THE EGYPTIANS DYNASTIES
From the DELUGE,
As they are recorded by MANETHON.
The First Dynasty.
Next after the Demigods was Menes the Theeinite, who was destroyed by a crocodile.
Athothis.
Cencenes.
Venephes.
Usaphaedus.
Miebidus.
Semempsis.
Bienaches.
The Second Dynasty of Thmites.
Boethus.
Kaeachus.
Binothris.
Tlas.
Sethenes.
Choeres.
Nephercheres.
The Third Dynasty of Memphites.
Necherophes.
Tosorthrus.
Tyris.
Mesochris.
Soiphis.
Tosertasis.
Achis.
Siphouris.
Kerpheres.
The Fourth Dynasty of Memphites.
Soris.
Suphis.
Suphis the Second.
Mencheres.
Rataeses.
Bicheres.
Sebercheres.
Thamphthis.
Sesocris, who was five cubits high [7.5 feet], and three [4.5 feet] in circumference.
A ninth unknown.
The Fifth Dynasty of Elephantine Kings.
Usercheres.
Sephres.
Nephercheres.
Sisiris.
Cheres.
Rathuris.
Mercheres.
Tarcheres.
Obnos.
The Sixth Dynasty of Memphites.
Othoes.
Phius.
Methusuphis.
Phiops.
Mentesuphis.
Nitocris.
The Seventh Dynasty.
Seventy Memphites, who reign seventy days.
The Eighth Dynasty.
Twenty-seven Memphites, who reign 146 years.
The Ninth Dynasty consists of nineteen Princes of Heraclea.
Othoes, killed by a crocodile.
The eighteen others unknown.
The Tenth Dynasty.
Nineteen Heraclotics, who reign 185 years: their names and history unknown.
The Eleventh Dynasty.
Sixteen Diospolites, who reign 43 years. Of these Amemenenes only specified.
The Twelfth Dynasty: twelve Diospolites.
31 [He is called Sesonchosis by Syncellus in another list. He is said to have been the son of the former king. But all dynasties begin with kings of a new family.] Sesonchoris, the son of Amanemes.
Sesostris: the great monarch, who conquered all the world: the next in order to 32 [[x]. How then can he be a king in the twelfth dynasty? The account of his stature is from Eusebius.] Osiris: his height was four cubits, three palms, and two digits. [over 6 ft.]
Lachares.
33 [These three seem not to have been in Manethon: but are supplied by Africanus.] Ammeres.
Ammenemes.
Scemiophris.
The rest unknown.
The Thirteenth Dynasty.
Sixty Diospolites, who reign 184 years. No names nor history mentioned.
The Fourteenth Dynasty.
No mention made of it. Eusebius however supplies this vacancy with a Dynasty of 76 Xoites, who reign collectively 184 years: which is but two 34 [See Syncellus. p. 49. Some make the number of years 484, which amounts to six years and seven months apiece. Neither account seems credible.] years and five months apiece.
The Fifteenth 35 [This is in reality the first dynasty of Egyptian kings.] Dynasty is of the Shepherds.
These were six foreign princes, styled Phoenices, who took Memphis; and built a city in the Sethroite nome; from whence they made an irruption, and conquered all Egypt.
Saithes.
Beon.
Pachnan.
Staan.
Archles.
Aphobis.
At this period are introduced the two spurious dynasties by Manethon; or at least by 36 [It is not certain to whom this mistake is to be attributed; but I should judge, that it was owing to Africanus.] Africanus.
The first is of thirty-two Grecian Shepherd kings, who reign 518 years.
The second of forty-three Shepherd kings, who reign collaterally with just the same number of Diospolites: and also reign precisely the same number of years; which amount to 153.
These dynasties I omit: and in consequence of it call the next dynasty the sixteenth.
The Sixteenth Dynasty of sixteen Diospolites.
Amos.
Chebros.
Amenophthis.
Amersis.
Misaphris.
Misphragmuthosis.
Tuthmosis.
Amenophis.
Orus.
Acherres.
Rathos.
Chebres.
Acherres.
Armeses.
Rammesses.
Ammenoph.
The Seventeenth Dynasty of Diospolites.
Sethos.
Rapsaces.
Ammenephthes.
Rameses.
Ammesemnes.
Thuoris.
Alcandrus.
The Eighteenth Dynasty of twelve Diospolites.
No names nor history is given.
The Nineteenth Dynasty of seven Tanites.
Smedes.
Phusenes.
Nephelcheres.
Amenophthis.
Osocor.
Pinaches.
Susennes.
The Twentieth Dynasty of nine Bubastites.
Sesonchis.
Osoroth.
The three next are not named.
Tacellothis.
The three next are not named.
The Twenty-first Dynasty of four Tanites.
Petubates.
Osorcho.
Psammus.
Zeet.
The Twenty-second Dynasty.
Bochoris the Saite.
The Twenty-third Dynasty of three Ethiopians.
Sabbacon.
Sevechus.
Tarchon.
The Twenty-fourth Dynasty of nine Saites.
Stephinates.
Nerepsos.
Nechao.
Psammitichus.
Nechao the Second.
Psammuthis.
Vaphris.
Amosis.
Psammacherites.
The Twenty-fifth Dynasty of eight Persians.
Cambyses.
Darius, the Son of Hystaspes.
Xerxes.
Artabanus.
Artaxerxes.
Xerxes.
Sogdianus.
Darius.
The Twenty-sixth Dynasty.
Amyrteus the Saite.
'The Twenty-seventh Dynasty of four Mendesians.
Nepherites.
Achoris.
Psammuthis.
Nephorotes.
The Twenty-eighth Dynasty of three Sebennytes.
Nectanebes.
Teos.
Nectanebes.
The Twenty-ninth Dynasty of three Persians.
Ochus.
Arses.
Darius: the same who was conquered by Alexander.
