صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

re he left Smydiately attribute Herodotus wb. he had ma Society not, I believe, in at the passage he left Smyrna made, and amor

“ The Rev. G. C. Renouard, who was for many years chaplain at Smyrna, and who is now the able secretary of the Geographical Society, before he left Smyrna had obtained a sight of this figure; and he did not, I believe, immediately attribute the figure to Sesostris; but afterwards, on looking at the passage of Herodotus which you have cited, made the application. Before he left Smyrna also, he had made known to several of his friends the discovery he had made, and among those friends was Mr. Burgon, who well remembers these circumstances.

“I will now subjoin a copy of a MS. note, made by my late brother, the Rev. Hugh James Rose, immediately after a conversation with Mr. Renouard :


Nov. 26, 1817. “ The Rev. G. C. Renouard, of Sidney [Coll. Cambridge), who was “ formerly Chaplain at Smyma, told me to-day that he had heard of a “ figure engraved on a rock near Nymphio, the ancient Nymphæum, and “after some difficulty, it was shewn him by the common people; it was at “ the distance of fifteen feet from the ground, and was evidently of great “antiquity, being nearly effaced, so that the mere outline was visible. It “ was the figure of a man in a tiara.

“Mr. Renouard had ascertained that one of the great roads from Mysia “ to Lydia went close to Nymphæum. It should be further observed, that “ he did not go in search of this figure, from being aware of the fact stated “ in Herodotus. This he did not know till some years afterwards, when “ he was accidentally reading Herodotus.”

“ This extract from my own common-place book into which I had copied my brother's statement), and that too a common-place book of early date, begun at school in 1814, is conclusive as to the priority of this discovery.

“I think I can now prove the fact of a communication of this discovery to scholars residing at Berlin some years ago. In 1839, Dr. Lepsius (now in Egypt, under the auspices of the Prussian government, whose liberal patronage of all scientific researches does them the highest credit,) was in England, and a frequent visitor at the house of Mr. Burgon, whose knowledge of Numismatics and of Greek Antiquities, as well as his rare and beautiful collection of Greek Coins, Terra Cottas, &c. (mentioned in Müller Archäologie der Kunst., p. 342, 2nd Edition) attracted to his house most of the learned foreigners who visited England. The circumstance above related was mentioned by him to Dr. Lepsius, who immediately interested himself in the question, and either wrote to Berlin on the matter, or being there shortly afterwards, brought the subject under the notice of scholars there, and the consequence was, I believe partly by the instrumentality of government, that further researches were immediately made in Asia Minor, and the result has been the discovery mentioned in your first number as made by Dr. von Eckenbrecher.

“I have written this simple statement that the honour of this discovery may be given to those to whose sagacity it is justly due. Mr. Renouard's accurate knowledge of Ancient and Oriental Geography (accompanied as it is, by an unusually extended knowledge of every class of language, living or dead), is too well known to need my faint tribute of praise. It is only to be lamented, that one who has contributed so largely to the stores of knowledge in this country, should have made his contributions with so little regard to his own fame. He has been content to labour for the advancement of knowledge, without looking for the meed of human praise and reputation.

“ In justice to him, knowing that his own modesty might prevent him from preferring his claim to this discovery, I have ventured (without apprising him of my intention) to offer you these few observations, of which you will make that use which you may deem most suitable to the purposes of your Museum, and to the advancement of truth.

“I remain, Sir,
“ Your obedient Servant,

“ HENRY JOHN ROSE." This letter can leave no doubt on the mind of any reader, that the honour of the discovery belongs to Mr. Renouard, and that it was through him that the attention of scholars and travellers was directed to this interesting monument. M. Kiepert: in an article in Gerhard's Archaeologische Zeitung, No. 3, also alludes to the fact, that the monument was discovered many years ago by Mr. Renouard, without however any public notice of it having been given; and adds, that independent of Mr. Renouard's discovery it was afterwards found again by Dr. von Eckenbrecher, and that at a still later time it was seen by M. Borrell of Smyrna, Charles Texier, Lenormand, De Witte, and others. Several years ago Baron A. von Humboldt received a drawing of this monument from M. A. de Herriat of Smyrna. Dr. Lepsius in whose hands it was placed, laid it before the Academy of Sciences of Berlin and read a paper upon it, in which he declared it, with Herodotus, to be a genuine Egyptian monument of the time of Ramses-Sesostris®.

3 M. Kiepert accompanied Professor has published a short account of the Welcker on his excursion from Smyrna monument in Vol. ix. of the Miscella. and made a drawing of the monument, neous division of the Encyclopedia Meof which I have added a copy to this tropolitana, printed as early as 1832, note notice.

to the article NATOLIA, p. 435. * This is not correct, for Mr. Re- 6 Monatsbericht der Königl. Akademie nouard, as Mr. H. J. Rose informs me, | xu Berlin, 1840. p. 39. foll.

