347 
Monpay, Aprit 28TH, 1856. 
JAMES HENTHORN TODD, D.D., Presipent, 
in the Chair. 
Mr. E. Cuipzorn, by permission of the Academy, read a 
paper on the identity of the chronological system of the 
priests of Memphis, as explained to Herodotus, and the suc- 
cession of the kings of Egypt, attributed to Manetho. 
The object of the author was, in the first place, to show that 
a critique on Herodotus in the ‘‘ Royal Irish Academy Trans- 
actions,” vol. xxii. Pol. Lit. p. 49, was not applicable either 
to the chronology of the reign of Sabacon, or Anysis, which 
appears to precede it, and of Sethos, who was a contemporary 
of Sabacon ; and, in the second place, to prove that the royal 
chronology of the Egyptian priests at Memphis and Heliopo- 
lis, and especially at the latter place, as it was explained by a 
reference to a series of images there of 345 statues of Pironeses, 
was, in theory, identical with Manetho’s system of chronology 
to the end of the twenty-sixth dynasty, or the beginning of 
the Persian dynasty, in whose time both Hecatceus and Hero- 
dotus visited Egypt. 
It was explained, that according to the corrected lists of 
Manetho’s dynasties, the actual number of reigns of all the 
kings of Egyptian and of foreign origin, including Sabacon and 
two other Ethiopian kings, and one queen’s reign, in Egypt, 
was 346 only to the Persian Conquest; and thus, the total 
numbers of reigns of kings, of Pironeses at Heliopolis, and 
of priests at Memphis, as explained to Herodotus, were the 
same up to the Persian dominion, as the number of reigns 
stated by Manetho. 
It was also explained, that Bunsen, in the exposition in his 
“‘ Keypt’s Place,” &c., vol. i. p. 105, of what he erroneously 
calls Herodotus’s view of the chronology of Egypt, had fallen 
