_PALMER ON EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY._
Having probed the chronologies of India, Babylonia, Phoenicia,[75]
China, &c., and having found that one and all, when touched with the
talisman of history, shrink within the limits of the Septuagint, and
even of the Hebrew text, we come, perforce, to the conclusion, that
there is one nation, and one only, which presents a _primâ facie_
antiquity irreconcileable with Holy Writ--viz. Egypt.
[75] _Vide ante_ ch. iv.; and also _vide_ Palmer, i. 49.
This impression is sustained by the knowledge, somewhat indefinite
and in something disturbed, that the Egyptian tradition had always
attributed a fabulous antiquity to the dynasties of its kings, and
that these dynasties have been marvellously resuscitated through the
discovery which has enabled us to decipher the inscriptions on their
tombs and monuments.
My reader need not fear, however, lest I should plunge him into the
chaos of hieroglyphics; not, indeed, that much has not been rescued
from the abyss, and that there is not good expectation of more to come,
but when once it is established, as we may now consider to be the case,
that many of these dynasties were cotemporaneous, and not successive,
an uncertainty is introduced which again reduces the chronology to
primitive chaos, although floating objects in it, the _débris_ of
tombs and dynasties, remain clearly distinguishable, and, in point of
fact, have been perfectly identified. If we had no other evidence,
I should feel irresistibly drawn to the dictum of M. Mariette (ap.
Mgr. Meignan, "L'Homme Primitif," p. 391), "Le plus grand de tous les
obstacles à l'établissement d'une chronologie égyptienne regulière,
c'est que les Egyptiens eux-mêmes n'ont jamais eu de chronologie."
I shall, on the contrary, from another point of view, attempt to show,
not only that they had a chronology, but that this chronology has
actually been re-discovered and re-constituted.
In the conviction that this is the case, and that it is not
sufficiently known that it is so, I shall devote some space to an
abstract of Mr William Palmer's "Egyptian Chronicles" (1861), in which
it appears to me that this exposition and solution is to be found.
Mr Palmer at least has brought the Egyptian chronology (upon the system
of the Old Chronicle) to so close a reconciliation with Scripture (upon
the basis of a collation of the Septuagint and Josephus), that we have
a right to compare any Egyptologist making an attempt to advance into
the interior to the monuments, whilst disregarding it, to a commander
leaving an important fortress in his rear.[76] As Mr Palmer takes his
stand upon the Old Chronicle, and as the Old Chronicle has been in
considerable disrepute with Egyptologists (Bunsen, i. 216), I do not
see that I can adopt a better plan of bringing the whole subject before
the reader, than by confronting Mr W. Palmer's discovery and exposition
with Baron Bunsen's strictures on the Old Chronicle.
[76] And yet, with the exception of Professor Rawlinson's "Manual
of Ancient History," where mention is made of Mr Palmer's
work as among eight principal works to be referred to on the
subject of Egyptian chronology, and of a series of articles in
the _Month_ on the same subject, I do not recollect to have
seen allusion made to it. A previous perusal of the articles
in the _Month_ above referred to will greatly facilitate the
study of this question.
Bunsen (i. 214-217) says (the italics are mine)--
"'The Egyptians,' says Syncellus, 'boast of a certain Old
Chronicle, by which also, in my opinion, Manetho (the impostor) was
led astray.' ... The origin of this fiction is obvious. Its object,
as well as that of the pseudo-Manetho, is to represent the great
year of the world of 36,525 years, or twenty-five Sothic cycles.
The _timeless_ space of the book of Sothis becomes the rule of
Vulcan.... _The number fixed for the other gods, 3984, is quite
original_; perhaps it may not be mere accident that it agrees with
the computation of some chronographers for the period from the
Creation to B.C. The dynasty of the demigods reflects the
same judicious moderation as in the scheme of the pseudo-Manetho
(214-1/2). Then comes a series of corruptions of the genuine
Manetho, _i.e._, of the Manetho of the thirty historical Egyptian
dynasties. He is, however, confounded with the Manetho of the
Dog-star, and hence it is that the fifteen dynasties of Manetho are
called the fifteen dynasties of the Sothiac cycle. _But how is the
number 443 to be explained?_ Is this entry to be understood in the
same sense as the similar one in Clemens, namely, that the first
fifteen dynasties comprehended the 443 years prior to the beginning
of the last cycle, consequently prior to 1322? or is it simply
taken, with a slight alteration by Eusebius, to the fourteenth
and fifteenth dynasties (435)? The following dates for the length
of reigns are in the gross _evidently_ borrowed from Eusebius....
