EXTRACTS FROM THE AUTHOR’S DEDICATION TO THE CHEVALIER BUNSEN.

My chronological work (the first volume of which is now before you), starting from a far more limited point of view, has a less remote aim than your history⁠[120]⁠, and will be at most but a supplemental elaboration of the ideas originally laid down in your more comprehensive plan. It is not my task to indicate the position Egypt occupies in the History of the World, but only in its external form in the History of Time; it is therefore chronological, not historical. But to obtain the chronological basis was, with reason in your opinion also, the first and most important point of your inquiry, because upon this must depend every extensive development of history. You derived your information directly from those authors from whom we learn the connection of events, as a whole, and in detail. I obtained mine from the monuments, which establish the authenticity of the Greek account, frequently disclose their meaning, and necessarily correct, complete, and confirm their separate statements. The mutual interchange was intended to have led to a common result. If formerly this was not always the case, the interruption of our intercourse could not but lead us in many points still farther apart. I have never hesitated to express myself freely when I have differed from you, because I well know that, like me, you alone regard the subject before you, and are convinced that truth is finally elicited only by a distinct presentation of opposing possibilities. In the present investigations, also, I have yielded to this conviction, but on that account have felt it still more obligatory to lay them first of all before you, and fulfilling an agreeable duty, dedicate them to you as a public testimony of my gratitude.

In this work I have touched upon the most various provinces of archæology, and have frequently been obliged to oppose, in essential points, the views of men whom I honour and admire as the heroes of science, and as unsurpassed models in criticism and true inquiry. This opposition would be presumptuous were it not that these contested points are mere specialities in the wide domain over which those men rule, to refute which, even successfully, could not abate from their just fame; while, on the other hand, most of them are vital questions in the solution of the present undertaking, and closely connected with the very substance of those investigations, with which I have especially endeavoured to render myself familiar.

Had my vocation placed me in a political position, my motto would have been Reverence and Freedom, and with reverence and freedom (those are your words) science must also be pursued. Reverence, for everything that is venerable, sacred, noble, great, and approved; freedom, wherever truth and a conviction of it are to be obtained and expressed. Where the latter is wanting, there fear and hypocrisy will exist; where the former, insolence and presumption will luxuriate in science as in life.

The investigation of Egyptian history will gradually exercise an extensive influence upon all branches of archæology—upon our whole conception of the past history of man. We must therefore expect a reaction from all these sides. Some of these influential points have been already vindicated, partly by you and partly in the investigations now before us. They will not fail to call forth an animated opposition, and at best elicit discussion, going to the root of the question, and emendation on the part of the learned, to whose opinion I attach the greatest weight.

That section of my volume which endeavours to establish the relation of the Egyptian to the Old Hebrew Chronology, will meet with most opposition. Considering the intimate connection that necessarily subsists between the philological and dogmatical method of examining the Biblical Records, it is perfectly natural, that whenever a step in advance, or an error, strives to obtain a place on the philological side, theological interest, so much more universally distributed, takes a part either for, or against it. Whoever would dispute its right to do this, must deny to theology in general its character as a science. The Christianity, which derives its origin and its sustenance from the Bible, is essentially and intrinsically wholly independent of all learned confirmation. But it is the duty of theology, whose task it is to fathom Christianity in a rational manner, and prove its results, to decide scientifically what are the essential points in the holy Scriptures on which it founds its system of Christian belief. Should its true supports not be recognised, but imaginary ones placed in their stead, it will not injure Christianity, but the theological system, or that portion of it which was built on unstable ground. That truth which is discerned by the sound progress of any science whatsoever, cannot be hostile to Christian truth, but must promote it; for all truths, from the very beginning, have formed a compact league against everything that is false and erroneous. Theology, however, possesses no other means than every other science to distinguish scientifically, in any department, between truth and error, namely, only a reasonable and circumspect criticism. Whatever is brought forward according to this method, can only be corrected, or entirely refuted, by a still better and more circumspect criticism.

I believe that you, my honoured friend, and myself, have only one opinion on these points, I have therefore ventured to refer, at the conclusion of this section, to your excellent words, written on an occasion similar to the present. It seems to me, also, that the practical religious meaning, which the Old Testament possesses for every Christian reader, is very independent of the dates of periods, the exact knowledge of which could only have been known by means of a purposeless inspiration to the authors and elaborators of those writings, many of whom lived several centuries later. Strict science has also very generally decided in this manner for a long time past, and has not failed to exercise its purifying reaction upon the dogmatical comprehension of the matter. So much the more solicitous am I, however, as to whether my views will stand your examination, and the judgments of other far more competent investigators than myself in this department, or will, at any rate, meet your consideration.

