used hy the Ancient Egyptians. » '—'^^ l93 



nearest to the autumnal equinox in 1767 B. C, at such a distance from the 

 equinox as would naturally result from the incorrectness of former cycles ? On 

 examining into this matter, I found that it was precisely so. In 1767 B. C. the 

 autumnal equinox occurred on the 8th October, and the new moon four days 

 after, on the 12th. Now the new moon gained on the equinox about a day in 

 each cycle of 600 years ; consequently, in 3567 B. C, three cycles back, the 

 new moon would occur the day after the equinox ; and, taking into account the 

 uncertainty of observation, at that early age, we might very well place the com- 

 mencement of the series of cycles at that epoch. Those, however, who, with the 

 early Christians, and most of the learned in modem times, adopt the chronology 

 of the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, will naturally place the commence- 

 ment of this series of cycles at the autumnal equinox 4167 B. C, when the 

 coincidence of the equinox with the new moon was still more exact. 



There is only one other subject, connected with the Egyptian year, on which 

 I feel it necessary to make any remarks ; and that is the canicular cycle. I con- 

 ceive that what I have said has completely overthrovra the theory of Freret, 

 followed by many in our own day, that two such cycles had elapsed in 138 A. D.; 

 or that the first year belonging to these cycles began in July 2783 B. C. It is 

 possible, that in 1323 B. C, the heliacal rising of Sirius being observed on the 

 first Thoth, a cycle may have been adopted, grounded upon the occurrence of 

 this phenomenon. But it seems much more probable, that some astronomer of 

 the Alexandrian school, under the Ptolemies, observing the day on which Sirius 

 then rose heliacally, and observing the rate of the progress of its rising (a day in 

 four years) calculated at what time the rising would take place on the 1st of 

 Thoth ; and commenced the cycle proleptically at that time. In either case, we 

 must suppose the Menophres, from whose time the years of this cycle are dated 

 by Theon, to have been an Egyptian king ; and there is no name to be found in 

 Manetho, so likely to have been he, as Mephres of the eighteenth dynasty ; who 

 was probably the last Thothmos but one (the third or fourth) ; he whose sister 

 shared the government with him in the beginning of his reign.* The interval 



* In identifying this Thothmos with Mephres, (though not with Menophres,) I follow ChampoUion 



and Rosellini, who, however, makes him the fourth Thothmos, supposing there to have been in all 



five sovereigns of that name. I feel reluctant to differ from Mr. Wilkinson on this subject; 



but the evidence on which the identification rests is such as to carry conviction to my mind. This 



VOL. XVIII. 2 B 



