Page images
[ocr errors]

have from Scripture no reason to believe that Joseph's body was placed in a stone sarcophagus, or that, during its abode in Egypt, it was laid in any tomb whatever; consequently, the occurrence of an open pyramid and empty sarcophagus cannot present any striking coincidence with the facts related of his obsequies.

To the improbability that the Israelites could of themselves have raised so enormous a mass as any of these pyramids, Dr. Clarke is not insensible; and he seeks to obviate the difficulty by supposing that the Egyptians had an equal honour for Joseph's memory and joined with them in this pious labour.—This he grounds on the opinion that Joseph, after his death, was deified under the character of Apis or Serapis. This notion, which Vossius and Athanasius Kircher first dragged from its obscurity, was entertained by a few christian writers, of whom Ruffinus was the chief, (for St. Augustine is known not to be the author of the work de Mirabilibus Scripturæ,) and depends, after all, on a tradition that Apis had been a good king or father of a family who distributed corn during a famine. Now this is, on the face of it, too vague to apply to Joseph in particular, since many famines and many benefactors besides might have arisen since the foundation of the most ancient monarchy in the world. But, when we learn from Ruffinus, that this story was found not in Egyptian, but in Greek writers, (we know not whom, nor does Ruftinus himself appear to have known,)-(Hist. Eccles. L. II. c. xxiii.)—no more need be said to shew how little dependance can be placed on such a testimony. But it is, moreover, in utter contradiction, if we believe Herodotus, to the principles of the Egyptian mythology, to deify mortal heroes at all.--Euterpe, 50. So that the story of Ruffinus is confuted by a far better and more ancient authority. And, waving this objection, if Joseph was not deified in the times immediately succeeding his decease, and while the gratitude of the nation was yet warm, it is idle to fancy that he became the principal God of the Egyptians after the departure of the Israelites. - But if he had been thus honoured previous to their departure, and if, as Dr. Clarke supposes, the greatest of the pyrainids had been but recently constructed to his memory by the joint labours both of Egypt and Israel, in the immediate vicinity of the metropolis ; it is utterly impossible that his renown and merits could have been forgotten by the Egyptians at the time of Moses's birth. We know, however, that they were thus forgotten and disregarded, since it is expressly said of the King of Egypt, and it is noticed as the primary cause of the oppression to which Israel was subjected by him,—that he knew not Joseph'-(Exod. i. 8.) But, though Joseph was forgotten or disregarded, it is plain from the whole history of the golden calf, (Exod. xxxii. 4.) not only that the Israelites


had learnt in Egypt to worship Apis, but that they regarded him as the symbol, not of their own deceased countryman, but of the supreme Deity-Jehovah.—(See verse 5.) It is certain then, that Joseph was not Apis; it is highly improbable that he was ever worshipped by the Egyptians; and we have as yet seen no reason whatever for believing that either the Egyptians or Israelites were inclined to raise a pyramid to his memory.

Nor, thirdly, does the present state of the great pyramid, which has been, evidently, opened with considerable labour and violence, by any means tally with the Scripture account of the manner in, which the Israelites left Egypt.-Their numbers would, in this respect, avail them nothing, since if, while they were in a state of abject slavery, they had marched an army beyond their own limits and into the immediate neighbourhood of the capital, his Memphitic Majesty would have had sufficient reason for alarm and jealousy, and some plausible grounds for increasing their tax of bricks, seeing they had leisure enough to open pyramids. Nor, as the removal of Joseph's bones could be only understood as declaratory of their intention to leave Egypt at all events, would this measure have been suffered by that government which so obstinately refused them permission to emigrate. But, after this permission was granted, no time remained for any proceeding of the kind; they were driven out of Egypt the same night without so much as time to prepare their provisions, and were the next morning encamped at Birket el Hadje on the western frontier of the kingdom.

