ON THE HISTORICAL ANTIQUITY OF THE
PEOPLE OF
THEIR VULGAR KALENDAR, AND THE EPO=
CH OF
ITS INTRODUCTION.
BY
JOHANNES VON GUMPACH.
DULAU &=
Co., 37,
1863.
PREFACE.
In submitting the followi=
ng Essay
to the critical judgment of the learned, I have no occasion to enter at any
length into the various causes which, notwithstanding the gradual accumulat=
ion
of historical materials, both monumental and traditional, have combined in
throwing the chronology of
Among the general reasons, however, I may name our still very imperfect knowledge of the language of t= he monumental inscriptions; the fragmentary and disconnected form, in which the remains of the historical tradition of Egypt have come down to us; and the premature attempts to restore the Egyptian chronology in its details, on the part of men who, however distinguished in other branches of learning, were, from their unacquaintance with the very principles of astronomy and scienti= fic chronology, unqualified for such a task.
vi PREFACE.
$$$ The special causes in=
clude
the erroneous interpretation of the Egyptian seasons of the year by
Champollion, whose brilliant genius was misled by the hieroglyphic element =
(taken for the determinative of water) in the tetrameny
, to identify the latter with "the
season of inundation" - really
"the season of the Nile;"=
- and
the fundamental dates, resting on that interpretation, introduced into Egyp=
tian
chronology by the illustrious Biot.
In the first place, there= fore, the chronologer, with a view to the final restoration of consecutive order = in the history of Egypt, has to direct his attention to three primary objects, namely: to place the kalendarian system of the ancient Egyptians on a firm basis; to establish the earliest epoch of their accredited history on secure grounds; and to determine, within the limits of that history, the greatest practical number of chronological dates, connected either with computable astronomical phenomena, or with indubitable historical contemporanities.
On the present occasion, =
I have
confined myself almost exclusively to the two former objects, as, in regard=
to
the latter, I have reason to anticipate that important additions to the sca=
nty
materials, thus far available to us, will ere long be placed at the service=
of
science by two of the most eminent Egyptologists of our day, Samuel Birch,
Esq., of the British Museum, and Dr. Henry Brugsch, of the
PREFACE. vii
$$$ In the mean time, it = is hoped that the little Essay, now submitted to the public, will not only be welcom= ed by the chronologer and the student of ancient history, but prove acceptable also to that more numerous class of readers, who consider the interesting question of the historical antiquity of the people of Egypt in its philosophical and religious aspect, rather than in its technical bearing. <= /p>
JOHANNES VON = GUMPACH.
March, 1868.
ON THE HISTORICAL ANTIQUITY OF THE
PEOPLE OF
While Sir George C. Lewis "fears, that the future discoveries of the Egyptologists will be atten= ded with results as worthless and as uncertain as those, which have hitherto attended their ill-requited and barren labours," * and Mr. Birch anticipates that, "although far from perfe= ctly understood, ere long it will be as easy to read a page of hieroglyphs as of Greek or Latin:" † I neither share in the fears of the former, nor in the somewhat sanguine expectations of the latter, of these two equally distinguished savants. It = is, certainly, undeniable that Champollion's system of interpretation continues= to be beset with formidable difficulties, and that the poor and dubious result= s, to which it has thus far led, are well calculated to cast a certain amount = of doubt upon it; ‡ but that those difficulties should
*
"A Historical Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients,"
† "An Introduction to the Study of the Egypt=
ian
Hieroglyphs,"
‡ Professor Lepsius ("Ueber eine Hieroglyphi=
sche
Inschrift am Tempel von Edfu,"
B
2 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. =
not be overcome, and that= , sooner or later, a language, for the acquirement of which means so extensive are at our command, should not be mastered, it would be unreasonable to assume.
Under present circumstanc=
es,
however, the determination of a few hieroglyphic or demotic groups, admitti=
ng
of positive proof, is still a greater gain to our knowledge, than the
translation of an entire inscription, yielding words without any logical se=
nse,
and taxing our credulity rather than satisfying our understanding. Thus, a =
few
years ago, Dr. Brugsch established linguistically, from four astrological
tablets brought to
tain,
as the disciples of Champollion do, that the true key to the ancient langua=
ge
of
*
"Nouvelles Recherches sur la Division de l'Année des Anciens
Égyptiens, suivies d'un Mémoire sur des Observations
Planétaires, consignées dans quatre Tablettes Égyptien=
nes
en Écriture Démotique," Berlin, 1856, 8vo.
† "Results derived from an Examination of ce=
rtain
places of the five principal Planets, as interpreted from Inscriptions on f=
our
old Tablets, discovered in Egypt, made principally for determination of the
Epoch of the Tablets," in the "Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical
Society," vol. xxv.
THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 3 =
in interpreting the corre= sponding hieroglyphic groups for the planets, Professor Lepsius had mistaken Jupiter= for Saturn, Venus for Jupiter, Mercury for Mars, and Saturn for Mercury. *
At the same time, Dr. Bru=
gsch
proved, on linguistic grounds, that the true translation of the three Egypt=
ian
seasons of the year or tetramenies<=
/i>,
as they are usually termed, and written in hieroglyphs ,
and
, which Champollion rendered in this
succession the season of vegetation=
,
of harvest, and of inundation, is, in the same succes=
sion,
the season of inundation, of winter, and of summer, respectively. And this being a question of considerable
chronological and, hence, of astronomical as well as of philological intere=
st,
and admitting, moreover, of a positive solution, it is well worth examinati=
on.
Into linguistic discussio= ns I cannot here enter. That the "legs walking," which occur in the group of hieroglyphs representing the second tetrameny, are a determinative, as Dr. Brugsch assumes with Champollion, there is reason to doubt. On the contrary= , I look upon them as a phonetic, the value of which is not H, as Champollion, = or I, as Dr. Hincks suppose; but T, as suggested by Mr. Birch. † Thus, in an
calculated
the epochs of its geocentric entry into each following sign, according to t=
he
fixed Egyptian kalendar. I was thus enabled to enter into a critical discus=
sion
of the tablets; to point out its errors either of calculation or of
transcription; to show, besides one or two minor breaks, the whole anomalous
and disconnected character of Tablet III, remarked upon also by Mr. Ellis; =
and
to verify both the conclusions of Dr. Brugsch and the judgment I had, on the
outset, formed of the tablets. I transmitted to Dr. Brugsch the results of =
my
investigation, on the eve of my departure from
*
Comp. also, "Note sur les Noms Égyptiens des Planètes,&q=
uot;
par M. le Vicomte Emm. de Roug&eacu=
te;,
Paris, 1856, 8vo.
† Bunsen<=
/i>,
"
4 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. =
inscription, quoted by Dr.
Brugsch, * the season winter is written where the "solar disk" is=
the
determinative (of a division of the year), and the " legs walking"
are, as in numerous other instances, replaced by their synonyme, the
"segment of a circle" =3D T; †
and of which Dr. Brugsch himself observes: "Je ferai remarquer que, dans notre texte com=
me
bien souvent, le mot
Pe R est muni d'un
, caractéristique du fémi=
nin, ce
qui confirme de nouveau la parenté de ce mot avec
,
, winter,
en copte." However this be, Dr. Brugsch has, on linguistic grou=
nds,
sufficiently established the true meaning of
to be winter,
and that of
to be summer.
Hence, he rightly concludes, that the third, in order the first, tetrameny,
"qui est
représentée par
(des arbres et des plantes, qui sor=
tent
de l'eau de 1'inondation, peinte en bleu dans les inscriptions
coloriées) et par laquelle l'année Égyptienne commence,
n'est pas la tétraménie de la végétation, mais =
bien
celle de 1'inondation, comprenant les quatre premiers mois de
l'année." ̶=
5;
But, simply interpreting the hieroglyph in question by fluctuatio, he leaves this part of his investigation in an
unsatisfactory state. § I=
will
endeavour to supply the deficient argument.
What, with me, has altoge= ther weighed in favor of Dr.
*
"Nouvelles Recherches," p. 9 and plate 1, No. 14;
"Denkmäler der Preuss. Expedition," Alth. iii. pl. 73.
† Bunsen<=
/i>,
"
‡ "Nouvelles Recherches," p. 13.
§ "Fluctuatio," moreover, is a term hardly applicable to t=
he
rising of the Nile, which, according to Horapollo, was by the ancient Egypt=
ians
termed &l=
t;@L< (Horapo=
llinis
Niloi "Hieroglyphics," ed. Leemans, Amstel. 1835, 8vo, pp. 28,
222 sqq.)
THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 5 =
Brugsch's conclusions eve= n more than his philological proofs, is on the one hand that, as will be presently shown, Champollion's translation is contradicted by the entire testimony of= history, and necessitates, on the part of his followers, a purely imaginary reform of the Egyptian kalendar about the year B.C. 2785; on the other hand the circumstance, overlooked by Dr. Brugsch, that tradition has handed down to = us the Egyptian seasons by the same names, and in the same succession, as established by him, and that those names are, to this day, in vulgar use am= ong the Arab inhabitants of the land. The latter fact appears to me almost deci= sive of itself.
The modern Arabs of Egypt,
namely, term their three seasons: , the Nile,
, the winter,
and
the summer
season; * and in these designa=
tions,
characteristic, not of Arab notions but of the lands of the
=
is
here an ideograph is evident from its very character as a monogram; and that
its meaning is just what I have stated, becomes equally so, from the moment=
we
recognise in the otherwise unknown<=
/i>
"trees and plants rising out of the inundating waters," the well-=
known
"lotus" and "lotus buds," representing on "the lay=
er
of earth," Upper and Lower Egy=
pt,
and on "the pool," the wa=
ter of
both countries, i.e., the
*
Comp. Poole's "Horae
AEgyptiacae,"
6 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. =
chus, Strabo informs us, =
* "thought that the Nile had
justly the synonyme of the land, being taken in the sense of
"land," and in consequence of which the ideograph
was translated (the river) "
When, about thirty years =
ago,
Champollion had deciphered the Egyptian months and intercalary days, he
communicated his results to Biot, who at once perceived the importance of t=
he
discovery, in connection with the kalendarian system of the Egyptians, for =
the
purposes of historical research. They presented, each from their own standi=
ng
point, a memoir upon the subject to the
The interpretation, given= by Champollion of the months, is as follows: ||
*
"Geogr." xv. 16; Casaub. p. 691.
† Odyss. in. 300; iv. 477, 581, &c.
‡
§ "Mémoire sur les signes, employés par les ancie=
ns
Égyptiens à la notation des divisions du temps,"
|| Biot, "Recherches=
sur
l'année vague," p. 43.
THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 7<= /p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
(The five i= ntercalary days.)
Now, as it was well known=
that
the vague year of the Egyptians commenced with the month Thot, and as Biot =
rightly
inferred that, at the period of the introduction of the kalendarian system =
in
question, the kalendar must be supposed to have concurred with the natural
phenomena, on which it was discovered or concluded to rest, namely, on the
heliacal rising of Sirius for Egypt on the 1 Thot and the rising of the Nil=
e,
which has always taken place about the time of the summer-solstice, * simultaneously with "the s=
eason
of inundation," it would have been but natural to assume, à priori, that the hierogly=
ph represented "the season of
inundation" or the season of t=
he
Nile, as we actually have found it to do. Champollion, however, taking =
the
element
in the third tetrameny, to be the
determinative of water, connected "the season of inundation" with=
the
hieroglyphic group
and consequently assumed, contrary =
to the
testimony of history, the month Pachon to have commenced the vague year in =
the
early Egyptian kalendar. †
Champollion's interpretat= ion was universally accepted, - Pro-
*
What Mr. Poole ("Horae AEgyptiacae," pp. 4, 5) states, in referen=
ce
to "the season of the waters," is devoid of all historical and
physical foundation.
† Biot,
"Recherches
sur l'année vague," pp.=
55,
56; Lepsius, "Die Chronolo=
gie
der AEgypter,"
8 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. =
fessor Lepsius considers = it to be so well established "as to require no further illustration, being self-evident;" * - and si= nce Biot necessarily adopted with it the consequent assumption of the 1st of Pachon being the epoch of the Egyptian year, and made it the basis of his calculations, † much fundamental confusion has thus been introduced into Egyptian chronology.
The kalendar of Champolli= on for the normal Egyptian year, adopting for the heliacal rising of Sirius the da= te of the Julian 20th of July, ‡= ; would consequently be this:
|
|
|
=3D 20 July, of the Jul= ian year A, assumed to be a common year. |
|
|
=3D 19 August. |
|
|
|
=3D 18 September. |
|
|
|
=3D 18 October. |
|
|
|
|
=3D 17 November. |
|
|
=3D 17 December. |
|
|
|
=3D 16 January, of the = Julian year B, assumed to be a leap-year. |
|
|
|
=3D 15 February. |
|
|
|
|
=3D 16 March. |
|
|
=3D 15 April. |
|
|
|
=3D 15 May. |
|
|
|
=3D 14 June. |
|
|
|
first intercalary day |
=3D 14 July |
|
|
fifth intercalary day |
=3D 18 July |
*
"Die Chron. der AEgyp." p. 148.
† "Recherches sur l'année vague,"=
; pp.
72, 73.
‡ During the entire period of early Egyptian hist=
ory,
Sirius rose heliacally on the 20th July, in the Julian kalendar, for
THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 9<= /p>
$$$ In accordance with th= is kalendar, and taking the summer-solstice for a basis, Biot calculated that = the former must have been introduced at one of the following epochs: *
|
Year befo= re Christ. |
Julian da= te of 1 Thot. |
Date of t= he Summer-solstice. |
|
4791 |
4 Decembe= r. |
1 August.= |
|
3286 |
22 Novemb= er. |
20 July.<= /p> |
|
1781 |
11 Novemb= er. |
9 July. |
|
276 |
31 Octobe= r. |
27 June.<= /p> |
At the same time he consi= dered it probable, that the five intercalary, days were not added till the year B.C. 1781, and that previously to that epoch the Egyptian year consisted of 360 = days only; † forgetting that;= if such had been the case, the cycle of the return of the vague 1 Thot to its normal position in the kalendar would have comprised a period of not quite = 70 years; and that, consequently, the epoch of the first normal year, or of the introduction of the primitive kalendar, might be placed in any year precedi= ng the year B.C. 1781 by a number of years being a multiple of approximatively= 70 years. Nor is there any tenable ground, either to assume that the vague yea= r of the Egyptians ever consisted of 360 days, or to connect the epoch of their normal year with the exact date of the summer-solstice.
Nevertheless, Professor L= epsius "does not feel the slightest hesitation in assigning to the perfect consolidation of the Egyptian kalendar the early period of the year [-3285 = or B.C. 3286, which he mistakes for the year B.C. 3285, and from chronological ignorance "corrects" into that of] B.C. 3282." ‡ There
*
"Recherches sur l'année vague," p. 57.
† "Recherches sur l'année vague,"=
; p.
111.
‡ " Die Chronologie der AEgypter," pp. =
212,
213. - "Die Jahre nun, in welchen
10 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
is but one inconvenience = attached to this. Numerous historical and astronomical dates, connecting the vulgar Egyptian with other known kalendars, as well as the direct testimony of history, prove that, up to and beyond the year B.C. 1325, not the 1 Pachon = but the 1 Thot constituted the actual epoch of the Egyptian year. * Hence, the Berlin Professor fin= ds himself under the necessity of carrying out, on his own sole authority and = as early as in the year B.C. 2782, a "Reform of the Solar Kalendar."= In virtue of which reform, he tells us, "they commenced, after the first = 600 years, the periods anew, and simultaneously the year itself with the 1 Thot, necessitating likewise the displacement of the five intercalary days. The Sothic period of 1,461 years was thus destroyed, and, after the reform, had= to be counted again from the beginning. Consequently its next epoch fell in the year B.C. 1322, instead of the year B.C. 1782, as it would have done in the primitive kalendar" † of Champollion.
die Sommerwende auf den ersten Pachon fiel and=
der
bewegliche Kalender folglich mit dem natürlichen sich vollkommen deckt=
e,
lassen sich astronomisch berechnen und sind von Biot auf 275, 1780 und 3285=
vor
Chr. [this is incorrect, see preced=
ing
page] bestimmt
worden. Sie gehen unmittelbar nnd mit vollkommenster Sicherheit aus dem
Verhältniss des Wandeljahres zum Julianischen hervor. Biot widmet einen
grossen Theil seiner Schrift der scharfsinnigen Auseinandersetzung, warum d=
as
Jahr 3285 sich vorzugsweise als dasjenige empfiehlt, auf welches der Urspru=
ng
des AEgyptischen Kalenders zurückgeht.... Für una kann es jetzt n=
icht
das mindeste Bedenken haben die vollständige Einrichtung des AEgyptisc=
hen
Kalenders, so wie die unmittelbar daraus hervorgehende Kenntniss des festen
Siriusjahres und seiner Perioden von 4 und yon 1460 Jahren, in jene
früheste Epoche des Jahres 3282 (3285) vor Chr. zurückzulegen, in
welchem nicht nur die Sommersonnenwende, und folglich der Anfang der
Nilschwelle auf den ersten Tag des ersten Wassormonats d.i. auf den ersten
Pachon fiel, sondern auch der heliakische Aufgang der Sothis."
