situation of Sinai, it appears to me that the idea will be changed, and
that every close historical examination of these wonderful events must
destroy it, even if grounds should also be brought forward against our
acceptation of it. We will now continue the narrative. From Elim Moses
reached Raphidîm in three days’ journey. The new school are generally
agreed that the caravan from Abu Zelîmeh did not again return to the
eastern sand-plain E’Raml, through the same Wadi Shebêkeh, or Saibeh, by
which they descended, but took the usual caravan road which leads to
Wadi Firân. How then would Moses have chosen the dry and much longer
upper way, or even the great and still more dry round-about way along
the sea-coast, by Tôr and Wadi Hebrân, instead of immediately turning
into the valleys of the primitive rocks, both less dry, and rich with
manna.
He must also come to Wadi Firân--no third way was possible. This is the
cogent reason why (with the exception of Robinson)[127] almost all
without a dissentient voice, have placed Raphidîm after Firân. It seems
impossible that this oasis, if it had been traversed, should not once
have been named. Already Josephus,[128] Eusebius, Jerome,[129] and, as
it appears, every other author and traveller[130] place Raphidîm after
the city Pharan. No spot in the whole country could have been of so much
value, as these fruitful gardens of Pharan, to the native races,
threatened by Moses. It is then very easy to be conceived that Moses,
just here in Raphidîm, should have been attacked by the Amalekites, who
would lose their most valuable possessions. He drove them back, and
then only could Moses say that he had possession of the peninsula. His
first goal was attained. What could tempt him to go further?
It is also written in plain words, that the people were arrived at the
Mountain of God, the Mountain of the Law. As it says, that after the
victory near Raphidîm, Jethro, Moses’s father-in-law, heard of all that
had happened. “And then came Jethro, and Moses’s sons, and his wife to
Moses in the desert, where he was encamped at the Mountain of God;” and
also the Lord had already spoken to Moses, “See I will stand before you
upon a rock in Choreb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall
flow forth, that the people may drink;” words which could only refer to
the wonderful fountain of Firân, as it has long since appeared to
me.[131] That Moses really encamped here in Raphidîm, is further proved,
as he now, by the advice of Jethro, organised the till now disorderly
multitude, in order to be able to govern it.[132] He chose the most able
men and set them over thousands, over hundreds, over fifties, and over
tens; these became judges respecting the smaller occurrences, while he
reserved only the most important to himself.
This proves clearly that the journey was over, and that the time of rest
was come.
This certainly appears to be contradicted in the beginning of the next
chapter.[133] “In the third month,[134] when the children of Israel were
gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the
wilderness of Sinai. For they were departed from Raphidîm, and were come
to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness, and then
Israel encamped before the Mount, and Moses went up unto God, and the
Lord called to him out of the mountain,” &c.
According to this there is a journey between Raphidîm and Sinai. This
decides in favour of the tradition, which believes the Mountain of the
Law to have been found beyond Firân, in the Gebel Mûsa. It will not,
however, be guessed that, by this acceptation, it will fall into a much
greater contradiction with the text. Furthermore the words speak of
nothing more than one day’s journey;[135] also, not in the fourth book,
where, nevertheless, between Elim and Raphidîm, not only Alus and
Daphka, but also the Red Sea, although this lay by Elim, are
particularly mentioned. From Firân to Gebel Mûsa was, at least, two long
days’ journey, if not more. Then, however, “the Mountain of God” has
already been mentioned in Raphidîm; likewise it has been named a rock
in Choreb, and it is impossible to understand any other to be the
“Mountain of God,” but the “Mountain of God, Choreb,” to which Moses
drove the sheep of Jethro.
We should thus understand, that there were two “Mountains of God,” the
one, “The Mountain of God Choreb,” in Raphidîm, which might be Serbâl,
and one “The Mountain of God Sinai,” upon which the Commandments were
given, which might be Gebel Mûsa.[136] This acceptation would, however,
not only be scarcely credible, but would contradict itself most
positively by the fact, that the Mountain of God, Choreb, where Moses
was called, already before was designated as the Mountain of the
Law;[137] (2, 3, 1, 12,) and further the general name of “God’s
Mountain,” which so often appears, without any other name (2, 4, 27, 18,
5, 24, 13, 4, 10, 33,) could only be used if there were but one such
mountain; and finally, that the name Sinai, or Mount Sinai, and Choreb,
or Mount Choreb, continue to be used in the very same signification as
the Mountain of the Law.
