immortal name, the most eminent are his friend and pupil, Ippolito Rosselini, of Pisa, Dr. Leipsius of Berlin, Sir Gardiner Wilkinson, and Dr. C. C. I. Bunsen.

By the joint labor of Champollion the younger, and his very learned brother, Figeac Champollion-who wrote a highly valuable chronological dissertation, the chief object of which was, to reconcile Manetho with the discrepancies of other writers—many of this historian's statements, so long disregarded, were proved to be correct, and the restoration of his eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties of Egyptian kings effected; but the death of the younger Champollion, in December, 1831, retarded, for many years, the development of the full truth which it is reasonable to suppose that brilliant and intuitive genius would have accomplished, had his life been prolonged. In spite of all endeavors of the learned men engaged in investigating the archæology of Egypt, the progress for some years afterwards was very slow in the historical department. Some additions, however, were, from time to time, made to what was known of the period already investigated by the Champollions, and even some names, and genealogical connections of several kings anterior to the eighteenth dynasty, were ascertained from the monuments. But, at last, Dr. Bunsen came forth with a work,* in which, with great, if not complete success, he established the reality of Manetho's thirty dynasties. But before we take a survey of Dr. Bunsen's investigations of that subject I will say some words of Manetho's history itself.

This work was divided into three books. The first treated of the reign of the gods, of the demigods, and of eleven dynasties of mortal kings; the second comprised the reigns of the succeeding eight dynasties; and the third extended to the dethronement, by Darius Ochus, of Nectanebo, the last king of the thirtieth dynasty. There can now be no reasonable doubt that this work, in its main points, was an authentic history of Egypt, though in its details, there was much confusion and much exaggeration. But, unfortunately, only a meagre epitome of it has come down to us, and that in two texts or versions. Julius Africanus, Bishop of Emmaus— Nicopolis, who lived about the year 200, epitomized and commentated the History of Manetho, but even the original work of this learned prelate has not reached us; only extracts from it, comprising the thirty dynasties more or less entire, together with the table of Eratosthenes, of which I will in another place speak, are to be found in the Chronography of Syncellus. The dynasties of Manetho are also preserved in the Chronology of Eusebiust which has been handed down to us almost entire,

In 1845, the work above alluded to, was published in Hamburg, under the title of :"Egyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte," (The place of Egypt in Universal History,) by C.

C. I. Bunsen.

↑ Eusebius, with the surname Pamphili, also called father of the history of the Christian church, was born in Palestine, about 270, and died about 340. He was the most learned man

VOL. I.-13

in an Armenian version, while the part of it concerning Egypt, forms also a portion of the compilation of Syncellus, who, however, himself tells us, that the text of Eusebius was but a transcript of that of Africanus, and that the discrepancies that occur are corruptions on the part of the copyist. Manetho's history was compiled from the most ancient and authentic sources, of which the principal seems to have been the books of Thoth II., or Hermes Trismegistus, and the sacred inscriptions on the columns of Hermes. It is also very probable that the genealogical tablets, of which some have reached us, the papyri in the library of Alexandria, afterwards destroyed, and the sculptures on the temples and other buildings were by him consulted. Being a learned priest himself, and thus master of the hieroglyphic writings, he was at least able to perform his task faithfully. National vanity might still be supposed to have induced him to extend the antiquity of his nation even beyond what the legends he consulted claimed; but the test of his veracity, which now is at hand, has proved, that there is little reason to suppose him guilty of any essential falsification, though he undoubtedly accepted as truth, much that was fabulous and thus proved himself in some degree wanting in that critical judgment which is so necessary in an historian, in order to separate the false from the true.

Before returning to Baron Bunsen's work, I will here say a few words of Eratosthenes, one of the authorities on which the historical part of that work is founded, and who, as I have before mentioned, is to be consulted by every one that investigates the history of the ancient Egyptians.

