long time, conjointly with the semblance of a monarchy. The privileges also which the priesthood are said in the sacred books to possess on the election of a king tend to the same conclusion. Now the sacerdotal kings, of whom Bytis was the first at Thebes, are called the "Blessed," as priests. In historic times, the priests, as the organs of the nation, pronounced the pious among the defunct kings, "the justified" in the judgment of the dead.

In this way we can understand the expression in Eusebius, where, after mentioning the rule of the Gods, which ended with Horus, he says:

"After this came a series of reigns down to Bytis, during 13,900 years."

It is clear that Bytis himself was not a God, so that he cannot have been the last of the divine rulers. But between the Gods and the "Blessed" we cannot suppose that ordinary kings intervened, for in that case they would be identical with those of the next series. Upon every ground, therefore, we are driven to the conclusion that Bytis was the first of the sacerdotal kings. On philological grounds this interpretation is quite admissible.

But then what becomes of the 13,900 years of Eusebius? Nothing at all they are mythological, but still not cyclical. Eusebius, with his usual want of thought, supposed Manetho's list of human kings before Menes to constitute a new epoch, which is said to have lasted 5813 years. The sum total of the four preceding series of human kings, however, comprises 5212 years. Lepsius, therefore, has suggested in his "Introduction," that the reading is 1255 instead of 1855 years, when the reigns of the Blessed are mentioned. In that case the sum total would be 5812 years, or only one year less than Eusebius has assigned to what has been misunder

stood as the reigns of Manes and Heroes. The statements in Manetho, therefore, as to the dates prior to Menes, would stand thus:

Sum total of the rule of mortals 5812 years. - J (5813)

before Menes

In other words, the reigns of real human kings prior to Menes, not mere provincial princes, but such as claimed either to have governed the whole of Upper Egypt or the Lower Country, comprised nearly six thousand years. It is not impossible that the two latter series were contemporaneous, namely, the Thinites in Upper Egypt, and those who were inaccurately called Memphites in Central Egypt (for as Memphis was founded by Menes, the above title is not literally and historically exact): but still the contrast between the Upper and Lower Country is abvious. The Nome, indeed, in which Memphis was situated may have existed as a distinct district long before the building of the city of Menes; but the two former series, and those who are merely designated as "other kings," were evidently not contemporaneous. The simple question is, whether the second were also sacerdotal kings, or whether they were taken from the warrior caste? They were probably secular elected monarchs, a transitional class: they were no longer called "Blessed."

Manetho's statement, therefore, was this: that after the Gods (immediately or mediately after Horus), 13,900 years elapsed before the reign of Bytis, which is the version of Eusebius. This can only mean that, according to him, the reigns of the Gods after Horus

lasted 13,900 years, a speculative assumption, probably connected with the Sothiac period. This must be the age of the later Gods, to whom, according to Herodotus, Hercules belonged. In the Papyrus they begin with Thoth; and there is a break at the twelfth reign, so that at the thirteenth a new series commenced. The extract in Eusebius gives neither dates nor names, it merely states that the rule of the Gods lasted till the reign of Bytis. The annalists, as well as poets, make no mention of Bytis as a God, although, as we have seen, Jamblichus introduces him as a priest of Ammon. He therefore cannot be the last divine ruler, but must be the first historical human king. In an extract so brief and hastily made, it is not wonderful that he should not be again mentioned by him as the chief of the first order of human rulers. The case was precisely the same in the instance of Ammenemes, the chief of the 12th Dynasty. He is merely mentioned, and incidentally too, as being the successor of the kings of the 11th Dynasty at the close of it. After him all the kings of the 12th are mentioned by name, and yet he himself, the first of them, is omitted.

Now as Jamblichus 97 says that this Bytis was a Theban king, we may sum up historically the first period of authentic sovereignty as follows:

Historical Egypt was in the first instance an elective monarchy: its kings were elected from among the priests and probably by them, though the people had a share in the election; Bytis, the first of these sacerdotal kings, belonged to the priesthood of the temple of Ammon at Thebes. This first period lasted 1255 (1855) years.

97 See Book I. Manetho, p. 70.

II.

THE NAMES AND MEANING OF THE EGYPTIAN GODS POINT TO

WESTERN ASIA.

THE last consideration brings us to the eve of the chronological history of Egypt, the age prior to Menes. It will be unravelled in all its bearings at the close of this volume, when the historical and political character of early Egypt comes under discussion. We must first of all extend the sphere of our mythological researches, and, in so doing, change the scene from Egypt to Asia.

In taking an historical survey of Egyptian mythology, that is, in searching after its epochs and origin from a purely Egyptian point of view, we have frequently traced a connexion with Asia, and especially with Palestine and Phoenicia. We discovered the still more infallible trace in language. The God Set, whose name has a root in Semitic Asia as well as in Egypt, and can be shown from the monuments to have been worshipped in Palestine, points to Asia. The myth of Osiris, again, we know to be strictly connected with Phoenicia. Thence came, or thither went, Isis. In fact, the etymology of Osiris and Isis cannot be naturally deduced from the Egyptian, any more than that of Ptah. Is it possible to discover the roots of their names and ideas among the historical Semites? and are there any earlier traces of Egyptian Gods in the Phoenician mythology?

We fortunately possess very valuable information about the kosmogonies, and a considerable addition has been made to it recently by the Armenian version of Eusebius and the Babylonian and Assyrian monuments and inscriptions, to which the researches of Gesenius, of Movers, and of Ewald had paved the way. We believe, also, that our amended text of Sankhuniathon, in the next volume, will throw considerable light upon them.

SECTION II.

THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE EGYPTIAN VIEWS OF THE DIVINE BEGINNINGS AND THOSE OF THE MYTHOLOGICAL SEMITES.

THE results of our inquiries into the relation between Egypt and Asia, in regard to the earliest expressions of thought in language, have been already laid down. We shall not recur to them till we offer a general sketch of the history of Egypt at the close of this volume.

The case was different as to the connexion between the two countries in respect to their religious views, especially as to the beginnings of the world and the

human race.

In dealing with that branch of the subject there were many facts which in the historical development of their mythology had heretofore only been considered or discussed from a lower point of view. But it is necessary to consider them from the higher ground of their importance.

We shall therefore give a synopsis of the historical result of previous investigations; and primarily in reference to the relation of Egypt to the views of the mythological Semites, then to the traditions of the Hebrews; and lastly, take a glance at the other Asiatic races, concluding with the Greeks.