και τέταρτον τοις δώδεκα μησιν επαγεσι. They add, says Diodorus, to the twelve months, five days complete and one quarter. It was used in many parts of Egypt and the numbers spoken of above, related to a period in calculation; and was no historical account. They were the amount of days in a cycle of one hundred years: for if one year consists of three hundred sixty-five days, and a fourth part, they in one hundred years will amount to 36525, the number of which we treat. What therefore had belonged to an antient ephemeris, has by mistake been applied to historical computation: and days have been taken for years. This might well raise the Egyptian history to an unwarrantable height; and make it precede the creation by many ages. Some have thought to evade this difficulty by supposing that the years

47

Σεληναίοι, and 4 μηνιαίοι ενιαυτοί, lunar and monthly

(Ægyptii menses) tricenûm dierum omnes habent: eoque explicitis duodecim mensibus, id est, 360 diebus exactis, tunc inter Augustum et Septembrem reliquos quinque dies anno suo reddunt; adnectentes, quarto quoque anno exacto, intercalarem, qui ex quadrantibus confit. Macrob. Sat. 1. 1. c. 15. P. 180. 46 Euseb. Chron. p. 8. See Diodorus. 1. 1. p. 22. xATA THY TNS Σεληνης περίοδον αγεσθαι τον ενιαυτον.

47 'O

γαρ παρ' αυτοίς παλαιοτατοι Σεληναίες εφασκον είναι, η μηνιαίες τις ενιαυτες εξ ήμερων τριακοντα συνετωτας.

Οι δε μετα

τετες Ημίθεοι ώρους εκαλουν τις ενιαυτες. Syncellus. p. 40. Apud Ægyptios pro annis menses haberi. Varro apud Lactant. 1. 2. c. 12. p. 169.

years; which were in use in some parts of Egypt. Syncellus tries to solve it another way, by giving the dynasties from the sixteenth downward their proper number of years, and allowing the overplus to the Gods, and Demigods. But we have no occasion to have recourse to these helps: for the numbers of the real dynasties had nothing to do with this astronomical computation: and Iamblichus, who equally misapplies them, shews, that they who treated of them differed in their opinion and were by no means 49 consistent.

48

The dynasty of those kings, who immediately succeeded the Shepherds, is termed the Cynic cycle and the star Sirius, and many other things of eminence among the Egyptians, were styled Cynic; and supposed to have some reference to dogs. but the Cynic cycle, or more properly the 5° Cunic, was the Royal cycle, and related to a series of kings and every thing so denominated is to be taken in that acceptation. Some of the

43 He supposes that they related to the books of Hermes: but the books of Hermes were but forty-two. Clemens mentions them, and specifies the contents of each. Strom. 1. 6. p. 758.

49 We learn from him, that what Syncellus in aftertimes applied to Chronology, was by Manethon thought to relate to the books of Hermes. Sect. 8. p. 157.

50 Cun, Chon, Cohen, a king. See vol. i. Radicals..

51

books of Hermes are styled гxai xa Κυρανίκαι, Genic and Curanic; and from them it is said, that Apion, Manethon, and Panodorus obtained most of their knowledge. These seem to be both Egyptian terms, distorted by the Greeks; but of the same purport as that above. They were properly Chanic and Curanic books; and contained the history of the priests and kings of the country. Every Grecian term, which alludes to Egypt, and its history, is to be suspected. It is to be observed, that Manethon, and his copier Africanus, mention, that after the reigns of the Demigods, there was a succession of other persons; and he specifies those of the first dynasty. 53 Μετα νεκυας τους Ημιθεις πρωτη βασιλεια καταριθμείται, κτλ. But what can we make of these terms? Post manes Semideos prima dynastia, or post cadavera Semideos prima dynastia, &c. They cannot be made sense by any exposition. Eusebius saw that there was some mistake; and he has altered it by inserting a copulative. 53 Μετα νεκυας και τες Ημίθεες πρωτην

52

51 By Syncellus expressed Κυραννεις. Ώσπερ εν τοις Γενικούς το Έρμε, και εν ταις Κυραννισι βίβλοις ειρηται. p. 52. See vol. i. of this work. Radicals. Keren, Rex. Kuran, Heliacus. Ilence zugios, norgavos.

5 Syncellus. p. 54.

53 Euseb. Chron. p. 14. Μετα νεκυας και τες Ημίθεες. Euseb. apud Syncellum. p. 55.

δυναςείαν καταριθμεσι. But this does not seem to mend the matter. Post manes, vel cadavera, et Semideos prima dynastia numeratur. In another place Syncellus, besides the VEXUES Hμdeo, makes mention of 4 Θεων, και Ἡμίθεων, και νεκυων και θνητων : Deorum, et Semideorum, et cadaverum, et mortalium. But what sense can be obtained from hence? is it not manifest, that there is some mistake in terms? I think, we may be assured, that what the Grecians have rendered vexus, a dead body, was Nechus, a King: and that by the words Μετα νεκυας Ημίθεες πρωτη βασιλεία We are to understand, post reges Semideos after the reigns of the Demigods began the first Egyptian dynasty. The title of Nechus was very 5 antient, and to be found in many nations. The king of Abyssinia is called Negus at this day. The purport of the history given will, I think, prove what I say. Syncellus mentions, that Manethon borrowed what he wrote from the books of Hermes; and that the first part of his work gave an account of the Gods, and Demigods; which last

55

54 Syncellus. p. 40.

55 It seems to have been expressed Necho, Nechao, Nechus, Negus; and was probably the same as 711, Nagud of the Hebrews, which signifies a Prince. It occurs in composition; and we read of Necepsus, Necherophes, kings of Egypt. It was a common title.

56

και

we know were mortal men, and reigned in 5 Egypt. These certainly were the first who had the title of Nechus: and it is inseparably found with them. Eusebius indeed and Syncellus take pains to disjoin them, and out of them would form a different set of persons. The former accordingly, through mistake, complains of the Egyptians for introducing such a strange set of personages. 57 Παρα τέτοις (Ημίθεοις) νεκύων θνητων έτερων βασιλέων πολλην και φλύαρον συνειρεσι uboλoyav. Besides these Demigods, they have got together a tedious ill-grounded history of dead persons, and other mortals who reigned. But the whole of this is a mistake of the true history and I am persuaded, from the position of the terms, that what Eusebius alluded to should have been rendered Νεχων και ἑτερων βασιλέων. And in the reading above, μετά νεκυας Ἡμιθεες should have been expressed, according to the original, Nexous Huiles, post reges Semideos, after the Demigod kings, the first dynasty commenced. But either the translators, or transcribers, did not know the meaning of the title Nechus, and have changed it to VEXUS, a dead body. The like is to

55 Ημίθεοι βασιλεις και μετ' αυτός γενεαι σε Κυνικο κυκλο. Euseb. Chron. p. 7.