it is indeed ascribed to the Emperor JUSTINIAN by SAÏD BEN BATRIK
(Eutychius), who wrote about 932-953 (D’Herbelot, s. v.), as well as in
the convent inscriptions of the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, which
have been communicated above; but this is most decidedly contradicted by
the far more reliable testimony, peculiarly valuable here, of PROCOPIUS,
who was the _cotemporary_ of Justinian. He says, in his special treatise
about the buildings founded by Justinian (Proc. ed. Dind. vol. iii. de
ædif. Just. p. 326), that the emperor built a _church_ to the mother of
God, “_not_ upon the summit of the mountain, but _a considerable way
below it_” (παρὰ πολὺ ἔνερθεν, in accordance with the locality, which can
only mean on the intermediate space of ground half-way up the mountain,
where the chapel to Elijah now stands). Separated from this he had also
erected a very strong castle (φρούριον) at the foot of the mountain
(ἐς τοῦ ὄρους πρόποδα), and provided it with a good military guard
to check the incursions of the Saracens into Palestine. As Procopius
directly before and afterwards, as well as throughout the whole paper,
distinguishes very exactly between the _convents_ and the _churches_,
and the military _guard-houses_, it is evident that, according to him,
Justinian did _not_ found the present convent together with his church.
The military castle was, however, probably at a later period employed,
and rebuilt into a convent. Besides, the church founded by Justinian
higher up the hill was not dedicated, like the present convent church,
to St. KATHARINE (see Le Quien, vol. iii. p. 1306), but to MARY. What
is said by Eutychius (who ROBINSON first cited, though he placed him
somewhat too early, still in the tenth century), both about the building
of the convent, and in still more direct contradiction with Procopius,
about a church built upon the _summit of the mountain_, deserves
therefore no more credit than the conversation between the emperor and
the architect, which is communicated. As little must we ascribe to
Justinian, on the statement of Ben Batrik, the foundation of the convents
of RAYEH (at Tôr) and of KOLZUM (a _bishop_ of Clysma, by name Poemes,
is inserted at the Constantinopolitan Council as early as 460; see Acta
Concil. ed. Harduin, ii. 696, 786), as in this case he would undoubtedly
have been mentioned by Procopius. PHARAN is not mentioned by Procopius.
On the contrary, he narrates (de bell. Pers. i. 19, 164; de ædif. 5,
8) the important fact, that the Saracen Prince Abocharagos, reigning
there, had presented the Emperor Justinian with a large palm-grove
(φοινικῶνα), situated in the centre of the land (ἐν τῇ μεσογαίᾳ). On
closer consideration of this account, scarcely a doubt can remain that
the palm-grove of PHARAN is here understood, not the place on the coast
Φοινίκων κώμη, mentioned by Ptolemy (vi. 7, 3), or a palm-grove totally
unknown to us, also situated in the midst of a solitary wilderness,
wholly unprovided with water. According to Ammonius and Nilus all the
inhabitants of Pharan had then become Christian, and a church at all
events existed there; thereby it is easier to understand the gift made
by Abocharagos, which Justinian himself presented to the Phylarch of the
Palestinian Saracens. No doubt the foundation of the castle in the higher
mountains, for watching over those Saracens, was in connection with this.
Next to Procopius, COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES is by far the most authentic
authority of that period. He was not only both a _cotemporary_ of
Justinian, but likewise describes (about 540) what he himself saw upon
the Peninsula. His work is the only one containing detailed geography
belonging to that period, and his unassuming narration bears everywhere
the marks of unvarnished truth. It is so much the more remarkable that
he neither mentions a convent edifice, nor indeed the localities at
Gebel Mûsa, but only PHARAN, although he had the path of the Israelites
especially in view. (See below more of this.) That on the other hand
ANTONINUS PLACENTINUS, who is held by others to be the _b. Antoninus
Martyr_, nevertheless in his ITINERARIUM (_Acta Sanctor. May_, vol. ii.
p. x-xviii), which is placed by Ritter about 600, should again speak
of a convent at the thorn-bush (Procopius does not yet make mention
of the thorn-bush), between Horeb and Sinai, therefore on the site of
the present convent, appears rather to lead us back to the opinion so
decidedly expressed by PAPEBROCH, who first published the Itinerary, that
this narrative, which has excited such various considerations, though
so learnedly defended, does not belong to an earlier period than the
eleventh or twelfth centuries. At all events, it would be very desirable
if the writings of Ammonius, Nilus, and Antoninus, that have been cited,
and so many others attributed to the first Christian centuries, were
submitted to a more searching and connected criticism than has hitherto
been the case.
