Chapter XLIII: Appendix: Note a (2)

The earliest bishop of Mount Sinai referable to is found in the eleventh century; this is Bishop Jorius, who died in 1033 (_Le Quien_, vol. iii. p. 754). The _Phronimus episc. Synnaii_ (_Acta Concil. ed. Harduin_, vol. iii. p. 53), or (_Synai tunorum_, p. 206), signed at the second Constantinopolitan Council (_a._ 553), and the _Constantinus ep. Synai_ (_Harduin_, vol. v. p. 927), named at the fourth council (_a._ 870), have been referred hither incorrectly (Ritter, _Abhand. der Berl. Akad_, 1824, p. 216, _Peninsula of Sinai_, p. 26), as they belong to Synaus or Synnaus in Phrygia.

NOTE F.

(Letter XXXIII. p. 370.)

That, indeed, an uninterrupted and certain tradition, concerning the position of Sinai in the peninsula, has been preserved to Christian times, must be most decidedly questioned. The name Choreb, or Sinai, seems to have been taken, at a very early period, for the whole of the mountain region of the peninsula, which was generally considered one mountain at a distance. No one took any interest in fixing the name to any geographical idea, until the time of the Christian hermits there. We only read of Elias, that he fled to the “Mountain of God, Choreb,” and there went into that cave (1 Kings, xiii. 9), (for it is taken for granted as known) in which the Lord had already (Exod. xxiii. 22) appeared unto Moses. The native races of Arabs gradually moved, so that of the Biblical names none remained in its place. The Greeks and Romans knew only _one place_ in the whole peninsula, the _palm-grove of Pharan_, just because this place and its port were alone of any importance, since the mines of the wilderness had been deserted. Also, for the Christian hermits--for which that mountain wild, even without reference to the sacred reminiscences of the place--must have seemed the most fitted of any region, as it provided them with the more necessary sustenance with the greatest solitude. Firan must have been the earliest centre-point; therefore, we also find here the oldest church of the peninsula. When they gradually commenced to seek more definitely for Scripture localities, they had no further materials for its discovery than we possess, with far less power to use these materials properly, as every sharp criticism to examine the passages of Scripture then lay very far off. The name Sinai was indefinitely taken for the whole mountain; if one looked round for any particular peak, that of _Serbâl_ would instantly present itself. To that, everything which we read in the first centuries about it in trustworthy writings points, to which, however, the treatise of the monk Ammonius certainly does not belong, in the estimation of any one who examines it more narrowly, and the excellent Romany, of Nilus, is very doubtful. What Josephus (Aut. iii. 5) says of Sinai (τὸ Σιναῖον), agrees very well with Serbâl, but not at all with Gebel Mûsa, as Hogg has already shown. According to Eusebius, Choreb and Raphidîm lay _near Pharan_ (ἐγγὺς Φαράν), and Sinai beside Choreb (παράκειται τῷ ὄρει Σινᾶ.) Jerome (s. v. _Choreb_) considers both mountains to be one, which he also places _by Pharan_, and, therefore, recognises in _Serbâl_. Also, the narrative of Nilus, concerning the Saracen attack at Sinai, either does not belong to the time in which it is dated (c. 400), or refers to Serbâl; for often (pp. 38-46) a _church_ (ἐκκλησία) is mentioned, which did not then exist on Gebel Mûsa, and Nilus goes down, in the same night in which the murdered people were buried, _to Pharan_, which could not have been done from Gebel Mûsa. Cosmas Indicopleustes, finally, who travelled in the peninsula about the year 535, just before the building of the church by Justinian, goes from Raithu, i. e. Tor, which he takes for Elim, although he finds but _few palms_ there (the plantations at that place are therefore younger) by the present Wadi Hebrân to Raphidîm, which is now called Pharan. Here he was at the end of his Sinai journey. Hence Moses went with the elders “to the Mountain Choreb,” i.e. Sinai, which was distant from Pharan about 6,000 paces (one and a half miles), and struck the water from the rock; here was the ark of the covenant built and the law given, by which the Israelites obtained writing, and had time to learn it at their leisure, from which the numerous rock inscriptions come which are still found in that wilderness, particularly at Serbâl. (Εἵτα κάλιν παρενέβαλον εἰς Ῥαφιδίν, εἰς τὴν νὔν καλουμένην Φαράν καὶ διψευσάντων αὐτῶν, πορεύεται κατὰ πρόσταξιν Θεοϋ ὁ Μωϋσῆς μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἡ ῥαβδὸς ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοϋ, εἰς Χωρὴβ τὸ ὄρος, τουτέστιν ἐν τῷ Σιναΐῳ, ἐγγὺς ὄντι τῆς Φαρὰν ὡς ἀκὸ μιλίων ἔξ.) (Barckhardt [_Trav. in Syr._ p. 611] required when he descended Serbâl, from its foot to west Faran, 2½ hours,) καὶ ἑκεϊ πατάξαντος τὴν πέτραν, ἐῤῥύησεν ὔδατα πολλὰ καὶ ἔπιεν ὁ λαὸς. Λοιπὸν κατεληλυθότος αὐτοϋ ἐκ τοϋ ὄους προστάττεται ὑπὸ τοϋ θεοϋ ποιεϊν τὴν σκηνήν, etc. _Topograph. Christ. lib. V._ in the _Coll. nova patr. ed. B. de Montfaucon tom. ii. p. 195 sqq._

