=

intervene between Sesoōsis Sesostris, and Mendes = Mares, including the younger Ramesside, who is transplanted hither from the New Empire-exclusive of him, consequently, but two, as in Eratosthenes.

VII. 1. Ketes (c. 62.), the Proteus of the Greeks: obtained possession of the throne after an anarchy which lasted five generations. He was of an insignificant family, and was elected King. The fable of Proteus follows with its interpretation. 2. Remphis, his son, the miser, who hoarded up 400,000 talents.

3. Nileus, from whom the Nile took its name, having previously been called Egyptus-one of seven Kings who succeeded Remphis - the other six were indolent sovereigns, who performed nothing worthy of note (c. 63.).

This is evidently a continuation of the history of the Ramessides (19th and 20th Dynasty), which in the foregoing Section was mixed up with a tradition from the Old Empire.

VIII. The builders of Pyramids. 1. Chemmis, a Memphite, succeeded the 7 Kings, and reigned 50 years built the Great Pyramid. Both narrative and descriptive details are here for the most part after Herodotus:

2. Kephren (c. 64.), brother of Chemmis, reigned 56 years. Second Pyramid. [According to some, the successor of Chemmis, and the builder of the second Pyramid, was not his brother, but his son Chabryes or Chabryis. According to others, Chemmis and Kephren were not buried in their Pyramids, for fear of the people, who detested them, but in a meaner place of sepulture.]

3. Mykerinus or Mekerinus, the son of Chemmis, not of Kephren, as in some versions. He commenced the third Pyramid, but did not complete it. His

name is inscribed on one of its sides. These Kings are also said to have built three smaller Pyramids for their wives in the vicinity of their own.

IX. 1. Bocchoris, the sage and legislator, succeeded those Kings.

2. Sabakōn, after a long interval.

Here we have a fragment of a tradition relative to the 24th and 25th Dynasties, but so confused, that Sabakōn, who burned Bocchoris alive, is made to ascend the throne "long after him."

IV. TWO SPECIAL INDEPENDENT LISTS: THE BUILDERS OF THE THREE GREAT PYRAMIDS, AND THE LEGISLATORS.

ROYAL lists, presenting a distinct historical continuity, but which find no place in the general chronology of Diodorus, are evidently of especial importance. They point to a tradition, for which Diodorus could not find room in his own systematic list, and which had probably been equally overlooked in the speculations of previous Greek writers consulted by him relative to the Dynasties, and their order of succession.

List of the builders of the three great Pyramids.

After having detailed the more familiar account of the Pyramid-Kings, from Cheops to Mykerinus, borrowed chiefly from Herodotus, Diodorus adds in a few words the following totally different tradition—

Armæus built the first of the three great Pyramids : Amōsis, the second:

Maron, the third, which some (i. e. Herodotus) ascribed to Rhodopis.

This tradition is certainly worthy of attention, although it may not admit of explanation at the present stage of our inquiry.

The Egyptian Legislators.

This List stands quite insulated in a latter part of the first book (c. 94. seq.).

I. Mnevis (Musúns); an ancient King, after the dominion of Gods and Heroes-the first who gave written laws. These he professed to have received from Hermes, and succeeded in persuading the people to live according to them-the most magnanimous and popular of all Kings. II. Sasyches (Sasychis), a sovereign of distinguished talent- enlarged the code of his predecessor regulated the forms of religious worship-invented Geometry and Astronomy, both theoretical and practical. III. Sesoōsis, the great conqueror-legislated for the warrior caste, and for military affairs in general. IV. Bocchoris-his ordinances comprise all matters connected with the duties or privileges of the sovereign-also laws concerning treaties. Many of his judgments have been preserved. He was of a delicate constitution-and avaricious beyond any of his predecessors.

V. Amasis (Ammosis), the friend and adviser of Polycrates: was not of royal blood, but elected King on account of his excellent qualities. His laws related to the governors, and general administration of the Nomes.

VI. Darius-honoured as a God even during his lifetime, on account of his wisdom, virtue, and respect for the sacred books and ordinances of the Egyptians -at his death was ranked among the most upright princes.

On the first three of these Kings no light has hitherto been thrown: they will all, however, be identified hereafter in the succession of the Old Empire. Bocchoris is registered by Manetho among the Kings of the 24th

Dynasty Amosis is familiar to us from Herodotus. The above succession is evidently chronological.

In the foregoing brief synopsis of the system of Diodorus, our object has been merely to vindicate our own subdivision of its heads, and in so far the credit of its author. For its more complete elucidation we must refer to the sequel of our researches. This much, however, will be admitted-that the view here adopted, as referred to our two standard text books, Eratosthenes and Manetho, brings its own confirmation along with it. Hitherto the statements of this author have passed with the critics for a mere tissue of fables or falsehoods, seasoned with a few scraps from the tradition of Herodotus a verdict which has tended unfortunately to throw suspicion on the whole of Egyptian historical lore-as a no less corrupt mass than the speculations of the confused and uncritical Sicilian.

It has, we trust, been shown that not only the individual sections, as above exhibited, stand on an independent basis, and are in so far consistent in themselves, but also that the connection established between these sections, by such phrases as "after these Kings," or, "after twelve generations," are no mere arbitrary patchwork. With some transpositions, not difficult to account for, and from which even the narrative of Herodotus is not wholly exempt, the separate sections seem quite coherent in themselves, and in accordance with the course of the 30 Dynasties, and even with Eratosthenes. Menes, as with Herodotus, stands at the head of the series which is carried on through the whole of the Old Empire. The second section (the Dynasty of Busiris) ought naturally to have had the precedence. The Heroes of the Old and New Empire have been confounded; but Diodorus himself observes that the history of Sesoōsis = Sesostris is related in very different ways. Much more light may, however, be anticipated from a critical examination of the details.

CONCLUSION. GREEK AND ROMAN RESEARCH.

OUR inquiry into the means adopted by the Egyptians for preserving their chronology and history has brought to light precious remains of those imperishable treasures of sculptured lore, in which this most essentially monumental race had, from the remotest period, recorded every step in the progress of their long career of bygone centuries. It has likewise exhibited to us faithful and carefully digested notices of those Kings, by the length of whose reigns the Egyptians regulated all their computations of time. Lastly, it has warranted the presumption of a still higher consciousness on their parts of the unity of time, as reflected in their great astronomical cycles. But as those monuments, even where intelligible, do not contain the word of living tradition, so are the Lists of Kings and series of years mere dry skeletons without life and vital coherencenames without events, dates without history, even without any such strict and intelligible chronology as the historian requires.

These defects were supplied by Greek critical research, which lent a ready and confiding ear to the tradition that still lived among the people, or at least the Priests, of the glory and happiness of the good old time—and of the long years of cruel suffering and national ignominy to which they had since been subjected. The Greek nation, henceforward, learnt to admire and reverence the dignity, the grandeur, and antiquity of Egyptian life and character; they viewed it as a phenomenon of deepest interest in the history of our species—as unhellenic — and yet not barbarous — as a living memorial of their own dark ages of primeval existence. It was, however, the conquest of Alexander, and the foundation of Alexandria, that first opened up the