This visible difficulty has also formerly been felt.[138] Josephus
(_Ant._ 3, 2, 3,) helped himself out of it, by putting the supposed
beginning of the nineteenth chapter, from its present place to before
the visit of Jethro; so that Moses did not receive his family in
Raphidîm, but in Sinai. By this two difficulties would certainly be
overcome; one, that there was only one Mountain of God, and the other,
that the organisation of the people did not take place during the
journey. He also surrenders after some consideration, the statement that
the rock, which Moses struck, lay in Choreb.
The new school have, however, set forth the opinion that either Sinai
was the general name of the whole range of mountains, and Choreb that of
the one mountain where the law was given, or contrarywise, that Choreb
signified the wider designation, and Sinai the single mountain,[139]
while the monkish tradition gave the names to two mountains lying close
together.[140] A comparison of the individual places does not appear to
me to admit of either of these views; my opinion leans much more to that
of the indiscriminate use of the two names Choreb and Sinai, and that
both point out one and the same mountain, and the neighbourhood.[141]
Perhaps Choreb might be the particular local Amalekite name, and Sinai a
name derived from its situation in the desert of Sin.
As to what concerns the departure from Raphidîm, it must appear very
probable to many, that those words, which so completely interrupt the
natural continuity of the events, have been purposely displaced either
by Josephus, or before him did not originally belong here, but were
placed at the beginning of the giving the Commandments, when this (as
without doubt, it frequently happened) was taken distinctly from all
that went before, or came after.[142] The want of connection, since the
arrival at Sinai, is mentioned before the departure from Raphidîm, and
the expression so difficult of explanation, “and the same day,” while by
other statements of time, a particular day is meant, would support the
supposition.[143] Those, however, to whom this acceptation may appear
too bold, as it does not agree with the original comprehension of the
subject, may understand the new departure as a slight misarrangement of
the encampment, as we must already consider that of the departure from
Elim to the coast of the Red Sea. This change happened either while they
advanced from El Hessue, where the sea was first seen, to Firân, from
Firân into the upper part of the Wadi Aleyât, where the camp could
spread out, far round the foot of the mountain.[144]
Such a comprehension will alone content those who strive to represent
the whole course of events in their essential and necessary points.
They will not be able to prevent the conviction, that Serbâl, on account
of the oasis at its foot, must have been the aim and centre of the new
immigrating population, and that to be fenced in in a mountain-hollow,
like the plain at Gebel Mûsa, where the multitude could find no water,
no fruit, or manna-bearing trees, and where they were cut off from all
connection with the other part of the peninsula more than anywhere else,
could never possibly, have been the intention of the wise and learned
man of God. It must be acknowledged that the distinguishing Sinai as the
principal mountain of the desert of Sin, and the sanctity that it
possessed, not only among the Israelites, but also among the native-born
races of the country, very decidedly point out Serbâl; further, that the
Raphidîm, with the well of Moses of Choreb, which was defended by the
Amalekites, undoubtedly lay in the Wadi Firân, that consequently also
the mountain of God, Choreb, where Moses was called, and the mountain of
God, near Raphidîm, where Moses was visited by Jethro, and organized the
people, could be no other than Serbâl, from which finally, it also
appears, that if we do not admit of two mountains of God, the Mountain
of the Law lay near Raphidîm, and in Serbâl must be recognised, and not
in Gebel Mûsa.
In conclusion, let us once more see how far the present tradition agrees
with our result; this goes back as far as the founding of the convent by
Justinian in the sixth century.[145] This was by no means the first
church of the peninsula. At a much earlier period, we find a bishopric
in the city of Pharan, at the foot of Serbâl.[146] This was the first
Christian centre-point of the peninsula, and the church founded by
Justinian was for a long time dependent upon it. It is a question
whether the tradition, which sees Sinai in the present Gebel Mûsa can be
referred to a time prior to Justinian.[147] For solitary hermits this
district is particularly adapted, and exactly for the same reason it
would be unfitted for a great civilized and commanding people, who would
exhaust all its resources, as it is in a retired spot, distant from all
the frequented and connecting roads; but nevertheless, by reason of its
situation in the high mountains, it affords sufficient nourishment for
the moderate necessities of the solitary scattered monks. The gradually
increasing hermit-population might then have attracted the attention of
the Byzantine emperor to this very spot, and at that time dying
tradition, by these means have revived and fixed for the time to
come.[148]
What I have said about the situation of Elim, Raphidîm, and of the Mount
Choreb or Sinai, fails certainly in scholarlike proof, which I also
shall not be able to send from Thebes; this can only be drawn with any
advantage from the course of the earliest traditions before Justinian,
which, even if they should coincide in every point with these of the
present time, nevertheless would determine nothing positively. It
appears to me that these questions must remain ever undecided, since the
elements which stood at my command, that is to say, the Mosaic account
itself, the examination of the situations and the knowledge of the
historical circumstances of that time, were not considered sufficient
for their solution. Only, a contemporary examination of these three most
essential sides of the researches will allow a correct picture to be
obtained of the whole story; while the attempt to give the same
authority, without any difference, to each single point of the
representation now lying before us, will necessarily lead us into the
road of false criticism, which always sacrifices the understanding of
the one to the understanding of the whole.