This testimony of the unpretending traveller is just as clear as it is certain and unsuspicious. In the beginning of the sixth century there was thus the belief after this eye-witness that the law was given on Serbâl. Cosmas is in so little doubt about it, that he does not mention the southern mountain at all. We must also conclude that the monks had extended themselves over the whole mountain, and particularly over the guarded region about the Gebel Mûsa. That among the monks of the place another opinion arose, according to which Moses turned southward, instead of northward, from the height of Wadi Hebrân (for, to take Elim for Raithu remained the decided opinion, as preserved by the convent there) is not at all to be wondered; such confusions are very frequent in Christian topography. But how narrowly Horeb and Sinai, Raphidîm and the Mount of the Law, are connected together, is again shown in the fact, that with Sinai the rock of water went southward. The monks did not allow themselves to be hindered, by the verses in the beginning of the nineteenth chapter, from transporting that rock of Raphidîm, and consequently Raphidîm itself, as also the thorn-bush of Horeb, to Gebel Mûsa, their new Sinai; there it is yet shown, for the astonishment of travellers in Wadi Lega (Robinson, vol. i. p. 184). Thus in this point the unlearned monkish notion that Raphidîm was near Sinai came closer to the truth than the new criticism.

The Legate of Justinian now found it necessary to erect his castle in that safe position, and to build a church there, for the hermits living in the neighbourhood. That this alone was sufficient to draw many new hermits thither, and to found a new belief as to the position of the Mountain of the Law, if this were not already there, is quite comprehensible. But as to how the two opinions in the next following centuries came together, we have no certain testimony whatever. Under any circumstances, one would have to take care, if, after the founding of Pharan, the mountain Sinai is often mentioned, to understand by it the Gebel Mûsa. As a rule, the whole range of mountains in the peninsula is intended by it. When, for example, already in the year 536, therefore probably before the building of the church, at the _Concilium sub Mema_, at Constantinople, a _Theonas presbyter et legatus S. montis Sinai et deserti Raitha et S. ecclesiæ Pharan_ (Θεωνῦς ἐλεῷ Θεοϋ πρεσβύτερος καὶ ἀποκρισίάριος τοϋ ἁγίου ὄρους Σινᾶ καὶ τῆς ἐρήμου Ῥαιθοϋ καὶ τῆς κατὰ Φαράν ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας. _Harduin_, vol. ii. p. 1281) is signed, the Church of Pharan would probably be first named as undoubtedly the most important centre and bishop’s seat, if the monks all around the vicinity were not looked upon as the more important, and therefore put first. Le Quien (vol. iii. p. 735) mentions the _Episcopi Pharan sive montis Sinai_ in one series, and as the earliest with the latter title the above-mentioned Bishop Jorius (†1033). Since then, and even since Eutychius (c. 940), the denomination of the single mountain of Gebel Mûsa as Sinai is certainly undoubted.

INDEX

OF

GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES.

A.

Abahuda, 270.

Abatou, 123.

Abdebab, 146.

Abd el Qurna, 274, 309.

Abdîn, 187.

Abke, 269.

Abu Dôm, 247, 256.

Abu el Abás, 185.

Abu Hammed, 132, 137, 146, 148.

Abu Haras, 132, 178.

Abu Hashîn, 151.

Abu Nugara, 146.

Abu Roash, 35, 64.

Abu Shar, 330.

Abu Simbel, 270.

Abu Tleh, 238.

Abu Zelîmeh, 333, 348.

Abydos, 94, 114.

Acca, 349.

Adererât, 146.

Agamîeh, 88.

Ἀin el Haramîeh, 392.

Aithi, 395.

Akoris, 100.