After this it is, perhaps, useless to examine Dr. Clarke's fourth and last ground of belief, which is taken from the traditions of the Egyptians, the Arabians, and the Jews. The first, as contained in Manetho, if they were worth any thing, are, as we have shewn, directly hostile to his hypothesis. The second, which are of still less weight, leave us in doubt whether the pyramids were built by Joseph or Pharaoh, or some king who reigned before the food. But Joseph is in Egypt, what Nimrod is in Assyria, and Solomon in Palestine, the person to whom all unclaimed antiquities are referred. Pharaoh, which is Coptic for · King,' was the common title of all the Egyptian sovereigns from the time of Abrahamn down to the Persian conquest; and the antediluvian founder,----though this tallies well enough 'with Manetho,--Dr. Clarke will not thank us for. Josephus alone, of all the Jewish writers, makes any mention of the pyramids, and he, without naming any pyramid in particular, and without ever insinuating that one of them was intended for Joseph's tomb, merely tells us, that among other labours, such as embankments, canals, &c. the Egyptians obliged his nation to contribute to the construction of pyramids. Now this is certainly probable in itself, and it becomes more

[ocr errors]

so when we consider the tradition mentioned by Herodotus, that the stones of which the pyramids are constructed were hewn amid the mountains on the eastern side of the Nile, and, consequently, in the very territory which Israel occupied. Though the making of bricks is particularly specified, we, at the same time, learn from Moses that this was only a part of their labours, (Exod. i. 14.) and hewing of stones may well have been another. At all events, we should agree with Dr. Clarke in assigning the brick pyramid of Hillahoun to them, if it were not for the consideration that Moses, who specifies their building for Pharaoh the treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses,' would hardly have omitted to notice an edifice so burdensome in the construction and so renowned when finished, as even a single pyramid must have been.

On the whole, we can find no reason for depriving Cheops, Cephrenes, and Mycenius of the wicked renown of having raised the useless and oppressive piles which bear their name; and though it is impossible to say when the first pyramids were erected,* and whether some of them may be or may not be the work of the Israelites, it is utterly unlikely that any of them were raised by this people on their own account, or in honour of the Patriarch Joseph.

After all, it is hardly necessary to dive into so remote an antiquity in order to accomt for the dilapidated state of the great pyramid, when we have good reason to refer its violation to the Caliph Almaimoun in the ninth century after Christ. This statement indeed, which the best Arabic historians agree in, Dr. Clarke, who lays so much stress on Arabic tradition, regards as a fable. His reasons are, tirst, that the pyramid was open in the time of Strabo. Secondly, that Almaimoun could not have attempted it at the only place where entrance was possible, without a more perfect knowledge of the interior than he was likely to possess, supposing it to have been closed till then. To the first, we reply, that Strabo doubtless gives us to understand that the interior of the pyramid was accessible, but under very different circumstances from those of its present dilapidated entrance. In the middle of the sides,' he tells us, is a stone which may be taken out, and, when this is removed, a tunnel which leads to the coffin, &c.' It is plain from this account, that in the time of Strabo, the side on which the entrance is was furnished with the same flights of stone as the other three, and that, one of the stones being removed, the secret of


[ocr errors]

Dr. Clarke supposes Herodotus to have fixed on Mæris as the first builder of pyramids. But Herodotus only says, that Muris built pyramids,' not that he first raised edifices of the kind.—Euterpe, Ø 101. It is impossible to compare Herodotus with those fragments of Manetho which yet remain, without observing the difference in favour of the foriner. VOL. XVII. NO. XXXIII.



