Page images
PDF
EPUB

Menes, the first mortal king of Egypt, begins his reign July 20, B. C. 5702. The chronology of thirty-one dynasties of kings is then given, extending to the conquest of Egypt by Alexander, November 14, B. C. 332, in the thirty thousand two hundred and twelfth year of the world. Of ten or twelve dynasties he gives the date only of the beginning and the end; of others he gives that of the individual kings; so that from Menes, July 20, B. C. 5702, to Alexander, November 14, B. C. 332, a period of five thousand three hundred and seventy years, we have one hundred and sixty-five dates, assigned with a precision that extends to the very day of the month!

This feature of the chronology, as it seems to me, is alone sufficient to stamp it as utterly unworthy of confidence. The first god-king begins to reign precisely on the 20th of July, thirty thousand five hundred and twenty-two years before Christ! Then follow gods, demigods, and manes, i. e., demons, for exactly twenty-four thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven years, till the accession of Menes, July 20, B. C. 5702! The first dynasty of human kings, eight in number, lasts from July 20, B. C. 5702, till May 18, B. C. 5449! And so on to the end of the chapter. Surely the student of history has a right to know on what grounds an author

bases such definiteness and precision in periods of high antiquity. The unlearned and credulous are likely to receive all this as the simple truth, when they see it so confidently put forth by an author of acknowledged eminence. For a more comprehensive view of the system, and of its real value, see Appendix, B.

In

In 1862, a work on chronology was published at Paris by Rodier, entitled, "Antiquity of the Human Races; Reconstruction of the Chronology and History of the Primitive Peoples, by an Examination of the original Documents, and by Astronomy." a second edition, which appeared in 1864, the author says, in his preface, that he has neglected no occasion and no means of eliciting criticism for the detection of errors; but as no criticisms of consequence have been offered, he issues the second edition as a simple reprint of the first. He evidently has increased confidence in the soundness of his work from the favor with which it was received.

The following paragraphs from the Introduction, showing the author's claims for his work, are all I need quote in this place :

"To show clearly the field of discussion, let us an

* Antiquité des Races Humaines; Reconstitution de la Chronologie et l'Histoire des Peuples Primitifs, par l'Examen des Documents originaux et par l'Astronomie. Par G. Rodier. Deuxième éd. Paris, 1844, 8vo., pp. 454.

nounce, in the outset, that we are able to demonstrate with precision (en mesure de demontrer), both chronologically and astronomically, the following epochs, viz. :

"The epoch of the year 14,611 B. C., the Egyptian period called Ma.

"The epoch of the Egyptian calendar at the end of the seventh dynasty, in the year B. C. 4266.

"The epoch of a reform of the Babylonian calendar, about the year B. C. 2783.

"The epoch of the reform of the Iranian calendar, by King Djemschid, about the year B. C. 7000, according to the chronology, or precisely in the year 7048, according to the cycles and astronomical verifications.

"The epoch of the commencement of the period, called the Satya Yuga of the Hindus, in the year B. C. 13,901. "The commencement of the Treta Yuga of the same people, in the year B. C. 9101.

"Several other epochs are capable of verification by astronomy, but with less precision; for example, the era of the Manavantaras in India, corresponding to the year B. C. 19,337, the era of Thoth in Egypt, corresponding to B. C. 17,932, &c., &c.

"All these eras constitute a complete whole (ont entre elles une solidarité), more or less perfect, but undeniable and characteristic; they proceed one from another by a filiation which becomes evident as soon as one has caught a glimpse of it. There are thus revealed, among the primitive peoples, connections and reciprocal influences of which history has lost the remembrance.

"We well know that to announce that our researches

lead to such results is to mark them for the contempt, perhaps even the hostility, of our readers. Every new truth assails at its birth old opinions, which never disap- + pear without offering a resistance more or less active and determined. Reason always ends, however, by triumphing over opposition. Profoundly convinced that our work re-establishes in their ancient rights very important truths which have been long obscured by a fatal misapprehension, we present it with confidence to the small number of readers who may be disposed to examine it without taking sides in advance." Appendix, C.

Such are the leading features of three elaborate systems of chronology, which profess to extend the period of man's existence to from twenty to thirty thousand years before Christ. They fall in with and seem to strengthen the geological and ethnological arguments for a high human antiquity. And I am not aware that the principles and details of either of them have been subjected to a critical examination. The consequence is, that our common system (or systems, for there are several, according to the different versions used) of Bible chronology is rejected as unworthy of credence. Many devout believers in inspiration, indeed, who till recently had never doubted its correctness, already feel their faith in it shaken. A professor in one of our colleges writes me that very recently he, was visiting the geological cabinet in company with a friend

and professed geologist, when, as they were looking at a stone adz, his friend remarked that it was certainly the work of man, and " gave unquestion*able evidence, by the situation in which it was found, of being at least one hundred thousand years old.” Similar opinions are finding frequent expression in our current popular literature. One of our most respectable daily papers, after giving an account of a late meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in which the discoveries in the river-drifts and caves of France and England were related, remarks, "The results of these researches thus far must revolutionize the longaccepted theory of the age of man, and add many thousand years (we dare not venture to say how many) to the period when it is believed he first trod the earth.” *

In view of these things, is there not a call for a new and thorough discussion of the question thus involved? If man has existed on the earth twenty, fifty, or a hundred thousand years, what, precisely, is the evidence of it? What traces of his existence during that long period has he left behind him? Do the facts adduced in opposition to the common view, when carefully and candidly weighed, prove what is claimed for them? Do they invalidate the

* Providence Daily Journal, October 4, 1866.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »