e della N u b i a i n -which, for the first time, an effort was made to embrace in one grand
compendium all Egyptian documents in that day deciphered. Inheritor of the ideas, and
associate in the labors of the great master, the Tuscan Professor’s frame-work of chronology
reflects Champollion’s -views on Pharaonic antiquity down to the close of 1830. The
practical result of the erudite Italian’s researches was the monumental restoration of the
lost history of Egypt, back to the XVIIIth Dynasty, computed by him at b . c . 1822,— and
the vindication of the general accuracy of Manetho, back to the XVIth dynasty, at b. c.
2272 : (380) confirmed by Champollion-Figeac,(381) with many improvements and valuable
suggestions; mainly drawn from “ lqs papiers de mon Frere.”
In 1835, Wilkinson’s admirable work, “ Topography of Thebes,” presented a summary
of the learned author’s personal exploration of Egyptian monuments during some twelve
years of travel in the valley of the Nile. The epoch of Menes, first Pharaoh of Egypt,
was conjecturally assigned to the year B. o. 2201; but the accession of the XVIIIth dynasty
placed at b . c . 1575, corroborated by the collation of hieroglyphical and Greek lists, evinced
the critical author’s appreciation of the solidity of Egypt’s chronological edifice, and of
Manethonian authority, at least up to the latter era.
We thus reach the year 1836; when B. 0. 1822 as the maxivium, and b . c . 1575 as the
minimum, for the accession of Manetho’s XVIIIth dynasty of Diospolitans, were already
recognised by the world of science in general principle as established facts: and sixteen
centuries of lost monumental history became resuscitated from the sepulchre of ages,
through hieroglyphical researches that only commenced in A. D. 1822. (882)
But there had been, in Egypt, times before! there were still extant the pyramids, with
the lengthy chain of tombs extending for above 20 miles along the Memphite necropolis,
unexplored.;-^there were the “ unplaced Kings ” Recorded in the “ Materia Hieroglyphicajkj
—the “ Excerpta”—and the “ Notes”-—of Wilkinson, Burton, and F e l i x a n d there existed
in the museums of Europe, as well as throughout the. valley of the Nile, innumerable, vestiges,
recognised by every qualified student of Egyptology to belong to ages long anterior
to the XVIIIth dynasty ^immensely older than the year 1575—1822 b . o. ; to say nothing
of many biblical and classical texts that attested the necessity for more elbow-room in the
chronology of the ancient Egyptians. Every one felt i t : -— every man who had beheld the
storied ruins in Egypt itself asserted it, with more or less assurance according to the elasticity
of the social atmosphere he breathed: — every hierolOgist knew it.
How was the conscientious discussion of these overwhelming questions avoided ? "Why
were the countless monumental documents, that vindicated the claims of Manetho’s first
fourteen human dynasties to historical acceptance, left out of sight? Kosellini, while faithfully
publishing all the materials in his possession, and throwing back pyramidal question!
into the category of things anterior to the XVIth dynasty, having the fear of Petavius before
his eyes, modestly declares —“ Nb a me occorre indagare piu addentro in tanto
tempi.” (383) Wilkinson,— in whose invaluable “ Materia Hieroglyphics,” among a holt
of “ unplaced Kings,'” the names of Shoopho, Shafra, and“Menkera, builders of the three
great pyramids of Geezeh, had been published years before, and two of them at least real
and identified,—Wilkinson, appalled perhaps at the authority of Usher, jumps at a bound,
in his Plate I. of the 1 Dynasties of the Pharaohs,” from MENal, over SE-NEFER-KE-BA
and EA-NEB-NAA, to RA-NUB-TER (which last he p l a c e s in the XVth dynasty at B. C.
1830); omits every “ unplaced King ” published in his previous researches; ignores (some
fifty Pharaohs whose monuments prove they lived between Menes and the XVIIIth dynasty,
and assigns only the year b . c. 2201 ( ! ) to Menes, “ for fear of interfering with the Deluge
of Noah, -which is 2848 b. e.”
“ I am aware,” wrote, in 1835, the yet-unknighted Mr. Wilkinson, “ that the era pf
Menes might be carried back to a much more remote period than the date I have assign®
(380) G l id d o n : Chapters; 1843; pp. 48, 49, and General Table, pp. 64, 65, 66.
(381) Jtgypte Andenne; Univers Pittoresque, 1839.
(382) C h am p o l l io n : Lettre d M. Dacier; 1822.
