insueta, but ferro male habita, as is justly remarked by Mr. Wakefield. The reference on this subject to that editor must have proceeded from too hasty an inspection of his note.

We take our leave of this translation with much admiration of its general me

rits, and much respect for the ingenuity, learning, and taste of the translator, He has executed his labour in a manner highly reputable to himself, and filled a place which was vacant in the catalogue of English literature.

THOUGH the Greek language has been assiduously cultivated in the learned part of Europe for upwards of three centuries, yet such is the copiousness and richness of that tongue, combined with the disadvantages arising from its having ceased to be in oral use, that we have as yet no lexicon or grammar of it which can be deemed complete. To obviate the latter of these deficiencies, or at least to facilitate the acquisition of the Greek language, and to illustrate its rules, by the application of philosophical principles to its grammar, has been the object of Mr. Jones in the work which he has here presented to the public.

"The principles, which distinguish this Grammar, are such as were suggested by a study of the oriental tongues, especially of the Hebrew. The latter language is known by all competent judges to be the mother of the Greek. It cannot therefore be deemed surprising, that the origin of those qualities which characterise the child can be found orly in the constitution of the parent. Proreeding on this ground the writer, conform ably to the system of the great grainmarian of our age, has traced the definitives, the prepositions, and many of the particles, to Hebrew nouns or verbs: and from those roots has deduced a primary signification, into which are resolvable all their figurative or secondary senses, however numerous and complicated.

"By considering the Greek terms, as exting in their primitives, and before they were modified by Greek terminations, the author has, moreover, been able to ascertain the txact meaning of the cases; and the application of their meaning, thus ascertained, to the syntax of the language, forms another pecular feature in the character of this gram

mar.

"The Hebrew tongue, on account of its gh antiquity, holds forth to the philosophical enquirer into the origin of language, the seve ral steps which the human mind adopted in the formation of speech. Among these steps the following is worthy of notice. Words, denoting active qualities, i. e. those ideas, which the mind acquires by reflecting on its wwn operations in given circumstances, are no terthan the names of the subject and agent in the same circumstances, combined into one

term; in other verbs are the names of sensi ble objects with the personal pronouns annexed to them.

"This principle, suggested by the Hebrew, is applied to the Greek: and hence all the variety of terminations belonging to the Greek verb, which, by their vast number load the memory, and retard the efforts of the learner, are reduced to six pronouns. The same principle has enabled the author to resolve the two classes of verbs, in and in, into one common form; to account for the origin of the active, passive, and middle voices, and to assign to the two last the cause of their peculiar signification.

"This principle, eminently useful in a grammatical light, is yet more so in another point of view. Terms, denoting active or abstract qualities, as having no prototype corresponding to them in nature, a reference to which might serve to define and perpetuate their signification, are liable to endless iluctua tions and misconceptions. But this is not the case with the names of sensible objects. These, continuing much the same in all ages and countries, convey, when impressed on the organs of sense, accurate ideas of themselves;

and thus in general render the meaning of their terms correct and invariable, though transfused from one language to another. In order then to fix the primary sense of a verb, it is only necessary to have recourse to the noun whence it is derived; and what cannot fected by recurring to the primitive term, as be established by this mean, is likely to be ef existing in one of the oriental dialects."

In the execution of this plan Mr. Jones has displayed much learning and ingenuity. It is manifest, however, that in a practical grammar of any language, it is requisite to pay as much attention to its peculiarities and idioms, as to the general structed. With much knowledge of absphilosophical principles on which it is contract principles, and much facility in tracing them, we suspect that Mr. Jones does not combine all that minute accuracy in the historical and idiomatical part of lan guage which its importance merits. P. 3, the contraction y of the diphthong u, is of far subsequent date to the formation of the Latin character y, and of power widely different. Whenever there is occasion to express the diphthong in Latin, it is re

the same language, might also relate the expeditions, the conquests, and the glories of Alexander. A prodigious temple would have been erected in the midst of Paris; where, to complete the mockery of Buonaparte's imitation of the son of Philip, the same tomb that had once inclosed the body of that hero would have been reserved for the bones of his mimic."

