Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the peninsula of Sinai

Chapter XLVIII: Introduction: To the Chronology of the Egyptians (5)

Text size

Now if the arrangements we have cited, which in fact so essentially changed Egypt, that their introduction could not fail to occupy an important place in the monuments of that time, and to be thus handed down to posterity, were ascribed in the Greek account to SESOSTRIS-SESOOSIS, we should, in the next place, be uncertain whether SETHÔS or his son RAMSES was meant. It is not in itself improbable, that works demanding so much time, and the extensive alterations in the political circumstances, might fully occupy two such long reigns as those of both the kings mentioned; and of the canal works especially, we know that at least two particular canals of considerable importance were completed by Ramses, east and west of the Delta, and towns were built beside them. But since it can now hardly be disputed that those events could not have taken place either earlier or later than under these two reigns, which embraced more than a century, it appears to be perfectly justifiable to suppose that the first and most essential steps to this reform were taken in the reign of Sethôs, because, according to the genealogical calculation of time in the Bible, Joseph must have lived and acted in the first half of the reign of Sethôsis. The succession of kings in the Mosaic accounts also perfectly agrees with this. We here read of only _three Pharaohs_ during that time. Joseph came to Potiphar in Egypt in the reign of the first, and rose by his wisdom to be first minister of the king. This Pharaoh was Sethôsis I., with whom the Manethonic lists begin a new Dynasty. By means of the new improvements introduced and regulated by him, the country was saved from the years of famine which had hitherto been constantly dreaded, and the power of the king was increased and strengthened.

“And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and his whole race.” “Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph[363].” Sethôsis had reigned more than fifty years, and Joseph must have lived in the first part of his reign. It is therefore conceivable that the new King Ramses II. knew nothing more of him, or wished to know nothing more, and therefore might not on his (Joseph’s) account have favoured the rapidly increasing population of the Israelites in Egypt. We therefore see that it was incorrect to explain the words of the account, which are only correct when taken in their simplest signification, that a _new king_ arose—by understanding that by this the commencement of a new royal house is intended after a long and indefinite period. The birth of Moses, and his education at the court of Pharaoh, happened under this King Ramses II., and indeed in the latter part of his reign of sixty-six years, in which the times of Joseph were still more forgotten, and the hard oppressions and persecutions of the Jews prevailed. This king, although of a Theban family, resided equally, and perhaps in those times, even more at Memphis than at Thebes, as the later Saitic, Bubastic, and other dynasties also by no means forsook the old palace in Memphis. There exists, therefore, no grounds for imagining the youth of Moses to have been spent at Thebes rather than at Memphis.

But when Moses had slain the Egyptian, he fled to Midian. “And it came to pass in process of time, that the _King of Egypt died_; and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage[364].” The _third_ king, therefore, succeeded the Pharaoh of the Exodus, MENEPHTHES, the son of the great Ramses, the same under whom, as we believe we have pointed out, the Exodus really happened, and from whom the new Sothis period, which began in his reign, likewise received its name.

If, in the same manner, we go still farther back in the Hebrew accounts from Joseph to Abraham, we find this period also only occupied by three generations, which would fix it, according to the views we have exhibited, to about 90 or 100 years.

According to the chronology hitherto adopted, ABRAHAM’S visit to Egypt would also have happened in the TIME of the HYKSOS. But this is partly opposed by the same objections which we mentioned when speaking of the immigration of Jacob. Abraham also comes to the court of a Pharaoh, therefore of a native Egyptian ruler, and, in accordance with the Manethonic chronology, the visit of Abraham would have happened under Tuthmosis IV. or Amenophis III., therefore in the middle of the 18th Dynasty, after the Hyksos had been already expelled by the 17th Dynasty, first into the lowest country of the Delta, and then from their last fortress, Abaris.

Therefore only about 200 years had passed between Abraham’s journey into Egypt and the time of the Exodus. But what gave _occasion_ to the number _four hundred and thirty years_, so expressly stated in Exodus xii. 40, and which appears, in comparison with the round statement of 400 years in Gen. xv. 13, as more exact, and, at all events, not an unmeaning number? We have already expressed our opinion that the round and indeterminate numbers, as well as the larger calculations, were only adopted at a later period in the writings of the Old Testament. The number 480 or 440 years between the Exodus and the building of the Temple appeared to us to depend upon a calculation of 12 or 11 generations of 40 years each. But in the 430 years may, perhaps, lie the first indication of the early-conceived idea mentioned above, that the Israelites were the Hyksos. For the number would, in fact, be most perfectly explained if it was referred to the residence of these Semitic races in Egypt.

