Page images
PDF
EPUB

years; and on what authority does the writer make this the starting-point for a reckoning with another cycle of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years, if there be such a cycle? And then, again, what becomes of his reckoning, when it is regarded as demonstrable, that the thirty dynasties of Manetho were not all consecutive — that part of them were contemporaneous? by which fact the duration of the Egyptian empire, from Menes to Alexander, is curtailed from two to three thousand years. He had the works of Bunsen, Lepsius, Poole, and Wilkinson, etc., before him, - or ought to have had, - in which the various versions of Manetho are given ; but, as far as I am aware, he has not even hinted that different results had been arrived at by those scholars and others. Whereas, in point of fact, there are equally authentic numbers, both historical and mythological, which, if employed, would have varied that date several hundreds, or even thousands, of years ; so that, instead of a coincidence between the historical and astronomical numbers within the limits of five years, there might have been made a discrepancy of some two or three thousand. But the point of his argument all turns on this coincidence within five years.

But the astronomy of Rodier is worse than his history. He says that Claudius Ptolemy made use, in his tables, of a cycle of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years, referring to Syncellus (p. 52) for authority. But his authority does not sustain the assertion. Ptolemy made use of no such cycle; at least, the passage referred to does not prove that he did. But supposing he did, how

does that authorize him (Rodier) to take that number, and by it ascend into antiquity, and verify a date fifteen thousand years before? Even if the number were legitimate or true, it could not be available for such a use. Such an application of it is unscientific and absurd. The absurdity may be well illustrated by a reference to the Julian period. The Julian period is formed by multiplying together the numbers of the solar cycle, lunar cycle, and cycle of indiction, i. e., 28 X 19 X 15. The product of these numbers is 7980. This period began B. C. 4713; i. e., the commencements of these three cycles coincide that year, as is found by reckoning backward

from any point of time when the cycles were in use in the • Roman empire. Now, supposing any one should at

tempt to maintain from this that the Roman state was in being, and the particular civil matters connected with the cycle of indiction were in vogue, B. C. 4713, his argument would be parallel to that of our French savant in the premises before us. I ask, in all soberness, is any language of denunciation too severe properly to characterize such a work? If there is in the whole compass of scientific literature a more inconclusive argument, a more irrational or uncritical process, than that of our author in his astronomical verification, as he terms it, of the date B. C. 14,611, it has not come under my notice.

Others of Rodier's dates, of a high antiquity, are open to the same criticism that I have bestowed on the few above mentioned.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

D. Page 68.
MANETHO.

The following is the account of Manetho. 15 prav Syncellus :

“It remains, therefore, to make certain etno snerung te dynasties of the Egyptians from the wrong si Maneho he Sebennyte, the high priest of the idolatrous noies ar por 1 the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus. These acarti: TL 11 account, he copied from the inscriptions which were the sacred dialect and hieroglyphic character upon se sumns set up in the Seriadic land by Thoth the first Here: and ates the deluge, translated from the sacred dialect into e Car tongue, in hieroglyphic character; and committed s uig books, and deposited by Agathodæmon, the son sé he osad Hermes, the father of Tåt, in the penetra a se stegne enga sé Egypt. He has addressed and explained them a P E SNIK the second king Ptolemy, in the book estised SOA ** foi lows:

""The Epistle of Manetko, tke Sebersyte, to Ptolemy Palace phus. To the great and august king Prolety Pa p ou. Manétho, the high priest and scribe of the sacred adita, beng by birth a Sebennyte, and citizen of Heliopolis to las sovereign Ptolemy, greeting:

" It is right for us, most mighty king, to pay due attention to all things which it is your pleasure we should take into consideration. In answer, therefore, to your inquiries concerning the things that shall take place in the world, I shall. according to your commands, lay before you what I have gathered from the sacred books written by Hermes Trismegistus, our forefather, Farewell, my prince and sovereign.""*

* Syncellus, Chron. p. 40.

does that authorize him (Rodier) to take that number, and by it ascend into antiquity, and verify a date fifteen thousand years before? Even if the number were legitimate or true, it could not be available for such a use. Such an application of it is unscientific and absurd. The absurdity may be well illustrated by a reference to the Julian period. The Julian period is formed by multiplying together the numbers of the solar cycle, lunar cycle, and cycle of indiction, i. e., 28 x 19 X 15. The product of these numbers is 7980. This period began B. C. 4713 ; i. e., the commencements of these three cycles coincide that year, as is found by reckoning backward from any point of time when the cycles were in use in the Roman empire. Now, supposing any one should attempt to maintain from this that the Roman state was in being, and the particular civil matters connected with the cycle of indiction were in vogue, B. C. 4713, his argument would be parallel to that of our French savant in the premises before us. I ask, in all soberness, is any language of denunciation too severe properly to characterize such a work? If there is in the whole compass of scientific literature a more inconclusive argument, a more irrational or uncritical process, than that of our author in his astronomical verification, as he terms it, of the date B. C. 14,611, it has not come under my notice.

Others of Rodier's dates, of a high antiquity, are open to the same criticism that I have bestowed on the few above mentioned.

D. Page 68.

MANETHO.

The following is the account of Manetho, as given by Syncellus:

“It remains, therefore, to make certain extracts concerning the dynasties of the Egyptians from the writings of Manetho the Sebennyte, the high priest of the idolatrous temples of Egypt in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus. These, according to his own account, he copied from the inscriptions which were engraved in the sacred dialect and hieroglyphic characters upon the columns set up in the Seriadic land by Thoth, the first Hermes; and, after the deluge, translated from the sacred dialect, into the Greek * tongue, in hieroglyphic characters; and committed to writing in books, and deposited by Agathodæmon, the son of the second Hermes, the father of Tât, in the penetralia of the temples of Egypt. He has addressed and explained them to Philadelphus, the second king Ptolemy, in the book entitled Sothis, as follows:

"The Epistle of Manetho, the Sebennyte, to Ptolemy Philadelphus. To the great and august king Ptolemy Philadelphus, Manétho, the high priest and scribe of the sacred adyta, being by birth a Sebennyte, and citizen of Heliopolis, to his sovereign, Ptolemy, greeting:

“ . It is right for us, most mighty king, to pay due attention to all things which it is your pleasure we should take into consideration. In answer, therefore, to your inquiries concerning the things that shall take place in the world, I shall, according to your commands, lay before you what I have gathered from the sacred books written by Hermes Trismegistus, our forefather. Farewell, my prince and sovereign.'"*

* Syncellus, Chron. p. 40.

« PreviousContinue »