Chronologiccd Value of Manetho^s History. — The at- testation which the list obtains from contemporary mon- uments cannot be held to warrant the assumption that it is to be depended upon where these fail. For the monuments which attest, also correct its statements. Monuments prove some reigns, and even dynasties, con- temporaneous, which in the list are successive; but we have no means of ascertaining what was truly consecu- tive and what parallel, where monuments are wanting. Their dates are always in years of the current reign, not of an xra. From Cambyses upward to I'sammefichus, and his immediate predecessor, Taracus = Tirhaka, the chronologj- is now settled [see Chronology, sec. iii]. Thence up to Petubastes (dyn. xxiii) the materials are too scanty to yield any determination. For dyn. xxii, headed by Sesonchis = Sliishak, the records are copious: dates on apis-stelse, of which Mariettc reports seven in this dynasty, prove that it lasted much more than the 120 years of Africanus. But even these reigns cannot be formed into a canon, and the epoch of Sesonchis can only be approximatelj' given from the Biblical synchro- nism, "In 5 Eehoboam Shishak invaded Juda;a" — in what 3-ear of his reign the monument which records the conquest does not say; although the epoch of Eehoboam is, as to B.C.. a fixed point, or nearly so, for all chronolo- gists. The inscription is dated 21 Shishak, but docs not indicate the order or time of the several conquests re- corded. The attempt has been made to prove from Bib-
MANETHO
Y02
MANETHO
lical tlata that the invasion was in the 20th year. Thus : It was wliile Solomon was building Millo (2 Kings xi, 27) that ■leroboam fled to " Shishak, king of Egypt" (ver. 40). Tills work began not enrliei- than 24 Solomon (vi, 37-vii, 1). If it began in that or the next year; if Jer- oboam was immediately appointed overseer of the forced labor of his tribesmen ; if he presently conceived the purpose of insurrection, encouraged by Ahijah ; if his purpose became known to Solomon almost as soon as formed ; if, in short, his flight into Egypt was not later tlian 26 Solomon; lastly, if Shishak became king in that year, then 5 Rehoboam (=45 Solomon) will be 20 Shi- shak. This is a specimen of much that passes for chro- nology, where the Bible is concerned. Some light is thrown on the dynastic connection of dyn. xxii and xxiii by a stele recently discovered by JMariette in Ethi- opia, which proves the fact of numerous contemporary reigns throughout Egypt at that time (Brugsch's Zeit- schrift, July, 1863 ; De Kouge, Lisa: du roi I'ianchi Meri Amun, 1864). But it helps the chronology little or noth- ing. In dyns. xx, xxi, is another gap, at present not to be bridged over. The seven-named Tanites of xxi (Afr. 130, Eus. 121 years) seem to have been military priest- kings ; and that they were partly contemporaneous with XX and xxi may appear from the absence of apis-stelse, of which XX has nine, xxii seven. Dyn. xx, for which the list gives no names, consisted of some ten or more kings, all bearing the name Rameses, beginning with R. Ill, and Ave of them his sons, probably joint-kings. The apis-inscriptions furnish no connected dates, nor can any inference be drawn from their number, since IMariette reports no less than five in the first reign. For dyn. xix (Sethos), xviii (Amosis), the materials, ^-ritten and monumental, are most copious ; yet even here the means of an exact determination are wanting : indeed, if fur- ther proof were needed that the Minethonic lists are not to be implicitly trusted, it is furnished by the mon- umental evidence here of contemporary reigns which in the lists are successive. It is certain, and will at last be owned by all competent inquirers, that in the part of the succession for which the evidence is clearest and most ample, it is impossible to assign the year at whi -li any king, from Amosis to Tirhaka, began to reign. No ingenuity of calculation and conjecture can make amends for the capital defects — the want of an tera, the inade- quacy of the materials. The brilliant light shed on this point or that, does but make the surrounding darkness more palpable. Analysis of the lists may enable the inquirer, at most, to divine the intentions of their au- thors, which is but a small step gained towards the truth of facts.
But it has been supposed that certain fixed points may. be got by means of astronomical conjunctures as- signed to certain dates of the vague year on the monu- ments : Thus, (i) A fragmentary inscription of Takelut II, 6th king of dyn. xxii, purports that " on the 25th Mesori of the loth year of his father" (Sesonk II, accord- ing to Lepsius, Ar/e of XXII I)jn., but Osorkon II, ac- cording to Brugsch, Dr. Hincks, and v. Gumpach), " the lieavens were invisible, the moon struggling . . . ." Hence Mr. Cooper {Athenmum, 11 May, 1861) gathers, that on the day named, in the given year of Sesonk II, there was a lunar eclipse, which he considers must be that of I6th March, B.C. «51. Dr. Hincks, who at first also made the eclipse lunar, and its date 4th April, B.C. 945, now contends that it was solar, and the only possi- ble date 1st April, B.C. 927 {.Ima-md of Sac. Lit. Jan. 1863, p. .333-376 ; compare Ih. ,Ian. 1.S6 l,"p. 459 sq.). In making it solar, he follows M. v. Gumpach {Hist. Antiq. of the People of Ei/ypt, 1863. p. 29), who finds its date Uth March, B.C. «il. Unfortunately the 25th Mesori of that year was lOtli March. This is the "only monu- mental notice supposeil to refer to an eclipse : not worth much at the best; the record, even if its meaning were certain, is not contemporary.