corruptions of the genuine Manetho, that is, of the Manetho of the 30 historical Egyptian Dynasties. He is, however, confounded with the Manetho of the Dog-star, and hence it is that the 15 Dynasties of Manetho are called the 15 Dynasties of the Sothiac cycle. But how is the number 443 to be explained? Is this entry to be understood in the same sense as the similar one in Clemens, namely, that the first 15 Dynasties comprehended the 443 years prior to the beginning of the last cycle, consequently prior to 1322? Or is it simply taken with a slight alteration from the number assigned by Eusebius to the 14th and 15th Dynasties (435)? The following dates for the length of the reigns are in the gross evidently borrowed from Eusebius.

The 113 generations are explained in the same arbitrary manner.

In the sequel there is no more reckoning by Dynasties, but 75 generations are numbered in order to make up the 113 of Manetho. So palpable is this, that we have only to fill up from the text of Eusebius the chasms which now exist in the 28th and 29th Dynasties of Syncellus, in order to obtain the number 75. That the titles of the Dynasties have been altered in the most blundering manner is evinced both by Manetho's tables, and by our present more accurate knowledge of the monuments and history of the New Empire. Lastly, the dates of the years, as well as numbers of particular reigns, are brought into shape by various arbitrary expedients; but Eusebius on all occasions appears as the authority. In the 23rd Dynasty, the trace of the right number (19

instead of 44) is preserved, perhaps from better MSS. of Eusebius. As the dates of the individual Dynasties now run, 184 years are wanting to make up the promised 36,525, it is scarcely worth while to inquire where the mistake lies.

It is quite evident that we have here an unnatural union between the dates of the genuine and the PseudoManetho. The so-called old chronicle is therefore of more recent date than the latter.

Letronne was the first to denounce (in 1831) the utter worthlessness of this Cento, so long esteemed by modern scholars as a sort of literary treasure, and adopted as the foundation of their researches. Its true critical value has also been rightly estimated in a note to Biot's Treatise on the names of the Egyptian months. 152

That sagacious critic, to agree with whom is always a guarantee with us that we are ourselves on the right path, characterises the Book of Sothis as the compilation of a Jewish or Christian impostor, executed not earlier than the end of the 3rd century. We believe it to be considerably later.

VII. THE ANONYMOUS LIST OF KINGS.

In this way the historical work of Manetho was gradually, step by step, superseded. First by extracts, in which history and chronology were extinguished, then by the levity of Eusebius, and the falsifications to which he resorted in order to carry out his system: after him, by the impostor, who, usurping the name of the Sebennyte, so thoroughly confounded truth with falsehood: lastly, by an arbitrary paring down of the Dynasties of Manetho into a chronicle, reckoning by cyclical numbers. The vast Mythic dates were so plausibly reduced to within a reasonable compass by the devices of Panodorus and others, and their ingenious discovery of

152 At p. 24. seqq.

years of one, two, and three months, that a new clue was offered for their more convenient adjustment. Such was the state in which chronological science was found by Syncellus. It was easy for him to demonstrate Eusebius's perverse treatment of Manetho's Lists. But he was himself as little competent as the Bishop of Cæsarea to turn the genuine dates in Africanus to profitable account. Dynasties at the best were ill adapted for any complete system of synchronisms. First of all, as regarded the earliest period, they were obliged to begin with MenesMestraim, and add on a few names, so as to fill up in a reasonable manner the short period prior to the Shepherds, and between them and the beginning of the 18th Dynasty. The first 14 or 16 Dynasties therefore must have been reduced to at most as many names and reigns.

But many, even of the later Egyptian Epochs, proved extremely intractable. It was a settled point with the majority of these inquirers, that Abraham or Joseph came into Egypt under Aphōphis, the Shepherd King, or that the Exodus took place under Amos, or rather, perhaps, that Moses was born in his reign, and that he led out the Children of Israel under MephraTuthmosis. This, however, could not be brought about without much clipping and paring. Afterwards, too, they were necessarily brought into conflict with their own system of Jewish Chronology, by any attempt to square it with the Table of Dynasties. That such was the result in every period is proved, as will hereafter be seen, by the synchronistic canon of Eusebius. In order to evade these difficulties, the List now embodied in the synchronistic tables of Syncellus was constructed. Valueless as it is, it still deserves consideration in one point of view. It is only through it that we can form a complete idea of the total extinction of all sound criticism which marks this period, and the consequent futility both of its calculations and its conclusions.

We here subjoin it complete, subdivided according to the periods of real history, and with its own progressive numbers

I. The Old Pharaonic period 153-341 years, 9 Kings.

1. "Mestraim," (according to the Bible)

66 or Menes"

2. Kurodes (utterly incomprehensible)
3. Aristarchus

4. Spanius

5.

6.

} purely fictitious names

"names not registered" (praise-
worthy conscientiousness!)

7. Serapis for vanity's sake-the name
of a God of the Ptolemaic age

8. Sesonchōsis

raked together from the

latter part of the Lists.

34

36

72

23

49

9. Ammenemes] Dyn. XII. 1, 2. = Era- ( 29

tost. 34. 33.

341 years.

The sixteen names which follow are foreign to the Old Dynasties of Manetho, as well as those of Eratosthenes. As the Shepherd Kings join immediately on to them, these sixteen names must either be pure invention, or a gleaning from the 53 lost names of Apollodorus or from the 60 of the XIIIth Dynasty of Manetho. It were, perhaps, doing too great honour to the author of this patchwork to prefer the latter alternative; the names, however, in spite of this corruption, exhibit a genuine Egyptian character, and do not elsewhere occur. We are, therefore, more inclined to think they are borrowed from a good source, than to award the impostors the credit of their invention. The names of the 53 Theban Kings of Apollodorus were still extant in the days of Syncellus.

153 Syncellus, p. 91. See Appendix of Authorities, B. IV.

Uses alone among all these names has a certain resemblance to the old Pharaonic titles. The names of primeval Ramessides would be in the highest degree interesting, assuming these to have been derived from any such source. They would prove that this name also had its ramifications in the Old Empire of the Pharaohs.

Usimares, perhaps, is the same name as is found in Eratosthenes for the 24th King; Thyosimares according to the MSS. Koncharis is the same word as Kencheres of the Lists.

To Koncharis succeed the Shepherd Kings, according to this compiler; according to Eusebius and the Chro nicler, the 17th Dynasty. This point being settled, it necessarily followed that Koncharis must have been the 154 Sync. p. 96. 155 Ibid. p. 101. 156 Ibid. p. 103.