We shall, namely, point out, in the second part of the chronology, that the long contest between the Egyptians and the Hyksos, mentioned by Manetho, occurred during the 17th Dynasty from AMOSIS to TUTHMOSIS III. The former completely broke the foreign dominion, and drove back the Hyksos to the northern part of the Delta; but it was Tuthmosis who first succeeded in sending them out of their last stronghold of refuge, Abaris. Thence arose the confusion that has so generally prevailed concerning these two kings. The one as much as the other might be regarded as the conqueror of the Hyksos. Manetho specified the whole time of the residence of the Hyksos in Egypt, up to their departure from Abaris, to be 511 years. But it must also have appeared from his narrative, and have been a fact specially known to the priests from their history, that the real dominion of the Hyksos in Egypt was terminated by Amosis. If we now subtract the time from Amosis to Tuthmosis, which was 80 years, from 511[365], exactly _four hundred and thirty years_ remain for the dominion of the Hyksos in Egypt[366]. If, therefore, in the present day, the opinion can in any way be maintained and defended that Abraham (or Jacob) was King Salatis, and entered Egypt not as a petitioner, but as a powerful and conquering enemy, and that his seed was first conquered and driven away in the time of Moses by the native kings, the relation of the above-mentioned numbers would certainly appear as one of the most important proofs of it. It cannot, however, be argued that an admission which appears, according to our present criticism, perfectly impossible, must have appeared equally so in ancient times. An impartial apprehension of the present, and a faithful rendering of the past, was the vocation of an ancient annalist or historian; it is only thus that they are of importance and worthy of consideration in our inquiry. Criticism was completely out of their sphere, historical as well as philological; and when, nevertheless, we do meet with it, it is generally very unsatisfactory, and even from the most distinguished writers, astonishingly feeble. The school of professional Alexandrian critics is by no means excepted. We find the most striking examples of this, particularly in the Christian chronologists, who were not wanting either in abundance of authorities, nor in extensive learning and honest intentions. But we have actually seen, from the example of Josephus, as well as from earlier and later authors, how the opinion above mentioned, of the identity of the Hyksos with the Jews, really gained admittance from various very superficial foundations, and yet Josephus belonged undoubtedly to the most learned antiquarians who we can place under our observation here. We ought not, therefore, to be surprised even if we find this view again stated at an earlier period in the arrangement and combinations of the Hebrew historical books; and this appears, in fact, to be very probable, by the number 430 years, which can neither be applied to the three generations of Jacob, nor to the six from Abraham to Moses.

The calculation also verifies itself still further. It was an early opinion that Joseph came to Egypt in the reign of the shepherd King _Aphophis_. This is expressly said by Eusebius and Syncellus; and the various changes in the position of Aphophis, who is differently placed both by Josephus and Africanus, appear, upon a closer investigation, always to originate from the same reason, namely, in order to place Joseph under Aphophis. The correct position of Aphophis, according to Manetho, was undoubtedly at the end of the 16th Dynasty, as we find it stated by Africanus[367]. Joseph stood, according to the generations, exactly between Abraham and Moses. According to the Egyptian chronology, the first Dynasty of the Hyksos reigned 259 years, the second 251 years, therefore Aphophis, the last king of the 1st Dynasty, reigned in the middle of the time of the Hyksos. This was probably the first idea which supported the opinion of the exact division of the 430 years into two equal halves, and the belief that Jacob came to Egypt in the time of Aphophis. Jacob’s entrance, or the end of the first 215 years, accordingly happened in the seventeenth year of the Aphophis; Joseph was exalted by Pharaoh 9 years earlier, therefore in the eighth year of Aphophis.