Thus far then, matters are now perfectly clear; but scholars have not acquiesced in the opinion of Herodotus and Dr. Lepsius : and the question as to whether the monument first discovered by Mr. Renouard is really a monument of Sesostris and executed by his command, has been made the subject of further discussion in M. Kiepert's article in the Archaeologische Zeitung. There can be no doubt that the monument is the same as the one which Herodotus saw and described: the locality, (about a mile sideward of the road from Smyrna to Sardis) the expression Túnos éykekolapuévos, the description of the figure, and above all, the measurement of the figure, which agree with what is seen at the present day, prove the identity of the monument beyond all question. The confusion between the right and left hand is one of so frequent occurrence, and one which is so easily made by the beholder of a picture or sculpture, that it is of no weight in comparison with the other evidence just adduced. Nor can the fact that Herodotus makes no mention of the frame in which the bird is represented, be urged against the identity. But Kiepert, Rosellini and Gerhard, agree in denying the Egyptian origin of the monument altogether. In the time of Herodotus it was the general belief of the Ionian Greeks that it was an Egyptian monument, and the only difference of opinion mentioned by the historian is, that some thought it to be a monument of Memnon, an opinion which Herodotus absolutely rejects. M. Kiepert remarks on this point: “The belief in its Egyptian origin was probably founded on the γράμματα τρά Αιγύπτια which existed on the breast of the warrior, but the Greeks were scarcely able to judge of the genuineness of an Egyptian inscription, nor do the place and form of this alleged inscription, as Dr. Lepsius justly remarks, agree with the Egyptian custom, according to which the king's name would not have been omitted. The whole habitus and costume (especially the cap or tiara, which is very different from the Egyptian pshent, and the form of the shoes), the clumsiness and rudeness in the proportions of the body and in the whole execution, do not agree with other well-known monuments of Sesostris and his time, nor with Egyptian art in general. The only circumstance that might be alleged in support of its Egyptian origin, is the bird in the frame-work before the face of the warrior, which has hitherto not been seen on any other than Egyptian monuments.”

While we must thus, continues M. Kiepert“, strongly doubt the Egyptian origin of the monument, and let this opinion rest on the authority of the Greeks and Herodotus, we think it just as improbable that it should be of Persian origin, for among the extant Persian sculptures there is nothing that can be compared with it. The Persian conquest of Ionia, moreover, belongs to so late a period that Herodotus, who wrote his history scarcely a century after, and the Ionian Greeks, would surely have known it, if the relief had been cut into the rock by the Persians.

Nothing therefore remains but to ascribe the work to some one of the native nations of Asia Minor, or to a nation which ruled there at one time. Many of the sculptures found in Asia Minor present a striking resemblance in the costume with the one under consideration. We allude to reliefs cut into the rocks near the ruins of an ancient town on the east of the river Halys, which were first discovered and published by Charles Texier”. These reliefs show almost precisely the same figures and costume as the monument near Nymphi, except that the proportions of the figures are more correct, for which reason they must perhaps be ascribed to a more advanced stage of the art of sculpture. Their arms only are different, for instead of the bow and lance, they carry clubs and a kind of double-edged sword or axe. Mr. Hamilton (1. p. 394) is inclined to think these figures to be representations of Lydians and Phrygians, for he says, “their head-dress resembles the well-known Phrygian bonnet.” But this opinion is inadmissible for two reasons; first, the high head-dress or tiara which appears in these sculptures, is very different from the Phrygian bonnet; and secondly, we know from Herodotus (v11. 74) that the armour of the Lydians resembled very closely that of the Greeks. Hence the opinion which Texier has now adopted seems to be the most probable, namely, that the sculptures east of the river Halys belong to the Sacæ or Scythians. This opinion is supported by the description which Herodotus (v11. 64) gives of the costume and armour of the “Scythians whom the Persians called Sacæ®.” This description agrees perfectly with

6 What here follows is only the sub. I searches in Asia Minor, the plate after stance of Kiepert's article, which enters | p. 394, in Vol. 1. into sundry other matters not directly 8 Σάκαι δε οι Σκύθαι περί μεν τήσι connected with the monument near Nym. κεφαλήσι κυρβασίας ές οξύ απηγμένας phi.

ορθας είχαν πεπηγυίας, αναξυρίδας δε 7 Déscription de l'Asie Mineure, pl. évòeòÚKeo avo tóca & Tixupla kai éve 72, 75–79. Compare Hamilton, Re- ' xelpídia, após oayápels eixov.

the relief of Nymphi, with the exception of the axes, instead of which we have here a lance. Thus we might, indeed, regard the sculptures described by Texier and that of Nymphi as monuments made during the dominion of and by the Cimmerian Scythians, previous to the time of Alyattes of Lydia and Cyaxares of Media; and by the supposition that the relief near Nymphi was executed by the Scythians themselves, we might account for the rudeness of the workmanship, which is of such a kind that it can hardly be ascribed to the Assyrians, Medians or Lydians. We might even ascribe the monument of Nymphi to an earlier invasion of Asia Minor by the Scythians. (Herod. 1. 6, with Bähr's note.) But whatever view we may adopt, thus much appears to be certain, that henceforth no one can refer to the monument of Nymphi to support the authenticity of the tradition about an Egyptian invasion of Asia Minor in the time of Sesostris.

Some remarks and conjectures of Rosellini on this monument are added to Kiepert's article by Gerhard. (Archaeol. Zeit. p. 45 foll.) In these attempts to explain away the Egyptian origin of the monument near Nymphi, there appears to me to be one great difficulty, which Kiepert only just notices without endeavouring to remove it. I would ask, how was it possible, that Herodotus, who must have seen more Egyptian monuments and inscriptions than any modern traveller, as well as a great many of the monuments and inscriptions scattered about in Asia Minor, should without the least hesitation have pronounced the one near Nymphi Egyptian, if it had not borne strong marks of its origin? He knew the Scythian dress and armour as well as we do, who in fact have learnt these things from him; why then should he not at once have perceived the resemblance of the figure to that of a Scythian warrior ? Further, Herodotus expressly mentions the γράμματα τρά Αιγύπτια, that is, the Egyptian hieroglyphics which he saw cut upon the breast of the figure, and he could surely never have confounded Egyptian hieroglyphics with any other kind of inscriptions that were to be found in Asia Minor: on this point his own judgment must have been perfectly independent of popular notions and traditions.

To complete the account of the so-called monuments of Sesostris, which Herodotus saw, I add a few words on those in Palestine Syria (év Tlalaiotívn Eupią). As Herodotus does not say anything to suggest the locality in which he saw them, the difficulty of

« السابقةمتابعة »