thirty-fifth year of Euergetes (B.C. 136), is of importance in certain
chronological determinations of that period. Letronne (Rec. des Inscr.,
vol. i., p. 33-56) assumed that Cleopatra III., the niece and second
wife of Euergetes II., was here meant. Hence alone he concluded that
this king, in the official documents written before his expulsion, in
the year 132 B.C., only joined the name of his wife, Cleopatra III., to
his own, and therefore he fixed the date of all the inscriptions, in
which both the Cleopatras, the sister, and the (second) wife are named
after the king, in the period after the return of Euergetes (127-117),
_e. g._ the inscriptions on the obelisk of Philæ (Rec., vol. 1., p.
333). In this determination of the time, he is followed by Franz (Corp.
Inscr., vol. iii., p. 285), who, for the same reason, fixes the date of
the inscriptions (c. i., no. 4841, 4860, 4895, 4896) between B.C. 127 and
117, although he was already aware of my correction of the inscription of
Pselchis (c. i., no. 5073).
It is indeed singular that only _one_ Cleopatra is mentioned in the
inscription of Pselchis; but as it is Cleopatra II., the _first_ wife
of the king, who he always distinguishes from his second wife by the
appellation of _sister_; it cannot thence be concluded that from the very
commencement of his second marriage he expressly excluded all mention of
the latter in the documents. This also is confirmed in the most distinct
manner by two Demotic Papyri belonging to the royal museum, in which
_both_ Cleopatras are mentioned, although the one papyrus is as early as
the year B.C. 141, the other, a duplicate, is from the year B.C. 136. All
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), from the reasons stated, date between the years B.C. 127
and 117, may, therefore, still be placed, with equal probability, in the
years 145 to 132.
[31] Compare Letronne, Recueil des Inscriptions Grecques de l’Egypte,
tome i., p. 365, &c. Ptolemy EUPATOR is not mentioned by authors. He was
introduced for the first time among the predecessors of Soter II., who
were worshipped as divinities, in a Greek papyrus [in Leyden[A]], which
was composed in the reign of Soter II., in the year B.C. 105, and he was
inserted between Philometor and Euergetes. Böckh, who published the
Papyrus (1821), referred the surname of Euergetes to Soter II. and his
wife, and considered EUPATOR to be a surname of the deified EUERGETES II.
In the same year, Champollion Figeac also wrote about this papyrus, and
endeavoured to prove that Eupator was the son of Philometor, who was
killed by Euergetes II., on his ascent to the throne. This view was
assented to at a later period by St. Martin, Böckh, and Letronne (Rech.
pour ser à l’Hist. de l’Eg., p. 124). Meanwhile, the name of EUPATOR was
discovered in a second papyrus from the reign of Soter II., as well as
in the letter of Numenius on the Philensic obelisk of H. Bankes, from
the time of Euergetes II. In both inscriptions the name of Eupator was
mentioned; it did not, however, follow, but preceded Philometor, and
therefore could not signify his son. Letronne now conjectured (Recueil des
Inscr., vol. i., p. 365) that EUPATOR was another surname of Philometor.
But then it would not have been καὶ θεοῦ Εὐπάτορος καὶ θεοῦ Φιλομήτορος,
but καὶ θεοῦ Εὐπάτορος τοῦ καὶ Φιλομήτορος. In a letter to Letronne, of
the 1st Dec., 1844, from Thebes, which is printed in the Révue Archéol.,
vol. i., p. 678, &c., I communicated to him that I had also found the
name of EUPATOR in several hieroglyphic inscriptions, and indeed always
_before_ Philometor. The same reason which I had employed against
Letronne’s explanation of the Greek name (the passage is not printed
along with it in the Révue), namely, the simple repetition of the θεοῦ,
did not even permit us in the hieroglyphic list to consider EUPATOR
another surname of Philopator. He must have been a Ptolemy who, for a
short time at least, was acknowledged as king, but who is not mentioned
by authors; and, indeed, according to Franz (Corp. Inscr., vol. iii., p.
