the Great. So that at that period the sarcophagus must have been closed. This curious chest is also mentioned by the generality of subsequent writers; but none of them appear to have considered it as the receptacle of any particular person whose name had been transmitted. And several men of higher authority and greater character than Marmol, expressly declare that it was in vain they inquired for the tomb of Alexander. Furer, who went to Egypt in 1565, though minute in regard to Alexandria, is silent on the subject of the tomb. Boucher, who published his Bouquet sacré in 1613, is equally so; and Vansleb, who performed his voyage in 1672 and 1673, appears to have been as unconscious of its existence as either of them. Pococke says, 'As the Mahometans have a great regard for the memory of Alexander, so there have been travellers who relate that they pretend to have his body in some mosque; but at present they have no account of it.' (Description of the East, vol. i. p. 4.) Norden's words are yet more pointed; and Dr. Clarke has not thought it necessary to arrange them with his Testimonies. He states, that The tomb of Alexander, which, according to the report of an author of the fifteenth century, subsisted still in his time, and was respected by the Saracens, is no longer to be seen; even the tradition of the people concerning it is entirely lost. I have sought without success for this tomb; I have in vain endeavoured to inform myself about it.' Van Egmont, it appears, had heard of the sarcophagus we are now considering, but he heard of it only as a chest, which, according to the tradition of the Turks, no man could approach. He further tells us that the Jews, whose situation and intercourse must have rendered their access to common traditions easy, and who were very particular in their account of the mosque, with regard to the dangerous chest,' acknowledged themselves 'entirely ignorant.' Niebuhr makes no mention whatever either of the tomb or the tradition. Bruce confesses himself to have been as unsuccessful in his inquiries as Norden. Irwin, who saw the chest, and considered it as an interesting' object, only says, that from a rail which inclosed it, it appears to have served some religious purpose;' and Sonnini, whose attention was minute, not only in regard to the sarcophagus, but the temple that contained it, (which he tells us was erected by one of the Caliphs) merely expresses a hope that, when the hieroglyphic language shall be understood, we may, perhaps, learn the origin of the sarcophagus, and the history of the puissant man whose spoils it contained.' Denon and Dolomieux's visit to this singular relic, has been already no

ticed, and we have now to state, in few words, the means by which Dr. Clarke ascertained, to his own satisfaction, that the sarcophagus of the Museum was the real depository of Alexander.

I arrived at Alexandria (says Dr. Clarke) by day-break; yet, even at that early hour, the Commander in Chief had been some time on horseback, inspecting the lines. At his return, he received me with the greatest kindness; and, as the capitulation had begun, he sent me immediately into Alexandria, supplying me with horses, forage, a passport, and every thing that might expedite and facilitate my inquiry, and cause the monument, of which I had received information at Cairo, to be surrendered. I had also his permission to receive the Rosetta stone, and to copy its inscriptions; fearful lest any accident might befal it, either while it remained in the possession of the enemy, or in its passage home. His Lordship had already obtained an impression from the stone, made upon paper by some Mem ber of the Institute, which he kindly allowed me to use; but the characters so impressed were too imperfectly marked to afford a faithful representation of the original. Thus provided, I left the British camp, and prepared to enter Alexandria.'

We had scarcely reached the house in which we were to reside, when a party of the merchants of the place, who had heard the nature of our errand, came to congratulate us on the capture of Alexandria, and to express their anxiety to serve the English. As soon as the room was cleared of other visitants, speaking with great circumspection and in a low voice, they asked if our business in Alexandria related to the antiquities collected by the French? Upon being answered in the affirmative, and, in proof of it, the copy of the Rosetta Stone being produced, the principal of them said, 'Does your Commander in Chief know that they have the Tomb of Alexander? We desired them to describe it; upon which they said it was a beautiful green stone, taken from the mosque of St. Athanasius; which, among the inhabitants, had always borne that appellation. Our letters and instructions from Cairo evidently referred to the same monument. It is the object' they continued, ' of our present visit; and we will shew you where they have concealed it.' They then related the measures used by the French; the extraordinary care they had observed to prevent any intelligence of it; the indignation shewed by the Mahometans at its removal; the veneration in which they held it; and the tradition familiar to all of them respecting its origin. I conversed afterwards with several of the Matometans, both Arabs and

