I have not the slightest doubt, but that the first 5 kings in these lists were originally the same. Menes, the planter of the nation, is the Misor of Sanchoniatho,§ and Mizraim of the scriptures, and is placed in the Theban and Thinite lists as the first king of the united realm. And, that the Necherophes of the Memphite list is the *Anc. Frag. 84. + Ib. 94, 95. Pharao Naracho, whom Malala* affirms to be the first Egyptian king and the same as Menes, will be evident from the iden tity of his successor, Tosorthrus, with the Athothes or Thoth, the successor of Menes in the other list; as he is said to be the same as Asclepius, who is Thoth, to have been celebrated for his buildings, and his invention of medicine and letters.† Venephes is said to have built the pyramids ; and by Eratosthenes the same is related of a king Saophis, though he evidently does not mean the Souphis in the Memphite dynasty above, but he may have misapplied the fact. I am strongly inclined to think that the pyramids were built in Egypt as early as these reigns, as buildings of that style and grandeur had been already raised upon the plains of Shinar, and many cities had been already founded even in the land of Canaan, * Anc. Frag, 159. † Ib. 94, 95, 96, 97. 16. 4, I must, for the present, omit any further remarks upon the coincidences here to be observed, till I shall have referred to some of the monumental discoveries. I would here, therefore, only remark, that Eratosthenes gives but 5 instead of 8 kings, though his number, 190 years, coincides with that required by the Old Chronicle; and at the conclusion of these 190 years, he changes his titles from Theban to Theban Egyptian kings, clearly denoting that after these 5 reigns a change of dynasty occurred. As the earliest of these sovereigns of Egypt must have rather been patriarchs or priests than kings, perhaps, with a direct succession, I suspect that the list exhibits a pedigree, and that the kingdom became divided into several petty sovereignties, constituted by the different branches of the family and there is some ground for this in the assertion of Artapanus and Eusebius, that the coun try was so divided.* In the general table of results, I have assumed the list of Eratosthenes. After the expiration of 190 years, the conquest of the country by the Shepherds was effected. As the problem relating to the Shepherd kings is one of the most intricate and important in the whole range of the inquiry, I will endeavour first to state the difficulties, and when they are once fairly before us, so many curious coincidences present themselves, that the difficulties will be found to vanish; and all the prominent points combine themselves into one very simple hypothesis, and fall into their proper places without the necessity of rejecting or misplacing one, and without exhibiting the slightest contradiction. All authors unite in attributing the expulsion of the Shepherd kings to the early princes of the 18th dynasty, and * Anc. Frag. 162. |