*
Comp. Ideler, "Handbuch der
Mathem. und Technischen Chronologie,"
† " Die Chronologie der AEgypter," p. 2=
16.
THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 11=
The reformed kalendar of Professor Lepsius is thus seen, for the normal Egyptian year, to be arrange= d as follows:
|
|
|
=3D 20 July, of the Jul= ian year A, assumed to be a common year. |
|
|
=3D 19 August. |
|
|
|
=3D 18 September. |
|
|
|
=3D 18 October. |
|
|
|
|
=3D 17 November. |
|
|
=3D 17 December. |
|
|
|
=3D 16 January, of the = Julian year B, assumed to be a leap-year. |
|
|
|
=3D 15 February. |
|
|
|
|
=3D 16 March. |
|
|
=3D 15 April. |
|
|
|
=3D 15 May. |
|
|
|
=3D 14 June. |
|
|
|
first intercalary day |
=3D 14 July |
|
|
fifth intercalary day |
=3D 18 July |
That such is really the
kalendarian system of the Egyptians, according to Professor Lepsius,
necessarily results not only from the passage I have quoted above, but equa=
lly
so from the circumstance that he rightly insists on the commencement of the=
normal
Egyptian year having been determined by the heliacal rising of Sirius on the
Julian 20 July and the 1 Thot, and on its epoch having corresponded to the
epoch of the " season of inundation," which he continues to ident=
ify
with the hieroglyphic group , holding, as I have already remarked, =
12 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
the truth of Champollion's interpretation of the Egyptian tetramenies to be a matter of positive certainty. My reason for pointing this out so particularly, will presently appear.
On the other hand, the translation of those tetramenies by Dr. Brugsch and myself, leads to the following kalendarian arrangement for the normal Egyptian year: *
|
|
|
=3D 20 July, of the Jul= ian year A, assumed to be a common year. |
|
|
=3D 19 August. |
|
|
|
=3D 18 September. |
|
|
|
=3D 18 October. |
|
|
|
|
=3D 17 November. |
|
|
=3D 17 December. |
|
|
|
=3D 16 January, of the = Julian year B, assumed to be a leap-year. |
|
|
|
=3D 15 February. |
|
|
|
|
=3D 16 March. |
|
|
=3D 15 April. |
|
|
|
=3D 15 May. |
|
|
|
=3D 14 June. |
|
|
|
first intercalary day |
=3D 14 July |
|
|
fifth intercalary day |
=3D 18 July |
For the sake of more conv= enient comparison, I will, on pp. 14-15, place these kalendars side by side, adding the corresponding Julian dates for the normal Egyptian year; so that we
*
Comp. Brugsch, "Nouvelles
Recherches," pp. 14, 15. It is only from his unacquaintance with
chronology, that Dr. Brugsch places all the "corresponding months"=
; by
one month too early, "June-July" for "July-August," &am=
p;c.
THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 13=
have no less than three k=
alendars
before us, each of which professes to represent the true kalendarian system=
of
the ancient Egyptians, with this peculiarity, as regards Professor Lepsius,
that he acknowledges Champollion's kalendar for the period B.C. 3282-B.C. 2=
782,
and then substitutes for it his own for the whole succeeding period from the
year B.C. 2782 downwards. Our kalendars are seen to differ and to agree in =
the
following points, namely: Champollion places the intercalary days at the en=
d of
Pharmuti, Professor Lepsius and Dr. Brugsch at the end of Mesori, all placi=
ng
them at the close of the vague Egyptian year; Champollion commences the year
with the first Pachon, Professor Lepsius and Dr. Brugsch with the 1 Thot; a=
nd
while Champollion and Professor Lepsius take the hieroglyphic group to represent the "season of
inundation," being the first tetrameny of the Egyptian year, Dr. Brugs=
ch
and myself take the latter to be represented by the ideograph
; the other tetramenies being, on either
side, interpreted in a similarly differing manner. The principal point, upon
which all agree is, that the fixed =
epoch
of the normal Egyptian year fell on the 20 July in the Julian kalendar.=
Hence, being in the posse= ssion of numerous comparative dates, Egyptian and others, the position of which latt= er in the Julian kalendar is known, the question as to which of our various kalendars is the true one, becomes a matter of easy and positive solution. Before, however, I proceed to offer this solution, I have to point out a somewhat remarkable and, I wish I could say on the field of chronology singular, circumstance. It is this, that the Champollionists, who place the first Pachon at the head of the normal Egyptian year, reduce it to the Juli= an kalendar as the 1 Thot; and the Lepsiusists, who
14 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
|
Champolli= on. |
Lepsius.<= /p> |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
first intercalary day .................................................. fifth intercalary day.................................................. |
place the 1 Thot at the h= ead of the normal Egyptian year, translate it as the 1Pachon. Nor is Professor Lepsius himself an exception to the rule. His great reform of the Egyptian kalendar, in the year B.C. 2782, once set up in type, he thereupon ignores it as completely, as he might be expected to have done some idle dream. *
*
Professor Lepsius occasionally forgets, at the top of a page, the contents =
of a
note at the foot of the preceding one, while all along commenting upon it.
Thus,
THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 15=
|
Brugsch.<= /p> |
Correspon= ding Julian date, common to all. |
|
|
|
|
20 July, year A. |
|
|
19 August. |
|
|
|
18 September. |
|
|
|
18 October. |
|
|
|
|
17 November. |
|
|
17 December. |
|
|
|
16 January, B. |
|
|
|
15 February. |
|
|
|
|
16 March. |
|
|
15 April. |
|
|
|
15 May. |
|
|
|
14 June. |
|
|
.......................= ........... .................................. |
14 July |
|
|
.......................= ........... .................................. |
18 July |
A few examples will be ne= cessary to prove and illustrate,
at
the foot of page 226 of his "Chronologic der AEgypter," he quotes=
the
following passage from Athen.
Deipnos. xiv. p. 639, ed. Casaub.: "#Z<=
/span>DTFF@F *<=
/span>z &b=
rvbar;< B<=
/span>DfJå #<=
/span>"$L8T<6ä<, J<=
/span>è 7<=
/span>å N<=
/span>0FÂ :<=
/span>0<Â &c=
opy;66"4*,6VJ® &#=
8211;(,F<=
/span>2"4 &c=
opy;@DJ¬< E<=
/span>"6X"< B<=
/span>D@F"(@D<=
/span>,L@:X<0< &b=
rvbar;< #<=
/span>"$L8ä<4 &b=
rvbar;BÂ &o=
rdm;:XD"H B<=
/span>X<J,; and at the top of page 227, he remarks upon it=
as
follows: "The festival Sakea is
by Berosus placed on the 19th (the
nineteenth) day of Lous; it lasted five days, and if, in accordance with
the nature of the feast, the last was the chief day, it commenced, perhaps, not on the 19th but on the 15th day of the
month, consequently on the day of full-moon." 16 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
what might otherwise be d=
enied by
certain Lepsiusists, and more especially so by the Berlin Professor himself,
who is a somewhat greater adept in the science of misrepresentation, * than he is in the science of
chronology. † That histo=
ry
bears no trace of any dates of the period B.C. 3282-B.C. 2782, and that the
views of Professor Lepsius as to the primitive form of the solar kalendar of
the Egyptians, in accordance with Champollion's translation of the tetramen=
ies,
are purely imaginary, I need hardly state. The dates, I shall adduce, may be
considered to refer to the normal Egyptian year, in as much as, whatever ye=
ar
they really belong to, the comparative results will be found precisely simi=
lar.
Rosellini ‡ and Bunsen &se=
ct;
render the first day of *
J. von Gumpach, "Zwei
Chronologische Abhandlungen," Heidelberg, 1854, 8vo, pp. 3, 11, 12, 13=
, 14,
16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, 32, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 51, 57, 58,=
64,
65, 74, &c. See also Section II., some of the notes. † Comp. the treatise just quoted. Professor Lepsi=
us' mauvaise foi is exceeded only by h=
is
chronological and astronomical ignorance. Thus, from what he states in his
"Chronology," p. 198, it would necessarily follow that his favori=
te
people, the Egyptians, had observed the precession of the equinoxes for more
than a million of years before our era. From another passage (p. 144 comp. =
p.
198) it must be inferred, that he has enriched the ‡ "I Monumenti dell' Egitto," § "AEgypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte," THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 17=
table shows us, the 1 Pao=
phi and
the 6 Mechir, respectively. In Champollion's kalendar, the 1 Paoni correspo=
nds
to the 19 August; in Professor Lepsius' kalendar to the 15 April: in the
former, the 6 Paophi to the 22 December, in the latter to the 24 August. In
Professor Lepsius' kalendar the 1 Paophi corresponds to the 19 August, in
Champollion's kalendar to the 17 December; in the former, the 6 Mechir to t=
he
22 December, in the latter to the 20 April. M. Mariette * translates the first day of&=
nbsp;
M. De Rougé † renders the 28th day of <=
!--[if gte vml 1]> *
"Renseignements
sur les soixante-quatre Apis trouvés dans les souterrains du
Sérapéum," Extrait du Bulletin Archéologique de
l'Athénaeum Français,
Paris, 1855, 4to, pp. 8, 10. † "Mémoire sur quelques phénomènes
célestes, rapportés sur les monuments Égyptiens, avec =
leur
date de jour dans l'année vague,"
C 18 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
should be translated the =
28 Athyr; and that, while in his kale=
ndar
the 28 Epiphi corresponds to the 11 June, it corresponds in the kalendar of
Champollion to the 15 September; and while in the latter the 28 Athyr answe=
rs
to the 12 January, it answers in the former to the 15 September. I might multiply these ex=
amples
at pleasure; as there would, however, be no further object in my so doing, I
will add only one or two more of Professor Lepsius' own. M. De Rougé
observes, in reference to the kalendarian fragment, alluded to above and
supposed to belong to the reign of Thotmes III: "C'est peut-être ce fragment que M. Lep=
sius
avait en vue, en disant qu'il avait trouvé la fête de Sothis
mentionnée sous Thoutmès III. (voy. Einleitung, p. 176=
). Mais il ne parle pas de la date du=
jour de
la fête, où réside toute l'importance de l'inscription,=
au
point de vue chronologique." *
It has escaped M. De Rougé's notice, that Professor Lepsius religiou=
sly
avoids giving exact hieroglyphic dates in any of his published writings. The
only one, known to me, occurs in that Memorial Inscription, † composed by himself, - in=
a
language, wherein he confesses to be unable to decipher one single historic=
al
line, ‡ although he *
"Mémoire
sur quelques phénomènes célestes," p. 15, note. † Lepsius=
,
"Briefe
aus AEgypten, AEthiopien," &am=
p;c., ‡ "Die Chronologie der AEgypter," pp. 127, 128. In his Memoir, "Ueber eine
Hieroglyphische Inschrift am Tempel von Edfu,"
Berlin, 1855, 4to, he observes (p. 71) generally: "As yet it is well n=
igh
impossible to explain, with any degree of certainty, longer texts without
leaving large and essential gaps. Nay, there are numerous inscriptions, of
which we understand at present absolutely nothing, and the general purport =
of
which we are hardly able to guess."
Yet this is the same savant, who co=
mposes
in the language of those inscriptions, and largely "emendates" the
texts of the latter. Suppose an Englishman, just able to make out a word of=
German here and there, without any
grammatical knowledge of the German language and without either a grammar o=
r a
dictionary at his command, undertaking to compose a German inscription for =
some
public building in London, and to publish a critical edition of the works of
Goethe; and we have the very prototype of Professor Lepsius in reference to=
his
chief philological labours on the field of Egyptian literature. THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 19=
has enriched its symbols =
with the
Prussian eagle and the Christian cross, - which, erected at the entrance to=
the
great pyramid of Gizeh as a monumental libel on German science, is casting
ridicule, deserved by "Lepsius the scribe" alone, upon the Prussi=
an
expedition itself, as well as upon the memory of the excellent though weak
monarch, by whose royal and not lightly taxed munificence it was so lavishly
supported, in order that its results, published to the learned world in a
splendid form, might be rendered cr=
itically
valueless by Professor Lepsius' corruptions
of the text. * The date in
question is thus *
For the sake of illustrating Professor Lepsius' critical proceedings, I may=
be
permitted to quote a few passages from one of his most readily accessible
memoirs, translated into English by Dr. Bell, on "The XXII. Egyptian R=
oyal
Dynasty," "Some irregularities of the inscription,&qu=
ot; we
read p. 7, "fall to the share of the writer. For instance the group....
'son of' is four times wanting before the name of the mother....; once the
sign.... of 'son' is wanting, where it on no account ought to be so; and on=
ce
there stands.... 'royal son,' where.... 'son' solely ought to be.... The wr=
iter
had, in transcribing the genealogy, clearly made the mistake of a line, for=
at
his father, the sign.... for 'royal,' where it was to be expected, is wanti=
ng.
Strange, finally, is it that by the sign.... 'royal mother,' is denoted the
grandmother of the first king.... (p. 8.) Perhaps the writer ought to have
put.... 'royal daughter,' instead of.... 'royal mother,' the goose instead =
of
the vulture.... The text of the inscription may be assuredly corrected and
given synoptically as follows.... (p. 9.) The sign.... in square brackets i=
s to
be rejected; the 6 groups in round brackets must be supplied; and then we g=
ain
the whole in the following form.... (p. 11.) There is therefore only the fi=
fth
king wanting.... The other monuments now step in, .... so that, as the one
wanting finds only one place open - the fifth - that must be filled with th=
is
one. Thus the entire dynasty is produced with perfect surety.... (p. 34.) As
the characters, which are here very legible, stand, they give no sense.
Luckily, the error attributable here to the mason or the copyist, is avoide=
d in
the second place.... (p. 39.) Evidently, by a mistake of the writer or
sculptor, the 22 days of the date in the following line are misplaced here.=
...
(p. 38.) In the year lii., month i., read ii., i.e. Paophi.... In the origi=
nal,
both this shield and the two following ones have small added cognomens, whi=
ch
are not given here.... (p. 49.) It must be thus read, instead of.... as it
stands in the original.... The original has.... instead of which possibly..=
..
ought to be read.... Some other smaller errors are ascribable to the writer,
which, as unimportant, I pass by. E=
gyptian
exactness in their 20 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
expressed: "In the y=
ear of
salvation 1842, in the tenth month, on the fifteenth day on the forty-seven=
th
birthday of His Majesty, on the top of the pyramid of King Cheops; in the t=
hird
year, in the fifth month, on the ninth day of His Majesty's reign; in the y=
ear
3164 from the commencement of the Sothic period under King Menephthes."=
; Although erroneously redu=
ced, * dates of similar exactness, tak=
en
from the Egyptian monuments and compared with the Julian kalendar, will be =
in
vain looked for in the published works of Professor Lepsius. In three place=
s of
his "Chronology," however, I find that hieroglyphic months with t=
heir
translation actually do occur. In the first note to page 53, he renders inscriptions is never very remarka=
ble" - "Were a modern Egyptian savant, wh=
o knew
just enough of English to mistake b=
ad
for bed, or whine for wine, thu=
s to
comment upon, to criticise, and to =
emendate
one of the best and most carefully printed texts of Shakspeare, what would =
be
thought of him? *
I have on a previous occasion (" Zwei Chronol. Abhandlungen,"
Heidelberg, 1854,) placed it beyond every reasonable doubt, both on histori=
cal
and astronomical grounds, that one of the 4 rue epochs of the Sothic Cycle =
is
the 20 July, not of the year B.C. 1322, but of the year B.C. 1325 (comp. al=
so
p. 24), and that the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses fell in the year B.C. 52=
7,
instead of the year B.C. 525, as is usually supposed. At the same time, I had occasion to show how utt=
erly
incapable Professor Lepsius is of correctly performing the least complicated
calculation, connected with astronomy or even chronology. Nay, the simple
reduction of a Mahometan date to the Julian kalendar is too much for his ar=
ithmetical
powers ("Briefe aus AEgypten," p. 251; comp. my "Practical
Tables for the Reduction of Mahometan Dates," &c., THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 21=
according to himself he s=
hould
have translated, "the month of Paoni."
