On the previous Conditions necessary for the Origin of a Chronology among the Egyptians, and the Possibility of its Restoration.

PAGE

Favourable Conditions for an early Egyptian History and Chronology 368-396

External Circumstances in favour of an Historical Development 368-374

Influence of the Local Character and Climate upon the Preservation of the Monuments 368-371

Abundance of Building Stone 371

Bricks. Papyrus used as a Writing Material 372

Intellectual Basis and Proofs of Historical Activity 374-396

National Historical Sense of the Egyptians 374-380

Earlier and more extended Habit of Writing 377-380

Books. Libraries 380

Fame of Egyptian Wisdom and Learning among the Greeks 382

Sacred Writings of the Egyptians 387

Remains of Historical Literature 392

Retrospective View 397-400

FIRST PART OF THE CHRONOLOGY.

Criticism upon the Authorities.

The Hebrew Tradition 401-493

Uncertainty of the Hebrew Numbers 401

The Exodus according to Manetho 404

The Exodus according to Hecataeus and Diodorus 408

The Exodus of the Lepers the same as that of the Israelites 411

The Pharaoh of the Exodus according to Manetho 417

The Pharaoh of the Exodus according to Ptolemy Mendesius, Apion Josephus 420

The Pharaoh of the Exodus according to Eusebius 422

The Pharaoh of the Exodus according to Lysimachus 423

Intimations concerning the Time of the Exodus in the Old Testament 424

The Situation of Abaris 425

The Situation of Heroonpolis 434

The Situation of Ramses 437

The Town of Ramses built by Ramses-Miamun (Ramses II.) 438

Canal Connection between the Nile and the Red Sea 439

The Towns Pithom and Ramses, on the Canal of Ramses II., built in the Reign of Ramses II. 446

The Exodus of the Israelites later than Ramses II. 449

The Exodus in the year B.C. 1314 according to the Rabbinical Chronology 450

The Date of the Exodus according to the Jewish Generations 457

The Date of the Exodus according to the Book of Judges 470

The Period from Jacob and Joseph to Moses 475-485

The Pharaoh of Joseph in Herodotus and Diodorus 480

The Period from Abraham to Moses 485-492

Joseph placed during the Reign of Aphophis 487

End of Hebrew Tradition 492

The genuine Manethonic Numbers 494

Retrospective View 496

Tables of Egyptian Dynasties 499

INTRODUCTION TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EGYPTIANS.

While the beginnings of Greek and Roman history, by the strict investigations of modern criticism, have lost more and more of their historical character, and while cautious inquirers consider it impossible to obtain a fixed date for separate events, earlier than the seventh and eighth centuries before Christ, the history of Egypt treats of strictly historical facts, and its chronology contains exact numbers of years, months, and days in the third and fourth millennium previous to our era. This appears such a palpable contradiction, that it is not alone worth while on account of the larger circle of readers who are more out of the scope of these investigations, but it must also be important to the inquirers in this field, to answer for themselves the preliminary question, how it is possible to prosecute the history of Egypt so much farther back than the history of the nations of the West and East, without denying the principles of that criticism which has pointed out limits to the history of classical antiquity, and which must justly be considered the most valuable treasure of modern science?

In order to answer this question, we must first call to mind that it has now become a principle, derived from experience, that the real history of a nation, in the strictest sense of the word, never recedes much farther back than its _oldest contemporaneous authorities_, and this once expressed, becomes, from its intrinsic necessity, self-evident. This principle applies both to us—since our certain conclusions in historical investigations do not extend much farther back—and also to the nations themselves; for they only obtain historical consciousness and historical experience when they begin to produce monuments, especially written monuments, to bear witness to posterity of what is occurring. Monuments form the dial-plate of history; until they exist, the present alone belongs to a nation, not the past—it exists without a history. If a nation loses its monuments, either through its own fault or through circumstances, it will be unable to preserve its history, which becomes confused and traditionary, and in place of the purely historical account which it has lost, it obtains, at the best, another principle of internal order; a poetic-mythological, as with the Greeks; a philosophic-mythological, as with the Indians; or a religious one, as with the Israelites; but it always loses its original value as a reproduction of a series of real facts.

Now if we start from this axiom, that the commencement of every true history and chronology, as it is scientifically understood at the present day, cannot be carried much farther back than their _oldest contemporaneous authorities_, and that we find this confirmed in the nations of Europe and Asia to the prejudice of their earliest histories, then it is here precisely that exists the marked _superiority_ of the history of Egypt above all other histories. It is because we have here _such very early contemporaneous authorities_—not only _literary_, but the most direct which exist, namely, _monumental authorities_—that we possess the means of obtaining so early a history of the Egyptians.

If, with reference to this, we first observe the local and climatal conditions of Egypt, we shall at once perceive that they aid in a wonderful manner in preserving all kinds of monuments and other relics of the earliest antiquity. A damp climate generally prevails in the more elevated and northern parts of Asia; and in the more favoured regions, owing to a periodical rainy season, the extensive plains are covered with a fertile soil and luxuriant vegetation (the barren and stony deserts being always deprived of any high cultivation), consequently all, even the most solid, monuments of art, where we might have hoped to find them in considerable numbers, are overpowered and destroyed by the predominating vital power of nature, ever inimical to the works of man; whereas the fertility of Egypt, as is well known, is almost entirely independent of rain. This certainly applies less to the damp air, often pregnant with rain, along the sea-coast, or to the well-watered and marshy low district of the Delta. But it is principally for that reason that there are so few remains of the numerous large and flourishing towns of the Delta, and that these are hardly worth mentioning. Irregular heaps of ruins alone exist now of Memphis, the rich metropolis of Lower Egypt, renowned in the earliest and latest periods of the Monarchy, and of Heliopolis, Sais, Bubastis, and other important towns. The granite obelisks in Alexandria are so corroded by the weather that their inscriptions are hardly recognisable.

In Upper Egypt, where it _scarcely ever_ rains, it is totally different, especially with respect to all the monuments which are situated on the borders of the desert, out of reach of the annual inundation, and this is uniformly the case with the _tombs_, the richest store-houses for our knowledge of ancient Egyptian life, which in this country alone really fulfil their true destination, by serving as an asylum against destruction and decay. The narrow district of the Nile, annually recreated, borders in its whole length on the wide, rocky, and petrifying desert. The towns and temples were therefore chiefly built on the boundary between the two, partly not to intrench upon the fertile ground, partly in order that the buildings should be upon a drier and more secure foundation. And thus, in fact, we find the numerous temples and palaces in wonderful preservation, so far as they are not mutilated by the hand of man.

Even the black bricks made of Nile mud, and dried in the sun, apparently the most perishable material, have not unfrequently been preserved in the open air for thousands of years, in the form in which they were built up, and with their coating of plaster. A row of great vaulted halls, built entirely of black Nile bricks, and partly covered in the inside with stucco, stands about the celebrated temple of the great Ramses, in Thebes. They date from the same period as the temple itself, the beginning of the thirteenth century before Christ. This is not alone testified by the architectonic plan of the building, but most irrefutably by the bricks themselves, which bear the name of Ramses-Miamun stamped upon them, as a mark of the royal manufacture. At that time, and earlier, during the whole of the 18th and 19th Dynasties, it was a very common practice to line the excavated rock-tombs with Nile bricks, and afterwards to paint upon the stucco, especially wherever the rock was friable, and was therefore hewn into a vaulted roof. But the same custom is sometimes found even in the earliest period of the Pyramids of Memphis. In enclosed places, not only the building material, but the colours, both upon the stone and upon the plaster covering, have almost without exception retained their original freshness and perfection, and also, very frequently, where they have been exposed to the open air.

The peculiar incorruptibility of vegetable and even of animal matter is, however, still more astonishing. Our museums are filled with such remains. In the most ancient tombs of Memphis, a multitude of objects are found made of wood, such as sarcophagi, chests, and boxes of all kinds, chairs, instruments, small ships, likewise grains of corn, and dried fruits, such as pomegranates, dates, the fruit of the Doum Palm, nuts, almonds, beans, grapes; also bread and other food, besides cloth made of bast, a texture of reeds, papyrus, and an incredible quantity of linen. The countless number of mummies, also, are well known, which, though taken out of their tombs, still last for centuries with their skin and hair; also all mummified bodies of animals, with their furs and feathers; even the internal parts of the human body could there be embalmed for ever, and are still found in vases expressly designed for that purpose.

This wonderful conservative property belonging to all ancient Egyptian objects, depends therefore chiefly upon the sky being without rain, and the dry soil of the non-irrigated desert. But the country offered another marked advantage above other lands, namely, the greatest abundance of _materials especially adapted for all kinds of monuments_.

Chief among these, is an admirable stone of the most varied quality, suited as well to building of all kinds, as to the most delicate sculpture. The mountain range which flanks the valley, and follows the course of the river from the Delta to beyond Thebes, is composed of limestone; in the neighbourhood of ancient Memphis, upon the Lybian side, where the Pyramids stand, it is a solid nummulitic limestone, more adapted for excavations in the rock, and for building stone, than for sculpture; on the opposite side, among the Arabian mountains, it has the finest grain, and is of a uniform density, approaching almost to marble; it is capable of being worked in any manner, and on account of the beautiful polish it takes, was used, among other purposes, for the external covering of the Pyramids, while the interior was made of the Lybian stone off the ground, upon which they were erected. The Theban range of mountains is almost everywhere composed of rock, of such an extremely fine quality, that the sepulchral passages and chambers of the dead, hewn out in the living rock, most of them several hundred feet deep, running in various directions, were capable of receiving everywhere the richest sculptures, in the most delicate bas-reliefs, directly upon the polished surface of the rock. Beyond Thebes there are ranges of sandstone mountains, from Gebel-Selseleh to Assuan. From these, and especially from the enormous stone-quarries of Selseleh, the architects as well as the sculptors of the New Monarchy obtained their chief supply of the most excellent and durable fine-grained sandstone. Finally, the syenite and granite of Assuan are still considered the most beautiful and valuable of their kind, and were also used by the ancient Egyptians not only for their monolithic colossi, obelisks, sarcophagi, statues for entire small temples, &c., but were employed as a building stone, at all periods. In the Pyramid of Chufu, the high walls, the ceiling, and floor of the greatest sarcophagus chamber, are entirely made of polished granite, and the third Pyramid of Mencheres was cased with it up to a certain height.

I shall here pass over all the other more valuable kinds of stone, particularly those of the higher Arabian mountains, abundantly used in ancient Egypt, each in its own way, especially the beautiful yellow alabaster, several very valuable breccias, greenstone, serpentine, and the bluish-red porphyry of Gebel-Dochân, which was much employed at a later period, as they were all reserved rather for purposes of luxury. But we must not omit to mention here, that the abundance of building stone in this country was doubled by the _ease of transport_ from one end of Egypt to the other, upon the great water road of the Nile; therefore, sandstone and granite were used nearly as much at Thebes, and in all that part of the country where limestone rock alone was to be found near at hand, as in Upper Egypt, where it was hewn.

Limestone or sandstone have been always, and in all countries, the most important material for monumental productions. Where this was wanting, or was obtained with difficulty, as in Babylon, or on the Indus, or in the north of Germany, earthen bricks were used as the best substitute, at least for building purposes. But in Egypt also they could be replaced by bricks of the best quality, since the soft, clayey Nile mud was especially adapted for the latter. Thus the wary Egyptians not only did not neglect this expedient, but made the utmost use of it, and with greater results than anywhere else, because here it was not required to take the place of some better material, but only preferred in those cases where the object itself made it appear best adapted. This more especially applies to great dykes, town walls, and those temple enclosures which were to contain no covered rooms, and no delicately constructed parts; therefore, even in the earliest times, Pyramids were also built of bricks. They were employed to fill up the ground and to make elevations, but were more especially everywhere used where large spaces had to be covered in, without incurring the great expense of huge slabs of stone, before the useful principle of concentric stone-cutting was known. This occasioned the remarkably early use of brick-vaulted roofs, along with the imperfect stone arch, which was, as it were, only cut out of horizontal layers of stone. Hence arose the custom connected with this, which we have already mentioned, of lining rock-chambers of crumbling stone with arches of Nile bricks. The external layers of the brick buildings in Babylon and Nineveh were generally made of burnt bricks, and yet they could not resist the climate and time. In Egypt, dried bricks alone were everywhere used; owing to their natural solidity, and to the climate, they answered better for their monumental purpose than the burnt bricks of Babylon, which is still proved by the numerous extant brick buildings, with their stucco and their pictures.

But in the history of a nation, a substance favourable to its book literature is of no less importance than the material for building and sculpture. Egypt possessed also for this purpose an invaluable product of the country, the _papyrus plant_, from which they were able to obtain a perfect material for writing upon, unsurpassed throughout antiquity. Neither the skins of the Ionians, nor the linen of the ancient Romans, nor the cotton stuff and palm leaves of the Indian, nor the parchment of Mysia, are to be compared with the Egyptian papyrus in pliability, or in the power of extension, in durability and cheapness; therefore its use became gradually more widely spread, and was preserved far down into the middle ages. Even the later discovered paper of our own time has not only retained the name of the ancient plant, but, with regard to its material, can only be looked upon as a continuation and perfecting of the Egyptian paper, since pressed fibres of plants (particularly of flax and hemp) have proved to be the most suitable material, even up to the present day. In ancient times the papyrus plant grew more especially in the marshy ground of the Nile Delta, and is only elsewhere mentioned by Pliny as growing near Syracuse, where to this day it is found in great abundance. Why, on the other hand, it has become almost entirely extinct in Egypt, may be explained by the circumstance that it was artificially cultivated to an extent far beyond its natural powers of growth, and became therefore, like other plants, exhausted. Its use may be traced back to the most ancient times of Egypt; the papyrus roll and the writing apparatus are found upon monuments as early as the 4th and 5th Dynasties, therefore between three and four thousand years before Christ. But this discovery of very ancient Egypt, which may perhaps be considered as the most important, next to the invention of writing, only obtains its full significance in history by the unaltered preservation of those very rolls of writing for thousands of years. For they not only afforded the Egyptian priests the benefit of primeval uninjured archives, but we still obtain from them the instructive contemplation of a multitude of such original documents, written on papyrus, from the prosperous times of the Monarchy.

In addition, however, to the external aid afforded by the climate and productions of Egypt, for the preservation of its history, is to be mentioned the internal and more efficient influence derived from the original direction of the national character—its _historical sense_. This can by no means be explained solely by the reaction which the facility of immortalising the present, and the peculiarly conservative nature of the neighbouring desert, might produce upon the original tendency of the national mind; as little as we can interpret the striking want of a sense for history, among the Indian people, by the less favourable locality of their country. The ultimate foundation for such national individualities can always alone be sought, in the particular part they are called to play in the general history of the world. But, on a nearer examination, we can have no doubt that such an historical sense existed among the Egyptian people in an unusually high degree, and was cultivated by them in all its stages.

It is first of all demonstrated by the incredible multitude of monuments of every kind, which were at all periods erected by kings, and persons of private fortune. All the chief cities of Egypt were adorned with temples and palaces, and the other towns, frequently indeed more insignificant places, with at least one, often with several sanctuaries; these were filled with statues of the gods and kings of all sizes, composed of the most valuable stone, and the walls externally and internally were covered with coloured sculptures. To erect these public buildings, and to endow them splendidly, was the exclusive privilege and pride of kings. In their turn the richer portion of the people vied with them in their concern for the dead, by erecting monumental tombs. Whilst with reference to public buildings, the passion for building among the Greeks and Romans, in their most prosperous days, can alone be placed beside that of the Pharaonic time, the Egyptian necropoli far surpass those of Greece and Rome, both in extent and in the number of the monuments, as well as in the richness of their execution, especially in their endowment of pictures and inscriptions.

But next to the multitude and splendour of these works, the unsurpassed attention paid to their durability, especially proves the innate historical sense of the Egyptians. That they laid due stress on the great age of their buildings, follows from the annalistic account of Manetho, which is in no respect liable to suspicion, by which we learn that even TOSORTHROS, the second king of the 2nd Dynasty, and the cotemporary of Menes, commenced building with _hewn stones_ διὰ ξεστῶν λίθων.

And it is hardly necessary to mention the great Pyramids of Memphis, those colossal massive structures, which, solid throughout, and built of strong nicely joined hewn stones, are piled up above the sepulchral chambers, cut out of the living rock, generally without leaving any vacant space, like artificial rocks in the simplest form, as if he who built them had been aware that, in them he laid the foundation of the future gigantic building—the _History of Man_. This may equally refer to all the other buildings, whether they are destined for the living or the dead; the desire to labour for eternity is imprinted upon all of them.

The belief which was early formed of a life after death, and of a relation continuing to subsist between the soul and the body, was closely connected with this; and along with it the exaggerated care that was bestowed upon the bodies of the dead, embalming them, and swathing them, and shutting them up in double and triple sarcophagi, made of the strongest wood, and the hardest stone, which were buried in deep pits, and in laboriously excavated rock-chambers. Even in the most peaceful times this nation appears always to have anticipated the possibility of future hostile invasions, and of barbarous and rapacious races; for that reason they so ingeniously closed the large granite sarcophagi by means of metal rods, which only fell down into the holes prepared for them in the sides, at the last thrust of the cover, which was driven drawer-like in, so that the sarcophagi could only be opened by the destruction of the colossal masses of stone. They also endeavoured to guard even the passage which led to the sarcophagi chambers by heavy stone trap-doors, and by ingeniously building up the walls, so as to divert the attention, and to protect them in every other possible way from inroad and desecration. For that reason many subterranean tombs are undoubtedly still hidden from us; only a few tombs of kings are known, and many important monuments will still be discovered in the inexhaustible necropoli of Memphis, Abydos, and Thebes.

However, we already possess such an abundant supply of works of art, and other things belonging to daily life, from the earliest, down to the latest times of the Pharaonic Monarchy, that these in themselves alone, considered only objectively, would form an extremely important source of knowledge concerning the mode of life in ancient Egypt. The great work of Napoleon, the “_Description de l’Egypte_,” has splendidly demonstrated how much in fact may be gained by such an objective examination of the monuments; it contains matter that will always deserve praise, and a rich treasure was collected for the cause of science, although the key to the hieroglyphics had not yet been discovered, and consequently all the monuments being chronologically uncomprehended, or wrongly comprehended, stood beside each other, as in a picture without perspective, on one plane surface.

This very work, however, is an evident proof of what could _not_ be done, even with the greatest expenditure of means and learning, without aid obtained from the inscriptions. The _history_ of the people in all its varied development remained dark and fabulous as before. It is the same with the monuments of all nations, which have come down to us either without any written character, or with it undeciphered, like those of our own heathen ancestors, or of the aborigines of South America, or even of the Babylonians. History profits very little by them.

The Egyptians, however, from the beginning, exhibit, even on this higher stage, their historical sense and vocation. According to the Egyptian annals, it was the same King Tosorthros who gained the highest reputation relative to the perpetuity of the history of Egypt since his time, not only by the introduction of hewn building stones, but still more by the care he bestowed upon the development of the written character; and we see upon the monuments, at least since the time of Cheops, between three and four thousand years before Christ, a perfectly-formed system of writing, and a universal habit of writing, by no means confined to the priesthood. Even at that time the writing was no longer merely monumental; the signs, indeed, when they were rapidly used, sometimes approached the hieratical short-hand. It therefore appears to me undoubted that, even in the time of Menes, in the very commencement of our Egyptian history, the hieroglyphic writing had been long invented, established, and practised, which we must of course presuppose since we hold Menes to be historical; for there can be no history without writing. From the choice of the pictures in hieroglyphics, and from other reasons, it appears indeed justifiable to suppose, that this wonderful picture-writing of the Egyptians was formed, with reference to its peculiar character in Egypt itself, without any other influence from abroad, although they may have brought the first beginning of it with them from their original home in Asia. But that a people should produce anything so perfect as this system of writing, which embraces at once all the stages of human writing, from the most direct ideographical symbolic writing through syllables, to the equally direct notification of sound by means of vowels and consonants, certainly indicates a long previous development.

The application, however, which the Egyptians made of this early invention, from which so much resulted, is of still more importance. For they not only employed it, as often happens among nations of much higher civilisation, in the most necessitous cases, and where it was most immediately advantageous, but to an extent which surpasses everything that we have heard of elsewhere, and which must still astonish any one who considers the matter for the first time. While the Greeks and Romans, at the period when they were most lavish of their writing, only placed a short inscription of a few words on the front of their largest temples and most splendid buildings, for which reason the monumental style still denotes among us a short laconic style, as seems most suitable to the speaking stone; among the Egyptians the temples were almost covered with inscriptions. All buildings, which were erected to the gods, to the kings, and to the dead, had generally representations or inscriptions upon all the walls, ceilings, pillars, architraves, friezes, and posts—inside as well as outside. In place of only giving the most necessary information, the writing here forms in itself at the same time an essential ornament of the architecture, as is the case also with representations on a larger scale. The variegated written columns on the white or grey surfaces, not only express a feeling for ornamental drawing, by the great variety in their lines, which run backward and forward with the utmost regularity, and satisfy the painter’s eye by the brilliancy of the varied colours, but they also excite the observation of the unlearned by the figurative and direct meaning of the written objects, taken from all the natural kingdom, and, lastly, the intelligent curiosity of the inquirer, especially of every cultivated man, by the peculiar signification of their religious or historical purport. Thus hieroglyphics becomes a _monumental writing_, in a sense and to a degree of perfection, beyond any other written character on earth.

They had also so far overcome the technical difficulty of engraving these signs, both in the most fragile and the hardest kinds of stone, that it seems hardly to have been considered at all, though these signs were not composed of simple mathematical strokes, like the Roman or Greek monumental writing, or the cuneiform writing of the Asiatics, but were at the same time writing and artistic drawing.

Among the Egyptians the written character was not alone the constant and indispensable accompaniment of architecture, and of the larger representations upon the walls of the temples, but was placed with an equal predilection upon all, even the smallest objects of art and of daily life. How precious among other nations of antiquity are those statues, vases, gems, or other objects, which bear upon them inscriptions with respect to their origin, their owners, or their intended use! This is the universal practice in Egypt. There, no Colossus was so great, and no amulet so small, that it should not itself express for what it was designed by means of an inscription; no piece of furniture that did not bear the name of its owner. Not only the temples had their dedications, in which the builder was named, and the god to whom it was consecrated by him, but they were considered of such importance that a particular class of independent monuments were especially devoted to them, viz., the obelisks at the entrance of the gates; and besides this, every fresh addition to the temple, every newly-erected pillar, actually even the restoration of separate representations, which had been accidentally injured upon the old walls, had a written information respecting which of the kings built it, and what he had done for the enlargement, embellishment, and restoration of the temple. We sometimes find the name of the reigning king recorded upon the separate building stones, as the stone-cutter’s mark, and it was usually stamped upon the bricks of royal manufacture.

Finally, however, writing was employed among the Egyptians in its last and highest destination, as _book-writing for literary purposes_; and, indeed, as we have already mentioned, from the earliest times, for the use of the papyrus goes thus far back, and we frequently see upon the representations from the time of the great Pyramids of Memphis, one or more scribes occupied in registering upon sheets their master’s possessions in flocks, corn, and other treasures. We learn from the historical accounts relative to the first Dynasties, which are still preserved, that even at that time they possessed _Annals of the Monarchy_.

If we now reflect upon the period from which the original fragments of such annals have come down to us, namely, the beginning of the New Monarchy, we find that this extends one thousand five hundred years farther back than the oldest remains of book literature in the whole of antiquity put together. For it is known that the greater proportion of our manuscripts only go back about as far as the tenth century of our era; previous to this their number rapidly diminishes, and the small fragment of a manuscript of Livy, which was lately brought to Berlin, and was there recognised as probably belonging to the first century after Christ, may be viewed as the earliest remains of a book which can be referred to out of Egypt; even the rolls—which were reduced to coal at Herculaneum—do not go farther back; whereas in Egypt not alone numerous papyri have been preserved from the time of Ptolemy, but a much greater number from the centuries previous to that time, namely from the sixteenth to the thirteenth century, some of them of extraordinary length[121]. The greatest proportion of them were deposited with the mummies, and therefore only contain what relates to death and a future life; but other rolls were interred in the tombs as the most secure places, carefully packed in particular vases or baskets, and they contain laudatory songs upon kings or gods, historical annals, the accounts of the temple, that which relates to the calendar, and many other things with reference to this life, frequently contracts, law-suits, and similar documents from the time of the Greeks, sometimes also with Greek translations or additions.

The large number still in preservation leave therefore no doubt concerning the remarkable fact communicated by Diodorus I. 49, on good authority, that King Osymandyas, _i. e._ Ramses-Miamun, built a library in his temple at Thebes, as early as the fourteenth century before Christ. The description which he gives us of this splendid building may still be traced from one chamber to the other among its ruins, and at the entrance—behind which, according to Diodorus, the library was situated—Champollion perceived on both sides the representations of Thoth, the God of Wisdom, and of Saf, the Goddess of History; then, behind the former, the God of Hearing, and, behind the latter, the God of Seeing, which significantly reminded the person who was entering of the locality. Several hieratical papyri, which we still possess, are dated from the Rameseion, 𓉐𓐱𓏤𓐰𓈖𓍹𓐼𓇳𓄠𓋴𓇓𓌹𓇋𓏠𓐰𓈖𓐽𓍺 and it is also frequently mentioned in the so-called Historical Papyri. I found in Thebes the tombs of two _Librarians_ of the time of Ramses-Miamun, therefore probably belonging to the library described by Diodorus; they are situated to the south-west of the palace of Ramses, behind Der el Medînet. The occupants were father and son, since this office was hereditary, as most of them were. The father was called Neb-nufre, the son Nufre-hetep, and they bore the titles of 𓇯𓇩𓏏𓐰𓏺𓐰𓏼 _her scha· tu_, “Superior over the Books,” and 𓉻𓐰𓈖𓇩𓏏𓐰𓏺𓐰𓏼 _naa en scha· tu_, “Chief over the Books.” In the tomb of the son, Ramses sacrifices to Amen-Ra, and portions of two statues of the deceased are still scattered about. We have good reason to suppose that this library, of which we have incidentally received still further information, was neither the first, nor the only one, and this is inferred, among other things, because the two gods above mentioned bear as one of their fixed titles, not only here, but upon other monuments of all classes, the one the _Master_ and the other the _Mistress_ of the _Hall of Books_, and that, consequently, the idea of gods of libraries must have been very familiar to the Egyptians.

This also explains how, in the earliest times of the Greek dominion, under Ptolemy Philadelphus, it was possible to fill the library founded in Alexandria in the space of a few years with 400,000[122] rolls, at a time when there was no precedent in the Grecian motherland except the private collection of Aristotle. It is explained, when we remember that Philadelphus found such an abundant store already existing in the Egyptian archives and libraries. It no longer seems anything remarkable when Iamblichus[123], referring to a Seleucus, tells us of 20,000 hermetic books, which we must understand to be a rough computation of all Egyptian literature; the notice does not obtain a mythological character until the introduction into it of the cyclical number 36,525, which Iamblichus quotes from Manetho—of course from the false one.

The fame of Egyptian wisdom[124], which was universally diffused throughout the ancient world, was grounded upon an abundant literature, and the stock of knowledge deposited therein, which increased from year to year like a well-invested capital. This fame was never disputed even by the Greeks themselves; possessing so much higher natural endowments than others, they were more just in this point than many of our modern critics, who would rather consider the genius of the Greeks as auto-didactic, grown up in a barbarous wilderness. Herodotus calls the Egyptians “by far the best instructed people with whom he has become acquainted, since they, of all men, _store up most, for recollection_.” When the Eleians wished to establish their Olympian games, they sent an embassy to the Egyptians, they being the wisest people of all the earth, to obtain their judgment and their good advice upon this great project[125].

The distinguished series of celebrated men[126] who are said to have carried Egyptian wisdom to the Greeks, begins as early as the mythical times. Danaus brought the first germ of higher civilisation from Egypt to Argos[127], and Erectheus, King of Athens, was considered by some an Egyptian[128], and taught the Eleusinian mysteries according to the manner of the Egyptians. The holy singers of antiquity, Orpheus[129], Musaeus[130], Melampus[131], and Eumolpus[132], thence acquired their theological wisdom; and even to Homer[133] himself Egypt may not have been unknown. The most ancient artists of Greece, Daedalus[134], Telecles[135], and Theodoras[136], are said to have educated themselves in this land of primeval art, and have employed the Egyptian canon of proportions. Lycurgus[137] and Solon[138] introduced into their fatherland all the wise regulations they there became acquainted with; and Herodotus[139] especially tells us that the Egyptian laws relating to the surveying of the land, by which every one was obliged to declare to the monarch his annual revenue, were transferred to Athens by Solon, and were in use even in his time. Cleobulus, the sage of Lindus, is said also to have visited Egypt[140]. It signifies little how much historical foundation there is for these accounts. The general direction taken by tradition, with reference to it, proves even more than separate facts could do, the early and late general universal recognition of Egyptian wisdom. It was considered a glory to participate in it.

But Egypt was especially regarded as a university for philosophy, and for all that could be gained through science and learning. We therefore see philosophers, mathematicians, physicians, historians, resorting to Egypt, each emulating with the other, and studying for many years under Egyptian teachers. The houses in Heliopolis in which Plato and the mathematician Eudoxus had lived for thirteen years, were still shown to Strabo[141]. The observatory of Eudoxus, in which he is said to have made certain observations of the stars, and on Canobus, in particular, bore his name[142] in the time of Strabo. Even Thales[143] was instructed by the Egyptian priests, and as it is expressly said, had besides them, no other teachers. Here he became acquainted with the division of the year into seasons, and into 365 days; and here also he learnt how to take the measurement of high objects, such as the Pyramids by their shadow, at a particular hour of the day[144]. Archimedes[145] invented his celebrated water screw in Egypt, and there applied it, in the establishments which were devoted to the irrigation of the land. Pythagoras[146] was a long time in Egypt, and all that we know concerning the dogmas of this influential man agrees with this account[147]. His doctrine of the immortality of the soul, especially, is very decidedly referred, by Herodotus, to Egypt. He says, “_This doctrine is wrongly pronounced by certain Greeks, whom he will not mention, as belonging peculiarly to them_[148],” by which he evidently has Pythagoras and his master Pherecydes in view, for it is also related of the latter that he was in Egypt[149]. And it is in fact now sufficiently known, from the monuments, that the Egyptians possessed from the earliest times very distinct ideas about the transmigration of souls, and of judgment after death[150]. The philosophers _Anaxagorus_[151], _Democritus_[152], _Sphaerus_[153], the mathematician _Oinopides_[154], the physician _Chrysippus_[155], also _Alcaeus_[156] and _Euripedes_[157], are enumerated among the visitors to Egypt. Finally, the same is known of _Hecataeus_[158], _Herodotus_, _Diodorus_[159], _Strabo_, and many less celebrated Greeks.

All these men did not merely desire to acquire a knowledge of Egypt as eye-witnesses, but went there principally to gain instruction from the learned priests on particular branches of knowledge. This is the light in which those historians regarded it, who give us more detailed accounts of these wanderings of the Greek scholars to Egypt[160]. The Egyptians themselves indeed valued it so highly that the priests, as Diodorus, i. 96, expressly recounts, recorded in their annals the visits of celebrated Greeks. It thence arose that the most distinguished among them, even the individual teachers, remained known by name and descent, and were handed down to us[161]. These names bear upon them a genuine Egyptian stamp, and therefore offer no grounds for any material doubt from this side. Plutarch calls the teacher of Solon, _Sonchis_, from Sais; of Pythagoras, _Onnuphis_, from Heliopolis; and of Eudoxus, _Chonuphis_, from Memphis. Clemens adds to these the teacher of Plato, _Sechnuphis_; all of them names whose Egyptian form may be easily restored.

It is evident that this instruction must have contained more than an unintelligible knowledge of symbols, a petrified mysticism, and empty dreams, as people have been hitherto frequently inclined to believe. Real knowledge and scientific experiences could only be founded upon a copious _literature_, carefully fostered for many ages. Its great treasures had indeed been long known and envied before the time of the Ptolemies; the Persians, under Artaxerxes, carried off a portion of them, together with other treasures, from the ancient archives of the temples, and only restored them for a high ransom[162]. But their contents began for the first time to be better known, and more perfectly understood, when the translations appeared, which were extensively made for the Greeks[163] after the time of the first Ptolemies. Strabo, among others, affords us a valuable proof of this, where he speaks of the thirteen years’ residence of Plato and Eudoxus in Egypt[164]. “These priests (he says) were versed in astronomy, but, mysterious and far from communicative, it was only after the lapse of time and by polite attentions that they allowed themselves to be induced to communicate some of their doctrines; but still the most part was kept concealed by these barbarians. For instance, to complete the perfect year, they added that portion of the day and night which goes beyond the 365 days; _nevertheless, the perfect year remained unknown to the Greeks, as well as many other things, until the later astronomers learnt it from the treatises of the priests, which were translated into Greek; and they still refer to the writings of the Egyptians, as well as to those of the Chaldeans_”[165].

But, in order to view more distinctly the multiplicity of the Egyptian branches of learning, I shall mention the forty-two Hermetic books, probably chiefly _sacred_, described to us by Clemens of Alexandria, from a genuine ancient authority[166]. We learn from it that the ten first and principal books, those of the _Prophets_, called the Hieratical, or Priest Books, treated of the laws and the gods, namely, of the highest theological education, which embraced at once divine and human laws[167], and philosophy[168]. To this was appended, as an immediate and necessary complement, the ten books of the _Stolistes_—liturgical in their contents—containing ordinances about the sacrifice, and the offering of the first-fruits, of hymns, prayers, processions, feasts, &c.

To these twenty writings, which were in a stricter sense sacerdotal, succeeded fourteen others, treating of more secular learning, what we should call the _exact_ sciences, which were indeed indispensable to the priests, but in themselves bore no theological character. These also were again divided into two divisions; of which the first, consisting of ten books, belonged to the hierogrammatist[169], and not alone embraced the wide field of hieroglyphics, _i. e._ writing and drawing; but also all that fell within the department of the measurement of space and of geometry, commencing with the more general, _cosmography_, universal _geography_, the _chorography_ of Egypt, and the course of the Nile; then, also consequent upon that, the _topography_ of the temple-sites; and lastly, the most local arrangements of the furniture of the temple, as it were, or _naography_. The remaining four books, the _astrological_, more properly called by us the _astronomical_, were committed to a particular class of scholars—the horoscopi, or time seers. This portion of their science, so peculiarly important to the Egyptians, and therefore kept distinct from the rest, entered into everything that it was necessary to be acquainted with for the calculation of time, both in detail and on a large scale, therefore more especially with the heavenly chronometers, the stars, and indeed, above all, the position of the fixed stars (and the constellations); then the arrangement of the planets (and their revolutions), the conjunctions and phases of the sun and moon; lastly, the rising of the stars. The practical purpose was indicated by the symbols of the horoscopes, the horologium, and the palm-branch of the years and periods.

After the strict sciences, there followed the two books of the _Chanter_. He represented the only _art_—at least, the only one which was recognised as such, by its separate position—that of _music_. Architecture and the art of drawing were practised, and even with a feeling for art, but they had not emancipated themselves as independent arts, from the rule and line condition of the hierogrammatist. Even music, which was apprehended, and came into the world for the first time through the Greeks, was not considered by the Egyptians as an independent art, in our sense of the word, neither could it be regarded a science like drawing, as if it were equally an efflux of the horoscopical chronology, to which it was externally attached. It was on that account necessary to keep them apart. We must, therefore, look upon the chanter only as a precentor—a practical leader of the religious and festive songs. His two books contained hymns to the gods, and (encomiastic-poetical) observations upon the _royal life_, but only as the subject-matter of the religious chorus. It cannot be known how far real music was here brought into consideration; but certainly the ᾠδός had nothing to do with the theological purport of his hymns—information concerning this must be derived from the prophets and the Stolist.

The contents of the last six books were medicinal, and treated of the structure of the body, of diseases, the organs, curatives, for the eyes especially, and of female cases. They are assigned by Clemens, probably from a misunderstanding, to the _Pastophori_, _i. e._ the watchers of the temples[170].

This survey of the forty-two ancient sacred books deserves here especially, our full consideration, because it brings clearly to light an intelligent, thoughtful, general view of the universe, straining after inward perfection and conscious arrangement, and also the necessity of giving this a prominent form by _literature_, and of introducing it practically into life. Proceeding from the general to the individual, from the spiritual to the external, from the theoretical to the practical, as well in the succession of the general sections as in the arrangement of the separate books, this code forms a defined whole, which we nowhere find repeated among any of the nations of antiquity, not even among the Indians. Unfortunately, the ten first and most important books, which contained their fundamental ideas on religion, philosophy, and law, and therefore the highest and most spiritual department of their contemplation, are not so fully described as the following sections, as regards the detail of their contents; therefore the enumeration of the separate branches of knowledge with which the hierogrammatists, the real scholars, and the horoscopi, next to them, occupied themselves, and which comprehended the whole visible and measurable world, is so much the more worthy of our notice.

At the same time we must remember that in the construction of this canon there was no intention of giving the chief features of an encyclopædia of their sciences. Every scientific purpose was necessarily laid aside, only the thoroughly practical aim of a sacerdotal compendium was contemplated, in which learning only formed part of the education of a priest, and merely occupied a third place after theology and the liturgical forms, and was only represented so far as a direct practical use could be obtained from it. Philosophy was therefore not at all separated from theology; human law was only an efflux of divine law. The knowledge of geometry was necessary for the surveying of the land, the division of the produce, the building and decoration of the temples; the knowledge of astronomy for the calendar of festivals, and the civil calculation of time; singing formed a part of the Liturgy. Nor is proof wanting that the knowledge and literature of Egypt far surpassed what was required by the hierarchy, that the thirty-six or forty-two books were also the earliest and original centre, to which later progressive improvements might everywhere attach themselves.

We frequently read in other authors about the “_Sacred Writings_[171]” of the Egyptians, or of their _Hermetic books_, but it would be wrong to refer all these notices to the forty-two books named by Clemens. It seems to me by no means improbable that the above-mentioned precepts on the life of the king, in Diodorus, which for Egypt bear a thoroughly classical stamp on them, formed a portion of the sacred law-books of the prophets, and that the laudatory song upon the deceased king, mentioned at the end of that passage, might have been composed in imitation of the ἐκλογισμὸς βασιλικοῦ βίου, in the last of the thirty-six books, and have only been employed in the last case. But it is not to be supposed the forty-two books themselves contained separate laudatory songs on particular kings, although such songs, understood in a wider sense, certainly belonged to the sacred books.

We read in the same passage of Diodorus, that wise sayings and actions of the most distinguished men were read aloud to the king after the sacrifice by the hierogrammatist from the “Sacred Books,” ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν βίβλων. We still possess ancient papyri which contain proverbs of a similar kind, some of them even put into the mouths of certain celebrated kings belonging to the Old Monarchy, such as Amenemha I., the head of the 12th Dynasty[172], resembling somewhat in their form the proverbs of Solomon. For the sake of the reader, and the one who reads out loud, they are divided by red points recurring at nearly stated intervals into short verses, according to the sentences, like the Hebrew scriptures. But these could not have belonged to the ten rolls of the hierogrammatists, nor to the priests’ canon in general.

It were more easy to suppose that the first book of the singer may have consisted of single hymns and prayers addressed to particular divinities, such as we still possess several instances of, _e. g._ to Ra, Amen Ra, Mut[173], to Thoth[174], to Osiris[175], Atmu[175], &c., yet probably it likewise only contained the daily litanies, which belonged to every temple service, and which were also expressly mentioned[176]. I can as little agree with the opinion[177] that the great Book of the Dead of the Egyptians was one of the ten books of the Stolistes, although I consider it to be also[178] a sacred book ascribed to Hermes. Even its extent forbids the former supposition. And, moreover, it is by no means a liturgical book, which one belonging to the Stolistes must have been, nor a book of Rituals, as Champollion appears to have regarded it, but essentially a history of the soul after death, therefore it was placed in the tomb with the deceased. The theological basis of this work, however, was undoubtedly included in the hieratical books of the prophets.

Bunsen[179] justly makes a distinction between the civil law-book, and the sacred law-books of the prophets. It was impossible that the regulations and precepts of the six law-givers, who are mentioned by Diodorus[180], could have been received into the canon, this can only be supposed of the most ancient portion of them—the laws of Menes, which were ascribed to Hermes by himself, and probably were the foundation both of the religious and of the civil law.

We shall now more easily understand why still less space was afforded in the canon of Clemens for the _historical_ literature. It presented neither a speculative nor a practical side to the object which Egyptian theology had in view, and regarded in this light, therefore, it must appear subordinate. But on that account it no less existed. This is proved as well by the authors[181] themselves as by the original remains, which we still possess. Historical facts of all kinds, related both by means of pictures and writings, covered the walls of the temples in the principal towns; single battles and whole wars were described, with their exact dates, and with all the living details of an eye-witness, upon the stone surfaces of the pylons and the surrounding walls. As long as these lasted, the remembrance of those actions must have remained living and true in the mind of every cultivated Egyptian. And, in fact, we find these representations at a late period used as a direct authority in history.

Tacitus[182] recounts to us the visit of Germanicus to the “_great remains of ancient Thebes. And Egyptian inscriptions were still extant upon the enormous buildings which declared the former riches. One of the most distinguished of the priests, who was required to explain the language of the country, related, that at one time 700,000 men, capable of bearing arms, dwelt here, and that King Ramses with this army had conquered Libya, Ethiopia, the Medes and Persians, the Bactrians, and Scythians, and that he held under his dominions the countries of the Syrians, the Armenians, and the neighbouring Cappadocians, and thence to the Bithynian and the Lycian Sea; the tribute laid upon the people was also read aloud, the weight of the silver and gold, the number of the weapons and horses, and the presents to the temple, of ivory and frankincense, and how much corn and other objects had been remitted by each nation, which was not less than what is now imposed upon the people by the might of the Parthians, or the power of the Romans._”

This is as strictly an historical notice from the reign of Ramses II., in the fourteenth century before Christ, as was ever related to us by the Greeks from the life of Xerxes or Alexander: for we read this statement now in the present day upon the same walls, before which Germanicus stood with wondering eyes. The Greeks and Romans seldom derived their knowledge from such a direct source as Germanicus did here, and Tacitus was quite unconscious that he was speaking of the same King Ramses, when shortly before he related of King _Sesostris_, that the bird called the Phœnix appeared for the first time in his reign. We still read the name Ramses upon the monuments, as the priest read it to Germanicus; Sesostris was the name of Sethôs I., who was so often confused with his son Ramses, and was carried down by a Greek mistake, since the time of Herodotus (ⲥⲉⲑⲱⲥⲓⲥ, ⲥⲉⲥⲟⲱⲥⲓⲥ, ⲥⲉⲥⲱⲥⲧⲣⲓⲥ).

Who can well doubt that along with such a historical literature engraven in stone, which to this day fills the whole of Egypt from Alexandria to Mount Barkal, far in Ethiopia, a corresponding _historical book literature_ must have existed, of course much richer and more complete, even though we may not be able at present to point out the remains of it. But in fact we still possess papyrus rolls, one of which accidentally refers to the identical warlike deeds represented, with their annotations, upon the walls of the Theban temple. This is one of the important documents which the British Museum purchased in the year 1839 from M. Sallier, in Aix, after Champollion had already, in the year 1828, recognised and communicated several passages in it which related to the war of the great Ramses against the people of Cheta[183]. In 1838 I found at Leghorn, in a collection of Egyptian antiquities belonging to M. D’Anastasi, a series of papyri very similar to this, which mention other warlike features of that glorious period. They appear to come originally from the same tomb as those of Sallier, since they proceed, partly, indeed, from the same scribe. Other similar pieces are found in the Egyptian collections at Turin, Leyden, and Berlin.

It is evident, partly from the express date of the author or scribe, partly from the kings mentioned in the text, that the largest proportion of them belong to the 19th Dynasty. The most ancient date in the London papyrus is from the ninth year of the Great RAMSES II.; the latest is from the first year of King SET-NECHT, the third successor of the former. The Turin Royal Annals also belong to this or the next Dynasty. Other papyri are certainly not older than the 20th; _e. g._ one of those which I obtained in Thebes repeatedly mentions the name of RAMSES IX., and is dated, upon the reverse side, from the 13th of Pachon—the sixteenth year, probably, of this king.

Another of these rolls contains, on the other hand, a portion of a composition which belongs to the time of Tutmes III., the conqueror of the Hyksos in the 18th Dynasty; a roll in Turin treats of the same king. We have as little reason to doubt that the first paragraph in the Pap. Sallier, No. 1, pl. i.-iii., which treats of two kings at the end of the Hyksos period, was also composed in their time, or soon after their death.

Two remarkable papyrus rolls, which I obtained in London for the Berlin Museum, mention the first kings of the 12th Dynasty, AMENEMHA I. and SESURTESEN I. Their writing is very different from the rest of those that I am acquainted with, and they belong to the very rare exceptions which, in place of horizontal lines, are written in vertical columns, after the manner of hieroglyphical writing; so that it would not surprise me, if by penetrating more deeply into the contents, the result should be, that they were composed, even this very copy, during the Old Monarchy. But the most ancient of all the hieratic royal names are found in a papyrus in my own possession[184]. Here the name of CHUFU (Cheops) is frequently mentioned, also King SNEFRU in the 3rd Manethonic Dynasty, and three other kings, who probably belong to the same Dynasty. These kings are, indeed, all cited as dead, but since the whole of them belonged to that ancient period, its contents could hardly be placed much later. Among a people who were at all times surrounded by so many contemporaneous monuments and historical authorities, reaching as far back as their first royal Dynasties, it must have been generally much more difficult to supplant, or essentially to alter the existing genuine history of ancient times by fabulous tales and poetical inventions of later times.

In spite of the astonishing number of monuments, and in spite of the rich literature, whose original remains are confirmed by the accounts we find in different authors, it would, however, have been impossible to the Egyptians themselves, how much more so to us, to obtain a correct and clear insight into the course and connection of their history, if from its commencement a chronological sense had not been so early developed among them. Without chronology we should obtain no history, even from the most varied literature; the Indians, especially, give us a striking proof of this. History first obtains a perfect self-consciousness through chronology. With the growing civilisation of a people, the necessity increases for a sharper division of time both in small and large periods. From the earliest era of their history, the Egyptians have known how to satisfy this necessity, inherent in every higher state of civilisation.

But a chronology which is well arranged and established must always proceed from astronomy. We cannot conceive the existence of the former, in any nation, without the latter being to a certain degree developed. It will not, therefore, appear superfluous if we enter here more minutely into the astronomical knowledge of the Egyptians, before we turn our attention to their computation of time. We shall here, also, commence with the information we obtain from authors, and afterwards see how far it is confirmed and completed by the monuments.

[The author here proceeds to the astronomical basis of Egyptian chronology, and the chronological knowledge possessed by the Egyptians, and concludes his Introduction with the following words:]

Taking a retrospective survey of the path we have hitherto pursued in our discussions, I believe I have essentially fulfilled the task we undertook at the commencement, namely, to point out the _possibility_ of the existence of such an early history of Egypt.

We have seen how, contrasted with the most ancient Asiatic nations, the Egyptians (pre-eminently favoured by their climatal and geographical conditions) were destined, as it were by nature, to be a monumental nation. These external conditions correspond with the innate bias of their feelings, which is shown by the innumerable multitude of their monuments, and by the extreme care they bestowed upon their preservation. From their desire to retain the fleeting present, may be explained the early development of their system of writing (so rich and significant in its organism, owing to its important origin), as well as the excessive use which was made of this writing, especially for the monuments, beyond any other nations of antiquity, so that it soon attained its highest destination by its application to a many-sided book literature. We have been able to refer to a Theban library as early as the fourteenth century before Christ, and have found reason for considering it neither the most ancient, nor the only one in Egypt. It was this very ancient literature and hereditary learning, which a later antiquity, and more particularly the Greeks, abundantly acknowledged, praised, sought out, and studied. Among the various branches of knowledge we have surveyed, especially the sacred codes of the priests—the forty-two Hermetic books described by Clemens, we have however particularly attempted, to indicate more closely from the monuments, the early study of astronomy, because the arrival at a more fixed chronology depends especially upon its development. We have likewise endeavoured to point out that, under the favourable circumstances of an Egyptian sky, and especially since the introduction of the variable sun-calendar (calculating as it were, and forming periods for itself), astronomy was cultivated in the most elaborate and most complete manner, and this we have been able partly to confirm by the monuments of the 4th and 12th Dynasties of the Old Monarchy. We have discovered a division of time, less than an hour, to the sixty times sixtieth part of a minute, and above an hour to the period of 36,525 years. Between these there were the greatest variety of cycles, such as no other ancient nation, except the Egyptian, has been able to produce in equal perfection. They were acquainted with the _civil hours_ of day and night, also with the twenty-four equal or _equinoctial hours_ of the complete day, νυχθήμερον.

From days they formed the decades, or Egyptian weeks, and from these the thirty-day month; they also knew the lunar months, and solemnised the new and full moon. Their season consisted of four months. They recognised as forms of years, and carried out in the calendar, both the oldest lunar year, as well as the solar year of 365 days, and the Sirius year, which is a quarter of a day longer. The civil solar year, after twenty-five years, namely at the Apis period, agreed again with the lunar year; in the same way, calculating by the day, it agreed with the Sirius year, at the lustrum of four years; and in the space of 1461 years, it agreed completely with the _Sothis period_. The Phœnix period, of 1500 years, was employed to make the civil year agree with the tropical year, which was afterwards divided according to the three seasons into three parts—500 years each. Finally, the Sidereal year, or the slow receding of the ecliptic to the west, became known, and it was expressed, although with an imperfect comprehension of the direction and velocity of the movement, by its greatest astronomical period of 36,525 years.

We have gained the principal purpose we had in view if we have succeeded in pointing out that, in Egypt, from the time of Menes, to whose reign the historical accounts go back, there existed to an extraordinary degree all the conditions necessary for the growth and the perfect development of the self-conscious and historical life of a nation, and for a chronologically-arranged historical literature, formed by the monuments and contemporaneous records. These circumstances have placed it in our power to investigate and restore, from such early times, the experienced and recorded history of the Egyptians. As far as our present knowledge extends, the conditions that we have named only appear complete among the most ancient Asiatic and European nations at a much later period, namely, during the last millennium before Christ, therefore an historical investigation, which refers back as far as that of Egypt, has hitherto been impossible with respect to those nations, except so far as in the Egyptian history itself new points of information may be found respecting the oldest history of nations, not Egyptian.

But it may very possibly be imagined that we have been compelled to stop at the indication of this _possibility_, being deficient in the means to raise this historical treasure from the depths in which we behold it. We can only restore true history with the assistance of an historical literature, and this must either be contemporaneous, and so far possess in itself a monumental value, or if it is a later literature, referring to what has long gone by, it must be accompanied by contemporaneous and intelligible monuments to enable us to prove and correct it by them. Hitherto we have certainly possessed one of the necessary means for the restoration of the Pharaonic history, namely, the Greek accounts, and extracts from an ancient Egyptian historical literature. But they remained useless and confused, because the monuments and the literary remains of the country were still mute and unintelligible. However, since Champollion’s praiseworthy deciphering of the hieroglyphical writing has rendered it possible to make an historical use of the monuments of the country, the second means for historical investigation has been placed in our hands. It was now for the first time possible to gain some advantage from the literary authorities, and to make a critical examination of them, which would necessarily demonstrate the general connection that subsists between the monuments. Only a correct all-sided combination of the means offered on both sides can here lead to the aim we have in view.

THE HEBREW TRADITION.

We can best exhibit the relation that subsists between the Hebrew and Egyptian records, by endeavouring to determine chronologically, and by such means as are extant, the most important point of contact in the two histories—namely, the Mosaic period—and thus to prove the value of the several numbers stated. We shall thereby perceive that the Hebrew accounts, in so far as they are connected with Egypt, may be held to be of more historical value than several modern inquirers are inclined to accord to them, and that they are by no means wanting in a fixed chronological principle, without which history cannot subsist; but that a more exact chronology, which might serve as a point of support to the Egyptian, is not to be sought in them, and it is rather this last which supplies the most certain chronological explanation of those times to the history of the Israelites. The genuine chronological character of the Jewish history is pretty well acknowledged by every one as far back as the division of the kingdom, or the building of the temple, whereby, indeed, the individual chronological difficulties, which frequently occur during this epoch, are not considered, but only the chronological value of those numbers generally which form the basis of these separate investigations; but the strictly chronological character of the Hebrew determinations of time before this epoch is disputed, and, indeed, in those very numbers which contain in themselves alone the threads of an exact chronology. A critical examination of the value of these numbers generally is thus necessary, and therefore this discussion becomes appropriate here. It is, in fact, of the greatest importance to us, because it determines whether it be possible to solve some marked contradictions which have at all times keenly engaged the attention of historians and theologians, and still continue to do so; it will, besides, enable many people to decide upon the value of the Manethonic, consequently of the Egyptian chronology generally, so far as it is made to depend on its agreement with the accounts obtained from the oldest source, the only one indeed not Egyptian, which here, at all events, admits of a comparison.

There are, especially, _two numbers_ which have hitherto formed the turning points of the chronology of the Old Testament for the Mosaic period, because, passing over the uncertain individual statements, they fixed the limits to great spaces in time, and appeared to lay down a rule for more special investigations. I mean the 480 years[185] which are calculated to be the period between the Exodus and the building of the temple, and the 430 years[186] for the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. Both numbers very early created difficulty, and are partly modified, and partly refuted by other statements of time in the Old Testament. The 480 years ought to correspond with the sum of the individual numbers in the Book of Judges, which last is, however, considerably greater. The genealogies of that same period would, on the other hand, lead to the conclusion that the number of years was much fewer. The Seventy themselves differ in their statement of the number, since they write 440 in place of 480 years; and in the Acts of the Apostles (xiii. 20), 450 years are calculated for the Judges only to the time of Samuel; and this again differs from all other statements. Lastly, we find that Josephus also, even if he knew the number 480, still did not consider it as binding, since he never mentions it, but accepts different numbers, and far higher ones[187], which, nevertheless, do not agree with the Book of Judges. It thereby at least follows, that the number 480 by itself cannot claim any decided authority. But there is a still greater difference in the acceptation of the 430 years which the Israelites are said to have passed in Egypt. For, setting aside that in an earlier prophecy[188] the round number 400 alone is given, the Seventy understand the whole statement to mean, not from the entrance of JACOB INTO EGYPT, but from the entrance of ABRAHAM INTO CANAAN, and they therefore translate the words in Exodus xii. 40, “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years;” by ἡ δὲ κατοίκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, ἣν κατῴκησαν ἐν τῇ γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναὰν, ἔτη τετρακόσια τριάκοντα (Now the dwelling of the children of Israel, which they dwelt in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years). The Apostle Paul[189] also reckons the 430 years from the promise of Abraham, and Josephus[190] does the same, so that for the sojourn in Egypt, which is understood in the Hebrew text, only 215 years are reckoned, the remaining 215 being assigned to the time from Abraham to Jacob. Lastly, if we compare the number of generations in this period, we shall only find four generations for the four centuries, so that for this, even half of the time stated would still be far too great.

Finally, if we consider along with these contradictory statements the intrinsic character of the numbers given in the original text, namely, the arithmetical relation of the 215 years from Abraham to Jacob, to the 430 or 215 years from Jacob to Moses, the frequent return also of the indeterminate number 40, both in the first[191] and still more in the second period, and lastly the nature of the numbers 480 or 440 as a multiple of 12 or 11 generations of 40 years each, it appears to me very natural that either a higher providential meaning, and in spite of all other opposing considerations, the only correct chronological expression would be seen in this play of numbers, or that this external garb of numbers would be regarded as unessential for the religious—indeed, in part, also, for the historical import of those narrations, but that in the latter case all more exact chronological investigation of this period must be relinquished.

The latter view must gradually prevail in stricter science. A criterion was wanting in the investigation of the Old Testament, which might decide upon a definite choice among its self-contradictory statements. Each claimed for itself a like authority. If we believe that we may now attempt a new solution of the difficulty, we rely upon the fresh point of view which we can occupy for that purpose, since we now possess a positive scale that may be relied on (independent of the investigations of the Old Testament), by which we can estimate the Hebrew statements, namely, the authentic history and chronology of the Egyptians, which more than equals the Hebrew in point of age.

Now if it should appear that they can in no way be harmonised, science would then, indeed, remain in its former uncertainty concerning the times before Solomon, and we should lose one of the most important and most acceptable corroborations of Egyptian chronology. But the result of our investigations is more favourable, since the Egyptian order of time, resting upon perfectly independent foundations, most decidedly determines that there is a chronological principle throughout the historical relation of the Old Testament, and not an arbitrary selection of Hebrew numbers. By this means a firm foundation is given to the critical examination of the latter, and both histories reciprocally afford each other a support that cannot be shaken.

We must first of all show that the Egyptian account of the expulsion of the LEPERS, given by Manetho, refers really to the same event as that narrated in the Old Testament, as the Exodus of the ISRAELITES. We shall afterwards determine the epoch which is recognised in the Egyptian tradition, and, lastly, attempt to show how every other time is in like manner excluded by the historical purport of the Hebrew narrative; that there exists, also, a chronological thread which leads us to the same result, and, indeed, that the authentic tradition concerning the year of the Exodus has never been entirely lost among the Jews. From this fixed point we shall then look back still farther into the times of JOSEPH, and the accounts of the Greeks appertaining to that period, to which will be added our views regarding the visit of Abraham to Egypt.

The following is the account of the Mosaic events which Josephus gives us from Manetho, and partly in the words of Manetho himself[192]. After describing the expulsion of the Hyksos, whom Josephus considered to be the ancestors of the Jews, and giving an account of the kings who succeeded that event, as far as Rampses, the son of Sethôs, he continues: “After he (Manetho) had therefore related, in conformity with his earlier narrative, that our ancestors[193] (the Hyksos) had departed from Egypt so many years earlier, he then says that King Amenophis, whom he here inserts, desired to become a beholder of the gods, like Horus, one of his predecessors. He communicated this desire to one Amenophis, son of Paapis, who, on account of his wisdom and penetration into futurity, was believed to partake of the divine nature. Now this namesake of Amenophis told him that if he cleansed the whole country of the LEPERS and other unclean people, he would then be able to behold the gods. The king thereby rejoiced, collected together all who were smitten with this bodily disease, throughout the whole of Egypt 80,000 in number, and cast them into the stone-quarries, which are situated east of the Nile, in order that they should there work, apart from the other Egyptians. Among them were some learned priests, who had been attacked by the leprosy. But that wise and prophesying Amenophis began to fear the anger of the gods, for himself as well as for the king, if they, the priests, were seen at such compulsory labour; and he foretold, moreover, that others would hasten to the assistance of the unclean, and would govern Egypt for thirteen years. He did not, however, venture to express this to the king, but, leaving behind him a written record, he killed himself. Upon that the king became very much dejected. Then he (Manetho) continues verbatim, thus: ‘Now, when these people had suffered sufficiently by the hard work in the stone-quarries, the king yielded to their entreaty, and gave up to them, for their deliverance and protection, the town of Abaris, which had at that time been forsaken by the shepherds (Hyksos). But this town, according to traditions of the gods, had always been a Typhonic town. Now, when these people had entered into this town, and found the place favourable for revolt, they appointed as their leader a priest of Heliopolis, by name Osarsiph, and swore to obey him in all things. He established as their first law that they should worship no gods, and that they should not abstain from those animals which, according to the law, are considered most holy in Egypt, but that they might sacrifice and consume them all; also, that they should associate only with their fellow-conspirators. After he had established these and many other laws, which were entirely opposed to the Egyptian customs, he commanded them all to set to work to build up the town walls, and to prepare themselves for war against King Menophis. But, whilst he consulted some of the other priests and infected persons, he sent messengers to the shepherds who had been expelled by Tethmosis to the town of Jerusalem, and, after he had let them know what had happened to himself and to the others who had been injured along with him, he invited them to make war against Egypt in unison with his followers. He would first of all conduct them to Abaris, the town of their forefathers, and amply provide the troops with what they required; but, if it were necessary, he would protect them, and easily subject the country to them. Greatly rejoiced, they readily brought together as many as 200,000 men, and soon arrived at Abaris. But when Amenophis, the Egyptian king, heard of the invasion of these people, he was not a little disturbed, for he remembered what Amenophis, the son of Paapis, had prophesied. He first collected the Egyptian troops, conferred with his commanders, desired those sacred animals which are the most honoured in the sanctuaries to be brought to him, and commanded the individual priests, more especially to conceal the images of the gods most securely. But he sent his son, Sethôs, who was five years old, and was also called Ramesses, from Rampses, the father of Amenophis, to his friend (the King of Ethiopia). He himself, indeed, went forward with the remaining Egyptians, who amounted to 300,000 fighting men; however, when the enemy advanced to meet him he did not engage in battle, but returned hastily to Memphis, because he believed he was fighting against the gods. There he carried off the Apis and the other sacred animals which had been brought thither, and repaired immediately with the whole army and the remaining baggage of the Egyptians to Ethiopia. The King of Ethiopia was, in fact, beholden to him; he, therefore, received him, supplied his troops with all the necessaries of life which the country afforded, assigned to them as many towns and villages as would suffice for the predetermined thirteen years, in which they would be compelled to be deprived of his government, and even placed an Ethiopian army on the borders of Egypt as a protection to the people of King Amenophis. Thus it stood in Ethiopia. But the Solymites who had come into the country, and the unclean among the Egyptians, treated the people so shamefully, that the period of their government appeared to all who then beheld these impieties the worst of times; for they not only burnt towns and villages, and were not satisfied with plundering the sanctuaries, and abusing the images of the gods, but they continually made use of those venerated and sacred animals which were fit to be eaten, compelled the priests and prophets to become their butchers and destroyers, and then sent them away destitute. It is said, however, that the priest who gave them a constitution and laws, who was a native of Heliopolis, and called Osarsiph (from the god Osiris in Heliopolis), went over to these people, changed his name, and was called Moses.’ This and much more, which for the sake of brevity I must omit, is what the Egyptians relate concerning the Jews. But Manetho says further, that Amenophis afterwards returned out of Ethiopia with a great force, that he and his son Rampses, who had also an army, gave battle to the shepherds and the unclean, conquered them, killed many, and pursued the remainder to the borders of Syria. Manetho wrote this and similar things.”

Next to this Manethonic account, we shall place the Greek conception of the matter as we find it in DIODORUS, xl. 3, taken from Hecataeus of Abdera (and also in an earlier passage, xxxiv. 1, without his authority being given).

“When,” says Hecataeus, “a plague once broke out in Egypt, most people believed that it was a punishment sent by the gods. For since many strangers of divers races dwelt among them, who practised very anomalous customs, with respect to the sacred things and to the sacrifice, it came to pass that hence their own ancient worship of the gods declined. Therefore the natives feared there would be no end to the evil, if they did not remove those who were of foreign extraction. The foreigners were therefore quickly expelled. The best and the most powerful of them united together, and, as some people say, were driven away to Greece and other places, under distinguished leaders, of whom Danaus and Cadmus were the most famous. But the great mass withdrew to the country which is now called Judea, situated not far from Egypt, which was at that time barren and uninhabited. The leader of this colony was MOSES, who was distinguished by the power of his mind, and by his courage. He captured the country, and besides other towns, built HIERSOLYMA, which has now become so famous. He also founded the temple, which was so peculiarly holy in their eyes, taught them the worship and the service of the Deity, gave them laws, and regulated their constitution. He divided the people into twelve tribes, because this is the most complete number, and agrees with the number of months in the year. But he set up no image of the gods, for he did not believe God had a human form, but that he is one God, who embraces heaven and earth, and is Lord of all things. He regulated the sacrifices and the usages of life very differently from those of other nations; since, in consequence of the banishment which they had themselves experienced, he introduced a misanthropical mode of life, hostile to strangers.”

The statement in the earlier passage of DIODORUS, xxxiv. 1, sounds far more bitter, where he says “that they (the Jews) alone among all nations scorn any intercourse with others[194], and look upon every one as their enemy. Their forefathers, also, were driven out of Egypt as disgraced and hated by the gods; and in order to cleanse the country, those attacked with the _white_ sickness and leprosy had been collected together and cast beyond the frontiers as an accursed race. But the expelled people had conquered the country round Jerusalem, had formed the nation of the Jews, and transmitted to their descendants their hatred of mankind. On that account also they had adopted perfectly anomalous laws, neither to eat with any other people, nor to show them any kindness.” “Antiochus Epiphanes, after he had conquered the Jews, entered into their holy of holies, into which only the priests were admitted; he there found a stone image of a bearded man, who sat upon an ass, and held a book in his hand. He took this for Moses, who had founded Jerusalem, organised the people, given them laws, and introduced the disgraceful and misanthropical customs.”

Now if we compare these relations, which evidently refer to Egyptian and not to Jewish statements, with the representation we meet with in the Hebrew conception of the matter, we cannot mistake the general agreement of the most essential features.

Differing entirely from the former Exodus of the Hyksos, the description of which is likewise preserved to us by Manetho, here, it is not an open enemy who is to be subdued, but people of foreign descent, peaceably dwelling in the land, increasing, however, to a dangerous extent, and who inspired the Egyptians with fear and hatred. It is true that neither Manetho, nor any one of the authors we have named, expressly say that the expelled people were of a different race from the Egyptians; but the cause of this may have been that the entrance of the family of Jacob into the country which was so important to the Jews, probably passed unnoticed by them. The influx of emigrants from the eastern and north-eastern Semitic countries was apparently much greater in those flourishing times of the Egyptian kingdom than it was thought necessary to recount in the detached history of the house of Israel. The influence of those people from Palestine who had been driven back under Tuthmosis, must only have increased the former importunity of that people to enter the blessed land of Egypt. But so long as they came singly and peacefully, and did not shrink from entering into all kinds of intercourse and alliance with the Egyptians, they must have been considered by the natives as belonging to the country—as Egyptians. It is certainly a mistake to suppose the Israelites were the only strangers in Egypt. They dwelt in the land of Goshen, situated on the eastern border of the Delta, but of course only a very small body in the midst of Egyptians, and many Philistines and Arabians, from whom the Egyptian could not distinguish them. The immense increase in their numbers, of which we read, is only to be understood in this manner. How could there have been so distinct a division of the one race from their Semitic companions, as is usually understood, when their chief men themselves frequently did not shrink from mingling with the Egyptians?

Even Ishmael had an Egyptian mother and an Egyptian wife[195]. Joseph becomes so completely Egyptian that he is able to occupy the highest position under the king, does not eat at the same table with his brethren, and speaks to them through an interpreter. He also takes an Egyptian woman as his wife[196], even the daughter of a Priest of Heliopolis; and Moses himself marries an Ethiopian[197]. The same intermingling between the races is afterwards still more frequently mentioned, without being considered as anything remarkable or forbidden, _e. g._ Leviticus xxiv. 10; 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35; and the same with respect to other foreigners, the Tyrians, _e. g._ 1 Kings vii. 14. The immigrants also did not limit themselves to the land of Goshen, which had been first assigned to them, but “_filled the land_,” and appeared “_to grow greater and mightier than the Egyptians_.” That the single race of Jacob is not here meant, but all who had allied themselves to it, as to a powerful centre, is again made evident in the Exodus, where it is said[198], “_And a mixed multitude went up also with them._” There may even have been many Egyptians among the mixed multitude; indeed the whole population continued to cling, even long after the Exodus, so firmly to Egyptian customs, and even to the religious practices of the Egyptians, that they were constantly inclined to fall back again to the old form of worship. Is it surprising that the Egyptians should have considered those people as Egyptians—and called them so in their traditions—who, even at the foot of Sinai, made an image of the holy bull, Mneuis, and solemnised it with festivities, thus proving that the greater proportion of them had adopted the Egyptian religion?

This was naturally the reason why the Jews were so frequently viewed as an EGYPTIAN COLONY, _e. g._ by Strabo[199], Apion[200], and others; and in this at least there is no contradiction between the Egyptian and Hebrew accounts; they rather both assist in completing a more perfect picture.

The emigrating people were described especially by Manetho, and by all the other Egyptian traditions, as a race of “_unclean, leprous Egyptians, godless, and hated by God_.” It is evident that the people designated here were of foreign extraction, DIFFERING IN FAITH, consequently GODLESS settlers in Egypt, the shepherd families, who, on account of their occupation, in remembrance of the old hereditary enemy, were hated by the genuine Egyptians, especially by the priests, “_for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians_[201].”

The Mosaic account also corroborates the opinion that the _leprosy_ and the _white_ sickness (λεύκη, ἀλφός), which resembles it, were very prevalent in those times, and particularly among the Jews, and that they were most dangerously infectious. This is intimated by the strict laws of separation issued by Moses against those attacked by the leprosy, among whom, however, his own sister Miriam[202] is found; also by the miracle of Moses, who draws his own hand out of his bosom white as snow with leprosy[203], and afterwards afflicts the land with the plague and with noxious boils[204], and finally with the sudden death of all the first-born. This perfectly explains the Egyptian account of the universal _plague of the leprosy_, which had more particularly broken out among the poorer and more uncleanly settlers, and which threatened the whole Egyptian nation[205]. To this is to be added the belief of the strict Egyptians that inward uncleanness and godlessness of the heart must necessarily be inseparably connected with outward uncleanness and with the leprosy, the most abhorred of the diseases sent by God.

It is said, by Manetho, that among these infected people there were some learned priests. Possibly these were of the Egyptian race, and yet were cast together with the unclean strangers. But there is nothing to prevent our assuming that these priests were also of foreign descent, and perhaps themselves Israelites. It is not, indeed, an improbable assertion, that Moses himself was brought up as a priest of Heliopolis. It is evident that Joseph could not, as a Hebrew, have been first minister of Pharaoh, but that he must, at the same time, have possessed both the rank, learning, and outward consecration of the Egyptian priests, with whom he had also united himself by marriage; and that Moses likewise, brought up in the house of the king, could only be instructed, in all the wisdom of the Egyptian priests, through the same medium of outward fellowship. Contrasted with the Egyptian prophets and hierogrammatists, who equally convert their staffs into serpents, change water into blood, and fill the land with frogs, he appears before Pharaoh only as a wiser, and more highly endowed man, than those sages. The name _Osarsiph_, is of little importance here, for even the name of _Moses_ is expressly declared to be Egyptian, as it could not have been otherwise. But yet on this very account it is worthy of notice, because it is interpreted as being expressly derived from Osiris at Heliopolis. As the principal god in that place was Ra, _i. e._ Ἥλιος, the service of Osiris was undoubtedly most closely united with the holy sun-bull of Osiris[206], the white bull represented in the paintings gold[207] 𓈖𓐰𓏠𓇋𓃒 Menes, or Mneuis, the same whom the people adored in the desert, and whose worship was even introduced into Palestine by King Jeroboam I., when he was recalled from Egypt[208]. A particular local worship in HELIOPOLIS had been dedicated to this bull since the time of Menes; and this very town, in which, according to the Egyptian tradition, Moses is said to have been the priest of Osiris (therefore of the golden calf), is, besides, always considered specially connected with the Jews. From that town Joseph took his wife, and _On_—so Heliopolis was called by the people—according to the Septuagint, was even built by the Israelites[209]. This cannot mean that they first founded the town, for it had been already mentioned as the native town of Joseph’s wife, and is also named upon the monuments even in the Old Monarchy, and in the annals as early as the time of Menes; but it cannot also be explained alone by saying that Heliopolis was probably the principal town of the eastern province of Goshen, it certainly can only be understood to mean that the Israelites completed the elevation and damming off of the town against the inundations, of which we shall say more hereafter. The Manethonic account is therefore important for this reason also, that it makes Moses come from Heliopolis, and thence indicates his connection with the golden bull.

It further follows, from the Egyptian recital, that the _sudden_ persecution of the unclean people had a special cause, and this appears always to proceed from the advice which the priests give the superstitious kings, as to how the distress of the leprosy, and the degeneration and desecration of their religious services were to be remedied. But in the desire not to expel this whole race, but to destroy them by hard labour in the country itself, or to let them perish in the desert, or even to drown them[210], we at the same time perceive another reason for the persecution, namely, the fear lest they should rise up as open enemies of the country, and unite themselves with the banished shepherds for a new subjugation of the land, a fear so well founded, that what was expected, was soon most completely fulfilled. Here again there is the silent acknowledgment that those unclean Egyptians were principally of foreign extraction, and had a natural bias to their Palestinian hereditary enemies, whom they afterwards called to their assistance. And the Mosaic account also exactly agrees with this[211]: “Let us deal wisely with them,” says Pharaoh, “lest they multiply, and it come to pass that when there falleth out any war _they join also with our enemies, and fight against us_.” Therefore, taskmasters were placed over the land, and the people tormented with building and all kinds of hard service, to which undoubtedly the working in the stone-quarries had reference, which is made particularly prominent in the Egyptian relation. The chief feature in both recitals is the design of oppression and destruction, by means of exorbitant taskwork.

All accounts are also agreed upon the great number of the enemy, which had grown up in the country, and even if only 280,000[212] had departed, as the Egyptians related, while in the Hebrew accounts 600,000 are mentioned, it was at any rate a great event, on which the Egyptian annals could not possibly preserve silence.

These are all features of the Egyptian narrative, which place beyond doubt the identity of that insurrection of the Lepers under Osarsiph, with the Exodus of the Israelites under Moses, even if we set aside the far more direct, but in the view of some perhaps, on that very account, less trustworthy evidence, which consists in what is added concerning the laws of Osarsiph, that the Egyptian gods should no longer be worshipped, and that they should never again hold intercourse with any other race, also concerning the name of Moses itself, which Osarsiph is said to have adopted. For I certainly consider it as more than probable that the name of Moses was not originally found in the Egyptian narrative; that the latter was only connected with a rebellious priest Osarsiph, and that Manetho first changed the name in consequence of the comparison with the Hebrew accounts, which had been made long before his day. But this assumption only upholds still more the age and the independence of the Manethonic narrative, whose genuine and ancient Egyptian character is besides apparent to the attentive reader through all its other parts. With reference to this, I shall only mention the peculiar feature of beholding the gods, and its connection with an earlier king, further the name of the town _Abaris_, which was entirely lost in later times, and could not therefore have been orally preserved by the people, but must have been taken from old writings. Also the unfortunate and ignominious turn of the event for the Egyptians, the cowardly flight of the king to Ethiopia, and the revolting usage to which the whole lower country, and especially the priesthood, were exposed for thirteen years, but, above all, the complete absence of all allusions and attacks upon the Jews as such, sufficiently proves that the whole was a simple, faithful account from the old writings. Therefore, when Josephus, in order to maintain his wholly untenable opinion that the Hyksos were the Jews, asserts that Manetho did not derive this narrative from genuine ancient sources, but that he only relates incredible fables, and declares besides that Manetho himself granted the uncertainty of his account, when he says, he will now write what is mentioned in the _tradition_ of the Jews—γράφειν τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα περὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων—(to write the mythical and legendary accounts concerning the Jews), this is only one more of the forced and ingenious accusations of which his controversial work is composed. The words of Manetho, as they are extant, nowhere support this assertion of Josephus, except the last, which are to this purport:—λέγεται δ’ ὅτι τὴν πολιτείαν καὶ τοὺς νόμους αὐτοῖς καταβαλόμενος ἱερεύς, τὸ γένος Ἡλιουπολίτης, ὄνομα Ὀσαρσίφ, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν Ἡλίου πόλει θεοῦ Ὀσίρεως, ὡς μετέβη εἰς τοῦτο τὸ γένος, μετετέθη τοὔνομα καὶ προσηγορεύθη Μωυσῆς—(_It is said_ that a priest who founded their polity and laws, a Heliopolitan by race, named Osarsiph, when he went over to this nation from the service of the god Osiris in Heliopolis, received a change of name, and was called Moses). This contains the honest acknowledgment of Manetho that the ancient sources whence he derived his information neither mention the _Jews_ nor _Moses_, which is confirmed by his own narrative. Therefore it was only a λεγόμενον (tradition), if it were not indeed a μυθευόμενον (mere fable), as Josephus adds, which applied that account to the Jews. Manetho evidently did not intend to say more. The account of the banishment of the Lepers bears exactly the same stamp as the earlier account of the banishment of the Hyksos, and even an entirely superficial critical examination would only lead us to conclude, from the mention in both accounts of the city of Abaris (which at Manetho’s time had long since passed out of remembrance), that he made use of the same ancient authorities for the one as for the other. Therefore, instead of the reproaches of Josephus, Manetho rather deserves all our gratitude for so strictly abstaining from introducing his own views, however correct they may have been, into the long-approved historical relations. He leaves the decision in the hands of his readers. And it seems to me that we can now make ours upon good grounds, not depending upon his opinions, but upon the documentary evidence he lays before us, to the effect, namely, that the identity of the two occurrences, recognised even before the time of Manetho, must actually be accepted.

Josephus, however, is equally groundless and frivolous in his reproach to the Egyptian historian, when he asserts that he has only of his own accord inserted the king here, under whom he places the event—Ἀμένωφιν εἰσποιήσας ἐμβόλιμον βασιλέα—(Having inserted Amenophis as king), and that he has not therefore ventured to assign a fixed number of years to his reign. As Josephus before made a great confusion between the kings Ἄμωσις and Τέθμωσις, and since here also, he has not remarked, that he has named the same king once before in a former extract (c. 15) in his right place, and ascribed to him the correct nineteen years and six months as the period of his reign, the reproach is at once removed from the Egyptian historian, and falls back upon himself.

Let us now see what place in the Egyptian annals is assigned to the King of the Exodus. Here again we are first referred to Josephus. We shall investigate in its proper place more minutely, how far he had the true account of Manetho before him, or only extracts from it. But it is easy to perceive from a cursory comparison of his extracts, which are partly given verbatim, and partly summarily, that in the two principal passages upon this portion of Egyptian history, he had two different authorities before him, who, in the writing of the names, and in certain details, somewhat differ from one another, and thence caused no little confusion to the inconsiderate critic.

If we now place these two authorities of Josephus beside one another, and compare with them the corresponding portion of the lists of Africanus and of the monuments, we obtain the following general view. (See next page.)

LISTS OF JOSEPHUS AND AFRICANUS.

+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+ | MANETHO. | MONUMENTS. | | +-----------------+--------+ | | | | | | | | JOSEPHUS. | AFRICANUS. | | | +--------+--------+ | | | | | | | | | | c. Ap. i. 15. | c. Ap. i. 26. | | | | | | | | | Y. M. | Y. M.| | | | | | | | |1. Ῥαμέσσης 1. 4.| 1. |1. Ῥαμέσσης 1. | 1. Rameses I. | | | | | | |3. Ἀρμέσσης 66. 2.| | | | | Μιαμμοῦ | | | | | | | | | |4. Ἀμένωφις 19. 6.| |(4. Ἀμενωφάθ 19.)| | | | | | | |(5) | | | | |2. Σέθωσις ὁ | 2. Σεθώς 50. 9.|2. Σεθὼς 51. | 2. Sethôs I. | | καὶ Ῥαμέσσης | (59 _l._) | | | | | | | | |3. | 3. Ῥάμψης 66. |3. Ῥαψάκης 66. | 3. Rameses | | | | (61 _l._) | Miamun | | | | | | |4. | 4. Ἀμένωφις |4. Ἀμενέφθης 20. | 4. Menephthes | | | | | | |5. | 5. Σεθὼς ὁ καὶ |5. Ῥαμέσσης 60. | 5. Sethôs II. | | | Ῥαμέσσης | | | +------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------------+

The first thing to be remarked is that the last column, that of the monuments, is _authentically_ determined, because it is entirely borrowed from several monumental catalogues, and taking it in details, the testimony of numerous contemporaneous monuments puts it beyond a shadow of doubt. The lists of the authors may therefore be judged with the greatest safety, according as they agree with it, but not the reverse. Hence it follows, that in the first authority of Josephus, either one has been lost between the first and second names, or the second and third names are incorrectly anticipated, since they should have come after the fourth. The numbers placed beside the reigns leave no doubt of this. The last of the two mistakes has evidently been committed by Africanus with regard to the Ἀμενωφάθ; therefore, in the comparative columns, the same has also been assumed to belong to Josephus. Furthermore, we read in the text of Josephus, chap. 15, Σέθωσις καὶ Ῥαμἑσσης (Sethôsis and Rameses), but we learn from the context, and chap. 26, that we ought to read ὁ καὶ (who is also). In the second authority of Josephus, the addition ὁ καὶ Ῥαμέσσης (who is also Rameses), is entirely wanting, which is undoubtedly correct, since neither the names of these two, or any other kings, are seen in connection on the monuments. The mistaken connection appears to have been occasioned by the confusion that existed at a much earlier period, in the ideas of the people, about these two kings; whereas, the surname of the second Ramses, Μιαμμοῦ, is evidently founded on the constant addition of 𓌹𓇋𓏠𓐰𓈖 _Miamun_, on the monuments of this king.

Without entering into further details, it is now undeniably evident from the same comparative list, that Ἀμένωφις, or Μένωφις, the third king of the second authority of Josephus, to whom the banishment of the Lepers was ascribed, is no other than the corresponding Ἀμενέφθης, with 20 years, and the Μενέφθης (_Menephtha_) of the monuments; lastly, no other than the anticipated Ἀμένωφις, with 19 years and 6 months of the first authority of Josephus, the son of Ἀρμέσσης Μιαμμοῦ, with 66 years 2 months, _i. e._ of _Ramses-Miamun_, whose sixty-second year appears upon the monuments. The King of the Exodus therefore belongs, according to the Egyptian accounts, to the 19th Manethonic Dynasty, and it seems to me impossible any longer to admit the opinion of those who believed him to belong to the previous 18th Dynasty[213]. It is true that in this Dynasty we find three different kings named _Amenophis_, which caused the confusion with the similarly sounding name _Menephthes_, but none of them have a Ramses for a father, and a Sethôs for a son and grandfather; for the two last names never appear in the 18th Dynasty.

We find, indeed, a king of the 18th Dynasty mentioned in the Manethonic relation in Josephus, viz. King Horus. But this incidental quotation contains so much the more an impartial and convincing proof, that the king with whom we are concerned, belonged to the 19th Dynasty, and that the whole account was taken from an ancient authority, to whom the same chronological connection was perfectly well known. It is said, namely, that Amenophis desired to become a beholder of the gods, like _one of his ancestors, King Horus_. Now this notice is in itself remarkable, and testifies its genuine character, since King Horus is not otherwise known to us through the popular tradition, probably because he, like most of the others, had left no monuments behind him which had attracted any particular notice in Memphis. But with regard to the time of his reign, it is apparent that he was certainly a _predecessor_, namely, the fourth of Menephthes, but a _successor_ of all the three Amenophises of the 18th Dynasty, which he terminated.

It is of minor importance that, according to Diodorus (34, 1), the banishment of the Jews is connected with the emigration of Danaus to Greece, and that this also is placed, according to the Egyptian tradition at least, in the 19th Dynasty. But we thereby see that the Egyptian tradition with regard to dates did not deviate much, even when it was connected with foreign elements.

If we now compare the clear Egyptian statements that we have cited, concerning the period of the Exodus with what is said about it by the later, particularly the Jewish and Christian chronologists, it would be difficult to comprehend why they differed so exceedingly, if we did not find the fundamental error fully explained in the writings of Josephus against Apion, where he asserts that the Jews were no other than the Hyksos. The perfectly untenable grounds for this opinion, which, nevertheless, has been shared even by some modern scholars, although the Mosaic narrative is entirely contradictory to it, both as a whole and in its details, may be gathered from Josephus himself, since a refutation of them here would be superfluous. But Josephus was by no means the first who started this opinion. It was already held by PTOLEMY MENDESIUS[214] and APION[215], perhaps even by POLEMON[216]. From this, also, originates the other misunderstanding, that it was not _Tuthmosis_, but _Amosis_, the first king of the 17th Dynasty, who drove away the Hyksos; and therefore in Josephus[217] the name Τέθμωσις is inserted in place of Ἄμωσις, and in Syncellus[218] both names appear united as Ἄμωσις ὁ καὶ Τέθμωσις—(Amosis, who is also Tethmosis). The reason of this confusion lay simply in this, that Amosis is found placed by Manetho at the head of the Dynasty which immediately follows the Dynasties of the Hyksos; he must, therefore, have driven away the Hyksos, who by them are understood to be the Jews.

We find a different opinion in EUSEBIUS. In his Manethonic list[219], beside King _Chencheres_, therefore in the middle between the true Exodus of the Hyksos and that of the Israelites, he writes as follows:—κατὰ τοῦτον Μωυσῆς τῆς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου πορείας τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἡγήσατο—(During this reign Moses conducted the journey of the Jews out of Egypt). But the reason for this deviation from the usual statements concerning the Pharaoh of the Exodus does not here lie in the name, which perhaps Eusebius had found somewhere mis-stated, but in his assumption (to which we shall afterwards return) that the first year of Abraham was also the first year of the 16th Manethonic Dynasty. He only counted, as he himself states, 75 years[220] from this year to Abraham’s removal to Haran, and then the 430 years of bondage in Egypt. By that means he obtained the year of the Exodus of Moses from Egypt. This happened, according to his Egyptian list, in the sixteenth year of _Chencheres_; consequently, in his annals, he entered the Exodus under this king.

The most fabulous recital of the Exodus is in Lysimachus, who appears to have written about the time of Christ’s birth, shortly before Apion. It is not, therefore, worth while to investigate whether the name of the King Bocchoris, in whose reign he makes Moses depart, was arbitrarily imagined, or whether it originated in some great misunderstanding. His romance appears, however, to have found acceptance, since we again meet with the fable of Lysimachus in Tacitus[221], with some new and additional facts. Tacitus says, that according to some the Jews wandered to Palestine during the reign of Isis, led by Hierosolymus and Judah; according to others, they were descendants of the Ethiopians, and departed during the reign of King Cepheus; but most people said, that at the breaking out of a plague, King Bocchoris had cleared the land of them, according to the sentence of an oracle.

But Josephus has rendered the narrative of Lysimachus still more confused, and by that means has also led astray later scholars. He relates, namely, as follows, in the second book of his controversy with Apion: “Manetho says that the Jews wandered out of Egypt in the reign of _Tethmosis_, 393 years before the flight of Danaus to Argos; but Lysimachus makes it under King _Bocchoris_, that is, 1700 years ago; Molon and others make it as it seems best to them; but Apion, the one most to be depended upon of all of them, placed the Exodus exactly in the _seventh Olympiad_, and in the _first year_ of it, in which, as he says, the Phœnicians founded Carthage.”

It was impossible that Josephus could place Bocchoris 1700 years before his own time, for that would make him nearly cotemporary with the first kings of the Egyptian succession, whose names he cites, without, however, mentioning a Bocchoris among them. This king lived, rather, according to Manetho, about 750, and not about 1650 before Christ. If, furthermore, it is asserted that Apion placed the Exodus at the Olympiad 7. 1., namely, B.C. 752, that is most decidedly contradicted by Clemens of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, and Africanus, in passages above referred to, who, on the contrary, agree in relating that Apion followed Ptolemy Mendesius, and placed the Exodus under Amosis, therefore about 1650 years before Christ. It is evident that Josephus has here in his careless way confused the authors and the numbers with one another. He meant to say, or ought to have said, that Manetho fixed the Exodus (not of the Jews, indeed, but of the Hyksos) 393 years before Danaus, _i. e._ 1700 years before Josephus, and Lysimachus fixed it, during the reign of _Bocchoris_. The fabulous narrator, Lysimachus, could hardly have affixed any statement of time to the name of Bocchoris, or he would certainly have discovered his error; but Apion, the grammatist and hyper-critic, had probably subjected the opinion of Lysimachus to his own critical examination, and reckoned that if he assumed Bocchoris to be the king under whom the Exodus was made, he must intend to fix his date at Olympiad 7. 1. At any rate there is no doubt that the Olympiad calculation belonged to Lysimachus, and the 1700 years to the Manethonic statement. The latter point might be remedied if we could place the words τουτέστι πρὸ ἐτῶν χιλίων ἑπτακοσίων (That is one thousand seven hundred years) after Δαναοῦ φυγῆς (The flight of the Danai). But we should certainly be wrong to change the number 1700, as Böckh[222] has done, into 700; or with Ewald[223] and Bunsen[224], to accuse Apion of the confusion of which Josephus alone is guilty.

If it is therefore impossible to place the Exodus of Moses, regarding it from the _Egyptian_ point of view—which has been singularly misunderstood by all the ancient and modern authors we have mentioned—under any other Pharaoh than MENEPHTHES, the son of the great Ramses, in the 19th Dynasty, nothing remains to the opponents of this view than to attack the truth of this statement from the standing point of the Hebrew authorities, and to show that there are irrefutable grounds in the _Mosaic_ accounts which prove the falsity of the Egyptian annals. But, upon a closer consideration, this is so little the case that, on the contrary, the Hebrew account confirms in the most unequivocal manner the Manethonic disposal of this event in the Egyptian history.

There are certainly very few features in the Mosaic account of the Exodus from which we could obtain in a direct manner any information about the condition of Egypt at the time of its occurrence. Whatever Egyptian manners and customs are occasionally mentioned, are generally little characteristic of any particular epoch of time; greater events, such as wars, change of government, the erection of famous buildings, are still less mentioned, everything is so exclusively apprehended and rendered in an Israelitish point of view. The great change which was introduced by Joseph in the agrarian condition of the country is almost the only exception made here, because it happens to be so closely connected with him personally. Farther on we shall consider the historical inferences which may be founded upon it concerning the time of Joseph. The complete absence of Egyptian proper names, which might so frequently be opportunely mentioned, is particularly striking. Neither the name of the Pharaoh in whose reign Abraham came into Egypt, nor he of whom Joseph was the minister, nor, finally, the one in whose house Moses was brought up, or his successor, in whose reign he left Egypt, are mentioned. This undoubtedly shows a total indifference about chronological points of union for the special history of the Israelites of those times, which is remarkably opposed to the very exact dates, apparently avoiding all breaks, from which our current chronology of the Old Testament is summed up.

Only a few _geographical_ names of Egyptian towns and localities enable us to contemplate, at least in some degree, the theatre of that great event. But there are two among them of peculiar importance to us here, because they also throw a light which was much needed upon Egyptian relations of time, and interpret in a remarkable manner sundry accounts of the old authors.

It is said in Exodus i. 2: “Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom and Raamses.” The Hebrew name of the latter town is ‎‏רעמסס‏‎, and is therefore exactly the same as that of King _Ramses_ in hieroglyphics, 𓂋𓐰𓂝𓄠𓋴𓋴. Now it is difficult to believe that this king’s name was given to a town before any King Ramses had reigned. We could not, therefore, on account of its name, place the building of this town earlier than under the 19th Manethonic Dynasty, because this dynastic name first appears here.

It seems to me, that we may now point out the historical relation of this town _Ramses_, with a particular King _Ramses_, among the many kings of that name. We shall, then, for the first time, learn the full significancy of the passage. But it will be necessary for this purpose to examine more closely the _geographical_ conditions at that time of the Isthmus of Suez, which formed the boundary between Egypt and Asia, and was therefore the theatre of the Exodus.

Since the Israelites departed from Ramses, this town must have been their central point and place of meeting. According to Manetho, the lepers, as the Hyksos before them, were finally driven out of Abaris. We might therefore be inclined at first to consider these two towns as one and the same. This was also the opinion of an old abbreviator of Eusebius[225], who says of Jacob: καὶ παροικεῖ ἐν τῇ Ῥαμέσῃ τῇ πάλαι Ἀβάρῃ καλουμένῃ—(And he sojourns in Ramses, which was formerly called Abare). Many scholars are of the same opinion[226]; Rozière[227] also, the great traveller, but who seldom hits on the right point, places Abaris in the spot where we at least believe we ought to place Ramses; and the same opinion, although given with hesitation, is found even in the masterly researches of D’Anville[228]. It is still more extraordinary that Ewald[229] holds Abaris to be _Baal Zephon_, and therefore seeks it in the immediate neighbourhood of the Red Sea.

The situation of the town of Abaris can only be decided by the accounts of Manetho; for all other authors, who mention this town, refer to the same passages in the work of Manetho, which we find most fully communicated by Josephus[230]. The first mention of the town occurred in the account of the invasion of the Hyksos, who entered the country from Syria about 2100 years before Christ, and governed it for many centuries. The easy success of this invasion, owing to the hitherto unfortified state of the eastern boundary, immediately directed the attention of Salatis, the first king of the Hyksos, to the necessity of closing the gate, which had stood open to them, against every future invader. He therefore did not delay, as Manetho relates[231], to make use of his experience: “He resided in Memphis, collected tribute from the Upper and Lower country, and left garrisons in the most suitable places. But he fortified the eastern boundaries, especially, as a precaution against the Assyrians, who were at that time very powerful, and who might afterwards be desirous like them to invade the same kingdom. Now he found a town particularly suitable for his purpose, situated to the east of the _Bubastic_ arm in the _Sethroitic_ Nome; and, according to the old tradition of the gods, it was named ABARIS. This he built up and fortified with strong walls, and placed as a guard within a garrison of 240,000 armed men. Thither he came, in the summer season, partly on account of the harvest and to issue the pay, partly in order to practise the garrison diligently in arms to the terror of the foreigners.” But when at the termination of the rule of the Hyksos, in the reign of Misphragmuthosis, these hereditary enemies were driven back out of the whole country, “the king finally enclosed them in that place called Abaris. It was 10,000 arura in extent, and (according to Manetho) the Hyksos surrounded it with a great and strong wall.” Since he could not capture them by a siege, he came to an agreement with them, and permitted them to depart with all their property to Syria.

Abaris is mentioned for the last time at the Exodus of the lepers, as we have seen above. It is here called an old Typhonic town, which had been uninhabited since the departure of the Hyksos, and was given up to the unclean after they were delivered from their oppression. But they fortify it again, call the Hyksos from Jerusalem to their assistance, and from this firm point for many years maintain the upper hand over the feeble king, until he, with the aid of an Ethiopian army, drove them back to the borders of Syria.

In these accounts there is an explicit statement about the geographical situation of Abaris, which determines it to have been placed in the _Sethroitic_ Nome. For it has been long acknowledged that we should read it so, instead of the _Saitic_ Nome, as it is in our present text. This is also shown by the reading of Eusebius, which, indeed, is still incorrectly written in the Armenian translation[232], but evidently purports to say, _in nomo Methraite_ in place of _Sethraite_, and by many other passages in which this town, though without a name, is mentioned by Manetho, and is placed in the Sethroitic Nome[233]. But even if this correct reading had not been preserved to us by others, we must still have rejected the Saitic Nome, because this is situated in the western part of the Delta, while Abaris ought to be placed to the east of the Bubastic arm of the Nile.

There can be no doubt about the general situation of the _Sethroitic_ Nome, from the statements of Strabo[234], and of Ptolemy[235], who was born in Egypt. It lay eastward along the northern part of the Bubastic, or Pelusaic arm of the Nile. Its capital was Heracleopolis Parva, and Pelusium, from its position, must also have belonged to this Nome, although this is never expressly said. Abaris must accordingly be situated there.

The object also which was to have been gained, by the original founding of Abaris, directs us to this province, and to its most north-eastern portion in the neighbourhood of Pelusium. It was to serve as a _boundary fortification_ against Syria. In all times, ancient as well as modern, there was only _one_ military entrance from that country. The road led from Gaza, along the sea-coast by Raphia (Refah), Rhinokolura (El Arisch), Mons Casius, along the Lake of Serbon, to Pelusium, which is situated at the mouth of the eastern arm of the Nile. This part of the Nile, which extended far out towards the east, was the first within reach; therefore, although the destination of most travellers lay considerably to the south, the northern circuitous route by this road was rendered necessary, and for the march of armies indeed it was quite unavoidable. When _Sesostris_ led home his conquering army from Asia, he returned by this road. According to Herodotus[236], Δάφναι αἱ Πηλούσιαι (Daphni of Pelusium) was the place where his treacherous brother met him; according to Manetho[237] and Diodorus[238], it was PELUSIUM itself. It is said that from this place the same Sesostris fortified the eastern frontiers as far as Heliopolis[239]. Hither Sethôs, the priest of Ptha, came to meet Sanherib, because, as Herodotus[240] adds, “here was the entrance into Egypt.” In this neighbourhood, at the Pelusaic mouth, below Bubastis, the Ionians and Carians brought hither by Psammeticus were stationed undoubtedly as frontier guards, at a place which afterwards bore the name of Στρατόπεδα[241]. In the strong town of PELUSIUM, Psammenitus waited for Cambyses, and by losing this position, lost besides all Egypt to the Persian conqueror[242]. In later times, the great Macedonian entered by Pelusium[243]. In Strabo’s time, also, Pelusium, to which point according to him Phenicia extended[244], was the frontier post in the direction of Syria and Arabia, and the road to Egypt led through this “inaccessible” country, not only from Phenicia, but also from the Nabatain Arabia[245]. _Amru_ (_Amr ebn el As_) also took the same road with his 4000 Arabs, when he conquered Egypt from the side of Syria, A.D. 639, having first taken the strong town of Pelusium by a thirty days’ siege; even down to the latest times, we see the Egyptian armies marching _to_ and from Syria by this road.

It appears accordingly undoubted that ABARIS, which during the time of the Hyksos, and in the reign of Menephthes, was destined for the same purpose as Pelusium at a later period, could not have been far removed from it also in point of situation. To me, indeed, it seems very probable that it was the ancient name of PELUSIUM. According to the accounts we receive, both towns were of considerable extent, and it cannot be supposed that there were several of such a description in that neighbourhood. No proof is required to show that Πηλούσιον was not, as the Greeks imagined, formed from πηλός, although the Arabs in their translation of _Tineh_—_i. e._ _Lutetia_—accepted the quibble. It is much more probably referred to the Philistine name Pelistim, which is already proved in the above-mentioned tradition of its heros eponymos Παλαιστινός, or Πηλούσιος. We must, therefore, explain Pelusium by “Philistine” or “Palestine-town.” It appears to me that Ewald[246] has successfully attributed a similar origin to the name of the town Ἄβαρις[247], as the “_town of the Hebrews_,” _of the Abarim_. A peculiar historical epoch may, perhaps, be indicated in this change in the name. Ewald’s searching investigations concerning the history of the Israelites, have demonstrated that the term Hebrew nation had originally a far more comprehensive signification than has been hitherto commonly accepted. It comprised the most south-westerly Semitic tribes[248], and extended to the gates of Egypt, therefore as far as our frontier town. But we afterwards find in these very same countries the immigrated race of the PHILISTINES, who had driven back the Hebrews from that spot. Ewald[249] does not place this change before the time of the Judges. Therefore, if our town had formerly been an advanced frontier-post in the land of the Hebrews, and afterwards in the land of the Philistines, and was undoubtedly each time filled with a large Semitic population, it may have exchanged its earlier name Ἄβαρις, Hebrew town, for the later Πηλούσιον, Philistine-town.

Abaris has frequently been identified with Heroonpolis, by D’Anville[250], Larcher[251], Champollion[252], Gesenius[253], Jomard[254], and others. The only apparent reason which is cited for this opinion is that Stephanus, of Byzantium, quotes the otherwise unauthenticated tradition, that Typhon was struck with lightning at Heroonpolis; and that Manetho called Abaris, according to an old tradition, a Typhonic town[255]. This comparison does not at all overbalance the distinct geographical statement of Manetho, that Abaris was situated in the Sethroitic Nome, to which Heroonpolis, as we shall see, could not belong. That tradition, indeed, seems only to be founded upon a misunderstanding of Stephanus; namely, upon the unauthentic information that Ἡρώ was also called Αἷμος. Greek tradition[256], namely, connected Αἷμος (not a town, however, but the Thracian mountains), as it did other mountains, with Typhon, and probably, only on account of its name, imagined that it was here he was killed, and shed his blood.

On the other hand, this tradition about Typhon refers us again to the idea that Abaris was the most ancient name of Pelusium. Typhon was always considered as the particular god of the hereditary enemy of the Asiatic Hyksos. The mythological evidence of this assertion, which is far from new, does not belong here. But this was, perhaps, the reason why this god, according to tradition, was also brought into local connection with that important point on the frontier, the only entrance into the kingdom of Osiris from the land of Typhon. Herodotus related[257], probably, therefore, from a native Egyptian tradition, that it was there—namely, in the Lake of Serbonis, so dangerous to all travellers, which stretched out directly from Pelusium eastwards, that Typhon, who was struck by lightning, lay chained; and others, also, make him fly away from Jupiter out of Syria, as far as Pelusium[258].

But, perhaps, another Typhonic trace may still be referred to Pelusium. It might have been expected, namely, that the town of Abaris, or Pelusium, had, besides these signs which were deduced from its origin or from its population, a real Egyptian name; still more, because we find that most Egyptian towns had a double name—the popular name which usually appears in the Coptic and Arabic writings, and the sacred name derived from the local gods, which the Greeks generally, though not always, retained in their translations. Πηλούσιον undoubtedly answered to the popular name of the town. The sacred name, according to report, could only be derived from Typhon. Now we find the Nome to which Pelusium belonged always called Σεθρωΐτης, or Σεθραΐτης, not Ἡρακλεοπολίτης, as we should have expected, since Ἡρακλέους πόλις is cited as its capital. This denomination necessarily presupposes a town, which in Greek would have been Σεθρώη, Σεθρώ, Σεθραΐς. Stephanus, of Byzantium, also mentions such a town, and calls it Σέθρον. Perhaps, instead of reading ⲥⲉⲑⲣⲟⲛ, we should read, with Salmasius, ⲥⲉⲑⲣⲟⲏ[259].

It is, however, extraordinary, that we should find the town which gave its name to a Nome, only once mentioned. But this is explained, if we admit that the denomination of the Nome was taken from the sacred name of a town, which was unfamiliar to the Greeks, as in Διὸς πόλις, Ἡλίου πόλις, Πανὸς πόλις. If we may now venture to admit, that the beginning of the name Σεθρώ, signified the god _Seth_, or _Set_, _i. e._ Typhon[260], it is not improbable that this was the sacred name of the Typhonic town Pelusium, which had once been of greater importance, and had given the name Σεθρωΐτης to the Nome.

The only reason which could be employed against Abaris and Pelusium being identical places, and which is really given by D’Anville is, that it would have been mentioned by Manetho. But this reason may be used against every other town, and in that case we must suppose that the enormous town had afterwards been entirely deserted, and that no traces of its ruins remained, which is more than improbable. It is more likely that either Manetho did not know himself to what modern town the ancient name ought to be applied, which he only met with in old writings, or that he mentioned it in a passage which Josephus has not preserved. For Josephus himself at least supposed, that by Abaris, Pelusium was meant, as his words show in the 29th chapter, where he even puts the last name in the mouth of Manetho: τοὐναντίον γὰρ αὐτὸς εἴρηκεν ὡς ὁ παῖς τοῦ Ἀμενώφιος τριάκοντα μυριάδας ἔχων εἰς Πηλούσιον ὑπηντίαζεν—(For, on the contrary, he said that the son of Amenophis, having thirty myriads, advanced to _Pelusium_)—and Chairemon[261] had no doubt about it, since he does not name Abaris, but makes the lepers march to Pelusium.

Now, if it is certain that Abaris was the ancient name for Pelusium, or at any rate was situated in the neighbourhood of this town, it is impossible at the same time to consider it to be Heroonpolis; but neither could it be Ramses. On the contrary, both these latter towns are brought into close connection with each other, even by the Seventy, since they placed the town of Heroonpolis in the district of Ramses, in which undoubtedly the town of Ramses must have been situated[262].

Scholars also hold the most different opinions about the situation of Heroonpolis, it will therefore be necessary to examine this question next.

Strabo[263] says that the town was situated “in the _angle of the Arabian Gulf_,” and thence people concluded that it must have been situated in the neighbourhood of the present Suez[264], and on that account assert that the gulf itself was called after it κόλπος Ἡρωοπολίτης[265], and cites the statement of Ptolemy[266], according to which Heroonpolis is placed at 30° north latitude, which corresponds nearly with the present Suez. These reasons appear to be of great importance. Nevertheless we cling, without hesitation, to the opinion of those scholars who place Heroonpolis far more north, namely, on the ancient Nile canal, west from Birket e’ temsah, in the neighbourhood of the valley Seba-Biar. D’Anville was also of this opinion, though he was not then aware of the ruins of ancient towns which are found there. The French expedition pointed out two of them. Adjoining Seba-Biar, at the west end of this low district, lie the ruins which are now called _Mukfâr_, and farther west those of _Abu-Keshêb_[267]. The latter are considered by Et. Quatremère[268], Champollion[269], Du Bois Aymé[270], and others, as the remains of Heroonpolis. I am more in favour of those at _Mukfâr_.

With regard to the general situation of Heroonpolis in this country, we must next remark, that it would be singular if _three_ towns, Arsinoë, Klysma, and Heroonpolis, had been crowded together at the head of the gulf, while the ruins of _two_ only are to be seen. But it is a still more important consideration, that we find the meeting between Joseph and Jacob placed at Heroonpolis not only by Josephus[271], but also by the Seventy, who must undoubtedly have known the situation. Heroonpolis existed in their time, indeed it appears to have been first mentioned by them. But it was impossible that they could have made Joseph go to Suez, if he wished to meet his father, who came out of Syria. It must have been situated on the road from Syria, and they undoubtedly mentioned it, because in their time it was the capital of that province, which they considered to be the district of Goshen and Ramses. But the situation which the Itinerarium Antonini[272] gives to the town _Hero_, which is Heroonpolis, is decisive, since it places it XXIV. mille passus from _Thoum_, XVIII. from _Serapiu_, and the latter L. from _Klysma_. But Et. Quatremère[273] has most completely pointed out that Klysma was situated at the head of the gulf opposite Arsinoë, as it is marked in the tablet of Peutinger. But _Thoum_, _i. e._ _Pithom_, was situated on the Nile, in the neighbourhood of Bubastis[274]. Thereby the situation of Heroonpolis is placed somewhere near the above-mentioned ruins.

This was a convenient situation for the capital of that part of the country to which it gave its name[275]. But the province, which extended as far as the gulf, might have been suitably named after it. The account given by the Seventy also agrees very well with this, since the road from the north to Cairo still passes in this neighbourhood[276]. But the question is, how can Strabo, who places Heroonpolis in the _angle of the gulf_, be made to accord with this? In consequence of these different statements, Du Bois Aymé believed he was justified in the supposition[277], which he has fully stated, that in earlier times the gulf extended much farther north, and filled up all the low districts of the now dry so-called Bitter lakes, but afterwards being covered by sand, withdrew itself within its present shore. I do not think that it is necessary to believe in such a physical change; and the idea of it seems to me most completely set aside by the remains of an artificial canal, more than four leagues in length, which runs from Suez towards the north, and which was pointed out by the French expedition, for no canal could be cut where there was sea; the utmost that was necessary was to render the passage navigable when it was filled up with sand. But the opening of this canal must have had nearly the same results as those which may be derived from the belief in the extended sea. The wide basins of the Bitter lakes were filled by the canal, as well as the adjoining lakes to the north, and the low district of Seba-Biar, which extends even to the ruins of Mukfâr. Here first commenced the real Nile canal, which received its water from the west. Here was the harbour, as Strabo expressly says[278], in which they embarked for a voyage on the Red Sea. On account of the natural and extensive shore of the lake, the notion of a sea voyage was here imparted to the traveller; and, therefore, this part artificially drawn into the gulf might naturally be called the μυχὸς τοῦ κόλπου, the innermost angle of the gulf. Strabo, or Eratosthenes, whom he cites, even says expressly in one place, that Heroonpolis was situated on the Nile, that is to say, on a canal of the Nile, and yet calls the town itself at the same time the μυχὸς τοῦ Αραβίου κόλπου (The innermost part of the Arabian Gulf)[279].

Ptolemy also says, that the _Trajanic river_ (as the canal was called, which was afterwards cut from Babylon) flowed through Heroonpolis. On account of the sharp angle so far removed to the east, which is formed here by the Nile canal and the extended gulf, this provincial capital was particularly adapted for the more general geographical determinations of those countries, for which purpose it had been especially used by Strabo, and earlier, also, by Eratosthenes[280].

With regard to the statement of numbers given by Ptolemy, the longitude agrees very well with our acceptation, and also prevents us placing the town still farther west. But the latitudes, according to which Ἡρώων πόλις would fall under 30° (others give 29° 50′), the μυχὸς τοῦ κόλπου (innermost part of the gulf) under 29° 50′, and Ἀρσινόη under 29° 30′ (or 29° 10′, also 29° 20′), certainly contain an error, wheresoever we place the μυχός, because Arsinoë, which was undoubtedly situated in the neighbourhood of Suez, is placed 30′, or even 50′, too far south. It is, therefore, more probable, that we ought only to consider the distances of the three places from one another as correctly fixed, somewhat in the order, 29° 50′, 29° 50′, 29° 10′, exactly as they are given in the codex Mediceus, but that there is an error easy of explanation throughout the numbers, by which they have all been placed 50′ too far south. For the true position, according to other proofs, demanded for Heroonpolis (Mukfâr), and for the μυχός (Seba-Biar), bordering on it, 30° 40′, for Arsinoë (not far north of Suez), 30°.

Thus the statements of Ptolemy also appear to me to be no longer opposed to our acceptation. We decide, therefore, for Mukfâr, rather than for Abu-Keshêb, because the first was in reality situated close to the μυχός of Seba-Biar, while Abu-Keshêb lay about an hour and a half farther west on the canal, and not on the lake.

There is, besides, the additional reason, that we believe we have found in the ruins of Abu-Keshêb the still more ancient town of _Ramses_, which must have been situated in this neighbourhood, and yet can hardly be the same as Heroonpolis. The Seventy say that Heroonpolis was situated in the province of Ramses. Thence follows that in their time at least the town no longer bore the name of Ramses. This last name, moreover, is nowhere found except in the Old Testament. The town had therefore undoubtedly been already forsaken and forgotten, and appears to have been exactly supplanted and replaced by Heroonpolis, which was afterwards built in its neighbourhood; whilst no reason could be discovered wherefore the old Egyptian name of Ramses should have been changed into the later Egyptian name of Heroonpolis.

But that we may really seek for Ramses in the ruins of Abu-Keshêb is most decidedly confirmed by a monument which was found upon those very ruins as early as the time of the French expedition. It is a group of three figures cut out of a block of granite, which represents the gods Ra and Tum, and between them the King Ramses II. The shields of this the greatest of the Pharaohs are repeated six times in the inscriptions on the back[281].

It was therefore King RAMSES-MIAMUN who built this town, and was worshipped there, as is shown by this monument, and he it was who gave his name to the town[282]; for it is not easy to believe that it was founded by his grandfather, Ramses I., who only reigned about one year.

This leads us to the history of the remarkable canal on which the town was built. It is known that this canal afterwards served to connect the Nile and the Red Sea. Concerning this connection, we read in Herodotus[283] that it was first undertaken by Nekôs, who also caused Africa to be circumnavigated, but that it was interrupted before its completion. Darius then took up the work. The connection actually existed in the time of Herodotus, as we learn from his words. The assertions of Aristotle, Diodorus, Strabo, and Pliny appear to contradict this, who some of them fix the period of the first plan of the connection much earlier than Herodotus, since they ascribe it to Sesostris, and some make the completion of the work later than him, namely, that it was only finished in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

Aristotle[284] says that both Sesostris and afterwards Darius commenced the work, but gave it up because the sea was discovered to be higher than the land, and it was therefore feared that the Nile water might be spoilt by the rushing in of the sea. Aristotle does not mention Nekôs; it therefore appears that in his day the connection which existed in the time of Herodotus had again ceased.

We can thus understand why Diodorus[285] ascribes the final completion of the canal to PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. He makes no more mention of Sesostris, than Herodotus did. But according to him, Nekôs as well as Darius are prevented from completing it, lest by that means they should overflow the country. This does not weaken the testimony of Herodotus concerning the existing connection. Ptolemy Philadelphus did not only re-open the connections, but he built an artificial sluice at its extreme point, at Arsinoë, from which this canal received the name of the Ptolemaic.

Strabo[286] says, that SESOSTRIS began it, but desisted, being afraid of the higher level of the Red Sea. It was not finished by the son of Psammeticus (_Nekôs_), on account of his premature death. _Darius_ also discontinued the almost completed work, because he feared that he should overflow Egypt; the Ptolemies at length finished the opening, and made a sluice at Arsinoë. By that means, the salt-water of the Bitter lakes became sweet, and abounded with fish.

Of the more ancient kings, Pliny[287] only mentions SESOSTRIS and DARIUS, but he says of PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS, that he cut a canal 100 feet wide and 40 feet deep, as far as the Bitter lakes, called it _amnis Ptolemæus_, and built Arsinoë upon it. He discontinued cutting the canal, being afraid of an inundation.

Lastly, we must again cite here what has been already casually mentioned in a former place, that a Τραϊανὸς ποταμὸς is named by Ptolemy[288], which ran through Babylon and Heroonpolis.

The contradictions which these different statements of the ancient authors appear to contain, have been frequently brought forward, but even the full deliberation which Letronne has bestowed on this interesting subject[289], does not appear to me to have given a perfectly true picture of the history of this connecting canal. It has everywhere been forgotten, that the question is not about _one_, but _two_ canals.

The first and the oldest canal was only conducted from the Nile to Seba-Biar, in an exact easterly direction. This canal was undoubtedly cut by Ramses (Sesostris), because, as has been remarked, in the neighbouring ruins of Abu-Keshêb, a granite group has been found, which represents this king, and which must have stood in the temple of the place. Letronne, who appears to have been unaware of this circumstance, is therefore wrong, when (p. 7) he considers the information given by Aristotle, Strabo, and Pliny, that Sesostris commenced the connection, but did not restore it, as a later tradition, only arisen since the time of Herodotus, in order to enhance still more the name of Sesostris. This canal, like many others cut by this king, had its own particular purpose; he acquired thereby a considerable portion of the desert. But if we consider the especial attention which Sesostris also paid to ship-building, since he first navigated the Arabian Gulf with war ships[290], it could not have appeared to him a very strange idea to cut through the narrow isthmus between the Arabian Gulf and the Bitter lakes. The Egyptians had for ages possessed the art of levelling in the greatest perfection, and practised it more than ever in the time of Sesostris, therefore there was nothing extraordinary at that time in the reasons given by Aristotle and Strabo why the opening was not ventured upon, because it was discovered that the Red Sea was too high[291].

NEKÔS, however, undertakes it, but leaves it off again, according to Herodotus, influenced by an oracle, who told him he worked for the barbarians (a danger which likewise has always made the calculating Mehemet Ali disinclined to the undertaking), and according to Strabo, because he died. Diodorus attributes this scruple to him in place of to Sesostris, but incorrectly, because the levelling must have been made before the section could have been commenced. It was necessary, however, to dig through a double elevation of the ground, and distinct traces of both these connecting trenches may still be found upon the careful map of the French engineer, who took the level of this part of the country[292]. The first cutting which restored the connection between Seba-Biar and the Bitter lakes, was insignificant, and only consisted of about 7000 metres; the second, between the Bitter lakes and the sea, was the most important, and almost four times as long as the former. Now, it is possible that Nekôs undertook the first cutting either with the intention of fertilising the extensive land round the Bitter lakes by the pouring in of the Nile water, or thus to prepare for the second more difficult cutting. We can easily imagine that the idea of connecting the two seas must have been a very natural one to that same Nekôs, who, according to Herodotus[293], caused Africa to be circumnavigated, and triremes to be constructed for various enterprises, both on the Mediterranean Sea, as well as on the Arabian Gulf[294]. The opinion of Letronne seems to me, therefore, of little value, who imagined that he first borrowed the idea from the plan of his cotemporary, PERIANDER, for cutting through the Isthmus of Corinth. The reverse is evidently a much more probable supposition, since the Greek plan was much more difficult to accomplish, was less called for by necessity, and was conceived at a time in which, probably, Egyptian hydraulic architects would have been employed, since this profession had flourished for ages in Egypt, but nothing similar to it had been accomplished in Greece.

DARIUS must have certainly cut through the district between the sea and the Bitter lakes, and thus have restored the first real connection by water, between the sea and the Nile, for it existed in the time of Herodotus, whatever Aristotle, Diodorus, and Strabo may say to the contrary, who again transfer the old tradition about the fear of an inundation from Sesostris to Darius. It was never possible, indeed, to make a perfectly free connection, on account of the different height of the water, and the ebb and flow of the Red Sea. I conjecture, therefore, that Darius constructed a sluice at the inner extremity of the new canal, where it discharges itself into the Bitter lakes, in order to protect the inner waters and the adjacent fertile lands from the overflowing sea. This was undoubtedly the most suitable point for such a work, since it would not be so difficult as immediately on the sea. The passage through, would be regulated by the level of the sea, which changes with the ebb and flow of the tide, as must be the case with a simple sluice.

But it is in the monuments that we again find the opinion most certainly confirmed, that a passage existed here as early as the times of the Persians. During the French expedition, the chief engineer, De Rozière, discovered, on a military excursion from Suez, a heap of ruins in a district which is not accurately defined, but which cannot have been far from the southern extremity of the Bitter lakes, upon which were scattered the remains of the statue of a _Persian_ king, and several fragments of _cuneiform inscriptions_, all in red granite[295]. It appears that no traveller has since visited this spot[296]. But how can the existence of Persian ruins in this part of the isthmus be explained, if they were not connected with the opening of the canal, situated there? Besides this, the largest portion of the cuneiform writings mentioned above contains precisely the name of King _Darius_, followed by the addition _narpa vas-(arqa)_, _princeps magnus_, which is also found in other inscriptions, from which we may deduce with certainty that this king, whom the image also undoubtedly represented, took an active part here. At all events it was only a narrow canal, and not constructed for large ships. Therefore it might afterwards be again filled up with sand, and fall into disuse, and, indeed, be so far forgotten that Aristotle might imagine it had never been completed.

PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS undertook its restoration. He appears to have had the magnificent intention of restoring a connection by water between the two seas for ships of war also. This alone explains the grand idea of constructing a canal to the Bitter lakes, 100 feet wide, and 40 feet deep, which would have been quite unnecessary for common ships of burden. At the same time he constructed an artificial sluice, probably at the point where the sea entered, where he also built the town Arsinoë. But as Pliny expressly says, he only carried this work from the sea to the Bitter lakes. It is only this canal that we must undoubtedly understand by the ποταμὸς Πτολεμαῖος, _amnis Ptolemæus_, which, according to Diodorus and Pliny, received its name from the second Ptolemy. The immense difference between this canal and the two northern ones, is visible in the plan of the French engineer[297], therefore it does not even require the ingenious explanation of Letronne in order to understand that it was impossible for Cleopatra, after the battle of Actium, to cause ships of war to be brought from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, except by land.

With reference to this last work, Strabo mentions the PTOLEMAIC kings, this, connected with the fact that the town of Arsinoë, since the time of Strabo, is also mentioned under the name Κλεοπατρίς, leads to the supposition that one of the last Ptolemies, or Cleopatra herself, completed the workings on this canal, perhaps the sluices.

The name ποταμὸς Τραϊανός, by which Letronne also understands the whole connecting way as far as the sea[298], was undoubtedly as limited as the name ποταμὸς Πτολεμαῖος. Ptolemy designedly neither mentions Arsinoë or the sea; he says that Trajan’s canal flowed through Babylon and Heroonpolis. This, therefore, refers to the canal, of which traces are also still extant, which received its water much higher up than the ancient one of Sesostris, namely, at Babylon, and was afterwards conducted into it, and discharged itself with it into the basin of Seba-Biar at Heroonpolis[299].

This geographical digression, whose length may be excused owing to the peculiar interest of the subject, allows us now, as it seems to me, to judge confidently on two points, which are important in a critical examination of the Exodus of the Israelites. From the position of the two towns, Abaris and Ramses—the former situated on the Mediterranean Sea, near the mouth of the Pelusaic arm of the Nile, the latter half a degree more to the south, and almost as much more west—it follows that the Israelites, according to the Mosaic accounts, marched out of a different town, as well as in a different direction, from that taken by the unclean in the Manethonic narration.

On the other hand, we have found that the town of Ramses derived its name from the King Ramses-Miamun (Sesostris), by whom it was built, and that the ancient Nile canal, on which it was situated, was constructed, according to the Greek accounts, by Sesostris, _i. e._ Ramses-Miamun. It is evident that these two works, that of the canal and that of the town, are connected, and reciprocally corroborate each other. The new town was occasioned by the canal being cut. This connection will be still more apparent by two other facts.

In the western part of the Delta there is a village which to this day bears the same name as the town we are speaking of, namely, Ramses. This village also, and its name, are of ancient date, which is proved by the mound of ruins at that spot; and, what is still more important to us, it is situated, like the eastern Ramses, on the border of an _ancient canal_, which was conducted from the Canopic arm, and brought the water of the Nile to Hermopolis Parva (Damanhur)[300]. The existence of these ruins of Ramses appears to me alone to justify the very probable supposition that this great western canal was also cut by Ramses-Miamun, and that the royal constructor was worshipped as the eponymous divinity in the town which was there built. It is evident that the Israelites would not have been sent hither from Goshen in order to build _this_ town[301].

Besides the eastern RAMSES, the Israelites also built the town of PITHOM. The situation of this town cannot easily be mistaken. It has been long recognised in the town of Πάτουμος, of which Herodotus speaks when he says that the eastern Nile canal, which was conducted a little above Bubastis, flowed past it[302], the Arabian town[303]. It was probably situated opposite Bubastis (Tel Basta), on the border of the desert, and at the entrance of the Wadi, through which the canal is led. The ancient ruins of a town are found there under the name of _Tel el kebir_, and the _Itinerarium Antonini_ places the town of _Thoum_, which has certainly been properly recognised as the ancient town of _Tum_ Πά-τουμος[304], exactly in that place, namely, upon the road from Heliopolis to Pelusium, on the edge of the desert between Vicus Judæorum (Tel Jehudeh) and Tacasartha (Salhîeh?). Now if the Coptic translation in the passage which is cited from Gen. xlvi. 28, writes ⲡⲓⲑⲟⲙ in place of Heroonpolis, as is translated by the Seventy, it does not mean that Pithom was believed to be discovered in Heroonpolis, but that it was thought better to fix the place at which Joseph went to meet Jacob at Pithom rather than at Heroonpolis.

PITHOM, therefore, was situated at one end, and RAMSES at the other, of the ancient Nile canal, which was constructed by the great Pharaoh, Ramses-Miamun, in the land of Goshen. Both were founded in consequence of the new canal, and their direct connection in the Mosaic narrative, as well as the statement that they were built by the _Israelites_, is most decidedly confirmed by the geographical circumstances which have been exhibited. Taking it in a general point of view, there can be no doubt that the Israelites were chiefly settled in that very country, namely, below Heliopolis, in the neighbourhood of Bubastis (Tel Basta) and of the modern Belbês, where ruins are still extant called _Tel Jehudeh_; and the Itinerarium Antonini cites a place called _Vicus Judæorum_, where, finally, the Jewish temple of _Onias_ was built, probably at the Ὀνίου of Ptolemy[305].

The inference we have arrived at, that if the Israelites built these towns, they must have been still in Egypt in the reign of King Ramses, who founded them, and that they could not have departed several centuries previous, no longer rests upon the name of one single town, which might be explained by an accidental inexactitude of the writer, or by a confusion in dates[306], but upon the close connection of a series of facts, which reciprocally support and explain one another.

Hence the oppression took place more especially under Ramses, and the Exodus resulting from it under his son and successor Menephthes. According to the Mosaic narrative also, the Pharaoh by whom the towns were built was a different one from that of the Exodus[307]. Moses only returned from Midian upon hearing of the death of the first, and it seems that the event of the Exodus was directly connected with the change of government.

Another proof of the correctness of our opinion, that, according to the history of the Israelites, as recorded in the books of the Old Testament, the Exodus cannot be fixed before the reign of the second Ramses, is afforded by the accounts of the settlement of the Jews in Palestine. It is well known, and most thoroughly confirmed by the monuments, and the nearly contemporaneous Egyptian papyrus rolls, that Ramses-Miamun attacked and conquered a great part of Asia, and probably during his whole reign held under his dominion the adjoining lands, the peninsula of Petræa, and all Palestine. We also see his father, Sethôs I., represented upon the monuments in victorious warfare against the people of Syria, among whom the Canaanites are expressly named. These were the most glorious times in the whole Egyptian history. That they are nowhere mentioned in the books of Joshua and Judges, while the numerous far more transitory subjugations of the Israelites by the nations bordering upon them are so fully recorded, appears, in fact, to be a fresh proof that those warlike expeditions happened _before_ the Exodus of the Israelites[308].

But it even appears as if the true epoch of Egyptian history in which the Exodus of the Israelites occurred, has been preserved in late Jewish traditions. I will at least bring forward one circumstance from _Rabbinical chronology_, which deserves, perhaps, to be followed up by those who are more familiar with this literature.

This Jewish chronology, namely, deviates in a most striking manner from every other, and as late as the times of the Persian kings it differs no less than about 160 years from the recognised numbers. The different authorities present few deviations among themselves. They reckon by the years of the world, a mode of reckoning which, as Ideler[309] also considers, most probably was first discovered, and gradually introduced, by the Rabbi Hillel Hanassi, in the year 344 after Christ, simultaneously with the whole of the present arrangement of the year among the Jews. They place the Creation 3761 years before Christ, and till the time of Joseph they agree perfectly with the customary mode of reckoning in the Hebrew text. They fix the Flood 1656 years after Adam; Abraham’s birth 1948; Isaac’s 2048; Jacob’s 2108; Joseph’s 2199; Jacob’s march to Egypt 2238; Joseph’s death 2309. It is only when they come to Moses that they immediately deviate about 210 years, because, following the precedent of Josephus and others, they reckon the 400 years of the sojourn in Egypt from the birth of Isaac, and not from the entrance of Jacob[310]. They fix the birth of Moses at 2368, and his Exodus at 2448 after the Creation.

_But this year 2448 of their era corresponds with the year 1314 [-1313]_ B.C.[311], and therefore, according to the Manethonic chronology, occurs in the time of King Menephthes, who reigned nineteen years, therefore the _same_ king whom the Egyptian annals called the King of the Exodus. Besides this, the latter tell us of a flight of thirteen years which the king made into Ethiopia. If this flight took place, as it probably did, in the first or second year after the change of government, he must have returned and driven away the lepers in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of his reign. _But the year 1314 is exactly the fifteenth year of Menephthes_, according to the Manethonic calculation.

This coincidence is certainly striking, but might possibly be only accidental, if other circumstances were not added to it. For instance, the same Jewish chronology places the building of the temple by Solomon, according to the 1 Kings vi. 1, about 480 years after the Exodus, therefore 2928 = 834 B.C., the march of Shishak against Rehoboam 2969 = 793, that of Zerah against Asa 2998 = 764, the banishment of Israel 3205 = 557, the destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar 3338 = 424, Darius (Hystaspes) 3406 = 356, the building of the second Temple 3408 = 354. These, as well as the intervening numbers, which I omit here, are all of them about 165 years too late. But from this place the correct dates are suddenly restored; Alexander of Macedon is placed 3442 = 320, therefore only sixteen years too late; his government of the world, and a march which he is said to have made to Jerusalem, 3448 = 314; his death 3454 = 308, and so forth.

About this time, the Jews being subject to the Syrian government, adopted the Syrian _Era of the Seleucidæ_, which was called by them the “Era of the Greeks,” or, on account of its being used in civil affairs, “the Era of Contracts.” Its commencement happens, as is well known, in the year 312 before Christ, and we find it adopted in the Book of the Maccabees[312]. This era is also mentioned in the rabbinical chronology, and is _quite correctly_ placed by the more ancient authorities in the year of the world 3450 = 312 B.C.[313] If Ganz[314], in place of this, gives the year 3448 = 314, it is evidently either an arbitrary change, or perhaps first devised by him for the sake of the exact period of a thousand years between the Exodus (2448) and the new era (3448). This connection that subsisted between the two numbers to form a monarchy of a thousand years’ duration, was not in fact very remote; we should only have expected that the number of the Exodus would rather have been advanced two years, in conformity with the fixed and universally introduced era of the Seleucidæ, and not, on the contrary, that the latter should be sent so far back. But the number 2448 was left standing, which still more indicates a determinate selection of this year, independent of a cyclical or arbitrary arrangement.

There is proof also that the Rabbis did not alter the commencement of the Seleucidic Era, in the circumstance, that it has retained its correct place in chronology, in spite of the universal displacement in the chain of events. According to that displacement, Alexander first began to reign 3442 = 320, and died in 3454 = 308. The beginning of the new era, therefore, according to this, happened in the reign of Alexander himself, who in reality had been dead twenty-one years at the time of the battle of Gaza, which occasioned the new era. In consequence of these contradictions the _number_ was retained, and the _event_ was changed to agree with it, since the introduction of the era of Seleucus was transferred to Alexander, and connected with an account of his presence in Jerusalem, which is otherwise only mentioned by Josephus[315], and the so-called Barbarus of Scaliger[316].

But the question is, how we can reconcile the remarkable displacement of events with the true numbers? IDELER has shown that we must refer the first establishment of the era of the world, and consequently the foundation of the whole chronological system that we are considering, to the author of the Moleds, or new moons, and particularly of the late Jewish calendars, therefore to the Rabbi Hillel, in the first half of the fourth century. In the time of Eusebius, and Theon of Alexandria, people could not possibly be so completely ignorant of the history of the last centuries before Christ, as the rabbinical chronology supposed. It was least to be believed of such a learned mathematician, astronomer, and chronologist, as we imagine the reformer of the Jewish calendar to have been, who founded it upon the nineteenth-yeared cycle of Meton and Calippus[317].

It appears to me, therefore, that the following acceptation is alone possible, which I would at least recommend to the closer examination of well-versed labourers in Jewish antiquities. The Talmud contains very few chronological dates, and nothing justifies us in the belief that the learned HILLEL had already given a chronological view of the events, as we afterwards find them. But he must have necessarily had some resting points for his technical chronological works, if he desired to connect his present with the past, and even with the Creation. It could not have been difficult to find these resting points at that time, so soon after Africanus; the best authorities were still open to him. But the Exodus from Egypt must have been his most important point, for previous to that event the numbers in the Pentateuch were clear, and without mistakes. It was only necessary for him to decide between the two different views concerning the period between Jacob and Moses. The numbers after the Exodus were much more uncertain, as the calculations of Josephus have already proved. On the other hand, the well-known era of the Seleucidæ, which was at that time still in use, naturally formed another fixed point which he could not avoid. Under these circumstances, every clever and mathematically educated chronologist, would be compelled to connect the date of the Exodus with the only certain and astronomically verified Egyptian chronology. If the ERA of KING MENEPHTHES, and the exact year of its commencement was familiar to the mathematician, Theon of Alexandria, who lived at a later period, must it not have been equally well known to the astronomer Hillel? But nothing more was necessary to determine the date of the _Exodus_, which took place _under the same King Menephthes_[318].

We should not therefore be surprised to see, even at that time, the perfectly correct acceptation of the year 2448 for the Exodus. It was, at all events, impossible to determine the year of the Creation without having obtained the two periods of the Seleucidic Era, and of the Exodus.

On the other hand, it is very improbable that Hillel set to work as Ideler[319] imagines he did. He says “that Hillel evidently started from the beginning of the Seleucidic Era, which was at that time still universally employed by the Jews, the autumn of the year B.C. 312. Reckoning from this point backwards, he made the next epoch the _destruction_ of the first Temple, and placed it only 112 years earlier than the Seleucidic Era, counting about 150 years too little, so that he advanced Nebuchadnezzar to the times of Artaxerxes I. Whilst he thus went back still farther to the building of the first Temple, to the Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, to the Flood, and to the Creation, following partly the express statements of time in the Bible, partly his own explanation of it, he found the beginning of the year, 3450 of the world, to be the epoch of the _Minjan schtaroth_.” As we said before, it was perfectly _impossible_ for a scholar of the fourth century to make such a gross mistake of nearly 160 years at that late period. But it is easily explained, if we believe that after the great gap in Jewish literature, which commenced at the conclusion of the Talmud, about the year 500, and which lasted to the eighth century, the Rabbis had adopted those few correct chronological periods fixed by Hillel, and now first undertook to fill up their history of the world, which comprised 5000 years, according to the statements of the Old Testament. In fact, we find neither in the Talmud, nor even in the first writings of the rabbis, which succeed the Talmud, _e. g._ in the _Seder Olam Rabah_, one of the oldest of those writings, the full chronological details, some extracts of which we have seen above. It appears to have been first completed in the twelfth century, therefore in the period of a scientific barbarism, which had been long introduced. It was only necessary to follow the numbers of the Pentateuch from the Creation to the Flood, and to the Exodus, in order to obtain the given year 2448 = 1314. The convenient number 480 years, down to the building of the Temple, in the first Book of Kings, was afterwards immediately adopted, and the chronology of the times of the Judges adapted to it. But hereby the historical event next following was at the same time displaced to about the 160-170 years we have mentioned, and drew with it the displacement of all the succeeding events. It first became apparent at the next fixed point, about the year 3450 = 312, that the chain of events was far too long for the stated interval, from the building of the first to the second Temple. Therefore, the period from the erection of the second Temple, built under Darius Hystaspes, to the time of Alexander, to which was given the name of the Grecian Era[320], was cut down without ceremony from 184 years into 34 years. This raised no obstacle at first, but afterwards occasioned many difficulties, until these also were got rid of by the simple expedient of taking Darius II. and III for one and the same person. Only thus can we explain the peculiar phenomena of an entirely displaced and afterwards mutilated chronology, in which, however, there appears two fixed points alone correct, and which afford us at the same time the important, and probably the most exact, determination of the Exodus by a truly learned chronologist of the fourth century[321].

Viewing it, therefore, from this side, we return to the opinion, that the great stumbling-block to the whole of the chronology hitherto adopted for the Old Testament was the number 480 years, which was calculated as the period between the Exodus and the building of the Temple mentioned in the first Book of Kings[322]. As soon as we set this aside, regarding it only as a supplementary multiple of twelve generations, or segments of 40 years each, the Hebrew and Egyptian chronologies are no longer opposed to each other with reference to the time of the Exodus. All the other intimations we meet with in the Hebrew accounts, and their whole connection, demand, on the contrary, precisely the same time, which we find unequivocally stated in the Egyptian annals of Manetho.

The question now is, whether along with this number 480, to which we can attribute no greater importance than to the simple number _forty_, so often repeated in the history of Israel at that period, we must also give up as valueless every other chronological measure of the events immediately succeeding the Exodus. But this is so little the case, that, on the contrary, in the true chronological scale which the Mosaic writings furnish, we find a fresh refutation of the opinions hitherto adopted, and a confirmation of the Egyptian statements. We look upon the REGISTER OF GENERATIONS as this scale.

I am not aware whether these numerous family records have ever been fully placed under _one_ point of view, and estimated as a whole in their great chronological significance, in the same way as they have certainly frequently been used for separate purposes and divisions of time. Such a survey would very much increase the importance of the separate lists, and facilitate their application to chronological determinations.

It is well known how in the East at all times, and even to this day, the register of generations and genealogies is orally transmitted, with a wonderful fidelity and completeness, through the memories of perfectly illiterate and frequently even now nomadic races. The Arabian races are especially noted for this, and their historical recollections are often almost entirely limited to this dry register. I have met with many such pedigrees in the upper districts of the Nile, south of the province of Dongola, among the Arabs who immigrated there from the west, these being the only written remains of their past, which inform us of their immigration and distribution in those districts. But these lists of names are still more to be depended upon among those nations of antiquity, who, like the Egyptians and the Hebrews, were a literary people, and were accustomed to preserve in writing these sacred bequests of individual families. On the rock of the Kosser-road, in the eastern desert of Egypt, I found a hieroglyphical inscription belonging to the time shortly before the first Persian dominion, in which a chief architect of the country, named Ranumhet, carries back his direct ancestors as far as the twenty-fourth generation, to an ancestral mother Nofratmu, who, according to a rough calculation, must have lived about the end of the 19th Dynasty, therefore about the time of Moses.

But the Israelites particularly, above all the nations of antiquity, appear to have laid the greatest stress upon the register of generations, lists of names, and general enumerations of tribes and generations. The writings of the Old Testament are full of them, especially all the historical books; and the care and exactitude which was expended upon the general preparation of these lists, is evident to the reader. The peculiar destiny of the Israelitish people, firmly bound together, always separating themselves most rigorously from strangers, yet frequently transplanted in masses from one country to another, and settled amidst other nations, enables us perfectly to comprehend this universal attention to an authentic register of generations. We find it stated that they were already twice numbered[323] in the desert; for which purpose the whole people were collected together, and were entered in the registers of the births “by their generations, after their families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years and upwards, and by their polls.” On their return from exile it is particularly observed that some of the wanderers could not trace their genealogy[324]. Among these were several priests’ families, of whom it is said, “These sought the register of their generations, but it was not found, and, therefore, they were _rejected_ from the priesthood[325].” It follows from this that the priests of the tribe of Levi were obliged by law to preserve and continue the register of their generations. This law must naturally only have existed since the Exodus, and, therefore, when Josephus[326] asserts that the High priests possessed written registers of their generations, as far back as 2000 years, this is, indeed, connected with his opinion about the early epoch of the Exodus; it shows, however, that they were brought down to his time, which is, indeed, also confirmed by the register of the generations of Jesus Christ[327].

We need no further justification, therefore, for placing great value upon the successive generations, and for discovering in them the _true chronological thread_ for those times during which more exact reliable statements are wanting. We fortunately possess a whole array of genealogies for the period between the Exodus and the building of the Temple; and, indeed, principally generations of priests, which go back as far as Levi, and are, therefore, from the reasons we have stated above, the most to be depended upon. Altogether, _five_ different generations of the Levites may be distinguished; some obscurities have crept into our text, which probably happened at the time it assumed its present form, since they are found also in the Septuagint; it seems, however, that they may easily be removed[328].

The following is a survey of the principal genealogies, in which the _Levitical generations_ preserve the order in which they are cited, 1 Chron. vii.[329] This is preceded by the genealogical succession, according to Josephus, from _Levi_ to _Zadok_, and by his series of _High priests_ from _Aaron_ to _Zadok_. Lastly, there follows a table of the generations of _Judah_. On the other hand, we have excluded other genealogies; _e. g._ the three of _Ephraim_; Num. xxvi. 35; 1 Chron. vii. 20, 21, 24-27[330]; because they are evidently confused, and lead to no result[331].

THE GENERATIONS OF THE JEWS FROM ABRAHAM TO DAVID.

+-------------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+ | The Heads of the People | The Succession of the | The Ancestors of| | from Abraham to David. | High Priests to Zadok, | Zadok, according| | | according to Josephus, | to Josephus, | | | A. J. 5, 11, 5. | A. J. 8, 1, 3. | +-------------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+ | 1. Abraham 100 or 30| | | | 2. Isaac 100 30| | | | --- | | | | 200 | | | | 3. Jacob 100 30| | | | --| | | | 90| | | | | | | | 1. Levi 100 30| | 1. Λευί. | | 2. Kohath 100 30| | 2. Κάαθος. | | 3. Amram 100 30| | 3. Ἀμαράμης. | | --- --| | | | 400 90| | | | | | | | 1. Moses 40 | 1. Ἀαρών 30| 1. Ἀαρών 30| | 2. Joshua 40 | 2. Ἐλεαζάρης 30| 2. Ἐλεαζάρης 30| | 3. Othniel 40 | 3. Φινεέσης 30| 3. Φινεέσης 30| | 4. Ehud 40 | 4. Ἀβιεζέρης 30| 4. Ἰώσηπος 30| | 5. Shamgar 40 | 5. Βουκί 30| 5. Βοκκίας 30| | 6. Barak 40 | 6. Ὅζις 30| 6. Ἰώθαμος 30| | 7. Gideon 40 | 7. Ἠλεί 30| 7. Μαραίωθος 30| | 8. Jephthah 40 | 8. (Φινεέσης) 30| 8. Ἀροφαῖος 30| | 9. Samson 40 | 9. Ἰοχάβης 30| 9. Ἀχίτωβος 30| |10. Eli 40 |10. Ἀχιμέλεχος = Ἀχίας 30|10. Σάδωκος 30| |11. Samuel Saul 40 |11. Ἁβιάθαρος with 30| | |12. David 40 | Σάδωκος | | | --- | ---| ---| | 480 | 330| 300| +-------------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | I. | II. | III. | | | | | | The Generation |The Generation of|The Generation of| | of Aaron. | Gershom-Libni. |Kohath-Amminadab.| | 1 Chron. vii. |1 Chron. vii. 20,| 1 Chron. vii. | | 1-9, 50-53. | 21. ( = VIII.) | 22-24. ( = VI.) | | Ezra vii. 2-5. | | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | 1. Levi | 1. Levi | 1. [Levi] | | 2. Kohath | 2. Gershom | 2. Kohath | | 3. Amram | 3. Libni | 3. Amminadab | | | | | | 1. _Aaron_ 30| 1. (Jahath) | 1. Korah 30| | 2. _Eleazar_ 30| 2. Zimmah | 2. Assir 30| | 3. _Phinehas_ 30| 3. Joah | 3. Elkanah 30| | 4. _Abishua_ 30| 4. Iddo | 4. Ebiasaph 30| | 5. _Bukki_ 30| 5. Zerah | 5. Assir 30| | 6. _Uzzi_ 30| 6. Jeaterai | 6. Tahath 30| | 7. Zerahiah 30| | 7. Uriel 30| | 8. Meraioth 30| | 8. Uzziah 30| | 9. Amariah 30| | 9. Saul 30| |10. Ahitub 30| |10. (Jonathan) 30| |11. _Zadok_ 30| | | | ---| | ---| | 330| | 300| +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

+---------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+ | IV. | V. | VI. VII. | | | | | | The | The | The Ancestors of Heman | | Generation of | Generation of | | | | Elkanah-Amasai. | Merari-Mahli. | from Izhar. | from Amasai. | | 1 Chron. vii. | 1 Chron. | 1 Chron. vii. | 1 Chron. vii. | | 25-28.( = VII.) | vii. 29-30. | 36-38. (= III.)| 33-36. (= IV.)| +---------------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+ | 1. [Levi] | 1. Levi | 1. Levi | 1. [Levi] | | 2. Elkanah | 2. Merari | 2. Kohath | 2. Elkanah | | 3. Amasai (and) | 3. Mahli | 3. Izhar | 3. Amasai | | | | | | | 1. Ahimoth 30| 1. Libni | 1. Korah 30| 1. Mahath 30| | 2. Elkanah 30| 2. Shimei | 2. [Assir] 30| 2. Elkanah 30| | 3. Elkanah Zophai 30| 3. Uzza | 3. [Elkanah] 30| 3. Zuph 30| | 4. Nahath 30| 4. Shimea | 4. Ebiasaph 30| 4. Toah 30| | | | | (Thohu) | | 5. Eliab 30| 5. Haggiah | 5. Assir 30| 5. Eliel 30| | | | | (Elihu) | | 6. Jeroham 30| 6. Asaiah | 6. Tahath 30| 6. Jeroham 30| | 7. Elkanah 30| | 7. Zephaniah 30| 7. Elkanah 30| | 8. Samuel 30| | 8. Azariah 30| 8. Shemuel 30| | 9. Vashni 30| | 9. Joel 30| 9. Joel 30| |10. --- 30| |10. [Heman] 30|10. Heman 30| | ---| | ---| ---| | 300| | 300| 300| +---------------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+

+--------------------+--------------------+------------------------+ | VIII. | IX. | | | | | | | The Ancestors of | The Ancestors of | The Ancestors of | | Asaph from Jahath, | Ethan from Mushi. | David from Judah. | |1 Chron. vii. 39-43.|1 Chron. vii. 44-17.| Ruth iv. 18. 1 Chron. | | (= II.) | |ii. 4-13. Gos. Matth. i.| | | | 3-6. Luke iii. 32, 33. | +--------------------+--------------------+------------------------+ | 1. Levi | 1. Levi | 1. Judah | | 2. Gershom | 2. Merari | | | 3. (Jahath) | 3. Mushi | 2. Pharez | | | | | | 1. Shimei 30| 1. Mahli 30| 1. Hezron 30| | 2. Zimmah 30| 2. Shamer 30| 2. Ram 30| | 3. Ethan 30| 3. Bani 30| 3. Amminadab 30| | 4. Adaiah 30| 4. Amzi 30| 4. Nahshon 30| | 5. Zerah 30| 5. Hilkiah 30| 5. Salmon 30| | 6. Ethni 30| 6. Amaziah 30| 6. Boaz 30| | 7. Malchiah 30| 7. Hashabiah 30| 7. Obed 30| | 8. Baaseiah 30| 8. Malluch 30| 8. Jesse 30| | 9. Michael 30| 9. Abdi 30| 9. David 30| |10. Shimea 30|10. Kishi 30| | |11. Berachiah 30|11. Ethan 30| | |12. Asaph 30| | | | ---| ---| ---| | 360| 330| 270| +--------------------+--------------------+------------------------+

The first column contains after the patriarchs from Abraham to Amram, the 12 heads of the people, commencing with Moses, who appear to have been regarded as the representations of 12 generations of 40 years each, and thence to have occasioned the calculation of 480 years. Ewald[332], as well as Bertheau[333], gives another list, because, on the whole, the subject admits of no exactitude; the common acknowledgment of the division of the period into twelve parts is alone of importance to us. But one (VIII.) of the genealogies we have quoted (1 Chron. vii. 39-43[334]) contains twelve generations of _one and the same family_[335]. It is possible, therefore, that this succession, rather than that uncertain division, gave occasion to the 480 years. It was, besides, distinguished from the others by being continued through _Gershom_, the _First-born of Levi_. But the _principal lineage_ of the Levites was that of the high priests, who were descended from Aaron and Kohath (I.); this contains, as well as that of Mushi (IX.), only 11 generations. This might therefore be the reason why the Seventy only reckoned 440 years[336].

In the Chronicles the _second_ succession of Levites is closely connected with the third[337]. But in the Hebrew as well as in the Greek text a distinct pause is made at verse 22, after _Jeaterai_. The author begins again: “_The son of Kohath; Amminadab, his son; Korah, his son_[338];” and so on. The Seventy even write the plural υἱοὶ Καάθ. A new succession therefore undoubtedly begins here, and we must consider the portion from Gershom to Jeaterai as an incomplete genealogy inserted here, which evidently runs parallel to the first part of our _eighth_ Levitical series[339]. _Kohath_, who succeeds Jeaterai, was also a son of _Levi_, and the names which follow, clearly show that it ought to be the same series as our _sixth_. That the third and sixth series are really identical follows from the name of the grandson of Kohath being _Korah_, which recurs in both, and also from the three successive names, _Ebiasaph_, _Assir_, _Tahath_, also recurring. The eighth name, Uzziah, is also undoubtedly the same name as Azariah in the other text; for the very same change of both names is again found afterwards in the King of Judah, the son of Amaziah, who is called Azariah eight times in the same chapter (2 Kings xv.) and is afterwards three times called by his usual name, Uzziah[340]. I have not, therefore, hesitated to fill up the two names of Assir and Elkanah which were wanting after Korah[341] in the _sixth_ series, as the _third_ series is, on the whole, most to be depended on. It has undoubtedly been retained on account of the last name of _Saul_, whom we must consider to be no other than _King_ Saul, whose generation indeed is usually (1 Sam. ix. 1) carried back through Kish and Aphiah, with an interruption, to Benjamin, but here again also presents difficulties and appears in general to have been disputed.

But the _sixth_ series does not conclude in the Chronicles with _Joel_, but is continued into our _seventh_, and no text appears to indicate that there is a pause. Yet the correctness of our division here also, will hardly be found doubtful. It would be quite impossible to believe that among six genealogies one alone could have been _as long again_ as all the others; for if we omitted the two restored members of the sixth series, we should still retain nineteen members in place of ten or eleven, as in the other genealogies. We should therefore still feel obliged to believe there was a mistake, even though unable to point it out. But, upon a further investigation, it explains itself.

It is very apparent that we have the same genealogies in the _fourth_ series as in the _seventh_, although there appears to be several deviations in the manner the names are written, and in some passages completely different names. Let us now see how the _fourth_ series is introduced in the Chronicles. The first part of the seventh chapter (in the Hebrew text made the sixth) brings prominently forward, apart from the other genealogies, that of the generations of the high priests, which goes back through Aaron, Amram, and Kohath, to Levi. The generations of the other Levites are afterwards designated, and indeed in _two_ divisions. The _first_ proceeds from the _first-born_ of the sons of Levi, in which, nevertheless, in the race of Kohath, _Amram_ has already been removed from the series, and _Amminadab_, _i. e._ _Izhar_, takes his place; the _second_ goes upwards from the three songsters of David, Heman, Assaph, and Ethan, as far back as the grandchildren of Levi. The ancestors of _Heman_ come first, because a _first-born grandson_ of Levi stands at the head, _Izhar_, _i. e._ _Amminadab_, whose generation was therefore already mentioned among those of the first-born grandsons (III.). The ancestors of _Assaph_ and of _Ethan_ succeed, because later-born grandsons of Levi stand at the head, who are again arranged in the succession of the sons of Levi.

There is here a strict and duly considered rule, which is made evident by the following survey:

LEVI. | +-----------------+-+-----------------+--------------+ | | | | 1. _Gershom._ 2. _Kohath._ 3. _Elkanah._ 4. _Merari._ | | | | | I. 1. Amram. | | | | | | | 1. Aaron. 2. Moses. | | | | | | III. } | | II. 1. Libni. VI. } 2. Amminadab-Izhar. | | | | IV. } | | VIII. 2. Jahath-Shimei. 3. Hebron. VII. } 1. Amasai. V. 1. Mahli. 4. Uzziah. 2. Ahimoth. IX. 2. Mushi.

This certainty presupposes what has been already assumed here, that _Elkanah_ was a _son of Levi_, and, indeed, the THIRD son, although in former passages he is not cited as among the sons of Levi. Little is proved by this omission, for there are many such cases, and in this very chapter, v. 43, _Jahath_ is called a son of _Gershom_, although in v. 17 he is not cited among the sons of Gershom[342]. In such cases, certainly, the conjecture still remains which we admitted above, p. 464, in the case of Jahath, that one name has been _substituted_ for another, as, without doubt, occurs in many cases; and therefore some might prefer here to suppose _Elkanah_ the same person as _Kohath_, Zuph (VII.) as a later Elkanah (IV.), Toah (VII.) as Nahath (IV.), Azariah (VI.) as Uzziah (III.), Joel (VII.) as Vashni (IV.), Laadan as Libni, &c. However, this seems very improbable here. In the chapter we allude to the children of Gershom-Libni are first stated in the series of the first-born, then the children of Kohath-Amminadab, then the children of Elkanah-Amasai, lastly the children of Merari-Mahli. Elkanah is, therefore, evidently also placed between _Kohath_ and _Merari_, as one of the _first-born_. If _Elkanah_, the head of this family, were no other than the _Elkanah_ previously mentioned in v. 23, the son of _Assir_, this whole genealogy would not belong here, which is evident from the arrangement we have given above.

But the same arrangement proves that the first part of the genealogy of _Heman_, our _sixth_ series[343], concludes with the same _Joel_ who in the second part in our _seventh_ series appears as the father of _Heman_; that, consequently, we have to complete the end of the _sixth_ series with the name of Heman again; in short, that we have before us, in place of one of double length, _two_ single genealogies of _Heman_, which spring from his father by different grandfathers[344].

So much for the generations of Levi from the Hebrew text. With respect to the genealogical succession from Levi to Zadok, according to Josephus, it corresponds with our first Levitical series, but does not entirely agree with it. According to Josephus, the generations belonging here would be as follows:

Ἀαρών. +-----------------------------+ | | 1. Ἐλεαζάρης. Ἰθάμαρος. 2. Φινεέσης. | | +------------ | | | Ἰώσηπος. 3. Ἀβιεζέρης. | Βοκκίας. 4. Βουκί. | Ἰώθαμος. 5. Ὄζις. | | (Meraioth =) Μαραίωθος. 6. Ἠλεί. Ἀροφαῖος. Φινεέσης. (Ahitub =) Ἀχίτωβος. 7. Ἰοχάβης. 10. Σάδωκος. 8. Ἀχιμέλεχος. 9. Ἀβιάθαρος.

But the Hebrew series is not only supported by three passages, but it has also more internal probability than that of Josephus. For Βοκκίας and Βουκί seem to differ but little, and since Zadok and Abiathar are cotemporary, a name appears to be wanting in the series of Σάδωκος, which is given in the Hebrew series[345].

In our series of the successions of the _High priests_ φινεέσης is an interposition, because the pontificate passed immediately from Eli to his grandson.

The genealogy of _Judah_, which we have added, is at the same time the table of the generation of _David_. It is the shortest of all, but ought not therefore to be regarded with suspicion. We must place _Hezron_ equal with _Moses_, although only _one generation_ is given between him and Judah, for it is said of him (1 Chron. ii. 24) that he died at Caleb-Ephratah, therefore after the entrance into Palestine, and that his wife, Abiah, had a son after his death. Therefore there only remains _Judah_ and _Pharez_ for the Egyptian time. This need not surprise us, since _Pharez_ was only born to _Judah_ by _Thamar_ after she had been already the wife of his sons; _Pharez_ is, therefore, both the son and the _grandson_ of _Judah_. There remain nine generations for the period from the Exodus to the building of the Temple; but here, also, we know at least concerning the last name, _David_, that he was the _seventh_ son of his father.

If we now review the collected series of our table, we find among them _eight_ different and complete series, namely, besides six tribes of Levi, the tribe of _Judah_, and the series of the High priests. Of these, _one_ contains 12 names, _three_ of them 11, _three_ 10, and _one_ 9. This gives as a mean number exactly ten and a half generations.

If we inquire the mean number for the years of a generation, we must not think of the Hebrew number 40. It is evidently too high a number, and was only sometimes conferred by the Hebrews on the generations, because it had been long used by them for undetermined quantities as a round and sacred number.

The 331⁄3rd years also of the Egyptian generations, according to Herodotus (ii. 142), was rather a subdivision of the _century_ than a calculation of the real succession of generations. The longest series, from which we could obtain a mean number, are the _series of kings_. But we can obtain no scale even from them. The kings of Judah only reigned on an average nineteen years, those of Israel only twelve years. Successions of reigns are, however, always shorter than generations, and in Judah seven out of twenty kings were killed, or expelled; in Israel, fully half out of twenty. We shall therefore approach much nearer the truth if we adopt the _Greek_ acceptation[346] of thirty years for a generation, in which we only follow most of the modern scholars.

Admitting this, ten or eleven generations would amount to 300 or 330 years, and if we place _Solomon_ about the year 1000, the genealogies would lead us to 1300 or 1330 years before Christ, which most perfectly agrees with our earlier results, since, according to Manetho, we believe we ought to place _Menephthes_ 1328-1309. The _Rabbinical_ date of the Exodus is B.C. 1314, exactly between 1300 and 1330, upon which of course no more importance is to be laid than is allowable by the indeterminate factors of the calculation. At any rate the whole discussion leads to this, that the _genealogies_, the only trustworthy although less exact chronological thread of those Hebrew times, speak as decidedly against the calculation hitherto adopted of 480 years, as in favour of our calculation of, about, 300 years. This agreement appears to me of the greatest importance in judging both the Egyptian as well as the Jewish history.

But if, finally, we look at the numbers in the Book of Judges, we have already seen that, according to the usual mode of reckoning, they are by no means found to agree immediately with any other chronological acceptation; still the chronological character of many separate numbers cannot be mistaken, and we may at least expect that, from our point of view also, a simple solution must present itself, which would release the statements of numbers in the Book of Judges from the contradictions in which, as hitherto interpreted, they have stood with the Manethonic chronology.

Bunsen[347] gives us a survey of this period. He compares the “Time of Foreign Rule and Anarchy” with the “Time of the Judges and of Peace.” For the former he puts 3 _x_ + 111 years, for the latter, including the monarchical time to the building of the Temple, 4 _x_ + 442 years. He considers the first, less historical than the last (p. 212), and supposes that the number 480 is perhaps formed out of the latter 442. At all events, he believes we must start from this number. But I should prefer an entirely different combination, which promises to lead sooner to a result. If we place the uncertain and round numbers upon one side, and the remaining on the other side, we shall obtain the following survey[348]:

INDETERMINATE NUMBERS. | HISTORICAL NUMBERS. -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- 40. Years in the Desert. | | _x_ _Joshua_ (25, according to | Josephus, A. J. V. 1, 29). | | _x_ Successors to Joshua (Joshua | xxiv. 31). | | 40. _Othniel_ (Judg. iii. 11). | 8. under Mesopotamia (Judg. | iii. 8.) | | 18. under the Moabites (Judg. 80. _Ehud_ (Judg. iii. 30; according | iii. 14). to the Seventy 40). | | _x_ _Shamgar._ | | | 20. under the Canaanites (Judg. | iv. 3. This Period happens, 40. _Deborah_ (Judg. iv. 4) and | according to Judg. iv. 4, _Barak_ (Judg. v. 1, 31). | perhaps under Deborah). | 40. _Gideon_ (Judg. viii. 28). | 7. under the Midianites (Judg. | vi. 1). | | 3. _Abimelech_ (Judg. ix. 22). | 23. _Tola_ (Judg. x. 2). | 22. _Jair_ (Judg. x. 3). | 18. Philistines (Judg. x. 8). | 6. _Jephthah_ (Judg. xii. 7). | 7. _Ibzan_ (Judg. xii. 9). | 10. _Elon_ (Judg. xii. 11). | 8. _Abdon_ (Judg. xii. 14). | --- 40. Philistines (Judg. xiii. 1). | 150 | 20. _Samson_ (in the time of the | Philistines, Judg. xv. 20, | xvi. 31). | | _x_ Anarchy (Judg. xvii. 6, xviii. | 1, xix. 1, xxi. 25). | | 40. _Eli_ (1 Sam. iv. 18). | | 20. _Saul_ (1 Sam. vii. 1, 2; | compare iv. 18, vi. 1; 2 Sam. | vi. 3; 1 Chron. xiv. 3. | According to Acts xiii. 21, | Jos. A. J. VI. 14, 9, Saul | reigned 40 years). | | 40. _David_ (2 Sam. v. 4, 5; 1 | Kings, ii. 11). | -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- 14 times _x_ × 12 years = 168. 150 + 168 = 318 years.

From this juxtaposition alone we obtain a threefold division of the whole period. In the first division we see from the time of Joshua the determinate and indeterminate numbers alternating almost regularly (for _Shamgar_ appears to be included in _Ehud’s_ higher number, and therefore to have no number himself), and the historical numbers are certainly not ascribed here to the separate personages, but to the period of the oppression, therefore the whole time appears to have been one of contest and startling revolts, which, by means of a succession of powerful men, ends at length in a victorious assertion of their own dominion.

This second period commences with Abimelech, and is only once interrupted by the government of the Philistines. Here there is a real succession of events and separate governments, and therefore no round numbers.

The third division begins with a new, and, as it appears, a far longer oppression by the Philistines, in which the narrative of _Sampson_ only forms a passing episode. It seems to me that the anarchical times, which are entirely omitted by others, are connected with this oppression, and, although there is no date, that they were of considerable duration. They form, in a certain degree, the real conclusion of the time of the Judges. The new, the regal time, begins with Eli, which is always alluded to in the time of the anarchy. Before the time of Eli the historical thread was broken; from his time it continues uninterrupted. Eli prepares the way for the kings. Samuel grows up under him, and his first action after the death of Eli seems to have been to anoint _Saul_ as king. He appears to have continued his _office of judge_ under Saul, whom he has rather chosen as a _general_, as he also afterwards anoints _David_ as king. This may be the reason why no time is ascribed to him; the Ark of the Covenant, which was taken as booty in the conquest of Mizpah by the Philistines, and was retained for seven months (1 Sam. vi. 1), was thus brought to Kirjath-Jearim, shortly before Saul’s elevation; remained there twenty years (1 Sam. vii. 2), and was first brought away from that place at the elevation of David (2 Sam. vi. 3), “_for we inquired not at it in the days of Saul_” (1 Chron. xiii. 3).

If we now add up the historical numbers, we shall obtain 150 years, so that there is on an average 12 years for each of the twelve governments. Now if we apply this mean number (which is best adapted to the purpose, and which was also that of the kings of Israel) to the fourteen governments, whose numbers are uncertain, we shall obtain 168 years, which, together with the 150, gives 318 years. Now if we count these backward, beginning at Solomon, about 1000 years before Christ, we come to the year 1318 before Christ, therefore again under the government of Pharaoh MENEPHTHES.

We thus obtain, also, from this side a simple confirmation of our former results. It is at least evident, that the numbers in the Book of Judges can no longer be employed as a refutation of the Manethonic calculation. But this agreement between the chronology of the time of the Judges, and the genealogies of the Chronicles, is of manifest importance to Jewish history.

As soon as we may consider the chronological importance of the genealogies established, we are enabled to rise still higher on the same path in the history of Israel, and to obtain a chronological view concerning the period of the sojourn of the Israelites _in Egypt_.

If in the 40 years of the later generations we can only perceive a chronological _garb_, without on that account supposing that the substance of the narratives are unhistorical, still less should we see in the hundred and more years of the generations from Abraham to Moses, the true chronological relation upon which these perfectly credible narratives are founded. The whole array of numbers is rather, as we have indicated above, to be judged from a perfectly different point of view, the closer investigation of which does not belong here.

When, for the sake of judging the chronology of the times from Moses to Jacob, and from Jacob to Abraham, we start from the historical importance of the genealogies, this period becomes extremely contracted, and we are led to new historical comparisons, which appear to throw a clear light upon those times.

In all registers of generations we only find _three_ generations from _Joseph_ or _Levi_ to _Moses_. In the pedigree of _Judah_, indeed, we only saw _two_, which was however explained by the unnatural alliance of Thamar. But _Aaron_ himself, and _Moses_, on the father’s side, stood in the third degree from _Levi_, but from the maternal side in the second; for their father, _Amram_, the grandson of Levi, took to wife in Egypt his aunt _Jochabed_, the daughter of Levi (Exod. vi. 20; Num. xxvi. 59), who bore him Moses and Aaron. Thus one event explains and confirms another, and allows us still less to doubt the historical reality and the natural relations which the successive generations bear to each other.

Therefore, unless we wish to regard all the narratives of those times, and all the accounts, which afterwards refer to them, as mythical and unhistorical, for which there is not the slightest ground, we must also here separate the chronological garb from the subject itself, and recognise, as a necessary conclusion, that _only about ninety years intervened from the entrance of Jacob to the Exodus of Moses_, and _about as much_ from the _entrance of Abraham into Canaan_, to _Jacob’s Exodus_[349], so that from Abraham to Moses only about 180, or if we wish to make the most of it, 215 years passed, which alone, according to the present calculation, are reckoned from Abraham to Jacob.

But even this result is by no means only founded upon the internal impossibility of the numbers hitherto adopted, nor upon the genealogies alone, but upon a much more general historical connection of the events, as we find them both in the Egyptian and Israelitish history of those times.

All the views hitherto adopted from Josephus, and from those who before his day held the same opinions, down to the most modern scholars, must, on the supposition that the Jews were the Hyksos—which we have rejected above (p. 422), as not worth refutation—or at least that they departed _with_ them, and further that they lived in Egypt from the time of Jacob, 215 or 430 years, necessarily have led them to the conclusion that Joseph and Jacob came to Egypt during the _dominion of the Hyksos_. But an attentive and impartial consideration of the passages bearing upon this point, show beyond doubt that this could not be the case according to the _Biblical_ accounts, and therefore that either this representation, or the accepted chronology, must contain errors.

“And Joseph,” it says, Gen. xxxix. 1, “was brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmaelites, which had brought him down thither.”

Here, as in all the other passages where the _Egyptian_ king is mentioned, he is called _Pharaoh_. This is an Egyptian designation and not a _Semitic_ one, as we should have expected if the Semitic Hyksos[350] had still ruled in Egypt. In that case we should have been everywhere compelled to admit in this designation, throughout the history of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, an anachronism which cannot easily find a parallel. The captain of the king’s body-guard was also an _Egyptian_, as is proved by his name Potiphar, ‎‏פוטיפר‏‎[351], which is written by the Seventy Πετεφρής, _i. e._ _Petphra_. Still an _Egyptian_ in so important a situation at a _Semitic_ court might as well form an exceptional case, as the _Hebrew_ Joseph, according to our opinion, at an _Egyptian_ court. “And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen[352], and put a gold chain[353] about his neck. And he made him to ride in the second chariot[354] which he had, and they cried before him, Bow the knee; and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name ‎‏צפנת פענח‏‎ (Ψονθομφανήχ), and he gave him to wife _Asenath_, the daughter of _Potipherah_, PRIEST OF ON.” (Gen. xli. 42, &c.) The fact that the distinctions here conferred upon Joseph are in perfect accordance with Egyptian manners[355], would still not be sufficient to prove that he lived at an Egyptian court, for the Semitic rulers might possibly have brought with them the same customs, or might have adopted them. But if such were our belief, it would be impossible to combine with it the circumstance that Joseph received from Pharaoh expressly an _Egyptian_ name. For even if the older Hebrew commentators have attempted to derive the name from the Hebrew, these attempts have long been rejected by modern scholars[356]. We should be able to decide with more complete certainty about the Egyptian signification of the name if we found it written in hieroglyphics. It sounds in Hebrew _Zepnet-ponch_ (_Zaphnath-phaneach_). It appears to me that the last portion can hardly be referred to any other word than the hieroglyphical 𓋹𓈖𓐰𓐍 anch, Coptic ⲱⲛϩ, ⲁⲛϩ, with the article ⲡ ⲱⲛϩ, the life; the first part is obscure. Since the Seventy write Ψονθομφανήχ, it is generally supposed that the two first letters in the Hebrew text have been misplaced, and that the uniting genitive —_n_ (before the labial —_m_) has been omitted. Both are possible, but not probable. It seems to me that the Seventy cannot claim any more authority on this point than any other interpreter. It is not surprising that, without understanding the hieroglyphical writing, they were as little capable as we are of explaining the old name from the popular language. But that they wrote Ψονθ in place of _Zepnet_, or _Zpent_, seems to prove that they explained the name something like ⲡ ⲥⲱⲛⲧ ⲙ ⲫⲁⲛϩ _creatio_ (_creator_) vitæ.

But how is it possible that a _Semitic_ king, who, like the six in the lists of the so-called shepherd kings, must undoubtedly have himself borne a Semitic name, would have given Joseph an _Egyptian_ name, in order to do him honour.

_Asenath_ is of course an _Egyptian_ name like that of her father, _Potiphra_, _i. e._ _Petphra_, and his being called a _High priest of On_ (Heliopolis) is an additional and more certain proof that the Semitic nation of the Hyksos were not reigning here, for they would have destroyed all the Egyptian temples; and they would hardly have permitted the worship of _Ra_ (Helios) to continue in the neighbourhood of Memphis, whose High priest must give his daughter to Joseph for a wife, in order to show him particular honour, and to naturalise him completely.

It is equally evident, from the meeting of Joseph with his brethren, that he lived at a really Egyptian court. Distrust towards their Phœnician neighbours was continually kept alive among the Egyptians, therefore it was easy to form a pretext to attack the Hebrews. “Ye are spies, to see the nakedness of the land ye are come.” (Gen. xlii. 9, 12, 14.) When the brethren talk among themselves of the act which they perpetrated against Joseph, they speak out loud in the presence of Joseph: “They knew not that Joseph understood them, for he spake unto them by an _interpreter_.” (Gen. xlii. 23.) Joseph had become so completely an Egyptian, and the Egyptian language was so exclusively spoken at the court of Pharaoh, that the brethren could not conjecture any one was near them who understood their language.

When, therefore, on their second visit to Joseph’s house, they were about to take their meal, it is said, “And they set for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: _because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians_.” (Gen. xliii. 32.) The native Egyptians could never have expressed this horror, and regulated their manners accordingly, under the dominion of a Semitic reigning family. Lastly, it is equally improbable that Joseph would have advised the immigrating family to call themselves shepherds in order to obtain from Pharaoh a country set apart for themselves. “And it shall come to pass when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What is your occupation? That ye shall say, Thy servant’s trade hath been about cattle from our youth, even until now, both we, and also our fathers; that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.” (Gen. xlvi. 33.) If the shepherd people of the Hyksos reigned in Egypt, how could the shepherds be an abomination to them?

If it is therefore evident that Joseph lived at an _Egyptian_, and not at a _Semitic_ court, the old tradition of the Jewish interpreters that Joseph came to Egypt in the reign of a shepherd king, Apophis, is entirely destroyed, as well as the view taken by more modern scholars concerning the Hebrew chronology of that time.

But according to Manetho, the Exodus happened in the reign of Menephthes, and according to all the Hebrew genealogies, Jacob’s entrance could only have happened 90 or 100 years earlier. Therefore Sethôs, the father of the great Ramses, must certainly be the Pharaoh under whom Joseph came into Egypt. This is most indubitably confirmed by the unmistakeable agreement which exists between the Hebrew account of the Pharaoh of Joseph, and what is related by others of King Sethôs. It is said by the former, “And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: _so the land became Pharaoh’s_. And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands. Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own.... And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s.” (Gen. lxvii. 20, &c.)

We find the same great alteration in the agrarian conditions of the country, and connected with it the introduction of a general ground-tax, from which the priests alone were excepted, ascribed by Herodotus and Diodorus to the King _Sesostris-Sesoosis_.

We read in Herodotus, ii. 1081, that the king intersected the country with canals, because the places which were remote from the Nile suffered, when it retreated, from a scarcity of water. It appears from what has been observed above, that it was chiefly Ramses who completed the Egyptian system of canals, although it is very probable that the great transformation in the condition of the ground which it occasioned had been already commenced by his father, _Sethôsis_. It is well known that the fertility of Egypt alone depends upon the proper and well-maintained regulation of the overflowings. Since the time of _Möris-Amenemha_, who was the first to bestow any considerable attention upon it, the country had degenerated, owing to its long foreign rule, and had but just risen again to complete independence under the mighty Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty. It is quite conceivable that such comprehensive and tedious undertakings for increasing the general prosperity, as a universal construction of canals, especially in the Delta, could only have been first undertaken by the earlier kings of the 19th Dynasty, _Sethôsis_ and _Ramses_, who were both of them favoured by long reigns. Therefore until that time, a general failure of the crops and a famine might have very frequently occurred, at a low or even a moderate rise of the water, and perhaps happened for several successive years. Strabo[357] relates that, before the time of the Prefect Petronius, owing to the water-works being neglected, famine broke out in Egypt if the Nile only rose 8 ells, and 14 ells were necessary for a particularly good year; whereas, by his improvements, it was only necessary for the Nile to rise 10 ells to produce the best harvest, and if it rose but 8 ells no scarcity ensued. Famine broke out in Egypt in the Arabian times also from the same reason[358]. Thus the famine-years in the time of Joseph may be explained to have occurred in the reign of Sethôs; this event may even have called attention to the necessity of a better water regulation in the country.

In the following chapter Herodotus says, that the King Sesostris “divided the land between all the Egyptians by giving an equal-sized square portion to each, from which he afterwards derived his income by laying an annual tax upon it. But when the river carried away a part of any person’s portion, he showed it to the king, who sent people to inquire and measure how much smaller the piece of land had become, in order that he might pay the tax for the remainder according to the commands.” This is essentially the same arrangement which is ascribed to Joseph, the minister of Pharaoh. Herodotus had already[359] mentioned in an earlier passage that the priests paid no taxes, but even received their daily sustenance besides, exactly as it is related in the Mosaic accounts.

Diodorus[360] says of SESOOSIS, that he “divided the whole country into thirty-six parts,” which the Egyptians called Nomes; over these he placed Nomarchs, who had the charge of the ROYAL REVENUES, and “ruled everything besides in their provinces.” Therefore here again there was an entirely new division and government of the country, in which the taxes to the king are not forgotten. Afterwards (c. 57) he adds also, that he raised many great mounds, and upon them _transplanted the towns_ which were situated too low (μετῴκισεν). The fresh regulations in the country, and especially the new canals, necessarily created a great number of towns and villages for the management of the grounds which were portioned out, and were now partly cultivated for the first time. To this we may most naturally refer the remark in the Hebrew account that Pharaoh “removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.” (Gen. xlvii. 21.) Diodorus (c. 56) also mentions the hard taskwork which thence became necessary, and that in consequence of it the “Babylonian prisoners, who could no longer bear the toilsome labour, rebelled against the king.”

In the very valuable description of the manner in which the Egyptian administration had subsisted under the _old_[361] kings of the country, which is drawn from the most ancient sources, Diodorus again mentions (c. 73, 74) the arrangement of the Nomes, and a division of the property, by which one-third belonged to the priests, one to the king, the other to the warriors; and how all the cultivators of the soil, for a small reward, only performed task-service for the three orders who possessed land. It is here also expressly mentioned, that the priests were exempt (ἀτελεῖς) from taxation[362]. But it seems that it is only from the Mosaic narrative we learn that the universal statute of the taxes imposed on the remaining possessors of the land was fixed upon exactly the _fifth part_ of the produce; this narrative here, as well as in other points, confidently completes our knowledge of those circumstances.

Now if the arrangements we have cited, which in fact so essentially changed Egypt, that their introduction could not fail to occupy an important place in the monuments of that time, and to be thus handed down to posterity, were ascribed in the Greek account to SESOSTRIS-SESOOSIS, we should, in the next place, be uncertain whether SETHÔS or his son RAMSES was meant. It is not in itself improbable, that works demanding so much time, and the extensive alterations in the political circumstances, might fully occupy two such long reigns as those of both the kings mentioned; and of the canal works especially, we know that at least two particular canals of considerable importance were completed by Ramses, east and west of the Delta, and towns were built beside them. But since it can now hardly be disputed that those events could not have taken place either earlier or later than under these two reigns, which embraced more than a century, it appears to be perfectly justifiable to suppose that the first and most essential steps to this reform were taken in the reign of Sethôs, because, according to the genealogical calculation of time in the Bible, Joseph must have lived and acted in the first half of the reign of Sethôsis. The succession of kings in the Mosaic accounts also perfectly agrees with this. We here read of only _three Pharaohs_ during that time. Joseph came to Potiphar in Egypt in the reign of the first, and rose by his wisdom to be first minister of the king. This Pharaoh was Sethôsis I., with whom the Manethonic lists begin a new Dynasty. By means of the new improvements introduced and regulated by him, the country was saved from the years of famine which had hitherto been constantly dreaded, and the power of the king was increased and strengthened.

“And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and his whole race.” “Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph[363].” Sethôsis had reigned more than fifty years, and Joseph must have lived in the first part of his reign. It is therefore conceivable that the new King Ramses II. knew nothing more of him, or wished to know nothing more, and therefore might not on his (Joseph’s) account have favoured the rapidly increasing population of the Israelites in Egypt. We therefore see that it was incorrect to explain the words of the account, which are only correct when taken in their simplest signification, that a _new king_ arose—by understanding that by this the commencement of a new royal house is intended after a long and indefinite period. The birth of Moses, and his education at the court of Pharaoh, happened under this King Ramses II., and indeed in the latter part of his reign of sixty-six years, in which the times of Joseph were still more forgotten, and the hard oppressions and persecutions of the Jews prevailed. This king, although of a Theban family, resided equally, and perhaps in those times, even more at Memphis than at Thebes, as the later Saitic, Bubastic, and other dynasties also by no means forsook the old palace in Memphis. There exists, therefore, no grounds for imagining the youth of Moses to have been spent at Thebes rather than at Memphis.

But when Moses had slain the Egyptian, he fled to Midian. “And it came to pass in process of time, that the _King of Egypt died_; and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage[364].” The _third_ king, therefore, succeeded the Pharaoh of the Exodus, MENEPHTHES, the son of the great Ramses, the same under whom, as we believe we have pointed out, the Exodus really happened, and from whom the new Sothis period, which began in his reign, likewise received its name.

If, in the same manner, we go still farther back in the Hebrew accounts from Joseph to Abraham, we find this period also only occupied by three generations, which would fix it, according to the views we have exhibited, to about 90 or 100 years.

According to the chronology hitherto adopted, ABRAHAM’S visit to Egypt would also have happened in the TIME of the HYKSOS. But this is partly opposed by the same objections which we mentioned when speaking of the immigration of Jacob. Abraham also comes to the court of a Pharaoh, therefore of a native Egyptian ruler, and, in accordance with the Manethonic chronology, the visit of Abraham would have happened under Tuthmosis IV. or Amenophis III., therefore in the middle of the 18th Dynasty, after the Hyksos had been already expelled by the 17th Dynasty, first into the lowest country of the Delta, and then from their last fortress, Abaris.

Therefore only about 200 years had passed between Abraham’s journey into Egypt and the time of the Exodus. But what gave _occasion_ to the number _four hundred and thirty years_, so expressly stated in Exodus xii. 40, and which appears, in comparison with the round statement of 400 years in Gen. xv. 13, as more exact, and, at all events, not an unmeaning number? We have already expressed our opinion that the round and indeterminate numbers, as well as the larger calculations, were only adopted at a later period in the writings of the Old Testament. The number 480 or 440 years between the Exodus and the building of the Temple appeared to us to depend upon a calculation of 12 or 11 generations of 40 years each. But in the 430 years may, perhaps, lie the first indication of the early-conceived idea mentioned above, that the Israelites were the Hyksos. For the number would, in fact, be most perfectly explained if it was referred to the residence of these Semitic races in Egypt.

We shall, namely, point out, in the second part of the chronology, that the long contest between the Egyptians and the Hyksos, mentioned by Manetho, occurred during the 17th Dynasty from AMOSIS to TUTHMOSIS III. The former completely broke the foreign dominion, and drove back the Hyksos to the northern part of the Delta; but it was Tuthmosis who first succeeded in sending them out of their last stronghold of refuge, Abaris. Thence arose the confusion that has so generally prevailed concerning these two kings. The one as much as the other might be regarded as the conqueror of the Hyksos. Manetho specified the whole time of the residence of the Hyksos in Egypt, up to their departure from Abaris, to be 511 years. But it must also have appeared from his narrative, and have been a fact specially known to the priests from their history, that the real dominion of the Hyksos in Egypt was terminated by Amosis. If we now subtract the time from Amosis to Tuthmosis, which was 80 years, from 511[365], exactly _four hundred and thirty years_ remain for the dominion of the Hyksos in Egypt[366]. If, therefore, in the present day, the opinion can in any way be maintained and defended that Abraham (or Jacob) was King Salatis, and entered Egypt not as a petitioner, but as a powerful and conquering enemy, and that his seed was first conquered and driven away in the time of Moses by the native kings, the relation of the above-mentioned numbers would certainly appear as one of the most important proofs of it. It cannot, however, be argued that an admission which appears, according to our present criticism, perfectly impossible, must have appeared equally so in ancient times. An impartial apprehension of the present, and a faithful rendering of the past, was the vocation of an ancient annalist or historian; it is only thus that they are of importance and worthy of consideration in our inquiry. Criticism was completely out of their sphere, historical as well as philological; and when, nevertheless, we do meet with it, it is generally very unsatisfactory, and even from the most distinguished writers, astonishingly feeble. The school of professional Alexandrian critics is by no means excepted. We find the most striking examples of this, particularly in the Christian chronologists, who were not wanting either in abundance of authorities, nor in extensive learning and honest intentions. But we have actually seen, from the example of Josephus, as well as from earlier and later authors, how the opinion above mentioned, of the identity of the Hyksos with the Jews, really gained admittance from various very superficial foundations, and yet Josephus belonged undoubtedly to the most learned antiquarians who we can place under our observation here. We ought not, therefore, to be surprised even if we find this view again stated at an earlier period in the arrangement and combinations of the Hebrew historical books; and this appears, in fact, to be very probable, by the number 430 years, which can neither be applied to the three generations of Jacob, nor to the six from Abraham to Moses.

The calculation also verifies itself still further. It was an early opinion that Joseph came to Egypt in the reign of the shepherd King _Aphophis_. This is expressly said by Eusebius and Syncellus; and the various changes in the position of Aphophis, who is differently placed both by Josephus and Africanus, appear, upon a closer investigation, always to originate from the same reason, namely, in order to place Joseph under Aphophis. The correct position of Aphophis, according to Manetho, was undoubtedly at the end of the 16th Dynasty, as we find it stated by Africanus[367]. Joseph stood, according to the generations, exactly between Abraham and Moses. According to the Egyptian chronology, the first Dynasty of the Hyksos reigned 259 years, the second 251 years, therefore Aphophis, the last king of the 1st Dynasty, reigned in the middle of the time of the Hyksos. This was probably the first idea which supported the opinion of the exact division of the 430 years into two equal halves, and the belief that Jacob came to Egypt in the time of Aphophis. Jacob’s entrance, or the end of the first 215 years, accordingly happened in the seventeenth year of the Aphophis; Joseph was exalted by Pharaoh 9 years earlier, therefore in the eighth year of Aphophis.

But the correct Egyptian statement, that the Hyksos first departed in the reign of Tuthmosis, had been already misunderstood in the time of Josephus. He placed the Exodus of the Hyksos and of the Jews under Amosis, and made the whole 17th Dynasty of 251 years precede Amosis. It was impossible, therefore, that he could place Joseph under Aphophis. He could as little make the entrance of Abraham happen at the same time as that of the Hyksos, for he gave 511 years for the residence of the Hyksos, 430 for that of the Jews. But he nowhere says either that the Jews entered with the Hyksos, as they departed with them, or that Jacob or Josephus came to Egypt in the reign of Aphophis. He appears rather to have believed that the _first_ and not the _second_ entrance of the Jews into Egypt, therefore the entrance of Abraham happened in the time of _Aphophis_; and thus that the tradition, which was no doubt known to him, was so to be understood. He must, at least, have thought that the entrance of Abraham really took place in the first Hyksos Dynasty, although, indeed, not under the _last_, but under the _fourth_ king. According to my opinion, this was the reason why Josephus made Aphophis the _fourth_ king of the Dynasty.

Africanus, the most faithful among the reporters, did not admit all these calculations, or seek to explain the Manethonic calculation, and to make it agree with his own, but let the contradictions stand, and therefore simply gave the Manethonic tradition, even when he did not understand it, and could not correct the mistakes which were handed down to him. We therefore find the correct position of Aphophis retained by him.

Eusebius on the other hand, and his uncertain authorities, again wished to mediate and to explain. In his account we find the first year of the 16th Dynasty placed contemporaneous with the first year of the life of Abraham, which is evidently an arbitrary proceeding, and one that necessarily drew other changes along with it, which are met with plentifully in the numbers substituted for those of Manetho. His 17th Dynasty names the four first kings of the Manethonic 16th Dynasty, and Amosis follows immediately after. In order to fit in again with the later history, it was necessary to abridge considerably the 16th and 17th Dynasties. The numbers of Eusebius, as they appear in the Canon, clearly state that he only counted seventy-five years from the first year of Abraham to his entrance into Canaan and Egypt, and again 430 years from that time to the Exodus of Moses. This happened, therefore, in the last year of Χενχέρης. The same is given in the codex A of Syncellus, p. 72, D. If we here again calculate 215 years to the entrance of Jacob, or 224 to the exaltation of Joseph, we arrive at his reign of APHOPHIS, as was intended. But in codex B, and in the Armenian translation, the two kings, Athoris and Chencheres, who are correctly placed in the Eusebian Canon, are omitted, and undoubtedly by the oversight of Eusebius himself, not of Syncellus. Thence the Exodus was placed in the reign of Achencheres, in place of Chencheres. The similarity in the names themselves appears to have led to the oversight; thus Syncellus found the text. Now, if we count back from Achencheres 215 or 224 years, we come to Archles, the predecessor of _Aphophis_. Syncellus knew of no better way than to transpose Archles and Aphophis, as we find to be really the case in his text of Eusebius, p. 62, A; this of course can no longer be reconciled with the emendations of the codex A, which were added in a later passage out of Eusebius. No doubt seems to be left by this explanation of the numbers.

Lastly, Syncellus, who follows the false Sothis, places the Exodus in the last year of MISPHRAGMUTHOSIS, calculates from here backwards 215 years, and passing over the 2nd Hyksos Dynasty, which Sothis and Eusebius had already placed before the 1st Hyksos Dynasty, arrives at the fourth king of the latter. Therefore, as in Josephus, Aphophis is placed there.

All these circumstances are easily explained when the aim and the issue of the matter is known. But the original grounds why Aphophis, the last king of the 1st Manethonic Hyksos Dynasty, was regarded as the Pharaoh of Joseph and Jacob, is alone apparent by the simple relation which we have found subsisting between the Hebrew and the Manethonic numbers.

I do not believe that a sound critical examination can consider so many and such universal agreements and confirmations to be accidental, or the result of an artificial correction, which, at all events, would of necessity be easily pointed out, the more so as, with the exception of a few individual points, my restoration of the Manethonic chronology was principally determined before my journey to Egypt.

We therefore believe, that by means of a new path, namely, the Manethonic chronology, we have found the key to the relative portions of time in the Old Testament, so far as these are connected with Egypt; and in an inverse manner we may now consider the agreement that subsists between the chronology of the Hebrew history (both the true chronology represented in the genealogies, and the false one, which was afterwards erroneously adopted) and the Egyptian numbers upon which the chronology was originally founded, to be indeed strongly confirmatory of the authenticity of these last, as they appear according to our restoration of them.

It is very evident that our carrying back the Old Testament chronology to its natural relations, as far back as Abraham, must be not merely of chronological, but of truly historical importance in the highest meaning of the term. The prolongation to above a hundred years, contrary to all historical experience, of the thirty-yeared generations of the immediate ancestors of Moses, who lived in the midst of the Egyptians, the length of whose lives was exactly like our own, must either appear an intentional miracle, or make us doubt the simple historical reality of the persons themselves, and of the events concerning them. The superhuman duration of life, considered as a miracle, would appear to be entirely without a purpose; besides, in the Old Testament itself it is never viewed as such. The Psalmist[368], on the contrary, considered as we do, a life of eighty years as a great age. Therefore the most distinguished, and most earnest inquirers of the present day were led to the opinion, evidently from the numbers, that the history of the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was less strictly historical, but only brought before the reader, as it were, three representations of long epochs of about a century each[369]. It was likewise necessary to regard the register of generations in the time of the Judges as defective, and extremely shortened, because in no other manner could they fill up the long period of 480 years. In order to make this abbreviation more probable, the genealogy of _Haman_ was referred to as the only one which was preserved perfect[370], while we, on the contrary, consider it a double one.

Now according to our view of the subject, this apparently so well-founded doubt of the real continuity of the events, and of the historical character of the contents, in as far as they depend upon the chronology, entirely disappears, and I see no longer any reason to consider the accounts of the great personality of Abraham, of the non-prominent activity of Isaac, the opulent life of Jacob, and the remarkable fate of Joseph, chiefly as typical, and as it were only slightly connected with the historical reality[371]. For although we must still make a considerable difference between the character of the history of Israel before and after the building of the temple, yet it cannot be denied that the agreement we have pointed out between the true chronological thread, as it is represented to us by the genealogies, and the Egyptian history, as well as the confirmation of so many notices respecting Egypt, from the time of Moses and Joseph, establish a far greater _historical_ character for the Hebrew accounts, as far back as Abraham, than would have ever been allowed them by a strict criticism, had we been obliged to ascribe to the old authorities themselves the numbers which were inserted at a later period.

[After some notice concerning the times before Abraham, the author concludes this section as follows:]

If, however, our entire view of the Old Testament chronology, regarding it as founded upon accurately preserved dates, only so far back as the separation of the kingdom, but nevertheless attached from that epoch up to the time of Abraham to an evidently authentic thread of historically reliable genealogies, offering, however, before the Egyptian period, only cyclical instead of historical numbers and genealogies, and mainly confined to Babylonian sources and traditions—if, I say, this general view of the character of the chronological data which leaves untouched the significance of their contents, should, on theological grounds, arouse scruples in the mind of any one, I would refer him to the introduction which Bunsen has prefixed to the third section of his first book on Egypt, as full of talent as of meaning, and from which I would more especially extract the following passages[372].

“Whoever adopts as a principle that chronology is a matter of revelation, is precluded from giving effect to any doubt that may cross his path, as involving a virtual abandonment of his faith in revelation. He must be prepared, not only to deny the existence of contradictory statements, but to fill up chasms; however irreconcileable the former may appear by any aid of philology and history, however unfathomable the latter. He who, on the other hand, neither believes in an historical tradition as to the eternal existence of man, nor admits an historical and chronological element in revelation, will either contemptuously dismiss the inquiry, or, by prematurely rejecting its more difficult elements, fail to discover those threads of the research which lie beneath the unsightly and time-worn surface, and which yet may prove the thread of Ariadne.

“The assumption that it entered into the scheme of Divine Providence either to preserve for us a chronology of the Jews and their forefathers by real tradition, or to provide the later commentators with magic powers, in respect to the most exoteric element of history, may seem indispensable to some, and absurd to others. Historical inquiry has nothing whatever to do with such idle, preposterous, and often fallacious assumptions. Its business is to see whether anything—and if so, what—has been transmitted to us. If it fulfil this duty in a spirit of reverence as well as of liberty, sooner or later it will obtain the prize, which, if the history of the last 2000 years prove anything at all, Providence has refused to both the other systems.”

[After the two first sections of _The Criticism upon the Authorities_, of which the first, upon Herodotus and Diodorus, has been omitted in this translation, while the second, upon the Hebrew tradition, has been strongly dwelt upon, the author proceeds to the third and last section, which treats of the historical works of Manetho and the authorities which refer to him. Now, although this section contains the really critical restoration of the Manethonic chronology, considered by the author as the only one to be relied on in its general features, it has not been considered compatible with the object of the present work to communicate at full length this difficult research, which was only written for the profound investigator. We think it sufficient to give the two passages in which the whole extent of the Manethonic history, down to the second Persian conquest, according to a statement obtained from Manetho himself, is said to amount to 3555 years, and the connection is pointed out between this time, considered as strictly historical, and the cyclically discovered History of the Gods.]

The number 3555 is, however, alone essential and important, and, in spite of all the uncertainties and revisings of the text, there cannot be the slightest doubt about it. It led undoubtedly to the termination of the reign of Nectanebus II. If we can, therefore, determine this end in other more certain ways, we need no longer trouble ourselves about the calculation of Syncellus; since this, as every one allows, is, at all events, incorrect. But it cannot be doubted that Manetho knew, and correctly stated, the true year of the conquest of Egypt by Ochus, which very likely happened during his lifetime.

The calculation of this concluding year has, however, been so fully and convincingly proved by Böckh (p. 125-133), that I consider it would be superfluous to return to it again. I assume with him that _the year 340_ B.C. is perfectly ascertained to be _the concluding year of the Egyptian dominion_. Calculating back from this stated terminating point 3555 Egyptian or 3553 Julian years, we come to the _year 3893 before Christ, as the first of Menes_. We consider this to be established as perfectly historical, in as far as the Manethonic relation founded upon the annals of the kingdom may generally be regarded as historically correct.

But long before the cyclical system of the government of the gods could be founded upon the Sothis periods, which were established in the course of history, MENES had already been admitted into the Egyptian annals, and was maintained to be the fixed chronological commencement of Egyptian history, especially of the history of Lower Egypt. His epoch could be no more altered. What happened before his time was ante-historical, and might be adjusted to the cyclical necessities of mythology. The only historical fact was, that other kings had reigned before Menes, and indeed in THIS. In order to distinguish them from the later kings as being ante-historical, a designation was selected, which we are not yet acquainted with in hieroglyphics, but which was translated in Greek by Νέκυες, _the deceased_; here also undoubtedly establishing the idea that they were deceased MEN.

We may, however, certainly regard it as the most welcome confirmation of the whole of our restoration of the Manethonic chronology, that this ante-historical Dynasty of man of the ten Thinitic kings, the invention of whom could have no other aim than the extension of the history of man to the commencement of the current Sothis period, most accurately indeed fulfils the purpose that was designed. For while we add to the first of the 3555 Manethonic years, namely, to the year 3893 (3892) B.C. (Julian), the first of the reign of Menes, the 350 civil years of the Thinitic Νέκυες, the year 4242 is the result, _which was, in reality, the necessarily expected commencement year of the current Sothis period_. This immediately explains why the number 350, although it was ante-historical, and was therefore invented, is still in itself no cyclical number, and is in no way related to the Sothis period. It could just as little be a Sothic number as the number 3555, which it completed. But, on the contrary, it thence proves both the truthfulness as well as the historical character of the important and genuine Manethonic number 3555, and further proves that the establishment of the first historical year, or the Menes epoch, which is directly given by the number 3555 years, cannot first proceed from Manetho, but must be at least as old as the invention of the cyclical system of Egyptian mythology inseparably united with it, which no one will or can ascribe first to Manetho, because we have pointed out the same numbers belonging to the gods before his time. But the establishment of the discovered Menes year must indeed be still older than the formation of the whole cyclical system, since this is first appended to that number, and presupposes it; that is to say, _the Menes epoch designated by Manetho was one which had been given from the beginning, and was handed down historically_, and was combined in the following manner, with the cyclical system of the history of the gods.

PERIOD OF THE GODS.

_Gods_ 13,870 years. _Demi-gods_ 3,650 ” 17,520 ” = 12 Sothis periods.

PERIOD OF MAN.

_Ante-Historical Dynasty_ 350 years. _30 Historical Dynasties_ 3555 ” _Foreign dominion to the time of Antoninus_ 478 ” 4383 ” = 3 Sothis periods.

Thus the history of the thirty Manethonic Dynasties, which began with Menes and comprised 3555 Egyptian years, was between two Sothis periods, without coming in contact with them, an evident proof that they were not formed with reference to the Sothis periods.

* * * * *

In order to take a general survey, we shall now repeat, in a few words, the result of our investigations.

Manetho apparently added himself to his detailed history, which was comprised in three Books, a _Review of the Dynasties_, in a continued series, in the style of the old Egyptian annals. These were more often transcribed than the work itself, which seems, indeed, to have been less widely distributed, owing to this convenient compendium. Separate narratives, however, from the work itself have been adopted by later authors, and were thereby preserved to us, although not without some alterations, after the complete work itself was lost, which must have happened at an early period, perhaps when the Alexandrian library was destroyed.

It was at least unknown to Josephus in the first century of our era; but the more copious, and certainly chiefly _literal extracts_ communicated by him, he has borrowed from other works. Along with these, he either himself combined, or found combined, _another partial list_ of kings, which only included the names from Amosis down to Menephthes (Amenophis), and which was drawn up specially and solely for the learned purposes of the Jews, at all events before the time of Josephus.

Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, in the second century, communicated the same list with slight deviations, and probably not from the writings of Josephus.

The complete Dynastic lists of the Manethonic work, which by a different method have also themselves been preserved, seem to have been unknown to both. These were first preserved to us by Africanus in the third century. They had undoubtedly before this time passed through several hands, and assumed forms partly deviating from one another. The partial Jewish list which we find in Josephus and Theophilus, was already adopted, in the time of Africanus (though hardly by himself), in the same series with the others, as one peculiarly authenticated, and apparently complete; because it contained no subdivision in itself, it was regarded as one single Dynasty, the 18th, although it really corresponded with the 17th and 18th and half of the 19th Dynasty taken together. Thence arose the confusion which now exists here.

The necessity for an agreement between the Christian-Jewish and the Egyptian computation of time produced, towards the end of the third, or the beginning of the fourth century, two spurious writings; first, the _Old Chronicle_, which retained the Egyptian cyclical point of view, that, namely, of the history of the gods, and even extended it, yet in such a manner that the means of reduction was suggested, by which these large numbers might be compressed into the period assumed as that given by Moses for the time since Adam. With the same end in view the first 15 Dynasties of man were transformed into 15 Generations.

The second spurious work, the SOTHIS, professed to be Manethonic; and could do this more easily, because a long time had elapsed since the genuine history had been lost. This writing proceeded still further upon the same road as the Old Chronicle. By means of alterations and abbreviations it reduced the Egyptian numbers to certain epochs, which were considered as Biblical, and on the other hand partly abandoned the Cyclical basis.

Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth century, was deceived by both these writings, and endeavoured to make their statements agree with the genuine Manethonic Dynastic lists. He had these lists before him in a form which was rather different from, and at all events more negligently drawn up, than that of Africanus. He followed it for the Old Monarchy, which was almost entirely omitted in the two spurious writings. In the New Monarchy he adopted principally the Dynastic numbers of the Old Chronicle. In other points he followed the Sothis. His numbers of the gods, like those of the spurious writings, are upon the whole founded on the genuine Manethonic numbers, which he nevertheless combined in a mistaken manner.

In the commencement of the fifth century the speculative chronologists, ANIANOS and PANODORUS, laboured with subtle ingenuity at Egyptian chronology, but necessarily entirely failed in discovering the truth, because they considered the two spurious writings as the true basis. They endeavoured by ingenious arithmetical calculations to bring the numbers of the Old Chronicle and of the Sothis to agree more exactly with their acceptations of the Biblical chronology, than it had been the intention of these writings themselves.

Lastly, in the eighth century, GEORGIUS SYNCELLUS delivered his compiled, but on that very account for us most important work, by which we first became acquainted with almost all the earlier authorities. Through him alone we possess especially the most valuable basis for our Manethonic chronology, the Dynastic lists of Africanus. He himself decided nevertheless likewise in favour of the two spurious writings, and indeed as they were worked out by Panodorus; upon this last he founded his own system, which therefore is only so far of value to us as we thereby become acquainted with his authorities.

TABLES OF EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES, COMPILED FOR THIS TRANSLATION.

As many of the readers of this work may not be acquainted with the several Dynasties which successively reigned over Egypt, and the approximate dates which have been assigned to them, the following Tables have been compiled for their convenience, on the authority of the Chevalier Bunsen[373] and Dr. Richard Lepsius[374], and of Kenrick’s “Egypt under the Pharaohs.”

Manetho, High Priest of the Temple of Isis at Sebennytus, in Lower Egypt, in the reign of the first Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, surnamed Soter, 322 to 284 B.C., a man of the highest reputation for wisdom, and versed in Greek as well as in Egyptian lore, published various works for the purpose of informing the Greeks. Although his history is lost, we have the Dynasties tolerably entire. His excellence as an historian is placed in the clearest light by the monuments which are now made accessible to us; and the notices concerning him transmitted by Greek and Latin authors, are in no respect contradictory. The writers by whom the works of Manetho have been preserved to us, are:

Julius Africanus, Bishop of Emmæus, or Nicopolis, in Judæa, a man of learning, research, and probity, who wrote in the beginning of the third century, A.C.;

Eusebius, Bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine, about a hundred years later than Africanus; and

Syncellus, a Byzantine monk, of the beginning of the ninth century.

The lists of Manetho comprise 30 Dynasties. Egyptian history is divided into three periods—the Old Monarchy, which comprised 13 Dynasties; the Middle Monarchy, which included the 14th and 17th Dynasties; and the New Monarchy, which, commencing with the 18th, ended with Nectanebus, the last of the Pharaohs, 339 years before Christ.

“The result of our chronological investigations (Bunsen and Lepsius) has been, to carry us up to the foundation of an empire in Egypt, and to a series of kings whose names have not only been registered and transmitted to us by the Egyptians themselves, but which are now legible on Egyptian monuments, most of them erected in the lifetime of the kings whose names they record.”—BUNSEN.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+----------------+ |DYNASTY. | | | Approximate | | ORIGIN. | Names of | | Dates B.C. of | | | the Kings | Names of | beginning | | | in the Lists | the same Kings | of Dynasty. | | | of Manetho, | in other +-------+--------+ | | or of | Authors. |Bunsen.|Lepsius.| | | Eratosthenes. | | | [375] | +-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |I. |Menes |Menaios, _Herodotus_ | 3643 | 3893 | | THINITE. |Athothis | | | | | |Kenkenes | | | | | |Menephis |Mnevis, _Pliny_ | | | | |Semempses {|Ismandes, | | | | | {| _Strabo_ | | | | | {|Osymandyas, | | | | | {| _Diodorus_ | | |

REMARKABLE EVENTS.

MENES, born at Abydos, or This, in Upper Egypt. Several States existed in the Thebaid and Delta before his time, and he united them in one Monarchy. He founded Memphis.

Under Semempses, the building of the Pyramid at the Labyrinth in the Fayoum, the oldest existing in Egypt.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |II. |Boethos | | | | | THINITE. |Kaiechos |Choos-Kechoos | | | | |Binothris | | | | | |Tlas | | | | | |Sethenes | | | | | |Chaires | | | | | |Nephercheres | | | | | |Sesochris | | | | | |Cheneres | | | |

Under Kaiechos, the introduction of the worship of the Bull,—APIS at Memphis, and MNEVIS at Heliopolis, and of the Mendesian Goat.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |III. |Sesorcheres | | 3453 | 3640 | | MEMPHITE. |Toichares | | | | | |Sesortosis |Ægyptus, _Diodorus_ | | | | |Mares |Sasychis, _Herodotus_ | | | | |An-Soyphis | | | |

Under Sesortosis the introduction of building with hewn stones; also improvements in the art of writing.

Building of the Pyramids of Dashour.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |IV. |Saophis {|Cheops, _Herodotus_ | 3229 | 3426 | | MEMPHITE. | {|Chufu | | | | |Saophis II. { |Chephren | | | | | { |Schafra | | | | |Mencheres {|Menkera | | | | |Mencheres II. {|Mykerinus | | | | |Pammês | | | |

Builder of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh.

Builds the second Pyramid.

Builds the third Pyramid.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |V. |Usercheris | | |c. 3150 | | ELEPHANTINE.|Snephres | | | | | |Nephercheres | | | | | |Sisires | | | | | |Cheres | | | | | |Rathures | | | | | |Mencheres | | | | | |Tancheres | | | | | |Onnos |Unas | | | +-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |VI. |Othoes | | 3074 | | | MEMPHITE. |Phios | | | | | |Methusuphis | | | | | |Phiops |Apappus, _Eratos._, | | | | |Menthesuphis | the Mœris of the | | | | |Nitokris (a | Greeks and Romans | | | | | queen), widow | | | | | | of Phiops, | | | | | | resigned after | | | | | | the death | | | | | | of her son | | | | | | Menthesuphis | | | |

Phiops (Mœris) formed out of the desert, the fertile district of the Fayoum.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |VII. to XI. |} Manetho does not give the names of | 2967 |c. 2960 | | |} the Kings of these Dynasties; none | | | | |} between Nitokris and Amenemes. | | | +-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XII. & XIII. |{ Amenemhe I. | | 2801 |c. 2330 | | THEBAN. |{ Sesortesen I. |Osirtasen | 2654 |c. 2120 | | | Amenemhe II. | | | | | | Sesortesen II.|The Great Sesostris | | | | | | of the Greeks | | | | | Amenemhe III. |Mares Amenemes | | | | | | Memnon of the Greeks| | |

Sesortesen I. conquers Ethiopia; erects the Obelisk of Heliopolis. Amenemhe III., the builder of the Labyrinth in the Fayoum. Foundation of Thebes by Sesortesen I.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XIV. |} | | | |XV. |} | | | |XVI. |} The Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings. | | | |XVII. |} | | | +-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XVIII. |Amos |Aahmes | 1638 | | | THEBAN. | |Amasis | | | | |Amenophis I. |Amenatep | | | | |Tuthmosis I. |Tuthmes | | | | | ” II. | ” | | | | | ” III. | ” | | | | |Amenophis II. |Amenatep | | | | |Tuthmosis IV. |Tuthmes | | | | |Amenophis III. |Amenatep | | | | |Horus |Her | | |

Under Tuthmosis III. the temple on the eastern side of Thebes was built—Drove the Hyksos from the frontier—The Israelites sorely oppressed.

Erection of the obelisks at Alexandria by Tuthmosis III.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XIX. |Ramesses |Ramses | 1409 |c. 1440 | | THEBAN. |Sethôs I. |Seti | | | | |Ramesses II. |Sesostris | | | | | Miamun | | | | | |Menophthah |Menophres | 1322 | | | |Sethôs II. |Seti | | |

Ramesses II. built many of the chief monuments now existing. Formed the Cave Temples at Abu-Simbel.

His monument, the Colossus at Mitrahenny, on the site of Memphis.

Great extension of Thebes under Sethôs I.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XX. |Merr-Ra |Phuoro, Nilus | 1297 |c. 1270 | | THEBAN. |Ramses III. | | | | | | ” IV. | | | | | | ” V. | | | | | | ” VI. | | | | | | ” VII. | | | | | | ” VIII. | | | | | | ” IX. | | | | | | ” X. | | | | | | ” XI. | | | | | | ” XII. | | | | | | ” XIII. | | | |

Ramses III. leads great armies into Asia, and is a conqueror nearly equal in renown to Sethôs I. and his son Ramesses II. Built the Temples of Medînet-Hâbu.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XXI. |Smendes |Smen-Titi | 1112 | | | TANITE. |Phusemes |Pi-Scham | | | | |Nephercheres |Nefru-ke-ra | | | | |Menophthes |Menephthah | | | | |Osochor |Peher-Se-Amen | | | | |Phinaches |Pianch | | | | |Phusemes |Pi-Scham-Miamn II. | | | +-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XXII. |Sheshonk I. |Sesonchis | 982 | | | BUBASTITE. |Osorkon I. |Usuken, Userken, | | | | | | Oserkan | | | | |Peher | | | | | |Osorkon II. | | | | | |Sheshonk II. | | | | | |Takelet I. |Takiloth | | | | |Osorkon III. | | | | | |Sheshonk III. | | | | | |Takelet II. | | | |

Sheshonk I. takes Jerusalem about 970, and many cities in Judæa. He is the Schischak of the Bible.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XXIII. |Petubastes |Pet-subast, Pet-Pacht | 832 | | | TANITE. |Osorcho |Oserkna, Userken | | | | |Osorcho |P-Si-Mut | | | | |Zet, Sethôs | | | | +-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XXIV. |Bocchoris | | 743 | | | SAITE. | | | | | +-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XXV. |Sevech I. |Shabak, Sabako | 737 | | | ETHIOPIAN. |Sevech II. | | | | | |Tirhaka |Tahraka, Taheika | | |

Schabak and Tahraka are the So and Tirhakah of the Bible.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XXVI. |Stephinales | | 687 | c. 680 | | SAITE. |Nechepsos | | | | | |Necho I. | | | | | |Psammetik I. |Psammetichus | | | | |Necho II. | | | | | |Psammetik II. | | | | | |Psammetik III. | | | |

Arches in the tombs near the Pyramids of Gizeh.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XXVII. |Cambyses | | 525 | 525 | | PERSIAN. |Darius I. | | | | | | Hystaspes | | | | | |Xerxes I. | | | | | |Artabanos | | | | | |Artaxerxes | | | | | |Xerxes II. | | | | | |Sogdianos | | | | | |Darius II. | | | | | | Nothus | | | |

Conquest of Egypt by Cambyses.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XXVIII. |Amyrteos | | 414 | | | SAITE. | | | | | +-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XXIX. |Nepherites | | 408 | 399 | | MENDESIAN. |Achoris | | | | | |Psammuthis | | | | | |Nephorites | | | | +-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ |XXX. |Nectanebus I. | | 387 | 378 | | SEBENNYTIC. |Teos | | | | | |Nectanebus II., | | | | | | last of the | | | | | | Pharaohs | | | |

Nectanebus I. builds a temple at Philæ.

+-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+ | PERSIAN. |Alexander |Ochus | 340 | 340 | | | conquers |Arses | 338 | 338 | | | Egypt |Darius | 336 | 336 | | | | | 332 | 332 | +-------------+----------------+----------------------+-------+--------+

+---------------------------------------+----------+ | AGE OF THE PTOLEMIES. | Lepsius. | +---------------------------------------+----------+ | I. Ptolemy Lagus, Soter I. | 305 | | II. ” Philadelphus | 285 | | III. ” Euergetes I. | 247 | | IV. ” Philopator I. | 222 | | V. ” Epiphanes | 205 | | VI. ” Eupator | 181 | | VII. ” Philometor | 181 | | VIII. ” Philopator II. | 146 | | IX. ” Euergetes | 146 | | X. ” Soter II. | 117 | | XI. ” Alexander I. | 107 | | XII. ” Alexander II. | 81 | | XIII. ” Neos Dionysos | 81 | | Cleopatra VI. Philopator. | | | With Ptolemy XIV. | 52 | | With ” XV. | 48 | | With ” XVI. Cæsar | 45 | | With Mark Antony | 37 | | Egypt a Roman province | 30 | +---------------------------------------+----------+

APPENDIX.

(A, p. 239.)

_Observations on the Discovery, by_ Professor LEPSIUS, _of Sculptured Marks on Rocks in the Nile Valley in Nubia; indicating that, within the historical period, the river had flowed at a higher level than has been known in Modern Times._ By LEONARD HORNER, Esq., F.R.S.S. L. & E., F.G.S., &c. (_This paper is here reprinted[376] at the request of_ Professor LEPSIUS.)

The recent archaiological researches of Professor Lepsius in Egypt, and the Valley of the Nile, in Nubia, have given a deserved celebrity and authority to his name, among all who take an interest in the early history of that remarkable portion of the Old World. While examining the ruins of a fortress, and of two temples of high antiquity at Semne, in Nubia, he discovered marks cut in the solid rocks, and in the foundation-stones of the fortress, indicating that, at a very remote period in the annals of the country, the Nile must have flowed at a level considerably above the highest point which it has ever reached during the greatest inundations in modern times. This remarkable fact would possess much geological interest with respect to any great river, but it does so especially in the case of the Nile. Its annual inundations, and the uniformity in the periods of its rise and fall, have been recorded with considerable accuracy for many centuries; the solid matter held in suspension in its waters, slowly deposited on the land overflowed, has been productive of changes in the configuration of the country, not only in times long antecedent to history, but throughout all history, down to the present day. Of no other river on the earth’s surface do we possess such or similar records; and, moreover, the Nile, and the changes it has produced on the physical character of Egypt, are intimately associated with the earliest records and traditions of the human race. Everything, therefore, relating to the physical history of the Nile Valley must always be an object of interest; but the discovery of Professor Lepsius is one peculiarly deserving the attention of the geologist; for he does not merely record the facts of the markings of the former high level of the river, but he infers from these marks that since the reign of Mœris, about 2200 years before our era, the entire bed of the Nile, in Lower Nubia, must have been excavated to a depth of about 27 feet; and he further speculates as to the process by which he believes the excavation to have been effected.

It will be convenient, before entering upon the observations I have to offer upon the cause assigned by Professor Lepsius for the former higher levels of the Nile indicated by these marks, that I should give the description of the discovery itself, by translating Dr. Lepsius’s own account of it, in letters which he addressed to his friends, Professors Ehrenberg and Böckh of Berlin, from the island of Philæ, in September, 1844[377].

“You may probably remember, when travelling to Dongola on the Lybian side of the Nile, and in passing through the district of Batn el hagér, that one of the most considerable of the cataracts of the country occurs near Semne, a very old fortress, with a handsome temple, built of sandstone, in a good state of preservation; the track of the caravan passing close to it, partly over the 4000-year-old artificial road. The track on the eastern bank of the river is higher up, being carried through the hills; and you must turn off from it at this point in order to see the cataract. This Nile-pass, the narrowest with which I am acquainted, according to the measurement of Hr. Erbkam, is 380 metres (1247 English feet) broad[378]; and both in itself, and on account of the monuments existing there, is one of the most interesting localities in the country, and we passed twelve days in its examination.

“The river is here confined between steep rocky cliffs on both sides, whose summits are occupied by two fortresses of the most ancient and most massive construction, distinguishable at once from the numerous other forts, which, in the time of the Nubian power in this land of cliffs, were erected on most of the larger islands, and on the hills commanding the river. The cataract (or rapid) derives its name of Semne from that of the higher of the two fortresses on the western bank; that on the opposite bank, as well as a poor village lying somewhat south of it, is called Kumme. In both fortresses the highest and best position is occupied by a temple, built of huge blocks of sandstone, of two kinds, which must have been brought from a great distance through the rapids; for, southward, no sandstone is found nearer than Gebel Abir, in the neighbourhood of Amara and the island of Sai (between 80 and 90 English miles), and northward, there is none nearer than the great division of the district at Wadi Halfa (30 miles distant).

“Both temples were built in the time of Tutmosis III., a king of the 18th dynasty, about 1600 years before Christ; but the fortresses in which they stand are of a more ancient date. The foundations of these are granite blocks of Cyclopian dimensions, resting on the rock, and scarcely inferior to the rock itself in durability. They were erected by the first conqueror of the country, King Sesurtesen III., of the 12th Dynasty, in order to command the river, so easily done in so narrow a gorge. The immediate successor of this king was Amenemha III., the Mœris of the Greeks: he who accomplished the gigantic work of forming the artificial lake of Mœris, in the Fayoum, and from whose time—the most flourishing of the whole of the old Egyptian kingdom—the risings of the Nile in successive years, doubtless by means of regular markings, as indeed Diodorus tells, remained so well known, that, according to Herodotus, they were recorded in distinct numbers from the time of Mœris. It appears that this provident king, occupied with great schemes for the welfare of his country, considered it of great importance that the rising of the Nile on the most southern border of his kingdom should be observed, and the results forthwith communicated widely in other parts of the land, to prepare the people for the inundations. The gorge at Semne offered greater advantages for this object than any other point; because the river was there securely confined by precipitous rocky cliffs on each side. With the same view he had doubtless caused Nilometers to be fixed at Assuan and other suitable places; for without a comparison with these, the observations at Semne could be of little use.

“The highest rise of the Nile in each year at Semne, was registered by a mark, indicating the year of the king’s reign, cut in the granite, either on one of the blocks forming the foundation of the fortress, or on the cliff, and particularly on the east or right bank, as best adapted for the purpose. Of these markings eighteen still remain, thirteen of them having been made in the reign of Mœris, and five in the time of his two next successors. These last kings discontinued the observations; for, in the mean time, the irruption of the Asiatic pastoral tribes into Lower Egypt took place, and well-nigh brought the whole kingdom to ruin. The record is almost always in the same terms, short and simple: _Ra en Hapi en renpe_ ... mouth or gate of the Nile in the year.... And then follows the year of the reign, and the name of the king. It is written in a horizontal row of hieroglyphics, included within two lines—the upper line indicating the particular height of the water, as is often specially stated—

“The earliest date preserved is that of the sixth year of the king’s reign, and he reigned 42 years and some months. The next following dates are, the years 9, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 30, 32, 37, 40, 41, and 43; and include, therefore, under this king, a period of 37 years. Of the remaining dates, that only of the 4th year of his two successors is available; all the others, which are on the west or left bank of the river, have been moved from their original place by the rapid floods which have overthrown and carried forward vast masses of rock. One single mark only, that of the 9th year of Amenemha, has been preserved in its original place on one of the building stones, but somewhat below the principal rapid.

“We have now to consider the relation which these—the most ancient of all existing marks of the risings of the Nile—bear to the levels of the river in our own time. We have here presented to us the remarkable facts, that the highest of the records now legible, viz., that of the 30th year of the reign of Amenemha, according to exact measurements which I made, is 8·17 metres (26 feet 8 inches) higher than the highest level to which the Nile rises in years of the greatest floods; and further, that the lowest mark, which is on the east bank, and indicated the 15th year of the same king, is still 4·14 metres (13 feet 61⁄2 inches): and the single mark on the west bank, indicating the 9th year, is 2·77 metres (9 feet) above the same highest level.

“The mean rise of the river, recorded by the marks on the east bank, during the reign of Mœris, is 19·14 metres (62 feet 6 inches) above the lowest level of the water in the present day, which, according to the statements of the most experienced boatmen, does not change from year to year, and therefore represents the actual level of the Nile, independently of its increase by the falls of rain, in the mountains in which its sources are situated. The mean rise above the lowest level, at the present time, is 11·84 metres (38 feet 8 inches); and, therefore, in the time of Mœris, or about 2200 years before Christ, the mean height of the river, at the cataract or rapid of Semne, during the inundation, was 7·30 metres (23 feet 10 inches) above the mean level in the present day.”

Such are the facts recorded by Dr. Lepsius; and then follow, in the same letter, his views as to the cause of the remarkable lowering of the level of the river.

“There is certainly no reason for believing,” he says, “that there has been any diminution in the general volume of water coming from the south. The great change in the level can, therefore, only be accounted for by some changes in the land, and these must also have altered the whole nature of the Nile Valley. There seems to be but one cause for the very considerable lowering of the Nile; namely, the washing out and excavations of the catacombs (_Auswaschen und Aushölen der Katakomben_[379]); and this is quite possible from the nature of the rocks themselves, which, it is true, are of a quality that could not well be rent asunder, and carried away by the mere force of the water, but might be acted upon directly by the rising of the water-level, and the consequent effects of the sun and air on the places left dry, causing cracks, into which earth and sand would penetrate, which would then give rise to still greater rents, until, at last, the rocks would of themselves fall in, by having been hollowed out, a process that would be hastened in those parts of the hills where softer and earthy beds existed, and which would be more easily washed away. But that, in historical times, within a period of about 4000 years, so great an alteration should take place in the hardest rocks, is a fact of the most remarkable kind—one which may afford ground for many other important considerations.

“The elevation of the water-level at Semne must necessarily have affected all the lands above; and, it is to be presumed, that the level of the province of Dongola was at one time higher, as Semne cannot be the only place in the long tract of cliffs where the bed of rock has been hollowed out. It is to be conceived, therefore, that not only the widely-extended tracts in Dongola, but those of all the higher country in Meröe, and as far up as Fasogle, which, in the present day, are dry and barren on both sides of the river, and are with difficulty irrigated by artificial contrivances, must then have presented a very different aspect, when the Nile overflowed them, and yearly deposited its fertile mud to the limits of the sandy desert.

“Lower Nubia also, between Wadi Halfa and Assuan, is now arid almost throughout its whole extent. The present land of the valley, which is only partly irrigated by water-wheels, is, on an average, from 6 to 12 feet higher than the level to which the Nile now rises; and although the rise at Semne might have no immediate influence upon it, yet what has occurred there makes it more than probable that at Assuan there was formerly a very different level of the river, and that the cataracts there, even in the historical period, have been considerably worn down. The continued impoverishment of Nubia is a proof of this. I have no manner of doubt that the land in this lower part of the valley, which, as already stated, is at present about 10 feet above the highest rise of the Nile, was inundated by it within historical time. Many marks are also met with here, that leave no doubt regarding the condition of the Nile Valley antecedent to history, when the river must have risen much higher; for it has left an alluvial soil in almost all the considerable bays, at an average height of 10 metres (32 feet 9 inches) above the present mean rise of the river. That alluvial soil, since that period, has doubtless been considerably diminished in extent by the action of rain. On the 17th of August Hr. Erbkam and I measured the nearest alluvial hillock in the neighbourhood of Korusko, and found it 6·91 metres (22 feet 7 inches) above the general level of the valley, and 10·26 metres (33 feet 7 inches) above the present mean rise of the river. That rise, which at Semne, on account of the greater confinement of the stream between the rocks, varies as much as 2·40 metres (7 feet 10 inches) in different years, varies at Korusko less than 1 metre (3 feet 3 inches).

“Near Abusimbel, on the west bank, I found the ground of the temple 6·50 metres (21 feet 2 inches) above the highest water-level. This temple, it is well known, was built under Rameses the Great, between 1388 and 1322 years before Christ. Near Ibrîm there are, on the east bank, four grottoes excavated in the vertical rock that bounds the river, which belong partly to the 18th and partly to the 19th Dynasties; the last, under Rameses the Great, is also the lowest, and only 2·50 metres (8 feet 1 inch) above the highest inundation; the next in height is 2·70 metres (8 feet 91⁄2 inches) above the former, and was made 250 years earlier, under Tutmes III. Although I only measured the present level of the valley near Korusko, nevertheless it appears to me that, during the whole of the new kingdom, that is, from about 1700 years before Christ to this time, the Nile has not reached to the full height of the low land of the valley.

“It is, however, conceivable that, at the time when the present low land of the Nubian Valley was formed, the cataracts at Assuan were in a totally different state; one that would, in some degree, justify the overcharged descriptions of the ancients, according to whom they made so great a noise that the dwellers near them became deaf. The damming up of the inundation at Assuan could have no material influence on Egypt, any more than that at Semne, or the land from thence to Assuan.”

It appears, therefore, from the above statements, that at the time mentioned, the Nile, during the inundations, stood 26 feet 8 inches higher than the highest level to which it now rises in years of the greatest floods; and that, to account for this, Professor Lepsius conceives that, between the time of Mœris and the present day, the bed of the Nile, from a considerable distance above Semne to Assuan, must have been worn down to that extent. In the index to the volume of the Berlin Monatsbericht, in which the letters of Professor Lepsius are inserted, there is the following line:—

“NIL, _senkung seines Bettes um 25 Fuss seit 4000 Jahren_.”

“_Nile_, sinking of its bed about 25 feet (Paris) within the last 4000 years.”

Rivers are, undoubtedly, among the most active agents of change that are operating on the earth’s surface; the solid matter which renders their waters turbid, and which they unceasingly carry to the sea, afford indisputable proof of this agency. But the power of rivers to abrade and wear down the rocks over which they flow, and to form and deepen their own bed, depends upon a variety of circumstances not always taken into account; and although the great extent of that power, in both respects, is shown in the case of many rivers, to conclude, as some have done, from these instances, that all rivers have excavated the channels in which they flow, is a generalisation that cannot be safely assented to. The excavation of the bed of a river is one of those problems in geological dynamics which can only be rightly solved by each particular case being subjected to the rigorous examination of the mathematician and the physicist. The solid matter which rivers carry forward is in part only the produce of their own abrading power; and the amount of it must be proportional to that power, which is mainly dependent on their velocity; they are the recipients of the waste of the adjoining lands by other combined agencies, and the carriers of it to the lower districts and to the sea. They often afford the strongest evidence of the vast lapse of time that must be included between the beginning and close of a geological period; and, when they flow through countries whose remote political history is known to us, they supply a scale by which we may measure and estimate that lapse of time. This is especially so in the case of the Nile.

When so startling an hypothesis as that now referred to, viz., that the entire bed of so vast a river as the Nile, for more than 250 miles, from Semne to Assuan, has been excavated, within historical time, to a depth of 27 feet, is made by a person whose name carries so much weight in one department of philosophical inquiry, the statement involves such important geological considerations, that it becomes the duty of the geologist to examine, and thoroughly test, the soundness of the explanation, in order that the authority of Professor Lepsius for the accuracy of the facts observed, may not be too readily admitted as conclusive for the correctness of his theory of the cause to which they owe their existence. That there has been such an undoubting admission, appears from the following passage in the work of one of the latest writers on Nubia:

“The translation of the name of this town (Aswán) is ‘the opening;’ and a great opening this once was, before the Nile had changed its character in Ethiopia, and when the more ancient races made this rock (at the first cataract) their watch-tower on the frontier between Egypt and the south. That the Nile has changed its character, south of the first cataract, has been made clear by some recent examinations of the shores and monuments of Nubia. Dr. Lepsius has discovered water-marks so high on the rocks and edifices, and so placed as to compel the conviction that the bed of the Nile has sunk extraordinarily by some great natural process, either of convulsion or wear. The apparent exaggerations of some old writers about the cataracts at Syene may thus be in some measure accounted for. If there really was once a cataract here, instead of the rapids at the present day, there is some excuse for the reports given from hearsay by Cicero and Seneca. Cicero says, that ‘the river throws itself headlong from the loftiest mountains, so that those who live nearest are deprived of the sense of hearing, from the greatness of the noise.’ Seneca’s account is: ‘When some people were stationed there by the Persians, their ears were so stunned with the constant roar, that it was found necessary to remove them to a more quiet place[380].’”

The learned author of an article on Egyptian Chronology and History in the “Prospective Review” for May, 1850, in referring to the contributions of Professor Lepsius to Egyptian history, says: “He has discovered undescribed pyramids, equal in number to those known before; has traced the Labyrinth, and ascertained its founder. _He has detected inscriptions on the banks of the Nile, which show that its bed has subsided many feet in historic times._” _9th June, 1850._

In the assumption of an excavation of the bed of the river, we have no small amount of wear to deal with, for the distance from Semne to Assuan, following the course of the river, is not less than 250 miles; and if, as Professor Lepsius supposes, the excavation extended to Meröe, we have a distance, between that place and Assuan, of not less than 600 miles.

Although these records of a former high level of the Nile at Semne had not been noticed by any traveller prior to Professor Lepsius, we may rest fully assured of the accuracy of his statements, from the habitual care and diligence, and the established character for fidelity, of the observer. The silence of other travellers may be readily accounted for by this, that none of them appear to have remained more than a very short time at this spot—not even the diligent Russegger—whereas we have seen that Professor Lepsius passed twelve days in the examination of this gorge in the Nile Valley.

The theory of a lowering of the bed of the river by wearing, involves two main considerations, viz., the power of the stream, and the degree of hardness of the rocks acted upon. The power depends upon the volume and velocity of the river—the velocity on its depth, and the degree of inclination of the bed: the hardness of the rocks we can form a tolerable estimate of when we know their nature. To judge, therefore, of the probability of the hypothesis of Professor Lepsius, we must inquire into the physical and geological features of the Nile Valley, in Nubia.

In the observations I have now to offer, my information has been derived of course entirely from the works of other travellers, particularly those of Burckhardt, Rüppell, and Russegger[381], and especially the latter, who travelled in Nubia in 1837; for he not only enters far more into the details of the natural history of the country, but he is the only traveller in Nubia who appears, from previous acquirements, to have been competent to describe its natural history with any degree of accuracy—I refer more particularly to the physical and geological features of the country. Besides full descriptions in his volumes, he has given a geological map of Nubia, and also several sections, or what may more properly be called _vertical sketches_—a term that would, perhaps, be a more appropriate designation for all sections that are not drawn to a true scale, or at least when the proportion of height to horizontal distance is not stated.

_The Physical Geography of Lower Nubia[382]._

Russegger informs us[383], that he believes he was the first traveller who had succeeded in making a series of barometrical measurements along the Nile Valley, from the Mediterranean to Sennaar and Kordofan, and thence to the 10th degree of north latitude. He gives the following altitudes, above the sea:

Paris Feet. English Feet.

The upper part of the Cataract of Assuan 342 = 364·37 Korusko, on the right bank of the Nile, in Nubia 450 = 479·43 Wadi Halfa 490 = 522·00 New Dongola 757 = 806·52 Abu Hammed 963 = 1026·00

I shall now give the length of the Nile along its course from Abu Hammed to the island of Philæ, at the head of the cataract of Assuan. I employ for this purpose the map in the atlas which accompanies the work of Russegger, which bears the date of 1846, and which, doubtless, was constructed on the best authorities. He mentions a map of General von Prokesch with great praise[384]. It flows:

German M. English M.

From NE. to SW., from Abu Hammed to Meröe, about 31 = 150

It makes a curve between Meröe and Old Dongola, of about 16 = 77

It flows between Old and New Dongola, from SE. to NW., about 16 = 77

Then, with some short windings, nearly due north to the island of Sais, for about 30 = 145

And from Sais to the island of Philæ, from SW. to NE., about 68 = 327 --- --- Making the whole length of the course, from Abu Hammed to Philæ, about 161 = 776

Ascending the river, we have, between Philæ and Korusko, a distance of 24 German, or 1151⁄2 English miles, and without any rapid, except one near Kalabsche. Korusko being 115 feet above the head of the cataract of Assuan, at Philæ, we have an average fall of the river between these two places of a foot in a mile.

Between Korusko and Wadi Halfa there is no rapid. The distance being 20 German, or 961⁄3 English miles, and the difference of altitude being 421⁄2 feet, we have an average fall throughout that part of the river’s course of not more than 5·3 inches in a mile.

This very inconsiderable fall need not surprise us; for the average fall of the Nile in Lower Egypt, at the lowest water, is little more than one-third of that now stated. At the time of the highest water the surface of the Nile, at Boulak, near Cairo—that is, about 116 miles in a direct line from the coast—is only 43·437 English feet above the level of the Mediterranean, and at the time of the lowest water, only 17·33 feet. Thus, in the first case, there is an average fall of about 5·00 inches; in the second, of not more than 1·80 inches in a mile[385].

Between Wadi Halfa and Dale, a distance of about 94 miles, six cataracts, or schellals, as they are called in the language of the country, are marked in Russegger’s map. And here, it may be as well to notice, that there are no cataracts, in the ordinary sense of the term, on the Nile; no fall of the river over a precipice; all the so-called cataracts are rapids, where the river rushes through rocks in its bed; the rapids varying in their length and degrees of inclination. We have no measurements of their lengths or of their falls, except as regards the first and second cataracts. The former, according to Russegger, has a fall of about 85 English feet in a distance of about 8 miles; and he describes the latter as extending from 5 to 6 _stunden_; that is, from 12 to 141⁄2 miles, but he does not give the height. Speaking of the schellals above Semne, Russegger says, that all may be passed in boats without difficulty for about six weeks, or two months in the year. This is the case also at the cataract or rapid of Assuan. But between Wadi Halfa and Dale, with some inconsiderable spaces of free navigable water, in the ordinary state of the river, there is an almost uninterrupted series of rapids. We have no measurement of the height of Dale above Wadi Halfa, near to which the second great cataract of the Nile occurs; but this is the part of the river’s course where the fall is greatest, and from Semne to Dale there are about 45 miles of this more rapid fall.

From Dale to New Dongola, a distance of 35 German, or about 168 English miles, only three rapids are marked on Russegger’s map—the highest being at Hannek, about 26 English miles below New Dongola. New Dongola being 806 English feet above the sea, and the distance from that place to the rapid of Hannek being 26 miles only, we may with probability estimate the surface of the river at the rapid of Hannek at 780 feet above the sea. Now, Wadi Halfa being 522 feet, we have a difference of height, between these two last-named places, of 258 feet; and the length of the river’s course between them being 236 miles, we have an average fall of 13·12 inches in a mile; that is, in the part of the river’s course where nine rapids occur, in the provinces of Batn-el-Hadjar, Sukkôt, and Dar-el-Mahass, where the river flows over granite and other plutonic rocks; gneiss, mica-schist, and other hard rocks, which Russegger considers to be metamorphic. But between Semne and the head of the second cataract at Wadi Halfa, there is not a continuous rapid stream; for Hoskins says, that about two miles above that cataract, the river has a width of a third of a mile, and, when he passed it, the water was scarcely ruffled[386].

From the rapid of Hannek to Abu Hammed the distance is 329 English miles, and the difference of altitude is 246 English feet. We have thus an average fall in that distance of 9·00 inches in a mile.

Thus, in the 776 miles between Abu Hammed and Philæ, we have an average fall of the Nile

Of 9·00 inches in a mile, for a distance of 329 miles. Of 13·12 ” ” 236 ” Of 5·30 ” ” 96 ” Of 12·00 ” ” 115 ”

_Of the Breadth, Depth, and Velocity of the Nile, in Nubia._

Our information is very scanty respecting the breadth and depth of the river, either at the time of lowest water or during the inundations. About two miles above Philæ, it is stated by Jomard[387] to be 3000 metres, or nearly two English miles wide. At the second cataract, or rapid of Wadi Halfa, it spreads over a rocky bed of nearly two miles and a quarter in width (2000 klafter)[388], but contracts above the rapid to a third of a mile. Russegger also states, that the Nile, near Boulak, in Lower Egypt, is 2000 toises, nearly two-and-a-half English miles in breadth, and yet that it is considerably wider in some parts of Southern Nubia; but Burckhardt says that the bed of the Nile in Nubia is, in general, much narrower than in any part of Egypt. Near Kalabsche, about 30 miles above Philæ, the river runs through a gorge not more than 300 paces wide, and its bed is full of granite blocks. It shortly afterwards again widens for some distance; but near Sialla, 78 miles above Philæ, it is contracted by the sandstone hills on both sides coming so near each other, that the river’s bed is again not more than from 250 to 300 paces wide. It is about 600 yards broad about two miles above the second cataract near Wadi Halfa, but is again very much contracted in the rocky region of Batn-el-Hadjar. At Aulike it is only 200 paces broad[389].

I have not met with any measurements of the depth of the river in any part of its course in Nubia; but Hoskins describes it as being so shallow at the island of Sais, 327 miles above Philæ, on the 9th of June, which would be before the commencement of the inundation, as only to reach the knees of the camels[390]. Near Derr, about 86 miles below the Cataract of Wadi Halfa, Norden, in January, found the river so shallow that loaded camels waded through it, and his boat frequently struck the ground. In May, Burckhardt found the river fordable at Kostamne, 53 miles above Philæ; and Parthey states, that between Philæ and the island of Bageh, to the west of it, the river is so shallow before the commencement of the inundation, that it may be waded through[391]. Burckhardt says, that from March to June the Nile-water, in Nubia, is quite limpid[392]. Miss Martineau, who visited Nubia in December and January, speaking of the river above Philæ, says, that it “was divided into streamlets and ponds by the black islets. Where it was overshadowed it was dark-grey or deep blue, but when the light caught it rushing between a wooded island and the shore, it was of the clearest green[393].” At the second cataract she describes the river as “dashing and driving among its thousand islets, and then gathering its thousand currents into one, proceeds calmly in its course[394].”

Although we have no accurate measurements of the velocity of the Nile in Nubia, we may arrive at an approximate estimate of it by comparing its fall with that of a river well known to us.

I have stated the fall of the Nile in different parts of its course to be 5·30, 9·00, 12·00, and 13·12 inches in a mile. The fall of the Thames from Wallingford to Teddington Lock, where the influence of the tide ends, is as follows:

+-----------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+ | | Length | | Fall in | | | of | Fall. | Inches | | | Course. | | per Mile.| | +---------+----------+----------+ | |Miles. F.| Feet. in.| | | | | | | |From Wallingford to Reading Bridge | 18·0 | 24·1 | 15·72 | |From Reading to Henley Bridge | 9·0 | 19·3 | 25·68 | |From Henley to Marlow Bridge | 9·0 | 12·2 | 16·20 | |From Marlow to Maidenhead Bridge | 8·0 | 15·1 | 22·32 | |From Maidenhead to Windsor Bridge | 7·0 | 13·6 | 23·16 | |From Windsor to Staines Bridge | 8·0 | 15·8 | 23·52 | |From Staines to Chertsey Bridge | 4·6 | 6·6 | 17·28 | |From Chertsey to Teddington Lock | 13·6 | 19·8 | 17·40 | | +---------+----------+----------+ | | 77·4 | 125·11 | | +-----------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+

“In general, the velocity may be estimated at from half a mile to two miles and three-quarters per hour; but the mean velocity may be reckoned at two miles per hour. In the year 1794, the late Mr. Rennie found the velocity of the Thames at Windsor two miles and a half per hour[395].”

It will thus be seen that the velocity of the Nile is probably greatly inferior to that of the Thames; for it appears that, except during the inundation, for more than half the year the depth is inconsiderable. The average fall when greatest, that is, including the province of Batn-el-Hadjar, where the rapids chiefly occur, is considerably less than that of any part of the above course of the Thames; so that there must be long intervals between the rapids where the fall must be far less than 13 inches in a mile. The breadth of the Nile is vastly greater; but supposing the depth of the water to be the same as that of the Thames, on account of the friction of the bed, the greater breadth would add very little to the velocity. If we assume the average depth of the Thames in the above distance to be 5 feet, and that it flows with an average velocity of 2 miles in an hour, and if we assume the average depth of the Nile in that part of its course where the fall is 13·12 inches to be 10 feet, when not swollen by the rise, the velocity would be 24⁄5 miles nearly in an hour[396], if the fall were equal to that of the Thames. We shall probably come near the truth, by assuming the velocity of the Nile on this part at 2 miles in an hour. That it must be considerably less in the other divisions of the course I have named, and especially in that part immediately below the second cataract, where the average fall is only 5·30 inches for a distance of 96 miles, is quite evident.

The power of a river to abrade the soil over which it flows, so far as water is by itself capable of doing so, must depend upon its volume and velocity, and the degree of hardness of the material acted upon. The power is increased when the water has force enough to transport hard substances. But even transported gravel has little action on the rocks with which it comes in contact, when it is free to move in running water, unless the fall be considerable, and, consequently, the velocity and force of the stream great. When stones are firmly set in moving ice, they then acquire a great erosive power, cutting and wearing down the rocks they are forcibly rubbed against; but this condition never obtains in Lower Nubia, as ice is unknown there.

_Geological Structure of Lower Nubia._

One kind only of regularly stratified rock occurs in the 776 miles from Abu Hammed to Philæ; viz., a silicious sandstone, similar to that which occurs to a great extent on both sides of the Nile in Upper Egypt, and which Russegger, after a very careful examination of it there, considers to be an equivalent of the greensand of the cretaceous rocks of Europe. The tertiary nummulite limestone, so abundant in Egypt, has not hitherto been met with in Nubia.

The Nile flows over this sandstone for nearly 426 miles of the entire distance, but not continuously. At Abu Hammed, it flows over granitic rocks, and these continue from that place for about 120 miles. There is then about 215 miles of the sandstone, which is succeeded by igneous and metamorphic rocks, that continue for 195 miles without any interruption, except a narrow stripe of sandstone of about 15 miles near Amara. It is in this region of hard igneous rocks that nearly all the rapids occur, between that of Hannek and the great or second cataract at Wadi Halfa. From the latter place there is sandstone throughout a distance of about 196 miles, and then commences the granitic region of the Cataract of Assuan, through which the Nile flows about 35 miles. Thus we have about 350 miles of igneous and metamorphic rocks, and about 426 of sandstone.

The general hard nature of the igneous and metamorphic rocks, over which the Nile flows for about 155 miles above Semne, and for about 40 immediately below it, will be recognised by my naming some of the varieties described by Russegger, viz., granites of various kinds, often penetrated by greenstone dykes; sienite, diorite, and felspar porphyries; gneiss, and clay slate, penetrated by numerous quartz veins.

The siliceous sandstone is very uniform in its character; and in Nubia, as in Egypt, the only organic bodies which it has as yet been found to contain, are silicified stems of wood. Occasionally, as in the neighbourhood of Korusko, interstratified beds of marly clay are met with[397].

When, therefore, we take into account the hard nature of the siliceous sandstone, the durability of which is shown by the very ancient monuments of Egypt and Nubia, that are formed of it, and the still greater hardness of the granites and other crystalline rocks, it is manifest that the wearing action of a river flowing over so gentle a fall, can scarcely be appreciable. If the occasional beds of marly clay occur in the bank of the river, they may be washed out, and blocks of the superincumbent sandstones may fall down; but such an operation would have a tendency to raise rather than deepen the bed of the river at those places; unless the transporting power of the stream were far greater than can exist with so moderate a fall, especially in that part of the river below Semne, where, for 96 miles, it is not more than 5·3 inches, and for 115 miles below that, not more than 12 inches in a mile. Even if we suppose the river to have power to tear up its bed for some distance above Semne and below it, as far as the rapid of Wadi Halfa, it is evident that the materials brought down would be deposited, except the finest particles, in that tranquil run of 96 miles, which may be almost compared to a canal. The drains in Lincolnshire are inclined 5 inches to a mile[398]. When the annual inundations commence, the water of the Nile comes down the rapid at Assuan of a reddish colour loaded with sand and mud only; whatever detrital matter of a larger and heavier kind the Nile may have brought with it, is deposited before it reaches that point.

From all these considerations, therefore, I come to the conclusion, that the bed of the Nile cannot have been excavated, as Professor Lepsius supposes, since the date of the sculptured marks on the rock at Semne. He says, “Es lässt sich kaum eine andere Ursache für das bedeutende Fallen des Nils denken, als ein Auswaschen und Aushölen _der Katakomben_.” By the word _Katakomben_[399] he can only mean natural caverns in the rock; but such caverns are rarely, if ever, met with in sandstones, and only occasionally in limestones. If the course of the Nile were over limestone instead of sandstone, we could not for a moment entertain the idea of a succession of caverns for 200 miles beneath its bed, sometimes two miles in width, the roofs of which were to fall in; and where the igneous rocks prevail, this explanation is wholly inapplicable.

But besides the objections arising from the nature of the rocks, and the inconsiderable fall of the river, there is still another difficulty to overcome. It is to be borne in mind, that this lowering of the bed of the Nile, from Semne to Assuan, is supposed to have taken place within the last 4000 years. Between the first cataract at Assuan and the second at Wadi Halfa there are numerous remains of temples on both banks of the Nile, some of very great antiquity. “From Wadi Halfa to Philæ,” says Parthey, “there is a vast number of Egyptian monuments, almost all on the left bank of the river, and so near the water that most of them are in immediate contact with it[400].” We may rest assured that the builders of these would place them out of the reach of the highest inundations then known. Although we have many accurate descriptions of these monuments, the heights of their foundations above the surface of the river are not often given; they are, however, mentioned in some instances. I shall describe the situations of some of these buildings relatively to the present state of the river’s levels, and shall begin with those on the island of Philæ.

This island, according to the measurements of General von Prokesch, is 1200 Paris feet (1278 English) in length, and 420 (447) in breadth, and is composed of granite. Lancret informs us, that, “à l’époque des hautes eaux, l’île de Philæ est peu élevée au-dessus de leur surface: mais, lorsqu’elles sont abaissées, elle les surpasse de huit mètres.” It was formerly surrounded by a quay of masonry, portions of which may be traced at intervals, and in some places they are still in good preservation. The south-west part of the island is occupied by temples. According to Wilkinson, the principal building is a temple of Isis commenced by Ptolemy Philadelphus, who reigned from 283 to 247 years before Christ; and he adds, that it is evident an ancient building formerly stood on the site of the present great temple. Lancret, in referring to this more ancient building, says:—“Il y a des preuves certaines d’une antiquité bien plus reculée encore, puisque des pierres qui entrent dans la construction de ce même grand temple, sont des débris de quelque construction antérieure.” Rosellini considers that it was built by Nectanebus. The first king of Egypt, of the Sebennite Dynasty of that name, ascended the throne 374 years B.C., the second and last ceased to reign about 350 years B.C.[401]

Rosellini[402] informs us, that on the island of Bageh, opposite to Philæ, there are the remains of a temple of the time of Amenophis II., and a sitting statue of granite representing him. He was a king in the earlier years of the 18th Dynasty, which, according to the Chevalier Bunsen[403], began in the year 1638, and ended in 1410 B.C.

GAU[404], in describing a temple at Debu, about 12 miles above Philæ, which he visited in January, and consequently during the time of low water, states that he discovered under the sand, at the edge of the river, the remains of a terrace leading towards a temple.

A short distance north of Kalabsche, about 30 miles above Philæ, at Beil-nalli, Rosellini[405] speaks of a small temple in the following terms:—“Among the many memorials that still exist of Ramses II., the most important, in a historical point of view, is a small temple or grotto excavated in the rock!” and Wilkinson mentions it “as a small but interesting temple excavated in the rock, of the time of Ramses II., whom Champollion supposes to be the father of Sesostris or Rameses the Great[406].” He was the first king of the 19th Dynasty, which began in the year 1409 B.C.[407]

Gau[408] thus describes a monument at Gerbé Dandour:—“La chaîne de montagnes qui borde le Nil est, dans cet endroit, si approchée du lit de ce fleuve, qu’il ne reste que très peu d’espace sur la rive. Cet espace est presque entièrement occupé par le monument, et la rivière, dans ses débordemens, arrive jusqu’au pied du mur de la terrasse.”

Parthey informs us that the temple of Sebûa is about 200 feet distant from the river, in which distance there are two rows of sphinxes, and that the road between them, from the temple, ends in wide steps at the water’s edge; and he adds that Champollion refers this temple to the time of Rameses the Great[409].

It thus appears that monuments exist close to the river, some of which were constructed at least 1400 years before our era; so that taking the time of Amenemha III. to be, as Professor Lepsius states, 2200 years B.C., the excavation of the bed of the Nile which he supposes to have taken place, must have been the work, not of 4000 years but of 800. If the erosive power of the river was so active in that time, it cannot be supposed that it then ceased; it would surely have continued to deepen the bed during the following 3000 years.

At all events, the buildings on the island of Philæ demonstrate that the bed of the Nile must have been very much the same as it is now, 2200 years ago; and even a thousand years earlier it must have been the same, if the foundation of the temple on the island of Bageh, opposite to Philæ, be near the limit of the highest rise of the Nile of the present time; so that there could be no barrier at the Cataract of Assuan to dam up the Nile when they were constructed; and thus the deafening sound of the waterfall recorded by Cicero and Seneca must still be held to be an exaggeration.

The existence of alluvial soil, apparently of the same kind as that deposited by the Nile, in situations above the Cataract of Assuan, at a level considerably above the highest point which the inundations of the river have reached in modern times, to which allusion is made by Professor Lepsius, has been noticed by other travellers, and even at still higher levels than those he mentions. Whether that alluvial soil be identical with, or only resembles the Nile deposit, would require to be determined by a close examination, and especially with regard to organic remains, if any can be found in it. There is no evidence to show that it was deposited during the historical period, and it may be an evidence of a depression and subsequent elevation of the land antecedent to that period. It may not be of fresh-water origin, but the clay and sand, or till, left by a drift while the land was under the sea. For remote as is the antiquity of Nubia and Egypt, in relation to the existence of the human race, it appears to be of very modern formation in geological time. The greater part of Lower Egypt, probably all the Delta, is of post-pliocene age, and even late in that age; and the very granite of the Cataract of Assuan, that of which the oldest monuments in Egypt are formed, and which, in the earlier days of geology, was looked upon as the very type of the rock on which the oldest strata of the earth were founded, is said to have burst forth during the later tertiary period. We learn from Russegger, that the low land which lies between the Mediterranean and the range of hills that extends from Cairo to the Red Sea at Suez, and of which hills a nummulite limestone constitutes a great part, is composed of a sandstone which he calls a “Meeresdiluvium,” a marine diluvial formation, and considers to be of an age younger than that of the sub-appennines[410]. This sandstone he found associated with the granite above Assuan, and covering the cretaceous sandstone far into Nubia. It appears, therefore, that, in the later ages of the tertiary period, this north-eastern part of Africa must have been submerged, and that very energetic plutonic action was going forward in the then bed of the sea. The remarkable fact of the granite bursting through this modern sandstone is thus described by Russegger:

“We arrived at a plateau of the Arabian Chain south-east of Assuan. It is about 200 feet above the bed of the Nile, and consists of the lower and upper sandstone, which are penetrated by innumerable granite cones from 20 to 100 feet in height, arranged over the plateau in parallel lines, very much resembling volcanic cones rising from a great cleft. The sandstone is totally altered in texture near the granite, and has all the appearance as if it had been exposed to a great heat. ‘I cannot refrain,’ he says, ‘from supposing that the granite must have burst, like a volcanic product, through long wide rents in the sandstone, and that, in this way, the conical hills were formed[411].’”

An eruption of a true granite during the period of the sub-appennine formations, one possessing the same mineral structure as that we know to have been erupted during the period of the palæozoic rocks, would be a fact of so extraordinary a kind, that its age would require to be established on the clearest evidence, and especially by that of organic remains in the sandstone.

Having thus ventured—I trust without any want of the respect due to so eminent a person—to reject the hypothesis proposed by Professor Lepsius for the high levels of the Nile at Semne, indicated by the sculptured marks he discovered, it may perhaps be expected that I should offer another more probable explanation. If in some narrow gorge of the river below Semne, a place had been described by any traveller, where, from the nature of the banks, a great landslip, or even an artificial dam, could have raised the bed to an adequate height; that is, proportionate to the fall of the river, as it was more distant from Semne, a bar that, in the course of a few centuries, might have been gradually washed away, I might have ventured to suggest such a solution of the problem. But without any information of the existence of such a contraction of the river’s channel, or any exact knowledge of the natural outlets and dams to running water along the 250 miles of the Nile Valley, from Semne to Assuan, it would be idle to offer even a conjecture. These marks are unquestionably very difficult to account for, in the present imperfect state of our knowledge of the structure of that portion of the Nile Valley; and any competent geologist, well versed in the questions of physical structure involved, who may hereafter visit Nubia, would have a very interesting occupation in endeavouring to solve the difficulty.

_7th April, 1850._

_Translation of a Letter from Dr. Lepsius to Mr. Horner, dated Berlin the 12th of April, 1853._

DEAR SIR,—I observe from a letter of your daughter, that she is desirous of adding to her translation of my Letters a note upon the height of the water of the Nile, with reference to your paper in the “Edinburgh Philosophical Journal.” I wish that you would get reprinted in that note the whole of the small memoir, as it possesses great interest, and abounds in data not easily brought together; for in that case the subject may probably be further discussed.

I will, at all events, avail myself of this opportunity to make some remarks, which you may, if you like, propose to have introduced into the contemplated note.

I must first remark that the word _Katakomben_ was entirely a typographical error for _Katarakten_, as was unfortunately the case in many other instances in those things which were printed during my absence.

But in respect of the explanation of the observed facts, my views are perhaps less different from yours than you imagine. You imagine a natural or artificial barrier which has broken down, but this appears to me of insufficient magnitude; I too imagine barriers to have existed, and natural ones, but that there must have been several of them. I do not, moreover, regard it as impossible, that at certain periods, when the country was in its most flourishing condition, artificial dams may have been constructed in order to obtain a higher rise of the water within a particular space, such as was necessary for an overflowing. But if we imagine an entire dam thrown across the river, this, if I am not mistaken, could only hold back the current for a very short way, namely, where there is a greater general fall. If, for example, we imagine a barrier at Assuan, it would require to be several hundred feet high to have any effect on the height of the water at Semneh, and then the whole valley from Philæ to Wadi Halfa would be a great lake, as it may indeed have been in geological time.

If we imagine a succession of barriers which would be especially formed where veins existed in the primitive rock, then the present entire physiognomy of the Nile valley seems to be more easily explained. The river-bed, amidst granitic or other upheaved rock, is not level, like a chalk or sandstone channel, but forms sometimes lakes, sometimes barriers. The force of the swollen current at these last, of which there is one at Semneh itself, does not act in the mean proportion of a space of considerable extent, but with immense effects, exceeding all calculation, especially when, in addition, there is a contraction of the sides, as at Semneh. Immediately below this barrier the bed again spreads out, and the rocks disappear in the current. The colossal rock-fragments on that bank, whose inscriptions sometimes show that above 4000 years ago they were still not broken loose, display the Titan force of a current thus hemmed in, and allow us to conceive how at that spot it gradually washed out its bed, sometimes to a great depth, but sometimes also to a greater breadth, which has the same effect, and how all that is broken away, or that during the time of low water splits to a considerable depth in the bed of the river from the summer heat, rolls away, until arrested by falling into hollows. But if these single barriers are only washed away in the course of thousands of years, then the whole river must receive an equable fall, and it will never rise in the very rocky districts, but can only continue to be still more excavated, and will only again deposit the heavier portions it bears along with it, below the cataracts, where every obstruction disappears. The monuments can hardly be cited in opposition to the view of a gradual sinking of the bed of the river in the higher districts. All of them lie tolerably far above the region of the rise of the Nile—for example, the temple on the island of Bigeh, to which there is a considerable ascent. Philæ has only been built upon since the time of Nectanebus, and there is nothing to indicate buildings of an earlier date. The sinking of the surface of the water even at Philæ and Assuan must also have been far less than at Semneh. Nevertheless, special researches with respect to the relative condition of the ancient temple and rock-inscriptions to the present surface of the water would certainly be of the greatest utility.

Herr von Humboldt, after reading some observations on the same subject by Wilkinson in the Nouv. Ann. des Voyages, i., without recollecting my views, wrote to me as follows:

“Breaches in dams, I imagine, cause only temporary rises of water, unless in earlier times (for which I see no reason) there was a greater accumulation of water in the valley of the river, from meteorological causes. Primeval conditions, where broad valleys were filled with waters, are not applicable to periods when there were inscriptions. Does it not seem to you more probable, that the height of the water was at one time at a greater elevation, on account of the bed of the river not having been so much furrowed out, because at an earlier period the bottom of the river was not at _c d_, but at _e f_.

“There are rivers whose beds are elevated and rendered more shallow by deposition, others which furrow out their bed _qui creusent un lit plus profond_.”

With sincere respect, your faithful,

R. LEPSIUS.

APPENDIX B. (P. 303 and 318.)—The tradition of Gebel Mûsa being the Mount of the Law, became gradually more decided and exclusive for this view after the time of Procopius in the sixth century; mainly, no doubt, on account of the church founded at that spot in the reign of Justinian. I am not aware that there are any modern travellers and savants who have thrown doubts on the correctness of this assumption. Not even Burckhardt, although from the numerous inscriptions on Serbâl he was led to infer that that mountain might have been at one time _incorrectly_ regarded by the pilgrims as Sinai. The words of this distinguished traveller are as follows: (Trav. in Syr. p. 609.) “It will be recollected that _no inscriptions_ are found either _on the Mountain of Moses, or on Mount St. Catherine_; and that those which are found in the Ledja valley at the foot of Djebel Catherine, are not to be traced above the rock from which the water is said to have issued, and appear only to be the work of pilgrims who visited that rock. From these circumstances _I am persuaded that Mount Serbâl was at one period the chief place of pilgrimage in the Peninsula; and that it was then considered the mountain where Moses received the tables of the law; though I am equally convinced, from a perusal of the Scriptures, that the Israelites encamped in the Upper Sinai_, and that either Djebel Mousa, or Mount St. Catherine, is the real Horeb. It is not at all impossible that the proximity of Serbâl to Egypt, may at one period have caused that mountain to be the Horeb of the pilgrims, and that the establishment _of the convent_ in its present situation, _which was probably chosen from motives of security, may have led to the transferring of that honour to Djebel Mousa_. At present neither the monks of Mount Sinai nor those of Cairo consider Mount Serbâl as the scene of any of the events of sacred history; nor have the Bedouins any tradition among them respecting it, but it is possible, that if the Byzantine writers were thoroughly examined, some mention might be found of this mountain, which I believe was never before visited by any European traveller.”

More recently the remarkable book of travels by E. ROBINSON form a marked epoch in our knowledge of the Peninsula as well as of Palestine. With reference to the position of Sinai, he for the first time especially urges the favourable vicinity of the great plain of RÂHA, to the north of Gebel Mûsa, in which there was ample space for the encampment of the people of Israel. (Palestine, vol. i., p. 144, &c.) In his determination, however, of the actual Mount of the Law, he deviates from the previous tradition, since he endeavours to prove that Moses did not ascend Gebel Mûsa, but the mountain ridge jutting out from the south, above the plain, which is now called HOREB by the monks, and whose highest point is named Sefsâf. (Vol. i. p. 176.) Unfortunately he did not visit Wadi Firân and the adjoining Serbâl. In a more recent treatise (Bibl. sacra.