Alabastron, 113.

Alexandria, 7, 11, 389.

Amâra, 266.

Amarna, 94, 111, 113, 374.

Ambukôl, 259.

Anîve, 274.

Antinoe, 110.

Arbagi, 177.

Argo Island, 262.

Argôusene, 264.

Asasîf, 297.

Assuan, 99, 118.

Assur, 157.

Astaboras, 152.

Atbara, 152.

Atfeh, 13.

Athirib (Athribis), 389.

Axum, 91.

B.

Bachît, 258.

Bahîuda, Desert of, 237.

Bahr bela mâ, 85, 140.

Bahr Jussuf, 82, 87.

Bahr Sherkieh, 85.

Bahr Wardani, 85.

Bâlbek, 407.

Barkal, 245.

Begerauîeh, 156, 160.

Behbet el hager (Iseum), 389.

Belled e’ Nûba, 255.

Bellel, 255.

Benihassan, 94, 107, 110.

Benisuef, 93, 374.

Ben Naga, 160, 162, 165, 213, 217.

Bersheh, 94, 110, 113.

Berut, 394.

Beth el Walli, 124.

Bethin, 392.

Biahmu, 87.

Bigeh, 119.

Bireh, 392.

Birqet el Qorn, 82, 83, 86, 88.

Bisheh, 88.

Blue River, 172.

Britân, 407.

Bsherreh, 414.

Bulaq, 14.

Byblus, 418.

C.

Cairo, 14, 51, 89, 91.

Carmel, 394.

Chartûm, 133, 134, 168, 206, 207, 211.

Chemmis, 113.

Chôreb, or Hôreb, 336, 351.

Chôr el Ammer, 240.

Chôsh e’ Gurûf, 255.

Crôcodilopolis, 88.

D.

Dáhela, 188.

Dahshûr, 64, 90.

Dakkeh, 124.

Dal Hani, island, 156.

Damascus, 400.

Dâmer, 137, 152, 156.

Damietta, 389.

Danqêleh, 231.

Darmali, 255.

Debbet e’ Ramleh, 346.

Debôd, 124.

Dendera, 94, 107, 114, 374.

Dendûr, 124.

Dêr el ahmar, 409.

Dêr el bachît, 304.

Dêr el bahri, 304.

Dêr el medinet, 304.

Derr, 264.

Dimeh, 89.

Dongola (Old), 251.

Dongola (New), 261.

E.

Echmim, 113.

Edfu, 116.

Eileithyia, 115.

El Ἀin, 397.

El Bosra, 112, 113.

El Chôr, 151.

El Elâm, 85, 87.

Elephantine, 119.

El Gôs, 239.

El Guês, 231, 234.

El Hessue, 368.

Elim, 351.

El Kab, 115.

Esneh, 115.

E’ Sûr, 131.

F.

Fadnie, 163.

Faiûm, 69, 88, 90.

Fidimin, 88.

G.

Gabushîe, 217.

Gauâta, 99, 113.

Gebel, 231.

Gebel Adar Auîb, 146.

Gebel Ashtân, 167.

Gebel Abrak, 142.

Gebel Abu Sheqere, 335.

Gebel Barqugrês, 239.

Gebel Buêrib, 162.

Gebel Dochân, 321, 328.

Gebel el Bâb, 140.

Gebel Enned, 331.

Gebel e’ Tih, 346.

Gebel Farût, 146.

Gebel Fatireh, 320.

Gebel Graîbât, 146.

Gebel Hammâm, 333, 355.

Gebel Katherin, 335.

Gebel Lagâr, 165.

Gebel Maqàl, 255.

Gebel Mograb, 146.

Gebel Mûsa, 334.

Gebel e’ Naga, 163, 165.

Gebel Rauiân, 167.

Gebel Roft, 143, 146.

Gebel Sefsâf, 336.

Gebel Selîn, 113.

Gebel Abu Sengât, 146.

Gebel Sergên, 238.

Gebel Abu Sibha, 146.

Gebel Silsilis, 116.

Gebel Um Shômar, 335, 342.

Gebel Zeit, 313, 319, 331.

Ge’ah, 333.

Gedideh, 287.

Geg, 151.

Genna, 157.

Gennin, 393.

Gerashâb, 167.

Gerf e’ Shech, 255.

Gerf Hussên, 125.

Gertassi, 124.

Gezîret el Qorn, 88.

Ghadine, 231.

Gharag, Lake, 89.

Gibraltar, 6.

Gilif, Desert, 237.

Gizeh, 18.

Gôba, 404.