285), and also by the acknowledgment of Letronne (Rec., vol. ii., p. 536),
he must have been an elder brother of Philometor, who died in a few
months, and therefore was omitted in the Ptolemaic canon.
But the son of Philometor, and of his sister, Cleopatra II., mentioned
by Justinus and Josephus, who was formerly believed to have been
re-discovered in the Eupator of the [Leyden] papyrus, is particularly
mentioned in the hieroglyphic inscriptions among the other Ptolemies,
in his place between Philometor and Euergetes, and we thence become
acquainted with his name, which had not been added by the authors. He
is sometimes named PHILOPATOR, sometimes NEOS PHILOPATOR, and he must
therefore also be placed in future as PHILOPATOR II. in the series of the
reigning Ptolemies. Among fourteen hieroglyphic lists of the Ptolemies,
which come down at least as far as the second Euergetes, seven of their
number give PHILOPATOR II.; in four other lists, in which his name
might appear, he is passed over, and these all seem to belong to the
first years of Euergetes II., his murderer, when the omission is easily
explained. It is natural that he does not appear in the canon, because
neither he nor Eupator lived to witness a change of the Egyptian year
during his reign; on the other hand, as was to be expected, he is also
named in the protocol of the _Demotic Papyrus_, in which the Ptolemies
who are worshipped as divinities are exhibited, and in which Young had
also already correctly acknowledged EUPATOR. In fact, he is here cited
in all the lists with which I am acquainted (five in Berlin, from the
years 114, 103, 99, 89, one in Turin from the year 89), which are of
more recent date than Euergetes II., as well as in a Berlin papyrus from
the fifty-second year of Euergetes himself (B.C. 118). A comparison
also of the demotic lists shows finally that the transposition of the
names EUPATOR and PHILOMETOR in the Greek papyrus from the year B.C.
105 (not 106, as Franz writes—Corp. Inscr., p. 285) is not alone an
error of the copyist in writing, as this, and other transpositions also,
are not unfrequent in the Demotic Papyrus. The different object of
the hieroglyphic and the demotic lists makes it conceivable that such
deviations were not admissible in the former, as in the latter lists.
[A] _Note._—_Leyden_ in place of _Berlin_, both here and below,
is a correction by the author, April, 1853.—TR.
[32] Wilkinson (Mod. Eg. and Th., vol. ii., p. 275) considers this
CLEOPATRA TRYPHÆNA to be the celebrated Cleopatra, the daughter of Neos
Dionysos; Champollion (Lettres d’Eg., p. 110) thinks she is the wife
of Philometor; but the Shields connected with her name belong neither
to Ptolemy XIV., the elder son of Neos Dionysos, nor to Ptolemy VI.
Philometor, but to Ptolemy XIII. Neos Dionysos, or Auletes, who is always
called on the monuments Philopator Philadelphus. CLEOPATRA TRYPHÆNA was,
consequently, the wife of PTOLEMY AULETES.
[33] The inscription alluded to is to be found in the rock-grotto of
ECHMIM, and was undoubtedly first engraved before the reign of Ptolemy
Philadelphus. He is also named with double shields and the usual royal
titles, but without the surname of Soter upon a _stele_ in Vienna,
which was erected in the reign of Philopator. Here, however, he bears
a different Throne-shield from that in Echmim, and certainly, strange
to say, it is the same which even before his time was borne by Philip
Aridæus, and Alexander II., under whom Ptolemy, son of Lagus, was
governor of Egypt. He is also mentioned upon a statue of the king in
the ruins of Memphis, on which the Horus name of the king also appears,
and which probably might have been engraved during his reign. Finally,
the SOTERS are also frequently mentioned by their surnames alone at
the head of the worshipped ancestors of later kings; as in the Rosetta
inscription, and in the bilingual decrees of Philæ (see below, p. 121),
𓊹𓊹, while SOTER II. is always written 𓊪𓊹𓏌𓏏𓏭𓈖𓈞𓂡 _p. nuter enti
nehem_, which would correspond to the Coptic ⲡ.ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲧ-ⲛⲉϩⲙ, _deus
servator_. In the _demotic_ inscriptions, the first Soters are also
designated by _nehem_, and in the singular by the Greek word, _p. suter_.