LETTER XXXIV.
THEBES, KARNAK.
_May 4, 1845._
On the 6th of April we had quitted Tôr, where we stopped one night. We
landed every night on the shell and coral-rich African coast during our
far voyage, until, on the 10th, we reached Kossêr, where the brave Seïd
Mahommed from Qeneh was awaiting us, in order to provide us with camels
for our return to Thebes. In four days we passed along the broad
Rossaffa road over the mountains by Hamamât, and arrived at our
head-quarters in Thebes on the 14th.
We found everything in the most desirable order and activity, only our
old, faithful castellan ’Auad came to meet me with head bound up, and
greeted me with a weak voice. He had but just escaped from death’s door.
I already mentioned, in a former letter, that he and all the rest of the
house of the Sheikh at Qurna had incurred a blood-guiltiness which was
not yet avenged. The family of the murdered man, at Kôm el Birâh, had,
shortly after our departure, seized the opportunity, when ’Auad and a
relation were returning home from Luqsor, to surprise the two
unsuspecting wayfarers. They thought more of ’Auad’s companion than
himself, and therefore called to the latter to depart; but as he would
not do it, but defended his comrade lustily, he received an almost
fatal blow on the head with a sharp weapon, which stretched him fainting
on the ground; the other was murdered, and thrown into the Nile, as an
expiation for the seven years’ guilt. Since then there has been peace
between the families.
A more extended report on our Sinai journey, to which I have added two
maps of the peninsula, was carried out by Erbkam after my plans. Now I
have the heavy closing of my account with Thebes before me, which,
however, I hope to complete in ten to twelve days.
LETTER XXXV.
CAIRO.
_July 10, 1845._
Our first halting-place after leaving Thebes, on the 16th of April, was
Dendera, the magnificent temple of which is the last northward, and,
although it is only of a late, almost merely Roman period, it furnished
much matter for our portfolios and note-books. There we employed nine
whole days on the remarkable rock-tombs of Amarna, of the government of
Amenophis IV., that royal puritan, who persecuted all the gods of Egypt,
and would only admit the worship of the sun’s disk.
When we came into the neighbourhood of Benisuef, we saw a stately
steamer belonging to Ibrahim Pasha hurrying toward us. We hoisted our
flag, and immediately, in answer to our greeting, there appeared the red
Turkish flag with the crescent on board the steamer. Then it altered its
course, and bore right down for us.
We were eager for the news that was coming. A boat was lowered, and made
itself fast to us. How joyfully was I surprised to recognise in the
fair-complexioned Frank that came up to us, my old university friend Dr.
Bethmann, who had come across from Italy to accompany me home by way of
Palestine and Constantinople. Ali Bey, Ibrahim Pasha’s right hand, who
was steaming to Upper Egypt, had kindly taken him in his ship, and was
sorry, as he told me, to lose the pleasant travelling companion, who had
become quite dear to him during their short acquaintance.
His presence, and his interest and assistance, are now of the more value
to me, as the rest of my companions have left me here alone. They
departed hence yesterday. How gladly should I have accompanied them, as
to-day the third anniversary of my departure from Berlin has already
come round; but the taking down of the pyramid tombs yet keeps me back.
The four workmen, who were sent me from Berlin as assistants, have
arrived; they are strong young men, and I took them immediately with me
to the Pyramids. We ensconced ourselves in a conveniently situated
grave; a field-smithy and a scaffolding for the crane was erected, and
the work was quickly commenced.
