The Press.
London, England, 1854-10-21 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

_ .
The introductory observations in the former volume
must have made us sensible of the invaluable guide
posterity has lost in the work of Eratosthenes. He
alone taught us how Manetho is to be understood—he
enabled us even to point out, when we were obliged to
correct him, the superiority of his method in treating
Egyptian research. Had Manetho's lists even come down
to us wholly free from blunders, we should never have been
able to have divined, from the epilogi of his dynasties,
the historical sum total of the years of reign, the only
years which Eratosthenes, with his superior method, com-
puted in his list. There, on the contrary, we found the
genuine Manethonian computation so clogged with ex-
traneous matter, and his entries so mixed up with blunders,
that we were driven to conjectures alone in attempting
any chronology whatever—conjectures which deviated
widely from each other. Difficulties, however, of a far
more serious nature, and considerations of a far more im-
portant order, sprung up in opposition to the arguments in
favour of the assumption of there being a period of at all
events five full centuries. perhaps nine, interveningbetween
the Old and New Empire. There we had an almost
unbroken series of names and dates of reign, the coin-
cidence of which in Eratosthenes and Manetho could
not be denied from the moment we found the key to the
connection between them. Wherever there was an hiatus
or confusion in these lists, the monuments, so providen-
tially preserved, especially the two invaluable royal tablets.
supplied and restored what was omitted. It merely re-
quired an impartial eye, and a system of historical criti-
cism, consistently carried out after the model left us by the
restorers of Greek and Roman history, to see at once that
this agreement could not possibly be the result of accident.
Here, on the contrary, we seem to assume as historical
fifty and odd kings, upon the mere entry of lists which do
not give us one single name, one single date of reign. Wa
demand a place in general history for kings whose very
existence has hitherto not been even believed by those who
admit the Hyksos period in general to be historical.
These latter persons still thought themselves obliged to
limit it to a century, or some such like short period, either
because they were blinded by Jewish prejudices, or
because they stood aghast before en array of centuries
about which they had nothing to relate. although obliged
to compute them in the chronology. If they could not ven-
ture here to rely upon those whom they declared to be
trustworthy, on the whole, in the Old Empire—namely,
the Egyptians and their monuments—they took courage
from their prejudices, and exercised the right of talking
about things which they did not understand. Most
modern writers of this turn, however, presuming ou the
prescription of long-repeated absurdities, and calculating
on the credulity of mankind, mutilate ancient history
to a much greater extent than the ecclesiss'ical writers,
who so anxiously and honestly limited their computations
of the earliest epochs. They think to facilitate the restora-
tion of the old chronology by denying the Hyksos period
altogether.

•
• • • •
•
Yet these are the fairest opponents amongst those who
doubt the correctness of Egyptian archeology. They enter
upon the inquiry with seeming impartiality. Their
Bedouins, at least, are taken from fact. But the dogmatic
geodes condescend to entertain apprehensions of a very
different character. What will become (they auk first of
all) of the Bible dates? And what becomes of the flood ?
exclaim the zealots. Two thousand years' history and
chronology before Moses! and that from one for whom the
Bible chronology prior to Solomon is not good enough!
And here a wide door is opened for sarcasm and scoffing;
for there are many zealous souls who desire nothing
better than to prove that the " scoffer," " the God-
despiser," " the infidel critic," himself deals uncritically.
In such persons' eyes, however, every man is naturally a
scoffer who declares he does not believe anything they
assert, however devoid it may be of any sound fotmdstion,
and however insignificant in itself. It would be, therefore,
fir more advisable, in a worldly view of the case, to abandon
the point at once.
There is scarcely a position in the first part
of this passage which does not challenge cri
ticism. It illustrates most pointedly our intro
ductory observations on the duty of applying
stringent logic to the speculative school of
archEeologists. Let us observe, for example,
how the Chevalier Bunsen laments the loss of
the works of Eratosthenes, and quietly asserts,
" He alone taught us how the works of Manetho
" are to be understood." When archaeological
theories are brought before us, it is an inva
luable rule to attend closely even to grammar.
What a vast deal of difference there is between
asserting "lie alone taught us," and conjecturing
"he alone might hare taught us" ! Surely one
with the learning of Isl. Bunsen must admit
that, even if we have had before us the compi-
lations of Erastothenes, a great mass of
his statements could only be accepted as
conjectural. But thus it is with -many of
the works that make up the Egyptologer's
library. Manetho (or Manethos, as we more
commonly write it in English) pretended to
take all his accounts from inscriptions on the
pillars of Hermes Trismegistus ! He conde
scended to compute for us a period of 63,535
years ! When we know that these dynasties
were epitomised by Julius Afiieanus, ind from
him transcribed by Eusebius, and inserted in
the latter's " Chronie,a;" from Eusebius, by
peorgius Syncellus, an 4 lastly by Joseph
Sealiger, in his " Canonei Isagogici, we may

