The process of investigation, too, seemed similar:

As thus; Alexander died; Alexander was buried; Alexander returneth to dust; the dust is earth; of that we make loam; and why of that loam whereunto he was converted, might they not stop a beer-barrel?'

But the learning it contains, soon convinced us, that in this instance it was not mere imagination that had gone so far.

With the title we cannot but confess ourselves displeased; since it appears absolutely to decide upon a subject on which tradition is hardly supported even by presumptive evidence: and though further and more dispassionate inquiry convinced us that Dr. Clarke had spared no pains to ascertain the authenticity of the monument in question, yet we think it too much to announce it in the title as the actual 'Tomb of Alexander.' The same objection, however, extends much farther than the title, for in the introduction, the receptacle described by Strabo, and the sarcophagus, which forms the subject of the work, are indiscriminately spoken of as Alexander's Tomb.

The Introduction is principally devoted to some observations on the apotheosis and portrait of the Macedonian hero.

'As a prelude (says Dr. Clarke) to the history of an Egyptian monument, characterized by signs that have no reference to the language or mythology of Greece, it is of consequence to show that the superstition respecting Alexander's Tomb was not Grecian, but Egyptian; that his image was reverenced after his death; and that, in the various homage thus paid to him, he was worshipped as an EGYPTIAN GOD. The apotheosis typified on the medals of Lysi-. machus will then appear further confirmed by the collateral evidence of hieroglyphic characters inscribed upon the Tomb; nor will the sacred writing of the priests of Egypt appear more peculiarly appropriate, than upon a monument which inclosed the body of the son of Ammon.'

Whatever might be the superstition respecting Alexander's Tomb, his funeral rites at least were Grecian: and though it did not follow of necessity that any thing Greek should characterize the place of his deposit, yet it is strange, that an hieroglyphic illustration of his apotheosis, if it ever did exist upon his tomb, should be unnoticed by any one of the writers by whom his burial place is mentioned. The Tomb must be very clearly ascertained before the evidence of its hieroglyphic characters can be allowed to confirm the apotheosis typified on the medals of Lysimachus.

The remarks in this portion of the work are, for the most part, judicious, and in Dr. Clarke's idea strictly applicable

to the investigation. But there is a passage in the early part of the Introduction which must not pass unnoticed.

It has been somewhat loosely affirmed, that the Egyptians always buried their dead in an upright posture; which can neither be reconciled with the appearance of the tombs of the kings of Thebes, nor with the evidence afforded by the principal pyramid at Memphis. The interior chamber of that monument exhibits at this moment a sarcophagus similar to the Tomb of Alexander. Another, of the same size and the same form, is now in the British Museum. It was brought by the French from Caïro to Alexandria, and has been described by Pococke, Maillet, Niebuhr, and Browne. It once stood near the Old Castle Kallaat el Kabsh in Caïro, and was called the Lover's Fountain. Denon, in his description of the Theban tombs, not only proves that such a mode of burial was consistent with the customs of Egypt, in the remotest periods of its history, but he refers to the particular sarcophagus which forms the subject of this work, to explain the sort of receptacle in which the bodies were placed. The sar cophagi,' says he, appeared insulated at the bottoms of all the galleries, of a single block of granite each, of twelve feet in length, and eight in width, decorated within-side and without with hieroglyphics; rounded at one end, squared at the other, LIKE THAT OF ST. ATHA NASIUS AT ALEXANDRIA; and surmounted by lids of the same ma terials, and proportionate bulk, shutting with grooves.'

*

Sarcophagi, in fact, are not numerous in Egypt. They are generally supposed to be of higher antiquity than the time of Alexander; and to have been used by those only whose rank might have claimed a pyramid, but whose fortunes were unequal to the building of it. Yet surely it will surprise the reader to learn, that one of the principal writers by whom the fact above alluded to, has so loosely been affirmed, was Herodotus, who lived and was initiated among the Egyptian priests, and whose express words are these:

· ἐνθεῦτεν δέ παραδεξάμενοι μιν οι προσήκοντες, ποιεῦναι ξύλινον τύπον ανθρωποειδέα ποιησαμενοι δε, εσεργνυσι τον νεκρον και κατακληϊσανίες στο θησαυρίζεσι εν οικηματι θηκαίῳ, ιςαινίες OPOON ПPOZ TOIKON. Euterpe. Ixxxvi.

