It adds to the difficulty of eliciting a satisfactory chronology from Manetho's work, that we possess it only in epitomes, and that these epitomes are conflicting. Two writers of Christian times, Africanus, probably in the second century, and Eusebius in the fourth, professed to give a synopsis of Manetho's dynasties, with his numbers. The actual work of Africanus is wholly lost; that of Eusebius has come down to us, but only in an Armenian version. While, however, the originals of both were still in existence, they were read by a Byzantine court official, George the Syncellus (ab. B.C. 800), who embodied the main statements of both writers, as he understood them, in his Chronography.' This work is extant; and thus we have what are in fact three professed epitomes of Manetho, one by Africanus, and two rival claimants to represent the original epitome of Eusebius-the Armenian translation, and the recension of George the Syncellus. If the numbers in the three epitomes corresponded, we should be tolerably sure that we possessed Manetho's actual views; but they do not correspond-on the contrary, they differ very considerably. The total number of years assigned by Manetho to his thirty dynasties is given, in the Eusebius of the Syncellus, as 4,728; in the Armenian Eusebius as 5,205; in the Africanus of the Syncellus as 5,374.1 The total assigned to a dynasty is very rarely the same in the three versions," the difference between the totals sometimes amounting to hundreds of years. The result is that we do not know with any exactness what Manetho's real numbers were ;

1 Results slightly differing from these are given by Bunsen (Egypt, vol. i. p. 82). Differences in the MSS. and in the statements made by the Syncellus make absolute ac

curacy impossible.

2 In six only out of the thirty dynasties is the number exactly the same in all the three versions.

CH. XII.]

MANETHO UNTRUSTWORTHY.

9

much less what were his real chronological views, if he

had any.

Finally, it has to be borne in mind that Manetho's chronological statements, even when fully ascertained by the agreement of all the epitomes, are not unfrequently contradicted by the monuments, and consequently rejected by all modern critics. This occurs even in the later part of the history, where the dates are, as nearly as possible, certain. If Manetho could make mistakes with respect to the reigns of kings who were removed from his time by no more than three centuries, how can he be implicitly trusted with respect to reigns at least twenty centuries earlier?

The entire result is: (1) that Manetho's general scheme, being so differently reported, is in reality unknown to us; (2) that its details, being frequently contradicted by the monuments,2 are untrustworthy; and (3) that the method of the scheme, the general principles on which it was constructed, was so faulty, that, even if we had it before us in its entirety, we could derive from it no exact or satisfactory chronology.

Thus the defect of the monuments is not made up to us by the chronological data which are supplied by authors. These latter are copious; but they resolve themselves ultimately into statements made by the Egyptian priests for the satisfaction of the Greeks and Romans upon points on which they felt no interest themselves, and on which their records did not enable

1 E.g. Manetho, according to all the three versions, assigned six years only to Neco, the PharaohNechoh of Scripture. But an Apis stela assigns him sixteen years; and this is regarded as settling the

matter.

It is especially remarkable that

the numbers of the Turin papyrus differ so greatly from Manetho's, showing that the Egyptians had no one definite, generally admitted scheme. As this is a very important point, the details are given in the Appendix (Note A).

them to give exact information. The Egyptians themselves, it can never be too often repeated, had no chronology.' It never occurred to them to consider, or to ask, how long a dynasty had occupied the throne. The kings dated their annals by their regnal years; ; 2 and it is probable that the dates of a king's accession and of his demise were commonly placed on record by the priests of his capital city, so that the entire length of his reign could be known; but no care was taken to distinguish the years of his sole reign from those during which he was associated with his predecessor. Neither were contemporary dynasties distinctly marked, as an ordinary rule. In one case alone did Manetho apparently note that two of the dynasties which he mentioned reigned simultaneously. Yet all modern critics, or almost all, believe that several other instances of contemporaneousness occur in his list. The extent to which the practice of entering contemporaneous or collateral lists in an apparently continuous line has been carried is disputed; and the divergence of the modern chronologies is due principally to the different views which have been taken on this subject. Lenormant makes two out of the thirty dynasties collateral; 5 Brugsch, five; Bunsen, seven; 7 Wilkinson and Stuart

Lenormant, Histoire Ancienne de l'Orient, vol. i. p. 322.

2 Records of the Past, vol. ii. pp. 19, 21; vol. iv. p. 27; vol. vi. pp. 23, 43, 44, 63, &c.

* Manetho's seventeenth dynasty consisted of an equal number of Theban and Shepherd kings, whom he represented as reigning side by side during the space of 151 years. (Syncell. Chronograph. p. 61.)

|

dans ses listes des dynasties collatérales, mais qu'en même temps, dans les extraits que nous en avons, aucune indication positive n'indique celles qui furent contemporaines.' (Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne de l'Orient, vol. i. pp. 355–6.)