The two numbers, namely the 430 years of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, and the 480 years from the Exodus to the building of the Temple, have been entirely abandoned by me, but have been the points on which all the most modern investigations have rested, though they appear to have been quite unknown, at least not brought under the consideration of all the older scholars, as Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, Syncellus, &c. On the other hand, I have clung to the Levitical registers of Generations as a far more certain guide; and thus, in place of a chronological fabric, which had been already long considered untenable, I immediately obtained a true historical foundation, and a chronology bordering, at least, on a perfectly reliable one, as far back as Abraham, and this not only most satisfactorily coincided with all the other historical relations in the writings of the Old Testament, but also with the already established Manethonic-Egyptian computation of time. The path which I have here taken is by no means new. Des Vignoles, Böckh, and Bertheau had already abandoned the number 480 years; you yourself decided against the 430 years, and I find the same path pursued by Engelstoft in the most decided manner in his interesting work, to which, however, too little attention has been paid. Other preparatory labours in the widely extended department of this literature may have escaped my notice, but, at all events, these opinions had hitherto been unable to make themselves properly appreciated, as is evident from the latest works of the most important inquirers; and first among them Ewald’s profound and acute history. Were it only occasioned by this mode of apprehension being hitherto not sufficiently carried out, and requiring especially the essential confirmation of Egyptian chronology, and should the new course which I have adopted on that account win a more general assent, it would be no slight satisfaction to me, and would especially afford me one more guarantee of the genuineness of the Egyptian chronology.

But the real foundation for the Egyptian computation of time, according as, in my opinion, it should be restored, is to be found in the last section of this volume in the criticism upon the authorities which derive their information from Manetho. This is a detailed and complicated investigation, and the superabundant material which is presented, forms a knot which the labour of almost a thousand years, in place of disentangling, has only drawn still tighter, because the wrong ends of the threads were always pulled. It was first of all necessary carefully to pursue these false ends through all their twistings—I mean especially the spurious writings, and the influences exercised by them, and separate them distinctly; but to recognise the true character of the remaining genuine portion, and to fix securely the few principal points. Besides my own preparatory labours, I possessed two admirable researches, upon which I could still further build: your own work, and the one by Böckh upon the Manethonic Computation of Time. The result of the two investigations, which were obtained independently of each other, and published almost simultaneously, deviate very much from one another, since you fix Menes more than 2000 years later than Böckh believes he is placed by Manetho. This discrepancy must be the immediate result of the difference in your fundamental views, which caused Böckh to regard the Manethonic Dynasties as uninterruptedly consecutive, you as partly reigning contemporaneously. Böckh especially cited in support of his view the circumstance, that if we count the Dynasties according to the presentation of them by Africanus in a continuous line, the first year of Menes coincided very nearly with the proleptically calculated year of commencement of an Egyptian Sothis period. He treated the questions under consideration with all the learning and ingenious criticism which is peculiar to this master in archæological investigation, pointing out that the slight deviation between the result which had been arrived at, and the one expected, might be removed by very simple means; and he came to the conclusion, that this agreement was intentionally brought about by the Egyptian annalists, consequently that the Manethonic computation of time was cyclically invented or adapted, not handed down by history. The view that you maintain, which differs very much from this, you founded especially upon the comparison of the Eratosthenic lists with the Manethonic Dynasties of the Old Monarchy; you thus determined the continuous Monarchical Dynasties, whose periods you calculated by the numbers of Eratosthenes, you especially recognised no cyclical element in the Manethonic chronology, and hence believed the accounts of Manetho and Eratosthenes to be a historical tradition, in part the result of learned Alexandrian investigations.

My view corresponds with yours in all essential points. That several of the Dynasties were contemporaneous, appears to me most decidedly attested; and I have been able to obtain a direct, and, as I believe, a genuine Manethonic proof of it. On the other hand, from the beginning I have never been able to lay so much stress upon the list of Eratosthenes, especially upon its individual names and numbers, opposed to the Manethonic statement, as appeared to you justifiable, owing to the important information you obtained from it concerning the Monarchical Dynasties. This is the principal reason why we still differ so much in our determination of the duration of the Old Monarchy down to the entrance of the Hyksos. A cyclical treatment of the Egyptian chronology, which you neither recognised in the History of the Gods, nor in the History of Man, which Böckh, on the other hand, believes he finds in both parts, appears to me, indeed, capable of being demonstrated, but only in the mythical history, before Menes. The result of this has been a confirmation of the sum total of the Manethonic History of Man, which is also considered genuine by you, and upon which I imagine I may venture to place the greatest weight.