Gomra, Island, 157.

Gôs Basabir, 167.

Gôs Burri, 234, 238.

Goshen, 21.

H.

Haipha, 394.

Haluf, 255.

Hannik, 264.

Hamamât, 318.

Hamdab, 252.

Heliopolis, 17.

Hellet el Bib, 253.

Hellet e’ Soliman, 204.

Hermonthis, 115.

Hieras Kaminos, 125.

Hobi, Island, 162.

Hôreb (Choreb), 336, 351.

Howara, 76.

I.

Ibrim, 270.

Jericho, 392.

Jerusalem, 391.

Illahûn, 69.

Ishishi, Island, 251.

K.

Kalabsheh, 272.

Kamlin, 173, 176.

Karnak, 280.

Kasinqar, 251, 255.

Keli, 233, 234.

Kerak, 396.

Kermân, 393.

Koi, 264.

Kôm el Birât, 308.

Konosso, 119.

Korte, 125.

Korusko, 100, 127, 129.

Kossêr, 319.

Kûeh, 252.

Kummeh, 268.

Kurru, 256.

L.

Labyrinth, 67, 78.

Libanon, 410.

Lisht, 44, 69.

Luqsor, 95, 96, 287.

Lycopolis, 95.

M.

Mágeqa, 241.

Mandera, 132, 172.

Malta, 7.

Mara, 354.

Marûga, 231, 232, 235.

Massani, 255.

Matarieh, 21.

Mechêref, 147, 154.

Medînet el Fairûn, 83, 88.

Medînet Habu, 96, 291, 294.

Medînet Mâdi, 89.

Medînet Nimrud, 89.

Megdel, 395.

Mehendi, 126.

Meidum, 44, 69.

Mekseh, 395.

Memphis, 19, 54, 67.

Melâh, 212.

Méraui, 232, 249.

Meroe, 152, 157, 161, 226, 232, 252.

Mesaurât, 165.

Mesaurât el Kirbegân, 165, 167.

Mesaurât e’ Raga, 165.

Mesaurât e’ Sofra, 165.

Messaid Fountain, 330.

Metamme, 163.

Mitrahinneh, 55.

Mogrân, 152.

Moeris, Lake, 69, 82.

Mosh, 264.

Mundora, 146.

Myos hormos, 330.

N.

Nablûs, 392.

Naga, 160, 162, 165, 233.

Naharîeh, 13.

Nahr el Kelb, 418.

Nakb el egaui, 334.

Nakb el haui, 338.

Napata, 246, 249.

Nazareth, 391.

Nebbi Shît, 406.

Nekleh, 13.

Nesleh, 89.

Noah’s Grave, 396.

Nuri, 243, 245.

O.

Okmeh, 267.

Ombos, 116.

P.

Panopolis, 113.

Pharân, 342.

Philæ, 95, 118, 122.

Philotera, 330.

Pompey’s Pillar, 11.

Primis, 126.

Pselchis, 100, 125.

PYRAMIDS OF
Abu Roash, 25.
Abusir, 51.
Dahshûr, 64.
Gizeh, 18, 32.
Howara (labyrinth), 67, 78.
Illahûn, 69.
Lisht, 44, 69.
Merdûm, 44, 69.
Memphis, 14, 67.
Méroe, 157, 226.
Saqâra, 44.
Zauiet el Arrian, 35.

Q.

Qala, 178, 231.

Qasr e’ Salat, 114.

Qasr Qerûn, 89.

Qeneh, 313, 316, 372.

Qirre Mountains, 167.

Qirsh, 272.

Qurna, 96, 104, 270, 294.

R.

Râha, plain, 339.

Raphidîm, 355.

Rigah, 64.

Roda, 36.

Româli, 189.

Rosetta, 120.

S.

Saba Doleb, 183.

Sabagûra, 272.

Sâ el Hagar (Sais), 13.

Saffi, island, 254.

Sagâdi, 157.

Saï, island, 266.

Saida, 394.

Salamât, Sanamât, 292.

Salame, 255.

Salhîeh, 405.

Samanub (Sebennytus), 389.

San, 389.

Saqâra, 44, 51, 62, 67, 74, 77.

Sarbut el Châdem, 345, 353.

Shataui, 270.

Shendi, 162, 163, 213.

Sebastiêh, 392.

Sebûa, 125.

Sedeïnga, 266.

Selajîn, 88.

Selama, 163.

Selûn, 392.

Semneh, 268, 294.

Sennâr, 186, 189.

Serbâl, 334.

Sero, 155, 189.

Sêse, 265.

