus  would  seem  to  have  included  the  kings  of  Dyn. 
 XVII  of  Manetho  (XV  of  Ptolemy  and  Africanus) :  but 
 this  identification  is  still  doubtful ;  and  of  Dynasties  XVIII 
 and  XIX  at  all  events  the  fragments  exhibit  no  trace. 
 
 It  is  certain  that  this  papyrus  began  with  the  names  of 
 Gods  and  Demigods,  of  which  as  many  as  17,  or  traces  of 
 17,  are  still  distinguishable  (and  others  may  be  added  by  a 
 
 *  II  H  3 
 
470 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES 
 
 probable  inference)  from  Ra  the  sun-god  (who  appears  on 
 the  small  fragment  No.  141,  now  in  Column  XII,  with  traces 
 of  another  name  or  line  above  him)  to  a  Horus  read  by  M. 
 Brugsch  Hor-hesou  wdio  is  connected  either  w^ith  the  end  or 
 the  beginning  of  the  sum  of  23,218  years.  For  in  this  pa|>yrus 
 there  is  no  trace  of  any  intermediate  series,  like  the  Manes 
 of  Manetho,  between  the  Demigods  and  the  historical  kings  ; 
 no  more  than  there  is  in  the  Chronicle  of  B.C.  305.  Other 
 names  of  deities  certainly  or  probably  identifiable  which  ap- 
 pear in  fragment  No.  1 1  (erroneously  placed  by  Seyffarth  in 
 his  Column  II),  and  which  followed,  with  perhaps  only  one 
 name  of  Cneph  or  AgathodcBmon  between,  after  Phthah  and 
 Ra,  are  Seb,  Osiri,  Set,  Hor-Neterou  (with  300  years),  Thoth- 
 Aa-aa  (i.e.  A fco-yLtsYtcrros',  with  3226  years).  Ma  (certainly  not 
 a  god  but  a  goddess,  with  3140  years),  a  second  Horus,  and 
 then  (or  after  one  line  more)  the  initial  sign  in  red  which 
 is  usually  followed  by  a  sum  of  the  reigns  preceding.  After 
 the  sum  of  this  first  divine  dynasty,  there  is  in  the  same  frag- 
 ment a  space  indicating  at  least  two  names  of  a  second  series. 
 After  these  two — and  others,  no  doubt,  which  are  lost  — 
 (Champollion  thought  that  he  found  a  sum  of  xxiii  reigns 
 of  gods) — we  have  to  place  another  fragment.  No.  41,  which 
 now  stands  at  the  head  of  Seyffarth's  Column  Y,  but  which 
 has  been  shown  by  M.  Brugsch  to  contain  six  more  names 
 of  deities.    The  first  two  are  illegible,  but  the  other  four 
 according  to  M.  Brugsch  are  the  names  of  four  divine  bidls, 
 and  at  any  rate  Hapi  and  Mena  (Apis  and  Mnevis),  the  third 
 and  fifth  names  of  the  six,  are  plainly  distinguishable.  We 
 may  imagine  that  between  the  first  divine  dynasty  and  these 
 bulls  all  the  more  prominent  monumental  gods,  and  the  demi- 
 gods, such  as  the  younger  Thoth,  Anepo,  and  others,  would 
 have  been  inserted.    And  from  an  allusion  occurring  later 
 M.  Brugsch  infers  that  a  Horus  named  Hor  hesou  was  the  last 
 name  of  the  divine  list  and  the  immediate  predecessor  of 
 Menes.    But  without  adopting  this  view,  having  2  lines  of 
 names  in  fragment  141  [  +  1]  +  11  lines  or  traces  of  lines  in 
 fragment  11,  +  8  at  least  to  the  end  of  the  first  column,  +  6 
 lines  in  fragment  41,  we  have  already  proof  enough  that  the 
 divine  dynasties  filled  more  than  one  complete  column. 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 471 
 
 For  Dr.  Hincks  and  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson  agree  that 
 the  whole  breadth  of  the  papyrus,  instead  of  being  as 
 Seyffarth  supposed  14  inches  with  from  26  to  30  lines  in 
 each  column,  did  not  exceed  12^  inches  with  22  [or  23] 
 names  at  most  [in  its  earlier  columns ;  for  in  the  later 
 columns  the  writing  is  plainly  closer,  and  there  are  more 
 names].  Sir  Gardner's  words  are  these  :  "  It  appears  from 
 Column  ly  [of  Seyffarth]  in  pi.  2,  which  gives  the  whole  of 
 its  series  of  names  (or  the  figures,  or  spaces  for  figures, 
 belonging  to  them)  one  below  the  other,  that  the  breadth 
 was  not  more  than  13  inches,  and  that  it  contained  at  most 
 22  lines  ;  for  in  some  parts,  as  in  Column  III,  the  number  of 
 lines  varied  in  a  similar  space,  and  that  part  could  only  have 
 contained  21  lines ;  the  same  again  in  Column  VI  where  8 
 lines  are  equal  to  9  of  Column  TV ;  while  on  the  other  hand 
 
 9  lines  of  Column  TV  or  8  of  Column  VI  are  nearly  equal  to 
 
 10  of  Column  IX,  and  very  nearly  to  12  lines  of  Column 
 XI."  (^Wilkinson^  s  Hierat.  Pap.  of  Kings  at  Tmh^z,  London, 
 1851.)  And  Dr.  Hincks,  whom  he  follows,  and  who  has 
 contributed  an  appendix  to  the  same  publication,  expresses 
 himself  thus :  "  I  regard  it  as  settled  that  the  length  of  a 
 column  of  writing  was  about  12^  inches,  which  would  be 
 filled  by  about  2 1  or  22  lines.  We  cannot  suppose  that  the 
 number  of  lines  should  be  less  than  20 ;  and  it  is  not  likely 
 that  it  exceeded  23."  For  ourselves,  without  entering  into 
 any  minute  discussion,  we  shall  suppose  that  the  papyrus 
 when  perfect  had  not  fewer  than  xvi  written  columns,  of 
 which  the  first  eight  contained  22  or  rather  23  lines,  and  the 
 last  eight  either  24  lines  or  at  the  least  23.  And  this  essen- 
 tial point  of  the  number  of  lines  going  to  a  column  being 
 thus  settled,  we  may  return  to  the  names  of  deities  at  the 
 commencement  of  the  papyrus. 
 
 These  had  brought  us  to  at  least  the  7th  line  of  a  second 
 column ;  and  if  Champollion  was  not  mistaken  in  giving  the 
 sum  of  a  divine  series  of  '^xxiii  reigns,"  this  sum  cannot 
 have  stood  higher  than  the  12th  line  of  Column  II.  And, 
 further,  we  know  that  this  second  column  must  have  been 
 completed  either  by  names  of  deities  alone,  or  by  names 
 with  the  commencement  of  some  lines  of  figures;  since  10 
 
 H  H  4 
 
472 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 lines  of  figures  and  sums  which  now  stand  as  fragment  No.  1 
 in  Column  I  of  SeyfFarth,  but  which  clearly  intervened  be- 
 tween the  divine  dynasties  and  the  kings,  and  are  followed 
 on  the  same  fragment  by  the  first  kings,  are  shown  by  some 
 blank  papyrus  still  attached  to  have  stood  at  the  head  of  a 
 column.  This  column  then  must  be  at  least  No.  III.  In 
 its  nth  line  (after  the  10  lines  of  sums  relating  to  the 
 divine  dynasties),  there  is  a  heading  relating  to  the  first 
 dynasty  of  historical  kings  beginning  with  Menes.  This  is 
 followed  by  the  names  of  Mena  and  his  first  successor 
 Athoth,  alid  the  spaces  for  a  third  and  fourth  name  are  still 
 discernible  ;  and  we  may  infer  from  the  fact  that  the  space 
 belonging  to  the  fourth  king  occupies  the  15th  line  from  the 
 head  of  the  column,  that  it  was  followed  in  the  same  column 
 by  at  most  8  more  names  of  kings. 
 
 As  regards  these  historical  kings  (the  first  of  whom  are 
 identified  by  the  names  Menes  and  Athothis  Avith  the 
 Tanites  of  Dyn.  XYI  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  VIII  of  Ma- 
 netho,  and  I  of  Ptolemy),  if  the  papyrus  had  made  exactly 
 the  savoLQ  divisions  of  all  its  dynasties,  and  had  given  exactly 
 the  same  number  of  names  with  Manetho,  it  would  have  had 
 room  in  its  third  column  at  the  most  for  the  8  names  of 
 Menes  and  his  successors  of  the  same  dynasty,  for  2  lines  con- 
 taining the  sum  subjoined  to  the  dynasty  completed,  and  the 
 rubric  or  heading  prefixed  to  the  dynasty  next  commencing, 
 and  further  for  2  names  of  this  next  dynasty,  that  is,  of  Ma-- 
 netho's  second  dynasty  of  Tanites.  But  we  shall  soon  have 
 proof  that  the  papyrus  contained  as  a  general  rule  more 
 names  than  were  admitted  into  Manetho's  lists.  And  as  we 
 shall  find  below  the  name  of  Sorts  (^Sora)  the  head  of  Mane- 
 tho's  Dyn.  XI  (IV  of  Ptolemy),  though  "  of  another  family," 
 distinguished  from  the  earlier  Memphites  preceding  him 
 only  by  having  the  initial  sign  before  his  name  red,  we 
 shall  not  consider  it  to  make  a2:ainst  M.  Bruojsch's  identifi- 
 cation  of  the  first  three  names  of  Manetho's  second  dynasty 
 of  Tanites,  his  Dyn.  IX  (II  of  Ptolemy),  on  fragment  21 
 that  they  follow  other  names  without  the  interposition  of 
 any  sum  or  heading,  such  as  are  found  in  the  papyrus  after 
 the  series  answering  to  Manetho's  Dynasties  XII,  XIII, 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 473 
 
 XI Y,  and  XV,  and  such  as  may  perhaps  have  occurred  also 
 between  the  last  Tanite  and  the  first  Memphite  names; 
 though  the  sum  appended  in  the  papyrus  to  the  last  three 
 names  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XII  (V  of  Ptolemy)  certainly 
 goes  back  to  Menes,  whose  name  is  still  legible  in  it,  as  it  is 
 also  in  some  other  similar  sums. 
 
 If  M.  Brugsch  be  right  in  his  identification  of  the  2nd, 
 3rd,  and  4th  names  of  fragment  21,  reading  .  .  Baiou,  .  .  Ka 
 (with  the  figure  of  the  bull),  and  .  .  .  neter,  with  the  first  three 
 kings,  Boch-us  or  Boeth-iis,  Kaie-chos,  and  Wi-nothr-is,  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  IX  (II  of  Ptolemy),  and  there  be  nothing 
 against  the  supposition  that  Manetho's  first  eleven  names  of 
 kings  were  also  the  first  eleven  of  the  papyrus,  we  may  em- 
 ploy the  five  names  of  fragment  21  to  complete  our  Column 
 III ;  only,  in  this  case,  we  must  identify  its  first  name,  which 
 is  illegible,  but  which  ended  with  the  sound  of  the  letter 
 h,  with  the  8th  and  last  name  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  VIII  (I  of 
 Ptolemy)  Bienech-es,  or  Ouhienth-es,  that  we  may  not  give 
 more  than  23  lines  to  the  column.  And  this  there  is  nothinor 
 to  forbid. 
 
 Then  in  fragment  20  we  have  8  names,  or  places  of  names, 
 certainly  belonging  to  very  early  kings,  as  the  initial  Ra  is 
 absent,  and  in  fragment  19  two  more,  of  the  same  class, 
 reading  Sent  and  Aakar,  and  apparently  identifiable  with 
 two  names  (the  5th  and  6th)  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  IX  (II  of 
 Ptolemy),  viz.  Sethen-es  and  Chair-es.  And  in  any  case  it  is 
 known  from  a  papyrus  of  the  time  of  Rameses  IL,  now  at 
 Berlin,  that  the  2nd  king  of  fragment  20,  whose  name  M. 
 Brugsch  reads  Tsatsati,  perhaps  identifiable  with  Tlas,  the 
 4th  king  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  IX,  was  earlier,  not  later,  than 
 the  king  named  Sent.  For  it  is  there  mentioned  that  the 
 original,  from  which  this  papyrus  was  copied,  was  found  at 
 Sechem  (Letopolis)  in  the  time  of  the  king  Tsatsati,  and  was 
 brought  [at  some  time]  after  his  death  to  the  king  Sent,^^ 
 Now  if  we  suppose  fragment  20,  which  represents  9  lines,  to 
 have  stood  at  the  head  of  Column  IV,  then  in  its  first  line,  be- 
 sides the  figures  for  *'28,"  probably  28  days,  now  visible  and 
 running  into  it  from  one  of  the  lines  of  sums  and  figures  in 
 the  preceding  column,  there  will  have  been  also  a  name ;  and, 
 
474 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 after  this  8  names  more  are  exhibited  or  indicated  by  the  same 
 fragment.  And  if,  again,  we  suppose  only  one  other  name 
 to  have  intervened  between  fragment  20  and  fragment  19, 
 which  has  the  two  names  Sent  and  Aakar,  we  shall  already 
 have  reckoned  to  the  Tanites  24  names ;  and  we  may  infer 
 with  probability,  from  certain  indications  to  be  spoken  of 
 below,  that  there  were  still  three  more  Tanite  names,  as 
 indeed  the  lists  of  Manetho  would  require,  if  the  names  Sent 
 and  Aakar  are  his  Sethenes  and  Chair es.  So  we  have  made 
 out  (8  +  9  +  10  =  )  27  names  in  all  to  be  reckoned  to  the 
 Tanites,  though  we  need  not  suppose  without  proof  that 
 there  was  in  the  papyrus  any  sum  or  fresh  heading,  or  both 
 a  sum  and  a  fresh  heading,  to  divide  the  Tanites  from  the 
 following  names  of  the  local  Memphites  and  Elephantinites 
 or  Hellopolitans.  Thus  the  names  of  the  Tanite  connection, 
 in  whatever  order,  whether  genealogical  or  dynastic,  they 
 may  have  been  grouped,  and  whatever  may  have  been  the  true 
 places  of  the  fragments  and  names  alluded  to,  having  filled  15 
 lines  in  our  Column  lY,  we  may  add  to  them  in  the  same 
 column  as  many  as  8,  but  not  more  than  8,  Memphite  names, 
 answering  in  number  (but  not  necessarily  otherwise)  to  as 
 many  names  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  X  (III  of  Ptolemy).  And 
 in  the  last  two  lines  of  the  column  we  may  place  conjectu- 
 rally  the  fragment  No.  3,  with  two  names  reading  Oua  .  .  . 
 and  Snefrou,  the  latter  of  the  two  being  probably  identifiable 
 with  Siphouris,  the  8th  name  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  X. 
 
 The  9th  and  last  remaining  name  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  X,  with 
 the  8  of  his  Dyn.  XI  and  the  9  of  bis  Dyn.  XII  (III,  lY, 
 and  Y  of  Ptolemy),  making  together  only  18^,  would  not  have 
 been  at  all  too  many  to  find  room  in  the  next  column,  if  the 
 papyrus  had  given  only  the  same  names  with  Manetho,  and 
 had  made  no  division,  nor  inserted  any  lines  of  sums  and 
 headings,  before  coming  to  the  end  of  the  last  of  these  three 
 dynasties.  But,  having  already  found  that  the  papyrus  had 
 more  Tanite  names  than  the  (8  +  9  =  )  17  of  Manetho,  we 
 might  from  this  alone  anticipate  that  it  would  also  have  a 
 greater  number  of  names  for  the  Memphites.  And  in  point 
 of  fact  it  is  certain  that,  instead  of  one  column,  two  ivhole 
 columns  (Columns  Y  and  YI)  in  the  papyrus  were  filled 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 475 
 
 with  names  corresponding  to  the  Memphite  or  Memphite  and 
 Heliopolite  Dynasties  X,  XI,  and  XII  (III,  IV,  and  V  of 
 Ptolemy),  implying  an  addition  of  27  at  the  most,  and  at  the 
 least  of  25  kings,  to  those  of  Manetho.  This  is  clear,  because 
 one  whole  column.  Column  YI  (IV  of  Seyffarth),  consisting 
 of  fragments  32,  34,  and  34  «,  certainly  ends  with  the  last 
 three  names  of  ^Manetho's  Dyn.  XII  (V  of  Ptolemy)  and  a 
 sum  following  them ;  and  this  column  (no  less  certainly) 
 does  not  contain  the  long  reigns  of  the  two  Suphises  (to  say 
 nothing  of  any  other  reigns  still  earliei');  though  M.  Brugsch 
 thinks  that  the  fourth  of  its  21  or  rather  22  reigns  (for  frag- 
 ments 32  and  34  do  not  certainly  join)  may  be  identified  with 
 that  of  Mencheres.  For  though  the  name  is  lost,  the  title 
 "  Anch  Ouza  S7ieb"  (something  like  Ever-living^^)  which 
 followed  it  still  remains,  and  this  title  was  given,  as  he  says,  in 
 the  papyrus  only  to  kings  of  note.  This  alone  is  not  a  very 
 solid  ground  for  the  identification,  unless  it  could  be  shown 
 that  such  a  title  might  not  be  given  to  any  other  intervening 
 king ;  as,  for  example,  to  Ousercheres,  the  head  of  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XII  (V  of  Ptolemy).  But  M.  Brugsch  thinks  further 
 that  the  17  or  18  reigns  following  next  in  the  papyrus  after 
 that  which  has  the  title  "  Anch  Ouza  Sneh  "  attached  may  be" 
 identified  with  the  13  reigns  following  that  of  Mencheres  in 
 Manetlio's  lists,  if  only  it  be  supposed  (which  seems  not 
 unlikely)  that  jManetho  added  the  years  of  4  or  5  short 
 reigns  which  he  suppressed  or  consolidated  to  those  longer 
 reigns  for  which  he  gave  the  names  of  the  kings.  Even  if 
 this  view  were  accepted,  we  should  still  have,  on  fragment 
 No.  18,  six  names,  all  legible,  and  reading,  1,  Neferkar-Sek, 
 2,  Ouazepha  ;  3,  Badsi  (M.  Brugsch  writes  it  as  if  it  were 
 only  Ba  .  .  .) ;  4:,  Xehkar ;  5,  Sora  (with  the  initial  sign 
 red)  ;  6,  Sorti.  This  fragment  (or  rather  these  two  frag- 
 ments, for  the  names  of  Sora  and  Sorti  are  not  really  on  one 
 and  the  same  fragment  with  the  rest,  though  they  join  well) 
 is  now  placed  at  the  head  of  Seyffarth's  Column  II  in  con- 
 nection with  the  fissures  of  frao:ment  Xo.  18  a,  which  is 
 shown  by  the  blank  edge  still  adhering  to  have  stood  at  the 
 head  of  a  column,  and  to  which  it  seems  to  join  perfectly.  It 
 has  been  remarked  by  jNI.  Brugsch  that  two  of  the  names  on 
 
476 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 fragment  18,  Ouazepha  and  Badsi,  look  not  unlike  two  of 
 Manetlio's  earliest  Tanites,  Ousaphaidos  or  Ousaphaes,  and 
 Miehidos  or  Miahies  ;  and  though  the  name  itself,  Sora^  and 
 the  additional  circumstance  that  its  initial  is  in  rubric,  afford 
 still  more  forcible  reasons  for  connecting  these  joint  frag- 
 ments with  some  part  of  the  next  column  in  the  papyrus, 
 that  preceding  what  answers  to  Dyn.  XII  of  Manetho  (V  of 
 Ptolemy),  rather  than  that  following  what  answers  to  his 
 Dyn.  VIII  (I  of  Ptolemy), — still,  even  this  argument  is  not 
 absolutely  to  be  insisted  upon,  as  we  know  not  exactly  on 
 what  principle  the  names  of  the  early  Tanites  and  Memphites 
 may  have  been  grouped  in  the  papyrus.  But  the  reasons 
 which  seem  to  turn  the  scale  in  favour  of  placing  this  frag- 
 ment at  the  head  of  Column  V  rather  than  IV,  are  these :  first, 
 Neferkar-sek  should  be  later  than  the  earliest  Neferkar :  then 
 the  name  Nehkar  is  to  be  seen  on  sculptured  blocks  brought 
 from  Memphis  which  are  now  in  the  Museum  at  Berlin.  The 
 cartouche  of  Sor  or  Soris  also  may  be  seen  on  a  wooden  coffin 
 brought  from  Memphis,  and  now  in  the  same  Museum.  But, 
 besides,  there  is  the  consideration  that  if  we  give  to  the  Tanites 
 all  the  names  or  spaces  indicating  names  which  are  found  on 
 fragments  Nos.  1,  21,  20,  and  19  (making  4  +  5  +  9  +  2,  with 
 2  more  at  least  for  the  interval  between  fragments  1  and  21 
 in  Column  III,  and  1  at  least  for  the  interval  between  No.  20 
 anl  Xo.  19,  which  did  not  join)  we  have  already  23  names; 
 and  if  to  these  we  add  6  more  (which  we  do  if  we  place 
 fragment  18  at  the  head  of  the  second  column  containing 
 kings,  as  Seyffarth  has  placed  it)  we  shall  have  29  names 
 actually  given,  or  given  by  implication,  to  the  Tanites,  the 
 names  of  Sethenes  and  Chaires  seeming  to  be  the  last  of  all, 
 and  requiring  therefore  an  addition  of  three  more.  But  it  is 
 safest  neither  to  suppose  (without  necessity)  that  names  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XI  are  mixed  up  with  his  earliest  Tanites, 
 nor  that  the  number  of  names  of  the  Tanite  connection 
 exceeded  those  8  +  9  +  10  =  27  which  in  one  way  or  another 
 are  indicated  by  Manetho.  Some  one  or  other  then  of  the 
 fragments  above-mentioned  must  be  supposed  to  contain 
 names  not  of  the  Tanite  but  of  the  Memphite  connection  : 
 and  if  it  comes  to  a  choice,  and  there  is  nothing  to  show 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 477 
 
 that  fragment  18  stood  at  the  head  of  Column  IV  rather  than 
 at  that  of  Column  V,  this  fragment  18  will  on  other  grounds 
 be  beyond  a  doubt  the  one  to  be  selected.  But  to  return 
 to  our  fifth  column:  Besides  the  6  names  on  fragment  18, 
 of  which  one  only  is  identifiable  with  a  Memphite  name  of 
 Manetho,  the  rest  being  all  additional,  there  must  have  been 
 in  the  same  column  16  or  17  other  names,  one  of  them  at 
 least  answering  to  the  9th  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  X,  and  one 
 other  at  least  answering  to  the  2nd  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XI, 
 viz.  that  of  Suphis  I.  But  probably  more  than  one  of  the 
 names  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XI  were  contained  in  this  column. 
 And  in  fragment  Xo.  30  there  are  in  a  space  of  5  J  inches  the 
 figures  or  traces  of  the  figures  for  the  lives  of  ten  kings,  an- 
 swering very  well  to  the  long  reigns  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XI 
 (or  of  XVII).  These  then  may  be  taken  to  represent  as 
 many  names  ;  and  they  clearly  ended  a  column.  And  so  we 
 have  accounted  for  five  columns. 
 
 The  next  column,  our  sixth  (IV  of  Se}  ffarth),  has  been  re- 
 constructed by  a  union  of  fragments  which  is  perfectly  satis- 
 factory, (except  that  there  was  possibly  another  name  be- 
 tween fragments  32  and  34,  the  latter  of  which  is  now  unduly 
 drawn  up  in  order  to  unite) ;  and  it  is  almost  the  only  column 
 which  as  reconstructed  shows  portions  of  blank  papyrus 
 not  only  above  the  highest  but  also  below  the  lowest  of  its 
 lines.  So  it  is  on  this  column  chiefly  that  Dr.  Hincks  and 
 others  have  based  their  calculations.  The  reconstruction 
 consists  of  three  fragments  numbered  32,  34,  and  34  a,  which 
 exhibit  the  spaces  for  21  names  of  kings,  or  possibly  for  22, 
 if  the  junction  of  fragments  32  and  34  is  not  maintainable. 
 Indeed  the  remains  of  the  sign  for  years  at  the  bottom  of 
 fragment  32  do  not  seem  capable  of  uniting  with  the  remains 
 of  the  same  sign  at  the  top  of  fragment  34.  But  it  is  not 
 likely  that  there  was  more  than  one  name  between.  So,  with 
 one  more  line  containing  a  sum  of  the  number  of  kings  and 
 years  from  Menes,  the  column  had  in  all  22  or  perhaps  23  lines ; 
 and  it  is  one  of  those  which  had  the  fewest  lines.  Thouo-h  all  its 
 names  except  the  last  three,  Men-ker-hor,  Tat,  and  Onnos,  and 
 part  of  the  third  from  the  top  ending  in  .  .  .  zepha,  are  lost, 
 the  figures  —  those  for  the  years  at  least  —  of  16  out  of  its  21 
 
478 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 or  22  reigns  are  still  in  great  part  preserved:  only  in  one  or 
 two  cases  they  may  have  suffered  some  curtailment  in  their 
 units ;  and  in  the  first  perfect  line  of  figures  of  fragment  34, 
 and  also  in  the  first  of  fragment  34  a,  the  sign  for  the  decads 
 is  damaged,  so  that  one  cannot  be  sure  whether  these  two 
 reigns  had  18  years  or  28  in  the  one  case,  and  10,  20,  or  30 
 in  the  other.  Barring  these  uncertainties,  the  years  of  the 
 reio;ns  in  Column  YI  stand  as  follows  : — Reign  i  is  wantino^, 
 ii  has  6  years,  iii  has  6,  iv  (that  with  the  title  "  Anch  Ouza 
 Sney^)  has  24  (a  number  suiting  probably  within  a  little  the 
 true  reign  of  Mencheres,  and  so  far  favouring  JNI.  Brugsch's 
 identification),  v  has  24,  vi  has  23,  vii  has  8,  viii,  ix,  and  ix 
 bis  (if  the  imperfect  sign  for  years  does  not  really  unite  with 
 that  at  the  top  of  fragment  34)  are  wanting,  x  has  18  or  28, 
 xi  has  4,  xii  has  2,  xiii  has  7,  xiv  has  12,  xv  is  wanting,  xvi 
 has  7,  xvii  is  wanting,  xviii  has  21,  or  11,  or  31,  xix  (^Hor- 
 menker)  has  8,  xx  (  Tat)  has  28,  and  lastly  xxi  (  Onnos)  has  30. 
 It  is  manifest  that,  without  further  knowledge  than  we  pos- 
 sess, this  series  of  figures  and  reigns  cannot  be  identified  with 
 those  of  the  ]X  kings  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XII  (Y  of  Ptolemy), 
 which,  reckoned  downwards  from  Ousercheres  to  Onnos,  have 
 (28  +  13  +  21+ [3]7+  20  +  44  +  9  +  44  +  33=::)  248  years. 
 Still,  since  the  last  three  names  of  Column  YI  of  the  papyrus 
 (lY  of  SeyfFarth)  are  clearly  identified  with  the  last  three  of 
 Dyn.  XII  of  Manetho,  it  is  natural  to  sujjpose  that  all  or 
 nearly  all  the  preceding  names  of  the  same  column  were  also 
 of  the  same  connection  with  the  ix  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XII. 
 We  say  "  all,  or  nearly  all,"  because,  if  we  look  upwards 
 from  Onnos  the  last  name,  there  is  nothing  till  we  come  to 
 the  fourth  line  with  the  title  ^'Anch  Ouza  Sneh,^^  which  can 
 be  laid  hold  of  as  at  all  favouring  the  idea  that  we  have  found 
 a  point  where  one  series  begins  and  another  ends.  Nor  is  it 
 possible  for  Manetho  to  have  made  up  the  sum  of  248  years 
 for  his  Dyn.  XII  in  the  manner  in  which  M.  Brugsch 
 supposes,  if  it  is  to  commence  only  in  the  10th  line  of  this 
 column  with  the  first  reign  on  fragment  34,  as  answering  to 
 that  of  Ousercheres  its  head.  For  from  this  point  the 
 papyrus  has  in  all  to  the  sum  at  the  end  of  the  column  12 
 kings  ;  and  of  these  the  years  of  only  two  are  lost ;  and  even 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 479 
 
 if  we  allow  the  highest  possible  number  of  decads  to  the  first 
 reign  on  fragment  34,  and  on  fragment  34  so  that  they  shall 
 have  28  and  31  years  respectively,  the  years  of  all  the  ten 
 reigns  to^rether  will  amount  to  no  more  than  157,  and  the 
 two  remaining  unknown  reigns  cannot  be  thought  to  have 
 contained  the  91  years  still  wanting  of  Manetho's  sum.  But 
 if  we  suppose  the  king  of  line  4  with  the  title  "  Anch  Oaza 
 Sneh  "  to  be  the  Ousercheres  of  Manetho  and  the  head  of 
 the  dynasty,  then  the  figures  preserved  by  the  papyrus,  with 
 the  addition  of  32  years  for  the  four  reigns  which  are  lost, 
 will  make  out  Manetho's  sum ;  and  M.  Brugsch's  hypothesis 
 as  to  the  way  in  which  that  sum  was  obtained  may  be  in  a 
 certain  wide  sense  admissible.  The  more  so,  as  there  are 
 signs  that  Manetho  was  desirous  of  exhibiting  the  kings  of 
 his  first  six  dynasties  (all  of  Lower  Egypt)  as  reigning  one 
 with  another  30  or  31  years  apiece.  For  from  line  4  of  our 
 Column  YI  there  were  in  it  18  kings,  being  just  double 
 Manetho's  number  for  his  Dyn.  XII ;  and  the  years  of  those 
 14  reigns  which  are  still  preserved  amount  to  216  (this  is 
 with  18  and  21  years  to  the  two  doubtful  reigns  of  lines  10 
 and  18),-  leaving  still  32  years,  or  it  may  be  42,  to  compose 
 four  reigns  the  figures  for  which  are  lost.  And,  if  we  adopt 
 this  view,  we  may  also  observe  that,  reckoning  from  line  4, 
 there  are  in  this  Column  VI  of  the  papyrus  eight  reigns 
 which  have  each  more  than  a  decad  of  years,  and  which  may 
 have  been  as  many  nuclei  among  which  Manetho  divided  the 
 years  of  all  the  other  shorter  reigns,  while  one  of  Manetho's 
 IX  reigns  did  not  come  up  to  a  decad  but  had  only  7  or  9  years, 
 according  as  the  30  years  which  are  missing  in  the  text  of 
 Africanus  be  supposed  to  have  fallen  out  from  the  4th  reign 
 of  Sephres  or  the  7th  of  Mencheres.  It  is  not,  however,  in 
 any  case  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  all  those  kings  who  in 
 the  papyrus  are  grouped  together  as  being  of  the  same  con- 
 nection, and  as  corresponding  to  Dyn.  XII  of  Manetho, 
 reigned  one  after  another  in  local  succession. 
 
 Keckoning  to  the  point  at  which  we  now  are,  we  have  made 
 out  for  the  papyrus  (12  +  23  +  23  +  21  =  )  79  kings  to  cor- 
 respond to  (8  +  9  +  9  +  8  +  9  =  )  43  of  Manetho.  Continuing 
 hence,  we  find  on  a  fragment.  No.  59,  which  certainlv  formed 
 
480 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 the  head  of  another  column,  a  series  of  figures  which  once 
 corresponded  to  as  many  names  of  kings,  and  which  certainly 
 do  not  belong  to  those  names  of  gods,  on  fragment  41,  which 
 Seyffarth  has  placed  over  against  them  at  the  head  of  his 
 Column  V.  That  the  names  really  belonging  to  them  were 
 the  first  five  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII  (which  should  naturally 
 come  next  after  XII)  is  proved  beyond  a  doubt  by  the  figures 
 themselves ;  since  the  fourth  reign  of  the  five  has  90  " 
 years  still  plainly  legible,  the  units  being  broken  aw^ay,  which 
 we  may  safely  say  were  4  ; "  and  this  extraordinary  reign  is 
 followed  by  another  of  1  year  and  1  month.  Tliese  then  are 
 plainly  the  reigns  of  Phiops,  the  fourth,  and  of  his  succes- 
 sor, the  fifth  king,  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII ;  and  as  the  num*- 
 ber  of  reigns  preceding  on  the  same  fragment,  and  known  to 
 have  had  none  above  them  in  the  column,  agrees  with  that  of 
 Manetho's  preceding  kings  of  the  same  dynasty,  we  see  thatj 
 in  this  instance  at  least,  and  thus  far,  the  papyrus  exhi- 
 bited a  series  identical  with  that  of  Manetho,  and  without 
 any  interposition  of  additional  names.  It  is  also  noticeable 
 that,  though  there  was  a  sum  at  the  bottom  of  the  last 
 preceding  column,  there  was  not  any  heading  prefixed  to  this 
 new  series  which  followed.  For  the  figures  belonging  to 
 the  first  name  of  Dyn.  XIII  of  Manetho  are  in  the  same 
 line  with  the  first  name  of  Column  VIII  (still  preserved,  and 
 on  the  same  fragment,  No.  59,  with  the  figures),  and  they 
 have  only  the  blank  edge  of  the  papyrus  above  them ;  while 
 the  figures  belonging  to  the  second  reign  of  Dyn.  XIII  are 
 in  a  line  with  the  third  name  of  the  following  column.  This 
 is  an  instance  of  the  occasional  variations  occurring  on  the 
 papyrus,  the  same  width  in  one  column  sometimes  contain- 
 ing a  name  more,  and  sometimes  a  name  less,  than  in 
 another,  besides  that  the  lines  and  intervals  are  upon  the 
 whole  larger  and  less  numerous  in  the  earlier  and  closer  and 
 more  numerous  in  the  later  columns.  M.  Brugsch  restores 
 opposite  to  the  figures  of  Dyn.  XIII  the  monumental  names 
 Ati,  Teta,  Imhotep,  Maire,  and  Meran-re,  as  answering  to 
 Othoes,  Phius,  Methousouphis,  Phiops,  and  Mentesuphis  of 
 Manetho.  And,  just  as  the  figures  on  fragment  59  fail  us, 
 (for  the  6th  reign  is  wanting,)  another  fragment.  No.  43, 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 481 
 
 comes  in  and  gives  us  the  name  Nitokrit  known  from  Ma- 
 netho's  lists  to  be  the  sixth  of  the  dynasty.  So  there  are 
 six  names  and  reigns  recoverable  at  the  head  of  Column 
 VII  (V  of  Seyffarth)  corresponding  exactly  to  the  six  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII.  But  after  the  name  of  Nitocris,  on 
 fragment  43,  there  is  no  sum  nor  rubric,  but  a  continuation 
 of  four  more  names  of  the  same  series.  Three  of  these  read 
 Nepherkar  (probably  the  husband  of  Nitocris,  who  appears 
 elsewhere  together  with  Papa  and  Meranre),  Nefrous,  and  Ab. 
 The  fourth  name  is  illegible.  The  figures  opposite  to  the 
 last  three  of  these  four  names  of  fragment  43  (on  fragment 
 61)  show  reigns  of  2  years  1  month  and  1  day,  of  4  years  2 
 months  and  1  day,  and  of  2  years  1  month  and  1  day ;  and 
 there  is  yet  another  reign,  making  the  10th  of  the  whole 
 series,  the  name  for  which  is  lost,  with  1  year  and  8  days. 
 And  below  this  there  is  a  sum  of  18 1  years.  So  the  whole  four 
 reigns  which  stood  in  the  papyrus  after  the  name  and  reign 
 of  Nitocris  make  up  together  only  9  years  4  months  and  1 1 
 days,  and  may  have  been  all  covered  chronologically  by  the 
 1 2  years  given  in  Manetho's  list  to  Nitocris,  though  these  1 2 
 years  were  probably  reckoned  to  her  also  separately  in  the 
 papyrus.  The  order  of  the  names  may  perhaps  indicate  that 
 Nephercheres  the  husband  of  Nitocris,  as  well  as  Meranre, 
 survived  the  aged  Phiops,  and  that  he  reigned  after  the 
 single  year  of  Meranre  for  2  years,  while  his  consort  Nitocris 
 reigned  both  with  him  and  after  him.  As  regards  the  sum 
 of  181  years  given  in  the  papyrus  for  the  dynasty,  it  may 
 perhaps  be  still  made  out,  if  only  we  suppose  the  missing 
 figures  for  its  first  and  its  sixth  reigns  to  have  been  30  and 
 12,  identical  with  those  of  Manetho.  The  years  given  for 
 the  10  reigns  will  then  be  in  all  180,  and  the  odd  months 
 and  days  still  remaining  (and  some  are  lost)  make  up  the 
 remaining  year  all  but  3  days.  It  would  seem  to  follow 
 from  this  sum  of  the  papyrus  that  the  true  date  of  the  com- 
 mencement of  Dyn.  XIII  was  in  B.C.  (1932  +  43  +  158  or 
 159  =  )  2132  or  B.C.  2133,  91  years  after  Menes,  unless 
 indeed  any  of  the  years  reckoned  to  its  first  four  kings  were 
 concurrent ;  and  in  that  case  the  date  would  be  somewhat 
 lower  according  to  the  number  of  concurrent  years  to  be 
 
 1 1 
 
482 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 subtracted.  But  perhaps  as  this  dynasty  in  the  papyrus  had 
 no  heading,  its  gross  sum  of  years  below  needed  no  reduction. 
 
 After  the  above-mentioned  10  reigns,  referable  to  Dyn. 
 XIII  of  Manetho,  and  the  sum  of  181  years  in  the  eleventh 
 line  of  the  same  Column  VII,  but  opposite  to  the  twelfth 
 line  of  the  adjacent  Column  VIII  (VI  of  SeyfFarth),  there 
 may  have  been  a  separate  heading  introducing  the  next 
 series ;  but  at  any  rate  there  were  of  the  next  series,  in  this 
 same  Column  VII,  10  names,  all  more  or  less  represented  (in 
 a  space  of  five  inches  and  one  eighth)  by  fragments  46  and 
 47,  about  the  union  of  which  there  is  no  doubt.  On  No. 
 46  there  are  parts  of  the  initial  signs  of  3  names,  the  first  of 
 them  in  red ;  and  on  No.  47  there  are  7  more  names  or  parts 
 of  names,  the  first  two  reading  Ra-neferkar  and  Khroti(?) 
 in  the  other  five  only  a  syllable  here  and  there  is  legible  (as 
 tet  in  the  last  but  one,  and  Ou  at  the  beginning  of  the  last 
 name)  ;  but  the  blank  edge  of  the  papyrus  below  this  last 
 name  shows  plainly  that  it  ended  a  column.  But  if  any  one 
 ask  why  fragments  46  and  47  are  to  be  placed  in  this  column 
 so  as  to  follow  next  after  Dyn.  XIII  of  Manetho,  the  answer 
 is,  that  after  the  8th  line  of  the  next  column  (Column  VIII) 
 the  names  of  which  are  on  the  same  fragments,  Nos.  59  and 
 61,  with  the  figures  or  reigns  of  Dyn.  XIII,  there  is  a  sum 
 distinctly  mentioning  the  number  of  '^xviii  kings  "  as  having 
 preceded.  It  is  true  that  the  sign  for  the  8  is  only  partially 
 preserved,  but  what  remains  is  clear  enough ;  and  Dr.  Lep- 
 sius.  Sir  G.  Wilkinson,  and  Dr.  Hincks,  have  rightly  given 
 it  as  XVIII,  not  as  xvii.  Thus  the  number  and  order  of 
 the  names  is  clear  ;  and  there  will  have  been  in  Column  VII 
 either  23  or  only  22  lines  (or  rather  22  or  21,  in  the  space 
 which  in  the  adjoining  column  has  23)  according  as  there 
 intervened,  or  did  not  intervene,  any  line  or  lines  of  heading 
 after  the  sum  of  Dyn.  XIII. 
 
 It  is  not  open  to  us  to  suppose  that  these  xviii  names  of  the 
 papyrus  correspond  to  the  xvi  of  Dyn.  XIV  of  Manetho  (XI 
 of  Ptolemy),  which  might  else  have  been  expected  to  succeed 
 those  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII ;  for  though  the  numbers  xyi ii 
 and  XVI  agree  -well  enough,  the  names  and  parts  of  names  still 
 legible  in  fragment  47  of  the  papyrus  by  no  means  favour  such 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 483 
 
 an  identification.  They  suggest  rather  the  thought  that  this 
 series  of  xviii  kings  in  the  papyrus  may  be  the  same  as 
 appears  in  the  upper  line  of  the  Abydos  tablet  (now  in  the 
 British  Museum)  where  the  name  Nepher-kar-re  or  its 
 elements  seem  to  pervade  the  13  cartouches  still  preserved, 
 all  these,  except  one,  having  the  element  kar,  and  no  fewer 
 than  8  out  of  the  13  having  the  whole  name  Nepher-kar, 
 And  if,  as  is  calculated  to  have  been  the  case,  there  were 
 originally  in  each  line  of  the  tablet  26  cartouches,  of  which 
 the  first  13  (all  but  the  last  sign  of  the  13th)  in  the  upper 
 line,  and  the  first  6  in  the  second  line  are  now  lost,  and  it  is 
 known  that  the  names  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XV  began  with 
 the  7th  cartouche  of  the  second  or  lower  line,  it  is  clear  that 
 there  may  well  have  been  in  the  tablet  the  full  number  of 
 XVIII  kings  of  the  Nepherkeres  connection,  whether  they 
 ended  with  the  6th  place  of  the  lower  line,  beginning  in  that 
 case  with  the  15th  place  in  the  upper  (though  the  14th 
 cartouche  which  is  in  part  preserved  already  exhibits  the 
 element  kar),  or  whether  they  began  earlier  in  the  tablet, 
 after  only  8  or  12,  or  at  the  most  13  names  of  some  other 
 connection,  probably  that  of  the  Tanites,  and  ended  conse- 
 quently earlier,  so  as  to  leave  room  for  a  few  names  of  some 
 other  family  (the  name  Ra-neh-kher  doubtless  being  one) 
 which  might  be  interposed  between  the  eighteenth  and  last 
 name  of  the  Nephercheres  family  and  the  first  name  of 
 Manetho's  Dynasty  XV. 
 
 Now  in  the  Turin  papyrus,  in  that  series  of  xviii  kings 
 which  seems  to  begin  in  the  10th  line  from  the  bottom  in 
 our  Column  VII,  on  fragments  46  and  47,  the  name  in  the  5th 
 line  of  the  series,  which  is  the  2nd  of  fragment  47,  is  still 
 preserved  and  reads  Ra-neferhar ;  and  this,  so  far  as  it  goes, 
 favours  the  idea  that  the  whole  series  may  be  identifiable 
 with  that  in  the  upper  line  of  the  Abydos  tablet.  Of  the  next 
 name  which  is  also  preserved  and  reads  Khroti,  and  of  one  or 
 two  syllables  of  names  in  the  lines  below,  all  that  can  be  said 
 is  this,  that,  taken  together  with  the  name  Ra-neferkar,  they 
 certainly  do  not  favour  any  view  which  would  identify  the 
 xviii  names  with  the  xvi  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIV.  There 
 is  also  another  fragment.  No.  48,  with  characters  for  5  lines 
 
 I  I  2 
 
484 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 of  writing,  which  is  placed  by  SeyfFarth  as  if  in  hxtcral  con*- 
 nection  with  fragment  47,  but  at  an  interval,  as  if  it  might 
 contain  the  completions  of  the  last  five  lines  of  fragment  47, 
 which  have  only  the  commencements  of  as  many  names. 
 And  certainly  the  recurrence  in  the  2nd  line  of  this  frag- 
 ment No.  48  of  the  same  name,  Ra-neferhar,  as  stands  in  the 
 2nd  line  of  fragment  47,  suggests  strongly  the  idea  that  the 
 two  fragments  may  belong  to  one  and  the  same  connection. 
 Nevertheless  fragment  48  has  certain  peculiarities  (besides 
 the  style  of  the  writing  and  the  width  of  the  interstices) 
 which  make  it  easy  to  determine  whether  it  could  or  could 
 not  have  joined  on  to  any  other  given  set  of  five  imperfect 
 lines  with  which  it  may  be  compared.  And  these  pecu- 
 liarities prove  that  the  fragment  in  question  could  not  have 
 joined  on  to  any  part  of  that  series  of  xviii  kings  which 
 followed  after  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII  either  in  Column  VII  or 
 in  Column  VIII.  For  in  the  1st  line  of  fragment  48  there  is 
 no  name  but  only  writing,  and  that  not  from  any  sum  nor 
 from  any  heading  referring  to  a  number  of  kings,  but  re- 
 ferring to  some  one  king,  of  whom  it  is  said  that  he  made 
 his  [reign  or  life,"  probably]  in  so  many  years.  The  name 
 of  this  king  then  is  implied  to  have  preceded  in  the  same 
 line.  The  2nd  line  exhibits^  as  has  been  said,  the  name 
 Ra-neferkar,  but  so  thrust  forwards  that  its  beginning  stands 
 nearly  over  the  imperfect  ends  of  names  which  occupy  the 
 4th  and  5th  lines  of  the  same  fragment.  The  3rd  line  also 
 probably  contained  a  name,  the  whole  of  which  must  have 
 preceded  the  writing  which  stands  under  the  name  Ra^ 
 neferkar.  The  fragment  cannot  then  have  stood  above  frag- 
 ment 47  so  as  to  have  its  3rd,  4th,  and  5th  lines  in  the  same 
 lines  respectively  with  the  1st,  2nd,  and  3rd  of  fragment 
 46  ;  because  this  would  require  us  to  suppose  not  only  that 
 its  2nd  line  with  the  name  Ra-neferkar  formed  part  of  a 
 heading  prefixed  to  the  series  of  xviii  kings  (a  supposition 
 of  itself  quite  admissible),  but  also  that  its  1st  line  belonged 
 to  the  sum  of  181  years  subjoined  to  the  names  of  Manetho^s 
 Dyn.  XIII.  But  this  supposition  is  precluded  by  the  circum- 
 stance that  in  the  1st  line  of  fragment  48  it  is  not  a  series  of 
 kings  but  one  king,  in  the  singular,  that  is  mentioned.  But 
 
I>TOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 485 
 
 tliat  the  fragment  cannot  possibly  stand  where  Seyffarth  has 
 placed  it  he  would  have  himself  perceived,  if  he  had  been 
 able  to  read  ever  so  little  the  hieratic  writing,  which  he  put 
 together  only  by  comparing  the  fibres  of  diiferent  fragments, 
 and  by  following  certain  other  external  indications.  For  the 
 blank  edge  below  the  last  line  of  fragment  47  shows  plainly 
 that  it  ended  a  column ;  and  above  the  blank  edge  there  are 
 only  the  last  five  lines  on  the  fragment  which  exhibit  im- 
 perfect names  capable  of  being  completed,  the  first  two  lines 
 containing  perfect  names.  So  when  Seyfiarth  placed  the 
 five  lines  of  fragment  48  opposite  to  the  last  five  of  fragment 
 
 47,  the  perfect  name  Ra-neferkar,  in  the  2nd  line  of  fragment 
 
 48,  was  made  to  stand  in  one  and  the  same  line  of  the  column 
 with  another  imperfect  name  preceding  it,  namely  that  in 
 the  4th  line  of  fragment  47.  Neither,  for  similar  reasons, 
 can  fragment  48  be  attached  to  any  five  consecutive  lines 
 of  fragments  59  and  60  which  form  the  head  of  the  next 
 column,  and  contain  the  beginnings,  or  traces  of  the  begin- 
 nings, of  the  remaining  names  of  the  series  of  xviii.  Nor, 
 lastly,  will  it  unite  any  better  with  the  commencements  of 
 names  of  the  next  folio winor  series  on  fragment  61  in 
 Column  yill.  We  are  forced  therefore  to  set  it  aside  for 
 the  present,  noticing  only  that  its  writing  seems  to  agree 
 well  with  that  part  of  the  papyrus  at  which  we  now  are,  and 
 that  there  is  enough  of  blank  edge  under  its  lowest  line  to 
 suit  well  the  idea  that  it  stood  at  the  end  of  a  column,  though 
 certainly  not  in  conjunction  with  fragment  47,  at  the  end  of 
 Column  VII. 
 
 Passing  on  then  to  Column  VIII,  we  have  for  it,  first,  on 
 fragment  59  (the  same  which  contains  the  figures  for  the 
 first  5  reigns  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII),  6  commencements 
 or  traces  of  commencements  of  names,  and  the  antennje  of 
 the  bee  which  preceded  the  seventh  name.  So  only  the  re- 
 mainder of  this  seventh  bee,  and  one  more,  are  wanting  to 
 complete  the  indication  of  the  xviii  names  of  the  series: 
 and  this  is  very  probably  supplied  by  the  small  fragment, 
 No.  69,  which  Seyffarth  has  here  attached.  That  fragment 
 61,  which  in  its  first  line  names  the  sum  of  xviii  reigns, 
 really  followed  in  this  place,  and  so  fixes  the  number  of  the 
 
 II  3 
 
486 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 names  in  the  series  preceding,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  it 
 exhibits  the  continuation  of  the  fio-ures  for  the  later  reiorns 
 and  the  sum  of  the  series  answering  to  Manetho's  Dyn. 
 XIII.   After  the  sum  of  "  xviii  kings,"  which  thus  is  in  the 
 9tli  line  of  Column  VIII,  there  follows  a  rubric,  and  perhaps 
 in  the  same  line  with  the  rubric  the  first  name  of  a  fresh 
 scries,  which,  as  a  matter  of  course  we  identify  with  that  of 
 IManetho's  Dyn.  XIV,  since  we  did  not  identify  with  it  the 
 series  of  xviii  kings  preceding,  and  since  the  next  frag- 
 ments, Nos.  64  and  67,  belong  to  Manetho's  Dynasty  XV. 
 These  last-named  fragments  are  placed  by  Seyffarth  under 
 fragment  61,  so  as  to  seem  to  continue  and  complete  the 
 same  column  (his  Column  VI)  in  which  fragments  59,  60, 
 and  61  have  preceded;  and  it  is  clear  from  the  blank  edge 
 below  the  last  figures  in  fragment  67  that  this  fragment 
 really  made  the  end  of  some  column.    But  with  SeyiFarth's 
 arrangement,  having  already  in  fragments  59,  60,  and  61 
 (7  +  1  +  9  =  )  17  lines,  and  not  less  than  9f  inches,  we  are 
 called  upon  to  add,  in  fragments  64  and  67,  8  lines  more  * 
 and  at  least  4f  inches,  making  in  all  for  the  column  28 
 lines,  which  are  certainly  too  many  in  this  part  of  the 
 papyrus,  and  at  least  13|^  inches  of  writing,  which  is  certainly 
 too  much  for  any  part  of  the  papyrus.    It  is  clear  therefore 
 tliat  fragments  64  and  67  must  be  moved  forward  by  one 
 whole  column,  so  as  to  form  the  end  of  Column  IX.  And 
 this  conclusion  is  confirmed  from  quite  another  source  when 
 one  notices  that  by  Seyffarth's  arrangement  the  papyrus 
 would  have  contained  only  8  names  to  be  paralleled  with  the 
 16  kings  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIV.    For  on  fragment  61, 
 after  the  sum  of  that  series  of  xviii  which  cannot  be  identi- 
 fied with  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIV,  there  are  only  8  lines 
 more,  including  that  which  begins  with  a  rubric ;  and  if 
 these  were  followed  immediately,  and  in  the  same  column,  by 
 the  sum  partly  contained  in  the  first  line  of  fragment  64,  and 
 in  the  heading  to  Dyn.  XV  of  Manetho  (XII  of  Ptolemy),  it 
 is  plain  that  there  can  have  intervened  no  more  than  8 
 kings;  whereas  we  can  neither  suppose  that  the  papyrus 
 omitted  so  numerous  and  in  some  respects  so  important  a 
 line  as  that  of  the  earliest  Diospolites ;  nor,  if  it  inserted 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 487 
 
 those  kings,  that  it  gave  to  them  fewer  names  than  Manetho, 
 and  fewer  even  than  the  Karnak  Chamber,  where  they  are 
 represented  by  13  cartouches.  But^  after  having  put  for- 
 ward fragments  64  and  67  to  stand  at  the  foot  of  the  next 
 column,  we  are  in  no  such  difficulty.  On  the  contrary, 
 we  have  8  (or,  it  may  be,  only  7)  names  in  fragment  61, 
 with  5  more  to  be  sought  for,  in  order  to  complete  the 
 column,  on  some  other  fragment:  and  this  we  may  now 
 conjecture  to  be  fragment  48,  which  we  were  forced  before 
 to  leave  unplaced.  And  again,  in  Column  IX,  we  must 
 reckon  as  many  as  16  names  (or,  it  may  be,  fewer)  before 
 coming  to  the  8  lines  contained  in  fragments  64  and  67, 
 which  certainly  joined  on  the  one  to  the  other,  and  ended 
 a  column.  So  the  papyrus  may  have  contained  as  many 
 as  (8  +  5  +  15  or  7  +  5  +  16  =  )  28,  or,  it  may  be,  only  27 
 names  to  be  paralleled  with  the  xvi  of  Manetho's  Dyn. 
 XIV  (XI  of  Ptolemy),  whether  this  greater  number  of 
 names  were  all  exhibited  together  as  of  one  lineage,  or 
 broken  up  into  two  or  more  groups  or  lines. 
 
 SeyfFarth  himself  by  attaching  the  two  small  united  frag- 
 ments 62  and  63  to  the  7  th  and  8  th  lines  of  fragment  61, 
 has  identified  clearly  enough,  though  unconsciously,  the  kings 
 of  fragment  61  with  those  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIV:  for 
 thus  the  name  Ra-neb-kher  and  the  half  name  Ra-tses  .  . 
 which  stand  on  fragment  63,  become  the  6th  and  7th  kings 
 of  fragment  61.  And  the  first  name  of  the  two,  Ra-neh- 
 kher,  is  one  of  great  note ;  so  much  so,  that  in  the  monu- 
 mental list  of  the  Kamesseum,  and  elsewhere  at  Thebes,  it 
 is  the  only  name  interposed  as  a  link  between  Menes  and 
 Amosis  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII.  But  this  name  stands 
 ninth  of  the  thirteen  names  which  represent  Manetho's  Dyn. 
 XIV  in  the  Karnak  Chamber ;  and  it  is  connected  with  the 
 same  dynasty  of  the  local  Diospolites  by  the  papyrus  Abbott 
 mentioned  above  (at  p.  386).  The  imperfect  name  Ra- 
 tses  ,  ,  ,  which  follows  Ra-neh-kher  on  fragment  62,  is 
 also  probably  identifiable  with  Ra-tseser-en,  the  11th  name 
 of  the  XIII  Diospolites,  which  stands  next  but  one  after 
 Ra-neh-kher  in  the  Karnak  Chamber.  But  it  is  difficult  to 
 understand  how  the  name  of  Ra-neh-kher  could  be  given  as 
 
 1 1  4 
 
488 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 tlie  sixth  of  his  line  or  dynasty  in  the  papyrus ;  unless  indeed 
 Manetho  in  his  Dyn.  XIV  has  united  two  or  more  distinct 
 families,  which  may  have  held  the  local  royalty  between  them, 
 and  which  may  have  been  presented  separately  in  the  pa- 
 pyrus :  and,  if  this  w^ere  so,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  family 
 to  which  Ea-neb-kher  (Mentuhotep  III.  or  IV.)  belonged 
 may  have  been  taken  first,  before  that  of  the  Nantefs,  for 
 some  reason  unknown  to  us,  perhaps  on  account  of  some 
 connection  with  the  preceding  series  of  the  Nephercheres 
 family.  And  it  is  observable  that  the  name  Ra-neb-kher  in 
 the  Karnak  Chamber  is  preceded  by  a  name  which  reads 
 Sneferkar,  But  very  possibly  the  small  fragments  62  and  63 
 have  been  improperly  attached  by  SeyfFarth  to  fragment  61, 
 and  their  true  connection  was  with  some  other  fragment 
 now  lost,  which  formed  part  of  this  same  series,  but  stood 
 perhaps  near  the  head  of  the  next  column.  For  though 
 fragment  63  seems  to  fit  exactly  to  fragment  61,  so  that  the 
 bee  preceding  the  name  Ra-neh-kher  is  made  up  in  part 
 from  both,  this  tallying  of  the  fragments  may  be  deceptive. 
 And  if  we  look  up  to  the  preceding  line,  we  see  that  there 
 the  bee  on  fragment  62  is  in  contact  not  with  a  sprig,  as  it 
 ought  to  be,  but  with  a  number  of  ^'  6  years,"  and  a  hooked 
 line  inclosing  it  and  running  in  from  the  corresponding  line 
 of  Column  VII  and  thrusting  back  a  little  the  commence- 
 ment of  the  5th  name  of  that  series  which  is  now  under  dis- 
 cussion. Wilkinson  has  remarked  the  necessity  of  making 
 room  between  the  siffn  of  the  number  "  six  "  on  fras^ment 
 61  and  the  bee  on  fragment  62  for  the  sprig  which  invaria- 
 bly precedes  the  hee.  But  if  fragment  62  be  moved,  as 
 he  suggests,  a  little  to  the  left,  fragment  63,  which  coheres 
 and  stands  directly  under  it,  will  move  too ;  and  so  that 
 agreement  by  which  the  bee  preceding  the  name  Ra-neb- 
 kher  was  put  together  will  no  longer  exist. 
 
 But  leaving  it  uncertain  to  what  precise  place  in  Column 
 VIII  or  in  Column  IX  the  two  small  fragments  62  and  63 
 are  to  be  transposed,  if  they  are  to  be  transposed,  and  turn- 
 ing our  attention  to  Column  IX,  we  have  already  for  its  end 
 in  fragments  64  and  67  six  lines,  belonging  to  the  first  six 
 reigns  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XV  (XII  of  Ptolemy),  besides 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 489 
 
 a  line  of  heading,  and  another  line  giving  a  sum  of  "  243 
 years  "  for  the  preceding  series.  It  may  seem  then  that  we 
 have  only  to  fill  up  in  our  reckoning  the  earlier  part  of  the 
 column  with  some  16  lines  (of  which  those  on  fragments  62 
 and  63  may  or  may  not  be  four)  and  we  shall  have  as  many 
 as  14+16  =  30  names  for  that  whole  series  which  is  followed 
 by  the  sum  of  243  years.  But  this  sum  does  not  seem  to  suit 
 for  so  great  a  number  of  kings,  when  we  have  had  not  far 
 back  in  Column  YII  to  a  line  of  10  kings  181  years,  and 
 shall  find  a  little  further  on,  in  Column  X,  for  the  8  kings  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XV  a  sum  of  213  years.  It  is  probable, 
 then,  that  the  papyrus  here  had  not  one  series  only  to  con- 
 tain all  the  names,  but  rather  two.  And  this  inference  is 
 strengthened  by  the  existence  of  a  fragment,  No.  44,  which 
 has  upon  it  in  a  space  of  2^  inches  traces  of  5  lines  of 
 writing  occupying  perhaps  originally  the  space  between 
 two  columns,  and  not  necessarily  all  of  them  interrupting 
 the  succession  of  names.  The  first  line  at  the  top,  which  is 
 really  a  separate  fragment,  has  something  referring  to  a 
 *'  king  or  reign  ;  "  the  second  exhibits  after  a  number  "  6  " 
 something  like  another  larger  number,  and  again  a  6  and 
 then  the  usual  initial  sign  for  a  sum,  in  red,  followed  by  a 
 sum  of  [at  least  one']  hundred."  This  sum  we  shall  fill  up 
 conjecturally  to  "  1[24  kings],"  the  grounds  for  which  will 
 appear  below.  The  next  line,  that  following  the  rubric, 
 has  the  name  of  Menes,  from  whom  apparently  the  sum  of 
 one  hundred  or  more  kings  mentioned  above  was  reckoned. 
 And  in  the  4th  line  of  the  fragment  (the  5th  being  a  mere 
 trace)  there  is  again  a  sum  of  355  years  and  ten  days.  This 
 sum  of  years,  however,  cannot  be  connected  either  with  the 
 sum  of  100  or  more  [kings]  in  the  line  next  but  one  above, 
 or  with  the  name  of  Menes ;  but  it  must  belong  to  some 
 suitable  number  of  kings  which  stood,  no  doubt,  uncon- 
 nected with  the  name  of  Menes  but  after  it  in  the  line 
 immediately  preceding.  And  this  number,  if  there  were  30 
 names,  and  we  divide  them  in  the  proportions  of  355  to  243, 
 would  seem  to  have  been  about  20.  Since,  however,  it  is 
 probable  that  two  lines,  of  a  sum  and  a  heading,  at  least, 
 identifiable  with  the  4th  and  5th  of  those  contained  on 
 
490 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 fragment  44,  or  indicated  by  it,  would  interrupt  the  con- 
 tinuity of  the  names  in  Column  IX,  we  must  reduce  the 
 number  of  names  allowable  to  the  earlier  part  of  this  column 
 from  16  to  14  ;  so  that  the  whole  number  of  the  two  groups 
 taken  together  instead  of  30  may  be  28,  of  which  about  17 
 should  belong  to  the  sum  of  355  years,  and  11  to  the  sum 
 of  243.  And,  even  thus,  we  shall  be  already  giving  to 
 Cokimn  IX  (14 +  2  +  8  =  )  24  lines  without  any  such  distinct 
 indications  to  warrant  it  as  will  justify  us  in  substituting 
 the  average  number  of  24  for  that  of  23  lines  in  all  the 
 remaining  columns.  But  whether  28,  or  only  27,  or  26, 
 were  the  true  number,  having  guessed  28,  and  of  these  28 
 liaving  made  17  to  precede  the  sum  of  355  years,  if  we  seek 
 the  sum  of  all  the  kings  whom  we  have  reckoned  to  the 
 papyrus  from  Menes  to  this  sum  of  355  years,  we  shall  find 
 it  to  be  in  seven  different  columns  12  +  23  +  23+21+20  + 
 22  +  3,  or  in  seven  distinct  groups  27  +  12  +  22  + 18  +  10  + 
 18  +  17,  making  124 ;  and  it  is  upon  this  ground  that  we  have 
 restored  conjecturally  and  approximatively  in  fragment  44  the 
 number  124,  though  neither  decads  nor  units  remain,  and 
 that  part  of  a  numeral  sign  which  does  remain  would  do 
 as  well  for  two  or  three  hundreds  as  for  one.  That  group  in 
 the  papyrus  which  has  the  sum  of  355  years,  if  it  had  also  16 
 or  17  kings,  would  seem  to  be  the  natural  representative  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XIV ;  and  the  years  are  not  quite  so  many 
 as  might  have  been  given  by  estimate  to  xvi  kings.  At 
 the  average  of  24J  years  used  for  technical  reckoning  by 
 the  Old  Chronicle  and  by  Eratosthenes  there  might  have 
 been  as  many  as  400.  But  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  whole 
 number  of  28  or  26  names,  forming  this  and  the  next  follow- 
 ing series  in  the  papyrus,  are  together  to  be  identified  with 
 the  first  Diospolite  dynasty  (Dyn.  XIV)  of  Manetho,  who 
 did  not  make  the  most  either  of  the  dynasties  or  of  the 
 kings,  or  of  the  years  of  the  kings,  for  Upper  Egypt. 
 
 In  Dyn.  XV,  which  forms  as  it  were  a  central  point  in 
 the  papyrus,  we  have  an  instance,  and  so  far  as  appears  it  is 
 the  only  instance,  of  a  complete  agreement  for  a  whole  dynasty 
 with  the  number  and  order  of  Manetho.  It  is  only  in  the 
 years  that  there  is  a  difference,  and  in  the  sum  of  the 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 491 
 
 dynasty,  which  Manetho  seems  at  first  sight  to  have  cur- 
 tailed to  160,  while  the  papyrus  states  it  at  213  years.  But 
 with  certain  explanations,  Avhich  have  been  made  elsewhere, 
 the  accounts  given  by  the  monuments,  by  the  papyrus,  by 
 JManetho,  and  by  Eratosthenes,  for  this  dynasty,  all  agree 
 very  well.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  see  that  the  sum  of  213 
 years  (though  these  are  not  all  successive)  might  very  well 
 be  made  out  by  the  figures  given  in  the  papyrus  to  the  eight 
 reigns,  if  they  had  been  all  preserved.  Even  as  it  is,  those 
 decads  of  years  which  are  lost  or  doubtful  in  the  papyrus 
 may  be  restored  with  something  like  certainty  by  the  help 
 of  the  monuments  and  the  lists  of  Manetho  and  Erato- 
 sthenes, and  the  units  too,  all  but  one,  which  the  loss  of  the 
 odd  months  and  days  may  in  some  cases  render  uncertain. 
 Of  the  first  six  names  the  first,  Ra-s-hotep-het,  is  the  only 
 one  which  appears  on  fragment  64 ;  but  there  is  just  enough 
 remaining  of  the  last  element  in  the  throne-name  of  his 
 successor  Sesortasen  I.  to  enable  one  to  recognise  it ;  and 
 though  fragment  67  has  only  the  figures  of  the  next  four 
 reigns,  the  names  themselves  are  not  perhaps  all  absent  from 
 the  existing  fragments  of  the  papyrus.  The  ends  of  two 
 of  them,  at  least,  Ra-khakaru  and  Ra-en-ma  (the  throne- 
 names  of  Sesortasen  III.  and  Amenemhe  III.),  seem  to  be 
 preserved  on  fragment  75  of  SeyfFarth  attached  to  No.  87, 
 and  may  be  restored  to  their  true  place  over  against  their 
 figures  in  the  last  two  lines  of  fragment  67.  But  this  recovery 
 of  the  names  where  the  kings  and  reigns  are  so  completely 
 identified  is  of  no  importance.  The  last  two  names  and  the 
 sum  of  Dyn.  XV  in  years,  months,  and  days,  all  preserved 
 and  legible,  take  us  to  the  third  line  of  Column  X. 
 
 But,  before  continuing  with  the  tenth  and  other  remain- 
 ing columns,  if  we  pause,  and  recapitulate  at  the  point  at 
 which  we  now  are,  viz.  at  the  end  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XY, 
 (XII  of  Ptolemy  and  Africanus,)  the  results  hitherto  arrived 
 at  are  these  : — We  have  found  that,  after  at  least  two  columns 
 of  names  of  greater  or  lesser  deities,  and  1 1  lines  of  a  third 
 containing  sums  and  figures,  there  were  probably  as  many  as 
 (12  +  22  +  23  +  22  =  )  79  names  of  Tanites,  Memphites,  and 
 .  Heliopolitans  answering  to  (8  +  9  +  9  +  8  +  9  =  )  43  names 
 
492 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 of  Manetho's  lists  clown  to  the  end  of  his  Dyn.  XII  (V  of 
 Ptolemy),  or  (79 +  10  =  )  89,  answering  to  the  (43 +  6  =  )  49 
 names  of  Manetho's  six  early  dynasties  of  Lower  Egypt 
 down  to  the  end  of  his  Dyn.  XIII  (VI  of  Ptolemy);  or, 
 lastly,  (89  -fl8  +  28  +  8  =  )  143,  answering  to  the  (49  +  16  + 
 8=)  73  kings  reckoned  by  Manetho  to  the  end  of  his  Dyn, 
 XV  (XII  of  Ptolemy).  So  that  hitherto  the  papyrus  has 
 had  upon  the  Tanite  and  the  double  Memphite  and  the  He- 
 liopolitan  connections  an  excess  of  about  40  names,  and 
 upon  the  Diospolites  of  Manetho's  Dynasties  XIV  and  XV, 
 and  kings  of  other  lines  of  Central  or  Upper  Egypt  omitted 
 by  him,  but  all  no  doubt  of  similar  origin  and  connection 
 with  the  Memphites  of  Dynasty  XIII,  a  further  excess 
 of  30  names  at  the  most,  or  of  27  at  the  least. 
 
 Hitherto  at  least  we  have  been  following  in  the  papyrus 
 a  succession  of  dynasties  or  groups  distinguished  one  from 
 another  either  by  a  sum  followed  by  a  fresh  heading,  or  by 
 a  sum  followed  only  by  an  initial  rubric  to  the  next  name, 
 or  merely  by  an  initial  rubric,  without  any  sum  or  fresh 
 heading ;  and  the  dynasties  or  groups  thus  distinguished  in 
 the  papyrus  one  from  another  have  identified  themselves  at 
 a  number  of  points  with  the  first  eight  dynasties  of  Ma- 
 netho's kings,  and  have  presented  themselves  in  the  same 
 order,  though  they  have  exhibited  at  the  same  time  great 
 discrepancies  both  in  the  number  of  the  kings  given  to 
 particular  groups,  and  in  the  length  of  the  reigns,  and  those 
 discrepancies  not  every  where  alike  nor  in  a  like  proportion. 
 For  in  one  instance  at  least  the  papyrus  seems  to  have  a 
 whole  dynasty  of  xviii  names  omitted  by  Manetho ;  in 
 another,  viz.  Dyn.  XII  (V  of  Ptolemy),  it  has  twice  as 
 many  names  as  Manetho ;  in  others,  as  in  Dynasties  VIII, 
 IX,  and  X  (I,  II,  and  III  of  Ptolemy),  it  seems  to  have 
 had  more  names  by  nearly  one  third,  but  with  a  much 
 shorter  average  length  to  the  reigns.  In  another  group, 
 again,  that  of  Dyn.  XIII  (VI  of  Ptolemy),  it  agrees  exactly 
 both  in  the  number  and  the  order  of  its  names  or  reigns  with 
 IManetho,  so  far  as  Manetho  goes ;  but  it  appends  after  Ma- 
 netho's six  reigns  a  group  of  four  more  short  reigns  which 
 Manetho  omits.    A  series  of  16  kings,  which  in  Manetho's 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 493 
 
 lists  appears  as  the  first  of  the  dynasties  of  Upper  Egypt, 
 seems  in  the  papyrus  to  have  above  a  third  more  names,  and 
 to  be  divided  into  two  groups  or  families ;  and,  lastly,  in  one 
 other  dynasty  (Dyn.  XV)  of  Upper  Egypt,  it  agrees  exactly 
 in  the  number  and  order  of  its  names,  and  makes  no  addition 
 to  them,  but  instead  of  having  its  reigns  shorter  than  those 
 of  Manetho  it  has  them  longer,  and  gives  at  full  those  years 
 of  the  dynasty  which  in  Manetho's  lists  are  either  suppressed 
 or  misplaced. 
 
 But  immediately  after  this  last-named  Dynasty  XY  the 
 character  of  the  hieratic  list  undergoes  a  great  change.  The 
 writinor  itself  becomes  at  once  somewhat  closer  and  smaller, 
 so  that  there  are  more  lines  in  a  column  than  before ;  and,  as 
 we  get  nearer  to  the  end,  it  becomes  smaller  and  closer  still ; 
 as  if  the  writer  were  either  tired  of  copying  unimportant 
 names,  or  was  compressing  them  so  as  to  bring  them  all  into 
 a  certain  number  of  columns.  As  regards  the  contents  of 
 these  later  columns  the  difference  is  still  more  remarkable. 
 A  vast  number  of  kings,  all  seemingly,  or  all  but  a  very 
 few,  of  one  and  the  same  lineage  and  connection,  with  a 
 certain  family  resemblance  running  through  their  names,  are 
 registered  in  one  continuous  series,  without  any  trace  of 
 sums  or  headings  or  even  of  initial  rubrics  to  divide  them 
 into  separate  groups  or  families.  This  multitude  of  kings, 
 exactly  equal  perhaps  in  number  to  all  those  of  the  preceding 
 dynasties  of  the  papyrus  put  together,  and  equal,  within  3,  to 
 twice  the  number  contained  in  the  corresponding  dynasties  of 
 Manetho's  lists,  are  nevertheless  all  referable  to  one,  and  to 
 one  only,  of  Manetho's  dynasties,  viz.  Dyn.  XVI  (XIV  of 
 Ptolemy),  which  follows  next  in  order  after  Dyn.  XV  (XII 
 of  Ptolemy).  And  here  the  papyrus  becomes  very  service- 
 able in  attesting  the  true  historical  character,  and  in  illus- 
 trating the  peculiarities,  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI.  And  the 
 peculiarities  of  the  papyrus  itself  are  in  turn  illustrated,  and 
 any  sinister  suspicion  obviated,  by  Dyn.  XVI  of  Manetho's 
 lists,  and  by  the  monuments,  more  especially  by  the  Karnak 
 Chamber. 
 
 As  regards  Dyn.  XVI  of  Manetho,  —  if  we  had  nothing 
 before  us  but  its  bare  heading,  giving  a  number  of  76  or  36 
 
494 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 kings,  all  anonymous,  in  184  years,  most  readers  would  at 
 once  suspect  an  error  in  the  text ;  or,  if  more  cautious,  they 
 would  argue,  and  reasonably,  that  Manetho  in  this  instance 
 must  be  supposed  to  have  compressed  a  number  of  petty 
 lines  or  dynasties  into  one.  The  Karnak  Chamber  erected 
 by  Thothmes  III.  throws  some  light  on  this  subject  by 
 exhibiting  in  one  half  of  its  whole  design,  that  to  the  left  of 
 the  spectator,  a  compendious  representation  of  four  lines  of 
 kings  answering  to  Dynasties  X,  XIII,  XIY,  and  XV  of 
 Manetho,  while  in  the  other  half,  that  to  our  right,  it  has  a 
 group  of  XXX  cartouches  equal  in  number,  all  but  two,  to 
 the  whole  corresponding  group  to  our  left ;  and  yet  these,  all 
 together,  are  referable  to  one  and  to  one  only  of  Manetho's 
 dynasties,  viz.  his  Dyn.  XYI.  The  Turin  papyrus,  again, 
 illustrates  both  the  lists  of  Manetho  and  the  arrangement  of 
 the  Karnak  Chamber,  by  exhibiting  the  same  group  of  kings, 
 that  namely  which  comes  next  in  order  after  Dyn.  XV,  as 
 vastly  exceeding  in  number  any  one  of  the  dynasties  preced- 
 ing, indeed  as  occupying  an  equal  space  in  its  columns  with 
 them  all,  just  as  the  same  group  occupies  one  full  half  of  the 
 Thothmes  Chamber,  corresponding  symmetrically  to  the 
 aggregate  of  the  preceding  dynasties  on  the  other.  But  the 
 papyrus  does  more  than  this;  it  shows  that,  however  as- 
 tonishing it  may  be  to  find  in  Manetho's  lists  36  or  even 
 7  6  kings  grouped  together,  as  if  in  one  dynasty,  and  how- 
 ever anomalous  this  may  appear,  even  after  we  have  con- 
 cluded that  here  is  in  fact  a  whole  group  of  petty  dynasties 
 in  one,  the  number  of  kings  exhibited  by  the  Karnak  Cham- 
 ber, and  indicated  by  Manetho,  is  so  far  from  being  fictitious, 
 or  from  being  exaggerated,  that  it  is  actually  only  a  selec- 
 tion of  the  more  important  branches  from  a  multitude  far 
 greater  still. 
 
 As  regards  the  papyrus  itself,  —  if  we  had  it  alone,  we 
 might  have  been  tempted  to  suppose  that  this  host  of  names, 
 all  of  one  group,  in  its  later  columns,  and  even  others  per- 
 haps in  its  earlier,  were  fictitious  and  unhistorical.  But  the 
 group  of  XXX  cartouches  occupying  one  full  half  of  the 
 Karnak  Chamber  and  plainly  of  this  same  lineage  (for  some 
 of  them  are  identifiable  in  the  fragments  of  the  papyrus). 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 495 
 
 agrees  with  the  text  of  Manetho's  lists  in  introducing  in  one 
 group  a  number  of  kings  altogether  anomalous,  and  indeed 
 incredible,  if  one  thinks  of  a  single  succession.  But  when 
 once  this  misconception  is  removed,  and  it  is  understood 
 that  during  a  certain  time,  and  in  certain  localities  of  Upper 
 Egypt  and  Xubia,  kings  were  extremely  numerous,  there  is 
 nothing  more  wonderful  in  a  list  of  143  or  162  than  in  one 
 of  76,  36,  or  30  names. 
 
 Particular  monuments,  too,  throw  light  on  the  composition 
 of  this  group,  both  in  the  papyrus,  and  also  in  the  Karnak 
 Chamber,  and  in  the  lists  of  Manetho.  For  in  one  or  two 
 instances  kings  whose  names  occur  either  on  the  right  side 
 of  the  Karnak  Chamber  or  in  the  later  columns  of  the  Turin 
 papyrus,  or  both  in  the  Karnak  Chamber  and  in  the  papyrus, 
 have  been  found  named  on  contemporary  monuments  or  in 
 inscriptions  together  with  other  members  of  their  family, 
 their  fathers,  their  mothers,  their  wives,  their  sons,  and  their 
 daughters.  And  in  the  instances  alluded  to  (of  which  a 
 more  detailed  account  has  been  given  above  at  p.  398),  the 
 father  of  the  king  is  not  distinguished  by  any  royal  title. 
 And  yet  in  the  Karnak  Chamber  and  in  the  columns  of  the 
 papyrus  those  kings  whose  fathers  were  not  kings  have  no 
 accompanying  sign  to  show  that  they  were  themselves  each 
 the  first  of  a  line.  There  is  neither  sum  nor  heading  before 
 them,  nor  are  their  names  commenced  in  red,  like  that  of 
 Soris  in  Column  Y.  Hence  it  is  plain  that  w^hat  looks  in 
 the  papyrus  like  one  vast  group  or  succession,  is  in  truth  a 
 mere  congeries  of  an  unknown  number  of  petty  contem- 
 porary lines,  which  we  have  no  data  for  distinguishing  one 
 from  another,  nor  for  ascertaining  how  many  or  how  few 
 names  followed  one  another  in  each  of  them  in  succession. 
 Hence,  too,  one  readily  understands  that,  when  the  royal 
 title  was  so  multiplied,  it  would  be  natural  in  most  cases  to 
 exhibit  a  selection  and  abridgment  rather  than  a  full  enu- 
 meration ;  and  the  greater  importance  or  longer  continu- 
 ance distinguishing  some  of  these  petty  lines  from  others 
 would  naturally  be  the  guiding  principle  in  making  the 
 selection.  And  this  prodigious  development  of  royalty  in 
 Upper  Egypt  and  Nubia  between  the  date  of  the  conquest 
 
496 
 
 EGYrXlAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 and  organisation  of  Nubia  by  Sesortasen  I.  and  the  com- 
 mencement of  Dyn.  XVIII,  together  with  the  knowledge 
 that  in  early  times  local  kings  were  numerous  in  all  the 
 neighbouring  countries,  suggests  perhaps  the  most  pro- 
 bable explanation  of  that  number  of  kings,  small  indeed 
 by  comparison,  but  still  great,  by  which  the  earlier  groups 
 also  of  the  papyrus,  or  most  of  them,  exceed  the  correspond- 
 ing dynasties  of  Manetho's  lists. 
 
 Of  the  fragments  still  remaining  after  Nos.  64  and  67, 
 which  exhibit  the  first  six  reigns  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XV, 
 and  complete  Column  VI  of  SeyfFarth,  our  own  Column  XI, 
 SeyfFarth  has  made  six  more  columns,  calculating  that  the 
 papyrus  had  twelve  columns  in  all,  with  a  length  of  about 
 six  feet.  And  those  peculiarities  of  the  writing  which  have 
 been  already  mentioned  suffice  to  show  that  all,  or  very 
 nearly  all,  the  fragments  of  which  we  are  now  speaking- 
 must  really  have  belonged  to  the  later  columns.  But  as 
 regards  the  number  of  the  columns,  we  are  forced  to  con- 
 clude that  in  these  fragments  there  are  the  remains  of  at 
 least  seven.  So  instead  of  twelve  we  shall  make  in  all  six- 
 teen complete  columns,  and  the  last  seven  of  them  with  24 
 lines  of  writing  to  each.  For  whereas  fragments  72,  72  a, 
 81,  97,  and  98  unite  all  together  at  top  into  one  continu- 
 ous surface,  so  that  they  may  be  called  one  great  fragment, 
 containing  the  upper  parts  of  three  consecutive  columns, 
 viz.  the  first  13  lines  of  our  Column  X,  in  6|^  inches,  the  first 
 9  lines  of  Column  XI,  in  4^  inches,  and  the  first  14  lines  of 
 Column  XII,  in  7  inches,  Seyffarth  has  placed  under  the  13 
 lines  of  Column  X  (his  VII)  the  connected  fragments  76,  78, 
 and  79,  with  14  more  lines,  in  6|  inches,  so  that  the  column 
 has  in  all  27  lines  and  a  length  of  at  least  13^  inches  of 
 writing  (and  it  is  to  the  writing  alone  that  all  our  measure- 
 ments refer).  But  this  is  certainly  too  much.  And,  again, 
 under  the  14  lines  of  Column  XII  (his  IX)  he  has  placed 
 fragment  101  with  13  lines  more  of  writing,  in  6f  inches,  so 
 that  this  column  also  seems  to  contain  27  lines,  with  a  length 
 of  14J  inches;  which  is  again  too  much.  The  long  frag- 
 ments therefore  with  which  he  has  completed  Columns  X  and 
 XII  (his  VII  and  IX)  must  be  displaced  and  moved  forward 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 497 
 
 to  make  parts  of  some  two  other  columns  beyond  Column 
 XIL  And  as  they  have  no  blank  edge  to  show  that  they 
 either  began  or  ended  the  columns  to  which  they  belonged,  we 
 shall  go  merely  on  the  fact  that  the  greater  number  of  the 
 fragments  presented,  and  the  largest  of  them,  are  from  the 
 upper  part  of  the  papyrus,  when  we  make  of  them  the  com- 
 mencements of  our  next  two  columns,  XIII  and  XIV.  After 
 these  necessary  changes,  as  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  the 
 true  order  of  the  names,  and  the  great  bulk  of  them  seem 
 to  be  all  of  one  and  the  same  connection,  we  shall  fill  in  the 
 vacant  space  on  the  five  columns  numbered  X  to  XIY  in- 
 clusively with  such  of  the  fragments  still  unplaced  as  suit 
 best  the  number  of  lines  wanted,  adhering  as  closely  as 
 possible  to  the  order  in  which  they  are  numbered  by 
 Seyffarth.  And  when  this  is  done,  there  will  still  remain 
 fragments  enough  to  complete  two  more  columns,  XV  and 
 XVI,  and  even  to  begin  a  seventeenth,  in  apportioning  which 
 we  shall  reserve  to  the  last  certain  fragments  numbered  by 
 Seyffarth  152,  150,  123,  and  112,  because  the  names  on  all 
 these  show  signs  of  their  belonging  to  some  different  con- 
 nection. One  small  fragment.  No.  141,  on  which  M.  Brugsch 
 has  distinguished  the  name  of  the  god  we  have  in 
 consequence  transposed  from  the  head  of  Seyffarth's  last 
 column,  XII,  to  stand  at  the  head  of  our  own  Column  I.  But 
 after  having  thus  postponed  or  withdrawn  10  beginnings  of 
 names  represented  by  fragments  152  and  150,  and  5  repre- 
 sented by  fragment  112,  and  2  indicated  by  fragment  141, 
 there  still  remain  traces  of  no  fewer  than  126  beginnings  of 
 names  (without  reckoning  separately  fragments  of  endings) 
 which  might  all  have  belonged  to  one  and  the  same  con- 
 nection. And  we  suppose  that  these  126  beginnings  of 
 names  still  preserved  imply  the  existence  of  about  26  more 
 now  lost,  which  might  belong  to  the  same  group,  making  for 
 it  152  in  all,  or  perhaps  only  143,  if  6  beginnings  be  given  to 
 the  6  endings  on  fragment  123,  and  if  the  16  names  then 
 represented  by  fragments  152,  150,  and  123  are  still  2  or  3 
 short  of  the  whole  number  of  that  connection. 
 
 As  regards  the  multitudinous  group  which  commences 
 after  the  names  of  Dyn.  XV,  after  an  intervening  sum 
 
 K  K 
 
498 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 and  a  heading,  in  the  5th  line  of  Column  X,  and  which  we 
 have  already  connected  with  the  right  side  of  the  Karnak 
 Chamber  and  with  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI,  the  first  thing  to 
 be  noticed  is  this,  that  the  throne-name  of  Amenemhe  1. 
 ( Ea-s-hotep-het),  the  first  king  of  Dyn.  XV,  appears  in  the 
 heading  prefixed  to  this  group,  as  if  he  were  also  its  founder, 
 for  the  ancestor  of  its  royal  lines:  for  in  the  heading  the 
 words  "  kings  after  Ea-s-hotep-het "  are  still  very  distinctly 
 legible.  Nor  is  this  the  only  sign  that  the  whole  group 
 of  Dyn.  XVI  traced  their  descent  from  Amenemhe  I. 
 and  Sesortasen  I.,  perhaps  from  some  daughter  of  one  of 
 those  kings,  whose  husband  may  have  held  command  in 
 the  South  country  after  the  first  organisation  of  Nubia. 
 For  in  the  list  itself  which  follows  in  Column  X  (VII  of 
 Seyfiarth)  of  the  papyrus,  the  third  and  fourth  kings  take 
 respectively  the  family  name  of  Amenemhe  I.  Amenemhe, 
 with  an  initial  Ea,  and  his  throne-name  Ea-s-hotep-het,  as 
 their  distinct  personal  names  \  and  the  eighth  king,  again, 
 takes  the  throne-name  Ea-s-hotep-het.  These  indications 
 are  the  more  valuable,  because  Manetho  has  obscured  the 
 true  origin  and  duration  of  his  Dyn.  XVI  by  assigning  to 
 it  a  period  of  184  years  which  historically  belongs  only  to 
 the  supremacy  of  the  Shepherds  as  reckoned  from  their  cap- 
 ture of  Memphis  to  their  overthrow  by  Amosis. 
 
 Next,  one  may  notice  among  the  names  certain  indications 
 of  the  region  with  which  these  kings  were  connected.  Not 
 only  do  the  names  Sevek-hotep  and  Nefer-hotep,  or  throne- 
 names  known  to  have  been  joined  with  one  or  other  of  these 
 two  family  names,  identify  the  group  with  that  on  our  right 
 in  the  Karnak  Chamber,  and  with  monumental  traces  in 
 Lower  and  Upper  Nubia, —  the  statue  of  one  Sevekhotep 
 having  been  found  in  the  isle  of  Argo,  and  inscriptions  with 
 the  names  of  others  at  Semneh,  and  near  the  first  cataract 
 (as  those  mentioned  above  at  p.  398),— but  the  composition 
 and  meaning  of  some  of  the  names  themselves  distinctly 
 allude  to  their  geographical  connection.  Thus  the  meaning 
 of  one  name,  Ea-Nahasi^  is  literally    King  of  the  Blacks^''  or 
 
 King  of  the  Negroes,^^  reminding  us  of  one  of  the  Sebck- 
 hoteps  who  may  still  be  seen  painted  black  on  an  altar  in  the 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 499 
 
 Museum  at  Leyden,  and  of  the  famous  black  queen  of 
 Amosis,  Alimes  Nofriari.  Another  name  again  has  attached 
 to  it  the  remarkable  title  "  Commandant^''  or  "  Captain  of 
 the  Soldiers,^''  which  is  doubly  illustrative,  both  of  the  great 
 multiplication  of  the  royal  title,  and  of  the  locality ;  since 
 we  find  in  an  inscription  of  the  3rd  year  of  Ra-kherp  or 
 hhem-khouteti,  Sevekhotep,  at  the  Nilometer  at  Semneh  in 
 Nubia,  this  chronological  notice  added,  when  Renserieb  was 
 Commandant  of  the  Soldiers  on  the  ...  in  the  station  of 
 Chemou  of  [i.  e.  the  fortress  founded  by]  the  late  kinglRa- 
 kha-karu  (Sesortasen  III.)."  Indeed  it  is  by  no  |means 
 unlikely  that  on  one  of  the  fragments  of  the  papyrus  we 
 have  the  latter  part  of  the  name  of  this  very  Renseneh,  who 
 was  commandant  of  the  garrison  in  the  time  of  Ra-kherp-' 
 khouteti  Sevekhotep,  as  a  king. 
 
 As  regards  the  hope  naturally  arising  that  the  papyrus 
 may  throw  light  on  the  order  of  the  names  standing  to  our 
 right  hand  in  the  Karnak  Chamber,  this  is  certainly  dis- 
 appointed. But  the  disappointment  is  not  hard  to  account 
 for.  For  since  out  of  the  30  names,  which  once  stood  to  the 
 right  of  the  spectator  in  the  Karnak  Chamber,  only  17  have 
 been  perfectly  and  4  others  partially  preserved,  while  of 
 the  143  names  or  thereabout  once  belonging  to  the  corre- 
 sponding group  in  the  papyrus  only  46  are  now  completely 
 legible  and  26  others  partially,  being  less  all  together  than 
 half,  it  follows  of  course  that  any  particular  names  legible 
 on  fragments  of  the  papyrus  may  have  belonged  to  the 
 Karnak  Chamber  though  they  are  now  absent  from  it,  and,  vice 
 versa,  that  other  names  still  preserved  in  the  Karnak  Cham- 
 ber may  have  belonged  originally  to  the  papyrus  though 
 they  cannot  now  be  read  on  any  of  the  fragments  preserved. 
 For  the  same  cause  it  is  uncertain  whether  any  of  the 
 names  of  this  group  which  have  been  found  on  scarabsei  or  on 
 other  contemporary  monuments  were  of  the  number  of  those 
 less  important  kings  who  obtained  no  place  in  the  Karnak 
 Chamber,  though  they  were  all  enumerated  in  the  columns  of 
 the  hieratic  papyri.  This  question  will  then  only  be  re- 
 solved with  certainty  when  the  number  of  known  monu- 
 mental names  of  this  group  not  now  visible  in  the  Karnak 
 
 K  K  'I 
 
500 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHKONICLES. 
 
 Chamber,  shall  be  so  increased  as  to  exceed  the  eleven  blank 
 or  nearly  blank  cartouches  in  which  all  hitherto  discovered 
 may  well  have  been  contained.  And  for  the  order  of  the 
 names,  though  we  have  in  the  upper  parts  of  Column  X,  XI, 
 and  XII  of  the  papyrus  as  many  as  29  names  preserved  in 
 their  original  order,  so  that  if  there  be  among  them  three  or 
 four  names  occurring  also  in  the  Karnak  Chamber  (and 
 there  do  seem  to  be  three),  they  might  have  been  expected 
 to  help  somewhat  towards  ascertaining  the  order  of  its  series, 
 still,  this  expectation  must  cease  when  one  reflects,  first,  that 
 if  the  right  side  of  the  Karnak  Chamber  contains  four  or 
 more  Nubian  lines  arranged  after  the  same  method  as 
 those  four  lines  which  are  on  the  left  side,  it  is  clearly 
 impossible  to  make  out  their  order  beyond  the  first  few 
 places,  unless  we  know  enough  from  other  sources  about  the 
 different  lines  to  be  able  to  distinguish  them  at  sight.  It  is 
 only  because  we  happen  to  have  such  knowledge,  that  we 
 can  make  out  the  order  of  the  names  on  the  left  side  of  the 
 Chamber.  But  of  the  diiferent  Nubian  lines  we  know  at 
 present  nothing  or  next  to  nothing;  except  that  we  can 
 identify  on  contemporary  monuments  and  inscriptions,  or  on 
 scarabaei,  some  15  or  16  isolated  names.  And  even  as  regards 
 the  whole  lines  represented  in  the  Karnak  Chamber,  it  is  by 
 no  means  certain,  though  it  is  possible,  that  the  order  in 
 which  it  exhibited  its  selected  groups  was  the  same  in  which 
 the  papyrus  exhibited  the  same  groups  in  conjunction  with 
 many  other  groups  of  less  importance,  and  perhaps  also  with 
 many  single  kings  whose  royalty  may  have  been  merely 
 personal  and  even  temporary ;  as  if,  for  instance,  the  "  Com- 
 mandant of  the  force"  stationed  at  Semneh  had  also  the  title 
 of  king.  All  therefore  that  we  can  do  in  this  matter  is  to 
 insert  here  those  names  which  are  still  legible  to  our  right 
 in  the  Karnak  Chamber,  beginning  from  the  furthest  name 
 towards  the  left  in  the  uppermost  line,  and  so  taking  all  the 
 names  in  each  line  from  left  to  right  in  succession.  And 
 as  all  those  names  which  to  the  writer's  knowledge  may  be 
 identified  elsewhere,  and  all  those  below  in  the  Turin  papyrus 
 which  are  similarly  identifiable,  will  be  printed  in  Italics, 
 the  reader  will  be  able  to  compare  the  two  lists  for  himself. 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 501 
 
 Nubian  cartouches  of  Dyn.  XVI  of  Manetho  (^XIV  of  Pto- 
 lemy) in  that  half  of  the  Karnak  Chamber  which  is  to  the 
 right  of  the  spectator,    (See  above,  pp.  293,  294.) 
 
 TJPrERMOST  LIXE. 
 
 1.  \^Ra-s-onch  ?'\kar ;  perhaps  the  same 
 as  in  line  4  of  Col.  XIV,  Pap.,  and 
 in  an  inscription  at  Hamamat. 
 
 2.  S-het-en-ra. 
 
 3.  lia-s-onch-het,  in  line  10  of  Col.  X, 
 Pap. 
 
 4.  Ra-kherp-khouteti,  called  Sevekho- 
 tep  I. :  in  line  5  of  Col.  X,  Pap. 
 
 5.  Ra-kherp-s-het\_teti]  ;  called  Sevek- 
 hotep  II.  Lepsius  has  printed  the 
 names  of  1 1  members  of  his  family, 
 from  which  it  appears  that  his  father 
 Mentuhotep  was  no/  a  king.  On  a 
 sculpture  in  the  Louvre  his  daughters 
 are  represented  worshipping  Am- 
 mon-Khem. 
 
 6.  Ba-sha-sechem?  called  Neferhotep 
 
 I.  in  line  12  of  Col.  XIII,  Pap.:  and 
 found  by  M.  Brugsch  in  the  Isles  of 
 Sehel  and  Konosso,  and  at  Assouan, 
 with  the  names  of  many  other  mem- 
 bers of  his  family,  from  which  it 
 appears  that  his  father,  Ha-anch-ef 
 was  not  a  king.  (See  above  p.  398.) 
 Also  in  the  Louvre. 
 
 7.  Ra-sha-nefer ;  called  Sevekhotep 
 III.,  whose  statue  was  found  in  the 
 Isle  of  Argo,  in  Southern  Nubia: 
 also  on  a  scarab,  in  the  Louvre  ; 
 seemingly  son  of  the  preceding,  and 
 the  same  as  in  line  1 0  of  Col.  XIV, 
 Pap.  But  in  the  Pap.  and  in  the 
 inscriptions  found  by  M.  Brugsch 
 there  is  another  son  intervening  be- 
 tween the  two  names,  Hathorsi,  who 
 is  omitted  in  the  Karnak  Chamber. 
 
 8.  Ba-sha-\_karl  ;   called  Neferhotep 
 
 II.  :  in  line  0  of  Col.  XIV,  Pap.; 
 on  scarab,  in  the  Louvre  ;  at  Masha- 
 kit  in  Nubia. 
 
 SECOND  LINE. 
 
 1.  Ba-sha-onch ;  Sevekhotep  IV.:  on 
 limestone  columns  in  the  Louvre; 
 on  altar  from  Abydos  at  Leyden. 
 
 2.  Ba-sha-hotep;  (Sevekhotep)  in  line 
 1  of  Col.  XI,  Pap.;  and  at  Abydos. 
 
 3.  Ra-s-nefer. 
 
 4.  Name  lost. 
 
 5.  Ba-ssesur-teti ;  in  line  10  of  Col 
 XIII,  Pap. 
 
 6.  Ba-mer-karu ;  in  line  22  of  Co). 
 XIII,  Pap. 
 
 7.  Ra-mer-kherp. 
 
 8.  Name  lost. 
 
 THIRD  LINE. 
 
 1.  Ba-kherp'het-shaou (Sebek-em-saf ) ; 
 on  the  Kosseyr  road  ;  and  in  the 
 Louvre. 
 
 2.  Name  lost. 
 
 3.  Name  lost. 
 
 4.  Ba-khou-teti  (Sevekhotep)  ;  in  lino 
 6  of  Col.  XIII,  Pap.  In  the  inscrip- 
 tion of  his  third  year  at  Semneh  he 
 names  Sesortasen  III.  as  a  former 
 king,  and  "  Benseneb  "  as  being  then 
 "  Commandant  of  the  force  in  the 
 fortress  of  Sesortasen  III." 
 
 5.  Ba-mer-hotep  (An)  :  in  line  4  of 
 Col.  XI,  Pap. :  and  in  the  Louvre. 
 
 6.  S-ouah-en-ra. 
 
 7.  Ba-kherp-ouah-shaou  (B,ahote^)i  in 
 line  23  of  Col.  XIII,  Pap.  ? 
 
 LOWEST  LINE. 
 
 1.  Name  lost. 
 
 2.  Name  lost. 
 
 3.  Name  lost. 
 
 4.  Ra-ta  ....  [teti], 
 
 5.  S-het-en-ra;  in  the  Louvre,  small. 
 
 6.  Ba-s-nefer  .  .  .  perhaps  in  line  21 
 of  Col.  XIII,  Pap. 
 
 7.  Name  lost. 
 
 If  we  pass  on  now  to  those  fragments  which  have  been 
 postponed  to  form  the  latter  part  of  Column  XVI,  their 
 distinctive  peculiarities  are  these :  first,  that  the  six  names 
 on  fragment  152  are  all  of  them  destitute  of  the  ordinary 
 initial  Ea,  which  seems,  however,  to  be  prefixed,  with  only 
 
 K  K  3 
 
502 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 one  or  two  exceptions,  to  all  the  names  of  the  Nubian 
 connection.  The  third  name  of  the  six  is  also,  according 
 to  M.  Brugsch,  very  remarkable,  as  its  initial  sign  is  the 
 standard  of  the  Heracleopolite  Nome  (the  22nd  and  last  of 
 tlie  Nomes  of  Upper  Egypt).  The  emblem  is  a  knife  (pro- 
 nounced se'p£)  placed  upon  a  sort  of  stand  usual  for  the 
 names  of  Gods  and  Nomes ;  and  it  is  followed  by  en,  "  of," 
 and  the  ichneumon,  which  in  contradistinction  to  the  croco- 
 dile was  sacred  in  that  Nome.  The  third  name,  too,  on  the 
 same  fragment  {Pann-set-sept  ?)  exhibits  the  same  Heracleo- 
 polite emblem,  sept,  written  phonetically ;  so  as  to  suggest 
 the  inquiry  whether  we  may  not  have  in  these  hieratic  names 
 the  source  of  the  Heracleopolite  dynasties  of  the  lists  of 
 Ptolemy  and  Africanus.  In  the  four  names  on  fragment 
 150  one  observes  again  the  same  absence  of  the  initial  Ra. 
 Two  of  the  names,  moreover,  viz.  the  second  and  the  fourth, 
 reading  Seti  and  Hor,  are  either  simply  identical  with  names 
 of  gods,  or,  if  the  endings  are  incomplete,  they  each  consist 
 at  any  rate  of  the  name  of  a  god  in  combination  with  some 
 other  element ;  so  that  this  whole  fragment  might  have  been 
 suspected  to  belong  rather  to  the  earlier  part  of  the  papyrus,  to 
 Column  II,  but  that  the  diminished  size  of  the  writing  and 
 the  closeness  of  the  lines  seem  to  forbid  transposition.  In 
 fragment  123  there  are  the  ends,  or  traces  of  the  ends,  of 
 six  names  having  this  peculiarity,  that  distinctive  epithets 
 or  surnames  are  added  after  them,  without  being  inclosed 
 in  the  cartouches ;  whereas  in  the  case  of  the  Nubian  group, 
 where  many  of  the  names  in  the  papyrus  are  double,  throne- 
 names  and  family  names  which,  as  found  on  contemporary 
 monuments,  make  two  distinct  cartouches,  are  uniformly  (at 
 least  whenever  both  are  given)  compounded  into  one.  And 
 here  again  in  the  case  of  fragment  123,  as  in  that  of  frag- 
 ment 150,  it  is  only  the  style  of  the  writing  which  prevents 
 one  from  thinking  that  the  fragment  should  have  been  placed 
 earlier,  among  those  names  which  may  correspond  to  the 
 Nephercheres  connection  of  the  upper  line  of  the  Abydos 
 tablet.  For  several  of  these  names  also  seem  to  have  ended 
 Avith  the  element  kar  ;  and  the  annexed  surnames,  Hap.., 
 Menta,  and  Beh-nou-m,  remind  one  of  those  added  to  the 
 common  elements  kar,  nefer,  and  neferkar,  in  the  Abydos 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 503 
 
 series ;  though  there  (as  the  symmetry  of  the  sculptured 
 lines  required)  the  surnames  are  all  enclosed  in  the  car- 
 touches. Possibly  these  names  may  have  been  in  fact  con- 
 temporaneous, and  of  kindred  origin  ;  and  if  they  were  petty 
 kings  at  the  northern  extremity  of  Upper  Egypt,  placed 
 where  they  seem  to  have  been  placed  in  the  papyrus  because 
 of  their  close  connection  with  the  Shepherds  who  were  next 
 to  follow,  this  may  perhaps  account  in  some  degree  both  for 
 the  absence  of  the  initial  Ra,  and  for  the  occurrence  of  the 
 name  of  the  god  Seti  or  Soutech  in  composition  in  one  of  the 
 names.  And  in  the  Abydos  tablet  also  the  List  two  names  in 
 the  upper  line,  Neferkar-Seh-en-Pej)i  2Cti^  Sneferkar-Onnou, 
 are  destitute  of  the  initial  Ra. 
 
 Those  five  names  the  initial  signs  or  commencements  of 
 which  are  preserved  in  fragment  112  are  supposed  by  M. 
 Brugsch  to  belong  to  as  many  of  the  Shepherd-kings  for 
 this  reason,  that  the  form  of  the  last  two,  indeed  that  of  all 
 the  three  commencements  which  remain,  •  consists  of  the 
 initial  A  followed  by  a  sitting  figure,  or  of  the  initial  A 
 alone;  and  this  fornl  seems  to  have  been  frequented  in 
 writing  the  names  of  strangers.  Enough  too  remains  of  the 
 first  name  of  the  three  to  show  that  it  probably  read  Aan  or 
 Oun,  which  suits  one  of  the  names,  viz.  the  fifth,  of  Ma- 
 netho's  Dyn.  XVII  (XV  of  Ptolemy) ;  and  the  little  that 
 remains  after  the  sitting  figure  in  the  last  name  would  do 
 well  for  part  of  the  first  p  in  Apepi.  Accepting  this  iden- 
 tification as  not  improbable,  we  must  suppose  these  five 
 names,  together  with  one  or  two  more,  to  have  made  the 
 commencement  of  a  fresh  column  ;  since  we  have  already 
 completed,  perhaps  indeed  somewhat  more  than  completed. 
 Column  XVI.  Possibly  there  may  have  been  in  Column  XVI 
 a  sum  or  an  initial  rubric  dividing  the  143  (?)  Nubian  names 
 from  that  lesser  group  which,  more  for  convenience  than  from 
 trusting  to  the  slender  indication  noticed  above,  we  shall 
 call  Heracleopolite.  And  with  something  like  certainty  (if 
 only  M.  Brugsch  be  right  in  his  identification  of  the  names  on 
 fragment  112),  we  may  conclude  that  the  Shepherds  at  any 
 rate  were  divided  by  a  heading  and  a  sum  from  all  the 
 native  kings  who  had  preceded.    Their  number  would  not 
 
 K  K  4 
 
504 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 be  likely  to  be  swelled  unnecessarily ;  but  there  can  scarcely 
 have  been  fewer  of  them  than  seven,  which  is  one  more  than 
 the  six  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVII  (XV  of  Ptolemy);  since 
 the  name  Apepi  seems  to  be  given  in  a  hieratic  papyrus  to 
 the  last  Shepherd-king,  in  the  time  of  Ra-sekenn,  when 
 Upper  Egypt  threw  off  the  yoke.  And  so  also  it  stands  in 
 the  list  of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  or  in  that  of  Africanus  and 
 Syncellus.  And  it  is  more  likely  that  there  were  in  fact  two 
 kings  of  this  same  name  Apepi,  the  one  the  fourth  of  the 
 dynasty  with  a  very  long  reign,  and  the  other  the  seventh 
 and  last  with  so  short  a  reign  as  to  account  for  its  being 
 omitted  by  Manetho,  than  that  either  the  Apophis  who 
 stands  fourth  of  Manetho's  six  was  misplaced  by  him  or  by 
 Josephus,  or  that  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  or  Africanus,  or  Syn- 
 cellus (no  one  of  whom  are  to  be  suspected  in  this  matter), 
 transposed  the  name  afterwards  to  suit  some  particular 
 theory.  The  same  co:: elusion  seems  also  to  be  required  by  M. 
 Brugsch's  view  respecting  fragment  112,  if  the  last  name 
 but  one  on  that  fragment  really  reads  Aan^  and  is  to  be 
 identified  with  the  Janias  of  Manetho,*  and  if  this  is  followed 
 by  two  more  names  the  last  of  which  looks  like  the  com- 
 mencement of  Apepi.  That  the  papyrus  ended,  however, 
 with  the  names  of  these  Shepherds  cannot  for  a  moment  be 
 supposed.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  registered  in  its 
 columns  at  all,  they  were  certainly  followed  by  the  names  of 
 the  kings  of  Dyn.  XVIII  which  overthrew  and  expelled 
 them,  and  which,  uniting  under  a  single  sceptre  all  the  rights 
 of  the  native  successions,  whether  Tanite,  Memphite,  Dios- 
 polite,  or  Nubian,  ruled  both  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  and 
 Nubia  also,  as  one  empire. 
 
 The  vast  sums  of  years  still  legible  in  those  lines  of 
 writing  which  intervened  in  the  papyrus  between  the  divine 
 reigns  and  Menes  prove  clearly  that  this  hieratic  list  em- 
 bodied within  itself  the  multiplication  of  the  first  2922  years 
 of  human  time  into  35,064  month-years  ;  and  therefore,  as 
 we  may  fairly  infer,  the  date  of  its  first  arrangement  was 
 either  at  or  only  a  little  after  the  cyclical  epoch  of  B.C.  1322. 
 But  as  no  single  fragment  of  those  preserved  now  exhibits 
 any  name,  or  part  of  any  name,  which  can  be  fixed  to  Dyn. 
 XVIII,  we  must  suppose  that  the  pai:>yrus  had  already  been 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 505 
 
 somewhat  damaged,  and  had  lost  one  large  fragment  from 
 its  outer  part  or  commencement  (which  might  be  the  last 
 part  of  its  written  contents),  when  it  was  so  doubled  up  and 
 crushed,  whether  in  packing  or  repacking  a  box,  or  other- 
 wise, as  reduced  it  to  that  condition  of  a  mere  litter  of 
 fragments  in  which  it  was  found  at  Turin  by  Champollion, 
 and  from  which  (with  whatever  inevitable  mistakes)  it  has 
 been  so  well  reconstructed  by  Seyffarth.  And  even  after 
 we  have  ventured  to  append  as  a  conjectural  restoration  the 
 seventeen  names  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVIII,  and  the  first 
 two  of  Dyn.  XIX  so  as  to  make  the  whole  end  at  the 
 cyclical  epoch  of  B.C.  1322,  one  year  before  the  accession  of 
 E-ameses  III.,  one  of  the  sums  which  have  preceded  at  the 
 commencement  in  Column  III,  viz.  that  of  13,420,  seems  to 
 indicate  that  this  particular  papyrus,  of  which  ^ve  have  now 
 the  fragments,  w^as  not  itself  one  of  the  very  earliest  copies 
 which  may  have  been  contemporary  with  the  original  au- 
 tograph of  the  author  of  the  arrangement.  That  is,  if  we 
 are  right  in  reading  the  two  great  sums  of  years  immediately 
 preceding  the  names  of  the  first  kings  in  Column  III 
 as  13,420  and  23,218  respectively  (identifying  the  latter 
 sum  with  that  which  occurs  separately  on  fragment  12), 
 and  in  supposing  that  these  two  sums  are  distinct,  so  that 
 they  may  be  added  up  together,  the  first  and  smaller  of  them 
 containing  the  sum  of  the  years  reckoned  from  the  date  at 
 which  the  papyrus  was  written  up  to  a  certain  Horus,  or,  vice 
 versa,  from  a  certain  Horus  down  to  the  date  at  which  the 
 papyrus  was  written ;  and  the  second  sum,  the  larger  of 
 the  two,  containing  all  the  years  which  had  preceded  from 
 the  commencement  of  the  divine  reigns  (whether  Phthah, 
 or,  as  is  more  probable,  and  as  we  see  in  the  Chronicle, 
 the  sun-god  Ka,  were  the  first  who  had  a  reign  mea- 
 sured by  years)  to  the  Horus  above-mentioned.  This 
 Horus,  in  connection  with  the  larger  sum,  is  read  by  M. 
 Brugsch  Hor-hesou  or  Hor-hersou ;  and  since  the  larger  sum 
 of  23,200  years  or  more  (for  the  decads  or  decad  and  the 
 units  are  broken  away)  which  is  reckoned  to  Hor-hersou 
 stands  last,  and  is  followed  by  the  heading  of  the  "kings 
 from  Menes "  and  the  names  of  Menes  and  his  successors, 
 M.  Brugsch  supposes,  not  unnaturally,  but  still  without  any 
 
506 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 grammatical  necessity,  that  Hor-hesoii  is  probably  the  last 
 divine  ruler,  who  immediately  preceded  Menes.  But  tlie 
 indication  contained  in  the  sums  themselves  points  a  dif- 
 ferent way;  and  the  reader,  on  referring  to  pp.  39  and  41, 
 above,  will  see  that  the  figures  naturally  to  be  given  in  a  papy- 
 rus which  should  be  written  in  B.C.  1322,  would  have  been 
 23,218,  and  (3944  +  7902  +  341+217  +  903  =  )  13,307,  the 
 two  sums  making  together  the  total  of  xxv  nominal  cycles 
 in  36,525  years.  In  the  pages  referred  to  above  the  figures 
 as  printed  are  23,220  and  7900 ;  and  the  ground  on  which 
 23.220  was  conjectured  to  be  one  of  the  sums  of  the  oldest 
 Egyptian  scheme  of  airoKaTacrraais  rather  than  23,218 
 is  there  explained  ;  but  the  writer  had  not  then  noticed  that 
 the  sum  on  fragment  12  of  the  papyrus  which  was  read  by 
 Champollion  13,218,  and  which  is  given  as  illegible  or  un- 
 certain by  Wilkinson,  has  certainly  two  bars  in  the  place  of 
 myriads,  and  not  one  only,  and  about  the  ten  and  the  eight 
 in  the  places  for  the  decads  and  units  there  is  no  doubt.  It 
 is  only  the  figure  for  the  thousands  which  seems  doubtful : 
 and  for  this  Champollion's  reading,  which  gives  a  meaning  to 
 the  marked  and  boldly  formed  peculiarity  of  the  first  stroke 
 to  the  left,  is  preferable  to  the  rendering  of  "  2000,"  whicli 
 would  take  no  account  of  it  whatever.  So  the  sum  is  pro- 
 bably identical  with  that  in  the  recapitulation  in  line  9  of 
 fragment  1  ;  and  it  enables  us  to  restore  the  decad  and  the 
 units  there  wanting.  And,  this  being  done,  those  two  month- 
 years  which  the  writer  improperly,  as  it  now  seems,  added  to 
 the  first  and  greatest  sum  in  his  calculation  at  p.  39,  must  of 
 course  be  restored  to  the  later  sum  from  which  he  detached 
 them,  and  to  that  part  of  it  which  now  stands  at  pp.  39  and 
 41  as  7900,  which  ought  to  have  been  7902.  But  in  the 
 Turin  papyrus  we  have  not,  as  we  should  have  expected  (if 
 it  had  any  vast  sums  of  month-years  at  all)  two  sums  of 
 23,220  +  13,305,  or  23,318  +  13,307,  making  up  a  total  of 
 36,525  years  in  xxv  complete  cycles  to  July  20  B.C.  1322  ; 
 but  we  find  two  sums  of  23,218  and  13,420,  making  in  all 
 36,638  years,  which  are  (36,638 -36,525  =  )  113  too  many  ; 
 and  this  certainly  seems  to  imply  that  our  papyrus  w^as  a 
 copy  made  113  years  after  the  first  composition  of  the 
 original  list ;  with  a  continuation  of  some  eight  kings,  who 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 507 
 
 had  reigned  from  the  accession  of  Ramescs  III.  in  the  inter- 
 val. The  eighth  of  these,  Rameses-  Sha-em-Djavi,  Merer- 
 amon,  the  last  king  of  Dyn.  XIX  (his  colleague  the  Thuoris 
 of  Manetho  being  dead)  we  suppose  to  have  been  still  on  the 
 throne  in  B.C.  1209,  when  the  papyrus  was  written;  and  in 
 that  case  the  name  partly  preserved  among  the  figures  and 
 accounts  on  the  back  of  the  papyrus  must  be  either  merely 
 retrospective,  as  for  instance  if  it  be  connected  with  pome 
 mention  of  the  E-amesseum  of  Kamesses  II.,  to  the  library  of 
 which  the  scribe  was  perhaps  attached  ;  or  else  it  must  be  that 
 of  one  of  the  later  Rameseses  of  Dyn.  XX,  two  of  whom,  num- 
 bered XIII  and  XIY  above,  at  p.  335,  took  those  titles  Hak- 
 ma,  Miarnon,  which  are  still  legible  on  the  back  of  the  papyrus. 
 
 The  whole  series  of  XYi  full  columns  with  the  continua- 
 tion or  supplement,  thus  made  out  for  the  Turin  papyrus, 
 and  described,  shall  now  be  subjoined  in  a  tabular  form,  so 
 that  the  reader  who  has  not  before  him  Lepsius'  or  Wilkin- 
 son's facsimile  of  the  original  fragments  as  pasted  together 
 by  SeyfFarth  and  preserved  at  Turin,  may  be  enabled  the 
 more  easily  to  follow  and  to  compare  the  foregoing  rea- 
 sonings and  explanations. 
 
 In  using  this  English  reconstruction  it  is  to  be  observed 
 that  all  conjectural  restorations,  whether  certain  or  only 
 probable,  are  printed  in  red  :  also,  that  whenever  the  hieratic 
 signs  for  one  or  more  thousands,  for  one  or  more  hundreds, 
 and  for  one,  two,  or  three  decads  are  damaged  and  am- 
 biguous, or  where  one  unit  at  the  end  of  a  sum  remains  on 
 the  very  edge  of  a  fi-agment  and  might  have  been  followed 
 by  one,  two,  or  at  most  three  others,  the  figures  representing 
 the  uncertain  thousands,  hundreds,  decads,  or  units  are  also 
 printed  in  red  ;  and  the  red  in  these  cases  means  not  that  the 
 figures  so  printed  are  wholly  absent,  but  merely  that  they 
 are  damaged  in  the  papyrus,  and  within  certain  limits  ambigu- 
 ous. Of  the  fragments  arranged  by  Seyffarth  and  numbered 
 in  the  lithographed  facsimiles  of  Lepsius  and  Wilkinson, 
 those  only  which  are  connected  with  the  beginnings  or 
 endings  of  names,  and  so  make  towards  the  reconstruction 
 of  the  columns,  are  given  in  the  subjoined  tables;  but  these, 
 it  is  believed,  are  all  accounted  for.  The  measurements 
 refer  only  to  the  lines  of  writing,  perfect  or  imperfect. 
 
508 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 COLUMN  I. 
 
 Frag. 
 Line.  Reign 
 
 No. 
 
 "Phthah? 
 
 13,149? 
 
 2 
 
 141 
 
 Ra 
 
 1,461  ? 
 
 3 
 
 Cneph? 
 
 1  0  h  f 
 
 4 
 
 300 
 
 5 
 
 Osiri 
 
 200 
 
 6 
 
 bet 
 
 300 
 
 7 
 
 Hor-Neterou 
 
 3  I'i 
 
 8 
 
 No. 
 
 u" 
 
 inotii 
 
 3,226 
 
 9 
 
 Ma 
 
 3,140 
 
 10 
 
 Hor 
 
 400 
 
 1 1 
 
 Sum  .... 
 
 "23,2 1 8 
 
 12 
 
 1st  god,  2d  series 
 
 ....  9 
 
 13 
 
 20.   
 
 14 
 
 "d 
 
 15 
 
 4  th  
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 7th  —  
 
 19 
 
 Sth   
 
 20 
 
 9th   
 
 21 
 
 10th   
 
 22 
 
 Sum  .... 
 
 3,944 
 
 23 
 
 1st  god,  3d  series. 
 
 Frag. 
 
 No. 
 14? 
 
 Line. 
 
 Reisn 
 
 2d 
 
 2 
 
 3d 
 
 3 
 
 4th   
 
 4 
 
 5  th   
 
 5 
 
 Gtli   
 
 7th   
 
 7 
 
 8th  — T— .. 
 
 g 
 
 9  th  
 
 9 
 
 10th  
 
 10 
 
 11th  — - — 
 
 2 1 
 
 12th  
 
 12 
 
 13th   
 
 13 
 
 14th  
 
 14 
 
 15th  Ha  .  .  . 
 
 16 
 
 16tli  ...  si 
 
 16 
 
 No 
 
 17  th  Hapi 
 
 17 
 
 11? 
 
 18th  .  .  .  s  .  . 
 
 18 
 
 19th  Mena 
 
 19 
 
 20th  Ur  .  .  . 
 
 20 
 
 2lst   
 
 21 
 
 22d   
 
 22 
 
 23d   
 
 23 
 
 I  Sum,  xxiii  rc 
 
 yrs.  m.  djs. 
 
 Frag. 
 
 5613.  0.23J 
 
 Frag. 
 
 COLUMN  VI. 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 
 Reign 
 
 9  th  Neferkar-sek 
 10th  Oiiazefa 
 11th  Ba.tsi 
 12  th  Nebkar 
 13th  >ora 
 _14th  Sorti 
 
 1  5  til   
 
 16th   
 
 17th  
 
 18th  
 
 19th  
 
 20th  
 
 21st   
 
 22d   
 
 23d   
 
 24th  
 
 25th  
 
 26th   
 
 27th   
 
 28th   
 
 29th   
 
 ,30th  
 
 ,31st   
 
 yrs.  m.  dys. 
 
 8. 
 U. 
 27. 
 19. 
 19. 
 
 3.— .10 
 8.  4.34 
 2.  1.4m 
 
 0.  0.— 
 
 1.  0.— 
 
 6.-| 
 44,  I 
 
 73 
 72 
 
 No.  63 
 144?  95 
 
 95 
 70 
 24 
 
 Rei^n 
 
 32d 
 33d  ■ 
 34th  , 
 35lh 
 36th 
 37  th 
 38th 
 39th 
 40th 
 _41st 
 42d 
 43d 
 _44th 
 45th 
 46th 
 47  th 
 48th 
 49th 
 50th 
 51st 
 .52  d 
 Sum; 
 
 .  . .  zcla 
 
 Uscrkcf  y  Everliv.24.— 
 Scphrcs?  24.— 
 Neferkar?  23.— 
 Sisircs?  8.— 
 
 Frag, 
 yrs.  in.  dys.  In 
 
 6.— 
 6.— 
 
 [and  another?] 
 
 L'heros? 
 
 Hathouro^? 
 
 1 8.  . 
 
 4.— — ■ 
 
 2.  
 
 7.  
 
 12.  
 
 7.  
 
 21.—  - 
 
 Mcnkare? 
 
 Mcn.kar.hor  8.  
 
 Tat  28.—  - 
 
 Onnos  30.  
 
 [  :  •  •]  kings  from  Mena . , 
 
 [  yi.,  1  Ui4  ?  — 
 
EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 509 
 
 Frag. 
 
 COLUMN  III. 
 
 COLUMN  IV. 
 
 Roign 
 
 yrs.  m.  dys. 
 
 Frag.  Frag. 
 
 Line.  ii..  Reign 
 
 yrs.  m.  dys. 
 
 Frag. 
 
 7  No. 
 1 
 
 ....  yrs.  1000  +  ? . . ; 
 
 .  XXX  .  .  .  yrs.  1115 
 
 .  X  roigns  .  .  yrs  
 
 .  they  cccxxx  life  yrs  
 
 .  X  reigns  . .        yrs.  1000+ ? 
 .  XIX  periods,  and  yrs.     11.  4.22) 
 .  in  periods  xix  yrs.  2200  +  ?  . . ' 
 
 Sum,  Fathers  vii,  yrs  
 
 Ill, 111  Hor  shesu     yrs.13420.  .  •  .  > 
 Sum,  to  Hor  shesu      232  us,  ...  i 
 Kings  from  Mena  (Everliving)  . . ! 
 1st  Mena  [Tanites] 
 2d  Athoth 
 
 3d   
 
 4th  
 
 5th   
 
 6th  
 
 7th  
 
 8th 
 9th 
 10th 
 
 .  .  h 
 
 .  Baou  .  . 
 .  Ka 
 11th...  neterea 
 12th  
 
 ["00  .28 "from  Col.  iii] 
 14th  Our  .  .  . 
 15  th  Tsatsi 
 16th  Mer  .  .  . 
 17th  Al 
 18th  .  . 
 19th  .  . 
 20th  .  . 
 21st  .  . 
 
 .-'2d   
 
 23d  Sent 
 .24th  Aakar 
 
 -25th  
 
 26th  
 
 27th  
 
 ibr  [Memphites? 
 
 2d   
 
 3d   
 
 4th   
 
 5th  — ■  
 
 .  Gth  
 
 7th  Ouah  .  .  . 
 8th  Snefrou 
 
 3th. 
 
 Frag. 
 Line.    ;,,  Reign 
 
 COLUMN  VII. 
 
 COLUMN  VIII. 
 
 yrs.  m.  dys. 
 
 Frag.  Frag. 
 
 Line.  '  Reign 
 
 Frag, 
 yrs.  m.  dys.  in. 
 
 1st  Au?  [Memphites?]  30.  6.21' 
 
 2d   Teta?  20.  0. 
 
 3d  Imhotep?  14.  0. 
 
 4th  Papa  Mairc  9  4.  0. 
 
 5th  Merenre  1.  1. 
 
 -  6th  Nitokrit  12.  0. 
 7  th  Neferkar  2.  1. 
 8th  Nefrous  4.  2. 
 9th  Ah  . .  2.  1. 
 
 loth   1.  0.  8 
 
 Sum  .  .  .  yrs.  181.  0.  0 
 
 Rubric  .  vrs.  'f    .  .  . 
 
 -  1st  king  [Abydos?]       6.  0.  0 
 2d   
 
 3d   
 
 4th  Ra  nefer.kar 
 5th  Chroti 
 
 6th  Se   
 
 7th  
 
 8th  Our .  .  . 
 9th  Shet .  .  . 
 10th  Ha  
 
 11th 
 12  th 
 13th 
 14th 
 15th 
 16th 
 .17th 
 18th 
 Sum 
 1st 
 2d 
 3d 
 4th 
 5th 
 6th 
 7th 
 -  8th 
 yth 
 
 1 0th 
 
 nth 
 
 12th 
 
 Utli 
 
 Ra  
 
 Ra  
 
 Ra  
 
 Ra  
 
 of  xviii.  reigns  .  3 
 king  [Diospolites?] 
 
 '  '  '      Nos.  62,63. 
 
   8  No. 
 
 "Ra.neb.kher  51 
 
 Ra.tsSser  .  .  '12 
 
 .  .  Raneferkar 
 .  .  .  enta? 
  i 
 
 No. 
 
510  EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 COLUMN  IX. 
 
 Frag. 
 
 •  In  Reign 
 
 yrs.  m.  dys. 
 
 Frag.  Frag. 
 111.    Line.  Ill  Reigti 
 
 Frag. 
 
 15th  . .  made  his  reign? 
 
 16th  6.— 6Sum,  I24kings 
 
 17th   .  .  from  Mena.  .  . 
 
 JSum  of  xvii.  reigns  .  .  .  35.5.  0.10 
 Heading?  [Diospolites?]  _ 
 
 1st  king? 
 
 2d   
 
 3d   
 
 4th   10 
 
 5th   5 
 
 6th   _  9 
 
 7th  
 
 8th  
 
 9th  
 
 1 0th  
 
 nth  
 
 Sum  of  xi.  reigns  243   
 
 Heading,  [vi'ii  Diospolites]  from 
 Ra.s.hotep.het  [in  yrs.  191?  ] 
 
 9  
 
 48  _ 
 
 37  
 
 19  
 
 36  
 
 48  
 
 1st  Ra,s.hotep.het 
 2d  Ra.chcper.kar 
 3d  Ka.ncb.karu 
 4th  Ra.sha.chepcr 
 5th  Ra.kha.karu 
 6th  Ra.en.ma.t 
 
 7th  Ra.ma.khru        9.  3.27~ 
 8th  Ra.sebek.nefrou  3.  10.24 
 Sum  of  kings  in  yrs.  213.  1.17 
 Heading  [Nubians?]  after 
 
 Ra.s.hotep.het  
 
 ls^  liaMouAeti  1.  3.24 
 2d  Ra.kherp.kar       6.    0.  0_ 
 
 3d  Ra.Amenemhe  —  ~ 
 
 4th  Ra.s.hotep.het  —  
 
 5th  Aouphni  2._  _ 
 
 6th  Ra.s.onch.het       1 .  ~—  22 
 7th  Ra.s.men.har     —    —  22 
 8th  Ra.s.hotcp.het    —  1.27 
 -  9th  ...  .  h.kher       —  _—  22. 
 
 "10th  
 
 Uth  
 
 -12th   
 
 13th  Ra.mer-I  cheper  j 
 Uth  Ra,mer-|_kar?  J 
 
 "I5th   
 
 16th  
 
 -17th   
 
 18th  
 
 19th  
 
 "20th   [kar 
 
 No. 
 
 72a 
 
 31 
 
 -'No. 
 J  90? 
 
 Frag. 
 Line.  In.  Reign 
 
 69th 
 70th 
 71st 
 72d 
 73d 
 74th 
 75  th 
 
 _76th 
 
 '77th 
 78th 
 79th 
 80th 
 81st 
 82d 
 
 "83d 
 84th 
 85th 
 86th 
 87  th 
 
 _88th 
 89th 
 90th 
 91st 
 92d 
 
 COLUM.NT  XII L 
 
 yrs.  m.  dys. 
 
 Ra.netem.het 
 
 Ra.sevekJiot[ep 
 
 Ren-sc!if[b 
 
 Ra.shouou? 
 
 Ra.s.zefa  - 
 
 Ra.kherp.khouteti,Sevekhotep 
 
 Ra.tseser  .  .  [ra 
 
 Ra  ,  .  [kar  "  Commandant..'" 
 
 COLUMN  XIV. 
 
 Frag.  Frag. 
 In.    Line.  In.  Reign 
 
 Frag, 
 yrs.  m.  dys.     1  ii 
 
 Ra.tseser  Seti 
 Ra.kherp.kar,  Sevekhotep 
 Ra.sha,Neferhotep 
 Ra.Mathor.si 
 Ra.sha.ne/er,  Sevehltvtcp 
 
 kar  , 
 
 Ra.tses  . 
 Ra.tses  . 
 
 93d 
 94th 
 95th 
 9e.th 
 97th 
 98th 
 99th 
 100th 
 101st 
 102d 
 103d 
 104th 
 -105th 
 "106th 
 107th 
 108th 
 109th 
 11 0th 
 "lllth 
 112th 
 11 3th 
 I  Uth 
 115th 
 1  1 6th 
 
 Ra  
 
 Ra.se.cheper.ran 
 Ra.tat.khcru 
 Ra.s.onch.kar 
 Ra.nefer  kher 
 Ra.chem  .  . 
 Ra.ka  .  .  . 
 Ra.nefer.het 
 Ra.a  .  .  . 
 Ra.sha  ... 
 Ra.nefL'r?kar 
 Ra.sinen  .  .  . 
 
 heb.ra 
 
 —  18 
 
 —  29 
 7.20 
 
 —  21 
 
 —  4 
 
 —  1 
 
 Ra.sha. seb.neb 
 Ra.en.kar 
 
 I  No. 
 102? 
 
 No. 
 
 100? 
 2i 
 
 No. 
 80? 
 1 
 
 I  No. 
 163 
 
EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 511 
 
 COLUMN  XI. 
 
 Frag. 
 Line.  111.  Reign 
 
 Frag.  Frag. 
 In     Line.  '11  Keign 
 
 COLUMN  XII. 
 
 jrs.  m.  dys. 
 
 No. 
 82 
 
 No. 
 
 93 
 
 21st 
 22a 
 23d 
 24th 
 25th 
 26th 
 27th 
 28th 
 "29th 
 '30th 
 31st 
 "32d 
 33d 
 34th 
 35th 
 36th 
 37th 
 ~3Si\\ 
 39  th 
 40th 
 41st 
 42d 
 43d 
 44th 
 
 Ra.sha.hotep  4. 
 Ka.oua.hetAan.het  10. 
 lia.mer.nefer  [23. 
 Ra.mer.hotep  2. 
 Ra.s.oiich.cn.set.hut  3. 
 Ra.mer.onch.Ank  3. 
 Ra.sab.kar.Hora  1.- 
 
 8.  29 
 8.[28 
 8.  18 
 2.  [9 
 2. 
 
 1."  " 
 
 8 
 4 
 LI 
 3 
 
 .  mes 
 .  ma.Aba 
 .  uben.Har 
 
 No. 
 
 94? 
 
 21 
 
 45th 
 46th 
 47th 
 48th 
 49th 
 50th 
 51st 
 .52d 
 -53d 
 54th 
 55th 
 56th 
 57th 
 .58th 
 59lh 
 "60th 
 61st 
 .62d 
 ■63d 
 64th 
 65  th 
 66th 
 67th 
 68th 
 
 Ka.nahasi   
 
 Ra.sha.kher   
 
 Ra.neb.ef.shouou  I. 
 
 5.11 
 
 Ra.s.heb 
 Ra.mer.tefa 
 Ra.?eb.kar 
 Ra.ra  neb.tefa 
 Ra.uben 
 
 3.— 
 3.— 
 
 1.— 
 J  — 
 I.— 
 
 Frag- 
 
 No 
 !)7 
 
   I   tcfa^o  gyj 
 
 Ra..  juben.ra 
 Ra.shouou.het 
 Ra.har.het 
 Ra.neb.senou 
 
 Ra 
 
 Ra.s.nefer  .  .  . 
 Ra.inen-[karu?] 
 .  .  ouah  .  . 
 
 COLUMN  XV. 
 
 Frag. 
 Line.  In.  Reign 
 
 No. 
 130 
 
 No. 
 
 133 
 No. 
 
 'fl 
 I 
 
 No. 
 
 136 
 
 1 1 7th 
 118th 
 119th 
 120th 
 121st 
 122d 
 123d 
 124th 
 125th 
 .126th 
 r27th 
 128th 
 -129th 
 "130th 
 .131st 
 "132d 
 133d 
 -134th 
 '135th 
 .136th 
 -137th 
 138th 
 139th 
 140th 
 
 >rs.  m.  dys. 
 
 Frag.  Frag. 
 In.    Line.  In.  Reign 
 
 COLUMN  XVI. 
 
 yrs.  m.  dys. 
 
 Ra.kherp  .  .  . 
 Ra.khcrp.ou  . 
 Ra.khcrp.ou.s 
 Ra.scsen  .  . 
 Ra.nebari 
 Ra.nebaten 
 Ra.sment  .  . 
 Ra.tseser.aten 
 Ra.kherp  .  .  . 
 
 . .  .  12- 
 
 kher.ra- 
 
 No. 
 120o 
 
 u 
 
 1. 
 
 No. 
 
 109 
 
 and 
 
 4. 
 
 110? 
 
 "  1. 
 
 No. 
 
 4. 
 
 113? 
 
 No.- 
 14.=)  j 
 
 151  [ 
 
 141st   
 
 142d   
 
 143d   
 
 Slim,  cxHii  kings  536   
 
 Heading?  .  [Ilcraclcopolitcs?] 
 
 1st  [Everliving 
 
 2d  Ab.nou 
 3d  Sept.en.mau 
 4th  Tann.set.sept 
 5th  Pah. As? 
 .  6th  Sor.hem.t 
 '  7rh  Aph  .  .  . 
 8th  Seti  .  .  . 
 9th  Nun  .  . 
 _10th  Hor  .  .  . 
 
 "llth   kar 
 
 1 2th 
 13th 
 '14th 
 15th 
 'l6th 
 17th 
 18th 
 
 Ffag. 
 
 No. 
 146? 
 
 .  Hap .  . 
 
 .  kar  Menta 
 .  kar  Beb.nu.m  . . 
 
   3  
 
 .  .  sheti 
 _en.neb.Erget 
 
 No. 
 
 123? 
 21 
 
 No. 
 115 
 
 Vi 
 
512 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Line.  Reign 
 
 COLUMN  XVII. 
 
 yrs.  m.  dys. 
 
 Frag. 
 
 COLUMN  XVIII. 
 
 Reign 
 
 yrs.  rn.  dys. 
 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 •^2 
 23 
 24 
 
 No.- 
 112 
 
 19th   
 
 Sum  of  xix  reigns  71.  i'. 
 
 Ilcadin<,^?  [Shepherds]  .  .  . 
 
 ist  Seti? 
 ,  2a  Bebnu? 
 3d  Apanch? 
 4th  Apepi? 
 5th  Aoun  .  . 
 6th  A  set? 
 7th  Ap  epi? 
 
 Sum  of  vii  kings  259.10. 
 Heading  [Dyn.  XVIII &XIX.] 
 
 1st  Ra.neb.poh  Aahnies 
 
 2d  Ra.sorkar 
 
 3d  lia.aa.cheper.kar 
 
 4th  Ka.ma.kar 
 
 5th  Ra.aa.eri.chcper 
 
 6th  Ru.men.chcper 
 
 7th  Ra.aa.cheperou 
 
 Sth  Ra.men.cheperou 
 
 9th  Ra.neb.ma 
 1 0th  Ra.tseser.cheperou 
 11  th  Rat[oti] 
 12th  [Achcuchere] 
 
 13th  [Achenchere] 
 
 1 4th  Ra.men.peh 
 
 15th  Ra.en.ma 
 
 IGth  Ra.tseser.ma 
 17 til  Bai.en.ra 
 
 1  th  ]\a.tseser.cheperou 
 19th  Ra.tseser.shaou 
 
 Sum,  xix  reigns,  yrs.  426.  
 
 Sum  to  Cyclical  epoch  from  Menes 
 
 ;i.'31  kings,  and     yrs.  3,750.  
 
 And  of  xxiii  gods  5,613.  
 
 And  of  X  others  3,944.  
 
 And  of  X  others  23,218.  
 
 Total  sum  of  years  36,525.  
 
 Heading  of  viii  kings  from 
 
 1st  Ra.tseser.ma  (Rameses  III.) 
 
 2d  Ra  tseser.ma 
 
 3d  Ra.tseser.ma? 
 
 4th  Ra.neb.ma 
 
 5th  Ra.tseser.ma 
 
 6th  Ra.tseser.ma 
 
 7th  Se.sha.en.ra  (SLPhtkah.) 
 
 8  th  Neferkaura 
 Sum  from  Cyclical  epoch  to  end  of 
 
 his  13th  year  (viz.  to  June  22d  b.  c.  1209),  kings  viii,  years  113 
 But  from  Menes  kings  cccxxxix,  „  3,863 
 Sum  of  years  from  Horus  .  .  „  13,420 
 And  from  Ra  to  Horus?  .  .  .  „  23,218 
 Total  sum  of  years  ,  36,638 
 
 If  it  be  allowed  that  the  reconstruction  thus  exhibited,  or 
 something  like  it,  is  borne  out  by  the  fragments,  it  will  seem 
 that  the  Turin  papyrus,  when  perfect,  must  have  agreed 
 very  nearly  —  and,  if  so,  it  is  most  probable  that  it  agreed 
 exactly  —  with  the  hieratic  list  of  Herodotus  in  having  331 
 or  330  kings  from  Menes  to  Rameses  III.  And  since  in 
 this  papyrus  there  was  combined  with  the  list  of  kings  a 
 scheme  of  "  myriads  of  years,"  ending  no  doubt  at  the 
 cyclical  epoch  of  July  20,  B.C.  1322,  this  explains  how  it 
 came  to  pass  that  the  priests  read  out  to  Herodotus  and 
 numbered  so  exactly  a  series  of  names  ending  with  the  pre- 
 decessor of  "  Sesostris."  For  the  older  papyri,  or  that  list 
 which  had  been  written  on  them  by  the  first  hand,  would 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 513 
 
 end  with  the  accession  of  Rameses  IIL,  the  Sesostris  who 
 was  powerful  by  sea ;  and  all  later  copies,  whenever  made, 
 and  whatever  subsequent  additions  or  continuations  they 
 might  have  received,  would  be  sure  still  to  mark  that  epoch 
 at  which  both  the  cyclical  scheme  itself  and  the  original 
 list  combined  with  it  were  together  completed. 
 
 But,  upon  admitting  the  probable  agreement  of  the 
 hieratic  list  of  Herodotus  with  that  of  the  Turin  papyrus,  a 
 question  arises  not  only  as  to  the  subdivisions  of  the  myriads 
 of  years, — which  is  less  to  the  present  purpose, — but  also  as 
 to  the  time  of  the  331  kings,  whether  the  years  of  associate 
 or  deputy  kings  and  of  contemporary  lines  were  all  summed 
 up  together  and  made  to  enter  into  the  myriads  of  years 
 of  the  cyclical  dTroKardaTaa-Ls,  or  only  those  903  years 
 which  were  truly  successive  and  chronological  between 
 Menes  and  the  cyclical  epoch  in  B.C.  1322.  In  their  own 
 nature  all  concurrent  years  of  kings  or  lines  of  kings  after 
 Menes  were  quite  distinct  from  the  35,064  months  obtained 
 from  and  resolvable  into  the  first  2922  years  of  human  time; 
 and  between  the  whole  mass  of  these  month-years  and 
 Menes  there  intervened  217  other  full  years,  and  341  also 
 full  but  fictitious,  neither  of  which  sums  would  be  likely  to 
 be  inserted  among  (that  is,  in  the  midst  of)  the  month-years 
 divisible  by  12.  Still,  since  a  great  number  of  years  of  the 
 reigns  of  kings,  besides  the  903  years  really  successive,  were 
 exhibited  by  the  papyrus  in  the  sums  following  its  different 
 lines  or  families,  and  since  the  papyrus  is  known  to  have 
 made  a  display  of  certain  vast  sums  of  years  which  were  in 
 one  aspect  at  least  fictitious,  it  may  be  that  even  from  the 
 first  composition  of  the  scheme  the  whole  series  of  its  royal 
 lists  was  treated  fancifully  as  if  consecutive,  so  that,  by 
 addition  of  all  their  years  to  the  preceding  sums  of  the 
 divine  reigns,  Menes  and  the  commencement  of  the  monarchy 
 might  be  carried  up,  as  it  were,  not  only  above  the  217 
 historical  and  the  341  fictitious  full  years,  but  also  some 
 way  into  the  month-years  themselves ;  though  these  latter 
 belonged  properly  only  to  the  surviving  antediluvians,  or  to 
 their  predecessors  of  the  old  world.  In  the  absence  of 
 evidence  from  the  papyrus  itself  this  view  may  be  adopted 
 
 L  L 
 
514 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 ^  as  the  most  probable.  It  is  favoured  by  a  sum  of  3000,  per- 
 haps followed  by  more,  on  fragment  40,  and  by  another  sum 
 of  "23  reigns  with  5613  years"  which  Champollion  seems 
 to  have  read  in  a.d.  1824  on  some  fragment  not  found  again, 
 or  not  found  entire,  by  Seyffarth.  For  this  latter  sum  (giving 
 by  the  way  to  each  of  the  23  reigns  244  month-years  reduci- 
 ble to  20^  full  with  1  over)  must  have  belonged  to  the  later 
 deities;  and  it  suggests  the  expectation  that  several  thou- 
 sands of  the  13,420  years  reckoned  from  Hor-hesu  to  the  date 
 of  the  papyrus  are  still  to  follow ;  at  least  if  there  was  only 
 one  other  divine  series,  and  only  one  other  sum,  of  3000  and 
 more  years,  intervening  between  the  first  sum  of  23,218 
 years  and  this  sum  of  5613  years  given  to  23  lesser  deities. 
 Now,  on  looking  back  to  pp.  39  and  41,  the  reader  will  find 
 a  sum  of  3944  years  marked  off  above  the  historical  epoch 
 of  the  existing  world,  for  purposes  there  explained,  while  the 
 great  sum  of  23,220  or  23,218  years  preceding  is  shown  to 
 have  been  produced  only  as  a  consequence  by  the  specifica- 
 tion of  the  3944.  So  then  this  latter  sum  is  in  itself  the 
 most  essential  and  the  most  certain  of  ail  the  subdivisions 
 of  the  35,064  month-years.  And  if  we  restore  it  conjectu- 
 rally  (without  insisting  on  fragment  40,  where  some  words, 
 and  perhaps  figures,  after  the  "  3000,"  are  lost),  and  reckon 
 downwards  from  the  elements  now  obtained  (23,  218  +  3944 
 -f  5613)  to  the  end  of  the  third  divine  series,  we  shall  obtain 
 a  sum  of  32,775  years,  wanting  still  not  903  years  only  but 
 (36,525-32,775  =  )  3750  years  of  the  full  sum  of  the  airo- 
 Kardaraa-is,  and  so  implying  that  there  are  still  to  follow  so 
 many  years,  probably  all  years  of  the  kings,  from  Menes  to 
 Kameses  III. 
 
 But  independently  of  any  such  presumption,  and  to 
 discuss  the  question  only  on  its  own  grounds,  —  it  seems 
 clear  that  the  Theban  and  Memphite  priests  in  their  con- 
 versations with  Hecataeus  and  Herodotus  meant  thus  much  at 
 least  to  be  understood,  that  the  331  kings  were  all  succes- 
 sive, and  so  had  covered  some  space  of  time  vast  in  com- 
 parison with  the  "  less  than  900  years"  which  had  followed  ; 
 though,  it  may  be,  they  did  not  themselves  tell  Herodotus 
 that  he  was  to  reckon  all  the  reigns  as  full  generations  of 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 515 
 
 three  to  a  century.  When  they  carried  up  Menes  to  so 
 early  a  time  that  the  Delta  was  not  yet  formed,  they  may 
 have  meant  that  his  apparent  place  in  their  lists  (if  the 
 month-years  had  been  all  full  and  historical  years,  and  no 
 fictitious  years  inserted)  would  be  very  near  to  the  com- 
 mencement of  their  reckoning  of  true  human  time,  even  for 
 the  old  world,  long  before  Egypt  was  peopled.  And  this,  if 
 there  were  as  many  as  3750  years  of  kings  to  Rameses  III., 
 would  be  the  case.  For  if  we  deduct  these  from  the  sum  of 
 the  true  years  of  Egyptian  reckoning,  being  (903  +  217  + 
 2922  =  )  4042,  there  remain  only  292  years.  But  the  priests 
 may  have  spoken  vaguely,  in  order  to  countenance  Hero- 
 dotus in  his  own  exaggerated  estimate.  In  any  case  the 
 language  held  by  them  favours  the  idea  that  aU  the  kings 
 w^ere  so  presented  by  the  hieratic  lists  from  which  they 
 read  out  the  names  as  to  be  capable  of  being  regarded  as 
 successive.  Manetho  too  might  more  naturally  think  of 
 peopling  with  royal  ghosts  (whom  he  rejected  from  his  lists 
 after  Menes)  9770  month-years,  or  814  full  years,  belong- 
 ing in  the  Chronicle  of  B.C.  305  to  the  gods,  if  he  had  already 
 found  some  (3750-1461  =)  2289  of  these  same  month- 
 years  covered,  in  appearance  at  least,  by  kings  in  the 
 hieratic  lists.  If  so,  he  would  be  merely  making  his  own 
 scheme  somewhat  less  obnoxious  to  Greek  ridicule  when  he 
 cut  out  a  multitude  of  the  kings  named  to  Herodotus  as 
 successors  of  Menes,  and  threw  them  up  into  a  mythological 
 region  where  they  might  hold,  without  the  inconvenience  of 
 carrying  up  Menes  along  with  them,  the  same  month-years 
 as  before,  and  with  some  fresh  thousands  added. 
 
 Nevertheless,  thus  much  is  clear,  that  neither  the  number 
 of  names  in  the  hieratic  papyri,  nor  the  years  given  to 
 them  in  detail,  were  forged  or  multiplied  for  the  purpose  of 
 covering  such  sums  of  years  as  13,000,  or  11,000,  or  10,000, 
 or  9000,  or  even  8000;  or  indeed  for  any  purpose  of  exagge- 
 ration at  all.  This  appears,  when  one  collects  and  examines 
 those  figures  for  the  years  of  particular  reigns  which  are 
 still  legible  on  different  fragments  of  the  papyrus,  whether 
 assignable  to  their  proper  places  or  detached.  Of  such 
 figures  certainly  representing  the  years  for  reigns  (and  not 
 
516 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 merely  months  or  days)  there  are  in  all  88 ;  and  these,  if  all 
 thrown  together,  make  up  a  sum  of  1006  years,  to  which  might 
 be  added  some  20  or  30  more  for  units,  or  for  odd  months  and 
 days  broken  away.  So  if  we  were  to  make  the  sura  1034,  and 
 dividing  this  by  88  were  to  use  the  quotient  (viz.  11  years 
 and  H,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  9  months)  as  a  common 
 average  by  which  to  estimate  all  the  331  reigns  of  the  papyrus 
 down  to  Rameses  III.,  we  should  obtain  for  them  a  sum  of 
 about  3889  years. 
 
 But  this  method  will  not  produce  the  nearest  possible  ap- 
 proximation. The  averages  of  the  papyrus  in  different  groups 
 or  lines  of  kings,  and  in  its  earlier  and  later  columns,  vary  so 
 greatly,  that  it  is  necessary  to  proceed  step  by  step,  and  to  make 
 out,  so  far  as  may  be  possible,  the  particular  average  proper 
 to  each  group,  then  only  having  recourse  to  the  averages  of 
 some  other  adjacent  group,  or  to  the  mean  average  of  a  num- 
 ber of  groups  in  the  same  part  of  the  papyrus,  when  there 
 are  no  figures  nor  other  indications  supplied  for  itself  by 
 that  particular  group  which  may  be  under  discussion. 
 
 Starting  on  this  principle,  we  have  first,  at  the  head  of 
 Column  Y,  as  a  specimen  and  hint  for  the  Tanites  and  early 
 Memphites  answering  to  Manetho's  Dynasties  VIII,  IX, 
 X,  and  XI  (I,  II,  III,  and  IV  of  Ptolemy),  5  names  with  a 
 sum  together  of  85  years,  which  afford  17  years  to  each  king. 
 Below,  in  the  same  column,  one  may  place  with  some  pro- 
 bability the  fragment  numbered  144,  with  two  reigns  of  6 
 and  44  years  respectively.  This  fragment  Seyffarth,  from 
 uncertainty  where  to  place  it,  has  reserved  to  his  last  Column 
 XII,  where  it  stands  unconnected  with  any  other;  but 
 it  seems  to  have  belonged  to  one  of  the  earlier  columns  of  the 
 papyrus ;  and  the  reign  of  44  years  may  suit  well  for  some 
 one  or  other  of  the  long  lives  marked  on  fragment  30  in 
 our  Column  V  and  supposed  to  belong  to  the  Memphites  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XL  This  fragment  (No.  30)  cannot  be 
 placed  higher  in  the  column ;  but  perhaps  the  names  Sora 
 and  Sortiy  which  (if  the  writer  remembers)  are  not  ab- 
 solutely on  one  fragment  with  the  names  preceding  them, 
 ought  to  stand  lower.  Supposing  them  to  have  belonged  to 
 this  column,  the  two  reigns  on  the  small  fragment  above- 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 517 
 
 mentioned,  and  two  more  of  6  years  each  at  the  head  of 
 Column  VI,  making  a  sum  of  62  years,  would  indicate  an 
 average  length  of  15  J  years.  In  Column  VI  the  14  reigns 
 preserved  out  of  18  answering  to  Manetho's  Dyn.  XII,  with 
 a  sum  of  216,  indicate  an  average  of  15^^^.  Thus  already, 
 though  the  data  are  insufficient,  there  are  signs  of  va- 
 riation in  particular  averages.  It  may  be  that  Menes 
 and  his  successors  in  the  right  line,  whether  seven  only 
 or  more  than  seven,  who  make  a  dynasty  alike  for  the 
 Chronicle,  for  Manetho,  and  for  Eratosthenes,  had  an 
 average  of  their  own  somewhat  higher  than  that  of  other 
 kindred  reigns  following.  This  the  fragments  give  us  no 
 help  for  estimating  separately.  But  since  the  papyrus  seems 
 to  have  made  at  the  bottom  of  Column  VI,  where  we  now 
 are,  one  joint  sum  for  all  the  kings  from  Menes,  we  may  do 
 the  like.  So  if  we  throw  together  the  (5+4  +  14  =  )  23 
 reigns  for  which  we  have  found  figures,  and  divide  by  23  the 
 sum  of  (85  +  62  +  216  =  )  363  years,  made  up  by  the  same 
 figures,  we  obtain  a  mean  average  of  15  years  and  ^^ds 
 (above  9  months)  for  each  reign.  And  if  we  extend  the 
 same  average  to  the  other  56  reigns  included  by  the  papyrus 
 with  the  23  in  one  sum  at  the  foot  of  Column  VI,  the  whole 
 79  kings,  corresponding  to  Manetho's  Dynasties  VIII,  IX, 
 X,  XI,  and  XII,  should  have  together  1246  or  1247  years. 
 This  sum,  however,  is  probably  in  excess,  since  the  very 
 long  reigns  and  lives  of  the  kings  of  Dyn.  XI  seem  to  have 
 been  exceptional ;  and  in  marking  the  length  of  the  lives,  as 
 well  as  that  of  the  reigns,  the  papyrus  itself  deals  with  them 
 exceptionally.  And  without  those  2  reigns  which  have 
 been  conjecturally  given  to  them  in  Column  V,  the  other  21 
 reigns  with  313  years  would  indicate  for  the  mean  average 
 only  14,^^,  and  this  would  make  the  whole  sum  for  79  kings 
 to  be  1177-1^  years. 
 
 In  the  next  column.  Column  VII,  the  series  answering  to 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII  causes  no  difficulty ;  for  the  papyrus 
 still  exhibits  both  its  sum  of  181  years  and  enough  of  the 
 figures  for  the  10  reigns  to  show  that  they  agreed  with 
 the  sum.  Here  then  the  average  was  18^  years.  And 
 as  this  is  the  point  where  Manetho  ends  those  six  early 
 
 L  L  3 
 
518 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 dynasties  of  Lower  Egypt,  to  wliicli  he  gives  an  average 
 length  of  above  30  years  for  each  reign,  it  will  be  well  here 
 to  compare  with  his  sum  of  (3  x477  =  1431  +  60  =  )  1491 
 years  those  of  142 7 or  1348^,  which  have  been  found 
 for  the  papyriis.  The  difference  between  these  two  sums 
 and  1491  is  about  64  years  for  the  larger  of  the  two,  and 
 about  133  years  for  the  smaller.  Manetho's  sum,  as  has 
 been  shown  elsewhere,  is  certainly  artificial ;  and  since  it 
 appears  to  exceed  both  the  sums  estimated  for  the  papyrus, 
 this  is  some  ground  for  thinking  it  probable  that  he  obtained 
 it  by  adding  on,  rather  than  by  cutting  off  years  from  those 
 which  he  found  in  the  hieratic  lists.  But  we  are  not  left 
 in  this  instance  to  a  mere  presumption,  which  might  be 
 deceptive.  The  papyrus  itself  affords  positive  proof  that 
 such  was  the  case.  For  its  sum  of  181  years  for  the  line 
 answering  to  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII,  shows  that  Manetho 
 when  he  came  to  the  end  of  this  dynasty  had  not  found 
 in  all  the  40  reigns  of  the  hieratic  lists  which  he  had 
 suppressed  or  consolidated  years  enough  to  complete 
 that  average  of  over  30  years  which  he  designed  for  the 
 49  kings  whom  he  retained;  or  rather,  he  had  not  found 
 enough  to  complete  that  symmetrical  exhibition  of  thrice 
 477  years,  with  60  more  to  unite  with  43  elsewhere,  which 
 he  saw  to  be  obtainable  without  any  very  great  departure 
 either  from  the  sum  of  years  in  the  hieratic  lists,  or  from  that 
 precise  average  length  of  31  years  which  he  would  have 
 preferred,  perhaps,  if  he  could  have  had  it  for  each  reign. 
 For  on  comparing  the  sum  of  181  years  as  made  out  by  the 
 papyrus  for  its  10  reigns  with  the  sum  of  197  as  made  out 
 by  Manetho  for  his  6  reigns  of  the  same  connection,  it 
 appears  that  Manetho  added  to  the  2nd  king  of  the  dynasty 
 not  only  all  the  10  years  of  its  7th,  8th,  9th,  and  10th  kings 
 whom  he  suppressed,  but  also  16  new  and  fictitious  years  of 
 his  own.  We  may  conclude,  then,  with  absolute  certainty, 
 from  this  fact  alone,  that  the  sum  total  of  the  years  of  kings 
 in  the  papyrus  down  to  the  end  of  Dyn.  XIII  was  at  least 
 16  U7idei'  Manetho's  sum  of  1491;  that  is  to  say,  instead  of 
 being  1491  it  was  at  the  most  only  1475.  But  there  are  other 
 proofs  that  it  was  lower  still,  since  we  know  that  Manetho 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 519 
 
 added  63  years  to  the  true  sum  of  190  belonging  to  the 
 first  dynasty  of  the  Tanites ;  and,  what  is  more,  he  added 
 all  these  63  years  to  the  first  two  names  of  Mehes  and 
 Athothis,  when  there  would  scarcely  as  yet  be  any  as- 
 sociate or  deputy  kings,  or  crown-princes  dying  young, 
 whose  short  reigns  he  might  consolidate.  And  if  we  divide 
 his  sum  of  (253  +  302  =  )  555  years  among  the  (8  +  9  +  10 
 =  )  27  Tanites  whom  he  indicates  in  one  way  or  another, 
 and  who  no  doubt  represent  the  first  27  names  of  the  pa- 
 pyri, there  will  be  for  them  an  average  of  20^,  that  is 
 one  of  20  years  and  over  6  months ;  and  even  after  striking 
 off  the  63  years  added  to  Menes  and  Athothis,  we  shall  find 
 in  (190  +  302  =  )  492  years  an  average  for  them  of  IS^ 
 years ;  whereas  those  5  reigns  which  stand  at  the  head 
 of  our  Column  V,  even  if  taken  by  themselves,  indicated 
 an  average  of  only  17  years  ;  and  27  reigns  calculated 
 at  that  average  would  make  a  sum  of  only  459  years, 
 less  by  96  than  Manetho's  sum  of  555,  and  less  by  33 
 than  the  sum  of  492  remaining  after  the  addition  made  to 
 Menes  and  Athothis  has  been  cut  off.  One  might  infer, 
 then,  that  Manetho  added  not  only  to  Menes  and  Athothis 
 63  years,  but  also  to  some  part  of  his  second  dynasty  of 
 Tanites  at  least  33  years  more,  which  must  be  deducted  so 
 as  to  bring  down  the  27  kings  together  to  the  average  of 
 17  years.  But  Manetho  himself  supplies  indications  that 
 even  this  average  of  17  years  taken  from  fragment  18  a 
 is  too  high.  For  since  in  his  next  four  dynasties,  X,  XT, 
 XII,  and  XIII,  he  has  (9  +  8  +  9  +  6  =  )  32  names,  while  the 
 papyrus  seems  to  have  had  62,  being  30  more,  if  we  add  to 
 the  32  the  30  Memphites  of  his  Manes,  in  like  manner  as 
 we  have  added  before  his  10  Tanite  Manes  to  the  17 
 Tanites  of  his  list  after  Menes,  he  will  again  coincide  with 
 the  papyrus  in  the  number  of  62  kings  ;  of  which  10  being  of 
 the  connection  of  Dyn.  XIII,  and  18  more,  according  to 
 the  papyrus,  of  that  of  Dyn.  XII,  there  remains  for  Ma- 
 netho's Dynasties  X  and  XI  together  the  number  of  34 
 kings,  being  just  double  the  (9  +  8  =  )  17  of  his  two  dy- 
 nasties. And  if  we  divide  by  34  the  joint  sum  of  years 
 given  by  Manetho  to  those  two  dynasties,  being  (214  +  277 
 
 L  L  4 
 
520 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 =  )  491,  it  affords  an  average  length  of  only  14^,  or  less  than 
 14  years  and  a  half  to  each  king.  But  whatever  were  the 
 causes  which  either  swelled  the  number  of  the  royal  names 
 or  shortened  the  reigns  of  half  of  them,  there  is  no  reason  to 
 suppose  that  the  average  for  the  27  Tanites  would  exceed  by 
 much,  if  it  exceeded  at  all,  the  average  of  the  34  Memphites; 
 especially  when  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  among  the  latter  were 
 the  builders  of  the  great  pyramids  who  were  renowned  for 
 their  long  reigns  and  lives.  And,  looking  on,  we  find  the  ave- 
 rage indicated  by  the  papyrus  for  its  18  kings  answering  to 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XII  to  be  only  I5y\  years  (since  14  of 
 the  reigns  are  preserved,  and  have  among  them  216  years). 
 Yet  here  again,  though  the  average  is  collected  from  no 
 fewer  than  14  out  of  18  reigns,  so  as  to  seem  safe  in  its 
 application,  INIanetho  shows  that  it  is  too  high  for  the  re- 
 maining 4,  since  he  gives  the  sum  of  the  dynasty  at  248  years, 
 which  reduces  the  average  for  all  the  18  kings  to  13|-|,  and 
 shows  that  the  average  of  14^  indicated  by  Manetho  for 
 the  34  kings  consolidated  into  17  in  his  Dynasties  X  and 
 XI,  though  it  seemed  so  low,  was  still  in  fact,  as  it  ought 
 to  be,  swelled  somewhat  by  the  exceptional  reigns  of  the  Su- 
 phises  and  their  successors.  But  if  Manetho  himself  teaches 
 us  to  give  up  for  those  Memphites  who  had  among  them 
 the  longest  reigns  that  highest  average  of  1 7  years  which  we 
 found  for  5  of  them  on  frngment  IS  a,  and  which  in  default 
 of  other  indications  one  might  have  thought  of  extending  to 
 them  all,  and  to  the  Tanites  besides,  there  is  certainly  nothing 
 now  to  make  us  persist  in  retaining  it  for  the  Tanites,  whom 
 it  will  be  more  consistent  to  reduce  to  the  highest  average 
 indicated  by  Manetho  for  the  Memphites.  Nor  can  it  be 
 objected  that,  if  we  follow  Manetho's  indications  in  reducing 
 the  average  for  the  Memphites  and  the  Elephantinites,  we 
 ought  to  follow  him  also  in  giving  to  the  Tanites  at  least 
 that  average  of  IS^f  to  which  they  are  reduced  by  cut- 
 ting off  63  years  from  Menes  and  Athothis.  This  would 
 have  been  so,  certainly,  if  Manetho  were  not  known  to  have 
 added  to  the  years  of  Dynasty  XIII,  and  to  those  of  the 
 Tanites.  But,  when  once  it  is  known  that  he  has  added,  the 
 only  question  is  to  discover  from  other  signs  the  precise 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 521 
 
 amount  of  the  additions.  It  would  indeed  be  rash  and  unne- 
 cessary to  assert  without  proof,  that  because  he  has  added  to 
 two  groups,  he  has  therefore  also  added  in  like  manner  to 
 the  two  other  intermediate  groups.  But  on  the  other  hand,  in 
 proportion  as  we  see  that  his  scheme  required  addition, 
 and  that  one  addition  made  to  the  last  of  his  first  six 
 dynasties  was  not  enough,  the  presumption  becomes  very 
 strong,  and  approaches  to  certainty,  that  if  his  intermediate 
 sums  are  lower  than  we  should  have  expected,  they  have  at 
 any  rate  not  been  reduced  by  him,  but  are  given  by  him  as 
 they  stood  in  the  hieratic  lists.  We  shall  therefore  deduct 
 from  1475  (which  seemed  at  first  to  be  the  maximum  sum 
 possible  for  the  papyrus  to  have  made  down  to  the  end  of 
 Dyn.  XIII),  not  only  the  63  years  certainly  added  by 
 Manetho  to  the  names  of  Menes  and  Athothis,  but  also  97 
 more  as  probably  added  by  him  to  the  (9  +  5  or  6  =  )  14  or  15 
 Tanites  of  his  Dyn.  IX.  This  is  countenanced  by  the  list 
 of  Eratosthenes,  which  cuts  off  from  Manetho's  Dyn.  IX  a 
 sum  of  at  least  78  years.  But  we  shall  suppose  Manetho  in  his 
 Dynasties  X,  XI,  and  XII,  to  have  adhered  to  the  sums  of 
 the  papyri,  only  consolidating  the  shorter  reigns,  being  in 
 number  just  one  half,  and  so  suppressing  26  names  of  kings. 
 On  this  supposition  the  common  sum  of  Manetho  and  the 
 papyrus  at  the  end  of  Dyn.  XII,  and  irrespectively  of 
 Manetho's  additions,  was  one  of  (1491  —  16  =  1475  —  63  = 
 1412  —  97  =  )  1134,  affording  to  79  kings  a  mean  average  of 
 14|-J  years.  And  Dyn.  XIII  being  added,  with  a  particular 
 average  of  I^^q  in  181  years  for  its  10  kings,  the  whole  89 
 kings  thus  made  up  from  the  49  of  Manetho's  first  six  dy- 
 nasties after  Menes  and  the  40  of  his  two  dynasties  of 
 Tanite  and  Memphite  ghost-kings  before  Menes,  and  iden- 
 tical with  as  many  in  the  papyrus,  will  have  a  mean  average 
 of  14|-|  in  a  sum  of  13 15  years.  And  this  average,  even  if  it 
 were  brought  so  low  merely  by  frequent  deaths  and  succes- 
 sions, would  differ  but  little,  and  that  not  in  the  way  of 
 defect  but  of  excess,  from  the  general  average  confessed  to 
 by  Manetho  himself  for  all  the  later  dynasties  of  his  Third 
 Book.  For  there,  after  Dyn.  XIX,  the  6 1  kings  of  the  re- 
 maining dynasties  reign,  in  a  sum  of  859  years,  only  14^y 
 
522 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 each.  And,  even  if  we  were  to  include  the  last  5  consolidated 
 generations  borrowed  from  the  Chronicle  in  his  Dyn.  XIX, 
 even  so  the  66  kings  of  his  Book  III.  would  have  in  978 
 years  only  14|^  each. 
 
 Between  Dyn.  XIII  and  Dyn.  XV,  in  Columns  VII, 
 VIII,  and  IX  of  the  papyrus,  there  were  by  calculation 
 (18  +  28  =  )  46  names;  but  the  data  on  which  to  base  any 
 trustworthy  calculation  of  the  number  of  years,  at  any  rate 
 for  the  first  series  of  18  of  these  king's,  are  wantincr.  From 
 Manetho,  now  that  we  have  entered  upon  the  dynasties  of 
 Central  and  Upper  Egypt,  little  help  is  to  be  obtained 
 towards  making  out  the  names  or  years  even  for  those  lines 
 which  he  mentions;  but  this  line  of  18  kings,  whether  it 
 were  that  of  the  upper  line  in  the  tablet  of  Abydos  or  some 
 other,  he  has  altogether  omitted.  All  that  remains  in  the 
 papyrus  is  the  initial  rubric  with  traces  of  ten  lines  of  names 
 in  the  lower  part  of  Column  VII,  and  in  the  9th  line  of 
 Column  VIII  part  of  a  line  containing  the  sum  after  the 
 "  XVIII  kings,"  the  commencements  of  whose  cartouches  and 
 two  whole  names  have  alone  been  preserved.  But  in  the 
 way  of  figures,  besides  the  number  of  the  kings,  there  re- 
 mains nothing  but  one  reign  of  *^  6  years."  So  we  must 
 leave  this  dynasty  for  the  present,  and  pass  on,  merely 
 remarking  that  if  the  mean  average  of  all  the  preceding 
 lines  thrown  together  be  taken  to  be  14|-|  (14  years  and 
 about  8  months),  18  kings  could  not  claim  less  than  274 
 years,  while  if  they  had  the  same  average  with  Dyn.  XIII, 
 which  they  follow,  they  would  claim  as  many  as  333  years. 
 As  in  discussing  above  the  average  to  be  given  to  the  Tanites 
 we  have  adopted  a  lower  average  of  14^  rather  than  a  higher 
 one  of  17  years,  which  some  might  have  preferred,  and  as 
 this  series  in  Column  VII  of  the  papyrus  is  enclosed  on  both 
 sides  by  groups  which  seem  to  have  had  considerably  higher 
 averages  than  14  or  even  15  years,  we  shall  here  incline 
 to  the  higher  average,  and  give  to  these  18  kings  conjectu- 
 rally  a  sum  of  331  years,  affording  18^^  to  each.  This  sum 
 however,  it  is  to  be  understood,  may  be  reduced  to  any  other, 
 not  lower  than  274,  by  any  one  who  thinks  it  necessary  to 
 allow  more  years  than  we  have  allowed  to  any  other  group. 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 523 
 
 But  for  the  other  names  following  after  these  18,  and 
 supposed  to  be  28,  there  exist  some  slight  grounds  for  a 
 calculation;  since  there  are  preserved  two  sums,  one  of  243 
 years,  which  certainly  came  after  the  last  of  the  28  names 
 (since  it  is  conjoined  with  the  heading  of  Dyn.  XV),  and 
 another  of  355  years,  which  we  suppose  to  have  stood  after 
 the  17th  name  of  the  28  in  the  upper  part  of  Column  IX, 
 so  as  to  divide  them  all  into  two  lines,  leaving  1 1  names  to 
 go  with  the  lower  sum  of  243  years.  Thus  divided,  the  1 7 
 reigns  in  the  355  years  would  have  an  average  length  of 
 20^,  or  something  under  21  years;  and  the  11  reigns  in 
 the  243  years  would  have  an  average  of  22^  years.  And 
 there  is  a  fragment,  No.  85,  with  the  years  for  four  reigns, 
 9,  8,  51,  and  12,  marked  on  it,  which  seems  to  have  belonged 
 to  this  part  of  the  papyrus,  and  may  be  placed  conjecturally 
 opposite  to  four  of  those  28  names  to  which  the  sums  of  355 
 and  243  years  belong.  The  reign  of  5 1  years  on  this  frag- 
 ment No.  85  is  very  suitable  to  be  set  opposite  to  the  name 
 Ma-neb-kher, yvhose  46th  year  is  marked  on  a  stele  from  Abydos 
 now  at  Turin  :  and  the  4  reigns,  having  in  all  80  years,  would 
 indicate  an  average  of  20.  So  that  they  agree  well  with  the 
 estimate  formed  on  other  grounds.  As  for  the  three  reigns 
 of  10,  5,  and  9  years  on  fragment  50  which  have  been  placed 
 in  Column  IX,  this  is  merely  to  keep  the  fragments  as  nearly 
 as  possible  in  the  order  of  SeyfFarth ;  the  uncertainty  at- 
 taching to  the  decads  of  the  first  reign  rendering  it  useless 
 towards  any  estimation  of  an  average.  It  might  have  been 
 placed  equally  either  in  Column  IV,  V,  VII,  or  VIII.  On 
 fragment  156  also  there  are  two  sums  of  22  and  26  respec- 
 tively, which  would  suit  well  enough  to  place  in  Column 
 VIII  or  IX,  if  one  were  only  sure  that  they  are  years 
 and  not  days.    But  this  being  uncertain,  they  are  omitted. 
 
 In  Dyn.  XV,  again,  all  is  plain,  as  both  the  sum  of  213 
 years  at  the  end,  and  enough  of  the  figures  for  the  eight 
 reigns  to  bear  out  this  sum,  are  preserved.  And  in  this 
 dynasty,  which  divides  in  a  manner  the  papyrus,  or  at  least  the 
 bulk  of  its  kings,  arranged  so  as  to  precede  the  Shepherds, 
 into  two  halves,  the  particular  averages  reach  their  highest 
 limit,  the  8  names  having  one  with  another  no  fewer  than 
 
524 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 26  years  and  7  months  each ;  though  here  also,  as  in  the 
 case  of  Dyn.  XI,  two  reigns  were  often  in  part  concurrent ; 
 and  it  would  unduly  increase  the  mean  average  to  throw  the 
 gross  sum  of  this  dynasty  into  one  with  all  the  rest  of  the 
 figures  for  reigns  preserved,  in  order  so  to  estimate  the 
 mean  duration  of  all  the  unknown  reigns.  Thus  in  the 
 papyrus  the  order  of  Manetho  is  reversed;  or,  rather, 
 Manetho  in  arranging  his  own  lists  has  reversed  that  order 
 or  proportion  which  he  had  before  him  in  the  papyri.  For, 
 with  great  differences  between  its  particular  averages, — 
 differences  which  only  the  details  of  the  history  could 
 account  for, — but  with  no  appearance  of  systematic  par- 
 tiality or  of  any  artifice,  the  papyrus  has  given  to  its 
 groups  of  Lower  Egypt  averages  of  either  14|-^  years  to  27 
 kings  together,  or,  it  may  be,  15  and  ISif  to  12  and  15 
 kings  separately,  of  14|4  to  34  kings,  of  13^|^  to  18  kings, 
 and  of  ISyi^  to  10  kings  ;  and  of  these  averages  the  last  and 
 highest  belongs  to  a  family  which  w^as  connected  rather  with 
 Central  than  with  Lower  Egypt.  And  upon  the  whole, 
 both  hitherto  and  afterwards,  the  average  length  of  the 
 reigns  seems  to  increase  rather  than  to  diminish  as  we  move 
 higher  up  the  Nile  ;  at  least  until  after  Dyn.  XY.  So 
 that  after  Dyn.  XIII  (the  last  of  Manetho's  six  dynasties  of 
 Lower  Egypt)  there  follow  in  the  papyrus  averages  of  IS^g, 
 20^,  and  22^j,  till  at  length  in  Dyn.  XY  the  average  rises 
 to  26  years  and  7  months,  exceeding  even  that  of  25  years 
 which  the  2  reigns  on  fragment  144,  if  taken  alone,  might  be 
 considered  to  indicate  for  some  of  the  pyramid-builders  of 
 Memphis,  who  were  in  part  contemporary  with  Dyn.  XY. 
 And  it  is  remarkable  how  the  peculiarities  of  very  long 
 reigns  and  lives,  and  of  associations  in  the  throne,  —  that  of 
 building  great  pyramids  may  be  added,  —  distinguish  at  once 
 these  contemporary  lines  of  Lower  and  Upper  Egypt,  while 
 the  same  length  of  reigns  and  lives,  and  even  one  far  more 
 extraordinary,  characterises  the  Shepherd  dynasty  which  was 
 contemporary  with  both  these.  Even  Manetho  himself 
 renders  this  homage  to  Dyn.  XY,  that  he  names  all  its  8 
 kings,  and  allows  to  7  of  them  in  his  sum  of  160  an  average  of 
 nearly  23  years,  though  in  other  respects  he  maltreats  it  as 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 525 
 
 belonging  to  Upper  Egypt.  But  for  the  other  lines  of  Upper 
 Egypt  which  appear  in  the  papyrus,  he  mentions  only  two ; 
 and  of  those  two  he  suppresses  all  the  names ;  and,  not  content 
 with  that,  he  suppresses  also  or  curtails  their  years;  while  to 
 the  first  six  dynasties  of  Lower  Egypt,  which  in  the  hieratic 
 lists  had  reigns  of  short  average  length,  he  gives  not  reigns 
 but  generations ;  and  generations  again  not  like  those  of  the 
 Chronicle  of  only  24^  but  of  over  30  years,  preserving  at  the 
 same  time  in  the  10  Tanites  and  30  Memphites,  who  make 
 two  out  of  the  four  groups  of  his  Manes  or  ghost-kings,  an 
 indication  of  the  method  by  which  he  had  proceeded  in 
 dealing  with  the  hieratic  lists. 
 
 Puttinor  together  what  has  been  hitherto  found  or  esti- 
 mated,  viz.  89  kings  to  the  end  of  Dyn.  XIII  with  at  most 
 1379,  but  more  probably  with  only  (1379  —  64  =)  1315 
 years,  +18  with  267^  at  least,  or  as  we  have  given  them 
 331, +  17  with  355  +  11  with  243  +  8  with  213,  we  have  in 
 all  for  143  kings  in  1315  +  331  (or  1379  ?  +  267  ?) +  355  + 
 243  +  213,  amounting  to  2457  years,  a  mean  average  of 
 17^1:^  ;  and  if  we  were  to  assume  that  this  same  average  is 
 applicable  also  for  all  the  remaining  columns  and  reigns  of 
 the  papyrus,  we  might  either  calculate  summarily  (188  x 
 17-3^)  an  addition  of  3217^^3^  years  for  the  remaining  188 
 kings,  to  end  in  B.C.  1322,  —  which  would  make  a  total  for 
 the  years  of  the  kings  from  Menes  to  that  point  of  (2457  + 
 3217  =  )  5674;  or  we  might  apply  the  average  obtained 
 only  as  far  as  any  existing  fragments  of  the  papyrus  take 
 us,  until  reaching  dynasties  for  which  Manetho  gives  the 
 reigns ;  and  thus  we  should  first  for  143  Nubian  kings 
 double  the  sum  of  2457  ;  then  for  19  others  we  should  add 
 225  years ;  and,  lastly,  we  should  add  from  Manetho  and  the 
 Chronicle  260  +  348  +  78,  so  as  to  make  in  all  from  Menes  to 
 Rameses  III.  (2457  +  2457  +  225  +  260  +  348  +  78  =  )  5825 
 years,  which  is  within  19  years  of  the  sum  of  4  cycles.  Or, 
 with  113  years  more  to  the  date  of  the  papyrus,  these  two 
 calculations  would  produce  sums  of  5787  or  5938.  And  if 
 one  of  these  sums,  let  us  say  if  the  latter,  had  been  the  sum 
 of  the  papyrus,  it  would  have  both  covered  the  (113  +  903  =  ) 
 1016  years  between  the  dates  of  the  papyrus  and  of  Rameses 
 
526 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 III.  and  Menes,  and  the  217  intervening  between  Menes  and 
 the  month- years^  and  the  341  fictitious  years,  and  would 
 besides  have  spread  up  over  (5825  — 1461  =  )  4364  of  the 
 month-years,  so  as  to  leave  for  the  deities  of  the  second  and 
 the  third  classes  between  the  first  great  sum  of  23,218  years 
 and  Menes  only  (13,307-5825  =  )  7482  years. 
 
 But  the  remaining  figures,  preserved  from  those  later 
 columns  of  the  papyrus  which  were  filled  with  names  of  the 
 Nubian  connection  and  of  the  lesser  group  which  followed  it, 
 by  no  means  favour  any  such  calculation  as  the  preceding. 
 For  in  Column  X,  at  the  commencement  of  the  Nubian 
 group,  we  find  4  names  with  10  years  and  4  months  between 
 them,  affording  only  2  years  and  7  months  to  each.  Again, 
 after  an  interval  of  a  whole  column,  at  the  head  of  Column  XI, 
 there  are  8  consecutive  names  with  50  years  and  8  months, 
 affording  6  years  and  just  4  months  to  each.  After  ano- 
 ther similar  interval,  near  the  head  of  Column  XII,  there 
 are  again  7  consecutive  names ;  but  these  have  together 
 only  11  years  and  6  months,  giving  1  year  and  7  months  for 
 each.  On  fragment  163,  which  like  another  small  fragment. 
 No.  164,  near  it,  certainly  made  the  end  of  a  column,  and 
 which  we  have  put  at  the  end  of  Column  XIV,  there  were  6 
 lines  containing  names  ;  and  the  figures  for  the  years  of  5  of 
 them  are  preserved ;  and  they  make  a  sum  of  only  12  years, 
 giving  2  years  and  nearly  3  months  for  each  reign.  And, 
 lastly,  on  fragments  125,  127,  and  126,  which  seem  to  have 
 joined,  and  which  certainly  headed  a  column  (they  are 
 placed  at  the  head  of  Coluinn  XV),  there  are  3  reigns  either 
 consecutive  or  with  only  one  other  between,  with  only  one 
 year  each.  To  the  large  fragments  commencing  our  Columns 
 XIII  and  XIV  no  years  remain  attached ;  but  on  the  iso- 
 lated fragments  80,  100,  109,  115,  and  126  «,  and  probably 
 also  on  110  and  114,  placed  opposite  to  them  by  Seyffarth, 
 and  belonging  no  doubt  to  this  same  part  of  the  papyrus, 
 there  are  figures  for  the  years  of  1 1  reigns,  making  altoge- 
 ther a  sum  of  (17  +  4  +  1  +  3  +  4  +  5  +  12  =  )  46  years,  so  that 
 the  1 1  kings  might  have  one  with  another  4^^  years  each, 
 or  something  more,  since  there  may  have  been  a  unit  more 
 to  several  of  the  reigns.  But  if  one  puts  all  these  specimens 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 527 
 
 together,  —  and  they  fairly  represent  the  great  Nubian 
 group  of  the  papyrus  throughout  its  whole  extent,  —  they 
 give  for  38  kings  a  sum  of  133  years  and  6  months.  To 
 which  if  8  years  more  and  6  months  are  added,  in  con- 
 sideration that  in  some  of  the  reigns  there  may  have  been 
 either  another  unit  after  the  sign  for  years,  or  some  odd 
 months  and  days,  the  spaces  for  which  in  24  cases  out  of 
 the  38  are  broken  away,  there  will  be  in  all  for  38  kings 
 a  sum  of  142  years,  indicating  an  average  of  3  years 
 and  f fths,  or  about  9  months.  This  average,  if  applied 
 to  Manetho's  sum  of  184  years  (which,  however,  does 
 not  belong  historically  to  the  Nubians),  would  indicate 
 a  number  of  49  kings ;  while  the  76  kings  in  the  text  of 
 Africanus  would  require,  if  all  successive,  a  space  at  the 
 same  average  of  277  years  ;  whereas  the  historical  duration 
 of  the  dynasty  cannot  well  have  exceeded  216  years.  So 
 either  the  reading  of  76  kings  is  not  from  Manetho  ;  or  they 
 were  not  all  successive  (and  it  appears  certain  from  other 
 signs  that  they  were  not);  or  Manetho's  76  reigns  are  a 
 selection  from  the  full  hieratic  list,  so  made  as  to  exhibit 
 a  loicer  average  length  than  any  76  names  of  the  same 
 group  would  have  had  if  they  had  been  taken  as  they 
 stood.  But  this  is  altogether  improbable.  For  if  a  selection 
 were  made  at  all,  the  more  important  names  or  groups,  and 
 the  longer  rather  than  the  shorter  reigns,  would  be  sure 
 to  be  selected.  Or,  lastly,  we  are  putting  the  average  for 
 the  papyrus  too  high  when  we  put  it  for  this  group  at  nearly 
 3 1  years,  seeing  that  the  76  corresponding  kings  of  Ma- 
 netho, even  if  they  had  228  years  (and  were  at  the  same 
 time  all  successive),  would  have  an  average  of  only  3  years 
 each.  But  to  return  to  the  papyrus:  As  there  is  no 
 sufficient  proof  that  the  average  of  3f  years  is  too  high, 
 (and  it  is  already  so  low  as  to  suit  better  for  commandants 
 or  governors  who  were  relieved  or  changed  at  short  in- 
 tervals than  for  hereditary  kings),  the  method  hitherto  pur- 
 sued requires  that  the  years  for  the  143  Nubian  names  of  the 
 papyrus  should  be  calculated  at  the  average  of  3  years  and 
 9  months.  So  their  sum  will  be  536^ ;  and  these  added  to 
 the  2457  of  the  earlier  143  kings,  will  make  2993  years. 
 
528 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 There  follow  next  on  fragments  152,  108,  and  123,  those 
 (6  +  4  +  6  =  )  16  names,  or  parts  of  names,  which  have  been 
 postponed  as  belonging  to  a  distinct  group,  and  named  upon 
 some  slight  indications  Heracleopolite.  For  adding  3  more 
 names  to  this  group,  and  so  making  it  to  consist  of  19  in  all, 
 and  the  greater  group  preceding  it  to  consist  of  143,  instead 
 of  leaving  to  the  preceding  group  146  names,  and  reckoning 
 to  this  separately  no  more  than  the  16  found  on  fragments 
 152,  108,  and  123,  there  are  the  following  grounds:  First, 
 there  is  the  fact  that  the  three  fragments  in  question  do  not 
 actually  join,  and  can  scarcely  be  supposed  to  contain  the 
 whole  group  which  they  represent.  Secondly,  there  is  some 
 indication  of  the  number  1 9  in  the  lists  of  Ptolemy ;  for  he 
 makes  two  dynasties  of  "  Heracleopolites,"  both  with  19 
 kings ;  and  as  by  this  title  of  Heracleopolites  he  supplies  a 
 hint  towards  interpreting  those  two  of  the  names  on  fragment 
 152  which  contain  the  sign  of  the  Heracleopolite  Nome,  he 
 may  help  us  also  towards  the  number  of  the  kings  as  well  as 
 towards  their  designation.  And,  lastly,  having  seen  how 
 in  the  Karnak  Chamber  the  Nubian  kings  were  made  to 
 match  symmetrically  all  the  other  kings  preceding,  the  pre- 
 ceding kings  having  exactly  one  half  of  the  chamber,  to  the 
 left,  and  the  Nubians  exactly  one  half,  to  the  right  of  the 
 spectator,  one  may  think  it  probable  that  in  the  papyrus  also 
 the  exhibition  of  143  Nubians,  if  this  number  be  admitted 
 to  be  the  true,  after  143  kings  of  other  families  preceding, 
 was  not  accidental.  Or,  if  thus  much  only  be  clear,  that  the 
 number  of  the  kings  preceding  was  143,  and  that  of  the 
 Nubians  not  very  different,  one  may  think  it  probable  that 
 143  and  no  other  number  was  that  of  the  Nubians  also. 
 And  thus  far  the  papyrus  itself  countenances  the  idea  of 
 some  names  having  been  marked  off  as  a  distinct  series,  that 
 one  fragment  (which  Seyffarth  too  has  set  opposite  to  the 
 names  on  fragment  152)  exhibits  the  same  title  Anch  Ouza 
 Sneh  (Everliving),  which  alone  seems  to  have  distinguished 
 in  Column  YI  the  head  of  Dyn.  XII.  And  as  no  traces  of 
 any  sum  or  heading  are  discoverable,  nor  are  there  figures 
 attached  to  any  of  the  15  names  of  fragments  152,  108,  and 
 123,  it  must  be  supposed  that  here  also,  as  in  Column  VI  in 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 529 
 
 tlie  case  of  OuserchereSj  and  as  in  Column  V  in  the  case  of 
 Sora,  the  names  followed  one  another  uninterruptedly;  and 
 that  the  general  character  and  circumstances  of  the  larger 
 group  preceding  and  those  of  the  lesser  group  following  were 
 so  far  alike,  that  the  same  or  nearly  the  same  average  length 
 of  reigns  belonged  to  both.  Thus  then,  as  it  seems,  we  are 
 suddenly  taken  by  the  papyrus  from  the  Nubian  districts 
 on  and  beyond  the  southern  borders  of  Upper  Egypt  back, 
 as  it  were,  to  its  northern  frontier ;  for  the  Heracleopolite 
 Nome  was  the  22nd  and  last  Nome  of  the  Upper  Country 
 towards  the  north  where  it  bordered  on  the  Lower ;  and  two 
 groups  of  kings,  the  Nubian  and  the  Heracleopolite,  with  the 
 space  of  all  Upper  Egypt  separating  them,  are  united  in  the 
 latter  part  of  the  papyrus,  as  if  they  constituted  in  a  manner 
 but  one  group,  having  the  same  character  —  a  character 
 entirely  anomalous  —  both  as  regards  the  multitude  of  royal 
 names,  and  the  shortness  of  the  reigns.  Further,  the  whole 
 two  groups  together  as  placed  in  the  hieratic  list,  and  the  He- 
 racleopolite group  territorially  also,  are  found  in  proximity  to 
 the  Shepherds ;  and  the  question  suggests  itself  whether  so 
 great  a  multiplication  of  kings  joined  with  so  short  a  tenure  of 
 royalty  at  either  extremity  of  Upper  Egypt,  may  not  have 
 been  owing  to  some  policy  of  the  Shepherd  suzerains  during 
 the  time  that  they  were  paramount  ?  At  any  rate,  upon  the 
 accession  of  Amosis,  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII,  the  whole 
 system  disappears  as  suddenly  and  as  completely  as  if  it  had 
 never  existed.  But  whatever  were  those  historical  circum- 
 stances which  produced  before  the  time  of  Dyn.  XYIII  and 
 extinguished  about  the  time  of  its  commencement  the 
 Nubian  and  Heracleopolite  titles,  it  is  one  further  sign 
 that  these  groups  were  joined  together  in  the  papyrus  as  of 
 similar  character,  and  with  a  like  short  average  to  their 
 reigns,  that  Manetho  also  has  so  joined  them,  whether  in  the 
 selection  admitted  into  his  Dyn.  XVI,  or  in  the  last  and  by 
 far  the  largest  group  of  his  ghost-kings,  which,  though 
 anonymous,  corresponds  plainly  to  the  Nubian  group  of  the 
 papyrus,  and  has  5813  month-years,  or  484  full.  For  unless 
 Dyn.  XVI  and  this  last  group  of  Manes,  taken  together, 
 include  the  Heracleopolites  as  well  as  the  Nubians,  Manetho 
 
 M  M 
 
530 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 must  have  omitted  the  Heracleopolites  altogether ;  which  he 
 would  scarcely  do  if  they,  though  fewer  in  number,  had  had 
 average  reigns  of  the  ordinary  length,  and  so  had  been  the 
 more  important  line  of  the  two.  But  it  may  be  presumed 
 that  he  either  joined  the  two  groups  together  as  he  found 
 them  joined  in  the  papyri,  or,  if  he  omitted  the  smaller  of 
 the  two  (since  it  cannot  be  denied  that  he  has  omitted  at 
 least  one  line  before),  this  was  because  they  had  the  same 
 short  average  of  3f  years,  with  which  a  line  of  19  kings 
 would  have  in  all  only  7 1  years.  If  he  consolidated  them, 
 one  miust  suppose  that  the  number  of  kings  to  be  named 
 for  his  fourth  group  of  Manes  was  (143  +  19=162  —  76  =  ) 
 86 ;  and,  if  so,  86  kings  in  484  years  would  have  5f  |-  years 
 each.  But  throwing  together  the  76  kings  of  his  Dyn. 
 XVI  with  the  86  of  his  last  group  of  Manes,  and  the 
 184  years  of  the  former  with  the  484  years  of  the  latter,  the 
 whole  162  kings  would  have  in  their  whole  sum  of  668 
 years  years  each,  which  is  not  so  very  different  from 
 
 the  average  of  the  papyrus.  But  even  if  it  had  agreed  more 
 exactly,  this  agreement  might  be  only  accidental,  as,  the 
 years  of  all  Manetho's  Manes  being  month-years,  he  would 
 naturally  give  them  some  such  averages  of  from  about  30  to 
 60  years  as  would  suit  their  intermediate  position  between 
 the  demigods  and  ordinary  kings.  And  such  averages,  if 
 divided  by  12,  would  of  course  produce  only  from  2^  to  5^ 
 full  years  each,  so  as  to  resemble  the  short  reigns  of  the 
 Nubians  and  Heracleopolites  in  the  hieratic  lists.  So  the  30 
 Memphite  Manes  (his  second  group  of  the  four)  in  1790 
 month-years  have  59f  nominal,  but  only  about  5  real  years 
 each ;  the  10  Tanites  (his  third  group  of  Manes)  have  in 
 350  mxOnth-years  only  35  each,  which  are  something  under 
 3  full  years ;  and  if  there  were  only  86  Nubian  and  Hera- 
 cleopolite  Manes,  Avhich  seems  to  follow  if  76  kings  of  their 
 connection  were  placed  after  Menes  in  Dyn.  XVI,  the  86 
 would  (in  5813)  have  as  many  as  67|^  month-j^ears  each. 
 These  if  reduced  would  exceed  5^-  full  years ;  and  it  is 
 unlikely  that  the  highest  average  of  all  should  be  given  to 
 the  group  which  stands  last.  But  if  it  be  supposed  that 
 Dyn.  XYI  of  the  original  Manetho  had  only  36  kings,  cor- 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 531 
 
 responding  to  the  30  cartouches  on  our  right  in  the  Karnak 
 Chamber  (the  excess  of  6  indicating  omissions  in  this  half 
 of  the  Karnak  Chamber  similar  to  those  known  to  exist  in 
 the  other  half  to  the  left),  then  there  would  be  no  such  im- 
 probable discrepancy  between  Manetho's  average  for  the 
 kings  of  his  Dyn.  XVI  and  that  of  the  papyrus  for  the  same 
 group,  as  there  appears  to  be  with  Africanus'  reading  of  76 
 kings.  A  difference  indeed  there  would  still  be,  but  in  the 
 contrary  direction.  For  36  kings  in  216  years  would  have 
 6  years  each,  which  is  one  full  third  higher  than  the  average 
 of  the  papyrus;  and  even  in  that  sum  of  184  years  which 
 Manetho  has  attached  to  them,  they  would  seem  to  have 
 5-^  years  each,  which  is  still  above  the  average  of  the 
 papyrus.  But  this  is  what  it  would  be  reasonable  to  expect, 
 if  only  a  selection  of  the  more  important  names  or  lines  were 
 presented  together.  Further,  on  the  supposition  that  Dyn. 
 XYI  of  the  original  Manetho  had  only  36  kings,  not  86  but 
 126  would  be  the  complementary  number  needed  for  the 
 corresponding  group  among  the  Manes;  and  126  (in  5813) 
 would  have  average  reigns  of  46  month-years,  shorter 
 than  those  of  the  first  and  second  groups  of  the  other  Manes 
 preceding,  though  longer  than  those  of  the  third  group. 
 And,  being  equal  when  reduced  to  about  3  full  years  and  10 
 months,  this  average  would  differ  scarcely  at  all  from  that  of 
 the  Nubian  group  in  the  papyrus.  It  is  therefore  probable 
 that  40  out  of  those  76  kings  which  go  to  Manetho's  Dyn. 
 XVI  (XIV  of  Ptolemy)  in  the  text  of  Africanus  were 
 transferred  to  it  from  the  Manes  by  Ptolemy.  But  that 
 no  one  may  fall  into  the  error  of  supposing  that  the  short 
 reigns  in  full  years  obtainable  by  reduction  from  the  month- 
 years  of  the  Manes  may  be  identified  with  those  short 
 reigns  which  belonged  to  some  of  them  in  the  hieratic  lists, 
 it  is  to  be  observed,  first,  that  three  out  of  the  four  groups  of 
 kings  ejected  by  Manetho  from  the  lists  after  Menes  had 
 not  perhaps  such  very  short  reigns ;  and,  whatever  was  the 
 shortness  or  the  length  of  those  of  the  Tanites  and  tho 
 Memphites  whom  he  ejected,  Manetho  was  so  far  from 
 allowing  those  40  kings  (his  3rd  and  2nd  groups  of  Manes) 
 to  carry  away  with  them  into  Amenti  any  of  their  years, 
 
 M  M  2 
 
532 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 that  it  was  fov  the  very  purpose  of  confiscating  and  using 
 their  years  that  he  separated  and  transposed  the  kings ;  and 
 not  finding  even  so  enough,  he  added  to  his  first  six  dy- 
 nasties after  Menes  (63  +  64  +  16  =  )  143  fictitious  years  of 
 his  own,  as  has  been  shown  above.  And  the  question  as 
 regards  the  Tanites  and  the  Memphites  being  so  disposed 
 of,  it  is  needless  to  extend  it  to  the  years  of  the  other  two 
 groups  of  Manes  whom  Manetho  has  left  anonymous. 
 
 An  estimate  of  the  sum  of  the  years  of  the  kings  having 
 been  thus  completed  for  so  much  of  the  papyrus  as  is  repre- 
 sented by  figures  still  preserved,  it  remains  only  to  add  from 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XYII  his  sum  of  260  years  for  the  Shep- 
 herds, of  whom  the  papyrus  probably  named  not  six  only 
 but  seven.  And  260  years  divided  by  7  give  an  apparent 
 average  of  37^,  which  is  accidentally  far  below  the  truth. 
 Then  17  more  reigns  of  Dyn.  XVIII  would  in  348  years 
 have  20y\  each ;  and  2  reigns  of  Dyn.  XIX  in  78  years 
 would  have  39  each.  The  whole  results  in  a  tabular  form 
 stand  as  follows :  — 
 
 Manetho. 
 
 1  
 
  1 
 
 Groups. 
 
 King: 
 
 Manes. 
 
 Pap. 
 
 s 
 
 um  of  years.  Average. 
 
 Kings. 
 
 Sum.  Average. 
 
 Tanites 
 
 8 
 
 + 
 
 0? 
 
 :  8 
 
 in 
 
 190 
 
 have  23| 
 
 or 
 
 12) 
 
 190  (15|^ 
 
 Tanites 
 
 9 
 
 + 
 
 10? 
 
 H 
 
 '  in 
 or  in 
 
 205 
 26.5 
 
 have  10j| 
 have  13j| 
 
 or 
 
 15) 
 
 205  n3|§ 
 
 Sum :  Tanites 
 
 17 
 
 + 
 
 10 
 
 :  27 
 
 in 
 
 395 
 
 have  14^ 
 
 Memphites 
 
 9 
 
 + 
 
 3? 
 
 12? 
 
 in 
 
 214 
 
 have  17j5 
 
 or 
 
 17) 
 
 214  (I2j^ 
 
 Mempliites 
 
 8 
 
 + 
 
 14? 
 
 22? 
 
 in 
 
 277 
 
 have  12.i| 
 
 or 
 
 17) 
 
 277  (16t\ 
 
 Sum:  Memph. 
 
 17 
 
 + 
 
 17 
 
 34 
 
 in 
 
 491 
 
 have  14i| 
 
 Elephantinites 
 
 9 
 
 + 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 in 
 
 248 
 
 have  13|| 
 
 Sum:  Kings 
 
 43 
 
 + 
 
 36 
 
 79 
 
 in 
 
 1134 
 
 have  14f| 
 
 or 
 
 79) 
 
 1194  (15^% 
 
 Centr.  Memph. 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 in 
 
 181 
 
 have  18-fL 
 
 Sum:  Kings 
 
 49 
 
 + 
 
 40 
 
 89  1 
 
 in 
 
 1315 
 
 have  14|| 
 
 or  in 
 
 1375 
 
 have  15|g 
 
 Abydos? 
 
 18 
 
 in 
 
 331? 
 
 have  18fg 
 
 or  in 
 
 271? 
 
 have  15y'g 
 have  20{f 
 
 Diospolites  ? 
 
 16 
 
 + 
 
 17  ? 
 
 in 
 
 355 
 
 Diospolites? 
 
 11 
 
 in 
 
 243 
 
 have  22y'y 
 have  26^2 
 
 Diospolites? 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 in 
 
 213 
 
 Sum:  Kings 
 
 73 
 
 4 
 
 70 
 
 143 
 
 in 
 
 2457 
 
 have  17  j% 
 have  3§| 
 have  3|f 
 have  37| 
 
 Nubians 
 
 36 
 
 +  107 
 
 143 
 
 in 
 
 536 
 
 Heracleop.  ? 
 
 19 
 
 19 
 
 in 
 
 71 
 
 Shepherds 
 
 6 
 
 + 
 
 7 
 
 in 
 
 260 
 
 33iospolites 
 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 in 
 
 348 
 
 have  20/,- 
 have  39 
 
 Diospolites 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 in 
 
 78 
 
 Sum:  Kings  134 
 
 + 
 
 197 
 
 331 
 
 in 
 
 3750 
 
 have  U^P? 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 533 
 
 And  23,218  years  +  3744  +  5613  -\-  3750,  make  up 
 36,525;  and  113  more  years  of  7  kings  being  added,  down 
 to  the  end  of  the  14th  year  of  Scha-em-Djam,  the  last  king 
 (the  last  but  one  in  the  lists)  of  Dyn.  XIX,  the  sum  total 
 is  increased  to  13,420  years. 
 
 Manetho  then,  as  it  seems,  instead  of  exaggerating,  really 
 curtailed  the  gross  sum  of  the  years  of  the  kings  after 
 Menes  ;  and  he  still  more  curtailed  the  number  of  the  kings 
 themselves  ;  and  some  whole  dynasties  of  Upper  Egypt  he 
 omitted.  For  he  found  in  the  hieratic  lists  not  fewer  than 
 3750  years  from  Menes  to  Rameses  III. ;  and,  if  he  had 
 added  on  to  these  the  978  which  had  passed  since,  there 
 would  have  been  a  sum  of  3750  +  978  =  4728;  instead  of 
 which  he  made  only  3555  years,  cutting  off  without  com- 
 pensation (4728—3555  =  )  1173  years.  And  he  found  from 
 Menes  to  Rameses  III.  the  number  of  331  kings;  to  which 
 if  he  had  added  the  66  of  his  Book  III.,  there  would  have 
 been  in  all  397.  But,  instead  of  so  doing,  he  seems  to  have 
 placed  after  Menes  only  196  kings  in  all,  or  it  may  be  198, 
 in  his  three  books,  viz.  66  in  Book  1.  ending  with  Amenemhe 
 I.,  66  in  Book  II.,  or  68  (according  as  Dyn.  XYIII  reckoned 
 16  or  17  kings,  and  the  first  two  of  the  seven  names  of  Dyn. 
 XIX  were  taken  confusedly  together  or  divided),  and  66  in 
 Book  III.  beginning  with  Bameses  III.  and  ending  with 
 Nectanebo.  This  is  on  the  supposition  that  the  true  num- 
 ber of  kings  in  his  Dyn.  XVI  (XIV  of  Ptolemy)  was  36. 
 So  he  cut  off  from  the  331  predecessors  of  Kameses  III.  in 
 the  hieratic  lists  no  fewer  than  (331-  134  or  132  =  )  197  or 
 195  kings.  For  such  curtailments  one  intelligible  motive  has 
 been  assigned  above,  though  the  end,as  it  regarded  the  Greeks, 
 was  not  answered.  But  besides  this,  as  a  native  of  Lower 
 Egypt,  he  was  jealous  of  that  superiority  which  in  the  hieratic 
 lists  seems  to  belong  to  the  Upper  Country,  whether  one 
 considers  the  high  averages  of  the  reigns  of  many  of  its 
 dynasties,  or  their  power  and  foreign  conquests  during  so 
 many  ages,  or  the  multitude  of  their  kings,  even  of  those 
 Nubians  who,  with  however  short  reigns,  were  still  kings ; 
 while  to  Lower  Egypt  in  the  same  lists  there  belonged  fewer 
 dynasties,  shorter  averages,  far  fewer  kings,  and  the  oppro- 
 
 M  M  3 
 
534 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 brious  dominion  of  the  Shepherds.  This  therefore  also  was 
 one  motive,  perhaps  the  first  and  chief  motive,  for  suppressing 
 half  the  names  of  the  early  dynasties  of  Lower  Egypt,  that 
 the  years  of  the  names  suppressed  might  be  available  towards 
 making  out  for  the  remaining  kings  reigns  of  honourable 
 length,  exceeding  in  their  average  the  highest  averages  of 
 Upper  Egypt,  and  not  to  be  despised  even  if  compared  with 
 the  reigns  or  generations  reckoned  by  the  Greeks  to  their 
 kings  of  Sicyon  and  Argos.  And,  apart  from  any  other  motive, 
 when  this  artifice  had  been  carried  into  execution  for  the 
 kings  of  Lower  Egypt,  it  would  follow  of  course  to  suppress 
 names  in  the  lists  of  the  Upper  Country  in  at  least  an 
 equal  proportion,  and  together  with  the  names  to  suppress 
 also  their  years,  unless  any  of  them  were  still  wanted  to  be 
 transferred  to  the  kings  of  Lower  Egypt,  to  fill  up  the  high 
 average  designed  for  them. 
 
 Thus  one  may  understand  how  he  came  to  curtail  the  reigns 
 in  the  papyrus  by  so  many  as  1173  years.  For  the  years  of 
 the  hieratic  lists  for  the  kings  of  Loioer  Egypt  he  has  by 
 no  means  curtailed.  He  has  given  them  every  one  ;  and  he 
 has  even  added  to  them  176  years  purely  fictitious.  But  it 
 is  on  the  kings  of  Upper  Egypt  that  he  has  suppressed  the 
 1173  years;  or  rather  (1173  +  176  =  )  1349;  since  the  176 
 fictitious  years  also  added  to  the  kings  of  the  Lower  Country 
 represent  as  many  subtracted  and  virtually  transferred  from 
 those  of  the  Upper.  And  so  he  at  once  indulged  his  district 
 patriotism,  and  obtained  for  his  historical  series  such  propor- 
 tions as  he  thought  presentable  to  the  Greeks.  How  it  was 
 that  he  did  not  let  the  Tanites  and  Memphites  whom  he 
 displaced  below  Menes  take  with  them  into  Amenti  their 
 years,  has  been  explained  above ;  and  if  he  wanted  their 
 years,  but  did  not  want  those  of  the  kings  of  Upper  Egypt 
 whose  similar  displacement  followed  as  a  consequence,  he 
 would  be  none  the  more  likely  on  this  account  to  continue 
 to  the  ghost-kings  of  Upper  Egypt,  even  in  Amenti,  their 
 true  reigns,  when  the  Tanite  and  Memphite  ghosts  had 
 been  deprived  of  theirs.  Nor  would  the  true  averages  of  all 
 the  Planes  have  suited  to  expand  into  month-years  ;  those 
 of  three  groups  out  of  the  four  would  have  been  far  too 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 535 
 
 long :  while,  if  they  had  been  given  in  month-years  unmul- 
 tiplied,  they  would  have  betrayed  too  plainly  their  true 
 nature,  being  not  only  mere  mortal  reigns,  but  reigns  most  of 
 them  of  an  extraordinary  and  contemptible  shortness.  And 
 all  speculation  on  the  subject  is  ended  when  one  notices,  and 
 understands,  this  fact,  that  even  in  Amenti,  and  even  in 
 dealing  with  ghost-kings,  they  are  only  the  Tanites  and  the 
 Memphites,  those,  that  is,  of  Lower  Egypt,  whom  Manetho 
 honours  so  far  as  to  number  or  to  name,  giving  only  through 
 them  a  covert  indication  of  the  sources  and  designations  and 
 numbers  of  the  rest. 
 
 If  we  compare  not  only  the  years  reckoned  to  the  kings 
 and  dynasties  by  Manetho  and  by  the  hieratic  lists,  each  with 
 each,  but  also  the  chronological  or  quasi-chronological  scale 
 which  they  are  made  to  cover,  then  the  difference  between 
 the  two  schemes  does  not  consist  merely  in  this, — that  Ma- 
 netho has  suppressed  (1749 — 403  =  )  1346  years  between 
 the  end  of  his  Dyn.  XIII  and  that  of  his  Dyn.  XVI,  and 
 has  compensated  for  only  176  (in  truth  for  only  173)  of 
 these  by  adding  176  fictitious  years  to  his  first  six  dynasties 
 of  Lower  Egypt,  so  that  the  whole  defalcation  is  1170  or 
 1173, — but  conjoined  with  this  difierence  there  is  another 
 in  the  scales  themselves  which  these  years  occupy ;  some 
 years  which  enter  into  the  scale  of  the  papyrus  and  are 
 covered  by  its  kings  being  not  found  in  that  of  Manetho, 
 while  other  years  inserted  by  Manetho  are  absent  from  the 
 scale  of  the  papyrus.  When  the  two  scales  are  paralleled  one 
 with  another,  as  they  shall  be  a  little  further  on,  so  that  the 
 chronological  years  of  the  one  scale  are  in  one  and  the  same 
 line  with  the  corresponding  years  of  the  other,  the  accession 
 of  Menes  seems  at  first  sight  to  be  set  in  the  scale  of  the 
 papyrus  higher  by  no  less  than  (2025  +  242  +  341  =  )  2608 
 years,  whether  real  or  nominal,  than  in  the  scale  of  Manetho. 
 For  the  last  2025  of  those  9770  month-years  which  Manetho 
 gives  to  his  Manes  belong  in  the  hieratic  scheme  to  Menes 
 and  his  successors  :  and  after  these  they  have  still  264  more 
 month-years,  242  of  which  are  sunk  altogether  by  Manetho, 
 inasmuch  as  he  reduces  the  last  264  of  the  month-years  to 
 their  original  form  of  22  true  and  full  years ;  and  with 
 
 M  51  4 
 
536 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 these  22  years  Manetho  begins  the  monarchy :  and,  lastly, 
 the  kings  in  the  papyrus  cover  341  full  but  fictitious  yeai's 
 contained  in  every  cyclical  scheme,  but  omitted  by  Manetho, 
 whose  scheme  was  not  cyclical.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
 Manetho  in  his  scale,  after  the  217  full  years  of  true 
 reckonino:  between  the  2922nd  full  or  the  35,064th  month- 
 year  of  the  world  and  Menes,  inserts  1435  years  "  of  the 
 Cycle  "  current  under  the  Ptolemies,  years,  that  is,  redupli- 
 cated and  anticipated,  which  of  course  are  absent  from  the 
 hieratic  scale.  And,  when  these  1435  are  deducted  from 
 the  2608  above-mentioned,  the  whole  excess  of  the  papyrus 
 between  Menes  and  Rameses  III.  is  reduced  to  1173  years. 
 The  number  is  1173  rather  than  1170  because  in  the  176 
 years  added  by  Manetho  to  his  first  six  dynasties  of  Lower 
 Egypt  (though  we  have  reckoned  them  all  together)  there 
 are  three  units  which  do  not  really  tell  in  compensation  of 
 any  three  years  of  the  gross  sum  of  1346  suppressed  by  him 
 on  the  kings  of  Upper  Egypt.  They  represent  three  years 
 suppressed  far  lovv'er  down,  at  the  commencement  of  his 
 Dyn.  XXVI,  and  so  are  not  to  be  reckoned  chronologically 
 where  they  seem  to  stand,  added  on  to  the  reigns  of  Menes 
 and  Athothis. 
 
 To  come  back  at  length  to  Ptolemy  of  Mendes :  —  If 
 Manetho  had  merely  transposed  and  put  up  above  Menes 
 197  kings  in  four  groups  with  their  years,  whether  multi- 
 plied by  12  or  unmultiplied,  and  Ptolemy  had  merely  chosen 
 to  put  them  back  again  to  stand  below  Menes,  as  they  stood 
 originally,  we  should  have  had  no  difficulty  in  recognising 
 them  in  his  lists.  But  a  simple  restoration  of  ejected  kings  of 
 the  hieratic  list  to  their  proper  places,  and  of  misappropriated 
 or  suppressed  years  to  their  true  owners,  was  as  far  from 
 suiting  Ptolemy's  purpose,  as  it  had  been  from  suiting  that 
 of  Manetho  to  leave  them  unaltered.  In  his  own  cyclical 
 scheme  Ptolemy  had  determined  to  add  to  the  kings  below 
 Menes  not  merely  1173  but  1932  years.  So,  when  viewed 
 in  the  gross,  his  addition  w^as  of  a  compound  character. 
 While  it  was  to  contain  1173  years  not  fabricated  but  re- 
 stored, with  some  (10  +  30  +  30+107  +  19  =)  196  or  197 
 kings  to  whom  they  had  originally  belonged,  it  was  to  exhibit 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 537 
 
 together  with  these  as  many  as  759  fresh  years  of  its  own 
 which  were  all,  as  connected  with  kings  (all  at  least  but  13 
 below  Nectanebo),  purely  fictitious.  And  these  fictitious 
 years  would  naturally  bring  with  them  some  fictitious  kings, 
 unknown  to  the  hieratic  lists.  And,  besides  this  mixture 
 of  historical  and  fictitious  materials,  even  in  restoring  the 
 years  suppressed,  and  in  retransposing  the  196  or  197  kings 
 ejected  by  Manetho  and  transposed  so  as  to  stand  before 
 Menes,  there  was  a  wide  opening  for  inconsistency  and 
 confusion.  For,  at  the  outset,  the  first  40  Tanite  and  Mem- 
 phite  kings  whom  Ptolemy  had  to  bring  back  from  the 
 ghosts  of  Amenti,  would,  when  restored,  be  wholly  de- 
 stitute of  years,  Manetho  having  provided  them  as  ghosts 
 with  years  not  their  own  which  they  could  not  bring  back 
 with  them,  while  he  had  given  away  all  their  historical  years 
 to  other  kings,  once  their  companions,  out  of  whose  ranks  he 
 had  ejected  them.  Neither  could  they  recover  their  lost 
 places  in  those  six  dynasties  of  Lower  Egypt  to  which  they 
 had  belonged ;  at  least  not  unless  Manetho's  artifices  were 
 to  be  exposed  and  his  work  set  aside.  And  of  those  kings 
 who  stood  next  in  order  for  restoration  according  to  the 
 order  of  the  hieratic  lists  (these  being  the  [30]  ghost-kings 
 of  Manetho's  Dyn.  IV),  as  many  as  might  own  the  176  [173] 
 additional  years  also  given  away  by  Manetho,  that  is,  9 
 kings,  who  at  the  average  of  the  papyrus  for  their  group, 
 viz.  18  would  claim  165^  years,  would  be  in  the  same  pre- 
 dicament, and  the  10th  king  also  to  the  extent  of  7  J  years. 
 And,  in  like  manner,  among  the  1173  years  to  be  reinserted 
 (none  of  them  preserved  by  Manetho  to  his  Manes)  there 
 were  many  which,  for  similar  reasons,  could  not  be  restored 
 to  the  right  kings ;  as  when  Manetho  had  included  their 
 owners  in  one  or  other  of  his  three  early  dynasties  of  Upper 
 Egypt  either  without  years,  or  in  connection  with  some  in- 
 adequate sum  of  years,  and  even  those,  perhaps,  years  not 
 really  belonging  to  them.  It  will  be  enough  then  if  the 
 sources  of  Ptolemy's  seven  fresh  dynasties,  as  regards  their 
 years,  the  numbers  of  their  kings,  and  their  designations, 
 can  he  made  out  in  a  general  way. 
 
 When  they  are  first  viewed  from  a  distance,  as  it  were. 
 
538 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 and  as  parts  of  a  whole,  Ptolemy's  new  dynasties  detach 
 themselves  from  the  rest,  and  arrest  attention,  chiefly  by  two 
 peculiarities,  —  first,  that  they  are  all  anonymous ;  and, 
 secondly,  that  they  are  interposed  and  appended,  as  far  as 
 was  possible,  in  pairs,  and  with  a  certain  symmetry  and  pro- 
 priety of  order,  after  those  of  Manetho's  groups  to  which 
 they  are  akin  by  their  designations. 
 
 The  fact  that  they  are  all  anonymous  of  itself  provokes 
 suspicion ;  and  it  may  keep  alive  a  doubt,  even  after  it  is 
 seen  to  be  probable  that  they  are  not  wholly  fictitious.  For 
 it  may  be  thought  that,  if  Ptolemy  wished  to  make  a  greater 
 show  of  kings  than  Manetho,  and  had  in  the  hieratic  lists  a 
 multitude  of  historical  names  which  Manetho  had  omitted, 
 he  was  needlessly  making  the  worst  of  his  own  case  when  he 
 neglected  to  transcribe  them.  And  so,  no  doubt,  it  would 
 have  been,  if  historical  truth  had  been  thought  of.  But  his 
 only  object  being  to  substitute  one  dishonest  scheme  for  an- 
 other, with  as  little  change  as  possible,  and  Manetho  having 
 already  introduced  several  anonymous  dynasties  not  only  for 
 Manes,  but  also  for  historical  kings,  this  method,  the  easiest 
 certainly  that  could  be  conceived,  might  seem  to  be  also  the 
 most  convenient,  as  it  obviated  all  need  of  making  a  patch- 
 work of  details,  and  obtained  at  once  the  end  desired  by 
 homogeneous  additions  scarcely  distinguishable  from  the 
 anonymous  dynasties  of  the  original  Manetho  ;  while  a  mere 
 multitude  of  names,  if  they  had  been  transcribed  without 
 explanations,  would  have  tended  rather  to  increase  than 
 diminish  the  scepticism  and  contempt  of  Greek  readers. 
 
 As  regards  the  order  of  the  fresh  dynasties,  it  is  this : 
 First,  after  the  completion  of  Manetho's  Memphites,  there  is 
 an  insertion  of  two  fresh  dynasties  (Ptolemy's  VII  and  VIII) 
 of  Memphites,  And  after  these,  now  become  themselves  the 
 last  of  the  dynasties  of  Lower  Egypt,  there  are  again  ap- 
 pended, as  if  in  the  natural  order  of  progression  towards  the 
 Upper  Country,  a  pair  of  dynasties  (Ptolemy's  IX  and  X) 
 called  Heracleopolite,  For  the  Heracleopolite  Nome  was  the 
 last  of  Upper  Egypt,  and  on  the  very  frontier  of  Lower. 
 Then,  after  Manetho's  Diospolite  dynasties  XIV  and  XV 
 (XI  and  XII  of  Ptolemy),  there  is  a  third  insertion  of  Dies- 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 539 
 
 poUtes.  And  since  seven  fresh  dynasties  could  not  by  them- 
 selves be  arranged  in  four  pairs,  an  addition  of  40  kings  is 
 made  to  Manetho's  next  following  dynasty,  XVI,  so  that 
 Ptolemy's  new  dynasty,  XIII,  and  the  addition  made  to 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI  (Ptolemy's  XIV)  become  together,  as 
 it  were,  a  pair  of  new  Diospolite  dynasties.  And  lower  down, 
 after  Manetho's  Shepherds,  there  is  a  fourth  and  last  inser- 
 tion of  a  pair  of  fresh  dynasties  (Ptolemy's  XVI  and  XVII) 
 of  Shepherds.  The  second  of  these  two  last-mentioned  dy- 
 nasties is  doubly  furnished  with  kings,  having  exactly  43 
 Diospolites  joined  wdth  its  43  Shepherds,  so  that  each  Shep- 
 herd king  has  a  Diospolite  for  his  contemporary  and  col- 
 league, or  rather  for  his  subordinate,  since  the  Shepherds  are 
 named  first,  and  the  dynasty,  in  appearance  at  least,  belongs 
 to  them.  Underneath  this  combination,  made  for  Ptolemy's 
 own  purposes,  there  is  a  disguised  and  accidental,  but  still 
 a  valuable  admission  of  historical  truth. 
 
 If  we  now  approach  nearer,  and  examine  the  new  dynasties 
 in  detail,  in  the  first  which  presents  itself,  Ptolemy's  Dyn. 
 VII,  we  find  a  group  of  Ixx  kings,  called  Memphites,  entirely 
 destitute  of  years.  Forty  of  these  we  might  have  been 
 prepared  for,  and  we  might  have  identified  them  with  the 
 x  Tanites  and  the  xxx  Memphites  of  Manetho's  Dynasties 
 VI  and  V  of  Manes,  since  it  was  from  the  same  six  dynasties 
 to  which  Ptolemy  appends  his  Memphites  without  years, 
 that  Manetho  had  ejected  40  kings,  giving  away  all  their 
 years  to  others,  who  had  once  been  their  neighbours.  And 
 the  remaining  thirty  of  these  Ixx,  by  their  continuity  and 
 coherence  wdth  the  forty,  should  be  the  remaining  30  of 
 that  whole  number  of  70  kings  which  Manetho  ejected  from 
 the  first  143  of  the  hieratic  lists.  They  will  be  the  [xxx] 
 also  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  IV  of  Manes.  The  audacity  of  thus 
 pretending  a  dynasty  of  70  kings  in  70  days,  is  no  doubt 
 surprising,  even  though  it  may  answer  some  purpose  of 
 neatness  and  symmetry,  and  though  it  may  contain  an 
 enigma.  But  perhaps  Ptolemy  would  have  suggested  to 
 any  Greek  questioner,  that  these  70  kings  were  in  fact  the 
 conspirators  who,  after  assassinating  the  last  king  of  his  Dy- 
 nasty VI  (XIII  of  Manetho),  wore  the  crown,  like  Interreges, 
 
540 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 in  turn,  each  for  his  day,  and  banqueted  till  Nitocris  let  the 
 river  in  upon  them. 
 
 On  allowing  that  these  are  the  70  names  first  ejected  by 
 Manetho  from  his  lists  between  Menes  and  the  end  of  his 
 Dyn.  XY  (XII  of  Ptolemy),  the  same  70  as  constitute  his 
 first  three  groups  of  ghost-kings,  it  follows  next  to  inquire 
 after  the  years  of  the  last  30  of  them, — how  many  of  these 
 years  there  may  have  been  in  al],  and  how  many,  after 
 deducting  the  176  [173]  virtually  transferred  from  them  by 
 Manetho  to  his  six  favoured  dynasties,  still  remain  to  be 
 accounted  for  by  Ptolemy?  Now  their  whole  sum  was 
 originally  (331  +  355  +  243  +  213  =  )  1142,  less  by  213  reck- 
 oned by  Manetho,  and  really  belonging,  to  the  viii  kings  of 
 his  Dyn.  XY  (XII  of  Ptolemy),  and  less,  moreover,  by  as 
 many  years  as  may  belong  to  the  xvi  kings  not  ejected  by 
 Manetho,  but  reckoned  to  his  Dyn.  XIY  (XI  of  Ptolemy). 
 But  then,  as  Manetho  suppresses  all  the  years  of  these  xvi 
 kings,  Ptolemy  has  to  account  for  these  years  also.  So  he 
 has  to  account  for  all  the  years,  being  (1142  — 213  rr)  929, 
 both  of  the  30  kings  transferred  by  Manetho  to  the  Manes 
 (these  are  the  Manes  of  his  first  group,  which  was  his 
 Dynasty  lY),  and  of  the  xvi  Diospolites  whom  he  has 
 admitted  into  his  Dyn.  XIY,  but  without  either  their  names 
 or  their  years.  And  all  these  years  Ptolemy  ought  in 
 strictness  to  exhibit  (if  that  were  possible)  unattached  to 
 kings;  seeing  that  30  of  the  kings  to  whom  they  belong 
 have  already  been  exhibited  by  himself,  and  the  remaining 
 16  by  Manetho,  separately,  imtliout  years.  He  should,  in 
 fact,  have  had  a  dynasty  (if  dynasty  it  could  be  called),  or 
 three  dynasties  (since  there  are  three  in  the  hieratic  list) 
 like  the  ^'  xv  generations  of  the  Cycle  "  in  the  Chronicle,  in 
 which  to  place  these  929,  or  (deducting  the  176  given  away 
 by  Manetho)  these  753  years,  unattached  to  kings.  And 
 if,  on  the  contrary,  he  gives  these  years  not  unattached,  but 
 with  kings  as  a  vehicle  for  carrying  them,  then,  whatever 
 other  purposes  of  indication  the  kings  so  interpolated  may 
 answer,  they  must  be  regarded  in  the  connection  in  which 
 they  stand  as  the  mere  doubles  and  representatives  of  the 
 owners,  not  as  being  themselves  the  owners,  of  the  years 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 541 
 
 attached  to  them.  The  first  division  of  these  years  in  the 
 papyrus  was  estimated  at  331,  which,  upon  deduction  of  the 
 176  [173]  years  given  away  by  Manetho,  should  become 
 155  [158].  But  Ptolemy  having  already  bestowed  13  new 
 years  (in  addition  to  all  Manetho's  liberalities)  on  two  of 
 the  six  favoured  dynasties  (his  own  IV  and  VI,  which  were 
 XI  and  XIII  of  Manetho),  if  he  had  made  exactly  the  same 
 division  with  our  estimate  or  with  the  papyrus,  would  have 
 had  142  [145]  years  only  to  place  in  his  first  new  dynasty 
 with  years,  that  is,  in  his  Dyn.  VIII.  And,  in  fact,  he 
 scarcely  differs  from  this  number ;  for,  after  his  Dyn.  VII  of 
 the  Ixx  Memphites  without  years,  he  inserts  as  a  pair  to 
 this  another  new  dynasty  with  146  years,  exceeding,  as  it 
 seems,  by  only  4  [in  truth  by  only  1]  the  sum  which  we 
 should  have  calculated;  and  he  attaches  these  years,  as  to  a  ve- 
 hicle, to  27  fictitious  kings,  doubles  of  as  many  among  the  Ixx 
 Memphites  (viz.  those  from  the  41st  to  the  67th  inclusively) 
 of  the  preceding  dynasty,  and  corresponding  to  9  kings  more 
 than  the  (176  or  173  +  13  +  146  =)  335  or  332  years  hitherto 
 accounted  for  require.  For  to  the  331  years  there  are  in 
 the  hieratic  list  only  xviii  kings.  He  then  continues,  as 
 might  have  been  expected,  to  give  the  rest  of  the  753  years, 
 and  completes  them  exactly  by  his  two  Heracleopolite  dy- 
 nasties IX  and  X;  since  409  and  185  years  added  to  13  and 
 146,  make  up  exactly  753.  And  these  two  dynasties  again 
 have  their  years  attached  to  fictitious  kings,  who  are  19  in 
 each,  the  19  of  Dyn.  IX  being  the  doubles  of  the  last  3  of  the 
 Ixx  Memphites  of  Dyn.  VII,  and  the  doubles  of  all  the  xvi  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XIV  (XI  of  Ptolemy),  and  correspond- 
 ing to  the  remaining  19  kings  of  the  papyrus  down  to  the 
 commencement  of  that  line  which  makes  Dyn.  XV  of  Ma- 
 netho (XII  of  Ptolemy).  Thus  Ptolemy  has  already  doubled 
 all  the  ki?i^s  belonging  to  the  753  years,  those,  that  is,  of 
 the  three  lines  of  xviii,  xvii,  and  xi  kings  in  the  papyrus, 
 and  of  Manetho's  two  Dynasties  IV  (of  ghosts),  and  XIV 
 (after  Menes)  with  [xxx]  and  xvi  kings,  before  he  has  com- 
 pleted  the  exhibition  of  their  years.  So,  then,  the  number  of 
 19  kings,  when  repeated  with  the  remaining  185  years,  has 
 no  other  sense  than  that  of  marking  a  number  of  19  kings 
 
542 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 not  wanted  here,  but  perhaps  corresponding  as  an  indication 
 to  some  other  19,  as  yet  unknown,  who  may  be  wanted 
 somewhere  else. 
 
 And  thus  Ptolemy  has  accounted  both  for  the  70  kings 
 ejected  by  Manetho  from  those  143  of  the  papyrus  which 
 preceded  Dyn.  XYI  of  Manetho  (his  own  XIY),  and  also 
 separately  for  the  753  years  suppressed  by  Manetho  either 
 on  the  last  30  of  these  same  70  kings,  or  on  the  xvi  of  his 
 Dyn.  XIV  (XI  of  Ptolemy)  ;  and  he  has  given  as  vehicles 
 for  these  years  doubles  of  the  last-mentioned  46  kings  pur- 
 posely misappropriated  to  two  divisions  only  instead  of  all 
 the  three  divisions  of  the  years,  in  order  by  such  crowding 
 to  gain  room  for  introducing  19  more  supernumeraries,  who 
 are  at  present  only  doubles  of  doubles,  and  doubly  nonen- 
 tities. 
 
 Since  the  753  years  belong  all  to  only  (xviii  +  xvii  +  xi  of 
 the  Papyrus,  or  xxx+xvi  of  Manetho,  or  27 +  19  of  Pto- 
 lemy =)  46  kings,  or  in  the  absence  of  the  true  kings  to  only 
 46  doubles  representing  them,  and  yet  19  additional  fictitious 
 kings,  who  are  not  the  doubles  of  any  of  the  46,  were  for  some 
 bye  end  to  be  here  inserted,  it  was  natural  to  give  to  these 
 19  intruders  some  of  the  years;  some  of  the  years  being  in 
 this  superfoetation  of  artifice  needed  as  a  vehicle  for  carrying 
 the  19  supernumerary  kings,  just  as  the  preceding  (27  +  19 
 =  )  46  kings  of  Ptolemy's  Dynasties  YIII  and  IX,  who  are 
 doubles,  were  vehicles  for  carrying  years.  But  why  the 
 number  of  185  years  (afibrding  9|-|-  to  each)  should  be  de- 
 tached and  given  to  them,  rather  than  any  other,  does  not  at 
 once  appear.  It  may  be  remarked,  however,  that  if  it  was 
 for  the  sake  of  these  1 9  supernumeraries  alone  that  Ptolemy 
 varied  at  all  from  the  papyrus  in  his  subdivisions  whether  of 
 the  46  kings  or  of  their  753  years,  the  cause  or  motive  for 
 the  amount  of  his  variation  is  to  be  sought  not  in  any  uncer- 
 tainty as  to  the  historical  subdivisions  of  all  the  753  years 
 (with  176  or  173  besides)  among  only  46  kings,  but  in  some 
 other  consideration.  It  may  be,  then,  that  the  precise 
 number  of  185  years  originated  merely  in  this  accident,  that 
 185  was  the  remainder  after  the  sum  of  Ptolemy's  preceding 
 Dynasty  IX  had  been  fixed  at  409  years  ;  and  a  reason  for 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 543 
 
 giving  to  Dyn.  IX  19  of  the  46  kings  (since  they  were  all  to 
 be  crowded  into  it  and  Dyn.  VIII)  and  409  of  the  years 
 still  undisposed  of  may  be  found  in  the  desire  to  mark  here 
 the  true  average  of  the  hieratic  lists  for  the  46  historical 
 kings  to  whom  these  (176  +  753  =  )  929  years  given  away  or 
 suppressed  by  Manetho  belonged.  For  if  409  be  divided 
 by  19  the  quotient  is  21^^,  which  differs  but  little  from  the 
 mean  average  of  the  papyrus  for  its  three  groups  of  (xviii  + 
 xvii  +  xi,  making)  xlvi  kings  who  have  in  (331  +  355  + 
 243  =  )  929  years  each:  and  it  approaches  very  closely 
 
 indeed  to  the  average  of  the  second  and  third  of  the  three 
 groups,  the  28  kings  of  which  have  in  598  years  21^^  years 
 each.  It  may  be  asked  why  the  46  kings  of  the  papyrus  or 
 their  doubles  should  have  been  so  divided  by  Ptolemy  into 
 
 27  and  19,  in  his  Dynasties  YIII  and  IX,  as  that  27  of 
 them  should  stand  first  with  an  apparent  average  in  146 
 years  of  only  5^,  (exceeding  by  but  little  that  of  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  lY  of  Manes),  and  then  the  1 9  kings  remaining  should 
 require  409  years  to  exhibit  the  historical  average  of  the 
 papyri,  and  leave  the  remainder,  being  185,  to  the  supernu- 
 meraries who  were  to  follow  ;  whereas,  in  truth,  18  of  the 
 46  doubles  only  were  needed  for  the  years  of  Ptolemy's 
 Dyn.  YIII ;  and  he  might  either  have  put  all  the  remaining 
 
 28  doubles  into  his  Dyn.  IX,  or  divided  them  between  his 
 Dynasties  YIII  and  IX  in  some  other  proportion  than  that 
 of  9  and  19.  But  in  this  way  he  could  not  have  exhibited 
 at  all,  for  any  of  these  kings,  an  average  like  that  of  20  or  21 
 years  given  to  them  in  the  papyri.  The  146  years  (repre- 
 senting really  331),  with  at  least  18  kings,  being  fixed  for 
 him  above,  and  some  years,  whether  more  or  fewer  than  185, 
 suitable  for  his  19  supernumeraries  being  necessarily  to  be 
 reserved  for  them  below,  (and  he  could  not  give  them  less 
 than  the  lowest  average  of  the  Nubians  and  Heracleopolites 
 of  the  papyri  or  of  Manetho's  Manes,  and  so  they  would 
 claim  at  least  70  years,)  it  appears  that  he  could  in  no  case 
 have  had  in  his  intermediate  Dyn.  IX  more  than  about  (409 
 +  100  =  )  509  years,  nor  have  placed  in  it  (if  he  wished  it  to 
 exhibit  an  average  of  20  or  21  years)  more  than  (19  +  5  =  ) 
 24  of  the  46  kings.    So  many  as  24  he  might  no  doubt 
 
544 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 have  placed  in  it;  but  he  probably  had  some  reason  for 
 wishing  to  mark  in  his  Dyn.  VIII  the  nmnber  of  27  kings; 
 and  he  certainly  wished  to  mark  the  number  of  19  kings  in 
 his  Dyn.  X.  And  these  two  numbers  taken  together,  above 
 and  below,  would  require  as  a  consequence  the  repetition  of 
 the  number  19  for  the  kings  of  the  intermediate  Dyn.  IX. 
 And,  even  if  he  had  not  cared  to  mark  the  number  of  27 
 kings,  still,  the  less  that  the  number  19,  which  he  certainly 
 wished  to  mark,  was  confused  with  other  numbers  of  no 
 designed  significancy,  the  more  it  would  stand  out  and  in- 
 vite attention.  So  that  its  reduplication  after  the  number  of 
 27  kings  would  rather  tell  towards  the  emphasis  desired ; 
 whereas,  if  it  had  merely  followed  in  a  series  after  two 
 other  numbers  of  no  designed  meaning  (as  after  24  for  Dyn. 
 YIII  and  22  for  Dyn.  IX)  no  emphasis  would  have  attached 
 to  it;  and  if  the  number  23  had  been  given  to  both  the 
 preceding  dynasties,  it  would  have  been  to  this,  number  23 
 that  an  emphasis  would  have  attached,  rather  than  to  the  19 
 which  followed.  It  may  be,  moreover,  that  Ptolemy  wished 
 the  sum  of  185  years  and  a  low  average  in  his  Dyn.  X  to 
 correspond  symmetrically  at  the  end  of  his  Heracleopolites 
 to  the  somewhat  similar  sums  of  146  years  at  the  end  of  the 
 Memphites  (in  his  Dyn.  YIII),  of  184  at  the  end  of  the 
 Diospolites  in  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI  (his  own  XIV),  and  of 
 151  in  his  Dyn.  XVII  at  the  end  of  the  Shepherds.  These 
 four  sums  are  all  small  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  kings 
 linked  to  them;  and  they  indicate  for  27,  19,  76,  and  43 
 kings  respectively  averages  of  only  5^^,  9|^,  2^,  and  3|-| 
 years,  averages  which  seem  intended  to  hint  the  identity  of 
 many  of  Ptolemy's  restored,  and  the  affinity  of  his  fictitious, 
 kings  with  those  of  Manetho's  mythological  Dynasties  VI, 
 V,  IV,  and  VII,  and  of  his  historical  Dynasty  XVI ;  while 
 on  the  other  hand  Ptolemy's  four  new  Dynasties  VII,  IX, 
 XIII,  and  XIV,  preceding  and  coupled  with  the  four  above- 
 mentioned,  exhibit  (all  but  the  first  of  them,  his  Dyn.  VII, 
 which  has  no  years)  such  averages  as  seem  to  have  belonged 
 historically  to  the  kings  owning  the  same  years  in  the 
 hieratic  lists.  For  in  the  first  of  Ptolemy's  pair  of  Heracle- 
 opolite  dynasties,  his  Dyn.  IX,  the  19  kings  in  409  years 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 545 
 
 have,  as  has  been  shown  above,  an  average  of  21||^  years, 
 agreeing  with  that  of  the  papyrus  for  the  historical  kings 
 corresponding.  And,  lower  down,  if  Ptolemy's  kings  in  his 
 two  Dynasties  XIII  and  XIV,  viz.  60  and  40  or  60  and  76, 
 making  100  or  136,  be  taken  together  (for  none  of  Manetho's 
 36,  still  less  of  Ptolemy's  40  kings  in  his  Dyn.  XIV,  have 
 any  real  claim  upon  its  184  years,  while  they  certainly  all 
 belong  to  one  and  the  same  historical  connection),  the  453 
 years  of  Ptolemy's  Dyn.  XIII  afford  to  the  100  or  136 
 kings  an  average  of  either  ^^-^^  or  SyYe^?  which  would  differ 
 but  little  from  the  average  of  the  papyrus  for  their  group, 
 even  if  there  were  no  error  in  this  way  of  treating  the  two 
 dynasties.  And,  lastly,  the  32  kings  of  the  first  of  Ptolemy's 
 two  dynasties  of  Shepherds  have  in  518  years  16^^j  each 
 being  the  ideal  average  chosen  by  him  as  his  own  for  the 
 fictitious  kings  who  are  mere  vehicles  for  his  own  fictitious 
 years.  And  this  is  an  average  agreeing  perhaps  very  nearly 
 with  the  highest  given  in  the  papyrus  to  any  of  those  six 
 dynasties  of  Lower  Egypt  to  w'hich  Manetho  has  given 
 reigns  of  above  30  years  each.  For  if  there  were  in  the 
 papyrus  17  kings  corresponding  to  Manetho's  Dyn.  XI  (IV 
 of  Ptolemy),  these  in  277  years  would  have  16j\  each. 
 
 Having  restored  in  a  body,  without  years,  all  those  70 
 kings  whom  Manetho  had  transposed  from  among  the  first 
 143  kings  of  the  papyri  to  stand  with  month-years  not  their 
 own  as  Manes,  —  having  also  restored  separately  all  those 
 753  years  of  the  papyri  which  Manetho  had  suppressed  be- 
 tween the  ends  of  his  two  Dynasties  XIII  and  XIV  (VI 
 and  XI  of  Ptolemy),  —  and  not  only  so,  but  having  also 
 connected  with  these  753  years  46  doubles  of  their  46  owners 
 in  the  papyri,  and  19  supernumerary  fictitious  kings  besides, 
 Ptolemy  reproduces  unaltered  Manetho's  Dynasties  XIV 
 and  XV  as  his  own  XI  and  XII,  and  so  brings  us  down  to 
 the  end  of  the  first  half  of  the  Karnak  Chamber,  and  to  the 
 end  of  the  first  series  of  143  names  in  the  hieratic  lists  cor- 
 responding to  the  same. 
 
 Here,  at  the  end  of  his  Dyn.  XII  (XV  of  Manetho), 
 Ptolemy,  by  retaining  Manetho's  Dynasties  XIV  and  XV 
 unaltered,  has  a  surplus  of  6  years  telling  towards  the  years 
 
 N  N 
 
546 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 of  the  Nubian  group  which  next  follows.  For  in  separating 
 Amenemhe  I.  and  attaching  both  him  and  his  16  years,  and 
 43  other  years,  all  in  truth  belonging  to  Dyn.  XV,  to  his 
 anonymous  Dyn.  XIV  for  a  purpose  explained  elsewhere, 
 Manetho  reduplicated  6  years ;  so  that  when  the  43  and  the 
 1 6  are  restored  to  his  Dyn.  XV  (XII  of  Ptolemy)  they  raise 
 its  sum  from  160  to  219  years,  6  years  above  the  true  sum 
 given  by  the  papyrus. 
 
 Of  the  next  great  group  of  143  Nubian  names  in  the 
 papyrus  answering  to  the  second  half  of  the  Karnak  Chamber, 
 which  is  to  one's  right,  and  matching  the  other  143  names 
 preceding,  —  as  the  30  Nubian  cartouches  to  one's  right  in 
 the  Karnak  Chamber  match  the  32  of  other  lines  to  one's 
 left  in  the  same,  —  Manetho  had  given  a  representation  in 
 the  xxxvi  kings  of  his  Dyn.  XVI.  But  these  kings  again, 
 like  the  xvi  of  his  Dyn.  XIV,  were  without  either  names  or 
 years ;  for  the  184  years  ostensibly  attached  to  them  be- 
 longed to  them  no  more  than  the  16  and  the  43  belonged  to 
 his  Dyn.  XIV,  but  were  added  only  as  a  covert  indication  of 
 something  else.  And  as  for  the  other  19  kings  following  in 
 the  papyrus  after  the  143  Nubians,  Manetho  had  preserved 
 no  trace  either  of  their  names  or  of  their  years.  One  too  of 
 the  Shepherd-kings,  the  last,  he  probably  had  omitted.  So 
 Ptolemy  had  to  account  either  for  all  the  (536  +  71  =  )  607 
 years  belonging  to  (14^  +  19  =  )  162  names  in  the  papyri, 
 or  for  only  (607-184  =  )  423,  if  he  chose  to  let  the  184 
 years  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI,  though  not  really  belonging 
 to  its  kings,  tell  towards  their  reigns.  And  he  had  to  account 
 either  for  all  the  ( 143  -f  19  +  1  =  )  163  names  of  the  papyrus, 
 if  in  exhibiting  the  years  he  doubled  those  xxxvi  kings  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI  whom  Manetho  had  deprived  of  their 
 true  years  like  the  xvi  of  his  Dyn.  XIV,  but  like  them  had 
 not  suppressed  (and  this  one  might  expect  Ptolemy  to  do, 
 since  he  had  already  in  a  like  case  doubled  the  xvi  kings 
 of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIV) ; — or,  if  he  pleased,  he  might  let 
 the  xxxvi  kings  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI  reckon  with  the 
 1 84  years  attached  to  them,  as  if  they  were  the  true  owners 
 of  those  years ;  and  in  this  case  he  would  have  to  account 
 only  for  the  remainder,  viz.  for  (143  —  36  =  )  127  of  the 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 547 
 
 Nubian  kings,  for  the  19  of  the  group  following  them,  and  for 
 1  Shepherd.  In  point  of  fact  it  is  the  former  of  these  two 
 methods  which  he  has  adopted.  Setting  aside  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XVI  as  altogether  inadequate  both  in  its  number  of 
 xxxvi  kings,  not  really  owners  of  the  184  years,  and  in  its 
 sum  of  184  years,  not  really  belonging  to  the  xxxvi  kings, 
 Ptolemy  confiscates  both  the  xxxvi  kings  and  the  184  years 
 to  his  own  use ;  and  having  thus  made  a  tahula  rasa,  as  it 
 were,  before  beginning,  he  exhibits  himself  de  novo,  irre- 
 spectively of  Manetho,  the  full  number  of  the  (143  +  19  + 
 1  =  )  162  or  163  kings,  and  the  whole  sum  of  the  (536  + 
 71  =  )  607  years  of  the  papyri.  He  exhibits  them  thus : — 
 Using  the  designation  "  Diospolite  "  in  a  wide  sense  so  as  to 
 cover  the  Nubians,  in  like  manner  as  he  had  before  used  the 
 designation  "  Memphite''  in  a  wide  sense  so  as  to  cover  the 
 Tanites  and  Elephantinites  or  Heliopolitans,  he  places  60  of 
 them  in  his  Dyn.  XIII,  and  to  these  he  indirectly  adds  40 
 more  by  interpolating  40  kings  without  years  into  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XVI  (his  own  XIV)  where  they  could  have  claimed 
 no  share  in  the  years  of  Manetho's  xxxvi  kings  even  if  those 
 kings  had  had  there  any  years  really  their  own  to  defend. 
 And  having  thus  a  compact  body  of  (60  +  40  =  )  100  kings 
 to  begin  with,  one  must  look  down  a  little  lower  to  find  the 
 complementary  number  of  43  more  Diospolites  still  wanting ; 
 and  these  we  find  in  Ptolemy's  Dyn.  XVII,  with  a  sum  of 
 151  years.  And  if  one  puts  together  all  the  years  which 
 Ptolemy  has  attached  to  these  143  Nubian  kings,  viz.  453 
 in  his  Dyn.  XIII  +  0  in  his  Dyn.  XIV,  +  151  in  his  Dyn. 
 XVII,  and  adds  the  surplus  of  6  years  mentioned  above  as 
 remaining  over  and  to  be  carried  forward  from  his  Dyn. 
 XII  (XV  of  Manetho),  they  make  a  sum  of  610  years, 
 which  contains  not  only  all  the  536  given  by  the  hieratic 
 list  to  its  143  Nubian  kings,  but  also  the  71  given  (at  the 
 same  average)  to  the  19  Heracleopolites  following  the 
 Nubians  ;  and  3  years  besides  ;  which  last  3  years  are  the  3 
 units  thrown  up  and  added  by  Manetho  to  Menes  and 
 Athothis,  but  belonging  chronologically  to  certain  years 
 suppressed  by  him  before  the  commencement  of  his  Dyn. 
 XXVI.    Having  found,  then,  in  one  and  the  same  sum 
 
 N  N  2 
 
548 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 with  the  years  of  the  143  Nubians  the  years  also  of  the  19 
 Heracleopolites,  without  their  owners,  we  must  look  else- 
 where in  Ptolemy's  scheme  for  some  indication  at  least  of 
 these  19  kings,  if  we  can  find  marked  anywhere  the  number 
 of  1 9  kings  not  identifiable  with  any  other  historical  kings, 
 nor  in  possession  of  years.  Such  precisely  are  those  19 
 Heracleopolites  of  Ptolemy's  Dyn.  X  who  when  we  first 
 came  upon  them  seemed  to  be  introduced  in  mere  wanton- 
 ness, and  only  to  make  confusion.  But  now  we  understand 
 what  w^as  meant  by  those  19  supernumeraries.  Ptolemy's 
 purpose  too  in  making  the  indication  where  he  did  is  intel- 
 ligible, when  one  considers  that  so  the  19  Heracleopolites 
 were  both  exhibited,  through  their  years,  united  with  the 
 143  Nubians,  as  in  the  papyri,  and  were  also  indicated,  and 
 even  inserted  in  a  manner,  in  that  place  in  the  lists  which 
 best  suited  their  local  order,  when  .the  native  dynasties  were 
 enumerated  from  Tanis  and  the  North  southwards.  Their 
 contiguity,  too,  to  the  Shepherds  was  hinted  perhaps  in  Pto- 
 lemy's Dyn.  X  by  the  sum  of  185  years  seemingly  attached 
 to  them,  and  nearly  identical  with  that  of  184  really  belong- 
 ing to  the  Shepherds,  and  transferred  to  the  Nubians  as 
 their  contemporaries  both  by  Manetho  in  his  Dyn.  XVI, 
 and  indirectly  also  by  the  Tlieban  priests  who  constructed 
 the  list  of  Eratosthenes.  Ptolemy  also,  in  his  own  exhi- 
 bition of  the  143  Nubians,  retained  and  repeated  (in  his  Dyn. 
 XVII)  the  hint  given  by  Manetho,  in  his  Dyn.  XVI,  of 
 some  connection  between  the  time  of  the  Shepherd  supre- 
 macy and  the  time  not  only  of  the  Heracleopolites  but  of  the 
 Nubians.  For  in  Dynasty  XVII  of  Ptolemy  43  of  the 
 Nubians  or  Diospolites  are  presented  as  contemporaries  and 
 colleagues,  or  rather  as  subordinates  (since  they  are  men- 
 tioned last  and  the  others  first),  to  precisely  the  same  number 
 of  Shepherds.  And  the  151  years  there  given  to  the 
 Shepherds  with  their  subordinate  Diospolites  or  Nubians 
 answer  exactly  to  those  150  years  in  Herodotus  during  which 
 (so  the  priests  told  him)  Egypt  was  subjected  to  a  Typhonian 
 influence  under  the  Shepherds  and  their  Memphite  vassals. 
 
 The  19  unattached  Heracleopolites  being  brought  down 
 then  from  Ptolemy's  Dyn.  X  (and  leaving  all  the  594  years 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 549 
 
 of  that  and  the  preceding  dynasty  free  to  be  divided  in  the 
 proportions  of  the  papyrus  among  the  28  kings  really  owning 
 them,  or  at  least  among  the  28  doubles  of  these  kings),  and 
 the  (60  +  40  +  43  =  )  143  Diospolites  or  Nubians  of  Pto- 
 lemy's Dynasties  XIII,  XIV,  and  XVII  having  the  19 
 Heracleopolites  added  to  them,  the  full  number  of  162  is 
 thus  exhibited,  answering  to  the  (143+  19  =  )  162  of  the 
 papyrus.  And  Ptolemy's  years  for  all  these  kings  in  his  Dy- 
 nasties XIII,  XIV,  and  XVII(453 +0+151)  being  thrown 
 together,  their  sum  604,  divided  by  162,  gives  the  average 
 of  3|-J-|,  or  about  3  years  and  9  months,  as  in  the  papyrus. 
 
 Now  too,  at  length,  it  may  be  perceived  that  Ptolemy 
 had  a  reason  for  preferring  the  number  of  27  fictitious  kings 
 or  doubles  for  his  Dyn.  VIII  to  any  other  of  the  two  or 
 three  others  open  to  him.  For  thus,  besides  exhibiting  him- 
 self the  162  kings  and  the  607  years  of  the  papyrus  in  full, 
 he  could  also  indicate  that  addition  or  supplement  of  127 
 only  of  these  kings  which  would  have  been  needed,  if  he 
 had  let  the  xxxvi  kings  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI  (his  own 
 XIV)  tell  towards  exhibiting  the  Nubian  group.  For 
 upon  that  view,  127  fresh  kings  being  wanted,  100  of  them 
 are  ready  on  the  spot,  and  coalesce  with  the  xxxvi  of  Ma- 
 netho:  and  the  remaining  27  are  indicated  by  the  27  fictitious 
 kings  of  Ptolemy's  Dyn.  VIII,  who  are  not  really  Mem- 
 phites,  nor  really  attached  to  the  years  of  which  they  are  the 
 vehicles.  So  Ptolemy's  main  body  of  100  Diospolites  or 
 Nubians,  being  placed  in  the  midst,  may  be  made  to  coalesce 
 at  will  either  with  the  43  of  his  Dyn.  XIII  below,  so  as  to 
 exhibit  the  whole  sum  of  the  papyrus  independently  of 
 Manetho,  or  with  the  27  of  his  Dyn.  VIII  above,  so  as  to 
 exhibit  the  same  sum  in  conjunction  with  Manetho. 
 
 Lastly,  for  his  own  addition  of  759  fresh  years,  equally 
 absent  from  the  hieratic  lists  and  from  Manetho : — these  are 
 to  be  found  in  the  184  years  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI  (Pto- 
 lemy's XIV),  really  the  time  of  the  Shepherd  supremacy, 
 which  Ptolemy  appropriates,  the  xxxvi  kings,  really  se- 
 parate, being  available  either  as  mere  vehicles  for  the  years, 
 or  for  any  other  purpose,  such  as  that  a  little  before  ex- 
 plained.   These  184  years,  with  the  518  of  his  own  new 
 
 N  N  3 
 
550 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Dyn.  XVI  of  "  32  Shepherds  who  were  Greeks "  make 
 together  a  sum  of  702 ;  and  the  full  number  of  759  is  com- 
 pleted by  some  lesser  additions  for  which  he  saw  oppor- 
 tunities in  Manetho's  following  dynasties,  additions  similar 
 to  those  of  6  years  to  Manetho's  Dyn.  XI  and  7  to  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XIII  which  have  been  mentioned  above.  .  These  later 
 additions  telling  towards  his  own  759  years  are,  first,  one  of 
 24  years  and  2  months  to  the  259  years  and  10  months  of 
 Manetho's  vi  Shepherds ;  then  15  years  inserted  in  the 
 middle  of  Dyn.  XVIII  (which  would  have  been  in  some 
 sense  a  chronological  restoration,  if  he  had  not  also  retained 
 at  the  head  of  Dyn.  XIX  Manetho's  compensation  for  the 
 omission  of  the  same)  ;  and,  lastly,  5  years  really  new,  being 
 part  of  12  years  and  6  months  which  he  seems  to  add  to  the 
 150  years  and  6  months  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XXVI. 
 
 The  true  average  of  the  6  Shepherds  of  Manetho's  Dyn. 
 XVII  was  already  so  prodigious,  that  it  excites  surprise  and 
 curiosity  to  find  Ptolemy,  as  it  were  in  mere  wantonness, 
 selecting  that  dynasty  for  exaggeration.  The  more  so,  as  the 
 Shepherds  are  the  last  of  all  the  kings  for  whom  we  should 
 have  expected  any  native  Egyptian  scheme  to  multiply  either 
 reigns  or  years.  That  feeling,  however,  which  shows  itself 
 so  strongly  in  the  statements  of  Herodotus  and  in  the  ano- 
 nymous and  misplaced  Dyn.  XXVII  of  the  Chronicle,  was 
 already,  even  when  Manetho  wrote,  somewhat  less  violent 
 (the  remembrance  of  the  Persian  yoke  being  less  recent, 
 and  putting  him  less  in  mind  of  the  earlier  Asiatics);  or 
 else  Manetho,  like  the  hieratic  lists  which  he  partly  ex- 
 tracted, wanted  the  Shepherds  in  order  to  magnify  the  glory 
 of  their  expulsion.  And  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy,  when 
 not  only  the  Persians  but  the  Macedonians  too  had  nearly 
 passed  away,  even  if  Egypt  were  not  already  under  the 
 Romans,  the  feeling  against  the  Shepherds  and  their  tri- 
 butaries, and  even  the  jealousy  between  the  Lower  and 
 Upper  Countries,  so  strongly  marked  in  the  relations  of 
 Herodotus  and  in  the  lists  of  Manetho,  seems  to  have  lost 
 much  of  its  intensity.  At  any  rate,  we  find  Ptolemy,  though 
 himself  of  Lower  Egypt,  adopting  and  continuing  from  the 
 Thehan  lists  of  Eratosthenes  the  substitution  of  the  title 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 551 
 
 Thinite  for  that  of  Tanite,  belonging  to  Menes  and  to  the 
 earliest  kings  in  the  Chronicle,  and  no  doubt  also  in  the  ori- 
 ginal text  of  Manetho ;  and  we  find  him  not  only  reinserting, 
 and  with  the  appellation  of    Diospolites''  all  the  kings  of  the 
 Upper  Country,  and  all  their  years  suppressed  by  Mane- 
 tho, but  even  exhibiting  in  duplicate  xvi  Diospolites,  and 
 xxxvi  Diospolites  or  Xoite-Nubians  whom  Manetho  had  not 
 omitted,  but  had  mentioned  in  his  Dynasties  XIY  and  XYI. 
 And,  lastly,  we  find  him  adding  whole  dynasties  even  of 
 Shepherds,  and  making  a  vast  multiplication  of  these  kings, 
 formerly  so  odious,  the  vehicle  for  the  bulk  of  those  759 
 fresh  years  which  were  his  own  peculiar  creation.  Nay, 
 even  in  returning  to  that  cyclical  form  which  jManetho  had 
 abandoned,  he  so  entirely  dropped  the  idea  of  the  uTroKardcr- 
 raais  of  the  Chronicle,  and  the  feelings  which  had  given  point 
 to  its  expression,  that  he  made  the  whole  series  of  the  dynasties 
 from  Menes,  and  the  whole  period  of  his  four  cycles,  to  end 
 and  to  be  completed  in  a  dynasty  of  Persians^  the  same 
 impious  and  hateful  Asiatics  to  whom  the  Chronicle  pre- 
 fixed, and  with  whom  it  in  a  manner  blended,  its  transposed 
 and  unnamed  Dyn.  XXYII  of  the  Shepherds.    In  relation, 
 however,  to  that  addition  of  24  years  which  Ptolemy  made 
 to  the  vi  Shepherds  of  ManetVio,  and  which  at  first  sight 
 certainly  seems  strange,  it  may  be  said,  that  if,  as  seems 
 probable,  the  hieratic  lists  exhibited  the  name  of  a  seventh 
 Shepherd-king,  besides  the  six  of  Manetho,  and  Ptolemy 
 wanted  for  his  own  scheme  fresh  years,  without  caring  to 
 insert  into  Manetho's  list  a  fresh  name,  the  existence  of  a 
 seventh  Shepherd-^zzz^  may  have  suggested  the  addition  of 
 a  reign  of  24  years,  without  any  fresh  name,  to  that  dynasty. 
 And,  the  bulk  of  Ptolemy's  own  fresh  years  having  a  fresh 
 dynasty  of  Shepherds,  his  Dyn.  XVI,  for  their  vehicle,  it 
 was  natural  that  any  detached  portion  of  these  years,  to 
 be  inserted  arbitrarily  into  some  other  dynasty,  should  be 
 inserted  by  preference  into  the  homogeneous  dynasty  of 
 Manetho's  Shepherds.    And  even  it  may  be  suspected  that 
 underneath  his  multiplication  of  Shepherd  kings  and  years 
 of  Shepherds,  Ptolemy  was  amusing  himself  at  the  expense 
 of  his  Greek  readers ;  since  for  natives  finding  two  fresh 
 
 N  N  4 
 
552 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Shepherd  dynasties,  and  (32  +43  =)  75  fresh  Shepherd 
 kings,  all  entirely  unknown  to  the  hieratic  lists,  no  less  than 
 to  Manetho,  the  mere  designation  Shepherds,"  even  without 
 the  addition  that  they  were  " Ha-nehou'^'^  or  Greeks  (^^Xkrjves), 
 might  amount  to  the  same  thing  as  saying  plainly  that  these 
 kings  are  mere  vehicles,  and  their  years  merely  fictitious,  to 
 make  out  a  certain  scheme. 
 
