objection is overthrown by Herodotus himself. All the information the priests could give him beyond what has been above alluded to, consisted in the names of 330 kings subsequent to Menes; these they read from a papyrus roll, but knew nothing more of the kings who bore them, because _those sovereigns had left no monuments behind them_, (c. 100.) (_b_) Besides Herodotus, _Diodorus_ (lib. i.) likewise furnishes us with the names of some Egyptian kings. This author, who wrote 400 years subsequently to Herodotus, visited Egypt, and collected his history, partly from the oral and written documents of the priests of _Thebes_, partly from the more ancient Greek writers, and particularly Hecataeus. If we consider Herodotus's line of kings as not continuous or uninterrupted, all appearance of contradiction between the two historians vanishes. Diodorus, like Herodotus, did not intend to give a complete enumeration of the Egyptian kings; but only of the most remarkable; indicating the interruptions by the number of generations which they contained. (_c_) Finally, different from both the above is the Egyptian _Manetho_, high priest at _Heliopolis_, who flourished under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about B. C. 260. He wrote the _Aegyptiaca_, of which, besides several fragments in Josephus, the enumeration of the kings has been preserved in the chronicles of Eusebius and Syncellus. This catalogue is divided into three sections, (tomos,) each of which contains several dynasties, in all 31, enumerated according to the different cities of Egypt. In each dynasty the number of kings belonging to it and the years of their reigns are marked. The authenticity of Manetho is now completely established; since the names of the Pharaohs mentioned by him have been deciphered on the Egyptian monuments. To this period belong the first seventeen dynasties; in the eighteenth begins the second and brilliant period, to which the yet remaining monuments of Upper Egypt, bearing the names of the founders, are to be ascribed. It is worthy of observation, that in Herodotus we have the documents of the priests of Memphis, in Diodorus those of the priests of Thebes, in Manetho those of the priests of Heliopolis--the three principal seats of sacerdotal learning:--perfect consistency cannot, therefore, be expected in the accounts of those historians. The modern writers on Egyptian antiquities, from KIRCHER, _Oedipus Aegyptiacus_, 1670, to DE PAUW, _Recherches sur les Egyptiens et sur les Chinois_, 1772, have too often substituted their own dreams and hypotheses for truth. The principal attempts at a chronological arrangement of the dynasties have been made by MARSHAM, in his _Canon Chronicus_; and by GATTERER, in his # _Synchronistic History of the World_.--Among the principal works on this subject may be reckoned: JABLONSKI _Pantheon Mythicum Aegyptiacum_, 1750, 8vo.