Eratosthenes was a Greek of Cyrene, and lived about sixty years after Manetho, or about two hundred years B. C., in the reign of Ptolemy Evergetes, on whose command he seems to have composed his Laterculus, or catalogue of Egyptian kings, from ancient Egyptian records, and from the information he might have gathered from the learned scribes of Thebes. He was a learned man, a mathematician, astronomer, and geographer, and, besides, superintendent of the library of Alexandria. This catalogue, however, comprised but thirty-eight kings; but was continued by his disciple Apollodorus, surnamed "the Chronographer," in a further succession of fifty-three kings; but these documents are lost, except a fragment which is preserved in the work of Syncellus.

I will here observe, that there is much discrepancy between Manetho and Eratosthenes; but that the former, in regard to the names, and even to the number of kings, has been confirmed far more fully by the deciphered writings on the monuments, than the latter. This seems to me very natural, as it was to be expected that Manetho, a native and learned priest, would be much more thoroughly acquainted with the history of Egypt, as handed down in the hieroglyphic writings, than a foreigner, whose knowledge of these subjects must have been more superficial. Still, the stateof his time, and became bishop of Cæsarea, in Palestine. He was one of the opponents of Athanasius.

ments of Eratosthenes might, on the other hand, reasonably be supposed to be more unprejudiced and impartial, and are, therefore, very useful in some respects, as far as they go.

Dr. Bunsen, to whose work we now turn our attention, defers, in regard to the historical part of his composition, to the following authorities: 1. The Dynasties of Manetho; 2. The Catalogues of Eratosthenes and Apollodorus; 3. The preserved Papyri, especially a most important one in the Turin collection; 4. The inscriptions on the monuments, of which the two most remarkable are the Genealogical Tables of Karnak and Abydos, with various other similar, though not so numerous, lists of royal names; besides many scattered over the face of the monuments generally.

In regard to the two versions of what is still extant of Manetho's work, Dr. Bunsen gives the preference to that of Africanus, excepting in cases where the discrepancy may appear to originate in errors of the text of that author, to whom, however, the preference which Dr. Bunsen has given him, appears reasonably due. Still there can be no doubt that the lists of Manetho's dynasties, with which Africanus has furnished us, never left Manetho's hands in that incorrect state, especially as regards numerals, in which they have reached us; which is very evident from the fact that the epilogus or sum subjoined to each book-Manetho's work being divided in three books-differs in some cases widely from that which results from the summing up of the separate entries; and which also makes it very difficult to form any approximate estimate of the number of kings and years it may originally have contained.

I will here subjoin a table of dynasties, reigns, and years after Africanus, with the epilogus, and also the actual sum, for each book and thereafter add another table, called by Syncellus "The Old Chronicle," as in many points differing from that of Aricanus.

1

Some of these entries, as, for instance, 70 kings in 70 days, and 76 kings in 184 years, are evidently false, or probably corrupted from the genuine in the original lists of Manetho. But as the above table now is, it represents 507 kings reigning in Egypt, during a period of 5318 years; and as Menes is the first of these kings, and the reign of the last one ended about 340 years B. C., it carries back the reign of the former to about 5650 years anterior to the Christian era, or about 2100 years prior to that time, when, according to Johannes Von Müller, the deluge took place.* We will, however, see how Dr. Bunsen has limited the years given in this table to a number less at variance with the prevailing opinion on this subject, but still, probably, not acceptable to all.

The following table is a reduction of the old Egyptian chronicle, made and handed down to us by Syncellus. The chronicle itself is presumed to have been compiled some years before the dethronement of the last Pharaoh. Its chronology extends down to 359 years B. C.

THE OLD EGYPTIAN CHRONICLE.

1st. Reign of the Gods—or Auritae.t

YEARS.