 But  if  it  be  remarked  that  there  are  in  Ptolemy's  Dyn. 
 XVII  43  fresh  Shepherds  who  are  irrelevant  to  the  years 
 of  his  own  addition,  these,  it  may  be  replied,  are  in  truth 
 mere  contemporaries  and  associates  of  the  43  Diospolites, 
 who  alone  are  ^vanted  or  regarded  in  Ptolemy's  scheme, 
 though  it  suited  the  symmetry  of  his  insertions  to  make  a 
 pair  of  fresh  Shepherd  dynasties  rather  than  one  only ;  and 
 for  this  purpose  he  both  created  the  43  Shepherds  in  ques- 
 tion, and  put  them  first,  and  named  the  dynasty  from  them, 
 though  the  43  Diospolites  whom  they  thus  overlaid  were 
 alone  historical,  and  alone  had  any  claim  to  the  years ;  their 
 true  Shepherd  suzerains  being  only  four  kings  of  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XVII.  It  suited  also  for  the  sake  of  symmetry  in 
 Ptolemy's  scheme  to  place  43  of  the  143  Diospolites  at  a 
 distance  from  their  main  body  of  100,  below,  and  to  place 
 27  other  fictitious  kings,  capable  of  representing  Diospolites, 
 also  at  a  distance  from  the  100  Diospolites,  above;  that  so 
 one  might  at  will  either  make  out  the  exhibition  of  the  whole 
 group  of  the  143  Diospolites  or  Nubians,  by  adding  to  the 
 100  the  43  from  below,  or  by  adding  the  27  from  above  make 
 out  an  indication  of  127,  the  supplement  needed  to  fill  up  the 
 xxxvi  kings  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI  (XIV  of  Ptolemy) 
 to  the  163  Nubians  and  Heracleopolites  of  the  papyri 
 (the  7th  Shepherd  king  being  also  included).  And  these  127 
 kings  of  the  papyrus,  omitted  by  Manetho,  but  by  Ptolemy 
 both  exhibited  with  the  rest,  and  also  indicated  separately, 
 are  no  doubt  identical  with  the  127  ghost-kings  (though 
 the  number  is  not  given)  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  VII,  his  last 
 dynasty  of  Manes,  which  has,  as  it  ought  to  have,  by  far  the 
 largest  bulk  of  years.  For  it  has  no  fewer  than  5813,  which, 
 divided  by  12,  are  484.9"^  full,  and  afford  for  127  kings 
 3^f ,  being  over  3  years  and  9  months  to  each.    This  is 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 553 
 
 so  nearly  the  average  of  all  the  Nubians  and  Heracleopolites 
 of  the  hieratic  lists,  as  to  justify  a  suspicion  that  in  this 
 instance  at  least,  though  in  this  instance  alone,  the  month- 
 years  of  Manetho's  Manes  were  intended  to  indicate  on  re- 
 duction the  suppressed  historical  years  of  the  ghosts  their 
 holders.  Taking  the  484  reduced  years  of  Manetho's  Dyn. 
 VII  to  belong  to  127  ghost-kings,  if  we  add  36  more  ghosts 
 with  the  same  average  reigns  of  3}f^,  the  years  to  be  added 
 will  be  131^2-5-.  And  these  added  to  484  make  615,  ex- 
 ceeding by  only  8  years  the  (536  +  71  =)  607  calculated 
 above  at  the  average  of  3ff ?  indicated  by  fragments  of  the 
 papyrus  for  its  162  historical  Nubians  and  Heracleopolites. 
 But  if  what  has  been  said  of  the  symmetry  of  Ptolemy's  in- 
 dications, in  the  correspondence  of  the  43  kings  of  his  Dyn. 
 XYII  beloio  to  the  27  of  his  Dyn.  YIII  above  the  main 
 body  of  the  100  Diospolites  placed  in  his  Dynasties  XIII 
 and  XIV,  has  been  understood,  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  43 
 Diospolites  below  could  not  have  been  so  placed,  at  a  dis- 
 tance from  their  main  body,  otherwise,  than  under  cover  of 
 a  dynasty  having  some  other  designation. 
 
 In  conclusion,  the  hieratic  lists,  the  lists  of  Manetho,  and 
 those  of  Ptolemy  shall  be  paralleled  with  one  another,  the 
 kings  of  the  papyrus  being  put  first,  with  such  subdivisions 
 of  their  numbers  and  years  as  are  convenient.  Next  shall 
 follow  in  the  same  lines  the  kings  of  Manetho,  so  as  to  show  his 
 misappropriations  and  suppressions.  Thirdly,  still  in  the  same 
 lines,  shall  be  added  the  kings  of  Ptolemy,  so  as  to  show  how 
 far  he  follows  Manetho,  what  he  restores  from  the  hieratic 
 lists,  and,  further,  what  he  adds  of  his  own.  In  these  tables 
 Manetho's  misappropriations  and  suppressions  are  in  red ;  and 
 Ptolemy's  restorations;  but  not  his  additions,  which  how- 
 ever are  distinguished  by  Roman  numerals,  and  by  being 
 bracketed.  In  two  cases,  where  19  Heracleopolites  and  1 
 Shepherd  are  printed  in  red  and  bracketed,  this  is  because 
 they  are  only  indicated  among  Ptolemy's  additions  but  not 
 actually  restored  by  him  to  their  true  connection.  The 
 xxxvi  kings  and  184  years  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI  (XIV 
 of  Ptolemy)  are  bracketed,  because  Ptolemy  has  reduplicated 
 them,  and  made  them  part  of  his  own  peculiar  additions. 
 
554 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 •aj  ?d.(^a  jsddn  jo  sSuiv  lo  sjsa.t  cki  miM  :(mo|30 
 
 00 
 
 MAX   UAQ  uj  ajB  savaX  asoq.w  -doairnuafj  fil  luas^^ 
 -ajdaj  osiB) :  sa^qnop  suipaoaad  aq?  jo  xix  jo  saiqnoQ 
 
 lO  — 
 
 ■^^ 
 1  1 
 
 Dynasty. 
 
 >< 
 
 o  ; 
 l1  4- 
 
 jadd/i  JO  sSuin  ;o  -u  \ 
 
 to 
 
 c 
 
 00 
 
 to 
 
 kO 
 
 u 
 a 
 
 SI 
 
 % 
 
 Kings. 
 
 •AIX  -UifQ  siq  JO  sa^ijodsoiQ  tax  aqj  jo  puB 
 Ai-uXQs,oqiauBi\[  JO  saaBi\[  xxx  aqj  jo  sa[qnoQ 
 
 nil 
 
 [xlvi] 
 
 o 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 B. 
 
 Dynasty. 
 
 + 
 
 viii.  Mem.  ^ 
 
 ix.  Herac.  < 
 
 4- 
 
 lA  JO  sSiin  JO  "SJA 
 
 e<3      <N  00 
 lo      o  — 1 
 
 <N        CO  (N        (N  (M 
 
 1294 
 
 o> 
 
 1491 
 
 1  ;J 
 
 1710 
 
 Kings. 
 
 00        05  0>        00  05 
 
 «o 
 
 05 
 00 
 
 O  »0  — '  00 
 
 I— 
 
 CO 
 't 
 
 Dynasty. 
 
 i.  Thinites 
 vii. 
 
 ii.  Thinites 
 
 iii.  Memphite 
 vii. 
 
 iv.  Memphite 
 V.  Elepliant. 
 vii. 
 
 Sum  .    .  . 
 
 vi.  Memphite 
 vii. 
 
 Sum  .    .  . 
 
 vii. 
 vii. 
 
 vii.  Memphite! 
 
 xi.  Diospol.  ^ 
 
 xii.  Diospol. 
 
 Total  .    .  . 
 
 •suSrai 
 JO  mSaai  ai^BJaAV 
 
 L-133      L-;|rJ-IS!  Kllu':|0) 
 
 —      CO  eo  t-- 
 CO     CO  (M     n  o\ 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 inio 
 <N 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 eo 
 
 (N 
 
 •Aiojaq  passaid 
 -dns  id.fSa  iaddfi  jo 
 sSui^  oiojj  pappE  -sj.^ 
 
 CO 
 
 +  + 
 
 +  160? 
 
 o 
 
 + 
 
 +  176 
 
 CO 
 
 + 
 
 00 
 
 + 
 
 d 
 s 
 
 -0}  'satrejt  TXi  JO  pue 
 pduiE4ai  sSui^jo  si\ 
 
 190 
 
 205? 
 214 
 
 277 
 248 
 
 1134 
 
 00 
 
 1315 
 
 1  Is 
 
 1528 
 
 Kings. 
 
 00  1  Oi  o  1  00  o>  1 
 
 CO 
 
 "  1 
 
 OJ 
 
 ■>* 
 
 II  r=" 
 
 CO 
 
 Dynasty. 
 
 viii.  Tanites 
 [vi.  Manes] 
 
 ix.  Tanites 
 
 X.  Memph. 
 [v.  Manes] 
 
 XI.  Memph. 
 xii.  Eleph. 
 [v.  Manes] 
 
 Sura .    .  . 
 
 xiii.  Memph. 
 >.  Manes] 
 
 Six  Dyn.  of 
 jower  Egypt 
 
 'iv.  Manes] 
 'iv.  Manes] 
 
 [iv.  Manes]' 
 xiv.  Diosp. 
 
 XV.  Diosp. 
 
 Total    .  . 
 
 •soSiai 
 JO  q^Suaj  aSEjaAV 
 
 rj<                Tf  CO 
 
 oclos 
 
 H2 
 
 00 
 
 t 
 
 00 
 
 O  o 
 
 (M  <N  (N 
 
 '■^1'-' 
 
 a: 
 
 Years. 
 
 395? 
 
 491 
 
 248 
 
 1134? 
 
 CO 
 
 1315] 
 
 331? 
 
 r 
 
 »n  CO  CO 
 
 O    •'1'  r-l 
 
 <n  oi  o} 
 
 2457 
 
 HIERATIC  PAI 
 
 c 
 
 OOOC5CT>I^OOOC5 
 
 00 
 
 00  C5 
 
 CO  »n  —  00 
 
 CO 
 
 Race. 
 
 1 
 
 Tanites  .| 
 
 Memph.    .  | 
 
 Heliopol.?.j 
 
 1 
 
 Sum.    .  . 
 
 Memph.  . 
 
 [Sum  .  . 
 
 -^^ 
 
 Diospol.  . 
 Diospol.  . 
 
 [Total]  . 
 
PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES. 
 
 555 
 
 PTOLEMY  OF  MENDES,  continued  from  above. 
 
 •aiuaqos  umo  siq  oi  jEiinDsd  puB  'uoilKajo  qmo  s.jfraapjj  jo  sjv.  \\on\iA 
 s3ai^  puB  s.iv3li  asoqj  luvjuoa  .<aqj  inq  ;  sSui^j  jisqj  jo  suoijKOjidnpaj  miM 
 '^luaiojj  Xq  pjJOjSJJ,  pui?  oqi3iiiii\i  Aq  psuiuio  s^wp/f  umjuoa 'aAoqK  uisqj  oj 
 autpuodsaaiOD  aaaqj  aqj       '3ou  op  suunqoD       aaaqj  aqj  a3Bd  jaMoj  siqi  ui 
 
 1 — 1  1 — 1  1 — 11    '1    1  1 — 1  I — I 
 
 [759] 
 
 [xxxvi 
 xliii 
 
 xxxii 
 
 4 
 
 +  [Sheph. 
 [xvi.  Shop. 
 
 4-  _____ 
 
 4 
 
 [xxxi.  Pers. 
 
 4- 
 
 S   1    1  ^ 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 -t 
 o 
 to 
 
 O     •        OOOCOO     OOOCltOOOO't  OCX) 
 KO     •        -^t^^           COCO(N0O  -^OCNlC^CO 
 
 iO 
 
 «n 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 C  --3  « 
 
 CO 
 
 ( — 1 
 
 to 
 
 ^1?     'O'^o  (Nt^os-^i-icocsoor-i^eo 
 I  '. 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 xiii.  Diosppl. 
 
 xiv.  Xoites.  ^ 
 
 xvii.  Diospol. 
 
 [Sum]    .  . 
 
 [Heracleop. 
 
 Sura  indicated 
 
 .  ^                 .              O          .  o 
 
 (2             ^  ^              Q..ti  xC-^S-"*-'  !^  —  O 
 A.             •-    O                        C  "2    <S        ^  '5    <y  r/i    3  -° 
 
 CC        ._•   .          i-i  "           ^   , :^      ^  . 
 
 >'        ■>  .2                          ><i  X  X  x'x  X 
 X         XX  xxxxxxxxxxx 
 
 o  • 
 
 -  (M 
 
 -  CO 
 3  CO 
 
 02  . 
 
 O 
 
 MANETHO,  continued. 
 
 et\a                    on-       "|2-*|b.c:ls-|-#  r-WnlM 
 CO            O       OJ         ^  CO  CO  <>i       eotoco  OGM 
 
 Tl*                                   <N              r->    ^    ^                   ..H^_<  ,^ 
 
 El  ESS 
 +           +                                           +  +  + 
 
 3555 
 
 [184] 
 
 1 
 
 cj         co»f:coo  ooodtooo-^^oooo 
 
 »n  COt^— '           COCOtNOO  5«1CO 
 (N           CO^  _i_ 
 
 \  ^  1 
 
 jeo    1  1 
 
 1 
 
 to             tO^iO  (Mt^O-^'-<C0CT>00-^-^C0 
 
 00 
 OS 
 
 [vii.  Manes] 
 xvi.  Diosp.? 
 
 [vii,  i\Iancs] 
 [vii.  Manes] 
 
 [vii.  Manes] 
 
 xvii.  Sheph. 
 
 xviii.  Diosp. 
 
 xix.  Diosp. 
 
 XX.  Diosp. 
 
 xxi.  Tanite 
 
 xxii.  Bubast. 
 
 xxiii.  Tanite 
 
 xxiv.  Saitc 
 XXV.  Ethiop. 
 xxvi.  Saite 
 xxvii  Pers. 
 
 xxviii.  Saite 
 
 xxix.  Tanit. 
 
 xxx.  Seben. 
 
 Sum  to  1 
 B.C.  345  .  J 
 
 b: 
 >< 
 p. 
 
 u 
 < 
 
 a 
 X 
 
 eo 
 
 eo 
 
 IE 
 
 CO 
 
 n  CO 
 
 «o 
 eo 
 o 
 
 O 
 CO 
 
 o 
 to 
 
 O              00  00 
 
 to 
 
 <N  CO 
 
  '  
 
 CO 
 
 3863 
 
 O  to  CO 
 
 to  eo  'ii* 
 c 
 
 eo 
 
 CTJ 
 
 (N 
 
 to 
 
 to  -H  (N 
 
 00 
 
 C5 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 Sum     .  . 
 
 Hcracl. 
 
 Nub.&Her. 
 
 Sheph. .  . 
 
 Diospol.  . 
 331  kings, 
 3750  years. 
 tOB.c.  1322. 
 
 Or  to  B.C. 
 1209.    .  . 
 
556 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Lastly,  after  these  parallel  tables  there  shall  be  appended 
 a  general  tabular  conspectus  of  the  five  schemes  of  the 
 Papyrus,  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  of  Manetho,  of  Ptolemy  of 
 Mendes,  and  that  preserved  by  Diogenes  Laertius,  which  is 
 named  last,  not  as  if  it  were  the  latest  of  the  five,  but 
 because  of  its  simplicity  and  exceeding  value.  For  though 
 Diogenes  Laertius  himself  is  a  comparatively  late  writer,  of 
 uncertain  date,  who  cannot  at  the  earliest  have  flourished 
 much  before  the  middle  of  the  third  century  after  Christ, 
 the  Egyptian  scheme  preserved  by  him  is  accompanied  by 
 indications  that  the  source  from  which  he  derived  it  was  not 
 much  later  than  the  conquests  of  Alexander  the  Great,  the 
 scheme  itself  being  brought  down  to  the  year  B.C.  332. 
 
 PAPYRUS. 
 
 1 
 
 1  CHRONICLE. 
 
 1  MANETHO. 
 
 PTOLEMY. 
 
 : 
 
 piOG.  LAERT. 
 
 [ii  Cycles]  +  [341] 
 
 [xxx  Cycles] 
 
 Gods 
 
 192 
 
 16" 
 
 Gods 
 
 16 
 
 10,608 
 
 10,608 
 
 884 
 
 :>3.800 
 
 Menes. 
 
 - 
 
 1st  series 
 
 12,413 
 
 12,418 
 
 .or 
 
 13,900 
 
 168 
 
 158 
 
 to  Bytis 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 ■r.'  1 
 
 4241 
 
 .2tJ 
 
 408~] 
 
 Gods 
 
 1230  i- =2922 
 
 1 230  Demigods 
 
 1230  1=2906 
 
 2922 
 
 1  2ti.S 
 
 1268J  xiii  Gods 
 
 I26(f 
 
 30?  Diospol. 
 
 1268J 
 
 2d  series 
 
 341 
 
 ►=1817 
 
 208 
 
 208. 
 
 Manes 
 
 :•; )  r, 
 
 315 
 
 315- 
 
 SOMemphite 
 
 ^-  17!<0 
 
 Gods 
 
 11 
 
 14 
 
 Manes 
 
 3.=)0 
 
 350 
 
 350  10  Tanites 
 
 3d  series 
 
 3788 
 
 3783 
 
 3788- 
 
 126  Nubian 
 
 Menes. 
 
 >=  5813 
 
 1  ^- 
 
 2025 
 
 2025 
 
 2025- 
 
 Manes 
 
 Menes. 
 
 •22 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 242 
 
 •J42 
 
 242=30  681 
 
 341 
 
 [341] 
 
 [341] +  [40] 
 
 217 
 
 217 
 
 217  viii  Demigods 
 
 21? 
 
 217 
 
 217 
 
 =  1135  of 
 
 1"  — ~j   =470  of 
 
 14 
 
 current  cycle 
 
 1  current 
 
 doubled  or 
 
 1    26  cycle 
 
 r4431    "'^  current 
 J  cycle  anticip. 
 
 _443_ 
 
 anticipated 
 
 !_443j:inticipated 
 
 Menes, 
 
 Menes. 
 
 903 
 
 903 
 
 903 
 
 903 
 
 903 
 
 903  ST 
 
 113 
 
 113t0B.C. 
 
 113 
 
 113 
 
 113 
 
 113  =^ 
 
   L120!) 
 
 [Kings  3^63] 
 
 865  to  B.C.  345 
 
 865  to  B.C.  345 
 
 865+ 13  to  B.C.  332 
 
 865+13toJi 
 
 Sum  j;.,iifi4  ■t-1574 
 
 MM\  +  5844 
 
 24,000  t-4455 
 
 5844 
 
 5033 
 
GREEK  AUTHOFvS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 557 
 
 CHAP.  V. 
 
 STATEMENTS  OF  GREEK  AUTHORS. 
 
 Besides  the  Egyptian  schemes  themselves,  examined  above, 
 there  are  also  certain  separate  statements  and  notices  of 
 Greek  writers  directly  or  indirectly  referring  to  them,  which 
 it  will  be  proper  to  mention  in  order,  and,  as  far  as  possible, 
 to  explain  and  account  for. 
 
 HERODOTUS. 
 
 To  begin  with  Herodotus,  as  the  earliest :  The  Egyptian 
 priests  of  Phthah  at  Memphis,  told  him  (about  B.  c.  450),  that 
 "  before  ordinary  kings,  Gods,  dwelling  together  w^th  men, 
 had  reigned  in  Egypt " :  and  they  boasted  that,  besides  al- 
 tars, images,  and  temples,  the  art  of  writing  in  hieroglyphics, 
 and  the  solar  year  of  365  days,  the  names  of  the  Gods  also 
 were  of  their  own  institution  (vo^Laat)  or  invention.  And 
 Herodotus  confirms  this  statement  by  showing  that  the 
 Pelasgi  and  Greeks,  at  any  rate,  had  learned  the  first  names 
 and  rudiments  of  their  polytheism  from  the  Egyptians.  He 
 was  told  that  the  last  of  the  Gods  who  had  reigned  was 
 Horus,  son  of  Osiris;  that  there  were  certain  viii  Gods 
 older,  and  certain  xii,  who  were  of  the  viii,  more  recent ; 
 and  others  again  who  were  of  the  xii;  that  Pan  and  Buto 
 belonged  to  the  viii,  and  Hercules  to  the  xii ;  that  from 
 Dionysus,  or  Osiris,  who  was  of  the  third  order,  to  Amasis 
 (to  B.C.  525),  there  15,000  years;  from  Hercules  {sttsIts 
 SIC  TMV  rj  @£0)v  oi  </3'  ^£ol  iyiuovTo)  17,000;  and  from  Pan, 
 still  more. 
 
 Now,  from  the  death  of  Amasis,  in  B.C.  525,  to  the  cycli- 
 cal epoch  of  B.C.  1322  there  were  797  years;  and  if  to 
 these  we  add  the  3750  years  of  kings  in  the  hieratic  list, 
 with  the  5613  and  the  3944  of  the  two  divine  series  pre- 
 ceding, and  further  the  400  years  of  the  later  Horus,  the 
 
558 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 last  deity  of  the  first  divine  series  in  the  Turin  papyrus, 
 we  find  not  indeed  the  name  of  Osiris,  but  the  accession  of 
 this  Horus,  the  son  of  Osiris,  who  was  often  spoken  of  as 
 avenging  his  father,  and  immediately  succeeding  him,  at  an  in- 
 terval of  14,504  years  above  Amasis,  which  might  be  called  in 
 round  numbers  15,000.  And  if  we  add  to  these  the  3140 
 years  of  the  goddess  Ma,  which  stand  next  above,  her  acces- 
 sion is  17,644  years  above  Amasis ;  so  that  her  place  is  that 
 of  the  Hercules  of  Herodotus.  And  Sou,  which  is  written 
 with  the  feather,  just  like  Ma,  is  rendered  into  Greek  by 
 Hercules.  Further,  Ma  is  apparently  the  ninth  in  the  Turin 
 papyrus  from  the  commencement  of  its  first  divine  series ; 
 and  she  is  certainly  not  among  the  first  eight,  though  one  of 
 the  next  following  after  them.  As  for  the  Pan  of  Hero- 
 dotus, if  any  name  among  the  first  viii  of  the  papyrus 
 answered  to  him,  it  may  have  been  the  elder  Horus,  brother 
 of  Osiris,  and  identifiable  with  one  aspect  of  Osiris  himself ; 
 (for  the  deity  of  Mendes,  Ba-en-Dad,  was  a  form  of  Osiris 
 and  of  Horus).  But  an  hieratic  list  at  Memphis  may  have 
 varied  in  its  names  and  order  from  a  Theban  papyrus :  and 
 perhaps  in  specifying  the  number  of  years  from  the  latest 
 divine  reigns  the  priests  did  not  refer  to  any  list  at  all,  but 
 put  them  a  little  above  that  epoch  at  which  they  encouraged 
 Herodotus  to  place  Menes. 
 
 Of  ordinary  kings,  Herodotus  writes,  the  first  was  Menes, 
 who  turned  the  course  of  the  Nile,  and  founded  Memphis, 
 making  also  its  sacred  lake.  His  accession  was  put  by  some 
 so  far  back  as  to  be  even  before  the  formation  of  the  Delta, 
 or  when  all  below  the  lake  Moeris  was  still  under  water.  So, 
 clearly,  nothing  was  said  of  Tanis  as  a  capital,  any  more 
 than  of  Thebes  or  Bubastis.  The  sense  of  the  assertion 
 must  be  this,  that  if  the  3750  years  of  the  kings  in  the 
 hieratic  lists  had  been  really  successive,  the  accession  of 
 Menes  would  have  been  in  the  year  of  true  time  292,  when 
 even  the  antediluvian  Egypt  was  as  yet  unpeopled,  to  say 
 nothing  of  the  existing  world. 
 
 "  After  Menes "  they  read  out  from  an  hieratic  papyrus 
 330  names  of  his  successors  to  Sesostris,  whose  immediate 
 predecessor  was  Moeris.    And  from  the  death  of  Mocris  to  He- 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 559 
 
 rodotus's  own  time  (about  B.  C.  450),  "  there  had  been  less 
 than  900  years."  Moeris,  then,  should  have  died  at  some 
 date  later,  but  within  half  a  century  later,  than  B.  c.  1350. 
 
 Herodotus  supposed  that  these  330  kings,  or,  as  he 
 should  have  reckoned,  331  (but  he  drops  Menes),  must  have 
 covered  with  their  reigns  a  space  of  11,000  [11,033^]  years, 
 making  of  each  reign  a  full  generation  of  33^  years.  And 
 the  priests  told  him  that  during  the  whole  time  which  they 
 covered  (whatever  that  was),  the  sun  had  four  times  risen 
 so  as  to  change  his  course,  having  twice  risen  from  the  point 
 where  in  B.  c.  450  he  set,  and  twice  set  at  the  point  from 
 which  in  B.  c.  450  he  rose.  "  'Ez^  toIvvv  tovtoj  tw  %/3ov« 
 TSTpaKLS  sXsyov  r)6swv  tov  rfkiov  avarsTkaL^''  ("  quater  cursus 
 suos  vertisse  sidera,"  in  Pompon.  Mela,  i.  9,  as  quoted  by 
 Bunsen),  "  avOa  rs  vvv  KaraSvsTaL  svOamsv  Kis  sTravaTatXai,, 
 KoX  svOsv  vvv  avarsXXsL  svOavra  Sts  KaraSdvac.^^  (^Herod, 
 Eut.  c.  142.)  Now  11,300  years  and  more  would  have  given 
 to  the  sun  many  more  such  circuits  than  two,  and  would 
 have  carried  back  Menes  above  the  (5613 +  3750)=9363,  or 
 (9363—341  =)  9022  years  real  and  nominal,  which  were 
 reckoned  to  the  existing  world  between  the  unnamed  epoch 
 of  the  Flood  and  Rameses  III.  But  if  the  priests  in  their 
 own  minds  gave  to  the  331  kings  the  same  3750  years  which 
 they  seem  to  have  had  in  the  hieratic  lists,  this  number  of 
 years,  if  only  they  had  been  all  successive  as  well  as  real, 
 would  justify  their  assertion,  though  it  was  not  literally  the 
 sun,  but  their  own  movable  year  and  calendar,  which  would 
 have  twice  started  afresh,  and  twice  returned,  after  going 
 round  through  all  the  signs  of  the  zodiac.  For,  if  we 
 reckon  back  in  Sothic  cycles  from  the  cyclical  epoch  of 
 July  20,  B.C.  1322,  there  need  only  2922  years  for  two 
 cycles,  within  which  there  would  have  been  two  complete  cir- 
 cuits of  the  sun  or  of  the  calendar.  And  when  these  are 
 deducted  from  3750,  there  remain  over,  at  the  head  of  all, 
 828  years,  not  enough  for  a  third  circuit.  Nor  would  it 
 make  any  difference  if  they  let  Herodotus  reckon  on,  as  it 
 seems  they  did,  340  years  more  (being  1 0  generations,  and 
 part  ofan  11th)  below  Moeris,  as  if  to  the  deliverance  of 
 Sethon,  and  understand  them  to  speak  of  what  had  taken 
 
560  EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 place  in  (3750 +  340  =  )  4090,  or,  as  he  fancied,  11,340  years. 
 Or  if,  instead  of  Sothic  cycles,  which  do  not  bring  the  sea- 
 sons exactly  round.  Phoenix  cycles  were  intended,  two  of 
 these  would  cover  3010  years :  and  if  the  goal  whence  the 
 sun  started  and  to  which  he  returned  was  that  conjuncture 
 w^hich  made  the  names  of  the  Egyptian  months  suit  the  actual 
 seasons,  then  his  first  turning  {s^rjOscov)  would  have  been  at 
 the  commencement  of  the  295th  movable  year  from  Menes, 
 in  B.C.  4790,  and  his  second  return  to  the  same  point  would 
 have  been  in  the  anticipated  Julian  year  B.C.  1780,  when 
 the  1st  of  the  movable  Thoth  was  again  at  an  interval  of 
 125  days  after  the  solstice.  In  Herodotus'  own  time  the 
 sun  was  within  about  43  days'  distance  (needing  about  174 
 years  to  traverse)  of  having  returned  to  this  point  for  the 
 third  time.  For  in  B.C.  275,  as  M.  Biot  has  calculated,  the 
 movable  tetramenia  would  again  become  concurrent  with 
 the  actual  seasons.  And  already  their  discrepancy  was  so 
 far  reduced  as  to  allow  of  its  being  said  that  the  year  of 
 365  days  "  brought  the  seasons  round,"  an  assertion  which 
 would  have  been  paradoxical,  if  at  the  time  each  tetramenion 
 had  plainly  coincided  with  some  other  season  than  that  re- 
 ferred to  by  the  names  of  its  four  months. 
 
 Herodotus  was  told  that  Sesostris,  the  332nd  king  of  the 
 lists,  placed  in  the  14th  century  B.C.,  in  fact  at  the  cyclical 
 epoch  of  B.  c.  1322,  was  the  first  conqueror  of  Ethiopia,  or 
 Nubia,  and  the  first  and  only  king,  except  his  immediate 
 predecessor,  who  nad  done  anything  very  remarkable.  He 
 was  also  told  that  this  Sesostris  was  the  king  who  had  set 
 up  stelse  in  Phosnicia,  and  colossi  of  himself  and  of  four  of 
 his  sons  at  Memphis  (if  so,  he  wasRameses  II.);  and,  lastly, 
 that  he  was  the  king  who  had  a  fleet  of  ships  of  war,  and 
 was  master  of  both  seas,  that  is,  that  he  was  Rameses  III., 
 with  whom  he  was  also  identified  by  his  place  in  the  lists 
 and  by  the  date.  But  in  what  relates  to  Sesostris,  upon 
 whom  all  his  Egyptian  history  turns,  Herodotus  was  de- 
 ceived by  the  priests,  who  blended  into  one  fabulous  per- 
 sonage three  or  more  conquerors  of  very  different  ages,  and 
 two  of  them  of  very  diff"erent  names,  though  the  chief  ele- 
 ment of  the  name  Sesostris,  viz.  tsesr,  belonged  to  them  all. 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 561 
 
 And  the  end  of  explaining  and  accounting  for  Herodotus's 
 statements  will  be  best  served  by  splitting  his  Sesostris  into 
 three,  and  the  whole  series  of  11  reigns  or  generations  con- 
 nected with  Sesostris,  from  his  predecessor  to  his  9th  suc- 
 cessor, both  being  included,  into  two  distinct  series  of  11 
 generations  each,  the  one  beginning  with  Mceris,  the  pre- 
 decessor of  the  first  Sesostris  (Sesortasen  L),  and  ending 
 Avith  Anysis  or  Onnos  (probably  the  9th  king  of  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XII),  the  other  beginning  with  the  predecessor  of 
 Kameses  III.  (named  Set-necht^  or  Amen-nechthes),  and  end- 
 ing, for  Herodotus,  with  the  king  (really  Bocclioris)  who 
 was  defeated  by  the  Ethiopian  Sahaco,  as  if  his  were  the  9  th 
 reign  or  generation  from  Rameses  III.  Thus  only  can  each 
 statement  of  Herodotus  be  presented  by  itself,  without  con- 
 fusion, and  in  its  true  chronological  order.  It  is  true  then 
 that  Moeris  (that  is  Papa  Maire,  the  4th  king  of  Manetho's 
 Dynasty  XIII),  was  the  immediate  predecessor,  as  suze- 
 rain, of  Sesostris — Sesortasen  I.  the  first  conqueror  of 
 Nubia, —  though  in  the  hieratic  lists  there  were  53  names 
 and  951  years  apparently  between  them.  But  Moeris,  in- 
 stead of  being  the  331st,  stood  as  the  83rd  king;  and  his 
 death,  instead  of  being  less  than  900,  was  seemingly  3427 
 and  really  1524  years  before  B.C.  450;  and  Sesostris  the 
 first  conqueror  of  Nubia,  and  successor  of  Mosris,  stood  in 
 the  lists  not  as  the  332nd,  but  as  the  137th  king;  and  his 
 accession,  as  suzerain,  was  not  900  only,  but  seemingly 
 2756,  really  1524  years,  before  Herodotus.  This  being  un- 
 derstood, the  statement  that  these  two  kings.  Papa  Maire 
 and  Sesortasen  I.,  were  the  first  who  did  anything  very  re- 
 markable, is  open  to  no  objection;  or,  rather,  it  is  justified 
 to  this  day  by  their  monuments,  if  compared  with  those  of 
 earlier  kings.  For  the  builders  of  the  pyramids  were 
 neither  understood  by  Herodotus  to  be,  nor  were  in  truth, 
 earlier. 
 
 An  observation  connected  by  Herodotus  with  the  time  of 
 Moeris,  the  predecessor  of  the  first  Sesostris,  deserves  to  be 
 compared  with  the  records  of  the  height  reached  by  the 
 Nile  between  the  rocks  at  Semneh  in  Nubia  in  the  time  of 
 Amenemhe  III.    And  it  may  be  that  the  title  Ma-re  be- 
 
 o  o 
 
oG2 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 longing  to  Amenemhe  III.,  was  confused  with  the  throne- 
 name  of  Papa  Mai-re,  the  true  Moeris  and  predecessor  of 
 Sesostris,  both  in  speaking  of  the  great  Avork  of  the  lake  of 
 the  Fayoum,  and  in  speaking  of  the  height  reached  by  the 
 Nile  in  different  ages.  For  this,  as  the  inscriptions  still 
 remaining  attest,  was  carefully  watched  and  recorded  at  the 
 Nilometer  at  Semneh,  in  Nubia,  in  the  time  of  Amenemhe 
 III.  Herodotus  was  told  that  in  the  time  of  Moeris  a  rise 
 of  8  cubits  only  was  needed  for  the  inundation  of  the  Delta, 
 whereas,  in  his  own  time,  the  rise  needed  was  15  or  16 
 cubits.  And  in  speaking  of  the  blindness  of  Pheron,  the 
 son  and  successor  of  Sesostris  (where  the  generation  next 
 after  Moeris  and  Sesortasen  I.  cannot  be  really  meant),  he 
 says  that  he  had  impatiently  flung  a  javelin  into  the  Nile  on 
 its  having  reached  the  unprecedented  and  dangerous  height 
 of  18  cubits.  This  implies  that  the  ordinary  and  proper 
 height  had  previously  come  from  8  to  be  16  cubits.  But 
 the  14  entries  made  during  37  years  of  the  reign  of  Ame- 
 nemhe III.  (Mares),  at  Semneh,  show  that  in  the  time  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XV  the  highest  point  on  the  rocks  there 
 reached  by  the  inundation  was  8,  17  metres  above  the  highest 
 point  reached  at  the  present  day. 
 
 To  the  earliest  Sesostris,  according  to  Aristotle,  long 
 before  Minos,"  (who  was  sometimes  put  700  years  before  the 
 first  Olympiad,)  was  ascribed  the  institution  of  the  military 
 and  sacerdotal  castes,  whose  lands  and  allowances,  mentioned 
 by  Herodotus,  had  certainly  been  settled  on  them  before  the 
 time  of  the  Patriarch  Joseph.  Others  add  the  introduction 
 of  cavalry.  And  to  his  time  probably  may  be  traced  the 
 origin  of  some  at  least  of  those  military  stations  which 
 are  known  to  have  existed  later,  as  at  Daphnae  and  Mareas 
 towards  Syria  and  Libya,  in  the  Heracleopolite  Nome, 
 perhaps,  upon  the  border  of  Lower  Egypt,  at  Thebaicai 
 Phylacae  in  the  Hermopolite  Nome  at  the  entrance  to  the 
 Thebaid,  at  some  point  commanding  the  valley  of  Hanamat 
 and  the  road  between  Coptos  and  the  Red  Sea,  and  at 
 Syene  on  the  Nubian  frontier.  The  last  of  these,  as  well  as 
 the  first,  is  repeatedly  mentioned  by  Herodotus.  After  the 
 conquest  and  acquisition  of  Nubia  a  similar  station  is  known 
 
GKEEK  AUTHORS  :  HERODOTUS. 
 
 563 
 
 to  have  been  created  or  fortified  by  the  third  successor  of 
 Scsostris,  Sesortasen  III.,  at  Scmneh.  And  as  he,  too, 
 gained  Yictories  in  further  Nubia,  and  bore  the  same  name 
 with  the  first  conqueror,  he,  too,  enters  into  the  composition 
 of  the  fabulous  Sesostris :  and  when  mention  is  made  of  the 
 institution  of  geometrical  surveys,  of  the  reservation  of  the 
 fifth  part  of  the  produce  of  the  land  to  the  king,  of  the  mul- 
 tiplying of  canals,  the  banking-up  of  the  cities  and  villages, 
 and  tlie  removing  into  them  of  the  scattered  population 
 (works  belonging  to  the  time  of  Joseph,  and  imputed  as  ty- 
 ranny to  the  Memphite  vassals  of  the  Shepherds),  Sesor- 
 tasen III.,  who  was  their  contemporary  in  Upper  Egypt, 
 is  the  Sesostris  chiefly  to  be  thought  of.  But  it  is  not  so 
 much  the  institution  of  the  military  caste,  or  of  military 
 stations  by  the  first  conqueror,  as  that  of  a  certain  custom 
 connected  with  military  service  in  the  stations,  and  in- 
 cidentally mentioned  by  Herodotus,  which  deserves  our 
 attention.  For  Herodotus,  speaking  of  the  station  at  Syene, 
 mentions  that  it  had  been  the  custom  to  change  and  relieve 
 the  men  and  officers  composing  it  after  three  years,  and  that 
 it  was  in  part  discontent  at  not  having  been  so  relieved 
 which  caused  the  whole  force,  in  the  time  of  Psammiti- 
 chus  I.,  to  desert  in  a  body,  and  to  settle  in  Ethiopia.  Now 
 it  may  fairly  be  presumed  that  this  custom  or  rule  of  the 
 service,  which  was  connected,  too,  with  the  tenure  of  the 
 lands  of  the  military,  was  as  old  as  the  establishment  of  the 
 stations,  or  even  as  old  as  the  military  caste  itself.  Indeed 
 it  seems  to  be  alluded  to  as  already  existing  in  connection 
 with  the  garrison  at  Semneh  in  that  inscription  of  the  3rd 
 year  of  Sebekhotep  III.  which  has  been  quoted  above  at 
 p.  499  :  for  the  words  "  when  Ben- seneb  was  Commandant  in 
 the  fortress  of  the  late  king  Sesortasen  III."  seem  to  allude  to 
 a  command  of  brief  tenure  in  comparison  with  the  reign  of  a 
 territorial  king,  and  not  subordinate  to  the  power  of  Sevek- 
 hotep  himself.  And  if  so,  it  is  worth  considering  whether 
 this  custom  may  not  throw  some  light  on  the  true  nature  of 
 that  multitude  of  143  Nubian  and  19  Heracleopolite  kings 
 in  the  hieratic  list  which  appear  to  have  reigned,  one  with 
 another,  under  4  i/ears  each,  and  so  about  the  time  usual  for 
 
5G4 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 military  service.  When  one  reflects  that  they  are  all  neces- 
 sarily included  chronologically  within  the  extreme  limits  of 
 the  conquest  of  Nubia  above  and  the  rise  of  Dyn.  XVIII 
 (some  216  years  later)  below;  that  there  must  have  been 
 at  least  three  distinct  successions  of  them,  probably  more, 
 thrown  together  on  the  right  side  of  the  Karnak  Chamber, 
 and  in  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI ;  that  they  are  connected  by 
 monumental  traces  with  no  places  so  much  as  with  Semneh, 
 Syene,  Coptos,  and  Thebaicee  Phylacce,  all  military  stations  ; 
 and  that  they  have  left  no  traces  in  Nubia  of  any  capital 
 cities  or  of  tombs,  such  as  indigenous  kings  might  be  expected 
 to  leave,  while  their  names  occur  in  the  cemetery  of  Abydos, 
 it  is  natural  to  suspect  that  they  were  really  military  com- 
 mandants rather  than  hereditary  and  territorial  kings. 
 Their  connection  with  the  precise  time  (184  j^ears)  of  the 
 Shepherd  supremacy  (though  w^e  may  suppose  them  to  have 
 commenced  somewhat  earlier)  is  indicated  alike  by  Manetho, 
 by  the  Theban  lists  of  Eratosthenes,  and  by  Ptolemy  of 
 Mendes.  Ptolemy  has  even  a  group  of  43  Nubians,  each 
 with  a  Shepherd  for  his  monitor.  It  may  be,  then,  that  it 
 suited  the  policy  of  the  Shepherds  to  multiply  kings,  and  by 
 giving  the  royal  title  to  the  commandants  of  their  military 
 stations,  to  put  them  on  a  level  with  the  hereditary  and  ter- 
 ritorial kings  from  whom  they  received  tribute.  At  any 
 rate  Manetho,  in  the  passages  extracted  from  him  by  Jose- 
 phus,  represents  the  Shepherds  as  not  only  fortifying  Avails, 
 keeping  a  force  near  Pelusium  (which  may  be  an  anticipa- 
 tion), holding  Memphis,  and  reducing  the  Upper  as  w^ell  as 
 Lower  Country,  with  the  native  rulers,  to  subjection,  but 
 also  as  ^'putting  garrisons  in  such  places  as  were  most  con- 
 venient for  the  maintenance  of  their  supremacy,  and  for  the 
 collection  of  their  dues."  The  ''most  convenient"  places 
 would  be  the  same,  no  doubt,  under  them  as  under  Sesor- 
 tasen  I. ;  and  for  the  same  reasons.  So  that,  according  to 
 Manetho,  they  exercised  and  secured  their  supremacy  in 
 Upper  Egypt  by  garrisoning  these  military  stations  either 
 with  Shepherds  of  their  own  race,  or  with  native  Egyptian 
 subjects  whom  they  trusted.  And  perhaps  he  has  other  in- 
 direct allusions  to  the  relation  in  which  these  numerous  kings 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS.  565 
 
 stood  to  the  Shepherds.  At  any  rate,  in  his  narrative,  after 
 enumerating  the  Shepherds  themselves  as  six  kings  only, 
 and  leaving  no  room  for  any  more,  since  they  make  his 
 Seventeenth  Dynasty,  he  nevertheless  speaks  of  a  multitude 
 of  others  derived  from  them,  and  carrying  out  their  policy, — 
 their  spawn,  as  it  were  ; — and  in  connection  with  these  last 
 he  names  a  sum  of  511  years,  approaching  to  the  sum  of 
 the  Nubians  in  the  papyri.  And  if  the  kings  of  his  Dy- 
 nasty XII,  themselves  vassals  of  the  Shepherds,  were,  as 
 seems  likely,  Heliopolites  of  the  East  Bank,  he  may  have 
 thought  his  play  upon  the  word  Abt  the  more  colourable  be- 
 cause there  had,  in  fact,  existed  a  succession  of  kings,  though 
 not  the  same,  which  had  held  the  royal  title  at  Elephantine 
 or  Syene.  As  for  the  name  Xoite  (Kesite  or  Ksoite)  given 
 either  by  the  original  Manetho,  or  by  some  re-editor  of  his 
 lists,  to  the  Nubians,  if  it  were  meant,  as  no  doubt  it  was,  to 
 be  misunderstood,  like  the  designations  Elephantinite  and 
 Thinite,  by  Greek  readers,  and  to  suggest  the  thought  of 
 Xois  in  the  Delta,  its  sense  would  be  much  the  same  as 
 "  Sebennyte,"  or  "  Manethonian,"  since  Xois  was  in  the 
 Sebennyte  Nome.  If  it  indicated  anything  beyond,  it  might 
 be  this,  that  the  kings  in  question  having  the  184  years  of 
 the  Shepherd  supremacy  given  to  them,  were,  in  fact,  con- 
 nected with  the  Shepherds,  and  halved  the  Delta  with  them, 
 the  other  side  of  the  Delta  being  substituted  for  the  other 
 end  of  Egypt.  But  it  must  be  confessed  that  there  is  some- 
 thing in  all  the  three  designations  of  the  Thinites,  Elephan- 
 tinites,  and  Xoites  of  the  lists  of  Africanus  out  of  keeping 
 with  the  spirit  and  the  scheme  of  the  original  Manetho. 
 His  favour  to  the  first  six  dynasties  of  kings,  and  his  dis- 
 favour to  the  three  next  following  them,  is  manifest ;  and  it  is 
 therefore  improbable  that  he  should  transfer  in  name  two  of 
 his  favoured  dynasties  to  the  Upper  Country,  and  bring  down 
 one  of  the  three  really  belonging  to  the  Upper  Country  into 
 the  Lower,  and  even  into  his  own  native  district.  But  to 
 return  to  tiie  question,  whether  what  we  call  the  Nubian 
 group  of  kings  were  commandants  under  the  Shepherds : — It 
 may  certainly  be  objected  against  this  view,  that  foreign 
 conquerors  would  never  have  trusted  native  Egyptians,  and 
 
 o  o  3 
 
566 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 least  of  all  Datives  of  Upper  Egypt  or  Nubia,  to  command 
 for  them  in  theii'  strongholds  ;  and  that  the  Nubian  kings 
 who  are  so  honoured  in  the  Karnak  Chamber,  while  the 
 Memphite  pyramid^builders  are  everywhere  suppressed,  are 
 the  last  of  all  to  be  suspected  of  any  sj)ecial  connection  with 
 the  Shepherds.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  Manetho's  testi- 
 mony is  express  (and  on  this  point  he  would  not  exaggerate), 
 that  all  alike  became  subject  to  the  Shepherds :  and  there  is 
 no  real  ground  for  thinking  that  they  were  anything  like  a 
 foreign  army  within  a  conquered  nation,  ruling  as  strangers 
 and  by  force.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  distinguished  by 
 little  else  than  the  retention  of  tlieir  hereditary  preference  for 
 the  pastoral  life  over  the  agricultural.  In  other  respects 
 they  had  so  conformed  to  the  manners  of  the  Egyptians, 
 when  J oseph  was  in  Egypt,  that  it  seems  impossible  to  some 
 writers  that  they  should  ever  have  been  strangers  or  Shep- 
 herds at  all.  The  only  accusation  which  adheres  is  that  of 
 atheism ;  though  even  here  it  is  confessed  that  they  wor- 
 shipped the  local  god  of  their  own  Nome,  Soutech,  whose 
 symbol  was  afterwards  given  to  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,  as 
 identified  with  the  power  of  evil.  But  their  power  over 
 Upper  Egypt  was  obtained,  according  to  Manetho  himself, 
 in  a  marvellous  way,  without  a  blow.  And  in  truth  it  ori- 
 ginated in  their  having  saved  the  whole  population,  receiving 
 them  to  be  subjects  and  tributaries  only  on  their  own  entreaty. 
 So  that,  in  the  first  instance,  and  for  a  long  time,  there  is  no 
 need  to  suppose  any  bitter  hostility  between  the  servants 
 and  officers  of  the  suzerain  and  the  local  tributary  kings  or 
 their  peoples.  In  time,  no  doubt,  their  hearts  changed,  so 
 that  they  hated  both  the  Shepherd  suzerains  and  their  He- 
 brew counsellors.  And  if  at  length  some  one  or  other  of  the 
 military  commandants  in  Nubia  joined  or  headed  a  revolt, 
 and  a  new  dynasty  arose  which  derived  its  blood  at  once 
 from  the  last  of  the  territorial  kings  of  the  Thebaid,  and 
 from  the  commandant- kings  of  Upper  Egypt  and  Nubia,  this 
 fact  is  enough  to  explain  how  honour  should  be  attached 
 by  their  descendants  to  all  names  of  the  same  connection. 
 
 After  three  successors  of  Sesostris,  if  only  names  and 
 circumstances  inapplicable  either  to  Amenemhe  II.,  Sesor- 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 567 
 
 tasen  II.,  and  Sesortasen  III.  in  Upper  Egypt,  or  to  the 
 first  three  reigns  of  Manetho's  Dynasties  XI  and  XII 
 (IV  and  V  of  Ptolemy)  in  Lower  be  dropped,  Herodotus 
 will  be  quite  accurate  in  introducing  the  names  of  Cheops, 
 and  Cephren,  and  Mycerinus  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XI  who 
 built  the  three  chief  pyra.iiids.  Asi/chis  or  Sahoura  too, 
 and  Anysis  or  Onnos,  who  follow  them,  were  really  the  one 
 of  them  contemporary  with  Suphis  I.  the  other  later  by  two 
 or  three  generations  than  Mycerinus,  being  the  2nd  pro- 
 bably and  the  9th  kings  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XII,  who  also 
 built  pyramids.  And  the  notices  attached  by  Herodotus  to 
 the  pyramid-builders,  that  they  were  all,  except  Mycerinus, 
 impious  tyrants,  of  odious  memory ;  contemporaries  of  the 
 Shepherd,  to  whom  their  works  might  be  ascribed ;  and  that 
 in  their  time  Egypt  was  subjected  to  a  Typhonian  influence, 
 are  in  accordance  with  indications  from  other  sources.  Even 
 the  gleam  of  sunshine  meant  to  indicate  the  death  of  Joseph 
 after  80  or  100  years  of  the  impiety  and  tyranny  of  Apophis, 
 and  the  continuance  nevertheless  of  the  T-yphonian  influence 
 for  some  50  years  longer,  are  both  perfectly  intelligible.  If 
 AsT/chishe  Sephres,  or  at  any  rate  one  of  the  kings  of  Mane- 
 tho's Dyn.  XII,  it  might  be  quite  right  also  to  place  in  his 
 time  that  unprecedented  famine  which  drove  the  Egyptians 
 to  pawn  even  their  sepulchres  and  their  dead.  Only  the 
 details  respecting  his  brick  pyramid,  which  was  built  so  admi- 
 rably, do  not  suit  the  northern  stone  pyramid  of  Abouseer 
 in  which  his  name  has  been  found,  but  rather  the  great 
 northern  brick  pyramid  of  Dashoor. 
 
 Two  cities  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  Pithom,  said  in  the 
 Book  of  Exodus  to  have  been  walled  by  the  labour  of  the 
 Hebrews,  and  Avaris,  mentioned  by  Manetho  and  on  the 
 monuments  as  the  capital  of  the  Shepherds,  are  mentioned 
 also  by  Herodotus,  the  one  as  Tidrovixos,  the  other  as  'H/^cowv- 
 iroXis  or  Heroopolis,  which  seems  to  be  merely  a  contraction 
 of  'A/SapoTToXis.  And  he  has  the  name  itself  'A/Sapia  (the 
 district  of  Avaris),  written  by  metathesis  'A/?a/3 /a,  which 
 aflbrds  a  valuable  illustration  of  the  text  of  the  Septuagint. 
 For  there  the  land  of  Goshen  is  rendered  "  'Apa^la  Tsaas/ji/' 
 and    Tsaasp.  'Apa^las :  "  It  is  also  called  from  the  city  of 
 
 o  o  4 
 
568 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Ramesses  (rebuilt  and  renamed  by  Rameses  II.)  "  7^ 
 PayLteo-o/s';"  and  the  city  itself  called  'Va/jusaarj^  in  the  Book 
 of  Exodus,  and  said  to  have  been  fortified  like  Pithom  by  the 
 Hebrews,  is  rendered  by  the  LXX  "'Hpw&jv  TroXty,"  that  is, 
 Avaris ;  so  that  it  had  already  been  rebuilt  and  refortified 
 long  before  it  was  renamed  from  Rameses  II. 
 
 "  Any  sis  of  Any  sis, ^'^  if  the  last  king  of  Manetho's  Dyn. 
 XII,  will  be  "  Onnos,  who  by  birth  was  of  the  Nome  or  dis- 
 trict of  the  Hare^''  the  hare,  the  first  sign  in  his  name,  which 
 reads  onnos,  being  also  the  sign  of  the  South  Hermopolite 
 Xome,  with  which  therefore  he  probably  was  connected. 
 
 Then  (after  the  death  of  Onnos  the  9th  successor  of 
 Sesostris  in  the  line  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XII,  parallel  to  the 
 8th  in  the  line  of  his  Dyn.  XI),  Herodotus,  passing  on,  is 
 again  accurate  in  introducing  what  might  be  called  (by  those 
 at  least  who  had  known  Joseph)  an  Ethiopian  invasion. 
 For  it  was  from  Nubia  chiefly  that  the  power  and  the 
 religion  came  which  overthrew  the  dynasty  of  the  Shepherds. 
 And  hence  all  those  later  traditions  which  represent  the 
 religion  and  civilisation  of  Egypt  as  descending  from  Ethiopia, 
 and  as  first  manifesting  themselves  at  Thebes.  Under  this 
 Ethiopian  or  semi-Ethiopian  dynasty,  then,  viz.  Dyn.  XVIII, 
 which  followed  after  the  first  Sesostris  and  the  pyramid- 
 builders  and  the  Shepherd  Philition,  and  by  no  means  under 
 the  later  Ethiopian  Sabaco,  still  less  after  his  abdication,  is 
 to  be  placed  an  event  mentioned  by  Herodotus  without  any 
 precise  indication  of  its  date.  For  after  having  related 
 elsewhere  how,  in  the  reign  of  Psammitichus  I.  (the  very 
 time,  or  but  little  lower  than  the  time,  to  which  his  chrono- 
 logical transpositions  caused  by  reckoning  from  a  compound 
 Sesostris  would  bring  down  the  Exodus),  the  force  stationed 
 at  Syene  had  deserted  in  a  body  and  settled  in  Ethiopia,  he  re- 
 marks, with  an  allusion  to  this,  that  in  former  times,  implied 
 to  be  much  more  remote,  a  somewhat  similar  emigration  had 
 taken  place,  when  a  vast  multitude  —  "  no  small  proportion 
 of  the  whole  force  or  population  of  Egypt "  —  had  broken 
 away  and  settled  in  the  inland  parts  of  Palestine,  where  they 
 still  dwelt,  and  retained  the  practice  of  circumcision,  a  sign 
 (^so  he  thought  at  least)  of  their  Egyptian  origin. 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  HERODOTUS. 
 
 569 
 
 At  length,  on  coming  to  the  predecessor  of  Rameses  III., 
 who  was  both  in  name  and  exploits  a  sort  of  repetition  of 
 Rameses  II.,  with  something  distinctive  of  his  own,  Hero- 
 dotus may  be  again  accurate  in  saying  that  330  names 
 following  that  of  Menes  had  by  this  time  been  read  out  to 
 him  from  a  book,  the  last  being  that  of  the  immediate  pre- 
 decessor of  Sesostris ;  and  that  from  the  death  of  this  pre- 
 decessor to  his  own  time  there  had  intervened  less  than  900 
 years.  Only,  if  the  priests  read  out  the  name  of  Mosris  as  that 
 of  the  331st  king,  they  transposed  or  repeated  it,  and  deceived 
 Herodotus,  not  only  by  expressions  suggestive  of  misunder- 
 standing, but  also  by  direct  falsehood.  JSTor  could  it  have 
 been  said  even  by  those  Memphites  who  were  the  most  en- 
 vious of  Thebes,  that  none  of  the  330  kings  before  Kameses 
 III.  and  his  immediate  predecessor,  if  they  were  all  admitted 
 as  legitimate,  had  done  any  thing  remarkable.  Indeed  the 
 greater  part  of  the  exploits  of  Sesostris  himself  as  related  by 
 Herodotus  (all,  in  a  manner,  except  the  fleet,  and  the  first 
 conquest  of  Nubia)  belong  to  Rameses  II.,  who  was 
 himself  one  of  the  330  kings.  Especially  the  story  of  the 
 treason  of  his  brother,  whom  he  had  left  governor  of  Egypt 
 in  his  absence,  being  connected  with  the  mention  of  the 
 stelas  in  Phoenicia,  belongs  clearly  to  the  times  of  Rameses 
 II.  (with  whom  his  father  Seti  I.  was  also  blended).  And 
 the  fact  that  the  royal  power  was  really  delegated  to  a 
 brother,  whether  by  Rameses  11.  himself  or  by  Sesosis  his 
 father,  is  said  to  be  confirmed  by  contemporary  sculptures  at 
 Gourneh.  It  is  of  some  importance  to  notice  this,  as  in  the 
 later  narrative  and  lists  of  Manetho  and  Ptolemy  the  story 
 of  the  two  brothers,  identified  with  ^gyptus  and  Danaus, 
 is  put  down  to  the  following  dynasty,  and  is  connected, 
 though  out  of  place,  and  under  a  double  name  of  '^sOws  6 
 Kol  'VafJbzaaip,  with  Rameses  III.  But  it  might  be  said  to 
 Herodotus  with  a  sort  of  truth  that  among  the  331  pre- 
 decessors of  Sesostris  (Sesostris  being  Rameses  III.)  there 
 had  been  18  Ethiopians,  besides  one  native,  that  is,  Mem- 
 phite,  queen,  Nitocris.  For  the  xviii  kings  of  Dynasties 
 XVIII  and  XIX  from  Amosis  to  Amenephthes  or  Amen- 
 necht  the  predecessor  of  Rameses  III.  both  included,  were 
 
570 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 all,  as  has  been  said  above,  of  semi-Ethiopian  origin.  And 
 thus,  astonishing  as  the  fact  may  be,  the  Memphite  priests 
 contrived  to  suppress  and  ignore  a  long  line  of  the  most 
 powerful  and  renowned  of  all  their  kings,  those  precisely 
 who  had  left  the  most  remarkable  monuments,  no  doubt  for 
 tliis  reason  only  that  these  kings  had  been  Thebans  while 
 they  themselves  were  Memphites.  That  by  the  xviii  Ethio- 
 pians they  really  meant  these  kings  and  no  others  is  plain  even 
 from  the  number  itself,  which  cannot  be  made  out  in  any 
 other  way.  For  though  there  were  in  the  lists  other  kings 
 who  with  equal  or  greater  justice  might  be  called  Ethiopians, 
 their  number  was  not  xviii  but  cxliii ;  and  even  as  repre- 
 sented in  the  Karnak  Chamber  they  are  xxx ;  and  later  in 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XYI  there  are  xxxvi,  and  in  Ptolemy's 
 Dyn.  XIV  Ixxvi  of  tliem.  Or  rather  in  Ptolemy's  lists  there 
 are  all  the  cxliii  with  doubles  to  xxxvi  of  them  added.  And, 
 besides,  it  is  only  on  this  supposition  that  one  can  understand 
 or  account  for  Herodotus's  statement  that  Sesostris  not  only 
 first  conquered  Ethiopia,  but  that  he  was  the  only  native 
 Egyptian  king  who  had  ever  reigned  over  it ;  whereas  it  is 
 clear  from  the  monuments  that  all  the  xviii  kings  who  pre- 
 ceded Rameses  III.,  from  Amosis  downwards,  reigned  over 
 Nubia  as  well  as  Egypt :  and  Eameses  III.  himself  was  not 
 the  last  who  did  so,  though  Herodotus's  statement  is  concerned 
 only  with  his  331  predecessors.  This  singular  attempt  to 
 dissemble  and  suppress,  as  it  were,  in  the  mass  the  long 
 dynasties  of  Theban  supremacy  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
 equally  wonderful  silence  of  Herodotus,  not  only  concerning 
 their  history  but  also  concerning  those  monuments  of  the 
 Theban  dynasties  which,  through  tlie  times  of  the  Mace- 
 donians, the  Romans,  and  even  the  Arabs,  and  to  this  day, 
 have  been  the  admiration  of  all  beholders.  His  silence  is 
 rendered  the  more  incomprehensible  by  one  or  two  passages 
 in  which  he  implies,  and  by  one  in  which  he  expressly  affirms, 
 that  he  had  himself  been  at  Thebes,  and  even  as  high  up  the 
 Nile  as  to  Syene.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  these  passages, 
 and  one  or  two  others  mentioning  events  which  took  place 
 towards  the  close  of  his  century,  are  merely  incidental  addi- 
 tions, inserted  like  notes  into  his  text  late  in  life  after  a 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 571 
 
 second  visit  to  Egypt,  no  detailed  notices  of  which  were  ever 
 written. 
 
 The  building  of  the  propylaja  on  the  north  side  of  the 
 temple  of  Phthah  at  Memphis,  which  Herodotus  couples 
 with  the  lake  of  Mocris,  belonged  no  doubt  not  to  Moeris  the 
 predecessor  of  Sesortasen  I.  but  either  to  Seti  T.  the  father 
 and  predecessor  of  Rameses  II.  or  to  Amenephthes  the  331st 
 king  and  predecessor  of  the  latest  Sesostris,  Rameses  III., 
 within  900  years  of  Herodotus's  time.  The  lake  only  with 
 its  canal  may  belong  to  Moeris,  though  the  dimensions 
 given  by  Herodotus  seem  to  belong  rather  to  the  natural 
 lake  Birket  el  Quorn  than  to  any  true  work  of  a  king. 
 For  he  makes  it  700  miles  round,  and  300  feet  deep 
 at  the  spot  where  Moeris  built  his  pyramids  rn  it.  The 
 Egyptians,  however,  when  they  said  that  there  was  as  much 
 of  the  pyramids  in  the  water  as  out  of  it,  probably  meant 
 only  that  the  whole  height  was  doubled  in  the  water  by  the 
 reflection. 
 
 The  son  and  successor  of  Sesostris,  that  is,  of  Rameses  III., 
 is  named  by  Herodotus  PJteron.  On  the  name  we  can  throw 
 no  light ;  but  the  two  obelisks  which  he  is  said  to  have 
 erected  at  Heliopolis,  out  of  gratitude  on  recovering  from 
 his  ten  years'  blindness,  are  works  such  as  either  Amenoph 
 the  son  of  Rameses  II.,  or  any  one  of  the  four  or  five  sons  who 
 reigned  after  Rameses  III.,  may  be  likely  to  have  executed. 
 But  as  Pheron  is  not  identifiable  with  any  monumental 
 king,  he  must  be  regarded  only  as  representing  one  of 
 Herodotus's  generations  of  33^  years.  And  as  Herodotus  is 
 very  far  from  making  out  by  the  reigns  which  he  mentions 
 the  sum  of  something  under  900  years  from  the  accession  of 
 Sesostris  to  his  own  time,  we  may  give  him  the  benefit  of 
 the  true  date  for  the  accession  of  his  Sesostris,  that  is,  of 
 Rameses  III.,  and  reckon  his  generations  from  the  true  date 
 B.C.  1321,  which  is  29  years  less  than  900  before  B.C.  450. 
 Thus  the  death  of  Pheron  will  be  put  in  B.C.  (1321 —  66^  =  ) 
 1255.  He  is  succeeded  by  a  man  of  Memphis  "  named 
 Proteus,  The  name  is  Greek,  borrowed  from  an  Egyptian 
 sea-god  in  Plomer :  and  the  note  that  he  was  a  Memphite 
 may  be  an  oblique  acknowledgment  that  Sesostris  himself 
 
572 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 and  his  son  Pheron  had  not  been  Memphltes,  but  Thebans. 
 On  the  other  hand  the  handsome  temple  of  the  Foreign 
 Hathor  erected  by  Proteus  on  the  south  side  of  the  temple  of 
 Phthah  at  Memphis,  and  the  Quarter  or  "  Camp  of  the 
 Tyrians"  around  its  precinct,  are  clear  signs  that  the 
 historical  king  alluded  to  is  really  either  one  of  the  sons  or 
 the  grandson  of  Rameses  III.,  whose  naval  power  prepares 
 one  for  that  closer  and  permanent  intercourse  with  Phosnicia 
 of  which  the  Quarter  of  the  Tyrians  at  Memphis  and  the 
 Foreign  Hathor  are  not  the  only  signs.  The  end  of  the  ge- 
 neration of  Proteus  may  be  brought  as  low  as  B.C.  (1255  — 
 33^  =  )  1221.  But  even  if  we  had  reckoned  that  of  Rameses 
 III.  from  B.C.  1350  (the  full  900  years  before  Herodotus), 
 instead  of  B.C.  1321,  so  that  the  years  of  Proteus  should  end 
 within  some  short  time  after  B.C.  1250,  this  might  have  been 
 late  enough  to  include  Herodotus's  date  for  the  war  and 
 taking  of  Troy,  which  he  puts  in  the  time  of  Proteus.  For 
 elsewhere  he  puts  the  war  of  Troy  about  800  years  before 
 his  own  time.  After  Proteus  follows  Ramsinitus,  a  name 
 which,  without  identifying  itself  with  any  individual  king, 
 indicates  that  we  are  among  the  Ramessid  successors  of 
 Rameses  III.,  and  not  at  the  3rd  generation  or  reign  after 
 the  first  conqueror  of  Nubia  and  Mceris,  or  at  the  gene- 
 ration next  preceding  that  of  Cheops  and  his  contemporary 
 the  Shepherd.  Of  Ramsinitus  it  is  said  that  he  was  the 
 richest  of  all  kings;  and  if  Herodotus  did  not  fail  by  275 
 years  or  more  to  make  out  his  900  from  the  accession  of  Se- 
 sostris,  or  if  we  could  reckon  his  generations  upwards  from  the 
 conquest  of  Sabaco  as  a  known  and  fixed  point,  Ramsinitus's 
 generation  would  lie  between  B.C.  979  and  946  ;  and  he 
 would  then  be  either  the  dexterous  thief  who  broke  into  the 
 treasury  of  Solomon,  or  the  natural  inheritor  of  the  spoils 
 brought  away  from  Jerusalem  by  Shishonk  I.  Ramsinitus 
 also  added  to  the  temple  of  Phthah  at  Memphis  its  western 
 propylsea,  seen  and  admired  by  Herodotus:  and  recent 
 discoveries  have  brought  to  light  remains  of  magnificent 
 buildings  erected  at  Memphis,  and  seemingly  in  connection 
 with  the  temple  of  Phthah,  by  a  king  who  reigned  about  the 
 end  of  Dyn.  XIX.  Reckoning  in  generations,  one  must  put 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 573 
 
 the  end  of  the  reign  of  Ramsinltus  in  B.C.  1188.  After  him, 
 the  Thebans  having  been  already  transformed  into  jSIem- 
 phites  in  Proteus,  five  generations  of  those  Memphite  kings 
 who  built  the  pyramids  are  inserted  so  as  to  follow  after  the 
 latest  instead  of  the  earliest  Sesostris.  And  these  save  the 
 priests  all  need  of  further  mystification  to  conceal  the  Dios- 
 polites  of  Dyn.  XX  still  remaining.  For  us,  however,  who 
 have  retransposed  the  five  pyramid-builders  to  their  true 
 place  their  names  here  represent  merely  as  many  abstract 
 generations  ;  except  that  the  addition  of  its  eastern  propylaea 
 to  the  temple  of  Plithah  at  Memphis  must  be  detached  from 
 the  name  of  Asychis  and  given  to  the  7  th  Ramessid  suc- 
 cessor or  generation  after  Kameses  III.  And  the  five 
 generations  indicated  under  the  five  names  from  Cheops  to 
 Any  sis  (both  being  included)  will  make  in  all  166^  years. 
 It  is  true  that  Cheops  and  Cephren  are  not  presented  as 
 mere  generations,  but  have  long  actual  reigns  of  50  and  56 
 years  given  to  them  :  and  a  space  of  150  years  is  specified : 
 but  these  details  belong  only  to  the  historical  kings  in  their 
 true  places  above ;  and  Herodotus  himself  shows  below  that 
 he  does  not  attempt  to  reckon  by  actual  reigns  till  he  comes 
 to  the  accession  of  Psammitichus  I.  The  5  trenerations 
 then  would  take  us  on  from  B.C.  1188  166f  years  to  B.C. 
 1021,  between  which  date  and  the  invasion  of  Egypt  by 
 the  Ethiopian  Sabaco  in  B.C.  746,  there  is  really  a  gap  of 
 275  years,  equal  for  Herodotus  to  8  generations  and  above 
 8  years  of  a  ninth. 
 
 But  Herodotus  by  an  enormous  anticipation  connects  the 
 invasion  of  Sabaco  with  the  name  of  Any  sis  or  Onnos  the 
 8th  successor  of  Sesostris.  And  after  this  name  has  been  put 
 back  and  confined  to  Onnos  the  8th  or  9th  successor  (in  one 
 line)  of  the  first  Sesostris,  it  is  still  implied,  and  indeed 
 directly  asserted,  that  the  invasion  of  Sabaco  took  place 
 during  the  8th  generation  after  Rameses  III.,  that  is,  at  the 
 latest  in  B.C.  1021,  before  the  accession  of  Solomon.  And 
 not  only  so,  but  while  Sabaco  (under  whose  single  name  the 
 three  Ethiopians  of  Dyn.  XXV  are  consolidated)  is  said  to 
 have  ruled  Egypt  "  for  50  years  "  (sVl  srsa  v),  Any  sis  (who 
 should  be  Bocchoris),  instead  of  having  been  burned  alive,  is 
 
574 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 made  to  survive  all  this  time  concealed  in  the  fens.  And 
 when  at  length  Sabaco  (or  Tirhakah)  has  voluntarily  with- 
 drawn to  Ethiopia,  Any  sis  reappears,  and  having  regained  his 
 throne,  dies,  it  may  be  presumed,  almost  immediately  after- 
 wards. This  event  then  would  seem  to  be  put  by  Herodotus 
 not  later  than  B.C.  (1021  -  33|=:  988) 
 
 About  the  same  time,  or  very  shortly  after,  Egypt,  he  con- 
 tinues, was  invaded  by  Sennacherib  king  of  the  Arabians  and 
 Assyrians,  and  was  miraculously  saved  through  the  piety  of 
 a  priest  of  Phthah  named  Sethon,  who  had  succeeded  Anysis 
 {i.e.  Bocchoris)  as  king.  For  Sethon  having,  as  a  priest,  neg- 
 lected the  military  caste,  and  even  taken  away  their  lands, 
 the  army  was  disaffected,  and  absolutely  refused  to  fight  for 
 him.  So  he  would  have  been  in  the  utmost  danger.  But  he 
 went  into  the  temple,  and  made  complaint  and  supplication 
 to  his  god :  and  in  answer  to  his  prayer  the  whole  power  of 
 the  Assyrian  host,  both  for  offence  and  for  defence,  was  cut 
 off  in  a  single  night.  How  soon  this  event  (a  manifest  ap- 
 propriation of  the  deliverance  of  Hezekiah)  was  to  be  placed 
 after  the  abdication  of  the  Ethiopian  and  the  return  and 
 death  of  Anysis,  Herodotus  does  not  distinctly  say ;  but  as 
 he  reckons  from  the  death  of  Moeris  (meaning  the  accession 
 of  Rameses  HI.)  only  340  years  in  all  to  the  deliverance  of 
 Sethon,  so  placing  the  latter  event  in  the  7th  year  of  the 
 11th  generation  after  Moeris,  this  requires  that  the  reign  of 
 the  Ethiopian  Sabaco,  to  have  lasted  the  50  years,  should 
 have  commenced  at  the  least  above  11  years  before  the  end 
 of  the  9th  generation  (that  is,  of  the  generation  of  Anysis  who 
 is  named  next  before  him);  and  that,  even  though  the  50 
 years  be  supposed  to  have  ended  only  a  few  months  before 
 the  invasion  of  Sennacherib,  and  Sethon  to  have  had  a  still 
 shorter  time,  since  the  death  of  Anysis,  in  which  to  offend 
 the  army.  So  Herodotus  puts  the  invasion  of  Sabaco  at  least 
 as  high  as  B.C.  1032,  in  the  reign  of  David,  and  the  deliver- 
 ance of  Hezekiah  from  Sennacherib  (by  implication)  before 
 the  death  of  Solomon.  And  though  one  would  think  that  he 
 could  not  have  failed  to  perceive  that  after  completing  the 
 generation  of  Sethon  (which  might  bring  him  down  to  B.  c. 
 955)  he  had  still  (955-663  =  )  292  years  to  account  for 
 
GREEK  authors:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 575 
 
 between  the  death  of  Sethon  and  the  accession  of  Psammi- 
 tichus  I.,  below  which,  as  he  says,  Egyptian  history  was  well 
 known  to  the  Greeks,  he  writes  as  if  it  had  never  occurred  to 
 him  to  suspect  any  error.  For  he  deliberately  recapitulates 
 and  reckons  from  Menes  (330+  11  =  )  "  341  generations  "  to 
 the  deliverance  of  Sethon  with  (11,000  +  340  =  )  11,340 
 years,  forgetting  seemingly  that  the  330  first-named  gener- 
 ations were  all  after  Menes.  And  he  says  that  the  jones^s  also 
 reckoned  this  same  number  of  341  generations  as  conse- 
 cutive, and  taking  him  into  a  great  hall  or  court  showed  him 
 exactly  so  many  images  of  priests  corresponding  to  the  same 
 number  of  kings ;  the  like  to  which  the  Theban  priests  had 
 done  a  little  before  wdth  Hecateeus,  except  that  they  showed 
 him  345  hnages  of  priests  answering  to  as  many  kings,  and 
 reaching  down  apparently  to  his  own  time.  And  in  all  the 
 time  of  the  341  generations,  being  11,340  years  as  Herodo- 
 tus imagined,  to  Sethon,  but,  as  the  priests  must  have  meant, 
 3750  to  Rameses  III.,  or  at  most  3750  +  340  =  4090  to 
 the  fabulous  Sethon,  no  God  had  ever  appeared  in  human 
 form  ;  but  in  the  same  space  they  said  the  sun  had  four  times 
 changed  his  course,  as  has  been  explained  above.  So  it  is 
 perfectly  clear  that  he  w^as  consciously  putting  the  deli- 
 vprance  of  Sethon  (900  — 340  =  )  560  years  before  his  own 
 time.  And  yet  in  relating  the  history  of  Dyn.  XXYI 
 below  he  mentions,  without  making  any  difficulty  of  it,  that 
 Necho  the  father  of  Psammitichus  I.  had  been  slain  by 
 Sabaco,  and  that  Psammitichus  himself,  then  quite  young, 
 had  been  saved  only  by  being  carried  away  into  Syria;  when 
 even  the  abdication  of  Sabaco  (that  is,  of  Tirhakah)  v/as 
 elsewhere  placed  by  himself  (292 +27  =  )  319  years  at  least 
 before  the  accession  of  Psammitichus  I. 
 
 The  fact  is  that  in  what  relates  to  the  Ethiopian  Dyn. 
 XXVI  he  corrects  himself  in  a  manner  by  his  inconsistencies, 
 just  as  he  does  also  in  what  relates  to  the  pyramid-builders 
 and  the  Exodus.  In  attempting  to  connect  Sabaco  with 
 Rameses  III.  he  draws  him  up  by  200  or  300  years ;  just  as 
 in  attempting  to  make  the  pyramid-builders  follow  after 
 Rameses  III.,  as  if  he  and  he  alone  were  Sesostris,  he  drawls 
 them  down  by  between  600  and  700  years.    But  when  the 
 
576 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 true  date  which  he  gives  separately  (by  implication)  for 
 Sabaco  is  compared  with  the  true  date  also  given  for  tlie 
 latest  Sesostris,  then,  since  neither  of  them  can  rightly  be 
 moved,  it  follows  at  once  that  there  is  no  real  connection 
 between  Sabaco  and  the  name  Anysis  with  which  his  inva- 
 sion is  connected ;  that  the  story  of  Anysis  is  a  mere  fable 
 designed  to  bridge  over  the  chasm ;  and  that  there  is  a  gap 
 of  some  8  generations  between  them.  Or,  rather,  there  is  a 
 gap  of  13  generations  in  all  between  Ramsinitus  the  3rd  Ra- 
 messid  generation  after  Rameses  III.  and  Sabaco,  since  the 
 five  from  Cheops  to  Anysis  or  Onnos  inclusively  must  go 
 back  to  Dynasties  XI  and  XII  of  Manetho  (lY  and  V  of 
 Ptolemy)  to  follow  after  the  earlier  Scsostris. 
 
 This  was  hinted  by  the  priests  themselves,  after  their 
 manner,  even  at  the  very  moment  when  they  were  making 
 Herodotus  reassert  circumstantially  their  falsified  and  my- 
 thical chronology.  For  Anysis,  they  said,  the  successor  of 
 Asychis  or  Sahoura  who  built  the  admirable  brick  pyramid, 
 upon  the  invasion  of  Sabaco  fled  and  concealed  himself  in 
 the  fens  in  an  island ;  not  such  an  island  as  nature  might 
 have  formed,  but  an  island  created  on  purpose  for  him  by 
 Egyptian  patriotism ;  created  too  out  of  the  ashes  of  some- 
 thing which  had  been  burned ;  on  an  island  so  w^ell  suited  to 
 its  purpose  that  no  mortal  man,  even  of  the  Egyptians 
 themselves,  could  ever  again  discover  it,  till,  more  than 
 500  years  afterwards  (the  text  has  more  than  700,  which  is 
 an  error,  and  would  go  back  to  Ramsinitus  instead  of 
 Anysis),  it  was  wanted  again  under  similar  circumstances 
 for  AmyrtiBus.  In  plain  words,  Amyrtceus'  successful  con- 
 cealment of  himself  in  the  isle  of  Elbo,  where  he  took  refuge 
 perhaps  only  a  little  before  B.C.  450  (for  Inarus  was  im- 
 paled in  B.C.  456,  and  it  was  in  B.C.  450  that  the  Athenians 
 passed  a  vote  to  assist  Amyrtaeus),  was  the  only  historical 
 fact  underlying  the  whole  fable.  With  a  like  inversion  of 
 the  truth  under  the  humanity  of  Sabaco  and  his  excellent  go- 
 vernment are  euphemistically  hidden  his  ferocious  cruelty  in 
 sacking  Thebes  (an  event  alluded  to  by  the  Prophet  Nahum) 
 and  in  burning  Bocchoris  alive  (which  is  quite  in  keeping 
 with  the  allusions  of  the  Prophet).    And  under  his  pious 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 577 
 
 horror  at  the  tlioiight  of  having  to  deal  with  the  Egyptian 
 priests  as  Jehu  had  dealt  with  those  of  a  neighbouring  coun- 
 try, is  a  hint  that  his  retirement  was  owing  still  more  to  the 
 spirit  and  firmness  of  the  sacerdotal  caste  than  to  either  his 
 humanity  or  his  piety. 
 
 After  the  pyramid-builders  have  been  put  up,  and  the 
 three  Ethiopian  kings  put  down  to  their  true  places,  and 
 13  supplementary  generations  inserted  to  bring  us  from  the 
 death  of  Ramsinitus  in  B.C.  1188  to  the  defeat  and  capture  of 
 Bocchoris  by  Sabaco  in  B.C.  746,  there  still  remain  in  the 
 narrative  of  Herodotus  certain  notices  w^hich  really  refer, 
 though  indirectly,  to  the  same  space  of  time  which  Anysis 
 and  Sabaco  have  now  evacuated ;  that  is,  to  the  10th  century 
 before  Christ.  Even  what  is  stated  of  Sabaco  himself,  of 
 his  prudent  government  worthy  of  a  patriotic  Egyptian,  his 
 mounding  up  the  cities  (especially  Bubastis),  and  putting 
 Egypt  into  an  attitude  of  military  strength,  belongs  truly  to 
 the  time  with  which  he  is  improperly  connected.  And 
 when  Herodotus  describes  with  admiration  the  s^reat  works 
 which  he  saw  at  Bubastis,  its  prodigious  mounds,  exceeding 
 those  of  any  other  city,  the  great  temple  of  its  goddess,  and 
 its  festival  which  drew  more  people  together  than  any  other 
 festival  in  Egypt,  he  is  giving  unconsciously  the  same 
 glimpses  of  history  as  if  he  had  heard  that,  after  the  decline 
 of  the  Diospolites,  this  city  of  Bubastis  had  in  the  10th  century 
 before  Christ  become  the  capital  of  a  new  dynasty,  the  kings 
 of  which  had  executed  those  works  which  excited  his  admi- 
 ration, while  the  concourse  still  attracted  to  its  annual  festival 
 was  a  consequence  and  an  indication  of  a  political  importance 
 which  had  since  passed  away.  The  wisdom  and  legislation  of 
 Bocchoris  and  the  patriotism  of  Sabaco  towards  the  country 
 w^iich  he  had  conquered,  and  the  mounds  ascribed  to  them 
 both,  are  all  alike  adjuncts  of  the  time  at  wliich  they  are 
 unchronologically  placed,  and  underneath  the  names  of  Boc- 
 choris and  Sabaco  those  of  the  Bubastite  sovereigns  are  to 
 be  understood. 
 
 After  dismissing  the  fable  of  Anysis,  and  interposing 
 between  the  end  of  the  8th  generation  after  Rameses  III. 
 and  Sabaco  Herodotus's  allusions  to  the  Bubastite  or  Bubas- 
 
 p  p 
 
578 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 tite-Tanite  dynasties,  and  substituting  in  its  true  place  for 
 the  name  of  Anysis  that  of  Bocchoris,  and  splitting  the  single 
 name  of  Sabaco  into  three  Ethiopian  kings,  we  may  examine 
 how  nearly  Herodotus  approaches  anywhere  towards  fixing 
 the  true  duration  of  the  Ethiopian  dynasty,  the  date  of  its 
 termination,  and  the  length  of  the  interval  between  its  ter- 
 mination and  the  accession  of  Psammitichus  I.,  after  which 
 Egyptian  history  became  well  known  to  the  Greeks.  We 
 cannot  reckon  upwards  for  him  year  by  year  from  his  own 
 time,  or  from  the  Persian  conquest  of  Cambyses,  because  he 
 has  not  specified  how  long  he  understood  the  Dodecarchy, 
 between  the  withdrawal  of  Sabaco  (that  is,  of  Tirhakah)  and 
 the  victory  of  Psammitichus  I.,  to  have  lasted.  Neither 
 can  we  conclude  anything  definite  from  the  assertion  that 
 Psammitichus  was  carried  away,  being  then  very  young,  into 
 Syria  when  Sabaco  slew  his  father ;  since  the  name  Sabaco 
 here  covers  equally  Sevechus  and  Tirhakah.  Still,  con- 
 sidering that  Herodotus  makes  Psammitichus  to  have  been 
 himself  one  of  the  Dodecarchy,  and  to  have  reigned  on  for 
 54  years  after  putting  an  end  to  it,  it  is  clear  that  he  could 
 not  have  supposed  the  interval  between  the  withdrawal  of 
 Sabaco  (meaning  the  death  rather  than  the  withdrawal  of 
 Tirhakah)  and  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Psammi- 
 tichus to  have  exceeded  20  or  30  years  at  the  most.  And  if 
 we  place  for  him  the  conquest  of  Sabaco  at  its  highest  date, 
 that  is  in  B.C.  746,  the  true  date  supplied  by  the  Chronicle, 
 his  informants  acknowledge  the  power  of  the  Ethiopians 
 over  Egypt  to  have  lasted  6  years  beyond  the  44  given  to 
 them  from  this  date  by  the  Chronicle  and  10  beyond  the  40 
 of  Manetho.  The  two  accounts  of  Herodotus  and  the 
 Chronicle  are  easily  reconciled  by  supposing  that  the  with- 
 drawal of  Tirhakah  in  B.C.  702  to  Napata,  though  it  made 
 room  for  the  existence  of  one  or  more  successions  of  native 
 Egyptian  rulers,  by  no  means  terminated  his  own  sove- 
 reignty over  Egypt.  Herodotus  was  told  in  efiect  that  this 
 state  of  things  lasted  from  B.C.  702  to  B.C.  694:  and  by 
 implication  that  it  lasted  longer  :  since  it  was  not  pretended 
 that  the  Ethiopian  died,  but  only  that  he  loithdreio  at  the 
 end  of  50  years ;  when  yet  in  fact  he  had  withdrawn  after 
 
GREEK  authors:  HERODOTUS.  579 
 
 44.  Either  then  he  died  after  the  50  years,  or  he  continued 
 to  reign  on  after  the  misplaced  date  of  his  withdrawal,  as  he 
 is  confessed  to  have  reigned  on  after  its  true  date.  So  it 
 may  be  inferred  that  Tirhakah  reigned  on  to  his  death.  And 
 Manetho  gives  to  this  king  alone  18  years;  while  an  Apis-stele 
 marks  his  26th.  If  Manetho's  1st  year  of  Sabaco  had  coin- 
 cided chronologically  with  the  first  year  of  the  Ethiopians  in 
 the  Chronicle,  commencing  in  B.C.  746,  and  if  he  had  given 
 to  the  dynasty  the  same  sum  of  44  years,  it  would  have  been 
 natural  to  remark  that  the  addition  of  8  years  current,  indi- 
 cated by  the  monuments  for  the  last  reign,  might  produce  a 
 total  of  51  or  52,  exceeding  by  one  or  two  only  the  "  50  years" 
 of  Herodotus.  But  now  the  apparent  end  of  Manetho's  Dy- 
 nasty XXVI  is  brought  down  by  implication  19  years  below 
 the  end  of  the  same  dynasty  in  the  Chronicle,  and  13  below 
 its  apparent  end  for  Herodotus,  as  has  been  shown  above  at 
 p.  248 :  and  that,  although  Manetho  cuts  off  4  years  from  the 
 sum  of  44.  Keckoning  upwards  from  the  conquest  of  Cam- 
 byses,  and  assuming  that  to  be  really  fixed  to  B.C.  525,  we 
 find  Manetho  to  have  9  years  too  few  between  the  death  of 
 Amasis  and  the  accession  of  Psammitichus  I.,  since  the  mo- 
 numents require  138  and  he  makes  only  129,  while  Hero- 
 dotus, on  the  contrary,  has  7  years  too  many.  But  8  of  the  9 
 years  omitted  by  Manetho  are  omitted  in  compensation  for 
 8  unchronological  years  below,  which  seem  to  thrust  up 
 the  death  of  Amasis  from  B.C.  525  to  B.C.  533.  So  his  ap- 
 parent date  for  the  accession  of  Psammitichus  is  not  9  years 
 but  only  1  year  too  low,  viz.  in  B.C.  662  instead  of  663  (for 
 in  this  calculation  we  need  not  notice  an  excess  of  2  months 
 due  to  Dynasty  XVII  far  above).  But  for  Herodotus  the 
 apparent  accession  of  Psammitichus  is  in  B.C.  670.  Then  the 
 list  of  Manetho's  Dynasty  XXVI  has  three  nominal  reigns 
 above  that  of  Psammitichus,  with  7,  6,  and  8  years  respec- 
 tively, of  which  the  last  year  must  be  taken  to  supply  the 
 first  monumental  year  of  Psammitichus,  which  is  still  wanting. 
 One  year,  then,  having  been  made  over  to  Psammitichus  as 
 its  true  owner,  Manetho  has  above  the  accession  of  Psam- 
 mitichus I.  (now  standing  at  B.C.  663,  its  true  date)  and  the 
 end  of  his  Ethiopian  dynasty  as  many  as  20  years  still  re- 
 
 P  P  2 
 
580 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 maining.  These  take  us  up  to  Thoth  1  in  B.C.  683  for  the 
 deatli  of  Tirhakah;  and  the  first  13  of  them,  lying  between 
 B.C.  683  and  B.C.  670  (Herodotus's  date  for  the  accession  of 
 Psammitichus  T.),  and  13  besides,  lying  between  B.C.  696 
 and  B.C.  683,  will  make  together  26  years ;  which  26  years 
 will  be  the  apparent  duration  for  Herodotus  to  give  to  the 
 Dodecarchy,  if  the  conquest  of  Sabaco  be  fixed  at  its  true 
 date,  and  only  50  years  be  reckoned  downwards  from  that 
 point  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Tirhakah,  while  145,  instead 
 of  138,  are  reckoned  upwards  from  B.C.  525  to  the  accession 
 of  Psammitichus  I.  Now  if  from  B.C.  683  we  were  to  reckon 
 upwards  for  Tirhakah  only  the  25  or  26  years  required  by  the 
 monuments,  his  accession  would  be  found  at  Jan.  23,  in  B.C. 
 708  or  709,  only  6  or  7  years  above  the  date  of  his  withdrawal 
 to  Napata,  according  to  the  Chronicle.  But  if,  in  order  to 
 obtain  an  agreement  for  the  units  of  the  three  Ethiopian 
 reigns  with  those  assigned  or  implied  for  them  by  Manetho, 
 we  suppose  Tirhakah  to  have  reigned  in  all  31  years,  his 
 accession  will  have  been  in  B.C.  714,  and  he  will  have 
 reigned  12  years  at  his  withdrawal.  And  if  Sevechus  reigned 
 the  14  years  of  the  lists,  they  will  have  begun  in  B.C.  728. 
 And,  lastly,  Sabaco,  whose  accession  is  fixed  to  B.C.  746, 
 Avill  have  had  18  instead  of  only  8  years.  And  thus,  if  we 
 put  together  all  the  years  indicated  either  by  the  Chronicle, 
 or  by  Herodotus,  or  by  Manetho,  and  by  the  monuments, 
 separately,  or  by  all  concurrently,  they  are  as  follows : — 
 
 Herod,    from  B.C.  746  (10  +  8)  +  14  +  (8  +  4  +  6   )  =50  to  B.C.  696. 
 
 Chron.    from  B.C.  746  (10  +  8)  +  14  +  (8  +  4   )  =44  to  b.c.  702. 
 
 Man.     from  b.c.  736  (          8)  +  14  +  (8  +  4  +  6   )  =40  to  b.c.  696. 
 
 Monum.  fvom  b.c.  746  (10  +  8)  +  14  +  (8  +  4  +  6  +  13)  =63  to  b.c.  683. 
 
 Thus,  if  Tirhakah  reigned  in  all  31  years  rather  than  only 
 the  25  or  26  required  by  the  monuments,  and  Manetho  has 
 rightly  indicated  Feb.  11  in  B.C.  683  as  the  Thoth  1  pre- 
 ceding his  death,  the  whole  sum  for  the  dynasty  is  63.  And 
 when  the  priests  told  Herodotus  that  the  Ethiopian  ruled 
 Egypt  "  for  50  years,"  carrying  his  reign  on  beyond  the  with- 
 drawal to  Napata,  and  yet  stopj)ing  short  of  the  death  of 
 Tirhakah,  and  omitting  the  last  13  monumental  years  of 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 581 
 
 his  reign,  this  was  probably  because  they  thought  50  years 
 were  as  many  as  could  well  be  given  to  a  single  king,  who 
 did  not  die  at  the  end  of  them,  and  who  had  already  kept 
 Anysis  far  too  long  for  probability  out  of  his  throne.  As 
 for  Sethon,  he  (as  a  king  at  least)  will  disappear  altogether, 
 unless  any  one  suppose  the  invasion  of  Sennacherib  to  have 
 taken  place  later  than  any  date  at  which  Psammitichus  T. 
 may  have  been  saved  in  the  manner  related  by  Herodotus, 
 and  later  than  the  26th  year  of  Tirhakah,  marked  on  an 
 Apis-tomb  at  Memphis. 
 
 An  objection  has  been  urged  from  the  Apis-stele  referred 
 to  against  that  chronology  which  is  indicated  by  the  Bible, 
 as  well  as  by  profane  sources,  for  the  synchronism  of  the 
 14th  year  of  Hezekiah  with  the  invasion  of  Sennacherib, 
 and  with  some  one  or  other  of  the  years  of  Tirhakah.  And  it 
 has  been  thought  necessary  either  to  suppose  some  corruption 
 in  the  received  text  of  the  Scriptures,  or  else  to  deny  its 
 historical  authority.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  an  Apis-bull, 
 born  in  the  26th  year  of  Tirhakah,  and  dying  near  the  end 
 of  the  20th  of  Psammitichus  I.,  would  seem  to  have  lived  at 
 least  39,  and  at  most  45  complete  years.  And  it  is  probable 
 that  the  reign  of  18  years  given  by  Manetho  to  Tirhakah, 
 if  not  found  ready  made  by  the  "50  years"  of  Herodotus, 
 was  produced  either  by  cutting  off  one  whole  decad  from  a 
 total  reign  of  28  years,  or  by  cutting  off  4  from  the  first  12 
 years  of  Tirhakah,  reckoned  down  to  his  withdrawal,  while 
 adding  to  him  a  whole  decad,  and  suppressing  a  decad  on  the 
 reign  of  Sabaco  above.  It  seems  most  probable,  then,  that 
 the  three  reigns  were  of  the  lengths  of  18,  14,  and  (8+4 
 +  6  +  13  =  )  31  years  respectively;  and  that  the  reign  of 
 Tirhakah  began  in  B.C.  714  and  ended  in  B.C.  683.  And, 
 if  so,  the  Apis  born  in  the  26th  year  of  Tirhakah,  how- 
 ever late  in  the  year  it  may  have  been,  would  be  born 
 before  Thoth  1  =  Feb.  12  in  B.C.  688,  and  would  die  not 
 much  before  Thoth  1  =  Feb.  1  in  B.C.  643,  at  the  ao-e  of 
 45  years  complete.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  possible,  cer- 
 tainly, that  Tirhakah  may  have  reigned  only  25  years  com- 
 plete, and  the  Apis-bull  of  the  stele  m,a2/  have  been  born  in  a 
 26th  current  year  never  completed.    It  is  possible  too  that 
 
 P  P  3 
 
582 
 
 EGl^PTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 even  as  many  as  8  or  10  months  of  the  year  commencing 
 witli  Thoth  1  in  B.C.  683,  and  reckoned  by  Manetho  to  his 
 Dyn.  XXYI,  may  have  belonged  to  the  actual  reign  of  Tir- 
 hakah,  Le.  to  his  26th  year  current,  and  that  the  Apis  may 
 liave  been  born  towards  the  end  of  these  8  or  10  months  ; 
 and  if  so,  he  may  have  lived  only  39  years  complete.    But  in 
 this  case  the  accession  of  Tirhakah  must  have  been  in  B.C. 
 708  ;  and  his  reign  down  to  Thoth  1,  in  B.C.  702,  where  the 
 Chronicle  ends  the  dynasty  on  his  withdrawal  to  Napata,  will 
 have  only  6  years ;  while  for  its  continuance  afterwards  there 
 will  be  19  years  and  some  months ;  so  that  its  8  units  in  the 
 lists  of  Manetho  will  be  entirely  arbitrary  and  unaccounta- 
 ble. But  in  any  case  it  is  clear  that  this  Apis-bull  lived  either 
 at  the  least  39,  or  at  the  most  45  years  complete  ;  whereas 
 BufFon  and  other  naturalists  have  assigned  as  the  term  of  life 
 for  the  ox  kind  15  or  16  years.  And  though  the  Apis  tombs 
 show  one  or  two  undeniable  instances  of  bulls  living  to 
 26  or  27  years,  there  is  certainly  a  long  step  to  be  made  from 
 26  or  27  to  45  or  even  39.    It  is  not  reasonable,  however, 
 to  set  aside  the  text  of  the  Scriptures,  where  there  are  no 
 various  readings,  nor  any  discrepancy  between  the  Hebrew 
 and  the  Greek,  still  less  to  deny  the  historical  authority  even 
 of  the  genuine  text  itself,  and  that  too  when  its  chronology 
 seems  to  be  borne  out  by  the  best  profane  authorities,  merely 
 from  some  presumption  about  the  possible  longevity  of  a 
 bull.    Another  animal,   the  horse,   is  much  more  often 
 allowed  to  live  on  and  to  die  a  natural  death  than  are  bulls 
 or  cows;  and  yet  the  exceptional  longevity  of  particular 
 horses  is  found  to  go  much  beyond  what  is  generally  known 
 or  supposed.    The  present  writer,  for  one,  had  heard  of 
 horses  living  to  the  age  of  40,  or  thereabouts,  but  not  beyond. 
 But  after  his  attention  had  been  turned  to  the  subject,  he 
 soon  heard  from  two  quarters  of  horses  having  lived  over 
 50 ;  and  recently  he  has  heard  of  a  horse  which  at  the  age  of 
 70  years  was  still  able  to  carry  his  master  (a  priest  in  Ame- 
 rica), who  was  himself  as  nearly  as  possible  of  the  same  age. 
 Now,  though  one  cannot  argue  from  the  life  of  a  horse, 
 or  even  of  a  buffalo,  to  that  of  a  cow  or  bull,  since  the 
 animals  are  not  of  the  same  species,  one  may  argue  fairly 
 that  if  our  anticipations  respecting  an  animal  often  kept  till 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  HERODOTUS. 
 
 583 
 
 it  dies  of  old  age  turn  out  to  be  inadequate,  it  is  probable 
 that  similar  anticipations  respecting  an  animal  very  seldom 
 allowed  to  die  a  natural  death  may  be  inadequate  also.  And, 
 in  fact,  since  page  209  of  this  work  was  printed  (where  the 
 difficulty  caused  by  the  Apis  born  in  the  26th  of  Tirhakah 
 was  set  aside  on  general  grounds),  some  almanacks  and 
 periodicals  for  this  present  year  (a.d.  1860)  have  published 
 an  account  of  a  cow  which  was  actually  living  and  in  her 
 36th  year  when  p.  209  was  written;  as  if  she  had  been 
 allowed  to  live  on  purpose  to  supply  an  illustration  of  the 
 stele  in  the  Louvre. 
 
 The  case  is  so  much  in  point,  and  so  well  authenticated, 
 that  the  memoir  itself  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  received 
 from  the  owner  and  breeder  of  the  cow  shall  be  here  inserted  : 
 
 History  of  the  old  Keillor  Cow  sent  to  Aberdeen  for  the  Meeting  of  the  British 
 Association,  Sept.  14,  a.d.  1859. 
 
 The  Keillor  cow,  of  the  improved  Angus  Polled  or  Dodded  breed,  was  bred 
 by  Hugh  Watson  at  Keillor,  and  kept  by  him  till  she  died,  July  1,  1859,  at  the 
 age  of  thirty-five  years  and  six  months.  The  object  in  keeping  this  cow  till 
 she  died  of  old  age  was  to  ascertain  how  long  an  animal  of  her  class  with  fine 
 constitution  could  be  profitably  kept,  and  to  what  age  she  would  live  in  her 
 natural  state  ;  no  well  authenticated  record  of  these  facts  having  been  previ- 
 ously preserved  regarding  the  domestic  cow. 
 
 The  Keillor  cow  was  the  dam  of  25  calves,  all  prize  animals.  She  gave  up 
 breeding  after  her  28th  yea)-,  and  gave  no  more  milk.  Her  progeny  are  spread 
 over  various  countries,  besides  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and 
 Ireland,  as  specimens  of  the  improved  breed  of  Angus  Polled  Cattle. 
 
 She  was  exhibited  at  the  Highland  and  Agricultural  Society's  Show  as  extra 
 stock  at  Aberdeen  in  1858,  when  her  owner  had  the  Society's  medal  awarded 
 as  the  exhibitor  of  so  extraordinary  an  animal.  And  the  herd  who  had  at- 
 tended on  her  all  her  lifetime,  and  had  been  in  the  service  of  H.  Watson  for  42 
 years,  James  Thomson,  was  presented  with  a  medal  and  premium  of  100 
 francs,  by  the  Societe  Protectrice  des  Animaux,  Sfc,  of  Paris,  through  their 
 Secretary  M.  Dutrone. 
 
 An  ox,  the  property  of  Her  Majesty  the  Queen,  a  calf  of  this  cow,  died  at 
 the  Home  Farm,  Windsor,  two  years  ago,  in  consequence  of  an  accident,  at 
 the  age  of  18  years.  He  had  been  a  prize  animal  in  England,  Ireland,  and 
 Scotland,  and  for  many  years  useful  in  harness  on  the  farm, 
 
 A  photograph  portrait  of  the  above  old  cow,  taken  two  days  before  she  died, 
 is  herewith  sent,  to  show  her  emaciated  frame  and  worn  out  appearance. 
 
 The  above  facts  are  certified  by  me,  the  breeder  of  the  cow,  and  by  James 
 Thomson,  the  attendant  of  my  cattle  at  Keillor,  this  1st  day  of  September, 
 1859.  ■  (Signed)  Hugh  Watson. 
 
 James  Thomson. 
 
 p  p  4 
 
584 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 For  the  341  generations  and  11,340  years"  down  to  [the 
 deliverance  of]  Sethon,  the  priests  of  Memphis  and  Helio- 
 polis  were  Hcrodotiis's  only  informants :  but  after  Sethon  he 
 relates  what  he  had  collected  from  various  other  sources,  and 
 in  part  what  he  had  witnessed  or  seen  proof  of  himself. 
 
 His  story  of  the  Dodecarchy  is  an  acknowledgment  of  an 
 interval  of  weakness  and  dissension ;  so  Diodorus  calls  some 
 part  of  it  "  anarchy."  And  therein  was  accomplished  the  pro- 
 phecy of  Isaiah  (xix.  2),  saying,  "  I  will  set  the  Egyptians 
 against  the  Egyptians :  they  shall  fight  every  one  against  his 
 brother,  city  against  city,  and  kingdom  against  kingdom.''' 
 And  the  discord  still  remaining  may  have  been  one  reason 
 with  Psammitichus,  after  his  victory,  for  determining  to  main- 
 tain a  permanent  corps  of  Greek  mercenaries,  to  wdiom  he 
 even  gave  the  post  of  honour  over  both  the  rival  divisions  of 
 the  native  army.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  to  ascribe  the 
 building  of  the  stupendous  Labyrinth  in  the  Fayoum  to  any 
 such  late  time  of  weakness  and  discord  as  that  between  the 
 Ethiopian  and  the  Saite  dynasties  is  a  manifest  error.  And 
 Herodotus  himself,  though  unconsciously,  touches  upon  the 
 truth  when  he  associates  the  Labyrinth  with  the  pyramids, 
 comparing  it  with  them,  and  declaring  it  to  surpass  them  all. 
 The  lists  of  Manetho  and  Ptolemy  correct  his  error  (which 
 is  only  the  sequence  of  his  transposition  of  the  pyramid- 
 builders)  :  and  recent  discoveries  have  demonstrated  that  the 
 Labyrinth  really  belonged  to  the  same  age  with  the  pyra- 
 mids, the  name  of  Amenemhe  III.  (who  reigned  from  B.C. 
 1854  to  B.C.  1811)  having  been  found  upon  its  ruins. 
 
 The  fact  mentioned  by  Herodotus  that  Necho,  the  father 
 of  Psammitichus,  had  been  slain  by  the  Ethiopian,  and  that 
 Psammitichus  had  himself  been  saved  with  difficulty,  indi- 
 cates that  their  family  had  some  claims  of  its  ov^^n,  at  least 
 in  the  Delta ;  and  Manetho  strengthens  this  presumption  by 
 giving  to  his  Dyn.  XXVI,  before  the  name  of  its  true 
 founder,  three  other  names,  the  last  of  the  three  being 
 Necho,  who  must  be  understood  to  be  separated  chronologi- 
 cally from  his  son  and  nominal  successor  by  an  interval  of 
 above  20  years.  Parallel  in  appearance  with  these  three 
 names  of  Manetho  (but  really  later  on  account  of  the  in- 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 585 
 
 terval  just  mentioned),  we  find  on  monuments  in  the  The- 
 baid  two  kings  named  Kasto  and  Piankhi^  the  latter  being, 
 as  it  seems,  the  Ethiopian  consort  of  Ammeniritis  tlie  daugh- 
 ter of  Kasto.  For  Piankhi  is  also  the  name  of  the  king 
 who  succeeded  Tirhakah  at  Napata.  Hence  one  imder- 
 stands  how  the  Ethiopian  rule  of  Egypt,  which  had  not 
 really  ceased  on  the  withdrawal  of  Tirhakah,  might  cease  ne- 
 vertheless at  his  death,  if  he  had  married  his  younger  son  or 
 nephew  to  an  Egyptian  princess  who  was  regarded  at  Thebes 
 as  the  heiress  of  native  legitimacy.  And  such  a  settlement 
 and  partition  of  his  dominions  might  really  have  been  re- 
 commended to  Tirhakah  by  those  motives  which,  in  an  exag- 
 gerated form,  were  named  to  Herodotus  as  causing  his  abdi- 
 cation. Hence  in  the  lists  of  Ptolemy  we  find  prefixed  to 
 the  Saites  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XXVI  the  name  of  the  queen 
 Ammeniritis,  contracted  into  Ammeris,  with  a  note,  referring 
 doubtless  to  her  husband  Piankhi,  that  she  w^as  "  an  Ethio- 
 pian." And  this  apparition,  strange  as  it  seems,  of  a  The- 
 ban  and  even  an  Ethiopian  name  at  the  head  of  a  dynasty 
 of  Saites,  is  again  illustrated  by  the  monuments,  when  they 
 show  that  Psammitichus  I.  took  for  his  wife  the  Theban 
 princess  Sejmnteput,  daughter  of  Ammeniritis  and  Piankhi, 
 and  thus  strengthened  the  claims  of  his  own  family.  And, 
 as  it  appears  further  that  the  Saite  successors  of  Psammiti- 
 chus I.  made  a  practice  of  marrying  their  half-sisters  the 
 princesses  and  "  Pallades  "  descended  from  Ammeniritis,  she 
 would  stand  to  the  whole  dynasty  in  the  same  relation  as  the 
 famous  black  queen  Aahmes  Xofriari  had  stood  to  all  her 
 descendants  of  Dyn.  XVIII. 
 
 Psammitichus,  so  Herodotus  relates,  having  engaged  in 
 his  service  some  Carian  and  Ionian  pirates  driven  by  stress 
 of  weather  on  to  his  coasts,  these  "brazen  men,"  whom  the 
 oracle  of  Buto  had  bidden  him  to  expect  "  from  the  sea," 
 were  so  useful  in  the  battle  at  IMomemphis  that  he  settled 
 them  as  a  permanent  corps  on  the  banks  of  the  river  near 
 Bubastis,  whence,  a  century  later,  they  were  removed  to 
 Memphis  to  become  the  body-guard  of  Amasis.  From  that 
 time  Egypt  was  opened  to  the  Greeks.  Xaucratis,  on  the 
 Saitic  branch  of  the  Xile,  the  only  emporium  for  strangers. 
 
586 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 was  ultimately  given  to  them  as  a  settlement,  and  a  race  of 
 interpreters  was  trained  to  do  the  work  of  modern  dragomans. 
 Through  these  interpreters,  therefore,  it  was  that  Hecatajus 
 and  Herodotus  proposed  their  questions  to  the  priests  and 
 received  answers.  Herodotus  mentions  further  on  what  oc- 
 casion it  was  that  Greeks  and  Europeans  for  the  first  time 
 ascended  the  Nile  and  penetrated  beyond  Syene  into 
 Nubia.  It  was  when  the  force  stationed  on  the  Nubian 
 frontier  had  deserted.  Psammitichus  went  himself  to  Ele- 
 phantine to  parley  with  them;  but  having  arrived,  as  it 
 seems,  too  late,  he  sent  some  of  his  Greeks  up  the  Nile  to 
 overtake  them  and  persuade  them  to  return.  So  they  went 
 up  as  far  as  the  island  called  Tachomso,  but  without  suc- 
 cess. An  interesting  confirmation  of  Herodotus's  accuracy 
 has  been  found  at  Abou-simbel,  about  30  miles  below  the 
 second  cataract,  in  a  contemporary  inscription  on  the  leg  of 
 one  of  the  colossi  before  the  great  rock-temple  of  Rameses 
 II.,  recording  this  same  fact,  and  left  there  by  some  of  the 
 Greeks  themselves.  It  is  written  in  uncial  letters  amono* 
 which  there  appears  both  the  ^  and  the  H,  but  not  the  O, 
 and  is  in  the  dialect  of  the  Dorians  of  Caria  : 
 
 ^aaiXicds  sKOovtos  £19  'E\£(pavTiVT]v  ^afjbfjbrjTL'X^ov, 
 
 Tama  sypayjrav  tol  avv  'm^afJifxrjTi^w  tq)  @£ok\ov9 
 
 STrkeov,  rjkdov      ILspKios  KaOvirspOsv,  sis  ov  iroTafJuos 
 
 avUi  aXXoyXcoaacos  ^ H.'^STroraaLfiTrro  AlyvTTTLcos  3s  "Kfiaats' 
 
 ^'Eiypa(j)S  Aa/jLsdp^cov  ^ AfjLOLf3L)(^ov  Kal  Il^\£cf)os  OvSa/jLov. 
 
 That  is :  "  At  the  time  when  the  king  Psammitichus  had 
 gone  up  and  was  at  Elephantine,  this  was  written  by  those 
 who  under  Psammitichus  the  son  of  Theocles  sailed  [up 
 higher],  and  went  above  Kerkis,  to  where  a  river  runs  up 
 [from  the  Nile],  called  in  the  tongue  of  the  country  Ichepo- 
 tasimpto,  but  in  Egyytian  Amasis  (that  is,  the  River  of  the 
 Moon  or  of  Amasis),  Damearchon  son  of  Amoebichus,  and 
 Pelephus  son  of  Oudamus  [Eudemus  ?],  wrote  this." 
 
 The  re-establishment  of  civil  unity  and  a  freer  inter- 
 course Avith  foreigners  explain  in  some  measure  the  fact  that 
 the  numerous  monuments,  small  and  great,  of  this  dynasty, 
 especially  those  of  the  long  reigns  of  the  first  and  the  last  of 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  HERODOTUS. 
 
 587 
 
 its  five  kings,  show  a  remarkable  revival  and  improvement  of 
 Egyptian  art.  As  regards  Psammitichus  I.,  Herodotus 
 mentions  more  particularly  that  he  completed  the  additions 
 made  by  earlier  kings  to  the  temple  of  Phthah  at  Memphis 
 by  building  its  southern  propylaea,  with  an  hypaethral  court 
 for  the  residence  of  Apis  attached.  One  of  the  numerous 
 monuments  of  the  same  king  still  remaining  is  the  obelisk 
 which  stands  on  the  Monte  Citorio  at  Rome.  This  is  one  of 
 those  described  by  Pliny ;  but  he  confounds  it  with  another 
 belonging  to  Seti  I.  and  Pameses  II.,  w^hich  stands  at  the 
 Porta  del  Popolo  near  the  ancient  Flaminian  Gate.  That 
 of  Psammitichus  is  doubly  interesting  both  for  its  original 
 connection  with  the  reign  under  which  Egypt  first  came  into 
 contact  with  the  Greeks  and  with  the  AYest,  and  also  because 
 its  removal  to  Kome  by  Augustus  was  designed,  as  is  stated 
 in  the  inscription  at  its  base,  to  mark  the  epoch  at  which 
 Egypt  was  incorporated  into  the  Poman  empire,  and  he  him- 
 self became  the  master  of  the  world. 
 
 Of  Necho  II.,  son  of  Psammitichus  I.,  Herodotus  relates 
 that  he  resumed  but  again  abandoned  a  work  originally  com- 
 menced, according  to  others,  by  Sesostris  (meaning  Pameses 
 II.),  and  afterwards  completed  by  Darius,  viz.  that  of  cutting 
 a  ship  canal  from  the  Nile,  from  a  little  above  Bubastis, 
 near  Pithom,  in  the  district  of  Avaris  (KaTvirspOs  oXljov 
 Vtov^daTLOS  ttSXlos  irapa  TIcltov/jLOV  ttjp  ^Xpa^irjv  ttoXcv),  to  the 
 head  of  the  Red  Sea.  Failing  in  this  project,  he  built  fleets 
 on  both  seas  ;  and  an  expedition  starting  by  his  orders  from 
 the  Red  Sea  returned  to  Egypt  in  the  third  year  by  the 
 jNIediterranean,  having  successfully  accomplished  the  circum- 
 navigation of  Africa.  The  victory  of  Necho  over  the 
 Syrians  of  Palestine  at  Magdolum,  the  Jews  being  then  in 
 league  with  the  Babylonians,  and  the  mention  of  his  after- 
 wards taking  a  city  as  great  as  Sardis,  named  Cadytis,  which 
 from  another  passage  is  clearly  shown  to  be  Gaza,  is  in  per- 
 j  feet  agreement  with  the  passages  in  the  Bible  in  which  it  is 
 i  mentioned  that  Necho  defeated  and  slew  Josiah  at  Me- 
 giddo,  when  he  had  come  out  to  oppose  the  Egyptian  army, 
 then  on  its  march  towards  Carchemish  on  the  Euphrates ; 
 that  he  smote  Gaza  (Jerem.  xlvii.  1);  and  that  afterwards. 
 
588 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 wheh  he  was  at  Kiblah,  in  the  land  of  Hamath,  he  made 
 Jehoiaklm  king  instead  of  Jehoahaz,  whom  he  carried  away- 
 captive  with  him  into  Egypt.  (4  Kings  xxiii.  34 ;  Jer.  xlvii.  1.) 
 
 When  Herodotus  rehites  that  in  the  time  of  Psammiti- 
 chus  II.,  ambassadors  came  from  Elis  into  Egypt  announcing 
 there,  as  in  other  countries,  the  regulations  made  to  insure 
 fair  decisions  in  the  Olympic  Games,  either  some  incidental 
 communication  addressed  to  Greeks  settled  in  Egypt  is 
 alluded  to,  or  else,  if  it  were  implied  that  the  Olympic 
 Games  were  instituted  in  the  time  of  Psammitichus  IL, 
 Herodotus  gives  the  story  as  it  was  told  to  him  by  his  inter- 
 preter without  troubling  himself  to  notice  an  anachronism 
 of  two  centuries. 
 
 There  is  another  story  connected  with  the  name  of  Myce- 
 rinus  who  built  the  third  pyramid,  namely,  that  his  calamities 
 began  with  the  death  of  his  only  daughter,  whose  wooden 
 mummy-case  Herodotus  himself  saw  in  the  form  of  a  kneel- 
 ing cow,  with  the  head  and  neck  thickly  gilt  and  the  disk  of 
 Hathor  or  Isis  also  gilt  between  the  horns,  the  body  of  the 
 cow  being  covered  with  a  purple  pall.  To  this  cow  they 
 offered  incense  daily  ;  and  all  night  lights  were  kept  burning 
 before  it.  And  once  a  year,  at  the  solemnity  of  the  Lamen- 
 tation and  Search  of  Isis  for  Osiris,  it  was  carried  out  in 
 procession.  This  story  (in  some  of  the  details  of  which 
 Herodotus  detected  them  to  be  fabling  and  imposing  upon 
 him)  has  been  happily  illustrated  by  Lepsius  by  putting  to- 
 gether the  following  facts :  first,  that  two  princesses  and 
 "  Pallades,"  seemingly  mother  and  daughter,  and  both  named 
 alike  Nitocris,  the  one  the  daughter,  the  other  the  grand- 
 daughter of  Sepunteput  the  daughter  of  Ammeniritis,  ap- 
 pear from  the  monuments  to  have  been  wives  to  their  half- 
 brothers  Necho  11.  and  Psammitichus  II. ;  secondly,  that  the 
 place  where  Herodotus  saw  the  mummy-case  of  the  daugh- 
 ter of  Mycerinus  was  Sais,  where  he  saw  also  the  tombs  of 
 the  kings  of  the  Saite  dynasty  ;  and  further,  it  was  in  the 
 palace  at  Sais ;  and  in  an  adjoining  chamber  there  were  the 
 wooden  images  of  the  wives  and  concubines  of  the  same 
 Mycerinus ;  lastly,  that  the  name  Menchere  or  Mycerinus 
 was  taken  exceptionally  by  Psammitichus  II.,  one  of  the 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  HERODOTUS. 
 
 589 
 
 kings  of  the  Saitc  dynasty.  This  last  curious  fact  is  proved, 
 according  to  Lepsius,  by  the  inscriptions  on  the  sarcophagus 
 (now  in  the  British  Museum)  of  a  daughter  of  Psammitichus 
 11.  and  the  younger  Nitocris,  named  Anchnes,  by  marrying 
 whom  Amasis,  after  his  usurpation,  connected  himself  with 
 the  family  of  his  predecessors.  The  name  of  an  officer,  Shi- 
 shonk,  who  appears  on  one  monument  in  attendance  upon 
 this  queen  Anchnes,  hints  that  this  Saite  dynasty  was  not 
 destitute  of  some  connection  with  the  Saites,  Tanites,  and 
 Bubastites,  who  had  preceded  the  Ethiopian  invasion.  But 
 the  facts  brought  together  by  Lepsius  leave  no  doubt  that 
 Psammitichus  II.,  and  not  the  builder  of  the  third  pyramid, 
 was  the  Mycerinus  of  whose  domestic  bereavement  (and 
 of  whose  short  reign  also,  perhaps^  of  only  six  years)  Hero- 
 dotus heard  at  Sais.  He  may  really  have  lost  an  only 
 daughter  named  after  her  mother  and  grandmother  Nitocris. 
 Or  there  may  be  some  confusion ;  and  a  daughter  may  have 
 been  mentioned,  when  it  was  really  his  half-sister  and  wife. 
 Of  this  there  is  a  hint  in  that  other  version  of  the  story 
 according  to  which  Mycerinus  had  desired  to  contract  an  in- 
 cestuous marriage  with  the  princess  whose  mummy-case  was 
 seen  by  Herodotus.  However  this  may  have  been,  it  was 
 hence  probably  that  the  Greek  name  of  Khodopis  of  the 
 time  of  Amasis  came  to  be  connected  with  Mycerinus  of 
 the  third  pyramid ;  and  hence  that  Manetho  took  the  hint 
 for  introducing  the  historical  queen  Nitocris,  described  by 
 him  as  sv^op^oTaTrj  and  ^avOr]  Tr]v  ')(^poiav,  that  is,  as  being 
 poScoTTts,  as  its  foundress. 
 
 The  monuments  (see  above,  p.  254)  show  that  the  16 
 and  the  6  years  reckoned  by  Herodotus  to  Necho  II.  and 
 to  Psammitichus  II.  respectively,  make  together  only  21 
 chronological  years.  They  show  also  that  Apries,  to  whom 
 he  gives  25  years,  reigned  in  truth  only  19  full.  These 
 then,  are  the  7  years  (viz.  the  16th  of  Necho  II.,  and  the 
 last  6  of  the  25  of  Apries)  which  are  to  be  deducted  in  order 
 to  make  the  reigns  of  Herodotus  all  chronological.  And, 
 when  this  is  done,  the  synchronism  of  Josiah  and  Necho 
 II.  is  still  just  exhibited  in  the  1st  or  2nd  year  of  the  latter, 
 B.C.  609  or  608.    And  here  Herodotus,  togetlier  with  the 
 
590 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 monuments,  supplies  an  important  correction  of  Manetho's 
 lists,  in  which  6  years  only  are  given  to  Necho,  so  that  his 
 accession,  if  reckoned  upwards  from  B.C.  525,  would  stand 
 no  higher  than  B.C.  600  :  and  even  if  the  Persian  conquest 
 were  placed,  as  thrust  up  by  Manetho,  in  B.C.  533,  still  the 
 accession  of  Necho  would  be  only  in  B.C.  608,  possibly  not 
 too  low  for  the  synchronism.  The  last  year  of  Apries  being 
 coincident  with  the  36th  or  37th  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (ac- 
 cording as  his  years  are  reckoned)  and  ending  early  in  B.C. 
 569,  which  is  18  years  after  the  reduction  of  Jerusalem  and 
 3  after  the  1 3  years'  siege  of  Tyre,  it  may  be  inferred  from  the 
 prophecies  (Is.  xx. ;  Jer.  xliii.  xlvii. ;  Ez.  xxix.  xxx.)  that, 
 besides  the  defeat  of  his  army  sent  against  Cyrene,  Apries 
 near  the  end  of  his  reign  suffered  a  greater  disaster  not  men- 
 tioned to  Herodotus  in  the  subjugation  of  Egypt  by  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar. This  was  so  natural  a  consequence  of  the  conquest 
 of  Syria  that  it  might  be  taken  for  granted,  unless  it  had 
 been  recorded  either  that  the  conqueror  died  before  invading 
 Egyp'  ,  or  that  he  was  defeated  on  invading  it.  Josephus 
 indeed  is  in  error  both  respecting  the  siege  of  Tyre,  and 
 the  conquest  of  Egypt.  According  to  Berosus,  whom  he 
 quotes,  Nebuchadnezzar's  first  campaign,  while  his  father 
 still  lived,  was  caused  by  the  revolt  of  "  the  satrap  set  over 
 Syria  and  Egypt."  And  Nebuchadnezzar,  having  defeated 
 and  taken  this  satrap,"  had  already  regained  both  Syria  and 
 Egypt  when  he  heard  of  his  father's  death.  And  thus  far 
 perhaps  it  is  only  Berosus  Avho  is  in  fault.  But  elsewhere 
 Josephus  in  his  own  name  writes  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
 began  the  siege  of  Tyre  in  the  7th  year  of  his  reign.  And 
 in  lib.  X.  of  his  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  he  writes  that  '^in 
 the  fifth  year  after  the  laying  waste  of  Jerusalem,  that  is, 
 in  the  23rd  year  of  his  reign,"  Nebuchadnezzar  marchedupon 
 Coelesyria,  and  the  countries  of  the  Ammonites  and  the 
 Moabites ;  and  having  completely  subdued  these  peoples,  he 
 invaded  Egypt  to  subdue  it ;  "  and  he  slew  the  king  who  was 
 then  reigning ;  and  having  appointed  another  to  be  king  in 
 his  stead,  he  carried  away  captive  the  Jews  who  were  in 
 Egypt,  as  it  were  for  the  second  time,  to  Babylon."  Ac- 
 cording to  these  statements  Tyre  would  have  been  besieged 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 591 
 
 and  taken  before  the  burning  of  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem  ; 
 and  Apries  would  have  been  defeated  and  slain  by  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar five  years  after,  in  B.C.  582,  in  the  7tli  year  of 
 his  own  reign,  which  yet  we  know  lasted  12  years  longer. 
 It  would  follow  too  that  Amasis  must  have  been  then  made 
 king  by  the  Babylonians.  And,  if  so,  that  he  reigned  not 
 44  only  but  56  years,  and  Apries  instead  of  19  only  7.  But 
 the  spoils  of  Egypt  are  promised  (Ez.  xxix.  18)  to  Xebu- 
 chadnezzar  and  his  army  after  the  reduction  of  Tyre  as  their 
 hii'e  for  their  long  and  hard  service  in  that  siege.  Josephus 
 therefore  is  entirely  out  here  in  his  chronology;  nor  can 
 he  be  right  in  his  facts ;  except  thus  far,  that  Nebuchadnez- 
 zar, before  he  was  driven  from  his  throne,  subdued  Egypt, 
 and  that  Amasis  on  his  successful  revolt  against  Apries 
 some  years  later  obtained  the  recognition  of  the  Babylo- 
 nians. In  any  case  the  relation  of  Herodotus  shows  how 
 that  which  had  been  prophesied  of  Apries,  that  he  should 
 "  be  given  up  into  the  hands  of  the  men  who  sought  his 
 life"  (Jer.  xliv.  30),  was  accomplished.  In  like  manner  it 
 might  fairly  have  been  collected  that  Cyrus  also,  some  30 
 years  or  more  later,  received  the  submission  of  Amasis,  even 
 if  this  had  not  been  implied  by  a  story  in  Herodotus  making 
 Cambyses  to  be  the  son  of  an  Egyptian  mother,  or  had  not 
 been  expressly  asserted  by  Xenophon,  who  names  Egypt 
 among  the  countries  conquered  by  Cyrus.  The  prosperity 
 of  Apries  is  probably  to  be  read  backwards ;  but  whatever 
 spoils  may  have  been  taken  or  temples  burned  by  Xebuchad- 
 nezzar,  and  whatever  degradation  may  have  attached  to  the 
 royalty  of  Amasis,  under  whom  Egypt  became  "  a  base  king- 
 dom" (Ez.  xxix.  14),  there  was  material  prosperity  in  his 
 time ;  so  that  there  were  then  in  Egypt  more  than  20,000 
 cities  and  towns,  implying  perhaps  a  population  of  from  seven 
 to  eight  millions.  And  his  monuments,  some  of  which  at 
 Sais  and  Memphis  excited  the  wonder  of  Herodotus,  stiU  by 
 their  number  and  by  the  fineness  of  their  execution  attest  the 
 length  as  well  as  the  wealth  and  tranquillity  of  his  reign. 
 
 The  priests  by  their  fables  having  involved  Herodotus  in 
 a  hopeless  confusion  as  regards  his  earlier  chronology,  and 
 IManetho,  though  not  to  the  same  extent,  having  followed 
 
592 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CllIlONICLES. 
 
 their  example  in  making  unchronological  dislocations  and 
 transpositions,  especially  by  inserting  some  36  years  of  the 
 Saites  and  the  Ethiopians  suppressed  below  at  about  the 
 same  point  as  that  to  which  they  are  drawn  up  by  Hero- 
 dotus, so  as  to  depress  the  accession  of  Shishonk  L  far 
 below  tlie  death  of  Solomon,  it  is  important  as  well  as 
 interesting  to  find  monumental  records  not  only  illustrating 
 other  points  of  detail,  but  also  determining  within  a  little 
 the  true  interval  of  time  between  the  Persian  conquest  of 
 Cambyses  and  the  commencement  of  the  reign  or  generation 
 of  Shishonk  I.  According  to  Herodotus,  as  we  have  seen 
 above,  the  generation  of  Sethon  and  Sennacherib  occupies 
 that  space  in  which  the  chronology  of  the  Bible  requires  us 
 to  look  for  a  king  named  Shishak,  who  took  Jerusalem  in 
 tlie  5th  year  of  Kehoboam  the  son  of  Solomon.  And 
 according  to  Manetho  the  accession  of  this  Shishak  (Shi- 
 shonk I.  the  head  of  his  Dyn.  XXII)  is  depressed  so  as  to 
 stand  as  low  as  B.C.  930,  or  938  at  the  highest,  according  as 
 one  reckons  upwards  from  the  true  date  of  the  Persian 
 conquest  in  B.C.  525  or  from  the  same  conquest  thrust  up  to 
 B.C.  533.  Thus  a  pretext  is  afforded  to  writers  whose 
 philosophy  prefers  possibilities  to  certainties  and  lesser  pro- 
 babilities to  greater,  for  either  disputing  the  text  of  the 
 Sacred  Scriptures  or  denying  their  authority.  But  it 
 appears  that  Shishonk,  desiring  to  leave  a  record  of  himself 
 in   certain  additions   to  the  temple  Ammon  at  Karnak 
 
 —  additions,  which  still  exhibit  in  the  midst  of  a  long 
 series  of  conquests  the  country  of  Judah  with  its  king, 
 
 —  ordered  the  "  Chief  Architect  of  all  Egypt "  for  the  time 
 being  to  quarry  stone  for  this  purpose  at  Silsilis ;  and  the 
 chief  architect  recorded  this  order  by  an  inscription  in  the 
 quarries,  an  inscription  which  together  with  the  work  itself 
 was  left  imperfect  at  his  death,  but  was  completed  by  his 
 son  and  successor.  In  this  stele,  dated  in  the  21st  year  of 
 Shishonk,  the  last  according  to  the  lists  of  his  reign,  the 
 Chief  Architect  to  whom  the  order  had  been  first  given  is 
 naturally  named,  and  his  name  is  Hor-em-bes-ef.  Now  it  is 
 well  known  how  ancient  and  fixed  a  custom  it  was  in  Egypt 
 that  the  son  should  inherit  the  employment  or  profession 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 593 
 
 and  even  the  dignities  of  tlie  father.  But  one  would 
 scarcely  have  expected  to  find  such  an  illustration  of  this 
 custom  as  is  now  about  to  be  adduced.  In  another  quarry 
 then,  not  at  Silsilis,  but  on  the  Kosseir  road  between  Coptos 
 and  the  Red  Sea,  there  is  another  inscription  dated  in 
 the  44th  and  last  year  of  Amasis,  in  which  the  Chief 
 Architect  of  all  Egypt  of  that  time,  by  name  Aahmes-si-Nit, 
 has  recorded  on  the  rock  the  pedigree  of  his  ancestors  who 
 had  each  in  turn  been  Architects  of  All  Egypt,  going  back  to 
 the  24th  generation,  the  23rd,  that  is,  above  his  own.  But 
 24  generations  calculated  backwards  at  the  rate  of  3  to  a 
 century,  as  is  usual  in  life  generations,  take  us  up  800  years 
 from  B.C.  525  to  B.C.  1325,  that  is,  just  4  years  higher  than  the 
 date  allowed  to  Herodotus  above  for  the  death  of  Moeris  and 
 for  the  accession  of  his  Sesostris  who  is  Rameses  III.,  less 
 by  29  than  900  years  before  his  own  time.  So  we  may  both 
 reckon  downwards  as  if  each  of  the  names  of  the  24  Chief 
 Architects  represented  one  of  Herodotus's  generations,  be- 
 ginning from  Sosostris;  and  also,  after  recognising  in  the 
 11th  of  the  24  names,  Hor-em-hes-ef,  that  Chief  Architect  of 
 the  older  inscription  at  Silsilis  who  in  the  21st  and  last 
 year  of  Shishonk  I.  had  only  lately  died,  we  may  calculate 
 the  interval  betv/een  the  commencement  and  the  end  of  this 
 same  generation  of  Shishonk  I.  and  Hor-em-bes-ef  and  the 
 end  of  the  13  th  generation  after  it,  coinciding  nearly  with 
 the  death  of  Amasis.  The  genealogy  in  the  inscription  of 
 Hamamat  is  given  by  M.  Brugsch  as  follows :  — 
 
 I.  "  Ka-nefer,  Chief  Architect  of  Lower  and  Upper  Egypt, 
 and  Sat-nefer-tem  his  wife ; whose  generation  (from  B.C. 
 1325  to  B.C.  1292)  will  parallel  that  of  Herodotus's  Sesostris 
 (Rameses  III.),  beginning  871  years  before  B.C.  450,  from 
 Thoth  l=July  20,  in  B.C.  1321. 
 
 II.  "  Imhotep,  Chief  Architect,  ^-c."  (from  B.C.  1292  to 
 1259),  =  Herodotus's  generation  of  Pheron. 
 
 III.  "  Ra-hotep-nefer,  Chief  Architect,  ^c.  and  Prophet  of 
 Ammon-Ra  "  (from  B.C.  1259  to  1225),  =  Proteus. 
 
 IV.  "  Bek-en-chonsou,  Chief  Architect^  ^-c."  (from  B.C.  1225 
 to  11 92),  =  Herodotus's  next  generation,  that  of  Ramsinitus, 
 
 Q  Q 
 
594 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 V.  "  Ouza-chonsou,  Chief  Architect,  ^-c."  (from  B.C.  1 1 92 
 to  1159),  —  Herodotus's  generation  of  Cheops. 
 
 VI.  "  Nefer-7nen?iou,  Chief  Architect,  ^-c."  (from  B.C.  1159 
 to  1125),  =  Herodotus's  generation  of  Cephren. 
 
 VII.  Mi  .  .  .  .,  Chief  Architect,  8fc."  (from  B.C.  1128  to 
 1092),  =  Herodotus's  generation  of  Mycerinus, 
 
 VIII.  "  ,  Chief  Architect,  8^c,''  (from  B.C.  1092  to 
 
 1059),  =  Herodotus's  generation  of  Asychis. 
 
 IX.  Pepi,  Chief  Architect,  ^c.'' (horn  B.C.  1059  to  1025), 
 =  Anysis,  who  in  the  23rd  year  of  his  generation  at  the 
 latest  flies  from  Sabaco  to  the  island  of  Elbo. 
 
 X.  "  Amen-her-p-mesa,  2nd,  Srd,  4th,  5th  (?)  Prophet,  of 
 Ammon,  Chief  Architect,  ^c."  (b.C.  1025  to  992),  =  Sabaco. 
 
 XI.  Hor-em-hes-ef,  Chief  Architect,  ^-c."  (B.C.  (992  to 
 959),  =  Sethon,  whose  deliverance  from  Sennacherib,  being 
 340  years  from  the  death  of  Mosris,  is  placed  in  the  7th  year 
 of  his  generation. 
 
 Hor-em-hes-ef  is  the  Chief  Architect  of  Shishonk  I.,  named 
 in  the  inscription  of  Silsilis  as  being  already  dead  in  the 
 21st  and  last  year  of  that  king.  So  Hor-em-bes-ef  and 
 Shishonk  I.  may  be  regarded  as  contemporaries  representing 
 one  and  the  same  generation  from  beginning  to  end,  this 
 generation  beginning  in  B.C.  992  and  ending  in  B.C.  959. 
 And  the  reign  of  Shishonk,  which  began  according  to  the 
 Chronicle  in  B.C.  978  (seemingly  the  later  of  two  distinct 
 accessions),  ended  after  21  years  in  B.C.  957;  so  that  the 
 chronological  place  and  end  of  his  reign  according  to  the 
 Chronicle  agrees  perfectly  with  the  place  and  end  of  his 
 generation  according  to  the  inscription  at  Hamamat.  And 
 his  synchronism  with  Solomon  and  Rehoboam,  according  to 
 the  chronology  of  the  Bible,  is  justified  by  both  these  Egyp- 
 tian reckonings. 
 
 The  remaining  generations  of  the  Chief  Architects  will 
 correspond  to  as  many  generations  as  are  wanting  to  Hero- 
 dotus to  make  out  his  900  years,  until  they  reach  to  those 
 times  the  history  of  which  was  known  to  the  Greeks :  — 
 
 XII.  mer.  Chief  Architect,  ^-c."  (b.C.  954  to  925); 
 parallel  to  the  first  generation  of  those  wanting  to  Hero- 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 595 
 
 dotus,  after  he  has  indicated  eleven  generations  in  succession 
 from  B.C.  1321  to  B.C.  959. 
 
 XIII.  "  Hor-em-bes-ef,  Chief  Architect,  &^c.  (from  B.C.  925 
 to  892)  =,  the  second  generation  wanting. 
 
 XIV.  Pa-ha-bou,  Chief  Architect,  (from  B.C.  892  to 
 859),  =  the  third  generation  wanting. 
 
 XV.  "  NeS'Sou-nou,  Chief  Architect,  (from  B.C.  859  to 
 825),  =  the  fourth  generation  wanting. 
 
 XVI.  "  Pa-ha-bou,  Chief  Architect,  (from  B.C.  825  to 
 792),  =  the  fifth  generation  wanting. 
 
 XVII.  "  Nes-sou-nou,  Chief  Architect,  (from  B.C.  792 
 to  759),  =  the  sixth  generation  wanting. 
 
 XVIII.  "  Pa-ha-bou,  Chief  Architect,  §'c."(b.C.  759  to  725), 
 =  the  seventh  generation  wanting,  including  the  actual  reign 
 of  Sabaco,  and  three  years  of  that  of  Sevechus,  if  the  Ethio- 
 pian conquest  be  moved  down  to  its  true  date  in  B.C.  746. 
 
 XIX.  "  Nes-sou-nou,  Chief  Architect,  Sfc"  (B.C.  725  to 
 692),  =  the  eighth  generation  wanting;  including  the  re- 
 maining eleven  years  of  the  reign  of  Sevechus  and  twenty- 
 two  years  of  the  reign  of  Tirhakah,  if  the  Ethiopians  are 
 moved  down  to  their  true  place. 
 
 XX.  "  Pa-ha-bou,  Chief  Architect  of  Upper  and  Lower 
 Pgypt^''  (B.C.  692—659),  corresponding  to  a  generation 
 allowable  for  the  remaining  9  years  of  Tirhakah  and  for  the 
 Dodecarchy. 
 
 XXT.  "  Nes-sou-nou,  Chief  Architect,  ^-c."  (B.C.  659  to  625); 
 reaching  from  the  4th  to  the  37th  year  of  Psammitichus  I. 
 
 XXII.  Ra-ouah  heV  (same  as  the  throne-name  of  Psam- 
 mitichus I.),  "  Chief  Architect,  ^cP  (b.c.  625  to  592) ; 
 reaching  from  the  37th  of  Psammitichus  I.  to  the  1st  of 
 Psammitichus  II. 
 
 XXIII.  Anch  PsamtiV  (named  after  Psammitichus  I.), 
 "  Chief  Architect,  ^cr  (b.c.  592  to  559);  from  the  1st  of 
 Psammitichus  II.  to  the  9th  of  Amasis. 
 
 XXIV.  "  AahmeS'Si-Nit "  (as  if  Amasis  were  already  on 
 the  throne  when  the  actual  life  representing  this  generation 
 began),  "  Chief  Architect,  Sfc"  (b.c.  559  to  525);  from  the 
 9th  to  the  44th  of  Amasis,  when  Aahmes-si-Nit  cut  the  in- 
 scription at  Hamamat  with  the  foregoing  genealogy,  adding 
 
 Q  Q  2 
 
596 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 the  names  of  "  his  wife  Sat-nefer-tem^''  and  "  his  son  Ra- 
 chnoum-het.''^ 
 
 XXY.  The  same  son,  after  his  father's  death,  when  he 
 had  succeeded  him  in  his  hereditary  post,  has  repeated  his 
 own  name  in  an  addition  subjoined  to  his  father's  inscription, 
 with  rather  fuller  titles,  "  Ra-clinoum-het,  Chief  Architect  of 
 the  ichole  country,  Director  of  all  the  Works  of  Upper  and 
 Lower  Egypt,  Prophet  at  Heliopolis,  and  at  Memphis!^  and 
 four  different  dates,  all  of  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspes, 
 viz.  his  26th,  27th,  28th,  and  30th  years.  There  are  here 
 then  34  or  35  years,  being  more  than  the  full  length  of  his 
 own  generation,  between  the  lowest  date  recorded  of  himself 
 by  Ra-chnoiim-het  of  the  25th  generation  and  the  date  of  his 
 father's  inscription  and  pedigree  preceding,  viz.  the  44th 
 year  of  Amasis,  when  Ra-chnoum-het  is  first  named  in 
 company  with  his  father.  And  if  we  suppose  Ra-chnoum- 
 het  to  have  died  shortly  after  inscribing  the  lowest  of  his  own 
 four  dates,  viz.  that  of  the  30th  year  of  Darius,  and  go  back 
 15  generations  from  B.C.  492,  we  shall  obtain  the  year  B.C. 
 992  for  the  commencement  and  B.C.  959  for  the  end  of  the 
 official  generation  of  Hor-em-hes-ef,  the  Chief  Architect  of 
 Shishonk  I.  ;  while  the  21st  year  of  Shishonk's  actual  reign 
 should  end,  according  to  the  Chronicle,  in  B.C.  957.  Or,  if 
 one  begins  by  assuming  that  the  first  Hor-em-bes-ef  is  the 
 same  person  wdth  the  Chief  Architect  of  Shishonk  I.  at 
 Silsilis,  and  that  he  died  but  a  little  before  the  end  of 
 Shishonk's  21st  year,  that  is,  in  B.C.  957,  according  to  the 
 Chronicle,  then,  reckoning  downwards  13  generations,  w^e 
 should  expect  to  find  the  death  of  Aahmes  si-Nit  at  B.C. 
 (957—433  =  )  524,  and  that  of  Ka-chnoum-het  about  B.C. 
 (524-33^  =  )  492,  that  is,  in  the  30th  of  Darius.  But  if 
 the  apparent  chronology  of  jNIanetho's  or  Ptolemy's  lists 
 were  to  be  followed,  as  some  would  follow  it,  against  that  of 
 the  Bible  (to  say  nothing  of  the  old  Chronicle  and  other 
 heathen  sources),  then  Hor-em-hes-ef,  dying  in  the  21st  year 
 of  Shishonk  I.,  should  die  in  B.C.  (941  or  939-20  =  )  921 
 or  919;  and  his  13th  and  14th  descendants  should  die  in 
 B.C.  489  or  480  and  in  B.C.  456  or  447  respectively.  To 
 suppose  that  the  second  Hor-em- bes-ef,  and  not  the  first, 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 597 
 
 was  the  contemporary  of  Shishonk  I.  would  only  make 
 matters  worse.  So,  whichever  way  the  generations  be 
 reckoned,  they  justify  the  chronology  of  the  Scriptures  and 
 of  the  Old  Chronicle  ;  and  they  show,  independently  of  any 
 other  evidence,  that  there  must  be  some  considerable  dislo- 
 cations in  the  lists  of  Manetho  and  of  Ptolemy. 
 
 It  has  already  been  noticed  above  (at  p.  256)  how  Hero- 
 dotus's  assertion  that  the  Egyptians  claim  Cambyses  as  their 
 own  {olK7]L£vvTai  TOP  K.afjL^ua£a)  is  illustrated  by  the  inscrip- 
 tions which  have  been  translated  by  M.  De  Rouge  from  a 
 statuette  in  the  Vatican.  The  Egyptian  officer,  "  Ouza-hor- 
 pen-res,  son  of  Pefa-nit,  priest  of  Neith  at  Sais,"  whom  the 
 statuette  represents,  tells  us  that  he  was  employed  succes- 
 sively by  the  kings  Aalimes,  Psamtik  IIL  (the  Psammenitus 
 of  Herodotus),  Kam-ba-tet,  and  Ntarioush  :  that  when  Cam- 
 byses became  master  of  all  the  world,  and  of  Egypt,  he  was 
 appointed  to  some  post  about  his  person ;  that  Cambyses 
 received  the  Egyptian  throne-name  Ramesout,  and  was 
 initiated  at  Sais  into  all  the  greatness  of  the  goddess  Neith, 
 the  unbegotten  mother  of  Ra  himself  the  First-born.  He 
 obtained  from  Cambyses  an  order  to  clear  the  temple  of  all 
 the  foreigners  (troops?)  who  had  quartered  themselves 
 within  its  precinct,  and  to  restore  all  its  ministers^  with  all 
 the  customary  ministrations  and  offerings. 
 
 There  is  in  the  Louvre  an  inscription  of  an  Apis-bull, 
 which  was  buried  in  the  6th  year  of  Cambyses,  according  to 
 MM.  Mariette  and  Lepsius  (the  date  is  not  very  legible, 
 and  M.  Brugsch  would  read  the  4th)  in  the  month  Epiphi, 
 and  which  died  therefore  70  days  earlier  in  Pharmouthi  or 
 Pachons.  And  it  is  remarkable  that  another  Apis,  which 
 should  be  the  successor  of  the  one  just  mentioned,  and  the 
 same  as  was  stabbed  by  Cambyses  on  his  return  from  Ethi- 
 opia, is  recorded  to  have  been  born  in  the  5th  year  of 
 Cambyses,  on  the  28th  day  of  the  5th  month,  and  to  have 
 died  on  the  3rd  day  of  the  9  th  month  in  the  4th  year  of 
 Darius,  aged  7  years,  3  months,  and  5  days.  This  latter 
 inscription  is  plain,  and  suffices  of  itself  to  prove  that  the 
 whole  reign  of  Cambyses,  with  the  7  months  of  the  Magi 
 included,  covered  only  8  years.    It  shows  besides  that  when 
 
598 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 it  is  said  by  Herodotus  that  the  Apis  stabbed  by  Cambyses 
 languished  from  the  wound  and  soon  died,  and  was  buried 
 by  the  priests  without  Cambyses'  knowing  anything  about  it, 
 tliis  last  assertion  is  based  on  a  misunderstandinor  or  on  mis- 
 information,  the  truth  being  that  this  Apis,  perhaps  in  conse- 
 quence of  the  wound,  died  soon,  since  he  lived  only  to  the 
 age  of  7  years.  And,  lastly,  it  seems  to  result  from  the 
 date  of  the  birth  of  this  Apis,  coupled  with  that  of  the  death 
 of  his  predecessor,  that  there  was  no  absolute  necessity  that 
 the  reigning  Apis  should  be  dead  before  his  successor  could 
 be  conceived  or  born  ;  but  two  of  these  divine  manifestations 
 might  in  fact  be  living  together,  though  one  of  them  only 
 at  a  time  was  recognised  and  installed.  The  unusually  long 
 interval  between  the  birth  of  the  second  Apis  in  the  5th 
 month  of  Cambyses's  5th  year  (also  the  5th  month,  at  least, 
 of  the  6  months  of  Psammenitus),  and  his  installation  at 
 Memphis,  when  Cambyses  had  returned  from  Ethiopia,  is 
 explained  by  the  date  of  the  burial  of  the  Apis  preceding. 
 That  the  festival  was  not  literally  for  the  "  discovery as 
 Herodotus  understood  it  to  be,  but  for  the  installation,  is 
 plain,  since  otherwise  the  Apis  would  not  have  been  already 
 at  Memphis.  And  if  the  preceding  Apis  was  buried  late 
 in  the  6th  year  of  Cambyses,  it  is  plain  that  this  installation 
 at  Memphis  must  have  been  at  the  latest  before  the  com- 
 mencement of  the  inundation  in  the  spring  or  summer  of  his 
 7th,  that  is,  of  B.C.  523.  After  his  return  from  Ethiopia  it 
 was  that  Cambyses  committed  most  of  those  acts  of  violence 
 and  tyranny  which  the  Egyptians  (since  they  were  con- 
 trary to  the  policy  he  had  shown  at  first)  imputed  to 
 madness.  In  the  inscriptions  on  the  Vatican  statuette  the 
 calamities  caused  by  this  "  madness"  of  Cambyses  are  alluded 
 to  in  more  than  one  passage,  but  cautiously,  and  without 
 naming  their  author :  "  I  was  a  good  citizen,"  Ouza-hor- 
 pen-res  says  of  himself,  ''to  my  city,  and  saved  its  population 
 in  the  huge  calamity  which  fell  upon  the  whole  country. 
 Never  had  there  been  such  a  calamity  in  the  land."  And 
 again :  "  when  the  calamity  came  upon  this  Nome,  at  the 
 same  time  that  the  huge  calamity  came  upon  all  the  land." 
 He  accompanied  Cambyses,  as  it  appears,  into  Syria ;  and 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  HERODOTUS. 
 
 599 
 
 not  long  after  he  was  sent  back  to  Egypt  "  by  Darius,  king 
 of  Lower  and  Upper  Egypt,  after  he  had  become  sovereign 
 of  all  the  world  and  Great  King  of  Egypt,  to  settle  all 
 things  in  Egypt  on  their  ancient  bases."  So  that  some  oF 
 the  credit  of  Darius's  paternal  and  religious  government  may 
 belong  to  him  ;  and  lie  may  have  had  a  share,  together  with 
 the  Chief  Architect  Ra-clinoum-het,  in  the  construction  or 
 restoration  of  the  great  temple  of  Amnion  in  the  Oasis,  on  the 
 ruins  of  which  the  cartouches  of  Darius  are  still  to  be  seen. 
 
 Herodotus  mentions  the  revolt  of  Egypt  before  the  death 
 of  Darius  (this  was  in  the  year  of  his  own  birth,  B.C.  486, 
 Olymp.  73,  7  ),  and  its  suppression  early  in  the  2nd  year  of 
 Xerxes,  B.C.  484.  He  mentions  also  the  later  revolt  in  B.C. 
 460  (5  years  after  the  death  of  Xerxes)  of  Inarus  the 
 Libyan,  called  by  Thucydides  "  son  of  Psammitichus,"  who 
 with  the  help  of  the  Athenians  defeated  and  slew  Achas- 
 menes  the  uncle  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  but  was  him- 
 self afterwards  defeated,  and  eventually  impaled.  This  Avar 
 lasted  6  years,  and  ended  only  in  B.C.  455,  shortly  before  the 
 time  of  Herodotus's  being  in  Egypt.  He  mentions  his  having 
 seen  the  skulls  of  the  Persians  and  Egyptians  who  had  fallen 
 in  the  battle  with  Inarus  at  Papremis.  Amyrta3us,  however, 
 after  the  defeat  of  Inarus,  betook  himself  to  the  inaccessible 
 fens  of  the  Delta,  and  the  Athenians  sent  a  fleet  of  60  ships 
 to  help  towards  his  restoration,  though  this  project  had  no 
 success.  On  the  death  of  Cimon,  in  B.C.  449,  he  was  still 
 holding  out ;  and,  about  40  years  later,  as  it  seems,  he 
 succeeded  in  establishino:  himself,  and  reio-ned  accordino^  to 
 INIanetho  and  Ptolemy  6  years.  His  accession  seems  to  be 
 fixed  to  the  year  B.C.  414  by  this  circumstance,  that  his  son 
 Pausiris  is  related  by  Herodotus  to  have  succeeded  him  with 
 the  consent  of  the  Persians,  with  whom  he  had  made  terms. 
 And  as  6  years  are  given  also  for  the  reign  of  Pausiris,  and 
 these  cannot  end  later  than  in  B.C.  402  when  Egypt  again 
 became  independent  under  Neferites,  they  must  have  begun 
 in  B.C.  408,  and  the  6  of  Amyrt^us  in  B.C.  414,  that  is,  if 
 Pausiris  succeeded  upon  the  death  of  his  father.  It  seems 
 then  that  Amyrta3us  was  concealed  in  his  undiscoverable  isle 
 of  Elbo  at  the  very  time  when  the  priests  (who  wished  him 
 
 Q  Q  4 
 
fiOO  EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Avell)  made  out  of  him  their  fable  of  Any  sis  with  which  to 
 amuse  Herodotus.  And  the  mention  of  the  accession  of  his 
 son  Pausiris  is  one  of  the  latest  of  those  incidental  notices 
 which  Herodotus  still  continued  to  insert  into  his  work  after 
 lie  had  passed  the  age  of  75  years.  Another  fact  belonging  to 
 the  year  preceding  (b.c.  409)  is  to  be  found  in  lib.  i.  c.  130. 
 The  reading  which  makes  the  isle  of  Elbo  to  have  remained 
 undiscovered  "  above  700  years,"  from  the  restoration  of 
 Anysis  till  the  time  when  Amyrtaeus  had  need  of  it,  is 
 clearly  either  a  mere  blunder  of  some  copyist,  writing  700 
 for  500 ;  or  else,  if  it  be  from  an  oversight  of  Herodotus 
 himself,  he  must  have  forgotten  the  five  pyramid-builders, 
 of  whom  Anysis  was  the  last,  and  must  have  reckoned  the  true 
 number  of  generations  as  if  from  Ramsinitus,  as  if  the  4th 
 generation  after  the  accession  of  Sesostris,  instead  of  the  9th, 
 had  been  given  to  Anysis.  For  if  from  B.C.  (1321  —  133  =  ) 
 1188  Ave  subtract  700,  we  shall  have  B.C.  488,  and  shall  still 
 want  33  years  more  to  bring  the  reckoning  down  to  the  end 
 of  the  war  of  Inarus  and  the  flight  of  Amyrtteus  in  B.C.  455. 
 So  the  space  is  "  above  700  years ; "  and  Herodotus  will 
 again  have  corrected  himself  so  far  as  time  is  concerned,  and 
 will  have  made  out  his  900  years,  though  the  withdrawal  of 
 the  Ethiopian  and  the  deliverance  of  Sethon  from  Senna- 
 cherib will  seem  to  be  put  up  even  higher  by  above  two  cen- 
 turies than  before. 
 
 HERODOTUS,  PLATO,  AND  EUDOXUS. 
 
 Herodotus  joins  together  two  very  different  doctrines, 
 which  he  says  the  Egyptians  were  the  first  to  teach ;  that, 
 namely,  of  the  continuance  of  human  souls  after  death,  and 
 tliat  of  their  transmigration  into  other  bodies  than  their  own. 
 The  former  of  the  two  doctrines  was,  no  doubt,  the  source  of 
 all  the  care  bestowed  by  the  Egyptians  upon  the  bodies  of 
 their  dead;  though  that  care,  as  St.  Augustine  has  well 
 observed,  implies  a  belief  in  more  than  the  mere  continuance 
 of  the  soul:  it  implies  its  continued  interest  in  the  same 
 body,  and  the  hope  of  the  resurrection.  And  this  doctrine, 
 the  true  corollary  to  that  of  the  continuance  of  the  soul,  the 
 Egyptians  were  so  far  from  being  the  first  to  teach,  that 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  PLATO. 
 
 001 
 
 they  had  obscured  it  by  their  fable  of  the  metempsychosis, 
 and  had  rendered  their  own  care  of  the  bodies  of  their  dead 
 scarcely  if  at  all  intelligible.  The  latter  of  the  two  doc- 
 trines, that  of  the  metempsychosis,  may  indeed  have  been 
 taught  first  by  the  Egyptians  ;  but  it  is  only  a  heterogeneous 
 fable  engrafted  upon  the  pre-existing  belief  of  the  con- 
 tinuance of  the  soul,  and  rather  inconsistent  with  their 
 very  careful  preservation  of  the  bodies  of  the  dead ;  unless 
 indeed  it  be  said  that  after  some  fixed  period  of  circum- 
 migration  the  soul  was  ultimately  to  return  not  only  to  a 
 human  body,  but  to  the  very  same  body  which  it  had  first 
 inhabited.  And  this  may  at  first  have  been  the  esoteric 
 doctrine,  resolving  all  the  intermediate  transmigrations  into 
 fable  or  allegory.  Herodotus  mentions  further  that  the 
 period  in  which  the  soul  accomplishes  its  circum-migration 
 through  all  other  living  creatures,  beasts,  birds,  and  fishes, 
 and  returns  to  a  human  body,  was  3000  years,  meaning 
 two  Sothic  or  Phoenix  cycles,  of  2922  or  3012  years, 
 though,  as  the  Greeks  knew  nothing  of  these  cycles,  but 
 reckon  by  hundreds  and  thousands,  he  expressed  himself  in 
 round  numbers.  The  source  of  this  idea  that  the  anroKa- 
 rdaraacs  of  the  soul  took  place  after  two  cycles  has  been 
 explained  above  in  Chapter  I. ;  and  the  same  period  is 
 marked  in  the  structure  of  all  the  Egyptian  Chronicles, 
 where  the  first  2922  years  of  human  time  are  the  period  of 
 the  old  world  lengthened  out  so  as  to  fall  into  the  cyclical 
 form,  and  capable  of  being  stated  either  as  2922  full  or 
 35,064  month-years.  "  UpMTot  8e  Al<yv7TTioL  elai  ol  slirovrss 
 0)9  dvOpcoTTOV  '^v)(r)  dOdvaros  saTi,  rod  acofiaros  Bs  fcaraipdl- 
 V0VT09  ss  aXko  fcoov  alei  yivo/jbsvov  ioSverai '  iirsdv  Bs  irspLsXOy 
 irdvTa  rd  ^epaata,  Koi  rd  OakdcraLa,  koX  rd  irzTZivd,  avris  ss 
 dvOpooTTOu  ao}(Jba  <yLv6fj.£yov  saBvvsiV'  Tr]V  irspLi^Xvcnv  Bs  avrfj 
 fyLvsadai  sv  TpLa')(^iX[oiaL  lT£crt."    (Lib.  ii.  c.  123.) 
 
 Plato,  who  visited  Egypt  soon  after  the  death  of  Socrates, 
 perhaps  in  B.C.  399,  when  he  was  about  30  years  of  age,  has 
 made  some  use  in  his  PhcBdrus  of  Egyptian  doctrine  respect- 
 ing the  soul ;  but  he  has  altered  it  and  presented  it  in  a  form 
 of  his  own,  making  the  dTroKardaracris  of  the  soul  to  be  not 
 her  return  to  a  human  body,  whether  some  other  which  is 
 
602 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 born  for  her  (ycvofjusvov)  or  her  own,  but  her  return,  without 
 any  body,  to  her  original  celestial  and  divine  sphere,  whence 
 it  Avas  only  by  a  mishap  and  degradation  that,  having  her 
 wings  bruised,  she  had  ever  fallen  to  earth  and  been  united 
 to  a  body  at  all.  And,  apart  from  this  difference,  the  sums 
 of  years  (being  all  round  thousands,  myriads,  or  hundreds) 
 which  he  specifies  are  so  entirely  Greek,  that,  if  it  were  not 
 for  the  older  notice  in  Herodotus  it  would  have  been  diffi- 
 cult to  make  out  any  true  Egyptian  element  underlying 
 them.  For  he  names  first  a  round  myriad  of  years,  as  if 
 this  were  the  term  for  the  transmigrations  of  ordinary 
 imphilosophical  souls.  And  in  this  term  there  is  from  an 
 Egyptian  point  of  view  no  propriety  nor  significancy, 
 whether  the  years  be  regarded  as  full  years,  or  as  months, 
 or  as  partly  of  both  kinds.  Then,  afterwards,  he  names  a 
 sum  of  3000  years,  as  the  term  for  the  higher  and  more  phi- 
 losophical souls,  which  are  so  set  free  and  depart  with  their 
 wings  fully  grown  and  bodiless  to  tlie  height  of  heaven,  if 
 they  have  thrice  in  succession  chosen  the  human  and  philo- 
 sophical life.  For  both  their  term  of  3000  and  the  10,000 
 of  ordinary  souls  are  subdivided,  as  it  seems,  into  spaces  of 
 one  round  thousand  each  ;  and  after  each  such  space  of  a 
 thousand  years  the  souls  are  made  to  choose,  in  the  order 
 appointed  to  them  by  lot,  into  what  bodies  of  brutes  or  men 
 and  to  what  models  of  life  they  will  return.  So  in  this  passage 
 of  the  Phcedrus  the  space  of  one  round  thousand  of  years 
 seems  to  be  taken  for  the  unit ;  and  the  higher  souls  obtain 
 their  restoration  at  the  end  of  three  of  these,  but  ordinary 
 souls  have  to  pass  through  ten.  "  Ets*  ^Iv  ovv  ravrov  odav 
 rjfcSL  r)  "^^VXV  ^f^^o-TT)  ovfc  a<f)LKVsiTaL  ircjv  fivpicov*  ov  yap  irrspov- 
 raL  TTpo  TOcrovTOV  ')(^p6vov,  itXt^v  t)  tov  (j)iXo(TO(j)rjaai'T09  dS6\co9 
 .  .  .  Avrai  8s  TpLTrj  TTspLoScp  rfj  ')(^l\lst£l,  sav  aXcovrat  rpls 
 
 5cj>S^rj9   TOV   ^LOV   TOVTOV,    OVTO)   TTTSpCDOslaaL   Tpca^lXLOaTa)  STSC 
 
 airsp-^ovTai,'  At  hi  aXkai^  orav  tov  TrpcoTOv/Siov-  TsXsvTrjacoaif 
 KpLasco9  sTV')(ov  '  KpiOslcrai  hs  al  pusv  sis  to,  vtto  yyp  BifcaL0)T7]pLa 
 sXOovaai  hUrjv  sktlvovctlv,  al  sh  Tovpavou  Ttva  tottov  vtto 
 TTjs  SUtjs  K0V(pca9sL(Tai  Sca/jisvovaLV  a^lcos  ov  iv  dvOpcoTrov 
 SL^st  s^tcoaav  ^lov.  Tco  hs  ')^(XioaTa>  dfJb^oTSpaL  dcpifcvovfjusvai 
 sttI  KXt]pwalv  TS  Kal  alpscnv  tov  hsvTspov  (3lov  alpovvTac  ov  av 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS;  PLATO. 
 
 COS 
 
 sOeXt)  sKaarr]'   h>6a  koI   sU   Orjplov  (Siov  dvOpcoTTivrj  "^1^%'; 
 
 dcpiKVSLTaLj    Kol    SK    OrfploV    09    TTOTS    CLvOpWlTOS     qV   IToXlV  809 
 
 dvOpcoTTov.^^  K.  T.  X.  (c.  xxix.).  Hence  Virgil  also,  in  the 
 Sixth  Book  of  his  iEneid,  treating  of  the  same  subject 
 and  following  Plato,  has  the  same  sum  of  1000  years  :  — 
 
 "Has  omnes,  ubi  mille  rotam  volvere  per  annos, 
 Lethseiim  ad  flm-ium  deus  evocat  agmine  magno, 
 Scilicet  immemores  siipera  ut  convexa  revisant, 
 Riu'siis  et  incipiant  in  coi-pora  velle  reverti." 
 
 But  by  the  help  of  Herodotus  one  may  perceive  that  the 
 original  and  Egyptian  sum  is  that  of  the  3000  (standing 
 for  2922)  years  allowed  by  Plato  for  the  higher  souls  only ; 
 and  that  the  meaning  of  the  myriad  of  years  named  first  is 
 merely  this,  that  the  unphilosophical  souls  have  to  pass  in 
 transmigrations  ten  periods  of  one  round  thousand  each  in- 
 stead of  only  three ;  since,  having  taken  the  sum  of  3000  for 
 the  higher  souls,  whether  directly  or  only  through  Herodotus, 
 from  an  Egyptian  source,  Plato  resolves  it  into  three  periods 
 of  one  round  thousand  each.  That  this  is  so  in  fict  appears 
 still  more  clearly  on  comparing  with  the  above-cited  passage  of 
 the  Phaedrus  another  respecting  the  judgment  of  souls  in  the 
 Tenth  Book  De  Repuhlicd,  where  a  certain  Armenian  named 
 Er,  of  Pamphylian  descent,  who  was  taken  up  on  the  tenth 
 day  among  the  slain  from  a  field  of  battle,  and  came  to  life 
 again  on  the  twelfth  after  being  placed  on  the  funeral  pyre, 
 relates  as  a  messenger  from  the  other  world  all  that  he  had 
 seen  and  heard  there.  In  this  story  the  10,000  years  do  not 
 reappear;  but  some  light  is  thrown  upon  their  sense  and 
 origin.  Both  the  souls  which  justice  has  acquitted  and 
 rewarded  on  high,  and  those  which  she  has  condemned  to 
 punishments  beneath  the  earth,  meet  together  after  one  round 
 thousand  of  years,  and  converse  of  what  they  have  respectively 
 enjoyed  and  suffered,  before  presenting  themselves  to  the 
 three  Fates  and  receiving  lots  determining  the  order  in  which 
 they  are  each  to  choose  the  kind  of  body  and  the  model  of 
 life  into  which  they  will  return.  After  which  they  are  taken 
 to  drink  of  the  waters  of  Lethe,  and  falling  asleep  are  waked 
 up  by  thunder  and  lightning  at  midnight,  and  pass  like 
 sparks  into  bodies  which  are  begotten  for  them.  And  in  the 
 
604 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 account  given  of  themselves  by  those  souls  which  had  suffered 
 beneath  the  earth  it  is  said  that  they  had  been  made  to  pay 
 for  every  single  wrong  that  they  had  ever  committed  while 
 living  on  earth  just  ten  times  over,  a  round  century  of  years 
 being  taken  to  represent  a  man's  life,  and  the  round  thousand 
 containing  ten  such  lives :  while  in  the  case  of  such  as  deserved 
 more,  as  in  that  of  a  certain  Ardiaeus  of  Pamphylia,  whose 
 crimes  were  committed  1000  years  before,  the  passage  which 
 should  have  brought  them  round  denied  itself  to  them,  and 
 fiery  ministers  of  vengeance  bound  them  hand  and  foot  and 
 dragged  them  upon  hooks  and  thorns,  and  cast  them  into 
 Tartarus.  So  when  some  souls  which  had  come  from  above 
 inquired  after  Ardigeus,  the  answer  was,  "  He  has  not  come 
 up,  and  he  is  not  likely  to  come."  From  these  details  it  is 
 clear  that  the  ten  round  thousands  of  delay  and  repeated 
 transmigrations  in  the  Phcedrus,  before  ordinary  souls  can 
 wing  themselves  to  arrive  at  bodiless  perfection  and  union 
 with  deity,  are  imagined  on  the  same  principle  as  the  ten 
 round  hundreds  into  which  each  single  thousand  is  sub- 
 divided for  those  which  have  to  suffer  under  the  earth : 
 To  S'  ovv  KS^akaioVi  scprj,  t68s  slvai '  oaa  ttcottots  TLva 
 rj^LKfjaav  Kal  oaovs  sKaaroi,  virsp  airavTCdV  Slktjv  SsScoKsvat  iv 
 fjbspSL,  VTTsp  sfcacTTOv  Ss/caKLS '  TOVTO  8'  shaL  Kara  sKarovTaerrjplha 
 sKaaTTjVf  0)9  j^iov  ovtos  roaovrov  rod  civOpooirivov,  iva  SsKaTrXd- 
 
 (TiOV   TO    SKTLCTfia    TOV    dStK'^/JLaT09    SKTLVOLSVy      So    iu  Plato's 
 
 unit  of  a  round  thousand,  and  in  his  multiplication  of  this  by 
 ten,  as  in  his  subdivision  of  the  same  by  ten,  there  is  probably 
 nothing  Egyptian.  Indeed,  according  to  Plato's  scheme,  there 
 would  be  room  only  for  two  transmigrations  (the  original  life 
 counting  for  one  of  three)  for  philosophical  souls,  and  for 
 only  nine  (besides  the  first  life)  for  ordinary  souls ;  whereas, 
 according  to  Herodotus,  the  souls  generally  had  but  3000 
 years  in  which  to  accomplish  the  whole  round  of  the  animated 
 creation  before  returning  to  a  human  body. 
 
 It  is  said  by  Strabo  that  the  Egyptian  priests  explained 
 both  to  Plato  and  to  his  disciple  Eudoxus  of  Chios  the  true 
 length  of  the  year,  and  the  necessity  of  adding  a  quarter  of  a 
 clay  to  its  365  days,  making  one  whole  day  in  four  years. 
 This  would  imply  the  understanding  of  the  Sothic  Cycle : 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  EUDOXUS. 
 
 605 
 
 and  it  is  likely  enough  that  the  Cycle  was  really  explained  to 
 Plato,  thouf^h  neither  in  describing  the  transmigrations  of 
 souls  nor  elsewhere  has  he  left  any  distinct  allusion  to  it.  As 
 for  EudoxuSj  who  was  about  20  years  younger  than  Plato, 
 and  who  visited  Egypt  probably  in  B.C.  362,  with  great  ad- 
 vantages, having  letters  of  recommendation  from  Agesilaus  to 
 Nectnnebo  11. ,  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  was  instructed  in  the 
 Egyptian  mode  of  reckoning,  for  he  made  the  Canicular 
 quadriennium  the  basis  of  his  own  octa-eterid  cycle  con- 
 sisting of  2922  days.  And  he  is  quoted  by  Proclus  as  having 
 learned  in  Egypt  that  the  vast  periods  spoken  of  there  con- 
 sisted in  their  earlier  part  of  months  reckoned  as  years.  " 
 hs  KoX  6  cf)7]crLV  EuSofoy  dX7j6s9,  on  AlyvTrrLoc  rov  firjva  sviavrov 
 sKoXovv,  ovK  av  7)  T(oy  TToWcov  TOVTCov  hiavTcov  airaplOixriaLS 
 s^ot  Tt  Sav/xaaTov.^^    {Proclus  in  Tiniceum,  31,  50.) 
 
 This  testimony,  earlier  than  any  of  the  Grasco-Egyptian 
 chronicles,  and  unconnected  with  any  attempt  to  apply  the 
 principle  of  reduction  to  particular  sums,  is  of  great  value 
 both  in  itself,  and  as  affording  a  key  to  the  true  meaning  of 
 certain  large  sums  of  years  mentioned  by  Plato  in  a  passage 
 of  the  Timceus  (in  the  scholia  upon  which  it  is  that  Eudoxus 
 is  cited),  and  in  another  similar  passage  in  the  De  Repuhlicd. 
 The  sums  of  10,000,  9000,  and  8000  years  mentioned  in 
 these  passages  are  not,  like  the  myriad  and  the  single  thou- 
 sands and  single  centuries  connected  with  the  transmigrations 
 of  the  soul,  of  Plato's  own  fabrication ;  but,  though  still  in  the 
 form  of  round  thousands,  they  are  nevertheless,  no  less  than 
 the  3000  years  in  Herodotus  and  in  the  Phcedrus,  really 
 derived  from  an  Egyptian  source. 
 
 Plato,  as  it  seems  (and  in  this  he  agrees  with  Herodotus), 
 understood  that  the  Egyptians  went  back  for  the  origin  of 
 their  own  nation  and  of  the  arts  of  life  as  many  as  10,000 
 years.  "  There,"  he  says,  meaning  in  Egypt,  "  you  will  find 
 the  figures  and  objects  written  or  engraved  10,000  years  ago 
 (10,000  years  not  hyperbolically,  but  literally),  neither  better 
 nor  worse  in  execution  than  the  works  of  art  of  the  present  dav, 
 but  exactly  alike."  "  ^/cottcov  8'  svpi^asis  avroOc  ra  fxvpLoarov 
 ST09  'ysypafXfMSPa  r/  rsrvTray/jbsva  (ot'%  ws-  sIttslv  fzvpLoarop,  dXX 
 oVtws")  tmv  vvv  8sSr]/j.LOupy7)ixsvo)v  ovrs  ri  KaWtopa,  ovr  ala')(^Lw, 
 
606 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 T7JV  avrrjv  Bs  TE')(yr)v  aTTSLp^yaafjiEvaJ'''  (^De  Hep.  ii.  p.  656,  E.) 
 Elsewhere,  in  the  Timceus,  he  introduces  a  priest  of  Neith 
 at  Sais  undertaking  to  tell  Solon  (who  might  be  there  about 
 B.C.  600)  of  the  admirable  laws  and  institutions  and  the 
 heroic  exploits  of  those  whom  we  may  call  the  antediluvian 
 Athenians,  Egypt  alone  having  by  the  happiness  of  her 
 position  escaped  those  deluges  and  conflagrations  which  had 
 from  time  to  time  destroyed  almost  entirely  all  other  peo- 
 ples, so  that  in  Egypt  alone  there  were  preserved  in  the 
 sacred  books  historical  notices  of  them  all.  After  this  pre- 
 amble the  priest  Peteneit  complimented  the  Athenians  and 
 their  state  or  city  as  having  been  taken  up  and  nursed  by 
 their  common  goddess  a  thousand  years  before  the  city  of 
 Sais,  saying  that  it  was  9000  before  their  own  time  when 
 the  race  of  the  Athenians  was  first  engendered  of  Phthah  and 
 Mout  (electricity  and  mud).  The  admirable  institutions  of 
 that  primaeval  Athens  might  best  be  understood  by  consider- 
 ing those  still  preserved  in  Egypt,  seeing  that  these  were  from 
 the  same  source.  And,  as  for  their  exploits,  they  consisted 
 chiefly  in  having  met  and  repelled  all  the  power  of  Atlantis, 
 an  island  larger  than  Africa  and  Asia  together,  when  it  had 
 already  overrun  Africa  nearly  to  Egypt,  and  Europe  as  far  as 
 Etruria.  After  all  the  peoples  had  been  thus  generously 
 restored  to  freedom,  both  the  island  Atlantis  itself  and  those 
 heroic  Athenians  Vv'ere  swallowed  up  by  vast  floods  and  earth- 
 quakes, and  scarcely  a  seed  of  the  human  race  left,  from  which 
 the  existing  Athenians  were  derived,  yet  so  as  to  be  uncon- 
 scious of  their  former  worth  and  glory.  But  for  their  own 
 Egyptian  nationality  and  civilisation,  notwithstanding  that 
 their  country  had  escaped  all  those  mighty  floods  and  con- 
 flagrations, they  modestly  claimed  no  higher  antiquity  than 
 8000  years.    "  ^Oovos  ovhsls,  c5  XoXcop,  aXXa  gov  ts  k'vsKa 
 
 kpO)  Koi  T7]S  TTOXSCOS  VfMMV,  /idXiaTa  Es  TTJS  SsOV  XapLV,  T}  TTjV  TS 
 
 v/jLSTSpav  Kol  Tr]vh^  '^^^  Wpsyjrs  teal  sTralSsvas,  irporspav 
 
 fMSV  TTjV  irap'  v/jLlv  srsai  '^lXlols,  sk  Pt}?  ts  kol  'il<palaTou  to 
 oTTspfia  TrapaXa^ovaav  vfxcov,  t^vBs  Es  varspav.  Trjs  Ss  hOahl 
 hiaKoafJbrjazws  irap  rj/july  h  Toh  lepols  ypa/xfiaaov  6KTa/<ia')(^iXicov 
 sTCov  apcOfios  ysypaTTTao.  JJspl  Brj  tcov  svaKtaxtXia  hrj  ysyo- 
 voTCdV  ttoXlimv   (TOi  Sr^Xcoaco  Sia  ppa')(Ewv  vofjiovs  ts  kol  tcov 
 
GBEEK  AUTHORS  :  PLATO. 
 
 607 
 
 Epycov  avTOLS  o  KaWiarov  £iTpa')(6rj '  To  hs  ciKpifBss  iTEpl  Trdvrcop 
 i(f>£^P]s  siaav6is  Ka'!a  g'^6\i]V,  avra  ra  ypafi/jbara  Xa^ovrss, 
 M^ifLsvr    {Tim.  p.  94,  ed.  Stalbaum,  1838,  E.) 
 
 These  three  sums  of  10,000,  9000,  and  8000  years  are  all 
 easily  explainable  from  the  hieratic  scheme;  and  in  fact  they 
 scarcely  differ  in  the  amount  of  real  years  underlying  them 
 the  one  from  the  other.  The  origin  of  human  society  in  the 
 existing  world  could  not  well  be  carried  back  further  that  to 
 the  date  of  the  Flood ;  but  when  it  suited  the  purpose  of  the 
 speaker  it  might  be  carried  back  as  far  as  to  the  Flood.  Or, 
 it*  it  pleased  him  to  allow  an  interval  for  the  settlement  of 
 different  countries  and  the  growth  of  nations  and  institutions, 
 he  might  name  some  sum  of  years  under  what  would  go  back 
 to  the  Flood.  Now,  if  we  go  back  in  terms  of  the  hieratic 
 scheme  from  B.C.  600,  there  will  be  722  years  up  to  the 
 Cyclical  epoch  of  B.C.  1322,  and  above  that  903  more  years 
 of  kings,  217  of  the  interval  between  the  month-years  and 
 Menes  [341  fictitious  years  inserted  after  the  24  cycles 
 of  month-years],  and  7902  month-years  (equal  to  658y<'^  full 
 years),  before  we  reach  the  Egyptian  date  for  the  Flood.  But 
 these  sums  together  make  a  total  of  10,085  mixed  years, 
 real  and  nominal,  from  B.C.  600,  assumed  to  be  the  date  for 
 Solon,  or  10,285  from  B.C.  399,  which  may  be  assumed  for 
 Plato.  The  second  sum  of  9000  years  is  short  by  only 
 1088  month-years,  or  90j%  full,  of  that  which  would  com- 
 mence from  the  Flood ;  and,  besides,  it  is  introduced  only 
 for  the  sake  of  the  Athenians,  in  order  that  their  origin, 
 without  reaching  quite  back  to  the  Flood,  may  be  somewhat 
 earlier  than  that  of  the  Saites.  Here,  no  doubt,  the  Saite 
 priest  who  gives  to  Athens  the  precedence  for  antiquity,  and 
 introduces  an  antediluvian  anticipation  of  ]Marathon  and  Sala- 
 mis,  and  a  free  and  generous  liberation  of  all  the  peoples  by 
 Athenian  heroism,  can  be  no  other  than  Plato  himself.  And 
 yet  the  additional  thousand  years  given  to  Athens  have  a 
 propriety  in  the  story  beyond  that  of  mere  compliment,  and 
 would  be  in  place,  even  if  its  details  were  all  really  Egyptian. 
 For,  since  it  is  pretended  that  those  floods  and  conflagrations 
 which  had  destroyed  all  records  of  other  countries  had  been 
 only  partial,  and  that  Egypt,  through  her  own  more  advan- 
 
608 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 tageous  position,  had  always  escaped,  this  makes  it  proper 
 that  in  strictness  the  origin  both  of  the  existing  Egyptian 
 society  and  of  all  other  nations,  the  Athenians  included, 
 should  be  kept  below  the  Flood,  the  times  above  being  re- 
 served exclusively  to  the  Gods.  And  so  the  commencements 
 of  Athens  and  Sais  are  put  at  9000  and  8000  nominal  years 
 before  Solon,  and  are  both  below  the  Flood.  Yet,  with  all 
 this,  the  story  of  the  primaeval  Athenians  is  so  told  as  plainly, 
 though  indirectly  and  inconsistently,  to  refer  them  to  the 
 antediluvian  world,  above  or  beyond  the  greatest  of  all  known 
 floods  {yiTzp  TTjv  fizyiaTTjv  (j)6opav  vSacriv),  such  as  might  sub- 
 merge whole  continents.  It  was  convenient,  therefore,  to  put 
 the  story  back  to  such  a  date  that  the  first  thousand  years,  by 
 which  Athens  preceded  Sais,  might  be  taken  in  two  ways ;  so 
 that,  if  taken  simply  as  month-years,  as  they  would  be  in  the 
 hieratic  scale,  standing  next  above  the  8000  or  more  nominal 
 years  reckoned  up  from  B.C.  600,  they  might  merely  indicate 
 an  origin  somewhat  higher  than  that  of  Sais,  but  still  post- 
 diluvian ;  but,  if  taken  to  be  full  years,  irrespectively  of  the 
 8000  previously  reckoned  up  according  to  the  hieratic 
 scheme,  and  equal  to  12,000  of  its  month-years,  they  might 
 carry  back  the  primaeval  Athenians  into  the  midst  of  the 
 antediluvian  w^orld  (1000—174  =  )  826  years  before  "the 
 greatest  of  all  preceding  deluges,"  which  then  will  be  under- 
 stood to  have  submerged  both  Attica  and  Atlantis,  and,  if  the 
 truth  were  told,  even  Egypt  itself. 
 
 The  lower  sum  of  8000  years,  assigned  by  the  Saite  priest 
 for  the  antiquity  of  the  existing  institutions  and  civilisation 
 of  his  own  city  and  of  Egypt,  would  go  back  to  within  2085 
 month- years  or  173^^^  full  years  of  the  Flood.  And  though 
 this  is  a  higher  date  than  is  likely  to  have  any  true  historical 
 meaning,  and  in  some  of  the  Egyptian  schemes  the  Gods 
 ("  living  together  with  men'',  according  to  Herodotus),  that  is, 
 the  surviving  antediluvians,  are  brought  down  much  lower, 
 the  whole  space  between  the  Flood  and  Menes  seems  to  have 
 been  assignable  at  will  either  to  deities  or  to  men.  When 
 human  society  was  most  thought  of,  irrespectively  of  any 
 succession  of  kino-s,  its  orio^in  mis^ht  be  carried  back  as  hi^h 
 as  the  epoch  of  the  Flood,  or  as  little  short  of  it  as  any  one 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  ARISTOTLE. 
 
 609 
 
 pleased.  When  kings  only  were  thought  of,  Gods  might  be 
 brought  down  as  rulers  as  low  as  to  the  end  of  the  first  2922 
 [or  35,064]  years,  and  Demigods  217  years  later.  These 
 however  were  the  extreme  limits ;  and  neither  could  ordinary 
 men  be  carried  up  above  the  Flood,  nor  could  terrestrial 
 Gods  be  brought  down  below  the  2922nd  year  of  the  world, 
 nor  Demigods  below  Menes. 
 
 ARISTOTLE,  ALEXANDER  THE  GREAT,  AND  DIC^ARCHUS. 
 
 Aristotle  in  his  Politics  (lib.  vii.  c.  9),  speaking  of  the 
 division  of  the  people  into  castes  ascribed  to  Sesostris,  says 
 that  Sesostris  reigned  very  long  before  Minos.  'xcopiafjuhs 
 6  Kara  '^ivos  rod  itoXltlkov  ifKr^Bovs       Alyvirrov '  ttoXv  yap 
 
 VTTSpTslvSt    T0L9    ')(p6vOLS    TTJV    M/vft)    ^aaCkSLaV    Tj  '^S(T(£KTTpLOS. 
 
 But  Minos  was  put  about  200  years  before  Troy,  which  is 
 either  quite  as  high  or  nearly  as  high  as  Herodotus's  date  for 
 Sesostris.  Aristotle  therefore,  it  is  clear,  did  not  follow 
 Herodotus,  but  distinguished  rightly  a  Sesostris  very  much 
 earlier  than  either  Kameses  III.  or  Kameses  II. ;  and  though 
 he  does  not  specify  exactly  Iww  much  earlier  he  understood 
 him  to  be  than  the  Sesostris  of  Herodotus,  this  also  will 
 appear  a  little  below,  when  we  come  to  consider  a  similar 
 statement  of  his  scholar  Dic^earchus.  Eudoxus  very  probably 
 was  the  source  of  information  to  them  both. 
 
 Whether  the  knowledge  of  that  reckoning  of  "48,863 
 years  to  Alexander's  entry  into  Egypt"  which  has  been  ex- 
 plained above  (pp.  20,  21)  was  really  derived  from  Aristo- 
 tle, or  rather  from  some  other  source  later  than  B.C.  305, 
 the  latter  part  of  this  sum,  viz.  (3139  +  1881  +  13  =  )  5033 
 years,  is  simply  the  true  and  chronological  reckoning  of 
 human  time,  and  equal  to  (2922  x  12  =  )  35,064  +  [341  +] 
 217  +  903  +  978  +  13  =  37,516  nominal  years  in  the  hieratic 
 scheme.  And  as  it  coincides  (all  but  a  few  months  cut  oW 
 at  top  to  make  it  begin  with  the  Egyptian  movable  year) 
 with  the  reckoning  of  the  Septuagint  and  Josephus  har- 
 monised, it  would  be  easy  to  divide  it  at  the  epoch  of  the 
 Flood  by  the  help  of  this  reckoning,  even  if  the  hieratic 
 scheme  had  not  contained  within  itself,  as  it  does,  an 
 indication  of  the  point  at  which  this  division  is  to  be  made. 
 
 R  R 
 
610 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 And  when  It  is  so  divided  at  the  point  of  the  Flood,  there 
 being  before  the  Flood  2263  Egyptian  years  and  6  months, 
 and  below  the  Flood  (658  years  and  6  months  +  217  + 
 1881  + 13  =  )  2769  years  and  6  months  to  Alexander,  which 
 in  terms  of  the  hieratic  scheme  are  27,162  month-years 
 before  the  Flood,  and  (7902  [+ 341]  +  217  +  903  +  978  +  13 
 =  )  10^354  nominal  years  after  it,  this  division  throws  light 
 both  on  those  10,000,  9,000,  and  8,000  years  which  are 
 implied  in  the  Timceus  of  Plato  to  have  passed  since  the 
 last  and  greatest  of  all  floods  had  submerged  Atlantis,  and 
 upon  any  other  passages  in  which  later  Greek  or  Latin 
 writers  make  an  epoch  of  the  most  ancient  and  greatest  of 
 all  floods,  whether  called  Ogygian,  or  by  any  other  name. 
 So  Censorinus  [De  Die  Natali,  c.  2)  says  that  Varro,  who 
 wrote  about  B.C.  70,  divided  all  [human]  time  into  three 
 parts,  reckoning  the  first  to  extend  down  to  the  most  ancient 
 Flood,  concerning  which  period  absolutely  nothing  was  known; 
 the  second  from  the  Flood  to  the  first  Olympiad,  which 
 he  called  the  mythological  period;  and  lastly,  that  from  the 
 first  Olympiad  downwards,  which  was  historical  These 
 three  divisions,  mutatis  mutandis,  answer  exactly  to  those 
 of  the  Egyptians;  only  the  epoch  of  the  first  period  was 
 merely  indicated  by  them,  the  Flood  Itself  being  by  no 
 means  named;  and  the  commencement  of  the  historical 
 period  would  be  set  by  them  much  higher  than  the  first 
 Olympiad,  viz.  at  the  foundation  of  their  monarchy  by 
 Menes.  "  Varro  tria  discrimina  temporum  esse  ponit, 
 primum  ab  hominum  principio  ad  cataclysmum  priorem, 
 quod  propter  ignorantlam  temporum  vocatur  ahjfkov,  secun- 
 dum a  cataclysmo  priore  ad  Olympladem  primam,  quod, 
 quia  in  eo  multa  fabulosa  referuntur,  fivOtKov  nominatur; 
 tertlum  a  prima  Olymplade  ad  nos,  quod  dicitur  laropLKov, 
 quia  res  in  eo  gestae  veris  historiis  continentur."  But  from 
 what  source  Yarro  derived  this  method  of  division  is 
 uncertain.  The  same  Egyptian  division  with  which  this  is 
 parallel,  and  from  which  it  is  ultimately  derived,  will  cast 
 light  also  on  other  reckonings  of  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
 Great,  similar  to  those  of  Plato  in  the  Timceus,  which  will 
 be  mentioned  as  in  due  order  immediately  below. 
 
ALEXANDER  THE  GREAT. 
 
 611 
 
 For  Athenagoras,  Cyprian,  Minucius  Felix,  and  Augus- 
 tine, as  if  from  some  common  source,  mention  a  long  letter 
 written  from  Egypt  by  Alexander  the  Great  to  his  mother 
 Olympias,  which,  if  one  puts  together  a  few  additional 
 expressions  of  the  three  earlier  writers  with  those  of  St. 
 Augustine,  must  have  contained,  besides  other  details,  the 
 following: — Alexander  wrote  her  word  that  he  had  held  a 
 conversation  with  a  certain  priest,  one  of  the  chief  priests,  or 
 the  chief  priest  of  the  Egyptians,  whose  name  in  Greek  was 
 Leo :  that  he  had  forced  him,  by  the  fear  of  his  power,  to 
 reveal  the  secret  that  the  gods  were  originally  men;  and 
 that  their  worship  and  sacrifices  had  originated  in  the  honour 
 paid  to  the  memory  of  ancestors  and  kings.  **Hoc  ita 
 Alexander  magnus  insigni  volumine  ad  matrem  suam  scribit, 
 metu  suae  potestatis  proditum  sibi  de  Diis  hominibus  a 
 sacerdote  secretum,  quod  major um  et  regum  memoria  servata 
 sit,  inde  colendi  et  sacrificandi  ritus  inoleverit."  (^Cyprian, 
 De  Idol.  VaniL,  iii.)  They  said,  it  seems,  that  certain  powers 
 and  elements  of  nature,  as  fire  or  ether,  earth,  the  sun,  and 
 the  moon  (Phthah,  Mout,  Ra,  &c.),  were  [originally  and 
 properly]  gods,  but  that  all  the  rest  were  originally  mortal 
 men.  "  Kal  oVt  fxkv  avOpoiiroL  SrjXovai  Kal  AlyvTrrlcoV  ol 
 XoyidoTarot,  ot  Osovs  Xsyovrss  aWspa,  yrjv,  rfKiov,  crz\rjvr]v,  tovs 
 aWovs  avOpdiiTovs  Ovtjtovs  vofil^ovat,  koI  ispa  rovs  rdcpovs 
 auTWf^."  {Athenag.  Oxon.  1706,  p.  111.)  The  priest  who  con- 
 versed with  Alexander  "  named  Vulcan  (that  is,  Phthah) 
 as  the  first  of  the  gods,  and  next  after  him  he  placed  the 
 generation  of  Jupiter,"  that  is,  of  Ammon-Ra.  (^Minucius 
 Felix,  c.  xxi.)  St.  Cyprian,  as  a  Christian,  asks,  "  if  gods  in 
 remote  times  were  thus  born  and  died,  why  should  not  gods 
 be  equally  born  now  ?"  So,  too,  Alexander  himself  seems 
 to  have  reasoned:  and  to  this  his  conversation  with  the 
 priest  may  probably  be  traced  his  journey  to  the  oracle  of 
 the  Oasis,  and  his  claim  or  acceptance  of  divine  honours,  with 
 the  title  of  Son  of  Ammon.  What  precise  genealogy  of 
 those  gods  who  were  confessed  to  be  of  human  origin  the 
 priest  made  out,  or  whether  he  told  Alexander  any  thing  of 
 their  reigns,  and  the  spaces  of  time  which  they  covered,  is 
 not  mentioned.    Only  it  is  added  by  St.  Augustine  that, 
 
 R  R  2 
 
612 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 after  confessing  even  the  greater  gods  to  have  been  men,  the 
 priest,  as  if  alarmed  at  what  he  had  done,  as  one  who  had 
 revealed  the  mysteries,  cautioned  and  begged  Alexander 
 that,  if  he  chose  to  write  an  account  of  this  conversation  to 
 his  mother,  he  would  not  fail  to  desire  her  to  burn  the  letter 
 as  soon  as  she  had  read  it.  "  In  eo  genere  sunt  etiam  iUa 
 (ut  aliquid  de  Numa  mitius  suspicemur)  quae  Alexander 
 Macedo  scribit  ad  matrem,  sibi  a  magno  antistite  sacrorum 
 Egyptiorum  quodam  Leone  patefactum,  ubi  non  Picus  et 
 Faunus,  et  -^neas  et  Komulus,  vel  etiam  Hercules  et 
 Esculapius,  et  Liber  Semele  natus,  et  Tyndaridas  fratres, 
 et  si  quos  alios  ex  mortalibus  pro  diis  habent,  sed  ipsi  etiam 
 majorum  gentium  Dii,  quos  Cicero  in  Tusculanis  tacitis 
 nominibus  videtur  attingere,  Jupiter,  Juno,  Saturnus,  Vul- 
 canus,  Yesta,  et  alii  plurimi,  quos  Varro  conatur  ad  mundi 
 partes  sive  elementa  transferre,  homines  fuisse  produntur. 
 Timens  enim  et  ille  quasi  revelata  mysteria,  petens  admonet 
 Alexandrum  ut,  cum  ea  matri  conscripta  insinuaverit,  flammis 
 juberet  concremari."    {De  Civit,  Dei,  lib.  viii.  c.  v.) 
 
 Then,  passing  to  such  history  as  was  professedly  human, 
 he  informed  Olympias  that  the  priest  (just  like  Plato's  Saite 
 priest  to  Solon)  "  had  professed  to  have  records  in  their  sacred 
 books  of  the  history  [not  only  of  Egypt  itself,  but  also]  of 
 other  kingdoms  and  peoples  known  to  the  Greeks:  among 
 which  in  Alexander's  letter  the  empire  of  the  Assyrians  was 
 made  to  have  lasted  above  5000  years,  whereas,  according 
 to  Greek  history,  it  lasted  about  1300  years  only  from  the 
 reign  of  Belus  himself,  whom  the  Egyptian  priest  also  named 
 as  its  first  king.  And  to  the  dynasties  of  the  Persians  and 
 the  Macedonians,  down  to  Alexander  himself  to  whom  he 
 was  speaking,  he  assigned  above  8000  years,  whereas,"  (con- 
 tinues St.  Augustine,)  "  according  to  the  Greeks  the  years  of 
 the  Macedonians  down  to  the  death  of  Alexander  are  485 ; 
 and  those  of  the  Persians  down  to  the  victory  of  Alexander, 
 which  ended  their  empire,  are  computed  to  have  been  233. 
 These  numbers,  then,  are  vastly  below  those  assigned  by  the 
 Egyptians ;  nor  would  they  come  up  to  them,  even  though  we 
 were  to  treble  them,  going  upon  the  assertion  of  some"  (e.  g. 
 Diodorus),  "that  the  Egyptians  once  had  a  short  year  consist- 
 
ALEXANDER  THE  GREAT. 
 
 613 
 
 ing  of  only  four  months ;  so  that  the  full  and  true  year,  which 
 they  now  have  in  common  with  us,  contained  three  of  their 
 older  years.  But  not  even  so  can  the  Greek  reckoning  of  the 
 duration  of  the  empires  be  made  to  agree."  ^^Fallunt  eos 
 etiam  quaidam  mendacissimae  litterce,  quas  perhibent  in  his- 
 toria  temporum  multa  annorum  millia  continere,  cum  ex 
 litteris  sacris  ab  institutione  hominis  nondum  completa 
 annorum  sex  millia  computemus.  Unde,  ne  multa  disputem 
 quemadmodum  illarum  litterarum  in  quibus  longe  plura 
 annorum  millia  referuntur  vanitas  refellatur,  et  nuUa  in  illis 
 rei  hujus  idonea  reperiatur  auctoritas,  ilia  epistola  Alexandri 
 magni  ad  Olympiadem  matrem  suam  quam  scripsit,  narra- 
 tionem  cujusdam  ^gyptii  sacerdotis  insinuans,  quam  protulit 
 ex  litteris  quce  sacrcB  apud  illos  haherentur,  continentem  regna 
 quae  Grteca  quoque  novit  historia :  in  quibus  regnum  Assyrio- 
 rum  in  eadem  epistola  Alexandri  quinque  millia  excedit 
 annorum;  in  Grjeca  vero  historia  mille  ferme  et  trecentos 
 habet  ab  ipsius  Beli  principatu,  quem  regem  et  ille  ^gyptius 
 in  ejusdem  regni  ponit  exordio.  Persarum  autem  et  Mace- 
 donum  imperium  usque  ad  ipsum  Alexandrum  cui  loquebatur 
 plus  quam  octo  annorum  millia  ille  constituit;  cum  apud 
 Graecos  Macedonum  usque  ad  mortem  Alexandri  quadrin- 
 genti  octoginta  quinque  reperiantur ;  Persarum  vero,  donee 
 ipsius  Alexandri  victoria  finiretur,  ducenti  et  triginta  tres 
 computentur.  Longe  itaque  hi  numeri  annorum  illis  ^gyp- 
 tiis  sunt  minor es,  nec  eis,  etiamsi  ter  tantum  computaretur, 
 aequarentur.  Perhibentur  enim  ^gyptii  quondam  tarn 
 breves  annos  habuisse  ut  quaternis  mensibus  finirentur: 
 unde  annus  plenior  et  verior,  qualis  nunc  et  nobis  et  iUis 
 est,  tres  eorum  annos  complectebatur  antiques.  Sed  ne  sic 
 quidem,  ut  dixi,  Graeca  ^gyptite  numero  temporum 
 concordat  historia."    {^De  Civit.  Dei,  lib.  xii.  c.  x.) 
 
 It  is  probable  that  in  this  case  also  the  true  meaning  of 
 the  Egyptian  priest  w^as  merely  that  the  origin  of  the 
 Macedonians  and  Persians,  (who  are  joined  together  like 
 two  consecutive  dynasties  with  one  sum  of  years,  while  the 
 Assyrian  empire  has  a  separate  sum  of  its  own,)  like  the 
 origin  of  the  Egyptians  themselves,  might  be  carried  back  in 
 terms  of  their  reckoning  above  8000  nominal  years ;  so  that 
 
 E  R  3 
 
614 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 the  8000  named  for  them  to  Alexander  were  identical,  or 
 very  nearly  identical,  with  the  8000  named  for  the  Egyp- 
 tians themselves  to  Solon  in  the  Timceus  of  Plato.  It  is  true 
 that  the  account  is  given  as  if  the  priest  had  jested  with 
 Alexander :  and  it  is  likely  enough  that  he  amused  himself, 
 as  was  their  fashion,  by  speaking  ambiguously,  even  while 
 explaining  or  giving  a  hint  of  the  real  nature  of  the  vast 
 Egyptian  periods,  and  a  key  for  their  reduction ;  since  the 
 sum  of  the  years  of  the  Macedonian  and  Persian  kings 
 together,  viz.  (485  +  233  =  )  718,  if  multiplied  by  12,  would 
 produce  8616,  or  "above  8000"  month-years.  But  if  this 
 was  intended,  it  was  only  a  fancy  of  the  moment ;  and  the 
 sum  of  8000  nominal  years  so  obtained  had  no  connection 
 with  any  native  Egyptian  scheme.  For  in  the  Egyptian 
 schemes  the  artifice  of  multiplying  by  12  is  not  of  variable 
 application,  as  if  any  years  chosen  at  will  might  be  so 
 multiplied;  but  it  was  applied  only  to  the  first  2922  years 
 of  human  time,  658^^^  of  which,  multipliable  into  7902  month- 
 years,  were  beloAV  the  Flood.  And  the  same  method  will 
 not  suit  at  all  for  the  sum  of  5000  years  given  to  the 
 Assyrian  empire  ;  since  if  we  multiply  by  12  the  1300  years 
 assigned  to  it  by  Herodotus,  they  produce  not  5000  only, 
 but  15,600  month-years;  or  if  we  divide  5000  by  12  we 
 obtain  416y\  full  years  only  for  the  duration  of  the  Assyrian 
 empire ;  and  this  is  a  number  which  seems  to  have  no  mean- 
 ing nor  propriety.  But  in  truth,  if  we  reckon  up  5000 
 years  in  terms  of  the  Egyptian  hieratic  scheme  from  B.C. 
 538,  when  Cyrus  took  Babylon  (and  the  Babylonian  and 
 Assyrian  empires  are  probably  here  spoken  of  as  one),  we 
 shall  find  the  accession  of  Belus  to  be  placed  at  some 
 point  more  than  784  +  903  +  217  [  +  341]  +  2755  month-years 
 (reducible  to  22 9^^  full)  making  in  all,  without  the  341  ficti- 
 tious years,  2133  full  years  above  B.C.  538,  that  is,  more  than 
 (538  +  2133  =  2670  —  2224  =)  446  years  above  Menes, 
 and  only  429  below  the  Flood.  Or  if  the  5000  years  were 
 brought  down  to  the  time  of  Alexander,  which  is  possible, 
 though  that  was  (538  —  332  =  )  205  years  below  the  end  of 
 the  Babylonian  empire,  the  accession  of  Belus  would  be 
 placed -^2^-,  that  is,  17  years  lower,  429  only  above  Menes. 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  DIC^ARCHUS. 
 
 615 
 
 Or  it  might  be  calculated  in  another  way,  if  one  supposes  the 
 Egyptians  to  reckon  first  from  the  date  of  the  capture  of 
 Babylon,  in  B.C.  538,  up  to  Menes,  which  according  to  the 
 hieratic  scheme,  would  be  (784  +  3750  =  )  4534  nominal  years, 
 and  then  to  prefix  as  many  years  as  he  calculated  to  have  really 
 intervened  between  the  accession  of  Menes  in  Egypt  and  that 
 of  Belus  at  Babylon  or  Xineveh :  and  these  it  seems  would 
 be  more  than  466,  which,  if  full  years,  like  all  the  other  years 
 of  the  kings,  are  only  40  more  than  were  obtained  by  the 
 other  method.  Or,  if  the  5000  years  of  the  Assyrians  were 
 brought  down  to  Alexander,  the  accession  of  Belus  might  be 
 set  only  (466  —  205  =  )  261  years  above  Menes,  and  (658  + 
 217  =  875—261  =  )  614  years  below  the  Flood. 
 
 Dicaearchus  of  Messene  was  "  a  hearer  of  Aristotle,  contem- 
 porary," according  to  Suidas,  "  with  Alexander  the  Great,  or 
 somewhat  later,  so  that  he  may  be  reckoned  to  have  flourished 
 from  Olymp.  cxi."  (that  is,  from  about  B.C.  336).  It  may, 
 therefore,  safely  be  assumed  that  he  wrote  at  the  latest 
 before  B.C.  305 ;  before,  that  is,  either  the  author  of  the  Old 
 Chronicle  or  Manetho.  He  is  cited  in  the  Scholia  upon  the 
 Argonautics  of  Apollonius  Bhodius  as  having  written  in  the 
 first  book  of  his  work,  Yizpi  B/ou  EWaSos',  that  Sesonchosis 
 [meaning  Sesostris]  reigned  after  Isis  and  Horus,  so  that 
 there  were  from  him  [his  accession]  to  [that  of]  Nilus  2500 
 years,  and  from  that  of  Xilus  to  the  first  Olympiad  436, 
 making  a  total  to  the  first  Olympiad  of  2936  years."  The 
 Scholiast  himself  is  commenting  upon  some  lines  of  Apollo- 
 nius in  which  it  is  said  that  in  very  ancient  times  —  so  ancient 
 that  some  of  the  stars  had  not  yet  appeared,  nor  were  the 
 Danai  known,  but  only  the  Arcadians,  who  are  older  than 
 the  moon,  dwelt  in  their  mountains,  feeding  on  acorns  —  a 
 certain  king,  going  forth  from  Aeria,  overran  with  his  army 
 all  Asia  and  Europe,  and  left  in  divers  places  colonies,  from 
 one  of  which  are  descended  the  Colchians.  The  foUowino: 
 are  extracts  from  the  Scholia : 
 
 Lib.  iv.  V.  272.  ""Ei^^gz/  hrj  TLva\  ^£a6y')(wais,  Ar/virrov 
 Trdarjs  ^aaCkzvs,  jMsra  ^Qpov  rbv  "locBos  koX  'Oai'piBos  iraioa, 
 TTjv  fisv  'Aalav  opfMrjaas  iraaav  KaT^aTpE^^raTO,  ofjuoicos  hs  koI  to. 
 ifKeuna  ^vpcoirr^s,    ' AKpt^sa-TSpov  Bs  sari  tcl  irspl  avrov  irapa 
 
 B  R  4 
 
616 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 'HpoBorap.  ^SOTTO/JLTTOS  8s  sv  rpiTO)  ^saooarpLv  avrbv  koXsI  .  .  . 
 ^7]al  8s  AiKaiap'x^os  sv  Bsvrspq)  'FXKtjvckov  Btou  Kal  rovro 
 ^saoy^^cocTLBt  /jbSfjLsXrjKsvat '  Kal  vofiovs  avrbv  MaOai  Xejsl,  wars 
 fjL7}8iva  KaraXiTTslv  rrjv  irarpcpav  rs^vr}V  .  .  .  Kal  rrpoirov  (fiaavv 
 avrbv  svprjKsvat  lttttcov  avOpcoTTOv  sm^aLVSLV,  01  8s  ravra  sis 
 '^D.pov  dvaipspovaLV,^^  And  on  V.  276  :  AiKalap^os  sv  Trpcoro) 
 fJisra  rbv  "laiBos  Kal  ^OaipiBos  '^ilpov  ^aaiXsa  ysyovsvau 
 %SG-6y)(co(nv  XsysL*  Mars  ylyvsaOau  drrb  rrjs  '^scroy^^^MatBos 
 ^aaCksias  p^sy^pi  rrjs  ^slXov  srrj  8io-^tXta  <^',  aTrb  Bs  rrjs  NetXov 
 ^aaiXsias  /i^s')(^pi'  Trjs  TTpcorrjs  ^OXv/jLTTidBos  srrj  uXr,  d)S  slvaL  ra 
 irdvra  ofiov  srrj  Bccr'^LXLa  svvaKoaLa  Xf'."  (^Apollon.  Rhod.  Ar- 
 gon,    Ed.  Brunckh,  Lips.  1813,  vol.  ii.  p.  588.) 
 
 Apollonius  himself  was  in  part  contemporary  with  Erato- 
 sthenes, whom  he  succeeded  at  Alexandria  as  Librarian,  so  that 
 he  might  have  been  expected  to  take  his  notions  respecting 
 the  time  of  Sesostris  either  from  Manetho's  AlyvTrriaKa  or 
 from  the  Theban  list  of  Eratosthenes;  but  his  language 
 seems  to  carry  him  up  much  higher,  and  to  agree  rather  with 
 that  of  Dicsearchus,  while  in  the  details  about  Colchis  he 
 evidently  follows  Herodotus.    That  Theopompus  of  Chios, 
 who  flourished  about  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  should 
 name  the  Egyptian  conqueror  "  Sesostris  "  is  a  matter  of 
 course,  as  he  wrote  an  epitome  of  Herodotus;  but  in  the 
 short  notices  cited  by  the  scholiast  from  Diceearchus  there 
 are  several  particulars  worthy  of  attention :  First,  that  like 
 Aristotle  he  carries  back  the  king  who  instituted  castes  far 
 above  the  date  of  Herodotus,  and  specifies  distinctly  the 
 date  which  he  has  in  his  mind,  which  Aristotle  had  omitted 
 to  do :  Secondly,  that  in  reckoning  upwards  from  the  first 
 Olympiad  to  that  Egyptian  date  which  he  means  to  synchro- 
 nise with  Troy  he  names  not  the  "Proteus"  of  Herodotus 
 and  Homer,  but    Nilus''  putting  him  at  B.C.  (776 +  436 c:::) 
 1212;  so  that  "  Thouoris  or   Nilus,"  who  is  (really)  at 
 the  same  date  at  the  end  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIX  with  a 
 note  that  "he  is  the  Polyhus  of  Homer,"  was  no  creation  of 
 Manetho,  but  was  already  in  possession  of  his  name  and 
 place  in  the  list  before  Manetho  wrote.     Thirdly^  it  is 
 remarkable  that  Dicsearchus  varies  the  name  of  Sesostris, 
 writing  it  Sesonchosis,  as  if  Shishonk  I.  (^scroyxi^s),  the  latest 
 Egyptian  conqueror,  had  since  Herodotus's  time  been  aggre- 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  DIC^ARCHUS. 
 
 617 
 
 gated  to  the  group  of  kings  who  even  before  had  been  fused 
 together  into  one  fabulous  personage  in  Sesostris.  In  this,  in- 
 deed, there  would  be  nothing  very  strange;  but  what  is  curious 
 and  important  is  this,  that  the  same  peculiarity  is  repeated 
 hy  Manetho,  who  thus  incautiously  betrays  his  own  artifices. 
 For  Dicaearchus,  or  the  source  which  Dicaearchus  followed, 
 varied  only  the  name  of  the  Herodotean  Sesostris,  but 
 retained  the  adjuncts  of  his  person  and  history  unchanged, 
 whether  they  belonged  in  truth  to  the  earlier  or  the  later 
 Sesostris :  and  the  years  assigned  by  him  fix,  as  we  shall  see, 
 the  Sesonchosis- Sesostris  of  Dicaearchus  to  be  no  other  than 
 Sesortasen  I.,  the  first  conqueror  of  Nubia,  and  the  successor 
 of  Moeris,  that  is,  of  Papa  Maire.  Manetho,  for  reasons  of 
 his  own,  thought  proper  to  shift  the  compound  story  of 
 Sesostris  from  Sesortasen  I.  to  Sesortasen  III.,  to  whom  he 
 transfers  in  a  lump  all  the  details  of  Herodotus,  and  the 
 name  itself,  Sesostris.  But  at  the  same  time  he  retains 
 also  in  connection  ivith  Sesortasen  I.  that  peculiar  name 
 Sesonchosis  which  had  already  been  connected  with  the 
 history  of  Sesostris  by  Dicaearchus,  or  by  those  whom  he 
 followed. 
 
 Whatever  were  the  sources  of  the  names  Nilus  and  Seson- 
 chosis, which  are  not  from  Herodotus  on  the  one  hand,  nor, 
 as  we  may  safely  assert,  from  the  hieratic  lists  on  the  other, 
 the  sum  of  years  reckoned  by  Dicaearchus  between  his  Seson- 
 chosis or  Sesostris  and  Nilus  is  no  less  peculiar  and  remark- 
 able ;  and  if  we  had  only  the  later  schemes  of  Manetho  and 
 Ptolemy  to  examine  it  by,  it  would  be  altogether  unintelli- 
 gible. For  if  one  reckons  up  from  Nilus  and  from  B.C.  1212 
 in  the  scheme  of  Manetho  2500  years,  they  take  us  for  the 
 accession  of  Sesostris  or  Sesonchosis  to  the  191st  year  after 
 Menes,  a  date  which  has  no  meaning :  while  in  the  scheme  of 
 Ptolemy  of  Mendes  his  accession  will  be  found  in  the  46th 
 year  of  Ptolemy's  Dyn.  X,  the  second  of  his  two  anonymous 
 dynasties  of  Heracleopolites :  and  this  date  is  even  still  more 
 unmeaning  than  the  former ;  not  to  mention  that  both 
 Manetho  and  Ptolemy  expressly  ascribe  all  the  exploits  and 
 adjuncts  of  the  Sesonchosis  of  Dicaearchus  to  Sesortasen 
 III.,  whom  they  name  Sesostris,  and  whom  they  put  at  such 
 dates  as  to  differ  widely  both  from  Dicaearchus  and  from  one 
 
618 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 another.  But  if  we  reckon  up  the  2500  years  according  to 
 the  hieratic  list,  as  it  has  been  made  out  above,  it  will  be 
 easy  to  see  the  meaning  of  Dicaiarchus's  date,  though  if  he 
 confused  Sesostris  with  Menes,  and  supposed  him  to  have 
 been  the  first  king  who  ever  reigned  after  Horus,  he  mis- 
 understood his  informants,  or  his  source,  the  true  meaning 
 being  only  that  he  was  like  Horus  or  Osiris  in  his  victories 
 and  in  going  over  the  earth,  and  was  the  first  and  greatest 
 conqueror  after  Horus  :  just  as  it  is  noted  in  the  lists  of  Afri- 
 canus  concerning  Sesortasen  III.,  whom  Manetho  and  Pto- 
 lemy make  into  Sesostris,  coy  koX  vtto  AlyvTrriajv  fjuzra  "Ocrt- 
 pLv  TrpcoTov  vofJiLcrOrjvaL.^^  ("  So  that  he  was  accounted  by  the 
 Egyptians  as  first  after  Osiris.")  Reckoning  up  then  from 
 B.C.  1212  in  the  hieratic  scale  110  years  to  the  cyclical  epoch 
 of  B.C.  1322,  and  thence  78  of  Dyn.  XIX +  348  of  Dyn. 
 XVIII +  260  of  the  Shepherds  +  71  of  the  Heracleopolites 
 +  536  of  the  Nubians +  213  of  the  Diospolites  of  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XV  (XII  of  Ptolemy ;  the  2nd  king  of  the  eight  of 
 which  is  the  very  Sesonchosis  whom  we  are  seeking),  +  243 
 +  355  +  331  +  22,  which  make  in  all  2567  years,  we  arrive  at 
 the  death  of  Papa  Maire  the  4th  king  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII 
 (VI  of  Ptolemy),  the  Moeris  of  Herodotus,  and  the  immediate 
 predecessor,  as  suzerain,  of  the  first  Sesostris,  the  first  con- 
 queror of  Nubia,  who  was  in  truth  not  Sesortasen  III.  but 
 Sesortasen  I.  That  the  priests  should  prefer  to  reckon  up  in  the 
 lists  to  the  death  of  Moeris  the  predecessor  of  Sesostris,  rather 
 than  to  the  accession  of  Sesostris  himself,  is  intelligible  enougli, 
 both  because  the  former  method  gave  a  higher  apparent  anti- 
 quity by  nearly  900  years,  and  also  because  it  was  from  the 
 death  of  Moeris  the  predecessor  of  Sesostris  that  Herodotus 
 had  been  taught  to  reckon  900  years,  when  it  was  an  object  to 
 magnify  the  antiquity  above  the  latest,  as  it  was  now  to  magnify 
 the  antiquity  below  the  earliest  Sesostris.  The  only  other  point 
 to  be  noticed  is  this,  that  from  the  reckoning  preserved  by 
 Dicaearchus  it  would  seem  as  if  in  our  reconstruction  of  the 
 Turin  papyrus  we  had  made  67  years  too  many  below  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XIII  (VI  of  Ptolemy)  and  consequently  had  allowed  67 
 too  few  above  to  the  Tanites  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  IX  (II  of 
 Ptolemy).  So  that  perhaps  instead  of  giving  to  these  Tanites 
 
GKEEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  619 
 
 only  205  years  of  the  302  given  to  them  by  Manetho,  and 
 331  to  the  18  kings  who  in  the  papyrus  stand  next  after  those 
 of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII,  we  ought  to  have  allowed  in  the 
 former  case  as  many  as  (205  +  67  =  )  272  years  (cutting  off 
 only  30),  and  in  the  latter  no  more  than  (331 — 67  =  )  264 
 years.  So  that  the  (9  +  10  =  )  19,  or  (9  +  6  =  )  15  Tanites 
 would  have  had  an  average  of  l^-^j  or  lSj\  years,  and  the  18 
 kings  whom  we  call  conjecturally  Abydenes  would  have  had 
 an  average  of  14^  years.  But  it  has  already  been  remarked 
 above  that  the  number  of  years  to  be  allowed  to  these  two 
 groups  is  open,  within  certain  limits,  to  revision :  and  it  is 
 not  absolutely  necessary  to  make  any  change,  as  the  2500 
 years  of  Dicaearchus  may  possible  be  only  a  round  sum. 
 
 DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 The  last  writer  needing  to  be  treated  at  any  length  is 
 Diodorus  Siculus,  who  was  in  Egypt  in  Olymp.  180  y.  B.C. 
 58,  under  Ptolemy  surnamed  Neop  Awvvaos,  His  Egyp- 
 tian notices  are  valuable  chiefly  for  their  relation  to  those  of 
 Herodotus,  whom  he  has  ever  in  view,  either  simply  copying 
 from  him,  or  attempting  to  correct  his  errors  and  to  fill 
 up  his  omissions.  It  is  true  that  he  speaks  slightingly  of 
 Herodotus,  and  professes  for  himself,  that  instead  of  being 
 content  with  incidental  notices  which  might  drop  from 
 the  priests,  and  preferring  to  write  amusing  fables  to  truth, 
 he  had  diligently  made  out  the  true  contents  of  the  hieratic 
 records,  and  would  lay  the  result  before  his  readers.  For  in 
 Book  I.  of  his  Bibliotheca  he  writes  thus  :  "  'Oaa  fjusv  ovv 
 'HpoSoTOs-  KaL  TLVSS  Tcov  ras  AlyvTTTLOJV  iTpd^SLS  avvra^afisvcov 
 S(7')(shidKa(n,  SKOvalws  irpoKplvavTS^  7r]9  dXrjOsla^  to  irapaho^- 
 oXoyscv  Koi  jivOovs  TrXdrrsLV  '\lrv)(^ayco'yLa9  svsKa,  waprjaofxsv 
 avTCL  rd  irapd  Toi^  Ispsvac  T0I9  Kar  AiyvirTOv  sv  rais 
 dvaypa(l)aL9  ysypa/jL/jLsva,  cfiLkoTL/uLcos  s^rjraKorss  i/cdrjao/jLsOa." 
 But  notwithstanding  this  profession,  which  does  not  refer 
 primarily  to  the  mythology  or  history  (for  Diodorus  has  al- 
 ready completed  his  own  account  of  these  subjects  when  he 
 inserts  it),  but  which  still  is  made  in  such  general  terms  that 
 his  mythology  and  history  cannot  be  excluded,  he  is  very  far 
 from  showing  that  superiority  to  Herodotus  which  he  claims : 
 
620 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 And  if  he  explains  or  corrects  some  statements,  and  omits  here 
 and  there  some  little  details  of  Egyptian  cp^vapla  (as  that  of 
 the  bridge  by  which  Sesostris  and  his  wife  crossed  the  fire), 
 he  repeats  from  his  own  informants  many  worthless  and  fabu- 
 lous statements  in  which  he  was  clearly  imposed  upon,  and 
 which  are  not  at  all  amusing.  He  does  not  mention  any  of 
 those  Greek  writings  on  Egyptian  history  which  nevertheless 
 existed  in  Egypt  when  he  was  there.  But  as  the  priests  with 
 whom  he  conversed  were  probably  some  of  those  who  knew 
 Greek,  and  were  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Herodotus 
 and  Manetho,  and  perhaps  also  of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes  (for  it 
 is  only  on  slender  grounds  that  he  is  commonly  supposed  to 
 have  written  under  Augustus,  and  he  may  have  been  as  old 
 or  older  than  Diodorus),  this  is  to  be  borne  in  mind;  and  in 
 reviewing  the  statements  of  Diodorus  we  must  be  on  the  look 
 out  for  any  indications  which  may  connect  his  sums  of  years 
 with  some  one  or  more  of  those  Egyptian  schemes  which 
 have  been  considered  above. 
 
 As  regards  those  names  of  the  gods  which  the  Egyptians, 
 according  to  Herodotus,  claimed  to  have  first  invented,  the 
 account  given  to  Diodorus  resembles  closely  (in  substance) 
 that  contained  in  the  passages  quoted  by  Eusebius  from 
 Sanchoniathon.  "  The  Egyptians,"  he  writes,  "  say  that  at 
 the  beginning  of  the  world  the  first  men  were  produced  in 
 Egypt,  owing  to  the  happy  temperament  of  that  country 
 and  the  prolific  nature  of  the  Nile.  And  in  this  country  alone 
 the  spontaneous  formation  of  some  small  animals  from  the 
 mud  may  still  be  observed."  Also,  alluding  to  the  distinction 
 between  the  antediluvian  and  the  existing  world,  they  told 
 him  that  "whether  in  the  great  Flood — of  Deucalion — it  were 
 only  the  greater  part  of  all  living  creatures  that  had  been 
 destroyed,  the  inhabitants  of  southern  Egypt,  whei^e  it  never 
 rains,  would  be  those  who  escaped ;  or  if,  as  some  said  was 
 the  case,  the  destruction  of  living  creatures  was  universal, 
 still,  on  this  view  also,  the  earliest  reproduction  of  living 
 creatures  must  be  ascribed  to  the  same  country  of  Egypt 
 which  had  been  the  first  originally  to  produce  them."  The 
 statement  and  reasoning  is  nearly  the  same  as  that  made  by 
 the  Saite  priest  to  Solon  in  the  Timceus  of  Plato. 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  621 
 
 It  being  left  then  uncertain  whether  any  human  inventions, 
 or  even  the  present  races  of  men  and  animals,  have  any  con- 
 nection with  the  world  before  the  Flood,  it  follows  that  what- 
 ever was  told  to  Diodorus  concerning  the  first  institution  of 
 the  names  of  the  gods,  or  concerning  any  deification  of  men, 
 could,  in  consistency,  be  referred  by  him  only  to  the  first  age 
 of  the  existing  world  and  the  existing  Egypt.  But  what  they 
 told  him  was  as  follows : 
 
 That  the  men  who  in  that  old  time  came  into  existence  in 
 Egypt,  "  looking  up  and  around  upon  the  world  and  nature 
 with  awe  and  admiration,  saw  two  original  and  eternal  deities 
 in  the  sun  and  the  moon,  which  they  named  Osiris  and  Isis, 
 meaning  the  Many-Eyed  and  the  Ancient  (the  horns  given 
 to  Isis  being  primarily  from  the  moon,  and  secondarily  from 
 the  cow  which  was  her  emblem) :  that  these  two  deities, 
 the  sun  and  the  moon,  produce  and  maintain  and  order  all 
 things,  in  three  seasons  of  four  months  each  ;  and  from  them 
 are  derived  five  other  elementary  deities ;  two,  viz.  spirit 
 (the  source  of  living  souls)  and  Jire,  from  the  sun  ;  two,  viz. 
 dry  and  moist  matter,  earth  and  water,  that  is,  from  the 
 moon ;  and  lastly  one  other,  which  is  air,  jointly  from  both. 
 And  the  composition  of  the  universe  bears  a  certain  analogy 
 to  that  of  the  parts  of  the  human  body."  Thus  Diodorus  has 
 enumerated  seven  powers  or  elements  of  nature, all  of  which 
 had  from  of  old  their  own  Egyptian  names,  spirit  being 
 Zeus,  who  is  the  father  of  souls  or  lives  {Kneph  ?),  fire  being 
 Hephaestos  (Phthah),  earth  Demeter  {Mout),  water  Oceanus 
 or  Nilus  {Hapi),  and  air  Athene  {Neith).  These  go  over 
 the  earth,  and  appear  in  the  forms  of  sacred  animals,  or  of 
 men,  or  otherwise.  And  these  the  Egyptians  regarded  as 
 primary  eternal  and  celestial  deities." 
 
 "  From  these  had  been  derived  other  terrestrial  [deities] 
 who  were  all  originally  mortal  men,  but  as  common  bene- 
 factors had  been  immortalised :  and  some  of  these  were  once 
 kings  in  Egypt"  [In  fact  the  names  of  some,  not  all,  of  the 
 Egyptian  deities  occur  on  the  monuments  inclosed  in  car- 
 touches, and  with  the  usual  titles  of  kings.]  "  Their  names 
 were  some  of  them  borrowed  from  the  celestial  deities,  but 
 some  were  peculiar."    He  enumerates  of  these  terrestrial 
 
622 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 deities  Helios  {Ra\  Cronus  and  Rhea  (^Seb  and  Nutpe),  Zeus, 
 who  is  by  some  called  Ammon,  also  Here  and  Hephaistos  {Sate 
 and  PhthaK)i  and  Hestia  (  Onka),  and  lastly  Hermes  (  Thoth), 
 And  they  said  that  of  those  who  had  reigned  in  Egypt  the 
 first  was  Helios  {Ra),  so  named  after  the  luminary  which 
 shines  in  heaven.  But  some  of  the  priests  say  that  Hephai- 
 stos (^Phthah)  reigned  first,  owing  to  his  merit  in  having  dis- 
 covered the  use  of  fire."  Thus  here  Ra  or  Phthah,  and 
 elsewhere,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  Cronus  also,  and  Zeus,  and 
 Osiris,  are  identified  with  Adam. 
 
 "Mera  Bs  ravra,'^^  that  is,  after  an  interval,  the  priests 
 passing  in  their  own  minds  from  the  human  Ra,  or  Osiris,  or 
 Phthah,  or  Cronus,  the  first  deified  ancestor  of  men  as 
 originally  produced,  to  the  first  deified  ancestor  of  the  existing 
 world,  when  men  were  reproduced,  —  "afterwards,"  then, 
 
 Cronus  reigned,  who,  having  married  his  sister  Rhea, 
 begat,  according  to  some  my  thologers,  Osiris  and  Isis,  but  as 
 most  said  Zeus  and  Here,  who  for  their  merit  reigned  over 
 the  whole  world.  And  of  these  were  begotten  five  gods,  one 
 on  each  day  of  the  five  epagomence,  their  names  being  Osiris, 
 and  Isis,  and  Typhon,  and  Apollo  {Horus),  and  Aphrodite 
 (Hathor).  And  Osiris  is  in  Greek  Dionysus  (though  it  is 
 difficult,"  as  Diodorus  remarks,  to  fix  him  to  any  one  name, 
 some  calling  him  Ammon,  some  Mars,  and  many  Pan,  &c.), 
 and  for  Isis  the  nearest  rendering  is  Demeter." 
 
 About  the  time  when  the  Nile  mud  first  produced  or 
 reproduced  mankind  (the  time  meant  being  the  epoch  of  the 
 Flood)  the  earth  engendered  those  Titans  and  giants  who 
 warred  upon  the  celestial  gods.  At  this  same  time  there 
 appear  together,  and  as  it  were  upon  the  stage,  a  whole 
 group  of  kindred  deities,  the  chief  of  which  are  the  three 
 brothers  Osiris,  Typhon,  and  Horus  (Cronus  himself  also 
 being  sometimes  still  mentioned,  at  first,  in  conjunction  with 
 Osiris),  their  two  sisters  Isis  and  Nephthys,  or  Isis  and 
 Hathor,  a  kinsman  named  Hercules,  another,  much  honoured 
 in  Egypt,  who  should  be  somewhat  older  than  Hercules, 
 named  Pan,  a  counsellor  named  Thoth,  and,  lastly,  a  younger 
 Horus,  son  of  Osiris  and  Isis,  and  two  other  sons  of  Osiris 
 named  Anubis  and  Macedo.    Mankind,  being  still  recent 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 623 
 
 from  the  mud,  were  quite  barbarous,  ignorant  of  corn,  wine, 
 and  oil,  and  even  devouring  one  another.  Osiris,  as  being 
 the  first  of  the  group  of  deities  at  this  time  dwelling  on  the 
 earth  together  with  men  (oIksovtss  d/jta  tolctl  dvOpcoTrolcrt,  in 
 Herodotus),  having  married  his  sister  Isis,  and  succeeded  to 
 his  father  Cronus  or  Zeus  (the  two  together  being  onlj  a  re- 
 duplication of  Noah,  and  Osiris  himself  being  partly  Noah 
 and  partly  Ham),  reigned  over  Egypt,  and  became  the 
 greatest  as  well  as  the  first  benefactor  of  mankind.  For,  first, 
 he  made  them  leave  off  devouring  one  another,  Isis  (like 
 Aloov,  or  Eve,  of  Sanchoniathon)  having  discovered  the  seeds 
 of  wheat  and  barley,  and  Osiris  having  introduced  their 
 cultivation.  He  had  also  discovered  the  vine  at  Nysa  in 
 Arabia,  where  he  was  bred  up  ;  and  Thoth  discovered  the 
 olive.  So  men  began  to  eat  bread,  and  to  drink  wine  or 
 beer,  and  to  anoint  themselves  with  oil. 
 
 Osiris  founded  Thebes,  "the  most  ancient  of  all  Egyptian 
 cities,  [so  that  here  Diodorus's  informants  are  Thebans,] 
 though  some  say  that  it  was  founded  by  a  king  much  later." 
 This  part  of  the  story  may  have  been  suggested  to  a  Theban 
 imagination  by  the  fact  that  Osiris,  one  of  whose  titles  was 
 the  "Old  in  Heliopolis,"  was  entitled  also  the  "Young  in 
 Thebes."  The  true  meaning  probably  was  merely  this,  that 
 as  Thebes  or  Hermonthis  the  "On  of  the  South"  was  younger 
 than  the  original  On,  that  is,  than  Heliopolis,  so  Osiris  as  a 
 god  in  the  younger  city  was  youthful  compared  with  his 
 antiquity  in  the  elder.  But  it  might  be  argued  that  the  2/outh 
 of  Osiris  must  go  back  to  a  more  remote  antiquity  than  his 
 a^e.  And  so  the  city  which  had  known  him  as  an  infant 
 must  be  the  most  ancient.  The  "much  later  king"  who  is 
 entirely  unhistorical,  is  merely  Osiris  over  again  with  the 
 article  prefixed,  making  Busiris.  But  to  return  to  Diodorus  ; 
 "  Naming  the  city  which  he  had  founded  from  his  father, 
 the  terrestrial  Zeus  or  Ammon,  Diospolis,  Osiris  de- 
 dicated in  it  two  temples,  one  to  the  celestial  or  elementary 
 Zeus,  the  other  to  his  own  father  and  predecessor,  the 
 terrestrial  or  human  Zeus,^^ 
 
 Osiris,  having  appointed  Isis  to  be  regent  in  his  absence, 
 with  Thoth  for  her  minister,  and  Hercules  for  her  Com- 
 
624 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 mander  of  the  Forces,  started  on  a  progress  over  the 
 whole  earth,  taking  with  him  his  brother  Horus,  and  Pan, 
 and  his  two  sons  Anubis  and  Macedo^  the  latter  to  be  left  in 
 Macedonia,  The  Greek  fables  of  the  progress  of  Dionysus, 
 in  which  India  of  course  figures,  are  now  interwoven  with 
 the  story  of  Osiris,  who  introduces  every  where  civilisation 
 among  men,  with  the  cultivation  of  corn,  of  the  olive,  and  of 
 the  vine ;  or  if  any  where  the  climate  did  not  suit  for  wine, 
 he  taught  them  to  make  beer  instead. 
 
 Meantime,  during  his  absence  from  Egypt  (the  story  so 
 going  back  to  the  epoch  of  the  Flood),  the  giants  or  Titans 
 warred  upon  the  celestial  gods  (elsewhere  Diodorus  says 
 upon  Cronus  and  Osiris  "  himself) ;  and  the  Nile  itself  or 
 Oceanus,  the  original  source,  that  is,  of  all  fresh  waters, 
 made  so  destructive  a  deluge,  that  Prometheus,  who  had 
 the  charge  of  it,  in  despair  had  nearly  committed  suicide. 
 But  Hercules  both  aided  the  celestials,  and  dammed  up  the 
 Nile  (which  Osiris  himself  did  afterwards  more  completely 
 at  its  sources  in  Ethiopia). 
 
 Then  follows  the  return  of  Osiris  into  Egypt,  the  trea- 
 chery of  his  brother  Typhon,  who  after  killing  him  divided 
 his  body  into  27  pieces  (there  being  one  for  each  of  his  26 
 fellow-conspirators),  according  to  the  number  of  the  27  Nomes 
 of  Egypt.  Isis  searches  after  and  collects  his  remains  ;  and 
 encloses  each  portion  in  the  representation  of  a  whole  body, 
 so  that  each  Nome  may  have  his  tomb  and  body  entire ; 
 teaching  them  at  the  same  time  to  dedicate  in  each  Nome 
 some  one  animal,  as  a  representative  of  Osiris,  besides  the 
 sacred  bulls  Apis  and  Mnevis,  and  the  cows  of  Isis  herself, 
 which  were  worshipped  alike  by  all. 
 
 Horus,  son  of  Isis,  being  assisted  by  Thoth,  encountered 
 and  slew  Typhon,  so  becoming  the  "  avenger  of  his  father." 
 And  when  he  had  himself  been  slain  by  the  Titans  (a 
 reduplication  of  the  war  against  Cronus  and  Osiris,  the 
 Flood  caused  by  Oceanus,  and  the  murder  by  Typhon),  and 
 his  body  was  found  floating  on  the  waters,  his  mother  Isis, 
 having  discovered  an  elixir  of  immortality,  by  her  charms  or 
 incantations  brought  him  to  life  again.  So  he  reigned  in 
 Egypt  after  his  father's  removal  from  the  earth." 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :    DIODORUS  SICULUS.  625 
 
 It  is  plain  from  the  details  of  this  fable  that  the  actors  in 
 it  are  properly  and  originally  introduced  as  contemporaries, 
 the  time  being  only  one  complete  generation  from  about  the 
 end  of  the  reign  of  Cronus  or  Zeus,  the  father  of  Osiris,  to 
 the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Horus.  So  that  any  distribu- 
 tion of  the  deities  named  into  a  succession  of  reigns  covering 
 a  great  space,  as  if  with  a  number  of  generations,  would  be 
 an  afterthought :  and  the  arrangement  of  particular  reigns 
 in  any  such  series  would  probably  be  more  or  less  variable 
 and  arbitrary.  And  the  time  to  which  the  whole  drama 
 is  referred  is  plainly  one  including  the  Flood  and  the 
 earliest  age  or  ages  of  the  existing  world  after  the  Flood ; 
 just  as  in  the  parallel  mythology  of  Sanchoniathon. 
 
 Indeed,  after  concluding  the  story  of  Osiris  and  Isis, 
 Diodorus  (lib.  i.  c.  xxiv.)  gives  their  epoch  in  terms  of  the 
 hieratic  reckoning  correctly  enough :  for  he  writes  thus  : 
 "  But  from  Osiris  and  Isis  to  the  [Egyptian]  reign  of 
 Alexander  who  founded  Alexandria  they  say  that  there  are 
 above  10,000  years."  And  according  to  the  hieratic  reck- 
 oning there  are  in  fact,  from  the  epoch  of  the  Flood  to  the 
 passage  of  Alexander  into  Asia,  7902  +  [341+]217  +  1881 
 -1-11  =  10,352  nominal  years.  It  is  true  that  he  adds,  but 
 as  some  write  there  are  nearly  23,000,"  as  if  this  latter 
 sum  were  based  upon  some  other  distinct  and  discordant 
 reckoning,  beginning  from  the  same  point  and  terminating 
 at  the  same  point  with  the  10,000.  But  in  truth  the  23,000 
 years  (strictly  23,218)  were  reckoned  from  a  different  and 
 earlier  commencement  of  mankind  than  that  of  Diodorus's 
 human  Osiris,  and  ended  not  at  the  crossing  of  Alexander, 
 but  3944  nominal  years  above  that  first  production  or  repro- 
 duction of  men  from  the  Nile  mud  which  was  the  only 
 epoch  distinctly  apprehended  by  him.  This  is  shown  by 
 another  passage  (in  c.  xxvi.),  in  which  he  mentions  the  same 
 sum  of  23,000  years,  saying  that,  "  the  priests  reckon  from 
 Helios  (Ra)  to  the  crossing  of  Alexander  into  Asia  a 
 round  sum  (^/jbaXLard  ttws)  of  23,000  years."  For  it  is  clear 
 that  "  the  human  Ea,  homonymous  with  the  physical  sun,  " 
 is  in  all  the  Egyptian  schemes  at  the  very  head  of  human 
 time :  and  it  is  equally  certain  that  all  those  schemes  took 
 
 s  s 
 
626 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 account  of  (23,218  +  3944  =  )  27,162  month-years  before 
 coming  to  those  10,352  mixed  years  which  would  reach 
 from  the  epoch  of  the  recommencement  of  mankind  to 
 Alexander. 
 
 But  it  is  not  once  only  that  Diodorus  indicates  the  true 
 Egyptian  reckoning  of  10,000  nominal  years  from  about  the 
 time  of  the  Flood.  In  c.  xxiv.  there  is  another  statement 
 to  the  same  effect,  and  one  much  more  important,  because 
 in  it  the  Flood  itself,  the  group  of  Osirian  deities,  and  the 
 commencement  or  recommencement  of  the  existing  race 
 of  mankind,  are  all  together  distinctly  connected  both  one 
 with  another  and  with  the  date  given.  Diodorus  is  describing 
 how  the  Egyptians  reasoned  against  the  pretensions  of  the 
 Greek  Hercules,  showing  how  little  the  particulars  related  of 
 him  even  by  the  Greeks  themselves  suited  the  age  at  which 
 he  was  put,  only  one  generation  before  Troy.  Since  neither 
 did  the  earth  then  produce  Titans  and  giants,  nor  was  it 
 then  overrun  by  monsters  and  wild  beasts ;  nor  were  man- 
 kind then  so  rude  as  to  have  no  better  weapons  than  clubs ; 
 whereas  these  particulars  "  all  suited  perfectly  the  time  of 
 the  first  production  of  mankind  from  which  the  Egyptians 
 reckon  to  the  first  generation  before  Troy  above  10,000 
 years,  while  from  Troy  there  are  under  1200."  ("Kara 
 rrjv  ^PXV^  fysvsaLV  tcov  dv6pco7rcov '  dir  iKSLVTjs  /jlsv  yap  Trap* 
 AlyvTrTioLS  stt)  KarapiOiJbsladai  ttXslo)  tmv  fjuvpicov,  diro  hs  tmv 
 
 It  is  clear  then  that,  though  the  precise  sum  may  not 
 always  be  mentioned,  but  sometimes  "above  10,000"  years 
 (if  any  of  those  deities  whose  age  contains  the  epoch  of  the 
 Flood  are  spoken  of  as  beginning  to  reign  somewhat  earlier), 
 or  under  10,000  (if  the  commencement  of  any  particular 
 nation  or  city,  or  of  empires  and  nations  generally,  be  spoken 
 of),  the  sum  of  (5613  +  3750  =  )  9363  nominal  years,  which 
 is  found  in  the  hieratic  scheme  between  the  end  of  its  first 
 two  periods  of  (23,218+3944  =)  27,162  marking  the  epoch 
 of  the  Flood,  and  the  cyclical  epoch  of  B.C.  1322,  is  the  main 
 element  in  such  statements  as  those  occurring  in  Plato,  or 
 those  made  to  Alexander  or  to  Diodorus,  respecting  sums  of 
 "  10,000,"  «  above  10,000,"  "  9000,"  and  "  80OO  "  years. 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  0)27 
 
 In  the  statements  of  Herodotus  indeed,  which  make  to 
 Amasis,  that  is,  to  B.C.  525,  15,000  years  from  Osiris,  and 
 17,000  from  Hercules  (though  both  these  deities  are  of  that 
 group  whose  myth  contains  the  epoch  of  the  Flood),  there  is 
 a  difference  of  some  5000  or  6000  years  from  the  parallel 
 statements  of  Diodorus,  who  makes  only  "  above  10,000  " 
 from  the  Egyptian  Hercules  to  the  Greek,  in  B.C.  (1212  + 
 33  =  )  1245,  and  from  Osiris,  seemingly,  less  by  about  1000 
 years;  since  from  Osiris  and  Isis  there  are  ''over  10,000  "  to 
 the  passage  of  Alexander,  near  a  thousand  years  later.  But 
 it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  as  Herodotus  calculated 
 back  nearly  12,000  years  of  kings  from  B.C.  525,  which 
 were  (11,000  —  3750  =  )  8250  too  many,  it  would  be  natural 
 that  the  priests  who  encouraged  him  in  this  exaggeration 
 should  put  back  somewhat  the  dates  for  the  later  deities 
 Hercules  and  Osiris,  so  as  still  to  leave  room  between  them 
 and  the  kings  for  Horus,  and  perhaps  also  for  Demigods. 
 And  in  like  manner  any  priest  conversing  with  Diodorus 
 who  was  cognisant  of  the  reckoning  of  Herodotus,  and  not 
 inclined  to  disturb  the  331  kings  in  their  possession  of 
 11,000  years,  might  be  likely  to  name  to  him  only  the  first 
 great  sum  in  the  hieratic  scheme,  viz.  about  23,000  years,  as 
 the  period  of  the  reigns  of  the  Gods,  rather  than  the  first 
 two,  making  together  27,162  month-years^  or  in  the  terms  of 
 Manetho's  scheme  17,844  ("a  little  under  18,000")  mixed 
 years.  And  even  Herodotus  does  not  put  Hercules  more 
 than  (17,000-10,160  =  )  6840  month-years  above  the  epoch 
 of  the  Flood.  And  the  historical  Patriarchs,  who  are  the 
 human  element  in  this  mythology,  actually  cover  600  chro- 
 nological years  above,  as  well  as  500  of  survival  below,  the 
 Flood,  and  are  common,  in  a  manner,  in  truth  as  well  as  in 
 fable,  to  the  times  of  both  worlds. 
 
 "  It  seems,"  says  Diodorus  (c.  xxv.),  following  and  as  it 
 were  confirming  the  statement  of  Herodotus,  ''that  the 
 last  of  the  Gods  who  reigned  was  Horus,  who  after  the 
 removal  of  his  father  Osiris  from  among  men  avenged  and 
 succeeded  him."  Then  a  little  below,  it  is  that  he  mentions 
 how  the  priests  reckoned  from  Helios  (i?«),  that  is,  from  the 
 very  commencement  of  all  the  divine  reigns,  a  round  sum  of 
 
 s  s  2 
 
628 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 23,000  [for  23,2 18]  years,  reaching  really  to  the  end  of  the  first 
 great  hieratic  period,  3944  nominal  or  328^^  full  years  short 
 of  the  Flood.  And,  in  answer  probably  to  some  inquiries 
 about  the  length  of  the  divine  reigns,  he  was  told  that  the 
 earlier  Gods  reigned  "  above  1200  years  each,"  and  the  later 
 not  under  300."  And  when  he  objected  that,  these  being 
 all  confessedly  terrestrial  or  human  Gods,  it  was  incredible 
 they  should  have  reigned  or  lived  so  long,  he  was  told  that 
 men  sometimes  lived  100  years,  and  that  if  he  pleased  he 
 might  divide  the  1200  years  of  the  earlier  Gods  as  months  by 
 12,  and  the  300  of  the  later  Gods  as  seasons  of  four  months 
 each,  by  3  ;  and  so  both  the  earlier  and  the  later  would  be 
 reduced  within  the  same  bounds  of  credibility.  In  this  they 
 gave  him  certainly  a  broad  hint  of  the  truth  ;  but,  at  the  same 
 time,  as  they  misled  him  by  suggesting  that  some  of  their 
 nominal  years  were  seasons,  which  they  were  not,  and  did 
 not  tell  him  how  many  nominal  years  in  all  were  reducible, 
 whether  by  the  one  method  or  the  other,  and  he  had  not  the 
 wit  to  cross-question  them,  he  remained  none  the  wiser. 
 
 In  another  place,  after  he  has  already  named  the  sum  of 
 23,000  years,  and  misunderstood  it  as  if  reckoned  from  Osiris 
 to  Alexander,  he  mentions  another  reckoning  of  "  something 
 under  18,000  years."  "  Some  of  them,"  he  writes,  in 
 their  mythology  reckon  that  Egypt  was  first  reigned  over 
 by  Gods  and  Heroes  for  a  little  less  than  18,000  years,  the 
 last  of  the  Gods"^  (the  Heroes  or  Demigods,  though  only  just 
 before  mentioned,  being  now  as  it  seems  unnoticed)  "  who 
 reigned  being  Horus  the  son  of  Isis.  But  men,  they  say,  have 
 reigned  in  their  country  from  Mceris  [Menes],  a  little  less 
 than  5000  years  to  Olymp.  180  [7'.  B.C.  58]  when  I  visited 
 Egypt,  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  surnamed  Nsos-  ^Lovvaos.^'' 
 And  elsewhere  (c.  Ixix.)  he  says  that  they  made  "  above 
 4700  years  of  kings  from  Menes  to  the  passage  of  Alex- 
 ander." Here  he  seems  himself  to  doubt  about  the  true 
 meaning  of  the  sum  of  18,000,  and  mentions  it  first  as  if  it 
 were  one  of  three  discordant  reckonings  of  10,000,  23,000, 
 and  18,000  years,  all  beginning  from  Osiris  and  all  ending 
 with  Alexander,  or  even  with  his  own  time.  But  perhaps 
 he  regarded  the  sum  of  18,000  as  reconcilable  with  that  of 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 629 
 
 23,000  by  the  supposition  that  the  18,000  were  properly 
 to  be  reckoned  not  to  Alexander  but  only  to  Menes ; 
 and  then  the  4700  or  5000  years  of  kings,  being  added, 
 would  complete  a  sum  of  23,000.  And  since  the  sum 
 named  was  '^something  under  18,000,"  and  the  years  of  the 
 kings  also  to  his  own  time  are  "  something  under  5000,"  he 
 does  some  little  violence  to  the  words  reported  by  him  con- 
 cerning the  23,000  (for  in  one  place  there  were  said  to  be 
 either  "  above  10,000  "  or  else  "  23,000  "  to  Alexander,  and 
 in  another  "  about  23,000  from  Ra  to  the  passage  of 
 Alexander);  "  and  by  putting  together  "  something  under 
 18,000"  and  "something  under  5000,"  makes  a  sum  of 
 something  under  23,000,  not  to  Alexander,  but  to  his  own 
 time,  276  years  later.  It  was  natural  indeed  that  he  should 
 so  mistake  ;  and  that  he  should  suppose  the  18,000  as  the 
 smaller  sum  to  be  contained  within  the  23,000  as  the  greater, 
 if  they  both  began,  as  he  would  understand  they  did  (and  as 
 they  did  in  fact  begin),  from  one  and  the  same  epoch.  But 
 the  truth  was  precisely  the  reverse.  The  18,000,  though  in 
 appearance  the  smaller  sum  of  the  two,  was  really  the 
 greater;  and  the  23,000,  apparently  the  greater  sum  but 
 really  the  smaller,  was  contained  within  the  18,000.  And 
 if  Diodorus  had  only  understood  the  true  nature  of  the  sum 
 of  18,000  years,  he  might  have  been  said  by  his  two  sums 
 of  "nearly  18,000"  and  "above  10,000"  years  to  exhibit 
 consecutively  and  entire  with  only  a  slight  error  (for  the 
 18,000  run  on  by  582  month-years  into  the  10,000)  the 
 scheme  of  the  hieratic  reckoning,  which  if  stated  uniformly, 
 and  with  all  its  month-years  in  full,  consists  of  the  following 
 elements :  — 
 
 27,162       {   3750  +        1265      =  5015. 
 
 or  23,2 1 8  +  3944  J  5613  ^  2289  +  [341  +  ]217  -i-  903[  +  978  +  11  +  276  to  B.C.  58.] 
 (      7902       -r  1461        -r         1265      =  10,628. 
 
 But  the  first  of  these  sums  is  varied  by  Manetho  thus  :  — 
 900  full  years  (=  10,800  months)  -f  12,418  month-years 
 
 (=  23,218)  +  582  more  month-years  make  for  him  13,900 
 
 mixed  years  (=  23,800  month-years). 
 
 The  first  two  sums  of  the  hieratic  scheme,  viz,  23,218  and 
 
 3944,  put  together,  make  one  uniform  sum  of  27,162  month- 
 
 s  s  3 
 
630 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 years  to  the  epoch  of  tlie  Flood ;  and  from  that  epoch  there 
 Ibllow  7902  more  month-years  divided  into  two  sums  of 
 5613  and  2289,  the  2289  being  part  of  3750  years  of  kings 
 which  are  reckoned  from  Menes  to  the  cyclical  epoch  of  B.C. 
 1322  ;  below  which  again  there  are  989  more  years  of  kings 
 to  the  passage  of  Alexander,  or  1265  to  the  time  of  Diodorus ; 
 making  from  the  commencement  or  recommencement  of 
 mankind  after  the  Flood  to  the  passage  of  Alexander  10,352, 
 or  to  the  time  of  Diodorus  10,628  years,  but  of  kings  from 
 Menes  to  the  passage  of  Alexander  4739,  or  to  the  time  of 
 Diodorus  5015  years. 
 
 In  these  sums  of  the  hieratic  scheme  we  distinguish  the 
 source  of  Diodorus's  round  sums  of  "  23,000  from 
 and  of  "  above  10,000  from  Osiris  and  Isis,"  and  from  the 
 recommencement  of  mankind,  to  Alexander,  or  to  his  own 
 date.  And  his  statement  of  "  over  4700  "  years  of  kings 
 from  Menes  to  Alexander  is  exact.  His  other,  of  "  a  little 
 under  5000"  to  his  own  time,  is  not  exact,  if  the  true  chrono- 
 logical reckoning  of  the  Old  Chronicle  be  assumed  as  the 
 proper  supplement  and  continuation  of  the  hieratic  scheme  ; 
 for  so  he  should  have  written  not  a  little  under  but  a  little 
 (viz.  15)  over  5000  years.  But  it  is  probable  that  he  or  his 
 informants  reckoned  improperly  to  the  end  of  the  generation 
 of  Rameses  III.  Sesostris,  instead  of  its  beginning,  so  as  to 
 lose  that  reign  of  about  33  or  34  years.  And  on  this  sup- 
 position both  his  statements  respecting  the  time  of  the  kings 
 are  accounted  for. 
 
 In  reckoning  "  above  10,000  years "  from  the  Egyptian 
 Hercules  to  the  Greek,  one  generation  before  Troy  (b.c. 
 1212  —  33  =  1245),  Diodorus  must  be  supposed  to  place 
 Hercules  one  divine  reign  higher  than  Osiris,  like  Hero- 
 dotus, and  so  to  carry  back  his  accession  into  the  years 
 preceding  the  epoch  of  Osiris  and  of  the  Flood.  For  from  B.C. 
 1245  up  to  the  epoch  of  the  Flood  there  are  not  10,000,  but 
 only  (77  +  3750  +  5613  =  )  9440  years  in  the  hieratic  scheme. 
 But  Diodorus  was  probably  taught  to  place  Hercules  about 
 1200  month-years  above  the  epoch  of  Osiris  and  the  Flood  ; 
 and  then  there  would  be  from  the  Egyptian  Hercules  to  the 
 Greek  (1200  +  9440  =  )  10,640,  which  are  "above  10,000 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 631 
 
 years."  If  they  had  preserved  the  same  interval  (of  about 
 2000  years)  between  Hercules  and  Osiris  with  Herodotus, 
 there  would  have  been  above  11,000  years. 
 
 But  Diodorus's  sum  of  "something  under  18,000  years" 
 is  not  explainable  from  the  hieratic  scheme  alone.  To 
 account  for  it  one  must  have  recourse  to  the  scheme  of 
 Manetho,  in  which  the  first  sum  of  the  hieratic  scheme  is 
 exhibited  in  a  varied  form,  and,  though  apparently  much 
 reduced,  yet  really  has  an  addition  made  to  it  of  582  month- 
 years.  For  Manetho  reduces  to  their  original  and  true  form 
 of  900  full  years  the  first  10,800  month-years  of  the  hieratic 
 scheme;  and  then,  continuing  himself  in  month-years,  he 
 needs  only  12,418  of  these  (making  a  mixed  sum  of  13,318) 
 to  equal  the  first  23,218  month-years  of  the  hieratic  scheme. 
 But  in  order  to  obtain  a  round  sum,  or  rather  that  his  900 
 full  years  may  become  visible  and  separable,  he  adds  582 
 more  month-years,  which  raise  his  first  sum  to  13,900  mixed 
 years,  exceeding  by  582  month-years  the  first  23,218  of  the 
 hieratic  scheme.  This  sum  then  of  13,900  being  taken  from 
 Manetho,  as  if  it  were  identical  with  the  first  sum  of  the 
 hieratic  scheme,  to  which  it  answers,  and  the  second  sum  of 
 the  hieratic  scheme,  viz.  3944  month-years,  being  added  to 
 it,  the  two  together  produce  a  sum  of  17,844  mixed  years, 
 justifying  the  expressions  of  Diodorus,  being  *^not  much 
 under  18,000."  If  Diodorus's  informant  had  added  to  Ma- 
 netho's  first  sum  of  13,900  only  those  (3944—582  =  )  3362 
 month-years  of  the  second  sum  of  the  hieratic  scheme  which 
 would  seem  to  remain,  the  product  would  have  been  only 
 17,262,  and  would  not  have  accounted  for  Diodorus's  ex- 
 pressions, being  much  nearer  to  17,000  than  to  18,000.  On 
 the  other  hand,  after  perceiving  that  Diodorus's  sum  of  17,844 
 mixed  years  takes  us  582  month-years  below  the  end  of  the 
 second  sum  of  the  hieratic  scheme,  the  epoch  of  the  Flood, 
 we  must  not  attempt  to  join  on  Diodorus's  other  reckoning  of 
 "  above  10,000  years"  from  the  recommencement  of  mankind 
 to  Alexander  or  to  his  own  time,  as  if  it  were  the  exact 
 continuation,  beginning  from  the  same  point  where  the 
 17,844  years  end.  For  from  that  point  to  the  passage  of 
 Alexander,  instead  of  "  over  10,000,"  there  are  only  (10,629 
 
 S  R  4 
 
632 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 -276  =  10,353-582  =  )  9771  years.  And,  besides,  the 
 18,000  years  of  Diodorus  seem  to  be  reckoned  to  Ilorus, 
 while  the  10,000  probably  begin  from  Osiris,  and  certainly 
 from  the  epoch  of  the  Flood. 
 
 There  is  some  difficulty  in  accomiting  for  the  manner  in 
 which  Horus,  son  of  Osiris  and  Isis,  is  spoken  of  both  by 
 Herodotus  and  by  Diodorus  as  reigning  "  last  of  the  Gods," 
 and  as  it  w^ere  immediately  preceding  human  kings,  when 
 yet  there  was  in  every  scheme  a  space  of  time  which  must 
 be  reckoned  either  to  Demigods  or  to  human  generations 
 without  kings  between  the  Gods  and  Menes.    A  similar 
 question  may  be  raised  as  to  the  distribution  of  the  bulk  of 
 the  earliest  month -years.    In  the  Turin  papyrus  the  second 
 Horus,  to  and  from  whom  its  great  sums  of  23,218  and 
 13,420  years  are  reckoned,  stands,  as  it  seems,  no  lower  than 
 the  end  of  the  first  23,218  years;  while,  if  we  reckon  up 
 from  thence  his  400  years,  with  the  3140  of  Ma,  the  3226 
 of  Thoth,  the  338  (?)  of  the  elder  Horiis,  and  the  300  of  Set, 
 there  are  between  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Osiris  and  the 
 accession  of  Rameses  III.  Sesostris  no  fewer  than  (7404  + 
 5613  +  3750  =  )  16,767  years.    And  the  end  of  the  reign  of 
 the  later  Horus  himself  is  3944  +  5613  +  3750  =  )  13,307 
 years  before  the  accession  of  Rameses  III.,  and  3944  above 
 the  epoch  of  the  Flood.    Herodotus,  even  after  carrying  up 
 Menes  11,000  nominal  years  above  B.C.  1322,  has  still  4000 
 years  or  so  between  Osiris  and  Menes,  with  only  one  God,. 
 Horus,  to  fill  them,  unless  Demigods  or  men  be  added: 
 and,  as  the  priests  themselves  who  conversed  with  him 
 reckoned,  if  they  put  Osiris  15,000  years  above  B.C.  525 
 they  made  an  interval  between  Osiris  the  father  of  Horus 
 and  Menes  of  10,453  years,  their  date  for  Osiris  being  896 
 month-years  above  the  end  of  the  23,218  (the  first  great 
 sum  of  the  hieratic  scheme)  and  4840  above  the  epoch  of  the 
 Flood.    Manetho  also  emphatically  names  Horus  last  ("  ad 
 extremum  Horus"),  though  he  appears  as  last  only  of  the 
 first  series  of  his  Gods.    And  between  Horus  and  that  point 
 where  the  hieratic  scheme  places  Menes  he  has  not  only 
 1230  month-years  of  Demigods,  and  3701  years  of  Manes, 
 making  together  493 1 ,  but  ail  the  years  of  his  second  dynasty 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  633 
 
 of  Gods  "  who  reigned  in  continuous  succession  from  Horus 
 to  Bytis."  Of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes  it  is  unnecessary  to 
 speak,  as  he  carries  the  kings  back  in  effect  almost  to  the 
 very  head  of  the  hieratic  scheme.  But  in  the  Chronicle,  on 
 the  contrary,  the  whole  of  those  2922  chronological  years 
 which  -were  the  source  of  all  the  35,064  month-years  or 
 their  equivalents  of  other  schemes,  and  other  nominal  years 
 besides  which,  as  no  names  were  given,  are  as  nothing,  are 
 given  to  the  xiii  human  Gods,  while  viii  Demigods  have 
 only  the  short  interval  of  217  full  years  between  the  Gods 
 and  Menes.  (This  arrangement  has  been  examined  and 
 accounted  for  in  Chapter  I.)  On  the  whole,  the  existence  of 
 such  great  discrepancies  in  those  schemes  of  which  some* 
 knowledge  is  preserved  makes  it  probable  that  for  the 
 arrangement  of  the  Gods  and  Demigods  in  successive  dy- 
 nasties and  reigns  there  was  no  one  settled  system.  But,  so 
 far  as  Diodorus  is  concerned,  since  he  reckons  from  Osiris 
 and  Isis  to  Alexander  10,353  nominal  years  under  his  round 
 sum  of  "  above  10,000,"  but  of  kings  only  just  "  over  4700," 
 and  Horus,  who  reigned  last  of  the  Gods,  is  made  by  him  to 
 succeed  at  once  after  Osiris  and  Isis,  he  has  an  interval  of 
 above  5613  years  between  his  two  epochs  of  Osiris  and 
 Menes,  to  cover  which  he  gives  only  the  two  reigns  of  Osiris 
 and  Horus,  unless  we  add  those  Demigods  or  Heroes  whom 
 he  names  after  the  Gods  in  connection  with  the  sum  of 
 "nearly  18,000  years."  Yet,  even  with  them,  the  17,844 
 years,  and  consequently  both  the  Gods  and  the  Demigods, 
 end  (5613  —  582=;)  5031  nominal  years  before  the  accession 
 of  Menes  ;  and  one  is  at  a  loss  to  conjecture  with  what  his 
 informants  would  have  covered  these,  unless  it  were  with 
 human  generations  anterior  to  the  establishment  of  monar- 
 chies. Manes,  which  were  probably  peculiar  to  the  scheme 
 of  Manetho,  are  not  to  be  thought  of,  because  Diodorus's 
 informants  clearly  reckoned  in  their  original  places  according 
 to  the  hieratic  lists  all  those  kings  whom  Manetho  had 
 ejected,  and  had  grouped  into  his  four  dynasties  of  Manes. 
 