Although, therefore, it cannot be doubted that the SOTERS who, according
to the Demotic Papyrus, were especially worshipped along with the other
Ptolemies, not only in ALEXANDRIA and PTOLEMAIS, but also in THEBES,
were regarded as the head of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, it is nevertheless
so much the more remarkable, that hitherto not a single structure can be
pointed out which was erected under Ptolemy Soter when king, although
he ruled twenty years in this capacity. In addition to this, the
above-mentioned hieroglyphic lists of the Ptolemies commence the series
without exception, _not_ with the _Soters_, but with the _Adelphes_; and,
as was mentioned before, his shields in Echmim bear _no_ royal title;
and in Karnak under Euergetes II., in one and the same representation,
Philadelphus is designated as _king_, and the _Soter_, corresponding to
him in space, as _no king_. In the _demotic_ series of kings, also, of
the Papyrus, the Alexandrine series was wont to omit the Soters, till
the reign of Philometor, and to make the _Adelphes_ immediately succeed
Alexander the Great. The earliest period that I have met with the Soters
is in a Papyrus, from the 17th year of Philopator (B.C. 210), the oldest
of the Berlin collection; the Theban worship of the Ptolemies seems to
have wholly excluded the Soters. Although the commencement of the royal
government is therefore fixed in the year B.C. 305, as is specified
in the canon, and most undeniably confirmed by the above-mentioned
_hieroglyphic stele in Vienna_, which has been already cited for that
purpose by my friend, M. Pinder (Beitr. zur Aelterem Münzkunde, vol. i.,
p. 201) in his instructive essay, On the Era of Philip upon Coins, it
appears, however, to have offered another legitimate opinion, by which
not Ptolemy Lagus, but Philadelphus, the first son of the king (if not
Porphyrogenitus), was considered the head of the Ptolemies. It may thence
be also explained why we find an astronomical Era employed in the reign
of Euergetes, that of the otherwise unknown Dionysius, which began from
the year 285, the first year of the reign of Philadelphus, while the
coins of Philadelphus do not reckon as the commencement of a new era
from the beginning of his own reign, nor from the year 305, but from the
year of the death of Alexander the Great, or the commencement of the
governorship of Ptolemy. (_See_ Pinder, p. 205.)
[34] _See_ Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Abth. II., Bl. 123-133.
[35] _See_ Denkmäl. Abth. II., Bl. 134.
[36] _Panegyrics_: public religious assemblies which were periodically
held in Egypt.—_Kenrick’s Ancient Egypt._—TR.
[37] _See_ Denkmäl. Abth. IV., Bl. 38, 39.—A special essay on these
inscriptions is prepared.
[38] The first news of the discovery of these important inscriptions,
which had not been noticed by the French-Tuscan expedition, excited some
surprise. Simultaneously with the more exact description of them in the
_Prussian Gazette_, a short English notice of them appeared, in which the
discovery of a second copy of the Rosetta inscription was mentioned, and,
indeed, in Meröe. More recently, when M. Ampère had brought an impression
of the inscription to Paris, the learned academician, M. de Saulcy,
denied that the decree had anything to do with the Rosetta inscription,
and felt himself obliged to ascribe it to Ptolemy Philometor. I therefore
took an opportunity to point out more accurately, in two letters to H.
Letronne (Rev. Archéol., vol. iv., p. i., &c., and p. 240, &c.), as well
as in an essay, in the Papers of the German Oriental Society (vol. i., p.
