hundred and fifty-five years, and that the accession of Menes to the throne should therefore be fixed at 3892 B. C. On the correctness of this computation he insisted up to the time of his death, and by the aid of his innate fine mathematical sense he showed the connection between this and the other calculations, as subtle as they are clever, which lie at the basis of his system of reckoning. Rosellini’s industrious attempt to compile an Egyptian history was of little service to him, but he found many fruitful ideas in Bunsen’s fine publication.[65] This had been meantime completed with the advisory aid of the able English Egyptologist S. Birch, and Lepsius himself had furnished many contributions to it. No less a man than Boeckh[66] had, a short time before, addressed himself to a criticism of Manetho, incited thereto partly by Champollion’s and partly by his own investigations. In France, also, Biot,[67] Lesueur and Nolan had published able works on Egyptian chronology. Ideler’s hand-book, which came out in 1825, was still highly esteemed, although this acute but far too versatile scholar was entirely ignorant of the monuments. Lepsius had the advantage over his predecessors in his comprehensive knowledge of all the monuments, and his understanding of hieroglyphic writing. He took his stand upon the monuments, and on this foundation which at that time was a safe and favorable one for him alone, he labored with perfect independence, but without overlooking the prior works mentioned above. These, however, in most cases he was forced to controvert. As far as the chronology of Bunsen was concerned, he was obliged to shake it to the foundations, and he found himself forced to apply critical standards very different from those of his learned friend to the lists of Eratosthenes, the value of which, as we know, the latter had far over-estimated. Although on this account he naturally arrived at results which contradicted those of Bunsen, yet he dedicated to him the great work,[68] the first volume of which was published in 1849, in the midst of his arduous labors in editing the “Monuments.” The second and third volumes originally planned by him remained unwritten. While the first volume was mainly occupied with criticism of the authorities, the two latter were to have contained the applications and proofs in detail. All these are now to be found in the folio volume of text which accompanies the plates of the “Book of Kings”[69] previously mentioned. In the beautiful dedication of his chronology to Bunsen, he declared that he offered him this work as “a public token of gratitude.” Lepsius knew that Bunsen, like himself, had only the truth at heart, and agreed with him that the final truth could only be attained by a keen comparison of all possible differences of opinion. Such differences of opinion existed between Bunsen and Lepsius, but, however candidly they were expressed, they had no power to shake the real attachment of these two men.