 Yet  Diodorus,  without  giving  any  account  of  the  5031 
 years,  or  of  the  Heroes  whose  time  should  have  preceded, 
 l)asses  at  once  from  the  Gods  to  Menes.    "  The  first  king 
 
634 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 after  the  Gods  was  Menes ; "  of  whom  Herodotus  heard 
 some  say  that  his  accession  was  of  such  remote  antiquity 
 that  the  Delta,  or  rather  all  Egypt  below  lake  Moeris, 
 was  as  yet  under  water.  This  statement  probably  put  it 
 into  the  head  of  Diodorus  to  ask  questions  concerning  the 
 antiquity  of  the  Delta  as  connected  by  Herodotus  with  the 
 accession  of  Menes.  For  he  stumbled  upon  an  answer 
 which  is  intelligible  only  on  this  supposition,  but  which 
 taken  in  this  connection  is  both  intelligible  and  valu- 
 able. For  Diodorus,  questioning  upon  this  idea,  that  the 
 accession  of  Menes  was  as  fir  back  or  farther  back  than  the 
 formation  of  the  Delta,  elicited  from  some  informant  who  was 
 a  rather  drier  humourist  than  his  colleagues  that  Herodotus's 
 information  was  not  quite  accurate  ;  that  the  Delta,  or  at  least 
 the  country  below  Lake  Moeris,  must  have  been  formed  before 
 Menes  covXii  found  Memphis  ;  but  supposing  it  to  have  been 
 formed  only  just  before,  it  had  in  that  case  existed  at  least  a 
 thousand  years,  the  thousand  years  being  probably  reckoned 
 back  from  Herodotus's  epoch  of  Sesostris.  For  from  the 
 cyclical  epoch  of  B.C.  3322  back  to  the  accession  of  Menes 
 there  were  chronologically  903  years.  And,  however  recent 
 might  be  at  that  time  the  formation  of  the  Delta,  it  could  not 
 well  be  put  less  than  about  a  hundred  years  higher.  Dio- 
 dorus seems  to  have  so  little  understood  the  ironical  turn  of 
 the  Egyptians  that  he  was  simply  mystified,  and  he  even  gives 
 the  statement  as  if  the  thousand  years  were  meant  to  be 
 reckoned  back  from  his  own  time,  which  he  could  scarcely 
 have  imagined.  But  from  others  he  heard  that  so  short  a 
 time  as  only  1000  years  was  mere  nonsense,  quite  out  of 
 the  question  ;  and  that  the  formation  of  the  Delta  must  be 
 placed  at  the  very  least  more  than  3400  years  back.  These 
 also,  equally  with  the  first,  accepted  the  idea  that  the  forma- 
 tion of  the  Delta  and  the  accession  of  Menes  were  separated 
 by  no  long  interval,  and  agreed  probably  with  the  first  in 
 making  the  formation  of  the  Delta  the  earlier  of  the  two 
 events,  and  in  reckoning  back  the  years  which  they  named 
 from  the  cyclical  epoch  of  B.C.  1322.  Their  meaning  was 
 that  the  accession  of  Menes  could  not  be  put  at  the  lowest 
 lower  than  3409  years  above  the  cyclical  epoch,  or  (which  is 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 635 
 
 the  same  thing  within  one  year)  above  the  accession  of 
 Rameses  III.  Sesostris.  They  were  so  conscientious  as  to 
 admit  tacitly  that  the  341  fictitious  years  added  in  the  hier- 
 atic scheme  to  make  time  run  from  the  beginning  in  cycles, 
 and  covered  in  appearance  by  kings,  were  not  really  chrono- 
 logical, so  that  these  341  might  be  deducted  from  the  3750 
 years  of  the  kings  after  Menes,  and  set  aside  as  merely 
 concurrent.  But  after  this  one  deduction  it  v/as  impossible 
 to  disallow  any  of  the  remaining  3409  years.  The  formation 
 of  the  Delta,  therefore,  being  somewhat  earlier  than  the 
 accession  of  Menes,  must  necessarily  be  carried  back  from 
 the  cyclical  epoch  of  B.C.  1322  "more  than  3400  years." 
 Or,  if  any  one  prefer,  he  may  suppose  that  they  were  un- 
 usually impudent,  and  actually  allowed  the  notion  that  the 
 formation  of  the  Delta  loas  later  than  the  time  of  Menes. 
 Then,  as  they  put  Menes  with  the  hieratic  lists  3750  years 
 above  Rameses  III.,  knowing  all  the  time  that  there  were 
 to  Rameses  III.  only  (2922  +  1120  =  )  4042  chronological 
 years  from  the  beginning  of  the  antediluvian  world,  they 
 w^ould  intend  the  epoch  of  Menes  to  stand  at  the  (4042  — 
 3750  =  )  292nd  year  of  the  antediluvian  world;  and  the 
 formation  of  the  Delta,  though  allowed  to  be  some  350  years 
 later,  would  still  be  only  652  below  the  beginning  of  the 
 world,  and  about  (2263  — 652  =  )  1611  years  above  the  epoch 
 of  the  Flood. 
 
 There  are  two  passages  in  which  Diodorus  states  how  long 
 kings  had  reigned  in  Egypt  from  Menes  to  Alexander,  or  to 
 his  own  time ;  and  in  one  of  the  two  he  adds  other  details 
 respecting  the  kings,  natives  or  strangers,  and  the  queens 
 who  had  reigned  during  the  time  specified : 
 
 "Kat  TOVTWV  ixsylarrju  airohzL^lv  (paaiv  slvai  to  rrjs  AlyvTrrov 
 irXsio)  TCJV  kiTTaKoaLoyv  kol  TaTpaKLG')(ikLa}v  stcjv  /SaaiXsvaat 
 Toij9  ttXslovs  iyysvshf  Kal  rrjv  ')(0)pav  svSaLfiovsa-Tarrjv  virdp^aL 
 rrjs  d7rdar}9  olKovfMsvijs.^^  (Lib.  i.  c.  Ixiv.) 
 
 MvdoXoyovai  8'  avrcov  rivss  to  ixsv  irpoiTov  ap^ai  Trj9 
 Alr/VTTTOV  Ssovs  TS  Kol  Tjpcoas  ST7J  Ppa')(p  XsLTTovTa  TMV  fjbvpiwv 
 Kal  OK.TaKi(jyCXmVi  koX  Sscov  £a')(aT0V  ^aaiXsvaat  tov  "laiSos 
 ^npov  vit''  dvOpcoTTCov  Bs  Tr)v  X'^P^^  6s(3aaLXsva9al  (paaiv  diro 
 ^loipthos    lyir^vdi]  hrj  (Bpa^p  XslirovTa  tcov  TrapTaKiaxtXuov 
 
636 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 fJiS)(pl  TTjS  EKaTO(JTr}S  KOl  OySoTJKOCTTrj^  'OXv/JLTTtdBo^  Ka6^  r]fjUSt9 
 
 irapiQaXofisv  sis  AtyviTTOv,  i^aalXsvcrs  Bs  UroXsfMalos  6  Nsoy 
 
 "  TovTcov  8s  TO,  fjisv  nrXslcna  Karacr'^siv  rrjv  ap-^^rjv  sy')(copiovs 
 paaiXsh,  oXlya  Ss  AWioiras  koX  Ylspaas  kol  Ma/csSomy.  AlOlo- 
 rras  [xsv  ovv  dp^at  rsTrapas,  ov  Kara  to  ef^?,  aXV  i/c  hLaarrjjjba- 
 Tos  ST7]  rd  TTavra  ^pa')(y  Xslirovra  tmv  if  koI  rptaKOVTa. 
 ilspaas  Ss  TTSVTS  irpbs  roh  sKarov  Kal  rpiaKOvra  stsgl  crvv  rals 
 Tcov  XlyviTT ioiv  diroaTaascnv  as  sTroirjaavro  cj^spscv  ov  Swdfisvot 
 [rrjv  TTpos  rovs  Bsovs  tcov  Uspacov  do-s^SLav'~\  sa'^drcos  Bs  roifs 
 ^laKsSovas  dp^at  /cal  rovs  diro  ^laKshovwv  stt)  irpos  rols 
 hiaKOCTLOLs  Kal  s/38o/ji7]KOVTa '  T0V9  Ss  XocTTOvs  ')(^p6vovs  diravras 
 SiarsXiaai  jSaaiXsvovras  rfjs  ^copas"  s'y')(wplovs  dvSpas  pusv  irpos 
 Tols  TSTpaKoalois  s^SojJbrjKOVTa  yvvaiKas  Ss  itsvts,  irspl  wv 
 dirdvTwv  ol  fJisv  Ispsis  sl')(Ov  dvaypa^ds  sv  rals  Ispah  jSljSXois  s/c 
 iraXaLwv  xpovcov  dsl  tols  SLaSo^ois  irapaSsSopbsvas'''  [with  par- 
 ticular notices  of  each  king,  which  Diodorus  thinks  it  useless 
 to  attempt  to  follow  in  detail,  but  instead]  "  twj/.  d^icdv 
 laTopLas  Ta  KuptooTaTa  avvTO/Jucos  Sis^LSvai  Trsipacro/jisOa" 
 
 The  sums  of  ''over  4700"  and  "nearly  5000''  7/ears, 
 given  in  these  passages  for  the  kings  to  Alexander  and  to 
 Olymp.  180  J  respectively,  having  been  found,  the  one  to 
 agree  perfectly  with  that  of  the  hieratic  scheme,  the  other  to 
 differ  only  by  an  explainable  error  causing  the  loss  of  one 
 reign  or  generation  of  about  33  years,  (Herodotus's  exag- 
 gerated su  n  of  11,000  years  to  Rameses  III.  being  so  cor- 
 rected), it  might  be  expected  that  the  number  of  the  kings 
 also  would  be  identical  with  that  of  the  hieratic  list  and  of 
 Herodotus  down  to  Kameses  III.,  and  from  the  accession  of 
 Rameses  III.  identical  or  nearly  identical  with  that  obtain- 
 able from  the  lists  of  Manetho  and  Ptolemy.  So  we  should 
 have  expected  331  kings  down  to  the  death  of  Amenephthes 
 (who  should  be  "  Menophres")  the  predecessor  of  Rameses 
 III.,  or  330  only  if  the  inaccuracy  of  Herodotus  in  drop- 
 ping one  king  was  retained.  And  in  this  latter  case  there 
 would  be  331  at  the  death  of  Rameses  III.  instead  of  at  the 
 cyclical  epoch  of  the  year  preceding  his  accession.  There 
 would  also  be  some  further  elements  of  uncertainty,  accord- 
 ing as  Rameses  III.  were  reckoned  in  his  true  place  as 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  637 
 
 the  third  legitimate  king  of  Dyn.  XIX,  or  in  the  place 
 where  Manetho  has  joined  his  name  and  blended  his  person 
 with  that  of  Seti  11.,  the  head  of  that  dynasty.  And  below 
 it  would  be  a  chance  whether  Diodorus's  informants  simply 
 followed  the  list  of  Manetho  in  consolidating  the  four  or  five 
 sons  of  Kameses  III.,  or  reckoned  four  of  them  at  least,  if 
 not  all  the  five,  separately ;  and  whether  they  reckoned  all 
 the  seven  Tanite  kings  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XXI,  who  can 
 scarcely  be  all  historical,  or  his  three  Saite  predecessors  of 
 Psammitichus  I.  in  Dyn.  XXVI,  or  the  single  reign  of 
 Amyrtjeus  which  makes  his  Dyn.  XXVIII.  If  Ra- 
 meses  III.  were  put  at  his  true  place,  and  331  kings 
 were  reckoned  to  the  death  of  his  predecessor,  then,  accord- 
 ing to  Manetho's  lists,  taken  sim})ly  as  they  stand,  there 
 ought  to  be  64  more  kings  down  to  the  death  or  flight  of 
 Nectanebo,  and  3  more  Persians  to  Alexander,  making  a 
 total  of  398  kings.  But,  if  we  consider  those  elements  of 
 uncertainty  which  have  been  alluded  to,  the  reckoning  might 
 vary  between  331 +(7 +4) +  60 +  3 +  3  =  408  at  the  most, 
 and  330  +  64  +  (7  +  4  +  1)  +  3  =  385  at  the  least. 
 
 But,  instead  of  any  such  number  of  kings  as  might  agree 
 with  that  of  Herodotus  and  of  the  hieratic  list,  he  names  one 
 greatly  exceeding  it,  viz.  470  kings  and  5  queens ;  and  these 
 all  natives  ;  so  that  to  obtain  the  full  number  we  ought  stiU, 
 as  it  seems,  to  add  the  4  Ethiopians  wdiom  he  mentions,  and 
 the  8  Persians  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XXVII,  and  again  3 
 more  Persians  below  Xectanebo,  which  will  bring  up  his 
 sum  to  487  reigns  in  all  from  Menes  to  Nectanebo,  or  490  to 
 Alexander. 
 
 The  specification  of  Jive  native  queens,  instead  of  the  "  one 
 native  queen,  Nitocris,"  of  Herodotus,  is  borne  out  by  the  lists, 
 four  being  named  by  Manetho,  viz.  Nitocris,  Seheknofreou, 
 Amesses,  and  Achencheres,  and  the  fifth,  Ammeris,  being  added 
 in  the  lists  of  Ptolemy.  And  here  Diodorus  certainly  corrects  a 
 misunderstanding  of  Herodotus,  who  himself  connected  with 
 the  name  of  Nitocris,  the  only  queen  of  whom  he  heard  any 
 thing  in  detail,  words  spoken  perhaps  by  his  informants  with 
 reference  to  Amesses.  For  the  priests  told  Herodotus  that 
 amons  the  331  kings  from  Menes  to  Rameses  III.,  or  amono; 
 
638 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 the  341  to  Sethon,  "there  had  been  18  Ethiopian  kings,  and 
 one  queen."  Probably  they  did  not  add  the  word  '•'native^'' 
 (though,  even  if  they  did,  there  might  be  some  ground  for  it 
 of  which  we  are  now  ignorant) ;  and  they  meant  not  that 
 there  had  been  in  all  only  one  queen,  but  one  Ethiopian 
 queen  with  and  among  the  18  Ethiopian  kings.  Achencheres, 
 it  may  be  said,  was  another,  belonging  to  the  same  semi- 
 Ethiopian  dynasty  with  Amesses;  and  Hatasu  (unless  she 
 is  to  be  identified  with  her  mother  Amesses)  is  a  third. 
 But  Hatasu  did  not  reign  alone;  and  even  if  she  claimed  to 
 reign  by  her  own  right,  that  claim  was  disallowed  by  her 
 successors :  and  Achencheres  seems  to  have  reigned  merely 
 as  regcent  for  her  brother. 
 
 The  fifth  of  Diodorus's  queens,  Ammeris,  enables  us  to 
 make  a  guess  at  least  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  extraordinary 
 falsehood  put  off  upon  him,  when  they  told  him  that,  instead  of 
 18  Ethiopians  mentioned  to  Herodotus  (besides  Sabaco  or  the 
 three  later  Ethiopians  whom  he  represented),  there  had  been 
 in  all  only  four  Ethiopian  kings,  who  had  reigned  in  all  "  some- 
 Avhat  fewer  than  36  years."  and  even  these  "  not  successively 
 but  at  intervals,  or  with  at  least  one  interval  {sk  SLaarTjixarosy 
 For  since  Ammeris  is  distinctly  alluded  to  as  a  native  legiti- 
 mate queen,  it  may  be  presumed  that  her  Ethiopian  consort 
 Piankhi  is  not  to  be  reckoned  separately  so  as  to  make  one  of 
 Diodorus's  four  Ethiopians ;  though  else  his  would  be  the 
 name  naturally  presenting  itself  under  that  of  "  'Afi/jisph, 
 AWlo^  "  in  the  lists  of  Ptolemy,  if  a  fourth  historical  Ethio- 
 pian were  to  be  looked  for.  The  same  seems  to  follow  also 
 from  the  mention  of  "  an  interval."  It  is  probable  then  that 
 the  fourth  (or  rather  the  first)  of  the  four  Ethiopians  is  the 
 mythical  Actisanes  whose  episode  is  substituted  by  Diodorus's 
 informants  for  the  18  earlier  Ethiopians  of  Herodotus.  He 
 reigned  according  to  Diodorus  till  his  death. "  Then  fol- 
 lowed a  long  "  interval "  (from  the  middle  of  Dyn.  XVIII 
 in  truth)  to  Sabaco.  The  name  Sabaco  covers  naturally  only 
 the  first  two  Ethiopian  kings  of  Dyn.  XXVI,  who  will  be 
 the  second  and  third  of  the  four  Ethiopians  of  Diodorus.  The 
 two  Sabacos  then  will  seem  to  hold  the  50  years  connected 
 with  the  name  Sabaco  by  Herodotus.    But  since  Herodotus 
 
GREEK  authors:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 639 
 
 confesses  that  the  native  and  legitimate  king  however  named 
 survived  all  that  time,  these  50  years  need  not  be  reckoned  sepa- 
 rately to  the  Ethiopians,  And,  besides,  it  is  at  once  insinuated 
 to  Sabaco  that  he  cannot  reign  over  Egypt  for  any  long  time, 
 except  by  perpetrating  atrocities  from  which  his  piety  recoils. 
 (And,  since  Anysis  recovered  his  throne,  the  time  of  the 
 Sabacos,  whether  short  or  long,  is  separated  by  an  interval 
 from  any  fourth  Ethiopian  reign  still  to  come.)  The  50 
 years  then  being  reckoned  to  the  native  king  or  kings,  there 
 remain  only  13  years  of  the  aurvival  of  Tirhakah  the  fourth 
 Ethiopian;  and  these  13,  with  5,  as  we  shall  find  reason  to 
 guess,  for  the  personal  reign  of  the  first  Sabaco,  and  18  or 
 something  under  1 8  for  the  earlier  unconnected  reign  of  Acti- 
 sanes,  wiU  make  out  a  sum  of  36  years.  Or,  taking  it  an- 
 other way,  if  one  thinks  only  of  the  historical  kings  of  Dyn. 
 XXV,  and  suppresses  as  covered  by  the  survival  of  Anysis 
 not  50  but  (18  +  14  =  )  32  years,  which  are  really  connected 
 with  the  name  of  the  two  Sabacos,  the  remaining  3 1  years  of 
 the  reign  of  Tirhakah  which  are  not  naturally  connected 
 with  the  name  Sabaco,  and  which  so  need  not  belong  to  the 
 survival  of  Anysis,  with  or  without  three  or  four  years  for  the 
 earlier  invasion  of  Actisanes,  will  make  out  Diodorus's  36 
 years.  As  for  the  Persians,  all  the  124  years  belonging  to 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XXVII  are  fairly  allowed  to  them,  and  11 
 more  for  the  interval  from  Xectanebo  (b.c.  345)  to  the  pas- 
 sage of  Alexander  in  B.C.  334.  So  they  have  in  all  their 
 "  135  years." 
 
 Four  queens  only  of  Diodorus's  five  being  traceable  to 
 Manetho,  while  the  name  of  the  fifth,  Ammeris,  is  found  in 
 Ptolemy's  lists,  this,  though  it  proves  nothing  (since  the 
 same  hieratic  sources  may  have  been  used  both  by  Diodorus's 
 informants  and  by  Ptolemy),  suggests  nevertheless  the  in- 
 quiry, whether  it  is  after  all  certain  that  Ptolemy's  work 
 (supposing  always  the  lists  of  Africanus  to  be  really  his 
 work)  was  not  already  extant  in  the  time  of  Diodorus.  It 
 is  true  that  we  have  hitherto  followed  others  in  conjecturing 
 that  Ptolemy  wrote  under  Augustus;  but  the  grounds  on 
 which  this  conjecture  rests  are  very  slender.  In  the  guess 
 that  he  may  be  the  Ptolemy  who  wrote  the  Life  of  Herod 
 
640 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHKONICLES. 
 
 there  is  absolutely  nothing ;  the  spurious  letter  of  Manetho 
 to  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  styling  him  Augustus,  is  quoted 
 by  Syncellus  from  "  the  Book  of  Sot  his,'"  and  there  is  no 
 proof  that  it  was  copied  into  the  Book  of  Sothis  from  any 
 earlier  work ;  and,  lastly,  the  notice  attached  in  Africanus's 
 lists  to  the  name  of  Amenoph  III.  that  "  he  is  the  vocal 
 statue  called  Memnon/'  though  it  implies  some  date  later 
 than  the  earthquake  of  B.C.  27  (as  has  been  shown  by 
 M.  Letronne),  may  just  as  well  be  supposed  to  be  from 
 Africanus  as  from  Ptolemy. 
 
 And  in  truth,  if  Dicdorus's  number  of  475  native  reigns 
 to  Nectanebo  (for  there  is  no  hint  of  native  pretenders 
 between  Nectanebo  and  Alexander)  is  to  be  accounted 
 for  at  all,  it  can,  seemingly,  be  accounted  for  only  by  the 
 help  of  the  two  following  suppositions.     First,  we  must 
 suppose  that,  though  the  475  reigns  seem  to  be  spoken  of  as 
 if  the  strangers  (viz.  4  Ethiopians,  and  the  8  Persians  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XXVIII)  were  simply  omitted,  this  is  not 
 the  case,  but  either  they,  or  an  equal  number  of  native  con- 
 temporaries, who  are  tacitly  substituted,  are  included.  And, 
 secondly,  we  must  suppose  that  Diodorus  had  in  fact  through 
 his  informants  some  knowledge  of  the  Greek  arrangements 
 both  of  ]\Ianetho  and  of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  and  that  he  al- 
 ludes in  part  to  them  when  he  boasts  of  having  made  out  the 
 true  contents  of  the  hieratic  records.    For  if  we  take  from  the 
 hieratic  lists  and  from  Herodotus  the  number  of  331  kings 
 down  to  Sesostris-Kameses  III.,  the  third  legitimate  king  of 
 Dyn.  XIX,  and  then  add  the  64  kings  of  Manetho's  Third 
 Book  which  should  remain,  these  (which  are  all  equally  to  be 
 found  in  Ptolemy's  lists)  make  a  sum  of  331+64  =  395 
 kinofs.    But  as  Manetho  has  blended  Rameses  III.  into  one 
 fabulous  personage  with  Seti  II.  the  head  of  Dyn.  XIX, 
 and  Ptolemy  seems  in  this  to  have  followed  Manetho,  it  is 
 probable  that  Diodorus's   informants  also  might  identify 
 Sesostris-Pameses  III.  with  the  first  king  of  Dyn.  XIX : 
 and,  if  so,  they  would  add,  in  the  Avay  of  continuation  after 
 the  first  231  kings,  not  64  only,  but  all  the  66  names  of 
 ]\Ianetho's  Third  Book,  or  67  perhaps,  according  to  Ptolemy, 
 who  adds  the  name  of  Ammeris,  making  a  si^in  of  398. 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 G41 
 
 Then,  if  we  suppose  the  priests  to  have  showed  to  Diodorus 
 Ptolemy's  work,  pointing  out  to  him  the  dynasties  of  the 
 original  Manetho,  allowing  him  to  make  a  hasty  use  of  it, 
 and  giving  some  hints  to  enable  him  to  distinguish  the  kings 
 rightly  restored  by  Ptolemy  from  those  which  were  un- 
 known to  the  hieratic  lists,  it  may  either  be  that  the  infor- 
 mation given  was  imperfect,  or  that  Diodorus  misunderstood 
 or  forgot  some  part  of  it,  and  so  arrived  at  his  sum  of  475 
 down  to  Nectanebo,  a  sum  midway  between  that  of  397 
 which  he  ought  to  have  obtained  from  Ptolemy's  lists  by 
 reckoning  only  the  historical  kings,  and  that  of  551  or  552 
 which  results  from  the  indiscriminate  acceptance  of  all  con- 
 tained in  them.  For  Diodorus  may  have  rightly  understood 
 that  the  36  kings  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI  (XIV  of  Pto- 
 lemy), having  been  reduplicated  by  Ptolemy,  were  to  be 
 omitted ;  and  also  that  in  the  case  of  Ptolemy's  Dyn.  XVII 
 the  43  kings  were  to  be  reckoned  once  only  (that  is,  that  the 
 43  Diospolites  were  to  be  reckoned,  and  their  43  Shepherd 
 colleagues  or  doubles  were  to  be  omitted).  Then,  if  he  had 
 simply  taken  Ptolemy's  sum  of  551  or  552  kings  ending 
 with  ^s^ectanebo,  and  had  deducted  (36  +  43  =  )  79  only,  he 
 would  have  had  473.  But  the  process  seems  rather  to  have 
 been  this,  that  he  assumed  the  kings  of  Ptolemy's  lists  in 
 his  First  and  Second  Books  to  amount  to  331  or  330  ending 
 with  the  predecessor  of  Sesostris,  or  with  Sesostris  himself, 
 independently  of  his  Dynasties  VIII,  IX,  XIV,  XVI,  and 
 XVII,  containing  (27  4-19  +  36  +  32  +  43  =  )  157  kings  of 
 Ptolemy's  own  fabrication,  all  of  which  Diodorus  ought  to 
 have  omitted,  whereas  he  omitted  only  the  (36+43  =  )  79  of 
 Ptolemy's  Dynasties  XIV  and  XVII,  and  added  all  the  rest, 
 being  (27  +  19  +  32  =  )  78,  to  the  331  supposed  to  be  the 
 sum  of  the  other  dynasties.  And  so,  having  as  he  thought 
 409  kings  in  Ptolemy's  first  two  books,  and  adding  to  these 
 66  kings  of  Book  III.,  he  would  bring  up  the  sum  to  475. 
 But  in  truth,  if  he  had  counted,  he  would  not  have  found 
 331  kings  in  those  other  dynasties  of  Ptolemy's  first  two 
 books,  which  he  supposed  to  contain  so  many,  for  these  two 
 reasons,  —  first,  that  1  Shepherd  of  the  hieratic  list  was  not 
 distinctly  restored  by  Ptolemy ;  and,  secondly,  because  the 
 
642 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 last  king  in  Book  II.  was  not  the  predecessor,  but  sliort  by 
 two  places  of  being  the  predecessor,  of  Sesostris-Kameses 
 III.  Diodorus,  however,  may  be  supposed  to  have  included 
 the  first  king  of  Dyn.  XIX  and  of  Book  III.  in  his  331 
 (following  Herodotus  in  dropping  one  king,  and  supposing 
 the  first  king  of  Dyn.  XIX  to  be  Herodotus's  Sesostris) ; 
 and  he  may  still  have  found  66  kings  in  Book  III.  to  add  on 
 to  his  (331+78  =  )  409  preceding,  since  Ptolemy  adds  to 
 the  66  of  Manetho's  Third  Book  one  fresh  name,  Ammeris, 
 and  may  have  had  10  names  instead  of  9  in  Dyn.  XXVI. 
 And  thus  the  number  475  may  perhaps  be  accounted  for. 
 But,  after  all,  this  explanation  rests  on  the  hypothesis  that 
 Ptolemy's  work,  or  at  any  rate  the  work  used  by  Africanus, 
 was  already  extant  in  the  time  of- Diodorus.  If  it  were  not, 
 either  the  text  is  corrupt,  and  the  true  sum  may  have  been 
 375  or  385  instead  of  475  ;  or  Diodorus  misunderstood  ;  or 
 some  unknown  scheme  was  alluded  to  which  exceeded  by 
 some  70  or  80  that  number  of  kings  which  would  agree  with 
 the  hieratic  lists,  but  fell  short  by  about  the  same  amount 
 of  the  additions  of  Ptolemy.  This  last  alternative  is  cer- 
 tainly not  probable. 
 
 It  may  be  remarked,  however,  that  if,  after  taking  the 
 number  of  331  or  330  kings  to  Sesostris  from  Herodotus, 
 and  adding  64  or  66  more  as  the  continuation  needed  from 
 Herodotus's  date  for  the  death  of  Moeris  (let  us  say  B.C. 
 1322)  to  Nectanebo,  it  were  then  noticed  that  Manetho  and 
 others  placed  Moeris  and  Sesostris  very  much  higher,  and 
 that  there  was  an  interval  between  the  hieratic  date  and 
 that  of  Herodotus  for  the  death  of  Moeris  of  no  less  than 
 (78  +  348  +  260  +  7 1  +  536  +  213  +  243  +  355  +  331  +  22  =  ) 
 2457  years,  this  might  be  made  a  pretext  by  Diodorus's 
 informants,  if  they  put  up  Moeris  from  Herodotus's  date  and 
 made  him  at  the  same  time  carry  up  with  him  all  the  330 
 kings  as  if  really  his  predecessors,  for  introducing  or  allow- 
 ing from  the  additions  of  Ptolemy  at  least  as  many  fresh 
 kings  as  there  were  generations  in  2457  years.  But  so 
 there  might  be  added  about  74  kings,  making  with  331  and 
 66  or  67  as  many  as  471  or  472,  and  with  the  3  between 
 Nectanebo  and  Alexander  475  kings.    But  Diodorus  ought 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 643 
 
 to  have  been  told,  and  perhaps  was  told,  that  the  331  kings 
 really  reached  down  to  Herodotus's  date  for  the  death  of 
 Moeris.  And  even,  of  himself,  he  ought  to  have  seen  that 
 with  his  sum  of  only  4700  years  to  Alexander  for  331  +  66  + 
 3  =  400  kings,  this  number  of  kings,  who  had  already  reigns 
 of  less  than  12  years  each,  could  need  no  addition. 
 
 In  conclusion,  the  kings  of  the  hieratic  list,  and  those  of 
 Herodotus,  of  Manetho,  of  Ptolemy,  and  of  Diodorus,  may 
 perhaps  be  compared  together  thus  (the  asterisk  marks 
 the  place  of  Sesostris-Eameses  III.): 
 
 Papyr.  1  +328+  1  +  1+*!+  Additions  of  Ptolemy. 
 
 Herod.  328+  l  +  l+*l+  10       to  Sethon  Dyn.  Dyn.  Dyn.  Dyn.  Dyn. 
 
 Man.    1  +131+*1  +  1+  1+  63       to  Nectanebo         VIII.  IX.   XIV.  XVI.  XVII. 
 
 Ptol.    1  +328+*l  +  l+  1 +  (63+1)  to  Nectanebo,  also  27  +  19  +  36  +  32  +  43     =  553 
 
 Diod.   330+*l  +  l+  1 +(63+1)  to  Nectanebo,   also  27  +  19    +  32    =  475 
 
 In  his  more  detailed  historical  notices  Diodorus  does  not 
 profess  to  give  any  close  account  either  of  the  4700  years  or 
 of  the  475  kings  ;  but  he  makes  a  patchwork  from  Manetho 
 and  Herodotus,  the  idea  of  which  was  perhaps  suggested  by 
 observing  that  the  reigns  of  Manetho's  first  six  dynasties  of 
 kings,  as  they  stand,  approach  in  length  to  such  generations 
 as  are  used  in  reckoning  by  Herodotus. 
 
 Commencing,  then,  in  agreement  with  Herodotus,  and  with 
 the  uniform  tradition,  he  says  that,  after  the  Gods,  the  first 
 king  of  ordinary  men  who  reigned  after  the  Gods  was  Menes. 
 "  Mem  Tovs  ^sovs  roivvv  TrpcoTov  (j)aaL  /SaaiXsvaaL  Tfj9  AlyvTr' 
 Tov  Mt/mi/."  (c.  xxvi.)  The  Menes  of  Diodorus,  however,  is 
 not  said  to  have  turned  the  course  of  the  Nile,  nor  to  have 
 founded  Memphis  with  its  temple,  its  palace,  and  its  sacred 
 lake.  All  that  he  did  was  to  prescribe  the  public  forms  of 
 religion,  and  to  introduce  luxury/,  for  which  latter  demerit 
 he  incurred  ages  afterwards  the  curse  of  Tnephacthus  or 
 Technatis,  father  of  the  sage  Bocchoris. 
 
 After  Menes  he  reckons  '^52  successors  of  Menes,  his 
 descendants,  who  reigned  during  a  space  of  more  than  1400 
 years."  These  53  kings  (Menes  being  included)  answer  to 
 the  49  kings  of  Manetho's  (and  Ptolemy's)  first  six  dynasties 
 of  Lower  Egypt;  and  the  addition  of  four  to  Manetho's 
 forty-nine  may  be  accounted  for  by  supposing  that  Dio- 
 dorus's  informants,  after  showing  him  (and  probably  in 
 
 T  T  2 
 
644 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Ptolemy's  lists)  Manctho's  first  six  dynasties  of  kings,  re- 
 marked, on  coming  to  the  end  of  the  sixth,  that  there  were 
 here  in  the  hieratic  list  four  more  kings  whom  Manetho 
 had  omitted.  Hence,  without  restoring  any  of  the  other  36 
 whom  Manetho  had  equally  omitted  from  the  five  preceding 
 dynasties,  Diodorus  restored  these  four,  and  made  to  his 
 first  pause  53  instead  of  49  kings.  The  number  of  years, 
 "  above  1400,"  stated  for  them,  no  less  than  the  addition  of 
 four  kings  omitted  by  Manetho,  shows  that  his  informants 
 were  not  simply  following  Manetho,  but  were  referring  for 
 part  at  least  of  what  they  said  to  the  hieratic  list.  For 
 with  Manetho  the  first  49  kings  have  1491  years,  which 
 might  have  been  called  "  nearly  1500,"  but  not  with  any 
 propriety  "  above  1400."  But  if  Manetho's  first  addition,  of 
 63  years  to  the  reigns  of  Menes  and  Athothis,  were  omitted, 
 the  remaining  sum  of  (1491  —  63  =  )  1428  would  answer 
 very  well  to  Diodorus's  expressions ;  though  even  this  was 
 not  the  true  hieratic  sum,  but  a  mixed  sum  still  containing 
 some  of  Manetho's  additions. 
 
 The  notice  that  none  of  these  first  53  kings  did  anything 
 very  memorable  "  is  taken  from  Herodotus,  and  belongs  with 
 him  to  «/Z  the  331  or  330  predecessors  of  Sesostris  except 
 the  last  of  them,  M(]eris.  And  it  is  to  be  observed  that  Dio- 
 dorus's first  53  kings  are  all  Manetho's  kings  down  to  Moeris, 
 who  though  unnamed  is  in  truth  the  47th :  with  a  continua- 
 tion  of  six  successors  whom  his  informants  added  in  order  to 
 complete  that  dynasty,  and  to  pause  together  with  Manetho 
 at  the  end  of  his  six  dynasties  of  Lower  Egypt.  And  if,  in- 
 stead of  passing  with  Herodotus  from  the  person  of  Moeris  to 
 that  of  Sesostris,  that  is  to  Sesortasen  I.,  the  earliest  Sesos- 
 tris, which  is  the  true  chronological  succession  (at  least  for 
 the  sovereignty  of  all  Egypt),  they  had  added  as  an  appen- 
 dage to  Moeris  his  6  successors,  and  had  then  passed  to  Sesor- 
 tasen I.,  this  king  as  Sesostris  would  have  been  presented  as 
 if  he  were  the  seventh,  instead  of  the  first,  successor  of  Moeris. 
 
 After  the  first  53,  Diodorus  gives  a  number  of  (9  +  8 
 +  13  =  )  30  kings  who  are  entirely  unhistorical,  being  mere 
 doubles,  with  or  without  names,  of  some  of  those  kings  who 
 have  been  already  enumerated  from  Manetho.    And  notices 
 
GllEJfiK  AUTHORS  :  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  645 
 
 are  interspersed  of  such  a  kind  as  to  show  only  the  in- 
 feriority and  the  impudence  of  Diodorus's  informants,  and 
 his  own  want  of  discernment  in  Avriting  down  the  worthless 
 fables  put  off  upon  him.  The  only  hints  which  enable  one 
 to  divine  the  origin  of  thes'e  fictitious  kings  are  to  be  found 
 in  the  numbers  by  which  they  are  strung  together  in  groups, 
 or  as  it  were  dynasties,  and  in  the  name  of  the  last  of  them 
 all,  which  is  Mceris,  Msra  8e  raura,  Karaa-raOsvTOS  /3a- 
 atXicos  ^ovalpihos  /cat  tcov  tovtov  skjovcov  okto),  tov  reXsv- 
 Taiov,  Oficovv/JLOV  ovra  tco  irpuyrayj  (paac  KTiaai  S'^^as"  k,  t.  X, 
 That  is,  "after  Menes  and  his  52  descendants,  Busiris  having 
 been  made  king  was  succeeded  by  eight  of  his  descendants,  of 
 whom  the  last  (the  ninth,  that  is),  Busiris  TL.,  founded  ThehesP 
 These  nine  (if  we  reckon  30  places  either  downwards  so  as 
 to  end  with  Moeris,  or  upwards  from  Moeris,  the  fourth  king 
 of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII),  appear  to  be  doubles  of  the  ix 
 earliest  Memphites  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  X  (III  of  Ptolemy). 
 As  regards  the  name  Busiris,  it  is  merely  Osiris  with  the 
 article  prefixed.  Diodorus  has  already  related  in  his  my- 
 thological notices  how  the  terrestrial  god  Osiris  (who  in 
 one  of  his  aspects  is  the  first  man,  either  absolutely,  or  from 
 the  time  of  the  Flood)  founded  Thebes  with  its  temples, 
 Thebes  being  the  most  ancient  of  all  cities  and  its  inha- 
 bitants the  most  ancient  of  all  men.  And  when  he 
 started  on  his  expedition  Osiris  left  a  double  of  himself, 
 named  Busiris,  to  guard  the  Syrian  frontier.  "  But  others," 
 Diodorus  in  the  place  referred  to  added,  "  said  that  Thebes 
 was  founded  by  a  king  much  later."  The  king  thus  alluded 
 to  has  now  appeared  as  Busiris  XL,  who  is  really  the  double 
 of  the  9th  and  last  king  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  X  (III  of 
 Ptolemy).  In  what  capitals  meantime  the  eight  predecessors 
 of  Busiris  II.  have  been  reigning,  to  say  nothing  of  the  53 
 earlier  kings  answering  to  the  49  of  Manetho's  first  six 
 dynasties  of  Lower  Egypt,  it  would  be  indiscreet  to  ask. 
 Perhaps,  like  the  Chaldaaan  Oannes,  they  lived  all  with 
 their  mother  the  goddess  Held  under  water,  "the  Delta 
 being  not  yet  formed."  The  city  of  Thebes,  when  founded, 
 was  140  stades  about.  The  hundred  gates  mentioned  by 
 Homer  were  the  numerous  propylgea  and  pylons  of  its 
 
 T  T  3 
 
G46 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 temples ;  and  its  20,000  chariots  went  out  not  from  those 
 hundred  gates,  but  from  100  barracks  maintained  at  in- 
 tervals on  the  road  down  the  banks  of  the  river  between 
 Thebes  and  Memphis.  These  explanations  are  reasonable. 
 But  the  assertion  that  Busiris  founded  the  four  great 
 temples  of  Thebes  and  set  up  obelisks  there  is  another  thing. 
 His  filling  the  city  with  private  houses  of  four  and  five 
 stories,  shows  only  that  he  knew  how  to  cap  by  antici- 
 pation the  three  and  four-storied  houses  of  Babylon  in 
 Herodotus.  Diodorus's  assertion  that  the  priests  reckoned 
 from  their  books  that  there  ought  to  be  at  Thebes  47  tombs 
 of  kings,  though  only  17  were  still  known  in  the  time  of 
 Ptolemy  Lagi  and  Hecatseus  of  Abdera,  is  worthy  of  atten- 
 tion, though  it  may  be  difiicult  to  make  out  exactly  which 
 were  the  47  kings  intended.  If  one  thinks  only  of  the 
 three  great  Theban  Dynasties,  XVIII,  XIX,  and  XX, 
 and  calculates  the  number  of  tombs  to  be  expected  for  them 
 from  Manetho's  lists  helped  out  by  the  monuments  and  by 
 the  tombs  known  at  this  day,  these  would  indicate  about 
 (15  +  9  +  12  =  )  36  tombs.  But  it  is  known  that  the  earlier 
 Diospolites  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIV  (XI  of  Ptolemy)  were 
 also  buried  at  Thebes,  though  in  tombs  of  a  much  simpler 
 kind.  And  if  each  of  Manetho's  xvi  kings  of  this  dynasty 
 had  a  tomb  to  himself,  the  tombs  of  kings  at  Thebes  might 
 have  amounted  to  36  + 16  =  52,  which  are  five  more  than 
 the  47  mentioned  to  Diodorus.  But  perhaps  in  some  cases 
 more  kings  than  one  were  buried  in  the  same  tomb;  and 
 some  kings  may  have  appropriated  tombs  made  by  others ; 
 and  some  may  have  died  without  having  had  time  to  prepare 
 themselves  a  tomb.  At  the  present  day  more  tombs  than  17 
 are  known ;  and  one  or  two  of  those  known  (as  that  of  Seti  I. 
 discovered  by  Belzoni)  show  no  traces  of  having  been 
 visited  by  Greeks.  The  name  "  Tomb  of  Osymandyas  " 
 given  by  Diodorus  to  the  Kamesseum  of  Kameses  11.  is 
 perhaps  explainable  by  putting  together  these  two  facts;  first, 
 that  the  great  palace-temples  on  the  west  bank  were  cer- 
 tainly connected  in  some  way  with  the  tombs  of  the  kings 
 behind  the  neighbouring  mountain  of  the  Assassif,  and  with 
 funeral  ceremonies  and  anniversaries ;  and,  secondly,  that 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  647 
 
 among  the  numerous  sons  of  Kameses  II.  known  from 
 
 the  monuments  there  is  one,  the  last  of  23  in  the  Ramesseum, 
 named  Osymandyas  (^Si-mentu).  It  is  possible  therefore  that 
 the  building  or  dedication  of  the  Ramesseum  was  connected 
 by  tradition  with  the  obsequies  of  this  prince. 
 
 In  connection  with  his  parenthetical  description  of  Thebes 
 (partly  taken  from  Hecataeus  of  Abdera),  and  especially  of 
 the  Kamesseum,  with  its  "Library,"  Diodorus  has  a  re- 
 markable passage  concerning  the  Egyptian  month  and  year, 
 in  which  he  shows  more  exact  information  than  appears  in 
 the  parallel  passage  of  Herodotus :  "  Their  months  and 
 years  are,"  he  says,  "  peculiar ;  being  not  lunar  but  solar, 
 30  days  going  to  each  month;  and  after  the  12th  month  they 
 add  five  days  and  a  quarter  meaning,  that  they  take 
 account  of  the  quarter  (which  makes  a  day  in  every  quadri- 
 ennium  or  "square  year")  and  add  it  in  the  1461st  and  last 
 year  of  the  Sothic  Cycle.  "  Tay  ^ap  7]fiEpas  ovk  or^ovai 
 Kara  ryv  asKrjvrjv  aXKa  Kara  top  7]\lov,  TpLaKOvdi^fispovs  fisv 
 TtOsfisvoL  Toijs  [jurivasy  ttsvts  S'  rj/xspas  ical  Tsraprov  tols  ScoBsKa 
 firjalv  iirayovai,  koX  TOVT(p  to5  rpoiTM  tov  sviavaiov  kvkXov 
 dva7r\7)povaLV.^^    But  with  his  kings  he  goes  on  thus  :  — 
 
 T(A)v  Ss  TOVTOV  TOV  ^aaCkscos  airo'yovoiv  oySoos,  6  diro  tov 
 iraTpos  TTpoaayopsvo/jbSvos  Ov')(opsvs,  sktlctz  ttoXlv  Ms/J^(pLV," 
 "  The  eighth  descendant  of  this  king  (that  should  be  of 
 Busiris  II.  who  founded  Thebes),  viz.  Uchoreus  IL,  so 
 named  after  his  father  Uchoreus  I.,  founded  the  city  of 
 Memphis,  damming  off  the  Nile,  making  the  sacred  lake, 
 and  building  a  palace,  not  equal,  however,  to  the  buildings 
 of  his  predecessors  at  Thebes  "  (in  fact  doing  all  that  Hero- 
 dotus ascribes  to  Menes).  "  And  so  happily  did  he  discern 
 and  turn  to  account  the  advantages  of  that  site,  that  the 
 kings  who  reigned  after  him,  nearly  all,  deserting  Thebes 
 made  Memphis  their  capital  and  their  residence.  And  they 
 so  adorned  it,  that  it  came  to  be  generally  reckoned  the 
 first,  or  at  least  the  second,  city  in  the  universe"  (that  is, 
 second  only  to  Thebes).  One  understands  that  the  viii 
 fictitious  kings  ending  with  Uchoreus  II.  are  the  doubles  of 
 the  viii  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XI  (IV  of  Ptolemy)  as  the  pre- 
 ceding ix  were  the  doubles  of  the  ix  of  his  Dyn.  X  (III  of 
 
 T  T  i 
 
648 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Ptolemy).  And,  if  Memphis  was  to  be  founded  later  and 
 Thebes  earlier,  there  is  a  sort  of  symmetry  in  making 
 Uchoreus  II.  the  last  king  of  this  second  group  of  doubles 
 found  it,  as  Busiris  II.  the  last  king  of  the  first  group  had 
 founded  Thebes.  The  hint  too  that  Memphis  was  second 
 only  to  Thebes  is  consistent.  But  the  remark  that  after 
 this  foundation  of  Memphis  nearly  all  the  following  kings 
 deserted  Thebes  for  it  and  made  Memphis  their  capital  is  a 
 falsehood  destitute  even  of  poetical  propriety,  seeing  that 
 Diodorus's  informants  are  Thebans,  and  show  in  most  of 
 their  falsehoods  their  Theban  partialities.  It  is  the  same 
 thing  as  to  admit  that  the  exclusively  Memphite  view  of 
 Herodotus,  a  view  which  ignored  all  the  great  Theban  dy- 
 nasties, was  correct,  with  this  limitation  only,  that  Thebes 
 was  founded  first,  and  was  the  capital  during  eight  reigns, 
 until  supplanted  by  the  foundation  of  Memphis.  "  Some 
 say  that  by  the  daughter  of  Uchoreus  II.  the  founder  of 
 Memphis  the  Nile-god  begat  ^gyptus,  who  succeeded  him, 
 and  from  whom  Egypt  was  named.  The  name  itself 
 Uchoreus,  or  as  it  seems  to  be  written  elsewhere  Nenchoreus, 
 is  perhaps  taken  from  a  Diospolite  king  really  of  note  on  the 
 Theban  monuments,  Neh-kher-re. 
 
 "  AcaBE^dfjiSVov  yap  tovtov  fysvs(r6ai  ^acnXsa,''^  k.  t.  X. 
 ^^MsTo,  hs  TOP  irpoaLprjiisvov  jSaaiXsa  ScoBsKa  yevsais  varspov 
 SiaSs^dfjisyo^  Trjv  fcar  AcyvTnov  rjys^ovlav  Motets',"  t.  X, 
 That  is,  j^gyptus  succeeded  his  father,  the  founder  of 
 Memphis :  and  the  twelfth  from  ^gyptus  was  Mceris,  who 
 built"  (here  he  copies  from  Herodotus)  ^^the  north  pro- 
 pylsea  to  the  temple  of  Phthah;  and  at  a  distance  of  10 
 schoBni  above  Memphis  made  a  lake  3600  stades  in  circuit, 
 and  in  most  parts  50  orguiee  deep,  with  a  canal,  still  named 
 after  him,  connecting  it  with  the  Nile.  And  in  digging  this 
 lake  he  left  in  the  midst  of  it  a  space  on  which  he  built 
 himself  a  tomb,  and  two  pyramids  a  stade  in  height "  (so 
 correcting  the  story  told  to  Herodotus  that  there  was  as 
 much  of  their  height  under  the  water  as  above).  Of  the 
 thirteen  kings  here  mentioned  together  the  first  nine,  with 
 ^gyptus  at  their  head,  are  doubles  of  the  ix  kings  of  Ma- 
 netho's  Dyn.  XII  (V  of  Ptolemy)  called  Elephantinite. 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 649 
 
 The  next  tliree  are  doubles  of  the  first  three  kings  of  Ma- 
 netho's  Dyn.  XIII  (VI  of  Ptolemy);  and  the  last,  the 
 thirteenth,  is  proclaimed  by  his  name  as  well  as  by  his  place 
 to  be  the  double  of  Papa  Maire,  the  true  Moeris  of  Hero- 
 dotus :  his  double  only  (although  all  that  Herodotus  relates 
 of  Moeris  is  given  to  him),  because  Moeris  himself  has  al- 
 ready been  reckoned  before,  though  unnamed;  in  like 
 manner  as  Cheops  also,  and  Cephren,  and  Mycerinus,  whose 
 doubles  will  be  introduced  lower  down,  have  already  been 
 reckoned,  though  unnamed,  as  the  28th,  29th,  and  30th 
 kinsrs  of  the  52  successors  of  Menes. 
 
 Xs(Tco(t)crLV  (j)ao-LV  varspov  sirrd  <ysv£aL9  ^acriXsa  ysvofjLS- 
 i/oi/,"  K.  T.  \.  '^Sesoosis^^  is  the  name  which  Diodorus  gives 
 to  his  Sesostris,  the  mixed  particulars  of  whose  history  are 
 ao^ain  taken  from  Herodotus,  with  some  additional  stories  of 
 his  education  derived  from  the  Cyropcedia  of  Xenophon,  and 
 concerning  his  conquests  in  and  beyond  India  to  the  ocean 
 eastwards,  and  to  the  banks  of  the  Don  northwards,  that  he 
 may  not  in  any  way  be  surpassed  by  Alexander,  About 
 him,"  Diodorus  says,  alluding  no  doubt  to  the  difference 
 between  Manetho  and  Herodotus,  accounts  differ  greatly. 
 "  Not  only  Greek  writers,  but  the  Egyptian  priests  and 
 hymnographers  themselves  are  at  variance."  But  before 
 continuing  we  must  look  back  to  see  how  Diodorus  has 
 arrived  at  this  point,  and  what  point  in  fact  in  Manetho's 
 lists  it  is.  Herodotus,  it  will  be  remembered,  made  Moeris 
 the  immediate  predecessor  of  Sesostris.  But  Diodorus  has 
 both  in  his  first  53  kings  tacitly  reckoned  six  successors  of 
 the  same  dynasty  with  Moeris  after  him,  without  having  yet 
 come  to  any  Sesostris,  and  now  again  after  his  second  series 
 consisting  of  30  doubles,  in  which  Moeris  is  named  as  the  last 
 king,  six  more  generations  "  are  made  to  intervene  be- 
 fore the  introduction  of  Sesostris  or  Sesoosis  as  the 
 ^'  seventh  from  Moeris."  These  six  generations  may  be  ac- 
 counted for.  For  having  doubled  the  first  four  names  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII  (VI  of  Ptolemy)  as  well  as  the 
 twenty-six  (9  +  8  +  9)  of  his  three  dynasties  preceding, 
 Diodorus  wants  two  more  after  his  Moeris  to  complete  his 
 six  doubles  corresponding  to  the  vi  kings  of  Manetho's 
 
660 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Dyn.  XIII.  And  if  we  consider  that  Manetlio  identifies 
 with  the  Sesostris  of  Herodotus  the  Ji/fh  king  of  his  own 
 Dyn.  XV  (XII  of  Ptolemy),  viz.  Sesortasen  III.  (though 
 he  stands  apparently  as  the  third),  and  if  from  the  dynasty 
 of  Moeris,  without  noticing  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIV  (XI  of 
 Ptolemy)  we  pass  at  once  to  that  of  Sesostris,  its  first  five 
 reigns  will  complete  the  seven  generations  of  Diodorus. 
 And  supposing  only  Sesortasen  III.,  the  Sesostris  of  Ma- 
 netho,  to  be  reckoned  in  his  true  order,  after  instead  of 
 before  Sesortasen  II.,  Diodorus  has  reached  the  Sesostris 
 of  Manetho  with  a  surplus  of  (9  +  8  +  9  +  6=)  32  abstract 
 generations ;  or,  if  1 6  of  these  be  allowed  to  parallel  Ma- 
 netho's Dyn.  XIV  (XI  of  Ptolemy)  which  has  been  passed 
 over  unnoticed,  with  a  surplus  of  16  abstract  generations, 
 which  are  as  yet  in  truth  unplaced  (for  as  doubles  they 
 belong  only  to  places  preoccupied),  and  which  will  be 
 available  for  covering  any  space  which  may  be  left  otherwise 
 uncovered  between  Manetho's  Sesostris  of  his  Dyn.  XV 
 (XII  of  Ptolemy),  and  Herodotus's  Sesostris  of  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XIX. 
 
 The  name  Sesoosis  is  probably  identical  with  the  Se^wy  of 
 Manetho  and  with  the  monumental  Seti  or  Setai,  belonging 
 properly  to  the  father  of  Rameses  II.  It  belongs  also  to 
 the  head  of  Dyn.  XIX,  whom  Manetho  confuses  both  with 
 Rameses  II.  and  with  Kameses  III.  The  gigantic  stature 
 of  four  cubits  and  four  fingers  given  by  Diodorus  to  his 
 Sesoosis  (i.  e.  to  the  sculptured  effigies  of  Rameses,  whether 
 in  Egypt  or  in  conquered  countries),  being  no  adjunct  of  the 
 Sesostris  of  Herodotus,  but  being  taken  from  Manetho,  at 
 once  identifies  him  with  Manetho's  adaptation  of  the  Hero- 
 dotean  Sesostris  to  Sesortasen  III. ;  and  shows  (if  anything 
 were  needed  to  show)  that  Diodorus  really  knew  and  used 
 Manetho's  or  Ptolemy's  lists,  though  without  distinctly 
 alluding  to  them.  In  ascribing  to  his  Sesoosis- Sesostris 
 (who  in  this  respect  is  not  any  Seti  or  Rameses  but  the 
 older  Sesostris,  whether  Sesortasen  I.  or  III.)  the  subdivi- 
 sion of  Egypt  into  a  fixed  number  of  Nomes  Diodorus 
 follows  other  authors.  But  the  number  of  "36  Nomes  " 
 which  he  specifies,  is  merely  that  of  his  own  time.  The 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  651 
 
 statement  that  Sesoosis-Sesostris  founded  in  all  the  chief 
 cities  a  temple  to  the  local  god,  may  very  possibly  be  true 
 of  Sesortasen  I.,  since  the  foundation  of  the  earliest  temples 
 known  in  Tanis,  at  Heliopolis,  in  the  Fayoum,  and  at 
 Thebes,  is  traced  to  that  king.  The  mounds,  the  canals, 
 the  land-surveying,  the  reservation  of  the  fifth  part  of  the 
 produce  to  the  king,  and  other  legislation,  belong  probably 
 to  the  time  of  Sesortasen  III. ;  at  any  rate  to  some  time 
 vastly  older  than  that  of  the  Sesostris  of  Herodotus.  In 
 making  Sosoosis  begin  his  conquests  by  invading  Ethiopia 
 Diodorus  virtually  identifies  him  (like  Herodotus)  not  with 
 Manetho's  Sesostris,  Sesortasen  III.  (who  did  not  invade 
 but  already  possessed  the  greater  part  of  Ethiopia),  nor  with 
 either  Seti  I.  or  Kameses  II.  or  III.,  but  with  Sesortasen  I., 
 the  first  Egyptian  conqueror,  and  the  first  invader  and  con- 
 queror of  Nubia.  The  huge  barge  of  cedar  gilt,  200  cubits 
 long,  constructed  according  to  Diodorus  by  Sesoosis  for  Am- 
 mon,  is  probably  the  same  which  is  still  seen  represented 
 on  the  walls  of  the  temple  at  Karnak  among  the  sculptures 
 of  Seti  I.  and  his  son  Rameses  II.  And  the  enumeration 
 said  to  have  been  made  at  the  Kamesseum  in  hieroglyphics 
 of  the  king's  forces  amounting  to  400,000  foot  and  20,000 
 cavalry,  and  of  his  revenues  amounting  to  32,000,000  silver 
 min£e,  remind  one  of  that  similar  statement  of  the  forces  and 
 revenues,  "  equal  to  those  of  either  the  Roman  or  the  Par- 
 thian empires,"  of  the  great  conqueror  "Rameses,"  which 
 is  said  by  Tacitus  (^Ann,  ii.  60.)  to  have  been  translated  from 
 the  monuments  for  the  information  of  Germanicus.  In  both 
 authors  too  the  Egyptian  king  is  said  to  have  warred  with 
 the  Bactrians  {Pa-khita,  i.  e.  Hittites),  Of  other  details 
 copied  by  Diodorus  either  directly  from  Herodotus,  or  in- 
 directly, through  Manetho,  the  stelee  set  up  in  Phoenicia 
 and  elsewhere,  the  obelisks,  the  colossi  at  Memphis,  the 
 treachery  of  the  brother,  and  the  escape  of  Sesoosis  and  his 
 wife  by  the  favour  of  Phthah  the  god  of  fire  (without  having 
 made  a  bridge  of  the  bodies  of  any  of  their  sons),  are  to  be 
 referred  to  the  time  of  Seti  I.  and  Rameses  II.  But  the 
 fleet  on  both  seas,  taken  only  from  Herodotus  (for  Manetho 
 has  disjoined  the  fleet  from  the  name  of  Sesostris,  and  con- 
 
652 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 nects  it  with  "  Sethos-Rameses,"  not  so  very  much  above  the 
 true  date),  and  the  reign  of  "  above  33  years  "  belong  only 
 to  Eameses  III.  One  circumstance  added  by  Diodorus  is 
 peculiar,  namely,  that  not  only  the  son  of  Sesostris  (as 
 Herodotus  also  had  related  before  him),  but  Sesostris  himself 
 also  is  made  to  lose  his  sight.  And  this  statement,  whence- 
 soever  obtained,  deserves  attention.  For  though,  if  it  be 
 understood  of  Rameses  II.  (who  reigned  66  years,  and  out- 
 lived many  of  his  children)  there  would  be  nothing  in  it 
 remarkable,  it  may  possibly  in  connection  with  the  name 
 Sesoosis  help  somewhat  towards  explaining  how  Seti  I., 
 whose  victories  "over  the  revolted  Bactrians"  were  only 
 shared  by  his  son,  who  is  immortalised  together  with  his  son 
 by  their  joint  monuments,  and  whose  magnificent  tomb  must 
 have  cost  many  years  of  preparation,  nevertheless  disappears 
 after  his  first  year  from  the  monuments  as  if  he  were  dead ; 
 has  a  reign  in  the  lists  of  only  1  year  and  4  months ;  and  is 
 often  blended  confusedly  into  one  person  with  his  son,  as  in 
 this  very  narrative  of  Diodorus.  But  all  becomes  intelligible 
 if  it  be  historically  true  that  this  great  king  did  in  fact  lose 
 his  sight,  perhaps  through  some  casualty  in  war,  within  two 
 years  after  his  accession,  and  so  was  incapacitated  for 
 reigning  personally,  though  he  may  have  lived  on,  and  may 
 have  inspired  the  counsels  of  his  son. 
 
 Diodorus's  story  respecting  the  foundation  of  Babylon  in 
 Egypt  attracts  attention  both  for  the  interest  attaching  in 
 later  history  to  the  place  itself,  and  also  on  account  of  the 
 historical  obscurity  of  its  origin.  He  writes  that  among  the 
 multitudes  of  Asiatic  captives  brought  into  Egypt  by 
 Sesoosis  (who  here  means  Rameses  II.),  and  compelled  to 
 labour  on  his  great  works,  there  were  some  Babylonians, 
 who  were  driven  by  the  hardships  they  endured  to  mutiny. 
 So  having  banded  together  and  seized  a  position  which 
 cfFered  them  some  advantage,  they  held  out  so  obstinately 
 that  at  length  they  were  allowed  to  found  a  town  for  them- 
 selves, where  they  lived  not  as  slaves  but  as  free  subjects. 
 Ctesias  indeed,  he  admits,  had  another  story,  viz.  that  the 
 Egyptian  Babylon  was  founded  by  the  Babylonians  when 
 they  had  conquered  Egypt  under  Semiramis.     And  this  is 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 653 
 
 probably  much  nearer  to  the  truth.  Only,  we  must  not 
 think  of  Semiramis,  whose  conquest  is  a  fable  of  the  Asiatics, 
 intended  as  a  set-off  against  the  early  Egyptian  conquests  in 
 Asia,  and  irreconcilable  with  the  monumental  history  of 
 Egypt  For  the  date  of  Ninus  and  Semiramis,  if  one 
 reckons  up  520  or  525  years  from  the  revolt  of  Media, 
 putting  that  at  B.C.  747,  would  be  about  B.C.  1272.  And 
 though  Nineveh  itself  may  possibly  about  that  time  have 
 become  independent  under  Ninus,  the  stele  of  the  Imperial 
 Library  at  Paris  (see  above,  p.  235,  &c.)  shows  that  a 
 century  later  the  Ramessid  kings  still  retained  some  supre- 
 macy over  the  neighbouring  countries.  And  even  in  the  time 
 of  Her-Hor-Siamon  (p.  237)  tributes  from  all  the  lands 
 of  the  Rotennou "  (Chaldennou)  were  still  brought  into 
 Egypt.  But  if,  instead  of  Semiramis,  we  understand  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, there  will  be  nothing  improbable  in  the  state- 
 ment that  lie  left  behind  him  in  Egypt  a  fortress  garrisoned 
 by  Babylonians  just  opposite  to  Memphis.  (The  site  adjoins 
 that  of  Old  Cairo  and  of  "  Fostat^^  founded  where  the 
 "  Tent "  of  Amrou  had  been  pitched  over  against  Babylon). 
 On  the  overthrow  of  the  Babylonian  empire  by  Cyrus  the 
 Egyptian  Babylon,  together  with  Egypt  itself,  became  subject 
 to  Persia :  but  a  hint  of  the  nature  of  its  origin  may  be 
 traced  perhaps  even  in  Roman  times  under  the  fact  that  the 
 Romans  made  it  one  of  their  military  stations^  and  that  the 
 great  road,  provided  with  wells  at  short  intervals,  connecting 
 Gaza  and  the  sea-coast  of  Palestine  with  Egypt  ran  by  way 
 of  Heliopolis  to  Babylon.  Hence  it  is  that  tradition  names 
 Heliopolis  and  Babylon  as  the  places  through  which  the 
 Holy  Family  passed,  and  in  which  they  abode  when  they 
 took  refuge  in  Egypt ;  and  hence  it  is  intelligible  that  St. 
 Peter  (according  to  the  local  tradition  of  the  Copts)  should 
 date  one  of  his  Epistles  from  that  Babylon  which  was  a 
 double  type  both  by  its  name  and  by  its  locality. 
 
 He  alludes  in  lib.  i.,  but  like  Herodotus  only  incidentally,  to 
 the  fact  that  the  Jews  who  inhabit  the  country  between 
 Arabia  and  Syria  and  practise  circumcision  had  gone  forth 
 from  Egypt:"  "to  to)v  'lovhalwv  fysvos  ava  ^saov  ^Apa^las  Kal 
 livpias  oUiaac  rwas  opfiTjOivras  ivap  savTMv,^''  k,  t.\.  And 
 
654 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 as  the  topic  on  which  his  informants  were  speaking  was  that 
 of  Egyptian  colonisation,  the  Exodus  of  the  Hebrews  was 
 mentioned  in  order  after  the  flight  of  Danaus  and  the  settle- 
 ment in  Colchis,  as  if  these  three  events  might  all  be  re- 
 ferred to  the  reign  of  Sesostris-Sesoosis  (meaning  Eameses 
 II.),  whether  that  were  put  down  with  Herodotus  to  the 
 time  of  Rameses  III.,  or  put  up  with  Manetho  to  the  time 
 of  Sesortasen  III.  And  Diodorus's  scheme  was  elastic 
 enough  for  either  view.  In  two  other  passages,  fragments 
 of  lib.  xxxiv.  and  xl.,  Diodorus  plainly  follows  the  same 
 fable  respecting  the  Jews  which  has  been  extracted  in  its 
 original  form  from  Manetho  by  Josephus.  In  the  first  he 
 writes  that  "when  Antiochus  (in  Olymp.  161  was  be- 
 sieging J erusalem,  most  of  his  friends  urged  him  to  grant  no 
 terms,  as  the  Jews  were  on  principle  the  enemies  of  all 
 mankind,  and  had  no  claim  to  favour,  telling  him  also  of 
 their  ancestors,  how,  as  impious  wretches  and  hateful  to  the 
 gods,  they  had  been  expelled  from  all  Egypt.  For,  in  order 
 to  make  expiation  and  to  purify  the  country,  all  who  had 
 sores  or  leprosies  were  collected  together  and  driven  beyond 
 the  frontier.  And  these  outcasts  having  taken  possession 
 of  the  parts  about  Jerusalem,  and  formed  there  the  nation 
 of  the  Jews,  bequeathed  to  their  descendants  in  revenge  a 
 spirit  of  universal  misanthropy.  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  they 
 added,  having  entered  their  sanctuary,  found  there  the  stone 
 statue  of  a  bearded  man  seated  on  an  ass,  and  holding  a  book 
 in  his  hand.  This  he  supposed  to  be  Moses,  the  founder  of 
 Jerusalem,  who  had  first  made  that  nation  and  given  it  its 
 misanthropical  laws."  And  again  in  lib.  xl.  (Olymp.  179 
 /3'),  before  entering  upon  Pompey's  war  with  the  Jews,  he 
 gives  a  more  detailed  account  of  their  origin :  "  In  old 
 time,"  he  writes,  "  there  was  in  Egypt  a  great  plague,  which 
 the  people  ascribed  to  the  displeasure  of  the  gods.  For 
 there  were  then  settled  among  them  a  vast  multitude  of  all 
 sorts  of  strangers  following  customs  in  respect  of  worship  and 
 sacrifices  opposed  to  those  of  the  Egyptians ;  so  that  their 
 ancestral  worship  of  the  gods  was  dishonoured  and  brought 
 low  {KaraXtXvaOai),  Wherefore  the  natives  thought  that, 
 unless  they  cast  out  the  strangers,  they  should  obtain  no  re- 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 655 
 
 mission  of  their  plagues.  So  the  strangers  having  been 
 forthwith  cast  out,  the  most  distinguished  and  energetic  of 
 them  found  their  way  to  Greece,  and  to  some  other  countries, 
 under  leaders  of  note,  of  whom  the  most  eminent  were 
 Danaus  and  Cadmus.  But  the  great  multitude  were  driven 
 out  into  the  country  now  called  Judaea,  which  is  not  far 
 from  Egypt,  and  which  at  that  time  was  totally  uninhabited. 
 And  this  colony  was  led  by  Moses,  a  man  of  eminence  for 
 prudence  and  valour.  He,  having  taken  possession  of  the 
 country,  founded  in  it  both  other  cities,  and  the  capital 
 called  Jerusalem,  with  its  temple  which  they  so  much 
 venerate.  He  also  instituted  their  worship  and  ceremonies, 
 and  gave  them  their  laws  and  polity,"  &c.  And  here  Dio- 
 dorus  relates  with  accuracy  that  Moses  taught  them  "  to 
 worship  only  one  God,  and  to  make  no  image."  Those 
 Egyptian  fables  connecting  the  Jewish  worship  with  an  ass, 
 traces  of  which  appear  in  Diodorus's  story  of  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes,  are  explained  by  considering  that  the  ass  was  the 
 hieroglyphical  sign  for  Soutech  or  Typhon,  the  local  god  of  the 
 Sethroitic  Nome,  who  was  worshipped  there  by  the  Shepherd 
 kings  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others ;  so  that  in  later  times 
 he  was  regarded  by  the  Egyptians  as  the  special  god  of  the 
 Asiatic  strangers,  and  as  the  evil  or  malignant  deity  for  them- 
 selves. And,  further,  the  Egyptian  name  for  the  ass,  lao,  de- 
 rived plainly  like  many  other  names  from  the  voice  of  the 
 animal  itself,  is  the  very  same  word  'law  which  the  Greeks 
 sometimes  write,  having  heard  it  from  the  Syrians,  as  the 
 name  of  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,  and  the  sense  of  which 
 was  understood  by  the  Jews  when  Christ  took  it  to  himself, 
 according  to  its  Hebrew  etymology,  'O  '^Xli^,  or  '£70)  EZ^Ltt. 
 
 The  error  of  Herodotus  in  putting  down  some  details 
 belonging  to  Sesortasen  I.  or  III.  far  too  low,  and  fixing 
 them  together  with  what  belonged  to  Kameses  II.  and  III,  to 
 the  time  of  Rameses  III.,  was  owing  in  part  to  the  inten- 
 tional misrepresentations  of  the  Memphite  priests,  and  in 
 part,  perhaps,  to  some  unavoidable  misconception  and  con- 
 fusion of  his  own.  But  the  contrary  error  of  Manetho  in 
 carrying  up  to  an  earlier  Sesostris  of  his  own  Dyn.  XV 
 (XII  of  Ptolemy)  those  other  details  which  Herodotus  had 
 
G56 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 rightly  connected  with  one  much  later,  and  that  too  in 
 words  plainly  borrowed  from  Herodotus  himself,  was  an 
 impudent  imposture.  Diodorus  by  the  help  of  his  inform- 
 ants has  made  such  a  harmony  as  retains  all  the  confusion 
 and  nearly  all  the  errors  of  both  Herodotus  and  Manetho, 
 though  he  could  not  avoid  showing,  by  the  very  attempt  to 
 join  together  the  two  accounts,  that  the  Sesostris  both  of 
 Manetho  and  of  Herodotus  must  be  a  compound  and  fabulous 
 person.  But  the  Egyptians,  without  being  servile  imitators, — 
 for  each  of  them  in  turn  wished  to  exercise  his  own  in- 
 genuity,— seem  to  have  made  a  point  of  never  wholly  rejecting 
 the  fables  or  exposing  the  artifices  of  their  predecessors. 
 
 Sesoosis-Sesostris  was  succeeded,  according  to  Diodorus, 
 by  his  son  Sesoosis  IL,  who  corresponds  as  a  generation  or 
 abstract  reign  (when  Sesoosis  I.  is  identified,  as  in  Ma- 
 netho's  lists,  with  Sesortasen  III.)  to  Amenemhe  III.,  or  it 
 may  be  to  Amenemhe  IV.,  since  these  two  kings,  like 
 Sesortasen  II.  and  III.,  reigned  for  some  time  together,  and 
 one  or  other  of  them  may  be  omitted  or  transposed.  The 
 particulars,  however,  related  of  his  blindness  and  recovery, 
 being  the  same  as  belong  to  Pheron  the  son  and  successor  of 
 Sesostris  in  Herodotus,  are  connected  by  his  obelisks  with 
 the  times  of  Herodotus's  rather  than  Manetho's  Sesostris. 
 Indeed  the  elder  Pliny,  after  ascribing  the  Flaminian 
 obelisk  (of  Seti  1.  and  Rameses  II.)  to  "  Sothis,"  "Sethosis," 
 or  Sesosis,"  shows  that  under  this  name  he  alludes  to 
 Hameses  II.,  as  if  one  with  his  father  and  also  with  the 
 Sesostris  of  Herodotus,  by  mentioning  another  obelisk  as 
 set  up  b?/  his  son  Nenclioreus  (who  therefore  is  Merien- 
 phthah,  or  Amenophis,  son  and  successor  of  Rameses  II.,  and 
 also  the  Pheron  of  Herodotus,  and  the  Sesoosis  II.  of  Dio- 
 dorus) after  his  recovery  from  his  blindness.''^  "Is  [autem 
 obeliscus]  quem  [D.  Augustus]  in  Campo  Martio  [statuit, 
 excisus  est]  a  rege  Sethoside."  ..."  Tertius  est  Romje 
 in  Vaticano  Caii  et  Neronis  principum  Circo,  quem  fecerat 
 Sesosidis  filius  Nencoreus.  Ejusdem  remanet  et  alius  centum 
 cubitorum,  quem  post  ccecitatem  visu  reddito  ex  oraculo  Soli 
 dedicavit."  {Hist.  Nat  lib.  xxxvi.  cap.  xi.)  The  name  of 
 Sesoosis  II.,  which  seems  a  needless  variation  from  Hero- 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 657 
 
 dotus,  may  be  accounted  for  by  remarking  that  two  kings 
 of  one  and  the  same  name  Sefi,  viz.  Scti  I.  and  Seti  II.,  had 
 been  blended  by  Manctho  with  Rameses  IT.  and  Rameses 
 
 III.  respectively,  and  that  while  three  out  of  these  four 
 kings  entered  by  their  acts  into  the  character  of  Herodotus's 
 Sesostris,  the  other  one  who  did  not,  viz.  Seti  11.,  was  not 
 indeed  the  son,  but  the  grandson  of  Rameses  II.,  the  chief 
 component  of  the  same  Sesostris.  It  is  observable  that  in 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XV  (XII  of  Ptolemy)  to  which  the  earlier 
 Sesostris,  whether  Sesortasen  1.  or  III.,  belongs,  there  is  a 
 recurrence  of  the  name  Sesortasen  in  no  less  than  three  kings 
 similar  to  the  recurrence  of  the  name  Seti  in  Dynasties 
 XVIII  and  XIX.  But,  so  far  as  the  mere  name  goes, 
 Diodorus's  name  Sesoosis  cannot  with  any  probability  be 
 derived  either  from  Sesortasen  or  from  Sesostris. 
 
 After  ending  his  account  of  Sesoosis  II.  Diodorus  in- 
 troduces "a  considerable  number  of  the  kings  who  succeeded 
 him"  as  doing  nothing  worthy  to  be  recorded;"  "cru;}^z^ol  tmv 
 SLaSs^afjbsvcov  ouSsv  eirpa^av  dyajpa(f)7]9  a^iov.^^  Following  the 
 clue  given  in  the  words  "«/^er"  and  "  succeeding,"  but  under- 
 standing that  we  must  look  for  this  posteriority  and  succession 
 in  Manetho's  lists  below  his  Dyn.  XV,  there  being  no  place 
 for  it  between  the  two  kings  Amenemhe  III.  and  IV.  (or 
 
 IV.  and  III.)  before  the  completion  of  that  dynasty,  we  col- 
 lect that  these  "  numerous  kings  "  are  in  fact  the  xxxvi  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XVI  (XIV  of  Ptolemy)  and  the  vi  Shep- 
 herds of  his  Dyn.  XVII  (XV  of  Ptolemy),  who  would  other- 
 wise be  unnoticed.  That  the  numerous  kino;s  of  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XVI  did  nothing  remarkable  may  be  true  enough, 
 since  they  reigned  only  4  or  5  years  each  ;  and  whatever  was 
 done  by  the  six  Shepherds,  no  doubt,  in  the  opinion  of  Diodo- 
 rus's informants,  it  did  not  deserve  to  be  recorded.  And  all 
 these  kings  belonged  to  the  330  of  whom  the  same  thing  had 
 been  said  by  Herodotus.  And,  since  the  Nubians  of  Mane- 
 tho's Dyn.  XVI  and  the  Shepherds  of  his  Dyn.  XVII  were 
 really  contemporary  with  six  out  of  the  eight  reigns  of  his 
 Dyn.  XV  (XII  of  Ptolemy)  which  they  outlasted,  the  point 
 of  time  at  which  the  mention  of  them  is  inserted  by  Diodorus, 
 one  reign  below  Sesoosis  I.  or  Sesostris,  is  not  inappropriate. 
 
 u  u 
 
658 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 "  Many  generations  later  (UoXkah  ^'  varspov  ^svmis)  — 
 later,  that  is,  by  many  generations  than  Sesoosis  II.,  but  im- 
 mediately after  those  many  generations  of  his  successors  who 
 "did  nothing  remarkable" — a  king  nomQdiAmosis  dealt  harshly 
 and  tyrannically  with  the  multitudes  subject  to  him  ('Afifico- 
 cTLs  ^]px^  "T^^  6)(\cov  /SLaLOTSpov).  Amosis  here  contains  within 
 himself  by  implication  a  number  of  his  successors,  being  in 
 fact  that  "king  who  had  not  known  Joseph,"  from  whose  ac- 
 cession the  oppression  of  the  Hebrews  began,  and  of  whom 
 Josephus  rightly  observes  that  he  represents  a  new  house'''' 
 or  dynasty ;  "  ry-js  /SacnXslas  sis  dWrjv  oIkov  pLsrsXrjXvOvLa^, 
 Bsivcos  iuv^pt^ov  TS  Toh  ^l(Tpdr)\LTaL9  KOi  TaXaiirwpias  avrols 
 TTOLKcXas  sTTevoovv,^^  (^Ant,  Jud.  \\.  9,1,  p.  97.)  '^Jm  consequence 
 
 this  tyranny,  when  some  time  later"  (that  is,  164  years 
 later,  after  the  death  of  Amunoph  III.)  "the  king  of  the 
 Ethiopians  named  Ahtisanes^^  (by  metathesis,  perhaps,  for 
 Atn-hasan-es)  "invaded  Egypt,  the  greater  part  of  the  popu- 
 lation went  over  to  him,  and  Egypt  thus  fell  under  the 
 Ethiopians.  Aktisanes  governed  with  prudence  and  modera- 
 tion" (of  course),  contenting  himself  with  "cutting  off  the 
 noses  of  criminals,  whom  he  settled  at  Rhinocolura  "  (though 
 it  is  true  that  Manetho  suspects  him  of  having  also  roasted 
 and  eaten  Apis)  ;  "  and  he  retained  possession  of  Egypt  till 
 his  death.^^ 
 
 In  this  episode  the  Hebrews  and  the  Sun-worshippers  are 
 blended  together  as  in  the  fable  of  Manetho,  only  more  com- 
 pendiously, and  with  less  clearness,  the  earlier  Shepherds 
 ■  being  omitted,  though  no  doubt  the  later  and  shorter  subju- 
 gation of  Egypt  which  is  confessed  is  intended  to  cover 
 the  earlier  and  longer  which  is  dissembled.  Aktisanes  is 
 Khou'en-Atin  or  Cushan  Risathaim  (called  Xova-apdOcov  by 
 S.  Theophilus).  Only,  instead  of  being  an  "Arab  Cushite," 
 king  of  the  Arabian  Shepherds  (Shasou )  and  of  the  Me- 
 sopotamians,  he  is  made  into  an  Ethiopian  by  a  play  upon 
 the  first  syllable  of  his  name,  which  Gesenius  also,  accord- 
 ing to  Bunsen  (vol.  iii.  p.  290),  interprets  "the  most  inso- 
 lent Ethiopian.''^  That  he  is  really  the  Hierosolymite  of  Ma- 
 netho and  the  Sun-worshipper  of  the  monuments  is  indicated 
 in  the  lists  of  Anianus  and  Panodorus  (which  Syncellus 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS;  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  659 
 
 adopts  as  his  own)  by  a  parenthetical  notice,  of  which  only 
 the  heading  and  the  first  words  are  preserved,  "  Concerning 
 the  Ethiopians,  ivhence  they  came  originally,  and  lohere  they 
 settled.  The  Ethiopians  came  from  the  river  Indus,  and  they 
 settled  in  the  parts  next  above  Egypt.^''  ("  Tizpl  KIOlottcdv, 
 iToOzv  rjcrav,  Kal  irov  wicrjorav'  AWloitss  cltto  'Iz^SoO  TTOTajiov 
 avaaravTSs  irpos  rfj  AlyvTrra)  <pKr]cravJ^)  This  note  is  inserted 
 in  the  middle  of  Dyn.  XYIII,  between  the  reigns  of  Amunoph 
 III.  and  Horus,  a  position  which  speaks  for  itself,  and  shows 
 that  the  compiler  of  the  lists  (though  the  note  is  not  his,  but 
 older  than  the  Chronicon  of  Eusebius)  had  here  inserted  the 
 Ethiopian  invasion  of  Diodorus,  placing  it  not  after  the  reign 
 of  the  literal  Amosis,  but  after  that  of  his  seventh  successor. 
 
 The  purposes  of  this  myth  are  as  complex  as  its  composi- 
 tion. By  help  of  a  hint  taken  from  Manetho  all  that  "  did 
 not  deserve  to  be  recorded  "  concerning  the  Shepherds,  the 
 Hebrews,  and  the  later  Sun-worshippers,  was  thus  disposed 
 of  together  covertly  and  inoffensively.  And  whereas  Egypt 
 according  to  Manetho  had  been  twice  or  even  thrice  sub- 
 jugated by  Shasou  (^^  Shepherds,")  that  is  to  say,  both  by 
 the  Shepherds  properly  so  called,  by  the  Hebrews,  and  by  the 
 "  Hierosolymites,"  and  had  remained  under  the  yoke  of  the 
 first-named  Shepherds  during  six  long  generations,  w^hile 
 according  to  Herodotus  there  had  been  also  no  fewer  than 
 eighteen  Ethiopian  kings  (all  no  better  than  strangers) 
 before  the  accession  of  his  later  Sesostris,  Diodorus's  in- 
 formants compressed  all  these  strangers  into  a  single  Ethi- 
 opian, and  the  double  or  treble  subjugation  of  Egypt  into 
 one ;  so  that  in  summing  up  their  whole  history  they  had 
 no  need  to  except  from  the  list  of  native  kings  any  more  in 
 all  than/bwr  Ethiopians,  and  those  at  intervals,  besides  the 
 three  Persians  between  Nectanebo  and  Alexander,  the 
 Shepherds  being  slurred  over  unnamed  together  with  a 
 crowd  of  native  faineants  their  contemporaries,  and  the  eight 
 or  five  Persians  of  Dyn.  XXVII  having  exercised  only  an 
 interrupted  and  disputed  sovereignty. 
 
 Here  again  it  is  remarkable  how  closely  Diodorus's  in- 
 formants adhere  to  the  exclusively  Memphite  account  of 
 Herodotus  even  at  the  expense  of  poetical  propriety.  For 
 
 u  U  2 
 
660 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 though  it  might  be  intelligible  that  Mempliite  priests  should 
 ignore,  if  they  could,  as  semi-Ethiopian  strangers  the  kings 
 of  Djn.  XVIII,  as  well  as  those  of  the  later  Theban  dyn- 
 asties, it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  Thebans  should  have 
 let  Diodorus  retain  a  misrepresentation  so  offensive  to  their 
 own  local  patriotism.  Yet  this  they  did,  and  worse.  For 
 Avhile  they  had  Egyptian  patriotism  enough  to  consolidate 
 for  him  Herodotus's  eighteen  Ethiopians  into  one,  they  had 
 not  enou2:h  of  Theban  zeal  to  think  it  even  worth  while  to 
 fill  the  seventeen  places  vacated  with  the  Theban  kings  to 
 whom  they  really  belonged ;  but  they  supplied  Diodorus 
 only  with  doubles  of  earlier  kings  of  some  of  Manetho's  six 
 dynasties  of  Lower  Egypt,  as  abstract  generations,  with 
 which  to  bridge  over  the  chasm.  But  this  is  a  slight  matter. 
 So  reckless  were  they,  and  so  off-hand  in  their  fabling,  that 
 they  actually  for  once  let  out,  as  if  unconsciously,  some  part 
 of  that  disagreeable  truth  which  Egyptian  falsehood  was  ordi- 
 narily most  studious  to  conceal.  As  if  it  were  not  enough 
 to  let  Diodorus  omit  all  their  Theban  dynasties,  they  actually 
 introduce  by  name  Amosls,  and  in  him  his  successors,  not  as 
 the  glorious  expellers  of  the  impious  and  tyrannical  Shep- 
 herds, but  as  kings  chiefly  remarkable  for  their  oivn  tyranny 
 and  oppression  towards  multitudes  of  their  subjects.  They  add 
 that,  in  consequence  of  their  tyranny,  the  oppressed  multi- 
 tudes (not  really  on  occasion  of  any  foreign  invasion)  cast 
 off  their  obedience.  If  one  passes  on  to  the  later  invasion  of 
 the  Sun-worshippers  (which  as  a  consequence  is  confessed,  as 
 as  it  is  by  Manetho  too,  to  have  been  also  ?i' retribution  for  the 
 oppression  of  the  Hebrews),  Dlodorus's  Informants  agree 
 exactly  with  Manetho  in  hinting  that  the  success  of  the 
 invaders  was  owing  to  the  circumstance  that  they  were 
 favoured  by  a  party  among  the  Egyptians  themselves.  Ma- 
 netho mentions  also  some  affinity  of  blood.  But  as  regards 
 the  Shepherd-Hebrew-Hlerosolymites  of  Manetho  and  Hero- 
 dotus's semi-Ethiopian  kings  of  Dyn.  XYIII  the  parts  in 
 Dlodorus's  account  are  completely  reversed.  Instead  of  the 
 former  being  expelled  for  their  Impiety  or  leprosy  by  what 
 might  seem  to  tJtem,  but  not  to  Theban  priests,  an  Ethiopian 
 invasion  and  conquest,  the  latter  (as  if  they  were  themselves 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  661 
 
 the  impious  tyrants  who  under  a  Typhonian  influence  had 
 oppressed  their  subjects),  are  conquered  and  dispossessed 
 not  by  Hierosolymites,  but  by  Ethiopians,  when  they  were 
 in  truth  the  Ethiopians  themselves. 
 
 After  this  curious  parenthesis  —  according  to  the  text  of 
 Diodorus  "after  the  death  of  the  Ethiopian  Aktisanes — the 
 Egyptians  recovered  their  independence,  and  set  up  a  native 
 king  named  Mendes  (Amenemhe)  or  Marros,  who  was  by  no 
 means  warlike  "  (that  is,  he  was  a  vassal  under  the  Shep- 
 herds), but  who  built  the  Labyrinth.  And  from  this  original 
 Labyrinth  it  was,  as  Diodorus  adds,  that  Daedalus  afterwards 
 took  a  hint  in  the  time  of  the  Cretan  Minos.  This  men- 
 tion of  the  Labyrinth,  as  well  as  the  name  of  the  king, 
 leaves  no  doubt  that  the  narrative  here  reverts  to  that  point 
 in  Manetho's  Dynasty  XY  (XII  of  Ptolemy)  at  which  the 
 episode  of  the  numerous  faineants  and  of  Amosis  and  Akti- 
 sanes was  inserted ;  since  Manetho  (and  Eratosthenes  too) 
 have  in  the  same  place  both  the  name  Lamares  or  Mares, 
 and  the  notice  respecting  the  Labyrinth  (in  which  there  is  a 
 real  correction  of  Herodotus). 
 
 Here  Diodorus  ends  his  notices  of  the  earlier  Sesostris 
 and  of  the  times  following,  in  a  word,  of  all  the  history 
 belonging  to  Manetho's  Dynasties  XY,  XYI,  XYII,  and 
 XYIII.  And  here  we  are  suddenly  reminded  that  his 
 Sesostris-Sesoosis,  like  the  Sesostris  of  Herodotus,  is  com- 
 pound and  unchronological.  For  while  we  have  been  fancy- 
 ing ourselves  perhaps  to  be  distinctly  and  exclusively 
 occupied  with  th«  kings  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XY  (XII  of 
 Ptolemy),  though  some  particulars  related  of  them  may 
 be  drawn  up  from  later  times,  we  are  now  to  find  that  we 
 have  already  come  to  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIX,  the  bridge  on 
 which  we  have  passed  silently  and  unconsciously  over  the 
 longest  and  most  important  of  all  Egyptian  dynasties,  as 
 over  a  chasm,  having  been  prepared  beforehand  in  those 
 sixteen  abstract  generations  by  which  Diodorus  was  in 
 advance  of  Manetho  when  we  first  arrived  at  his  Sesoosis- 
 Sesostris.  These,  with  two  more  indicated  by  the  names 
 Amosis  and  Aktisanes,  serve  to  parallel  the  eighth  and  last 
 reign  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XY  (XII  of  Ptolemy), — the  (xxxvi 
 
 U  u  3 
 
062 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 +  vi=)  xlii  reigns  of  Manetlio's  Dynasties  XVI  and  XVII 
 (XIV  and  XV  of  Ptolemy)  having  been  already  accounted 
 for  parenthetically, — and  the  xvi  reigns  (increased  to  xvii 
 by  the  Hierosolymite  or  Ethiopian)  of  Dyn.  XVIII.  And  it 
 is  to  be  remembered  that  those  eighteen  Ethiopians  also  who 
 were  mentioned  to  Herodotus  (though  in  strictness  they 
 probably  include  the  first  two  reigns  of  Dyn.  XIX)  have 
 now  been  accounted  for. 
 
 .  After  the  death  of  this  king,"  Diodorus  continues,  —  as 
 if  he  were  going  on  to  name  Scemiophris,  or  to  relate  what 
 followed  after  the  end  of  Dyn.  XV  of  Manetho,  but  we 
 must  understand  him  as  if  he  had  written  "  After  the  (49 
 [H-4]  +  16  +  5  +  1[  +  36  +  6  +  2]  +  1  +  16  =  )  136  reigns  and 
 generations  hitherto  enumerated,  corresponding  to  the  (136 
 
 —  4  =  )  132  kings  of  Manetho's  Books  1.  and  II."  —  "  there 
 followed  five  generations  of  anarchy."  "  Msra  hi  ttjv  tov 
 ^aaCksws  tovtov  tsXsvttjv,  e'ttI  ysvsas  ttsvts  ysvofisvrj^  avap- 
 ^^tas-,"  K.  T.  X.  These  five  generations  are  the  first  five  reigns 
 of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIX,  to  which  no  incredible  outrage  is 
 done,  even  though  it  does  contain  historically  the  l^sOws  6 
 Kal  'VafisaGTjs  of  Manetho  and  the  Sesostris-Eameses  III.  of 
 Herodotus,  seeing  that  it  could  not  expect  to  fare  better 
 than  Dyn.  XVIII,  which  is  represented  only  by  one  native 
 tyrant  and  one  well-behaved  Ethiopian  helped  out  by  15 
 abstract  generations.  The  "  anarchy  "  is  elicited  from 
 Herodotus's  expression  concerning  Proteus,  that  he  was  "  a 
 man  of  Memphis"  who  "  was  elected  king."  The  Jive  gene- 
 rations  of  anarchy  are  perhaps  intended  (besides  their  direct 
 purpose  of  bringing  us  on  to  the  sixth  and  last  reign  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XIX)  to  convey  an  allusion  to  the  "  anar- 
 chical "  time  of  the  six  Shepherds,  insufl&ciently  indicated 
 above  by  an  unnumbered  crowd  of  faineants  or  by  the  single 
 Ethiopian  or  Hierosolymite  connected  with  them  by  Ma- 
 netho. And  if  any  small  shred  of  historical  truth  is  de- 
 sired to  render  the  fable  more  colourable,  it  may  be  looked 
 for  perhaps  in  the  fact  that  there  were  at  least  two  actual 
 reigns,  and  not  short  reigns,  at  the  commencement  of  Dyn. 
 XIX  (before  Sethos-Kameses  could  return  from  Ethiopia), 
 and  lower  down  in  the  dynasty  a  third,  which  were  all  dis- 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULU^.  663 
 
 allowed  as  illegitimate.  Thus  then  we  have  only  one  reign 
 of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIX  still  to  come ;  and  concerning  it 
 Diodorus  proceeds  thus : 
 
 "  They  elected  to  be  king  a  man  of  the  people  named 
 CeteSf  or  as  the  Greeks  call  him  Proteus,  who  was  contem- 
 porary with  the  war  of  Troy."  "  'Hps Or]  tcov  ado^cov  res  (3a- 
 aCksvs  ov  AlyvTrrtOL  fxev  6vo/j.d<^ov(7L  l^sryv  .  .  .  irapa  8s  roiac 
 '^FXXrjai  UpcoTSV^f  6  Kara  rov  ^iXiaKov  ysvofisvos  ttoXs/jlov.^^ 
 And  Diodorus  explains  the  story  of  Proteus  assuming  dif- 
 ferent forms  by  saying  that  he  was  skilled  in  magic  and 
 astrology,  and  after  obtaining  the  crown  he,  like  other  Egyp- 
 tian kings,  wore  from  time  to  time  a  variety  of  head-dresses 
 resembling  the  forms  or  heads  of  different  animals.  So  in 
 Proteus  he  rejoins  Herodotus.  And  here  again  we  may 
 wonder  at  the  apathy  or  liberality  of  his  Theban  inform- 
 ants. For  in  the  time  of  Homer  the  reigning  dynasty 
 was  certainly  Theban,  and  Homer  himself  signifies  this, 
 mentioning  the  presents  made  by  Polybus  and  his  con- 
 sort Alcandra  to  Menelaus  and  Helen  at  Thebes,  But 
 the  Memphites,  ignoring  Polybus  and  Thebes,  made  for 
 Herodotus  a  "man  of  Memphis,"  and  a  king  "  elected"  in 
 Greek  fashion  by  the  people,  out  of  a  very  different  but  con- 
 temporary personage  also  named  by  Homer,  viz.  "  the  im- 
 mortal Proteus,"  who  might  be  like  other  deities  no  doubt  for 
 his  nationality,  but  who  was  found  by  Menelaus  more  in  the 
 character  of  a  seal  (Ketes)  or  a  Triton  than  a  king,  swimming 
 about  in  the  train  of  Neptune  off  the  shores  of  Egypt.  Ma- 
 netho  in  this  point  at  least,  though  himself  of  Lower  Egypt, 
 and  others'  as  it  seems  before  him,  had  fairly  improved  upon 
 Herodotus  by  substituting  a  Theban  king  whom  he  iden- 
 tified with  the  Polybus  of  Homer  for  the  Memphite 
 Proteus.  If,  as  is  probable,  the  date  for  Troy  intended 
 to  be  covered  by  the  Proteus  of  Diodorus  is  not  his 
 own  (B.C.  1184),  but  that  of  his  informants  and  of  Ma- 
 netho  (B.C.  1212),  Diodorus's  generation  of  Proteus  may 
 be  taken  to  end  together  with  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIX,  the 
 last  reign  of  which  includes  Manetho's  date  for  Troy. 
 This  should  be  according  to  the  true  chronology  in  B.C. 
 1206.  But  according  to  jNIanetho's  apparent  chronology  the 
 .  u  u  4 
 
664 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 last  reign  of  Dyn.  XIX  ends  about  three  years  later,  in  B.C. 
 1203.  Herodotus's  date  for  Troy  is  a  full  generation  earlier 
 than  that  of  Manetho,  and  his  generation  of  Proteus  ends  at 
 the  latest  (that  is,  when  the  death  of  his  Moeris  is  put  in 
 B.C.  1321)  in  B.C.  1221.  So  that  at  the  end  of  the  generation 
 of  Proteus  Diodorus  has  gained  18  years,  and  is  by  so  much 
 in  advance  of  Herodotus.  And,  consequently,  instead  of 
 having  to  fill  up  a  void  of  eight  generations  and  1 9  years  of  a 
 ninth,  wanting  to  Herodotus  between  the  end  of  his  genera- 
 tion of  Sethon  (b.c.  1321-340  =  981-26  =  955)  and  his 
 date  for  the  accession  of  Psammitichus  I.  (b.c.  525  +  145  = 
 670),  Diodorus  will  have  to  add  exactly  eight  generations. 
 
 In  fact,  from  the  point  where  we  now  are,  viz.  from  the 
 end  of  the  generation  of  Proteus,  Diodorus  and  his  inform- 
 ants no  longer  attend  to  the  number  of  Manetlio^s  kingsy 
 which  down  to  this  point  they  have  paralleled  leaving  the 
 years  to  take  care  of  themselves,  but  they  think  only  of 
 paralleling  Herodotus's  generations,  and  filling  up  the  void 
 left  in  his  reckoning,  till  they  reach  Dyn.  XXVI,  the  actual 
 reigns  and  history  of  which  were  known  to  the  Greeks. 
 
 The  wealth  of  Diodorus's  successor  to  Proteus,  stated  at 
 400,000  talents  of  gold  and  silver,  would  of  itself  identify 
 him  with  the  Rampsinitus  of  Herodotus  even  without  the 
 name  Bernphis,  which  is  only  slightly  corrupted  by  writing 
 jjb(f)  for  fiyjr,  the  original  name  given  to  Herodotus  being 
 Rampses-Nit  or  Rameses- si-Nit.  The  generation  of  Kemphis 
 brings  Diodorus  down  from  B.C.  1203  to  B.C.  1170. 
 
 After  his  death  Diodorus  inserts  "  seven  generations  of 
 kings  who  did  absolutely  nothing."  As  he  is  already  18 
 j^ears  in  advance,  this  insertion  of  itself  fills  up  within  one 
 generation  the  whole  remaining  void  left  by  Herodotus. 
 And  being  made  before  completing  the  parallel  of  Hero- 
 dotus's eleven  generations,  it  depresses  the  pyramid-builders 
 who  are  still  to  follow,  so  as  to  make  them  come  (18+233 
 =  )  251  years  lower  even  than  the  date  at  which  they  had 
 been  put  by  Herodotus.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Ethiopians 
 of  Dyn.  XXV  are  hereby  thrust  down  into  something  like 
 their  true  place.       Toutou      ('Ps^^iws")  TsXsvTT^cravTos,  iirl 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  665 
 
 The  only  one  in  whose  favour  some  sort  of  exception  is 
 made  so  as  to  afford  a  pretext  for  naming  him  is  "  Nilus, 
 who  cut  many  useful  canals,  and  from  whom  the  river  was 
 afterwards  named."  The  allusion  here  is  to  the  monumental 
 king  Siphthah,  the  last  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIX,  whom  he 
 identifies  with  the  Polyhus  of  Homer,  and  makes  contem- 
 porary with  Troy.  And  the  name  Si-Phthah  is  capable 
 with  the  addition  of  Re  of  making  Phouo-re  or  Thouore, 
 which  by  a  play  upon  the  sound  becomes  with  Manetho 
 Ph-iouro,  Nilus.  But  Diodorus,  having  retained  the  Pro- 
 teus of  Herodotus,  and  having  given  to  him  the  chronological 
 place  belonging  to  Nilus,  wished  still  to  mark  the  Nilus  of 
 Manetho.  And,  as  the  next  place  after  Proteus  was  preoc- 
 cupied by  Herodotus's  Kamsinitus,  he  placed  him,  as  it 
 seems,  at  the  head  of  the  seven  faineants,  where,  however, 
 his  generation  begins  14  years  too  low  to  include  Diodorus's 
 own  date  for  Troy.  Nilus  then  with  his  six  successors 
 carry  on  Diodorus  233  years,  from  B.C.  1170  to  B.C.  937, 
 which  is  41  years  below  the  end  of  the  Diospolite  Dyn.  XX 
 and  the  commencement  of  the  Tanite-Bubastite  Dyn.  XXI 
 of  the  Old  Chronicle. 
 
 According  to  Herodotus  the  accession  of  Cheops  being 
 put  four  full  generations  or  133  years  below  the  death  of 
 Moeris,  that  is,  at  B.C.  (1321  - 133  =  )  1188  at  the  latest,  the 
 commencement  of  the  building  of  the  pyramids  (which  his- 
 torically was  not  till  about  90  years  after  the  accession  of 
 the  earliest  Sesostris)  could  not  be  carried  back  more  than 
 about  (B.C.  1188  -  13  =  1175-450=)  725  years  before 
 his  time,  which  would  be  (725 -f  392  =  )  1118  years  before 
 the  time  of  Diodorus.  But  according  to  Diodorus's  own 
 reckoning  there  would  be  only  (b.c.  937  —  13  =  924  —  58  =  ) 
 866  years  at  the  most  from  the  commencement  of  the  great 
 pyramid  of  Cheops  to  his  own  time.  And  if,  as  seems  to  be 
 the  case,  he  departed  from  Herodotus  in  reckoning  to 
 Cheops  and  to  Cephren  not  merely  average  generations  but 
 their  actual  reigns,  this  will  bring  the  20th  year  before  the 
 death  of  Cheops  17  years  lower — to  B.C.  920.  Yet  he  has 
 given  two  statements  respecting  the  antiquity  of  the  pyra- 
 mids which  are  neither  of  them  explainable  without  the 
 
666 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 admission  of  some  inconsistency.  Some,  he  says,  made 
 them  to  have  been  built  "  not  less  than  1000  years  ago." 
 This  may  suit  the  reckoning  of  Herodotus,  since  we  need  not 
 go  back  much  further  than  to  the  completion  of  the  pyramid 
 of  Asychis,  20  years  and  three  full  generations  later  than 
 the  commencement  of  the  great  pyramid  of  Cheops.  And  so 
 there  might  be  reckoned  (1118  —  120  =  )  998  yetirs  from  the 
 death  of  Asychis  to  the  time  of  Diodorus,  and  not  less  than 
 1000 "  from  the  building  of  the  later  pyramids.  For  it 
 would  be  natural,  when  the  pyramids  had  already  been  put 
 down  so  much  too  low  by  Herodotus,  that  Diodorus's 
 informants,  if  they  did  not  give  the  highest  possible  date, 
 from  the  first  commencement  made  by  Cheops  (which  was 
 rather  to  be  expected)  would  at  any  rate  give  a  date  some- 
 what higher  than  that  of  the  death  of  the  king  who  seemed 
 to  have  built  the  last  of  them.  But  with  Diodorus's  own 
 reckoning  neither  "  not  less  than  a  thousand  years,"  nor 
 even  nearly  a  thousand  "  could  be  said,  since  there  are  at 
 most  (that  is,  from  the  20th  year  before  the  death  of 
 Cheops)  only  866  years  to  his  time.  But  others,  he  adds, 
 gave  a  very  different  account,  viz.  that  the  pyramids  were 
 built  3400  years  before  his  time.  This  second  statement 
 must  be  meant  either  to  suit  the  hieratic  reckoning  of  the 
 kings,  according  to  which  there  were  in  all  5016  years  from 
 Menes  to  Diodorus's  own  time,  or  else  to  suit  that  of  Ma- 
 netho,  which  would  make  (3555  +  11+276  =  )  3842  years. 
 (Ptolemy's  scheme,  w^hich  would  have  made  5487  years,  is 
 here  out  of  the  question.)  Upon  the  first  supposition  it  is  ne- 
 cessary to  read  4400  instead  of  3400  ;  and  then  the  sum  may 
 be  accounted  for  by  deducting  from  5016  the  (190  +  205  + 
 214  =  )  609  years  of  the  first  three  dynasties  of  kings  (of 
 course  without  Manetho's  additions)  down  to  the  accession 
 of  Soris.  Thus  there  would  be  a  sum  of  4407  years,  not 
 indeed  exactly  up  to  the  commencement  of  the  great  py- 
 ramid by  Cheops,  but  to  the  beginning  of  his  dynasty,  49 
 years,  as  Herodotus  might  have  reckoned,  before  he  com- 
 menced his  preparations.  And,  even  if  these  49  years  were 
 deducted,  4358  might  with  only  a  little  exaggeration  in  speak- 
 ing roundly  be  called    about"  or  '^nearly  4400  years."  But 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 667 
 
 if  the  scheme  of  Manetho  were  alluded  to,  and  the  present 
 reading  of  three  not  four  thousands  is  to  be  maintained  as 
 correct,  it  will  be  more  difficult  to  give  a  satisfactory  account 
 of  the  statement.  For  there  will  be  at  most  only  442  years 
 which  can  be  spared  to  cut  off  (from  the  head  of  a  sum  of 
 3842  years)  for  all  those  kings  who  preceded  the  pyramid- 
 builders  ;  whereas  in  Manetho's  scheme  there  are  no  fewer 
 than  (253-1-302  +  214=:)  769  years  from  the  accession  of 
 Menes  to  that  of  Soris  the  head  of  his  Dyn.  XI  (lY  of 
 Ptolemy).  The  only  apparent  resource  would  be  to  suppose, 
 first,  that  Diodorus's  informants  cut  off  from  Manetho's  sum 
 of  3555  years  of  kings  his  addition  of  63  years  to  Menes  and 
 Athothis  (as  we  have  found  them  cutting  off  these  same 
 years  from  the  1491  of  the  first  49  or  53  kings);  and  so, 
 Manetho's  sum  being  reduced  to  3492,  this,  with  (11  +  276 
 =  )  287  years  of  continuation  to  Diodorus's  own  time,  would 
 make  a  total  of  3779.  And  if  we  suppose  them  to  have 
 deducted  from  this  sum  not  the  (190-302  +  214  =  )  706 
 years  still  remaining  to  Manetho's  first  three  dynasties  of 
 kings,  which  they  ought  to  have  deducted,  but  the  true  chrono- 
 logical sum  of  years  from  Menes  to  the  30^/i  year  of  Cheops, 
 these,  which  amount  to  (190+ 103  +  29  +  30  =  )  352,  being 
 deducted  from  3779,  leave  a  sum  of  3427  years  for  the 
 interval  between  the  commencement  of  the  great  pyramid 
 and  the  time  of  Diodorus ;  and  this  agrees  with  the  state- 
 ment to  be  explained. 
 
 After  the  wealthy  Remphis  and  the  seven  faineants  above- 
 mentioned,  "  in  the  eighth  generation,"  so  Diodorus  con- 
 tinues, "  Chemmis  the  Memphite  became  king,  and  reigned 
 50  years.  He  employed  in  building  his  pyramid  360,000 
 men ;  and  the  whole  was  scarcely  finished  "  (that  is,  was  not 
 in  truth  finished,  when  he  died)  "after  20  years."  If  we  give 
 to  Chemmis,  or  rather  Chembis  or  Chemvis  (for  it  is  the 
 letter  m  which  has  intruded),  his  full  actual  reign  of  50 
 years,  which  Diodorus,  as  will  appear  below,  intends  to  be 
 given,  he  will  bring  us  down  from  B.C.  937  to  B.C.  887. 
 
 *^  After  Chembis  his  brother  Kephren  who  built  the  second 
 pyramid  reigned  56  years.  But  some  say  that  it  was  not  the 
 brother  of  Chembis  but  his  son,  named  Chahryas,  who  built 
 
668 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 the  second  pyramid."  Whether  he  were  called  brother  or 
 son,  the  two  names  K£(ppr]v  and  'Ka^pvrjs  are  identical,  and 
 agree  perfectly  with  the  monumental  name  Kfiajjhra,  as  do  all 
 the  variations  Xloi/r,  Xs/jl^ls  or  XsfifjLc^,  "flvcfyLs,  ^dco(j)L9, 
 and  Xov(j>Ls,  with  the  monumental  name  of  his  predecessor 
 Khoufou.  This  actual  reign  of  56  years,  reckoned  like  the 
 preceding,  brings  us  on  from  B.C.  887  to  B.C.  831.  And 
 Diodorus,  by  reckoning  these  two  actual  reigns  has  gained 
 (106  —  67  =  )  39  years  upon  Herodotus,  irrespectively  of 
 those  18  by  which  he  was  in  advance  of  him  at  the  death  of 
 Proteus,  and  of  the  seven  generations  with  233  years  since 
 inserted. 
 
 After  these  two,  "^who,  as  some  said,  being  odious  tyrants 
 were  either  never  buried  in  their  pyramids  or  were  not  allowed 
 to  rest  there,  Mycerinus,  the  son  of  Cliemmis  (who  shared 
 not  the  impiety  of  his  predecessors),  reigned,  and  built  the 
 third  pyramid."  Here  he  rightly  follows  Herodotus  in  pre- 
 ference to  Manetho,  who  upon  a  hint  furnished  by  Hero- 
 dotus had  founded  his  fable  respecting  Nitocris.  "  The 
 other  lesser  pyramids  [adjoining]  were  built  for  the  wives  of 
 these  three  kings."  So  he  writes,  as  if  there  were  only 
 three  of  these  lesser  pyramids,  whereas  there  are  three 
 adjoining  the  pyramid  of  Cheops,  and  three  more  adjoining 
 that  of  Mycerinus.  Mycerinus  brings  him  on  from  B.C.  831 
 to  B.C.  797. 
 
 Asychis,  the  builder  of  the  brick  pyramid,  who  follows 
 next  in  Herodotus,  is  omitted  by  Diodorus,  not  perhaps  by 
 mere  oversight,  nor  by  a  caprice  which  it  would  be  difficult 
 to  account  for,  but  in  compensation  for  having  reckoned 
 their  actual  reigns,  instead  of  reckoning  only  with  Herodotus 
 average  generations,  to  Cheops  and  Cephren.  And  even 
 after  omitting  Asychis  he  has  still  both  paralleled  Hero- 
 dotus's  four  generations  of  Cheops,  Cephren,  Mycerinus, 
 and  Asychis,  and  has  gained  upon  Herodotus  6  years 
 besides. 
 
 It  may  be  said  indeed  that  in  another  place  Diodorus  has 
 named  Asychis  or  Sasychis,  which  is  the  same  thing,  and 
 that  so  probably  he  named  or  intended  to  name  him  here ; 
 and  the  name  may  have  dropped  out.    And  the  admission  of 
 
GREEK  authors:  diodorus  siculus. 
 
 6G9 
 
 this  view  would  make  no  great  dilFercnce,  if  only  they  who 
 think  proper  to  restore  here  the  name  of  Asychis  take  care 
 to  reckon  at  the  same  time  to  Chembis  and  Kephren  only 
 average  generations  instead  of  their  actual  reigns.  But  the 
 Sasychis  or  Sahoura  mentioned  elsewhere  by  Diodorus,  in 
 enumerating  the  Egyptian  legislators  (though  the  name  is 
 the  same),  is  not  really  the  same  king  as  the  Sahoura  of 
 Herodotus  who  built  the  brick  pyramid.  For  Sasychis  the 
 legislator  of  Diodorus  is  named  before  Sesoosis,  that  is, 
 before  the  Sesostris  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XV  (XII  of  Pto- 
 lemy). But  the  Asychis  of  Herodotus  is  named  among 
 kings  who  are  all  later  than  Sesostris.  And  in  fact  the 
 name  Sahoura  is  still  legible  among  the  earliest  kings  to  our 
 left  in  the  Karnak  Chamber :  and  the  same  king  may  be 
 identified  in  the  list  of  Eratosthenes  as  the  predecessor  of 
 Snefrou,  the  next  but  one  as  suzerain  before  Mojris,  and  the 
 next  but  two  or  three  before  Sesortasen  I.,  being  the  head 
 seemingly  of  Dyn.  XVII  of  the  Chronicle. 
 
 "  Some  say,"  Diodorus  adds,  after  ending  his  account  of 
 Mycerinus  and  the  third  pyramid,  "  that  these  three  pyra- 
 mids were  not  built  by  the  kings  above-mentioned,  but 
 the  first  by  Armmis,  the  second  by  Amasis  "  (the  Egyptian 
 name  written  Amosis  or  Amasis  is  Aahmes),  "  and  the  third 
 by  Inaron.''^  The  thought  in  this  story  was  probably  to 
 substitute  some  other  idea  than  that  of  the  Shepherd  Phili- 
 tion  suggested  by  a  parallel  passage  of  Herodotus.  And 
 since  Diodorus  had  already  improved  so  far  on  Herodotus  as 
 to  bring  the  building  of'  the  pyramids  down  to  the  time  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XXII,  there  could  be  no  great  harm  in 
 making  him  go  all  lengths.  So  after  giving  the  first  pyra- 
 mid either  to  Danaus  (who  built  it  hastily  in  his  brother's 
 absence,  and  before  he  fled  to  Argos)  or  to  the  king  popularly 
 reported  among  the  Greeks  to  be  entombed  within  the  great 
 Sphinx,  called  Armais  by  Pliny  (who  was  in  fact  no  other 
 than  the  great  Sphinx  "  Harmachis  "  herself),  they  ascribed 
 the  second  to  Amasis  (who  may  have  employed  his  Greeks 
 in  building  it),  and  the  third  to  Inaron  (who  built  it  no 
 doubt  by  the  labour  of  his  Persian  captives,  and  had  only  just 
 finished  it  in  time  for  Herodotus  to  find  it  complete).  So 
 
670 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 they  laughed  at  Diodorus  to  his  face ;  while  he  perhaps 
 supposed  the  three  names  Arma^us,  Amasis,  and  Inaron  to 
 belong  to  three  kings  of  unknown  antiquity,  and  wrote 
 down  all  that  was  told  him,  without  omitting  to  add  from 
 Herodotus  that  some  said  the  third  pyramid  was  the  tomb  of 
 Rhodopis,  the  contemporary  of  Amasis. 
 
 After  the  generation  of  Mycerinus,  that  is,  in  B.C.  797 
 at  the  latest,  24  years  below  the  date  (b.c.  821)  where 
 Herodotus's  generation  of  Asychis  would  have  ended,  if  he 
 too  had  inserted  seven  generations  of  faineants  between  Ram- 
 psinitus  and  Cheops,  Diodorus  introduces  not  Anysis,  but 
 — as  if  he  were  about  to  correct  Herodotus — the  historical 
 king  who  was  really  defeated  by  the  Ethiopian  Sabaco, 
 namely  Bocchoris,  Since  Anysis  is  not  named,  we  may 
 understand  that  the  historical  king  indicated  by  that  name 
 is  disjoined  (and  rightly  disjoined)  from  Sabaco ;  and  that  he 
 is  covered  in  his  proper  place,  like  Asychis  and  Technatis 
 and  all  other  kings  similarly  unnamed  in  this  series,  by  those 
 abstract  generations  or  reigns  reckoned  like  generations 
 which  are  enumerated.  "  Msra  tovs  TrposLprjfjbsvovs  Pacru- 
 \sL9  SisSs^aro  rrjv  ap)(r]v  JioK^opLs,^^  After  the  above- 
 mentioned  kings  Bocchoris  succeeded  to  the  throne,  a  man 
 of  mean  personal  appearance,  but  of  great  wisdom.''^  Else- 
 where Diodorus  is  made  to  reckon  him  among  the  legisla- 
 tors. And  again,  in  another  place,  his  father  Tnephactus  or 
 Technatis  is  represented  as  a  warlike  prince  invading  Syria. 
 So  little  were  they  in  danger  of  being  themselves  invaded 
 from  Ethiopia. 
 
 At  this  point,  before  continuing,  we  may  notice  that  pro- 
 digious anachronism  of  Apion  and  Lysimachus  by  which  they 
 described  the  Exodus  of  the  Hebrews  as  having  taken  place 
 under  Bocchoris,  about  the  time  of  the  first  Olympiad,  or  later. 
 Josephus  mentions  01.  7  a,  as  the  date  for  this  story,  as  if  it 
 were  a  mere  blunder,  with  very  natural  contempt ;  but  it  is 
 worthy  of  attention  both  as  illustraiting  the  sensitiveness  and 
 the  humour  of  the  Egyptians,  and  also  as  being  really  connected 
 with  that  scheme  (if  it  can  be  called  a  scheme)  of  Herodotus 
 and  Diodorus  which  we  are  considering.  The  Exodus  really 
 took  place  (b.c.  1932  —1654  =  )  278  years  after  the  death 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 671 
 
 of  the  original  Sesostris,  Sesortasen  I.,  and  about  94  years 
 after  the  end  of  the  dynasty  of  the  Memphite  pyramid- 
 builders.  But  if  the  death  of  Sesostris  were  drawn  down  to 
 B.C.  (1321  —  33  =  )  1288,  and  that  of  Mycerinus  (the  last  of 
 the  pyramid-builders  mentioned  by  Diodorus)  to  B.C.  797, 
 it  is  plain  that  the  Exodus  could  not  be  placed  earlier  than 
 in  the  next  reign,  even  though  Asychis  were  altogether 
 omitted,  and  no  interval  allowed  between  the  end  of  the  line 
 of  the  Memphite  pyramid-builders  (with  their  contemporary 
 the  Shepherd  Philition)  and  the  Exodus.  But  Anysis  or 
 BocchoriSi  or  whoever  is  named  as  the  king  dispossessed  by 
 Sabaco,  is  the  only  one  who  intervenes  between  the  last  of 
 the  pyramid-builders  and  the  Ethiopian  conquest.  It  is 
 clear  therefore  chronologically  that  the  Exodus  must  have 
 taken  place  under  Bocchoris ;  and  this  necessity  (thanks  to 
 Herodotus  and  to  Diodorus  for  it)  is  doubly  convenient. 
 For  thus  another  of  the  most  ignominious  reverses  which 
 ever  befel  Egypt  may  be  misplaced  by  many  centuries 
 and  put  off  upon  the  Saite  Bocchoris,  whose  very  name,  poor 
 man,  is  already  ignominy  itself,  so  that  at  the  worst  he  can 
 lose  nothing.  And  on  the  other  hand,  since  Egyptian  dis- 
 asters are  hinted  only  to  the  initiated,  but  for  the  ignorant 
 and  for  strangers  are  dissembled  by  being  related  in  con- 
 traries, Bocchoris  may  even  be  brought  out  a  little  from  the 
 cloud  which  hangs  about  him ;  that  is,  if  he  obtain  the  credit 
 of  having  drowned  and  expelled  that  multitude  of  filthy  lepers, 
 led  by  Moses  Diabolides  and  Joseph  Philodiabolus  {Si-en- Set 
 and  Pete- Set),  whose  presence  in  Egypt  had  drawn  down  the 
 plagues  of  a  ^reat  famine  and  of  a  great  mortality,  and  was 
 intolerable  to  the  gods.  {Lysimaclu  ap.  Joseph,  contr.  Apion.) 
 But  after  all  it  was  trenching  upon  dangerous  ground  to 
 name  Bocchoris.  So  at  least  thought  Diodorus's  informants; 
 and,  in  order  to  prevent  any  bad  consequences,  they  make 
 him  cut  off  Bocchoris  from  all  suspicion  of  contact  with 
 Sabaco  by  a  direct  falsehood,  continuing  thus :  — 
 
 "  Many  years,  ages,  or  generations  later  Sabaco  reigned  over 
 Egypt  (ttoWols  vdTSpov  'x^povois  s^aaiXsvasv  AlyvTrrou  Xa/Bd- 
 Kcov),  a  king  whose  like  was  not  to  be  found  among  men  for 
 piety  and  humanity.    He  could  not  find  it  in  his  heart  even 
 
672 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CIIKONICLES. 
 
 to  punish  malefactors  otherwise  than  by  making  them  perform 
 a  fixed  amount  of  hibour  towards  works  of  public  utility, 
 such  as  mounding  up  the  cities.  (But  Diodorus  has  brought 
 Sabaco  down  much  too  low  for  the  mounding  of  Bubastis, 
 which  really  belongs  to  his  generation  in  Herodotus.)  How- 
 ever the  God  who  abides  in  Thebes  signified  to  him  in  a 
 dream  that  he  could  not  reign  over  Egypt  happily,  nor  long 
 (though  the  Ethiopian  oracle  had  promised  him  according 
 to  Herodotus  50  years),  unless  he  collected  together  and 
 slaughtered  all  the  priests.  And  as  this  dream  occurred 
 not  once  only,  or  twice,  but  often,  and  he  was  shocked  at 
 the  bare  thought  of  such  impiety,  he  abdicated  and  returned 
 to  Ethiopia." 
 
 The  reign  of  Bocchoris  had  been  of  course  a  full  generation, 
 and  he  had  died,  it  may  be  supposed,  of  old  age,  surrounded 
 by  his  children,  having  brought  Diodorus  dow^n  from  B.C. 
 797  to  B.C.  764,  the  true  date  of  the  conquest  of  Egypt  by 
 Sabaco,  in  B.C.  746,  from  whence  commences  the  Ethiopian 
 Dyn.  XXV  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  being  only  18  years  later. 
 
 If  now  w^e  look  down  to  the  date  of  the  Persian  conquest 
 of  Cambyses  in  B.C.  525,  and  reckon  upwards  with  Diodorus 
 from  thence,  he  carries  up  the  accession  of  Psammitichus  I. 
 to  B.C.  678,  which  is  15  years  above  its  true  date  and  8 
 years  above  the  date  of  Herodotus.  Then  to  the  Dode- 
 carchy,  which  Herodotus  had  left  indefinite,  he  gives  15 
 years,  with  2  years  of  anarchy  preceding.  So  that  the  last 
 year  of  his  fourth  and  last  Ethiopian  should  have  ended,  and 
 the  17  of  anarchy  and  Dodecarchy  should  have  begun,  in 
 B.C.  695.  If  we  reckon  upwards  from  thence  the  50  years 
 given  by  Herodotus  to  Sabacon  they  will  take  us  to  B.C. 
 745  for  the  Ethiopian  invasion  and  conquest,  which  is  only 
 one  year  below  the  true  date.  So  there  would  be  19  years 
 between  B.C.  764  and  B.C.  745  which  might  be  occupied  by 
 those  many  years  "  {y^povoC)  which  intervene,  with  a  pur- 
 posed ambiguity,  between  Bocchoris  and  Sabaco.  But  if 
 we  reflect  that  Diodorus's  informants  reduced  the  whole 
 time  of  their  four  Ethiopians  (the  first  of  whom,  Aktisanes, 
 reigned  till  his  death)  to  only  36  years,  and  further  asserted 
 that  the  reigns  were  not  successive,  but  with  intervals,  and 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS.  673 
 
 that  they  probably  took  advantage  of  Herodotus's  story  that 
 the  legitimate  native  king  or  kings  (under  whatever  name) 
 continued  concurrently  in  the  marshes  of  the  Delta  during 
 all  the  50  years,  it  may  seem  probable  that  if  Diodorus  had 
 written  down  the  fable  made  out  for  him  with  more  minute- 
 ness of  detail  it  would  have  appeared  thus  :  —  A  space  of  13 
 years  between  B.C.  695  and  B.C.  708  would  have  made  the 
 personal  reign  of  the  fourth  and  last  Ethiopian  (since  Ma- 
 netho  indicates  for  Tirhakah  a  continuance  of  13  years  after 
 the  completion  of  the  50  years  of  Herodotus).  Then  we 
 should  have  had  the  50  years  during  which  native  princes 
 reigned,  it  might  be  with  some  dependence  upon  an  Ethio- 
 pian suzerain,  and  with  a  short  personal  reign  of  the  second 
 Sabaco  (the  third  Ethiopian  of  Diodorus)  in  the  middle  of 
 them.  These  50  years  would  have  begun  in  B.C.  758,  that 
 is,  12  years  above  the  true  date  of  the  Ethiopian  conquest ; 
 and  it  would  have  been  pretended  that  the  personal  reign  of 
 the  first  Sabaco,  instead  of  commencing  at  that  point,  ended 
 there  by  his  abdication,  having  begun  6  years  higher  still,  in 
 B.C.  764,  from  the  point  to  which  we  had  been  brought 
 down  by  the  generation  of  Bocchoris.  It  is  true  that  in  this 
 w^ay  no  years  are  left  for  those  many  years  "  or  generations 
 which  intervened  between  Bocchoris  and  Sabaco ;  and  more- 
 over Bocchoris  is  brought  into  contact  with  Sabaco,  which 
 those  many  generations  were  meant  to  forbid.  But  the  gene- 
 rations implied  may  still  intervene  in  the  same  way  as  the  (36 
 +  6  =  )  42  generations  of  Manetho's  Dynasties  XVI  and 
 XVII  intervened  above  between  Amenemhe  IV.  and  Ame- 
 nemhe  III.,  that  is,  parenthetically  and  on  paper.  And  as 
 regards  years,  they  have  no  claim  to  any,  as  all  the  years  be- 
 longing to  them  are  distributed  to  the  generations  enumerated. 
 They  are  then  just  like  the  70  kings  of  Ptolemy's  Dyn.  VII 
 whose  years  had  been  given  away  by  Manetho ;  and  if  any 
 one  wishes  to  know  their  number  he  has  only  to  count  the 
 kings  of  Manetho's  dynasties  between  Thouoris  the  last  of 
 Dyn.  XIX  and  Sabaco,  and  see  by  how  many  they  exceed 
 the  number  of  Diodorus's  generations  for  ths  same  interval. 
 Manetho  then  having  in  his  Dynasties  XX,  XXI,  XXII, 
 XXIII,  and  XXIV  (12  +  7  +  9  +  4+ 1=)  33  kings,  and 
 
 X  X 
 
674 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Diodorus  having  covered  all  the  years  of  these  kings  with 
 
 12  generations,  it  is  clear  that  the  "  many  generations  '*  in- 
 tervening, but  imthout  years  and  only  on  paper,  between 
 Bocchoris  and  Sabaco  are  in  number  21.  Thus  only  can  we 
 make  Diodorus's  account  consistent  with  itself,  and  explain 
 the  startling  assertion  that  the  four  Ethiopians  reigned  in 
 all  less  than  36  years,  and  those  not  successive  but  at 
 intervals.  Between  Aktisanes  the  first  Ethiopian  and  Sa- 
 baco there  will  have  been  "an  interval"  of  some  8  centuries ; 
 Sabaco  with  only  6  years  of  personal  rule  in  Egypt  will 
 have  reigned  "  no  long  time ;"  (though  here,  no  doubt,  there 
 is  a  direct  contradiction  of  Herodotus,  who  places  his  abdi- 
 cation not  before  but  after  the  50  years).  Then  the  existence 
 of  native  rulers  during  50  years  is  supported  by  the  assertion 
 of  Herodotus  ;  only  the  name  of  Anysis  is  dropped,  and  the 
 heirs  of  Bocchoris  are  substituted.  And  50  years  make  again 
 a  long  "  interval"  before  the  fourth  and  last  Ethiopian  reign 
 of  Tirhakah.  Or,  if  it  were  allowed  that  the  third  Ethiopian 
 also,  Sevechus  or  Sabaco  11.,  had  reigned  in  Egypt  for 
 some  short  time,  his  reign  also  would  be  divided  from  that 
 of  Sabaco  I.  by  all  the  years  which  Sabaco  I.  survived  after 
 his  withdrawal,  and  from  that  of  Tirhakah  by  all  the  years 
 of  his  own  survival  after  he  too  had  given  up  the  experiment 
 of  governing  Egypt  directly  and  personally.  And,  lastly,  with 
 
 13  years  of  Tirhakah,  and  6  of  Sabaco  I.,  and  1  or  2  perhaps  of 
 Sabaco  II.,  it  might  be  supposed  that  the  time  during  which 
 the  earlier  Ethiopian  Aktisanes  had  reigned  was  15  years. 
 So  of  the  8  generations  wanted  by  Diodorus  to  fill  the  void 
 left  by  Herodotus  seven  have  been  supplied  by  inserting 
 seven  generations  of  faineants  above  the  pyramid-builders, 
 and  the  eighth  is  added  by  reckoning  the  actual  space  of  50 
 years,  instead  of  only  an  average  generation,  for  the  native 
 contemporary  of  the  two  Sabacos,  besides  giving  two  fresh 
 reigns  of  6  and  13  years  respectively  to  the  Ethiopians,  17 
 years  to  anarchy  and  the  Dodecarchy,  and  8  years  unknown 
 to  Herodotus  to  the  Saites  of  Dyn.  XXVI.  These  sums 
 together  make  94  years ;  and  with  the  6  which  Diodorus 
 gained  above  by  reckoning  the  actual  reigns  of  Cheops  and 
 Cephren,  instead  of  three  abstract  generations,  they  make 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 675 
 
 100,  being  three  full  generations  instead  of  Herodotus's  two 
 generations  of  Sabaco  and  Sethon. 
 
 The  Dodecarchy  according  to  Diodorus  was  the  result  of 
 a  compromise  after  a  time  of  anarchy  which  his  informants 
 reduced  to  two  years,  the  Dodecarchy  itself  lasting  pros- 
 perously for  fifteen.  "  'Avapx^as  ysvo/jLsvrjs  Kara  ttjv 
 Al'yvTTTOv  sir  stt]  Bvo,  koX  tmp  6')(k(i}V  sis  Tapa')(^as  koX  (fiovovs 
 
 £fJL(j)VXL0V9  TpSTTO/JuhcOV,  ETTOujcraVTO  aVVCO/jLOaiaV  ol  fJbk<yi(TTOl  TO)V 
 
 r]<ysiJb6v(Dv  ScoSs/ca,  kul  stt  stt]  ls',''^  k,  t.  X.  The  Labyrinth 
 having  been  ascribed  with  Manetho  to  its  true  founder, 
 and  rightly  said  to  be  more  ancient  than  Daedalus  and  the 
 Cretan  Minos,  Diodorus  is  just  cautious  enough  not  to 
 name  it  a  second  time,  though  he  inserts  from  Herodotus 
 what  relates  to  it,  saying  that  the  twelve  kings  built  them- 
 selves near  to  the  Lake  Moeris  one  common  sepulchre  a 
 stade  in  length  on  every  side;  Avhich  is  clearly  nothing 
 else  than  the  Labyrinth  over  again.  The  17  years  take 
 him  on  from  B.C.  695  to  B.C.  678,  the  point  from  which  he 
 makes  the  Saite  Dynasty  XXVI  to  commence. 
 
 Psammitichus  L,  he  was  told,  was  envied  by  his  colleagues 
 on  account  of  the  lucrative  commerce  which  he  carried  on 
 with  the  Phoenicians  and  the  Greeks,  his  territory  happen- 
 ing to  border  on  the  sea.  This  was  the  cause  of  their  first 
 banding  together  against  him.  As  Diodorus  does  not  give 
 the  lengths  of  the  earlier  reigns  of  Dyn.  XXVI  he  may  be 
 supposed  to  agree  with  Herodotus ;  and  so  the  54  years  of 
 Psammitichus  I.  will  take  him  from  B.C.  678  to  B.C.  624,  and 
 the  (16  +  6  =  )  22  of  Necho  and  Psammis  will  take  him  on 
 to  B.C.  602.  Then  "  four  generations  after  Psammitichus," 
 he  says  (in  which  reckoning  both  the  first  and  the  fourth  are 
 included),  Apries  reigned  22  years,"  which  take  him  on  to 
 B.C.  580.  Of  Apries  he  relates  that  he  spoiled  Phoenicia, 
 and  gained  a  naval  victory  over  the  Cypriotes.  He  describes 
 Amasis  as  being  one  of  the  most  eminent  among  the  Egyp- 
 tians {avr]p  i/jLcj)av7]s  AuyvTrnos)  when  he  revolted  against 
 Apries,  and  says  that  he  reduced  Cyprus,  and  had  reigned 
 in  all  55  years  when  Cambyses  in  the  3rd  year  of  the  63rd 
 Olympiad,  in  which  Parmenides  of  Camarina  won  the  foot- 
 race, invaded  Egypt.    So  he  puts  the  invasion  quite  cor- 
 
 X  X  2 
 
676 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 rectly  in  Cambyses's  fifth  year,  B.C.  525.  But  in  tlie  pre- 
 ceding reigns  he  has  15  years  too  many,  viz.  11  too  many  for 
 Amasis,  3  too  many  for  Apries,  and  1  too  many  either  for 
 Necho  or  Psammis.  Yet,  as  he  gives  only  17  years  between 
 the  Ethiopians  and  Psammitichus  I.,  while  the  true  interval 
 was  20,  his  excess  of  15  is  reduced  to  12  ;  and  so  the  50 
 years  given  by  Herodotus  to  the  Ethiopian,  instead  of 
 beginning  in  B.C.  746,  begin  for  him  in  B.C.  758. 
 
 As  the  135  years  reckoned  by  Diodorus  to  the  Persians 
 include  three  kings  with  11  years  between  Nectanebo  and 
 the  passage  of  Alexander,  it  follows  that  he  would  have 
 made  for  Cambyses  and  his  seven  successors,  or  for  such 
 native  contemporaries  as  disputed  their  sovereignty,  like 
 Inaros,  Amyrta3us,  and  Pausiris,  a  dynasty  with  124  years 
 lying  between  the  spring  of  B.C.  525  and  the  autumn  of  B.C. 
 402,  and  ending  with  the  3rd  year  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon. 
 Or,  if  we  assume  that  he  gave  124  years  to  the  first  viii 
 Persians,  those  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XXVII,  then,  since  the 
 remaining  11  years  of  the  135  years  of  the  Persians  ended 
 at  the  passage  of  Alexander  in  B.C.  334,  they  must  have 
 begun  in  B.C.  345 ;  and  Diodorus  by  implication  gives  that 
 date  for  the  end  of  the  native  monarchy  (or,  ratlier,  his 
 Egyptian  informants  give  it  for  him ;  for  he  himself  in  a 
 later  book,  lib.  xvi.,  seems  to  put  the  reduction  of  Egypt  by 
 Artaxerxes- Ockus^^  in  B.C.  350).  And  so  he  leaves  be- 
 tween the  end  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XXVII  in  B.C.  (525  - 124 
 =)  402  and  the  commencement  of  Ptolemy's  Dyn.  XXXI  in 
 B.C.  (334 -f  11  =  )  345  the  true  interval  of  57  years,  without 
 those  unchronological  additions  of  seven  years  and  eight 
 months  which  in  Manetho's  lists,  if  reckoned  as  they  stand, 
 thrust  up  the  conquest  of  Cambyses  into  B.C.  533.  "  And 
 from  the  passage  of  Alexander  [in  b.c,  334]  to  Olymp.  180 
 [Y,  which  began  in  July  of  B.C.  58]  there  are  276  years." 
 
 The  object  of  his  informants  in  lengthening  as  they  did 
 the  reigns  of  Amasis  and  Apries,  and  so  carrying  up  the 
 accession  of  Psammitichus  I.  too  high  by  15  years,  was  pro- 
 bably to  bring  Psammitichus  somewhat  nearer  to  the  Ethio- 
 pian who  had  attempted,  according  to  Herodotus,  to  kill 
 him  in  his  childhood,  his  long  reign  of  54  years  after  the 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  DIODORUS  SICULUS. 
 
 677 
 
 end  of  the  Dodecarcliy  making  it  difficult  to  suppose  him 
 even  born  in  the  last  year  of  the  second  Sabaco,  if  that 
 ended  in  B.C.  708  (to  say  nothing  of  B.C.  714),  and  if  the 
 accession  of  Psammitichus  were  in  B.C.  663,  at  an  interval  of 
 45,  or,  according  to  Herodotus,  in  B.C.  670,  at  an  interval  of 
 38  years.  To  omit  the  first  three  names  which  stand  at  the 
 head  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XXVI  was  a  matter  of  course 
 with  any  one  who  was  closely  following  Herodotus,  as  those 
 names,  even  if  they  had  really  preceded  Psammitichus  I.  in 
 chronological  succession,  could  have  represented  one  line 
 only  out  of  twelve  concurrent  lines  according  to  the  story  of 
 the  Dodecarchy ;  and,  on  closer  examination,  not  even  one  ; 
 since  Psammitichus  himself  was  one  of  the  Dodecarchs  :  and 
 so  the  death  of  his  father  Necho,  whose  name  is  the  last  of 
 Manetho's  three,  and  immediately  precedes  that  of  his  son, 
 must  be  put  back  first  by  at  least  17  years  to  bring  him 
 under  the  power  of  any  Ethiopian,  and  then  by  15  or  16 
 more,  both  that  Psammitichus  may  have  been  old  enough  to 
 act  a  part  in  the  formation  of  the  Dodecarchy,  and  that  his 
 father  may  have  been  slain  in  one  of  the  last  years  of  the 
 later  Sabaco. 
 
 To  conclude :  Diodorus  has  reckoned  53  +  29  +  1  (Moeris) 
 +  6+1  (Sesoosis)  + 1  (Sesoosis  II.)  +  "  avxvol "  [that  is  36 
 +  6]  +2(Amosis  and  Actisanes)  +1  (Marros)  +5  (of 
 anarchy)  +  1  (Proteus)  +  1  (Remphis)  +  7  faineants  +  3  (py- 
 ramid-builders) +  1  (Bocchoris)  +  iroWol  xpovoi  "  [that  is, 
 36  —  15  =  21  names  otherwise  unnoticed  between  the  end  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XIX  and  the  beginning  of  his  Dyn.  XXV] 
 +  3  (Ethiopians),  making  in  all  178  kings,  answering  to  (66 
 +  66  +  6  +  12  +  7  +  9  +  4  +  1  +  3  =  )  174  kings  in  Manetho's 
 lists  down  to  the  same  point ;  that  is,  to  the  end  of  the  Ethio- 
 pian Dyn.  XXV.  And  if  we  continue  the  parallel  down 
 to  the  end  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XXVII,  and  suppose  that 
 Diodorus  would  have  agreed  with  him  in  reckoning  8  Per- 
 sians to  that  dynasty,  while  in  Dyn.  XXVI  he  has  only  5 
 Saites  instead  of  Manetho's  9,  the  number  of  kings  (equalised 
 by  this  difference  at  the  last)  would  be  exactly  the  same, 
 viz.  191,  for  both,  the  original  excess  in  Diodorus's  reckon- 
 ing of  4  kings  having  consisted  of  4  successors  of  Xitocris  of 
 
 X  X  3 
 
678 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XIII  (VI  of  Ptolemy)  taken  by  some 
 accident  from  the  hieratic  lists.  In  years  too  he  would 
 have  made  out  either  expressly  or  by  implication  exactly 
 the  same  sum  with  Manetho,  viz.  3555  to  Nectanebo,  end- 
 ing in  B.C.  345,  had  not  his  informants  as  it  seems  dis- 
 allowed and  cut  off  the  63  years  added  by  Manetho  to  his 
 first  dynasty  of  kings,  substituting  its  true  sum  of  190  for 
 Manetho's  sum  of  253  years.  Hence  the  total  sum  of  years 
 of  kings  accounted  for  by  Diodorus  instead  of  being  3555  is 
 (3555  —  63  =  )  3492  to  Nectanebo,  or  3503  to  the  passage  of 
 Alexander.  He  has  at  the  same  time  paralleled  and  filled 
 up  with  supplementary  generations  or  spaces  of  time  He- 
 rodotus's  reckoning  from  the  generation  contemporary  with 
 Troy,  neglecting  in  this  present  series  both  Herodotus's 
 statements  and  his  own  statements  made  elsewhere  of  many 
 more  kings  before  Proteus  and  Troy,  and  many  more  years, 
 than  are  exhibited  by  the  lists  of  Manetho.  Yet,  if  any  one 
 had  taxed  him  with  this  as  with  an  inconsistency,  he  might 
 have  replied  that  in  this  series  he  did  not  profess  to  give  all 
 the  kings  or  years  in  detail ;  and  his  informants  might  have 
 prompted  him  to  add,  that  having  mentioned  in  one  place 
 a  multitude"  of  kings,  and  in  another  "many  generations," 
 without  determining  their  number,  it  was  just  as  open  to 
 any  one  to  fill  up  these  blanks  with  a  greater  number  of 
 kings  to  suit  the  hieratic  lists,  or  even  those  of  Ptolemy,  as 
 with  the  smaller  number  needed  to  complete  his  parallel 
 with  the  lists  of  Manetho. 
 
 It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  Diodorus  was  himself  ac- 
 quainted with  the  original  work  of  Manetho,  and  yet  abstained 
 from  making  a  more  copious  use  of  it,  or  quoting  its  author 
 by  name.  But  it  is  clear  as  regards  his  informants  that 
 besides  their  own  hieratic  lists,  and  both  the  lists  and  the 
 full  text  of  Manetho,  to  all  of  which  they  make  manifest 
 allusions  (and  probably  the  lists  of  Ptolemy  may  be  added), 
 they  were  perfectly  well  acquainted  with  all  that  Herodotus 
 had  written  about  Egypt,  as  indeed  Manetho  himself  had 
 been  long  before.  And  in  some  points  tlieir  commentary 
 upon  Manetho's  lists,  especially  as  regards  his  last  five 
 dynasties,  where  the  true  dates  are  obscured  by  his  unchro- 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  ON  THE  CYCLES. 
 
 679 
 
 nological  transpositions  and  interpolations,  is  by  no  means 
 without  historical  value. 
 
 PASSAGES  RESPECTING   THE    YEAR,  AND  THE  SOTHIC 
 AND  PHCENIX  CYCLES. 
 
 The  earliest  Greek  notice  of  the  Egyptian  year  is  that 
 given  above  by  Herodotus,  who  mentions  also  their  calendar, 
 in  which  each  of  the  365  days  had  its  own  deity,  and  each  of 
 the  XII  months  its  own  likewise.  A  little  further  on  he  adds 
 that  "the  Twelve  Gods"  of  the  Greeks  had  been  taken 
 from  the  Egyptians ;  as  if  the  source  of  this  Greek  number 
 of  twelve,  which  can  scarcely  be  made  out  otherwise  to  be 
 Egyptian,  were  to  be  traced  to  the  gods  of  the  xii  months ; 
 though  it  is  true  that  they  do  not  answer  to  the  account  given 
 of  them  by  Herodotus,  further  than  in  this,  that  Pan  (Min)  is 
 the  Jifth,  and  Hercules  {^Khons)  the  ninth  of  them.  Diodorus, 
 as  has  been  seen  above,  is  somewhat  more  exact  respecting 
 the  year  than  Herodotus,  as  he  mentions  the  difference  of  a 
 quarter  of  a  day  between  the  civil  and  the  natural,  or  at 
 least  the  Canicular,  year.  And  Strahoy  who  was  in  Egypt 
 with  ^lius  Gallus  about  B.C.  20,  carries  us  on  yet  a  little 
 further,  and  adds  the  mention  of  the  Sothic  Cycle,  in  which 
 the  overrunning  quarter  of  a  day  was  accumulated  first 
 in  the  quadriennium  into  one  whole  day,  and  at  length  in 
 365-^  such  quadriennia  into  one  whole  year.  His  words  are 
 these :  — Asyovrat  Ba  kol  aaTpovofia  kol  (ptXoaocjiot  fidXicrra 
 ol  hOavra  Ispsts'  rovrcov  S'  karl  kol  to  ras  rjfjLspas  /jlt]  Kara 
 azXi^VTjv  aysLV,  dXka  Kara  rjXiov,  roh  TpiaKov6r]/jispois  ScoSsKa 
 (JbTjolv  irrayovTcov  ttsvts  rjfiEpas  Kar  htavTov  sKaarov '  sis  ryv 
 EKTrXqpcoacv  tov  oXov  ivLavrov,  sTriTps'^ovTOS  jjuopiov  tlvos  TTjs 
 'i^jjbspas,  irspioEov  riva  avvTiOEaaiv  if  oXwv  rj/jLspcov  koX  oXcov 
 iviavTcbv  ToaovTCOv  oaa  [lopia  ra  STTirpi'^^ovTa  avvsXOovra  ttolsl 
 rj/jbspav.^^  That  is,  "  as  some  portion  of  a  day  overruns  after 
 the  end  of  the  civil  year,  and  is  still  needed  to  complete  the 
 true  year,  they  make  a  certain  period  consisting  of  whole  days 
 [viz.  1261]  and  whole  years  [viz.  4],  according  to  the  number 
 of  overrunning  quarters  which  united  make  up  one  whole 
 day,  and  the  number  again  in  which  the  days  so  formed  accu- 
 mulate into  one  whole  year."  (Lib.  xvii.  p.  806,  Cas.  ap.  Buns. 
 
 X  X  4 
 
680  *         EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 vol.  iii.  p.  55.)  Bunsen  also,  following  Lepsius,  translates  a 
 passage  from  Horapollo,  a  writer  of  the  5th  century  (^Hiero- 
 phant.  i.  8),  as  follows :  —  "In  order  to  represent  the 
 current  year  the  hierophants  drew  a  representation  of  a 
 quarter  of  an  acre  (a  land  measure  of  150  feet).  To  name 
 it  they  used  the  word  quarter  (jhaprov) ;  for  they  say  that 
 between  one  rising  and  another  of  the  star  Sothis  there  is  a 
 quarter  of  a  day  to  be  added,  so  that  the  Year  of  God  [the 
 Great  Year,  or  Sothic  Cycle,  or  the  year  accumulated  in  it 
 out  of  the  quarters  of  days  ?]  consists  of  365  [great  ?]  days. 
 For  this  reason  also  the  Egyptians  add  [that  is,  carry  to 
 account]  every  four  years  a  supplemental  day,  for  four 
 quarters  make  a  whole  day."  And  he  subjoins  some  words 
 quoted  by  Lepsius  (Einl.  p.  53)  from  Strabo,  asserting  that 
 the  sTos  (the  year  unit  or  quadrennial  cycle)  consisted  of 
 four  iviavTol  (single  years  of  365  days) :  to  Be  stos  Kar 
 KuyvirTLovs  rsTrdpcov  ivtavrcov.^^    (Strabo,  xvii.  p.  816). 
 
 And  in  a  passage  of  Vettius  Valens  (of  the  age  of  the  An- 
 tonines)  which  Bunsen  quotes  from  Lepsius,  Ideler  (vol.  i.  pp. 
 126,  171),  and  Bainbridge,  the  fixed  epoch  of  the  Egyptian 
 natural  year  is  connected  with  the  heliacal  rising  of  Sirius 
 thus :  "  The  Egyptians  commenced  their  year  (viz.  the 
 civil  year  in  actual  use)  on  the  1st  of  Thoth,  [and]  their 
 natural  year  at  the  heliacal  rising  of  the  Dogstar."  Bat  so 
 "  their  year,"  it  is  manifest,  began  together  with  "  their 
 natural  year,"  only  (at  intervals  of  1461  civil  or  1460 
 natural  years)  when  the  1st  of  the  movable  Thoth  coincided 
 with  the  heliacal  rising  of  Sirius. 
 
 It  has  been  shown  by  modern  calculations,  independently 
 of  any  historical  testimony ^  that  this  coincidence  at  or  about 
 the  latitude  of  Memphis,  where  Sirius  for  several  thousands 
 of  years  has  risen  heliacally  on  our  July  20,  occurred  during 
 quadriennia  containing  the  years  a.d.  139,  B.C.  1322,  B.C. 
 2782,  and  so  on  upwards.  And  there  is  direct  historical 
 testimony  that  these  were  in  fact  the  Sothic  epochs  of  the 
 Egyptians. 
 
 For  instance,  Censorinus,  after  stating  that  the  great  or 
 canicular  year  (annus  magnus  sive  kvvlkos)  "  begins  when  the 
 heliacal  rising  of  Sirius  occurs  on  the  1st  of  the  movable 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  ON  THE  CYCLE'S. 
 
 681 
 
 Thoth,"  adds  that  in  the  year  when  he  was  writing,  viz. 
 E.N.  986  (a.  d.  238),  Thoth  1  was  at  June  25,  and  99  years 
 earlier,  in  the  consulship  of  Antoninus  Pius  and  Bruttius 
 Praesens  (a.d.  139),  it  was  at  July  20:  "  Nam,  ut  a  nostris, 
 ita  ab  ^gyptiis  quidam  anni  in  litteras  relati  sunt  [that  is,  are 
 used  as  eras'],  ut  quos  Nabonazarii  nominant,  quod  a  primo 
 ejus  imperii  anno  consurgunt,  quorum  hie  DCCCCLXXXVI 
 est ;  item  Philippi,  qui  ab  excessu  Alexandri  Magni  numer- 
 antur,  et  ad  hunc  usque  perducti  annos  dlxii  consummant. 
 Sed  horum  initia  (the  commencements  of  these  Egyptian 
 eras)  semper  a  primo  die  mensis  ejus  sumuntur  cui  apud 
 ^gyptios  nomen  est  Thoyth,  quique  hoc  anno  fuit  ante 
 diem  vii.  Kal.  Jul.  (i.e.  June  25,  a.d.  238),  cum  annis 
 abhinc  centum  (that  is,  99  full  years  earlier)  Imperatore 
 Antonino  Pio  et  Bruttio  Prsesente  Coss.  (a.d.  139)  idem 
 dies  fuerit  ante  diem  xiii  Kal.  Aug.  (July  20),  quo  tempore 
 solet  canicula  in  j^gypto  facer e  exortum.  Quare  scire  etiam 
 licet  anni  illius  magni  qui,  ut  supradictum  est,  Solaris  et 
 Canicularis  et  Dei  Annus  vocatur  nunc  agi  vertentem  annum 
 centesimum^ 
 
 Pliny  also  {Leps.  Einl.)  quotes  Manilius  as  saying  that 
 "in  B.C.  97,  when  he  wrote,  it  was  [1]225  years  since  the 
 beginning  of  the  Cycle."  But  B.C.  97  +  1255  give  the  date 
 B.C.  1322.    The  passage  itself  will  be  given  below. 
 
 Two  allusions  to  the  cyclical  epoch  of  B.C.  1322  under 
 dates  given  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  for  the  Exodus  are 
 noticed  elsewhere  in  this  work.  But  there  is  another  earlier 
 and  remarkable  allusion  to  the  same  by  Josephus,  which 
 deserves  attention.  He  writes  that  the  accession  of  Menes 
 in  Egypt  was  "above  1300  years  before  Solomon,  long 
 before  Abraham."  Now  the  accession  of  Menes,  beins:  reallv 
 at  B  c.  2224,  preceded  the  birth  of  Abraham,  set  by  Jo- 
 sephus's  own  reckoning  at  B.C.  2159,  by  only  65  years;  and 
 as  for  Solomon,  to  whom  Josephus  gives  a  reign  of  80 
 years,  and  below  whom  he  reckons  394  instead  of  390  or 
 391  years  of  kings,  if  his  accession  were  set  at  B.C.  (1017  + 
 40  +  3  =  )  1060,  the  accession  of  Menes  would  have  preceded 
 it  by  only  (2224-1060  =  )  1164  years.  Or,  if  Josephus 
 here  corrected  himself,  and  gave  only  40  years  to  Solomon 
 
682 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 and  only  390  to  the  kings  after  him  to  the  Captivity,  even  so 
 the  accession  of  Menes  preceded  that  of  Solomon  by  only 
 (2224  —  1017  =  )  1207  years.  But  the  grounds  on  which 
 Josephus  went  in  his  calculation  were  these:  —  The  Old 
 Chronicle  had  distinctly  named  "  443  years  of  the  Cynic 
 Cycle"  after  its  Gods  and  Demigods  and  before  Menes.  What 
 the  true  nature  of  this  sum  was  has  been  explained  elsewhere ; 
 but  it  was  quite  natural,  and  quite  right,  to  understand  that 
 "the  Cycle"  was  the  true  Sothic  Cycle  beginning  and  ending 
 at  true  Sothic  epochs.  And  since  the  first  443  years  of  the 
 Cycle  current  under  the  Ptolemies,  and  still  current  when 
 Josephus  wrote,  could  not  be  thought  of  as  preceding  Menes, 
 it  seemed  plain  that  the  Cycle  next  preceding  this  must  be 
 the  one  intended.  So  Josephus,  or  the  writer  whom  he 
 followed,  having  reckoned  up  from  B.C.  1322  to  B.C.  (1322 
 -1-1460  =  )  2782  as  to  the  head  of  the  Cycle  alluded  to, 
 deducted  from  that  point  443  years.  Thus  he  obtained  B.C. 
 2339,  which  was  really  (b.c.  2339-1017  =  1322)  "above 
 1300  years  before  the  accession  of  Solomon,"  and  (b.c.  2339 
 —  2159  =  )  180  years  above  the  birth  of  Abraham.  And  such 
 an  interval  might  with  propriety  be  called  "  long  before 
 Abraham,"  which  one  of  65  years  could  not.  Lastly,  it  is  to 
 be  noticed  that  in  this  reckoning  Josephus  does  correct  his 
 own  peculiarity  of  reckoning  elsewhere  80  years  to  Solomon, 
 and  justifies  that  correction  which  has  been  made  for  him 
 above  on  the  principle  of  compensation  in  Chapter  I.  For 
 if  the  accession  of  Solomon  had  been  put  40  or  43  years  too 
 hio'h,  that  of  Menes  would  have  been  not  "  more  than  1300  " 
 but  less  (by  about  20)  than  1300  years  before  it. 
 
 M.  Biot  has  quoted  from  a  MS.  probably  of  Theon  of 
 Alexandria,  who  wrote  near  the  end  of  the  4th  century,  a 
 passage  referring  to  the  100th  year  of  the  era  of  Diocletian, 
 and  giving  a  rule  how  to  find  the  date  of  the  heliacal  rising 
 of  Sirius  for  it  or  for  any  other  year  in  the  fixed  or  Alex- 
 andrian calendar  of  Egypt,  but  through  the  old  movable 
 calendar.  The  fixed  calendar  was  introduced  in  B.C.  26 
 with  the  commencement  of  the  5th  Egyptian  year  of  Au- 
 gustus, Thoth  1  being  thenceforth  attached  in  every  leap 
 year  to  August  30,  but  in  common  years  to  August  29. 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS;  ON  THE  CYCLES. 
 
 683 
 
 Theon's  rule  is  as  follows :  "  For  example,"  he  writes, 
 "  in  the  year  1 00  of  [the  era  of]  Diocletian  we  take  from 
 [the  era  of]  Menoplires  \_SetnecJit  or  Amenephthes  of  Ma- 
 netho's  Dynasty  XIX,  the  predecessor  of  Kameses  III.]  to 
 the  end  [the  disuse  of  the  era]  of  Augustus  1605  years,  and 
 thence  100,  making  in  all  1705  years."  [So  there  were 
 1461  vague  years  from  July  20  B.C.  1322  to  July  20  A.D. 
 139,  and  thence  145  to  a.d.  284  ;  and  100  more  to  the 
 year  proposed],  "Divide  these  1705  years  by  4,  and  you 
 get  426  [for  the  number  of  the]  quadriennia.  Add  to  426 
 the  number  5,  and  you  have  431.  Deduct  from  431  as 
 many  units  as  there  were  then  [viz.  in  a.d.  384,  w^hen  the 
 era  of  Augustus  was  disused]  quadriennia  [since  its  adoption 
 in  B.C.  26],  and  these  are  102.  Then  for  the  remaining  329 
 count  off  329  days  from  Thoth  1,  giving  30  to  each  month, 
 and  you  will  find  the  heliacal  rising  of  Sirius  to  be  on  the 
 29th  of  Epiphi  [the  11th  month]  in  this  present  year  of 
 Diocletian.    And  the  like  do  for  any  other  year." 
 
 Two  other  passages  which  are  also  quoted,  the  one  from 
 Porphyry ,  and  the  other  from  the  Scholiast  on  Aratus,  are 
 remarkable,  because  in  the  first  of  the  two  the  commence- 
 ment of  the  natural  year  with  the  heliacal  rising  of  Sirius  is 
 spoken  of  as  if  it  were  still  under  the  sign  of  Cancer,  in  the 
 other  as  being  under  that  of  Leo,  Porphyry  {De  Antro 
 Nymph.,  p.  246,  ed.  Cantah.)  writes  that  "  the  Egyptians  do 
 not  begin  their  [natural]  year  with  Aquarius,  but  with 
 Cancer  ;  for  with  this  sign  of  the  Crab  comes  the  star  Sothis, 
 which  the  Greeks  call  the  Dogstar ;  and  the  heliacal  rising 
 of  Sothis  is  their  new  year  (Nou/xT^i^/a)." 
 
 But  the  Scholiast  on  Aratus  (1.  152)  speaks  of  the  sign 
 under  which  Sirius  actually  rose,  viz.  the  sign  of  Leo: 
 "  The  whole  sign  of  the  Lion  is  dedicated  to  the  Sun ;  for 
 then  the  Nile  rises  [the  Nile  however  begins  to  rise  at  the 
 solstice],  and  the  Dogstar  rises  at  the  eleventh  hour  (that  is, 
 at  dawn).  At  this  period  the  [natural]  year  commences ; 
 and  the  Dogstar  and  its  rising  are  considered  as  sacred  to 
 Isis."    (Bunsen,  Egypt,  8fc.  vol.  iii.  pp.  53,  54.) 
 
 Besides  the  Sothic  there  was  another  great  Cycle  which 
 was  in  a  manner  its  supplement  and  correction.    The  exist- 
 
684 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 ence  of  tins  was  first  obscurely  hinted  to  the  Greeks  through 
 Herodotus's  fable  of  the  Phoenix.  There  is  also,"  he 
 writes  (lib.  ii.  c.  73),  another  sacred  bird  called  the  Phoenix^' 
 (the  palm-hird).  "  I  cannot  say  that  I  ever  myself  saw  it, 
 except  as  painted;  nor  was  it  likely  that  I  should,  since  it 
 comes  to  them  only  at  long  intervals,  intervals  (as  the 
 Heliopolites  say)  of  500  years.  And  it  comes,  they  say, 
 precisely  then  when  its  father  has  died.  For  size  and  ap- 
 pearance, if  it  is  really  like  what  it  is  painted,  its  plumage  is 
 a  mixture  of  red  and  gold,  and  in  general  form,  and  in  size 
 too,  it  most  resembles  an  eagle.  This  Phoenix  they  say  does  as 
 follows, — though  I  cannot  believe  them  : — Taking  wing  from 
 Arabia,  it  brings  to  the  temple  of  the  Sun  [in  Heliopolis] 
 its  father  embalmed  in  myrrh,  and  entombs  him  there  in  the 
 temple  [that  is,  the  new  Cycle  buries  and  succeeds  the  old 
 in  the  hieratic  reckoning  kept  by  the  priests  at  Heliopolis]. 
 They  say  that  it  proceeds  thus  :  —  First,  it  moulds  an  egg 
 of  myrrh  of  just  that  size  and  weight  which  it  can  carry. 
 Next,  it  makes  trial  whether  it  can  lift  and  carry  it ;  and 
 when  it  has  made  sure  that  it  will  do,  it  hollows  out  the 
 middle  of  the  egg,  puts  its  father  in,  and  closes  over  the 
 surface  of  the  hollow  with  fresh  myrrh.  And  after  all  this 
 has  been  done,  and  the  father  has  been  thus  encased,  the 
 weight  of  the  egg  remains  exactly  what  it  was  before  "  [that 
 is,  0  +  0  =  0,  hinting  that  the  whole  is  a  fable].  "  And,  having 
 so  embalmed  and  encased  its  father,  the  Phoenix  flies  off 
 with  him  in  the  direction  of  Egypt,  and  carries  him  to  the 
 temple  of  the  Sun.    So,  they  say,  this  bird  does." 
 
 The  true  sense  of  this  fable  is  brought  out  by  later 
 writers.  For  instance,  Lepsius  quotes  from  Synesius  (^Dion. 
 p.  49,  ed.  Pet.  1622.)  these  words  ;  tov  ^oLvlkos,  w  tcls  irspt- 
 ohovs  fjbSTpovcriv  ol  AlyvTTTLOL'''^  and  from  Nonnus,  who  was  a 
 native  of  Panopolis  {Dionys,  xl.  394),  the  following  :  — 
 
 "  Htkisrrjs  (Tocj^os  opvis  .  .  . 
 ^OLVL^  Tspfia  pioio  (j)spa)V  amoairopov  ap')(r)v 
 TiKTsrat,  lauTVTTOLO  ')(p6vov  7raXi,vdypST09  sIkcov. 
 Avaas  8'  sv  irvpl  jr]pas  a/ubsllSsTaL  ek  irvpos  rj(3r]v.'^'' 
 
 Manilius,  as  quoted  by  Pliny,  not  only  explained  the 
 
GREEK .  AUTHORS  :  ON  THE  CYCLES. 
 
 685 
 
 fabulous  bird  to  mean  a  Cycle,  but  indicates  the  distinctive 
 nature  of  this  Cycle  by  adding  that  it  "  brought  the  year 
 round  to  the  same  point  of  the  zodiac  and  of  the  natural 
 seasons  from  which  it  had  started.'''^  And  this  is  what  the 
 Sothic  Cycle  did  not,  "  Vivere  annis  Dix  "  [alitor  DXI,  XL, 
 DXL,  DLX,  DCLX,  but  the  true  number  should  be  either  D  or 
 Dii]  "  cum  hujus  alitis  vita  magni  conversionem  anni 
 [fieri]  prodidit  idem  Manilius,  iterumque  signijicationes  tern- 
 pcstatum  et  siderum  easdem  reverti :  hoc  autem  circa  meri- 
 diem incipere  quo  die  signum  Arietis  sol  intraverit ;  et 
 fuisse  ejus  conversionis  annum  prodente  se,  P.  Licinio  Cn. 
 Cornelio  Coss.,  ducentesimum  quintum  decimum"  [aliter 
 ccxxv,  which  is  the  true  reading].  These  Consuls  belong 
 to  A.  u.  c.  657  of  Varro,  or  B.C.  97;  and  B.C.  97  +  225 
 give  B.C.  322 ;  to  which  last  date  1000  years  more,  which 
 have  fallen  out,  must  be  added,  and  then,  after  restoring 
 
 [m]ccxxv,"  we  shall  obtain  the  date  B.C.  1322.  And  it 
 appears  that  though  the  nature  of  the  Phoenix  Cycle  is 
 rightly  indicated  in  the  first  part  of  the  quotation,  there  is  a 
 double  error  in  the  latter  part,  since  the  first  point  of  the 
 sign  Aries  suited  neither  for  the  epoch  of  the  Phoenix  nor 
 for  that  of  the  Sothic  Cycle  (though  the  same  sign  it  is  true  is 
 mentioned  also  in  connection  with  the  airoKardaTao-Ls  of  the 
 Old  Chronicle) ;  and  the  figures,  when  restored,  show  that 
 after  beginning  with  the  Phoenix  Cycle  Manilius  passed 
 unconsciously  to  the  Sothic.  The  same  confusion  is  to  be 
 found  in  other  passages,  in  which  the  1461  years  of  the 
 Sothic  Cycle  are  expressly  assigned  for  the  Phoenix,  whether 
 as  a  bird  or  as  a  period.    (Comp.  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  xxx.  3.) 
 
 What  the  true  epoch  of  the  Phoenix  Cycle  was  is  indicated, 
 Lepsius  thinks,  by  Horapollo,  who  says  that  the  Phoenix 
 among  other  things  symbolises  the  overflow  (jrX'y^/uLfjLvpav),  that 
 is,  the  rise  of  the  Nile,  as  it  is  an  emblem  of  the  Sun,  the 
 rise  of  the  Nile  being  coincident  w^ith  the  summer  solstice. 
 And  hence,  if  the  Sothic  and  the  Phoenix  Cycles  were  taken 
 to  have  originally  commenced  together  in  B.C.  3285,  which 
 historically  they  cannot  have  done,  but  which  they  might  be 
 show^n  to  have  done  by  retrospective  calculation,  this  would 
 increase  the  probability  of  these  two  Cycles  being  sometimes 
 
686 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 confounded  togetlier.  For  the  Egyptian  priests  according 
 to  Porphyry  made  the  summer  solstice  (and  Vettius  Valens 
 adds  Thotli  1  in  conjunction)  to  have  been  the  original  starting 
 point  for  all  their  Cycles,  and  for  the  natale  mundi  itself. 
 
 But  in  truth,  if  only  it  be  allowed  on  testimony  that  this 
 Cycle  was  to  bring  round  the  calendar  to  the  same  point  of 
 the  natural  seasons,  M.  Biot's  calculations  of  themselves 
 suffice  to  show  that  its  true  number  of  vague  Egyptian 
 years  must  have  been  1506  ;  that  its  natural  epochs  or  com- 
 mencements (at  which  Pachons  1  was  in  conjunction  with 
 the  summer  solstice,  and  the  present  names  of  the  Egyptian 
 tetramenia  agreed  with  the  actual  seasons)  were  quadriennia 
 containing  the  years  B.C.  275,  B.C.  1780,  B  c.  3285,  and  so 
 on  upwards;  and  further,  that  the  natural  subdivisions  of 
 this  great  Phoenix  year,  or  Cycle  of  1506  vague  years,  into 
 its  three  great  seasons  would  consist  of  three  equal  portions 
 of  502  vague  years  each.  And  this  calculation  of  itself 
 shows  that  either  the  exact  term  of  502  or  one  of  "  about 
 500"  years  would  naturally  belong  to  the  Phoenix;  and  that 
 if  other  sums  of  1004  or  about  1000,  and  1506  or  1505  or 
 about  1500,  were  also  mentioned,  there  would  be  in  this  no 
 sort  of  inconsistency.  If  any  one  knew  how  the  first  2922 
 years  of  human  time  were  treated  in  the  hieratic  and  other 
 schemes  as  two  Sothic  Cycles,  and  given  to  the  old  world,  he 
 would  not  be  surprised  if  even  larger  sums  of  3012,  3000,  or 
 6000  years,  meaning  two  or  four  Phoenix  Cycles,  were  to 
 occur  in  connection  with  the  idea  of  a  cosmical  or  of.  a  psy- 
 chological aTroKardarao-is.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  when  it 
 is  observed  that  from  the  time  of  Dyn.  XV  of  Manetho 
 (XII  of  Ptolemy),  or  from  a  time  still  earlier,  the  Egyptians 
 had  not  only  festivals  for  the  first  day  of  each  month,  but 
 also  for  the  /ialvi?ig  of  each  month,  it  becomes  quite  intelli- 
 gible that  we  should  find  even  so  low  a  number  as  251  or 
 about  250  years  named  as  a  sufficient  interval  between  two 
 appearances  of  the  Phoenix.  It  might  be  very  natural,  then, 
 or  rather  a  matter  of  course,  to  assert  that  a  Phoenix  had 
 appeared  at  or  about  M.  Biot's  date  of  B.C.  275,  under 
 that  Ptolemy  who  reigned  third  of  the  Macedonians,"  that 
 is,  under  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  (*^  sub  Ptolemaso,  qui  ex 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  ON  THE  CYCLES. 
 
 687 
 
 Macedonlbus  tertius  regnavit");  and  Tacitus  may  have 
 been  mistaken,  as  Lepsius  suggests  he  was,  in  reckoning  to 
 the  third  from  Soter,  instead  of  reckoning  to  the  third  from 
 Alexander.  Another  appearance,  if  set  251  years  above 
 B.C.  275,  in  B.C.  525,  might  be  just  included  within  the 
 reign  of  Amasis,  under  whom  Egypt  was  said  to  have 
 enjoyed  great  material  prosperity ;  while  for  Cambyses,  even 
 if  the  Phoenix  had  flown  by  chance  to  his  first  or  second 
 year,  such  an  honour  would  have  been  improper.  In  B.C. 
 (526  +  251  =  )  776,  the  next  epoch  above,  the  Saites  of  Dyn. 
 XXIV,  of  whom  the  unfortunate  Bocchoris  was  the  last,  were 
 not  likely  to  attract  a  Phoenix.  Nor  was  Egypt  prospering 
 in  B.C.  (776  +  251  =  )  1027,  when  the  Theban  line  was  near 
 its  end,  and  exercised  perhaps  only  a  divided  sovereignty. 
 But  in  B.C.  (1027  +  251  =  )  1278,  two  Phoenix  seasons  above 
 the  epoch  of  M.  Biot's  calculation  in  B.C.  275  and  one  below 
 B.C.  1780  (some  one  year  of  a  quadriennium  containing 
 which  was  probably  the  first  actual  epoch  of  this  Cycle),  the 
 reign  of  Rameses  III.,  the  Sesostrls,  chronologically  at  least, 
 of  Herodotus,  was  quite  appropriate  for  the  appearance  of 
 the  Phoenix.  The  epoch  too  of  the  Sothic  Cycle  had  only 
 just  preceded  the  accession  of  the  same  king.  And  above  the 
 time  of  Sesostris  no  earlier  appearance  of  the  Phoenix  is 
 mentioned  by  Tacitus  (Annal.  vi.  28.)  nor  by  others. 
 
 Owing  to  causes,  some  at  least  of  which  are  still  plain, 
 there  was  always  some  difficulty  or  uncertainty  in  fixing  the 
 precise  year  or  day  on  which  the  season-festivals  of  the 
 Phoenix  Cycle  were  to  be  kept.  Julian  (in  a  passage  quoted 
 by  Lepsius,  Nat,  Anim.  vi.  58.)  describes  how  "  the  Egyp- 
 tians themselves  and  even  the  priests  are  all  ignorant  or 
 disagreed  about  the  time,  till  the  bird  comes  and  settles  the 
 question ;  and  as  soon  as  the  priests  announce  the  fact  they 
 all  keep  the  festival." 
 
 There  seems  also  to  have  been  some  connection  between 
 the  Phoenix,  bird  and  Cycle,  which  brought  back  the  seasons, 
 and  an  aTTOKaTdaracns  or  return  of  the  soul  after  death. 
 The  palm  in  Coptic  is  <^avi,  and  the  sprout  of  the  palm  in 
 hieroglyphics  is  the  symbol  of  the  year.  It  is  called  ^at, 
 whence  the  Greek  word  ^ats,    Horapollo  says  that  pat 
 
G88 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 signifies  also  the  soul;  and  this  assertion  is  confirmed  by  the 
 hieroglyphical  inscriptions,  in  which  it  seems  to  have  the 
 sound  of  "  bey.^^    It  is  commonly  represented  as  a  bird  (we 
 are  here  abridging  from  Lepsius)  with  a  human  head,  often 
 too  with  human  arms,  in  the  attitude  of  prayer.     It  seems 
 that  it  was  used  as  a  figure  for  the  soul  purified  through  its 
 period  of  wandering,  and  brought  to  its  airoKaTao-Taais, 
 Horapollo  says  that  it  "  signifies  a  soul  which  passes  a  long 
 time  on  earth,"  and  again,  "a  soul  which  after  a  long  time  re- 
 turns home  from  a  strange  land."  "  KaXetrat  irap  Kl<yv7nloLs 
 6  Ispa^  ^atrjO,  TovTsart  '^vxv  '^^^^  KapBla.^^     And  again : 
 ^TTOKardcTTaatv  Ss  TroXv^povLov  /BcvXo/uLsvoi  a7]/jirjvai,  (poiviKa 
 TO  opvsov   ^(oypacpovac.^^     And   elsewhere  :      "  ^v)(7]v  8s 
 EvravOa    irokvv   y^povov    Siarpl/Sovo-av    /Bovko/JusvoL  jpayfraL 
 (j)ocvLKa  TO  opvsov  ^(oypa(povaiv\^^     And  lastly,      Kal  tov 
 '^oviws  hs  aiTO  ^sm)9  iirLBrjixovi^ra  SrjXovvrss  ttoXlv  (j)oiviKa  to 
 opvsov  ^cojpacpovo-L.^^     (^Horap,  HierogL  i.  7,  ii.  57,  i.  34,  and 
 i.  35.)    Lepsius  mentions  further  that  in  the  sculptures  at 
 Medinet  Habou  (of  Rameses  III.)  the  Phoenix,  instead  of 
 having,  as  it  commonly  has,  a  bird's  body  with  perhaps  a 
 human  head  and  arms  extended  in  prayer,  is  represented 
 with  a  bird's  head  only,  and  all  the  rest  of  it  as  a  man,  with 
 the  arms  in  the  same  attitude  of  prayer  in  which  they  are 
 usually  attached  to  the  bird.     It  has  a  star  before  it.  This 
 is  the  king  himself  in  the  form  of  the  Phoenix.  (The  Roman 
 *^  Divus "  too  was  in  later  times  expressed  by  the  star.) 
 Often  before  the  bird  there  is  the  word  "  rechit "  or  recliiP 
 which  is  rendered  "  the  pure  [spirits],"  from  a  root  signify- 
 ing to  wash.    It  designates  then  the  human  souls  purified  at 
 the  end  of  their  wanderings.    In  the  tombs  of  Beni-Hassan, 
 and  in  others  of  the  time  of  the  pyramids,  the  Phoenix 
 occurs  also  without  the  human  arms  extended  in  prayer, 
 and  simply  as  a  bird,  with  the  same  word  "  rechi.^^    But  in 
 these  cases  it  is  very  like  the  bird  called  Kibitz^  with  its  tuft 
 on  the  back  of  the  head.    We  have  it  once  also  as  the 
 emblem  of  a  period  of  time,  viz.  on  the  sarcophagus  of  the 
 queen  Anclines,  found  at  Thebes  and  now  in  the  British 
 Museum,  where  Osiris  is  styled  "  king  of  the  periods  of  the 
 pure  spirits,"  that  is,  the  periods  of  the  Phoenix. 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS  :  ON  THE  CYCLES.  689 
 
 In  the  Egyptian  lists  of  Syncellus,  copied,  seemingly,  from 
 those  of  Anianus  and  Panodorus,  and  so  of  the  5th  century, 
 it  is  noted  of  Aseth,  the  last  of  the  six  Shepherds  of  Ma- 
 netho's  Dyn.  XVII  as  given  by  Josephus,  that  "  he  added  to 
 the  year  the  5  epagomenoe,  and  made  it  to  consist  thenceforth 
 of  365  days,  whereas  before  it  had  had  only  360."  (The 
 original  Greek  may  be  found  in  Chapter  VII.)  It  is  true 
 that  a  further  notice  follows,  that  "  in  his  time  the  deified 
 calf  was  named  Apis,"  which  is  an  unmeaning  corruption 
 and  transposition  of  a  notice  attached  by  Manetho  to  Bochus, 
 the  second  king  of  his  second  Dynasty  of  Tanites.  But  this 
 is  easily  accounted  for,  as  Anianus  had  cut  off  and  disallowed 
 all  Manetho's  early  dynasties  as  anterior  to  the  Dispersion, 
 but  still  wished  to  reproduce  his  admission  that  the  deifica- 
 tion of  beasts  had  commenced  only  under  the  kings.  So  he 
 ascribed  it,  however  unsuitably,  to  the  Shepherds,  that  it 
 might  be  somewhat  earlier  than  the  Exodus.  But  the  other 
 notice  respecting  the  year  must  also  have  had  some  Egyp- 
 tian source ;  and  it  is  remarkable  that  it  is  found  attached 
 to  a  reign  which,  as  may  be  collected  from  Manetho's  lists, 
 covered  the  space  between  the  years  1797  and  1748  B.C. 
 What  makes  this  to  be  so  remarkable  is  the  fact  that  it  was 
 in  a  quadriennium  containing  the  year  B.C.  1780,  and  so 
 precisely  under  this  king  Aseth,  that  Pachons  1  coincided 
 with  the  summer  solstice,  and  the  names  of  the  tetramenia 
 following  were  in  agreement  with  the  actual  seasons.  The 
 phases  of  the  moon  too  then  began  in  conjunction  with  the 
 Egyptian  months.  And  from  certain  indications,  entirely 
 independent  of  any  tradition  or  testimony,  both  M.  Biot 
 himself  and  others  have  conjectured  that  at  some  time  or 
 other,  and  most  likely  at  or  near  this  date  of  B.C.  1780,  a 
 change  was  made  in  the  year  and  the  calendar,  so  as  to 
 bring  it  to  its  present  form  ;  and  especially  that  the  5  epago- 
 mencB  were  then  either  first  introduced  or  transposed,  so  as 
 to  come  before  Thoth  instead  of  Pachons.  It  is  to  be  ob- 
 served moreover  that  Syncellus's  notice  attached  to  Aseth 
 is  certainly  older  than  a  variation  from  it  which  is  connected 
 by  one  of  the  Scholiasts  on  the  Tima3us  of  Plato  with  Saites, 
 and  which  is  quoted  by  some  as  "  a  valuable  fragment  pre- 
 
 Y  Y 
 
690 
 
 EGYrTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 served  from  the  original  Manetho,"  whereas,  in  truth,  it  is 
 from  the  Manetho  of  Eusehius ;  and  the  cause  of  its  being 
 transferred  from  Aseth  to  Saites  is  this,  that  Eusebius  had 
 suppressed  two  out  of  the  six  Shepherds,  Aseth  being  one  of 
 the  two,  and  had  besides  cut  down  the  years  of  the  dynasty 
 from  260  to  103,  in  order  to  pass  it  off  as  Dyn.  XVII  of  the 
 Old  Chronicle  which  had  four  kings  (Memphites,  however, 
 and  not  Shepherds)  and  103  years.  Only  in  one  point  the 
 notice  of  the  Scholiast  is  a  little  less  worthless  than  it  would 
 have  been  had  he  copied  from  the  original  Manetho  instead 
 of  copying  indirectly  from  Ptolemy,  that  Saites  has  his  true 
 name ;  whereas,  according  to  the  original  Manetho,  the  first 
 king  whom  the  Shepherds  —  who  afterwards  built  Jerusalem 
 —  set  up  over  themselves  (to  reign  in  Memphis),  was  named 
 not  from  the  god  of  the  Sethroitic  or  Saitic  Nome,  but  from 
 the  first  king  of  the  Hebrews,  Salatis  or  Saul,  the  name 
 being  slightly  varied,  as  Osarsiph  is  varied  from  Joseph. 
 But  that  the  Scholiast  is  really  citing  from  Eusebius  is 
 manifest,  for  he  names  all  the  four  kings,  and  only  the  four, 
 of  Eusebius,  and  adds  Eusebius's  sum  for  the  four  reigns, 
 viz.,  "  103  years."  It  is  observable  besides  that  he  makes 
 the  change  spoken  of  to  have  consisted  in  "  adding  half  a 
 day  to  the  month,  so  as  to  bring  it  up  [from  29^]  to  30  days, 
 and  6  [read  5]  days  to  the  year,  so  as  to  make  it  consist  of 
 365  days."  "  'O  XaiTrjs  TrpoasdrjKS  tu>  jir^vl  o)pas  ,  ois  elvat 
 rjixzpwv  X,  zeal  tc5  sviavTM  rj^spas  [read  s'],  kcli  ^jk^ovEV 
 rjfjbspoiv  tJ^s'."  Some,  finding  the  addition  of  the  epagomencB 
 ascribed  in  one  text  to  Aseth  the  last  and  in  another  to  Saites 
 the  first  of  the  six  Shepherds,  have  inferred  that  it  was  pro- 
 bably made  under  some  one  king  or  other  of  the  same 
 dynasty.  And  the  inference,  until  further  evidence  be 
 found,  is  allowable.  It  is  also  to  be  remembered  that  as 
 facts  were  likely  to  be  misplaced  whenever  there  was  a 
 reason,  so,  whenever  facts  are  found  to  have  been  misplaced, 
 a  reason  is  to  be  looked  for.  Two  or  three  scattered  circum- 
 stances in  this  case,  if  put  together,  may  perhaps  afford  a 
 hint,  though  a  slight  and  uncertain  one.  Claudius  Ptolemy's 
 astronomical  observations  are  attached  to  one  taken  on  the 
 69th  day  of  N.E.  887  or  Sept.  26  in  a.d.  139,  the  year  of  the 
 Sothic  epoch;  and  two  Arab  writers  have  mentioned  obser- 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  ON  THE  CYCLES. 
 
 691 
 
 vations  "  of  the  Egyptian  Hermes  older  by  1985  years  than 
 those  of  Ptolemy;"  as  old,  that  is,  as  B.C.  (1985—  138  =) 
 1847.  There  should  then  have  been  living  about  B.C.  1847, 
 which  is  under  the  same  dynasty  with  Aseth  but  earlier  than 
 his  reign,  some  man  very  remarkable  for  science  and  wis- 
 dom, so  that  he  might  even  be  called  a  Thoth  or  Hermes. 
 Again,  the  introduction  of  a  scientific  system  of  land-survey- 
 ing is  somewhere  ascribed  to  Sesostris,  meaning  Sesortasen 
 IIL,  who  was  king  in  Upper  Egypt  at  this  very  same  date. 
 The  name  Hermes^"*  will  carry  us  still  further.  For  in  a 
 notice  occurring  elsewhere  (in  which  care  was  taken  to 
 mention  neither  the  time,  nor  the  name  of  the  king),  it 
 is  said  that  certain  years  of  prodigiously  abundant  harvests 
 were  once  introduced  by  the  appearance  of  a  double-headed 
 and  again  of  ^four-headed  crane,  the  crane  being  the  hiero- 
 glyph of  Thoth  or  Hermes,  as  if  it  had  been  said  "  by  the 
 appearance  of  a  very  great  and  wonderful  interpreter,'''^  (The 
 second  or  four-headed  crane  is  merely  a  reduplication,  to 
 distract  attention,  like  the  multiplication  of  floods  and  con- 
 flagrations.) We  know  now  when  those  unexampled  harvests 
 were  announced,  and  by  whom ;  that  it  was  under  the  reign 
 of  the  Shepherd  king  Apophis;  at  the  date  B.C.  1878;  and 
 that  the  same  "  Hermes  "  ruled  Egypt  directly  or  by  his 
 counsels  for  80  years,  till  B.C.  1798  ;  so  that  the  reign  of 
 Sesortasen  III.  also,  and  the  date  to  which  the  observations 
 "  of  Hermes "  were  assigned  by  the  two  Arab  writers,  are 
 both  included.  It  is  open  then  to  surmise  that  some  altera- 
 tion of  the  calendar,  and  the  transposition  perhaps,  if  not  the 
 original  addition,  of  the  epagomenie  was  either  made  during 
 his  lifetime,  under  Apophis  or  Janias,  or  rather,  perhaps, 
 under  Aseth,  after  his  death,  in  accordance  with  recommend- 
 ations and  calculations  which  he  had  left. 
 
 In  connection  with  this  subject  it  may  be  remarked  that 
 though  an  apparent  coincidence  of  the  heliacal  rising  of 
 Sirius  and  the  solstice  would  extend  only  for  500  or  600 
 years  on  either  side  of  the  epoch  of  their  true  coincidence 
 (which  was  according  to  M.  Biot  in  a  quadriennium  in- 
 cluding the  year  B.C.  3285),  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
 therefore  the  idea  of  this  coincidence,  as  still  existing,  must 
 have  ceased  at  an  interval  of  500  or  600  years  below  B.C. 
 
 Y  Y  2 
 
692 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 3285  throughout  all  Egypt.  If  Sirius  rose  at  Memphis  in 
 B.C.  3285,  that  is,  186  years  before  the  Flood,  exactly  at 
 the  solstice,  then  502  vague  years  later,  viz.  in  B.C.  2783  or 
 317  years  after  the  Flood,  when  there  would  be  already  in 
 reality  an  interval  of  between  3  and  4  days,  this  discrepancy 
 (owing  to  the  uncertainties  of  actual  observation)  would 
 scarcely  be  noticed  by  the  first  settlers  of  Lower  Egypt ; 
 while  higher  up  the  country,  at  Thebes  for  instance,  and  at 
 Syene,  where  Sirius  rises  5  and  6  days  earlier,  the  true  coin- 
 cidence of  his  rising  with  the  solstice  would  not  as  yet  have 
 been  even  quite  attained.  So  we  may  go  down  from  B.C. 
 2783  a  second  Phoenix  season  of  502  vague  years,  and  arrive 
 at  B.C.  2281,  before  the  apparent  discrepancy  even  at  the 
 latitude  of  Memphis  would  be  very  considerable.  But  after 
 a  third  Phoenix  season,  viz.  about  B.C.  (2281  —  502  =  )  1780, 
 the  date  which  fixes  so  much  the  attention  of  M.  Biot,  the 
 real  discrepancy  at  Memphis  had  grown  to  something  over 
 10  days,  and  the  fixed  apparent  discrepancy  would  not  be 
 less  than  5  days ;  while  at  Thebes  also  the  true  discrepancy 
 would  have  grown  to  about  5  days,  and  so  it  would  be  be- 
 ginning to  be  noticed  as  considerable ;  and  it  would  be  known 
 to  be  increasing.  At  this  precise  time  the  three  Egyptian 
 seasons  of  the  present  calendar,  and  the  twelve  months  be- 
 ginning from  the  Water-Season  and  from  the  1st  of  Pachons, 
 either  found  themselves  in  agreement  or  were  brought  into 
 agreement  with  the  actual  seasons,  beginning  from  the  sol- 
 stice, with  which  Pachons  1  then  coincided.  The  phases  of 
 the  moon  also  began  then  together  with  the  months  from 
 the  same  date.  And  at  this  time  it  is  that  M.  Biot  finds 
 grounds  for  thinking  that  the  five  epagomena  must  have 
 been  either  added  or  transposed  so  as  to  come  after  the  end 
 of  Mesori  before  Thoth  1.  In  the  latter  case  they  would  be 
 suppressed  at  the  place  where  they  had  stood  previously,  viz. 
 at  the  end  of  Pharmouthi  before  Pachons  1,  Pachons  having 
 been  before  perhaps  the  first  month  of  the  year.  One  chief 
 reason  for  such  a  suppression  and  transposition  of  five  days 
 from  before  Pachons  1  may  have  been  to  make  that  day  and 
 the  commencement  of  the  Water- Season  to  coincide  in  B.C. 
 1780  with  the  summer  solstice  and  with  the  commencement 
 of  the  rise  of  the  Nile,  instead  of  being  5  days  later. 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  ON  THE  CYCLES. 
 
 693 
 
 Some  light  has  been  thrown  on  this  question  by  the 
 monuments ;  and  more  perhaps  may  still  be  obtained  by  the 
 study  of  known  or  the  discovery  of  fresh  inscriptions.  Not 
 only  is  the  notation  of  the  year  of  365  days  with  the  five 
 epagomenoi  to  be  seen  marked  on  a  wooden  chest  of  the  time 
 of  Amunoph  I.  of  Dyn.  XVIII  now  in  the  Museum  of 
 Turin,  but  Lepsius  has  turned  attention  to  an  inscription  at 
 Beni-Hassan,  in  the  tomb  of  a  nobleman  named  Chnoum- 
 hotep,  in  which  the  deceased,  who  was  made  governor  in  the 
 city  of  Menat-Choufou  in  the  19th  year  of  Amenemhe  II. 
 (B.C.  1914-1913),  and  who  is  represented  receiving  some 
 Asiatics  {Aamou)  in  the  6th  year  of  Sesortasen  II.  (B.C. 
 1897-1896),  relates  of  himself  how  he  "  had  paid  honour  to 
 the  name  of  his  father,  had  been  liberal  to  the  sanctuaries, 
 had  worshipped  his  images  in  the  temples,  had  given  them 
 their  sacrifices  and  pure  libations,  had  distributed  corn  to 
 the  priests,  —  and,  lastly,  how  he  had  offered  oblations  on 
 all  the  festivals  of  the  dead,  viz.  on  those  of  the  New  Year 
 (Thoth  1  of  the  civil  or  vague  year),  of  the  Bise  i.  e.  of  the 
 commencement  of  the  Sun-year  (viz.  of  the  fixed  or  canicular 
 year);  of  the  Great  Year  (of  the  quadrennial  cycle  ?);  of  the 
 Little  Year  (the  lunar  year  of  354  days  ?) ;  of  the  Year's  End ; 
 of  the  Great  Panegyry  (viz.  after  every  30  years,  or  month 
 of  years,  four  of  which  months,  or  120  years,  would  make 
 as  it  were  one  season  of  the  Sothic  Cycle) ;  of  the  Great 
 Heat  (viz.  of  the  month  Mechir)  ;  of  the  Little  Heat  (of  the 
 month  Phamenoth) ;  of  the  Five  EpagomencB  of  the  year;  that 
 of  the  Sheteta  ;  the  twelve  Month  Festivals ;  the  twelve  Half- 
 month  Festivals  ;  and,  lastly,  all  the  Commencement  Festivals 
 of  the  Plain  and  of  the  Hill."  {Brugsch,  Histoire  d'Egypte, 
 p.  59.)  So  the  five  epagomenae  seem  to  have  been  already 
 in  use  at  least  as  early  as  B.C.  1914,  though  Chnoumhotep 
 himself  may  have  died,  if  it  so  happened,  as  late  or  later  than 
 B.C.  1780;  and  if  they  were  "  added  "  or  inserted  after  the 
 end  of  Mesori  at  or  near  this  latter  date,  in  the  time  of  Aseth, 
 this  "  addition "  must  be  understood  to  have  been  simul- 
 taneous with  the  suppression  of  them  in  another  place,  and 
 so  to  have  been  only  a  transposition.  Still  earlier,  in  tlie 
 reign  of  Papa  Maire  (b.c.  1994  to  1974),  it  is  mentioned  in 
 
 Y  Y  3 
 
694 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 an  inscription  of  his  IStli  year,  in  the  valley  of  Hamamat, 
 according  to  some  that  he  celebrated  a  "  Great  Panegyry " 
 (that  is,  the  Thirty-year  Festival),  but  according  to  M. 
 Brugsch,  that  he  celebrated /or  the  first  time  the  Panegyry 
 of  a  period  the  length  of  which  is  unknown." 
 
 The  Demotic  or  Coptic  names  of  the  Egyptian  months 
 seem,  according  to  Lepsius,  by  their  signification,  and  by  the 
 deities  with  which  they  are  connected,  to  be  of  Thchan 
 origin.  So  probably  tliey  were  introduced  under  Dyn. 
 XVIII,  later  than  the  time  of  Aseth.  Their  names  for 
 the  convenience  of  the  reader  are  here  subjoined  : 
 
 Green- Season. 
 1.  Thoth. 
 II.  Phaophi. 
 
 III.  Hathor. 
 
 IV.  Choiak. 
 
 Harvest-  Season, 
 I.  Tobi. 
 II.  Mechir. 
 
 III.  Phamenoth. 
 
 IV.  Pharmouthi. 
 
 Water-  Season. 
 I.  Pachons. 
 II.  Paoni. 
 
 III.  Epiphi. 
 
 IV.  Mesori. 
 
 The  idea  of  the  airoKaTdcrraais  with  its  period  of  two 
 spaces  like  Sothic  Cycles,  increased  to  three,  and  reckoned  as 
 XXV  Cycles  of  nominal  years,  has  been  explained  in  Chapter 
 I.;  and  if  it  has  been  rightly  accounted  for  it  is  plain  that  the 
 number  of  xxv  Cycles  was  not  obtained  by  any  erroneous 
 calculation  of  the  precession  of  the  equinoxes  and  the 
 solstices.  If  indeed  the  Egyptians  had  taken  the  move  of  the 
 equinoctial  point  in  100  years  to  be  something  less  than  the 
 360th  part  of  the  sphere,  that  is  just  a  day,  they  might  so 
 have  made  the  period  of  a  cosmical  diroKaTacrraa-is  to  consist 
 of  (100  X  365|-  =  )  36,525  of  their  vague  years,  instead  of 
 25,885  mean  tropical  years  or  25,884  mean  sidereal  years, 
 which  according  to  M.  Biot  would  be  the  true  number.  But 
 that  the  Egyptians  did  so  is  a  mere  imagination  ;  and  it  would 
 be  nothing  more  even  were  it  true  that  the  same  idea  had 
 suggested  itself  before  to  Hipparchus,  or  to  any  other  Greek 
 writer ;  or  even  if  in  consequence  some  had  adopted  such  a 
 calculation  of  the  precession  as  their  own,  supposing  it  to  be 
 the  true. 
 
 A  period  of  25,885  years,  as  has  been  said,  would  result 
 from  the  difference  between  the  sidereal  and  the  mean 
 natural,  solar,  or  tropical  year ;  since  the  former  consists  of 
 365^  6^  9"^  9^  and  the  latter  of  only  365^  5^  48"^  50'  24'' ; 
 
GREEK  AUTHORS:  ON  THE  CYCLES. 
 
 695 
 
 and  the  excess  of  the  former,  (viz.  20^^  18«  36''  (the  angle  of 
 precession  being  50''  -10),  is  such,  that  25,884  of  its  years 
 equal  25,885  of  the  latter.   But  the  Egyptians  had  for  their 
 fixed  or  natural  year  not  the  mean  tropical,  but  the  canicular 
 (equal  to  the  uncorrected  Julian),  which  being  in  length 
 between  the  sidereal  and  the  tropical,  exceeding  the  latter 
 by  11°^  9^  36"  and  being  itself  exceeded  by  the  former  by 
 only  9™  9%  the  period  of  that  aTroKardaTaGis  which  should 
 bring  the  rising  of  Sirius  round  as  if  through  all  the  signs 
 of  the  zodiac  to  the  point  from  which  it  had  first  started — 
 let  us  say  to  the  summer  solstice  —  instead  of  being  only 
 25,885,  would  be  (according  to  Mr.  Greswell)  about  48,000 
 years;  that  is,  if  30  degrees  in  space  or  31  days  in  time  are 
 allowed  for  every  4000  years.    This,  then,  rather  than  any 
 other  sum  would  have  suited  the  Egyptians  for  an  diroKa- 
 rdaraacs  really  and  strictly  zodiacal,  which  that  of  the  Old 
 Chronicle  was  not,  even  though  it  may  have  been  presented 
 for  the  sake  of  making  it  more  intelligible  to  the  Greeks, 
 as  a  period  bringing  ail  things  round  to  the  first  point  of  the 
 Ram,    And  the  sum  of  48,863  years  named  by  Diogenes 
 Laertius  looks  much  more  like  a  calculation  based  on 
 the  removal  of  Sirius  from  the  solstice,  than  the  sum  of 
 36,525  looks  like  a  calculation  based  on  the  difference  be- 
 tween the  sidereal  and  the  tropical  year.    The  48,863  years 
 too  are  all/w/Z,  and,  if  any  one  please,  real,  though  of  course 
 of  cosmical  not  of  human  time.    Still,  as  neither  this  whole 
 sum  (which  is  compound,  and  as  a  whole  uncyclical),  nor  that 
 month  of  xxx  Sothic  cycles  which  makes  the  bulk  of  it  (and 
 to  which  the  true  and  uncyclical  reckoning  of  human  time  is 
 merely  appended),  begin  from  or  end  with  any  Phoenix 
 epoch,  nor  are  resolvable  into  Phoenix  cycles,  or  seasons, 
 nor  exhibit  the  sum  really  required  for  a  Phoenix  dTroKarda- 
 raa-Ls,  and  as,  besides,  the  origin  of  the  month  of  Sothic 
 cycles  in  the  abovementioned  scheme  preserved  by  Diogenes 
 Laertius  has  been  otherwise  and  sufficiently  accounted  for,  it 
 is  plain  that  the  similarity  or  approximation  of  the  whole 
 compound  sum  of  48,863  years  to  such  a  sum  as  miy/it  have 
 been  calculated  by  the  Egyptians  for  a  zodiacal  diroKaTdo-Ta- 
 <jt9  is  merely  accidental. 
 
696 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 CHAP.  VI. 
 
 JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 The  lists  of  Manetho,  the  compilation  as  we  suppose  of 
 Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  have  been  transcribed  from  the  chrono- 
 logical work  of  Julius  Africanus  both  by  the  ecclesiastical 
 historian  Eusebius,  who  wrote  in  the  fourth  century,  and  by 
 George  Syncellus,  ^vho  wrote  at  the  beginning  of  the  ninth ; 
 but  by  the  former  of  the  two  with  such  variations,  that 
 Syncellus  imagined  he  must  have  had  before  him  some  other 
 edition  of  Manetho  than  that  used  by  Africanus;  whereas 
 in  truth  he  had  not  even  that,  but  made  up  a  Manetho  of  his 
 own  partly  copied  from  the  lists  of  Africanus,  which  he  used 
 as  materials,  and  partly  altered  by  himself  so  as  to  suit  his 
 own  system.  Syncellus,  who  happily  had  less  of  theory, 
 besides  faithfully  transcribing  the  lists  both  of  Africanus 
 and  of  Eusebius,  as  if  they  were  the  two  most  remarkable 
 of  the  differing  editions  of  Manetho,"  has  given  also  a  part 
 of  the  "  Theban  "  list  of  Eratosthenes,  which  he  found  in 
 Apollodorus,  and  a  fourth  "  Egyptian "  series,  suited  to  his 
 own  chronology,  and  derived  from  the  Chronography  of  two 
 Egyptian  monks  of  the  fifth  century,  Anianus  and  Pano- 
 dorus.  It  will  be  useful  to  give  some  account  of  the 
 general  chronology  of  each  of  these  Christian  writers,  and  to 
 compare  with  it  their  Egyptian  lists ;  that  so  we  may  be  the 
 better  able  both  to  assure  ourselves  of  their  fidelity  in 
 transcribing  what  did  not  suit  their  own  systems,  or  what 
 they  had  no  motive  for  altering ;  and  also  to  understand  the 
 sources  of  any  such  peculiarities  and  variations  as  their  own 
 systems  may  have  required  or  suggested. 
 
 To  begin  with  Julius  Africanus  :  he  was  born,  as  his  sur- 
 name implies,  in  Africa.  When  Emmaus  in  Palestine  was  re- 
 built, at  his  instance,  as  Nicopolis,  under  Marcus  Aurelius  Anto- 
 ninus (Heliogabalus),  who  reigned  from  a.d.  218  to  a.d.  222, 
 Africanus,  we  are  told,  was  sent  back  thither;  and  he  seems  to 
 have  become  bishop  of  the  same  city.  He  founded  at  Caesarea 
 the  library  which  was  afterwards  enlarged  by  Eusebius  ;  and 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 697 
 
 he  compiled  a  chronological  work  in  five  books,  which,  com- 
 mencing (according  to  Photius)  from  the  Creation,  and,  no 
 doubt,  according  to  the  Antiochian  reckoning  from  Septem- 
 ber 1,  made  5500  years  to  Christ,  that  is,  to  August  31 
 following  the  Nativity,  which  his  5500th  year  was  supposed 
 to  include,  and  5531  years  to  the  Crucifixion,  that  is,  to 
 August  31  following  it,  giving  one  year  only,  or  one  year 
 and  7  months  at  most,  for  the  public  ministry  of  Christ. 
 And  from  thence  to  the  end  of  Olymp.  249  5',  or  to  the 
 commencement  of  Olymp.  250,  after  the  3rd  year  of  Helioga- 
 balus,  he  reckoned  192  [191]  years.  So  in  all  he  accounted 
 for  a  sum  of  "5723  [5722]  years"  ending  Aug.  31,  A.D. 
 221  ;  and  therefore  putting  the  Crucifixion  in  A.D.  (221  — 
 192  =  )  29  [30],  the  Nativity  in  B.C.  3,  and  the  creation  at 
 Sept.  1,  B.C.  5502  of  anticipated  Julian  reckoning  in  terms 
 of  the  vulgar  era.  Thus  he  ended  his  work  very  nearly  at 
 the  same  date  with  Hippolytus,  Bishop  of  Porto,  who  about 
 the  same  time  in  the  West  composed  a  Chronicle  also  com- 
 mencing from  the  Creation,  and  exhibiting,  probably,  from 
 the  time  of  the  Exodus  the  dates  of  the  Hebrew  Passovers 
 and  of  the  Christian  Easters  down  to  the  first  year  of  Alex- 
 anderSeverus,  as  he  reckons  it,  viz.  a.d.  222,  whence  his 
 own  Paschal  Cycle  begins. 
 
 Afrlcanus  quotes  Tatian,  a  writer  of  the  second  century,  as 
 having  extracted  from  Apion  a  quotation  from  Ptolemy  of 
 Mendes  respecting  the  synchronism  of  IMoses  and  the 
 Exodus  with  Inachus  ;  and  under  the  designation  of  "  some 
 accurate  Christian  writers  "  he  seems  elsewhere  to  allude  to 
 the  same  Tatian  and  to  Clement  of  Alexandria,  of  whom  he 
 says  that  "  he  was  known  by  his  writings  in  the  reign  of 
 Commodus"  (that  is,  about  A.D.  180),  and  who  had  thrown 
 together,  though  in  a  loose  way,  a  considerable  body  of 
 materials  for  connecting  sacred  and  profane  chronology.  Of 
 these  materials  Afrlcanus  seems  to  have  made  use.  He  lets 
 us  know  incidentally  of  himself  that  he  had  been  in  Egypt 
 to  see  Heracles,  and  had  bought  there  at  least  one  "  sacred  " 
 or  hieratic  book  (for  this  is  all  that  the  expression  sacred 
 book  "  need  mean)  written  by  an  author  named  Souphis,  and 
 so  the  namesake  of  the  builder  of  the  great  pyramid.  And 
 this  Souphis  Afrlcanus  understood  —  perhaps  he  was  ex- 
 
698 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 pressly  told  so  by  the  vendor,  wlio  extolled  the  book  as 
 something  of  great  value,  —  was  no  other  than  the  king 
 himself.  During  this  same  visit  to  Egypt,  it  may  be,  he 
 acquired,  or  saw  and  made  extracts  from,  a  copy  of  the  Ma- 
 netho  of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  in  the  body  of  which  work  he 
 found  more  or  less  of  the  original  Manetho,  besides  Pto- 
 lemy's own  arrangement  and  alterations,  and  in  the  Intro- 
 duction an  account  of  the  Old  Chronicle. 
 
 With  regard  to  the  general  sum  of  sacred  and  true 
 chronology,  as  he  regarded  it,  and  its  relation  to  the  sums 
 exhibited  by  the  Egyptians  and  by  the  writers  of  other 
 heathen  nations,  Africanus  in  his  First  Book  had  the  fol- 
 lowing passage :  — 
 
 "  AiyvTrTLOL  ^jikv  ovv  iirl  to  Ko/MircoBsarspov  ;^/30z/ft)i/  irspiTTas 
 
 ravra  d/cpL^ovv  ho^dvrwv  crvarsWovTSs  crsXriviaLOVs  slirov 
 sviavTovs'  [o'i\  ovhsv  sXarrov  sttI  to  fxvOcohss  aTrovzvevicoTSs 
 (TVfjLiTLTrTOvai,  rah  rj  kou  6'  ')(^LkLdaiv  ircov  as  Alyvirricov  ol 
 nrapd  JlXdrcopt  Ispsls  sis  XoXcova  icaTapiOfjuovvTSs  ovk  dXrjdsvov- 
 CLV.  Kal  yu-ST  oXlya  •  Ta  fisv  yap  ^olvlkcov  Tpiaixvpia  sttj,  rj 
 T7]v  TO)V  liaXSalcov  Xrjpov  rov  rcov  /jltj'  fivpid^cov  tl  Set  XsysLv ;  i/c 
 TovTcov  yap  ol  ^lovSaioL  to  dvsKaOsv  ysyovoTSs,  diro  Aj3pad/jb 
 dp^dfjbSPOL,  aTVcj^coTspov  ts  Kal  dvOpaMrlvcos,  ixstci  tov  dXrjOovs  8id 
 Tov  ^la)vcrscos  TrvevfiaTos  Sfc  ts  tcov  Xolttcov  ^Ei^paiKcov  IcTopLcov 
 dptOfJiov  STMV  S(p'  {iTSVTaK,ia')(^LXl(i}v  irsvTaicoa-mv)  sis  ttjv  i7ri(f)d-' 
 
 VStaV   TOV   XcOTTjpLOV  AoyOV  T7]V    STTL  TTjS  /jLOyap')(^LaS   TMV  Kat- 
 
 <jdp(ov  Kvpvao-o/jLsvrjv  7rapaBsS(t)KacrLV.^^ 
 
 "  The  Egyptians,"  that  is,  "  to  make  the  greater  show,  in 
 their  vain  boasting  exhibited  fanciful  cycles  and  myriads  of 
 years ;  .  .  .  which  certain  writers,  who  have  got  the  credit  of 
 being  the  most  exact  in  such  matters,  have  reduced,  calling 
 these  multitudes  of  years  month-years.  Nevertheless,  these 
 equally  go  off  into  fable,  and  exhibit  sums  similar  to  those 
 8000  and  9000  years  which  the  Egyptian  priests  in  Plato 
 are  said  to  have  reckoned  to  Solon.  And,  if  they  did  so 
 reckon  them,  they  certainly  lied."  And  a  little  further  on: 
 "  For,  as  for  the  30,000  years  of  the  Phoenicians,  or  the 
 wild  fable  of  the  Chaldgeans,  who  make  48,000,  they  need 
 not  detain  us.  For  the  Jews,  who  were  originally  derived 
 from  these  same  Chaldaeans  through  their  ancestor  Abraham, 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 699 
 
 have  less  pompously  and  in  a  matter-of-fact  way,  with  the 
 spirit  of  truth  speaking  through  Moses,  and  from  their 
 other  historical  books,  delivered  to  us  a  sum  of  5500  years  to 
 the  manifestation  of  the  [Divine]  Word  for  our  salvation 
 which  was  proclaimed  under  the  reign  of  the  Ca3sars." 
 
 Before  showing  in  detail  how  Africanus  made  out  his  sum 
 of  5500  years  to  the  Nativity,  it  is  necessary  to  notice  one 
 inconsistency  in  his  reckonings,  and  to  state  how  it  is  pro- 
 posed to  deal  with  it.  For  sometimes  he  gives  27  years  to 
 Joshua,  sometimes  only  25,  like  Josephus;  while  his  sums 
 require  us  to  reckon  only  428  years  instead  of  430  between 
 the  Call  of  Abraham  and  the  Exodus  whenever  27  years  are 
 given  to  Joshua,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  make  it  necessary 
 when  430  years  are  reckoned  from  the  Call  to  the  Exodus 
 to  give  to  Joshua  only  25.  (In  the  summary  of  his  scheme 
 appended  in  some  MSS.  to  the  Chronicle  of  S.  Jerom  25 
 years  only  are  expressly  given  to  Joshua.)  So  his  inconsistent 
 reckoning  27  years  to.  Joshua  may  be  rectified  from  himself 
 by  compensation,  in  the  same  way  as  similar  peculiarities  of 
 Josephus  have  been  rectified  in  Chapter  I.  of  this  volume. 
 The  reader  therefore  must  bear  in  mind  that  we  shall 
 henceforth  write  as  if  Africanus  made  uniformly  only  428 
 years  (two  too  few)  between  the  Call  and  the  Exodus,  and 
 67  (two  too  many)  between  the  Exodus  and  the  death  of 
 Joshua.  Other  writers  —  Syncellus  even  says  that  there  is 
 a  consensus  for  it — have  repeated  and  perpetuated  this  error 
 of  giving  27  years  to  Joshua  (which  Africanus  perhaps  took 
 from  Clement  of  Alexandria)  without  any  such  inconsistency, 
 and  implied  correction,  as  that  with  which  Africanus  has 
 accompanied  it.  This  inconsistency  being  removed,  the 
 composition  of  the  5500  years  is  as  follows  :  — 
 
 From  the  Creation  to  the  end  of  the  year  of  the  Flood 
 are  reckoned  2262  years,  the  same  sum  as  is  made  by  the 
 Septuagint  version  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  and  by  Clement  of 
 Alexandria  (but  not  by  Hippolytus),  exceeding  by  six 
 units  the  2256  of  Josephus's  Greek  reckoning,  which  in  its 
 decades  and  units  agrees  with  the  1656  of  the  present 
 Hebrew  text.  Then  Africanus  makes  940  years  to  the  birth 
 of  Abraham,  not  having  (any  more  than  Josephus  or  than  the 
 present  Hebrew  text)  the  second  Cainan,  nor  following  the 
 
700 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 peculiarities  of  Josephus  in  inserting  12  years  between  the 
 Flood  and  the  birth  of  Arphaxad,  or  in  adding  41  years  to 
 the  79  of  Nahor  before  the  birth  of  Terah.  Then  he  adds 
 (545-2  =  )  543  to  the  death  of  Moses,  +(25  +  2  =  )  27  of 
 Joshua,  +  30  of  the  Elders  who  outlived  Joshua — exceedinor 
 by  20  the  10  of  Josephus.  These  [20]  are  a  peculiarity  of 
 his  own ;  and  their  source  may  perhaps  be  traced  to  the 
 word  "  generation  "  in  the  sacred  narrative,  "  So  Joshua 
 died,  and  all  the  Elders  who  outlived  Joshua,  and  all  that 
 generation  ; "  which  words  Africanus  misunderstood,  and 
 made  out  of  them  a  complete  generation  of  30  years,  com- 
 mencing from  after  the  death  of  Joshua.  After  this  he 
 gives  rightly  390  years  of  Judges  to  the  end  of  the  40  years 
 of  the  Philistines  during  which  Samson  judged  Israel  ("  in 
 the  days  of  the  Philistines")  20  years.  But  after  these  390 
 he  erroneously  adds  [20]  separate  years  for  Sampson's  judge- 
 ship, as  if  they  were  after  not  "  in  the  days  of  the  Phi- 
 listines." Then  [40]  more  "  of  democracy  ;  "  and  again 
 [40]  of  peace ; "  making  100  years  purely  his  own,  and 
 devoid  of  any  foundation  in  the  Scriptures.  So  at  this 
 point,  with  the  20  added  to  the  Eiders  after  Joshua,  he 
 seems  to  exceed  in  all  by  120  years.  But  his  excess  is 
 reduced  shortly  afterwards  by  a  deficiency  of  22  on  the 
 years  of  Samuel  to  [98].  For  he  reckons  only  90  years 
 in  all  for  Eli  and  Samuel,  including  the  first  20  years  of 
 Saul's  reign,  before  Samuel  withdrew  from  him  altogether. 
 But  thus,  if  the  first  40  of  these  90  years  are  allowed 
 for  Eli,  and  then  20  more  are  taken  for  the  time  of 
 Samuel's  minority  after  the  death  of  Eli  (while  the  Ark 
 abode  at  Kiriath  Jearim  a  long  time,  even  20  years,"  to 
 the  completion  of  the  450  years  of  Judges  reckoned  by  the 
 Apostle  "until  Samuel  the  Prophet^'),  while  the  last  20 
 of  the  90  belong  to  Saul  conjointly  with  Samuel,  there 
 remain  in  the  middle  space  only  10  other  years  for  all  the 
 time  during  which  Samuel,  after  attaining  his  majority,  and 
 holding  the  assembly  at  Mizpeh,  judged  Israel  alone.  Yet  in 
 this  time  from  the  age  of  30,  as  may  be  presumed,  he  had  come 
 to  be  old  and  grey-headed ;  and  had  had  his  sons  acting  for 
 some  time  as  deputy-judges  in  his  stead,  and  giving  offence 
 to  the  people,  so  that  they  demanded  a  king.    But  the  450 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 701 
 
 years  reckoned  by  St.  Paul  to  the  Judges  from  after  Joshua 
 and  the  Elders  to  Samuel  being  completed  by  adding  to  the 
 390  years  the  40  of  Eli  and  the  20  of  Samuel's  minority,  the 
 last  20  of  these,  and  20  more  transferred  by  Josephus  by  a 
 peculiarity  of  his  own  to  Solomon  (making  40  in  all),  being 
 restored  to  this  their  true  place,  Josephus  through  this  rec- 
 tification adds  indirectly  20  years  to  12  others  which  he 
 assigns  expressly  to  Samuel  alone ;  so  that  the  whole  time 
 during  which  Samuel  judges  alone,  from  the  assembly  at 
 Mizpeh  to  the  demand  for  a  king,  is  brought  up  to  32  years. 
 So  then,  22  out  of  the  32  years  of  Samuel's  judging  alone 
 having  been  omitted  by  Africanus,  this  omission,  on  the 
 principle  of  compensation,  reduces  his  foregoing  excess  from 
 120  to  98.  From  the  end  of  the  20th  and  last  year  of  Saul 
 governing  conjointly  with  Samuel,  that  is,  from  the  time 
 when  he  began  to  reign  alone,  and  "  the  Lord  ceased  to  be 
 inquired  after  all  the  days  of  Saul,"  to  the  commencement 
 of  the  Captivity,  he  probably  reckoned  rightly,  in  the  first 
 instance  at  least,  100  +  258  4-132  years  to  the  end  of  the 
 10th  of  Zedekiah,  making  490  years  of  neglect  to  be  followed 
 by  70  of  penal  desolation  answering  to  the  number  of  Sab- 
 batical years  which  had  been  neglected.  For  no  one  having 
 this  idea  of  the  70  years  in  his  mind  would  think  naturally, 
 or,  in  the  first  instance,  of  making  them  to  begin  earlier  than 
 Avith  the  11th  year  of  Zedekiah,  in  which  the  Temple  was 
 burned.  On  this  view,  as  long  as  he  had  the  right  reckoning 
 for  the  kings  above,  but  made  the  70  years  of  the  Captivity 
 to  end  at  the  Persian  accession  of  Cyrus,  Sept.  1,  B.C.  560, 
 instead  of  ending  with  the  4th  year  of  Darius  Hystaspes, 
 Aug.  31,  B.C.  518,  Africanus  would  interpolate  in  one  place 
 and  by  a  single  blunder  between  Nebuchadnezzar  or  Neri- 
 glissar  and  Cyrus  no  fewer  than  42  years.  Syncellus,  how- 
 ever, teils  us  that  in  the  scheme  of  Africanus,  in  its  final  and 
 published  form,  the  Captivity  was  made  to  begin  not  with 
 the  11th,  but  with  the  1st  of  Zedekiah.  The  490  years  of 
 neglect  preceding  were  in  that  case  made  out  by  the  help  of 
 10  unhistorical  years  added  somewhere  to  the  earlier  kings. 
 Africanus  perhaps  adopted  from  S.  Theophilus  his  variant 
 of  39  instead  of  29  years  for  Amaziah  ;  and  made  100  + 2 GS 
 +  122=490  years  to  the  accession  of  Zedekiah,  whose  1st 
 
702 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 year  was  thus  depressed  to  the  same  place  which  would  other- 
 wise have  belonged  to  his  11th.  And  his  first  ten  years  being 
 so  depressed  into  the  space  of  the  Captivity,  there  needed 
 of  course  a  further  addition  of  only  32  instead  of  42  unhis- 
 torical  years  to  make  out  its  70  years,  so  as  to  end  at  the 
 Persian  accession  of  Cyrus.  So  to  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  630,  (which 
 corrected  would  be  B.C.  630—42  =  588),  whether  it  were 
 called  the  beginning  of  the  11th  or  of  the  1st  of  Zedekiah, 
 Africanus  made  a  sum  of  (3184 +  503 +  97 +490 -f  90  +  490 
 =  )4872  years;  and  to  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  560,  which  is  the  true 
 date  for  the  Persian  accession  of  Cyrus  only  in  terms  of  the 
 fixed  Antiochian  year,  he  made  (4872  +  70  ==)  4942  years. 
 And  whether  the  Captivity  were  made  to  commence  from  the 
 11th  or  from  the  1st  of  Zedekiah,  and  whether  his  unhistorical 
 years  were  inserted  all  below,  or  10  of  them  above  and  32 
 beloWj  its  commencement,  in  both  cases  alike  their  sum  be- 
 tween the  death  of  Solomon  and  the  accession  of  Cyrus  in 
 B.C.  560  was  42  years.  These  [42]  added  to  his  former 
 excess  of  [98]  make  a  total  of  [140]  years  peculiar  to  him- 
 self ;  after  which  he  continues  rightly  enough  (from  Aug. 
 31,  B.C.  560)  with  230  years  (21  +  209)  of  the  Persians, 
 and  300  of  the  Macedonians,  to  the  reduction  of  Egypt  and 
 the  deaths  of  Antony  and  Cleopatra  after  the  battle  of  Ac- 
 tium,  that  is,  to  Aug.  31,  B.C.  30.  At  this  point  he  has  (4872 
 +  70  +  230  +  300  =  )  5472  years;  and  28  years  more  of 
 Augustus  being  added  will  complete  his  5500  years,  which 
 will  end  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  2,  according  to  the  vulgar  era.  And 
 in  the  last  of  these  5500  years,  being  the  5500th  of  the  world 
 according  to  Africanus,  Christ  was  born;  which  should  be 
 on  Dec.  25  in  B.C.  3.  And,  reckoning  from  the  termination 
 of  the  year  of  his  birth,  that  is,  from  Aug.  31,  B.C.  2  (8 
 months  after  the  supposed  Nativity)  15  years  of  Augustus 
 to  Aug.  31  in  A.D.  14,  and  again  15  years  of  Tiberius  to 
 Aug.  31  in  A.D.  29,  Africanus,  as  has  been  said  above,  sup- 
 poses Christ  to  have  commenced  his  public  ministry  some 
 short  time  after  the  completion  of  his  own  30th  year,  in  the 
 15th  year  of  Tiberius,  and  to  have  been  crucified  some  3  or 
 4  months  after  the  completion  of  his  31st  year  in  the  16t]i 
 year  of  Tiberius.  So  Africanus  put  the  Crucifixion  in  a.d. 
 30,  not  in  but  just  after  the  Consulship  of  the  two  Gemini, 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 703 
 
 and  in  liis  own  year  of  the  world  5531  which  ended  Aug.  31 
 of  that  same  Julian  year  a.d.  30.  Thence,  lastly,  he  counts 
 "  192  years"  to  the  end  of  Olymp.  249  S'  and  the  end  of  the 
 3rd  year  of  Heliogabalus,  Aug.  31,  a.d.  221,  making  in  all 
 to  the  same  point  5723  years."  But  here  he  either  means 
 years  current,  or  he  goes  one  year  into  Olymp.  250,  to  a.d. 
 222,  or  he  reckons  as  if  he  had  put  the  Crucifixion  in  A.D. 
 29,  and  antedated  the  accession  of  Tiberius  from  Sept.  1, 
 A.D.  13,  or  there  is  an  error  in  the  figures,  and  instead  of 
 192  and  5723  they  should  be  191  and  5722. 
 
 In  this  scheme  no  account  is  taken  of  any  interval  between 
 the  end  of  the  year  of  the  Flood  (on  the  day  when  Noah 
 went  forth  from  the  Ark  and  the  command  was  renewed  to 
 increase  and  multiply)  and  the  birth  of  Arphaxad,  which 
 cannot  be  put  less  than  9  months  later,  though  for  mere 
 purposes  of  reckoning  6  months  are  enough  to  allow,  since 
 the  years  reckoned  from  the  birth  of  Arphaxad  to  that  of 
 Abraham  are  fixed  in  Abraham,  and  at  other  points  below,  to 
 begin  about  the  time  of  Easter.  And  the  Scripture  puts  the 
 birth  of  Arphaxad  "  in  the  second  year  after  the  Flood," 
 w^hich  "  second  year,"  reckoned  from  the  commencement  of 
 Africanus's  year  of  the  Flood,  his  a.m.  2262,  would  coincide 
 with  his  A.M.  2263  ;  and  Arphaxad,  being  born  in  this  year, 
 would  not  be  born  till  9  months  of  it  at  least  had  passed. 
 So  the  births  of  all  the  following  Patriarchs,  the  birth  of 
 Abraham,  the  Call,  the  Exodus,  the  accessions  of  the  later 
 Judges,  and  those  of  the  Kings  down  to  the  commencement 
 of  the  Captivity,  being  all  reckoned  in  years  from  the  births  of 
 Arphaxad  and  of  Abraham,  and  the  commencements  of  the 
 years  so  reckoned  being  from  Abraham  downwards  fixed  not 
 to  the  autumnal  but  to  the  vernal  season,  it  follows  that  the 
 events  to  which  Africanus  reckons  after  the  Flood  must  all, 
 down  to  the  commencement  of  the  Captivity,  be  understood  to 
 have  occurred  some  six  months  more  or  less  after  the  comple- 
 tion of  that  sum  of  years  which  in  each  case  is  specified.  On 
 the  other  hand,  after  the  commencement  of  the  Captivity,  in 
 reckoning  the  years  of  the  Babylonians,  Persians,  and  Mace- 
 donians, he  takes  no  notice  of  the  difference  between  their 
 Nabonassarian  or  vague  Egyptian  years  of  only  365  days 
 each  and  Hebrew  or  Julian  years  of  365 J  days. 
 
704 
 
 EGYrTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Thus  his  omission  of  some  months,  while  reckoning  down- 
 wards to  the  Captivity  in  Hebrew  years,  and  his  addition  of 
 some  months  in  reckoning  upwards  to  the  same  point  of  the 
 Captivity,  by  identifying  Nabonassarian  with  Hebrew  or 
 Julian  years,  nearly  balance  one  another ;  and  what  we  have 
 to  do  in  rendering  his  years  of  the  world  into  Julian  years 
 B.C.  is  to  put  all  the  events  which  he  reckons  to  after  the 
 Flood,  down  to  B.C.  519  (when  two  Nabonassarian  years 
 began  within  the  limits  of  one  and  the  same  Julian  year), 
 later  by  one  year  than  that  answering  to  the  year  A.M.  which 
 he  names.  Thus  the  birth  of  Abraham  is  put  by  Africanus  at 
 (which  really  means  after)  the  completion  of  his  A.M.  (2262 
 +  940  =  )  3202,  which  seems  identical  with  Aug.  31  in  B.C. 
 (2  +  2298  =  )  2300.  We  must  put  it  then  for  him  in  the 
 spring  of  B.C.  2299.  To  the  Exodus  he  makes  (2262  +  940  + 
 503  =  )  3705  years  complete.  This  should  be  at  Aug.  31  in 
 B.C.  (2  +  179^5  =  )  1797.  We  must  put  it  then  for  him  in  the 
 following  spring  of  B.C.  1796.  The  1st  of  Zedekiah,  as  he 
 seems  to  reckon,  begins  Sept.  1  after  his  a.m.  4872,  which 
 should  be  in  B.C.  (2  +  628  =  )  630.  We  must  make  it  begin 
 then  for  Africanus  not  in  the  autumn  of  B.C.  630,  but  in  the 
 spring  of  B.C.  629  ;  or,  if  we  suppress  his  interpolation  of  42 
 years,  not  in  the  autumn  of  B.C.  588,  but  in  the  spring  of  B.C. 
 587,  and  the  burning  of  the  Temple  will  be  4  months  later 
 in  the  same  year.  And  the  70  years  will  begin  from  the 
 spring  of  B.C.  587,  not  from  the  autumn  preceding.  And  the 
 [Persian]  accession  of  Cyrus,  which  is  according  to  him  at 
 or  after  Aug.  31,  at  the  end  of  his  a.m.  4942,  as  if  at  Sept.  1 
 in  B.C.  (2  +  558  =  )  56^0,  will  be  put  by  us  at  Jan.  11  in  B.C. 
 559.  But  when  we  come  down  42  Nabonassarian  years 
 later,  to  the  4th  of  Darius  Hystaspes,  which  Africanus  makes 
 to  coincide  with  his  A.M.  4984  and  to  end  Aug.  31  in  B.C. 
 518,  we  no  longer  have  to  move  on  to  the  spring  of  the  next 
 Julian  year  for  his  true  date.  For  in  the  Julian  year  B.C. 
 519  both  the  229th  and  the  230th  years  of  the  era  of 
 Nabonassar  began,  the  one  of  them  on  Jan.  1  and  the  other 
 on  Dec.  31,  and  consequently  the  70  years  reckoned  from 
 the  spring  of  B.C.  587  ended  not  in  the  spring  of  B.C.  517, 
 but  late  in  the  winter  of  B.C.  518.     And  thenceforth,  as  we 
 
JULIUS  APllICANUS. 
 
 705 
 
 proceed  downwards,  the  Nabonassarian  and  Egyptian  years 
 end  in  the  same  Julian  year  B.C.  which  is  indicated  by  the 
 reckoning  of  Africanus  ;  and  every  4th  year  earlier  by  one 
 day ;  so  as  at  length  in  B.C.  34  to  coincide  exactly  with  the 
 year  of  Africanus,  beginning  Sept.  1  and  ending  Aug.  31. 
 And  not  many  years  after  that  the  vague  Nabonassarian 
 year  was  fixed  and  made  to  coincide  for  ever  with  the 
 Julian,  beginning  from  the  same  time,  viz.,  from  Sept.  1. 
 
 But  in  reckoning  upwards  from  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  2,  the 
 end  of  A.M.  5500  of  Africanus,  we  go  up  according  to  him  to 
 Sept.  1,  B.C.  330,  for  the  commencement  of  the  first  year 
 of  the  Macedonians,  but  in  truth  only  to  Nov.  14  of  that 
 Julian  year ;  thence  188  years  to  the  commencement  of  the 
 5th  year  of  Darius  Hystaspes,  according  to  him  to  Sept. 
 B.C.  518,  but  really  only  to  Dec.  31,  the  4th  having  begun 
 according  to  him  with  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  519,  and  the  3rd  with 
 Sept.  1  in  B.C.  520,  while  in  truth  the  4th  began  only  on 
 Dec.  31  in  B.C.  519,  and  the  3rd  only  on  Jan.  1  in  the  same 
 year.  And  from  the  end  of  the  4th  of  Darius  we  go  up 
 according  to  him  42  years  to  the  [first  or  Persian]  acces- 
 sion of  Cyrus,  to  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  560,  but  in  truth  only  to 
 Jan.  11  in  B.C.  559;  and  thence  70  years  according  to 
 him  to  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  630  (or,  if  his  excess  of  10  + 
 32  =  42  years  wherever  placed  be  suppressed,  28  only 
 to  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  588),  but  in  truth  only  to  Jan.  28 
 in  B.C.  629  (or,  with  the  correction,  to  Jan.  18  in  B.C. 
 587).  And  according  to  him  we  should  reckon  up  from 
 Sept.  1  in  B.C.  630  or  B.C.  588  (+490  +  90  +  490  +  97  =  ) 
 1167  years  to  the  Exodus  to  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  1797  or 
 B.C.  1755.  But  he  is  to  be  understood  to  put  it  in  Msan  of 
 B.C.  1796  or  1754.  And  so  on,  up  to  the  Call  of  Abraham, 
 and  to  the  birth  of  Arphaxad,  in  Nisan  B.C.  2229,  and  in 
 Nisan  (or  rather  3  months  later)  B.C.  3249.  Then  6  (or 
 rather  9)  months  to  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  3240.  And,  lastly, 
 2262  more  to  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  5502  his  epoch  of  the  creation 
 in  terms  of  the  vulgar  era. 
 
 The  total  sum  of  Africanus  from  the  creation  to  the 
 Nativity  and  to  the  vulgar  era,  or  rather  to  Aug.  31  in  A.D. 
 1,  when  his  year  including  the  vulgar  era  ends,  being  5502 
 
 z  z 
 
706 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 years,  exceeds  the  total  sum  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  and  of 
 Josephus  as  harmonised  above  (being  5362)  by  140  years, 
 that  is,  by  134  years,  besides  the  6  units  before  the  Flood. 
 And  for  the  time  from  the  birth  of  Abraham  to  Christ  (re- 
 ckoning to  Aug.  31,  A.D.  1),  which  alone  has  any  historical 
 importance,  the  total  of  Africanus,  being  2300  years,  exceeds 
 the  total  of  Josephus  and  of  the  Scriptures,  which  is  2160, 
 by  (20  +  78  +  42  =  )  140  years,  arising  out  of  four  peculiar 
 and  uncompensated  additions  of  20  years  to  the  Elders  after 
 Joshua,  of  78  between  the  Philistines  and  Eli,  of  10  probably 
 to  Amaziah,  and  of  32  between  the  accession  of  Zedekiah  and 
 that  of  Cyrus.  Also,  there  is  a  further  occasional  excess  of 
 one  year  in  his  reckonings  (making  a  141st)  in  consequence  of 
 his  reckoning  Nabonassarian  and  Egyptian  as  identical  with 
 Hebrew  years.  This  makes  his  dates  above  Sept.  1  in  B.C. 
 34,  when  the  vague  Nabonassarian  and  Egyptian  year  coin- 
 cided with  his  own  fixed  year,  liable  to  be  too  high  by  one 
 year  for  his  own  reckoning,  and  those  above  Jan.  1  in  B.C. 
 519,  when  the  vague  year  nearly  coincided  with  the  Julian, 
 liable  to  be  too  high  by  one  year  for  ours.  And  if  he  had 
 attempted  to  parallel  the  years  of  the  Egyptian  kings  syn- 
 chronistically with  his  own  sacred  series,  he  would  have 
 placed  his  Egyptian  dates  above  B.C.  (34  +  1460  and  519 
 +  1460  =  )  1494  and  B.C.  1979  two  years  too  high  for  his 
 own  and  for  our  reckoning  respectively ;  and  above  B.C. 
 (1494  +  1460  and  1979  +  1460  =  )  2954  and  B.C.  3439  three 
 years  too  high,  and  so  on.  So  above  Jan.  20  in  B.C.  597, 
 where  he  has  32  surplus  years,  his  dates  in  terms  of  the 
 Julian  B.C.  are  (1+32  =  )  33  years  too  high,  and  above  the 
 reign  of  Amaziah  43  years  too  high,  up  to  the  first  year  of 
 Samuel's  minority,  the  52nd  preceding  his  490  of  Kings. 
 At  that  point  he  may  be  said  to  add  78  years  more,  so 
 that  his  dates  above  it  become  too  high  by  (43  +  78  =  )  121 
 years.  And,  lastly,  the  dates  above  the  10th  year  preceding 
 the  first  servitude,  before  which  he  interpolates  20  years,  are 
 set  (121  +20  =  )  141  years  too  high  :  and  so  they  remain  up  to 
 the  birth  of  Arphaxad,  where,  some  months  being  neglected, 
 the  commencements  of  the  years  of  the  Flood  and  of  the 
 Creation  are  set  in  Julian  reckoning  only  140  years  too  high. 
 
JULIUS  AFRICA NUS. 
 
 707 
 
 This  scheme  of  Africanus  may  now  be  applied  to  that 
 Egyptian  reckoning  of  true  human  time  which  is  contained 
 pure  in  the  sum  of  years  mentioned  by  Diogenes  Laertius, 
 and  which  underlies  all  the  other  four  Egyptian  schemes 
 which  have  been  discussed  above.  The  Egyptian  reckoning, 
 it  will  be  remembered,  needed  only  the  reduction  of  its 
 vague  years  to  Julian  or  Canicular  to  coincide  exactly 
 (barring  a  few  months  cut  off  at  the  head  of  all)  with  the 
 sacred  chronology  of  Josephus  rectified  from  himself  and 
 harmonised  with  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  Scriptures.  If 
 then  we  make  the  fixed  point  Thoth  l  =  Jan.  2,  B.C.  525, 
 the  epoch  of  the  Egyptian  accession  of  Cambyees,  to  coin- 
 cide with  Sept.  1  B.C.  526,  reckoned  by  Africanus  as  the 
 same  epoch  (that  is,  as  tbe  commencement  of  the  5th  Persian 
 year  of  Cambyses),  and  go  back  from  this  epoch,  it  follows 
 that  unless  he  supposed  some  great  omissions  in  the  Egyp- 
 tian lists, — the  accessioli  of  Apries,  "  to  whom  the  Jews  fled  " 
 after  the  burning  of  the  temple,  of  Necho,  who  "took  Jeru- 
 salem and  carried  away  Jehoahaz,"  of  Tirhakah,  who  came 
 out  to  fight  Sennacherib  in  the  14th  year  of  Hezekiah,  of  So 
 (probably  Sevechus),  with  whom  Hoshea  was  in  correspond- 
 ence in  the  2nd  year  of  Hezekiah,  will  all  appear  32  or  33 
 years  —  and  that  of  Shishak,  who  took  Jerusalem  in  the  5th. 
 year  of  Rehoboam,  42  or  43  years  —  below  the  dates  required 
 by  Africanus.  But  the  Exodus,  being  placed  by  him  in 
 B.C.  1797,  will  appear  to  have  taken  place  in  the  first  year 
 of  Aseth,  the  last  of  those  same  Shepherd  kings  under 
 whom,  according  to  Africanus,  "  Joseph  is  proved  to  have 
 governed  Egypt."  The  descent  of  Jacob  into  Egypt  being 
 set  at  Sept.  1,  B.C.  2010,  would  seem  by  the  Egyptian  lists 
 to  have  been  in  the  25th  year  not  of  the  Shepherds  but  of 
 the  Memphite  Dyn.  XVII  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  under 
 Snefrou;  and  the  Call  of  Abraham  being  set  at  Sept.  1,  B.C. 
 2225,  his  descent  into  Egypt  would  seem  to  have  been  only 
 just  after  the  accession  of  Menes. 
 
 But  the  Egyptian  lists  transcribed  by  Africanus  were  not 
 a  single  chronological  series,  like  that  of  the  dynasties  of  the 
 Old  Chronicle,  agreeing  perfectly  with  the  harmonised  chro- 
 nology of  the  Scriptures  and  Josephus,  and  putting  Menes 
 
 z  z  2 
 
708 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 at  B.C.  2224  or  2225,  really  65  years  above,  but  according  to 
 Africanus  77  years  below,  the  birth  of  Abraham):  nor  were 
 they  exactly  those  of  the  original  Manetho,  who  added  1674 
 fresh  years  of  kings  to  the  1881  of  the  Chronicle,  and  so 
 might  seem  to  carry  Menes  up  798  years  above  the  Flood ; 
 but  they  were  those  (with  some  accidental  variations  too  in 
 the  text)  of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  who  superadded  1919  years 
 of  antiquity  even  to  the  3558  years  of  Manetho,  and  so  might 
 seem  to  put  the  accession  of  Menes  455  years  above  the  Cre- 
 ation according  to  the  joint  scale  of  the  Scriptures  and  Jo- 
 sephus,  or  (455  —  140  =  )  315  years  above  it  according  to  the 
 scale  of  Africanus.  It  will  be  advisable,  therefore,  before 
 examining  how  he  deals  with  particular  synchronisms,  to 
 ascertain  first  how  Africanus  regarded  that  vast  number  of 
 years  which  he  transcribed,  and  in  what  relation  he  let  them 
 stand  generally  to  his  own  chronology. 
 
 Now  there  is  a  passage  of  Eusebius  in  which  he  seems  to 
 give  it  as  his  own  opinion  that,  the  bulk  of  the  vast  periods 
 of  Manetho  and  the  Old  Chronicle  being  understood  to 
 consist  of  months  reckoned  and  named  as  years,  it  may  fairly 
 be  supposed  that,  when  reduced  to  true  years,  they  ought  to 
 cover  the  duration  of  the  antediluvian  world,  and  the  space 
 from  the  Flood  to  the  Dispersion.  Then  the  dynasties  of 
 Egyptian  kings,  which  must  of  course  be  posterior  to  the 
 Flood,  may  have  commenced  with  Mizraim  or  Menes  (sup- 
 posed to  be  one  and  the  same  person),  "  who  was  horn  not  so 
 long  after  the  Flood,"  though  he  may  not  have  settled  in 
 Egypt  till  the  time  of  the  Dispersion.  And  if  there  are  still 
 too  many  kings  for  any  time  that  can  be  allowed  between 
 Mizraim  and  Nectanebo,  it  is  carefully  to  be  borne  in  mind 
 that  there  may  well  have  been  —  indeed  it  is  confessed  that 
 in  old  times  there  actually  were  —  kings  co-regnant  with  one 
 another,  and  dynasties  contemporary  in  different  parts  of 
 Egypt,  each  confined  within  its  own  Nome  or  district. 
 
 It  is  clear  that  any  writer  taking  this  view  of  the  matter 
 would  be  under  no  necessity  of  disallowing  any  portion  of 
 Ptolemy's  lists,  but  he  might  naturally  give  them  entire,  even 
 though  he  had  no  clue  to  enable  him  to  reduce  them  into 
 chronological  order,  and  to  show  which  kings  had  been 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 709 
 
 co-rcgnant  and  for  what  part  of  their  reigns,  and  which 
 dynasties  had  been  contemporaneous  with  one  another,  and 
 for  how  long. 
 
 But  Eusebius  in  his  own  chronology  has  done  nothing  of 
 the  kind.  On  the  contrary  he  has  cut  off  and  disallowed  in  the 
 Egyptian  lists  all  that  seemed  to  him  to  be  before  his  own 
 date  for  the  birth  of  Abraham.  And  seeing  that  the  series  of 
 the  Old  Chronicle,  which  he  found  together  with  Ptolemy's 
 Manetho  in  Africanus,  needed  comparatively  but  little  al- 
 teration to  suit  his  purpose,  he  arbitrarily  altered  it,  and 
 then  filled  up  its  framework,  as  altered,  with  names  and 
 reigns  from  Ptolemy's  Manetho.  Making  the  accession  of 
 Menes  and  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVI  to  coincide  with  his  date 
 for  the  birth  of  Abraham,  he  exhibits  from  this  point  down- 
 wards a  series  of  his  own,  following  neither  the  Chronicle 
 nor  Ptolemy,  but  compiling  unscrupulously  from  both.  And 
 we  learn  further  from  Syncellus  that  h^  distinctly  rejected 
 as  unsatisfactory,  and  as  incapable  of  producing  any  agree- 
 ment with  the  truth,  the  idea  of  dealing  with  the  myriads  of 
 years  as  with  months.  For  Panodorus  1  lamed  Eusebius  for 
 this,  and  undertook  himself  to  harmonise  the  vast  Egyptian 
 periods  with  sacred  and  true  chronology  by  the  help  of  this 
 same  principle  of  reduction. 
 
 It  may  therefore  be  inferred  with  confidence  that  this 
 passage  also  (the  sense  of  which  has  been  given  above)  was 
 transcribed  like  the  names  of  Ptolemy's  lists  from  Africanus, 
 whose  opinion,  and  not  Eusebius's,  it  embodies.  And  it 
 gives  a  clue  to  the  right  understanding  of  Africanus's  method 
 and  principle  in  transcribing  faithfully  the  lists  of  Ptolemy, 
 though  they  seemed  to  carry  back  the  Egyptian  monarchy 
 beyond  the  creation  of  man.  It  is  Africanus  then  who 
 writes  (in  the  old  Armenian  version  of  the  Chronicon  of 
 Eusebius)  as  follows  :  — 
 
 Opportunum  comniodumque  est  etiam  res  ^gyptiacas 
 hie  subnectere  ex  Manethone,  in  quo  praesertim  historia  ista 
 niti  videtur. 
 
 "  Primus  ^gyptiorum  Deus  Vulcanus  fait,  qui  etiam 
 ignis  repertor  apud  eos  celebratur.  Ex  eo  Sol:  postea 
 Agathodaemon :  deinde  Saturnus :  tum  Osiris :  exin  Osiridis 
 
 2  z  3 
 
710 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 frater  Typlion :  ad  extremum  Horus,  Osiridis  et  Isidis 
 filius.    Hi  primi  inter  ^gyptios  rcmm  potiti  sunt. 
 
 Deinceps  continiiata  successione  delapsa  est  regia 
 potestas  usque  ad  Bytin,  per  annos  tredeeim  mille  ac 
 nongentos.  Lunarem  tamen  annum  intelligo,  videlicet  tri- 
 gintadiehus  constantem :  quern  enim  nunc  mensem  dicimus 
 ^gyptii  olim  anni  nomine  indigitabant. 
 
 "Post  Deos  regnavere  Heroes  annis  mcclv  [mccxxx]. 
 Rursusque  alii  Reges  dominati  sunt  annis  mdcccxvii. 
 Turn  alii  xxx  Reges  Memphitse  annis  mdccxc.  Deinde 
 alii  Thinitaj  x  Reges  annis  CCCL.  Secuta  est  Manium  Hero- 
 umque  dominatio  annis  mmmmmdcccxiii. 
 
 "  Summa  temporum  in  undecim  millia  consurgit  an- 
 norum,  qui  tamen  lunares  nempe  menstrui  sunt. 
 
 "  Sed  revera  dominatio  quam  narrant  ^gyptii  Deorum, 
 Heroum,  et  Manium  tenuisse  putatur  lunares  annos  omnino 
 viginti  quatuor  mille  et  nongentos,  ex  quibus  fiunt  solares 
 anni  mmccvi  [mmlxxv]. 
 
 "  Atque  hajc  quidem  si  cum  Hebrajorum  chronologia  con- 
 ferre  volueris,  in  eamdem  plane  conspirare  sententiam  vide- 
 his,  Namque  ^gyptus  ab  Hebraeis  Mezraimus  appellatur. 
 Mezraimus  autem  [non  ?]  multis  post  diluvium  annis  extitit. 
 Quippe  ex  Chamo  Noaclii  filio  post  diluvium  ortus  est  ^gyp- 
 tus  sive  Mizraimus,  qui  primus  ad  -^gypti  incolatum  pro- 
 fectus  est  qua  tempestate  gentes  hue  illuc  spargi  cceperanV 
 \i.  e.  cccxcix  saltem  annis  post  diluvium  secundum  Africa- 
 num].  Erat  auten*  summa  temporis  ab  Adamo  ad  diluvium 
 secundum  Hebrceos  annorum  mmccxlii"  [z.  e.  secundum 
 Eusebium,  mmcclxii  vero  secundum  Africanum]. 
 
 Carter um,  quum  -.^Egyptii  pra3rogativa  antiquitatis 
 quamdam  seriem  ante  diluvium  tenere  se  jactent  Deorum, 
 Heroum,  et  Manium  annis  plus  viginti  mille  regnantium, 
 plane  cequum  est  ut  hi  anni  in  menses  tot  convertantur  quot  ah 
 HehrcBis  memorantur  anni;  nempe,  ut  qui  menses  continentur 
 in  memovatis  apudHehrmos  annis  ii  totidem  intelligantur  j^gyp- 
 tiorum  lunares  anni,  pro  ed  temporum  summa  qucB  a  primo 
 condito  homine  ad  Mezraimum  usque  colligitur.  Etenim 
 Mezraimus  generis  ^gyptiaci  auctor  fuit,  ab  eoque  prima 
 ^l^gyptiorum  dynastia  credenda  est." 
 
JULIUS  AFRTCANUS. 
 
 711 
 
 According  to  this  opinion,  as  the  month -years  of  Manctho 
 did  not  give  when  divided  by  12  the  requisite  sum  of  2262 
 full  years  to  the  Flood,  still  less  the  400,  500,  or  GOO  years 
 on  to  the  Dispersion,  the  lunations  or  month-years  of  the 
 Egyptians  might  be  made  into  as  many  months,  that  is, 
 might  fairly  have  as  many  more  months  added,  as  would 
 enable  them  to  make  up  the  same  sum  as  was  obtainable  by 
 multiplying  the  years  reckoned  by  the  Hebrews  into  months. 
 So,  if  Africdnus  reckoned  (2262  +  399  =  )  2661  years  to  the 
 hirth  of  Peleg,  he  would  make  or  allow  for  the  Egyptians 
 2661  X  12  =  31,932  month-years;  or,  if  2661  +  209  to  the 
 death  of  Peleg,  he  would  allow  2870  x  12  =  34,440,  convert- 
 ing, tacitly  that  is  and  by  implication,  in  the  latter  case  only 
 52  years  fewer  than  were  converted  by  the  earliest  Egyptian 
 scheme,  and  just  reversing  the  process  of  Ptolemy.  For 
 Ptolemy  reduced  from  the  Chronicle  a  sum  greater  than 
 Manetho's,  but  less  than  that  of  the  hieratic  source  of  the 
 Chronicle,  and  filled  up  what  was  wanting  to  two  Cycles,  so 
 that  it  came  to  the  same  thing  as  if  he  had  reduced  the  34,064 
 months  of  the  older  hieratic  scheme. 
 
 Thus  Africanus,  without  attempting  to  fix  exactly  the 
 first  year  of  Menes-Mizraim  in  Egypt,  or  that  of  the  first 
 Dispersion,  near  to  which  he  says  it  w^as,  would  be  able  to 
 allow  for  the  xxxi  dynasties  of  Ptolemy's  kings  a  space  of 
 not  more  than  (5502  — 2661  =  )  2841  years  at  the  most  (no 
 distinction  being  made  between  Hebrew  years  and  Egyp- 
 tian) to  our  era,  or  2509  to  B.C.  332,  nor  less  than  (5502  — 
 2870  =  )  2632  at  the  least  to  our  era,  or  2300  to  B.C.  332. 
 But  the  dynasties  of  the  Manetho  of  Ptolemy  exhibited  a 
 series  of  5487  years  ending  in  B.C.  332,  or  of  5819  to  our  era, 
 exceeding  by  (5819  —  2841  =  )  2978  at  the  least,  or  by  (5819 
 —  2632  =  )  3187  at  the  most,  the  space  he  had  to  allow  them. 
 In  fact  there  were  in  Ptolemy's  lists  about  double  the  number 
 of  years  which  he  could  place  in  single  succession  ;  and  even 
 with  the  scheme  of  the  original  Manetho  the  sum  is  (3555  — 
 2509  =  )  1046  over  what  Africanus  could  allow  at  the  most. 
 In  allusion  to  this  discrepancy  then,  with  which  he  had  need 
 to  deal,  he  proceeds  as  follow^ s  :  — 
 
 "  Quod  si  temporum  copia  adhuc  exuberet,  reputandum 
 
 z  Z  4 
 
712 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 sediilo  est  plures  fortasse  ^gyptiorum  reges  un^  eademque 
 setate  extitisse :  namque  et  Thinitas  \i.  e,  Tanitas]  et  Memphi- 
 tas  eodem  tempore  regnavisse  aiunt,  et  Saitas  et  JEthiopes, 
 similiterque  alios.  [Sic  forsan  legendum  transponendo.] 
 Videntur  practerea  alii  quoque  alibi  imperium  tenuisse,  atque 
 haj  dynastiaa  suo  qua^que  in  nomo  semet  continuisse  ;  ita  ut 
 haud  singuli  reges  successivam  potestatem  acceperint,  sed 
 alius  alio  loco  eadem  setate  regnaverit.  Atque  hinc  contigit 
 ut  tantus  cumulus  annorum  confieret." 
 
 The  construction  in  the  Latin  translation  is  confused,  but 
 the  sense  seems  to  be  clearly  this,  that  both  some  kings  may 
 have  been  co-regnant  with  others  as  colleagues,  or  as  suzerains 
 and  subordinates,  of  which  latter  kind  perhaps  instances  are 
 meant  to  be  given,  and  also  prceterea,^^  "quoque,''^)  some  of 
 the  dynasties  may  have  been  at  once  independent  and  con- 
 temporary, being  confined  each  to  its  own  distinct  territory. 
 And  this  was  not  only  indirectly  suggested  by  the  very 
 difference  of  the  local  designations,  but  it  was  expressly 
 acknowledged  by  Manetho  himself,  Chasremon,  Artapanus, 
 and  others.     And  one  expression  of  Africanus  "  aiunt " 
 
 they  say  ")  is  remarkable  ;  as  if,  when  he  was  in  Egypt,  he 
 had  made  inquiries  on  the  subject,  and  had  been  told  by  the 
 Egyptians  themselves  that  the  early  Memphites  had  been 
 contemporary  with  the  Tanites,  and  the  first  three  nominal 
 kings  of  Manetho's  Saite  Dyn.  XXVI  with  the  Ethiopians 
 of  his  Dyn.  XXY. 
 
 And,  starting  from  the  assertion  that  at  the  time  of  the 
 insurrection  against  the  Shepherds,  or  very  shortly  before, 
 
 there  were  many  kings  reigning  in  different  parts  of 
 Egypt,"  and  taking  only  the  chief  localities  named  by  the 
 original  Manetho  in  connection  with  early  dynasties,  as 
 Tanis,  Memphis,  Elephantine  or  Aht,  Thebes,  and  Xois  or 
 Kes,  and  the  shortest  space  of  time  reckoned  by  any  scheme 
 as  intervening  between  Menes  and  Dyn.  XVIII,  viz.,  the 
 (190+103  +  184  =  )  477  years  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  Afri- 
 canus would  be  able,  with  these  alone,  and  without  reckoning 
 any  line  or  lines  of  the  Sethroitic  Shepherds,  to  account 
 easily  for  (477  x  5  =  )  2385  years,  and  for  about  125  kings, 
 indeed  for  many  more  than  125  kings,  if  he  wished.  And 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 713 
 
 2385  years  added  to  the  (1881  +  14  =  1895-477  =  )  1418 
 years  (with  about  86  more  kings)  below  the  head  of  Dyn. 
 XVIII,  would  make  a  sum  of  3803  years,  which  exceeds 
 that  of  the  true  Manetho  (viz.  3555  years),  but  is  still  short 
 by  1684  years  of  the  5487  of  Ptolemy.  And  these  1684 
 years  might  be  accounted  for  by  reckoning  two  or  three 
 more  lines,  viz.  of  the  Shepherds  mentioned  by  the  original 
 Manetho,  and  of  the  Heracleopolites  and  "  other  Shepherds  " 
 added  by  Ptolemy,  and  by  noticing  that  one  and  the  same 
 general  designation,  as  "  Memphite "  in  Ptolemy's  Dynas- 
 ties III,  IV,  and  VI,  and  "Diospolite"  in  others  of  his  dy- 
 nasties, was  given  to  distinct  lines  of  kings,  besides  allowing 
 something  for  co-regnancies.  But  Africanus,  having  above 
 the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII  (the  true  date  for  which  is  in  B.C. 
 1748)  not  477  years  only  like  the  Old  Egyptian  Chronicle, 
 but  (5502-2661  =  2841-1797  =  )  1044  assignable  to  kings, 
 needed  only  to  suppose  the  co-existence  during  all  this  space 
 of  four  local  dynasties  instead  of  six  or  eight,  at  least,  which 
 according  to  Ptolemy  must  have  co-existed  during  some 
 part  of  it,  to  obtain  4176  years,  which  with  (1894—477  =  ) 
 1417  below  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII  added  would  become 
 5593.  And  these  are  more  years  than  he  found  reckoned 
 by  Ptolemy  to  his  xxxi  dynasties.  So  that  Africanus 
 might  well  think  that  the  explanation  suggested  was  abun- 
 dantly sufficient  for  its  purpose,  even  though  all  the  local 
 dynasties  had  not  commenced  together  at  the  same  date  with 
 the  monarchy  of  Menes-Mizraim. 
 
 Such  being  the  view  taken  by  Africanus  of  Ptolemy's 
 XXXI  dynasties  of  kings,  it  is  manifest  that  he  had  no  reason 
 in  transcribing  the  earlier  dynasties  either  to  alter  or  curtail 
 them,  or  to  be  careful  about  synchronisms.  Only,  in  giving 
 the  sums  of  the  first  two,  and  of  the  first  four  dynasties,  he 
 alludes  to  his  view  stated  above,  and  reminds  the  reader  of 
 it  by  adding  the  words  "  after  the  Flood^^  (O/jlov  a  koI  jS' 
 ^vvacTTelas,  fisra  rbv  KaTaK\v(T/jibv,  sttj  cpvs'  and  'Ofiov  tcov  8' 
 BwaareiMU  fiera  tov  KaraKkvajxhy  stt]  ^a/xg-'*),  which  it  is  clearly 
 a  mistake  to  ascribe  to  Syncellus,  who  distinctly  objects 
 that  even  the  3555  years  of  kings  collected  out  of  the  ori- 
 ginal Manetho  (whereas  Ptolemy  added  1919  more)  ran 
 
714 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 back  so  as  to  cover  not  only  all  the  534  years  which  he 
 made  between  the  Flood  and  the  Dispersion,  but  also  656  of 
 the  years  "  before  the  Flood.^^  And  on  this  account  he  sum- 
 marily disallows  and  cuts  off  1190  of  the  3555  years  of  the 
 original  Manetho,  professing  to  allow  the  remaining  2365. 
 But,  if  Ptolemy's  dynasties  had  been  spoken  of,  Syncellus, 
 or  the  author  whom  he  was  following,  would  have  had  to 
 cut  off  (1190+1919  =  )  3109  years.  Nor  are  the  words 
 "  after  the  Flood"  any  more  likely  to  have  been  added  by 
 Eusebius  in  mentioning  the  first  dynasties  of  Ptolemy  and 
 Africanus,  or,  as  he  would  call  them,  of  Manetho.  For  Eu- 
 sebius, equally  with  Syncellus,  disallows  and  cuts  off,  without 
 apology  or  explanation,  all  that  seemed  to  rise  not  merely 
 above  the  Flood  or  the  Dispersion,  but  above  his  own  date 
 for  the  birth  of  Abraham.  The  words  in  question  therefore 
 were  no  doubt  copied  by  Eusebius  from  Africanus,  and  either, 
 from  Africanus  himself  or  from  Eusebius  by  Syncellus ;  and 
 they  are  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  what  has  preceded, 
 as  throwing  light  on  Africanus's  view  of  the  Egyptian  lists 
 both  of  Ptolemy  and  of  Manetho  himself. 
 