However, that in some cases the usual practice was departed from, is more than probable; and if any thing may be gathered from the ancient writers who mention the imperial visits to the corpse of Alexander, it is, that his body was placed in an horizontal posture.

We now come to the body of the work itself. At the opening of the testimonies, Dr. Clarke endeavours to explain

Denon's Voyage en Egypte, Tom. i. p. 236.

why this monument, with others that accompanied it from Egypt, received, at their first arrival, scarce any illustration. It is done, however, with too much parade, and is perhaps not altogether so clear as a candid reader might desire.

At an early period after the invasion of Egypt by the French, Denon and Dolomieux, as related by the former, t were employed in the examination of the antiquities of Alexandria. Among other objects of curiosity, a small temple, containing, according to the account given by the Arabs at this hour, THE TOMB OF ISCANDER,¶ THE FOUNDER OF THE CITY, was shewn to them in the mosque of St. Athanasius. The gratification afforded in viewing it was heightened by the recollection that hitherto Mahometans alone had been permitted to enter the sacred inclosure. Leo Africanus had given a history of this Tomb subsequent to the conquest of Alexandria by the Saracens ; and our countryman Sandys|| had noticed the tradition concerning it above a century before the arrival of the French. We cannot therefore suppose the chosen sages of the Republic were unacquainted with those authors; and it were injustice to presume the tradition had escaped their inquiry.'

In the first part of the extract, Denon and Dolomieux are represented to have been expressly shewn the sarcophagus as Alexander's tomb; at least the reader is left with something more than a strong inference on the subject; while in the latter part it is only presumed that, with them, the tradi tion could not have escaped inquiry. The astonishment excited in Denon, however, by a view of this wonderful sarcophagus, and the feelings called forth by its contemplation, with us appear to have arisen from a very different cause to that which Dr. Clarke ascribes. The account given by Denon we shall extract, marking with capitals and italics those passages on which Dr. Clarke seems principally to have rested.

Near these baths is one of the principal mosques, formerly a primitive church, under the name of St. Athanasius. This edifice, ruinous as magnificent, may afford an idea of the negligence of the Turks respecting objects of which they are the most jealous. Before

+ Voyage en Egypte, Tom. I. p. 32.'

གླ The mode of writing this name is frequently varied. Some of the Oriental Dictionaries make its orthography Secunder; others Scander. Richardson (Dic. tionary, Vol. I. p. 1032) makes it Iscander, which is also the manner in which Sale writes it in his Translation of the Koran. See Vol. II. p. 124. Note (1) They are all attempts to imitate the Arabic pronunciation of the same word, Aterunder. The Arabs considering Al as an article, omit it; on which account the name becomes Exander, aud, in their pronunciation, Escander. D'Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 317) writes it Escander, and Iskender.'

6 Alexandria Descript. Tom. II. lib. viii. p. 677, edit. Elzevir. 1652, Sandy's Travels, p. 112. edit. Lond. 1632.

our arrival they suffered no Christian to approach, and chose to keep a guard there rather than to repair the gates. In the state in which we found them, they could neither close nor move upon their hinges.

In the middle of the court of that mosque, a small octagon templet incloses a cistern of Egyptian brecia of incomparable beauty, both on account of its nature, and of the innumerable hieroglyphic figures with which it is covered within and without. This monument, which is, without doubt, a sarcophagus of ancient Egypt, will be perhups illustrated by volumes of dissertations. It would have required a month to have designed them in detail. I had only time to take the general form, of which the draught may be seen (Plate 9, No. 3.); and I ought to add, that it may be considered as one of the most pre cious morsels of antiquity, and one of the chief spoils of Egypt, with which it might be wished we could enrich one of our museums. Mr ENTHUSIASM WAS PARTICIPATED BY DOLOMIEUX, WHEN WE TOGETHER DISCOVERED THIS PRECIOUS MONUMENT.'§

Yet, surely, there is nothing here that seems at all to countenance the notion that either Denon or Dolomieux entertained the idea that this was the tomb of Alexander. They considered it as no other than one of the stupendous works of ancient Egyptian greatness. The dissertations they spoke of, were only those which its hieroglyphics were likely to occasion. And they considered it as a precious morsel of antiquity, not more on account of its origin and age, than its beauty as a mineralogical composition, which, till the arrival of this curious relic, except in one single specimen, was unknown to Europe.

