5

412 NOTES.
^
named Soter, or Lagus, the other Philadelphus. The most fa.
Bious of their kings who bore the name of SesoHris, was s.rnam.
ed Rameses Miriam. For distinction's sake, a series of kings of
the same name must have some discriminating epithet or appel.
latioB, The Sesostris mentioned by Justin was probably sur.
named Vexores, and then both were the same person.
There is
nothing ascribed to them by Justin, that will not much better
apply to one person, than to two different persons. Sesostris,
according to Justin, was the first usurper on record, and so was
Vex-ores. According to Herodotus, Sesostris was the first Egyptian
king who fought against the Scythians, and, according to
Justin, it was Vexores. In order to solve all the difficnities of
the case, we hate only to suppose that the name of this king was
Sesostris Vexores, whom Justin's stupidity (for it
he was no great head piece) split into two different kings.
f;ortunate was it
is well known
How
that he did not hit on Sesostris Rameses Miri.
am, and split him into three. But this blunder of Justin was
singularly convenient for Pinkarton, because it placed his fa.
Tourite Goths (Scythians) on the throne of Asia ISl': years be.
fore the deluge, and hence he fights as strenuously for Vexores
as he does for Gqthieism itself. Well aware that Justin, in this
particular, is contradicted by every ancient author, without exception,
he must have been sensible that the case was hopeless
and desperate in the extreme, and the proof he adduces is equally
desperate.
He quotes TVogus, Tragus Pompeitts, Trogus^ Nar.
rative, Trogui' Ancient History, &c. without being able to pro.
duce one sentence, or even one word of that author. He might
at least have favoured us with one word, though it had been no
larger thin the little word Scot, But does this gentleman really
imagine mankind so ignorant as not to know that Trogns" An~
cicnt Hhtory has been lost more than 1500 years, and that his
friend Justin is violently suspected of having been the mnrderpr
of it. It would have been much the honester way to have told
us candidly that Trogus was dead and his work lost, and that
ha had no evidence to adduce. Had Mr. Pinkarton a cause dep.puiitng
ill
the Court of Session, in which the eTidence of TroguS