264, &c.), that the document in question had been drawn up in the 21st
year of Ptolemy Epiphanes, and that it contained a repetition of the
actual decree of the Rosetta inscription, which referred to Cleopatra,
who had meanwhile been elevated to the throne.
[39] The name Cleopatra, instead of Arsinoë, in the hieroglyphic
inscription, appears solely to rest on an error of the writer, which was
avoided in the demotic inscription, for here Arsinoë stands correctly.
The hieroglyphic text of the inscription of Rosetta is also less correct
than the demotic.
[40] Such designations appear even at an earlier period. Thus, in Thebes,
an “Ammon of Tuthmosis (III.)” is mentioned. It thereby appears that one
of the kings named was designated for the newly-established worship of
these gods. Ramses II. dedicated three great rock-temples in Lower Nubia,
at _Derr_, _Gerf Hussên_, and _Sebûa_, to the three greatest gods of
Egypt, _Ra_, _Phtha_, and _Ammon_ (See my Memoir on the earliest Cycle
of the Egyptian Gods, in the papers of the Academy of Berlin, 1851),
and named the places founded there simultaneously after the same gods,
accordingly in Greek HELIOPOLIS, HEPHAISTOPOLIS, and DIOSPOLIS. The same
Ramses founded a fourth powerful and fortified position, Abusimbel, and
called it after himself RAMESSOPOLIS, or the FORTRESS OF RAMESSOPOLIS,
as he also founded two towns in the Delta, and called them after his
own name. Now it is, undoubtedly, with reference to these new worships,
that the gods there adored were named Ammon of Ramses, and Phtha of
Ramses. The king himself was worshipped along with those gods, in these
particular rock-temples, especially in that of Abusimbel.
[41] Compare passages in Letters XXIV., XXVI., XXVII. A grammar and
vocabulary of the Nuba language, as well as a translation of the Gospel
of St. Mark into the Nubian tongue, is ready for publication.
[42] Dhorra. _Holcus sorghum._ Kenrick, Anc. Eg.—TR.
[43] I have since then received intelligence of the death of Herr Bauer,
which happened only the following year.
[44] Russegger (Reise, 2 Bd., 2 Thl., S. 125) found one specimen of this
tree, 95 feet in circumference. He is mistaken when he calls it GANGLES;
the tree is called HÓMARA, and the fruit GUNGULES.
[45] _Wakil_, or deputy.—TR.
[46] The poems contain many unusual grammatical forms and expressions,
and are composed in a very free, and, as it appears, in some measure,
incorrect style.
[47] About six English miles.—TR.
[48] These monuments are now placed in the Egyptian Museum (Berlin). See
the ram and sparrow-hawk in the _Denkmäler aus Egypt. und Ethiop., Abth.
III., Blatt 90_.
[49] By the pods and their kernels, which we brought away with us, Dr.
Klotsch has recognised the _Moringa Arabica Persoon_ (_Hyperanthera
peregrina Forskål_). It seems that this tree has hitherto only been known
in Arabia, and is indigenous there. The individual trees found near
Barkal, which are not mentioned by previous travellers, might perhaps
have been introduced from Arabia. This is the more probable, as the
immigration of those tribes of the Schaiqîeh Arabs from Heg’âz is still
testified in writing.
[50] The expression is, that he has built the Temple 𓂙𓈖𓏏𓆑𓋹𓁶𓇾𓈅𓏤𓇳𓎟𓁧
“to his living image on earth RA-NEB-MA.” The word _chent_ no longer
exists in the Coptic language, but is always translated in the Rosetta
inscription by εἰκών. The temple, and the locality belonging to it, was
also named after the king, but after his Horus name, “The Dwelling of
Scha-em-ma.” From this we may trace the origin of the Ram of Barkal and
the Lion in the British Museum.