The earliest bishop of Mount Sinai to whom we can refer, is not to be
found before the eleventh century, Bishop Jorius, who dies 1033 (Le
Quien, iii. 754). The name in the second Constantinopolitan Council (a.
553), signed _Phronimus episc. Synnaii_ (Acta Concil. ed. Harduin, vol.
iii. p. 53), or SYNAITANORUM (p. 206), and in the fourth council (a.
870), the one named _Constantinus_ ep. SYNAI (Harduin, vol. v. p. 927),
have been incorrectly brought hither (Ritter, Abhandl. der Berl. Akad.
1824, p. 216. Halbinsel Sinai, p. 96), as they belong to SYNAUS, or
SYNNAUS, in Phrygia.
APPENDIX G. (P. 320.)—It must be most absolutely denied that an
interrupted and distinct tradition about the position of Sinai in the
Peninsula was preserved as late as the Christian times. The name Choreb,
or Sinai, appears even at a very early period to have been understood
for the whole of the lofty range in the Peninsula, which was constantly
regarded from a distance as one single mountain. No one before the time
of the Christian hermits attached any interest in connecting a fixed
geographical notion with the name that had been transmitted. We only
read of ELIJAH that he fled to the “Mount of God Choreb,” and there
(1 Kings xix. 9) went into the same cave (for it is presupposed that
it is known) in which the Lord had already appeared to Moses on Mount
Sinai (2 Exodus xxxiii. 22). The native Arab tribes by degrees became
so much changed, that not one of the Old Testament names remained in
its original position. The Greeks and Romans only knew _one_ spot on
the whole Peninsula, the _Palm-wood of Pharan_, because this spot only,
and the harbour leading to it, was of any importance since the mines
of that wilderness had been exhausted. Firân must of necessity have
been the earliest central point for the Christian hermits also; that
mountainous wilderness, affording necessary means of sustenance, in the
greatest retirement, must have appeared better adapted for them than any
other district, since here we also find the most _ancient church_ of the
Peninsula. When gradually the individual Biblical localities began to be
more accurately investigated, people had no other means for forming their
determinations than we possess now, and besides understood far less to
employ these means, since all acute criticism of the Biblical passages,
which could alone give them information, at that time lay far removed.
They understood the name SINAI as an indeterminate appellation for the
whole range; but when they searched for Sinai in a single mountain,
SERBÂL then must have immediately presented itself. Thither also points
all that we read about the matter in authentic writings during the first
centuries, but to these the writing of the monk Ammonius certainly does
not belong in the opinion of those who examine accurately, and hardly
the edifying romance of Nilus. What JOSEPHUS (Ant. iii. 5) says of Sinai
(τὸ Σιναῖον) may very well refer to Serbâl, at all events not to Gebel
Mûsa, as has been already shown by HOGG (in several passages, p. 207).
According to EUSEBIUS, Choreb and Raphidîm were situated _at_ PHARAN
(ἐγγὺς Φαράν, see note, p. 313), and Sinai near Choreb (παράκειται τῷ
ὄρει Σινᾶ, see above). JEROME (s. v. _Choreb_) regards both mounts as
one, which he likewise places _at_ PHARAN, and consequently recognises
in SERBÂL. The account by NILUS also, about the Saracenic attack at
Sinai, either does not belong to the time in which it is placed (c.
400), or refers to SERBÂL, for here a _church_ (ἐκκλησία) is frequently
(p. 38, 46) mentioned, which at that time did not exist at Gebel Mûsa,
and Nilus, that _very same_ night in which the scattered slain had been
buried, goes down to Pharan, which would have been impossible from Gebel
Mûsa. Finally, COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, who traversed the Peninsula about
the year 535, probably immediately before the building of the Justinian
church, passes through Raithu, _i. e._ Tôr, which he regards as Elim,
although he only found a few palm-trees there (the present considerable
plantations are, therefore, of more recent date), and across the present
Wadi Hebrân to Raphidîm, which is now called PHARAN. Here he was at the
termination of his Sinai journey. From this spot Moses went with the
elders “upon the Mount Choreb, _i. e._ Sinai, which is about 6000 paces
(one mile and a half) distant from Pharan,” and struck the water out of
the rock; here also the tabernacle of the congregation was built, and the
law was given; thereby the Israelites besides received the Scripture, and
had leisure to learn it for their application; thence we may date the
numerous rock-inscriptions which are still to be found in that wilderness
(especially at Serbâl). (Εἶτα πάλιν παρενέβαλον εἰς Ῥαφιδίν, εἰς τὴν νῦν
καλουμένην Φαράν· καὶ διψευσάντων αὐτῶν, πορεύεται κατὰ πρόσταξιν θεοῦ
ὁ Μωϋσῆς μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἡ ῥάβδὸς ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, εἰς Χωρὴβ
τὸ ὄρος, τουτέστιν ἐν τῷ Σιναΐῳ, ἐγγὺς ὄντι τῆς Φαρὰν ὡς ἀπό μιλίων ἕξ·
(Burckhardt, _Trav. in Syr._ p. 611, when he descended Serbâl, occupied
two hours and a half, from its base to Wadi Firân) καὶ ἐκεῖ πατάξαντος
τὴν πέτραν, ἐῤῥύησεν ὕδατα πολλὰ καὶ ἔπιεν ὁ λαός.—Λοιπὸν κατεληλυθότος
αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους προστάττεται ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ποιεῖν τὴν σκηνήν), etc.
