have been generally represented as successive were actually contemporaneous, as e. g. the
twelfth and the fifth [ ! ] ; and that thus, the monumental history of Egypt covers not a
period of duration beyond what may be readily reconciled with [poor Moses!] the Mosaic
chronology as given in the Septuagint. A conclusion, to the accuracy of which, Sir J. G.
Wilkinson has affixed the sanction of his great name in these matters.'” (444)
The F r ie n d of Moses soon after becomes mystified : —
“ I became acquainted with several gentlemen of distinction in the learned world.
Mr. R. S. Poole, a bold writer on Egyptian chronology.” (445)
He next assures us : —
“ I have carefully compared the copies taken by Champollion in all these tombs and temples
from the second Cataract to Thebes, and I have collated his hieroglyphics, line by line [this
is the more miraculous, as it was performed between Alexandria, Nov. 12, and Cairo, Feb.
14—after going up the Nile, 1200 miles, to Samneh; and returning, 1050 miles, to Cairo!],
and character by character, with the originals. . . . There is a magnificent error somewhere—
though I am not prepared [ ! ] to point out where ; nor how precisely it may be detected
and exposed. Of one thing I am satisfied — that Sir J. G. Wilkinson, and my kind young
friend, Mr. R. S. Poole, of the British Museum, are much nearer the truth, in their chronology,
than is Dr. Lepsius, or the Chevalier Bunsen.” (446)
The scientific reader now comprehends our local situation, and will compassionately forgive
the inhumanities which such every-day offences compel us finally to perform. “ Le jeu ne
vaut pas la chandelle;” else we would at once refute Eorce Egyptiacce, page by page,
and hieroglyphic by hieroglyphic ; in the interpretation of which last the juvenile author
(or Sir G. Wilkinson) has committed blunders as egregious as they are multiform — altogether
unpardonable in the actual state of hierology. For the present, our criticisms shall
be chiefly confined to the publication of “ three fragments,” upon the principles of a world-;
renowned master, Letronne. (447) They are from the highest Egyptologists in Europe ;
two of them in epistles to the authors ; one already in print.
First Extract. (448)
“ I have nothing to say about the book of P oole, if not that I regard it as a juvenile
and sufficiently-pretentious essay, written without conscientiousness, and dangerous rather
to the theologians than to science.”
Second Extract. (449)
“ Not one of its followers can read three lines of hieroglyphics correctly. The G. P.
Y. (450) and G. P. M. (451) are only in thè mind of the author. Examined by the microscope
of philology, all vanishes into a few unimportant observations — for example;
is not “ the first month”-^“ the first half month,”
of the Great Panegyrical Year ; but merely
] = “ monthly,” = “ half-monthly.”
The consequence is that this expression does not fix the age of Chufu [builder of the great
pyramid]. The “ 7th (452) on the base of the Karnac obelisk, refers to the
-JL, , seven smat, or periods-months, I believe that the
^ ^ obelisk was in the quarry. Hence the whole
cyclical part is a delusion ; and all the inferences
are nil. The rest of the book is a string of hypotheses — where there are not actual misapprehensions.”
Third Extract. (453)
“ Mr. P oole is of the number of those young workmen who deserve that one should tell
them the whole truth. Either he has not read what recent archaeologists have written
(444) The Friend o f Moses; New York, 1852; pp. 376, 377, 514.
(445) Mobile Daily Advertiser, Oct. 9,1852 — “ Correspondence — Paris, Sept. 14 1852.”
(446) Mobile Daily Register, April 1, 1853— “ Letter from Egypt — Cairo, Feb. 14,1853.”
(447) Trois Fragments — Mémoires et Documents publiés dans la Revue Archéol.; Paris, 1849; pp. 100-119.
(448) Letter to Mr. Oliddon.
(449) Letter to Dr. Nott.
(450) Horoe; p. 59— “ Great Panegyrical Year.”
(451) Do.; p. 56 — “ Great Panegyrical Month.”
(452) Do.; p. 66.