And in page 115, he renders For, the plain fact is th=
is, that
all Egyptologists, without one single exception, besides Dr. Brugsch, have
invariably interpreted the Egyptian seasons and months according to
Champollion's nomenclature, and should, consequently, have converted the da=
ys
of the months into Julian dates according to Champollion's kalendar. But,
instead of doing so, they, in perfe=
ct
unconsciousness of the fact, reduce the hieroglyphic dates, derived from
Champollion's nomenclature, by a method, placed ready to their hands by Ide=
ler
and Biot, and based on the historic=
ally
known position of the first of THOT
at the head of the Egyptian year; that is to say, in conformity with a
kalendar, perfectly identical with that of Dr. Brugsch, so far as the months
and the days of the months go. Professor Lepsius, struck by a vague percept=
ion
of this circumstance, devised that abortive "Reform of the Egyptian
Kalendar," previously alluded to, and which, on the strength of his
chronological ignorance, he imagined would reconcile Champollion's nomencla=
ture
of the Egyptian seasons and months with the chronological requirements of
history. That the kalendar of Cham=
pollion
is wholly inadmissible, 22 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
being a positive and gene=
rally
admitted fact, the only remaining question, then, is: whether Dr. Brugsch's
nomenclature of the Egyptian season=
s
is true, as well as is his application of the Egyptian months to the Julian kalendar; or whether the former have been
correctly interpreted by Champollion? In the latter case, It will be readily percei=
ved,
that the solution of this question depends on one of two elements, namely: =
the
occurrence in some historical inscription of a complete hieroglyphic or dem=
otic
date in connection with a corresponding date, expressed in a known kalendar=
; or
else the record of such a date, relating to some computable astronomical
phenomenon. Now, a date of the first =
kind we
possess in the inscription of the Rosetta stone, according to the Greek tex=
t of
which (line 6) the 4 Xanthicus =
of the
ninth year of the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes answered to the 18 Mechir. The corresponding hierogly=
phic text
is wanting; but this happens to be of no consequence here, in as much as th=
ree
further months are named in the Greek text, with their corresponding Egypti=
an
symbols preserved in the hieroglyphic text, namely: (the 30) Mesori =3D *
The words J<=
/span>¬< J<=
/span>@Ø N<=
/span>"TNÂ are obliterated in the Greek text; but it follo=
ws by
comparison from the perfectly preserved hieroglyphic group, that the month =
Paophi may be supplied with absolu=
te
certainty. THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 23=
Thot =3D To solve our question is =
now no
longer difficult. On comparing the different groups with the kalendar of
Professor Lepsius, a single glance shows us that this kalendar is wrong
throughout, and that we had the best of reasons to dismiss it from any furt=
her
consideration. A second glance tells us that Champollion's nomenclature of =
the months, as they appear both in his=
own
and in Dr. Brugsch's kalendar, agrees perfectly with that of the Rosetta st=
one.
A third glance, finally, leads us at once to infer from the group And by computation we fin=
d this
inference fully confirmed. The 4 Xanthicus of the ninth regnal year of Ptol=
emy
Epiphanes, as I have elsewhere shown, *
corresponds to the 27 March, B.C. 196. Hence, as this date answers to the 18
Mechir, we obtain for the preceding 1 Thot the Julian date of October 11, B=
.C.
197; for the preceding 17 Paophi the Julian 6 December, B.C. 197; and for t=
he
following 30 Mesori the Julian 5 October B.C. 196. The number of days inter=
ven- *
"Grundzüge," p. 581; comp. "Zeitrechnung der Babylonier=
und
Assyrer*" 24 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
ing between the 11 Octobe=
r and
the 20 July, reckoned backwards, is 282; which, multiplied by 4, give 1,128=
as
the number of years intervening between the year B.C. 197 and the preceding
epoch of the Sothic period. The latter is thus found to be the year B.C. 13=
25.
Calculating now from this epoch, and assuming it to correspond, firstly, wi=
th Given Julian Date. Corresponding given Egyptian Date in the
hieroglyphic text. Egyptian Dates, corresponding to the given Jul=
ian
Dates, in the Kalendars of Champollion. Lepsius. Brugsch. B.C.
197, Oct. 11. B.C.
197, Dec. 6. B.C.
196, Mar. 27. B.C.
196, Oct. 5. THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 25=
$$$ The results, containe=
d in the
preceding table, show that, by the evidence of the Rosetta stone, both the
kalendars of Champollion and Professor Lepsius rest on an erroneous interpr=
etation
of the Egyptian tetramenies; that Champollion, while correctly explaining a=
nd
combining with their proper tetramenies the Egyptian months, was, allowing
imaginary philological reasons to outweigh the positive testimony of histor=
y,
wrong in placing, at variance with that testimony, the month of Pachon, and
necessarily with it the improper tetrameny, at the commencement of the Egyp=
tian
year; and that Professor Lepsius, in proposing his "Reform" of
Champollion's erroneous kalendar, committed the egregious mistake, while du=
ly
raising the 1 Thot to the head of the Egyptian year, to leave the season, to which it is attached, behind. On the ot=
her
hand, the results of our table exhibit the most perfect accordance between =
the
hieroglyphic dates of the Rosetta stone and the kalendar of Dr. Brugsch; and
thus prove to evidence that the latter truly represents the vulgar kalendar=
of
Egypt, and that, consequently, his interpretation of the Egyptian seasons,
also, is the true interpretatio=
n. I might have added, that =
the
demotic text of the Rosetta inscription leads to the same result. It will be
more satisfactory, however, to establish the already proven fact in an
independent manner by means of a small number of the many astronomical date=
s,
recorded in Mr. Stobart's astrological tablets, already mentioned. It is tr=
ue,
the months in these tablets are those of the fixed Alexandrinian year, and =
are
simply designated by the number which they hold in that year. For our purpo=
se,
however, this makes no difference: firstly, because when the vague Egyptian
year of 365 days was, by the introduction of a sixth intercalary day in eve=
ry
fourth year, fixed with the 1 Thot 26 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
on the 29 August, B.C. 30=
, the
nomenclature of the vague year was retained and the ancient kalendar contin=
ued
without any interruption in its technical course; and secondly, because the
demotic names of the months and their succession, as corresponding to their
respective hieroglyphic names, are perfectly known. They are compared in the
annexed table. * (1) (5) (9) (2) (6) (10) (3) (7) (11) (4) (8) (12) Hence, in Champollion's k=
alendar,
page 14, *
Comp. Lepsius, "Chronologi=
e der
AEgypter," p. 134. THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 27=
the corresponding given demotic dates, inserted as s=
uch in
the following table. Reducing, then, the former to their demotic terms
according to each of the three kalendars, the correctness *
Obliterated in the demotic text. 28 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
of the latter is tested b=
y a
comparison of the demotic dates, th=
us
computed, with the corresponding given
demotic dates; and that kalendar, in which the two series agree, is the true
kalendar. It will be seen that this is again the case with the kalendar of =
Dr.
Brugsch. There is no occasion to e=
xtend
these comparisons to the other planets, the places of which are recorded in=
Mr.
Stobart's tablets. They would but confirm what, considering the conclusive
evidence here adduced, no Egyptologist will any longer be able to question,
namely, that Champollion's interpretation of the Egyptian seasons rests on a
positive error; that Dr. Brugsch's kalendar truly represents the kalendarian
system of the Egyptians; and that, consequently, the chronology of Egyptian
history is now placed on an entirely new, and, I may add, for the first tim=
e on
a solid, basis. The more interesting it w=
ould be,
if but one or two of those 373 eclipses of the Sun and 832 eclipses of the
Moon, which, Professor Lepsius thinks, *
have, during the period of 48,863 years, intervening between Hephaistos and
Alexander, not only been observed but also computed
by the Egyptian horoscopists "with the utmost accuracy and
infallibility," remained for us on record. As yet no certain indication of their presence has been met with; so far,=
at
least, as is known. Possibly the *
"Die Chronologie der AEgypter," p. 59 and note 1. † "Histoire d'Égypte," premi&egr=
ave;re
partie, THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 29=
of which is the 9 Thot of=
the
12th regnal year of an Egyptian king Takelut. "Le passage le plus
important," Dr. Brugsch observes, "....débute par ces paroles: 'L'an xv. le 24e jour du mois de Choiac, sous le règne de la
Sainteté de son père, il arriva que ce pays....' Une lacu=
ne
interrompt le texte. Ce qui suit alors.... 'le
ciel, la lune luttante....' se rapport indubitablement à un
phénomène céleste, dont la cause fut la lune."
Dr. Brugsch translates from the stele itself. Mr. Birch renders the text of
Young * thus: † "On the 25
Mesori in the xvth year of the reign of [his] noble father, the ruler of Western Thebes, the heavens were"<=
/i>
- became - "invisible, the Moon
struggling...." From these two translatio=
ns it
appears that, while Young read the tetrameny of the text *
"Hieroglyphics," † "The Athenaeum" for May 11, 1861. ‡ An ignorant Egyptologizer, Mr. Basil H. Cooper,=
whose
strangely eccentric ambition seems to waver between the two objects of &quo=
t;
canon"-izing Egyptian history, and of raising himself to the novel and
self-constituted dignity of a literary executioner (see the "Literary =
Gazette"
for August 24 and 31, Sept. 21 and 28) charges Dr. Brugsch, on this occasio=
n,
with great "blundering," in the columns of the "Athenaeum&qu=
ot;
for May 11, 1861. The real state of the case, however, at that tim=
e was
this. Champollion's Egyptian kalendar having long since been relinquished by
every chronologer as 30 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
$$$ This fundamental poin=
t, then,
having been satisfactorily determined, our first inquiry must be: whether t=
he
text, if it speak of an eclipse at all, speaks of a lunar or a solar eclips=
e.
It has been assumed without any reason, that it is a total eclipse of the Mo=
on,
to which the stele alludes. On the contrary, to every oriental scholar,
familiar with chronology, it is well known that, according to ancient easte=
rn
ideas, it is, in a solar eclipse, i=
nvariably
the Moon, who "struggles" to overpower the Sun; in a lunar eclips=
e,
as invariably the dragon Ragu, who "struggles" to overpower the M=
oon.
* A "struggle" on th=
e part
of the Sun in the former case, or on the part of the Moon in the latter cas=
e,
is never thought of. On the ground of Mr. Birch's translation, therefore, we
have every reason to infer that, provided an eclipse is mentioned in the te=
xt,
it is certainly an eclipse of the Sun, and not one of the Moon, which is re=
ferred
to. Our next inquiry has to b=
e: in
which year of our era did the irreconcilable
with the positive testimony of history, the followers of Champollion had, t=
hus
far, no choice but either to uphold that kalendar in defiance of all histor=
ical
proof, or else to adopt, for the period from B.C. 2785 downwards, the refor=
med
kalendar of Professor Lepsius. But according to the latter, as a glance at =
page
14 shows, the fourth month of the season *
Comp. also the note to p. 163. THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 31=
15th regnal year of the f=
ather of
Takelut, the Egyptian king of the inscription, fall? On this point there is
much difference of opinion. King Takelut's shield is Now, Professor Lepsius,
certainly, gives the succession of the fourth, fifth, and sixth kings of the
XXII. dynasty as follows: (IV.) OSORKON II. &=
nbsp; (V.)
SESONK II. &n=
bsp; =
; (VI.)
TAKELUT II. for it is thus, that they=
appear
in the lithographed plate I, of the essay of that savant, and according to =
his
"arrangement." But what is
their succession on the monuments, or rather on an Apis stele, discover=
ed by
M. Marietta, and on which Professor Lepsius himself chiefly bases the
arrangement, which shows Sesonk (II.) to be the father and immediate
predecessor of *
"The XXII. Egyptian Royal Dynasty," English translation, p. 12 and
plate i. LEPSIUS † "The Athenaeum" for May 11, 1861. ‡ "The Athenaeum" for May 11, 1861. 32 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
Takelut (II.)? It is, as =
recorded
by him in pages 8 and 9 of his own treatise, this: OSORKON (I.) &=
nbsp; TAKELUT
(I.) &n=
bsp; OSORKON
(II.) &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; SESONK
(II.) Hence, the monuments full=
y bear
out Dr. Brugsch in his statement that King Takelut was the son of Osorkon, =
and
leave me only to show on what grounds Professor Lepsius introduces King Ses=
onk
II. between them. I will do so =
in his
own words. Speaking of Manetho's lis=
ts, he
writes: * "These lists gi=
ve us
only three names in this (the XXII.) dynasty. According to Eusebius, these
three would comprise the entire dynasty, but Africanus, on the contrary, gi=
ves
them with greater exactness as, II. z?<=
/span>F@<=
/span>D2<=
/span>f&l=
t;
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; governs
15 years. III.-V. =
}!<=
/span>88@<=
/span>4 J<=
/span>D,<=
/span>ÃH<=
/span>
=
governs
25 years. VI. I&q=
uot;6X<=
/span>88T<=
/span>24<=
/span>H &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; governs
13 years. VII.-IX.=
}!<=
/span>88@<=
/span>4 J<=
/span>D,<=
/span>ÃH<=
/span>
governs =
42
years. These,
therefore, together rule 120 years. "But the total of the
specified years is not 120, but only 116. And also, instead of z?<=
/span>F@<=
/span>D2<=
/span>f&l=
t;
we ought certainly to read z<=
/span>?F<=
/span>@D<=
/span>2f<=
/span><, as the hieroglyphical orthography Osarkon, pronounced in the Memphit=
ic
dialect OsarPon, proves. This list, therefore, sh=
ows that
not only the first but also the second name in our inscription agrees with =
that
of Manetho. The third, fourth, and fifth names are wanting in his list; our
inscription supplies the two next following places; it gives us Takelut and a second Osarkon for the third and fourth k=
ing of
the dynasty. The sixth is given in the list; he was a Takelut, and therefore the second of *
"The XXII. Egyptian Royal Dynasty," pp. 11, 12. THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 33=
his name. Under him died =
an Apis;
and the succeeding Apis tombs, whose epochs and successions we know by
Mariette's careful investigations upon the spot, give us the names of the t=
hree
following kings in a settled order, namely, a Sesonk, a PeP<=
/span>i
(till then unknown), and the latest Sesonk,
from whose 37th year the stele is dated. "There is therefore only the fifth king wanting, whom neither
Manetho's list nor the stelae name. The
other monuments now step in. These name four
different Sesonks, and we have in the list hitherto only thre=
e;
so that, as the one wanting finds o=
nly
one place open, - the fifth - that must be filled with this Sesonk. "Thus the entire dyn=
asty is
produced with perfect surety, according to their family names, as follows: =
- 1.
"From this series, i=
n the
first instance, an important error in our former adopted list is deducible,
since the previous third king, Hor-=
PetuP<=
/span>anu,
must be entirely removed and as=
cribed
to the XXI. The traces of his family connexion with the XXII. dynasty made =
it
previously specious, notwithstanding a break thereby in the direct successi=
on,
that he belonged to this dynasty. This supposition can now be rescinded, an=
d no interruption in the direct successi=
on
need be shown." * Such is the "critica=
l"
process, by which Professor Lepsius "with perfect surety produces
(Egyptian) dynasties." It requires no further comment. The King Takelu=
t of
our inscription was the son of King Osorkon; † but as there were *
The English translation is Dr. Bell's, who, in his unsuccessful attempt to
acquire a knowledge of the German language, would seem to have forgotten his
own. It is but doing justice to Professor Lepsius to remark, that he writes=
classical
German. †
This is virtually once more acknowledged by Professor Lepsius himself, D 34 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
several Egyptian kings of=
either
name, it follows by no means as a necessary consequence, that they should be
identical with those on M. Mariette's Apis stele. I agree, however, with Dr.
Brugsch and Mr. Birch as to that identity, so far as Osorkon II. (of my tab=
les
III.) is concerned; but differ from Professor Lepsius, when he assumes that=
the
name of Takelut II. appears on the stele as well. Nor does our inscription
state at all, as has been taken for granted, that Takelut II. was the immediate successor of Osorkon=
II.
(III.) On the contrary, the latter being qualified as king of So long as ten years ago =
this was
pointed out by me, and the reign of Takelut II. (in when
("The XXII. Egyptian Royal Dynasty," p. 14) he writes thus:
"This king (Osarkon II.) had a son Sesonk, as appears from the
inscriptions of a statue found in the Apis cave, and by a second wife, Karo=
ama.
We have shown above that a Sesonk must be put in the place of the fifth kin=
g; though this name appear neither in Man=
etho's
Lists, nor is found on the Apis stele which has hitherto vouched for the or=
der
of these names. We cannot therefore doubt that this Prince Sesonk, a so=
n of
Osarkon II., succeeded his father as Sesonk II. in the government, and the
shields belong to him which hitherto, as far as I know, are only found on a
scarabaeus which I possess in a cast, and which was furnished me by M.
