Chapter 12

PRINTED BY COX (BROTHERS) AND WYMAN, GREAT QUEEN-STREET.

FOOTNOTES:[1]On the sudden death, soon after our departure from Palestine, of Bishop Alexander, Gobat was selected by H.M. the King of Prussia as the Protestant bishop of Jerusalem, which post he has filled with good success since 1846.[2]The firman of the Viceroy, with the most unlimited permission to carry on all excavations that I should think desirable, with a recommendation addressed to the local governments to support me, was given to me before my departure from Alexandria. All the work-people and tools that were necessary for the formation and transportation of our collection of antiquities, were demanded for wages by the Khawass given us by the government, under the authority of the firman, from the Sheîkh of the next village, and nowhere refused. The monuments from the southern provinces were transported in government barks from Mount Barkal to Alexandria, and to them were added three tombs from the neighbourhood of the great Pyramid of Gizeh, which, with the assistance of the four workmen purposely sent from Berlin, were carefully taken to pieces, and embarked opposite Old Cairo. At my departure from Egypt, a written permission was given me to export the collection, and the articles were formally presented to his Majesty the King of Prussia by the Viceroy.These peculiar favours, at a time when all private travellers, antiquarian speculators, and even diplomatists, were especially interdicted by the Egyptian government from obtaining and taking away antiquities, did not fail to gain our expedition some unfavourable opinions. We were particularly blamed for having a destructive energy, which, under the ascribed circumstances, would have taken for granted a species of peculiar barbarism among our company. For, as we did not, like many of our rivals, dig out and remove the monuments, which had mostly been hidden below the surface, in haste by night, and with bribed assistance, but at our leisure, and with the open co-operation of the authorities, as well as under the eyes of many travellers—every carelessness with respect to these monuments left behind us, of which they had formed a part, would have been the more reprehensible, the easier such carelessness was to be avoided. But on the value of the monuments, we might esteem ourselves to have a more just judgment than the greater number of the generality of travellers or collectors usually possess; and we were not in danger of allowing it to be dulled by self-interest, as we did not select the monuments for ourselves, but as the agents of our government, for the Royal Museum at Berlin, and therefore for the benefit of science and an inquiring public.The collection, which, principally by its historical value, may be compared with the most extensive in Europe, was, immediately upon its arrival, incorporated with the royal collections, without my being placed in any official connection with it. It is already opened and accessible to the public. A careful examination of it will conduce more than anything to place the remarks of later tourists,—among whom there are even Germans,—in their true light; who have even gone so far, as in the case of a Herr Julius Braun, in the General Augsburg Journal (Allgemeine Augsburger Zeitung), to ascribe to us the mutilation of the gods in the temple at El Kab, done 3,000 years ago! Besides, it would show a total ignorance of present Egyptian relations, or that which gives the actual interest to the monuments of antiquity, if any one did not wish to see the as precious as unestimated and daily destroyed treasures of those lands, preserved in European museums as much as possible.[4][In the first edition of this work I lamented that due care was not bestowed upon this obelisk, and that “our own property” was abandoned to the wind and the rain, the sand, and—worse than all—the Arab. Now, however, I have the satisfaction to be able to state that the Crystal Palace Company are about to do what our Government, with a surplus of £1,600,000, could not afford.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.][5]The diary of this Nile expedition has since been made public under the title of “Expedition to discover the Sources of the White Nile” (1840-1841), by Ferdinand Werne; with a preface by Carl Ritter. Berlin, 1848. [The work has since been published in English, under the auspices of Mr. Bentley, in two volumes.—K. R. H. M.][6]Since Ibrahim Pasha’s death, in 1848, viceroy of Egypt.[7]This treatise, “Report of the River Goshop, and the countries of Enarea, Caffa, and Doko, by a native of Enarea,” has been translated by Ritter, read in the Geographical Society of Berlin, on the 7th of January, 1843, and printed in the monthly reports of that institution, in the fourth year, pp. 172-188.[8]At our departure for Upper Egypt we had examined 130 private tombs, and discovered the remains of 67 pyramids.[9]See my essay, “Sur l’Ordre des Colonnes-piliers en Egypte, et ses rapports avec le second Ordre Egyptien et la Colonne Grecque(avec deux planches),” in the ninth volume of theAnnales de l’Institut de Corresp. Archéol. Rome. 1838.[10]See Letter XV., p. 117.[11][TheAthenæum, in a late review of this work, questions the word “prince,” and proposes to read “son;” now, in a subsequent letter (p. 39), Lepsius himself conjectures that this Prince Merhet was the son of Cheops, which the reviewer appears to have overlooked in his excellent remarks.—K. R. H. M.][12][As a further illustration of this scene, but briefly passed over by the originator of it, the following observations of Mr. Gliddon will be found very interesting. “Mr. Gliddon hoped, that besides the day view, the Prussians would add their night scene of New Year’s Eve, 1842, when the blaze of bonfires, lighted on the top of each of the three pyramids, cast a lurid glare on every side, bringing out the craggy peaks of the long desecrated mausolea of Memphite Pharoahs, tinting that drear wilderness of tombs with a light, emblematical of Lepsius’ vindication of their inmates’ memories, and leaving the shadows of funereal gloom to symbolize the fifty centuries of historic night, now broken by the hierologists:—“‘Dark has been thy night,Oh Egypt, but the flameOf new-bornsciencegilds thine ancient name.’”—Gliddon’sOtia Egyptiaca; Lecture II. Burke’s Ethnological Journal, No. VI. p. 265.—K. R. H. M.][13][The reed; A initial, Bunsen, vol. i. p. 556, Alphabetic No. 3 = A: the sickle, M Alphabetic No. 2, p. 563 = M: the sieve, χ Alphabetic No. 1, p. 571 = χ: unknown object, p. 571, with U, the chicken, p. 570 = χU = AMCHU. This will give the uninitiated an idea of the way in which hieroglyphic words are formed.—K. R. H. M.][14][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place in Universal History, vol. i. p. 618.—K. R. H. M.][15][This has been done, and better than in any other museum in the world, see page 40.—K. R. H. M.][16]Unfortunately the colours have now quite faded. The unequal surface of the stone had rendered it necessary to spread a thick groundwork of lime over the sculptures ere they could be painted upon; this lime has peeled off by its transportation and the moist sea air, so that only the rough sculpture is remaining. In the “Monuments of the Prussian Expedition,” Part II. Plate 19-22, the colours are faithfully given, as they were preserved by the covering of sand in their original freshness.[17]On our return from the south, two other perfect tombs, besides this one, were taken down and brought to Europe. All three have been re-erected, with the rest of the monuments, in the New Museum at Berlin.[18][Bunsen, vol. i. p. 618.—K. R. H. M.][19]An essay “On the Construction of the Pyramids” was transmitted by me to the Royal Academy of Sciences, and printed, in accordance with a decree of the 3rd of August of the same year.—See the Monthly Report of the Academy in 1843, pp. 177-203, with three plates. [The following summary of Dr. Lepsius’ discovery, obtained from various sources, may not be unacceptable to the reader. At the commencement of each reign, the rock chamber, destined for the monarch’s grave, was excavated, and one course of masonry erected above it. If the king died in the first year of his reign, a casing was put upon it and a pyramid formed; but if the king did not die, another course of stone was added above and two of the same height and thickness on each side: thus in process of time the building assumed the form of a series of regular steps. These were cased over with stone, all the angles filled up, and stones placed for steps. Then, as Herodotus long since informed us (Euterpe, c. cxxv), the pyramid was finished from the top downward, by all the edges being cut away, and a perfect triangle only left.—See, in addition to Lepsius himself, Letronne, Dicuil, pp. 90-115, 1814; Athenæum, Bonomi, 16th Sept. 1843; J. W. Wild, 15th June, 1844. Wilkinson’sMateria Hieroglyphica, Malta, 1830, p. 14; and last, though not least, Gliddon’sOtia Egyptiaca, Lecture IV. Ethnological Journal, No. VII. p. 294.—K. R. H. M.][20]I have spoken more fully on this subject in my “Chronology of the Egyptians,” vol. i. p. 294. [See also Vyse, Pyramids of Gizeh, vol. iii. pp. 118, 119; Letronne, Inst. de l’Eg. vol. ii. pp. 460-466; and Wilkinson, Modern Eg. and Thebes, vol. i. p. 353.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.][21][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place in Universal History (Engl. transl.), vol. i. p. 515; Ideographics, No. 277.—K. R. H. M.][22][The more extended our acquaintance with ancient monuments or ancient writings becomes, the more simple and human do we find their signification to be. It has been the case with Egypt, Assyria, with Mexico, and indeed with most of those monuments that occur in connexion with the ancient world, in the popular acceptation of the word. If mystery and types possess a home anywhere, it must be in India, for even in Yucatan, the hieroglyphics seem very simple and the reverse of mysterious, when properly examined, as I hope to prove one day, in an extended investigation into Mexican antiquities, upon which the labour of some years has been bestowed. Instead of seeking for such remote causes, the reader will do well to consider the simple opinion of Gliddon, in hisOtia, Lecture VIII. Burke’s Ethnological Journal, No. IX. p. 395, regarding the origin of animal worship. I should not have been led to this lengthy note if I did not feel that, while the earliest tenets of worship were indeed veiled in types (the result, however, as much of accident as design), animal worship is too recent to conceal any such mysterious dogmas. I do not wish to place my notion in competition with that of Lepsius; this is a mere suggestion.—K. R. H. M.][23][See a lively description of this ceremony in Bayle St. John’s Village Life in Egypt.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.][24][News have just been received from Egypt that most enterprising excavations have been commenced at Mitrahinneh, partly under the direction of Mr. A. Harris, of Alexandria.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.][25]See my essay “On the general employment of the Pointed Arch in Germany in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” as an Introduction to H. Gally Knight’s Progress of Architecture from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Century under the Normans, from the English; Leipsig, 1841; and my father’s treatise, “The Dome of Naumburg,” by C. P. Lepsius, Leipsig, 1840 (in Puttrich’s “Monuments of Architecture,” II. pt. 3, 4).[26][In Catherwood’s beautiful work on Central America we find that at some of the cities a peculiar arch was employed. This consisted in an arch of which the point was destroyed by laying a beam across at the top. In the Polynesian islands we also find almost perfect approaches to the pointed arch.—K. R. H. M.][27][Indeed, we learn from Bayle St. John that the Fellahs are not only contented with this treatment, but proud of the number of times they have been thus used. It saves money, and that is quite enough reason.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.][28][From the labyrinth and the remains of lake Mœris.—K. R. H. M.][29][About two-pence halfpenny English.—K. R. H. M.][30]Asser = Evening.[31]It is to be remarked that even in the “Thousand and One Nights,” where occasionally æsthetic observations are to be found, there is nothing relating to music which would lead us to estimate the musical tastes of the Arabs at any higher standard than that manifested in the account of Lepsius and others.—K. R. H. M.[32]Lib. XVII. p. 789, ed. Parisii, 1620.—K. R. H. M.[33][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place, &c. vol. i. p. 624-5, and also the comparative lists of Eratosthenes and Manetho at pp. 124, 125 of the same work. “ὃς τὸν ὲν Ἀρσινοἷτῃ λαβύρινθον ἑαυτῷ τάφον κατεσκεύασεν.”—K. R. H. M.][34]Compare my “Chronology of the Egyptians,” vol. i. pp. 262 sqq.[35][Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 640-641.—K. R. H. M.][36]According to Linant the difference is 22^m, i.e. 70 feet Rhenish. In June, 1843, Nascimbeni, an engineer of the viceroy, visited us in our camp by the pyramid of Mœris, being at the time engaged on a new chart and levelling of the Faiûm. He had only found 2 metres fall from Illahûn to Medînet, but from thence to the Birqet el Qorn, 75 metres. I am not aware that anything has been made known regarding these widely different measures. Sir G. Wilkinson, Modern Egypt and Thebes, vol. ii. p. 346, states the lakeniveauto be about 125 English feet below the Nile shore at Benisuef. [But see Bunsen’s observation in the (untranslated) second book of hisÆgypten, p. 209.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.][37]Mémoire sur le lac Mœris, présenté et lu à Société Egyptienne le 5 Juillet, 1842, par Linant de Bellefonds, inspecteur-général des ponts et chaussées, publié par la Société Egyptienne. Alexandrie, 1843, 4to. See my “Chronology of the Egyptians,” vol. i. p. 262 sq.[38]The same Domenico Lorda set out again in the same year to Abyssinia, and transmitted thence six other Abyssinian MSS. to Herr Lieder, who submitted them to me on my return to Cairo. These were also purchased for the Royal Library at my suggestion. They contain, according to the account of Heri Lorda:—A.Abusher, Almanacco perpetuo civile-ecclesiastico-storico.B.Settà Neghest, Codice dell’ imperadore Eeschias.C.Joseph, Storia civile ed ecclesiastica(?)D.Beraan, Storia civile ed ecclesiastica.E.Philkisius e Marisak, Due opere in un volume che trattano della storia civile.F.Sinodus, Dritto canonico.[39][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place in Universal History, vol. i. p. 632.—K. R. H. M.][40][Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 400-402. Het-her signifies “the habitation of Horus.”—K. R. H. M.][41][Bunsen, vol. i. p. 620. Therefore, about the time of Nitocris.—K. R. H. M.][42][Bunsen, vol. i. p. 624. Coeval with the pyramid of the Labyrinth.—K. R. H. M.][43][Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 624-625. Ramses is the third king in Manetho’s twelfth dynasty.—K. R. H. M.][44]This letter, addressed to Alexander von Humboldt, has been printed in the “Preussische Staatszeitung,” of the 9th of February, 1844.[45]The correction Ἀδελφῆς in this inscription, dated in the thirty-fifth year of Euergetes (136 B. C.), is of importance to some chronological determinations of that period. Letronne (Rec. des Inscr.vol.i.p.33sqq.56) assumed that Cleopatra III. the niece and second wife of Euergetes II., was here mentioned. From this alone he judged that this king only added the name of his wife, Cleopatra III., to his own in the official documents, previous to his expulsion in the year 132 B. C., and therefore placed all the inscriptions, in which after the King, both Cleopatras, the sister and the (second) wife are named, in the period after the return of Euergetes (127-117), e. g. the inscriptions of the obelisk of Philae (Rec.vol.i.p.333). In this he is followed by Franz (Corp. Inscr.vol.iii.p.285), who places for the same reason the inscriptionsC. I.No.4841, 4860, 4895, 4896, between 127 and 117 B. C., although he was aware of my correction of the inscription of Pselchis (C. I.No.5073).It is always remarkable that onlyoneCleopatra is mentioned in the inscription of Pselchis, but as it is Cleopatra II., the first wife of the king, whom he always distinguishes from his second wife by the designation of “the sister,” it is not to be concluded that he should have expressly omitted mention of the latter in the documents from the beginning of his second marriage. This is confirmed in the decisive manner by two demotic Papyri of the Royal Museum, in whichbothCleopatras are mentioned, although one is of the year 141 B. C., and the other of the year 136 B. C. All the inscriptions, which, according to Letronne (Rec. des Inscr.tomei.No.7, 26, 27, 30, 31) and Franz (Corp. Inscr.vol.iii.No.4841, 4860, 4895, 4896) fall between 127 and 117 B. C., for this reason, can therefore be referred with the same probability to the years between 145 and 135 B.C.[46][See Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 393-395.—K. R. H. M.][47]Compare LetronneRecueil des Inscription Grecques de l’Egypte,tomei.pp.363sqq.Ptolemaeus Eupator is not mentioned by the historians. The name was first discovered in a Greek Papyrus at Berlin, written under Soter II. in the year 105 B.C., and indeed foisted in between Philometor and Euergetes. Böckh, who published the Papyrus (1821), referred the surname of Euergetes to Soter II. and his wife, and held Eupator to be a surname of the deified Euergetes II. In the same year Champollion-Figeac treated of this papyrus, and endeavoured to prove that Eupator was that son of Philometer put to death by Euergetes II. on his accession. This view was afterwards accepted by St. Martin, Böckh, and Letronne (Rech. pour serv. à l’Hist. de l’Eg.p.124). In the meantime the name Eupator had been found in a second papyrus of the reign of Soter II., as also in a letter of Numenius upon the Phileusian obelisk of Herr Bankes of the time of Euergetes II. Eupator was named in both inscriptions, but did not stand behind, but before Philometor, and therefore could not be his son. Letronne now conjectured (Recueil des Inscr.tomei.p.365) that Eupator was another surname of Philometor. Then, however, it should have been καὶ Θεοῦ Εὐπάτορος τοῦ καὶ Φιλομήτορος, and not καὶ Θεοῦ Εὐπάτορος καὶ Θεοῦ Φιλομήτορος. In a letter to Letronne of the 1st December, 1844, from Thebes, which has been printed in theRevue Archéol.tomei.pp.678sqq., I informed him that I had also found in several hieroglyphical inscriptions the name Eupator, and always before Philometor. The same reasons that I alleged against Letronne’s interpretation of the Greek name (that portion of the letter was not printed in theRevue), i. e. the simple recurrence of the Θεοῦ, did also not allow Eupator to be considered another name of Philometor in the hieroglyphical lists. He must have been a Ptolemy recognized for a short time as king, but not mentioned by the historians; and as Franz (Corp. Inscr.vol.iii.p.285) and Letronne (Rec.vol.ii.p.536) have recognized an elder brother of Philometor, who died in a few months, and was therefore omitted in the Ptolemaic canon.The son of Philometor and his sister Cleopatra II., however, mentioned by Justin and Josephus, in which it was formerly thought that the Eupator of the Berlin papyrus had been found, is particularly mentioned in the hieroglyphical inscriptions and of the other Ptolemies, in his place between Philometor and Euergetes, and we thus learn his name, which the historians had not added. He is sometimes called Philopator, sometimes Neos Philopator, and is therefore to be referred to in the series of reigned Ptolemies, as Philopator II. Of fourteen hieroglyphical lists which come down to Euergetes II., seven mention Philopator II.; in four other lists in which he might have been mentioned he is passed over, and these seem all to belong to the first year of Euergetes II., his murderer, which readily explains the cause. That he does not appear in the canon is quite natural, because his reign did not extend over the change of the Egyptian year; but, as might be expected, he is named in the protocolls of the Demotic Papyrus, where those Ptolemies receiving divine honours are enumerated, and in which Young had already properly seen Eupator. In fact, he is mentioned here in all the lists known to me (five in Berlin of the years 114, 103, 103, 99, 89 B.C., and one in Turin of the year 89 B.C.) which are later than Euergetes II., as also in a Berlin papyrus of the fifty-second year of Euergetes himself (therefore in 188 B.C.). A comparison of the Demotic lists manifests that the interchange of the names Eupator and Philometor in the Greek papyrus of the year 105 B.C. (not 106, as Franz,Corp. Inscr.p.285 writes), is not only a mistake of the copyist, as these and similar interchanges are also not uncommon in the Demotic papyrus. The different purposes of the hieroglyphic and demotic lists render it comprehensible, that in the former such variations were not admissible, as in the latter.