« PreviousContinue »
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.
· I. Page 127.
The following, from the Shu-King, is the entire original passage on which is based the high claim for the Chi
nese of a knowledge of astronomy as early as the 24th . century B. C.:
“ Thereupon Yaou commanded He and Ho, in reverent accordance with their observation of the wide heavens, to calculate and delineate the movements and appearances of the sun, the moon, the stars, and the zodiacal spaces, and so to deliver respectfully the same to the people.
“He separately commanded the second brother He to reside at Yu-e, in what was called the Bright Valley, and there respectfully to receive, as a guest, the rising sun, and to adjust and arrange the labors of the spring. The day,' he said, “is of the mediumn length, and the star is in Neaou. You may thus exactly determine mid-spring. The people begin to disperse, and birds and beasts breed and copulate.'
“He further commanded the third brother He to reside at Neankeaou, and arrange the transformations of summer, and respectfully to observe the extreme limit of the shadow. "The day,' said he, “is at its longest, and the star is Ho; you may thus exactly determine mid-summer. The people are more dispersed; and the birds and beasts have their feathers and hair thin, and change their coats.'
“He separately commanded the second brother Ho to reside at the west, in what was called the Dark Valley, and there respectfully to convoy the setting sun, and to adjust and arrange the completing labors of the autumn. The night," he said, “is of the medium length, and the star is Heu ; you may thus exactly
determine mid-autumn. The people begin to feel at ease, and birds and beasts have their coats in good condition.'
“He further commanded the third brother Ho to reside in the northern region, in what was called the Sombre Capital, and there to adjust and examine the changes of the winter. · The day,' said he, is at its shortest, and the star is Maou ; thus you may exactly determine mid-winter. The people keep their cosy corners; and the coats of birds and beasts are downy and thick.'
“ The emperor said, 'Ah, you! He and Ho, a round year consists of three hundred and sixty and six days. By means of an intercalary month do you fix the four seasons, and complete the determination of the year. Thereafter, in exact accordance with this regulating the various officers, all the works of the year will be fully performed.” — Chinese Classics, vol. iii. part i. pp. 18-21. * “ Now here are He and Ho. They have entirely subverted, their virtue, and are sunk and lost in wine. They have violated the duties of their office, and left their posts. They have been the first to allow the regulations of heaven to get into disorder, put
ting far from them their proper business. On the first day of · the last month of autumn, the sun and moon did not meet harmoniously in Fang. The blind musicians beat their drums; the inferior officers and common people bustled and ran about. He and Ho, however, as if they were mere personators of the dead in their offices, heard nothing and knew nothing so stupidly went they astray from their duty in the matter of the heavenly appearances, and rendered themselves liable to the death appointed by former kings. The statutes of the government say, • When they anticipate the time, let them be put to death without mercy; when they are behind the time, let them bę put to death without mercy!"" — Id. p. 165.