112

SECTION II.

THE RESEARCHES OF THE GREEKS INTO EGYPTIAN

CHRONOLOGY.

INTRODUCTION.

THE MORE ANCIENT TRADITION THAT OF HOMER AND

THE LATER THON (THONIS) AND PROTEUS.—THE IONIAN

SETTLERS IN EGYPT.

IF the legends concerning Cecrops the Egyptian, and Ægyptus the son of Belus (father of Ninus), and brother of Danaus, be ancient, and allude to events really connected with the land of Egypt-still they are anterior to all chronology, and belong to the fabulous infancy of Hellas. We shall endeavour to show in the Fifth Book the probability of the former assumption being well founded, although neither Cecrops biformis, nor Ægyptus the son of Belus, were Egyptians. Those legends only present us with the back-ground of Greek tradition concerning Egypt. That tradition first distinctly appears in the text of Homer. The Poet of the Odyssey, in the fourth book, introduces Menelaus giving a description of his voyage with Helen to the Heaven-sprung river Egyptus of the divinations of the Sea-God Proteus, the Everchanging-and of the healing plants, which Polydamna gave to Helen. This Polydamna he calls the wife of Thon. Later writers, doubtless for their amusement, converted him into a King Thonis, of whom history knows as little as does the divine Homer. Diodorus and Strabo prove that Thonis was the ancient name of a commercial city near the mouth of the Nile, not far from Canopus. It was probably the same afterwards called Heracleum, and

situated at the entrance of the bay that lies to the north of Alexandria. The neighbouring country, in the time of the Greeks, was called the country of Menelaus. 101

This legend, extended perhaps by the cyclic poets, and subsequently connected with, or merged in the myth of Helena-Selene, is the foundation of the fable, first introduced by Stesichorus, and further developed by the Euripides, of the detention of Helen by King Proteus, and of the phantom which in her stead accompanied Paris to Troy.

This pleasing tale, as the Father of History relates (ii. 112. seq.), had taken root in Egypt itself prior to his own time, or about a century and a half after Stesichorus. The Priests related it nearly in the following terms: "The ravisher of Helen was driven by a storm into the bay of Canopus. His slaves, taking advantage of the privilege of asylum in the sanctuary of Hercules, declared themselves the slaves of the God, and accused their former master before Thonis, the guardian of that branch of the Nile. The latter instantly sent a message to Memphis, desiring instructions from King Proteus, as to whether the foreigner, who had betrayed his friend and guest, and seduced his wife, should be detained in the land of Egypt, and called to account, or be dismissed. Proteus ordered all the party to be sent to Memphis, examined Paris, convicted him on the evidence of his own slaves, admonished him severely on his scandalous conduct-and concluded with the following sentence-Helen and the treasures I shall take charge of, till Menelaus comes to fetch them. The penalty of death, which you have deserved, I shall remit, because I have promised not to take the life of any stranger who may happen to be cast on these shores-but only on condition of your leaving the

VOL. I.

101 Diod. 1. c. 19. Strabo, xvii. c. l.

I

country within three days-otherwise you will be treated as an enemy.' There the matter rested."

Upon a complete review of the connection of Egyptian traditions, we cannot do otherwise than agree with the learned and ingenious Welcker, 102 who sees in this story an Egyptian sacerdotal legend. Since the time of Psammetichus, Greek letters had obtained a settlement at Naucratis, and a vehicle for their extension in the professional interpreters. The Greeks would not fail to inquire in the old land of wonders after the friends. and acquaintances of Menelaus, of whose historical reality they did not entertain a shadow of doubt. The Egyptians consulted their books, as the Brahmins did theirs, when the English inquired after the family of Noah. Like them they found there a satisfactory reply, and the interpreters made their profit by the discovery.

