« ПредишнаНапред »
French literati. The temple at. Edfou next attracts our notice.
We come next upon Koom Ombos. Here is the great temple of Sevek-ra, a magnificent structure. The portico is presented in the annexed view.
Our next landing place is Syene, now E'Sooan, which was the southern boundary of Egypt. Passing this, we enter Nubia and reach Gerf Hossain; a view of the ruins in which place forms the frontispiece of this volume.
The last locality designated on the map is Aboo-simbel, and here is a temple, remarkable as being the only one in Egypt or Nubia that has suffered from dampness. Some of the paintings are here obliterated, and the walls are crumbling. Still much of great interest remains, and particularly battle scenes and victories, supposed by some to represent those of Sesostris. His opponents in battle are white, having black hair and eyes, and a long black beard.
Having thus completed our imaginary voyage, and furnished our readers, we trust, with such preliminary information as may be useful, we now proceed to bring the testimony furnished by Egyptian antiquities into juxtaposition with the sacred history.
Remarks on testimony.—Application of them to the evidence afforded by the monuments.—Facts related in Abraham's history tested by Egyptian remains. •
When a number of well-authenticated contemporaneous facts are brought into juxtaposition; and when thus combined, they show, that except in a certain contingency, their simultaneous existence was not possible; that contingency is as clearly proved as are the well-authenticated facts that thus constitute what is called circumstantial evidence. "Circumstances," it has been said, "cannot lie:" this is true; but those who relate the circumstances may; hence it is allimportant that the facts which constitute the circumstances should be verified beyond all reasonable question; when thus verified, the inevitable deductions from them are entitled to just as much confidence as if they were proved by direct testimony.
Again, it often happens that most important testimony is purely incidental. The facts or circumstances that furnish the incidents, have seemingly no direct connection with the point to be proved. They are brought forward with reference to another and totally different point, when their coincidence with the alleged fact under investigation is, for the first time, unexpectedly developed. Such testimony has the advantage of being unsuspected, for it could not have been manufactured