In the sequel, there is no more reckoning by dynasties, but
seventy-five generations are numbered, in order to make up the 113
of Manetho. So palpable is that,.... Lastly, the dates and numbers
... are brought into shape by various arbitrary expedients; but
Eusebius on all occasions appears as the authority.... As the
dates of the individual dynasties now run, 184 years are wanting
to make up the promised 36,525 years. _It is scarcely worth while
to inquire where the mistake lies._" He finally pronounces the Old
Chronicle to be the compilation of a Jewish or Christian impostor
of the third century, or later.
As Mr Palmer has not directly adverted to this passage from Bunsen in
his "Egyptian Chronicles," I will give an extract from a letter which I
have received from Mr Palmer on the subject, which will clear off some
of the tissues of confusion into which the strictures of Baron Bunsen
have got entangled.
"I assert, in the first instance (there being nothing whatever
to the contrary), that we have the Old Chronicle in a _perfectly
genuine form, i.e._ in the text of Syncellus and Africanus, but
by no means in Bunsen; and further, that it really is, and they
from whom we have it _tell us it was_, the oldest Greco-Egyptian
writing of the kind current in the time of Africanus.... Bunsen
pronounces the Old Chronicle to be the compilation of a Jewish or
Christian impostor of the third century ('Eusebius appearing on all
occasions as the authority,' &c.) In the _Old Chronicle_, as given
by Syncellus and Africanus, there is _nothing whatever_ borrowed
from Eusebius; but Eusebius has borrowed from and altered the Old
Chronicle, so as to suit his own sacred chronology. The 'Book of
Sothis,' too, has worked up and altered the Old Chronicle, with
which it is by no means to be identified.... But I deal with three
so-called Manethos--viz. (1.) the original Manetho of Josephus and
Eratosthenes, who had only twenty-three historical dynasties of
his total of thirty dynasties (the Old Chronicle, from which he
took the number of thirty, having twenty-nine historical and one
[that of the sun god] unhistorical); (2.) the Manetho of Ptolemy
of Mendes, which is the Manetho of Africanus, who has thirty-one
dynasties, all pretending to be historical; and, lastly, the
Manetho of the 'Book of Sothis,' used by Anianus and Panadorus
(to which last alone Bunsen's ... mention of 'fifteen dynasties
of the Dog-star' refers).... If any figures in the Manetho of the
'Book of Sothis' of the fifth century A.D., are borrowed
from Eusebius, there is nothing in this, Eusebius himself having
used and altered the Old Chronicle before, just as the author of
the Book of Sothis or Anianus may have used Eusebius and the old
chronicle. But I am not now dealing with the question of fact,
whether Eusebius' figures were so followed or not.... When Bunsen
says, 'Perhaps it may not be mere accident that the figures 3984
agrees,' &c.; he should have said rather that some 'chronographers'
'agree' 'with it,' and perhaps so agree not by accident. I do
not remember whether any one, or who in particular, of modern
chronographers agree with it; but certainly if any do, it is _quite
by accident_. The number 3984, as given by the Old Chronicle to
Chronos and the other twelve gods, has no relation whatever to any
reckoning of the year of the world to Christ; and a chronologer
might as well adapt his sum of years from the Creation to Christ,
or to any other fanciful number, as to this. The truth is, that
with the shorter numbers of the Vulgate, many chronologers have
made out sums of about four thousand years, some rather more, some
less."
In the somewhat lengthened extract which I have made (_sup._ p. 94)
from Bunsen, _four_ figures (3984, 217, 443, and 184) will have struck
the eye, which baffle even Bunsen's penetration, and only make twice
confounded what was confused before. But what if these four figures
should all be accounted for? and, when accounted for, fitted into the
chronology so as to be in keeping, not only with the other figures of
the Chronicle, but also with the systems of Manetho and Eratosthenes,
as exactly as "the key fits the wards of the lock?" (_vide infra_, p.
332), will not the matter begin to wear a different aspect? When the
figures are shown to be imbedded in all the different systems which
have been transmitted to us, will it then be said that the figures
"are evidently borrowed from Eusebius?" But, in fact, it is also
demonstrated by internal evidence that the Chronicle, as we have it,
must be referred to the date 305 B.C.
This, then, is how the argument stands; but it is a matter of some
difficulty to compass Mr Palmer's elaborate argument, and I cannot
attempt to do more than to indicate its most salient points.