[48]Wilkinson (Modern Egypt and Thebes, vol. ii. p. 275) considers this Cleopatra Tryphæna to be the famous Cleopatra, daughter of Neos Dionysos; Champollion (Lettres d’Egypte, p. 110) to be the wife of Philometor; but the cartouche combined with her name belong neither to Ptolemæus XIV., the elder son of Neos Dionysos, nor to Ptolomæus VI. Philometor, but to Ptolemæus XIII. Neos Dionysos or Auletes, who is always Philopator Philadelphus, on the monuments. Cleopatra Tryphæna was therefore the wife of Ptolemæus Auletes.[49]The inscription referred to is in the rock-cave of Echmin, and was, without doubt, first engraved under Ptolemæus Philadelphus, with double cartouches and the usual royal titles, but without the surname of Soter; he is mentioned on a stele in Vienna which was erected under Philopator. Here, however, he has another cartouche than at Echmin, and moreover, in a remarkable manner, the same as that which Philippus Aridaeus and Alexander II., under whom Ptolemæus Lagus was Viceroy in Egypt, bore before his time. In like manner he is named on a statue of the king in the ruins of Memphis, where the Horus-name of the king may be found, and which may probably have been made during his reign. Finally, the Soters are sometimes only mentioned by their surnames, at the head of the honoured ancestors of later kings, as in the inscription of Rosetta, and in the bilingual Decrees of Philae written[hieroglyph]while Soter II. is always written[hieroglyph]p. nuter enti nehem, which would answer to the Koptic[Koptic],deus servator. In the Demotic inscriptions, too, the first Soters are designated bynehem, and in the singular, by the Greek wordp.suter.Although it is not to be doubted that the Soters, who, according to the Demotic papyrus, had a peculiar cultus with the rest of the Ptolemies, not only in Alexandria and Ptolemais, but also in Thebes, were looked upon as the chiefs of the Ptolemaic dynasty, it is more remarkable that till now no building has been discovered which was erected under Ptolemæus Soter as king, although he continued twenty years in this capacity. To this must be added that the above-mentioned hieroglyphic lists of Ptolemies, without exception, do not begin the series with Soters, but with the Adelphi, as said at Echmin, his cartouches have no royal titles, and that in Karnak, under Euergetes II., Philadelphus is represented as King, and Soter, answering to the same period, not as king. Also in the Demotic king lists of the papyrus, the Alexandrian series passes over the Soters down to Philometor, and lets the Adelphi immediately follow Alexander the Great. The Soters have come before me at the earliest in a papyrus of the seventeenth year of Philopator (210 B.C.), the oldest in the Berlin collection; the Thebaic cultus of the Ptolemies seems to have excluded the Soters altogether. Although, therefore, the beginning of the royal government in the year 305 B.C., as the Canon asserts, is an ascertained fact, and is incontestably confirmed by the hieroglyphic stele in Vienna, which has been cited for it by my friend M. Pinder (Beitr. zur älteren Münzkunde,BandI. p. 201) in his instructive essay “On the era of Philippus on coins,” it seems to authorize another legitimate view, according to which, not Ptolemæus Logi, but Philadelphus, the eldest king’s son (even though not Porphyrogenitus), was the head of the Ptolemies. Thus it may also be explained, that we find under Euergetes I. an astronomical era employed, that of the otherwise unknown Dionysius, which took its beginning from the year 285 B.C. the first of Philadelphus, while the coins of Philadelphus neither count from his own accession, nor from the year 305 B.C., but from the year of the decease of Alexander the Great, or the beginning of the viceroyship of Ptolemaeus, as the beginning point of a new era. (See Pinder, p. 205).[50][Manetho in Bunsen, Egypt’s Place, vol i. p. 620. Nitocris is the last of this dynasty. K. R. H. M.][51]Denkmäler aus Ægypten und Æthiopien,Abth.II.Blatt.123-133.[52][Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place, vol. i. p, 45. K. R. H. M.][53]Denkmäler,Abth.II.Bl.134.[54][I. e.,the cartouchesof contemporaneous kings.—K. R. H. M.][55][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place, vol. i. p. 373, where an account of this deity is given.—K. R. H. M.][56][This resembles, in fact, the system of calling parishes after the names of the Saints, to commemorate whose martyrdom the church was erected; as, for instance, the church and parish of St. Alphege, in the town of Greenwich.—K. R. H. M.][57][See Bunsen, vol. i. p. 400, for an account of this deity.—K. R. H. M.][58][Bunsen, vol. i. p. 470. Egyptian Vocabulary, No. 294, and Determinative sign, No. 58. p. 542, the author there refers to Champollion, Grammaire, and Rosellini, Monumenti Reali, cxlii. 1.—K. R. H. M.][59][Bunsen (vol. i. p. 434, n. 333,) says, “The discovery of the meaning of Harpocrates is mine; but I explained it as Her-pe-schre (Horus the child), and adopted Lepsius’s correction.” In the text it is givenHer-pa-χruti.—K. R. H. M.][60]Denkmäler,Abth.IV.Bl.38, 39. A special essay is prepared on these inscriptions.[61]The first news of the discovery of this important inscription, which had also not been noticed by the Franco-Tuscan Expedition, made some commotion. Simultaneously with the more circumstantial account in thePreussische Staatszeitung, a careless English notice appeared, in which the discovery of a second specimen of the inscription of Rosetta was spoken of, and the place assigned was Meroe. Later, when M. Ampère had brought an impression of the inscription to Paris, the Academician, M. de Saulcy, contrariwise put forth an argument on the opposite side asserting that the inscription had some resemblance to that of Rosetta, and referred it to Ptolemæus Philometer. I therefore took occasion to prove, in two letters to M. Letronne (Rev. Archéol.vol. iv. p. 1 sqq. and p. 240 sqq.) as also in an essay in the Transactions of the German Oriental Society (vol. i. p. 264 sqq.), that the document in question was prepared in the twenty-first year of Ptolemæus Epiphanes, and contained a repetition of the Rosetta inscription, the provisions of which were extended to Queen Cleopatra I., who had come to the throne in the meantime.[62]The name Cleopatra, in place of Arsinoe, in the hieroglyphic inscriptions appears to rest wholly upon an error of the scribe, which is avoided in the Demotic, for Arsinoe is here correctly mentioned. The hieroglyphic text of the inscription of Rosetta is less correct than the Demotic. [If the hieroglyphic be thetext, then it is decidedly the Demotic that is in error. The hieroglyphic seems to have been engraven first, and in that case it would be the text. Probably, however, at this late period, Greek was the language in which the inscriptions of the time were composed, thus the question would lie not between the hieroglyphic and Demotic,i.e.the archaico-Egyptian (but little understood) and the modern, but between the Greek and the hieroglyphic modes of expression.—K. R. H. M.][63][It is well to remark the structure of the word[Koptic]Ph-iah-uêb “the field of Jah, or Jao,” as the Rev. Charles Forster reads the Hamyaritic name of God, in the Wady Mokatteb inscriptions. It serves as a collateral proof of the Koptic origin of the language of the inscriptions deciphered by that learned investigator. The form of the letters being similar also proves a cognate origin.—K. R. H. M.[64]Similar designations occur at an earlier period; thus, in Thebes, an “Ammon of Tuthmosis (III.)” is mentioned; it would seem to infer a newly-instituted worship of those gods brought about by these kings. Ramses II. dedicated to the three highest gods of Egypt (see my essay “On the Primeval Circle of Egyptian Gods,” in the papers of the Berlin Academy, 1851), Ra, Phtha, and Ammon, three great rock temples, in Lower Nubia, at Derr, Gerf Hussén, and Sebuâ, and called the contemporaneously-founded places after these gods, this in Greek Heliopolis, Hephaistopolis, and Diospolis. A fourth mighty and fortified residence was founded by the same king in Abusimbel, and was named after himself, Ramessopolis, or “The Fortification of Ramessopolis,” as he also founded two cities in the Delta, and called them after himself. No doubt it is this new worship, in reference to which the gods honoured there were named Ammon of Ramses, and Phtha of Ramses. The king was himself adored in those rock temples, particularly in that of Abusimbel, in common with those deities.[65][See Pickering’s Races of Man and their Geographical Distribution, chap. x. The Ethiopian race, Nubians, and Barabra of the Nile, p. 211-215.—K. R. H. M.][66]A grammar and vocabulary of the Nubian language, and a translation of St. Mark into Nubian, is prepared for publication.[67][The following are some of the terms for one hundred among the African tribes,Biengga, Island of Corisco,’Nkama,Jedah,Jjeje;Joberra,Obere;Kanga country, Sy district,Mosulu bandi.—K. R. H. M.][68][Menekle signifies “great ear.”—K.R.H.M.][69][For a character of Ahmed Pasha, see Werne’s White Nile, vol. i. p. 33. The author was acquainted with him.—K. R. H. M.][70][Bunsen has given these forms and hieroglyphics at the end of the English translation of his excellent Egypt’s Place, of which it is much to be regretted that the first volume only has hitherto appeared.—K. R. H. M.][71][Had Lepsius remembered that, by the determination of this most important fact, he set at rest the half-witted theories of a race of Indo-philologic dreamers, he would have rather rejoiced at the result than have regretted. These men, of whom Higgins, Faber, and Dupuis are fine specimens, with no accurate knowledge of any of the languages they so sapiently decided on, will find their favourite Mount Meru, Meroë, Menu, Manu, &c., &c., &c., here overthrown by an evident chronological fact. Such investigations are, however, useful for two reasons:—1. That they collect an immense number of facts, and, in some degree, classify them, for the benefit of the race of investigators now arising, of whom Bunsen, Bopp, and others, are fine examples; and 2. They show us what false scents we must avoid in following up so intricate an inquiry as the Archæological history of the “origenes” of mankind. Let it be understood, however, that I do not mean to assert that men like Higgins and Pococke are totally wrong; far from it, they are often right, but the care which they should bestow on their researches is continually wanting,—the critical acumen to distinguish between nonsense and sense,—always. I can only repeat what I have said in another place, (Buckley’s Great Cities of the Ancient World, p. 314,) in a chapter on Scandinavian and general mythology, viz.:—That a new era is approaching in historical investigation, and, I may add, that we must not doubt, or we may never prove. There is plenty of time, and one factestablishedis worth manyoverthrown, when there is nothing to replace them. The great problem is susceptible of solution if we have only a little faith, at any rate, to preserve, even if onlyprovisionally, what we cannot see in the full clear light, that yesterday’s occurrences are given in to-day’sTimes. See, however, p. 226.—K.R.H.M.][72]I have since heard of the decease of Herr Bauer, which ensued in the following year.[73][The author refers to the inscription obtained at Tamaniât through the means of Mohammed Said. See p. 168.—K.R.H.M.][74][Werne, in his excellent work “Expedition to discover the sources of the White Nile,” vol. i. p, 146, mentions baobàb trees of the above dimensions, and states that, near Fazoql, there is said to be one 120 feet in circumference. I cannot too strongly call attention to this most able work, in the portable form in which it has been issued by my publisher, Mr. Bentley.—K. R. H. M.][75]Russegger (Travels, vol. ii. Part II. p. 125,) found one of 95 feet in circumference. He erroneously calls the treeganglès; this ishomara, and the fruitgungulês.[76][See an elaborate essay on the Berbers and their name, by Mr. Gliddon, in Burke’s Ethnological Journal, No. X. p. 439, as well as a paper by Mr. Nash on the Egyptian name of Egypt.—K. R. H. M.][77][See Werne’s Expedition, vol. i. p. 194, where he observes:—“I do not call themhandsometrees, because they stand there in the green wilderness; no, I find them really beautiful, for there is a peculiar charm in them. They rise like double gigantic flowers upon slender stalks, gently protruding in the middle, and not like those defoliated date-palms, which stand meagrely like large cabbage-stalks. It is impossible that the latter should delight my poor heart, full of the remembrance of shady trees,—the oaks and the beech trees of Germany; the palms near Parnassus; the cypress on the Bosphorus, and the chestnuts on the Asiatic Olympus.” The botany of these regions has been well treated by Werne.—K. R. H. M.][78][Bunsen in Egypt’s Place in Universal History, vol. i. p. 430, refers them all to Osiris, and ranges them thus:—1. The Genius with the Hawkhead,Kebhsenu.f. signifying “the refresher of his brothers.” 2. The Jackal-headTua-mutf, “the adorer of his mother.” 3. The Apehead,Hepi(Apis) “Osiris the devoted.” 4.Amset, God, “Osiris the devoted.” The different arrangement of Lepsius is caused by his counting from right to left, while Bunsen begins from left to right.—K. R. H. M.][79]The poems contain many unusual forms and expressions, and have been composed in very free and, it seems to me, incorrect forms.[80][Compare Herodotus, Euterpe, c. 85, for the ancient Egyptian mode of mourning, which is, however, not very similar to this.—K. R. H. M.][81][The first Cartouche is as follows:—K (the bowl with a handle), Alphabetic No. 1, (Bunsen, vol. i. p. 561); N (the water,) Alphabetic No. 1, (p. 564); TA (bag and reed), Alphabetic No. 5, (p. 568); K = KNTAK. The reeds, Alphabetic No. 3, (p. 556,) occurs in the “Todtenbuch” (xxii. 63, 3,) as the sign for a noble, (Bunsen, p. 454), the heaven (p. 555) is the mark of the feminine gender, and the egg (Determinative No. 85, p. 545,) rank; = a Queen. The second Cartouche is the same, with the exception of the variant:—the sign of festivals (Determinative No. 110 p. 547,) HBI = KNTAHBI.—K. R. H. M.][82][A superstition exists among the Moravian Jews to this effect. At new moon a branch is held in its light, and the name of any person pronounced. His face will appear between the horns of the moon, and should he be destined to die, the leaves will fade. This is mentioned, as well as I can remember, in Beaumont’s Demonology.—K. R. H. M.][83][Compare Colonel Rawlinson’s Outline of Assyrian History, p. 23, where Sennacherib’s invasion of Meroe is mentioned.—K. R. H. M.][84][See Pickering’s Races of Man, p. 214, on the Ethiopian Race, and pp. 368 sqq., for further remarks on Egypt. This excellent work is well worthy the serious attention of the ethnologist in every way.—K. R. H. M.][85][I may here mention that an excellent term for the red-skinned race has been invented, though I forget by whom, though the person was an American archeologist, viz. cinnamon-coloured, applicable enough both to the red Mexican and the red Egyptian. In the picture chronicles of Mexican social life and history we also find that the women are painted yellow, a coincidence perhaps worthy of notice.—K. R. H. M.][86][Pickering states that he first met with a mixed race of Barâbra at Kenneh, thirty miles below the site of ancient Thebes, but he considers the boundary of the races to be at Silsilis. P. 212.—K. R. H. M.][87][Now standing for many years at the entrance of the Egyptian saloon in the British Museum.—K. R. H. M.][88]All these monuments are now erected in the Egyptian Museum. See the Ram and the Sparrow-hawk in the “Monuments from Egypt and Ethiopia,” Part III. plate 90.[89]From the pods and their contents Dr. Klotzsch recognised theMoringa arabica Persoon(Hyperanthera peregrina Forskăl). It seems that this tree was only previously known from Arabia, and is natural there. The single trees near Barkal, which are not mentioned by former travellers, might have been first introduced from Arabia. This is the more probable as the immigration of those tribes of the Shaiqîeh Arabs from the Hegâz is now testified by manuscript authorities. [This tree must therefore be added to the botanical list of Pickering, who, in his Races of Man, has collected all the introduced animals and plants of Egypt, India, America, Polynesia, Southern Arabia, &c., and though the lists want classification, they are well worthy of attention.—K. R. H. M.][90]The literal expression is, that he has built the temple[hieroglyph]“to his image, Ra-neb-ma, living on the earth.” The wordchentno longer exists in Koptic, but it is always translated εἰκών on the Rosetta stone. The temple and the place belonging to it was also named after the king, but according to his Horus-name, “Dwelling-place of Sha-em-ma;” this led to the recognition of the original position of the ram of Barkal and the lions in the British Museum.[91][For the straw huts down the Nile, and particularly beyond Chartûm, see Werne’s White Nile, chapter i. vol. i. p. 28.—K. R. H. M.][92][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place, vol. i. p. 624.—K. R. H. M.][93]Monuments, Part II. Plates 245, 246.[94]Monuments, Part II. plate 1.[95]Salamât “the greetings” are they called by earlier travellers. The proper pronunciation and meaning was first remarked to me by our intelligent old guide, Ἀuad. The Arabs are for confounding them, as[Arabic]salâm,salus, is pronounced with the dentalsin,[Arabic]s’anam,idolum, with the lingualsâd. The plural, which is usually[Arabic]as’nam, here takes the feminine form[Arabic]s’anamât. That they were male figures had long since been indistinguishable from the battered heads. The stone of which the statues are formed is a peculiarly hard quartz brittle sandstone conglomerate, looking glazed, and with innumerable cracks. The frequent bursting of little particles of stone at sunrise, when the changes of temperature are most sudden, caused, according to my idea, the celebrated Memnon sounds, which were compared with the breaking of a violin string.[96][Herodotus II. c.c. 121-122.—K.R.H.M.][97]This King Ai was formerly a private individual, and took his sacerdotal title into his royal cartouche at a later period. He appears with his wife in the tombs of Amarna, not unfrequently as a noble and peculiarly honoured officer of King Amenophis IV., that puritanical sun-worshipper, who changed his name into that of Bech-en-aten.[98]The above dimensions are here taken from Wilkinson’s Modern Egypt and Thebes, vol. ii. p. 220.[99][For an excellent description of such retreats,videFloss,Quæstiones Criticæ de Macaris, cap. i. § 1.Coloniæ, Heberle, MDCCCL.—K.R.H.M.][100]Apuleii Asclepius, dialogue Hermetis Trismegisti, c. 24.