Richard Lepsius, a biography

by Georg Ebers

The “Monuments” is, and must ever remain, the chief and most fundamental work for the study of Egyptology.

Its classification presupposes a deeper study into the history of the Pharaohs hitherto unheard of. We have seen how, when a journeyman, Lepsius devoted himself by preference to the study of historical monuments, and while in Egypt he everywhere laid the greatest stress upon this.

As a master workman too, after his return to Berlin in 1846, he remained faithful to his historical bias. He had at his disposal, in complete shape, all that was furnished by the monuments in the way of historical information. The systematic arrangement of the work on monuments which he had in view already imposed upon him the task of restoring in a critical manner the main skeleton of history, (chiefly Egyptian,) and of ascertaining the periods of time which separate the chief historical events from each other and from our own age. In other words, he was obliged to devote himself with all his energy to the study of Egyptian chronology.

As a matter of course the monuments were always the foundation from which he proceeded, but it was also necessary to consult and to fix the worth of such other historical records as were in existence.

Amongst these the highest rank was held by the Egyptian history of Manetho of Sebennytos. This had been written, or was said to have been written, for Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.) by Manetho, an Egyptian priest familiar with the Greek tongue. During the Christian era several other works, (the Book of Sothis and the Old Chronicle), were falsely attributed to this writer. The heathen Greeks had held the histories of the priestly scholar in little esteem, but, except by the Jew Flavius Josephus, they were diligently used by chronographers of the Christian era in their efforts to establish a chronological reckoning for the legendary and historical events in the Old Testament. Amongst these writers are found the lists of the Egyptian kings compiled by the Sebennite, with an estimate of the duration of their reigns. But there is a frequent disagreement in the facts as given by them, for each individual chronographer adapted the figures to his own system, and altered them arbitrarily to suit his special purposes. Therefore the fragmentary information gathered from Manetho as to the succession of rulers, can only be used with great prudence. Lepsius submitted these statements, as well as other accounts of Egyptian history occurring in the classics (Hecateus of Miletus, Herodotus, Hecateus of Abdera, Diodorus, etc.), to a severe criticism, in the attempt to separate the genuine work of Manetho from all that had been interpolated or perverted in his writings. As a result of Lepsius’ supposition that some of the ruling families enumerated in the lists did not reign successively, but contemporaneously, he arrived at the conclusion that Manetho would reckon the duration of Egyptian history, from the first King Menes to the end of the reign of Nectanebus II,[64] at three thousand five hundred and fifty-five years, and that the accession of Menes to the throne should therefore be fixed at 3892 B. C. On the correctness of this computation he insisted up to the time of his death, and by the aid of his innate fine mathematical sense he showed the connection between this and the other calculations, as subtle as they are clever, which lie at the basis of his system of reckoning.

Rosellini’s industrious attempt to compile an Egyptian history was of little service to him, but he found many fruitful ideas in Bunsen’s fine publication.[65] This had been meantime completed with the advisory aid of the able English Egyptologist S. Birch, and Lepsius himself had furnished many contributions to it. No less a man than Boeckh[66] had, a short time before, addressed himself to a criticism of Manetho, incited thereto partly by Champollion’s and partly by his own investigations. In France, also, Biot,[67] Lesueur and Nolan had published able works on Egyptian chronology. Ideler’s hand-book, which came out in 1825, was still highly esteemed, although this acute but far too versatile scholar was entirely ignorant of the monuments.

Lepsius had the advantage over his predecessors in his comprehensive knowledge of all the monuments, and his understanding of hieroglyphic writing. He took his stand upon the monuments, and on this foundation which at that time was a safe and favorable one for him alone, he labored with perfect independence, but without overlooking the prior works mentioned above. These, however, in most cases he was forced to controvert. As far as the chronology of Bunsen was concerned, he was obliged to shake it to the foundations, and he found himself forced to apply critical standards very different from those of his learned friend to the lists of Eratosthenes, the value of which, as we know, the latter had far over-estimated. Although on this account he naturally arrived at results which contradicted those of Bunsen, yet he dedicated to him the great work,[68] the first volume of which was published in 1849, in the midst of his arduous labors in editing the “Monuments.” The second and third volumes originally planned by him remained unwritten. While the first volume was mainly occupied with criticism of the authorities, the two latter were to have contained the applications and proofs in detail. All these are now to be found in the folio volume of text which accompanies the plates of the “Book of Kings”[69] previously mentioned. In the beautiful dedication of his chronology to Bunsen, he declared that he offered him this work as “a public token of gratitude.” Lepsius knew that Bunsen, like himself, had only the truth at heart, and agreed with him that the final truth could only be attained by a keen comparison of all possible differences of opinion. Such differences of opinion existed between Bunsen and Lepsius, but, however candidly they were expressed, they had no power to shake the real attachment of these two men.

Unlike Bunsen’s great book, Lepsius’ work was not intended to establish the place of Egypt in universal history, but only in the external frame thereof, the annals of time. It made no attempt to be a history, but was a chronology solely. The problem involved is solved in the first volume of which we speak, and is treated in an original and at the same time broad manner. Here, as elsewhere, Lepsius never loses cognizance of the general aspect of his subject, whilst always carefully and even lovingly considering the smallest detail and assigning it its place as a part and factor of the whole.

He first criticizes the chronology of the Romans, the Greeks, the Hindoos, the Chaldeans in Babylon, the Chinese and the Hebrews. In so doing he makes it clear that among all these nations the conditions for a very early computation of time were lacking, and proves that no nation and no country possessed more favorable conditions for an early chronology and history than the Egyptian. He then proceeds to consider the astronomical basis of the Egyptian chronology, and goes thoroughly into the question of the divisions of time employed by the ancient Egyptians. Here, in addition to the monuments, which he always considers as of the first importance, he cites the classic authors, and ascends in regular progression from the smaller divisions of time, the thirds, seconds and minutes, to the days, weeks, months, intercalary days and years. He dwells for some time upon these latter, and explains with remarkable clearness his views regarding the vague year and the fixed year of Sirius. After these fundamental principles are established he turns his attention to the longer periods of time, beginning with the Apis period of twenty-five years, and concluding with the conjecture that the Egyptians possessed the knowledge of a longest astronomical period of revolution of thirty-six thousand years. According to our reckoning this should undoubtedly be only twenty-six thousand years, yet the period given can be recognized in the thirty-six thousand five hundred and twenty-five years which Syncellus alleges to have been the Egyptian period of universal apocatastasis of the heavens.

He then reviews the Egyptian calendar, its introduction and reforms. Although no one knows so well as he that events are commonly reckoned upon the monuments, not from an era, but according to the years of the separate reigns, he attempts to prove that the Sothiac cycle of one thousand four hundred and sixty years had been used as an era for such purposes as necessitated the conception of a longer distinct period of time.