The detail given by this historian is very plain and precise: and we proceed very regularly and minutely in a geographical series from one conquest to another: so that the story is rendered in some degree plausible. But we may learn from Diodorus himself, that little credit is to be paid to this narration, after all the pains he may have taken to win upon our credulity. He ingenuously owns, that not only the Grecian writers, but even the priests of Egypt, and the bards of the same country varied in the accounts which they gave of this hero; and were guilty of great inconsistence. It was therefore his chief labour to collect what he thought most credible, and what appeared most consonant to the memorials in Egypt, which time had spared: [883]Τα πιθανωτατα, και τοις υπαρχουσιν ετι κατα την χωραν σημειοις τα μαλιστα συμφωνουντα διελθειν. But, as these memorials consisted chiefly in hieroglyphics, I do not see how it was possible for Diodorus to understand what the bards and priests could not decypher. The adjustment of this history, had it been practicable, should have been the work of a native Egyptian, and not of a person either from Greece or Sicily. This writer afterwards mentions the mighty [884]works of Sesostris upon his return into Egypt: the temples which he built, and the great entrenchments which he made to the east, to guard the country from the Arabians: and having enumerated the whole of his actions, he concludes with an ingenuous confession, that [885]little could be obtained that was precisely true. He has, without doubt, culled the most probable achievements of this hero; and coloured and arranged them to the best advantage: yet they still exceed belief. And if, after this care and disposition, they seem incredible, how would they appear in the garb, in which he found them? Yet the history of this personage has been admitted as credible by the most learned [886]writers and chronologists: though, as I before mentioned, they cannot determine the æra of his reign within a thousand years. Sir John Marsham and Sir Isaac Newton suppose him to have been the Sesac of the scriptures; and consequently bring his reign down to the time of Rehoboam king of Judah. But the only reason for this, as far as I can perceive, seems to be, that Sesostris is represented as a great conqueror; and Sesac is presumed, from his large [887]army, to have been so likewise. But there is nothing more said of Sesac, than that he formed a plan of conquering the king of Judah; and accordingly came with the army before mentioned, to put his design in execution. But the [888]capital being delivered into his hands without the least resistance, and the king intirely submitting himself to his will; he contented himself with the rich plunder, which he found, and which he carried away at his departure. We may also infer from the servitude, to which the people of Judah were reduced, that he imposed upon them some future contributions.