5 The eleventh with the ninth and tenth (ibid. p.348); and the thirteenth with the fourteenth (p. 358). History of Egypt (1st ed.), vol. Even Lenormant admits that, i. pp. 107-119, 184; vol. ii. pp. in one part of his work, Man6-313-4. thon, pour comble d'obscurité, avait indubitablement (le témoignage des chronographes est formel) admis

6

Egypt's Place, vol. ii. pp. 106, 208, 239; vol. iv. pp. 499, 500, 510-12.

CH. XII.] GENERAL UNCERTAINTY OF THE CHRONOLOGY. 11

Poole, twelve.1 Until some fresh light shall be thrown upon this point by the progress of discovery, the uncertainty attaching to the Egyptian chronology must continue, and for the early period must be an uncertainty, not of centuries, but of millennia.

When the difficulties of Egyptian chronology are stated in this broad way, it may seem at first sight that the entire matter is hopeless, and that historians of Ancient Egypt had best drop out the chronological element from their narratives altogether, and try the experiment of writing history without chronology. But it is not necessary to adopt quite so violent a remedy. The difficulties of the Egyptian chronology are not spread uniformly over the entire period covered by the history; they diminish as we descend the stream of time, and for the period occupied by Manetho's New Empire' are not much greater than those which meet us in Assyrian, Phoenician, or Jewish history, where it is the usual practice of historians to grapple with them and reduce them to a minimum. We propose, therefore, to endeavour, in the remainder of this chapter, to mark the limits of the uncertainty with respect to each of the three periods into which it has been customary, from the time of Manetho, to divide the history of Ancient Egypt.

6

I. With respect to the latest period, or that of the New Empire. This period includes the last thirteen dynasties of Manetho, or, if we terminate the history of Ancient Egypt with its conquest by Cambyses and the Persians, it reaches from the beginning of Manetho's eighteenth to the close of his twenty-sixth dynasty, containing thus the history of nine dynasties. These are the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth, Theban ;

1 See the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 338, 3rd edit.

Cambyses con

2

4

the twenty-first, Tanite; the twenty-second, Bubastite; the twenty-third, Tanite; the twenty-fourth, Saite; the twenty-fifth, Ethiopian; and the twenty-sixth, Saite, like the twenty-fourth. The chronology of this lastnamed dynasty is very nearly exact. quered Egypt in the year B.C. 527.1 Psamatik III., whom he dethroned, had reigned only six months; his father, Amasis, forty-four years; Apries, the predecessor of Amasis, probably, twenty-five years ; Psamatik II., the father of Apries, six years; 5 Neco, his grandfather, sixteen years; and Psamatik I., the father of Neco, fifty-four years 6-total, 145 years. Thus Psamatik I., the founder of the dynasty, ascended the throne in B.C. 672. His immediate predecessor, Tirhakah, reigned twenty-six years, and we may therefore place his accession in B.C. 698. Thus far the dates are, as nearly as possible, certain. They rest mainly upon Egyptian sources, but are confirmed to a considerable extent by Herodotus, and accord with the Scriptural dates for Pharaoh-Hophra (Apries), Pharaoh-Nechoh (Neco), and Tirhakah.8

1 Cambyses died in B.C. 521, having reigned six years in Egypt (Brugsch, History of Egypt, vol. ii. p. 305, 1st ed.), which he must therefore have conquered in B.C. 527, not in B.C. 525, as generally supposed.

2 Herod. iii. 14, ad init.; Manetho ap. Syncell. Chronograph, vol. i. p. 75, D.

Herod. iii. 10. Manetho (according to Africanus) gave the same number, but, according to Eusebius, forty-two years only.

So Herod. ii. 161, and Manetho, according to Eusebius. But, according to Africanus, Manetho's number was nineteen.

This is proved by one of the Apis stele (Mariette, No. 40; Brugsch, vol. ii. p. 237, 1st ed.), which also makes certain the six

teen years of Neco.

Another of the stele (No. 39 of Mariette) determines the reign of Psamatik I. to fifty-four years.

The fifty-four years of Psamatik I. were counted from the end of the twenty-six years of Tirhakah, as appears from stela No. 37 of Mariette, which is given also by Brugsch (vol. ii. p. 285, 1st ed.). Manetho assigned to Tirhakah only eighteen or twenty years.

8 Pharaoh-Hophra appears in Jeremiah as the Egyptian antagonist of Nebuchadnezzar, and as contending with him after the time when Jeremiah was taken into Egypt. This was about B.C. 585, which would be the twelfth year of Apries, according to the numbers in the text. Pharaoh-Nechoh warred