164 Memnon. though the first letter is only the article: and the corrup- tion of this word into Memnon is certainly much less simple and natural than the other. Beside this there is a resem- blance between the character of Memnon and some of the persons with whom I compare him, sufficiently close at least to raise a presumption in favour of my conjecture. The Phry- gians, as we read in Pausanias, viewed Memnon as a great conqueror, and as the maker of the highway that passed through their country. On the other hand Plutarch ob- serves, that among the Phrygians all brilliant and wonder- ful works are called Manic, because Manis, one of their ancient kings, whom some name Masdes, was a brave and powerful man in his day : and Plutarch himself compares this hero with Semiramis and Sesostris^. So too what is reported of the first king of Egypt agrees extremely well with the general outline of Memnon's history. I lay no stress on the coincidence between Menes and Osiris, though it seems very clear that the actions of the one are attributed to the other ^^. But Menes is represented not merely as a founder of religious institutions, and the author of a higher degree of civilization, but also as a conqueror, who gained great renown by an expedition which he led into foreign 2^ De Is. et Os. 24. fxeydXaL fxhv VfXvovvTaL Trpu^ei^ ev 'Aara-vpioL^ ^efiipdfJiioSi jLLeydXaL oe al ^ecToiarTpLo^ ev AiyuTrTcp' (^pvye^ Sh p-^XP^ ^^^ '^^ XapLTrpd Kal dav/naa-Td Tcav epycov Mavncd KaXovarLy did to MdvLV Tivd TiZv TrdXai fiacnXeMV dyadov duopa Kal ovvaTov yeveadat irap* auToIs, ov euLoi MaV^tji/ /caXouct. The latter name reminds us of the Persian Ormuzd or Oromasdes, which is written by oriental scholars, Ahuro Mazdae : the last word is an epithet signifying great. 29 Plutarch, De Is. et Os. c. 8, mentions the story of the curses recorded at Thebes Ka^d MeivLo^^ n-ov (BacriXews os TrpcoTo^ Aiyvirn-iov^ Trj^ dirXovTov Kal dyj)i)p,dTov Kal XLTf]9 d7n}XXa^e otaiV);§. c. 13. he says ^acLXevowra S' "Ocrt^piv AlyvirTi.ov^ pev euOus diropov piov Kal diipLUjoovs dTraXXd^aL, Kapirov^ t€ oel^awra Kal v6pov£ 6ep€- vov auToIs Kal deov^ Sei^avTa Tipdv* vcr-repov de yrju wdcrav i]pL€povp.€vov eireX- delv, Diodorus, l. 45, relates of Menas, Kai-aSel^ai toTs XaoTs deov9 t€ (relSeadaL Kal dvaia^ eiTLTeXelv, irpo^ oe touto£9 Trapa^ldecrdaL n-paTre^as Kal KXiva^y Kal (TTpw- p.vii TToXvTeXel XP^lo-dai, Kal to avvoXov n-pvc^yriv Kal TroXureXr; (Slou elai^yiicaGdaL. When we compare these descriptions, and remember the virepopLo^ GTpan-eia of Menes, it is difficult to approve of Wyttenbach's criticism, who objects to Squire's opinion that Menas and Osiris were one and the same person. Atqui diversae sunt res, diversae traditiones. Menis Aegyptios primus a simplici et fiugali victu ad lautiorem delicatioremque convertit, at Osiris a vita inopi et ferina ad frugum agTique culturam ac Deorum cultum eos traduxit." As if luxury and frugality were not relative terms. Then he adds a chronological argument : et omnino hie illo antiqiiior celebratur.