[101]When I wrote the above, I did not think that the crime would be so soon avenged. See Letter XXXV. p. 372.[102]I have since learnt (Rev. Arch., vol. iv. p. 32,) that M. Ampère had been expressly sent to Egypt, by the Paris Academy, to copy the bilingual inscription at Philae, to which I had turned attention in my Letters. See Letter XV. p. 120, and note. Of the impression brought back to Paris, in which, however, the beginnings of the Demotic lines, and the date of the decree are wanting, the very diminished representation of Demotic text is taken, which M. de Saulcy has published in theRevue Archéologique.[103][In Bunsen’s list of Determinatives, No. 5. I quote his description “Disk diffusing rays of light; light, assti, a sunbeam, (sun’s ray);ht, daylight;ubn, to illuminate;mau, to gleam;ui, brilliancy;hai, light;am, a beam.” Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place, vol. i. p. 537.—Since writing the foregoing note in the first edition, I have read the Rev. Charles Forster’s Monuments of Egypt, and I find that he attempts to identify this royal sign with a grain of millet, “with its stamina and antheræ developed,” assigning for its pronunciation the word “pschent.” I forbear criticism upon this “discovery,” only referring the reader to p. 54 of the second part of the Primæval Language.—K. R. H. M.][104][Dr. Lepsius alludes to Herr Maximilian Weidenbach.—K. R. H. M.][105]These places were first accurately and instructively described by Wilkinson, Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, vol. ii. pp. 28 sqq.[106]These are the actual words of my journal as they are understood also by Ritter, p. 578. According to the printed report, p. 8, it might appear as if Robinson had given up the attempt to climb the whole of this mountain district; this is particularised in theBibliotheca Sacraas an inaccuracy. But I only spoke of the top of the mountain rising in the plain in contradistinction to the higher points lying toward the side, which Robinson has ascended.[107]This report, sent to His Majesty, was printed, while I was still absent in 1846, under the title “Reise des Prof. Lepsius von Theben nach der Halbinsel des Sinai vom 4ten März, bis zum 14ten April, 1845,” Berlin, with two maps, a general map of the whole peninsula, and a special map of Serbâl and Wadi Firân, which were drawn by G. Erbkam after my directions or plans. This pamphlet was not published, but was given to a few; yet its contents have become better known by a translation into English by Charles H. Cottrell, (A Tour from Thebes to the peninsula of Sinai, &c., London, 1846); and into French by T. Pergameni, (“Voyage dans le Presq’île du Sinai, &c., lu à la Société de Géographie, séances du 21 Avril et du 21 Mai. Extrait du Bulletin de la Soc. de Géogr., Juin, 1847, Paris.”)[108]The Nakb el Haui, “Windsaddle” is an exceedingly wild and narrow mountain pass, which is impassable from its shelving abysses. The road had to be made with great art along the western side, and is in many places hewn out of the rock; on the other side, the loose soil has been paved with great flat stones. It is not to be doubted, that this daring path was made after the building of the convent, in order to have a shorter road to the town of Pharan, which before could only be reached by the wide circuit through the Wadi e’ Shech.[109]It seems that this convent has not been visited by any recent traveller. Burckhardt, who calls it Siggillye, did not descend, but heard that it was well-built and spacious, and provided with a good well, (Trav. in Syria, p. 610). More accurate information concerning this convent in the Serbâl gorge is very desirable, as it belongs probably to one of the oldest, or, at least, the most considerable of the peninsula, as the artistic and elaborately prepared rock-road thence to the town of Pharan amply shows.[110][I may here draw the reader’s attention to an interesting work, (to be more completely alluded to in the sequel,) lately published by the Rev. Charles Forster. The One Primeval Language. Part I. The Voice of Israel from the Rocks of Sinai.—K. R. H. M.][111]Monuments, Part II., plates 2, 116, 137, 140, 152, III., 28.[112][Bunsen, vol. i. p. 400, and see Lepsius, Ueber den Ersten Aegyptischen Götterkreis, p. 30.—K. R. H. M.][113][From its great length, I have found it necessary to reserve a note on this passage until the Appendix, Note A., where the reader will find it.—K. R. H. M.][114]On this point I find all the most important voices unanimous. Robinson, in particular, has the merit of having done away with many old prejudices of this kind. But Burckhardt had already allowed himself to be so little influenced in his judgment by the authority of tradition, that he did not hesitate to find a reason for the erection of the convent of Sinai on Gebel Mûsa on strategical grounds. (Trav. in Syr. p. 609.)[115]The name Firân, formerly Pharan, is certainly the same as the Biblical Paran; but it is equally sure that this name had shifted its application in the locality. All other comparisons of names are totally unsatisfactory.[116]One of the two wells seems to go back to the time of the building of the convent; it is the smaller one of the two. The deep, principal well, which gives the most and the best water, seems to have been first sunk in 1760, by order of an English Lord. (Ritter, p. 610.)[117]Burckhardt also expressly observes, that there is no good pasturage in the neighbourhood of the convent, where the rather more numerous little fountains would almost allow us to consider the soil to be moisture. See Bartlett’s impression in a subsequent place.[118]So the Arabs unanimously assured us, see also Burckhardt, p. 625, and Ritter, p. 769. Lord Lindsay here found “a small wood of tarfa trees, in which blackbirds were singing, and farther on some palm plantations.” It was at the same outlet of the valley “where Seetzen first had the pleasure of gathering much manna off the tarfa bushes and eating it; here he found the ripe fruits of the wild caper bush, which were eatable like fruit.”[119][Note B, Appendix.—K. R. H. M.][120]Originally, both these hot springs seem not to have been called Hammân Faraûn from Pharaoh, but Farân from Pharan. For Edrisi calls the place Faran Ahrun and Istachri Taran, which should doubtless be Faran (Cf. Ritter, Asien, Bd. VIII. S. 170 ff.). Macrizi also calls the place Birkit Faran (Ritter,Sinaihalbinsel, p. 64.) Probably the harbour region of Pharan was called after the city, though it was somewhat distant; and the legend, so very inapposite here, concerning Pharaoh’s ruin, only connected itself with Faraûn by a confusion with Faran. It is curious that the Arab writers, of whom Macrizi was certainly there, speak of Faran as of a coast town![121]The part of the sandy coast, considered by Robinson to be the desert of Sin, has no tarfa bush, much less manna. Concerning the regions where manna is found, Cf. Ritter, p. 665 sqq. That Eusebius also considers the wilderness of Sin to extend to Sinai, is already mentioned. [Σίν, έρημος ἡ μετάξυ παρατείνουσα τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς Θαλάσσης καὶ τῆς ἐρήμον Σίυα][122]Robinson, vol. i. p. 173, 196. To Wilson’s particular argument of the extensive prospect from Gebel Mûsa is to be objected, that, from a point very inconsiderably higher than the plain, many places can be seen, from which the elevation itself would not appear very considerable.[123]See Robinson, vol. i. pp. 118, 196.[124]Ewald, History of the People of Israel, vol. ii. p. 86, also considers that Sinai “was already looked upon as an oracular place and divine seat before Moses.” Ritter considers it insupportable.[125]This is confirmed at the present day by Rüppell, who considers Gebel Katharine to be Sinai. He relates in his voyage to Abyssinia, vol. i. p. 127, the following about his ascent of Mount Serbâl in 1831:—“At the top of Serbâl, the Bedouins have placed little circles of stones in a circle, and other stones are laid from it down the steep declivity like steps, to render the ascent more easy; when we came to that circlemy guide took off his sandals, and approached it with religious reverence, he then said a prayer inside, and afterward told me that he had already sacrificed two sheep here asthank-offerings, the one at the birth of a son, the other on regaining his health. The mountain ofSerbâl has been held for such superstitions in the highest respect by the Arabs of the vicinity, from time immemorial; and it must once have been somewhat holy to the Christians, as in the valley to the south-west there lie the ruins of a great convent and many little hermits’ cells. In any case, the wild, craggy rocks of Serbâl, and theisolated position of this mountain is much more remarkable and grand than any other group of mountains in Arabia Petræa, and it was peculiarly adapted for the goal of religious pilgrimages. The highest point of the mount, or the second rock from the west, and on which the Arabs usually sacrifice, is, according to my barometrical observation, 6,342 French feet above the level of the sea.”[126]See the excellent treatise of Tuch (Einundzwanzig Sinaitische Inschriften, Leipzig, 1849.) This scholar endeavours to prove, by the deciphered names of the pilgrims, that the authors of the inscriptions were native pagan Arabs, and went to Serbâl for religious festivals; according to him, these pilgrimages ended, at latest, in the course of the third century. Here it may also be mentioned, that the name itself of Serbâl, which Rödiger, (in Wellsted’s Travels in Arabia, vol. ii. page the last), doubtlessly correctly derived from[Arabic]serb,palmarum copia, and Baal, “palm grove (φοινίκων) of Baal,” points to a heathen origin. [However much M. Tuch may reproduce the notion of Beer, he cannot set aside its confutation in Forster’s Primeval Language, Part I. pp. 8-38.—K. R. H. M.][127]Vol. i. p. 198.[128]I thought to be able to conclude this indirectly from his narrative, (Antiq. III. 2.) It now appears to me that nothing can be elicited, as to his opinion, from it, for which reason the name should be omitted above. In itself it is still probable that he held the same opinion as Eusebius and Jerome.[129]Eusebius, περὶ τῶν τοκικῶν ὀνομ., etc s.v. Ῥαφιδίμ, τόπος τῆς ἐρήμον παρὰ τὸ Χωρὴβ ὄρος, ἐν ᾧ ἐυ τῆς πέτρας ἐρρύησε τὰ ὔδατα καὶ ἐκλήθη ὀ τόπος πειρασμός ἔνθα καὶ πολεμεῖ Ἰησοῦς τὺν Ἁμαλὴκἐγγὺς Φαράν. Hieron. de situ et nomin., etc. s.v. Raphidim, locus in deserto juxta montem Choreb, in quo de petra fluxere aquæ, cognominatusque est tentatio, ubi et Jesus adversus Amalec dimicatprope Pharan. [Here again the authorities resolve themselves into one, as the reader knows that, after all, Jerome was only the translator of Eusebius, and would therefore, of course, agree with him. The Doctor does not appear to have thought of this.—K. R. H. M.][130]Of the older authors there is yet Cosmas Indicopleustes (A.D.535) to be particularly mentioned, (Topogr. Christ, Lib V. in theColl. Nov. Patr. ed. Montfaucon, tom. II. fol. 195,) Ἔιτα πάλιν παρενέ βαλον εἰς Ῥαφιδὶν εἰς τὴν νῦν λεγομένην Φαράν also Antoninus Placentinus, who is placed about 600, while the learned Papebroch, who has edited hisItinerariumin theActa S.S., May, vol. ii. p. 10-18, places him in the eleventh or twelfth century, came, as he says,in civitatem(which can only be Pharan)in qua pugnavit Moyses cum Amalech: ubi est altare positum super lapides illos quos posuerunt Moyse orante.” The city is surrounded with a brick wall, and “valde, sterilis” for which Tuch (Sinait. Incr. p. 38) proposes to read “fertilis.” When Pharan is called an Amalekite city by Macrizi, (History of the Kopts, translated by Wüstenfeld, p. 116), this can only point to the same conclusion that Moses was attacked near Pharan by the Amalekites, to whom the territory belonged. Ritter is particularly to be mentioned among the new school.[131]See the passage of Cosmas, in a former note.[132]The name Raphidîm itself, “the resting-places,” indicates that the place was intended for a longer rest.[133]Exodus, xix. 1-3.[134]See Note C, in the Appendix.[135]Therefore Robinson and others, who admit no hiatus in the resting stations, place Raphidîm beyond Firân, and do not admit that the latter is named at all, or place Alus there. What is contrary to this, and has already been made use of by Ritter, is already mentioned above. On the contrary, Ritter, to get over the difficulty, considers our present text to be imperfect (p. 742).[136]To this conclusion, which appears to me the most doubtful, of any, Ritter feels himself driven. The tradition of the present day is different, that Horeb and Sinai are two mountains in close juxtaposition, but also distinctly divided.[137]To this conclusion, which appears to me the most doubtful, of any, Ritter feels himself driven. The tradition of the present day is different, that Horeb and Sinai are two mountains in close juxtaposition, but also distinctly divided.[138]The three possibilities of getting quit of this difficulty have been tried by Robinson, Ritter, and Josephus. The first places Raphidîm in the neighbourhood of Gebel Mûsa; the second sees an omission between Raphidîm and Sinai, and accepts two divine mountains; the third transposes the passage, and does not mention Horeb at all, but only Sinai.[139]Cf. the comparison and discussion of both opinions in Robinson, vol. i. pp. 197, sqq. All those places where exactly the same is said of Horeb as of Sinai, and no idea of a larger extent of region is admissible, speak against the view of the latter that Horeb is the denomination of the mountain-range or country, and Sinai the name of the particular mount. A Desert of Horeb is never spoken of, as are the deserts of Sur, Sin, Paran, and others. For a contrary view one could cite Acts, vii. 30, compared with Exodus, iii. 1. [The former passage is “And when forty years were expired, then appeared unto himin the wilderness of Mount Sinai, an angel,” &c.; the other runs thus, “He led the flock to the backside of the desert, and cameto the mountain of God, even to Horeb.”—K. R. H. M.][140]This view is already to be found in theItinerariumof Antoninus, who finds the conventbetweenSinai and Horeb. The present monkish tradition that the rock on the plain of Râha is Horeb is already known. The arbitrariness of such views are self-evident. Yet the latter opinion is taken up by Gesenius, (Thesaur. p. 517), Wiener, and others.[141]St. Jerome already says expressly the same thing, in adding to the words of Eusebius,s.v.Choreb:—“Mihi autem videtur, quodduplici nomine idem mons nuncSina,nuncChorebvocetur.” Josephus already evidently took both mountains to be one, as he everywhere substitutesSinaiwhereChoreboccurs in the Bible; so also does the author of Acts (vii. 80); and likewise Syncellus (Chron.p. 190), who says of Elias:—ἐπορεύετο ἐν Χωρὴβ τῷ ὄρει ἤτοι Σιναίῳ. [The adjective termination of Σιναίῳ shows that Syncellus meant that Choreb was part of the Sinaitic range. Otherwise, he would have employed the Hebraic termination:—K. R. H. M.] Of late scholars, Ewald presents the same opinion concerning the identity of the two mounts. He says, (Gesch. des V. Isr., vol. ii. p. 84):—“The two names Sinai and Horeb do not change, because they denoted two peaks of the same mountain, lying close together, but the name Sinai is plainly older, which is also used by Deborah, (Judges v. 5), while the name Horeb is not to be found previous to the time of Numbers (cf. Exod. iii. 1, xvii. 6, xxxiii. 6), but then becomes very frequent, as is proved by Deuteronomy, and the passages, 1 Kings viii. 9, xix. 8, Mal. xii. 22, Psalm cvi. 19, while it does not mean anything to the contrary, when quite recent writers, for the sake of showing their acquaintance with ancient literature, re-introduce the original name of Sinai!”[142]If we omit the two verses xix. 12, the narrative in xix. 3 continues quite naturally that of xviii. 27; “and Moses let his father-in-law depart; so he went his way into his own land. And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain,” &c.[143][See Note C. Appendix.][144][See Note A. Appendix.][145][Note D, Appendix.][146][Note E, Appendix.][147][Note F, Appendix.][148]Ritter (p. 31), where he mentions that Sinai appears almost simultaneously, as Serbâl, with the Egyptian Cosmas, and as Gebel Mûsa with the Byzantine Procopius, broaches another conjecture, which I shall here quote:—“Was there, perhaps,” says he, “a different tradition or party opinion prevailing in Constantinople and Alexandria on this point among the convents and the monks, which might have arisen from a jealousy to vindicate the more sacred character of one or other of the places? It is curious that at the same time such different views of the question should exist among the most learned theologians of their time.”[149]This letter, which is here printed word for word, was addressed to the General-Director der K. Preuss. Museen, Herr Geh. Legations-Rath von Olfers. Perhaps its publication may serve at the same time to spread abroad a just respect for the principles on which the Egyptian Museum, that part of one of the most grand and newest creations of Berlin first accessible to the public, has been erected and decorated.[150][This might, not without some reason, be considered to assimilate with the style of painting which has lately made its appearance in England as a school—I refer to the pre-Raphaelite, which, whatever its own intrinsic merits may be,—and those, I suspect, are very few,—will at least have one good effect, that of calling the attention of English painters to the individualities in their paintings, and obviating the slurring sketchy style so prevalent at the present time, the upholders of which, after all, are the persons who condemn the pre-Raphaelites. The remarks of Dr. Lepsius will therefore apply to this new school of painting.—K. R. H. M.][151][The Cheta are generally considered to be the Hittites.—K. R. H. M.][152][Exodus, i. 11.—K. R. H. M.][153]It must be from some error that Burckhardt (Travels in Syria, p. 5) only allows the grave of Noah a length of ten feet, although the same number recurs in Schubert (Reise in das Morgenland, Bd. III., p. 340). It is well known how continually the number forty is used by the Hebrews as an indefinite number. The same seems to have been peculiar toall Semiticnations, at least, it may be pointed out frequently, and at all times with the Phænicians and Arabs; the numeral word for four and forty itself points, in these languages, to the general idea of multitude. Cf. my Treatise on Philological Comparison (“Sprachvergleichende Abhandlungen,”) Berlin, 1836, pp. 104, 139, and the “Chronology of the Egyptians,” vol. i. p. 15.[154]See V. Hammer, History of the Osmanli Empire, part II. p. 482.[155]Cf. Krafft, the Topography of Jerusalem, Bonn, 1846, and Plate II. No. 33.[156]The king represented here is explained by Rawlinson (a Commentary on the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, London, 1850, p. 70,) to be the son of the builder of Khorsabad, Bel-Adonim-Sha. The same king is found on the buildings of Kuyunjik, Nebbi Yûnas, and Mossul, according to Layard, (Nineveh, vol. ii. p. 142, 144,) who, (p. 400), conjectures that the monument from Cyprus, now in the Berlin Museum, also belongs to him. (Cf. Bonomi, Nineveh and its Palaces, London, 1852, p. 127.)[157][Hesych. οὐραγίαν, τὴν ὄπισθεν ἀκολουθοῦσαν στρατίαν—K.R.H.M.][158][See Bunsen, Egypt’s Place, vol. 1. p. 209—K.R.H.M.][159][It may be as well to remark that the calculations of longitude here and on the map are made from the island of Feroe, on the west coast of Africa, and not from Greenwich.—K.R.H.M.][160][To the Rev. Charles Forster it would appear we are indebted for the detection of the record of the visit of Cosmas, which, according to his reading, runs thus:—“μνησ τηθ? Κοσμάν του’ ν Τεβδ ... ναυτιου.” “Remember Cosmas, the voyager to Tibet.” See that gentleman’s work on the Primeval Language, Part I. p. 4. The Greek, as the author observes, isverycorrupt.—K.R.H.M.]

