68 
vating him to the 3rd dynasty, brings him down to the 19th dynasty, and 
identifies him with Sethos, 1326 b.c., chiefly on account of a statement of 
Manetho, preserved by Josephus, that Sethos first subjugated Cyprus and 
Phoenicia, and afterwards Assyria and Media, with other countries farther to 
the East. ... We therefore see that the two leading Egyptologists, Bunsen 
and Lepsius, differing in other respects, agree in thinking that Sesostris is 
not Sesostris. . . . But here their agreement stops. One assigns Sesostris to 
what is called the old, the other to what is called the new empire, separating 
his respective dates by an interval of 3,793 years. What should we think if 
a new school of writers on the history of France, entitling themselves Franco- 
logists, were to arise, in which one of the leading critics were to deny that 
Louis XIV. lived in the 17th century, and were to identify him with Hercules 
or Romulus, or Cyrus, or Alexander the Great, or Caesar, or Charlemagne, 
while another leading critic of the same school, agreeing in the rejection 
of the received hypothesis as to his being the successor of Louis XIII., were 
to identify him with Napoleon I. and Louis Napoleon ? ” 
Baron Bunsen eagerly accepted Mr. Horner’s conclusions, 
which fitted his elastic chronology with sufficient accuracy, 
and formally adopted them in the third volume of his 
Egypt, s Place , &c. This gave the Quarterly Review for 
April, 1859, an opportunity of refuting Mr. Horner in the 
most crushing manner. The Quarterly Review pointed out 
that Mr. Horner did not see the fragments brought up from 
the borings ; that any one who had any experience of Egyptian 
workmen knew well that they would easily produce pieces of 
brick and pottery when once they discovered that such common 
things were all they were required to seek for. Assumiug, 
however, that the fragments were really brought up from the 
depths of forty feet, there might still be great doubts as to 
their assumed antiquity. 
“According to an ancient tradition” (Herod., ii. 99), says the reviewer, 
“Menes (that is one of the earliest kings of Egypt), when he founded 
Memphis, is related to have diverted the course of the Nile eastwards, by a 
dam about 100 stadia, about twelve miles south of the city, and must have 
dried up the old bed. If so, many years must have elapsed before the old 
bed became filled up by the annual deposits of the inundation, and a piece 
of pottery may have been dropped into it long after the time of this early 
king, for we do not know the course of the old bed, and the statue may stand 
upon it, or the piece of pottery may have fallen into one of the fissures into 
which the dry land is rent in summer, and which are so deep that many of 
them cannot be fathomed even by a palm-branch. Or at the spot where the 
statue stood there may have been formerly one of the innumerable wells or 
pits from which water was raised by means of earthen pots. Again, we 
know from the testimony of Makriosi that less than a thousand years ago 
