Talk:Manetho

"Aigyptiaka"

Manetho's work is usually spelled "Aegyptiaca" in English. The references need fixing. Rd232 12:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Fixed. --Peter Kirby 09:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'm afraid I don't see the point of the Transmission drawing. It takes up a lot of space to describe something that really isn't that complicated. Rd232 12:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I disagree. The 7-box diagram makes the relationships clearer. I support the use of visuals as appropriate. (I have cleaned up the "grey pallour" on that image noted by another person.) --Peter Kirby 09:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have reduced the size of the image to 600px wide. --Peter Kirby 12:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Leader Text

Reading through, the leader text doesn't seem to flow quite right to me, plus bits of it could be arguably POV. I've changed the leader text, but preserved the old version below and would appreciate thoughts and comments; does my new version change the meaning too much?

Existing Leader Text

Manetho (circa 3rd century BC), alternatively known as Manethon of Sebennytos, was an Egyptian historian and priest from Sebennytos who lived during the Ptolemaic era. He recorded Aegyptiaca ("History of Egypt"), and had an astrological work, The Book of Sothis, attributed to him pseudonymously. His work is of great interest to Egyptologists and a prime piece of evidence for the chronology of the reigns of Pharaohs.

New Leader Text

Manetho, also known as Manethon of Sebennytos, was an Egyptian historian and priest from Sebennytos who lived during the Ptolematic era, circa 3rd century BC. Manetho is credited with recording Aegyptica (History of Egypt) and for The Book of Sothis, an astrological work.

His work is considered to be of great interest to Egyptologists, and is often used as evidence for the chronology of the reigns of Pharoahs.

Comments & Feedback

There is no question that Manetho wrote Aegyptiaca and did not write The Book of Sothis; that's not POV. I accept the rephrasing of the last sentence to "often used as evidence for." --Peter Kirby 17:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how the current version is POV. All students of Egyptian history accept that Manetho is a primary source, & that he published this information in a book called Aegyptica. (Some scholars quibble over just how many books Manetho wrote & what they were named, though.) I can't think of any other ancient writer who is creditted with writing either this specific book -- or any other by this name. And "Manethon" is nothing more than a hyper-literal variant of "Manetho". -- llywrch 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Name

I removed {{Template:Hiero|Manetho ("Gift of Thoth")|<hiero>F40:X1-D36-G26-t:Z4</hiero>|align=right|era=pt}} since it has no basis in reality. Klompje7 15:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's fine. Who put the 'citation needed' flag up? Or was that before you removed that bit of fancy perhaps? It says to check Talk for discussion, but I don't see a discussion of it. --Peter Kirby 10:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the citation needed flag. It seems only to clutter the article to put "(Redford 1986a)" in the main text. People with an interest can see the references and find Redford easily enough. Moreover, unlike the imaginary Egyptian, it doesn't strike me as in any way in need of support or 'original' than 99% of the article. --Peter Kirby 10:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, the article leaves me unclear whether he was Egyptian or Hellenistic Greek. Do we know? Thanks...

He was Egyptian, however he was Hellenized, he could speak and write in Greek.JJAshfiel 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Origin Story

What Manetho is best known for whithin the scope of Jewish history his is tale of the Jews origins in Egypt. This is an often contentious topic amongst Jewish Historians, and it would be enlightening to insert more inofrmation on this into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJAshfiel (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Lacks impact

I felt that the article has a lot of detail but doesn't give the impression that Manetho's contribution to history is as important as I've been lead to believe. I'd like to see something based on the answer to the question "what if there was no Manetho?" which I think would suit WP:MTAA better. The section Impact of Aegyptiaca has a lot of this, which is why I think it, or at least some of its content, should be moved to the beginning. AngusCA (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Timotheus of Athens

Is the red link Timotheus of Athens the same as Timotheus (general)? If yes we should either correct the link or add an redirect (preferred).

RScheiber (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What is meant by...

What is meant by "Manetho should not be judged on the factuality of his account, but on the approach he took to recording history, and in this, he was as successful as Herodotus and Hesiod."? For one thing, Hesiod was not a historian (Unless you're reallllly stretching the definition of historian). For another thing, why is wikipedia telling me what I should and shouldn't do? And why are we judging Manetho? And if we are going to judge Manetho, why shouldn't it be on the basis of his factual superiority to Herodotus - something which the article puts a lot of emphasis on? We can't really talk about his style - we only have epitomous copies. What is the point of this sentence? Furius (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The above from Furius (hope he's not that angry) is in the "The effect of the Aegyptiaca" section. Then in the "Transmission and reception" section there's this: "And in the Eusebius in turn was preserved by Jerome in his Latin translation, an Armenian translation, and by George Syncellus." What is meant by this? Especially the phrase, "an Armenian translation"? I'm interested in any Armenian connection to preservation of Manetho, but I have no idea what this means. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Often Those Who Know the Least, Know the Most

There is a paragraph with no citations, which IMHO makes claims that we are in no position to know or prove 2000 years later.