 For  one  especially,  and  that  the  earliest  of  the  Hebrew 
 synchronisms  noticed  by  Africanus,  there  is  need  of  the 
 foregoing  considerations.  He  had  learned,  as  it  seems,  from 
 Josephus  and  from  others  that  the  Patriarch  Joseph  came 
 into  Egypt  and  was  raised  to  power  under  the  Shepherd 
 kings  named  in  Dyn.  XVII  of  the  original  Manetho,  which 
 is  Dyn.  XV  of  Ptolemy.  Syncellus  indeed  says  that  there 
 was  a  consensus  that  he  came  in  the  17th  year  of  ApopJns, 
 Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  doubt,  after  this  assertion,  that 
 the  note  Kara  tovtovs  KlyviTTLcov  fixer  lXsvs  \_/3aai\sh  ?] 
 ^l(o(T7](f)  SsUvvrai, "  now  joined  with  this  dynasty,  as  cut  down 
 and  transposed  by  Eusebius,  was  copied  by  him  like  other 
 similar  notices  from  Africanus.  Now  if  Africanus  had  used 
 the  work  of  the  original  Manetho,  or  only  those  extracts  from 
 it  which  he  might  know  from  Josephus,  the  name  of  Apophis 
 stsLTiding  fourth  of  the  six  Shepherds,  and  the  true  date  of  the 
 Exodus  being  94  years  below  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII,  the 
 synchronism  marked  for  J oseph  would  have  agreed  perfectly 
 with  the  lists.    Still,  for  Africanus  (who  imagined  the  Exo- 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 715 
 
 dus  to  have  taken  place  at  the  very  commencement  of  Dyn. 
 XVIII)  there  would  have  been  even  yo  a  difficulty,  which 
 would  have  made  it  inconvenient  to  name  Apophis.  But  with 
 the  Manetho  of  Ptolemy  which,  with  one  or  two  accidental 
 variations,  is  that  of  Africanus  the  synchronism  of  Joseph 
 and  the  Shepherds  of  (Ptolemy's)  Dyn.  XV  is  at  first  sight 
 utterly  inexplicable,  and  that  equally  whether  Apophis  were 
 named  or  not,  and  whether  (being  named)  he  were  placed 
 fourth  of  the  six  kings,  as  he  was  by  the  original  Manetho, 
 or  last,  as  he  is  by  Ptolemy  and  Africanus.  For  between 
 the  end  of  Dyn.  XV,  under  the  kings  of  which  Joseph  is 
 shown  to  have  ruled  Egypt,"  and  the  first  king  of  Dyn. 
 XVIII,  Amosis,  "  under  whom  as  we  have  proved,"  Afri- 
 canus remarks, "  Moses  went  forth  from  Egypt,"  there  inter- 
 vene in  Ptolemy's  and  Africanus's  list  two  whole  dynas- 
 ties with  (32  -F  43  =  )  75  reigns  and  (518  +  151  =  )  669  years. 
 Nevertheless  Africanus  no  doubt  marked  the  synchronism  of 
 Joseph  with  Dyn.  XV  without  hesitation,  because  his  view, 
 as  explained  above,  left  it  open  to  suppose  that  the  kings  of 
 the  two  intervening  Dynasties,  XVI  and  XVII,  were  two  or 
 three  distinct  lines  of  *^other  Shepherds,"  and  of  "  Shepherds 
 and  Diospolites, "  contemporary  with  the  more  important 
 line  of  Dyn.  XV,  those  of  Dyn.  XVI  being  also  under- 
 stood to  have  commenced  first,  though,  as  inferiors,  who  con- 
 tinued under  Dyn.  XV,  they  might  be  mentioned  after  it. 
 Nor  is  it  to  be  thought  that  Africanus  transposed  Apophis 
 so  as  to  stand  last  of  the  six  kings  of  Dyn.  XV  instead  of 
 fourth,  as  he  stood  in  the  original  Manetho  of  Josephus,  to 
 suit  some  view  of  his  own.  For  it  plainly  did  not  suit,  that 
 the  king  under  whom  J oseph  was  promoted  should  stand 
 next  in  chronological  order  before  Amosis  under  whom  the 
 Exodus  w^as  supposed,  though  erroneously,  to  have  taken 
 place;  while,  if  the  kings  of  Dyn.  XVI  and  XVII  in- 
 tervened, the  place  of  Apophis  in  Dyn.  XV  could  matter 
 nothing.  But  the  placing  of  Apophis  last  of  the  six,  though 
 a  variation  from  the  original  Manetho,  was  found  by  Afri- 
 canus in  the  lists  of  Ptolemy,  and  was  copied  as  found. 
 
 Africanus's  combined  sacred  and  Greek  chronology  in  the 
 form  in  which  he  seems  to  have  left  it  may  be  stated  thus  : 
 
716 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Taking  the  accession  of  Cyrus  in  Olymp.  55  d ,  really  in  the 
 spring  of  B.C.  559  but  for  him  at  Sept.  1  B.C.  560,  to  be  a 
 fixed  and  known  point,  agreed  upon  in  a  manner  by  all,  and 
 coincident  with  the  end  of  the  70  years  of  the  Captivity,  he 
 goes  up  from  this  point  in  his  sacred  scale  70  years  to  the 
 commencement  of  the  1st,  or,  as  he  may  be  thought  to  have 
 reckoned  originally,  of  the  11th  year  of  Zedekiah,  and  thence 
 390  to  the  death  of  Solomon,  or  490  to  the  separation  of 
 Samuel  and  Saul,  and  again  90  of  Eli  and  Samuel,  and  490 
 of  Judges  and  of  time  appended  to  that  of  the  J udges,  and  30 
 of  the  Elders  who  outlived  Joshua,  and  (25  +  2  =  )  27  of 
 Joshua,  and  40  of  Moses.  So  he  makes  in  all  1237  years 
 between  the  accession  of  Cyrus  or  the  end  of  the  Captivity 
 and  the  Exodus  (2  years  of  the  1237,  however,  being  merely 
 transferred  to  Joshua  below  the  Exodus  from  those  430 
 years  which  ought  to  have  stood  next  above  it,  and  which 
 are  reduced  to  428).  And  thus  the  Exodus  is  put  by  him 
 at  Sept.  1,  B.C.  1797.  And  for  his  Greek  chronology  he 
 goes  up  from  the  accession  of  Cyrus  217  years  to  the  head  of 
 his  own  year  containing  at  its  end  the  first  Olympic  contest, 
 viz.  to  Sept.  1,  in  B.C.  777  ;  and  thence  1020  years  to  the 
 Attic  Flood  of  Ogyges,  who  founded  Eleusis,  in  the  time 
 of  Phoroneus.  And  so  Ogyges,  being  (217  + 1020  =  )  1237 
 years  above  the  accession  of  Cyrus,  at  Sept.  1  B.C.  1797, 
 synchronises  exactly  with  the  Exodus ;  or  rather,  as  we  shall 
 see  below,  the  Exodus  was  made  to  synchronise  with 
 Ogyges.  Again,  from  the  head  of  his  year  containing  the 
 first  Olympiad  he  made  up  to  the  foundation  of  Sicyon  1336 
 years,  putting  this  at  the  head  of  the  28th  year  of  the 
 Patriarch  Jacob,  316  years  above  the  Exodus,  that  is  in  B.C. 
 2113  (so  that  the  time  allowed  between  Jacob's  130th  year 
 and  the  Exodus  is  shown  to  be  onl/  213  instead  of  215 
 years).  And  since  he  expressly  says  that  the  Exodus  and 
 the  Flood  of  Ogyges  were  under  Phoroneus,  it  is  clear  that 
 he  could  not  put  the  foundation  of  Argos  by  Inachus  more 
 than  50  +  59=109  full  years  above  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  1797, 
 that  is,  it  could  not  be  placed  higher  than  Sept.  1  in  B.C. 
 1906;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  as  he  makes  189  from 
 Ogyges  and  the  Exodus  to  Cecrops,  and  thence    not  quite 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 717 
 
 400 "  to  Troy,  while  the  whole  sum  of  years  between 
 Inachus  and  Troy,  according  to  the  older  and  longer  reckon- 
 ing which  he  followed,  was  698,  it  is  clear  that  the  founda- 
 tion of  Argos  by  Inachus  could  not  be  placed  less  than  698 
 years  above  Sept.  1,  in  B.C.  (1797-189  =  1608-400  =  ) 
 1208,  the  lowest  admissible  date  for  Troy.  And,  if  so  placed, 
 it  was  at  Sept.  1,  in  B.C.  1906,  207  years  after  the  founda- 
 tion of  Sicyon ;  and  the  Flood  of  Ogyges  and  the  Exodus 
 were  in  the  last  year  of  Phoroneus.  In  fact  Africanus, 
 seeking  for  some  support  for  this  his  own  synchronism  of  the 
 Exodus  and  Phoroneus  (for  Ptolemy  had  made  it  synchronise 
 with  Inachus),  observes  that  some  writers,  and  he  names 
 Polemo  for  one,  put  it  under  Apis,  as  if  this  opinion  were 
 identical,  or  all  but  identical,  with  his  own,  he  having  put  it 
 only  one  year  above  the  accession  of  Apis. 
 
 The  foundation  of  Sicyon  207  years  before  that  of  Argos 
 would  seem,  if  Syncellus  is  to  be  trusted,  to  have  been  the 
 highest  point  distinctly  fixed  by  Africanus  in  his  profane 
 chronology.  For  Syncellus  blames  him  for  having  put  the 
 commencement  of  the  Assyrian  empire  only  199  years  above 
 the  foundation  of  Argos,  making  Argos  to  have  been  founded 
 "  in  the  200th  year  of  the  Assyrians,  in  the  time  of  Arius 
 their  fifth  kinoj,"  Belus  beinoj  reckoned  as  the  first.  So 
 Africanus,  even  while  reckoning  not  as  was  usual  from 
 Ninus  but  from  Belus,  would  have  put  the  commencement 
 of  the  Assyrian  monarchy  as  low  as  B.C.  2105,  above  100 
 years  lower  than  other  authors,  who  reckoned  975  years 
 from  the  Median  capture  of  Babylon,  and  again  526  years  of 
 Afryrian  empire,  properly  so  called,  down  to  the  revolt  of 
 Media,  whether  after  B.C.  821,  or  later.  But  if  from  B.C.  821 
 we  go  up  526  +  975  years,  we  obtain  the  date  B.C.  2322,  or 
 if  from  B.C.  747  or  711  we  obtain  B.C.  2248  or  2205.  And  the 
 observations  of  eclipses  during  1903  years,  sent  to  Aristotle 
 by  Callisthenes  from  Babylon,  imply  as  high  a  commence- 
 ment as  B.C.  (331  +  1903  =  )  2234,  10  years  above  the  date  of 
 the  accession  of  Menes  in  Egypt ;  so  that  Berosus  and  Ma- 
 netho  might  with  truth  be  said  to  have  begun  their  histories 
 of  the  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  monarchies  nearly  from  the 
 same  year.    If  Africanus  really  gave  the  date  imputed  to 
 
718 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 him  by  Syncellus,  he  must  have  put  the  first  year  of  the 
 Assyrians,  according  to  his  own  reckoning,  in  the  36  th  of  the 
 Patriarch  Jacob.  But  if  Scaliger  is  right  in  supposing  that 
 Eusebius  took  his  Assyrian  names  not  directly  from  Ctesias, 
 but  from  Africanus,  then  since  he  suppresses  above  Teuta- 
 mus  4  kings,  with  162  years,  being  just  his  difference  from 
 Africanus  between  the  Exodus  and  Solomon,  and  yet  puts 
 the  accession  of  Ninus  at  B.C.  2058,  this  would  look  as  if 
 Africanus  had  put  it  at  B.C.  (2058  +  162  =)  2220,  only  4 
 years  below  the  true  date  of  the  accession  of  Menes. 
 
 Downwards  also  in  like  manner  Africanus  reckoned  his 
 combined  Greek  and  sacred  history  from  the  same  fixed 
 point  of  the  accession  of  Cyrus,  set  at  Sept.  1,  B.C.  560,  as 
 has  been  stated  above. 
 
 Whether  he  originally  made  from  the  death  of  Solomon 
 to  the  desolation  of  Samaria  268  years  (the  number  now 
 required  by  his  date,  a.m.  4750),  and  began  the  70  of  the 
 Captivity  with  the  first  of  Zedekiah,  or  made  at  first  258 
 only  to  the  desolation  of  Samaria,  and  began  the  70  years 
 with  the  eleventh  of  Zedekiah,  as  we  have  some  reason  for 
 supposing,  is  chronologically  immaterial.  For  in  both  cases 
 alike  he  reckoned  one  and  the  same  sum  of  390  years  from 
 the  death  of  Solomon  to  the  Captivity,  and  the  same  sum  of 
 70  years  more  after  the  390  to  the  accession  of  Cyrus  at  B.C. 
 560.  And  it  is  all  one  whether  there  were  10  unliistorical 
 years  interpolated  in  the  390  above  to  be  followed  by  38 
 historical  and  only  32  unhistorical  in  the  70  below,  or  the 
 390  were  all  true  and  historical  above  while  the  70  contain 
 only  28  historical  and  42  unhistorical  years  below. 
 
 From  the  commencement  of  Dyn.  XVIII  there  is  no 
 longer  in  Egypt  (to  speak  generally)  any  question  of  con- 
 current dynasties.  So  from  that  point  all  Egyptian  lists, 
 whether  those  of  the  original  Manetho,  of  Ptolemy,  or  of 
 Africanus,  either  exhibit  or  ought  to  exhibit  one  consecutive 
 chronological  series.  And,  after  first  ascertaining  what  pre- 
 cisely that  series  is  in  the  lists  of  Africanus,  we  may  pro- 
 ceed to  compare  it  with  his  combined  reckoning  of  sacred  and 
 Greek  chronology  explained  above,  and  see  how  far  the  two 
 series  may  accord  with  one  another  in  their  synchronisms. 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 719 
 
 Taking  as  a  known  and  fixed  basis,  common  to  his  sacred 
 his  Greek  and  his  Egyptian  reckonings,  the  commencement 
 of  Cambyses's  fifth  Persian  year,  marked  as  the  year  of  his 
 Egyptian  accession  in  the  heading  of  Dyn.  XXVII  of 
 Ptolemy  and  Africanus,  and  fixed  for  Africanus  to  Sept.  1, 
 B.C.  526,  if  we  reckon  upwards  from  this  point  according  to 
 the  true  chronological  scale  of  the  Old  Egyptian  Chronicle ^  we 
 find  (177  +44  -h44  +  19  +48  +  121  +  228  +  194  +  348  =  ) 
 1223  years  to  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII,  which  so  is  placed 
 in  B.C.  1748,  or  for  Africanus  at  Sept.  1,  B.C.  1749.  By 
 the  lists  of  the  original  Manetho  we  should  find  not  1223  but 
 1212,  being  fewer  years  by  11,  and  we  should  have  to  set 
 the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII  at  Sept.  1,  B.C.  1738.  By  those 
 of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  who  added  15  years  to  Manetho*s 
 333  in  Dyn.  XVIII,  and  13  more  to  Manetho's  150  in  Dyn. 
 XXVI,  we  should  have  1240,  being  28  years  more  than 
 Manetho's  sum,  and  17  more  than  that  of  the  true  reckoning 
 of  the  Chronicle.  But  the  sum  obtained  by  reckoning  up 
 the  years  in  Africanus's  copy  of  Ptolemy'' s  lists  differs  from  all 
 these  three.  It  is  neither  1223,  nor  1212,  nor  1240;  but 
 it  is  (1240  —  13  =  )  1227,  its  peculiarity  being  caused  by  this 
 accident,  that  the  particular  MS.  used  by  Africanus,  while  it 
 gave  generally  the  text  of  Ptolemy,  had  in  places  admitted 
 variants  derived  from  the  orio-inal  Manetho :  and  within  the 
 space  now  under  discussion,  while  it  had  Ptolemy's  addition 
 of  15  years  in  Dyn.  XVIII  (see  above  pp.  445,  447),  it 
 had  not  in  Dyn.  XXVI  his  addition  of  13  years.  By 
 this  accident  the  sum  exhibited  by  the  Egyptian  lists  of 
 Africanus,  being  1227  years,  falls  short  of  that  of  Ptolemy 
 by  13,  but  exceeds  that  of  Manetho  by  15  years,  and  it 
 exceeds  also  the  truth  by  4  years.  And  according  to  this 
 sum  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII  is  fixed  for  Africanus  to  Sept. 
 1,  B.C.  1753,  which  would  have  been  in  his  sacred  reckoning 
 just  the  date  of  the  Exodus,  were  it  not  for  his  blunder  about 
 the  years  of  the  Captivity  and  of  the  Kings,  which  first  caused 
 him  to  interpolate  42  years,  and  were  it  not  also  for  his  trans- 
 position of  2  years  really  belonging  to  the  time  before  the 
 Exodus  to  stand  in  connection  with  Joshua  after  it.  These 
 two  causes,  the  one  of  them  plainly  a  mere  blunder,  the  other 
 
720 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 as  plainly  a  contrivance  and  an  after-thought,  thrust  up  the 
 Exodus  44  years  above  the  point  where  without  these  two 
 causes  he  would  have  set  it,  viz.  to  B.C.  1797  instead  of  B.C. 
 1753.  And  yet  we  now  find  attached  to  the  name  of  Amo- 
 sis  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII,  standing  as  it  does  for  him  at 
 Sept.  1,  B.C.  1753,  this  remarkable  notice:  "  in  whose  time 
 Moses  went  forth  from  Egypt,  as  we  have  showriy  though 
 our  present  reckoning  requires  that  he  should  be  now  still 
 young."  So  Africanus  has  not  merely  retained  this  synchro- 
 nism, from  Ptolemy,  though  too  low  by  44  years  for  his  own 
 sacred  and  Greek  chronology  (and  this  is  an  instance  of  his 
 honesty),  but  he  has  added  words  which  make  the  synchro- 
 nism his  own,  just  as  if  the  Exodus  were  really  placed  by 
 him  at  the  same  point  with  the  accession  of  Amosis. 
 
 Now,  if  we  consider  that  the  synchronism  of  Amosis  and 
 the  Exodus  was  already  in  a  manner  in  possession  of  the 
 ground  before  Africanus  wrote,  having  been  asserted  both 
 by  Manetho  and  by  Ptolemy  (by  the  latter  it  is  true  with 
 the  addition  of  Inachus),  and  accepted  from  them  and  re- 
 peated by  many  writers  both  Egyptian,  Hebrew,  Greek  and 
 Latin,  and  by  Christians  as  well  as  Jews  and  heathens,  it  will 
 certainly  seem  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  Afri- 
 canus should  have  either  exhibited  this  synchronism  by  mere 
 chance,  or  should  have  missed  so  exhibiting  it  only  through 
 two  accidents,  the  one  a  mere  blunder,  and  the  other  a  minute 
 adjustment  of  only  two  years  ;  and  this  the  more  since,  even 
 if  the  synchronism  itself  had  been  historically  true,  the  years 
 found  by  Africanus  in  his  Egyptian  lists  between  the  acces- 
 sions of  Cambyses  and  Amosis  were  too  many  by  four.  But 
 in  point  of  fact  the  synchronism  asserted  was  a  falsehood 
 involving  a  chronological  error  to  the  extent  of  94  years. 
 
 Apart  from  his  blunder  about  the  accession  of  Cyrus  and 
 the  Captivity,  and  his  transposition  (for  whatever  reason)  of 
 two  years  from  above  to  below  the  Exodus,  the  original  and 
 essential  peculiarity  in  the  sacred  scheme  of  Africanus  con- 
 sists only  in  his  making  98  years  too  many  by  his  conjectural 
 insertions  after  the  death  of  Joshua  and  before  the  govern- 
 ment of  Samuel.  His  excessive  additions  at  these  two  points 
 excite  the  wonder  of  Eusebius,  who  not  seeing  any  Imagin- 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 721 
 
 able  cause  or  motive  to  bias  Africanus's  judgment  taxes  him 
 with  having  fallen  into  "a  gross  or  stupid  error"  {crasso  er- 
 rore),  in  making  them.  The  additions  are  wonderful,  no 
 doubt,  and  they  are  made  on  very  slight  grounds.  Still  there 
 is  nothing  about  them  like  a  mere  mistake  or  blunder,  like 
 that  made  in  reckoning  the  70  years  of  the  Captivity ;  nor 
 can  they  be  accounted  for  by  stupidity.  They  are  made  at  or 
 near  points  where  the  Scriptures  certainly  left  two  breaks  in 
 the  reckoning,  and  might  be  suspected  to  have  left  more 
 than  two,  to  be  filled  up  by  tradition  or  by  inference.  And  the 
 very  fact  that  at  points  where  some  insertions  were  needed 
 Africanus  made  such  excessive  insertions  suggests  of  itself 
 the  suspicion  that  in  making  them  he  was  influenced  by 
 some  reckonings  or  synchronisms  which  had  already  a  pre- 
 scription in  their  favour,  and  with  which  he  wished  his  own 
 sacred  reckoning  to  agree,  or  at  least  not  to  differ  very 
 widely. 
 
 Exactly  the  explanation  wanted  is  supplied  if  we  suppose 
 him  to  have  been  influenced  by  that  synchronism  of  Amosis 
 and  the  Exodus,  which  was  generally  admitted  when  he 
 wrote,  and  which  he  found  marked  in  Ptolemy's  Egyptian 
 lists.  For  the  assumption  of  this  false  synchronism,  which 
 puts  the  Exodus  94  years  too  high  according  to  the  true 
 Egyptian  chronology,  but  98  too  high  according  to  Afri- 
 canus's copy  of  Ptolemy's  lists  (for  in  them  the  acces- 
 sion of  Amosis  is  too  high  by  4  years),  would  require,  as  a 
 matter  of  course,  the  reckoning  of  98  years  too  many  be- 
 tween the  Exodus  and  the  end  of  the  Captivity  in  the  sacred 
 scheme  if  the  synchronism  were  to  be  exhibited.  And  98 
 years  is  precisely  the  (uncompensated)  excess  arising  from 
 Africanus's  insertions  at  the  two  points  above-mentioned  after 
 Joshua  and  before  Samuel. 
 
 All  that  is  necessary  is  to  suppose  that  in  point  of  order 
 this  was  Africanus's  Jirst  and  chief  preparatory  operation 
 towards  constructing  his  combined  scheme  of  sacred  and  pro- 
 fane chronology  below  the  Flood,  viz.  to  make  out  two  parallel 
 lengths  of  the  Egyptian  and  sacred  reckoning  from  the  head 
 of  Dyn.  XYIII  and  the  Exodus  to  the  beginning  of  the  Cap- 
 tivity or  to  its  end,  and  the  accession  of  C}  rus,  and  to  the 
 
 3  A 
 
722 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Egyptian  accession  of  Cambyses  34  years  later.  In  the  Scrip- 
 tures there  were  two  manifest  breaks,  and  some  uncertainties 
 besides  ;  while  in  those  Egyptian  lists  which  he  had  copied 
 he  found  a  consecutive  series  from  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII 
 downwards,  and  at  the  very  head  of  this  series  the  synchro- 
 nism of  the  Exodus  ready  marked,  as  if  on  purpose  for  him, 
 and  established  in  a  manner  by  the  consent  of  all.  It  was 
 therefore  very  natural  that  he  too  should  accept  this  syn- 
 chronism, and  try  so  to  fill  up  the  void  or  doubtful  intervals 
 in  making  out  his  sacred  reckoning  as  to  agree  with  his 
 Egyptian  parallel  and  commentary,  rather  than  make  out 
 first  his  sacred  reckoning,  bridging  over  the  two  void  spaces, 
 and  settling  other  doubts  besides,  by  unassisted  estimates  and 
 decisions  of  his  own,  which  after  all  would  be  sure  to  differ 
 more  or  less  from  the  requirements  of  the  received  synchro- 
 nism. Thus  the  source  of  his  undue  additions,  to  the  amount 
 of  98  years,  is  fully  and  satisfactorily  explained,  and  the 
 synchronism  of  the  Exodus  with  Amosis,  though  false  in 
 itself,  and  too  high  by  this  same  amount  of  98  years  in  his 
 Egyptian  lists,  is  made  out  by  his  sacred  reckoning ;  or  at 
 least  it  was  made  out  when  he  was  at  a  certain  stage  in  the 
 process  of  constructing  his  chronology. 
 
 Next,  let  it  be  supposed,  that  as  he  continued  his  work 
 downwards,  in  dealing  with  the  synchronism  of  Cyrus  and 
 the  end  of  the  Captivity,  he  fell  into  a  gross  blunder  (''^crasso 
 errore  "  Eusebius  might  in  this  case  have  said  with  truth), 
 yet  one  by  no  means  peculiar  to  himself,  and  interpolated 
 42  unhistorical  years,  24  of  them  being  produced  by  his 
 making  the  Captivity  to  end  at  Cyrus's  first  Persian  acces- 
 sion in  B.C.  559  (for  him  560)  instead  of  his  last  or  Median 
 accession  in  B.C.  535  (for  him  536),  while  the  other  18  were 
 produced  by  his  supposing  the  70  years  which  ended  at 
 Cyrus's  accession  to  have  begun  either  with  the  11th  of 
 Zedekiah,  or  with  the  1st  of  Zedekiah  depressed  into  the 
 place  of  the  11th,  in  B.C.  587  (for  him  588),  as  Syncellus 
 says  was  the  case ;  whereas,  in  truth,  the  Captivity,  ending  at 
 the  accession  of  Cyrus,  began  with  the  4th  of  J ehoiakim  in 
 B.C.  605  (for  him  606).  The  interpolation  of  42  years  by 
 this  blunder  respecting  the  Captivity  being  made  after  the 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 723 
 
 previous  establishment  of  his  parallel  reckoning  of  1227 
 years  sacred  and  Egyptian  between  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII 
 and  the  Exodus  above  and  the  Egyptian  conquest  of  Cam- 
 byses  below,  necessarily  thrust  up  the  Exodus  by  42  years, 
 from  B.C.  1752  (for  him  1753)  to  B.C.  1794  (for  him  1795). 
 So  that  agreement  which  had  before  been  obtained  was 
 completely  destroyed,  and  it  became  now  as  desirable  to 
 increase  the  Egyptian  sum  of  years  by  42  in  order  to  suit 
 the  sacred  reckoning,  as  it  had  been  at  an  earlier  stage  de- 
 sirable to  increase  the  sacred  reckoning  by  98  to  suit  the 
 Egyptian.  But  Africanus,  having  no  such  distinct  indica- 
 tions to  help  him  in  adding  to  the  Egyptian  lists  as  he  seemed 
 to  himself  to  have  in  constructing  his  sacred  reckoning,  was 
 too  honest  to  insert  years  arbitrarily  merely  because  he  wanted 
 them,  or  to  suppress  the  synchronism  of  Amosis  and  the 
 Exodus,  which  was  not  of  his  own  creation,  merely  because 
 his  attempt  to  exhibit  it  which  had  seemed  at  first  successful 
 had  now  become  a  failure.  And,  besides,  he  may  probably 
 have  noticed  in  more  than  one  place  in  his  Egyptian  lists 
 such  signs  of  chronological  dislocations,  and  perhaps  sup- 
 pressions, as  may  have  shaken  his  confidence  in  their  ac- 
 curacy, and  may  have  determined  him  to  leave  Ptolemy's 
 and  his  own  joint  assertion  of  the  synchronism  of  Amosis 
 and  the  Exodus  as  it  stood,  and  even  the  words  "  as  we  have 
 shown,"  though  it  stood  42  years— and  even  44 — below  the 
 date  to  which  the  Exodus  after  the  completion  of  his  work 
 was  distinctly  assigned. 
 
 For,  lastly,  after  the  Exodus  has  been  carried  up  to  B.C. 
 1794  (for  him  1795),  Africanus,  who  in  fixing  it  before  at 
 B.C.  1753  had  thought  probably  that  this  date  was  far  too 
 low  for  the  Greek  synchronism  of  Inachus  also  connected 
 with  Amosis  and  Moses  by  Ptolemy,  found  that  he  had  now 
 brought  the  Exodus  undesignedly  into  very  close  proximity 
 with  another  popular  Greek  epoch,  not  quite  so  high  as 
 that  of  Inachus,  but  still  one  which  would  put  Moses  above 
 almost  all  other  Greek  antiquity.  This  was  the  Attic  epoch 
 of  the  Flood  of  Ogyges  (the  founder  of  Eleusis,  and  con- 
 temporary of  Phoroneus),  which  was  placed  by  many  Greek 
 writers  at  an  interval  of  1020  years  above  the  first  Olym- 
 
 3  A  2 
 
724 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 piad,  that  is,  above  July  in  B.C.  776,  or  for  Africanus  above 
 Sept.  1  in  B.C.  777.  From  this  well-marked  epoch  his  date 
 for  the  Exodus  differed  now  by  only  two  years.  And,  for 
 the  convenience  of  obtaining  this  synchronism,  he  thought  it 
 allowable  to  adopt  a  reckoning  which  he  found  in  Clement 
 of  Alexandria,  viz.  that  which  gave  27  instead  of  25  years 
 to  Joshua.  He  seems,  however,  to  have  been  aware  that 
 this  reckoning  was  in  itself  erroneous ;  and  therefore  he 
 would  not  suffer  the  change  to  cause  any  addition  to  his 
 whole  sum,  but  neutralised  it  and  reduced  it  to  a  mere  chro- 
 nological dislocation  by  suppressing  two  out  of  the  430  years 
 preceding  the  Exodus,  as  if  in  compensation  for  the  two 
 w^hich  he  wished  to  add  after  it ;  or,  as  if  these  were  the  very 
 same  two  years  which  disappeared  from  above,  and  were 
 transferred  to  Joshua,  only  that  they  might  be  reckoned 
 below.  And  thus  the  whole  of  Africanus's  peculiarities,  so 
 far  as  they  are  known,  or  so  far  as  they  are  of  any  impor- 
 tance, have  been  accounted  for. 
 
 It  has  been  suggested  indeed  by  Syncellus  and  by  Scaliger 
 that  the  reason  which  determined  the  amount  of  excess  in  his 
 sacred  chronology  to  (98  +  42  =  )  140  years  was  this,  that 
 he  wished  to  agree  with  others  in  making  out  a  sum  of  5500 
 years  to  the  Nativity,  though  by  discarding  the  second  Cainan 
 he  would  naturally  have  fallen  short  by  130  years.  But  the 
 blunder  to  which  42  years  of  his  excess  are  owing  is  common 
 to  him  with  some  others  who  admitted  the  second  Cainan;  and 
 neither  the  remaining  98  nor  the  whole  sum  of  140  answer  to 
 the  sum  said  to  be  "  lost  by  omitting  him."  And  when  one 
 considers  how  other  early  writers,  as  J osephus,  and  Eusebius 
 too,  agree  with  him  and  with  the  Hebrew  and  Samaritan 
 texts  in  omitting,  or  rather  in  not  admitting,  the  130  years  of 
 the  second  Cainan,  it  seems  scarcely  reasonable  to  speak  of 
 any  sum  of  5500  years,  made  out  by  their  help,  as  if  it  had 
 already  a  prescription  in  its  favour.  Africanus's  own  words 
 that  the  Hebrews  by  their  inspired  books  and  histories 
 have  taught  us  to  make  out  a  sum  of  5500  years  from  the 
 Creation  to  the  Nativity "  do  not  necessarily  mean  more 
 than  that  he  himself  had  collected  from  them  this  sum. 
 
 It  is  certainly  true  that  Hippolytus,  who  wrote  at  the 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 725 
 
 very  same  time  with  Africanus,  and  made  110  years  more 
 before  Abraham,  having  the  130  years  of  the  second  Cainan, 
 but  with  only  2242  instead  of  2262  to  the  Flood,  neverthe- 
 less made  exactly  the  same  sum  of  5500  years  as  Africanus 
 made  to  the  Nativity,  ending,  like  the  5500  of  Africanus, 
 in  B.C.  2  of  the  vulgar  era.  And  it  may  be  worth  while  to 
 compare  their  sacred  reckonings. 
 
 It  was  not  likely  nor  indeed  conceivable  that  any  two 
 authors  should  have  concurred  in  making  precisely  the  same 
 insertions  as  have  been  made  by  Africanus  about  the  times 
 of  Joshua  and  Samuel,  unless  indeed  they  had  been  working 
 together,  and  had  commenced  with  the  same  Egyptian  lists 
 before  them,  and  with  the  same  attention  to  Ptolemy's  syn- 
 chronism of  Amosis  and  the  Exodus  which  we  have  supposed 
 for  Africanus.  Nor  was  it  likely  that  any  other  author 
 would  coincide  with  him  in  reckoning  27  instead  of  25 
 years  to  J oshua  and  yet  compensating  for  this  addition  by 
 cutting  down  to  428  those  430  years  between  the  Call  and 
 the  Exodus,  which,  according  to  Eusebius,  were  "  agreed 
 upon  by  all,"  unless  indeed  he  had  the  same  need  of  two 
 years  below  the  Exodus  to  serve  some  particular  end.  Ac- 
 cordingly in  these  two  peculiarities  Africanus  is  entirely 
 alone.  Hippolytus  reckons  distinctly  and  undiminished  the 
 430  years  from  the  Call  to  the  Exodus,  and  gives  only  his 
 proper  25  years  to  Joshua.  At  the  same  time,  as  the 
 leading  idea  of  his  chronology  was,  seemingly,  that  of  ex- 
 hibiting the  Hebrew  Passovers  consecutively  from  their  first 
 commencement  down  to  their  transition  into  the  Christian 
 Easter,  and  down  to  a.d.  222,  when  his  own  Paschal  Cycle 
 commenced,  it  was  natural  for  him  to  mark  the  Passover  of 
 Joshua,  two  years  after  the  40  years  of  Moses.  And  hereby 
 he  has  given  incidentally  a  hint  accounting  for  the  origin  of 
 those  two  years,  which  some  reckoned  erroneously  to  Joshua 
 in  addition  to  his  25.  After  the  death  of  Joshua,  instead  of 
 inserting  like  Africanus  a  whole  generation  of  30  years,  he, 
 by  a  contrary  and  no  less  manifest  error,  passes  at  once, 
 without  allowing  any  years  to  the  Elders  who  outlived 
 Joshua,  to  the  first  servitude,  and  to  the  390  years  of  the 
 Judges.    Thus  his  previous  excess  of  110  years  over  Afri- 
 
 3  A  3 
 
726 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 canus  is  reduced  to  80 ;  and  after  the  390  years  instead  of 
 exceeding  by  80  he  falls  short  of  Africanus  by  20,  having 
 none  of  those  100  years  of  his  at  this  point  which  in  the 
 next  century  were  to  astonish  Eusebius.  But  when  we  pass 
 on  to  the  times  of  Eli  and  Samuel,  for  which  Africanus 
 has  too  few  years  by  22,  Hippolytus,  as  may  be  collected 
 from  his  other  sums  and  from  his  sum  total,  had  the  right 
 number  of  years  all  hut  two ;  and  so  already  at  the  accession 
 of  Saul,  and  at  his  separation  after  20  years  from  Samuel,  he 
 had  exactly  the  same  sum  of  (2242  940  + 130  +  505  +  65  + 
 390+ 110  =  )  4382  years  with  the  (2262  +  940  +  503  +  65  + 
 2  +  30  +  490  +  90  =  )  4382  of  Africanus.  And  thenceforth 
 downwards  they  have  both  the  same  general  reckonings  of 
 490  years  of  Kings  to  the  Captivity,  70  years  of  the  Cap- 
 tivity (the  same  error  and  interpolation  of  42  years  in 
 reckoning  them  being  common  to  both),  230  of  Persians, 
 and  328  of  Macedonians  and  Romans. 
 
 The  only  discrepancies  then  for  the  times  below  Abraham 
 between  Hippolytus*s  scheme  and  the  true  reckoning  being 
 these,  that  he  has  10  years  too  few  after  the  death  of  Joshua, 
 2  too  few  for  Samuel,  and  42  too  many  between  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar and  Cyrus,  his  dates,  like  those  of  Africanus,  for  the 
 synchronisms  of  Pharaoh  Hophra,  Necho,  Tirhakah,  and 
 Shishak,  would  be  all  32  or  42  years  too  high  to  suit  the  true 
 Egyptian  reckoning  if  his  scheme  were  applied  to  that  of  the 
 Old  Chronicle,  so  as  to  coincide  at  the  point  of  the  accession  of 
 Cyrus,  34  years  above  the  Egyptian  accession  of  Cambyses. 
 And  higher  up,  above  the  death  of  Joshua,  his  dates  would  be 
 still  30  years  too  high;  and  the  Exodus,  instead  of  coinciding 
 with  the  first  year  of  Amenoph  II.,  would  appear  at  the  10th 
 year  of  Manetho's  queen  Amesses.  And  the  birth  of  Moses 
 would  have  been  16  years  before  the  rise  of  the  king  who  knew 
 not  Joseph,  that  is,  of  Amosis.  That  fable,  however,  which 
 had  confused  the  Exodus  with  the  expulsion  of  the  Shep- 
 herds, and  which  he  cannot  be  suspected  of  having  had  at  all 
 in  his  mind,  would  derive  no  countenance  from  the  reckon- 
 ing of  Hippolytus.  And  if  only  his  manifest  blunder  about 
 the  time  of  the  Captivity  were  corrected,  his  date  for  the 
 Exodus,  instead  of  appearing  to  be  94  years  above  the  1st 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 727 
 
 year  of  Amenoph  II.,  at  the  accession  of  Amosis,  would 
 appear  (on  the  scale  of  the  Old  Chronicle)  within  the 
 reign  of  Amenoph  II.,  the  king  under  whom  it  really  took 
 place,  only  too  low  by  12  years,  at  his  13th  year  instead  of 
 his  1st.  Or,  if  any  one  perceived  that  some  years  must 
 clearly  be  wanted  for  the  Elders  after  the  death  of  Joshua, 
 and  accepted  Josephus's  number  of  ten,  the  date  of  Hippo- 
 lytus  for  the  Exodus,  after  this  double  correction,  would 
 appear  at  the  3rd  year  of«Amenoph  II.,  and  would  differ  by 
 only  two  years  from  the  true,  a  difference  caused  by  his  giving 
 to  Samuel  as  governing  alone  30  only  instead  of  32  years. 
 
 If  now  we  return  to  Africanus,  and  to  his  fixed  point  of 
 the  5th  year  of  Cambyses,  or  of  the  first  of  Cyrus  34  years 
 earlier,  and  go  upwards  from  it  step  by  step  on  his  sacred 
 and  Egyptian  lists,  we  shall  find  in  the  lowest  sacred  syn- 
 chronisms marked  by  him  in  the  latter  just  the  same  incon- 
 sistency as  in  that  of  the  Exodus  attached  above  to  the  name 
 of  Amosis.  On  the  supposition  that  either  all  the  70  years 
 of  the  Captivity,  or  (as  Syncellus  says)  60  of  them,  inter- 
 vened between  Sept.  1  B.C.  560  and  Sept.  1  in  the  autumn 
 preceding  the  burning  of  the  Temple,  this  event  is  carried 
 up  in  Africanus's  sacred  reckoning  from  B.C.  588  either  to 
 B.C.  630,  or  at  the  lowest  to  B.C.  620,  while  in  his  Egyptian 
 lists  the  accession  of  Apries  with  the  note  that  to  him  the 
 Jews  fled  after  the  burning  of  the  Temple"  is  found  only 
 (44  +  19  =  )  63  years  above  the  5th  year  of  Cambyses,  that  is, 
 29  above  the  1st  year  of  Cyrus,  at  Sept.  1,  B.C.  589 ;  far 
 below  Africanus's  date  for  the  burning  of  the  Temple.  It 
 is  plain  then  that  this  and  other  sacred  synchronisms  cannot 
 without  waste  of  words  be  so  much  as  mentioned  in  connec- 
 tion with  Africanus's  present  sacred  reckoning;  but  they 
 must  be  considered  in  connection  only  with  the  earlier  stage 
 of  his  processes  when  he  first  made  out  two  concurrent 
 lengths  of  Egyptian  and  sacred  reckoning  between  the 
 Exodus  and  the  Captivity.  The  wonder  is  how  having  once 
 reckoned  rightly  on  his  Egyptian  lists  63  years  only  between 
 the  5th  of  Cambyses — or  28  between  the  1st  of  Cyrus — and 
 the  head  of  the  year  containing  the  burning  of  the  Temple, 
 he  could  afterwards  fall  into  so  great  a  blunder  as  he  did,  or 
 
 3  A  4 
 
728 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 how  even  after  having  fallen  into  it  he  could  escape  being 
 forced  by  the  very  synchronisms  retained  in  his  Egyptian 
 list  into  perceiving  and  correcting  it.  But,  without  pursuing 
 this  question,  if  we  drop  all  thought  of  his  present  sacred 
 reckoning,  the  interval  of  63  years  exhibited  by  his  Egyp- 
 tian lists  between  the  5th  year  of  Cambyses  and  the  accession 
 of  Apries  agrees  perfectly  with  the  synchronism  marked, 
 and  with  the  Scriptures  from  which  it  is  taken.  For  so 
 there  are  28  years  between  the  accession  of  Cyrus  and  the 
 commencement  of  the  2nd  of  Apries  (answering  to  the  11th 
 of  Zedekiah.)  And  the  Jews  will  appear  to  have  fled  to 
 Apries  in  his  2nd  year. 
 
 Then  from  the  2nd  year  of  Apries  there  are  in  Africanus's 
 Egyptian  list  (1  +  6  +  6  =  )  13  years  seemingly  up  to  Sept.  1, 
 B.C.  601,  to  the  accession  of  Necho,  to  whose  name  there 
 is  a  note  that  "  he  took  J erusalem,  and  carried  away  Je- 
 hoahaz  into  Egypt."  But  the  Scriptures  require  a  longer 
 interval  than  13  years.  They  require  (10+  11  =  )  21  years 
 between  the  commencement  of  the  11th  of  Zedekiah  and  the 
 accession  of  Jehoiakim  and  the  death  of  Josiah.  And  the 
 death  of  Josiah  again  must  have  been  later  by  some  short 
 time  at  least  than  the  accession  of  Necho.  And  here  per- 
 haps we  may  begin  to  perceive  what  it  was  that  made  Afri- 
 canus  mistrust  his  Egyptian  lists.  He  probably  noticed 
 from  the  first  that  they  had  8  years,  or  8  years  and  2  months, 
 below  the  death  of  Amosis  which  could  not  possibly  be 
 chronological,  since,  if  they  were,  they  would  either  thrust 
 up  the  5th  year  of  Cambyses  and  with  it  the  1st  of  Cyrus, 
 which  for  him  was  a  fixed  point,  or  thrust  down  the  Egyp- 
 tian accession  of  Alexander  the  Great  to  B.C.  (332  —  8  =  ) 
 324,  the  fixed  technical  date  for  his  death.  He,  therefore,  no 
 doubt,  on  coming  to  the  accession  of  Necho,  and  finding  it 
 8  or  9  years  too  low  for  the  synchronism  belonging  to  it, 
 drew  the  inference  that  there  were  chronological  dislocations 
 and  compensations  in  the  Egyptian  lists,  and  that  probably 
 as  many  years  as  could  not  be  reckoned  where  they  stood 
 below  had  been  suppressed  here,  where  they  were  chronolo- 
 gically required.  So  he  might  think  that  probably  Necho's 
 actual  reign  had  (6  +  8  or  9  =  )  14  or  15  years,  and  that  it 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANU8. 
 
 729 
 
 commenced  not  later  than  B.C.  (601+8  =  )  609.  In  this  he 
 was  quite  right.  Yet  he  did  not  on  this  account  venture 
 either  to  insert  or  uniformly  to  reckon  the  8  years.  This  is 
 clear,  because  if  he  had  he  would  have  placed  the  accession 
 of  Amosis  not  at  B.C.  (1749-11  =  1738  +  15  =  )  1753  but  at 
 B.C.  (1753  +  8  =  )  1761  ;  and  then  he  would  have  needed  to 
 make  out  not  only  98  years  but  106  too  many  in  his  sacred 
 reckoning  in  order  that  the  Exodus  might  synchronise  with 
 it.  And  if  he  had  done  this,  his  subsequent  introduction  of 
 an  excess  of  42  years  into  his  sacred  reckoning  would  have 
 thrust  up  his  date  for  the  Exodus  from  B.C.  1761  to  1803, 
 where,  instead  of  needing  an  addition  of  2  years  more  to 
 coincide  with  the  Attic  date  for  Ogyges'  1020  years  before 
 the  first  Olympiad,  it  would  have  been  already  6  years  too 
 high  for  that  synchronism.  So  he  let  the  synchronism  of 
 Necho  stand,  though  seemingly  at  too  low  a  date,  consider- 
 ing that  the  correction  was  sufficiently  hinted  by  the  fact 
 that  if  any  one  reckoned  up  all  the  years  seemingly  placed 
 below  it  from  the  Egyptian  accession  of  Alexander,  it  would 
 then  rise  to  a  date  which  would  not  necessarily  cause 
 difficulty.  And  the  like  method  he  may  be  supposed  to 
 have  repeated  in  considering  other  synchronisms  above  so 
 long  as  he  found  it  to  answer  any  purpose ;  though  as  there 
 might  be  unchronological  additions  above  as  well  as  suppres- 
 sions it  was  unsafe  to  attempt  to  correct  the  lists. 
 
 Eeckoning  upwards  on  Africanus's  Egyptian  list  from  the 
 commencement  of  the  2nd  year  of  Apries,  as  put  at  Sept.  1, 
 in  B.C.  588  (or  by  indirect  indication  in  B.C.  596),  we  find 
 (1+6  +  6  +  54  +  8  +  6  +  7  =  )  88  years  before  arriving  at  the 
 head  of  Dyn.  XXVI,  which  so  stands  either  about  Sept.  1, 
 in  B.C.  676  (or  at  the  earliest  in  B.C.  684).  And  as 
 Tirhakah,  the  last  of  the  three  Ethiopians  of  Dyn.  XXY, 
 has  18  years,  his  accession  stands  at  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  694  (or 
 at  the  earliest  at  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  702).  Even  the  highest  of 
 these  dates  is  much  too  low  for  the  true  reckoning  of  the 
 synchronism  with  Sennacherib  in  the  14th  year  of  Heze- 
 kiah.  On  the  other  hand  the  accessions  of  Sevechus  and  of 
 Sabaco,  with  14  and  8  years,  being  at  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  708  and 
 B.C.  716,  or  in  B.C.  716  and  B.C.  724  respectively,  even  the 
 
730 
 
 EGYrXIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 higher  of  these  dates  would  barely  have  admitted  of  the 
 synchronism  of  Hoshea's  6th  year  rightly  dated  with  the 
 first  year  of  the  elder  Sabaco,  whose  name  might  answer 
 equally  with  that  of  Sevechus  to  the  Sua  or  So  of  the  Scrip- 
 tures. So  it  is  not  wonderful  if  Africanus  makes  no  allusion 
 to  either  of  these  synchronisms. 
 
 Continuing  upwards  from  the  head  of  Dyn.  XXV,  as  if 
 that  were  fixed  to  Sept.  1,  in  B.C.  716,  we  have  6  years  of 
 Dyn.  XXIV,  and  49  years  of  the  last  three  reigns  of  Dyn. 
 XXIII,  making  together  55  years,  up  to  the  death  of  Petu- 
 bast,  set  at  Aug.  31,  B.C.  (716  +  55  =  )  771.  This  date  then, 
 being  a  little  lower  than  that  of  the  first  Olympiad,  B.C.  776 
 (or  for  Africanus  Sept.  1,  B.C.  777),  agrees  perfectly  with 
 the  note  by  which  either  Ptolemy  or  the  original  Manetho 
 has  connected  the  first  Olympiad  with  the  reign  of  Pe- 
 tubast.  But  Africanus  at  this  point  would  be  forced  to 
 perceive  that  he  could  not  safely  insert  and  add  those  8  years 
 which  he  had  found  to  be  wanting  to  the  reign  of  Necho, 
 and  which  seemed  to  be  represented  by  the  unchi'onological 
 eight  standing  below,  since,  if  he  had  added  them  to  Xecho, 
 and  reckoned  them  uniformly  afterwards,  he  would  have 
 carried  up  the  death  of  Petubast  to  Aug.  31,  in  B.C.  (771  + 
 8  =  )  779,  and  would  have  destroyed  Ptolemy's  apparent 
 consistency  in  assigning  the  first  Olympiad  to  his  reign. 
 Africanus's  private  note  or  memorandum  of  "  990  years " 
 which  stands  in  his  Egyjjtian  lists  between  Dynasties 
 XXIII  and  XXIV  may  suggest  the  idea  that  he  had  been 
 counting  the  years  from  the  death  of  Petubast  to  his  own 
 time  according  to  these  lists ;  for  so  (no  notice  being  taken 
 of  their  8  unchronological  years  below  Cyrus  and  Cambyses) 
 he  found  in  the  lists  (b.c.  771+219  =  )  990  years  to  Aug. 
 31,  in  A.D.  220,  one  year  only  before  the  final  date  of  his 
 work. 
 
 Continuing  upwards  again  from  the  death  of  Petubast, 
 set  in  B.C.  771,  and  reckoning  his  40  years  to  the  head  of 
 Dyn.  XXIII,  and  the  120  of  Dyn.  XXII,  we  obtain 
 Sept.  1,  in  B.C.  931  for  the  accession  of  Shishonk  L,  who 
 is  rightly  identified  by  Syncellus,  as  he  is  also  by  the 
 monuments,  with  Shishak  the  contemporary  of  Solomon  and 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 731 
 
 Rehoboam.  But  as  he  appears  in  Afrlcanus's  Egyptian 
 lists  47  years  too  low  (39,  even  if  8  years  had  been  added, 
 and  by  Africanus's  own  latest  chronology  89  years  too  low) 
 for  these  synchronisms,  it  is  no  wonder  that  there  he  has 
 no  entry  respecting  them. 
 
 Between  Sept.  1  B.C.  (931  +  130  +  135  +  7  =  )  1203  and 
 Sept.  1  B.C.  1196,  we  find  in  Africanus's  lists  the  reign  of 
 Thouoris  or  Polyhus  and  the  synchronism  of  Troy,  which  he 
 certainly  gives  as  he  found  it,  as  it  is  older  not  only  than 
 Ptolemy  but  even  than  the  original  Manetho,  with  whose 
 ostensible  reckoning  it  does  not  agree.  The  date  alluded  to, 
 which  had  been  expressly  given  by  Dicaearchus  before  Ma- 
 netho wrote,  is  B.C.  1212  ;  and  this,  if  Africanus  had  used  a 
 correct  copy  of  Ptolemy's  lists  with  163  years  to  Dyn. 
 XXVI  (instead  of  using  one  with  only  the  150  years  of  Ma- 
 netho) would  have  been  exhibited ;  and  the  reign  of  Thou- 
 oris would  then  have  seemed  to  stand  for  Africanus  between 
 Sept.  1  B.C.  1216  and  Sept.  1  B.C.  1208.  But  with  that  par- 
 ticular text  of  the  lists  which  he  used  neither  Dicaearchus's 
 date  for  Troy  (which  was  also  no  doubt  indirectly  indicated 
 by  Manetho,  and  covered  by  the  Thouoris  of  Ptolemy),  nor 
 his  own  date,  which  seems  to  have  been  B.C.  1208,  can  be 
 connected  with  the  reign  of  Thouoris;  unless  indeed  we 
 were  again  to  allow  the  8  unchronological  years  below  Dyn. 
 XXVI  to  become  useful  and  to  tell  as  indicating^  a  disloca- 
 tion.  So  the  actual  accession  of  Thouoris  might  be  understood 
 to  have  been  as  high  as  Sept.  1,  B.C.  (1203  +  8  =  )  1211. 
 
 At  the  head  of  Dyn.  XIX,  with  which  Manetho  in  his 
 narrative  connected  the  flight  of  Danaus,  and  which  stands 
 for  Africanus  at  Sept.  1,  in  B.C.  (1196  +  209  =  )  1405,  there 
 is  no  mention  of  this  synchronism.  So  it  may  be  taken  for 
 granted  that  it  was  not  marked  there  by  Ptolemy,  though 
 by  changes  made  in  the  years  of  the  first  two  reigns  he 
 seems  to  allude  to  it. 
 
 Continuing  upwards  again  from  B.C.  1405,  we  find  for 
 Dyn.  XVIII  in  Syncellus's  transcript  from  Africanus  a  sum 
 of  only  263  or  262  years.  But  it  has  been  shown  above  (at 
 pp.  445  and  455)  that  the  figures  for  the  reign  of  Amosis,  and 
 both  the  name  and  the  figures  for  that  of  E-ameses  II.,  had 
 
732 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 fallen  out;  and  it  is  clear  that  Africanus  (even  if  he 
 neglected,  as  Syncellus  says  he  did,  to  specify  the  years  of 
 Amosis),  cannot  have  intended  to  attach  that  synchronism  of 
 the  Exodus  which  he  made  his  own  to  a  reign  without  years. 
 His  sacred  chronology  too,  as  has  been  seen,  antecedently 
 to  his  later  changes  in  reckoning  42  years  too  many  below 
 Nebuchadnezzar  and  transposing  2  others  from  above  to 
 below  the  Exodus,  supposes  for  his  Egyptian  lists  the  num- 
 ber of  1193  years  between  the  accession  of  Cyrus  (34  years 
 above  the  5th  year  of  Cambyses)  and  that  of  Amosis ;  and 
 this  number  of  itself  enables  us  to  restore  348  as  his  sum  for 
 Dyn.  XVIII. 
 
 Appearing,  as  it  now  does,  at  B.C.  1753,  that  is,  44 
 years  below  his  own  date  for  the  Exodus,  and  not  in  the 
 reign  of  Phoroneus,  nor  even  of  Apis,  but  at  the  9th  year 
 (for  him)  of  Argus,  or  if  any  one  please,  8  years  higher, 
 Africanus's  synchronism  of  Amosis  and  the  Exodus  is  simply 
 an  honest  inconsistency.  And  the  words  "  as  ice  have 
 shown,''''  by  which  he  appropriates  it,  though  they  may  have 
 meant  something  else  originally,  can  now  mean  only  this, 
 that,  whatever  be  the  true  date  for  the  accession  of  Amosis, 
 —  whether  44  years  are  wanting  somewhere  in  the  Egyp- 
 tian lists,  or  there  is  some  error  in  Africanus's  own  sacred 
 chronology  which  he  is  unable  to  rectify,  —  the  Exodus  is 
 to  be  connected  with  this  reign,  as  he  has  demonstrated  else- 
 where by  citing  testimonies  from  divers  authors,  as  Mane- 
 tho,  Apion,  Polemo,  Josephus,  Tatian,  Clemens  (for  Cle- 
 mens also  had  given  this  opinion),  and  lastly  Ptolemy.  Part 
 of  this  "demonstration"  is  still  extant  in  quotations  made 
 from  Africanus  by  other  writers.  Some,  he  says,  followed 
 Ptolemy  in  making  the  Exodus,  Moses,  and  Amosis  to  syn- 
 chronise with  Inachus,  while  he  himself  put  it  (and  Amosis, 
 he  implies,  ought  to  be  with  it)  under  Phoroneus,  for  which 
 he  found  countenance  in  the  opinion  of  some  Greek  authors 
 also,  as  of  Polemo,  who  put  it  under  Apis.  But  all  or 
 almost  all,  expressly  or  by  implication,  concurred  in  putting 
 it  at  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII,  at  the  accession  of  Amosis. 
 Polemo's  words,  which  he  quotes,  were  these  :  "  EttI  "Airihos 
 Tov  ^opcovscos  jjiolpa  rod  AlyvTrriaKOv  arpaTov  s'^sTreaep  Alyvir- 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 733 
 
 Tov,  ot  EV  Trj  UaXaLCTTLvp  KoXovfjbsvy  Xvpla  ov  iroppa)  ^pa^las 
 co/c7]crav,  avrol  SrjXovorc  ol  pLETo.  Maxj/ajy."  Here  the  word 
 GTparov  shows  an  allusion  to  Herodotus.  "  And  Apion/'  he 
 contmues,  in  his  book  against  the  Jews,  and  in  the  fourth 
 book  of  his  Histories,  writes  that  it  was  when  Amosis  was 
 reigning  in  Egypt  and  Inachus  at  Argos  that  the  Jews  re- 
 volted {fcara  "\va')(ov  "Apjovs  /SaaiXsa,  ^A/jico<TLOS  Alr/VTrrccov 
 /Saatksvovros,  aTroGTTjvaL  ^lovhaiovs).  Herodotus  too  has  men- 
 tioned this  same  defection,  and  has  named  Amosis  "  (where 
 he  must  be  trusting  to  a  confused  recollection  and  thinking 
 of  the  later  Amosis)  in  his  Second  Book,  and  indirectly  the 
 Jews  themselves  {Ms/jLVTjrac  Ss  Kal  'UpoSoros  rrjs  aTroaraascos 
 TavT7]s,  fcal  Apbcocrso39,  sv  rrj  /S',  Tpoirco  Ss  tlvi  koX  tcov  ^lovSalcov 
 avToiv).  And  lastly,"  he  subjoins,  ^'Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  who 
 brings  down  the  Egyptian  history  consecutively  from  the 
 beginning,  concurs  with  all  these  writers,  so  that  for  the 
 most  part  their  differences  as  to  the  exact  time  are  slight 
 and  insignificant.  (JlToXspLoios  o  y[Bvhr](jL0Si  ra  AIjvittlcov 
 dv£/ca6sv  icTTopoiv  diraaL  tovtols  avvTps')(^SL,  coars  ouSs  sTriarjpbos 
 £7rl  irksovT]  TMP  ')(p6v(ov  7rapaWayi].y^  Here  it  is  to  be  noticed 
 that  Africanus  speaks  of  Ptolemy  as  of  an  author  with  whom 
 he  was  himself  familiar,  and  sums  up  and  concludes  with  him. 
 
 This  point  then  being  "  demonstrated  "  by  something  like 
 a  consensus  of  testimony  that  the  Exodus  was  in  the  time 
 of  Amosis,  it  follows  next  to  inquire  by  what  calculation 
 Ptolemy  and  such  as  followed  him  could  make  Moses  in  his 
 81st  year,  and  Amosis  at  his  accession,  or  either  of  the  two 
 if  disjoined  the  one  from  the  other,  to  synchronise  with 
 Inachus ;  while  others  varied  from  them,  as  Polemo,  and  as 
 Africanus  himself.  And  yet  those  testimonies  by  which  Afri- 
 canus proved  the  synchronism  of  Moses  and  the  Exodus 
 with  Amosis  were  almost  equally  strong  for  the  addition  of 
 Inachus ;  and  the  chief  attraction  for  Jewish  and  Christian 
 writers  lay  in  the  antiquity  of  Inachus  ;  so  that  they  seldom 
 failed  in  their  quotations  or  allusions  to  name  him,  and  with 
 emphasis.  Thus  Tertullian,  for  instance  {Apolog.  c.  19), 
 writes,  "  Si  quem  audistis  iterum  Moysem,  Argivo  Inacho 
 pariter  a^tate  est ;  ccc  poene  annis  nam  et  vii  minus  Danaum 
 et  ipsum  apud  vos  vetustissimum  prsevenit,"  And  Africanui^'s 
 
734 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 regret  at  having  entirely  failed  at  first  even  to  approach  to 
 Inaclius  may  have  made  him  the  readier  afterwards  to 
 admit  and  retain  changes  which  brought  his  Exodus  into 
 contact  if  not  with  Inachus  yet  at  least  with  his  successor 
 Phoroneus,  and  obtained  for  him  an  Attic  synchronism  se- 
 condary in  antiquity  and  celebrity  only  to  the  Argive  syn- 
 chronism of  Inachus  ;  so  that  from  the  Greek  point  of  view 
 he  was  at  last  nearer  to  Ptolemy  than  before. 
 
 The  interval  of  seventeen  mythological  generations,  or 
 sixteen  with  18  years  of  a  seventeenth,  between  the  founda- 
 tion of  Argos  and  Troy  might  be  calculated  in  three  ways. 
 According  to  the  older  and  unartificial  method  by  simply 
 adding  up  the  reigns,  as  given,  there  were  obtained  397 
 years  from  the  accession  of  Inachus  to  the  flight  of  Danaus, 
 and  301  thence  to  Troy,  making  in  all  698  years.  By 
 reducing  seventeen  generations  to  the  average  length  of 
 33^  years  each,  there  were  obtainable  566|  years,  or  with 
 only  18  years  to  the  seventeenth  generation,  551^.  And, 
 lastly,  by  reducing  seventeen  generations  to  as  many  average 
 reigns  of  24^  years  each  there  were  obtainable  4 16 J,  or,  if 
 the  seventeenth  reign  had  only  18  years,  410  years.  And 
 if  any  one  reckoned  upwards  from  Dicsearchus's,  Manetho's, 
 and  Ptolemy's  date  for  Troy,  viz.  B.C.  1212,  the  first 
 method  would  put  the  accession  of  Inachus  in  B.C.  1910,  the 
 second  in  B.C.  1778  or  1763,  and  the  third  in  B.C.  1628  or 
 1622.  With  Castor's  date  for  Troy,  viz.  1208  (which 
 might  be  ascribed  to  Manetho  by  any  one  who  perceived 
 that  the  accession  of  his  Thouoris  stood  no  higher  than  B.C. 
 1210,  even  though  the  8  unchronological  years  below  Dyn. 
 XXVI  were  added),  the  first  method  would  give  B.C.  1 906  ; 
 the  second  B.C.  1774  or  1759  ;  and  the  third  B.C.  1624  or 
 1618.  "With  B.C.  1204  for  Troy  (this  being  apparently  the 
 commencement  of  the  last  year  of  Thouoris  in  Manetho's 
 and  in  Africanus's  lists  when  the  8  unchronological  years  are 
 reckoned,  as  B.C.  1208  was  in  the  genuine  text  of  Ptolemy), 
 the  three  methods  would  give,  the  first  B.C.  1902,  the  second 
 B.C.  1770  or  1755,  and  the  third  B.C.  1620  or  1616.  And, 
 lastly,  with  Eratosthenes's  date,  B.C.  1183,  for  Troy,  the 
 first  method  would  give  B.C.  1881,  the  second  B.C.  1749  or 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 735 
 
 1734  (of  which  two  reckonings  the  former  seems  to  have 
 been  the  one  alluded  to  in  the  passage  of  Tertullian  quoted 
 above),  and  the  third  method  would  give  B.C.  1599  or 
 1595. 
 
 It  has  already  been  suggested  elsewhere  (at  pp.  462,  463) 
 as  probable  that  Ptolemy,  who  followed  Manetho  in  osten- 
 sibly confounding  the  Shepherds  and  the  Hebrews,  but  who 
 knew  what  was  the  truth,  had  an  eye  to  two  of  the  above 
 three  methods,  viz.  to  the  second  and  the  third,  at  once. 
 For  Manetlio's  apparent  date  for  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII 
 being  properly  at  B.C.  1737  (when  the  8  years  manifestly 
 unchronological  below  Dyn.  XXVI  were  not  reckoned)  and 
 so  11  years  helow  the  true,  while  Ptolemy  had  below  the 
 head  of  Dyn.  XVIII  28  chronological  years,  or  years  not 
 manifestly  unchronological,  more  than  Manetho,  this  excess 
 raised  his  apparent  date  for  the  accession  of  Amosis  to  B.C. 
 (1737  +  28  =  )  1765,  which  is  1 7  years  above  the  true.  And 
 sixteen  Argive  generations,  if  reckoned  at  33 1  years  each, 
 with  18  years  of  a  seventeenth,  would  go  back  from  B.C. 
 1212,  Ptolemy's  date  for  Troy,  (533^+ 18  =  )  551|  years  to 
 B.C.  1763  or  1764,  so  as  to  place  the  foundation  of  Argos 
 only  one  or  two  years  below  his  apparent  date  for  the  acces- 
 sion of  Amosis,  which  he  himself  knew  perfectly  well  to  be 
 17  years  higher  than  the  true.  And  again,  if  one  thought  of 
 the  Hebrews  as  distinct  from  the  Shepherds,  and  of  the  true 
 date  of  the  Exodus,  then,  though  only  17  generations  re- 
 duced to  reigns  of  24^  years  each,  such  as  the  Old  Chronicle 
 and  Eratosthenes  had  used,  would  not  go  back  from  B.C. 
 1212  to  B.C.  1654  the  true  date  of  the  Exodus,  Tatian,  at  the 
 very  time  when  he  is  quoting  Ptolemy  for  the  synchronism 
 of  the  Exodus,  Amosis,  and  Inachus,  assigns  as  the  number 
 of  Argive  generations  between  Troy  and  Inachus  not  seven- 
 teen only,  but  twenty.  And  he  enumerates  nineteen  names 
 as  follows:  — "  1.  Inachus;  2.  Phoroneus;  3.  Apis;  4. 
 Argeus;  5.  Criasus ;  6.  Phorbas;  7.  Triopas;  8.  Crotopus; 
 9.  Sthenelus;  10.  Danaus;  11.  Lynceus;  12.  Abas;  13. 
 PrjBtus ;  14.  Acrisius;  15.  Perseus;  16.  Eurystheus ;  17. 
 Atreus;  18.  Thyestes ;  19.  Agamemnon,  in  whose  18th 
 year  Troy  was  taken."    And  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who 
 
736 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 follows  him,  speaks  of  "  twenty  or  twenty-one  generations, 
 and  400  or  more  years  "  between  Inachus  and  Troy,  which 
 clearly  shows  what  sort  of  generations  were  intended.  Ta- 
 tian  himself,  after  enumerating  the  generations,  had  con- 
 tinued thus  :  "  So^  if  Moses  was  contemporary  with  Inachus, 
 he  was  before  Troy  by  four  hundred  years."  Hence  it  is 
 probable  that  Ptolemy  also  allowed  more  than  seventeen, 
 and  even  more  than  nineteen  generations ;  that  is,  that  he 
 allowed  twenty  or  even  twenty-one ;  in  fact,  that  he  allowed 
 for  the  Argive  kings  as  many  reigns  or  generations  as  there 
 were  in  the  Egyptian  lists  between  Amosis  and  Thouoris  or 
 Troy.  And  these  might  be  made  more  or  fewer  according  as 
 any  one  reckoned  the  generations  in  a  stricter  sense,  like  the 
 Old  Chronicle,  according  to  which  there  would  be  (14  +  5=  ) 
 19,  with  Amosis  and  Thouoris  both  included,  or  in  a  laxer 
 sense,  so  as  to  add  some  more  actual  reigns,  as  is  done  by 
 the  lists  of  Manetho  and  Ptolemy,  according  to  which  there 
 would  be  (16  +  6  =  )  22,  (15  +  6  =  )  21,  or  (15  +  5  =  )  20, 
 according  as  the  queen  Amesses,  and  the  last  name,  that 
 of  Thouoris  himself,  were  reckoned  or  not.  And  nineteen 
 generations  or  reigns  of  24^  years  each,  or  rather  perhaps 
 eighteen  full  reigns  with  18  years  of  the  nineteenth,  making 
 a  sum  of  459  years,  these  reckoned  back  from  B.C.  1208 
 {Ptolemy'' s  last  year  of  Thouoris  and  Castor's  date  for  Troy), 
 would  seem  to  have  begun  in  B.C.  1667,  which  is  precisely 
 the  date  given  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria  on  some  Egyptian 
 authority  for  the  Exodus,  and  only  13  years  above  its  true 
 date,  the  source  of  which  inaccuracy  has  been  explained 
 above  (at  p.  464). 
 
 But  Clemens  has  also  another  passage  in  which,  while  the 
 some  method  of  calculation  is  followed,  as  if  the  Argive 
 generations  were  to  be  reduced  to  some  nineteen  average 
 reigns  of  24^  years  each,  the  true  date  of  the  Exodus  is  in- 
 dicated exactly.  For  he  says  that  "  some  put  Inachus  and 
 Moses,  that  is,  the  Exodus  (and  no  doubt  also,  as  they  pre- 
 tended, Amosis  too),  1842  years  before  the  death  of  Com- 
 raodus,  who  died  on  the  last  day  of  the  Julian  year  in  A.D. 
 192.  But  if  we  reckon  back  from  this  date,  as  Clemens  or 
 Africanus  would  reckon,  1842  years  take  us  for  date  of  the 
 
JULIUS  AFKICANUS. 
 
 737 
 
 Exodus  to  B.C.  1651,  which  is  precisely  the  true  date,  if  only 
 it  be  understood  that  it  is  calculated,  with  the  allowance  of  the 
 8  unchronological  years  below  Dyn.  XXVI,  by  Manetlio^s 
 lists,  in  which  there  is  so  an  unchronological  depression  of 
 exactly  three  years  affecting  all  the  dates  of  Dyn.  XVIII 
 from  the  accession  of  Amosis  to  tlie  death  of  Amunoph 
 III.  But  from  after  the  death  of  Amenoph  III.  on  the 
 contrary  all  the  dates  to  the  end  of  the  dynasty,  instead  of 
 being  depressed  by  3,  are  drawn  up  by  (15  —  3  =  )  12  years. 
 So  the  accession  of  Amosis  according  to  Manetho's  appa- 
 rent chronology  (the  8  years  being  allowed  to  tell,  as  afore- 
 said) is  at  B.C.  1745  instead  of  1748.  And  the  first  year  of 
 Amenoph  II.  containing  the  Exodus,  94  years  later,  instead 
 of  being  at  B.C.  1654,  its  true  date,  is  apparently  at  B.C.  1651, 
 three  years  lower.  And  B.C.  1651,  precisely,  is  the  date  named 
 by  Clemens  as  connected  by  "  some  "  with  the  synchronism 
 of  Moses  and  Inachus.  The  author  of  the  calculation 
 probably  made  only  18  generations,  using  Manetho's  lists, 
 which  when  their  8  unchronological  years  are  included 
 have  20  years  less  than  Ptolemy's  below  the  head  of  Dyn. 
 XVIII,  but  reckoning  up  447  years  from  B.C.  1204  as  his 
 date  for  Troy.  It  is  true  that  Clemens  goes  on  to  say  that 
 "others  to  the  death  of  Commodus  make  1821,"  that  is, 
 others  put  the  same  synchronism  21  years  later,  which 
 would  be  at  B.C.  1630.  But  this  second  date  is  entirely 
 erroneous ;  and  perhaps  it  was  only  a  blundering  variation 
 from  the  first.  It  may  have  originated  with  some  one  who 
 followed  the  author  first  alluded  to  in  his  number  of  18 
 generations  or  reigns  with  447  years  for  the  interval  between 
 the  Exodus  and  Troy,  but  with  a  date  for  Troy  21  years 
 lower  than  B.C.  1204  ;  some  one,  that  is,  who  preferred 
 Eratosthenes's  date  of  B.C.  1183.  And  B.C.  1183  beino;  21 
 years  below  B.C.  1204,  this,  if  the  interval  between  the 
 Exodus  and  Troy  were  retained  the  same,  would  of  course 
 draw  doAvn  the  date  for  the  Exodus  also  by  21  years  from 
 B.C.  1651  to  B.C.  1630. 
 
 Clemens  however  affords  some  reason  for  thinking  that 
 the  reckoning  just  discussed  was  in  truth  a  variation  not 
 from  that  which  placed  the  Exodus  in  B.C.  1651,  but  from 
 
 3  B 
 
738 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 that  other  which  placed  it  345  years  before  the  Sothic 
 epoch,"  that  is,  in  B.C.  1667.  For  after  having  given  this 
 last  date  for  the  Exodus,  Moses,  and  Inachus,  he  subjoins 
 the  following  computations :  "  From  the  a-TparrjyLa  of  Moses 
 and  from  Inachus  to  the  Flood  of  Deucalion  and  to  Phaethon 
 (fTTt  KpoTcoTTov)  therc  are  133  years,''  (being  the  estimate 
 of  the  author  whom  he  is  following,  seemingly  Thrasyllus, 
 for  4  generations) ;  "  thence  to  the  conflagration  on  Mount 
 Ida,  the  invention  of  iron,  and  the  Idaei  Dactyli  73  years, 
 according  to  Thrasyllus;  thence  to  the  rape  of  Ganymede 
 65  ;  thence  to  the  expedition  of  Perseus,  when  Glaucus  in- 
 stituted the  Isthmian  Games  for  Melicerta,  15  ;  thence  to 
 the  founding  of  Troy  34  ;  thence  to  the  Argonauts  64 ; 
 thence  to  Theseus  and  the  Minotaur  32 ;  thence  to  the 
 Seven  against  Thebes  10;  thence  to  the  institution  of  the 
 Olympic  contest  for  Pelops  by  Hercules  3 ;  thence  to  the 
 Athenian  expedition  of  the  Amazons  9  ;  thence  to  the  apo- 
 theosis of  Hercules  1 1  ;  thence  to  the  abduction  of  Helen  4 ; 
 [thence  to  the  fall  of  Troy  10] ;  thence  to  the  foundation  of 
 Lavinium  by  ^neas  10;  thence  to  the  accession  of  Ascanius 
 8 ;  thence  to  the  return  of  the  Heraclidse  6 1 ;  and  to  the 
 Olympiad  of  Iphitus  338."  Thus,  supposing  himself  to  have 
 started  from  B.C.  (1322  +  345  =)  1667,  and  intending  to 
 reckon  to  Eratosthenes's  date  for  Troy,  and  thence  to  the 
 first  Olympiad,  he  has  made  out  463  years  to  Troy,  in- 
 dicating the  date  B.C.  (1667-463  =  )  1204;  but  below  Troy 
 he  has  made  out  only  417,  which  reach  not  to  the  first 
 Olympiad  in  B.C.  776,  but  only  to  B.C.  (1204  —  417  =  )  787. 
 Either  then  some  of  the  figures  are  wrong,  or  this  reckoning 
 did  not  really  begin  as  he  supposed  it  to  begin  from  the  date 
 of  B.C.  1667  for  the  Exodus,  but  rather  from  B.C.  1656. 
 But  then,  continuing,  he  gives  the  following  as  a  variation 
 for  the  time  after  Troy :  "  But  Eratosthenes  gives  the 
 times  thus :  From  the  fall  of  Troy  to  the  return  of  the 
 Heraclidas  80  years ;  thence  to  the  settlement  of  Ionia  60  ; 
 thence  to  the  Guardianship  of  Lycurgus  159;  thence  to  the 
 year  before  Olymp.  1  a'  108"  [making  to  this  point  407  years]; 
 "  thence  to  the  crossing  of  the  Hellespont  by  Xerxes  297  ; 
 thence  to  the  beginning  of  the  Peloponnesian  war  48  ;  thence 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 739 
 
 to  its  end  and  tlie  defeat  of  the  Athenians  27  ;  thence  to  the 
 battle  of  Leuctra  34  ;  thence  to  the  death  of  Philip  35 ;  and 
 lastly  to  that  of  Alexander  12."  But,  with  this  reckoning,  if 
 one  goes  back  from  the  first  Olympiad,  the  407  years  take  us 
 up -for  Apollodorus  indeed  from  B.C.  777  (the  year  before 
 the  first  Olympiad)  to  1184,  but  for  Eratosthenes  who  is 
 named  —  from  B.C.  776  to  1183  his  known  date  for  Troy; 
 and  thence  the  463  years  go  back  to  B.C.  (1183 +463  =  ) 
 1646  for  the  Exodus  and  Inachus:  or  with  21  years  added, 
 that  is,  with  a  higher  date  for  Troy  than  that  of  Eratosthenes 
 by  21  years,  viz.  B.C.  1204  instead  of  B.C.  1183,  the  date  for 
 the  Exodus  will  be  B.C.  1667,  which  is  345  years  before  the 
 Sothic  epoch.  So  then  Clemens  perhaps  should  have  written 
 that  some  made  from  Moses  and  Inachus  to  the  death  of 
 Commodus  1842  years,  viz.  from  B.C.  1651 ;  others  1858 
 years,  viz.  from  1667 ;  but  others,  who  followed  Erato- 
 sthenes's  date  for  Troy  made  fewer  than  these  last  by  21, 
 that  is,  they  made  1837  years,  from  B.C.  1646. 
 
 These  three  dates  mentioned  by  Clemens  are  not  the 
 only  signs  which  have  been  preserved  to  show  that  in  spite 
 of  all  that  Manetho  and  others  after  him  had  done  to  obscure 
 the  subject,  the  true  synchronism  of  the  Exodus  was  still 
 known,  and  might  still  be  learned  by  inquiries  in  Egypt. 
 Josephus  himself  has  given  from  Chaeremon,  a  w^riter  of  the 
 time  of  Augustus,  a  variation  of  Manetho's  story  of  the 
 expulsion  of  the  lepers,  which  Chgeremon  probably  assigned 
 to  the  true  date  of  the  Exodus.  The  story  itself  was  this : 
 "During  a  great  famine  the  goddess  Isis  appeared  in  dreams 
 to  the  king  Amenophis,  and  showed  anger  against  him 
 because  her  temple  had  been  destroyed  in  the  war,  [so  that 
 this  was  perceived  to  be  the  cause  of  the  famine].  And  Phri- 
 tiphantes,  the  sacred  scribe,  instructed  him  that,  if  he  would 
 purge  the  land  of  all  the  unclean,  his  sleep  should  no  more 
 be  broken  by  such  frightful  apparitions.  Amenophis  there- 
 upon collected  together  as  many  as  250,000  people  who  were 
 diseased,  and  cast  them  out  of  the  country.  [The  leaders  of 
 these  people]  Moses  and  Joseph  had  been  scribes,  and  Joseph 
 a  sacred- scribe.  Their  names  were  originally  Egyptian, 
 that  of  Moses   being   Tisithen  (Si-en- Seti)  and  that  of 
 
 3  B  2 
 
740 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Joseph  Peteseth  {Pet- Set).  These  two  having  gone  to 
 Pehisium  "  (an  anticipation  of  the  desertion  of  the  frontier 
 army  of  Psamraitichus  I.  being  here  borrowed  from  Hero- 
 dotus, and  substituted  for  the  Hierosolymites  of  Manetho), 
 "  found  there  380,000  men  whom  Amenophis  had  left  [un- 
 relieved] refusing  to  let  them  return  into  Egypt.  The 
 scribes  then  came  to  an  understanding  with  these  men,  and 
 they  joined  forces  to  war  upon  Egypt.  Amenophis  was  not 
 strong  enough  to  withstand  them,  but  fled  into  Ethiopia, 
 leaving  his  wife,  then  with  child,  behind  him.  She  lay  hid  in 
 certain  caverns,  and  brought  forth  a  son,  who  when  grown 
 up  joined  his  father  with  an  army,  and  the  two  together,  as  in 
 the  relation  of  Manetho,  triumphantly  overthrew  and  ex- 
 pelled the  lepers  and  their  confederates."  But  that  the 
 Amenophis  of  Chasremon  was  Amenoph  II.  (the  true  king 
 of  the  Exodus),  rather  than  any  much  later  king  of  Dyn. 
 XIX  as  Manetho  had  insinuated,  is  rendered  probable  by  an 
 account  of  the  birth  of  Moses  which,  according  to  Josephus, 
 was  copied  by  this  same  Chaeremon  from  a  somewhat  earlier 
 writer,  Artapanus.  For  Artapanus  placed  the  birth  of 
 Moses  under  the  reign  of  "  Palraanothes,"  (that  is,  under 
 Amosis  the  head  of  Dyn.  XYIII),  "  who  after  he  had 
 expelled  the  Shepherds,  having  no  son,  gave  his  daughter 
 Merris  in  marriage  to  Chenephres,  or  Chembron,  who 
 reigned  in  the  Upper  Country."  And  Merris,  again,  "hav- 
 ing no  son  of  her  own,  took  up  and  adopted  Moses."  (See 
 above^  p.  175.)  But,  if  Moses  was  born  under  Palmanothes 
 or  Amosis  the  head  of  the  dynasty,  it  follows  that  Amenoph 
 II.  must  have  been  the  king  who  (80  years  afterwards) 
 expelled  the  lepers.  And  here  it  may  be  remarked  in  pass- 
 ing how  these  perverse  and  malicious  fables,  even  in  those 
 details  which  seem  most  false  and  most  confused,  still  give 
 hints  of  the  truth.  For  what  can  be  more  fabulous  than  to 
 blend  Joseph  and  Moses  into  one  person  ?  and  to  put  Moses 
 first,  confounding,  in  point  of  time  and  order,  the  descent  of 
 Jacob  into  Egypt  with  the  Exodus  of  his  descendants  ?  And 
 yet  it  is  strictly  true  that  Joseph  in  spirit  survived,  and  led 
 his  brethren  out  of  Egypt ;  for  his  bones  went  up  with  them, 
 as  he  had  by  faith  enjoined.     And  the  formation  of  the 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 741 
 
 Hebrew  people  may  with  truth  be  ascribed  to  him  and  to 
 Moses  jointly.  And  yet  at  the  Exodus  itself  it  was  more 
 exact  in  joining  the  two  names  to  say  "  Moses  and  Joseph," 
 (since  Moses  was  the  actual  bodily  leader  and  lawgiver) 
 than  to  say  "  Joseph  and  Moses.''  Again,  to  give  another  in- 
 stance where  the  true  time  of  the  Egyptian  synchronism  for 
 the  Exodus  is  indicated,  —  S.  Epiphanius  of  Cyprus^  who 
 wrote  three  centuries  after  Josephus,  and  had  the  chronolo- 
 gical works  both  of  Africanus  and  of  Eusebius  to  mislead  him, 
 nevertheless  neither  joins  the  Exodus  with  the  accession  of 
 Amosis  like  Africanus,  nor  puts  it  down  with  Eusebius  by 
 double  the  true  interval  lower,  but  he  represents  Moses  as 
 being  born  either  under  Amosis  or  under  his  son  Amenoph 
 I.,  some  years  after  the  commencement  of  Dyn.  XVIII, 
 since  he  writes  that  he  was  taken  up  from  the  river  "  by 
 Thermouthis  the  daughter  of  the  king  Amenoph,''''  In  Epi- 
 phanius's  statement  there  is  no  further  error  than  this,  that 
 the  princess  "  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh,"  whatever  were  her 
 true  name,  was  the  sister  not  the  daughter  of  Amenoph  I.,  who 
 however  here  (as  perhaps  also  under  the  name  Palmanothes 
 in  the  story  of  Chseremon)  may  stand  for  his  father  Amosis 
 the  head  of  the  dynasty.  And  if  Moses  was  said  to  be  born 
 under  Amosis,  or  at  the  latest  under  Amenoph  (which  would 
 suit  better  for  the  last  of  the  three  dates  given  by  Clemens 
 for  the  Exodus),  it  is  clear,  as  in  the  case  of  the  account  co- 
 pied from  Artapanus,  that  the  Exodus,  to  be  placed  80  years 
 lower,  must  be  assigned  to  the  reign  of  Amenoph  II.  to 
 which  it  really  belonged. 
 
 That  calculation  of  Polemo,  putting  the  Exodus  under 
 Apis,  to  which  Africanus  refers  as  agreeing  or  all  but 
 agreeing  with  his  own,  will  not  on  examination  give  him  so 
 much  countenance  as  he  seems  willing  to  imagine.  For  if 
 we  reckon  up  698  years  according  to  the  commoner  method 
 from  B.C.  1212  (Dicsearchus's,  Manetho's,  and  Ptolemy's 
 date  for  Troy),  we  shall  place  the  accession  of  Inachus  in 
 B.C.  1910.  And  then,  if  we  deduct  the  first  three  Argive 
 reigns  of  (50  +  60  +  35  =  )  145  years,  we  find  the  reign  of 
 Apis  to  end  in  B.C.  1765.  But  by  the  scheme  of  Ptolemy 
 of  Mendes  which  had  (15  +  13  =  )  28  years  (or  20  years  at 
 
 3  B  3 
 
742 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 the  least)  more  than  the  apparent  chronological  reckoning  of 
 INIanetho  between  Amosis  and  Nectanebo,  the  commence- 
 ment of  Dyn.  XVIII  was  in  B.C.  1765  ;  so  that  if  Amosis, 
 in  agreement  with  the  assertion  of  Manetho,  reckoned  his 
 years  from  after  the  expulsion  of  the  Shepherds,  they  must 
 have  been  expelled  (unfortunately  for  Africanus)  in  the  last 
 year  of  Apis.  The  synchronism  was  probably  calculated  by 
 some  one  who  used  the  lists  of  Ptolemy  in  their  original  and 
 complete  text,  and  neither  those  of  Manetho,  by  whose 
 apparent  reckoning  the  accession  of  Amosis  would  be  28,  or 
 at  the  least  20,  years  below  the  death  of  Apis,  nor  those  of 
 Africanus,  which  by  varying  in  Dyn.  XX  YI  from  Ptolemy 
 and  containing  a  reading  taken  from  the  original  Manetho 
 put  the  apparent  accession  of  Amosis  at  B.C.  1752,  or  at  the 
 highest  at  B.C.  1760,  13  years,  or  at  the  least  5  years,  below 
 the  death  of  Apis.  And  thus  there  is  a  difference  between 
 Polemo's  date  for  the  Exodus  at  the  end  of  the  35th  and  last 
 year  of  Apis  and  that  of  Africanus  (reckoned  from  a  lower 
 date  for  Troy  by  8  years)  after  the  59th  of  Phoroneus  of 
 (35+8  =  )  43  years. 
 
 St.  Theophilus  the  sixth  Bishop  of  Antioch  after  the 
 Apostles  (a.d.  170  to  183  ?),  who  was  the  contemporary  of 
 Tatian,  older  than  Clemens  of  Alexandria  and  Tertullian, 
 and  still  more  so  than  Africanus  and  Hippolytus,  in  lib.  ill.  of 
 his  Refutation  of  Heathenism  inscribed  to  Autolycus,  has 
 made  out  a  scheme  of  sacred  and  mixed  chronology  which 
 it  will  be  worth  while  to  compare  with  that  of  Africanus, 
 especially  as  he  has  borrowed  from  Josephus  those  extracts 
 from  Manetho  which  occasioned  later  writers  sometimes  to 
 connect  the  Exodus  with  Amosis  and  Inachus,  and  at  others 
 either  with  the  time  of  Sethos-Rameses-^gyptus  and  his 
 brother  Danaus,  or  with  a  time  somewhat  later.  And  in 
 borrowing  Theophilus  exhibits  remarkable  variations  from 
 Josephus,  before  considering  which  one  ought  to  have  some 
 knowledge  of  his  general  system. 
 
 With  2242  years  only  to  the  Flood,  936  thence  to  the 
 birth  of  Abraham  (Nahor  having  75  instead  of  79),  none  for 
 the  Elders  after  Joshua,  8  only  instead  of  80  for  Ehud,  and 
 20  instead  of  40  for  the  whole  reign  of  Saul,  he  has  defi- 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 743 
 
 ciencies  amounting  to  (20  +  4  +  10  +  72  +  20  =  )  126  years. 
 Against  these  are  to  be  set  excesses  of  215  years  added  to 
 the  215  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt  (for  he  gives  them  430),  of 
 2  added  to  Joshua,  who  has  27,  of  1  reckoned  to  Shamgar, 
 and  strangely  misplaced,  so  as  to  come  between  Samson  and 
 Eli,  of  15  added  to  three  kings,  viz.  4  to  Abijah,  10  to 
 Amaziah,  and  1  to  Ahaz,  who  have  7,  39,  and  17  years 
 respectively,  and  lastl}-  of  3  imperfect  years  of  kings  erro- 
 neously reckoned  as  complete  and  chronological.  So  he  has 
 in  all  (99+  175  +  134.  6°^.  10^  =  )  408  years,  6  months  and 
 10  days  of  kings  from  the  death  of  Solomon  to  the  Cap- 
 tivity, which  he  begins  after  the  1 1th  year  of  Zedekiah.  And 
 the  sum  of  his  excesses,  being  (215  +  2  +  1  +  15+3  =  )  236, 
 is  greater  than  that  of  his  deficiencies  by  (236  —  126  =  )  110 
 years.  Some  other  apparent  deficiencies  and  excesses  com- 
 pensate one  another,  and  lying  all  together  show  rather 
 inaccuracy  iii  describing  and  assigning  years  which  are 
 rightly  reckoned  than  any  chronological  error.  For  the  20 
 years  which  he  gives  to  Samson,  and  the  40  next  following 
 "of  peace"  are  exactly  the  sums  wanted  (only  in  the  contrary 
 order)  for  the  Judgeship  of  Eli  and  for  the  abode  of  the  Ark 
 at  Kiriath-Jearim  during  Samuel's  minority.  And  the  20 
 which  afterw^ards  he  gives  to  Eli  are  just  the  years  wanting 
 to  be  added  to  the  adjoining  12  of  Samuel.  So  in  this  part, 
 betw^een  the  end  of  the  40  years  of  the  Philistines  and  the 
 accession  of  Saul  (if  only  we  transpose  the  year  given  to 
 Shamgar  between  Samson  and  Eli  as  plainly  misplaced)  he 
 has  just  the  right  number  of  years,  which  can  scarcely  be 
 said  of  any  other  scheme.  One  year  which  seems  wanting 
 to  Jair  is  restored  indirectly  by  himself  when  he  gives  the 
 sum  of  498  years  as  intervening  between  the  deaths  of 
 Moses  and  David.  For  this  sum  must  be  made  out  thus : — 
 27  +  0*  +  8  +  40  +  18  +  8*+110  +  (22  +  l  of  Jair)+lll+20 
 of  Samson  +40  of  peace  +  1  of  Shamgar  +  20  of  Eli  +  12 
 of  Samuel  +  20  of  Saul  +  40  of  David  =  498.  After  the 
 40  years  of  Solomon  and  408  of  other  kings  his  descendants 
 the  70  years  of  the  Captivity  are  made  by  him  to  end  not 
 in  the  Jirst  but  in  the  second  Persian  year  of  Cyrus,  which 
 he  seems  to  put  in  Olymp.  55  /3',  which  should  be  B.C. 
 
 3  B  4 
 
744 
 
 "EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 559-558 ;  but  his  reckonings  in  years  require  it  to  be  put 
 in  B.C.  565,  which  is  6  years  too  high.  Thence  he  continues 
 with  29  years  as  the  [remaining]  reign  of  Cyrus  to  his  death 
 which  he  makes  to  coincide  with  the  accession  of  Tarquinius 
 Superbus,  putting  it  in  Olymp.  62  [^']  B.C.  530,  220  years 
 after  the  foundation  of  Rome  in  Olymp.  7  [^],  as  if  Rome 
 had  been  founded  in  B.C.  750.  But  his  other  reckonings  in 
 years  absolutely  require  us  to  put  the*death  of  Cyrus  in  B.C. 
 (565  — 29  =  )  536.  To  be  consistent  with  himself  he  should 
 have  made  the  death  of  Cyrus  in  B.C.  530,  Olymp.  62  to 
 be  at  the  end  of  the  6th  year  of  Tarquinius  Superbus,  giving 
 only  19  more  years  to  Tarquinius  below,  and  making  his 
 whole  sum  at  the  death  of  Marcus,  in  a.d.  180,  to  have  fewer 
 years  by  6  than  his  present  sum  of  5698.  He  makes  in  all  to 
 the  beginning  of  the  Captivity  (2242  ^  936  +  75  +  215  +  430 
 +  67  +  0  +  379  +  32  +  100 +  408.6^.  10^=)  4884  years,  6 
 months  and  10  days;  to  the  end  of  the  Captivity  4954  years  ; 
 and  to  the  death  of  Cyrus  4983.  From  the  death  of  Cyrus 
 in  B.C.  536  the  25  years  of  Tarquinius  Superbus  take  him 
 on  to  B.C.  511  ;  and  453  years  of  Consuls,  Tribunes,  and 
 ^diles,  ending  in  B.C.  58,  are  followed  by  the  Emperors, 
 each  of  whose  reigns  he  gives  with  its  years,  months,  and 
 days,  from  the  chronicle  of  Chryseros  the  freedman  of 
 Marcus  Aurelius.  For  the  emperors  he  makes  in  ail  237 
 years  and  5  days,  from  the  accession  of  Julius  Caesar  to  the 
 death  of  Marcus  Aurelius  who  died  in  March  a.d.  180.  His 
 error  of  thrusting  up  the  commencement  of  the  empire  from 
 B.C.  47  to  B.C.  58,  is  caused  by  giving  10  years  too  many 
 to  Claudius  and  2  too  many  to  Galba,  while  on  the  other 
 hand  he  loses  one  year  between  Julius  Caesar  and  Augustus, 
 which  reduces  his  excess  from  12  to  11.  His  whole  sum 
 then  to  the  death  of  Marcus  in  a.d.  180,  is  5698  years,  in 
 which  he  does  not  pretend  to  any  great  accuracy,  admitting 
 that  he  "  may  perhaps  be  out  by  80,  100,  or  even  200  years, 
 but  not,"  he  says,  "by  thousands  or  myriads,  like  the 
 heathen ;  whereas  Plato  speaks  of  myriads  of  years  from  the 
 Flood  as  it  seems  to  Daedalus,  and  Apollonius  of  Egypt  has 
 named  a  sum  of  153,075  years." 
 
 Such  being  the  outline  of  his  chronology,  one  may  observe 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 745 
 
 in  it  several  points  of  agreement  with  Africanus  and  also 
 with  Hippolytus.  With  Hippolytus  he  agreed  in  the  2242 
 years  to  the  Flood ;  with  Africanus  in  not  admitting  the 
 second  Cainan ;  with  Clemens  and  Hippolytus  in  giving 
 not  inconsistently,  like  Africanus,  but  consistently  27  years 
 to  Joshua;  with  Hippolytus  again  in  giving  no  separate 
 years  to  the  Elders  after  Joshua  ;  with  both  Africanus  and 
 Hippolytus  in  reckoning  the  70  years  of  the  Captivity  to 
 the  beginning  of  the  Persian  reign  of  Cyrus ;  while  in  his 
 sum  of  408  years  for  the  kings  below  Solomon  (which  with 
 him  all  precede  the  Captivity)  he  has  an  excess  amounting 
 to  17  or  18  years.  In  one  or  two  points  Africanus  may  have 
 followed  S.  Theophilus,  as  in  giving  1  year  to  Shamgar. 
 His  forty  years  of  anarchy  "  too,  and  the  forty  of  peace  " 
 following  them,  may  have  been  both  made  out  of  the  forty 
 years  of  peace  "  of  S.  Theophilus.  And  later  the  author  of 
 the  Paschal  Chronicle  has  in  the  same  place  40  years  of 
 "  peace  or  anarchy,"  for  omitting  which  he  blames  Eusebius. 
 And  if,  as  Syncellus  says,  Africanus  made  268  years  of 
 kings  instead  of  258  between  the  death  of  Solomon  and  the 
 capture  of  Samaria,  his  excess  of  10  years  in  this  sum  may 
 perhaps  be  explained  by  one  of  Theophilus's  peculiarities 
 within  the  same  space,  that  namely  by  which  he  gives  10 
 years  too  many  to  Amaziah.  Such  peculiarities  which  more 
 or  less  disfigure  all  the  older  schemes,  and  which  look  now 
 like  strange  blunders  or  arbitrary  variations,  are  easily  ac- 
 counted for  when  one  reflects  that  in  those  early  times, 
 when  books  were  comparatively  rare,  and  all  in  MS.,  each 
 copy  had  its  own  errors  and  omissions ;  and  writers  in  general 
 were  acquainted  only  with  very  few  copies,  perhaps  only 
 with  a  single  copy  of  the  works  which  they  used,  ^^or  had 
 they  any  such  general  collation  of  the  MSS.  even  of  those 
 works  of  which  copies  were  most  multiplied  as  would  enable 
 them  to  distinguish  and  correct  the  peculiarities  of  that  copy 
 from  which  their  own  notes  had  been  taken.  Thus,  for  in- 
 stance, the  error  of  giving  Saul  only  20  years  in  all  instead 
 of  40  originated  probably  through  some  faulty  MS.  of  Jose- 
 phus,  which  divided  the  reign  into  2  years  and  18,  whereas 
 the  true  reading  is  22.    But  to  return  to  Theophilus  :  — 
 
746 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 His  whole  sum  at  B.C.  2,  amounting  to  5517  years,  exceeds 
 that  of  Africanus  by  17.  And,  if  his  chronology  were  to  be 
 applied  to  the  Egyptian  lists  according  to  the  scale  of  the 
 Old  Chronicle,  the  Exodus  would  appear  at  B.C.  (58+453  + 
 25  +  29  -f  70  +  408  +  100  +  32  +  379  +  67  =  )  1621,  which  is 
 33  years  below  its  true  date.  For  his  omissions  below  are 
 (10  +  72  +  20  =  )  101,  while  his  additions  are  only  (2  +  1  +  18 
 +  41+6  =  )  68,  the  last  6  of  the  latter  being  caused  by  the 
 undue  elevation  of  the  accession  of  Cyrus.  And  68  being 
 deducted  from  101,  there  remain  33  years.  But  above  the 
 Exodus,  in  consequence  of  his  interpolation  of  215  years, 
 only  33  of  which  are  compensated  by  the  undue  depression 
 of  the  Exodus  itself,  the  call  of  Abraham  stands  at  B.C.  2084 
 +  (215  — 33  =  )182  =  2266,  which  is  42  years  above  the 
 Egyptian  reckoning  for  the  accession  of  Menes.  This,  there- 
 fore, alone,  if  any  refutation  were  needed,  would  be  a  sufficient 
 refutation  of  that  opinion  which  would  make  the  Hebrews 
 to  have  sojourned  in  Egypt  the  whole  space  of  430  years. 
 
 With  such  a  system  of  chronology  tliere  would  be  nothing 
 wonderful  if  in  extolling  the  antiquity  of  Moses  he  had 
 made  use  of  Josephus's  extracts  from  Manetho,  without 
 troubling  himself  to  search  after  the  exact  history  underlying 
 them.  But  it  is  curious  that  he  neither  repeats  Josephus's 
 reckoning  of  "above  392  years"  from  Amosis  and  the 
 Exodus  to  some  time  below  the  reign  of  Sethos-Rameses- 
 ^gyptus,  whose  brother  Armais  is  identified  with  Danaus, 
 nor  does  he  enumerate  the  reigns  of  Dyn.  XVIII  as  he  found 
 them  in  Josephus.  But  either  he  himself,  or  some  other 
 unknown  author  whom  he  follows,  has  made  such  omissions 
 as  to  reduce  the  interval  between  Amosis  and  the  flight  of 
 Danaus  after  the  10th  year  of  ^gyptus  to  just  313  years, 
 so  as  to  suit,  with  only  13  years  over,  the  reckoning  of  nine 
 generations  at  the  rate  of  three  to  a  century^  as  if  from 
 Inachus,  which  the  (333  +  8  =  )  341  years  of  Manetho  did 
 not  suit.    Theophilus  then  writes  thus : 
 
 *''0  8s  MojcTTys'  ohrj^yiqaas  \odhi)^7]a£\  tovs^IovBulovs  £/c^s/3\r]~ 
 fjbsvovs  CLTTO  yrjs  Alyvirrov  viro  ^aaikscos  ^apaci)  ou  Tovvo/xa 
 "Afjbwais'  09,  (paalv,  fjusra  tt)v  sK^okrjV  tgv  Xaov  i/daaiXsvas 
 ST7J  KS  Kal  fjurjvas  3',  cos  vcpyprjTac  ^laysOcbs' 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS.  T47 
 "  Kal  fJbSTa  TOVTOV  Xs^p(bv  sTrj  17  * 
 
 '^Msra  Bs  TOVTOV  WflSV(x)(f)L9  STTj  Kf  flPjUUS  f ' 
 
 Mera      tovtov  rj  uBsXcjirj  avTOv  Wfxzaor}  ettj  Ka,  jJirjva  a' 
 "  Mera  hs  TavTrjv  Mr)(j)p7)s  ett]  l^',  fjbrjvas  S'' 
 
 Msra  Ss  tovtov  ^lrj(j)pafji/jLOvO(oaL9  sttj  k',  ixrjvas  l' 
 "  Kal  /jbSTci  TOVTOV  TovOfJLwais  stt]  S-',  firjvas  rj'' 
 
 Kal  flSTa  TOVTOV  'AfJLSVCO(f)LS  £T7]  \' ,  /jLTjVaS  L' 
 
 "Msra  Be  tovtov^ i^pos  ettj  \s,  fjbrjvas  s' 
 "  Tov  8s  SvyaTTjp  ett]  t',  /jLrjvas  y' 
 "  MsTa  Be  TavT7)v  Ksyx^prjs,  stt]  i/B',  fJL7]vas  y' 
 " Tov  Ss  Wpfiai's  STT]  V  [A']  /jbrjva  a' 
 
 "  Msra  Be  tovtov  'Va/jLSO-arjs  Miafi/JLOV  ett]  ff',  fcal  [JLrjvas  ff' 
 Kal  fMSTa  TOVTOV  'VafiEaaris  hiavTov  \_sva  kol]  jxrjvas  If* 
 
 "  Kal  fiSTCL  TOVTOV  A/jLSV(t}(j)L9  STT]  id',  flTjVaS 
 
 "ToO  Be  Xs6(09,  09  Kal  'VajjiEcro-rjs,  sti]  l'  6v  (paatv  Ea-^rjKsvaL 
 TToWrjv  Svva/jbLV  ittitlk^^s,  Kal  irapaTa^LV  vavTLKip. 
 
 "Kara  tovs  IBlovs  ')(p6vovs  ol  fjikv  'l^^paloc  TrapOLKrjaavTEs 
 EV  XhyviTTW,  Kal  KaTaBovXcodsvTSS  vtto  /SacnXscos  q)9  TrpostprjTac 
 T£dfi(oasa)9,  a>KoB6/j.7)crav  avTw  ttoXsls  6')(ypas,  Ttjv  ts  Ilt6o)  Kal 
 *Fa/jLS(Tar]  KaVD.v  .  .  .  wcrrs  Kal  tcovSs  itoXecov  twv  tots  ovofiaaTcov 
 
 KUT   AuyV7rTL0V9  BstKVVVTaL  TTpOySviaTSpOL  ol  ^Yj^patOL  OVTSS  01 
 
 Kal  TrpoiraTopEs  rjfjLwv  .  .  .  AtyvTTTOs  Kal  rj  x^pa  £k\7]6tj  diro  tov 
 fia(Ti\sco9  ^s6(0'  tgSs  yap  ^e6o>9,  (paalv,  AtyviTTOs  KaXstTai' 
 TojSs  Kal  rjv  dBs\(f)09  w  6vop.a  ^\pfjbais'  ovtos  Aavabs  KSKXrjTai; 
 6  els  "Apyos  diro  AlyviTTOv  Trapaysvofisvos,  ov  jMSfjbvrjvTaL  ol 
 XoLiTol  avyypacpsls  cds  ttclvv  ap")(aLov  Tvy)(avovTOS, 
 
 Mavg^ws  Be  6  KaT  AlyvTTTiovs  TroXXa  (j)\vapi](Ta9,  etc  fiTjv 
 Kal  jSXdac^rjfia  slircov  sh  Mcoaia  Kal  tovs  avv  avTw  'F^^palovs 
 0)9  Bt]6£v  Bid  Xsirpav  EK^XrjOsvTas  ek  Tip  AlyvTZTOV,  iroifjusvas 
 /jLsv  ydp  avTovs  eIttcov  Kal  iroXsfjLiovs  AlyvrrTLCov  ov-)^  svpsv  to 
 
 dKpiSsS  T03V  ')(p6v(0V  SLTTSLV.      To  fjLSV  ydp  TTOL/JLSVaS  CIKCOV  eItTEV, 
 
 sXey')(oiisvo9  vtto  t?}?  dXrjdsLas.  'Hcraz^  ydp  ovtws  ttol/jleves  ol 
 TTpoTraTopss  Tj/jLOJV,   ol  7rapoLKi]cravT£9  sv  AlyvTTTa),  dXX  ov 
 
 XETTpoL 
 
 "  TlEpl  Be  tov  TTSTrXavrjaOai  tov  'MavEOco  iTEpl  tcov  ^povwv  ek 
 
 TCOV    VTT    aVTOV    slpTj/jLEVCOV    BrjXoV    EGTLV    dXXd    Kal    TTEpl  TOV 
 
 Pa(TiX£(09  TOV  sKpaX6vT09  avT0V9,  ^apao)  Tovvofia'  ovkstl  ydp 
 avTCJV  E^aalXsvaE'  KaTaBLCo^a9  ydp  'Fj^palovs  fiETd  tov 
 (TTpaTEvixaTOS  KaTSTTOVTLaOr]  £19  TTjv  EpvOpdv  OdXaaaav.  "Ert 
 
748 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 fXrjV    KoX    OVS    E(f)7]    TTOLflSVaS    'TTSTToXsfMTJKSVaL    T0V9  AIjVTTtIoVS 
 
 yjrsvSsrac'  irpo  irayv  <yap  riy'  s^rjXOov  sic  rrjs  AlyuTrrov,  koX 
 wKTjaav  SK  TOTS  Tr)v  ')(Ojpav^''  fc.  r.  X. 
 
 So  Theophilus  also  made  nearly  the  same  reflections  as 
 Josephus  ;  and  like  Josephus  he  is  far  from  perceiving  how 
 Manetho  has  purposely  blended  a  number  of  real  but  dis- 
 tinct events,  persons,  and  epochs;  but  he  supposes  the 
 "Shepherds"  of  Manetho  to  be  all  from  first  to  last  equally 
 and  only  the  Hebrews;  and  that  they  went  forth  from  Egypt, 
 according  to  Manetho,  313  years  before  the  time  when 
 Sethos  expelled  them  as  lepers,  that  is,  in  B.C.  1183  or  1184 
 +  18  +  (7x33^=)  2331=1434  +  313  =  1747  or  1748;  and 
 that  having  once  settled  in  Judaja,  they  never  more  returned 
 (so  contradicting  Manetho)  to  Egypt.  His  expressions  on 
 two  or  three  points  are  remarkable  : — First,  at  the  outset, 
 he  names  Amosis,  and  very  rightly,  as  having  been  named  by 
 implication  by  Manetho  himself,  who  stated  his  reign  of  25 
 years  at  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII ;  but  afterwards  he  passes 
 to  Manetho's  mythical  name  for  him,  Tethmosis,  as  if  it  were 
 all  one,  writing  "by  the  king  Tethmosis,  as  aforesaid;'*^  and 
 at  the  same  time  he  adds,  as  if  that  too  were  implied  above, 
 such  a  gloss  upon  Manetho's  first  account  as  is  really  a  cor- 
 rection, though  he  blundered  himself  in  making  it.  For  in 
 order  to  connect  and  harmonise  with  the  truth  Manetho's  two 
 accounts,  he  rites  as  if  Tethmosis  (he  should  have  kept 
 here  to  his  first  name  Amosis)  instead  of  expelling  had  only 
 reduced  the  Shepherds  to  bondage;  which  was  the  exact 
 truth  so  far  as  the  Hebrews  were  concerned.  Then  he  in- 
 serts from  the  book  of  Exodus  the  circumstance  of  their 
 building  for  him  (and  here  his  Manethonian  name  Tethmosis 
 may  suit  as  well  or  better  than  Amosis)  strong  cities,  Pitlio, 
 JRamesses,  and  On;  and  he  bases  an  unlucky  argument  on  the 
 antiquity  of  these  cities  so  named,  and  on  the  fact  of  the  name 
 of  Egypt  itself  being  derived  from  the  king  said  to  have  ex- 
 pelled them  in  favour  of  the  greater  antiquity  of  the  Hebrews. 
 He  seems  to  think  that  "P/i«r«o"  w^as  the  proper  name  of  the 
 king  in  whose  time  they  really  went  out ;  and  he  argues  con- 
 fidently against  Manetho  that  he  could  not  have  reigned 
 on  afterwards,  as  he  was  drowned  together  with  his  army  in 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 749 
 
 the  Ked  Sea.  In  dealing  with  Manctho's  second  story  of 
 the  lepers  he  is  amusingly  indignant  at  this  imputation,  and 
 somewhat  inconsistent  with  himself  in  copying  from  J ose- 
 phus  the  objection  that  they  could  not  be  expelled  by  Sethos- 
 Kameses,  as  they  had  gone  out  above  300  years  before,  and 
 had  never  returned.  This  was  fair  enough  for  Josephus  to 
 urge  against  Manetho.  But  Theophilus  had  explained  away 
 the  former  expulsion,  and  had  let  them  remain  and  build 
 cities  not  only  for  a  Thothmes  but  also  for  a  Kameses ;  ac- 
 cepting as  it  seems  that  portion  of  the  myth  which  made  the 
 flight  of  Danaus  to  Greece  and  that  of  Moses  to  Judaea  to 
 be  contemporary,  but  denying  Manetho's  story  of  a  pre- 
 vious expulsion  and  a  return  of  those  who  had  once  before 
 been  expelled  as  invaders  from  the  country  of  Jerusalem. 
 And  on  this  view  of  the  matter  he  had  no  longer  any  thing 
 to  say  against  the  story  of  their  being  expelled  by  Sethos- 
 E-ameses  merely  on  the  ground  that  they  had  gone  out  much 
 'earlier.  One  thing  also  which  he  says  incidentally  of  Ma- 
 netho is  noticeable,  viz.  that,  according  to  the  Egyptians, 
 his  work  was  full  of  fables  (o  Kar  AlyvTrriovs  ttoWo,  <^\va- 
 
 There  is  marked  in  Africanus's  Egyptian  lists  one  other 
 synchronism  the  mention  of  which  has  been  purposely  post- 
 poned to  the  discussion  of  Amosis  and  the  Exodus,  and  of 
 the  Argive  generations  between  Inachus  and  Troy.  Against 
 the  name  of  Amenoph  II.,  the  sixth  king  of  Dyn.  XVIII, 
 there  is  an  entry  that  in  his  time  was  the  Flood  of  Deu- 
 calion (i^'  ov  6  sirl  AsvKaXi(ovo9  KaraKXvcrfios).^^  This  should 
 be  at  an  interval  of  four  of  the  17  longer  generations 
 from  Inachus  according  to  Thrasyllus,  or  in  the  seventh  of 
 the  19  or  20  short  generations  also  mentioned  by  Tatian 
 and  Clemens,  under  Triopas.  But  Africanus,  as  has  been 
 seen  above,  reckoned  the  Argive  generations  at  their 
 full  mythological  length.  It  appears,  then,  that  the  syn- 
 chronism of  Deucalion,  as  it  stands  in  his  Egyptian  lists, 
 seemingly  at  September  1,  B.C.  1659,  if  put  at  the  first  year 
 of  Amenoph  II.,  is  (b.c.  1 906  —  1659  =  )  247  years  below  his 
 date  for  Inachus,  Avhereas  the  first  four  Argive  generations 
 make  at  most  but  215  years  to  the  end  of  the  70  years  of 
 
750 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Argus,  while  to  the  end  of  the  sixth  generation  there  are 
 304  years.  So  that  he  could  not  put  it  under  Triopas. 
 But  if  44  years  were  added  to  his  Egyptian  lists  somewhere 
 below,  so  as  to  make  the  accession  of  Amosis  coincide,  as  he 
 implies  it  ought  to  do,  with  his  date  for  the  Exodus  at  B.C. 
 1797,  the  synchronism  for  "Deucalion  would  then  suit.  For 
 there  would  be  (b.c.  1906  —  1797  =  )  109  years  above,  and 
 94  more  below  the  Exodus  and  Amosis,  making  in  all  203 
 years  from  Inachus  to  the  accession  of  Amenoph  II.,  so  that 
 the  Flood  of  Deucalion,  if  put  in  his  first  year,  would  be  11 
 or  12  years  before  the  end  of  the  fourth  Argive  generation. 
 Africanus,  however,  was  not  likely  to  introduce  a  purely 
 Greek  synchronism  into  his  Egyptian  lists,  especially  when 
 they  did  not  exhibit  that  coincidence  of  the  accession  of 
 Amosis  with  his  own  date  for  the  Exodus  which  he  would 
 have  desired.  And  Syncellus  asserts  that  Africanus  in  fact 
 placed  the  Flood  of  Deucalion  in  the  70th  year  of  Ehud, 
 that  is,  at  or  after  September  1,  in  B.C.  (1797  —  232  =  )  1565, 
 which  is  341  years  below  his  date  for  the  foundation  of 
 Argos,  far  too  low  for  the  fourth  Argive  generation,  even  as 
 reckoned  by  himself  without  reduction,  but  not  low  enough 
 by  8  years  for  the  commencement  of  the  seventh  generation, 
 that  of  Triopas,  under  which  the  Flood  of  Deucalion  had 
 been  put  by  Tatian.  If  Africanus  had  followed  Ptolemy  in 
 making  Inachus  to  synchronise  with  Amosis  and  the  Exodus, 
 only  at  his  own  date  of  B.C.  1797,  the  70th  year  of  Ehud, 
 being  at  B.C.  1565,  or  232  years  later,  would  have  connected 
 the  Flood  of  Deucalion  with  the  18th  year  of  the  fifth 
 Argive  generation,  that  of  Crotopus. 
 
 As  it  stands  attached  to  the  reign  of  Amenoph  II.  the 
 synchronism  of  the  Flood  of  Deucalion  suits  well  enough 
 the  method  of  Ptolemy,  who,  we  know,  joined  the  accession 
 of  Inachus  with  that  of  Amosis  at  B.C.  1765,  and  gave  to 
 the  Argive  generations  only  33^  years  each.  So  that  to  the 
 end  of  the  fourth  generation  he  would  make  like  Thrasyllus 
 only  133  years.  And,  if  he  had  any  reason  for  putting  the 
 synchronism  somewhat  earlier,  so  long  as  the  sum  of  years 
 from  the  accession  of  Amosis  was  over  100,  it  would  still  be 
 attached  to  the  fourth  Argive  generation.     But  from  the 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 751 
 
 accession  of  Amosls  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Amenoph  II. 
 there  are  by  the  lists  (94  +  26  = )  120  years,  so  that  Ptolemy 
 might  very  well  put  the  Flood  of  Deucalion  in  that  reign. 
 Ptolemy  moreover  may  have  made  a  mixed  reckoning,  begin- 
 ning from  his  own  apparent  date  for  the  head  of  Dyn.  XVIII 
 in  B.C.  1765,  but  ending  for  such  as  knew  the  true  chro- 
 nology with  the  true  date  of  the  death  of  Amenoph  II.  or 
 B.C.  1628,  and  so  making  an  interval  of  137  years.  After 
 this  method  the  Flood  of  Deucalion  might  be  understoodto 
 synchronise  in  B.C.  (1765 -—133  =  )  1632  with  the  commence- 
 ment of  the  24th  year  of  Amenoph  II.  There  is  no  doubt 
 then  that  this  synchronism  in  Africanus's  lists  is  really  from 
 Ptolemy ;  and  its  omission  above  between  pages  444  and 
 445  in  printing  the  Greek  text  is  merely  an  oversight.  (In 
 the  English  translation  at  p.  96,  in  Chapter  I.  it  is  given.) 
 
 It  may  be  supposed  that  in  marking  this  Greek  syn- 
 chronism at  the  reign  of  a  king  under  whom  in  truth  the 
 flower  of  the  Egyptian  army  was  overwhelmed  in  the  Red 
 Sea,  Ptolemy  made  a  secret  allusion  to  this  event,  an  event 
 which  had  indeed  the  same  significancy  and  the  same  author 
 with  the  universal  Deluge  represented  in  Greek  mythology 
 by  the  Flood  of  Deucalion.  We  have  already  had  an  in- 
 stance, in  quoting  from  Diodorus  Siculus,  of  the  Flood  of 
 Deucalion  being  identified  by  his  Egyptian  informants  with 
 that  greatest  of  all  floods  which  preceded  the  origin  of  the 
 existing  race  of  mankind  "above  10,000  years"  before  the 
 time  of  Diodorus  or  of  Alexander.  And  certainly  the  over- 
 throw of  the  Red  Sea  was  a  renewal  of  the  same  type  much 
 more  vivid  and  awful  than  any  other  of  those  partial  deluges, 
 of  which  the  Egyptians  told  Solon  there  had  been  many, 
 (they  had  one  in  fact  every  year),  as  if  dissembling  the  full 
 emphasis  of  that  one  which  they  never  named.  And  unless 
 Ptolemy  had  had  some  secret  allusion,  he  either  would  not 
 have  named  the  Flood  of  Deucalion  at  all,  or  he  would  have 
 named  it  at  its  natural  place,  according  to  the  apparent 
 clironology  of  his  own  lists ;  and  so  its  date  of  B.C.  1765  — 
 133  =  1632,  would  have  been  133-94  =  39  years  below  the 
 accession  of  Amenoph  II.,  and  39  —  26  =  13  after  his  death. 
 It  would  not  even  have  attached  to  the  reign  of  his  successor 
 
752 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Thothmes  IV.  who  has  only  9  years ;  but  it  would  have 
 belonged  to  the  4th  year  of  Amenoph  III.  the  Memnon  of 
 the  Greeks,  whom  Manetho  has  also  blended  with  Amenoph 
 IL,  as  he  has  blended  the  Arabian-Cushites  or  Hierosoly- 
 mites  with  the  Hebrews  and  with  the  earlier  Shepherds. 
 
 As  Afrlcanus  does  not  give  it,  it  is  probable  that  the 
 synchronism  of  Danaus  was  omitted  by  Ptolemy.  And  it 
 has  been  seen  above  that  there  Avere  reasons  for  this  omis- 
 sion, if  he  knew  that  Manetho's  real  allusion  was  to  the 
 history  of  Seti  I.  or  his  son  Rameses  II.,  whose  true  date 
 also  suited  the  longer  reckoning  of  the  Argive  generations. 
 But  on  the  other  hand  the  first  years  of  Rameses  II.  were 
 plainly  too  near  to  Ptolemy's  date  for  Inachus,  even  though 
 it  were  set  consistently  and  solely  at  B.C.  1765.  For  so  the 
 interval  would  consist  of  only  eight  average  generations 
 instead  of  nine,  and  of  about  266  instead  of  300  years.  And 
 it  would  have  reduced  his  other  esoteric  reckoning,  by  which 
 Inachus  was  brought  down  perhaps  to  B.C.  (1765  —  94  =  ) 
 1671  or  1654,  to  a  plain  contradiction  and  absurdity.  But 
 Manetho's  mythical  synchronism  of  Danaus  and  Sethos- 
 Bameses  at  the  head  of  his  Dyn.  XIX  suited  the  last 
 mentioned  reckoning  of  Ptolemy  well  enough.  For  between 
 B.C.  1655,  the  true  date  for  the  accession  of  Amenoph  II. 
 identified  with  Amosis,  and  B.C.  (1417 — 8  =  )  1409,  8  years 
 below  the  head  of  Dyn.  XIX  at  the  supposed  date  for  the 
 flight  of  Danaus,  there  were  for  the  nine  Argive  reigns  246 
 years,  which  exceeded  the  exact  measure  of  10  average 
 reigns  of  24^  years  each  by  only  one  year,  and  left  8  full 
 reigns  within  one  year  for  the  following  interval  of  197  years 
 to  Troy.  Probably  therefore  he  intended  his  two  distinct 
 reckonings  for  the  Exodus  and  Inachus  to  be  connected  the 
 one  of  them  with  the  earlier  date  hinted,  the  other  with  the 
 later  date  asserted,  by  Manetho  for  Danaus ;  but  as  he  could 
 not  expressly  introduce  both  reckonings  he  abstained  from 
 introducing  either. 
 
 There  still  remains  a  portion  of  Africanus's  Egyptian 
 lists,  that  namely  from  the  conquest  of  Egypt  by  Cambyses 
 to  the  end  of  the  4th  year  of  Darius  Codomannus  and  of 
 Ptolemy's  Dyn.  XXXI,  which  demands  attention.  There 
 
JULIUS  AFRICANUS. 
 
 753 
 
 can  be  no  doubt  that  the  5th  of  Cambyses  began  from  Jan.  2 
 in  B.C.  525,  or,  as  Africanns  would  reckon,  from  Sc])t.  1  in 
 B.C.  526,  and  that  the  4th  of  Darius  ended  Nov.  15  in  B.C. 
 332,  or,  as  Africanus  would  reckon,  Aug.  31  in  B.  c.  332. 
 But  to  fill  this  space  of  194  Nabonassarian  years  the  lists 
 of  Africanus,  like  those  of  the  original  Manetho,  have  not 
 only  194  chronological  years  (viz.  124  of  Dyri.  XXVII  + 
 19  of  Dyn.  XXIX  +  38  of  Dyn.  XXX  +  13  of  Ptolemy's 
 Dyn.  XXXI),  but  they  have  also  those  8  unchronoloiiical 
 years  and  2  months  (consisting  of  6  months  of  Psimimeni- 
 tus,  of  4  months  added  to  Dyn.  XXYII,  of  the  6  years  of 
 Dyn.  XXYIII,  and  of  1  year  and  4  months  added  to  Dyn. 
 XXIX)  which  have  been  repeatedly  mentioned  above. 
 These  8  years,  if  reckoned  as  they  stand,  must  either  thrust 
 up  the  conquest  of  Cambyses  to  B.C.  533  (534  for  Africanus), 
 or  thrust  down  the  end  of  the  4th  year  of  Darius  Codo- 
 mannus  to  B.C.  324,  both  which  displacements  are  equally 
 impossible.  On  the  other  hand,  if  they  are  omitted  alto- 
 gether, they  cause  in  the  case  of  Manetho's  lists  a  deficiency 
 of  8  years  and  2  months  above  the  head  of  his  Dyu.  XXVL 
 But  in  the  case  of  Ptolemy's  lists  their  omission  is  neces- 
 sary. And  if  they  are  allowed  to  reckon,  as  if  they  had 
 been  placed  above  Dyn.  XXVI,  this  in  the  case  of  Manetho's 
 lists  suits  well  enough ;  but  in  the  case  of  Ptolemy's  it 
 causes  an  excess  of  8  years  and  2  months.  Manetho  there- 
 fore had  them  and  meant  them  (like  others  of  his  transposi- 
 tions) to  be  taken  account  of  and  allowed  for,  but  not  to  be 
 reckoned  as  they  stood.  Ptolemy  did  not  mean  them  either 
 to  be  reckoned  as  they  stood  or  to  be  taken  account  of,  and 
 perhaps  he  even  omitted  them  altogether,  since  their  frac- 
 tions are  anomalous  for  his  lists,  and  Africanus  certainly 
 has  some  admixture  of  variants  derived  from  the  original 
 Manetho.  Africanus  seems  not  to  have  reckoned  them  in 
 the  first  instance,  when  he  made  out  his  sacred  scheme 
 parallel  to  his  Egyptian  lists  between  Amosis  and  the 
 Exodus  above  and  Apries  and  Xebuchadnezzar  below.  But 
 afterwards,  when  by  blundering  about  the  times  of  the 
 Captivity  and  Cyrus  he  had  put  up  the  Exodus  44  years 
 higher  than  he  had  put  it  at  first,  he  probably  took  those  8 
 
 *  3  c 
 
754 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 years  of  Manetho  into  consideration,  and  allowed  them  to 
 tell  in  diminution  of  the  interval  between  his  apparent  date 
 for  Amosis  and  that  assigned  by  him  for  the  Exodus. 
 
 It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  late  learned  and  venerable 
 President  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford,  Dr.  Kouth,  in  his 
 
 Reliquiaj  Sacrae,"  was  led  by  his  respect  for  the  superior 
 antiquity  of  Eusebius  into  the  mistake  of  reprinting  his  text 
 of  the  Egyptian  dynasties  (especially  from  Dyn.  XYI  of 
 Eusebius  downwards)  as  that  of  Africanus  rather  than  the 
 totally  different  text  really  copied  from  Africanus  by  Syn- 
 cellus.  Some  future  re-editor  of  the  Reliquiae,  it  may  be 
 hoped,  will  restore  the  genuine  text  of  Africanus  to  its 
 proper  place,  and  so  remedy  a  considerable  blot  in  that 
 valuable  work,  one  which  is  the  more  sensible  as  the  true 
 lists  of  Africanus,  as  it  happens,  from  after  Dyn.  XV  down- 
 wards, are  now  omitted  in  it  altogether. 
 
755 
 
 CHAP.  VIL 
 
 EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 We  come  next  to  Eusebius  Pampliili,  who  was  Bishop  of 
 Caesarea,  the  Metropolitan  Church  of  Palestine,  in  the  time 
 of  Constantine  the  Great.  His  valuable  Chronicon  in  two 
 books,  as  reconstructed  in  great  measure  by  Julius  Scaliger, 
 "who  put  together  the  fragments  and  notices  belonging  to  it 
 from  various  authors,  was  published  at  Leyden  in  a.d. 
 1606,  and  at  Amsterdam  in  a.d.  1658.  And,  in  our  own 
 time,  the  same  work  has  been  recovered  nearly  entire  in  an 
 old  Armenian  version,  and  printed  with  a  Latin  translation 
 by  Zohrab  and  Cardinal  Mai  at  Milan  in  a.d.  1818. 
 
 Eusebius  in  his  first  book  gives  a  collection  of  extracts 
 from  various  authors,  intended,  as  he  says,  to  serve  as  ma- 
 terials whence  to  construct  his  own  Canon  or  parallel  chro- 
 nicle of  different  nations,  which  is  exhibited  in  his  second 
 book.  Thus  the  same  series,  as,  for  instance,  the  Egyptian 
 lists  copied  or  altered  from  Africanus,  may  occur  twice  over, 
 or  even  thrice;  once  in  the  first  book,  as  raw  material;  again 
 in  the  lists  of  kings,  selected  and  prepared  for  use,  which  are 
 prefixed  to  the  second  book ;  and  lastly  in  the  Canon  itself 
 worked  up  into  Eusebius's  own  system  year  by  year.  The 
 Egyptian  lists  of  Eusebius's  First  Book  have  been  tran- 
 scribed and  preserved  in  the  original  Greek  (as  well  as  the 
 lists  of  Africanus)  by  Syncellus ;  and  the  whole  of  the 
 Canon  or  Second  Book  (with  the  lists  of  kings  selected  for 
 it  prefixed)  has  been  translated  into  Latin  by  St.  Jerome, 
 with  some  incidental  variations  and  remarks  of  his  own  in 
 that  part  which  is  later  than  the  date  for  Troy. 
 
 3  c  2 
 
756 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Unlike  his  predecessor  Africanus,  from  whose  work,  as 
 from  those  of  other  writers,  he  transcribed  freely  with  or 
 without  acknowledgment,  and  who  had  unduly  swelled  the 
 sum  of  his  sacred  reckoning  between  the  Exodus  and  the 
 building  of  the  Temple  by  98  years,  Eusebius  unduly  cur- 
 tailed it  between  the  same  two  points  by  162  years.  His 
 reason  for  doing  so  he  has  given  at  length ;  and  it  is  briefly 
 this: — that  if  we- consider  the  genealogy  in  the  line  of 
 Judah  from  tlie  death  of  Naasson,  who  may  be  paralleled 
 with  Moses,  to  the  building  of  the  Temple,  we  find  only  5 
 generations,  as  it  seems,  viz.  those  of  Salmon,  Boaz,  Obed, 
 Jesse,  and  David,  to  a  space  of  701  years  according  to  Afri- 
 canus,  or  561  [really  601]  years  according  to  the  Book  of 
 J udges  and  St.  Paul.  "  Now  five  generations,"  Eusebius 
 Fays,  "  cannot  have  covered  700  years,  unless  each  father 
 w^ere  140  years  old  at  the  birth  of  his  son.  And  though  we 
 reckon  only  with  the  Apostle  561  [601]  years  between  the 
 Exodus  and  the  Temple,  even  so,"  he  says,  "each  of  the  five 
 fathers  from  Naasson  to  David  must  have  been  of  the  age  of 
 115  years  at  the  birth  of  his  son,  which  is  not  to  be  thought 
 of."  Here  he  erroneously  supposes  that  the  Apostle  sup- 
 pressed those  years  of  the  Elders  after  Joshua  and  of 
 Samuel  before  Saul  which  he  did  not  expressly  mention. 
 But,  in  truth,  Eusebius  does  not  thus  make  the  most  of  the 
 difiBculty,  even  though  he  names  the  sum  of  Africanus.  For 
 even  without  the  98  years  improperly  added  by  Africanus, 
 if  we  reckon  only  the  true  number,  viz.  (601 —84  =  )  517 
 years  between  the  capture  of  Jericho  and  the  birth  of  David, 
 and  suppose  further,  which  is  improbable,  that  it  was  as 
 many  as  30  years  after  the  capture  of  Jericho  that  "  Salmon 
 begat  Boaz  of  Bahab,"  there  are  still  (517  — 30  =  )  487  years 
 between  the  births  of  Boaz  and  David  ;  and  Boaz,  Obed,  and 
 Jesse  will  appear  to  have  been  each  of  them  159  years  old 
 at  the  birth  of  his  son.  With  Africanus's  reckoning  it  would 
 be  192  years.  Hov; ever  stated,  the  improbability,  Eusebius 
 thought,  was  so  enormous  that  it  was  necessary  to  remove 
 or  palliate  it  by  whatever  expedient  seemed  most  available. 
 Having  this  in  his  mind,  he  takes  his  stand  upon  a  passage 
 in  3  Kings  (ch.  vi.  ver.  1)  which,  as  he  says,  "  strongly  affirms 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 757 
 
 (vehementer  affirmant)  that  there  were  between  the  Exo- 
 dus and  the  building  of  the  Temple  440  years,  though  the 
 Hebrew  text  has  480,  and  the  Jewish  doctors  defend  their 
 reading  by  excluding  the  times  of  the  Servitudes.  So,  they 
 say,  there  are  exactly  480  years  from  the  Exodus  to  the 
 foundation  of  the  Temple."  Eusebius  therefore  adopts  from 
 them  this  idea ;  and  during  the  times  of  the  Judges  he  sup- 
 poses the  years  specified  for  each  Servitude  to  be  reckoned 
 over  again  and  included  in  the  years  of  the  Judge  who 
 follows.  Besides  the  111  years  of  the  Servitudes  he  omits  also 
 the  10  years  of  the  judgeship  of  Elon  (saying  that  they  were 
 not  in  the  LXX)  and  the  10  years  given  by  Josephus  to  the 
 Elders  who  outlived  Joshua.  So  that  the  total  of  his  sup- 
 pressions thus  far  would  be  131.  But  on  the  other  hand  he 
 adopts  from  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  Clemens  of  Alexandria, 
 and  Africanus,  their  addition  of  2  years  to  the  25  of  Joshua  ; 
 and  he  reckons  (which  was  natural  on  his  principle)  the  20 
 years  of  Samson,  which  were  really  included  in  the  40  of  the 
 Philistines.  So  the  total  sum  of  his  suppressions  between 
 the  death  of  Moses  and  the  death  of  Samson  is  reduced  to 
 109  years.  And  after  the  death  of  Samson,  instead  of  the  40 
 [  +  20  +  20]  +  1 2  -f  (20  +  20)  +  40  +  4  =  1 7  6  years  of  the  Scrip- 
 tures and  Josephus  harmonised,  or  the  (100  +  40  +  20  + 
 10  +  20+20  +  40  +  4  =  )  254  of  Africanus,  he  gives  only  40 
 of  Eli,  40  of  Samuel  and  Saul  together,  40  of  David,  and  4 
 of  Solomon,  making  in  all  124  years.  And  the  whole  series 
 from  the  Exodus  to  the  foundation  of  the  Temple,  as  enume- 
 rated in  his  First  Book,  being  composed  of  the  following 
 sums,  40  +  27+40  +  80  +  40  +  40  +  3  +  22  +  23  {not  22)  of 
 Tola  +  6  +  7  of  Esebon  +  8  of  Labdon  +  20  of  Samson  +40 
 +  40  +  40  +  4,  makes  just  480  years.  Owing,  however,  to  a 
 blunder  in  dropping  the  23rd  year  of  Tola,  which  seems  to 
 have  been  wanting  in  some  of  the  Greek  copies  of  the  Book 
 of  Judges  (for  Theophilus  also  had  omitted  it),  he  makes 
 out  in  his  Canon  only  479  years  to  the  end  of  the  4th  of 
 Solomon,  though  he  still  speaks  of  480.  It  is  so  common  a 
 thing  w^ith  him  to  reckon  variously  and  uncertainly  in  ex- 
 cluding or  including  the  extreme  points  of  his  sums,  that 
 479  jcavs/uU  from  the  last  day  of  his  A.  abr.  505,  preced- 
 
 3  c  3 
 
758 
 
 EGYrTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 ing  the  Exodus  by  some  months,  to  the  first  day  of  his  5th 
 year  of  Solomon  might  be  called  by  him  480  years.  We, 
 however,  taking  his  scheme  not  as  it  seems  to  have  been 
 designed,  and  as  it  ought  to  have  been  made  out,  but  as  it  is 
 actually  made  out,  must  reckon  uniformly  for  him  479  years 
 only  between  the  Exodus  and  the  foundation  of  the  Temple, 
 or  rather  the  end  of  the  4th  year  of  Solomon  in  which  it  was 
 founded.  And  so  Eusebius  is  within  these  two  points  short  of 
 the  true  sum  of  the  Scriptures  and  Josephus,  viz.  641,  by 
 (641—479  =  )  162  years,  and  short  of  the  sum  of  Africanus, 
 viz.  741,  by  (741  -479  =  )  262  years.  «  By  this  method," 
 he  observes,  "  having  made  only  436  years  between  the 
 deaths  of  Moses  and  David ;  "  (this  is  in  lib.  i.,  but  in  the 
 Canon  he  has  only  435,  and  he  specifies  that  sum  indirectly, 
 saying  940  years,"  that  is  505+435,  "from  the  birth  of 
 Abraham  to  the  death  of  Saul  ")  "  we  may  exhibit  the  five 
 ancestors  of  Solomon  as  having  been  one  with  another  of  the 
 age  of  85  years  only  (5  x85  =  425)  instead  of  115  at  the 
 birth  of  their  sons."  But  here  again  he  makes  the  least  of 
 the  difficulty.  For  even  thus  he  has  himself  between  the 
 death  of  Naasson  and  Moses  or  the  capture  of  Jericho  and 
 the  birth  of  David  356  years ;  and  between  the  birth  of 
 Boaz  (even  if  Bahab  bare  him  30  years  after  the  capture  of 
 Jericho)  and  the  birth  of  David  326  years.  So  that  after 
 all  he  must  allow  Boaz,  Obed,  and  Jesse  to  be  each  of  the 
 age  of  115  years  at  the  birth  of  his  son  ;  and  the  very  same 
 improbability  which  he  could  not  think  of  accepting  from  the 
 Book  of  Judges  and  St.  Paul  is  admitted  by  himself,  even 
 in  the  very  act  of  setting  them  aside,  by  his  ov/n  blundering 
 inattention.  Even  as  stated  by  himself  the  result  would  be 
 still  so  far  out  of  the  common  course  of  things  as  scarcely  to 
 repay  the  temerity  used  to  obtain  it.  This  operation,  how- 
 ever, is  Eusebius's  main  peculiarity;  and  by  this  he  is  the 
 father  of  all  the  rationalists,  and  of  all  the  varieties  of  what 
 may  be  called  in  general  terms  the  short  chronology  below 
 Abraham,  that  of  Usher  included,  which  is  still  generally  re- 
 ceived in  England.  By  his  off-handed  presumption  in  this 
 question  he  has  done  perhaps  more  to  confuse  and  perplex 
 history  than  any  other  writer  who  can  be  named.     Still,  to 
 
EUSEBIUS  rAMPIIILI. 
 
 759 
 
 be  just,  one  must  confess  that  herein  he  is  better  than  his 
 later  followers  and  imitators,  that  with  the  mischief  he  gives 
 the  antidote,  placing  the  longer  and  truer  reckoning,  though 
 with  some  inaccuracy,  side  by  side  with  his  own,  sometimes 
 even  inconsistently  following  it,  and  even  in  defending  his 
 own  theory  confessing  that  the  Book  of  Judges  and  St.  Paul 
 make  450  years  of  Judges  to  Samuel  the  Prophet,  and  are 
 adverse  both  to  himself  and  to  that  text  of  3  Kings  vi.  1,  on 
 which  he  insists.  This  being  so,  it  needs  no  great  wisdom 
 to  reflect  that  St.  Paul,  having  been  one  of  the  most  learned 
 of  the  school  of  the  Pharisees  in  the  first  century,  and 
 writing  besides  as  an  inspired  Apostle,  is  a  more  competent 
 commentator  on  any  apparent  difficulty  or  discrepancy 
 between  two  or  more  texts  of  the  Scriptures  than  later 
 Jewish  Kabbis,  who  might  have  reasons  of  their  own  for  cur- 
 tailing the  time  past,  or  than  late  and  certainly  uninspired 
 Christian  critics.  Supposing  it  to  be  granted  that  the  number 
 of  440  or  480  years  in  3  Kings  is  inconsistent  with  the  plain 
 and  natural  sense  of  the  Book  of  J udges,  St.  Paul,  writing 
 when  this  discrepancy  already  existed,  shows  that  the  earlier 
 Book  of  Judges  and  not  that  single  text  of  the  later  Book 
 of  Kings  is  to  be  followed.  And  it  is  not  difficult,  with  a 
 little  attention,  to  discover  the  true  origin  and  meaning  of  the 
 erroneous  reckoning  of  480  years.  For  the  writer  or  giosser 
 of  the  text  in  that  place  of  the  3rd  Book  of  Kings,  having 
 before  his  mind  the  Book  of  Judges  only,  found  there  just 
 390  years,  besides  5^  years  or  6  years  current  of  the  wars 
 of  Joshua ;  and  to  these  years,  which  alone  were  expressly 
 named,  he  added  84  more  of  the  first  three  Kings,  to  the  end 
 of  the  4th  year  of  Solomon.  Hence  he  might  have  said  with 
 accuracy  that  the  years  of  the  Judges  after  the  Exodus 
 numbered  in  the  Book  of  Judges  being  396,  and  those  of 
 the  Kings  to  the  end  of  the  4th  year  of  Solomon  being  84, 
 there  were  of  Judges  and  Kings  in  all  480  years.  A 
 parallel  instance  of  inaccuracy  in  reckoning  from  the  com- 
 mencement of  the  Judges  as  if  from  the  Exodus,  though 
 without  any  other  omissions  below,  is  afforded  by  S,  Theo- 
 philus,  who  says  in  one  place  from  Tyrian  sources  "  that 
 there  were  "  from  the  Exodus  to  the  building  of  the  Temple 
 
 3  c  4 
 
760 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 566  years."  (Ad  Autolyc.  iii.  22.)  And  after  dropping 
 the  40  of  Moses,  tlie  25  of  Joshua,  and  the  10  of  the  Elders, 
 there  remain  in  truth  390  +  40  +  20  +  32  +  40+40  +  4, 
 amounting  exactly  to  566  years. 
 
 But  when  once  a  natural  orio;in  for  the  later  of  two  con- 
 tradictory  statements  or  calculations  is  discovered,  and  is 
 felt  to  account  sufficiently  for  its  existence,  all  the  difficulty 
 of  an  apparent  conflict  between  two  equally  authoritative 
 testimonies  is  done  away,  even  though  it  be  not  added  that 
 a  third  equally  authoritative  text  has  been  written  afterwards 
 by  an  inspired  commentator,  interpreting  or  correcting  that 
 which  needed  interpretation  or  correction  in  the  older  con- 
 flicting texts.  "V^ether  in  this  case  the  error  lies  in  a  very 
 ancient  corruption  of  the  text  by  an  uninspired  gloss,  or  the 
 text  was  even  from  the  first  as  it  now  stands,  —  and,  if  so, 
 how  an  incidental  human  error  could  be  permitted  to  find 
 place  in  an  inspired  book  so  as  to  need  the  subsequent 
 explanation  and  correction  of  another  inspired  writer, — is  a 
 question  which  need  not  here  be  examined.  It  is  enough 
 that  St.  Paul,  being,  to  say  the  least,  a  competent  critic,  and 
 having  perfect  knowledge  both  of  tlie  apparent  number  of 
 generations  between  Naasson  and  David,  and  also  of  the 
 text  of  chapter  vi.  of  the  Third  Book  of  Kings,  reckons 
 450  years  of  the  Judges  "  between  Joshua  and  the  Elders 
 {who  were  not  called  Judges)  and  "  Samuel  the  Prophet, " 
 and  not  288  only  like  Eusebius.  And  when  once  these  450 
 years  are  admitted,  Eusebius  himself  would  no  longer  oppose 
 the  readmission  of  those  other  years  of  the  Elders  after 
 Joshua,  and  of  Samuel's  minority,  and  government,  which  he 
 suppresses  only  for  the  sake  of  obtaining  the  reduced  sum 
 of  480  years  between  the  Exodus  and  the  foundation  of  the 
 Temple,  and  which  he  himself  reckons,  however  incon- 
 sistently, in  other  parts  of  his  writings  when  he  is  not  going 
 upon  the  same  theory. 
 
 This  most  important  peculiarity  of  Eusebius  having  been 
 explained,  it  follows  to  mention  one  or  two  points  of  detail 
 in  which  his  inconsistency  or  want  of  precision,  if  unnoticed, 
 mij^ht  lead  to  confusion.  Besides  the  remarkable  incon- 
 sistency  mentioned  above  of  professing  to  make  out  480 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMFHILI. 
 
 761 
 
 years  from  the  Exodus  to  the  Temple  and  making  out  only 
 479,  he  in  like  manner,  after  promising  to  make  out  70  years 
 between  the  11th  year  complete  of  Zedckiah  (where  he  im- 
 properly begins  the  Captivity)  and  the  2nd  of  Darius 
 Hystnspes,  meaning  no  doubt  originally  the  2nd  comjjlete, 
 ends  to  all  appearance  the  70  years  two  years  earlier,  the 
 70th  being  given  to  the  Magi  who  intervened  between 
 Cambyses  and  Darius.  The  source  of  this  incoherency  will 
 be  examined  below ;  but  for  the  present  it  is  enough  to  state 
 that  we  shall  deal  with  the  year  nominally  given  to  the 
 Magi  as  if  it  were  the  first  year  of  Darius,  which  chrono- 
 logically it  really  is.  And  so  the  Captivity  ending  for  Eu- 
 sebius  in  the  spring  of  the  year  following  will  end  really  for 
 him,  thoiiyJi  not  apparently,  in  the  2nd  year  of  Darius ;  and 
 his  only  fault,  besides  that  of  misnaming  the  preceding  year, 
 w^ill  be  that  of  reckoning  to  the  beginning  instead  of  the 
 end  of  the  year  in  the  course  of  which  the  rebuilding  of  the 
 Temple  was  commenced.  An  1  this  can  scarcely  be  called  a 
 fault,  seeing  that  the  idea  itself  in  respect  of  which  it  is  a 
 sort  of  fault  or  failure,  viz.  that  of  ending  the  70  years  of 
 Captivity  with  the  2nd  year  of  Darius,  is  itself  erroneous. 
 It  may  here  be  observed,  that  Eusebius  on  more  occasions 
 than  one  excludes,  instead  of  including,  the  year  within  the 
 course  of  which  any  event  from  which  he  may  be  reckoning 
 took  place,  as  if  he  were  ignorant  or  neglectful  of  that  rule 
 by  which  the  reigns  and  years  of  kings  were  antedated  so  as 
 to  include  any  odd  months  of  the  reign  preceding.  Thus,  if  the 
 Egyptian  conquest  of  Cambyses  took  place  in  his  5th  Per- 
 sian year,  the  whole  of  that  year,  including  as  it  did  some 
 odd  months  of  Amasis  or  Psammenitus,  ought  to  be 
 reckoned  to  his  Egyptian  reign.  But  Eusebius,  instead  of 
 antedating  by  some  6  months  the  accession  of  Cambyses, 
 fills  up  the  odd  months  left  by  Dyn.  XXVI  with  the  first 
 six  months  of  the  actual  reign  of  Cambyses,  and  so  makes 
 his  5th  Persian  year  to  be  the  42nd  (which  w^ith  him  is  the 
 last)  of  Amasis.  Again,  he  makes  Ochus  to  conquer  Egypt 
 in  his  20th,  and  to  reign  over  it  6  years  exclusive  of  the 
 year  assigned  for  the  conquest,  since  his  whole  reign  had  26 
 years.    In  like  manner,  when  the  70  years  of  the  Captivity 
 
762 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CimONICLES. 
 
 began  in  the  11th  of  Zeclekiah,  msteacl  of  making  this  to  be 
 the  1st  year  of  the  70,  he  fills  it  up,  and  gives  it  sepa- 
 rately as  a  perfect  year  to  the  reign  of  Zeclekiah. 
 
 Again,  in  speaking  of  the  First  Olympiad,  he  is,  inten- 
 tionally perhaps,  loose  and  ambiguous  in  his  expressions, 
 though  it  is  not  necessary  to  charge  him,  as  Scaliger  has 
 done,  with  falsifying  the  words  which  he  quotes  from 
 Africanus,  and  substituting  the  name  of  Joatham  for  that  of 
 Ahaz.  Africanus,  as  it  seems,  exhibited  the  last  three  years 
 of  Joatham  and  the  first  year  of  Ahaz,  beginning  for  him 
 from  Sept.  1,  in  B.C.  777,  776,  775,  and  774  respectively,  as 
 parallel  with  the  four  years  of  the  first  Olympiad,  or,  in 
 strictness,  as  including  the  heginnings  of  its  four  years. 
 Hence  there  is  no  real  inconsistency  in  Africanus's  speaking 
 in  one  place  of  his  having  made  the  reign  of  "  Joatham,"  in 
 another  of  his  having  made  that  of  "  Ahaz,"  to  coincide  with 
 "  the  first  Olympiad."  Eusebius,  who  had  not  like  Afri- 
 canus 10  years  too  many  for  the  kings  between  Solomon  and 
 Hezekiah,  as  if  to  make  amends  gave  10  too  many  below  to 
 Anion,  and  reckoned  5  other  un chronological  years  below  to 
 the  kings  or  to  the  Captivity,  viz.  a  12th  year  to  Jehoiakim, 
 and  32  years  instead  of  28,  being  4  too  many,  between  the 
 end  of  the  tenth  year  of  Zedekiah  and  the  Persian  accession 
 of  Cyrus.  And  so  below  B.C.  777,  he  had  in  all  15  unchro- 
 nological  years,  being  fewer  by  17  than  those  of  Africanus; 
 for  Africanus  had  below  the  same  point  32  unchronological 
 years.  Consequently  Eusebius's  Hebrew  year  to  begin 
 from  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  777  was  the  49th  of  Uzziah,  distant  by 
 (32  —  15  =  )  17  years  from  the  14th  of  Joatham  which  the 
 32  unhistorical  years  of  Africanus  had  thrust  up  for  him  to 
 the  same  date.  So  the  last  4  years  of  Uzziah,  beginning 
 for  Eusebius  from  Sept.  1,  in  B.C.  777,  776,  775  and  774 
 respectively,  as  they  stand  in  his  Canon,  were  really  those 
 which  contained  the  commencements  of  the  4  Olympic  years 
 beginning  in  July  B.C.  776,  775,  774  and  773  ;  and  he 
 paralleled  them  therefore  with  the  same  four  Olympic  years. 
 Still,  as  he  often  speaks  without  precision  where  beginnings 
 and  endings  are  concerned,  he  is  not  absolutely  irreconcil- 
 able with  himself  when  he  claims  to  agree  in  some  sense 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 763 
 
 witli  Africanus  who  put  Olymp.  1  a,  that  is  part  of  Olymp. 
 1  a\  under  Joathain,  "  inasmuch  as  he  too  had  made  Olymp. 
 1  a  to  coincide  in  part  with  or  run  into  the  reign  of  J oatham." 
 For  though  his  year  paralleled  in  the  Canon  with  Olymp.  1 
 h'  as  containing  its  beginning  is  not  the  1st  of  Joatham  but 
 the  52nd  of  Uzziah,  still,  as  the  Eusebian  year  covered  only 
 the  first  2  months  of  the  Olympic  year  with  which  it  was 
 paralleled,  and  the  10  remaining  months,  being  by  far  the 
 greater  part  of  the  actual  Olympic  year,  belonged  to  the 
 Eusebian  year  next  following,  he  might  allude  to  this  when 
 he  said  that  he  also  had  made  the  first  Olympiad  to  run 
 into  the  reign  of  Joatham.  He  says,  indeed,  also  that  he 
 made  the  50th  of  Uzziah  to  coincide  with  the  1st  Olympiad, 
 meaning  apparently  with  its  first  year ;  and  if  only  this 
 coincidence  were  exhibited  in  the  Canon,  there  would  be 
 no  inconsistency  between  his  different  assertions  respecting 
 Uzziah  and  Joatham,  any  more  than  between  those  of  Afri- 
 canus respecting  Joatham  and  Ahaz.  But  the  50th  of 
 Uzziah  could  not  be  thrust  up  so  as  to  begin  with  Sept.  1  in 
 B.C.  777  without  the  insertion  of  an  additional  year  some- 
 where below,  and  a  corresponding  suppression  of  one  year 
 somewhere  above.  And  as  the  Canon  stands  at  present  it  is 
 only  the  second  year  of  Olymp.  1  with  which  the  fiftieth  of 
 Uzziah  can  be  paralleled,  though  it  actually  includes  the  last 
 10  months  of  the  first.  So  the  coincidences  seemingly 
 asserted  for  the  50th  year  of  Uzziah  and  for  the  1  st  year  of 
 Joatham  with  the  1st  and  4th  years  of  Olymp.  1  must  both 
 alike  be  understood  of  the  remainder,  that  is,  of  the  last 
 10  months  of  the  actual  not  of  the  Eusebian  Olympic  year. 
 In  any  case  it  was  but  a  vague  sort  of  agreement  with 
 Africanus  to  which  he  could  pretend,  if  Africanus  had  made 
 the  1st  year  of  Olymp.  1  to  coincide  with  the  14th,  the  last 
 but  two,  of  Joatham,  while  he  himself  exhibited  the  4th 
 year  of  the  same  Olympiad  in  contact  with  the  1st  of  Joa- 
 tham. It  was  much  like  that  agreement  which  Africanus 
 had  claimed  with  Polemo,  since  Polemo  had  put  the  Exodus 
 imder  Apis,  while  Africanus  himself  had  put  it  in  the  last 
 year  of  Phoroneus,  whereas  in  truth  there  was  still  a  differ- 
 ence between  them  of  nearly  the  whole  reign  of  Apis. 
 
764 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Lastly,  there  is  in  the  present  text  of  the  Egyptian 
 column  of  the  Canon,  between  the  last  year  of  Dyn.  XXVI 
 and  the  end  of  Dyn.  XXX  and  of  Dyn.  XXXI,  a  compli- 
 cation of  dislocations  and  corruptions,  caused  probably  in 
 great  part  by  copyists,  who  did  not  understand  the  position 
 given  by  Eusebius,  and  given  very  rightly,  to  the  6  years  of 
 Dyn.  XXYIII  as  parallel  and  concurrent  to  the  last  Egyp- 
 tian years  of  Darius  Nothus.  Whether  it  were  that  Euse- 
 bius himself  had  not  made  those  6  years  of  Amyrtaeus  to  end 
 exactly  with  the  reign  of  Nothus,  but  a  year  or  two  earlier 
 (in  which  there  would  have  been  no  fault),  they  are  now 
 made  to  begin  concurrently  with  his  13th  ;  and  they  have 
 drawn  up,  as  if  necessarily  cohering  to  them,  the  commence- 
 ments of  Dynasties  XXIX  and  XXX,  all  the  years  of 
 which  are  wanted  below  the  death  of  Nothus.  Indeed  all 
 the  years  are  not  enough.  For  Eusebius  himself  had  below 
 the  death  of  Nothus  3  years  really  belonging  to  Dyn. 
 XXyil  still  to  account  for;  and  1  out  of  these  3  years 
 was  unprovided  for  by  the  lists  of  Manetho  and  Africanus. 
 The  reckoning  therefore  for  the  last  portion  of  the  Egyptian 
 lists  in  that  epitome  of  the  Canon  which  shall  be  given 
 below  will  be  corrected  and  restored  by  a  comparison  of  the 
 list  of  the  same  dynasties  in  Book  I.  with  St.  Jerome's 
 Latin  version  of  the  Canon,  which  gives  the  later  Egyptian 
 reigns  with  much  less  corruption  and  curtailment  than  the 
 Armenian  version.  The  sum  total  too  of  the  years  to  be 
 exhibited  being  fixed  from  the  Old  Chronicle,  and  the  dates 
 for  the  end  of  Dyn.  XXX  and  Dyn.  XXXI  being  also  fixed 
 and  known,  there  is  less  difficulty.  And  thus  much  having 
 been  premised,  we  may  now  proceed  to  exhibit  Eusebius's 
 scheme  of  sacred  and  profiine  chronology  in  detail. 
 
 He  begins,  like  Africanus,  from  the  Creation,  and  from 
 the  Autumn,  Sept.  1,  according  to  Ideler,  though  Clinton 
 supposes  him  to  follow  the  older  Syrian  reckoning  which 
 began  the  fixed  year  from  Oct.  1 ;  and  he  makes  2242  years 
 to  the  end  of  the  year  of  the  Flood,  like  SS.  Theophilus 
 and  Hippolytus.  So  at  the  Flood  he  already  has  20  years 
 fewer  than  Africanus.  And  whereas  by  that  text  of  the  LXX 
 which  gives  to  Methuselah  188  or  187  years  to  the  birth 
 
EUSEBIUS  TAMPHILI. 
 
 7G5 
 
 of  Lamech,  and  a  survival  of  782  years,  making  In  all  969 
 or  970  years  to  his  death,  while  the  years  of  Lamech  to  the 
 birth  of  Noah  are  162,  and  the  years  of  Noah  to  the  Flood 
 are  599  complete,  it  follows  that  Methuselah  outlives  the 
 Flood  by  20  years,  other  copies  (of  which  the  Alexandrine 
 MS.  is  one)  giving  to  Methuselah  167  years  only  to  the  birth 
 of  Lamech,  and  802  of  survival,  caused  no  such  inconsis- 
 tency. But  Euseblus,  instead  of  preferring  like  Africanus 
 this  better  text,  adopted  indeed  the  reading  of  167  for  the 
 first  division  of  the  life  of  Methuselah,  but  joined  with  It  a 
 survival  of  only  782  years,  so  making  the  sum  of  years  to 
 the  Flood  to  be  2242,  and  making  Methuselah  to  die,  as  he 
 dies  also  according  to  Africanus,  6  years  before  the  Flood. 
 But  this  contrivance,  with  whomsoever  it  originated,  besides 
 that  it  is  a  mere  contrivance,  involves  also  the  awkwardness 
 of  contradicting  the  received  tradition  that  Methuselah  lived 
 the  longest  life  of  all  the  Patriarchs ;  for  it  makes  him  to 
 live  only  949  Instead  of  969  years,  while  Jared  lived  962 
 years. 
 
 After  his  first  2242  Euseblus  makes  942  years  complete 
 to  Aug.  31,  the  end  of  his  A.M.  3184,  before  the  birth  of 
 Abraham.  And  after  the  (2242  +  942  =  )  3184  years  com- 
 plete, he  reckons  2015  years  of  Abraham  to  Aug.  31  in  B.C. 
 1,  the  2015th  year  including  the  Nativity.  He  reckons  them 
 thus:  First,  (75+430  =  )  505  years  to  the  Exodus,  which 
 so  is  after  the  completion  of  his  a.m.  3689.  Then  40  years 
 of  Moses  ;  and  27  years  reckoned  uniformly  to  Joshua,  so 
 that  2  of  these  compensate  for  2  years  of  the  10  of  the 
 Elders  after  Joshua,  as  if  he  had  omitted  only  8.  These 
 bring  him  to  the  end  of  his  A.M.  3756,  A.  abr.  572.  Then, 
 as  has  been  already  explained,  he  has  289  years  in  his  First 
 Book,  but  in  his  Second  288  years  only,  for  the  Judges, 
 ending  with  his  a.m.  4044,  a.  abr.  860,  since  he  suppresses 
 without  compensation  91  years  out  of  the  111  of  the  Servi- 
 tudes, or  101  If  one  adds  the  10  of  Elon.  He  drops  also  in 
 his  Canon  the  23rd  year  of  Tola,  and  suppresses  the  20  years 
 of  Samuel's  minority,  and  all  the  32  during  which  he  judged 
 alone,  making  a  total  sum  of  162  years  suppressed.  Then 
 he  gives  40  for  EH,  20  for  Samuel  together  witli  Saul,  and 
 
466 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 20  more  for  Saul  alone,  40  of  David,  and  4  to  the  end  of  the 
 4th  of  Solomon,  making  479  years  complete  from  Sept.  1 
 preceding  the  Exodus,  the  commencement  of  his  a.m.  (2242 
 +  942  +  505  =  )  3690  to  Aug.  31,  the  end  of  his  a.m.  4168, 
 A.  ABR.  (505  +  479  =  )  984,  in  B.C.  1032,  a  few  months 
 after  the  foundation  of  the  Temple;  or  equally  making  479 
 years  from  the  Exodus  itself  at  the  time  of  the  Passover,  in 
 his  A.  ABR.  506,  to  the  same  time  of  the  Passover  in  his 
 A.  ABR.  985  in  the  5th  of  Solomon.  From  the  end  of  his 
 A.  ABR.  984  he  makes  "  36  years  "  to  the  death  of  Solomon 
 at  the  end  of  a.m.  2204,  A.  abr.  1020,  in  B.C.  996,  being 
 (15  +  3  =  )  18  years  above  the  true  date;  and  403  [405]  full 
 years  besides  of  kings  to  the  end  of  the  11th  of  Zedekiah 
 after  the  burning  of  the  Temple,  which  is  to  the  end  of  his 
 A.M.  4610,  A.  ABR.  1425,  in  B.C.  591.  So  he  has  here  of 
 kings  after  Solomon  4  over  the  401  years  of  Africanus  (for 
 Africanus  too  gave  10  years  too  many  to  the  kings  after  Solo- 
 mon), 12  over  the  393  made  by  Josephus  to  the  1st  year  of 
 the  Captivity,  and  15  over  the  truth.  This  excess  is  caused 
 by  his  giving  to  Amon  in  his  Canon  12  instead  of  2  years, 
 and  to  Jehoiakim  12  instead  of  11  years,  besides  adding 
 up  the  3  imperfect  years  of  Jehoshaphat,  Jehoram,  and 
 Ahaz,  as  if  they  were  complete  and  distinct  from  the  first 
 years  of  their  respective  successors,  and  lastly  reckoning  the 
 11th  of  Zedekiah  as  a  full  year  preceding  the  1st  year  of 
 the  Captivity.  This  same  excess  of  15  years  on  the  kings 
 reduces  the  sum  of  his  hitherto  uncompensated  suppressions 
 above  between  the  Exodus  and  his  beginning  of  the  Capti- 
 vity from  162  to  147  years.  And  the  end  of  the  11th  year 
 of  Zedekiah  appears  in  his  Canon  at  the  end  of  his  A.  abr. 
 1425,  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  591,  instead  of  Aug.  31,  in  B.C.  587, 
 that  is,  4  years  above  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  587,  which  would 
 have  been  in  terms  of  his  reckoning  the  true  date.  It  is  in 
 consequence  of  the  error  of  substituting  the  beginning  of  the 
 2nd  or  the  end  of  the  1st  year  of  Darius  for  the  end  of  his 
 4th,  as  the  end  of  the  Captivity,  and  in  order  to  suit  this 
 error,  that  he  makes  the  interval  between  the  end  of  the 
 11th  year  of  Zedekiah  and  the  Persian  accession  of  Cyrus  to 
 consist  of  31  instead  of  27  years;  and  makes  52  yeajrs  from 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 767 
 
 the  end  of  the  1 1th  of  Zedekiah  instead  of  49  from  the  end 
 of  his  10th  to  the  capture  of  Babylon.  So  his  total  de- 
 ficiency is  here  again  reduced,  and  now  for  the  last  time, 
 from  147  to  143  years.  From  the  2nd  of  Darius,  or  rather 
 from  the  end  of  his  first,  being  that  of  his  a.m.  4679,  A.  abr. 
 1495,  ending  according  to  him  at  Aug.  31,  in  B.C.  (591—70 
 =  )  521,  he  makes  520  years  to  the  end  of  the  year  includ- 
 ing the  Nativity,  viz.  to  Aug.  31,  in  B.C.  1  of  the  vulgar 
 era,  thus:  first  191  years  more  of  the  Persians  to  the  end  of 
 his  A.M.  4870,  A.  ABR.  1686  (and  so,  with  the  30  of  Cyrus 
 +  8  of  Cambyses  +  1  of  Darius  preceding,  he  had  in  all  230 
 years  of  Persians  like  Africanus) ;  then  302  of  Macedonians 
 to  the  death  of  Cleopatra  (viz.  6  of  Alexander  +  150  to  the 
 end  of  the  1st  year  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  +  146  =  302), 
 that  is,  to  the  end  of  A.M.  5172,  a.  abr.  1988,  Aug.  31  in  B.  c. 
 28,  with  27  more  to  Aug.  31,  following  the  Nativity,  viz. 
 to  Aug.  31,  in  B.C.  1,  to  the  end  of  a.m.  5199  and  A.  abr. 
 2015.  Thence  14  to  the  beginning  of  the  1st  of  Tibe- 
 rius, to  Aug.  31  ending  his  a.m.  5213,  a.  abr.  2029,  in  a.  d. 
 14 ;  and  14  of  Tiberius  to  the  beginning  of  his  15th  year, 
 that  is,  to  Aug.  31  ending  a.m.  5227  and  a.  abr.  2043; 
 then  1  year  of  the  preaching  of  the  Baptist,  including  at  its 
 end  seemingly  the  Baptism  of  Christ,  to  the  end  of  a.m.  5226 
 and  A.  ABR.  2044,  Aug.  31,  a.d.  29  ;  then  3  years,  being  the 
 16th,  17th,  and  18th  of  Tiberius,  of  Christ's  teaching;  and 
 in  the  4th,  the  19th  of  Tiberius,  that  is,  in  his  a.m.  5232, 
 A.  ABR.  2048,  in  a.d.  33,  he  put  the  Crucifixion  and  the  As- 
 cension :  thence  37 J  years  to  the  burning  of  the  Temple  in 
 the  2nd  year  of  Vespasian,  that  is,  to  the  end  of  his  a.m.  5269, 
 A.  ABR.  2085,  where  he  is  again  reckoning  only  to  the  end 
 of  his  1st  year  of  Vespasian  exclusively  of  the  2nd,  but  still 
 indicates  the  true  date,  viz.  the  autumn  of  a.d.  70.  That 
 he  reckons  the  20th  of  Constantine  with  which  he  ends,  and 
 which  should  really  have  been  his  a.m.  5524,  A.  abr.  2340, 
 ending  Aug.  31,  in  A.D.  325,  to  be  a.m.  5529,  a. abr.  2345, 
 as  if  it  ended  in  a.d.  330,  is  chiefly  owing  to  this,  that  be- 
 tween the  13th  of  Commodus,  which  both  he  and  St.  Jerome 
 give  as  A.  abr.  2208,  and  the  1st  of  Probus,  which  he  gives 
 asA .  abr.  2295,  he  reckons  3  years  too  many.     St.  Jerome 
 
7G8 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 rightly  omits  these,  and  gives  the  1st  of  Probus  as  A.  abr. 
 2292.  And,  again,  Eusebius  by  giving  a  7th  year  to  Probus 
 has  a  fourth  interpolated  year  which  is  also  rightly  omitted, 
 by  St.  Jerome ;  and  the  1st  of  Caius,  which  is  for  Eusebius 
 a.  abr.  2302,  is  for  him  2298.  The  20th  of  Constantine, 
 however,  St.  Jerome  makes  to  be  a.  abr.  2342,  so  that  he 
 ends  with  one  year  more  than  Eusebius,  apparently  indeed 
 with  3  years  less,  but,  when  Eusebius's  excess  of  4  years  is 
 deducted,  with  one  year  more,  as  if  in  a.d.  327. 
 
 In  that  part  of  his  Canon  which  is  before  Christ  it  is  to 
 be  noticed  that  he  ends  the  1st  year  of  Darius  Hystaspes  at 
 Aug.  31,  in  B.C.  521,  too  high  by  1  year  of  our  reckoning, 
 since  it  really  ended  Jan.  1,  in  B.C.  520.  But  for  the  4th 
 of  Darius  his  numeration  of  the  year  b.  c.  agrees  with  our 
 own,  and  with  the  truth,  as  he  makes  it  to  end  Aug.  31  in 
 B.C.  518,  and  it  really  did  end  on  Dec.  31  in  that  year.  So 
 below  this  date  his  neglect  of  the  difference  between  Hebrew 
 or  natural  and  Xabonassarian  years,  down  to  the  introduc- 
 tion of  the  fixed  Julian  year,  is  of  no  great  importance.  But 
 above  it  must  be  taken  into  account  in  reducing  his  dates 
 to  terms  of  the  anticipated  Julian  year  B.  c.  And  instead  of 
 Sept.  1,  B.C.  521  +  1+8  +  9  +  21  +  27  [  +  4],  that  is  Sept.  1  in 
 B.C.  522,  530,  539,  560,  and  [587  or]  591,  for  the  accession 
 of  Darius,  of  Cambyses,  of  Cyrus  and  Darius  jointly  at  Ba- 
 bylon, and  of  Cyrus  in  Persia,  and  for  the  commencement 
 of  the  year  following  the  11th  of  Zedekiah,  we  must  under- 
 stand in  each  case  the  spring  of  the  next  year,  viz.  of  b.  c. 
 521,  529,  538,  559,  and  [586  or]  590.  From  Aug.  31,  in  B.  c. 
 591,  the  end  of  Eusebius's  a.m.  4509,  A.  abr.  1415,  we  go 
 back  (405  +  36  +  79  +  505  =  )  1425  years  to  Sept.  1,  in  B.C. 
 2016,  to  the  beginning  of  his  a.m.  3185,  the  year  in  which 
 he  put  the  birth  of  Abraham.  And  thence  again  942  and 
 2242  years  to  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  2958,  the  beginning  of  the 
 year  next  after  the  Flood,  a.  m.  2243,  and  to  the  epoch  of 
 the  Creation,  Sept,  1  in  B.  c.  5200.  But  in  Julian  dates  B.C., 
 the  end  of  the  11th  of  Zedekiah  being  for  him  in  the  spring 
 of  B.C.  590,  the  birth  of  Abraham  will  be  properly  in  the 
 spring  of  B.C.  2015  ;  and  the  interval  of  942  years  remaining 
 between  the  actual  birth  of  Abraham  in  the  spring  of  B.  C. 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 769 
 
 ^015  and  the  end  of  the  year  of  the  Flood,  which  is  fixed 
 to  the  autumn  of  B.C.  (2016  +  942  =  )  2958,  being  942  years 
 and  6  months,  is  certainly  too  great  by  2  years,  Arphaxad 
 having  been  born  within  9  or  10  months  from  the  going  forth 
 from  the  Ark,  and  Abraham  having  been  born  in  the  spring 
 of  the  940th  year  from  the  birth  of  Arphaxad.  Eusebius's 
 excess  then  of  2  years  between  the  Flood  and  Abraham 
 may  be  taken  to  compensate  for  2  of  the  20  years  by  which 
 his  reckoning  falls  short  of  the  Egyptian,  and  short  of  the 
 Alexandrian  MS.  of  the  LXX,  for  the  time  before  the  Flood. 
 
 From  the  birth  of  Abraham  set  at  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  20 TB 
 Eusebius  reckons  2020  years  to  the  death  of  Herod,  which 
 he  puts  at  or  after  his  a.m.  5203,  which  should  be  in  the 
 spring  of  A.D.  5,  the  2020  years  being  complete  at  Aug.  31 
 following.  For  he  reckons  to  Herod's  reign  37  years  as  if 
 from  B.C.  33,  instead  of  from  B.C.  40.  It  will  have  been 
 noticed  also  how  his  excess  of  2  years  in  giving  to  the  Mace- 
 donians 302  seems  to  bring  the  death  of  Cleopatra  down 
 from  the  autumn  of  B.C.  30  to  that  of  B.C.  28  :  but  his 
 thought  perhaps  was  not  so  much  of  her  death  as  of  the 
 Roman  era  of  Augustus. 
 
 Putting  the  birth  of  Christ  a  year  later  than  Africanus,  in 
 Dec.  B.C.  2  instead  of  B.C.  3,  and  giving  3J  years,  instead  of 
 only  1^,  to  Christ's  public  ministry  on  earth,  he  naturally 
 puts  the  date  of  the  Crucifixion  and  Ascension  3  years  later 
 than  Africanus,  viz.  in  a.d.  33,  his  A.  ABE.  2049.  Had  he 
 not  blundered  about  the  years  of  Herod,  he  might  have 
 con-ected  that  undue  compression  of  Christ's  ministry  which " 
 with  others,  through  a  misunderstanding  of  the  15th  year  of 
 Tiberius  named  by  St.  Luke,  had  really  drawn  forward  the 
 date  for  his  birth  not  by  carrying  forward,  as  he  now  has 
 done,  the  Crucifixion,  but  by  putting  back  the  IS'ativity  to 
 B.C.  5,  or  earlier,  so  that  the  ministry  of  Christ  should  begin 
 in  A.D.  25  or  26  instead  of  a.d.  28  or  29. 
 
 It  being  understood  then  that  Eusebius  reckons  5200 
 years  from  the  Creation  to  Aug.  31  in  a.d.  1  of  the  vulgar 
 era,  or  2016  from  Sept.  1  preceding  the  birth  of  Abraham 
 to  the  same  point,  we  may  now  proceed  to  inquire  what 
 view  he  takes  of  Egyptian  antiquity,  and  how  he  deals 
 
 3  D 
 
770 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Avitli  those  lists  of  Manetho  or  Ptolemy  which  he  knew 
 through  the  work  of  Africanus. 
 
 He  observes  that,  even  after  the  suppression  of  all  those 
 years  w^hich  he  had  suppressed  in  the  scheme  of  Africanus, 
 the  historical  traditions  of  none  of  the  heathen  empires  or 
 nations  go  back  much  before  his  own  date  for  Abraham. 
 Wherefore,  disallowing  and  cutting  off  whatever  seemed  in 
 the  Egyptian  chronicles  to  rise  higher,  and  suppressing  in  the 
 Assyrian  lists  (at  least  so  Syncellus  says)  four  kings  before 
 Teutamus  with  162  years,  he  arbitrarily  makes  the  first  year 
 of  the  Egyptian  monarchy,  the  43rd  of  the  Assyrians,  and 
 the  (52  +  22  =)  75th  of  Sicyon  to  coincide  with  his  own 
 first  year  of  Abraham.  And  then,  as  if  no  close  accuracy 
 in  details  were  possible,  but  it  was  enough  to  exhibit  a 
 synchronistic  series  made  by  himself  as  something  like  what 
 must  he  the  actual  truth,  he  arranges  and  alters  his  ma- 
 terials in  such  ways  and  to  such  extent  as  is  requisite. 
 
 Having  made  betAveen  the  end  of  the  year  preceding  the 
 birth  of  Abraham,  his  a.m.  3184,  at  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  2016,  and 
 the  commencement  of  the  undisputed  empire  of  Alexander 
 at  Babylon,  Sept.  1,  B.C.  330,  a  sum  of  1686  years  which  he 
 could  allow  for  the  Egyptian  dynasties  of  kings  (treating  the 
 Egyptian  years  like  the  Nabonassarian  as  if  identical  with 
 Hebrew  or  Julian  years),  he  proceeded  to  deal  with  Egy|i- 
 tian  antiquity  as  follows :  — 
 
 He  had  before  him  the  Manetho  of  Ptolemy  as  transcribed 
 by  Africanus,  perhaps  in  two  separate  editions  (if  the  words 
 used  in  one  place  by  Syncellus  ^'  Kara  rrjv  hsvrkpav  sK^oaiv 
 'A(f>ptKavov  "  really  imply  that  there  were  two) ;  but  he  cer- 
 tainly had  not  any  copy  of  the  original  Manetho,  whom  he 
 is  glad  to  quote  at  second  hand  from  Josephus.  Finding  in 
 the  work  of  Africanus  xxxi  Egyptian  dynasties  of  kings 
 with  a  sum  apparently  of  (3555  +  1919  +  13  =  )  5487  years, 
 vastly  exceeding  the  1686  which  he  was  prepared  to  allow,  he 
 noticed  at  the  same  time  in  the  same  work  an  account  of 
 the  Old  Chronicle  copied  like  the  Three  Books  of  Manetho 
 from  Ptolemy  of  Mendes  by  Africanus.  And  this  Chronicle, 
 which  was  spoken  of  as  older  than  Manetho  and  as  the  source 
 which  he  had  followed,  and  from  which  he  had  varied,  made 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 771 
 
 for  the  whole  period  of  the  Egyptian  monarchy  from  Menes 
 to  Nectanebo  only  xv  dynasties  of  kings  instead  of  xxx, 
 with  1881  only  instead  of  5461  years,  and  an  allusion  to 
 about  15  years  more  answering  to  the  13  of  Africanus's  Dyn. 
 XXXI.  Here  then  was  a  sum  exceeding  his  own  reckoning 
 from  the  birth  of  Abraham  to  Alexander  the  Great  by  no 
 more  than  (1896  —  1686  =  )  210  years.  Besides  this,  the 
 chronological  series  exhibited  in  Dynasties  XVIII  to  XXX 
 of  the  Chronicle,  and  many  of  the  dynasties  themselves, 
 were  clearly  identical  or  parallel  with  Dynasties  XYIII 
 to  XXX  of  Africanus,  while  Dyn.  XXVII  of  the  Chronicle 
 had  no  local  designation  nor  number  of  kings,  nor  any  chro- 
 nological place,  where  it  stood,  for  the  184  years  required 
 for  it  by  the  sum  total ;  and  it  was  omitted,  as  it  might 
 seem,  by  Manetho,  or  represented  only  by  his  short  Dynasty 
 XXVIII  with  6  years,  and  those  plainly  concurrent  with  as 
 many  of  the  years  of  the  Persians.  It  was  natural  then  for 
 Eusebius  to  think  that  he  also  might  suppress  the  same 
 dynasty ;  and  then  the  series  of  the  Chronicle,  being  reduced 
 to  (1896  — 184  =  )  1712  years,  would  exceed  his  own  limits  by 
 only  26  years.  He  decided  therefore  to  admit  XY  or  xvi 
 dynasties  of  kings,  numbered  from  XVI  to  XXXI,  to 
 cover  the  interval  between  Menes  and  Abraham  and  Alex- 
 ander, and  to  take  for  his  chronological  materials  the  sums 
 of  years  given  by  the  Chronicle  for  each  dynasty,  only  sub- 
 stituting for  the  184  chronological  years  of  its  anonymous 
 Dyn.  XXVII  the  6  merely  concurrent  years  of  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XXVIII,  and  suppressing  26  other  years  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle wherever  this  might  be  done  most  conveniently. 
 
 The  Chronicle  having  no  names  of  kings,  nor  separate 
 years  for  each  of  the  generations  or  reigns  of  its  dynasties, 
 Eusebius  took  the  lists  of  the  Manetho  of  Africanus  as 
 materials  with  which  to  furnish  out  or  people  the  blank  dy- 
 nasties of  the  Chronicle  as  adjusted  to  his  own  scheme.  And 
 in  doing  this  he  did  not  even  think  it  necessary  to  consider 
 whether  the  Manethonian  dynasty  from  which  he  took 
 names  and  years  for  any  particular  dynasty  of  the  Chronicle 
 were  really  one  with  it  historically.  Thus,  though  it  was 
 manifest  that  Dyn.  I  of  Africanus  with  Menes  at  its  head 
 
 3  D  2 
 
772 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 nnd  seven  other  Tanites  or  Thinites  after  him  was  really 
 identical  with  Dyn.  XVI  of  the  Chronicle  with  its  viii 
 Tanite  generations,  and  these  two  dynasties  had  been  iden- 
 tified by  Eratosthenes,  Eusebius  thought  it  simplest  to  lop 
 off  by  one  stroke  as  fabulous  and  parallel  only  to  the  Gods 
 and  Demigods  of  the  Chronicle  the  first  fifteen  dynasties  of 
 Africanus,  Menes  and  all,  and  to  commence  his  own  his- 
 torical series  with  that  dynasty,  whatever  it  might  be,  which 
 chanced  to  stand  as  XVI  with  Africanus,  making  its  number 
 of  kings  and  of  years  to  square  with  those  of  Dyn.  XVI  of 
 the  Chronicle.    And  this  no  doubt  he  would  have  done,  had 
 it  not  happened  that  in  the  lists  of  Africanus  the  kings  of 
 Dyn.  XVI  were  described  as  ''other  Shepherds."    And  it 
 would  have  been  rather  too  strong  to  make  the  Egyptian  mon- 
 archy to  begin  with  ''  another  dynasty  "  which  proclaimed 
 of  itself  that  it  was  not  the  first;  or  to  make  it  begin 
 with  any  dynasty  of  those  ''Shepherds''^  who  were  always 
 described  as  strangers.    Their  numbers  or  their  years  (for 
 there  were  xxxii  kings  with  518  years)  would  have  caused 
 no  difl[iculty.    He  therefore  passed  on  to  the  next  dynasty, 
 and,  as  that  was  not  quite  so  intractable,  he  operated  upon 
 it  without  ceremony.     This  too  was  a  dynasty  of  "  more 
 Shepherds,^''  xliii  in  number;  but  they  had  just  the  same 
 number  of  xliii  DiospoUtes  associated  with  them,  and  a  sum 
 of  only  151  years,  which  suited  ill  for  so  great  a  number  of 
 kings.    Eusebius  therefore  suppressed  the  Shepherds,  and 
 retained  the  DiospoUtes,  only  cutting  down  their  number 
 from  xliii  probably  to  viii,  the  number  of  Tanites  in  Dyn. 
 XVI  of  the  Chronicle,  though  the  text  now  has  v,  and  the 
 viii  are  reduced  to  v  in  the  list  of  Eratosthenes.    And  the 
 151  years  he  filled  up  to  190,  the  number  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle for  its  Dyn.  XVI.   So  that  after  these  changes  he  had 
 exhibited  perfectly  Dyn.  XVI  of  the  Chronicle,  except  that 
 its  Tanites  had  become  Diospolites,  a  change  countenanced 
 somewhat  by  the  fact  that  they  were  Thinites  in  Dyn.  I  of 
 -the  list  of  Africanus,  and  Thehans  in  the  list  of  Erato- 
 sthenes.   That  Dyn.  XVII  of  Africanus  happened  to  be 
 anonymous  suited  well  enough,  as  it  would  have  been 
 awkward  to  begin  the  monarchy  with  any  other  name  than 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 773 
 
 Menes.  And,  so  long  as  it  was  anonymous,  it  was  in  a 
 manner  vacant;  and  Menes  and  his  seven  successors,  though 
 put  up  at  the  head  of  the  fifteen  dynasties  disallowed  a& 
 fabulous,  were  free  to  come  down  and  occupy  it  if  they 
 turned  out  to  be  historical  kings. 
 
 After  this  beginning  it  was  time  to  introduce  the  Shep- 
 herds, who  could  neither  be  omitted,  nor  placed  below  Dyn. 
 Xyill.  So  he  brought  down,  to  stand  as  his  Dyn.  XVII 
 and  to  be  identified  with  Dyn.  XVII  of  the  Chronicle,  the 
 Shepherds  named  in  Dyn.  XV  of  Africanus.  And,  as  Dyn. 
 XVII  of  the  Chronicle  had  iv  Memphite  generations  and 
 103  years,  he  cut  down  the  vi  Shepherds  to  iv,  and  their 
 284  years  (which  even  in  Josephus  were  260)  to  K'S.  The 
 name  of  Apophis,  under  whom  he  learned  from  Africanus 
 that  Joseph  came  into  Egypt,  stood  conveniently  for  him 
 last  in  Dyn.  XV  of  Africanus,  and  needed  no  transposition^ 
 which  would  not  have  been  the  case  had  he  followed  the 
 original  Manetho  of  Josephus.  The  difference  of  designa- 
 tion still  remaining  between  his  own  Shepherds  and  the 
 "  Memphites  "  of  the  Chronicle  was  again  a  matter  of  no  im- 
 portance. Chronologically  Dyn.  XVII  of  the  Chronicle 
 Avas  now  exhibited;  and  he  was  at  the  (190  +  103  =  )  293rd 
 year  from  the  birth  of  Abraham,  the  1 33rd  of  Jacob.  But 
 he  could  scarcely  think  that  he  had  satisfactorily  exhibited 
 that  synchronism  of  Joseph  with  the  Shepherd  king  Apophis 
 for  which,  as  Syncellus  says,  there  was  a  sort  of  consensus 
 among  the  earlier  writers.  For,  as  his  lists  are  arranged, 
 though  Joseph  certainly  is  raised  to  power  under  Apophis, 
 and  Jacob  comes  into  Egypt  under  the  same  king,  the 
 coming  of  Jacob  is  only  three  years  before  the  king's  death : 
 and  a  new  king,  who  had  not  known  Joseph,  that  is,  the 
 new  Dynasty  XVIII  consisting  of  Amosis  and  his  suc- 
 cessors, is  then  made  to  supplant  the  dynasty  of  the  Shep- 
 herds ;  after  which  Joseph  remains  in  power,  as  before,  and 
 flourishes  under  the  semi-Xubian  or  Diospolite  kings  who 
 had  not  known  him,  and  who,  to  carry  this  absurdity  to 
 its  climax,  overthrow  and  expel  his  first  friends,  to  whom 
 the  revelation  had  been  made,  in  the  sixth  year  of  the  famine. 
 Moreover,  instead  of  the  notice  attached  to  tke  fiirst  Shep- 
 
 3  D  3 
 
774 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 herd  king.  Suites,  in  the  lists  of  Africanus,  that  these  kings 
 were  strangers,  who  took  Memphis,  and  built  themselves  a 
 city  of  their  own  in  the  Sethroitic  Nome,"  — all  which 
 Eusebius  transcribes  in  his  collection  of  materials  in  his 
 First  Book,  together  with  Africanus's  own  note  that under 
 these  kings  Joseph  is  shown  to  have  ruled  Egypt,"  —  he  in 
 his  Second  Book  or  Canon  substitutes  as  a  marginal  note  to 
 the  name  of  the  first  king  the  astonishing  information  that 
 "  at  this  time  Apis  coming  from  Argos  founded  Memphis." 
 Thus  he  makes  a  sort  of  connection  between  this  dynasty 
 and  Memphis,  hinting  that,  even  if  it  were  not  identical  in 
 its  kings,  it  was  at  least  a  perfect  contemporary  parallel  to 
 the  Memphite  Dyn.  XVII  of  the  Chronicle. 
 
 If  Eusebius  had  only  honestly  transcribed  into  his  First 
 Book  those  materials  which  he  meant  to  use,  for  example 
 the  blank  dynasties  of  the  Old  Chronicle  and  the  Manetho- 
 nian  lists  of  Africanus  divided  into  reigns  with  names,  and 
 then  afterwards  in  his  Second  Book  had  made  whatever 
 alterations  or  amalgamations  he  thought  proper,  a  comparison 
 of  the  two  would  have  shewn  the  extent  of  his  liberties,  and 
 there  would  at  least  have  been  no  appearance  of  dishonesty. 
 But  now  he  has  transcribed  into  his  First  Book  as  materials 
 all  the  XXXI  dynasties  of  Africanus,  yet  not  all  alike,  nor 
 upon  one  uniform  plan.  But  those  xv  earlier  dynasties 
 which  he  meant  to  disallow  as  fabulous  and  antehistorical, 
 and  which  therefore  were  to  find  no  place  in  his  Canon,  he 
 transcribes,  lazily  indeed  and  with  frequent  omissions  of 
 names,  yet  with  no  very  extensive  nor  manifestly  systematic 
 alterations.  Only  here  and  there  he  lops  off  some  years,  so 
 that  the  sum  total  of  the  years  of  these  xv  dynasties  may 
 not  rise  much,  if  at  all,  above  his  own  era  of  the  Creation. 
 But  those  XVI  later  dynasties  which  he  meant  to  exhibit 
 again  in  his  Canon  are  given  in  his  First  Book  nearly  in  the 
 state  in  which  he  intends  them  to  reappear  in  the  Second,  as 
 if  he  had  found  them  ready  suited  to  his  wishes  and  needing 
 scarcely  any  alteration ;  whereas  in  truth  they  are  already 
 as  they  stand  in  the  First  Book  so  greatly  altered  by  himself 
 as  to  be  in  a  manner  his  own  compilation.  And  hence  it 
 was  that  Syncellus,  seeing  the  very  great  differences  existing 
 
EUSEBIUS  rAMPllILI. 
 
 775 
 
 between  the  dynasties  of  Africanus  and  those  of  Eusebius, 
 imagined  that  they  must  have  copied  from  two  different 
 editions  of  Manetho.  With  these  remarks,  omitting  for  the 
 present  to  speak  of  those  xv  earlier  dynasties  which  he 
 gives  in  his  First  Book  from  Africanus  with  comparatively 
 little  alteration,  we  shall  continue  and  finish  first  the  exa- 
 mination of  those  XVI  later  dynasties  which  make  the  Egyp- 
 tian series  in  his  Canon. 
 
 For  Dyn.  XVIII  it  would  be  a  matter  of  course  that  he 
 should  have  348  years  (since  this  is  the  number  of  the 
 Chronicle),  unless  indeed  he  began  already  to  suppress  some 
 of  those  26  years  which  he  had  to  suppress.  But  the  sum 
 given  for  the  dynasty  in  all  the  texts  of  his  lists  taken  from 
 liis  First  Book,  and  also  that  made  out  in  his  Canon,  being 
 348  years,  shows  that  such  was  not  the  case.  The  heading 
 of  the  dynasty  in  his  First  Book  names  for  it  "  xiv  Diospo- 
 lite  kings"  matching  the  "xiv  Memphites^''  of  Dyn.  XVIII 
 of  the  Chronicle.  And  below  xiv  names  only  of  the  xvii 
 names  of  Manetho  are  exhibited  in  detail,  the  queen  Amesses 
 and  two  kings,  Rathos  and  Barneses  being  suppressed,  and 
 their  years  consolidated.  At  the  same  time  it  is  remark- 
 able that  this  number  of  xiv  kings  is  not  adhered  to  in  the 
 Canon ;  for  in  it  there  are  xvi  kings,  the  number  of  348  years, 
 however,  being  preserved.  In  order  to  understand  these  va- 
 riations it  is  to  be  considered,  first,  that  the  lists  of  Ptolemy 
 (see  p.  445),  such  as  Eusebius  found  them  in  the  genuine  text 
 of  Africanus  (for  in  the  copy  of  Syncellus  there  were  one  or 
 two  variants,  and  the  years  of  two  long  reigns  had  fallen  out),, 
 ofiered  him  of  themselves  (25  +  13  +  21+  22  +  13  +  26  +  9  + 
 31  +  36  +  32  +  6  +  12  +  12+4  +  1+66+19  =  )  348  years,  so 
 tliat  there  was  no  need  of  altering  any  thing  to  obtain  this 
 sum.  All  that  he  had  to  do  was  to  count  off'  212  years  from 
 the  head  of  the  dynasty  to  find  the  place  of  the  Exodus* 
 And  this  would  then  seem  to  be  after  the  16th  year  of  the 
 10th  reign,  viz.  that  of  Achencheres  I.  the  successor  of 
 Horus.  For  25  +  13  +  21  +  22  +  13  +  26  +  9  +  31+36  with 
 16  more  make  212  years.  And  accordingly  Ave  find  in  all  the 
 copies  of  Eusebius's  lists  as  extracted  from  his  First  Book  a 
 note  attached  to  the  name  of  Achencheres  the  successor  of 
 
776 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Horns  in  these  words  "  Kara  tovtov  Mcotxrrjs  ttjs  Alyvirrov 
 iropelas  tmv  ^lovBaLcov  r)yr]aaTO'  (In  his  time  Moses  led  the 
 Jews  ont  of  Egypt "),  though  the  reigns  as  they  now  stand 
 do  not  by  any  means  make  out  the  sum  of  212  years  for  this 
 Achencheres  either  in  the  copy  transcribed  by  Syncellus  or 
 in  the  old  Armenian  version.  Since,  however,  in  these  lists  the 
 reign  of  Achencheres  is  cut  down  from  32  to  16  years,  so  that, 
 if  the  lists  of  Ptolemy  had  been  preserved  above  unaltered, 
 its  end  would  coincide  exactly  with  Eusebius's  date  for  the 
 Exodus,  it  is  plain  that  either  the  other  variations  existing 
 above  in  the  present  text  are  of  later  date,  or  the  note  of  the 
 synchronism  of  the  Exodus  has  been  attached  to  an  earlier 
 Achencheres  instead  of  a  later  by  some  accidental  fault  of 
 transcribers.  This  may  well  seem  probable  at  first  sight, 
 and  if  one  considers  only  that  Manetho  and  Ptolemy  have 
 this  same  name  Achencheres  three  times,  and  Eusebius  four 
 times  over,  and  all  in  the  same  part  of  the  dynasty.  Still  it 
 is  much  more  probable  that  the  note  of  the  synchronism  was 
 really  attached  by  Eusebius  in  the  first  instance  to  the  name 
 of  the  first  Achencheres  against  which  it  still  stands  in  his 
 Book  I.  ;  and  that  his  second  operation  was  to  cut  down  the 
 reign  from  32  to  16  years,  the  number  with  which  it  now  ap- 
 pears both  in  Syncellus's  text  and  in  the  Armenian  version. 
 At  this  stage  then  of  his  processes  the  earlier  reigns  of  the 
 dynasty  stood  thus  :  25  +  13  +  21  +  22  o/  Amesses  4-13  +  26 
 +  9  +  31+36  +  16  of  Achencheres  I.,  making  212.  And  so 
 it  would  seem  that  Achencheres  I.  was  drowned  in  the  Bed 
 Sea.  Eusebius  then  in  continuing  to  the  end  of  the  dynasty 
 had  of  course  to  reinsert  somewhere  those  1 6  years  which  he 
 had  cut  off  from  Achencheres  I.  ;  and,  further,  he  had  to 
 bestow  somewhere  the  years  of  two  kings  (viz.  the  6  years 
 of  Bathos  and  the  single  year  of  Barneses  I.)  whom  he  sup- 
 pressed in  order  to  obtain  for  the  dynasty  the  same  number 
 of  xiv  kings  with  the  Chronicle.  The  queen  Amesses  above 
 needed  not  to  be  noticed  in  this  proceeding,  although 
 she  might  seem  to  make  a  fifteenth  reign,  since  in  the  lists 
 of  Manetho  also  and  of  Ptolemy,  which  reckoned  only  xvi 
 kinf/s,  she  seemed  to  make  a  seventeenth  reign.  Eusebius 
 then,  we  may  suppose,  made  the  later  reigns  of  the  dynasty. 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 777 
 
 after  Achencheres  I.,  to  be  only  five,  and  he  divided  their 
 years  thus,  8  +  15  +  5  +  68  +  40  in  all  136,  as  they  still 
 stand  in  the  text  of  Syncellus  and  in  the  Armenian  version. 
 And  thus  with  these  136  and  the  212  preceding  he  exhibited 
 both  the  "  xiv  Memphites"  and  the  "  348  years  "  of  Dyn. 
 XVIII  of  the  Chronicle,  and  drowned  the  Pharaoh  of  the 
 Exodus  in  the  Red  Sea. 
 
 But  after  these  arrangements  had  been  completed  in  his 
 First  Book,  before  he  came  to  the  actual  composition  of  his 
 Canon,  Eusebius  either  observed  or  remembered  that  the 
 original  Manetho,  in  that  list  of  this  same  dynasty  which  he 
 has  himself  elsewhere  quoted  from  Josephus,  had  added 
 some  notices  not  repeated  by  Ptolemy  and  Africanus.  And 
 from  these  notices  it  appeared  that  the  first  Achencheres  was 
 not  a  man  but  a  tvoman,  daughter  of  Horus,  and  sister  'of 
 RafJiotis,  who  succeeded  her,  and  in  whose  name  probably 
 she  had  reigned  during  his  minority.  So  all  the  preceding 
 contrivances  were  rendered  useless ;  and  some  fresh  arrange- 
 ment was  to  be  devised  for  the  Canon.  It  would  have  been 
 well  too  to  cancel  all  that  had  been  done  in  Book  I.,  and 
 especially  the  note  attached  to  the  queen  Achencheres  to  the 
 effect  that  he  "  had  been  drowned  in  the  Red  Sea.  This, 
 from  whatever  cause,  was  not  done.  But  it  is  a  common  Ihing 
 in  these  old  writers  to  find  any  error  or  miscalculation  orice 
 admitted  retained  as  if  it  had  been  printed  off,  or  as  if  they 
 had  been  engraving  all  that  they  wrote  on  stone  or  metal, 
 instead  of  writing  on  paper,  parchment,  or  vellum.  And  so  in 
 Book  I.  Achencheres  I.,  though  discovered  afterwards  to  be 
 a  woman,  still  retains  the  note  describing  him  as  the  king  of 
 the  Exodus  ;  and  that  too  with,  omissions  made  by  copyists 
 in  the  reigns  above  which  disconnect  her  from  it  altogether, 
 and  which  really  are  borrowed  from  those  later  changes 
 which  were  made  by  Eusebius  himself  for  the  Canon,  and 
 which  are  now  to  be  described  : 
 
 In  casting  about  for  the  best  way  to  meet  his  new  difii- 
 culty,  and  now  with  the  list  of  the  original  Manetho  as 
 copied  by  Josephus  before  him  (see  above,  at  page  111), 
 Eusebius  observed  that  in  this  list  the  reigns  of  the  queen 
 Achencheres  and  her  brother  and  successor  Rathotis,  whom  he 
 
778 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CIIKONICLES. 
 
 writes  "Athoris/'  having  12  years  with  1  month  and  9  years 
 respectively,  had  together  the  same  length  within  8  months 
 as  the  single  reign  of  the  queen  Amesses  which  stood  above 
 with  21  years  and  9  months  as  the  fourth  of  the  dynasty. 
 Indeed  according  to  a  variant  of  Theophilus  the  length  was 
 precisely  the  same  in  both  cases,  viz.  21  years  and  1  month. 
 It  seemed  therefore  that  if  he  were  to  reinsert  Rathotis 
 (whom  for  another  reason  he  had  suppressed  in  his  Book  I.) 
 and  also  his  sister  Achencheres  (though  this  was  really  to  re- 
 duplicate her)  from  the  lists  of  Josephus  and  the  original 
 Manetho,  giving  them  the  same  reigns  as  in  that  list,  and 
 were  at  the  same  time  to  suppress  above  the  reign  of  the 
 queen  Amesses  which  had  the  same  number  of  years  (giving 
 her  excess  of  8  months  to  one  of  the  adjacent  reigns),  his 
 owh  Achencheres  I.,  being  thus  put  down,  would  appear  as 
 Achencheres  II. ;  and  the  reign  of  16  years  pre-arranged  in 
 Book  I.,  would  still  suit  for  its  purpose.  And  having  thus 
 become  a  king  instead  of  a  queen  he  could  be  named  as 
 such,  and  it  could  be  said  that  he  was  drowned  in  the  Red 
 Sea  without  any  absurdity.  This  then  was  what  Eusebius 
 did ;  and  in  the  Canon  the  reigns  of  the  dynasty  stand  thus : 
 25 +  (13  +  1)  +21+  (13  +  1)  +26 +  9 +(31  +  1)  +  (36  +2) 
 + 1 2  of  Achencheres  L  of  Josephus  +  9  of  her  brother  Ra- 
 thotis or  Athoris  also  from  Josephus  +  16  of  Achencheres  1.  of 
 his  own  Book  L  now  become  Achencheres  II.  ;  and  the 
 sum  of  years  at  this  point  is  212.  Then  he  continues  with 
 his  own  list  as  already  altered  in  his  Book  I.  from  that  of 
 Africanus  and  Ptolemy,  giving  8  years  to  the  Achencheres 
 II,  of  Manetho,  Ptolemy,  Africanus,  and  his  own  Book  I. 
 now  hecome  Achencheres  IIL  ;  then  15  to  Achencheres  III, 
 now  hecome  Achenchei^es  I V, ;  then  5  to  Armais,  the  single 
 year  of  Rameses  I.,  whose  name  is  still  suppressed  (though 
 the  object  for  which  it  was  suppressed  has  now  been  given 
 up),  being  consolidated  with  the  4  properly  belonging  to 
 Armais ;  then  68  instead  of  66  to  Paraeses  11. ;  and,  lastly, 
 40  instead  of  19  to  Amenophis.  So  the  212  and  the  136,  as 
 before,  make  348  years,  but  now  with  xvi  kings  or  reigns, 
 answering  neither  to  the  xiv  of  the  Chronicle  nor,  in  the 
 names,  to  the  xvi  or  xvii  of  Manetiio  and  Ptolemy ;  since 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPIIILI. 
 
 779 
 
 Anicsses  and  Ramesscs  I.  are  both  omitted ;  and  Eusebius's 
 Achencheres  II.  whose  reign,  sex,  and  person  are  all  ab- 
 solutely fictitious,  is  a  mere  reduplication  of  his  Achencheres 
 I.  (and  therefore,  by  the  way,  in  truth  a  woman  as  much 
 as  ever)  created  only  to  suit  his  own  synchronism  of  the 
 Exodus. 
 
 It  was  natural  that  the  discrepancy  existing  between 
 Book  I.  and  the  Canon  of  Eusebius  should  cause  variants  to 
 creep  into  both  texts,  especially  into  that  of  the  former.  So 
 it  is  no  matter  of  surprise  to  find  one  of  the  two  MSS.  of 
 Syncellus  (Cod.  A.)  inserting  in  Dyn.  XVIII  Athoris  (^Ra- 
 tliotis)  with  9  and  Achencheres  with  12  years,  which  would 
 suit  well  enough  (the  reign  of  Amesses  being  absent,  as  it 
 is,  above)  for  making  out  the  sum  of  348  years  given  for  the 
 dynasty.  But  unluckily  the  same  MS.  places  these  two 
 reigns  after  instead  of  before  the  16  years  of  that  Achen- 
 cheres I.  to  whom  it  attaches  the  Exodus;  and  it  also  retains 
 in  the  headins;  the  number  of  "xiv  kino-s  "  as  that  of  the 
 dynasty.  In  the  Armenian  version  of  Eusebius,  as  well  as 
 in  the  other  MS.  of  Syncellus  (Cod.  B.),  these  two  kings  and 
 the  queen  Amesses  being  all  absent,  the  actual  sum  is  short 
 of  the  sum  given  by  21  years.  The  number  of  xiv  kings 
 being  uniformly  given  in  all  these  texts,  and  the  names  of 
 Athoris  (i.  e.  Rathotis)  and  Achencheres  supplied  by  Cod, 
 A.  of  Syncellus  being  in  it  misplaced,  while  the  suppression 
 of  Rameses  I.  is  uniformly  retained,  these  three  facts  show 
 sufficiently  that  the  reign  really  wanting  in  the  texts  of 
 Book  I.  is  that  of  the  queen  Amesses  with  her  21  years. 
 This  being  restored,  and  also  10  years  of  the  38  of  Horus 
 which  have  fallen  out  in  the  Armenian  version,  the  dynasty 
 will  exhibit  the  sum  required  of  (317  +  10  +  21  =  )  348  years. 
 And  in  like  manner  in  the  text  of  Syncellus  the  erroneous 
 reading  of  36  for  Horus  must  be  rejected,  and  38,  which  is 
 given  as  a  variant,  and  which  is  the  true  reading,  must  be 
 substituted.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  variant  12  given 
 by  Cod.  A.  of  Syncellus,  instead  of  16,  to  the  Achencheres 
 of  the  Exodus  (and  derived  from  the  lists  of  Africanus)  is 
 by  no  means  to  be  admitted,  its  effect  being  only  to  comj)li- 
 cate  the  confusion  introduced  by  the  reinsertion  and  mis- 
 
780 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 placement  of  Kathotis  and  another  Achencheres  in  the  same 
 MS.  below.  So  that  MS.  has  three  reigns,  viz.  that  of 
 Achencheres  L  with  12,  of  Rathotis  with  9,  and  of  Achen- 
 cheres II.  with  12  years,  and  the  Exodus  attached  to  the 
 first  instead  of  the  second  Achencheres^  and  12  years  only  to 
 the  second  Achencheres  instead  of  16.  And  with  these  sums, 
 even  if  the  Exodus  had  been  joined  with  the  second  Achen- 
 cheres, the  reign  would  come  to  an  end  4  years  too  early. 
 But  if  the  reign  of  the  Jirst  Achencheres  were  cut  down,  as 
 it  is,  to  its  original  sum  of  12  years,  that  of  the  second  of 
 Cod.  A.  ought  to  have  been  increased  from  12  to  16  ;  and 
 the  notice  of  the  Exodus  should  have  been  put  down  and 
 attached  to  it.  And  then  (but  for  the  number  of  xiv  kings 
 in  the  heading)  the  dynasty  of  Book  I.  would  have  been 
 brouo^ht  into  asrreement  with  that  of  the  Canon. 
 
 Ao^ainst  the  name  Armais  he  has  both  in  his  First  Book 
 and  in  his  Canon  a  note  identifying  him  with  Danaus ;  and  as 
 his  5  years  should  end  with  the  (505  +  8  +  15  +  5  =  )  533rd  of 
 Abraham,  28  years  after  the  Exodus,  his  flight  to  Argos  is 
 here  put  by  Eusebius  at  Sept.  1,  B.C.  1483,  300  years 
 above  Eratosthenes's  date  for  Troy,  and  374  below  Eusebius's 
 own  date  for  the  foundation  of  Argos,  after  a.  abr.  159 
 ending  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  1857.  And  here,  by  good  luck  only 
 perhaps,  he  has  marked  the  right  place,  and  perhaps  the  his- 
 torical name  also,  to  which  Manetho  alluded  in  that  com- 
 pound myth  of  Sethos-Rameses-^gyptus  and  his  brother 
 Armais-Danaus  which  he  ostensibly  puts  at  the  head  of  his 
 Dyn.  XIX.  By  a  similar  good  fortune  it  was  that,  while 
 in  the  very  act  of  making  the  most  arbitrary  and  groundless 
 changes  in  the  Shepherd  Dynasty,  he  nevertheless  put  it  into 
 its  true  chronological  place,  so  as  to  stand  as  Dyn.  XVII, 
 preceding  Dyn.  XVIII,  as  it  had  stood  with  the  original 
 Manetho.  But  as  regards  his  Hebrew  chronology  he  has  no 
 luck  ;  for  the  68  years  of  his  Rameses  IL,  Miammous,  the 
 Egyptian  conqueror,  would  seem  to  cover  the  last  12  years  of 
 Moses,  the  27  of  Joshua,  and  29  of  the  40  of  Othniel.  So 
 Joshua  would  conquer  Canaan  while  both  it  and  all  Syria 
 were  either  subject  to  the  Egyptian  Sesostris  or  still  the 
 theatre  of  his  wars  with  the  Khita  (Hittites).    And  the 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 781 
 
 servitude  under  Chousan-Athin  "  (Xovaapddcov)  king  of  the 
 Arabian  "  Shasou  "  and  of  the  Mesopotamians,  who  was  also 
 the  sun-worshipping  conqueror  of  Egypt,  is  made  to  lie 
 between  the  39th  and  the  47th  years  of  Kameses  the  Great, 
 the  conqueror  of  Asia  and  Africa. 
 
 Dyn.  XVIII  having  ended  with  the  year  of  Abraham 
 (293  +  348  =  )  641,  which  was  also  according  to  Eusebius 
 the  29th  of  Ehud,  Dyn.  XIX  follows  with  v  kings  and  194 
 years,  so  as  to  agree  with  the  Chronicle,  instead  of  having  vi 
 kings  and  209  years  as  in  the  list  of  Africanus.  The  agree- 
 ment is  obtained  by  suppressing  the  fourth  name  or  reign  of 
 Africanus,  that  of  Rameses  (which,  unluckily  for  Eusebius,  is 
 a  consolidation  of  four  or  five  actual  kings,  sons  of  Rameses 
 III.),  while  of  its  60  years  15  are  suppressed,  16  are  added 
 to  the  next  reign  below,  which,  instead  of  (5  [  +  5]=)  10, 
 has  so  26  years,  and  20  more  are  added  to  the  reign  of  Ame- 
 nephthes  above,  which,  instead  of  20,  has  40  years ;  5  are 
 added  to  the  6 1  of  the  second  reign,  that  of  Rapsakes  ;  and, 
 lastly,  4  years  are  added  to  the  51  of  the  first  reign,  that  of 
 "  Sethos  or  Rameses^''  of  the  lists  of  Africanus.  Possibly  Eu- 
 sebius selected  the  name  of  Rameses  for  suppression,  rather 
 than  that  of  Amenemes  below  or  of  Amenephthes  above  it 
 (either  of  which  would  have  involved  much  slighter  changes  in 
 the  years  of  the  other  reigns),  because  the  long  reign  of  60 
 years  with  the  same  name  Rameses  looked  like  a  repetition  of 
 Rameses  II.  of  Dyn  XVIII,  who  also  reigned  above  60  years. 
 And  Rapsakes,  a  name  not  really  different,  in  Dyn.  XIX, 
 had  in  Africanus's  lists  6 1  years,  and  in  those  of  the  original 
 Manetho  of  Josephus  66  years,  the  very  same  number  as 
 Rameses  II.  So  that  a  bold  and  superficial  critic  might  think 
 it  expedient  to  prune  away  one  at  least  of  these  three  reigns 
 of  60  or  above  60  years  each,  even  if  he  did  not  recast  for 
 us  Manetho's  dynasties  altogether.  Sethos^  the  first,  and 
 Thouoris,  the  last  name  of  the  dynasty,  being  connected 
 with  special  details  either  by  Manetho  alone  or  by  both 
 Manetho  and  Ptolemy,  would  be  the  least  suitable  for  omis- 
 sion. The  synchronism  of  the  last  with  Troy  is  retained 
 by  Eusebius,  for  whom  the  reign  begins  with  the  (641  -1-187 
 =  )  829th  and  ends  with  the  835th  year  of  Abraham,  in 
 
782 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 B.C.  (2016-828  =  )  1188  and  B.C.  1181.  So  the  last  year 
 but  one  of  his  Thouoris  coincided  very  conveniently  for  him 
 with  Eratosthenes' s  date  for  Troy,  though  he  himself  seems 
 to  have  attached  the  synchronism  of  Troy  to  the  last  year 
 of  the  reign  and  of  the  dynasty. 
 
 As  he  had  to  suppress  somewhere  26  of  the  years  of  the 
 Chronicle,  besides  the  184  of  its  Dyn.  XXVII,  it  was  of 
 course  impossible  to  exhibit  all  its  other  dynasties  unchanged. 
 In  some  one  at  least  he  would  have  to  reduce  its  sum  of 
 years.  And  on  coming  to  .Dyn.  XX,  which  in  the  lists  of 
 Africanus  is  altogether  anonymous,  he  might  have  thought 
 this  a  convenient  place  at  which  to  make  his  reduction.  We 
 might  have  expected  him  then,  since  Manetho  for  this  dy- 
 nasty has  only  135  years  instead  of  the  228  of  the  Chronicle, 
 to  have  added  only  (93  —  26  =  )  67  instead  of  93  years,  giv- 
 ing to  this  one  dynasty  a  peculiar  sum  of  his  own,  viz.  202 
 years.  And  then  in  all  the  rest  (except  only  Manetho's 
 Dyn.  XXYIII,  which  he  might  treat  as  unchronological 
 and  concurrent  with  Dyn.  XXVII,  and  which  he  would 
 have  to  substitute  with  Manetho  for  Dyn.  XXVII  of  the 
 Chronicle),  he  might  have  exhibited  the  sums  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle. But  now  instead  of  67  he  has  added  to  Dyn.  XX  of 
 Manetho  only  43  years.  And  so  his  own  Dyn.  XX,  thus 
 formed,  while  it  agrees  in  its  number  of  xii  kings  with  that 
 of  Manetho,  having  the  sum  of  178  years,  exceeds  Manetho's 
 sum  of  135  by  43,  but  falls  short  of  that  of  the  Chronicle, 
 viz.  228  years,  by  (25  +  25  =  )  50,  agreeing  however  with  it 
 in  its  units.  As  a  consequence,  he  will  now  have  to  depart 
 again  from  the  Chronicle  in  one  or  more  dynasties  below, 
 and  to  exceed  its  sum  or  sums,  till  he  has  restored  the  24 
 years  still  due  to  it  on  its  Dyn.  XX. 
 
 In  order  to  understand  his  motive  in  thus  stopping  short 
 by  50  rather  than  by  26  only  of  the  addition  needed  to 
 bring  up  the  sum  of  Dyn.  XX  of  Africanus  to  that  of  Dyn. 
 XX  of  the  Chronicle  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  if  he  had 
 added  24  years  more,  and  had  given  to  his  Dyn.  XX  202 
 instead  of  178  years,  its  last  year  would  have  been  his  A.M. 
 (3184  +  835  +  203  =  )  4222,  A.  abr.  1037,  ending  Aug.  31 
 in  B.C.  (2016  —  1037  =  )  979.    But  this  year  in  his  sacred 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 783 
 
 scheme  is  the  1st  of  Abijah,  the  son  of  Rehoboam,  13  years 
 below  the  5th  of  Rehoboam,  and  19,  at  the  very  least,  below 
 the  date  at  which  Jeroboam  could  be  supposed  to  have  fled 
 from  Solomon  to  Shishak  or  Sousakeim.  It  did  not,  how- 
 ever, seem  suitable  or  probable  that  the  conqueror  who  took 
 Jerusalem,  and  made  Rehoboam  his  vassal,  should  be  un- 
 named, still  less  that  he  should  be  one  of  a  whole  dynasty  of 
 anonymous  faineants,  inManetho's  or  Africanus's  lists.  And 
 no  doubt  it  was  this  consideration  which  induced  Eusebius 
 to  bring  his  Dyn.  XX  to  an  end  with  only  178  years,  24 
 years  earlier  than  he  would  otherwise  have  done,  although 
 by  so  doing  he  involved  himself  in  the  necessity  of  ad- 
 mitting further  discrepancies  from  the  sums  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle. But  when  his  Dyn.  XX  ended,  as  it  now  ends,  in 
 B.C.  (979  +  24  =  )  1003  with  the  1013th  of  Abraham,  which  is 
 his  33rd  of  Solomon,  he  would  have  an  Egyptian  reign  of  26 
 years,  the  reign,  too,  of  a  king  of  note,  since  he  appears  as  the 
 founder  of  a  dynasty,  to  which  the  synchronisms  of  Solomon 
 and  Rehoboam  would  seem  to  belong. 
 
 Dyn.  XXI  of  Africanus  agreed  in  its  number  of  kings, 
 and  in  its  designation  of  Tanites,  with  Dyn.  XXI  of  the 
 Chronicle ;  and  though  it  had  9  years  more  than  that  dy- 
 nasty (viz.  130  instead  of  121)  it  was  not  natural  to  cut 
 them  down,  as  Eusebius  was  now  behind-hand  by  24  years, 
 and  so  needed  additions.  He  therefore  in  this  instance 
 took  the  dynasty  of  jNIanetho  and  Africanus  as  it  stood,  and 
 seems  for  the  moment  to  be  really  copying  from  their  lists. 
 And  to  the  12th  year  of  the  first  king  of  the  dynasty  Smendes, 
 whose  name  unluckily  was  not  much  to  his  purpose,  the  same 
 year  being  also  his  5th  of  Rehoboam,  he  unhesitatingly  at- 
 tached in  his  Canon  as  a  marginal  note  the  words  Sousa^ 
 keim  rex  j^gypti^  identifying  him  with  the  king  who  took 
 Jerusalem.  And  though,  so  far  as  Africanus's  lists  are  con- 
 cerned, Eusebius  is  totally  mistaken,  and  his  processes  are 
 unjustifiable  and  even  ridiculous,  he  indirectly  approaches 
 to  the  truth,  since  he  means  his  own  Dyn.  XXI  to  answer 
 rather  to  Dyn.  XXI  of  the  Chronicle  than  to  any  other. 
 This  is  shown  by  the  way  in  which  he  deals  with  the  next 
 following  dynasty  of  Africanus,  making  it  to  represent  Dyn. 
 
784 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 XXII  of  the  Chronicle.  But  the  head  of  Dyn.  XXI  of  the 
 Chronicle  loas  really  the  contemporary  of  Solomon  and  Re- 
 hoboam.  The  130  years  of  Eusebius's  Dyn.  XXI  end  with 
 his  (1013  +  130  =  )  1143rd  year  of  Abraham,  in  B.C.  (2016 
 -1143)  873. 
 
 In  the  next  dynasty  of  Africanus  the  three  names  given 
 with  their  49  years,  if  tal^en  hy  themselves,  without  the  other 
 six  anonymous  kings,  answered  almost  exactly  (for  a  differ- 
 ence of  one  year  more  or  less  implies  no  real  discrepancy) 
 to  Dyn.  XXII  of  the  Chronicle  with  its  iii  kings  and  48 
 years.  Here,  then,  Eusebius  found  an  opportunity  for 
 returning  to  the  Chronicle ;  and  he  would  apprehend  no  in- 
 convenience from  the  suppression  of  the  six  anonymous 
 kings  with  their  71  years,  because,  when  he  looked  on,  he 
 would  see  that  in  the  dynasties  below  the  Chronicle  had 
 more  years  than  Africanus.  In  the  mean  time  his  remain- 
 ing deficiency  on  the  years  of  the  Chronicle  was  reduced  by 
 one  year,  from  15  years  to  14 ;  and  the  49  years  of  his  Dyn. 
 XXII  ended  in  B.C.  824  with  his  (1143  +  49  =  )  1192nd  of 
 Abraham,  which  is  also  his  1st  of  Uzziah.  In  designating 
 the  dynasty  Buhastite,  rather  than  Tanite,  he  follows  not 
 the  Chronicle  but  Africanus.  But  if  he  supposed  that  there 
 w^as  no  irreconcilable  discrepancy  in  these  two  designations, 
 he  was  in  this  not  mistaken. 
 
 In  Dyn.  XXIII,  for  which  the  Chronicle  has  only  ii 
 Diospolites  with  19  years  but  Africanus  iv  Tanites  with  89, 
 Eusebius  seems  again  in  his  number  of  44  years  to  differ 
 from  both.  And  in  this  and  the  next  dynasty  he  shows 
 himself  careless  about  agreeing  with  either  in  the  number  of 
 the  kings.  He  adopts  for  his  Dyn.  XXIII  from  Africanus 
 the  designation  Tanite,  and  retains  iii  out  of  his  iv  kings. 
 One  king,  the  last,  with  31  years,  he  suppresses.  Two  of 
 the  others,  viz.  the  second  and  the  third,  having  together  18 
 years  in  the  lists  of  Africanus,  would  have  represented  for 
 him  very  well  Dyn.  XXIII  of  the  Chronicle  ;  and  he  per- 
 ceived this,  for  he  has  added  a  unit  to  one  of  the  two  reigns, 
 so  that  in  his  lists  they  exhibit  together  19  years,  the  exact 
 sum  of  Dyn.  XXIII  of  the  Chronicle.  Or,  if  he  thought 
 this  dynasty  suitable  for  the  insertion  of  the  14  years  which 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 785 
 
 he  had  yet  to  re-insert,  he  might  have  let  the  first  of  Afri- 
 canus's  iv  kings,  Petuhast,  remain  at  its  head,  giving  to  hitn 
 those  14  years  and  making  iii  kings.  But  now  he  has  left 
 to  Petubast  not  14  only  but  (14+  11  =  )  25  years  ;  for  this 
 is  the  true  number,  and  so  it  stands  in  the  Canon,  as  well  as 
 in  the  text  of  Book  I. :  and  so  he  makes  the  sum  of  the  dy- 
 nasty to  be  44  years.  The  idea  of  Eusebius  seems  to  have 
 been  this,  that  if  he  left  as  many  as  44  years  to  Dyn. 
 XXIII,  and  then  filled  up  Dyn.  XXIV  (which  in  Afri- 
 canus's  lists  has  only  6  years)  to  the  44  years  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle, his  own  two  dynasties  together,  having  88  years, 
 would  seem  to  answer  to  the  89  years  of  the  single  Dyn. 
 XXIII  of  Africanus,  only  with  a  dilFerent  subdivision. 
 Instead  of  being  14  years  behindhand,  he  was  now  11 
 years  in  advance  of  the  Chronicle ;  and  the  44th  and  last 
 year  of  his  Dyn.  XXIII,  being  his  A.  abr.  (1192+44  =  ) 
 1236,  and  his  46th  year  of  Uzziah,  ended  at  Aug.  31  in  B.  c. 
 780. 
 
 To  exhibit  in  his  Canon  any  synchronism  of  Petubast, 
 the  first  king  of  this  dynasty,  with  the  First  Olympiad  was 
 clearly  impossible  for  him,  unless,  indeed,  he  had  put  things 
 together ;  and  then,  leaving  for  Dyn.  XXIII  the  ii  kings 
 whose  19  years  answered  to  Dyn.  XXIII  of  the  Chronicle, 
 and  putting  down  the  other  two  kings,  the  first  and  the 
 fourth,  named  Petubast  and  Zet,  to  make  out,  together  with 
 Bocchoris,  the  iii  Saites  of  Dyn.  XXIV  of  the  Chronicle,  he 
 might  have  exhibited  the  synchronism  in  its  true  place.  But 
 besides  the  fancy  of  paralleling  the  89  years  of  Dyn.  XXIII 
 of  Africanus,  he  may  have  felt  that  he  had  no  time  to  lose 
 in  adding  those  14  years  by  which  he  was  before  in  arrear, 
 and  that  he  had  need,  whenever  he  did  this,  to  add  some 
 more  years  besides ;  else,  when  he  came  to  Dyn.  XXVI,  he 
 might  find  it  difficult  to  add  all  the  years  required  by  the 
 Chronicle ;  the  more  so  as  the  history  of  that  Saite  dynasty 
 was  better  known,  and  admitted  less  easily  of  interpolations. 
 
 In  Dyn.  XXIV  he  does  not  attempt  to  follow  the  Chro- 
 nicle in  its  number  of  three  Saite  kings,  though  he  might 
 easily  have  done  this,  had  he  pleased,  by  putting  down  the  two 
 names  of  Petubast  and  Zet  from  Dyn.  XXIII.    Or,  if  he 
 
 3  E 
 
786 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 wanted  one  of  them  in  Dyn.  XXIII  to  hold  the  years  which 
 he  wished  to  leave  to  it  over  and  above  the  19  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle, he  might  have  retained  both  the  names,  and  then  there 
 would  have  been,  in  the  two  dynasties  taken  together,  five 
 kings  answering  to  the  five  of  the  Chronicle,  only  differently 
 grouped.  But  now  he  has  filled  up  the  six  years  given 
 to  Bocchoris  by  Africanus  as  the  sole  king  of  Dyn.  XXIV 
 to  the  44  years  of  the  Chronicle;  and  these  end  with  his 
 
 A.  ABR.  (1236+44  =  )  1280,  which  is  also  his  5th  of  Heze- 
 klah,  in  B.C.  736. 
 
 Thus  the  conquest  of  Egypt  by  the  Ethiopian  Sabaco, 
 the  head  of  Dyn.  XXV,  owing  to  those  1 1  years  which  were 
 gained  upon  the  Chronicle  above  in  Dyn.  XXIII,  is  so 
 much  depressed  that,  instead  of  appearing  at  Sept.  1  in  B.C. 
 747,  which  would  both  have  been  in  Eusebian  reckoning  its 
 true  date,  and  would  also  have  suited  Eusebius  very  well  for 
 the  synchronism  of  So  and  Hoshea,  it  appears  at  Sept.  1  in 
 
 B.  C.  736,  after  his  5th  year  of  Hezekiah,  not  only  11  years 
 below  its  true  date,  but  4  or  5  years  too  low  to  admit  of  his 
 own  lists  exhibiting  the  synchronism  just  mentioned.  Here, 
 then,  Eusebius  is  far  from  having  shown  the  same  forethought 
 for  the  synchronism  of  So  and  Hoshea  which  he  had  shown 
 after  his  own  way  for  that  of  Sousakeim  and  Solomon.  In 
 the  number  of  iii  kings  for  this  dynasty  the  Manetho  of  Afri- 
 canus agreed  with  the  Chronicle;  and  Eusebius  adds  4  years 
 to  the  8  of  Sabaco  in  order  to  bring  up  the  sum  of  the  dy- 
 nasty from  the  40  of  Africanus  to  the  44  of  the  Chronicle. 
 He  also  takes  2  years  from  the  14  of  Sevechus  and  transfers 
 them  to  Tirhakah,  whose  reign  is  thus  increased  from  18  to 
 20,  and  ends  the  dynasty  in  B.C.  692,  at  the  close  of  a.abr. 
 1324,  which  is  his  20th  of  Manasseh.  But  to  what  purpose 
 it  was  to  vary  the  last  two  reigns,  giving  them  12  and  20 
 instead  of  14  and  18  years,  is  by  no  means  apparent,  since 
 the  accession  of  Tirhakah,  "  king  of  Ethiopia,"  who  ought  to 
 come  out  of  Egypt  against  Sennacherib  in  the  14th  year  of 
 Hezekiah,  is  by  this  change  merely  raised  from  the  3rd  to 
 the  1st  year  of  Manasseh ;  and  it  is  still  too  low  by  16  years 
 for  the  synchronism.  The  expedient  by  which  Eusebius 
 palliates  this  failure  is  amusing.    Instead  of  passing  it  over 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 787 
 
 in  silence,  as  he  had  done  with  the  synchronism  of  So  and 
 Hoshea,  he  makes  the  Tirhakah  of  the  Scriptures  to  have 
 been  a  king  of  the  Indians,^''  meaning  perhaps  Arab-Cush- 
 ites,  since  the  Ethiopians  were  sometimes  called  Indians: 
 and  he  having  thus  come  from  India,  and  returned  thither, 
 while  Sabaco  was  reigning  over  Ethiopia  and  Egypt,  the 
 similarity  of  the  name  of  "  Taracus"  who  reigned  next  but 
 one  after  Sabaco,  16  years  later,  is  merely  accidental,  and 
 need  not  excite  suspicion.  Dyn.  XXV,  in  consequence  of 
 Eusebius  having  above  gained  11  years  on  the  Old  Chro- 
 nicle, ends  for  him  at  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  692,  apparently  only 
 
 10  years  below  the  true  date  of  the  Chronicle,  but  really 
 
 1 1  years,  since  the  years  of  Eusebius  commence  from  the 
 Sept.  1  preceding  the  true  Egyptian  dates. 
 
 In  Dyn.  XXVI  the  difference  between  the  Old  Chronicle 
 and  the  list  of  Africanus,  whose  text  here  by  some  chance 
 was  not  that  of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  but  that  of  the  original 
 Manetho,  amounted  to  26^  or  27  years.  Eusebius,  on 
 coming  to  this  dynasty,  being  11  years  in  advance  of  the 
 Chronicle,  needed  to  add  only  15  J  years  to  150  years  and  6 
 months,  the  sum  of  Africanus,  so  giving  his  own  dynasty  166 
 years,  to  make  it  end  at  the  same  point  with  Dyn.  XXVI 
 of  the  Chronicle  which  had  177  years.  But,  in  fact,  the 
 sum  of  Eusebius's  Dyn.  XXVI  in  his  Canon  is  167  years, 
 being  one  year  more  than  was  wanted.  His  object  will 
 appear  below.  The  same  sum  is  also  given  by  the  Arme- 
 nian version  of  his  Book  I. ;  it  is  made  out  too  by  the 
 figures  for  the  ix  reigns,  if  the  true  reading  of  12  years  for 
 the  first  reign  be  take  into  the  text  from  the  margin.  The 
 figures  for  the  reigns  in  Syncellus's  Greek  copy  also  agree, 
 if  only  an  excess  of  one  unit  in  the  reign  of  Psammitichus  I. 
 be  corrected ;  for  now  he  has  45  years  (a  number  derived  by 
 transposition  from  his  true  reign  of  54)  instead  of  44,  which 
 were  really  given  to  him  by  Eusebius.  The  sum  given  for 
 the  dynasty,  however,  by  Syncellus  is  neither  the  150  years 
 and  6  months  of  Africanus,  nor  the  167  years  of  Eusebius, 
 nor  the  167  or  168  made  by  the  figures  of  Syncellus's  own 
 text,  but  it  is  163,  the  number  of  Ptolemy.  And  it  is 
 difficult  to  understand  how  this  sum  could  come  into  the 
 
 3  E  2 
 
788 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 text  of  Syncellus,  unless  it  were  made  by  some  one  adding 
 to  tlie  12  years  of  the  reign  of  Ammeris  (placed  at  the  head 
 of  the  dynasty  by  Eusebius)  the  figures  of  Africanus  for  all 
 the  other  reigns,  with  one  full  year  besides  inserted  some- 
 where instead  of  the  imperfect  year  of  Psammecherites.  On 
 the  other  hand  the  construction  of  this  dynasty  in  the  text 
 of  Eusebius  himself  in  his  Canon,  and  in  the  Armenian 
 version  of  Book  I.,  is  no  less  difficult  to  explain.  His  vari- 
 ations in  the  figures  of  the  reigns  common  to  him  with  the 
 Africanus  of  Syncellus  are  remarkable.  For  having  at  the 
 head  of  the  dynasty  the  reign  of  "  Ammeris  "  with  12  years, 
 absent  from  the  Afs  icanus  of  Syncellus,  and  suppressing,  it 
 may  be  presumed,  the  name  and  the  odd  months  of  Psam- 
 mecherites at  the  end  of  the  dynasty,  both  in  order  to 
 preserve  the  number  of  ix  kings  given  in  the  heading  of 
 Africanus,  and  also  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  imperfect  year, 
 he  needed  one  would  think  only  to  add  to  some  one  reign  5 
 years  more.  But  now  he  has  varied  the  figures  of  no  fewer 
 th^n  four  reigns  from  those  of  the  Africanus  of  Syncellus, 
 giving  to  Psammitichus  I.,  Psammouthis,  Ouaphres,  and 
 Amosis  44,  17,  25,  and  42  years  respectively,  instead  of  54, 
 6,  19,  and  44,  when  his  end  might  have  been  equally  at- 
 tained, for  anything  that  appears  at  first  sight,  by  the  single 
 change  of  giving  to  Ouaphres  24  years.  But  a  still  more 
 perplexing  question  it  is  how  to  account  for  the  fresh  reign 
 itself  of  Ammeris,  which  stands  at  the  head  of  his  dynasty. 
 This  is  plainly  from  an  Egyptian  source.  Indeed  both  the 
 name  Ammeris  and  the  qualification  AWLoyjr  are  justifiable 
 at  this  day  from  the  monuments.  And  probably  it  is  from 
 the  same  source  that  some  one  or  more  of  Eusebius's  varia- 
 tions in  the  figures  of  the  other  reigns  are  derived.  In  any 
 case  the  source  can  scarcely  have  been  any  other  than  tlie 
 genuine  text  of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes,  w^hose  scheme  required 
 a  sum  of  163  years  for  this  dynasty,  and  so  needed  both 
 such  an  addition  to  the  dynasty  of  the  original  Manetho  as 
 the  reign  of  Ammeris,  and  also  another  addition  of  one 
 unit,  if  the  name  of  Psammecherites  were  suppressed.  Pto- 
 lemy therefore  might  perhaps  give  to  Psammitichus  I.  55 
 years,  or  to  Psammouthis  7.    And  Eusebius  may  have 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPIIILI. 
 
 789 
 
 found  the  dynasty  of  Ptolemy  in  this  form,  12  +  7^6-f8-(- 
 54  +  6  +  7  +  19  +  44,  making  163  years.  But  where  was 
 Eusebius  to  find  this  genuine  text  of  Ptolemy's  dynasty, 
 seeing  that  it  was  not  exhibited  by  Africanus,  and  that  there 
 is  no  sign  elsewhere  that  Eusebius  knew  anything  either  of 
 the  original  Manetho,  or  of  the  Manetho  of  Ptolemy,  except 
 from  J osephus  and  Africanus  ?  This  is  the  question  which 
 it  is  so  difficult  to  answer  satisfactorily ;  and  it  forces  one 
 in  a  manner  to  admit  tlie  idea  which  some  have  conceived 
 from  those  words  of  Syncellus,  "  according  to  the  second 
 edition  of  Africanus,"  that  Africanus  did  in  fact  vary  from 
 himself  either  by  adding  later  notes  or  supplements,  or  by 
 varying  the  text  itself  in  some  places,  of  which  this  was  one, 
 in  some  of  the  latest  copies  of  his  work.  Otherwise,  Syn- 
 cellus having  previously  spoken  of  the  text  of  Africanus  and 
 Eusebius  as  "  the  two  chief  editions  of  Manetho,"  it  would 
 be  probable  that  the  second  edition  of  Africanus  "  men- 
 tioned afterwards  was  only  a  confused  reference  to  the  text 
 of  Africanus  as  one,  and  that  not  the  second  either,  of  these 
 "  two  editions." 
 
 If  we  take  now  the  dynasty  of  Eusebius,  its  167  years 
 begin  with  his  A.  abr.  1325  in  B.C.  691,  being  his  21st  of 
 Manasseh,  and  end  with  his  a.  abr.  1491,  at  Aug.  31  in  B.C. 
 525,  which  is  chronologically  one  Eusebian  year  too  low, 
 he  having  reckoned  down  to  the  end  of  this  dynasty  in  his 
 Egyptian  series  1492  years,  while  the  Old  Chronicle,  after 
 his  suppression  of  (184  +  26  =  )  210  of  its  years,  has  to  the 
 end  of  the  same  dynasty  only  1491.  The  occasion  of  this 
 very  unnecessary  error  and  variation  from  the  Chronicle, 
 which  depresses  the  commencement  of  Dyn.  XXVII  and 
 the  Egyptian  reign  of  Cambyses  by  one  year,  is  to  be  found 
 in  the  lists  of  Africanus,  where  Cambyses,  who  is  rightly  said 
 in  the  heading  to  have  conquered  Egypt  in  his  5th  Persian 
 year,  has  nevertheless  an  Egyptian  reign  of  6  years,  the 
 truth  being  that  the  124  years  of  the  Persian  dynasty  of  the 
 Chronicle  had  run  3  years  into  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
 Mnemon ;  and  Manetho,  choosing  to  make  the  dynasty  end, 
 in  appearance  at  least,  with  the  reign  of  Darius  Nothus, 
 threw  up  the  3  years  below  it,  and  added  2  of  them  unchro- 
 
 3  E  3 
 
790 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 nologically  to  Cambyses ;  and  the  remaining  one  he  added 
 between  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  and  Darius  Nothus.  Eu- 
 sebius  perceived  that,  if  Cambyses  conquered  Egypt  in  his 
 5  th  year  and  reigned  only  8  in  all,  he  could  not  possibly 
 reign  over  Egypt  six  years ;  and  so  he  determined  to  cut  off 
 those  years  which  were  given  to  him,  as  it  seemed,  only 
 by  an  error  and  inconsistency.  And  this  he  might  well  do. 
 But  he  did  not  attend  to  the  principle  that  the  year  of  the 
 conquest  itself  belonged  properly  not  to  the  ending  but  to 
 the  commencing  reign  and  dynasty.  Owing  to  this  error  he 
 cut  off  from  the  head  of  the  Persian  dynasty  (besides  two 
 iinchronological)  one  chronological  year,  and  transferred  it  to 
 the  preceding  dynasty  of  the  Saites  ;  and  perhaps  he  thought 
 that  those  3  years,  which  the  sum  of  124  given  by  the  Chro- 
 nicle required  him  to  account  for  below  the  reign  of  Nothus, 
 had  been  prefixed  all  together  by  the  Manetho  of  Africanus 
 to  the  reign  of  Cambyses. 
 
 His  Egyptian  years  being  reckoned  as  Julian,  and  their 
 number  having  been  fixed  beforehand  to  agree  with  that  of 
 his  Hebrew  years  between  Abraham  and  the  2nd  of  Darius, 
 the  difference  between  them  and  the  true  Egyptian  years 
 for  which  they  are  substituted  is  not  apparent  at  the  end  of 
 his  series,  because  in  fact  they  were  counted  back  from  their 
 known  and  fixed  ending  below.  If  indeed  Eusebius  had  be- 
 gun from  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  2016  with  his  a.  abr.  1  paralleled 
 with  that  true  Egyptian  year  which  began  4  months  later 
 from  Jan.  10  B.C.  2015,  and  had  allowed  only  1490  years 
 of  his  Egyptian  lists  expecting  them  to  end  together  with  as 
 many  Hebrew  years  at  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  526,  he  would  have 
 found  himself  at  fault  at  the  end  of  Dyn.  XXYI,  his  true 
 Egyptian  years  having  already  come  to  an  end  one  whole 
 year  and  some  days  earlier  than  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  526,  or  the 
 corresponding  date  in  the  spring  following;  so  that  he  would 
 then  have  had  need  to  allow  an  additional  year  to  Dyn. 
 
 XXVI,  but  not  to  cut  off  a  year  from  the  head  of  Dyn. 
 
 XXVII.  But  as  his  process  was  the  reverse  of  this,  and 
 his  fixed  point  from  which  he  counted  off  the  number  of 
 Egyptian  years  to  be  allowed  was  not  above  but  below,  it  is 
 only  on  reckoning  upwards  and  comparing  the  Eusebian 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPniLI. 
 
 791 
 
 Egyptian  with  the  true  Egyptian  years  that  any  discrepancy 
 to  the  amount  of  one  whole  year  will  be  manifested.  Thus, 
 if  the  true  Egyptian  year  beginning  with  Jan.  1  in  B.C.  525 
 is  paralleled  with  the  Eusebian  Egyptian  year  of  Menes  and 
 of  Abraham  1490  beginning  from  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  526,  we  shall 
 find  1460  years  higher,  on  coming  to  A.  abr.  (1490  — 1460=  ) 
 30,  which  begins  from  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  (526  +  1460)  1986, 
 that  the  true  Egyptian  year  alluded  to  as  parallel,  instead  of 
 beginning  from  Jan.  1  in  B.C.  1985,  begins  one  whole  year 
 later,  from  Jan.  1  in  B.C.  1984.  And  at  the  head  of  the  w^hole 
 reckoning,  instead  of  its  being  the  true  Egyptian  year  which 
 began  next  after  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  2016,  which  is  paralleled  with 
 the  first  year  of  Abraham,  it  will  be  that  which  began  one 
 whole  year  and  some  days  later,  viz.  from  Jan.  9  in  B.C. 
 2014,  which  is  the  1490th  above  the  end  of  Dyn.  XXVI  of 
 the  Chronicle. 
 
 The  last  year  of  his  own  Dyn.  XXVI,  being  his  A.  abr. 
 1491  and  his  42nd  of  Amasis,  Eusebius  makes,  as  has  been 
 said  above,  to  coincide  with  the  5th  Persian  year  of  Cambyses, 
 the  1st  of  Dyn.  XXVIII  of  the  Chronicle.  In  the  Canon 
 it  stands  now  as  the  sixth  of  Cambyses ;  but  this  is  incon- 
 sistent with  Eusebius's  own  express  words  elsewhere,  and 
 there  are  several  variants,  showing  the  corrupt  state  of  the 
 text ;  and  one  of  these  variants  gives  the  "  fifth,"  which  is 
 no  doubt  the  true  reading,  though  it  is  true  that  its  restora- 
 tion involves  the  necessity  of  making  other  corrections.  The 
 source  of  the  corruption  lies  probably  in  this,  that  some  copyist 
 observing  the  Magi  to  stand  in  the  Canon  with  one  year 
 below  the  reign  of  Cambyses,  and  knowing  this  year  of  the 
 Magi  to  be  historically  one  with  the  8th  of  Cambyses,  to 
 whom  Eusebius  gave  only  3  in  Egypt,  thought  that  9  years 
 were  thus  given  in  fact  to  Cambyses,  so  that  the  year 
 preceding  the  conquest  of  Egypt  must  be  his  sixth,  being 
 th  e  same  which  was  commonly  called  his  fifth. 
 
 The  42nd  and  last  year  of  Amasis  being  paralleled  with 
 a.  ABR.  1491,  the  5th  really  of  the  8  of  Cambyses,  there  are 
 above  Eusebius's  date  for  the  conquest  of  Egypt  5  years 
 of  Cambyses,  30  of  Cyrus,  1  of  Neriglissar,  2  of  Evil  Mero- 
 dach,  and  25  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  making  together  63  years, 
 
 3  E  4 
 
792 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 according  to  the  true  chronology,  up  to  the  commencement 
 of  Nebuchadnezzar's  19th  Syrian  or  18th  Babylonian  year 
 antedated  from  the  Sept.  1  preceding,  in  B.C.  588,  which 
 would  be  the  true  date  for  the  commencement  of  the  11th 
 year  of  Zedekiah  containing  the  burning  of  the  Temple. 
 And  the  Egyptian  list  of  Eusebius,  if  compared  with  this 
 the  true  chronology,  wwld  exhibit  (5 +30 +1+2+4  =  )  42 
 years  of  Amasis  and  21  of  the  25  of  Apries  up  to  the  same 
 point,  that  is,  to  the  head  of  the  Eusebian  a.  abr.  (1491—63 
 =  )  1428,  beginning  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  588,  which  ought  to  con- 
 tain the  burning  of  the  Temple.  So  th6  J ews  might  fly  to 
 Apries  in  or  after  his  5th  year.  Then,  continuing  upwards 
 with  the  first  10  years  of  Zedekiah  and  11  more  of  Jehoia- 
 kim,  we  should  have  for  them  in  Eusebius's  Egyptian  lists 
 the  first  4  of  Apries  and  the  17  of  Psammouthis,  so  that  the 
 death  of  Necho  would  be  exactly  coincident  with  that  of 
 J osiah,  3  or  4  years  too  early  for  him  to  be  defeated  at  Car- 
 chemish  in  the  4th  of  Jehoiakim.  But  Eusebius  himself 
 between  the  accession  of  Cyrus,  whose  1st  year  he  parallels 
 with  the  8th  of  Amasis  and  the  32nd  of  the  Captivit}^,  and 
 the  beginning  of  the  1st  year  of  the  Captivity,  which  he 
 makes  to  follow  not  the  10th  but  the  11th  year  of  Zedekiah, 
 has  31  years  instead  of  the  true  number,  which  is  27.  He 
 makes  out  the  31  by  reckoning  25  (whereas  there  were  only 
 24)  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  2  of  Evil  Merodach,  and  4  of  Neri- 
 glissar  (whereas  of  these  last  4  years  3  are  really  concurrent 
 with  the  first  3  of  Cyrus).  So  he  has  (31+30  +  5  =  )  66 
 instead  of  62  years,  that  is  4  years  too  many,  in  this  space 
 between  the  commencement  of  the  Captivity,  or  rather  be- 
 tween the  commencement  of  the  11th  of  Zedekiah,  and  his 
 commencement  of  the  Persian  Dyn.  XXVII  in  Egypt: 
 and  the  year  in  which  the  Jews  fled  to  Apries,  instead  of 
 being  the  5th  of  his  25  years,  appears  as  the  1st:  and  the 
 accession  of  Apries  is  coincident  with  the  beginning  of  the 
 19  th  Syrian  or  18  th  Babylonian  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 being  the  year  in  which  the  Temple  was  burned,  though  he 
 does  not  make  this  the  first  of  the  Captivity.  And  now, 
 perhaps,  we  see  why  the  reign  of  Apries  was  lengthened  to 
 25  years,  that  of  Amasis  having  been  reduced  from  44  to  42. 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI.  793 
 
 This  reduction  of  the  reign  of  Amasis,  which  certainly  in 
 itself  seems  quite  gratuitous,  if  the  two  years  cut  off  were 
 to  be  added  again  to  Apries  just  above,  must  be  supposed  to 
 have  been  made  first,  and  for  some  separate  reason  of  its 
 own.    The  reason  may  have  been  this,  that  the  lists  of  Afri- 
 canus  gave,  however  inconsistently,  to  Cambyses  six  years 
 in  Egypt,  while  by  the  heading  of  the  dynasty  in  the  same 
 lists  it  was  plain  that  there  could  be  only  four  at  most. 
 Still  the  sum  of  124  years  seemed  to  be  made  out  by  the 
 help  of  the  six.    The  first  two  then  of  the  six  Egyptian 
 years  of  Cambyses,  being  as  they  stood  clearly  unchrono- 
 logical,  might  be  supposed  to  be  also  of  necessity  identical 
 with  the  last  two  of  Amasis ;  and,  if  the  reign  of  Cambyses 
 were  to  be  antedated  by  2  years,  that  of  Amasis  ought  to  be 
 shortened  by  as  many.    This  change  then  was  made  in  the 
 first  instance,  and  with  a  view  to  the  sum  of  124  years  which 
 it  was  then  intended  to  preserve  to  Dyn.  XXVII  below,  and 
 respecting  which  it  was  not  then  perceived  that  its  true 
 chronological  ending  was  with  the  3rd  year  of  Artaxerxes 
 Mnemon.  So  having  the  2nd  year  of  Apries  coincident  with 
 the  12th  of  Jeconiah,  which  he  makes  the  1st  of  the  Cap- 
 tivity, Eusebius  parallels  the  preceding  1 1  years  of  Zedekiah 
 with  1,  the  first,  of  Apries  and  10  of  Psammouthis,  whose 
 1st  year  is  identified  with  the  6th  of  Jehoiakim  (and  to 
 Jehoiakim  he  gives  12  not  11  years).    So  the  6  years  of  Ne- 
 cho  take  in  exactly  the  last  year  of  Josiah  above  and  the  5th 
 of  Jehoiakim  (including  the  3  months  of  J ehoahaz)  below. 
 And  now  we  can  see  why  10  years  have  been  cut  off  from 
 Psammitichus  I.  and  added  to  the  7  which  Eusebius  probably 
 found  given  in  the  lists  of  Ptolemy  to  Psammouthis  below, 
 this  change  being  needed,  according  to  his  Hebrew  scale,  in 
 order  to  raise  the  accession  of  Necho  into  contact  with  the  last 
 year  of  Josiah.  And  that  the  change  is  really  one  made  by  a 
 Christian  writer,  and  for  this  or  some  other  similar  reason,  is 
 plain  also  when  one  considers  that  it  is  made  at  a  guess  ;  and 
 as  it  happens,  the  wrong  reigns,  those  of  Psammouthis  and 
 Apries,  instead  of  that  of  Necho,  are  selected  to  receive  ad- 
 ditions. But  a  native  Egyptian  who,  like  Ptolemy,  understood 
 Manetho's  unchronological  dislocations,  if  he  had  added  at  all, 
 
794 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 would  have  been  likely  to  add  in  the  right  place,  and  the 
 right  number  of  years.  Why  Eusebius  should  transfer  the 
 10  years  needed  to  elevate  Necho  rather  to  Psammouthis 
 than  to  Necho  himself  is  not  difficult  to  guess.  For,  first,  if 
 he  noticed  that  Ptolemy  had  already  varied  from  Manetho, 
 or  that  the  "  two  editions  of  Africanus  "  varied  from  one 
 another,  for  the  reign  of  Psammouthis,  it  would  be  pre- 
 ferable to  make  a  change  in  that  reign  rather  than  to  intro- 
 duce a  new  sum  for  the  reign  of  Necho,  which  was  the  same 
 in  all  the  lists.  And,  secondly,  after  so  long  a  reign  as  that 
 of  Psammitichus  I.,  even  though  it  were  reduced  from  54  to 
 to  44  years,  it  would  seem  better  to  let  the  next  reign  stand 
 as  it  was  with  its  6  years,  and  to  lengthen  in  preference  to 
 it  the  next  but  one. 
 
 So  between  the  end  of  the  6th  of  Hezekiah,  A.  abr.  1281, 
 and  the  end  of  the  31st  of  Josiah,  a.  abr.  1402,  Eusebius 
 has  121  Egyptian  years,  consisting  of  43  out  of  the  44  of 
 his  Dyn.  XXV,  and  of  77  more  (viz.  12  +  7-^6  +  8  + 44)  of 
 his  Dyn.  XXVI,  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Psammitichus  I. 
 as  shortened  by  him,  and  lastly  1  year,  the  first,  of  Necho, 
 which  so  is  made  to  admit  the  synchronism  of  the  death  of 
 Josiah.  The  excess  introduced  into  his  sacred  reckoninsr  in 
 the  Canon  by  giving  12  years  instead  of  10  to  Amon  (though 
 elsewhere  he  gives  rightly  2)  would  of  itself  have  thrust  up 
 the  death  of  Josiah  so  as  to  stand  9  years  above  the  accession 
 of  Necho ;  and  it  was  to  remedy  this  inconvenience  that  he 
 transferred  10  of  the  54  years  of  Psammitichus  I.  to  Psam- 
 mouthis the  successor  of  Necho,  so  as  to  thrust  up  the  acces- 
 sion of  Necho  also  by  10  years. 
 
 In  Dyn.  XXVII  Eusebius  in  his  Book  I.,  according  to 
 the  text  both  of  Syncellus  and  of  the  Armenian  version, 
 instead  of  the  124  years  and  4  months  of  Africanus,  or  the 
 124  years  of  the  Chronicle,  exhibits  120  years  and  4  months. 
 The  Chronicle  for  this  dynasty  had  named  Jive  generations. 
 Eusebius  in  Book  I.  retains  from  Africanus  the  number  of  viii 
 actual  kings ;  but  one  of  the  kings  is  not  the  same  as  with 
 Africanus.  For  Eusebius,  by  what  seems  at  first  sight  a 
 wanton  and  inappropriate  variation,  suppresses  after  Xerxes 
 the  name  and  the  7  months  of  Artabanus,  and  names  instead 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 795 
 
 between  Cambyses  and  Darius  (also  with  7  months)  the  reign 
 of  the  Magi,  which  all  the  Egyptian  lists  had  suppressed  as 
 illegitimate.  For  they  all,  though  this  is  contrary  to  the 
 usual  custom,  fill  up  with  the  7  months  of  the  Magi  the 
 eighth  imperfect  year  of  Cambyses,  which  was  only  current 
 when  he  died.  The  effect  of  the  change  made  by  Eusebius 
 is  to  make  the  commencement  of  his  Dyn.  XXVII  look  as 
 if  it  were  such  as  is  required  by  the  notice  in  the  heading  of 
 Africanus  that  Cambyses  subdued  Egypt  in  his  fifth  year. 
 For  so  in  technical  reckoning,  from  the  beginning  of  that 
 year,  he  ought  to  have  in  the  list  below  four  years,  the 
 fourth  and  last  of  these  having  really  only  5  months  of  its 
 own,  but  being  filled  up  by  the  7  months  of  the  Magi. 
 Eusebius  then,  giving  3  years  to  Cambyses  himself  and 
 their  7  months  separately  to  the  Magi,  as  if  their  reign  were 
 legitimate,  would  seem  to  differ  only  in  his  mode  of  state- 
 ment. But  in  truth  this  is  not  so.  For  Eusebius  gives  to 
 Cambyses  the  full  8  years,  besides  naming  the  7  months  of 
 the  Magi  separately  afterwards  ;  and  of  the  eight  he  makes, 
 as  has  been  explained  above,  the  sixth  to  be  his  first  year  in 
 Egypt,  so  beginning  the  dynasty  chronologically  too  low 
 by  one  year,  as  if  from  Sept.  1,  in  B.C.  525  (which  in  terms 
 of  the  Egyptian  year  would  be  from  the  spring  following). 
 And  the  3rd  of  Cambyses  in  Egypt,  being  still  as  before  his 
 8th  Persian  year,  really  contains  within  itself  the  7  months 
 of  the  Magi.  The  Magi  then,  as  named  by  Eusebius  in  his 
 Book  I.,  are  merely  Artabanus  transposed;  and  their  7 
 months  belong  chronologically  to  the  first  year  of  Darius,  as 
 if  the  reign  of  Xerxes  below  had  had  21  years  and  7  months 
 or  22  years.  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  again  in  Book  I.  has 
 only  40  instead  of  41  years ;  and  this  reduction  is  justifiable 
 chronologically,  since  Xerxes  II.  and  Sogdianus,  with  2 
 months  and  7  months,  are  named  separately,  whereas  it  is 
 only  by  a  consolidation  of  these  that  Artaxerxes  can  claim 
 41  years.  Thus  by  cutting  off*  one  chronological  year  of  the 
 reign  of  Cambyses,  and  two  others  unchronologically  prefixed 
 to  it  in  the  lists  of  Africanus,  and  one  other  unchronological 
 year  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  Eusebius  reduces  the  sum 
 of  his  dynasty  by  4  years  from  124-^^  to  120^*2  5 
 
796 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 begins  one  year  after  and  ends  3  years  before  the  Persian 
 Dynasty  XXVIII  of  the  Chronicle. 
 
 In  the  Canon,  as  the  text  now  stands,  Cambyses  has  only 
 two  full  years  for  himself,  viz.  his  7th  and  his  8th ;  but,  as 
 we  have  corrected  it  by  the  help  of  the  variant  mentioned 
 above,  he  has  3  years,  viz  his  6th,  7th,  and  8th;  and  then, 
 after  these,  one  full  year  is  reckoned  to  the  Magi,  which  is 
 chronologically  identical  with  the  1st  year  of  Darius,  whose 
 34th  becomes  by  this  transposition  the  1st  of  Xerxes,  while 
 the  21st  of  Xerxes  represents  those  7  months  of  Artabanus 
 out  of  which  the  reduplication  of  the  Magi  has  been  made 
 above,  and  other  5  months  besides.  In  this,  as  in  some 
 other  places,  Eusebius  on  coming  to  the  arrangement  of  his 
 Canon  must  have  discovered  that  the  materials  prepared  in 
 his  First  Book  did  not  suit  exactly  according  to  his  design. 
 For  if  Dyn.  XXVI  ended  with  his  a.  abr.  1491,  and  this 
 was  the  66th  year  of  the  Captivity,  and  Dyn.  XXVII 
 began  from  Sept.  J  in  B.C.  525  with  the  67th  year  of  the 
 Captivity,  and  with  the  sixth  of  Cambyses,  and  Cambyses 
 reigned  8  years  complete,  and  his  reign  was  then  followed 
 by  7  months  or  one  year  of  the  Magi,  the  70th  year  of  the 
 Captivity  would  end  with  this  year  of  the  Magi  at  or  before 
 the  accession  of  Darius.  But  Eusebius  had  made  the  termi- 
 nation of  the  Captivity,  whether  with  or  at  the  second  of 
 Darius,  to  be  one  of  his  fixed  points,  to  and  from  which  he 
 reckoned  both  upwards  and  downwards.  Xor  did  it  help  him 
 out  of  his  difficulty  to  be  aware  himself  that  the  70th  year  of 
 the  Captivity  was  only  nominally  given  to  the  Magi,  while 
 chronologically  it  was  the  first  of  Darius.  So  either  he  himself, 
 or  some  later  copyist  for  him,  to  whom  the  present  reading 
 in  the  Canon  may  be  owing,  boldly  but  clumsily  cut  the  knot 
 of  this  difficulty  by  marking  the  1st  year  of  Dyn.  XXVII 
 A.  ABR.  1492,  beginning  at  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  525,  as  the  seventh 
 of  Cambyses,  and  the  last  year  of  Dyn.  XXVI  as  coincident 
 with  his  sixth,''''  Thus  the  year  of  the  Magi  would  stand 
 as  only  69th  of  the  Captivity,  and  its  last  year  would  be  the 
 first  of  Darius,  so  that  it  might  actually  end  a  little  later  in 
 the  spring  of  his  second.  But  in  the  mean  time  two  other 
 consequences  were  involved ;  first,  that  the  Persian  and 
 
EUSEBIU8  PAMPHILI. 
 
 797 
 
 Babylonian  series  between  the  commencements  of  the  1st 
 and  of  the  68th  years  of  the  Captivity  would  now  have  a 
 year  too  many ;  and  we  may  suppose  that  the  same  person, 
 whoever  it  was,  that  marked  Cambyses's  sixth  year  as  parallel 
 with  the  last  of  Amasis^  would  also  reckon  one  year  less  to  the 
 Babylonian  reign  next  before  Cyrus,  making  25  +  2  +  3  +  30 
 +  6  =  66  to  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  525,  instead  of  25  +  2  +  4  +  30  + 
 5  =  66,  as  in  Book  1.  And  on  the  other  hand,  in  Dyn. 
 XXVII  below,  Eusebius,  or  his  corrector,  would  have  lost  a 
 year.  For  the  year  of  the  Magi  being  now  placed  chrono- 
 logically as  A.  ABK.  1494,  beginning  at  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  523, 
 and  so  holding  the  true  place  of  the  last  year  of  Cambyses 
 (whether  he  were  said  to  have  9  or  8  years),  the  short  reign 
 of  Artabanus,  for  which  that  of  the  Magi  had  been  substi- 
 tuted in  Book  I.,  would  now  have  disappeared  altogether,  and 
 there  would  remain  for  the  composition  of  Dyn.  XXVII 
 only  Cambyses  with  2  years  +  the  Magi  with  1  +  Darius  with 
 36  +  Xerxes  with  21  +  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  with  40  + 
 Xerxes  II.  and  Sogdianus  with  2  months  and  7  months  re- 
 spectively +  Darius  Xothus  with  1 9  years,  making  in  all  only 
 119  years  and  9  months.  And  under  these  circumstances,  if 
 he  wished  to  end  his  dynasty  like  Africanus  with  the  reign  of 
 Nothus,  and  at  the  same  time  to  get  rid  of  those  odd  months 
 which  did  not  suit  his  Canon,  it  is  plain  that  what  he  had  to 
 do  was  to  fill  up  the  9  months  of  Xerxes  II.  and  Sogdianus 
 to  a  full  year,  either  by  giving  one  year  to  the  name  of  Sog- 
 dianus and  omitting  Xerxes  II.,  or  by  allowing  a  41st  to 
 Artaxerxes  Longimanus  and  suppressing  both  the  names  of 
 Xerxes  II.  and  Sogdianus.  So  he  might  have  obtained  his 
 sum  of  120  years,  lying  chronologically  between  Sept.  1  in 
 B.C.  525  and  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  405.  But  now  Eusebius, 
 instead  of  making  a  year  more  out  of,  or  in  lieu  of,  the  two 
 short  reigns  of  Xerxes  II.  and  Sogdianus,  has  simply  sup- 
 pressed them,  as  if  he  did  not  perceive  that  he  would  so  be 
 a  year  short,  and  would  have  only  119  years  at  the  death 
 of  Nothus.  This  fact  alone,  that  the  reading  which  in  the 
 Canon  parallels  the  sixth  year  of  Cambyses  with  the  last  of 
 Amasis  is  unaccompanied  by  any  allowance  of  a  year  below 
 Darius  in  compensation  for  the  year  drawn  up  and  suppressed. 
 