Such was the state of the dynasties, before they had suffered a second interpolation, by having two, which were spurious, inserted. These consisted of no less than seventy Grecian, and other, Shepherd kings, which are very justly set aside by Eusebius. This learned writer had done well, if he had stopped short, after that he had remedied the mistake in Africanus. But he had no suspicion, that the previous dynasties were all spurious; I mean all those before the fifteenth. He was therefore fearful of making a gap in the list; and has supplied the place of those, which he expunged, with some Diospolites, or 37 [As the two dynasties of Manethon were brought after the Shepherds, Eusebius varies his disposition, and places his Diospolites above them: for he saw plainly that the place of the Shepherds was the fifteenth inclusive from the bottom. But by this interpolation he made it the seventeenth from the top. Whereas it was the center dynasty equally removed from the extremes. It stood between the spurious and the genuine dynasties; and belonged to the latter.] Thebans. But they should be all alike cancelled: for with the Shepherds, those Auritae, and Demigods, the chronology of Egypt began. Therefore the seventeenth dynasty of Eusebius should have been marked the first; for it certainly was so esteemed by the ancient Egyptians; and we ought for the future to read, [x]. "The first dynasty consists of the Shepherd kings, who were foreigners, and took Memphis, & c." To the truth of this the Old Chronicle bears witness: in which the first who reign are the Shepherds, under the title of Semidei and Auritae. The number and titles of the dynasties do not turn out so precisely the 38 [It has in some places been altered to serve a purpose; and probably by Syncellus.] same, as we find them in other accounts; for the Chronicle falls off towards the end; being most defective, where we might expect it to be most perfect. It affords however, though very concise, the great outlines of the Egyptian chronology; and must be esteemed as an excellent guide, as far as it is capable of conducting us. I would not therefore do any thing to disparage its merit: yet it is probably nothing more than a part of a yearly calendar, in which the celestial motions were calculated. The months and holy days specified, and the reigns of the kings prefixed. Among many others, there were two Hermetic books, in common use among the Egyptians. The 39 [Jamblichus. Sect. 8. c. 4. p. 160.] first of these related to the energy of the heavens; to the powers of the planets, and the influence of the stars; and was properly a treatise concerning horoscopes, and astrology; and was full of dark and mysterious learning. The other, which related to the real operations of nature, was of more use, but in less esteem; being nothing more than a common almanack, and so denominated. 40 [Ibid.] [x]. "What" says Chaeremon, "is comprised in the Egyptian ALMANACKS, contains but a small part of the Hermaic institutions. The whole, that relates to the rising and occultation of the stars, to the increase and decrease of the moon, was held in the least estimation." Porphyry likewise mentions the Egyptian Almanacks; and gives an account of their contents, which seem to be very curious. They consisted of a detail about the phases of the sun, and moon; and of the rising, and setting of the stars for the year: also of the aspects and influences of the planets, and what was from them portended: 41 [Epistola ad Anebonem (Google translate: Letter to Anebo.). p. 7.] [x] "there was also some physical advice subjoined." All this, says Porphyry, [x], is contained in the Egyptian ALMANACKS." According; to Iamblichus, these calendars were not held in so high repute, as the other Hermetic writings. Be this as it may, our Chronicle is probably of this sort: and though formerly of no great esteem on account of its being cheap and obvious, yet not at all for that reason of less authority. It began, as I have shewn, with the supposed reign of Hephaistus, and of the Sun; and afterwards of Cronus, and twelve other Gods. Syncellus imagines, that it misled Manethon by the immense number of years, of which these reigns are said to consist. The amount of the whole was no less than 36525 years. There is something particular in this number, to which we must attend; as it has misled not only Manethon, but Syncellus. For they with many more have applied these numbers to the dynasties of Egypt: by which means the annals of the country have been carried to an unwarrantable height. Iamblichus, who had studied the Egyptian history very closely, takes notice of the same numbers, and applies them to the writings of Hermes. He introduces Chaeremon, who is speaking of first principles and essences: 42 [[x]. Iamblich. Sect. 8. c. i. p. 157.] "all which," says he, "Hermes transmitted in twenty thousand volumes, according to Seleucus, or rather, as Manethon has shewn, they were compleated in thirty-six thousand five hundred and thirty-five." We may from hence perceive, how uncertain writers were about a circumstance of this consequence. What some applied to the duration of their monarchy, others supposed to be a number of books, the volumes written by Hermes. But the numbers were misapplied in both cases. They related indeed to volumes; but to volumes of another nature; to the revolutions of the sun: and were an artificial calculation. One kind of Egyptian year consisted of three hundred and sixty days; with the five [x], which were sacred to five Deities, 43 [Plutarch. Isis et Osir. p. 355.] Osiris, Aroueris, Typhon, Isis, and Nephthe. Some Deity, or title of a Deity, was affixed to every day in the calendar: hence they amounted to 365 in number. These were introduced into Greece, and, as was supposed, by Orpheus. To this Theophilus alludes, when he upbraids Orpheus with his polytheism. 44 [Theoph. ad Autol. L. 3. p. 381.] [x]; "What advantage did Orpheus ever find from his three hundred and sixty-five Gods?" This year of 365 days was termed the Sothic, from Sothis, the dog-star; at whose heliacal rising it was supposed to commence. But they had another year in Upper Egypt, which was heliacal, and styled the Theban. This consisted more accurately of three hundred sixty-five days, and six hours. 45 [Diod. L. i. p. 46. Caius Caesar — imitatus AEgyptios, solos divinarum rerum omnium conscios, ad numerum solis, qui diebus singulis tricenis sexaginta quinque et quadrante cursum consicit, annum dirigere contendit. Macrob. Sat. L. i. c. 14. p. 178. The Thebans understood [x]. Diod. L. i. p. 46. (AEgyptii menses) tricenum dierum omnes habent: coque explicitis duodecim mensibus, id est, 360 diebus exactis, tune inter Augustum et Septembrem reliquos quinque dies anno suo reddunt; adnectentes, quarto quoque anno exacto, intercalarem, qui ex quadrantibus consit. Macrob. Sat. L. i. c. 15. p. 180. (Google translate: Diod. L. i. p. 46 Caius Caesar - imitating the Egyptians, only conscious of all divine things the number of sunrises that take a thirty-five-fourth of a day's course convulses, strives to direct the year. Macrob. Sat. L. i. c. 14. p. 178 The Thebans understood [x]. Diod. L. i. p. 46 (Egyptians months) they all have thirty days: boil twelve the months, that is, 360 days after the expiration, then between August and September they pay five days in their year; intercalary which should consist of a quadrant. Macrob. Sat. L. i. c. 15. p. 180)] [x]. "They add," says Diodorus, "to the twelve months, five days complete and one quarter." It was used in many parts of Egypt: and the numbers spoken of above, related to a period in calculation; and was no historical account. They were the amount of days in a cycle of one hundred years: for if one year consists of three hundred sixty-five days, and a fourth part, they in one hundred years will amount to 36525, the number of which we treat. What therefore had belonged to an ancient ephemeris, has by mistake been applied to historical computation: and days have been taken for years. This might well raise the Egyptian history to an unwarrantable height; and make it precede the creation by many ages. Some have thought to evade this difficulty by supposing that the years 46 [Euseb. Chron. p. 8. See Diodorus. L,. i. p. 22. [x].] [x], and 47 [[x]. Syncellus. p. 40. Apud AEgyptios pro annis menses haberi. Varro apud Lactant. L. 2. c. 12. p. 169.] "lunar and monthly years"; which were in use in some parts of Egypt. Syncellus tries to solve it another way; by giving the dynasties from the sixteenth downward their proper number of years, and allowing the overplus to the Gods, and Demigods. But we have no occasion to have recourse to these helps: for the numbers of the real dynasties had nothing to do with this astronomical computation: and Iamblichus, who equally misapplies 48 [He supposes, that they related to the books of Hermes: but the books of Hermes were but forty-two. Clemens mentions them, and specifies the contents of each. Strom. L. 6. p. 758.] them, shews, that they who treated of them differed in their opinions, and were by no means 49 [We learn from him, that what Syncellus in aftertimes applied to Chronology, was by Manethon thought to relate to the books or Hermes. Sect. 8. p. 157.] consistent.
