Egyptian Chronology. 467 



liated by the magnitude of the benefits which he became the 

 instrument of conferring upon our species, that superstition 

 which raised Attothes to the rank of a deity appears to have 

 the greatest justification. 



Who, then, may it be inquired, was the father of this illus- 

 trious personage, his predecessor on the throne of Egypt P 

 Syncellus, in his dynasties, confounds him with Misraim, the 

 son of Ham, by whose name Egypt was called. Others, again, 

 consider him identical with Ham himself. Neither of these 

 names, however, has any similarity to that of Menes. It 

 may, therefore, be proper to search, whether there be any 

 name in the genealogies of scripture, to which we can refer 

 that of Menes, or, as he is sometimes styled, Anamenes. This 

 last form is found in that of Anamim, among the children of 

 Misraim *. The identity, when the Greek termination is 

 removed from the one, and the form of the Hebrew plural 

 from the other, is complete. Menes, then, was the third in 

 descent from Noah, and bore the same relation to the common 

 progenitor with Nimrod, the son of Cush, the first who 

 assumed royal authority in Asia ; and, by our previous com- 

 putation, it appears that his reign must have closed about 

 2782 B.C.: we may even place his death later; for some of 

 the expressions in relation to the. inventor of letters, would ad- 

 mit that he was not actually reigning at -the time the discovery 

 was made. 



It remains that it should be shewn that this date is consistent 

 with the chronology of scripture. In England, I am aware 

 that the chronology of Usher is now exclusively adopted , and 

 as this places the flood in the year 2348 B.C., all such remote 

 antiquity is excluded. It is not, however, so in other coun- 

 tries ; the French let another chronology run parallel with that 

 of Usher in their best tables, and both appear to be admitted 

 as of equal authority by the Catholic church, while, by the 

 Greek, the latter alone is accounted authentic. Thus, then, 

 the question is one that is so far open, that it may be examined 

 without incurring the suspicion of wishing to interfere with 

 matters of faith, or the received interpretation of scripture. 



Genesis x, 13. 