798 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 is  perhaps  a  sufficient  sign  that  it  is  not  from  Eusebius  him- 
 self. And  in  the  presence  of  a  number  of  inconsistencies, 
 and  with  some  manifest  corruption  in  the  text,  the  best  plan 
 will  be  to  make  out  for  him  the  series  after  which  he  is 
 manifestly  aiming  with  as  little  departure  as  possible  from 
 the  materials  or  data  of  his  First  Book.  We  suppose,  then, 
 that  in  spite  of  the  awkwardness  of  reckoning  nominally  the 
 70th  year  of  the  Captivity  to  the  Magi,  Eusebius  really  in 
 his  Canon,  as  in  his  First  Book,  made  his  Egyptian  Dyn. 
 XXVII  to  begin  with  the  sixth  not  the  seventh  year  of 
 Cambyses,  the  same  being  his  A.  abr.  1492  and  his  67th 
 year  of  the  Captivity.  Thus  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in 
 making  out  the  composition  of  the  dynasty,  which  will  differ 
 in  the  Canon  from  Book  I.  only  by  the  consolidation  of  the 
 4  odd  months,  and  by  the  omission  of  the  two  names  of 
 Xerxes  II.  and  Sogdianus.  It  will  have  (3  +  1+36  +  21  + 
 40+  19  =  )  120  years,  beginning  with  a.  abr.  1492,  Sept.  1 
 B  c.  525,  oneEusebian  year  later  than  Dyn.  XXVIII  of  the 
 Chronicle,  and  ending  with  the  last  year  of  Nothus  A.  abr. 
 1611,  at  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  405,  three  years  earlier  than  the 
 same  dynasty  of  the  Chronicle. 
 
 In  consequence  of  having  thus  exhibited  Dyn.  XXVII, 
 Eusebius  (who  rightly  marks  in  his  Canon  the  6  years  of 
 Dyn.  XXVIII  of  Manetho  and  Ptolemy  as  merely  concur- 
 rent and  included  within  the  reign  of  Nothus)  would  haveb  e- 
 low  Dynasties  XXVII  and  XXVIII  to  account  for  3  years 
 more  than  the  57  given  to  Dynasties  XXIX  and  XXX 
 by  the  Chronicle,  besides  those  other  15  years  which  it 
 reckoned  from  the  end  of  its  thirtieth  and  last  dynasty  to 
 the  cosmocracy  of  Alexander  in  B.C.  330.  But  in  Dynasties 
 XXIX  and  XXX  of  the  Manetho  of  Africanus  he  found  a 
 provision  of  only  59  years,  being  one  fewer  that  what  he 
 wanted.  And  though  the  present  text  of  the  Canon  in  the 
 Armenian  version  is  hopelessly  corrupt,  and  that  of  St. 
 Jerome  not  by  any  means  free  from  faults,  and  we  have 
 not  in  the  Canon  the  assistance  of  a  separate  exhibition  of 
 Dyn.  XXXI  in  the  Egyptian  column,  still,  as  in  Book  I. 
 Dyn.  XXXI  has  distinctly  16  years,  and  the  composition 
 of  its  three  reigns  shows  that  the  1st  of  the  16  is  chro- 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 799 
 
 nologically  identical  with  the  last  year  of  Dyn.  XXX  of  the 
 Old  Chronicle,  it  may  be  collected  with  tolerable  certainty 
 that  in  the  genuine  text  of  the  Canon  also  Dynasties  XXIX 
 and  XXX  had  (21+38  =  )  59  years,  and  were  identical 
 with  those  of  the  Manetho  of  Africaniis  except  in  this,  that 
 the  4  odd  months  of  Dyn.  XXIX  would  disappear.  The 
 first  year  of  Dyn.  XXIX  beginning  with  A.  abr.  1612, 
 from  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  405,  and  the  last  year  of  Dyn.  XXX 
 ending  with  A.  abr.  1670  at  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  346,  one  year 
 before  the  end  of  Dyn.  XXX  of  the  Chronicle,  this  last 
 year  w^ould  be  the  20th  of  Ochus,  which  Eusebius  accord- 
 ingly has  named  as  the  year  of  his  Egyptian  conquest.  And 
 consistently  with  his  practice  in  other  similar  cases  he  seems 
 in  Book  I.  to  reckon  this  year  as  the  last  of  Nectanebo,  and 
 makes  the  last  six  years  of  Ochus,  to  whom  he  gives  26  years, 
 to  constitute  the  first  reign  of  Dyn.  XXXI.  And  in  this 
 he  is  not  wrong :  for  the  last  six  years  of  Ochus,  from  his 
 21st  to  his  26th  inclusively,  are  really  those  which  follow 
 next  after  the  end  of  Dyn.  XXX  of  the  Chronicle.  The 
 conquest,  however,  must  have  been  in  point  of  fact  in  the 
 21st  not  the  20th  of  Ochus,  as  otherwise  the  Chronicle 
 would  not  have  reckoned  the  20th  of  Ochus  to  Nectanebo, 
 nor  would  Manetho  and  Ptolemy  have  concurred  with  it  in 
 making  the  year  ending  in  B.C.  345,  not  346,  the  last  of  the 
 native  monarchy.  And,  besides  this,  though  Eusebius  in- 
 dicates in  his  First  Book  the  21st  of  Ochus  as  the  1st  of  his 
 Egyptian  reign,  yet  as  he  makes  this  at  the  same  time  to  be 
 the  16th  year  before  the  end  of  Dyn.  XXXI  in  the  autumn 
 of  B.C.  330,  it  must  be  chronologically  only  the  20th  not 
 the  21st  of  Ochus  ;  for  between  the  end  of  his  20th  and  the 
 end  of  the  6  th  of  Darius  Codomannus,  there  are  in  truth 
 only  15  years.  And  in  the  Canon,  where  each  year  was 
 exhibited,  Eusebius  must  either  have  given  to  Ochus  only 
 25  years  in  all,  instead  of  26,  if  Arses  had  4  as  in  Book  I.; 
 or  else,  if  Ochus  had  his  full  26  years,  Eusebius  must  have 
 given  to  him  7  years  in  Egypt  from  his  20th  inclusively, 
 and  to  Arses  only  3  years,  which  is  his  true  number.  Part 
 of  the  confusion  now  visible  in  the  text  of  the  Canon  and  in 
 notices  derived  from  it  concerning  the  last  years  of  the 
 
800 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Egyptian  series  has  arisen  perhaps  from  the  different  ways 
 in  which  the  reigns  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon  and  Ochus  may- 
 be reckoned,  Artaxerxes  havino;  reio;ned  either  40  or  46  and 
 Ochus  either  26  or  only  20  years,  according  as  the  6  years 
 during  which  Ochus  was  associated  are  reckoned  to  the 
 one  or  to  the  other.  So  ostensibly  Dyn.  XXXI  may  have 
 begun  in  the  Canon  with  a.  abr.  1671,  the  20th  of  Ochus, 
 from  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  346  ;  but  really  this  year  was  the  18th 
 of  Nectanebo,  and  the  reign  of  Ochus  over  Egypt  began  in 
 the  year  following.  And  the  16  years  ostensibly  given  by 
 Eusebius  to  the  last  3  Persians,  as  also  the  15  really  belong- 
 ing to  them,  ended  with  A.  abr.  1686,  the  6th  of  Darius 
 Codomannus,  at  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  330. 
 
 If  now  we  take  a  general  survey  of  the  whole  space 
 between  the  birth  of  Abraham  and  the  cosraocracy  of  Alex- 
 ander in  B.C.  330,  when  Eusebius  coincides  within  a  month 
 or  two  with  the  true  chronology,  and  note  at  the  chief 
 intervals  the  peculiarities  of  his  sacred,  his  Egyptian,  and 
 his  Greek  reckoning,  irrespectively  of  any  error  caused  by  his 
 beginning  his  years  from  Sept.  1,  or  by  his  treating  Egyptian 
 and  Xabonassarian  years  as  identical  with  Julian,  we  find, 
 first,  in  his  sacred  scheme  that  the  birth  of  Abraham  is  set 
 (B.C.  2160—2016  =  )  144  years  lower  than  it  would  have 
 been  set  for  him  by  the  true  chronology  of  the  Scriptures 
 and  Josephus  harmonised ;  and  all  other  dates  below  it,  in 
 like  manner,  down  to  the  25th  year  of  Joshua.  The  acces- 
 sion of  Othniel  as  Judge  at  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  1444  is  (144  — 
 16  =  )  128  years  too  low  ;  that  of  Ehud  in  B.C.  1404  is  (128 
 -18  =  )  110  too  low  ;  that  of  Deborah  in  B.C.  1324  is  (110 
 —  20  =  )  90  too  low  ;  that  of  Gideon  in  B.C.  1284  is  (90-7 
 =  )  83  too  low;  that  of  Abimelech  in  B.C.  1244  and  that  of 
 Tola  in  B.C.  1241  are  also  each  83  too  low;  but  in  con- 
 sequence of  the  omission  in  the  Canon  of  the  23rd  year  of 
 Tola  the  accession  of  his  successor  Jair  in  B.C.  1219  is  only 
 82  years  too  low.  Then  the  accession  of  Jephthah  in  B.C. 
 1197  is  (82  —  18  =  )  64  years  too  low  ;  and  that  of  Hesebon 
 in  B.C.  1191  is  also  64  too  low.  But,  in  consequence  of  the 
 omission  of  Elon  with  10  years,  the  accession  of  Labdon  in 
 B.C.  1184  is  only  (64  — 10  =  )  54  years  too  low.  And  lastly 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHTLI. 
 
 801 
 
 that  of  Samson  in  B.C.  1176  is  (54-20  =  )  34  too  low. 
 Then  the  52  years  of  Samuel's  minority  and  judgeship  being 
 omitted,  while  too  many  years  by  18  in  one  place  or  another 
 are  reckoned  below,  the  accession  of  Saul  as  governing 
 together  with  Samuel,  instead  of  being  too  low,  is  thrust  up 
 to  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  1116,  so  as  to  stand  (52  —  34  =  )  18  years 
 too  high.  And  in  like  manner  the  accession  of  David  in  B.C. 
 1076,  of  Solomon  in  B.C.  1036,  of  Rehoboam  in  B.C.  996,  of 
 Abijah  in  B.C.  979,  of  Asa  in  B.C.  976,  and  of  Jehoshaphat  in 
 B.C.  935,  are  each  18  years  too  high.  But  that  of  Jehoram 
 in  B.C.  910,  owing  to  the  25th  of  Jehoshaphat  having  been 
 counted  as  a  distinct  and  perfect  year,  is  only  17  too  high. 
 And  for  a  like  reason  that  of  Ahaziah  in  B.C.  902  is  only  16  ; 
 and  that  of  Athaliah  in  B.C.  901  is  likewise  16  years  too  high. 
 But  those  of  Joash  in  B.C.  894,  of  Amaziah  in  B.C.  854,  of 
 Uzziah  in  B.C.  825,  of  Joatham  in  B.C.  773,  and  of  Ahaz  in 
 B.C.  157,  owing  to  the  last  imperfect  year  of  Athaliah  having 
 been  reckoned  as  distinct  and  full,  are  only  15,  and  that  of 
 liezekiah  in  B.C.  741,  owing  to  the  16  of  Jotham  and  the 
 16  of  Ahaz  having  been  imperfect,  is  only  14  years  too  high. 
 That  of  Manasseh  in  B.C.  712  and  that  of  Amon  in  B.C.  657 
 are  also  each  of  them  14  too  high.  But,  Amon  having  too 
 many  years  by  10,  the  accession  of  Josiah  in  B.C.  645  is  only 
 4  years  too  high ;  and  that  of  Jehoiakim  in  B.C.  614  is  only  4 
 years.  But  as  he  again  has  a  year  too  many,  the  accession 
 of  his  successor  Zedekiah  in  B.C.  602  is  only  3  years  too  high. 
 The  commencement  of  the  Captivity,  if  it  had  been  placed, 
 as  it  ought  to  have  been,  after  his  tenth  year  of  Zedekiah,  in 
 B.C.  592,  would  for  him  have  been  4  years  too  high ;  but  being 
 placed  by  Eusebius  a  year  later,  after  his  eleventh  of  Zede- 
 kiah, in  B  C.  591,  it  is  for  him  only  3  years  too  high.  The 
 end  of  the  43rd  (44th  Syrian)  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the 
 accession  of  Evil-Merodach,  in  B.C.  566,  and  that  of  ISTeri- 
 glissar  in  B.C.  564,  are  each  of  them  4  years  too  high,  and  for 
 similar  reasons.  But  the  4  years  of  Neriglissar  as  reckoned 
 to  precede  the  Persian  accession  of  Cyrus  have  no  chrono- 
 logical existence,  being  really  concurrent  with  the  first  4 
 years  of  his  reigu=  The  Persian  accession  of  Cyrus  is  set, 
 according  to  Eusebian  reckoning,  at  its  true  date,  viz.  Sept. 
 
 *  3  F 
 
802 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 1  B.C.  560 :  andj  lastly,  the  end  of  the  70th  year  of  the 
 Captivity,  being  set  at  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  521,  at  or  before  the 
 beginning  of  the  second  year  of  Darius,  is  3  years  too  high, 
 its  true  place,  for  Eusebian  reckoning,  being  at  Aug.  31  in 
 B.C.  518,  at  the  end  of  his  fourth  year. 
 
 Then,  in  his  Egyptian  series  (Egyptian  years  being  iden- 
 tified with  Julian),  his  year  1  of  Menes,  made  to  begin  from 
 Sept.  1  in  B.C.  2016,  as  if  parallel  with  a.  abr.  1,  is  really 
 the  (2226-2016  =  )  211th  year  from  the  true  date  for  the 
 accession  of  Menes,  which  instead  of  being  coincident  was 
 (2226  —  2160=  )  66  years,  as  Eusebius  would  have  reckoned, 
 before  the  birth  of  Abraham.  The  commencement  of  the 
 Shepherd  dynasty,  being  set  in  B.C.  (2016-190  =  )  1826, 
 is  (owing  to  the  omission  of  the  Memphites)  only  (210—  103 
 =  )  107  years  too  low ;  and  as  it  has  (184  —  103  =  )  81  years 
 too  few,  the  commencement  of  the  next  dynasty,  viz.  Dyn. 
 XVIII,  in  B.C.  (1826-103  =  )  1723  is  only  (107 -81  = ) 
 26  years  too  low.  The  date  which  he  assigns  to  the  Exodus 
 after  the  212th  year  of  this  dynasty,  that  is,  after  Aug.  31 
 in  B.C.  1511,  would  place  it  by  the  lists  of  the  original  Ma- 
 netho,  preserved  by  Josephus,  after  the  5th  year  of  Eathotis, 
 who  so  would  not  be  drowned  in  the  Red  Sea,  any  more 
 than  his  sister,  or  the  double  of  his  sister,  to  unsex  and  to 
 drown  whom  Eusebius  has  taken  so  much  trouble.  Down 
 to  the  178th  year  of  his  Dyn.  XX  Eusebius's  Egyptian 
 dates,  irrespectively  of  any  particular  dislocations,  will  con- 
 tinue to  be  all  26  years  too  low.  Then  the  head  of  his  Dyn. 
 XXII,  that  is,  the  accession  of  Shishonk  I.,  set  by  him  in 
 B.C.  873,  is  (26  +  80  =  )  106  years  too  low:  but  the  same 
 dynasty,  having  72  years  too  few,  ends  in  B.C.  824,  only 
 (106  —  72  =  )  34  years  too  low.  The  two  reigns  of  Osorchon 
 and  Psammis,  answering  to  Dyn.  XXIII  of  the  Chronicle, 
 and  beginning  for  Eusebius  in  B.C.  (824  —  25  =  )  799,  begin 
 (34  +  25  =  59  —  49  =  )  11  years  too  low.  The  commence- 
 ments of  the  Saite  Dyn.  XXIV  in  B.C.  (799-19  =  )  780, 
 of  the  Ethiopian  Dyn.  XXV  in  B.C.  (780-44  =  )  736,  and 
 of  the  Saite  Dyn.  XXVI  in  B.C.  (736-44  =  )  692,  are  also 
 each  11  years  too  low.  The  end  of  Dyn.  XXVI  in  B.C. 
 (692-167=)  525  is  one  year  too  low.  Dyn.  XXVII,  with 
 120  years  beginning  with  the  6th  of  Cumbyscs  and  ending 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILT. 
 
 803 
 
 with  the' 19th  of  Nothus,  ends  rightly  in  B.C.  405.  But 
 then  Dyn.  XXIX,  as  only  21  years  are  given  to  it,  ends  in 
 B.C.  384  one  year  too  high.  And  this  again  draws  up  all  the 
 38  years  of  Dyn.  XXX,  so  that  they  also  end  one  year  too 
 high,  in  B.C.  346  instead  of  B.C.  345 ;  and  the  18th  and  last 
 of  Nectanebo  II.  is  parallel  with  the  19th  Persian  year  of 
 Ochus,  instead  of  being  parallel  with  his  20th.  In  con- 
 sequence 16  years,  instead  of  15,  are  given  in  Dyn.  XXXI 
 as  the  interval  between  the  Persian  conquest  of  Ochus  and 
 the  cosmocracy  of  Alexander,  upon  the  death  of  Darius, 
 which  is  rightly  set  at  Sept.  1,  in  B.C.  330. 
 
 Of  his  Greek  and  other  heathen  reckonings  it  may  be 
 observed  that  he  is  at  no  pains,  generally  speaking,  to  shorten 
 them  in  the  same  proportion  in  which  he  curtails  the  Hebrew 
 chronology,  but  takes  them  often  nearly  as  they  stood  with 
 Africanus,  and  finds  Hebrew  antiquity  to  be  still  sufficiently 
 superior.  From  the  Assyrian  list  indeed  (so  Syncellus  says) 
 he  omits  4  kings,  so  leaving  only  42  years  of  Ninus  (for  the 
 reign  of  Belus  he  regards  as  fabulous)  before  the  birth  of 
 Abraham.  And  of  the  Sicyonian  list  he  allows  one  whole 
 reign  of  ^gialeus,  viz.  52  years,  and  the  first  22  of  the 
 second  king,  Europs,  making  74  in  all,  to  be  anterior  to 
 Abraham,  whereas  according  to  Africanus  the  1st  year  of 
 ^gialeus  was  parallel  with  the  28  th  of  Jacob.  But  the  foun- 
 dation of  Argos  by  Inachus  Eusebius  places  after  his  A.M. 
 3341,  that  is  160  years  after  the  birth  of  Abraham,  in  B.C. 
 1856,  at  an  interval  of  673  years  above  Eratosthenes's  date 
 for  Troy.  The  Flood  of  Ogyges  he  marks  1 00  years  later, 
 after  his  a.m.  3444,  A.  abr.  260,  the  5 1st  of  Phoroneus,  in 
 B.C.  1756.  After  a.m.  3708,  a.  abr.  525,  ending  in  B.C. 
 1492,  he  has  a  note  in  his  Canon  "  Danaidum  res,"  meaning 
 "  the  affair  of  the  50  daughters  of  Danaus  and  their  50  cou- 
 sins the  sons  of  ^gyptus ;  "  so  that,  if  any  one  likes  here  to 
 amuse  himself,  he  may  consider  that  Danaus  and  iEgyptus 
 having  the  one  50  sons,  and  the  other  50  daughters,  grown 
 up  must  at  this  date  be  themselves  at  least  50  years  of  age. 
 Then,  8  years  later,  we  find  A.  abr.  533  ending  in  B.C.  1484 
 (301  years  above  Eratosthenes's  date  for  Troy)  paralleled 
 with  the  5th  and  last  year  of  Armais  or  Danaus  in  Egypt 
 
 3  F  2 
 
804 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Whether  he  wandered  like  Ulysses  in  the  mean  time  is  not 
 said ;  but  after  10  more  years  A.  abr.  544  is  marked  as  the 
 1st  year  of  Danaus  at  Argos;  and  he  reigns  there  50  years, 
 dying  as  it  seems  after  A.  abr.  593,  in  B.C.  1423,  at  the  age, 
 as  it  may  seem,  of  at  least  118  years;  while  his  brother 
 ^gyptus  ^vho  reigned  after  expelling  him  68  years  in 
 Egypt,  dies  8  years  later,  after  a.  abr.  601,  in  B.C.  1415, 
 and  so  at  the  age  of  at  least  126  years.  But  since  every 
 fable  must  have  some  source,  and  Eusebius  has  really  fixed 
 this  fable  to  the  historical  king  (Rameses  II.)  alluded  to, 
 though  only  circuitously,  by  Manetho,  this  may  be  the  proper 
 place  at  which  to  mention  the  singular  fact,  that  from  the 
 sculptures  (unhappily  much  damaged)  of  the  temple  at 
 Sehoua  it  appears  that  Rameses  II.  had  in  truth  no  fewer 
 than  111  sons  and  59  daughters,  so  that  he  might  well  spare 
 50  of  them  for  Greek  fable  to  give  to  his  brother.  (^Brugsch, 
 Hist  UEgyj)te,  p.  164.) 
 
 In  several  of  the  notices  inserted  by  Eusebius  into  his 
 Canon  there  are  signs  of  a  disposition  in  their  authors  to 
 turn  the  tables  upon  the  Egyptians,  as  if  by  an  amusing 
 kind  of  mimicry.  Thus  at  A.  abr.  279,  ending  in  B.C. 
 1738,  there  is  a  note  that  Apis^  of  whose  reign  at  Argos  this 
 was  the  9th  year,  now  colonised  Egypt  and  "  huilt  Mem- 
 phis," continuing  however  to  reign  on  at  Argos  for  26  years 
 longer.  And  as  late  as  A.  abr.  498,  ending  in  B.C.  1519, 
 only  7  years  before  his  date  for  the  Exodus,  he  lets  us  know 
 that  7(9,  having  wandered  from  Argos,  was  now  in  Egypt, 
 where  she  was  named  Isis,  and  her  son  Epaphus,  born  there, 
 is  Apis  or  Serapis. 
 
 Instead  of  that  synchronism  of  Inachus  which  many  had 
 adopted  for  the  Exodus  from  Ptolemy,  Apion,  and  Josephus, 
 or  that  of  Ogyges  and  Phoroneus  which  Africanus  had 
 substituted,  Eusebius  points  out  the  fact  that,  even  with 
 all  those  reductions  which  he  has  made,  the  Exodus  appears 
 in  his  Canon  in  the  time  of  Cecrops  the  first  king  of  Athens; 
 and  Cecrops  is  earlier  than  almost  all  the  famous  personages 
 and  events  of  Greek  fable.  It  appears,  in  fact,  after  his  45th 
 year,  in  B.C.  1511.  What  his  dates  for  each  of  those 
 later  Greek  personages  and  events  which  he  enumerates  as 
 at  er  than  Cecrops,  and  so  than  Moses,  may  be,  it  is  unne- 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 805 
 
 cessary  here  to  specify,  as  they  do  not  bear  directly  on  the 
 Egyptian  lists,  and  they  may  be  seen  in  that  epitome  of  the 
 Canon  which  will  be  subjoined.  But  if  we  pass  on  to  his 
 date  for  Troy,  it  seems  that  he  puts  this  2  or  3  years  later 
 than  Eratosthenes,  viz.  after  the  23rd  year  of  Mnestheus  of 
 Athens,  A.  ABR.  835,  being  his  3rd  for  Labdon,  which  ends 
 in  B.C.  1181.  For  what  reason  he  so  varied  from  the  date 
 of  Eratosthenes  is  not  apparent,  unless  it  were  in  order  to 
 make  the  synchronism  coincide  exactly  with  the  end  of  the 
 7th  and  last  year  of  Thouoris  and  of  Dyn.  XIX,  which 
 ends  for  him  at  Aug,  31  in  B.C.  1181.  He  observes  that 
 from  Troy  up  to  the  birth  of  Moses  are  411  and  down  to 
 Olymp.  1  are  408  years.  But  from  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  (1511  + 
 80  =  )  1591,  his  date  for  the  birth  of  Moses,411  years  would 
 end  at  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  1180,  while  reckoned  up  from  Sept. 
 1  in  B.C.  777,  the  beginning  of  his  year  paralleled  with 
 Olymp.  1  a,  405  years  will  appear  to  have  begun  from 
 Sept.  1  in  B.C.  1182.  He  is  reckoning  then  loosely,  after 
 his  custom,  going  up  80  years  from  the  beginning  of  the 
 year  after  which  he  marks  the  Exodus,  that  is,  from  Sept.  1 
 in  B.C.  1512,  to  the  year  of  the  birth  of  ]Moses,  which  so  is 
 in  B.C.  (1512  +  80  =  )  1592,  and  then  reckoning  down  from  it 
 411  years  to  end  in  B.C.  1181.  And  in  like  manner  he 
 reckons  down  to  Olymp.  1  not  from  the  end  of  A.  abr.  835, 
 the  7th  of  Thouoris,  in  B.C.  1 181,  but  from  the  beginning,  in 
 B.C.  1182,  and  so  makes  405  years  to  B.C.  (1 182—405  =  )777, 
 It  is  before  this  date  that  he  "  suppresses  the  4  Assyrian 
 kings  [of  Anianus  ?],  viz.  Arabelus  with  42,  Chalaus  with 
 45,  Anebus  with  38,  and  Babius  with  37,  making  in  all  162 
 years,  in  order  that  his  own  date  for  Troy  may  fall  within  the 
 reign  of  Teutamus."  Syncellus,  having  a  much  longer  chro- 
 nology, "  reinserts "  these  kings,  but  about  80  years  later, 
 after  the  reign  of  Teutaus,  The  end  of  the  reign  of  Sardana- 
 palus  and  of  the  Assyrian  monarchy  is  put  by  Eusebius  after 
 A.  ABR.  1196,  in  B.C.  820;  but  Syncellus's  list  reckoned  up 
 from  his  own  point  puts  Ninus  at  B.C.  (825  +  51  +  1306+48 
 =  )  2230,  just  above  the  true  epoch  of  Menes,  and  41  years 
 (with  Eusebius  42)  above  the  birth  of  Abraham.  And  the  1st 
 of  Belus  is  55  years  higher  in  B.C.  2285  after  a.m.  3215. 
 
 3  F  3 
 
806 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 In  the  lower  part  of  his  scale  an  excess  of  2  years  in  the 
 reigns  of  the  Macedonians  is  caused  by  his  giving  to  Pto- 
 lemy Lagi  20  instead  of  19  years  from  the  death  of  Alex- 
 ander to  his  assumption  of  a  crown  in  Egypt,  and  by 
 another  similar  inadvertence  below.  But  this  is  compen- 
 sated by  his  bringing  down  the  deaths  of  Antony  and  Cleo- 
 patra 2  years  too  low,  to  the  end  of  his  a.m.  5173,  in  B.C. 
 28,  so  that  there  is  no  insertion  of  unchronological  years, 
 but  only  a  misplacement  of  events.  The  56  years  which  he 
 gives  to  Augustus  begin  from  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  43,  the  year 
 after  the  death  of  Julius  Caesar.  About  the  reign  of  Herod  he 
 blunders  strangely.  He  gives  to  him  37  years  beginning  with 
 his  year  of  Augustus  11  from  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  33,  and  ending 
 at  Aug.  31  in  a.d.  5.  The  error  may  perhaps  be  accounted 
 for  thus :  Herod  really  reigned  either  34  or  37  years  from 
 two  distinct  accessions  between  which  there  was  an  interval 
 of  3  years,  his  first  accession  being  when  he  was  made  king 
 by  the  Roman  Senate  in  B.C.  40,  his  second  when  with  the 
 aid  of  Sosius  he  had  taken  Jerusalem  in  B.C.  37.  Eusebius, 
 instead  of  reckoning  the  interval  of  3  years  from  B.C.  40  to 
 B.C.  37,  reckoned  it  from  B.C.  36  to  B.C.  33  :  and,  instead  of 
 reckoning  the  longer  reign  of  37  years  from  the  commence- 
 ment of  the  3  years'  interval  above  B.C.  37,  he  reckoned  it 
 from  the  end  of  a  3  years'  interval  below,  B.C.  36  ;  though,  if 
 he  had  supposed  the  date  of  the  first  accession  to  be  in  B.C. 
 36,  he  ought  to  have  reckoned  only  34  years,  not  37,  from 
 the  supposed  later  accession  in  B.C.  33.  The  date  indicated 
 underneath  these  mistakes  for  the  death  of  Herod  is  some 
 day  of  the  Eusebian  year  current  between  Sept.  1  in  B.C. 
 4  and  Aug.  31  in  B.C.  3,  which  is  one  year  too  low. 
 
 It  remains  to  give  an  account  of  the  Eusebian  text  of  those 
 XV  dynasties  of  Africanus  which  though  not  to  be  used  in  the 
 Canon  were  still  admitted  by  Eusebius  into  his  First  Book,  and 
 which  are  exhibited  both  in  the  Armenian  version  of  that  book 
 and  in  the  transcript  made  from  the  Greek  by  Syncellus. 
 
 With  respect  then  to  Africanus's  first  xv  dynasties  of 
 kings,  or  those  which  Eusebius  has  made  to  stand  as  such 
 (since  he  has  made  Dyn.  XVII  of  Africanus  to  stand  as 
 XVI,  Dyn.  XV  as  XVII,  and  Dyn.  XVI  as  XV),  it  has 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 807 
 
 been  already  observed  that  he  spared  himself  the  trouble  of 
 examining  whether  any  of  them  were  historical  and,  if  so, 
 identical  or  contemporary  with  any  of  the  xv  dynasties  of 
 kings  in  the  Old  Chronicle.  And  though  in  his  Book  1.  he 
 transcribes  from  Africanus  the  explanation  that,  a  number  of 
 dynasties  having  in  early  times  existed  together  in  Egypt, 
 there  is  no  great  difficulty  even  if  one  finds  two  or  three 
 times  as  many  years  and  kings  as  there  is  room  for  in  single 
 succession,  —  and  again  the  notice,  that  some  writers  of 
 repute  for  exactness  had  explained  the  vast  periods  of  the 
 Gods  to  be  made  up  of  month-years,  —  and  though  he  even 
 seems  to  appropriate  what  had  been  said  by  Africanus  in  the 
 first  person,  as  if  adopting  these  explanations  for  himself, 
 and  understanding  the  reigns  of  the  Gods  to  cover  the  time 
 of  the  antediluvians  down  to  the  Flood  and  to  the  Disper- 
 sion, it  does  not  seem  that  Eusebius  really  adopted  or  made 
 any  practical  application  of  either  of  the  two  principles  of 
 explanation  above  stated.  Neither  in  his  First,  nor  in  his 
 Second  Book,  is  there  any  hint  in  his  lists  of  contemporary 
 dynasties,  except  in  the  case  of  Dyn.  XX Y III  of  Afri- 
 canus :  and  in  one  dynasty,  Dyn.  XYII  of  Africanus,  where 
 he  found  two  distinct  lines  of  kings  expressly  named  as 
 concurrent,  he  has  simply  expunged  one  of  them.  We  are 
 told,  moreover,  by  Syncellus,  that  Anianus  and  Panodorus, 
 or  Panodorus  at  any  rate,  blamed  Eusebius  for  this  very 
 reason,  that  he  had  rejected  the  expedient  of  reducing  the 
 vast  periods  of  the  Egyptians  as  if  from  months  to  true 
 years,  and  had  failed  to  perceive  that  by  such  reduction 
 they  were  really  reconcilable  with  the  true  chronology  of 
 the  world,  as  they  themselves  undertook  to  show. 
 
 This  being  so,  when  one  compares  the  first  xv  dynasties 
 given  by  Syncellus  from  Book  I.  of  Eusebius  with  the  same 
 dynasties  also  transcribed  by  him  from  Africanus,  it  is 
 natural  in  the  first  instance  to  expect  that  there  will  be  little 
 or  no  difference;  and  that  such  differences  as  may  here  and 
 there  exist  will  be  real  variants,  available  towards  ascer- 
 taining the  genuine  text  of  Africanus  and  Ptolemy,  or  even 
 (indirectly)  of  the  original  Manetlio.  For  Eusebius,  one 
 would  think,  could  have  no  motive  for  altering  materials  not 
 
 3  F  4 
 
808 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 intended  to  be  used.  Those  other  dynasties  which  he  meant 
 to  work  up  into  his  Canon  he  had  an  obvious  motive  for 
 altering ;  and  as  we  know  both  by  whom  and  for  what  par- 
 ticular purpose  nearly  every  one  of  those  alterations  which 
 appear  in  his  XV  or  xvi  later  dynasties  (from  Dyn.  XYI 
 to  XXXI)  was  made,  his  peculiarities  in  those  dynasties 
 cannot  be  mistaken  for  variants,  nor  can  any  critical  im- 
 portance be  attached  to  them.  But  with  the  xv  earlier 
 dynasties  the  contrary  would  seem  to  be  the  case. 
 
 It  may  be  true  indeed  that  in  some  few  instances  the  text 
 of  Eusebius  does  present  variants  from  that  of  Africanus. 
 For  instance,  when  he  gives  for  Dyn.  I  a  sum  of  252  instead 
 of  253  years,  differing  by  only  one  year,  any  one  who 
 knows  that  the  original  Manetho  gave  the  reigns  with  their 
 odd  months  may  reasonably  suspect  that  in  this  instance  the 
 original  iNIanetho  had  252  years  and  some  months.  So,  too, 
 the  sums  of  297  instead  of  302  years  for  Dyn.  II,  of  198  or, 
 as  the  Armenian  text  has  it,  197,  instead  of  214  for  Dyn.  Ill, 
 and  of  182  instead  of  160  for  the  reigns  of  Dyn.  XII,  may 
 possibly  be  variants.  Just  as  in  the  later  dynasties  the  ex- 
 hibition in  Dyn.  XVIII  of  the  25  years  of  Amosis  and  of  a 
 series  of  reigns  making  up  exactly  or  very  nearly  the  given 
 sum  of  348  years,  is  no  doubt  derived  from  a  different  and 
 a  far  more  perfect  copy  of  Africanus  than  that  used  by 
 Syncellus.  And  in  Dyn.  XXVI  Eusebius's  first  name, 
 Ammerisy  whether  from  the  same  more  perfect  copy  of  Afri- 
 canus or  not,  is  certainly  from  an  Egyptian  source,  and  a 
 very  valuable  variation  from  the  text  of  Syncellus.  But,  if 
 one  is  to  speak  of  them  generally,  Eusebius's  variations 
 from  the  text  of  Africanus  in  his  first  xv  dynasties,  though 
 quite  unlike  those  in  the  dynasties  following,  are  still  both 
 too  many  and  too  considerable  to  be  regarded  for  a  moment 
 either  as  variants  or  as  results  of  mere  carelessness,  while 
 yet  they  are  accompanied  by  such  plain  signs  of  extreme 
 carelessness  in  transcribing  and  of  off-handed  arbitrariness  in 
 altering,  as  to  justify  a  doubt  whether  there  is  much  or  any- 
 thing in  them  to  be  ascribed  to  further  causes. 
 
 After  exhibiting  in  Dyn.  I  a  text  rather  fuller  than  that 
 of  the  Africanus  of  Syncellus  he  almost  immediately  after- 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 809 
 
 wards.  In  Djn.  II,  begins  to  transcribe  lazily,  omitting  here 
 and  there  several  kings  together  as  unimportant,  and  club- 
 bing together  their  years.  And  by  the  time  that  he  has 
 reached  Dyn.  IV  he  is  so  careless  that  he  transcribes  only 
 one  name ;  and  so  not  only  omits  two  out  of  the  three  kings 
 whose  names  from  the  time  of  Herodotus  had  been  associated 
 with  the  three  great  pyramids,  but  even  in  mentioning  the 
 greatest  of  them  he  names  as  its  builder  the  third  king  of 
 the  dynasty,  that  is,  Suphis  11. ,  instead  of  the  second  king, 
 Suphis  I.,  who  was  really  "  the  Cheops  of  Herodotus,"  and 
 to  whom  this  notice,  copied  word  for  word  by  Eusebius,  was 
 attached  by  Africanus.  Instead  of  the  viii  kings  who  are 
 all  named  in  order  by  Ptolemy  he  gives  for  this  dynasty  in 
 the  heading  prefixed  a  number  of  xvii,  being  really  the  joint 
 number  (viii +  ix  =  xvii)  of  Dynasties  IV  and  V;  and  in- 
 stead of  277  or  284  years,  the  sums  of  the  original  Manetho 
 and  of  Africanus,  he  gives  it  a  sum  of  448  years,  the  400 
 being  the  joint  sum  of  the  hundreds  of  Dynasties  IV  and  V 
 taken  together,  and  the  48  being  the  decades  and  units  of 
 Dyn.  V ;  whereas  the  joint  sum  of  the  two  dynasties  to- 
 gether, to  be  complete,  should  have  been  (284 -|- 248  =  )  532 
 years.  After  this  it  would  have  been  only  consistent  to 
 make  no  separate  mention  of  the  next  dynasty,  Dyn.  V, 
 called  Elephantinite,  seeing  that  though  he  may  have 
 dropped  84  years  belonging  to  Dyn.  IV,  he  has  consolidated 
 with  it,  and  given  already  under  its  heading  as  Memphites, 
 all  the  ix  kings  and  all  the  248  years  of  Dyn.  V.  Yet, 
 instead  of  simply  passing  on  to  Dyn.  VI,  he  splits  that 
 dynasty  into  two;  and  first,  after  prefixing  a  heading  in 
 which  his  "  Dyn.  V "  is  designated  "  Elephantinite,"  he 
 gives  to  it  a  number  of  xxxi  kings,  of  w^hom  iv  are  really, 
 as  it  seems,  those  iv  which  he  means  to  leave  to  Dyn.  VI, 
 while  the  other  xxvii  seem  to  be  the  xxvii  of  Dyn.  VIII. 
 Under  this  heading  he  then  names  two  kings  who,  instead 
 of  being  any  of  Manetho's  ix  "  Elephantinites,"  are  the 
 first  and  the  fourth  kings  of  the  six  ^*  Memphites "  of 
 Dyn.  VI.  Thus  these  two  kings  are  virtually  placed 
 among  the  (viii  +  ix  =  )  xvii  of  the  heading  of  his  own  Dyn. 
 IV.    And  four  only  are  left  to  be  named,  or  reckoned 
 
810 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 without  being  named,  under  Dyn.  VI.  And  the  first  of  these 
 two  kings,  Othoes,  he  names  without  specifying  the  length 
 of  his  reign.  To  the  other,  Phiops  (the  fourth  really  of 
 Dyn.  VI),  as  he  simply  transcribes  the  notice  of  Ma- 
 netho  that  he  reigned  from  the  age  of  6  to  that  of  100, 
 and  gives  no  sum  of  years  for  the  dynasty,  he  may  be 
 supposed  to  reckon  only  94  years,  though  Syncellus  makes 
 out  of  the  100  years  of  his  life  a  sum  for  the  dynasty. 
 Passing  on,  instead  of  giving  to  Dyn.  VI  its  designation  of 
 Memphite  or  its  number  of  vi  kings,  or  at  any  rate  the  iv 
 still  remaining  to  it,  Eusebius  begins  it  abruptly  thus : 
 Dyn.  VI.  A  woman  reigned,  Nitocris  by  name  "  (hers  being 
 really  the  last  reign  of  the  dynasty),  the  bravest  and  most 
 beautiful  person  of  her  time ;  she  was  of  fair  complexion,  and 
 is  said  to  have  built  the  third  pyramid."  The  Armenian 
 rendering  of  the  Greek  word  ^avOr]  is  here  remarkable, 
 *^flava,  ruhris  genis^''  as  it  is  an  exact  translation  of  the 
 name  of  Rliodopis,  from  whom  no  doubt  both  the  beauty,  the 
 peculiar  complexion,  and  the  building  of  the  third  pyramid 
 passed  to  the  name  Nitocris,  and  through  this  name  to  the 
 queen  Nitocris  of  Dyn.  VI.  After  this  exhibition  of  the 
 dynasty  there  follows  the  sum  of  its  years  introduced  by  the 
 plural  relative  in  the  masculine  gender  "  who "  (that  is, 
 which  kings)  "reigned  in  all  203  years."  One  might  have 
 expected  that,  after  transferring  two  out  of  the  six  kings  to 
 the  preceding  dynasty,  either  both  their  reigns,  or  at  least  the 
 94  or  100  years  of  Phiops  which  were  named,  would  be  now 
 deducted.  But  nothing  of  the  kind.  The  sum  given  is  the 
 full  unaltered  sum  of  all  the  vi  reigns  of  Dyn.  VI  of  Afri- 
 canus.  Both  the  reign  of  Othoes,  and  the  94  years  of  the 
 reign,  nay,  all  the  1 00  years  of  the  life  of  Phiops  are  in- 
 cluded :  that  is,  they  are  simply  reckoned  twice  over,  as  it 
 were  in  one  breath.  Well,  indeed,  may  Syncellus  here  ex- 
 claim, as  he  does,  and  bid  his  reader  "observe  how  very 
 far  Eusebius  falls  short  of  Africanus  in  accuracy,  both  as 
 regards  the  number  of  the  kings,  and  in  omitting  names,  and 
 either  omitting  or  varying  the  years,  though  he  seems" 
 except  in  these  his  faults  "  to  be  copying  almost  word  for 
 word  from  Africanus."    This  indeed  was  precisely  the  case. 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 811 
 
 He  must  have  been  both  lazy  and  careless,  or  arbitrary  to 
 the  last  degree,  and  so  sleepy  besides  as  scarcely  to  know 
 or  care  what  he  did.  And  the  wonder  is  that  such  a  per- 
 formance should  have  come  down  to  us  uncorrected,  just  as 
 if  it  had  been  printed  off,  as  fast  as  written,  or  engraved 
 once  for  all  on  steel  or  on  the  rock,  so  that  it  could  neither 
 be  cancelled  nor  amended. 
 
 For  Dyn.  VII  the  Greek  text  of  Syncellus  instead  of  Ixx 
 has  only  v  kings  (and,  certainly,  if  Eusebius  was  to  alter,  a 
 plausible  motive  for  altering  was  here  not  wanting) ;  but 
 instead  of  any  corresponding  alteration  in  the  duration  of 
 the  dynasty,  the  "70  days"  of  Africanus  receive  an  unmean- 
 ing addition  of  5  more  days,  so  that  v  instead  of  Ixx  kings, 
 are  said  to  reign  between  them  75  instead  of  70  days,  being 
 15  days  instead  of  1  day  each.  In  this  change  the  gain  is  not 
 great;  but  the  Armenian  version  instead  of  75  days  has  75 
 yearSjwhich  is  probably  the  true  reading,  as  it  makes  a  change 
 in  the  reigns  analogous  to  that  made  in  the  number  of  the 
 kings.  The  next  dynasty,  Dyn.  VIII,  has,  according  to 
 Syncellus,  v  Memphite  kings  and  one  round  hundred  of 
 years.  But  the  Armenian  text  has  ix  kings,  and  a  marginal 
 variant  of  xix,  with  the  same  sum  of  100  j-ears.  If  Euse- 
 bius in  the  last  dynasty,  Dyn.  VII,  made  an  alteration  with 
 the  view  of  getiag  rid  of  a  manifest  and  excessive  impro- 
 bability, it  is  not  likely  that  now  in  Dyn.  VIII  he  should 
 wantonly  create  fresh  improbabilities  of  his  own.  But,  as 
 the  text  stands,  the  two  dynasties,  VIII  and  IX,  having  the 
 one  iv  and  the  other  v  kings,  with  exactly  the  same  sum  of 
 one  round  century  each,  scarcely  look  more  historical  than 
 the  dynasties  of  Africanus  from  which  they  are  altered. 
 And  Dyn.  VIII  having  originally  had  only  146  or  142 
 years,  it  is  unlikely  that  for  so  small  a  gain  as  42  years 
 Eusebius  should  create  a  new  and  manifest  improbability, 
 while  in  the  next  dynasty,  Dyn.  IX,  which  had  409  years, 
 if  he  had  reasons  for  reducing  the  sum  total  of  years  in  these 
 dynasties,  there  was  something  tangible  in  a  retrenchment  of 
 above  300  years ;  and  this  retrenchment  being  made  in 
 Dyn.  IX,  the  100  years  really  given  only  to  it  might  easily 
 produce  a  corruption  of  the  text  in  the  line  above  giving 
 
812 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 the  same  number  of  100  (instead  of  142)  to  Dyn.  VIII  also. 
 We  shall  therefore  for  this  reason,  and  for  another  which  will 
 appear  below,  depart  in  this  one  instance  both  from  Syn- 
 cellus  and  from  the  Armenian  version  ;  and  we  shall  suppose 
 the  genuine  sum  of  Dyn.  VIII  to  have  been  for  Eusebius 
 142,  as  in  Syncellus's  text  of  Africanus.  And  for  the  num- 
 ber of  its  kings  too,  seeing  that  its  true  number,  viz.  xxvii, 
 was  out  of  proportion  to  142  years,  and  that  these  xxvii 
 have  besides  been  most  likely  reckoned  already  among  the 
 xxxi  Elephantinites  of  Dyn.  V,  and  there  might  seem  some 
 improbability  in  two  dynasties  in  succession  having  exactly 
 the  same  number  of  xix  kings,  we  shall  here  prefer  the 
 marginal  reading  of  the  Armenian  text,  and  suppose  that 
 Eusebius  drew  up  and  gave  to  his  Dyn.  YIII  that  number 
 of  xix  kings  which  really  belonged  to  Dyn.  IX  of  Africanus, 
 in  like  manner  as  he  has  twice  already  in  his  headings  drawn 
 up  and  anticipated  the  kings  of  dynasties  which  were  to 
 follow.  Then  in  Dyn.  IX  he  allowed  himself  to  change 
 both  the  sum  of  its  years,  giving  it  one  round  hundred 
 instead  of  409,  and  also  the  number  of  its  kings,  giving  it 
 only  iv  instead  of  xix. 
 
 As  for  the  name  of  the  tyrant  Ac-th-oes  "  who  did  more 
 evil  to  all  Egypt  than  any  other  king,  and  eventually  went 
 mad,  and  was  killed  by  a  crocodile,"  Eusebius  has  retained 
 this  notice.  It  is  not  easy  to  say  for  certain  what  may  be  its 
 origin.  But  as  all  the  kings  of  Ptolemy's  Dynasties  YIII 
 and  IX  are  mere  doubles  and  nonentities  (see  above  p.  541 
 in  Ch.  IV.),  and  only  the  years  which  they  seem  to  hold  are 
 historical;  and  as,  besides,  those  historical  kings  of  whom  they 
 are  the  doubles  were  certainly  none  of  them  ever  tyrants  over 
 
 all  Egypt,"  we  are  driven  to  cast  about  for  some  king  who 
 was  in  the  eyes  of  the  Egyptians  a  more  merciless  and  de- 
 structive tyrant  than  all  others,  and  throughout  all  Egypt. 
 This  pre-eminence  will  perhaps  belong  rather  to  the  Persian 
 Ochus,  than  to  any  other.  And  even  the  name  ^Aj(667)s 
 may  be  his,  as  the  o?  or  or]s  is  only  the  Greek  termination,  and 
 the  ^  or  T  is  the  common  Egyptian  formative,  which  is  some- 
 times omitted  and  sometimes  added.  The  first  syllable 
 alone  then  AX  or  I2X  is  the  name  proper ;  and  the  crocodile 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 813 
 
 which  had  the  wit  to  slay  him  in  his  madness  and  make 
 cats'  meat  of  his  flesh  was  the  Egyptian  eunuch  Bagoas, 
 whose  original  name  may  have  been  Asychis,  or  Petesuccus, 
 and  who  at  any  rate  was  the  representative  of  poetical  jus- 
 tice, and  of  Sebak-Ra.  In  like  manner  the  strange  entry  in 
 Dyn.  I,  that  the  Osirified  Menes  himself,  the  founder  of  the 
 monarchy,  the  prototype,  perhaps,  of  the  sacred  bull  Menai 
 of  Heliopolis,  after  his  long  and  glorious  reign  was  slain 
 by  a  hippopotamus"  means,  perhaps,  nothing  more  than  this, 
 that  like  the  ancestor  of  mankind,  Osiris,  he  was  slain  by  the 
 malignant  deity  Typhon,  one  of  whose  hieroglyphs  was  the 
 hippopotamus.    But  to  return  to  Eusebius: 
 
 Dynasties  X  and  XI  are  transcribed  from  Africanus  un- 
 altered ;  and  what  is  remarkable  is  that,  after  those  changes 
 which  have  been  recounted,  either  he  himself,  or  rather  some 
 later  copyist  for  him,  transcribes  from  Africanus  the  sum 
 both  of  the  kings  and  of  the  years  of  Manetho's  (that  is,  of 
 Ptolemy's)  Book  1.  almost  unchanged,  viz.  ^^192  kings  and 
 2300  years."  But  as  we  have  now  followed,and  in  one  place 
 conjecturally  restored,  the  text  of  Eusebius,  he  makes  to  the 
 end  of  Book  I.  of  the  Manetho  of  Africanus  only  8  +  9  +  8  + 
 (84-9)  +  (4  +  27)  +  7  +  5  + 19  +  4  +  19  + 16H-  1  =  87  instead  of 
 192  kings,  and  252  +  297  +  197  [Arm.]  +(200  +  248)  + 
 94  +  203  +  75  +  142  [variant  of  Syncellus  in  lists  of  Afri- 
 canus] +  100 +185  +  59  =  2052  instead  of  2300  or  2303  years. 
 
 On  coming  to  Book  II.  of  the  Manetho  of  Africanus,  Eu- 
 sebius gives  Dyn.  XII  with  two  remarkable  variations ;  one 
 in  the  reigns,  w^hich  with  him  when  actually  added  up  make 
 22  years  more  than  with  Africanus,  viz.  182  instead  of  160 
 years.  This  is  remarkable  because  suppressions  were 
 really  made  by  Manetho  in  the  later  part  of  this  dynasty, 
 so  that  Eusebius's  reckoning  of  42,  instead  of  20  years,  to 
 the  last  three  reigns  (which  unluckily  he  clubs  together 
 without  names),  to  whatever  cause  it  may  be  owing,  is,  in 
 fact,  so  far  as  it  goes,  a  chronological  restoration ;  and  if  he 
 had  only  given  them  all  to  the  single  immediate  successor, 
 instead  of  the  successors,  in  the  plural,  of  the  fourth  of  the 
 seven  kings,  that  is  to  Amenemhe  III.  standing  as  Ame- 
 nemhe  IV.,  and  had  left  it  open  to  add  or  to  understand  12 
 
814 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 or  13  years  besides  for  the  last  two  reigns  of  the  dynasty, 
 he  would  have  been  very  near  to  the  truth.  The  other  pecu- 
 liarity is  in  the  sum  given  for  the  dynasty,  which  with  him 
 is  245  years.  And  as  the  Greek  and  the  Armenian  texts 
 agree  there  is  no  reason  to  dispute  its  genuineness,  though 
 it  is  plain  that  Eusebius  could  not  even  hope  to  exhibit  this 
 sum  in  detail  as  divided  among  the  vii  kings.  In  Dyn. 
 XIII  he  has  the  same  number  of  Ix  kings,  and  the  same 
 sum  of  453  years  as  Africanus.  In  Dyn.  XI Y  too  he 
 transcribes  faithfully  both  the  Ixxvi  kings  and  their  in- 
 adequate allowance  of  184  years.  In  his  Dyn.  XV,  which  (as 
 he  has  taken  and  altered  Dynasties  XVII  and  XV  of  Afri- 
 canus to  stand  as  XVI  and  XVII  for  use  in  his  Canon) 
 really  answers  to  Dyn.  XVI  of  Africanus,  nearly  everything 
 seems  to  be  his  own.  For  Dyn.  XVI  of  Africanus  is  a 
 dynasty  of  "xxxii  other  Shepherds"  with  518  years;  but 
 Dyn.  XV  of  Eusebius,  answering  to  it,  is  a  dynasty  of 
 *'Thebans,"  whose  number  is  not  given,  with  250  years. 
 The  years  in  truth  answer  rather  to  the  284  years  of  the  dis- 
 placed Dyn.  XV  of  Africanus  than  to  those  of  any  other ; 
 and  they  differ  by  only  9  or  10  from  the  sum  of  that  same 
 dynasty  in  the  lists  of  the  original  Manetho.  But  it  matters 
 little  or  nothing  with  what  they  are  compared. 
 
 Having  reached  the  point  at  which  Eusebius  enters  upon 
 those  later  dynasties  which  he  has  altered  much  more  ex- 
 tensively, or  rather  recast  altogether,  in  preparation  for  his 
 Canon,  we  have  now  only  to  add  up  those  kings  and  years 
 which  he  has  hitherto  enumerated  as  if  from  Book  11.  of 
 the  Manetho  of  Africanus.  The  kings  then  are  7  +  60  +  76 
 -\-z,  making  in  all  143,  with  some  unknown  number  besides 
 for  his  Dyn.  XV ;  and  the  years,  at  least  those  of  the  sums 
 given  byhim,  make  together  (245+453  +  184  +  250  =  )  1132. 
 But  1132  and  2052  years,  the  latter  being  the  sura  to  which 
 Eusebius  by  his  negligences,  or  by  slashes  here  and  there  of 
 his  pruning-hook,  seemed  to  have  cut  down  Book  I.  of  the 
 Manetho  of  Africanus,  make  up  together  a  total  of  3184 
 years,  the  precise  number  which  Eusebius  reckons  in  his 
 Hebrew  chronology  from  the  Creation  to  the  birth  of 
 Abraham.    The  same  result  would  equally  have  been  ob- 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 815 
 
 taincd  if  in  Dyn.  Ill  we  had  kept  Syncellus's  reading  of  198 
 years  instead  of  following  the  Armenian  version,  and  in 
 Dyn.  VIII  had  restored  the  146  of  Syncellus's  text  instead 
 of  the  142  implied  by  his  sum  total  subjoined,  if  only  in 
 Dyn.  VII  we  had  at  the  same  time  retained  the  number  70 
 from  Africanus,  understanding,  in  agreement  with  the  Arme- 
 nian version,  years  and  not  days.  And  it  is  easy  to  see  how 
 the  reading  "75,"  whether  years  or  days,  might  arise  after 
 Eusebius  had  placed  in  the  heading  of  his  Dynasty  VII 
 the  number  of  v  instead  of  Ixx  kings. 
 
 The  sum  of  3184  years  found  above  for  the  first  fifteen 
 Egyptian  dynasties  of  Eusebius,  even  if  we  had  not  been  able 
 exactly  to  exhibit  it,  but  had  only  found  that  upon  the  whole 
 his  alterations  pointed  towards  its  exhibition,  sufiiciently 
 explains  what  his  idea  and  motive  was  in  making  some  care- 
 less changes  even  in  those  earlier  dynasties  which  are  confined 
 to  the  First  Book  of  his  Chronicon.  His  intention  was,  no 
 doubt,  to  hint  that  the  Egyptians  had  covered  with  kings  the 
 whole  course  of  human  time  from  the  creation  of  Adam  to 
 the  historical  beginning  of  their  monarchy.  More  than  this 
 he  was  not  inclined  to  avow,  because  if  the  difference 
 amounted  to  only  a  few  centuries  more,  it  might  be  inferred 
 that  in  their  fabling  they  had  probably  gone  upon  some 
 ground  of  tradition  which  gave  a  longer  period  since  the 
 beginning  of  mankind  than  was  fixed  by  himself.  And  it  is 
 remarkable  that  the  light  in  which  he  tried  to  exhibit  the 
 lists  of  Ptolemy  and  Africanus,  as  cut  down  to  suit  his  own 
 system,  is  almost  exactly  that  which  really  belongs  to  them, 
 and  in  which  they  naturally  appear  when  compared  with  the 
 true  chronology.  For  in  truth  the  kings  of  Dyn.  I  of  Pto- 
 lemy and  Africanus  (as  has  been  shown  above  in  Chap.  IV. 
 pp.  449  and  556)  are  made  to  begin  with  the  16th  Egyp- 
 tian year  of  human  time;  that  is  with  the  16th  year  of  Adam; 
 and  the  Egyptian  reckoning,  bating  only  tlie  difference  be- 
 tween Julian  and  vague  years,  and  the  cutting  off  of  some 
 months  at  the  head  of  all,  agrees  with  the  reckoning  of  the 
 Scriptures  and  Josephus  harmonised,  that  is,  with  the  truth, 
 and  disallows  equally  the  excesses  of  Africanus  on  the  one 
 hand  and  the  suppressions  of  Eusebius  on  the  other. 
 
816 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 The  Egyptian  lists  of  African  us  as  recast  by  Eusebius 
 to  serve  as  materials  in  his  First  Book,  and  as  copied  thence 
 by  Syncellus,  shall  now  be  given  in  full  in  the  original 
 Greek,  together  with  some  restorations  which  will  be  added 
 in  their  places,  and  with  notices  of  such  variants  as  are 
 found  in  the  old  Armenian  version :  — 
 
 AvVCKTTELa  A' 
 
 Mfrd  vsKvag  Kal  rovg  yfxiOeovg 
 Trpiorriv  dwaaTsiav  Karapidyiovai  /3a- 
 (TiXewj/  r{  <x>v  irpijTog  ysyove  Mrjvijg, 
 og  ^laarijxwg  avTwv  yyi'iaaro  •  a0' 
 ov  Tovg  1%  tKaarov  ysvovg  jSamXevcav- 
 rag  n.vaypa\pofiev,  wv  r)  diaSoxv  tovtov 
 f'xfi  TOV  rpoTTov ' 
 
 a'.  Mrjvrjg  QiviTrjc,  Kal  ol  tovtov  cltto' 
 yovoi  r  ("  ^-ep^em"  Arm.)  •  ov 
 'HpodoTogMijva  ojvo/xacrev'  i(5aai- 
 Xevcxev  tTij  |'  [1/3].  OvTog 
 vTTtpSpiov  OTpaTi'iav  l7rou]aaTO, 
 Kal  'ivdo^og  tKp'iQr]  'Jjirh  iuiro- 
 TTOTajxov  tjpirdcrOri. 
 
 jS'.  'ABdOig  6  TOVTOV  vlbg  I'jp^tv  tTe(Tiv 
 K?'*  /cat  rd  Iv  Meficpei  (3aaiXiia 
 q.Kod6fi)](Tfv,  iaTpiKrjv  Tt  e^rjffKrjae, 
 Kal  (3i(5Xovg  dvuTOfiiKag  avv- 
 kypaipe, 
 
 y',  yitvicBvijg  o  TOVTOV  vtog  trt]  X9' ' 
 [Xa  '  yet  Arm.  also  has  "39"]. 
 
 d',  Ovtvps^rjg  eTrj  p,$' '  i(p'  ov  Xi/uhg 
 KUTtffx^  TTjU  %wpav  •  og  Kai  Tag 
 TTvpaj-iiSac  Tag  Trepl  Kw^w/^'J^' 
 ("prope  Cho  oppidum"  in  the 
 Arm.)  I'lyeips. 
 
 t',  Ovaaiparig  (Tij  k. 
 Nif/3a>)f  t'rjy  kt'. 
 
 'C.  'Esp.iiJ.-il'Tjg  eTr)  ir/  '  e(p'  ov  TroXXd  ira- 
 pdarjixakykvsTO  Kai  fieyhTi]  ^Oopd. 
 
 tj'.  OupdvOrjg  ("Vibesthes"  in  the 
 Arm.)  f  rr/  kt'. 
 Ol  irdvTtg  l(3a<yiXevaav  eTrj  av^' '  (and 
 Arm.  "  252  ;  "  to  make  out  which 
 one  must  restore  from  x\fricanus  62 
 and  31  to  reigns  i  and  iii,  and  then 
 G2 +  27  +  31 +42 +20+26  +  18-1-26 
 will  give  the  sum  252.) 
 
 BaatXstov  6'. 
 
 a.  Tiptorog  Boj^og,  If/)'  ov  ;(;a(r/ta  Kara 
 Bov(3aaTov  tyevfTO,  Kai  ttoXXoI 
 dir^XovTo'  ("  specus  ingens  sub- 
 sedit,multosque  hausit."  Arm.) 
 
 /3'.  Mf9'  ov  Kai  dtvTtpog  Xtobg  ("  Ce- 
 cJlous  "  Arm.),  ote  Kai  b'' king  Kai 
 d  M.vtvig^  dXXd  Kai  b  MevS7i<nog 
 Tpdyog  Btol  IvofxlcOrjffav. 
 
 y'.  Biocpig,  i(p'  ov  SKpiOrj  Kai  Tag  yv- 
 valKag  (3aaiXtiag  yspag  f  xtt^^* 
 
 d'.  e.  t'.  Kai  fxsTd  TovTovg  dXXoi  Tptlg 
 £f/)'  (hv  ovdsv  7rapdarip.ov  iykvtTO. 
 
 C.  'Etti  ^6  TOV  ejSdofxov  jjivOevfTai 
 ("mythici  aiunt"  in  the  Arm.) 
 Tbv  NaXov  fxsXiTt  KEKpafxevov 
 ijixkpaig  svdeKa  pvt]vai. 
 
 nj',  MeO'  ov  llkau)-)(pig  tTt]  firj' '  og 
 XsyfTai  ytyoi'evai  vxl/og  tx^f  ttj;- 
 Xi^v  t\  7raXai(TTu)V  y  [ro  p-syeOos. 
 Omit  this,  though  the  Arm.  also 
 has  "tres  vero  palmos  latum 
 fuisse."] 
 
 B'.  'EttI  de  TOV  0'  ovdkv  d^iopvr]p,6vsV' 
 TOV  vTriipx^v. 
 
 O'l  Kai  IjSaaiXiVffav  tTiai  oIiC  (and 
 Arm.  "297 ;  "  but  the  sum  of  Afri- 
 canus  is  302). 
 
 Syncellus  adds :  'Opov  a'  kqI  (i' 
 dvva(TT(iag  'irtj  cppB'  (549=252+297) 
 fcard  TTjv  eKdoaiv  Evas(5iov. 
 
 AvvaffTeia  V' 
 Mep(pLTa)V  ^aaiXeoiv  r\ , 
 a,  Nf^Epw^tc,  8^'  ovAijSveg  dTracTrjaav 
 AlyvTTTibJV^  Kai  Trjg  aeXrjvijg  irapd 
 Xoyov  av^ijOe'iatjg  did  Seog  iav- 
 Tovg  Trapkdooav, 
 
 Mid'  ov  ^e0op9o£,  bg  'AaKXiiiriog 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 817 
 
 TTapd  AiyvTTTioig  iKXijOr]  Sul  n)v 
 taTpiKiiV  ovTog  Kai  Tt/v  Sta  ^e- 
 urdv  XiOwv  oiKo^o/Li/}i'  tvparo' 
 dWd  Kai  ypa^riQ  lirffieXrjQr]. 
 Ot  ^£  XoiTToi  t|  ovdfv  d^iofivrjfiovev' 
 Tov  tTTpa^av, 
 
 O'l  Kai  ijiaaiXfvaav  trtai  p^r/'  ("197" 
 Arm.  But  the  sum  of  Africanus  is 
 214.) 
 
 Syncellus  adds  :  'O/xov  tojv  y  Sv- 
 vaaTHu)i'  Kara  tov  Evaejiiov  irr]  ■tpp.Z,' 
 (747=549  +  198). 
 
 AvyuffTEia  A' 
 
 BamXsojv  iZ'  MtfKpiToji'  avyytvuag 
 tTipaq  l^aaiXt'iaQ  (daaiXiKTiQ?  "  regum 
 xvii  ex  alia  regia  familia."  Arm. 
 The  number  17  is  probably  the  joint 
 number  of  this  and  the  next  follow- 
 ing dynasty,  8-f9=17.) 
 
 ~Qv  y  SoD^jif,  6  Tr\v  fieyiarrjv  Trvpa- 
 H'lda  lydpaQ)  }]v  (p-qaiv  'E.p6coTOQ  V7rb 
 XkoTTog  ysyovsvai'  og  kui  vTrepoTTTrjg 
 ftg  Osovg  ysyovev^  wg  utravorjcravra 
 avTov  Ti]v  Updv  avyypdxl/ai  l3i(3Xov,  i)v 
 0)g  /isya  XPW^  AiyvTTTioi  irspikirovai. 
 ("  Qui  in  deos  ipsos  superbiebat:  turn 
 facti  poenitens  sacrum  librum  com- 
 posuit,  quern  -ZEgyptii  instar  magni 
 thesauri  habere  se  putahanC  Arm. 
 Comp.  the  text  of  Africanus  above 
 at  p.  442.  The  true  sense  of  the  log 
 may  perhaps  be  rendered  thus  :  "  so 
 that  it  must  have  been  after  repent- 
 ing that  he  wrote  that  sacred  book  of 
 which,  according  to  Africanus  who 
 bought  a  copy  of  it,  the  Egyptians 
 make  so  much.") 
 
 Twv  ^£  Xoinwv  ovSev  d^ioixvrjfxovfv- 
 Tov  dveypd(pri. 
 
 O'l  Kai  k(3aaiXev(7av  'irtai  vpr]'. 
 ("448"  also  Arm.  If  the  17  kings 
 were  from  the  9  +  8  of  Dynasties  III 
 and  IV,  the  true  reading  for  the  sum 
 should  be  not  i'//?/'448,  but  v7r»/488 
 =214+274;  which  last  was  the  sum 
 of  Africanus's  text  for  Dyn.  IV. 
 
 Syncellus  adds :  'Ojuou  -wv  d'  Sv- 
 vaOTdwv  fiETci  tov  KaTaKXvcrfJibv  ap^t 
 (1195  =  747+448)  kutu  EvaefSiov. 
 
 3 
 
 Avvaareia  E' 
 
 BacriXewv  Xa'  IK  ^EXtfpavTivrjg'  u)v 
 a'.  npwTog  ^O^oijg'   ovrog  vrrb  tCjv 
 Sopv(p6po)v  dvijptGrj. 
 
 'O  Sk  S'  «I'(a(\^  i^asrrjQ  dp^d/ievog 
 t(3a(T'iXtv(J6  P'SXP'^Q  ^^tCjv  tKOTov'  ("a 
 sexto  ffitatis  anno  regiam  dignitatem 
 ad  centesimum  usque  tenuit."  Arm.) 
 
 Syncellus  adds  up  the  100  years 
 of  the  life  of  Phiops  here  mentioned 
 as  if  it  were  the  sum  of  the  dynasty, 
 and  writes  TlvovTai  cvv  To'ig  -rrpoTi- 
 Tuyfi'svoig  ap^e  tTeai  twv  d'  dvva<TTSiMv 
 ,aa^t' (1295=1195  +  100).  But  the 
 two  names  which  alone  are  here 
 mentioned,  being  both  taken  from 
 Dyn.  VI,  at  once  show  how  great 
 was  Eusebius's  carelessness  in  tran- 
 scribing these  earlier  and  for  him 
 condemned  dynasties,  and  also 
 confirm  the  suspicion  that  the  17 
 kings  and  the  448  years  given  above 
 to  Dynasty  IV,  are  really,  though 
 in  a  corrupt  form,  the  kings  and  the 
 years  of  Dyn.  V,  the  years  of  which 
 latter  are  else  entirely  omitted. 
 The  31  kings  given  here  to  Dyn. 
 V  are  possibly  a  corrupt  reading 
 for  (8  +  9  +  9  +  8  =)  34,  the  sum  of 
 the  kings  of  the  first  four  dynasties  ; 
 or  else  4  of  VI  +  27  of  VIII  =  31. 
 
 AvvaffTEia  ST' 
 
 Tvvri  NiTwicpte  «/3a<Ti'X£u<rf,  tujv  kut 
 avT7)v  ytwiKioTaTT]  Kai  eiifiopcpoTaTr}, 
 ^avOr)  T£  Ttjv  xpoidv  virdp^aaa^  rj  Kai 
 XiysTai  T7]v  Tp'iTTjv  TTVpap-i^a  (^ko6o- 
 pj]Kfvai,  ("  omnium  astatis  sua? 
 virorum  fortissima  et  mulierura 
 formosissima,  flava  ruhris  genis. 
 [i.e.  po^CoTTig.']  Ab  hac  tertia  pyramis 
 excitata  dicitur,  speciem  collis  prce 
 se  ferensy  Arm.  Bunsen  supposes 
 this  last  addition  to  be  mistrans- 
 lated, and  its  true  sense  to  be 
 that  the  third  pyramid  is  built  on 
 higher  ground  than  the  other  two. 
 
 Ot  Kai  IjSacxiXtvaav  STrj  oy'  ("  203" 
 also  in  the  Arm.). 
 
 Syncellus  adds  :  rivovrai  avv  toIs 
 
818 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 TTpoTiTayn'ivoiQ  acrXt  tcov  t  Svvaarnwv 
 trt)  av^t]  (1498  =  1295  +  203). 
 
 Avraore/a  Z' 
 
 Mfju0trwj'  (SacnXeMV  t'  ("  v,"  Arm.), 
 01  ejSaaiXtvaav  yfiepag  o£'*("  anuos  75," 
 Arm.). 
 
 Avyaareia  h' 
 
 Mf/x^irwv  [iamX'scJV  e  ['0'],  o'i  i^aa'i- 
 Xevaav  trrj  p  [p/u)3']  ("  regum  ix" 
 Arm.;  and  in  the  margin  "  xix,"  the 
 number  of  the  next  two  dynasties  of 
 Africanus). ' 
 
 Syncellus  adds :  rivovrai  avv  rolg 
 TrpoTsrayfievoig  trt]  afj'^rf'  (1598= 
 1498  +  100)  TU)v  r\  dwaartim'. 
 
 Avyaareia  9' 
 
 'UpaKXeoTToXiTwv  (SaaiXeoJV  ^ ,  oi 
 tfiaaiXtvaav  'irrj  p' '  mv 
 
 a.  UpioTOQ  'Ax^wryc  (Ochus?),  ^a- 
 voTUTOQ  Tujv  TTph  uvTov  yevofxtvoQ^  Tolg 
 iv  "Kaay  AiyviTTij}  kuko.  eipydaaTO^  vare- 
 pov  Se  fxavig,  TrtpisTreffs,  Kai  vno  KpoKO- 
 deiXov  (Bagoas  ?)  ducpOaprj. 
 
 AvvaffTeia  1' 
 
 'RpaKXeoTToXiTojv  (iaaiXiMV  lO',  oY 
 t^aa'iXevaav  tTi)  prrt'  (so  too  in  the 
 Arm.  "xix"  and  "185)." 
 
 AvvaaTsia  lA' 
 
 AtocTTToXirwv  (5a(nXe(ov  it',  oi  t/3a- 
 alXevaav  trr)  fiy' ' 
 
 Med*  ovg  ^ Aii}i(vtixriQ  irr) 
 
 Msxpi  Tovds  Tov  a  Tofxov  Karayi}' 
 oxiv  6  MavtQu) '  bfiov  (3aaiXtig  p^i3\ 
 tTT]  Pt',  rjfispai  ot'.  (And  Arm."Hac- 
 tenus  primum  librum  Manetho  pro- 
 duxit.  Sunt  autem  reges  192,  anni 
 2300,"  omitting  the  75  days.)  These 
 being  the  sums  of  Africanus  for 
 Book  I.,  Eusebius,  if  he  entered 
 them  here  himself,  and  they  are  not 
 the  gloss  of  some  transcriber,  must 
 either  have  meant  to  copy  the  pre- 
 ceding dynasties  also  as  they  stood 
 in  Africanus,  or  else,  if  he  had 
 made  those  changes  and  omissions 
 which  appear  above  in  his  own  text, 
 
 he  must  have  copied  afterwards  the 
 sums  of  Africanus  at  the  end  of  the 
 book  from  sheer  carelessness. 
 
 AETTEPOY  TOMOY  MAN  £9^2. 
 AvyaffTSia  IB' 
 
 AiocTTToXtTWj/  jSaciXsojv  Z\  <5v  6 
 TrpojTog 
 
 a.  Ilea6yx(o<yic,  'AfXfievsiJiov  viog,  trr] 
 
 /3'.  'Af^ixavsfxrjg,  trrj  Xr]' '  og  vtto  TiZv 
 idiiov  tvvovxojv  avypkQrj. 
 
 y'.  I.scT(i)(rrpig  erij  fir}' '  og  XkysTai  yt- 
 yov'tvai  Trr]x<^v  6\  TraXaiarwv  y\ 
 duKTvXcDv  (3' '  og  mxaav  ix^ipu)- 
 auTo  rr)v  *Aa'tav  iv  iviavrolg  0\ 
 Kai  Trjg  EvpdjTnjg  to.  fisxpi  Opqucrjg^ 
 Travraxocre  fxvt][ji6(rvva  iytipag  Trjg 
 T(t)v  WviZv  KaTa(Tx^<^s(t)gj  etti  fitv 
 ToXg  ytvvaioig  dvdpuiv  etti  rolg 
 dyevvaai  yvvaiKujv  fiopia  ralg 
 <jrr}Xaig  eyxapdacrtov  '  <hg  Kai  vtto 
 AiyvTTTiiov  iJ,tTa''0<npiv  [Trpwrov] 
 voixiddrivai.  ("Quare  is  ab^gy- 
 ptiis  proximos  post  9sirim  ho- 
 nores  tulit."  Arm.) 
 Mf0'  dV  Adfiapig  tTrj  rj'  ("  Lam- 
 
 pares,"  Arm.)  •  og  t6v  Iv  ' Apaivoiry 
 
 Aaf3vpiv6ov  eavT<^  rdcpov  KareaKiv- 
 
 aatv. 
 
 O'l  Sk  TovTov  didSoxoi  IttI  trt}  ju/3'. 
 
 Ol  TTavTig  i^amXtvaav  trfai  tr/if'. 
 and  Arm.  "  245."  But  the  actual 
 sum,  both  in  Syncellus  and  in  the 
 Armenian  version  is  (46  +  38+48  + 
 8+42=)  182. 
 
 Avvaffreia  IT' 
 AionTToXiTOJV  j3acnXs(x)v  4',  o'l  kjSarTL- 
 Xtvaav  (Ti)  vvy'-  (and  so  Arm.  "  Ix" 
 and  "453.") 
 
 AvvaffTEia  lA' 
 
 SoiTiov  jSamXeoJV  ot',  oi  t/Sacr/Xfj;- 
 crav  ETT]  p7rd\  Syncellus  notes  in 
 another  copy  V7r8\  and  the  Arm. 
 Vers,  has  "  484." 
 
 AvyaffTSia  IE' 
 
 AiomroXiTCJV  jSacriXsMV  [  ?],  oi 
 E^aa'iXEvaav  ett]  av  ■  (and  the  Arm. 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 819 
 
 has  "  250/'  without  giving  the  num- 
 ber of  the  kings.  The  sum  total  of 
 years  downto  this  point  is  3184.  The 
 reigns  in  the  remaining  dynasties 
 are  still  taken  from  the  Manetho 
 of  Africanus,  but  the  sums  of  the 
 dynasties  themselves  are  generally 
 those  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  only 
 with  the  suppression  of  (184-|-26 
 =)  210  years,  and  with  some  other 
 variations,  so  as  to  suit  as  materials 
 for  the  Canon.) 
 
 Avraarela  I2T', 
 9ryj3atoi  (iamXeTg  f',  o'l  Kai  kjSaffi' 
 XtvaavsTijpi^'.  (And  Arm.  "v"  kings 
 and  "190"  years,  the  number  of 
 Dyn.  XVI  of  the  Old  Chronicle, 
 which  has  viii  kings,  reduced  to  v 
 in  the  list  of  Eratosthenes.) 
 Avyaareia  IZ'. 
 
 TloifisvfQ  jjcrav  (a^iX^ol)  <I>otVt/cfc> 
 Ksvoi  j3a<n\elQ  (here  he  omits  their 
 number  t'  given  by  Africanus),  ot 
 Kal  MefKpiv  iiXov  '  wv  Trpwrog 
 a.  ^otTrjg  IfiaaiKfvatv  err}  i9' '  acp^  ov 
 Kai  6  1,aLTt]g  vofioq  IkXtiOt)  '  o'l 
 Kai  tv  T(f  St^jOoiry  vofK^  ttoXlv 
 tKTityav^  d(j)'  7)g   dpfxwfxtvoi  Ai- 
 yvTrriovQ  i')(^(.ipb)aavTO. 
 jS'.  [Afvrfjooc]  Bvaiv,  erij  jit'.  (Arm. 
 "Secundus  Bnon,'^  and  in  marg. 
 "  AnonJ") 
 y'.  Mi0'  ov  'ApxXrjQ   err)   X'.  (So 
 restore  from   the  Armenian 
 which  has  here  "Deinde  Ar- 
 chies" &c.,  the    deinde''  refer- 
 ring to  "  Secundus  "  in  the  line 
 above.    Syncellus  has  y'  'A- 
 
 6'.  'A^co^ig,  hn  i5'.  (So  restore  from 
 the  Arm.  In  Syncellus  the 
 order  of  these  last  two  names 
 is  reversed,  probably  because 
 Mt9'  ov  seemed  to  be  more  suit- 
 able for  the  last  than  the 
 third.) 
 
 'Ojuov  tTij  py.  (So  too  the  Arm. 
 And  iv  kings  with  103  years  belong 
 also  to  Dynasty  XVII  of  the  Old 
 Chronicle.) 
 
 Kara  tovtovq  AlyvTTTiuJV  PacTLXfvg 
 'lw(T/}0  SuKvvTai.  (Arm.  "  Ilorum 
 astate  regnavisse  in  ^gypto  Joseph 
 videtur."  So  this  reading  "  fiaai- 
 Xtvg"  even  if  it  be  not  the  genuine, 
 which  perhaps  it  is  not,  was  at  least 
 found  already  in  the  text  of  Afri- 
 canus by  Eusebius.) 
 
 Syncellus  here  remarks  :  "  2r/- 
 HsiuiTeov  TTiSjg  6  EvakjSiog  TTpbg  tov 
 oIksiov  (Tkottov  Tovg  Trjg  u  ^vvacTt'iag 
 TTapd  'A(ppiKav(f  (pepofxevovg  Kara. 
 Ti)v  i^'  dwaffTtLav  yeyovsvai  Xeyei. 
 'E-n-ei  yap  iracL  GVHitt<pMvr}Tai  on  iiri 
 ^A^w(p€(jjg  rip^tv  'lioarjcp  rrjg  Aiyvirrov, 
 fxr)  £%ajj/  ^^^^x)uovv  iiri  dXXov  Tivbg  av~ 
 TOV  TtapuOkaQat  /xtTriyaye  tov  "A^w^tv 
 dirb  Trig  it  dvvaoTtiag  elg  t^v  t?',  ko 
 Xoj3(i)(Tag  TO.  Itt}  uvtov  ^a  vTrdpxovTa 
 eig  X'  [t^'],  TO.  de  TTjg  oXrjg  dwaarsiag 
 pva  [pTT^'],  py  TrapaOtig^  Kai  civri  tujv 
 t'  (3a<nXs(jJv  d'  fxovovg.  It  would  have 
 been  strange  if  Syncellus  while 
 writing  this  note,  in  the  figures  of 
 which  there  are  two  corruptions, 
 had  at  the  same  time  transposed 
 the  last  two  of  the  four  kings  so  as 
 to  make  the  Joseph  of  Eusebius  no 
 longer  rise  to  power  under  Apophis 
 but  under  Archies.  But  this  trans- 
 position is  clearly  a  corruption 
 later  than  the  time  of  Syncellus, 
 since  he  writes  in  another  place  (p. 
 69.  C),  "  Iljoo  tovtov  tov  'Afiwaeiog 
 TiTapTOV  Kai  reXtVTaXov  rrjg  iC 
 vaart'iag  " Aipojcpiv  Evas^tog  irapidtTO 
 TrapaXoywg^  Ka9'  ov  ndvTeg  o/xoXoyovai 
 TOV  ^Iwarjcp  dpKai  AiyvTTTOV.'" 
 
 Avvaarda  IH' 
 
 ^lOGTZoXiTOiv  (3a(nXe(jJV  id',  wv 
 TTpiZrog 
 
 a,  "Afxwaig  eTtj  Kt\ 
 
 j3'.  Xf/3pwv,  6tvTspog^  tTt]  ly. 
 
 y  .  A  fjifievuxpig  err]  Ka  . 
 
 \_Antvaig  ett)  k(3'.  So  restore,  as  has 
 been  shown  above  at  pp.  775,  779.] 
 
 d'.  Mi(ppig  tTT}  i(3i', 
 
 e'.  MiacppayfiovOfjjaig  tTt)  kt'. 
 
 ■r'.  TovOjxojaig  (tt)  y. 
 
 3  G  2 
 
820 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 ^ Afiivu}<l)iQ  Ith]   \a',    OvTog  hariv 
 6  'Mefivojv  iivai  vojxi^ofitvoQ  Kal 
 (pOtyyofxsvog  XiOoQ. 
 ?/.  "^Qpog  iri]  Xrj'. 
 
 Sr'.  'Axtvxfpc^tjg  eri]  ir',  Kara  tov- 
 Tov  Mwya^c  TriQ  AiyvTTTOV 
 TToptiag  Tujv  'lovda'iojv  t'lyrjaaTO. 
 i.  e.  after  the  212th  year  of  this 
 dynasty,  (190+103+212  =  ) 
 505  years  from  the  beginning 
 of  Dyn.  XVI,  and  505+3184 
 =  3689  from  the  fabulous 
 epoch  at  which  he  shows  Menes. 
 See  above  p.  775. 
 
 la'.  XejjpTjg  tri]  is'. 
 
 t(y.  'ApfiaXg,  6  Kal  Aavabg,  sttj  e'ffieO' d 
 £K  rijg  AiyvTTTOV  eKTTsaojv  Kal 
 ^svyojv  rbv  dStX<pdv  A'iyvirrov 
 slg  TT/v  'EXXaSa  acpiKvdTaiy  Kpa- 
 T{]<Tag  Tt  Tov  "Apyovg  (3a(nXivei 
 'Apysiwu. 
 
 ly'.  'Pa[xe(T<yrjg,  6   Kal  A'iyvTTTog,  stt] 
 
 tS'.  'Afxevcixpig  trr)  fi. 
 
 'Ofiov  err)  rfxr)'.  (So  too  the  Arm. 
 *'Summa  anni  348."  And  xiv  kings 
 with  348  years  are  Dyn.  XVIII  of 
 the  Old  Chronicle.)  The  sum  is 
 made  out  thus:  25+ 13+21  [+22] 
 +  12  +  26  +  9  +  31+37  +  16  +  8  +  15 
 +  5  +  68+40=348.  Thefiguresin 
 the  Arm.  are  the  same  as  those  of 
 Syncellus,  except  that  one  decade 
 has  fallen  out  from  the  reign  of 
 Horus  who  has  28.  If  38  is  the 
 genuine  reading  of  Eusebius,  and  he 
 varied  in  this  reign  by  one  year 
 from  Africanus,  which  is  unlikely, 
 it  follows  that  he  also  varied  in  the 
 reign  of  Amensis  above,  and  gave 
 her  only  21  instead  of  22  years. 
 See  above  at  p.  775,  &c. 
 
 ^vvaare'ia  19' 
 
 ^aaiXiiov  e  ALO(77roXiriov. 
 a'.  '2i9(x}g  tru]  vi . 
 (3'.  'Va[x\pr]g  err]  ^t'. 
 
 y'.  ' Aixp.evk<pQig  err]  fi .  j 
 b',  Afifitvefirjg  err]  kt'. 
 
 f'.  Qov(opic^  6  Trap'  'OfXT]p<i)  KaXQVjxivog 
 UoXvl^og  'AXKCLvdpag  avi)p^  hf  ov 
 rb  "iXiov  eaXw,  err) 
 
 'O/iou  err]  pi^d'.  (And  Arm.  has 
 the  same  sum  "  194,"  but  for  the  3rd 
 reign  it  has  the  corrupt  reading  of 
 "  8  years."  And  v  generations  with 
 194  years  make  Dyn.  XIX  of  the 
 Old  Chronicle.) 
 
 Eusebius  then  copies  from  Afri- 
 canus without  alteration  his  sum  for 
 the  years  of  Manetho's  or  rather  of 
 Ptolemy's  Book  II. :  "  'Etti  rov  ah- 
 rov  jS'  ro/iow  IslaveBU)  fSaaiX'tojv  0' 
 err]  ^pKaJ'  And  the  Arm.  has  the 
 same  :  "  Manethonis  secundo  libro 
 conflatur  summa  [1]92  regum,  an- 
 norum  2121;"  although  after  the 
 changes  made  by  Eusebius  above 
 the  sum  of  the  kings  is  really  7  + 
 60  +  76  +  z  [fors.  21]  +|5+4+14 
 +5  =  [1]  92  ?  And  the  sum  of  the 
 years  is  245+453+184+250+190 
 +  103+348+194=1967. 
 
 TPITOY  TOMOY  MANEO^. 
 
 Avvaareia  K' 
 
 (3a(riXe(jjv  Aio(nroXiru)V  i,Q',  oi  kjiaai~ 
 Xevaav  err]'  por],  (The  Arm.  differs, 
 and  has  172  years,  but  178  is  no 
 doubt  the  true  reading.  Perhaps 
 some  copyist  wished  to  make  room 
 for  the  6  years  of  Dyn.  XXVIII 
 below.  The  xii  kings  are  from 
 Dyn.  XX  of  Africanus,  not  from 
 the  Chronicle.  How  the  years  come 
 to  diSer  from  both  has  been  ex- 
 plained at  p.  782.) 
 
 Avvaareia  KA' 
 
 pacnXewv  Tavirojv  l,'. 
 a',  ^jxevoig  err]  /c<r'. 
 /3'.  "irova'evvrjg  err]  fxa'. 
 y',  'Ne(pspxepr]g  err]  d', 
 d'.  ^ AfxeviocbQig  err] 
 e'.  '0(rox<^p  err]  -'. 
 <r'*  ^ivdxr]g  err]  3'', 
 "irov(j'svvr]g  err]  Xe'. 
 
 'Ofiov  err]  pX'.  '  (The  Arm.  also  has 
 
EUSEBIIJS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 821 
 
 "130,"  and  agrees  throughout.  Both 
 the  vii  kings  and  the  130  years  are 
 here  from  Dyn.  XXI  of  Africanus, 
 not  from  the  Chronicle.) 
 
 AvyaffTsia  KB' 
 
 Bov(3aaTiTa>v  j3aai\eu)v  y'. 
 
 /8'.  '0(jop6u>v  tTT]  ie\ 
 y',  TaickXwOig  err]  ly, 
 
 'Ofjiov  Ittj  fj.^'.  (So  too  Arm.  "iii" 
 kings  and  "  49  "  years,  which  are 
 from  Dyn.  XXII  of  the  Old  Chro- 
 nicle, only  with  one  year  more.) 
 
 Avvaareia  KF' 
 
 TaviTwv  f3aai\EisJV  y  . 
 a.  TltTOv^a.aTr]Q  trr]  Kt. 
 /3'.  'OaopOwv  err]  B''  uv  'HpuKXea  Ai- 
 
 yvTTTiOL  iKakiaav. 
 y'.  ^anjxovQ  ETt}  i. 
 
 '0{xov  tTtj  fid'.  (So  too  Arm.  "  iii" 
 kings  and  "  44"  years.  How  this  dy- 
 nasty comes  to  differ  both  from  that 
 of  the  Chronicle  and  from  that  of 
 Africanus,  is  explained  at  p.  784.) 
 
 Avmore/a  KA'. 
 
 Boxx^piC  2air)/f  trr]  fid''  t(p'  ov  dp- 
 viov  i(p6ky%aTo, 
 
 'Ofiov  tTT}  fiS'.  (So  too  in  the 
 Arm.  "44"  years.  The  single  king 
 is  from  Africanus,  but  the  years  are 
 from  Dyn.  XXIV  of  the  Chronicle.) 
 
 Avmore/a  KE' 
 
 AiQioTTUJv  (iaaik'cMv  y'. 
 a,  ^aftuKOJV,  dg  aixfJ-dXioTOV  Boxxo/Oiv 
 iXCjv  tKavae  ^cJi/ro,  Kai  IfiaaiXev- 
 Cfv  err] 
 
 y'.  TapuKog  stt)  k. 
 
 'Ofiov  trr}  fxd'.  (The  Arm.  too 
 has  "44."  The  years  are  here  again 
 from  Dyn.  XXV  of  the  Chronicle. 
 The  iii  kings  are  common  to  the 
 Chronicle  and  to  Africanus.) 
 
 Avyaarela  K2T' 
 
 Sairwv  j3a<nX't(x)v  B'. 
 a.  "AniJLspig  Al2rio\p  tn]  ift'.  ("18" 
 
 Arm.  but  "  12  "  in  the  marg.) 
 (3'.  ^Ttfl^u'dQig  tTT]  K'' 
 y  .  Nt^f^wC  ^^T"n 
 
 s.  ^afifxrjTixog  trr}  jid'.  (So  read 
 from  the  Arm.  which  has  "44." 
 Syncellus  has  fit.) 
 
 t'.  Ne^aw  dtvTtpog  tTt]  <r'  *  ovrog  t'lXs. 
 rrjv  'ItpovaaXrijx^  Koi  'lojdxa^  tov 
 (3aaiXta  aixfidXojTOV  tig  A'iyvTTTOv 
 aTrr/yayf. 
 "^dfinovQig  ertpoc,  o  Kai  ^ajiniiTi' 
 Xog,  tTr)  iK\ 
 
 r\ ,  Oud(ppig  trrj  Kt  '  <^  TrpoaecpvyoT, 
 dXovarig  vno  ^Aaavp'nov  Trjg  'If- 
 pov(TaX7][i,  01  TU)V  'lovda'iujv  vtto- 
 
 XoiTTOl. 
 
 y.  "AyLbjaig  trt]  fi(3'. 
 
 'Ofiov  tTt]  pKK'.  (So  restore  from 
 Arm.  which  gives  as  the  sum  "  167," 
 and  exhibits  it  exactly  by  the  reigns 
 in  detail,  if  only  the  correct  mar- 
 ginal reading  "12"  for  the  first  reign 
 be  substituted  for  the  corrupt  read- 
 ing" 18"  of  the  text.  Syncellus  gives 
 as  the  sum  163  (p?y'),  but  his  reigns 
 show  that  167  is  the  true  number, 
 since  they  make  up  168,  the  ex- 
 cess of  1  being  caused  by  his  cor- 
 rupt reading  of  45  instead  of  44 
 for  the  reign  of  Psammitichus  I. 
 The  figure  however  in  the  units, 
 place  in  the  list  of  Africanus  is  not 
 t  but  S'.  The  number  of  ix  kings 
 is  from  Africanus.  The  sum  of 
 167  years,  which  is  neither  that  of 
 the  Chronicle  nor  that  of  Africanus, 
 is  accounted  for  at  p.  789.) 
 
 AvyaffTEta  KZ' 
 
 Iltpcruiv  jSaaiXeojv  ij', 
 a'.  Kafx(3v(n]g  'irti  TrsjUTrry  Trjg  avrov 
 (SaaiXe'iag  [Uepduiv  being  care- 
 lessly omitted]  t'/3a(7/'Xii;(Tf  J/  [A<'- 
 yvTTTov']  trt]  y.  (The  Arm.  is 
 rather  less  defective,  and  has 
 "  Cambyses,  qui  regni  sui  quinto 
 anno  iEgyptum  occupavit.") 
 
 3  G  3 
 
822 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 )8'.  Mdyoi  firjvat;  Z,', 
 
 y'.  Aaptlog  trtj  X<^\ 
 
 d\  ^Sifp^TjQ  6  Aapeiov  err]  Ka\ 
 
 f'.  ' kpralkplrjQ  6  fiuKpoxfip  err]  fx'. 
 
 <r'.  l^kplriQ  6  devTtpOQ  fifivag  ^\ 
 
 .  "Eoy^iavoQ  fxrivaQ  ZJ , 
 ?/.  AapCioQ  6  Sfp^ov  erri  iB\ 
 
 'Ofxov  fTT}  pK'  Kal  firjvaQl',  So  too 
 the  Arm.  3  +  7m.4-36+21 +2m.+ 
 7m.+40+19=120.4m. 
 
 Avyaareia  KH'. 
 'Aiivpraiog  'Sairjjg  trr}  r' '  (being 
 Manetho's  substitution  of  one  king 
 with  6  years,  which  are  merely  con- 
 current, for  Dyn.  XXVII  of  the 
 Chronicle  the  184  years  of  which 
 are  suppressed.) 
 
 Avyaarela  KG'. 
 
 MevSt'icFioi  (SacnXsTg  d'. 
 a.  'Ne(p(piTr]Q  sTrj  <r'. 
 
 y.  "^dfifiovOig  eTog  a. 
 d'.  T:i((pepiTi]g  jxrjvag  d'.    Both  Syn- 
 cellus  and  the  Arm.  have  a 
 fifth  name,  viz.  MovOig  (Muthis) 
 being  the  last  part  of  the  pre- 
 ceding name,  Psam-mouthis, 
 and  with  the  same  reign  of  1  year 
 repeated.    Syncellus  puts  this 
 Mouthis  after,  the  Arm.  vers. 
 before  Nepherites  II.    But  the 
 number  of  "  iv  kings  "  given 
 above  in  the  heading  shows 
 that  he  is  an  intruder,  and  the 
 sum  of  the  dynasty,  instead  of 
 being  *'«V);  Ka   kuI  nrjvag  d'," 
 must  be  restored  thus : 
 '0[^wv  err]  k  kuI  fxrjvag  d'.     ("  20 
 years  and  4  months."    The  compo- 
 sition of  Dynasties  XXIX,  XXX, 
 and  XXXI  is  explained  at  p.  798.) 
 Dyn.  XXIX  of  Eusebius  both  in  its 
 number  of  kings  and  in  its  sum  is 
 simply  transcribed  from  Africanus.) 
 
 AvvaffTEia  A' 
 
 "EefSevvvTcSv  (iaaiXsMV  y . 
 a.  'NtKTavlijSrjg  tri]  it]'.    [Both  Syn- 
 
 cellus and  the  Arm.  have  i 
 (10),  but  Eusebius  himself  in 
 his  First  Book  by  implication 
 requires  18,  as  may  be  seen  by 
 reckoning  upwards  the  reigns 
 which  he  gives  from  the  end 
 of  the  6  years  of  Darius  Codo- 
 mannus,  and  downwards  from 
 the  beginning  of  the  6th  year 
 of  Cambyses  :  and  S.  Jerome 
 in  his  translation  of  the  Canon 
 gives  distinctly  18  years.  So 
 this  number  must  be  restored.] 
 (3'.  Ttiog  irr)  (3\ 
 
 y'.  l>(tKTavsi3r]g  ir( ,  [So  again  re- 
 store from  what  is  implied  in 
 Book  I.,  and  from  the  Canon, 
 where  Nectanebo  II.  has  19, 
 which  is  1  year  too  many. 
 Here  again  both  Syncellus  and 
 the  Arm.  have  only  i]  (8). 
 But  S,  Jerome  in  his  Latin  ver- 
 sion of  the  Canon  has  rightly 
 18.  The"  sum  too,  which  both 
 Syncellus  and  the  Arm.  give 
 as  K  (20),  must  be  restored  as 
 follows :] 
 'O^ov  trr]  \r)'  (38).    This  whole 
 
 dynasty  is  again  copied  without 
 
 change  from  Africanus. 
 
 AvvactTEia  A  A' 
 
 rTfjOtrwi/  (5a<nXk<x)v  y  . 
 
 a.  ^Qxog  Tt^  K  trei  rrjg  avTov  jSafri- 
 Xeiag  Tltpcrulv  i(iaaiXtvatv  Ai- 
 yvTCToverr}  <r':  "  Ochus  vigesimo 
 jam  anno  Persis  imperitans 
 -^gyptum  occupavit,  tenuit- 
 que  annis  sex''  (Syncellus  has 
 a  corrupt  reading  y\  for  which 
 Scaliger  restored  t'  by  a  con- 
 jecture which  the  Armenian 
 Version  has  now  justified. 
 
 (3'.  'Ap(Ti]g"Qxov  ^.  "  Arses  Ochi  4." 
 
 y'.  Aapeiog  'Apcra/xov  t'.  "  Darius  6 ; 
 quem  Alexander  Macedo  inter- 
 fecit." 
 
 'Ofiov  trr]  ir    ("  16  "  years). 
 
 TavTa  Tov  rplrov  MaveOto.  Msxpi 
 TMvde  MavtOujg.  "  Cuncta  hsec  ex 
 Manethonis  tertio  libro." 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPniLI. 
 
 823 
 
 Those  pages  of  the  old  Armenian  version  of  the  Chro- 
 nicon  of  Eusebius  which  contained  the  commencement  of 
 his  Second  Book  are  unfortunately  wanting.  But  St.  Jerome, 
 who  translated  the  whole  of  that  book  and  added  a  continu- 
 ation, and  who  professes  to  have  made  no  variations  or  addi- 
 tions of  his  own  until  after  the  date  for  Troy,  has  preserved 
 a  series  of  lists  of  kings  with  the  years  of  their  reigns  which 
 were  prefixed  in  the  Second  Book  to  the  Canon,  and  were 
 meant  to  be  identical  with  those  exhibited  in  it  worked  up 
 and  paralleled  with  one  another  year  by  year.  These  lists  are 
 now  subjoined ;  and  as  besides  in  our  own  Epitome  of  the 
 Canon  the  names  of  some  lines  of  kings  will  be  found 
 indicated  only  by  alphabetical  references,  those  letters  which 
 will  be  substituted  for  names  in  the  Epitome  of  the  Canon 
 are  here  attached  to  the  names  themselves  to  which  they 
 are  meant  to  refer.  The  Greek  variants  which  are  added 
 are  from  Syncellus,  and  wherever  none  are  inserted  it  may 
 be  understood  that  his  figures  are  the  same  with  those  of 
 Eusebius ;  so  by  this  addition  the  lists  will  serve  equally  for 
 reference  in  connection  with  the  longer  chronology  of  Ania- 
 nus  and  Syncellus,  which  is  treated  of  in  Ch.  VIII. 
 
 On  one  point  a  little  more  explanation  than  could  find 
 room  in  the  columns  of  the  next  page  may  be  desirable. 
 Syncellus  taxes  Eusebius  with  having  suppressed  4  Assyrian 
 kings  with  162  years  in  order  to  make  the  43rd  of  Ninus  to 
 be  parallel  with  his  own  1st  of  Abraham.  And  Scaliger 
 assents,  only  observing  that  Syncellus  restores  the  4  names 
 about  80  years  too  low  after  instead  of  before  Teutamus  and 
 Teutaeus ;  and  he  supposes  that  these  4  kings  had  been  omit- 
 ted by  Eusebius  from  the  list  of  Africanus,  and  so  perhaps  of 
 Ctesias.  But  Diodorus,  following  Ctesias,  made  Sardanapalus 
 to  be  the  35th  and  Teutamus  the  26th  from  Ninus,  which 
 agrees  7vith  the  list  of  Eusebius ;  and  Africanus  is  open  to  no 
 suspicion  of  having  added  names ;  so  that  the  list  from  which 
 Eusebius  was  thought  to  have  dropped  4  names  was  probably 
 only  that  of  Anianus  and  of  later  date.  Yet  Syncellus  is  so 
 far  right  that  Eusebius  seems  really  to  have  suppressed 
 162  years  of  the  sum  "  above  1300"  reckoned  by  Ctesias; 
 since  Ctesias,  as  Diodorus  quotes  him,  placed  Ninus  1000 
 years  before  Troy  and  Teutamus,  i,e,  at  least  as  high  as  B.C. 
 (1212  +  1000  =)  2212,  154  years  above  Eusebius's  date. 
 
 3  G  4 
 
824 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Reges  Assyriorum. 
 [Beginning  with  A.M.  (3184 
 —  42  =)  3145  and  ending  with 
 A.  ABK.  1196.] 
 
 Tears. 
 
 a  Ninus[postvtBeli  S.].52 
 
 b  Semiramis  42 
 
 c  Zameis  or  Ninyas  38 
 
 d  Arius  30 
 
 e  Aralius  40 
 
 /  Xerxes  30 
 
 g  Arraamitres  38 
 
 h  Belochus  35 
 
 i  Balasus  52 
 
 j  Altadas  32 
 
 k  Mamithus  30 
 
 /  Manchaleus  30 
 
 m  Sphserus  «/3'  20 
 
 n  Mamylus  30 
 
 0  Sparetus  ^/3'  40 
 
 J)  Ascades  40 
 
 q  Amyntas  45 
 
 r  Belochus  25 
 
 s  Balapares  30 
 
 t  Lamprides  }J  32 
 
 «  Sosares  20 
 
 V  Lampares  30 
 
 w  Pannyas  45 
 
 *  Sosarmus  x^'  19 
 
 y  Mitraeus  27 
 
 %  Tautames  X/3'  32,  1 
 but  in  the  Canon  j 
 
 u,'  Teutffius  iJt.1'  40 
 
 /3'  Thinseus  30 
 
 y'  Dercylus  40 
 
 y  Eupales  38 
 
 i'  Laosthenes  45 
 
 c"  Piritiades  30 
 
 OphratEeus  x«'  20 
 
 r,'  Ophratanes  ")  cq 
 
 3-'  Acrazapes 
 
 Sync.  'Asspayav*]?  J 
 
 <'  Sardanapalus  20 
 Reges  hi  1240  annis  reg- 
 naverunt.    [But  by 
 the  Canon  42+  1196 
 =  1238.  SjTic. 
 Eusebius,  acc.  to  Sync, 
 omits  4  kings,  viz. : 
 Arabelus  with  42 
 Chalaus  45 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Anebus  38 
 Babius  37 
 Inall  lG2yrs.  whichSync. 
 inserts  between  Teu- 
 t£Bus  and  Thinaeus. 
 But  their  true  place 
 was  about  80  yrs. 
 earlier,  before  Teu- 
 tamus.  The  variants 
 of  Sync,  give  besides 
 4  more  3'rs.  than  the 
 Canon  of  Eusebius. 
 
 Sicyoniorum  reges. 
 [A.M.  (3184  —  73  =)  5112  to 
 A.  ABR.  888  both  incl-J 
 
 [a  iEgialeus  52 
 
 as  not  in  the  Canon 
 
 is  omitted.] 
 
 b  Europs  45 
 
 c  Telchin  x9'  20 
 
 d  Apis  25 
 
 e  Thelasion  52 
 
 /  .aigydrus  34 
 
 g  Thurimachus  45 
 
 h  Leucippus  53 
 
 i  Messapus  47 
 
 j  Erastus  46 
 
 k  Plemn^us  v'  48,  1., 
 
 but  in  Canon  J 
 
 I  Orthopolis  63 
 
 m  Marathius  v'  30,  7  oq 
 
 but  in  Canon  J 
 
 n  Marathus  or  Ma-  ' 
 rathon 
 
 0  Echyreus 
 
 p  Corax 
 
 q  Epopeus  X^' 
 
 r  Laomedon  ij^y'  40 
 
 s  Sicyon  At/3',  45,  but  7  . . 
 in  Canon  J 
 
 t  Polybus  iJt,y'  40 
 u  Inachus  ^ts'  42 
 V  Hephaestus  i'  8 
 w  Adrastus  i'  4 
 X  Polypheides  X'  31 
 y  Pelasgus  20 
 %  Zeuxippus  X'  32 
 Reges  hi  [xxvi]  regn- 
 averunt     annis  862 
 [really  888+21+52  = 
 961  S.  7>ill'.'\  Post 
 quos  sacerdotesCarnii 
 constituti  sunt. 
 
 Lacedaemoniorum. 
 
 [Beginning  with  A.  .V.BK.  916, 
 
 and  ending  with  A.  ABB. 
 
 1240.] 
 
 Tears. 
 
 a  Eurystheus 
 
 42 
 
 6  Agis 
 
 1 
 
 c  Echestratus 
 
 35 
 
 d  Labotes 
 
 37 
 
 e  Dorysthus 
 
 29 
 
 /  Agesilaus  (moJ 
 
 44 
 
 g  Archelaus 
 
 GO 
 
 h  Teleclus 
 
 40 
 
 i  Alcamenes 
 
 37 
 
 [In  all  325  yrs.] 
 
 Macedonum, 
 
 A.  ABK.  1204—1848. 
 
 a  Caranus  x' 
 
 28 
 
 h  Ccenus  yy/i' 
 
 12 
 
 c  Tyrimas  ^ts' 
 
 38 
 
 d  Perdiccas  a**?' 
 
 51 
 
 e  Argaeus  X^' 
 
 38 
 
 /  Philippus  x^' 
 
 38 
 
 g  Aeropas  xy' 
 
 26 
 
 h  Alcetas 
 
 29 
 
 i  Amyntas  /jt.^' 
 
 50 
 
 j  Alexander  ijih' 
 
 43 
 
 k  Perdiccas  y,y' 
 
 28 
 
 I  Archelaus  <5' 
 
 24 
 
 m  Orestes 
 
 3 
 
 n  Archelaus 
 
 4 
 
 0  Amyntas 
 
 p  Pausanias  " 
 
 1 
 
 q  Amyntas  e' 
 
 6 
 
 r  Argffius  /3',  1  but 
 in  Canon 
 
 ]^ 
 
 s  Amyntas  ;/3' 
 
 18 
 
 t  Alexander 
 
 1 
 
 u  Ptolemasus  y' 
 
 4 
 
 V  Perdiccas 
 
 6 
 
 :  w  Philippus  xy' 
 
 26 
 
 X  Alexander  Magn. 
 
 ,2 
 
 [ending  with  a,  abr- 
 
 1692]. 
 
 I  Aridffius 
 
 7 
 
 2  Cassander 
 
 19 
 
 [  Sync  .hasll  ci7§£?  Kflt(r<ra  V- 
 
 Sptfu  O/X/Tsroj, 
 
 and 
 
 then  'AXslotvSpe,- 
 
 3  Antigonus  et  Alex. 
 
 4 
 
 Tears. 
 
 4  Demetrius  oKtriyow  6 
 
 5  Pyrrhus /3'  7™. 
 
 6  Lysimach.  v  fju?,vix^  /3'  5 
 
 7  Ptolemaeus  0  Aaj-ot;  1 
 
 8  Meleager  2m. 
 
 9  Antipater         45  dys. 
 
 10  Sosthenes    [;««/  \  „ 
 
 avcc^X'^  ^>  S.]      j  ^ 
 
 11  Antigonus  oTcv-  7og 
 
 12  Demetrius  10 
 
 13  Antigonus  Phus- Sic- 
 
 cus //3'  j 
 
 14  Philippus  42 
 
 15  Perseus  v,'  fj,Y,vcx.;  l^n 
 5-',Y£:.a«,p/X/T!r«f«'j'" 
 
 In  all  645  years. 
 
 Asiae. 
 
 Philippo  xxiv.  Macedonnm 
 rege  regnante,  Asi:e  primus 
 
 regnavit 
 [A.  ABE.  1693  to  1912  incl.] 
 
 2  Demetrius  Polior- 
 cetes  <' 
 
 I  Antigonus  18 
 
 Syriae  et  Asis.  (a.  ABE.  1693.) 
 
 3  Seleucus  Nicanor  Xy'32 
 
 4  Antiochus  Soter  19 
 
 5  Antiochus  Theos  15 
 
 6  Seleucus  Callin.asce'  20 
 
 7  Sel.  Alex.  Ceraunus  3 
 
 8  Antiochus  Magn.  36 
 
 9  Seleucus  Philopator  12 
 
 10  AntiochusEpiphan.  11 
 
 II  Antioch.  Eupator  7  „ 
 
 a',  r'  f^^ivcc;  3 
 
 12  Demetrius  Soter  12 
 
 13  Alexander  5-'  10 
 
 14  Demetrius  3 
 
 15  Antiochus  Sidetes  9 
 
 16  Demetrius  again  4 
 
 17  Antioch.Grypus  «r'12 
 
 18  Antioch.Cyzicenus 
 
 toe'  18 
 
 19  Philippus  2 
 (Not  given  by  Sync.) 
 
 [In  all  220,  <r;s<r',  years,] 
 
 Medorum. 
 Post  Assyriorum  reges 
 Medorum  reges  regnant. 
 [A.  ABR.  1198  to  1456  hoth 
 incl.] 
 
 I  Arbaces 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 825 
 
 Years. 
 30 
 
 3  Mandauces  or  Me-  ' 
 didus  yj  J 
 
 40 
 
 4  Artjcas  orCardy.7i3 
 C8BUS  \'  3 
 
 a  Deioces  [53]  54 
 
 h  Aphraortes  y«'  [22]  24 
 
 c  Cyaxares  [40]  32 
 
 d  Astyages  [35]  38 
 
 [In  all  llH-148=2o9yrs.] 
 
 Persaroin. 
 [A.  ABR.  1457  to  16 
 incl.] 
 
 e  Cyrus  (>.«'  Sync.)  30 
 
 /  Cambyses  vf  8 
 
 g  Magi  7ni.  and  Sync.  1  , 
 /"■^v«>' C'.butinCan.  3 
 
 A  Darius  Hystaapes  36 
 
 r  Xerxes  «'  20 
 
 '  Artabanus  «'  7°i 
 [In  Can.  Xerxes  21.] 
 
 j  Artaxerxes  (jm'  40 
 
 f  Xerxes  2ni 
 
 }i  I  Sogdianus  «'  7°> 
 
 Darius  Nothus  16 
 L    but  Sync,  /fl'  [19] 
 
 [In  Can.  only  Darius 
 
 Nothus  with  19-] 
 
 I  Artax.  Mnemon  40 
 
 m  Artaxerxes  qui  et  )  „c 
 
 ochusE' 
 
 [Sync,  has  '*Sl%ot  o  xa.) 
 
 '  A^T«|£^|oy  ft  OAS  e',  xa.- 
 
 T«  rtvce.?  »'] 
 
 n  Arses  S'  4 
 
 o  Darius  Arsami  6 
 
 [In  all  230  yrs,  <rr/  S.] 
 
 Alexander,  subverso  ) 
 Persarum  regno,  >  6 
 regnat  annis  ) 
 
 Years. 
 
 G  Ptol.  Philomet.  35 
 
 7  Ptol.  Euerg.  II.  W  29 
 
 8  Ptol.  Soter  17 
 (Sync.  0  <P«Z<rxos  »*>'■) 
 
 9  Ptol.  Alexander  10 
 
 10  Ptol.  Cleopatrae  f.  8 
 [9,  10  and  11  have  drop- 
 ped out  from  Sync] 
 
 11  PtoL.Dionysus  30 
 
 12  Cleopatra  22 
 [In  all  296  r^»7  yrs.] 
 
 Post  Imperatores  Ro- 
 manorum  reguaverunt. 
 
 Argivorum. 
 X^'I.  Dynaitiae  Egyptiorum 
 anno  161  primus  Argivorum 
 
 regnavit 
 [A.  ABE.  161  to  705  both  incl.] 
 
 Alexandrinorum. 
 [A.  ABK.  1693  to  1988  both 
 ind.] 
 
 1  PtolemEBUs  Lagi  40 
 
 2  Ptol.  Philadelph.  38 
 
 3  Ptol.  Euerg.  I.  xl'  26 
 
 4  Ptol.  Philopat.  17 
 
 5  Ptol.  Epiphan.  24 
 
 a  Inachus  vt'  50 
 
 b  Phoroneus  60 
 
 c  Apis  35 
 
 d  Argos  70 
 
 e  Criasus  vs' 54,  but  7  53 
 in  Canon  J 
 
 /  Phorbas  xi'  35 
 
 g  Triopas  X-M6,  but  7  .a 
 in  Canon  j'*^ 
 
 h  Crotopus  »5'  21 
 I  Stenelus  11 
 
 [Hitherto  383  yrs.] 
 j  Danaus  nj'  58,  but  C.  50 
 k  LynceusAe'  35,butC.41 
 I  Abas  X?'  37,  but  C,  23 
 m  Proetus  17 
 (S.  'n.^oiTO?  xcc)  Hi^fVJi.) 
 n  Acrisius  X>^33,butC.  31 
 Argivorum  regnum 
 
 transferturin  Mycenas. 
 [In  all  i?v(jt'  545  years  i.e. 
 short  by  17.] 
 
 Mycenarum. 
 [A.  ABK.  706  to  915  both  incl.] 
 
 a  Perseus  53,  Xe'  in  7  ,q 
 Canon  Pelops  j 
 
 b  Eurystheus43,  inC.  23? 
 S.  perhaps  places  at 
 Argos  Perseus,  Sthe- 
 nelus,  and  Eurys- 
 theus,  and  at  Mycence 
 Pelops,  Atreus,  &c. 
 
 c  Atreus  Xy'  et  Thy-  J  ggy 
 
 Years, 
 
 estes  Iratres  65 
 d  Agamemnon  lyf  15 
 [In  all  to  Troy  130.] 
 
 6  .^Egisthus  e'  15 
 
 7  Orestes  23 
 
 8  Tisamenus 
 
 9  Pentheus 
 
 10  Cometes 
 
 Usque  ad  Heraclidarum 
 descensum.  [82  yrs. 
 ending  with  A.  abr. 
 915  ?  and  thence  65, 
 ending  with  980,to  the 
 settlement  of  Ionia? 
 S.  has  for  Mycenas  a-' 
 "  or  less."] 
 
 Corinthiorum. 
 [A.  ABK.  916  to  1240.] 
 
 1  Aletes  X-/i'  35 
 
 38? 
 
 2  Ixion  x»j'  37 
 
 38? 
 
 3  Agelas  Xe'  37 
 
 35? 
 
 4  Prjrranes 
 
 35 
 
 5  Bacchis  X^' 
 
 35 
 
 6  Agelas 
 
 30 
 
 7  Eudemus 
 
 25 
 
 8  Aristomedes 
 
 35 
 
 9  Agemon 
 
 16 
 
 10  Alexander 
 
 25 
 
 11  Telestes 
 
 12 
 
 12  Automenes 
 
 1 
 
 [In  all  322  yrs.  rx^'  S.] 
 
 Then  90  Prytanes 
 
 to 
 
 Cypselus. 
 
 Lydoruni. 
 [A.  ABK.  1259  to  1470  both 
 incl] 
 
 a  Ardysus  36 
 
 b  Alyattes  14 
 
 c  Meles  12 
 
 d  Candaules  17 
 
 e  Gyges  Xr'  35,  but  7 
 
 in  Canon  j 
 
 f  Ardys  Xtj'  37,  but  7  ,0 
 
 in  Canon  j 
 
 g  Sadyattes  15 
 
 h  Alyattes ^3-'44butC. 49 
 
 i  Croesus  15 
 
 Hi  regnaverunt  annis  225 
 [232] 
 
 Atheniensium. 
 Rcge  vi  Argivorum  Phorbd, 
 anno  ejus  22,  regnarit  primus 
 Athen. 
 
 [X  ABB.  461  to  947  both  incL] 
 
 Years. 
 
 a  Cecrops  50 
 
 b  Cranaus  9 
 
 c  Amphictyon  10 
 
 d  Ericthonius  50 
 
 e  Pandion  40 
 
 /  Erechtheus  50 
 
 g  Cecrops  40 
 h  Pandion 
 
 i  iEgeus  Pandionis  f.  48 
 
 j  Theseus  X«'         1  30 
 
 k  Mnestheus  Xy'.  23 
 
 I  Demophon  xy'  33 
 
 m  Oxyntes  i'  12 
 
 n  Aphidas  1 
 
 0  Thymoetes  5-'  8 
 p  Melanthus  Pylius  37 
 q  Codras  21 
 Hinc    [a.  abr.  948  to 
 
 1263,  both  incl.] 
 Magistratus  [Archontes] 
 quoad  vixerunt  reg- 
 naverunt 
 
 a  Medon  20 
 
 b  Acastus  Xs'  36 
 
 c  Archippus  19 
 
 d  Thersippus  ^a'  41 
 
 e  Phorbas  X'  31 
 
 /  Megacles  xti'  30 
 
 g  Diognetus  2S 
 
 h  Pherecles  19 
 
 1  Ariphron  20 
 j  Thespieus  27 
 k  Agamestor  iZ,'  20 
 /  ^schylus  23 
 m  Alcmteon  2 
 Magistratus  Decennales 
 
 [a.  abr.  1264  to  1333 
 
 both  incl.] 
 
 a  Charops  IQ 
 
 6  iEsimedes  10 
 
 c  Clidicus  10 
 
 d  Hippomenes  10 
 
 e  Leocrates  10 
 
826 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 /  Apsander  10 
 g  Eryxias  10 
 
 Hinc  principes  annui. 
 [In  all  487+316+70= 
 
 873  yrs.  Sync.  uv-'.'\ 
 
 Hebrseormn. 
 
 Abraham 
 Isaac 
 
 Jacob  !r/3',  Aiv)  ^t^',  ) 
 K««0|','A//,/3?«A<' W21 
 «£'  ) 
 
 Joseph  dux  iflgypti  80 
 
 HebrEei  serviunt  in  7  ,4- 
 iEgypto 
 
 Moses  40 
 
 Jesus  Ixxt  ivi  S.]  27 
 
 Gothoniel  ^troi  to.  ij'  40 
 
 Aod  iMiTo,  rot  tf)'  80 
 
 Debbora  ^ceri  t«  x'  40 
 
 Gedeon  ^t.er«  ri  C  40 
 
 Abimelech  3 
 
 Thola  xy'  22 
 
 Jair  22 
 
 Jephthe  ^tASra  T«  6 
 
 Hesebon    xoti  'Atikuv  /  7 
 
 Labdon  8 
 
 Samson  ^srai  roe,  (x.'  20 
 
 Heli  sacerdos  x'  7^q 
 fjL,irot,  ra,  fx!  j 
 
 Samuel  et  Saul  x'xoi.)  i^'if) 
 
 Hinc  reges. 
 David  40 
 Solomon  40 
 
 1  Roboam  17 
 
 2  Abia,  5,  but  in  Canon  3 
 
 3  Asa  41 
 [Parraens.  MS.  40.] 
 
 4  Josaphat  25 
 
 5  Joram  8 
 
 6  Ochosias  1 
 
 7  Gotholia  7 
 
 8  Joas  40 
 
 9  Amasias  29 
 
 10  Azarias  52 
 
 11  Joatham  16 
 
 12  Achaz  16 
 
 13  Ezechias  29 
 
 14  Manasses  55 
 
 15  Hammon  [2]  /3'  12 
 
 J3, 
 
 Years. 
 3111 
 
 11 
 
 16  Josias  X«'.32,but 
 in  Canon 
 
 17  rJoachaz 
 
 18  C Joachim 
 [In  Can.  Joachim  only, 
 
 with  12  yrs.] 
 
 19  Jechonias  Sm. 
 
 20  Sedechias  11 
 [From  death  of  Solomon 
 
 r^V  405  years  a.  abr. 
 
 1020  to  1425,  both  incl.] 
 
 Judjeorum  Captivi-  7 
 tas  annos  3 
 
 Sub  regibus  GeHtlum 
 deinde  fuerunt  annis 
 [360]. 
 
 Post  hos  iterum  Duces 
 hi 
 
 1  Judas  Maccab.  3 
 
 2  Jonathas  19 
 
 3  Simon  x'  8 
 
 4  Hyrcanus  26 
 
 Hinc  reges 
 
 5  Aristobulus  1 
 
 7  Alexandra  9 
 
 8  Hyrcanus  Pontifex  34 
 [In  all  127  of  Asmonaeans 
 
 A.  ABR.  1857  to  1983 
 both  inch] 
 Alienigense. 
 
 1  Herodes  rex  37 
 
 2  Archelaux  dux  9 
 
 3  Herodes  Tetrarcha  24 
 
 4  Agrippa  7 
 
 5  Agrippa  rex  26 
 [In  all  103  A.  ABR.  1984 
 
 to  2086  both  incl.] 
 Hebraeorum  regpum  a 
 Romanis  finitum  est. 
 
 Jannaeus  qui  et 
 Alexander 
 
 Reges  Israel. 
 [A.  ABR.  1021  to  1270  both 
 incl.] 
 
 1  Jeroboam 
 
 2  Nadab 
 
 3  Baasa 
 
 4  Hela 
 
 5  Ambri 
 
 6  Achab 
 
 7  Ochosias 
 
 Years. 
 12 
 
 8  Joram 
 
 9  Hieu 
 
 10  Joachaz 
 
 11  Joas 
 
 12  Hieroboam 
 
 ISrZacharias 
 
 14-^Sellum  A' i^^.  3dys. 
 
 15C.Manaen  //3'  10 
 
 [In  Can.  Manaen  with- 
 out the  two  above  has 
 11-] 
 
 16  Phaceas  [Afric.  /3']  10 
 
 17  Phaceex»j'  20 
 
 18  Osee  9 
 Hi  reges  per  annos  250. 
 
 Sync.  <r|'. 
 
 iEgyptlorum. 
 
 XVI.  Dynastia,  i.e.  Po- 
 testas  sub  Thebaeis 
 annis  190 
 
 XVII.  Dynastia,  Pastor es 
 103 
 
 xviii.  Dynastia  Diospo. 
 litanorum  qui  regna- 
 verunt  annos  348. 
 
 1  Amasis  25 
 
 2  Chebron  13 
 
 3  Amenophis  21 
 
 4  Mephres  12 
 
 5  Mispharmutosis  26 
 
 6  Tuthmosis  9 
 
 7  Amenoptes  31 
 
 8  Orus  38,  but  in? 07 
 
 Canon  J*' 
 
 9  Acengee  12 
 [Sync.  'Ax£f%£?»'>js  ] 
 
 10  Athoris  9 
 
 11  Chencres      .  16 
 
 12  Acherres  8 
 
 13  Cherres  15 
 
 14  Danaus  5 
 [S. '  A^pCis,  0  KCb)  Aoivotii. 
 
 15  iEgyptus  68 
 [Sync.  'A{^t£(r<r>jj.] 
 
 16  Menophis  40 
 
 Tears. 
 65 
 
 XIX.  Dyn.  194. 
 
 1  Zetus 
 
 2  Ramses  66 
 
 3  Amenophis  40 
 
 4  Ammenemes  26 
 
 5  Thuoris  7 
 
 XX  Dyn.  ann. 
 
 178 
 
 XXI.  Dyn.  [130.] 
 
 1  Smendis  26 
 
 2  Psusennes  41 
 
 3  Nephercheres  4 
 
 4  Ammenophis  9 
 
 5  Osochor  6 
 
 6  Psinaches  9 
 
 7  Psusennes  35 
 
 XXII.  Dyn.  [49.] 
 
 1  Sencosis  21 
 
 2  Osorthon  15 
 
 3  Tachelotis  13 
 
 XXIII.  Dyn.  [44.] 
 
 1  Petubastis  25 
 
 2  Osorthon  9 
 
 3  Psammus  10 
 
 XXIV.  Dyn.  [44.] 
 1  Bocchorus  44 
 
 XXV.  Dyn.  [44.] 
 
 1  Sabachon  12 
 
 2  Sebichus  12 
 
 3  Taracus  20 
 
 XXVI.  Dyn.  [1.57.] 
 
 1  Merres  JEthiops  12 
 
 2  Stephinatis  7 
 
 3  Nechepsos  6 
 
 4  Nechao  8 
 
 5  Psammeticus  45  44 
 
 6  Nechao  qui  et  Ne-  7  g 
 
 chepsus  3 
 
 7  Psammites  alius) 
 
 qui  et  Psammeti-  f  ^ 
 cus  12,  but  in  Ca-  C  ' 
 non  J 
 
 8  Vaphres  30,  but  in  7  95 
 
 Canon  3 
 
 9  Amasis  42 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 827 
 
 xxvii.  Dyn.  in  qua  Cam- 
 byses  Persarum  rex 
 obtinuitiEgyptum  us- 
 que ad  Darium  filium 
 Xerxisannos  l50  [but 
 in  Canon  1201. 
 
 Deinceps  Alexandria! 
 usque  ad  Octavianum 
 Augustum  regnave- 
 runt.  [But  there  is 
 here  an  omission  of 
 59  yrs.  of  native  kings 
 and  of  16  of  Persians 
 from  A.  ABR.  1612  to 
 1686  both  incl.] 
 
 1  Janus 
 
 2  Saturnus 
 
 3  Picus  X?' 
 
 4  FaunuSjM.S"H^«;«X^f  Xe 
 
 5  Latinus  A^' 
 
 Hi  regnaverunt  simul 
 circa  annos  150. 
 
 [Then  from  a.  abr.  836 
 
 to  1264  both  incl.] 
 
 a  -S^neas  y',  5  but  in")  „ 
 Canon  i  ° 
 
 h  Ascanius  38,  but")  og 
 in  Canon  j 
 
 c  Sylvius 
 
 29 
 
 Tears. 
 
 d  JEneas  Sylv.  31 
 
 e  Latinus  Sylv.  50 
 
 /  Alba  Sylv.  X'.  39 
 
 g  TEgyptus  Sylv.  7 
 24,  but  in  Canon  j 
 
 h  Capys  Sylv.  x,'.  28 
 
 i  Carpentus  Sylv.  XS'.  13 
 
 j  Tiberius  Sylv,  8 
 
 k  Agrippa  Sylv.  ) 
 40,  but  in  Canon  J 
 
 I  Aremulus  Sylv.  19 
 
 m  Aventinus  Sylv.  37 
 
 n  Procas  Sylv.  X/3',  7 
 
 [In  all  v',  429  yrs.] 
 
 Romanorum. 
 a  Romulus  38 
 b  Numa  Pompilius  41 
 c  Tullus  Hostilius  32 
 d  Aucus  Martins  23 
 e  Tarquinius  Priscus  37 
 /  Servius  Tullius  ^5'  31 
 g  Tarquinius  Super- ?  „c 
 
 bus^fS' 
 
 Hi  regnaverunt  simul 
 annos  240  [from  a 
 abr.  1265  to  1504, 
 both  incl.  S.<y'-h225]. 
 
 post  exactos  Reges  con- 
 sules  quotannis  bini 
 creati,  et  in  maxima 
 urbis  calamitatequan- 
 doque  creabatur  Dic- 
 tator. S.  vay'  to 
 incl. 
 
 [Sequuntur  Dictatores.] 
 
 Impcratores  Romanorum. 
 [A.  AJiK.  1909  to  2345, 
 rather  2340.] 
 
 1  C.  Jul.  Caes.  i>  4  6m  0 
 
 2  August,  vy-'.   56  6ra  0 
 
 3  Tiber.  «/3'.     23   0  0 
 
 4  C.  Caligula  y'  3  10  0 
 
 5  Claudius  ty' .  13   8  28 
 
 6  Nero  ty'.       13   7  28 
 
 7  Vespas,  i'.       9  11  22 
 
 8  Tit.Vespas./3'.2   8  0 
 
 9  Domit.  //3'.     15   5  0 
 
 10  Nerva  14  0 
 
 11  Trajan     .    19   6  0 
 
 12  Hadrian       21   0  0 
 
 13  Antonin.P. 
 cum  filiis 
 Aurelio  et 
 Lucio  xj/ 
 
 14  Marcus  An- 
 ton, qui  et 
 VerusetL.  M9    1  0 
 Aurel.Com- 
 modus  <^ 
 
 15Commodus<}'' 
 
 .13 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 16  Helv.  Per- 7 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 tinax  3 
 
 0 
 
 17  Severus 
 
 18 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 18  Anton.  Ca-  \ 
 racalla  J 
 
 7 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 19  Macrinus 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 20  M.Aurel.Ant 
 
 .4 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 21  Alex.Mam-  7 
 
 13 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 meae  i 
 
 22  Maximinus 
 
 3 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 23  Gordianus 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 24  Philippus  7 
 23  Decius  /3'.  1 
 
 26  Callus  et  7  2 
 Volusian.  j 
 
 27  Valerian. et  7 
 Gallien.  j 
 
 28  Claudius  ac! .  1 
 
 29  Aurelian  r  .  5 
 
 30  Tacitus  0 
 
 31  Probus  [7  7  g 
 f;' fjt^rivm  S'  S.  3 
 
 32  Carus  cum) 
 filiis  Carin.  \  2 
 et  Numeri.) 
 
 33  Diocletian.  20 
 
 34  Galerius  2 
 
 35  Constantin.')  20 
 Continuatio  >  10 
 Hieronymi  ) 
 
 36  Constant! n.T 
 Constantius  >  24 
 et  Constans  J 
 
 37  Julianus  7  o 
 Apost.       3  ^ 
 
 38  Jovinianus  0 
 
 39Valentinian. 
 et  Valens 
 
 13 
 
 0  0 
 3  0 
 
 0  0 
 
 9  0 
 
 6  0 
 
 6  0 
 
 4  0 
 
 0  0 
 0  0 
 
 0  0 
 10  0 
 
 3  13 
 
 8  0 
 8  0 
 6  0 
 
 Eus.  has  3  yrs.  too  many 
 between  the  13th  of 
 Commodus  and  the  1st 
 of  Probus,  and  I  too 
 many  for  Probus. 
 
 Jerome  makes  a.  abr. 
 1263-1-  1131  of  tJ.c.= 
 2394  to  death  of  Va- 
 lens in  A.  D.  378. 
 
 "  Others  before  us,"  Syncellus  says,  "  have  shown  Eusebius  to 
 be  short  in  all  by  290  years,  since  instead  of  5816  he  makes  to 
 the  Vicennalia  of  Constantine  5527  years."  Anianus  and  Pano- 
 dorus  made  in  fact  5817  to  Aug.  29,  and  Syncellus  5817  to 
 March  25  in  A.D.  325.  If  Eusebius  made  (5200  +  327  =  )  5527 
 to  the  Vicennalia,  this  would  show  an  excess  between  his  43rd  of 
 Augustus  and  his  20th  of  Constantine  of  3  years.  Jerome's  version 
 making  A.  abr.  2343  =  20th  Constantine,  exhibits  the  (2184  + 
 2343  =)  5527  years.  But  Scaliger's  Greek  makes  A.  abr.  2345 
 =  20th  Constantine,  showing  5  years  too  many.  Subjoined  is  the 
 Epitome  of  the  Canon :  — 
 
828 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 A.  Alili 
 from 
 Sept.  1 
 in  li.C. 
 2016. 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 25 
 53 
 75 
 90 
 99 
 101 
 122 
 161 
 191 
 211 
 236 
 237 
 245 
 252 
 261 
 271 
 279 
 282 
 291 
 294 
 319 
 332 
 354 
 362 
 366 
 377 
 392 
 401 
 404 
 425 
 432 
 461 
 469 
 477 
 481 
 490 
 
 506 
 514 
 
 525 
 
 [Ninus  wars  with  Zoroaster] 
 
 1st  year  of  Promise 
 Ishmael  born 
 
 [Sodom  and  Gomorrha  destroyed] 
 I  Isaac  (60) 
 22 
 
 I  Jacob  (121)  a  (50)  1 
 
 31  31 
 I  h  (60)  1 
 
 76  [Ogyges  founds  Eleusis]  26 
 
 77  [Jacob  now  in  Mesopotamia]  27 
 >55,  and  1st  of  Reuben  j  35 
 02,  and  1st  of  Joseph's  life  42 
 
 Sicyon. 
 
 h  (45)  22 
 27 
 
 c(20)  1 
 d  (25)  9 
 e  (52)  6 
 21 
 
 3(J 
 32 
 
 /  (34)  1 
 g  (45)  6 
 36 
 
 h  (53)  11 
 3(i 
 37 
 
 45 
 52 
 
 Assyrians. 
 
 ■X  (52)  43 
 48 
 
 b  (42) 15 
 c(38)  1 
 
 2;i 
 
 38 
 
 d(30)  9 
 11 
 
 e(40)  2 
 /(30)  1 
 ^(38)  1 
 21 
 
 h  (35)  8 
 9 
 17 
 24 
 
 Egyptians. 
 
 101  [Diluvium  JEgypti  hoc  tempore  quod  factum  est  sub  Ogyge] 
 
 111 
 
 c(35)  1 
 
 119  [Memphis  is  colonised  and  founded  by  Apis  from  Argos  in  his  9th.] 
 I  Joseph  (80)  after  his  30th  yr.  12 
 
 29 
 
 10  The  3d  yr.  of  famine.  Jacob  before  Pharaoh]  38 
 
 i  (47)  18  2(52)  8 
 
 Dyn.  XVI.  (190) 
 
 C 
 2 
 53 
 75 
 90 
 99 
 101 
 122 
 161 
 
 Dyn.  xvii.Pastores  1 
 (103)  2j 
 
 46 
 4 
 
 55 
 62 
 71 
 81 
 
 13  (6th  yr.  of  famine)  24 
 38  d(70)  14 
 
 51  [Prometheus  acc.to  some  makes  men] 
 
 73 
 
 1  Servitude  (144) 
 
 5 
 
 41 
 
 3  (46) 19 
 32 
 
 k  (45)  3 
 11 
 15 
 
 16  [Atlas,  br.  of  Prometheus,  an  astrologer.]  26 
 31  e(53)  16  41 
 
 40  25  /(63)  5 
 
 19 
 
 28 
 31 
 
 .;■  (32)  4 
 17 
 
 k  (30)  6 
 14 
 18 
 
 29 
 
 I  (30)  14 
 23 
 
 43  [.^thiopes  ex  Indo  amne  migraverunt  juxta  ^gyptum.] 
 
 G4  [Amram  70.  Moses  born] 
 71 
 
 100  a  (50)  1 
 
 108  9 
 
 49  29  m(20)  17 
 
 /(34)  3  36  «  (30)  4 
 
 32  m  (28)  1  0  (40)  3 
 ^(48)  6  4  11 
 
 116  [Flood  of  Deucalion  and  Fire  of  Phaethon]  17  19 
 120  21  18  21  23 
 
 129  30  27  n  (20)  2  32 
 
 137  [lo  in  Egypt.]  38  35  10  p  (40)  1 
 
 144  45  42  17  8 
 
 [Moses  duxit  Hebraeos  ab  .Sgypto  exeuntes.  Inde  ad  Templum  anni  480.] 
 
 92 
 101 
 
 Dyn.  xviii.  (348)  \ 
 Amosis  (25)  J 
 Chebron  (13) 
 
 .'^menophis  (21)  21 
 
 Mephres  (12) 
 
 Misphragmuthosis  (26)  1 
 12 
 
 Tuthmosis  (9) 
 
 Amenophis  (30)  ) 
 (lapis  loquens.)  3 
 
 Horus  (37) 
 
 Achencheres  (12) 
 
 Athoris  (9) 
 Chencheres  (16) 
 
 1  Moses  (40) 
 9 
 
 20  [Danaidum  res.] 
 
 46 
 
 h  (9)  4 
 c  (10)  6 
 
 43  18| 
 h  (21)  3  0  (55)  6 
 14  17i 
 
 Acherres  (8) 
 Cheres  (15) 
 
 Begins 
 from 
 Srpt.  1, 
 in  B.C. 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 829 
 
 A.  ABR. 
 from 
 Sept-l. 
 
 529 
 534 
 544 
 546 
 561 
 562 
 573 
 588 
 597 
 602 
 605 
 613 
 619 
 624 
 642 
 667 
 670 
 690 
 693 
 697 
 699 
 700 
 705 
 733 
 735 
 749 
 753 
 760 
 7G3 
 773 
 776 
 785 
 798 
 803 
 807 
 
 1  Joshua  (27) 
 
 16  [Busiris  in  ora  Nili  tyrannus.  Castor  says  "  Sthenelus  in  his  11th  expelled  by  Danaus."] 
 
 I  I  I  I  ' 
 
 17  [Phoenix  et  Cadmus  Thebis  profecti  regnant  Tyriet  Sidonis.]  29 
 
 1  Othniel  (40)  |         44 1         3o|j3(30)loj         36 1  40 
 
 16  [Cadmus  regnat  Thebis,  de  cujus  filia  Bacchus.  In  589  Rape  of  Europa.]  55 
 25  [Idaei  Dactyli.  At  600  Amphion  et  Zethus  regnant  Thebis.]  64 
 
 30 
 
 33  [Minos  reigns  in  Crete.] 
 
 1  Ehud  (80)  34 
 
 Argos. 
 
 Sicjon. 
 
 Assjrians. 
 
 Egyptians. 
 
 Begins 
 from 
 ScpL  1, 
 
 18 
 
 21 
 
 32 
 
 Armais  (5) 
 
 1 
 
 1492 
 
 1(11)  2 
 
 26 
 
 37 
 
 .Sgyptus  (68) 
 
 1 
 
 1483 
 
 j  (50)  1 
 
 36 
 
 ^(45)  7 
 
 11 
 
 1473 
 
 3 
 
 38 
 
 9 
 
 13 
 
 1471 
 
 \e  (40)  23 
 
 A  (41)  9 
 12 
 20 
 
 ?(35) 
 
 r  (25)  20 
 23 
 
 s  (30)  6 
 
 7  [Pelops  regnat  Argis.  At  618  Rape  of  Proserpine.] 
 
 12  [Bacchus  born.] 
 
 /(50)  5 
 23 
 
 31 
 
 I  (23)  8 
 
 31 
 
 r  (40)  4 
 
 Dyn.  XIX  (194)  Sethos  1 
 (55) 
 
 55  [Phryxi  res  et  Melicertse,  sub  quo  Isthmia.   At  662  Latona.] 
 
 12 
 17 
 
 /  (32)  5 
 
 Amenoph  (40) 
 
 58 
 78 
 
 1  Deborah  (40) 
 5 
 
 (40)1 
 21 
 24 
 28 
 
 w(17)  13 
 n(31)  16 
 19 
 23 
 
 s  (44)  2 
 22 
 25 
 29 
 
 tt (20)  1 
 V  (24)  7 
 
 Rampses  (66) 
 
 7  [Cadmus  acc.  to  some  reigns  at  Thebes.   At  693  Amphion.] 
 
 8  [In  706  Pelops  reigns  in  Pelopon.  and  institutes  Olympia.] 
 
 1  [Argives  cease  after  543  years  to  Pelops,  who  reigned  59  yrs.  a] 
 
 1  Gideon  (40) 
 3 
 
 A (25) 24 
 '•(48)  1 
 
 <(40)  21 
 2.3 
 
 w;(45)  14 
 16 
 
 17  [Orpheus.  At  750  Linus.  At  735  "  Tyre  built,  241  (240  Jos.)  before  the  Temple"] 
 
 21  [Eurystheus  reigns  at  Mycenae  43  yrs. 6] 
 28  [Sphinx, CEdipus,Argonauts] 
 
 1  Tola  (22)  [23]         |         42 1 
 10  [VII.  Contra  Thebas.    At  786  Androgeus  slain  at  Athens] 
 
 u  (42)  1 
 
 34 
 
 8 
 
 41 
 
 11 
 
 44 
 
 sea.]  21 
 
 jr(l9)  9 
 
 24 
 
 12 
 
 Amenoph  (40) 
 
 1  Jair  (22) 
 
 Km  16 
 21 
 
 t<(8)  4 
 w  (4)  1 
 
 y(27)15 
 20 
 
 Amenemes  (26) 
 
 10  [Amazons  at  Athens.    At  804  Theseus  fled  from  Athens.] 
 
 Before  Tautames  he  "  suppresses"  acc.  to  Sync.  4  Ass}Tian  kings  with  42  +  45  +  38  +  37, 
 in  all  162  years,  which  make  just  the  difference  between  his  own  reckoning  and  the  true 
 between  the  Exodus  and  the  Temple.  Syncellus  gives  them,  but  80  years  lower,  after 
 Teutaeus. 
 
830 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 A.  ABR. 
 
 from 
 Sept.  1. 
 
 8'20 
 826 
 
 829 
 
 833 
 835 
 
 lJephthah(6;  A  (23)  8  ef  (35)  14    (31)  14  2  (31)  10  111197 
 
 1  Hesebon  (7)  H  |         20  16  24  1191 
 
 [Hercules  burns  himself,  aged  52.   Rape  of  Helen.> 
 
 4  I  17|  I  23j         19Thuoiis(7)  1 
 
 ["  Elon  with  10  is  not  in  the  Lxx."    At  832,  "  Thuoris  sive  Polybus,  Alcandrae  vir 
 
 quem  Homerus  ait  Menelaum  post  Trojam  captam  appulisse."] 
 lLabdon(8)  |         21 1  |         2?!  23| 
 
 3  =  411th  from  birth  of  Moses.  From  Troy  to  Ol 
 
 beginning  of  the  7th  of  Thuoris,  in  B.C. 1182],  Sum  835.  From  I  of  Cecrops  to 
 23rd  of  Menestheus  are  376  [375  ?]  years,  and  from  35th  of  Moses  are  376. 
 
 Dyn.  XX.  (178 
 
 836 
 
 4 
 
 /(33)  1 
 
 Latins,  a 
 
 (3)]  30 
 
 26 
 
 841 
 
 I  Samson  (20) 
 
 6 
 
 b  (39)  1 
 
 y  (20)  4 
 
 31 
 
 861 
 
 1  Eli  (40,  by  lxx  20) 
 
 2G 
 
 21 
 
 x(31)  4 
 
 «'(40)  2f 
 
 880 
 
 20 
 
 m  (12)12 
 
 c  (29)  1 
 
 23 
 
 39 
 
 881 
 
 21 
 
 n  (1)  1 
 
 2 
 
 24 
 
 4(' 
 
 882 
 
 22 
 
 0(8)  1 
 
 3 
 
 25 
 
 ^' (30)  1 
 
 901 
 916 
 941 
 958 
 978 
 981 
 
 Sicyon. 
 
 Assyrians. 
 
 Egyptians. 
 
 Begins 
 from 
 Sept  1 , 
 "  B.C. 
 
 are  405.  [If  so,  from  the  7 
 
 6 
 26 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 
 Sicyon.  end  after  958  [961]  years.  (Castor  says  957).  Inde  Sacerdotes  Carnii.-ij.^ 
 Sync.  959.  And  ace.  to  Castor  the  Erechthidae  lasted  449.  J 
 
 281 
 
 LJerome  has 
 I  Samuel  (40)  |p  (37)  12 
 
 16  [acc.to  some  Homer  at  915]  27 
 1  David  (40)  q  (21)  16 
 
 a  (20)  11 
 
 22 
 
 d(31)  8 
 e  (50)  2 
 9 
 
 Sparra. 
 
 a  (42)  1 
 26 
 
 6(1)  1 
 
 20 
 
 y  (40)  5 
 30 
 
 5'  (38)  7 
 
 1184 
 1182 
 
 1181 
 1176 
 1156 
 1148 
 1136 
 1135 
 
 1129 
 
 1116 
 1101 
 1076 
 
 10G9 
 
 38  [Carthage  founded  143  after  Troy  acc.  to  some.  At  980  lonica  migratio;  and  Homer?] 
 
 b  (36)  H 
 17 
 
 c  (35)  23 
 
 I  Solomon  (40) 
 4  Temple  begun 
 
 8"  From  Exodus  to  this  8th  yr.  of  Solomon  and  ["'commencement  of  the"]  (Chr.  Pasch. 
 Temple, as  in  3  Kings,  are480yrs."  .Jerome  has  this  rightly  at  984.  Sync,  copies  "the  8th." 
 
 1036 
 1033 
 
 1014 
 
 34  [At  1005  Carthage?] 
 
 c  (19)  11 
 
 /(39)  25 
 
 d  (37)  21 
 
 i'  (45)  25 
 
 Dyn.xxi.  (130)7 
 Smeudis  (26)  J 
 
 1 
 
 1003 
 
 1021 
 
 1  Roboam  (17) 
 
 18 
 
 32 
 
 28 
 
 32 
 
 8 
 
 996 
 
 1022 
 
 2 
 
 Jerob.(22)  2 
 
 19 
 
 33 
 
 29 
 
 33 
 
 9 
 
 995 
 
 1025 
 
 5 [Susakim 
 
 rex  iE  gyp.] 
 
 1(41)  3 
 
 36 
 
 32 
 
 36 
 
 12 
 
 992 
 
 1038 
 
 1  Abia  (3) 
 
 18 
 
 16 
 
 g  (26)  10 
 
 e  (29)  8 
 
 ?  (30)  4 
 
 25 
 
 979 
 
 1040 
 
 3 
 
 20 
 
 18 
 
 12 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 Psusennes  (41) 
 
 1 
 
 977 
 
 1041 
 
 1  Asa  (41) 
 
 21 
 
 19 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 976 
 
 1043 
 
 3 
 
 Nadab  (2)1 
 
 21 
 
 15 
 
 13 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 974 
 
 1045 
 
 5 
 
 Baasha(24)l 
 
 23 
 
 17 
 
 15 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 972 
 
 1069 
 
 29 
 
 Elah  (2)  1 
 
 e  (31)  6 
 
 A  (28)  15 
 
 /(44)  10 
 
 r  (20)  5 
 
 30 
 
 948 
 
 1071 
 
 31 
 
 Omri  (12)  1 
 
 8 
 
 17 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 32 
 
 946 
 
 1081 
 
 41 
 
 11 
 
 18 
 
 27 
 
 22 
 
 17 
 
 Nephercheres  (4) 
 
 1 
 
 936 
 
 1082 
 
 1  Josaphat 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 28 
 
 23 
 
 18 
 
 2 
 
 935 
 
 1083 
 
 2  ^^'^ 
 
 Ahab  (22)  1 
 
 2{! 
 
 i  (13)  1 
 
 24 
 
 19 
 
 3 
 
 934 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 831 
 
 A.  ABK. 
 
 from 
 Sept.  1. 
 
 1094 
 
 1100 
 1105 
 
 1107 
 1109 
 1115 
 1116 
 1119 
 1123 
 1144 
 1147 
 1163 
 1164 
 1165 
 
 1179 
 1180 
 1192 
 1193 
 1196 
 1197 
 1218 
 
 1221 
 
 1?^7 
 1231 
 1232 
 1237 
 1240 
 
 19 
 24 
 
 1  Joram  (8) 
 
 1  Ahazlah(l) 
 1  Athaliah(7) 
 4 
 
 1  Joash  (40) 
 
 22 
 
 25 
 
 lAmaziah(29) 
 2 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 I  Uzziah  (52) 
 
 [Lycurgus 
 
 27 
 
 3 
 12 
 
 18 
 
 Ochoziah  (2)  1 
 Joram  (12)  1 
 3 
 9 
 10 
 
 Jehu  (28)  1 
 
 5 
 
 26 
 
 Joachaz  (17)  1 
 17 
 
 Joash  (16)  1 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 Jeroboam(41)l 
 
 22 
 31 
 
 /(30)  6 
 11 
 13 
 15 
 21 
 22 
 25 
 29 
 
 y  (28)  20 
 23 
 
 h  (19)  11 
 12 
 13 
 
 /  (20)  8 
 
 9 
 
 j  (27)  1 
 2 
 5 
 
 j  (8)  5 
 k  (41)  2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 12 
 13 
 16 
 20 
 41 
 
 /(19)  3 
 19 
 
 m  (37)  1 
 
 Sparta. 
 
 Assyrians. 
 
 14 
 17 
 
 gives  Laws.   In'  1196  Sardan-pal  burns  himself.   At  1210  Hesiod  fl.] 
 
 26 
 35 
 
 41 
 
 g(60)  2 
 4 
 6 
 12 
 13 
 16 
 20 
 41 
 44 
 60 
 
 h  (40)  1 
 
 ^'  (50)  1 
 10 
 
 16 
 21 
 23 
 25 
 31 
 32 
 35 
 
 ^'(42)  10 
 13 
 
 29 
 30 
 
 Egyptians. 
 
 Amenophis  (9)  1 
 Osochor  (6)  1 
 
 Psinaches  (9) 
 
 Psusennes  (35) 
 
 Dyn.  xxii.(49)  Se- 
 sonchosls  (21) 
 
 Osorthon  (15) 
 31  Takelloth  (13) 
 
 (20)  3 
 4 
 16 
 17 
 
 20 
 
 Dyn. 
 Pet 
 
 xx:ii.  (44)  I 
 etubast (25)  S 
 
 Zacharias(6in) 
 
 Sellum(3dys)il 
 
 Menahem(ll.v 
 
 [Pulk.ofAss.]ll 
 Pekahiah(10)l 
 
 27 
 
 n  (23)  18 
 
 i  (37)  14 
 
 k  (20)  3 
 
 21 
 
 18 
 
 10 
 
 0 (43)  4 
 
 25 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 28 
 
 14 
 
 9 
 
 29 
 
 19 
 
 14 
 
 34 
 
 I  (23)  2 
 
 17 
 
 37 
 
 Dyn.  XXIV.  Boc 
 
 choris  (44)  a  Le 
 gislator.  A  lamb 
 spoke.    He  was 
 
 After  325  years  Prji;anes  at  Sparta  (and  at  Corinth)  tr/  Aia-xCXou  xocl  OX.  a,'.]  burned  } 
 
 alive  by  Sabaco.  J 
 
 Maced. 
 
 a (28)  18 
 
 24 
 
 28 
 
 6(12)  1 
 
 Osorthon  (9) 
 
 In  Cod.  Arm.  1221") 
 =  3d  of  Osorthon  f. 
 and   Cambyses  f 
 below  has  2  only.  J 
 
 Psammes  (10) 
 
 l: 
 
 1242 
 
 51 
 
 Pekah  (20)  1 
 
 4 
 
 19 
 
 Lydians. 
 
 11 
 
 1244 
 
 I  Jotham(16) 
 
 6 
 
 21 
 
 a  (36)  6 
 
 c(38)  1 
 
 1260 
 
 1  Ahaz  (16) 
 
 23 
 
 37 
 
 22 
 
 17 
 
 1262 
 
 3 
 
 Hoshea  (9)  i 
 
 m  (2)  1 
 
 39 
 
 24 
 
 19 
 
 1270 
 
 11 
 
 [Shalmanezer]9 
 
 a  (10)  7  a  (38)  6 
 
 32 
 
 27 
 
 1274 
 
 15 
 
 Hi  reges  per 
 
 b  (10)  1 
 
 10 
 
 36 
 
 31 
 
 annos  150. 
 
 1276 
 
 1  Hezekiah  (29) 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 b  (14)  2 
 
 33 
 
 1281 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 17 
 
 7 
 
 38 
 
 1290 
 
 15  [Sennacherib] 
 
 c  (10)  7 
 
 26 
 
 c(12)  2 
 
 tf(51)  9 
 
 1293 
 
 18 
 
 10 
 
 21 
 
 5 
 
 12 
 
 1303 
 
 28 
 
 d  (10)  10  b  (41)  1 
 
 d(17)  3 
 
 22 
 
 l.?05 
 
 1  Manasseh  (55)  " 
 
 e(10)  2 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 26 
 34 
 38 
 40 
 
 Dyn.xxv.(44)  Sa-7  , 
 baco(12)         J  ' 
 [Taracus  k.of/ndza]  1 0 
 
 Sebichus  (12)  1 
 
 11 
 
 Taracus  (20)  1 
 
 932 
 932 
 
 1 
 
 917 
 
 6 
 
 912 
 
 8 
 
 910 
 
 1 
 
 908 
 
 7 
 
 902 
 
 8 
 
 901 
 
 11 
 
 898 
 
 15 
 
 894 
 
 1 
 
 873 
 
 4 
 
 870 
 
 20 
 
 854 
 
 21 
 
 853 
 
 1 
 
 852 
 
 838 
 837 
 825 
 824 
 821 
 
 799 
 796 
 
 790 
 786 
 785 
 780 
 777 
 
 775 
 773 
 757 
 755 
 747 
 743 
 741 
 736 
 727 
 724 
 714 
 712 
 
 8/. 
 9y' 
 
 10  «' 
 
 11  i8 
 2y 
 
 143 
 16  5' 
 
 ".7/3 
 
832 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 A.  ABR. 
 
 from 
 Sept  1. 
 
 1314 
 
 1325 
 1326 
 
 1337 
 1344 
 
 1350 
 1358 
 1360 
 1372 
 1386 
 1397 
 1402 
 1403 
 1408 
 
 1412 
 
 1415 
 
 1425 
 1426 
 1433 
 1445 
 
 1450 
 1457 
 
 1464 
 1470 
 1487 
 1491 
 1492 
 1495 
 1496 
 
 1504 
 
 1526 
 1532 
 1534 
 1537 
 1553 
 1572 
 1584 
 1585 
 1593 
 
 10 
 21 
 22 
 
 33 
 40 
 46 
 54 
 
 1  Amos  (12  by  Lxx.) 
 
 1  Josiah  (31) 
 
 15  Jeremiah  begins 
 
 26[Cyaxar.ta.Nineve] 
 
 31  (Slain  by  Necho) 
 
 1  Eliakim  (12) 
 
 6  [Cyaxares  slays  Ni- 
 nus] 
 
 10  Becomes  vassal  7 
 
 to  Nebuch.  J 
 
 1  Zedekiah(ll) 
 
 11  [igth  of  Nebuch.] 
 1  [Captiv.  Templique 
 8  [Eclipse  of  Thales. 
 
 /(lO)  1 
 S  (10)  2 
 
 Medes. 
 
 a  (54)  36 
 43 
 50 
 52 
 
 b  (24)  10 
 24 
 
 c(32)  11 
 16 
 17 
 
 22 
 
 26 
 29 
 
 d  (38)  7 
 
 Lj'dians. 
 
 14 
 
 e  (36)  8 
 9 
 
 2C 
 27 
 33 
 
 /  (38)  5 
 7 
 19 
 33 
 
 ^(15)  6 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 h  (49)  2 
 
 33 
 44 
 45 
 
 e  (38)  2 
 12 
 18 
 26 
 28 
 
 /(38)  2 
 16 
 27 
 32 
 33 
 
 g  (26)  4 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 18 
 
 20  [Evil  Merodach  (7).  In  1441  great  7 
 battle  with  Lyd.]  ^ 
 
 25 
 
 32  [In  1455  Pisistra-  I 
 tus  tyrant.] 
 
 9 
 19 
 
 inflammati(70)]  20 
 In  1434  battle  of  Alyattes  and  Astyages.] 
 
 12 
 
 23 
 24 
 
 35 
 
 c(32)  1 
 7 
 15 
 17 
 
 29 
 
 I  (23)  11 
 21 
 
 e(37)  4 
 5 
 
 K 
 14 
 
 17 
 
 27 
 28 
 
 Egyptians. 
 
 Dyn.  xxvi-  (157.) 
 Ameres  .32thiops(12)  2 
 
 Stephinates  (7)  1 
 Nechepsus  (6)  1 
 Nechao  (8)  1 
 Psammetichus  (44)  1 
 3 
 15 
 29 
 40 
 1 
 
 Nechao  (0) 
 
 Psamrauthes  (7) 
 
 V^aphres  (25) 
 
 32 
 
 e  (30)  1 
 
 i 
 
 39  Aggai,  Zechar.  and  Jesus]  8 
 
 44 
 
 i{lb)  2 
 15 
 
 h  (29)  11/(34)  10 
 
 z(50) 
 
 45  [Croesus  taken,  after  232.]  14 
 62  I   /(8)  1 
 
 G6  [Cambyses  ^gyptum  occ.  I'lru  Tr,s  uvtoi 
 67  6 
 70 
 
 1  [At  1498  Harmo-" 
 dius  and  Arist.  ' 
 
 Amosis  (42) 
 
 g  (1)  1 
 h  (36)  7 
 
 W/Xs/a? ;  i.e.  post 
 29 
 
 I.  sexto.'} 
 
 23  Dyn.  xxvii.  (120)7 
 I    Cambyses  (3)  J 
 26|Magi  7'n. 
 
 27  Darius  (36) 
 
 35 
 
 [Hence  460,  as  also  in  lib. 
 Ceesar  in  01.  183.] 
 
 from 
 Sept.  1, 
 in  B.C 
 
 (but  Jerome  has  464,  Syncellus  473)  to  Diet,  of  Julius 
 
 31 
 
 i  (21)  1 
 
 7' (43)  13 
 19 
 21 
 24 
 
 [  Xerxes  burns  Athens  Calliade  Archonte.] 
 [Thermopylse,  Salamis.]        6j  j 
 [Some  say  Esther  :  but  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  now  from  Ba- 
 Nehemiahsent  (40)  20  |a:(28)16 
 
 [Walls  finished.  Hence  490  end  under  Nero.]  28 
 [Pelop.  war  begins.]  33  I  (24)  1 
 
 k  (19)  1  9 
 
 Xerxes  (21)  sub-T 
 dues  Egypt.  j 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 Artab.7m.Artax.(40)  1 
 20 
 32 
 33 
 
 Xerxes  2m.  Sodg.l  , 
 7m.  Nothus  (19)3 
 
EUSEBIUS  PAMPHILI. 
 
 833 
 
 A.  ARM 
 from 
 Sept.  1. 
 
 Miscellaneous. 
 
 Persians. 
 
 Maced. 
 
 14 
 
 2E 
 
 ID 
 
 m  (3)  3 
 
 /  (40)  1 
 
 n  (4)  ] 
 
 5 
 
 0(1)  1 
 
 6 
 
 p(l)  ) 
 
 7 
 
 ?(6)  1 
 
 13 
 
 r(2)  1 
 
 15 
 
 s  (18)  1 
 
 20 
 
 C 
 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 22 
 
 8 
 
 33 
 
 '  (J)  1 
 
 37 
 
 u  (4)  4 
 
 40 
 
 »  (6)  3 
 
 ?n  (26)  1 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 Egypti 
 
 Begins 
 from 
 Sept.  1  . 
 in  B.C. 
 
 1606 
 1611 
 
 1612 
 1616 
 1617 
 1618 
 1624 
 1626 
 1631 
 1632 
 1G33 
 1644 
 1648 
 1651 
 1652 
 1653 
 1670 
 1671 
 1677 
 1681 
 1682 
 1683 
 1684 
 1685 
 1686 
 1692 
 1693 
 1705 
 1842 
 1852 
 1857 
 1913 
 1969 
 1974 
 1983 
 1984 
 1988 
 1989 
 1992 
 1996 
 2015 
 2016 
 2021 
 2030 
 2042 
 2044 
 2048 
 2053 
 2057 
 2061 
 2071 
 2084 
 2085 
 
 2326 
 2345 
 
 Dyn.  XXVIII.  Amyrtaeus  (6) 
 Dyn.  XXIX.  (21)  Neferites(6) 
 
 Achoris  (13) 
 
 The  Gauls  burn  Rome 
 
 Teos  (2) 
 
 _  Nectanebo  (18) 
 ["  Ochus  in  his  20th  recovers  Egypt  and  holds  it  6  years."] 
 20  fi;  (26)  it' 
 «  (4;  1  23 
 0  (6)  1  X  (12)  ] 
 2  2 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 [Persians  end  here  after  230.]  6 
 
 Psammuthes  (1)  1 
 Neferites  (4m)  i 
 Dyn.xxx.(38)  Nectanebo(18)l 
 12 
 16 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 
 18 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 Dyn.  XXXI.  (16)  Ochus  (6) 
 Arses  (4) 
 
 Darius  Arsami  (6) 
 
 Alexander (6) 
 Ptolemy  Lagi  (40) 
 
 Ptolemy  Philom.  (35) 
 
 Ptolemy  Physcon  (17) 
 
 Philip  Aridaeus  7.  | 
 1st  of  Seleucus  Nic.  (32)  at  Babylon. 
 
 I  Antioch.  Epiph.(ll)|  | 
 
 II  [Temple  cleansed  after  3  years.] 
 3  Demetr.  Soter  (12)  Ijudas  Mace.  (3)  I 
 9  Ant.  Cyzic.  (18)        Aristobulus  (1)  1 
 1  Julius  Caesar  (5)     jHyrcanus  (34)  20j  Cleopatra  (22)  ; 
 
 I  Augustus  (56.6m)  [Caesar  slain]  25|  i 
 Uncti  Praesides,  after  483  years  from  01.  65,  end  with  Hyrcanus  01. 186. 
 
 II  [1924  Seleucidae  end]  Herod  (37)     l|  ll 
 
 15  I  5^296th  of  Lagidae  2 
 
 16  [Triumph  of  Aug.  in  1990.]  6  [Some  reckon  this  1  of  Aug.] 
 19  Great  earthquake.    Tralles,  and  the  suburbs  of  Thebes,  ruined.] 
 23  Herod  builds  at  Jerusalem,  Sebaste,  and  Paneas] 
 
 42  Quirinus  sent.  The  Nativity.         32!  From  Abraham  the  2015th  yr. 
 
 43  begins  Sept.  1.  B.C.  1  and  ends  with  Aug.  31,  a.d.  1.] 
 
 48 
 
 1  Tiberius  (23) 
 13  Pilate  sent 
 
 Archelaus  (9)  1 
 HerodTetra.(24)  1 
 13 
 
 15  [John  baptizes;  Christ  begins  after  2044.  From  2nd  Darius  Ol.  65,  i 
 
 542  :  from  Temple  1064.  j 
 
 19  Crucifixion  in  spring  of  a.d.  33.] 
 1  Caius  (4.4m) 
 1  Claudius  (14.8m) 
 5  [Great  fam.  in  2064] 
 1  Nero  (14.7m) 
 USS.Pet.&PaulMM 
 1  Vespasian  (9.11m) 
 
 The  Jews  rebel. 
 
 Agrippa  (7)  4 
 Agrippa  Jun.(26)l 
 11 
 24 
 
 25 
 
 2  To  2nd  from  15th  of  Tib.  are  42 ;  from  siege  of  Antiochus  238 :  from 
 591;  from  the  first  building  of  the  Temple  1103 
 
 16  Diocletian  (20) 
 1  Constantine(30.10m.) 
 
 20  Vicennalia  Nicomediae.  [In  Jerome  2343  =  20th,  01.  276  5',  but  really 
 the  20th  Constant,  began  in  the  Eusebian  year  2340,  which  began 
 Sept.  1,  A.D.  324,  and  ended  Aug.  31,  a.d.  325,  and  contained  the  be- 
 ginning of  Ol.  27G, 
 
 3li 
 
 34 
 33 
 29 
 28 
 25 
 21 
 2 
 1 
 
 A.D.  5 
 14 
 
 26 
 24 
 32 
 37 
 41 
 45 
 55 
 
 2nd  of  : 
 ]  70 
 
834 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 CHAP.  VIII. 
 
 ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  GEORGE  SYNCELLUS, 
 
 From  Egypt  and  Alexandria  it  was  that  the  Roman  empire 
 received  the  fixed  Julian  year  (beginning  at  Rome  from 
 Jan.  1  B.C.  45,  towards  the  end  of  A.  u,  c.  709) ;  and  with 
 this  the  Egyptian  year,  previously  vague,  was  made  to  be 
 equivalent  from  Aug,  30  in  B.C.  26,  the  five  epagomenos  being 
 then  appointed  always  to  precede  the  Julian  Aug.  29,  and 
 a  new  sixth  day,  between  the  last  of  them  and  Thoth  1, 
 being  added  in  the  autumn  preceding  every  Julian  leap- 
 year.  This  fixed  "  Alexandrian  year,"  so  produced  out  of 
 the  vague  Egyptian  year,  began  then  ordinarily  with  the 
 Julian  Aug.  29,  and  once  in  four  years  only  with  Aug.  30. 
 The  Nabonassarian  vague  year  of  the  Syrians  was  fixed  in 
 like  manner,  so  that  the  years  of  the  Seleucidae,  as  if  from  B.C. 
 48,were  reckoned  always  to  begin  from  one  and  the  same  point 
 answering  to  the  Julian  Oct.  1.  And  afterwards  in  the  East 
 this  fixed  year  was  again  changed  so  as  to  begin  in  conjunc- 
 tion with  the  Imperial  cycle  of  the  Indictions  (a  cycle  of 
 15  years)  from  Sept.  1  in  a.d.  312.  So  there  was  no 
 longer  any  room  for  reckoning  a  cycle  of  1460  canicular  or 
 Julian  years  as  a  correction  of  the  vague  Egyptian  and 
 Nabonassarian  year  which  had  formerly  been  in  use  and 
 which  had  consisted  of  only  365  days. 
 
 From  Alexandria  too  it  was  that  the  Christian  Church 
 learned  those  principles  in  which,  from  the  time  of  Dionysius 
 Exiguus  (a.d.  525 — 526),  the  West  also  and  the  whole 
 world  was  to  unite  for  the  calculation  of  its  movable  season 
 and  of  the  festival  of  Easter.     The  spvsaKaLBsKasTrjph,  or 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  835 
 
 Pcaschal  cycle  of  xix  years,  introduced  first,  as  it  seems,  in 
 A.D.  277  by  Anatolius  bishop  of  Laodicea  in  Syria  (a.d. 
 270  to  282),  but  a  native  of  Alexandria^  became  the  basis  of 
 the  Alexandrian  reckoning  from  the  first  year  of  Diocletian 
 (made  to  begin  from  Aug.  29  in  a.d.  284);  and  probably  it 
 gave  occasion  to  the  introduction  of  that  era,  which  is  still 
 used  in  Egypt  and  in  Abyssinia.  The  Council  of  Nice 
 commissioned  the  Church  of  Alexandria  to  calculate  the 
 time  for  keeping  Easter  year  by  year,  and  to  notify  it  to  the 
 Bishop  of  Rome,  and  through  him  to  the  Christian  world. 
 And  as  the  Romans  had  a  peculiar  method  of  their  own 
 which  they  still  retained  after  the  decree  of  the  Council,  and 
 which  continued  to  cause  discrepancy,  the  Emperor  Theo- 
 dosius,  in  a.d.  387,  charged  Theophilus  the  22nd  archbishop 
 of  Alexandria  (who  sat  from  a.d.  385  to  a.d.  412)  to 
 make  out  a  Paschal  Table  to  be  followed  by  all.  This  he 
 did,  making  out  a  Table  for  95  years,  and  dating  it  some 
 years  back,  from  A.D.  380,  as  that  was  the  first  year  of  a 
 cycle.  And  his  nephew,  St.  Cyril,  in  re-editing  the  xix 
 year  Cycle,  connected  it  with  the  first  year  of  Diocletian. 
 He  exhibited  a  Table  containing,  like  that  of  Theophilus, 
 five  cycles  or  95  years,  and  beginning  from  Aug.  29,  a.d. 
 379,  as  a  portion  sufficient  for  present  use  of  the  great 
 period  of  532  years  formed  by  the  multiplication  of  the 
 lunar  Cycle  of  xix  into  the  solar  Cycle  of  xxviii  years. 
 
 But,  besides  the  commencements  of  that  civil  and  ecclesi- 
 astical reckoning  of  time  which  is  still  in  use,  we  have  from 
 Christian  Egypt  and  from  native  Egyptian  writers  an 
 exhibition  of  the  whole  chronological  scheme,  both  true  and 
 fabulous,  of  their  ancient  heathen  countrymen,  made  to  be 
 commensurate  with  their  own  reckoning  of  fixed  Alexandrian 
 years  from  the  Creation  to  Christ,  and  again  from  Christ 
 downwards  to  their  own  time,  paralleled  also  with  the  years 
 of  the  great  Paschal  period  of  532  years  reckoned  back- 
 wards from  the  era  of  Diocletian  to  the  Creation ;  so  that 
 it  is  easy  for  any  one  to  reduce  this  Egyptian  parallel  of 
 synchronistic  heathen  and  sacred  chronology  to  terms  of  our 
 own  Julian  and  Gregorian  reckoning. 
 
 It  .was  in  the  early  part  of  the  5th  century  (one  cen- 
 
 3  H  2 
 
836 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 tury,  that  is,  after  the  time  of  Eusebius)  that  Anianus  and 
 Panodoriis,  two  monks,  whose  names  of  themselves  show 
 them  to  have  been  native  Egyptians,  composed  each  of 
 them  a  chronicle  beginning  from  the  Creation  (and  from 
 Aug.  29),  that  of  Anianus  ending  as  it  seems  with  his  a.m. 
 (532  x  11=)  5852  as  if  in  a.d.  (9  +  351  =)  360  of  the 
 vulgar  era,  and  that  of  Panodorus  ending  with  his  a.m. 
 5904  in  A.D.  (5493  +  411  =  )  412  of  the  vulgar  era,  a 
 little  before  the  death  of  Theophilus,  who  died  Oct.  15  in 
 that  year. 
 
 It  is  true  that  our  only  knowledge  of  the  scheme  or 
 schemes  of  these  two  writers  is  derived  from  Syncellus,  who 
 repeatedly  gives  extracts  from  ihem,  with  or  without  their 
 names,  and  who  seems  himself  in  great  measure  to  follow 
 them,  even  when  he  does  not  say  so,  especially  in  his  Egyp- 
 tian series  of  kings.  And  it  is  doubtful  whether  we  may  be 
 always  able  to  distinguish  what  beldngs  to  the  one  or  the 
 other,  or  to  both  of  them,  from  what  may  be  Syncellus's 
 own.  But  there  are  in  Syncellus  clear  traces  of  a  scheme 
 thus  far  one,  and  thus  far  common  both  to  Anianus  and  to 
 Panodorus,  that  it  reckoned  in  years  of  the  world  down- 
 wards, and  introduced  for  the  first  time  the  mundane  era 
 used,  since  the  Council  in  Trullo,  by  the  Greek  and  the 
 Slavonian  Churches ;  only  wdth  this  difference,  that  whereas 
 Anianus  and  Panodorus  made,  or  would  have  made,  both  of 
 them  alike,  a  sum  of  5774  years  to  the  era  of  Diocletian, 
 and  of  5904  years  to  Aug.  29  in  a.d.  412  of  the  vulgar 
 era  a  little  before  the  death  of  Theophilus,  the  established 
 reckoning  of  the  Greek  Church  makes  (5509  +  411  =  )  5920 
 years,  being  16  years  more,  to  nearly  the  same  point,  viz.  to 
 Aug.  31  in  A.D.  412. 
 
 Secondly,  w^hile  the  era  of  Anianus  and  Panodorus  was 
 one  and  the  same,  since  both  made,  or  would  have  made,  the 
 same  sum  of  5904  years  from  the  Creation  to  the  death  of 
 Theophilus,  there  is  yet  this  difference  between  them,  that 
 Anianus,  as  Syncellus  says,  "  put  the  Nativity  of  Christ  in 
 his  A.M.  5501,  but  Panodorus,  falling  short  by  7  years"  [by 
 7  of  Syncellus's  own  sum  of  5500  years,  but  by  8  of  Ani- 
 anus], "put  it  in  his  A.M.  5493,  Anianus  making  only  403 
 
ANIANUS,  PAN0D0RU8,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  837 
 
 years,  or  8  short  of  the  true  number,  but  Panodorus  making 
 the  true  number  of  4 1 1  years  between  the  end  of  their  43rd 
 of  Augustus  and  Aug.  29  a  little  before  tlie  death  of 
 Theophilus.  Owing  to  this  peculiarity  of  Anianus,  which 
 is  imitated  by  Syncellus,  tliough  with  the  sliglitly  different 
 sum  of  5500  years  to  the  Incarnation,  and  which  is  preserved 
 with  Anianus's  own  sum  of  5501  years  including  the  Nativity 
 in  the  reckoning  of  the  Coptic  and  Abyssinian  Churches,  his 
 43rd  of  Augustus  ends,  in  fact,  chronologically  in  a.d.  9 
 of  the  vulgar  era,  and  his  20th  of  Tiberius  ends  in  a.d.  42, 
 which  w^as  really  the  2nd  of  Claudius.  And  all  his  dates 
 above  the  first  of  those  8  years  of  the  Emperors  which  he 
 has  dropped,  and  his  date  for  the  Creation  itself,  are  by  the 
 same  cause  drawn  forward  8  years  in  the  scale  of  true  time 
 below  those  places  which  should  have  belonged  to  them,  on 
 the  supposition  that  his  reckonings  were  in  other  respects 
 true  and  accurate. 
 
 Anianus  made  eleven  complete  Paschal  periods  of  532 
 years  each  to  end  with  his  own  A.M.  (532  x  11  =)  5852,  as  if 
 at  Aug.  29  in  a.d.  (a.m.  5501  =  a.d.  9  +  351  =  )  360  of  the 
 vulgar  era ;  and  to  the  last  period  of  these,  viz.  to  his 
 eleventh^  which  began  from  Aug.  29.  in  B.C.  173,  after  his 
 A.M.  5320,  and  ended,  as  if  at  Aug.  29  in  A.D.  360,  together 
 with  his  A.M.  5852,  he  annexed  a  Paschal  Table  with  the 
 14th  day  of  the  moon  and  Easter-day  for  each  year  calcu- 
 lated and  marked  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Church 
 of  Alexandria.  His  omission  of  8  years  of  the  Emperors, 
 and  consequent  depression  of  the  endings  of  his  43rd  of 
 Augustus  and  his  19th  of  Tiberius  to  a.d.  9  and  A.D.  42  of 
 the  vulgar  era,  is  considered  by  Ideler  to  have  been  no  mere 
 blunder,  but  a  deliberate  contrivance  in  order  to  obtain  for 
 the  year  and  Passover  of  the  Crucifixion  certain  conditions 
 offered  only  by  a.d.  42,  the  Resurrection  being  put  by  him 
 at  March  25  in  that  year,  which  is  his  A.M.  5534,  and  his 
 Paschalion  (which  Syncellus  promises  to  copy  and  continue) 
 beginning  as  from  its  dies  natalis  from  that  day.  And  the 
 relation  in  which  the  scheme  of  Anianus  stands  to  the 
 cyclical  aTro/caTuaTaais  of  the  Old  Egyptian  Chronicle  goes 
 far  to  show  that  Ideler's  opinion  is  correct.    For  Anianus 
 
 ^  3  H  3 
 
838 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 must  have  known  from  merely  reckoning  back  in  the  Calen- 
 dar of  the  old  movable  year  that  there  were  145  years 
 between  the  era  of  Diocletian,  when  the  movable  Thoth 
 1  had  just  fallen  on  June  12  /3',  and  the  cyclical  epoch  when 
 Thoth  1  coincided  with  the  rising  of  Sirius  and  with  July 
 20  d  ;  and  yet  he  depressed  by  implication  the  cyclical  epoch 
 as  attached  to  the  close  of  his  own  483rd  year  from  the 
 flight  of  Nectanebo  by  8  years,  so  as  to  leave  an  interval 
 between  it  and  the  era  of  Diocletian  of  137  only  instead  of 
 145  years. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  as  regards  Panodorus,  who  was  the 
 later  writer  of  the  two,  following  Anianus,  but  with  many  am- 
 plifications, additions,  and  repetitions,  and  with  much  less  of 
 accuracy,  and  sometimes  varying  from  him,  the  fact  that  the 
 sum  of  5493  years,  which  he  made  to  Aug.  29  hefore  the 
 Nativity,  gives  'on  being  divided  by  1 9  the  Golden  Number 
 suggests,  as  Ideler  thinks,  the  inference  that  it  was  deter- 
 mined with  a  view  to  this  end.  And  as  he  puts  the  Nativity 
 in  B.C.  1  of  the  vulgar  era,  and  so  his  epoch  coincides  with 
 our  own,  this,  Ideler  observes,  may  suggest  the  idea  that 
 Dionysius  Exiguus  simply  followed  Panodorus  when  he  in- 
 troduced it  in  the  West.  But  in  truth  Dionysius  seems  not 
 himself  to  have  put  the  Nativity  in  the  year  B.C.  1  of  the 
 vulgar  era,  so  as  to  coincide  exactly  with  Panodorus  and 
 with  the  present  vulgar  reckoning,  but  one  year  later. 
 
 Thirdly,  we  learn  from  Syncellus  that  both  Anianus  and 
 Panodorus  made  it  their  object  to  exhibit  the  whole  series  of 
 heathen  tradition  and  history,  especially  that  of  the  most 
 ancient  nations,  the  Chaldaeans  and  Egyptians,  as  parallel 
 and  in  harmony  with  their  own  series  of  sacred  history :  that 
 in  order  to  exhibit  this  parallel  they  made  use  of  the  hypo- 
 thesis that  the  most  ancient  times  of  the  Egyptians  were 
 reckoned  first  in  months,  and  then  in  seasons  (this  latter 
 idea  being,  however,  only  from  Diodorus),  so  as  to  make 
 when  added  up  together  those  vast  periods  which  had  pro- 
 voked ridicule  even  from  the  heathen  Greeks,  while  the  still 
 vaster  periods  of  early  Chaldaean  tradition  were  resolvable 
 into  days:  that  they  both  blamed  Eusebius  for  rejecting 
 this  explanation,  though  it  came  to  him  with  the  acceptance 
 of  Africanus,  and  undertook  themselves  to  show  that  it 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  839 
 
 might  be  applied  with  a  satisfactory  result.  It  is  true  that 
 SynccUus  only  ridicules  them  for  their  pains,  and  expresses 
 his  own  entire  agreement  with  Eusebius,  who,  he  says, 
 understood  rightly  that  those  vast  periods  were  merely  cal- 
 culations of  a  zodiacal  airoKardaTaais,  But  this  fiict  itself 
 is  an  assistance  towards  distinguishing  in  the  pages  of  Syn- 
 cellus  and  reconstructing  the  scheme  which  he  so  rejects. 
 
 Thus  much  premised,  we  observe  that  the  Egyptian 
 scheme  recoverable  from  Syncellus  professes  for  itself  to  be 
 based  upon  an  edition  of  Manetho,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
 be  a  reduction  of  certain  vast  sums  of  years  contained  in  the 
 same  edition  ;  while  the  title  of  the  "  Booh  of  Sothis  "  and 
 a  prefatory  Letter  from  Manetho  the  Sehennyte  to  Ptolemy 
 Philadelphus^^  connected  with  the  same  Manetho, cXq^xAj 
 show  that  the  nature  of  the  edition  in  question  was  cyclical. 
 And  the  sums  given  from  it,  both  unreduced  and  reduced, 
 besides  its  number  of  '^cxiii  generations,^^  show  no  less 
 clearly  that  it  was  in  substance  that  of  the  Old  Chronicle. 
 So  the  original  and  chief  material  was  no  doubt  the  Ma- 
 netho of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes  and  Africanus,  in  which  both 
 the  Old  Chronicle  was  given  as  one  of  the  chief  sources 
 followed  by  Manetho,  with  its  xxx  dynasties  and  its  cxiii 
 generations,  and  also  the  Manethonian  lists  of  the  names  and 
 reigns  of  the  kings  arranged  in  xxx  or  xxxi  dynasties 
 differing  from  those  of  the  Chronicle ;  whereas  the  genuine 
 and  original  Manetho  had  neither  any  distinct  reckoning  of 
 cxiii  generations,  nor  any  cyclical  scheme  or  ^^astrological 
 eiaLs"  at  all. 
 
 Further,  though  Syncellus  quotes  at  length  on  this  sub- 
 ject from  Panodorus,  and  names  him  chiefly  as  blaming 
 Eusebius,  and  as  employing  himself  the  method  of  reduction 
 to  harmonise  sacred  and  heathen  tradition,  it  is  demonstrable 
 from  Panodorus's  own  words  that  he  was  herein  only  follow- 
 ing and  describing,  and  that  inattentively,  the  scheme  of 
 Anianus.  For  after  stating  accurately  the  general  prin- 
 ciple that  the  vast  periods  of  early  Egyptian  tradition  had 
 been  swelled  originally  by  reckoning  "  months  of  30  days" 
 [12  of  w^hich,  with  5  days  implied  as  accompanying  them, 
 really  went  to  an  Egyptian  year]  as  if  they  were  full  years, 
 
 *  3  H  4 
 
840 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 and  that  they  were  to  be  reduced  by  division  to  years  of 
 365  days,  he  connects  this  statement  with  two  sums,  the 
 first  11,985  [11,984]  unreduced  nominal  years,  the  second 
 968  years  and  208  days,  obtained,  as  he  implies,  by  this 
 method  of  reduction  from  the  former.  But,  in  truth,  had  he 
 not  been  inattentive,  he  Avoukl  have  perceived  that  in  the 
 case  of  this  one  sum  of  968  years  and  208  days,  and  of  this 
 one  only,  the  method  of  reduction  employed  icas  exceptional,  and 
 was  not  that  which  he  has  described  in  connection  with  it. 
 
 Lastly,  it  will  appear  that  the  Christian  Egyptian  scheme 
 the  elements  of  which  are  to  be  found  in  Synccllus  is  so 
 connected  indirectly  with  the  fancy  of  the  aTroKaTdaraaLs  in 
 XXV  Sothic  cycles  of  nominal  and  mixed,  or  iv  of  full,  years, 
 and  especially  with  the  last  cycle,  that  is  the  txcenty-Jifth,  or 
 ih.Q  fourth,  of  the  whole  series  which  really  ended  in  a.d.  139, 
 that  the  sum  of  its  (5501  +  138  =  )  5639  Alexandrian  years 
 down  to  Aug.  29  in  the  2nd  of  Antoninus  Pius  must  be  sup- 
 posed to  end,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  together  with  the  last 
 Sothic  cycle  of  the  Chronicle,  that  is,  at  Aug.  29  next  after 
 the  Sothic  epoch  of  July  20  in  a.d.  139  of  the  vulgar  era. 
 And  consequently  the  first  5501  years  of  this  sum,  and  in 
 particular  the  5501st,  which  is  Anianus's  43rd  of  Augustus 
 containing  the  Nativity,  must  be  supposed  to  end  at  Aug. 
 29  in  A.D.  1  of  the  vulgar  era.  So  tliat  on  this  account 
 also  the  scheme  seems  to  have  had  some  other  author  than 
 Panodorus,  who  made  simply  and  consistently  5494  years 
 only  to  the  end  of  the  43rd  of  Augustus  in  a.d.  1  of  the 
 vulgar  era,  and  not  more  than  (5494  +  138  =  )  5632  to  Aug. 
 29  next  after  the  Sothic  epoch  in  the  2nd  year  of  Antoninus 
 Pius,  in  A.D.  139.  The  sum  made  by  Anianus,  on  the 
 other  hand,  to  the  end  of  the  43rd  of  Augustus,  the  year 
 containing  for  him  and  for  Panodorus  alike  the  Nativity, 
 being  5501  years,  these  with  138  more  of  the  Emperors  to 
 the  end  of  his  483rd  from  the  flight  of  Nectanebo  make 
 (5501  +  138  =  )  5639  years,  exactly  the  sum  which  the 
 Egyptian  scheme  recoverable  from  Syncellus  requires. 
 It  is  only  in  appearance,  and  by  a  chronological  dis- 
 location similar  to  those  of  Manetho,  that  the  Nativity  is 
 drawn  down  for  Anianus  to  a.d.  9,  and  the  cyclical  epoch 
 of  his  483rd  year  from  Nectanebo  to  a.d.  147  through  an 
 
ANIANU8,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  841 
 
 omission  of  8  years,  probably  the  same  8  as  are  dropped  by 
 Syncellus  between  the  accessions  of  Tiberius  and  Trajan. 
 Anianiis  probably  had  for  this  interval  only  75  instead  of 
 83  full  years  (see  p.  904,  a.d.  147),  while  Panodorus 
 reckoned  rightly  all  the  283  years  between  the  43rd  of 
 Augustus  and  the  1st  of  Diocletian,  but  had  7  years  fewer 
 than  Anianus  in  his  chronology  before  Christ.  This  for  him 
 was  not  necessarily  any  error,  as  his  scheme  was  no  longer 
 even  indirectly  cyclical,  nor  was  he  bound  to  agree  to  a 
 year  with  the  reckoning  of  Anianus. 
 
 These  distinctions  having  been  made,  the  reader  v/ill  not 
 be  in  danger  of  any  misunderstanding  when  he  finds  us  often, 
 or  generally,  to  speak  as  if  Anianus,  no  less  than  Panodorus, 
 made  the  43rd  of  Augustus  (the  year  including  for  them 
 both  the  Nativity)  to  end  in  a.d.  1  of  the  vulgar  era.  Nor 
 will  he  suppose  that  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  statement 
 which  he  finds .  in  Ideler's  Handbuch,  or  elsewhere,  that 
 Anianus  made  the  year  of  the  Nativity  to  end  in  a.d.  9, 
 while  Panodorus  by  restoring  8  years  of  the  Emperors 
 omitted  by  Anianus  between  the  accessions  of  Tiberius  and 
 Trajan,  put  back  the  1st  Alexandrian  year  of  Trajan  and  the 
 43rd  of  Augustus  to  their  true  places,  so  as  to  begin  and  end 
 in  A.D.  98  and  a.d.  1  of  the  vulgar  era.  This  is  perfectly 
 true.  Still,  so  far  as  Anianus's  Egyptian  scheme  is  con- 
 cerned, we  must  either  rectify  for  him  his  unchronological 
 depression  by  tacitly  restoring  the  8  years  improperly 
 omitted,  and  speaking  as  if  he  ended  his  Alexandrian  43rd 
 of  Augustus  and  the  Alexandrian  2nd  of  Antoninus  Pius, 
 138  years  after  it,  both  at  their  true  places  in  terms  of  the 
 vulgar  era,  —  or  else,  if  the  reader  be  a  Copt  or  an  Abyssi- 
 nian who  will  not  admit  the  existence  of  a  lacuna  of  8  years 
 in  his  reckoning  below  the  43rd  year  of  Augustus,  we  must 
 lay  down,  ex  hypothesi,  and  without  regard  to  astronomy  or  his- 
 tory, that  the  cyclical  epoch  itself  was  drawn  down  to  a.d. 
 (9  + 138  =  )  147,  and  then  all,  for  him  at  least,  will  be  right. 
 
 Before  inquiring  more  closely  into  the  Egyptian  scheme 
 of  Anianus,  it  will  be  proper  to  describe,  so  far  as  it  may  be 
 collected  from  Syncellus,  that  scheme  of  sacred  chronology 
 to  suit  which  it  was  arranged. 
 
 Anianus  followed  Eusebius  in  making  2242  years  rather 
 
842 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 tlian  2262  to  the  end  of  the  year  of  the  Flood,  only  be- 
 ginning not  from  Sept.  1  or  Oct.  1  but  from  Aug.  29. 
 Syncellus  himself,  beginning  not  with  Anianus  from  the 
 autumn  but  from  March  25  in  the  spring  preceding,  counts 
 5000  years  complete  to  the  Incarnation,  instead  of  5501  to 
 the  end  of  the  year  including  the  Nativity.  From  the  Flood 
 to  the  birth  of  Abraham  Anianus  made  not  940  but  1070  years. 
 These  are  divided  by  the  Dispersion  into  two  sums  of  534 
 and  536  respectively.  The  first  sum  of  534  contained  135 
 years  of  Arphaxad,  130  of  the  second  Cainan,  of  which  (130 
 —  20  =  )  110  are  an  uncompensated  excess,  130  of  Salah, 
 134  of  Eber,  and  the  first  5  years  of  Peleg.  So  in  all  there 
 were  2776  years  comjilete  to  the  Dispersion.  In  the  re- 
 maining (125  +  132 -}-130  +  79  +  70  =  )  536,  which  made  to 
 Abraham  a  total  of  3212  years,  there  was  nothing  peculiar. 
 The  difference  between  the  3212  of  Anianus  and  the  3184 
 reckoned  by  Eusebius  to  the  same  point  falls  short  by  2  of 
 the  130  years  of  the  second  Cainan  because  Eusebius  had 
 interposed  2  years  not  retained  by  Anianus  between  the 
 year  of  the  Flood  and  that  of  the  birth  of  Arphaxad. 
 From  the  autumn  preceding  the  birth  of  Abraham  to 
 that  preceding  the  Exodus  Anianus  had  the  usual  505 
 years;  then  40  to  the  death  of  Moses,  and  (2  +  25  =) 
 27,  like  Eusebius,  to  that  of  Joshua.  Then  he  not  only 
 reinserted  the  10  years  allowed  by  Josephus  for  the 
 Elders,  but  he  added  to  them  [8]  more,  from  not  under- 
 standing that  the  last  8  of  the  "18  years  of  anarchy,"  or 
 time  without  a  ruler  or  judge,  named  by  Josephus  were 
 identical  with  the  8  of  the  first  Servitude.  So  these,  with 
 [2]  of  the  27  of  Joshua,  made  for  him  between  the  death  of 
 Moses  and  the  beginning  of  the  first  Servitude  an  excess 
 above  the  truth  of  [10]  years.  Then  he  reckoned  388  years 
 of  the  Judges,  in  which  the  111  years  of  the  Servitudes  and 
 the  10  years  of  Elon,  all  improperly  omitted  by  Eusebius, 
 were  restored,  but  2  years  were  wrongly  dropped  from  the 
 judgeship  of  Jalr.  Then  20  years  were  reckoned  separately 
 to  Samson,  and  40  of  interregnum,  which  sums,  though  both 
 erroneous,  may  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  the  40  of  Eli 
 and  the  20  of  Samuel's  mmority,  only  in  inverted  order. 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  843 
 
 And  80  he  had,  all  but  2,  the  450  years  of  St.  Paul  for  the 
 time  of  the  Judges  to  Samuel  the  Prophet  and  to  the  assembly 
 at  Mizpeh.  Then  followed  20  of  EH,  and  20  of  Samuel, 
 which  was  the  same  thini?  as  if  he  had  jT-iven  40  to  Samuel. 
 But  40  years  are  more  by  8  than  the  32  indirectly  given  to 
 him  by  J osephus.  So,  after  allowing  2  of  these  in  compen- 
 sation for  the  2  improperly  taken  away  from  Jair,  there  are 
 still  [6]  which  make  all  his  excesses  at  this  point  to  amount 
 to  (110  +  2  +  8  +  6=:)  126  years.  Then  he  had  (40  +  40  + 
 40  =  )  120  years  of  the  three  kings,  Saul,  David,  and  Solo- 
 mon making  in  all  to  the  end  of  "  the  8th  year  of  Solomon, 
 when  he  dedicated  the  Temple,"  a  sum  of  4478,  and  to  his 
 death  4510  years.  Eusebius  made  to  the  end  of  the  8th  of 
 Solomon  only  (3184  +  988  =  )  4172  years,  being  306  fewer 
 than  Anianus.  The  difference  between  them  consists  in  the 
 following  items:  (130  —  2  =  )  128  caused  by  the  second 
 Cainan  +  18  of  the  Elders  and  anarchy  after  Joshua+111 
 of  the  Servitudes  omitted  by  Eusebius +  10  of  Elon,  called 
 by  Syncellus  Ehud  the  11th  Judge," +  (40  of  interregnum 
 after  the  Judges,  or,  if  those  years  be  taken  to  represent  the 
 40  of  Eli,  +  the  40  divided  afterwards  by  Anianus  between 
 Eli  and  Samuel  — 2  omitted  on  Jair  =  )  38  +  1,  which  is  the 
 23rd  of  Tola  wrongly  and  inconsistently  omitted  by  Euse- 
 bius, but  not  by  Anianus.  From  the  death  of  Solomon 
 Anianus  made  394  years,  as  in  the  scheme  of  Josephus, 
 unrectified,  to  the  end  of  the  11th  of  Zedekiah,  which  would 
 be  set  at  Aug.  29  either  by  throwing  it  back  nine  months 
 (from  June  21)  or  by  drawing  it  three  forwards,  beyond  the 
 burning  of  the  Temple.  Let  it  be  supposed  to  be  thrown 
 back.  Then,  in  the  394  there  are  6  imperfect  years  of  Jeho- 
 shaphat,  Jehoram,  Athaliah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Jehoiakim, 
 (see  p.  900)  which  being  improperly  reckoned  as  full,  cause  an 
 excess  of  4  years.  But  otherwise  the  years  of  the  kings  seem 
 to  have  been  reckoned  rightly.  And  at  this  point  Anianus  has 
 completed  his  a.m.  (4510  +  394  =  )  4904.  And,  since  his 
 whole  sum  to  the  end  of  the  year  of  the  Nativity  is  5501,  it 
 is  clear  that  he  has  still  to  reckon  to  that  point  (5501—4904 
 =  )  597  years,  being  9  years  more  than  really  intervened 
 between  the  commencement  of  the  Captivity  if  set,  as  he 
 
844 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 may  have  set  it,  at  Aug.  29  in  B.C.  588,  and  the  end  of  his 
 43rd  of  Augustus  at  Aug,  29  in  a.d.  1  of  the  vulgar  era. 
 The  composition  of  his  597  years  is  as  follows.  First,  there 
 are  the  70  of  the  Captivity  beginning  as  if  from  Aug.  29 
 after  the  burning  of  the  Temple,  which  should  be  1  year  too 
 low,  but  from  a  date  9  years  higher  than  Aug.  29  before  the 
 burning  of  the  Temple,  and  so,  in  fact,  in  terms  of  his 
 reckoning  9  years  too  high,  and  ending  as  if  at  the  last  ac- 
 cession of  Cyrus,  which  should  be  in  B.C.  536,  but  which  is 
 drawn  down  by  an  omission  of  9  years  of  the  later  Persians, 
 so  as  to  stand  in  B.C.  527.  Thus  of  the  (70  —  52  =  )  18  years 
 too  many  which  he  seems  to  make  between  the  beginning  of 
 the  Captivity  of  Zedekiah  and  the  Edict  of  Cyrus  (the  half 
 of  them  being  compensated),  there  remain  only  9  to  be 
 added  to  his  former  excesses,  raising  their  total  sum  to  (126  + 
 4  +  9  =  )  139  years.  Below  the  Median  accession  of  Cyrus 
 and  the  end  of  the  Captivity,  instead  of  206,  the  true 
 number  of  years  of  the  Persian  kings  still  to  follow,  he  gave 
 them  only  197  years  to  the  cosmocracy  of  Alexander  in  B.C. 
 330.  And  it  is  this  his  suppression  of  9  Persian  years 
 which  compensates  for  one  half  of  his  excess  of  18  years  in 
 the  reckoning  of  the  Captivity  above.  The  9  years  omitted 
 seem  to  have  been  taken  4  of  them  from  Artaxerxes  Mne- 
 mon,  as  if  he  had  reigned  only  40  years  in  all  and  of  those 
 36  alone,  and  the  other  5  from  Ochus,  as  if  he  had  reigned 
 only  20  years  in  all  and  of  those  16  from  the  death  of  his 
 father.  But  from  the  cosmocracy  of  Alexander  beginning 
 from  after  his  a.m.  5171  to  the  end  of  his  43rd  of  Augustus, 
 A.M.  5501,  Anianus  made  rightly  330  years. 
 
 Whether  ending  with  the  true  cyclical  epoch  or  with  the 
 cyclical  epoch  ostensibly  drawn  down,  Anianus  had  equally 
 (5501  +  138=)  5639  years  with  which  to  compare  the 
 Egyptian  sum  of  the  airoKaTdaTaa-is  in  XXV  nominal  cycles 
 or  36,525  nominal  and  mixed  years  exhibited  by  the  Old 
 Chronicle,  and  adopted  as  his  basis  by  the  Manetho  of 
 Africanus. 
 
 That  he  understood  the  exhibition  of  a  series  of  Sothic 
 cycles  ending  ostensibly  at  the  conquest  of  Ochus  in  B.C. 
 345,  or  at  the  assumption  of  a  crown  by  the  Lagidaa  in  B.C. 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  845 
 
 305  of  the  vulgar  era  to  be  a  mere  fiction,  and  knew  that 
 any  such  series  imagined  in  the  times  of  the  Ptolemies  must 
 necessarily  end,  in  truth,  (40  +  443  =  )  483y  ears  later  than 
 the  conquest  of  Ochus,  viz.  in  a.d.  139  of  the  vulgar  era,  is 
 shown  distinctly  by  the  fact  that  he  omits  from  his  Egyp- 
 tian scheme — or  rather  he  tacitly  retransposes  and  puts  down 
 to  their  true  places  below  the  conquest  of  Ochus — those  (40 
 +  443  =  )  483  years  "of  the  Cycle,"  which  had  been  thrown 
 up  by  the  Old  Chronicle  443  of  them  above  Menes,  and  the 
 other  40  above  the  Deaiigods,  while  all  the  remaining 
 (36,525-483  =  )  36,042  years  of  the  Chronicle  are  either 
 accounted  for  by  reduction  or  actually  exhibited  in  the  form 
 of  Alexandrian  years. 
 
 Anianus  then  went  up  from  the  end  of  his  own  1st  year 
 of  Antoninus  Pius  containing  the  Sothic  epoch,  wherever 
 placed  or  misplaced,  the  (443  +  40  =  )  483  years  of  the  Old 
 Chronicle,  or  from  the  end  of  his  own  43rd  of  Augustus 
 containing  the  Nativity,  wherever  placed  or  misplaced,  he 
 went  up  345  years  to  the  true  date  of  the  last  Persian 
 conquest  in  his  B.C.  345 ;  and,  having  thus  disposed  of  the 
 483  years  "  of  the  Cycle,"  he  had  before  him,  of  the  36,525 
 years  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  a  sum  of  36,036  to  examine  and  to 
 account  for.  And  the  first  point  perhaps  to  be.  considered 
 or  forecast  was  how  many  years  in  all  he  could  afford  to 
 allow  for  Egyptian  kings.  With  such  a  sacred  chronology 
 as  has  been  described  above  it  is  plain  that  he  would  not  be 
 likely  to  adhere  to  the  plan  of  Eusebius  who  had  allowed 
 them  to  begin  only  from  the  birth  of  Abraham,  and,  what  is 
 more,  only  from  his  own  date  for  the  birth  of  Abraham 
 depressed  143  years  below  the  true.  On  the  other  hand  he 
 could  not  well  introduce  Menes  as  founding  a  monarchy  in 
 Egypt  at  any  earlier  date  than  the  Dispersion.  And  Afri- 
 canus  had  already  suggested  that  this  was  the  point  from 
 which  the  kingdom  of  Menes-Mizraim  might  be  allowed  to 
 have  begun.  Anianus  therefore  accepted  this  base.  Then  he 
 compared  with  his  own  sum  of  (5639—483  =  )  5156  years 
 from  the  Creation  to  the  conquest  of  Ochus,  or  (5156  — 
 2242  =  2914  —  534  =  )  2380  from  the  Dispersion  to  the  true 
 date  of  the  last  Persian  conquest  in  his  B.C.  345,  that  sum 
 
846 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 of  3555  years  of  kings  which  the  chronographers  Erato- 
 sthenes and  Apollodorus  had  collected  from  the  original 
 Manetho  (this  sum,  though  greater  than  that  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle, being  much  more  moderate  than  what  he  found  in  the 
 XXXI  dynasties  of  Africanus).  And  he  found  the  sum  of 
 Manetho  to  be  too  great  for  him  by  (3555  —  2380  =  )  1175 
 years,  the  foundation  of  the  monarchy  by  Menes  being 
 carried  back  by  it  not  only  to  the  head  of  the  534  years 
 intervening  between  the  Dispersion  and  the  Flood,  but  also 
 (1175-534  =  )  641  years  above  the  Flood  itself. 
 
 Hereupon  he  determined  to  place  the  settlement  of 
 Egypt  by  Mizraim  at  the  Dispersion,  that  is,  after  his  own 
 A.M.  2776;  and  departing  slightly  from  Africanus,  and  no 
 longer  identifying  Mizraim  himself,  the  Patriarchal  settler 
 of  Egypt,  with  Menes  its  first  king,  he  allowed  72  years 
 from  the  Dispersion  and  the  first  settlement  of  the  country 
 for  the  growth  of  the  nation,  and  made  Menes  to  found  the 
 monarchy  at  some  interval  after  the  death  of  Mizraim  at  the 
 end  of  his  own  a.m.  (2776  +  72  =  )  2848.  So  there  seemed 
 to  be  a  space  left  of  (3555  —  641  =  2914  —  534  =  2380  — 
 72  =  )  2308  years  for  him  to  allow  out  of  Manetho's  3555  as 
 intervening  between  the  end  of  his  a.m.  (2848  +  2308  =  ) 
 5156,  which  would  have  been  his  natural  and  true  date  for 
 the  last  Persian  conquest,  and  the  accession  of  Menes  after 
 his  A.M.  2848.  And  such  would  have  been  his  scheme, 
 no  doubt,  but  for  a  singular  fancy  —  a  fancy  worthy  of  one 
 of  the  heathen  Egyptian  priests  who  had  conversed  with 
 Diodorus,  and  perhaps  borrowed  from  some  such  source  — 
 for  the  sake  of  which  he  varied  the  construction  of  the  lower 
 part  of  his  series.  The  change  which  he  devised  was  this : 
 He  put  back  the  conquest  of  Ochus  by  15  years,  so  as  to 
 make  it  stand  ostensibly  at  his  B.C.  360  instead  of  B.C.  345, 
 just  24  years  above  the  Macedonian  accession  of  Alexander, 
 and  30,  instead  of  15  as  in  the  Chronicle,  above  his  Asiatic 
 accession  or  "  cosmocracy."  "  Nectanebo  then,  flying  after 
 his  defeat  by  Ochus,  as  some  said,  not  to  Ethiopia  but  to 
 Macedon,  hegat  Alexander  of  Olympias  ;  "  and  the  Egyptians 
 might  thus  naturalise  the  son  of  Ammon  who  delivered 
 them  from  the  Persians,  much  as  in  time  preceding  they  had 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  847 
 
 naturalised  Cambyses,  fabling  him  to  have  been  born  from 
 a  daughter  of  Apries,  and  to  have  avenged  the  wrongs  of 
 his  mother  upon  the  usurper  Amasis.  In  consequence  of 
 this  arrangement  transferring  15  years  from  the  last  native 
 Egyptian  to  the  last  Persian  dynasty  (which  so  would  have 
 20  [really  21]  years  of  Ochus  who  * according  to  some 
 recovered  Egypt  before  his  father's  death"  +  4  [really  3]  of 
 Arses  +  5  of  Darius,  in  all  30  years),  Anianus  made  as  if 
 the  3555  years  of  Manetho  had  both  ended  and  begun  15 
 years  earlier  that  they  had  ended  and  begun  in  truth.  And 
 going  back  from  the  end  of  his  own  a.m.  (5156  —  15  =  ) 
 5141,  instead  of  a.m.  5156,  to  that  of  his  a.m.  {5156  —  3555 
 =  )  1601,  which  was  656  instead  of  641  years  above  his 
 date  for  the  Flood,  he  cut  off  and  disallowed  from  Ma- 
 netho's  3555  years  of  kings  in  all  (656  +  534=1190  +  72  =  ) 
 1262,  and  allowed  the  remainder,  being  (3555  —  1262  =  ) 
 2293,  with  the  distinct  proviso  that  they  were  to  end  with 
 his  own  a.m.  5141.  So  the  sum  of  years  allowed  by  him 
 for  the  kings  from  Menes  to  Nectanebo  differed  apparently 
 by  only  (1881  +443  =  2324-2293  =  )  31  years  from  that 
 allowed  in  the  scheme  of  Eratosthenes,  and  really  by  only 
 (31  —  15  =  )  16,  since  the  native  Egyptian  kings  of  Erato- 
 sthenes, like  those  of  the  Chronicle  and  of  Manetho,  ended 
 later  by  15  years  than  did  those  of  Anianus,  and  those  15 
 years  cut  off  by  Anianus  did  not  really  belong  to  the  Per- 
 sians to  whom  they  were  transferred.  And  the  approxima- 
 tion being  so  close,  it  will  be  nothing  strange  if  we  find 
 Anianus  distinctly  alluding  to  the  scheme  of  Eratosthenes, 
 and  identifying  the  years  cf  kings  admitted  by  himself 
 between  the  Dispersion  and  Dyn.  XYI  of  the  Old  Chro- 
 nicle and  Eusebius  with  those  "  443  years  of  the  Cycle  in 
 XV  generations  "  which  Eratosthenes  had  transposed  from 
 their  original  place  in  the  Chronicle  and  had  included  below 
 Menes  in  the  times  of  the  monarchy.  The  series  itself,  too, 
 of  Anianus  seems  to  have  resembled  that  of  Eratosthenes  in 
 this  respect,  that  though  he  alluded  to  the  dynasties  of  his 
 own  Manetho,  he  did  not  himself  distinctly  exhibit  them  as 
 such,  at  least  not  in  that  part  of  his  work  which  was  repro- 
 duced by  Panodorus  and  Syncellus,  but  he  made  out  a  con- 
 
848 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 tinuous  list  of  sucli  ©f  the  cxiii  generations  as  he  gave  to  the 
 fifteen  dynasties  of  postdiluvian  kings. 
 
 The  passages  in  which  Syncellus  describes  and  adopts  for 
 himself  the  above  process,  though  he  neither  understands 
 the  basis  of  the  calculation  nor  exhibits  in  his  own  Egyptian 
 series  the  sum  proposed  to  be  allowed,  nor  makes  it  end  at 
 the  point  designated,  is  as  follows  :  — 
 
 ^''O  Bs  irap'  Al'yvTTTLOLS  sTriarj/JLoraTos  Mavs6(t)  irspl  tmv 
 avTcov  V  Swaaraicov  <ypdyjra9,  sfc  tovtcov  SrjXaSr)  Xapcbv  ray 
 u(f>opfjias,  Kara  ttoXv  BtacpwvsL  irspl  rovs  ')(p6vovs  irpos  ravra, 
 KaOcos  iarc  Koi  sk  tcov  TrposLprj/xsvcov  rj/ublv  avcoTspco  fJLaOslv  kol 
 
 SK    TCOV  E^S  \S')(07)aOfM£VCOV.      TcOV  JCLp    SV   T0L9    y     TO/JbOLS  pty' 
 
 ysvsSyv  iv  SwaarsiaLS  X'  dva'ys'ypafifjisvcov,  avrwv  6  '^(povos 
 ^'^pov(yypd(^os\  rd  nrdyra  avvrj^sv  stt)  /y(pvs%  dp^dpusva  ^acjiire 
 
 ET£t  TOV  KOCTfjLOV  KOL  \j]^aVTa  sls  TO  Sp/Jb^  KOajJLLKOV  STOS^  TjTOl 
 TTpO  TTjS   TOV   ^AXs^dvBpOU   TOV   Mu/CsSoVOS   KOCTfJLOKpaTOplaS  £T7] 
 
 TTov  Ls'J^  [Syncellus  is  extracting  from  Panodorus,  Avho 
 ao*ain  had  followed  and  varied  from  Anianus.  Neither  the 
 sum  sp/Jb^\  meaning  perhaps  the  end  of  Syncellus's  a.m. 
 (5500-345  =  5155-8  =  )  5147  in  his  B.C.  (345  +  8  =  )  353, 
 nor  the  words  which  follow,  and  which  imply  rather  Pano- 
 dorus's  date  of  a.m.  5493  —  345  =  )  5148  {sppLt)'),  belong  to 
 Anianus.  But  the  3555  years  of  Manetho  reckoned  down- 
 wards by  Anianus  from  the  end  of  his  a.m.  1585  (^acjivs') 
 necessarily  end  with  his  a.m.  5141,  as  Syncellus  himself 
 writes  in  another  place.  So  we  must  restore  and  read  for 
 Anianus  spfjua',  Syncellus  then  continues]  :  "  'E/c  tovtohv 
 ovv  d<ps\(ov  TL9  Ta  irpo  tov  KaTaKXva/xov  ^z^r  Trpos  dvairXrjpco^ 
 aiu  T03V  P<7fJbp^  ''A.hdfjb  SC09  TOV  KaTUKkvafjiOV  COS  ylrsvSrj  Kal 
 dvvTrapKTa,  Kal  Ta  diro  tov  KaTaKkvcrfiov  scos  Trjs  irvpyoirouas 
 Kal  (Tvy')(ya£co9  tcov  yXcoaacov  Kal  hiao-iTopds  tmv  idvcov  (j)XS\ 
 £^£L  aa^Cos  Trjv  dp)(r]v  Trjs  hlyvTTTLaKrjii  jSaaCXEias  £K  tov 
 TTpcoTov  ^aaiXEvaavTos  Trj9  AlyviTTOV  MEaTpal'/ji,  tov  Kal 
 M?7^'8oy  XEyo/jbEVOV  irapd  tu)  Mav£6S,  diro  tov  ^/S-v/rof'  stovs  tov 
 ABdfJi  scos  'NEKTavs^co  TOV  £(T')(dTov  jSao-tXacos  AiyVlTTOV,  W9 
 slvai  Ta  TrdvTa  drro  ^lEaTpaijub  £C09  tov  avTOV  ^EKTavE^w  ETrj 
 
 Pt^e',  d  Kal  £(f)6a(T£V,  d)9  7rpO£Lpr]TaL,  £19  TO  KOCr/jiCKOV   EpfjL^  ST09 
 
 [read  ,sppLa ,  and  omit  what  follows]  irpo  Trjs  'AXE^dvSpov  tov 
 
 KTiaToif   dp')(r]S  STECTL   LS'  SyyVS.      TOUTO   hs  TO   P'^Of    STOS  TOV 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  849 
 
 KOa^OV  TOV  fJLEV  ^oksK  TTjS  fft)?}?  YjV  £,  TOV        "Fj^Sp  TOV  TTUTpOS 
 
 *t>a\,SK  STOS  KoX  avTO  rrjs  t^corjs  pXrj'  [pX,^'].     ToS  yap  ^^yjroa 
 
 STSL  TOV  KOajlOV,  OTTSp  r]V  TTjS  TOV  "Kfisp   ^(Orjs  pXj  {_p'^^'~\ 
 
 sysvvrjOr]  avTO)  6  ^aXsK,  Kal  fxsra  8'  ett)  r^y  tou  ^aXsK  yevvij- 
 (Tsws,  TOVT  £(TTL  Tc3  KOCTfJLiKcp  ^^os  avvs')(ydr)aav  at  yXwaaat' 
 
 Kal  T&)  STTLOVTL  KOafJiiKUi  ^^^jrOf    ST£t,   TOV  Bs   E/3f/9  pXrj'  [_pXO"]f 
 
 Kal  TOV  vlov  avTOv  ^aXs/c  stsi  s  ,  Bisairdp-qaav  sis  ttju  oIkov/jLsvtjv 
 al  0^'  (pvXal  Kal  yXcoaaai." 
 
 "  Manetho,  "  he  says,  meaning  the  Manetho  of  the  Book 
 of  Sothis  and  of  Anianus  and  Panodorus,  "  makes  in  his 
 Three  Books  cxiii  generations"  (the  cxiii  generations  had 
 belonged  originally  to  the  Chronicle,  and  were  distinctly 
 reproduced  though  with  changes  by  Eratosthenes  and  by 
 Anianus,  but  they  do  not  appear  in  the  lists  of  the  original 
 Manetho,  nor  in  those  of  the  Manetho  of  Africanus)  "  and 
 XXX  dynasties"  (but  the  xxx  or  xxxi  dynasties,  all  of  kings, 
 here  meant  do  not  belong  to  the  same  Manetho  with  the 
 3555  years)  "  with  3555  years  beginning  "  (that  is,  accord- 
 ing to  Anianus,)  "from  after  A.M.  1586,  and  ending" — here 
 Panodorus  or  Syncellus  goes  on  • —  "  with  a.m.  5147  "  [for 
 Anianus  "with  a.m.  5141"]  "about  15  years  before  the 
 cosmocracy  of  Alexander." 
 
 Fifteen  years  before  the  cosmocracy  was  the  exact  date  of 
 the  end  of  Dyn.  XXX  of  the  Chronicle,  as  also  of  the 
 original  Manetho,  and  of  Eratosthenes,  and  of  the  jNIanetho 
 of  Ptolemy  of  Mendes  and  Africanus,  though  this  latter 
 ended  his  Dyn.  XXXI  not  at  the  cosmocracy  but  2  years 
 sooner.  Eusebius,  giving  to  Arses  4  years  instead  of  3,  and 
 so  16  years  instead  of  15  to  Dyn.  XXXI,  had  exhibited  the 
 end  of  Dyn.  XXX  in  appearance  one  year  too  high,  that 
 is,  16  years  before  the  cosmocracy.  But  the  Manetho  of 
 Anianus  or  of  the  Book  of  Sothis  ended  not  15  but  30  years 
 before  the  cosmocracy  of  Alexander,  that  is,  it  ended  with 
 Anianus's  a.m.  5141.  "  So,"  he  continues,  "  Manetho  goes 
 back  not  only  all  the  534  years  from  the  Dispersion  up  to 
 the  Flood,  but  also  656  years  above  the  Flood  (all  which 
 1190  years  are  inadmissible).  Let  us  cut  off  then  and  dis- 
 allow as  fabulous  these  1190  years;  and  then  beginning 
 after  A.M.  2776,  the  5th  of  Peleg  or  138th  [139th]  of  Heber, 
 
 3  I 
 
850 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 we  may  allow  the  remaining  (3555  —  1190  =  )  2365  years, 
 as  the  true  duration  of  the  monarchy  between  Menes  and 
 Nectanebo,  the  last  native  king  of  Egypt."  [So  Syn- 
 cellus,  who,  like  Africanus,  identifies  Menes  with  Miz- 
 raim,  and  makes  the  monarchy  to  begin  at  once  from 
 the  Dispersion.  But  Anianus  distinguished  Mizraim  from 
 Menes  ;  and,  after  supposing  Mizraim  to  have  settled  in 
 Egypt  at  the  time  of  the  Dispersion,  he  interposed  an  in- 
 terval of  72  years  for  the  growth  of  the  people  before  Menes 
 founded  the  monarchy.  Thus  though  he  named,  no  doubt, 
 2365  years  from  A.M.  2776  to  a.m.  5141,  as  the  space  from 
 the  settlement  of  Egypt  to  Nectanebo,  he  did  not  allow 
 2363  of  Manetho's  years  of  kings,  as  such,  but  only  (2365  — 
 72  =  )  2293.]  "But  2365  years  reckoned  from  after  a.m. 
 2776  will  make  Manetho's  Dyn.  XXX  and  the  reign  of 
 Nectanebo  the  last  kino-  to  end  tog-ether  with  a.m.  5141." 
 This  is  the  substance  of  what  Syncellus  says  in  the  place 
 now  alluded  to.  But,  in  another  place,  as  we  have  seen 
 above,  thinking  of  Panodorus's  Egyptian  series,  or  of  his 
 own,  but  not  of  Anianus's,  he  writes  or  copies  inconsistently 
 that  the  2365  years  allowed,  and  beginning  from  after  a.m. 
 2776,  ''end  with  a.m.  5147  about  or  nearly  (ttov  and  syyvs) 
 15  years  before  the  reign  of  Alexander."  Panodorus,  per- 
 haps, besides  omitting  somewhere  8  years  of  the  sacred 
 reckoning  of  Anianus,  gave  to  his  own  Egyptian  series  6 
 years  more  than  had  been  given  by  Anianus,  so  that  it 
 ended  with  his  a.m.  5147,  which  was  in  B.C.  (5493  —  5147 
 =  )  346,  and  (8  +  6  =  )  14  years  lower  than  a.m.  5141  of 
 Anianus.  This  was  not  indeed  exactly  15  or  "  nearly  15  " 
 but  16  years  before  the  cosmocracy.  It  might,  however,  be 
 said  to  be  ''nearly  15  that  is  14"  before  the  reign'''  of 
 Alexander,  if  his  Egyptian  accession  or  the  foundation  of 
 Alexandria  were  substituted  for  the  cosmocracy,  as  it  had 
 been  by  the  Manetho  of  Africanus ;  and  this,  perhaps,  is 
 hinted  by  a  variation  of  the  expression  which  is  noticeable 
 in  this  place,  Syncellus  not  writing  here  as  elsewhere  "tt/do 
 rrjs  KoayiOKpaTopias^''  but  TTpb  rr]s  tov  AXs^dvBpov  ap'^rjSf^ 
 which  Avould  suit  equally  for  his  Persian,  his  Egyptian,  or 
 his  Macedonian  accession.  For  Syncellus  himself,  who 
 made  5500  years  to  March  25  in  b.c>  1  (depressed  to  a.d.  8), 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  851 
 
 the  end  of  a.m.  5147  would  be  14  years,  which  might  be 
 called  "nearly"  or  "about  15,"  before  the  cosmocracy  of 
 Alexander,  as  he  thrusts  it  up  to  the  head  of  his  a.m.  5162 
 in  B.C.  339;  and  the  end  of  a.m.  5141,  in  like  manner, 
 might  be  said  to  be  about  or  nearly  15  years  before  the 
 "  reign  "  or  Macedonian  accession  which  is  thrust  up  to  the 
 head  of  a.m.  5156  in  B.C.  345.  As  regards  Anianus  we 
 have  seen  above  that  he  could  have  afforded  to  allow  15 
 years  more  than  he  has  actually  allowed  to  the  Egyptian 
 monarchy,  if  it  had  pleased  him  to  make  it  end  at  the  same 
 point  with  the  Old  Chronicle,  with  Manetho,  and  with 
 Eratosthenes,  and  at  the  commencement  of  the  (40  +  443  =  ) 
 483  years  of  the  Cycle  lying  between  B.C.  345  and  a.d.  139 
 of  the  vulgar  era.  The  fancy  for  the  sake  of  which  he 
 varied  from  the  earlier  schemes,  and  which  has  been  men- 
 tioned above,  is  indicated  by  Syncellus  in  the  following 
 passage  appended  to  the  last  names  of  the  Egyptian  and 
 Persian  kings,  and  probably  derived  from  Anianus :  • — ■ 
 
 "  Ad  Ochum  et  Nectanebum  principes  xxxi  Dynastiarum 
 descriptionem  Manetho  "  (the  Manetho,  that  is,  of  Ptolemy 
 and  of  Africanus)  "  volumine  suo  tertio  per  annos  1050 
 delineavit.  Quae  sequuntur,  Macedonum  reges  spectantia, 
 ex  Graecis  auctoribus  desumuntur."  And  he  says  that 
 Ochus  according  to  some  "  vivente  adhuc  patre  ^gyptum 
 debellavit,"  that  is,  reduced  Egypt  before  the  death  of  his 
 father  Artaxerxes.  Who  said  this  is  plain,  when  one  reflects 
 that  any  one  who  like  Anianus  put  back  the  Persian  con- 
 quest by  15  years  must  have  given  Ochus  in  fact  a  reign 
 over  Egypt  of  (15  +  6  =  )  21  instead  of  6  years ;  the  first  of 
 the  21  being  in  that  case  also  the  last  of  his  father,  with 
 whom  he  had  been  associated  5  years  earlier.  But  Anianus, 
 giving  to  Artaxerxes  only  40  years  in  all,  made  the  Egyptian 
 accession  of  Ochus  to  be  apparently  4  but  really  10  years 
 before  his  father's  death.  "  Nonnulli  tamen  "  Syncellus 
 also  writes  (meaning  all  except  Anianus)  "post  ejus  mortem 
 [Ochum]  bellum  movisse  sentiunt,  quo  Nectanebo  ^gypto 
 fugere  coactus  juxta  quosdam  in  ^thiopiam,  ex  aliorum 
 relatu  in  Macedoniam  recessit,  ubi  Alexandrum  (Jovis  Am- 
 monis  filium)  genuit." 
 
 3  I  2 
 
852 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 We  have  now  followed  Anianus  so  far  as  to  have  ascer- 
 tained that  above  Aug.  29  commencing  a.m.  5157  in  his 
 B.C.  345,  the  true  date  for  the  last  Persian  conquest,  483 
 years  before  the  end  of  the  Cycle  according  to  the  Chro- 
 nicle, and  so  really  fixed  to  B.C.  345  of  the  vulgar  era,  he 
 detaches  the  last  15  historical  years  of  the  1881  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle and  adds  them  to  the  Egyptian  reign  of  Ochus.  Then 
 he  allows  to  the  monarchy,  going  back  from  the  head  of  the 
 (483  +  15  =  )  498th  year  before  the  end  of  the  Cycle,  Aug. 
 29  in  his  B.C.  360  (his  unchronological  depression  being 
 understood  to  be  rectified)  first,  the  remaining  (1881—15 
 =  )  1866  years  of  the  kings  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  to  the 
 head  of  its  Dyn.  XYI,  which  so  should  be  set  at  Aug.  29 
 in  B.C.  (360+  1866  =  )  2226,  and  to  the  end  of  his  own  a.m. 
 (5501  +  138  =  5639  -  483  =  5156  -  15  =  5141  -  1866  =) 
 3275,  the  Egyptian  vague  years  being  reckoned  by  him  as 
 if  identical  with  fixed  Alexandrian  years.  And  above  this 
 date  he  allows  a  further  sum  of  427  years  of  kings,  being 
 fewer  by  (443  —  427  =  )  16  only  than  the  443  similarly 
 added  to  the  1881  of  the  Chronicle  by  those  Theban  priests 
 who  made  out  the  list  of  Eratosthenes.  So  the  accession  of 
 Menes  was  put  at  Aug.  29  in  B.C.  (345  +  15  +  1866  +  427 
 =  )  2653,  after  the  end  of  Anianus's  a.m.  (5501-2653  =  ) 
 2848.  And  above  Menes  he  reckoned  72  years  of  Mizraim 
 or  other  fathers  up  to  Aug.  29  in  B.C.  (2653  +  72  =  )  2725 
 at  the  end  of  his  a.m.  2776,  his  era  of  the  Dispersion  and  of 
 the  settlement  of  Egypt. 
 
 We  may  deduct  then  in  all  from  the  gross  sum  of  the 
 dTTOKaraorraaLs  of  the  Chronicle,  viz.  from  36,525  (483  +  15 
 +  1866  +427  +  72  =  )  2863  years.  The  remainder,  viz. 
 (36,525  —  2863  =  )  33,662,  is  the  sum  of  those  years  of  the 
 Chronicle  which  on  the  principle  laid  down  by  Africanus  and 
 rejected  by  Eusebius  (as  later  by  Syncellus),  but  accepted 
 by  himself,  Anianus  had  to  reduce  as  if  from  months  to  full 
 years,  and  to  exhibit  as  reconcilable  by  reduction  with  the 
 true  sum  of  the  years  which  had  passed  from  the  Creation  to 
 the  Flood  and  to  the  Dispersion,  that  is,  according  to  him, 
 Avith  the  sum  of  2776  years. 
 
 Of  course  it  could  not  be  expected  that  the  sum  of  the 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUSj  AND  SYNCELLUS.  853 
 
 remaining  years  of  the  Chronicle,  even  if  they  were  all 
 really  months  in  its  scheme,  or  had  been  months  originally 
 (neither  of  which  suppositions  is  true  in  fact),  would  of 
 itself  give  exactly  on  division  by  12  the  number  of  years 
 assigned  by  Anianus  or  by  any  other  particular  author  for 
 the  interval  between  the  Creation  and  the  Dispersion ;  or 
 that  Anianus's  sum,  or  that  made  by  any  other  author  to  the 
 Dispersion,  on  being  simply  multiplied  by  12  Avould  give 
 exactly  the  sum  of  the  Egyptian  remainder.    Still,  as  2776, 
 the  sum  made  by  Anianus  to  the  Dispersion,  when  mul- 
 tiplied by  12,  produced  33,312,  a  sum  less  by  only  (33,662 
 —  33,312  =  )  350  than  the  Egyptian  remainder  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle, Anianus  thought  that  such  a  difference,  amounting  (if 
 those  33,662  years  of  the  Chronicle  had  been  really  months) 
 to  only  29^j  full  years,  being  of  no  unmanageable  dimen- 
 sions, might  with  a  little  ingenuity  be  dissembled  or  re- 
 moved.   Taking  advantage  of  the  fact  that  the  earlier  years  of 
 the  Egyptians  were  said  to  have  been  "  lunar,  that  is  months 
 of  30  days  each,"  12  of  which,  and  5  days  besides,  went  to 
 one  full  Egyptian  "  solar "  year,  whereas  the  true  lunar 
 month  has  only  29 J  days,  he  thought  he  had  nothing  more 
 to  do  than  to  devise  some  pretext  for  asserting  that  such  a 
 portion  of  the  Egyptian  remainder  of  33,662  years  had 
 been  reckoned  in  a  peculiar  way,  being  true  lunar  months 
 of  only  29^  days  each,  as  being  reduced  to  years  of  365 
 days  should  make  29^^,  or  in  round  numbers  30,  years  fewer 
 than  would  be  obtained  on  dividing  the  whole  remainder  of 
 the  Chronicle,  viz.33,662,  by  12.    The  difference  between 
 actual  lunar  and  Egyptian  civil  months  amounting  in  12 
 months  to  6  days,  and  the  distinct  consideration  of  the  5 
 epagomenge  in  the  process  of  reduction  disposing  of  5  days 
 more  in  making  out  each  year,  he  would,  in  reducing  such 
 peculiar  month-years  as  were  feigned  to  have  only  29^  days 
 each  to  full  years  of  365  days,  need  11  days  more  than  were 
 contained  by  12  of  them  to  make  one  solar  year.  And 
 from  11,984  of  them  he  would  make  only  968  solar  years  of 
 365  days  each  and  208  days  (being  7  months  of  29^  days 
 each  and  1^  days  over)  towards  a  969th;  and  this  was  about 
 30  years  less  than  he  would  have  obtained  had  he  simply 
 
 3  I  3 
 
854 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 divided  the  same  number  by  12,  since  12  in  11,984  go  998 
 times  with  8  over.  And,  vice  versa,  968  Egyptian  vague 
 years  and  208  days  of  a  969th  would  require  for  their  com- 
 position 11,984  lunations  of  29^  days  each,  being  (11,984  — 
 11,628  =  )  356  more  than  the  sum  (11,628)  which  would 
 give  969  years  complete  on  being  simply  divided  by  12. 
 
 The  desired  coincidence  being  thus  secured,  the  next 
 thing  to  consider  was  how  to  place  those  11,984  nominal 
 years  of  the  Chronicle  which  were  to  be  thus  treated  by  a 
 peculiar  method  as  lunar  months  of  29^  days  each,  and 
 reduced  to  968  years  of  365  days  with  208  days  over, 
 reckoned  by  Anianus  as  969  full  years.  The  Flood  being 
 at  a  distance  of  534  years  only  above  the  Dispersion,  this  of 
 itself  would  forbid  all  thought  of  putting  them  immediately 
 before  the  Dispersion  and  the  settlement  of  Egypt,  as  in 
 that  case  they  would  be  broken  into  two  sums  by  the  epoch 
 of  the  Flood.  And,  besides,  it  would  be  natural  to  put  first 
 a  form  of  reckoning  which  pretended  to  be  simpler  and  less 
 artificial,  actual  natural  months  as  observed  and  counted 
 before  conventional  months  of  30  days,  and  to  connect  the 
 peculiar  reckoning  asserted  to  have  been  in  use  during 
 these  11,984  moons  with  some  plausible  account  of  its 
 origin. 
 
 Now  Anianus  found  in  the  First  Book  of  Eusebius's 
 Chronicon  a  fable  originally  from  Berosus  which  oiFered  just 
 what  he  wanted.  The  passage  of  Eusebius,  translated  into 
 English  is  as  follows :  —  "  The  Chaldsean  empire  is  noticed 
 first  before  all  others  by  learned  men,  viz.  by  Alexander 
 Polyhistor,  Berosus,  and  Abydenus,  and  Apollodorus,  who 
 mention  first  1058  years,  in  which  there  was  no  kingdom 
 (Jrr]  a/SaalXsvra).  For  they  say  that  Adam  ruled  for  his 
 life,  that  is  the  930  years  "  (the  corrupt  reading  ra  t\'  being 
 corrected  into  rd  J^V),  '^and  Seth  128  years  more,  making 
 1058,  during  which  there  is  no  mention  made  as  yet  in  the 
 Scripture  of  kings.  But  in  [i.  e.,  as  usual,  after']  the  year 
 of  the  world  1058,  in  the  Northern  region  called  the  Lower 
 Country,  the  Chaldaeans  who  were  descendants  of  Seth  set 
 up  over  themselves  a  king  named  Alorus,^^  &c.  And  the 
 reigns  of  Alorus  and  his  nine  successors  were  so  apportioned 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  855 
 
 by  Berosus,  or  at  least  by  Polyhlstor,  as  to  give  to  the  ten 
 kings  a  sum  of  1200  years  (expanded  into  days,  and  de- 
 scribed as  120  sari)  which  with  the  1058  years  said  to  have 
 elapsed  first  made  up  2258  years,  a  sum  agreeing  very 
 nearly  with  the  reckoning  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  for  the 
 time  before  the  Flood.  And  notwithstanding  the  fancy  of 
 the  first  1058  years  being  separate,  it  is  plain  that  the  ten 
 generations  are  really  those  of  the  ten  Patriarchs  beginning 
 from  Adam,  and  that  Alorus,  the  first  of  them,  is  no  other 
 than  Adam  himself.  So  that  the  1058  years  ought  to 
 have  been  divided  among  the  ten  reigns,  instead  of  preced- 
 ing them  separately.  Anianus,  however,  seeing  the  dis- 
 tinction of  the  first  1058  years  to  give  an  opening  for 
 placing  separately  those  years  which  he  meant  to  connect 
 with  a  peculiar  method  of  reduction,  adopted  it  into  his  own 
 Egyptian  scheme,  in  which  in  consequence  he  made  his 
 Manetho  to  depart  very  widely  from  the  pattern  of  the  Old 
 Chronicle,  no  longer  reckoning,  like  it,  to  his  cxiii  genera- 
 tions and  XXX  dynasties  all  the  years  of  true  human  time 
 from  the  beginning  of  the  antediluvian  world,  nor  again 
 from  the  recommencement  of  the  world  after  the  Flood,  but 
 only  those  during  which  kingdoms  were  in  existence,  be- 
 ginning with  A.M.  1059  for  the  antediluvians,  and  with  the 
 (534  +  72  =  )  607th  year  from  the  Flood,  being  his  A.M. 
 (2242  +  534  =  2776  +  72  =  )  2849,  for  the  existing  or  postdi- 
 luvian world.  And  whereas  in  the  Chronicle  the  first- 
 named  of  the  Gods,  Phthah,  had  neither  any  limited  reign 
 or  dynasty  in  time,  nor  was  reckoned  as  one  of  the  cxiii 
 generations,  the  Manetho  of  Anianus  on  the  contrary  made 
 him  to  have  been  the  first  mortal  king  of  the  antediluvian 
 Egypt  answering  to  the  Chaldaean  Alorus,  and  so,  though 
 really  no  other  than  Adam,  later  ostensibly  both  than  Adam 
 and  than  Seth. 
 
 So,  taking  the  first  12,696  years  of  the  Old  Chronicle  as 
 months  of  30  days  each,  implying  and  carrying  with  them 
 under  every  12  the  5  epagomenae  necessary  to  make  up  one 
 full  year,  and  asserting  that  1058  full  years  obtainable  by 
 dividing  12,696  such  months  by  12  had  passed  from  the 
 Creation  during  which  men  were  too  rude  and  ignorant  to 
 
 3  I  4 
 
856 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 measure  time  at  all,  lie  implied  that  these  1058  years  were 
 afterwards  calculated  and  reckoned  by  the  Egyptians  in  12 
 times  their  own  number  of  months  with  the  epagomenae 
 necessary  for  each  year  tacitly  included  after  their  manner 
 though  not  distinctly  noticed.  He  then  introduced  from 
 the  apocryphal  book  entitled  the  Little  Genesis  certain  per- 
 sonages called  the  EgregorV  or  Sons  of  God,  whom  Eusebius 
 and  Syncellus  explain  to  have  been  the  posterity  of  Seth, 
 but  Anianus  and  Panodorus  seem  to  have  described  as 
 angels.  These  descended  [from  their  highlands]  after  the 
 1058  years  above-mentioned,  and  became  the  fathers  of  the 
 Giants.  And  not  long  afterwards  either  these  Egregori  or 
 certain  angels  (here  the  writer,  whether  it  be  Anianus  or 
 Panodorus,  refers  to  the  apocryphal  book  of  Enoch)  taught 
 men  both  the  division  of  the  zodiac  by  its  xii  signs  into 
 360  degrees,  suggesting  a  corresponding  division  of  the  solar 
 year  into  xii  months  of  30  days  each,  and  the  use  of  a  solar 
 year  of  360  days,  and  also  taught  them  the  knowledge  of 
 the  lunar  month  consisting  of  30  days  [Panodorus  should 
 have  written  of  30  and  29  days  alternately,  that  is,  properly 
 of  29-|  days.]  And  at  this  same  time  monarchy  having  been 
 also  first  established,  men  looked  rather  to  the  shorter, 
 simpler,  more  visible,  and  more  convenient  circuit  of  the 
 moon,  the  nearer  one  to  the  earth  of  the  two  great  lumi- 
 naries, and  reckoned  the  years  of  their  first  six  dynasts,  who 
 are  called  the  six  Gods  "  [viz.  Phthah  or  '  }i(f)aLaTos,  Ra  or 
 "Y{\ios,  Cneph  or  XyaOoSaifzwv,  Seh  or  ILpovos,  Osiris,  and 
 Typhoii]  "  in  lunations  of  [29^]  days  each.  And  these 
 lunations  reckoned  to  the  number  of  11,984  (and  equal,  if 
 reduced,  to  968  full  Egyptian  years  of  xii  months  of  30 
 days  with  their  epagomenae  distinctly  supplied  to  each,  and 
 208  days  besides  going  towards  a  969th  year)  were  the 
 earliest  periods  of  time  called  years  (iviavTOiy^ 
 
 Having  thus  1058  +  9683L  which  he  reckons  as  969,  in 
 all  2027  full  years,  reduced  from  (1058  x  12  =  )  12,696  and 
 11,984,  in  all  24,680  years  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  while  the 
 534  full  years  between  the  Flood  and  the  Dispersion  multi- 
 plied by  12  answer  to  6408  more,  he  has  already  accounted 
 for  31,088  out  of  those  33,662  years  of  the  Chronicle  which 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  857 
 
 remained  to  be  accounted  for.  And  he  lias  now  only  2574 
 more  of  its  years  to  deal  with.  These  2574  being  divided  by 
 12  give  2l4-^j,  reckoned  by  him  as  215  years:  and  215 
 years  added  to  the  former  2027  (2027  +  215  =  )  exactly  fill 
 up  the  space  left  vacant  between  them  and  the  Flood,  and 
 complete  his  sum  of  2242  years. 
 
 This  last  number  2 1 5  being  (though  by  mere  accident) 
 within  2  units  the  same  with  that  of  217  years  given  by  the 
 Chronicle  to  its  viii  Demigods,  it  seemed  natural  to  Ani- 
 anus  that  he  also  in  like  manner,  having  given  the  preced- 
 ing 969  years  to  the  Gods,  should  now  give  his  smaller  sum 
 of  215  to  the  Demigods,  of  whom  he  made  ix,  instead  of 
 making  viii  only  like  the  Chronicle.  By  this  arrangement, 
 as  if  it  had  been  an  object  to  make  room  for  the  reign  and 
 generation  of  Phthah,  Horus,  whose  traditionary  place  had 
 always  been  that  of  "  last  of  the  Gods,"  became  the  first  of 
 the  Demigods. 
 
 And  thus  (vi-f  ix  =  )  XV  dynasties  and  generations  of 
 Gods  and  Demigods  were  made  to  follow  one  another  in 
 succession  after  the  1058  err]  a^aaiXsvTa  in  the  world 
 before  the  Flood,  answering  to  the  xv  earlier  or  divine 
 dynasties  of  the  Chronicle,  and  symmetrical  in  some  sense 
 with  its  other  xv  later  dynasties  of  ordinary  mortals  which 
 were  to  follow  in  the  postdiluvian  world.  For  after  the 
 Flood,  in  the  renewed  world,  the  first  534  years  to  the  Dis- 
 persion, during  the  survival  of  Noah  and  his  sons,  answered 
 to  the  time  of  Adam,  and  the  72  years  between  the  Disper- 
 sion, or  the  settlement  of  Egypt  by  Mizraim,  and  Menes 
 answered  to  the  time  of  Seth  after  Adam.  And  then,  after 
 these  (534  +  72  =  )  606  years  in  the  new  world,  monarchies 
 were  established  by  Menes  in  Egypt,  and  by  Belus  in 
 Assyria,  and  by  others  elsewhere ;  just  as  in  the  old  world 
 of  the  antediluvians  after  the  first  1058  years  monarchy  was 
 established  by  those  called  the  Gods  and  the  Demigods. 
 In  this  way  too  Anianus  came  somewhat  nearer  to  the  order 
 of  Manetho  than  to  that  of  the  Chronicle,  as  his  534  years 
 without  monarchy  between  the  Flood  and  Mizraim,  or  (534 
 +  72  = )  606  between  the  Flood  and  Menes,  are  equal,  if 
 multiplied  by  12,  to  6408  or  (6408  +  72=)  6480  nominal 
 
858  EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 years,  a  sum  wliicli  following  after  those  of  the  Gods  and  Demi- 
 gods is  not  unlike  that  given  by  Manetho  to  his  Manes  in  the 
 same  relative  position  ;  whereas  the  Chronicle  had  brought 
 down  the  times  of  its  Gods  158  years  below  the  death  of 
 Shem ;  and  the  217  years  of  its  Demigods  (but  for  the  inter- 
 position of  the  last  part  of  the  Cycle  to  run  out  in  a.d.  139) 
 would  have  ended  only  at  the  accession  of  Menes. 
 
 The  process  of  construction  as  above  described  having 
 been  completed,  the  scheme  of  the  Chronicle  with  xxx  dynas- 
 ties, XV  of  Gods  and  Demigods  and  xv  of  kings,  and  with 
 cxiii  generations  of  rulers,  whether  called  Gods,  Demigods, 
 or  ordinary  kings,  in  36,525  nominal  and  mixed  or  5844  full 
 years,  was  paralleled  by  Anianus  with  variations  rather  than 
 exhibited  in  detail,  the  whole  of  his  parallel  scheme  being 
 understood  to  end  according  to  the  true  chronology  at  the 
 cyclical  epoch  of  July  20  in  the  1st  year  of  Antoninus 
 Pius,  or  at  Aug.  29  following,  which  was  really  in  A  D.  139 
 of  the  vulgar  era.  But  according  to  the  apparent  chronology 
 of  Anianus  his  sum  of  years  answering  to  that  of  the  diroKa- 
 Taaraats  of  the  Old  Chronicle  was  completed  at  Aug.  29  in 
 the  1st  of  Antoninus  depressed  to  our  a.d.  147,  8  years 
 below  the  true  point  of  its  completion. 
 
 This  whole  Egyptian  scheme  reduced  and  incorporated 
 into  his  own  chronography  by  Anianus,  and  copied,  though 
 with  some  incompleteness,  by  Panodorus,  was  really,  as  has 
 been  shown,  of  complex  origin,  the  materials  for  its  compo- 
 sition being  drawn  chiefly  from  the  Old  Chronicle  and  from 
 the  original  Manetho,  but  partly  also  from  Eratosthenes, 
 from  the  Manetho  of  Ptolemy  and  Africanus,  from  Jo- 
 sephus,  from  Eusebius,  and  even  from  other  Egyptian, 
 Jewish,  Chaldaean,  and  Greek  sources.  But  as  a  whole  it 
 was  ascribed  under  the  title  of  the  Book  of  Sothis  to  Ma- 
 netho (the  Chronicle  having  been  recognised  since  the  time 
 of  Ptolemy  as  one  of  the  chief  sources  used  by  Manetho) ; 
 and  a  preface,  analogous  to  that  of  Ptolemy  containing  the 
 Chronicle,  was  probably  prefixed  in  order  to  give  some  hint 
 how  the  cyclical  form  of  the  Egyptian  dnTOKaraaTaaLs  had 
 originated,  and  how  it  had  come  to  be  conjoined,  as  was 
 asserted,  with  a  true  chronological  reckoning  from  the  Cre- 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  859 
 
 ation,  agreeing  with  Hebrew  and  Christian  computations  ; 
 and  also  in  order  to  make  Manetho,  as  if  of  himself,  give  an 
 Egyptian  explanation  of  the  fact  that  there  had  been  pre- 
 served in  the  sanctuaries  of  Egypt  reckonings  and  genealogies 
 of  the  Patriarchs  or  dynasts  (for  as  such  Anianus  repre- 
 sented the  Gods  and  Demigods  of  the  first  xv  dynasties) 
 who  lived  before  the  Flood. 
 
 The  account  given  by  Syncellus  of  this  "  Manetho  "  or 
 Book  of  Sothis  "  (for  he  seems  to  give  the  two  titles  indif- 
 ferently to  the  Manetho  of  Anianus  and  Panodorus)  is 
 contained  in  the  following  extract :  — 
 
 "  JlpoKeLTat  \oLTTov  KoX  TTSpl  TTjs  Toiv  AlyvTTTLwv  hvvaaTSias 
 fiiKpa  BiaXa/3s2v  sk  tmp  Mavsdco  rov  Xs/BsvvvroVy  os  [a  avros?) 
 STTL  liroXEfialov  rov  ^iXaBsXcpov  ap')(^Lspsv9  tcov  sv  Alyv7rT(p 
 slBco\sL(Ov  ')(priiJbaTL(7as  sic  tcop  sv  tt}  XtpiaSiKfj  [StptaSi]  yfj  ksl[xs- 
 V(ov  (tttjXmv  Ispa,  (pijal,  BLaXs/crw  Koi  IspoypacfeiKoh  <ypd/jL/jLaac 
 
 K£')(apaKT7]pL(TIJbSV(ji)V  VITO  Sq)6  TOV  TTpdnTOV  '^pfJLOV,  KOL  Sp/JL7]VSv6sL- 
 
 ao)v  pusra  rov  KaraKkvaixov  sk  rrjs  ispas  hiaXsfCTOv  sl9  Tr)v  'EXXt;- 
 viSa  \_K0LV7jv  sc.]  (f)(ovr]v  ypd/jb/jLacnv  IspoyXucpLKohfKal  dvarsdsvToav 
 sv  pip\oL9  VTTO  TOV  'AyaOoSalpLovos,  vlov  TOV  IB'  'Epfiovy  iraTpos 
 
 hs  TOV  TcLT,  sv  T0L9  dSvTOLS  TCOV   IspOJV  AlyVTTTOV  7rpOaS(f)Q)V7]a£ 
 
 Tcp  avTO)  ^t\aS£X(f)M  ^aacXsl  BsvTspM  YlToXepLaiw  sv  tt}  B//3X,ft) 
 
 T7]9  X(o6sC09  <ypd<f>0)V  STtI  Xs^SCOS  0VTC09  • 
 
 'E7rt<7ToX^  MavsOco  tov  Xs^svvvtov  irpbs  UtoXs/jlucov  tov 
 ^LXdBsX<j)ov. 
 
 BaaiXsl  fjbsydXq)  UToXepLaiO)  ^iXaSsXcpo)  Xs^aaTO)  Mavs6oj, 
 dp')^L£psv9  Kol  ypa/JLfjuaTSVs  tcov  KaT   AtyvirTov  Ispcov  dBvTcov, 
 
 ySVSL   ^sffsVVUTTJS    Vwdp^COVj   'HXlOVTToXlTTJS,    ToS    BsaTTOTTj  fJ.0V 
 
 UToXs/jLaicp  '^alpSLV, 
 
 "  'H/^ay  hsl  Xoyl^saOac,  pLsyio-TS  ^aaiXsvy  irspX  irdvTcov  sav 
 jSovXrj  rj/jbds  s^STuaaL  Trpay/idTcov,  ^RTn^TjTOvvTi  aoi  irspl  tcov 
 /jisXXovTcov  T(p  Koo-fjbcp  yiyvsdQai^  Kadws  sKsXsvads  jxol,  irapa- 
 (f)avrj(T£t  aL  crot  a  s/xaOovlspd  ^i^Xia  ypa^ivTa  xnro  tov  irpoird- 
 Topos  TpLafjusylcTTOV,  *Rp/jLOv'    "E^ppcoao  pLOi,  hsoriroTd  p.ov  /5a- 
 
 This  explanation  of  the  way  in  which  the  knowledge  of 
 antediluvian  times  had  been  preserved  by  means  of  the 
 "  pillars  or  inscriptions  of  Seth,"  here  called  the  First  Thoth, 
 is  manifestly  borrowed  from  Berosus,  and  accommodated  by 
 
860 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 the  help  of  certain  additions  to  the  service  of  the  Egyptian 
 priesthood  (see  Joseph.  Ant.  Jucl.  i.  2).  Berosus  had  repre- 
 sented the  deity  Cronus  as  "warning  Xisuthrus  of  the 
 Flood,  and  enjoining  him  to  write  an  account  of  the  be- 
 ginnings, middles  and  ends  of  all  things  and  bury  it  in  the 
 city  of  the  sun  or  Heliopolis  named  Sippara  "  (which  means 
 "  The  Books'').  And  after  the  Flood  Xisuthrus,  then  him- 
 self deified,  bade  his  descendants  to  return  to  Babylonia  and 
 there  dig  up  the  buried  writings  and  communicate  them  to 
 mankind.  They  therefore  did  so,  and,  having  dug  up  the 
 writings  at  Sippara,  founded  many  cities  and  temples,  and 
 auiong  them  Babylon,  which  was  thus  restored  after  the 
 Flood."  (Comp.  Syncell.  Chron.  p.  28  and  Euseb.  Chron. 
 5.  8.)  Josephus  speaks  of  certain  stelce  inscribed  by  t^eth, 
 and  set  up  h  yfj  ^tpidSi.,  which  is  only  another  version  of  the 
 same  story,  Seth  being  here  the  first  or  antediluvian 
 Hermes. 
 
 The  connection  of  the  Sothic  period,  and  so  of  the  airoKa- 
 TdcrTaa-L9,  with  the  idea  of  the  recurrence  of  similar  events, 
 and  with  predictions  of  things  future,  and  divination,  and 
 astrology,  is  Egyptian,  and  may  be  illustrated  from  other 
 sources ;  as,  for  instance,  from  what  Africanus  says  of  the 
 vast  periods  of  the  Egyptians,  where,  alluding  to  the  sum  of 
 the  Chronicle  and  to  the  dnroKaTddTacns^  he  calls  it  an 
 
 astrological  period  "  {irpos  dsaiv  tuv  Trap'  avroh  dcTTpoXo- 
 yov/ubsvcov).  But  from  the  way  in  which  this  idea  is  here 
 connected  with  the  scheme  of  the  Old  Chronicle  and  with 
 the  Book  of  Sothis  it  is  clear  that  the  forger  of  the  letter 
 from  Manetho  to  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  did  not  understand 
 the  true  incidental  origin  and  purpose  of  the  Chronicle. 
 
 The  'KiroTsKeo-fiaTLKa  ascribed  to  Manetho  were  also  an 
 astrological  work  containing  passages  distinctly  connecting 
 it  with  this  Book  of  Sothis,  mentioning  the  same  sources, 
 viz.  inscriptions  of  the  most  ancient  Thoth  translated  and 
 laid  up  in  the  sanctuaries  of  Egypt,  and  addressing  Ptolemy 
 in  the  same  sense, — 
 
 "       aCvrcov  itpuiv  /3//3/\(wr,  [ScKriXtv  IlToXffxaie, 
 Kal  Kpycpifnov  arrjXCjv  dg  ifvparo  7rav(TO(pog  'Epfirjg. 
 
 And  the  same  idea  which  in  a  more  general  way  and  on  a 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  861 
 
 larger  scale  is  connected  in  the  Epistle  of  the  pseudo-Ma- 
 netho  with  the  Sothic  aTroKaTdo-rao-Ls  is  connected  by  Hora- 
 poUo  (^Hieroglyph,  i.  c.  3)  also  with  the  annual  rising  of  the 
 star  Sothis  itself:  —  ^'''Os*  (Sw^ty  aarr)p)  koX  hoKst  /3a(TL\£vsiv 
 7WV  XoiTTwv  d(rT£po)V,  OTS  fJLEV  fiSL^cov  OTS  Bs  Tjcrcrwv  dvarsXXcop, 
 Koi  ore  /ulsv  Xa/juTrporspo?,  ore  Ss  oup^  ourcos,  "Ert  Ss  Kal  Slotl 
 Kara  rrjv  tovtov  tov  aarpou  dvaroXyjv  aTjfieLOvjxsOa  irspl 
 irdvTcov  Tcjv  sv  tm  ivcavro)  /jlsXXovtcov  rsXelaOaL.^''  But  to 
 return  to  Syncellus.     He  continues  thus  :  — 
 
 "  Tavra  irspl  rrfs  spjjurjvsLas  twv  vtto  tov  /3'  'Rp/juov  ^L^Xiwv 
 Xsysi, 
 
 "  Mera  Ss  ravra  koI  irspl  sOvmv  AlyvTrrtaKcov  s  sv  X'  Svva- 
 GTSLais  "  [and  elsewhere  he  ascribes  to  "  Manetho,"  meaning 
 no  doubt  the  same  work,  the  exhibition  also  of  the  cxiii  ge- 
 nerations of  the  Chronicle],  "  TcovXeyo/xsvayv  Trap*  avrots  ©eojj/, 
 KoX  'HfjiiOscov,  Kal  Ns/cuojv,  Koi  (dvr]T(t)v'^  [the  Jive  are  probably 
 Ssoov,  'H/jllOscov,  ^AspLTCov,  MsaTpalcov,  Kal  AlyvTrrloyii],  "  wu 
 Kal  Ya\j(7£(3los  6  Ila/ju<f)iXov  jJLvqadiiS  su  roh  ^povLKols  avrov 
 
 "  AlyviTTLOL  Be  Oscov  Kal  rj/xidscov  Kal  irapd  tovtovs  koi 
 VSKVCDV  xal  OvrjTcbv  sTspcov  l^aaiXsoav  iroKXrjv  Kal  (f>Xvapop 
 crvvsipovcTL  fjuvOoXoyiav,  Ol  yap  iraXaLoraroL  (TsXrjViaiovs  scpa- 
 aav  alvai  tov9  sviavTovs  rj/juspcov  X^  avvsarMras '  ol  hs  fierd 
 TOVTOVS  copovs  sKdXovv  Tovs  EVtuvTovs  TpifjLTjvtalovs '^^  [rsTpa- 
 fjLrjVLaiovs  it  was  in  the  original  source,  viz.  Diodorus  Siculus, 
 and  so  also  St.  Augustine  has  rightly  copied  it ;  and  so  no 
 doubt  Anianus  too  understood  it ;  though  this  assertion  was 
 probably  only  made  in  conversation  to  Diodorus  and  for  a 
 purpose  explained  above  at  p.  628.] 
 
