of the Scripture Pharaoh Hophra, with the Apries of Herodotus, and with the Vaphre of Manetho's abbreviators. He has found his hieroglyphic name in legends upon the obelisk della Minerva, at Rome, and in those which cover some portions of the edifices of Philo.*

The reader will have remarked, that in what we have said concerning the four last Pharaohs, we have neglected the method we had previously followed of collating the dates of biblical chronology and those which have been deduced from the lists of Manetho. The want of positive chronological documents about the epochs of these last princes, has obliged us to abstain from such collations. The sacred books are sufficiently precise in some of the events which we have cited, and the indications which they give enable chronologists of the Bible to class them in their systems. Such is not the case in the chronology of the last Egyptian dynasties. The striking differences between Julius Africanus and Eusebius, concerning the number of kings belonging to these dynasties, and the total or individual duration of their reigns, ought to be explained by illustrations from the monuments and by the discussion of critics. Such an undertaking does not belong to us; it devolves upon the Champollions, whose future labors in this department promise satisfactory results. But whatever their success may be, the striking conformity we have remarked, between the names of the Scripture Pharaohs and those of the Egyptian annalists or of the monuments, is sufficient to give entire certainty to our synchronisms; and we believe that the results con

Aperçu des résultats historiques, etc. p. 14.

t The 3d Letter upon the Turin Museum describes the monuments which belong to the last dynasties; and the Chronological Notice of Champollion Figeac, will doubtless disengage the duration and dates of the reigns from the confusion in which they are now involved.

tained in this chapter are no more conjectural in their character, than some of the first which we have noticed.

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF MANETHO.

Of Manetho and his tablet of the kings of Egypt. Of the confidence which he deserves. Is his chronology opposed to that of the Bible? Probable chronological limits of the Egyptian monuments.

Champollion Figeac, as we have seen, has followed the chronological lists of Manetho, which have been confirmed by each new discovery upon the monuments. We cannot refuse the evidence of the results obtained by this learned man, and we have adopted in this work the chronological system which he has built upon the agreement of the monuments and the data of the Egyptian annalist. This fact furnishes a motive for us to add here a few critical observations upon Manetho, upon his writings, and upon the degree of confidence which he merits.

1. The Egyptian Manetho, a native of Sebennytus, flourished about the middle of the third century before our era, under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, that illustrious prince who caused the sacred books of the Jews to be translated into Greek. He was a priest of Heliopolis, and kept the sacred books of Egypt; offices which were of high importance, and which placed at his disposal an immense number of historic materials. We can regard him also as belonging to the celebrated school of Alexandria, which has shed so much splendor upon the reign of

134

the Lagida kings, its founders.

He wrote in Greek

astrological and historical subjects, hardly any of which have come Doubtless his most important work, that the down to us. loss of which has occasioned the deepest regret, was a universal history of Egypt in three volumes or parts. He had composed it from the memorials found in the archives of the temples, and had dedicated it to the king Ptolemy Philadelphus. Sextus Julius, surnamed Africanus, at a later period inserted Manetho's history in his Chronography, an important work which is also lost. We do not now possess the great work of the Egyptian annalist; we have only a small number of historic fragments which were preserved by Josephus, by Eusebius, and by some other ecclesiastical writers, and also the lists of the royal dynasties of Egypt, which are found in Syncellus, just as they are described by Julius Africanus and by Eusebius, who only abbreviated them. These isolated fragments and this sterile series of lists of Egyp tian kings, leave indeed much to be desired; but they are

many treatises on astronomical, or rather on

* 1 Sen the religion of Jesus Christ gread self in Egypt, this Estives scademy, or rider a new Christia school which was Arwel it is Jesen, seetized adžmona beners by furnishing the Church with mary dangusded scholars, such as Pontonus, Ciemend des dernie we whom was andet the thie if Bezmiria, She

the only remains of the national history of Egypt; and notwithstanding their paucity, they offer precious resources of learning, as we think we have shown in our previous investigations. For a more ample account of Manetho and his writings we refer our readers to the learned Fabricius,* and to the interesting work of M. Matter upon the celebrated school of the Ptolemies.† Let us now examine how far confidence may be reposed in the chronological data of the Egyptian historian.

2. Manetho has indeed been contradicted by some historians: Among these Josephus is the most ancient, who often corrects errors which the bad faith or ignorance of Manetho led him to commit in relation to the Jews-a people whose position being in a manner isolated amidst other nations, prevented the writers of antiquity from studying and sufficiently knowing them. Josephus has been followed by certain ecclesiastical writers, and by a great number of modern historians. But he is not always just, and he often combats narratives, simply because they are at variance with his favorite system concerning the identity of the Hebrews with the usurping dynasty of the Shepherds. Modern chronologists who have abandoned Manetho with disdain, have been influenced almost solely, by difficulties attending the numerous dynasties of Egyptian sovereigns, which they could not reconcile with any acknowledged system of chronology, because they construed too literally the narrative of the historian in question.

This man however, whose judgment or good faith some more recent writers have wished to impeach, has given proofs of a judicious criticism, by rectifying, in a special work, the errors of the Greek historian Herodotus, so far

*Bibliotheca Græca, tom. II. p. 494.

+ Essai historique sur l'école d'Alexandrie, tom. 1. p. 108.

as we can judge from the testimony of Eustathius. Josephus, whom no one would suppose too partial to him, elsewhere praises his exactness and his fidelity. Julius Africanus judged his history worthy of credit, since he introduced it into his Chronography, which is so often cited with commendation by the fathers and ecclesiastical writers of the first ages. Eusebius and Syncellus, though at times they abandon and combat him, have founded the whole of their Egyptian chronology upon that of Manetho. It seems to us that such evidence from ancient writers is of some weight in a question of this nature. We ought to add that many modern chronologists have followed Manetho with success in the solution of embarrassing difficulties; and especially Champollion Figeac, who, with his aid, first disentangled the confused chaos of Egyptian chronology. Finally, the reader has seen that proofs the most positive, such as the monuments, the manuscripts, the Pharaonic legends, the table of Abydos, etc., have hitherto fully justified the chronology of the priest of Heliopolis, and tend to give him, in every impartial mind, a part at least of the confidence which he enjoyed during the first ages of the church, and of which we think he was unjustly deprived at a later period.

Many have not yet sufficiently understood the situation of Manetho. The official historiographer of Egypt (for he wrote by the orders of his sovereign and from originals in the archives of the temples), would of course digest his history according to national doctrines which were in some manner connected with religion; and as a necessary result of this obligation, his history of primitive times would be blended with false traditions, which however had become dogmas among the Egyptians. Such not only are the gods and demigods which the old chronicles assign to the predecessors of Menes, and to which Manetho