The dynasty of those kings, who immediately succeeded the Shepherds, is termed the Cynic cycle: and the star Sirius, and many other things of eminence among the Egyptians, were styled Cynic; and supposed to have some reference to dogs. But the Cynic cycle, or more properly the 50 [Cun, Chon, Cohen, a King. See Vol. I. Radicals.] Cunic, was the Royal cycle, and related to a series of kings: and every thing so denominated is to be taken in that acceptation. Some of the books of Hermes are styled [x] 51 [By Syncelius expressed [x]. p. 52. See Vol. I. of this work. Radicals. Keren, Rex. Kuran, Heliacus. Hence [x].] [x], "Genic and Curanic"; and from them it is said, that Apion, Manethon, and Panodorus obtained most of their knowledge. These seem to be both Egyptian terms, distorted by the Greeks; but of the same purport, as that above. They were properly Chanic and Curanic books; and contained the history of the priests, and kings of the country. Every Grecian term, which alludes to Egypt, and its history, is to be suspected. It is to be observed, that Manethon, and his copier Africanus, mention, that after the reigns of the Demigods, there was a succession of other persons; and he specifics those of the first dynasty. 52 [Syncellus. p. 54.] [x]. But what can we make of these terms? "Post manes Semideos prima dynastia" [Google translate: After the ghosts of the demigods first dynasty], or "post cadavera Semideos prima dynastia," [Google translate: after the corpses of demigods in the first dynasty] &c. They cannot be made sense by any exposition. Eusebius saw, that there was some mistake; and he has altered it by inserting a copulative. 53 [Euseb. Chron. p. 14. [x]. Euseb. apud Syncellum. P. 55.] [x]. But this does not seem to mend the matter. "Post manes, vel cadavera, et Semideos prima dynastia numeratur." [Google translate: After the ghosts and corpses of demigods of the first dynasty it is numbered.] In another place Syncellus, besides the [x], makes mention of 54 [Syncellus. p. 40.] [x]: "Deorum, et Semideorum, et cadaverum, et mortalium. [Google translate: Gods and demigods and corpses and mortals.] But what sense can be obtained from hence? Is it not manifest, that there is some mistake in terms? I think, we may be assured, that what the Grecians have rendered [x], "a dead body," was Nechus, a King: and that by the words [x], we are to understand, post reges Semideos, "after the reigns of the Demigods began the first Egyptian dynasty." The title of Nechus was very 55 [It seems to have been expressed Necho, Nechao, Nechus, Negus; and was probably the same as [x], Nagud of the Hebrews, which signifies a Prince. It occurs in composition; and we read of Necepsus, Necherophes, kings of Egypt. It was a common title.] ancient, and to be found in many nations. The king of Abyssinia is called Negus at this day. The purport of the history given will, I think, prove what I say. Syncellus mentions, that Manethon borrowed what he wrote from the books of Hermes; and that the first part of his work gave an account of the Gods, and Demigods; which last we know were mortal men, and reigned in 56 [[x]. Euseb. Chron. p. 7.] Egypt. These certainly were the first, who had the title of Nechus: and it is inseparably found with them. Eusebius indeed and Syncellus take pains to disjoin them; and out of them would form a different set of persons. The former accordingly through mistake complains of the Egyptians for introducing such a strange set of personages. 57 [Syncellus. p. 40.] [x]. "Besides these Demigods, they have got together a tedious ill-grounded history of dead persons, and other mortals, who reigned." But the whole of this is a mistake of the true history: and I am persuaded from the position of the terms, that what Eusebius alluded to should have been rendered [x]. And in the reading above, [x] should have been expressed, according to the original, [x], post reges Semideos, [Google translate: after kings demigods] after the Demigod kings, the first dynasty commenced. But either the translators, or transcribers, did not know the meaning of the title Nechus; and have changed it to [x], "a dead body." The like is to be observed in the passage above quoted from Syncellus; where the three orders of princes are mentioned, which occurred in the Egyptian lists: [x]. I make no doubt, but according to the true history the reading was, [x]: "Gods, and Demigods, and kings, who were mortals." These mortal kings are mentioned in contradistinction to the Gods, and Demigods, though the latter were equally men, but were still esteemed a superior order of beings. Eusebius is very severe upon the Egyptian annals, as being full of forgeries. But in this I must in some degree dissent from this very learned author. For I believe, that the history of Egypt would have been found far more consistent, than is imagined, if it had never been perverted by those who borrowed from it. The Grecians ruined a fine system by blending what related to astronomy with chronology; and confounding theology with 58 [ Both Eusebius and Syncellus failed by trying to adapt foreign occurrences to Grecian mythology.] history: by not distinguishing between Gods, and men; between reigns of kings, and revolutions in the heavens. The kings of Egypt had many names, and titles. 59 [Syncellus. p. 63.] [x]. "The princes of the country have often two, and often three names." The Deities had still a greater variety: and I have before mentioned a statue of Isis, inscribed, 60 [Gruter. p. 83. n. 11.] Isidi Myrionymae, "to Isis with a thousand names." These names and titles have been branched out into persons, and inserted in the lists of the real monarchs. Hence we find Menes, the Lunar God, with the hippopotamus stand foremost; and Osiris, and Orus nearly in the same position. I have mentioned of Osiris, that he was exposed in an ark, and for a long time in a state of death. The like is said of Orus, whom 61 [Plutarch. Isis et Osir. p. 357.] Isis found floating upon the waters: also of Adonis, and Thamuz, who returned to light after the expiration of a year. We have the same history concerning Talus, or Tulus, who succeeded Orus. He is by some called Thoulus; and is said to have had a renewal of life, and to have recovered, when Cybele was in labour.