This invaluable monument was afterwards delivered up in the streets of Alexandria, (Mr. Cripps, Mr. Hamilton, and myself, being present) by a Member of the Institute, from the warehouse in which they had concealed it, covered with mats. The officer who surrendered it expressed at the same time his ap prehension lest the indignation of the French troops should cause its destruction, if it remained there. We made this circumstance known to Lord Hutchinson. who gave orders for its immediate removal; and it was given in charge to Colonel Tumes, under whose care it came safe to England.

Turks, on the same subject; not only those who were natives and inhabitants of the city, but also dervises and pilgrims; persons from Constantinople, Smyrna, and Aleppo, who had visited, or who had resided at Alexandria; and they all agreed in one uniform tradition, namely, ITS BEING THE TOMB OF ISCANDER (Alexander) THE FOUNDER OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA.

We were then told that it was in the hold of an hospital ship, in the inner harbour; and being provided with a boat, we there found it, half filled with filth, and covered with the rags of the sick people on board.'

On this narrative we shall make but few remarks. Dr. Clarke, it appears, had received his traditionary information of the tomb, not at Alexandria, but at Caïro. Scarcely had he reached the house in the former city, in which he was to reside, when a party of merchants, as if they had seen his particular errand in his person, made the tomb of Alexander the object of a visit.' Yet the traditionary tale itself, though confirmed, not only by natives and inhabitants of the city, but also by pilgrims and dervises, by people of Constantinople, Smyrna, and Aleppo,' had totally eluded the sagacity of the French, who had been for so long a period in complete possession of the city. If the tradition was so common, why was it communicated only to a solitary traveller ?

In regard to the actual tomb, such as it has been described to us by the classic writers, our evidence is considerably

clearer.

After two years spent at Babylon in making preparations for Alexander's funeral, the body began to move towards Damascus on its way to Egypt. It was conducted by Perdiccas, whose intention was certainly to deposit it in the temple of Ammon, in the sands of Libya. But when Ptolomy received intelligence of its approach, he went in person to meet it, accompanied by an army, as far as Syria. Under pretence of rendering funeral honours to the body, he prevented its being carried agreeably to its original destination, and conveyed it to Memphis, where it remained, till the sepulchre was finished in Alexandria, in which he intended to place it. Pausanias, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and other writers, all confirm the truth of its being ultimately carried to Alexandria, where the place of its deposit was consecrated by ceremonies of the most sacred kind. From Strabo we learn that Ptolomy Lagus had inclosed it in á covering or coffin of gold: but that another of the Ptolomics, Cybiosactes, about the 65th year before the Christian era, had taken it away; and that in the place of the gold

coffin, a glass one had been substituted. It was no doubt in this receptacle, when CESAR made the first of the imperial visits to the corpse : a visit which Dr. Clarke has mentioned very slightly; perhaps because Cæsar seems, according to Lucan's description, to have descended to a sort of catacomb.

Cum tibi sacrato Macedon servetur in antro,

Et regum cineres extructo monte quiescant;

though in this case, a poet may not be altogether satisfactory authority.