Premising that the Sothic cycle (a period of 1461 vague, or 1460 fixed
sidereal years) was connected by the Egyptians with their recurring
periods of transformation and renovation ("common to the mythologies
of Egypt and India"), and also that two such periods (1461 × 2) = 2922
corresponded with the antediluvian period, or rather with the sum
of the lives or reigns of the antediluvian patriarchs, inclusive of
survivors of the Deluge, with something added in order to throw the
whole into cyclical form, all which is shown in detail in "Egyptian
Chronicles," i. 23-37, I may now proceed to Mr Palmer's analysis of
the scheme of the Old Chronicle, which is thus given by Syncellus,
"probably from the Manetho of Africanus" (Palmer's "Egypt. Chron.," i.
7):--
"There is extant among the Egyptians a certain Old Chronicle,
the source, I suppose, which led Manetho astray, exhibiting xxx
dynasties and again cxiii generations, with an infinite space of
time (not the same either as that of Manetho), viz. three myriads,
six thousand five hundred and twenty-five years--1st, Of the
Aeritæ; 2dly, Of the Mestræans; and, 3dly, Of the Egyptians,--being
word for word as follows:--
[Dynasty I. to XV. inclusive of the chronicle of the gods]:--
Time of Phtha there is _none_, as he shines equally by
night and by day [but all generations being from him]
[First dynasty] [Greek: Hêlios] [_i.e._ Ra, the sun-god],
son of Phtha, reigned three myriads of years, 30,000
Then [Dynasty II. to XIV. inclusive, and generations
II. to XIV. inclusive] [Greek: Kronos] [or [Greek:
Chronos], _i.e._ Seb], and all the other xii
gods [who are the Aeritæ perhaps of Eusebius and
Africanus], reigned years 3984
Then [Dynasty XV.] viii demigod kings [the Mestræans of
Eusebius and Africanus] reigned [as viii generations
but one dynasty], years 217
And after them xv generations _of the Cynic cycle_ were
registered in years 443
Then Dynasty XVI. of Tanites, generations viii, years 190
Then Dynasty XVII. of Memphites, generations iv, years of
the same generations 103
After whom there followed--
Dynasty XVIII. of Memphites, generations xiv, years of
the same generations 348
Then Dynasty XIX. of Diospolites, generations v, years 194
Then Dynasty XX. of Diospolites, generations viii, years
of the same generations 228
Then Dynasty XXI. of Tanites, generations vi, years 121
Then Dynasty XXII. of Tanites, generations iii, years 48
Then Dynasty XXIII. of Diospolites, generations ii, years
of the same generations 19
Then Dynasty XXIV. of Saites, generations iii, years 44
Besides whom is to be reckoned--
Dynasty XXV. of Ethiopians, generations iii, years of the
same generations 44
After whom again there followed--
Dynasty XXVI. of Memphites, generations vii, years of the
same generations 177
And then after--
Dynasty XXVII.
[Here the designation, generations, and years are
purposely omitted; but the years are implied by the
sum total, which follows below, to be certainly 184]
Dynasty XXVIII. of Persians, generations v, years of the same
generations 124
Then Dynasty XXIX. of Tanites, generations , years 39
And, lastly, after all the above--
Dynasty XXX. of one Tanite king, years
------
Generations cxiii, years 36,525
Sum of all the years of the XXX. Dynasties, three myriads, six
thousand five hundred and twenty-five (Kings 1881 years)."
These 36,525 years, when divided by 1461, the Sothic cycle (as noted
by Syncellus), give the quotient xxv. We need not digress into the
conjectural reasons why twenty-five such periods were taken, rather
than any other number. We will be content at starting to see in its
relation to the cycle evidence of the purely fictitious character of
its myriads of years, and a clue to the significance of the indication,
"after them xv generations of the Cynic cycle," &c.
Mr Palmer (i. xxiii.) says, that the question which first suggested
itself to him was--
"To what Sothic cycle are these 443 years or xv generations said
to belong?" [for there was the doubt whether there was any _real_
Sothic cycle at all.] "For a Sothic cycle is not merely a space
of 1461 Egyptian years, but it is that particular space of 1461
such years, and that only, which begins from the conjunction
of the movable new year or Thoth, with the heliacal rising of
Sirius, fixed to 20th July of our Gregorian calendar for that part
of Egypt which is just above Memphis.... For the author of a
chronicle ending with Nectanebo, or at any date between the Sothic
epochs, 20th July B.C. 1322 (the known commencement of a cycle),
and 20th July A.D. 139, 'the Sothic cycle,' could only mean the
cycle _actually_ current" [_i.e._ B.C. 1322 to A.D. 139 = 1461]....