(383) Monumenti Storid; 1832; vol. 1. P- 111
it; but as we have as yet no authority further than the uncertain accounts of Manetho’s
copyists to enable us to fix the time and the number of reigns intervening between his
accession and that of Apappus, I have not placed him earlier, for fear of interfering with
the date of the deluge of Noah, which is 2348 b . c. ” (384)
The inconsistencies inherent in this scheme of chronology were exposed jn 1843 ; (385)
nevertheless, in his most excellent later work, “ Modern Egypt and Thebes,” 1843, as well
as in his “ Hand-book,” 1847, this erudite Egyptologist has left chronological disquisitions
pretty much as he had defined them in 1835 — as if inquiry had been stationary in Europe
during twelve years |pj- although, when treating geologically on the antiquity of the Delta,
“ il laisse percer le bout d’oreille ” in the following scientific assertions : —
“ We are led to the necessity of allowing an immeasurable time for the total formation of
that space, which, to judge from the very little accumulation of its soil, and the small distance
it has encroached on the sea, since the erection of the ancient cities within it, would
require ages, and throw back its origin fa r beyond the Deluge, or even the Mosaic era of the
Creation.” (386)
In consequence, Sir J. G. Wilkinson granted a reprieve of some few years to poor Menes ;
for (1837) in the same “ Manners and Customs,” this Pharaoh’s accession is placed at
B. c. 2320 ; or only 28 years after the Flood !
It is sufficient, herein, to point out to the reader, thdt the year 1836 closed with a mighty
•stride, already accomplished, into the “ darkness of Egypt ;” through which a mass of time,
exceeding fifteen centuries in duration, was irrevocably restored to the world’s history. The
mutilated annals of the oft-maligned Priest of Sebennytus were vindicated by an unanswerable
appeal to monuments contemporaneous with the Pharaohs recorded by him, back
to his XVIIIth Theban dynasty. More than one-half of the twenty-five hundred years
claimed by Fourier, and Napoleon’s “ Institut d’Egypte,” was thenceforward restored to
positive history by the IJierologists.
The years 1837 to 1839 witnessed the munificent expenditures, and fulfilment of the
grand conception, of a Vyse ; the self-sacrificing exertions of a Perring, but for whose fortitude,
enthusiasm, and engineering skill, small, indeed, would have been the scientific
results accruing from such immense undertakings ; and the archaeological acumen of a
Birch, in deciphering and assigning an historical place to the fragmentary legends disen-
terred among some 39 pyramidal mausolea (387) of the Memphite and Arsinoïie nomes.(388)
Simultaneously with these successes, the Tablet of Abydos, that most precious register of
the genealogy of the R a m e s s id e s , found its w a y to the British Museum.(389)
Lenormant, (390) we believe, was the first to apply the new discoveries to chronology;
and Nestor L Ho te (391) to retread the Memphite necropolis, and verify some of the data
obtained by the English explorers, -
The combined result of these researches, in the year 1840, was the recognition of the
great principle, that the pyramids, without exception, antedated the XVIIIth dynasty,
already established between the fifteenth and the eighteenth centuries B. c. : that a mass
of “ unplaced Kings,” and a vast field of unopened tombs in the burial-ground of Memphis ;
together with a prodigious variety of lesser monuments, stretching from the peninsula of
Sinai to the temples of Samneh and Soleb in Upper Nubia ; still preserved authentic records
coetaneous with the first twelve dynasties of M a n e t h o : and that, from out of the chaos, the
(384) Topography of Thébes; 1835, pp. 506 and 509.
(385) G l id d o n : Chapters ; pp. 51, 52.
(386) Manners ami Customs; 1837-*«; i. pp. 6-11; Ü. pp. 106-121;—compare Otia Ægypüam; pp. 61-69,
(387) Operations carried oh at the Pyramids o f Geezeh, from 1837 to 1839.
(388) S h a r p s : Clirmuilogy and Geography of Ancient Egypt; 1849; pi. 11, Map, Ancient Egypt under Ant. Pius.
( 9) L e p s iu s : Auswahl; 1842; pi. 11; — B i r c h : Gallery o f Antiquities; p a rt ii. pi. 29, and pp. 66-71; — L e -
®™ne: Table d! Abydos, imprimée en caractères mobiles; Paris, 1845; pp. 24-86; — Busse s: Egypts Place;
848; pp. 44-51; — D e Rorafi: Examen de l'Ouvrage de M. Bunsen; 1847 ; pp. 16,17, Extrait des Annales de
■ihtlosoptm chrétiennes; and Ibid.: Deuxième Lettre à M. Alfred Maury, sur le Sesostris de la Xllme Dynastie;
«vue Archéologique, 15 Oct. 1847 ; pp. 479, 480; — L e s u e u r : Chronologie des Bois d’Égypte; ouvrage couronné ;
ans, 1848; pp. 260-263; —Prisse: Notice sur la Sotte des Ancêtres de Thoutmès IU.; Rev. Arehëol.; Paris, 1845.
(390) Edaircissemens sur le Cercueil de Mycerinus; Paris, 1839.
(391) Lettres cPÉgypte : Paris, 1840.