British Museum, describing a judicial inquiry concerning robberies committed in the royal tombs at Thebes. The tombs of the kings are described as having been inspected. In one of these tombs the king Antuf-ãa is reported to be represented on a tablet accompanied by his hound Behkaa. This tomb has quite recently been discovered by M. Mariette at Drah-abu'lneggah, with the picture of the king, and the dog's name Behkaa written over the picture of the animal. The inscription on the tablet is dated from the fiftieth year of the king.

Evidence like this proves that there is no exaggeration in the list of Abydos. It does not aim at presenting a complete list of kings. It only mentions those for whom Seti had a special devotion. The disappearance of Memphis and other great cities is quite sufficient to account for the absence of monumental evidence for some of the reigns. It is very probable that the earliest kings left no monuments. But for nearly every king on the tablet who is unrepresented by monumental evidence, we can produce another king omitted by the tablet, but whose reign is proved by unimpeachable evidence.

Genealogies.

The evidence of such genealogies as are found in the tombs leads to chronological results very similar to those derived from the succession of the kings. These genealogies have nothing fabulous about them, like

those against which Mr. Grote cautions his readers; they are as completely matter of fact as any recorded on the tombstones of our own churchyards.1

Manetho.

A great many writers who have treated of Egyptian chronology have endeavoured to utilize the names and numbers given in the fragments of Manetho. There is not the slightest reason for questioning the fact that Manetho had access to authentic historical records; and if his work were still extant, it would be of invaluable service to us. As it is, we are indebted to him for the notion of the division into dynasties with local origins, all of which have been accurately verified. But his work has unfortunately been lost, and the few fragments of it which remain, and which give but an imperfect notion of the whole, have been preserved by writers who do not appear to have observed strict accuracy in their quotations, and they have clearly in some instances quoted him at second-hand. The late Dr. Hincks, who had given great attention to the

1 The funereal tablets often mention the name of the father and mother and some other near relatives of the departed. One tablet seldom goes back three or more generations. And the longest genealogy which has been recovered appears to be defective rather than otherwise. Dr. Lieblein's "Dictionnaire des noms hiéroglyphiques" contains an invaluable collection of these family records arranged in chronological order.

subject, has pointed out a series of deliberate falsifications of Manetho's lists made by the early Christian and perhaps by Jewish chronologers for the purpose of bringing these lists into harmony with the Old Testament, or rather with fanciful interpretations of the Old Testament. He does not attribute these falsifications to dishonest motives, but to "mistakes or injudicious attempts to correct mistakes."

Absolute Dates.

It was once generally supposed (and I have myself written in favour of the supposition1) that absolute dates might be detected on the monuments. The heliacal risings of certain stars were calculated by M. Biot as fixing the reign of one king in 1300 B.C., and of another king in the year 1444. But I no longer believe that the Egyptian texts really bear out the interpretation which furnishes the data of these cal

1 On "The Earliest Epochs of Authentic Chronology," in Home and Foreign Review, 1862, p. 420. M. Biot, in his "Mémoire sur quelques dates absolues," and after him M. Romieu and Dr. Gensler, have dealt with the Egyptian calendars as if they recorded the risings of certain stars. But the text of the calendars distinctly speaks of the transits of the stars, and never of their risings. I have discussed this question in the Chronicle, 25 Jan. 1868, and in the Transactions of the Society for Biblical Archaeology, Vol. III. M. E. de Rougé has a very important "Note sur quelques conditions préliminaires des calculs qu'on peut tenter sur le calendrier et les dates égyptiennes," in the Revue Archéologique, 1864, Vol. II. p. 81.

culations. Dr. Dümichen,1 Dr. Lauth2 and other scholars have written in favour of other fixed dates which they believe can be determined astronomically. But whether these dates are right or wrong (and I am unwilling to express an opinion on questions which I have not personally investigated), matters but little for our present purpose. The essential point upon which I wish to insist is, that the Egyptian monarchy, according to the most moderate calculation, must have already been in existence fifteen hundred years at the very least, but probably more than two thousand years, before the book of Exodus was written.

Egyptian Monarchy anterior to 3000 B.C.

The composition of the book of Exodus, however, cannot unfortunately be considered a fixed date. The opinion which used to be universally received, that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, must assuredly be abandoned. I am quite ready to admit that the

1 “Die erste bis jetzt aufgefundene sichere Angabe über die Regierungszeit eines ägyptischen Königs aus dem alten Reich, welche uns durch dem medicinischen Papyrus Ebers überliefert wird:" Leipzig, 1874.

2 "Aegyptische Chronologie, basirt auf die vollständige Reihe der Epochen seit Bytes-Menes bis Hadrian-Antonin durch drei Sothisperioden = 4380 Jahre." See also a paper of M. Chabas, "Détermination d'une date certaine dans le règne d'un roi de l'ancien empire en Egypte," in the Mémoires presentés à l'Académie des inscriptions. et belles lettres, 1877.

E

co-existence in the Pentateuch of the documents called Elohistic and Jehovistic is in itself no argument against the authorship of Moses. But the fact that these documents continue to run through the book of Joshua furnishes an argument which admits of no reply. The book of Joshua and the book of Exodus are parts of one and the same work, and the historical allusions in the book of Joshua have compelled some of the commentators who pride themselves most upon their orthodoxy (Matthew Henry, for instance), to refer the authorship of it to times subsequent to the foundation of the Hebrew monarchy.

But though the book of Exodus as a whole may not be the work of a contemporary, there is really no reason for doubting the accuracy of the statement about Pithom and Rameses. Egyptian history renders it most probable that Moses was a contemporary of the great Rameses. The exodus of the Israelites cannot with any probability be brought lower down than 1310 years before Christ, and it is about 2050 before this that I would place the lowest limit for estimating the beginning of the historical Egyptian monarchy. The date of the Great Pyramid cannot be more recent than 3000 B.C.

Pre-historic Antiquity of Human Race in Egypt.

This is undoubtedly a great and venerable antiquity, but it is after all very inferior to the antiquity of the