62 [Nonnus. L. 25. p. 674. [x]. Hesych. [x]. Ibid.] [x].
Lastly, it is said of 63 [[x]. Herodotus. L. 2. c. 122. He is said to have ruled over the whole earth, like Zeuth, Osiris, Orus, and others. Hermapion calls him Rhamestes, [x]. Marcellinus. L. 17. p. 126. See Tacitus. Annal. L. 2. c. 60.] Rhameses, whom Herodotus calls Rhampsinitus, that he descended to the mansions of death; and after some stay returned to light. The anniversary of his return was held sacred, and observed as a festival by the Egyptians. I mention these things to shew, that the whole is one and the same history: and that all these names are titles of the same person. They have however been otherwise esteemed: and we find them accordingly inserted in the lists of kings; by which means the chronology of Egypt has been embarrassed greatly.
Having mentioned Rhameses, and his descent to Hades, I cannot help adding a short piece of history concerning him in that situation; in order to give another instance of Grecian sophistry, and abuse of terms. It is well known, that under the character of Damater the ancients alluded to the ark, and to the supposed Genius, which presided over it. This Goddess is said to have received, and sheltered Rhameses in the shades below: and it is further mentioned, 64 [Herod. L. 2. c. 122.] [x], "that he played at dice" with the Goddess. The persons in the ark were represented as in a state of death: and the ark itself was looked upon as a bier or coffin; and as such commemorated in all the rites of Osiris. A coffin, or bier, seems by the Egyptians to have been styled Cuban: which term the Greeks retained, and expressed Cubas. Hence [x]. "Cubas," says Hesychius, "signifies a bier." A ship also was called Cuba, and 65 [[x]. Hesych. It should be [x]. Cubeam maximam, triremis instar, pulcherrimam, atque ornatissimam. Cicero. Verrina 5. 17. From hence Apollo, the prophetic God, was called Cabaeus. [x]. AEschylus apud Macrob. Sat. L. i. c. 18. p. 200.] Cubeia. But at the same time that Cubas, Cuba, and Cubea, had a reference to an ark or ship, [x], Cubus, signified a die: and [x], Cubea, had also a relation to a game. In consequence of this, the Grecians have taken the terms in a wrong acceptation: and instead of saying, that Rhameses, during his state of confinement, was with Damater in Cuba, a ship, or ark, they have turned the whole into pastime, and made him play with her at dice. The like story is told by 66 [Isis et Osiris. p. 355.] Plutarch of Hermes: whence we may infer, that one of that name, for there were several, was the same person as Rhameses.
It is then, I think, manifest, that the Cuthite Shepherds composed the first dynasty of kings in Egypt: and that the Israelitish Shepherds succeeded them not long after their departure. Most of the Fathers are misled by Josephus; who supposes, in opposition to the best authority, that the whole history related to one body of people only, and that those were his ancestors. But the purport of the history given, and the very dynasties, which they have transmitted, prove the contrary. Yet they persist; and accordingly place the Exodus in the reign of 67 [[x]. Syncellus. p. 62.] Amos, or Amosis; which was many years prior to the departure of the first Shepherds, as will be shewn; and consequently contrary to the true order of history. Of these Shepherds we have very circumstantial accounts; though their dynasty is transmitted to us by different writers in a very confused manner. The persons, who have preserved it, are Manethon, Africanus, Eusebius, Syncellus, and Theophilus of Antioch. There is to be found a very great difference subsisting between these writers, of which at present I shall say nothing. Let it suffice, that we have from them transmitted to us a dynasty of the Shepherds; the fifteenth of Africanus; and the seventeenth of Eusebius, which is likewise the fifteenth, if we reckon from the bottom. The next, which is by them all introduced as the eighteenth, begins in this manner:
The Eighteenth Dynasty of Sixteen Diospolite, or Theban 68 [The names are in great measure taken from Africanus in Syncellus. p. 72. See also Theoph. ad Autolyc. L. 3. p. 32.] Kings.
Amosis.
Chebron.
Amenophis.
Amersis.
Mephres.
Misphragmuthosis.
69 [So he is called by Apion, and Ptolemy Mendesius: likewise by Tatianus Assyrius, p. 273. Justin. Martyr. Cohort, p. 13. Clemens Alex. Strom. L. i. p. 378. See Euseb. Praep. Evang. L. 10. p. 490. 493. 497.] Amosis or Tethmosis.
Amenophis.
Horus.
Acherres.
Rathos.
Chebres.
Acherres.
Armeses.
Rhameses.
Amenophis.