But the correct Egyptian statement, that the Hyksos first departed in the reign of Tuthmosis, had been already misunderstood in the time of Josephus. He placed the Exodus of the Hyksos and of the Jews under Amosis, and made the whole 17th Dynasty of 251 years precede Amosis. It was impossible, therefore, that he could place Joseph under Aphophis. He could as little make the entrance of Abraham happen at the same time as that of the Hyksos, for he gave 511 years for the residence of the Hyksos, 430 for that of the Jews. But he nowhere says either that the Jews entered with the Hyksos, as they departed with them, or that Jacob or Josephus came to Egypt in the reign of Aphophis. He appears rather to have believed that the _first_ and not the _second_ entrance of the Jews into Egypt, therefore the entrance of Abraham happened in the time of _Aphophis_; and thus that the tradition, which was no doubt known to him, was so to be understood. He must, at least, have thought that the entrance of Abraham really took place in the first Hyksos Dynasty, although, indeed, not under the _last_, but under the _fourth_ king. According to my opinion, this was the reason why Josephus made Aphophis the _fourth_ king of the Dynasty.

Africanus, the most faithful among the reporters, did not admit all these calculations, or seek to explain the Manethonic calculation, and to make it agree with his own, but let the contradictions stand, and therefore simply gave the Manethonic tradition, even when he did not understand it, and could not correct the mistakes which were handed down to him. We therefore find the correct position of Aphophis retained by him.

Eusebius on the other hand, and his uncertain authorities, again wished to mediate and to explain. In his account we find the first year of the 16th Dynasty placed contemporaneous with the first year of the life of Abraham, which is evidently an arbitrary proceeding, and one that necessarily drew other changes along with it, which are met with plentifully in the numbers substituted for those of Manetho. His 17th Dynasty names the four first kings of the Manethonic 16th Dynasty, and Amosis follows immediately after. In order to fit in again with the later history, it was necessary to abridge considerably the 16th and 17th Dynasties. The numbers of Eusebius, as they appear in the Canon, clearly state that he only counted seventy-five years from the first year of Abraham to his entrance into Canaan and Egypt, and again 430 years from that time to the Exodus of Moses. This happened, therefore, in the last year of Χενχέρης. The same is given in the codex A of Syncellus, p. 72, D. If we here again calculate 215 years to the entrance of Jacob, or 224 to the exaltation of Joseph, we arrive at his reign of APHOPHIS, as was intended. But in codex B, and in the Armenian translation, the two kings, Athoris and Chencheres, who are correctly placed in the Eusebian Canon, are omitted, and undoubtedly by the oversight of Eusebius himself, not of Syncellus. Thence the Exodus was placed in the reign of Achencheres, in place of Chencheres. The similarity in the names themselves appears to have led to the oversight; thus Syncellus found the text. Now, if we count back from Achencheres 215 or 224 years, we come to Archles, the predecessor of _Aphophis_. Syncellus knew of no better way than to transpose Archles and Aphophis, as we find to be really the case in his text of Eusebius, p. 62, A; this of course can no longer be reconciled with the emendations of the codex A, which were added in a later passage out of Eusebius. No doubt seems to be left by this explanation of the numbers.

Lastly, Syncellus, who follows the false Sothis, places the Exodus in the last year of MISPHRAGMUTHOSIS, calculates from here backwards 215 years, and passing over the 2nd Hyksos Dynasty, which Sothis and Eusebius had already placed before the 1st Hyksos Dynasty, arrives at the fourth king of the latter. Therefore, as in Josephus, Aphophis is placed there.

All these circumstances are easily explained when the aim and the issue of the matter is known. But the original grounds why Aphophis, the last king of the 1st Manethonic Hyksos Dynasty, was regarded as the Pharaoh of Joseph and Jacob, is alone apparent by the simple relation which we have found subsisting between the Hebrew and the Manethonic numbers.

I do not believe that a sound critical examination can consider so many and such universal agreements and confirmations to be accidental, or the result of an artificial correction, which, at all events, would of necessity be easily pointed out, the more so as, with the exception of a few individual points, my restoration of the Manethonic chronology was principally determined before my journey to Egypt.

