In the observations upon Alexandria, some additional remarks will be found concerning the Soros of Alexander the Great, so fortunately added to the trophies of our victories in EGYPT, in the very moment when it was clandestinely conveying to Paris. Since the original publication of the Testimonies respecting this most interesting monument, the Editors of the Edinburgh Encyclopedia have considered the evidence as decisive; and have, by means of their valuable work, given it a passport to the notice of posterity, which the writings of the author were little likely to afford. Occasionally, indeed, it has been urged, that some unknown personage, belonging to the British Museum, does not concur in the opinion thus maintained concerning this remarkable relic. The author has been sometimes asked, Why it is not called the Soros of Alexander, in the Catalogue of Antiquities put into the hands of strangers who visit that stately repository? How shall he venture to answer so formidable an interrogation? May he not also propose another, equally redoubtable? it is this: Why has even the historical evidence, touching its discovery, been so unaccountably omitted? Wherefore has the circumstance been withheld from notice, that the Arabs held it in traditionary veneration, as the TOMB OF ALEXANDER?

The reason why it has not received the appellation of a Soros is easily explained. The meaning of this word had never been duly understood', when the Tomb arrived in England; although this be precisely the name given by Herodian to the conditory of Alexander's body; neither had it then been heeded, that what Herodian termed a Soros, Juvenal, according to a custom of the Romans, mentioned by Augustinus, had himself alluded to under the appellation of Sarcophagus: nay, so remarkable was the ignorance of a few persons who opposed the opinion now entertained of this Soros, that because it had, at a later period, served as a cistern in Egypt, they doubted its original sepulchral use; and some even ventured to deny, in direct contradiction of all history, that Alexander was buried in Alexandria. When the Catalogue appeared, in which the Antiquities are enumerated, finding that it had not been deemed

(1) This can only be disproved by shewing that in some publication dated anterior to 1805 this word had its real signification. (2) "Quia enim arca in quâ mortuus ponitur, quod omnes jām Σαρκοφάγον vocant, Σορός dicitur Græce.” Augustin. de Civitate Dei,

(4) For the removal of the body from Memphis to Alexandria, sec Cruintus Curtius, Pausanias, &c. &c. Καὶ τὸν ̓Αλεξάνδρου νεκρὸν οὗτος ὁ narayayŵr ž, in Miμpidos. Pausan. Attica, e. vii. p. 17. edit. Kuhnü. Lips. 1696.

advisable to state any particulars, even regarding the modern history of the Alexandrian Soros, and that the remarkable fact of its being considered by the Arabs as the Tomb of the Founder of their City had been suppressed, the author wrote to request, that a few copies of a Letter he had addressed to the Gentlemen of the British Museum upon the subject, might be distributed gratis by the porter at the door: but he was answered, that this would not be approved. The question may therefore now rest,-and, as it is humbly conceived, not on the test of authority, but of evidence. If mere authority could have any weight, the author might safely adduce the opinions which have fallen, not from obscure individuals, but from illustrious and renowned men; from a PORSON, and a PARR, and a ZOUCH'; from scholars of the highest

(1) Dr. Zouch's opinion upon this subject occurs in a Letter written by the present Earl of Lonsdale to the Rev. J. Sutterthwaite, of Jesus College, Cambridge, Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty ; who communicated it to the author. Although the testimony of such a scholar as Dr. Zouch (with whom the author had no personal acquaintance) be highly flattering, yet it is hoped that the insertion of it may be pardoned; as it alludes to a fact of some importance in the evidence concerning Alexander's Tomb; namely, the remarkable allusion made to the Soros by JUVENAL (who himself visited Egypt), under the appellation of Sarcophagus,

Lord Lonsdale's Letter is as follows: it was dated

My Dear Sir,

Cottesmere, Jan. 16, 1806. "As Dr. Zouch's opinion of Dr. Clarke's history of the Tomb of Alexander may not be unacceptable to you, I send you the following Extract from a Letter I received from him a few days ago." 'I have

eminence both at home and abroad; who have approved his testimony, and have aided and encouraged him in making it public. It is upon the evidence alone that this question can be decided; and this is so simple, and so conclusive, that it is open to every apprehension. It merely amounts to this: Whether the Cistern held sacred by the Arabs as the conditory of Alexander, be, or be not, the sort of receptacle which Historians teach us to believe did contain his body. Any one who had read even such a compilation as Purchas his Pilgrims,' and had therein found it stated, probably from Leo Africanus, that in Alexandria there " yet remaineth a little Chappell, wherein they say that the high Prophet, and King Alexander the Great lies buried," would surely have been curious to inquire what was really exhibited by the Arabs as the Tomb of the founder of their city: and if, during its examination, this turn out to be

'I have been much gratified with reading a history of the Tomb of Alexander by Dr. Clarke, of Jesus College, Cambridge. Indeed, I scarcely laid down the volume until I had gone through it. He seems to have proved his point; at least to have rendered it highly probable, that the precious monument deposited in the British Museum is what he thinks it to be. I cannot but believe that Juvenal expressly alludes to this splendid Tomb, in which the remains of the Macedonian Hero were interred:

'Cum tamen a figulis munitam intraverit urbem
Sarcophago contentus erit.

2

nothing of Arabian workmanship, but, in reality, the particular kind of Tomb which Historians have actually ascribed to ALEXANDER,-a Soros, as it is mentioned by Herodian', covered with hieroglyphics; being, therefore, an inscription in the sacred writing of the Priests, by whom it had been more antiently guarded and revered ;-if this prove to be the case, it will be found a very difficult matter to prevent the public from identifying such a relic, however unsuitable the consequence may be, to the views and feelings of any private individual, or set of individuals, belonging to the British Museum. Powerful evidence bears down all opposition;-it asks not for opinion; it demands assent.

It has indeed been urged, that other conditories of the same kind were found in Alexandria; one of a similar description being now placed with the Alexandrian Soros in the British Museum: but this is not true: and even if it were, no other can lay claim to the tradition which so remarkably distinguished this. The other antiquities alluded to, came from Cairo, and from Upper Egypt: that, in particular, now

(1) In describing the visit paid to it by Caracalla, who placed upon it his purple vest;—ἐπέθηκε τῇ ἐκείνου ΣΟΡΩΙ. Vid. Herodian. Hist. lib. iv. Hist. Rom. Script. ap. H. Steph. 1568.

(2) Toïs vs 'Ispois ypaμμarn. See the Inscription on the Rosetta Stone.