"After this discovery, if the perception of a truism can be called
a discovery, it followed naturally to observe further that in
constructing a fanciful scheme ... ending at any other date than a
true cyclical epoch, the first operation ... must be to _cut off
all those years of the true current cycle_ which were yet to run
out, below the date fixed upon, and to throw them back so that
they might be reckoned _as past_ instead of being looked forward
to as future. This, then, was what the author of the Old Chronicle
had done; and, with an ironical humour common among the Egyptians,
he had told his readers to their faces the nature of his trick,
ticketing and labelling the key to it (the 443 years) and tying it
in the lock, or rather leaving it in the lock itself." Counting,
then, back 139 years of the 443 "from the 20th July A.D. 139 to
20th July B.C. 1, and 304 more from 20th July B.C. 1, we come to
20th July in 305 B.C. (if the years be fixed, sidereal, or solar
years), or to 8th November 305, if they be (as they really are)
vague Egyptian years" (305 B.C. being the year in which Ptolemy
Lagi assumed the crown).
[For the discrepancy between this date and the conquest of Ochus, "at
which the series of the Chronicle ostensibly ends," _vide_ "Egypt.
Chron.," p. xxiv.]
Let the reader now return to the scheme of the chronicle (_sup._ p.
97). The analysis of the whole sum, 36,525 years, gives 30,000 years
(to the sun), + 3984 (to xiii gods), + 217 (to viii demigods), + 443
(to the Sothic cycle), + 1881 to kings from Menes to Nectanebo (the
last native sovereign).
So far we have only 1881 years, corresponding to an historical period,
+ 443 of the cycle thrown up. It has been previously noted, however,
that 2922 (two Sothic cycles) correspond to the antediluvian and
patriarchal period (i. 37). The intricate part of the scrutiny will
be found in the discrimination of the 2922 years (which, with 217 +
1881, make up the sequence of human time, A.M., to Nectanebo) from the
figures 3984 years in the analysis above.
For the full and scientific discrimination, I must refer the reader to
"Egyptian Chronicles," i. 17; but for a simple demonstration, we may
take the historical figures as above--viz. 2922 + 217 + 1881, added to
the figures thrown in to complete the cycle (_vide infra_), viz. 341 +
483, all which figures = 5844, and deduct them from the whole cyclical
number thus--
36,525
5,844
------
30,681
Now, reverting to the scheme of the Chronicle, we shall see the round
number 30,000 years (being as it were an Egyptian month, in thousands
of years instead of days) apportioned off to the sun-god. To obtain
this round number, the fractional number 681 would have to be detached,
and there being at hand the cyclical number 2922 years (two perfect
Sothic cycles), any number in reason of fractional remainders might
be added to it, since with the symmetrical nucleus, the agglomeration
would always be recognisable by the initiated, _i.e._ by the priests.
The 681 years were therefore added to 2922, and also the 341 fictitious
years ("to make time from the beginning to run in the form of Sothic
cycles") were added, because _there_ they would cause no confusion;
"whereas if they had been added to the 217 years of the demigods, no
one could any longer have distinguished the original fraction."
We thus collect, therefore, those various figures into the sum which
was the figure of difficulty--viz. 3984 (681 + 2922 + 341 + 40), the
_forty_ years included having merely reference to the point at which
the current Sothic cycle was thrown up--being the years intervening
between the flight of Nectanebo in B.C. 345, and the coronation of
Ptolemy Lagi in B.C. 305.
Upon his own method, based upon Josephus, who follows in the main
the Septuagint ("on a principle of compromise such as all readers,
_whatever_ may be their system, may agree in accepting provisionally,
and as an approximation"), Mr Palmer (i. 22-29) brings the Scripture
A.M. to B.C. 1, to a synchronism of "five years four months" and some
days, with the Egyptian computation.
But the same key is made to unlock all the systems of Egyptian
chronology, and in the course of his two volumes of close and learned
investigation, Mr Palmer demonstrates that "Manetho, Eratosthenes,
Ptolemy of Mendes, Diodorus, Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, Anianus,
Panodorus, and Syncellus, have, either of themselves or by following
others, transferred dynasties, generations, and years of the gods and
demigods of the Chronicle, and even fifteen generations of Ptolemies
and Cæsars, as yet unborn at the date of the Chronicle, to kings after
Menes."
Let the above scheme of the Chronicle be compared, for instance, with
the scheme of Diogenes Laertius (which Mr Palmer conjectures, upon
intrinsic evidence, to have been transmitted through Aristotle).
