for twelve years and three months; after him Armais, for four years and one month; after him was Ramesses, for one year and four months; after him came Armesses Miammoun, for sixty years and two months; after him Amenophis, for nineteen years and six months; after him came Sethosis, and Ramesses, who had an army of horse and a naval force. This king appointed his brother Armais to be his deputy over Egypt.' In another copy it stood thus: After him came Sethosis and Ramesses, two brethren, the former of whom had a naval force, and in a hostile manner destroyed those that met him upon the sea; but as he slew Ramesses in no long time afterward, so he appointed another of his brethren to be his deputy over Egypt. He also gave him all the authority of a king, but with these only injunctions, that he should not wear the diadem, nor be injurious to the queen, the mother of his children, and that he should not meddle with the other concubines of the king; while he made an expedition against Cyprus and Phoenicia, and beside against the Assyrians and the Medes. He then subdued them all, some by his arms, some without fighting, and some by the terror of his great army; and being puffed up by the great success he had had, he still went on the more boldly, and overthrew the cities and countries that lay in the eastern parts; but after some considerable time, Armais, who was left in Egypt, did all these very things, by the way of opposition, which his brother had forbidden him to do, without fear; for he used violence to the queen, and continued to make use of the rest of the concubines, without sparing any of them; nay, at the persuasion of his friends he put on the diadem, and set up to oppose his brother; but then he who was set over the priests of Egypt wrote letters to Sethosis, and informed him of all that had happened, and how his brother had set up to oppose him; he therefore returned back to Pelusim immediately, and recovered his kingdoms again. The country also was called from his name Egypt; for Manetho says that Sethosis himself was called Egyptus, as was his brother Armais called Danaus.''

"The language of the last paragraph gives rise to a doubt as to where the quotation from Manetho should close. We have placed the quotation marks as we find them in the translation of Whiston.

For the sake of convenience in comparing this list of Josephus with those of Africanus and Eusebius for the same period in history, we arrange the names in a concise tabular form:

KINGS OF THEBAIS, OR THOSE AFTER THE EX

PULSION OF THE SHEPHERDS.

In comparing these names of Josephus with the corresponding ones of Africanus and Eusebius, the following points of resemblance and discrepancy appear:

As to the Shepherd kings: Africanus has 81 names,whose reigns (allotting one half of the duration of the 17th dynasty to the Shepherds) covered 877 years; Eusebius gives 4 names, with a period of 103 years; and Josephus 6, with a period of 260 years, saying that the time the Shepherds dwelt in Egypt was 518 years.

Africanus assigns the 15th, 16th, and a part of the 17th dynasty to the Shepherds; Eusebius makes the 17th dynasty only to consist of Shepherd kings.

The 15th dynasty of Africanus, of 6 Shepherd kings, corresponds nearly with the 6 Shepherd kings of Josephus, three or four of the names being nearly alike, and the duration of five reigns being exactly the same, months excepted, the other reign differing by 25 years.

In view of these facts, we think we are warranted in drawing the following conclusion:

The Manetho of Josephus is not the same person as the Manetho of Africanus and Eusebius; or if, as some suppose (e. g., Bunsen, as we understand him), Africanus made an epitome of the work from which Josephus quotes, or used one made by others before him (Eusebius

only having before him the epitome of Africanus), this epitome was so imperfect and erroneous, or is so corrupt through carelessness or design, or both, that it is of little or no critical value, except in its later portions. But the supposition that the lists of Africanus and Eusebius are epitomized from the work which Josephus quotes, can not be sustained on critical grounds. The Jewish historian quotes in extenso a number of passages from a work of Manetho in three books, which he says the latter wrote in Greek, translating from the Egyptian language; his extracts are in good Greek, quoted, professedly, verbatim; he gives the duration of the reigns in years and months, stating the historical incidents connected with them in historical style. Now, in an epitome of such a work, should we not at least expect an essential correspondence in names (since the language is the same), and in the duration of the reigns, and in the principal historical incidents, that might be noticed? But what is the fact? Why, in regard to the so-called Shepherd kings, where Josephus gives six names, covering a period of 260 years, Africanus speaks of 81 kings, covering a period of about 877 years; of the six names which the latter gives of the Shepherds in his 15th dynasty, none are exactly the same. as those of Josephus, three have a near resemblance, and three are almost entirely different, the duration of five of the reigns being exactly the same, the months excepted. The latter fact identifies historically the 15th dynasty of Africanus with the six kings mentioned by Josephus; while the discrepancy in the names, and the additional number of Shepherd kings which constitute his 16th and

17th dynasty, show that the list was not derived from the same work which Josephus quotes, but from other documents and records, which were perhaps but imperfectly understood. The same is true in regard to the succeeding seventeen names given by Josephus, which evidently make the 18th dynasty of Africanus; while some resemblance in names, and a correspondence in duration in reigns, identify the kings historically, yet the discrepancies clearly prove that the list of Africanus could not have been derived from the work which Josephus quotes, but from other sources, perhaps the original records from which that work was compiled, not perfectly understood. Different translators would transfer the same names in a different form; and in regard to such records as those of ancient Egypt, parts would be obscure, and naturally understood differently by different interpreters.

The supposition, then, which best harmonizes with all the known facts of the case, is, that the Manetho of Josephus is not the Manetho of Africanus and Eusebius; that the list of Africanus was derived from another work than that quoted by Josephus, perhaps the so-called PseudoManetho, or some writer who undertook to rearrange the dynasties, and put forth his work under the name of the first leading writer of Egyptian history. He may have stated that his work was mainly compiled from that of the original Manetho, which statement has not been preserved.