Migliarini in Florence." *
"Die Zeitrechnung der Babylonier und Assyrer," THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 35=
the 25th day of Mesori, i=
.e. on
or near the 10 March about the year B.C. 839. On the contrary, Mr. Basi=
l H.
Cooper, starting on the naked assumption that our text speaks of a total
eclipse of the Moon, goes in search of " a suitable eclipse" of t=
he
desired kind, in "the invaluable table given in 'L'Art de Vérif=
ier
les Dates,'" and at last fixes upon one, that "fell out on the
evening of the 16 March, B.C. 851;" perfectly unconscious of reckoning
according to a purely imaginary kalendar, which never was in use, - unless =
it
have been so, as Professor Lepsius assures us, previously to the year B.C. 2785, - and that in the kalendar,
introduced in its stead by the Berlin savant, the date of the inscription i=
s no
longer the 25 Mesori, but the 25 Choiac, and answers to the 13 July, B.C. 8=
51. This, however, is of no
consequence now. The true date of the inscription is the 13 March, supposing
the year B.C. 861 to be in question; and that a total eclipse of the Moon,
visible in On the other hand, there =
happened
an eclipse of the Sun about the very year, in which the 15th regnal year of
Osorkon II. (III.) may historically be taken to fall, namely, in the year B=
.C.
841, and about the very day, stated in the inscription, namely, on the 11
March. According to a preliminary compu- 36 THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR.=
tation of this eclipse fr=
om M.
Largeteau's tables, - which suffices for our purpose, - it was visible in <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on"> In confirmation of this
astronomical date, I have still to adduce a second one, also first pointed =
out
by Dr. Brugsch and mentioned by Mr. Cooper. * It is a statement, contained in an Egyptian inscription, to t=
he
effect that, in the eleventh regnal year of Takelut II., Sirius had risen
heliacally on the 1 Tybi. According to my tables, the epoch of the reign of
Takelut II. fell in the year B.C. 842. His eleventh regnal year, therefore,
concurred with the year B.C. 832, and in this year Sirius, in the vulgar
Egyptian kalendar, should have risen heliacally on the 1 Tybi, according to=
the
inscription and my chronology. Now, Sirius did so rise in the years B.C.
835-B.C. 831, a period which includes the year in question; showing that the
epoch of the reign of Takelut II. is comprised in the interval B.C. 845-B.C.
841. The epochs of the two reigns of Osorkon II. (III.), king of Western Th=
ebes,
and of Takelut II., king of Eastern Thebes, may consequently be considered =
to
be astronomically established, the former absolutely, the latter with a mar=
gin
of one year later or two years earlier. *
"The Athenaeum" for May 11, 1861. THE EGYPTIAN KALENDAR. 37=
$$$ I have thus, by a ser=
ies of
historical and astronomical data, both in hieroglyphic and demotic writing,
furnished the positive proof that the following is the true nomenclature of=
the
Egyptian seasons and months: Thot. Paophi. Athyr. Choiac. Tybi. Mechir. Phamenot. Pharmuti. Pachon. Paoni. Epiphi. Mesori. The importance of this di=
scovery,
for which Egyptology is indebted to Dr. Brugsch, I need hardly point out. A=
s I have
already had occasion to remark: it has enabled me to place the chronology of
Egyptian history on an entirely new, and for the first time on a solid, bas=
is. II. ON THE EPOCH OE THE REIGN OF MENES=
. Individuals are but so ma=
ny types
of their species. The history of every one of us is a miniature of the hist=
ory
of the human race. Who is able to trace his recollections beyond a certain
epoch of his existence? Our origin and the first period of our infancy, so =
far
as our personal knowledge goes, are shrouded in complete and impenetrable
secrecy. The same is the case with the earliest history of mankind. It will
never be disclosed to us; or, at the best, we have no reasonable hope that =
it
ever will. The inhabitants of no other worlds were called in by God to witn=
ess
the birth of man, that they might relate to him what they beheld. How, then,
are we to succeed in tracing the history of our race to its origin or even =
to
its cradle? It is true, that numerous
attempts to this end have been made and, no doubt, will continue to be made=
, in
all times. But, upon examination, what do we find them to be? The mere flig=
hts
of a wild and ungoverned imagination, soaring far above the highest land-ma=
rks
of history, and viewing the latter, from the dreamy regions of theory and
speculation, only as so many conveniences placed in the ocean of time for i=
ts
special use. Yet such indulgences of the fancy are presented to the public =
as
the results of profound chronological research and learning. Harmless enoug=
h in
themselves, they unfortunately tend to discredit, in the public opinion, a
science so little understood and appreciated as is chronology, though not <=
/p>
THE EPOCH OF MENES. 30
improperly termed the bac=
kbone of
history, and yielding in importance to few other branches of human knowledg=
e. But whilst the earliest i=
nfancy
of our race is involved in inscrutable mystery, so, as there is a period in=
the
life of individual man, to which his clearly defined recollections carry him
back, is there a corresponding period in the existence of mankind, to which=
its
accredited history may be traced, and which is emphatically termed the historical epoch. It would see=
m to
reach nearly 5,000 years into the past, or to fall between the 26th and the
30th century before the Christian era. At least, the chronological traditio=
ns
of those ancient nations, with whose history we are sufficiently acquainted,
point without exception to that period as comprising the epochs of the reig=
ns
of their earliest recorded kings. The authentic history of the lands of the=
Thus Bunsen - who places =
the
creation of the first man about the year B.C. 20,000, as the "most
favorable epoch for our northern hemisphere; not, however, upon the declivi=
ties
of the Himalaya mountains, but in the more northern parts of *
"The most important result of modern research concerning "Ueber die Manethonische Bestimmung des Umf=
anges
der AEgyptischen Geschichte," in the "Abh. der Berliner Akademie =
des
Wissenschaften," †
"AEgypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte," 40 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
and traces the history of
language and of its grammatical structure up to the same period * - assigns the year B.C. 9085 as=
the
epoch of the reign of Bytis, the first priestly
king of Thebes; whilst he states the reign of the first elected king of Egy=
pt
to have commenced in the year B.C. 7230, and that of her first hereditary king in the year B.C. 5=
413.
He, then, in B.C. 3974 (3973) divides the empire into Upper and Lower Egypt=
in
order to reunite it, 350 years later, in B.C. 3623, under Menes, its first =
historical king, † the epoch of whose reign is by Professor Lepsius placed=
in
the year B.C. 3893. ‡ No=
rational
person would wish me to follow Bunsen into the regions of his extravagant
speculation. Being unconnected with the Prussian Expedition to *
"AEgypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte," vol. v. i. pp. 69 sqq.;
comp. vol. v. ii. pp. 348 sqq. † "AEgypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte,&=
quot;
vol. v. ii. pp. 346 sqq. ‡ "Die Chronologie der AEgypter," § Lepsius, "Briefe =
aus
AEgypten," || See the note (‡=
) to
p. 18. THE EPOCH OF MENES. 41
presents a deep interest,=
not
merely in a chronological point of view, but also in reference to the histo=
ry
of our species. That Menes was the first
historical king of *
"Chronologie des Rois d'Égypte," † "Manetho and die Handssternperiode," =
‡ "Horae AEgyptiacae; or, the Chronology of
Ancient Egypt," § "The Egyptian Chronology analysed," || "The Monumental History of Egypt," 42 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
English history, and that=
the
battles of the Alma and of Inkermann, and the fall of Sebastopol, supposed =
to
have taken place 3,000 years ago, would have to be connected with the histo=
ry
of the year A.D. 1857. Unfortunately, we know almost as little of the early
events of Egyptian history, as we do of those of the next ten or thirty
centuries to come, and still less of their sequence and connection. Bare na=
mes
and numbers, admitting of a ready adaptation to any chronological system, is
nearly all that tradition has handed down to us of the remotest history of =
the
lands of the As it is now generally ad=
mitted,
that Manetho's list of Egyptian dynasties, in the form in which it has reac=
hed
us, observes no consecutive chronological order, but that some at least of
those dynasties reigned contemporary with each other, I may be permitted to
pass over in silence the two chronological systems, advanced by M. Lesueur =
and
Professor Böckh, and still resting on the contrary supposition; the la=
tter
savant making the epoch of the first year of Hephaistos to coincide with th=
e 20
July, B.C. 30,522. There remain thus only two long systems, those of Bunsen and Professor Lepsius, to examine=
, -
a task greatly facilitated by the circumstance, that both rest their respec=
tive
systems exclusively on a certain number of "3,555 years," which t=
he true Manetho, * they *
The "true" Manetho, as distinguished from the "pseudo"-=
Manetho,
of Bunsen and Professor Lepsius is simply their own creation, to serve their
own chronological purposes. Professor Lepsius recognizes in the
"true" Manetho "a serious, intelligent, truth-seeking man, w=
ho,
in all his statements, faithfully a=
dhered
to his ancient sources" ("Die Chronologie der AEgypter,"=
p.
407), and to whom the Sothis, by Syncellus held to be his genuine historical
work, cannot possibly be attributed (p. 414). On the contrary: its author, =
the
"pseudo"-Manetho, was evidently a Christian, who intended by the
authority of Manetho's name to support the
chronology of the Bible (pp. 478, 435), and, like all other Christian
chronologists, hesitated not to fal=
sify
the authentic dates accordingly (pp. 435, 470, 471). Nor does he consid=
er
it at all probable, that Josephus, Africanus, THE EPOCH OF MENES. 43
assert, states to have el=
apsed
from the reign of Menes to the death of the younger Nectanebus in the year =
B.C.
340, and which would raise the former epoch to the year B.C. 3895. This epo=
ch
Professor Lepsius adopts; only that, taking the 3,556 years to be vague
Egyptian years of 365 days, he lowers it to the Julian year B.C. 3893, * in contradiction with himself, =
since
he himself insists that Manetho reckons according to solar years of 365 1/4
days, ‡ as is really the=
case.
Bunsen, on or
any other of our present authorities ever saw the genuine work of Manetho; =
from
which, however, we are by no means to conclude, that their quotations from =
it
be not Manethonic and altogether of an unreliable charac=
ter
(pp. 541, 542). Hence the chronological use of the two Manethos in the syst=
ems
of Bunsen and Professor Lepsius will be readily divined. *
"Die Chronologie der AEgypter," p. 499. † Professor Lepsius ("Transactions of the
Chronological Institute," Rather in explanation and excuse of the numberle=
ss
contradictions, errors, and absurdities, which occur in Professor Lepsius' =
work
on Egyptian chronology, than for any other purpose, I will quote, from p. 5=
49,
his "note to p. 17," which reads thus: "This was printed bef=
ore
I had completed my investigation into the premosaic times, and has now to be
corrected in conformity with what is said pp. 379 sqq." The plain truth
is, that Professor Lepsius was no more prepared, linguistically,
chronologically, or astronomically, to write the work which he undertook on=
so
extensive and presumptuous a scale, than a school-boy might have 44 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
the other hand, with that
inconsistency which so greatly distinguishes his work on Egypt, after
repeatedly urging the indubitable authenticity and paramount importance of =
the
Manethonian number of 3,555 years, and adopting it for the two periods of t=
he
new empire and the Hyksos time, rejects it as regards the duration of the o=
ld
empire in favor of the Canon of been;
and it will never, therefore, whether completed or left unfinished, possess=
a
higher scientific value than that of a premature essay and an expensively g=
ot
up failure. To return, however, to his anti-critical remarks=
. They
are not very clear. He would seem to deny in the first sentence, that the 3=
,555
years between Menes and Nectanebus II. are reckoned by him as vague years of 365 days; but in th=
e next
following sentence, he pointedly affirms it himself. Probably, therefore, he
only meant to deny his doing so in<=
/i> contradiction with himself, and hi=
s nowhere making Manetho to reckon
"according to fixed Alexandrian," i.e. according to solar years of
365 1/4 days. Yet he devotes the whole space pp. 470-482 of his
"Chronology" to the latter proof as regards the period of the god=
s,
and remarks, p. 474: "We find the sum to be 17,520 years or 12 Sothic
periods of 1,460 years, i.e. of sol=
ar
years, as was to be expected would be the case for the reign of the Gods."
Professor Lepsius, by assuming that Manetho adop=
ts
vague years since Menes, lowers=
the
early epochs of Manetho' s history, reokoned upwards from B.C. 340, its fix=
ed
terminus, by 3555/4 =3D 2 years, 158 days, 6 hours, for the reign of Menes,=
and
by 3905/4 =3D 2 years, 245 days, 18 hours, for that of the 10 Thinite Kings=
or
the conclusion of the reign of the demi-gods. It would be about as rational=
to
assume an annalist of our own time to reckon from the Creation to Pope Greg=
ory XIII.
in Gregorian or Astronomical years of 365 days, 5h. 48m. 47s. 8,091 - t.
0''.00595, and from Gregory XIII. downwards in Julian years of 365 days, 6
hours. Nor is this all. At p. 165, Professor Lepsius
observes: "We have seen that, besides the civil year of 365 days, the Egyptian priests used in their
[chronological] lists a fixed year =
of 365
1/4 days;" and p. 407: "Manetho.... the Egyptian priest and keeper of the records...., to whom the =
learning
of the Egyptian priesthood was as a profession...., adhered in all his statements faithfully t=
o the
ancient sources." As to the third point denied by Professor Lepsiu=
s, the
reader is referred to a subsequent note. All I have here still to remark is,
that the author of the "Chronologic der AEgypter" forces upon his
"true" Manetho the two contradictory methods of chronological
reckoning for the only purpose of connecting it with the year B.C. 1322, which he erroneously believes to be the
epoch of a Sothic period; whereas the true epoch is the year B.C. 1325
(comp. p. 24, and the note (*)=
to p.
20), which implies the perfect consistency of the Manethonian computation. =
THE EPOCH OF MENES. 45
Eratosthenes, which he ca=
lculates
to be shorter by 271 years. * =
It is
thus (and by an error of one year) that he obtains for the commencement of =
the
reign of Menes the year B.C. (3624) 3623, instead of the year B.C. 3895. But
notwithstanding this modified acceptation of the number in question, on
Bunsen's part, his entire system of Egyptian chronology depends as much on =
it,
as does that of Professor Lepsius. To prove, therefore, the unhistorical
character of that fundamental date, is to overthrow the very basis upon whi=
ch
both their chronological systems are made to rest, and, consequently, to
overthrow those systems themselves. The passage of Syncellus,=
in
which the number of 3,555 years occurs, reads, according to Dindorf s editi=
on, † thus: *
"AEgypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte," vol. iv. p. 106. † Bonnae, 1829, vol. i. pp. 97, 98. 46 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
From this passage both Bu=
nsen and
Professor Lepsius select the date of "3,555 years" as alone suita=
ble
for their purpose, and altogether disregard that of the "113
generations," inseparably connected, and at the same time utterly
irreconcilable, with it, in as much as the mean duration of 30 1/2 years fo=
r a
long series of successive reigns, which the former number supposes, is cont=
rary
to all human experience. One only of the two numbers, therefore, can be
historical; the other must, of necessity, be fictitious. What reason, then, do Bun=
sen and
Professor Lepsius assign for their choice? In the first place, Bunsen * urges the intact character of t=
he
number of "3,555 years," but does not attempt to prove the
corruptness of the "113 generations." The simple fact that "=
no
clerical error has crept into the date," as Syncellus found it recorde=
d,
can as little establish its historical character, as it is calculated to
convince us, that the work, from which it was taken, was that of the
"true" Manetho. On the contrary, the irreconcilable nature of the=
two
combined dates would naturally lead us to form a different conclusion. A se=
cond
and last reason in favor of the "3,555 years," adduced by Bunsen =
and
repeated by Professor Lepsius, I will presently consider. The latter savant has, at=
least,
seen the necessity of some *
"AEgypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte," vol. i. pp. 122, 123. =
THE EPOCH OF MENES. 47
notice being taken of the
"113 generations," and, bolder than Bunsen, attempts to discredit=
its
historical character by a truly desperate argument. "When finally,&quo=
t;
he writes, * "Syncellus m=
akes
mention in this place of the 113 generations which, for reasons already assigned, belong exclusively to the Old
Chronicle, he does so merely in consequence of his frivolously confounding =
what
immediately precedes; unless, indeed, the date should have got into the tex=
t by
the wisdom of some later copyist." Alas, for poor wisdom! she is made =
to
serve many a purpose, and to cover a multitude of sins. But Professor Lepsi=
us'
"reasons already assigned"? On turning to the place, to which alo=
ne
he can refer, † we read =
thus:
"New in the Old Chronicle are, at all events, the 113 generations.&quo=
t;
Not a syllable more does he say. That sole assertion constitutes his
"reasons already assigned." Nay, as appears from his own work, he
must have been fully aware that they did not,
as he pretends, "exclusively belong to the Old Chronicle." At any
rate, there they remain, equally unmoved by his "wisdom" and his
"frivolity." In a subsequent memoir,
therefore, he has, for the purpose of setting the obnoxious date aside,
recourse to a more sweeping process, which I will describe in his own words.