 Kal  Tama  fjuzv  6  'Evas^ios,  [JbS[jL(^6fjisvos  avTols  Trjs  (j)Xva- 
 pia9f  svX6ya)9  avvsypayfrsu,  ov  6  UauoBcopos  "  [so  Syncellus's 
 knowledge  of  the  Manetho  of  the  Book  of  Sothis  is  directly 
 from  PanodoruSf  and  only  indirectly  and  through  Panodorus 
 from  Anianus]  "  ov  KaXcos,  coy  olfxaL,  sv  tovtw  /jLsp,(j)STaL, 
 Xsycov,  OTL  rjiToprjas  htaXvaaaOai  Tr)v  svvoiav  twv  avyy pacpscov, 
 7JU  aVTOS  KaiVOTSpOV  TL  SoKwv  KaTopOovv  XsyzL' 
 
 'ETTStS^  dirb  TTj?  TOV  ^ABd/LL  irXdasws  seas  tov  'Evw;^,  rjroL 
 TOV  KaOoXiKov  KoafjbLKov  stovs  acFirj^'^''  (Bunsen  from  the  Book 
 of  Enoch  would  read   clo-k^' ,  but  the  sum  to  the  birth  of 
 
862 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Methuselah  in  the  LXX  is  1287  which  requires  ao-7rf ),  "  ovrs 
 fxrivos  ovTS  sviavTOV  apiO/JLOs  rj/jLSpcov  iyvcopi^sTO,  ol  Bh  ^Eypy^yopot 
 KarakOovTSs  sttI  tov  KaOoKtfcov  Koa/xLKov  ')(^i\iOGTov  stovs  "  [else- 
 where y^Ckioa-TM  iTSvrrjKoaTW  ojBorp  srst  tov  Koafiov  KaTrjXOov  ol 
 'Eyp7]yopoL,Kal  SujpKsaavivTfj  irapa/SdaSL  sco9  tov  KaTaKkvcrpuov'^'' 
 and  Enoch  was  horn  after  A.3i.  1122]  ^'  avvavaaTpa(f)£UTS9  Toh 
 avOpwiTOLS  iBiSa^av  avTOVs  tovs  kvkXov9  tcov  Bvo  <f>co(TT^pa)P 
 ScoSsKa^coSlovs  sivai  sk  fiolpcov  t^'  '  ol  Bs  airoj^Xsy^avTSS  sis  T7)v 
 
 TTSpLySLOTSpOV,  [JLLKpOTSpOV,  KOl   SvBrfkOTSpOV   TpiaKOv6r)IJL£pOV  aS" 
 
 XrjVLaKov  kvkXov  idsainaav  sh  sviavTov  apiOfMstaOaL  Bia  to  Kal 
 TOV  TOV  rfkiov  kvkKov  sv  rot?  avTols  t,(johloL9  irXr^povaOai  iv 
 laapldpbOLS  pbolpais  t^  '  "OOev  avvs/Sr}  tcls  /SaaiXslas  twv 
 Trap'  avT0L9  /SaaLXsvadvTcov  Sscjv  ysvscov  t  /^vvaaTsiais  r 
 KaT  ST7]  iv  asXrjVLaKols  TpiaKov6r)p.spOL9  kvkXols  irap  avToh 
 dpiOfJisla-Oai'  a  koL  avvrj^av  aeXrjVLa  aa^^TTS ,  ettj  rjXiaKa  ^^6''^^ 
 [969.  But  read  aa^irS',  that  is,  11,984  years].  What 
 Panodorus  here  says  is  true  generally,  as  for  instance  of  the 
 first  1058  years,  which  are  reduced  from  1058  x  12  =  12,696 
 months  of  30  days  each ;  and  it  is  true  of  the  534  years 
 between  the  Flood  and  the  Dispersion,  which  are  reduced 
 from  534  x  12  =  6408  months  of  30  days  each  ;  and  in  like 
 manner  of  the  214^  years  of  the  ix  Demigods  next  preced- 
 ing the  Flood  which  are  reduced  from  2574  months  of  30 
 days  each.  But  of  this  one  sum  of  the  vi  Gods  and  their 
 968  full  years  and  208  days,  and  of  this  alone,  it  is  not  true 
 that  it  is  obtained  by  reduction  from  12  times  as  many 
 months  of  30  days  each.  Nor  are  these  years  of  360  days. 
 But  they  are  years  to  each  of  which  the  5  epagomence  are 
 apportioned  separately  and  deducted  from  the  month-years 
 composing  them ;  and  the  months  themselves  are  not  months 
 of  30  but  of  291-  days  only;  all  which  has  been  already 
 stated  and  reasoned  upon  above.  The  reader  may  notice  how 
 it  incidentally  appears  here  also  that  this  scheme  exhibited 
 tlie  cxiii  generations,  and  made  each  of  the  Ti  Gods  to  be  a 
 dynasty  by  himself,  as  was  the  case  in  the  Chronicle.  Syn- 
 cellus  continues,  and  says  of  the  969  solar  years,  — 
 
 lama  hs  (TVvapiOfjioviJLZva  Toh  irpo  Trjs  tovtcov  ^aaCXsLas 
 rfKiaicols  ^avr)  STeau  avvdyovac  ojJbdBa  stcov  (2027). 
 
 '0/XolcoS    Bs    KaTCL    TCLS    jS'    \_6'~\    BwaCTTSlaS    TCOV    rjfliOicDV  TCOV 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCBLLUS. 
 
 863 
 
 fjL7)Ba7roTS  ysyovoraw  o)9  ysyovorcov  stt]  aih'  kuI  ij/jLiau  (214^) 
 aTTOvSd^SL  avviarav  utto  avrj  (1058)  a}po}v  t^tol  rpoircov,  (hs 
 ylvsaQai,  (j^WL,  aijv  ^^6'  (969)  apvy'  [11534,  but  969  +214^ 
 make  1183^;  so  we  must  read  apiry']  Kal  rjfxtav  sttj,  koI 
 avvaTTTO/jbSva  T0t9  diro  '  ASdfM  fisXP''  '^^^  '^^'^^  ^ewv  fSaaiXslas 
 avri  (1058)  srscTL  avvdyetv  sTrj  fia(jL^  (1058  +  969  +  215  = 
 2242)  lojs  Tov  KaraKXva/xov.^^ 
 
 And  again  Syncellus  writes  :  —  "  MavsOco  6  ^sSsvvvttjs 
 rypd(j)£L  Tw  avrS  TlToXspualw  'y^£vhr]yop(xiV  kol  avros,  &)y  6  Vnrj- 
 pwaaos,  TTSpl  AvvaarscMV  ^'  rjrot  Oswv  tmp  /jLrjSETrors  ysyovorcov 
 f  [$:']  a)V  a  (pTjai  d£09'^}l(f)ataT09  srrj  6  (9000)  i/SaalXsvorsv. 
 Tavra  rd  6  hr]  ttuXlv  tlvss  tcov  KaO'  rjyMS  IcrropiKcov  "  (that  is, 
 Anianus  and  Panodorus)  "  dvrl  /jltjvIov  asXrjvLaKcbv  Xoyiad- 
 fisvoL,  Kal  pLSpiaavTSS'  to  tcov  r^fispoiv  7rXrj9o9  tcov  avTcov  & 
 o-sXrjvicov  irapd  ray  t^s  rj/xspas  tov  sriavTov  "  [this  is  right, 
 only  the  months  whose  days  were  so  divided  by  365  days 
 were  months  of  only  29J  days]  avvrj^av  stt]  -v/r/c^'S'"  [727 
 years  and  145  days]  ^svov  tl  Bokovvtss  KaTcopOcoKsvai,  yskolov 
 he  fjbaXkov  sIttslv  d^tov  to  a^su^s?  ttj  oXtjOslcl  avfi^i^d^ovTSs.^^ 
 
 The  scheme  of  Anianus  thus  far  described  is  exhibited  or 
 indicated  also  by  Syncellus  in  mj^uy  of  its  details,  which 
 shall  be  put  together  with  some  verbal  supplements.  And 
 first  in  this  place  for  the  antediluviaji  world :  — 
 
 IIpo  TOV  KaTaKXvapov, 
 
 [iTpwror  KarapiQiiovvTai  trj;   a/iaatXfura    a%>i]'  iao^vvaiiovvra  (rfXtjvioig 
 TpiuKovOtjixepoiQ  ,«/3x^-' '  i-  e.  First,  there  were  1050  years  before  the 
 institution  of  monarchy,  equal  to  12,696  months  of  30  days  each.] 
 ^    (Dyn*  !•  Gren.  i.)     Awaareia  a',  yevea  ci.    AiyvTTTiojv  a  liSaaiXsvaev 
 "H(pai(TroQ  6TT]  [_Kai  ifn'fpnQ  p/it']  i(yocvvajxovvra  a(\i)vioiQ  fi'    that  is, 
 
 Phthah  reigned  727  years  of  365  days  each,  so  put  in  full  years  for  727 
 with  145  days  over,  obtained  from  9000  nominal  years  of  the  Chronicle 
 treated  as  lunations  of  29^  days  each. 
 
 (Dyn,  II.  Gen.  ii.)  Awaa-tia  j3\  ytved  /3'.  Aiyv-Tiwv  /3'  l^ncriXev^tv 
 "RXiog  'RpaicTTOV  trti  tt'  [_Ka(  tjjxspag  pny'l  laodvvafiovvTa  aiXiji'ioig  ^^c\  Ha, 
 son  of  Phthah,  reigned  80  years  and  123  days  obtained  as  if  from  994 
 lunations. 
 
 (Dyn.  III.  Gen.  iii.)  AwacfT^ia  y',  ytvta  y'.  AiyvTrTuov  y'  i^iaaiXevaiv 
 ' Ay af.  o^aifiior  trt]  vt'  [cat  r/fispag  cr^b'']  iaol,vrayovvra  (ytXr]vioig  xi^'i-  -^gf^' 
 thodcemon  reigned  56  years  [and  269  dayg]  obtained  as  if  from  698 
 lunations, 
 
 (Dyn.  IV.  Gen.  iv.)     Avva(JrHa  o',  ytvio.  AlyvrcTuov  c  ijSacriXevaf 
 
 Kpovog  err}  fi  ffcai  nixkpac  ^n']  laodwafiovvra  (7BXr]vloig  v^>]'.  Cronus  reigned 
 40  years  [and  91  days]  obtained  as  if  from  498  lunations. 
 
864 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 (Dyn.  V.  Gen.  V,)  AwaarEia  t\  ytj/fd  t',  AiyvirTiujv  tjSaaiXfVffev 
 'Oaipig  KOI  ^l<TiQ  err]  \/  [«fa«  ijfikpaQ  Kyf~\  taolvvanovvTa  afXrjvioig  vXd^.  Osiris 
 and  Isis  reigned  35  years  [and  28  days]  obtained  as  if  from  434  lu- 
 nations. 
 
 (Dyn.  VI.  Gen.  vi.)  Avj/acrrfia  yfi'id  <r''.  AiyvTrriojv  t''  tjSatriXevat 
 Tv^wj/  tTij  Kri'  [/cai  Tj/Jifpag  Xf']  IffoSwofiovvra  (Tf\r]vioig  rif .  Typhon  reigned 
 29  years  [and  35  days]  obtained  as  if  from  360  lunations. 
 
 Ojiov  err]  ruiv  Gfo/v  /^^o''  [/^ii/  Kcii  I'ni'tpni  ai{\  iaoCvimpovvTa  atXrjvioig 
 aa/^TTo.  Sum  of  the  years  of  the  vi  Gods  [968  and  208  days,  reckoned 
 as]  969,  obtained  from  11,984  of  the  years  of  the  Chronicle  treated  as 
 lunations  of  29^  days  each.  Below  the  years  of  the  Chronicle  are 
 treated  as  Egyptian  months  of  30  days  each,  which  Anianus  pretended 
 ■were  reckoned  in  groups  of  4  each  as  seasons,  but  as  numbered  in  the 
 Chronicle  are  reduced  by  him  to  years  by  simply  dividing  by  12. 
 
 (Dyn.  VII.  Gen.  vii.)  AiyvTr-iuJv  ^'  iiiaa'iXfvaiv  'Qpog  rip.i6tog  trt]  xre' 
 \_Kai  ixT]vag  t'?]  l(To^vvaiJ.ovpTa  ojpolg  o<r'  /cat  I'lpfpaig  |'  ijToi  atXr]viaioig  rpia- 
 Kovor/fxspoig  tviavrouj  tt'.  Horus  the  Demigod  reigned  25  years  and  6 
 months,  reduced  as  if  from  76|  seasons  or  306  lunar  years  so  called, 
 being  months  of  30  days  each. 
 
 (Dyn.  VIII.  Gen.  viii.)  AiyvTrrUov  rj'  ijSacriXtvaev  "Aprjg  iifiWtog  trrj 
 Ky''  [_i(7odvvafjiovi^ra  Mpolg  l-,Q'  ijroi  atXj]viaioig  TpiaKOvQi]fikpoiQ  iviavroig 
 (Tor'.  Ares  reigned  23  years,  reduced  as  if  from  69  seasons  or  276 
 months.] 
 
 (Dyn.  IX.  Gen.  ix.)  A/yu7rrtwj/  G'  IfSaaiXsvasv  'AvovlStg  ijniOtog  trrj 
 iZ,' '  \_iao^vvap.ouvTa  topoig  va'  yToi  aeXijviaioig  rpiaKovGrjuspoig  iviavroig  ao. 
 Amibis  reigned  17  years,  reduced  as  if  from  51  seasons  or  204  months.] 
 
 (Dyn.  X.  Gen.  X.)  Al^VTrrioiv  /  li^aaiXtvatv  'HpaKXijg  ijn'iOeog  trrj  u  . 
 [_i(yoSvvaixovvra  cjpolg  jxt  yroi  atXrjviaioig  rpiaKovGjj^epoig  tviavrolg  pir'. 
 Heracles  reigned  15  years,  reduced  as  if  from  45  seasons  or  180  months.] 
 
 (Dyn.  XI.  Gen.  xi.)  Alyv.nriujv  la  ft^arriXevufv  \\7roX\u)V  j']i.ii9Eog  Ke  ' 
 [^iaodvvctfiovpra  ojpolg  oe  r/roL  (TtXrjviaioig  rpiaKOv9i]p.kpoic  iviavroig  r' .  Apollo 
 reigned  25  years,  reduced  as  if  from  75  seasons  or  300  months.] 
 
 (Dyn.  XII.  Gen.  xii.)  Aiyvirr'nov  ij3'  ifSamXtvaev  "Ahhojv  ijixiOeog  err) 
 X'  *  [_i(7oCvvapovvra  wpolg  i/roi  a{Xr]via'ioig  rpiuKOvQ rjixipoig  iviavroig  r^'. 
 Ammon  reigned  30  years,  reduced  as  if  from  90  seasons  or  360  months.] 
 
 (Dyn.  XIII.  Gen.  xiii.)  Ai'yvTr-twv  ly'  i^aaiXivat  'TiOiotjg  ripiOtog  irrj  k'C 
 [_i(TodvvafXovvra  u}poig  rra'  t'itvl  aeXrjvudoig  rpiaKovdiJuepoig  tviavro'ig  rxd'. 
 Tithoes  reigned  27  years,  reduced  as  if  from  81  seasons  or  324  months.] 
 
 (Dyn.  XIV.  Gen.  xiv.)  Aiyvirr'nuv  id'  ijSadiXfvas  ^uxrog  tjfiiOtog  Irr}  Xf3' 
 l^iaocvvapovvra  wpcng  ^t'  7/roi  aeXr^via'ioig  rpiaKovOrjixipoig  iviavroig  ttto, 
 Sosus  reigned  32  years,  reduced  as  if  from  96  seasons  or  384  months.] 
 
 (Dyn.  XV.  Gen.  XV.)  klyv-r'nov  a  ijSaaiXtvde  Zevg  rjn'iGfog  errj  k' 
 [^laoSwafiovvra  wpolg  ^'  r/roi  c/tXr/viaioig  rpiaKovQi^ikpoig  iviavroig  (Xfi.  ZeUS 
 reigned  20  years,  reduced  a;j  if  from  60  seasons  or  240  months.] 
 
 'OpLOv  Irr]  Tuiv  6'  'H^iOiaiv  aic'iS'  [^iao^vva/jiouvra  ojpolg  xfxy'  Ka'i  rjfiipaig  ^' 
 7/roi  (jeXijvtaioig  rpiaKovGr]f.i'^poig  iviavroig  ,Q(poh' .  Sum  of  the  reigns  of  the 
 IX  Demigods  214^^  years,  reduced  as  if  from  643^  seasons  or  2574 
 months.] 
 
 Ta  TTcivra  o/jlov  err]  ra  re  javi]'  ajSaaiXevra,  Kai  ra  /^^O'  rojv  <r'  QeCjv,  Kai  rd 
 oi/  Twv  6'  'H^iQsojv  avvapiOp  cvfjieva  /i(Tfij3\  icrocvvnfxovvra  ereai  rov  J^lavtBCj 
 ^'C(Tvd'.     Total  sum  hithert.)  1058-1-969  +  215=2242  years,  as  if  reduced 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS. 
 
 865 
 
 from  (12,690  +  11,984+2574=)  27,254  of  tbe  36,525  years  of  -'Manetlio," 
 that  is,  really  of  the  Old  Chronicle. 
 
 In  making  each  of  his  vi  Gods  and  of  his  ix  Demigods  to 
 be  by  himself  a  dynasty  as  well  as  a  generation  the  author  of 
 the  Book  of  Sothis  departed  again  from  Manetho  (whom  he 
 had  rather  followed  in  giving  to  Phthah  a  reign  in  time) 
 and  returned  to  the  Chronicle  ;  yet  without  exactly  follow- 
 ing it.  For  though  in  both  schemes  there  were  just  xv 
 divine  dynasties,  these  in  the  Chronicle  made  (i  +  xiii  +  viii=  ) 
 xxii  of  the  cxiii  generations,  xiv  being  constituted  by  as 
 many  single  Gods,  each  in  himself  a  dynasty,  while  all  the 
 VIII  Demigods  together,  though  viii  generations,  made  only 
 one  dynasty,  the  Fifteenth.  And  after  these  xxii  genera- 
 tions there  were  added  xv  other  generations  which  made  no 
 dynasty,  and  which,  being  only  vehicles  for  years  trans- 
 posed from  between  B.C.  305  and  a.d.  139,  had  no  true 
 place  in  the  consecutive  series  of  human  generations  dedu- 
 cible  from  Adam  to  Nectanebo.  So  in  the  Chronicle  (xxii  + 
 XV  =  )  xxxvii  of  the  cxiii  generations  were  already  accounted 
 for  before  coming  to  Menes  and  the  kings  who  commenced 
 with  its  Dynasty  XVI.  But  in  the  scheme  of  Anianus, 
 whether  it  were  that  he  did  not  know  how  to  name  all  the 
 XII  Gods  the  descendants  of  Cronus  in  the  Chronicle,  or  for 
 some  other  reason,  tlie  vii  Gods  of  IManetho's  Dyn.  I,  and 
 VIII  other  names  of  deities  which  he  either  found  named 
 somewhere,  or  perhaps  named  himself,  as  answering  to  the 
 VIII  Demigods  of  the  Chronicle,  were  made  each  of  them 
 into  a  dynasty  and  a  generation;  so  that,  after  the  exhi- 
 bition of  these  (vii  +  viii  or  vi  +  ix  =  )xv  dynasties  and  gene- 
 rations for  the  old  world,  there  remained  not  only  (cxiii  — 
 xxxvii  =  )  Ixxvi,  but  (cxiii  — xv  =  )  xcviii  generations  (as 
 the  full  number  of  cxiii,  though  really  too  many  by  xv, 
 was  retained)  for  the  xv  dynasties  of  kings  in  the  postdilu- 
 vian world.  And,  further,  the  chronological  —  one  might 
 almost  say  the  true  historical  —  character  of  the  generations 
 of  the  Chronicle  (for  its  xv  generations  of  the  Cycle  "  go 
 with  their  443  years)  was  destroyed  or  impaired  not  only 
 by  the  improper  retention  of  the  xv  generations  "  of  the 
 Cycle,"  though  their  443  years  were  omitted  or  put  down  to 
 
 3  K 
 
866 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 their  true  place,  but  also  by  tlie  exclusion  of  1058  years  at 
 t\\e  head  of  the  old  world  and  of  (534  +  72  =  )  606  at  the 
 head  of  the  present  world  from  the  time  covered  by  the 
 cxiii  generations. 
 
 It  may  be  objected  indeed  that  our  correction  of  Syncel- 
 lus's  express  mention  of  "  the  two  dynasties  (tojv  fi'  hvva- 
 (TTSLcov)  of  the  IX  Demigods"  into  m?iey  as  if  he  had  written 
 0'  not  yS'j  or  as  if  he  had  been  confusing  the  two  dynasties 
 of  Demigods  which  he  might  fancy,  though  erroneously, 
 were  made  by  the  original  Manetho  as  quoted  for  reduction 
 in  the  Manetho  of  Ptolemy  and  Africanus,  is  arbitrary  ;  and 
 that  though  it  be  granted  that  Syncellus  says  there  were 
 XXX  dynasties,  and  connects  Menes  and  his  first  succes- 
 sors with  "  Dyn.  XYI  of  what  is  called  the  Cynic  Cycle," 
 still  the  seven  dynasties  wanting  between  the  "  two  dynas- 
 ties of  the  Demigods"  and  Dyn.  XYI  may  be  understood 
 to  have  belonged  to  those  "  Manes  and  other  kings,"  v/ho 
 are  also  mentioned  by  Syncellus,  and  who  may  occupy  the 
 space  between  the  Flood  and  Menes;  or  they  may  even  be 
 looked  for  in  those  first  vii  dynasties  of  kings  of  the  original 
 Manetho  which  are  omitted  in  the  scheme  of  the  Book  of 
 Sothis  and  in  the  list  of  Syncellus  himself.  For  these,  on 
 the  principle  laid  down  by  Africanus,  might  be  supposed  to 
 have  been  contemporary  with  the  earlier  kings  whose 
 names  are  given.  But  when  we  consider  how  distinctly 
 Anianus  reckons  the  1058  hrj  ajSaalXsvTa  before  the  Flood, 
 and  again  after  the  Flood  not  only  the  534  to  the  Dis- 
 persion but  also  72  of  Mizraim  himself  in  Egypt  (though 
 Syncellus  has  transposed  these  and  has  filled  them  up  at 
 some  interval  below  his  Menes-Mizraim  with  two  reigns  of 
 anonymous  kings),  distinguishing  the  antediluvian  patriarchs 
 Adam  and  Seth  above,  and  the  postdiluvian  patriarchs  and 
 Mizraim  the  settler  of  Egypt  below,  from  the  kin^s  and 
 dynasties  which  in  each  case  followed,  it  seems  probable 
 that  the  scheme  of  Anianus  was  consistent  with  itself, 
 and  that  after  no  less  than  before  the  Flood  the  time  of 
 patriarchal  rule,  before  monarchy  arose,  was  excluded  from 
 its  cxiii  generations  and  from  its  xxx  dynasties.  And  in 
 making  xv  dynasties  of  individual  dynasts  before  the  Flood 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  867 
 
 it  would  follow  very  nearly  tlie  Chronicle  which  had  xiv  such 
 dynasties,  its  Dyn.  XV  being  composed  of  the  Demigods  col- 
 lectively. As  for  Syncellus's  mention  of  "  Manes  and  other 
 kings,"  there  is  no  difficulty  in  this,  as  in  a  number  of  other 
 places  there  are  plain  signs  of  confusion  caused  by  three  or 
 four  distinct  schemes  all  going  under  the  same  name  of 
 Manetho,  and  all  really,  in  some  sense,  re-editions  of  the 
 chronicle  contained  in  his  work.  It  by  no  means  therefore 
 follows  that  either  the  Book  of  Sothis,  or  even  the  Manetho  of 
 Ptolemy  of  Mendes  and  Africanus,  gave  any  dynasties  to 
 Manes  because  Syncellus  in  passages  which  refer  to  those 
 schemes  mixes  up  the  mention  of  Manes,  any  more  than  it 
 follows  that  the  original  Manetho  made  in  all  xxxi  dynasties, 
 or  that  he  made  xxx  dynasties  all  of  Mngs,  or  that  the 
 Manetho  of  Africanus  made  in  all  only  xxx  dynasties, 
 because  Syncellus  may  speak  here  and  there  as  if  such  were 
 the  case. 
 
 It  appears  from  a  passage  in  Syncellus  that  the  author 
 of  this  Egyptian  scheme  —  that  is,  probably,  Anianus  him- 
 self—  made  a  similar  reduction  of  the  still  more  vast 
 periods  assigned  by  Berosus  for  the  early  times  of  the  Baby- 
 lonians or  Assyrians,  and  that  Anianus  blamed  Eusebius 
 there  also  for  not  having  seen  that  they  would  reduce  so  as  to 
 agree  with  the  scriptural  and  true  chronology  of  the  world. 
 "Alexander  Polyhistor"  (Syncellus  writes  at  p.  78  of  his 
 chronography)  "  pretends  that  with  this  year  a.m.  2405  the 
 monarchy  of  the  Chaldaaans  recommenced  after  the  Flood, 
 and  he  has  a  fabulous  enumeration  of  sari,  and  neri,  and 
 sossi,  saying  that  Ixxxvi  Chaldoean  and  Median  kings  reigned 
 34,090  years,  that  is,  ix  sari,  ii  neri,  and  viii  sossi,  which 
 some  of  our  Ecclesiastical  historians  —  not  showing  their 
 good  sense  thereby  —  have  taken  to  be  equivalent  to  94 
 solar  years  and  8  months,  which  as  they  say  come  down  to 
 A.M.  2499,"  that  is  (2498-2258  =  )  240  years  below  Bero- 
 sus's,  or  (2498-2242  =  )  256  below  Anianus's  own  date  for 
 the  Flood,  but  (2776-2498  =  )  278  short  of  Anianus's  date 
 for  the  Dispersion.  Syncellus  continues,  "  And  from  this 
 time,  after,  that  is,  the  Ixxxvi  kings,  of  whom  ii  were  Chal- 
 daeans  and  Ixxxiv  Medes,  the  same  Polyhistor  introduces 
 
 3  K  2 
 
868 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CimONICLES. 
 
 Zoroaster  and  ix  other  Chaldaean  kings  who  succeeded  him 
 as  reigning  190  solar  years  ;  and  for  these  he  has  no  longer 
 the  same  nonsense  of  sari,  neri,  and  sossi,  but  says  plainly 
 that  they  reigned  so  many  [solar]  years." 
 
 No  doubt  both  the  reductions  alluded  to  by  Syncellus, 
 that  of  the  Babylonian  sums  (which  seem  however  to  be 
 incompletely  stated)  and  that  of  the  Egyptian,  were  by  one 
 and  the  same  author,  and  were  made  to  suit  one  and  the 
 same  system  of  sacred  chronology ;  and  while  in  that  place 
 where  Syncellus  quotes  at  length  from  Panodorus,  without 
 naming  Anianus,  an  explanation  of  the  reduction  of  the 
 Egyptian  sums  it  appears  nevertheless  that  Panodorus  was 
 only  following,  and  to  some  extent  misunderstanding  and 
 misrepresenting  Anianus,  the  reduction  of  the  Babylonian 
 sum  of  days  is  in  a  separate  passage  expressly  ascribed  to 
 Anianus. 
 
 Anianus's  sum  of  534  full  years  after  the  Flood,  reduced 
 from  6408  years  of  the  Chronicle  treated  as  months,  answers 
 in  its  relative  position  to  the  time  of  the  Manes  in  the 
 scheme  of  Manetho ;  and  the  inhabitants  of  Egypt  not  indeed 
 during  these  534  years  (for  according  to  Anianus  Egypt 
 was  not  yet  settled)  but  during  the  72  years  following  them 
 may  be  the  'Asplrai,  the  third  of  the  five  Wvq  or  peoples 
 spoken  of  by  Syncellus,  though  it  is  possible  that  this  dis- 
 tribution belono;ed  rather  to  the  scheme  of  the  orio^inal 
 Manetho,  or  to  that  of  Ptolemy.  The  ^Isarpaioi  would 
 then  be  the  Egyptians  from  the  time  of  Menes  to  Kameses- 
 ^gyptus. 
 
 The  reason  for  wdiich  the  72  years  following  next  after 
 the  Dispersion  and  the  settlement  of  Egypt  were  reckoned 
 by  Anianus  together  with  the  times  of  the  monarchy 
 (though  Syncellus  has  not  understood  this)  was  no  doubt 
 that  they  might  be  kept  apart  from  all  those  preceding 
 years  which  had  been  obtained  by  reduction. 
 
 At  the  point  now  reached,  if  one  takes  the  years  as  if 
 there  had  been  no  reduction,  Anianus  has  paralleled  or 
 accounted  for  in  the  scale  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  first,  all  the 
 30,000  nominal  years  given  by  it  to  the  Sun ;  then  also  the 
 fractional  681  years  really  belonging  to  the  same  and  needed 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  STNCELLUS.  869 
 
 to  complete  the  21st  cycle;  and  the  2922  years  nominal, 
 like  the  preceding,  but  indicating  the  original  2922  full 
 years  which  were  the  sources  of  all  the  35,064  month-years 
 of  the  hieratic  scheme,  and  belonging  properly  to  Cronus 
 and  his  xii  descendants  ;  and  he  has  advanced  besides 
 (^59_j_72  =  )  131  years  into  the  341  full  but  fictitious  years 
 added  in  all  cyclical  schemes  in  order  to  make  time  seem  to 
 have  commenced  from  the  Sothic  epoch  of  B.C.  5702.  At 
 this  point  then,  72  years  below  the  Dispersion,  Anianus  places 
 the  commencement  of  the  Egyptian  monarchy,  as  is  clearly 
 shown  by  a  passage  borrowed  from  him,  however  incon- 
 sistently, by  Syncellus. 
 
 Irrespectively  of  the  (40  +  443  =  )  483  years  "of  the 
 Cycle  "  thrown  up  in  the  Chronicle,  and  tacitly  dismissed  to 
 their  true  cyclical  places  by  Anianus,  who  had  no  reason  for 
 noticing  them,  he  has  now  still  remaining  and  to  be 
 accounted  for  210  of  the  341  fictitious  years  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle, and  also  the  217  years  of  its  Demigods,  before  coming 
 to  its  dynasties  of  kings.  These  then,  being  427  years  in 
 all,  constitute  virtually  his  addition  to  the  1881  years 
 reckoned  by  the  Chronicle  from  Menes  to  Nectanebo, 
 though,  as  Nectanebo  is  made  to  lose  his  crown  15  years 
 earlier  by  Anianus  than  by  the  Chronicle,  and  the  15  years 
 so  cut  off  are  transferred  to  the  Persian  Ochus,  Anianus  in 
 appearance  adds  the  427  not  to  1881  but  to  1866  years 
 only  of  the  last  XV  dynasties  of  the  Chronicle. 
 
 To  fill  the  above  (210  +  217  =  )  427  years  Anianus  does 
 not  use  those  earlier  dynasties  of  kings,  whether  of  the 
 original  Manetho  or  of  Ptolemy,  which  had  nothing  answer- 
 ing to  them  in  the  Old  Chronicle,  nor  does  he  betake  him- 
 self to  the  Theban  list  of  Eratosthenes  and  Apollodorus, 
 w^hich  may  at  first  sight  seem  strange,  seeing  that  his  own 
 addition  to  the  times  of  the  monarchy  differed  by  only  16 
 years  from  that  made  by  Eratosthenes.  In  truth,  however, 
 even  if  he  had  had  the  list  of  Eratosthenes  before  him,  it 
 would  not  have  suited,  because  its  names  and  reigns  cover 
 all  those  years  in  which  Anianus  had  to  place  the  rule  of 
 Joseph  in  Egypt  under  the  Shepherd  Apophis  and  156 
 years  really  belonging  to  Dyn.  XYIII  of  Africanus,  while 
 
 3  K  3 
 
870 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 yet  neither  the  Shepherds  nor  any  king  of  Dyn.  XVIII 
 were  named  in  it.  What  he  does  is  merely  to  string  to- 
 gether a  number  of  names,  some  of  them  Egyptian  and  some 
 Greek,  and  even  Latin  (as  K'yjprcos  like  Certits,  i.  e.  Quartus, 
 or  Curtius),  which  are  plainly  fictitious.  And  so,  like  Afri- 
 canus,  he  virtually  leaves  all  such  dynasties  of  Manetho  or 
 Ptolemy  as  may  have  had  an  historical  though  only  con- 
 temporary existence  to  be  understood  together  with  the 
 earlier  of  the  xv  sovereign  dynasties  of  kings  given  by  the 
 Chronicle,  and  to  be  harmonised  and  arranged  synchronis- 
 tically with  them  for  himself  by  any  one  who  pleases  and 
 is  able,  Anianus  not  pretending  to  be  qualified  to  under- 
 take any  such  task. 
 
 But  though  the  427  years,  as  has  been  said,  were  really 
 210  of  them  the  last  210  of  the  341  fictitious  years  of  the 
 Chronicle  added  by  it  in  one  sum  to  the  years  of  its  xiii 
 Gods,  and  the  other  217  the  217  of  its  viii  Demigods,  and 
 Anianus  omitted  or  put  down  to  their  true  place  the  483 
 years  of  the  Cycle,  he  preferred  to  appear  to  omit  other 
 years,  and  retained  here  from  the  Chronicle  the  designation 
 of  "  years  of  the  Cynic  Cycle."  For  he  had  found  it  con- 
 venient to  place  a  number  of  215  years  scarcely  differing 
 from  the  217  of  the  Chronicle  with  its  designation  of  Demi- 
 gods (only  making  ix  instead  of  viii)  before  the  Flood ;  and 
 now,  though  the  number  443  could  not  be  exhibited  by 
 him,  those  years  "  of  the  Cycle  "  in  the  Chronicle  presented 
 themselves  to  him  in  a  convenient  form  in  this  respect,  that 
 they  were  divided  into  "  xv  generations,"  while  yet  they 
 were  unattached,  having  no  kings,  nor  belonging  to  any 
 dynasty,  so  that  he  might  easily  fill  them  up  with  names, 
 and  unite  them  (as  had  been  done  also  in  the  scheme  of 
 Eratosthenes)  with  Dyn.  XVI  of  the  Chronicle. 
 
 So  Anianus  made  his  own  Dyn.  XVI  to  consist  of  the 
 427  years  above-mentioned  (as  if  they  represented  the  443 
 named  "  of  the  Cycle  "  in  the  Chronicle),  uniting  with  them 
 the  190  of  Dyn.  XVI  of  the  Chronicle  and  11  more  really 
 belonging  to  its  Dyn.  XVII,  which  made  in  all  628  years  ; 
 and  these  taken  together  with  the  72  stt]  a/SaalXsvTa  of 
 Mizraim  and  perhaps  other  fathers  after  him  completed  a  sum 
 
ANIAKUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  871 
 
 of  700  years  from  the  Dispersion.  His  first  628  years  of  kings 
 Anianus  distributed  to  xv  reigns  or  generations,  answering 
 to  the  XV  of  the  443  years  of  the  Cycle,  and  to  other  viii 
 answering  to  the  vili  generations  of  Dyn.  XYI  of  the 
 Chronicle.  And  the  whole  compound  of  628  years  in  xxiii 
 generations  he  named  "  Dyn.  XVI  of  what  is  called  the 
 Cynic  Cycle." 
 
 But  the  72  years  of  Mizraim  with  the  628  of Dyn.  XVI 
 of  the  Cynic  Cycle  "  make  a  sum  of  700  years  not  obtained 
 by  reduction,  but  parallel  to  as  many  full  years  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle, commencing  from  the  Dispersion  and  the  last  of  the 
 reduced  years,  and  ending  9  years  above  that  chronological 
 point  at  which  Eusebius  fixed  the  birth  of  Abraham,  and 
 from  which  he  begins  his  Canon,  Anianus  having  now  made 
 (2776  +  700  =  )  3476  years  of  the  world  to  the  end  of  the 
 4th  of  Jacob  instead  of  the  (3184  +  164  =  )  3348  of  Euse- 
 bius, that  is,  having  made  128  more  than  Eusebius,  but 
 making  downwards  from  this  point  to  the  end  of  the  43rd  of 
 Augustus  2025  years,  while  Eusebius  makes  (2016  —  164  =  ) 
 1852,  or  173  years  fewer.  So  the  whole  difference  between 
 their  reckonino-s  to  the  end  of  the  43rd  of  Auo-ustus  in  a.d.  1  is 
 (128  +  173  =  )  301  years.  For  the  postdiluvian  world  the  list 
 of  Anianus  may  be  made  out  from  Syncellus  as  follows  :  — 
 
 [Mtrd  TOP  KaraK\vGn6v 
 
 Tip  tTti  Tov  Koc^ov  (i.  6.  oftev  A.M.  2776  complete),  utra  riv  kc;- 
 
 ruKKvai-ibv  treat  ip\d\  irpiLrng  o'lK^aac  \j^Ki}(7t  yita~ptujji~\  Ti\v  dir  avrov  vva- 
 fia^of.iev>iv^  Mfffrpaiav  xiopav  Inai  7rp6  Tijg  Karaarc'iatiug  iSaaiXtiwv  cjS'  ' 
 That  is,  "After  a.  m.  2776  Mizraim  first  settled  Egypt,  called  from  him 
 3Iisr^  534  years  after  the  Flood,  and  72  years  before  the  establishment 
 of  kingdotns.    After  these  72  years,"  Merd  ravra  to.  oj3'  cr?/, 
 
 [_Av}'a(7Teia  I2T'  rov  ILvvikuv  Xtyoi.di'OV  KvkXov,  yfvtwj/  Ky''  Dyn.  XVI 
 of  the  Cynic  Cycle,  with  (xv+viii=)  xxiii  generations.] 
 
 a.  (Gen.  xvi.)  Tiputrog  it3a(Ti\tvatu  iv  Aiyvvrri^  },\{]in]i;  Itt]  \t .  MeueSy 
 A.M.  2848  +  35=2883. 
 
 (Gen.  xvii.)    Koupwo/t;       ?y'-    CwrofZe*,  a  m.  2883  +  63=2946. 
 
 /.  (Gen.  xviii.)  ^ Xpia-apxog  t-ij  '  Aristarchus,  a.m.  2946  +  34= 
 2980.  This  and  other  names  are  meant  to  appear  as  if  translated  from 
 the  Egyptian,  like  the  glosses  in  the  list  of  Eratosthenes. 
 
 (Gen.  xix.)    liTvciviog  tr)}  X^'    Spanius,  A.i^i.  2980  f  36=3016. 
 
 f'.  (Gen.  XX.)  Hdpa-ig  Ky' '  Serapis,  a.m.  3016  +  23=3039. 
 Thus  it  is  hinted  that  the  deity  Serapis,  so  prominent  in  the  last  times 
 of  Egyptian  historj^,  had  been  an  early  king.  Before  this  name  Syn- 
 cellus in  his  own  list  interpolates  two  aiiGnymous  kings  with  72  yeais 
 
 3  K  4 
 
872 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 between  tlicm  instead  of  the  72  tn]  df^aaiXevra  suppressed  by  his  identi- 
 fication of  INIizraim  with  Menes.  Perhaps  he  did  not  understand  why 
 the  72  years  should  be  prefixed  and  as  it  were  united  to  the  series  of 
 the  kings  if  they  did  not  belong  to  it. 
 
 t'.  (Gen.  xxi.)  Sfdoyxwo-tg  err]  fx6' '  Sesonchosis,  A.m.  3039+49= 
 3088.  This  king  is  meant  to  answer  to  the  very  early  Sesonchosis  or 
 Sesostris  of  Dicsearchus.    His  years  are  from  the  reign  of  Sesortasen  I. 
 
 (Gen.  xxii.)  'An(i4fxt]g  err]  kO''  Amejiemes,  A.m.  3088+29=3117. 
 The  name  is  taken  like  the  last  from  Dyn.  XII  of  Africanus. 
 
 T)'.  (Gen.  xxiii.)  "AfiacTi^'irrjl^''  Jmrt.^w,  A.  m.  3117+2=31 19.  From 
 Dyn.  XVIII  or  XXVI,  or  from  Diodorus. 
 
 d'.  (Gen.  xxiv.)    'AKtasipOp^g  trr)  ly' '    Akesephth^es,  A.  M.  3l\9-\-lS=- 
 3132. 
 
 I.  (Gen.  xxv.)  'Ayx^'^P^^Q  srriO''  Anchoreus,  a.m.  3132  +  9=3141. 
 This  is  probably  meant  for  Uchoreus,  Diodorus's  founder  of  Thebes. 
 Pliny  too  has  the  similar  name  Nunchoreus. 
 
 la.  (Gen.  xxvi.)  'Apfiiurn^g  'irrj  d''  A7'maise.%  a.m.  3141  +  4=3145, 
 From  Dyn.  XVIII,  where  Arrnais  has  the  same  reign  of  4  years. 
 
 t,3'.  (Gen.  xxvii.)  Xa/toig  Irr}  t/3'-  Chamois,  a.m.  3145  +  12=3157.  The 
 name  may  be  from  Ham  or  Khem,  or  from  Psammous  of  Dyn.  XXVI. 
 
 ty'.  (Gen.  xxviii.)  MiafiovQ  err]  id''  Miammous,  from  Dyn.  XVIII, 
 a.m.  3157  +  14  =  3171. 
 
 i6'.  (Gen.  xxix.)  'Anfatjcrig  t'rii  '^t  '  Q\i]iQ.v  Amesses^  ov  Armesses,  from 
 Dyn.  XVIII,  the  reign  being  from  Armesses  Miammous^''  a.m.  3171 
 +  65=3236. 
 
 u\  (Gen.  XXX.)  Ovc^nQ  (Ttj  v'  Ouses,  a.m.  3236+50=3286. 
 These  XY  names  and  generations  are  feigned  to  answer 
 to  the  XY  generations  of  the  Cynic  Cycle  in  the  Old  Chro- 
 nicle, though  instead  of  443  they  have  only  438  years.  And 
 of  those  438  which  they  have  none  really  answer-  to  the  443 
 years  belonging  in  the  Chronicle  to  the  "  XY  generations  of 
 the  Cycle,"  but  the  first  210  of  the  438  years  are  the  last 
 210  of  the  341  fictitious  years  added  to  the  years  of  the 
 Gods  in  the  Chronicle,  217  more  are  the  217  of  the  Yiii 
 Demigods  of  the  Chronicle,  and  lastly  1 1  are  the  first  1 1  of 
 its  1881  years  of  kings.  We  ought  then  at  this  point,  after 
 the  11th  year  complete  of  Menes,  to  be  according  to  the 
 true  chronology  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  and  in  terms  of  the 
 anticipated  Julian  or  canicular  year,  at  Feb.  28  in  B.C. 
 (2224  —  11  =  )  2213,  and  we  are  in  fact  according  to  Ania- 
 nus's  reckoning  at  Aug.  29  in  B.C.  (5501  —  3286  =  )  2215 
 of  the  anticipated  Alexandrian  or  Julian  year.  So  that 
 between  this  point  and  the  end  of  his  43rd  of  Augustus 
 Anianus's  excesses  and  deficiencies  in  his  Egyptian  scale 
 compensate  one  another  all  but  two  years  and  a  half. 
 
ANIANUS,  TANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  873 
 
 Then  follow  viii  other  names  meant  to  parallel  the  viii 
 Tanite  generations  of  Dyn.  XVI  of  the  Chronicle;  and  they 
 have  its  full  number  of  190  years.  But  since  the  first  11 
 years  of  Dyn.  XVI  of  the  Chronicle  have  been  paralleled 
 already,  the  last  11  of  the  190  given  by  Anianus  to  those 
 viii  generations  which  now  follow  must  be  understood  to  run 
 on  into  Dyn.  XVII  of  the  Chronicle.  It  is  to  be  noticed 
 also  that  Anianus  having  made  of  his  antediluvian  Gods  and 
 Demigods  only  xv  generations,  whereas  the  Chronicle  made 
 xxii,  he  will  have  not  only  to  parallel  its  (Ixxvi  — viii=  ) 
 Ixviii  generations  of  kings  still  remaining  below  Dyn.  XVI, 
 but  also  to  add  to  them  vii  more  in  order  to  exhibit  the  same 
 number  of  cxiii  in  all  with  the  Chronicle. 
 
 The  Tanites  of  Dyn.  XVI  of  the  Chronicle,  who  are 
 "  Thebans  "  for  Eratosthenes  and  "  Thinites  "  for  the  Ma- 
 netho  of  Ptolemy  and  Africanus,  and  of  whom  Eusebius 
 also  makes  a  dynasty  of  "  Thebans,"  have  with  Anianus  all 
 of  them  but  two  the  same  Theban  name  RameseSf  which 
 was  really  repeated  in  a  similar  way  in  the  names  and  titles  of 
 the  monumental  kings  of  Dynasties  XVIII,  XIX,  and  XX. 
 But  there  is  no  appearance  of  the  slight  variations  of  the 
 name  Rameses  made  by  Anianus  in  this  part  of  his  list 
 being  borrowed  from  as  many  distinct  historical  kings  of  the 
 later  Theban  dynasties. 
 
 a.  (Gen.  xxxi.)  'Pa/xio-a/jc  ^rr]  kO' '  Ramesses,  A.m.  3286  +  29=3315. 
 After  his  26th  year,  that  is,  in  B.C.  (5501  -3312=)  2189,  Anianus  puts 
 the  birth  of  Abraham,  173  years  higher  than  it  was  put  by  Eusebius, 
 and  29  years  higher  than  the  true  date,  which  in  terms  of  his  reckoning 
 should  have  been  Aug.  29  in  b.  c.  2160. 
 
 /3'.  (Gen.  xxxii.)  'Paixfacroixivrjg  trtj  if'*  Ramesso- Amon,  or  Ramesso- 
 meri-Amon,  a.  m-.  3315  +  15=3330,  to  the  end  of  the  18th  of  Abraham 
 in  B.  c.  2171. 
 
 y'.  (Gen.  xxxiii.)  Ov(n}iapr]Q  err]  Xa  '  Ousimares,  A.M.  3330  +  31  = 
 3361,  to  the  end  of  the  49th  of  Abraham. 
 
 S'.  (Gen.  xxxiv.)  ' Pa/if (To-Z/criof  err]  Ky' '  Ramessesius,  a.m.  3361  + 
 23=3384,  to  the  end  of  the  72nd  of  Abraham. 
 
 f'.  (Gen.  XXXV.)  'Pafxecrcansvu)  err]  id' '  Ramesso-Amon,  compounded 
 of  Ramesses  and  Amon  as  Gen.  xxxii  above,  a.m.  3384+19=3403,  to 
 the  end  of  the  91st  of  Abraham  in  b.  c.  2098.  And  to  this  name  Syn- 
 cellus  has  a  note  of  his  own  :  Ovrog  TrpCoroQ  <^apa<h  Iv  ry  Oeig.  ■Ypa(py  fjivr}- 
 /xoveverai'  Ini  tovtov  6  TrarpidpxvQ  ' A.tpaai.i  KarrfKBtv  elg  A'iyvTTTov.  The 
 synchronism  of  the  descent  of  Abraham  into  Egypt  with  this  reign  is  no 
 doubt  copied  by  Syncellus  from  Anianus. 
 
874 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 t'.  (Gen.  xxxvi.)  'Paneaaijg  'lovf^aacrii  enj  \9'-  Itamesses-Jubassee, 
 A.M.  3403+39=3442,  to  the  end  of  the  30ih  of  Isaac  in  b.c.  2059. 
 
 4'.  (Gen.  xxxvii.)  'Pcryufcraj)  Ova<^.pov  tri]  Kb''  Raniesse-Ouaphrou, 
 A.M.  3442+29=3471,  to  the  end  of  the  59th  of  Isaac  in  b.c.  2030. 
 The  surname  may  be  from  Dyn.  XXVI. 
 
 T}'.  (Gen.  xxxviii.)  K6yx«|0te  ^'■'m' '  Cowc^aris,  A.  m.  3471 +5=3476, 
 to  the  end  of  the  4th  of  Jacob  in  b.  c.  2025.  Concharis  may  perhaps  be 
 from  the  throne- name  of  Sesortasen  III.,  in  whose  time  Upper  Egypt 
 became  subject  to  the  Shepherds. 
 
 [  O^oy  ai  kj'  yiviai  iri]  \;Xj;'  *  at  rtXivraiai  trrj  p^'.   The  xxiii  gene- 
 
 rations have  together  638  years,  but  the  last  viii  of  them  190.] 
 
 *^  TovT(p  TO)  s  STSL  Tov  Kj  [so  WG  must  substltute  for  the 
 Ks'  of  Syncellus]  paaiXsuaavros  li^o^-xapscos  rrjs  AIjvtttov 
 ETTL  rrjs  IXT  ^vvaarslas  tov  Y^vvlkov  Xsyofisvov  Kv/c\ov  irapa 
 TM  MavsBcp  [that  is,  the  pseudo-Manetho  or  Book  of  Sothis 
 of  Anianus]  ano  tov  irpcoTov  /3aat\£(09  [omitting  the  next 
 Avords  Kal  ol/ciaTov  MsaTpaLfi "  as  being  only  from  Syn- 
 cellus, and  substituting  for  MEaTpai'fM]  Mijvsa)^  Trjs  AlyvirTov 
 TrXrjpovvTai  sttj  ^/c??'  [so  we  must  substitute  for  the  yjr'  of 
 Syncellus],  toOt'  iaTiv  ano  tov  kuOoXikov  KoajJuLKOv  frovs 
 [Syncellus  has  "  ^/S-v/rog-',  kuO^  ov  ')(^p6vov  7)  Siaairopa  ysyovsv 
 sv  TO)  A-S'  STSL  T7]9  r]ysp.ovlas  'Apcf^a^aS,  s'  Ka  STSt  tov  ^aXs/c'''^ 
 all  which  we  must  omit  for  Anianus  and  continue  thus] 
 ^/ScopLTj' •  Kal  BisBs^avTo  TavLTaL  ^aaiksls  S'*"  [the  designation 
 Tanites  being  drawn  down  from  Dyn.  XYI  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle which  by  being  amalgamated  with  the  xv  generations  of 
 the  Cycle  had  lost  its  own  local  designation.]  The  number 
 oifour  kings  for  these  Tanites  who  are  now  to  follow  is  that 
 of  Dyn.  XVII  of  the  Chronicle.  According  to  the  Chro- 
 nicle they  should  be  Memphites.  But  Eusebius  had  already 
 identified  iv  Shepherds  with  its  Dyn.  XVII;  and  the  same 
 Shepherds  are  now  by  Anianus  called  Tanites,  which  in 
 point  of  locality  they  were ;  and  he  adds  to  the  four  three 
 others,  so  as  to  make  seven  of  them  in  all,  and  so  as  to  re- 
 present at  once  not  only  Dyn.  XVII  of  the  Chronicle  but 
 also  its  Dyn.  XXVII,  the  kings  of  which  were  really  the 
 last  four  of  the  Shepherds. 
 
 Syncellus,  after  naming  "  four  kings "  answering  to  the 
 four  of  Dyn.  XVII  of  the  Chronicle  and  of  Eusebius, 
 observes  that  "  in  this  place  it  is  better  to  follow  J osephus 
 [than  Eusebius],  and  that  Josephus  gives  six  kings."  Never- 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  875 
 
 theless  he  does  not  hereupon  transcribe  from  Anianus  the 
 six  names  of  Jesephus  with  their  six  reigns  unaltered,  but 
 seven,  a  new  and  strange  name,  KijpTcof,  being  interpolated 
 in  the  last  place  but  one  to  make  out  the  seven.  Syncellus, 
 however,  not  understanding  what  was  meant  by  Anianus, 
 counted  off  the  first  six  ending  with  K^jprcoy,  as  if  they  were 
 the  six  of  Josephus  ;  and  by  a  prodigious  blunder,  and  one 
 entirely  his  own,  made  of  Aseth,  who  was  really  the  last 
 Shepherd  king,  the  head  of  Dyn.  XYIII,  and  the  "father 
 of  Amosis  "  who  expelled  the  Shepherds.  And  yet  he  con- 
 tinues, as  if  speaking  only  of  the  "  six  "  of  Josephus,  "  o'l 
 KoX  s/SaaiXsvo-av  AlyuTrrou  sttI  ttJs"  IZ'  ^vvaarsias  sttj  a^',  6}s 
 i^rjs  ECTTOL'x^slcoraL'^''  that  is,  "  these  constituted  Dyn.  XYII, 
 and  reigned  260  years,"  without  perceiving  that  the  260 
 years  as  made  out  by  Anianus  and  by  himself  included  all 
 the  seven  kings,  and  that  so  Aseth  could  not  be  put  down 
 into  the  next  dynasty.  Further,  on  looking  on,  we  find  that 
 the  specified  sum  of  260  years,  to  which  the  259  years 
 and  10  months  of  the  Manetho  of  Josephus  might  natu- 
 rally be  filled  up,  is  not  made  out  as  one  might  expect 
 after  comparing  the  list  of  Africanus  by  filling  up  the  36 
 years  and  7  months  of  the  third  Shepherd,  Apachnas,  to  37 
 years  and  omitting  the  1  odd  month  and  the  2  odd  months 
 of  two  of  the  later  reigns ;  but  instead  of  any  such  process 
 there  is  an  awkward  interpolation  of  a  single  unappropriated 
 year  between  the  end  of  the  preceding  series  called  Dyn. 
 XVI  and  the  1st  year  of  Silites,  the  first  Shepherd  king; 
 while  the  seven  reigns  of  the  Shepherds  following  this  year 
 make  together  only  259  years.  This  might  be  considered 
 to  be  giving  in  fact  to  Silites  20  instead  of  19  years.  But 
 as  the  missing  year  is  clearly  shown  by  a  comparison  of  the 
 lists  of  Josephus  and  Africanus  to  belong  rather  to  Apach- 
 nas,  and  Syncellus's  interpolation  of  the  unattached  year  at 
 the  head  of  the  dynasty  is  easily  accounted  for,  there  need  be 
 no  scruple  in  restoring  this  year  for  Anianus  to  its  true  place. 
 Syncellus,  it  may  be,  either  had  not  the  actual  work  of  Ani- 
 anus before  him,  or  not  the  perfect  text,  but  a  copy  in 
 which  36  years  only  were  given  to  Apachnas.  He  perceived 
 then  not  only  that  one  year  more  was  wanting  on  the  seven 
 
876 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 reigns  to  make  up  the  260  named  by  him  from  Anianus  as 
 the  sum  of  the  dynasty,  but  also  that  the  missing  year  must 
 precede  the  accession  of  Apophis  the  fourth  Shepherd  king, 
 otherwise  Joseph  would  come  into  Egypt  in  or  after  the 
 Jifth  and  rise  to  power  in  or  after  the  eighteenth  year  of  that 
 king,  contrary  to  the  consensus-— a  consensus  including  at 
 all  events  Anianus  —  which  made  him  come  into  Egypt  in 
 the  fourth  and  rise  to  power  in  the  seventeenth  year  of 
 Apophis.  Not  knowing  then  exactly  to  which  of  the  first 
 three  reigns  the  year  wanting  was  rather  to  be  attached 
 (though  this  was  not  difficult  to  discover),  he  prefixed  it  by 
 itself  to  the  first  reign  of  the  dynasty. 
 
 As  regards  the  Chronicle,  it  is  plain  that  Anianus's  intro- 
 duction after  Dyn.  XVI  and  1 1  years  virtually  belonging  to 
 Dyn.  XVII  of  vii  Shepherds  with  260  years  amounts  to 
 the  same  thing  as  if,  after  allowing  92  years  and  iv  gene- 
 rations of  these  Shepherds  to  parallel  the  iv  Memphite 
 generations  and  (11+92  =  )  103  years  of  its  Dyn.  XVII, 
 he  had  restored  to  its  true  place  Dyn.  XXVII,  exhibiting 
 (260  —  92  =  )  168  of  its  184  years  andiii  of  its  iv  generations; 
 so  that  there  are  still  16  of  its  years  and  one  of  its  genera- 
 tions to  be  looked  for  somewhere  else  below :  — 
 
 \_^.vva(JTiia  Yll  UotfisvcoVy  yevtuiv  ^' '  Dyn.  XVII  of  Slieplierds  with 
 (iv  +  iii=)  vii  generations.] 
 
 a\  (Gen.  xxix.)     SiXtV/jg  trr]  i6\  Trpwrog  tu>v  t'  [s]  (3a(7i\ko)v  Tijg 
 SvvaareiaQ  irapd  Mavf^w.    Silites,  the  first  of  the  six  \_seveii]  kings  in 
 [Anianus's]  Manetho,  a.m.  3476  +  19=3495,  from  the  end  of  the  4th  to 
 the  end  of  the  23rd  year  of  Jacob.    The  name  is  from  Josephus  and  the 
 original  Manetho. 
 
 jS'.  (Gen.  xl.)  'hn  fxd'-    Bceon,  a.m.  3495+44=  a.m.  3539 
 
 complete,  to  the  end  of  the  (23  +  44=)  67th  of  Jacob.  The  name  is 
 softened  from  Bvmv. 
 
 y'.  (Gen.  xli.)  'Anaxvdv  errj  X't'  [XS' ']  Apachnan,  A.m.  3539  +  37= 
 3576,  to  the  end  of  the  (67  +  37=)  1 04th  of  Jacob,  and  of  the  (104  — 
 91=)  1 3th  of  Joseph. 
 
 S\  (Geu.  xlii.)  "Acpojtig  stt]  %a  •  Apophis,  A.m.  3576 +61  =rA.  m.  36"^7, 
 to  the  end  of  the  (13+61=)  74th  of  Joseph.  To  Apophis  Syncellus  at- 
 taches this  note  :  Tovrov  X'syovaL  VLveg  Trpwrov  K\r]9r']vaL  ^apai'o'  (alluding 
 perhaps  to  Anianus  or  Panodorus,  as  if  they  through  inattention  had  said 
 that  Apophis  was  the  first  so  named  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures)  :  icai  up 
 d'  erei  r/jg  (Saaikfiag  avrov  rov  'l(ijarj(l>  t\ve7v  tig  Aiyv~Tov  dovXov.  Ovrog 
 KUTiGrtjcre  rbv  'laxTrjrj)  Kvpim>  Aiyvirrov  icai  Trdcrrjg  j3acn\(.iag  avrov  t^'  irti 
 '^HQ  dpxrjg  avrov^  yviica  Kai  Tt)v  twv  ordp^v  diacyoKprjcnv  sfxaOe  Trap  avrovj 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  877 
 
 Kat  TrjQ  Beiag  ffvvtfffiog  avrov  cin  Ktipag  ysyovev'  r)  dt  Otla  ypcupi)  Kal  Tov  trrl 
 TOV  'A€padfi  (SaaiXea  AlyvTTTOv  ^apauj  KaXtl. 
 
 According  to  the  true  chronology  of  the  Scriptures  and 
 Josephus  harmonised,  and  of  the  Old  Egyptian  Chronicle,  the 
 birth  of  Joseph  was  in  the  same  year  with  the  accession  of 
 Apophis ;  and  it  was  not  his  advancement  but  his  first 
 coming  into  Egypt  which  was  rightly  connected  by  the 
 Egyptian  tradition  with  the  17th  year  of  that  king.  (See 
 above  pp.  80  and  109.) 
 
 It  is  remarkable  that  though  Syncellus  says  that  it  was  a 
 settled  point  that  Joseph  came  into  Egypt  under  the  Shep- 
 herds, and  even  [that  he  rose  to  power]  in  the  17th  of 
 Apophis,  no  single  author  exhibits,  or  is  conscious  of  ex- 
 hibiting, exactly  this  synchronism.  Josephus,  it  is  true, 
 exhibits  the  synchronism  really  indicated,  though  wrongly 
 described  by  Syncellus,  for  such  as  know  the  true  date  of 
 the  Exodus  to  be  in  the  1st  year  of  Amenoph  II.  But 
 Josephus  himself  supposed  that  the  Exodus  took  place  under 
 Amosis  and  Inachus,  and  that  consequently  both  the  exalta- 
 tion of  Joseph  and  his  coming  into  Egypt  was  much  earlier 
 than  the  17th  of  Apophis.  Africanus  in  like  manner, 
 and  Ptolemy  whom  he  follows ;  while  Eusebius  on  the  other 
 hand  puts  it,  as  we  have  seen  above,  much  later.  Anianus 
 too  and  Syncellus  himself  exhibit  the  Exodus  just  81  years 
 below  the  commencement  of  Dyn.  XYIII,  and  (81  +  134  =  ) 
 215  after  the  26th  year  of  Apophis,  so  that  the  advance- 
 ment of  Joseph  is  after  the  (26—9  =  )  17th  year  of  the 
 same  king.  But  this  is  only  by  the  help  of  an  omission  of 
 16  years  of  Dyn.  XXVII  of  the  Old  Chronicle  and  an 
 arbitrary  alteration  of  the  first  reigns  of  Dyn.  XYIII, 
 made  to  suit  a  synchronism  already  predetermined.  If, 
 after  beginning  to  parallel  the  viii  generations  and  the  190 
 years  of  Dyn.  XYI  of  the  Chronicle,  Anianus  had  com- 
 pleted without  omission  or  transposition  his  exhibition  of 
 those  190  years,  of  the  103  of  Dyn.  XYII,  and  of  the  184 
 of  the  Shepherds,  Joseph  must  have  been  made  by  him  to 
 come  into  Egypt  12  years  before  the  accession  of  Apophis, 
 and  the  Exodus  would  have  found  its  date  only  (81  —  16  =  ) 
 65  years  below  the  commencement  of  Dyn.  XYIII.  The 
 
878 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 synchronism  therefore  of  the  17th  of  Apophis  with  the 
 coming  of  Joseph,  though  it  had  been  shifted  by  Anianus 
 to  his  advancement,  and  the  4th  of  Apophis  substituted  for 
 liis  coming,  owing  to  a  misunderstanding,  in  order  that  there 
 might  be  only  81  years  under  Dyn.  XYIII  instead  of  the 
 true  number  of  94,  is  for  this  very  reason  plainly  derived 
 from  some  anterior  and  genuine  Egyptian  tradition.  But  to 
 return:  After  Apophis  with  his  61  years  Syncellus  gives 
 three  more  kings  tacitly  added  to  the  four  of  Dyn.  XVII  of 
 the  Chronicle,  so  as  to  make  together  with  the  preceding 
 four  seven  names  in  all  as  if  for  the  same  Dynasty  XVII, 
 the  whole  really  representing,  as  has  been  said  above, 
 though  not  quite  completely,  both  Dyn.  XVII  and  Dyn. 
 XXVII  of  the  Chronicle.  If  Dyn.  XXVII  had  been 
 openly  put  back  to  its  true  place,  it  would  have  stood  as 
 XVIII,  and  then  the  numeration  of  all  the  later  dynasties 
 would  have  varied  from  that  of  Eusebius  and  Africanus,  and 
 their  Dyn.  XXVIII  would  have  had  to  be  suppressed.  But 
 this  was  not  desired  :  — 
 
 £'.  (Gen.  xliii.)  sI^ojc  hij  v'  Set/ios,  a.m.  3637+50=3687,  from 
 the  end  of  the  74th  year  of  Joseph  to  the  end  of  the  14th  year  after 
 his  death.  The  reign  of  50  years  identifies  this  king  with  the  Janias 
 of  Manetho  in  Josephus.  As  for  the  name  Sethos,  though  it  looks  as  if 
 borrowed  from  Dyn.  XIX,  the  Shepherd  kings  were  all  worshippers  of 
 Seti  or  Sutech;  and  two  of  their  six  names,  at  least,  as  written  by  Ptole- 
 my, viz.,  Suites  and  A.seth,  are  merely  variations  from  the  name  of  that 
 deity.  So  it  may  really  have  belonged  to  Janias  also  ;  and  his  name,  as 
 written  by  Josephus,  'S-adv,  maybe  no  corruption,  but  if  written  at  full 
 with  all  the  vowels,  a  compound  name  ^erl-'Adv,  in  like  manner  as  'Af- 
 u}vpQ  is  resolvable  into  the  two  names  Aan-Khoufou.    is^ext  follows 
 
 t'*  (Gen.  xliv.)  KfipTOjg  'irr)  kQ'  Kara  tov  MaveOw,  Kara  de  rbv  ^IwcrtjTTOv 
 ['A(T;)e]  tr-n  ixb''  Certus,  A.M.  3687+29=3716,  from  the  end  of  the 
 14th  to  that  of  the  43rd  year  after  the  death  of  Joseph.  The  actual 
 text  of  Syncellus  not  having  the  name  'AarjO^  inserted  above  in  brackets, 
 reads  as  if  the  difference  between  Josephus  and  Anianus  was  this,  that 
 instead  of  giving  Certiis  only  29  Josephus  gave  him  49  years.  But  this 
 Certus  was  altogether  absent  from  Josephus,  and  was  created  by  Anianus, 
 in  forging  his  own  Manetho  or  Book  of  Sothis,  by  splitting  the  49  years 
 of  Aseth  into  two  reigns  of  29  and  20  years  respectively. 
 
 (Gen.  xlv.)  'Aar)B,'iTn  k.  Aseth,  a.m.  3716+20=3736,  from  the 
 end  of  the  43rd  to  that  of  the  63rd  after  the  death  of  Joseph,  To  this 
 name  Anianus  has  a  note  older  than  the  time  of  Eusebius,  since  Euse- 
 bius, after  suppressing  Aseth,  has  altered  its  wording  and  transferred  it 
 to  Saites,  the  first  of  the  Shepherd  kings.    It  is  probably  from  Pto- 
 
ANIANUS.  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  879 
 
 leniy  and  Africanus  :  "  Outoq  TrpoaiOrjKS  tCjv  tviavruiv  rag  tirayoiJ.tvac,  kuI 
 irrt  Toil  avrov^  loq  cpaaiv^  i\pi]ixaTi(Ttv  r^t'  I'lfispdv  6  AlyvTrriaKog  iriavTvq  t^' 
 fiovov  t'lfxepuiv  rrpb  tovtov  nerpovfxsvog.  'Etti  avrov  6  p.Ga\OQ  GtoTroirjQtig 
 'Attic  tK\i)9i]J'  This  latter  notice  also  about  the  deification  of  Apis  is 
 transferred  hither  from  Dyn.  II  of  Africanus.  Respecting  both  the 
 reader  may  see  above  at  p.  689.  He  may  also  bear  in  mind  that,  as 
 Anianus  himself  may  have  varied  somewhat  the  wording  of  the  note 
 respecting  the  tTrayoptvai,  it  is  nothing  wonderful  if  its  assertions,  as  they 
 stand,  should  be  inaccurate,  Anianus  having  introduced  elsewhere  also 
 fancies  of  his  own  concerning  the  manner  of  reckoning  time  in  early 
 ages  to  suit  arbitrary  and  inaccurate  processes  of  reduction. 
 
 ['0/.toy  TU)v  'C  ytviCjv  Tijg  I'C  Swacxniag  irij  a^',  A.M.  3476  +  260= 
 3736  ] 
 
 Anianus  then  has  now  arived  at  the  end  of  his  a.m.  2776 
 +  (72  +  210  +  217  +  190  +  ll)  +  (92  +  168)  =  3736,and  at  the 
 beginnmg  of  his  B.C.  (5501  —  3736  =  )  1765  which  corre- 
 sponds to  Ptolemy's  date  for  the  commencement  of  Dyn. 
 XYIII,  and  is  just  16  years  higher  than  the  point  at  which 
 he  ought  to  have  set  it  in  order  to  agree  with  the  true  date, 
 B.C.  1748,  at  which  it  is  set  by  the  Chronicle,  and  which  in 
 terms  of  his  own  reckoning  would  be  B.C.  1749.  Hence  it 
 appears  that  if  he  had  given  16  years  more  to  the  kings 
 above,  and  so  had  completed  his  parallel  of  the  184  years  of 
 the  Shepherds  of  Dyn.  XXVII  of  the  Chronicle,  with  a 
 corresponding  reduction  of  16  years  at  the  proper  place  or 
 places  below,  he  would  have  set  the  commencement  of  Dyn. 
 XVIII  just  at  its  true  date.  And  his  date  for  the  Exodus 
 also  would  consequently  have  been  correct  were  it  not  for 
 his  error  of  supposing  that  Moses  was  born  in  the  very  first 
 year  of  Amosis,  the  king  who  had  not  known  Joseph,  instead 
 of  1 3  years  later  :  — 
 
 [^^vvatJTeia  IH'  AtocrTroXtrwj/,  yivewv  tfT.] 
 
 a'.  (Gen.  xlvi.)  "AfiLoaic,  6  kuI  Tk^ixiocrir,  ett}  kt''  Amosis,  who  is  also 
 called  Tethmosis,  (that  is,  by  the  original  Manetho);  a.m.  3736  +  26= 
 3762,  from  the  end  of  the  63rd  to  that  of  the  S9th  year  after  the  death 
 of  Joseph. 
 
 fi'.  (Gen.  xlvii.)  Xt^pihi^  i-tj  ly' '  Chelron,  a.m.  3762 -f  13=3775,  to 
 the  end  of  the  102nd  year  after  the  death  of  Joseph. 
 
 /.  (Gen.  xlviii.)  'Apepdlg  trri  it  '  AmempMs^  K.^L.  3775 -|- 15=3790, 
 to  the  end  of  the  117th  year. 
 
 d'.  (Gen.  xlix.)  'Ap.fvai]g  t~i]  la  '  Amenses,  a.m.  3790+11  =  3801, 
 to  the  end  of  the  12Sth  year. 
 
 e'.  (Gen.  1.)  "Min ppaynov?,Maig  tri)  it''  MisphrogmiitJio.^is,  A.m.  3801 
 +  16=3817,  to  the  end  of  the  144th  year  from  the  death  of  Joseph. 
 
880 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 And  it  is  implied  that  this  king  was  drowned  in  the  Red  Sea.  Mane- 
 tho,  as  has  been  observed  elsewhere,  split  the  name  or  names  of  Thothmes 
 III.  Miphres  into  two,  and  concealed  under  the  compound  Misphrag- 
 muthosis,  which  he  made  the  second  of  the  two,  the  historical  king  of  the 
 Exodus,  Amenoph  II.,  the  6th  of  the  dynasty.  Here  then,  though  the 
 reigns  have  been  curtailed  so  as  to  make  only  81  years  intervene  from 
 the  head  of  the  dynasty,  the  Exodus  is  put  all  but  in  its  true  relative 
 place,  between  the  5th  and  the  6th  reigns,  only  one  year  too  high  in 
 being  made  to  end  the  last  year  of  the  5th  instead  of  the  first  of  the 
 6th  reign,  and  yet  attached  to  that  name  of  the  two  which  originally,  or 
 at  least  in  the  original  Manetho,  belonged  to  the  6th  reign. 
 
 t'.  (Gen.  li.)  Mm^p^/t,-  trrj  Ky'  Misphres,  A.  M.  3817+23  3840  ; 
 the  order  of  the  two  names  being  reversed,  and  Misphres  being  made  to 
 stand  as  the  son  of  Misphragmuthosis,  instead  of  being  his  father. 
 
 K'.  (Gen.  Hi.)  Tov(^i.ioj<jtg^trt]  \e' -  Touthmosis,  a.m.  3S40 -{■39=3879, 
 to  the  end  of  the  22nd  year  of  Joshua. 
 
 rj'.  (Gen.  liii.)  'AfxtvCo^Oig  tr?]  Xd'-  Amenophthis,  a.m.  3879-1-34  = 
 3913,  to  the  end  of  the  3rd  year  of  Othniel.  Ourog  6  'A^svwcpOic  iariv  6 
 Mffxviov  elvai  vofxi^ofxevog  Kai  (pOeyyo/xtvog  XiOog'  6V  XiSov  xpo'i^oig  vanpov 
 KafilSvarjg  6  Utpcriov  rffivti  vofii^ujv  tivai  yo7]Ttlav  Iv  avTtp,  o)g  UoXvan'og  6 
 'AOtjvaiog  loropeT. 
 
 [rXfjOi  AiOiuTToov,  TToOev  rjaav,  Kai  nov  <l)KT](Tav'  AuioTreg  ctTrb  'Iv^ov  tto- 
 Tttfxov  dvaardvTsg  Trpbg  ry  AiyvTrr*^  i^Kr]aav.  Respecting  this  note  see 
 above  at  p.  659.] 
 
 (Gen.  liv.)  ^Qpog  trrj  ixrj''  Horus,  a.m.  3913-f  48=3961,  to  the 
 end  of  the  llth  of  the  18  years  of  servitude  to  Eglon. 
 
 i'.  (Gen.lv.)  ' Ax^vx^priQ  f^T-n  1^^' '  ^c7«encAere5,  a.m.  3961 -1-25=3986, 
 to  the  end  of  the  18  th  year  of  Ehud. 
 
 la.  (Gen.  Ivi.)  'Ad^plg  trn  kO' '  Athoris,  a.m.  3986  +  29=4015,  to 
 the  end  of  the  47th  of  Ehud. 
 
 «/3'.  (Gen.  Ivii.)  X.tvxfpr]g  tTri  k';' '  C^encAere5,  A.  m.  4015  +  26  =  4041, 
 to  the  end  of  the  73rd  of  Ehud. 
 
 ly'.  (Gen.  Iviii.)  'Axtppvg  trrj  t)  '  Acherres,  a.m.  4041  +  8=4049,  to 
 the  end  of  the  1st  of  the  20  of  servitude  to  Jabin. 
 
 id'.  (Gen.  lix.)  'Apixalog^o  Kai  Aavabg,  trr]  B''  A.M.  4049  +  9  =  4058, 
 to  the  end  of  the  10th  of  Jabin. 
 
 ['Ofiov  Tu)v  i8'  yeveojv  trrj  tk^' '  A.M.  3736  +  222  =  4058.  So  that 
 Anianus  is  here  short  by  16+26  =  42  years  of  having  paralleled  the 
 years  of  the  kings  in  the  Chronicle  down  to  the  end  of  its  Djn.  XVIIL] 
 
 The  ambiguities  of  Manetho  and  Ptolemy  are  done  away 
 by  bringing  down  Armceus  to  be  the  14th  and  last  genera- 
 tion of  Dyn.  XVIII,  and  making  Rameses  II.  as  the  head  of 
 Dyn.  XIX  to  be  absolutely  one  and  the  same  person  with 
 the  Rameses  6  koX  ^eOws  of  Manetho.  So,  as  before  either 
 Seti  II.  or  Rameses  III.  had  been  overlaid  and  supplanted 
 the  one  by  the  other  in  consequence  of  Rameses  III.  having 
 been  brought  up  to  stand  as  the  head  of  Dyn.  XIX,  so  now 
 both  of  these  two  kings  are  overlaid  and  supplanted  together 
 
ANIANUS,  TANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  881 
 
 by  the  bringing  down  of  Rameses  II.  into  the  same  place. 
 Thus  the  flight  of  Danaus  is  put  by  Anianus  after  his  A.M. 
 4058,  at  the  head  of  his  B.C.  (5501-4058  =  )  1443,  241 
 years  below  his  date  for  the  Exodus.  In  the  text  of  Syn- 
 cellus  there  is  the  following  note  :  — 
 
 '^^ApfiaioSi  6  /cat  Aavao^,  (f)svycov  rov  aBsk^bv'Pa/jLsaarjv  top 
 A'iyvTTroVf  aKirCiTTSL  rrj^  Kar  AiyuTTTOv  ^aaCkeias  avrov,  sis 
 'EXXaSa  TS  d(pLKV£LTaL,  'Vafjusaarjs  hs  6  dSs\(f)09  avrov,  6  koX 
 ALyvTTTOs  KaXovjJbSvos,  s/SaatXsvasv  Alyvirrov  srr)  ^rj' ,  /jlstovO' 
 fidaas  TTjv  '^copav  Atyvirrov  tco  ihicp  ovojxarL^  tjtls  Trporspoy 
 Msarpala,  Trap^^EWrjat  Bs^AspLa  iXsysTo.  Aavabs  Ss,  6  Kal 
 ^ApjxoLos,  KpaTTjaas  tov  'Apyovs  koI  sk/SoXoov  XOsusXov  top 
 T^porayTTov  ^ApyscMV  s^aaLXsvas'  Kal  ol  dmbyovoi  avTOV  fisr 
 avTQV  AavatSaL  KaXovpkSVOi  sir  EvpvaOsa  rbv  XdsvsXov  tov 
 Ilsp<Tso)s'  fjisd^  0V9  ol  UeXoTrlSaL  drro  TIeXottos  TrapaXa/SovTSs 
 TTjV  dp')(r)Vf  o)V  7TpcoT09  'Arpfuy." 
 
 Thus  the  flight  of  Danaus  is  put  (B.C.  1484  —  1443  =  )  41 
 years  lower  than  in  the  scheme  of  Eusebius.  The  preceding 
 nine  generations  of  Argive  kings,  reckoned  as  average  gene- 
 rations of  33^  years  each,  would  take  us  back  to  the  22nd 
 year  of  Amosis  for  the  foundation  of  Argos  ;  and  so  would 
 just  save  the  synchronism  of  Amosis  and  Inachus,  the 
 Exodus  being  put  under  Phoroneus,  81  years  below  the 
 commencement  of  Dyn.  XYIII,  and  58  below  the  founda- 
 tion of  Argos.  Moses,  too,  though  not  in  the  sense  of  Pto- 
 lemy, would  have  been  the  contemporary  of  Inachus.  But 
 by  the  longer  reckoning  of  the  Argive  reigns  we  should  go 
 back  382  years  from  B.C.  1443  of  Anianus  to  the  foundation 
 of  Argos,  which  would  have  been  after  his  A.M.  3676  in  B.C. 
 (1443  +  382  =  )  1825  ;  and  this  is  60  years  before  the  com- 
 mencement of  his  Dyn.  XVIII,  and  141  before  his  date  for 
 the  Exodus. 
 
 [^Avini(TTtia  19'  AiO(J7To\tTa)V,  yu-iCjv 
 
 a.  (Gen.  Ix.)  'Pa/i£(7a-/'/c,  o  Koi  AlyvTrroQ,  err]  '  Harnesses  or  JEgyp' 
 tus,  A.M.  4058  +  68=4126,  to  the  end  of  the  (10  of  Jabin+40  of  Debo- 
 rah+7  of  Midian+ 11=68)  11th  of  Gideon. 
 
 j3'.  (Gen.  Ixi.)  'Aixsvuxpig  ivrj  n' '  AmenopMs,  a.m.  4126 -\- 8= 4134,  to 
 the  end  of  the  19th  of  Gideon.  The  name  is  really  that  of  the  last  king 
 of  Dyn.  XVIII,  the  son  and  successor  of  Ramesses  Miammous. 
 
 y^.  (Gen.  Ixii.)    Qovojpig  trrj  Thouoris,  a.m.  4134+17=4151,  to 
 
 3  L 
 
882 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 the  end  of  the  36th  of  Gideon.  As  the  name  is  the  same  with  that  of 
 the  Last  king  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIX  whom  Anianus  gives  also  below, 
 and  that  is  probably  derived  from  the  monumental  name  Siphthali,  it 
 may  be  supposed  that  this  first  Thouoris  of  Anianus  is  the  earlier  Siph- 
 thah  of  the  monuments  (see  p.  222)  whose  reign  is  excluded  as  illegi- 
 timate from  other  lists  ;  unless  it  be  doing  too  much  honour  to  Anianus 
 to  suppose  that  any  of  his  peculiarities  had  an  historical  foundation. 
 
 o\  (Gen.  Ixiii.)  Nt^sv^wg  sV)?  iQ^ '  NecJiepsos,  a.m.  4151  +  19=4170, 
 to  the  end  of  the  (4  Gideon  +  3  Abimelech+ 12=19)  12th  of  Tola.  The 
 name  is  an  anticipation  and  reduplication  of  the  2nd  Saite  name  of  Dyn. 
 XXVI.  Why  that  of  Amon-Meses  should  not  have  done  just  as  well, 
 if  Anianus  knew  of  his  existence,  is  not  easy  to  see.  And  this  casts  the 
 more  doubt  upon  the  identification  of  his  Thouoris  I.  above  with  the 
 earlier  Siphthah. 
 
 t\  (Gen.  Ixiv.)  'i^ai.ifj.ovOig  trr)  ly' '  Psammouthis,  A.  m.  4l70-[-13= 
 4183,  to  the  end  of  the  2nd  of  Jair.  This  name  again  is  from  Dyn. 
 XXVI  or  Dyn.  XXIX. 
 
 (Gen.  Ixv.)  ....  trr]  ^\  a.m.  4183+4—4187,  to  the  end  of  the 
 6th  of  Jair.  The  name  which  was  probably,  like  those  on  either  side  of 
 it,  taken  at  random  from  some  other  dynasty,  has  fallen  out.  Seti  IT.,  the 
 real  head  of  this  dynasty,  is  suppressed  altogether. 
 
 (Gen.  Ixvi.)  Kvpnog  tri]  k'.  Cer^o^,  A.m.  4187  +  20=4207,  to  the 
 end  of  the  6th  of  the  18  of  the  Servitude  to  the  Ammonites,  Jair  having 
 only  20  instead  of  his  22  years.  The  name  Certos  has  already  done 
 duty  as  interpolated  among  the  Shepherds. 
 
 ri'.  (Gen.  Ixvii.)  'Pa/xi/^ig  tVr?  jit'.  Rampsis^  a.m.  4207  +  45  =  4252,  to 
 the  end  of  the  (12  Ammonites  +6  Jephthah  +7  Ibzan  +10  Elon  +8 
 Abdon  +2  Philistines=45)  2nd  of  the  Servitude  to  the  Philistines.  The 
 name  should  be  from  RapsaJtes^  written  Rampses  by  Eusebius,  the  2nd 
 name  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XIX,  but  there  also  out  of  place,  as  has  been 
 shown  above  at  p.  225. 
 
 ['Oyuoy  ruiv  ?/  ysveuiv  'irr)  pl^5\  A.M.  4058  +  194=4252.  So  that  in  its 
 sum  of  years  this  dynasty  is  exactly  equal  to  Dyn.  XIX  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle and  of  Eusebius,  though  it  has  viii  generations  instead  of  v  :  and 
 Anianus  is  short  of  the  Chronicle  by  the  same  number  of  years,  viz.  42, 
 as  he  was  at  the  end  of  Dyn.  XVIII.] 
 
 \^Avva<TTs'ia  K'  AiocfttoXltluv,  yeveojv  T-] 
 
 o'.  (Gen.  Ixviii.)  Afisvcxrjg  6  kuI  'A}xiitvsfir]Q,  'irt]  k'^'  •  Amenses  or  Amme- 
 nemes,  a.m.  4252  +  26=4278,  to  the  end  of  the  28th  of  the  Philistines. 
 The  name  may  be  from  Amenephthis^  the  3rd  king  of  Dyn.  XIX. 
 
 /3'.  (Gen.  Ixix.)  'Oxvpdg 'irr]  i^' '  Oc%nf*,  A.  m.  4278  + 14=4292,  to 
 the  end  of  the  2nd  of  Samson.  The  name  seems  to  be  Greek,  as  if  it 
 were  meant  to  look  like  a  translation. 
 
 /.  (Gen.  Ixx.)  'Aixsv^ijg  trr]  /c^  *  Amendes,  a.m.  4292  +  27=4319, 
 to  the  end  of  the  9th  of  the  "  interregnum  or  anarchy."  Probably  the 
 same  as  Amenemes,  the  last  name  but  one  of  Dyn.  XIX  of  Manetho. 
 
 a'.  (Gen.  Ixxi.)  Qov  copig  err)  v' '  Thouoris^  A.M.  4319  +  50 — 4369,  to 
 the  end  of  (31  +  19=50)  the  19th  of  Eli.  This  is  really  the  last  king  of 
 Manetho's  Dyn.  XIX;  and  accordingly  he  has  the  note  attached,  '■'■Ovtuq 
 ia-LV  6  Trap'  'Ofii'ipo)  ll6\i>[5og  ''AXKapi^pag  dvrjp  iv  'Odvaasla  (pfpoiia'or^  irap^ 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  883 
 
 ^  (pijal  TOV  Mfv'cXaov  avv  ry  ''^Xivy  [xtrd  ti)v  aXcoaiv  Tpoiag  Kuriix^f^'-  ttXcivu)- 
 iievov.''  His  reign,  lying  for  Anianus  between  Aug.  29  at  the  head  of  his 
 B.C.  (5501— 4319=)1182  and  Aug.  29  in  b.c.  1132,  virtually  identical 
 with  the  same  dates  b.c.  according  to  the  vulgar  era,  begins  just  one  year 
 too  low  to  include  Eratosthencs's  date  for  the  actual  capture  of  Troy ; 
 and  on  this  account  probably  it  is  that  Anianus  has  omitted  the  words 
 "t^*  ov  TO  "iXiov  fdXw,  "  and  speaks  only  of  the  arrival  of  Menelaus  after- 
 wards, "  iifTci  Ttjv  uXcoaiv."  Between  the  flight  of  Danaus  and  the  taking 
 of  Troy,  supposing  it  to  be  put  one  year  above  the  accession  of  Thouo- 
 ris  at  the  date  of  Eratosthenes,  Anianus  has  exhibited  (194  +  66=)  260 
 years,  affording  only  32  j\  instead  of  33/5-  years  to  each  of  the  8  Argive 
 generations;  or,  if  only  7  of  these  generations  are  allowed  to  be  fuU^ 
 giving  26^^  years  instead  of  18  only  to  the  last  imperfect  generation  of 
 Agamemnon. 
 
 t\  (Gen.  Ixxii.)  AQojOiq  6  kuI  ^ovcravog  '  s(p'  ov  anafjioi  Kara.  tj)v  Alyv- 
 TTTOv  eysvovTOj  iiri^'tTTM  yeyovoreg  iv  avry  irpb  tovtoV  trt]  kt}' '  Athothis  or 
 Phousanos,  a.m.  4369+28=4397,  to  the  end  of  the  (1  ofEli+20  of 
 Samuel +  7=28)  7th  of  Saul.  The  name  Athothis  is  that  of  the  first  suc- 
 cessor of  Menes,  who  above  has  been  changed  by  Anianus  into  Kourodes. 
 The  alias,  Phousanos,  is  perhaps  from  Psousenes^  a  name  which  occurs 
 twice  in  Dyn.  XXI  of  Africanus.  The  notice  of  the  earthquake  is  pro- 
 bably transposed,  like  that  of  the  deification  of  Apis  above,  from  Dyn. 
 II  of  Africanus,  that  it  might  not  be  altogether  omitted. 
 
 t'.  (Gen.  Ixxiii.)  KtvKivrjg  fTij  Xb'.  Kenkenes,  a.  m.  4397  +  39=4436, 
 to  the  end  of  the  6th  of  David.  This  name  and  the  next  are  properly 
 the  3rd  and  the  4th  of  Dyn.  I  of  Africanus. 
 
 K'.  (Gen.  Ixxiv.)  OvkwiUQ  tri]  ju/3''  Ouennephis,  a.m.  4436+42= 
 4478,  to  the  end  of  the  8th  of  Solomon. 
 
 ['0/xoy  tu)v  C  ytveuiv  tTij  <tk-''  A.m.  4252  +  226=4478.  This  sum 
 being  2  short  of  228,  the  sum  of  the  Old  Chronicle  for  its  own  Dyn. 
 XX,  and  Anianus  having  before  been  short  of  the  Chronicle  by  42  years, 
 he  is  now  short  by  44.] 
 
 [^Avva(TTeia  KA'  TavirCjv,  yeveojv  ^'.] 
 
 a.  (Gen.  Ixxv.)  ^ovaaKEifi  tTj]  Xd' •  *S'oMS«7tezm,  A.  m.  4478  +  34=4512, 
 to  the  end  of  the  2nd  of  Rehoboam.  So  that  the  synchronism  of  x\\q  fifth 
 year  of  Rehoboam  is  not  exhibited.  Syncellus,  however,  has  the  following 
 note:  ^^'ZovaaKeifx  Ai[3vag  Kai  AlOiOTrag  Kai  TpujyXo^uTag  TrapeXafSe  irpb  Trig 
 'If povaaXrifi.''  Eusebius  had  only  marked  the  Biblical  name  and  synchro- 
 nism of  opposite  to  that  Egyptian  king,  Smendis^  who  seemed 
 to  come  parallel  in  his  own  scheme.  But  Anianus,  in  consequence  of  his 
 having  looked  chiefly  to  the  sums  of  the  dynasties  of  the  Chronicle,  ap- 
 proaches here  somewhat  nearer  to  the  truth.  The  notice  of  the  other 
 conquests  of  Sousakeim  seems  to  be  based  upon  a  passage  of  Josephus, 
 who,  being  willing  to  magnify  all  that  relates  to  his  own  people,  ascribes 
 to  Sousakeim  the  conqueror  of  Jerusalem  the  exploits  of  Sesostris. 
 
 /3'.  (Gen.  Ixxvi.)  "irovevog  ani  Kt  '  Psoueiios,  A.  m.  4512 +25=4537, 
 to  the  end  of  the  (15  +  3+7=25)  7th  of  Asa.  The  name  is  probably  from 
 Psousenes,  the  2nd  king  of  Dyn.  XXI  of  Africanus  and  Eusebius,  Sou- 
 sakeim having  been  substituted  for  his  predecessor  Smendes. 
 
 3  L  2 
 
884 
 
 EGYrTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 y'.  (Gen.  Ixxvli.)  'Aju/arw^ig  tVj;  6'*  Ammenophis,  a.m.  45374-9=' 
 4546,  to  the  end  of  the  16tli  of  Asa.  The  name  and  the  length  of  the 
 reign  are  those  of  the  4th  king  of  T>yn.  XXI  of  Africanus  and  Euse- 
 bius. 
 
 i'.  (Gen.  Ixxviii.)  '!>le(ptxhn€  sTr]-^''  Nephercherefi^  A.m.  4546  +  C= 
 4552,  to  the  end  of  the  22nd  of  Asa.  The  name  is  that  of  the  3rd  king 
 of  Dyn.  XXI  of  Africanus  and  Eusebius. 
 
 f'.  (Gen.  Ixxix.)  Satr??^  fV?;  It'  Suites^  a.m.  4552  +  15=4567,  to  the 
 end  of  the  37th  of  Asa.  The  name  is  that  of  the  1st  Shepherd  king  of  Dyn. 
 XV  of  Africanus  or  XVII  of  Eusebius.  AVby  it  was  preferred  to  that 
 of  Osochoi\  which  offered  itself  next  in  Dyn.  XXI  of  Eusebius,  is  hard 
 to  guess,  unless  it  were  desired  by  varying  so  many  of  the  names  to 
 make  the  whole  series  look  more  like  an  independent  list. 
 
 (Gen.  Ixxx.)  ^^^ivaxvQ  fV??  6'*  Psinach.es,  a.m.  4567  +  9=4576,  to 
 the  end  of  the  5th  of  Jehoshapha^t.  Anianus  here  returns  to  Dyn.  XXI 
 of  Eusebius,  this  being  the  name  and  reign  of  its  6th  king. 
 
 t'.  (Gen.  Ixxxi.)  TltTov(iaGTr]Q  err]  /id''  Petubast,  a.m.  4576  +  44= 
 4620,  to  the  end  of  the  (20  +  8  of  Jehoram  +  1  of  Ahaziah  +  7  of  Athaliah 
 +  8=44)  8th  of  Joash.  This  name  is  transposed  from  the  head  of  Dyn. 
 XXIII  of  Eusebius,  in  order  that  the  two  remaining  names  may  be  left 
 alone  with  their  19  years  to  parallel  Dyn.  XXIII  of  the  Chronicle. 
 But  Psusennes^  the  seventh  and  last  name  of  Dyn.  XXI  of  Africanus 
 and  Eusebius  is  suppressed.  For  Anianus  Petuhast  reigns  from  his  b.c. 
 (5501 — 4576=)  925  to  b.c,  881:  nor  were  there  any  misgivings  at  so 
 placing  him  on  account  of  his  former  connection  with  the  First  Olym- 
 piad, which  had  already  been  dropped  by  Eusebius. 
 
 ['O/iof;  tTT]  Tujv  r  yeveojv  pfjtjS' •  A.  M.  4478  + 142=4620.  This  excess 
 of  (142—121=)  21  years  over  the  sum  of  Dyn.  XXI  of  the  Chronicle 
 leaves  Anianus  now  only  (44—21=)  23  years  short.] 
 
 l_AvvaaTe'ia  KB'  AiodTToXirwv,  yevswv  /3'.] 
 
 a.  (Gen.  Ixxxii.)  'OcnopOiov  trt]  b''  Osorthon,  a.m.  4620  +  9=4629, 
 to  the  end  of  the  I7th  of  Joash.  This  is  Osorthon  II.,  the  apparent 
 successor  of  Petubast  and  the  2nd  king  in  Dyn.  XXII  of  Eu?ebius. 
 
 (3'.  (Gen.  Ixxxiii.)  "i'dfjuog  trt]  i  '  Psammus,  a  m.  4629  +  10=4639, 
 to  the  end  of  the  27th  of  Joash.  Psammus  is  the  3rd  and  last  king  in 
 Dyn.  XXIII  of  Eusebius,  and  is  intended  there  also,  in  conjunction 
 with  his  predecessor  Osorthon  11.^  to  represent  Dyn.  XXIIl  of  the 
 Old  Chronicle. 
 
 ['0/(oS  tr)]  i9''  A.M.  4620+  19=4639.  The  dynasty  is  one  with  Dyn. 
 XXIII  of  the  Chronicle,  only  transposed.] 
 
 [^Avvaare'ia  KF'  Taviru)}',  ytvtojv  y'.] 
 
 a,  (Gen.  Ixxxiv.)  KoyxapiQ  trr]  ko.' '  ConchariSy  A.M.  4639  +  21  = 
 4660,  to  the  end  of  the  (13  +  8=21)  8th  of  Amaziah.  The  name  has  oc- 
 curred above  for  the  king  in  or  after  whose  5th  year  the  Shepherds  are 
 said  to  have  come  into  Egypt.  Here  perhaps  the  name  is  only  a  sub- 
 stitute for  I'icroyxt-Q  or  Sfcroyxojdtc,  the  head  of  Dyn.  XXII  of  Eusebius, 
 since  the  reign  of  21  years  is  clearly  the  same ;  and  it  is  used  togetlier 
 with  tbe  next  two  following  by  Anianus,  as  by  Eusebius,  to  exhibit 
 Dynasty  XXII  of  the  Old  Chronicle. 
 
ANIANUS,  PAXOUORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  885 
 
 /3'.  (Gen.  Ixxxv.)  '0(rup9iov  fV/;  tt'-  Osortlion,  a.m.  4660-|-15=4G75, 
 to  the  end  of  the  23rd  of  Amaziub.  The  2ud  name  of  Eusebius's  Dyn. 
 XXII,  as  cut  down  from  Dyn.  XXII  of  Africanus. 
 
 /.  (Gen.  Ixxxvi.)  TaKa\(Z<ptq  eTtj  ly'  Takeloth,  a.m.  4675  +  13  = 
 4688,  to  the  end  of  the  (6+7=13)  7th  of  Uzziah.  This  is  the  single  re- 
 maining name  and  reign  of  Eusebius's  Dyn.  XXII,  the  six  anonymous 
 kings  of  Africanus,  whose  names  are  now  all  known  from  recent  disco- 
 veries, being  suppressed  by  Eusebius,  and  by  Anianus  after  him,  in  order 
 to  make  the  Dynasty  look  like  Dyn.  XXII,  whereas  it  really  is  Dyn. 
 XXI,  of  the  Chronicle.  Anianus,  too,  in  getting  rid  of  Petubast  from 
 Dyn.  XXIII  of  Eusebius,  thought  it  better  to  slip  him  up  into  the  last 
 place  of  Dyn.  XXI,  as  if  identical  with  Psousennes  11.^  whose  name  had 
 occurred  before,  and  whose  reign  differed  by  only  5  years,  than  to  make 
 him  supplant  Takelothis  the  last  name  of  Dyn.  XXII  of  Eusebius,  which 
 stood  immediately  above  him,  and  whose  reign  of  only  13  years  could 
 not  well  be  changed.  For  this  reason  it  was,  no  doubt,  that  in  his  repre- 
 sentation of  them  he  transposed  the  two  dynasties  XXII  and  XXIII  of 
 the.  Chronicle.  And  this  he  did  deliberately.  That  he  also  transposed 
 at  the  same  time  Dyn.  XXI  of  the  Chronicle,  and  improved  upon  the 
 chronology,  or  rather  the  confusion,  of  Eusebius,  as  Eusebius  himself 
 Lad  improved  upon  the  dislocations  of  Manetho,  was  an  accident,  of 
 which  he  was  unconscious.  So  far  as  the  truth  of  history  is  concerned 
 Petubast  alone  ought  to  have  been  transposed  and  put  down  so  as  to 
 become  the  first  king  of  Dyn.  XXIY,  instead  of  being  put  up  so  as  to 
 become  the  last  either  of  Dyn.  XXII  or  of  Dyn.  XXI. 
 
 ['O^oD  It,]  fxe'.  A.M.  4639  +  49=4688.  Here  Anianus  is  only  (23  —  1 
 =)  22  years  short  of  the  Chronicle.] 
 
 [Auj/aoTfta  KA'  'Zatrov  et^og."] 
 
 a.  (Gen.  Ixxxvii.)  Bok-x<^P'?  f'"'?  /*^*  BoKx^jpig  Alyvrrrloig  ivojAoCsreL' 
 t(p' ov  XoyoQ  dpviov  (pOty^aaQai'  ^occ/iom,  A.  M.  4688 +44=4732,  to  the 
 end  of  the  51st  of  Uzziah.  Here  Anianus  agrees  with  Eusebius  and  with 
 the  Chronicle  in  the  sum  of  44  years,  but  with  Eusebius  only  and  with 
 Manetho  in  making  one  generation  instead  of  three.  He  is  still,  however, 
 equal  in  the  number  of  his  generations  of  kings  to  all  the  merely  human 
 generations  of  the  Chronicle  (the  xv  "  of  the  Cycle"  being  taken  in)  since 
 he  has  made  in  his  preceding  dynasties  of  kings  (xv  +  viii)  +  (iv+iii)  + 
 
 xiv  +  viii  +  vii  +  vii  +  ii  +  iii  +  i,  in  all  that  is  Ixxxvii  generations,  while  the 
 Chronicle,  beginning  from  the  xv  generations  of  the  Cycle,  had  made 
 
 xv  +  viii  +  iv[  +  iv] +xiv  +  v  + viii  +  vi  +  iii  +  ii  +  iii,  amounting  in  all  to 
 the  same  number  of  Ixxxvii.  And  Anianus  has  still  in  reserve  vii  out 
 of  the  xxii  divine  generations  of  the  Chronicle  which  he  has  not  yet 
 paralleled. 
 
 [Si'j/  Tolg  TTpoTiTaYiikvoig  ^x'^u'  yivovrai  tri]  -ov  KocrfAov  c\p\(3''  A.M. 
 4688+44=4732.] 
 
 [^Avi'aJTiia  KE'  AiCiottu)}'^  yfi-fwv  y'.] 
 
 ci'.  (Gen.  Ixxxviii.)  Sa/SaKwr  t-j]  ijS'  '  Ovrog  tov  BoK;^wptv  fu\'/naXw- 
 Tov  \a(S(hv  ^wvra  tKavfffv.  Sahacon,  A.M.  4732  +  12=4744,  to  the  end  of 
 the  11th  year  of  the  reign  of  Jotham. 
 
 3  L  3 
 
886 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 13'.  (Gen.  Ixxx'ix.)  '2e(3)'ixo)v  trt]  i(3' '  SevicJion^  a.m.  4744 -f  12  = 
 4756,  to  the  end  of  the  7th  of  Ahaz,  in  b.c.  of  Anicinus  745,  scarcely 
 lower  than  the  true  date  for  Sabaco's  conquest,  and  quite  too  high  for 
 any  synchronism  with  years  of  Hoshea  and  of  Hezekiah.  But  Euse- 
 bius  had  already  disregarded  this  inconvenience,  and  had  set  the  capture 
 of  Samaria  at  the  end  of  the  11th  year  of  Ahaz. 
 
 y.  (Gen.  xc.)  TapaKJig  trr]  k'  Tarakes,  A.m.  4756+20=4776,  to 
 the  end  of  the  11th  of  Hezekiah  in  b.  c.  722  of  Anianus's  reckoning,  too 
 high  by  3  years  to  admit  the  synchronism  of  Sennacherib  and  the  14th 
 year  of  Hezekiah. 
 
 [0/100  tTf]  ju(!'.  A.M.  4732+44=4776.  The  dynasty  agrees  with  Dyn. 
 XXV  of  the  Chronicle.  The  subdivision  of  the  reigns  is  from  Euse- 
 bius.] 
 
 \_^vvaaTt'ia  K2T'  SatVuir,  ytvtZv  0'.~\ 
 
 a.  (Gen.  xci.)  'A/ia/'yc  err]  Xtj' '  Amaes,  a.m.  4776  +  38=4814,  to  the 
 end  of  the  20th  of  Manasseh.  The  name  is  from  Eusebius,  corrupted 
 from  'Aju/ispic,  the  qualification  "AiSto-i/,"  which  Anianus  might  think 
 somewhat  out  of  place  in  a  Saite  dynasty,  being  omitted.  The  reign,  too, 
 is  altered  from  12  to  38  years,  and  for  no  intelligible  reason,  since  the 
 24  years  added  are  all  deducted  again  from  the  reign  of  Psammitichus 
 I.  a  little  below. 
 
 /6'.  (Gen.  xcii.)  2rf;;(va0/;^  trjj  *  *S'^e/>Am«^Az5,  A.M.  4814  +  27  = 
 4841,  to  the  end  of  the  47tli  of  Manasseh.  Here  again  20  years  are 
 added  to  the  7  of  Africanus  and  Eusebius,  and  of  these  too  6  are  de- 
 ducted below  from  the  44  given  by  Eusebius  to  Psammitichus  I. :  10 
 more  maybe  regarded  as  a  clumsy  restoration  of  the  10  years  cut  off 
 from  Psammitichus  I.  by  Eusebius,  who  properly  should  have  had  54  not 
 44  years.  The  4  still  remaining  of  Africanus's  addition  to  this  reign  are 
 the  restoration  of  4  out  of  6  years  really  wanting  in  the  list  of  Eusebius 
 between  the  end  of  Dyn.  XXV  and  the  accession  of  Psammitichus  I. ; 
 since  that  list  has  only  33  years  to  its  first  4  reigns  in  Dyn.  XXVI, 
 whereas  the  true  length  of  the  interval  was  39  years. 
 
 y'.  (Gen.  xciii.)  Nf^f^t^e  trt]  ly' '  Nechepsos,  a.m.  4841  +  13=4854, 
 to  the  end  of  the  (8+2  of  Amon+3=13)  3rd  of  Josiah.  Again  7  years 
 are  added  to  the  6  of  Eusebius  ;  and  these,  after  supplying  the  two  still 
 really  wanted,  would  depress  the  accession  of  Psammitichus  I.  by  5 
 years,  if  Anianus  had  begun  to  parallel  the  1881  years  of  the  Chronicle 
 from  the  same  date  with  it,  and  had  not  fallen  short  in  any  of  the  pre- 
 ceding dynasties.  But,  as  when  he  began  Dyn.  XXVI  he  was  short 
 by  22  years,  his  addition  of  the  5  years  just  mentioned  merely  lessens 
 his  deficit,  and  leaves  him  still  short  by  17  years. 
 
 S'.  (Gen.  xciv.)  N6x«w  eV?;  •  Nechao,  a.  m.  4854+8=4862,  to  the 
 end  of  the  11th  of  Josiah.   Here  the  reign  is  that  of  Eusebius  unaltered. 
 
 i.  (Gen.  xcv.)  ^a/z/^fj-ixoc  e-ri  id' '  Psammitichus,  a.m.  4862  +  14= 
 4876,  from  b.c.  of  Anianus  639  to  b.c.  625.  If  the  additions  to  the 
 first  two  reigns  were  made  first,  wantonly  and  thoughtlessly,  one  can  see 
 a  reason  for  now  cutting  down  the  reign  of  Psammitichus  T.,  viz.  that  so 
 it  may  end  a  little  before  the  defeat  and  death  of  Josiah.  In  fact  now 
 it  is  made  to  end  with  the  25th  year  of  that  king. 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  887 
 
 t'.  (Gen.  xcvi.)  Nf^aw  fi',  ^apauj,  trt]  0' '  Ncchao  II.,  a.m.  4876  +  9 
 =4885,  to  the  end  of  the  3rd  of  Jelioiakim.  The  title  "  Pharao "  is 
 added,  because  he  is  so  named  in  the  Scripture,  in  allusion  to  the  syn- 
 chronism of  the  last  year  of  Josiah.  (That  of  the  4th  of  Jehoiakim  is 
 barely  touched.)  Perhaps,  also,  there  is  here  an  allusion  to  a  cliildisli 
 fable  of  the  Jews  respecting  the  use  and  disuse  of  this  title.  The  reign 
 lies  for  Anianus  between  his  b.c.  625  and  b.c.  614.  It  is  lengthened 
 from  the  6  years  of  Eusebius  to  9  because,  if  it  had  had  only  6,  it  would 
 have  ended  3  years  before  the  4th  of  Jehoiakim  began. 
 
 (Gen.  xcvil.)  "^a}iov9i)Q  'irepoc,  6  kciI  '^afi/j.rjTixoc,  eri]  ic,''  Psam- 
 mouthes  or  Psammitichus  II.,  a.m.  4885  +  17^=4902,  to  the  end  of  the 
 9th  year  of  Zedekiah  in  b.c.  of  Anianus  599.  The  reign  is  that  of  Eu- 
 sebius unchanged. 
 
 T)'.  (Gen.  xcviii.)  Ova:ppig  (ttj  Xd'  •  Ouaphris,  A.M.  4902+34=4936, 
 to  the  end  of  the  32nd  of  the  Captivity.  The  reign  is  lengthened  by  9 
 years  from  the  25  of  Eusebius ;  and  it  lies  for  Anianus  between  his  b.  c. 
 599  and  b.c.  565,  so  that  its  3rd  year  is  paralleled  by  him  with  the  1st 
 of  the  Captivity.  This  ought  to  have  been  the  eleventh  of  Zedekiah  ; 
 but  Anianus,  like  Eusebius,  made  the  Captivity  to  begin  only  with  the 
 year  following  the  11th  of  Zedekiah.  At  the  same  time  he  made  it  to 
 end  at  the  last  or  Median  accession  of  Cyrus,  as  if  that  were  70  years 
 later,  whereas  it  was  really  only  (b.c.  588—536  =  )  52  years  below  the 
 true  commencement  of  the  Captivity.  But,  as  he  reckoned  9  years  too 
 few  to  the  Persians  below  the  Median  accession  of  Cyrus,  his  excess 
 above  it  is  reduced  by  compensation  from  18  to  9  years,  being  6  more 
 than  the  excess  of  Eusebius  for  the  same  interval. 
 
 9'.  (Gen.  xcix.)  "Afiojmg  'iTrj  v' '  -4mo52*,  A.m.  4936+50=4986,  B.C. 
 of  Anianus  568  to  b.  c.  515,  to  the  end  of  the  12th  year  after  the  end  of 
 the  Captivity,  which  should  be  also  the  sixth  of  Cambyses  (depressed  by 
 9  years  into  the  place  of  the  7th  of  Darius  Hystaspes).  And  hence, 
 perhaps,  may  have  originated  that  variant  in  the  present  text  of  the 
 Canon  of  Eusebius,  which  parallels  the  sixth  of  Cambyses  with  the  last 
 year  of  Amasis.  The  idea  of  giving  50  years  to  Amasis  may  have  been 
 taken  from  Diodorus  Siculus,  who  gives  him  56,  the  odd  units  being  neg- 
 lected. The  true  length  of  the  reign  was  44  years  ;  and  Eusebius  gave 
 to  it  only  42.  But  Anianus  had  to  fill  up  the  space  between  the  end  of 
 the  35th  year  of  the  Captivity  and  the  Egyptian  accession  of  Cambyses 
 which  could  not  be  put  higher  than  the  commencement  of  his  Jifth  Per- 
 sian year,  and  which  had  been  put,  most  probably,  by  Eusebius  at  the 
 commencement  of  his  sixth.  Why  Anianus  should  have  put  it  one  year 
 lower  still,  as  he  has  done  by  giving  50  years  to  Amasis,  and  omitting  9 
 years  of  the  Persians  below,  is  not  easy  to  guess,  unless  either  that 
 reading  of  Eusebius  which  parallels  the  sixth  of  Cambyses  with  the  last 
 of  Amasis  were  already  in  existence,  or  unless  it  were  that  he  thought 
 the  56  years  of  Diodorus  gave  more  countenance  to  a  variant  of  50  years 
 than  they  would  to  49. 
 
 ['O/xov  tTT]  m'  A.M.  4776+210=4986.  Dyn.  XXVI  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle having  177  years,  and  Anianus  having  been  only  21  years  short  at 
 its  commencement,  he  wanted  only  (177+22=)199  years  in  order  to  end 
 this  dynasty  together  with  the  Chronicle;  and  his  sum  of  210  years 
 makes  him  now  to  be  11  years  in  advance.] 
 
 3  L  4 
 
888 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Syncellus,  after  ending  Dyn.  XXVI,  adds  the  following 
 notice  :  "Eo)9 
 
 SiapKsaaaa  utto  tov  ^/3\jrof'  Koa/xiKov  £tov9  sv  hwaarsiais  i! , 
 /SaaiXsvcn  8s  tts"' ,  ersat  (3aia' ,  KareaTpi^Or}  virb  tcjv  Uspacov.'^ 
 In  this  passage  the  particular  statements  are  all  Syncellus's 
 own,  and  need  all  of  them  to  be  corrected  before  they  can 
 suit  the  scheme  of  Anianus  from  which  he  had  varied. 
 Syncellus  made  the  monarchy  to  begin  from  a.m.  2776,  and 
 sometimes,  as  here,  though  not  uniformly,  from  the  beginning 
 of  A.M.  2776,  which,  according  to  his  more  usual  manner  of 
 reckoning,  he  would  call  in  or  from  a.m.  2775.  Syncellus, 
 too,  made  86  kings  and  2210  or  2211  years.  But  Anianus 
 began  the  monarchy  72  years  later,  from  a.m.  (2776  +  72  =  ) 
 2848,  and  made  only  84  kings  with  (2210  —  72  =  )  2138 
 years  to  the  end  of  Dyn.  XXVI.  Syncellus,  too,  not  under- 
 standing exactly  how  Anianus  had  made  his  Manetho  to 
 dispose  the  xxx  dynasties,  thought  that  one  designation,  viz. 
 that  of  years  of  the  Cynic  Cycle,"  was  enough  for  the  first 
 628,  or  (as  he  had  taken  in  the  72)  the  first  700  years  after 
 the  Dispersion.  And,  without  attending  to  the  fact  that  these 
 "  years  of  the  Cycle  "  were  also  called  Dynasty  XVI,"  he 
 counted  those  other  dynasties  which  followed,  and  found  that 
 there  were  ten  of  them  between  the  first  separate  series 
 of  700  years  and  the  Persian  conquest.  But  for  Anianus 
 we  must  translate  and  alter  the  passage  thus :  — "  The 
 Egyptian  monarchy,  having  lasted  from  a.m.  (2776  +  72  =  ) 
 2848  in  eleven  dynasties  under  eiglity-four  generations  of 
 kings,  through  a  space  of  (4986  — 2848  =  )  2138  years,  to  the 
 end  of  A.M.  4986,  was  now  overthrown  by  the  Persians." 
 
 [AuvrtOTtta  KZ'  Ilfpcrwv,  yivtCjv  <r'.] 
 
 a.  (Gen.  C.)  Kaix^va^Q  [o^  fVfi  rrjg  kavTov  (SaffiXt'iaQ  Utpauiv  Kari- 
 arpiiparo  ttjv  A'tyvTrroi^,  Kai  i^aaiKtvaiv  avrrfo]  trt]  jS' '  Cambyses^  A  M.  4986 
 +2=4988,  to  Aug.  29  in  b.c.  513  for  Anianus,  the  8th  of  Cambyses 
 being  drawn  down  by  his  omission  of  9  years  below  into  the  place  of  the 
 9th  of  Darius. 
 
 j8'.  (Gen.  ci.)  Mayoi  erog  a'  The  Magi,  A.M.  4988  +  1=4989,  this 
 year  representing  here,  as  with  Eusebius,  the  1st  of  Darius  drawn  down 
 into  the  place  of  his  10th,  and  ending  for  Anianus  in  his  b.c.  512. 
 
 y'.  (Gen.  cii.)  Aapelog 'YcrrdGTrcv  ertj  X^' '  Darius  Hystaspes,  a.m. 
 4989+36=5025,  ending  for  Anianus  in  b.c.  476,  the  year  in  which 
 the  9  th  of  Xerxes  really  ended.    The  year  of  the  Magi  being  understood 
 
ANIANUS,  TANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  889 
 
 to  represent  the  1st  of  Darius,  bis  3Gtli  here,  as  with  Euseblus,  repre- 
 sents the  1st  of  Xerxes,  and  the  21st  of  Xerxes  in  turn  represents  the 
 short  reign  of  Artabanus. 
 
 (Gen.  ciii.)  S'epbiQ  o  fisyag  trrj  ku  •  Xerxes^  A.M.  5025+21  = 
 5046,  ending  for  Anianus  in  b.  c.  455,  at  the  true  point  for  the  ending  of 
 the  9th  of  Artaxerxes. 
 
 f'.  (Gen.  civ.)  'Aprat^p^nQ  '^^'n  H'''  Artaxerxes,  a.m.  5046  +  40=5086, 
 ending  for  Anianus  in  b.  c.  415,  at  the  true  point  for  the  ending  of  the 
 9th  of  Nothus. 
 
 t'.  (Gen.  CV.)  Aaptlog  ^ep^ov  Not^of  ipaaiXevfre  ra  wavTa  trr]  iO\  Ttjg 
 AiyvTTTov  err]  ly  •  A.M.  5086+ 13=5099,  ending  for  Anianus  in  B.C. 
 402,  the  true  point  for  the  ending  of  the  3rd  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon  ;  so 
 that  thus  the  Persian  Dyn.  XXVII  of  Anianus  ends  at  the  same  point 
 chronologically  with  the  Persian  Dyn.  XXVIII  of  the  Old  Chronicle. 
 
 [Onov  sTiipiy'-  A.  M.  4986  +  113=5099.  Between  tlie  beginning  of 
 the  5th  of  Cambyses,  the  1st  year  of  Dyn.  XXVIII  of  the  Chronicle, 
 and  the  end  of  the  3rd  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  which  is  its  last,  there 
 are  really  124  years.  And  Anianus  having  been  11  years  in  advance  of 
 the  Chronicle  at  the  beginning  of  his  corresponding  Dyn.  XXVII,  and 
 having  in  this  dynasty  itself  113,  has  now  exhibited  or  paralleled  within 
 their  true  limits,  though  not  under  their  true  designations,  the  same  124 
 years  of  the  Chronicle.] 
 
 [^AvpaGveia  KH'  Sairoy  ti'Of;.] 
 
 a.  (Gen.  cvi.)  [Tf/>  ly'  ersi  Aapeiov  No(9oi;  j3a(nX(iaQ  Uepfnoi'l  ' AfXVpTaioQ 
 kfiaaiXtvcjEv  AiyvnTov  errj  <r' *  Aimjrtmis,  A.M.  5099  +  6=5105,  ending 
 for  Anianus  in  b.c.  396,  with  the  19th  of  liothus  depressed  into  the 
 place  of  the  9th  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon.  Having  consolidated  Dyn. 
 XXVII  of  the  Chronicle  with  its  Dyn.  XVII  in  his  vii  Shepherds  above, 
 Anianus  had  made  room  for  this  substitute  of  Manetho's  introducing 
 in  lieu  of  Dyn.  XXVII  of  the  Chronicle  below,  and  was  under  no  ne- 
 cessity of  varying  the  numeration  of  the  intervening  dynasties.  The  6 
 years  given  to  this  Dyn.  XXVIII  leave  only  (57 — 6=)  51  years  of  the 
 1881  of  the  Chronicle  to  be  still  accounted  for.  And,  as  regards  the  ge- 
 nerations, Anianus,  having  already  placed  in  Dyn.  XXVI  two,  in  XXVII 
 one,  and  here  again  in  XXVIII  one  more  generation  unknown  to  the 
 Chronicle,  has  still  remaining  of  those  seven  which  he  held  in  reserve 
 three  unplaced ;  and  these,  as  well  as  four  others  belonging  to  Dynasties 
 XXIX  and  XXX  of  the  Chronicle,  he  has  still  to  place. 
 
 \_AvvaaTHa  K0'  Mtvdriauov  ytveuit/  d'.'j 
 
 a.  (Gen.  cvii.)  N6^;f,o<r?7e  trr]  <r' '  Neplieritcs,  A.M..  5105  +  6=5111, 
 ending  for  Anianus  in  his  b.  c.  390. 
 
 /3'.  (Gen.  cviii.)  "Axwptg  errj  ij3' '  Achoris,  a.m.  5111  +  12  =  5123, 
 ending  for  Anianus  in  his  b.  c.  378.  Hence  perhaps  the  present  variant 
 of  only  12  years  for  Achoris  in  the  Canon  of  Eusebius. 
 
 /.  (Gen.  cix.)  "irafifxovOlg  hog  a'  Psammouthis,  a.m.  5123+1  = 
 5124,  ending  for  Anianus  in  his  b.c.  377. 
 
 d'.  (Gen.  ex.)  l^tijepirtjg  'irog  a'  Kepherites,  A.M.  5124+1=5125, 
 ending  for  Anianus  in  his  b.  c.  376. 
 
890 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CnUONlCLES. 
 
 ['0//o?~  Twv  ysvuov  arri  k' '  A.M.  5105  4-20=5125  ;  leaving  still  (51  — 
 20=)  31  years  of  the  1881  and  iii  generations  of  the  cxiii  of  the 
 Chronicle  to  be  accounted  for.] 
 
 [^^vvaaTiia  A'  'S.tjStvvvToji-^  ysvuHv  y'.] 
 
 a.  (Gen.  cxi.)  ^6KTavs(3r]g  er)]  ij' •  A.M.  5 125 -f- 8=5133,  ending  for 
 Anianus  in  his  b.  c.  368. 
 
 /3'.  (Gen.  cxii.)  Ttwt;  er7]  (5'  •  a.m.  5133+2=5135,  ending  for  Ania- 
 nus in  his  B.C.  866. 
 
 y'.  (Gen.  cxiii.)  ^eKravii3i]g  jS'  trr]  <r' .  A.M.  5135  +  6=5141,  ending 
 for  Anianus  in  his  b.  c.  360. 
 
 ['O/ioD  trij  i=r'-  A.M.  5125  +  16=5141,  that  is,  to  the  end  of  a.m.  5141, 
 or  to  Aug.  28  in  b.  c.  360  of  Anianus,  and  (when  his  suppression  of  8 
 years  before  a.d.  284  is  rectified)  in  b.c.  360  also  of  the  vulgar  era.] 
 
 The  remaining  15  of  the  1881  years  of  the  regal  dynasties 
 of  the  Chronicle  are  cut  off  and  transferred  from  the  native 
 Egyptian  kings  of  Dyn.  XXX  to  the  Persians,  in  order 
 that  Nectanebo  II.  may  fly  from  Egypt  in  time  to  become 
 the  father  of  Alexander.  And  between  B.C.  360,  where  we 
 now  are,  and  B.C.  336,  the  date  for  the  Macedonian,  accession 
 of  Alexander,  the  interval  is  24  years,  being  two  or  three  more 
 than  were  absolutely  needed.  And  so,  if  the  IManetho  of 
 Anianus  had  exhibited  a  thirty-first  dynasty,  which  he  did 
 not,  his  Dyn.  XXXI,  instead  of  the  16  years  of  Eusebius 
 (and  they  were  one  too  many)  would  have  had  (16  +  14  =  ) 
 30  years,  the  Egyptian  reign  of  Ochus  being  made  to  begin 
 Avith  that  year  which  was  really  the  6th  from  his  first  Persian 
 accession  as  associated  with  his  father,  and  the  last,  that  is 
 the  46th,  of  his  father's  whole  life  and  reign.  But,  as  Anianus 
 cut  down  the  whole  reign  of  Artaxerxes  from  46  to  40  years, 
 and  suppressed  between  him  and  Ochus  9  years  in  all,  the 
 1st  year  of  Ochus  in  Egypt  would  be  for  him  the  37th  of 
 Artaxerxes,  and  Ochus  would  appear  to  have  reduced  Egypt 
 4  years  before  the  death  of  his  father.  And  after  21  (or 
 nominally  only  20)  years  of  Ochus,  and  3  (or  nominally  4) 
 years  of  Arses,  and  6  of  Darius  Codomannus,  the  "  cosmo- 
 cracy "  of  Alexander  would  commence  for  Anianus  after  the 
 end  of  his  a.m.  5141  +  30  =  5171  in  his  B.C.  330,  which  is  in 
 fact  the  true  date. 
 
 The  Egyptian  scheme  of  Anianus  has  now  been  exhibited; 
 and  it  has  been  shown  how  he  contrived,  by  his  methods  of 
 
AXIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  891 
 
 reduction,  to  make  the  36,525  mixed  and  nominal  years  of 
 the  Old  Chronicle  agree  with  his  own  chronology.  For,  if 
 we  recapitulate,  his  own  first  1058  are  given  as  equivalent 
 to  12,696  of  the  years  of  the  Chronicle:  his  next  968  years 
 and  208  days,  reckoned  as  969  years,  are  made,  by  a  peculiar 
 artifice,  to  account  for  11,984  :  the  215  years  still  remaining 
 to  his  epoch  of  the  Flood  (or  in  strictness  214  of  them  and 
 6  months)  represent  2574  more  :  and  below  the  Flood  his 
 534  years  to  the  Dispersion  having  absorbed  (6349  +  59  =  ) 
 6408,  the  w^hole  sum  of  years  of  the  Chronicle  reduced  by 
 him  amounts  to  (12,696  +  11,984  +  2574  H- 6408  =  )  33,662. 
 And  when  these  are  deducted  from  the  36,525  of  the  airoKa- 
 rdaTacrc9,  there  remain  still  2863  of  the  years  of  the  Chro- 
 nicle to  be  accounted  for.  Of  these  72  having  been  allowed 
 for  the  interval  between  the  settlement  of  Egypt  and  Menes, 
 and  427  more  having  been  given  to  kings  before  coming  to 
 those  1881  which  are  reckoned  to  the  monarchy  in  the  last 
 XV  dynasties  of  the  Chronicle,  and  lastly  these  1881  also 
 having  been  paralleled  (though  the  last  15  of  them  are 
 transferred  from  the  native  Egyptians  to  the  Persians), 
 these  sums  together  make  (72+427  +  1881  =  )  2380  years; 
 and  there  remain  only  (36,525-33,662  =  2863-2380  =  ) 
 483  years.  And  these  are  the  same  483  which  in  the  Chro- 
 nicle were  thrown  up,  40  of  them  to  the  times  of  the  Gods, 
 and  443,  under  a  separate  designation  of  xv  generations  of 
 the  Cycle,"  to  a  place  between  the  Demigods  and  Menes ; 
 but  which  for  Anianus,by  the  mere  fact  that  they  are  left  to 
 the  end  of  his  Egyptian  scheme,  and  are  alone  not  accounted 
 for  before,  are  restored  to  their  true  place,  beginning  from 
 that  point  where  the  last  of  his  years  above  enumerated 
 ends,  and  ending  consequently  themselves  with  his  2nd  year 
 of  Antoninus  Pius,  which  contained  the  Sothic  epoch, 
 whether  ostensibly  depressed  or  understood  at  its  true  astro- 
 nomical and  historical  place,  so  as  to  end  {/or  him)  w^ith 
 Aug.  28  in  A.D.  139  of  the  vulgar  era. 
 
 It  remains  only  to  compare  the  Egyptian  reckoning  of 
 full  but  vague  years  underlying  the  xxv  nominal  cycles  of 
 the  Old  Chronicle,  and  in  one  way  or  other  underlying  all 
 the  six  purely  Egyptian  schemes  which  have  been  examined 
 
892 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CimONICLES. 
 
 in  this  work,  with  the  sum  of  fixed  Alexandriiin  years  equal 
 to  Julian  made  out  by  Anianus. 
 
 The  whole  sum  of  full  but  vague  years  underlying  the 
 36,525  nominal  years  of  the  Chronicle  was  5844,  ov  four 
 Sothic  cycles,  equal  in  length  to  5840  fixed  Alexandrian  or 
 Julian  or  Canicular  years,  beginning  with  July  20  in  the 
 anticipated  and  uncorrected  Julian  year  B.C.  (1322  +  1460 
 +  1460+  1460  =  )  5702,  which  is  341  vague  years  before  the 
 Egyptian  epoch  of  Cronus  or  Adam,  and  ending  with  July 
 19  in  A.D.  139  of  the  vulgar  era.  To  have  agreed  then  not  in 
 pretence  only  but  in  truth  with  the  Egyptian  chronology  of 
 human  time,  Anianus  or  any  other  author  ought  to  have  had 
 a  reckoning  of  (5840  — 341  =  )  5499  fixed  Alexandrian  years 
 from  Aug.  29  in  B.C.  (5702-341  =)  5361  to  Aug.  28  in 
 AD.  139  of  the  vulgar  era,  or  of  5500  from  Aug.  29  in  B.C. 
 5362,  since  the  Egyptians  cut  off  7  or  8  months  reckoned  by 
 the  Hebrews  at  the  commencement  of  true  human  time  in 
 order  to  make  time  begin  with  Thoth  1  of  their  own  movable 
 year,  which  about  their  epoch  of  the  Creation  (b.c.  5362  and 
 5361)  was  not  in  the  autumn  but  in  April.  It  is  certainly 
 remarkable  that  5500  Canicular  or  anticipated  Julian  years, 
 the  sum  made  by  several  Christian  writers,  and  by  means  of 
 various  erroneous  reckonings,  to  the  Nativity,  should  have 
 been  meanwhile  the  true  sum  underlying  the  Egyptian 
 Chronicles,  though  ending  in  truth  not  at  the  time  of  the 
 Nativity,  but  (according  to  the  vulgar  era)  138  years  later. 
 
 Instead,  however,  of  5500  years  to  Aug.  29  in  A.D.  139, 
 or  at  least  after  his  2nd  year  of  Antoninus  Pius,  or  (5500  — 
 138  =  )  5362  to  Aug.  28  ending  his  43rd  year  of  Augustus^ 
 Anianus  made  5639  to  Aug.  28  ending  his  2nd  year  of  Anto- 
 ninus and  5501  to  Aug.  28  ending  his  43rd  year  of  Augustus 
 containing  the  Nativity.  So  according  to  Egyptian  tradi- 
 tion at  least,  and  according  to  the  reckoning  of  Josephus  and 
 the  Scriptures  as  harmonised  above  in  this  work,  he  made 
 just  (5501—5362  =  )  139  fixed  Alexandrian  years  too  many 
 between  the  Creation  and  the  end  of  the  43rd  of  Augustus 
 or  the  end  of  his  2nd  of  Antoninus  Pius ;  though,  as  either 
 below  or  above  this  epoch  the  dropped  8  years,  the  Coptic  and 
 Abyssinian  Churches,  which  still  follow  his  reckoning,  exceed 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  893 
 
 upon  the  whole  not  by  139  but  only  by  131  years,  making 
 that  year  of  theirs  which  coinmenccd  with  their  Aug.  30  in 
 A.D.  1859  to  be  a.m.  (5501  +  1850  =  )  7352.  But  according 
 to  the  reckoning  of  the  Egyptian  Chronicles,  and  with  the  7 
 or  8  months  cut  off  by  them  restored,  the  year  which  began 
 w^ith  Aug.  30  or  Sept.  1  in  a.d.  1859  is  the  year  of  the  world 
 7221  now  current. 
 
 The  true  reduction  of  the  nominal  and  mixed  years  of  the 
 Chronicle,  of  which  Anianus  seems  to  have  had  no  idea,  was 
 not  by  any  means  a  simple  operation,  but  required  several 
 distinct  processes.  First,  it  was  necessary  to  distinguish  and 
 to  eject  and  put  down  to  their  true  place  the  (40  +  443  =  ) 
 483  full  but  vague  years  of  the  last  cycle  of  the  Chronicle 
 which  in  it  were  thrown  up  above  Menes.  And  this  Ani- 
 anus has  certainly  done.  Then  there  were  the  341  full  but 
 fictitious  or  cosmical  years  added  in  all  such  Egyptian 
 schemes  as  were  cyclical  in  order  to  make  time  seem  to  have 
 begun  from  the  Sothic  epoch  of  July  20  B.C.  5702  :  and 
 these  ought  to  have  been  simply  ejected  and  suppressed,  as 
 we  find  them  to  be  in  those  of  the  Egyptian  schemes  (viz. 
 that  preserved  by  Diogenes  Laertius  and  that  of  the  original 
 Manetho)  which  were  not  cyclical.  But  Anianus  retains 
 and  accounts  for  all  these  years,  reducing  59  of  them  as 
 months  of  30  days  each,  and  reckoning  all  the  rest,  being  282 
 in  number,  as  full  years.  Thirdly,  it  was  necessary  to  know 
 not  only  that  the  great  bulk,  viz.  (30,681  +2922  =  )  33,603 
 of  the  (36,525-483  =  36,042-341  =  )  35,701  years  of  the 
 Chronicle  still  remaining  had  been  originally  months  of  30 
 days,  12  of  which  (the  epagomence  being  understood  to  go 
 with  them)  made  one  full  vague  year,  but  also  that  in  the 
 scheme  of  the  Chronicle  the  33,603  nominal  years  in  ques- 
 tion had  ceased  to  be  montlis.  In  the  older  hieratic  scheme, 
 indeed,  when  there  were  not  33,603  only,  but  35,064  of 
 them,  nothing  was  needed  but  to  divide  by  12  in  order 
 to  obtain  their  value  in  full  years.  But  after  1461,  or 
 one  nominal  cycle  of  them,  had  been  suppressed  by  the 
 author  of  the  Chronicle  in  order  to  make  room  for  the 
 current  cycle  of  full  historical  ye?«rs  which  had  been  growing 
 since  the  Sothic  epoch  of  B.C.  1322,  without  changing  the 
 
894 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 iiiiiviber  of  xxv  cycles  previously  connected  wltli  the  idea  of 
 an  aiTOfcardaraaLs,  the  33,603  nominal  years  still  retained  in 
 the  Chronicle  represented  no  longer  only  one  month  each  of 
 30  days  (irrespectively  of  the  epagomenje)  but  one  month 
 and  ^V^d  of  a  month.  And  to  reduce  them  to  full  vague 
 years  the  simplest  method  would  have  been  to  restore  that 
 portion,  viz.  gV^^  ^^^^  33,603  of  the  Chronicle,  or  ^V^h  of 
 the  original  sum  of  35,064  of  the  older  hieratic  scheme,  by 
 the  abstraction  of  which  the  33,603  had  ceased  to  be  really 
 months.  For  if  one  adds  to  33,603  one  23rd  part,  viz.  1461, 
 and  then  divides  (33,603  +  1461  =)  35,064  by  12,  the  quotient 
 2922  is  the  true  value  of  the  33,603  nominal  years  of  the 
 Chronicle.  And  these,  with  217  of  the  Demigods,  1881  of 
 kings  from  Menes  to  the  flight  of  Nectanebo,  and  483  of  the 
 Cycle  begun  in  B.C.  1322  which  were  still  to  run  out  after 
 the  conquest  of  Ochus,  make  together  a  sum  of  5503  full  but 
 vague  years  ending  with  July  19  in  a.d.  139,  just  after  the 
 1st  year  of  Antoninus  Pius.  The  next  step  is  to  reduce  these 
 vague  years  to  terms  of  the  year  employed  by  the  reducer, 
 Avhich  for  us  has  been  the  anticipated  but  uncorrected  Julian, 
 as  being  equivalent  to  the  Canicular  or  natural  year  of  the 
 old  Egyptians.  For  Anianus  it  would  have  been  the  fixed 
 Alexandrian  year.  And  in  either  case  there  would  be  4 
 years  fewer  to  be  reckoned  in  fixed  than  in  vague  years,  viz. 
 5499  instead  of  5503,  beginning  whether  with  July  20  or 
 Aug.  29  in  B.C.  (5499-138  =  )  5361  of  the  anticipated  and 
 uncorrected  Julian  year  B.C.  of  the  vulgar  era,  and  ending 
 whether  with  July  19  or  Aug.  28  in  or  with  his  2nd  of  An- 
 toninus Pius,  that  is,  in  a.d.  139  of  the  vulgar  era.  Lastly, 
 since  the  original  reckoning  of  the  Egyptians  or  of  their  fore- 
 fathers, and  that  of  Adam  himself,  could  not  be  supposed  to 
 have  begun  exactly  with  the  first  day  of  the  movable  Egyp- 
 tian Thoth,  any  more  than  it  could  be  supposed  to  have  begun 
 exactly  from  the  year  of  a  Sothic  epoch,  and  the  sacred 
 Scriptures  and  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  tradition  began 
 their  earlier  reckoning  not  from  April  but  from  September, 
 and  made  7  or  8  months  more  at  the  head  of  human  time 
 than  did  the  Egyptian  reckoning  expressed  in  terms  of  the 
 movable  year  and  of  the  Sothic  Cycle,  which  began  with 
 
ANIANUS,  PANODORUS,  AND  SYNCELLUS.  895 
 
 April  26  in  B.C.  5361,  it  would  have  been  proper  to  restore 
 and  prefix  these  7  or  8  months  cut  off  by  the  Egyptians. 
 And  so,  by  these  processes,  the  36,525  mixed  and  nominal,  or 
 5844  full  but  vague,  and  in  part  fictitious,  years  of  the 
 Chronicle  would  have  been  reduced  legitimately ^  and  would 
 have  been  found  to  indicate  the  sum  of  5500  fixed  Alexan- 
 drian years  ending  with  Aug.  28  in  a.d.  139  or  of  5362 
 endinw   th  Auo'.  28  in  a.d.  1  of  the  vul2:ar  era. 
 
 The  extent  to  Avhich  Anianus  exceeds  the  true  reckoning 
 has  been  already  noticed  in  describing  his  sacred  chronology ; 
 and  now  that  the  Egyptian  scheme  of  the  Chronicle,  on 
 being  compared  with  his  reduction  of  it,  has  indicated  the 
 number  of  139  years  as  needing  retrenchment  in  his  chro- 
 nography,  it  may  not  be  superfluous  to  repeat  the  items 
 of  which  the  excess  noticed  in  his  sacred  scheme  was 
 made  up.  First,  there  were  the  130  years  of  the  second 
 Cainan,  reduced  by  compensation  to  110  by  a  deficiency  of 
 20  on  the  2262  years  before  the  Flood.  Then  2  improperly 
 added  to  Joshua,  and  8  to  the  Elders  who  outlived  him, 
 made  120:  and  8  too  many  given  to  Samuel,  reduced  to  6 
 by  con:ipensation  by  the  cutting  off  of  2  from  Jair,  increased 
 the  excess  to  126.  The  4  surplus  years  of  the  kings  brought 
 it  up  to  130.  And  lastly,  18  years  too  many  being  reckoned 
 between  the  commencement  of  the  Captivity  and  the  last  or 
 Median  accession  of  Cyrus,  and  only  half  of  these  being 
 compensated  by  the  suppression  of  9  years  between  Arta- 
 xerxes  Mnemon  and  Ochus  below,  the  total  excess  was 
 shown  to  amount  to  139  years.  And  this  is  the  same 
 number  by  which  the  Egyptian  reckoning  of  human  time 
 really  underlying  the  Old  Chronicle  has  now  been  found 
 to  fall  short  of  that  obtained  from  it  in  appearance  by 
 Anianus  by  his  proffered  scheme  of  reduction. 
 
80G 
 
 EGYrTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 A  HARMONY  OF  SACRED  AND  EGYPTIAN  CHRONOLOGY. 
 
 *  For  reckoning  in  fixed  Alexandrian  or  other  like  years  beginning  3  or  4  months  earlier  than  these 
 Tables,  from  the  Creation  itself,  add  one  unit  in  Col.  a.m.  for  every  event  later,  and  in  Col.  b.c.  for 
 every  event  earlier  than  Aug.  29.  Also  note  that  the  letters  b.  and  e.  stand  for  begin"  and  "  end" 
 within  the  year  a.m.  and  B.C.  with  which  they  are  connected. 
 
 A.  M.  =  B.  C. 
 beginning  from 
 Jan.  1.* 
 
 SACRED  HISTORY. 
 
 Egyp- 
 tian 
 mova- 
 ble yr. 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Begins 
 from 
 
 1 
 
 5361 
 
 2nd  of  Adam  begins  in  Autumn. 
 
 1 
 
 342nd  of  Cycle  I.,  Dyn.  11.  of  Cro- 
 
 Apr. 26. 
 
 (Hence  2261  to  end  of  Flood.) 
 
 nus  (XIII  Gods  in  2922  years)  b. 
 
 1120 
 
 4242 
 
 161st  of  Jared  begins  in  Sept. 
 
 1121 
 
 1st  of  Cycle  II.  begins 
 
 July  20. 
 
 1GG2 
 
 3700 
 
 lot  of  Noah  (600  +  350),  b.  in  Sept. 
 
 1613 
 
 543rd  of  Cycle  II.  b. 
 
 Feb.  7. 
 
 2262 
 
 3100 
 
 600th  of  Noah  ends  in  Sept. 
 
 2264 
 
 1144th  of  Cycle  11.  b. 
 
 Oct.  8. 
 
 [The  35,0G4  months  of  the  Egyptians  are  divided  after 
 
 27,162,  equil  to  2263  movable  yea 
 
 rs  and  6 
 
 months,  or  2262  fixed  years,  which  end  at  Apr.  5  in  the  movable  a.m.  2264,  but  in  the  fixed  a.m. 
 
 2263,  B.C. 
 
 2999 ;  that  is,  they  end  half  a  year  too  low 
 
 because  they  began  also,  with  the  Egyptian 
 
 movable  year  1,  half  a  year  or  more  too  low.; 
 
 2263 
 
 3099 
 
 1st  Arphaxad  (135)  begins  in  the 
 
 2265 
 
 1145th  b. 
 
 Oct.  8. 
 
 Spring  or  Summer. 
 
 2398 
 
 2364 
 
 1st  Salah  (130)  b.  in  Spring. 
 
 2400 
 
 1280th  b. 
 
 Sept.  4. 
 
 2528 
 
 2834 
 
 1st  Eber  (134)  b. 
 
 2530 
 
 1410th  b. 
 
 Aug.  2. 
 
 2580 
 
 2782 
 
 .53rd  Eber  b. 
 
 2582 
 
 1st  of  Cycle  III.  begins 
 
 July  20. 
 
 2662 
 
 2700 
 
 1st  Peleg  (130)  b.  in  Spring. 
 
 2G64 
 
 83rd  b. 
 
 June  30. 
 
 2762 
 
 2600 
 
 101st  Peleg  b.  in  Spring:  600th 
 
 Shem  ends  in  Sept. 
 
 2764 
 
 183rd  b. 
 
 June  5. 
 
 2792 
 
 2570 
 
 1st  Reu  (132)  b.  in  Spring. 
 
 2794 
 
 213th  b. 
 
 May  28 
 
 2921 
 
 2441 
 
 130th  Reu  b. 
 
 2923 
 
 5J2nd  of  Cycle  III.  (The  last  7902 
 
 Apr.  26. 
 
 months  end).    Dyn.  XV  of viii 
 
 Demigods  (217  )'ears)  begins. 
 
 2C,21 
 
 2438 
 
 1st  Serug  (130)  b. 
 
 2926 
 
 345th  of  Cycle,  4th  of  Demigods. 
 
 Apr.  25 
 
 30o4 
 
 2308 
 
 1st  Nahor  (79)  b. 
 
 30-56 
 
 475th  of  Cycle,  31th  of  Demigods. 
 
 Mar.  24. 
 
 3133 
 
 2229 
 
 1st  Terah  (70)  b. 
 
 3135 
 
 .554th  of  Cycle,  1 13th  of  Demigods. 
 
 Mar.  4, 
 
 3138 
 
 2224 
 
 6th  Terah  b. 
 
 3140 
 
 559th  of  Cycle  III.,  1st  of  Menes  ; 
 
 Mar.  3. 
 
 Dyn.  XVI,  viii  Tanites  (190)  b. 
 
 3203 
 
 2159 
 
 1st  Abraham  (75+130  or  100)  b. 
 
 3205 
 
 GGth  of  Tanites. 
 
 Feb.  15. 
 
 3217 
 
 2145 
 
 15th  begins  about  the  season  of 
 
 3219 
 
 80th  of  Tanites.  1st  of  Dyn.X  Man. 
 
 Feb.  11. 
 
 Easter. 
 
 Ill  Afr.  of  ix  Memphites  (214). 
 
 3230 
 
 2132 
 
 2Sth  of  Abraham  b. 
 
 3232 
 
 93rd  of  Tanites.  Istof  Dyn.  XIII 
 
 Feb.  8. 
 
 Man.  VI  Afr.  of  vi  Central 
 
 Memphites  (181). 
 
 3235 
 
 2127 
 
 .33rd  of  Abraham,  b. 
 
 32.37 
 
 98th  of  Tanites.  Istof  Dyn.  XIV 
 
 Feb.  7. 
 
 Man.  XI  of  Afr.  of  xvi  Diospo- 
 
 lites  (380  ?) 
 
 3278 
 
 2084 
 
 76th  of  Abraham  b.    The  Call. 
 
 3280 
 
 141st  of  Tanites. 
 
 Jan.  27. 
 
 32'39 
 
 2073 
 
 87th  Abr.  1st  of  Ishmael  b.  in 
 
 3291 
 
 152i-id  of  Tanites  =  2nd  of  life  of 
 
 Jan.  24 
 
 Spring. 
 
 PapaMaire  (100). 
 
 3302 
 
 2060 
 
 100th  Abr.  b.   Sodom  destroyed. 
 
 3304 
 
 164th  of  Tanites. 
 
 Jan. 21. 
 
 3303 
 
 2059 
 
 1st  of  Isaac  (60)  b. 
 
 .3305 
 
 165th  of  Tanites. 
 
 Jan.  21. 
 
HARMONY  OF  SACRED  AND  EGYPTIAN  CHRONOLOGY.  897 
 
 A.M. 
 
 =  B.C. 
 
 Epyp- 
 
 Begin» 
 from 
 
 begiuniiig  from 
 
 SACRED  HISTORY. 
 
 mova- 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Jan,  1. 
 
 ble  yr 
 
 3328 
 
 2034 
 
 26th  of  Isaac  begins  in  Spring. 
 
 3330 
 
 1st  of  Dyn.  XVII.  of  iv  Mem- 
 phite  generations  (103).  Sa- 
 houra(17).  Seep.  312. 
 
 Jan.  14. 
 
 334.T 
 
 2017 
 
 43rd. 
 
 3347 
 
 1st  of  Snefrou  (22). 
 
 Jan.  10. 
 
 3355 
 
 2007 
 
 .53rd. 
 
 3357 
 
 9th  of  Snefrou.  [About  March  6 
 
 Jan.  8. 
 
 in  this  year,  the  Shepherds  of  Dyn.  XVII  of 
 
 Man.  (XV  of  Afric.)  settle  in  the  Delta, 
 
 and  remain  259  years  lO'n.] 
 
 33G3 
 
 1999 
 
 1st  of  Jacob  (121)  b. 
 
 3365 
 
 17th  of  Snefrou. 
 
 Jan.  6. 
 
 3367 
 
 1995 
 
 5th. 
 
 3369 
 
 1st  of  Papa  Maire  (21). 
 
 Jan.  5. 
 
 3374 
 
 1988 
 
 12th.  [.Abraham  aged  175  died  in 
 B.C.  1984.] 
 
 3376 
 
 1st  of  Dyn.XVof  Man.  (XIlAfric.) 
 viii  Diospolites  (191). 
 
 Jan.  3. 
 
 3383 
 
 1979 
 
 21st  of  Jacob  b. 
 
 3386 
 
 804th  of  Cycle  III.  »  begin  both  in 
 
 Jan.  1 . 
 
 3383 
 
 1979 
 
 21st  of  Jacob  is  current. 
 
 3387 
 
 805th  of  Cycle  111.  j  same  fixed  yr. 
 
 Dec.  31. 
 
 3387 
 
 1975 
 
 25th. 
 
 3390 
 
 1  yr.  of  Meranre  begins. 
 
 Dec.  30. 
 
 3388 
 
 1974 
 
 26th. 
 
 3391 
 
 1st  of  Sesortasen  I.  (42)  b. 
 
 Dec.  30. 
 
 3430 
 
 1932 
 
 68th. 
 
 3433 
 
 1st  of  Dyn.  XXVII  of  the  Shep- 
 
 Dec.  20. 
 
 herds  after  taking  Memphis.  Also  1st  of  Dyn.  XI  of  Manetho  (IV  Africanus),  of  viii 
 
 tributary  Memphites  (with  178  yrs.),  and  of  Dyn.  XII  of  Manetho  (V  Afrlc.)  ofix  "  Ele- 
 
 phantinites"  (Heliopolites)  with  183  ?  yrs. ;  perhaps  the  23rd  yr.  of  the  (xxxvi  in  Man., 
 
 Ixxviin  Airic.  cxliii+xix  =  clxiiin  Papyr.) 
 
 Nubian  and  Heracleopolite  commandant 
 
 kings  of  Dyn.  XVI  of  Manetho.  (XIV  of  Afric)  This  same  year  is  then  the  14th  of  the 
 
 Shepherd  Apachnas  who  reigned  (13+23=)  36  years,  and  the  1st  of  Amenemhe  II. 
 
 who  reigned  in  the  Thebaid  23  years.] 
 
 34.?3 
 
 1909 
 
 91st  of  Jacob  b. 
 
 3456 
 
 1st  of  Apophis(6I  )and  Isl  of  Sesor- 
 tasen 11.  in  the  Thebaid  (19)  b. 
 
 Dec.  14. 
 
 3454 
 
 1908 
 
 92nd  Jac.  and  1st  of  Joseph  (110)  b. 
 
 3457 
 
 2nd  of  Apophis  b. 
 
 Dec.  14. 
 
 3471 
 
 1891 
 
 109th  Jacob  and  18th  of  Joseph,  b. 
 
 3474 
 
 18th  of  Apophis  b. 
 
 Dec.  10. 
 
 3473 
 
 1889 
 
 111th  Jacob  and  20th  of  Joseph  b. 
 
 3476 
 
 20th  of  Apophis,  and  1st  of  Sesor- 
 tasen III.  (36)  b. 
 
 Dec.  9. 
 
 3481 
 
 1881 
 
 119th  Jacob  and  28th  of  Joseph  b. 
 [Isaac  aged  180  dies  in  b.c.  1879.] 
 
 3484 
 
 28th  of  Apophis,  and  9th  of  Sesort. 
 (aft.  Nubian  vict,  in  his  8th)  b. 
 
 Dec.  7. 
 
 3484 
 
 1878 
 
 122ndJac.and31st  of  Joseph,thelst 
 yr.  of  Joseph's  government  (80)  b. 
 
 3487 
 
 31st  of  Apophis  (Jos.  now  viceroy}, 
 and  12th  of  Sesortasen  III.  in 
 the  Thebaid  begin. 
 
 Dec.  6. 
 
 3493 
 
 1809 
 
 40th  Jos.  (131st  Jac.)3rdof  fam.b 
 
 34f)6 
 
 40th  of  Apophis  and  21st  of  Sesor- 
 
 Dec.  4. 
 
 taseu  III.  who  now  becomes  the  vassal  of  Apophis. 
 
 63rd  year  of  Dyn.  XI  of  Manetho, 
 
 (IV  of  Afric.)    The  Great  Pyramid  of  Cheops  is  now  building. 
 
 3509 
 
 1853 
 
 56th  of  Joseph  (147th  Jacob)  b. 
 
 3512 
 
 56th  Apophis  ;  1st  Amenemhe  III. 
 (43)  who  builds  the  Labyrinth  b 
 
 Nov.  30. 
 
 3515 
 
 1847 
 
 62nd. 
 
 3518 
 
 Istof  Janias  (.50);  7th  Amen.  11 1,  b 
 
 Nov.  29. 
 
 3352 
 
 1810 
 
 99th. 
 
 3555 
 
 38th  Janias;  1st  Amen.  IV.  (8)b 
 
 Nov.  20. 
 
 3560 
 
 1802 
 
 107th. 
 
 3563 
 
 46th  Janias;  1st  Scemiophris  (4)b 
 
 Nov.  18. 
 
 3564 
 
 1798 
 
 1st  after  death  of  Joseph  (144)  b. 
 
 3567 
 
 50th  Janias. 
 
 Nov.  16. 
 
 3565 
 
 1797 
 
 2nd. 
 
 3568 
 
 1st  of  Aseth  (50). 
 
 Nov.  16. 
 
 3582 
 
 1780 
 
 19th.  [Pachon  1  =  Solstice, JulylO.] 
 
 3575 
 
 18th.  Calendar  and  seasons  agree. 
 
 Nov.  12. 
 
 3614 
 
 1748 
 
 51st.  [2nd  of  Apophis  II.  at  Avaris 
 (5)  b.]. 
 
 3617 
 
 1st  of  Dyn.  XVIII  (348)  Amosis, 
 from  his  coronation  at  Memphis 
 24.4m?  (technically  24)  b. 
 
 Not.  4. 
 
 3628 
 
 1734 
 
 65th  from  death  of  Joseph  and  1st 
 of  Moses  (120)  b. 
 
 3631 
 
 15th  of  Amosis  b. 
 
 Oct.  31. 
 
 3638 
 
 1724 
 
 11  th  of  Mos£S  b. 
 
 3641 
 
 1st  of  Amenoph  I.  (13)  b. 
 
 Oct.  29. 
 
 3651 
 
 1711 
 
 24th. 
 
 3654 
 
 IstTholhmesI.  Chebron  7.7m(7)b 
 
 Oct.  26. 
 
 3658 
 
 1704 
 
 31st. 
 
 3661 
 
 1st  of  Aahmes,  widow  of  Thoth- 
 
 Oct.  24. 
 
 mes  I.  as  regent  for  Hatasu  and  Thothmes  III.  5.1m  ?+ 16.8m  ?  of  Hatasu=21. 9m 
 
 The  (6)  yrs.  of  Aahmes  are  antedated  technically  by  11m, 
 
 3  M 
 
898 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES, 
 
 A.M. 
 
 =  B.C. 
 
 Egyp- 
 
 beginning from 
 
 SACRED  HISTORY. 
 
 tian 
 mova- 
 
 EGYPTIAN CHRONICLES. 
 
 Begins 
 
 Jan.  1. 
 
 ble  yr. 
 
 from 
 
 3G64 
 
 1G9S 
 
 37th  of  Moses  begins  in  Spring. 
 
 3G67 
 
 lot     yJL     LXctLdoCi     ^  XlallJalVrtr^  WiLli 
 
 1  notniiies  il*  lo.o"Jr  \^lo)» 
 
 Oct.  22. 
 
 3668 
 
 1694 
 
 41st  b.  Flight  of  Moses. 
 
 3671 
 
 4th. 
 
 Oct.  21. 
 
 3680 
 
 1682 
 
 53rd. 
 
 3C83 
 
 1st  of  Thothmes  III.  alone  21.9wi 
 +  12+12.9™  =  47.6'n.  (20)  b. 
 
 Oct.  18 
 
 3706 
 
 1656 
 
 79th. 
 
 3709 
 
 1st  Amenoph  II.  25.10'".  (26)  b. 
 
 Oct.  12. 
 
 3708 
 
 1654 
 
 81st  begins.   The  Exodus,  Apr.  5, 
 
 3711 
 
 3rd. 
 
 Oct.  1 1 . 
 
 3732 
 
 1630 
 
 105th. 
 
 3735 
 
 1st  of  Thothmes  IV.  9.8m.  (lO)  b. 
 
 Oct.  5. 
 
 3741 
 
 1621 
 
 114th. 
 
 3744 
 
 1st  AiYiPnnnh  III  J  Memnoii(37)b 
 i.st  Amenoph  III.  ^3Q_,y^^g  jrs.  r 
 
 Oct.  3. 
 
 3748 
 
 1614 
 
 1st  of  Joshua  (25)  b. 
 
 3751 
 
 8th. 
 
 KJClt  I. 
 
 3773 
 
 1589 
 
 1st  of  Elders  (10)  b. 
 
 3776 
 
 33rd 
 
 Sept. 25. 
 
 3778 
 
 1584 
 
 6th. 
 
 3781 
 
 ISI  01  ^nousan- Aim  j o.o"" .  (Jo)  0. 
 
 oept.24. 
 
 3783 
 
 1579 
 
 1st  of  Servitude  to  Chushan  (8)  b. 
 
 3786 
 
 6th, 
 
 Sept.23. 
 
 3794 
 
 1568 
 
 4th  of  Othniel  (40)  b. 
 
 3797 
 
 lai  01  norus  oD.o*'*  \oi  .  mcluumg 
 
 Sept. 20. 
 
 sormeyrs. 
 
 of  Amon-Anchut ;  or  36.5™.  including  als 
 
 )  the  last  5  or  6  yrs  of  Chousan^)  b 
 
 3825 
 
 1537 
 
 35th  of  Othniel  b. 
 
 3828 
 
 1st  of  Q.  Achenchre  12.1m,  (12)  b. 
 
 Sept.  12. 
 
 3831 
 
 1531 
 
 1st  of  Servitude  to  Eglon  (18)  b. 
 
 3834 
 
 7th. 
 
 Sept.  1 1. 
 
 3837 
 
 1525 
 
 /  m. 
 
 3840 
 
 1st  of  Rathotis  (9)  b. 
 
 Sept.  9. 
 
 3846 
 
 1516 
 
 16ih. 
 
 3849 
 
 1st  of  Achenchres  I.  12. 5™.  (12)  b. 
 
 Sept.  7. 
 
 3849 
 
 1513 
 
 isi  oi  JCinua  ana  anamgdr  (ovj  o. 
 
 3852 
 
 4th. 
 
 Sept,  6. 
 
 3858 
 
 1504 
 
 10th. 
 
 3861 
 
 1st  of  Achenchres  II.  12.3m.  (13)  b. 
 
 Sept.  4, 
 
 3871 
 
 1491 
 
 23rd. 
 
 3874 
 
 1st  of  Arniais  [Rcinfiessouj4.1rn(4)b. 
 
 Sept.  1 . 
 
 3875 
 
 1487 
 
 27th. 
 
 3878 
 
 1st  of  Rameses  [Seti  I.]  1.4ra.(i)b. 
 
 Aug.  31. 
 
 3876 
 
 1486 
 
 28th. 
 
 3879 
 
 1st  of  Armesses  Miammous[Rame- 
 ses  II.]  66.2™.  (66)  b. 
 
 Aug.  30. 
 
 3929 
 
 1433 
 
 1st  of  Servitude  to  Jabin  (20)  b. 
 
 3932 
 
 .54th. 
 
 Aug.  17. 
 
 3942 
 
 1420 
 
 14th. 
 
 3945 
 
 1st  of  Amenoph  \  [Merienphtha] 
 
 Aug.  14. 
 
 3949 
 
 1413 
 
 1st  of  Deborah  (40)  b. 
 
 3952 
 
 8th. 
 
 Aug.  12. 
 
 3962 
 
 1400 
 
 14th. 
 
 3965 
 
 1st  of  Dyn.  XIX.  (194).  Seti  11.(59, 
 including   Amon-Meses  and 
 Siphthah)  b. 
 
 Aug.  9. 
 
 3989 
 
 1373 
 
 1st  of  Servitude  to  Midian  (7)  b. 
 
 3992 
 
 28th. 
 
 Aug.  2. 
 
 3996 
 
 1366 
 
 1st  of  Gideon  (40)  b. 
 
 3999 
 
 35th. 
 
 July  31. 
 
 4021 
 
 1341 
 
 26th. 
 
 4024 
 
 1st  of  Amen-Necht  (20)  b. 
 
 July  25. 
 
 4036 
 
 1326 
 
 1st  of  Abimelech  (3)  b. 
 
 4039 
 
 16th. 
 
 July  21. 
 
 4039 
 
 1323 
 
 1st  of  Tola  (23)  b. 
 
 4042 
 
 19th, 
 
 July  21. 
 
 4040 
 
 1322 
 
 2nd. 
 
 4043 
 
 20th.   1st  of  Cycle  IV.  b. 
 
 July  20. 
 
 4011 
 
 1321 
 
 3rd. 
 
 4044 
 
 1st  Rameses  III.  (46).  See  p.  223. 
 
 July  20. 
 
 4062 
 
 1300 
 
 1st  of  Jair  (22)  b. 
 
 4065 
 
 22nd. 
 
 July  15. 
 
 4084 
 
 1278 
 
 1st  of  Servitude  to  Ammon  (18)  b. 
 
 4087 
 
 44th. 
 
 July  9. 
 
 4087 
 
 1275 
 
 4th. 
 
 4090 
 
 1st  of  V  sons  of  Rameses  III.  (52). 
 See  p.  225. 
 
 July  9. 
 
 4102 
 
 1260 
 
 1st  of  Jephthah  (6)  b. 
 
 4105 
 
 16th. 
 
 July  5. 
 
 4108 
 
 1254 
 
 1st  of  Ibzan  (7)  b. 
 
 4111 
 
 22nd. 
 
 July  3. 
 
 4115 
 
 1247 
 
 1st  of  Elon  (10)  b. 
 
 4118 
 
 29th. 
 
 July  2. 
 
 4125 
 
 1237 
 
 1st  of  Abdon  (8)  b. 
 
 4128 
 
 39th. 
 
 June  29. 
 
 4133 
 
 1229 
 
 1st  of  Philistines  (40,  including  20 
 
 4136 
 
 47th. 
 
 June  27. 
 
 of  Samson )b.  [Assyrian  Empire  begins  , 
 
 ICC.  to  Herodotus  and  lasts  520  yrs.] 
 
 4139 
 
 1223 
 
 7th  of  Philistines  b. 
 
 4142 
 
 1st  of  Rameses  X.(17,of  which  the 
 
 June  26. 
 
 first  7  conjointly  with  Rameses  IX.  Siphthah).   See  p.  227. 
 
 4150 
 
 1212 
 
 18th.  [Troy  acc.  to  Dicsearchus  and  Manetho  er<  IlaXy/Sau  »3  Ne/Asw.]  llthb. 
 
 June  23 
 
HARMONY  OF  SACRED  AND  EGYPTIAN  CHRONOLOGY.  899 
 
 A.M.  =B.C. 
 beginning  from 
 Jan.  1. 
 
 :    SACRED  HISTORY. 
 
 E?yp- 
 tia  n 
 mova- 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Begins 
 from 
 
 4156 
 
 1206 
 
 24th  of  Philistines  b. 
 
 4159 
 
 loL  ui  i^yn.       (^zo)  xvamescs  ^i. 
 
 T 
 
 J  line  ^  1  • 
 
 A.11.          in  11  general,  {^ur) 
 
 4173 
 
 1189 
 
 1st  of  Eli  (40)  b. 
 
 4176 
 
 18th. 
 
 June  17 
 
 4205 
 
 1157 
 
 33rd. 
 
 4208 
 
 !«;(■  nf  Rampfipc  YT  V  I'iA  ■3^  Vi 
 
 June  9 
 
 4213 
 
 1149 
 
 1st  of  Ark  at  Kiriath- Jearim(20)b. 
 
 4216 
 
 9th. 
 
 June  7 
 
 4230 
 
 1132 
 
 18th. 
 
 4233 
 
 26th    FArk  of  Phr>n<!  <!Pnf  fn  Tlakli- 
 
 June  3 
 
 4233 
 
 1129 
 
 1st  of  Samuel  (32)  b. 
 
 4236 
 
 29th.  t''"''^ 
 
 June  2. 
 
 4239 
 
 1123 
 
 7th. 
 
 4242 
 
 1  st  of  Rameses  XV?  and  Her-Hor 
 
 Si-amon,  Gener.  iv  (15?)  b. 
 
 4254 
 
 1108 
 
 22nd. 
 
 4257 
 
 1st  of  Gen.  v.  Her-Hor  and  his 
 
 May  28. 
 
 son  Pianch,  and  perhaps  a 
 
 Rameses  (37?)  b. 
 
 4265 
 
 1097 
 
 1st  of  Saul  (20+20=40)  b. 
 
 4268 
 
 12th. 
 
 May  25 
 
 4285 
 
 1077 
 
 21st.  or  1  St  of  Saul  aloue(hence  490 
 
 4288 
 
 32nd. 
 
 May  20. 
 
 yrs.  to  the  Captivity)  b. 
 
 4291 
 
 1071 
 
 27th. 
 
 4294 
 
 1st  yr.  of  3  more  gener.  of  descend- 
 
 May  19 
 
 ants  of  Her-Hor,  viz.  Pinetem  I.,  Ra-raen-cheper,  and  PinetemII.(93  yrs.?).  See  p.  238. 
 
 4305 
 
 1057 
 
 1st  of  David  b. 
 
 4303 
 
 15th. 
 
 May  15. 
 
 4345 
 
 1017 
 
 1st  of  Solomon  b. 
 
 4348 
 
 55th. 
 
 May  5. 
 
 4348 
 
 1014 
 
 4th.    Temple  founded. 
 
 4351 
 
 58th. 
 
 May  4. 
 
 4355 
 
 1007 
 
 11th.  Temple  completed. 
 
 4358 
 
 65th. 
 
 May  3. 
 
 4384 
 
 978 
 
 40th. 
 
 4387 
 
 Istof  Dyn.  XXI.vi  Tanite  Bubas- 
 
 April  25, 
 
 tites(121).    Shishonk  I.  (21)  b. 
 
 4385 
 
 977 
 
 lstRehoboam(17 
 
 lstJeroboam(22). 
 
 4388 
 
 2nd. 
 
 April  25 
 
 4402 
 
 960 
 
 1st  Abijah  (3)  b. 
 
 I8th. 
 
 4405 
 
 18th. 
 
 April  £1. 
 
 4405 
 
 957 
 
 1st  Asa  (41)  b. 
 
 21st. 
 
 4408 
 
 1st  of  Osorthon  (1.5)  b. 
 
 April20. 
 
 4406 
 
 956 
 
 2nd. 
 
 1st  Nadab  (2)  b. 
 
 4409 
 
 2nd. 
 
 April  20. 
 
 4407 
 
 9.55 
 
 3rd. 
 
 1st  Baasha(24)b. 
 
 4410 
 
 3rd. 
 
 April  20. 
 
 4419 
 
 943 
 
 15th  b.  In  3rd  m. 
 
 spoils  offered.] 
 
 4422 
 
 15th. 
 
 April  17. 
 
 4430 
 
 932 
 
 2Gth. 
 
 1st  Elah  (2)b, 
 
 4433 
 
 47th  of  Dyn.  XXI  b.   See  p.  244. 
 
 April  14. 
 
 4431 
 
 931 
 
 27  th. 
 
 1st  Omri  (12)  b. 
 
 4434 
 
 48th. 
 
 April  14. 
 
 4435 
 
 927 
 
 31st. 
 
 5th  b.  Samaria  fd 
 
 4438 
 
 52nd. 
 
 April  13. 
 
 4442 
 
 920 
 
 38th. 
 
 1st  Ahab  (22)  b. 
 
 4445 
 
 59th. 
 
 April  1 1 . 
 
 4446 
 
 916 
 
 l9tJehosaphatC25) 
 
 4th  e.  and  5th  b. 
 
 4449 
 
 63rd. 
 
 April  10. 
 
 4464 
 
 898 
 
 19th. 
 
 1st  Ahaziah  (2). 
 
 4467 
 
 81st. 
 
 April  5, 
 
 4466 
 
 896 
 
 21st, 
 
 1st  Joram  (12). 
 
 4469 
 
 83rd. 
 
 April  5. 
 
 4470 
 
 892 
 
 25.  lstJehoram(8; 
 
 4th  e.  and  5th  b. 
 
 4473 
 
 87th. 
 
 April  4. 
 
 4477 
 
 885 
 
 1st  Ahaziah  (1)  b. 
 
 12th  [93rd  yr.]  b. 
 
 4480 
 
 94th. 
 
 April  2. 
 
 4478 
 
 884 
 
 1st  Athaliah(6)b. 
 
 1st  Jehu  (28)  b. 
 
 4481 
 
 95th. 
 
 April  2. 
 
 4484 
 
 878 
 
 1st  Joash  (40)  b. 
 
 7th. 
 
 4487 
 
 101st, 
 
 Mar.  31. 
 
 4505 
 
 857 
 
 22nd. 
 
 28th. 
 
 4508 
 
 1st  of  Dyn.  XXII  (48)b.iii  Tanite 
 
 Mar  26 
 
 generations.   See  p.  244. 
 
 4506 
 
 856 
 
 >3rd. 
 
 1st  Jeboahaz  (17) 
 
 4.509 
 
 2nd. 
 
 Mar,  26 
 
 4.522 
 
 840 
 
 39th. 
 
 1st  Jehoash  (16). 
 
 4525 
 
 18th. 
 
 Mar.  22. 
 
 4;  24 
 
 838 
 
 1&2  Amaziah(29). 
 
 3rd. 
 
 4527 
 
 20th. 
 
 Mar.  21. 
 
 4538 
 
 824 
 
 i5th. 
 
 1st  Jerobo.II(41). 
 
 4541 
 
 34th. 
 
 Mar.  18. 
 
 4553 
 
 809 
 
 1  &  2Uzzlah(52). 
 
 16th. 
 
 4556 
 
 1st  of  Dyn.  XXIII  (19)  ii  Diospol. 
 
 Mar.  14. 
 
 generat.  Osorchon  IV.  (9)  b. 
 
 4562 
 
 800 
 
 10th. 
 
 25th. 
 
 4565 
 
 Istof  Psammis  (10)  b.   See  p.  246. 
 
 Mar,12. 
 
 4.572 
 
 790 
 
 20th. 
 
 35th. 
 
 4575 
 
 1st  of  Dyn.  XXIV  (44)  iii  Saite 
 
 Mar.  9. 
 
 generations,   Petubast,  Zet, 
 
 Bocchoris.   See  p.  246. 
 
 3  M  2 
 
900 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 A.M.  =  B.C. 
 beginning  from 
 Jan.  1. 
 
 SACRED  HISTORY. 
 
 Egyp- 
 tian 
 
 ble  yr. 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Begins 
 from 
 
 4579 
 4586 
 
 783 
 776 
 
 27th  of  Uzziah  b. 
 34th  [Olymp.  1. 
 
 1st  of  Interregn. 
 
 (11  yrs.)b. 
 July  1.] 
 
 4582 
 4589 
 
 8th. 
 
 1.5th  of  Petubast  b. 
 
 Mar.  8 
 Mar.  6. 
 
 4590 
 
 772 
 
 38th. 
 
 Zechariah  6m. 
 
 4593 
 
 19th. 
 
 Mar.  5. 
 
 4591 
 
 771 
 
 39th.[]VIenaheTnis 
 vassal  to  Pu!.] 
 
 Shallum  im.  Me- 
 nahem  10  yrs. 
 
 4594 
 
 20th. 
 
 Mar.  5. 
 
 4602 
 
 760 
 
 50th. 
 
 1st  Pekaiah  (2). 
 
 4605 
 
 31st. 
 
 4604 
 
 758 
 
 52nd. 
 
 1st  Pekah  (20). 
 
 4607 
 
 33rd. 
 
 iviar.  I . 
 
 4605 
 
 757 
 
 1st  of  Jotham  (15.6m  ?)] 
 
 4608 
 
 34th. 
 
 Mar.  1. 
 
 4609 
 
 753 
 
 5th.  [Rome  founded  April  21]. 
 
 4612 
 
 38th. 
 
 Feb. 28, 
 
 4615 
 
 747 
 
 11th.  [Era  of  Nabonassar]. 
 
 4618 
 
 44th. 
 
 Feb.  26, 
 
 4616 
 
 746 
 
 12th. 
 
 13lh. 
 
 4619 
 
 1st  of  Dyn.  XXV  (44)  iii  Ethio- 
 plan  generations.  See  p.  580, 
 
 Feb.  26. 
 
 4621 
 
 741 
 
 1st  Ahaz  (15.6m?) 
 
 l8th[TiglathPil.] 
 
 4624 
 
 oiu  oi  oaoaco  (io)« 
 
 Feb.  25, 
 
 4624 
 4634 
 
 738 
 728 
 
 4th. 
 14th. 
 
 1st  Interregnum 
 (9  yrs.  imperf.) 
 2nd  Hosea  (9)  b. 
 
 4627 
 4637 
 
 9th, 
 
 1st  of  Sevechus  (14). 
 
 Feb.  24, 
 Feb.  22, 
 
 4636 
 
 726 
 
 1st  Hezekiah(29). 
 
 5th. 
 
 4639 
 
 3rd.  [In  5th  Hosea  v.  Salmanezer.] 
 
 Feb,  21, 
 
 4641 
 
 721 
 
 6th  b. 
 
 Samaria  taken 
 (after  256  yrs). 
 
 4644 
 
 8th. 
 
 Feb.  20, 
 
 4648 
 
 714 
 
 13th. 
 
 5651 
 
 1  St  of  Tirhakah  (12+19  =  31  ?). 
 
 Feb.  18. 
 
 4649 
 
 713 
 
 14th,  Sickness  of  Hezekiah. 
 
 .5652 
 
 2nd. 
 
 Feb.  18. 
 
 4660 
 
 702 
 
 25th. 
 
 5663 
 
 13th.  Istof  Dyn.  XXVI  (177),  vii 
 Saite  generations.    See  p.  584. 
 
 Feb,  15. 
 
 4665 
 
 697 
 
 1st  of  Manasseh  (55)  b. 
 
 5668 
 
 18th  6th  of  Kasto  inThebaid(19?) 
 
 Feb,  17. 
 
 4679 
 
 683 
 
 15th. 
 
 5682 
 
 1st  of  Ammerisand  Piankh  (20?). 
 
 Feb  1 1 
 
 4699 
 
 663 
 
 35th. 
 
 5702 
 
 1st  Psammitichus  I,  (54). 
 
 Feb.  6. 
 
 4720 
 
 642 
 
 Istof  Amou  (2)  b. 
 
 4723 
 
 22nd, 
 
 Jan.  31. 
 
 4722 
 
 640 
 
 1st  of  Josiah  (31)  b. 
 
 4725 
 
 24th. 
 
 Jan,  31. 
 
 4753 
 
 609 
 
 31st  e.  Jehoahaz  3m.  m  to  Oct.  16? 
 Jehoiakim  11  [10.5m  ?] 
 
 5756 
 
 Istof  Necho  (15). 
 
 Jan.  23. 
 
 4756 
 
 606 
 
 .3rd  e.  [Nineveh  taken.  From  Sept 
 
 .  1  in  this  yr.  to  about  July  23,  a.d.  637,  are 
 
 Jan.  22. 
 
 1260  years  of  360  days  each, 
 
 i.e.  perhaps  from  the  first  association  of  Nebuchadnezzar.] 
 
 4757 
 
 605 
 
 4th  e.  70  yrs. of  Daniel's  Captivity  b.  1st  of  Nebuch.  in  Syria  (44).  Carchemish. 
 
 Jan.  22, 
 
 4758 
 
 604 
 
 5th  e.  1st  of  Nebuchadnezzar  from  death 
 
 3f  his  father.  Canon  Astron,  (43)  b. 
 
 Jan,  22. 
 
 4764 
 
 598 
 
 JeconiasSm.  1st  Zedekiah  (11)  b. 
 
 4767 
 
 12th, 
 
 Jan.  20, 
 
 4768 
 
 594 
 
 5th  b.on  5th  of  4th  month,  June  21. 
 
 4771 
 
 1st  of  Psammitichus  II.  (6). 
 
 Jan.  19. 
 
 4774 
 
 588 
 
 11th  b.  June  21. 
 
 4777 
 
 1st  of  Apries  (19). 
 
 Jan.  18. 
 
 4775 
 
 587 
 
 1 1th  e.  490  yrs.  of  neglect  end,  and 
 
 70  yrs.  of  captivity  and  desolation  b.]  2nd. 
 
 Jan.  18. 
 
 4780 
 
 582 
 
 In  5th  after  burning  of  the  Temple  Nebuch.  besieges  Tyre  13  yrs.]  7th. 
 
 Jan.  16. 
 
 4792 
 
 570 
 
 Tyre  taken  after  13  yrs. 
 
 4795 
 
 19th.  [Nebuch.  conquers  Egypt.] 
 
 Jan.  13. 
 
 4793 
 
 569 
 
 19th  of  Captivity  b. 
 
 4796 
 
 1st  of  Amasis  (44). 
 
 Jan.  13. 
 
 4801 
 
 561 
 
 27th.  1st  of  Evil  Merodach  (2)  b. 
 Jeconias  has  already  begun. 
 
 On  27th  of  nth  month  (Adar)  37th  of 
 
 Jan.  11. 
 
 4803 
 
 559 
 
 29th.  1st  of  Neriglissar  (4).  Istot 
 Cyrus  in  Persia  (31). 
 
 4086 
 
 11th. 
 
 Jan,  11. 
 
 4807 
 
 555 
 
 33rd.  1st  ofNabonadius  (17).  5tli 
 of  Cyrus. 
 
 4810 
 
 15th. 
 
 Jan,  10, 
 
 4815 
 
 547 
 
 41st.  Sardis  taken  by  Cyrus. 
 
 4818 
 
 23rd. 
 
 Jan.  8. 
 
 4824 
 
 .538 
 
 50th.   1st  of  Cyrus  and  Darius  at 
 
 4827 
 
 32nd. 
 
 Jan.  5. 
 
 Babylon  (3). 
 
 4827 
 
 535 
 
 53rd.    1st  of  Cyrus  alone  (6)  b 
 Daniel's  70  yrs.  end. 
 
 4830 
 
 35th. 
 
 Jan,  9. 
 
 4833 
 
 5?9 
 
 59th.  1st  of  Cambyses  (8)  b. 
 
 4836 
 
 41st.                        [byses  (4). 
 
 Jan.  3. 
 
 4837 
 
 525 
 
 63rd.  5th  of  Cambyses  b. 
 
 4840 
 
 1st  of  Dyn.  XXVIII  (124).  Cam- 
 
 Jan.  2. 
 
HARMONY  OP  SACRED  AND  EGYPTIAN  CHRONOLOGY.  901 
 
 A.M.  =  B.C. 
 beginning  from 
 Jan.  1. 
 
 SACRED  HISTORY. 
 
 F-syp- 
 
 tian 
 mova- 
 ble yr. 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 1 
 
 Begins 
 from 
 
 4841 
 
 621 
 
 Kfi  I'll  \ji  v^dptivitjr  cviiu  ucat;itiLiuii  u. 
 
 4844 
 
 1st  of  Darius  Hyst.  (36). 
 
 Jan.  1. 
 
 4843 
 
 519 
 
 69th  b. 
 
 4846 
 
 3rd.  804th  of  Cycle  IV.)  bothb.  in 
 
 4843 
 
 519 
 
 69th  b. 
 
 4847 
 
 4th  805th  of  Pi  rlp  1 V  MfixpHvr 
 
 Dec.  31. 
 
 4844 
 
 518 
 
 70th  b. 
 
 4S48 
 
 5th. 
 
 Dec.  31. 
 
 4845 
 
 517 
 
 7flfh  pnHe  Vican  1 
 
 4849 
 
 6th. 
 
 Dec.  31. 
 
 4876 
 
 486 
 
 102nd  fr.d.  of  Seraiah  (484)  b.  Sept. 
 
 4880 
 
 1st  of  Xerxes  (21)  b. 
 
 Dec.  23. 
 
 4897 
 
 465 
 
 123rd. 
 
 4901 
 
 1st  of  Artaxerxes  Long.  (41)  b. 
 
 Dec.  18. 
 
 4904 
 
 458 
 
 130th.  Ezra  sent  in7tli  Art.Nisan  1. 
 
 4908 
 
 8th. 
 
 Dec.  16. 
 
 4917 
 
 445 
 
 143rd.  Nehe.  (12;  in  20th.  Art.  Nis 
 
 4921 
 
 21st. 
 
 Dec.  13. 
 
 4929 
 
 433 
 
 155th.  Nehemiah  returns  in  32nd. 
 
 4933 
 
 33rd. 
 
 Dec.  10. 
 
 4938 
 
 424 
 
 164th.  41st  Art.  e.  &  1st  Nothusb. 
 
 4942 
 
 1st  of  Darius  Nothus  (19)  b. 
 
 Dec.  8. 
 
 4948 
 
 414 
 
 174th.   10th  Nothus  e. 
 
 4952 
 
 11th.  [1st  of  Amyrtaeus  ?  (6)  ]  b. 
 
 Dec  5 
 
 4954 
 
 408 
 
 180th.   16th  Nothus  e. 
 
 49-i8 
 
 17th  [1st  of  Pausiris  ?  (4?)]b. 
 
 Dec.  4. 
 
 4957 
 
 405 
 
 183rd.   19th  e.  and  1st  Art.  (46)  b 
 
 4961 
 
 1st  of  Artaxerxes  Mnem.  (3)  b. 
 
 Dec.  3. 
 
 4960 
 
 402 
 
 186th.   3rd  Artax.  e.  [^In  B.C.  398 
 Ctesias  ends  U^trixa,.] 
 
 4964 
 
 Ist  of  Dyn.  XXIX  (39)  iii  Tanite 
 generations.  Nepherites  (6)  b. 
 
 Dec.  2. 
 
 4963 
 
 399 
 
 189th    6th  Arlax.  e. 
 
 4967 
 
 4th.  [Plato  aged  30  in  Egypt  ?] 
 
 Dec.  2. 
 
 4966 
 
 396 
 
 192nd.   9th  Artax.  e. 
 
 4970 
 
 1st  of  Hakoris  (13)  b. 
 
 Dec.  1. 
 
 4979 
 
 383 
 
 205th.    22nd  Artax.  e. 
 
 4983 
 
 1st  of  Psammouthis  (2  imp.?)  b. 
 
 Nov.  28. 
 
 4980 
 
 382 
 
 206th.   23rd  Artax.  e. 
 
 4984 
 
 1st  of  Nepherites  II.  4m.  (i)  b. 
 
 Nov.  27. 
 
 4981 
 
 381 
 
 207th.    24th  Artax.  e. 
 
 4985 
 
 1st  of  Nectanebo  I.  (18)  b. 
 
 Nov.  27. 
 
 4999 
 
 363 
 
 225th.  42ud  Art.e.[B.c.365,41st  Art. 
 and  1st  Ochus  (26)  b.  Nov.  23.] 
 
 5003 
 
 1st  Dyn.  XXX  (18),  i  Tanite  gen. 
 Nectane.  II.(18,incl.  2  of  Teos.^ 
 
 Nov.  23. 
 
 5001 
 
 361 
 
 227th.  [Agesilaus  called  in  by  Teos 
 
 against  Persia,  supports  Nectanebo.]  2ndb 
 
 Nov  22. 
 
 5003 
 
 359 
 
 229th.46the.lst  of  Ochus  sole(20)b. 
 
 5007 
 
 5th. 
 
 Nov.  22 
 
 50C6 
 
 356 
 
 232nd.  [01.  106      Alexander  the 
 Great  born  in  July.] 
 
 1010 
 
 8th. 
 
 Nov.  21. 
 
 5017 
 
 345 
 
 243rd.    20th  of  Ochus  from  his 
 association  ends,  21st  b. 
 
 5021 
 
 1st  of  Ochus  in  Egypt  (6)  b. 
 
 Nov.  18. 
 
 5023 
 
 339 
 
 249th.  26th  Ochus  e.  1st  Arses  b. 
 
 5027 
 
 1st  of  Arses  (3)  b. 
 
 Nov.  17 
 
 5026 
 
 336 
 
 255th.  Maced.  acc.  of  Alex.  (12). 
 
 5030 
 
 1st  of  Darius  Codom.  (6)  b. 
 
 Nov.  16. 
 
 5028 
 
 334 
 
 2.54th.  3rd  Alex,  passage  into  Asia. 
 
 5032 
 
 3rd.  Diodorus  reckons  to  this  yr. 
 
 Nov.  15 
 
 5030 
 
 332 
 
 2.56th.  5th  Alex.  b. 
 
 5034 
 
 5th.  Egypt,  accession  of  Alex. 
 
 Nov.  1.5. 
 
 5031 
 
 331 
 
 257th.  6th  Alex.  b. 
 
 5035 
 
 6th. [Its  beginning  is  marked  as  an 
 epoch  by  Maiietho.} 
 
 Nov.  15. 
 
 5032 
 
 330 
 
 258th.  7th  Alex.  b. 
 
 5036 
 
 1st  of  Cosmocracy  of  Alex.  (6)  b. 
 
 Nov.  14. 
 
 [The  High  Priest  Jaddua  d.  263 
 
 yrs.  from  d.  of  Seraiah  in  B.C.  587.  Hence 
 
 5038 
 
 324 
 
 are  151  [152]  yrs.  tod.  of  Onias.] 
 
 5042 
 
 1st  of  Philip  Aridaeus  (7)  b. 
 
 Nov.  13. 
 
 5045 
 
 317 
 
 8th  from  d.  of  Jaddua  and  Alex.  b. 
 
 5049 
 
 1st  of  Alex,  ^gus  (12)  b. 
 
 Nov.  11. 
 
 5050 
 
 312 
 
 13th  b.  Era  Seleucid.    And  1st  of 
 Seleucus  Nicator  (32)  b.  Nov.  10. 
 
 5054 
 
 6th. 
 
 Nov.  10. 
 
 5057 
 
 305 
 
 20th  fr.  d.  of  Jaddua  b.  in  winter. 
 
 5061 
 
 Istof  Ptol.  Lagi  as  king  (20  or  22) 
 b.  (Date  of  the  Old  Chronicle.} 
 
 Nov.  8. 
 
 5073 
 
 289 
 
 36th  b. 
 
 5077 
 
 17th  b.  Dicaearchus  is  still  living. 
 
 Nov.  4. 
 
 5077 
 
 285 
 
 40th  b. 
 
 5081 
 
 1st  of  Ptol.  Philadelph.  (38  or  36)  b. 
 
 5062 
 
 280 
 
 45th.  Istof  Ant.  Sot.(19)b.in  Jan. 
 
 5086 
 
 6th.  [Berosus  now  writes  ?] 
 
 Nov.  2. 
 
 5087 
 
 275 
 
 50th  b 
 
 5091 
 
 11th.  Pachons  l=Solstice,June29. 
 
 Nov.  I. 
 
 5094 
 
 268 
 
 57th  b. 
 
 5098 
 
 18th.  Manetho  now  writes  ? 
 
 •  Oct.  30. 
 
 5098 
 
 264 
 
 6lst.  [1st  Punic  war  29  yrs.  b.] 
 
 5102 
 
 22nd. 
 
 Oct.  29. 
 
 5101 
 
 261 
 
 64th.  1st  of  Antioch.  ^io;  (15)  b. 
 from  Jan. 
 
 5105 
 
 25th. 
 
 Oct.  28. 
 
 5115 
 
 247 
 
 78th  fr.  d.  of  Jaddua  b.  in  winter. 
 
 5119 
 
 1st  of  Ptol.  Euergetes  (25)  b. 
 
 Oct.  25. 
 
 3  31  3 
 
902 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 A.M.  =  B.C. 
 
 beginning  from 
 Jan.  1. 
 
 SACRED  HISTORT. 
 
 Egyp- 
 tian 
 
 ble  yr. 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 Begins 
 from 
 
 5116 
 
 246 
 
 79th.  [1st  of  Seleuc.  Callinic.  (20) 
 b.  from  Jan.] 
 
 5120 
 
 2nd  of  Ptol.  Euerg.  b. 
 
 Oct.  24. 
 
 5122 
 
 240 
 
 85th  from  d.  of  Jaddiia  b. 
 
 5126 
 
 8th.  On  d.  of  Zenodotus  Erato- 
 sthenes, aged  35,  is  made  Li- 
 brarian. He  died  aged  80  or  82 
 
 Oct.  23. 
 
 5136 
 
 226 
 
 99th .[1st Seleuc. Cer .(3)b.  in  Aug.] 
 
 5140 
 
 22nd  b. 
 
 Oct.  19 
 
 5139 
 
 223 
 
 102nd.  [Istof  Antiochus  the  Great 
 (36)  b.  from  Aug.] 
 
 5143 
 
 25th  b. 
 
 Oct.  19. 
 
 5146 
 
 222 
 
 103rd. 
 
 5144 
 
 1st  of  Ptol.  Philopat.  (17)  b. 
 
 Oct.  18. 
 
 5143 
 
 219 
 
 106th. [Saguntum  tak.2dPun.war.] 
 
 5147 
 
 4th. 
 
 Oct.  18. 
 
 51 57 
 
 205 
 
 120th. 
 
 5161 
 
 1st  of  Ptol.  Epiphan.  (24)  b. 
 
 Oct.  15. 
 
 5160 
 
 202 
 
 123rd.  [Zama.  Peace  in  B.C.  201 
 after  17  years.] 
 
 5164 
 
 4th. 
 
 Oct.  13. 
 
 5162 
 
 200 
 
 125th.  [War  with  Philip,  b.  It 
 ended  in  B.C.  197.] 
 
 5166 
 
 6th. 
 
 Oct.  13. 
 
 5168 
 
 194 
 
 131st. 
 
 5172 
 
 12th.  Apollonius  Rhod.  succeeds 
 Eratosthenes  as  Librarian 
 
 Oct.  11. 
 
 5170 
 
 192 
 
 133rd.  [Antioch.  winters  in  Greece 
 
 .   War  ended  in  B.C.  188.] 
 
 Oct.  11. 
 
 5175 
 
 187 
 
 138th.  [Seleuc.  Philop.(l2)b.  Oct. 
 
 5179 
 
 19th. 
 
 Oct.  10. 
 
 5181 
 
 181 
 
 144th. 
 
 5185 
 
 1st  of  Ptol.  Philomet.  (35)  b. 
 
 Oct.  8. 
 
 5187 
 
 175 
 
 150th.  [Ant.  Epiph.  (11)  b.  Aug.] 
 
 5191 
 
 7th. 
 
 Oct.  7 
 
 5190 
 
 172 
 
 152nd  ends.  (263+152  =  415  from  t 
 
 1.  of  St 
 
 raiah  in  Autumn  of  B.C.  587  to  d. 
 
 Oct.  6. 
 
 of  Onias  at  Antioch  in  winter  of  e.g.  172.] 
 
 5191 
 
 171 
 
 154th. [Ant.  routs  Egy.on  frontier.] 
 
 I  5195 
 
 11th. 
 
 Oct.  5. 
 
 5192 
 
 170 
 
 155th,  [2nd  Egyp.  campaign.  Temple  spoiled  by  Antiochus.] 
 
 Oct.  5. 
 
 5194 
 
 168 
 
 157th.  [Pydna  June  22.  Popilius  in  Egypt.   Antiochus  pollutes  the  Tem- 
 
 Oct. 5. 
 
 ple  about  the  end  of  December.] 
 
 5196 
 
 166 
 
 159th.  Judas  Mace.  (6)  succeeds 
 Mattathias. 
 
 5200 
 
 10th. 
 
 Oct.  4. 
 
 5197 
 
 165 
 
 160th.  Tem.  cleansed,  end  of  Dec. 
 
 5201 
 
 17th. 
 
 Oct.  4. 
 
 5198 
 
 164 
 
 161st.  [1st  of  Antioch.  Eupat.  (2) 
 b.  from  Dec] 
 
 5202 
 
 18th. 
 
 Oct.  4. 
 
 5200 
 
 162 
 
 163rd.   Pact  of  Judas  with  Ant.  and  Lysias  in  A.s.    Hence  Asmoneans  126 
 
 Oct.  3. 
 
 years.    [1st  of  Demetrius  Soter  (12)  b 
 
 .  from  November.] 
 
 5201 
 
 161 
 
 164th.  1st  of  Jonathan  (19),  if  antedated,  or  else  in  the  following  Spring.] 
 
 Oct.  3. 
 
 5212 
 
 150 
 
 175th.  12thof  Jon.[Alex.  Bala(5) 
 from  Aug.] 
 
 5216 
 
 32nd.  Onias  builds  his  Temple. 
 
 Sept.  30. 
 
 5214 
 
 148 
 
 177th.  14thof  Jon.[Demetr.  Nicat. 
 comes  from  Crete.] 
 
 5218 
 
 34th. 
 
 Sept.  30. 
 
 5216 
 
 146 
 
 179th.   16th  of  Jon. 
 
 5220 
 
 1st  of  Ptol.  Euerg.  II.  (29)  b. 
 
 Sept.  29. 
 
 5218 
 
 144 
 
 18lst.  18th  of  Jon. 
 
 5222 
 
 3rd.  Apollodorus  of  Athens  ends 
 his  \fovix». 
 
 Sept.  29. 
 
 5220 
 
 142 
 
 183rd.  1st  of  Simon  (8)  b. 
 
 5224 
 
 5th. 
 
 Sept.  28. 
 
 5224 
 
 138 
 
 187th.  5th  [Demetr.  Nic.  a  captive  in  Nov. 
 
 Antioch.  Sidetes  (9)  from  B.C.  137.] 
 
 Sept.  27. 
 
 5228 
 
 134 
 
 191st.  1st  of  J.  Hyrcanus  (31)  b.  [Ant.  Sic 
 
 I.  wars  on  Jerusalem  in  1st  of  Hyr- 
 
 Sept.  26. 
 
 tanus,  01.  161, /3'.] 
 
 5234 
 
 128 
 
 197th.  7th  of  John  Hyrc.  b.[Demet. 
 Nic.  again  (4)  b.  from  Feb.] 
 
 5238 
 
 19th. 
 
 Sept.  25. 
 
 5235 
 
 127 
 
 198th.  [Hipparchus  observes,  Paoni  17=July  7,  620  Egyp.  yrs.  and  286  days 
 from  E.  Nab.  Feb.  26  in  B.C.  747.    Hence  78  days  and  265  Egyp.  yrs.  to 
 Sothic  Epoch  July  20  a.d.  139,  and  to  Observations  of  Ptolemy.] 
 
 Sept.  25. 
 
 5237 
 
 125 
 
 200th.  10th.  [A.  Gryp.  (11)  b.Aug. 
 
 5241 
 
 22nd. 
 
 Sept.  24. 
 
HARMONY  OF  SACRED  AND  EGYPTIAN  CHRONOLOGY.  903 
 
 A.M.  =  B.C. 
 beginning  from 
 Jan.  1. 
 
 5239 
 
 5245 
 .5250 
 5251 
 
 5266 
 5267 
 5279 
 5281 
 5287 
 5293 
 5296 
 5299 
 5300 
 5304 
 5310 
 5313 
 5314 
 5317 
 5319 
 
 5322 
 5325 
 
 5326 
 5332 
 533G 
 5357 
 5358 
 5359 
 5360 
 
 5361 
 
 A.M.  ; 
 
 .5367 
 
 5372 
 5375 
 5380 
 5386 
 
 5386 
 5389 
 5390 
 
 123 
 
 117 
 112 
 111 
 
 103 
 
 102 
 
 96 
 95 
 83 
 81 
 75 
 69 
 66 
 63 
 62 
 58 
 52 
 49 
 48 
 45 
 43 
 
 40 
 37 
 
 36 
 30 
 26 
 5 
 4 
 3 
 2 
 
 SACRED  HISTORY. 
 
 202nd.  12th  of  John  Hyr.  b.  [Ant. 
 
 Gryp.  (11)  from  Nov.] 
 208th.  18ch  of  John  Hyr. 
 213th.  22nd.[Ant.Cyzic.alonel  yr.] 
 214th.  23rd.  [Ant.  Gryp.  and  Cyz. 
 
 jointly  (15).] 
 263+221=484  yrs.  end.  IstofAris- 
 
 tobulus  as  king  b.  in  Autumn. 
 1st  of  Jannajus  Alex.  (27)  b. 
 
 7th.  [Ant.  Cyzic.  alone  (1)  b.] 
 8th.  [Ant.  Euseb.  and  Philippus.] 
 20th.  [Istcf  Tigrane8(14)  b.] 
 22nd. 
 
 1st  of  Alexandra  (9)  b. 
 
 7th.[l  St  of  Ant.  Asiat.(4)toB.c.65  b.] 
 
 1st  of  Aristobulus  (3.  3m.)  b. 
 
 Isi  Hyrcanus  (Pompey)  24  imperf. 
 
 2nd.  [Pompey  settles  Syria.] 
 
 6th. 
 
 12th. 
 
 Egyp- 
 tian 
 
 ble  yr. 
 
 5240 
 5254 
 .5255 
 
 5263 
 
 5270 
 5271 
 5283 
 5285 
 5291 
 5297 
 5300 
 .5303 
 5304 
 5308 
 5314 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 24th  of  Ptol.  Euerg.  11.  b. 
 
 1st  of  Ptol.  Soter  II.  (36)  b. 
 
 6th. 
 
 7th. 
 
 15th. 
 
 16th.  Manetho  of  Mendes,  i.e. 
 
 Ptolemy,  writes  ? 
 22nd. 
 23rd. 
 35th. 
 
 1st  of  Ptol.  Dionysus  (29)  b. 
 
 7th. 
 
 13th. 
 
 16th. 
 
 19th. 
 
 20th. 
 
 24tli.  Diodorus  Sic.  in  Egypt. 
 1st  of  Cleopatra  (22)  b. 
 
 15th.  [Eraof  Liberty  at  Atitioch,  and  1st  of  Julius  Ciesar  there  (5)  b.  Oct.  1.] 
 16th.  PharsaliaJunelstJul.C.(5)b.   6318  5th. 
 19th.  [1st  of  reformed  Jul. Calend.]  5321  8th. 
 21st.  [lstofAugustus(56),or2nd    5323  10th. 
 
 (57,  or  57.5.4),  b.  Aug.  19.] 
 24th  b.  Herod  in  Autumn  made  king  at  Rome  (36  imperf.)  Antigonus  (3.3ni,) 
 126th  of  Asmoneans  ends.     Herod  and  Sosius  take  Jerusalem  in  Autumn 
 
 Hence  Herod  reigns  33  years  imperfect. 
 I27th  year  ends.   Antigonus  slain  in  this  Summer  by  order  of  Antony.] 
 
 1st  of  Augustus  in  Egypt.  (43)  b. 
 5th.  1st  fixed  Alexandrian  yr.  b. 
 26th  b. 
 
 11th  of  Herod  b.  late.  5336 
 1.5th  b.  5340 
 36th  b.  Nativity,  Dec.  2-5.  5361 
 
 Herod  dies  after  the  passover.    1st  of  Archelaus  (9,  or  10  imperf.) 
 
 Nativity  "  in  42nd  of  Augustus"  according  to  Africanus.] 
 
 Nativity  "  in  42nd  of  Augustus"    |  5364  |  29th  b. 
 
 (56.6'n.  or  56)  after  a.  abr.  2015  according  to  Eusebius,  who  drops  1  year.] 
 
 43rd  or  44th  Augustus  b.  Nativity  in  43rd  acc.  to  Anianus  (in  his  a.m.  5501) 
 virtually  acc.  to  Panodorus  (in  his  a.m.  5493)  and  acc.  to  Syncellus  (in 
 his  a.m.  5501)  distinctly  in  agreement  with  the  vulgar  era.  For  Syncel- 
 lus the  Incarnation  is  at  the  end  of  his  a.m.  5500,  March  25,  b.c.  1. 
 
 49th  b.  Judaea  reduced  to  a  pro-  5371 
 vince  in  37th  from  Actium. 
 
 54th.  1st  of  Tiberius  as  associated  in  the' 
 
 1st  Tiberius  (22.6.2G)  fr.  Aug.  19. 
 6th. 
 
 5379 
 5384 
 
 36th  at  Alex.  b.  Aug.  29. 
 
 Imperial  provinces  (25)  b. 
 1st  of  Tib.  (2nd  for  Panodor.)  b. 
 6th.  (Germanicus  in  Egypt.) 
 
 Sept.  24. 
 
 Sept.  22. 
 Sept.  21. 
 Sept.  21. 
 
 Sept.  19. 
 
 13th  or  16th  b.  [From  hatch  24  B.C.  453  in  7th  Artax.  483  yrs.  of  365i  days 
 end  March  24,  but  490  yrs.  of  360  days  each  end  Feb.  6  in  this  yr.  a.d.  26.] 
 434  yrs.  =  62  weeks  fr.  B.C.  409  e.    5390  |  13th  begins  in  Eg.  fr.  Aug.  18  ? 
 15th  b.  from  Aug.  19.  15th  b. 
 
 16th  b.  from  Aug.  19.   Consulship  of  the  two  Gemini. 
 
 Aug.  22. 
 
 Aug.  21. 
 Aug.  21. 
 Aug.  19. 
 Aug.  18. 
 
 Aug.  18. 
 Aug.  17. 
 Aug.  17. 
 
 3  M  4 
 
904 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 A.M.  =  A.D. 
 beginning  from 
 Jan.  1. 
 
 5391 
 
 5397 
 
 5398 
 
 5400 
 
 5401 
 
 6402 
 5409 
 5414 
 5415 
 5425 
 5426 
 
 5427 
 
 5429 
 
 5430 
 
 5431 
 5435 
 5440 
 5454 
 5457 
 5459 
 5485 
 5491 
 5493 
 5499 
 5500 
 
 40 
 
 70 
 74 
 79 
 93 
 96 
 98 
 124 
 130 
 132 
 138 
 139 
 
 SACRED  HISTORY. 
 
 Egyp- 
 tian 
 mova- 
 ble  yr. 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 17th.  Crucifixion  in  16th  of  Tib.    To  it,  from  autumn  of  b.c.  458,  the  7th 
 of  Artaxerxes,  are  in  years  of  365J  days  69J  weeks. 
 
 22nd.  Conversion  of  St.  Paul, 
 Jan.  25. 
 
 1st  Caligula  (3.10.8)  fr.  March  25. 
 
 5401 
 
 5402 
 
 Tetrarchies  of  Philip  and  Lysanias 
 given  to  Agrippa  by  Calig.  (7)  b. 
 3rd.  Herod  Antipas,  in  his  43rd  year,  banished,  and  his  dominions  given  to 
 
 Agrippa  who  died  in  a.d.  44. 
 4th.  Baptism  of  Cornelias.  Hence  25  years  of  St.  Peter  for  the  Italians,  from 
 
 Jan.  18  ?  or  later  ?  in  a.d.  40  to  June  29  in  a.d.  65. 
 1st  Claudius  (13.8.18)  fr.  Jan.  24.  |  5406  [  Agrippa  made  king  of  Judsea  (3). 
 8th.  Agrippa  jun.  in  Galilee  (35  ?)  b.  Nov.?] 
 
 I3th.  In  Feb.  Agrippa  gets  also  the  Tetrarchy  of  Philip,  Abil.  and  Trach. 
 1st  Nero  (13.7.28)  b.  from  Oct.  12.  .')419 
 1 1th.  Fire  at  Rome,  July  19.  5429 
 12th.  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  MM.  5430 
 June  29. 
 
 13th.  Jewish  war  b.,  Cestius  Gallus  defeated  in  12th  of  Nero,  "Vespasian 
 
 sent  from  Achaia. 
 14th.  Nero  dies,  June  9.    Galba,  5433 
 
 (7m  6d) 
 
 Galba  slain,  Jan.  15,  Otho  3m  2d, 
 
 Vespasian  from  July  1  (19  years  all  but  7  days) 
 2nd.  Titus  burns  the  Temple.      |  5435  | 
 
 Oneion  in  Egypt  closed,  243  years  irom  flight  of  Onias  in  B.C.  170: 
 
 Vitellius  11m  20d.  (or  8m  5d)  to  Dec.  22. 
 
 1st  Titus  (2.2.22)  from  June  23. 
 13th  Domitian  (15.0.5)  fr.  Sept.  13. 
 1st  Nerva  (1.4.8)  from  Sept.  18. 
 1st  Trajan  (19.G.15)  from  Jan.  26. 
 8th  Hadrian  (20.11.0)  fr.  Jan.  26. 
 14th.  In    this   year,    Nov.  20, 
 
 5444 
 54.58 
 5461 
 5463 
 5489 
 5495 
 
 [Plutarch  fl.  about  a.d.  93.] 
 Josephus  aged  56  ends  his  Antiq. 
 Justus'  Hist,  e.with  d.  of  Agrippa? 
 
 Philo  Byblius  now  aged  78, 
 Athyr  24,  Hadrian  was  at  Thebes. 
 135. 
 
 16th.  Jewish  war  begins,  and  ends  in  a.d 
 
 1st  Antonin.  Pius  (22.7.26),  fr.  July  10  to  March  7,  a.d.  161.[in  Can.  23]  2nd  b. 
 2Md  begins  July  10.  |  5503  |  3rd  in  Egypt  b.  at  Sothic  epoch. 
 
 5840  Canic.  or  antic.  Jul.  years  from  July  20  b.c.  .5702  -  -  5844  vague  Egyptian  years 
 (or  IV  Sothic  Cycles)  ending  July  20  a.d.  139. 
 
 5500 
 
 5512 
 5522 
 5534 
 5541 
 
 5553 
 5554 
 
 147 
 
 151 
 161 
 173 
 180 
 
 192 
 193 
 
 2nd  of  Antoninus  P.  from  July  10.  i  .5504  |  3rd  begins  from  July  20.  Claudius 
 Ptolemy  takes  an  observation  in  3rd  year  of  Antoninus  (which  began  at 
 Alexandria,  July  20),  Sept.  26.     He  lived  to  the  reign  of  Marc.  Aurel. 
 
 10th.  July  20  in  this  year  his  18th  of  Anton.  P.  seems  the  cyclical  epoch  for 
 Amanus  owing  to  his  omission  of  8  years.  Probably  he,  like  Sync,  had 
 only  (22  +  3+  13+13  +  !)  +  2+l2+l=:)  75yrs.  instead  of  83.5m.  between  the 
 accessions  of  Tiberius  and  Trajan,  the  last  being  only  in  his  a.d.  90  in- 
 stead of  A.D.  98. 
 
 14th.  Justin  M.  Apol.  I,  150  yrs.  fr.  Nativ.  (15  +  14  +  121=Dec.  25  a.d.  151.) 
 
 1st  of  Marc.  Aurel.  (19.0.11)  b.  March  7. 
 
 13th.  Tatian  fl. 
 
 1st  of  Commodus  (12.9.15)  b.  March  17.    S.  Theophilus  6th  Bp.  of  Antioch 
 
 writes  Ad  Autolycum.  Chryseros  ends  his  Chronicle. 
 13th.  Euseb.  Arm.  rightly  has  a.  abr.  "  2208=13  Commodi."  b.  Oct.  1. 
 Pertinax(2m.28d.)fr.Jan.l;  Did.  Julian.  (2m.  5d.);  Severus  (17.8.4.)  fr.  June  1 
 After  death  of  the  emperor  Commodus  Clemens  Al.  writes. 
 
HARMONY  OF  SACRED  AND  EGYPTIAN  CHRONOLOGY.  905 
 
 A.M.=  A.  V. 
 beginning  from 
 Jan.  1. 
 
 ROMAN  HISTORY. 
 
 EGYPTIAN  REFERENCES. 
 
 Yr.  of  Em- 
 peror be- 
 ginning at 
 
 Alexan- 
 dria from 
 
 Aug.  29. 
 
 5568 
 
 207 
 
 I5th  of  Severus. 
 
 Tertullian  adv.  Marcion. 
 
 5572 
 
 211 
 
 1st  of  Caracalla  (6.2.4.)  b.  Feb.  4. 
 
 2nd 
 
 5578 
 
 217 
 
 Macrinus  (1.1.28.)  b.  Apr.  11. 
 
 2nd 
 
 5579 
 
 218 
 
 1st  of  Elagabalus  (3.7.24)  b.  June  8. 
 
 2nd 
 
 5582 
 
 221 
 
 4th.  Africanus  ends  his  Chronography  at  01.  2'iO. 
 
 5583 
 
 222 
 
 1st  of  Alex.  Severus  13.0.9.  b.  March  11. 
 
 Hippolytus's  Chronicon  ends. 
 
 2nd 
 
 5596 
 
 235 
 
 1st  of  Maximin  (3.3.0)  b.  Feb.  10. 
 
 2nd 
 
 5599 
 
 238 
 
 1st  of  Gordian  (5.9.0)  b.  June  15. 
 
 Censorinus  De  Die  Nat. 
 
 2nd 
 
 5605 
 
 244 
 
 1st  of  Philip  (5.6m  or  5.7m.)  b.  March. 
 
 2nd 
 
 5610 
 
 249 
 
 1st  of  Decius  (2  2ni.)  b.  after  Aug.  29. 
 
 1st 
 
 5612 
 
 251 
 
 1st  of  the  two  Galli  and  ^milian.  (2.4m  +  3m)  b.  Nov. 
 
 1st 
 
 5614 
 
 253 
 
 1st  of  Valerian,  and  Gallien.  (7+7.6m)  b.  In  Autumn. 
 
 1st 
 
 5629 
 
 26S 
 
 1st  of  Claudius  (2  2m.)  b.  March. 
 
 Porphyry  goes  from  Rome  to  Sicily. 
 
 2nd 
 
 5631 
 
 270 
 
 1st  of  Aurelian.  (5  +  6m  interr.)  b.  May  ? 
 
 2nd 
 
 5637 
 
 276 
 
 6m.  of  Tacitus  e.  March  25.   Florian  2m.  20d.  Probus  (6.5m)  b.  in  April. 
 
 2nd 
 
 5640 
 
 279 
 
 4th  of  Probus  b.  April.  But  Euseb.  Arm.  has  1st  of  Probus  =  a.  abr.  2295  begin- 
 
 5 th 
 
 ning  from  Oct.  1  in  A.D.  283  (see  above,  a.d.  192).  Jerome  has  rightly  a.  abr. 
 
 2292 omitting  Pertinax  1  =  a.  abr.  2209,  the  7th  Caracalla  =  a.  abr.  2234,  and 
 
 the  6th  Aurelian  =  a.  abr.  2294.    Euseb.  gives  also  a  7th  to  Probus  which 
 
 Jerome  likewise  omits.    So  Euseb.  after  Probus  has  4  yrs.  too  many. 
 
 5640 
 
 279 
 
 4lh  b.  Apr.  An  itolius  Bp.  of  Laodic.  writes  his  Paschal  Chronicle. 
 
 5th 
 
 5643 
 
 282 
 
 Carus  Carinus  and  Numerian.  (1.11m)  b.  after  Aug.  29. 
 
 1st 
 
 5645 
 
 284 
 
 1st  Diocletian  (20.7.14)  b.  early  in  Sept. 
 
 Porphyry  outlived  Diocletian. 
 
 1st 
 
 Euseb.  Arm.  has  1st  Diocl.  =  a.  abr.  2304,  beginninj?  Oct.  1  in  a.d.  288,  an  excess 
 
 of  4  years.   Jerome  too  has  1st  Diocl. 
 
 =  A.  ABR.  2301,  beginning  in  a.u.  285, 
 
 and  so  is  1  yr.  in  excess,  as  he  gives  a  3rd  yr.  to  Carus  and  his  sons. 
 
 5666 
 
 305 
 
 1st  of  Constantius  (1.2.24)  b.  May  1. 
 
 2nd 
 
 309 
 
 4th  of  Constantine  (30.9.25)  b.  July  25. 
 
 Jamblichus  fl. 
 
 5th 
 
 5673 
 
 31 2 
 
 7th.  The  Indictions  (a  cycle  of  15  yrs.)  begin  from  Sept.  1. 
 
 8th 
 
 5686 
 
 325 
 
 20th.  ( Vicennalia)  b.  July  25.  Counc.  of  Nice.  Vernal  equinox  fixed  to  March  21. 
 
 21  St 
 
 360 
 
 24th  of  Constantius  II.  (24  5.12)  b.  May  22 
 
 The  1 1th  and  last  Paschal  period  of 
 
 '25th 
 
 532  yrs.  of  Anianusand  his  a.m.  5852  end  Aug.  29. 
 
 5724 
 
 363 
 
 Julian  (1.7.24)  slain  June  27.   Jovian  (7m. 
 
 21. 
 
 5725 
 
 364 
 
 1st  of  Valentinian  (11.8.24)  b.  Feb.  26,  and  Valens  (14.4.13)  b.  March  28. 
 
 2nd 
 
 5728 
 
 367 
 
 1st  of  Gratian  (16.0.2)  b.  Aug.  24  with  Valentinian. 
 
 ocn 
 
 5736 
 
 375 
 
 1st  of  Valentinian  II.  (16.4.23)  b.  Nov.  24. 
 
 1st 
 
 5739 
 
 378 
 
 The  Chronicon  of  Jerome  ends  at  d.  of  Valens  with  "  a.u.c.  (240  of  Kings  +  464  of 
 
 Coss.-t-424 of  Rmperors=)  1131;"  "anno  2394"  (i.e.hisown  a.  abr.  2394 having 
 
 then  begun).  Valens  was  slain  Aug.  10. 
 
 5741 
 
 380 
 
 2nd  of  Theodosius  (15.1 1.30)  b.  Jan.  19.  Pappus,  and  Theon  of  Alex,  now  fl.  and 
 
 3rd 
 
 Horapollo  is  at  Constantinople.    Theophilus  (who  on  d.  of  Timotheus 
 
 on 
 
 Sunday  Epiphi  26,  July  20  in  a  d.  385  became  Bp.  of  Alex.)  inscribed  to  Theo- 
 
 dosius his  Paschalion  made  out  for  100  years  and  beginning  from  his  Con- 
 
 sulship of  A.D.  380. 
 
 5750 
 
 389 
 
 11th  of  Theodos.   4th  of  Theophilus  Bp.  of  Alexandria.    The  Serapeum  and 
 
 2th 
 
 other  heathen  temples  are  now  destroyed. 
 
 5756 
 
 395 
 
 1st  of  Arcadius  in  E.  (13.3.15)  and  Honorius  in  W.  (28.7.1 1)  b.  Jan.  17. 
 
 2nd 
 
 5762 
 
 401 
 
 7th.  Theophili  Epist.  1.  Pasch.  Easter  on  Pharmuthi  19  =  April  14. 
 
 8th 
 
 5764 
 
 403 
 
 9th.  Epiphanius  died,  having  been  Bp.  in  Cyprus  36  years. 
 
 lOth 
 
 5771 
 
 410 
 
 16th.  Alaric  deposes  Attalus,  and  sacks  Rome  Aug.  24  or  26. 
 
906 
 
 EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLES. 
 
 A.M  =  A.D. 
 beginniug  from 
 Jaa.  1. 
 
 ROMAN  HISTORY. 
 
 EGYPTIAN  REFERENCES. 
 
 Yr.ofEm- 
 (ieror  be- 
 ginning at 
 Alexan- 
 dria from 
 Aug.  29. 
 
 5773 
 
 412 
 
 18th  of  Hon.  5th  of  Theodos.  II.  in  E.  (42.2.28)  b.  May  1.    Nonnus  Panopol.  fl. 
 
 6th 
 
 Panodorus  ends  his  Chronography  with  his  own  (and  Anianus's)  a.m.  5493  + 
 
 411  (Anianus's  5501  +  100  +  303)  =  5904  Aug.  29,  before  the  d.  of  Theophilus, 
 
 who  died  Oct.  15,  S.  Cyril  his  nephew  succeeding  him. 
 
 5786 
 
 425 
 
 18th.  of  Theod.  1st  of  Valentinian  III.  in  W.  (29.4.22)  b  Oct.  23. 
 
 19th 
 
 5811 
 
 450 
 
 26th.  of  Valent.  1st  of  Marcian  in  E.  (6.5m.  ?)  b.  Aug.  25. 
 
 5816 
 
 455 
 
 6th.  of  Marcian.  Maximus  in  W.  (2m.  27.)  b.  March  17.    Genseric  plunders 
 
 Rome.    Avitus  (1.1m.)  b.  Aug  30? 
 
 5818 
 
 457 
 
 1st.  of  the  two  Leos  in  E.  (16.11.28)  b.  Feb.  1.  1st  of  Majorian  in  W.  (4.4.2.) 
 
 2nd 
 
 b.  April  1. 
 
 5826 
 
 465 
 
 9th  of  Leo.  5th  of  Severus  in  W.  (3  11.27)  b.  Nov.  19. 
 
 10th 
 
 5833 
 
 472 
 
 16th  of  Leo.    Anthemius  in  W.  (5.3.0)  slain  July  11.    Olybrius  6m.  Nepos 
 
 17th 
 
 (1.7.0)  b.  in  October. 
 
 5836 
 
 475 
 
 2nd  of  Zeno  assoc.  by  Leo  jun.  in  E.  (17.2.0)  b.  Feb.    Romulus  in  W. 
 
 3rd 
 
 5837 
 
 476 
 
 3rd  of  Zeno,  a.o.c.  1229.  Odoacer  (16.6.12)  ends  the  Western  Empire  Aug.  22. 
 
 4  th 
 
 5852 
 
 491 
 
 1  St  of  Anastasius  in  E.  (27.2.29)  b.  April  11. 
 
 Theophanes  says,  "  This  yr.  of  Zeno's 
 
 2nd 
 
 d.  is  acc.  to  the  Romans  a  m.  5999,  but  acc.  to  tlie  Alexandrians  and  the  truth 
 
 A.M.  5983,  from  the  accession  of  Diocletian  the  207th  "  [the  true  number], 
 
 "  from  the  Incarnation  the  483rd  "  [that  is,  with  Anianus's  omission  of  8  years, 
 
 probably  between  Augustus  and  Trajan,  since  Syncellus  has  Trajan's  acces- 
 
 sion at  A.M.  5d90=a.d.  90  instead  of  a.d.98],  "  Indict.  14."  [The  Ind.  is  right.] 
 
 5987 
 
 626 
 
 13th  of  Heraclius.    Era  of  the  Hegira  July  26  in  Julian  year  667. 
 
 13th 
 
 5998 
 
 637 
 
 28th  of  Heraclius  (30.4.6)  b.  Oct.  5.    The  Caliph  Omar  enters  Jerusalem  (if 
 
 28th 
 
 about  July  23)  1260  years  of  360  days  each  after  the  first  association  of  Nebu- 
 
 chadnezzar (if  put  at  Sept.  1  in  B.C.  606 
 
 ;  or  both  dates  may  be  142  days  later. 
 
 from  Jan.  22  B.C.  605  to  Feb.  24  a.d.  638  ? 
 
 5999 
 
 638 
 
 29th.  Abou  Obeidah  enters  Antioch  Tuesday  Aug.  21  (July  21  ?)   Hej.  17, 
 
 and 
 
 29t}i 
 
 Amrou  takes  Caesarea  (Constantine  having  left)  in  July  Hej.  17.    Hence  1260 
 
 lunar  yrs.  of  the  Arabs  from  b.  of  Hej.  17= Jan.  23  a.d.  638  end  with  Hej.  1276, 
 
 July  7  A.D.  I860.    In  a.d.  639  Amrou  invades  Egypt,  and  in  a.d.  640  takes 
 
 Alexandria,  the  Copts  being  then  about  6  millions. 
 
 6169 
 
 808 
 
 G.  Syncellus  writes,  in  his  own  "a.m.  6300,"  but  "  in  Indict.  1,"  which  requires 
 
 this  year,  ending  Aug.  31.   But  5500  [+  8  dropped  between  Augustus 
 
 and 
 
 Trajan]  +  800  =  6S08  complete  at  March  25. 
 
 6900 
 
 1539 
 
 Term.  Pasch.  April  5,  as  at  the  Exodus  in 
 
 B.C.  1654,  after  six  complete  periods  of 
 
 532  years  each.   Easter  day  April  6. 
 
 6960 
 
 1599 
 
 CycleVI.  and  A.M.  (7306-341=)  6965  of  Egyptian  reckoning  would  begin  July  20. 
 
 7240 
 
 1879 
 
 From  the  entry  of  Omar  into  Jerusalem,  set  at  July  23  a.d.  637,  and  first  acces- 
 
 sion of  Nebuchadnezzar  set  at  Sept.  1  ] 
 
 3.C.  606,  1260  and  2520  yrs.  of  .S60  days 
 
 end  Feb  1;  or  from  dates  for  conquest  of  Palestine  and  access,  of  Nebuchad. 
 
 nezzar  142  days  later  they  may  end  about  June  23. 
 
 7259 
 
 1898 
 
 From  the  entry  of  Omar  into  Jerusalem  1260  Gregorian  yrs.  end  July  23,  or  from 
 
 the  completion  of  the  conquest  of  Syria  later.    But  vhen  precisely  these 
 
 periods  begin  and  end,  if  they  are  rightly  thought  to  mean  years  as  well  as 
 
 dat/s,  and  to  refer  to  the  Mahometans  at  Jerusalem,  and  to  the  times  of  the 
 
 Gentiles  in  the  West,  the  event  only  can  show. 
 
 The  Greek  numerals  a.',  y',  h',  set  against  the  beginning  cf  certain  Egyptian  years,  show  which 
 year  it  is  out  of  the  four  durmg  which  the  movable  Thoth  coincided  with  the  same  day  of  the  antici- 
 pated Julian  calendar. 
 
 Also  at  the  Phoenix  epochs  of  b.c.  1780,  and  b.c.  275,  note  that  the  day  of  the  Solstice  and  Pachons 
 1  is  given  in  terms  of  the  uncorrected  Julian  calendar. 
 
907 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ON  BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES. 
 
 It  would  have  been  an  important  supplement  to  the 
 present  work  if  one  could  have  shown  exactly  how  far  the 
 schemes  of  Berosus  and  Manetho  were  similar  in  their  con- 
 struction, and  how  far  the  true  or  esoteric  chronology  of  the 
 Chaldseans  coincided  with  that  of  the  Egyptians.  That  the 
 two  chronologies  either  absolutely  agreed  or  differed  only  by 
 a  very  few  years  is  prohahle ;  though  Syncellus's  statement 
 (p.  30,  ed.  Dind.)  that  Berosus  and  Manetho  had  "  had  the 
 impudence  even  to  deduce  their  incredible  histories  from  one 
 and  the  same  year,"  viz.  from  after  a.m.  1058,  is  not  to  be 
 admitted  in  evidence,  as  this  refers  only  to  the  pseudo-Mane- 
 tho  of  Anianus.  But  unfortunately  there  is  a  break  in  the 
 notices  preserved  respecting  the  earlier  reckonings  of  Bero- 
 sus :  and  thus  it  is  impossible  to  make  out  the  whole  outline 
 of  his  scheme  with  certainty. 
 
 The  sources  of  all  those  lists  and  reckonings  bearing  on 
 Chaldagan  history  and  chronology  which  are  still  extant  ijiay 
 be  reduced,  to  speak  broadly,  to  two,  viz.  the  writings  of 
 Ctesias,  and  those  of  Berosus. 
 
 OF  CTESIAS  AND  HIS  FOLLOWERS. 
 
 First  there  are  the  lists  of  Ctesias  of  Cnidos,  who,  having 
 been  taken  prisoner  by  the  Persians,  was  kept  for  17  years 
 (b.c.  401  to  B.C.  384)  as  physician  at  the  Court  of  Arta- 
 xerxes  Mnemon,  and  who  brought  down  his  "  Persian 
 Histories,"  or  "  Antiquities,"  composed  in  xxiii  books,  to  the 
 Archonship  of  Ithycles,  that  is,  to  B.C.  398.  Diodorus 
 
908 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Siculus  mentions  him  at  this  date  as  follows : — ''Krrjaias  6 
 avyypacpsvs  ttjv  tcov  UspaLKMV  laroplav  sh  tovtov  top  sviavTov 
 KaTEaTp£<l>£Vf  ap^dfxsvos  airo  Nlvgv  koI  ^SfJbipd/jLScos,^^  (^Diod. 
 Sic.  xiv.  46,  ap.  Clinton  F,  H.,  ad  ann.  a.  c.  398.)  The 
 earliest  allusion  to  his  work  is  made  by  his  contemporary 
 Plato,  who  adopts  from  it  the  assertion  that  Troy,  in  the 
 time  of  Priam,  belonged  to  the  empire  of  Teutamus.  But 
 Aristotle,  more  cautious,  charges  Ctesias  with  falsehood 
 (^Gen.  Anim,  ii.  2),  and  uses  such  language  as  this: — "  si  Bsc 
 Tnorrsvaat  K.Trjataf'^  and  "  ILrrjalas,  ovk  mv  d^toTriarosi'^  (^Hist. 
 Anim.  iii.  fin.  ii.  3, 10.  and  viii.  27,  3).  Plutarch,  too  (in  Vit. 
 Artax.  c.  13),  speaks  strongly  of  his  bad  faith  and  want  of 
 veracity.  And  Lucian,  as  Clinton  adds  (^Conscrib.  Hist. 
 tom.  iv.  p.  202,  Bipont.),  accuses  him  of  having  falsified 
 history  to  ingratiate  himself  with  Artaxerxes.  But,  how- 
 ever untrustworthy  he  might  be,  being  the  first  writer  in  the 
 field,  he  was  extensively  followed. 
 
 He  began,  as  has  been  already  mentioned,  with  Mnus  and 
 Semiramis,  and  after  devoting  six  books  to  Assyrian  and 
 Median  history,  he  made  seventeen  more  for  the  Persian, 
 and  appended  at  the  end  of  his  tw^enty-third  and  last  book  a 
 list  of  kings  from  Ninus  to  Artaxerxes.  Ninus,"  so  we  may 
 abridge  from  Diodorus,  "  having  made  a  league  with 
 Ariaius,  king  of  the  Arabs,  first  subdued  the  unwarlike 
 Babylonians.  Babylon  was  not  yet  built :  but  they  had  in 
 their  country  other  cities  which  were  considerable.  And  he 
 took  their  king  prisoner,  and  put  him  to  death.  Next  he 
 invaded  Armenia,  where  the  king  Barzanes,  after  some 
 losses,  submitted  himself,  and  obtained  very  favourable 
 terms,  and  so  was  allowed  to  reign  on  as  a  tributary.  Ninus 
 then  attacked  Pharnus,  king  of  Media,  and  after  a  great 
 victory  took  him  prisoner  and  caused  him  to  be  impaled. 
 Lifted  up  by  this  constant  success,  he  formed  the  project  of 
 conquering  all  Asia  from  the  Tanais  to  the  Nile.  And 
 having  established  a  trusty  adherent  as  satrap  in  Media,  he 
 set  forth,  and  in  the  course  of  seventeen  years  subdued  all  the 
 peoples  of  this  part  of  the  world,  except  the  Bactrians  and 
 the  Indians.  He  subdued  Egypt,  Phoenicia,  Coelesyria, 
 Pamphylia,  Lycia,  Caria,  Phrygia,  Mysia,  and  Lydia ;  also 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  909 
 
 the  Troad,  Phrygla  on  the  Hellespont,  the  coasts  of  the 
 Propontis,  and  those  of  Bithynia  and  Cappadocia,  and  those 
 of  the  barbarous  nations  on  the  Euxine  to  the  Tanais.  He 
 conquered  the  countries  of  the  Cadusians,  and  the  Tapyres, 
 and  the  Hyrcanians,  the  Drangians,  the  Derbices,  the  Car- 
 manians,  the  Choromeans,  the  Borcanians,  and  the  Parthians. 
 He  then  penetrated  into  Persia  and  Susiana  [towards  the 
 south],  and  the  countries  bordering  on  the  Caspian,  where  are 
 the  ^  Caspian  Gates'  [on  the  north].  Besides,  he  reduced 
 a  multitude  of  less  important  peoples,  to  enumerate  all  of 
 whom  would  take  too  long.  But  in  Bactria  he  found  the 
 country  itself  so  difficult,  and  the  inhabitants  so  warlike,  that 
 after  several  unsuccessful  attacks,  he  postponed  that  war  to 
 some  better  opportunity ;  and  leading  back  all  his  forces 
 into  Syria  [i.  e.  Assyria],  he  there  made  choice  of  a  con- 
 venient site  on  which  to  found  a  great  capital."  (  Diod.  ii.  c. 
 1,  2.)  Last  of  all,  he  reduced  Bactria  also,  the  king  of 
 which  was  Zoroaster.  So  then,  according  to  Ctesias,  the 
 empire  had  been  founded,  and  even  extended  to  the  utmost 
 limits  afterwards  reached  under  the  Persians,  before  as 
 yet  either  Nineveh  or  Babylon  existed.  But  the  purpose  of 
 this  fable  is  plain;  namely,  to  turn  the  tables  upon  the 
 Egyptians,  and  to  match  their  Sesostris,  or  rather  their 
 Thothmeses  and  Eameseses,  by  an  Asiatic  conqueror  of  equal 
 achievements  and  higher  antiquity.  Not  content  with  one 
 conquest  of  Egypt,  Ctesias  made  Semiramis  also,  besides  un- 
 successfully warring  against  India,  to  conquer  Egypt  over 
 again ;  and  she  left  there  a  garrison  which  built  the  Egyp- 
 tian Babylon.  So  this  city  was  nearly  of  the  same  age  with 
 Babylon  of  Chaldgea,  since  it  too  had  Semiramis  for  its 
 foundress,  a  story  the  falsehood  of  which  was  afterwards 
 noticed  by  Berosus.  In  all  Ctesias  named,  according  to  the 
 present  text  of  Diodorus,  a  series  of  xxxiii  kings  (lib.  ii. 
 1  —  31),  or  rather  xxxvi,  for  Diodorus  writes  inconsistently  ; 
 and  xxxvi  is  the  number  quoted  from  him  by  Eusebius 
 {Chron.  i.  p.  39),  and  it  agrees  better  with  the  extant  lists. 
 And  these  kings  Ctesias  made  to  end  after  1306  years  with 
 the  effeminate  Sardanapalus,  "who,  when  Nineveh  was  taken 
 by  Arbaces  the  Mede  and  Belesis  the  Babylonian,  burned 
 
910 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 himself  together  with  his  palace."  The  date  of  this  event, 
 when,  according  to  him,  the  empire  and  the  monarchy  and 
 the  city  itself  of  Nineveh  all  ended  together,  is  fixed  by  im- 
 plication to  B.C.  (560  +  320  =  )  880,  and  the  accession  of 
 Ninus  to  B.C.  (880  +  1306  =  )  2186;  that  is,  if  no  account  be 
 taken  of  the  difference  between  vague  and  fixed  years :  else, 
 the  1306  years  should  end  one  year  later,  in  the  Julian  B.C. 
 (559  +  320  =  )  879,  and  begin  two  years  later,  in  the  Julian 
 B.C.  (879+1306  vague  =)  2184.  "After  the  death  of 
 Semiramis,"  Diodorus  writes  (lib.  ii.  c.  21),  "  Ninyas,  her 
 son  by  Ninus,  and  the  kings  who  reigned  after  him  in  direct 
 succession  from  father  to  son  during  30  generations,  were 
 faineants  down  to  Sardanapalus.  Under  this  last  the  empire 
 of  Assyria  passed  to  the  Medes,  after  having  lasted  more 
 than  1306  years,  as  Ctesias  of  Cnidus  relates  in  his  Second 
 Book."  So,  out  of  his  six  introductory  books,  Ctesias,  as  it 
 seems,  allowed  only  two  to  Assyria ;  but  twice  that  num- 
 ber, viz.  four,  to  Media,  and  more  than  four  times  four, 
 viz,  seventeen,  which  made  the  body  of  his  work,  to  the 
 affairs  of  Persia.  "  It  is  not  at  all  necessary,"  Diodorus 
 continues  (c.  22),  "  to  insert  here  the  names  of  all  these 
 kings,  or  to  mark  the  length  of  their  reigns,  since  they 
 did  nothing  worthy  of  remembrance.  The  only  thing 
 deserving  of  record  is  the  fact  that  the  Assyrians  sent  an 
 auxiliary  force  to  aid  the  Trojans.  Teutamus,  the  20th  suc- 
 cessor of  Ninyas,  son  of  Semiramis,  reigned  in  Asia  at  the 
 time  when  Agamemnon  led  the  Greeks  against  Troy ;  and 
 the  empire  of  Asia  had  been  for  1000  years  and  more 
 (Jt7}  itXslco  tmv  ;>^tXta)z^)  with  the  Assyrians,  when  Priam, 
 who  was  king  in  the  Troad,  pressed  by  the  dangers  of  the  war, 
 sent  an  embassy  to  seek  for  aid  from  the  king  of  Assyria,  as 
 being  his  vassal."  The  present  text  of  Diodorus  here  names 
 Teutamus  as  the  "  20th  after  Ninyas ;  "  but  he  stands  23rd 
 from  Ninyas  (26th  in  all)  in  the  list;  and  Eusebius  and 
 Syncellus,  in  quoting  from  Diodorus,  name  him  "  the  26th." 
 The  same  reckoning  is  also  confirmed  by  a  passage  quoted 
 from  Cephalion.  So  Memnon  the  son  of  Tithonus  was 
 sent  by  Teutamus  in  command  of  10,000  Ethiopians  and  as 
 many  more  Susianians  to  Troy,  to  increase  the  glory  of  the 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES. 
 
 911 
 
 Greeks,  Cephalion  even  gave  —  and  probably  this  also  was 
 from  Ctesias  —  the  letter  of  Priam  written  after  the  loss  of 
 his  son  Hector.  The  "  1000  years  and  more  "  here  mentioned 
 by  Diodorus  rest  probably  only  on  an  inference  of  his  own, 
 because  Ctesias's  epoch  for  Ninus,  being  apparently  at 
 B.C.  (560  or  559  +  320+1306  =  )  2186  or  2185,  was  just 
 1003  or  1002  years  above  Eratosthenes's  and  Diodorus's 
 own  date  for  Troy  in  B.C.  1183.  Diodorus  writes,  indeed, 
 "when  Agamemnon  led  the  Greeks  to  the  war,"  but  his 
 allusion  is  nevertheless  to  the  date  of  the  capture.  The 
 number  of  "  1306  years  and  more^"^  mentioned  by  him 
 for  Ctesias  is  illustrated  by  a  statement  quoted  from 
 ^milius  Sura  (ap.  Velleium,  i.  b.  6 ;  Clinton,  F.  H.  vol.  i. 
 p.  264),  that  "  between  Ninus  and  the  establishment  of 
 Koman  supremacy  by  the  overthrow  of  Philip  and  Antio- 
 chus,  soon  after  the  second  Punic  war,  there  were  1995 
 years."  But  from  B.C.  190,  when  the  two  Scipios  defeated 
 Antiochus,  1995  years  take  us  back  to  B.C.  (559  +  320  + 
 1306  =  )  2185,  two  years  higher  than  B.C.  2183,  and  so 
 just  above  1000"  years  before  Diodorus's  date  for  Troy. 
 Agathias  too,  who  wrote  in  the  6th  century,  naming  "  Cte- 
 sias and  Diodorus,"  says  that  they  gave  to  the  Assyrian 
 empire  from  Ninus  1306  years,  or  a  few  more  (J)  kuI  oXljo) 
 7r\sLQV(ov)y  though  it  was  an  inaccuracy  in  Diodorus  to  speak 
 as  if  the  1 306  years  might  receive  an  addition  of  two  or 
 three  more.  The  uncertainty  regarded  not  those  years  but 
 the  duration  of  the  Median  empire,  and  especially  the  reign 
 of  its  last  king  Astyages,  to  whom  Ctesias  (and  he  is  fol- 
 lowed by  Eusebius,  Anianus,  and  Syncellus)  gave  38  years, 
 whereas  Herodotus  gave  him  only  35.  With  35  years  only 
 to  Astyages  and  317  to  the  Median  empire,  the  accession  of 
 Ninus  would  not  have  risen  more  than  1000  years  above 
 Troy,  even  though  that  of  Cyrus  were  put  in  the  autumn  of 
 B.C.  560,  a  little  above  its  true  date,  as  it  was  by  many  writers. 
 Ctesias's  own  date  for  Troy  was  probably  earlier  than  that 
 of  Eratosthenes,  and  more  like  that  of  Herodotus,  so  as  to 
 fall  within  the  reign  of  Teutamus,  who  may  have  seemed  to 
 reio^n  accordino;  to  his  list  from  B.C.  1262  to  B.C.  1230,  so  that 
 his  accession  was  only  (2186  —  1262  =  )  924  years  below  that 
 
912 
 
 ArPENDIX. 
 
 of  Ninus.    From  B.C.  880  Ctesias  continued  with  a  list  of 
 
 ix  Median  kings  (favouring,  as  has  been  already  noticed. 
 Median  history  as  more  akin  to  the  Persian,  and  lengthening 
 it  at  the  expense  of  the  Assyrian)  to  the  defeat  of  Astyages  by 
 Cyrus  in  B.C.  560,  or  more  correctly  559.  The  ix  names  are 
 these  :  Arbaces,  who  reigned  28  years,  4-  Mandauces  50  + 
 Sosarmus  30  +  Artycas  50  +  Arbianes  22  +  Artceus  40  + 
 Arfynes  22  (these  being  the  22  years  of  Phraortes)  + 
 Astybaras  40  (being  the  40  of  Cyaxares)  +  Aspadas  or 
 Astyagesy''  no  doubt  with  38  years,  making  in  all  320 
 years  {not  317)  of  Median  empire  from  the  destruction  of 
 Nineveh  by  Arbaces  in  B.C.  880  or  879  to  the  accession  and 
 victory  of  Cyrus  in  B.C.  560  or  559. 
 
 The  accounts  of  Ctesias,  to  borrow  the  words  of  Clinton 
 from  whom  we  are  here  abridging,  are  followed  with  little 
 variation  by  many  writers,  as  Diodorus  Siculus,  Strabo, 
 Nicolaus  Damascenus,  ^milius  Sura,  and  Velleius."  But 
 those  who,  after  and  besides  Diodorus,  require  our  notice  on 
 account  of  their  variations  are  Abydenus,  Castor  of  Rhodes, 
 the  Auctor  Barbarus  of  Scaliger,  and  Cephalion ;  and,  lastly, 
 the  Ecclesiastical  chronographers,  Africanus,  Eusebius  (who 
 is  followed  by  St.  Jerome  and  St.  Augustine),  and  Syncellus 
 (who  represents  also  Anianus  and  Panodorus). 
 
 ABYDENUS. 
 
 Abydenus,  who  wrote  later  than  Alexander  Polyhistor 
 (B.C.  83),  and  seemingly  before  Castor  (b.c.  61-56),  copied 
 not  only  from  Ctesias,  but  also  sometimes  from  Berosus  and 
 Polyhistor,  and  adopted  from  them  statements  irreconcilable 
 w^ith  what  he  gave  elsewhere  from  Ctesias.  Eusebius 
 {Chron.  I.  12,  p.  36)  quotes  from  him  thus:  ^'Abydeni  de 
 regno  Assyriorum.  '  Chaldaei  regionis  su9b  reges  ab  Aloro 
 usque  ad  Alexandrum  hoc  pacto  enumerant.  Nini  quidem 
 et  Semiramidis  nullam  rationem  habent.'^^^  This  is  in  allu- 
 sion to  Berosus  and  Polyhistor,  from  whom  also  he  gave  the 
 list  of  the  antediluvian  kings,  and  the  accounts  of  the  Flood 
 and  of  the  Tower  of  Babel,  of  the  confusion  of  tongues, 
 "  from  which  Bahylon  was  named,"  and  of  the  War  of  the 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  913 
 
 Gods  and  Titans:  "His  autem  dictis,  ita  historiam  suam 
 exorditur  :  *  Fuit  Ninus,  Arheli,  Chaali,  Arheli,  Anehi,  Babii, 
 Belt,  regis  Assyriorum.'  Deinde  accurate  reges  enumerat  a 
 Nino  et  a  Semiramide  ad  Sardanapallurriy  qui  omnium  extre- 
 mus  fuit:  a  quo  ad  primam  Olympiadem  67  anni  putantur. 
 De  Assyriorum  regno  liac  diligentia  scripsit  Abydenus. 
 Nihilominus  et  Castor  lib.  i.  Summarii  Chronicorum  eadem 
 plane  ad  litter  am  narrat  de  regno  Assyriorum."  Here  Eu- 
 sebius,  by  saying  that  Castor  agrees  word  for  word  with 
 Abydenus,  seems  to  imply  that  Abydenus  was  the  earlier 
 writer  of  the  two  :  and,  if  so,  he  may  probably  be  the  channel 
 through  which  certain  additional  names  and  certain  other 
 variations  from  Ctesias  wei'e  derived  from  Berosus  to  Castor 
 and  later  authors.  It  seems  to  be  asserted  by  Eusebius 
 both  that  Abydenus  ended  his  whole  series  67years  before 
 Olymp.  1,  that  is,  in  B.C.  843,  and  also  that  the  last  of  all 
 his  kings  was  Sardanapalus :  and  further  that  Castor  agreed 
 with  or  copied  from  him  word  for  word.  And  in  the  list  of 
 the  Auctor  Barbarus  (printed  by  Scaliger)  who  is  supposed 
 to  have  copied  very  much  from  Castor,  the  series  is  expressly 
 said  to  end  "  67  years  before  Olymp.  1."  But,  on  the  other 
 hand,  neither  that  list  nor  Castor's  own  list,  nor  the  list  of 
 Abydenus,  made  the  series  to  end  with  Sardanapalus,  but 
 with  another  king  added  after  him,  and  named  Saracus,  or 
 Ninus  II.  This  we  learn  from  Castor  and  Abydenus  them- 
 selves. It  may  be  then  that  Abydenus  both  first  appended 
 the  name  of  Saracus  or  Ninus  IL  after  Sardanapalus,  and 
 also  first  inserted  in  his  list  those  two  female  names  of  Tratres 
 and  Badossa  or  Semiramis  II.  which  occur  after  the  18th 
 king,  the  one  with  17  the  other  with  7  years,  in  Eusebius's 
 lib.  i.  and  ii.  One  of  the  two  names  (but  with  23  years, 
 which  looks  like  a  consolidation  of  two  reigns  of  17  and  7 
 years)  appears  also  in  the  list  of  Barbarus  in  the  19th  place. 
 At  any  rate,  two  names,  Dercetades  and  Beleoun,  quoted  by 
 Polyhistor  from  Berosus  as  preceding  that  of  Balator^  seem 
 to  be  omitted  in  this  place  in  the  lists  derived  from  Ctesias. 
 With  these  additions,  and  with  the  genealogy  of  six  names  as 
 of  kings,  though  without  years,  prefixed  to  Ninus,  Aby- 
 denus would  have  in  all  xlv  names  instead  of  the  xxxvi  of 
 
 3  N 
 
914 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Ctesias.  And  for  his  sum  of  years,  if  he  ended  his  series  in 
 B.C.  843,  and  gave  the  same  number  of  years  to  his  three 
 new  reigns  as  belong  to  them  in  the  lists  of  the  Auctor 
 Barbaras  and  Eusebius,  viz.  19  and  (17  +  7  =  )  24  or  23, 
 retaining  for  the  xxxvi  reigns  of  Ctesias  his  sum  of  1306  or 
 1305  years — the  latter  variant  occurs  in  St.  Augustine— he 
 would  have  had  in  all  a  sum  of  1306+42=1348  years  be- 
 ginning from  B.C.  (843  +  1348  =  )  2191.  But  it  may  be 
 suspected  that  he  made  20  years  more,  and  began  as  if  from 
 B.C.  2211,  since  the  Auctor  Barbarus,  whose  list  is  plainly 
 derived  from  those  of  Abydenus  and  Castor,  names  as  his 
 sum  —  a  sum  certainly  not  that  of  Castor,  nor,  as  the  list 
 stands,  made  out  by  the  reigns — "  1430  years."  From  this  if 
 we  deduct  62  years  of  Belus,  to  whom  neither  Abydenus  nor 
 Castor  gave  any,  there  remain  1368,  which  reckoned  up 
 from  B.C.  843  would  seem  to  have  commenced  in  B.C.  2211. 
 And  if  this,  as  is  probable,  was  in  truth  the  reckoning  of 
 Abydenus,  it  results,  as  will  appear  below,  that  Abydenus 
 carried  back  the  commencement  of  his  chronology  precisely 
 to  the  Babylonian  epoch  of  Berosus,  of  which  the  epoch  of 
 Ctesias,  connected  rather,  if  it  was  in  any  sense  historical, 
 with  Nineveh,  was  25  years  short. 
 
 But  elsewhere  Abydenus,  in  a  passage  extracted  by  Euse- 
 bius, following  Alexander  Polyhistor  and  Berosus  and  not 
 Ctesias,  names  "  Sennacherib,"  who  "  reduced  Babylon  and 
 the  coast  of  Syria,"  as  "  the  25th  king  of  Assyria,"  and 
 Nergilus,  and  Adrameles,  and  Axerdis,  as  his  successors. 
 These,  he  says,  v^qvq  followedhy  Sardanapalus  [who  so  should 
 be  the  29th],  and  lastly  by  Saracus  [or  Ninus  II.]  who  burned 
 himself  in  his  palace  when  Nineveh  was  taken  by  Busalussor 
 [Nabopolassar]  the  father  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  same  king 
 having  previously  betrothed  his  son  Nebuchadnezzar  to  the 
 daughter  of  Astyages  [really  of  Cyaxares]  king  of  Media. 
 Abydeni  de  Senecherimo  :  "  His  temporibus  quintus  denique 
 et  vigesimus  rex  fuit  Senecheribus  qui  Babylonem  sibi  sub- 
 didlt,  et  in  Cilicii  maris  littore  classem  GrcBcorum  profllgatam 
 disjecit.  Hie  etiam  templum  Atheniensium  struxit,  aerea 
 quoque  signa  facienda  curavlt  in  quibus  sua  facinora  traditur 
 inscripsisse.    Tarsum  denique  ea  forma  qua  Babylon  utitur 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  915 
 
 condidit.  Proximus  huic  regnavlt  Nergilus^  quern  Adrameles 
 filius  occidit.  Rursus  hunc  frater  suus  Axerdis  interfecit 
 patre  eodem  alia  tamen  matre  genitus ;  atque  Byzantium 
 usque  ejus  exercitum  persecutus  est  quern  antea  mercede 
 conduxerat  auxiliarem.  In  hoc  miles  erat  Pythagoras  qui- 
 dam,  Chaldaeas  sapientiae  assecla.  ^gyptum  praiterca, 
 partesque  interiores  Syriae,  acquirebat  Axerdis.  Hinc  Sar- 
 danapallus  exortus  est.  Post  quern  Saracus  imperitabat 
 Assyriis,  qui  quidem  certior  factus  turmarum  vulgi  collecti- 
 tiarum  quae  a  mari  adversus  se  adventarent,  continuo  Bu- 
 salussorum  militiae  ducem  Babylonem  mittebat.  Sed  enim 
 hie  capto  rebellandi  consilio  Amuhiam  Asdahagis  Medorum 
 principis  filiam  nato  suo  Nabuchodrossoro,  moxque  raptim 
 contra  Ninum  seu  Nineven  urbem  impetum  faciebat.  Re 
 omni  coo-nita  rex  Saracus  reoriam  Evoritam  inflammabat. 
 Turn  vero  Nahuchodrossorus  summae  rerum  potitus  firmis 
 mcenibus  Babylonem  cingebat."  {Eus.  Chron.  i.  9,  p.  25  ; 
 and  Si/nc.  p.  210,  ap.  Clinton,  F.  H.  vol.  i.  p.  271.)  Euse- 
 bius  gives  also  a  long  extract  from  Polyhistor,  from  the 
 latter  part  of  which,  or  from  the  same  source  in  Berosus,  this 
 passage  of  Abydenus  is  taken ;  and  in  places  it  is  almost 
 word  for  word.  Polyhistor,  as  it  hence  appears,  named 
 Pythagoras  in  connection  with  Axerdis  the  predecessor  of 
 Sardanapalus ;  and  he  named  Saracus  the  successor  of  Sar- 
 danapalus  as  the  last  king,  in  whose  time  Nineveh  was  taken 
 by  "  Nabopolassar ; "  and  he  fixed  upon  Saracus  the  burning 
 of  the  palace  called  Evorita.  But  in  the  extract  alluded  to 
 he  does  not  call  Sennacherib  "  the  25th  king,"  nor  make  any 
 allusion  to  the  list  or  to  the  writings  of  Ctesias.  On  the 
 contrary  he  adheres,  with  whatever  mistakes  or  confusion, 
 to  Berosus,  while  Abydenus,  who  had  elsewhere  made 
 Ninus  II.  to  end  "  67  years  before  Olymp.  1,"  now,  in  the 
 account  just  mentioned,  brings  down  Ninus  II.  two  or  three 
 reigns  below  the  time  of  Pythagoras,  and  the  capture  of 
 Nineveh  below  the  date  of  the  marriage  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
 to  a  daughter  of  Astyages,  who  is  named  erroneously  in- 
 stead of  Cyaxares.  Yet  he  actually  attempts  to  present  the 
 two  accounts  of  Ctesias  and  Polyhistor  as  one.  As  regards 
 his  calling  Sennacherib  the  25th  king,  and  giving  him  only  5 
 
 3  N  2 
 
916 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 more  successors,  so  making  only  xxix  kings  in  all  to  Sardana- 
 pakis,  or  xxx  to  Ninus  II.,  this  peculiarity  and  inconsis- 
 tency may  perhaps  be  connected  with  a  similar  inconsistency 
 in  Diodorus  ;  for  he  also  speaks  of  xxx  kings,  thinking  of 
 xxxiii  in  all,  or  xxx  after  Ninyas,  instead  of  xxxiii  after 
 Ninyas.  It  is  certainly  not  from  Ctesias :  and  it  is  worthy 
 of  some  attention.  It  is  not  impossible  that  its  source  may 
 lie  with  Polyhistor  and  with  Berosus.  For,  in  the  first 
 place,  there  is  a  passage  in  Agathias,  and  a  similar  one  in 
 Syncellus,  in  which  it  is  distinctly  said  from  Polyhistor  and 
 Berosus  that  the  line  of  kings  from  the  commencement  to 
 the  end  of  the  Assyrian  empire  were  not  (as  Ctesias  had  pre- 
 tended) all  of  the  same  lineage,  descending  in  unbroken 
 succession  from  Ninus  and  Semiramis.  On  the  contrary  the 
 succession  of  Ninus  came  to  an  end  with  Beleoun,  the  son  of 
 Dercetades.  ^'  For  one  Balator  "  [this  name  appears  as  the 
 19th  in  the  lists  derived  from  Ctesias],  "who  was  over  the 
 palace  gardens,  by  a  wonderful  fortune  made  himself  master 
 of  the  crown,  and  left  it  to  his  own  family,  as  is  related  by 
 Bion  and  Alexander  Polyhistor  :  and  they  reigned  to  the  time 
 of  Sardanapalus,  when,  as  they  say,  the  empire  having  gone 
 to  decay,  Arbaces  the  Mede  and  Belesis  the  Babylonian 
 dispossessed  the  Assyrians  of  it  and  took  the  power  to  them- 
 selves, having  deposed  the  king,'^''  [So  the  king  was  not  then 
 slain,  nor  Nineveh  taken,  nor  the  palace  burned,  but  only 
 Media  and  Babylonia  threw  off  their  allegiance.]  The 
 names  Arbaces   and  Belesis  may  be  only  from  Ctesias. 
 
 NtFOS"  T£  irpoTspov  (paivsTat  Kal  (BaaCkelav  svravda  IBspaiav 
 KaraarrjaafMEVOs,  Xsfj,LpafjLLS  ts  av  fisr  sKStvoVy  Kal  s^Tjs  arravTas 
 ol  TovTcov  aTToyovoL  P'^^pi^  Kal  £9  ^sXsovv  Tov  AspKsrdBov, 
 'Es*  TOVTOV  yap  Br)  tov  ^aXsovv  ttjs  tov  Xsfiipa/jLSLov  (f)v\ov 
 BiaBo')(r]9  7ravaa/jLsvr}9,  ^sXrjTapas  tl9  ovo/ia,  (pVTOvpyos  avr]p 
 
 Kal    TCOV   iv  T0L9   l3a(TlXSL0l9    KrjTTdiV   IJbZkah(OV09   Kal  i7rL(TTdT7]9, 
 
 sKapTTCocraTO  7rapa\6yco9  ttjv  ^aaiXslav,  Kal  tm  olkslq)  svs(j)UTSvas 
 ysvsL,  009  ^LcovL  ysypaiTTaL  Kal  AXs^avSpco  tw  UoXvtcTTopt,  £0)9 
 £9  XapSavdiraXkov,  a)9  £Ks2vol  (j)aaL,  r?}?  ap^^s  d7ro/jLapavd£La7]9, 
 ''Apl3dKr]9  6  Mrj8o9  Kal  ^sXsav9  6  Ba/3v\a)Vt09  d(j)7j prjvTai  avTrjv 
 T0V9  'A(7crvplov9,  Ka6£\6vT£9  TOV  PaaCksa.''''  {Agathias,  ii.  25, 
 p.  119,  ap.  Clinton,  F.  H.  vol.  i.  p.  269,  and  Sync.  p.  676,  ed. 
 
BABiLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  917 
 
 Dind.)  But  if  the  kings  of  Nineveh  and  Assyria  after  the 
 termination  of  the  Assyrian  empire  were  still  reckoned  by 
 Berosus  or  by  Polyhistor  from  Balator,  as  is  possible^  though 
 probability  may  be  the  other  way,  then,  since  the  place  of 
 Balator  in  the  list  of  Berosus  and  Polyhistor  is  uncertain, 
 it  is  possible  that  Beleoun  was  named  in  it  as  the  15th, 
 not  the  18th,  from  Ninus,  and  that  the  Sennacherib  of 
 Abydenus  was  the  25  th  from  Balator ;  and  Abydenus  may 
 have  found  him  named  as  such  by  Polyhistor  or  by  Berosus, 
 though  not  in  the  same  extract  from  Polyhistor  which  we 
 have  in  Eusebius.  Else,  as  Abydenus  himself,  in  other 
 places,  and  Castor  too,  had  certainly  no  fewer  than  the  xxxvi 
 kings  of  Ctesias,  besides  Kinus  II.  (and  the  list  of  Barbarus 
 specifies  the  number  of  xxxix  ),  Abydenus,  instead  of  call- 
 ing his  Sennacherib  the  25th,  ought  to  have  called  him  the 
 (36-5  =  )  31st  or  the  (39-5  =  )  34th.  Or,  if  he  were  for 
 that  time  taking  the  number  of  the  kings  after  Ninus  from 
 Polyhistor  or  Berosus,  only  drawing  down  their  end  too 
 low,  then,  since  this  number  was — as  will  appear  below  — 
 xlv,  he  should  have  named  his  Sennacherib  as  confounded 
 with  the  6th  from  the  end  the  (45  — 5  =  )  39th  king.  An- 
 other explanation  is  proposed  by  Clinton,  namely,  that  Aby- 
 denus was  here  really  following  Berosus,  who  gave  some- 
 where XXX  as  the  true  number  of  the  kings  from  Ninus  to 
 the  destruction  of  Nineveh.  "  Of  these  xxiv  only  would 
 belong  to  the  523  years  of  the  Assyrian  empire,  and  the 
 remaining  6  to  the  continuance  of  the  monarchy  during  its 
 last  105  years  from  B.C.  711  to  B.C.  606."  If  this  view  be 
 correct,  it  follows  that  xxiv  only  out  of  the  xxx  kings  of  As- 
 syria are  included  among  those  xlv  Chaldeans  to  whom 
 Berosus  assigned  his  526  years  of  Assyrian  empire;  and 
 that  the  remaining  xxi  are  the  associate  or  dependent  kings 
 who  reigned  at  Babylon  during  the  same  time  with  their 
 suzerains  of  Nineveh.  Thus,  Clinton  observes,  if  there 
 were  xxiv  kings  in  the  526  years,  they  would  reign  about 
 22  years  each,  which  is  a  probable  average.  But  on  the 
 other  hand,  as  Berosus  no  doubt  gave  the  years  of  each 
 king,  one  would  have  expected  him  either  to  distinguish 
 two  concurrent  lines,  making  out  by  the  reigns  given  for 
 
 3  N  3 
 
918 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 each  one  and  the  same  sum  of  526  years,  or  else,  if  he  threw 
 the  kinsfs  of  both  lines  to^^ether,  the  sum  of  their  collective 
 reigns  should  have  been  1052,  or  twice  the  chronological 
 space  which  they  jointly  covered.  Besides  this,  we  have  in 
 the  Astronomical  Canon  an  authentic  list  of  the  Babylonian 
 kings  from  Nabonassar  to  the  conquest  of  Babylon  by 
 Cyrus;  and  this  list  gives  21  names  of  kings,  besides  two 
 interregna  of  2  and  8  years  respectively,  in  a  space  of  only 
 209  years,  the  interregna  included.  So  these  kings  reigned 
 one  with  another  not  quite  10  years  each,  an  average  even 
 below  that  which  is  given  by  Berosus  to  the  xlv  kings  of 
 the  Assyrian  empire  from  Ninus :  for  these  in  526  years 
 would  have  11^4-,  or  within  3  months  of  12  years,  each. 
 It  would,  therefore,  be  very  unsafe  to  double  this  average 
 upon  a  mere  conjecture.  But  perhaps  it  is  most  probable 
 that  the  reckoning  of  30  kings  in  all,  and  the  naming  of  that 
 Sennacherib  as  25th,  who  seemed  to  be  last  but  five  before  the 
 destruction  of  Nineveh,  was  only  an  inconsistency  in  Abydenus, 
 the  source  perhaps  of  the  similar  inconsistency  of  Diodorus. 
 
 CASTOK  OF  ERODES. 
 