The difficulties of the whole matter lie, however, rather in the petty
jealousies that surround us here on every side, and in the various
diplomatic influences which not unfrequently make even Mohammed Ali’s
direct orders illusory. It therefore also appeared imperatively
necessary to Herr von Wagner, that I should not leave Egypt under any
circumstances, until the end of the taking down and shipping of the
monuments, and so I shall have to remain patiently here for some weeks
longer.
LETTER XXXVI.
CAIRO.
_July 11, 1845._
Allow me now briefly to add some thoughts which have occupied me much of
late.[149] I have never lost sight of your desire to decorate the New
Museum in a manner appropriate to its contents. I hope very much that it
is still your intention to do so. I have heard with great pleasure of
the arrangement of the Egyptian halls through Herr Hertel, and have
heard from him that the decorations of the walls are yet _in suspenso_.
So favourable an opportunity will scarcely again present itself, to have
all the materials at hand at the first establishment of a museum for the
creation of a true whole in every respect, and to offer to the public so
many novel and important things in the plan, materials, and
arrangements, as at the establishment of the Egyptian Museum. You have
already, if I remember right, mentioned to me that you purpose to erect
an _historical_ museum, as, indeed, the object and the idea of all
should be, but yet exists nowhere. It is, however, attainable to some
extent in an Egyptian museum, which can only be approached by others at
a vast distance, even under the most favourable circumstances, as with
no other people are the dates for each single monument so simple and
certain as here, and no other collection is extended over so long a
period (more than 3,000 years). I therefore take for granted, generally,
that you desire to arrange the principal saloons, as far as it is
possible, in historical succession, and to place in juxtaposition, as it
were, whatever belong to the Old, the New, and to the Græco-Roman
Empire, at any rate, in such a manner that each larger space should have
a definite historical character. This has always been before my eyes
also in their collection, although I do not at all believe that this
principle should be pedantically carried into every particular. Of the
casts which you will probably desire to embody in the collection of
casts, it would be very desirable, for the sake of completeness, to have
some duplicates in the Egyptian saloon.
But what makes me write you on such matters already from hence, is the
reflection that you are perhaps already so far advanced, or soon will
be, that you will feel desirous of coming to some resolution as to the
architectural and artistical decoration of the saloons, for which some
remarks from me might not be quite unacceptable to you.
For the Egyptian saloon you will certainly choose an Egyptian style of
architecture, and one carried out in every way, for which, according to
what I understand from Hertel, there is yet plenty of time; for I think
that, in order to produce a general harmonious impression, the different
styles peculiar to the different periods, particularly orders of
pillars, must be retained in their historical order, and in their rich
glory of colours.
The coloured wall-paintings cannot be omitted. Every temple, every
grave, every palace-wall was covered by the Egyptians from top to bottom
with painted sculptures or pictures. The first question is, in what
style these pictures should be carried out. They can now either be free
compositions in the Greek style, or strictly Egyptian representations,
but avoiding Egyptian perspective; therefore a kind of translation,
after the manner of the wall-frieze in the _Musée Charles X._ or,
finally, they could be exact copies of pure Egyptian representations
drawn by us and only employed in such places where necessity requires
it. As to the first style, I really think that such a man as Cornelius
would be able to gain something grand and beautiful, even from such a
task, if he were inclined to enter upon so foreign a field; but then the
public would probably take a great deal more interest in the painter
than in the representations from a history yet so strange to him.
The second style[150] might perhaps be worthy of trial, which, in a
single instance, might also succeed, and then certainly would not be
without interest. Still I am quite convinced that such hybrid
representations in a long series would not satisfy the necessary
requirements, because they would take for granted a perfection in two
art-languages, and would also certainly displease the public. All the
attempts I have hitherto met with, at different times, in this style
have, according to my own feelings, totally failed, and become
ridiculous in the eyes of artists, although, as I said before, I do not
believe that such an attempt might not succeed once, with careful
selection of the subjects. To me, it therefore seems that the third, but
least assuming style, alone remains; but it unites so many advantages
that I well believe it will gain your approval.
As to the subjects of the representations, there can scarcely be a
doubt, They must represent the culminating point of Egyptian history,
civilisation, and art, in a characteristic manner, and I myself was
astonished at the wealth of most appropriate situations, which
immediately present themselves if we pass in review what yet lies before
us of Egyptian history. In order to give you a cursory idea of it, I
will communicate the single points which I wrote down while I was yet
in doubt whether one or other of the two first styles of representation
might not be employed. Of course, a much more extended commentary would
be necessary for this than I can now present; but a merely preliminary
view is all that is required now. The names enclosed in brackets show
where the materials for single compositions would be found.