We therefore believe, that by means of a new path, namely, the Manethonic chronology, we have found the key to the relative portions of time in the Old Testament, so far as these are connected with Egypt; and in an inverse manner we may now consider the agreement that subsists between the chronology of the Hebrew history (both the true chronology represented in the genealogies, and the false one, which was afterwards erroneously adopted) and the Egyptian numbers upon which the chronology was originally founded, to be indeed strongly confirmatory of the authenticity of these last, as they appear according to our restoration of them.

It is very evident that our carrying back the Old Testament chronology to its natural relations, as far back as Abraham, must be not merely of chronological, but of truly historical importance in the highest meaning of the term. The prolongation to above a hundred years, contrary to all historical experience, of the thirty-yeared generations of the immediate ancestors of Moses, who lived in the midst of the Egyptians, the length of whose lives was exactly like our own, must either appear an intentional miracle, or make us doubt the simple historical reality of the persons themselves, and of the events concerning them. The superhuman duration of life, considered as a miracle, would appear to be entirely without a purpose; besides, in the Old Testament itself it is never viewed as such. The Psalmist[368], on the contrary, considered as we do, a life of eighty years as a great age. Therefore the most distinguished, and most earnest inquirers of the present day were led to the opinion, evidently from the numbers, that the history of the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was less strictly historical, but only brought before the reader, as it were, three representations of long epochs of about a century each[369]. It was likewise necessary to regard the register of generations in the time of the Judges as defective, and extremely shortened, because in no other manner could they fill up the long period of 480 years. In order to make this abbreviation more probable, the genealogy of _Haman_ was referred to as the only one which was preserved perfect[370], while we, on the contrary, consider it a double one.

Now according to our view of the subject, this apparently so well-founded doubt of the real continuity of the events, and of the historical character of the contents, in as far as they depend upon the chronology, entirely disappears, and I see no longer any reason to consider the accounts of the great personality of Abraham, of the non-prominent activity of Isaac, the opulent life of Jacob, and the remarkable fate of Joseph, chiefly as typical, and as it were only slightly connected with the historical reality[371]. For although we must still make a considerable difference between the character of the history of Israel before and after the building of the temple, yet it cannot be denied that the agreement we have pointed out between the true chronological thread, as it is represented to us by the genealogies, and the Egyptian history, as well as the confirmation of so many notices respecting Egypt, from the time of Moses and Joseph, establish a far greater _historical_ character for the Hebrew accounts, as far back as Abraham, than would have ever been allowed them by a strict criticism, had we been obliged to ascribe to the old authorities themselves the numbers which were inserted at a later period.

[After some notice concerning the times before Abraham, the author concludes this section as follows:]

If, however, our entire view of the Old Testament chronology, regarding it as founded upon accurately preserved dates, only so far back as the separation of the kingdom, but nevertheless attached from that epoch up to the time of Abraham to an evidently authentic thread of historically reliable genealogies, offering, however, before the Egyptian period, only cyclical instead of historical numbers and genealogies, and mainly confined to Babylonian sources and traditions—if, I say, this general view of the character of the chronological data which leaves untouched the significance of their contents, should, on theological grounds, arouse scruples in the mind of any one, I would refer him to the introduction which Bunsen has prefixed to the third section of his first book on Egypt, as full of talent as of meaning, and from which I would more especially extract the following passages[372].

“Whoever adopts as a principle that chronology is a matter of revelation, is precluded from giving effect to any doubt that may cross his path, as involving a virtual abandonment of his faith in revelation. He must be prepared, not only to deny the existence of contradictory statements, but to fill up chasms; however irreconcileable the former may appear by any aid of philology and history, however unfathomable the latter. He who, on the other hand, neither believes in an historical tradition as to the eternal existence of man, nor admits an historical and chronological element in revelation, will either contemptuously dismiss the inquiry, or, by prematurely rejecting its more difficult elements, fail to discover those threads of the research which lie beneath the unsightly and time-worn surface, and which yet may prove the thread of Ariadne.

“The assumption that it entered into the scheme of Divine Providence either to preserve for us a chronology of the Jews and their forefathers by real tradition, or to provide the later commentators with magic powers, in respect to the most exoteric element of history, may seem indispensable to some, and absurd to others. Historical inquiry has nothing whatever to do with such idle, preposterous, and often fallacious assumptions. Its business is to see whether anything—and if so, what—has been transmitted to us. If it fulfil this duty in a spirit of reverence as well as of liberty, sooner or later it will obtain the prize, which, if the history of the last 2000 years prove anything at all, Providence has refused to both the other systems.”

