This is one of the ancient men whose writings have been the foundation of the current Egyptian Chronology. Unfortunately, little is known about the man and most ideas about him are read into his life by more modern scholars.
We will quote from this book MANETHO: History of Egypt and Other Works WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY W. G. WADDELL PROFESSOR OF CLASSICS IS FUAD EL AWAL UNIVERSITY
CAIRO, EGYPT
(Manetho. (1964). History of Egypt and Other Works (T. E. Page, E. Capps, L. A. Post, W. H. D. Rouse, & E. H. Warmington, Eds.; W. G. Waddell, Trans.; p. iii). Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd.)
And we will use other sources as well as make out own comments under those quotes.
The name Manetho (Μανεθώς, often written Μανέθων) has been explained as meaning “Truth of Thôth”, and a certain priest under Dynasty XIX. is described as “First Priest of the Truth of Thôth”.1 According to Dr. Černý2 “Manetho” is from the Coptic ⲙⲁⲛⲉϩⲧⲟ “groom” (ⲙⲁⲛⲉ “herdsman”, and ϩⲧⲟ “horse”); but the word does not seem to occur elsewhere as a proper name.
That is just one meaning of the name. It is not the only one that has been considered as this quote says otherwise:
Even the exact meaning of his name has been a point of discussion among Egyptologists and although it is now generally agreed upon that the name “Manetho” comes from the Ancient Egyptian mniw-Htr, which means “Keeper of horses”, the existence of such a name is not attested by Ancient Egyptian sources. (source #1)
We have written about this issue when we have written about Nimrod. The meaning of the name does not indicate the position in life, personality, or anything else. The name is given to the child by the parents for whatever reason they may have.
As for proper names, well some celebrities like to be ‘unique’ and ‘innovative’ and use different words as new proper names. Moon Beam, North, and other names have been given to children throughout the years.
The fact that Manetho is not used as a proper name by anyone else is insignificant as is the meaning of that name. As you can see by the following quote, he was called many things and none may be correct as we have no clue as to his real identity.
We do not know his full Egyptian name but it is often suggested that the name Manetho derives from the titles “beloved of Thoth“, “Truth of Thoth”, or “Gift of Thoth” (although “Beloved of Neith” or “Lover of Neith” are also suggested along with the terms of “groom/horseherd” and the phrase “I have witnessed Thoth”). The earliest reference to his name is in the works of Josephus Flavius in which he is named Manethon (source #2)
There is a lot of confusion about the man and his writings as there was someone else who wrote an Egyptian Chronology in 3 books but much later than Manetho did:
Müller suspects confusion with Ptolemy of Mendês, an Egyptian priest (probably in the time of Augustus), who, like Manetho, wrote a work on Egyptian Chronology in three books (Manetho. (1964).
What is generally agreed to is that he was a priest and:
We may therefore accept the usual description of Manetho (Fr. 3, 77, 80: Syncellus, 72, 16), and hold that he was a native of Sebennytus (now Samannûd)1 in the Delta, on the west bank of the Damietta branch of the Nile. Manetho was a priest, and doubtless held office at one time in the temple at Sebennytus; (Manetho. (1964)
This position gave him access to a large library but the fact that the temple may have had this library is an assumption. There may have been other libraries in existence at the time and everyone had access to them.
We do not agree with other archaeologists that the ancient temples controlled everything or played a large role in ancient life.
In order to do so, Manetho had access to the archives of the temple where he served as a priest. Such archives contained a vast number of different kinds of writings, ranging in contents from mythological texts to official records, from magical formulas to scientific treaties. He thus had all the sources he needed to write down the history of his country. With such sources, however, we may not be surprised to find myths and folk-tale mixed with the facts of the Egyptian history. (#1)
and
It is generally agreed that he was born in Sebennytos (in the Delta) during the Third Century B.C. and was a Graeco-Egyptian priest in the Temple of Ra Heliopolis during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter and/or Ptolemy II Philadelphus. He had access to many sources which no longer exist (such as temple records), but also included legends and fanciful stories. As a result, you have to take some of his stories with a pinch of salt. (#2)
Both quotes bring up another important question, which information was accurate and which was myth and legend? No one seems to be able to distinguish between the two. No one may know for sure.
There are even questions over which books and how many Menetho actually wrote:
Eight works3 have been attributed to Manetho: (1) Αἰγυπτιακά, or The History of Egypt, (2) The Book of Sôthis, (3) The Sacred Book, (4) An Epitome of Physical Doctrines, (5) On Festivals, (6) On Ancient Ritual and Religion, (7) On the Making of Kyphi [a kind of incense], (8) Criticisms of Herodotus.
Of these, (2) The Book of Sôthis (App. IV. and pp. xxvii. ff.) is certainly not by Manetho; and there is no reason to believe that (8) Criticisms of Herodotus formed a separate work, although we know from Josephus, C. Apion. i. 73 (Fr. 42), that Manetho did convict Herodotus of error. Six titles remain, but it has long been thought that some of these are “ghost” titles. Fruin (Manetho, p. lxxvii) supposed that Manetho wrote only two works—one on Egyptian history, the other on Egyptian mythology and antiquities. Susemihl (Alex. Lit.-Gesch. i. 609, n. 431) and W. Otto (Priester und Tempel in Hellenistischen Agypten, ii. 215, n. 4) modified this extreme view: they recognized three distinct works of Manetho (The History of Egypt, The Sacred Book, and An Epitome of Physical Doctrines),(Manetho. (1964).
