ἐνιότε, verum πολλαὶ est mendosum. Lego Ενιότε πολιαὶ τῶν ἀλεκτρυόνων βίᾳ Τίκτουσιν. Β. αἷς γ ̓ ὑπηνέμι ̓ ἐὰ πολλάκις. Illud πολιαὶ aliquatenus convenit cum Popiano,

There swims no goose so grey, but soon or late,

'Twill find some honest gander for its mate.

Φάλαγξ· θηλυκῶς ὁ ἀράχνης. Πλάτων Ελλάδι· Εοίκασιν ἡμῖν οἱ νόμοι τούτοισι τοῖσι λεπτοῖσιν ἀραχνίοις ἃ τοῖσι τοίχοισιν ἡ φάλαγξ ὑφαίνει. Hic quoque R. P. senarios effecit. Melius ibi Tetra

metros viderunt Meinek. Cur. Crit. p. 39. et Reisig. Conject. p. 116. et correxerunt εἴξασιν. Ipse lego Είξασιν ἡμῶν-λεπτοῖς Εἶν ̓ ἀραχνίοις—τοίχοις— Infinitivi as per crasin cum a conjungi solet. Vid. mea ad Æsch. Eum. 939.

Φιλοσοφεῖν· ἀντὶ τοῦ πονεῖσθαι· Φιλοσοφεῖ δὲ τοῦτο ὅπως καταπρά ξηται τὸν γάμον. Porson in senarios dispescuit, lectis τοῦθ' et καταπράξεται. Est Trochaicus, modo legas Φιλοσοφεῖν δεῖ τοῦθ ̓ ὅπως παῖς καταπράξηται τον γάμον.

Φιμοί- - φιμὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ καλούμενος κημὸς, εἰς ὃν ἐνεβάλλοντο. Δίφιλος δέ φησιν, Ελκ ̓ εἰς μέσον τὸν φιμὸν ὡς ἂν ἐμβάλῃ. Hoc intelligi nequit. Scripsit Comicus "Ελκεις μέσον μ', εἰς φιμὸν ὡς ἂν ἐμβάλῃς; ubi parodia est Euripidei Orest. 265. Μέσον με ὀχμάζεις, ὡς βάλῃς ἐς Τάρταρον. Cf. et Ach. 979. Εἰσελκύσας γάρ μ' εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον : necnon, quod ad μέση, Eccl. 258. Ελκωσιμέση γὰρ οὐδέποτε ληφθήσομαι.

G. Β.

ON THE PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT.

My purpose in this disquisition is to prove that the Pyramids were not sepulchres, but CAVERN ORACLES dedicated to the mysteries of Sar-Apis, or the Lord Apis; and in order to simplify the discussion as much as possible, I shall confine myself chiefly to the pyramid of Cheops.

Although the most common opinion is that these extraordinary buildings were intended for tombs, there are many other theories of their destination. One is that they were granaries of Joseph. This may be confuted by the smallness of the rooms and the time required in building. Another that they were observatories;'

! Nicetas, Nonnus, Stephanus, &c.

which is accusing the builders of great absurdity, as the neighbouring rocks called Gebal Mokattam were better calculated for that purpose without the prodigious labor and expence. The Arabians' think that they were a refuge from the flood: but that opinion requires no answer. As sun-dials they would have failed. Shaw and Bryant believe them to be temples, and the Sarcophagus, a lustral tank. Pauw considers the great pyramid as the tomb of Osiris. But Strabo, Diodorus, Pococke, Norden, and indeed, the great majority, ancient and modern, believe that it was the tomb of Cheops. It is from this latter opinion that I humbly venture to dissent. It is necessary to grapple with it in order to establish mine; which is, that they were edifices built for the celebration of cavern mysteries, like the caves of Delphi, Trophonius and Mithra: and perhaps used occasionally for the preservation of national treasures and records: as was the case with the cella and sekoi, called in Scripture oracles, of many ancient temples. This theory, I believe, stands nearly single: its chief points of resemblance are with those of Bryant and Pauw.

