excepting the three or four first lines, it cannot be thought to be given us in the very words of the Chronographeon; rather, it is an abstract of what was supposed to be the contents of it. The Chronographeon itself, as it particularized the reign of Sol, and then of Saturn; so, unquestionably, it exhibited distinctly the reigns of the other gods, and distributed such a part of the 3984 years, said to be the sum of all their reigns, as belonged respectively to, and was made up from the course of each of them. In like manner, I imagine, it recounted the eight demi-gods, and the fifteen Cynic heroes, more distinctly, and-in a larger narration, than we here find them; for in this account, I take it, we have only the beginning of the Chronographeon, and then the sum or heads of what followed, and not the particulars at large, which were contained in it. But I would observe, 2. That we have reason to think, that the foregoing account was not originally intended for an account of the old Chro nographeon only; but rather for an account of the Chronographeon, and of some other work accommodated and connected with it. From the beginning of the account to the end of what is said of the heroes of the Cynic Cycle, we have the substance of the old Chronographeon. From what follows thus, then the XVI dynasty of Tanite kings, &c. we have the contents, not of the old Chronographeon, but of some later chronicle, which was thought to supply what the old Chronographeon did not contain, towards completing the Egyptian history. In the old Chronographeon, next to the Cynic Cycle, were lists of the kings of three kingdoms, first of the Auritans, secondly of the Mestræans, and thirdly of the Egyptians. And so many names of kings were probably contained in each list, as had reigned to the time, perhaps, when the Chronographeon was composed. But the author of the account above produced, not purposing to go on with the more obsolete names of the old Chronographeon, but taking the Auritans to be the same nation as were afterwards called Tanites, the Mestræans the same as Memphites, and the Egyptians the same as Diospolitans; and knowing that a later chronicle at its XVI dynasty began its account of the Tanite kings; and in its XVI and xvIII, its account of the Memphites; and in the next dynasty its account of the Diospolitans; he thought this to be a point of time where he was sure the two registers, from which he copied, coincided; and therefore having given the contents of the more ancient one, down to this point, instead of going on in that any further, here, says he, we are come to the xvi dynasty, an epoch well known to those who had perused the accounts of Manetho, and from hence he adds dynasty to dynasty down to what he took to be the end of the Egyptian history. If we do not take the account I am treating of, in this light, it will be hard to reconcile the several parts of it to one another. We have in it the contents of the Egyptian history of their gods, demi-gods, Cynic Cycle, and then comes the xvi dynasty. XVI 'It • Πρωτον μεν των Αυρίτων, δεύτερον δε των Μεσίραίων, τρίτον δε Anyola. Syncell. p. 51. must be obvious here to ask, how comes this to be called the xvi dynasty; for where are the preceding XV? The learned editor of Syncellus was aware of this difficulty, and therefore suggests in his annotations, that Γενεαι 18 Κυκλο κυνικ should be read, δυναςει αι ιε, that instead of fifteen generations of the Cynic Cycle, we should read fifteen dynasties; but this is to cut the difficulty, and not to solve it. This was certainly not the intention of the author of the account; who supposed that the whole history, from the beginning of the Chronographeon to the end of the dynasties he added to it, contained in all but thirty dynasties; and accordingly endeavours to sum up the amount of them all to be $6525 years. But if we begin the dynasties from the Cynic Cycle, the sum of them will fall short myriads of years of that number; and the Chronogra pheon will contain the history of the gods and demigods, besides the dynasties, which the composer of this account had no notion that it did. I might add further, that if we take the account abovementioned as giving us the contents of the old chronographeon only, we shall destroy the supposed antiquity of the chronographeon. For as xxvII dynasty mentions the Persian kings," of whom Cambyses was the first; so it is evident, that the other three. dynasties carry on the Egyptian history to about the Vid. Annotat. Goar, ad Syncell. pag. 51. * Και μετά τότες κι δυνατεία Περσων η ετων ρκδ. Syncell, Vid. p. 77. Prideaux Connect. part. i. b. 3. p. 52. time of Nectanebus, and there Manetho's tomes ended. Nectanebus was expelled his kingdom by Ochus king of Persia, about 350 years before CHRIST,TM A. M. 3654. Manetho dedicated his tomes to Ptolemy Philadelphus before A. M. S757," within about 100 years after Nectanebus; so that if the old chronographeon reached down to Nectanebus, Manetho's work and that must have been of about the same antiquity. I ought here to take notice, that some very learned writers have supposed this old chronographeon was nothing else but an abridgment of Manetho. This was Scaliger's opinion, and accordingly, in his chronicon of Eusebius, he puts upon it the following title: Θεων Βασιλεια κατά το παλαιον χρονικών εκ των Mavsdw. Or, “The reign of the gods according to the old chronicle out of the books of Manetho." This, I believe, was dean Prideaux's sentiment; who tells us, we have an epitome of Manetho's work preserved in Syncellus, taking, I suppose, this chronographeon to be that epitome. But they were probably led to think it so, from Manetho's work, and the chronographeon's ending at the same period; and would perhaps have thought differently of it, had they duly observed how the account we have of the chronographeon differs, the former part of it from the latter part, in a very remarkable particular, which * Syncell. p. 76, 77. Syncell. p. 256. Id. part ii. b. ii. Prideaux b. iii.—vii. Prideaux b. vii. Euseb. Chronic. p. 6. Connect. part i. b. vii. ad annum 350.. shews that it had been an abstract not of one, but of two different works; the former part exhibiting the contents of a work, which had not been divided into such dymisties as the latter part is made up of; the latter part containing the substance of one half of a work, which had comprehended in 30 dynasties the whole Egyptian history. That the old chronographeon was a different and distinct work from that of Manetho, is evident from Syncellus; for he collected from it, that Manetho had committed errors ;" and suggests, that the period of time, when the old chronographeon digested into dynasties, was not the same with that which Manetho sorted into divisions of a like denomination." From the old chronographeon, Manetho took a hint, which led him to compose the Egyptian history in such sections; but the dynasties of the old chronographeon were astronomical, not historical. The page of Syncellas, from which we might hope to form a judgment of this old chronographeon, is printed very incor rectly; or perhaps never had the last hand of its author; for Syncellus died before he had completed and corrected his work; and, I should think, has left us 4 εξ ε και τον Μανέθω ποπλανήσθαι νομίζω. Syncell. p. 51. * περιεχον ή δυναςειων χρόνον απειρον, και 4 τον αυτόν τα Μανεθώ. Syncell. p. 51. t εκ τέτων δηλαδη λαβων αφορμάς. Id. p. 62. * Αιγυπτίοι μεν τας περίοδος και μυριάδας των καταθεσιν τινα των παρ αυτοις αστρολογώμενων εξέθεντο. Ιd. p.17. Præfat. in Syncell. VOL. III. |