FOOTNOTES:

[1]On the sudden death, soon after our departure from Palestine, of Bishop Alexander, Gobat was selected by H.M. the King of Prussia as the Protestant bishop of Jerusalem, which post he has filled with good success since 1846.

[2]The firman of the Viceroy, with the most unlimited permission to carry on all excavations that I should think desirable, with a recommendation addressed to the local governments to support me, was given to me before my departure from Alexandria. All the work-people and tools that were necessary for the formation and transportation of our collection of antiquities, were demanded for wages by the Khawass given us by the government, under the authority of the firman, from the Sheîkh of the next village, and nowhere refused. The monuments from the southern provinces were transported in government barks from Mount Barkal to Alexandria, and to them were added three tombs from the neighbourhood of the great Pyramid of Gizeh, which, with the assistance of the four workmen purposely sent from Berlin, were carefully taken to pieces, and embarked opposite Old Cairo. At my departure from Egypt, a written permission was given me to export the collection, and the articles were formally presented to his Majesty the King of Prussia by the Viceroy.These peculiar favours, at a time when all private travellers, antiquarian speculators, and even diplomatists, were especially interdicted by the Egyptian government from obtaining and taking away antiquities, did not fail to gain our expedition some unfavourable opinions. We were particularly blamed for having a destructive energy, which, under the ascribed circumstances, would have taken for granted a species of peculiar barbarism among our company. For, as we did not, like many of our rivals, dig out and remove the monuments, which had mostly been hidden below the surface, in haste by night, and with bribed assistance, but at our leisure, and with the open co-operation of the authorities, as well as under the eyes of many travellers—every carelessness with respect to these monuments left behind us, of which they had formed a part, would have been the more reprehensible, the easier such carelessness was to be avoided. But on the value of the monuments, we might esteem ourselves to have a more just judgment than the greater number of the generality of travellers or collectors usually possess; and we were not in danger of allowing it to be dulled by self-interest, as we did not select the monuments for ourselves, but as the agents of our government, for the Royal Museum at Berlin, and therefore for the benefit of science and an inquiring public.The collection, which, principally by its historical value, may be compared with the most extensive in Europe, was, immediately upon its arrival, incorporated with the royal collections, without my being placed in any official connection with it. It is already opened and accessible to the public. A careful examination of it will conduce more than anything to place the remarks of later tourists,—among whom there are even Germans,—in their true light; who have even gone so far, as in the case of a Herr Julius Braun, in the General Augsburg Journal (Allgemeine Augsburger Zeitung), to ascribe to us the mutilation of the gods in the temple at El Kab, done 3,000 years ago! Besides, it would show a total ignorance of present Egyptian relations, or that which gives the actual interest to the monuments of antiquity, if any one did not wish to see the as precious as unestimated and daily destroyed treasures of those lands, preserved in European museums as much as possible.

These peculiar favours, at a time when all private travellers, antiquarian speculators, and even diplomatists, were especially interdicted by the Egyptian government from obtaining and taking away antiquities, did not fail to gain our expedition some unfavourable opinions. We were particularly blamed for having a destructive energy, which, under the ascribed circumstances, would have taken for granted a species of peculiar barbarism among our company. For, as we did not, like many of our rivals, dig out and remove the monuments, which had mostly been hidden below the surface, in haste by night, and with bribed assistance, but at our leisure, and with the open co-operation of the authorities, as well as under the eyes of many travellers—every carelessness with respect to these monuments left behind us, of which they had formed a part, would have been the more reprehensible, the easier such carelessness was to be avoided. But on the value of the monuments, we might esteem ourselves to have a more just judgment than the greater number of the generality of travellers or collectors usually possess; and we were not in danger of allowing it to be dulled by self-interest, as we did not select the monuments for ourselves, but as the agents of our government, for the Royal Museum at Berlin, and therefore for the benefit of science and an inquiring public.

The collection, which, principally by its historical value, may be compared with the most extensive in Europe, was, immediately upon its arrival, incorporated with the royal collections, without my being placed in any official connection with it. It is already opened and accessible to the public. A careful examination of it will conduce more than anything to place the remarks of later tourists,—among whom there are even Germans,—in their true light; who have even gone so far, as in the case of a Herr Julius Braun, in the General Augsburg Journal (Allgemeine Augsburger Zeitung), to ascribe to us the mutilation of the gods in the temple at El Kab, done 3,000 years ago! Besides, it would show a total ignorance of present Egyptian relations, or that which gives the actual interest to the monuments of antiquity, if any one did not wish to see the as precious as unestimated and daily destroyed treasures of those lands, preserved in European museums as much as possible.

