has a great deal to this purpose. The chief persons to whose authority writers principally appeal, are three: the first is the anonymous author of the Old Chronicle; which has been preserved by Syncellus, and thought to be of very early date. To this succeed the dynasties of Manethon of Sebennis, who was an Egyptian priest in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and wrote what he exhibited, at the request of that prince. The third is the account given by Eratosthenes, of Cyrene, in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, who has transmitted a curious account of the Theban kings; but of those solely, without taking any notice of the princes in other parts of Egypt. From these Egyptian writers the accounts given by Africanus and Eusebius have been compiled, as well as those by Syncellus. According to these chronologers, the number of the dynasties amounts to thirty and one; and they extend downwards to the reign of Darius, who was conquered by Alexander. Many moderns have gone deep in these inquiries; among whom we ought to mention, with particular respect, Petavius, Scaliger, Perizonius, and the incomparable Sir John Marsham.

As there are different specimens transmitted by antient authors of the Egyptian history, one would imagine that there could not be much difficulty in collating the reigns of princes, and

correcting any mistake that may have happened in the dynasties. But these writers often differ essentially from each other; and as there is nothing synchronical to which we can safely apply, it is impossible, when two writers or more differ, to determine which is in the right. Add to this, that these dynasties extend upwards, not only beyond the deluge, but one thousand three hundred and thirty-six years beyond the common æra of the creation. Sir John Marsham is very sanguine in favour of the system which he has adopted, yet is often obliged to complain of having a most barren field of investigation, where there are nothing but names and numbers; and he acknowledges how difficult it is to arrive at any certainty, when a set of unmeaning terms present themselves without any collateral history. There is one mistake common to all who have engaged in this dark scrutiny. They proceed upon some preconceived notion, which they look upon as a certainty, and to this test every thing is brought. Such is the reign of Inachus, the flood of Ogyges, the landing of Danaus in Greece. Such also is the supposed reign of a king when Joseph went into Egypt, and the reign of another, when the Israelites departed. They set out upon these facts as first principles, though they are the things which want most to be canvassed: and when they have too incon

siderately made these assumptions, they put a force upon all other history that it may be brought to accord. In most lists of the Egyptian kings, Menes is found first. Many writers suppose this personage to have been Mizraïm; others think it was Ham; others again that it was Noah. And as these lists go down as far as Alexander the Great, the dynasties are to be dilated, or curtailed, according to their greater or less distance from the extremes. In one thing they seem to be agreed, that the number of the dynasties was thirty and one.

Whether it be in the power of man to thoroughly regulate the Egyptian chronology, I will not pretend to say. To make some advances towards a work of this consequence is worth our attempting; and if it is not always possible to determine in these dynasties what is true, it may, however, be of service to point out that which is false; for by abridging history of what is spurious, our pursuit will be reduced into narrower limits. By these means those who come after will be less liable to be bewildered, as they will be confined to a smaller circle, and consequently brought nearer to the truth.

The first attempt towards rectifying the chronology of Egypt must consist in lopping off entirely the sixteen first dynasties from the thirtyone specified in Eusebius: for I am persuaded,

:

that the original list consisted of fifteen dynasties only. The rest are absolutely spurious, and have been the chief cause of that uncertainty of which we have been so long complaining. This may appear too bold and desperate a way of procedure: nor would I venture to speak so confidently, were I not assured that they never really existed, but took their rise from a very common mistake of the Grecians. This may be proved from that antient Chronicle of which I took no tice above. The Grecians had this, and many other good evidences before them, as they plainly shew but they did not understand the writings to which they appealed; nor the evidences which they have transmitted. In the first place I much question, whether any Grecian writer ever learned the language of Egypt. Many negative proofs might be brought to shew, that neither Plato, nor Pythagoras, nor Strabo, were acquainted with that congue. If any of them had attempted the acquisition of it, such was their finesse and delicacy, that the first harsh word would have shocked them, and they would immediately have given up the pursuit. If they could not bring themselves to introduce an uncouth word in their writings, how could they have endured to have uttered one, and to have adopted it for common use? I doubt whether any of the Fathers were acquainted with the language of the country.

Besides, the histories of which we are speaking were written in the sacred language and character which were grown obsolete; and Manethon, Apion, and other Hellenic Egyptians, who borrowed from them, were not well acquainted with their purport. Had these memorials been understood, we should not have been at a loss to know who built the pyramids, and formed the. lakes and labyrinth, which were the wonders of the world. In respect to the Fathers who got intelligence in Egypt, they obtained it by a very uncertain mode of inquiry, and were obliged to interpreters for their knowledge. The Grecians wrote from left to right; but the more eastern nations from right to left. This was a circumstance which they either did not know, or to which they did not always attend, and were therefore guilty of great mistakes; and these consisted not only in a faulty arrangement of the elements, of which the names are composed, but also in a wrong distribution of events. Hence an historical series is often inverted from want of knowledge in the true disposition of the subject. Something similar to this, has happened in respect to

2

2

Αιγυπτιοι (γραφεσιν) απο των δεξιων επι τα αρισερα. Herod. 1. 2. c. 36.