Tradition : Principally with Reference to Mythology and the

g6 PALMER ON EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.
to this. The truth is, that with the shorter numbers of the Vulgate,
many chronologers have made out sums of about four thousand
years, some rather more, some less."
4
In the somewhat lengthened extract which I have
made (sup. p. 94) from Bunsen, four figures (3984,
217, 443, and 184) will have struck the eye, which baffle
even Bunsen's penetration, and only make twice confounded
what was confused before. But what if these
four figures should all be accounted for? and, whaccounted
for, fitted into the chronology so as to be i
keeping, not only with the other figures of the Chronicl
but also with the systems of Manetho and Eratosthenes
as exactly as " the key fits the wards of the lock?" (vid(
p. 332), will not the matter begin to wear a
different aspect? When the figures are shown to b
imbedded in all the different systems which have b
transmitted to us, will it then be said that the figi
"
are evidently borrowed from Eusebius?" But, in
fact, it is also demonstrated by internal evidence th
the Chronicle, as we have it, must be referred to the dat
305 B.C.
This, then, is how the argument stands; but it is a
matter of some difficulty to compass Mr Palmer's elaborate
argument, and I cannot attempt to do more than to
indicate its most salient points.
Premising that the Sothic cycle (a period of 1461
vague, or 1460 fixed sidereal years) was connected by
the Egyptians with their recurring periods of transformation
and renovation (" common to the mythol
f Egypt and India"), and also that two such period
(1461 + 2) = 2922 corresponded with the antediluvian
period, or rather with the sum of the lives or reigns
the antediluvian patriarchs, inclusive of survivors c
Delusre, o with something o added in order to throw tl
whole into cyclical form, all which is shown in detail