"The passage in Syncellus, p. 52, D," Professor Lepsius argues, ‡ "as it now stands, h=
as
evidently been corrupted by glossary remarks having crept into the text.
Already on a former occasion I have remarked, that the words "&U=
circ;J&a=
uml;< &O=
grave;
PD<=
/span>`&l=
t;@H<=
/span>
completely interrupt its grammatical connection, and have therefore to be
erased *
Lepsius, "Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. i. p. 497. † "Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. =
i. p.
447. ‡ "Ueber die Maneth. Bestimmung des Umfanges=
der
AEgypt, Geschichte," pp. 198, 199. 48 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
('Chronology,' p. 467); w=
hile I
have previously shown, that Syncellus originally wrote 5141 for the year 51=
47,
as a marginal note of Codex A (p. 53, A) has it, and consequently also •D<=
/span>P&s=
hy;H, which we actually read a few lines fur=
ther
on, instead of @H:<=
/span>@6<=
/span>D&q=
uot;J@<=
/span>D\<=
/span>"H<=
/span>.
But, on mature consideration, it can neither admit of a doubt, but that the
number 113 joined to (,<=
/span><,<=
/span>ä&l=
t;
has been introduced by mistake. Of whatever degree of negligence and vaguen=
ess
of expression we may hold Syncellus capable, it is utterly impossible that =
he
should in this place have transferred the 113 generations from the Old
Chronicle to Manethos. A copyist alone could put into the text a number, the
presence of which on the margin is easily enough accounted for, but certain=
ly
not Syncellus, who wrote the introductory remarks to the dynasties of the t=
rue
Manethos with their hundreds of generations. Nay, I think I may go further
still, and declare also the number 30 before *<=
/span>L&l=
t;"F<=
/span>J,<=
/span>4&a=
uml;< to have slipped into the text
simultaneously with the number 113, although they, being allowed to remain,
would not materially alter the sense. The whole passage, according to my
conviction, originally read thus: "All the five altera=
tions,
which I have made, are entirely independent of the origin of the number 3,5=
55.
They would be quite as necessary, if any person were to deduce the number f=
rom
the Sothis. As the "Ê &q=
uot;ÛJ<=
/span>"&A=
circ;
*L<=
/span><&q=
uot;FJ<=
/span>,&A=
tilde;"4<=
/span>,
mentioned, refer to the Old Chronicle, without its being here named, somebo=
dy
wrote on the margin, that this Chronicle treated of 113 genera- THE EPOCH OF MENES. 49
tions under 30 dynasties.=
This
explains the two first interpolations, probably also the third, as it is li=
kely
that, for the sake of comparison, the whole number of years of the Old
Chronicle was marked down on the margin as well, just as Syncellus himself =
had
written it down on the preceding page: 8<=
/span>t *<=
/span>L&l=
t;"F<=
/span>J,<=
/span>4&a=
uml;< - ( Leaving this libel upon c=
riticism
to speak for itself, I will revert to the reasons which Professor Lepsius
adduces in support of the "3,555 years." "This number,"=
he
argues, * "must under any
circumstances be regarded as a traditional one, handed down to Syncellus, w=
ho
treats it as of so great importance that, without connecting it with any ot=
her
dates, he places it, as the sum of Manetho's chronology, in opposition to t=
he
Old Chronicle, and starts from it in establishing his own biblical epoch for
the history of Egypt." But this reason is a sorry one indeed. The 17,5=
20
years, which Manetho states the gods and demi-gods to have reigned, are no =
less
a traditional number, "handed down" to Syncellus, than are the 3,=
555
years. And so far from attaching any importance to the latter date, he trea=
ts
it, according to the very statement of Professor Lepsius, ever in contradic=
tion
with himself, as a "lying" number, which he unhesitatingly reduce=
s to
2,365 years, by deducting from it two periods of 656 and 534 years as purely
fictitious, - "a stupid process," † in Bunsen's opinion, though on a somewhat more limited
scale adopted by himself. ‡ *
"Die Chronologie der AEgypter," p. 492. † "AEgypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte,&=
quot;
vol. i. pp. 122, 123. ‡ "AEgypten's Stelle in der Weltgesch."=
vol.
iv. p. 106; comp. pp. 44, 45 above. E 50 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
$$$ Professor Lepsius' se=
cond
reason is as futile as we have found his first one to be. It demands some
preliminary remarks. The "true" Manetho divided his historical wo=
rk
into Sothic cycles. He commenced and ended the reign of the gods and demi-g=
ods
and, consequently, commenced again his human history with epochs of that cy=
cle.
It is thus he reckons: This statement differs on=
ly in
one point from the views of Professor Lepsius, in as much as he makes the
epochs of the Sothic cycles, from the 13th cycle downwards, fall three years
later, although, as I have already had occasion to remark, he himself insis=
ts
that Manetho reckons according to fixed years of 365 1/4 days, * and, moreover, that the epoch o=
f the
13th cycle actually did fall in the year B.C. 4245, instead of the year B.C.
4242. † Nor can the
corresponding commencement of the 15th *
See note (†) to p. 43 ab=
ove. † In the same note we have seen, that Professor L=
epsius
denies that he "anywhere places the epoch of the 13th Sothic cycle in =
the
year B.C. 4245, reckoning by years of 365 1/4 days." What I really say=
, is
seen from the text. That Professor Lepsius, in contradiction with himself,
insists on Manetho reckoning in years of 365 1/4 days I have already shown.=
As
to his "somewhere" stating, that the epoch of the 13th cycle actu=
ally
fell in the year B.C. 4245, and which he denies by referring THE EPOCH OF MENES. 51
cycle, on the 20th July, =
B.C.
1325, instead of B.C. 1322, as commonly assumed, any longer, I venture to
think, be subject to a doubt; the astronomical and historical proofs, which=
I
have had occasion to adduce to that effect, being conclusive. * Professor Lepsius, now, a=
rgues
thus: † From Manetho's m=
ode of
arrangement, we should have been led to expect that he would have made the
first year of the first historical king, Menes, to coincide with an epoch of
the Sothic cycle. But, on the contrary, it is seen not only that, according=
to
Manetho, to
page 501 of his "Chronology," I will from the note 2 to that very page quote his own wo=
rds.
"I had long before looked upon the 3,555 years from Menes to Ochus, and
the 12 Sothic periods to the end of the reign of the demi-gods, as firmly
established, when it first struck me that the epoch of the 350 years of the
Thinites coincided with the commenc=
ement
of a Sothic period. The year B.C. 340 + 3,555 leading immediately to the
year B.C. 3895, the 350 years of the Thinites carry us back three years beyond the epoch 4242, namely, to the year B.C. 4245.&quo=
t;
Professor Lepsius, certainly, hereupon attempts to "explain away this
excess of three years;" but he does so again in contradiction with
himself, and at all events leaves the fact remaining. *
"Die Zeitrechnung der Babylonier und Assyrer;" "Zwei
Chronologische Abhandlungen;" comp. also p. 24 and note (*) to p. 20. I may be permitted t=
o take
this opportunity of stating, that since the appearance of the latter essay,=
two
Demotic inscriptions, comprising years of the Apis cycle with regnal years =
of a
king of † "Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. =
i. pp.
499, 500. 52 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
the epoch of the reign of=
Menes
does not fall upon such an epoch, but that the Egyptian historian, moreover=
, and
evidently for the purpose of thus far extending the human history, invents a
pre-historical dynasty of 10 Thinite kings, with 360 regnal years, in order=
to
interpose them between the gods and Menes. "And this number of 350 yea=
rs,
thus introduced," he concludes further, * - " a number which, though pre-historical and therefore
fictitious, yet partakes of no cyclical character, has nothing in common wi=
th
the Sothic period, and can no more be a Sothic number than its complementary
number 3,555, proves by this very circumstance both the genuine and the
historical character of this important, truly Manethonian number 3,555; and
proves further, that the establishment of the first historical year, or the
epoch of Menes, fixed by that number in a direct manner, cannot first date =
from
Manetho, but must be at least as old as is the invention of the cyclical sy=
stem
of Egyptian mythology, inseparably connected with it, and which no one woul=
d or
could first ascribe to Manetho. The epoch of Menes, therefore, must have be=
en
fixed previously to the consolidation of the cyclical system, because the
latter is based on that number and supposes it; in other words, the epoch of
Menes, recorded by Manetho, was always a given one, historically handed dow=
n to
him." Now, I quite agree with t=
he
premises established by Professor Lepsius; but the conclusion, which he dra=
ws
from them, is utterly untenable. Or, is at not simply preposterous to asser=
t,
that the number of 3,555 years is "inseparable" from the cyclical
system of Egyptian mythology; or that the number in question is necessarily involved in that syste=
m? It
is plain, that any other chronologist than Manetho might have chosen any
*
"Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. i. p. 502. THE EPOCH OF MENES. 53
other number than 3,555 y=
ears for
the duration of the real history of Egypt, so long as he was possessed of
sufficient power of invention to make up the chosen number by a complementa=
ry
one, in accordance with his system, to the sum of 3,905 years. Supposing the
text of Syncellus to read 2,999 instead of 3,555 years, and 906 instead of =
350
years, would not the argument of Professor Lepsius apply with equal force
to" the former, as it does to the latter, or any other two numbers of years which, within the 13th Sothic cy=
cle,
make up the sum of 3,905 years, reckoned upwards from B.C. 340? Elaborate a=
s is
the argument of Professor Lepsius, it is so futile as hardly to deserve the
name of argument. The third and concluding =
reason,
assigned both by Professor Lepsius *
and Bunsen † in favor of=
the
"3,555 years" is, that this number suits no known system of ancie=
nt
chronology, but is irreconcilable with all, and consequently admits of no
explanation in accordance with any such system; "so that Böckh,&q=
uot;
‡ Professor Lepsius adds,
"after likewise seeking in vain for an explanation, at last arrives at=
the
conclusion, that the sum of 3,555 years is at any rate incorrect, being har=
dly
the invention of any one, but probably resting on an error of Syncellus, who
unwittingly vitiated and falsified the traditional number." Certainly,=
the
groundless assertion, to which Böckh has recourse, is undeserving of a
moment's consideration; and it must be admitted that, so long as the number=
in
question remains unexplained, the argument, based on this circumstance, is =
not
without some degree of force. But does it follow that, because the *
"Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. i. p. 494. † "AEgypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte,&=
quot;
vol. i. p. 123. ‡ "Manetho und die Hundssternperiode," =
p.
142. 54 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
number of 3,565 years has=
thus
far defied every attempt at explanation, it should be inexplicable? We have seen that Manetho=
-
according to Bunsen and Professor Lepsius the true Manetho - is, as they themselves attest, a systematizing c=
hronographer,
who adapts his entire system to the Sothic period, and invents in the first
place a long reign of gods and demi-gods for the purpose of connecting that
reign with human history. Bunsen not only recognizes in those royal
personifications of Manetho's fancy bodily opposition kings, and divides the
Egyptian empire in order to submit to their rule half the lands of the Nile,
but he sees, moreover, in the demi-gods of the same historian's creation so
many electoral and hereditary princes, and even bestows some ten or twelve
centuries of the very reign of the gods on King Bytis and his mortal
successors. Professor Lepsius also regards Menes, "according to authen=
tic
national records," as the successor of Manetho's pre-historical Thinit=
e dynasty
of 10 kings, and the founder of a new empire by the division of a yet older
one." * He holds Manetho =
to
have been "a sober, intelligent, truth-seeking historian," who
"in all his reports faithfully adhered to his ancient sources" -
"the public annals of Egypt" - and whose work, " if it had c=
ome
down to us entire, would possess, throughout, the value of contemporary
monuments." † So th=
at, in
fact, but for the loss of the greater part of a work, of which, alas! "=
;the
naked skeleton" alone remains, the accredited history of The palpable object of Ma=
netho,
in extending his chronology *
"Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. i. p. 25, comp. pp. 500, 501=
. † "Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. =
i. pp.
407, 408. THE EPOCH OF MENES. 55
to so remote a period, is=
to
claim for the nation, to which he belonged, an undue antiquity; and we are,=
therefore,
fully justified in assuming that this tendency, which equally characterises=
the
works of Bunsen and Professor Lepsius in our days, pervades his whole histo=
ry;
and further, since he systematically reckons the duration of a reign of the
gods at half a Sothic period, and that of a reign of the demi-gods at the
twelfth part of the same period, that he likewise should have computed the
duration of a human reign at a fixed number of years, corresponding to his
system. And such, indeed, do we fin=
d to
be the case. His "10 Thinite kings," with their regnal period=
of
"350 years," contain the key to his whole proceeding. He computed the duration of a human re=
ign at
35 years. The historical number of 113 generations, or successive reign=
s,
was handed down to him; their duration probably not. Or, if it was, he made=
his
historical knowledge subservient to his systematizing purpose. At any rate,=
he
adhered to the 113 generations, making them the basis of his calculations, =
and
computing them, as he does the 10 pre-historical generations, at 35 years e=
ach.
He thus obtained 3,955 years for the sum-total of their reign; and, carrying
this period upwards from the year B.C. 340, being the last year of the Egyp=
tian
kingdom, he arrived at the year B.C. 4295, that is, 50 years beyond the epoch of the Sothic cyc=
le,
following immediately upon the reign of the gods. This would not do. Nor di=
d it
accord with his system to expand, by another Sothic cycle, either the
historical or the pre-historical times, any more than the period of the god=
s.
Was he, then, simply to waive the 50 years, and let the epoch of the reign =
of
Menes fall upon the epoch of the 13th Sothic period, without the introducti=
on
of any transition period between that king and the gods, - between history =
and
fable? He had no 56 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
choice left but to sacrif=
ice a
few centuries of the imagined antiquity of his people, for the purpose of
preserving, according to his opinion, the historical character of his syste=
m.
He, consequently, with the view of not curtailing the duration of the 113
reigns, as calculated by him, to a greater extent than necessity required,
interposed the modest round number of 10 transition kings, with their 10 x =
35 =3D
360 regnal years, between Menes and the gods. These 350 years, added to the=
50
years, by which his sum-total of 113 x 35 =3D 3,955 years fell in excess of=
the
epoch he had assigned to them, make together 400 years, by which he had to
shorten his computation. Subtracting, therefore, 400 years from the sum-tot=
al
of 3,955 years, we find a remainder of exactly 3,555 years left for the
duration of the 113 consecutive reigns, according to Manetho's system. Such is the simple origin=
of that
purely fictitious number of "3,555 years," on which Bunsen and
Professor Lepsius have not hesitated to found their systems of Egyptian
chronology, - systems which thus, by the proof of their unhistorical and
absolutely imaginary basis, are completely and irrecoverably overthrown.
If, however, a still furt=
her
proof to this effect were needed, it is furnished to us by the "113
generations," which the Manetho of Syncellus - be he the real or a
pseudo-Manetho - states to have reigned from the first year of Menes to the
death of Nectanebus II., or the extinction of the kingdom of Egypt in B.C. =
340.
For, it having been shown that Manetho rests his computed system of chronol=
ogy
on that number, it admits of no reasonable doubt, not only that our number =
was
by him regarded as indubitably historical, but that such also is its real
character. * The attempt of
Professor Lepsius to call this *
Already Rosellini was of this opinion, without, however, adducing any proof=
s in
its support (Lepsius, "Die
Chronologie der AEgypter," p. 493; Rosellini,
"Monum. Stor." vol. i. pp. 13 sqq.; vol. ii. p. 37). THE EPOCH OF MENES. 57
character into doubt, as =
we have
seen, has proved a signal failure. On the other hand, we mee=
t with
the same number of 113 successive reigns, occupying the entire space of
Egyptian history, in that ancient record called the Old Chronicle, which Bu=
nsen
endeavours to represent as a bungling fabrication, * and is commonly, but without sufficient reason, looked upon a=
s an
undoubtedly spurious work. Professor Lepsius † would have us believe, not only that it concluded with =
Amasis,
the last king of the 26th dynasty, but also that it enumerated, inclusive o=
f 14
generations of the gods and 8 of the demi-gods, no more than 100 generation=
s, -
a purely cyclical number, altogether destructive of the historical characte=
r of
the document, - and that the 13 supplementary generations, from Amasis to
Nectanebus II., were added by Syncellus. But this is not only in positive
contradiction with the text of Syncellus; the number of generations or
successive reigns between Amasis and Nectanebus II., moreover, is not 13, as
Professor Lepsius is under the necessity of pretending, ‡ but 17, as reckoned by Syncellus himself. There can, in my opinion,=
be no
reasonable doubt but that the Old Chronicle - even in the corrupt state in
which its chronological skeleton has come down to us, a valuable record -
enumerated, like Manetho, under 30 dynasties, 103 or 104 successive reigns =
of
mortal kings to the end of the 28th dynasty =3D B.C. 399, attributing to th=
em a
regnal period of 36,525 - (30,000 + 3,984 + 217 =3D) 34,201 =3D 2,324 years=
, and
conse- *
"AEgypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte," vol. i. pp. 260-263. <=
o:p> † "Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. =
i. pp.