Sêsebi, 265.

Sin, desert, 335.

Sinai, 336.

Sinai, convent, 334.

Siut, 94, 112, 113.

Soba, 172, 205.

Soleb, 265.

Sorîba, 190, 192.

Suk el Barada, 405.

Sur (Tyre), 394.

Surarîeh, 93.

Surîe Abu Ramle, 211.

T.

Tabor, 393.

Taîba, 203.

Talmis, 124.

Tamaniât, 211.

Tamîeh, 86, 90.

Tanis, 389.

Tanqassi, 156, 256.

Tarablûs, 417.

Teirîeh, 14.

Tel Emdîeh, 397.

Thana, island, near Gorata, in Ethiopia, 91.

Thebes, 93, 114, 274, 277, 279.

Tiberias, 393.

Tifâr, 259.

Tombos, 264.

Tôr, 313, 319, 333.

Tripolis, 417.

U.

Urn Shebah, 243.

Urn Shômar, _v._ Gebel Um Shômar, 342.

W.

Wadi Auateb, 163, 164, 165.

Wadi Abu Dôm, 242.

Wadi Abu Harod, 240.

Wadi Aleyât, 340.

Wadi Bahr Hátab, 141.

Wadi Delah, 141.

Wadi el Arab, 271.

Wadi el Kirbegân, 113, 162, 165, 167.

Wadi el Mehet, 240.

Wadi el Uêr, 240.

Wadi e’ Sheikh, 338.

Wadi e’ Sileha, 165.

Wadi e’ Sofra, 160, 165.

Wadi e’ Sufr, 141, 157.

Wadi Firân, 340.

Wadi Gazal, 243.

Wadi Gaqedûl, 240.

Wadi Gharandel, 354.

Wadi Gûah el âlem, 230.

Wadi Halfa, 100, 108, 134.

Wadi Hebrân, 333.

Wadi Ibrîm, 271.

Wadi Kalas, 242.

Wadi Kenus, 271.

Wadi Maghâra, 335, 353.

Wadi Mokatteb, 344.

Wadi Murhad, 144.

Wadi Nasb, 348, 353.

Wadi Nûba, 271.

Wadi Qeneh, 345.

Wadi Rim, 339.

Wadi Shebêkeh, 353.

Wadi Sebûa, 127.

Wadi Selâf, 339.

Wadi Sich, 346.

Wadi Síqelji, 341.

Wadi Sittere, 346.

Wadi Taibe, 353.

Wadi Teresîb, 162.

Wed Mêdineh, 190, 194, 207.

Wed Negûdi, 183.

White River, 171.

Z.

Zachleh, 395.

Zahêra, 417.

Zani, 91.

Zauiet el Arrian, 35, 64.

Zauiet el Meitîn, 107.

Zebedêni, 398.

Zerîn, 393.

Zûma, 257.

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 the _Annales de l’Institut de Corresp. Archéol. Rome_. 1838.

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

[11] [The _Athenæum_, 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 flame
Of new-born _science_ gilds thine ancient name.’”

--Gliddon’s _Otia 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’s _Materia Hieroglyphica_, Malta, 1830, p. 14; and last, though not least, Gliddon’s _Otia 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 his _Otia_, 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] 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 lake _niveau_ to be about 125 English feet below the Nile shore at Benisuef. [But see Bunsen’s observation in the (untranslated) second book of his _Ægypten_, 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._ 33 _sqq._ 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 inscriptions _C. 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 only _one_ Cleopatra 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 which _both_ Cleopatras 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._ _tome_ i. _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 Letronne _Recueil des Inscription Grecques de l’Egypte_, _tome_ i. _pp._ 363 _sqq._ 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._ _tome_ i. _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 the _Revue Archéol._ _tome_ i. _pp._ 678 _sqq._, 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 the _Revue_), 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 while Soter II. is always written _p. nuter enti nehem_, which would answer to the Koptic , _deus servator_. In the Demotic inscriptions, too, the first Soters are designated by _nehem_, and in the singular, by the Greek word _p.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_, _Band_ I. 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 cartouches_ of 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 given HER-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 the _Preussische 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 the _text_, 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 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 fact _established_ is worth many _overthrown_, 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 only _provisionally_, what we cannot see in the full clear light, that yesterday’s occurrences are given in to-day’s _Times_. 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 tree _ganglès_; this is _homara_, and the fruit _gungulês_.

[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 them _handsome_ trees, 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, KEBHSEN u.f. signifying “the refresher of his brothers.” 2. The Jackal-head TUA-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.