Biographical Sketch of Dr Pricharil. 217 



the first survey of the fragments we have extracted. When 

 I first examined these fragments, with a view of computing 

 from them the Egyptian chronology, they appeared to me to 

 be an inextricable tissue of ei'ror and contradiction. I re- 

 peated my attempt several times, at intervals, before I ob- 

 tained the smallest hope of success, or a ray of light to guide 

 me throiigli the labyrinth. At length I thought I discovered 

 a clue, which I have followed, and have persuaded myself 

 that it has enabled me to unravel the mystery." 



That clue was discovered by the same kind of investiga- 

 tory process which has been applied in all Dr Prichard's re- 

 searches, — the obtaining fixed points of coincidence or agree- 

 ment, with which to form a standard of comparison for appa- 

 rently discordant materials. 



Discordant as the several lists of the Egyptian Pharaohs 

 appeared, there were various points of agreement and cor- 

 respondence between them, clearly demonstrating a dei"ivation 

 from some common source. The collation of the various 

 lists, thus shewn to possess a certain authenticity, produced 

 a series of historical synchronisms, which served as fixed 

 points for computation in an upward and downward direction. 

 Rejecting the untenable doctrines of Marsham and Scaliger 

 as to the contemporaneous character of the several dynasties 

 of Manetho, and the division of Egypt into various districts 

 and independent kingdoms, whose sovereigns appear in the 

 lists in a false order of succession, Dr Prichard commenced 

 by treating the various historical fragments as authentic 

 history, whose discrepancies were capable of being recon- 

 ciled by the application of judicious critical comparison. Pro- 

 fessor Schlegel imputes to him, as a fault inherent in an 

 English author, a want of frankness and of freedom from 

 prejudice, which causes him to incline, in his chronological 

 views, " to the errors of the Harmonists, who, for the last 

 1500 years, have been vainly labouring to bring into seeming 

 accordance the contradictions of the so-called profane his- 

 tory and of the traditons which are deemed sacred.'' How 

 little this reproach, if it be one, was deserved, is evident, not 

 only from the general tenor of the investigation pursued, but 

 from the author's own statement of the rule by which he was 



