Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/383

 EGYPT

335

EGYPT

after the death of Alexander the Great (323 b. c). Up to Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-47 B. c), Egyptian monuments were dated according to the old Egyptian system, but after that time the Slacedonian dates are generally found together with the Egj-ptian. Mace- donian dating was gradually superseded by the use of the fixed eras, yet it is found, sporadically at least, as late as the second century after Christ (Ginzel, op. cit., I, p. 232). The Philippic Era begins on I Thoth, 425 (12 Nov., 324 B. c, Julian style) of the Era of Nabonassar; like the latter it is based on a vague year on the same pattern, months' names included, as the old Egj'ptian year. The Era of Nabonassar be- gins at noon, 26 February, 747 b. c. (Julian style). It is the basis of the famous Canon of Ptolemy. It was used in Egypt especially for astronomical purposes, and it met with great favovu- with the chronographers on account of the certainty of its starting-point and its well established accuracy. The reduction of Nabon- assar's years into the corresponding usual Christian reckoning is rather complicated and requires the use of special tables (see Ginzel, op. cit., I, p. 143 sqq.).

Only a very small portion of the colossal mass of inscriptions, papyri, etc. so far discovered in Egj'pt has any bearing on, or can be of any assistance in, chronological questions. The astronomical knowl- edge of the ancient Egj'ptians does not seem to have gone very far, and, as every one knows, accurate astronomical observations rightly recorded in con- nexion with historical events are the basis of any true chronology of ancient times. It is remarkable that the Egj'ptian Claudius Ptolemy (secontl century after Christ) took from the Babylonians and the Greeks all the observations of eclipses he ever used and started his canon (see above) with Babylonian, not with Egyptian, kings. Evidently he held no records of sun observations made in Egypt. Yet, for religious rea- sons, the Egj'ptians noted the occurrences of the helia- cal risings of Sirius on the various dates of their mov- able calendar. A few have reached us, and have lieen of no small assistance in astronomically determining, ■within four years at least, some of the most important epochs of Egj'ptian history. The Egyptians also re- corded the coincidence of new moons with the days of their calendar. Such data in themselves have no chronological value, as the phases of the moon return to the same positions on the calendar every nineteen years; taken, however, in conjunctioi with other data, they can help us to determine more precisely the chronologj' of some events (Breasted, op. cit., I, sec. 46). Moreover, ancient Egypt has bequeathed to us a number of monuments of a more or less chronological character: (1) The calendars of religious feasts [Cal- endars of Dendera (Tentyrisi, Edfu, Esneh, all three of which belong to the late period, Calendar of PapjTus Sallier IV] are especially interesting because they illus- trate the nature of the Egyptian year (see Ginzel, op. cit., p. 200 sqq.). (2) The lists of selected royal names comprise: the so-called Tables of Sakkara, Nineteenth Dynasty, forty-seven names beginning with the sixth of the First Djmasty; Karnak (part of Thebae'), Eigh- teenth Dynasty, sixty-one names, unfortunately not chronologically arranged; Abydos, Nineteenth Dy- nasty, seventy-six names beginning with Menes. (3) Two chronological compilations known as the Turin Papyrus, Nineteenth Dynasty, and the Palermo Stone, Fifth Dynasty, from the places where they are now preserved. Unfortimately, the first of these last two monuments is broken into many fragments and other- wise mutilated, while the second is but a fragment of a much larger stone. These two documents (cf. E Meyer, op. cit., pp. 105-205, and Breasted, op. cit., I, pp. 51 sqq.) are, though fragmentary, of the great- e.st importance, in particular for the early djTiasties and the predynastic times. The Turin Papyrus con- tains, besides the names of the kings chronologically arranged in groups or dynasties, the durations

both of the individual reigns and of the various dynasties or groups of dynasties, in years, months, and days. On the Palermo Stone each year of a reign is entered separately and is often accompanied with short historical notices. — All these documents combined furnish the chronological frame for the vast amount of historical matter contained in thousands of mural inscriptions and stelce collected and worked out with almost incredible patience by several generations of Egyptologists during the last htmdred years.

Of secondarj- importance are the data furnished by the Greek and Latin writers. Still we must men- tion here the AiyvrrrtaKa 'TTrofivrinaTa of the Egj-ptian priest Manetho of Sebennj-tus, third century B. c. Of this work we have: (a) Some fragments which, preserved by Josephus (Contra Apion., I, xiv, xv, xx), were used by Eusebius in his "Pra?paratio Evangel- ica" and the first book of his "Chronicon"; (b) an epitome which has reached us in two recensions: one of these recensions (the better of the two) was used by Julius Africanus, and the other by Eusebius in their respective chronicles; both have been preserved by Georgius Sjmeellus (eighth-ninth centurj') inhis'E7Xo7rj Xpoi'o7pa0ias. We have also a Latin translation by St. Jerome and an Armenian version of the Eusebian recension, while fragments of the recension of Julius Africanus are to be found in the so-called " Excerpta Barbara". Judging from that epitome, the work of Manetho was divided into three parts, the first of which contained the reigns of the gods and demi-gods (omitted in the African recension) and eleven dynas- ties of human kings; the second, eight dynasties of such kings; the third, twelve (the last one added after Manetho 's death). Besides a few short notices, the epitome contains nothing but names and figures showing the duration of each reign and each djTiasty. Those figures are summed up at the end of each book. In the shape it has reached us Manetho's work is of comparatively little assistance, on account of its chronology, which seems to be hopelessly mi.xed up, besides being grossly exaggerated; and it must be used with the greatest caution. (For further tletails on Manetho and his work see the preface of C. Muller in the Didot edition of the second volume of "Frag- menta Historicorum Gra'corum", and E. Meyer, op. cit., pp. 69-99.) In the next place should be men- tioned a list of so-called Theban kings handed down by Eratosthenes of CjTene (third century B. c.) and preserved by Syncellus. It seems to be a translation of some Egyptian royal list similar to the Table of Karnak [see C. Muller in the Didot edition of Herodo- tus (Fragmenta chronographica, p. 182) and E. Meyer, op. cit., pp. 99-10.3]. Lastly, Herodotus's 'Itrropiai (fifth century B. c.) and Diodorus Siculus's Bi/SXioS^kt; (first century B. c.) deserve at least a passing mention. Although their interest lies chiefly in another direc- tion, yet we may glean from them occasional chrono- logical data for the times diu'ing which these two writers lived.

We cannot enter here upon even a cursory analysis, much less a discussion, of the various systems of Eg>-ptian chronology. The older systems of Cham- pollion, Lepsius, Lesueur, Brugsch, Mariette were, to a considerable extent, ba.sed on theories which have since been proved false, or on an imperfect study and an erroneous interpretation of the chronological mate- rial. The.se scholars, however, paved the way for the present generation of Egyptologists, of the German school especially, who have at last succeeded in plac- ing the chronologj' of ancient Egypt on a firm basis. The following chronological table up to the Twenty- si.xth Dynasty is condensed from the excellent work of Professor J. H. Brea.sted, "Ancient Records of Egypt", I, pp. 40-47. The other djmasties up to the Thirtieth are taken from Professor G. Steindorff's "Outline of the History of Egypt" in Baedeker's