[51] This theory of Dr. Lepsius, of the bed of the Nile having been
excavated to a depth of 25 feet in 4000 years, has been examined by
Leonard Horner, Esq., F.R.S., in a paper published in the _Edinburgh
Philosophical Journal_ for July, 1850. Dr. Lepsius having in a letter,
dated 12th April, 1853, addressed to Mr. Horner, expressed a wish that
that paper should be reprinted in the present volume, it will be found
accordingly in the Appendix.—TR.
[52] King of the Noubadœ and the Ethiopians.—TR.
[53] Denkmäl., Abth. II., Bl. 245, 246.
[54] They are called Salamât, “the Salutations,” by earlier travellers.
My attention was called to the correct pronunciation of this word by
our old intelligent guide, ʾAuad. The alteration is very great to the
Arabs, because سَلَامٌ _salàm_, _salus_, is pronounced with the
dental _sin_, صَنَمٌ _sʾanam_, _idolum_, with the lingual _sʾâd_.
The plural, which usually is expressed by أصْنامٌ _asʾnâm_, here
assumes the feminine form صَنَمَاتٌ _sʾanamât_. It is impossible now
to see by the mutilated heads whether they were masculine figures. The
stone of which the statues are composed is a particularly hard quartzose
friable sandstone conglomerate, which looks as if it was glazed, and had
innumerable cracks. The frequent crackling of small particles of stone
at sunrise, when the change of temperature is greatest, in my opinion
produced the tones of Memnon, far-famed in song, which were compared to
the breaking of a musical string.
[55] See note, p. 239.
[56] This King AI was previously a private individual, and afterwards
assumed the priest’s title into his Royal Shield. He not unfrequently
appears with his wife in the tombs of Amarna, as a distinguished
and peculiarly highly venerated officer of King Amenophis IV., that
puritanical worshipper of the Sun, who changed his name into that of
BECH-EN-ATEN.
[57] The dimensions here stated have been taken from Wilkinson, Mod. Eg.
and Thebes, vol. ii., p. 220.
[58] _Apuleii Asclepius sive dialogus Hermetis Trismegisti_, c. 24.—(“Oh
Egypt! Egypt! fables alone of thy religion will survive, equally
incomprehensible to thy descendants; and words cut into stone will alone
remain telling of thy pious deeds, and the Scythian, or one from the
Indus, or some such neighbouring barbarian, will inhabit Egypt.”)—TR.
[59] I did not imagine, when I wrote this down, that this crime of blood
would so speedily be avenged. See Letter XXXIV.
[60] I have since been informed (_Rév. Arch._, vol. iv. p. 82) that M.
Ampère had been expressly sent to Egypt by the Paris Academy, for the
purpose of copying the bilingual inscription at Philæ, which I have
noticed in my letters. See above, p. 121. The exceedingly abridged
representation of the Demotic text, which was communicated by M. de
Saulcy in the _Révue Archéologique_, is borrowed from the copy which was
taken back to Paris, in which, however, the commencement of the Demotic
lines, and along with them the date of the decree, are wanting.
[61] _Rhamnus nabeca_, Wilkinson, Mod. Eg. and Thebes.—TR.
[62] These places were described for the first time accurately, and in an
instructive manner, by Wilkinson. Journ. of the R. Geogr. Soc., vol. ii.,
p. 28, &c.
[63] “Medicine for the soul.”—TR.
[64] These are the exact words of my journal, and as they were understood
by Ritter, p. 578. In the printed report, p. 8, it might appear as if
Robinson had relinquished the ascent of the whole of this part of the
mountain; in the memoir of the Bibliotheca Sacra, this is mentioned as
a mistake. But I was only speaking of the actual brow of the mountain
which projects into the plain, contrasted with the loftier point, though
situated on one side, which was ascended by Robinson.
[65] This account, which I addressed to H.M. the King of Prussia, was
printed while I was still absent in 1846, under the title of “_Reise
des Prof. Lepsius von Theben nach der Halbinsel des Sinai, vom 4 März
bis zum 14 April, 1845_,” _Berlin_, with two maps—a general map of the
Peninsula, and a special map of Serbâl and Wadi Firân, which was drawn
by G. Erbkam, from my notes, or statements. This printed pamphlet has
not been published, but only distributed to a few persons. Its contents,
however, have become better known, by a translation into English by Ch.