[After the two first sections of _The Criticism upon the Authorities_, of which the first, upon Herodotus and Diodorus, has been omitted in this translation, while the second, upon the Hebrew tradition, has been strongly dwelt upon, the author proceeds to the third and last section, which treats of the historical works of Manetho and the authorities which refer to him. Now, although this section contains the really critical restoration of the Manethonic chronology, considered by the author as the only one to be relied on in its general features, it has not been considered compatible with the object of the present work to communicate at full length this difficult research, which was only written for the profound investigator. We think it sufficient to give the two passages in which the whole extent of the Manethonic history, down to the second Persian conquest, according to a statement obtained from Manetho himself, is said to amount to 3555 years, and the connection is pointed out between this time, considered as strictly historical, and the cyclically discovered History of the Gods.]

The number 3555 is, however, alone essential and important, and, in spite of all the uncertainties and revisings of the text, there cannot be the slightest doubt about it. It led undoubtedly to the termination of the reign of Nectanebus II. If we can, therefore, determine this end in other more certain ways, we need no longer trouble ourselves about the calculation of Syncellus; since this, as every one allows, is, at all events, incorrect. But it cannot be doubted that Manetho knew, and correctly stated, the true year of the conquest of Egypt by Ochus, which very likely happened during his lifetime.

The calculation of this concluding year has, however, been so fully and convincingly proved by Böckh (p. 125-133), that I consider it would be superfluous to return to it again. I assume with him that _the year 340_ B.C. is perfectly ascertained to be _the concluding year of the Egyptian dominion_. Calculating back from this stated terminating point 3555 Egyptian or 3553 Julian years, we come to the _year 3893 before Christ, as the first of Menes_. We consider this to be established as perfectly historical, in as far as the Manethonic relation founded upon the annals of the kingdom may generally be regarded as historically correct.

But long before the cyclical system of the government of the gods could be founded upon the Sothis periods, which were established in the course of history, MENES had already been admitted into the Egyptian annals, and was maintained to be the fixed chronological commencement of Egyptian history, especially of the history of Lower Egypt. His epoch could be no more altered. What happened before his time was ante-historical, and might be adjusted to the cyclical necessities of mythology. The only historical fact was, that other kings had reigned before Menes, and indeed in THIS. In order to distinguish them from the later kings as being ante-historical, a designation was selected, which we are not yet acquainted with in hieroglyphics, but which was translated in Greek by Νέκυες, _the deceased_; here also undoubtedly establishing the idea that they were deceased MEN.

We may, however, certainly regard it as the most welcome confirmation of the whole of our restoration of the Manethonic chronology, that this ante-historical Dynasty of man of the ten Thinitic kings, the invention of whom could have no other aim than the extension of the history of man to the commencement of the current Sothis period, most accurately indeed fulfils the purpose that was designed. For while we add to the first of the 3555 Manethonic years, namely, to the year 3893 (3892) B.C. (Julian), the first of the reign of Menes, the 350 civil years of the Thinitic Νέκυες, the year 4242 is the result, _which was, in reality, the necessarily expected commencement year of the current Sothis period_. This immediately explains why the number 350, although it was ante-historical, and was therefore invented, is still in itself no cyclical number, and is in no way related to the Sothis period. It could just as little be a Sothic number as the number 3555, which it completed. But, on the contrary, it thence proves both the truthfulness as well as the historical character of the important and genuine Manethonic number 3555, and further proves that the establishment of the first historical year, or the Menes epoch, which is directly given by the number 3555 years, cannot first proceed from Manetho, but must be at least as old as the invention of the cyclical system of Egyptian mythology inseparably united with it, which no one will or can ascribe first to Manetho, because we have pointed out the same numbers belonging to the gods before his time. But the establishment of the discovered Menes year must indeed be still older than the formation of the whole cyclical system, since this is first appended to that number, and presupposes it; that is to say, _the Menes epoch designated by Manetho was one which had been given from the beginning, and was handed down historically_, and was combined in the following manner, with the cyclical system of the history of the gods.