[4][In the first edition of this work I lamented that due care was not bestowed upon this obelisk, and that “our own property” was abandoned to the wind and the rain, the sand, and—worse than all—the Arab. Now, however, I have the satisfaction to be able to state that the Crystal Palace Company are about to do what our Government, with a surplus of £1,600,000, could not afford.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.]

[5]The diary of this Nile expedition has since been made public under the title of “Expedition to discover the Sources of the White Nile” (1840-1841), by Ferdinand Werne; with a preface by Carl Ritter. Berlin, 1848. [The work has since been published in English, under the auspices of Mr. Bentley, in two volumes.—K. R. H. M.]

[6]Since Ibrahim Pasha’s death, in 1848, viceroy of Egypt.

[7]This treatise, “Report of the River Goshop, and the countries of Enarea, Caffa, and Doko, by a native of Enarea,” has been translated by Ritter, read in the Geographical Society of Berlin, on the 7th of January, 1843, and printed in the monthly reports of that institution, in the fourth year, pp. 172-188.

[8]At our departure for Upper Egypt we had examined 130 private tombs, and discovered the remains of 67 pyramids.

[9]See my essay, “Sur l’Ordre des Colonnes-piliers en Egypte, et ses rapports avec le second Ordre Egyptien et la Colonne Grecque(avec deux planches),” in the ninth volume of theAnnales de l’Institut de Corresp. Archéol. Rome. 1838.

[10]See Letter XV., p. 117.

[11][TheAthenæum, in a late review of this work, questions the word “prince,” and proposes to read “son;” now, in a subsequent letter (p. 39), Lepsius himself conjectures that this Prince Merhet was the son of Cheops, which the reviewer appears to have overlooked in his excellent remarks.—K. R. H. M.]

[12][As a further illustration of this scene, but briefly passed over by the originator of it, the following observations of Mr. Gliddon will be found very interesting. “Mr. Gliddon hoped, that besides the day view, the Prussians would add their night scene of New Year’s Eve, 1842, when the blaze of bonfires, lighted on the top of each of the three pyramids, cast a lurid glare on every side, bringing out the craggy peaks of the long desecrated mausolea of Memphite Pharoahs, tinting that drear wilderness of tombs with a light, emblematical of Lepsius’ vindication of their inmates’ memories, and leaving the shadows of funereal gloom to symbolize the fifty centuries of historic night, now broken by the hierologists:—“‘Dark has been thy night,Oh Egypt, but the flameOf new-bornsciencegilds thine ancient name.’”—Gliddon’sOtia Egyptiaca; Lecture II. Burke’s Ethnological Journal, No. VI. p. 265.—K. R. H. M.]

“‘Dark has been thy night,Oh Egypt, but the flameOf new-bornsciencegilds thine ancient name.’”

—Gliddon’sOtia Egyptiaca; Lecture II. Burke’s Ethnological Journal, No. VI. p. 265.—K. R. H. M.]

[13][The reed; A initial, Bunsen, vol. i. p. 556, Alphabetic No. 3 = A: the sickle, M Alphabetic No. 2, p. 563 = M: the sieve, χ Alphabetic No. 1, p. 571 = χ: unknown object, p. 571, with U, the chicken, p. 570 = χU = AMCHU. This will give the uninitiated an idea of the way in which hieroglyphic words are formed.—K. R. H. M.]

[14][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place in Universal History, vol. i. p. 618.—K. R. H. M.]

[15][This has been done, and better than in any other museum in the world, see page 40.—K. R. H. M.]

[16]Unfortunately the colours have now quite faded. The unequal surface of the stone had rendered it necessary to spread a thick groundwork of lime over the sculptures ere they could be painted upon; this lime has peeled off by its transportation and the moist sea air, so that only the rough sculpture is remaining. In the “Monuments of the Prussian Expedition,” Part II. Plate 19-22, the colours are faithfully given, as they were preserved by the covering of sand in their original freshness.

[17]On our return from the south, two other perfect tombs, besides this one, were taken down and brought to Europe. All three have been re-erected, with the rest of the monuments, in the New Museum at Berlin.

[18][Bunsen, vol. i. p. 618.—K. R. H. M.]

[19]An essay “On the Construction of the Pyramids” was transmitted by me to the Royal Academy of Sciences, and printed, in accordance with a decree of the 3rd of August of the same year.—See the Monthly Report of the Academy in 1843, pp. 177-203, with three plates. [The following summary of Dr. Lepsius’ discovery, obtained from various sources, may not be unacceptable to the reader. At the commencement of each reign, the rock chamber, destined for the monarch’s grave, was excavated, and one course of masonry erected above it. If the king died in the first year of his reign, a casing was put upon it and a pyramid formed; but if the king did not die, another course of stone was added above and two of the same height and thickness on each side: thus in process of time the building assumed the form of a series of regular steps. These were cased over with stone, all the angles filled up, and stones placed for steps. Then, as Herodotus long since informed us (Euterpe, c. cxxv), the pyramid was finished from the top downward, by all the edges being cut away, and a perfect triangle only left.—See, in addition to Lepsius himself, Letronne, Dicuil, pp. 90-115, 1814; Athenæum, Bonomi, 16th Sept. 1843; J. W. Wild, 15th June, 1844. Wilkinson’sMateria Hieroglyphica, Malta, 1830, p. 14; and last, though not least, Gliddon’sOtia Egyptiaca, Lecture IV. Ethnological Journal, No. VII. p. 294.—K. R. H. M.]

[20]I have spoken more fully on this subject in my “Chronology of the Egyptians,” vol. i. p. 294. [See also Vyse, Pyramids of Gizeh, vol. iii. pp. 118, 119; Letronne, Inst. de l’Eg. vol. ii. pp. 460-466; and Wilkinson, Modern Eg. and Thebes, vol. i. p. 353.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.]

[21][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place in Universal History (Engl. transl.), vol. i. p. 515; Ideographics, No. 277.—K. R. H. M.]

[22][The more extended our acquaintance with ancient monuments or ancient writings becomes, the more simple and human do we find their signification to be. It has been the case with Egypt, Assyria, with Mexico, and indeed with most of those monuments that occur in connexion with the ancient world, in the popular acceptation of the word. If mystery and types possess a home anywhere, it must be in India, for even in Yucatan, the hieroglyphics seem very simple and the reverse of mysterious, when properly examined, as I hope to prove one day, in an extended investigation into Mexican antiquities, upon which the labour of some years has been bestowed. Instead of seeking for such remote causes, the reader will do well to consider the simple opinion of Gliddon, in hisOtia, Lecture VIII. Burke’s Ethnological Journal, No. IX. p. 395, regarding the origin of animal worship. I should not have been led to this lengthy note if I did not feel that, while the earliest tenets of worship were indeed veiled in types (the result, however, as much of accident as design), animal worship is too recent to conceal any such mysterious dogmas. I do not wish to place my notion in competition with that of Lepsius; this is a mere suggestion.—K. R. H. M.]

[23][See a lively description of this ceremony in Bayle St. John’s Village Life in Egypt.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.]

[24][News have just been received from Egypt that most enterprising excavations have been commenced at Mitrahinneh, partly under the direction of Mr. A. Harris, of Alexandria.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.]

[25]See my essay “On the general employment of the Pointed Arch in Germany in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” as an Introduction to H. Gally Knight’s Progress of Architecture from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Century under the Normans, from the English; Leipsig, 1841; and my father’s treatise, “The Dome of Naumburg,” by C. P. Lepsius, Leipsig, 1840 (in Puttrich’s “Monuments of Architecture,” II. pt. 3, 4).

[26][In Catherwood’s beautiful work on Central America we find that at some of the cities a peculiar arch was employed. This consisted in an arch of which the point was destroyed by laying a beam across at the top. In the Polynesian islands we also find almost perfect approaches to the pointed arch.—K. R. H. M.]

[27][Indeed, we learn from Bayle St. John that the Fellahs are not only contented with this treatment, but proud of the number of times they have been thus used. It saves money, and that is quite enough reason.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.]

[28][From the labyrinth and the remains of lake Mœris.—K. R. H. M.]

[29][About two-pence halfpenny English.—K. R. H. M.]

[30]Asser = Evening.

[31]It is to be remarked that even in the “Thousand and One Nights,” where occasionally æsthetic observations are to be found, there is nothing relating to music which would lead us to estimate the musical tastes of the Arabs at any higher standard than that manifested in the account of Lepsius and others.—K. R. H. M.

[32]Lib. XVII. p. 789, ed. Parisii, 1620.—K. R. H. M.

[33][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place, &c. vol. i. p. 624-5, and also the comparative lists of Eratosthenes and Manetho at pp. 124, 125 of the same work. “ὃς τὸν ὲν Ἀρσινοἷτῃ λαβύρινθον ἑαυτῷ τάφον κατεσκεύασεν.”—K. R. H. M.]

[34]Compare my “Chronology of the Egyptians,” vol. i. pp. 262 sqq.

[35][Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 640-641.—K. R. H. M.]

[36]According to Linant the difference is 22^m, i.e. 70 feet Rhenish. In June, 1843, Nascimbeni, an engineer of the viceroy, visited us in our camp by the pyramid of Mœris, being at the time engaged on a new chart and levelling of the Faiûm. He had only found 2 metres fall from Illahûn to Medînet, but from thence to the Birqet el Qorn, 75 metres. I am not aware that anything has been made known regarding these widely different measures. Sir G. Wilkinson, Modern Egypt and Thebes, vol. ii. p. 346, states the lakeniveauto be about 125 English feet below the Nile shore at Benisuef. [But see Bunsen’s observation in the (untranslated) second book of hisÆgypten, p. 209.—K. R. H. M. 2nd edit.]

[37]Mémoire sur le lac Mœris, présenté et lu à Société Egyptienne le 5 Juillet, 1842, par Linant de Bellefonds, inspecteur-général des ponts et chaussées, publié par la Société Egyptienne. Alexandrie, 1843, 4to. See my “Chronology of the Egyptians,” vol. i. p. 262 sq.

[38]The same Domenico Lorda set out again in the same year to Abyssinia, and transmitted thence six other Abyssinian MSS. to Herr Lieder, who submitted them to me on my return to Cairo. These were also purchased for the Royal Library at my suggestion. They contain, according to the account of Heri Lorda:—A.Abusher, Almanacco perpetuo civile-ecclesiastico-storico.B.Settà Neghest, Codice dell’ imperadore Eeschias.C.Joseph, Storia civile ed ecclesiastica(?)D.Beraan, Storia civile ed ecclesiastica.E.Philkisius e Marisak, Due opere in un volume che trattano della storia civile.F.Sinodus, Dritto canonico.

A.Abusher, Almanacco perpetuo civile-ecclesiastico-storico.B.Settà Neghest, Codice dell’ imperadore Eeschias.C.Joseph, Storia civile ed ecclesiastica(?)D.Beraan, Storia civile ed ecclesiastica.E.Philkisius e Marisak, Due opere in un volume che trattano della storia civile.F.Sinodus, Dritto canonico.

A.Abusher, Almanacco perpetuo civile-ecclesiastico-storico.

B.Settà Neghest, Codice dell’ imperadore Eeschias.

C.Joseph, Storia civile ed ecclesiastica(?)

D.Beraan, Storia civile ed ecclesiastica.

E.Philkisius e Marisak, Due opere in un volume che trattano della storia civile.

F.Sinodus, Dritto canonico.

[39][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place in Universal History, vol. i. p. 632.—K. R. H. M.]

[40][Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 400-402. Het-her signifies “the habitation of Horus.”—K. R. H. M.]

[41][Bunsen, vol. i. p. 620. Therefore, about the time of Nitocris.—K. R. H. M.]

[42][Bunsen, vol. i. p. 624. Coeval with the pyramid of the Labyrinth.—K. R. H. M.]

[43][Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 624-625. Ramses is the third king in Manetho’s twelfth dynasty.—K. R. H. M.]

[44]This letter, addressed to Alexander von Humboldt, has been printed in the “Preussische Staatszeitung,” of the 9th of February, 1844.

[45]The correction Ἀδελφῆς in this inscription, dated in the thirty-fifth year of Euergetes (136 B. C.), is of importance to some chronological determinations of that period. Letronne (Rec. des Inscr.vol.i.p.33sqq.56) assumed that Cleopatra III. the niece and second wife of Euergetes II., was here mentioned. From this alone he judged that this king only added the name of his wife, Cleopatra III., to his own in the official documents, previous to his expulsion in the year 132 B. C., and therefore placed all the inscriptions, in which after the King, both Cleopatras, the sister and the (second) wife are named, in the period after the return of Euergetes (127-117), e. g. the inscriptions of the obelisk of Philae (Rec.vol.i.p.333). In this he is followed by Franz (Corp. Inscr.vol.iii.p.285), who places for the same reason the inscriptionsC. I.No.4841, 4860, 4895, 4896, between 127 and 117 B. C., although he was aware of my correction of the inscription of Pselchis (C. I.No.5073).It is always remarkable that onlyoneCleopatra is mentioned in the inscription of Pselchis, but as it is Cleopatra II., the first wife of the king, whom he always distinguishes from his second wife by the designation of “the sister,” it is not to be concluded that he should have expressly omitted mention of the latter in the documents from the beginning of his second marriage. This is confirmed in the decisive manner by two demotic Papyri of the Royal Museum, in whichbothCleopatras are mentioned, although one is of the year 141 B. C., and the other of the year 136 B. C. All the inscriptions, which, according to Letronne (Rec. des Inscr.tomei.No.7, 26, 27, 30, 31) and Franz (Corp. Inscr.vol.iii.No.4841, 4860, 4895, 4896) fall between 127 and 117 B. C., for this reason, can therefore be referred with the same probability to the years between 145 and 135 B.C.

It is always remarkable that onlyoneCleopatra is mentioned in the inscription of Pselchis, but as it is Cleopatra II., the first wife of the king, whom he always distinguishes from his second wife by the designation of “the sister,” it is not to be concluded that he should have expressly omitted mention of the latter in the documents from the beginning of his second marriage. This is confirmed in the decisive manner by two demotic Papyri of the Royal Museum, in whichbothCleopatras are mentioned, although one is of the year 141 B. C., and the other of the year 136 B. C. All the inscriptions, which, according to Letronne (Rec. des Inscr.tomei.No.7, 26, 27, 30, 31) and Franz (Corp. Inscr.vol.iii.No.4841, 4860, 4895, 4896) fall between 127 and 117 B. C., for this reason, can therefore be referred with the same probability to the years between 145 and 135 B.C.

[46][See Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 393-395.—K. R. H. M.]