 Castor,  son-in-law  to  King  Deiotarus  of  Armenia,  who 
 brought  down  his  chronography  to  B.C.  56,  is  quoted  by 
 Eusebius  in  the  following^  words  :  —  "  ^  Castoris  Summario 
 de  regno  Assyriorum :  '  Belus  erat,'  inquit,  ^  Assyriorum  rex, 
 
 et  sub  eo  Cyclopes  Jovi  cum  Titanis  praelianti  opem 
 
 ferebant.  Reges  quoque  Titanorum  eo  tempore  cognosce- 
 bantur '  [an  allusion  seemingly  to  Abydenus,  and  to  the 
 antediluvian  kings  of  Berosus  from  Alorus],  '  quorum  e 
 numero  erat  Ogyges  rex'  [an  allusion  to  Xisuthrus  and  to  the 
 Flood].  .  .  Mox,  paucis  interjectis,  subdit  Gigantes  Diis 
 bellum  intulisse,  atque  occidione  esse  C£esos :  strenuos  Deorum 
 adjutores  fuisse  Herculem  et  Bacchum,  qui  et  ipsi  erant 
 Titani :  Belum,  de  quo  antea  diximus,  mortem  obiisse,  qui 
 etiam  deus  existimatus  sit :  Post  liunc  Assyriis  dominatum 
 esse  Ninum  annis  52,  qui  uxorem  duxit  Semiramidem :  Post 
 eum  Semiramidem  rexisse  imperium  annis  42  :  Zamem,  qui 
 et  Ninyas,  successisse.    Deinde  Assyriorum  qui  consccuti 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  919 
 
 sunt  reges  singillatim  ordinatimque  numerat  usque  ad  Sar- 
 danapallum,  nominatim  quemque  compellans ;  quorum  etiam 
 nos  paullo  post  nomina  et  tempora  ponemus.  "  {Chron.  i.  13, 
 p.  36.)  Here  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  Belus,  though  he 
 stands  alone,  without  the  intermediate  five  names  of  Aby- 
 denus,  as  the  father  of  Ninus,  is  confessedly  the  antediluvian 
 deified  ancestor,  who  is  brought  down,  while  all  the  mytho- 
 logical interval,  described  more  at  length  by  Abydenus  from 
 Berosus  and  Polyhistor,  is  compendiously  alluded  to.  Also, 
 that  Eusebius  here,  just  as  in  the  case  of  Abydenus,  makes 
 Castor  bring  down  his  series  "  to  Sardanapalus,"  whereas 
 in  another  passage,  which  he  gives  shortly  afterwards,  Castor 
 himself  declares  that  he  ended  not  with  Sardanapalus,  but 
 "  with  Ninus  II.,  who  succeeded  Sardanapalus."  One  must 
 suppose,  therefore,  that  Eusebius  took  no  notice  of  Ninus  II., 
 because  in  his  own  list,  which  he  announces  his  intention  of 
 copying  from  Castor,  and  which  he  did,  in  fact,  so  copy,  but 
 with  some  curtailment,  making  only  as  he  says  "  1240,"  really 
 only  1238, instead  of  1280  years,  he  purposed  to  omit  Ninus  11. 
 as  a  supernumerary  unknown  to  Ctesias.  "  Profecto  et  ille,"  so 
 Eusebius  continues  of  Castor,  "in  eo  quem  digessit  canone  sic 
 de  his  loquitur :  *  Primo  Assyriorum  reges  disposuimus,  exor- 
 diumque  a  Belo  duximus ;  et  quoniam  haud  traditum  est 
 quot  hie  annis  regnaverit,^  [we  have  seen  that  Belus  and  five 
 others  were  given  as  a  genealogy  by  Abydenus  without 
 years,  and  the  reason  is  manifest,]  '  nihil  'prater  nomen  ad- 
 scripsimus.  A  Nino  autem  principium  chronologicR  fecimus^  et 
 in  alterum  Ninum  qui  Sardanapali  sedem  usurpaverit''  [suc- 
 ceeded, BcaSs^dfjLSvov  in  the  Greek]  '  desivimus ;  prorsus  ut 
 perspicue  definiteque  sua  cuique  regi  tempora  tribuerentur. 
 Porro  annorum  1280  summa  exsurgit.' "  So  then  Castor 
 ending,  as  is  implied  by  Eusebius,  together  with  Abydenus 
 and  with  Barbarus,  "67  years  before  Olymp.  1,"  in  B.C.  843, 
 though  he  had  certainly  one  additional  reign  derived  from 
 Abydenus,  and  probably  two  or  three,  and  so  made  xxxviii 
 or  xxxix  in  all,  instead  of  the  xxxvi  of  Ctesias,  yet  made  in 
 all  a  sum  of  only  1280  years,  being  26  fewer  than  Ctesias 
 gave  to  only  xxxvi  kings.    And  this  is  probably  a  variation 
 
 3  N  4 
 
920 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 not  derived  from  Abydenus,  but  introduced  by  himself,  and 
 for  the  same  reason  for  which  he  is  known  to  have  curtailed 
 the  years  of  other  lines  of  kings  besides  the  Assyrian.  For 
 the  xxxvi  kings  of  Ctesias  would  seem  in  1306  years  to  have 
 reigned  36 ^f,  or  36  years  and  over  4  months  each,  which  is 
 considerably  over  Herodotus's  average  even  for  life  genera- 
 tions. But  xxxviii  or  xxxix  in  1280  years  would  reign  only 
 33|f ,  or  32|f ,  that  is,  a  little  over  33-1-,  or  a  little  under  33 
 years  each.  Probably  it  was  on  account  of  the  reduction 
 already  made  by  Castor  that  Eusebius  preferred  to  make 
 Castor's  list  the  basis  of  his  own ;  and  probably  it  was  owing 
 to  the  same  causes  that  no  one  of  those  forms  of  the  same  list 
 w^hich  have  reached  us  exhibit  in  conjunction  with  the  xxxvi 
 reigns  of  Ctesias  his  sum  of  1306  years. 
 
 THE  "AUCTOR  BARBARUS "  OF  SCALIGER. 
 
 Of  the  Auctor  B^arbarus  thus  much  only  need  be  said 
 here,  that  his  Assyrian  list  is  connected  with  that  of  Aby- 
 denus  and  that  of  Castor  at  once  bv  its  endins;  with 
 Ninus  II.,  by  its  ending  "67  years  before  Olymp.  1,"  and 
 by  its  prefixing  the  name  of  Belus  to  that  of  Ninus.  By 
 prefixing  the  name  of  Belus  only,  without  the  other  five 
 names  of  Abydenus,  it  is  connected  rather  with  Castor: 
 but  by  the  sum  of"  1430  years,"  which  it  subjoins,  it  is  dis- 
 connected from  him  :  and  by  giving  to  Belus,  at  the  head  of 
 all,  a  reign  of  62  years  it  is  distinguished  as  a  variation  from 
 both.  "When  these  62  years,  however,  are  subtracted,  what 
 remains  of  the  sum  given,  viz.  (1430  —  62  =  )  1368  years,  if 
 reckoned  up  from  B.C.  843,  sets  the  epoch  of  Ninus  and  the 
 Assyrian  empire  at  B.C.  2211,  which  is  exactly  the  epoch  of 
 Berosus,  not  indeed  for  Ninus,  but  for  the  commencement 
 of  his  historical  series  from  the  iMedian  capture  of  Babylon. 
 And  this  event  was  capable  of  being  identified  in  fable  with 
 the  commencement  of  a  Medo- Assyrian  empire.  For  Ninus 
 also,  according  to  Ctesias,  began  by  the  reduction  of  Baby- 
 lonia. It  may  be  supposed,  therefore,  that  the  bases  of  the 
 list  and  sum  of  Barbarus  (without  the  62  years  of  Belus) 
 are,  in  fact^  the  list  and  sum  of  Abydenus,  who  purposely 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  921 
 
 made  his  series  to  begin  25  years  higher  than  Thoth  1  in 
 B.C.  2186,  where  it  had  been  made  to  begin  by  Ctesias,  in 
 order  to  coincide  with  the  epoch  of  Berosus.  It  is  further 
 to  be  remarked  that,  as  the  list  stands,  the  sums  given,  "  xxxix 
 kings  and  1430  years,"  are  not  actually  made  out,  there 
 being  only  xxxviii  kings  and  1344  years,  even  when  Belus 
 and  his  62  years  are  included.  So  two  kings  and  86  years 
 are  wanting.  On  the  other  hand,  the  sum  which  is  actually 
 exhibited  below  Belus,  being  1284,  exceeds  by  only  4  that 
 which  would  have  suited  for  Castor.  And  without  the  42 
 years  of  the  reigns  of  Semiramis  II.  and  Ninus  II.,  which 
 were  unknown  to  Ctesias,  and  which  are  dropped  also  by 
 Eusebius,  the  remaining  sum  of  1240,  though  there  is  a 
 difference  in  particular  reigns,  exceeds  by  only  two  the  sum 
 named  by  Eusebius  as  that  "  of  the  most  accurate  writers." 
 One  of  the  reigns,  that  of  Macchaleus  or  Aschalius,  which 
 should  be  the  12th,  with  30  or  28  years,  is  easy  to  restore 
 from  the  other  lists.  The  other  is  less  certain.  It  may  be 
 that  the  name  Sethos,  which  in  the  list  of  Syncellus  stands 
 10th,  with  50  years,  instead  of  Altadas  with  32  or  38,  was 
 added  in  the  list  of  Barbarus,  or  the  name  of  Tratres,  given 
 by  Eusebius  with  17  years,  is  improperly  consolidated  with 
 Semiramis  II.,  or  Atossa ;  that  is,  if  there  were  in  all  xxxix, 
 and  all  these,  and  not  only  xxxviii  of  them,  were  below  Belus. 
 
 Assumino^  that  for  the  last  12  names  and  reig:ns  in  the  list 
 of  Barbarus  the  text  needs  no  correction,  one  finds  the  fall 
 of  Troy  attached  by  a  note  to  the  last  year  of  Teutamus, 
 written  Tautelus,  (67  +  389  =  )  456  years  above  Olymp.  1, 
 that  is,  at  B.C.  1232,  which  might  perhaps  suit  for  Ctesias; 
 and  in  the  same  list,  if  we  reckon  up  as  if  for  Ctesias  (389  — 
 19  =  )  370  years  (without  the  19  of  Ninus  II.)  from  B.C. 
 880,  the  last  year  of  Teutamus  would  end  in  B.C.  1250. 
 Sardanapalus,  however,  has  30  years  in  no  other  list  except 
 that  of  Barbarus ;  and  with  the  figures  of  Ctesias  himself, 
 the  last  year  of  Teutamus  would  end  in  B.C.  1230,  having 
 begun  in  B.C.  1262.  The  1000  years,  too,  "or  more,"  be- 
 fore Troy,  which  are  named  by  Diodorus,  might  have  been 
 found  by  him  in  the  list  of  Abydenus,  if  that  list  commenced 
 as  if  in  B.C.  2211,  and  the  synchronism  were  attached  to  the 
 
922 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 last  year,  not  of  Teutamus  the  26th  king,  as  it  had  been  by 
 Ctesias,  but  to  the  last  year  of  Teutceus  his  successor,  40 
 years  later,  so  as  to  suit  Eratosthenes's  date  and  his  own. 
 As  the  list  of  Barbarus  stands,  the  last  year  of  Teutamus, 
 the  25th  from  after  Ninus  in  the  list  of  Ctesias,  appears  to 
 end  in  B.C.  (776  +  67  +  389  =  )  1232,  or  after  1041  years 
 from  Belus.  But  in  no  case  could  the  1000  years  have 
 been  made  out  from  Ninus  to  Teutamus y  between  whose  last 
 year  and  the  accession  of  Ninus,  even  with  Abydenus's  sum, 
 of  1368  years,  ending  in  B.C.  843  (equivalent  to  1331  years 
 ending  in  B.C.  880),  there  would  be  at  most  (2211-1216  =  ) 
 995  years. 
 
 CEPHALION. 
 
 Another  author,  Cephalion,  who  wrote  in  the  time  of  the 
 Emperor  Hadrian,  is  also  quoted  by  Eusebius  and  Syncellus, 
 and  he  belongs  to  the  same  family  with  the  preceding,  since 
 besides  Hellanicus  of  Lesbos  and  Herodotus  he  names  pro- 
 minently as  his  chief  authority  Ctesias.  He  too  began  the 
 Assyrian  reigns  from  Ninus  "  the  son  of  Belus."  He 
 writes,"  says  Syncellus,  "  thus :  '  In  the  oldest  time  (to 
 irdkaiov)  the  Assyrians  had  the  lordship  over  Asia,  being 
 themselves  governed  by  Ninus  the  son  of  Belus.'  Then 
 he  introduces  [an  account  of]  the  origin  of  Semiramis  and 
 of  Zoroaster  the  Mage  in  the  52nd  year  of  the  reign  of 
 Ninus"  ["  of  the  reign  of  Ninus,  which  lasted  52  years,  and  of 
 his  death  "  in  Euseb.  Arm.].  ^  After  whom,'  he  says,  ^  Semira- 
 mis walled  Babylon,  as  has  been  related  by  Ctesias,  Zeno, 
 Herodotus,  and  many  others  after  them.'  He  relates  too  that 
 she  made  an  expedition  against  the  Indians,  but  was  defeated ; 
 that  she  slew  her  own  sons ;  and  that  she  was  herself  slain  by 
 Ninus  [Ninyas]  one  of  her  sons,  \vho  succeeded  her  in  the 
 throne,"  [Eusebius  adds  "  when  she  had  reigned  42  years.  And 
 of  this  her  successor  it  is  said  that  he  did  nothing  worthy  of 
 mention."]  Syncellus  proceeds:  "And  further  on  [he  says 
 the  same]  of  the  rest,  *who  reigned  for  the  space  of  1000 
 years,  all  in  direct  succession  from  father  to  son ;  and  no  one 
 of  them  reigned  less  than  20  years.  For  their  unwarlike, 
 unenterprising,  and  effeminate  habits  kept  them  out  of  danger. 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES. 
 
 923 
 
 For  they  remained  always  shut  up  in  the  palace,  and  so  did 
 nothing ;  nor  were  they  visible  to  any  except  the  concubines 
 and  the  eunuchs.  Of  these  kings,  if  any  one  wishes  to  know 
 the  names,  Ctesias  gives  them,  twenty,  I  think,  and  three. 
 But  for  me,  what  should  I  gain  either  towards  improving 
 my  own  work  or  pleasing  the  reader  by  the  insertion  of  a 
 mere  string  of  names  of  barbarian  tyrants  who  were  all 
 cowardly  and  effeminate  ? '  After  which  he  makes  mention 
 of  their  years.  'When  about  640  years  had  passed  from 
 Ninus,  Belimus  (anno  640°,  rege  Belimo)  reigned  over  the 
 Assyrians.  And  there  came  to  his  dominions  Perseus  the 
 son  of  Danae  with  100  ships  ;  for  Perseus  was  flying  from 
 Dionysus  the  son  of  Semele,'  And  further  on :  'In  a 
 later  generation  {yaTsprj  jsvsfj),  in  the  reign  of  Pant/as,  the 
 expedition  of  the  Argonauts  sailed  to  the  Phasis  and  to 
 Medea  of  Colchis,  and  Hercules  wandered  from  the  ship 
 after  Hylas  towards  Cappadocia,'  &c.  And  again :  '  If  one 
 reckons  1000  years  from  Semiramis  to  the  reign  of  Mithrceus, 
 that  was  the  time  when  the  Colchian  Medea  daughter  of 
 -^geus  eloped,  of  whom  was  born  Medus  ;  and  from  him  are 
 descended  the  JMedes,  and  from  him  their  country  was  named 
 Media.^  Then  he  says  that  '  Mithraeus  was  succeeded  by 
 Tautanus '  [the  same  variant  as  in  the  list  of  Barbarus,  but 
 the  Armenian  version  has  Teutamus],  'who lived  like  the  rest 
 according  to  the  habits  and  institutions  of  the  Assyrians. 
 Nor  was  there  anything  else  of  note  done  in  his  time  more 
 than  under  the  rest.  But  then  it  was  that  Agamemnon  and 
 Menelaus  of  Mycenae  went  with  the  Argives  and  the  rest  of 
 the  Achaians  to  war  against  Troy  the  city  of  Priam  in 
 Phrygia.'  Then  he  gives  Priam's  letter  to  Teutamus,  asking 
 for  succour  after  Hector  had  been  slain."  Eusebius  concludes 
 (p.  44),  "Ait  postea  diserte  Sardanapallum  anno  1013 
 Assyriorum  regem  esse  creatum,  cujus  et  exitium  memorat. 
 Tum,  sublato  Sardanapallo,  Assyriorum  imperium  a  Yarbace 
 extinctum  et  ad  Medos  esse  translatum.  Haec  omnia  Cepha- 
 lion."  "  So  Cephalion  would  seem  to  have  omitted  all  the 
 reigns  between  Teutamus  and  Sardanapalus,  whom  he  places 
 13  years  after  the  Trojan  war;  an  omission  for  which  he  is 
 censured  by  Syncellus,  p.  168  [More  than  this,  he  had 
 
 already  reckoned  1000  years,  and  that  too  from  Semiramis, 
 
924 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 before  coming  to  the  accession  of  Teutainus.]  "  The  account 
 of  Cephalion  will  place  the  rise  of  the  Median  empire  about 
 B.C.  1150,  and  the  rise  of  the  Assyrian  about  B.C.  2184, 
 which  he  reckons  to  be  640  years  before  Perseus  and  Bac- 
 chus. From  Cephalion,  however,  we  learn  that  Teutamus 
 was  made  by  Ctesias  the  25th  [26th?]  king,  and  not  the 
 20th,  as  Diodorus  [erroneously]  expresses  it.  For  Ctesias 
 according  to  Cephalion  enumerated  23  kings"  [meaning  pro- 
 bably to  Teutamus  and  Troy,  after  the  1000  years,  not  as 
 Clinton  takes  it  to  the  end  of  his  whole  series],  of  whom 
 Teutamus  was  the  22nd  [23rd]  after  Ninus,  Semiramis,  and 
 Ninyas.  These  three  reigns  being  added,  Teutamus  will  be 
 the  25th  [26th]  king."   {Clinton,  F.  H,  vol.  i.  p.  265.) 
 
 THE  CHRISTIAN  CHRONOGRAPHERS. 
 
 Of  these  Africanus,  according  to  Syncellus,  placed  the 
 commencement  of  the  Assyrian  empire  200  years  before 
 Inachus,  that  is  in  B.C.  1906  +  200  =  2106  (see  above,  p.  716), 
 which  was  for  him  194  years  below  the  birth  of  the  patriarch 
 Abraham,  at  the  commencement  of  the  35th  year  of  Jacob. 
 Hence  it  would  seem  that  Africanus  for  his  Assyrian  reckon- 
 ing adopted  the  list  of  Castor,  since  Castor's  sum  of  1280  years 
 reckoned  from  B.C.  2106  would  end  in  B.C.  826,  where  Syn- 
 cellus also  ended  (and  Eusebius  varied  by  only  6  years  from 
 the  same  ending).  And  from  B.C.  826  Africanus  must  have 
 had  266  years  of  8  Median  reigns  to  the  Persian  accession  of 
 Cyrus,  which  he  rightly  (according  to  his  manner  of  reckon- 
 ing) put  in  the  autumn  of  B.C.  560,  and  it  may  be  17,  21,  or 
 24  years  more  during  which  Cyaxares  II.  reigned  together 
 with  Cyrus. 
 
 Eusebius,  finding  the  list  of  Castor  and  Africanus  a  little 
 too  long  for  his  own  scheme,  made  it  to  end  6  years  lower,  in 
 B.C.  820,  instead  of  826,  omitted  the  last  reign  of  Ninus 
 II.  with  19  years,  and  shortened  the  other  reigns  besides  by 
 21  years,  so  as  to  make  1238  only  in  all  in  his  Canon,  in- 
 stead of  1280.  These  1238  reckoned  upwards  from  B.C.  820, 
 43,  or  in  round  numbers  "  40,"  years  before  Olymp.  1,  find 
 their  commencement  in  B.C.  (820+1238  =  )  2058,  which 
 is  for  him  (2058  —  2016  =  )  42  years  before  the  birth  of 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  925 
 
 Abraham,  so  that  Ninus  the  first  king  is  for  the  last  10  years 
 of  his  reign  contemporary  with  Abraham.  Below  B.C.  820 
 he  made  260  years  of  8  Median  reigns  to  the  defeat  of 
 Astyages  by  Cyrus  in  B.C.  560. 
 
 Syncellus,  and  probably  Anianiis  before  him,  both  for 
 other  reasons  and  in  order  to  avoid  exhibiting  the  Assyrian 
 monarchy  as  commencing  long  after  Abraham  (an  incongruity 
 for  which  they  blamed  Africanus),  made  out  a  list  of  xli  kings 
 from  Belus,  assigning  years  to  5  out  of  the  6  names  prefixed 
 to  Ninus  by  Abydenus,  yet  so  that  Belus  alone  with  55  years 
 appeared  to  precede  Ninus,  the  other  4  names  with  162 
 years  being  inserted  much  lower  down  in  the  list,  after 
 Teutamus  and  Teutaeus.  They  adhered,  too,  to  Africanus 
 and  Eusebius  in  ending  with  Sardanapalus.  Thus  their  list 
 had  1460  years  in  all,  exceeding  the  sum  of  1368  which 
 may  be  collected  from  Barbarus  for  Abydenus  by  92  years, 
 but  beginning  only  92  —  17  =  75  years  before  Abydenus,  in 
 B.C.  (826  +  1460=  )2286,  just  160  years  above  the  beginning 
 of  Ctesias.  What  the  purpose  of  this  arrangement  was  will 
 appear  below.  And  from  B.C.  826,  where  their  Assyrian  list 
 ends  with  that  of  Africanus,  6  years  above  that  of  Eusebius, 
 Anianus  and  Syncellus  continued  with  only  viii  Median 
 reigns,  instead  of  the  ix  of  Ctesias,  but  giving  to  them  283 
 years,  instead  of  266  like  Africanus,  so  as  to  end  in  B.C.  543, 
 17  years  below  the  true  date  for  the  accession  of  Cyrus. 
 
 For  the  four  last  names  of  their  viii  Medes  Eusebius  and 
 Syncellus  follow  not  Ctesias  or  Castor,  but  Herodotus.  And 
 according  to  Syncellus  Astyages  is  at  once  "  Nabonadius," 
 who  reigned  17  years  (the  last  of  his  38)  after  killing  Nerig- 
 lissar,  and  "  Darius  the  Mede,"  the  patron  of  Daniel  and 
 uncle  of  Cyrus,  and  the  king  Ahasuerus,"  who  made  Esther 
 his  queen. 
 
 HERODOTUS  AND  HOLY  SCRIPTURE. 
 
 After  having  thus  noticed  the  different  lists,  we  may 
 return  to  Ctesias,  from  whom  they  are  all  alike  derived. 
 His  accounts  are  plainly  irreconcilable  with  those  of  Hero- 
 dotus, and  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  For  from  Herodotus 
 and  the  Scriptures  we  learn  that  the  Median  empire  lasted 
 only  128  years,  including  28  during  which  the  Scythians 
 
926 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 were  masters  of  Asia ;  that  there  were  only  150  years  in  all 
 between  the  defection  of  the  Medes  and  the  Babylonians 
 from  Nineveh  (which  is  so  referred  to  B.C.  709),  and  the  Per- 
 sian accession  of  Cyrus,  and  ovljfour  kings  in  all  who  ruled 
 over  Media  as  an  independent  kingdom ;  and  that  Nineveh, 
 so  far  from  being  destroyed  in  B.C.  880,  was  not  destroyed 
 when  it  really  lost  its  empire  in  B.C.  709,  nor  till  103  years 
 later,  that  is,  till  B.C.  606,  when  it  was  taken,  not  by 
 Arbaces  and  Belesis,  but  by  Cyaxares  and  Nabopolassar 
 (^dho-Belessery  Herodotus,  too,  expressly  assigns  for  the 
 duration  of  the  Assyrian  empire  over  upper  Asia  from  its  esta- 
 blishment (which  he  indirectly  ascribes  to  Ninus)  to  its  ces- 
 sation through  the  loss  of  Media  and  Babylon,  no  more  than 
 520  years.  He  adds,  that  even  after  being  stripped  of  its 
 chief  dependencies,  the  city  and  kingdom  of  the  Assyrians 
 of  Nineveh,  as  a  particular  state,  was  still  flourishing  and 
 powerful.  And  with  this  account  of  Herodotus  the  notices 
 contained  in  Holy  Scripture  and  the  monumental  records  of 
 Egypt  agree.  In  the  time  of  the  Patriarch  Abraham  no 
 great  empire  is  spoken  of  with  either  Nineveh  or  Babylon 
 for  its  capital,  though  both  those  cities  had  long  existed,  but 
 a  confederacy  of  four  kings,  named  as  "  Amraphel  king  of 
 Shinar,  Arioch  king  of  Ellasar,  Chedorlaomer  king  of  Elam, 
 and  Tidal  king  of  Goim,  made  war  upon  Bera  king  of 
 Sodom,  Birsha  king  of  Gomorrah,  Shinab  king  of  Admah, 
 Shemeber  king  of  Zeboim,  and  the  king  of  Bela  or  Zoar," 
 '^four  kings  against  five."  And  of  this  confederacy  Che- 
 dorlaomer the  king  of  Elam  was  the  head.  And  after  a 
 battle  in  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  where  is  now  the  Dead 
 Sea,  the  five  kings  of  the  cities  of  the  plain  submitted,  and 
 became  subject  to  Chedorlaomer  12  years;  but  in  the  13th 
 year  they  rebelled.  And  in  the  14th  year  Chedorlaomer  and 
 the  other  three  kings,  his  confederates,  returned,  and  after 
 smiting  the  neighbouring  peoples,  fought  another  battle  in 
 the  vale  of  Siddim,  and  were  again  victorious.  And  having 
 slain  the  kings  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  they  spoiled  those 
 cities,  and  carried  away  Lot,  the  nephew  of  Abraham ;  where- 
 upon Abraham,  with  318  men  of  his  own  servants,  and  his 
 friends  Aner,  Eshcol,  and  Mamre,  pursued  after  them  to 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  927 
 
 Dan,  and  coming  upon  them  by  night,  smote  them,  and 
 pursued  them  to  Hobah,  on  the  left  of  Damascus,  and 
 recovered  all  the  spoil,  and  the  captives,  and  Lot.  Now  in 
 this  account,  though  the  small  number  of  Abraham's  band 
 goes  for  nothing,  and  though  the  greater  the  invading  force, 
 which  must  have  been  considerable,  the  better  it  suits  the 
 spirit  of  the  narrative,  and  though  a  fixed  league  of  three 
 kings  under  a  fourth  indicates  something  like  a  suzerainty 
 or  empire  vested  in  the  fourth,  it  is  impossible  to  connect 
 this  incipient  and,  perhaps,  only  personal  and  temporary  em- 
 pire of  a  king  of  Elara  with  Assyria,  or  with  either  of  the 
 Chaldean  cities  of  Nineveh  or  Babylon.  There  was  no 
 Assyrian  empire  then  in  existence,  we  may  safely  infer^ 
 during  the  interval  between  the  Call  of  Abraham  and  the 
 birth  of  Isaac  B.C.  2084  —  2059,  though  a  spirit  of  aggression 
 and  conquest  tending  to  the  creation  of  an  Elamitic  empire 
 was  already  manifested,  and  coming  into  conflict,  acciden- 
 tally as  it  were,  with  Christ,  as  yet  unborn,  was  nipped  in  the 
 bud.  Still  less  is  there  room  for  any  Assyrian  empire  during 
 those  five  centuries  or  more  which  intervened  between 
 the  rise  of  the  great  Theban  Dynasty  XYIII  in  Egypt  and 
 the  deaths  of  E-ameses  III.  and  of  his  sons  who  reio;ned 
 after  him,  that  is  from  B.C.  1748  till  after  the  middle  of 
 the  13th  century  before  Christ.  For  we  find  Thothmes  III. 
 (B.C.  1682  to  B.C.  165-5)  setting  up  his  trophies  or  stelae  in 
 "  Nineveh,"  and  naming  ''Babylon"  also  among  his  conquests 
 or  dependencies;  and  the  campaigns  and  victories  of  Rameses 
 II.  (B.C.  1486  to  B.C.  1421)  and  Rameses  III.  (b.c.  1321 
 to  B.C.  1275)  in  Mesopotamia  are  now  well  known.  Indeed  it 
 appears  from  the  Egyptian  monuments  that  down  to  the 
 time  of  Rameses  XIV.  (b.c.  1157  to  B.C.  1123  ?)  who  was 
 contemporary  with  Eli  and  Samuel,  and  even  as  late  as  the 
 reign  of  Her-Hor  Si-amon  (b.c.  1108  to  B.C.  1071  ?)  the 
 kings  of  Egypt  still  retained  some  hold  over  the  peoples  of 
 Mesopotamia  and  the  neighbouring  countries,  and  received 
 from  their  rulers  tributes  and  presents  :  though  already  in  the 
 time  of  Rameses  XIY.  there  are  signs  that  such  hold  as  the 
 Egyptian  suzerain  still  retained  was  kept  up  rather  by  politic 
 management,  by  friendly  intercourse,  and  by  intermarriages. 
 
928 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 than  by  terror  of  arms  or  coercion.  But  if  we  come  down  to  tlie 
 date  of  Herodotus  it  may  be  true  —  and  thus  far  there  may  be 
 something  historical  under  the  fables  of  Ctesias —  that  in  B.C. 
 (709  +  520  =  )  1229,  23  years  before  the  end  of  the  Theban 
 Dyn.  XIX,  a  king  of  Nineveh  and  Athuria  or  Assyria  named 
 Ninus,  who  was  the  founder  of  a  line,  in  the  7th  year  of  his 
 reign,  casting  oiF  whatever  still  remained  of  dependence  on 
 Egypt,  and  having  previously  made  a  league  with  Arlceus, 
 king  of  the  Arabs,  or  Shasou,  subjected  to  himself  Baby- 
 lonia and  Babylon  (not  yet  so  built,  as  it  was  built  after- 
 wards by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Nitocris) ;  that  soon  after- 
 wards, upon  his  attacking  the  Armenians,  the  king,  Bar- 
 zanes,  obtained  peace  on  easy  conditions,  and  became  his 
 tributary;  but  that  it  cost  him  a  great  battle  to  subdue 
 Media,  the  king  of  which  country,  Pharnus,  he  took  prisoner, 
 and  put  him  to  death,  as  he  had  taken  and  slain  the  king  of 
 Babylonia;  and  that  he  set  up  in  Babylonia  and  Media  new 
 rulers  of  his  own.  Some  such  acts  and  successes  must 
 naturally  have  been  the  beginnings  of  the  empire  of  Nine- 
 veh. And  hence  one  can  understand  that  at  this  point  of 
 time  Berosus  may  have  passed  from  his  more  ancient  series 
 of  Babylonian  kings  and  dynasties  to  the  kings  of  Nineveh 
 and  Assyria.  All  this  then,  which  Ctesias  according  to 
 Diodorus  (lib.  ii.  c.  1)  related  of  Ninus,  may  be  admitted, 
 though  perhaps  even  already  he  has  ascribed  too  much  to  a 
 single  reign.  Nor  has  anything  been  discovered  from  Egyp- 
 tian inscriptions  to  require  that  the  date  of  this  commence- 
 ment of  the  Assyrian  empire  should  be  put  lower  than  it  is 
 put  by  Herodotus.  It  may  be  admitted  too  that  the  vigorous 
 reign  of  Ninus  was  followed  by  a  second  of  a  similar  charac- 
 ter ;  that  Ninus  (or  some  one  of  his  successors)  warred  twice 
 with  the  Bactrians ;  that  the  first  time  he  was  defeated,  but 
 at  the  last  was  victorious  ;  and  that  this  was  the  last  exploit 
 of  a  long  reign,  during  which  he  had  built  himself  a  palace 
 in  Nineveh,  and  enlarged  and  strengthened  that  city. 
 That  his  successor  Semiramis  invaded  India  need  not  be 
 denied,  since  it  is  confessed  that  she  was  defeated :  but  it  is 
 probable  that  this  story,  as  well  as  the  former,  covers  an 
 allusion  to  events  much  later :  that  Bactria,  after  having 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  929 
 
 been  unsuccessfully  invaded  before,  was  at  length  brought 
 to  submission,  and  that  this  was  the  latest  acquisition  not  of 
 Ninus  but  of  the  Assyrian  empire  :  that  after  this  reduction 
 of  Bactria,  there  was  a  war  with  some  of  the  peoples  of  the 
 north-west  part  of  India,  in  which  the  Assyrians  were  de- 
 feated in  battle,  and  made  no  territorial  conquests.  Still,  as 
 it  appears,  they  were  sufficiently  formidable  to  obtain  a  treaty 
 by  which  it  was  stipulated  that  they  should  receive  presents,  or 
 tributes,  as  elephants,  rhinoceroses,  monkeys,  ivory,  and  other 
 products  of  the  country  ;  since  these  offerings,  together  with 
 the  two-humped  Bactrian  camel  (to  be  connected  in  like 
 manner  with  the  Bactrian  war  of  Ninus),  appear  on  a  small 
 black  obelisk  of  one  of  the  Assyrian  kings  which  is  now  in 
 the  British  museum.  The  fable  of  Ninus's  more  extensive 
 conquests  has  been  noticed  and  accounted  for  above ;  but  the 
 conquest  of  Egypt  both  by  him,  and  again  by  Semiramis, 
 may  cover  and  disguise  an  allusion  to  the  fact  that  in  times 
 past,  previously  to  those  two  reigns,  the  peoples  and  cities  of 
 Mesopotamia  and  their  rulers  had  paid  homage  to  the  Egyp- 
 tian Pharaohs.  But  after  the  two  first  reigns  we  need  the  con- 
 fession of  Ctesias  that  the  third  king  Ninyas  and  others  of  his 
 successors  were  unwarlike.  And  this  admission  occurs  very 
 opportunely,  so  as  to  make  room  for  the  reappearance  of 
 Egyptian  influence  in  Mesopotamia  and  the  neighbouring 
 countries  during  a  century  or  two  longer,  though  in  a  milder 
 form.  So  we  collect  that  it  was  not  till  long  afterwards  that 
 the  kings  of  Assyria  showed  themselves  again  warlike  and  ener- 
 getic like  Ninus,  and  succeeded  in  reducing  Bactria,  and  in 
 obtaining  gifts  as  the  price  of  amity  from  the  nearest  of  the 
 Indians.  And  if  we  turn  again  from  the  Egyptian  monu- 
 ments to  the  Scriptures,  we  find  that  in  the  reign  of  David, 
 in  the  latter  half  of  the  11th  century  before  Christ,  the  Am- 
 monites are  spoken  of  as  hiring  the  Syrians  of  Bethrehob  and 
 the  Syrians  of  Zobah  and  of  king  Maachah  and  of  Ishtob 
 against  David.  And,  when  these  Syrians  were  defeated, 
 "  Hadarezer  sent  and  brought  out  the  Syrians  that  were 
 beyond  the  Euphrates  ;  and  they  came  to  Helam ;  and  Sho- 
 bach  the  captain  of  the  host  of  Hadarezer  went  before  them. 
 And  David  defeated  these  also,  and  slew  [the  men  of] 
 
 3  o 
 
930 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 700  chariots  of  the  Syrians,  and  40,000  horsemen,  and 
 smote  Shobach  the  captain  of  their  host,  who  died  there. 
 And  when  all  the  kings  who  were  servants  to  Hadarezer 
 saw  that  they  were  smitten  before  Israel,  they  made  peace 
 with  Israel,  and  served  them.  So  the  Syrians  feared  to 
 help  the  children  of  Ammon  any  more."  (2  Kings,  x.) 
 In  all  this  narrative,  though  the  Syrians  from  beyond 
 the  Euphrates  are  brought  in,  there  is  no  allusion  to  any 
 great  empire  of  Assyria.  Under  Solomon  "  all  the  kings  of 
 the  Hittites  "  are  mentioned  again  as  independent,  or  as  his 
 own  tributaries,  rather  than  as  subjects  of  any  other  power 
 beyond  the  Euphrates ;  so  that  we  are  reminded  of  the  fre- 
 quent mention  of  the  "  Khita  "  of  the  north  of  Syria  in  the 
 ^vars  of  the  Egyptian  kings.  Indeed  the  very  fact  of  the 
 kingdom  of  Israel  growing  to  such  power  and  wealth,  and 
 extending  itself  so  much  under  David  and  Solomon,  is  a  sign 
 that  at  that  time  there  was  no  very  powerful  empire  either  to 
 the  south  in  Egypt  or  to  the  north  in  Assyria.  Else,  if  they  had 
 had  any  such  neighbours,  they  could  scarcely  have  failed  to  ex- 
 cite their  jealousy,  and  to  come  into  collision.  And  the  terms 
 in  which  the  history  of  this  time  is  alluded  to  after  an  examina- 
 tion of  the  public  records  under  Cambyses,  or  the  Magian 
 usurper,  are  such  as  to  imply  that  David  and  Solomon  were 
 thought  to  have  been  superior  in  power  to  any  empire  existing 
 in  their  day  in  the  neighbouring  countries.  "  There  have  been 
 mighty  kings  also  over  Jerusalem,  which  have  ruled  over  all 
 beyond  the  river,  and  toll,  tribute,  and  custom  was  paid  to 
 them."  (Ezra,  iv.  30.)  And  still  later,  in  the  time  of 
 Shishonk  I.  (b.c.  978  to  B.C.  957),  it  seems  that  the  kings 
 of  Nineveh  looked  on  from  a  distance,  as  not  themselves 
 concerned,  while  he  was  subduing  in  detail  the  numerous 
 states  and  cities  of  Syria.  The  points  of  time,  and  the  oc- 
 casions through  which  the  kingdoms  of  Damascus,  Samaria, 
 and  Judah  at  length  came  into  contact  with  the  Assyrians, 
 are  marked  clearly  enough  in  the  Scriptures.  Heathen 
 writers  add  similar  particulars  respecting  Tyre;  and  the 
 dates  are  all  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  8th  century  before 
 Christ.  We  may  therefore  understand  the  true  reason  for 
 which  all  the  kings  after  Ninus  and  Semiramis  were  said  to 
 have  been  faineants  to  be  this,  that  though  towards  the  end 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  931 
 
 of  the  13th  century  before  Christ  power  was  certainly  ob- 
 tained by  the  kings  of  Nineveh  over  some  of  the  neighbour- 
 ing reigns,  as  over  Babylonia  and  Media,  and  perhaps  also 
 Armenia,  this  was  no  more  than  a  limited  and  variable  hege- 
 mony. And  some  Greek  writers,  as  Dionysius  of  Halicar- 
 nassus,  for  instance,  who  rightly  followed  Herodotus  rather 
 than  Gtesias,  seem  to  have  been  aware  that  the  Assyrian 
 empire,  even  when  it  had  reached  its  full  growth,  ruled  in 
 truth  only  a  certain  limited  part  of  "  the  Upper  Asia  " :  — 
 'H  fjisv  ovv  ^AaavpLoov  dp-^rj,  irakaLa  rts  ovcra  koL  sis  fivOtKovs 
 dvajo/jLSprj  ypovovs,  okl'yov  tlvos  sTrs/cpdrrjcrs  rrjs  '  Atrtas'  fjuspovs ' 
 rj  Ss  ^iTjBiKr],  Kadekovaa  tj]v  'Aaavptcov  Kal  fisi^ova  huvaaTsiav 
 TrspL^aXofxsvT],  y^povov  ov  iroXvu  Karscr^sv,  dXX  sttI  rfjs  rerdp- 
 TTjs  KaTsXvOrj  ysvsds.^^  {^Dion.  Hal.  Ant.,  i.  p.  5,  ap.  Clinton, 
 F.  H.,  i.  p.  283.) 
 
 But  if  we  w^ere  to  accept  the  accounts  of  Ctesias,  it  would 
 follow  that,  after  Ninus  and  Semiramis  had  conquered  in  a 
 manner  the  Asiatic  world,  the  rest  of  his  xxxvi  kings  their 
 successors,  all  of  them  faineants,  retained  peaceable  posses- 
 sion of  it  during  1306  years,  reigning  in  unbroken  succes- 
 sion from  father  to  son,  and,  one  with  another,  above  36  years 
 apiece,  an  average  far  above  the  highest  on  which  Manetho 
 ventured  in  his  partiality  to  the  first  six  dynasties  of  Lower 
 Egypt.  This,  then,  alone  and  apart  from  other  signs  of 
 falsehood,  is  enough  to  show  that  the  reigns  of  Ctesias,  as  he 
 gave  them,  were  not  historical. 
 
 BEROSUS. 
 
 But  Berosus,  a  native  Babylonian,  and  priest  of  the  god 
 Belus,  a  man  every  way  qualified,  writing  a  century  later 
 than  Ctesias,  about  B.C.  280,  and  like  him  in  Greek,  not  to 
 impose  upon  strangers  at  a  distance,  but  for  the  information 
 of  his  own  Syro-Macedonian  sovereign,  to  whom  his  work 
 Avas  dedicated,  knew  no  doubt  all  that  Ctesias  had  written, 
 as  well  as  Manetho  knew  the  Second  Book  of  Herodotus. 
 Tatian,  in  the  second  century  after  Christ,  being  himself  a 
 native  of  Assyria,  mentions  Berosus  thus :  —  "  ^ripcoaaos, 
 dv7]p  Ba/SvKcopLoSf  Upsvs  roO  irap'  avrols  BifKov,  Kara  'AXs^av- 
 
 3  0  2 
 
932 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Bpov  yeyovcosy  ^AvT l6x<P  fisr'  avrov  rplra) "  [that  is,  seem- 
 ingly, to  Antiochus  Soter,  whose  accession  was  in  B.C.  280 ; 
 but  Eusebiiis  and  others  understand  Antiochus  ©sos*],  "  rrjv 
 'KaXBa'iKTjv  laroplav  iv  Tpial  /Sl^XIols  Karard^as  "  (p.  126). 
 And  in  such  notices  of  Berosus  as  have  been  preserved 
 (chiefly  from  Alexander  Polyhistor,  who  was  a  freedman  of 
 Sylla,  and  wrote  about  B.C.  83,  and  from  Abydenus,  who 
 wrote  somewhat  later),  we  have  "  an  account  of  the  Baby- 
 lonian and  Assyrian  kings  which  differs  altogether  from  that 
 of  Ctesias,''  and  is  much  more  in  accord  with  the  statements 
 of  Herodotus  and  of  the  Scriptures.  For  below  the  cessa- 
 tion of  the  Assyrian  empire,  through  the  revolt  of  Media  and 
 Babylon,  we  find  that  he  continued  the  line  of  the  kings  of 
 Nineveh,  naming  Pul,  and  again  (which,  if  this  Pul  were  the 
 contemporary  of  Menahem,  would  be  after  an  interval),  Sen- 
 nacherib, and  his  son  Esarhaddon,  mentioning,  too,  the  tem- 
 porary independence  of  Babylon  under  Merodach  Baladan  and 
 others,  and  two  other  reigns  of  21  years  each,  before  coming 
 to  that  of  Nabopolassar,  who  reigned  in  Babylon,  and  who 
 had  a  share  with  Cyaxares  in  the  destruction  of  Nineveh. 
 Then,  above  Pul,  Berosus,  having  a  Chaldaean  dynasty  of 
 xlv  kings  with  526  years,  marked  about  its  commencement 
 by  the  name  Semiramis,  and  at  or  after  its  end  by  that  of 
 Pul,  or  Sardanapalus,  agrees  well  with  Herodotus,  who 
 writes  that  there  had  been  an  Assyrian  empire  for  520  years 
 from  Ninus ;  and  who  names  also  Sardanapalus.  And  this 
 shows,  whence  and  by  what  process  the  fabulous  list  of  Ctesias 
 was  fabricated.  It  shows  that  in  the  lists  of  Ctesias  the  history 
 of  the  empire  was  expanded  and  substituted  for  that  of  the 
 kingdom  or  city  of  Nineveh,  and  of  the  whole  regions  of 
 Assyria  and  Babylonia.  And  a  single  dynasty,  or  what  might 
 be  presented  as  such  on  account  of  the  connection  of  all  its 
 kings  with  the  empire,  was  substituted  for  a  series  of  sepa- 
 rate dynasties.  For  whereas  the  xlv  kings  who  really  be- 
 longed to  the  period  of  the  empire  reigned  in  526  years  only 
 or  about  11  years  and  9  months  each,  Ctesias,  or  his 
 informants,  transferred  to  Ninus  and  xxxv  descendants  all 
 those  975  years,  shortened  only  by  25,  which  Berosus  after- 
 wards showed  to  have  belonged  to  earlier  kings  between  the 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  933 
 
 Median  seizure  of  Bahylon,  in  B.C.  2211  (or  more  properly 
 2209),  and  the  accession  of  Ninus  atNhieveh,  in  B.C.  1236  (or 
 1235).  His  reduction  of  Babylon,  from  which  the  520  years  of 
 empire  in  Herodotus  will  begin,  must  be  understood  to  have 
 been  6  years  later.  Now  if  Ctesias  had  been  told  the  full 
 number  of  xlv  kings,  and  the  true  date  at  which  they  ended, 
 viz.  in  B.C  (560  [really  559]  +  150  =  )  710,  he  should  have 
 given  them  (526  +  245+458+48  +  224  =  )  1501  years,  so 
 as  to  make  them  begin  from  B.C.  2211.  Or,  if  he  made 
 them  to  end  (as  he  did)  in  B.C.  (560+150+  170  =  )  880,  170 
 years  earlier  than  the  true  date,  in  order  so  to  antedate  and 
 lengthen  the  Median  empire,  he  should,  after  cutting  off  170 
 years,  have  had  a  sum  still  remaining  of  (1501  — 170  =  )  1331 
 years  to  give  to  his  xxxvi  Assyrian  kings.  But  in  fact,  for 
 some  reason  or  other  —  perhaps  because  there  was  really 
 some  Assyrian  epoch  for  Nineveh  corresponding  to  that  of  the 
 Median  capture  of  Babylon,  but  25  years  later  —  he  allowed 
 to  his  xxxvi  kings  25  years  less,  and  gave  them  in  all  only 
 (1331—25  =  )  1306  years.  He  omitted  too,as  if  in  connec- 
 tion with  the  170  years  above  mentioned,  nine  out  of  the  xlv 
 Assyrian  kings  really  belonging  to  the  empire,  and  gave  in- 
 stead five  new  iMedian  kings  of  his  own  creation  to  stand 
 with  the  same  170  years,  and  with  10  more,  which  last  how- 
 ever belong  to  the  150  historical  years  of  IMedian  indepen- 
 dence, and  so  to  the  reign  of  Deioces.  So  he  gave  both  to 
 his  xxxvi  Assyrian  and  to  his  ix  Median  reigns  his  average 
 of  above  36  years. 
 
 Dismissing  now  the  fables  of  Ctesias  and  his  informants, 
 let  us  consider  the  earlier  part  of  the  scheme  of  Berosus  as 
 represented  in  quotations  from  Polyhistor  or  others. 
 
 According  to  Polyhistor,  Berosus  placed  first  of  all  in  the 
 old  world  of  the  antediluvians  1058  years  anterior  to  the 
 institution  of  any  monarchy.  This  is  stated  by  Syncellus 
 from  Anianus  and  Panodorus  (see  above,  p.  854) ;  and  the 
 author  of  the  Paschal  Chronicle  of  the  7th  century  (a.d.  630), 
 mentions  the  same  in  the  following  words:  "Upwrov  ttoxtcov 
 ava'ypd(j)ovaL  rrjv  rcov  Xo\8ai&)y  jSacrtXsLav  ^AXs^avSpos  6  Tlo- 
 \vtaT(i)p,  "Brjpoyaabs,  ^A/SvSrjvos,  koI  ''AiroXkohcopos,  ol  irpwrov 
 fih  laroobva-Lv  a^aaiXsvTa  arr)  avr)'^''   (ap.  Mai  Vett.  Scriptt, 
 
934 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Nova  ColL,  torn.  viii.  p.  7).  Time  in  the  mythological  period 
 of  Berosus  was  reckoned  in  sari,  neri,  and  sossi.  The  sarus 
 consisted  (as  was  explained  by  Abydenus)  of  3600  nominal 
 years,  really  days,  so  that  it  was  equivalent  to  10  vague  Na- 
 bonassarian  years  of  360  days  each,  its  proper  complement  of 
 the  5  additional  days  or  Epagomenaj,  though  unnoticed,  being 
 understood  to  go  with  each  year,  as  was  the  case  also  with  the 
 nominal  years,  really  months,  of  the  Egyptians.  The  nerus 
 consisted  of  600  nominal  years,  really  days,  equivalent  to  20 
 months,  or  the  sixth  part  of  a  sarus.  The  sossus  consisted  of 
 60  nominal  years,  really  days,  and  was  the  unit  in  the  whole 
 series.  In  its  origin  it  probably  represented  two  lunar 
 months  (for,  as  the  lunar  months  consisted  not  of  whole  days 
 but  of  2^^  days  each,  it  would  be  natural  to  reckon  them  in 
 pairs  of  59  whole  days  each),  together  with  that  additional 
 day  which  was  in  a  manner  added  to  every  two  months  when 
 the  original  lunar  month  of  29^^  days  was  first  filled  up  to  a 
 civil  month  of  30  full  days,  and  the  original  or  lunar  year  of 
 354  days  to  a  civil  vague  year,  neither  any  longer  lunar 
 nor  as  yet  solar,  but  an  intermediate  or  transition  year 
 between  the  two,  consisting  of  360  days,  to  which  after- 
 wards as  a  correction,  whether  in  Egypt  first  or  elsewhere, 
 the  5  epagomenas  were  added.  The  Egyptians,  we  know, 
 claimed  the  merit  of  this  improvement;  and  there  is  no 
 counter  claim  set  up  against  them.  But  the  addition,  if 
 really  theirs,  was  at  any  rate  made  very  early ;  and  it  was 
 borrowed  from  them  by  their  neighbours ;  since  not  only  the 
 Babylonian  or  Nabonassarian  year,  used  also  by  the  Persians, 
 coincided  with  the  Egyptian,  and  had  the  5  epagomenje,  but 
 another  most  ancient  nation,  that  of  the  Armenians,  had, 
 and  even  has  still  to  this  day,  the  same  year,  though  its 
 use  has  been  superseded  in  very  recent  times  by  a  fixed 
 Ecclesiastical  year  which  they  have  associated  with  it  for 
 many  ages.  A  sossus  then  being  two  months,  this  double 
 month  of  60  days  multiplied  by  10  (60x  10  =  600)  was 
 a  nerus,  and  multiplied  into  itself  (60  x  60  =  3600)  it  was  a 
 sarus,  a  sossus  of  sossi,  or  double-month  with  double-months 
 for  its  days.  In  terms  of  this  reckoning  Berosus's  first  1058 
 vague  years  of  human  time  would  be  105  sari,  4  neri,  and  8 
 sossi,  expansible  into  (1058  x  12  =  )  12,696  months,  or  380,880 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  935 
 
 nominal  years,  really  days.  After  these  he  named  as  having 
 reigned  in  the  antediluvian  Babylon  —  so  widely  does  he 
 differ  from  Ctesias  —  ten  dynasts  or  kings  from  Alorus,  the 
 first,  who  in  spite  of  the  1058  "  years  without  monarchy  " 
 preceding  must  be  Adam,  to  Xisuthrus,  the  tenth,  who  by 
 the  Flood  and  the  Ark  is  identified  with  Noah,  and  who 
 immediately  after  leaving  the  ark  and  sacrificing  disappears, 
 and  is  deified.  (For  the  names  and  the  text  of  Berosus  see 
 Vol.  I.  p.  46.)  The  ten  antediluvian  kings  having  120  sari, 
 or  14,400  months  (reckoned  in  pairs),  expansible  into 
 432,000  day-years,  and  representing  1200  full  Nabonas- 
 sarian  years,  these,  if  added  to  the  former  1058,  make  of 
 human  time  to  the  Flood  2258  vague  years.  The  number 
 seems  to  indicate  a  difference  of  about  6  years  (see  Vol.  I. 
 p.  45)  between  the  Babylonian  and  the  Egyptian  reckon- 
 ings, similar  to  that  which  exists  between  the  Alexandrian 
 LXX.  and  the  Greek  reckoning  of  Josephus,  since  the 
 former  of  these  makes  2262,  the  latter  2256  Hebrew  years 
 to  the  end  of  the  Flood.  (See  above.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  28  and  47.) 
 Anianus,  indeed,  by  availing  himself  of  the  epagomenae,  and 
 dividing  the  432,000  days  of  the  ten  kings  not  by  360  but 
 by  365,  obtained  for  them  only  1183  full  years,  which  added 
 to  the  preceding  1058,  made  2241,  and  205  days,  or  within 
 a  fraction  his  own  number  of  2242  years,  to  the  Flood. 
 But  this  was  by  a  mixture  of  artifice  and  luck ;  of  artifice, 
 since  he  uses,  below  the  Flood,  the  true  method  of  reduction, 
 which  is  different ;  and  luck,  since  it  was  certainly  luck  that 
 the  difference  between  his  own  reckoning  of  2242  years  to 
 the  Flood  and  the  2256  of  Berosus  and  Josephus,  was  so 
 nearly  identical  with  that  between  the  quotient  of  432,000 
 divided  by  360  and  the  quotient  of  the  same  sum  divided  by 
 365.  Berosus's  whole  sum  to  the  Flood  amounted  to  225 
 sari,  4  neri,  and  8  sossi,  which  might  be  expanded  at  will  into 
 27,096  months,  or  to  812,880  nominal  day-years. 
 
 Below  the  Flood  Polyhistor,  according  to  Anianus  and 
 Syncellus,  represented  Berosus  as  making  the  Babylonian 
 monarchy  to  recommence  —  Babylon  being  rebuilt  on  its  old 
 site  —  after  a  short  interval  of  only  146  or  162  full  years. 
 Not  having  the  text  itself  of  Berosus  or  Polyhistor  we 
 
 3  o  4 
 
936 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 cannot  be  sure  which  of  these  two  numbers  is  the  true ;  but 
 if  Polyhistor,  as  Syncellus  seems  to  assert,  pLiced  the  recom- 
 mencement of  monarchy  after  2404  years  of  his  own  reckon- 
 ing, then  2258  of  these  would  be  before  the  Flood  and  only 
 146  below  it.  But  it  is  also  possible  that  Polyhistor  only 
 named  the  interval  between  the  Flood  and  the  recommence- 
 ment of  monarchy ;  and  Anianus  finding  this  interval  to  be 
 162  years,  may  have  added  to  it  the  (1058  of  Polyhistor  + 
 1184  instead  of  1200  =  )  2242,  which  were  obtained  only 
 by  his  own  method  of  reduction  for  the  time  before  the 
 Flood ;  and  so  he  would  ascribe  to  Berosus  a  reckoning  of 
 (2242  +  162  =  )  2404  instead  of  his  true  reckoning  of  (2258 
 +  162  =  )  2420  years  to  the  recommencement  of  monarchy. 
 Since  a  choice  must  be  made,  it  may  be  safest  to  suppose 
 that  Polyhistor  did  really  reckon  2404  years ;  and  of  these 
 consequently  below  the  Flood  only  146,  which  may  be 
 described  as  14  sari,  3  neri,  and  6  sossi  equivalent  to  1752 
 months,  or  52,560  days.  The  words  of  Syncellus  are  as 
 follows :  —  Alexander  Polyhistor  will  have  it  that  from 
 this  year,  a.  m.  2405,"  (that  is,  from  after  a.  m.  2404) 
 '*the  monarchy  of  the  Chaldieans  recommenced  after  the 
 Flood,  fabling  as  before  of  sari,  neri,  and  sossi,  and  of 
 Ixxxvi  Chaldsean  "  [the  words  "  and  Median  "  added  here 
 by  Syncellus  are  his  own  alteration]  "  kings  who  reigned 
 34,080  years,  or  9  sari,  2  neri,  and  8  sossi,  which  some  of 
 our  ecclesiastical  historians  have  without  any  good  reason 
 taken  to  represent  94  solar  years  and  8  [6]  months ;  and  these, 
 as  they  say,  come  down  to  the  year  of  the  world  [2242  +  162 
 +  95  =  ]  2499."  "^AXs^avSpos  6  JJoXvtaTcop  i/c  rovBs  tov 
 (3vs  Koa/JLLKOV  STOVS  ^ovXsTac  ttoXlv  TTjv  fiETCL  TOV  /caraKkva/jLov 
 Tcov  ^aXSalcov  ^aaiXslav  Karap^aaOai,  fiudoXo'ycjv  Sta  adpwv 
 Ka\  VTjpwv  Kal  Goocrawv  /Ss/SaaLXsuKsvaL  X.aXBai(Ov  \_Kal  M.'}]S(ov] 
 ^aacXsLS  TTf  iv  rpLa/jLVpLOts  sTsai  /cal  ^Stt',  tovt'  sartv  sv  adpoLS 
 6'  Kal  VijpoLS  /3'  Kal  aa)craoL9  rj ,  dirsp  Tivh  to)V  SKKXrjcrLaaTLKMV 
 rjfjLMvl  aropLKcov  ov  KaXcos  s^sXa/Sovro  nrdXiv  sis  sry  rjXcaKa  ^()' 
 Kal  fJLTjms  7]'  [$-'],  dirsp,  ws>  cj^aaiv,  els  to  ^^v{6'  has  KoapuLKOv 
 GvvTpsx^L.'"  {Sync.  Chronogr.,  p.  147,  ed.  Dind.)  Here 
 then  Anianus  and  Panodorus  reduce  the  day-years  of  Bero- 
 sus, not  dividing  as  before  by  365,  but  dividing  together 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  937 
 
 with  Polyhistor  and  Apollodorus  by  360,  without  any  express 
 notice  of  the  epagomenae.  For  360  in  34,080  go  94  times 
 with  240  days  over ;  but  365  would  have  gone  only  93  times 
 with  135  days  over. 
 
 The  restorer  of  the  postdiluvian  Babylon,  or  at  least  its 
 first  king,  according  to  Berosus  and  Polyhistor,  was  neither 
 Ninus  nor  Belus,  but  Euechius  (whom  therefore  Anianus 
 and  Syncellus  identify  with  Nimrod  the  son  of  Cush).  He 
 reigned  3  neri  and  5  sossi,  equivalent,  if  these  neri  and  sossi 
 also  are  composed  of  day-years,  to  2100  days,  which  by  re- 
 duction give  only  5  true  years  and  10  months :  and  Syncellus, 
 following  no  doubt  Anianus,  reckons  them  as  6  years. 
 
 The  second  king  was  Chomashelus,  a  name  into  the  for- 
 mation of  which  Belus  enters  as  a  pre-existing  and  antedi- 
 luvian deity.  So  the  pedigree  of  Ninus  given  by  Eusebius 
 from  Abydenus  making  Belus  his  sixth  ancestor,  and  the 
 reckoning  of  Castor  and  of  Syncellus  making  Belus  the 
 immediate  predecessor  of  Ninus,  with  or  without  a  fixed 
 reign  in  years,  are  neither  of  them  from  Berosus.  But 
 besides  this,  Belus  is  clearly  mentioned  by  Berosus  as  the 
 deity  who  both  formed  the  antediluvian  world,  and  foretold 
 to  Xisuthrus  the  Flood ;  and  if  he  were  ever  said  by  the 
 Babylonians  to  be  the  father  of  their  first  king,  this  was 
 only  as  identified  with  the  first  ancestor  of  mankind,  Adam 
 or  Noah.  Chomasbelus  reigned  4  neri  and  5  sossi,  equal  as 
 reduced  by  Anianus  to  7  full  years  and  6  months,  reckoned 
 by  him  and  by  Syncellus  as  7  years. 
 
 These  two  kings,  Euechius  and  Chomasbelus,  were  fol- 
 lowed in  the  account  of  Berosus  by  Ixxxiv  others,  all  like 
 them  "Chaldeeans; "  and  the  Ixxxvi  names  of  these  Chaldaeans 
 were  all  transcribed  by  Polyhistor,  and  had  for  their  collec- 
 tive reigns  a  sum,  as  stated  from  Polyhistor  and  Eusebius 
 by  Anianus  and  Syncellus,  of  9  sari,  2  neri,  and  8  sossi, 
 making  34,080  nominal  years,  as  is  rightly  read  in  one  MS. 
 of  Syncellus,  though  the  old  Armenian  version  of  Eusebius 
 has  a  variant  of  33,091.  These,  Syncellus  thought,  had 
 improperly  been  reduced  by  the  ecclesiastical  historians 
 Anianus  and  Panodorus,  as  if  days,  to  94  or  95  full  years. 
 And  for  once  he  was  right  in  the  letter  of  his  criticism. 
 
938 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 though  not  in  the  sense  intended.  For  the  principle  of 
 reduction  rejected  by  himself  and  by  Eusebius  was  sound, 
 though  the  application  made  of  it  was  generally  inaccurate 
 and  arbitrary.  But  in  this  case  it  is  plain  even  at  first 
 sight  that  94  or  95  years  cannot  possibly  represent  the 
 reigns,  whether  historical  or  fictitious,  of  Ixxxvi  kings.  They 
 are  as  much  too  few  as  34,080  are  too  many.  And  besides, 
 it  appears  from  the  terms  in  which  Syncellus  quotes  Poly- 
 histor  that  these  Ixxxvi  Chaldgean  kings  were  intended  to 
 cover  the  interval  (whatever  Berosus  made  it  to  be)  between 
 the  recommencement  of  monarchy  in  the  postdiluvian  Ba- 
 bylon 146  years  after  the  Flood  and  that  capture  of  Babylon 
 by  the  Modes  which  was  the  epoch  of  his  later  or  historical 
 series.  This  by  reckoning  upwards  from  B.C.  560,  and  from 
 B.C.  710,  he  may  be  shown  to  have  placed  about  B.C.  (710  + 
 526  +  245+458+48  +  224  =  )  2211,  if  no  account  be  taken 
 of  the  difference  between  Nabonassarian  and  fixed  years ;  or 
 else,  and  more  correctly,  at  Thoth  1  (then  at  Feb.  27),  in 
 B.C.  2209.  But  no  one  can  suppose  that  between  the  end  of 
 his  A.M.(2258  +  146  =  )  2404,  answering  to  the  Egyptian  a.m. 
 (2263  +  146  =  )  2409,  in  B.C.  (5361  —  2409  vague  years  =) 
 2954,  and  the  end  of  the  Egyptian  a.m.  3154,  in  B.C.  2209, 
 Berosus  reckoned  either  so  few  as  95  or  so  many  as  34,080 
 chronological  years.  Either  then  the  numbers  of  9  sari,  2 
 neri,  and  8  sossi,  representing  34,080  nominal  years,  must  be 
 altogether  corrupt,  or  some  other  group  or  groups  of  kings 
 unknown  to  Poly  his  tor  and  to  Eusebius  must  have  followed 
 before  the  Median  capture  of  Babylon,  or  the  method  of  re- 
 duction employed  by  Anianus  must  in  the  case  of  these 
 34,080  1/ears  be  erroneous.  If  the  latter  alternative  be 
 admitted,  one  must  examine  next  whether  they  may  not  be 
 reducible  as  months,  like  the  nominal  years  of  the  Egyptians. 
 No  doubt  there  is  a  prima  facie  objection,  that  thus  we  shall 
 be  imputing  to  Berosus  a  double  reckoning,  not  only  for  his 
 antehistorical  period  taken  as  a  whole,  but  even  for  that 
 division  of  it  which  is  below  the  Flood.  For  it  cannot  be 
 supposed  that  the  first  52,560  nominal  years  below  the 
 Flood  are  also  months,  seeing  that  the?/  will  not  divide  by 
 12,  as  the  34,080  do,  without  a  remainder.  Unhappily 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  939 
 
 there  is  nothing  preserved  from  Berosus  to  fix  with  certainty 
 his  computation  for  the  interval  with  which  we  are  con- 
 cerned. All  that  can  be  said  is  this,  that  if,  instead  of 
 cutting  off  about  7  months  like  the  Egyptians,  he  antedated 
 by  about  5  months  his  commencement  of  human  time  in 
 order  to  begin  with  the  movable  Thoth,  then  at  April  25, 
 and  differed  from  them  by  6  years  (ostensibly  by  only  5) 
 before  the  Flood,  but  agreed  with  them  below  it,  then,  by 
 the  help  of  their  parallel  reckoning  we  may  collect  that 
 between  the  re-establishment  of  monarchy  at  Babylon  146 
 years  after  the  Flood  and  its  capture  by  the  Medes  Berosus 
 had,  or  understood,  an  interval  of  745  vague  years.  These 
 would  be  72  sari,  5  neri,  and  6  sossi,  equivalent  to  8920 
 months,  or  267,840  days;  and  they  are  to  be  reckoned 
 from  Thoth  1,  Feb.  27,  in  the  Julian  B.C.  2209,  the  date  of 
 the  Median  capture  of  Babylon  and  the  head  of  the  Egyp- 
 tian A.M.  3155,  up  to  Thoth  1  in  B.C.  2952,  the  head  of  the 
 Egyptian  a.m.  (3155  —  745  =  )  2410,  assumed  to  correspond 
 to  the  Chaldean  a.3I.  (2263-5  =  2258  +  146  +  1  =  )  2405. 
 The  34,080  nominal  years,  however,  of  those  Ixxxvi  Chal- 
 daean  kings,  who  by  their  position  seem  intended  to  cover 
 this  interval,  when  taken  for  months  and  divided  by  12, 
 do  not  produce  the  sum  wanted  of  745  vague  years,  nor 
 any  other  at  all  like  it.  They  give  instead  a  sum  of  2840 
 years.  This  is  not  what  we  were  seeking;  but  it  may 
 nevertheless  afford  a  clue.  For  2840  years  are  a  sum  not 
 incapable  of  being  attached  to  Ixxxvi  reigns,  to  which  it 
 gives  33^-g-  years  each,  showing  that  time  is  here  measured 
 in  life- generations  rather  than  in  historical  reigns,  though  the 
 Ixxxvi  names  themselves  may  be  historical.  On  the  other 
 hand,  if  we  assume  745  vague  years  to  be  the  true  in- 
 terval with  which  the  Ixxxvi  names  are  by  their  position 
 connected,  and,  dropping  for  the  moment  the  34,080  nominal 
 years  given  to  them,  divide  745  by  86,  the  quotient  is  8|J-, 
 so  that  these  kings  would  seem  to  reign  only  about  8  years 
 and  a  half  each ;  an  average  which,  for  patriarchal  times 
 at  least,  is  plainly  too  low.  And,  even  if  it  were  otherwise, 
 the  sum  of  745  years  would  be  attached  to  the  Ixxxvi  names 
 only  by  an  inference  or  conjecture  of  our  own,  while  that 
 
940 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 of  34,080,  reducible,  it  may  be,  to  2840,  is  distinctly  attached 
 to  them  by  Berosus  himself. 
 
 "V\niatever  may  be  the  true  account  of  it,  the  sum  of  2840 
 full  years,  if  understood  to  be  given,  under  the  form  of 
 34,080  month-years,  to  the  Ixxxvi  kings,  is  very  similar  both 
 in  its  amount  and  in  its  relative  position  in  the  scheme  of 
 Berosus  to  the  (3750  — 903  =  )  2847  unchronological  years 
 of  kings  rising  up  above  the  true  epoch  of  Menes  (b.c. 
 2224),  in  the  Hieratic  scheme  of  the  Egyptians.  And  if 
 we  compare  the  Egyptian  sum  of  2847  unchronological 
 years,  seeming  to  end  in  B.C.  2224,  with  the  Chaldsean  sum 
 of  2840  unchronological  years,  seeming  to  end  in  B.C.  2209, 
 the  apparent  commencement  of  the  Chaldean  kings  will  be 
 at  B.C.  (2209  +  2840  =  )  5047,  just  22  years  lower  than  the 
 apparent  epoch  of  Menes,  which  is  at  B.C.  (2224  +  2847  =  ) 
 5069,  in  the  Hieratic  scheme  of  the  Egyptians.  But  in  this 
 there  will  be  a  wide  difference,  that  while  the  kings  of  the 
 Egyptian  Hieratic  list  are  very  numerous  in  proportion  to 
 their  years,  being  no  fewer  than  (cccxxx  —  xxxvii  =  )  ccxciii  to 
 the  2847  years,  with  an  average  of  less  than  10  years  to  each, 
 and  the  whole  list — both  names  and  years — though  presented 
 unchronologically  is  manifestly  historical,  the  Babylonian 
 number  of  only  Ixxxvi  kings  to  2840  years,  with  reigns  ex- 
 ceeding 33  years  each,  stands  to  the  Egyptian  in  a  relation 
 much  like  that  of  the  first  six  dynasties  of  Manetho's  kings 
 to  those  of  the  Hieratic  list.  Hence  it  would  be  natural  to 
 infer,  that  Berosus's  group  of  Ixxxvi  unchronological  kings, 
 with  2840  years,  was  purposely  arranged,  from  whatever 
 materials,  so  as  to  match  the  Egyptians,  only  with  much 
 fewer  names  to  nearly  the  same  number  of  years,  so  as  to 
 have  reigns  of  the  most  venerable  length,  instead  of  reigns 
 of  a  contemptible  shortness.  But  after  it  has  once  been 
 perceived  that  the  34,080  nominal  years,  when  reduced  as 
 months,  point  to  86  generations  rather  than  reigns,  both 
 the  sum  of  full  years  obtained,  and  the  number  of  the 
 generations,  suggests  the  suspicion  that  they  are  meant  to 
 indicate  the  whole  number  of  generations  and  the  whole 
 number  of  years  of  the  existing  world,  not  merely,  as 
 Eusebius   understood,      from  the  Flood  to  the  Median 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  941 
 
 <)CCupation  of  Babylon,"  but  from  the  Flood  to  Alexander, 
 or  to  Berosus's  own  time.  The  number  of  generations,  if  it 
 be  compared  with  those  of  the  Old  Chronicle,  suits  well. 
 For  the  Chronicle  made  cxiii  in  all  to  Nectanebo  and  Ochus. 
 And  if  from  these  we  deduct  xiv  for  the  sun-god  Ra  and  the 
 xiii  antediluvian  ancestors,  and  again  the  xv  "  of  the  Cycle  " 
 which  are  thrown  up,  there  remain  (^cxiii— xxx  =  )  Ixxxiv  for 
 the  postdiluvian  w^orld,  to  answer  to  the  Ixxxvi  of  Berosus, 
 who  may  reckon  to  a  point  two  generations  later  than  that  of 
 the  Chronicle.  And  for  the  years,  if  we  reckon  dow^nwards 
 86  generations,  with  2840  vague  years  from  Thoth  1,  in  B.C. 
 3100,  the  head  of  the  Egyptian  a.m.  2264,  and  of  the  Chaldaean 
 A.M.  2259,  when  the  Flood  was  in  truth  just  ended,  they 
 take  us  down  (146  +  745  +  1181+68  =  2840)  to  Thoth  1, 
 Oct.  28,  in  B.C.  262,  that  is,  to  the  end  of  the  last  full  year 
 of  Antiochus  Soter,  to  whom  Berosus  is  said  by  some  to 
 have  dedicated  his  work,  while  Eusebius  and  others  under- 
 stand it  to  have  been  dedicated  to  Antiochus  ©soy,  who 
 succeeded  a  few  months  later. 
 
 It  is  observable  that  a  passage  of  Simplicius  (^Comment,  in 
 Arist.De  Coelo,  lib.  ii.,  as  referred  to  by  Lepsius),  wdiich  used 
 to  be  quoted  with,  a  different  reading  of  1903  years,  exhibits 
 a  sum  of  31,000  years,  or  more  (for  it  is  plainly  a  round  num- 
 ber), similar  to  the  34,080  of  Berosus,  and  perhaps  earlier 
 than  his  time: — "Sta  to  /jL-qirco  Tas  vtto  'KaXKicrOsvovs  sKBa^u- 
 
 X(x)V09  SK7r6fl(f)6£Laa9  TT]p7]a£L9  TJKStV  £19  TTjV  'YiXkoZa,  WpiaTOTS- 
 
 \ov9  TovTO  sinaKrj'^avTOs  avroj,  a9  laTop£l  Ilop(j)vpL09  ircov 
 £lvaL  j(^Cki(DV  Koi  /jUvptdScov  rpLCJV  £0)9  TMV  ^A\£^dvSpov  rod 
 ^laK£86vo9  aw^ofjL£va9  ')(p6vcov.''^  Thus  the  Greek  text  is  now 
 printed  in  the  edition  of  the  Berlin  Acad.  p.  503,  with  a  note 
 that,  instead  of  fjivpLdBcov,  Aldus  inA.D.  1526,  p.  123,  printed 
 svvaKoaiwv,  which,  however,  was  only  a  retranslation  from 
 the  Latin.  Clinton,  therefore,  gives  up  the  1903  years ;  but 
 Lepsius  and  Bunsen  still  think  this  the  true  reading.  And, 
 no  doubt,  observations  going  back  1903  years  are  much 
 more  likely  to  have  been  obtained  or  sent  by  Callisthenes 
 than  observations  going  back  31,000.  But  it  does  not  ap- 
 pear that  there  is  anything  more  in  the  passage  than  this, 
 that  according  to  Porphyry,  or  at  most  according  to  the  Ian- 
 
942 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 guage  of  exaggeration  repeated  by  Callisthenes,  the  obser- 
 vations taken  and  kept  at  Babylon  went  back  31,000  years 
 from  the  time  of  Alexander.  And,  if  this  was  told  to  Por- 
 phyry, one  may  suppose  that  the  reckoning  went  back  to 
 some  epoch  lower  than  Berosus's  date  for  the  Flood,  such 
 as  the  Median  capture  of  Babylon,  which  would  suit  within 
 22  years  for  the  reading  1903  (since  B.C.  330+  1903  = 
 2231—2209  =  22),  or  to  some  true  date  for  the  commence- 
 ment of  the  monarchy,  about  the  time  of  the  Dispersion,  or, 
 at  the  highest,  to  the  fabulous  {genealogical)  epoch  of  the 
 restoration  of  Babylon  after  the  Flood.  And  the  sum  of 
 31,000,  like  that  of  34,080  (with  which  it  should  be  coin- 
 cident for  so  far  as  it  goes  back),  of  itself  suggests  the  anti- 
 cipation that  it  cannot,  for  the  bulk  of  it,  consist  of  days  any 
 more  than  of  full  years,  but  may  probably  consist  of  months. 
 If  we  divide  the  whole  round  sum  of  31,000  by  12,  we  shall 
 obtain  from  it  for  the  quotient  2583^^,  so  that  the  exact  num- 
 ber of  months  must  have  been  at  least  (31,000  +  8  =  )  31,008. 
 And  reckoned  back  from  B.C.  336,  the  2584  vague  years  would 
 take  us  up  to  the  Julian  B.C.  (336  +  2584  =)  2918,  a  date 
 which  is  short  by  only  (2954  — 2918  =  )  36  years  of  Berosus's 
 fabulous  epoch  for  the  renewal  of  Babylon  and  its  monarchy 
 146  years  after  the  Flood.  But  there  is  nothing  to  fix  the 
 number  of  months  neglected  in  the  round  sum  of  31,000  to 
 be  only  8.  It  is  more  probable,  then,  that  the  true  comple- 
 ment of  this  round  sum  is  (36  x  12  =  432  +  8  =  )  440.  And 
 then  the  2620  vague  years  represented  by  the  31,000,  or 
 more  exactly  31,440  'months,  will  take  us  up  from  B.C.  336 
 to  B.C.  336  +  2620  =  )  2954,  which  is  the  exact  epoch  of 
 Berosus.  And  Babylonian  observations  could  well  be  pre- 
 tended to  Callisthenes,  or  collected  by  Porphyry,  to  have 
 gone  back  further. 
 
 It  may  be  that  the  fancy  of  multiplying  a  certain  number 
 of  the  earlier  years  into  months,  and  calling  them  years, 
 was  first  learned  from  Egypt  by  the  Babylonians,  and  by 
 Berosus  himself,  and  that  it  was  afterwards  improved  upon 
 by  multiplying  months  into  days,  and  calling  these  days 
 years.  And  if  Berosus  wished  to  insert  in  his  work  his 
 own  chronological  reckoning  for  the  existing  world  in  one 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  943 
 
 distinct  sum,  using  Ixxxvi  antehistorical  names  as  vehicles 
 for  as  many  abstract  generations,  he  might  think  it  conve- 
 nient to  express  this  sum  in  peculiar  terms  of  its  own,  and 
 so  might  retain  for  it  the  Egyptian  form  of  expansion,  in 
 order  to  separate  it  from  those  other  years  of  his  series 
 which  ostensibly  preceded  and  followed  it,  but  with  which 
 it  did  not  really  combine.  So,  if  we  have  concluded  on 
 separate  grounds  that  the  9  sarif  2  neri,  and  8  sossi  given  to 
 the  Ixxxvi  antehistorical  Chaldaean  kings  cannot  consist  of 
 days  or  years,  but  may  consist  of  months,  and  that,  whether 
 they  consist  of  days,  months,  or  years,  they  are  in  every 
 case  alike  incapable  of  representing  the  chronological  in- 
 terval between  Berosus's  a.m.  2404,  and  the  Median  capture 
 of  Babylon  in  B.C.  2209,  these  conclusions  do  away  w^ith  the 
 prima  facie  objection  against  an  anomalous  reckoning  of  this 
 one  sum  in  sari,  neri,  and  sossi,  of  months  instead  of  days  ; 
 or,  rather,  they  create  a  presumption  in  its  favour.  As  for 
 the  Ixxxvi  kings  themselves,  to  whom  these  years  were 
 ostensibly  attached,  but  of  whose  historical  reigns  or  gene- 
 rations they  represent  neither  the  chronological  nor  the 
 collective  sum,  it  may  be  that  they  were  a  mixed  group, 
 consisting  in  part  of  kings  properly  so  called,  who  reigned 
 concurrently  in  different  cities,  besides  Babylon  and  Nineveh, 
 whether  all  before,  or  all  after,  or  some  before  and  some 
 after,  the  Median  occupation  of  Babylon ;  and  besides  these, 
 the  list  may  have  contained  at  its  head  —  and  probably  did 
 contain  —  the  names  of  patriarchal  ancestors,  wliich  justified 
 in  some  sense  the  pretence  that  it  began  only  146  years  be- 
 low the  Flood,  or  even,  as  Eusebius  understood,  from  the 
 Flood  itself.  For  ''from  the  Flood,"  he  says,  "  to  the  Me- 
 dian occupation  of  Babylon,  Polyhistor  gives  from  Berosus 
 Ixxxvi  kings,  and  a  sum  of  33,091  [34,080]  years."  So  we 
 find  that  the  first  two  ancestors,  or  kings,  named  Euechius 
 and  Chomashelns,  have  reigns  attached  to  them  not  of  such 
 absurd  and  anomalous  shortness  as  they  seem  to  have  by  the 
 reduction  of  Anianus,  but  of  175  and  225  years  respectively, 
 suitable  to  the  patriarchal  antiquity  at  which  they  are 
 placed.  We  are  told  that,  among  other  ancient  Chaldasan 
 names,  Berosus  mentioned  that  o^  Abraham,  the  ancestor  of 
 
944 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the  Hebrews,  as  a  wise  man  who  was  skilled  in  the  know- 
 ledge of  the  heavens,  who  lived  in  the  tenth  generation  after 
 the  Flood."  But  the  most  important  allusion  and  confirma- 
 tion of  the  view  which  has  been  advanced  is  found  in  a  few 
 words  of  Josephus,  who  in  his  work  against  Apion  (lib.  i. 
 19),  asserts  that  Berosus,  after  writing  of  Noah  (Xisu- 
 thrus),  and  relating  that  the  Ark  settled  upon  the  mountains 
 of  Armenia,  gave  a  catalogue  of  the  -posterity  of  Noah,  and 
 added  to  the  names  their  years  ;  and  so,  at  length  came  down 
 to  the  mention  of  Nabopolassar  and  his  son  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 who  invaded  Judsea."  '^^^rjpwaaos  6  ILaXhalos  rats  dp'^aiord- 
 rais  STTaKokovdoiV  dva^ypac^als  wzpi  rs  rod  ysvo/jusuov  Kara- 
 KXvaixov  .  .  .  KaOdiTSp  ^Iwvarjs  .  .  Ka\  iTEpl  rrjs  XdpvaKOS  .  .  . 
 slra  70V9  CLTTO  NfWT^oy  KaraXsycoVf  kol  tovs  ')(p6vov9  avroh 
 irpoariOsls^  swl  ^a/So'TroXdaaapov  irapaylvsTai  tov  ^apvXwvos 
 Kal  XaXBalcov  PaaiXsa,''  k.  t.  X.  So  this  list  of  names  of 
 the  posterity  of  Noah,  with  their  years,  forming  the  com- 
 mencement of  the  same  series  which  was  continued  down 
 to  Nabopolassar  and  to  Alexander,  cannot  well  be  anything 
 else  than  that  list  of  Ixxxvi  names  which  was  transcribed  by 
 Polyhistor,  and  which  covered  the  space  from  the  Flood  to 
 the  Median  capture  of  Babylon.  And  if  so,  since  the 
 names  and  years  below  this  epoch  are  the  continuation  of 
 the  preceding,  the  34,080  years  of  the  Ixxxvi  kings  must 
 (if  at  all  connected  with  them  historically)  be  reducible,  so 
 as  not  to  exceed  the  true  number  of  full  chronological  years 
 between  the  Flood  and  the  capture  of  Babylon.  Their  re- 
 lation, then,  to  the  whole  chronological  space  which  they 
 either  truly  or  only  ostensibly  occupy,  is  analogous,  and  in 
 some  sense  opposite,  to  that  in  which  the  viii  Demigods  of 
 the  Old  Egyptian  Chronicle  stand  to  the  whole  chronolo- 
 gical space  which  they  either  only  ostensibly  or  truly  occupy. 
 For  the  Ixxxvi  Chaldasans  occupy  historically  only  a  small 
 portion,  viz.  745,  or  at  most  (146  +  745  =  )  891,  of  the  2840 
 years  which  their  collective  reigns  are  contrived  to  over- 
 shadow; while  the  viii  Demigods  of  the  Egyptian  Chro- 
 nicle occupy  ostensibly  only  a  small  part,  viz.  217  of  the 
 876  years  which  historically  they  might  claim. 
 
 In  the  absence  of  Berosus's  own  text,  or  even  that  of 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  945 
 
 Polyhistor,  without  the  help  of  that  cyclical  measurement 
 and  symmetry  which  distinguishes  the  Egyptian  schemes, 
 and  having  for  the  most  part  in  the  allusions  of  other 
 writers  only  round  numbers  instead  of  the  exact  sums 
 alluded  to,  one  must  be  content  with  probable  instead  of 
 certain  conclusions.  But  if  that  chronological  break  in  the 
 reckoning  by  full  years  or  by  sari,  neri,  and  sossi,  which 
 exists  in  our  notices,  at  the  point  where  the  anomalous 
 34,080  years  of  the  Ixxxvi  kings  are  mentioned,  be  filled  up 
 conjecturally  from  the  parallel  Egyptian  reckoning  with  745 
 vague  years,  and  these  are  allowed  to  have  been  occupied 
 by  some  or  all  of  the  Ixxxvi  antehistorical  kings,  we  shall 
 have  made  out  for  Berosus — 
 
 I.  Before  the  Flood :  - 
 
 Years. 
 
 Months. 
 
 Days. 
 
 Sari.  Neri.  Sossi. 
 
 1058 
 
 12,696 
 
 380,880 
 
 105      4  8 
 
 1200 
 
 14,400 
 
 432,000 
 
 120      0  0 
 
 2258 
 
 27,096 
 
 812,880 
 
 225      4  8 
 
 II.  After  the  Flood,  before  the  Median  capture  of  Baby- 
 
 lon :  — 
 
 Years. 
 
 Months. 
 
 Days. 
 
 Sai'i.  Neri.  Sossi. 
 
 146 
 
 1752 
 
 52,560 
 
 14     3  6 
 
 325 
 
 3900 
 
 117,000 
 
 32      3  0 
 
 420 
 
 5040 
 
 151,200 
 
 42      0  0 
 
 891 
 
 10,692 
 
 320,760 
 
 89      0  6 
 
 Total  of  antehistorical 
 
 years  before  and  after  the  Flood:— 
 
 Years. 
 
 Months. 
 
 Days. 
 
 Sari.  Neri.  Sossi. 
 
 3149 
 
 37,788 
 
 1,133,640 
 
 314      5  4 
 
 III.  Historical  years 
 
 below  Thoth  1 
 
 ,  in  B.C.  2209:  — 
 
 1881  to  the  cosmocracy  of  Alexander,  in  B.C.  330. 
 
 34  to  the  date  of  Berosus's  writing,  in  B.C.  296? 
 34  to  the  death  of  Antiochus  Soter,  set  in  b.c.  262. 
 
 Total  5098  full  years  of  human  time. 
 
 But  5098-2258  =  2840,  these  2840  being  resolvable  into 
 34,080  months  from  the  Flood  to  the  end  of  the  last  full 
 year  of  Antiochus  Soter,  in  B.C.  262. 
 
 A  statement  is  preserved  by  Syncellus  from  Alexander 
 
 3  P 
 
946 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Polyliistor  to  the  effect  that  Berosus  in  the  introductory 
 part  of  his  work  professed  to  have  had  access  in  [the  postdi- 
 luvian] Babylon  to  records  of  "  about  15  myriads,"  or 
 something  over  15  myriads"  of  years: — "zeal  svpcbv  h 
 J^a^vkoiVL  ttoWmv  avaypa(pa9   ^vKaaaofJusvas   sirifjuzKoys,  at 
 
 TTSpLSL^OV    ETCOV    fJiVpidhaS    TTOV    SsKaTTEVTS    Kol    fjLLKpOV  TTyOOS*," 
 
 K.  T.  X.  ;  and  again : — "  ^rjpcoaaos  sv  rfj  a  tmv  'Ba/SvXcoviaKcov 
 <j)r]ac  fysviaOai  fjuev  avrov  Kara  ^ AXs^avBpov  top  ^lXlttttov 
 Tr)v  rfkiKiav*  avaypa(f>as  Ss  ttoWmv  sp  ^a^vXcovi  (pvXdaasadac 
 /jletol  iroWrjs  sirifieXelas  diro  stcov  irov  VTrsp  /jivpidBcov  BsKa- 
 Trevre  Trspcs^^ovaas  'x^povov.''^     {St/nc,  pp.  25  and  50,  ed.  Dind.) 
 
 From  this  sum  of  "  something  over  15  myriads  "  it  may  be 
 possible  to  recover  in  terms  of  Berosus's  own  reckoning 
 some  portion  at  least  of  those  745  years  which  have  been 
 given  to  him  above  only  on  conjecture.  The  sum  ends 
 ostensibly  at  Berosus's  own  date,  and  it  matters  not  even  if 
 we  are  a  little  wide  of  the  mark  of  guessing  at  this  date,  as 
 the  bulk  of  the  sum  manifestly  consists  of  multiples  of  360, 
 representing  years  anterior  to  the  Median  capture  of  Babylon 
 in  B.C.  2209.  At  the  earliest,  the  whole  sum  may  be  sup- 
 posed to  end  at  the  Macedonian  or  the  Persian  accession  of 
 Alexander,  down  to  which  Berosus  brought  his  narrative  ;  at 
 the  latest,  at  the  date  when  the  work  was  completed  and 
 dedicated  to  the  third  Macedonian  king  after  Alexander, 
 (rftj  /zst'  avTov  rpiTw),  whether  Antiochus  Soter  or  Antiochus 
 ©SOS.  Between  these  some  intermediate  date,  but  nearer  to 
 the  last,  might  represent  the  time  when  he  was  actually 
 writing  that  passage  at  the  beginning  of  "  his  First  Book^^ 
 in  which  the  sum  of  15  myriads  was  named.  And  since  the 
 records  preserved  at  Babylon  could  not  be  older  than  the 
 nation  and  the  city  itself,  and  the  year  146  after  the  Flood, 
 where  Berosus  puts  the  renewal  of  Babylon  and  of  monarchy, 
 is  plainly  too  high  for  anything  except  some  epoch  in  a 
 genealogy  of  postdiluvian  ancestors,  we  may  presume  that 
 the  commencement  of  the  mythological  part  of  the  15  my- 
 riads will  be  from  Berosus's  truer  but  esoteric  date  for  the 
 formation  of  monarchies  whether  at  Babylon  or  elsewhere, 
 answering  more  or  less  closely  to  the  date  of  Dispersion.  In- 
 deed we  know  that  he  gave  a  distinct  account  of  the  building 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  947 
 
 of  the  tower  of  Babel,  quoted  from  Polyhistor  and  Abydenus 
 by  Eusebius ;  and  from  it  he  would  pass  naturally  to  some 
 mention  of  that  rise  of  separate  nations  and  monarchies  which 
 soon  after  ensued.  Thus  much  premised,  if  we  set  aside 
 412  times  360,  or  148,320  day-years,  ending  at  Thoth  1,  in 
 B.C.  2209, and  beginning  consequently  in  B.C.  (2209+412  =  ) 
 2621  (the  80th  of  Peleg),  there  will  still  be  left  included  in 
 the  sum  of  150,000  as  many  as  1680  vague  historical  years, 
 taking  us  down  to  the  Julian  B.C.  (2209-1680  =  )  530 ; 
 and  we  know  that  yet  more  years  remain  to  be  added,  not 
 only  because  we  are  still  200  years  short  even  of  Alexander, 
 to  say  nothing  of  Berosus's  own  date,  but  also  because  Syn- 
 cellus  expressly  says  that  the  15  myriads  were  a  round 
 number  with  something  over. 
 
 Four  hundred  and  twelve  multiples  of  360  or  148,320 
 day-years  from  B.C.  (2209  +  412  =  )  2621  to  B.C.  2209,  with 
 a  continuation  of  1875  or  1881  full  years  to  B.C.  336  or  B.C. 
 330,  making  together  150,195  or  150,201  nominal  years, 
 are  the  lowest  possible  sums  which  will  combine  so  as  to 
 make  "15  myriads  and  something  over  "  to  a  date  capable 
 of  being  connected  with  Berosus.  But  this  minimum  com- 
 bined sum  may  be  short  either  at  top  or  at  bottom,  or  at 
 both,  of  the  actual  sum.  And  though  the  precise  amount  of 
 the  addition  or  additions  needed  may  not  be  determinable 
 for  want  of  data,  the  extreme  limits  within  which  they  must 
 be  included  may  be  fixed  without  difficulty.  For  at  the 
 bottom  Ave  may,  if  we  please,  suppose  the  date  to  have  been 
 as  low  as  the  end  of  the  last  year  of  Antiochus  Soter,  and 
 the  beginning  of  the  first  of  Antiochus  ^sos,  at  Oct.  28  in 
 B.C.  262,  when  Berosus,  if  born  as  he  says  he  was  in  the  time 
 of  Alexander,  may  have  been  from  70  to  80  years  old.  But 
 we  cannot  well  suppose  it  to  have  been  later.  Seventy-four 
 years  then  at  most  from  B.C.  336,  or  sixty-eight  from  B.C. 
 330,  may  need  to  be  added  at  the  end  of  our  minimum  sum 
 of  150,195  or  150,201  years,  which  so  might  be  increased  at 
 most  to  (150,201  +  68  =  )  150,269.  But  "15  myriads  and 
 a  little  over "  being  a  round  sum,  in  which  myriads  only 
 are  named,  we  cannot  be  sure  that  the  "  little  over  "  is  con- 
 fined to  units,  or  even  to  hundreds ;  but,  to  be  safe,  we 
 
 3  P  2 
 
948 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 must  think  of  myriads.  The  terms  used  would  be  improper 
 if  the  excess  over  150,000  were  not  small  in  comparison 
 with  even  one  myriad ;  but  anything  under  —  or  but  little 
 over  —  a  quarter  of  a  myriad  might  in  relation  to  such  a 
 sum  as  150,000  be  called  "  a  little."  Consequently,  though 
 the  nearer  the  sum  is  to  1 50,000  the  more  closely  it  answers 
 to  the  description  given  of  it,  we  must  admit  that  some  one 
 or  other  out  of  11  or  12  distinct  additions  —  from  that  of 
 once  360  up  to  that  of  seven  or  eight  times  360  or  (360  x 
 8  =  )  2880  —  may  be  needed  at  the  top  of  our  former  sum, 
 which  so  might  be  brought  up  at  most  to  (150,269  +  2880=  ) 
 153,149.  So  the  reckoning  must  be  supposed  to  begin  not 
 higher  than  Thoth  1  in  B.C.  (2209  +  412  +  8=)  2629,  which 
 is  471  years  below  the  Flood,  in  the  72nd  year  of  Peleg, 
 nor  later  than  B.C.  2621 ;  and  it  must  end  not  earlier  than  at 
 Thoth  1  in  B.C.  336,  nor  much,  if  at  all,  later  than  at 
 Thoth  1  in  B.C.  262.  Whatever  be  the  exact  number,  it  is 
 to  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  was  mentioned  by  Berosus  him- 
 self in  connection  with  records  preserved,  as  he  pretended, 
 in  the  postdiluvian  Babylon. 
 
 But  there  is  another  sum  so  closely  resembling  this  in 
 amount,  that  the  two  must  either  entirely  or  for  the  most 
 part  coincide  with  one  another.  This  is  a  sum  of  153,075 
 nominal  years,  which  is  mentioned  by  St.  Theophilus  of 
 Antioch,  as  reckoned  by  "  Apollonius  the  Egyptian  "  (that 
 is,  probably,  by  his  contemporary  Apollonius  Dyscolus)  to 
 the  existing  world  since  the  Flood.  Apollonius,"  he  says, 
 pretended  "  coy  rjhr]  jxvpidhas  ircov  id  IXrjkvQivai  Kal  rpia^^iXLa 
 
 £^So/Ub7]KOVTa    TTSVTS,      TaOxa  jjukv  OVV  ^  AlT0X\(OPl09  6  AlyV7rTL09 
 
 i(TTopeV^  {Ad  Autolyc.  lib.  ill.  16.)  The  sum  is  manifestly 
 of  Chaldasan  not  Egyptian  origin,  though  it  is  spoken  of  as 
 if  it  were  brought  down  to  Apollonius's  own  time.  It  may 
 then  be  the  very  sum  itself  named  by  Berosus,  since  that 
 was  stated  by  Polyhistor  in  round  numbers  as  "  15  myriads, 
 and  a  little  more ;  "  and  this,  which  is  not  in  round  numbers, 
 has  15  myriads,  and  3075  besides,  an  excess  not  too  great 
 to  be  covered  by  the  words  a  little  more."  If  we  assume 
 that  it  is  the  very  same  sum,  and  setting  aside  first  1875 
 full  years  as  the  minimum  needed  for  the  continuation  from 
 B.C.  2209  to  B  c.  336,  divide  the  rest  of  the  sum,  viz. 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  949 
 
 (153,075-1875=)  151,200,  by  360,  the  quotient  is  just 
 420,  without  a  remainder. 
 
 420x360=151,200  from  B.C.  2629  to  B.C.  2209. 
 1875         =     1875  from  B.C.  2209  to  B.C.  336. 
 
 2295  =153,075 
 
 So  it  would  appear  that  Berosus's  esoteric  epoch  for  the 
 Babylonian  monarchy,  from  which  the  earliest  of  his  pre- 
 tended records  dated,  was  in  B.C.  (2209+420  =  )  2629 ;  and 
 that  the  15  myriads  and  something  over,"  being  in  truth 
 153,075  nominal  years,  were  brought  down  only  to  the 
 Macedonian  accession  of  Alexander;  whereas  one  would 
 have  expected  at  the  earliest  his  Persian  accession,  1881 
 vague  years  from  B.C.  2209,  or  rather  (in  this  instance) 
 Berosus's  own  date  from  40  to  60  years  lower.  It  cannot, 
 however,  be  concluded  with  much  confidence  that  this  sum 
 of  Apollonius  is  simply  identical  with  that  of  Polyhistor  and 
 Berosus ;  at  least  not,  if  it  referred  —  as  St.  Theophilus  un- 
 derstood it  to  refer  —  to  the  antiquity  not  merely  of  Baby- 
 lonian records  but  of  the  world  itself  since  the  Flood.  These 
 two  epochs  —  at  any  rate  for  Berosus  —  were  distinct. 
 And  one  may  account  for  the  sum  of  153,075  in  such  a  w^ay 
 that  it  may  both  really  go  back  to  the  epoch  of  the  Flood, 
 and  also,  if  that  be  worth  while,  may  reach  down  to  Apollo- 
 nius's  own  time.  For,  if  the  sum  of  2840  full  years  of  the 
 Ixxxvi  kings  considered  above  and  supposed  to  be  Berosus's 
 reckoning  from  the  Flood  to  B.C.  262  be  taken  first,  and  to 
 this  there  be  added  another  sum  of  150,235  nominal  years, 
 answering  to  the  description  of  15  myriads  and  a  little 
 over,"  the  two  together  will  make  153,075,  as  in  the  sub- 
 joined analysis :  — 
 
 Ixxxvi  kings.     Records  at  Babylon.       Years  from  the  Flood. 
 
 146  B.C.  3100  to  B.C.  2954. 
 
 333  B.C.  2954  to  B.C.  2621. 
 
 412  =      148,320      B.C.  2621  to  B.C.  2209. 
 
 1915  =         1,915      B.C.  2209  to  B.C.  296. 
 34  ....      B.C.    296  to  B.C.  262. 
 
 2840  +      150,235  =  153,075  of  Apollonius. 
 
950 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The  sum  2840,  being  obtained  by  reduction  from  the 
 years  of  the  Ixxxvi  antehistorical  kings  might  easily  be 
 mixed  up  with  other  reckonings  of  Berosus  from  Avhich  it 
 was  really  distinct.  And  if  this  were  so,  the  whole  of  the 
 2840  years,  except  the  first  146  and  the  last  34,  would  of 
 course  be  reduplicated  by  the  addition  of  Berosus's  other 
 sum  of  150,235  (supposing  this  to  be  his)  as  if  it  were  the 
 continuation  of  the  years  of  the  first  Ixxxvi  kings.  The 
 sum  itself  of  150,235,  required  on  this  hypothesis,  is  not  the 
 same  as  that  which  was  preferred  above,  but  it  is  one  equally 
 admissible;  and  it  would  begin  not  in  B.C.  (2209  +  420  =  ) 
 2629,  but  in  B.C.  (2209  +  412  =  )  2621,  and  would  end  not 
 in  B.C.  336  but  in  B.C.  296,  a  date  15  years  before  the  acces- 
 sion of  Antiochus  Soter,  and  earlier  than  seems  to  suit  for 
 Berosus's  own  date,  at  any  rate  for  that  of  the  completion  of 
 his  work.  But  Apollonius,  who  lived  about  the  middle  of 
 the  2nd  century  after  Christ — he  went  to  Rome  in  the 
 reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius  —  and  who  probably  knew  that 
 the  bulk  of  the  15  myriads  and  more  of  Berosus  represented 
 a  sum  of  420  or  412  full  years,  may  have  thought  that  the 
 whole  sum  of  150,235,  or  somewhat  more  or  fewer,  accord- 
 ing to  the  date  of  their  commencement,  might  be  appro- 
 priated by  himself  in  the  same  sense,  and  so,  being  included 
 in  his  sum,  as  if  all  days,  might  represent  a  continuation  of 
 about  417  years  and  115  days,  bringing  down  the  reckoning 
 of  Berosus  from  B.C.  262,  or  any  earlier  date  he  pleased,  to 
 A.D.  156,  or  thereabouts,  which  would  suit  for  his  own  time. 
 
 Whether  Berosus  himself  expressed  uniformly  all  his 
 reckonings  down  to  Tlioth  1,  in  the  Julian  year  B.C.  2209, 
 in  terms  of  sari,  neri,  and  sossi,  and  again  expanded  uni- 
 formly all  these  into  their  equivalent  sums  of  day-years,  is 
 uncertain,  since  no  such  sum  as  113  myriads  and  more, 
 which  they  would  make  collectively,  has  been  imputed  to 
 him  by  any  allusion  or  citation  still  extant.  And  he  may 
 have  presented  mixed  sums,  like  the  first  24,900  nominal 
 years  of  Manetho  (see  above.  Vol.  I.  p.  129),  in  which,  though 
 the  whole  belong  to  the  antehistorical  period,  resolvable  into 
 month-years,  only  24,000  are  in  fact  such  month-years, 
 while  the  other  900  are  full.    But  since,  besides  that  of  the 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  951 
 
 "15  myriads  and  something  over,"  or  the  "153,075" 
 already  noticed,  one  or  two  other  great  sums  different  from 
 this,  and  larger,  are  also  ascribed  to  Berosus,  or  to  the  Baby- 
 lonians whom  he  represents,  it  is  probable  that  the  different 
 sums  thus  mentioned  are  all,  like  the  Egyptian  sums  of 
 Diodorus,  referable  to  one  greater  whole,  by  the  knowledge 
 of  which  only  they  can  be  explained.  Thus  Pliny  (Hist 
 Not.  lib.  vii.  56),  in  discussing  the  antiquity  of  the  use  of 
 letters,  writes: — "E  diverso  Epigenes  apud  Babylonios 
 DCCXX  [millia]  annorum  observationes  siderum  coctilibus 
 laterculis  inscriptas  docet,  gravis  auctor  in  primis :  qui  mini- 
 mum, Berosus  et  Critodemus,  cccclxxx  [ccccxc  in  all  the 
 MSS.  according  to  the  editor],  ex  quo  apparet  seternum  litte- 
 rarum  usum."  Here  720,000  years,  and  480,000  or  490,000, 
 are  mentioned  by  Pliny  as  the  highest  and  lowest  Chaldjean 
 reckonings  he  had  heard  of,  not  indeed  since  the  orio-in  of 
 the  world  or  of  mankind,  but  since  the  first  recording  of 
 written  observations  at  Babylon :  and  it  is  remarkable  that 
 480,000  years  should  here  be  named  from  Berosus,  when 
 yet  it  appears  from  Polyhistor  that  Berosus  carried  up  the 
 antiquity  of  written  records  at  Babylon  no  higher  than 
 about  150,000  years  before  his  own  time.  Africanus,  too, 
 as  cited  by  Eusebius  and  Syncellus,  mentions  the  same  sum 
 of  480,000  years  as  is  quoted  from  Critodemus  by  Pliny:  — 
 "rov  roiv  ^aXSaloyv  Xrjpov,  rov  tcov  firj'  /mvpidBcoVf  tl  Set  XsysLV ; " 
 This  sum,  then,  of  480,000  years  (in  round  numbers)  was 
 really  mentioned,  as  it  seems,  by  Berosus,  and  either  ex- 
 pressly or  by  implication  in  connection  with  the  use  of 
 letters;  and  it  is  a  distinct  sum  from  the  150,000  and  more 
 certainly  named  by  him  in  what  looks  like,  but  cannot  be 
 exactly,  the  same  connection.  We  know,  in  fact,  that  Be- 
 rosus distinguished  not  only  an  antediluvian  city  and  mo- 
 narchy of  Babylon,  but  also  an  antediluvian  invention  and 
 use  of  letters  there,  from  the  same  city  and  monarchy,  with 
 its  use  of  letters,  as  renewed  in  the  postdiluvian  world. 
 Several  of  his  ten  antediluvian  kings,  though  reigning  at 
 Babylon,  are  said  to  have  been  natives  of  Sippara,  or  Panti- 
 hyla,  the  "  City  of  the  Writings,"  a  city  of  Babylonia. 
 There,  according  to  Berosus,  by  the  special  direction  of 
 
 3  P  4 
 
952 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Belus,  all  the  knowledge  of  the  antediluvians,  and  the  story 
 of  their  Origines,  or  Genesis,  were  buried  for  preservation, 
 having  been  inscribed  on  certain  steles — whether  of  stone  or 
 of  baked  clay — before  the  Flood ;  and  there  the  same  were 
 dug  up  for  their  communication  to  mankind  after  the  Flood 
 by  those  who  founded  or  renewed  at  Babylon  the  postdilu- 
 vian city  and  monarchy.  There  is  room,  then,  distinctly 
 for  two  reckonings,  one  for  the  antiquity  of  postdiluvian, 
 the  other  for  that  of  antediluvian  records,  and  for  two  sums ; 
 and  if  the  two  reckonings  were  made  separately,  there  is 
 room  also  for  a  third  reckoning  and  a  third  sum,  combining 
 the  two.  Pliny,  it  seems,  had  either  not  heard  of  the 
 150,000  years,  or,  if  he  had,  he  named  in  preference  the 
 480,000  years  as  the  highest  sum  quoted  from  Berosus,  who 
 yet  seemed  to  give  the  lowest  reckoning  by  comparison  with 
 that  of  Epigenes.  The  true  reading  in  the  passage  of  Pliny 
 for  the  sum  quoted  from  Critodemus  and  Berosus  is  uncer- 
 tain, but  both  the  two  (viz.  480,000  and  490,000)  which  are 
 given,  being  in  round  myriads,  suit  well  enough  for  that 
 interval  in  the  scheme  of  Berosus  which  extends  from  the 
 first  establishment  of  the  antediluvian  monarchy  at  Baby- 
 lon—  and  no  Babylonian  records  whatever  could  be  older 
 than  this  —  down  to  the  recommencement  of  monarchy  and 
 of  writing  on  the  same  spot  after  the  Flood  (and  no  post- 
 diluvian records  on  tiles  could  be  older  than  this  last  date). 
 Berosus,  then,  might  be  thought  by  Epigenes  to  imply 
 that  the  earliest  records  of  the  postdiluvian  or  existing 
 Babylon  went  back  from  his  own  time,  if  set  at  B.C.  280, 
 (1931  +  268,200  =  )  270,131  years,  i.e.  up  to  the  end  of 
 his  own  A.M.  (2258  +  146  =)  2404,  though  Berosus,  in 
 allusion  to  a  truer  but  esoteric  date  for  the  monarchy,  had 
 named  the  much  lower  sum  of  something  over  150,000 
 years.  And  Berosus  himself  reckoned  back  from  the  rise 
 of  the  postdiluvian  city  and  monarchy  to  that  of  the  ante- 
 diluvian (and  so  also,  whether  expressly  or  by  implication,  to 
 its  earliest  records),  a  further  space  of  (52,560  +  432,000  =  ) 
 484,560  years.  So  both  the  490,000  of  Critodemus  and 
 Pliny  (if  that  is  the  true  reading)  and  the  480,000  of  Afri- 
 canus  will  stand  very  well  together^  being  both  justified  by 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  953 
 
 an  actual  sum  which  may  with  equal  propriety  be  filled  up 
 to  the  round  number  of  490,000  or  reduced  to  that  of 
 480,000.  Another  sum  of  470,000  years,  named  by  Cicero, 
 must  be  meant  for  the  same  reckoning  as  the  480,000  or 
 490,000  of  Critodemus,  and  the  480,000  of  Africanus,  since 
 it  is,  like  them,  connected  with  the  antiquity  of  letters  at 
 Babylon.  It  is  not,  however,  equally  defensible,  but  must 
 be  regarded  as  a  slightly  erroneous  variation  and  under- 
 statement ;  unless,  indeed,  Cicero  was  mistaken  in  connect- 
 ing it  with  the  antiquity  of  letters,  and  it  was  really  made 
 by  reckoning  from  the  first  antediluvian  king  Alorus 
 (432,000  +  146  +  34,080  + 1875  =  )  468,10 1,  or  (from  a.m.  1) 
 1058  +  468,101=469,161  mixed  years  to  the  Macedonian 
 accession  of  Alexander,  or  something  more  to  his  Persian  ac  - 
 cession, or  to  any  date  connected  with  Berosus.  In  this  case 
 the  origin  of  the  sum,  however  inaccurate  its  composition, 
 would  be  perfectly  natural  and  intelligible.  Or,  again,  the 
 470,000  years  of  Cicero  may  be  identical,  only  in  round  num- 
 bers, with  a  different  sum  of  473,000  years  which  is  named  by 
 Diodorus.  The  words  of  Cicero  are  these:  —  "  Condemnemus 
 etiam  Babylonios  aut  stultitiae  aut  imprudentiae,  qui  CCCCLXX 
 millia  annorum,  ut  ipsi  dicunt,  monumentis  comprehensa  con- 
 tinent," &c. ;  and  again,  "Nam  quod  aiunt  quadringenta  et 
 septuaglnta  millia  annorum  in  periclitandis  experiundisque 
 pueris  posuisse,  fallunt."   {De  Div.  i.  c.  19,  and  ii.  c.  46.) 
 
 Diodorus  Siculus,  in  naming  the  sum  referred  to  as  per- 
 haps identifiable  with  that  of  Cicero,  is  somewhat  more  par- 
 ticular than  those  who  notice  only  myriads,  as  he  specifies 
 47  myriads  of  years,  and  3  thousands.  Still,  this  sum 
 also,  in  respect  of  hundreds,  decads,  and  units,  is  a  round 
 number.  He  writes  that,  to  the  passage  of  Alexander  into 
 Asia,  the  Chaldaeans  reckoned  [from  the  beginning  of  all, 
 as  it  would  seem]  473,000  years: — ^'^^rcav  yap  fx,^  /jLvptdBas 
 Koi  7,  sis  rrjv  'AXs^dvBpov  Bid/Saaiv  ysyovsi^ai  KarapiOfJiovaiv.''^ 
 This  epoch  of  the  passage  of  Alexander  is  Diodorus's  owm, 
 and  it  throws  some  slight  doubt  on  his  accuracy  as  to  the 
 sum  itself.  But  if  he  found  or  made  out  either  this  exact 
 sum  of  473,000  years,  or  something  more,  it  must  have  been 
 by  adding  together  heterogeneous  reckonings,  and  that  not 
 
954 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 without  some  reduplication;  as  if,  for  iastance,  confining 
 themselves  to  the  existing  world,  his  informants  had  added 
 up  together  the  whole  sum  of  its  day-years,  viz.  320,760, 
 from  the  Flood  to  the  Median  capture  of  Babylon,  and 
 that  sum  of  (153,075  —  38  =  )  153,037  perhaps  which  was 
 named  by  Berosus  for  the  antiquity  of  his  records,  and 
 which  included  (1915  —  38  =  )  1877  full  years  from  the 
 Median  capture  of  Babylon  to  the  passage  of  Alexander. 
 For  320,760  +  153,037  =  473,797.  Such  reduplications 
 may  have  been  prompted  by  an  idea  that  the  later  time 
 also,  below  the  historical  epoch,  might  be  expressed  in 
 great  sums  of  nominal  years,  like  the  earlier.  Or,  again, 
 the  sum  of  473,000  years  might  be  made  thus :  —  The 
 first  1058  ST7J  a^aalXsvra  of  the  world  as  380,880  dai/- 
 years  +  1200  of  the  ten  antediluvian  kings  from  Alorus  +  146 
 hr]  d^aalXsvra  below  the  Flood  as  52,560  day-years  +  the 
 34,080  of  the  Ixxxvi  kings  or  generations  +  2480  really  a 
 reduplication  of  the  preceding,  and  reduplicating  besides  all 
 the  other  years  below  the  Flood,  and  over-running  the  date 
 in  B.C.  334  aimed  at  -f  1877  full  years  of  continuation  from 
 the  Median  capture  of  Babylon  in  B.C.  2209  to  the  passage 
 of  Alexander  into  Asia,  in  B.C.  334  =  473,223.  But  in  any 
 one  homogeneous  reckoning,  whether  from  the  commence- 
 ment of  antediluvian  or  of  postdiluvian  time,  or  from  any 
 other  epoch,  the  precise  sum  of  473,000,  whether  with  or 
 without  something  over,  can  scarcely  be  made  out.  But  it 
 is  time  to  return  to  Pliny. 
 
 The  number  720,000  of  Epigenes  is  more  difficult  to  trace 
 — at  least  with  any  confidence— than  the  480,000  or  490,000 
 of  Critodemus.  It  cannot  be  made  to  begin  earlier  than 
 with  the  foundation  of  the  antediluvian  monarchy  at  Baby- 
 lon :  and  if  made  to  begin  there,  being  carried  on  beyond 
 the  epoch  of  the  renewal  of  Babylon  after  the  Flood,  it 
 must  be  supposed  to  come  down  at  the  least  to  the  Mace- 
 donian accession  of  Alexander  the  Great,  or  at  most  to  the 
 last  year  of  Antiochus  Soter,  in  B.C.  262.  Let  it  be  sup- 
 posed to  have  come  down  to  B.C.  262.  Then  we  ought  to 
 have  had  a  sum  of  (432,000  +  52,560  =  484,560  +  268,200 
 +  1875  +  6  +  68  =)  754,709,  which  exceeds  the  sum  of  Epi- 
 genes by  34,000  and  more.    Perhaps,  however,  his  is  really 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  955 
 
 only  a  varied  form  of  this  same  reckoning.  The  calculator, 
 instead  of  adding  only  the  (1875  +  6  +  68  =)  1949  full 
 years  of  continuation  from  the  Median  capture  of  Babylon, 
 may  have  added  the  whole  sum  of  2848  obtainable  from 
 the  34,080  months  of  the  Ixxxvi  antehistorical  kings,  sub- 
 tracting at  the  same  time,  as  if  identical  with  the  2840, 
 34,080  of  the  day-years:  just  as  (3750-903  =  )  2847  years 
 of  kings,  which  in  their  origin  were  full  and  historical,  are 
 identified  in  the  Egyptian  Hieratic  scheme  with  as  many  of 
 the  month-years.    So  he  may  have  made  to  B.C.  262 
 
 432,000  B.C.  4300  to  3100. 
 
 52,560  =    146,  B.C.  3100  to  2954. 
 
 82,920  1  =  ^^^^  ^ 
 
 151,200  =  420,  B.C.  2629  to  2209. 
 .  .  .  .  =  1949,  B.C.  2209  to  262. 
 
 not  754,709,  but  718,680  +  2840  =  721,520. 
 
 So  the  greater  sum,  the  720,000  [721,520]  of  Epigenes, 
 begins  from  the  same  point  with  the  lesser  sum,  the  480,000 
 [484,560]  of  Critodemus,  namely,  from  the  commencement 
 of  the  a/z^ediluvian  monarchs  at  Babylon,  but  it  adds  to  it 
 another  sum,  which  begins  from  the  commencement  of  the 
 /?05Miluvian  monarchy,  and  is  the  continuation  and  comple- 
 ment of  the  former,  the  whole  ending  either  at  B.C.  262,  or 
 at  some  other  date  within  74  years  earlier.  And  if  there 
 was  any  apparent  discrepancy,  this  was  not,  as  Pliny 
 supposed  it  to  be,  between  Epigenes  or  his  sources  on 
 the  one  side  and  Critodemus  or  Berosus  on  the  other,  but 
 only  between  Epigenes  and  Critodemus,  who  both  of 
 them  alike  drew  separate  and  incomplete  statements  from 
 Berosus. 
 
 The  Median  capture  of  Babylon  in  B.C.  2209  answered 
 for  Berosus  as  the  commencement  of  his  historical  period  to 
 the  Egyptian  epoch  of  Menes  in  B.C.  2224,  but  as  his  point 
 of  transition  from  a  reckoning  of  nominal  to  a  reckoning  of 
 true  years  it  answered  rather  to  the  Egyptian  epoch  of  the 
 IX  Demigods  of  the  Old  Chronicle  in  B.C.  (2224  +  217  =  ) 
 2441.    From  this  point  then,  according  to  Polyhistor  and 
 
 432,000  = 
 52,560  = 
 34,080  1 
 82,920  J  = 
 
 151,200  = 
 1,919  = 
 
956 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Syncellus,  he  continued,  now  no  longer  reckoning  as  before 
 in  sarii  neri,  and  sossi,  but  in  ordinary  years,"  as  follows :  — 
 
 I.  First  —  first,  that  is,  after  his  two  preceding  groups  of 
 X  antediluvian  and  Ixxxvi  postdiluvian  ancestors  or  kings  — 
 he  placed  a  dynasty  of  "  viii  Median  tyrants  {Euseh.  Chron. 
 i.  Arm.),  who,  having  seized  Babylon,  reigned  there  224 
 years."    So  these  reigns  would  average  28  years  each. 
 
 Syncellus  probably  found  both  these  and  the  greater  part 
 of  the  following  groups  of  Berosus  and  Polyhistor  retained, 
 though  somewhat  curtailed,  by  Anianus,  since  Anianus 
 seems  to  have  made  these  Median  kings  to  take  Babylon 
 after  his  a.m.  2499,  and  so  had  need  of  materials  with  which 
 to  cover  (3215  —  2499  =  )  716  years  before  coming  to  the 
 list  of  Ctesias,  even  though  he  expanded  that  list  from  xxxvi 
 kings  and  1306  years  to  xli  kings  and  1460  years  made  to 
 end  with  his  a.m.  4676.  But  Syncellus,  declining  to  follow 
 Anianus  in  allowing  so  high  an  antiquity  to  the  Median 
 capture  of  Babylon,  and  putting  it  together  with  the  acces- 
 sion of  Menes  at  his  own  epoch  of  the  Dispersion  —  after,  it 
 should  have  been,  but  he  puts  it  at  the  head  of  his — a.m. 
 2776,  had  need  of  materials  for  only  (4675-1460  =  3215- 
 2776  =  )  439  years  before  coming  to  the  list  of  Ctesias  as 
 expanded  by  Anianus.  It  is  owing  to  these  causes  that  he 
 has  preserved,  but  only  in  a  mutilated  form,  two  of  Berosus's 
 early  groups  or  dynasties,  of  which  this  dynasty  of  the 
 Median  kings  who  reigned  in  Babylon  is  one.  It  is  identi- 
 fied in  Syncellus's  Chronography  both  by  its  position,  as 
 heading  the  historical  series,  and  by  its  sum  of  224  years. 
 But  he  has  reduced  its  kings  from  viii  to  vii.  And  from 
 Medes  he  has  changed  them  into  Chaldaeans.  And  instead 
 of  the  first  three  names  really  belonging  to  it  he  has  brought 
 down  the  first  two  of  Berosus's  Ixxxvi  Chaldaeans,  Euechius 
 and  ChomasbeluSf  the  purpose  of  this  transposition  being 
 that  Euechius,  whom  both  Anianus  and  Syncellus  identified 
 with  Nimrod,  but  whom  Syncellus  would  not  place  so  high 
 as  he  had  been  placed  by  Berosus  and  by  Anianus,  at  a.m. 
 2404,  might  still,  at  his  own  a.m.  2776,  stand  as  the  founder 
 of  the  Chaldaean  and  Babylonian  monarchy.  By  way  of 
 compensation  to  the  Medes,  who  were  thus  dispossessed. 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES. 
 
 957 
 
 Syncellus  called  Berosus's  earlier  group  of  Ixxxvi  Chaldaeans 
 "  Chaldaeans  and  Medes,"  the  first  two  of  them  only  being 
 Chaldaeans  —  that  the  antehistorical  monarchy  might  not 
 begin  with  strangers  —  and  all  the  rest  Medes.  In  con- 
 sequence of  his  suppressing  one  reign  out  of  eight,  and 
 giving  to  Euechius  and  Chomasbelus  not  the  two  or  three 
 Median  reigns  which  in  his  scheme  they  supplant,  but  the 
 anomalously  short  reigns  of  6  and  7  years  obtained  from  their 
 own  neri  and  sossi  by  Anianus,  the  remaining  five  reigns  — 
 the  names  for  which  may  be  those  of  the  last  five  Medes  of 
 Berosus — are  probably  even  in  their  units  fictitious.  How- 
 ever, Syncellus  has  preserved  elsewhere  the  name  of  the  first 
 Median  king,  since  he  writes  of  Polyhistor  that  "  after  the 
 Ixxxvi  Chald^ean  and  Median  kings,  of  whom  two,  Euechius 
 and  Chomasbelus,  were  Chaldaeans,  and  Ixxxiv  Medes,  the 
 same  Polyhistor  introduces  Zoroaster  and  the  seven  [Me- 
 dian] kings  of  the  Chaldaeans  his  successors,  with  190  solar 
 years."  'Atto  tovtov  tov  ')(p6vov  tojv  irg-^  ^vo  fisv  XaXSat- 
 cov  l3aaiXi(t)v  Eut^^iov  koI  ^(o/juaa^rjXov  ttS'  MrJSwz/,  Zcopo- 
 d(JTpT)v  KOL  Tovs  fiST  avTov  f  ^aXSaLWV  ^aGiXsls  slcraysL  stt] 
 Kparrjaavras  rfkiaKa  pl^  o  avTOS  UoXvtarcop  ovk  stl  Slcl  aapayv 
 KOL  vrjpwv  KOL  acoaacov  Koi  T7]s  XoLTrrjs  aXoyov  fjLvdiKrjs  laropias 
 aXka  8i  rjXtaKcov  irwi^."  (Sgnc,  p.  147,  ed.  Dind.).  But 
 here  Syncellus  intermixes  three  different  schemes,  viz.  that 
 of  Berosus  and  Polyhistor,  that  of  Anianus,  and  his  own. 
 For  in  the  early  part  of  his  Chaldsean  series  he  did  not 
 adhere  to  Anianus.  And  on  comparing  the  words  of  Poly- 
 histor as  quoted  by  Eusebius  and  Syncellus's  own  Chaldaean 
 series  which  begins  a  few  pages  further  on  (at  p.  169),  it 
 becomes  apparent  how  Anianus  varied  from  Polyhistor,  and 
 how  Syncellus  again  varied  from  both,  returning,  however, 
 to  Berosus  and  Polyhistor  for  the  sum  (224,  not  "  190")  of 
 the  first  historical  dynasty.  All  that  remains  then  of  Be- 
 rosus's  Median  dynasty  may  be  exhibited  as  follows  :  — 
 
 1.  Zoroaster  [average  reign  B.C.  2209  —  2281.  28.] 
 
 2.  [Name  lost  B.C.  2181-2153.  28.) 
 
 3.  [Name  lost  B.C.  2153—2125.  28.] 
 
 4.  Porus  [Sync.  Xs,  B.C.  2125-2097.  28.] 
 
 5.  Nechoubes  [Sync.  ^\      B.C.  2097—2069.  28.] 
 
958 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 In  his  time  would  be  the  Call,  B.C.  2084,  the  descent 
 of  Abraham  into  Egypt,  and  his  victory  over  the 
 four  kings,  Chedorlaomer  of  Elam,  Tidal  of  Goim, 
 Amraphel  of  Shinar  (Singara?),  and  Arioch  of 
 EUassar. 
 
 6.  Nabivs  [Sync,  ixyf,  B.C.  2069-2041.  28.] 
 
 In  his  time  would  be  the  overthrow  of  Sodom  and 
 Gomorrah,  and  the  birth  of  Isaac  in  B.C.  2059. 
 
 7.  Oniballus  [Sync.  ij!.         B.C.  2041-2013.  28.] 
 
 8.  Chinzirus  [Sync.  /^r'.       B.C.  2013  —  1985.  28.] 
 
 Sum  of  the  years  of  the  viii  Medes  224 
 
 And  the  224  years  of  the  viii  reigns,  having  begun  from 
 Thoth  1,  Feb.  27,  in  B.C.  2209,  15  years  below  Menes,  ended 
 at  Thoth  1,  Jan.  2,  in  B.C.  1985,  together  with  the  49th 
 year  of  Dyn.  XVII  of  the  Old  Egyptian  Chronicle,  being 
 the  10th  of  Papa  Maire  as  suzerain. 
 
 II.  After  the  viii  Medes  there  followed  "  xl  other  kings  " 
 whose  origin  is  not  specified,  and  who  reigned  in  all  only  48 
 years,  having  only  4  years  and  y^-ths  each.  These  48  years 
 are  wanting  in  the  text  of  the  Armenian  version  of  Euse- 
 bius's  Chronicon,  but  they  are  inserted  in  the  margin.  They 
 will  extend  from  Thoth  1  in  B.C.  1985  to  Thoth  1,  Dec.  21, 
 in  B.C.  1938,  ending  together  with  the  97th  year  of  Dyn. 
 XVII  of  the  Egyptian  Chronicle,  which  was  the  36th  of 
 Sesortasen  I.  as  suzerain,  and  in  the  122nd  year  of  the  Pa- 
 triarch Isaac.    Syncellus  omits  these  kings. 
 
 III.  Next  Berosus  had  a  group  of  "xlix  Chaldieans" 
 (omitted  altogether,  like  the  preceding,  by  Syncellus)  with 
 458  years,  affording  average  reigns  of  9^^  years  to  each,  and 
 extending  from  Thoth  1  in  B.C.  1938,  to  Thoth  1,  Aug.  29,  in 
 B.C.  1480.  So  this  line  of  kings  commenced  in  the  62nd 
 year  of  Jacob,  14  years  before  he  went  to  Mesopotamia ;  it 
 was  contemporary  with  the  Shepherds  of  Dyn.  XXVII  of 
 the  Egyptian  Chronicle,  during  their  184  years  ;  and  it  had 
 reached  its  229th  year  when  Thothmes  I.,  the  3rd  king  of 
 the  Egyptian  Dyn.  XVIII,  in  B.C.  1710  or  B.C.  1709,  in 
 his  2nd  year,  made  a  campaign  in  Mesopotamia  which  is  re- 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  959 
 
 corded  by  a  contemporary  Inscription.  The  numerous  cam- 
 paigns of  Thothmes  III.,  who  made  himself  master  both  of 
 Nineveh  and  of  Babylon  (b.c.  1682  to  1656),  will  be  included 
 between  the  256th  and  the  282nd  years  of  the  line  of  Be- 
 rosus.  And  since  he  makes  it  to  last  on,  it  may  be  inferred 
 that  the  rulers  of  Babylon,  and  probably  those  of  Nineveh 
 also,  after  being  once  conquered  submitted  themselves  and 
 obtained  easy  conditions.  Unless  indeed  there  were  many 
 changes,  and  the  kings  of  this  group  are  joined  together 
 only  as  having  been  all  Chaldaeans.  The  reign  of  "  Chousan 
 Rasathaim"  (b.c.  1584  to  1568),  "  king  of  Mesopotamia  "and 
 "Syria"  (Yulg.),  who  first  reduced  the  Hebrews  to  bondage, 
 and  who  seems  also  to  have  been  lord  of  Egypt,  would  extend 
 from  the  355th  to  the  471st  year  of  this  line  of  kings  of 
 Babylon.  The  line  or  group  ends  at  length  in  B.C.  1480, 
 after  the  6th  year  of  Rameses  II.  (Sesostris),  scarcely  more 
 than  one  year  after  the  great  victory  gained  by  him  in  Meso- 
 potamia over  a  number  of  confederate  peoples  on  the  5th 
 of  Epiphi  (the  11th  month)  in  the  5th  year  of  his  reign; 
 which  was  followed  4  days  afterwards  by  negotiations,  and 
 by  a  treaty  of  peace. 
 
 IV.  The  next  series,  consisting  of  "  ix  Arab  kings  with 
 245  years,"  giving  an  average  of  27f  for  each,  probably 
 reigned  by  the  nomination  of  the  Egyptian  suzerain,  and  in 
 settled  dependence  upon  him,  at  least  during  the  greater 
 part  of  their  continuance,  which  would  be  from  Thoth  1,  Aug. 
 29,  in  B.C.  1480  to  Thoth  1,  June  29,  in  B.C.  1235,  so  that 
 they  ended  just  29  years  before  the  end  of  Dyn.  XIX  of 
 the  Egyptian  Chronicle.  .  At  any  rate,  the  length  of  their 
 reigns  presents  a  striking  contrast  to  the  shortness  of  those  of 
 the  preceding  group.  From  some  inscriptions  of  Rameses  II. 
 it  has  been  collected  that  the  war  in  Mesopotamia,  which 
 had  been  ended  by  the  treaty  of  his  5th  year,  was  renewed 
 against  the  same  peoples  about  16  years  later,  in  his  22nd. 
 The  designation  "  Shasou,^^  which  is  often  translated  Arabs 
 (and  which  is  applicable  to  any  shepherds  or  nomads), 
 occurs  repeatedly  in  the  records  of  his  wars.  The  campaigns 
 of  Rameses  III.,  undertaken  to  reconquer  the  same  countries 
 as  a  century  before  had  been  rendered  tributary  by  Rameses 
 
9G0 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 II.,  being  included  within  B.C.  1321  and  B.C.  1275,  will 
 also  fall  between  the  159th  and  206th  years  of  this  Arab 
 line  of  Berosus,  which  ended  in  B.C.  1235,  87  years  after 
 the  renewal  of  the  Sothic  Cycle.  The  succession  of  these 
 "  Arab  kings,"  or  part  of  it,  seems  to  be  given  from  Anianus 
 by  Syncellus,  who  has  cut  down  the  ix  kings  to  vi,  and  their 
 245  years  to  215.  Supposing  the  six  names  given  to  have 
 been  the  first  six  of  the  nine,  the  remains  of  the  list  stand 
 
 as  follows :  — 
 
 1.  Mardocentes,  Sync,  sttj  [ms',  [25  ?] 
 
 2.  MardacuSf  Sync.  fju.  [20  ? j 
 
 3.  Sisimordacus,  Sync,  kt],  28 
 
 4.  Nahius,  Sync.  37 
 
 5.  Parannus,  Sync.  /^'.  40 
 
 6.  Nahounnahus,  Sync.  ks.  25 
 
 7.  [Name  lost  20  ?] 
 
 8.  [Name  lost  19?] 
 
 9.  [Name  lost,  perhaps  AricBus,  20  ?] 
 
 Sum  of  the  years  of  the  ix  Arabs  245 
 
 V.  After  these,  beginning  from  a  date  (b.c.  1235)  a 
 little  later  than  Herodotus's  date  for  Troy,  29  years  before 
 the  end  of  the  Egyptian  Dyn.  XIX,  Berosus  enumerated 
 "  very  distinctly  xlv  Chaldaean  kings,"  whose  526  years,  with 
 the  name  of  Semiramis  near  their  commencement  and  that 
 of  Pul  after  their  end,  identify  them  with  the  kings  of  the 
 Assyrian  empire  of  520  years  in  Herodotus,  and  with  the 
 kings  of  the  list  of  Ctesias  from  Ninus  to  Sandanapalus. 
 The  whole  line  according  to  Berosus  began,  as  we  collect 
 from  other  sources,  in  B.C.  1235  and  terminated  in  B.C.  709, 
 having  had  the  short  average  of  only  llf4-  years  to  each 
 reign.  And  it  may  be  inferred  that  Ninus  the  first  king 
 (who  may  have  been  named  from  Nineveh,  but  not  Nineveh 
 from  him)  made  himself  master  of  Babylonia  and  of  Babylon 
 itself  (which  according  to  Ctesias,  however,  was  "  not  yet 
 founded")  6  years  after  his  accession,  that  is,  in  B.C.  2229. 
 And  from  this  event  the  520  years  of  Assyrian  empire  as 
 distinct  from  the  526  given  by  Berosus  are  to  be  reckoned. 
 
 How  far  any  of  the  acts  ascribed  to  Ninus  may  have  a 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  961 
 
 foundation  in  true  history  has  been  examined  already,  and 
 we  need  not  so  a  second  time  over  the  same  ^rround.  But 
 it  will  be  in  place  here  to  observe  that  the  first  circumstance 
 mentioned  by  Ctesias  of  Ninus,  namely  that  he  "  made  a 
 league  with  the  king  of  the  Arabs,  Ariaeus,"  may  be  con- 
 nected with  the  fact  that  according  to  Berosus  Ninus  of 
 Nineveh,  when  he  became  master  of  Babylon,  became  also  the 
 successor  of  a  line  of  ix  Arab  kings,  the  last  of  whom  must 
 have  been  therefore  his  own  contemporary.  It  may  seem 
 probable  then  that  the  king  of  the  Arabs,  Ariaeus,  with  whom 
 Ninus  allied  himself,  was  no  other  than  the  last  of  the  Arab 
 kings  of  Babylon,  whose  daughter  Ninus  may  have  married ; 
 and  in  her  right,  on  the  death  of  his  father-in-law,  he  may 
 have  claimed  the  succession.  This  too  would  make  it  pro- 
 bable that  any  rival  claimant  whom  he  defeated  and  took 
 prisoner  was  really  put  to  death,  as  Ctesias  related,  and  that 
 Babylon,  having  thus  been  annexed  to  Nineveh,  and  Media 
 too,  were  governed  thenceforth  by  satraps  rather  than  kings. 
 At  any  rate  Berosus,  who  down  to  this  point  of  time  seems 
 to  have  kept  close  to  Babylon,  passed  at  this  point  to  a 
 dynasty  which  certainly  reigned  in  Nineveh.  Another  point 
 worthy  of  attention  is  the  average  length  of  the  reigns, 
 which,  for  Berosus's  numbers  of  only  526  years  but  as  many 
 as  xlv  kings,  is  almost  too  low  for  probability,  so  as  to  have 
 suggested  to  some  the  idea  that  Berosus  may  have  here 
 clubbed  together  the  names  of  two  separate  lines  which 
 reigned  concurrently  in  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  while  the  years 
 specified  indicate  only  that  chronological  duration  which  was 
 common  to  them  both.  But  against  this  suggestion  it  is  to 
 be  observed,  first,  that  the  groups  or  dynasties  of  Berosus 
 vary  very  greatly  in  their  averages :  and  if  some  have  their 
 averages  very  short,  others  again  have  them  much  longer ; 
 and,  what  is  remarkable,  those  dynasties  which  as  consisting 
 of  native  Chaldteans  one  would  have  expected  him  to  favour 
 have  the  shorter  averages,  while  dynasties  of  strangers, 
 Medes  and  Arabs,  whom  one  would  have  expected  him  to 
 treat  with  disfavour,  have  the  longer.  Secondly,  the  short 
 averages  of  some  of  the  longer  dynasties  of  Berosus  are  ex- 
 tremely similar  to  those  which  occur  for  some  lines  of  the 
 
 3  Q 
 
962 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 early  Egyptian  kings  in  the  hieratic  papyri.  And  in  these 
 Egyptian  papyri,  too,  there  is  a  great  inequality  between  the 
 averages  of  diiFerent  lines  (irrespectively  of  the  Commandant- 
 kings),  those  of  Central  and  Upper  Egypt  having  their  ave- 
 rages much  longer  than  those  of  Lower.  And,  lastly,  the 
 Babylonian  reigns  ^vhich  are  exhibited  by  the  Astrono- 
 mical Canon,  from  B.C.  747  to  the  capture  of  Babylon  by 
 Cyrus  and  his  uncle  in  B.C.  538,  show  an  average  lower 
 even  than  that  of  the  xlv  kings  answering  to  the  Assyrian 
 empire  in  Berosus.  For  the  xxi  Babylonian  kings  of  the 
 Canon  alluded  to  reign  in  209  years — even  if  we  reckon  to 
 them  tw^o  interregna  of  2  and  8  years — not  quite  10  years 
 each.  It  is  not  safe  then  to  suppose  that  Berosus  has 
 clubbed  together  two  lines  merely  because  the  average  length 
 of  the  reigns  seems  small,  and  that  he  has  done  so  only 
 where  this  is  the  case ;  whereas,  if  it  were  part  of  his  plan 
 to  do  this  at  all,  there  were  kings  reigning  in  other  Chal- 
 dasan  cities  besides  Babylon  during  the  224  years  of  the 
 Median  tyrants,  and  during  all  the  245  years  of  the  Arabs, 
 whom  he  would  seem  to  have  omitted  for  no  reason.  Further, 
 the  reader  is  reminded  of  what  has  already  appeared  inci- 
 dentally, that  the  statement  of  Ctesias,  that  all  the  Assyrian 
 kings,  whether  xlv  or  only  xxxvi,  were  descended  from  Ninus 
 and  Semiramis,  and  followed  one  another  from  father  to 
 son  in  an  unbroken  series,  was  false.  Polyhistor  on  the  con- 
 trary, as  quoted  by  Agathias  and  Syncellus,  states  expressly 
 from  Berosus  that  the  descendants  of  Ninus  came  to  an  end 
 with  Beleoun  the  son  of  Dercetades  (who  was  seemingly  for 
 Berosus  the  20th  king)  ;  and  that  after  him  Balator  (whose 
 name  stands  19th  in  the  list  of  Ctesias),  who  had  been  over  the 
 palace  gardens,  succeeded  in  taking  to  himself  the  crown, 
 and  in  leaving  it  to  his  own  family  :  'E/SaaiXsvaav  ' A<7- 
 Gvpioi  diTO  NtVou  Kal  ^S[JbLpdfX£ws  f^s^po  ^sXsovv  ToO  AspKE- 
 rdSov.  Ets"  TOVTOV  yap  tov  ^ifiLpafjiScos  ysvovs  \r)^avTos, 
 'BsXtrapas  KrjiTovpjds  E^aalXsvas  koX  to  skslvov  yivos  k^rjs 
 jJbS'Xpi  XapBavaTToXXoVy  KaOd  B/covt  Koi  ^ A\s^dpSpa>  So/csl  tS 
 Tio\vt<TTOpL,  XapSavdiraWov  Bs  dvzlXsv  ^Apl3dKr)9  MijSos  Koi 
 ^sXsais  6  ^a/3vXd)i>t09,  koX  ixzTrpiayzv  sis  M-yjEovs  rrjv  fiaat' 
 Xslav.    'E^ao-iXsvaap  ovv  ol  ^ Kaavpioi  stt]  arf  '  ovrca  yap 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  963 
 
 {Sync,  p.  677,  cd.  Diiul.)  One  sees  here  how  Syncellus 
 begins  with  a  statement  from  Berosus  which  flatly  con- 
 tradicts Ctesias,  passes  on  to  particulars  derived  from  Cte- 
 sias  and  not  from  Berosus,  and  ends  with  quoting  Ctesias  by 
 name.  The  parallel  passage  of  Agathias  has  been  given  above 
 (p.  916).  It  appears  then  that  the  xlv  kings  of  Berosus 
 would  naturally  have  been  divided  into  two  groups  or 
 dynasties  but  for  this,  that  they  all  alike  belonged  to  the 
 period  of  the  Assyrian  empire  ;  and  on  this  ground  it  is  that 
 they  are  all  reckoned  together  as  only  one  dynasty.  And  it 
 is  probable  that  various  stories  relating  to  the  seclusion  and 
 effeminacy  of  the  last  king  Sardanapalus,  and  to  his  "  de- 
 thronement''^ or  death  without  the  more  usual  accompaniments 
 of  the  capture  of  Nineveh  and  the  burning  of  the  palace,  are 
 to  be  referred  to  the  last  descendant  of  Ninus,  Beleoun,  who 
 was  deprived  of  his  crown,  and  perhaps  of  his  life,  by 
 Balator. 
 
 That  the  names  of  Ctesias,  from  Ninus  to  Sardanapalus, 
 are  historical,  cannot  certainly  be  affirmed.  Of  those  latest 
 kings  of  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  empire  who  are  known 
 to  us  from  the  Scriptures,  as  Pul,  Tiglath-pilezer,  Shalma- 
 nezer,  Sargon,  Sennacherib,  and  Esarhaddon,  his  list  exhibits 
 no  trace.  Nor  do  the  names  Dercetades  and  Beleoun, 
 quoted  by  Agathias,  appear.  And  the  actual  loss  of  the 
 empire  by  Esarhaddon,  in  consequence,  it  may  be,  of  the 
 destruction  of  his  father's  army  —  according  to  the  Book  of 
 Judith  Media  was  in  insurrection  even  before  the  death  of 
 Sennacherib,  who  was  slain  only  forty-five  days  after  his 
 return — bears  no  resemblance  whatever  to  the  story  of  Sar- 
 danapalus, except  in  this,  that  Media  —  and  Babylon,  too, 
 perhaps— had  something  to  do  with  it.  But  the  continuance 
 of  Esarhaddon  and  his  successors,  as  powerful  kings  warring 
 in  Syria,  and  even  conquering  Egypt  more  than  once 
 (though  without  being  able  to  keep  it)  in  the  time  of  the 
 Ethiopian  Tirhakah,  agrees  perfectly  with  the  expressions  of 
 Herodotus,  while  the  ruins  of  the  palaces  of  Nineveh  re- 
 cently excavated  show  this  remarkable  distinction,  that  the 
 more  ancient  have  their   alabaster  sculptures  unharmed, 
 
964 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 while  the  latest  palaces — not  only  at  Nmeveh  but  elsewhere 
 too  —  were  manifestly  destroyed  by  fire,  so  as  to  hint 
 plainly — what  indeed  is  plain  on  the  very  face  of  his  own 
 story — that  Ctesias  anticipated  and  confused  with  the  loss 
 of  the  empire  the  final  capture  and  destruction  of  the  city  of 
 Nineveh  itself.  The  last  king,  then,  did  not  burn  himself 
 in  his  palace,  but  the  palace  was  burned  when  the  city  was 
 taken ;  and  at  the  same  time  the  king  may  have  been  slain 
 and  consumed  with  his  palace.  However,  as  the  names  of 
 Ctesias  must  have  come  from  some  source,  and  as  some  of 
 them,  as  Ninus  and  Semiramis  themselves,  and  Balator  and 
 Sardanapalus — though  this  last  name  seems  to  be  given  to 
 several  kings, — are  mentioned  by  Herodotus  and  Berosus, 
 there  is  nothing  to  forbid  our  taking  his  xxxvi  names  to 
 represent,  so  far  as  they  go,  the  xlv  of  Berosus.  They  may 
 indeed  be  given  in  a  very  corrupt  form,  and  Ctesias  perhaps 
 obtained  his  information  not  at  Babylon — still  less  at  Nine- 
 veh itself,  which  was  destroyed — but  at  the  capital  of  Persia; 
 but  the  fact  that  it  is  possible  to  recognise  in  the  later  of  his 
 Median  names  some  faint  traces  of  an  historical  origin 
 makes  in  favour  of  the  supposition  that  his  Assyrian  names 
 also  may  be  similar  corruptions.  For  in  the  ^r^ynas  of 
 Ctesias  there  is  part,  at  least,  of  the  name  Phr-^ar^-es,  in 
 Astavms  something  less  distinctly  derived  from  Cj-axar-es, 
 and  in  Asjt?ac?as,  the  mutes  p  and  d  are  the  substitutes 
 for  the  t  and  the  of  As^ya^es.  Between  Deioces  and  Ar- 
 tcEus  an  affinity  is  scarcely  to  be  discovered.  But  let  it  be 
 supposed  that  in  some  similar  way,  and  with  varying  degrees 
 of  corruption,  the  names  of  Ctesias,  from  Ninus  downwards, 
 may  be  connected  with  the  xlv  Chaldaean  kings  of  Berosus. 
 Then,  though  only  xxxvi  names  were  given  by  Ctesias,  the 
 full  number  of  the  xlv  of  Berosus  may  perhaps  be  still  re- 
 coverable. For  there  are  five  additional  names,  or  six  with 
 Belus  (who,  as  brought  down,  may  have  supplanted  another), 
 which  Eusebius,  in  his  First  Book,  gives  as  ancestors  of 
 Ninus  and  kings  of  Assyria  (though  without  reigns)  from 
 Abydenus.  And  these  names  must  have  been  taken  from 
 some  source.  And  Abydenus,  no  less  than  Polyhistor, 
 copied  directly  and  largely  from  Berosus,  tliough  he  mixed 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  965 
 
 up  in  his  own  work  contradictory  statements,  taken  partly 
 from  Berosus  and  partly  from  Cteslas,  as  has  been  pointed 
 out  by  Clinton.  These  five  additional  names,  then,  as  ex- 
 pressed, or  six  as  indicated,  though  placed  and  employed  so 
 as  to  suit  himself,  were  taken  probably  by  Abydenus  from 
 Berosus,  and  they  may  be  six  of  those  which  the  informants 
 of  Ctesias  omitted  in  order  to  obtain  their  enormous  average 
 of  36  years  and  over  for  each  king.  To  what  place  in  the 
 list  they  may  have  belonged  originally  it  is  useless  now  to 
 inquire ;  but  they  may  be  allowed  for  convenience  to  retain, 
 only  in  inverse  order,  the  same  places  below  Teutamus  and 
 Teutaeus  (the  26th  and  27th  names  of  Ctesias)  at  which 
 they  have  been  reinserted  by  Anianus  and  Syncellus.  Again, 
 between  the  18th  and  19th  reigns  of  Ctesias,  Eusebius  in 
 his  First  Book  gives  one,  and  in  his  Second  Book  a  second, 
 additional  name,  viz.  Tr aires and  Atossa,  or  Semira- 
 mis  11.^^  while  Castor,  or  whoever  was  the  original  Barbarus 
 of  Scallger,  has  in  the  8th  place  the  same  Atossa,  w^ith  a 
 reign  which  seems  to  be  a  consolidation  of  the  tw^o  given 
 separately  by  Eusebius,  viz.  23,  instead  of  (19  +  7  =)  24 
 years.  Or,  if  it  be  objected  that  Tr aires  and  Aiossa  are  pro- 
 bably one  and  the  same  person,  still  the  list  of  Syncellus 
 has  in  the  11th  place  (the  9th  after  Ninus),  a  name,  Sethos, 
 which  may  perhaps  represent  a  separate  king,  and  not  be 
 merely  a  variant  for  Aliadas,  in  whose  place  it  is  substituted. 
 And  without  either  Tratres,  or  Atossa,  or  Sethos,  Agathias 
 gives  us  from  Polyhistor  and  Berosus  himself,  two  names, 
 Derceiades  and  Beleoun,  as  the  immediate  predecessors  of 
 Balaiores,  and  these  two  names,  being  absent  from  all  the 
 lists  of  Ctesias,  may  be  restored.  And  at  the  end  of  all, 
 after  Sardanapalus,  Abydenus  and  Castor  had  a  Saracus,  or 
 Ninus  11,  So  there  are  in  all  nine  additional  names,  which 
 being  added  to  the  xxxvi  of  Ctesias  make  up  xlv.  On  this 
 view  one  may  make  out  a  conjectural  restoration  of  the 
 dilferent  schemes  of  Berosus  (though  in  the  case  of  Berosus 
 the  sum  only  may  be  his),  Ctesias,  Abydenus,  Castor,  Euse- 
 bius, Barbarus,  and  Syncellus,  such  notices  as  cannot  be 
 placed  within  the  parallel  columns  being  added  by  the  help 
 of  references  under  the  name  of  each  author  below  :  — 
 
966 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 BEROSUS. 
 
 CTESIAS. 
 
 ABYDENUS. 
 
 xlv  kings,  526  years,  from  B.C.  1235 
 to  B.C.  709? 
 
 Kxxvi  kings,  1306  years,  from 
 B.C.  2186  to  B.C.  880. 
 
 xxxix  reigns,  1368  years, 
 from  B.C.  2211  to  B  c.  (776 
 +67=)  843. 
 
 No. 
 
 to  B.C. 
 
 yrs. 
 
 No. 
 
 to  B.C. 
 
 yrs. 
 
 No. 
 
 to  B.C. 
 
 yrs. 
 
 Ntnus  B.C.  1235  to 
 
 1213, 
 
 22 
 
 2134, 
 
 xxx]xxii 
 
 2159, 
 
 52 
 
 ii. 
 
 Se^niramis 
 
 1201, 
 
 12 
 
 ii. 
 
 2092, 
 
 xxx]xii 
 
 ii. 
 
 21 17, 
 
 42 
 
 iii. 
 
 Ninyas  or  Zames? 
 
 1193, 
 
 8 
 
 iii. 
 
 2054, 
 
 xxx]viii 
 
 iii. 
 
 2079, 
 
 38 
 
 iv. 
 
 Arius? 
 
 1183, 
 
 10 
 
 iv. 
 
 2024, 
 
 xx]x 
 
 iv. 
 
 2049, 
 
 30 
 
 V. 
 
 Aralius  or  Amyrus  ? 
 
 1163, 
 
 20 
 
 V. 
 
 1964, 
 
 xxxx]xx 
 
 V. 
 
 1989, 
 
 60 
 
 vi. 
 
 Xerxes  or  Baleus  ? 
 
 1153, 
 
 10 
 
 vi. 
 
 1934, 
 
 xx]x 
 
 vi. 
 
 l'J59, 
 
 30 
 
 vii. 
 
 Armamithres  ? 
 
 1145, 
 
 8 
 
 vii. 
 
 1896, 
 
 xxx]viii 
 
 vii. 
 
 1921, 
 
 38 
 
 viii. 
 
 Belochus? 
 
 1130, 
 
 15 
 
 viii. 
 
 1861, 
 
 xx]xv 
 
 viii. 
 
 1886, 
 
 35 
 
 ix. 
 
 Balaeus  ? 
 
 1108, 
 
 22 
 
 ix. 
 
 1S09, 
 
 xxx]xxii 
 
 ix. 
 
 1834, 
 
 52 
 
 X. 
 
 Altadas?[Sethos,Sync.]  1103, 
 
 5 
 
 X. 
 
 1774, 
 
 xxx]v 
 
 X. 
 
 1784, 
 
 50? 
 
 xi. 
 
 Mamythus  ? 
 
 1093, 
 
 10 
 
 xi. 
 
 1744, 
 
 xx]x 
 
 xi. 
 
 1754, 
 
 30 
 
 xii. 
 
 Macchaleus  ? 
 
 1083, 
 
 10 
 
 xii. 
 
 1714, 
 
 xx]x 
 
 xii. 
 
 1724, 
 
 30 
 
 xiii. 
 
 Sphaerus  ? 
 
 1071, 
 
 12 
 
 xiii. 
 
 1692, 
 
 x]xii 
 
 xiii. 
 
 1702, 
 
 22 
 
 xiv. 
 
 Mamylus  ? 
 
 1066, 
 
 5 
 
 xiv. 
 
 1657, 
 
 xxx]v 
 
 xiv. 
 
 1667, 
 
 35 
 
 XV. 
 
 Sparaethus  ? 
 
 1054, 
 
 12 
 
 XV. 
 
 1615, 
 
 xxx]xii 
 
 XV. 
 
 1625, 
 
 42 
 
 xvi. 
 
 Ascatades  ? 
 
 1044, 
 
 10 
 
 xvi. 
 
 1=^75, 
 
 xxx]x 
 
 xvi. 
 
 1585, 
 
 40 
 
 XV  ii. 
 
 Amyntas  ? 
 
 1024, 
 
 20 
 
 xvii. 
 
 1525, 
 
 xxx]xx 
 
 xvii. 
 
 1535, 
 
 50 
 
 xviii. 
 
 Belochus  ? 
 
 1009, 
 
 15 
 
 xviii. 
 
 1480, 
 
 xxx]xv 
 
 xviii. 
 
 1490, 
 
 45 
 
 xix  ? 
 
 De.rcetades  \fi\.TrSi\Tes]  992, 
 
 17? 
 
 ... 
 
 xix. 
 
 1473, 
 
 17 
 
 XX? 
 
 ^t'/fOtt7j[AtossaSein.I 
 
 .]  985, 
 
 7? 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 XX. 
 
 14G6, 
 
 7 
 
 xxi? 
 
 Balatores 
 
 971, 
 
 14 
 
 xix. 
 
 1446, 
 
 xx]xiv 
 
 xxi. 
 
 1432, 
 
 34 
 
 xxii. 
 
 Lamprides  ? 
 
 959, 
 
 12 
 
 XX. 
 
 1414, 
 
 xx]xii 
 
 xxii. 
 
 1400, 
 
 32 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 Sosares  ? 
 
 949, 
 
 10 
 
 xxi. 
 
 1394, 
 
 x]x 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 1380, 
 
 20 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 Lampares  ? 
 
 939, 
 
 10 
 
 xxii. 
 
 1304, 
 
 xx]x 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 1350, 
 
 30 
 
 XXV. 
 
 Panyas  ? 
 
 924, 
 
 15 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 1319, 
 
 xxx]xv 
 
 XXV. 
 
 1305, 
 
 45 
 
 xxvi. 
 
 Sosarmus  ? 
 
 912, 
 
 12 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 1297, 
 
 x]xii 
 
 xxvi. 
 
 1283, 
 
 22 
 
 xxvii. 
 
 Mithrseus  ? 
 
 897, 
 
 15 
 
 XXV. 
 
 1262, 
 
 xx]xv 
 
 xxvii. 
 
 1248, 
 
 35 
 
 xxviii. 
 
 Teutamus  ? 
 
 885, 
 
 12 
 
 xxvi. 
 
 1230, 
 
 xx]xii 
 
 xxviii. 
 
 1216, 
 
 32 
 
 xxix. 
 
 Teutaeus  ? 
 
 875, 
 
 10 
 
 xxvii. 
 
 1190, 
 
 xxx]x 
 
 xxix. 
 
 1172, 
 
 44 
 
 XXX  ? 
 
 [Belus  substituted] 
 
 866, 
 
 9? 
 
 ... 
 
 0 
 
 xxxi  ? 
 
 Babius  ? 
 
 859, 
 
 7 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 /3'. 
 
 ... 
 
 0 
 
 xxxii  ? 
 
 Anebus  ? 
 
 851, 
 
 8 
 
 ... 
 
 y'- 
 
 ... 
 
 0 
 
 xxxiii  ? 
 
 Arabelus  ? 
 
 846, 
 
 5 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 I'. 
 
 0 
 
 xxxiv. 
 
 Chalaus? 
 
 844, 
 
 2 
 
 e'. 
 
 0 
 
 xxxv. 
 
 Arabelus  ? 
 
 838, 
 
 6 
 
 ... 
 
 r'. 
 
 0 
 
 xxxvi. 
 
 Thiiiaeus? 
 
 829, 
 
 9 
 
 xxviii. 
 
 1161, 
 
 xx]ix 
 
 XXX. 
 
 1143, 
 
 29 
 
 xxxvii. 
 
 Dercylus  ? 
 [Cercillus.  Barb.] 
 
 809, 
 
 20 
 
 xxix. 
 
 1121, 
 
 xx]xx 
 
 xxxi. 
 
 1103, 
 
 40 
 
 xxxviii. 
 
 Eupalmeus  ? 
 
 793, 
 
 16 
 
 XXX. 
 
 108.5, 
 
 xx]xvi 
 
 xxxii. 
 
 1067, 
 
 30 
 
 [EiipacmeSjSync.:  Eupalus, 
 Barb.] 
 
 xxxix. 
 
 Laostlienes 
 
 778, 
 
 15 
 
 xxxi. 
 
 1040, 
 
 xxx]xv 
 
 xxxiii. 
 
 1022, 
 
 45 
 
 xl. 
 
 Piritiades 
 
 768, 
 
 10 
 
 xxxii. 
 
 1010, 
 
 xx]x 
 
 xxxiv. 
 
 992, 
 
 30 
 
 xli. 
 
 Ophrataeus 
 
 758, 
 
 10 
 
 xxxiii. 
 
 990, 
 
 x]x 
 
 xxxv. 
 
 972, 
 
 20 
 
 xlii. 
 
 Ophratanes 
 [Ephecheres,  Sync] 
 
 738, 
 
 20 
 
 xxxiv. 
 
 940, 
 
 xxx]xx 
 
 xxxvi. 
 
 922, 
 
 50 
 
 xliii. 
 
 Acrazanes 
 
 728, 
 
 10 
 
 xxxv. 
 
 900, 
 
 xxx]x 
 
 xxxvii. 
 
 882, 
 
 40 
 
 [Acraganes,  Sync.  Acra- 
 pazus,  Barb.] 
 
 xliv. 
 
 Sardanapalus 
 
 718, 
 
 10 
 
 xxxvi. 
 
 880, 
 
 x]x 
 
 xxxviii. 
 
 862, 
 
 20 
 
 [Thonos  Concoleros  or 
 Said.  Sync.  &  Barb.] 
 
 xlv. 
 
 Saracus[NinusII.  Barb.]  709, 
 
 9 
 
 xxxix. 
 
 843, 
 
 19 
 
 526 
 
 850+456="  1306" 
 
 1306+62?=  1368  ? 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES. 
 
 967 
 
 CASTOR. 
 
 xxxviii  reigns,  1280  years, 
 from  B.C.  2123  to  B.C.  (TTC) 
 +67  =  )  843. 
 
 EUSEBIUS. 
 xxxvi  kings,  1238  years, 
 from  B.C.  2058  to  B.C.  820. 
 
 BAKBARU.S. 
 
 xxxix  reigns,  1430  ye.irs. 
 from  B.C.  2273  to  B.C.  (776 
 +67  =  )  843. 
 
 ANIANUS  &  SYNCEL. 
 xii  reigns,  1460  yrs.  from 
 B.C.  2286  to  B.C.  826. 
 
 No. 
 
 to  B.C. 
 
 yr«. 
 
 No. 
 
 to  B.C. 
 
 yrs. 
 
 No. 
 
 to  B.C. 
 
 yrs. 
 
 No. 
 
 to  B.C.  yrs. 
 
 i. 
 
 2071, 
 
 52 
 
 i- 
 
 2006, 
 
 52 
 
 ii. 
 
 2159, 
 
 52 
 
 ii. 
 
 2179,  52 
 
 ii. 
 
 2029, 
 
 42 
 
 ii. 
 
 1964, 
 
 42 
 
 iii. 
 
 2117, 
 
 42 
 
 iii. 
 
 2137,  42 
 
 iii. 
 
 1991, 
 
 38 
 
 iii. 
 
 1926, 
 
 38 
 
 iv. 
 
 2079, 
 
 38 
 
 iv. 
 
 2099,  38 
 
 iv. 
 
 1961, 
 
 30 
 
 iv. 
 
 1896, 
 
 30 
 
 V. 
 
 2049, 
 
 30 
 
 V. 
 
 2069,  30 
 
 V. 
 
 1921, 
 
 40 
 
 v. 
 
 1856, 
 
 40 
 
 vi.  40. 
 
 1989, 
 
 00? 
 
 vi. 
 
 2029,  40 
 
 vi. 
 
 1891, 
 
 30 
 
 vi. 
 
 1826, 
 
 30 
 
 vii. 
 
 1959, 
 
 30 
 
 vii. 
 
 1999,  30 
 
 vii. 
 
 1853, 
 
 38 
 
 vii. 
 
 1788, 
 
 38 
 
 viii. 
 
 1921, 
 
 38 
 
 viii. 
 
 1961,  38 
 
 viii. 
 
 1818, 
 
 35 
 
 viii. 
 
 1753, 
 
 35 
 
 ix. 
 
 1886, 
 
 35 
 
 ix. 
 
 1926,  35 
 
 ix. 
 
 1766, 
 
 52 
 
 ix. 
 
 1701, 
 
 52 
 
 X. 
 
 1834, 
 
 52 
 
 X. 
 
 1874,  52 
 
 X. 
 
 1734, 
 
 32 
 
 X. 
 
 1669, 
 
 32 
 
 xi. 
 
 1799, 
 
 35 
 
 xi. 
 
 1842,  32 
 
 xi. 
 
 1704, 
 
 30 
 
 xi. 
 
 1639, 
 
 30 
 
 xii. 
 
 1769, 
 
 30 
 
 xii. 
 
 1812,  30 
 
 xii. 
 
 1674, 
 
 30 
 
 xii. 
 
 1609, 
 
 30 
 
 [xiii. 
 
 1739, 
 
 30] 
 
 xiii. 
 
 1784,  28 
 
 xiii. 
 
 16.52, 
 
 22 
 
 xiii. 
 
 1589, 
 
 20 
 
 xiv.  20. 
 
 1717, 
 
 22? 
 
 xiv. 
 
 1762,  22 
 
 xiv. 
 
 1622, 
 
 30 
 
 xiv. 
 
 15.59, 
 
 30 
 
 XV. 
 
 1682, 
 
 35 
 
 XV. 
 
 1732,  30 
 
 XV. 
 
 1582, 
 
 40 
 
 XV. 
 
 15)9, 
 
 40 
 
 xvi.  40. 
 
 1640, 
 
 42? 
 
 xvi. 
 
 1690,  42 
 
 xvi. 
 
 1542, 
 
 40 
 
 xvi. 
 
 1479, 
 
 40 
 
 xvii. 
 
 1600, 
 
 40 
 
 xvii. 
 
 1652,  38 
 
 xvii. 
 
 1497, 
 
 45 
 
 xvii. 
 
 1434, 
 
 45 
 
 xviii. 
 
 1550, 
 
 50 
 
 xviii. 
 
 1607,  45 
 
 xviii. 
 
 1452, 
 
 45 
 
 xviii. 
 
 1409, 
 
 25 
 
 XX.  25. 
 
 1482, 
 
 45? 
 
 xix. 
 
 1582,  25 
 
 xix. 
 
 1435, 
 
 17 
 
 ... 
 
 xix. 
 
 1527, 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 XX. 
 
 1405, 
 
 30 
 
 xix. 
 
 1379, 
 
 30 
 
 xxi. 
 
 1448, 
 
 34 
 
 ... 
 
 XX. 
 
 
 
 15.52,  30 
 
 xxi. 
 
 1373, 
 
 32 
 
 XX. 
 
 1347, 
 
 32 
 
 xxii. 
 
 1416, 
 
 32 
 
 xxL 
 
 1522,  30 
 
 xxii. 
 
 1353, 
 
 20 
 
 xxi. 
 
 1327, 
 
 20 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 1396, 
 
 20 
 
 xxii. 
 
 1502,  20 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 1323, 
 
 30 
 
 xxii. 
 
 1297, 
 
 30 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 1366, 
 
 30 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 1472,  30 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 1281, 
 
 42 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 1252, 
 
 45 
 
 XXV. 
 
 1321, 
 
 45 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 1427,  45 
 
 XXV. 
 
 1262, 
 
 19 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 1233, 
 
 19 
 
 xxvi.  20. 
 
 1299, 
 
 22? 
 
 XXV. 
 
 1405,  22 
 
 xxvi. 
 
 1235, 
 
 27 
 
 XXV. 
 
 1206, 
 
 27 
 
 xxvii. 
 
 1264, 
 
 35 
 
 xxvi. 
 
 1378,  27 
 
 xxvii. 
 
 1203, 
 
 32 
 
 xxvi. 
 
 1175, 
 
 31 
 
 xxviii. 
 
 1232, 
 
 32 
 
 xxvii. 
 
 1346,  32 
 
 xxviii.40 
 
 1159, 
 
 44? 
 
 xxvii. 
 
 1135, 
 
 40 
 
 xxix.  40. 
 
 1188, 
 
 44? 
 
 xxviii. 
 
 1302,  44 
 
 a'. 
 
 0 
 
 i. 
 
 2211, 
 
 62 
 
 2231,  55 
 
 ... 
 
 xxxii. 
 
 1140,  37 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 xxxi. 
 
 1177,  38 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 xxix. 
 
 1260,  42 
 
 XXX, 
 
 1215,  45 
 
 xxix. 
 
 1129, 
 
 30 
 
 xxviii. 
 
 110.5, 
 
 30 
 
 XXX.  29. 
 
 1158, 
 
 30? 
 
 xxxiii. 
 
 1110,  30 
 
 XXX. 
 
 1089, 
 
 40 
 
 xxix. 
 
 1065, 
 
 40 
 
 xxxi. 
 
 1118, 
 
 40 
 
 xxxiv. 
 
 1070,  40 
 
 1051 
 
 38 
 
 XXX. 
 
 1027, 
 
 38 
 
 .\xxii.  36. 
 
 1080, 
 
 38? 
 
 XX  xii 
 
 1006, 
 
 45 
 
 xxxi. 
 
 982, 
 
 45 
 
 xxxiii. 
 
 1035, 
 
 45 
 
 xxxvi. 
 
 987,  45 
 
 976, 
 
 30 
 
 xxxii. 
 
 952, 
 
 30 
 
 xxxiv. 
 
 1005, 
 
 30 
 
 XXX  vji. 
 
 957,  30 
 
 xxxiv. 
 
 955, 
 
 21 
 
 xxxiii. 
 
 932, 
 
 20 
 
 XXXV.  20. 
 
 984, 
 
 21? 
 
 xxxviii. 
 
 936,  21 
 
 XXXV. 
 
 905, 
 
 50 
 
 xxxiv. 
 
 882, 
 
 50 
 
 xxxvi. 
 
 934, 
 
 50 
 
 xxxix. 
 
 884,  52 
 
 xxxvi. 
 
 863, 
 
 42 
 
 XXXV. 
 
 840, 
 
 42 
 
 xxxvii.  40. 
 
 892, 
 
 42? 
 
 xl. 
 
 842,  42 
 
 xxxvii. 
 
 843, 
 
 20 
 
 xxxvi. 
 
 820, 
 
 20 
 
 xxxviii. 
 
 862, 
 
 30 
 
 xii. 
 
 826,  16 
 
 xxxviii. 
 
 xxxix. 
 
 843, 
 
 19 
 
 1.306- 
 
 26="  1280" 
 
 1280—42  =  "  1238  " 
 
 1368+62 
 
 =  "  1430  " 
 
 1368  +  92 
 
 ="  1460  ' 
 
 3  Q  4 
 
968 
 
 ArPEJ^DIX. 
 
 In  the  first  of  the  preceding  columns,  that  of  Berosus,  the 
 names  in  italics  are  the  few  which  are  known  to  be  his ;  one, 
 that  of  Bchis,  which  stands  30th,  is  certainly  not  his,  at  least 
 not  as  the  name  of  a  king,  but  it  may  have  been  substituted 
 for  another  by  Abydenus  when  he  prefixed  it,  with  five  other 
 names  possibly  derived  from  Berosus,  before  that  of  the  first 
 king.  That  the  whole  series  of  these  six  names  in  the  order 
 of  Abydenus  is  inserted  in  our  first  column  so  as  to  be  num- 
 bered from  30  to  35  inclusively,  is  owing  to  the  accident  that 
 Anianus  and  Syncellus  had  chosen  this  place  for  four  out  of 
 the  six  which  they  insert,  tliough  in  the  contrary  order  to 
 that  of  Abydenus,  between  Teutaeus  and  Thinaeus,  one  of 
 the  six  being  omitted  by  them,  and  Belus  being  placed,  as  the 
 first  king  and  father  of  Ninus,  at  the  head  of  all.  The  mark 
 of  interrogation  afiixed  generally  to  the  names  in  the  first 
 column  means  that  though  they  may  be  taken  for  convenience, 
 and  in  the  absence  of  any  others,  as  substitutes  to  represent 
 the  xlv  names  of  Berosus,  they  are  not  to  be  supposed  with- 
 out further  proof  to  be  even  corruptions  of  the  true  historical 
 names.  The  19th  and  20th  names,  Dercetades  and  Beleoun, 
 are  inserted  where  they  stand,  because  they  are  quoted  from 
 Berosus  and  Polyhistor  as  the  immediate  precedessors  of 
 Balator.  The  female  name,  or  possibly  the  two  female  names, 
 of  *^  Tratres,  daughter  "  of  the  preceding  king,  and  "  Ba- 
 dossa  "  or  "  Semiramis  II.,"  which  occur  in  this  same  place, 
 the  one  of  them  with  17  years  in  Book  1.  the  other  with  7 
 years  in  Book  II.  of  Eusebius,  are  not  necessarily  dislodged 
 by  the  insertion  of  Dercetades  and  Beleoun  between  Belochus 
 and  Balator ;  since  it  may  be  supposed  that  Balator  in 
 founding  a  new  line  connected  himself  through  these  female 
 names  with  Belochus  and  the  earlier  kings.  The  two  names 
 in  question,  or  at  least  the  two  reigns  of  17  and  7  years,  seem 
 to  be  consolidated  in  the  list  of  Barbarus,  where  Atossa  or 
 Semiramis  II.  stands  nearly  in  the  same  place,  only  before 
 instead  of  after  Belochus,  with  23  years.  In  spite  of  the 
 apparent  identification  of  one  name,  Balator ^  it  makes 
 ajrainst  the  idea  that  the  names  of  Ctesias  are  historical,  that 
 there  is  no  trace  of  resemblance  between  any  of  the  latest 
 among  them  and  those  of  Pul,  Tiglath-pilezer,  Shalmanezer, 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  969 
 
 Sargon,  and  Sennacherib,  which  are  known  to  us  from  the 
 Scriptures  and  the  monuments ;  while  some  of  Ctesias's 
 names  have  a  very  Greek  look,  as  SphcBrus,  Amyntas,  and 
 Laosthenes,  and  others  are  Persian,  as  Xerxes,  Arrna-mithres, 
 Atossa,  and  MithrcBus.  It  will  be  perceived  that  the  xlv 
 names  placed  in  the  first  column  are  represented  in  each  of 
 the  other  columns  by  the  first  numerals,  which  show,  each  in 
 its  own  column,  the  place  of  that  one  of  the  names  in  the  first 
 column  with  which  it  is  parallel. 
 
 In  the  second  column,  the  column  of  Ctesias,  the  number 
 of  60  years  given  conjecturally  to  its  5th  reign  is  from  a 
 variant  in  Lib.  I.  of  Eusebius.  Those  of  35  for  the  10th 
 arid  14th  and  of  50  for  the  17th  are  from  the  list  of  Bar- 
 barus.  That  of  42  for  the  15th  is  from  the  list  of  Anianus  and 
 Syncellus,  which  seems  in  this  and  some  other  instances  to 
 have  preserved  the  original  figures  of  Abydenus  and  Bar- 
 barus.  The  figures  of  the  remaining  reigns  are  from  the  list 
 of  Castor  as  given  by  Eusebius  in  his  First  Book. 
 
 Of  those  reigns  in  the  column  of  Abydenus  which  differ 
 from  the  corresponding  reigns  of  Castor  as  given  by  Euse- 
 bius one  only,  the  10th  with  50  years,  is  from  a  variant  of 
 Syncellus,  who  gives  50  years  for  "  Sethos"  a  name  substi- 
 tuted by  him  for  Altadas,  though  in  his  actual  canon  or 
 parallel  enumeration  of  reigns  he  makes  out  for  him  only  32. 
 The  rest  are  all  from  Barbarus,  whose  list,  with  the  addition 
 only  of  a  reign  of  62  years  for  Belus  at  the  top,  seems  to 
 have  been  that  of  Abydenus. 
 
 In  the  column  for  Castor,  which  is  from  Lib.  I.  of  Euse- 
 bius, there  is  nothing  to  be  noticed  beyond  this,  that  44  years 
 instead  of  40  are  given  from  Syncellus  to  the  29th  reign,  as 
 seeming  to  be  required  by  the  sum  total  given  by  Castor 
 himself ;  and  that  Eusebius  intending  to  work  u])  this  list, 
 with  some  slight  reduction,  in  his  Canon,  appropriates  it  by 
 anticipation  in  his  First  Book,  and  attaches  to  some  of  the 
 reigns,  or  retains  as  attached  to  them  by  Castor,  certain  syn- 
 chronisms, as  at  the  19th  reign  that  of  "Bacchus  and  Perseus;" 
 and  at  the  23rd  he  adds,  "  Sub  hoc  Argonautas  et  Hercules;" 
 at  the  26th,  "  Ilion,"  &c. ;  at  the  30th,  "  David,"  a  synchron- 
 ism which  is  plainly  his  own;  and  at  the  36th,  ^^Lycurgus." 
 
970 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 It  may  here  be  remarked  in  passing  that  when  Clemens  of 
 Alexandria  writes,  as  he  does  in  one  place,  that  ^'  the  As- 
 syrian nation  w^as  older  than  the  Greek ;  and  that  it  was  in 
 the  402nd  [302nd]  year  of  the  Assyrians,  in  the  32nd  of 
 Belochus  the  8th  king,  when  Amosis  was  reigning  in  Egypt 
 and  Inachus  at  Argos,  that  Moses  led  the  Exodus  of  the 
 Hebrews,"  this  synchronism,  which  puts  Amosis  and  the 
 Exodus  as  high  as  B.  C.  (2123  —  302  =  )  1821,  and  which  is 
 entirely  unlike  what  Clemens  himself  gives  elsewhere,  refers 
 in  truth  only  to  Inachus.  The  Exodus  having  been  con- 
 nected by  Ptolemy  and  others  with  Amosis,  and  both  the 
 Exodus  and  Amosis  with  Inachus,  the  Exodus  and  Amosis 
 were  liable  to  be  drawn  up  together,  per  consequens,  to  what- 
 ever date  seemed  proper  to  be  given  to  Inachus.  In  just  the 
 same  way  we  have  seen  above  (p.  749)  Africanus  drawing 
 up  the  date  of  the  Exodus  and  Amosis  to  B.  c.  1796,  in  spite 
 of  the  manifest  contradiction  of  his  own  Egyptian  list. 
 
 In  the  column  for  Eusebius  the  reductions  observable  in 
 some  of  the  reigns  were  made  by  him,  no  doubt,  in  order  to 
 bring  down  a  little  the  reign  of  Ninus,  so  that  it  might  not 
 be  quite  out  of  contact  with  the  years  of  Abraham.  So  he 
 adds  to  Ninus  the  note  "  Sub  hoc  Abraham  vixisse  constat ;" 
 and  makes  the  43rd  year  of  Ninus  to  coincide  with  the  1st  of 
 Abraham.  Against  the  16th  reign  he  marks  "  Sub  hoc  fuit 
 Moses  legislator." 
 
 In  the  column  of  Barbarus  some  variants  are  introduced 
 as  being  needed  to  make  out  the  sum  given  by  him,  viz., 
 "  60  years,"  as  if  from  Ctesias  and  Abydenus,  instead  of  40 
 for  the  5th  reign ;  and  from  Anianus  and  Syncellus  22,  42, 
 22,  44,  30,  38,  21,  and  42,  instead  of  20,  40,  20,  40,  29,  36, 
 21,  and  40  years  for  his  14th,  16th,  26th,  29th,  30th,  32nd, 
 35th,  and  37th  reigns  respectively:  and,  lastly,  45  instead  of 
 25  from  Abydenus  and  Castor  for  his  20th  reign. 
 
 The  augmentations  made  to  some  reigns  in  the  column  of 
 Anianus  and  Syncellus,  whether  by  returning  to  the  higher 
 figures  of  Ctesias  or  Abydenus  (which  had  been  curtailed 
 first  by  Castor,  and  afterw^ards  again  by  Eusebius),  or  by 
 arbitrary  variations  of  their  own,  need  no  comment,  since 
 their  purpose  in  amplifying,  like  that  of  Eusebius  in  curtail- 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  971 
 
 ing,  is  rendered  clear  by  the  nature  of  their  chronological 
 scheme. 
 
 VI.  That  the  xlv  Chaldaian  kings  of  Berosus  were  really 
 contemporary  with  the  Assyrian  empire  is  rendered  probable 
 both  by  the  close  agreement  of  their  whole  duration  of  526 
 years  with  that  of  520  specified  for  the  empire  by  Herodotus, 
 and  also  by  the  circumstance  that  Berosus  himself  distinctly 
 stated  that  in  point  of  lineal  succession  they  were  not  one 
 dynasty  only,  but  two.  And  if  they  ended,  as  has  been  sup- 
 posed above,  in  B.C.  709,  when  after  the  disaster  of  Senna- 
 cherib, whether  before  (as  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  book 
 of  Judith)  or  after  his  death,  Media  revolted,  it  will  follow 
 that  either  Sennacherib  himself  is  the  45th  king  of  Berosus 
 (the  25th  he  is  called  in  an  extract  from  Abydenus),  and  so 
 enters,  as  one  element  at  least,  into  the  composition  of  the 
 fabulous  Sardanapalus  of  Ctesias,  or  else,  if  Esarhaddon  be 
 the  45th  and  last  king  of  the  empire  in  Berosus,  answering 
 so  far  to  Ninus  II.  or  Saracus, — though  Ninus  II.  is  no  doubt 
 more  properly  the  last  king  before  the  destruction  of  the 
 city,  —  his  name  only  must  have  been  included,  while  his 
 reign,  all  but  some  short  space  at  its  commencement,  must 
 belong  to  a  distinct  and  later  series,  that  is,  to  the  continua- 
 tion of  the  kings  of  Assyria  and  Nineveh  after  their  loss  of 
 the  empire.  For  this  continuation  as  given  by  Berosus,  if  we 
 place  the  reign  of  Esarhaddon  at  its  head,  we  have  only  im- 
 perfect notices  in  passages  quoted  by  Josephus  and  Eusebius 
 from  Polyhistor  and  Abydenus.  The  principal  of  these, 
 which  is  from  Polyhistor,  is  given  in  the  old  Armenian  ver- 
 sion of  Eusebius  thus  ;  — 
 
 "  A  Xisuthro  et  a  diluvio  donee  Medi  Babylonem  occu- 
 parunt  summam  regum  Ixxxvi  supputat  Polyhistor,  gingu- 
 losque  nominatim  e  Berosi  libro  recenset.  Ex  horum  autem 
 omnium  cBtatibus  annos  conficit  33,091  [34,080].  Post  hos, 
 qui  successione  inconcussa  regnum  obtinuerant,  derepente 
 Medos  collectis  copiis  Babylonem  cepisse  ait,  ibique  de  suis 
 tyrannos  constituisse.  Hinc  nomina  quoque  tyrannorum 
 Medorum  edisserit  viii,  annosque  eorum  224  ;  ac  rursus  xi 
 reges  et  annos  48  ;  tum  et  Chaldseos  reges  xlix,  annosque 
 458  ;  postea  et  Arabes  ix  reges  annosque  eorum  245.  Horum 
 
972 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 annorum  recensione  perscrlpta,  de  Semiramide  quoque  narrat, 
 quas  iraperitavit  Assyriis :  rursumque  distincte  admodum 
 iiomina  regum  xlv  enumerat,  iisque  annos  tribuit  526. 
 Post  hos  ait  extltisse  ChaldcBorum  reo;em  cui  nomen  Phulus 
 erat,  quern  Hebraeorum  quoque  historia  memorat,  quemque 
 item  Phulum  appellat.  Hie  Judoeam  invasisse  dicitur. 
 Deinde  Polyhistor  Seneclieribum  regno  potitum  esse  ait ; 
 quem  quidem  Hebraeorum  libri  regnantem  referuntimperante 
 Hezechia  et  prophetante  Isaia.  Ait  autem  diserte  divinus 
 liber  ^Anno  xiv  Ezechia^  regis  ascendisse  Seneclieribum  ad 
 iirbes  Judaeae  munitas.'  Et  quidem  Seneclieribum  cum  ejus 
 filio  Asordane  necnon  Marudacho  Baldane  Chaldasorum  quo- 
 que historiograpbus  memorat ;  cum  quibus  etiam  Nabuchodo- 
 nosorum,  ut  mox  dicetur.  Hac  autem  ratione  de  iis  scribit. 
 ^Postquam  regno  defunctus  est  Senecheribi  frater,  et 
 post  Hagisae  in  Babylonios  dominationem,  qui  quidem  non- 
 dum  expleto  30°  imperii  die  a  Marudacho  Baldane  interemp- 
 tus  est,  Marudachus  ipse  Baldanes  tyrannidem  invasit 
 mensibus  vi,  donee  eum  sustulit  vir  quidam  nomine  Elibus, 
 qui  et  in  regnum  successit.  Hoc  postremo  annum  jam  ter- 
 tium  regnante  Senecheribus  rex  Assyriorum  copias  adversus 
 Babylonios  contrahebat,  praelioque  cum  eis  conserto  supe- 
 rior evadebat,  captumque  Elibum  cum  familiaribus  ejus 
 in  Assyriam  transferri  jubebat.  Is  igitur  Babyloniorum 
 potitus  filium  suum  Asordanem  eis  regem  imponebat,  ipse 
 autem  in  Assyriam  reditum  maturabat.  Mox  quum  ad 
 ejus  aures  rumor  esset  perlatus  Grascos  in  Ciliciam  coactis 
 copiis  bellum  transtulisse,  eos  protenus  aggressus  est,  prae- 
 lioque inito,  multis  suorum  amissis,  hostes  nihilominus  pro- 
 fiigavit ;  suamque  imaginem,  ut  esset  victoriae  monumentum, 
 eo  loco  erectam  reliquit,  cui  Chaldaicis  litteris  res  a  se  gestas 
 insculpi  mandavit.  Tarsum  quoque  urbem  ab  eo  structam 
 ait  ad  Babylonis  exemplar,  eidemque  nomen  inditum  Thar- 
 sin.  Jam  et  reliquis  Senecberimi  gestis  perscriptis  subdit 
 eum  annis  vixisse  regnantem  18,  donee  eidem  structis  a  filio 
 Ardumuzane  insidiis  extinctus  est.  Hasc  Polyhistor.  Sane 
 etiam  tempora  cum  narratione  divinorumlibrorum  congruunt. 
 Sub  Ezechia  enim  Senecherimus  regnavit,  uti  Polyhistor 
 innuit,  annis  18  ;  post  quem  ejusdem  filius  annis  8  ;  turn  annis 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  973 
 
 21  Sammughes  ;  itemque  hujus  frater  21;  deinde  Nabopulas- 
 sarus  annis  20 ;  deinde  Nabuchodrosorus  43  ;  ita  ut  a  Sene- 
 clierimo  ad  Nabuchodrosorum  88  anni  excurrant.  Jam  si 
 quis  Hebraiorum  libros  scrutctur,  paria  dictis  inveniet;  nam- 
 que  post  Ezechiam  residuis  Judaeis  Manasses  imperat  annis 
 55;  deinde  Amosus  annis  12  [2];  turn  Josias  31;  postea 
 Joachimus,  sub  cujus  regni  primordiis  occupaturus  Hiero- 
 eolyma  Nabucliodonosorus  supervenit.  Atqui  ab  Ezechi^ 
 ad  Nabuchodonosorum  anni  excurrunt  88,  quotquot  nimirum 
 Polyhistor  ex  historia  Chaldaica  supputavit.  His  omnibus 
 absolutis,  pergit  denuo  Polyhistor  res  aliquot  etiam  a  Sene- 
 cheribo  gestas  exponere,  deque  hujus  filio  eadem  plane  ratione 
 scribit  qua  libri  Hebraiorum  ;  accurateque  admodum  cuncta 
 edisserit.  Pythagoras  sapiens  fertur  ea  tempestate  sub  his 
 regibus  extitisse.  Jam  post  Sammughen  imperitavit  Chal- 
 daeis  Sardanapallus  21  annis.  Is  ad  Asdahagem,  qui  erat 
 Medicae  gentis  prasses  et  Satrapa,  copias  auxiliares  misit, 
 videlicet  ut  filio  suo  Nabucodrossoro  desponderet  Amuhiam 
 e  filiabus  Asdahagis  unam.  Deinde  Nabucodrossorus  domi- 
 natus  est  annis  43."  The  parallel  and  in  some  respects  dif- 
 ferent passage  of  Abydenus  has  already  been  transcribed 
 above  at  p.  314. 
 
 Those  lists,  then,  which  seem  to  be  given  as  if  from 
 Berosus  by  Polyhistor  and  by  Abydenus  respectively  "  after 
 Semiramis  and  the  xlv  kings  "  of  the  empire,  with  their  "  526 
 years,"  are  as  follows  :  — 
 
 Polyhistor. 
 
 1.  Pul        -       -       -  Yrs.  —  ? 
 
 2.  Senecherimus,  reduced  Ba- 
 
 bylon, taking  Elibus  pri- 
 soner, whose  3rd  year  it 
 then  was,  and  set  his  son 
 Asordanes  over  Babylon. 
 Afterwards  he  warred,  not 
 without  some  loss,  in  Ci- 
 licia  against  the  Greeks 
 [i.  e.  on  account  of  Ci- 
 tium  ?]  set  up  his  tro- 
 phies, and  founded  Tar- 
 sus :  was  slain  by  his  son 
 Ardamuzanes  after  reign- 
 ing years       -       -       -  18 
 
 Abydenus. 
 [1.   -       -       -  Yrs.  — ] 
 
 2.  Se7iecheribus,ihe  25th  king, 
 who  subdued  Babylon 
 and  defeated  a  fleet  of 
 the  Greeks  on  the  coast 
 of  Cilicia;  set  up  brazen 
 trophies  or  statues  with 
 inscription ;  and  founded 
 Tarsus.  [Nergilus,  the 
 king  who  succeeds  in  this 
 list  of  Abydenus,  is  a 
 plain  reduplication  of 
 this  king,  as  he  is  said  to 
 be  slain  by  his  son  Ad- 
 rammelech.] 
 
974 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 3. 
 
 The  son  of  the  preceding 
 [who  was  really  not 
 Adrammelech  but  Esar- 
 haddon]  - 
 
 Sammughes  [he  seems  to 
 be  out  of  place  here, 
 like  Nergilus  in  the  list 
 of  Abydenus] 
 
 The  brother  of  the  preceding. 
 [Among  the  Greek  kings 
 of  Cyprus,  vassals  of 
 Esarhaddon,  one  named 
 Pythagoi-as  is  mentioned 
 as  king  of  Idalium] 
 
 6. 
 
 Then  Nabopulassar  20" 
 (24  rather).  "After  Sam- 
 mughes [and  *'  his  bro- 
 ther"?] Sardanapallus  " 
 [who  so  is  one  with  Na- 
 bopolassar]  "reigned 21 
 years."  He  sent  to  As- 
 tyages  to  ask  one  of  his 
 daughtei's  for  his  son 
 Nabuchadnezzar 
 7.  Then  Nabuchodrossorus 
 or  Nabuchodonosorus 
 [who  as  succeeding  Sar- 
 danapalus  isparallel  with 
 Saracus  of  Abydenus] 
 reigned  years 
 
 [Total  sum  of  years  from 
 the  accession  of  Sene- 
 cherimus 
 
 21 
 
 21 
 
 21 
 
 43 
 
 132] 
 
 3.  Nergilus  succeeded, 
 was  slain  by  his 
 Adrameles  - 
 
 who 
 
 4.  -4c?mw2e/cs,  son  of  Nergilus; 
 
 slain  by  his  brother  Ax- 
 erdis  -       -       -  - 
 
 5.  Axerdis,  brother  of  Adra- 
 
 meles, after  slaying  him, 
 pursued  his  mercenaries 
 (among  whom  was  Py- 
 thagoras as  far  as 
 Byzantium;  he  also  con- 
 quered Egypt 
 
 6.  Then  Sardanapallus,  who 
 
 was  succeeded  by  Sara- 
 cus. [If  Nergilus  and 
 Adrameles  are  both  to  be 
 suppressed  above,  Axer- 
 dis will  stand  for  Esar- 
 haddon, and  two  reigns 
 will  be  wanting  below 
 him,]  -       -       -  . 
 
 7.  Saracus,  who  sent  Busa- 
 
 lassor  to  Babylon.  But 
 he,  having  married  the 
 daughter  of  Astyages  to 
 his  son,  attacked  Nine- 
 veh, and  Saracus  burned 
 himself  with  his  palace. 
 Then  Nebuchadnezzar 
 built  the  walls  of  Baby- 
 lon    -       -       -  . 
 
 parallel,  having  each  the 
 Sennacherib  to  Sardana- 
 
 These  two  lists  appear  to  be 
 same  number  of  five  kings  from 
 pallus,  both  being  included,  describing  the  3rd  successor  of 
 Sennacherib  as  brother  of  the  preceding,"  and  having  the 
 same  names,  Sennacherib  and  Sardanapallus,  for  the  first 
 and  last  kings  of  the  five.  But  Polyhistor  confounds  Sarda- 
 napallus, the  last  king  but  one  of  Nineveh,  with  Nabopo- 
 lassar  king  of  Babylon,  the  father  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  who 
 was  really  a  generation  later  and  contemporary  with  the 
 Saracus  of  Abydenus.  And  he  substitutes  a  daughter  of 
 Astyages  for  a  daughter  of  Cyaxares,  and  the  name  of  Nebu- 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  975 
 
 chadnezzar  son  of  Nabopolassar,  with  his  long  reign  of  43 
 years,  for  that  of  Saracus  the  last  king  of  Nineveh,  which 
 he  omits  altogether.  The  reigns,  too,  not  only  those  of 
 "  Nabopolassar  "  or  "  Sardanapallus,"  and  his  son,  of  "  20  " 
 or  "21"  and  "43"  years  respectively,  but  also  the  two 
 preceding  these  of  21  years  each  (or  42  if  thrown  together), 
 though  attached  to  the  names  of  two  kings  of  Nineveh,  seem 
 to  be  really  from  the  Babylonian  list ;  so  that  the  true  his- 
 torical reigns  of  the  last  four  or  five  kings  of  Nineveh  (since 
 Abydenus  gives  no  figures)  remain  unknown,  and  are  to  be 
 sought  only  from  the  monuments. 
 
 If  we  neglect  the  confusion  of  Babylonian  names  and 
 reigns  with  Assyrian,  and  treat  the  list  of  Polyhistor  as  if  he 
 had  written  in  the  last  place  "  Saracus  or  Nabuchodonoso- 
 rus,"  instead  of  writing  "  Nabuchodonosorus  "  only,  then  the 
 two  reigns  of  his  Sardanapalus  and  Saracus  cannot  end  later 
 than  the  capture  of  Nineveh  in  B.C.  606.  And  if  we  go  back 
 from  that  date  (43  +  21+21  +  214-8  +  18  =  )  132  years,  we 
 shall  make  the  accession  of  the  king  called  Sennacherib,  or 
 rather  the  commencement  of  the  first  reign  to  which  years 
 are  assigned,  to  stand  at  B.C.  (606  +  132  =  )  737,  a  date  which 
 may  suit,  perhaps,  well  enough  to  indicate  the  accession  of 
 Shalmanezer  or  Enemessar,  of  whom  Josephus  has  a  relation 
 very  similar  in  some  points  to  what  Polyhistor  and  Abydenus 
 give  of  their  Senecherimus ;  for  he  extracts  from  the  Tyrian 
 Chronicle  of  Menander  Tyrius  the  following  :  —  "  One 
 [king],  whose  name  was  EIuIjeus,  reigned  36  years.  This 
 king,  upon  the  revolt  of  the  Cifteans  "  [of  Cyprus,  that  is, 
 who  are  the  "  Greeks  "  in  the  narrative  of  Berosus],  "  sailed 
 against  them,  and  reduced  them  to  submission.  Against 
 these  did  the  king  of  Assyria  send  an  army,  and  he  overran  all 
 Phoenicia,  but  soon  made  peace  with  them  all  and  returned 
 back.  But  Sidon,  and  Ace,  and  Palaetyrus  revolted,  and 
 many  other  cities  there  were  which  delivered  themselves  up 
 to  the  king  of  Assyria.  Accordingly,  when  the  Tyrians 
 would  not  submit  to  him,  the  king  returned,  and  fell  upon 
 them  again,  while  the  Phoenicians  had  furnished  him  with 
 60  ships,  and  800  [8000?]  men  to  row  them;  and  when  the 
 Tyrians  had  come  upon  them  in  twelve  ships,  and  the 
 
976 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 enemies'  ships  were  dispersed,  they  took  500  men  prisoners  " 
 [here  one  is  reminded  of  the  words  "  multis  suorum  amissis  " 
 in  Polyhistor],  "  and  the  reputation  of  all  the  citizens  of 
 Tyre  was  thereby  increased.  But  the  king  of  Assyria 
 returned,  and  placed  guards  at  their  rivers  and  aqueducts 
 who  should  hinder  the  Tyrians  from  drawing  water.  This 
 continued  for  five  years,  and  still  the  Tyrians  held  out  under 
 the  siege,  and  drank  from  the  wells  they  had  digged.  And 
 this,"  concludes  Josephus,  "  is  what  is  written  in  the  Tyrian 
 archives  concerning  Shalmanezer,  the  king  of  Assyria." 
 {A?it  Jud.  ix.  2.) 
 
 But  though  this  passage  of  Menander  certainly  seems  to 
 refer  to  much  the  same  acts  as  are  connected  by  Berosus 
 with  the  name  of  Sennacherib,  while  Menander  according  to 
 Josephus  connected  them  with  the  name  of  Shalmanezer,  it  is 
 to  be  observed  that  the  name  "  Shalmanezer"  does  not  occur 
 in  the  passage  itself;  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  Josephus, 
 or  some  one  else  whom  he  here  followed,  merely  con- 
 cluded for  himself  that  the  king  of  Assyria  alluded  to 
 ought  to  he  Shalmanezer,  because  the  reigns  of  the  kings  of 
 Nineveh  given  by  Polyhistor,  if  reckoned  upwards  from  the 
 capture  of  the  city  (with  the  43  years  really  belonging  to 
 Nebuchadnezzar  included  for  the  last  reign  of  Saracus), 
 seemed  to  carry  up  the  king  named  Sennacherib  to  about 
 the  place  belonging  to  Shalmanezer.  But  now  it  is  said 
 that  these  same  events,  or  some  of  them,  have  been  found 
 'recorded  in  Assyrian  inscriptions  of  the  3rd  year  of  a  king 
 named  Sennacherib,  in  which  the  name  of  "  Luliya  "  (Elu- 
 Igeus)  also  is  identified,  and  he  is  called  king  of  Sidon." 
 But  apparently,  as  has  been  said,  the  accession  of  the  Sen- 
 nacherib of  Polyhistor  is  thrust  up  to  B.C.  737,  and  the  reign 
 of  18  years  assigned  to  him,  if  distinguished  from  the  acts 
 now  known  to  belong  to  a  later  Sennacherib,  may  be  taken 
 to  indicate  the  historical  rei2:n  of  the  Shalmanezer  of  Jose- 
 phus  and  the  Scriptures,  the  successor  of  Tiglath-Pilezer  to 
 whom  Ahaz,  about  B.C.  741,  had  submitted  himself  in  order 
 to  obtain  help  against  Damascus  and  Samaria,  and  the  next 
 but  one  after  Pul,  who,  before  B.C.  769,  had  received  tri- 
 bute from  Menahem.    And  if  Shalmanezer  died  in  B.C. 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  977 
 
 (738  —  18  =  )  720,  just  after  the  final  capture  of  Samaria,  the 
 next  reign  of  Polyhistor  (considered  apart  from  the  name) 
 with  its  8  years,  might  seem  perhaps  to  suit  for  the  historical 
 reign  of  the  Sennacherib  of  Josephus  and  the  Scriptures. 
 So  this  Sennacherib  would  reign  from  B.C.  720  to  B.C. 
 712,  and  his  death  would  agree  with  the  date  assigned  for 
 it  in  the  book  of  Tobit,  being  within  the  15th  year  of  Heze- 
 kiah,  only  45  days  after  his  return  to  Nineveh.  And  at  this 
 same  point  of  time,  or  very  early  in  the  reign  of  Esarhaddon, 
 Josephus,  it  is  plain,  understood  the  Assyrian  empire  to  ter- 
 minate, for  he  writes  thus  :  —  "  At  this  time  it  was  that  the 
 empire  of  the  Assyrians  was  put  an  end  to  by  the  Medes ; 
 but  of  this  I  shall  treat  elsewhere.  But  the  king  of  Babylon, 
 whose  name  was  Baladan,  sent  ambassadors  to  Hezekiah,  with 
 presents,  and  desired  he  would  be  his  ally  and  friend."  {Ant. 
 Jud.  X.  2.)  And,  again  (at  the  beginning  of  ch.  v.),  he  writes: 
 —  "  Now  Necho,  king  of  Egypt,  raised  an  army,  and  marched 
 to  the  Euphrates,  in  order  to  fight  with  the  Medes  and  Baby- 
 lonians who  had  [at  some  time  before  the  end  of  the  reign  of 
 Josiah]  overthrown  the  empire  of  the  Assyrians.  For  he  had 
 an  ambition  to  reign  over  Asia."  But  from  the  cessation  of  the 
 empire  on  or  soon  after  the  death  of  Sennacherib  in  B.C.  712 
 — the  cessation  should  be  put  according  to  Herodotus  3  years 
 later,  in  B.C.  709  —  we  have  in  the  list  of  Polyhistor  only 
 four  Babylonian  reigns,  representing  in  their  collective  sum 
 of  (21  +  21  +  21+43  =  )  106  years,  the  chronological  con- 
 tinuance of  the  Assyrian  kings  to  the  capture  of  Nineveh  in 
 B.C.  606,  but  not  at  all  likely  to  represent  exactly  the  his- 
 torical subdivisions  of  the  reigns,  which  seem  to  have  been 
 six  or  seven  in  number.  Dismissing,  then,  the  inquiry  as 
 to  the  reigns,  for  ascertaining  which  we  have  no  sufficient 
 data,  let  us  consider  the  names  which  are  given. 
 
 And  first,  if  we  look  only  to  written  evidence,  and  to  the 
 apparent  agreement  of  the  Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
 of  the  Prophet  Isaiah,  and  of  Tobit,  with  the  statements  of 
 Herodotus,  and  with  the  indications  of  Ctesias  and  Berosus, 
 we  might  collect  that  Shalmanezer  or  Enemessar  (Tobit  i., 
 Lat.  Yulg.,  and  Greek  of  LXX.),  the  king  who  besieged 
 Samaria  in  the  4th  year  of  Hezekiah  (4  Kings  xviii.  9), 
 
 3  R 
 
978 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 either  himself  took  it,  and  reigned  on  for  some  years  after 
 the  6th  of  Hezekiah  and  was  succeeded  by  a  son  named 
 Sennacherib  (Tob.  i.  2,  13,  and  18  of  Lat.,  "  post  multum 
 vero  temporls,"  &c.),  or  else  that  he  was  succeeded  by  a  king 
 named  Sargon,  respecting  whom  Isaiah  mentions  that  his 
 army,  under  Tartan,  took  Ashdod  (Is.  xx.  i.).  In  the  latter 
 case  Sennacherib  must  have  been  really  the  son  not  of 
 Shalmanezer  but  of  Sargon,  and  he  may  be  called  in  Tobit 
 the  son  of  Shalmanezer  only  because  in  that  book  the  name 
 and  reign  of  Shalmanezer  are  erroneously  made  to  cover  the 
 name  and  reign  of  his  successor  Sargon.  We  may  collect 
 then  that  Sennacherib,  whether  the  son  of  Shalmanezer  or 
 rather  of  Sargon,  was  already  on  the  throne,  Avhether  only  as 
 associated  (for  in  one  place,  2  Chron.  xxviii.  16,  "the  kings 
 of  Assyria  "  are  spoken  of  in  the  plural)  or  as  sole  ruler, 
 some  short  time  at  least  before  the  14th  year  of  Hezekiah 
 (b.  c.  713  —  7 12),  Mardoc  Empadus  or  Empalus,  who  is  Mero- 
 dach  Baladan,  being  at  the  same  time  king  of  Babylon  and 
 independent  of  Assyria :  that  in  B.  c.  709,  when  Merodach 
 Baladan  had  reigned  12  years,  Babylon  was  recovered  by  the 
 king  of  Assyria ;  and  that  a  brother  of  Sennacherib,  named 
 in  the  Astronomical  Canon  Archianus,  reigned  over  Babylon 
 after  it  had  been  recovered  for  5  years,  that  is,  to  b.  c.  704, 
 when  his  reign  ended  either  by  his  death  or  by  an  insur- 
 rection, and  was  followed  by  an  interregnum  of  2  years, 
 during  which  Hagisa  reigned  30  days,  and  Merodach  Bala- 
 dan, who  slew  Hagisa  (sustulit),  6  months,  ending  in 
 B.  c.  702  :  that  Sennacherib  in  the  14th  of  Hezekiah,  3 
 or  4  years  before  his  brother  Archianus  became  king  at 
 Babylon,  took  the  fenced  cities  of  Judah ;  whereupon  Heze- 
 kiah submitted,  and  paid  a  fine  and  tribute  of  30  talents  of 
 gold  and  300  of  silver,  besides  giving  all  the  silver  which  he 
 could  find  in  his  own  house  and  in  the  Temple  :  that  on  some 
 later  occasion  (when  Hezekiah  had  again  shown  a  disposition 
 to  revolt),  and  seemiiigly  soon  after  the  reduction  of  Babylon 
 in  B.  c.  709,  Sennacherib  again  threatened  Jerusalem,  which 
 was  saved  by  a  miraculous  destruction  of  the  Assyrian  army 
 then  on  the  frontiers  of  Egypt :  further,  that  on  this  event, 
 if  not  before  it.  Media  revolted,  and  Babylon  too,  as  we  have 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  979 
 
 seen,  4  or  5  years  later  :  tliat  nevertheless,  in  B.  C.  699,  Sen- 
 nacherib once  more  reduced  Babylon,  and  slew  Belibus,  who 
 had  reigned  there  3  years,  making  his  own  son  Asordanes 
 according  to  Polyhistor,  but  according  to  the  Astronomical 
 Canon  Apronadius,  king  in  his  stead :  and  Apronadius  reigned 
 at  Babylon  till  B.  c.  693  :  lastly,  that  Sennacherib  within  55 
 or  45  days  after  an  event  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Tobit,  but 
 not  necessarily  within  55  or  45  days  of  his  return  after  the 
 miraculous  destruction  of  his  army,  was  slain  by  his  sons 
 Adrammelech  and  Sharezer  or  Ardamuzanes,  who  escaped 
 into  Armenia,  while  Sennacherib  was  succeeded  by  his  son 
 Esarhaddon,  whom  Polyhistor  seems  to  identify  with  Aprona- 
 dius who  had  reigned  from  B.  C.  699  to  B.  c.  693  in  Babylon. 
 On  this  view  it  would  be  during  the  reign  of  Sennacherib 
 that  the  520  years  of  Assyrian  empire  ended. 
 
 If  one  were  to  go  only  on  some  indications  of  Greek 
 writers  it  might  also  seem  that  the  Pul  of  Polyhistor  and 
 Berosus  is  to  be  identified  with  Esarhaddon,  the  son  and  suc- 
 cessor of  Sennacherib.  For  Pul  is  named  next  after  the 
 526,  or,  more  exactly,  the  520  years,  of  the  Assyrian  empire. 
 The  names  Sarddon  and  Pul  seem  to  unite  in  the  name  of 
 that  "  Sardanapalus,"  who  was  neither  eifeminate  like  the 
 later  Sardanapalus,  the  last  king  but  one  of  Nineveh,  nor  was 
 burned  with  his  palace  like  Saracus,  the  last  king,  when 
 Nineveh  was  taken  by  the  Medes  and  Babylonians;  but 
 who  was  energetic  and  warlike,  hpaarrjpLos  kol  jswalos  " 
 (according  to  Hellanicus  and  Callisthenes),  who,  after  his 
 loss  of  the  former  Assyrian  empire,  "  /jusra  rrjv  airoiTTwaiv  r?}? 
 ^vp(ov  dpxv^  "  (according  to  Cleitarchus),  "  warred  in  Cilicia 
 and  Syria,  and  founded  the  cities  of  Tarsus  and  Anchiale," 
 and  died  a  natural  death  in  his  old  age,  6  ytjpa  TsksvTrjaas''^ 
 (according  to  the  same).  His  tomb,  according  to  Aristobulus 
 and  other  writers,  was  at  Anchiale,  with  a  stone  statue  on  it 
 having  the  fingers  of  the  right  hand  clenched,  and  an  inscrip- 
 tion in  these  words  :  "  Sardanapalus  son  of  \_S~\enakimperipsus 
 founded  Anchiale  and  Tarsus  in  one  day :  ^ap^avdiraWos 
 ' AvaKVvSapd^ov  irah  ^A<y)(^tdXr]v  sSsi/ule  /cal  Tapabv  r)/jLspr}  ^t^." 
 
 Near  to  this  tomb  Alexander "  the  Great,  it  is  added, 
 "  encamped  when  on  his  march  into  Upper  Asia." 
 
 3  R  2 
 
980 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The  names,  however,  and  the  reigns  and  acts  of  re- 
 mote kings  are  often  interchanged  and  confused  by  Greek 
 writers.  And  it  woukl  seem  that  in  this  case  there  has  been 
 some  such  confusion  ;  since  the  war  in  Cilicia  and  the  foun- 
 dation of  Tarsus  and  Anchiale  are  connected  by  Polyhistor 
 (and  so,  also,  we  may  suppose,  by  Berosus)  not  with  the 
 name  of  Pul,  or  "  Sarddon-Pul  son  of  [S]enakimperipsus," 
 whom  he  named  first  after  the  526  years  of  the  empire ,  but 
 with  that  of  Sennacherib  himself.  Yet  neither  is  Polyhistor 
 consistent  with  himself  or  with  the  Astronomical  Canon  in 
 the  names  and  chronology  of  his  Assyrian  reigns.  For  if 
 we  make  the  43  years  of  his  Nebuchadnezzar  as  being  iden- 
 tified hy  implication  with  Saracus,  the  last  king  of  Nineveh,  to 
 end  at  the  capture  of  Nineveh  in  B.  c.  606,  the  date  required 
 by  Herodotus  (if  only  30  years  instead  of  29  be  allowed  to 
 Cyrus)  and  indicated  by  the  Scriptures  (compare  2  Kings 
 xxiii.  19,  B.  c.  609,  and  Jerem.  xxv.  15 — 26,  B.  c.  605),  then, 
 as  we  have  seen,  the  reigns  both  of  the  Pul  and  of  tlie  Sen- 
 nacherib of  Polyhistor  are  thrust  up  far  too  high  for  that 
 synchronism  whiiili  he  attaches  to  his  Sennacherib  when  he 
 writes  that  Belibus  "  in  "  or  after  his  3rd  year  at  Babylon 
 was  reduced  by  Sennacherib-  For  the  accession  of  the  Sen- 
 nacherib of  Polyhistor  is  thus  thrust  up  to  B.C.  (606+43 
 -[-21  +  21  +  21+8  +  18  =  )738,  while  the  3rd  year  of  Belibus 
 ended  according  to  the  Astronomical  Canon  in  B.C.  699. 
 But  if — without  noticing  the  fact  that  the  43  years  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  are  paralleled  hi/  implication  with  the  reign 
 of  Saracus,  the  last  king  of  Nineveh,  since  the  reign  of 
 Nabopolassar,  the  father  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  is  expressly 
 identified  by  Polyhistor  with  that  of  Sardanapalus  the  pre- 
 decessor of  Saracus,  and  the  last  king  but  one  of  Nineveh 
 ■ —  we  assign  to  the  reign  of  Nabopolassar  its  true  place,  as  if 
 its  first  19  years  had  been  identified  or  paralleled  with  the 
 reign  of  Saracus,  then  we  obtain  B.  c.  (604  +  (2  +  19)  +  21 
 4-21-1-8  4-18,  or  B.  c.  736  —  43  =  )  693  for  the  accession  of 
 that  Sennacherib  of  Polyhistor,  who,  according  to  him,  con- 
 quered Belibus  and  placed  on  the  throne  of  Babylon  his 
 own  son  Asordanes.  But  this,  as  has  been  said  above,  was 
 done  accordins:  to  the  Astronomical  Canon  in  B.  C.  699. 
 And  since  other  particulars  similarly  connected  by  Poly  his- 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  981 
 
 tor  with  the  same  reign  and  the  same  name  Sennacherib  (as 
 that  of  being  slain  by  his  son  Arclamuzanes,  or,  according  to 
 Moses  Choronensis,  by  his  sons  Adraniraclech  and  Sliarezer 
 or  Agdamuzanes),  certainly  belong  to  the  Sennacherib  of  the 
 Scriptures,  we  may  infer  that  the  process  above  suggested,  of 
 cutting  off  from  Polyhistor's  Assyrian  series  the  reign  of 
 his  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  drawing  down  the  reign  of  his 
 Nabopolassar  so  as  to  make  it  represent  the  Assyrian  reign  of 
 Saracus  instead  of  that  of  Sardanapalus,  was  inadmissible ; 
 and  that,  if  there  was  in  truth  any  Ninevite  accession  in  B.  c. 
 693,  it  was  not  that  of  Sennacherib  but  that  of  his  son 
 Asordanes,  who  then,  upon  the  death  of  his  father,  may  have 
 become  the  king  of  Assyria. 
 
 If  Apronadius  of  the  Canon,  who  was  in  B.  c.  699  made 
 king  of  Babylon,  was  in  truth,  as  Polyhistor  seems  to  im- 
 ply by  calling  him  Asordanes,  one  and  the  same  person  with 
 Esarhaddon,  it  becomes  a  question  whether  the  8  years 
 given  to  the  "  son  of  Sennacherib  "  by  Polyhistor  are  to  be 
 reckoned  from  his  first  accession  at  Babylon,  or  from  the 
 death  of  his  father  6  years  later.  In  the  latter  case  he  would 
 have  as  sole  king  only  2  years,  and  would  be  succeeded 
 in  B.  c.  691  by  a  son  called  Sammughes  according  to  Poly- 
 histor, but  according  to  Abydenus  by  a  brother  named  Axer- 
 dis.  Polyhistor  and  Abydenus  both  agree  in  this,  that  he 
 whom  each  of  them  names  third  after  Sennacherib  was  the 
 brother  of  him  whom  each  names  second.  But  while  Poly- 
 histor after  "  the  son  of  Sennacherib,"  that  is,  after  Esar- 
 haddon, whom,  however,  he  does  not  name,  has  a  grandson 
 of  Sennacherib  whom  he  calls  Sammughes,  and  Sammughes 
 is  succeeded  by  a  "  brother,"  Abydenus  after  Sennacherib 
 has  a  son  called  ^^ergilus,  who  must  be  a  reduplication  of 
 Sennacherib  himself,  since  he  is  slain  by  his  son  Adram- 
 melech and  this  Adrammelech,  w^ho  is  made  to  succeed, 
 and  who  so  represents  Esarhaddon,  is  himself  in  turn  slain 
 and  succeeded  by  a  brother,  Axerdis,  But  in  truth  Adram- 
 melech, as  we  know,  escaped ;  and  Esarhaddon,  if  he  "  died 
 a  natural  death  in  his  old  age,"  was  not  slain  by  a  brother. 
 Yet  the  short  reign  of  8,  or  perhaps  of  only  2  years,  given 
 by  Polyhistor  to  the  son  and  first  successor  of  Sennacherib, 
 
 3  R  3 
 
982  APPENDIX. 
 
 that  is  to  Esarhaddon,  certainly  rather  favours  the  idea  that 
 he  may  have  been  slain  and  succeeded  by  a  brother  named 
 Axerdis,  and  that  it  may  have  been  Axerdis,  not  Esarhad- 
 don,  who  died  a  natural  death  in  his  old  age."  If  so,  the 
 Sammughes  of  Polyhistor  and  the  Nergilus  of  Abydenus, 
 if  not  altogether  fictitious,  must  be  taken  to  be  misplaced, 
 and  to  represent  a  reign  which  really  was  not  the  second,  nor 
 the  first,  but  the  third  after  that  of  Sennacherib. 
 
 In  any  case  the  first  accession  of  Sennacherib  himself  will 
 be  carried  back  from  B.C.  693,  not  perhaps  by  all  those  43 
 years  of  Nebuchadnezzar  which  Polyhistor  seems  to  parallel 
 with  the  last  Ninevite  reign,  but  by  something  more  than  20 
 years  at  least,  that  is,  to  about  B.C.  713 — 712,  if  he  invaded 
 Judaea  in  the  14th  of  Hezekiah.  If  indeed  it  is  true,  as  Dr. 
 Hincks  seems  to  assert,  that  an  Assyrian  inscription  from 
 Khorsabad  published  by  M.  Botta  shows  the  predecessor  of 
 Sargon,  that  is,  Shalmanezer,  to  have  been  still  living  in 
 the  6th  year  of  that  king,  then  it  may  be  supposed  that  Sen- 
 nacherib at  some  time  between  the  6th  year  of  Sargon  and 
 the  14th  of  Hezekiah,  perhaps  on  the  death  of  Shalmanezer, 
 was  associated  with  Sargon,  and  reigned  conjointly  with  him 
 to  his  death,  in  like  manner  as  Sargon  himself  had  been 
 associated  and  had  reigned  conjointly  with  Shalmanezer,  to 
 the  death  of  the  latter.  On  this  supposition  it  might  be 
 intelligible  how  a  general  sent  by  Sargon  might  take  Ashdod, 
 that  is  before  B.C.  714,  and  how  the  same  Sargon  in  B.C. 
 709  might  reduce  Mardoc  Empadus  or  Empalus,  who  is 
 Merodach  Baladan,  after  he  had  held  Babylon  12  years, 
 while  yet  in  B.C.  713 — 712,  it  was  Sennacherib  who  took  the 
 fenced  cities  of  Judah  and  forced  Hezekiah  to  submission. 
 
 In  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Isaiah  it  seems  to  be  fore- 
 told that  from  some  date  not  less  than  3  years  later  than  the 
 capture  of  Ashdod  by  Sargon  the  king  of  Assyria  should 
 during  3  years  lay  waste  Egypt,  and  lead  away  the  Egyp- 
 tians and  Ethiopians  as  captives.  But  Sevechus  or  Sabaco 
 IL,  who  reigned  14  years  from  B.C.  728  to  B.C.  714,  and  to 
 whom  Hoshea  first  and  afterwards  Hezekiah  looked  for 
 support  when  they  rebelled  or  meditated  rebelling  against 
 Assyria,  seems,  after  suffering  perhaps  some  reverses  in 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  983 
 
 Syria,  to  have  made  terms  with  Sargon  or  Sennacherib,  or 
 with  both.  This  is  proved  by  his  seal,  once  affixed  to  a 
 treaty,  which  has  been  found  in  the  ruins  of  the  palace  of 
 Sennacherib  at  Kouyunjik.  Nor  had  Egypt  as  yet  been 
 conquered  when  Hezekiah  was  threatened  the  second  time 
 by  Sennacherib,  since  Tirhakah  (whose  accession  was  in  B.C. 
 714)  waited  not  to  be  attacked,  but  came  up  out  of  Egypt 
 to  dispute  the  possession  of  Syria  with  the  Assyrians ;  and 
 Sennacherib,  in  his  letter  to  Hezekiah,  spoke  of  the  power  of 
 Egypt  as  only  bruised  not  broken.  And  for  that  time,  as  we 
 know,  it  was  saved  from  being  broken  by  the  destruction  of 
 Sennacherib's  army.  It  may  be  then  that  those  three  years 
 during  which  the  predicted  humiliation  of  Egypt  and  Ethi- 
 opia was  accomplished  were  in  the  reign  of  Esarhaddon, 
 or  rather  of  Esarhaddon  and  his  successor  Axerdis,  since 
 Abydenus  writes  of  Axerdis  that  he  conquered  Egypt 
 as  well  as  the  inland  parts  of  Syria.  And  the  fable  of 
 the  Greek  Pythagoras,  who  was  enabled  to  learn  the 
 wisdom  of  the  Chaldseans  by  serving  in  the  armies  of 
 "  these  kings "  according  to  Polyhistor,  or  more  particu- 
 larly in  those  of  Axerdis  according  to  Abydenus,  is  ac- 
 counted for  by  an  inscription  of  the  time  of  Esarhaddon  in 
 ■which,  among  other  kings  of  the  Greek  cities  in  Cyprus  his 
 vassals,  one  named  Pythagoras  is  mentioned  as  king  of 
 Citium.  As  regards  Egypt,  if  it  were  overrun  during  3 
 years  by  Esarhaddon  and  Axerdis,  and  Esarhaddon  reigned 
 only  2  years  from  the  death  of  his  father,  the  humiliation  of 
 Egypt  and  Ethiopia  would  be  during  the  (B.C.  714  —  693  =  ) 
 22nd,  23rd,  and  24th,  or  during  the  23rd,  24th, and  25th  years 
 of  Tirhakah,  from  B.C.  693  to  B.C.  690,  or  from  B.C.  692  to 
 B.C.  689.  This  however  is  certain,  that  the  final  issue  of  the 
 contest  for  the  possession  of  Egypt  was  in  favour  of  Tir- 
 hakah, who  seems  to  have  reigned  in  all  31  years  to  his  death 
 in  B.C.  683,  though  it  is  possible  that  he  reigned  even  51 
 years.  For  had  the  war  with  the  Assyrians  ended  to  the 
 disadvantage  of  Tirhakah,  Megasthenes  would  never  have 
 heard  in  Asia  a  story  associating  him  with  Sesostris  and 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  who  were  fabled  to  have  carried  their 
 arms  into  Europe,  and  even  to  the  Pillars  of  Hercules. 
 
 3  R  4 
 
984 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 If  the  historical  allusions  contained  at  tlie  be^innino-  of 
 the  book  of  Judith  are  Avorth  attending  to,  —  and  this 
 book  like  that  of  Tobit  was  written  in  the  Chaldean  dialect, 
 and  so  its  incidental  allusions  to  local  history  are  less  likely 
 to  be  altogether  inaccurate,  —  it  would  seem  that  the  king  of 
 ^Nineveh  who  defeated  and  slew  a  king  of  Media  —  and  this 
 latter  king  must  be  Phraortes  who  was  slain  in  B.C.  634 — was 
 then  in  the  17th  year  of  his  reign,  so  that  his  accession  must 
 have  been  in  B.C.  650.  It  is  true  that  in  the  same  book  of 
 Judith  this  king  of  Nineveh  fs  called  Nabuchodonosor  by  a 
 confusion  similar  to  that  of  Polyhistor ;  and  he  is  made  to 
 invade  Media,  whereas  in  truth  the  Medes  under  Phraortes 
 were  the  assailants ;  and  Phraortes  himself  is  called  Arphaxad 
 (i.  e.  Arbaces),  and  is  confused  with  Deioces  the  founder  of 
 Ecbatana;  and  the  commander  of  the  Assyrian  army  has  a 
 Persian  name,  Holof ernes ;  and  the  Temple  in  Judaea  is  spoken 
 of  as  already  destroyed;  all  which  particulars  are  manifestly 
 fabulous,  and  make  against  the  expectation  of  accuracy  in 
 other  points.  Still  the  year  of  the  Assyrian  king  who  slew 
 Phraortes — since  this  event  in  Media  and  the  neighbouring 
 countries  was  one  of  great  notoriety  —  may  have  been 
 rightly  designated.  And  if  it  was,  then  we  may  collect  that 
 the  two  reigns  of  Esarhaddon  and  his  son  Sammughes  or  his 
 brother  [Axerdis],  if  there  were  only  these  two,  or  the  three 
 of  Esarhaddon,  his  son  Sammughes,  and  Axerdis  the  brother 
 of  Sammughes,  if  there  were  three  reigns  intervening  be- 
 tween the  Sennacherib  and  the  Sandanapalus  of  Polyhistor 
 and  Abydenus,  lasted  together  43  years,  from  B.C.  693  to 
 B.C.  650.  And  the  last  two  Ninevite  reigns  of  Sardanapalus 
 and  Saracus  would  seem  in  that  case  to  have  had  together 
 44  years,  divisible  either  into  21  +  23,  or  20  +  24,  or  25  + 1 9, 
 and  ending  in  B.C.  606. 
 
 In  the  name  of  the  last  king  but  one  of  Nineveh,  whom  both 
 Polyhistor  and  Abydenus,  and  so  doubtless  Berosus  also, 
 named  Sardanapalus,  we  have  the  historical  source  of  that 
 eiieminate  and  luxurious  Sardanapalus  who  in  the  fable  of 
 Ctesias  was  drawn  up  to  the  end  of  the  empire  ;  unless  it  be 
 more  true  to  say  that  the  end  of  the  empire  was  drawn  down 
 to  him,  as  the  last  of  a  whole  line  of  faineants.    The  strange 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  985 
 
 misrepresentation  by  which  the  effeminacy  and  luxury  of  a 
 single  king  was  imputed  to  all  his  predecessors  is  only  to  be 
 accounted  for  by  considering  that  Ctesias's  informants  were 
 not  Assyrians  nor  Babylonians,  but  Medes  or  Persians,  who 
 would  be  as  little  likely  to  do  justice  to  Assyrian  history  as 
 the  priests  of  Phthah  at  Memphis  would  be  likely  to  descant 
 upon  the  glories  of  Thebes.  But  as  regards  Sardanapalus 
 himself,  though  his  wealth  is  mentioned  by  Herodotus,  and 
 though  the  fame  of  his  luxury  was  known  to  Aristophanes, 
 the  story  of  his  having  been  the  last  king  of  Nineveh,  and  of 
 his  having  burned  himself  with  his  palace  when  the  Medes 
 took  the  city,  is  contradicted  by  many  authors.  It  is  alluded 
 to  without  being  credited  by  Aristotle ;  and  it  is  entirely  set 
 aside  by  a  fact  which  acquired  great  celebrity.  For  the 
 luxurious  and  effeminate  Sardanapalus  left  at  Nineveh  a 
 high  mound  and  a  tomb  with  an  Epicurean  inscription, 
 translated  afterwards  into  seven  Greek  hexameter  lines  by 
 Choerilus.  These  lines  are  quoted  by  many  writers,  and 
 they  are  given  at  length  by  Athenaeus.  (  Clinton^  F.  H,  i. 
 p.  276).  This  fact  of  course  implies  that  Sardanapalus  had 
 at  least  one  successor  who  reigned  at  Nineveh  after  his 
 death ;  and  this  his  successor  is  distinctly  mentioned  in  con- 
 nection with  the  story  by  Diodorus,  even  while  he  is  describ- 
 ing that  Sardanapalus  of  Ctesias  with  whom  the  monarchy 
 was  fabled  to  have  ended  :  —  'Ett^  roaovro  irpoTj-^di]  Tpv(prjs 
 wars  siTLKi'jhsLOv  sis  avTov  Troirjaai,  Koi  TrapayysLXat  tols 
 BiaS6')(0is  Trjs  ap^r]9  fMsra  rrjv  savrov  rsXsvrrjv  iirl  top  rdcpov 
 STTLypdylrac  to  auyypa(f)sv  fjbhv  vir  skslvov  ixsOsppir^vsvOsv  hs 
 varspov  viro  tlvos  "EX\,r}i>os^^  [by  Choerilus  according  to 
 Amyntas,  who  is  referred  to  by  Athenaeus,  xii.  p.  529]. 
 "  E5  slBcl>9  on  9vr]Tos  s(f)vs,^^  k.  t.  X. 
 
 The  last  king  of  Nineveh,  the  Saracus  of  Abydenus  or 
 Ninus  11.  of  Castor  and  Barbarus,  is  no  doubt  in  this  one 
 respect  the  Sardanapalus  of  Ctesias,  that  the  capture  of 
 Nineveh  by  the  Medes  and  the  Babylonians,  the  burning  of 
 the  palaces  of  the  Assyrian  kings  there  and  elsewhere,  and 
 the  destruction  of  the  city  of  Nineveh  itself,  are  connected 
 with  his  reign.  And  he  may  have  been  himself  slain  and 
 burned  at  the  same  time  in  his  palace.    But  it  is  no  more 
 
986 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 necessary  on  this  account  to  suppose  that  the  name  Sardana- 
 palus  belonged  to  him  also,  and  to  make  of  him  a  Sardana- 
 palus  than  it  is  necessary  in  the  parallel  case  of  the 
 fabulous  and  compound  Sesostris  of  the  Egyptians  to  suppose 
 that  the  name  Sesostris  or  Sesortasen  belonged  historically 
 to  all  the  kings  who  are  blended  and  confused  together. 
 
 yil.  Besides  the  continuation  of  the  Assyrian  kings  from 
 the  cessation  of  the  empire  to  the  destruction  of  Nineveh, 
 Berosus,  no  doubt,  named  the  contemporary  kings  of  his 
 own  city  of  Babylon,  at  least  from  the  era  of  Nabonassar, 
 if  not  throughout,  and  also  the  kino-s  of  Media  and 
 Persia  from  the  time  that  Media  became  independent  of 
 Assyria.  The  kings  of  Babylon  from  Nabonassar  (who, 
 according  to  Berosus,  ordered  all  the  records  of  earlier  kings 
 to  be  destroyed)  may  be  recovered  in  part  from  the  quota- 
 tions of  Josephus  and  other  authors,  and  in  full  from  the 
 Astronomical  Canon  preserved  and  continued  by  Hipparchus 
 and  by  Claudius  Ptolemy.    They  stand  as  follows : — 
 
 Genuine 
 
 Canon. 
 
 Eccl.  and  Math.  edd.  of  Sync. 
 
 King. 
 
 Years 
 
 from 
 
 n  E.  c. 
 
 Eccl. 
 
 Math. 
 
 Nabonassar 
 
 14 
 
 Feb. 
 
 26, 
 
 747 
 
 25 
 
 14 
 
 Nadius 
 
 2 
 
 Feb. 
 
 23, 
 
 733 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 Chinzirus  et  Porus 
 
 5 
 
 Feb. 
 
 23, 
 
 731 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Juga3us 
 
 5 
 
 Feb. 
 
 21, 
 
 726 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Mardoc-Empadus 
 
 12 
 
 Feb. 
 
 20, 
 
 721 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 Archianus 
 
 5 
 
 Feb, 
 
 17, 
 
 709 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Interregnum  [in  which " 
 
 Hagisa  30  days  and 
 Marudach  Baldanes 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 Feb. 
 
 16, 
 
 704 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 6  months] 
 
 Belibus 
 
 3 
 
 Feb. 
 
 15, 
 
 702 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 Apronadius 
 
 6 
 
 Feb. 
 
 15, 
 
 699 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 Regibalus 
 
 1 
 
 Feb. 
 
 13, 
 
 693 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Mesesimordacus 
 
 4 
 
 Feb. 
 
 13, 
 
 692 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 Interregnum 
 
 8 
 
 Feb. 
 
 12, 
 
 688 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 Asaridinus 
 
 13 
 
 Feb. 
 
 10, 
 
 680 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 Saosduchinus 
 
 20 
 
 Feb. 
 
 7, 
 
 667 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 Chinaladanus 
 
 22 
 
 Feb. 
 
 2, 
 
 647 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 Nabopolassar 
 
 21 
 
 Jan. 
 
 27, 
 
 625 
 
 21 
 
 21 
 
 Nabocolassarus 
 
 43 
 
 Jan. 
 
 21, 
 
 604 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 Ilvarodamus 
 
 2 
 
 Jan. 
 
 11, 
 
 561 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 Nericassolassarus  [in- "] 
 
 eluding  9"  of  La-  i 
 
 4 
 
 Jan. 
 
 11, 
 
 559 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 borosoarehod]  J 
 
 Nabonadius 
 
 17 
 
 Jan. 
 
 10, 
 
 555 
 
 17 
 
 34 
 
 Sum  for  xxi.  reigns 
 
 209, 
 
 to  B 
 
 c. 
 
 538 
 
 209 
 
 209 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  987 
 
 Thus  the  average  for  the  xix.  [or  rather  for  the  xxi.  actual] 
 kings,  the  two  interregna  being  included,  is  something  less 
 than  10  years  for  each. 
 
 It  is  probable  that  what  Syncellus  gives  as  the  "  Eccle- 
 siastical "  and  the  "  jNIathematical "  lists,  both  of  them  un- 
 faithful exhibitions  of  the  Astronomical  Canon  of  Hipparchus 
 and  Ptolemy,  are  the  lists  of  Anianus  and  Panodorus,  since 
 elsewhere  for  the  years  below  his  a.m.  5170  Syncellus 
 blames  Panodorus  as  deserting  the  "  Ecclesiastical "  reckon- 
 ing and  following  "  the  Mathematicians,"  by  doing  which,  he 
 says,  he  is  7  years  short  in  his  date  for  the  Nativity.  The 
 purpose  of  Anianus  seems  to  have  been  to  obtain  68  years 
 between  the  accession  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  that  of  Cyrus, 
 to  whom  he  gave  31  years  instead  of  the  9  of  the  genuine 
 Canon,  or  51  from  the  18th  of  Nebuchadnezzar  to  the  21st 
 of  Cyrus,  that  is,  to  his  1st  at  Babylon.  That  of  Panodorus 
 seems  to  have  been  to  obtain  67  or  68  years  between  the  18th 
 of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  1st  of  Darius  and  Cyrus  at 
 Babylon,  Cyrus  having  from  the  capture  of  Babylon  only 
 the  9  years  of  the  genuine  Canon,  3  of  which  would  be  an- 
 terior to  the  death  of  Darius  and  to  the  last  accession  of 
 Cyrus  as  sole  monarch.  Anianus  compensates  for  his  sup- 
 pression of  1 9  years  on  the  two  reigns  before  Nabopolassar 
 by  adding  17  to  the  first  two  reigns,  of  Nabonassar  and 
 Nadius,  besides  the  2  which  he  adds  to  the  two  reiirns  follow- 
 ing  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Thus  he  has  between  the  1st 
 year  of  Nabonassar  and  the  last  of  Nabonadius  the  same 
 number  of  209  years  as  the  genuine  Canon ;  but  as  he  then 
 interpolates  22  years  by  giving  Cyrus  31  instead  of  9,  his 
 era  of  Nabonassar  would  have  been  thrust  up  22  years  above 
 B.  c.  747,  were  it  not  that  he  suppresses  other  years  below. 
 Panodorus,  on  the  contrary,  differs  from  the  genuine*Canon 
 only  in  this,  that  he  transposes  1 9  years  really  anterior  to  the 
 reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  makes  them  follow  it,  so  as 
 to  increase  by  19  the  years  apparently  intervening  between 
 the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  that  of  Cyrus.  It  is 
 noticeable  that  Syncellus  himself  names  A.  M.  4747,  his  B.  c. 
 754,  as  the  1st  of  Nabonassar,  as  if  he  made  not  141  like  his 
 "Ecclesiastical"  list  but  only  136  years  to  the  accession  of 
 
988 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar :  then  instead  of  the  68  years  of  his  Eccle- 
 siastical list  to  the  accession  of  Cyrus,  he  has  69  :  and,  lastly, 
 he  agrees  with  the  same  Ecclesiastical  list  of  Anianus  in 
 giving  31  years  to  Cyrus,  and  in  making  from  the  death  of 
 Cyrus  to  that  of  Alexander  188  years  (the  true  number 
 being  529  —  324  =  206).  Hence  it  is  that  the  era  of  Nabo- 
 nassar  is  thrust  up  for  Anianus  only  by  (22  —  18  =  )  4  instead 
 of  22  years.    (See  Clinton,  F.  H.  vol.  ii.  p.  320.) 
 
 VIII.  The  kings  of  Media  from  the  time  when  Media 
 was  thought  to  have  become  ^independent  may  be  recover- 
 able from  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  thus: — 
 
 1.  Deioces  53  r from  his  first  advancement  in  B.C.  709,  22 
 years,  viz.  L  from  his  actual  accession  in  b.  c.  687,  31 
 
 2.  Phraortes,  from  Feb.  4  in  b.  c.  656,  22 
 
 3.  Cyaxares  f  of  Scytliian  dominion  from  b.  c.  634,  28 
 40,  viz.    I  from  capture  of  Nineveh  in  b.  c.  606,  12 
 
 4.  Astyages  from  Jan.  19  in  b.  c.  594,  35 
 [5.  Cyaxares  II.  (Darius  the  Mede)  from  Jan.  11,  b.  c.  559,  24] 
 
 174 
 
 Sum,  for  the  iv  kings  from  the  first  year  reckoned  to 
 Deioces  to  the  accession  of  Cyrus  in  B.  c.  559,  150  years, 
 giving  an  average  of  37i  years  to  each  reign. 
 
 Whatever  may  be  the  truth  respecting  Darius  the  Mede, 
 who  was  about  62  years  old  when  Cyrus  took  Babylon,  the 
 account  given  by  Xenophon  and  Josephus  seems  to  agree 
 better  with  the  Scriptures  than  that  of  Herodotus,  who  writes 
 that  Astyages  had  no  son.  Astyages,  it  may  be  supposed, 
 lived  3  years  after  the  victory  of  Cyrus,  which  will  account 
 for  Ctesias  and  other  later  writers  giving  him  38  instead  of 
 35  years.  And  so  the  years  of  Cyaxares  II.,  if  they  are  to  be 
 reckoi^d  from  the  death  of  Astyages,  were  in  all  not  24  but 
 21,  of  which  18  would  be  before  and  3  after  the  conquest  of 
 Babylon. 
 
 It  is  true  that  ^schylus  seems  to  reckon  3  kings  only 
 from  Cyaxares  to  Cyrus  when  he  writes  :  — 
 
 Mt^So?  yap  rjV  6  TTpMTOs  rjys/jLoby  arpaTOVy 
 "AXXos"     ifcsLVOv  iTols  ToS  spyov  rjvvasvy 
 
 TpLTOS       CLTT    aVTOV  K^VpOS  * 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  989 
 
 But  there  is  nothing  in  these  lines  to  oblige  us  to  suppose 
 that  ^schylus  regarded  Cyaxares  as  the  first  founder  of  the 
 Median  monarchy;  and  that  the  two  preceding  kings  of 
 Herodotus  are  unhistorical.  It  is  enough  that  Cyaxares  was 
 the  first  who  organised  a  regular  army,  {lierod.  lib.  i.  c.  103.) 
 And  it  would  certainly  be  improbable  in  the  last  degree  that 
 tlie  very  first  Median  king  in  his  first  year  should  be  on  the 
 point  of  reducing  Nineveh,  and  be  only  drawn  off  by  the 
 Scythian  invasion.  The  fact  that  Nineveh  was  besieged,  and 
 was  in  great  danger,  and  that  it  was  unexpectedly  delivered 
 from  its  danger  once  before  it  was  actually  taken,  is  suffici- 
 ently proved  by  the  book  of  Jonah.  This  may  indeed  have 
 been  earlier,  in  the  time  of  Iva-lush  III. ;  but  it  is  not  pro- 
 bable that  the  circumstance  of  Phraortes  having  been  slain 
 in  battle  while  fighting  against  Nineveh  was  a  mere  invention, 
 especially  as  the  same  event,  though  disguised  under  fabulous 
 details,  is  plainly  alluded  to  in  the  book  of  Judith. 
 
 The  Median  list  of  Ctesias  with  its  nine  reigns  Instead  of 
 four,  and  its  320  instead  of  150  years  to  Cyrus,  beginning 
 from  B.  c.  880  or  879,  is  so  plainly  fabricated  from  the  same 
 four  reigns  as  are  given  by  Herodotus,  that  it  is  easy  to  cut 
 off  from  it  and  restore  to  the  Assyrian  Empire  all  those  years 
 which  Ctesias  or  his  informants  have  transferred  to  the 
 Medes.  And  when  this  is  done  the  list  of  Ctesias  indicates 
 the  same  date  for  the  termination  of  the  Assyrian  empire  as 
 is  given  by  Herodotus.  And  as  the  Median  list  of  Abydenus, 
 which  is  followed  by  Castor,  retains  93  of  the  fictitious  years 
 of  Ctesias,  which  cannot  be  from  Berosus,  while  yet  the 
 intention  of  Abydenus  seems  to  have  been  to  cover  in  all  the 
 same  space  with  Berosus,  it  follows  that  we  must  restore 
 these  93  years  also  from  the  Medes  of  Abydenus  to  his 
 Assyrians ;  and  then  his  list  will  indicate  that  Berosus  also 
 ao;reed  with  Herodotus  in  the  date  which  he  assigned  for  the 
 end  of  the  526  years  of  his  xlv  Chaldsean  kings  who  reigned 
 at  Nineveh,  and  for  the  commencement  of  those  later  Assy- 
 rian kings  with  whom  the  kings  of  Media  were  for  (b.  c. 
 709  —  606  =  )  103  years  contemporary. 
 
 IX.  The  kings  of  Persia,  of  the  race  of  Achasmenes, 
 whose  empire  succeeded  to  that  of  the  Medes,  and  who  may 
 
990 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 also  be  recovered  for  Berosus  from  the  Astronomical  Canon 
 and  from  other  sources,  will  stand  as  follows :  — 
 
 Yrs. 
 
 King. 
 
 Astro.  Can.   from  in  B.C. 
 
 Anianus. 
 
 Panodorus. 
 
 1.  Cyrus  29  (Herod,)"" 
 
 or  30  years  in  all 
 
 from  B.C.  559,  but 
 
 9    Jan.   5,  538 
 
 31 
 
 9 
 
 from  B.C.  538  only 
 9 
 
 2.  Cambyses  [includ- ' 
 
 ing   7"    of  the 
 Magian  SmevdisT 
 
 8    Jan.    3,  529 
 
 8 
 
 g 
 
 3.  Darius  Hystaspes 
 
 36    Jan.    1,  521 
 
 36 
 
 36 
 
 4.  Xerxes  [including" 
 7^  of  ArtabanusJ 
 
 21    Dec.  23,  486 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 5.  Artaxerxes  Long. " 
 
 [including   2"°  of 
 Xerxes  II.  and  7° 
 
 ! 
 
 41    Dec.  17,  465 
 
 43 
 
 41 
 
 of  Sogdianusl 
 
 6.  Darius  Nolhus 
 
 19    Dec.    7,  424 
 
 19 
 
 19 
 
 7.  Artaxerxes  Mnemon 
 
 46    Dec.    2,  405 
 
 40 
 
 46 
 
 8.  Ochus 
 
 21    Nov.  21,  359 
 
 5 
 
 21 
 
 9.  Arses 
 
 2    Nov.  16,  338 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 10.  Darius  Codomannus 
 
 4    Nov.  15,  336 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 207  to  Nov.  14,  332 
 
 212 
 
 209 
 
 Sum,  for  the  X  [or  xiv  actual]  kings,  207  years  from  B.C. 
 538  to  B.  c.  332,  or  209  to  B.  c.  330,  or  230  from  B.  c.  559 
 to  B.  c.  330,  giving  an  average  of  nearly  23  years  to  x  or  16^ 
 to  xiv  kings.  The  Astronomical  Canon  reckons  only  4  years 
 to  Darius  Codomannus,  placing  the  Egyptian  accession  of 
 Alexander  in  B.C.  332  ;  but  Berosus  would  probably  reckon 
 6  years  to  Darius,  and  would  place  the  Babylonian  accession 
 of  Alexander  at  his  death,  in  B.  c.  330. 
 
 At  the  Babylonian  and  Persian  accession  of  Alexander 
 Berosus  brought  his  XaXSat/ca  or  Ba^vXwviaKa  to  an  end, 
 having  made,  as  it  seems,  from  the  Median  conquest  of  Baby- 
 lon in  B.  c.  2209  just  the  same  number  of  1881  vague  years 
 of  historical  kings  to  B.  c.  (2209-1881  =  )  330  as  the  Old 
 Egyptian  Chronicle  made  from  the  accession  of  Menes  in 
 B.  c.  2224  to  the  conquest  of  Ochus  and  the  flight  of  Nec- 
 tanebo  11.  in  B.  c.  (2224-1881=)  345,  "  15  years  before 
 the  cosmocracy  of  Alexander." 
 
 X.  Berosus  seems  also  to  have  brouo:ht  down  his  reckon- 
 ings  by  incidental  allusions  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Anti- 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  991 
 
 ochus  Soter,  the  3rd  successor  of  Alexander  at  Babylon,  and 
 the  2nd  Macedonian  who  held  Syria  as  a  separate  kingdom. 
 The  Macedonian  reigns  will  stand  thus: — ■ 
 
 King. 
 
 Years  from 
 
 in  B,  c. 
 
 a. 
 
 Alexander 
 
 6    Nov.  14, 
 
 330 
 
 '':\ 
 
 r  Philip  Aridajus 
 
 7    Nov.  12, 
 
 324 
 
 7. 
 
 |_  Alexander  Mgi 
 
 5    Nov.  11, 
 
 317 
 
 1. 
 
 Seleucus  Nicator 
 
 31    Nov.  10, 
 
 312 
 
 2. 
 
 Antiochus  Soter 
 
 19    Nov.  2, 
 
 281 
 
 68  to  Oct.  28, 
 
 B.  C.  262 
 
 Sum,  from  the  Babylonian  accession  of  Alexander  in  B.C. 
 330  to  Thoth  1,  Oct.  28,  in  B.C.  262,  some  months  before 
 the  death  of  Antiochus  Soter,  68  years,  or  70  from  B.C.  332. 
 
 In  conclusion,  since  it  will  be  natural  to  inquire  how  far 
 recent  discoveries  have  afforded  any  new  light,  and  it  may 
 not  be  every  reader  who  has  at  hand  Mr.  Bawlinson's  Hero- 
 dotus, we  shall  extract  or  abridge  from  that  work  so  much  as 
 may  suit  our  purpose,  not  keeping  always  to  the  words  of 
 the  text,  but  distinguishing  such  remarks  or  additions  as  are 
 from  any  other  source. 
 
 With  regard  then,  first,  to  those  Ixxxvi  Chaldaean  kings  of 
 Berosus  whose  34,080  years  were  reckoned  in  sari,  neri, 
 and  sossi,  they  are  supposed  to  be  beyond  the  reach  of  in- 
 vestigation. 
 
 And  of  the  first  historical  dynasty  of  viii  Median  tyrants, 
 whom  Mr.  Rawlinson  supposes  to  have  been  really  Scyths, 
 and  who  reigned  at  Babylon  224  years,  no  traces,  he  says, 
 have  been  discovered. 
 
 But  of  the  second  historical  dynasty  of  xi  kings  (if  only 
 it  may  be  assumed  that  they  were  like  their  successors,  Chal- 
 deans), and  of  the  third  of  xlix  kings,  who  are  expressly 
 called  Chaldaeansj  monumental  traces,  he  thinks,  have  been 
 found,  not,  indeed,  at  Babylon,  nor— still  less — at  Nineveh, 
 but  in  different  ruins  of  Southern  Babylonia.  And  to  these 
 two  dynasties,  following  a  pamphlet  by  Dr.  Brandis  entitled 
 "  Rerum  Assyriarum  Tempora  Emendata,^''  and  published  at 
 Bonn  in  1853,  he  supposes  that  Berosus  gave  not  (48  i- 
 458  =  )  506  but  (258+458  =  )  716  years.  Dr.  Brandis, 
 it  seems,  fancied  that  36,000  (that  is,  one  hundred  times 
 
992 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the  number  of  the  days  in  a  vague  year  without  the  epa- 
 gomentB,  or  ten  times  the  number  of  a  sarus)  was  "  a  cyclical 
 number."  This,  however,  was  a  blunder  to  begin  with. 
 For  though  36,500  Canicular  or  Julian,  or  36,525  vague 
 Nabonassarian  years  are  cyclical  numbers,  representing  xxv 
 Sothic  cycles,  36,000  is  not.  It  is  merely  a  great  sum  ob- 
 tained by  multiplying  one  number  into  another.  Next,  he 
 fancied  that  Berosus  reckoned  this  "cyclical  number"  of 
 36,000  years  from  Euechius,  the  first  of  his  prehistorical 
 kings  after  the  Flood,  to  the  capture  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus 
 in  B.  c.  538.  Thirdly,  he  decided  on  very  slender  grounds 
 that  Berosus  ended  the  526  years  of  his  xlv  Chaldasans  at  the 
 era  of  Nabonassar  in  b.  c.  747.  And  then  from  these  three 
 fancies  it  followed  that  the  number  of  48  years,  preserved  only 
 by  a  marginal  note  in  the  Armenian  version  of  Eusebius  as  be- 
 longing to  the  second  historical  dynasty  of  Berosus,  was  to  be 
 set  aside,  and  that  of  258  years  substituted,  as  being  requisite 
 to  make  up  the  "  cyclical  number  "  36,000.  Owing  to  his 
 acceptance  of  this  scheme,  Mr.  Eawlinson  places  the  Median 
 occupation  of  Babylon  (747-709  =  )  38  +  (258-48  =  )  210 
 =  248  years  above  B.  c.  2210  in  B.  c.  2458,  and  the  com- 
 mencement of  the  258  years  given  by  Dr.  Brandis  to  the 
 second  historical  dynasty  in  B.  c.  2234.  So  he  has  (258  + 
 458  =  )  7 1 6  years  from  B.  c.  2234  to  B.  c.  (2234  -  7 1 6  =  )  15 18, 
 instead  of  (48  +  458  =  )  506  from  b.  c.  (2209  -  224  =  )  1 985  to 
 (1985  —  506  =  )  1480,  within  which  to  place  his  earliest  group 
 of  26  monumental  kings  of  Southern  Babylonia.  With  re- 
 ference to  our  own  chronology,  however,  it  may  be  suggested 
 that,  even  if  it  were  ascertained  that  all  those  kings  whom  he 
 names  as  having  left  traces  in  Southern  Babylonia  really  con- 
 stituted only  one  series  in  single  succession  (whereas  some 
 of  them  may  have  reigned  concurrently  in  their  separate 
 cities),  still  there  is  nothing  to  forbid  the  idea  that  some  of 
 the  more  ancient  of  them  may  have  been  contemporary  with 
 the  viii  Median  kings  of  Berosus.  ^^ay,  it  is  not  impossible 
 that  there  may  exist  monumental  traces  even  of  kings  who 
 reigned  before  the  Median  occupation  of  Babylon,  and  who, 
 if  named  at  all  by  Berosus,  were  named  by  him  among  the 
 Ixxxvi  of  his  antehistorical  period.    With  these  preliminary 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  993 
 
 remarks  and  reservations,  we  now  proceed  to  extract  and 
 abridge  from  Mr.  Rawlinson. 
 
 "  From  the  excavations  wliicli  have  been  made  upon  the  sites  of  the 
 ruined  cities  of  Babylon  and  Chaldaja,  it  is  now  certain  (whatever  may 
 have  been  the  condition  of  Babylonia  in  the  pre-historic  ages)  that  at 
 the  first  establishment  of  an  empire  in  that  part  of  Asia  the  seat  of 
 government  was  fixed  in  Lower  Chaldasa,  and  that  Nineveh  did  not  rise 
 to  metropolitan  consequence  till  long  afterwards.  (Vol.  i.  p.  433.) 
 
 We  have  direct  evidence,  resulting  from  a  remarkable  sequence  of 
 numbers  in  the  inscriptions  of  Assyria,  which  enables  us  to  assign  a  cer- 
 tain Chaldaean  king,  whose  name  occurs  on  the  brick  legends  of  Lower 
 Babylonia,  to  the  first  half  of  the  19th  century  B.C.  We  are  further 
 authorised,  by  an  identity  of  nomenclature,  and  by  the  juxtaposition  of 
 the  monuments,  fo  connect  in  one  common  dynastic  list  with  this  king^  whose 
 name  is  Ismi-dagon,  all  the  other  early  kings  whose  brick  legends  have 
 been  discovered  in  Chaldaea.  Thus  we  obtain  a  list  of  above  twenty 
 royal  names,  ranging  over  a  large  interval  of  time  both  before  and  after 
 the  fixed  date  of  b.c.  1861.    (P.  433.) 
 
 The  sequence  in  question  is  the  following: — First,  an  inscription  of 
 Sennacherib  at  Bavian  commemorates  the  recovery,  in  his  10th  year,  of 
 certain  gods  which  had  been  carried  to  Babylon  by  Merodach-adan-akhi, 
 after  his  defeat  of  Tiglath-pileser,  king  of  Assyria,  418  years  previously. 
 And,  secondly,  a  record  of  this  same  king,  Tiglath-Pileser,  inscribed  on 
 the  famous  Shergat  cylinders,  declares  him  to  have  rebuilt  a  temple  in 
 the  city  of  Asshur,  which  had  been  taken  down  sixty  years  previously, 
 after  it  had  lasted  for  641  years  from  the  date  of  its  first  foundation  by 
 Shamas-iva,  son  of  Ismi-dagon.  The  calculation,  then,  by  which  we  obtain 
 the  date  of  Ismi-dagoris  accession  to  the  throne,  may  be  thus  exhibited : — 
 
 B.C. 
 
 Date  of  Bavian  inscription  (10th  year  of  Sennacherib)  692 
 
 Defeat  of  Tiglath-Pileser  by  Merodach-adan-akhi    418  years  previously. 
 
 Interval  between  the  defeat  and  the  rebuilding  of 
 
 the  temple  (say)  -  -  -  -    10  years. 
 
 Demolition  of  the  temple   -  -  -  -    60  years  previously. 
 
 Period  during  which  the  temple  had  stood  -  -  641  years. 
 
 Allow  for  2  generations  (Shamas-iva  and  Ismi- 
 dagon)  ------    40  years. 
 
 Date  of  Ismi-dagon's  accession      -  -      b.c.  1861  years. 
 
 Among  the  earliest,  if  not  actually  the  earliest,  of  the  royal  line  of 
 Chaldaea,  are  two  kings,  father  and  son,  whose  names  are  doubtfully  read 
 upon  their  monuments,  as  Urukh  [Orchamus  of  Ovid.  Met.  iv.  p.  212-3?] 
 and  llgi.  The  former  would  seem  to  have  been  the  founder  of  several 
 of  the  great  Chaldaean  capitals ;  for  the  basement  platforms  of  all  the 
 most  ancient  buildings  a.t  3Iugheir,  at  Warka,  at  Senkereh,  and  at  Niffer^ 
 are  composed  of  bricks  stamped  with  his  name,  while  the  upper  stories, 
 
 3  s 
 
994 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 built  or  repaired  in  later  times,  exhibit,  for  the  most  part,  legends  of  other 
 monarchs.  The  territorial  titles  assumed  by  TJrukh  are  King  of  Hur  and 
 Kinzi  Akkad,  the  first  of  these  names  referring  to  the  primeval  capital, 
 whose  site  is  marked  by  the  ruins  of  Mugheir,  and  the  second  being 
 [that  of  a  city  the  site  of  which  has  not  yet  been  identified].  The  gods 
 to  whom  Uriikh  dedicates  his  temples,  are  Belus  and  Beltis,  and  the  Sun 
 and  ]\Ioon.  The  relics  of  Ilgi  are  less  numerous  than  those  of  his  father, 
 but  he  is  known,  from  later  inscriptions,  to  have  completed  some  of  the 
 unfinished  buildings  at  Mugheir.  (Pp.  435,  436.) 
 
 The  only  king  who  can  have  any  claim,  from  the  position  in  which  the 
 bricks  bearing  his  legends  are  found,  to  contest  the  palm  of  antiquity  with 
 Urukh  and  7/g-i,  is  one  whose  name  appears  to  have  been  Kudur-mapula; 
 and  who,  being  further  distinguished  by  a  title  which  may  be  translated 
 "  Ravager  of  the  West,"  has  been  compared  with  the  Chedorlaomer  of 
 Scripture.  (P.  436.) 
 
 [The  date  for  Chedorlaomer  is  about  b.c.  (2159—75=)  2084—2072, 
 more  than  (2072  —  1861=)  211  years  before  the  date  indicated  by  the 
 monuments  for  Ismi-dagon.']  Elsewhere  Mr.  Rawlinson  writes  that  the 
 name  of  the  king  whom  his  brother  identifies  with  Chedorlaomer  is  in 
 the  native  (Hamltic)  Babylonian  Kudur-Mahuk ;  and  that  Mahuk  in 
 Hamitic  is  found  to  be  the  exact  equivalent  of  Laomer  in  Semitic. 
 (Bampton  Lectures  for  1859,  p.  289,  note  79.) 
 
 In  succession  to  Kudur-niapula^  but  probably  after  a  considerable  in- 
 terval of  time,  we  must  place  Ismi-dagon,  whose  approximate  age  is 
 ascertained,  from  the  inscriptions  of  Assyria,  to  be  b.c.  1861.  In  the 
 titles  of  this  king,  although  Babylon  is  still  unnoticed,  there  is  mention  of 
 the  neighbouring  city  of  Niffer  [probably  the  earliest  northern  capital, 
 and  perhiips  the  B/X/3//  of  Ptolemy],  showing  that,  while  during  the  earlier 
 period  the  seats  of  Chaldgean  empire  were  exclusively  confined  to  the 
 southern  portion  of  the  province,  in  his  age,  at  least,  the  cities  of  Baby- 
 lonia proper  had  risen  to  metropolitan  consequence.  Indeed,  from  the 
 memorial  which  has  been  preserved  of  the  foundation  of  a  temple  at 
 Asshur,  or  Kileh  Shergat^  by  Shamas-iva,  a  son  of  Ismi-dagon,  it  seems 
 probable  that  the  latter  king  extended  his  power  very  considerably  to 
 the  northward,  and  was,  in  fact,  the  first  Chaldagan  monarch  who  esta- 
 blished a  subordinate  government  in  Assyria.  (P.  437.) 
 
 The  names  of  the  son  and  grandson  of  Ismi-dagon  are  also  found 
 among  the  Chaldeean  ruins. 
 
 The  relative  position  of  the  later  kings  in  the  series  it  is  impossible 
 absolutely  to  determine.  As,  however,  the  names  must  be  presented 
 according  to  some  arrangement,  they  will  still  be  given  in  that  which  is 
 thought  upon  the  whole  to  be  the  most  probable  order  of  succession. 
 
 The  following  table,  then,  exhibits  these  kings  in  their  proposed  order 
 of  succession,  with  the  approximate  dates  of  their  reigns :  — 
 
 1.  (a')  Z7n/^^,  about  2200  B.C.    On  bricks  in  lowest  basements  at  ikfw^- 
 
 heir,  Warka,  Senkereh,  Niffer,  &c.,  "King  of  Hur  [Mugheir,  Ur 
 of  the  Chaldees],  and  of  Kinzi  Akkad." 
 
 2.  (f30  I/gi  (his  son),  about  2200  b.c.    At  Mugheir,  &c. 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  995 
 
 3.  (a)  Sinti-shiUkhak,  about  1976  [2114  ?]  b.c. 
 
 4.  (p')  Kudur-mapula  (his  son),  about  1976  [2084?]  B.C. 
 
 5.  (aO  Ismi'dagon,  18G1  b.c.    At  iV^i/fi?'',  &c. 
 
 6.  (30  Ibil-anu-duma  (his  *07/),  about  1800  b.c.    He  is  styled  only 
 
 "Governor  of  Hur"  (Mugheir).  He  built  the  great  cemeteries 
 there.  Shanias-iva,  another  son  of  Isnii-dagon,  founded  a  temple 
 at  Asshur  (Kileh  Shergat). 
 
 7.  (/)  Gurguna  (his  son),  about  1800  b.c. 
 
 8.  (jtSO  Naram-sin,  about  17o0  b.c.    Styled  only  "King  of  Kiprat;'  but 
 
 an  alabaster  vase  from  Babylon  has  his  name,  and  he  founded  a 
 temple  at  Sippara.    His  father's  name  is  illegible. 
 
 9.  Sin-shada,  about  1700  b.c.  In  the  ruins  named  Bowarieh  at  Warka 
 
 (Erech). 
 