PERIOD OF THE GODS.

_Gods_ 13,870 years.
_Demi-gods_ 3,650 ”
------
17,520 ” = 12 Sothis periods.

PERIOD OF MAN.

_Ante-Historical Dynasty_ 350 years.
_30 Historical Dynasties_ 3555 ”
_Foreign dominion to the time of Antoninus_ 478 ”
----
4383 ” = 3 Sothis periods.

Thus the history of the thirty Manethonic Dynasties, which began with Menes and comprised 3555 Egyptian years, was between two Sothis periods, without coming in contact with them, an evident proof that they were not formed with reference to the Sothis periods.

* * * * *

In order to take a general survey, we shall now repeat, in a few words, the result of our investigations.

Manetho apparently added himself to his detailed history, which was comprised in three Books, a _Review of the Dynasties_, in a continued series, in the style of the old Egyptian annals. These were more often transcribed than the work itself, which seems, indeed, to have been less widely distributed, owing to this convenient compendium. Separate narratives, however, from the work itself have been adopted by later authors, and were thereby preserved to us, although not without some alterations, after the complete work itself was lost, which must have happened at an early period, perhaps when the Alexandrian library was destroyed.

It was at least unknown to Josephus in the first century of our era; but the more copious, and certainly chiefly _literal extracts_ communicated by him, he has borrowed from other works. Along with these, he either himself combined, or found combined, _another partial list_ of kings, which only included the names from Amosis down to Menephthes (Amenophis), and which was drawn up specially and solely for the learned purposes of the Jews, at all events before the time of Josephus.

Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, in the second century, communicated the same list with slight deviations, and probably not from the writings of Josephus.

The complete Dynastic lists of the Manethonic work, which by a different method have also themselves been preserved, seem to have been unknown to both. These were first preserved to us by Africanus in the third century. They had undoubtedly before this time passed through several hands, and assumed forms partly deviating from one another. The partial Jewish list which we find in Josephus and Theophilus, was already adopted, in the time of Africanus (though hardly by himself), in the same series with the others, as one peculiarly authenticated, and apparently complete; because it contained no subdivision in itself, it was regarded as one single Dynasty, the 18th, although it really corresponded with the 17th and 18th and half of the 19th Dynasty taken together. Thence arose the confusion which now exists here.

The necessity for an agreement between the Christian-Jewish and the Egyptian computation of time produced, towards the end of the third, or the beginning of the fourth century, two spurious writings; first, the _Old Chronicle_, which retained the Egyptian cyclical point of view, that, namely, of the history of the gods, and even extended it, yet in such a manner that the means of reduction was suggested, by which these large numbers might be compressed into the period assumed as that given by Moses for the time since Adam. With the same end in view the first 15 Dynasties of man were transformed into 15 Generations.

The second spurious work, the SOTHIS, professed to be Manethonic; and could do this more easily, because a long time had elapsed since the genuine history had been lost. This writing proceeded still further upon the same road as the Old Chronicle. By means of alterations and abbreviations it reduced the Egyptian numbers to certain epochs, which were considered as Biblical, and on the other hand partly abandoned the Cyclical basis.

Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth century, was deceived by both these writings, and endeavoured to make their statements agree with the genuine Manethonic Dynastic lists. He had these lists before him in a form which was rather different from, and at all events more negligently drawn up, than that of Africanus. He followed it for the Old Monarchy, which was almost entirely omitted in the two spurious writings. In the New Monarchy he adopted principally the Dynastic numbers of the Old Chronicle. In other points he followed the Sothis. His numbers of the gods, like those of the spurious writings, are upon the whole founded on the genuine Manethonic numbers, which he nevertheless combined in a mistaken manner.

In the commencement of the fifth century the speculative chronologists, ANIANOS and PANODORUS, laboured with subtle ingenuity at Egyptian chronology, but necessarily entirely failed in discovering the truth, because they considered the two spurious writings as the true basis. They endeavoured by ingenious arithmetical calculations to bring the numbers of the Old Chronicle and of the Sothis to agree more exactly with their acceptations of the Biblical chronology, than it had been the intention of these writings themselves.