Augustus, nearly three centuries after Alexander's death. made another visit, and the attentions which he showed the corpse, are described with remarkable minuteness by Dio Cassius and Suetonius. The latter expressly says that the body having been taken from its shrine, was viewed by Augustus with the utmost veneration; that he scattered flowers over it, and (as Alexander had himself done to the tomb of Cyrus,) adorned it with a golden crown. With the exact period when the shrine was next disturbed, we are not acquainted; but Suetonius tells us that Caligula, though he did not carry his reverence so far as to make a pilgrimage to the tomb, wore the breast-plate of Alexander which had been taken from it. Severus, about the 202d year of the Christian æra, made the third imperial visit: and ordered the shrine, which had till then been open, to be closed. Caracalla's visit in the year 213, affords the last mention of it. The Alexandrians had formed a hope that it would have been again opened to their adoration; but having offered sacrifice in the temple, the emperor only placed a purple vest, some rings, a rich girdle, and a few other costly offerings, upon the tomb. Such, at least, is the account left us by Herodian; and as Dr. Clarke thinks that the passage, in the original, affords very satisfactory evidence of the sarcophagus, or stone coffin,' (p. 64) it is but fair that we should transcribe it.

εκεῖθεν δ' ελθών εις το Αλεξάνδρου ΜΝΗΜΑ, την τε χλαμύδα την εφερεν αλούργη, δακτυλίους τε ους είχε λίθων τιμίων, ζωστηρας τε και είτε πολυτελές έφερε, περιελών εαυτου, επέθηκε τη εκείνου ΣΟΡΩΙ.

'The distinction' (Dr. Clarke continues) made by Herodian, between the monument, MNHMA, and the immediate receptacle of the body, ZOPOE, is remarkable. Homer uses the word ΣOPO2 in this sense.* In Dioscorides, + cited by Scapula, the words 2OPOL EAPKOPAгOI allude to a particular kind of stone, which had the property of cor

roding dead bodies, and hastening their natural decomposition; whence stone coffins became afterwards designated by the general term flesh-eaters or sarcophagi. Plutarch also uses the words AIOINAZ ZOPOTE, stone coffins.'*

σορος

That copos means a chest, or sarcophagus, we readily allow; but that it means a chest of any particular material, we deny upon the best authorities. Plutarch, under such an impression, would have been wrong in saying ΛΙΘΙΝΑΣ σόρους.

From the time of Caracalla's visit we have no farther mention either of the body or the tomb of Alexander.

The time (says Dr. Clarke) was fast approaching, when a revo Jution, affecting the whole of the Roman empire, by producing a total change of religious sentiments in Alexandria, materially affected the safety of the tomb. It was at the beginning of the third century when Caracalla paid his memorable visit to that city. The persecution of the Christians was then preparing the overthrow and destruction of the heathen idols; and that century had scarcely elapsed before the full tide of religious fury burst upon the temples of the Pagan world. Their complete subversion is believed to have taken place about sixty years after the conversion of Constantine.+ 'In this wide and various prospect of devastation, the attention of the spectator is called to the ruins of the temple of Jupiter Serapis, at Alexandria.' The archiepiscopal throne of that city was then filled by Theophilus,§ described by Gibbon as the perpetual enemy of peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were alternately polluted with gold and with blood.

In consequence of the insults offered by that prelate to the Pagan temples, the greatest disorder took place in Alexandria. An appeal was made to Theodosius, to decide the quarrel between the Heathens and the Christians; and the consequence was an imperial mandate for the destruction of the idols of Alexandria. The idols themselves were speedily demolished; and doubtless the body of Alexander was not spared when the statue of Serapis was destroyed. But the strength and solidity of the shrines and temples, that had inclosed

Ibid. p. 82. This deity was brought by the Ptolomies from Sinope on the coast of Pontus. The Egyptians at first refused admittance to the new god (Macrobius, Saturnal. lib. i. c. 7); but a prodigious tempie, called the Serapium, one of the wonders of the world, (Rufinus, lib. ii. c. 22.) was afterwards erected in honour of it. The colossal statue of this deity was composed of a number of plates of different metals, and it touched on either side the walis of the sanctuary. It was believed that the heavens and the earth would return to their primitive chaos, if the figure of the god were profaned by violence. A soldier was, however, bold enough to aim a blow, with a battle-axe, against the cheek of the idol, which, falling to the ground, was afterwards demolished.'

§ Gibbon, ibid. p. 83. Tillemont, Mem. Eccles. Tom. II. p. 441—500.* Gibbon, ibid,”