but from the account which, it is faid, he himself gave of the records from whence he took it, pretending to have extracted it from certain pillars in the Seriadic land, on which infcriptions had been made in the facred dialect and letters, by Thoth, the first Hermes; and were tranflated, after the flood, out of the facred dialect into the Greek (N) tongue in facred letters (O), and laid up in books by Agathodæmon, the son of the fecond Hermes, the father of Tat, in the inner receffes of the Egyptian temples 8. Now it is abfolutely impoffible, that the firft Hermes, who lived in the earliest ages of the Egyptian monarchy, could write an hiftory of fo many generations which came into the world after his death, unlefs he did it by infpiration: and it Manetho could be fo ftupid as to affert this, it must neceffarily have overthrown the credit of his whole work. But we do not think that writer could mean any fuch thing: the words cited from him do not fay he took his whole hiftory from thofe pillars; though he might, probably, quote thofe records to fupport the antient hiftory which preceded the * SYNCELL. P. 40. See vol. i. p. 169, 170, (E). (N). Dr. Stilling fleet (13), with great reafon, thinks this abfolutely incredible, the Greek language being not known in Egypt, at least not in request there, fo early as this: for the.. Greeks had little or no commerce with the Egyptians till the time of Pfammitichus, as we have obferved more than once. It feems alfo very unlikely, that Manetho fhould affert this; for, befides the improbability above-mentioned, the Egyptian ftory was fo far from being tranflated to his hand, that he himself was obliged to tranflate it into Greek from the facred registers (14); for which reafon we fufpect fome corruption in this paffage; and, if it be not too bold a conjecture, we should guess, that, inftead of C. xxnvida pavir, the Greek tongue, it ought to be read, exaégur pavar, the vulgar tongue: but we dare not di &tate, in fo dubious a point. t (0) The original words are, γράμμασιν ἱερογλυφικοῖς, which the learned writer,named in the preceding note, tranflates hieroglyphic characters, and very juftly wonders how any tranflation can be made into fuch characters, which reprefent things, and not words (15). But as these characters are plainly called letters, we conceive they could not be hieroglyphical in the common acceptation of the word, but rather fuppofe them to be the fame with the bierographic, or facred letters abovementioned. time of Thoth; and fuch pillars, or, at leaft, fome pillars which were of great antiquity, and by the priests attributed to Thoth, must have been extant in the days of Manetho, or he could never have appealed to them in fo public a manner, especially in writing to his prince. It may alfo be answered, that though Thoth made the first infcriptions on those pillars, yet it is not impoffible but, in fucceeding times, other infcriptions might be added to thofe of Thoth; for the pillars might be in common phrase ascribed to him, though the hiftorical infcriptions were continued after his death, by others. But, after all, it may be queftioned, whether Manetho really intended to fupport his hiftory by the authority of thofe pillars: for the paffage wherein he mentions them feems to have been taken out of another book of his, called Sothis, or Seth, which was not historical, but prophetical. For, in his dedication of that work to Ptolemy Philadelphus, he fays, that his interpreting the facred books of Hermes was in obedience to that prince's command, who inquired of him concerning the future events that were to happen in the world h. And as to the records from whence he took his hiftory, we are elsewhere assured, it was from the facred regifters i, which were kept by the priefts, and written in the Egyptian language, fince he tranflated them into Greek. THE ftronger prejudice, therefore, against the credit of this writer, arifes from his chronology. The Egyptians, it is true, pretended to an exceffive antiquity, and to have certain records for a prodigious length of time paft. This appears not only from the old chronicle above-mentioned, but from the extravagant numbers of years their priests impofed on Herodotus, Plato, and Diodorus (P); but Manetho h Vid. SYNCELL. P. 40. 1 JOSEPH. cont. Apion. 1. i. P. 1336. EUSEB. præp. ev. I. ii. in procem. (P) Some of thefe incredible accounts are as follow: netho seems to have been much more modeft. The fum of his thirty-one dynafties from Menes to fifteen years before Alexander (without taking the reigns of the gods and demigods into the account), if caft up, will amount to above 5300 years, which will reach higher than the creation of the world. And Jofeph Scaliger k has accordingly fettled their chronology in fuch a manner, that, by his own way of reckoning, it exceeds the epoch of the creation 1336 years. But there is a leffer number mentioned by Syncellus, who fays, the account of the years of all the dynafties was 3555; which is much more reasonable than the other, and yet will agree with no fyftem of chronology, unlefs we take part of this number for the reigns of the antediluvian princes of Egypt. Manetho, as we have already obferved, began his hiftory with feven gods, and nine demigods!, who reigned 1985 years; and then fucceeded mortal kings, the first of whom was Menes: these three races feem to be the fame with thofe called, in the old chronicle, Aurita, Meftræi, and Egyptians m. Now if we allow (as is moft reafonable, in cafe there be any fhadow of truth in this part of the hiftory), that the gods, or Aurita, were antediluvians; the demigods, or Meftræi, the poftdiluvians of the race of Mizraim; and the mortal men, or Egyptians, Menes and his fucceffors; and if we allow 1200 years, part of the 1985, for the reigns of the firft"; the remainder, 785, will be the years of the reign of Mizraim, and his defcendants: and,deducting the whole 1985 out of the faid 3555; there will remain 1570 years, the diftance from Menes to the fifteenth year before Alexander: This way of computing would be plaufible, were it not that the epoch of the Egyptian kingdom will, by this means, precede the difperfion of mankind; which can hardly be fuppofed, unless it be allowed, that the Egyptians reckoned the years of the government of their first ancestors over their defcendants before they left Shinaar, 1 See vol. i. p. 197. * Canon ifagog. 