advisable to state any particulars, even regarding the modern history of the Alexandrian Soros, and that the remarkable fact of its being considered by the Arabs as the Tomb of the Founder of their City had been suppresed, the author wrote to request that a few copies of a Letter he had addressed to the Gentlemen of the British Museum upon the subject, might be distributed gratis by the porter at the door: but he was answered, that this would not be approved. The question may therefore now rest,—and, as it is humbly conceived, not on the test of authority, but of evidence. If mere authority could have any weight, the author might safely adduce the opinions which have fallen, not from obscure individuals, but from illustrious and renowned men; from a PORSON, and a PARR, and a ZOUCH1; from scholars of the highest (1) Dr. Zouch's opinion upon this subject occurs in a Letter written by the present Earl of Lonsdale to the Rev. J. Satterthwaite, of Jesus College, Cambridge, Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty; who communicated it to the author. Although the testimony of such a scholar as Dr. Zouch (with whom the author had no personal acquaintance) be highly flattering, yet it is hoped that the insertion of it may be pardoned; as it alludes to a fact of some importance in the evidence concerning Alexander's Tomb; namely, the remarkable allusion made to the Soros by JUVENAL (who himself visited Egypt), under the appellation of Sarcophagus. Lord Lonsdale's Letter is as follows. it was dated " My Dear Sir, "Cottesmerc, Jan. 16, 1806. "As Dr. Zouch's opinion of Dr. Clarke's history of the Tomb of Alexander may not be unacceptable to you, I send you the following Extract from a Letter I received from him a few days ago." 'I have eminence both at home abroad; who have approved his testimony, and have aided and encouraged him in making it public. It is upon the evidence alone that this question can be decided; and this is so simple, and so conclusive, that it is open to every apprehension. It merely amounts to this: Whether the Cistern held sacred by the Arabs as the conditory of Alexander, be, or be not, the sort of receptacle which Historians teach us to believe did con tain his body. Any one who had read even such a compilation as Purchas his Pilgrims,' and had therein found it stated, probably from Leo Africanus, that in Alexandria there "yel remaineth a little Chappell, wherein they say that the high Prophet, and King Alexander the Great lies buried," would surely have been curious to inquire what was really exhibited by the Arabs as the Tomb of the founder of their city: and if, during its examination, this turn out to be 'I have been much gratified with reading a history of the Tomb of Alexander by Dr. Clarke, of Jesus College, Cambridge. Indeed, I scarcely laid down the volume, until I had gone through it. He seems to have proved his point; at least to have rendered it highly probable, that the precious monument deposited in the British Museum is what he thinks it to be. I cannot but believe that Juvenal expressly alludes to this splendid Tomb, in which the remains of the Macedonian Hero were interred: 'Cum tamen a figulis munitam intraverit urbem nothing of Arabian workmanship, but, in reality, the particular kind of Tomb which Historians have actually ascribed to ALEXANDER, -a Soros, as it is written by Herodian1, covered with hieroglyphics; being, therefore, an inscription in the sacred writing of the Priests, by whom it had been more antiently guarded and revered ;-if this prove to be the case, it will be found a very difficult matter to prevent the public from identifying such a relic, however unsuitable the consequence may be, to the views and feelings. of any private individual, or set of individuals, belonging to the British Museum. Powerful evidence bears down all opposition;--it asks not for opinion; it demands assent. It has indeed been urged, that other conditories of the same kind were found in Alexandria; one of a similar description being now placed with the Alexandrian Soros in the British Museum: but this is not true: and even if it were, no other can lay claim to the tradition which so remarkably distinguished this. The other antiquities alluded to, came from Cairo, and from Upper Egypt: that, in particular, now (1) In describing the visit paid to it by Caracalla, who placed upon it his purple vest;-π0ŋke tÿ ¿keivov ΣOPQI. Vid. Herodian. Hist. lib. iv. Hist. Rom. Script. ap. H. Steph. 1568. (2) Τοῖς τε Ιεροῖς γράμμασιν. See the Inscription on the Rosetta Stone. placed by the side of this, is the well-known Cistern which was formerly called the "Lover's Fountain," and stood near to the Castle of Kallat el Kabsh in Grand Cairo3. Other remains of the same nature, less perfectly preserved, came from Upper Egypt; whence they were brought by the French to Alexandria. It had been somewhat loosely affirmed, that the Egyptians always buried their dead in an upright posture: and the author, noticing this egregious error in his "Testimonies concerning Alexander's Tomb," maintained that the opinion could neither be reconciled with the appearance of the Tombs of the Kings of Thebes, nor with the evidence afforded by the principal Pyramid at MEMPHIS*. Since that publication appeared, Mr. Hamilton has incontestably proved that the affirmation was loose indeed, for that the Egyptians never buried their dead in an upright posture3. A writer, however, in one of the Monthly (3) See a correct representation of it, as engraved in Bowyer's Work, entitled Sir Robert Ainslie's Collection of Views in Egypt, &c. from Drawings by Luigi Mayer. (4) Tomb of Alexander. Introd. p. 7. Camb. 1805. (5) See p. 227, Note (7), of this Volume. See also Hamilton's Egyptiaca, p. 317. Lond. 1809. "It was evident," says Mr. Hamilton, "that the bodies had been placed horizontally not upright: consequently the passage of Silius Italicus, quoted to assist the contrary Journals1, attacked the author for having disputed, although upon his own ocular demonstration, the upright position of the bodies. "Surely," said he, "it will surprise the reader, to learn, that one of the principal writers by whom the fact above alluded to has so loosely been affirmed, was Herodotus." It might, indeed, surprise any reader, if this were true: but the assertion is groundless, and altogether founded upon the most glaring misconception of the text of that author; as it is not only admitted by every scholar, but decidedly manifested by the appearance of the bodies in the sepulchres of EGYPT. Herodotus does not say that they were placed upright in the tombs, but in the private houses of the Egyptians, after the persons employed to embalm the body had delivered it into the care of the relatives. It is well known that the Egyptians frequently kept the bodies of their dead, after the funeral rites were performed, for a long time, in this manner in their dwellings. Sometimes they made them to be contrary supposition, must have alluded to the posture in which the deceased were kept, while yet retained in the houses of their relations." The same is maintained by PAUW: Philos. Diss. vol. II. p. 39. Lond. 1795. (1) See the Critical Review for July 1805. vol. V. No. 3. p. 276. (2) See Pauw, Philos. Dissert. vol. II. p. 39. Lond. 1795. |