Next to the loss of the great masterpieces of Hellenic genius, there are few more bitter sources of regret to the modern student, than that the profound historical and critical labours of these remarkable men should-to a few trifling fragments--have utterly perished. And the evil is still further aggravated by the total incapacity of the Roman and Byzantine men of letters-amid all the industry lavished on other pitifully trifling pursuits -to turn them to any profitable account.

III. HECATEUS OF ABDERA.-LYNCEUS OF SAMOS.-AUTHORS CITED BY THE SCHOLIAST OF APOLLONIUS.-CASTOR.-ALEXANDER POLYHISTOR AND HIS AUTHORITIES.

THERE is no want of information concerning the Egyptian researches of the Alexandrian period, but the notices commonly cited refer not to the Museum, but to the speculations of the later Alexandrians, or the other Greeks, who visited the country as travellers. To this latter class belongs the younger Hecatæus of Abdera, the friend of the first Ptolemy-" one of the many" (says Diodorus, i. 46) "who visited Thebes in that King's time, and composed works on Egypt." The specimens given of his labours, however, exhibit neither sound criticism nor accurate observation. This is true more especially of his famous description of the Ramesseum, or some other temple-palace of that period, which he calls the tomb of the primeval King, Osymandyas. Lynceus of Samos, brother of the historian, Duris, also treated of Egyptian matters in the time of Philadelphus, in a work quoted by Athenæus. Of its historical contents no notices have been preserved.

Many other writers upon Egypt are quoted by the learned Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius, Pliny, and Athenæus; but of so unimportant a character that we are ignorant even of the exact time in which they lived."2

112 Appendix of Authorities. B. III.

Two chronographers of the age of Sylla, Castor and Alexander Polyhistor, possess higher claims to authority. Judging from the plan of his work, Egyptian research must have been familiar to the first, and the Ægyptiaca" of the latter are expressly mentioned. Eusebius gives several extracts from them in his "Præparatio Evangelica," especially in the ninth book. Their import proves that he used and cited the earlier Greek and Greco-Jewish writers, such as Eupolemus (c. 17.), Melon (c. 19.), Demetrius (c. 21., comp. 29.), and Aristæus (c. 25.). Polyhistor, however, judging from these specimens, can boast of but little real criticism or accurate observation; of his own Egyptian speculations no remains are preserved.

But we have yet to mention one of the greatest names in the Alexandrian Museum as connected with its Egyptian studies-one inseparably identified with the most flourishing era of historical research in that city, and with the foundation of her philological school.

C.

ERATOSTHENES AND APOLLODORUS.

1. NOTICES OF THEIR LISTS OF EGYPTIAN KINGS TRANSMITTED BY

SYNCELLUS.

GEORGE SYNCELLUS of Byzantium, in his introductory notice of Egyptian chronology, has preserved an extract from a work of Eratosthenes, devoted to that subject, and which he introduces with the following prefatory remarks: 113

113 Sync. Chronog. p. 91. comp. p. 147. See the Appendix of Authorities under Eratosthenes and Apollodorus.

"Apollodorus, the chronographer, has described another Dynasty of Egyptian Kings, called Thebans; thirty-eight in number, and whose united reigns comprised 1076 years. This succession extends from the year of the world 2900 (or, according to Syncellus, the 124th year after the confusion of tongues and the dispersion of the nations) to 3975. Eratosthenes (as stated by Apollodorus) compiled his notices of these Kings from Egyptian Monuments and Lists by order of the King, and arranged their names-each with its Greek translation-in the following order."

Here follows a List of Kings, beginning with Menes -every Egyptian name with its Greek translation annexed. The number of years for each reign is also subjoined. In the original names as well as the Greek version, numerous, more or less palpable, errors of the text are observable. This can excite but little surprise considering the remote epoch from whence they are derived, and how utterly unintelligible they were to the copyists-coupled with the circumstance that we possess but two MSS., to one alone of which any real value attaches. We are more fortunate in the notices of the years. For here Syncellus adds in each case the year of the world, in which, according to his chronology, a reign began and ended. It thus becomes easy to correct trifling errors, or fill up occasional gaps. Hence not only the number, succession, and, for the most part, the individual name, but also the whole period of one thousand and seventy-six years in thirtyeight reigns, may be assumed-beyond all reasonable doubt-as facts distinctly vouched for by Eratosthenes. The existing transcript contains incidental evidence of the original text, as well as the primitive records whence it was compiled, having comprised other interesting notices in addition to the names of Kings and dates of reigns.

The Byzantine having thus, after his own method, laid

before us this valuable document, subjoins at its close the following commentary:

"Here ends the succession of the eight-and thirty, socalled Theban, Kings of Egypt, whose names Eratothenes obtained from the Sacred Scribes at Thebes and translated from Egyptian into Greek. It began in the 2900th year of the world, 124 years after the confusion of tongues, and ended in this the 3975th. The same Apollodorus has handed down three-and-fifty Kings, immediate successors of the foregoing. We consider it superfluous, however, to transcribe their names, as being of no kind of use to us-nor, indeed, can much more be said of those which precede them."

Thus we have a list of Egyptian Kings drawn up by Eratosthenes and edited by Apollodorus the chronographer, beginning with Menes, and containing 38 reigns in 1076 years-the editor himself added to it another list of 53 Kings, in continuity of succession. Of the former there still survive the names of the individual Kings. In the latter, not even a notice of the entire period of years comprised in the aggregate reigns.

It seems obvious that the only inducement with Syncellus for recording these valuable facts, was the opportunity afforded of displaying his own learning, and his familiarity with the names of these celebrated Alexandrian critics. For nothing could be more really perplexing to him than these Lists. Had he placed the starting point in the series of Eratosthenes ever so early-and the utmost he could do was to make Menes contemporary with Mizraim (124 years after the confusion of tongues)-still the close of that series brought him down to the time of the Judges. What then was to become of the other 53 Kings who reigned before the 18th Dynasty? For, like Josephus and all the Christian chronographers, he placed Moses and the Exodus at the beginning of this Dynasty. It is to this

circumstance that we are indebted for the copious extracts from Manetho's historical work, of the names of the Kings of that Dynasty. Those transmitted by Apollodorus, on the other hand, were to him absolutely worse than useless, for they were not even the names of the first Kings of the New Empire, into which the series of Eratosthenes ran-so utterly contrary to all order and so uncanonically. We shall show how decisive such a reason must also have been for the Christian chronographers of that time, when we enter upon the criticism of that period. For the present we must turn from the transcriber to the original compilers of these remarkable Lists.

II. ERATOSTHENES AND HIS RESEARCHES.

ERATOSTHENES, next to Aristotle, the most illustrious among Greek men of learning, and as far superior to him in the extent of his knowledge, as inferior in grasp of intellect, was an African by birth, from the Greek colony of Cyrene. Strabo calls him and Callimachus the pride of that city-"for," he adds, "if there ever was a man who combined skill in the art of poetry and grammar--common to him and to Callimachus-with philosophy and general learning, Eratosthenes was that man." He reduced to a system two sciences, both of which he found in their infancy, Geography and Chronology. His calculation of the size of the globe, when submitted to the stricter test of modern science, proved the most correct hitherto made. His adjustment of the leading points in Grecian history, on the basis of the Olympic era-upwards to the time of the Heraclidæ, and downwards to that of Alexander the Great-was and continued to be the groundwork of all the chronological researches of the old world. In geography he was the guide and authority of Strabo and Ptolemy-in chronology of