(453) De B o u g é : Phénomènes Célestes; Rev. Archéol., 15 Feb. 1853; pp. 664, 665; and note.
upon this subject, which would be inexcusable; or he has read them and does not cite
them, which would be still more grave. I have not read the name of Lepsius a single
time m his book m respect to all these questions so lengthily treated in the Introduction to
Chronology [Berlin 1848-9] Not content with this discovery [viz., the imaginary Panegyrical
Months] M. Poole thinks also to find other new cycles, with the dates which refer
to them. I confess that it has been impossible for me to comprehend how in the presence
of pretensions so important Mr. Poole has not deemed himself obliged to prove the truth
of his allegations, by minutely analyzing the inscriptions which he alleges. Far from that
he contents himself with indicating them, and sometimes even without producing their text
m his plates. One cannot lean upon an Egyptian inscription, as upon a passage of Titus
Livius, without new explanation, and I will frankly say that I believe in none of the cycles
and m none of the dates of Mr. Poole. . . . It is evident that in thus handling the ciphers,
without controlling their signification and the manner in which they are introduced into
the inscriptions, one may end in imagining all the periods that one wishes, and in giving
them a certain appearance of truth to the eyes of persons who can discuss but the results.
A work thus based must pass for nori-avenu.”
But, after all, Bora has no “ fear of interfering with the Deluge;” so the work becomes
only another thorn in the side of orthodoxy. Mr. Wilkinson (1835, supra), devoutly following
archbishop Usheb and the margin of king James’s version, says the date of the
Flood “ is 2348 b. c . ” In its author’s first articles, Eorce had declared—
“ The date of the accession of Menes, the first king of Egypt, is probably that of the
commencement of the first great panegyrical year and first and
°n theSe .ancient writersJ Place what later— namely, ^bout 2300 years b . c., instead of 2715. The hihstiso r^y coefs tshioe n1 ssto, m2de,wwhhiillee
tthWe aauutthWor onf Hf aHrm Ad wSelPt ofn!l yS 15 imiile sd oyfnf,a satti eCs’a iLro,:!r]s ilsu sb ufotu sncda ntthiley faumrnpilsehste dd eutsa iblsy,
th»?ri?tbenenm monum,en!f’ and ft« latter give us but one date [and that fabulous!],
that of the commencement of what / have called the second great panegyrical year in the
of the Pyramid, and second king of Manetho’s fourth
E o n s thus fixed the building of the great pyramid two years before Wilkinson’s
Deluge; and set Menes on the throne, in Egypt, 367 years before the same authority’s
catastrophe. But, it was promptly shown, that Eorce, in selecting the year b. c. 2715 for
Menes, had merely stolen another man’s thunder (455): wherefore, when its author came
to reprint those twelve articles in an octavo volume, he so translated his hieroglyphics
astronomically, as to obtain two years’ difference! — “ The, commencement of the great
panegyrical year which preceded that of the guphises, / have already shown to be in the
year b . c . 2717” (456); and then he informs us that “ the Septuagint chronology dates the
Dispersion of Mankind about the year b. o. 2758 ; that is, about 41 years before the era
of Menes ” !
Computations upon the different copies of the LXX, every one of them as rotten as the
Mbb. themselves, cause the Creation to fluctuate between b. c. 5904, and b' c 5054 (457)
And the above sentence merely shows its penman’s incompetency to discuss Septuagint
questions. ' To the reader of our disquisition on Xth Genesis [PeLeG, supra, p. 5451 the
Mowing specimens of Eorce's biblical knowledge will be amusing; as much as, to use its
autlior sfavorite adjective, the latter’s credulity is “ remarkable” - —
° ew one[!J’ The hlrth of Peleg. according to Dr. Hales, happened b . c. 2754;
H i M X n ' : Literar'J Dec- 1S>1M9; P- 010; - compare Art. T i t , p 522
m op7Z p!“ pf 9b“ eth0’_2rl6” B'°': 9amm’ Chap"Wi3’p- and mnMMk’ im > p-
(457) R i c c io li : Chrondl. reformala ; p . 2 9 3 .