(_Topograph. christ._ lib. v. in the _Coll. nova patr. ed. B. de
Montfaucon_, tom. ii. p. 195, _seq._)
This testimony of an unprejudiced traveller is expressed with as much
distinctness, as it is worthy of confidence and without suspicion. At
the commencement of the sixth century, therefore, according to this
eye-witness, it was believed that the law had been given on SERBÂL.
Cosmas has so little doubt about the matter, that he does not even
mention the southern range. Nevertheless, we must admit that the monkish
population had already spread over the whole of the mountain range,
especially among the districts in a sheltered situation about Gebel Mûsa;
and we need not be surprised that a different view was formed among the
monks there situated, according to which Moses turned to the south,
instead of towards the north, coming from the height of Wadi Hebrân (for
the idea that Elim was Raithu was a fixed conviction already cherished
by the convent, prematurely founded there). Such changes are of frequent
occurrence in Christian topography. But however closely Horeb and Sinai,
Raphidîm and the Mount of the Law, appear in the representation, it
follows again from this, that associated with Sinai, the rock from which
the water flowed was moved farther south. The monks were not deterred
by the verses at the commencement of the 19th chapter from transferring
the rock of Raphidîm, and consequently Raphidîm itself, as well as the
thorn-bush of Horeb, also to Gebel Mûsa, their new Sinai; there in Wadi
Leg´a (Robinson, i. p. 184) it is still shown for the admiration of
travellers. Thus the unlettered apprehension of the monks that Raphidîm
was situated at Sinai, approached nearer to the truth on this head than
the more recent verbal criticism.
The legate of Justinian now found it appropriate to found his castle
in that secure position, and to build a church at that very spot for
the hermits who were dwelling around it. It is quite conceivable that
this alone would have contributed to attract many new hermits thither,
and to originate a new view about the position of the Mount of the Law,
if this had not previously existed. But how both views accommodated
themselves to each other during the centuries immediately succeeding,
we have absolutely no distinct proofs. At all events, while Mount
SINAI is frequently mentioned after the foundation of the bishopric of
Pharan, we must be guarded not to understand it to be Gebel Mûsa, unless
something further is said. Ordinarily, the lofty range of the Peninsula
seems in general to be understood by it. When, for example, as early as
the year 536, therefore probably before the erection of the church, at
the _Concilium sub Mena_ at Constantinople, one _Theonas, presbyter et
legatus S. Montis Sinai et deserti Raithu et S. ecclesiæ Pharan_ (Θεωνᾶς
ἐλεῷ θεοῦ πρεσβύτερος καὶ ἀποκρισιάριος τοῦ ἁγίου ὄρούς Σινᾶ καὶ τῆς
ἐρήμου Ῥαιθοῦ καὶ τῆς κατὰ Φαρὰν ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας. Harduin, vol. ii. p.
1281) is named, the church of Pharan, at that time the still undoubted,
most important central point and bishopric would have been first
mentioned, if the monks scattered over the whole range and the plain of
Raithu had not been regarded more comprehensive, and on that account
placed first. LE QUIEN (iii. p. 753) mentions the _Episcopi Pharan
sivi Montis Sinai_ in succession, and, as the earliest with the last
designation, the above-mentioned Bishop Jorius († 1033). Since then, and
even since Eutychius (c. 940), the designation of the single Gebel Mûsa,
as Sinai, is indeed beyond all doubt.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Chronologie der Ægypter. Vol. i. Berlin, 1849.