When we consider the splendid machinery of the Egyptians, their inclinations, their public shows, their judgment of the dead, their Theomania, if the term may be used, and all the sublime paraphernalia of that creed, from whence the visions of poetry derive their origin, it is hard to imagine, that they would seek to honor a monarch by sneaking his body, like that of a malefactor, through a variety of obscure and needlessly intricate passages. Yet this upon the supposition in question must have been done. And indeed there is a difficulty which meets us on the first step, though hitherto little regarded. The sarcophagus supposed to be the tomb of the buried monarch could not easily have been admitted through the common entrance passage; it could not have passed the end of the first gallery; nor could it have entered by the well. How then was the defunct to be buried? Would the friends of the deceased, with that peculiar affection for splendid inhumation, which was the passion of their country, conduct it in their arms to the central hall. Even this was impossible. Then the body must have been dragged (by cords perhaps) to its repository. Can this opinion be admitted in the teeth of

· Morat Alzeman. Ibn abd Alhokm, Murtad Ebn Gab Khondemir in Khelas: Alakhar. Yarikh al Thabari ascribe them to Gian ben Gian, a preadamite.

2 Ebn Abd Alhokm affirms this, and that the priestly archives were deposited within in chests of black marble,

Egyptian veneration for the dead? There is yet an alternative; the pile may have been erected over the body like the rude cairns of barbarous nations. But history says no: the opposite theorists themselves say no: it was built during the life of the intended possessor. Besides, in that case, what occasion for the passages?

And, allowing the postulatum to stand, which, I am afraid, is granting too much, what need of a triangular platform, and its triple division of passages. Was the funeral procession, illustrious, truly, as the narrow galleries and the well must have rendered it, to advance three ways to the burial place? or was the body of the king gifted with the self-multiplying faculty of Southey's Kehama? I am aware that an opinion has been hazarded that attendants were confined with the defunct, and that for them the rooms and galleries were built: but the same theorists contend that the vestibule before the centre room was closed by a portcullis of granite. Had the servants then the same power of ubiquity as their master? The story only wanted such a theory as Maillet's to render it ridiculous: viz. that the holes in the sides of the room were intended to draw up the provisions of the prisoners. So that we are to imagine a basket of provisions dangling from the outside of the pyramid, like that in the fairy tale of Princess Finetta! Napoleon's Moulah was quite as reasonable, when he affirmed that the body of the king was hermetically sealed in by walls to prevent the decomposing power of nature; an opinion not deficient in sublimity, if the unlucky cavities before mentioned were not silently attesting, in full view of both philosophers, against its coherency even as an alchemical dream.

To show the absurdity of the theory here noticed, I quote Maillet's words: "The pyramid has been only attacked by the ROYAL ROUTE, through which the CORPSE of the king must have been taken and ALL THE PEOPLE to be buried with him. By the same route (that is to say, a passage 3 FOOT SQUARE and in one part 2 FOOT HIGH) the ATTENDANT MOURNERS must have entered and come out." Such an inlet was ridiculous for the purposes of any thing but disgraceful burial, but strictly proper, as will be shown hereafter, for Cavern rites, avowedly performed in similar excavations.

2 I quote again from Maillet: "I think and hope sensible people will agree with me that these HOLES were made for the use of the persons shut up with the body of the king. Through the first they were to receive air, food, and other necessaries, and they had no doubt provided a long case with a cord which the persons in the pyramid might draw up, &c, [The other was for purposes which I scruple to name.] I suppose each of the persons, continues Maillet, to be provided with a coffin to contain his corpse, and that they successively paid the last debts to each other!!!'

But to leave the solemn trifling of such fancies, how in reality does the question stand with regard to Herodotus, on whose evidence the Great Pyramid has been considered as that of Cheops? That historian knew nothing of the passages: even Strabo and Diodorus knew little; they therefore had no means of drawing the same reasonable conclusion as ourselves. The first derived his knowledge from the priests, who seem frequently to have framed tales for the credulity of the Greeks, and in this case do not appear to have been certain of the facts which they detailed. Indeed they assured him that Cheops was not buried in the pyramid. They went farther: they informed him that he was the most impious of their princes; that he was an atheist, and closed the temples of the gods.

