295 



made respecting an astrological Papyrus at Paris, which he assigned to 

 the tenth year of Antoninus, the real date being the first year of An- 

 toninus ; and the positions of the Sun, Moon, and Saturn noted therein 

 being certainly those which they occupied on the 4th December, A. D. 

 137. This correction cuts at the root one of M. Brugsch's principal ar- 

 guments. Dr. Hincks then digresses to the consular fasti, which, as 

 generally received, are inconsistent with this date existing in a contem- 

 porary record. He points out a consulship in the reign of Yespasian, 

 which has been, he thinks, improperly inserted, and one in the reign of 

 Alexander Severus which has been improperly omitted. He then con- 

 siders the testimony of S. Clemens Alexandrinus, whose dates respect- 

 ing the birth and death of our Lord can have no significance unless the 

 years which he uses were years of 365 days without intercalation. 

 Admitting this, his dates of the birth and crucifixion of our Lord, of 

 the taking of Jerusalem, and of the death of Commodus, are found to 

 be dates of the wandering year, corresponding respectively to the 5th 

 January, 3 B.C.; 7th April, A. D. 30 ; 2d September, A. D. 70 ; 

 and 31st December, A. D. 191. The second of these dates, it is ob- 

 served, is that of Bishop Ellicott. The double date on the Eosetta 

 Stone is then considered ; and it is shown, by a reference to Archbishop 

 Ussher's work on the Macedonian Solar Year, that it is in perfect 

 harmony with the Egyptian date, being tbat of the wandering year, and 

 quite inconsistent with its belonging to a fixed year, such as M. Brugsch 

 has imagined. Dr. Hincks then goes back to the time of the seventeenth 

 or eighteenth dynasty, and endeavours to show that the Turin Book 

 of Kings, which he refers to that period, recognises the wandering 

 year of 365 years, as well as the year of 360 days, which is always 

 meant in the Turin Papyrus when a year is spoken of. He observes 

 that the 2291 years, four months, and twenty day s, which the Papyrus 

 gives as the length of the reigns of the sovereigns whom it enumerates, 

 if they be reduced to days, at the rate of 360 in the year, give precisely 

 2250x365. He observes, also, that if 2260 be subtracted from 3555, 

 which Manetho states to be the number of years between the accession of 

 Menes and the final conquest of Egypt by Ochus, the remainder is 1295, 

 the precise number of years which elapsed between the accession of the 

 seventeenth dynasty and the conquest of Egypt by Ochus, according to 

 the restoration of the text of Manetho which Dr. Hincks had put for- 

 ward in January, 1863. He maintains that 1634 B. C. (1295 years 

 before Ochus), is the historic date of the accession of the seventeenth 

 dynasty; but demurs to the 2260 years alleged to have intervened 

 between it and the accession of Menes, as it does not yet appear on 

 what grounds this number was fixed upon by the Egyptians of the six- 

 teenth or seventeenth century B. C. There is good reason, he says, for 

 thinking that some kings mentioned in the Papyrus were contemporary 

 with others ; and, as yet, there is no proof that in making this calcu- 

 lation the Egyptians allowed for their being so. He observes that the 

 seventeenth dynasty of Manetho is not represented in the Papyrus of 