[2] On the sudden death of Bishop Alexander, which happened shortly
after our departure from Palestine, Gobat, as is known, was selected
by H. M. the King of Prussia to be Bishop of the Evangelical Bishopric
of Jerusalem, which he has administered, by the blessing of God,
efficaciously ever since 1846.
[3] Previous to my departure from Alexandria, the firman of the
Viceroy was presented to me, with unlimited permission to make all the
excavations which I might think desirable, and with instructions to
the local authorities to render me assistance. All the workmen and aid
necessary for forming and transporting our collection of antiquities,
were demanded in return for money, through virtue of our firman, from the
Sheikhs of the neighbouring villages, or the Mudhirs of the provinces,
by the Kawass, who had been given us by the government, and they were
never refused. The monuments from the southern regions were transported
from Mount Barkal to Alexandria on government boats, and three sepulchral
chambers near the great Pyramids of Gizeh were also added, which were
carefully taken to pieces by the aid of four workmen, sent expressly for
the purpose from Berlin, and were put on board a vessel opposite Old
Cairo. I also received, before my departure from Egypt, a written permit
for the exportation of the collection; and the objects themselves were
presented from the Viceroy to H. M. the King of Prussia.
These peculiar favours, at a time when all private travellers,
antiquarian speculators, and even diplomatic persons, were expressly
forbidden by the Egyptian Government to make any collection, or to export
antiquities, have caused many unfavourable judgments to be passed on our
expedition. We have been chiefly accused of a thirst for destruction,
which, under the given circumstances, would presuppose a peculiarly
barbarous feeling to have existed in our party; for as we did not, like
many of our rivals, excavate and transport the monuments, the greater
part of which had previously been invisible, hurriedly and by night,
and with bribed assistance, but leisurely, and with open aid from the
authorities, and before the eyes of numerous travellers, all disregard in
our treatment of the remaining monuments, of which perhaps they formed a
part, would certainly have been so much the more blameable, since it was
so easy to avoid it. We might, however, trust to a more correct judgment
than what is usually possessed by the greater proportion of ordinary
travellers or collectors, with regard to the value of the individual
monuments; besides, we were not, after all, in danger of being deceived
in this matter by personal self-interest, as we made our selection of
the monuments not for ourselves, but commissioned by our government, for
the Royal Museum in Berlin, therefore for the benefit of science, and a
public eager after knowledge.
The collection, which chiefly on account of its historical value, may
be placed on an equal footing with the most important European museums,
was incorporated immediately on its arrival with the Royal collections,
without my remaining myself officially connected with it; and it is
already arranged and exhibited to the public. A more accurate examination
is best fitted to place the inconsiderate accusations of more recent, and
even German tourists, in their proper light, some of whom have gone so
far, for example, very recently, Herr Julius Braun, in the _Algemeiner
Augsburg Gazette_, as to charge us with the mutilation of the gods,
which happened more than 3000 years ago, in the temple of El Kab.
Besides, it would prove an entire ignorance of Egyptian affairs at the
present time, or of that which chiefly lends the monuments of antiquity
their real interest to us, if all were not desirous to preserve in the
public museums of Europe, as many as possible of the treasures of those
countries, which are really as valuable, as they are undervalued in their
own home, and numbers of which are still daily destroyed.
[4] The journal of this expedition up the Nile has been since published
under the title Expedition zur Entdeckung der Quellen des Weissen Nil,
1840-1841. By Ferd. Werne. With a Preface by Karl Ritter. A map and a
table of figures. Berlin: G. Reimer 1848. 8vo.
[5] Abbas Pascha has been Viceroy of Egypt since the death of Ibrahim
Pascha in 1848.
[6] This paper—An account of the river Goschop, and of the countries of
Enarea, Caffa, and Doko, given by a native of Enarea (with a map)—has
been translated by Ritter, and was communicated to the Geographical
Society at Berlin on the 7th January, 1843, and was printed in the
monthly reports of this society in the latter part of the year. P.
172-188.
[7] On our departure for Upper Egypt, we had minutely examined 130
private tombs, and had discovered the remains of 67 Pyramids.
[8] See my essay, _Sûr 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.
[9] See p. 118.
[10] _Proskynemata._ “Sometimes travellers who happened to pass by a
temple inscribed a votive sentence on the walls, to indicate their
respect for the deity, and solicit his protection during their journey,
the complete formula of which contained the adoration (_proskunéma_) of
the writer, with the assurance that he had been mindful of his wife, his
family, and friends; and the reader of the inscription was sometimes
included in a share of the blessings it solicited. The date of the king’s
reign, and the day of the month, were also added, with the profession
and parentage of the writer.”—_Wilkinson’s Ancient Egypt_, vol. iii., p.