Was a man of this principle likely to be governed by the common fears of the Egyptians? Would he insult the gods and deny a resurrection and a judgment, while he spent a life in providing for a future state and separate existence? for the Egyptians thought that a body preserved from corruption 4000 years would revive with its original members; what then are we to think of the passage but that Cheops closed the adyta of the mysteries, together with the temples to which they appertained, and that from this circumstance the structure may have derived its appellation ?

If we turn from surveying the mechanism of the passages to the external form of the pyramids, the latter is by no means more favorable to the supposition that they are tombs. I know it is the opinion of many scholars, and among the rest of the learned Dr. Clarke, that the pyramids are nothing more than finished analogies of the carns and barrows common over all the world, and in which, perhaps I should say under which, bodies were certainly inhumed. Much deference is due to the erudition of such great names; and indeed the fact above stated is the strongest argument brought forward for the opposite question. Juvat me hoc tribuisse. But I would venture to suggest that there is, in reality, much greater distinction between the perfect pyramidal figure and the rude conic form of the carn or barrow than at first sight appears.

Hieroglyphically the cone and the triangle meant two very different things-as different perhaps as spirit and body. The

' I am inclined to think with Mr. Salt, that the priests showed Strabo no more of the pyramid than the lower chamber, discovered by Caviglia, where, perhaps, a sarcophagus was, and concealed those parts devoted to secret rites: thence, too, the silence of the father of History.

VOL. XXIX.

Cl. Jl.

first we know was an emblem of Venus and of Astarte; most likely in their material capacity. Juno' and Diana2 were represented by columns. So were Hermes and Pan, and all the terminales, which comprised most of the deities. The worship appears very ancient. Oses in Sanchoniatho consecrates stones to fire and wind. Jacob calls a stone the HOUSE OF GOD, and anoints it. Thence the anointed Bateli of antiquity. At Delphi a stone was anointed daily as a symbol of Apollo. In most cases garlands were lavished on these stones as well as unguents. The Arabians of Petreia worshipped a black cubic figure as their God. The sun of Heliogabalus was a pyramidal black stone: so is the modern deity of Jaggernaut. Cybele Pessinuntia and perhaps many others were Aerolites. Two stones, one black and the other white (implying good and evil or night and day), remain in the CUBIC temple of Mecca. Of all these, pyramidal stones were more particularly divine than others. Jupiter was represented under that form at Corinth.3 Vulcan and fire was symbolised by it. But they were more exclusively devoted to Bacchus and Apollo and the sun. The modern Chinese offer an express worship to pyramids, and the pyramidal god Manippe, 9 heads upon a cubic base. Generally speaking, cones were employed as phalloi; but pyramidal stones appear to have been generally dedicated to the solar fire. The distinction is not casuistical. We sometimes see among the hieroglyphics male figures presenting a cone to some deity, at others a triangle. The latter has descended to us through painting and chemistry, as a symbol of fire and of the deity. The former," says Eusebius, represented earth, the latter, spirit. I may, therefore, venture to infer, that it would be deemed perfectly impious and revolting to enshrine a body in one form, while it might be quite appropriate in the other. The carn is a rude figure: not so the pyramids; there is much skill and science displayed in their construction, a deep knowledge of astronomy, and as much of mechanics and mathematics. The builders must, at least, have known the position of the poles of the earth, and so rendered the form an inscribed astronomical stele.

6

But my great object now is with the triangle: we know from Proclus and the Platonists the veneration which the Egyptians

3 Ibid.

4 Suidas.

! Clemens Alexand. lib. i. 2 Pausanias Corinthiaca. 5 Isidore, 18. B. Chap. 1. 6 Kircher. China illustrata. p. 135. 7 Proclus gives the same explanation. Procl. Comm. 8 Proclus Comment, and the Platonists pass.