It is important in a chronological point of view that the correctness of the opinion here expressed as to the origin of those legends be established. To the Greeks as well as Egyptians, a common point of contact for the antiquities of the two countries was indispensable. Proteus, from being a Sea-God, became a King. Calculations, such as were customary before the time of Aristotle, and before the accurate determination of the Olympiads and of the date of the Trojan war by his school, fixed this epoch at the end of the 19th, or the beginning of the 20th Dynasty-and according as people decided in favour of one or the other, they made this or that Egyptian King, King Proteus. Amid the prevailing misapprehension of the spirit of the old tradition, or of the original genius of epic poetry, the following notable explanation of Homer's legend of Proteus, suggested itself to Diodorus, and men of his stamp, as a marvellous exercise of penetration: that King Ketes, namely, the Proteus of the Greeks, was

102 The commentaries on this point have been collected and given at length by Bähr in his edition of Herodotus (at ii. 113.).

figured by the poet as metamorphosing himself into every variety of monstrous animal; because the Egyptian Kings wore on their heads curious ornaments, representing such animals, in order to impress their own subjects with greater awe, and to strike with amazement strangers and enemies.

Homer's notices of Egypt (xiv. 257. seqq. iv. 227.) show, that the ancient Ionians considered that country an organised empire, and that it was known to them. as the region in which the art of medicine was discovered just as we, following the Byzantines and Arabs, call the science of separating and mixing substances after the land of Chemi, that is, Egypt. We should have the less reason to be surprised at this, if a Hieratic Papyrus of the 13th century before our era really mentioned, as has been asserted, the "Iun," that is, the Ionians. 103 But Mr. Birch has convinced me that the name in the Papyrus (now before the public) which has been read Iun should rather be pronounced Ir-hen. 104 I will merely, therefore, remark here, that the Hellenic races were known to the East, in the olden times, by the name of Ionians. For the "Iavan" of Scripture, when read according to the letters, is merely Iūn, and occurs in Joël-consequently, according to the ordinary computation in the 9th, according to my own conviction in the 10th, century B. C.

A.

HERODOTUS.

1. HERODOTUS-IN HIS RELATION TO HIS IMMEDIATE PREDECESSORS AND SUCCESSORS.

HERODOTUS was the first who possessed any historical knowledge of Egypt. The elder Hecatæus had visited

103 Salvolini, Notices sur le Papyrus Sallier, already mentioned. 104 Read Arunu, or Alunu, and supposed to be name of Oelon, a town of the tribe of Dan. Brugsch. Geogr. II. s. 23. p. 3. [S. B.]

the country; but evidently without much addition to his stock of historical knowledge. Hippys of Rhegium, in the time of Xerxes, had called the Egyptians the most ancient of nations.105 This view, on his part, as probably on that of Diodorus, bore reference doubtless to the quality of the atmosphere, which is particularly favourable to the generation of organic life. We do not hear however of his having instituted any chronological inquiries into Egytian history. The narrative of Herodotus therefore forms the first epoch of Grecian research into the annals of that country. It made a deep impression upon his own contemporaries, as well as succeeding generations, to which the charm of his style in no slight degree contributed. During the flourishing ages of Greek liberty no one appeared who in the most distant manner approached him as an original critic. Theopompus incidentally mentions Sesostris. The narrative of Ephorus, according to Diodorus, only proved how little he knew of the country, while the philosophical school racked their brains, to account for the rising of the Nile.

The knowledge possessed by Herodotus of Egyptian primeval chronology-of the history of the Gods, and the origin of civilised life, is so defective, that the duty of pointing out the truths it actually contains must be reserved for the more detailed investigations of our fourth Book. His occasional narrations however of the older period, that is, before the Psammetici, will be examined in the second and third. The result of both these inquiries must tend to increase our admiration of the fidelity of his reports, defective as they necessarily were, especially in chronological order and consistency

105 Schol. to Apollon. iv. 262. See Appendix of Authorities, B. II. As the words stand the statement is unintelligible; but all the passages connected with it are explained in Heyne's incomparable treatise, Commentatio prima de Fontibus Diodori (1782). Published in the Appendix to Dindorf's edition, tom. v. p. 59. seqq.