The account given by Manethon, concerning the expulsion of the Shepherds, is this. After they had for many years kept the Egyptians in subjection; the people of Upper Egypt rose against them, and under the direction of their kings carried on a long and bloody war. At last Halisphragmuthosis, more generally called Misphragmuthosis, surrounded them in their district, named Avaris, which they had fortified. Here they were besieged a long time: when they at last came to terms with 70 [Tethmosis of Africanus.] Amosis, the son of the former king. After some conferences, they agreed to intirely evacuate the country, if they might be permitted to go off unmolested. He accordingly gave them his promise, and they all departed. When they were gone, he demolished the 71 [[x]. Tatianus Assyrius, from Ptolemy Mendesius. p. 273. See also Clemens Alex. L. i. p. 378. end note 7.] fortification, which they had raised; that it might not any more be a receptacle to disaffected, or rebellious people. From this history we learn, that Misphragmuthosis, and his son Amosis reigned in the time of the first Shepherds. Therefore the reign of the former, and some years of the latter, should be placed in collateral order, as being plainly synchronical. The like is to be observed of all the previous kings of that dynasty. They were the princes who first made head against the Shepherds; and carried on the war mentioned above, which was put an end to by Amosis. They were consequently synchronical. But by this not having been observed, they are brought after, and some of them are sunk above an hundred years lower than they should be: and this in contradiction to the very evidence by these writers produced. For they allow, that Amosis ruined the place called Avaris, into which his father Misphragmuthosis had before driven the Shepherds: and it is expressly said, that it was afterwards given by Amenophis to the other Shepherds, who succeeded. Nothing can be more determinate than the words of Manethon; 72 [Manethon apud Josephum contra Ap. L. i. p. 460.] [x]. "He gave them the city Avaris, which had been vacated by the former Shepherds." We find that the history lies within a short compass. The only thing to be inquired into, is the identity of the persons spoken of. As Misphragmuthosis defeated the Shepherds, and drove them into Avaris; do we find a king of Egypt so called? There is a king of that name: and if we look into the list, we find him the sixth in the eighteenth 73 [6. Misphragmuthosis. 7. Amosis, five Tethmosis. 8. Amenophis.] dynasty, which consists of Theban, or Diospolite kings. His son Amosis is said to have concluded the whole affair, and finally to have expelled them. Does any prince occur of the name of Amosis or Tethmosis, in this order? A person of this name appears in the same dynasty; and he is successor to the former, in conformity to the history given. It is said, that Amenophis gave the district, which the former Shepherds vacated, to the latter. As these succeeded the others very soon; is there any king of the name of Amenophis, whose reign coincides with these circumstances? Such a one very happily occurs: and he comes the very next in succession to the prince, who sent the first Shepherds away. These things surely are very plain. Why then are these kings brought so much lower than the aera allotted to the Israelites? and why have the most learned of the Fathers adjudged the departure of that people to the time of the first king of this Theban dynasty? This prince is said to have lived 74 [Theoph. ad Autolyc. L. 3. p. 392.] twenty-five years after they were retired. From hence we may be assured, that this could not be the person, with whom Moses was concerned; for that king was drowned in the Red Sea. Theophilus calls this king Amasis; and speaking of these twenty-five years, says, that he reigned that term, 75 [ Ibid.] [x]; "after he had expelled the people spoken of. This can never be made applicable to the Israelites. It cannot with any propriety be said of them, that they were expelled. They were detained against their will: and when they were suffered at last to depart, the Egyptians pursued after them, in order to bring them 76 [It may be said, that the Egyptians pressed the Israelites to depart: "And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land, &c." Exodus, c. 12. v. 33. But this does not come up to the real and hostile expulsion, which is mentioned by the Egyptian historians: so that the people thus forcibly expelled could not possibly be the Israelites.] back. The history certainly relates to the Cuthite Shepherds, who stood their ground, till they were actually driven away. So far, I believe, is true; that the Israelites left the country in the reign of Amasis, who was more properly called Ramases, and Ramases the son of Sethon: but this was a long time after the reign of Amos, or Amosis, who is placed at the head of the Theban dynasty.
If these great out-lines in history are so clear, as I presume them to be; it may be asked, how it was possible, for such mistakes in chronology to have arisen? What reason can be given for this wilful inconsistency? I answer with regret, that it was owing to an ill-grounded zeal in the Fathers. They laid too much stress upon the antiquity of Moses; and laboured much to make him prior to every thing in 77 [See Clemens, Tatianus, and the authors above quoted. Africanus apud Euseb. Praep. L. 10. p. 490. Justin. Martyr. Cohort, p. 13. Theophilus. L. 3. p. 393.] Greece. It had been unluckily said by Apion, that the person, who ruined Avaris, was contemporary with 78 [Syncellus. p. 62. p. 68.] Inachus of Argos. If this person were before Moses, then Inachus must also have been before him, which was not to be allowed. Hence names have been changed, and history has been perverted, to prevent this alarming circumstance. Accordingly Tatianus having gone through a long series of argument to this purpose, concludes with some triumph: 79 [Tatianus. p. 274. See Justin. Martyr. Cohort, p. 13. Theophilus supposes the Exodus to have been a thousand years before the war of Troy. L. 3. p. 393.] [x]. "Therefore it is manifest, from what has been said, that Moses was prior to the heroes, to the cities, and to the Deities (of Greece)." But truth does not depend upon priority: and the Fathers lost sight of this blessing through a wrong zeal to obtain it. They, to be sure, might plead some authority for their notions: but it was not of such weight, as to have influenced men of their learning. Manethon does most certainly say, at least as he is quoted, that the Shepherds, who were expelled, betook themselves to Jerusalem. 80 [Josephus contra Ap. L. i. p. 446.] [x]. "After the Shepherds had departed from Egypt to Jerusalem, Tethmosis, who drove them away, lived twenty-five years and four months." This one circumstance about Jerusalem has contributed beyond measure to confirm the Fathers in their mistakes. Josephus, and those who have blindly followed this authority, did not consider, that the Israelites were not driven out; that they did not go to Jerusalem; and that the king, in whose reign they departed, did not survive the event: for he perished, as has been said before. Add to this, that the same writer, Manethon, plainly shews, that the Israelites did not come into Egypt, till the reign of 80 [Josephus contra Ap. 61. p. 460. The coming of the Israelites is plainly described under the return of the first Shepherds. Many have supposed the two bodies of people to have been one and the same. They have therefore mistaken the arrival of the latter for a return of the former; and have in consequence of it much confounded their history: but the truth may be plainly discerned.] Amenophis, who was many years later: so that this history could not relate to them. He gave them the very district, which the former Shepherds had deserted. The whole account of the first Shepherds is inconsistent with the history of the latter. The Fathers often quote Apion, Ptolemy Mendesius, and Manethon, to prove that the Israelites were expelled Egypt by Amosis, or Amasis; and speak of Moses as contemporary with that king, whom they place at the head of the Theban dynasty. Thus Justin Martyr appeals to the first of those writers for the truth of this assertion. 81 [Cohort, p. 13.] [x]. According to Apion, "in the time of Inachus of Argos, and in the reign of Amasis of Egypt, the Israelites left that country under the conduct of Moses. He quotes for the same purpose Polemo, and Ptolemy Mendesius. But the history could never be as we find it here represented. We have a long account of the Shepherds in Manethon; who says not a word of what is here mentioned of the Israelites; but contradicts it in every point. Apion likewise expressly tells us, that Amosis was the person who ruined Avaris; which, we know, was afterwards given to the later Shepherds. And so far is he from referring the departure of this people to the reign of the first Diospolite king in the eighteenth dynasty, that he supposes the Exodus to have been in the 82 [Josephus contra Ap. L. i. p. 469.] seventh Olympiad, which was many centuries later.