[47]Compare LetronneRecueil des Inscription Grecques de l’Egypte,tomei.pp.363sqq.Ptolemaeus Eupator is not mentioned by the historians. The name was first discovered in a Greek Papyrus at Berlin, written under Soter II. in the year 105 B.C., and indeed foisted in between Philometor and Euergetes. Böckh, who published the Papyrus (1821), referred the surname of Euergetes to Soter II. and his wife, and held Eupator to be a surname of the deified Euergetes II. In the same year Champollion-Figeac treated of this papyrus, and endeavoured to prove that Eupator was that son of Philometer put to death by Euergetes II. on his accession. This view was afterwards accepted by St. Martin, Böckh, and Letronne (Rech. pour serv. à l’Hist. de l’Eg.p.124). In the meantime the name Eupator had been found in a second papyrus of the reign of Soter II., as also in a letter of Numenius upon the Phileusian obelisk of Herr Bankes of the time of Euergetes II. Eupator was named in both inscriptions, but did not stand behind, but before Philometor, and therefore could not be his son. Letronne now conjectured (Recueil des Inscr.tomei.p.365) that Eupator was another surname of Philometor. Then, however, it should have been καὶ Θεοῦ Εὐπάτορος τοῦ καὶ Φιλομήτορος, and not καὶ Θεοῦ Εὐπάτορος καὶ Θεοῦ Φιλομήτορος. In a letter to Letronne of the 1st December, 1844, from Thebes, which has been printed in theRevue Archéol.tomei.pp.678sqq., I informed him that I had also found in several hieroglyphical inscriptions the name Eupator, and always before Philometor. The same reasons that I alleged against Letronne’s interpretation of the Greek name (that portion of the letter was not printed in theRevue), i. e. the simple recurrence of the Θεοῦ, did also not allow Eupator to be considered another name of Philometor in the hieroglyphical lists. He must have been a Ptolemy recognized for a short time as king, but not mentioned by the historians; and as Franz (Corp. Inscr.vol.iii.p.285) and Letronne (Rec.vol.ii.p.536) have recognized an elder brother of Philometor, who died in a few months, and was therefore omitted in the Ptolemaic canon.The son of Philometor and his sister Cleopatra II., however, mentioned by Justin and Josephus, in which it was formerly thought that the Eupator of the Berlin papyrus had been found, is particularly mentioned in the hieroglyphical inscriptions and of the other Ptolemies, in his place between Philometor and Euergetes, and we thus learn his name, which the historians had not added. He is sometimes called Philopator, sometimes Neos Philopator, and is therefore to be referred to in the series of reigned Ptolemies, as Philopator II. Of fourteen hieroglyphical lists which come down to Euergetes II., seven mention Philopator II.; in four other lists in which he might have been mentioned he is passed over, and these seem all to belong to the first year of Euergetes II., his murderer, which readily explains the cause. That he does not appear in the canon is quite natural, because his reign did not extend over the change of the Egyptian year; but, as might be expected, he is named in the protocolls of the Demotic Papyrus, where those Ptolemies receiving divine honours are enumerated, and in which Young had already properly seen Eupator. In fact, he is mentioned here in all the lists known to me (five in Berlin of the years 114, 103, 103, 99, 89 B.C., and one in Turin of the year 89 B.C.) which are later than Euergetes II., as also in a Berlin papyrus of the fifty-second year of Euergetes himself (therefore in 188 B.C.). A comparison of the Demotic lists manifests that the interchange of the names Eupator and Philometor in the Greek papyrus of the year 105 B.C. (not 106, as Franz,Corp. Inscr.p.285 writes), is not only a mistake of the copyist, as these and similar interchanges are also not uncommon in the Demotic papyrus. The different purposes of the hieroglyphic and demotic lists render it comprehensible, that in the former such variations were not admissible, as in the latter.

The son of Philometor and his sister Cleopatra II., however, mentioned by Justin and Josephus, in which it was formerly thought that the Eupator of the Berlin papyrus had been found, is particularly mentioned in the hieroglyphical inscriptions and of the other Ptolemies, in his place between Philometor and Euergetes, and we thus learn his name, which the historians had not added. He is sometimes called Philopator, sometimes Neos Philopator, and is therefore to be referred to in the series of reigned Ptolemies, as Philopator II. Of fourteen hieroglyphical lists which come down to Euergetes II., seven mention Philopator II.; in four other lists in which he might have been mentioned he is passed over, and these seem all to belong to the first year of Euergetes II., his murderer, which readily explains the cause. That he does not appear in the canon is quite natural, because his reign did not extend over the change of the Egyptian year; but, as might be expected, he is named in the protocolls of the Demotic Papyrus, where those Ptolemies receiving divine honours are enumerated, and in which Young had already properly seen Eupator. In fact, he is mentioned here in all the lists known to me (five in Berlin of the years 114, 103, 103, 99, 89 B.C., and one in Turin of the year 89 B.C.) which are later than Euergetes II., as also in a Berlin papyrus of the fifty-second year of Euergetes himself (therefore in 188 B.C.). A comparison of the Demotic lists manifests that the interchange of the names Eupator and Philometor in the Greek papyrus of the year 105 B.C. (not 106, as Franz,Corp. Inscr.p.285 writes), is not only a mistake of the copyist, as these and similar interchanges are also not uncommon in the Demotic papyrus. The different purposes of the hieroglyphic and demotic lists render it comprehensible, that in the former such variations were not admissible, as in the latter.

[48]Wilkinson (Modern Egypt and Thebes, vol. ii. p. 275) considers this Cleopatra Tryphæna to be the famous Cleopatra, daughter of Neos Dionysos; Champollion (Lettres d’Egypte, p. 110) to be the wife of Philometor; but the cartouche combined with her name belong neither to Ptolemæus XIV., the elder son of Neos Dionysos, nor to Ptolomæus VI. Philometor, but to Ptolemæus XIII. Neos Dionysos or Auletes, who is always Philopator Philadelphus, on the monuments. Cleopatra Tryphæna was therefore the wife of Ptolemæus Auletes.

[49]The inscription referred to is in the rock-cave of Echmin, and was, without doubt, first engraved under Ptolemæus Philadelphus, with double cartouches and the usual royal titles, but without the surname of Soter; he is mentioned on a stele in Vienna which was erected under Philopator. Here, however, he has another cartouche than at Echmin, and moreover, in a remarkable manner, the same as that which Philippus Aridaeus and Alexander II., under whom Ptolemæus Lagus was Viceroy in Egypt, bore before his time. In like manner he is named on a statue of the king in the ruins of Memphis, where the Horus-name of the king may be found, and which may probably have been made during his reign. Finally, the Soters are sometimes only mentioned by their surnames, at the head of the honoured ancestors of later kings, as in the inscription of Rosetta, and in the bilingual Decrees of Philae written[hieroglyph]while Soter II. is always written[hieroglyph]p. nuter enti nehem, which would answer to the Koptic[Koptic],deus servator. In the Demotic inscriptions, too, the first Soters are designated bynehem, and in the singular, by the Greek wordp.suter.Although it is not to be doubted that the Soters, who, according to the Demotic papyrus, had a peculiar cultus with the rest of the Ptolemies, not only in Alexandria and Ptolemais, but also in Thebes, were looked upon as the chiefs of the Ptolemaic dynasty, it is more remarkable that till now no building has been discovered which was erected under Ptolemæus Soter as king, although he continued twenty years in this capacity. To this must be added that the above-mentioned hieroglyphic lists of Ptolemies, without exception, do not begin the series with Soters, but with the Adelphi, as said at Echmin, his cartouches have no royal titles, and that in Karnak, under Euergetes II., Philadelphus is represented as King, and Soter, answering to the same period, not as king. Also in the Demotic king lists of the papyrus, the Alexandrian series passes over the Soters down to Philometor, and lets the Adelphi immediately follow Alexander the Great. The Soters have come before me at the earliest in a papyrus of the seventeenth year of Philopator (210 B.C.), the oldest in the Berlin collection; the Thebaic cultus of the Ptolemies seems to have excluded the Soters altogether. Although, therefore, the beginning of the royal government in the year 305 B.C., as the Canon asserts, is an ascertained fact, and is incontestably confirmed by the hieroglyphic stele in Vienna, which has been cited for it by my friend M. Pinder (Beitr. zur älteren Münzkunde,BandI. p. 201) in his instructive essay “On the era of Philippus on coins,” it seems to authorize another legitimate view, according to which, not Ptolemæus Logi, but Philadelphus, the eldest king’s son (even though not Porphyrogenitus), was the head of the Ptolemies. Thus it may also be explained, that we find under Euergetes I. an astronomical era employed, that of the otherwise unknown Dionysius, which took its beginning from the year 285 B.C. the first of Philadelphus, while the coins of Philadelphus neither count from his own accession, nor from the year 305 B.C., but from the year of the decease of Alexander the Great, or the beginning of the viceroyship of Ptolemaeus, as the beginning point of a new era. (See Pinder, p. 205).

Although it is not to be doubted that the Soters, who, according to the Demotic papyrus, had a peculiar cultus with the rest of the Ptolemies, not only in Alexandria and Ptolemais, but also in Thebes, were looked upon as the chiefs of the Ptolemaic dynasty, it is more remarkable that till now no building has been discovered which was erected under Ptolemæus Soter as king, although he continued twenty years in this capacity. To this must be added that the above-mentioned hieroglyphic lists of Ptolemies, without exception, do not begin the series with Soters, but with the Adelphi, as said at Echmin, his cartouches have no royal titles, and that in Karnak, under Euergetes II., Philadelphus is represented as King, and Soter, answering to the same period, not as king. Also in the Demotic king lists of the papyrus, the Alexandrian series passes over the Soters down to Philometor, and lets the Adelphi immediately follow Alexander the Great. The Soters have come before me at the earliest in a papyrus of the seventeenth year of Philopator (210 B.C.), the oldest in the Berlin collection; the Thebaic cultus of the Ptolemies seems to have excluded the Soters altogether. Although, therefore, the beginning of the royal government in the year 305 B.C., as the Canon asserts, is an ascertained fact, and is incontestably confirmed by the hieroglyphic stele in Vienna, which has been cited for it by my friend M. Pinder (Beitr. zur älteren Münzkunde,BandI. p. 201) in his instructive essay “On the era of Philippus on coins,” it seems to authorize another legitimate view, according to which, not Ptolemæus Logi, but Philadelphus, the eldest king’s son (even though not Porphyrogenitus), was the head of the Ptolemies. Thus it may also be explained, that we find under Euergetes I. an astronomical era employed, that of the otherwise unknown Dionysius, which took its beginning from the year 285 B.C. the first of Philadelphus, while the coins of Philadelphus neither count from his own accession, nor from the year 305 B.C., but from the year of the decease of Alexander the Great, or the beginning of the viceroyship of Ptolemaeus, as the beginning point of a new era. (See Pinder, p. 205).

[50][Manetho in Bunsen, Egypt’s Place, vol i. p. 620. Nitocris is the last of this dynasty. K. R. H. M.]

[51]Denkmäler aus Ægypten und Æthiopien,Abth.II.Blatt.123-133.

[52][Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place, vol. i. p, 45. K. R. H. M.]

[53]Denkmäler,Abth.II.Bl.134.

[54][I. e.,the cartouchesof contemporaneous kings.—K. R. H. M.]

[55][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place, vol. i. p. 373, where an account of this deity is given.—K. R. H. M.]

[56][This resembles, in fact, the system of calling parishes after the names of the Saints, to commemorate whose martyrdom the church was erected; as, for instance, the church and parish of St. Alphege, in the town of Greenwich.—K. R. H. M.]

[57][See Bunsen, vol. i. p. 400, for an account of this deity.—K. R. H. M.]

[58][Bunsen, vol. i. p. 470. Egyptian Vocabulary, No. 294, and Determinative sign, No. 58. p. 542, the author there refers to Champollion, Grammaire, and Rosellini, Monumenti Reali, cxlii. 1.—K. R. H. M.]

[59][Bunsen (vol. i. p. 434, n. 333,) says, “The discovery of the meaning of Harpocrates is mine; but I explained it as Her-pe-schre (Horus the child), and adopted Lepsius’s correction.” In the text it is givenHer-pa-χruti.—K. R. H. M.]

[60]Denkmäler,Abth.IV.Bl.38, 39. A special essay is prepared on these inscriptions.

[61]The first news of the discovery of this important inscription, which had also not been noticed by the Franco-Tuscan Expedition, made some commotion. Simultaneously with the more circumstantial account in thePreussische Staatszeitung, a careless English notice appeared, in which the discovery of a second specimen of the inscription of Rosetta was spoken of, and the place assigned was Meroe. Later, when M. Ampère had brought an impression of the inscription to Paris, the Academician, M. de Saulcy, contrariwise put forth an argument on the opposite side asserting that the inscription had some resemblance to that of Rosetta, and referred it to Ptolemæus Philometer. I therefore took occasion to prove, in two letters to M. Letronne (Rev. Archéol.vol. iv. p. 1 sqq. and p. 240 sqq.) as also in an essay in the Transactions of the German Oriental Society (vol. i. p. 264 sqq.), that the document in question was prepared in the twenty-first year of Ptolemæus Epiphanes, and contained a repetition of the Rosetta inscription, the provisions of which were extended to Queen Cleopatra I., who had come to the throne in the meantime.

[62]The name Cleopatra, in place of Arsinoe, in the hieroglyphic inscriptions appears to rest wholly upon an error of the scribe, which is avoided in the Demotic, for Arsinoe is here correctly mentioned. The hieroglyphic text of the inscription of Rosetta is less correct than the Demotic. [If the hieroglyphic be thetext, then it is decidedly the Demotic that is in error. The hieroglyphic seems to have been engraven first, and in that case it would be the text. Probably, however, at this late period, Greek was the language in which the inscriptions of the time were composed, thus the question would lie not between the hieroglyphic and Demotic,i.e.the archaico-Egyptian (but little understood) and the modern, but between the Greek and the hieroglyphic modes of expression.—K. R. H. M.]

[63][It is well to remark the structure of the word[Koptic]Ph-iah-uêb “the field of Jah, or Jao,” as the Rev. Charles Forster reads the Hamyaritic name of God, in the Wady Mokatteb inscriptions. It serves as a collateral proof of the Koptic origin of the language of the inscriptions deciphered by that learned investigator. The form of the letters being similar also proves a cognate origin.—K. R. H. M.

[64]Similar designations occur at an earlier period; thus, in Thebes, an “Ammon of Tuthmosis (III.)” is mentioned; it would seem to infer a newly-instituted worship of those gods brought about by these kings. Ramses II. dedicated to the three highest gods of Egypt (see my essay “On the Primeval Circle of Egyptian Gods,” in the papers of the Berlin Academy, 1851), Ra, Phtha, and Ammon, three great rock temples, in Lower Nubia, at Derr, Gerf Hussén, and Sebuâ, and called the contemporaneously-founded places after these gods, this in Greek Heliopolis, Hephaistopolis, and Diospolis. A fourth mighty and fortified residence was founded by the same king in Abusimbel, and was named after himself, Ramessopolis, or “The Fortification of Ramessopolis,” as he also founded two cities in the Delta, and called them after himself. No doubt it is this new worship, in reference to which the gods honoured there were named Ammon of Ramses, and Phtha of Ramses. The king was himself adored in those rock temples, particularly in that of Abusimbel, in common with those deities.