H. Cottrell (“A Tour from Thebes to the Peninsula of Sinai,” &c. London,
1846), and into French by F. Pergameni (“Voyage dans la Presq’ile du
Sinai, etc., lu à la Société de Géographie, séances du 21 Avril et du 21
Mai. Extrait du Bulletin de la Soc. Géogr., Juin, 1847.” Paris).
[66] The Nakb el Haui, “the Saddle of Wind,” is an extremely wild and
narrow mountain ravine, the depths of which are impassable, on account
of its steep precipices. The road must have been constructed with great
skill along the western mountain precipice, and is in many places hewn
out of the rock; in others, the crumbling ground has been paved with
great flat stones. There can be no doubt that this daring path was only
made after the erection of the convent, to maintain closer connection
with the town of Pharan, which, till that time, could only be reached by
the long circuitous route through the Wadi e’ Scheikh.
[67] The _Tamarix Gallica mannifera_ of Ehrenberg. See Wilkinson, Mod.
Eg. and Thebes, ii., 401.—TR.
[68] The _Moringa aptera_. See Wilkinson’s Mod. Eg. and Thebes, ii.,
404.—TR.
[69] It seems that this convent has not been visited by any very recent
travellers. Even Burckhardt, who calls it Sigillye, did not descend to
it, but heard that it was well built, spacious, and also provided with a
well, plentifully supplied with water. (Trav. in Syria, p. 610.) It is
much to be desired that more exact accounts could be obtained of this
convent, situated in the middle of the basin of Serbâl, as it probably
is one of the oldest, at any rate one of the most important in the
Peninsula, as is proved by the rock-road to it from Pharan, constructed
with much skill and difficulty.
[70] Denkmäl., Abth. II., Bl. 2, 116, 137, 140, 152; III., 28.
[71] See Appendix B.
[72] I find all whose judgment is of any weight holding this same
opinion. Robinson, especially, has the merit of having cleared away many
old prejudices of this nature. But even Burckhardt so little allowed his
judgment to be guided by the authority of tradition, that he did not
scruple to place his reason for transposing the convent of Sinai to Gebel
Mûsa, rather on stratagetical considerations. (Trav. in Syria, p. 609.)
[73] 1 Kings xix. 8.—TR.
[74] The name of FIRÂN, formerly PHARAN, is, indeed, evidently the same
as PARAN in the Bible; but it is equally certain that this name has
altered its meaning with reference to the locality. All other comparisons
of names cannot be in the least depended on.
[75] The smaller of the two wells dates as far back as the time of the
foundation of the convent. The principal deep well, which supplies the
largest amount and the best water, is said to have been first dug by an
English nobleman in 1760. (Ritter, p. 610.)
[76] Burckhardt also (Trav., p. 554) observes distinctly that there were
no good pasture grounds near the convent, where nevertheless the somewhat
numerous small springs, might have led us to expect the ground to have
been in a moister condition. With respect to the impression made on
Bartlett: see Appendix B.
[77] I was assured of this unanimously by the Arabs. (Compare also
Burckhardt, p. 625, and Ritter, p. 769.) Lord Lindsay found “a small wood
of Tarfa-trees here, in which blackbirds were singing, and also some
plantations of Palm-trees.” It was at the entrance of the same valley
“where Seetzen had the pleasure of gathering for himself, and eating for
the first time, a great deal of _manna_ from the bushes of Tarfa; he
found the ripe produce of the wild Caper shrub growing here in profusion,
which was as palatable to the taste as table-fruit.”
[78] Numbers xxxiii. 10.—TR.
[79] Exodus xv. 27.—TR.
[80] See Appendix C.
[81] Exodus xvi. 1.—TR.