Lastly, in the eighth century, GEORGIUS SYNCELLUS delivered his compiled, but on that very account for us most important work, by which we first became acquainted with almost all the earlier authorities. Through him alone we possess especially the most valuable basis for our Manethonic chronology, the Dynastic lists of Africanus. He himself decided nevertheless likewise in favour of the two spurious writings, and indeed as they were worked out by Panodorus; upon this last he founded his own system, which therefore is only so far of value to us as we thereby become acquainted with his authorities.

TABLES OF EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES, COMPILED FOR THIS TRANSLATION.

As many of the readers of this work may not be acquainted with the several Dynasties which successively reigned over Egypt, and the approximate dates which have been assigned to them, the following Tables have been compiled for their convenience, on the authority of the Chevalier Bunsen[373] and Dr. Richard Lepsius[374], and of Kenrick’s “Egypt under the Pharaohs.”

Manetho, High Priest of the Temple of Isis at Sebennytus, in Lower Egypt, in the reign of the first Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, surnamed Soter, 322 to 284 B.C., a man of the highest reputation for wisdom, and versed in Greek as well as in Egyptian lore, published various works for the purpose of informing the Greeks. Although his history is lost, we have the Dynasties tolerably entire. His excellence as an historian is placed in the clearest light by the monuments which are now made accessible to us; and the notices concerning him transmitted by Greek and Latin authors, are in no respect contradictory. The writers by whom the works of Manetho have been preserved to us, are:

Julius Africanus, Bishop of Emmæus, or Nicopolis, in Judæa, a man
of learning, research, and probity, who wrote in the beginning of
the third century, A.C.;

Eusebius, Bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine, about a hundred years
later than Africanus; and

Syncellus, a Byzantine monk, of the beginning of the ninth
century.

The lists of Manetho comprise 30 Dynasties. Egyptian history is divided into three periods—the Old Monarchy, which comprised 13 Dynasties; the Middle Monarchy, which included the 14th and 17th Dynasties; and the New Monarchy, which, commencing with the 18th, ended with Nectanebus, the last of the Pharaohs, 339 years before Christ.

“The result of our chronological investigations (Bunsen and
Lepsius) has been, to carry us up to the foundation of an empire
in Egypt, and to a series of kings whose names have not only been
registered and transmitted to us by the Egyptians themselves, but
which are now legible on Egyptian monuments, most of them erected
in the lifetime of the kings whose names they record.”—BUNSEN.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+----------------+
|DYNASTY. | | | Approximate |
| ORIGIN. | Names of | | Dates B.C. of |
| | the Kings | Names of | beginning |
| | in the Lists | the same Kings | of Dynasty. |
| | of Manetho, | in other +-------+--------+
| | or of | Authors. |Bunsen.|Lepsius.|
| | Eratosthenes. | | | [375] |
+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+
|I. |Menes |Menaios, _Herodotus_ | 3643 | 3893 |
| THINITE. |Athothis | | | |
| |Kenkenes | | | |
| |Menephis |Mnevis, _Pliny_ | | |
| |Semempses {|Ismandes, | | |
| | {| _Strabo_ | | |
| | {|Osymandyas, | | |
| | {| _Diodorus_ | | |

REMARKABLE EVENTS.

MENES, born at Abydos, or This, in Upper Egypt. Several States existed
in the Thebaid and Delta before his time, and he united them in one
Monarchy. He founded Memphis.

Under Semempses, the building of the Pyramid at the Labyrinth in the
Fayoum, the oldest existing in Egypt.

Under Kaiechos, the introduction of the worship of the Bull,—APIS at
Memphis, and MNEVIS at Heliopolis, and of the Mendesian Goat.

Under Sesortosis the introduction of building with hewn stones; also
improvements in the art of writing.

Building of the Pyramids of Dashour.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+
|IV. |Saophis {|Cheops, _Herodotus_ | 3229 | 3426 |
| MEMPHITE. | {|Chufu | | |
| |Saophis II. { |Chephren | | |
| | { |Schafra | | |
| |Mencheres {|Menkera | | |
| |Mencheres II. {|Mykerinus | | |
| |Pammês | | | |

Builder of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh.

Builds the second Pyramid.

Builds the third Pyramid.