Then some people question the historicity and accuracy of the Dynasties recorded by Manetho:
It is to Manetho’s Aegyptiaca that we owe the division of Ancient Egyptian history in 30 dynasties. This division is not always based on historical facts: it was in parts based on mythology and in parts on divisions of ruling families already established in the past. (#1)
One reason for all of this confusion is that not one of Manetho’s works survives today outside of other sources. Those sources came at a latter date than when Manetho lived:
No full copies of Manetho’s text remain, we only have short sections of text and a few references in the writings of Josephus Flavius (first century A.D.), Sextus Julius Africanus (third century A.D.), Eusebius of Cesarea (third/fourth century A.D), and George Syncellos (a Byzantine historian from the eighth century A.D).
None of these texts are contemporaneous, and his writings were used and abused by scholars in a long running rivalry between proponents of Egyptian, Jewish, and Greek histories raging over which civilisation was the greatest and the oldest. As a result, our knowledge of his original text is limited, and coloured by the opinions of the authors who referred to him. (#2)
Those words are backed up by the author of the book on Manetho:
Even from the above brief statement of the transmission of Manetho’s text, it will be seen that many problems are involved, and that it is extremely difficult to reach certainty in regard to what is authentic Manetho and what is spurious or corrupt (Manetho. (1964)
This raises the question of why do so many modern scholars place a lot of weight on Manetho and his writings? It may be accurate which is a general assumption made by many modern scholars.
No one knows if Manetho got it right or if he altered the dynasties for political purposes. To assume that his list is accurate would be foolhardy. Especially given the quotes above that say he used myth and legend over historical fact.
An Egyptian high priest, learned in Greek literature, had an unrivalled opportunity, in early Ptolemaic times, of writing an excellent and accurate history of Egypt. He had open access to records of all kinds—papyri2 in the temple archives (annals, sacred books containing liturgies and poems), hieroglyphic tablets, wall sculptures, and innumerable inscriptions.3 These records no one but an Egyptian priest could consult and read; and only a scholar who had assimilated the works of Greek historians could make a judicious and scientific use of the abundant material. (Manetho. (1964)
The words in Italics bother us as there is no way to verify those assumptions and if memory serves us correctly, the Library of Alexandria was in existence at this time and anyone could access those books.
That comment is based on the general assumption that the main population of the ancient world was illiterate and only scholars, scribes, priests, and other high-ranking people received an education.
There is no real historical evidence proving that assumption is true. We have used the example of the Library of Congress as an example. If the American nation was destroyed today, and only the Library survived, among other government buildings, future archaeologists would assume that only senators, their aides, and a few others were literate.
All the rest of the approx. 300 million people would be declared illiterate. We cannot assume that small ancient group was the only one who was literate. Then there is this:
Yet Manetho’s Aegyptiaca has no claim to be regarded as a critical history: its value lies in the dynastic skeletons which serve as a framework for the evidence of the monuments, and it has provided in its essentials the accepted scheme of Egyptian chronology.1
But there were many errors in Manetho’s work from the very beginning: all are not due to the perversions of scribes and revisers. Many of the lengths of reigns have been found impossible: in some cases the names and the sequence of kings as given by Manetho have proved untenable in the light of monumental evidence.
If one may depend upon the extracts preserved in Josephus, Manetho’s work was not an authentic history of Egypt, exact in its details, as the Chaldaïca of Bêrôssos was, at least for later times. Manetho introduced into an already corrupted series of dynastic lists a number of popular traditions written in the characteristic Egyptian style. (Manetho. (1964)
Yet, his work is considered to be a lynchpin for Egyptian history and chronology. The danger of using ancient works is the assumption that the ancient authors were puritanical in their writings and sought to tell the truth at all times.
We cannot take that risk and must use a large grain of salt when assessing the contents of those ancient works, especially when the originals do not survive. We have run into this problem before with the ancient Roman and Greek writings on Carthage and its people.
Everyone accepts those writings as gospel truth when there is no evidence to do so.
This makes the accessibility of Manetho’s work very hard, but yet, when one knows how to separate the original work from its fakes, and when one knows to distinguish between fact and myth in the original work, Manetho’s Aegyptiaca becomes a valuable source for the study of Ancient Egyptian history. (#1)
This distinction is subjective. Without the original works to verify one’s claims, it remains a matter of opinion on what is fact and what is fiction. For all we know, Manetho wrote a historical novel and not an actual history to entertain the people of his time.
We do not know his motives in writing nor can we be certain Ptolemy actually charged him to write his history. We have to be careful when it comes to reading and accepting ancient writings as the ancients had the same sins, temptations, bias, etc., as modern history writers have.
Remember, history is in the eye of the historian and that is true for ancient writers as well.
theoarch 