446, 599. ‡
"Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. i. pp. 449, 483. 58 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
quently placing the epoch=
of the
reign of Menes in the year B.C. 2723, in perfect accordance with Syncellus,=
who
makes it to fall in the year of the world 2776 =3D B.C. 2724. Adding, with =
him,
to the above epoch 10 or 9 reigns, with 59 regnal years, to the extinction =
of
the Egyptian kingdom, we obtain the number of 113 generations, with 2,383
regnal years, between Menes and the last year of Nectanebus II. =3D B.C. 34=
0. The
reign of 8 demi-gods, which the Old Chronicle interposes between the gods a=
nd
human history, has evidently a twofold aim, namely, that of a transition
period, and of making up the cyclical sum-total of 36,525 years which, thus
considered, in no manner affects the historical credibility of the number of
years, ascribed to the reign of mortal kings. This remark expresses a
chronological truth of some importance, and has not been understood by thos=
e,
who have pronounced so sweeping a judgment against the Old Chronicle. The Sothis, a work errone=
ously
ascribed to Manetho, and which Professor Lepsius, by his own peculiar criti=
cal
process, moulds into a similar shape as he does the Old Chronicle, enumerat=
es,
according to Syncellus, * betw=
een
Menes and the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, 86 successive reigns, with 2,2=
11
regnal years; but the number of reigns being, for the old empire, taken sho=
rt
by 10, Syncellus should, no doubt, have written 96. Adding to this number t=
he
17 reigns from Cambyses to Nectanebus II., we once more find the number of
generations, comprised within the historical period of the kingdom of Egypt=
, to
be 113; and, the Persian conquest having taken place in the year B.C. 527, =
as I
have elsewhere shown, the epoch of the reign of Menes would, according to t=
he
Sothis, fall in the year B.C. 2738. *
Page 210, D?
Dindorf, vol. i. p. 397. THE EPOCH OF MENES. 59
$$$ But the 1 13 generati=
ons of
Manetho we meet with yet again and again. Thus Diodorus Siculus * appears to enumerate 116 consec=
utive
reigns from Menes to Darius Codomannus, the third Persian king after Nectan=
ebus
II.; and thus he, too, reckons 113 generations between the latter king and
Menes. Another combination leads to the same result. Diodorus tells us, that
from Menes to Moeris there reigned 81 kings; and from Herodotus † we learn, that if we incl=
ude
the reigns from Amasis to Nectanebus II., apparently the number of kings fr=
om
Moeris to the latter was 32. Adding both sums together, we obtain once more=
the
sum-total of 113 generations between Nectanebus II. and Menes. The most important combin=
ation,
however, is probably the following. Eratosthenes enumerates 38 native reigns
during the old, Apollodorus 53 during the new, empire; Manetho 43 Hyksos
reigns, of which 2 in the 13th, and 19 reigns in the 18th and 19th, dynasti=
es
are contemporary with native rulers, leaving 22 reigns in consecutive
chronological order between the lists of Eratosthenes and Apollodorus. ‡ On addition of these three
series of 38, 22, and 53 kings, as independently enumerated, each for one of
the three great periods of Egyptian history, by three different chronograph=
ers,
we once again arrive at 113 generations, occupying the entire space of the
history of This number is still conf=
irmed by
additional historical testimony, to discuss which would lead me too far on =
the
present occasion. All I have wished here to show is, that in the *
I. 45 sqq; comp. Lepsius, "=
;Die
Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. i. p. 297. † II. 101 sqq. ‡ Apud Syncellus; comp. Bunsen, "AEgypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte," vo=
l.
i. pp. 157, 112. 60 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
passage of Syncellus, pre=
viously
quoted, and in which he states Manetho to have reckoned 113 generations, wi=
th
3,555 regnal years, from the historical commencement to the final extinctio=
n of
the kingdom of Egypt, not only the "3,555 years," upon which Buns=
en
and Professor Lepsius have exclusively based their respective systems of
chronology, are an indubitably fictitious number, computed by Manetho; but, on the other hand also, that the
"113 generations," which occur in the same passage, constitute its
historical element; and that, if there is among a vast proportion of corrupt
figures relative to Egyptian history, which have been handed down to us by
ancient chronographers, one number supported by a large mass of evidence an=
d entitled,
more than any other, to historical credibility, it is that number of "=
113
generations." I may now enter upon the
consideration of the main point of the present inquiry. It is a
well-established truth that, however greatly the duration of single reigns =
may
vary, there is a mean towards which they approximate in the proportion of t=
heir
number; and that, the longer any series of successive reigns is, the less it
will deviate from that mean. Now, we find this mean to be about 21 years fo=
r a
single reign; and with reference to a series of 113 consecutive reigns, it
certainly cannot reasonably be supposed to vary by more than a year on eith=
er
side. For the probable duration of the 113 generations we would thus obtain=
the
sum-total of 113 x 21 =3D 2,373 years, and for the two extremes of their po=
ssible
duration 2,260 and 2,486 years. Reckoning these different periods upwards f=
rom
the year B.C. 340, we arrive at the year B.C. 2713 as the probable, and at =
the
years B.C. 2600 and B.C. 2826 as the possible, epochs of the reign of Menes=
, as
deduced from the 113 consecutive reigns intervening between him and Nectane=
bus
II. THE EPOCH OF MENES. 61
This is assuming, as I have done throughout, that Syncellus has cor=
rectly
referred the conclusion of those reigns to the final extinction of the Egyp=
tian
kingdom in B.C. 340. From the passage p. 52, A, it appears, however,
somewhat questionable, whether he has not, either purposely or unknowingly,=
and
to his own perplexion, - which is the most probable inference, - committed =
an
error in taking the 113 generations with their regnal years, differing in h=
is
different sources, to extend to the close of the reign of Nectanebus II.,
instead of the end of the 28th dynasty only. * If so, he may be supposed, in the manner of Bunsen-Lepsius, to
have "emendated" one or more of the numerical elements transmitte=
d to
him, in accordance with his critical "convictions." † On this hypothesis, with =
which
the data of Herodotus and Diodorus might possibly be made to agree, our
historical basis would be the year B.C. 399 instead of B.C. 340, and the ep=
ochs
in question have to be raised (in near accordance with Syncellus, who makes=
the
latter interval 39 + 18 =3D 57 years) by 59 years. We would thus, on the gr=
ound
of the "113 generations," obtain for the probable epoch of the re=
ign
of Menes the year B.C. 2772, for its possible epochs the years B.C. 2659 and
B.C. 2885. It is not my intention on=
the
present occasion to adduce testimony of any kind, which would involve the
discussion of details, whether connected with the succession of the Manetho=
nian
dynasties, subject to so much difference of opinion, or with the monumental=
and
literary remains of *
Professor Lepsius supposes the lists of the Old Chronicle and the Sothis, as
well as the 53 kings of Apollodorus, whose names Syncellus unfortunately
considered it "unnecessary" to give, to extend only to the epoch =
of
the Persian conquest of Egypt; but this is an altogether untenable conjectu=
re,
in positive contradiction with
Syncellus and irreconcilable with the whole course of history. † See the quotation from Professor Lepsius in p. =
48. 62 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
fectly understood. I must
necessarily, therefore, confine myself to those few additional points of br=
oad
and massive evidence, bearing upon our question, which we possess, and upon
which alone, in my opinion, its solution, in the present state of our
hieroglyphical and historical knowledge of Egypt, can be successfully
attempted. There occurs in Herodotus=
an
important passage of this kind, which has been frequently cited, much
discussed, and yet never been properly understood. I allude to the well-kno=
wn
passage ch. ii. 142, in which he informs us of the age, which the priests
themselves, in personal communication with him, ascribed to their first
historical king. "During that time" - from Menes to their own day=
s -
they told the Greek traveller, "the Sun had four times left his seat;
twice be had risen where he then set, and where he then rose, there he had
twice set." Thus Professor Lepsius renders the passage, * which reads as follows: z+<=
/span>< J<=
/span>@\<=
/span><L<=
/span>< J<=
/span>@b<=
/span>J&a=
ring;
J&a=
ring;
PD<=
/span>`&l=
t;å J<=
/span>,J<=
/span>DV<=
/span>64<=
/span>H &s=
ect;8,<=
/span>(@<=
/span>< &b=
rvbar;> &s=
up2;2X<=
/span>T&l=
t;
J&I=
circ;< &r=
aquo;84<=
/span>@&l=
t;
•&l=
t;"J<=
/span>,&A=
tilde;8&q=
uot;4. † &s=
ect;<2<=
/span>" J<=
/span>, &l=
t;Ø&l=
t;
6&q=
uot;J&q=
uot;*b<=
/span>,J<=
/span>"4<=
/span>,
¦&l=
t;2,<=
/span>ØJ<=
/span>,&l=
t;
*&A=
circ;H &b=
rvbar;B&q=
uot;<&q=
uot;2,<=
/span>Ã8<=
/span>"4<=
/span>.
6&q=
uot;Â &s=
ect;<2<=
/span>,&l=
t;
<&O=
slash;< &#=
8226;<&q=
uot;JX<=
/span>88,<=
/span>4, &b=
rvbar;<2<=
/span>"&O=
slash;J&q=
uot;
*&A=
circ;H 6<=
/span>"J<=
/span>"*<=
/span>Ø&l=
t;"4<=
/span>.
The proper translation of the first phrase of this passage is: "During
that time, the Sun had four times r=
isen
out of his normal positions" namely, in the Egyptian kalendar; for=
, in
no other sense will the remark, professedly of a definite chronological import, bear such a construction. *
"Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. i. p. 190. † The distinguished Berlin Emendator is here, too=
, at
his "critical" work again, and observes with some severity, that I
have " forgotten to notice that Böckh (Manetho, pp. 36, &c.) =
has plainly proved that in the passage=
•<"FJ<"4 m=
ust be
read for &#=
8226;<"J,Ã8"4 ("Transact. of the Chron. Inst." vol.=
i.
supplemental leaf between pp. 164, 165). But in reference to Professor
Böckh's work, the reader will find his "plain proofs" to be =
no
more than a naked surmise, supp=
orted
not even by the shadow of evidence. Professor Lepsius would have done well =
to
refer to Professor Bähr's remarks on the subject ("Herod. Musae,&=
quot;
vol. i. pp. 753, 754), who rejects Böckh's proposed
"emendation," as he well might; for there is no room for so much =
as a
doubt as to its impropriety. THE EPOCH OF MENES. 63
$$$ Professor Lepsius err=
oneously
applies the preceding passage, - which is generally understood to apply, and
correctly so, to the Sothic period, or rather to the Egyptian kalendar as b=
ased
upon the vague year of 365 days, - to "the Phenix cycle," to which
he, erroneously again, ascribes a duration of 1,505 instead of 1,507 tropic=
al
years, * and with which that p=
assage
has no connexion whatever. The Egyptian priests simply transferred the move=
ment
of their vague kalendar, as compared with the Earth's annual motion, to the
Sun; as we still, in common parlance, do the diurnal motion of our planet. =
In
other words, they applied the length of their vague year, consisting of 365
days, as the year's normal duration to the Sun's apparent *
Professor Lepsius, on the contrary, maintains the error to be on my own sid=
e.
"For, Herr von Gumpach," he observes ("Transact. of the Chro=
n.
Inst." pp. 164, 165), "has taken the length of the tropical year =
at
our common medium count of 365° 48' 48" [sic, instead of 365 days, 5h. 48m. 48s.] from which, undoubtedl=
y, a
conformity would follow of 1,507 Julian years: but the early tropical year =
was,
as is well known, somewhat longer; and Biot, whom I cite p. 187, in the pas=
sage
to whom I have already referred Herr von Gumpach [Professor Lepsius' memory=
is
deceiving him in this] gives ("Sur l'année vague," pp. 53,=
54)
the exact calculation, which brings us to 1,505 Julian years." Now, in page 187 of his "Chronologie der
AEgypter," Professor Lepsius writes thus: "The tropical or Phenix =
year
required, from one solstitial Thot to another, 1,505, or with a very trifli=
ng
deviation from our present reckoning, exactly
1,500 years;" to which the following note is appended: "Ideler
('Handbuch,' vol. i. p. 127) writes 1,508; Biot ('Recherches sur l'ann&eacu=
te;e
vague,' pp. 63, 54) computes 1,505 years." Here Professor Lepsius, who
overlooks that Ideler speaks of 1,508 vague (=3D 1,507 tropical) years, mak=
es as
yet very light of the result of Biot's "exact" calculation, which,
indeed, he only adopts as differing less than Ideler's from the inexact number of 1,500 years, he
requires, and into which he, by means of "a very trifling deviation,&q=
uot;
does not hesitate to convert the former. The precise value of the tropical year and its a=
ssumed
variation has, since 64 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
motion; and regarding the=
ir kalendar
as immovable, on seeing the Sun at the commencement, or on the 1 Thot, of e=
ach
year gradually recede from star to star, they mistook this apparent recessi=
on,
resulting from their vague kalendar, for a real motion of the Sun; and as
really their 1 Thot, in the course of every 1,460 Julian or 1,461 Egyptian
years, performed a whole circuit with regard to the tropical year, * so they believed the Sun to *
Professor Lepsius observes of me ("Transact, of the Chron. Inst."=
pp.
164, 165): "He will further explain the passage of Herodotus on the
solstitial rising, and considers it an error that I understand it of the
Phoenix cycle, which he, like myself, admits of circa 1,500 years.&=
quot;
- I have nowhere expressed as yet an opinion - but will do so presently -
regarding "the Phenix cycle;" much less have I admitted it to
comprise a period of "circa 1,500 years." The idea of an indefini=
te
cycle is simply absurd. "But," Professor Lepsius continues, sp=
eaking
of me, "he is, on the one hand, completely in error when he takes the
compensating period between the vague and the tropical year at 1,460 Julian
years: for the first Thot shifts itself, as regards the Sun or the tropical
year, in about 1,500, which is the great Phoenix period, but in 1,460 years
only [sic], as regards the stars, in the first instance against Sirius, and
this is the Sothic period." It is somewhat amusing to have the difference between the tropical, or
solar, and the sidereal year explained to me ex cathedra by Professor Lepsius; who, at p. 152 of his
"Chronologie der AEgypter," states, that the fixed year of the
Egyptian priests was a sidereal=
year
of 365 1/4 days, determined by the heliacal rising of Sirius; and at p. 155,
that the same fixed year of the Egyptian priests was a solar (or tropical) year of 365 1/4 days, likewise determined by
the heliacal rising of Sirius; both being, consequently, by him represented=
as
strictly identical. I need hardly say that, in explaining the views =
of the
Egyptian priests, as stated by them to Herodotus more than 2,300 years ago,=
I
do not suppose them to have studied THE EPOCH OF MENES. 65
perform that circuit, in =
the same
(the Sothic) period, with regard to the stars. Hence, the meaning of the=
priests
is perfectly clear. Yet, strange enough, our passage has frequently been
understood to refer to four, or even eight, completed Sothic cycles. Profes=
sor
Lepsius has been the first to interpret it more correctly. He holds it &quo=
t;to
indicate only two completed cycles," and that
"uncontradictorily;" but the temptation to contradict himself pro=
ves
too irresistible for him: be yields to it, and shows, a third time
contradicting himself, that the words in question, in fact, refer only to o=
ne
completed circuit and a half. * And
such is "the
Phenix cycle," therefore, supposing it to mean simply a more correct
period of compensation between the kalendarian year of 365 days, and the tr=
ue
tropical year, may have been concei=
ved by
them as a scientific fact, it is in
the highest degree improbable that it should have assumed the practical form of a chronological =
cycle;
and without positive proofs to that effect, the idle speculations of Profes=
sor
Lepsius on the subject ("Die Chronologie der AEgypter," pp. 180-1=
95)
are to be unhesitatingly rejected. He himself quotes a passage from Tacitus
("Annal." vi. 28) which leaves no doubt as to the Phenix period,
mentioned by Greek and Roman authors, resting on no other ground save a vag=
ue
and mistaken idea of the Sothic cycle. According to the theoretical views of Professor
Lepsius, the Egyptian priests, on the same principles upon which he supposes
them to have instituted the Phenix cycle, by extending the Sothic period, as
applied to the Sun, from 1,460 to 1,500 "fixed" years, ought to h=
ave
reduced it, as applied to the stars or rather to the heliacal rising of Sir=
ius,
from 1,460 to 1,425 "fixed" years, - the difference in the latter
case being only fire years less than he assumes it to be in the former; and
which would seem to have escaped his attention. To suppose the passage of Herodotus to refer to =
the
imaginary "Phenix cycle" of "circa 1,500 years," is abo=
ut
as rational as it is to conclude from a hieroglyphical passage, which Profe=
ssor
Lepsius himself admits to be unable=
to
decipher ("Die Chronologie der AEgypter," p. 127), that the
ancient Egyptians subdivided their day into fractions corresponding to 0s. =
4 or
two-fifth parts of one of our seconds of time, - because it is his belief that, in the passage in
question, the term "hour"=
is
omitted to be mentioned between "day" and "minute" =
(pp.