The Fathers do not always quote precisely; but often put their own inferences for the words of their author. Ptolemy, Apion, and others mention, that a people called Shepherds were driven out of Egypt in the reign of Amosis. These Shepherds, say Theophilus and Tatianus, were the Jews: therefore the Jews left the country in the reign of that king: and as they were conducted by Moses, it is plain, say they, from Apion, that Moses was contemporary with 83 [The same history is quoted from different writers with a similarity of language, which is very suspicious. Thus Ctesias is by Clemens made to give the same account as we have had from the writers of Egypt. [x]. Strom. L. i. p. 379. It is very extraordinary, that so many foreign writers should uniformly refer Moses to Inachus; as it is a point of little consequence to any, but those, who wanted to enhance the antiquity of the former. To the same purpose Apion, Polemo, and Ptolemy Mendesius are quoted. Yet I am persuaded, that the ancient Egyptians knew nothing of Argos; nor of Inachus, the supposed king of it. See Justin Martyr. Cohort, p. 13.] Amosis. In like manner Josephus tells us, that, according to Manethon, the Jews were driven out of Egypt in the reign of king 84 [Contra Ap. L. i. p. 469.] Tethmosis. Now the passage, to which he alludes, is preserved in his own works at 85 [Ibid. p. 444.] large: and not a syllable does Manethon there say about either Jew or Israelite. He gives quite a different history. And though his account is very incorrect, yet so much we may plainly learn from him, that the Israelites came into Egypt in the time of Amenophis, the eighth king of the Diospolite dynasty; and they likewise left the country in the reign of Amenophis, sometimes rendered by mistake Amenophthes. This was not the same prince, but one long after, whose son was Sethon, called also Ramases Sethon, from Rampses (the same as Ramases), the father of 86 [Ibid. p. 461.] Amenophis.
If then we recapitulate the principal facts, which relate to the ancient history of Egypt, we shall find that they happened in the following order. After that the Mizraim had been for some time settled in that country, they were invaded by the Shepherds, those Cuthites of Babylonia. These held the region in subjection; and behaved with much cruelty to the natives. They were at last opposed; and by king Misphragmuthosis reduced to great straits, and besieged in their strong hold Avaris. His son Amosis, the Tethmosis of Africanus, pressed them so closely, that they were glad to come to terms of composition. He agreed to let them go unmolested, if they would immediately leave the country. Upon this the whole body retired, after having been in possession of Egypt above two hundred and fifty years. To Amosis succeeded Amenophis; who is said to have given their deserted town and district to the Israelitish Shepherds. These came into the country from Canaan about thirty years after the exit of the 87 [This I have shewn before. The Old Chronicle makes the residence of the first Shepherds in Egypt to have been but 217 years: but I believe that it is a mistake for 271. This would make the interval 25 years between the departure of the first, and arrival of the second Shepherds.] former. They resided here two hundred and sixteen years; and then they too retired in the reign of Amenophis, the son of Rampses, and father of Ramases Sethon. Such is the history, which is given by 89 [Apud Josephum cont. Ap. L. i. p. 461.] Manethon, Apion, and other writers. That we may know in what degree this accords with the dynasty of princes transmitted by Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus, it will be proper to lay before the reader a list of the first kings, as we find it exhibited by those writers. I have shewn, that the first dynasty consisted of the Demigods, or Auritae; called also the Hellenic and Phoenician Shepherds, who took Memphis. The next dynasty was of Diospolite or Theban princes, who were of the Mizraim race, and expelled the former. And as the person, who drove them away, was Amosis, or Tethmosis, the son of Misphragmuthosis, that king, and all above him, should be placed collateral with the Shepherd dynasty, as being synchronical. Indeed there is reason to think, that most, if not all, of the five, which precede are spurious; being for the most part the same names placed here by 90 [Halisphragmuthosis, Tethmosis, Amenophis, have been placed at the head of the dynasty, to raise the antiquity of Moses. The same names occur again in the same list, and nearly in the same order, below. What was truly said of the first Shepherds, and their expulsion under Tethmosis, and Amosis, has been anticipated, and attributed to the Israelitish Shepherds: and the name of the same king has been repeated, and placed at the top of the list.] anticipation; and having the same history repeated. I shall therefore begin with Misphragmuthosis; as with him the true Egyptian history commences; but will first give the dynasty of the Shepherds.
The First Dynasty of Kings in Egypt; consisting of Hellenic and Phenician Shepherds, who were Foreigners, and took Memphis.Manethon / Africanus.
Salatis - - - 19 / Saites - - - 19
91 [Many of these mistakes, with which these lists abound, are owing to the ignorance of transcribers and editors: of which we have a flagrant instance before us. After Salatis, in three copies, we find the Shepherd king called Baeon and Bnon. But this is a manifest blunder. There was a second king in the dynasty; but the chronologers could not arrive at his name. They therefore put him down B. [x]: "the second king is anonymous:" and so it occurs in Eusebius. But in the other lists it is altered to [x]; and has passed for a proper name. See Marsham's Chron. p, 100. The mistake is as old as Josephus.] Beon - - - 44 m. 7 / Byon - - - 44
Apachnas - - - 36 m. 7 / Pachnas - - - 61
Apophis - - - 61 / Staan - - - 50
Ianias - - - 50 m. 1 / Archles - - - 49
Assis - - - 49 m. 2 / Aphobis - - - 61
259 / 284Eusebius. / Syncellus.
Saites - - - 19 / Silites - - - 19
Anon - - - 43 / Baeon - - - 44; Apachnas - - - 36
Aphophis - - - 14 / Aphophis - - - 61
Anchles - - - 30 / Sethos - - - 50; Kertus - - - 29; Aseth - - - 20
106 / 259
The Second Dynasty, consisting of Diospolite, or Theban Kings.According to 92 [Contra Ap. L. i. p. 446.] Josephus from Manethon. / According to 95 [Syncellus. p. 72.] Africanus in Syncellus.
