used by the Ancient Egyptians. 189 



appearances are recorded by Tacitus, accounted for ; and the only scruple, which 

 any one can have, in respect to the coincidences of these appearances with the 

 reigns of the kings whom Tacitus mentions, is whether Sesostris reigned at so 

 late a date as 1 167 B. C. I will not discuss this point. I will only observe that, 

 according to Mr. Cullimore, who has paid much attention to Egyptian chro- 

 nology, the construction of " the Memnonlum," as the palace of this sovereign at 

 Thebes has been most improperly called, took place about 1,138 B. C. ; and he 

 reigned sixty-eight years, according to Manetho ;* so that, if Mr. Cullimore be 

 right, he might well have commenced his reign before 1167. I take it for 

 granted, that we are to understand by Sesostris, Rameses the Great ; the second 

 sovereign of that name, whose numerous monuments exhibit him as the most 

 distinguished of a race of conquerors. 



2. I now come to some verifications of the epochs, that I have assigned for 

 the commencements of these cycles. Connected as they are with one another, it 

 is evident, that, if any one can be verified, independently of the series, the veri- 

 fication will extend to all. I at first considered the statement of Tacitus as so 

 explicit with respect to the year 34 being that of the appearance of the phoenix, 

 that I felt little desire for any verification of it, so soon as I became quite satisfied 

 that the cycles of 600 and 1500 years were established on sure grounds. I was, 

 however, startled at finding that the appearance of this phoenix was fixed by 

 Pliny in a different year. He speaks of it (B. 10, ch. 2) as having arrived in 

 Egypt in the consulship of Paplnlus and Plautius, that is, in A. D. 36. From 

 the whole train of argument that I have used, it is evident that this change in 

 the year of appearance of the phoenix, supposing it to be established, would only 

 alter the epochs of my cycles, bringing them down two years, or 730 days ; 



* There is a tablet in the British Museum, dated on the 29th of the first month of the Inunda- 

 tion, (Pachon,) in the sixty-second year of this prince. Mr. Cullimore fixes the date of the 

 Memnonium from the astronomical sculptures on its ceiling. It is but fair, however, to state, that 

 from the very same data M. Biot places the building of this edifice in 1300 B. C, and Mr. Wilkinson 

 in 1322 B. C. Though I feel disposed to agree with Mr. Cullimore, I by no means regard his 

 system as established on perfectly sure grounds ; nor do I consider my own conclusions, contained in 

 this paper, to be so connected with it, as that they would be shaken by its being overturned. 

 Tacitus may very well be supposed to have used the name " Sesostris" indeterminately ; not for the 

 great Rameses, but for some of the numerous princes who claimed descent from him, and bore his 

 name. All, I presume, will admit that the sovereign who reigned in 1167 B. C. was a Rameses ; and 

 Tacitus may have meant nothing more than this. 