128, 129), - and to advance such a wildly hypothetical division of time as =
one
of his proofs of "the high=
est
and most perfect state of development," to which the astronomy of the
Egyptians had attained (p. 234). *
"Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. i. pp. 190, 191, 195. Profes=
sor
Lep- F 66 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
indubitably the case. Let=
the Sun
on any given day have been in any given sign of the zodiac, that day is the
starting-point, sius
denies these contradictory statements, and observes ("Transact. of the
Chron. Inst." pp. 164, 165): "Herr von Gumpach affirms that I
contradict myself, by rendering the passage of Herodotus in one place as tw=
o,
and in another as one and a half, apparent revolutions of the Sun. But the =
last
explanation, which is and will remain purely his own, is to be found nowher=
e in
my essay: he has forgotten to notice that Böckh has plainly proved, th=
at
in the passage &#=
8226;<"FJ<"4 must be read for •<&q=
uot;J,Ã8,4." As to this emendation, compare the note (†) to p. 62. But, according=
to
Professor Lepsius' own translation (p. 190 of his "Chronology"), =
the
Sun "left his seat" for the first time in the days of Menes, as o=
ne
of the given termini of the period in question; for the second time, 730 ye=
ars
after Menes; for the third time, 1,460 years after Menes; and for the fourth
time, 2,190 years - being one and a=
half
completed cycles - after Menes, as the nearest "change" to the se=
cond
of the given termini, comprising the period in question, namely, the presen=
ce
of Herodotus in Egypt. Page 191, on the contrary, Professor Lepsius states:
"Now, if the Sun twice rose where he sets, and twice set where he rise=
s,
this means, uncontradictorily, that the Sun had completed two full circuits." Page 195, he writes again: "It is
therein - in the passage of Herodotus - said, that since Menes the Sun had =
twice completed his great circuit,=
and consequently had stood four times at t=
he
opposite points of his orbit." Every school-boy, however, should k=
now
that the latter supposition implies one and a half completed cycles only; a=
nd
so Professor Lepsius himself calcul=
ates
it in the same p. 195, placing, as he does, the first change since Mene=
s in
the year B.C. 3285, on the summer-solstice;
the second in the year B.C. 2533, on the winter-solstice; the third in the =
year
B.C. 1780, on the summer-solstice; and the fourth in the year B.C. 1028, on=
the
winter-solstice. Now, a period
comprised within the summer-sol=
stice
and the next following winter-s=
olstice,
necessarily consists of 1 1/2 completed cycles only; and the interval betwe=
en
the years B.C. 3285 and B.C. 1028 being, as we find by a simple process of
subtraction, 2,257 years: this number of years, also, makes up no more than=
1
1/2 cycles of 1,505 years each, according to Professor Lepsius' own numeric=
al
statements. Yet, in the self-same p. 195, he once more takes=
the 1
1/2 cycles to represent 2 completed circuits of the Sun, and to comprise,
according to one place, 3,000 years; according to another, about 2,672 year=
s;
and according to a third, 2,257 years; while the period from Menes to the t=
ime
of Herodotus' presence in Egypt commenced, according to one place, "ab=
out
the year B.C. 3700;" according to another, in "B.C. 3285
(-3282);" and according to a third, in B.C. 3893. And in the face of a=
ll
these glaring and numerous contradictions, Professor Lepsius protests that
there is not a contradictory passage in his whole book; and in defiance of =
his
own numerical statements, showing that the passage in Herodotus is to be
understood of 1 1/2 completed cycles, he positively maintains that no such
explanation is to be found in his essay. THE EPOCH OF MENES. 67
and on it he would for th=
e first
time leave his normal positions, rising in the one sign and setting in the
opposite sign; 730 years later he would rise in the latter sign and set in =
the former,
leaving his normal positions for the second time; 730 years later still, he
would rise and set a second time in his first places, leaving his normal
positions a third time; and 730 years later again, he would set a second ti=
me
where he first rose, and rise a second time where he first set, leaving his
normal positions the fourth time. And such were the (apparent) changes, whi=
ch
the priests of Professor Lepsius, who kn=
ows how
to press every date into his service and to shape it into harmony with his =
own
particular views, has arrived at a very different result. * In the first *
"Die Chronologie der AEgypter," vol. i. p. 195. 68 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
place, and for the purpos=
e partly
of gaining a suitable starting-point, partly of securing an additional cent=
ury
of Egyptian antiquity, he substitutes "the Phenix cycle" of 1,505
years for the Sothic period of 1,460 years. In the second place, he converts
the 1 1/2 cycles, in contradiction with himself, into 2 completed cycles, t=
hus
gaining seven centuries and a half more. And in the third place, he refers =
the
end of that period, not to the time of Herodotus' presence in An important question thus
presents itself to us, namely, whether the Egyptian priests referred to two
normal positions of the Sun, considered with regard to the Earth as well as=
to
the Egyptian kalendar, or whether they spoke of any two points whatever in =
the
Sun's (apparent) orbit, at which he may have happened to rise or set on the=
1
Thot, during the reign of Menes. For, that the 1 Thot marked the commenceme=
nt THE EPOCH OF MENES. 69
of the Egyptian year then=
, as it
did in subsequent times, I have previously shown. The Herodotean passage,
certainly, is couched in such general terms as to admit of a general
construction; yet, when we consider that the Sothic period forms the basis =
of
the priestly statement, and that the 1 Thot, coinciding with the epoch of t=
hat
cycle, fell, in the normal year, together with the summer-solstice and the
inundation of the Nile, we can hardly fail to arrive at the conclusion that=
, in
speaking of the Sun's normal positions, they meant the two solstices and th=
eir
coincidence, in the first place that of the summer-solstice, with the 1 Tho=
t; and that, consequently, they represent=
ed the
reign of Menes as comprising the corresponding epoch of the Sothic cycle, i=
.e.
the year B.C. 2785. And this epoch, in perfect harmony with our histori=
cal
results, is seen to fall within the limits of the possible epochs, deduced =
from
the "113 generations," and to differ by only 13 years from their =
most
probable epoch. Before I proceed further,=
I will
say a few words on the short systems of chronology, to which I have previou=
sly
referred. Mr. Nolan chiefly relies on the Old Chronicle; Mr. Osburn princip=
ally
on the monuments, in connection with the date of the Jewish exodus. Both ar=
rive
at their respective epochs of the reign of Menes by a process of chronologi=
cal
details, a discussion of which is necessarily excluded from the scope of th=
is
paper. The case is different with regard to the system of Mr. Poole. * He fixes the epoch in question
independently of those details, and on a cyclical and astronomical basis. In
the first place, Mr. Poole assumes the existence of what he terms a Tropical
cycle, comprising 1,500 vague years. Its epoch, which he refers to the year
B.C. 2005, he states to be marked by the vernal *
"Horae AEgyptiacae," pp. 20 sqq. 70 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
equinox, attended by the
occurrence of a new-moon, and the coincidence of the tropical and the vague
years. He further shows, that the Egyptians had great panegyrical periods, =
to
which he assigns a mean length of 365 1/4 Julian years, or an alternate
duration of 364 1/2 and 366 years; each panegyrical month consisting of 30
years, and being divided into twenty divisions of 1 1/2 years each, with 4 =
1/2
or 6 intercalary years at the end of each period. He then, finding that in =
the
reign of Amenemhe II. the commencement of the tropical cycle, as he interpr=
ets
a certain monumental inscription, is mentioned as having occurred in the co=
urse
of the twelfth division of the twelfth month of a panegyrical period: he re=
fers
this date to the year B.C. 2005, and thus is enabled to compute the epoch of
the corresponding panegyrical period to have been the year B.C. 2352, and t=
he
preceding epoch the year B.C. 2717, in which he places the commencement of =
the
reign of Menes. But this view, much as it contains that is true and importa=
nt,
contains undoubtedly much also that is erroneous and untenable. In the first
place, a tropical cycle of 1,500 vague years, having no astronomical basis,=
is
an extremely precarious period to assume without conclusive proofs. In the
absence of such proofs, it is altogether inadmissible. Mr. Poole quite
correctly states, that in the year B.C. 2005 the vernal equinox fell on the=
7
April; but, as he himself shows, even the astronomical new-moon did not
coincide with it, whilst the first visible phase, which we have alone to
consider in similar cases, occurred three days later, as the 1 Thot, fallin=
g on
the 7 January, did three months earlier. A further objection consists in the
assumed anomalous division of the month of 30 years in twenty parts of 1 1/2
years each, as being contrary to all chronological rule. Nor could the great
panegyrical period, con- THE EPOCH OF MENES. 71
nected with the Sothic pe=
riod,
have comprised, as he assumes, 1461/4 =3D365
1/4 Julian, but only 1460/4 =3D 365 Julian, or 1461/4 =3D 365 1/4 va=
gue
years; whence it follows, that the commencement of each period fell at first
successively on, or nearly on, the four cardinal points, differing subseque=
ntly
more and more from them. The panegyrical period must necessarily have consi=
sted
of regular cycles of 365 Julian years, divided into regular "months&qu=
ot;
of 30 years each, with regular intercalary "days" of 5 years. Its
first epoch would seem to have been that of the Sothic cycle B.C. 2785, - a
supposition, with which at least al=
l the
panegyrical dates, which Mr. Poole has read upon the monuments, agree. =
Mr.
Poole's hypothesis of "the Tropical cycle," therefore, being
inadmissible, his epoch for the reign of Menes must likewise be rejected, as
resting on no solid foundation. On the other hand, the im=
portance
of the discovery of Dr. Brugsch, which I have previously and fully establis=
hed
on historical and astronomical grounds, can, with reference to Egyptian
chronology, hardly be overrated. It completes the proof of the utterly
untenable nature of the chronological systems of Bunsen and Professor Lepsi=
us,
and causes the whole structure of chronological speculations, based on
Champollion's interpretation of the seasons, to fall to the ground. Accordi=
ng
to that interpretation it had to be assumed that, at the period of the
introduction of the Egyptian kalendar, the year commenced with the 1 Pachon
instead of the I Thot, as it was known to do subsequently. Hence, the epoch=
of
the year - 3285 was derived, in which - or rather in the year B.C. 3282,
erroneously substituted for it by Professor Lepsius - this savant places the
introduction of the Egyptian solar kalendar, although he finds himself under
the necessity of undertaking, without so much as a trace of historical
authority, its complete reform 500 years 72 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
later, namely, in - 2786 =
(B.C. 2782),
- a reform, which no chronologer could ever have accepted, and has now been=
proved to be simply the work of
Professor Lepsius' own imagination; so that the epochs of the years - 3285 =
and
- 1780, as bearing upon Egyptian chronology, will have to be consigned to
oblivion. We thus find the historical times of Egypt depressed to the year =
B.C.
2785; and the only question remaining to be solved is, whether the reign of
Menes be marked by that very epoch, or whether it fall posterior to it. The discovery of Dr. Brug=
sch
enables us to arrive at a definite conclusion upon this point, in as much a=
s it
fixes the introduction of the Egyptian kalendar to one of the epochs of the
Sothic cycle. The years B.C. 2785 and B.C. 1325 are such epochs. In both ye=
ars,
the 1 Thot, or the commencement of the year and of the season of inundation,
fell on the 20 July in the Julian kalendar; in both years the Sothis or
Dog-Star, the heliacal rising of which on the 1 Thot marked the epoch of the
Sothic period, did so rise on the 20 July. The real rise of the Nile at THE EPOCH OF MENES. 73
imperfect agreement of th=
e Sothic
period with the tropical year had already led to a difference of 11 days
between the kalendarian and the physical epochs of the inundation. This cir=
cumstance
alone might be regarded as decisive, but there are further proofs which giv=
e to
it an irresistible force. They are, independently of other historical
testimony, that the five intercalary days have, by Professor Lepsius, been
traced on the monuments up to the twelfth dynasty, consequently to a time m=
uch
anterior to the year B.C. 1326; and that Mr. Poole has adduced monumental
proofs of the occurrence of panegyrical dates up to the fourth dynasty, the
panegyrical period being but a subdivision of the Sothic cycle. But if the Sothic cycle w=
as in
use in 74 THE EPOCH OF MENES.
the most important legisl=
ative
measures, as a kalendarian system itself is one of the most important natio=
nal
institutions, which of necessity demands and supposes a contemporary founde=
r. Hence, our inquiry resolv=
es
itself into the simple question, whether Menes lived about the beginning of=
the
twenty-eighth century, or whether the accredited history of It is, of course, to be p=
resumed
that Menes, when he promulgated his kalendar, basing it on the astronomical
knowledge of his time, combined with those natural phenomena which Egypt, in
his days, offered as most suitable to his purpose, had already held the gov=
ernment
for a certain number of years; and that, consequently, the year B.C. 2785 d=
oes
not, strictly speaking, THE EPOCH OF MENES. 75
mark the commencement of =
his
government, - the true date of which may possibly
be the year B.C. 2797, as derived from the Sothis; - but the difference of
these few years is comparatively of little moment as compared with the main
fact, that the reign of the first historical king of Egypt comprehended the
epoch of the Sothic period, corresponding to the 20 July, B.C. 2785. From one of the astronomi=
cal
features attending that epoch, it would almost appear that at first the
Sothical and panegyrical festivals were observed at the full-moon; and that
only in the year B.C. 1325, when the shorter panegyrical periods had been f=
ound
not to keep in accordance with the lunar phases, the Apis cycle of 25 years=
was
introduced for this purpose, and the first phase of the new-moon, occurring=
on
the day of the first renewal of the Sothic period, was substituted for the
full-moon. Thus, at all events, the introduction of the Apis cycle in the y=
ear
B.C. 1325, which I have proved to be one of its epochs, - to supply the pla=
ce
of the panegyrical period of 30 years, also termed the Set period, - would =
be most
satisfactorily explained, although at present this is no more than a
conjecture, and it may possibly be found that the two cycles were in use
simultaneously; and that, as the period of 25 years, connected with the
occurrence of the new-moon and the worship of the Apis at Memphis, so the
period of 30 years may, independently of it, have been connected with the
occurrence of the full-moon and the older worship of the Mnevis at Heliopol=
is. Questions like these, how=
ever,
are necessarily excluded from the scope of the present paper, the only obje=
ct
of which has been to establish the historical antiquity of the people of MACKENZIE AND CARR1NGTON, NEW STREET. RECENT WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. The True Figure and Dimen=
sions of
the Earth, newly determined from the results of geodetic measurements and
pendulum observations; compared with the corresponding theoretical elements,
for the first time deduced upon purely geometrical principles, and consider=
ed
both with reference to the progress of scientific truth, and as bearing upon
the practical interests of British commerce and navigation; in a Letter,
addressed to George Biddell Airy, Esq., M.A., Astronomer Royal. With thirty
illustrative diagrams. Second Edition. OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. The profound respect whic=
h is due
to so great an astronomer as Newton has degenerated, we fear, into a specie=
s of
idol-worship; and relics of his are venerated, which, it may be, he himself
would now be one of the first to toss aside as worthless.... It is not for =
us
to enter into this great question, or to offer any opinion on it; but altho=
ugh
our prepossessions are all on the orthodox side in this instance, still, we
hail with satisfaction the endeavour of any able man of science, such as th=
is
author clearly is, to shake from its lofty pedestal the idol, before which
nearly all the orthodox so slavishly and superstitiously bow; and we trust that he will not be deter=
red
from urging his views to their final issue, by all the ultra-scientific
horror and the odium astronomicum
with which the slightest disrespect to the idol is regarded.... Such a subj=
ect ought to be candidly and boldly discus=
sed
with the new heretic by the orthodox, who should show him the error of his =
ways
if they can do so; and not slin=
k into
their stiff and safe shell-retreats of orthodoxy, as the Astronomer Royal d=
oes
in his somewhat laconic and highly dignified correspondence with Mr. von
Gumpach. There may be more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of ev=
en
in orthodox astronomy. Indeed, it is not long since the Astronomer Royal
himself admitted his perplexity on a cosmical subject but too likely to be
casually connected with the very point in question of the actual form and
dimensions of the earth.... Uncertainties such as the=
se among
astronomers, as well as their general ignorance on the subject of cometary
astronomy, ought to make them a little more humble, and a little less
supercilious in their intercourse with scientific heretics, than they are
inclined to be. This is not a subject, however, into which it is our provin=
ce
to enter: all we desire to do is to aid in bringing the new views of this
author before the public for discussion and settlement, as highly practical=
and
important ones. - The Builder.<=
/p>
Whatever may be the exten=
t of the
writer's abilities, he must expect to lie under the ban of orthodox
astronomers, who, as a rule, profess to hold in utter horror those, who evi=
nce
the slightest approach to disbelief in the theories of Sir Isaac Newton.