Halisphragmuthosis - - - 25 m. 10 / Misphragmuthosis - - - 26
Thmosis - - - 9m. 8 / Tethmosis - - - 9
Amenophis - - - 30 m. 10 / Amenophis - - - 31
Orus - - - - 36m. 5 / Orus - - - 37
Acencres - - - 12m. 1 / Acherres - - - 32
Rathotis - - - 9 / Rathos - - - 6
Achencheres - - - 12m. 5 / Chebres - - - 12
Achencheres - - - 12m. 3 / Acherres - - - 12
Armais - - - 4m. 1 / Armeses - - - 5
Rhamesses - - - 1m. 4 / Rhammeses - - - 1
Rhamesses Miamun - - - 66m. 2 / Amenoph - - - 19
Amenophis - - - 19m. 6 / --
93 [Ibid. p. 460.] Sethon AEgyptus - - - 59 / --
Rampses - - - 66 / --
Amenophis - - - 00 / --
94 [Ibid. p. 461.] Ramesses Sethon - - - 00 / --
-- / Third Dynasty.
-- / Sethos - - - 51
-- / Rapsaces - - - 61
-- / Ammenephthes - - - 20
-- / Rhameses - - - ?According to 96 [Euseb. Chron. p. 16.] Eusebius. / According to 97 [Theophilus ad Autol. L. 3. p. 392.] Theophilus Antiochenus.
Misphragmuthosis - - - 26 / Methrammuthosis - - - 20 m. 10
Tuthmosis - - - - 9 / Tythmosis - - - 9m. 8
Amenophis - - - 31 / Damphenophis - - - 30m. 10
Orus - - - 36 / Orus - - - 35 m. 5
Achencerses - - - 12 / Ori Filia - - - 10 m. 3
Athoris - - - 39 / Mercheres - - - 12 m. 3
Chencheres - - - 16 / Armais - - - 30 m. 1
Acherres - - - 8 / Messes - - - 6m. 2
Cherres - - - 15 / Rhamesses - - - 1m. 4
Armais - - - 5 / Amenophis - - - 19m. 6
Ammeses - - - 68 / Thoessus - - - 5
Menophis - - - 40 / Rhamessus - - - 5
-- / Sethos AEgyptus - - - ?
Third Dynasty. / --
Sethos - - - 55 / --
Rapses - - - 66 / --
Ammenophthis - - - 40 / --
Ammenemmes - - - 26 / --
Some of these names by collating may be corrected; and each of the authors quoted will contribute towards it. At present each specimen abounds with mistakes. Tythmosis, Tethmosis and Thmosis, seem to have been originally Thamosis; probably the same as Thamus, and Thamuz. Menophis, Amenephthes, and Amenophthes are undoubtedly mistakes for 98 [To say the truth, I believe that Menophis is the original name. It was a divine title, like all the others; and assumed by kings. It was properly Menophis, five Menes Pytho, vel Menes Ophion: and it originally was a title given to the person commemorated under the character of Noe Agathodaemon, changed by the Greeks to Neo. See Vol. II. Plate VI. p. 336.] Amenophis, as it is rendered in Josephus. Rathos, and Rathotis, are for Rathor, and Rathoris: and those again are for Athor and Athoris. Chebres of Africanus should be altered to Cheres, the same as Sol. The whole list is made up of divine titles. Cheres is sometimes compounded Chan-Cheres; and expressed Achancheres; all of which are the same title. Messes, Ammeses, and Armeses, are all mistakes for Rameses, either abridged, or transposed; as may be shewn from Theophilus. Armais, and Armes, seem to be the same as Hermes. Raphaces, and Rapses are by Josephus more correctly rendered Rampses. Thoesus in Theophilus is a transposition, and variation of Sethos, the same as Sethon, whom he very properly, in another place, styles Sethos Egyptus. As these names may, I think, to a degree of certainty be amended, I shall endeavour to give a more correct list, as I have presumed to form it upon collation.
1. Misphragmuthosis.
2. Thamosis; Amosis of Clemens and others.
3. Amenophis.
4. Orus.
5. Chan-Cheres.
6. Athoris.
7. Chancheres 2.
8. Chancheres 3.
9. Armes, or Hermes.
10. Rhameses.
11. Amenophis.
Dynasty the Third.
1. Sethos AEgyptus.
2. Rampses, the same as Rhameses.
3. Amenophis.
4. Rhamases Sethon.
But though this list may be in some degree corrected; yet we may still perceive a great difference subsisting among the writers above, and particularly in the numbers. The only method of proceeding in these cases, where we cannot obtain the precision, we could wish, is to rest contented with the evidence, which is afforded; and to see, if it be at all material. We are told, that Misphragmuthosis was the person, who gave the Shepherds the first notable defeat: and we accordingly find him in the subsequent dynasty to the Shepherds. Next to him stands his son Themosis, who drove them out of the country. The Israelites came soon after, in the reign of Amenophis, who gave them a place of habitation. In conformity to this, we find, that Amenophis comes in the list immediately after Themosis, or Tethmosis: all which is perfectly consonant to the history before given. This people resided in the country about two hundred and sixteen years; and departed in the reign of Amenophis, the father of Rameses 99 [[x]. Josephus contra Ap. L. i. p. 460. Rhamesses seems to have reigned with his father. He is called Rhameses, and Rhamasis; and is undoubtedly the person alluded to by Clemens, and others, under the name of Amasis; in whose time they suppose the Exodus to have been. See Strom. L. i. p. 378. Of Rhamasis, they formed Amasis, which they changed to Amosis, and thus raised the aera of Moses to an unwarrantable height.] Sethon. We find, that the eleventh king is Amenophis; and he is succeeded by Sethos: by which one might be induced to think, that this was the person alluded to. But upon due examination, we shall find, that this could not be the king mentioned; for he was not the father of the person, who succeeded him. We find in Eusebius, and Syncellus, that at Sethos AEgyptus, a new dynasty commenced, which is properly the third. Josephus takes no notice of this circumstance: yet he gives a true list of the first kings, who are
100 [Sethon AEgyptus. Cont. Ap. L. 1. c. 460.] Sethon AEgyptus.
Rampses.
Amenophis.
Ramases Sethon.
The third of these is the Amenophis spoken of by Manethon, in whose reign the Israelites left Egypt: for he is the father of the Ramases called Sethon. In respect to the numbers annexed to each king's name, they are so varied by different writers, that we cannot repose any confidence in them. I therefore set them quite aside; and only consider the numbers of the kings, who reigned from Amenophis the first to Amenophis the father of Rhamases. I find them to amount to twelve inclusive. If then we allow twenty years to each king, the reigns will amount to two hundred and forty years. And as we do not know the year of the first Amenophis, in which the Israelites entered Egypt; nor the year of the latter king, in which they departed; if we make proper allowance for this, the sum of the years will correspond very well with the sojourning of the people in that country; which was two hundred and fifteen years.
