that they are the refult of the laborious fcrutiny of the firft Arabic 1cholar in Britain, if not in the world.

No prouder or more perfect monument of antiquity remains to gra tify and inftruct the artist of modern times than the pillar faifely affigned to Pompey. The great elevation and the elegant workmanship of this vaft Corinthian column, added to the circumftance of its having food fo immoveably firm for more than twenty centuries, on a bafe little more than five feet fquare, for fuch is the fact, what appears to be the pedeftal being of too weak a mafonry to fupport the prodigious mafs of granite above it, and its whole weight has been discovered to reft on a fragment of an ancient Egyptian obelisk, proved to be fo by the hieroglyphicks engraved upon it, and thofe hieroglyphicks too in an inverted pofition, which proves that it must have been reared after the period when the native Egyptians, by whom they were confidered as facred, were no longer mafters of the country; the above-mentioned circun.fiances, we fay, render this coloffal remain of ancient art not lefs interefting than it is fublime.

The preface is written with great modefty, yet with much fpirit, intermixed with very indignant reprobation, renewed allo at the conclufion of the work, of the Gallic invaders of Egypt, who, with all their boafted love of the arts, have by no means added to the stock of knowledge of Alexandrian antiquities, the report of the national inftitute being fimply confined to a defcription of the pillar, and the detail of its dimentions, while to the flock of the miferies of the

wretched inhabitants they have added a dreadful accumulation.

The firft fection of the differtation has reference to the period of its erection, a very important point in the difcuffion.

"For, whether (obferves our anthor) it were the production of regal power and munificence; or were reared by a loyal community in gra titude to an imperial benefactor; whether it flood fingle, and formed a whole by itlelf; or were a part only and appendage of fome great edifice; thefe are either fubordinate queftions, or would receive a fatisfactory anfwer, if its age were once completely afcertained. The elucidation of this point, therefore, has generally been the firft aim of every author who has written upon the fubject; and the attempt has given if to conjectures the most wild and extravagant. Paradoxical inquirers have difagreed fo widely refpecting the age of the column, that, on the one hand, its origin has been affign. ed to the fecond century of the Chriftian æra, and, on the other, to the remote and unknown period which witnefied the building of the Pyramids.

"Of opinions claiming admiffion by no better title than conjecture, I think it unneceffary to speak: my animadverfions will be confined to hypothefes which profefs to be founded on facts. If any one of these can ftand the teft of fair examination, my inquiry concerning the age of the column is at an end. But, if, on mature examination, they fhall appear to be unfounded, I fhall my felf, in the course of these obfervations, offer a new hypothefis: and I hope fo to interweave this particular investigation with other

fubjects

fubje&ts of literary difcuffion as to afford the reader fome little enter tainment, even though I should fail to convince him with refpect to the principal object of research.

"Among the numerous authors who have attempted to determine the period in which this column was erected, there are three whofe opinions have particularly attracted the attention of the learned world; our countryman Wortley Montagu, Brotier, and Michaelis."

Of these three writers the hypothefes are refpectively examined, and the arguments for their fupport effectually confuted. That of Wortley Montagu, giving the honour of it to Vefpafian, on account of a medal which he pretended to have found inferted near the bafe, is overthrown by the general fufpicion of infincerity attached to his character, and the report, at that time current in Cairo, that the whole ftory was a grofs forgery, intended to impofe on the credulity of the learned.

The opinion of Brotier, the learned editor of Tacitus, which afcribes it to Ptolemy Euergetes, in confequence of a paffage in father Sicard, is fallacious, becaufe that paffage is mifquoted, and by no means fupports the arguments

deduced from it.

The conjecture of Michaelis, to whole general accuracy and profound erudition Dr. White pays the highest compliment, is alfo founded on a miftranflation of a paffage in Abulfeda's Geography of Egypt, where the Arabic words Amûd Iffawari, tranflated the Pillar of Severus," fhould have been tranflated the "Column of the pillars." On this expreffion the doctor makes the following obfervations:

VOL. XLIII.