"The Aegyptiaca (Ancient Greek Ἀιγυπτιακά, Aiguptiaka), the "History of Egypt", may have been Manetho's largest work, and certainly the most important. [How do you know that? Could there have been other lost works?] It was organised chronologically and divided into three volumes, and his division of rulers into dynasties was an innovation. [How could you know that? How do you know what others did -- many works must be now lost. ] However, he did not use the term in the modern sense, by bloodlines, but rather, introduced new dynasties whenever he detected some sort of discontinuity whether geographical (Dynasty IV from Memphis, Dynasty V from Elephantine), or genealogical (especially in Dynasty I, he refers to each successive Pharaoh as the "son" of the previous to define what he means by "continuity"). Within the superstructure of a genealogical table, he fills in the gaps with substantial narratives of the Pharaonic kings.

"Some have suggested that Aegyptiaca was written as a competing account to Herodotus' Histories, to provide a national history for Egypt that did not exist before. From this perspective, Against Herodotus may have been an abridged version or just a part of Aegyptiaca that circulated independently. Unfortunately, neither survives in its original form today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochBethany (talk • contribs) 18:23, 27 June 2014

Reliability

It would be useful to have a seperate section detailing how reliable Manetho's history of Egypt is. He was writing about people and events that happened hundreds of years before, if not more, so it seems logical that you would have to take his accounts with rather a large pinch of salt (especially if he is relying on texts by other historians such as Herodotus, whose accounts are of debated accuracy). Some discussion of whether his history is considered accurte and reliable would be quite useful, or at least mentioned which parts are considered not to be accurate by current experts. 194.66.198.40 (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Greek & Latin

1. "Aegyptiaca (Αἰγυπτιακων)".
   • This misses a Greek accent.
   • This looks strange because the Greek characters in a Latinate way would give Aegyptiacon (long o). It looks like the Greek could be a genitive while the English is a nominative. There often are two types of titles, one like "book about/of something" and one shortend like just "something". Pliny the Elder's work for example is known as "naturalis historiae libri XXXVII" (37 books of the natural history) and for short "naturalis historia" (natural history). Aegyptiaca could be a short title, while Αἰγυπτιακων could be an incorrect shortening by removing a term like book or books but not adjusting the case. Flavius Josephus at PACE (Against Apion 91) has "ἐν ἄλλῃ δέ τινι βίβλῳ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν ..." and "In another book of the Aegyptiaca ..." where Αἰγυπτιακῶν is a genitive.
   • Is now corrected and sourced. Another source could be LSJ.
2. "Greek: Μανέθων, Manethōn, or Μανέθως, Manethōs"
   "In the Greek language, the earliest fragments (the inscription [...] and the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus [...]) writes his name as Μανέθων Manethōn [...]. Other Greek renderings include Manethōs, Manethō, Manethos, Manēthōs, Manēthōn, and Manethōth"
   • "fragments ... writes" could be incorrect grammar.
   • In the inscription reference it is ΜΑΝΕΘΩΝ (all capital letters, no accent). This spelling could be added in the reference, but if Flavius Josephus' has multiple differently accented forms (see below), then the inscription can not be given with any arbitrary accentuation and then it would make sense to cite the inscription correctly.
   • Flavius Josephus at PACE has several forms as: Μανεθώς [in Against Apion 16, 228, 251-252, 287-288, 296], Μάνεθως [7 times in AA 73-91 and 103-105], τοῦ Μανέθω [in AA 93] (gen.), Μανεθών [in AA 1] (acc. of Μανεθώς), τὸν Μανεθών [in AA 300] (acc. of Μανεθώς), τὸν Μανεθῶν [in AA 278] (acc. of *Μανεθῶς), τῷ Μανεθῶνι [in AA 270] (dat. of *Μανεθῶν). PACE could be wrong, but it should be more likely that Flavius Josephus has more than one form. And then a mentioning of Flavius Josephus' alternative forms would be missing.
   • The "Other Greek renderings" aren't Greek at all and are improper transliterations. Greek spellings and sources are missing.
     In non-Greek sources like modern dictionaries or grammars are also mentioned: Μανεθῶς (acc. Μανεθῶν)
   • In any case: Citations for the Greek (or "Greek") terms are missing.
3. "In Latin it is written as Manethon, Manethos, Manethonus, and Manetos"
   • The form Manetho would be missing.
   • It would be better, if Manethos (as well as Manetos) would have some information about vowel length or the inflection like giving the genitive. Is it Manethōs or Manethŏs (gen. Manethi etc., second declension)? It seems like there are (via google books) "apud Manethon" and "secundum Manethon" (could be acc. of Manethōs as well as Manethŏs), "apud Manetho" and "secundum Manetho" (could be acc. of Manethōs or indeclinable Manethō), "de Manetho" and "de Manetho vel Manethone" (could be abl. of Manethōs or indeclinable Manethō). The likeliest form seems be Manethōs (acc. Manethōn, Manethō, abl. Manethō) declined similar to the Greek Attic 2nd declension.
   • Properly citations would be missing. Jugding by some google book searches Manethon as well as Manetho clearly exists, but Manethonus and Manetos seem to be doubtful, rare at best. Maneto or Maneton (gen. Manetonis etc.) on the other hand could be another, but rare and old New Latin, form.

-84.161.40.68 (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)