[65][See Pickering’s Races of Man and their Geographical Distribution, chap. x. The Ethiopian race, Nubians, and Barabra of the Nile, p. 211-215.—K. R. H. M.]

[66]A grammar and vocabulary of the Nubian language, and a translation of St. Mark into Nubian, is prepared for publication.

[67][The following are some of the terms for one hundred among the African tribes,Biengga, Island of Corisco,’Nkama,Jedah,Jjeje;Joberra,Obere;Kanga country, Sy district,Mosulu bandi.—K. R. H. M.]

[68][Menekle signifies “great ear.”—K.R.H.M.]

[69][For a character of Ahmed Pasha, see Werne’s White Nile, vol. i. p. 33. The author was acquainted with him.—K. R. H. M.]

[70][Bunsen has given these forms and hieroglyphics at the end of the English translation of his excellent Egypt’s Place, of which it is much to be regretted that the first volume only has hitherto appeared.—K. R. H. M.]

[71][Had Lepsius remembered that, by the determination of this most important fact, he set at rest the half-witted theories of a race of Indo-philologic dreamers, he would have rather rejoiced at the result than have regretted. These men, of whom Higgins, Faber, and Dupuis are fine specimens, with no accurate knowledge of any of the languages they so sapiently decided on, will find their favourite Mount Meru, Meroë, Menu, Manu, &c., &c., &c., here overthrown by an evident chronological fact. Such investigations are, however, useful for two reasons:—1. That they collect an immense number of facts, and, in some degree, classify them, for the benefit of the race of investigators now arising, of whom Bunsen, Bopp, and others, are fine examples; and 2. They show us what false scents we must avoid in following up so intricate an inquiry as the Archæological history of the “origenes” of mankind. Let it be understood, however, that I do not mean to assert that men like Higgins and Pococke are totally wrong; far from it, they are often right, but the care which they should bestow on their researches is continually wanting,—the critical acumen to distinguish between nonsense and sense,—always. I can only repeat what I have said in another place, (Buckley’s Great Cities of the Ancient World, p. 314,) in a chapter on Scandinavian and general mythology, viz.:—That a new era is approaching in historical investigation, and, I may add, that we must not doubt, or we may never prove. There is plenty of time, and one factestablishedis worth manyoverthrown, when there is nothing to replace them. The great problem is susceptible of solution if we have only a little faith, at any rate, to preserve, even if onlyprovisionally, what we cannot see in the full clear light, that yesterday’s occurrences are given in to-day’sTimes. See, however, p. 226.—K.R.H.M.]

[72]I have since heard of the decease of Herr Bauer, which ensued in the following year.

[73][The author refers to the inscription obtained at Tamaniât through the means of Mohammed Said. See p. 168.—K.R.H.M.]

[74][Werne, in his excellent work “Expedition to discover the sources of the White Nile,” vol. i. p, 146, mentions baobàb trees of the above dimensions, and states that, near Fazoql, there is said to be one 120 feet in circumference. I cannot too strongly call attention to this most able work, in the portable form in which it has been issued by my publisher, Mr. Bentley.—K. R. H. M.]

[75]Russegger (Travels, vol. ii. Part II. p. 125,) found one of 95 feet in circumference. He erroneously calls the treeganglès; this ishomara, and the fruitgungulês.

[76][See an elaborate essay on the Berbers and their name, by Mr. Gliddon, in Burke’s Ethnological Journal, No. X. p. 439, as well as a paper by Mr. Nash on the Egyptian name of Egypt.—K. R. H. M.]

[77][See Werne’s Expedition, vol. i. p. 194, where he observes:—“I do not call themhandsometrees, because they stand there in the green wilderness; no, I find them really beautiful, for there is a peculiar charm in them. They rise like double gigantic flowers upon slender stalks, gently protruding in the middle, and not like those defoliated date-palms, which stand meagrely like large cabbage-stalks. It is impossible that the latter should delight my poor heart, full of the remembrance of shady trees,—the oaks and the beech trees of Germany; the palms near Parnassus; the cypress on the Bosphorus, and the chestnuts on the Asiatic Olympus.” The botany of these regions has been well treated by Werne.—K. R. H. M.]

[77][See Werne’s Expedition, vol. i. p. 194, where he observes:—

“I do not call themhandsometrees, because they stand there in the green wilderness; no, I find them really beautiful, for there is a peculiar charm in them. They rise like double gigantic flowers upon slender stalks, gently protruding in the middle, and not like those defoliated date-palms, which stand meagrely like large cabbage-stalks. It is impossible that the latter should delight my poor heart, full of the remembrance of shady trees,—the oaks and the beech trees of Germany; the palms near Parnassus; the cypress on the Bosphorus, and the chestnuts on the Asiatic Olympus.” The botany of these regions has been well treated by Werne.—K. R. H. M.]

[78][Bunsen in Egypt’s Place in Universal History, vol. i. p. 430, refers them all to Osiris, and ranges them thus:—1. The Genius with the Hawkhead,Kebhsenu.f. signifying “the refresher of his brothers.” 2. The Jackal-headTua-mutf, “the adorer of his mother.” 3. The Apehead,Hepi(Apis) “Osiris the devoted.” 4.Amset, God, “Osiris the devoted.” The different arrangement of Lepsius is caused by his counting from right to left, while Bunsen begins from left to right.—K. R. H. M.]

[79]The poems contain many unusual forms and expressions, and have been composed in very free and, it seems to me, incorrect forms.

[80][Compare Herodotus, Euterpe, c. 85, for the ancient Egyptian mode of mourning, which is, however, not very similar to this.—K. R. H. M.]

[81][The first Cartouche is as follows:—K (the bowl with a handle), Alphabetic No. 1, (Bunsen, vol. i. p. 561); N (the water,) Alphabetic No. 1, (p. 564); TA (bag and reed), Alphabetic No. 5, (p. 568); K = KNTAK. The reeds, Alphabetic No. 3, (p. 556,) occurs in the “Todtenbuch” (xxii. 63, 3,) as the sign for a noble, (Bunsen, p. 454), the heaven (p. 555) is the mark of the feminine gender, and the egg (Determinative No. 85, p. 545,) rank; = a Queen. The second Cartouche is the same, with the exception of the variant:—the sign of festivals (Determinative No. 110 p. 547,) HBI = KNTAHBI.—K. R. H. M.]

[82][A superstition exists among the Moravian Jews to this effect. At new moon a branch is held in its light, and the name of any person pronounced. His face will appear between the horns of the moon, and should he be destined to die, the leaves will fade. This is mentioned, as well as I can remember, in Beaumont’s Demonology.—K. R. H. M.]

[83][Compare Colonel Rawlinson’s Outline of Assyrian History, p. 23, where Sennacherib’s invasion of Meroe is mentioned.—K. R. H. M.]

[84][See Pickering’s Races of Man, p. 214, on the Ethiopian Race, and pp. 368 sqq., for further remarks on Egypt. This excellent work is well worthy the serious attention of the ethnologist in every way.—K. R. H. M.]

[85][I may here mention that an excellent term for the red-skinned race has been invented, though I forget by whom, though the person was an American archeologist, viz. cinnamon-coloured, applicable enough both to the red Mexican and the red Egyptian. In the picture chronicles of Mexican social life and history we also find that the women are painted yellow, a coincidence perhaps worthy of notice.—K. R. H. M.]

[86][Pickering states that he first met with a mixed race of Barâbra at Kenneh, thirty miles below the site of ancient Thebes, but he considers the boundary of the races to be at Silsilis. P. 212.—K. R. H. M.]

[87][Now standing for many years at the entrance of the Egyptian saloon in the British Museum.—K. R. H. M.]

[88]All these monuments are now erected in the Egyptian Museum. See the Ram and the Sparrow-hawk in the “Monuments from Egypt and Ethiopia,” Part III. plate 90.

[89]From the pods and their contents Dr. Klotzsch recognised theMoringa arabica Persoon(Hyperanthera peregrina Forskăl). It seems that this tree was only previously known from Arabia, and is natural there. The single trees near Barkal, which are not mentioned by former travellers, might have been first introduced from Arabia. This is the more probable as the immigration of those tribes of the Shaiqîeh Arabs from the Hegâz is now testified by manuscript authorities. [This tree must therefore be added to the botanical list of Pickering, who, in his Races of Man, has collected all the introduced animals and plants of Egypt, India, America, Polynesia, Southern Arabia, &c., and though the lists want classification, they are well worthy of attention.—K. R. H. M.]

[90]The literal expression is, that he has built the temple[hieroglyph]“to his image, Ra-neb-ma, living on the earth.” The wordchentno longer exists in Koptic, but it is always translated εἰκών on the Rosetta stone. The temple and the place belonging to it was also named after the king, but according to his Horus-name, “Dwelling-place of Sha-em-ma;” this led to the recognition of the original position of the ram of Barkal and the lions in the British Museum.

[91][For the straw huts down the Nile, and particularly beyond Chartûm, see Werne’s White Nile, chapter i. vol. i. p. 28.—K. R. H. M.]

[92][See Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place, vol. i. p. 624.—K. R. H. M.]

[93]Monuments, Part II. Plates 245, 246.

[94]Monuments, Part II. plate 1.

[95]Salamât “the greetings” are they called by earlier travellers. The proper pronunciation and meaning was first remarked to me by our intelligent old guide, Ἀuad. The Arabs are for confounding them, as[Arabic]salâm,salus, is pronounced with the dentalsin,[Arabic]s’anam,idolum, with the lingualsâd. The plural, which is usually[Arabic]as’nam, here takes the feminine form[Arabic]s’anamât. That they were male figures had long since been indistinguishable from the battered heads. The stone of which the statues are formed is a peculiarly hard quartz brittle sandstone conglomerate, looking glazed, and with innumerable cracks. The frequent bursting of little particles of stone at sunrise, when the changes of temperature are most sudden, caused, according to my idea, the celebrated Memnon sounds, which were compared with the breaking of a violin string.

[96][Herodotus II. c.c. 121-122.—K.R.H.M.]

[97]This King Ai was formerly a private individual, and took his sacerdotal title into his royal cartouche at a later period. He appears with his wife in the tombs of Amarna, not unfrequently as a noble and peculiarly honoured officer of King Amenophis IV., that puritanical sun-worshipper, who changed his name into that of Bech-en-aten.

[98]The above dimensions are here taken from Wilkinson’s Modern Egypt and Thebes, vol. ii. p. 220.

[99][For an excellent description of such retreats,videFloss,Quæstiones Criticæ de Macaris, cap. i. § 1.Coloniæ, Heberle, MDCCCL.—K.R.H.M.]

[100]Apuleii Asclepius, dialogue Hermetis Trismegisti, c. 24.

[101]When I wrote the above, I did not think that the crime would be so soon avenged. See Letter XXXV. p. 372.

[102]I have since learnt (Rev. Arch., vol. iv. p. 32,) that M. Ampère had been expressly sent to Egypt, by the Paris Academy, to copy the bilingual inscription at Philae, to which I had turned attention in my Letters. See Letter XV. p. 120, and note. Of the impression brought back to Paris, in which, however, the beginnings of the Demotic lines, and the date of the decree are wanting, the very diminished representation of Demotic text is taken, which M. de Saulcy has published in theRevue Archéologique.

[103][In Bunsen’s list of Determinatives, No. 5. I quote his description “Disk diffusing rays of light; light, assti, a sunbeam, (sun’s ray);ht, daylight;ubn, to illuminate;mau, to gleam;ui, brilliancy;hai, light;am, a beam.” Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place, vol. i. p. 537.—Since writing the foregoing note in the first edition, I have read the Rev. Charles Forster’s Monuments of Egypt, and I find that he attempts to identify this royal sign with a grain of millet, “with its stamina and antheræ developed,” assigning for its pronunciation the word “pschent.” I forbear criticism upon this “discovery,” only referring the reader to p. 54 of the second part of the Primæval Language.—K. R. H. M.]

[104][Dr. Lepsius alludes to Herr Maximilian Weidenbach.—K. R. H. M.]

[105]These places were first accurately and instructively described by Wilkinson, Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, vol. ii. pp. 28 sqq.

[106]These are the actual words of my journal as they are understood also by Ritter, p. 578. According to the printed report, p. 8, it might appear as if Robinson had given up the attempt to climb the whole of this mountain district; this is particularised in theBibliotheca Sacraas an inaccuracy. But I only spoke of the top of the mountain rising in the plain in contradistinction to the higher points lying toward the side, which Robinson has ascended.

[107]This report, sent to His Majesty, was printed, while I was still absent in 1846, under the title “Reise des Prof. Lepsius von Theben nach der Halbinsel des Sinai vom 4ten März, bis zum 14ten April, 1845,” Berlin, with two maps, a general map of the whole peninsula, and a special map of Serbâl and Wadi Firân, which were drawn by G. Erbkam after my directions or plans. This pamphlet was not published, but was given to a few; yet its contents have become better known by a translation into English by Charles H. Cottrell, (A Tour from Thebes to the peninsula of Sinai, &c., London, 1846); and into French by T. Pergameni, (“Voyage dans le Presq’île du Sinai, &c., lu à la Société de Géographie, séances du 21 Avril et du 21 Mai. Extrait du Bulletin de la Soc. de Géogr., Juin, 1847, Paris.”)

[108]The Nakb el Haui, “Windsaddle” is an exceedingly wild and narrow mountain pass, which is impassable from its shelving abysses. The road had to be made with great art along the western side, and is in many places hewn out of the rock; on the other side, the loose soil has been paved with great flat stones. It is not to be doubted, that this daring path was made after the building of the convent, in order to have a shorter road to the town of Pharan, which before could only be reached by the wide circuit through the Wadi e’ Shech.

[109]It seems that this convent has not been visited by any recent traveller. Burckhardt, who calls it Siggillye, did not descend, but heard that it was well-built and spacious, and provided with a good well, (Trav. in Syria, p. 610). More accurate information concerning this convent in the Serbâl gorge is very desirable, as it belongs probably to one of the oldest, or, at least, the most considerable of the peninsula, as the artistic and elaborately prepared rock-road thence to the town of Pharan amply shows.

[110][I may here draw the reader’s attention to an interesting work, (to be more completely alluded to in the sequel,) lately published by the Rev. Charles Forster. The One Primeval Language. Part I. The Voice of Israel from the Rocks of Sinai.—K. R. H. M.]

[111]Monuments, Part II., plates 2, 116, 137, 140, 152, III., 28.

[112][Bunsen, vol. i. p. 400, and see Lepsius, Ueber den Ersten Aegyptischen Götterkreis, p. 30.—K. R. H. M.]

[113][From its great length, I have found it necessary to reserve a note on this passage until the Appendix, Note A., where the reader will find it.—K. R. H. M.]