Phiops (Mœris) formed out of the desert, the fertile district of the
Fayoum.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+
|VII. to XI. |} Manetho does not give the names of | 2967 |c. 2960 |
| |} the Kings of these Dynasties; none | | |
| |} between Nitokris and Amenemes. | | |
+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+
|XII. & XIII. |{ Amenemhe I. | | 2801 |c. 2330 |
| THEBAN. |{ Sesortesen I. |Osirtasen | 2654 |c. 2120 |
| | Amenemhe II. | | | |
| | Sesortesen II.|The Great Sesostris | | |
| | | of the Greeks | | |
| | Amenemhe III. |Mares Amenemes | | |
| | | Memnon of the Greeks| | |

Sesortesen I. conquers Ethiopia; erects the Obelisk of Heliopolis.
Amenemhe III., the builder of the Labyrinth in the Fayoum.
Foundation of Thebes by Sesortesen I.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+
|XIV. |} | | |
|XV. |} | | |
|XVI. |} The Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings. | | |
|XVII. |} | | |
+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+
|XVIII. |Amos |Aahmes | 1638 | |
| THEBAN. | |Amasis | | |
| |Amenophis I. |Amenatep | | |
| |Tuthmosis I. |Tuthmes | | |
| | ” II. | ” | | |
| | ” III. | ” | | |
| |Amenophis II. |Amenatep | | |
| |Tuthmosis IV. |Tuthmes | | |
| |Amenophis III. |Amenatep | | |
| |Horus |Her | | |

Under Tuthmosis III. the temple on the eastern side of Thebes was
built—Drove the Hyksos from the frontier—The Israelites sorely
oppressed.

Erection of the obelisks at Alexandria by Tuthmosis III.

Ramesses II. built many of the chief monuments now existing. Formed
the Cave Temples at Abu-Simbel.

His monument, the Colossus at Mitrahenny, on the site of Memphis.

Great extension of Thebes under Sethôs I.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+
|XX. |Merr-Ra |Phuoro, Nilus | 1297 |c. 1270 |
| THEBAN. |Ramses III. | | | |
| | ” IV. | | | |
| | ” V. | | | |
| | ” VI. | | | |
| | ” VII. | | | |
| | ” VIII. | | | |
| | ” IX. | | | |
| | ” X. | | | |
| | ” XI. | | | |
| | ” XII. | | | |
| | ” XIII. | | | |

Ramses III. leads great armies into Asia, and is a conqueror nearly
equal in renown to Sethôs I. and his son Ramesses II. Built the
Temples of Medînet-Hâbu.

Sheshonk I. takes Jerusalem about 970, and many cities in Judæa. He
is the Schischak of the Bible.

Schabak and Tahraka are the So and Tirhakah of the Bible.

Arches in the tombs near the Pyramids of Gizeh.

Conquest of Egypt by Cambyses.

Nectanebus I. builds a temple at Philæ.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+
| PERSIAN. |Alexander |Ochus | 340 | 340 |
| | conquers |Arses | 338 | 338 |
| | Egypt |Darius | 336 | 336 |
| | | | 332 | 332 |
+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+

+---------------------------------------+----------+
| AGE OF THE PTOLEMIES. | Lepsius. |
+---------------------------------------+----------+
| I. Ptolemy Lagus, Soter I. | 305 |
| II. ” Philadelphus | 285 |
| III. ” Euergetes I. | 247 |
| IV. ” Philopator I. | 222 |
| V. ” Epiphanes | 205 |
| VI. ” Eupator | 181 |
| VII. ” Philometor | 181 |
| VIII. ” Philopator II. | 146 |
| IX. ” Euergetes | 146 |
| X. ” Soter II. | 117 |
| XI. ” Alexander I. | 107 |
| XII. ” Alexander II. | 81 |
| XIII. ” Neos Dionysos | 81 |
| Cleopatra VI. Philopator. | |
| With Ptolemy XIV. | 52 |
| With ” XV. | 48 |
| With ” XVI. Cæsar | 45 |
| With Mark Antony | 37 |
| Egypt a Roman province | 30 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+

Previous Next

Comments

Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the peninsula of SinaiChapter XLVIII: Introduction: To the Chronology of the Egyptians (5)

0%29 min left in chapter