Diogenes Laertius' whole figure is 48,863 years, which contains for its
fictitious part _thirty_ times 1461 = 43,830, which, being deducted
from 48,863,
43,830
------
5,033
leaves 5033 for "true human time." Now 5033 years are equal to those
2922 years + 217 years + 1881 years, which alone in the Chronicle
belong properly and originally to the xiii gods and viii demigods and
the last xv dynasties of the kings from Menes to Nectanebo, with only
thirteen surplus years, _i.e._ from the conquest of Darius Ochus to
Alexander; "seemingly to the autumn of B.C. 332, when he first entered
Egypt."
Here I might conclude my outline of Mr Palmer's scheme, so far as is
necessary to the vindication of the Chronicle as against Bunsen, were
it not for the remaining figure (all the others, if the reader will
refer back, have been accounted for)--viz. 184, to which Bunsen refers.
This figure is shown to correspond with the 184 years of the Hyksos or
Shepherds (i. 134, 135, _et seq._, 155, 285, 299). Dynasty XXVII., to
which the 184 years in the Chronicle are attributed, has been displaced
from between Dynasties XVII. and XVIII. of the Chronicle, and its
184 years are "restored to their true place and to the Shepherds by
Manetho," and are given "by the Theban priests, _i.e._ by Eratosthenes,
suppressing the Shepherds, to the kings of Upper Egypt."
As regards Manetho (i. 284) "having, besides the 1881 years of the
Chronicle, 1674 additional years of kings, of which (22 + 217 =
) 239 only are in themselves, though not in their attributions,
chronological, and having given of these 1491 (which are thrice 477
and 60 over) to his six early dynasties of _Lower_ Egypt (and sixteen
inconvenient years he isolated between his Dynasties XIV. and XV.,
so as to include them in his Book i.), he gave to the three early
dynasties of _Upper_ Egypt _no other unchronological years_ than two
complementary sums, the one of 43 (to the first), and the other, of 124
years, to the second of the three dynasties, that these same sums might
both coalesce with the remainder of sixty years belonging to the sum of
the six dynasties of Lower Egypt, so as to make with it, or rather to
indicate, the one of them the sum of 103, the other the sum of 184."
_Vide_ table, p. 285.... Sum of six dynasties of Lower Egypt, 1491.
But this sum 1491 is equivalent to
190 + 103 + 184 = 477
190 + 103 + 184 = 477
190 + 103 + 184 = 477
---- But 60
(1431 + 60) = 1491 43
----
(1431 + 60) + 43 = 103
(43 of Dyn. XIV. of Upper Egypt.)
(1431 + 60)
124
----
184 (124 of Dyn. XV. of Upper
Egypt in Book ii.)
The place of the 184 years of the Shepherd Dynasty will be seen as
clearly in the analysis of Eratosthenes' scheme F. in "Egyptian
Chronicles" (i. 299), and if I had space I should like to give it _in
extenso_, because it is upon his 1076 from Menes to XVIII. Dynasty,
that Bunsen mainly relies for his fundamental theory (Bunsen's "Egypt,"
ii. xvi.) As the confutation of Bunsen does not enter into Mr Palmer's
plan, I think it worth while to add, that these 1076 years are thus
made up 477, the true historical length of the epoch (from Menes
to XVIII. Dynasty), as we know from the chronicle (_vide_ Palmer's
_supra_), hence the significance of this figure in table above, + 443
of the cycle added, + 156 of Dyn. XVIII. encroached upon[77] for the
symmetrical purpose displayed in scheme F, in which scheme it will be
seen that the 184 years of the Shepherds again enter as a constituent
part.
[77] It will be understood that, in the above scheme and
throughout, Mr Palmer assumes the existence of cotemporaneous
dynasties elsewhere demonstrated. It is admitted, on all
hands, that cotemporary dynasties ceased with the XVIII.
Dynasty; and, in the other direction, all schemes commence
with Menes. If, then, this interval of time is known or
determined by one part of a scheme (as it is known from
the chronicle to be 477 years), and at the same time, the
exigences of the case (owing to fictitious additions) require
the location of other figures within the interval, then the
super-additions must overlap (apparently to those who know
477 years to be the true historical figure) at one end or
the other. One hundred and fifty-six years (as above) is the
extent of the overlapping (the 443 years of the cycle standing
apart) in the scheme of Eratosthenes.
But as I am merely indicating the scheme, and not elaborating the
argument, I must here part company with Mr Palmer. If, however, any
one wishes to examine the question more in detail, and seeks to know
in what manner the years in the above scheme are apportioned among the
different generations and dynasties, he must take up with Mr Palmer at
i. p. 300. My purpose is sufficiently answered by establishing that
a scheme exists, if not irrefutable, at least up to this unconfuted,
which perfectly harmonises the scriptural with the Egyptian chronology.