Manethon tells us, as I have observed before, that the Amenophis, in whose reign the Israelites left Egypt, preceded Rhamases Sethon. In his reign they were led off, under the 1 [Manethon has confounded the history of Joseph, and Moses, of which I have before taken notice. He allows, that a person called Moses led off the Israelites; but supposes that this was a secondary name. [x]. Ibid.] "conduct of Moses." It is to be observed, that Manethon styles this king "the father of Sethon." This is the reason, why I do not think, that the former Amenophis was the person spoken of. Sethon Egyptus, who succeeded that Amenophis, was of another dynasty, consequently of another family, and could not be his son: for new dynasties commence with new families. This, I imagine, was the prince, who is alluded to in Scripture; where it is said, that 2 [Exodus, c. i. v. 8.] "there arose up a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph." He was not acquainted with the merits of Joseph, because he was the first king of a new dynasty; and of a different family from those, who had been under such immediate obligations to the Patriarch. In the ancient histories there is a distinction made between the Mizraim and the Egyptians: and the former were looked upon as prior in time. Thus in the Old Chronicle, the reigns of the kings are divided into three classes: the first of which is of the Auritae; the next of the Mizraim; and the third of the Egyptians. Here is a difference expressed between the two latter; and it may not be easy to determine, wherein it consisted. Those, so particularly styled Egyptians, were probably of Lower 3 [The region of Delta seems to be particularly denoted under the name of AEgyptus. The words [x], relate only to Lower Egypt. In like manner [x], expressions used by Herodotus, and Diodorus, have a like reference to the same part of the country, and to that only.] Egypt; and of a more mixed family, than those Mizraim, who were of the superior region, called Sait. Of these the Cunic, or Royal, Cycle consisted; and the supremacy was in their family for some generations. But a change of government ensued; and the chief rule came into the hands of the [x], Egyptians, of whom 4 [[x]. Josephus cont. Ap. L. 1. p. 447. [x]. Theophil. ad Autol. L. 3. p. 392.] Sethon, called AEgyptus, was the first monarch. This new dynasty was the third: but according to the common way of computation it was reputed the nineteenth. Hence in the Latin version of the Eusebian Chronicle the author tells us very truly, 5 [Euseb. Chron. Lat. p. 17.] AEgyptii per nonam decimam dynastiam suo imperatore uti coeperunt; quorum primus Sethos. [Google translate: the Egyptians during their ninth dynasty emperor they began to use it; the first of whom was Sethos.] We find, that the genuine race of Egyptian monarchs did not commence before Sethon. He was of a different family from the former, and undoubtedly the person styled a new king, who was not acquainted with the merits of Joseph; and who unjustly enslaved the children of Israel. To him succeeded Rampses; and next after him came that Amenophis, in whose reign I have shewn that the Exodus happened under Moses.
I wish that I could proceed, and with any degree of accuracy settle the dynasties downward; that the whole of the Egyptian chronology might be established. But as this is a work which will require much time, and more sagacity, than I can pretend to, I shall leave it to be executed by others. I flatter myself, that it may one day be effected; though there will certainly be great difficulty in the execution. The Exodus is supposed to have happened 1494 years before the birth of Christ. As this event has been mistaken for the retreat of the first Shepherds, and adjudged to the reign of the first Amosis; it has been carried upwards too high by two hundred and fifty years. In consequence of this, the writers, who have been guilty of this anticipation, have taken pains to remedy the mistake, which they found must ensue in chronological computation. But this was healing one evil by introducing a greater. They saw from their commencing so high, that the years downwards were too many for their purpose. They have therefore, as we have reason to fear, omitted some kings; and altered the years of others; in order that the aera of Amosis may be brought within a proper distance, and accord with the year of Christ. By means of these changes, the kings of Africanus differ from those of Eusebius; and the years of their reigns still vary more. Syncellus has formed a list of his own: upon what authority I know not; wherein there are still greater variations: so that there sometimes occur three or four princes in a suite, of which there are no traces in the foregoing writers. Thus every one has endeavoured to adapt the chronology of Egypt to his own prejudices; which has introduced infinite confusion. Of this Sir John Marsham very justly complains. 6 [Marsham. Can. Chron. p. 7.] His modis luculentissimae AEgypti antiquitates, [x] misere vexatae, spissis involutae sunt tenebris; ab ipsis temporum interpretibus; qui omnia susque deque permiscuerunt. [Google translate: in the most clear ways the antiquities of Egypt, [x] miserably harassed, thick they are enveloped in darkness; by the interpreters of the times themselves; who mingled all things and about.] Upon Syncellus he passes a severe censure. 7 [Ibid.] Reges comminiscitur, qui neque apud Eusebium sunt, neque Africanum: annosque et successiones mutilat, vel extendit, prout ipsi visum est, magna nominum, maxima numerorum interpolatione. [Google translate: He invents kings who do not they are with Eusebius, and not Africanus; their age and succession mutilates or stretches, as they have seen, great of names, by the interpolation of the largest numbers.] It must be confessed, that there is too much truth in this allegation; though we are in other respects greatly indebted to this learned chronologer. The person, to whom we are most obliged, is Eusebius: for he went very deep in his researches; and has transmitted to us a noble collection of historical records, which without him had been buried in oblivion. But even Eusebius had his prejudices, and has tried to adapt the history of Egypt to some preconceived opinions. Hence he laboured to enhance the antiquity of Moses: and not considering that the Shepherd kings were the first who reigned in Egypt, he has made it his business to authenticate sixteen antecedent dynasties, which never existed. Hence the annals of this country have been carried up higher than the aera of 8 [According to Africanus, Menes preceded Conchares in the Cunic cycle, no less than 3835 years.] creation; and have afforded embarrassment to men of the greatest learning. They have likewise afforded handle to ill disposed persons to arraign the credibility of the Mosaic history; and to call in question the authenticity of the Scriptures in general. Some have had suspicions, that these dynasties were not genuine; and would gladly have set them aside. But suspicions are not sufficient to make void such a portion of history. It has been my endeavour to detect the fallacy, and to shew manifestly, that they are spurious: and I hope, that the authorities, to which I appeal, have sufficiently proved it.