To Hephaestus-Vulcan-Pthah, the creator, is assigned no time.
Helius-the Sun-the son of Hephaestus, reigned three myriads of
years, equivalent to

30,000

The fifteen generations (Dynasties) comprised in the Cynic Cycle
or Sothic period, reigned

443

The remaining fifteen dynasties of kings, commencing with the
sixteenth dynasty and ending with the thirtieth dynasty, reigned
together

1881

Reign of Men

2324

Total reign of Gods and Men

36,525

It has been supposed by some antiquarians that, under the reign of the gods, is understood the time anterior to the deluge; and as Cronus and his nearest twelve successors nearly agree in number with the patriarchs from Adam to Noah, this fact has been adduced in confirmation of this supposition. The reigns of the demi-gods have, by these antiquarians, been presumed to allude to those generations which lived after the deluge, but before the time of Menes. I will, in another place, state my own opinion

These numbers reduced on the most moderate calculation, according to the above table, gives, however, a period of no less than 5226 years, and a series of 349 kings, the reign of the last of whom terminated 340 years B. C.

This word has generally been considered as alluding to "the golden age," but there are those who think that it more properly means "the children of the sun."

Alluding to those "born of the sun."

on this subject. When we compare these two tables we find in accordance with the former, that the reign of Menes took place no less than about 2967 years anterior to the time assigned to it in Syncellus's reduction of the Old Egyptian Chronicle, which gives to the period between that king and the birth of Christ only 2683 years.

The incorrectness of these two tables has evidently been proved, by the careful and diligent investigations of those, who, in more recent times, have occupied themselves with the historical part of Egyptian archæology. But the honor belongs chiefly, if not solely, to Dr. Bunsen, of having fully and satisfactorily substantiated, by historical and monumental evidences,* that there exists a great deal of authentic history in the entire series of the dynasties of Manetho, extending from the very origin of human society, through a period of several thousand years before the Christian era.

We have seen, that, at the lowest computation, the sum of the whole list of Egyptian kings, by Manetho, gives 5226 years, and 349 kings. But as there is a passage in Syncellus, which mentions a reduction of "The Thirty Dynasties," described in the three books of Manetho, to 113 generations, and 3555 years, Dr. Bunsen considers this statement as an expression of Manetho's own views. This conclusion appears, however, somewhat questionable, as there is no author quoting, either immediately or from second-hand, the work of Manetho, that, by a single expression, gives us reason to interpret the passage alluded to, as embodying the opinion of Manetho himself. It is, nevertheless, a curious circumstance, that Dr. Bunsen has arrived, by his investigations, at a result, not differing materially, in regard to years, from this passage of Syncellus. Interesting as the subject may be, it would, nevertheless, occupy us too long to follow Dr. Bunsen through the laborious and detailed process that led him to the conclusion,-which will astonish the most of my readers,that the duration of the Egyptian empire, from the time of Menes to the conquest of Egypt, by Darius Ochus. about 340 years B. C., was no less than about 3300 years; thus carrying back the reign of Menes to about 3640 years anterior to the birth of Christ. Besides this, Dr. Bunsen assumes, what is very reasonable, that the Egyptians must have

By the proper and ingenious use Baron Bunsen has made of the table of Eratosthenes and the Turin Papyrus, he has been able to correct, at least in part, the errors which were found in the lists of Manetho's first dynasties, where the greatest difficulties were chiefly met with. The table of Eratosthenes gives a succession of 38 kings, commencing, like Manetho's first dynasty, with Menes, giving to the name of each king its Greek interpretation, and the years of his reign-the whole series extending over a period of 1076 years. The Turin Papyrus is a catalogue of dynasties, with names and dates similar to those of Manetho's, written in the hieratic text, or a kind of short-hand of the pure hieroglyphic. It comprised, when entire, a list of kings, from Menes down to the time of its own compilation, under the nineteenth dynasty, or about 1400 years B. C. It may, therefore, be a fragment of the original records, on which the lists of Manetho were founded. Being in a very mutilated condition, the fragments, have, however, by Dr. Leipsius, and some others, been so far reconstructed, as to give with tolerable accuracy, the order of the succession of the kings.