archives of Thebes, where a register was kept of every king there recognised as such, and how long he reigned. By this means a coherent chronology could be framed (which is exactly what we require), and it would appear whether the sovereigns recognised at Thebes were always the legal sovereigns or not.

In the English edition I have carried out this argument more strictly and consecutively, by showing that the kings who, in Eratosthenes, come immediately before the 12th Dynasty, are not those of the 8th and 11th, but of the 11th only. Apollodorus tells us that Eratosthenes only entered Theban Kings, i.e. such as were recognised at Thebes. The Nantef family seems, from a variety of authentic evidence, to have been a long time dominant at Thebes before it was generally recognised throughout the whole empire as the 11th Dynasty.

I have thus recapitulated the main points of chronology on which Lepsius and myself are at issue. Though I do not deny their importance, still they may be called unimportant as compared with the complete agreement in all our fundamental views of history and chronological assumptions, as contrasted with all other writers on the subject. I think I have shown more strongly than ever, in the Fourth Book, how untenable and unfounded every other system is. This is true, indeed, not only as regards those which rest upon rabbinical prejudices, but such also as arise out of ignorance of the Egyptian monuments and records. Manetho's work is compiled from records, some of which are still extant. Böckh, the Nestor and master of philological criticism, would never have hit upon the unfortunate idea of representing the genuine historical work of an able investigator in the time of Philadelphus, whose age, position, and character as an author we can define with precision, as one of systematic compromise, and therefore in reality fabulous, if he had had access to the

above monuments and records when he was composing his ingenious work upon Manetho. That some of his successors should have taken advantage of his great name (and not always honestly) in order to depreciate Manetho and Egyptian research, is matter of regret, but not therefore excusable; for facts and records are stronger than all theories. I have the greater satisfaction, therefore, in finding that further research has furnished a brilliant confirmation of the fundamental view adopted by my revered friend, as it was to some extent by Scaliger before him—namely, that Manetho's history bears a certain relation to the Canicular cycle of 1460 years. I think I have also proved, in the fourth book, that his singular division of the thirty dynasties into three books can only have arisen from his having had in view (and upon historical grounds indeed) the expiration of one of the two Canicular cycles which occur in the course of Egyptian history. The 11th and 19th Dynasties, with which, according to my chronology, his second and third books commence, have this in common, that in the Theban dynasties which precede them both (the 7th and 19th) a Sirius cycle was concluded. The 11th is the first new dynasty in the second historical cycle; the 20th, the first in the third and last.

The historical character, therefore, of his work is not only unimpeached, when we find such a striking explanation, but it stands out in direct contrast to the mythical or cyclical method. For, according to it, the former cycle would have coincided exactly with the close of the 17th; the latter, with the close of the 19th. But this is notoriously not the case.

All the monuments and facts which have come to light in the last twenty or thirty years confirm its historical character, as well as that of his authorities.

The Lists, therefore, which have been compiled from it are thoroughly historical, even in the Old Empire. In it, nevertheless, the chronological succession or cal

culation of the length of it, is not accurate. The Canon of Eratosthenes first gave it correctly, and Apollodorus followed the same method by restoring the chronology of the Hyksos period entirely from the Theban Lists of Pharaohs who reigned there, while the Shepherd Kings at Memphis ruled over Lower Egypt.

The notation, succession, and enumeration of the dynasties themselves in Manetho deserve, therefore, the highest respect, even with regard to the Old Empire: how absurd then is the notion that by a dynasty he means, in the New Empire, an epoch, and not a family having historical cohesion in itself! The confusion in the 18th and 19th Dynasties is easily accounted for by the numerous epitomes that were made by Jewish and Christian writers. Amasis, before his elevation, may have been a poor broken-down descendant of the eldest Necho or Psammetichus, and have passed for being one of the people. This is no reason for doubting the tradition of Herodotus; still less should we, on that account, be puzzled by Manetho, who pushed his dynastic principle so far as to make a whole dynasty out of the unfortunate Bocchoris. He was the first and last king of his race.

The dynastic method is, in fact, the genuine Egyptian basis of all historical writing, and not the invention of Manetho. We find it adopted already in the Turin papyrus, which dates from the commencement of the New Empire. On the contrary, the weak point in Egyptian tradition is this, that the dynastic arrangement predominates so much as to throw historical chronology into the background. It is in Eratosthenes that we first find a chronological series, without the dynastic division. This purely chronological method is also foreign to the Egyptian mind, because they arranged everything by dynasties. The methodical Hellene found that in the archives of Thebes those who had reigned there were recorded chronologically, that is, those who were there recognised as kings. It was the very thing which

was wanting, and of which historical research stood in need. Hence arose not the dynastic, but annalistic, notation, which has come down to us in a very sad state, but still is carried on continuously as an uninterrupted series during the 1076 years of the Old Empire.

The List of Apollodorus did the same for the New Empire. Unfortunately the statement of the length of the period, which accompanied this List of Theban Kings, has been lost. Syncellus, indeed, did not think it worth his while to copy the names of its 53 kings. But it is clear that the Theban annals had not then so much historical importance as they possessed in the Old Empire. The Theban Kings were then tributaries: the supreme power resided in the Hyksos at Memphis. Manetho consequently computed this period by Memphite sovereigns, and only introduced the Theban Kings for the chronology during the struggle which lasted 150 years for Memphis and Central Egypt. Amos was the first lord of Memphis, for which reason the Hyksos dynasties disappear from the scene, although it was not till the reign of Tuthmōsis III., the 5th King of the 18th Dynasty or of the house of Amos, that they were obliged to evacuate the frontier fortress of Avaris (Pelusium). We shall see that the restoration of the history of that period from the monuments confirms this. Amos, the chief of the dynasty, must have possessed Memphis and the flat country below it; for his immediate successors, if not he himself, waged war in Asia.

In all this, therefore, there is neither contradiction nor confusion.

In Manetho, accordingly, as well as with regard to all the other portions of Egyptian history, a dynasty must have meant, what the word implies, a single reigning family, and one carried on in the male line. The husband of an heiress might, according to the letter of the Egyp

tian constitution, equally well form a new family, as one who had no relationship in blood, or a foreign prince. It is true that internal dissensions and disputes, as to the preference of the claims of heiresses or their sons, may have caused differences of opinion in cases which appear to be identical. What took place in any particular instance must be learned from Manetho and his authorities. But the principle is undoubted, that a new male line began a new dynasty, and still more, therefore, did an entirely new princely family. A king standing alone formed a new dynasty for himself. Foreign rulers carried on the succession of the Pharaohs as long as they possessed Memphis (or Memphis and Thebes). We cannot, therefore, see how we can be justified in making the 18th Dynasty commence with the son, brother, grandson, and great-grandson of kings; but, in conformity with the lists published by Africanus and Eusebius, we recognise Amos as its chief, and Ramses I., the son of the daughter and heiress of Horus, as the chief of the 19th Dynasty. This is the only break in the male descent.