which was, probably, with the priests, the passage was discovered; and, as he does not say, ' in one of the sides,' but šv MEOW TEWS TWY Theupw, it may be conjectured, either that there are other entrances as yet concealed in the remaining three sides,—or, which is more likely, that Strabo, who does not say that he himself had entered the sepulchre, did not know in which side the moveable stone was, and, therefore, expresses himself thus ambiguously.-But, if the knowledge of the particular stone which was moveable, or the means of removing it were lost, as they well might be, in the lapse of time and the ruin of the ancient religion, it is far from improbable that Almaimoun might endeavour to open this celebrated tomb, and that the present entrance was hewn by his labourers, who may also be supposed to have dislodged King Cheops from his granite chamber. Nor is it incredible that such a general knowledge of the proper place in which to begin their labours might be obtained in the time of this Caliph, as would enable him, with some previous search, (for the openers of the pyramid appear to have begun too high,) to discover the only practicable access to the interior. For this the account of Strabo would be, in fact, sufficient; and as Almaimoun was a lover of learning, and patronized translations from the Greek, he is, perhaps, the most likely of all the Arab princes, even during the time of their greatest renown, to attempt the exploring of an ancient monument, or to have persons about him who were acquainted with Strabo's volume. It would be but reasonable to expect that such an attempt would be decorated with many fabulous circumstances by the Arabic historians; but the event is, in itself, far from unlikely, and, if it were altogether untrue, it is not easy to conceive how such a fable could have originated.

An account is given, at some length, of the manner in which our travellers first received intelligence of the trilinguar tablet of Rosetta and that magnificent sarcophagus which lays claim to the honour of having contained the body of Alexander. The same subject is renewed afterwards, while giving an account of Alexandria, and we can readily participate in the natural and laudable exultation with which Dr. Clarke describes the unavailing artifices and remonstrances of Menou, and the disinterested zeal and industry which he himself exerted in securing these precious relics quity to the public collection of his country.

Alexandria had capitulated while our author was at Cairo: but when he arrived in the English camp, on the 10th of September, the French were still in the town, which they were little less impatient to leave than the unfortunate inhabitants were to get rid of them. They had practised here the same oppression, and displayed the same avarice and cruelty which the soldiers of Buonaparte's school have every where indulged. They had carried their cruelty to their Turkish prisoners to the severest extremities,' making them work, like horses, at their mills, and in drawing water. Some of these unfortunate wretches Dr. Clarke met with, on his first entrance into the city, who had been liberated that morning from their dungeon, and who were endeavouring, literally, to crawl towards their camp.'

The legs of these poor creatures, swollen to a size that was truly horrible, were covered with large ulcers, and their eyes were terrible from inflammation. Some, too weak to advance, had fallen on the sand, where they were exposed to the scorching beams of the sun. Immediately on seeing us they uttereol such moans that might have pierced the hearts of their cruel oppressors. They begged for water, but we had none to give them; for, eager in the pursuit of our object, we had neglected to supply ourselves with provisions. We succeeded, but not without difficulty, in prevailing on some Arabs to take care of them until relief could be obtained.' • We had afterwards the happiness of hearing that they reached the Turkish camp.'-p.241.

Of these unfortunate captives it was calculated that upwards of forty perished every day from the miseries to which their conquerors exposed them. After these truths, which Dr. Clarke has told honestly and with all the indignation of a humane and virtuous mind, it is amusing to find how much the civilities which he himself received from the officers and learned men of the French army have induced him to qualify his censures; to speak of the urbanity which is characteristic of the French people even towards their enemies,'--p. 277, and to distinguish between Frenchmen in general and the sample which their army in Egypt afforded.'-p. 243. Unhappily for the cause of humanity, the conduct of Menou's army in Egypt did not differ from that of Massena's in Portugal; and Hamburgh and Tarragona have as dismal a story to tell as was told by the merchants of Alexandria. Still, however, We would not be mistaken. It is not on the national character of Frenchmen, but on the system of wickedness and violence which began with Buonaparte, and we trust has ended with him, that we would fling the blame of these accumulated and successive horrors; and the mass of the people are no otherwise guilty than as they suffered their vanity to blind them to these crimes, and endured, in their leaders, a conduct which was at variance with the ancient and habitual feelings of their nation, and our common nature. It is well, however, that these things should be remembered,-not in reproach to those who were, in no small degree, fellow sufferers with the rest of the world, but as a warning to them and to ourselves against those who, after indulging in every excess of lawless pride and cruelty, have begun at length, in their adversity, to speak of national faith, of peace, of freedom, and humanity, M 2


« PreviousContinue »