Rev, Edwakd Hincks on the true Date of the Rosetta Stone. 77 



The second date is that of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, which is shown by 

 the learned Archbishop to be assigned by the most correct copy of the Acts 

 thereof to the 2nd Xanthicus, and 26th March, A. D. 169 ; being the day of 

 the great Sabbath, or that Sabbath which occurred at the Passover. In that year, 

 therefore, the 4th Xanthicus also coincided with the 28th March. 



The third date is that of the burial of the younger Valentinian, which is 

 stated by St. Epiphanius to have fallen on the 23rd Artemisius, being the 21st 

 Pachon (of the fixed Alexandrian year) and the 16th May, A. D. 392 ; the latter 

 days are known to correspond. This correspondence gives us for the 4th Xan- 

 thicus in that year the 27th March. It is, therefore, evident that in bissextile 

 years, the 4th Xanthicus corresponded with the 27th March, and in the other 

 three years of the Julian cycle with the 28th March. This is, in truth, nothing 

 more than what has been expressly asserted by the Archbishop, who shows in his 

 treatise (pp. 46, 47» Ed. 1648), that in bissextile years the month of Xanthicus, 

 which he specially notices on account of its connexion with Easter, began on the 

 24th March, and in the other three years on the 25th. 



Now, as the year 197 B. C. was proleptically bissextile, according to the Ju- 

 lian computation, the 4th Xanthicus must in that year have coincided with the 

 27th March, and therefore with the 18th Mechir. In the three preceding years 

 it would also coincide with the 1 8th Mechir, both dates coinciding with the 28th 

 March ; but in the following year, 196 B. C, and those after it, the 18th Mechir 

 would coincide with the 27th March, while the 4th Xanthicus would coincide 

 with the 28th. 



It appears to me that this amounts to a complete demonstration, that the true 

 date of the Rosetta Stone was 197 B. C, and that the date assigned to it by M. 

 Letronne after Dr. Young was erroneous. Consequently, the seven inferences 

 drawn by M. Letronne must be rejected ; and the seven others, in most cases 

 contradictory, which I have placed in the parallel columns, must be substituted 

 for them. 