395.—TR.
[11] “Every Pharaoh was the Sun of Egypt, and over his name bore ‘Son of
the Sun;’ and as the sun was Phra, so each king was called Phra. Each
monarch by law inherited his father’s throne in lineal succession, so
that the incumbent was Phra son of Phra.”—_Gliddon’s Ancient Egypt_, p.
32.—TR.
[12] The colours have now, alas! almost entirely disappeared. Owing to
the unequal grain of the stone all the representations were prepared
with a thin layer of lime for the groundwork, before they were painted;
this lime has peeled off in the transport and by the action of the damp
sea air, so that the rough sculpture alone remains. In the Work on the
Monuments of the Prussian Expedition (Div. II., sheet 19-22), the colours
have been given faithfully, as they were preserved in their original
freshness when covered by the sand.
[13] After our return from the south, two entire sepulchral chambers,
besides the one here mentioned, were taken to pieces and brought to
Europe. All three are now reconstructed, with the other monuments, in the
New Museum at Berlin. _See_ Letter XXXV.
[14] A separate essay, Ueber den Bau der Pyramiden, was sent by me to the
Royal Academy of Sciences in 1843, and it was printed in consequence of
a resolution of the 3rd of August of that year. See the Monthly Report
(Monats Bericht) of the Academy, 1843, p. 177-203, with three Plates.
[15] I have spoken more at length on this in my Chronology of the
Egyptians, vol. i., p. 294.
[16] We have been told on good authority that this statue is not composed
of granite, but of limestone from the neighbouring hills.—TR.
[17] Compare my essay, _Ueber die ausgedehnte Anwendung des Spitzbogens
in Deutschland im 10 und 11 Jahrhundert_, as an Introduction to H. Gally
Knight’s Entwickelung der Architectur vom 10 bis 14 Jahrhundert unter den
Normannen, translated from the English; Leipzig, 1841, at G. Wigand’s;
and my father’s treatise, _Der Dom zu Naumburg_, by C. P. Lepsius;
Leipzig, 1840 (in Puttrich’s Denkm. der Bauk., ii., Lief. 3, 4)
[18] He among them blushes, who cannot show many strokes upon his body,
for non-payment of tribute.—TR.
[19] _Kaftan_, an open tunic.—TR.
[20] _Tarbusch_, red cap.—TR.
[21] The Germans generally calculate distance by the _hour_, which
corresponds to about three English miles, as this distance can be
traversed at a foot pace within that space of time.—TR.
[22] About twopence-halfpenny English money.
[23] Compare my Chronology of the Egyptians, i., p. 262, &c.
[24] According to Linant, the difference amounts to 22 metres, that
is, 70 feet Rheinland (72 English). In June, 1843, an engineer of the
Viceroy, Nascimbeni, who was engaged in making a new map, and levelling
the Faiûm, visited us in our camp, at the Pyramid of Mœris. He had only
found a descent of 2 metres (6 feet 6 inches English) from Illahûn to
Medînet, but from thence to Birqet-el-Qorn, 75 metres (246 feet English).
I am not aware that anything has been published about this considerable
difference of measurements. Sir G. Wilkinson, in his Mod. Eg. and Thebes,
vol. ii., 346, states the surface of the water to be about 125 English
feet below the bank of the Nile at Beni-suef.
[25] Mémoire sur le lac Mœris, presenté et lu à la Société Egyptienne le
5 Juillet, 1842, par Linant de Bellefonds, inspecteur-général des ponts,
et chaussées, publié par la Société Egyptienne. Alexandrie, 1843. 4to.
Compare my Chronology, vol. i., p. 262 &c.
[26] The same Domenico Lorda again travelled that year to Abyssinia, and
sent six other Abyssinian manuscripts to Herr Lieder from thence, who
showed them to me on my return to Cairo. These, also, on my suggestion,
were afterwards obtained for the Royal Library. By M. Lorda’s account
they contain:
A. ABUSCHER—Almanacco perpetuo Civile-Ecclesiastico-Storico.
B. SETTA NEGHEST—Codice dell’ Imperadore Eeschias.
C. JUSEPH—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.
[27] _Sont_, or Acacia, Mimosa Nilotica.—_Sir G. Wilkinson._—TR.
[28] This letter, addressed to Alexander von Humboldt, has been already
printed in the _Prussian Gazette_, Berlin, 9th Feb., 1844.
[29] “Dedicated to King Ptolemy and Cleopatra, his sister, benevolent
deities.”—TR.