"To an English ear this phrafe will perhaps appear tautologous. Our language affords no correfpondent term, no world equally extenfive with Amûd; which includes both the round and the fquare pillar, and may be applied to a Gre cian column or an Egyptian obelifk. At the time when the Arabic language firft prevailed in Egypt, there were only two extraordinary objects of this kind remaining in Alexandria, Cleopatra's needle and Pompey's pillar; and the inhabitants appear to have diftinguished them by their local fituation, calling the one Amûd il Bahri, "The column of the fea," and the other Amûd Iflawâri, " The column of the pillars."

"It is, however, neceffary to fhew that fome reafon exifted for the ufe of this appellation, as defcriptive of the column. Now, bifhop Pococke informs us, explicitly, that there ftill remain fome fragments of granite pillars, four feet in diameter, near the column of Pompey; and we have the most pofitive teftimony of the Arabic writers of the middle ages, a teftimony as much to be depended on, in this inftance, as that of any Greek or Roman writer, that in the time of Richard Cœur de Lion,

there were more than four hundred of thefe pillars ftanding in the immediate vicinity of the column. So that this magnificent monument at that time might evidently be called, with fingular propriety, "The column of the pillars."

"It appears, therefore, that neither the fufpected medal of Vespafian, the illegible infeription on the bafe, nor the miftaken verfion of the paffage in Abulleda, can afford any fatisfactory information with re

M m

fpect

fpect to the hiftory of the column. But having now, I trust, removed at leaft fome of the impediments that obftructed our way, it is time to quit this part of the fubject for another; in the investigation of which, while I endeavour to prefent the reader with an interefting object of curiofity, fome difcovery may perhaps be made which will facilitate the remainder of our inquiry."

The fucceeding fection difcuffes the fituation, in Alexandria, of the temple of the Egyptian deity, Serapis; and the remainder of the publication, including a very learned appendix, is intended to prove (which we are of opinion it does, as far as the fubject will admit of proof) that this famous column was erected, amidst an almost infinite number of others of fmaller fize, in the front of that immenfe edifice; that it was raifed by the greateft monarch of Egypt, in the zenith of his power, by Ptolemy Philadelphus, as a noble fpecimen of Greek architecture, and bore, on its lofty capital, the fiatue of its illuftrious father, the founder of the dynatty

of the Ptolemies.

Having demonftrated that the true and litera! fignification of the Arabic words Amûd Illawâri is the column of the pillars, that is, the moft magnificent and beautiful of the four hundred columns with which, in the time of Richard Coeur de Lion, it is faid to have been furrounded, our author proceeds to collect together all the fcattered accounts to be met with concerning the Alexandrian temple of Serapis, the most fuperb of all the heathen fanes, except the Roman capitol .itfelf. Roffinus, Ammianus Marcolluus, Tacitus, and other early

hiftorians, both claffical and facred, are cited, to prove the exiftence of its vaft quadrangles, its lofty columns, its fpacious windows, and the hundred marble fteps by which the adoring crowds afcended to the fanctuary of the god, and the deity himfelt, of fach tupendous dimen fions, that with his right hand he touched one fide of the roof of the temple, and with his left the other. The body of this mighty idol was compofed of an aflemblage of all the moft precious metals and cofly woods; and the very walls of the interior urine were of folid gold. Of this noble ftructure, begun by the firft and completed by the fe cond Ptolemy, during all the dy nafty of thofe fovereigns, the glory remained unimpaired, and it was hallowed as the chofen refidence of the greatest and most venerated divinity of the Egyptians. In the fubfequent extra will be found Dr. White's account of the decaying worthip and final demolition in the fourth century of this ancient temple by the command of the emperor Theodofius, with fome other pertinent reflections on the general view and policy of the Ptolemys in erecting thole public edifices of ftriking grandeur at Alexandria, which have immortalized their names.

"But the pure light of the Gofpel was now difperfing the gloom of Paganifm, and the tutelar deity of Alexandria was foon to be de prived of his ufurped dominion. The firft fignal of this difgrace and downfal was the removal of the Nilometer from his temple, by the command of Conftantine, His na ruin was accomplished by the archbishop Theophilus, who zealouf ly executed the decree of Theodo

Bus