1. ii. p. 228. m Ibid. p. 196. Ibid. p. 197, 199. Years. From Orus,the laft of them, to the 180th Olympiad (22) 15,000 Kings of Egypt before Amafis reigned (23) 13,000 From their first mortal king to Sethon (24) 11,340 1 and arrived in Egypt. But the great objection of all is, that Manetho's number of 3555 appears to belong wholly to the fucceffors of Menes, and we have no manner of warrant to make any deduction from it. J. SOME Chronologers therefore, particularly father Petau (who took delight in contradicting Scaliger), reject the whole fcheme of Manetho's dynafties as fabulous, and of no manner of value, or credit. And others P, to whom Eufebius led the way in his canon 4, omit the firft fixteen dynafties only, and begin their chronology with the feventeenth, though they differ among themfelves in their computations. The first who, without rejecting any, earneftly fet about reducing the intire feries to the Scripture chronology, was the learned Sir John Marham, who firft gueffed, that thefe dynafties were not fucceffite, but collateral. He fuppofes that Egypt, immediately after the death of Menes, was divided into four diftinct kingdoms, of Thebes, This, Memphis, and the Lower Egypt, befides fome of leffer note, which arofe afterwards, and whofe epochs are more difficult to be fettled; and that it continued fo divided for almoft feven centuries, till the paftors made themfelves mafters of all, except that of Thebes after whofe expulfion, about 500 years after, Egypt became fubject to one prince. By this means, the duration of the whole empire, from Menes to the end of the reign of Amafis, is reduced to 1819 years. It must be obferved, that Sir John Marsham makes great use of the table of the Theban kings given us by Eratofthenes, of which we fhall fpeak by-and-by. THE next who undertook to model this Egyptian chro nology is father Pezron, who, by following the larger. chronology of the Septuagint, has more latitude, and allows the duration of the Egyptian empire 2619 years from Menes to Nectanebus. This author, likewife, goes on the fame foundation with Sir John Marsham, in making the first feventeen dynasties not fucceffive, but collateral. He is of opinion, that the Meftræans, or offspring of Mizraim, the first inhabitants of Egypt, were thofe whom their pofterity honoured with the titles of gods and demigods; and that, though they began to people the country, yet they formed no kingdom there till Menes, who began his • De doctr. tempor. 1. ix. c. 15. P CALVISIUS, UsPerizonius esteems the first four9 Chron. Græc. p. 89. his canon chronicus Egyptiacus, &c. In reign 648 years after the deluge. Sefoftris he places in the time of the judges of Ifrael, Deborah then prefiding over that people *. FROM the plans of these two great men, feveral other chronological writers have formed fyftems of their own, differing, in some respects, from them, as well as from each other. The chief care of them all is, to fix the times of Menes and Sefoftris; which when they have done, they imagine the reft follows almoft of courfe. The opinions, as to these two princes, are fo various, that it would lead us into too great a detail, to mention them all in this place; and what we judge moft curious, and worthy notice, in fuch difquifitions, will be more properly introduced, when we give their hiftories. One thing may generally be obferved, with respect to all these writers, especially with refpect to Perizonius, that they are much oftener in the right in refuting and detecting the errors and mistakes of one another, than in fettling or adjusting any thing of their own that may be fafely relied on. THE fundamental hypothefis which all thefe writers go upon, that there were, in the moft early times, feveral kingdoms in Egypt at once, feems to be very probable, the Scripture raentioning the kings of the Egyptians in the plural, even fo late as the time of Jehoram. The kingdoms of Thebes and Memphis divided Egypt between them for several centuries; and it is certain, from Herodotus and Diodorus, that there were, at least, two kings in that country at the time of the invafion of the Ethiopians under Sabbaco. But it does not appear, that Manetho himself, though he wrote the hiftory of five Egyptian nations, did make any of the dynasties he has given us collateral or contemporary; on the contrary, unlefs his tranfcribers have done hiin more wrong than we have reason to fufpect, he placed them all in a continual fucceffiona; and it is taking the utmoft liberty with Manetho to alter it, unless we charge the fault on the records which he transcribed. AFTER Cambyfes had carried away their records, the Egyptian priests, in all probability, to fupply their lofs, and keep up their pretences to antiquity, began to write new records, wherein they not only neceffarily made great miftakes, but added a good deal of their own invention, especially as to diftant times. From thefe materials, for want PEZRON, antiq. des temps retablie, c. 13. y 2 Kings vii. 6. 2 SYNCELL. P. 40. a See PERIZON. orig. Egypt. p. 62, &c. |