 10.  Merodach-namana,  about  1675  b.  c.  In  pavement  of  Bowarieh  mound 
 
 at  AYarka.  He  is  the  earliest  king  who  styles  himself  "King  of 
 Babylon." 
 
 11.  liim-sin,  about  1650  b.c.    On  small  black  tablet  in  lesser  temple  at 
 
 HtiJ^  (]Mugheir). 
 
 12.  Zur-sin,  about  1625  b.c.    His  bricks  are  also  found  at  Mugheir. 
 
 He  founded  the  city  whose  ruins  are  now  called  Abu- Sharein. 
 Some  other  imperfect  names  contain  the  same  element,  sin. 
 
 13.  {(i)  Purna-piiriyas, ?ihont  1600  b.c.  His  legends  nearly  resemble  those 
 
 of  Durri-galazu,  who  follows.  His  bricks  are  found  in  the  ruins 
 of  the  temple  of  the  Sun  at  Senkereh,  which  was  repaired  in  later 
 times  by  Nabonidus. 
 
 14.  (/3')  Durri-galazu  (his  son),  about  1575  b.c.    In  many  different 
 
 quarters.  Some  ruins  to  the  east  of  the  river  Hye,  near  its  con- 
 fluence with  the  Euphrates,  are  still  called  Zergul.  He  founded, 
 too,  the  city  whose  ruins  are  now  Ctilled  Akkerkuf,  and  repaired 
 temples  at  Mugheir  {Hur),  and  at  Sippara.  His  signet  ring  has 
 been  found  at  Bagdad,  with  the  name  of  his  father. 
 
 15.  (f/)  Khammurabi,  about  1550  b.c.    In  many  places.    At  Senkereh 
 
 lie  repaired  the  temple  of  *the  Sun.  At  Kalwadlia,  near  Bagdad, 
 he  built  a  palace.  At  Tel  Sifr  many  clay  tablets  of  his  reign 
 have  been  found.  His  name  and  titles  are  also  on  a  stone  tablet 
 found  at  Babylon. 
 
 16.  (j3')  Samshu'iluna  (his  son),  about  1550  b.c    On  clay  tablets  found 
 
 at  Tel  Sifr. 
 
 In  the  foregoing  sketch  sixteen  kings  have  been  enumerated,  whose 
 names  have  been  read  with  greater  or  less  certainty.  The  monuments 
 present  perhaps  ten  other  names,  the  orthography  of  which  is  too  imper- 
 fect or  too  difficult  to  admit  of  their  being  phonetically  rendered  in  the 
 present  state  of  our  knowledge.  To  this  fragmentary  list,  then,  of  twenty- 
 six  monarchs  our  present  information  is  confined.  (P.  440.) 
 
 All  the  kings  whose  monuments  are  found  in  ancient  Chaldsea  used 
 the  same  language,  and  the  same  form  of  writing ;  they  professed  the  same 
 religion,  inhabited  the  same  cities,  and  followed  the  same  traditions. 
 
 3  8  2 
 
996 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Temples  built  in  the  earliest  times  receive  the  veneration  of  successive 
 generations,  and  were  repaired  and  adorned  by  a  long  series  of  monarchs, 
 even  down  to  the  time  of  the  Semitic Nabonidus,  a  passage  on  whose  cylin- 
 der, discovered  at  Mvglieir,  seems  to  signify  that  he  found  in  the  annals  of 
 Uriikh  and  Ilgi  "  a  notice  of  the  original  building  of  the  temple  of  the 
 Moon-God  at  that  place,  which  he  himself  repaired  and  beautified."  Ac- 
 cording to  the  chronological  scheme  here  followed  the  building  of  this 
 temple  must  have  taken  place  at  least  1500  years  previously  [at  least 
 (B.C.  2210—224=:)  1986—540  ?=1446].  AVith  this  evidence  of  the  close 
 connection  between  the  earlier  and  the  later  kings,  we  are  obliged  either 
 to  refer  the  whole  series  exclusively  to  the  great  Chaldaean  dynasty  of 
 Berosus,  the  third  in  his  historical  list,  commencing  b.c.  [747+1229  =  ] 
 1976  [but  in  b.  c.  1938,  if  Berosus  ended  the  526  years  of  his  xlv  Chaldaean 
 kings  not  in  b.c.  747,  but  in  b.c.  709],  in  which  case  it  is  difficult  to  find 
 room  for  the  predecessors  of  Isnii-dagon^  whose  date  is  little  more  than 
 a  century  later,  viz.  b.c.  1861  [only  69  years  later]  ;  or  else  to  suppose, 
 which  is  far  more  probable,  that  the  two  dynasties  of  Berosus  following 
 upon  the  (so-called)  Medes  both  belonged  to  the  Hamite  family,  and 
 were  equally  entitled  to  the  geographical  epithet  of  Chaldagan  from  the 
 position  of  their  chief  cities  in  the  plains  of  Southern  Chaldaea.  (P.  442, 
 line  5.) 
 
 [Thus,  without  adopting  Dr.  Brandis's  scheme,  there  would  be  (69  + 
 48=:)  117  years  for  the  predecessors  of  Ismi-dagon^  beginning  from  Urukh. 
 But  one  may  suppose  that  there  were  kings  in  Southern  Babylonia  from 
 still  earlier  times,  without  prejudice  to  the  Median  or  Scythic  occupation 
 of  Babylon.] 
 
 The  state  of  Susiana,  on  the  opposite  frontier  of  Chalda;a,  must  also 
 be  taken  into  the  account  in  estimating  the  power  of  the  great  Hamite 
 empire  on  the  Lower  Euphrates.  There  we  have  an  extensive  collection 
 of  legends,  both  on  bricks  and  slabs,  belonging  to  a  series  of  kings  who, 
 judging  from  their  language,  must  have  been  also  of  a  Hamite  race.  The 
 character  employed  in  these  inscriptions  is  almost  the  same  as  the  hie- 
 ratic Chalda3an  of  the  early  bricks,  but  the  language  seems  to  resemble 
 the  Scytliic  of  the  Achsemenian  trilingual  tablets  rather  than  the  Baby- 
 lonian primitive  Chaldee. 
 
 These  Cushites,  whose  memory  would  seem  to  have  survived  in  the 
 Greek  traditions  of  Memnon  and  his  Ethiopian  subjects,  but  who  were 
 certainly  independent  of  the  monarchs  of  Chaldaea  Proper,  have  been 
 passed  over  by  Berosus  as  unworthy  of  a  place  in  his  historical  scheme ; 
 yet,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  works  of  which  the  citadel  of  Susa  is  an 
 example,  or  from  the  extent  of  country  over  which  the  Susian  monuments 
 are  found,  they  could  hardly  have  been  inferior  either  in  power  or  civi- 
 lisation to  the  Chaldseans  who  ruled  on  the  Euphrates. 
 
 (Note  8.)  Bricks  belonging  to  the  Susian  type,  and  bearing  Scythic 
 legends,  have  been  found  amid  the  ruins  of  JRishire  (near  Bmhire)  and 
 Taiirie  {S'irdf  of  the  Arabs)  ;  and  in  all  probability  the  line  of  mounds 
 which  may  be  traced  along  the  whole  extent  of  the  eastern  shores  of  the 
 Persian  G  ulf  contain  similar  relics.  (Pp.  448,  449.) 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  997 
 
 (Note  9.)  It.  is  particularly  worthy  of  remark,  (hat  throughout  the 
 series  of  legends  which  remain  to  us  of  the  kings  of  Hu?-  awd  Ahkad,  the 
 name  of  Chaldcea  never  occurs  in  a  single  instance.  It  would  be  hazard- 
 ous to  assert,  on  the  strength  of  this  negative  evidence,  that  the  Chal- 
 dseans  had  no  existence  in  the  country  during  the  age  in  question ;  but 
 thus  much  is  certain,  that  they  could  not  have  been  the  dominant  race  at 
 the  time;  and  thatBerosus,  therefore,  in  naming  the  dynasty  Chaldaean, 
 must  have  used  that  term  in  a  geographical  rather  than  an  ethnological 
 sense.  Tiie  name  of  Kaldai  for  the  ruling  tribes  of  the  lower  Euphrates 
 is  first  met  with  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  which  date  from  the  early 
 part  of  the  9th  century  b.c.  In  deference,  however,  to  the  authority  of 
 Berosus  (which  is  supported  by  the  Scriptural  notices  of  "  Ur  of  the 
 Chaldees  "),  the  term  Chaldaean  is  applied  throughout  these  notes  to  the 
 Cushite  tribe  which  is  supposed  to  have  emigrated  from  Susiana  to  the 
 banks  of  the  Euphrates  in  the  20th  century  b.c.  (P.  449.) 
 
 Kespecting  the  Arabian  dynasty,  which,  according  to 
 Berosus,  succeeded  the  Chaldagans  on  the  Euphrates,  nothing 
 certain  has  been  ascertained  from  the  monuments.  The 
 following  are  Mr.  Rawlinson's  remarks  on  this  subject :  — 
 
 If  the  revolution  of  b.c.  1518  [b.c.  1480]  was  similar  in  character  to 
 that  of  B.C.  1976  [b.c.  1938],  and  the  introduction  of  a  new  dynasty 
 involved  no  change  either  in  the  seats  of  government,  or  in  the  religion 
 of  the  state,  or  even  in  the  royal  titles,  then  it  may  be  conceded  that 
 some  of  the  names  already  enumerated  might  belong  to  the  fiimily  in 
 question.  But  if  the  transfer  of  power  from  the  hands  of  a  Chaldaean  to 
 those  of  an  Arabian  tribe  was  accompanied,  as  we  should  reasonably 
 expect,  by  the  adoption  of  an  Arabian  dialect  and  an  Arabian  religion, 
 then  we  must  believe  the  third  historical  dynasty  of  Berosus  to  be 
 entirely,  or  almost  entirely,  unrepresented  in  the  inscriptions.  The 
 only  legend  indeed  which  bears  such  marks  of  individuality  as  may 
 distinguish  it  from  the  genei-al  Chaldaean  series,  and  may  thus  favour  its 
 attribution  to  the  Arabian  dynasty,  occurs  upon  a  brick  (now  in  the 
 British  Museum)  that  was  found  by  Ker  Porter  at  Hymar^  which  was  in 
 all  probability  in  ancient  times  a  suburb  of  the  city  of  Babylon.  The 
 king,  whose  name  is  too  imperfect  to  be  read,  is  there  called  "king  of 
 Babylon,"  nearly  after  the  titular  formula  of  the  old  Chaldaean  monarchs  ; 
 but  the  invocational  passage  refers  to  a  new  deity,  and  the  gramnuatical 
 structure  of  the  phrases  seems  to  differ  from  that  which  is  followed  in  the 
 other  legends. 
 
 The  Arabians,  it  is  highly  probable,  formed  an  important  element  in 
 the  population  of  the  Mesopotamian  valley  from  the  earliest  times. 
 There  are  at  least  30  distinct  tribes  of  this  race  named  in  the  Assyrian 
 inscriptions  among  the  dwellers  on  the  banks  of  the  Tigris  and  Eu- 
 phrates ;  and  under  the  later  kings  of  Nineveh,  the  Yahhur  (modern 
 Jibhur)y  and  the  Gumbulu  (modern  Jumhula)^  who  held  the  marshy 
 
 3  s  3 
 
998 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 country  to  the  south,  appear  to  have  been  scarcely  inferior  to  the  Chal- 
 daeans  themselves  in  strength  and  numbers.  Offsets  of  the  same  race 
 had  even  passed  in  the  time  of  Sargon  beyond  the  mountain  barrier  into 
 Media,  where  they  held  a  considerable  extent  of  territory,  and  were 
 known  as  "  the  Arabs  of  the  East." 
 
 At  the  close  then  of  the  Chaldsean  period,  or  possibly  after  an  interval 
 of  Arabian  supremacy,  the  seat  of  empire  was  transferred  to  Assyria, 
 about  B.C.  1273  .  .  .  [rather,  about  b.c.  709+526=1235,  or  6  years 
 later]. 
 
 Of  the  Chaldaan  kings  whose  names  have  been  given  above  Mr. 
 Eawlinson  observes  that  but  little  is  to  be  learnt  from  the  inscriptions 
 respecting  either  their  foreign  or  their  domestic  history.  They  assume 
 in  their  brick  legends  a  great  variety  of  territorial  titles ;  but  the  nomen- 
 clature belongs  almost  exclusively  to  Chaldaea  and  Babylonia.  Among 
 the  names  used,  the  most  common  are  Kipi^atarha^  or  The  Four  Races  (?), 
 2.  Hur  (Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  or  Mugheir)^  3.  Larsa  (Ellasar,  or 
 Senkereh),  4.  Erech,  or  WarTta,  5.  Kinsi  Akkad  (Accad  of  Genesis), 
 6.  Bahil  or  Babylon,  and  7.  Nipur  or  the  city  of  Belus  (the  Greek 
 B/X/??/,  and  modern  Niffer).  Assyria  is  not  mentioned  in  one  single 
 legend ;  nor  are  there  any  names  of  cities  or  districts  which  can  be 
 supposed  to  belong  to  that  province.  Except  indeed  for  the  notice  pre- 
 served on  the  cylinders  of  Tiglath-Pileser  I.,  that  the  temple  of  Anu  and 
 Iva  at  Asshur,  or  Kileh  Shergat,  had  been  originally  founded  by  Shamas- 
 iva,  son  of  Tsmi-dagon^  we  should  have  been  without  any  direct  evidence 
 that  the  Chalda^an  kings  had  ever  extended  their  sway  over  the  country 
 which  adjoined  Babylonia  on  the  north.  Such  an  extension  of  power 
 may  now  be  assumed ;  but,  so  far  as  our  present  information  reaches,  it 
 would  seem  as  if  Assyria  during  the  long  period  of  Chaldsean  supremacy 
 had  occupied  a  very  inferior  position  in  the  political  system  of  the  East. 
 The  country  was  perhaps  governed  generally  by  Babylonian  satraps, 
 some  of  whose  legends  seem  to  be  still  extant ;  but  it  was  not  of  sufficient 
 consequence  to  furnish  the  Chaldsean  monarchs  with  one  of  their  royal 
 titles. 
 
 (Note  7.)  Bricks  have  been  found  at  Kileh-Shergat  which  record  the 
 names  and  titles  of  four  of  these  tributary  satraps.  The  legends,  as 
 might  be  expected,  are  of  the  Babylonian  rather  than  of  the  Assyrian 
 type ;  and  the  titles  belong  to  the  most  humble  class  of  dignities. 
 (Pp.  447-8.) 
 
 On  the  subject  of  the  great  Assyrian  empire,  which  Mr. 
 Rawlinson  supposes  to  have  covered  a  space  "  of  520  or 
 (more  exactly)  526  years,  as  Herodotus  and  Berosus  testi- 
 fied," and  which  he  so  identifies  with  Berosus's  group  of 
 xlv  Chaldagan  kings,"  he  writes  as  follows  :  — 
 
 Concerning  the  origin  of  Assyrian  independence,  nothing  can  be  said 
 to  be  known.    We  seem  to  have  evidence  of  the  inclusion  of  Assyria  in 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  999 
 
 the  dominions  of  the  early  Babylonian  kings;  but  the  time  when  she 
 shook  oir  this  yoke  and  became  a  free  country  is  quite  uncertain,  and  can 
 only  be  very  roughly  conjectured.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  at  any 
 rate  clear  that  about  the  year  b.  c.  1273  [b.c.  1235]  Assyria,  which  had 
 previously  been  a  comparatively  unimportant  country,  became  [inde- 
 pendent, and  very  soon  after  became]  one  of  the  leading  states  of  the 
 East,  possessing  what  Herodotus  not  improperly  terms  an  empire,  and 
 exercising  a  paramount  authority  over  the  various  tribes  upon  her 
 borders.  The  seat  of  government  at  this  early  time  appears  to  have  been 
 at  Asshu)',  the  modern  Kileh-Shergat,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Tigris,  60 
 miles  south  of  the  later  capital,  Nineveh.  At  this  place  have  been  found 
 the  bricks  and  fragments  of  vases  bearing  the  names  and  titles  of 
 (apparently)  the  earliest  known  Assyrian  kings,  as  well  as  bricks  and 
 pottery  inscribed  with  the  names  of  satraps,  who  seem  to  have  ruled  the 
 country  during  the  time  of  Babylonian  ascendency.  This  too  is  the  city 
 at  which  Shajnas-iva,  the  son  of  the  Babylonian  kir.jr  Ismi-clagon^ 
 erected  (about  b.c.  1840)  a  temple  to  the  gods  Anu  and  Iva\  so  that  it 
 may  with  much  probability  be  concluded  to  have  been  the  capital 
 during  the  whole  period  of  the  Babylonian  dominion.   (Pp.  455-6.) 
 
 With  regard  to  the  first  kings,  the  Babylonian  historians,  as  we  are 
 told  by  Abydenus,  ignored  altogether  the  existence  of  any  such  monarcha 
 as  Ninus,  the  mythic  founder  of  the  empire,  and  his  wife  Semiramis. 
 
 The  earliest  known  king  of  Assyria  is  a  certain  Bel-lush^  who  is  the 
 first  of  a  C(msecutive  series  of  four  monarchs,  proved  by  the  bricks  of 
 Kileh' Shergat  to  have  borne  sway  in  Assyria  at  a  time  when  its  con- 
 nection with  Babylonia  had  not  long  ceased.  These  kings,  whose  names 
 are  read  very  doubtfully  as  Bel-lush^  Pudil,  Iva-lush,  and  Shalma-har\ 
 or  Shalma-rish^  and  who  take  the  title  oidy  assumed  by  imiependent 
 princes,  may  possibly  be  actually  the  earliest  of  the  entire  series,  and  in 
 that  case  would  be  likely  to  have  covered  with  their  reigns  the  space 
 between  b.c.  1273  and  b.c.  1200  [b.c.  1235  and  b.c.  1162].  No  his- 
 torical events  can  be  distinctly  assigned  to  this  period.  [In  a  note  it  is 
 here  observed  that  a  king  called  Shalmajiu-bar,  or  Shalmanu-rish  {query^ 
 Shalmaneser  ?),  is  mentioned  as  the  founder  of  Calah  (Ntmrud)  in  a  late 
 inscription.  This  may  perhaps  be  the  4th  monarch  of  the  Kileh- Shergat 
 series,  whose  name  is  almost,  though  not  quite,  the  same.]  Tlie  kings 
 are  known  only  by^  their  legends  upon  bricks  and  vases,  which  have  been 
 found  at  but  one  single  place,  viz.  Kileh- She?-gat,  and  which  are  remark- 
 able for  nothing  but  the  archaic  type  of  the  writing,  and  the  intermixture 
 of  early  Babylonian  forms  with  others  which  are  purely  Assyi  ian.  It  is 
 on  this  ground  especially  that  they  are  assigned  to  the  commencement  of 
 the  empire,  when  traces  of  Babylonian  influence  might  be  expected  ro 
 show  themselves;  but  it  must  be  confessed  that  they  nmj  possibli/  belong 
 to  a  time  about  150  years  later,  when  Babylonia  once  more  made  her 
 power  felt  in  Assyria,  a  Chaldasan  monarch  defeating  the  Assyrians  in 
 their  own  country,  and  carrying  ofi"  in  triumph  to  Babylon  the  sacred 
 images  of  their  gods.    (Pp.  456-7.) 
 
 3  s  4 
 
1000 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The  series  of  kings  whicli  is  probably  to  be  placed  next  to  this  consists 
 of  six  monarchs,  forming  a  continuous  line,  and  reigning  from  about  B.C. 
 1200  to  B.C.  1050  [B.C.  1162  tOB.c.  1012,  or,  if  the  preceding  kings  are 
 misplaced  at  the  head  of  all,  these  would  be  earlier],  the  crown  during 
 this  period  descending  without  a  break  from  father  to  son.  Of  these 
 kings  the  names  of  the  first  five  are  recorded  on  the  famous  Kileh- 
 She7'gat  cylinder,  the  earliest  document  of  a  purely  historical  character 
 which  has  as  yet  been  recovered  by  the  researches  pursued  in  Mesopo- 
 tamia. 
 
 Tiglath  Pileser  /.,  the  ffth  king  of  this  series,  records  on  this  cy- 
 linder his  own  annals  during  the  first  five  years  of  his  reign,  concluding 
 his  account  by  a  glorification  of  his  ancestors,  whom  he  traces  back  to 
 the  fourth  degree.  The  few  particulars  which  are  given  in  this  slight 
 sketch  form  almost  the  whole  that  is  known  at  present  of  the  kings  in 
 question,  whose  names  it  is  proposed  to  read  as  Nin-pala-hwa,  Assliur- 
 dapal-il,  Mutaggil-nebu,  and  Asshur-rish-ili.  Of  the  first  of  these,  whose 
 name  is  even  more  than  ordinarily  uncertain,  it  is  related  that  he  was 
 "  the  king  who  first  organised  the  country  of  Assyria^''  and  "  established 
 the  troops  of  Assyria  in  authority ; "  from  which  expression,  as  well  as 
 from  his  being  the  last  monarch  in  the  list,  he  may  perhaps  be  fairly 
 viewed  as  the  founder  of  the  line,  and  possibly  of  the  independent  king- 
 dom. [In  which  case  he  should  answer  to  the  Ninus  of  Ctcsias,  and  his 
 accession  should  be  put  at  b.c.  1235.] 
 
 His  son,  Asshur-dapal-ih  besides  "  holding  the  sceptre  of  dominion,"  and 
 "  ruling  over  the  people  of  Bel^'  is  only  said  to  have  "  obtained  a  long 
 and  prosperous  life."  Later,  however,  in  the  same  inscription,  it  is  men- 
 tioned that  this  king  took  down  the  great  temple  of  Anu  and  Phul  at 
 Kileh-Shergat^  which  was  at  the  time  in  an  unsound  condition.  Of  the 
 third  king,  Mutaggil-nebu,  nothing  more  appears  than  that  he  "was 
 established  in  strength  in  the  government  of  Assyria  ; "  but  of  the  fourth, 
 Asshur-rish-ili,  the  father  of  Tiglath-Pileser  I.,  it  is  recorded  that  he 
 was,  like  his  son,  a  conqueror.  Asshur-rish-ili  is  "the  powerful  king,  the 
 subduer  of  foreign  countries,  he  who  reduced  all  the  lands  of  the  Magian 
 world"  — expressions  which  are  no  doubt  exaggerated,  but  which,  con- 
 trasted with  the  silence  of  the  inscription  with  respect  to  any  previous 
 conquests,  would  seem  to  indicate  that  it  was  this  monarch  who  first 
 began  those  aggressions  upon  the  neighbouring  nations,  which  gradually 
 raised  Assyria  from  the  position  of  a  mere  ordinary  kingdom  to  that  of 
 a  mighty  and  flourishing  empire. 
 
 The  following  is  given  by  Mr.  Rawlinson  in  a  note  as  a  translation  of 
 the  genealogical  portion  of  this  important  document  :  — 
 
 "  Tiglath-Pileser,  the  illustrious  prince,  whom  Asshur  and  Hercules 
 have  exalted  to  the  utmost  wishes  of  his  heart,  who  has  pursued  after  the 
 enemies  of  Asshur,  and  has  subjugated  all  the  earth — 
 
 "The  son  of  Asshur-rish-ili,  the  powerful  king,  the  subduer  of  foreign 
 countries,  he  who  has  reduced  all  the  lands  of  the  Magian  world— 
 
 "  The  grandson  of  Mutaggil-nebu,  whom  Asshur  the  great  lord  aided 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1001 
 
 according  to  the  wishes  of  his  heart,  and  established  in  strength  in  the 
 government  of  Assyria  — 
 
 "  The  glorious  ofFs^pring  of  Asshur-dapal-il,  who  held  the  sceptre  of 
 dominion,  and  ruled  over  the  people  of  Bel,  who  in  all  the  works  of  his 
 hands  and  the  deeds  of  his  life  placed  his  reliance  on  the  great  gods,  and 
 thus  obtained  a  prosperous  and  long  life  — 
 
 "  The  beloved  son  of  Nin-pala-kura,  the  king  who  first  organised  the 
 country  of  Assyria,"  &c.  &c.    (Pp.  457-8.) 
 
 The  annals  of  Tiglath-Pileser  I.,  which  furnish  this  account  of  his 
 ancestry,  extend  (as  has  been  already  observed)  over  the  space  of  5 
 years.  During  this  period,  besides  rebuilding  the  temple  which  (iO  years 
 previously  had  been  taken  down  by  his  great-grandfather,  he  claims  to 
 have  extended  his  conquests  over  a  large  part  of  Cappadocia,  over  Syria, 
 and  over  the  Median  and  Armenian  mountains.  In  Cappadocia,  and  the 
 region  intervening  between  that  country  and  Assyria  Proper,  the  enemy 
 against  which  he  has  to  contend  is  the  people  called  Ndii'i.  This  nation 
 was  at  the  time  divided  into  a  vast  number  of  petty  tribes,  each  under 
 its  own  chief,  and  was  conquered  in  detail  by  the  Assyrian  monarch. 
 The  Syrians,  or  Arama3ans,  whom  he  subdued,  dwelt  along  the  course  of 
 the  Euphrates  from  Tsukha  (the  Shoa  of  Scripture),  which  was  on  the 
 confines  of  Babylon,  and  Carchemish,  which  was  near  the  site  occupied 
 in  later  times  by  the  city  of  Mabog,  or  Heliopolis.  The  Armenian 
 mountains  appear,  as  in  the  later  inscriptions  of  Sargon,  under  the  name 
 of  Muzr  (Misraim),  thereby  perhaps  corroborating  the  testimony  of 
 Herodotus  as  to  the  connection  of  the  Colchians  with  the  Egyptians. 
 The  date  of  these  wars  is  capable  of  being  fixed  with  an  approach  to  ac- 
 curacy by  the  help  of  a  rock-inscription,  set  up  by  Sennacherib  at 
 Bavlan,  in  which  a  Tiglath-Pileser,  whom  there  is  every  reason  to  regard 
 as  the  monarch  whose  acts  we  are  here  considering,  is  said  to  have 
 occupied  the  Assyrian  throne  418  years  before  Sennacherib's  10th  year. 
 As  the  reign  of  Sennacherib  falls  certainly  towards  the  close  of  the  8th 
 or  beginning  of  the  7th  century,  we  may  confidently  assign  Tiglath- 
 Pileser  I.  to  the  latter  part  of  the  12  thcentury  b.c.  [b.c.  70o  -f418= 
 1123?]  This  date  accords  satisfactorily  with  the  discovered  dynastic 
 lists,  and  the  supposed  era  of  the  foundation  of  the  monarchy.  For  allow- 
 ing the  eight  kings  anterior  to  Tiglath-Pileser  I.  to  have  reigned  20 
 years  apiece,  which  is  a  fair  average,  and  taking  b.c.  1273  for  the  first 
 year  of  the  monarchy,  we  should  have  b.c.  1113  for  the  accession  of 
 Tiglath-Pileser  1.  The  inscription  of  Sennacherib  also  furnishes  us  with 
 some  additional  and  very  important  historical  facts  belonging  to  this 
 reign  — the  invasion,  namely,  of  Assyria  at  this  time  by  Merodach-adan- 
 akhi,  king  of  Babylon,  his  defeat  of  Tiglath-Pileser,  and  his  triumphant 
 removal  of  the  images  of  certain  gods  from  Assyria  to  his  o«vn  capital. 
 We  learn  from  this  record  that  Babylon  not  only  continued  to  the  close 
 of  the  12th  century  b.  c.  independent  of  Assyria,  but  was  still  the  stronger 
 power  of  the  two  —  the  power  which  was  able  to  take  the  offensive,  and 
 to  ravage  and  humiliate  its  neighbour.     (Pp.  458-9.) 
 
1002 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Tiglath-PIleser  L,  was  succeeded  by  Lis  son,  Asshur-hani-pal  I.  No 
 particulars  are  known  of  the  reign  of  this  prince,  of  whom  one  single 
 record  only  has  been  as  yet  discovered,  which  is  a  dedicatory  inscription 
 containing  his  name,  together  with  that  of  his  father,  Tiglath-Pileser, 
 and  his  grandfather,  Asshur-rish-ili.  It  is  found  on  a  mutilated  female 
 statue,  probably  of  the  goddess  Astarte,  which  was  disinterred  at 
 Kouyunjik,  and  is  now  in  the  British  Museum.    (P.  459.) 
 
 At  the  period  which  we  have  now  reached  a  break  occurs  in  the  line 
 of  kings  furnished  by  the  monuments,  which  it  is  impossible  at  present  to 
 fill  up,  but  which  does  not  appear  to  have  been  of  very  long  duration. 
 Asshur-adan-akhi,  the  next  known  king  to  Asshw^-hani-pal  i.,  is 
 thought  to  have  ascended  the  throne  about  the  year  b.c.  1050,  being 
 thus  a  contemporary  of  David.  He  is  known  only  as  the  repairer  of 
 certain  buildings  at  Kileh-ShergaL  which  continued  to  receive  additions 
 from  monarchs  who  were  his  successors,  and  probably  his  descendants. 
 These  monarchs,  whose  names  may  be  given  as  Asshur-danin-iU  hm-lush 
 11.^  and  Tiglathi-nin^  form  a  line  of  direct  descent,  which  may  be  traced 
 on  without  interruption  to  the  accession  of  Tiglath-Pdeser  II.,  the  king 
 of  that  name  whose  actions  are  recorded  in  Scripture.  They  continued 
 to  reside  and  to  repair  the  buildings  at  Kdeh- Slier  gat,  but  have  left  no 
 evidence  of  conquests  or  greatness. 
 
 Tiglathi-nin,  however.  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  observes,  is  mentioned  with 
 Tiglath-Pileser  I.  in  the  annals  of  the  great  Sardanapalus  on  the  Nimrud 
 monolith,  among  the  warlike  ancestors  of  that  king  who  had  carried  their 
 arms  into  the  Armenian  mountains,  and  there  set  up  stelas  to  comme- 
 morate their  conquests.    (P.  460.) 
 
 TiglatJn-nin,  the  last  of  the  Kdeh-Shergat  series,  was  succeeded  by  his 
 son,  Asshur-dani-pal,  or  Sardanapalus,  who  appears  to  have  transferred 
 the  seat  of  empire  from  Kdeh-Shergat,  which  had  been  the  Assyrian 
 capital  hitherto,  to  Calah,  the  modern  Nimrud,  a  position  about  40  miles 
 further  to  the  north,  near  the  junction  of  the  greater  Zab  with  the  Tigris, 
 
 on  the  opposite  or  left  bank  of  the  stream  Asshur-dani-pal,  who 
 
 seems  to  be  the  warlike  Sardanapalus  of  the  Greeks,  was  a  great  con- 
 queror. In  his  annals,  which  have  come  down  to  us  in  a  very  complete 
 condition,  it  is  apparent  that  he  carried  his  arms  far  and  wide  through 
 AVestern  Asia,  from  Babylonia  and  Chaldaea  on  the  one  side  to  Syria  and 
 the  coasts  of  the  Mediterranean  on  the  other.  It  seems  to  have  been  in  this 
 latter  quarter  that  his  most  permanent  and  important  conquests  were 
 effected.  Sardanapalus  styles  himself  "  the  conqueror  from  the  upper 
 passage  of  the  Tigris  to  Lebanon  and  the  Great  Sea,  who  has  reduced 
 under  his  authority  all  countries  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  going 
 down  thereof."  In  his  Syrian  campaign,  which  is  recorded  at  length,  not 
 only  in  the  general  inscription,  but  also  on  the  votive  Bull  and  Lion 
 which  he  set  up  at  Calah  on  his  return  from  it,  he  took  tribute  from  the 
 kings  of  all  the  principal  Phoenician  cities,  as  Tyre,  Sidon,  Byblus,  and 
 Aradus ;  among  the  rest,  probably,  from  Eth-baal,  king  of  the  Sidonians, 
 the  father  of  Jezebel,  wife  of  Ahab.    (Pp.  460-1.) 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1003 
 
 This  Sardanapahis,  son  of  Tiglathi-nin,  .  .  .  was  the  founder  of  the 
 north-west  palace  at  Nimrud,  which,  next  to  that  of  Sennacherib  at 
 Kouyiinjik,  is  the  largest  and  most  magnificent  of  all  the  Assyrian  edifices. 
 The  greater  portion  of  the  sculptures  now  in  the  British  Museum  are 
 from  this  building.  It  was  a  structure  nearly  square,  about  360  feet  in 
 length,  and  300  in  breadth,  standing  on  a  raised  platform,  overlooking 
 the  Tigris,  with  a  grand  fa9ade  to  the  north  fronting  the  town,  and 
 another  to  the  west  commanding  the  river.  It  was  built  of  hewn  stone, 
 and  consisted  of  a  single  central  hall,  more  than  120  feet  long  by  90  wide, 
 probably  open  to  the  sky,  round  which  were  grouped  a  number  of  ceiled 
 chambers,  some  larger  and  some  smaller,  generally  communicating  with 
 one  another.  The  ceilings  were  of  cedar,  brought  apparently  from 
 Mount  Lebanon  ;  the  walls  were  panelled  to  a  certain  distance  from 
 the  floor  with  slabs  of  ahibaster,  ornamented  throughout  with  bas-reliefs, 
 above  which  they  were  coated  with  plaster.  The  smaller  chambers  were 
 frequently  dark ;  the  larger  ones  were  lighted  either  by  openings  in  the 
 roof,  or  by  apertures  in  the  upper  part  of  the  wall  near  the  ceiling.  The 
 floors  were  paved  with  slabs  of  stone,  often  covered  with  inscriptions.  A 
 close  analogy  has  been  pointed  out  between  this  style  of  building  and 
 the  great  edifices  of  the  Jews,  as  described  in  Scripture  and  by  Josephus, 
 the  Jewish  kings  having,  in  all  probability,  borrowed  their  architecture 
 from  Assyria.  The  dimensions,  liowever,  of  the  palace  of  Solomon  fell 
 far  short  of  those  of  the  great  Assyrian  monarchs. 
 
 Besides  this  palace  at  Calah,  Sardanapalus  built  temples  there  to 
 Asshur  and  Merodach,  which  stood  upon  the  same  platform,  adjoining 
 the  wall  of  the  city.  He  also  built  at  least  one  temple  at  Nineveh  itself, 
 which  however  had  not  yet  reached  to  the  dignity  of  a  metropolitan  city. 
 This  temple  was  dedicated  to  Beltis,  a  deity  worshipped  both  in  Nineveh 
 and  Babylon.    (Pp.  461-2.) 
 
 Sardanapalus  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Shalmanu-bur,  or  Slialmaneser 
 (as  the  name  is  read  by  M.  Oppert),  the  great  monarch  whose  deeds  are 
 recorded  on  the  black  obelisk  in  the  British  Museum.  This  prince, 
 whose  annals  we  have  for  above  thirty-one  years,  and  whose  accession 
 must  have  fallen  between  b.  c.  904  and  900,  was  engaged,  either  person- 
 ally or  by  a  favourite  general,  in  a  perpetual  series  of  expeditions,  of 
 which  a  brief  account  is  given  upon  the  obelisk,  the  details  being  ap- 
 parently reserved  for  the  colossal  bulls,  which  seem  to  have  been  the 
 usual  dedication  after  a  victory.  These  expeditions  do  not  fiill  into  any 
 regular  order,  nor  do  tl  ey  seem  to  result  in  actual  conquest.  They  are 
 repeatedly  in  the  same  countries,  and  terminate  either  in  the  submission 
 of  the  monarch,  or  in  his  deposition,  and  the  establishment  in  his  place  of 
 a  more  obsequious  ruler.  AVhat  is  most  remarkable  in  them  is  their 
 extent.  At  one  time  they  are  in  Chaldsea,  on  the  very  borders  of  the 
 Southern  ocean ;  at  another  in  Eastern  Armenia  and  the  vicinity  of  the 
 Caspian  ;  frequently  they  are  in  Syria,  and  touch  the  confines  of  Pales- 
 tine ;  occasionally  they  are  in  Cappadocia,  in  the  country  of  the  Tuplai 
 (Tibareni).    Armenia,  Azerbijan,  great  portions  of  Media  Magna,  the 
 
1UU4 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 lino  of  Zagros,  Babylonia,  Mesopotamia,  Syria,  Phoenicia,  the  chain  of 
 Aninnus  and  the  country  beyond  it  to  the  north  and  the  north-west,  are 
 invaded  by  the  Assyrian  armies,  which  exceed  upon  occafcions  100,000 
 fighting  men.  Everywhere  tribute  is  enforced,  and  in  most  places 
 images  of  the  king  are  set  up  as  a  sign  of  his  possessing  the  supremacy. 
 The  Assyrian  successes  are  throughout  attributed,  after  the  favour  of 
 Asshur  and  Merodaeh,  to  their  archers.    (Pp.  462-3.) 
 
 The  picture  furnished  by  the  inscriptions  of  the  general  condition  of 
 Western  Asia  at  this  period  (b.  c.  900 — 860)  is  perhaps  the  most  in- 
 teresting feature  of  all  whi^h  they  present  to  us.  At  the  extreme  west 
 appear  the  Phoenician  cities.  Tyre,  Sidon,  and  Byblus,  from  which  Shal- 
 manu-bar  takes  tribute  in  his  21st  year.  Adjoining  upon  them  are  the 
 kingdoms  of  Hamath  and  Damascus,  the  latter  at  first  under  Benhadad, 
 and  then  under  Hazael;  the  former  under  a  king  named  Sahulena,  or 
 Irkhudena.  These  kingdoms  are  closely  leagued  together,  and  united  in 
 the  same  alliance  as  their  neighbours,  the  Khatti^  or  Hittites,  who  form 
 a  great  confederacy  ruled  by  a  number  of  petty  chiefs,  and  extend  con- 
 tinuously from  the  borders  of  Damascus  to  the  Euphrates  at  Bir  or 
 Bireh-jik.  The  strength  of  the  Hittites,  Hamathites,  and  Syrians  of 
 Damascus,  is  in  their  chariots,  'rhey  are  sometimes  assisted  by  the 
 "  kings  of  the  sea-coast,"  who  are  probably  the  Phoenician  princes.  The 
 valley  of  the  Orontes,  from  a  little  north  of  Hamath  to  the  great  bend 
 which  the  river  makes  towards  the  west,  and  the  country  eastward  as  far 
 as  the  mountains  which  separate  the  tributaries  of  that  stream  from  those 
 of  the  Euphrates,  is  in  possession  of  the  Patena^  a  tribe  of  Hittite?,  whose 
 name  connects  them  with  the  Padan-KYHxn  of  Scripture,  and  the  Batancea 
 of  the  Greek  writers.  This  people  is  permanently  subject  to  Assyria, 
 and  the  Assyrians  have  access  through  their  territories  to  the  countries  of 
 their  neighbours.  East  of  the  Euphrates,  in  the  country  between  Bir 
 and  i)/arZ>^Ar,  are  the  Ndiri  or  Nayari^  adjoining  upon  the  Armenians, 
 who  reach  from  about  Diarbekr  to  the  basin  of  Lake  Urumiyeh^  which 
 belongs  to  the  Mannai  (who  are  the  Minni  of  Scripture).  Southward, 
 along  the  line  of  Zagros,  are,  first,  Kharkhar^  about  lake  Yan;  next 
 Hupuska,  reaching  south  to  Holwan  and  the  Gates  of  Zagros  ;  and  then 
 the  country  of  the  Namri,  reaching  as  far  as  Susiana^  east  of  which  dwell 
 the  Medes  and  (perhaps)  the  Persians.  Below  Assyria  is  Babylonia,  the 
 more  northern  portion  of  which  is  the  country  of  the  Accad^  while  the 
 more  southern,  reaching  to  the  coast,  is  Chalda?a  —  the  land  of  the  Kaldai. 
 Above  Babylonia,  on  both  sides  of  the  Euphrates,  are  the  l^sukhi,  per- 
 haps the  Shuhites  of  Scripture.  Finally,  in  Cappadocia,  above  the 
 northern  Hittites,  and  west  of  the  Euphrates,  are  the  Tuplai^  or  Tiba- 
 reni,  a  weak  people,  under  a  multitude  of  chiefs,  who  readily  pay  tribute 
 to  the  conqueror.    (Pp.  463-4.) 
 
 The  most  interesting  of  the  campaigns  of  Shalmanu-bar  are  those  which 
 in  his  6th,  11th,  14th,  and  18th  years  he  conducted  against  the  countries 
 bordering  on  Palestine.  In  the  first  three  of  these  his  chief  adversary 
 was  Bcvliadad  of  Damascus,  the  prince  whose  wars  with  Baasha,  Ahab, 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1005 
 
 and  Jeborani,  and  whose  murder  by  Hazael,  are  related  at  length  in  the 
 Books  of"  KinjTs  and  Chronicles.  Benhadad,  who  had  strenjjthened  him- 
 self  by  a  close  league  with  the  Hamathites,  Hittites,  and  Phoenicians,  was 
 defeated  in  three  great  battles  by  tiie  Assyrian  monarch,  and  lost  in  one 
 of  them  above  20,000  men.  This  ill-success  appears  to  have  broken  up 
 the  league ;  and  when  Hazael^  soon  after  his  accession,  was  attacked  in  his 
 turn,  probably  about  the  year  b.c.  884  or  885,  he  was  left  to  his  own 
 resources,  and  had  to  take  refuge  in  Anti-Libanus,  where  Shalmanubar 
 engaged  and  defeated  him,  killing  (according  to  his  own  account)  16,000 
 of  his  fighting  men,  and  capturing  more  than  1100  chariots.  It  was 
 probably  at  this  time,  or  perhaps  three  years  later,  when  the  conqueror 
 once  n)ore  entered  Syria  and  forced  Hazael  to  supply  his  troops  with 
 provisions,  that  the  first  direct  connection  of  which  we  have  any  record 
 took  place  between  the  people  of  Israel  and  the  Assyrians.  One  of  five 
 epigraphs  on  the  black  obelisk  records  the  tribute  which  Yahua,  the  son 
 of  Khnmri  (i.e.  Jehu,  the  son  of  Omri),  brought  to  the  king  who  set  it 
 up,  consisting  almost  entirely  of  gold  and  silver,  and  articles  manufac- 
 tured from  gold.  It  was  perhaps  this  act  of  submission  which  provoked 
 the  fierce  attack  of  Hazael  upon  the  kingdom  of  Israel  in  the  reign  of 
 Jehu,  when  he  "  smote  them  in  all  their  coasts,"  and  deprived  them  of 
 the  entire  country  east  of  Jordan,  the  ancient  possession  of  the  tribes  of 
 Reuben,  Gad,  and  Manasseh,  as  far  as  "  Aroer  by  the  river  Arnon," 
 which  flows  into  the  Dead  Sea.    (Pp.  464-5.) 
 
 Shalmanubar  dwelt  indifferently  at  Calah  and  at  Nineveh,  and  greatly 
 embellished  the  former  of  these  cities.  He  was  the  builder  of  the  great 
 central  palace  at  that  place,  which  has  furnished  us  with  so  many  of  the 
 most  interesting  specimens  of  Assyrian  art.  Like  his  father  he  appears 
 to  have  brought  timber,  probably  cedar,  from  the  forests  of  Syria ;  and 
 sometimes  even  to  have  undertaken  expeditions  for  that  special  purpose. 
 He  probably  reigned  from  about  b.  c.  900  to  b.  c.  860  or  850.    (P.  465.) 
 
 Shalmanubar  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Shamas-iva;  whose  annals,  like 
 his  father's,  have  in  part  come  down  to  us  upon  an  obelisk  set  up  by  him 
 to  commemorate  his  exploits,  at  Calah,  which  seems  to  have  been  still  the 
 Assyrian  capital.  We  learn  from  this  document  that  during  the  lifetime 
 of  Shalmanubar  Sardanapalus,  his  eldest  son,  had  raised  a  revolt  against 
 his  authority,  which  was  with  difficulty  put  down  by  Shamas-iva^  the 
 younger  brother.  Twenty- seven  strong  places,  including  Asshur  the 
 old  metropolis,  Amida  (the  modern  Diarbekr),  Telapni  which  was  near 
 Orfa,  and  the  famous  city  of  Arbela  —  here  first  commemorated  — 
 espoused  the  cause  of  the  pretender.  A  bloody  struggle  followed,  re- 
 sulting in  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion  by  the  capture  of  the  revolted 
 cities,  which  were  taken  by  Shamas-iva^  one  after  another.  Sardana- 
 palus,  in  all  probability,  lost  his  life  :  if  not,  at  any  rate  he  forfeited  the 
 succession,  which  thus  fell  to  the  second  son  of  the  late  monarch.  (Pp. 
 465-6.) 
 
 The  annals  of  Shamas-iva  upon  the  obelisk  extend  only  over  the  terra 
 of  four  years,  and  then  end  abruptly.    It  is  not  likely,  however,  that  he 
 
1006 
 
 APrENDlX. 
 
 reigned  for  so  short  a  time,  as  the  space  between  Shalmanuhar  and  Tig- 
 luth-Pilese?'  II.  (that  is,  if  we  connect  the  accession  of  Tiglath-Pileser 
 with  the  era  of  Nabonassar,  b.  c.  747)  exceeds  a  century,  and  is  occupied 
 (so  far  as  at  present  appears)  by  but  two  reigns,  tliose  of  Shnmas-iva  and 
 of  his  son  and  successor,  Iva-lush.  In  these  four  years  Shamas-iva  under- 
 took expeditions  against  the  tribes  of  the  Nairi  on  the  flanks  of  Taurus, 
 against  the  Medes  beyond  Zagros,  and  finally  against  the  Babylonians. 
 This  last  campaign  is  the  most  important.  In  it  Shamas-iva  declares  that 
 he  took  above  200  towns,  and  defeated  a  combined  army  of  Chaldaeans, 
 Elamites,  Namri,  and  Aramseat  s  or  Syrians,  which  the  king  of  Babylonia 
 had  collected  against  him,  slaying  5000,  and  taking  2000  prisoners,  to- 
 gether with  1000  chariots.    (P.  466.) 
 
 Iva-lush.,  the  third  prince  of  that  name,  was  the  son  and  successor  of 
 Shamas-iva.  He  is  perhaps  the  Pul  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  the 
 Phaloch  or  Phalos  of  the  Septuagint,  and  the  Belochus  of  Eusebius  and 
 others.  He  built  some  chambers  in  the  central  palace  at  Calah,  which 
 had  been  originally  erected  by  his  grandfather,  and  which  was  after- 
 wards despoiled  by  Esarhaddon.  The  records  of  his  time  which  have 
 been  hitherto  discovered  are  scanty,  but  possess  a  peculiar  interest.  One 
 of  them  is  a  pavement  slab  from  the  upper  chambers  at  Nimi'ud  (Calah), 
 wherein  is  noticed  his  reception  of  tribute  from  the  Medes,  Partsu, 
 Minni,  and  Nairi  on  the  north  and  east,  from  the  country  of  Khiinn^i,  or 
 Samaria,  from  Tyre,  Sidon,  Damascus,  Idumtea,  and  Palestine  on  the 
 western  sea  —  a  relation  which  accords  with  the  fact  mentioned  in  the 
 Second  Book  of  Kings,  that  Pul  received  a  thousand  talents  as  tribute 
 from  Menahem,  king  of  Israel.  (From  Martha.,  king  of  Damascus,  Phal- 
 lukha  took  at  this  time  2300  talents  of  silver,  20  talents  of  gold,  3000 
 of  copper,  and  5000  of  some  other  metal,  probably  iron).  Another  is  a 
 brief  inscription  on  a  statue  of  the  god  Nebo  (now  in  the  British 
 Museum),  which  shows  that  the  name  of  his  wife  was  Semiramis,  and  that 
 she  reigned  conjointly  with  her  husband,  thus  very  remarkably  confirm- 
 ing the  account  given  by  Plerodotus  of  the  real  age  of  that  personage, 
 and  also  explaining  in  some  degree  her  position  in  Herodotus  as  a  Baby- 
 lonian rather  than  an  Assyrian  princess.  Iva-lush  III.  certainly  seems 
 to  have  been  in  an  especial  way  connected  with  Babylonia.  He  appears 
 to  style  himself  "  the  king  to  whose  son  Asshur  the  chief  of  the  gods  has 
 granted  the  kingdom  of  Babylon  and  he  relates  that  on  his  return  from  a 
 campaign  in  Syria,  in  wliich  he  had  taken  Damascus,  he  proceeded  to 
 Babylonia,  where  he  received  the  homage  of  the  Chaldseans,  and  sacri- 
 ficed in  Babylon,  Borsippa,  and  Cutha,  to  the  respective  gods  of  those 
 cities,  Bel,  Nebo,  and  Nergal.  It  is  possible  that  Semiramis  was  a  Baby- 
 lonian princess,  and  that  Iva-lush.,  in  right  of  his  wife,  became  sovereign 
 of  Babylon,  where  he  may  have  settled  his  son  Nabonassar.  The  history 
 of  this  period  is,  however,  shrouded  in  an  obscurity  which  we  vainly 
 attempt  to  penetrate  ;  and  it  can  only  be  said  that  under  this  king  [or 
 his  son  ?]  the  first  Assyrian  dynasty  seems  to  have  come  to  an  end,  and 
 in  its  place  a  new  dynasty  to  have  been  established.    (Pp.  466-7.} 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYllIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1007 
 
 The  following  is  a  sketch  of  the  probable  chronology  of  the  kings  of 
 this  period  (p.  467-8)  : — 
 
 ABOUT  B.C. 
 
 1.  Bel'lush  .       .       .       .       .       .        .      1273  [1235] 
 
 2.  Pudil  1 
 
 3.  Iva-lushl.  M200 
 
 4.  Shnlma-bar  (or  Shalma-rish)   .       .  .J 
 
 5.  (a')  Nin-pala-kura  .       .       .       .       .       .  "I  hqq 
 
 6.  (fS)  Asshur-dapal-il  (his  son)         .       .  .J 
 
 7 .  (j')  Mutaggil-nehu        soTi)  .       .       .      '.  1  ^^30 
 
 8.  (oQ  Asshur-rish-ili  (his  son)  .       .       .  .J 
 
 d.  {/)  Tiglath-Pileser  I.  {hi^&on)      .       .       .  1110 
 
 10.  (tQ  Asshur-huni-pal  I.  (his  son)   .        .        .  1080 
 
 ******** 
 
 11.  (a)  Asshur-adan-akhi    .....  1050 
 
 12.  Qy)  Asshur-danin-il  (his  son)  ....  1025 
 
 13.  (/)  im-Zws/i //.  (his  son)     .       .       .  .1000 
 
 14.  (cV)  Tiglatlii-Nin  (his  son)    ....  960 
 
 15.  (/)  Asshur-dani-pal  I.  (his  son)     .       .       .  930 
 
 16.  (^0  Shalmanu-har  (his  son)  .       .       .       .  900  to  850 
 
 17.  (D  Shamas-iva  (his  son)       .       .       .       .  850  to  800 
 
 18.  (u')  Iva-lush  III.  (his  son)  [the  Prophet  Jonah  ?]    800  to  747  ? 
 [After  these,  Mr.  Rawlinson  thinks,  a  new  dynasty  succeeded,  the 
 founder  of  which  was  Tiglath-Pilezer  11.^  whom  he  identifies  with  the 
 Belitaras  of  Polyhistor  and  Berosus,  and  the  Balator  of  Ctesias.  The 
 
 names  are  as  follows  :] 
 
 19.  Tiglath-Pilezer  11.       ....  b.  c.  747  to  730  ? 
 
 20.  Shalmatiezer   b.  c.  730  to  721 
 
 21.  Sargina   b.  c.  721  to  702 
 
 22.  Sennachei^ib    (his   son)  [the  25th  king 
 
 according  to  Abydenus]    ,       .       .  b.  c.  702  to  680 
 
 23.  Asshur-akh-iddina  (his  son)  .       .       .  b.  c.  680  to  660? 
 
 24.  Asshur-huni-pal  11.  (his  son)        .       .  b.  c.  660  to  640? 
 
 25.  Asshur-emit-eli  Cql\^ '&QxC)       .       .       .1  ir*  ...   r'o  -  o 
 
 ,                .         ci  }-  B.  c.  540  to  62o.'' 
 
 26.  Perhaps  another,  answermg  to  baracus  .  J 
 
 [And  he  places  the  destruction  of  Nineveh  in  b.  c.  625.  But  there 
 seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for  departing  from  the  date  b.c.  606;  nor  for 
 questioning  the  number  of  six  reigns  which  both  Polyhistor  and  Aby- 
 denus make  from  Sennacherib  to  the  last  king,  both  being  included.  And, 
 with  the  number  of  27  known  reigns,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the 
 break  after  Mr.  Rawlinson's  10th  or  6th  reign  is  to  be  filled  up  with 
 3  others  ;  and  then  Sennacherib  will  stand  as  the  25th  king,  in  agreement 
 with  the  express  statement  of  Abydenus ;  and  there  will  be  29  or  30 
 kings  in  all,  so  as  to  account  for  the  occurrence  of  that  number  in 
 Diodorus.] 
 
 Tiglath-Pilezer  II.    He  does  not  name  his  ancestors,  nor  even  his 
 
1008 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 father  ;  so  perhaps  he  was  an  usurper.  His  annals  extend  over  17  years; 
 but  the  slabs  having  been  first  defaced  by  Sargon  or  others,  and  afterwards 
 torn  from  their  places  and  used  as  materials  by  Esarhaddon  for  his  build- 
 ings at  Nimrud  (the  ancient  Calah),  they  are  very  imperfect.  They  detail 
 his  wars  in  Upper  Mesopotamia,  Armenia,  and  Media.  In  his  1st  year 
 he  invaded  Babylonia  and  took  Sippara  (Sepharvaim)  and  other  places, 
 expelling  a  prince  named  Nebo-vasuppan.  In  his  8th  he  defeated  Rezin 
 king  of  Damascus,  which  he  took  and  destroyed,  and  received  tribute 
 from  "  Menahem  "  (probably  a  misnomer  for  Pekah)  king  of  Samaria, 
 from  a  Hiram  king  of  Tyre,  and  from  a  "  Queen  of  the  Arabs." 
 
 Of  Shalmanezer  there  seem  to  be  two  inscriptions  in  the  British  ]\[u- 
 seum  ;  but  in  neither  of  them  is  he  named.  One  seems  to  mention 
 Hushea  king  of  Samaria  ;  the  other  speaks  of  a  son  of  Rezin.  Josephus 
 (^Ant.  Jud.  ix.  14)  says  that  Menander,  who  translated  the  Tyrian  annals, 
 named  Shalmanezer  as  wan  ing  in  Phoenicia  and  Cyprus,  and  reducing  a 
 king  of  Tyre  named  Elulasus  ;  and  he  quotes  the  passage  at  length. 
 But  there  is  some  reason  to  think  that  the  acts  related  in  it  really  belong 
 to  a  later  king. 
 
 Sargoti,  or  Sargina,  though  he  calls  the  former  kings  of  Assyria  "  his 
 ancestors,"  abstains  from  naming  his  father ;  and  so  probably  he  was 
 the  founder  of  a  new  line.  We  have  his  annals  for  15  years,  and  he 
 seems  to  have  reigned  in  all  19.  He  relates  of  himself  that  in  his  1st 
 year  he  took  Samaria  ("  Samaria  I  looked  at,  I  captured  "),  and  carried 
 away  27,280  captives.  He  says  also  of  some  that  "the  survivors  of 
 them  in  Samaria  he  made  to  dwell ;"  that  he  "  appointed  a  governoi-, 
 and  fixed  a  tribute  to  be  paid."  In  the  same  year  he  went  against  Ba- 
 bylon, where  perhaps  he  placed  Mardoc-Empadus  on  the  throne.  After 
 this  he  speaks  of  Gaza  as  being  then  a  dependency  of  Egypt,  and  says 
 that  he  defeated  its  king,  Khanoum,  in  a  battle  at  Raphia ;  upon  which 
 the  "Pharaoh"  of  Egypt  (who  in  B.C.  720 — 719,  was  Sevechus)  made 
 submission,  and  paid  Sargon  a  tribute  [for  his  Philistine  dependencies  ?] 
 in  gold,  horses,  camels,  &c.  A  seal-impression  of  the  throne-name  com- 
 mon to  the  two  Sabacos,  joined  on  the  same  clay  with  another  of  the  seal 
 of  an  Assyrian  king,  bears  testimony  to  the  existence  of  a  treaty  to  which 
 it  was  once  affixed.  This  seal-impression,  which  was  found  with  many 
 more  in  a  record-chamber  in  the  palace  of  Sennacherib  at  Kouyunjik, 
 is  now  in  the  British  Museum.  Tribute  was  also  brought  to  Sargon  by 
 the  "  Chief  of  Saba,"  and  by  the  Queen  of  the  Arabs."  After  his 
 2nd  year  he  warred  for  some  time  in  Upper  Syria,  Cappadocia,  and 
 Armenia.  He  overran  Hamath  ;  defeated  Ambris  King  of  Tubal  (the 
 Tibareni),  to  whom  he  had  before  given  Khilak  (Cilicia),  but  who  had 
 revolted  after  leaguing  himself  with  the  kings  of  Meshech  (the  Moschi) 
 and  Ararat  (Armenia).  Sargon  invaded  Ararat,  and  fought  several 
 battles  with  its  king  Urza ;  took  tribute  from  ih.Q  Nairi ;  and  brought 
 back  with  him  to  Assyria  a  host  of  captives,  whom  he  replaced  by 
 colonists  from  his  own  country.  He  next  turned  eastwards,  and  warred 
 against  the  tribes  in  Mount  Zagros,  and  against  Media,  in  which  he 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1009 
 
 planted  cities,  peoplinor  them  in  part  with  his  Israelitish  captives.  Later 
 in  his  reign  he  took  Ashdod  (wliieh  seems  to  have  been  assisted  by  the 
 Egyptians  and  the  Ethiopians),  the  king  flying  into  Egypt,  which  is 
 expressly  said  to  be  subject  to  Mirukha  (that  is,  to  Ethiopia).  About 
 the  same  time  he  took  Tyre.  Afterwards,  during  4  years  at  least,  he 
 warred  in  Babylonia  and  the  adjacent  districts,  expelling  Merodach 
 Baladan,  "who  in  defiance  of  the  gods  had  held  Babylon  12  years,"  and 
 contending  with  the  kings  of  Susiana,  and  the  chiefs  of  the  Chaldtcans. 
 It  was  during  this  time  that  he  seems  first  to  have  received  tribute  from 
 the  Greeks  of  Cyprus.  But  if  he  ever  went  thither  in  person,  it  must 
 have  been  after  his  fifteenth  year,  as  it  is  not  mentioned  in  his  annals. 
 The  statue  of  Sargon  brought  from  Idalium,  and  now  in  the  Berlin 
 Museum,  commemorates  the  Cyprian  expedition.  If  we  may  apply  to 
 this  time  the  passage  of  Menander  which  Josephus  refers  to  Shal- 
 manezer  {Ant.  Jud.  ix.  14,  §  2),  we  must  suppose  that  Cyprus  had 
 been  previously  subject  to  Phoenicia,  which  did  not  relinquish  her  hold 
 without  a  sharp  struggle. 
 
 Sargon  seems  to  have  removed  the  seat  of  empire  from  Calah  further 
 to  the  north.  He  repaired  the  walls  of  Nineveh ;  and  built  in  its  neigh- 
 bourhood (at  Khorsabad)  the  magnificent  palace  from  which  were  taken 
 the  valuable  series  of  monuments  now  in  the  Louvre.  This  palace,  which 
 seems  to  have  been  completed  in  his  15th  year,  has  furnished  the  great 
 bulk  of  the  historical  documents  belonging  to  his  reign.  Its  ornamenta- 
 tion is  said  to  be  in  some  respects  Egyptian. 
 
 [It  i^  remarkable  that  on  the  Shergat  cylinder  Sargon  speaks  of  "  the 
 350  kings,  from  remote  antiquity,  who  ruled  over  Assyria,  and  pursued 
 after  the  people  of  Belu-Nipim,'''  as  if  he  meant  to  parallel  the  360  kings 
 who  had  reigned  in  Egypt  from  Menes  to  Rameses  III.] 
 
 Sargon  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Sennacherib^  whose  accession  [that  is, 
 after  the  death  of  his  father]  seems  to  have  been  in  b.c.  702,  since  that 
 year  according  to  the  Astronomical  Canon  was  the  1st  of  Belibus,  whom 
 Sennacherib  set  on  the  throne  of  Babylon  in  the  year  of  his  own  acces- 
 sion, and  deposed  3  years  afterwards.  His  annals  break  off  after  his 
 8th  year  ;  but  [his  10th  year  has  been  named  by  Mr.  Hawlinson,  and]  his 
 22nd  year  has  been  found  marked  on  a  clay  tablet.  [And  22  years 
 reckoned  from  b.c.  702  would  end  in  b.c.  680,]  He  fixed  his  residence 
 at  Nineveh,  which  he  calls  "his  royal  city."  He  commenced  repairing 
 it — for  it  had  gone  much  to  decay — ^in  his  2nd  year,  using  the  forced 
 labour  of  prisoners  collected  from  Chalda^a  and  Aramasa  on  the  one  side, 
 and  from  Armenia  and  Cilicia  on  the  other.  On  the  great  palace  alone 
 he  employed  360,000  men.  Within  two  years,  it  seems,  Nineveh  was 
 made  "  as  splendid  as  the  sun."  Two  palaces  were  repaired.  The  Tigris 
 was  confined  within  an  embankment  of  bricks  ;  and  the  ancient  aque- 
 ducts were  renewed.  Later  in  his  reign,  probably  about  his  9th  or  10th 
 year,  Sennacherib  erected  a  new  and  more  magnificent  palace  at 
 Nineveh,  which  he  adorned  with  sculptures  of  his  various  expeditions. 
 This  edifice,  which  was  excavated  by  I\Ir.  Layard,  and  which  is  known 
 
 3  T 
 
1010 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 as  the  great  Kouyunjik  palace,  is  the  largest  of  Assyrian  buildings.  It 
 contained  at  least  three  spacious  halls,  one  of  them  150  feet  by  125,  and 
 two  long  galleries  (one  of  200,  the  other  of  185  feet),  besides  innume- 
 rable chambers  ;  and  the  excavated  portion  of  it  covers  an  area  of  nearly 
 40,000  square  yards,  or  above  8  acres.  Besides  this,  Sennacherib  built  a 
 second  palace  at  Nineveh,  on  the  mound  now  called  NehU-ltuniis^ 
 and  a  temple  in  the  city  of  Tarhisi  (Shereef-Khan),  three  miles  from  the 
 capital. 
 
 Immediately  after  his  accession  Sennacherib  attacked  and  defeated 
 Merodach-Baladan,  who  with  the  aid  of  the  Susianians  had  recovered 
 Babylon.  He  entered  and  plundered  Babylon  itself  (Baladan  having 
 fled  to  the  sea),  destroyed  79  Chaldasan  cities,  and  820  villages,  and 
 returned  to  Assyria  with  a  vast  booty,  leaving  Belibus  as  his  viceroy. 
 Berosus  seems  to  have  represented  Belibus  as  supplanting  Baladan  by 
 bis  own  exertions ;  but  Sennacherib's  own  account  is  rather  to  be 
 trusted.  On  his  way  back  from  Babylonia  he  ravaged  the  lands  of 
 the  Aramaean  tribes  on  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates,  among  whom  are 
 named  the  Nahatu  and  Hagaranu,  leading  away  captive  above  200,000 
 persons.  In  his  2nd  year  he  warred  among  the  mountain  tribes  to  the 
 north  and  east  of  Assyria,  and  took  tribute  from  some  Median  tribes 
 "  who  were  entirely  unknown  to  the  kings  before  him."  In  his  3rd  he 
 first  chastised  Luliya  king  of  Sidon  (apparently  the  Elulseus  of  Menan- 
 der),  driving  him  to  take  refuge  in  Cyprus,  and  giving  his  throne  to 
 another.  It  was  probably  then  that  he  set  up  his  tablet  at  the  Nahr-el- 
 Kelh.  He  then  received  tribute  from  the  rest  of  the  Phcenician  cities,  and 
 from  the  kings  of  Edom  and  Aslidod,  who  submitted  without  a  struggle. 
 Ascalon  was  reduced  by  force  :  its  king  with  all  his  family  was  taken 
 away  to  Nineveh,  and  another  placed  on  the  throne.  Hazor,  Joppa,  and 
 other  towns  dependent  upon  Ascalon,  were  also  taken  and  plundered. 
 AYar  followed  with  Egypt.  The  Itmgs  of  that  country,  described  as 
 dependent  on  the  king  of  Meroe,  came  out  against  Sennacherib,  and 
 engaged  him  near  Lachish,  but  were  defeated  with  great  loss.  He  then 
 took  Lachish  and  Libnah,  and  afterwards  proceeded  against  Hezekiah. 
 The  Ekronites  had  expelled  their  king,  who  was  a  vassal  of  Assyria,  and 
 had  sent  him  bound  to  Hezekiah.  "  And  because  Hezekiah  would  not 
 submit  to  my  yoke,"  Sennacherib  says,  "  I  came  up  against  him,  and  I 
 took  46  of  his  fenced  cities  ;  and  of  the  smaller  towns  I  took  and  plun- 
 dered a  countless  number.  And  I  carried  off  200,150  captives,  together 
 with  horses,  asses,  and  camels,  oxen,  and  sheep,  a  countless  multitude. 
 And  Hezekiah  himself  I  shut  up  in  Jerusalem  his  capital  city,  like  a 
 bird  in  a  cage,  building  towers  round  the  city  to  hem  him  in,  and  raising 
 banks  of  earth  against  the  gates  so  as  to  prevent  escape.  Then  upon 
 this  Hezekiah  there  fell  the  fear  of  the  power  of  my  arms,  and  he  sent 
 out  to  me  the  chiefs  and  the  elders  of  Jerusalem  with  thirty  talents  of 
 gold,  and  800  talents  of  silver,  and  divers  treasures,  a  rich  and  immense 
 booty.  .  .  .  All  these  things  were  hrovght  to  me  at  Nineveh,  .  . 
 Hezekiah  having  sent  them  as  tribute,  and  as  a  token  of  his  submission.' 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1011 
 
 Sennacherib  says  further  that  he  mulcted  Ilezekiah  in  a  portion  of  his 
 dominions,  which  was  bestowed  on  the  princes  of  Ashdod,  Ekron,  and 
 Gaza.  In  his  4th  year,  B.C.  099,  we  find  Sennacherib  again  in  Babylonia, 
 where  the  party  of  Merodach-Baladan  was  still  powerful.  After  defeat- 
 ing a  ChakliTcan  chief  who  sidtd  with  the  banished  king,  and  expelling 
 some  of  the  king's  brothers,  he  deposed  the  viceroy  Bclibus,  and  placed 
 Lis  own  eldest  son  Asshiir-nadin-adin,  (the  Apronadius  of  Ptolemy's  Canon, 
 but  not  identical  with  Asordanes,  or  Esarhaddon)  on  the  throne.  In  his 
 5th  year  he  seems  to  have  warred  in  Armenia  and  Media ;  and  from 
 his  6th  to  his  8th  he  was  engaged  with  the  inhabitants  of  Lower  Baby- 
 lonia and  Susiana,  against  wuom  he  brought  a  fleet  down  the  Tigris 
 manned  with  Phoenician  sailors.    At  his  8th  year  the  annals  break  off. 
 
 It  has  been  already  observed  that  the  reign  of  Sennacherib  extended  to 
 at  least  22  years.  This  was  probably  its  exact  length  ;  for  the  ajcession 
 of  Esar-haddon  to  the  throne  of  Assyria  seems  rightly  regarded  as  con- 
 temporaneous with  his  establishment  as  king  of  Babylon,  which  last 
 event  is  fixed  by  Ptolemy's  Canon  to  b.  c.  680,  precisely  22  years  after 
 the  accession  of  Belibus,  whom  Sennacherib  plr.ced  over  Babylon  in  the 
 year  of  his  own  accession.  Sennacherib  would  thus  reign  for  14  years 
 after  the  time  -when  his  annals  cease.  It  is  possible  that  the  second 
 Syrian  expedition,  ending  in  the  miraculous  destruction  of  his  army,  oc- 
 curred during  this  period  [not  if  Hezekiah  died  in  b.  c.  726 — 29^=697]  ; 
 or  it  may  (as  has  generally  been  supposed)  have  followed  rapidly  on  his 
 first  expedition,  occurring  (for  instance)  in  his  fourth  or  fifth  year  [that 
 is  in  B.  c.  699—698  or  b.  c.  698—697],  but  being  purposely  omitted  from 
 his  annals  as  not  redounding  to  his  credit.  Sennacherib,  on  his  second 
 invasion,  again  passed  through  Palestine  and  Idumcea,  penetrating  to  the 
 borders  of  Egypt,  where  he  was  brought  into  contact  Vv^ith  Tirhakah,  the 
 Ethiopian.    (Pp.  478-9.) 
 
 The  second  expedition  of  Sennacherib  into  Syria,  whenever  it  took 
 place,  offered  a  strong  contrast  to  the  first.  The  principal  object  of  the 
 attack  was,  as  before,  the  part  of  Syria  bordering  upon  Egypt :  and  the 
 two  cities  of  Lachlsh  and  Libnah,  which  had  been  taken  in  the  former 
 war,  but  had  again  fallen  under  Egyptian  influence,  once  more  attracted 
 the  special  attention  of  the  Assyrian  king.  AVhile  engaged  in  person 
 before  the  former  of  these  two  places  he  seems  to  have  heard  of  the  de- 
 fection of  Hezekiah,  who  had  entered  into  relations  with  the  king  of 
 Egypt,  despite  the  warnings  of  Isaiah,  and  had  thereby  been  guilty  of 
 rebelling  against  his  liege  lord.  Hereupon  Sennacherib  sent  a  detach- 
 ment of  his  forces,  under  a  Tartan  or  general,  against  the  Jewish  king  ; 
 but  this  leader,  finding  himself  unable  to  take  the  city  either  by  force  or 
 by  a  defection  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants,  returned  after  a  little  while 
 to  his  master.  Meantime  tlie  siege  of  Lachish  had  apparently  been 
 raised,  and  Sennacherib  had  moved  to  Libnah,  when  intelligence  reached 
 him  that  "  Tirhakah,  king  of  Ethiopia,"  had  collected  an  army  and 
 was  on  his  way  to  assist  the  Egyptians,  against  whom  Sennacherib's 
 attack  was  in  reality  directed.    Sennacherib  therefore  contented  himself 
 
 3  T  2 
 
1012 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 with  sending  a  threatening  letter  to  Hezekiah,  while  he  pressed  forward 
 into  Egypt.  There  [or  on  the  frontier]  he  seems  to  have  been  met  .  .  . ; 
 and  probably  it  was  as  the  two  armies  lay  encamped  opposite  to  each 
 other,  that  "  the  angel  of  the  Lord  went  out  and  smote  in  the  camp  of  th 
 Assyrians  an  hundred  fourscore  and  five  thousand;  and  when  they  arose 
 early  in  the  morning,  behold,  they  were  all  dead  corpses."  Sennacherib, 
 with  the  remnant  of  his  army,  immediately  fled ;  and  the  Egyptians,  re- 
 garding the  miraculous  destruction  as  the  work  of  their  own  gods,  took 
 the  credit  of  it  to  themselves,  and  commemorated  it  after  their  own 
 fashion. 
 
 The  comparative  chronology  of  the  reigns  of  Sennacherib  and  Heze- 
 kiah is  the  chief  difficulty  which  meets  the  historian  who  wishes  to  har- 
 monise the  Scriptural  narrative  with  the  inscriptions.  Scripture  places 
 only  eight  years  betw^een  the  fall  of  Samaria  and  the  first  invasion  of 
 Judea  by  Sennacherib  (2  Kings  xviii.  9  and  13).  The  inscriptions,  as- 
 signing the  fall  of  Samaria  to  the  first  year  of  Sargon,  giving  Sargon  a 
 reign  of  at  least  15  years,  and  assigning  the  first  attack  on  Hezekiah  to 
 Sennacherib's  third  year,  put  an  interval  of  at  least  18  years  between  the 
 two  events.  Further,  a  comparison  of  Ptolemy's  Canon  with  the  in- 
 scriptions (with  which  it  is  in  perfect  and  exact  agreement)  shows 
 Sargon's  reign  to  have  been  one  of  19  years,  and  thus  raises  the  interval 
 in  question  to  22  years.  If  we  accept  the  chronological  scheme  of  the 
 Canon,  confirmed  as  it  is  by  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  records,  and 
 strikingly  in  agreement  as  it  is  in  numerous  cases  with  the  dates  obtain- 
 able from  Scripture,  we  must  necessarily  correct  one  or  more  of  the 
 Scriptural  numbers.  The  least  change  is  to  substitute  in  the  13th  verse 
 of  2  Kings  xviii.  the  twenty- seventh,  for  the  "  fourteenth  "  year  of  Heze- 
 kiah. We  may  suppose  the  error  to  have  arisen  from  a  correction  made 
 by  a  transcriber,  who  regarded  the  invasion  of  Sennacherib  and  the  ill- 
 ness of  Hezekiah  (which  last  was  certainly  in  his  14th  year)  as  syn- 
 chronous, whereas  the  words  "in  those  days"  were  in  fact  used  with  a 
 good  deal  of  latitude  by  the  sacred  writers.  (See  Layard's  Nineveh  and 
 Babylon,  p.  145,  note.)  If  this  view  be  taken,  the  second  expedition 
 must  have  followed  the  first  within  one,  or,  at  most,  two  years,  for  Heze- 
 kiah reigned  in  all  only  29  years.    (Pp.  479-80.) 
 
 Upon  the  murder  of  Sennacherib  by  two  of  his  sons  at  Nineveh  the 
 Assyrian  inscriptions  throw  no  light.  It  has  been  supposed  by  some  that 
 the  event  was  connected  wnth  the  destruction  of  his  host,  and  followed  it 
 within  the  space  of  a  few  months  ;  just  as  the  deposition  of  Apries  is  made 
 by  Herodotus  to  follow  closely  upon  the  destruction  of  his  army  by  the 
 Cyrenseans.  But  there  are  no  sufficient  grounds  for  this  belief,  which  is 
 contrary  to  the  impression  left  by  the  Scriptural  narrative ;  and  it  is  far 
 more  probable  that  Sennacherib  outlived  his  discomfiture  several  years. 
 During  this  time  he  carried  on  some  of  the  wars  mentioned  above,  and 
 was  likewise  engaged  in  the  enlargement  and  embellishment  of  his  palace 
 at  Nineveh,  as  well  as  in  those  occasional  expeditions  which  arc  com- 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1013 
 
 niemorated  by  the  decorated  chambers  there  —  additions,  as  It  would 
 seem,  to  the  ori<^Inal  structure.    (I*p.  480-1.) 
 
 As  Sennacherib  was  not  succeeded  by  his  eldest  son,  Asshur-nadin-udiJij 
 the  viceroy  of  Babylon,  that  prince  must  be  supposed  either  to  have  died 
 before  his  father,  or  to  have  been  involved  in  his  destruction.  It  is  per- 
 haps most  probable  that  he  died  in  b.  c.  693,  when  we  find  by  the  Canon 
 that  he  was  succeeded  on  the  throne  of  Babylon  by  Regihelns.  His  re- 
 moval matle  way  for  Esar-haddon  (Asshur-akh-iddina)^  most  likely  the 
 second  son,  who  appears  to  have  experienced  no  difficulty  in  establishing 
 himself  upon  the  throne  after  his  father  s  murder.  This  prince,  like  his 
 father  and  his  grandfather,  was  at  once  a  great  conqueror  and  a  builder 
 of  magnificent  edifices.  The  events  of  his  reign  have  not  been  found  in 
 the  shape  of  annals  ;  but  it  is  apparent  from  his  historical  inscriptions 
 that  he  carried  his  arms  over  all  Asia  between  the  Persian  Gulf,  the 
 Armenian  mountains,  and  the  Mediterranean,  penetrating  in  some  direc- 
 tions further  than  any  previous  Assyrian  monarch.  His  Median  con- 
 quests are  said  to  have  been  in  a  land  "  of  which  the  kings  his  fathers 
 had  never  heard  the  name and  other  hostilities  are  recorded  against 
 tribes  "  who  from  days  of  old  had  never  obeyed  any  of  the  kings  his 
 ancestors."  (Assyrian  Texts,  pp.  14  and  15.)  He  warred  in  Egijpt, 
 which,  together  with  Ethiopia,  he  claims  to  have  conquered  ;  and  he  also 
 made  himself  master  of  Sidon,  Cilicia,  the  country  of  the  Gimri  or 
 SacjB,  the  land  of  Tubal,  parts  of  Armenia,  Media,  and  Bikni^  Chaldasa, 
 Edom,  and  many  other  less  well-known  countries.  In  Susiana  he  con- 
 tended with  a  son  of  Merodach-Baladan  ;  and  he  boasts  that,  in  spite  of 
 the  assistance  which  this  prince  received  from  the  Susianian  monarch,  he 
 was  unable  to  save  his  life.  On  another  son,  who  became  a  refugee  at  his 
 court,  he  bestowed  a  territory  upon  the  coast  of  the  Persian  Gulf,  which 
 had  previously  been  under  the  government  of  his  brother.  In  Babylon 
 itself  Esar-haddon  appears  to  have  reigned  in  his  own  person,  without 
 setting  up  a  viceroy.  According  to  some  this  was  but  the  revival  of  a 
 policy  introduced  by  his  grandfather,  Sargon,  who  is  suspected  to  be  the 
 Arhianus  ApKiavbc)  of  the  Canon.  But  the  identification  of  these  two 
 names  is  very  uncertain,  No  traces  have  been  found  that  specially  con- 
 nect Sargon  with  Babylon,  whereas  there  are  many  clear  proofs  of  Esar- 
 haddon  having  reigned  there.  The  inscriptions  show  that  he  repaired 
 temples  and  built  a  palace  at  Babylon,  bricks  from  which,  bearing  his 
 name,  have  been  discovered  among  the  ruins  at  Hillah ;  a  Babylonian 
 tablet  has  also  been  found,  dated  in  the  reign  of  Esar-haddon,  by  which 
 it  appears  that  he  was  the  acknowledged  king  of  that  country.  It  is 
 probable  that  he  held  his  court  sometimes  at  the  Assyrian,  sometimes  at 
 the  Babylonian  capital ;  and  hence  it  happened  that  when  his  captains 
 carried  Manasseh  away  captive  from  Jerusalem  they  conducted  their 
 prisoner  to  the  latter  city.  ISTo  record  has  been  as  yet  discovered  of 
 this  expedition,  nor  of  the  peopling  of  Samaria  by  colonists  drawn  chiefly 
 from  Babylonia,  which  was  in  later  times  ascribed  to  this  monarch. 
 
 3  T  3 
 
1014 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The  bullillngs  erected  by  Esar-liaddon  appear  to  liave  equalled,  or  ex- 
 ceeded, in  magnificence  those  of  any  former  Assyrian  king.  In  one  inscrip- 
 tion he  states  that  in  Assyria  and  Mesopotamia  he  built  no  fewer  than 
 thirty  temples,  "  shining  with  silver  and  gold,  as  splendid  as  the  sun." 
 Besides  repairing  various  palaces  erected  by  former  kings,  he  built  at 
 least  three  new  ones  for  his  own  use,  or  that  of  his  son.  One  of  these 
 was  the  edifice  known  as  the  south-west  palace  at  Nimrud,  which  was 
 constructed  of  materials  derived  from  the  palaces  of  the  former  monarchs 
 who  had  reigned  at  that  place,  for  whom,  as  not  belonging  to  his  own 
 family,  Esar-liaddon  seems  to  have  entertained  small  respect.  The  plan 
 of  this  palace  is  said  to  differ  from  that  of  all  other  Assyrian  buildings. 
 It  consisted  of  a  single  hall  of  the  largest  dimensions, — 220  feet  long  and 
 100  broad, — of  an  ante-chamber  through  which  the  hall  was  approached 
 by  two  doorways,  and  of  a  certain  number  of  chambers  on  each  side  of 
 the  hall,  which  were  probably  sleeping  apartments.  According  to  Mr. 
 Layard  it  answers  in  its  general  plan,  more  than  any  building  yet  dis- 
 covered, to  the  descriptions  in  the  Bible  of  the  palace  of  Solomon," 
 Another  of  Esar-haddou's  palaces  was  erected  at  Nineveh,  on  the  spot 
 now  marked  by  the  mound  at  Nehbi-  Yuims.  This  is  probably  the  build- 
 ing of  which  he  boasts  that  it  was  "  a  palace  such  as  the  kings,  his 
 fathers,  who  went  before  him,  had  never  made,"  and  which,  on  its  com- 
 pletion, he  is  said  to  have  called  "  the  palace  of  the  pleasures  of  all  the 
 year."  It  is  described  as  supported  on  wooden  columns,  and  as  roofed 
 with  lofty  cedar  and  other  trees.  Sculptures  in  stone  and  marble,  and 
 abundant  images  in  silver,  ivory,  and  bronze;  constituted  its  adornment. 
 Many  of  these  were  brought  from  a  distance  ;  some  being  the  idols  of  the 
 conquered  countries,  and  others  images  of  the  Assyrian  gods.  Its  gates 
 were  ornamented  with  the  usual  mystical  bulls  ;  and  its  extent  was  so 
 great,  that  horses  and  other  animals  were  not  only  kept,  but  even  bred, 
 within  its  walls.  A  third  palace  was  erected  by  Esar-haddon  at  Shereef- 
 Khan  for  his  son  ;  but  this  was  apparently  a  very  inferior  building. 
 
 In  the  construction  and  ornamentation  of  his  palaces  Esar-haddon 
 made  use  of  the  services  of  Syrian,  Greek,  and  Phoenician  artists.  The 
 princes  of  Syria,  Manasseh  king  of  Judah^  the  Hellenic  monarchs  of  Ida- 
 lium,  Citium,  Curium,  Soli,  &c.,  and  the  Phoenician  king  of  Paphos,  fur- 
 nished him  with  workmen,  to  whose  skill  we  are  probably  indebted  for 
 the  beautiful  and  elaborate  bas-reliefs  which  adorn  the  edifices  of  his 
 erection. 
 
 Esar-haddon  must  have  reigned  at  least  thirteen  years  ;  possibly  he 
 may  have  reigned  longer.  In  b.c.  667,  thirteen  years  after  his  accession, 
 he  was  succeeded  on  the  throne  of  Babylon  by  Saos-ducliinus ;  but  this 
 prince  may  have  been  a  rebel,  or  a  viceroy.  Esar-haddon  may  have  still 
 continued  to  fill  the  throne  of  Assyria,  where  his  great  works  seem  to 
 indicate  a  long  and  prosperous  rule.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  son, 
 As.shiir-bani-pal,  the  prince  for  whom  he  had  built  a  palace  at  Shereef- 
 Khan,  perhaps  about  the  year  b.c.  660.  (Pp.  482-484.) 
 
 With  Asshur-hani-pal  II.,  the  Sardanapalus  of  Abydenus,  appears  to 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1015 
 
 Lave  commenced  the  decadence  of  Assyria.  Ilis  military  expeditions  had 
 neither  the  extent  nor  the  importance  of  the  expeditions  of  former  kings, 
 and  seera  to  have  occupied  him  but  for  a  small  portion  of  his  reign.  He 
 continued  the  war  with  Susiana,  where  he  contended  against  the  grand- 
 sons of  Merodach-Baladan ;  and  he  likewise  made  incursions  into  Ar- 
 menia. .  .  .  Hunting  appears  to  have  been  his  passion.  A  palace  which 
 he  erected  at  Nineveh,  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  that  built  by  Sen- 
 nacherib, was  ornamented  throughout  with  sculptured  slabs  representing 
 him  as  engaged  in  the  pursuit  and  destruction  of  wild  animals.  The  arts 
 flourished  under  his  patronage.  (P.  484.) 
 
 [In  addition  to  the  preceding  notices  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  has  published  in 
 the  Athenaeum  for  Aug.  18,  1860,  an  account  of  certain  "  fragments  of  the 
 annals  of  Asshiir-baJii-par'  from  broken  clay  cylinders  found  at  Nineveh, 
 and  now  in  the  British  Museum.  These  fragments  were  loo  incomplete  to 
 allow  of  his  making  out  from  them  a  consecutive  narrative.  But  he  learns 
 or  collects  from  them,^r5^,  that  a  king  of  Assyria,  who  was  probably  Esar- 
 haddon,  had  overrun  Egypt,  and  after  having  driven  hack  the  Ethio[)ian, 
 had  appointed  native  rulers  in  at  least  Lower  Egypt,  with  the  title  of 
 king  in  their  respective  districts.  Secondly^  that  these  petty  kings, 
 vassals  of  Assyria,  had  been  dispossessed  by  Tirhakah  (Tarku),  who  either 
 upon  some  change,  as  upon  the  death  of  the  king  reigning  previously  in 
 Assyria,  or  else  after  no  longer  delay  than  was  needed  to  prepare  for  a 
 fresh  contest,  had  returned  and  repossessed  himself  of  the  Lower  Country. 
 Hereupon  Asshur-bani-pal,  immediately  after  his  accession  [as  associate  ?], 
 entered  Egypt,  drove  Tirhakah  from  Memphis^  where  he  found  him,  to 
 Thebes  {Niya,  i.  e.  No)^  and  re-established  the  petty  kings  to  be  the 
 deputies  and  vassals  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  as  before.  Thirdly^  by  put- 
 ting together  different  fragments,  the  complete  list,  as  Sir  H.  Rawlinson 
 believes,  of  these  petty  kings  has  been  made  out,  and  it  is  given  as 
 follows  :  — 
 
 1.  Nihu,  king  of  Mimpi  and  Tsai  (Memphis  and  Sais). 
 
 2.  Manti-huU'iri,  king  of  Tsianu  (Zoan  or  Tanis). 
 
 3.  Fisan-hur,  king  of  Nat-ku  (isle  of  Natho). 
 
 4.  Pakruru,  king  of  Pisahet  (Bubastis). 
 
 5.  Pukku-nanni-api,ldngof^IIatierib  (Athribis). 
 
 6.  Nd'hke,  king  of  'Hinins  (Henes  ?) 
 
 7.  Putliu-basti  [Petsibast],  king  oi  Za  .  .  . 
 
 8.  Hunnmuna  [Si-en-amon],  king  of  iVo^  .  .  . 
 
 9.  Hart"Si-yesu  [Horsiesis],  king  of  .  .  .  nu. 
 
 10.  Puhu-aiat,  king  of  Bindi  (Mendes). 
 
 11.  Tsutsinque  [Shislionk],  king  of       .  .  . 
 
 12.  MinVhti,  king  of  Pa  .  .  . 
 
 13.  Pubiku'nu7ini-api,king  of  A'h  .  .  . 
 
 14.  Ipti-hart-hesu,  king  of  Pizatti-hurunpi  (?). 
 
 15.  Nahti-huru-antsiza^  king  of  Pisahthinut  (?). 
 
 16.  Pusat-ninip,  king  of  Pahnut  (?). 
 
 3  T  4 
 
1016 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 17.  Zilia,  king  of  SiycVui  (Osiout?) 
 
 IS.  Lamint^  king  of  Himun  (Hammonis  ?) 
 
 19.  Ispi-matliii  [Psi-muth  ?],  king  of  Tain  (This?) 
 
 20.  Muntimi-ankhe  [Amon-mai  Piankh  ?],  king  of  Niya  (Thebes). 
 
 Upon  this  list,  however  imperfectly  the  names  may  be  rendered,  it  is 
 obvious  to  remark,  that  it  throws  great  light  on  the  origin  of  the  fable  of 
 the  Dodecarchy ;  and  that  the  occurrence  of  the  name  Necho  in  the  first 
 place,  before  all  the  rest,  with  the  titles  of  king  of  Memphis  and  Sais, 
 shows  plainly  enough  that  there  were  good  grounds  for  suspecting  that 
 Psammitichus  I.  had  a  better  title  than  any  of  his  competitors  to  be 
 regarded  as  the  heir  of  the  last  native  kings  of  the  Saite  Dynasty  XXIV. 
 It  would  also  be  intelligible  enough  that  the  Ethiopian,  on  finally  expel- 
 ling the  Assyrians,  if  he  chose  to  retain  Egypt  in  direct  dependence  upon 
 himself,  should  put  Necho,  the  father  of  Psammitichus  I,,  to  death.  For 
 Necho  was  just  that  one  of  the  numerous  kings  who,  in  revolting  against 
 the  Assyrians,  may  have  expected  to  turn  the  intervention  of  Tirhakah 
 to  his  own  advantage.  It  is  also  highly  probable  that  in  the  name 
 Muniimi-ankhe,  which  stands  last,  with  the  title  of  king  of  Thebes,  and 
 apparently  of  all  Upper  Egypt  (for  all  the  other  titles  seem  to  be  given 
 from  cities  in  the  Lower  Country),  we  have,  in  a  somewhat  disguised 
 form,  the  monumental  name  of  Piankhi^  the  husband  of  Amuniritis,  who 
 is  known  to  have  reigned  in  the  Thebaid,  and  whose  name  is  identical 
 with  that  of  the  Ethiopian  prince  who  succeeded  Tirhakah  at  Napata. 
 
 Sir  H.  Rawlinson  collects  further  that  Tirhakah  withdrew  to  the 
 Upper  Country ;  that  subsequently  the  petty  kings  rose  against  the  ^45- 
 syrian  garrisons  left  at  Memphis  and  Thehes ;  that  Tirhakah  came  down 
 again  from  Ethiopia ;  and  that  eventually  the  Assyrians  put  down  the 
 insurrection,  and  chastised  their  enemies.  But  it  is  clear  (as  has  been 
 observed  above)  not  only  from  Egyptian  inscriptions,  but  also  from 
 Asiatic  tradition,  that  Tirhakah  was  eventually  victorious,  and  was  left, 
 after  the  three  or  four  (or  perhaps  more)  campaigns  alluded  to  above,  in 
 undisputed  possession  of  Lower  Egypt,] 
 
 Asshur-bani  pal  may  be  supposed  to  have  reigned  from  about  b.  c.  660 
 to  B.C.  640.  He  was  succeeded  by  a  son,  whose  name  is  read  somewhat 
 doubtfully  as  Asshur-emit-ili,  the  last  king  of  whom  any  records  have 
 been  as  yet  discovered.  Under  him  the  decline  of  Assyria  seems  to  have 
 been  rapid.  No  military  expeditions  can  be  assigned  to  his  reign;  and 
 the  works  which  he  constructed  are  of  a  most  inferior  character.  A 
 palace  built  by  him  on  the  great  platform  at  Nimrud,  or  Calah — the  chief 
 monument  of  his  reign  which  has  come  down  to  us — indicates  in  a  very 
 marked  way  the  diminution  in  his  time  of  Assyrian  wealth  and  magni- 
 ficence. It  contained  no  great  hall  or  gallery,  and  no  sculptured  slabs, 
 but  merely  consisted  of  a  number  of  rooms  of  small  proportions,  panelled 
 with  plain  slabs  of  common  limestone,  roughly  hewn,  and  not  more  than 
 3|  feet  high.  The  upper  part  of  the  walls  above  the  panelling  was 
 simply  plastered.    If  Assliur-emit-ili  was  reduced  to  live  in  this  building, 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1017 
 
 we  must  suppose  that  the  superb  edifices  of  his  ancestors  had  fallen  into 
 ruin,  which  could  scarcely  have  taken  place  unless  they  had  been  injured 
 by  violence.  It  seems  probable  that,  either  through  the  invasions  of  the 
 Medes,  who  were  now  growing  into  prominence,  or  in  the  course  of  the 
 Scythic  troubles,  which  belong  to  about  the  same  period,  Assyria  had  been 
 greatly  weakened,  her  cities  being  desolated,  and  her  palaces  dismantled 
 or  destroyed.  These  disasters  preceded  the  last  attack  of  Cyaxares,  and 
 prepared  the  way  for  the  fall  of  the  mighty  power  which  had  so  long 
 been  dominant  in  AVestern  Asia.  It  is  uncertain  whether  the  last  war  with 
 the  Medes,  and  the  final  destruction  of  Nineveh,  fell  into  the  reign  of 
 Asfihur-emit-ili^  or  whether  he  had  a  successor  in  the  Saracus  of  Berosus, 
 the  Sardanapalus  of  the  Greeks,  under  whom  the  final  catastrophe  took 
 place.  On  the  one  hand,  the  number  of  years  from  the  accession  of 
 Esar-haddon  to  the  capture  of  Nineveh,  which  is  but  55  [rather  (680 
 —  606=)  74  at  the  least],  seems  barely  to  suffice  for  the  three  reigns 
 of  a  father,  a  son,  and  a  grandson ;  whence  we  should  conclude  that 
 Asshur-eniit-ili  was  probably  the  last  king.  On  the  other  hand,  the  diflTer- 
 ence  between  the  names  of  Saracus  and  Asshu7^-emit-ili  is  so  wide,  and 
 the  authority  of  Berosus  (from  whom  the  notices  of  Saracus  seem  to 
 come)  so  great,  that  we  are  tempted  to  suspect  t\vdiiAsshur-emit-ili  m^iy 
 have  been  the  last  king  but  one,  and  Saracus  may  have  succeeded  hiai. 
 (Pp.  485,  486.) 
 
 It  has  been  already  observed  [elsewhere]  that  the  circumstances  of 
 the  siege,  as  detailed  by  Ctesias,  may  very  possibly  have  been  correctly 
 stated.  It  lasted,  according  to  him,  above  two  years,  and  was  brouglit  to 
 a  successful  Issue  mainly  in  consequence  of  an  extraordinary  rise  of  the 
 Tigris,  which  swept  away  a  portion  of  the  city  wall,  and  so  gave  admit- 
 tance to  the  enemy.  Upon  this  the  Assyrian  monarch,  considering 
 further  resistance  to  be  vain,  fired  his  palace,  and  destroyed  himself.  The 
 conqueror  completed  the  ruin  of  the  once  magnificent  capital  by  razing 
 the  walls,  and  delivering  the  whole  city  to  the  flames.  Nineveh  ceased 
 to  exist ;  and  at  the  same  time,  probably,  the  other  royal  cities,  or  at 
 least  their  palaces,  were  wasted  with  fire;  the  proud  structures  raised  by 
 the  Assyrian  kings  being  reduced  at  once  to  that  condition  of  ruined 
 heaps  which  has  been  the  effectual  means  of  preserving  a  great  portion  of 
 their  contents  [to  be  brought  to  light  in  our  own  time].    (Pp.  487,  488.) 
 
 The  independent  kingdom  of  Assyria  covered  a  space  of  six  centuries 
 and  a  half  [b.c.  1235 — 606=629  years]  ;  but  empire  cannot  be  con- 
 sidered to  have  lasted  more  than  (at  the  utmost)  five  centuries.  It 
 commenced  with  Tiglath-Pileser  I.,  about  b.c.  1110,  and  it  terminated 
 with  Asshur-bani-pal,  or  Sardanapalus,  about  b.c.  640.  The  limits  of  the 
 dominion  varied  greatly  during  this  period,  the  empire  expanding  or 
 contracting  according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  time  and  the  personal 
 character  of  the  prince  who  occupied  the  throne.  The  extreme  extent 
 appears  to  have  been  reached  almost  immediately  before  a  rapid  decline 
 set  in ;  that  is  to  say,  during  the  reigns  of  Sargon,  Sennacherib,  and 
 Esar-haddon,  three  of  the  most  warlike  of  the  Assyrian  princes,  who  held 
 
1018 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the  throne  from  b.c.  721  to  b.c.  660.  During  this  interval  Assyria  was 
 paramount  over  the  portion  of  AVestern  Asia  included  between  the  Me- 
 diterranean and  the  Halys  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Caspian  and  the  great 
 Persian  desert  on  the  other.  Southwards  the  boundary  was  formed  by 
 Arabia  and  the  Persian  Gulf;  northwards  it  seems  at  no  time  to  have 
 advanced  to  the  Euxine  or  to  the  Caucasus,  but  to  have  been  formed  by 
 a  fluctuating  line  which  did  not  in  the  most  flourishing  period  extend 
 beyond  the  northern  frontier  of  Armenia. 
 
 The  countries  included  in  this  space  and  subjected  within  the  period 
 in  question  to  Assyrian  influence  were  chiefly  the  following  :  —  Susiana, 
 Chaldaea,  Babylonia,  Media,  Matiene  or  the  country  of  the  Namri^ 
 Armenia,  Mesopotamia,  parts  of  Cappadocia  and  Cilicia,  Syria,  Phoenicia, 
 Palestine,  Idumssa,  and  for  a  time  Lower  Egypt.  Cyprus  also  was  for 
 some  years  a  dependency.  On  the  other  hand  Persia  Proper,  Bactria, 
 and  Margiana,  and  even  Hyrcania,  were  beyond  the  eastern  limit  of  the 
 Assyrian  sway,  which  towards  the  north  upon  this  side  did  not  reach 
 farther  than  about  the  neighbourhood  of  Kasvin,  and  towards  the  south 
 was  confined  within  the  mountain-barrier  of  Zagros,  Similarly  on  the 
 west,  Phrygia,  Lydia,  Lycia,  and  even  Pamphylia,  were  independent,  the 
 Assyrian  arms  having  never  (so  far  as  appears)  penetrated  beyond 
 Cilicia,  or  crossed  the  Halys.    (Pp.  489,  490.) 
 
 "  The  history  of  Babylon  duririg  the  526  years  which 
 Berosus  assigned  to  the  upper  dynasty  of  Assyria  is,  with  few 
 exceptions,"  to  use  the  words  of  Mr.  Rawlinson,  a  blank. 
 Babylonia  was  during  the  chief  portion  of  this  period 
 eclipsed  by  Assyria ;  and  the  native  historian,  confessing  the 
 absence  of  materials,  passed  at  this  point  from  the  Babylo- 
 nian to  the  Assyrian  line  of  kings." 
 
 It  cannot,  however,  be  said  with  truth  that  the  condition  of  Babylonia 
 was  that  of  a  mere  subject  kingdom.  We  know  that  at  least  on  one  oc- 
 casion within  the  period  here  spoken  of  a  Babylonian  monarch  carried 
 his  arms  deep  into  Assyria,  penetrating  even  to  the  capital,  and  thence 
 bearing  away  in  triumph  the  images  of  the  Assyrian  gods.  It  is  also 
 plain  from  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  that  Babylonia  had  not  only  her  own 
 monarchs  during  this  interval,  but  that  they  were  practically  independent, 
 only  submitting  on  rare  occasions  to  irresistible  force,  and  again  freeing 
 themselves  when  the  danger  was  past.  Although  diminished  in  power 
 by  the  independence  of  her  former  vassal,  and  even  thrown  into  the  shade 
 by  that  vassal's  increasing  greatness,  she  yet  maintained  an  important 
 position,  and  during  the  whole  time  of  the  upper  dynasty  in  Assyria  was 
 clearly  the  most  powerful  of  all  those  kingdoms  by  which  the  Assyrian 
 Empire  was  surrounded.    (Pp.  500,  501.) 
 
 It  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  kings  of  Assyria  of  the  upper  dynasty  in 
 no  case  take  the  title  of  king  of  Babylon.    The  most  powerful  monarchs 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1019 
 
 of  this  line  are  all  engaged  in  wars  with  the  Babylonian  kings,  Babylon 
 being  in  the  earlier  times  the  assailant,  but  in  the  later  suffering  invasion. 
 Tiglath-Pileser  I.  wars  with  MerodacJi-adan-akhi ;  Sardanapalus  I. 
 {Asshur-dani-pal)  with  Nehuhaladan  ;  Shalmanubar,  in  his  eighth  year, 
 with  Merodach-nadin-adin  and  his  brother ;  and  Shamas-iva  with  MerO" 
 dach  .  .  .    The  Babylonians  are  in  no  case  spoken  of  as  rebels. 
 
 About  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.  it  would  seem  that  a 
 change  took  place  at  Babylon,  the  exact  character  of  which  it  is  difficult 
 to  determine.  The  era  of  Nabonassar  (b.c.  747),  which  has  no  astrono- 
 mical importance,  must  be  regarded  as  belonging  to  history,  and  as  almost 
 certainly  marking  the  date  of  a  great  revolution.  The  double  connection 
 of  Semiramis  with  Pul  on  the  one  hand,  and  with  Babylonian  greatness 
 on  the  other,  makes  it  probable  that  she  was  personally  concerned  in  the 
 movement,  though  in  what  capacity  it  is  difficult  to  determine.  .  .  . 
 That  some  connection  existed  between  Nabonassar  and  Semiramis,  as  well 
 as  between  the  latter  and  Pul,  seems  almost  certain.  .  .  .  We  may  hope 
 that  future  discoveries  will  throw  light  upon  this  point,  and  restore  to  a 
 definite  place  in  Babylonian  history  the  great  queen  now  removed  from 
 the  proud  position  which  she  once  occupied  in  the  supposed  annals  of 
 Assyria.    (Pp.  501-2.) 
 
 Mr.  Rawlinson  then  passes  in  review  the  Babylonian  reigns  of  the  Canon 
 from  Nabonassar  downwards,  observing  that  Nabonassar  was  certainly  an 
 independent  king,  and  that  there  are  no  signs  of  Babylon  having  become 
 
 ({Q\iQn(}iQrniy  o^  As&yr'm  till  its  reduction  by  Sargon  in  b.c.  709.  Mardoc- 
 Empadus  the  5th  king  (from  Nabonassar),  who  is  now  identified  beyond 
 a  doubt  with  the  Merodach-Baladan  of  Isaiah,  having  been  attacked  by 
 Sargon  in  his  12th  year,  after  that  king's  second  Syrian  expedition,  was 
 conquered  and  driven  out ;  and  his  crown  fell  to  the  Assyrian  monarch, 
 who  is  thought  by  some  to  have  assumed  it  himself  (the  name  \_S~\arkianus 
 of  the  Canon  being  identified  with  Sargon)^  but  who  more  probably  con- 
 ferred it  upon  one  of  his  sons,  the  Arkianus  of  the  Canon  [and  perhaps 
 "  the  brother  of  Sennacherib"  in  Polyhistor].  The  object  of  his  embassy 
 to  Hezekiah  was  no  doubt  in  part  political ;  and  it  may  have  been  in 
 consequence  of  his  knowledge  that  a  league  was  projected  against  him 
 that  Sargon  in  his  12th  year  turned  all  his  force  against  Babylon. 
 Merodach-Baladan,  however,  after  a  few  years  of  exile  found  an  oppor- 
 tunity of  regaining  his  sovereignty.  Towards  the  close  of  Sargon's  life 
 fresh  troubles  broke  out  in  Babylonia.  Arkianus  ceased  to  reign  — 
 probably  he  died — in  b.c.  704,  and  an  interval  of  2  years  follov/ed, 
 during  the  last  6  months  of  which  Baladan  was  again  king.  Then  Sen- 
 nacherib, in  his  1st  year,  having  again  expelled  him,  placed  on  the  throne 
 an  Assyrian  officer  of  his  own  named  Belibus,  a  son  of  the  governor 
 of  those  youths  who  were  educated  in  the  palace.  After  3  years  the 
 party  of  Merodach-Baladan,  then  supported  by  Susub  king  of  Susiana, 
 being  again  formidable,  Sennacherib  returned,  and  after  defeating  Susub, 
 and  destroying  some  cities,  removed  Belibus,  and  appointed  his  own  son 
 Asshur-nadin-adiii,ihe  A-pavMiSidmsov  AssaTAuadius  of  the  Canon,  king  over 
 
1020 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Babylon,  -where  lie  reigned  from  b.  c.  699  to  B.C.  G93.  It  is  uncertain,  Mr. 
 Kawlinson  continues,  whether  liegebelus,  or  Irigebelus,  and  Mesesemor- 
 dacus^  who  reigned  from  B.C.  693  to  692,  and  from  B.C.  692  to  688,  were 
 also  viceroys  under  Sennacherib,  like  Belibus  and  Asshur-nadin-adin,  or 
 independent  native  princes.  If  a  record  of  the  later  years  of  Sennacherib 
 should  be  found,  it  wiU  probably  throw  light  on  this  question.  It  is 
 doubtful,  too,  what  was  the  condition  of  Babylonia  during  the  next  8  years, 
 which  the  Canon  describes  as  an  interregnum.  But  in  b.c.  680  Esar-had- 
 do7i,vfho  had  probably  mounted  the  throne  of  Assyria  about  that  time,  took 
 the  crown  of  Babylon  to  himself,  instead  of  committing  it  to  a  viceroy. 
 This  prince,  as  has  been  already  observed, 'probably  held  his  court,  at 
 least  occasionally,  in  Babylon,  where  many  records  of  his  rule  have  been 
 discovered.  He  administered  the  government  for  13  years  —  from  b.c. 
 680  to  B.C.  667, — and  it  must  have  been  within  this  space  that  Manasseh, 
 the  son  of  Hezekiah,  having  been  guilty  of  some  political  offence,  was 
 brought  as  a  prisoner  to  the  Assyrian  king  at  Babylon^  where  he  suffered 
 detention  for  a  while,  returning,  however,  by  the  clemency  of  his  suze- 
 rain, to  resume  the  kingdom  which  he  had  so  nearly  forfeited.  Esar* 
 baddon  appears  to  have  been  a  little  disquieted  in  his  administration 
 of  the  afflurs  of  Babylon  by  the  pretensions  of  the  sons  of  Merodach- 
 Baladan,  who  had  still  the  support  of  the  Susianians.  Having,  however, 
 conquered  and  slain  one,  and  received  the  submission  of  another,  whom 
 he  established  in  a  government  on  the  shores  of  the  Persian  Gulf,  he  pro- 
 bably found  his  position  so  secure  that  he  was  emboldened  to  revert  to 
 the  ordinary  and  established  practice  of  the  Assyrians  —  that  of  govern- 
 ing the  provinces  by  means  of  subject  kings  or  viceroys.  Accordingly, 
 in  B.C.  667,  13  years  after  his  accession,  he  handed  over  the  Babylonians 
 to  a  certain  Saosduchinus  (^Shamas-dar-oukin  ?),  who  continued  to  ad- 
 minister the  government  for  20  or  21  years,  and  was  succeeded  by  the  last 
 of  the  subject-kings,  Ciniladanus,  who  ....  is  said  to  have  reigned  22 
 years  —  from  b,  c.  647  to  b.  c.  625.  Of  these  two  kings  scarcely  any- 
 thing is  known  at  present,  their  continued  subjection  to  the  Assyrians 
 being  only  proved  by  the  authority  which  Saracus,  the  last  Assyrian 
 monarch,  appears  to  have  exercised  over  their  country. 
 •  Saracus,  threatened  on  the  one  hand  by  the  Medes,  on  the  other  by  an 
 army  advancing  from  the  sea-board,  which  may  have  consisted  chiefly  of 
 Susianians,  appointed  to  the  government  of  Babylon,  where  he  was  to 
 act  against  this  latter  enemy,  his  general  Nahopolassar  (Nahu-pal-uzur), 
 while  he  himself  remained  at  Nineveh  to  meet  the  greater  danger. 
 ISTabopolassar,  however,  proved  imfiiithful ;  and  .  .  .  entering  into  nego- 
 tiations with  Cyaxares  of  Media,  whose  daughter  Amahia  or  Amyitis 
 he  obtained  in  marriage  for  his  own  son  Nebuchadnezzar,  he  sent  or 
 led  against  his  suzerain  a  body  of  troops,  which  took  an  active  part 
 in  the  great  siege  whereby  the  power  of  Assyria  was  destroyed.  The 
 immediate  result  of  this  event  was  not  merely  the  establishment  of 
 Babylonian  independence,  but  the  formation  of  that  later  Babylonian 
 empire  which,  short  as  was  its  continuance,  has  always  been  with  reason 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1021 
 
 regarded  as  one  of  the  most  remarkable  in  the  history  of"  the  world. 
 (Pp.  506-7.) 
 
 The  rise  and  fall  of  this  empire  was  comprised  within  a  period  consi- 
 derably short  of  a  century.  Six  kings  only  occupied  the  throne  during 
 its  continuance  ;  and  of  these  but  three  had  reigns  of  any  duration. 
 Nabopolassar,  who  founded  the  empire,  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  raised  it 
 to  its  highest  pitch  of  glory,  and  Nabonidus,  or  Labynetus,  under  whom 
 it  was  destroyed,  are  the  three  great  names  to  which  its  entire  history 
 attaches.    (P.  507.) 
 
 Of  Nabopolassar^  whose  alliance  with  Cyaxares  decided  the  fall  of 
 Nineveh,  our  historical  notices  are  scanty.  By  his  co-operation  with 
 Cyaxares  against  Assyria  he  secured  not  only  the  independence  of  his 
 own  kingdom,  but  an  important  share  in  the  spoils  of  the  mighty  em- 
 pire to  whose  destruction  he  had  contributed.  While  the  northern  and 
 eastern  portions  of  the  Assyrian  territory  were  annexed  by  Cyaxares  to 
 liis  own  dominions,  the  southern  and  western  —  the  valley  of  the 
 Euphrates  from  Hit  to  Carchemish,  Syria,  Phoenicia,  Palestine,  and  per- 
 haps a  portion  of  Egypt — passed  under  the  sceptre  of  the  king  of  Baby- 
 lon. Judasa  was  at  this  time  governed  by  Josiah,  who  probably  felt  no 
 objection  to  the  change  of  masters ;  and  as  the  transfer  of  allegiance 
 thus  took  place  without  a  struggle,  we  do  not  find  any  distinct  mention 
 of  it  in  Scripture.  There  is,  however,  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  Baby- 
 lonian dominion  was  at  once  extended  to  the  borders  of  Egypt,  where  it 
 came  in  contact  with  that  of  Psammetichus  I. ;  and  the  result  is  seen 
 in  wars  which  shortly  arose  between  the  two  powers,  wars  which  were 
 very  calamitous  to  the  Jews,  and  eventually  led  to  their  transplantation. 
 (P.  507-8.) 
 
 It  is  not  improbable  that,  besides  an  augmentation  of  territory,  Babjlon 
 g.iined  at  this  time  a  great  increase  in  its  population.  It  appears  to  be 
 certain  that  Nineveh  was  not  only  taken,  but  destroyed ;  and  the  bulk 
 of  the  inhabitants  would  thus  become  the  captives  of  the  conquerors. 
 Babylon  would  undoubtedly  receive  her  full  share  of  the  prisoners,  and 
 hence  would  have  at  her  disposal,  from  the  very  foundation  of  the  empire, 
 a  supply  of  human  labour  capable  of  producing  gigantic  results.  Nabo- 
 polassar availed  himself  of  this  supply  to  commence  the  various  works 
 which  his  son  afterwards  completed ;  and  its  existence  is  a  circumstance 
 to  be  borne  in  mind  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  immense  constructions 
 of  that  son,  Nebuchadnezzar.    (P.  508.) 
 
 The  chief  known  events  of  the  reign  of  Nabopolassar  (b.c.  625 — 604) 
 are  his  co-operation  with  Cyaxares  against  Alyattes,  and  his  war  with 
 Necho.  If  the  Lydian  war  has  been  rightly  placed  between  b.c.  615 
 and  B.C.  610,  it  must  have  preceded  the  attack  of  Necho,  which  was  in 
 B.C.  609  or  608.  No  details  are  known,  except  that  in  the  great  battle 
 which  was  stopped  by  the  eclipse,  said  to  have  been  predicted  by  Thales, 
 a  Babylonian  prince  (whether  Nabopolassar  himself,  his  son  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, or  another  son  not  elsewhere  mentioned)  was  present,  and  that 
 he  acted  as  one  of  the  mediators  through  whom  the  war  was  brought  to  a 
 
1022 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 close,  and  friendship  established  between  Ljdia  and  Media.  The  Egyptian 
 war  of  ilabopolassar  seems  to  have  commenced  in  his  17th  year,  b.  c.  609, 
 by  an  invasion  of  his  territory  on  the  part  of  Necho,  the  son  of  Psam- 
 inetichusl.  This  invasion  is  described  by  Berosus  {Jos.  contr.  Ap.  i.  19) 
 as  a  revolt  of  the  satrap  who  was  over  Syria  and  Egypt.  Josiah,  who 
 as  a  vassal  of  the  king  of  Babvlon  opposed  the  passage  of  the  Egyptian 
 army,  having  been  defeated  and  slain,  I^^echo  extended  his  own  boundary 
 to  the  Eu})hrates;  and  on  his  return,  passing  through  Jerusalem,  he 
 carried  away  Jehoahaz,  and  made  Jehoiakim  king;  after  which  he  seems 
 to  have  taken  Cadytis  or  Gaza.  Necho  seems  to  have  retained  his 
 conquests  for  three  or  four  years.  But  in  the  4th  year  of  Jehoiakim 
 (n.c.  GOo  or  604)  Nabopolassar,  being  no  longer  able  to  go  to  war 
 himself,  sent  his  son  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  defeated  the  army  of  Necho 
 at  Carcheiuish,  and  took  from  him  all  Syria  as  far  as  the  river  of  Egypt, 
 receiving  at  the  same  time  the  submission  of  Jehoiakim,  and  confirming 
 him  in  his  kingdom. 
 
 The  cuneiform  remains  of  Nabopolassar  are  very  scanty,  consisting 
 only  of  a  few  tablets  containing  orders  on  the  imperial  treasury,  which 
 were  found  at  Warka,  and  are  now  in  the  British  Museum.  Nothing  is 
 very  remarkable  in  them,  except  that  he  takes  the  title  reserved  for 
 lords  paramount,  thereby  showing  that  he  was  independent.    (P.  510.) 
 
 Meanwhile  Nabopolassar  died  (b.  c.  604),  and  Nebuchadnezzar 
 (Nabu-kudu?'i-uzur),  who  was  then  upon  the  borders  of  Egypt,  hastily 
 returned  to  Babylon  on  hearing  of  the  news,  being  followed  later  by  the 
 bulk  of  his  army  with  the  captives. 
 
 Of  all  the  works  of  Nebuchadnezzar  the  greatest  seem  to  have  been 
 the  fortifications  of  his  capital.  A  space  of  above  130  square  miles 
 (according  to  Strabo  and  Aristobulus,  but  of  200  according  to  Hero- 
 dotus), five  or  six  times  the  area  of  London,  was  inclosed  within  walls 
 above  80  feet  broad  and  between  300  and  400  feet  high  (200  royal  cubits 
 according  to  Herodotus,  200  ordinary  cubits  or  300  feet  according  to 
 Ctesias).  This  wall  alone  must  have  contained  —  unless  the  dimensions 
 are  exaggerated  —  above  200,000,000  yards  of  solid  masonry,  or  nearly 
 twice  the  cubic  contents  of  the  great  wall  of  China,  which  is  1200  miles 
 long,  from  20  to  25  feet  high,  and  from  15  to  20  feet  broad.  Inside  it 
 ran  a  second,  somewhat  less  thick,  but  almost  as  strong,  the  exact 
 dimensions  of  which  are  nowhere  given.  Nebuchadnezzar  appears  to 
 have  built  the  latter  entirely  as  a  defence  for  his  "  inner  city  ;"  but  the 
 great  outer  wall  was  an  old  work,  which  he  merely  repaired.  His 
 Staiidard  Inscription  gives  the  circumference  of  his  "inner  city"  as 
 16,000  cubits,  or  about  5  English  miles.  It  speaks  also  of  the  great  wall 
 as  rebuilt.  At  the  same  time  he  constructed  an  entirely  new  palace,  the 
 ruins  of  which  remain  in  the  modern  Kas?',  a  magnificent  building, 
 which  he  completed  in  15  days  !  (This  fact,  if  it  be  a  fact,  is  recorded 
 in  the  Standard  Inscription,  and  it  vas  also  mentioned  by  Berosus,  Fr. 
 14.)  Another  construction  (probably)  of  this  king's  was  the  great  canal 
 of  which  Strabo  speaks,  and  which  Col.  Ilawlinson  traced  from  Hit, 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1023 
 
 tlie  Is  of  Herodotus,  almost  to  tlie  bay  of  Graine  in  the  Persian  Gulf, 
 a  distance  of  from  400  to  500  miles,  large  enough  to  be  navigated  by 
 ships.  He  built  or  rebuilt  almost  all  the  cities  of  Upper  Babylonia, 
 Babylon  itself,  upon  the  bricks  of  which  scarcely  any  other  name  is 
 found,  Sippara,  Borsippa,  Cuthn,  Teredon,  Chilraad,  &c.,  as  is  proved  by 
 the  bricks  found  at  each  of  tliose  places,  or  by  express  statements  in  in- 
 scriptions. He  formed  aqueducts  mentioned  in  the  Standard  Inscription 
 and  in  the  Armenian  Eusebius  ;  and  he  constructed  the  wonderful  bang- 
 ing gardens  at  Babylon,  which  Berosus  says  were  artificial  bills  raised  on 
 stone  substructions  within  the  precincts  of  the  palace,  devised  to  please  his 
 wife  who  had  been  used  to  hills  in  her  own  native  country  of  Media 
 (Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  x.  v.  §  1),  and  which,  according  to  Ctesias  and  Dio- 
 dorus,  formed  a  square  of  400  feet.  Nebuchadnezzar  also  raised  the 
 huge  pyramidal  temples  at  Borsippa  and  Akkerkuf,  which  still  remain 
 in  the  Birs  Nimrud  and  the  Nimrud  Tepesse,  together  with  a  vast  num- 
 ber of  other  shrines  not  hitherto  identified.  These  are  described  in 
 the  Standard  Inscription  referred  to  above.  The  Borsippa  temple 
 (which  was  built  in  stages,  like  the  temple  of  Belus  at  Babylon,  and  the 
 great  pyramid  at  Saccara)  covered  an  area  of  about  two  thirds  of  that  of 
 the  pyramid  of  JMycerinus.  The  present  height  is  rather  more  than  150 
 feet  ;  the  present  circumference  is  said  to  be  about  20C0  feet.  Ori- 
 ginally the  base  was  a  square  of  272  feet.  The  temi)le  at  Akkerkuf  is 
 far  smaller.  Its  height  has  been  estimated  at  about  130  feet,  and  its  cir- 
 cumference at  300.  Nebuchadnezzar  formed  the  extensive  reservoir  near 
 Sippara,  140  miles  in  circumference.  He  built  quays  and  breakwaters 
 along  the  shores  of  the  Persian  Gulf,  as  is  mentioned  by  Abydenus 
 {JEuseb.  Prcep.  Ev.  ix.  41)  :  he  made  embankments  of  solid  masonry  at 
 various  points  of  the  two  great  streams ;  and,  finally,  he  greatly  beauti- 
 fied, if  he  did  not  actually  rebuild,  the  famous  temple  of  Belus  (Berosus 
 ap.  Jos.  conti\  Ap.  i.  20).  The  Standard  Inscription  also  mentions  this 
 restoration.  The  remains  of  the  temple  of  Belus  still  exist  in  the 
 mound  called  the  Mujelihe  by  Rich,  but  now  known  to  the  Arabs  uni- 
 versally as  Bahil.  This  is  an  immense  pile  of  brick,  in  sliape  an  oblong 
 square  facing  the  four  cardinal  points,  730  yards  in  circumference,  and 
 from  100  to  140  feet  high.  Two  of  the  sides,  those  facing  north  and 
 south,  are  almost  exactly  a  stadium  in  length.  The  other  two  are 
 shorter.  One  is  four-fifths  the  other  two-thirds  of  a  stadium.  Ail  the 
 inscribed  bricks  hitherto  found  there  bear  the  name  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar.   (P.  513  ) 
 
 [As  regards  the  prosecution  of  his  military  enterprises,  Jose})hus  says 
 that  the  siege  of  Tyre,  which  lasted  13  years,  was  begun  by  him  in  the 
 8th  year  of  his  reign,  which  seems  to  be  an  inaccuracy  arising  from  the 
 fact  that  in  the  8th  year  of  his  reign  Nebuchadnezzar,  with  his  army, 
 was  in  Syria  and  Palestine,  where  Jehoiakim,  who,  no  doubt,  had  expec- 
 tations of  support  from  Egypt,  was  reduced  and"'slain,  and  Jeconiah  his 
 son  made  king  in  his  room.  Shortly  afterwards,  in  consequence  of  some 
 fresh  symptoms  of  rebellion,  Nebuchadnezzar  came  against  Jerusalem 
 
1024 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 for  the  third  time,  and  carrying  away  Jeconiali  to  Babylon,  put  Zede- 
 kiab,  who  was  his  uncle,  on  the  throne.  Ten  years  later  (b.  c.  588), 
 shortly  after  the  accession  of  Apries  or  Pharaoh  Hophra,  Zedekiah  re- 
 belled "  by  sending  ambassadors  into  Egypt "  and  seeking  assistance. 
 Before,  however,  Apries  could  move,  Jerusalem  was  already  invested 
 by  Nebuchadnezzar.  On  the  news  that  "  Pharaoh's  army  had  come 
 out  of  Egypt "  Nebuchadnezzar  raised  the  siege,  and,  according  to 
 Josephus,  completely  defeated  the  Egyptians.  But  the  Scripture  rather 
 implies  that  they  retired  on  the  advance  of  the  Babylonians  and  avoided 
 a  battle.  The  siege  of  Jerusalem  was  then  renewed  ;  and  in  the  3rd  year 
 from  its  commencement  it  was  taken  :  Zedekiah  was  blinded,  and  taken 
 to  Babylon  ;  the  city  and  temple  were  burned ;  the  walls  razed,  and 
 great  part  of  the  inhabitants  carried  away. 
 
 In  the  5th  year,  according  to  Josephus  (Ant.  Jud.  x.  9),  from  the  de- 
 struction of  Jerusalem,  which  should  be  b.  c.  583  or  b.  c.  582,  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar came  again  into  Syria.  Tt  may  be  that  Apries  had  really 
 at  this  time  marched  an  army  inio  Phoenicia  and  reduced  or  gained  its 
 chief  cities  (Herod,  ii.  161).  And  if  so,  it  was  only  the  obstinate  re- 
 sistance of  Tyre  which  delayed  for  13  years  the  invasion  of  Egypt.  If 
 Tyre  were  first  besieged  in  b.  c.  583  or  b.  c.  582,  it  would  be  taken  in 
 B.  c.  570  or  569  :  and  b.  c.  569  is  the  year  in  which  Amasis  became  king 
 in  Egypt  :  so  that  the  assertion  of  Josephus  that  Nebuchadnezzar  not 
 only  defeated  but  slew  the  king  of  Egypt,  which  he  subdued,  and  over 
 which  he  appointed  a  new  ruler,  may  probably  be  derived  from  Berosus; 
 and  it  may  be  something  like  the  truth. 
 
 The  remainder  of  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  from  b.  c.  570  to  b.  c. 
 561,  is  not  distinguished  by  any  known  event  of  importance.  During  7 
 years,  however,  out  of  these  9  he  was,  as  we  learn  from  Scripture,  inca- 
 jjacitated  for  governing  personally.  And  since,  after  the  recovery  of  his 
 reason,  he  resumed  the  government,  and  that  too  with  increased  respect 
 for  his  personal  authority  (Dan.  iv.  36),  it  may  be  inferred  that  he 
 lived  on  two  years,  or  at  least  over  one  year,  to  his  deatli,  which  may 
 have  occurred  at  any  time  later  than  Thoth  1,  Jan.  11,  in  b.  c.  561  but 
 not  quite  so  late  as  Jan.  11  in  b.  c.  562.  The  account  given  by  Mr. 
 Kawlinson  differs  from  the  foregoing  in  this  chiefly,  that  he  accepts 
 Josephus's  date  of  the  8th  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  for  the  commence- 
 ment of  the  siege  of  Tyre,  and  makes  the  last  18  years  instead  of  the 
 last  9  of  the  reign  to  be  without  any  known  event  of  historical  im- 
 portance.] 
 
 After  a  reign  of  43  years  Nebuchadnezzar  was  succeeded  by  IlloariL- 
 davms^  or  Ecil-Merodach^  his  son,  whose  accession  is  dated  or  ante- 
 dated technically  by  the  Canon  from  Thoth  1  in  b.  c.  561.  After  2 
 years  he  was  followed  by  Nerigassolassarus,  or  Neriglissar,  whom 
 Berosus  and  Abydenus  make  to  have  been  the  husband  of  his  sister. 
 According  to  them  Neriglissar  murdered  his  brother-in-law,  who  had 
 provoked  his  fate  by  his  lawlessness  and  intemperance.  The  single  act 
 by  which  he  is  known  to  us — his  release  of  Jehoiachin  from  prison  in  the 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1025 
 
 1st  year  of  his  reign,  and  kind  treatment  of  him  during  the  rest  of  his 
 life — is  remarkably  in  contrast  with  this  unfavourable  representation  of 
 his  character. 
 
 Of  Neriglissaj'  {Nei'gal-shai^-iizw')^  who  ascended  the  throne  in  b.  c. 
 559,  very  little  is  known  beyond  the  fact  of  his  [being  the  brother-in- 
 law  and  the  murderer  of  his  predecessor].  It  is  probable,  though 
 not  certain,  that  he  was  the  "  Nergal-sharezer,  the  Rab-Mag,"  who, 
 nearly  30  years  previously,  accompanied  the  army  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
 to  the  last  siege  of  Jerusalem,  and  who  was  evidently  at  that  time  one 
 of  the  chief  officers  of  the  crown.  He  bears  the  title  of  Rab-Mag  on  the 
 inscriptions,  and  calls  himself  the  "son  of  Bil-zikkar-iskun,  king  of 
 Babylon,"  who  may  possibly  have  been  the  "  chief  Chaldaean  "  said  by 
 Berosus  to  have  watched  over  the  kingdom  between  the  death  of  Nabo- 
 polassar  and  the  return  of  Nebuchadnezzar  from  Egypt.  Considerable 
 remains  have  been  found  of  a  palace  which  Xeriglissar  built  at  Babylon. 
 He  was  probably  advanced  in  life  when  he  ascended  the  throne ;  and 
 hence  he  held  it  but  four  years,  or  rather  three  years  and  a  half ;  dying 
 a  natural  death  in  b.  c.  556,  and  leaving  the  crown  to  his  son  Laboroso- 
 archod,  or  Labossoracus,  who,  though  a  mere  boy,  appears  to  have  been 
 allowed  quietly  to  assume  the  sceptre.    (Pp.  517-18.) 
 
 LaborosoarcJiody  the  son  of  Neriglissar,  sat  upon  his  father's  throne 
 but  nine  months.  He  is  said  to  have  given  signs  of  a  vicious  disposi- 
 tion, and  thereby  to  have  aroused  the  fears  or  provoked  the  resentment 
 of  his  friends  and  connections.  A  conspiracy  was  formed  against  him 
 among  his  courtiers,  and  he  was  put  to  a  cruel  death.  The  conspirators 
 then  selected  one  of  their  number,  a  man  of  no  very  great  eminence  pre- 
 viously, and  placed  him  upon  the  vacant  throne.  This  was  Nabonidus, 
 or  Nabonadius,  the  last  king,  the  Labynetus  II.  of  Herodotus. 
 
 [By  the  monuments  Nahu-nahit  appears  to  have  been  the  son  of  a  cer- 
 tain Nahu-  .  .  -dirba,  who  is  called  "  Rab-Mag,"  like  Neriglissar,  and 
 who  was  therefore  a  person  of  considerable  official  rank.  Tliere  are  two 
 distinct  forms  of  this  prince's  name,  both  in  classical  writers  and  in  the 
 inscriptions.  In  the  latter  his  name  is  ordinarily  Nabu-nit,  or,  as  it  is 
 now  read,  Nabu-nahit,  but  sometimes  the  form  Nabu-imduk  or  Nabu- 
 induk  is  used.  The  classical  writers  express  the  former  by  Nabonidus, 
 Nabonadius,  Nabonnedus,  or  (as  Herodotus)  by  Labyneius  :  the  latter 
 may  be  traced  in  the  Nabannidochus  of  Abydenus  (Fr.  9),  and  the  Na- 
 boandelus  (Naboandechus  ?)  of  Jusephus  {Ant.  Jud.  x.  11,  §  2).  Nabu- 
 nahit  is  the  Semitic  or  Assyrian,  and  Nabu-induk  the  Hamite  or  Baby- 
 lonian form.  The  one  is  a  mere  translation  of  the  other,  and  the  two 
 forms  are  used  indifferently.  The  meaning  is,  "  Nebo  blesses,"  or  "makes 
 prosperous."    H.  C.  R.] 
 
 The  accession  of  Nabonadius  {Nabu-nit  or  Nubu-nahit),  b.  c.  555, 
 nearly  synchronises  with  the  commencement  of  the  war  between  Cyrus 
 and  Croesus.  It  was  probably  in  the  very  first  year  of  his  reign  that  the 
 ambassadors  of  the  Lydian  king  arrived  with  their  proposals  for  a  grand 
 confederation  [in  which  Egypt  also  was  included]  against  the  power 
 
 3  u 
 
1026 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 which  was  felt  to  threaten  the  independence  of  all  its  neighbours.  The 
 Babylonian  prince  entered  readily  into  the  scheme.  He  was,  to  all 
 appearance,  sufficiently  awake  to  his  own  danger.  Already  were  those 
 remarkable  works  in  course  of  construction,  which  being  attributed  by 
 Herodotus  to  a  queen,  Nitocris  —  the  mother,  according  to  him,  of  the 
 last  Babylonian  monarch, — have  handed  her  name  down  to  all  later 
 ages.  These  defences,  which  Herodotus  speaks  of  as  constructed  against 
 the  Medes,  were  probably  made  really  against  Cyrus,  who,  upon  his  con- 
 quest of  the  Median  empire,  appears  to  have  fixed  his  residence  at  Agba- 
 tana,  from  which  quarter  it  was  that  he  afterwards  marched  upon 
 Babylon.  They  belong,  in  part  at  least,  to  the  reign  of  Nabonadius,  as 
 is  evident  both  from  a  statement  of  the  native  historian,  and  from  the 
 testimony  of  the  inscriptions.  The  river  walls,  one  of  the  chief  defensive 
 works  which  Herodotus  ascribes  to  his  Nitocris,  are  distinctly  assigned 
 by  Berosus  to  Nabu-nahit ;  and  the  bricks  which  compose  them,  one  and 
 all,  bear  upon  them  the  name  of  that  monarch.  Herodotus  (Mr.  Raw- 
 linson  observes  in  a  note)  distinctly  connects  his  Nitocris  with  his  second 
 Labynetus,  and  only  indistinctly  with  any  former  king.  Perhaps  he 
 regarded  her  as  at  once  the  wife  of  his  first  Labynetus  (Nebuchad- 
 nezzar ?)  and  the  mother  of  his  second  (Nabu-nahit)  ;  but  she  can  scarcely 
 in  truth  have  filled  both  these  positions. 
 
 Of  the  other  defensive  works  ascribed  to  Nitocris  —  the  winding 
 channel  dug  for  the  Euphrates  at  some  distance  above  Babylon,  and  the 
 contrivance  for  laying  under  water  the  whole  tract  of  land  towards  the 
 north  and  west  of  the  city  —  no  traces  appear  to  remain  ;  and  it  seems 
 certain  that  the  description  which  Herodotus  gives  of  them  is  at  least 
 greatly  exaggerated.  Still  we  may  gather  from  his  narrative  that,  be- 
 sides improving  the  fortifications  of  the  city  itself,  Labynetus  endea- 
 voured to  obstruct  the  advance  of  an  enemy  towards  Babylon  by 
 hydraulic  works  resembling  those  of  which  so  important  a  use  has  fre- 
 quently been  made  in  the  Low  Countries.  .    .    .  (Pp.  520-1.) 
 
 The  "Median  wall"  of  Xenophon  may  have  been  in  reality  only  a 
 portion  of  the  old  wall  of  Babylon  itself,  which  had  been  broken  down 
 in  places,  and  had  been  suffered  to  fall  into  decay  by  the  Persians. 
 
 But  the  rapid  movements  of  Cyrus  disconcerted  all  [the  calculations  of 
 Croesus].  Sardis  was  taken,  Croesus  himself  was  a  prisoner,  and  the 
 Persian  empire  was  extended  to  the  iEgean  [before  any  of  his  allies 
 could  come  up]  ;  and  nothing  then  remained  for  Nabonadius  but  to  set 
 to  work  with  fresh  vigour  at  his  defences.  It  was  then  perhaps  that  he 
 began  to  lay  in  those  stores  of  provisions  "for  many  years"  which  are 
 mentioned  by  Herodotus  as  accumulated  in  Babylon  when,  8  years 
 after  the  capture  of  Sardis  (b.  c.  547 — 539=8,  or,  according  to  Mr. 
 Bawlinson,  b.  c.  554 — 539=15  years  after  it),  its  siege  took  place. 
 
 The  preservation  of  the  capital  seems  to  have  been  all  that  was 
 attempted  by  the  Babylonians.  This  is  evidenced  by  the  nature  of  the 
 defences  constructed  at  this  period,  and  still  more  by  the  care  taken  to 
 provision  the  city  for  the  siege.   It  was  probably  hoped  that  the  enormous 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1027 
 
 height  and  thickness  of  the  walls  would  baffle  the  besiegers,  and  that  the 
 corn  laid  up  in  store  and  the  extent  of  arable  land  within  the  defences 
 would  render  a  reduction  by  blockade  impracticable.  When  Cyrus  after 
 8  years  (Mr.  Kawlinson  makes  it  15)  appeared  before  the  walls,  a  single 
 battle  was  fought,  and  the  Babylonians  being  defeated  retired  within 
 their  defences,  and  thought  to  defy  their  enemy.  We  are  not  informed 
 how  long  the  siege  lasted,  but  no  second  effort  seems  to  have  been  made 
 to  drive  away  the  assailants. 
 
 After  a  time  Cyrus  put  in  execution  the  stratagem  which,  as  it  may  be 
 inferred  from  his  experiment  upon  the  Gyndes  (the  Diyala),  he  had 
 resolved  to  practise  before  he  left  Ecbatana.  The  exact  mode  by  which 
 he  drained  the  stream  of  the  Euphrates  is  uncertain  ;  but  both  Herodotus 
 and  Xenophon  agree  that  he  entered  the  city  by  its  channel,  and  that  he 
 waited  for  a  general  festival  before  turning  the  stream.  If  the  sinking 
 of  the  water  had  only  been  observed,  the  city  water-gates  might  have 
 been  closed,  and  his  army  would  have  been  caught  as  "  in  a  trap." 
 
 The  city  was  taken  at  the  extremities  long  before  the  inhabitants  of  the 
 central  parts  suspected  their  danger.  Then  it  may  well  be  that  "  one  post 
 ran  to  meet  another,  and  one  messenger  ran  to  meet  another,  to  show  the 
 king  of  Babylon  that  bis  city  was  taken  at  one  end."  According  to 
 Berosus  indeed  Nabonadius  was  not  in  Babylon,  but  at  Borsippa,  at  the 
 time  when  Babylon  was  taken,  having  fled  [thither]  when  his  army  was 
 defeated. . . .  He  seems,  however,  to  have  left  in  Babylon ...  his  son,  whom 
 a  few  years  previously  he  had  associated  with  himself  in  the  government. 
 This  prince,  whose  name  is  read  as  Bil-shur-uzur, . . .  may  be  identified 
 
 with  the  Belshazzar  of  Daniel  Belshazzar,  who  was  probably  a  mere 
 
 youth,  neglected  the  duty  of  watching  the  enemy,  and  gave  himself 
 
 up  to  enjoyment.  The  feast  of  which  we  read  in  Daniel...  may  have 
 been  in  part  a  religious  festivity,  but  it  indicates  nevertheless  the  self- 
 indulgent  temper  of  the  king,  who  could  give  himself  so  entirely  up  to 
 merriment  at  such  a  time.  While  the  king  and  his  "  thousand  nobles" 
 drank  wine  out  of  the  sacred  vessels  of  the  Jews,  the  Persian  archers 
 entered  the  city,  and  a  scene  of  carnage  ensued.  "  In  that  night  was 
 Belshazzar  slain."  Amid  the  confusion  and  the  darkness,  the  young 
 prince,  probably  unrecognised  by  the  soldiery,  who  would  have  respected 
 his  rank  had  they  perceived  it,  was  struck  down  by  an  unknown  hand, 
 and  lost  his  life  with  his  kingdom. 
 
 [A  difficulty  still  stands]  in  the  way  of  this  identification,  which  (if 
 accepted)  solves  one  of  the  most  intricate  problems  of  ancient  history. 
 [It]  is  the  relationship  in  which  the  Belshazzar  of  Scripture  stands  to 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  which  is  throughout  represented  as  that  of  son  (Dan.  v. 
 2,  11,  13,  18,  &c.). . .  .It  may  be  remarked  that  although  Nabonadius  was 
 not  a  descendant,  or  indeed  any  relation  of  Is  ebuchadnezzar,  Belshazzar 
 may  have  been,  and  very  probably  was.  Nabu-nahit,  on  seizing  the 
 supreme  power,  would  naturally  seek  to  strengthen  his  position  by 
 marriage  with  a  daughter  of  the  great  king,  whose  son,  son-in-law,  and 
 grandson  had  successively  held  the  throne.    He  may  have  taken  to  wife 
 
 3  u  2 
 
1028 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Ncriglissar's  widow,  or  he  may  have  married  some  other  daughter  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar.  Belshazzar  may  thus  have  been  grandson  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar on  the  mother's  side.  It  is  some  confirmation  of  these  pro- 
 babilities or  possibilities  to  find  that  the  name  of  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
 used  as  a  family  name  by  Nabu-nahit.  He  must  certainly  have  had  a 
 son  to  whom  he  gave  that  appellation,  or  it  would  not  have  been  assumed 
 by  two  pretenders  in  succession,  who  sought  to  personate  the  legitimate 
 heir  of  the  Babylonian  throne. 
 
 Cyrus,  then,  having  given  orders  to  ruin  the  defences  of  the  city,  pro- 
 ceeded to  the  attack  of  Borsippa,  where  Nabonadius ...  at  once  surren- 
 dered himself.  Cyrus ...  assigned  [him  Carmania  for  his  residence].... 
 Here,  according  to  Berosus,  he  ended  his  days  in  peace.  Abydenus, 
 however,  states  that  he  gave  ojQfence  to  Darius,  who  deprived  him  of  his 
 possessions,  and  forced  him  to  quit  Carmania. 
 
 It  is  possible  that  Nabonadius  was  involved  in  one  of  those  revolts  of 
 Babylon  from  Darius,  where  his  name  was  certainly  made  use  of  to  stir 
 
 the  people  to  rebellion  Twice  at  least  in  the  reign  of  that  monarch  a 
 
 claimant  to  the  Babylonian  crown  came  forward  with  the  declaration,  "  I 
 am  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  son  of  Nabonadius." 
 
 With  regard  to  the  Median  and  Persian  kings  who  may- 
 have  been  mentioned  by  Berosus^  there  is  but  little  in  the 
 way  of  recent  discoveries  which  needs  any  special  notice :  — 
 
 Mr.  Rawlinson  mentions  no  Median  inscriptions;  and  he  supposes  that  of 
 the  four  royal  names  given  by  Herodotus  the  last,  that  of  Astyages  {As- 
 da-hag},  is  merely  a  title,  signifying  the  "  Siting  Snake"  so  that  the  true 
 name  of  the  son  and  successor  of  Cyaxares  is  unknown.  And  he  sup- 
 poses the  first  name,  Deioces  {Dahag),  to  be  identical  with  the  last  element 
 in  Astyages,  and  so  unhistorical.  The  second,  Phraortes,  he  admits  is  a 
 true  Median  name,  which  appears  in  the  form  Phraivai-tish  in  the  Be- 
 
 histun  inscription  of  Darius  Hystaspes  But  he  supposes  that  the 
 
 Phraortes  of  whom  Herodotus  heard  was  a  fabulous  person  made  out  of 
 the  same  Median  pretender  who  is  named  by  Darius  :  and  he  observes 
 that  this  later  Phraivartish,  according  to  the  inscription,  rested  his  claims 
 not  on  being  descended  from  Deioces,  but  from  Cyaxares;  with  which  he 
 connects  some  lines  of  ^schylus,  who  seems  to  reckon  Cyrus  as  third 
 from  the  first  Median  commander  and  king.  On  this  view  that  Median 
 revolt  and  establishment  of  independence,  or  at  least  that  commencement 
 of  the  rule  of  Deioces,  which  Herodotus  puts  in  b.c.  708  or  709,  and  that 
 commencement  of  a  Median  empire,  or  at  least  of  Median  independence, 
 which  he  puts  22  years  later,  in  b.  c.  686  or  687,  can  have  had  no  exist- 
 ence ;  and,  instead  of  there  being  a  Scythian  inroad  and  dominion  during 
 28  years,  Mr.  Rawlinson  supposes  that  Cyaxares  and  his  Medes  were 
 themselves  rather  the  immigrant  invaders,  who  warred  upon  and  dis- 
 placed the  remains  of  an  older  Scythic  population. 
 
 In  the  great  Behistun  inscription,  which  is  trilingual,  in  the  ancient 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1029 
 
 Persian,  the  Babylonian,  and  the  Scythic  languages,  and  the  Persian 
 words  of  which  together  with  an  English  version  are  given  at  the  end 
 of  vol.  ii.  of  Mr.  Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  Darius  Hystaspes  has  recorded 
 many  of  the  acts  of  his  reign  : — 
 
 He  traces  himself  up  through  "  Ilystaspes,  Arsames,  Ariaranines,  and 
 Teispes  to  Acha?menes and  says  that  "  eight  of  that  race  had  been 
 kings  before  hiin."  He  enumerates  his  provinces,  "  xxiii  in  all,"  which 
 have  come  to  him  by  the  grace  of  Ormuzd,  viz.,  Persia,  Susiana, 
 Babylonia,  Assyria,  Arabia,  Egypt,  the  Islands,  Saparda,  Ionia,  Media, 
 Armenia,  Cappadocia,  Parthia,  Zarangia,  Aria,  Chorasmia,  Bactria, 
 Sogdiana,  Gandaria,  the  Saca,  Sattagydia,  Arachotia,  and  Mecia ;  in 
 all  xxiii  provinces. 
 
 Of  the  false  Sraerdis  Darius  relates  to  the  following  effect : — "  Cam- 
 byses,  son  of  Cyrus  of  our  race,  reigned  before  me.  He  had  a  brother, 
 named  Bardes,  born  from  the  same  mother  and  the  same  father  with 
 himself.  Cambyses  slew  him;  but  the  people  knew  not  at  the  time  that 
 Bardes  had  been  slain.  Afterwards,  when  Cambyses  had  proceeded  to 
 Egypt,  the  state  became  wicked.  Then  the  lie  became  abounding  in  the 
 land,  both  in  Persia  and  in  jNIedia,  and  in  the  other  provinces.  After- 
 wards there  was  a  certain  Magian  named  Gomates,  sprung  from  Pissia- 
 chada,  from  the  mountain  called  Aracadres.  On  the  14th  of  the  month 
 Vayakhna  he  arose.  He  spoke  thus,  lying,  to  the  state :  '  I  am  Bardes, 
 the  son  of  Cyrus,  the  brother  of  Cambyses.'  Then  the  whole  state  re- 
 volted, and  went  over  to  him  from  Cambyses,  both  Persia,  and  Media, 
 and  the  other  provinces.  He  seized  the  empire.  He  seized  it  on  the 
 9th  day  of  the  month  Garmapada.  Afterwards  Cambyses  .  .  .  died. 
 The  empire  of  which  Gomates  the  Magian  dispossessed  Cambyses  had 
 from  olden  time  been  in  our  family  ....  There  was  not  a  man,  neither 
 Persian  nor  Median,  nor  any  one  of  our  family,  who  would  dispossess 
 that  Gomates  the  Magian  of  the  crown.  The  state  feared  him  exceed- 
 ingly. He  slew  many  people  who  had  known  the  true  Bardes,  [saying 
 within  himself]  '  lest  they  should  recognise  me,  that  I  am  not  Bardes  the 
 son  of  Cyrus.'  No  one  dared  to  say  anything  concerning  Gomates  the 
 ]\Iagian  until  I  arrived.  Then  I  prayed  to  Ormuzd.  Ormuzd  helped 
 me.  On  the  10th  day  of  the  month  Bagayadish,  with  my  faithful  men, 
 I  slew  that  Gomates  the  Magian  and  his  chief  followers.  I  slew  him  in 
 the  fortress  named  Sictachotes  in  the  district  of  Media  called  NissBa.  By 
 the  grace  of  Ormuzd  I  became  king.  Ormuzd  granted  me  the  sceptre. 
 The  empire  which  had  been  taken  away  from  our  family  I  recovered. 
 As  it  was  before  so  I  re-established  it.  The  temples  which  Gomates  the 
 Magian  had  destroyed  I  rebuilt.  The  sacred  offices  of  the  state,  both 
 the  religious  chaunts  and  the  worship,  (I  restored)  to  the  people,  which 
 Gomates  the  Magian  had  deprived  them  of.  As  things  were  before  so  I 
 re-established  them,  by  the  grace  of  Ormuzd,  so  that  Gomates  the  Magian 
 should  not  supersede  our  family." 
 
 Then  he  proceeds  to  mention  the  numerous  revolts  which  he  put  down, 
 especially  the  two  revolts  of  Babylon,  the  first  caused  by  Nidintabelus,  a 
 
 3  u  3 
 
1030 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Babylonian,  who  called  himself  Nabochodrossor  the  son  of  Nabonidus, 
 the  second  caused  bj  an  Armenian  named  Aracus,  son  of  Handitis,  who 
 was  by  origin  from  a  district  of  Babylonia  called  Dobana,  and  who,  like 
 Isidintabelus,  pretended  to  be  Nabochodrossor,  son  of  Nabonidus.  On 
 the  former  occasion  Darius  himself,  after  several  battles,  had  taken 
 Babylon  and  slain  Nidintabelus ;  but  against  Aracus  he  sent  a  com- 
 mander named  Intaphres,  a  Mede,  who  took  Babylon  and  (as  it  seems) 
 slew  the  pretender. 
 
 In  the  4th  column  Darius  recapitulates  thus  :  "  This  is  what  I  have 
 done.  By  the  grace  of  Ormuzd  I  have  accomplished  the  whole.  After 
 that  the  kings  rebelled  against  me,  I  fought  19  battles.  By  the  grace  of 
 Ormuzd  I  smote  them,  and  took  9  kings  (prisoners).  One  was  Gomates 
 a  Magian.  He  lied,  saying,  '  I  am  Bardes  the  son  of  Cyrus.'  He  caused 
 Persia  to  revolt.  Another  was  Atrines  a  Susianian.  He  lied,  saying, 
 *I  am  the  king  of  Susiana.'  He  caused  Susiana  to  revolt  from  me. 
 Another  was  Nidintabelus  a  Babylonian.  He  lied,  saying,  '  I  am  Na- 
 bochodrossor  the  son  of  Nabonidus.'  He  caused  Babylon  to  revolt. 
 Another  was  INIartes  a  Persian.  He  lied,  saying,  '  I  am  Imanes  the  king 
 of  Susiana.'  He  caused  Susiana  to  revolt.  Another  was  Phraortes  a 
 Mede.  He  lied,  saying,  '  I  am  Xathrites  of  the  race  of  Cyaxares.'  He 
 caused  Media  to  revolt.  Another  was  Sitrantachmes  a  Sagartian.  He 
 lied,  saying,  'I  am  the  king  of  Sagartia,  of  the  race  of  Cyaxares.' 
 He  caused  Sagartia  to  revolt.  Another  was  Phraates  a  Margian.  He 
 lied,  saying,  '  I  am  king  of  Margiana.'  He  caused  Margiana  to  revolt. 
 Another  was  Veisdates  a  Persian.  He  lied,  saying,  '  I  am  Bardes  the 
 son  of  Cyrus.'  He  caused  Persia  to  revolt.  Another  was  Aracus  an 
 Armenian.  He  lied,  saying,  '  I  am  Nabochodrossor  the  son  of  Nabo- 
 nidus.'  He  caused  Babylon  to  revolt.  .  .  .  These  9  kings  have  1  taken 
 in  these  battles. 
 
 "  These  are  the  provinces  which  rebelled.  The  god  Ormuzd  created 
 lies  that  they  should  deceive  the  people.  Afterwards  the  god  Ormuzd 
 gave  the  people  into  my  hand.  As  I  desired,  so  the  god  Ormuzd  [did]. 
 Says  Darius  the  king  [these  words  introduce  every  paragraph]  :  Thou 
 who  mayest  be  king  hereafter,  keep  thyself  entirely  from  lies.  The  man 
 •who  may  be  a  liar,  him  destroy  utterly.  If  thou  shalt  thus  observe,  my 
 country  shall  remain  in  its  integrity  
 
 "  What  by  the  grace  of  Ormuzd  I  have  done  besides  (and  I  have  done 
 much)  I  have  not  inscribed  on  this  tablet.  For  this  cause  I  have  not  in- 
 scribed it,  lest  he  who  may  hereafter  peruse  this  tablet  should  think  the 
 many  deeds  that  have  been  done  by  me  elsewhere  to  be  falsely  recorded." 
 .  .  .  And  he  warns  his  successors  not  to  conceal  but  to  publish  the  con- 
 tents of  this  manifesto ;  nor  to  deface  the  inscription  itself,  adding  bless- 
 ings and  imprecations.  He  says,  that  "  by  the  grace  of  Ormuzd  I  have 
 accomplished  everything.  Ormuzd  helped  me,  and  the  other  gods  which 
 are."    Another  paragraph  is  the  following  : — 
 
 "  Says  Darius  the  king  :  These  are  the  men  who  alone  were  there 
 when  I  slew  Gomates  the  Magian,  who  was  called  Bardes.    These  men 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1031 
 
 alone  laboured  in  my  service :  Intaphernes  the  son  of  Veispares,  a 
 Persian  ;  Otanes  the  son  of  Socrii^,  a  Persian  ;  Gobryas  the  son  of  Mar- 
 donius,  a  Persian  ;  Hydarnes  the  son  of  Megabignes,  a  Persian  ;  Mega- 
 byzus  the  son  of  Dadoi's,  a  Persian  ;  Ardomanes  the  son  of  Basuses,  a 
 Persian." 
 
 In  Col.  V.  of  the  Inscription,  which  is  very  imperfect,  the  king  speaks 
 of  a  revolt  in  Susiana.    "  This  province  revolted  against  me.  The 
 
 Susianians  made  a  man  named  imimus  their  chief.  Then 
 
 I  sent  troops  to  Susiana.  Goh^yas  a  Persian,  one  of  ray  subjects,  I 
 appointed  to  be  their  leader.  Then  that  Gobryas  with  tlie  troops  went 
 to  Susiana.  He  fought  a  battle  with  the  rebels  ....  seized  and 
 brought  to  me  [their  chief]    .    .    .    there  I  slew  him." 
 
 After  this  he  mentions  his  putting  down  and  slaying  one  Sacuces  in 
 Sacia.    What  follows  is  too  imperfect  to  be  made  out. 
 
 Behistun,  as  Mr.  Ravvlinson  informs  his  readers,  is  situated  on  the 
 western  frontier  of  the  ancient  Media,  upon  the  road  from  Babylon  to 
 the  southern  Ecbatana,  the  great  thoroughfare  between  the  eastern  and 
 the  western  provinces  of  ancient  Persia.  The  precipitous  rock,  1700  feet 
 high,  on  which  the  writing  is  inscribed,  forms  a  portion  of  the  great 
 chain  of  Zagros,  which  separates  the  high  plateau  of  Iran  from  the  vast 
 plain  watered  by  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates.  The  inscription  is  engraved 
 at  the  height  of  300  feet  from  the  base  of  the  rock,  and  can  only  be 
 reached  with  much  difficulty,  .  .  .  Col.  Rawlinson  gathers  from  the 
 monument  itself  that  it  was  executed  in  the  5th  year  of  the  reign  of 
 Darius,  b.c.  516  [517]. 
 
 Besides  this  monument  of  Darius  Mr.  Rawlinson  mentions  the  tomb 
 of  Cyrus,  at  Murg-auh  (Pasargadas),  with  the  inscription,  several  times 
 repeated,  both  in  Persian  and  in  the  so-called  Median ;  "  I  am  Cyrus,  the 
 king,  the  Achcemenian  "  (Herod,  vol.  i.  p.  351);  also  an  inscription  of 
 Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  discovered  at  Susa ;  and  another  of  Artaxerxes 
 Ochus.  In  Egypt  inscriptions,  mostly  on  small  objects,  have  been  found 
 with  the  names  of  Persian  kings,  as  Darius,  Xerxes,  and  Artaxerxes, 
 both  in  the  cuneiform  and  the  hieroglyphic  characters. 
 
 The  reader  has  now  before  him  the  means  of  judging  how 
 far  light  has  been  thrown  by  recent  discoveries  on  the  dynas- 
 ties of  Berosus.  It  is,  however,  to  be  borne  in  mind  that 
 the  study  of  the  old  Babylonian,  Assyrian,  and  Persian 
 languages,  and  of  the  cuneiform  character  used  in  their  in- 
 scriptions, is  as  yet  only  in  its  infancy,  so  that  much  addi- 
 tional information  may  still  be  obtainable. 
 
 Lastly,  as  a  conclusion  to  this  Appendix,  some  remarks 
 shall  be  offered  on  two  points  on  which  the  Assyrian  inscrip- 
 tions seem  to  be  at  variance  either  with  the  received  text  of 
 the  Sacred  Scriptures,  or  with  inferences  arising  naturally 
 
 3  u  4 
 
1032 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 from  the  consideration  of  certain  statements  of  Herodotus 
 and  Berosus,  as  well  as  of  other  authors,  both  sacred  and 
 profane. 
 
 The  first  of  these  points  is  the  difficulty  created  by  the 
 annals  of  Sargon  and  Sennacherib,  in  conjunction  with  the 
 dates  of  the  Astronomical  Canon,  as  to  the  synchronism  of 
 some  one  year,  or  of  some  two  separate  years,  of  the  reign 
 of  Hezekiah  with  the  two  attacks  made  upon  him  by  Sen- 
 nacherib ;  for  tioo  distinct  attacks,  whether  immediately  con- 
 secutive or  separated  by  an  interval  of  one  or  more  years, 
 are  recorded  by  the  sacred  narrative  in  4  Kings  (ch.  xviii. 
 V.  13  to  16,  and  v.  17  of  the  same  to  v.  36  of  ch.  xix.).  If 
 there  was  an  interval,  it  is  clear  that  on  botJi  occasions  alike 
 the  arms  of  the  Assyrians  were  directed  principally  against 
 the  power  of  Egypt,  and  against  Hezekiah  only  secondarily, 
 in  consequence  of  his  open  or  suspected  defection.  It  is 
 clear,  too,  that  the  account  given  of  the  first  attack  ends 
 with  the  mention  of  the  city  of  Lacliish,  and  that  the  account 
 of  the  second  attack  hegins  with  another  mention  of  the  same 
 place.  On  the  first  occasion,  after  taking  the  fenced  cities  of 
 Judah,  and  beleaguering  Jerusalem  with  mounds  and  towers, 
 Sennacherib  had  moved  on  himself  to  Lachish,  and  it  was 
 thither  that  Hezekiah  sent  to  him  to  make  his  definitive  sub- 
 mission ;  after  the  acceptance  of  which  the  siege  of  Lachish, 
 as  one  must  suppose,  was  no  longer  pressed.  And  on  the 
 second  occasion  Sennacherib  is  either  still  before  Lachish, 
 or  he  has  returned  thither  again,  and  has  again  invested  it, 
 when  he  sends  from  thence  a  detachment  of  his  army  under 
 Tartan  and  Kabshakeh  to  threaten  Jerusalem.  On  their 
 return  he  has  already,  as  it  seems,  taken  Lachish,  and  is 
 besieging  Libnah  (which  he  seems  also  to  have  taken),  from 
 whence,  on  hearing  of  the  advance  of  the  Ethiopians  and 
 Egyptians,  he  sends  a  letter  full  of  fresh  menaces  to  Heze- 
 kiah. There  is  something  certainly  in  this  relation  to  favour 
 the  idea  that  the  two  attacks  were  immediately  consecutive. 
 But,  on  the  other  hand,  when  Hezekiah  had  only  just  sub- 
 mitted, or  rather  was  in  the  very  act  of  submitting  himself, 
 consenting  to  pay  the  fine  and  the  tribute  imposed  upon  him, 
 and  adding  large  gifts  besides,  it  is  highly  imj^robable  that 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1033 
 
 Sennacherib,  who  was  thus  set  free  to  prosecute  the  war  to- 
 wards the  frontier  of  Egypt,  should  imiiiediatcly  —  as  if  his 
 only  object  was  to  have  an  enemy  instead  of  a  vassal  in  his 
 rear — send  back  part  of  his  army  to  renew  hostilities  against 
 Jerusalem  ;  or  that  Hezekiah  should,  immediately  after  sub- 
 mitting and  exhausting  himself,  be  found  to  be  purposing  a 
 fresh  revolt.  One  cannot  but  think  that  some  short  time — 
 a  year  or  two  at  the  least— must  have  intervened.  And 
 when  one  goes  on  to  read  of  the  embassy  of  Merodach- 
 Baladan,  and  the  way  in  which  it  was  received  at  Jerusalem, 
 it  is  natural  to  suspect  that  this,  on  becoming  known,  gave 
 umbrage  to  Sennacherib,  and  that  it  was  then  in  truth  that 
 Hezekiah  listened  to  proposals  engaging  him  to  a  fresh  de- 
 fection, in  wdiich  he  should  be  assisted  at  once  both  by 
 Babylon  and  by  Egypt.  If  so,  it  would  follow,  of  course, 
 til  at  so  soon  as  Babylon  Avas  reduced,  which  was  in  B.C. 
 709  (unless  there  was  something  pressing  in  other  quarters 
 which  caused  delay),  the  whole  power  of  the  Assyrians 
 would  be  again  directed  against  Judaea  and  Egypt.  And 
 then  it  was  that  Sennacherib  once  more  besieged,  and  this 
 time  took,  Lachish,  while  a  detachment  of  his  army  ineffec- 
 tually threatened  Jerusalem.  But  now  the  accession  of 
 Sennacherib  seems  to  be  fixed  by  his  annals,  taken  in  con- 
 nection with  the  Canon,  to  B.C.  702;  so  that  his  1st  year 
 should  be  the  (b.c.  726—702  =  )  25th  of  Hezekiah;  and  his 
 first  attack  upon  Judaea,  after  which  Hezekiah  submitted, 
 and  paid  "  30  talents  of  gold"  besides  other  tribute,  is  fixed 
 to  the  3rd  year  of  Sennacherib,  which  should  be  the  27th  of 
 Hezekiah.  Mr.  Bawlinson,  therefore,  would  read  in  4  Kings 
 (xviii.  V.  13)  "  the  27th"  instead  of  "  the  14th"  year  of  Heze- 
 kiah; and  he  supposes  that  the  second  attack  and  the  miracu- 
 lous destruction  of  the  Assyrian  army  may  have  been  only  one, 
 or  at  most  two  years,  later.  But  against  this  expedient  it 
 seems  a  sufficient  objection,  that  the  sign  given  by  God  to 
 Hezekiah  and  his  subjects  at  the  time  of  their  deliverance 
 implies  that  Hezekiah  would  live  at  least  two  years  longer. 
 "  And  this,"  it  is  said,  "  shall  be  a  sign  unto  thee :  ye  shall 
 eat  this  year  such  things  as  grow  of  themselves,  and  in  the 
 second  year  that  which  springeth  of  the  same;  and  in 
 
1034 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the  third  year  sow  ye  and  reap,  and  plant  vineyards, 
 and  eat  the  fruits  thereof."  (4  Kings,  xix.  29.)  But  if 
 the  first  attack  of  Sennacherib  was  in  the  27th  year  of 
 Hezekiah,  and  his  second  even  so  much  as  one  year  later,  it 
 would  still  be  in  Hezekiah's  28th,  and  there  would  remain 
 only  one  year  to  his  death,  for  he  reigned  in  all  only  29 
 years.  Dr.  Hincks,  indeed,  who  was  the  first  author  of  the 
 suggestion  which  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  and  his  brother 
 have  in  part  adopted,  makes  the  first  attack  of  Sennacherib, 
 in  his  3rd  year,  to  have  been  in  the  26th,  not  the  27th,  of 
 Hezekiah  ;  and  the  second  attack,  in  common  with  them, 
 he  makes  to  have  been  one  or  two  years  later,  so  as  to  leave 
 room,  though  only  barely,  for  the  three  years  of  the  sign 
 given  by  Isaiah.  And  thus  much  may,  indeed,  be  admitted, 
 that  the  actual  reign  of  Sennacherib  after  his  father's  death 
 may  have  begun  a  little  before  the  end  of  B.  c.  703,  though  the 
 actual  reign  of  Belibus,  whom  in  his  first  year,  and  after  his 
 first  campaign,  he  set  over  Babylon,  must  have  begun  at 
 some  date  after — it  may  be  even  many  months  after — 
 Thoth  1  (then  at  Feb.  15),  in  B.C.  702.  But  even  if  it 
 be  allowed  that  Sennacherib's  first  attack  was  a  little  before 
 the  end  of  Hezekiah's  26th  year,  the  objection  is  rather 
 palliated  than  fully  met.  And,  besides,  the  2nd  Book 
 of  Chronicles  (ch.  xxxii.  v.  25)  seems  to  tax  Hezekiah  in 
 respect  of  his  behaviour  to  the  Babylonian  embassy,  as 
 if  this  were  after  his  great  deliverance,  saying  that  "  he 
 rendered  not  again  according  to  the  benefit  done  to  him;" 
 though  this,  it  is  true,  may  possibly  refer  only  to  his 
 recovery,  and  to  the  promise  added  for  the  future,  that 
 God  would  defend  Jerusalem  from  the  king  of  Assyria. 
 Ana  the  same  Book  of  Chronicles  seems  to  imply  that  Heze- 
 kiah lived  on  for  some  time  after  his  deliverance  from  Sen- 
 nacherib, and  was  honoured  on  account  of  it  (ib.  vv.  22,  23). 
 It  is  not,  indeed,  easy  to  see  how  any  single  change  in  the 
 text  of  the  Scriptures  can  either  altogether  remove  the 
 existing  difficulty,  or  avoid  creating  some  fresh  difficulty  in 
 addition.  And,  further,  as  regards  the  later  chronology  re- 
 sulting partly  from  that  expedient  which  Sir  Henry  Baw- 
 linson  and  his  brother  have  followed,  and  partly  from  their 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1035 
 
 identification  of  Esar-hacldon  with  Asaradinus  of  the  Canon, 
 — even  if  we  set  aside  the  Jewish  reigns  (which  they  seem 
 to  regard  as  uncertain),  and  compare  it  only  with  the  chro- 
 nology of  the  Egyptian  lists,  —  we  find  the  accession  of 
 Esar-haddon  (^Asshur-akh-hadin  of  the  inscriptions,  Assara- 
 c/ioddas  in  one  place  of  Josephus,  Ant.  xii.  6,  where  he  ought 
 to  be  following  Berosus)  set  at  B.  c.  680,  three  years  below  the 
 date  indicated  by  the  Egyptian  lists  for  the  death  of  Tirhakah. 
 And  we  find  the  accession  of  Asshur-hani-pal,  the  successor 
 of  Esar-haddon,  set  at  B.  c.  667,  only  four  years  above  the 
 accession  of  Psammetichus  1. ;  whereas  the  annals  of  Asshur- 
 bani-pal  show  that,  during  at  least  the  first  four  years  of  his 
 reign,  he  was  contending  with  Tirhakah  ("  TWrAw")  for  the 
 sovereignty  of  Lower  Egypt.  And  Tirhakah  must  have 
 lived  on  still  longer,  since  he  was  left  at  last  in  undisputed 
 possession,  and  slew  Necho,  the  father  of  Psammetichus, 
 after  the  events  related  in  the  Assyrian  annals.  So  it  seems 
 that  Mr.  Kawlinson's  dates  are  too  low,  by  about  the  space 
 of  one  reign,  to  suit  their  Egyptian  synchronisms.  At  the 
 same  time,  it  is  true  that  the  date  b.  c.  683  is  only  indicated 
 by  the  Egyptian  Chronicles,  not  distinctly  assigned  by  them, 
 for  the  death  of  Tirhakah.  And  it  is  possible  that  Manetho's 
 date,  B.C.  683,  may  be  without  any  historical  meaning, 
 and  that  Tirhakah  may  have  reigned  in  all  51  years,  to  the 
 accession  of  Psammetichus  L,  in  B.C.  663.  If  this  were  so, 
 the  reign  of  50  years  ascribed  by  Herodotus  to  the  Ethio- 
 pian Sabaco  would  cover  an  allusion  to  the  real  length  of 
 the  rei2;n  of  Tirhakah.  Whatever  be  the  true  solution  of  the 
 diflSculty  respecting  the  synchronisms  in  the  reigns  of  He- 
 zekiah  and  Sennacherib,  it  can  scarcely  be  made  out  to  a 
 certainty  without  the  help  of  some  fresh  discoveries.  But, 
 in  the  mean  time,  that  one  may  suggest  something — though 
 it  be  but  a  mere  guess,  and  perhaps  already  open  to  refuta- 
 tion— it  may  be  conceived  that  Sennacherib  (as  has  been 
 suggested  above  at  p.  982)  was  associated  in  the  throne  by 
 Sargon,  so  that  he  had  two  accessions,  one  from  his  associa- 
 tion, perhaps  in  B.C.  715,  the  other  from  the  death  of  his 
 father  in  B.C.  702  ;  and  that  while  his  own  annals,  inscribed 
 in  his  palace  at  Nineveh,  began  from  the  death  of  his  father. 
 
1036 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 and  gave  him  a  reign  perhaps  of  only  (b. c.  702  —  693=)  9 
 full  years,  that  "  22nd  year  "  of  his  reign  which,  according  to 
 Mr.  Rawlinson,  has  been  found  marked  on  one  clay  tablet, 
 may  have  been  reckoned  from  his  earlier  accession.  Thus 
 he  may  really  have  reduced  the  fenced  cities  of  Judah,  and 
 may  have  taken  tribute  from  Hezekiah,  in  the  14th  year  of 
 that  king,  which  was  his  own  3rd  year  from  his  first  acces- 
 sion, his  father  Sargon  being  then  still  living,  and  even,  as 
 it  seems,  being  himself  in  Palestine  in  the  same  year.  In- 
 deed, in  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  in  relating  the  precautions 
 taken  by  Hezekiah  at  this  very  time,  the  kings  of  Assyria 
 are  spoken  of  in  the  plural :  "  Why  should  the  kings  of 
 Assyria  come  and  find  much  water?"  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  4.) 
 And  then,  further,  it  may  be  supposed  that  in  the  annals 
 inscribed  in  his  palace,  built  after  the  death  of  his  father, 
 Sennacherib  substituted  and  placed,  as  if  in  the  3rd  year 
 from  his  last  accession,  an  account  of  his  earlier  successes 
 against  Hezekiah,  instead  of  his  later  ignominious  overthrow, 
 which  mag  have  occurred  as  late  as  B.C.  700  (though  the 
 narrative  in  the  Scriptures  would  lead  one  to  suppose  it 
 earlier),  and  which  his  pride  would  naturally  suppress.  On 
 this  view  there  would  be  a  sort  of  antithetical  parallel  be- 
 tween the  narrative  of  the  Scripture  and  that  of  Senna- 
 cherib's inscriptions ;  the  Scripture,  according  to  its  own 
 purpose  and  spirit,  hastening  to  the  end,  and  drawing  up 
 and  consolidating  with  the  events  of  Hezekiah's  14th  year 
 Avhat  was  done  later,  the  inscriptions,  on  the  contrary,  draw- 
 ing down  and  consolidating  with  the  events  of  Sennacherib's 
 3rd  year  from  his  father's  death  things  which  really  belonged 
 to  the  3rd  year  from  his  first  accession  as  associated  with  his 
 father.  It  may  be  to  the  purpose  to  observe,  that  the  histo- 
 rical inscriptions  of  the  Assyrian  kings  and  their  later  suc- 
 cessors, though  called  annals,  do  not  seem  to  specify  with 
 any  regularity  the  exact  year  of  the  king  in  which  each 
 event  took  place.  Thus,  in  the  great  Behistun  inscription 
 of  Darius  Hystaspes,  where  so  many  revolts  and  battles  are 
 enumerated  and  described,  though  the  day  of  the  month  is 
 occasionally  mentioned,  the  year  of  the  king's  reign  is  in  no 
 single  instance  distinctly  named. 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1037 
 
 Against  the  hypothesis  which  has  now  been  suggested 
 Dr.  Hincks  (to  whom,  as  well  as  to  Mr.  Rawlinson,  the 
 author's  thanks  are  due  for  their  kindness  in  replying  to  his 
 questions),  objects  that  "  we  have  the  annals  of  Sargon 
 during  what  must  have  been  the  14th  year  of  Hezekiah's 
 reign,  and  from  them  it  appears  that  in  this  very  year  he 
 was  himself  in  Palestine,  though  no  conquests  from  Hezekiah 
 are  mentioned:  only  he  took  Ashdod,  and  visited  certain 
 mines,  especially  Baal-zephon,  which  may  perhaps  be  identi- 
 fiable with  Sarabeit  el  Khadim."  This  objection  certainly 
 has  weight ;  but  perhaps  it  is  not  altogether  conclusive. 
 For  though  Sargon  took  to  himself  the  conquest  of  Ashdod, 
 which  was  reduced  by  one  of  his  own  captains,  it  may  still 
 be  possible — if  there  were  at  once  two  associate  kings,  one 
 residing  at  Khorsabad,  and  the  other  at  Nineveh — that  the 
 Khorsabad  king  left  it  to  his  colleague  to  record  in  his  own 
 palace  at  Nineveh  his  own  personal  exploits.  Dr  Hincks, 
 however,  besides  making  this  objection,  doubts  as  yet  the 
 truth  of  the  assertion  that  Sennacherib  reigned  in  all  more 
 than  8  or  9  years.  And  of  course,  if  Sennacherib  reigned 
 in  all  only  8  or  9  years,  and  those  from  B.C.  702,  there 
 would  be  no  room  for  our  hypothesis,  even  if  it  were  other- 
 wise admissible. 
 
 Dr.  Hincks  himself  would  solve  the  difficulty  by  sup- 
 posing that  there  is  a  dislocation  and  transposition  in  the 
 text  of  4  Kings,  which  originally  stood  thus:  —  In  ch. 
 xviii.  13,  after  the  words  ''Now  in  the  14th  year  of  king 
 Hezekiah "  what  followed  was  "  Hezekiah  was  sick  unto 
 death,"  with  the  rest  of  what  now  stands  as  ch.  xx.,  the  pro- 
 mise at  ver.  6,  alluding  not  to  Sennacherib  but  to  Sargon, 
 who  was  in  Palestine  in  that  same  year.  Then,  after  the 
 account  of  Ilezekiah's  sickness,  and  the  embassy  of  Mero- 
 dach-Baladan,  that  is,  after  ver.  19  of  ch.  xx.,  he  supposes 
 that  the  words  "  In  those  days  "  now  standing  at  the  head  of 
 ch.  XX.,  were  followed  by  all  that  now  forms  the  continuation 
 of  ch.  xviii.,  beginning  (in  ver.  13)  with  the  words  "  did 
 Sennacherib  king  of  Assyria  come  up  against  all  the  fenced 
 cities  of  Judah,  and  took  them,"  and  so  on  with  the  narrative  of 
 his  first  and  of  his  second  attack,  to  the  end  of  ch.  xix. ;  after 
 
1038 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 which  would  follow  what  are  now  the  last  two  verses  (20 
 and  21)  of  ch.  xx.,  "  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Hezekiah 
 .  .  .  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of 
 the  kings  of  Judah  ?  And  Hezekiah  slept  with  his  fathers : 
 and  Manasseh  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead." 
 
 On  this  hypothesis — certainly  a  bold  one — we  may  remark, 
 first,  that  at  any  rate,  if  it  is  to  be  available,  the  two  attacks 
 of  Sennacherib  must  be  supposed  to  have  been  both  in  one 
 and  the  same  campaign,  in  B.C.  700 — 699.  And,  even  then, 
 the  inscriptions  of  Sennacherib  will  not  agree.  For  in  this 
 campaign  he  puts  first  the  reduction  of  Luliya  king  of  Sidon, 
 and  of  Phosnicia ;  Edom  also,  Ekron,  and  Ashdod  submitting 
 without  resistance.  Next  he  relates  the  siege  and  capture 
 of  Ascalon  ;  Hazor,  Joppa,  and  other  towns  depending  upon 
 Ascalon  being  at  the  same  time  taken  and  plundered.  Then 
 follows  a  battle  with  the  kings  of  Egypt  the  vassals  of 
 Ethiopia  [and  with  Tirhakah  himself?]  who  had  come  out 
 against  him.  Tlien  the  capture  of  Lachish  and  Libnah, 
 And  it  is  only  after  all  these  things  that  "  he  proceeds 
 against  Hezekiah;  relating  how  the  Ekronites  had  expelled 
 their  king,  and  had  sent  him  bound  to  Hezekiah,"  &c.  (see 
 above  p.  1010) ;  how,  in  consequence,  he  "  invaded  Judaea, 
 where  he  took  46  fenced  cities,  &c.,  and  besieged  Jerusalem 
 with  mounds  and  towers,  till  Hezekiah  sulmitted.  After 
 which  the  spoils  and  the  tribute  paid  by  Hezekiah  were 
 brought  to  him  to  Nineveh,  Now,  if  the  two  attacks  of  Sen- 
 nacherib were  really  both  made  in  one  and  the  same  year,  it  is 
 clear  that  the  events  connected  with  the  two  are  here  con- 
 fused, and  related  in  an  order  the  inverse  of  the  true.  But 
 if  they  were  in  two  distinct  years,  we  have  the  difficulty  of 
 Lachish  having  been  taken,  and  not  only  Lachish  but  Libnah 
 too  after  Lachish,  before  the  invasion  of  JudcEa  commences, 
 when  yet  the  Scripture  expressly  states  that  Sennacherib 
 first  took  the  fenced  cities,  and  afterwards,  having  left  his 
 servants  to  continue  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  received  the 
 submission  of  Hezekiah  when  he  himself  was  besieging 
 Lachish.  We  have  also  the  further  difficulty  of  the  Ethio- 
 pians having  been  totally  routed  in  Syria,  near  Lachish,  and 
 both  Lachish  and  Libnah  taken,  while  yet  Hezekiah  is  found 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1039 
 
 still  trusting  to  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  and  engaging  in  a  fresh 
 defection,  and  the  Ethiopians  assume  the  offensive  again, 
 and  Lachlsh  and  Libnah  both  need  to  be  taken  over  again 
 in  the  very  next  year  or  in  the  year  next  but  one  afterwards. 
 And,  besides  these  difficulties  suggested  by  Sennacherib's 
 own  annals,  there  are  those  expressions  in  the  2nd  Book  of 
 Chronicles  which  have  been  noticed  above.  And  the  whole 
 narrative,  both  in  the  2nd  Book  of  Chronicles  and  in  the 
 Book  of  the  Prophet  Isaiah,  is  either  word  for  word  the 
 same,  or  at  least  parallel  throughout,  and  in  the  same  order, 
 with  that  in  4  Kings,  so  as  in  both  to  need  almost  equally 
 Dr.  Hincks's  transpositions. 
 
 The  order,  however,  of  the  different  prophecies  and  of  any 
 other  matter  which  may  be  connected  with  them  in  the  Book 
 of  Isaiah  need  not  be  supposed  to  be  everywhere  consecu- 
 tive and  chronological.  What  related  to  Assyria  and  to 
 Sennacherib  may  in  it  have  been  purposely  placed  all  together 
 and  by  itself  first ;  and  what  related  to  Hezekiah's  sickness 
 in  connection  with  the  prophecy  that  Jerusalem,  though 
 delivered  from  tlie  kings  of  Assyria,  should  be  taken  by  a 
 king  of  Babylon,  may  have  been  purposely  placed  all  together 
 and  by  itself  afterwards.  It  is  conceivable,  too,  that  an 
 order  wliich  was  appropriate  in  the  arrangement  of  the  pro- 
 phecies in  the  prophetical  book,  may  —  if  that  book,  as  the 
 more  ancient,  was  the  source  from  which  the  text  of  the  nar- 
 rative in  4  Kings  and  in  2  Chronicles  was  in  great  part  bor- 
 row^ed — have  become  an  occasion  of  disorder  and  obscurity 
 in  the  two  historical  books,  in  wdiich  the  sequence  ought 
 rather  to  have  been  chronological. 
 
 The  other  question  which  it  was  proposed  to  notice  relates 
 to  the  connection  of  the  Assyrian  empire  with  a  space  of 
 520  or  526  years,  and  to  the  date  of  its  termination. 
 
 If,  as  is  generally  supposed,  the  520  years  of  Herodotus 
 and  the  526  of  Berosus  are  from  one  and  the  same  source, 
 and  mean  one  and  the  same  thing,  it  seems  to  follow  that 
 the  xlv  Chaldasans  of  Berosus  must  be  the  Ninevite  kings 
 of  the  Assyrian  empire  of  Herodotus;  and  the  cessation  of 
 their  empire  is  distinctly  connected  by  Herodotus  with  the 
 date  B.C.  708  [or  rather  709].     The  Medes,  according  to 
 
1040 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 liim,  then  revolted ;  and  their  example  was  followed  by  the 
 other  Assyrian  dependencies ;  and  22  years  later,  in  B.  c.  687, 
 the  Medes  themselves,  according  to  him,  began  to  exercise 
 the  same  rule  in  Asia  which  the  Assyrians  had  lost,  and  they 
 held  the  empire  for  128  years,  till  B.  c.  558  [or  rather  559]. 
 But  the  inscriptions  seem  to  show  that  so  far  was  the 
 Assyrian  empire  of  Nineveh  from  coming  to  an  end  in 
 B.C.  709,  that  it  was  never  more  powerful  than  at  that 
 time ;  and  that  instead  of  then  first  casting  off  the  yoke  and 
 putting  an  end  to  the  empire  of  Assyria,  Media  had  just 
 then,  or  only  six  years  earlier,  been  more  completely  re- 
 duced by  Sargon.  The  Assyrian  monuments,  too,  seem 
 quite  to  preclude  the  number  of  xlv  kings,  whether  ending 
 in  B.  c.  747  (which  is  Mr.  Rawlinson's  date),  or  in  B.C.  709 
 (which  is  that  of  Herodotus  and  our  own);  though  the 
 number  of  xxx  (which  is  given,  though  inconsistently,  by 
 Diodorus)  might  suit  well  enough.  These  xxx,  however, 
 must  be  reckoned  not  to  any  revolt  of  Media,  but  to  the 
 last  sie2;e  and  destruction  of  Nineveh. 
 
 The  monuments  then  make  it  necessary  to  scrutinise  with 
 more  attention  such  differences  as  may  be  perceptible  be- 
 tween the  language  of  Herodotus  and  that  of  Berosus. 
 Berosus  was  a  Babylonian,  who,  from  the  outset  connects 
 his  kings  and  dynasties  with  his  own  city  of  Babylon  ;  though, 
 no  doubt,  as  he  wrote  in  a  diffuse  style  like  Manetho,  and 
 was  by  no  means  a  mere  chronicler  like  Ptolemy  of  Mendes, 
 he  related  at  length  all  that  was  connected  with  his  subject, 
 and  named  Assyrian,  Median,  Persian,  and  other  kings 
 besides  those  Chaldaeans  "  who  were  natives  of  Babylon, 
 or  at  least  of  Babylonia.  Further,  as  regards  his  xlv  kings 
 who  followed  the  ix  Arabians,  and  who  reigned  526  years, 
 he  calls  them  not  Assyrians  but  "  ClialdcRans.''^  And  the 
 number  of  xlv  kings  as  compared  with  526  years,  giving  an 
 average  length  of  only  1 1  years  and  about  8  months  to  ea.ch 
 reign,  though  entirely  irreconcilable  with  the  Assyrian  reigns 
 now  known  from  the  monuments,  agrees  so  well  with  the 
 average  length  of  those  Babylonian  reigns  from  Nabonassar 
 which  are  registered  in  the  Astronomical  Canon,  that  any 
 one  on  comparing  the  tw^o  averages  would  be  led  to  suspect 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1041 
 
 that  the  list  of  the  Canon  was  continuous,  and  perhaps  in 
 part  identical,  w^':h  that  of  Berosus.  Lastly,  though  it  is 
 impossible  to  find  any  Assyrian  epoch  in  B.C.  747,  or  any 
 Assyrian  and  Median  epoch  in  B.C.  709,  or  indeed  at  any 
 other  date,  answering  to  the  conditions  required  by  Ilero- 
 dotuS;  and  capable  of  being  identified  with  the  similar  epoch 
 of  Berosus,  there  is  no  such  difficulty  in  finding  an  epoch 
 in  the  Babylonian  list  which  may  at  once  suit  for  Berosus 
 and  account  for  the  statements  of  Herodotus.  For  it  is 
 quite  conceivable  that  the  reduction  of  Merodach-Baladan 
 and  the  capture  of  Babylon  itself  in  B.  c.  709  by  the  king 
 of  Assyria  may  have  been  regarded  by  the  Babylonians  as 
 an  epoch  at  which  their  native  (and  generally  independent) 
 princes  ended,  after  a  continuance  of  528  years  ;  while  those 
 who  succeeded  (except  during  some  occasional  revolts  and 
 interregna)  were  either  Assyrians,  the  sons  or  officers  of  the 
 kings  of  Assyria,  or  at  least  only  his  viceroys  and  nominees, 
 who  had  no  claim  by  blood  to  the  succession,  till  Nabo- 
 polas?ar  again  made  Babylon  the  seat  of  an  indei^endent 
 dynasty.  If  Babylon  during  all  the  526  years  preceding 
 B.C.  709  had  been  in  truth  eclipsed  by  Assyria,  and  there 
 was  I'ttle  to  relate  of  the  short  reig-ns  of  most  of  the  xlv 
 Chaldjean  kings,  while  there  was  much  to  relate  respecting 
 their  Assyrian  contemporaries,  this  may  at  once  throw  light 
 on  Berosus's  stater^.ent — a  statement  seemingly  explana- 
 tory and  apologetic  —  that  Nabonassar  had  destroyed  all 
 the  records  of  the  earlier  Babylonian  kings ;  and  it  may 
 explain  how  a  Babylonian  dynasty  of  a  merely  negative 
 character,  described  by  its  connection  with  a  period  of  526 
 years  during  which  Assyria  was  predominant,  might  come 
 to  be  mis-represented  to  Greeks,  or  misunderstood  by  them, 
 both  before  and  after  the  time  of  Berosus,  as  if  its  kings 
 were  themselves  the  Assyrians  by  whom  they  were  over- 
 shadowed ;  and  as  if  the  epoch  of  its  termination,  when 
 it  was  succeeded  at  Babylon  by  a  new  line  of  Assyrian 
 rulers,  was  the  epoch  of  the  cessation  of  the  Assyrian 
 empire,  or  even  that  of  the  destruction  of  Nineveh.  And 
 this  confusion  having  once  arisen,  it  would  be  natural  too 
 to  imagine,  however  falsely,  that  the  Assyrian  empire  which 
 
 3  X 
 
1042 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 was  thought  to  have  ended  at  the  Babylonian  epoch  of 
 B.  c.  709,  had  begun  also  as  an  empire  from  the  Babylonian 
 epoch  of  B.C.  1235. 
 
 So  far  as  Media  is  concerned,  it  is  clear  from  the  inscrip- 
 tions that  the  natives  of  that  country,  not  only  from  the 
 appointment  of  Deioces  to  be  a  ruler,  22  years  before  he  be- 
 came a  king  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word,  but  from  the  first, 
 had  been  governed  separately,  each  tribe  by  its  own  chief, 
 after  the  manner  which  Herodotus  calls  anarchy ;  and  that 
 some,  perhaps  most,  of  their  tribes  were  from  time  to  time 
 attacked  by  the  kings  of  Assyria,  and  forced  to  pay  tribute, 
 from  the  days  of  Shalmanubar  (b.  c.  900  to  860?),  the  king 
 of  the  black  obelisk  (for  he  first  mentions  the  Medes  in  his 
 inscriptions),  down  to  those  of  Sargon,  who,  having  in  his 
 7th  year  (about  B.C.  715)  more  completely  reduced  the 
 Medes,  founded  among  them  cities,  which  he  peopled  in  part 
 with  captives  brought  from  other  countries.  It  is  possible 
 that  the  very  progress  made  by  Sargon  at  this  time  towards 
 the  subjugation  of  the  Medes  may  have  been  itself  one  of 
 the  chief  causes  which  led  soon  afterwards  to  their  concen- 
 tration and  union  under  a  single  native  ruler,  who,  however, 
 would  not  become  all  at  once  an  independent  king.  The 
 150  years  of  Herodotus,  from  the  first  accession  of  Deioces, 
 may  perhaps  be  reckoned  accurately  enough  from  b.  c.  708 
 [709],  the  same  year  in  which  Sargon  reduced  the  last  Chal- 
 daean  king  of  Babylon ;  and  the  only  inaccuracy  may  have 
 been  in  supposing  that  this  date  was  also  that  of  the  esta- 
 blishment of  Median  independence.  And  again,  the  128 
 years  of  Herodotus,  from  the  commencement  of  the  23rd 
 year  of  Deioces  in  B.C.  (709  —  22  =  )  687,  may  really  repre- 
 sent the  duration  of  Median  independence  and  empire  taken 
 together,  though  Media  did  not  in  B.C.  687  begin  to  rule 
 the  neighbouring  peoples,  but  then  only  became  independent, 
 and  began  from  thenceforth  to  be  a  rising  and  threatening 
 power.  So  this  date,  B.C.  (709  —  22  =  )  687,  rather  than 
 B.  c.  709,  will  be  the  true  epoch  of  the  cessation  of  the  Assy- 
 rian empire,  so  far  as  Media  is  concerned,  though  B.  c.  709 
 is  at  once  the  epoch  at  which  the  Babylonians  ended  their 
 526  years,  and  that  from  which  the  Medes — or  Herodotus's 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1043 
 
 informants  for  them — began  the  150  years  of  their  kings. 
 And  it  is  remarkable  that  ahnost  at  the  same  date  with  that 
 which  we  have  now  collected  from  Herodotus  for  the  com- 
 mencement of  Median  independence,  viz.  in  B.C.  688,  which 
 is  only  one  year  earlier,  Babylon  too  had  thrown  off  the 
 yoke,  and  continued  unsubduedduring  a  space  of  8  years, 
 till  in  B.C.  680  it  became  perhaps  again  subject  to  Assyria. 
 And  it  may  have  remained  subject  till  ^^^abopolassar, 
 immediately  upon  his  appointment  to  be  viceroy,  in  B.C. 
 625,  revolted,  and  allied  himself  with  Cyaxares,  the  king  of 
 Media. 
 
 But  when  one  reflects  that  in  b.  c.  625  the  Scythians  had 
 been  (according  to  Herodotus)  for  9  years  masters  of  Asia, 
 and  that  even  before  their  irruption,  in  B.C.  634,  the  Medes 
 had  already  attacked  Nineveh,  and  at  the  very  time  of  their 
 irruption  were  on  the  point  of  taking  it,  it  may  seem  more 
 probable  that  the  rulers  of  Babylon  had  become  virtually,  if 
 not  nominally,  independent  before  the  Scythian  irruption; 
 and  that  the  alliance  between  Nabopolassar  and  Cyaxares 
 was  concluded  not  with  a  view  to  co-operation  in  any  attack 
 then  actually  commenced  by  the  Medes  against  Nineveh, 
 but  rather,  and  in  the  first  instance  at  least,  with  a  view  to 
 throwing  off  the  yoke  of  those  Scythians  to  whom  Nineveh 
 was  indebted  for  its  respite  from  danger.  And  if  the  occa- 
 sion for  war  between  the  Medes  and  Lydians  was  given,  as 
 Herodotus  relates,  by  the  desertion  of  some  Scythians  who 
 were  previously  in  the  service  of  the  king  of  ]Media,  this 
 fact  would  seem  to  imply  that  the  Lydian  war,  and  the 
 battle  in  connection  with  which  Herodotus  names  Cyaxares, 
 Labynetus  I.  (Nebuchadnezzar),  Alyattes,  and  Syennesis, 
 were  between  B.C.  604  and  B.C.  594;  after,  that  is,  the  ter- 
 mination of  the  Scythian  dominion,  after  the  destruction  of 
 Nineveh,  and  after  the  accession  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  but 
 before  the  death  of  Cyaxares,  which  took  place  in  B.C.  594. 
 
 Supposing  the  Median  epochs  of  Herodotus  to  have  been 
 sufliciently  accounted  for,  it  remains  only  to  inquire  after 
 the  origin  of  that  fable  of  Ctesias  and  his  followers,  Aby- 
 denus  and  Castor,  which  assigned  to  the  Median  empire  5 
 or  4  new  kings,  and  (880 -710  =  )  170  or  (843-710  =  )  133 
 
 3X2 
 
1044 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 years  unknown  to  Herodotus.  For  even  fables  may  gene- 
 rally be  accounted  for,  if  one  looks  for  something  which  may 
 have  been  more  or  less  suggestive  of  them.  But  as  it  was 
 from  a  Medo-Persian  point  of  view  that  Ctesias  wrote,  ifc  is 
 nothing  wonderful  if  his  informants  carried  back  their  fabu- 
 lous commencement  of  the  Median  empire  \o  about  the 
 earliest  date  at  which  the  Medes,  as  inhabitants  of  Media, 
 had  really  become  known.  And  Ctesias's  epoch  of  b.  c.  880 
 admits  very  well  of  this  explanation,  as  it  puts  the  com- 
 mencement of  Median  history  in  the  time  of  Shalmanuhar, 
 the  earliest  king  of  Assyria,  according  to  Sir  H.  Kawlinson, 
 in  whose  inscriptions  the  Medes  are  named.  And  if  this  is, 
 in  fact,  the  true  origin  of  the  fable  of  a  Median  empire 
 having  commenced  in  B.C.  880,  it  will  also  serve  to  explain 
 why  the  1306  years  of  the  Assyrian  empire  were  fabled  to 
 have  ended  at  the  same  date,  from  whatever  later  events  the 
 details  of  the  fable  may  have  been  borrowed. 
 
 Why  Abydenus  (and  Castor  after  him)  should  have  varied 
 again  from  this  date  of  Ctesias,  cutting  off  the  first  37  of  the 
 330  years  of  his  Medes,  and  appending  one  more  Assyrian 
 reign  after  the  last  of  his  Assyrian  kings,  is  not  so  easy  to 
 make  out.    But  perhaps  in  this  as  in  other  points  he  was 
 seeking  to  engraft  upon  the  scheme  of  Ctesias  something 
 borrowed  from  Berosus.    At  any  rate  it  is  remarkable  that 
 the  inscriptions  present  in  the  generation  next  after  Shalma- 
 nubar,  and  so  from  30  to  40  years  below  B.  c.  880,  the  name 
 Sardanapalus,  though  tlds  Sardanapalus  did  not  wear  the 
 crown,  but  only  raised  a  great  rebellion  against  his  father, 
 who  was  succeeded  by  another  son,  Shamas-iva  (B.C.  850  — 
 800  ?).    And  in  the  next  generation  below  this,  again,  the 
 inscriptions  exhibit  a  king  named  Iva-lush  (b.  c.  800  —  747?), 
 whose  name  Mr.  Kawlinson  identifies  with  Phul  or  Pludochy 
 the  same  name  which  Berosus  is  said  to  have  mentioned 
 after  his  xlv  Chaldsean  kings.    Or  it  may  be  that  the  varia- 
 tion of  Abydenus  had  its  source  in  the  fact  that,  though 
 Sardanapalus  had  been  named  by  Ctesias  as  the  last  king 
 before  his  earlier  and  fabulous  destruction  of  Nineveh,  it 
 had  since  become  known  to  the  Greeks  that  Sardanapalus 
 had  not  in  truth  been  the  last  king,  but  the  last  but  one,  who 
 
BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES.  1045 
 
 reigned  before  the  later  and  real  destruction  of  Nineveh. 
 So  he  added  a  successor  to  the  early  Sardanapalus  of  Cte- 
 sias  ;  and  thereby  made  the  two  reigns  preceding  the  fabulous 
 capture  and  destruction  of  Nineveh  to  be  the  counterparts  of 
 the  two  which  preceded  its  real  destruction. 
 
 The  death  of  Iva-lush  III.  —  supposing  him  to  be  the  Pul 
 of  Scripture  and  the  predecessor  of  Tiglath-Pileser  II.,  who 
 in  his  first  year  attacked  Babylon — cannot  indeed  (zy  Tiglath- 
 Pileser  II.  took  tribute  of  Menaliem)  be  brought  down 
 as  low  as  B.C.  747,  the  date  where  Mr.  Rawlinson  would 
 make  the  526  years  of  Berosus,  and  "  his  Assyrian  kings  of 
 the  elder  series  [his  xlv  Chaldaeans]  to  end,  and  a  new 
 series  of  the  later  Assyrian  empire  to  begin."  But  though 
 this  view,  together  with  Dr.  Brandis's  scheme  of  36,000 
 years,  may  be  untenable,  there  is  nothing  to  forbid  the  sup- 
 position that  the  story  of  one  line  having  ended  with  a  king 
 named  Beleoun  or  Belochus,  and  another  new  line  having 
 been  founded  by  Balator,  may  really  refer  to  a  change  in 
 the  Ninevite  rather  than  the  Babylonian  succession,  even 
 though  it  were  found  by  Polyhistor  in  Berosus,  and  though 
 the  xlv  Chaldaeans  of  Berosus  who  reigned  526  years  were 
 kings  not  of  Nineveh  but  of  Babylon.  And  certainly  the 
 identification  of  the  names  Iva-lush,  Phalocli,  or  Phulus  with 
 Belochus,  and  of  Ti^^aih-Palatsira  with  Balator  is,  to  say 
 the  least,  extremely  plausible,  when  considered  in  connection 
 with  the  fact  that  Tiglath-Pileser  II.  appears  as  the  founder 
 of  a  new  line.  Pul,  however,  the  husband  of  Semiramis,  who 
 (through  her  perhaps)  reigned  at  once  over  Nineveh  and 
 Babylon,  is  far  from  answering  in  his  acts  and  character  to 
 the  faineant  king  Beleoun  son  of  Dercetades,'  who  was 
 dethroned  by  Balator. 
 
 With  respect  to  the  general  scheme  of  Berosus,  if  we 
 consider  those  745  full  years  which  seem  to  be  wanting  to 
 his  reckoning  by  days  after  the  Flood,  being  supplanted  by 
 the  heterogeneous  sum  of  2840  years  expanded  into  months, 
 it  may  be  noticed  that  745  is  precisely  the  number  by  which 
 the  27,096  months  anterior  to  the  Flood  if  added  to  the 
 284:0  7/eo7's  after  it  fall  short  of  a  mixed  sum  of  30,681, 
 equivalent  to  the  first  xxi  fictitious  cycles  of  the  Old  Egyp- 
 
 3x3 
 
1046        BABYLONIAN  AND  ASSYRIAN  ANTIQUITIES. 
 
 tian  Chronicle.  And  again  the  same  number  745  may  he 
 identical  with  the  complement  needed  to  bring  up  Berosus's 
 reckoning,  if  expressed  uniformly  in  vague  years,  from  (2258 
 +  2840  =  )  5098,  to  that  sum  of  5844  which  constitutes  the 
 last  IV  Cycles  of  the  Egyptian  Chronicle.  For  the  341 
 years  needed  to  make  human  time  begin  from  the  Sothic 
 epoch  of  B.C.  5702  together  with  5  more  by  which  the  Ba- 
 bylonian reckoning  falls  short  of  the  Egyptian,  and  399  of 
 the  current  Cycle  which  had  still  to  run  out  from  Thoth  1 
 in  B.  c.  261,  to  Thoth  1  in  a.d.  139,  make  together  745  years. 
 (And  the  odd  year  between  the  5098  and  the  399,  might  be 
 taken  to  indicate  the  first  year  of  Antiochus  (5)ho9.)  So  the 
 two  sums  (27,096  +  2840  +  745  =  )  30,681  and  (2258  +  2840 
 + 1 +745  =  )  5844,  would  equal  together  the  whole  mixed 
 sum  of  36,525  nominal  years,  or  xxv  nominal  Cycles,  of  the 
 Egyptian  Chronicle. 
 
 XXI  nominal  Cycles  +    iv  real  =  xxv 
 
 26,096  months  2258  b.c.  5356  to  3100 
 
 2,840  i/ears  2840  b.c.  3100  to  262 
 
 [346]  years  [346]  b.c.  5702  to  5326 
 
 0  1  B.C.    262  to  261 
 
 [399]  years  399  b.c.    261  to    a.d.  139. 
 
 Years  30,681  nominal     +    5844  real    =  36,525. 
 
 This  is  certainly  curious.  But  numbers  often  present 
 strange  coincidences,  which  like  the  forms  taken  by  some 
 flints  are  merely  accidental  and  illusory.  And  there  is  no 
 direct  evidence  for  imputing  any  such  arithmetical  enigma 
 to  Berosus ;  nor  indeed  for  imputing  to  him  any  cyclical 
 fancy  at  all;  seeing  that  his  expansion  of  Nabonassarian 
 years  and  months  into  saj^i,  neri,  and  sossi  of  dai/s  was  un- 
 suitable for  the  indication  of  cycles  of  vague  years  in  which 
 the  epagomenae  were  to  be  only  tacitly  understood.  The  Sothic 
 Cycle  itself  was  perhaps  known  to  him  only  as  a  foreign 
 reckoning ;  and  his  vast  sums  (like  those  of  Manetho,  which 
 are  equally  uncyclical),  whether  consisting  uniformly  of 
 dai/Sf  or  of  months,  or  of  mixed  nominal  years,  are  sufficiently 
 accounted  for  by  the  pre-existence  of  Egyptian  schemes 
 from  which  they  may  have  been  derived  by  imitation. 
 
NOTES  AND  CORRECTIONS 
 
 TO 
 
 VOLUIME  IT. 
 
 Page 
 419, 
 
 420, 
 
 421, 
 
 421, 
 426, 
 
 39. 
 
 Line 
 
 28,  after  "  months,"  insert  "  (though  they 
 ■were  really  of  the  value  of  1  month  and 
 j'jfd  of  a  month  each)." 
 It  is  perhaps  unlikely  that  he  continued 
 to  assign  any  years  to  "  Manes,"  when 
 he  restored  all  the  Manes  or  Ghost- 
 kings  of  Manetho  to  their  original  cha- 
 racter  of  kings  after  Menes,  of  which 
 Manetho  had  deprived  them. 
 "  by  Agathodajmon,"  &c.  There  may 
 have  been  sometliing  of  a  similar  kind 
 in  the  Introduction  to  the  Manetho  of 
 Ptolemy  and  Africanus  ;  but  the 
 spurious  letter  of  Manetho  to  Ptolemy, 
 alluded  to  in  this  passage,  certainly 
 belongs  to  the  much  later  Manetho  of 
 Anianus,  aiid  is  improperly  spoken  of 
 in  this  chapter  as  if  it  might  have  been 
 taken  otiguially  from  the  work  of 
 Ptolemy  of  Mendes. 
 "  should  not  be  earlier  thr.n  the  time  of 
 Augustus,"  &c.  But  there  is  no  real 
 ground  for  supposing  that  either  the 
 title  2-/3«<rTSf,  or  the  letter  containing 
 this  title,  occurred  in  the  Manetho  of 
 Ptolemy  and  of  Africanus.  On  the 
 other  hand,  the  statements  of  Diodorus 
 Siculus,  as  will  appear  below,  contain 
 allusions  to  this  Manetho  of  Ptolemy, 
 which  so  must  have  been  extant  before 
 B.C.  58  ;  and  the  age  at  which  Chnton, 
 as  it  seems,  has  at  length  placed  Suidas, 
 leads  to  the  inference  that  it  was  extant 
 half  a  century  or  so  earlier  still, 
 for  "  of  the  first"  read  "  of  the  second  " 
 century. 
 
 "The  word' Eg^r?  seems  to  connect  itself 
 with  the  epistie  quoted  from  the  Book 
 of  Sothis,"  &c.  Kather,  since  he  is  said 
 to  have  explained  the  origin  of  all  things 
 in  a  space  of  30,000  years,  the  Hermes 
 alluded  to  is  the  author  of  the  book 
 entitled  "  Tivtx.cc"  which  has  been 
 already  named  ahove  at  p.  10,  1.  24,  in 
 a  quotation  from  Syncellus,  who  names 
 the   "  Tivmot    of  Hermes"  and  the 
 
 21. 
 
 31. 
 
 Page  Line 
 
 427, 
 
 427, 
 429, 
 
 429, 
 430, 
 
 433, 
 434, 
 434, 
 436, 
 
 437, 
 
 "Kviocvvidis"  (of  some  other  author)  in 
 connection  with  that  idea  of  a  zodiacal 
 a,TOK(x,TcicrTaiiri;  to  the  first  point  in  the 
 sign  of  Aries  which  he  finds  in  the  Old 
 Chronicle. 
 
 15,  "  only  2075  years,"  &c.  But  if  Ptolemy 
 had  distinguished  900  as  full  years,  and 
 divided  by  12  only  the  remaining  24,000 
 of  Manetho's  mythological  years  which 
 are  really  months,  he  would  have  ob- 
 tained within  22  that  sum  of  5844  which 
 he  wanted.  His  reasons  for  not  doing 
 so  were  perhaps  first,  that  he  did  not 
 wish  to  make  statements  needing  fur- 
 ther explanation  ;  and  secondly,  that  if 
 he  had  reduced  Mauetho's  24,000  years, 
 distinguishing  them  from  the  900,  he 
 would  not  have  had,  iu  the  remaining 
 years  of  Manetho's  scheme, materials  so 
 convenient  for  his  own  cyclical  design 
 as  ia  those  afforded  by  the  Old  Chro- 
 nicle. 
 
 32,34,  for  "  300  "  and  *' 1318"  read  "  200" 
 and  1218." 
 
 5,  "  to  the  Sun-god  alone;"  that  is  virtually, 
 for  ostensibly  681  of  them  are  given  to 
 the  XIII  Gods  following.  It  is  only  on 
 perceiving  that  these  681  are  part  of  the 
 21  cycles,  and  are  detached  merely  to 
 obtain  the  round  number  of  30,000  for 
 the  Sun,  that  one  can  understand  and 
 admit  the  assertion  that  the  whole  xxi 
 cycles  or  30,681  years  be'ong  to  the  Sun. 
 
 1 6,  for  "  solar,"  read  "  full  movable  years." 
 4,  after  "  the  14  "  insert  "  which  he  seems 
 
 to  have  reckoned." 
 33,  after  "Plato"  omit  "and  Eudoxus." 
 
 13,  omit  "  and  under  Augustus." 
 
 14,  after  "four,"  insert  "incomplete." 
 
 20,  for  "  between  Nectanebo  and  the  year 
 B.C.  329"  read  "between  Manetho's 
 date  for  Alexander,  in  b.c.  331,  and  the 
 taking  of  a  crown  by  the  Lagid«.  in 
 B.C.  305." 
 
 21,  for  "  Demigods  and  Manes"  read  "  and 
 Demigods,  probably  without  Manei." 
 
 3X4 
 
1048 
 
 NOTES  AND  CORRECTIONS. 
 
 Page  Line 
 
 439,      20,  for  "and  Manes"  read  "  with  or  with- 
 out Manes." 
 
 4-11,      12,  after  "altered"  insert  "by  the  writers 
 
 just  now  alluded  to." 
 444,        9,  "  +127  "  should  be  in  red. 
 448,       12  from  bottom,  after  "  163"  insert  "  (that 
 
 is  150  +  8+5)." 
 450,  last  line,  for  "  135  +  218  =353,"  read 
 
 "  135  +  218  +  3  =  3o6,"  all  in  red  ;  and 
 
 for  "  551"  read  "  554." 
 453,      37,  after  "altering,"  insert  "anything." 
 455,        1,  after  "July,"  omit  "above." 
 
 457,  21,  after  "  77G"  omit  "  (or  777)." 
 
 458,  29,  for  "a.d.  213"  read  "a.d.  215,"  and 
 
 the  same  in  line  36. 
 
 459,  19,  for  '•  short  ol  "  read  "  below." 
 
 463,  8,  after  "  writer,"  insert  "  except  Justin 
 Martyr." 
 
 463,      13,  for  "  Dyn.  XVIII  "  read  "Dynasties 
 
 XVIII  and  XIX." 
 463,      14,  for  "  for  the  Greek  names  are  only 
 
 xvii "  read  "  and  his  Greek  names  are 
 
 actually  xix." 
 463,      25,  for  "  the  average "  read  "  something 
 
 like  the  average." 
 463,      26,  after   "Eratosthenes,"    insert  "viz. 
 
 24i  instead  of  24f." 
 
 463,  37,  39,  "  b.c,  1208,"  and  "  459."  Or,  with  the 
 
 avcnigeof  24|  from  b.c.1-203,  &c.  4G3|yrs. 
 
 464,  39,  "24A,"  and  above.    The  exact  coinci- 
 
 dence of  Ptolemy  with  the  date  of  Cle- 
 mens resting  only  on  the  hypothesis 
 that  he  adopted  this  average  of  24i, 
 which  is  a  variaiion  from  the  24f  of  the 
 Chronicle,  is  not  to  be  so  much  dwelt 
 upon,  though  probably  the  calculation 
 was  very  nearly  what  is  here  assumed. 
 
 467,  10,  "  it  may  be,"  &c.  Herodotus,  however, 
 does  speak  as  if  the  priests  had  taught 
 him  to  reckon  "341  kings  to  Sethon,'' 
 and  to  give  above  11,000  years  to  the 
 fu  st  330  kings,"  but  he  maij  have  writ- 
 ten only  from  memory. 
 
 470,  4,  "  Hor-hesou."  But  Mr.  Birch  reads 
 this  name  "  Horshesou,"  shesou  being 
 a  distinct  word.  Also,  he  thinks  it  clear 
 r.hat  it  is  one  and  the  same  Hor- shesou 
 who  appears  in  lines  9  and  10  of  Col.  III. 
 Af  the  Papyrus,  at  p.  501',  and  who  is 
 connected  with  both  the  two  great  sums 
 of  13,420  and  23/2[18]  years.  In  reading 
 all  that  follows  respecting  the  fragments 
 <')f  the  Papyrus  it  will  be  convenient  to 
 refer,  at  each  step,  to  the  English 
 columns,  in  which  the  fragments  are 
 numbered, and  their  dimensions  marked, 
 pp.  .508- 5 12. 
 
 47'",      13,  14,  for  "  Tkoth-Aa-aa,"  read  "  Tlioth; 
 
 and  omit  "  i.e.  Ais-f/,iyitrTo;." 
 470,      32,  after  "  And,"  omit  "  from  an  allusion' 
 
 &c.,  down  to  "view,"  iaclusive,  in 
 
 line  35. 
 
 475,  34,  after  "  are  not  really"  insert  "  if  the 
 author  may  trust  his  own  memory." 
 This  qualification  is  necessary,  as  Lep- 
 sius's  and  Sir  G.  Wilkinson's  published 
 fac-simile  give  no  countenance  to  the 
 denial,  and  the  author,  at  the  time  that 
 he  wrote  this,  could  not  refer  to  his  own. 
 
 Page 
 481, 
 
 481, 
 
 483, 
 505, 
 
 Line 
 19, 
 
 508, 
 
 525, 
 551, 
 
 557, 
 
 559, 
 560, 
 
 561, 
 
 "may  liave  been."  The  word  "may'' 
 should  be  in  italics,  as  there  is  no  parti- 
 cular reason  for  supposing  that  it  was 
 so. 
 
 36,  for  "43  +  158  or  159=)  2132  or  2133, 
 91"  read  "  42+159  =)  2132,  92"  years 
 after  Menes,  &c. 
 for  "  6  "  read  "  8." 
 
 "  had  lost  one  large  fragment  from  its 
 outer  part,  or  commencement,"  &c.  This 
 may  well  be  true,  although  the  outer 
 part  or  commencement  of  a  papyrus  al- 
 ways contains  ihejirst,  w  t  the  last,  of 
 its  columns  of  writing.  For  this  Turin 
 Papyrus  was  written  over  on  both  sides, 
 the  lists  of  kings  being  the  earlier,  and 
 certain  accounts  the  later  writing.  All, 
 therefore,  that  is  necessary  is  to  sup- 
 pose that  the  original  writing,  the  lists 
 of  kings,  on  the  one  side,  began  at  one 
 end  and  the  later  writing,  the  accounts, 
 at  the  o'her  end  of  the  papyrus;  and  if 
 so,  it  would  be  a  matter  of  cou'  se  that 
 it  should  be  rolled  up  so  as  to  have  the 
 commencement  of  the  Z^/^e?"  writing  for 
 its  outer  part,  not,  as  originally  was  the 
 Citie  (before  it  became  o^ia-do'y^(x.(fov),  the 
 earlier. 
 
 The  name  "  Phthah  ?"  should  have 
 been  in  red,  as  the  fragment  exhibits 
 onlv  the  following  name,  "  Pia,"  but 
 with  some  trace  of  another  line  of 
 writing  above.  That  this  was  another 
 name,  and  that  name  riithah,  is  only  a 
 conjecture. 
 
 for  "24i,"  read  "  241." 
 "  a  seventh  Shepherd  king,"  &c.  It 
 may  be  remarked,  that  the  list  of  Syn- 
 cellus.  I.e.  of  Anianus,  though  with  only 
 260  years,  givf  s  vii  names  for  the  Shep- 
 herd kings. 
 
 In  the  last  two  columns,  under  "Pto- 
 lemy of  Mendes,"  '•  Dynasty  X  of 
 Her[acleopolites].  with  its  3  +  5+11 
 kings,  and  iis  185  years,  is  printed  too 
 high  up.  The  figures,  3,  5,  and  11, 
 should  be  in  a  line  with  the  same  figures 
 i  .  the  columns  belonging  to  the  Papy- 
 rus and  to  Manetho. 
 for  "there  15,000"  read  "there  had 
 been  15,000," 
 for  "ofan"  read  "  of  an." 
 
 ,  for  "3010,"  read  "3'.'12  movable,  or 
 3010  Julian  or  Canicular"  years. 
 
 ,  "  the  9th  king  of  Manetho's  Dyn.  XII." 
 But  Manetho's  selection  of  ix  kings  to 
 form  this  dynasty  being  made  nearly 
 200  years  after  the  tin  "  of  Herodotus,- 
 and  above  1000  years  alter  the  arrange- 
 ment of  the  Hieratic  lists,  one  cannot 
 conclude  that  Onnos  was  9th  in  genera- 
 tion from  Sesostris  from  this  fact  that 
 he  stands  nth  in  Manetho's  Dyn.  XII  (V 
 of  Africanus).  But  one  may  conclude 
 that  he  was  probably  9th  from  the 
 chr.  .lological  space  of  about  1S4  years 
 which  intervened  between  the  death  of 
 Sesostris  (Sesortasen  I.)  and  the  death 
 of  the  last  king  of  the  line  represented 
 
NOTES  AND  CORRECTIONS. 
 
 1049 
 
 Page  Line 
 
 576, 
 587, 
 
 589, 
 589, 
 
 301, 
 591, 
 
 593, 
 603, 
 
 24, 
 
 by  Manetho's  Dyn.  XII ;  and  this  king  is 
 known  with  certainty,  not  indeed  fiom 
 Manetho's  list  taken  alone,  but  from 
 the  Turin  Papyrus,  to  have  been  Onnos. 
 for  "  B.C.  456,"  read  "u.c,  455." 
 "  afterwards  completed  by  Darius,"  &c. 
 The  names  both  of  Rameses  II.  and  of 
 Darius  (that  of  the  latter  king  both  in 
 Egyptian  hieroglyphics  and  in  Persian 
 cuneiform  characters)  have  been  found 
 on  tlie  line  of  tliis  canal, 
 before  "  Mycerinus,"  insert  "  the." 
 "B.C.  609,  or  608."  Some,  as  Ideler, 
 reckon  the  IStli  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
 inentioned  in  the  Scriptures  from  his 
 accession  after  the  death  of  his  father 
 in  B.C.  604,  and  so  make  B.C.  586,  in- 
 stead of  B.C.  587,  to  be  the  year  of  the 
 capture  of  Jerusalem.  These  in  conse- 
 quence bring  down  the  death  of  Jo- 
 siah  as  low  as  the  summer  of  b.c.  608. 
 For  if  they  assume  the  11th  of  Zedekiah 
 to  have  begun  from  the  5th  of  the  4th 
 month,  or  June  21,  in  the  summer  of  B.C. 
 587,  this  date,  +  10  yrs+SralOd  +  lOyrs  5ra? 
 +3ni,  will  indicate  for  the  death  of  Josiah 
 sometime  about  July  13  in  B.c.  608,  In- 
 stead of  B.C.  609.  The  14th  of  Hezekiah 
 will  for  i/iem  begin  early  in  B.C.  712,  and 
 his  6th  early  in  b  c.  720. 
 "  3  after  the  reduction  of  Tyre."  But, 
 according  to  Joseplius,  tiie  reign  of 
 Apries  should  end  in  the  first  year  after 
 the  reduction  of  Tyre,  as  if  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar had  immediately  invaded  Egypt, 
 and,  after  conquering  it,  had  established 
 Amasis  as  Governor,  and  this  indirectly 
 led  to  the  death  of  Apries,  whom  Jose- 
 phus  therefore  makes  Nebuchadnezzar 
 to  have  slain.  For  if  we  reckon  4  years 
 complete  from  the  spring  of  b.c.  587  (the 
 year  of  the  burning  of  the  Temple)  tiie 
 5th  year  begins  in  the  spring  of  b.c. 
 587  —  4  =  583;  and  if  we  again  deduct 
 the  13  }-ears  of  the  siege  of  Tyre  we  shall 
 find  that  Nebuchadnezzar  may  have 
 been  free  to  invade  Egypt  in  the  spring 
 of  B.C.  570.  And  the  reign  of  Amasis 
 begins  Jan.  13,  B.C.  569.  Or  the  5  years 
 of  Josephus  may  be  from  the  end  of 
 the  year  containing  the  burning  of  the 
 Temple,  i.e.  from  the  spring  of  B.C.  586. 
 for  "  taken  before  "  read  "  1 2  years  be- 
 fore, and  taken  only  1  year  after  " 
 after  "  18  "  insert  "  Nisan  1,  B.C.  571," 
 and  1.  15  correct  from  last  note, 
 before  "  Architects"  insert  "  Chief." 
 Virgil  has  also  the  "  100  years"  from 
 Plato  ;  "  Centum  errant  annos,"  &c. 
 "  in  B.C.  362."  Certainly,  according  to 
 the  Old  Chronicle,  the  single  generation 
 of  Dyn  XXX  which  had  18  years,  end- 
 ing Nov.  1,  in  B.C.  .345,  must  have  begun 
 in  B.C.  363.  And  this  generation  is  that 
 of  Nectanebo  II.  But  Clinton  observes 
 that  "  Agesilaus  conducted  the  affairs  of 
 Sparta  till  after  the  death  of  Epaminon- 
 das  in  June  B.C.  362;  that  he  could  not 
 have  set  out  for  Egypt  till  the  spring  of 
 
 Page  Line 
 
 B.C.  .361,  seven  or  eight  months  after  the 
 battle  of  Mantinea  ;  that  the  war  in 
 Egypt  must  have  occupied  at  least  a 
 year;  and  that  he  left  Egypt  in  mid- 
 winter, not  earlier  than  Dec.  B.C.  361  or 
 Jan.  B.C.  360."  Hence  it  results  that  the 
 generation  of  Nectanebo  1 1,  and  of  Dyn. 
 XXX  of  the  Chronicle  must  cover  two 
 actual  reipns,  the  fast  of  the  two  being 
 the  short  reign  of  Teos  of  only  2  years, 
 the  other  that  of  Nectanebo  II.  which 
 had  in  truth  only  16  years,  though  Ma- 
 netho,  keeping  the  "  18  years"  of  the 
 Chronicle,  and  giving  them  all  to  Nec- 
 tanebo II.,  reduplicates  the  two  of  Teos. 
 
 607,       8,  for  "  that"  read  "  than." 
 
 610,  1,  3,  "  before  the  Flood  2263.  6m.  and 
 below  it  658.  6m."  &c.  Thus  the  true  in- 
 terval, or  very  nearly,  is  reckoned  from 
 the  beginning  to  the  epoch  of  the  Flood, 
 which,  however,  is  put  611.  too  late,  viz. 
 at  Apr.  6  (6m.  after  Thoth  1,  which  was 
 then  at  Oct.  8),  in  B.C.  3099.  But  if  the 
 Egyptian  scheme  had  not  of  necessity 
 cut  off  the  odd  months  preceding  its  first 
 movable  Thoth,  it  would  have  had  to 
 begin  7  months  before  the  end  of  a  year, 
 and  to  reckon  to  the  Flood  about  2263 
 movable  years  and  7  months,  and  below 
 the  Flood  to  the  end  of  the  2922nd  mov- 
 able year  of  the  world  658  yeers  and  five 
 months  ;  after  which  there  would  have 
 been  7  odd  months  and  217  complete 
 movable  years  (beginning  from  Thoth  1 
 =;Apr.  26  in  B.C.  2441)  to  the  accession 
 of  Menes. 
 
 after  "Ogygian"  read  "  or  from  the  later 
 Deucalion,"  or  from,  &c. 
 35.  The  years  of  the  Macedonian 
 kings  from  Caraiius  to  the  death  of 
 Alexander  are  given  by  Eusebius  and 
 S.  Jerome  as  489,  from  a.  abr.  1204  to 
 
 A.  ABR.  1692,  both  incl.  And  the  years 
 of  the  Persians  as  230. 
 
 ,  for  "  Egyptians"  read  "  Egyptian." 
 .  "  before  B.c.  305."  Clinton  observes  that 
 he  was  still  living  and  employed  on 
 his  work  a-sgJ  /3/«y  'EkXalo;  as  late  as 
 
 B.  C.  289,  when  he  had  been  flourishing 
 about  40  years.  But  this  also  is  earlier 
 than  the  earliest  date  which  can  be  as- 
 signed to  the  A/yuTT/a^jisj  of  Manetho. 
 
 620,  II,  for  "  perhaps"  read  "  as  it  seems,"  and 
 in  line  12,  omit  "  only,"  and  after  "on" 
 insert "  insufficient." 
 
 646,  30,  after  "  17"in.«ert  "of  kings  of  Dynasties 
 XVIII,  and  XIX." 
 
 653,  7,  for  "  525,"  "747,"  and  "  1272,"  read 
 
 "  526,"  "709,"  and  "  1235." 
 
 654,  13,  "  When  Antiochus,"  &c.    That  is  An- 
 
 tiochus  Sidetes.  Eusebius  has  01.  162  /3'. 
 which  would  be  in  the  7th  year  of  Ant. 
 Sidetes,  B.c.  131—130.  But  Josephus 
 puts  the  siege  3  years  earlier  (Eusebius 
 too  in  the  Canon  has  the  5th  of  Antio- 
 chus). Hence  Clinton  puts  the  com- 
 mencement of  this  war  in  Feb.  b.c.  134, 
 and  its  end  in  Oct.  133  b.c,  01.  161  ». 
 
 610, 
 612, 
 
 615, 
 615, 
 
1050 
 
 NOTES  AND  CORRECTIONS. 
 
 Page  Line 
 
 655,  27,  for  "  write  "  read  "  wrote."   In  line  29 
 
 for  "  which,"  read  "  which,  as  and  in 
 line  30,  before  "according"  insert  "was." 
 
 656,  25,  after  "  Ramesos  II.)"  insert  "  on  which 
 
 Heliopolis  is  named." 
 660,      15,  for  "  off-hand"  read  *'  off-handed." 
 
 678,  34,  omit  "  probably,"  and  after  "  Ptolemy," 
 
 insert  "  as  it  seems." 
 
 679,  7,  These  deities  of  the  3G5  days  of  the  year 
 
 are  also  alluded  to  by  S,  Theophilus 
 of  Antioch  who  writes  "t/  '0§(f£a  ^Li^ik-/;- 
 (Totv  01  t|s'  3-e«/;"  Ad  Autol.  lib.  i.  p. 
 381. 
 
 679,  15,  after  "fifth,"  insert  "  Mout  (Buto) 
 within  the  first  eight," 
 
 G83,  23,  "  Cancer."  Bainbridge  is  quoted  as 
 showing  that  in  B.C.  1322  Sirius  rose  in 
 Lower  Egypt,  July  20,  when  the  sun 
 was  in  the  I4th  degree  of  Cancer. 
 
 689,       7,  for  Chapter  "  Vll"  read  "  VIII." 
 
 696,  6  from  the  bottom,  omit  "  He  was  born, 
 
 as  his  surname  implies,  in  Africa." 
 
 697,  3,  '•  according  to  the  Antiochian  reckoning 
 
 from  Sept.  1."  This  commencement  is 
 assumed  only  for  convenience,  as  thus 
 the  old  or  civil  Hebrew  and  Patriar- 
 chal year,  the  fixed  Alexandrian,  the 
 year  of  the  Indictions  and  the  civil  year 
 of  the  Greek  Church  may  all  be  alluded 
 to  at  once  as  having  nearly  one  and  the 
 same  commencement.  Else,  for  the  old 
 Hebrew  year,  the  commencement  of 
 •which  really  varied  within  certain  limits 
 according  to  the  moon,  one  might  have 
 assumed  rather  the  Autumnal  Equinox; 
 while  for  the  fixed  year  of  the  Syrians 
 and  other  Asiatics,  after  the  time  of 
 Julius  Cassar,  there  were  a  number  of 
 different  commencements  in  different 
 parts,  as  also  a  number  of  different  eras. 
 699,  28,  after  "from  "  insert  "  S.  Theophilus  of 
 Antioch  or  from." 
 
 701,  20,  2.T  and  p.  702,  1.  8,  Here  and  elsewhere 
 
 Zedekiah's  years  are  wrongly  drawn 
 down  ;  as  if,  e.g.  his  11th  ended  in  Sept. 
 B.C.  577,  or  even  Nisan  1  b  c.  576.  It 
 really  ended  June  21,  in  B.C.  577,  and 
 the  Captiv.  begins  from  Nizan  1,  not 
 before  nor  after  but  in  it.  See  p.  900. 
 
 702,  1,  for  "was  thus  depressed  to,"  &c.  read 
 
 "  appeared  at  the  same  distance  below 
 
 the  death  of  Solomon  as  would,"  &c. 
 702,        2,  the  1 1th  yr.  of  Zedekiah  is  here  and 
 
 elsewhere  spoken  of  incorrectly. 
 702,        3,  for  "  so  depressed  into  "  read  "  reckoned 
 
 to." 
 
 708.  8,  for  "  3558"  read"  3555,"  and  after"  Man- 
 etho  "  insert  "  besides  other  13  also  added 
 but  placed  below  them." 
 
 714,      28,  for  "  came  "  read  "  was  raised  to  power." 
 
 717,  33,  "  1903  years."   But  the  true  Greek  text 
 
 of  Simplicius,  in  the  passage  which  has 
 been  quoted  from  him  for  this  sum,  does 
 not  really  exhibit  it.    See  p.  941. 
 
 718,  24,  for  "  at  B.C."  read  "  in  B.C." 
 
 718,      28,  for  "  contain  "  read  "  contained  " 
 720,       8,  "as  we  have  shown,  though  the  present 
 reckoning  requires  of  necessity  that  he 
 should  be  now  still  young."    This  is 
 quoted  by  Syncellus  as  if  all  from  Afri- 
 
 Page  Line 
 
 canus,  but  the  latter  clause,  "  though 
 the  present,"  &c.  does  not  seem  to  suit 
 at  all  for  the  scheme  of  Africanus,  while 
 it  suits  perfectly  for  that  of  Anianus  and 
 Syncellus.  See  p.  879. 
 725,  31,  for  "two  years"  read  "  which  in  one 
 place  of  the  Septuagint  is  said  to  have 
 been  in  the  second  year  after  "  the  death 
 of  Moses. 
 
 734,  20,  21,  for  "  24i  "  and  "  416i  "  read  "  24|  " 
 and  "  420| ;"  and  for  "  410  "  read  "  414." 
 
 734,       28,  29,  for  "  1628  or  1622"  r.  "  1632  or  1626." 
 
 734,  31,  32,  for  "  1624  or  1618"  read  "  1630  or 
 1622." 
 
 734,  37,  for  "1620  or  1616  "  read  "  1624 or  1620." 
 
 735,  3,  for  "1599  or  1595  "  read  "  1603  or  1599." 
 73.5,      27,  for  "  24^  "  read  "  24f ." 
 
 736,  21,  for  "24i"read  "24f." 
 
 736,  23,  for  "  459"  read  "  4631  or  464,"  and  for 
 "  B.C.  1208  (Ptolemy's  last  year  of  Thou- 
 oris  and  Castor's  date  for  Troy)",  read 
 "  B.C.  1203  (the  apparent  end  of  the  last 
 year  of  Thouoris  and  of  Dyn.  XIX  in 
 Manetho's  lists)," 
 
 736,      31,33,  for  "some"  read  "same,"  and  for  * 
 "  24i"  read  "  24f ." 
 
 741,  34,  "  Manetho's,"  that  is,  as  understood  by 
 himself  and  as  expected  by  him  to  be 
 understood  by  the  learned  of  the  native 
 Egyptians.  For  on  the  surface  his  date 
 would  be  B.C.  1203. 
 
 745,  4,  before  "  Clemens  "  insert  "  Theophilus 
 of  Antioch  and  ",  and  after  the  same 
 name  omit  the  words  "and  Hippolylus." 
 
 745,       12,  after  "  two  "  insert  "  other." 
 
 752,  27,  28,  for  "  24^  "  read  "  23f ."  For  "  ex- 
 ceeded," &c.  read  "  fell  short  of,"  and 
 after  "  one  year  "  insert  "  and  a  half." 
 
 766,  22,  for  "3"  read  "4,"  after  "  Jehoram  " 
 insert  "  Athaliah,"  and  omit  from  "suc- 
 cessors," in  1.  24  to  the  stop  in  1.  26 ;  and 
 in  1.  39  for  '•  27  "  read  "  28." 
 
 768,       23,  for  "  accession  "  read  "accessions." 
 
 768,      32,  for  "  put  "  read  "  puts." 
 
 768,      38,  omit  "  of  942  years." 
 
 770,        8,  "  Suppressing  in  the  Assyrian  lists  .  .  . 
 
 four  kings,"  &c.  But  see  respecting  this 
 below.  It  seems  rather  that  Eusebius 
 suppressed  years  but  not  names  given 
 by  Ctesias  and  Diodorus.  Indeed  the 
 very  same  four  names  which  Syncellus 
 accuses  him  of  suppressing,  and  one 
 more,  seem  to  be  given  by  him  in  the 
 First  Book  of  his  Chronicon  from  Aby- 
 denus,  at  the  head  of  all,  as  intervening 
 between  Belusand  Ninus:  "  Fuit  Ninus, 
 qui  Arbeli,  qui  Chaali,  qui  Arubeli,  qui 
 Anebi,  qui  Arabeli,  qui  Beli,"&c.  And  he 
 adds  in  the  same  place  that  the  last  reign, 
 of  Sardanapalus,  was  made  [by  Aby- 
 denus]  to  end  67  years  before  01.  1,  that 
 is  in  B.C.  843.  Elsewhere  (but  this  is 
 in  speaking  cf  his  own  scheme)  he  says 
 "  40  [43]  years  "  before  Ol.  1 . 
 
 789,  35,  for  "  the  Persian  dynasty  "  read  "  the 
 five  Persian  generations." 
 
 791,  38,  39,  omit  "1  of  Neriglissar,"  and  for  "25  " 
 
 read  "  the  last  26." 
 
 792,  4,  after  "  be"  insert  "  2  or  3  months  after," 
 
NOTES  AND  CORRECTIONS. 
 
 1051 
 
 792, 
 
 792, 
 
 792, 
 
 792, 
 794, 
 
 Line 
 9, 
 
 821, 
 822, 
 
 823. 
 
 826, 
 827, 
 
 10,  for  "  )40l"  and  "  1428"  read  "  1492" 
 and  "  1429." 
 
 24,  for  "  27  "  read  "  28,"  and  for  "  only 
 24  "  read  "  really  26." 
 omit  "  of  "  and  "  3,"  and  for  "  3"  in 
 line  27  read  "  4." 
 
 for  "  62"  and  "  4"  read  "  63"  and  "  3." 
 for  "  10"  read  "  2." 
 "  omits  4  kings."    But  see  the  preceding 
 note  to  line  8  of  page  770,  and  below. 
 
 ,  for  "  [of "  read  "  [here  placed  or  re- 
 placed by  Anianus.]" 
 
 ,  after  "  Ptolemy  Lagi  "  read  "  and  Pto- 
 lemy Phihiilelphus  from  B.C.  324  (which 
 should  have  been  32H)  40+38=78  years, 
 whereas  the  two  reigns  together  had 
 only  (38+38  or  40+36=)  76  successive 
 years."  And  omit  "20"  and  what  follows 
 inline  3  to  "  Egypt,"  in  line  4,  and  con- 
 tinue thus  :  "  and  he  has  "  &c. 
 
 ,  from  the  bottom,  for  "in  the  units 
 place"  read  "in  the  place  lor  units." 
 
 ,  of  col.  ii.  The  sum  of  38  years  for 
 Dyn.  XXX  with  the  20  years  and  4  m. 
 given  by  Manetho  to  Dyn.  XXIX  make 
 together  58  years  4  m.,  being  1  yr.  and  4 
 m.  or  2  yrs.  current  more  than  the  true 
 interval  between  the  ending  of  Dyn. 
 XXVII  with  the  3rd  year  of  Artaxer- 
 xes  Mnemon  in  B.C.  402  and  the  con- 
 quest of  Ochus  in  b.c.  345.  Probably 
 one  year  instead  of  only  4  months 
 should  have  been  reckoned  to  Nephe- 
 rites  II.  and  the  reigns  of  Teos  and 
 Nectanebo  II.  divided  so  that  Teos 
 should  have  1  year  and  8  months,  and 
 Nectanebo  II.  16  years  and  4  months. 
 See  above  the  note  to  p.  605,  1.  5.  What 
 is  said  at  p.  259,  1.  16,  as  if  only  some 
 "  odd  months  "  of  Teos  were  included 
 in  the  18  years  of  the  generation  of 
 Nectanebo  II.  may  be  hence  corrected. 
 
 1,  and  p.  829,  note  at  bottom  of  the  page, 
 "  of  Anianus."  Anianus,  seeing  that 
 the  36  reigns  from  Ninus  to  Sardanapa- 
 lus  as  given  by  Ctesias  and  Diodorus 
 were  greatly  too  long,  may  have  in- 
 serted before  Teutamus  and  Teutaeus 
 four  of  those  five  additional  names 
 which  Abydenus  (in  Eusebius's  First 
 Book)  had  named  as  the  ancestors  of 
 Ninus,  Ninus  being  through  them  the 
 sixth  in  descent  from  and  after  Belus 
 Anianus  then  may  have  inserted  these 
 names  lower  down,  giving  to  them  those 
 years  of  Ctesias  and  Diodorus  which 
 had  been  suppressed  by  Eusebius  ;  and 
 hence  Syncellus  and  Scaliger,  seeing 
 that  the  four  names  and  ihe  years  went 
 together,  may  have  hastily  inferred  that 
 Eusebius  had  found  the  names  as  well 
 as  the  years  in  that  Assyrian  list  which 
 he  worked  up  into  his  Canon. 
 "  Psammites"  "  17  "  not  "  7  "  years. 
 In  the  4th  col.  before  33  Diocletian." 
 insert  "  [Continuatio  Theophanis] " 
 and  let  the  last  "  10.10.0"  of  Constan- 
 tine  be  in  a  line  with  "  Hieronymi." 
 
 ,  &c.in  last  col.  for"  1905,  1866. 1836, 1816, 
 1791,"  read  "  1895, 1856, 1826,  1806, 1781." 
 
 Page 
 829, 
 
 831, 
 832, 
 
 834, 
 834, 
 
 836, 
 836, 
 836, 
 
 Line 
 
 837, 
 
 838, 
 
 in  the  Assyrian  column  for  "v.  (24)7 
 read  "     (30)  1." 
 
 2,  for  B.C.  "  932  "  read  "  923." 
 
 Egvpt.  col.  to"  Psaminuthes"  there  is 
 "  (7)"  for  "  (17),"  though  the  17  years 
 are  reckoned  rightly  :  and  the  next  name 
 "  Vaphres  "  is  set  in  a  line  with  the  1st 
 of  Zedckiah,  whereas  it  should  be  in  a 
 line  with  his  1 1th  which  follows  imme- 
 diately below. 
 
 3,  for  "a.u.c.  709  "  read  "  a.u.c.  708." 
 
 14,  for  "B.C.  48"  read  "B.C.  49"  for  the 
 era  of  the  Liberation  of  Antioch  and 
 of  Julius  Caesar  at  Antioch,  though 
 some  say  that  the  Syrians  at  Antioch 
 adopted  this  era  one  year  later,  and 
 reckoned  from  B.C.  48. 
 6,  after  "  4852,"  insert  "or  a. D.  351." 
 
 26,  for  "  5774,"  read  "5776." 
 
 38,  "  5500."  Note  that  Syncellus  does  not 
 really  differ  in  his  sum  of  years  from 
 Anianus,  but  we  must  distinguish  be- 
 tween allusions  to  what  may  be  called 
 his  own  Ecclesiastical  or  Paschal  reck- 
 oning, from  March  25  to  March  25,  and 
 the  common  reckoning  of  the  early 
 Christian  writers  from  some  point  in 
 Autumn.  According  to  the  first  reck- 
 oning Syncellus  makes  exactly  5500 
 years  to  the  Incarnation,  viz.  to  March 
 25  in  B.C.  1  of  the  vulgar  era  (his  com- 
 mencement of  A.M.  1  being  then  thrown 
 back  from  Autumn  to  Spring) ;  accord- 
 ing to  the  second  he  makes  with  Ania- 
 nus 5500  years  to  Aug.  29  or  Sept.  1,  B.C. 
 l,and  5501  to  the  same  date  in  a.d.  J 
 of  the  vulgar  era. 
 5,  Syncellus  has  indeed,  and  probably  from 
 Anianus,  8  years  too  few  between  the 
 accessions  of  Tiberius  and  Trajan  (see 
 note  to  A.D.  147,  at  p.  904),  the  latter 
 being  put  by  him  in  a.d.  90,  instead  of 
 A.D.  98.  And  he  appropriates  in  one 
 place  the  reckoning  of  5904  years  to  the 
 death  of  Theophilus,  which  implies  for 
 him  the  same  deficit  below  the  Nativity 
 of  8  years  ;  and  again,  in  giving  the  date 
 at  which  he  was  writing,  really  a.d.  808, 
 as  is  shown  by  his  adding  that  it  was 
 the  "  1st  of  the  Indiction,"  he  is  8  years 
 short,  or  9,  reckoning  it  to  be  only  his 
 a.m.  6300,  or  a.d.  799  complete.  But 
 in  the  intermediate  reigns  below  Trajan, 
 he  and  his  continuator  Theophanes  do 
 not  preserve  uniformly  the  original  de- 
 ficit of  8  years.  The  accession  of  Dio- 
 cletian, for  instance,  is  put  by  him  rt 
 the  end  of  his  a.m.  5779,  or  beginning  of 
 A.M.  5780,  which  are  his  a.d.  279  and 
 280,  whereas  it  should  have  been  either 
 in  a.d.  284,  or  if  he  had  been  consistent 
 in  his  omission  of  the  8  years,  and  in 
 other  respects  exact,  in  a.d.  (284-8=) 
 276.  He  is  only  6  short  at  the  death  of 
 Probrus,  but  he  lost  3  years  more  in 
 reckoning  from  that  point  to  his  own 
 time. 
 
 10,  after  "but" insert  "(as  Sj'ncellus  says)." 
 4,  "  calculations  of  a  zodiacal  ia-oxara- 
 rrMK.^'   Here  it  may  b«  obserFcd  that 
 
1052 
 
 NOTES  AND  CORRECTIONS. 
 
 Page  Line 
 
 no  trace  of  any  such  calculation  has 
 been  found  in  any  one  of  the  Egyptian 
 schemes  from  first  to  last  An  astrono- 
 mical calculation,  however  fanciful, 
 would  have  dealt  with  real  years  and 
 real  cycles,  of  whatever  denomination. 
 But  the  fancy  in  the  Egyptian  schemes, 
 in  the  earliest  as  well  as  the  latest,  deals 
 only  wiih  a  mere  semblance  of  Sathic 
 cycles,  their  cycles  being  composed 
 partly  of  months,  partly  of  fictitious 
 years,  and  of  "  years  "  of  various  kinds 
 and  values  mixed  indiscriminately  to- 
 gether. Even  the  341  fictitious  years 
 inserted  in  the  cyclical  schemes  are  not 
 prefixed  so  as  to  leave  the  true  years  of 
 human  time  to  stand  in  their  true  places, 
 but  these  latter,  which  really  began  from 
 April  26,  are  moved  up  so  as  to  begin 
 from  the  cyclical  epoch  of  July  20,  341 
 years  earlier.  And  in  the  mixed  scheme 
 preserved  by  Diogenes  Laertius  so  little 
 thought  is  there  of  any  calculation 
 backwards,  that  a  sum  of  years  equal  in 
 duration  to  xxx  cycles,  and  meant  to 
 stand  as  cycles,  is  simply  prefixed  to  an 
 uncyclical  reckoning  of  true  human 
 time,  though  by  such  a  junction  the 
 xxx  cycles  are  deprived  at  once  of  their 
 cyclical  character.  For  if  the  two  sums 
 are  to  unite,  then,  since  the  50^53  years  of 
 true  human  time  begin  with  the  342nd 
 of  a  Sothic  Cycle  in  b.c.  5361,  the  last341 
 years  of  the  greater  or  prefixed  sum 
 are  necessarily  the  first  part  of  that 
 same  cycle,  and  every  one  of  the  xxx 
 cycles  which  the  whole  prefixed  sum  was 
 meant  to  represent  is  vitiated  up  to  the 
 first  year  of  all,  which  will  stand  as  the 
 342nd  below  the  nearest  cyclical  epoch. 
 
 840,  17,  "  in  the  first  of  Antoninus  Pius."  So 
 Syncellus  indeed  and  others  sometimes 
 speak,  meaning  by  "  in"  ajter.  But  Aug. 
 29  in  A.D.  139,  and  even  July  20,  is  really 
 in  the  beginning  of  the  second  year  of  the 
 actual  reign  of  Antoninus.  The  same 
 is  to  be  borne  in  mind  as  often  as  the 
 expression  recurs.  See  a.d.  147,  p.  904. 
 
 845,  14,  for  "  his  own  1st"  read  "  the  Alexan- 
 drian 2nd." 
 
 850,      13,  for  "  2363,"  read  "  2365." 
 
 850,      24,  "besides   omitting  somewhere,"  &c. 
 
 Syncellus  tells  us  where.  For  he  cen- 
 sures  Panodorus  for  abandoning  what 
 he  calls  the  ecclesiastical  reckoning  to 
 follow  that  of  the  astronomers  and 
 mathematicians.  In  consequence,  from 
 the  commencement  of  the  reign  of 
 Philip  Aridfeus, which  Claudius  Ptolemy 
 had  made  his  epoch,  attaching  it  to  the 
 movable  Thoth  1,  and  which  Anianus, 
 Panodorus,  and  Syncellus  all  put  at 
 A.M.  5170,  Panodorus  made,  he  says, 
 ■with  the  astronomical  canon,  to  the  ac- 
 cession of  Augustus  281  years  (5170+ 
 281=5451),  and  to  the  death  of  Cleopatra 
 (281  +  13=)  294,  to  the  end  of  his  a.m. 
 (5170  +  294=1)  5464  ;  and  thence  to  the 
 end  of  the  year  including  the  Nativity 
 
 Page  Line 
 
 his  A.M.  5493, 29  years  ;  and  to  the  death 
 of  Augustus  in,  that  is,  after  his  own 
 •'a.m.  5506,"  13  years  more.  But  as 
 Syncellus  repeatedly  says  that  Pano- 
 dorus was  "7  years  short,"  not  8,  and 
 that  he  "  followed  the  astronomical 
 canon,"  the  dates  of  which  were  cer- 
 tainly B.C.  324  and  330,  and  which,  as  he 
 himself  says  distinctly,  gave  43  years  to 
 Augustus  from  the  death  of  Cleopatr.i, 
 it  is  probable  that  he  was  thinking  of 
 his  own  reckoning  to  the  Incarnation, 
 when  he  spoke  of  the  5493  years  of 
 Panodorus.  and  that  to  the  end  of  the 
 year  including  the  Nativity,  Panodorus 
 made  (5170+  294  =  29  +  1=)  6494,  not 
 5493  years,  and  ended  the  Egyptian 
 reign  of  Augustus  with  (30+13=)  43 
 years,  together  with  his  a.m.  5507,  not 
 A  M.  5506  ;  unless,  indeed,  he  gave  to 
 Augustus  only  42  years  in  Egypt,  and 
 anticipated  the  accession  of  Tiberius 
 (as  being  before  Aug.  29)  by  nearly  a 
 year.  However  this  was,  his  reckoning 
 Syncellus  thought  was  contrary  to 
 divine  truth,  and  to  the  ecclesiastical 
 tradition.  These,  he  says,  require  the 
 Incarnation  to  be  put  just  at  the  end  of 
 A.M.  5500,  and  at  the  beginning  of  a.m. 
 5501.  And  so,  if  the  reckoning  of  Pano- 
 dorus and  the  mathematicians  were  to 
 be  allowed,  Augustus  would  die  in,  that 
 is.  at  the  end  of  [here  again  he  is 
 thinking  of  his  own  reckoning  from 
 March  25  to  March  25],  the  5th  year  of 
 Christ,  whereas  he  really  died  '  mid- 
 way between  the  I4th  and  15th."  Any 
 one  can  see,  he  says,  (p.  616),  by  merely 
 looking  at  the  Paschalion,  that  Nisan  1, 
 or  March  25,  commencing  a.ai.  5534,  the 
 213th  year  of  the  eleventh  period  of  532 
 years  (this  is  in  a.d.  42,  the  2nd  of 
 Claudius),  must  have  been  the  true  date 
 of  the  Resurrection,  the  Passover  being 
 then  on  the  23rd  of  March,  the  third 
 day  before,  and  these  two  days  being 
 Sunday  and  Friday  respectively.  And 
 hence  it  results,  that  March  25,  thirty- 
 three  years  before,  being  the  first  day 
 of  A.M.  5501  (i.e.  March  25  in  a.d.  9, 
 ■which  is  really  only  5  years  and  some 
 months  before  the  death  of  Augustus), 
 must  have  been  the  date  of  the  Incarna- 
 tion ;  which  was  in  the  consulship  of 
 Sulpicius  Camerinus  and  Caius  Pop- 
 paBus  [the  right  Consuls  for  a.d.  9]. 
 And  this,  he  says,  is  not  asserted  of  his 
 own  fancy,  but  from  the  blessed  Apostle 
 and  Archbishop  of  Rome  and  martyr, 
 Hi|>polytus,  and  the  most  religious 
 monk  Anianus,  who  has  set  forth  the 
 XI  Paschal  Periods  with  exact  notes, 
 and  the  devout  monk  Maximus,  who 
 name  the  same  Consuls. 
 
 Anianus  then,  representing  "  the  eccle- 
 siastical tradition,"  and  Syncellus  for 
 these  reasons  made  from  Aug.  28,  or 
 from  March  24,  ending  their  a.m.  5170, 
 not  281  but  (281+7  =  )  288  years  to  the 
 accession  of  Augustus  after  the  com- 
 
NOTES  AND  CORRECTIONS. 
 
 1053 
 
 Page  Line 
 
 pletion  of  A.M.  5458,  and  not  (281+13=) 
 294  years  only  like  Panodonis  from  the 
 death  of  Alexander  the  Great  to  that  of 
 Clcrpatra,  but  (288  +  13  =)  301  to  the 
 end  of  A.M.  2171.  Thence  they  made 
 29  years  of  Augustus  to  the  end  of  the 
 year  including  the  Incarnation  or  (29 
 +  1  =)  30  to  the  end  of  that  including 
 the  Nativili/,  viz.  a.m.  (5500+1  =  )  .5501, 
 and  lastly  13  years  more  to  the  death  of 
 Augustus ;  his  death  being  placed  by 
 Anianus  as  ifat  Aug.  28,  but  by  Syn- 
 cellus  at  March  24  ending  his  a.m.  5514.- 
 
 851,       4,  for  "  in  B.C.  339"  read  "  in  fits  b.c.  339." 
 
 By  our  reckoning  it  would  be  in  B.C. 
 340;  and  in  1.  7  in  like  manner  before 
 "  a.m."  and  before  "  b.c."  insert  "  his." 
 
 858,      16,  for  "  1st  year"  read  "  2nd  year." 
 
 858,  21,  for  1st"  read  "  2nd  (or  as  he  made  it 
 by  omitting  8  years  above  the  10th.)" 
 
 861,      17,  for  "  Kuro'j  "  read  "  otirou." 
 
 865,  36,  for  "  go  with  "  read  "  are  fictitious  or 
 unchronological  like." 
 
 870,       2,  after  "  in  it"  insert  "  for  those  years." 
 
 870,       2,  for    in  it,"  read  "  in  it  for  these  years." 
 
 873,  33,  after  "  Ousimares  "  insert  "  (Gener, 
 xxiv  of  Eratosthenes  ?)." 
 
 891,  31,  for  "  kis  2nd  "  read  "  what  should  have 
 
 been  his  2nd,"  since  it  probably  stood 
 in  fact  as  his  10th.  See  a.d.  147  at  p. 
 904. 
 
 for  "for him'"  read  "according  to  Alex- 
 andrian reckoning." 
 for  "  his  2nd  year"  read  "  the  2nd  Alex- 
 andrian year  made  by  hijn  the  10th," 
 •  and  the  same  in  1.  31. 
 
 892,  38,  omit  "  or  the  end  of  his  22nd  of  Anto- 
 
 ninus Pius,"  since  he  probably  dropped 
 8  years  between  Augustus  and  Trajan, 
 and  so  drew  up  the  accession  of  Anto- 
 ninus. 
 
 896,  at  Apr.  26,  after  "Cycle  III."  insert "  b." 
 
 900,  for  "  A.M.  4815,;b.c.  547,  41st,  4818, 23rd," 
 read  "  481-5,  546,  42iid,  4819,  24th." 
 
 903,  at  Aug.  21  omit  "(2ud  for  Panodor.)" 
 Panodorus  probably  posMated  the  1st  of 
 Tiberius  (together  with  the  Canon)  from 
 Thoth  1,  Aug.  21  in  a.d.  14,  though  Au- 
 gustus died  two  days  before. 
 
 901,  opp.  A.D.  79,  for  "  Aug.  6,"  read  "  Aug. 
 4,"  and  opp.  a.d.  93,  for  "  Aug.  4"  read 
 Aug.  1." 
 
 904,  &c.     insert  the  dates  of  the  Astron.  Canon  as 
 
 follows:  —  After  43  of  Augustus,  from 
 Aug.  31  in  B.C.  30,  and  22  of  Tiberius, 
 at  A.D.  36,  Aug.  15,  insert  "  1st  of  Cali- 
 gula (4)  b."   At  A.D.  40,  Aug.  14,  "  1st 
 
 34, 
 
 28, 
 
 Page  Line 
 
 906, 
 
 910, 
 930, 
 931, 
 933, 
 936, 
 1939, 
 
 ;939, 
 941, 
 
 942, 
 
 942, 
 
 948, 
 955, 
 955, 
 
 of  Claudius  (14)  b."  At  a.d.  54,  Aug.  1 1, 
 "  Istof  Nero  (14)  b."  At  a.d.  68,  Aug. 
 7,  "1st  of   Vespasian  (10)  b."  At 
 
 a.  d.  78,  Aug.  6,  "1st  of  Titus  (3)  b." 
 At  A.D.  8),  Aug.  4,  "1st  of  Domitian 
 (15)  b."  At  A.D.  96,  July  31,  "1st  of 
 Nerva  b."  At  a.d.  97,  July  31,  "  1st 
 of  Trajan  (19)  b."  At  a.d.  116,  July 
 26,  "1st  of  Hadrian  (21)  b."  At  a.d. 
 137,  July  21,  "  1st  of  Antoninus  P.  (23) 
 
 b.  "  At  A.D.  160,  July  15,  "  1st  of  Mar- 
 cus and  Commodus  (32)  b."  At  a.d. 
 192,  July  7,  "  1st  of  Severus  (25)  b." 
 At  A.D.  217,  July  1,  "  1st  of  Antoninus 
 (4)  b."  At  A.D  221,  June  30  "  1st  of 
 Alexander  Mamaeus  (13)  b."  At  a.d. 
 237,  June  26,  "  Isc  of  Maximin  (3)  b." 
 At  a.d.  240,  June  25,  "  1st  of  Gordian 
 (6)  b."  At  A.D.  .243,  June  24,  "  1st  of 
 Philip  (6)  b."  At  a.d.  249,  June  23, 
 "  1st  of  Decius  b."  At  a.d.  250,  June 
 23,  "  1st  of  Gallus  (3)  b."  At  a.d.  253, 
 June  22,  "  1st  of  Gallienus  (15)  b."  At 
 
 A.  D.  268,  June  18,  "  1st  of  Claudius  b." 
 At  A.D.  2G9,  June  18,  "  1st  of  Aurelian 
 (6)  b."  At  A.D.  275,  June  16,  "  1st  of 
 Probus  (7)  b."  At  a.d.  282,  June  1-5, 
 "  1st  of  Carus  (2)  b,"  his  second  ending 
 June  14,  A.D.  284.  The  continuation  of 
 the  Canon  by  Ptolemy  and  Theon  does 
 not  extend  further.  The  Babylonian  ac- 
 cessions of  the  Canon  from  Nabonassar 
 are  given  at  p.  986,  and  the  Persian  both 
 at  p.  990  and  at  pp.  900,  901.  The  Egyp- 
 tian accessions  from  Alexander  to 
 Cleopatra  at  pp.  901,  902,  and  903  are 
 those  of  the  Canon. 
 
 in  cols.  A.  M.  and  a.  d.  for  "  7259  "  and 
 "  1898  "  read  "  7258  "  and  "  1897." 
 ,  after  "  the  20th  "  insert  "  [23rd]." 
 for  "  Sth"  read  "  9th." 
 for  "  TaX«/«"  read  "  ^»Xm»." 
 for  "  Si  "  read  "  o'i." 
 for  "  IroZs  "  read  "  Itou;." 
 for  "  72  sari,  5  neri,  and  6  sossi,  equiva- 
 lent to  8920  months  or  267,840  days," 
 read  "  74  sari  and  3  neri,  which  are  equi- 
 valent to  8940  months  or  268,200  days." 
 for  "B.C.  2952,"  read  "  B.C.  2954." 
 for  "  (cxiii— xxx=)  Ixxxiy,"  read  "  (cxiii 
 — xxix    )  Ixxxiv." 
 
 after  "  440"  insert  "or  446."  And  in 
 line  28  after  "  B.C.  336,"  insert  "  or 
 
 B.  C.  330." 
 
 for  "  And  Babylonian  "  read  "  And  no 
 Babylonian ." 
 
 for  "  1 1  or  12  "  read  "  7  or  8." 
 
 for  "  2848"  read  "  2840." 
 
 for  "  rconarchs  "  read  "  monarchy." 
 
 IN  THE  INTRODUCTION,  VOL.  I. 
 
 Page  Line 
 
 1,        8,  for  "  547"  read  "  546,"  and  for  "718"  read  "717,"  and  in  1.  13  for  "  1220"  read  "  1219." 
 [li,       10,  for  "  2009  "  read  "  2186." 
 1        13,  for  "  1903"  read    1881 "  ;  and  in  1.  14  for  "  141 "  read  "  103,"  for  "  215"  read  "  245,"  and  for 
 "  62  ?  "  read  "  48  ? and  in  1.  15  for  "  2233  "  read  "  2209." 
 
 « 
 
LONDOX 
 
 I'l'.IJJTED  Br  SPOTTI3WOODB  AKD  CO. 
 ITEW-STEKBT  SQUAKK 
 
I 
 
 By  the  same  Author. 
 
 AN  INTRODUCTION 
 
 EARLY  CHRISTIAN  SYMBOLISM 
 
 BEING  THE 
 
 SELECTED  AND  ABEANGED  IN  OEDEE  OF  SUBJECTS 
 
 FROM  FRESCO -PAINTINGS,  GLASSES,  AND  SCULPTURED  SARCOPHAGI 
 
 FOUND  IN  THE  CATACOMBS  OF  HOME 
 
 WITH    THREE  APPENDICES 
 
 Price  2s.  6d.