but, calculated from my hate of the Ex- & 0
odus, b . c. 2758.”(458) — “ I say that
the Pharaoh of the Exodus reigned undoubtedly
not more than about one
year ; for, although his being drowned
in the Red Sea is not expressly mentioned
by M os es, it is so mentioned
in the 136th Psalm [what a clinching
argument !], and I hold all the books
of the Bible to be equally true.”(459).
It is to be deplored that, after being
promoted for his Hebraism to a post
in the British Museum, “ my kind
young friend,” as the Friend of Moses
affectionately terms him, should have
expunged these delightful samples of
pious feeling from the republication of
Horae in its octavo form. So imbued,
we fear, is he likely to become in that
enlightened institution with self-immolating
principles, that it would not surprise
us to learn through newspapers
that Horae likewise—as Sc a u g e r says,
“ ut signatius loquar”—for the sake
of Oriental literature were to turn
Mohammedan.
No inclination remains to follow
Horce's farthing-rush-light any further.
We leave the pupil for the teacher,
when we here exhibit on the margin
a table printed by Wil k in so n in the
pamphlet-text accompanying the latter’s
truly-.valuable contribution to
archaeological science— The fragments
of the Hieratic Papyrus at Turin : containing
the names of Egyptian Kings,
with the Hieratic inscription at the back.
Here is that “ magnificent error”
which the F r ie n d of Moses could not
discover by going to Egypt : —
“ Respecting the construction of the
table, he observes : ‘ The relative positions
and .the lengths of most of
these dynasties are founded upon some
kind of monumental authority. The
rest I have placed within approximative
extremes. There are several
points of exact [!] contemporaneousness,
as in the 2nd and 4th and 5th
dynasties, again in the 5th and 15th,
and in the 9th and 11th; and these,
with other evidence of the same nature,
enable us to adjust the general scheme
of all the dynasties.’ ” (460)
Reader ! Suppose a Chinese archaeologist,
with a little red button on
his cap, were to come all the way
from Pe-kin to America, and tell us
that good old king E g b e r t was a
(458) Art. X.; Lit. Gaz.; p. 641. (459) Art. Y.; Lit. Gaz.; p. 432. (460) Hier. Papyr.; pp. 30, 31, and table, p. &
mythe—that the consecutive dynasties of our common English father-land could fit no Hottentot’s
estimate of the chronology of John-Chinaman’s sacred'book, the Ohou-king; unless
after rejecting Boudicea and Caractacus, we were to permit his reduction, of Danes’ Saxom’
Normrns, Plantagenets, Lancastrians, Torkites, Tudors, Stuarts, Orangiles, Hanoverihns
together with all British, Scottish, and Irish, periods of anarchy ; not forgetting Cromwell
and the Commonwealth ; into one century. Suppose that, after proving why every Anglo-
Saxon had erroneously classified, as distinct, those personages, epochas, and historical events
which the “ Tribunals of Literature” of China had pronounced to be identical, the said
mandarin were to show us how beautifully the whole could be reduced, through electromagnetic
typography, into one line of a table, and expressed algebraically by an z representing
an infinitesimal fraction of a second of Creative time. What should we say to His
Excellency “ Uncle Josh ”? .
Now, whatever the American reader might be pleased to hint to such Chinese mandarin
would be uttered m demotic tongue with “ brutale franchise” by old M a n e t h o (could his
mummy arise) to Sir Gardner Wilkinson, at the first glance over the above table- where
in wilful disregard of Lenormant, Champollion, Bockh, Barucchi, Bunsen, Henry Lesueub
Lepsius, Hincks, Kenrick, Pickering, Ampère, De Bougé, Birch, and of every hierologist
past, present, and to come, the gallant Knight has made the Hid, IVth, TIth (VII) T lllth
Egyptian dynasties (consecutive in Manetho and, where mentioned, serial upon all monuments),
contemporaneous !—has actually jammed eleven dynasties, VI, VII, V ili, IX X XI
XH,-XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, into a space (2200 a 1700) of 500 years ! ’ And perpetrated’
oo, all these inexplicable vagaries with theological applause, when, by placing M e n e s (1st
dynasty, Thimtes) at 2700 B. c., he shows that valiant knighthood, in a . p . 1851 no longer
creeps all over “ for fear of interfering with the Delugè of Noah; which (was) 2348 b . c.”
before an aspirant to ecclesiastical patronage had won his gilded spurs
We dismiss, therefore, HoroeÆgyptiacoe as beneath scientific notice, reserving to ourselves
the privilege of a reviewer’s criticism, whenever circumstances may demand its
annihilation With it we snap off the last published peg upon which short-chronology can
suspend its clerica1 hat; because Mr. Sharpe’s arrangement of Egyptian dynasties anterior
to the XVIIIth has been respectfully disposed of. When other writers, with hieroglyphical
handles to their patronymes, adventure into the rude arena of archæology as champions
ot sAort-chronography, may their armor be well tempered and their lances tough i
The list of Zony-chronologists, above given, comprehends the “ preux chevaliers” of
archaeological science at this day.. The minimum of their respective dates for M e n e s is
n. 0. 3643 ; the maximum approaches the 6th chiliad B. o. By each authority all biblical
computations, Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint, are thrown aside among the rubbish of
the things that were.
H f " * S B B ? d7nastles varies according to our present sources from 4685 to 5049
years ; the number of kings from 300 to 350, and even 500. It is evidently impossible to
Ì S l Y ^ T h IX f SU°*- a baSÌS’ but ®fncellus tells us that the number of gëneiatioÎs
years 3555 This c I “®’ a0B°rdinS tB Manetho, 113; and the whole number of
furnish «™ ^ + J?lls “ “ÿ 1 sllort of wllat the summation urmsh according to any reading of the numbers, but is nearlv th<* simdo f th1e1 0re-i?gn „s would
would produce, at any average of 32 years each.” (461) 7 ® " 113 Seneratl0Ils
Ìlei $ £ M Si learaed ethn°graPIier’ De Bretonne, reasoning upon this very
Manethon,” obtained B. o. 3901 as “ le chiffre le moins ; élevé” for
To neither of the present writers have these results been unknown:—
Qn my return to Cairo f April, 1840, from a voyaa*e with Mr TTa-nviô +« _ j
S f lf l I devoted a twelvemonth’s leisure to the verification of the soliditv of t h ^ w °
Wa“aconvicSt -? hi0alre7 el^ i?v.Sbad plaf d ESyPtîan monumental chronology. The resMt
vernal ^ r a" Ü Ule?’ as s«*sequent researches,-echoed by the voiceof un -
_rçal erudition, and embodied in the works of a host of savans whose names gild the
(461) Kenhiok: Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs: 1860; ii. p. 93.
(462) Filiations et Migrations : i. p. 203.