We shall, first, give an exact description of the great sarcophagus, with all the particulars relating to its history: and then, having considered the testimonies of the ancient writers concerning the acknowledged tomb of Alexander, endeavour to ascertain how far the facts which are detailed concerning each, can possibly be reconciled.

The square chest, or sarcophagus in question, in its greatest length, is ten feet, five feet and an half in width, and rather more than four feet in height; it is rounded off at

So in Leo Africanus, Tom. II. lib. viii. p. 677. edit. Elzevir 1652. Neque prætermittendum videtur, in medio Alexandriæ ruderum, AEDICVLAM INSTAB SACELLI CONSTRVCTAM adhuc superesse, INSIGNI SEPULCHRO,' &c. And af terwards in SANDYS, A LITTLE CHAPEL; within, a TʊMBE.'—It is impossible for identity to be more strikingly exemplified by the coincidence of writers, of different countries, visiting the same object, at different periods. And this toinh Leo and Sandys both mention as the reputed ToмB OF ALEXANDER. Could Denon be ignorant of this? It matters not if he were,-the inhabitants' gave the same account of it to him.'

In this passage I have endeavoured to translate the French as literally as it is possible to render it into English; preferring the introduction of Gallicisms ather than deviations from the original text for the sake of elegance.'

the upper end, and covered, both internally and externally, with hieroglyphics. One of the symbols we cannot but mention with astonishment. It represents the figure of a man placed horizontally, upon his back, (with the beetle, the emblem of the Deity, at his head) surrounded by a serpent: and strongly resembling the Indian representation of the sleep of Veeshnu. In the hieroglyphic, the serpent has four heads: in the Indian painting, five.

In its composition, to use the terms of Professor Hailstone's letter to Dr. Clarke, (Append. No. 3) the sarcophagus is an indefinite concretion of fragments, in which jasper and hornstone form the most prevailing species. The basis of it seems to be a greenish argillaceous substance resembling chlorite earth, connecting small grains of pellucid quartz and minute fragments of a black schistus rock.' Its beauty is incomparable.

Till the invasion of Egypt by the French, it had been long jealously preserved in a small octagon temple within the great court of the mosque of St. Athanasius in Alexandria, where the avarice or enthusiasm of the Moslems, during the period of the late invasion, is said to have represented it as the tomb of ISCANDER, the founder of their city; and whence, Dr. Clarke asserts, it was borne away, amid the howling and lamentation of its deluded worshippers.

The earliest mention that we find of a sarcophagus like that which we have described, at Alexandria, is by Benjamin of Tudela, a Spanish Jew, who lived about the middle of the twelfth century. But the one he saw, only answered to that of the Museum, as far as the hieroglyphics were concerned : for it was upon the sca-shore; its dimensions were considerably greater; and the TRADITION of the country was, that it once belonged to a monarch whose memory had not survived the deluge. In short, the first mention of the tomb at the Museum was made by Leo Africanus, who visited Alexandria in 1491, above twelve hundred years after the existence of the real tomb of Alexander had been last mentioned. Marmol, the Spaniard, who followed him early in the sixteenth century, also mentions it; but his work was almost a verbal copy of Leo's: he says, the sepulchre was honoured by the sectaries, who believed it to contain the body of Alexander

Sur le bord de la mer, il y a un tombeau de Marbre, où sont gravez toutes sortes d'oisseaux & toutes sortes d'animeaux, le tout avec des inscriptions ang ciennes que personne ne connoit. On croit avec quelque vraisemblance que c'est 'un ancien Roi avant le deloge. La longeur de ce sepulchre est de 15 empans, la largeur de sir.' Benj. de Tudela. Ed. Amst. 1. eh. xxii,