tor, who put forth his own work under the stolen name of Manetho. (d.) The lists before us are not sustained by the evidence furnished by the monuments. We have no space to exhibit this fact in detail, and must be content with some general statements. The first is, that but a small portion of the names given by Manetho can be identified. Of the 554 in Africanus, or 367 in Eusebius, occurring in the first seventeen dynasties, Bunsen, with his utmost ingenuity, does not pretend to have identified more than 110, Lepsius about as many, Poole only 76, etc. No trace whatever is found of dynasties VII., VIII., IX., X., XIII., XIV., XV. Euseb., XVI., XVII. Afric. A period of Egyptian history, midway in its splendid career of art and arms, as long as the interval from Alfred the Great to Victoria, has left not a single fact or monument, nor even a grave, to attest its existence. Even Bunsen admits that it is "improbable and unexampled that a foreign people (the socalled "Shepherds") should maintain themselves in Egypt for nine, or even five centuries, and have lived so like barbarians that not a single monument of theirs can be pointed out.” "But this," adds Canon Trevor,* "is far from stating the entire marvel. Not only is no Hyksos monument remaining, * Ancient Egypt, p. 262. the charge that it had not been mentioned by Greek historians. In this work he refers to Manetho by name, and gives, professedly verbatim, long extracts from him. In comparing these with what we have of that author, we find very little resemblance between them. Of the narrative portion cited by Josephus there is absolutely nothing. His list of kings, twenty-five in all, begins with the XVth dynasty of Africanus, and ends with the early part of the XXth a period to which Manetho assigns ninety-eight kings. In Eusebius it begins with the XVIIth dynasty, and includes a period of but nineteen kings. The whole duration of these reigns in Josephus is 492 years, in Africanus 1216, in Eusebius 451. Nothing more, surely, is needed to show how utterly unworthy of confidence are the lists of Manetho. There is no reason to believe that Josephus did not give, literally, his extracts, as he professed to do, or that his works, which have been otherwise so well preserved, have been corrupted. He evidently had what he regarded as the original work before him. We see not how to avoid the conclusion.hat A tor, who put forth his own work under the stolen name of Manetho. (d.) The lists before us are not sustained by the evidence furnished by the monuments. We have no space to exhibit this fact in detail, and must he content with some general statements. The first is, that but a small portion of the names given by Manetho can be identified. Of the 554 in Africanus, or 367 in Eusebius, occurring in the first seventeen dynasties, Bunsen, with his utmost ingenuity, does not pretend to have identified more than 110, Lepsius about as many, Poole only 76, etc. No trace whatever is found of dynasties VII., VIII., IX., X., XIII., XIV., XV. Euseb., XVI., XVII. Afric. A period of Egyptian history, midway in its splendid career of art and arms, as long as the interval from Alfred the Great to Victoria, has left not a single fact or monument, nor even a grave, to attest its existence. Even Bunsen admits that it is "improbable and unexampled that a foreign people (the socalled "Shepherds ") should maintain themselves in Egypt for nine, or even five centuries, and have lived so like barbarians that not a single monument of theirs can be pointed out." "But this,” adds Canon Trevor,* "is far from stating the entire marvel. Not only is no Hyksos monument remaining, * Ancient Egypt, p. 262. the charge that it had not been mentioned by Greek historians. In this work he refers to Manetho by name, and gives, professedly verbatim, long extracts from him.* In comparing these with what we have of that author, we find very little resemblance between them. Of the narrative portion cited by Josephus there is absolutely nothing. His list of kings, twenty-five in all, begins with the XVth dynasty of Africanus, and ends with the early part of the XXth a period to which Manetho assigns ninety-eight kings. In Eusebius it begins with the XVIIth dynasty, and includes a period of but nineteen kings. The whole duration of these reigns in Josephus is 492 years, in Africanus 1216, in Eusebius 451. Nothing more, surely, is needed to show how utterly unworthy of confidence are the lists of Manetho. There is no reason to believe that Josephus did not give, literally, his extracts, as he professed to do, or that his works, which have been otherwise so well preserved, have been corrupted. He evidently had what he regarded as the original work before him. We see not how to avoid the conclusion, that Africanus and Eusebius, or Syncellus, who reported them, used some abridgment or epitome made by some other person, either a bungling transcriber, a willful falsifier, or an impos* See Appendix, H. tor, who put forth his own work under the stolen name of Manetho. (d.) The lists before us are not sustained by the evidence furnished by the monuments. We have no space to exhibit this fact in detail, and must he content with some general statements. The first is, that but a small portion of the names given by Manetho can be identified. Of the 554 in Africanus, or 367 in Eusebius, occurring in the first seventeen dynasties, Bunsen, with his utmost ingenuity, does not pretend to have identified more than 110, Lepsius about as many, Poole only 76, etc. No trace whatever is found of dynasties VII., VIII., IX., X., XIII., XIV., XV. Euseb., XVI., XVII. Afric. A period of Egyptian history, midway in its splendid career of art and arms, as long as the interval from Alfred the Great to Victoria, has left not a single fact or monument, nor even a grave, to attest its existence. Even Bunsen admits that it is "improbable and unexampled that a foreign people (the socalled "Shepherds ") should maintain themselves in Egypt for nine, or even five centuries, and have lived so like barbarians that not a single monument of theirs can be pointed out." "But this," adds Canon Trevor, "is far from stating the entire marvel. Not only is no Hyksos monument remaining, * * Ancient Egypt, p. 262. |