1001

--
see how warily the philosophic archreolop,
should proceed. The contemptuous refereric
to Manetho by Stillingtleet, in his " Orighie,
Sacrie," is present to our memory while W 6
observe that M. Bunsen has prefaced the fore-
going passage with recording his opinion on
" the futility qf the lucubration. (t) of the Jewish
" Christian theologians."
Turning, however, from these considerations,
we may indicate the substantial contents of
this volume in the chevalier's owu words.
Here is a summary of his leading views :
First. That the list of Eratosthenes gig
kings who, from Menes down to the end of
reigned in unbroken succession at Thebes.
we obtain a connected chronology of the
1070 years.
Secondly. That Manetho's historical
upon authentic dates, as were the labours
it was less critical, however, and made the
old empire somewhat longer in consequen'
standings, which we can even now partially
we possess, however, with the exception of i
are dynastic lists, into which some scanty
the historical works have been interpolated.
tented, in the old and middle empires, a registration
different royal families that had reigned in ]
by right or usurpation. Tho dynasties and
introduced in the order in which they were
royal titles. There are, consequently, no'
temporaneous dynasties, but we tind, besides,
the royal families contemporaneous reigns, owing
regencies and co-regencies. This was the original form of
the lists, but there are in addition misunderstandings and
even perhaps wilful corruptions on the part of the epito-
mists. The lists, therefore, though they contain invaluable
remains of historical tradition, require the light of Era-
tosthenes' register to furnish the histericirchrunological
key and guarantee their authenticity.
Thirdly. That half of the tablet of Karnak which
belongs to the old empire, and the tablet of Abydos from
the 18th dynasty upwards, are of a genealogical not a
chronological character : that they represent, not all the
royal names, but only the generations of royal families
from father to son, perhaps with the exclusion of kings
condemned after their death. The tablets representing
sacrifices to the dead and the dynastic lists mutually illus-
trate and complete each other, and equally confirm the sys-
tem which I have adopted.
Fourthly. That the pyramids are the tombs of the kings
of the old empire; the royal names discovered in them
are all those of Eratosthenes. The number even indeed
of the great pyramids accords well with that of the kings
in Eratosthenes.
Fifthly. That the lake of Morris and the labyrinth are
works of the old empire.
Sixthly. That the tradition of the old empire, when sub-
mitted to criticism, is found to be historico-chronologieal,
although in a state of great obscurity and confusion
during the long Ilyksos period. From the 4th century
of the eels of Menes there are contemporary monuments,
with the names of the kings to whose reigns they belong,
to confirm the lists : there are also statements of regnal
years from the 12th dynasty.
It is too much for M. Bunsen to assume, as
he does, that " the first five of these point
" are based upon philological and historical
" research . . . which in essential points
" can never be invalidated." In the very next
page (Preface, p. xix.) we read his acknow-
ledgment, alluding to Lepsius
:
In it he discovered the name of the third Amenemha,
the same king with whose seutcheons all the fragments of
the labyrinth itself are ornamented. I had connected that
pyramid with the last king of the first dynasty. In like
manner Linant's views as to the site of the lake of kJ -
which 1 had combated, have been so materially expl
and corroborated to me by Lepsius, that the difficul
had encountered seem in all important points to be over-
come. I agree with Linant and Lepsius that the lake of
Morris, the vo,rk of the glorious 12th dynasty, has die.
appeared, with the exception of some remaii.s of dykes an
canals. 1 admit the site proposed for it by Linant, but.
do not believe it to have been formed by excavation, an
consider the lake as a natural one, which was simpl
cleansed and increased by introdneing into it an arm
the Nile, after its banks had been strengthened by dykes.
I have, therefore, in the present revision entirely abane
Boned my original assumption that Apappus, the chief 4
the oth dynasty, is the Morris of the Greeks.
Contemporary monuments are still wanting for Gig
whole of the first dynasty ; although its chief and f.ptindef '
maintains so great a name in Egyptian tradition that
we meet with frequent mention of trim even among thir
Greeks.
This is candid and honourably said, but it
is also conclusive that on important points the
chevalier may be seriously mistaken.
General readers will not find this work
abounding in passages that can attract the
popular taste. To peruse its pages they would
require an interpreter constantly at their
elbow ; but all who study sacred antiquities,
and are specially interested in Egyptology,
will find the work valuable for its richness in
illustrative details and the vigour of the
author's honest (anti, in some respecte, credu-
lous) enthusiasm. auportant considerations on
the results of the labours of Lepsius are not
the least meritorious parts of its fpntents, ftn4.

J

vogfht:lii Rives
thisa old seemimieepthl
ie old empire of
work was based
s of Erstostbenes
ie duration of the{
once of misunder
ally clear up. AU
of a few extracts,
ity remarks from
ated. These con-
registration of the
in Egypt, either
and princes were
were invested with
not merely con-
mides, in some of
reigns, owing to