« PreviousContinue »
Years Then the 29th dynasty of Tanites, Lastly, the 30th “ Tanite, i generation,
In all, 30 dynasties, and 36,525 years. “ This number, resolved and divided into its parts, that is, 25 times 1461, shows the time of the restitution (artuxutánturer) of the zodiac, as fabled among the Egyptians and Greeks, which is its revolution from a particular point to the same again. This point is the first minute of the first degree of the equinoctial sign which they call the Ram, as is explained in the Genesis of Hermes, and the Cyraunian books."
G. Page 77.
ERATOSTHENES AND APOLLODORUS.
The testimony of these two eminent writers is so important in Egyptian chronology, that a fuller exhibit should be made of the outlines of their system...
Eratosthenes' list of names is as follows:
1. First reigned Menes, a Thenite (i. e., a Theban), who
is called Aionios (Eternal), . . . . 2. Athothis, son of Menes, surnamed Hermogenes, .. 3. Athothis II., . . . 4. Diabies, son of Athothis, . . . . 5. Pemphos, son of Athothis, called Herakleides, .
Toigar, the Invincible, a Memphite monocheir, sur
named Tisandros, a giant, . . . . 7. Stoichos, his son, called Ares, the Senseless, c. 8. Gosormies, the Desire of All, . . 9. Manes, his son, named Heliodorus (gift of the sun),
· Years 10. Anouphis, the Long-haired, . . . . 20 II. Sirios, named the son of the eye, . . . 12. Chnoubos Gneuros, i. e., Chryses, son of Chryses, . 22 13. Rhanosis, the Supreme, . . . . 14. Biuris, . . . . . . . 15. Saophis, the Long-haired, called by some the Money
getter, 16. Saophis II., . 17. Moscheres, Heliodotos (given by the sun), 18. Mosthes, . . . . . . 33 19. Pammes, Ruler of the Land, . . . . .
Apappus, Most Great, 21. Echeskosokaras, . . . . . . 22. Nitokris, a woman, surnamed Athene, the Victorious, 23. Myrtæos Ammonodotos (given by Amun), . . 24. Thuosimares, the Mighty, the Sun, . . . 25. Thinillos, who increased the power of his father, . 26. Semphroukrates, surnamed Hercules Arpocrates, 27. Chouther Tauros, a tyrant, . . . . . 28. Meures, Philoskoros (Lover of the Eye),.. 29. Chomaephtha, the World, loving Phtah, . 30. Soikunios, the Sharp, a tyrant, 31. Peteathyres, . . . . . . 7(?) 32. Sistosis (?) (Palmer supplies Ammenemes I.), . 33. Ammenemes II., . . . . . . 23 34 Sistosichermes, the Strength of Hercules, . . 35. Mares, . . 36. Siphoas, who is also Hermes, son of Phtah, 37. Phrouron, or Nilos, . . . . . 19 38. Amunthantaios, ·
· · 63 Total, . . . . . 1076 Several points here deserve attention. The first is the alleged commencement of the above list in the year of
the world 2900 (iris ngeuro uży to B =) étel 10m xóquov). Bunsen and Lepsius assume that this date was added by Syncellus; but of this there is no proof. Syncellus' own date for the creation of the world is B. C. 5500, and his era of Menes is B. C. 2776, i. e., in the year A. M. 2724, 124 years earlier than that given in the list of Eratosthenes. The particularity of the date A. M. 2900 creates a strong probability that it was either given expressly by the latter, or derived from some other definite date, which was well known, possibly that of the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, B. C. 525, or Artaxerxes Ochus, B. C. 341, from which it would be easy to reckon back to the beginning of the list. At any rate, it clearly was not a date given by Syncellus, and it can not be shown that it was not inserted by Eratosthenes himself. This computation places Menes at 638 years after the flood, according to the LXX.
The second point worthy of notice is the reason why, Syncellus did not give the names of the fifty-three other kings mentioned by Apollodorus. Bunsen is quite severe upon him for the omission.
“ The only natural explanation which suggested itselt to us when making the inquiry, was that Syncellus lost his patience in epitomizing that list. With infinite pains he had toiled through the awkward Egyptian names it contained; and the Greek versions of them, which he did not understand. With infinite pains he had made his calculations of the year of the world which coincided with each of the thirty reigns; taking as his starting-point the nearest possible year after the flood, according to his system. In reference to the calculation of the Father of Chronology, he made the epoch from the confusion of tongues down to Abra
ham as long as he thought admissible, and now, when he had arrived at the end of 1076 years, he was obliged to admit that all his pains had been thrown away. . . . He gives way to his ill humor, throws the list into the fire, and can not refrain from exclaiming, Even those names are totally unmanageable; how much more these fifty-three!!” (Egypt's Place, etc., vol. ii. p. 456.)
This charge of " losing his temper,” we pass over without more notice. But the cause of it deserves a further remark. Syncellus found the list “unmanageable,” and so, “ in ill humor,” cast it aside when less than half transcribed. The German savant himself finds no little difficulty of the same kind, and finds it much easier to dispose of the fifty-three names that were not transcribed. These, " the hasty words” of Syncellus,“ prove most decisively . ... were the kings of the middle empire, who reigned between the downfall of the old empire and the restoration, while the Hyksos had the supremacy, or at least possessed Lower Egypt and Memphis.” This is a most remarkable assumption, and Bunsen acknowledges that Lepsius combats the position. The thirty-eight reigns came down to about B. C. 1525, according to Syncellus, bordering on the time of the restoration, as we understand Bunsen ; and besides, the chronology of Eratosthenes evidently was, that the whole 91 (= 38 + 53) reigns of Theban kings covered the entire period from Menes till the time Egypt was conquered by Cambyses, about B. C. 526; at least, the eighty-six reigns of Egyptian kings, given by Syncellus, cover the whole of this period, commencing 124 years earlier.
Bunsen compares the names of the kings in this list with those of Manetho, and of the thirty-eight he claims to find nineteen in the latter, which “are either identical with them, or so nearly so, that to any one moderately versed in the system of Egyptian royal nomenclature the actual or possible correspondence between the two sets will be at once apparent.” (Vol. i. p. 134.)
It is true that the two first names, Menes and Athothis, and the twenty-second, Nitocris, are the same in each list. Three or four names are nearly the same, as Stammenemes for Ammenemes, Saophis for Suphis, and two or three others, have some resemblance; but to make Rammes to be the same as Thamphthis, Apappus as Phios, and Gosormies as Sesorthos, is making the “ royal nomenclature” a very indefinite affair. A name may be made anything or nothing. Bunsen says, “ The occasional discrepancy in the years of the reigns may be satisfactorily explained in various ways.” Now, this “ occasional discrepancy” is simply this: there is entire harmony in only three of the reigns he has identified; the discrepancy is almost universal.
The probability is, that some few of the names in the list of Eratosthenes are those of kings found in the list of Manetho; but still a great difficulty remains, which Bunsen has done little or nothing to remove.