[114]On this point I find all the most important voices unanimous. Robinson, in particular, has the merit of having done away with many old prejudices of this kind. But Burckhardt had already allowed himself to be so little influenced in his judgment by the authority of tradition, that he did not hesitate to find a reason for the erection of the convent of Sinai on Gebel Mûsa on strategical grounds. (Trav. in Syr. p. 609.)

[115]The name Firân, formerly Pharan, is certainly the same as the Biblical Paran; but it is equally sure that this name had shifted its application in the locality. All other comparisons of names are totally unsatisfactory.

[116]One of the two wells seems to go back to the time of the building of the convent; it is the smaller one of the two. The deep, principal well, which gives the most and the best water, seems to have been first sunk in 1760, by order of an English Lord. (Ritter, p. 610.)

[117]Burckhardt also expressly observes, that there is no good pasturage in the neighbourhood of the convent, where the rather more numerous little fountains would almost allow us to consider the soil to be moisture. See Bartlett’s impression in a subsequent place.

[118]So the Arabs unanimously assured us, see also Burckhardt, p. 625, and Ritter, p. 769. Lord Lindsay here found “a small wood of tarfa trees, in which blackbirds were singing, and farther on some palm plantations.” It was at the same outlet of the valley “where Seetzen first had the pleasure of gathering much manna off the tarfa bushes and eating it; here he found the ripe fruits of the wild caper bush, which were eatable like fruit.”

[119][Note B, Appendix.—K. R. H. M.]

[120]Originally, both these hot springs seem not to have been called Hammân Faraûn from Pharaoh, but Farân from Pharan. For Edrisi calls the place Faran Ahrun and Istachri Taran, which should doubtless be Faran (Cf. Ritter, Asien, Bd. VIII. S. 170 ff.). Macrizi also calls the place Birkit Faran (Ritter,Sinaihalbinsel, p. 64.) Probably the harbour region of Pharan was called after the city, though it was somewhat distant; and the legend, so very inapposite here, concerning Pharaoh’s ruin, only connected itself with Faraûn by a confusion with Faran. It is curious that the Arab writers, of whom Macrizi was certainly there, speak of Faran as of a coast town!

[121]The part of the sandy coast, considered by Robinson to be the desert of Sin, has no tarfa bush, much less manna. Concerning the regions where manna is found, Cf. Ritter, p. 665 sqq. That Eusebius also considers the wilderness of Sin to extend to Sinai, is already mentioned. [Σίν, έρημος ἡ μετάξυ παρατείνουσα τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς Θαλάσσης καὶ τῆς ἐρήμον Σίυα]

[122]Robinson, vol. i. p. 173, 196. To Wilson’s particular argument of the extensive prospect from Gebel Mûsa is to be objected, that, from a point very inconsiderably higher than the plain, many places can be seen, from which the elevation itself would not appear very considerable.

[123]See Robinson, vol. i. pp. 118, 196.

[124]Ewald, History of the People of Israel, vol. ii. p. 86, also considers that Sinai “was already looked upon as an oracular place and divine seat before Moses.” Ritter considers it insupportable.

[125]This is confirmed at the present day by Rüppell, who considers Gebel Katharine to be Sinai. He relates in his voyage to Abyssinia, vol. i. p. 127, the following about his ascent of Mount Serbâl in 1831:—“At the top of Serbâl, the Bedouins have placed little circles of stones in a circle, and other stones are laid from it down the steep declivity like steps, to render the ascent more easy; when we came to that circlemy guide took off his sandals, and approached it with religious reverence, he then said a prayer inside, and afterward told me that he had already sacrificed two sheep here asthank-offerings, the one at the birth of a son, the other on regaining his health. The mountain ofSerbâl has been held for such superstitions in the highest respect by the Arabs of the vicinity, from time immemorial; and it must once have been somewhat holy to the Christians, as in the valley to the south-west there lie the ruins of a great convent and many little hermits’ cells. In any case, the wild, craggy rocks of Serbâl, and theisolated position of this mountain is much more remarkable and grand than any other group of mountains in Arabia Petræa, and it was peculiarly adapted for the goal of religious pilgrimages. The highest point of the mount, or the second rock from the west, and on which the Arabs usually sacrifice, is, according to my barometrical observation, 6,342 French feet above the level of the sea.”

[126]See the excellent treatise of Tuch (Einundzwanzig Sinaitische Inschriften, Leipzig, 1849.) This scholar endeavours to prove, by the deciphered names of the pilgrims, that the authors of the inscriptions were native pagan Arabs, and went to Serbâl for religious festivals; according to him, these pilgrimages ended, at latest, in the course of the third century. Here it may also be mentioned, that the name itself of Serbâl, which Rödiger, (in Wellsted’s Travels in Arabia, vol. ii. page the last), doubtlessly correctly derived from[Arabic]serb,palmarum copia, and Baal, “palm grove (φοινίκων) of Baal,” points to a heathen origin. [However much M. Tuch may reproduce the notion of Beer, he cannot set aside its confutation in Forster’s Primeval Language, Part I. pp. 8-38.—K. R. H. M.]

[127]Vol. i. p. 198.

[128]I thought to be able to conclude this indirectly from his narrative, (Antiq. III. 2.) It now appears to me that nothing can be elicited, as to his opinion, from it, for which reason the name should be omitted above. In itself it is still probable that he held the same opinion as Eusebius and Jerome.

[129]Eusebius, περὶ τῶν τοκικῶν ὀνομ., etc s.v. Ῥαφιδίμ, τόπος τῆς ἐρήμον παρὰ τὸ Χωρὴβ ὄρος, ἐν ᾧ ἐυ τῆς πέτρας ἐρρύησε τὰ ὔδατα καὶ ἐκλήθη ὀ τόπος πειρασμός ἔνθα καὶ πολεμεῖ Ἰησοῦς τὺν Ἁμαλὴκἐγγὺς Φαράν. Hieron. de situ et nomin., etc. s.v. Raphidim, locus in deserto juxta montem Choreb, in quo de petra fluxere aquæ, cognominatusque est tentatio, ubi et Jesus adversus Amalec dimicatprope Pharan. [Here again the authorities resolve themselves into one, as the reader knows that, after all, Jerome was only the translator of Eusebius, and would therefore, of course, agree with him. The Doctor does not appear to have thought of this.—K. R. H. M.]

[130]Of the older authors there is yet Cosmas Indicopleustes (A.D.535) to be particularly mentioned, (Topogr. Christ, Lib V. in theColl. Nov. Patr. ed. Montfaucon, tom. II. fol. 195,) Ἔιτα πάλιν παρενέ βαλον εἰς Ῥαφιδὶν εἰς τὴν νῦν λεγομένην Φαράν also Antoninus Placentinus, who is placed about 600, while the learned Papebroch, who has edited hisItinerariumin theActa S.S., May, vol. ii. p. 10-18, places him in the eleventh or twelfth century, came, as he says,in civitatem(which can only be Pharan)in qua pugnavit Moyses cum Amalech: ubi est altare positum super lapides illos quos posuerunt Moyse orante.” The city is surrounded with a brick wall, and “valde, sterilis” for which Tuch (Sinait. Incr. p. 38) proposes to read “fertilis.” When Pharan is called an Amalekite city by Macrizi, (History of the Kopts, translated by Wüstenfeld, p. 116), this can only point to the same conclusion that Moses was attacked near Pharan by the Amalekites, to whom the territory belonged. Ritter is particularly to be mentioned among the new school.

[131]See the passage of Cosmas, in a former note.

[132]The name Raphidîm itself, “the resting-places,” indicates that the place was intended for a longer rest.

[133]Exodus, xix. 1-3.

[134]See Note C, in the Appendix.

[135]Therefore Robinson and others, who admit no hiatus in the resting stations, place Raphidîm beyond Firân, and do not admit that the latter is named at all, or place Alus there. What is contrary to this, and has already been made use of by Ritter, is already mentioned above. On the contrary, Ritter, to get over the difficulty, considers our present text to be imperfect (p. 742).

[136]To this conclusion, which appears to me the most doubtful, of any, Ritter feels himself driven. The tradition of the present day is different, that Horeb and Sinai are two mountains in close juxtaposition, but also distinctly divided.

[137]To this conclusion, which appears to me the most doubtful, of any, Ritter feels himself driven. The tradition of the present day is different, that Horeb and Sinai are two mountains in close juxtaposition, but also distinctly divided.

[138]The three possibilities of getting quit of this difficulty have been tried by Robinson, Ritter, and Josephus. The first places Raphidîm in the neighbourhood of Gebel Mûsa; the second sees an omission between Raphidîm and Sinai, and accepts two divine mountains; the third transposes the passage, and does not mention Horeb at all, but only Sinai.

[139]Cf. the comparison and discussion of both opinions in Robinson, vol. i. pp. 197, sqq. All those places where exactly the same is said of Horeb as of Sinai, and no idea of a larger extent of region is admissible, speak against the view of the latter that Horeb is the denomination of the mountain-range or country, and Sinai the name of the particular mount. A Desert of Horeb is never spoken of, as are the deserts of Sur, Sin, Paran, and others. For a contrary view one could cite Acts, vii. 30, compared with Exodus, iii. 1. [The former passage is “And when forty years were expired, then appeared unto himin the wilderness of Mount Sinai, an angel,” &c.; the other runs thus, “He led the flock to the backside of the desert, and cameto the mountain of God, even to Horeb.”—K. R. H. M.]

[140]This view is already to be found in theItinerariumof Antoninus, who finds the conventbetweenSinai and Horeb. The present monkish tradition that the rock on the plain of Râha is Horeb is already known. The arbitrariness of such views are self-evident. Yet the latter opinion is taken up by Gesenius, (Thesaur. p. 517), Wiener, and others.

[141]St. Jerome already says expressly the same thing, in adding to the words of Eusebius,s.v.Choreb:—“Mihi autem videtur, quodduplici nomine idem mons nuncSina,nuncChorebvocetur.” Josephus already evidently took both mountains to be one, as he everywhere substitutesSinaiwhereChoreboccurs in the Bible; so also does the author of Acts (vii. 80); and likewise Syncellus (Chron.p. 190), who says of Elias:—ἐπορεύετο ἐν Χωρὴβ τῷ ὄρει ἤτοι Σιναίῳ. [The adjective termination of Σιναίῳ shows that Syncellus meant that Choreb was part of the Sinaitic range. Otherwise, he would have employed the Hebraic termination:—K. R. H. M.] Of late scholars, Ewald presents the same opinion concerning the identity of the two mounts. He says, (Gesch. des V. Isr., vol. ii. p. 84):—“The two names Sinai and Horeb do not change, because they denoted two peaks of the same mountain, lying close together, but the name Sinai is plainly older, which is also used by Deborah, (Judges v. 5), while the name Horeb is not to be found previous to the time of Numbers (cf. Exod. iii. 1, xvii. 6, xxxiii. 6), but then becomes very frequent, as is proved by Deuteronomy, and the passages, 1 Kings viii. 9, xix. 8, Mal. xii. 22, Psalm cvi. 19, while it does not mean anything to the contrary, when quite recent writers, for the sake of showing their acquaintance with ancient literature, re-introduce the original name of Sinai!”

[142]If we omit the two verses xix. 12, the narrative in xix. 3 continues quite naturally that of xviii. 27; “and Moses let his father-in-law depart; so he went his way into his own land. And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain,” &c.

[143][See Note C. Appendix.]

[144][See Note A. Appendix.]

[145][Note D, Appendix.]

[146][Note E, Appendix.]

[147][Note F, Appendix.]

[148]Ritter (p. 31), where he mentions that Sinai appears almost simultaneously, as Serbâl, with the Egyptian Cosmas, and as Gebel Mûsa with the Byzantine Procopius, broaches another conjecture, which I shall here quote:—“Was there, perhaps,” says he, “a different tradition or party opinion prevailing in Constantinople and Alexandria on this point among the convents and the monks, which might have arisen from a jealousy to vindicate the more sacred character of one or other of the places? It is curious that at the same time such different views of the question should exist among the most learned theologians of their time.”

[149]This letter, which is here printed word for word, was addressed to the General-Director der K. Preuss. Museen, Herr Geh. Legations-Rath von Olfers. Perhaps its publication may serve at the same time to spread abroad a just respect for the principles on which the Egyptian Museum, that part of one of the most grand and newest creations of Berlin first accessible to the public, has been erected and decorated.

[150][This might, not without some reason, be considered to assimilate with the style of painting which has lately made its appearance in England as a school—I refer to the pre-Raphaelite, which, whatever its own intrinsic merits may be,—and those, I suspect, are very few,—will at least have one good effect, that of calling the attention of English painters to the individualities in their paintings, and obviating the slurring sketchy style so prevalent at the present time, the upholders of which, after all, are the persons who condemn the pre-Raphaelites. The remarks of Dr. Lepsius will therefore apply to this new school of painting.—K. R. H. M.]

[151][The Cheta are generally considered to be the Hittites.—K. R. H. M.]

[152][Exodus, i. 11.—K. R. H. M.]

[153]It must be from some error that Burckhardt (Travels in Syria, p. 5) only allows the grave of Noah a length of ten feet, although the same number recurs in Schubert (Reise in das Morgenland, Bd. III., p. 340). It is well known how continually the number forty is used by the Hebrews as an indefinite number. The same seems to have been peculiar toall Semiticnations, at least, it may be pointed out frequently, and at all times with the Phænicians and Arabs; the numeral word for four and forty itself points, in these languages, to the general idea of multitude. Cf. my Treatise on Philological Comparison (“Sprachvergleichende Abhandlungen,”) Berlin, 1836, pp. 104, 139, and the “Chronology of the Egyptians,” vol. i. p. 15.

[154]See V. Hammer, History of the Osmanli Empire, part II. p. 482.

[155]Cf. Krafft, the Topography of Jerusalem, Bonn, 1846, and Plate II. No. 33.

[156]The king represented here is explained by Rawlinson (a Commentary on the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, London, 1850, p. 70,) to be the son of the builder of Khorsabad, Bel-Adonim-Sha. The same king is found on the buildings of Kuyunjik, Nebbi Yûnas, and Mossul, according to Layard, (Nineveh, vol. ii. p. 142, 144,) who, (p. 400), conjectures that the monument from Cyprus, now in the Berlin Museum, also belongs to him. (Cf. Bonomi, Nineveh and its Palaces, London, 1852, p. 127.)

[157][Hesych. οὐραγίαν, τὴν ὄπισθεν ἀκολουθοῦσαν στρατίαν—K.R.H.M.]

[158][See Bunsen, Egypt’s Place, vol. 1. p. 209—K.R.H.M.]

[159][It may be as well to remark that the calculations of longitude here and on the map are made from the island of Feroe, on the west coast of Africa, and not from Greenwich.—K.R.H.M.]

[160][To the Rev. Charles Forster it would appear we are indebted for the detection of the record of the visit of Cosmas, which, according to his reading, runs thus:—“μνησ τηθ? Κοσμάν του’ ν Τεβδ ... ναυτιου.” “Remember Cosmas, the voyager to Tibet.” See that gentleman’s work on the Primeval Language, Part I. p. 4. The Greek, as the author observes, isverycorrupt.—K.R.H.M.]

Back to Index Next