ANTE-HISTORICAL.
Elevation of the God HORUS to the divine throne of OSIRIS
(Dendera). As a contrast to the last number.
OLD EMPIRE.
Dyn. I. Departure of MENES from This, the city of Osiris.
Founding of MEMPHIS, the city of Phthah, by Menes.
Dyn. IV. Building of the Pyramids under CHEOPS and CHEPHREN.
Dyn. VI. Union of the two crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt under the
hundred years of the reign of APAPPUS.
Dyn. XII. Temple of Ammon at THEBES, the city of Ammon, founded by
Sesurtesen I. in the twelfth dynasty.
Immigrating HYKSOS (Benihassan).
LABYRINTH and LAKE MŒRIS, works of AMENEMHA III. in the twelfth
dynasty.
Dyn. XIII. Shortly afterwards the IRRUPTION of the HYKSOS into
Lower Egypt.
Expulsion of the Egyptian rulers into Ethiopia.
Supremacy of the Hyksos.
NEW EMPIRE.
Dyn. XVII.--XVIII. AMENOPHIS I. and the black Queen Aahmesnefruari.
TUTHMOSIS III. expels the HYKSOS from Abaris.
JERUSALEM founded by them.
AMENOPHIS III. Memnon and the vocal statue.
Persecution of the Egyptian gods and introduction of sun-worship
under Bech-en-Aten (Amarna).
King HORUS the avenger.
Dyn. XIX. SETHOS I. (Sethosis, Sesostris) Conquest of CANAAN
(Karnak). Joseph and his brethren.
RAMSES II. the Great, Miamun; war with the Cheta (Ramesseum.)[151]
The (brick-making) Israelites (Thebes) built Pithom and Ramses
under Ramses II.[152]
Colonisation of GREECE from Egypt
MENEPHTHES. DEPARTURE of the ISRAELITES to Sinai. MOSES before
Pharoah. Beginning of the new SIRIUS PERIOD, 1322, B.C.
Dyn. XX. RAMSES III. Battle from Medînet Habu.
Dyn. XXI. SHESHENK I. (Shishak) takes JERUSALEM (Thebes).
Dyn. XXV. SABAKO the Ethiopian, rules in Egypt.
Dyn. XXVI. PSAMMETICHUS the Philhellene elevates the arts.
Departure of the war-caste to Ethiopia.
Dyn. XXVII. CAMBYSES rages, and destroys temples and statues.
Dyn. XXX. NECTANEBUS (Philæ).
ALEXANDER, son of Ammon, conquers Egypt; builds Alexandria.
Ptolemæus PHILADELPHUS founds the library.
CLEOPATRA and CÆSARION (Dendera).
CHRIST near Heliopolis.
So large the selection would, of course, not be, if we had only to do
with existing paintings. The Old Empire would then first begin with the
fourth dynasty, and the Hyksos period would be entirely wanting, because
nothing is preserved of an earlier date to the former, and nothing
remains of the latter.
But, on the other hand, Egyptian art could be represented more fully,
and each painting would have a scientific interest. I had preliminarily
made the following selection, which, however, by reason of our great
riches in 1,300 drawings, could be enlarged and enlarged in every way.
MYTHOLOGY.
1. The greater and the lesser gods. First and second Divine
dynasty.
2. OSIRIS undertakes the government of the Lower World, (Karnak).
HORUS that of the Upper (Dendera).
3. Divine Triad of THIS and ABYDOS: OSIRIS, ISIS, HORUS.
4. Divine Triad of MEMPHIS: PHTHA, PACHT, IMHOTEP.
5. Divine Triad of THEBES: AMMON-RA, MUT, CHENSU.
OLD EMPIRE.
King CHUFU (Cheops), beheading enemies (Peninsula of Sinai).
Domestic Scene of the fourth and fifth dynasty (Gizeh and Saqâra).
APAPPUS unites the two crowns (Road to Kossêr).
SESURTESEN I., of the twelfth dynasty, conquers the Ethiopians
(Florence). Domestic scenes of the peaceful prince of the twelfth
dynasty. Asiatic attendants, forerunners of the Hyksos; wrestlers,
games, hunting, &c. (Benihassan). Colossus drawn by men (Bersheh).
Immigrating, fugitive Hyksos (Benihassan).
NEW EMPIRE.
Working of the quarries of Memphis (Tura).