We must leave the judgmen=
t in
this matter in the hands of those, who have devoted themselves to the endle=
ss
study of the mighty science; but at the same time we would claim for the wr=
iter
of the volume under consideration the attention, due to his elaborate
exposition of his honestly conceived opinions. He asserts and demonstrates that the earth is a prolate, and not an oblate, spheroid. In other words, that instead of being flatten=
ed
it is elongated at the poles; and that there is an error of excess of nearly 167 miles in the calculation of the
earth's circumference at the equator.... Were Recent Works by the same =
Author. research in the interim, =
it may
reasonably be supposed that he would be the first to innovate upon his
preconceived theories, if he found in them the smallest error. He would be =
no blind
and deaf follower of error, because that error was his own, and would be
foremost in the ranks of those who seek to render more complete and perfect=
the
system which he instituted. He who confessed himself to be as a child on the
margin of the ocean of truth, would have been far less satisfied than are h=
is
disciples; and instead of throwing =
cold
water upon the efforts of those whose sole object is the filler development=
of
'truth, he would be the most ready to meet his opponents face to face. =
The
cause of truth can never suffer by investigation, and if Mr. von Gumpach is
wrong, nothing is easier than to pr=
ove
him so.... Good must arise from discussion; and if It is a daring act to att=
empt to
upset a theory, which has been established as true for several generations.=
We
know what was the punishment of the men who first set the earth and all the
planets revolving round the sun; and others have suffered as severely for
similar endeavours to set people right and alter all preconceived notions of
facts.... Fortunately, for the sake=
of
humanity and the interests of science and commerce, the important question =
here
at issue admits of a solution, at once simple and incontrovertible. It turns
altogether upon one single fact - the actual linear extent of the terrestri=
al equator;
and the author's main object is to direct the attention of Her Majesty's
Government to the subject, and to suggest the expediency of a scientific
expedition to the equator, for the purpose of ascertaining by measurement t=
he
linear extent of the earth's equatorial circumference, and thus to set the
general problem of the true figure of our globe for ever at rest.... M. von
Gumpach then proceeds to solve the problem theoretically.... Certainly, the
subject is of sufficient importance to command the attention of all scienti=
fic
men. - The Observer. The extreme importance of=
the
question raised is, we agree with the author, obvious, inasmuch as bearing =
upon
science it involves the destruction of the entire system of modern theoreti=
cal
and physical astronomy. - The Mining
Journal. We have all been told at =
school,
that Sir I. Newton first proved the Earth to be a spheroid generated by the
revolution of an ellipse round its minor axis; but brilliant as this theory=
is,
like everything emanating from so great a philosopher, we must not forget t=
hat
in science we do not seek brilliancy, but truth; and we have therefore
carefully perused a volume just published, by Johannes von Gumpach, entitle=
d,
"The True Figure and Dimensions of the Earth," in which the author
refutes Newton's theory, and endeavours to establish the startling proposit=
ion,
that the earth, instead of being de=
pressed,
is elongated at the poles, havi=
ng, in
fact, the shape of a lemon.... The Recent Works by the same =
Author. ments in favor of the pro=
late,
and not oblate, figure of the terrestrial spheroid. We should not omit observing here, that the question is of immense
importance to navigation. Suppose a captain, for instance, to have, on a
certain day, determined the position of his vessel by direct observation, a=
nd
then to continue his course according to his chart, being prevented by clou=
dy
weather from repeating his observations. His chart points out a sunken rock=
on
his track, say 100 miles from the place of his last observation; but he kee=
ps a
correct reckoning, and will take good care to avoid the point of danger; wh=
en
lo! while he still thinks himself five miles away from it, his vessel strik=
es -
and why? because the circumference of the earth is stated to be 167 miles
larger than it is; wherefore, having
commenced his reckoning from a true point, he continues it after an erroneo=
us
scale. We have no doubt that M.=
de
Gumpach is right in attributing many hundred disasters at sea to this cause=
.
- Galignani's Messenger. The volume before us is a=
learned
and ingenious composition, and is worthy of the serious attention of all who
take an interest in the subject. There can be no question either that to
determine, beyond all doubt, the arc of a degree at the equator would be a
great benefit to astronomical and geodetical science, and this is the object
the author has in view in the publication of his book. - The Daily News. Herr von Gumpach has give=
n us a
scientific treatise which is really lively. - The Morning Herald. The reader will easily se=
e, that
when we have granted that the earth is not truly spherical, we have, in fac=
t, given up its centre altogether. Wh=
at is
its centre? How do we know that it =
has a
centre? [Hence] it is manifest<=
/i>
that M. von Gumpach's view cannot be maintained for a moment. - The Parthenon. Some time ago, we said a =
few
words on Mr. von Gumpach and hit notion that great wealth and thousands of
lives are lost by the "abstract idea of universal gravitation,"
leading to a wrong figure of the earth. [The "notion" is too strikingly Athenaemish for any one to mistake its proprietorship.]... It v=
ery
often happens that speculators of a certain class, when we give them our
notice, represent us in their subsequent works either as agreeing with them=
, or
as coming much nearer to them than we should wish to be thought. We thank M=
r.
von Gumpach for sparing us the moment of annoyance which we confess we feel
when we see ourselves thus treated. He describes us as "the Athenaeum, which, so far as scienc=
e is
concerned, would appear to seize upon every opportunity of stultifying
itself" [and duly furnishes the proofs]. This is as it should be. When
persons are angry [oh, oh,] because journals do not side with them, they ta=
ke
for granted that the editor is in ignorance of what is going on, and that t=
he
job of quashing truth is due to some "back" or "scribe":
Mr. Gumpach, in a private note, [which the editor has been called upon, but=
has
declined, to place before his readers,] says, "subordinate." Now,=
we
may repeat, what we have said before, that every line in our columns which =
is
not noted, in one way or another, as coming from a correspondent, is what is
technically called editorial - that is, it expresses the corporate opinion =
of
the Athenaeum. We see it, we re=
ad it,
we add, we omit, or we modify [in short, we do "the job of quashing
truth" personally] as we s=
ee
need. We have no "subordinates." - The Athenaeum. It begins to be pretty we=
ll
understood that to offend Mr. Dixon is to lose all chance of any impartial
notice in the "Athenaeum." Really this shonld be seen to. If Mr.
Dixon chooses to make himself ridiculous, why, let him; but he surely ought=
not
to be allowed to misinform the public.... Did he not attack Macaulay on the
question of Penn's character? Yes; and was he not treated as he deserved by=
the
eloquent historian? - The Critic, for
May 17, 1862. Robert Hard=
wicke,
192, Piccadilly. Recent Works by the same =
Author. The Gospel-Narrative Vind=
icated;
or, the Roman Census, Luke ii. 1-5, explained, and, with reference to the
birthday of our Lord, for the first time established on independent histori=
cal
grounds. Practical Tables for the
Reduction of Mahometan Dates to the Christian Kalendar, computed for the us=
e of
astronomers, chronologers, historians, diplomatists, &c., with an
Introduction. Nearly read=
y: Baby-Worlds: an Essay on =
the
Nascent Members of our Solar Household; with an Appendix, containing
Dissertations and Papers on subjects incidental to the text. -----------=
Kritisch-Populaere Briefe ueber die Neuere Astronomie; auch unter dem
Titel: Grundzüge einer Neuen Weltlehre, Baud I. Die Gravitationstheorie
als Anzic hungslehre. - München, 1860, imperial 8vo. Der Prophet Habakkuk. Nach dem gründlich revidirten, zum erstenmal=
e in
seiner ursprünglichen Verbindung wiederhergestellten hebräischen =
Text
auf's neue übersetzt, eingeleitet und erklärt. - München, 18=
60,
8vo. Die Freudenbotschaft des Gottesrreiches. Eine auf chronologischem Grunde
angeordnete einheitliche Darstellung der Evangelischen Geschichte. - Munche=
n,
1860, 12mo. Abriss der Babylonisch-Assyrischen Geschichte, von dem Beginn des 25ten=
bis
in die letztere Hälfte des 6ten Jahrhunderts r. Chr., &c., mit
besonderer Rücksicht auf die Zeitfolge entworfen. - Mannheim, 1854, 8v=
o. Zwei Chronologische Abhandlungen: "Ueber den Apis-kreis" von
Professor R. Lepsius, und "Mémoire
où se trouve restitué pour la première fois le Calendr=
ier
lunisolaire chaldéo-macédonien," &c., von Th.
Henri Martin, kritisch
gewürdigt. Nebst einem Anhange über die, den
Makkabäerbüchern zu Grunde liegende Epoche der Seleucidischen AEr=
e. -
Heidelberg, 1854, 8vo. Ueber den Nutzen der Largeteauschen Sonnen- und Mondtafeln. - Heidelber=
g,
1854, 4to. Huelfsbuch der Rechnenden Chronologie, oder Largeteau's abgekürzte
Sonnen- und Mondtafeln zum Handgebranch für Astronomen, Chronologen,
Geschistsforscher und Andere herausgegeben, erweitert und erklärt, neb=
st
Beispielen ihrer praktischen Anwendung, - Heidelberg, 1853, 8vo. Eine Kritik und Antikritik, als Streitschrift wider Herrn Heinrich Ewal=
d,
aus den Heidelberger Jahrbüchern besonders abgedruckt, nebst einer
Einleitung. - Heidelberg, 1853, 8vo. Die Zeitrechnung der Babylonier und Assyrer, nebst Exkursen. - Heidelbe=
rg,
1852, 8vo. Alttestamentliche Studien. - Heidelberg, 1852, 8vo. May be had =
of Dulau
& Co., 37,
and the sixth day of
the 1 Paoni
and the 6 Paophi, respectively.
According to the kalendar of Professor Lepsius, they should have been rende=
red,
as a glance at our comparative
the first Athyr, by mistake for the 1 Mechir,
because in the next following page he renders the first day of
the first Paophi. According to the kalendar of Professor Lepsius, the for=
mer
date should have been translated the 1 Paoni.
In this kalendar the 1 Mechir answers to the 17 December, in that of
Champollion to the 15 April; in the former the 1 Paoni to the 15 April, in =
the
latter to the 19 August.
the 28 Epiphi; being, as he interprets the text, the day on which Siri=
us
then rose heliacally in the vague year; and so little conscious of the effe=
ct
of Professor Lepsius' kalendarian reform is even this distinguished
Egyptologist, that he remarks: "Personne n'a élevé d'objection contre la notation des dou=
ze
mois de l'année Égyptienne, depuis le célèbre
mémoire de Champollion." Yet a glance at the kalendar of
Professor Lepsius shows that, according to him, the date in question
, "the month of Choiac;" and a glance at his kalendar, p. 14, shows us tha=
t,
had not his own kalendarian reform, in the year B.C. 2782, completely slipp=
ed
from his memory, he should have rendered that date, " the month of Pharmuti" In page 109, Profes=
sor
Lepsius translates
, "the month of Mechir;" and again we find that,
,
and
, the months of "Thot" of "Cho=
iac"
and of "Mechir,"
respectively; whereas his own kalendar required, that he should have render=
ed
those groups as the months of "Tybi"
of "Pharmuti," and of
"Paoni," respectively.
Hence, as the author of "Champollion's reformed kalendar" so
completely ignores its existence himself, we may now consign it to oblivion,
together with the purely imaginary foundation, on which it was imagined to
rest.
would no longer represent the month=
of Pachon, but that of Thot; in the former case, it would continue to represent the mo=
nth
of Pachon. And similarly as reg=
ards
the other hieroglyphic months. That is to say, if Dr. Brugsch's rendering of
the hieroglyphic tetramenies is
correct, Champollion's rendering of the months
is so: but if Champollion's translation of the Egyptian seasons be true, his designation of the months rests on an error.
, (the 17) Paophi * =3D
, and the epoch
. Hence, assuming the Greek translator =
to
have been consistent in his rendering of the Egyptian dates, as we are fully
entitled to do, we find that, in conformity with his general nomenclature, =
(the
18) Mechir must have been expre=
ssed
in the hieroglyphic text by the group
.
, the
epoch Thot, that, because the expression equally applies to the normal Egyptian year, in which that
epoch coincided with the mean epoch of the rising Nile, Champollion's
interpretation of the seasons m=
ust be
incorrect, and that the kalendar of Dr. Brugsch represents the true kalenda=
r of
the Egyptians.
, the 1
Pachon, in conformity with Champollion's kalendar; secondly, with
, the 1
Thot, in conformity with Professor Lepsius' kalendar; and thirdly, with=
, the 1
Thot, in conformity with Dr. Brugsch's kalendar, for the given Julian d=
ates
the corresponding Egyptian dates, the latter should answer to the given
Egyptian dates; and in whichever kalendar they do so, that kalendar truly
represents the Egyptian kalendar. The result is exhibited in the annexed ta=
ble.
(1. Thot)
(1 Pachon)
(1. Thot)
(1. Thot)
(17 Paophi)
(17 Paoni)
(17 Paophi)
(17 Paophi)
(18 Mechir)
(18 Paophi)
(18 Mehir)
(18 Mechir)
(30 Mesori)
(30 Pharmuti)
(30 Mesori)
(30 Mesori)
=
=3D
1 Pachon, in that of Professor Lepsius
=
=3D
1 Thot, and in that of Dr. Brugsch
=
=3D
1 Thot, in the normal Egyptian year, correspond to the 20 July in the Julia=
n kalendar.
But, according to the tablets, Saturn f.i. entered the zodiacal sign of
on the fifth day of the third month=
, in
the ninth regnal year of the Emperor Trajan =3D A.D. 105. The astronomical =
event
occurred about the 1-2 November, A.D. 105. Assuming, hereupon, the intervals
between this and each successive date, given in the tablets, for Saturn's e=
ntry
of a new sign, to be the true intervals, - which we may do, without any
material error, for the sake of greater conformity, - we obtain the given Julian dates, and
, Brugsch read it
; and while the former read the =
numeral
of the day 25, the latter read it 24. At my request, therefore, Dr. Brugsch
himself has caused the actual reading to be verified; and with that zeal for
truth and good faith, which characterises all his researches, has lost no t=
ime
in informing me that he is in error, and that Young's reading not only is t=
he
true one, but that the date of the text also is in a perfect state of
preservation. ‡
, given by Young, is the month of
"Choiac"; and, if a blunder have been committed, it certainly was
committed rather by those, who charged Dr. Brugsch with it, and,
notwithstanding their acceptance of the Lepsiusian reform, continued to term
the month Choiac the month "Mesori" in positive contradiction with
themselves. This is, of course, said with reference to the reading of Young=
. On
the other hand, in regard to Dr. Brugsch's reading, those same Egyptologist=
s,
supposing them to reject Professor Lepsius' reform, would, in virtue of
Champollion's nomenclature of the months, also have found
to correspond to the month Choiac. Hence, whichever reading m=
ight
by them have been considered the true one, they
could consistently have arrived=
at no
other month for the date in question, save the very date, (erroneously) giv=
en
by Dr. Brugsch.
. He is usually designated as Takelut I=
I.
Professor Lepsius * makes him =
out to
be the son and immediate successor of Sesonk (II.)
, and Mr. Birch has been asserted by Mr.
Basil H. Cooper to approve of this genealogical "arrangement;" † while Dr. Brugsch's state=
ment,
assuming Takelut (II.) to be the son of Osorkon (II.)
, has by the same unscrupulous
"canon"-izer of Egyptian history - Mr. Cooper - been characterise=
d as
"a rash and inconsistent conjecture;" and in proof of which,
"the genealogy of the XXII. dynasty, as satisfactorily cleared up in
Lepsius's admirable monograph," is quoted as an authority. ‡
=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
Season of the
Season of winter.
Season of summer.