Having introduced a narrative of the means by which it was found and recovered from the French, he endeavours to show that the uniform tradition of the inhabitants of the country, supported by historical evidence, clearly proves this interesting monument to be the tomb of Alexander the Great. But at the very outset of these observations a remark occurs, in which we cannot persuade our selves to acquiesce. It will be necessary, we are told, to examine with particular attention the account given of the deification of Alexander, and the means used to preserve his body; as the notion of a gold and glass coffin has involved the history of his interment in some error, by being confounded with the SARCOPHAGUS which Ptolemy, according to the custom both of Greeks and Egyptians, prepared for its reception. But this is a most gratuitous admission. It is a fact given to us upon the authority of no one writer of antiquity. Tees, the word used by Diodorus Siculus means a sacred inclosure, and applies more to the immediate building that contained the body, than to any sarcophagus or outer chest. Conditorium, the term Suetonius uses, though not equally extensive, cannot be translated a sarcophagus, and it is also the expression used by Pliny. But let us here, once for all, canvass the meaning of the sentence in Diodorus Siculus that is alluded to. It simply states, that the sacred repository prepared for Alexander's corpse, both in magnitude and workmanship (2272 TO MEFEGOΣ xal naтa Tyv naraGKE) was worthy the greatness and the glory of Alexander. And will any one support the idea, for a single moment, that Diodorus Siculus had nothing more in view

than this (in comparison with his description) poor sarcophagus: ten feet in length, fire feet and a half in width, and four feet high? But Dr. Clarke builds much upon these words, as may be shewn from various parts of his book, but particularly in the instances we here quote. The first is in the abbé Winkelman's description of the breccia of Egypt.

"Le vert est la eouleur dominante de cette pierre; couleur dans laquelle on remarque des degrés et des nuances intinies; de sorte que je suis persuadé que JAMAIS PEINTRE NI TEINTURIER N'EN A PRODUIT DE PAREILLES: le mélange de ces couleurs DOIT PAROITRE MERVEILLEUX (agreeing exactly with the words of Diodorus respecting the tomb) aux yeux des observateurs attentifs des produc

tions de la nature."

Again, in p. 43.

64

We have thus a proof that the stone used in this sarcophagus was of a rarity and price equal to that of the most precious materials et ancient art.* The expence of working it could be undertaken only by sovereigns, who might procure, among the renowned artists of those times, talents and perseverance adequate to the achievement of such a surprizing work. In these days, the substance itself, and the process by which it was wrought, being unknown, a notion of supernatural agency is excited in unenlightened minds;† while the refined part of mankind express their astonishment. If, at any period of the history of the antient world, a work of this nature particularly corresponded with the genius of the age and the wishes of the people, it must have been at that important crisis, when the body of the deified Alexander was received by Ptolemy, to be enshrined as the son of Ammon, by the priests of Egypt. That the construction of the tomb would demand every thing admirable in materials and in workmanship cannot be disputed; but upon this subject we have sufficient proof from the testimony of antient historians. "Diodorus, whose description of the funeral pomp scems to convey an adequate idea of the magnificence with which it was celebrated, represents it, in magnitude and workmanship, worthy the greatness and glory of Alexander."

Even in the discovery of this curions tomb (if a square chest can be entitled to the appellation) there is an air of mystery and reserve that is inexplicable. Nor after all is it quite clear that he was told even at Cairo, where he affirms that he first heard of it, that it was the tomb of Alexander. His words are these :

"In the course of my enquiries respecting the Rosetta stone, which I was very anxious to have included among the articles to be surrendered, and of which, at that time, we had obtained but a faint and imperfect history, it was made known to me, that another stone, of much larger dimensions, was in the possession of the French, guarded with the greatest secresy, and concerning which they entertained the most lively apprehensions: deeming it even of more importance than the stone found at Rosetta. The persons who gave me this information, and whose names it certainly would not be prudent to make known, while there is even a chance of their receiving another visit from the French, further added, that this stone, which they described to be of an astonishing size, and a beautiful green colour, was somewhere concealed in Alexandria.

"With this intelligence I set out from Cairo for the British camp, at that time stationed on the heights they had retained after the action of the 21st of March, 1801; and took the earliest opportunity of seeing the commander in chief. The distance was great, and the capitulation daily expected to take place. It is to the situation of Alexandria and Cairo with respect to each other, that the want of precision must be attributed which appears in the account given of this monument in the latter city."

In page 44, Dr. Clarke opens the series of testimonies which respect the actual tomb, with the death of Alexander in the 323d year previous to the christian æra. But lest the reader should forget the sarcophagus at the Museum, it is introduced again. And in a few sentences he traverses the principal countries of the habitable globe, among whose rites of sepulture sarcophagi appear to have been used; but in none does he pay any attention to chronology. This mode of interment, he says, belonged to persons the highest rank, and as an illustration gives this note:

of

"So Joseph died....; and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt." Gen. chap. 1. ver. 26.

Now this ought certainly to have been a key to Dr. Clarke, and to have informed him that the few sarcophagi, which it is at this day in the power of Egypt to produce, can only be ascribed to the earliest

ages of its history. The onus probandi is still his own and we will venture to assert, that he is incapable of bringing forward one single proof that such sarcophagi as those which are now preserved. at the British Museum were used in Egypt for sepulchral purposes in the days of Alexander. The practice had gone by even when Herodotus wrote, or he would never have told us that the Egyptians were accustomed to inclose their dead in wooden cases, and that they deposited them regularly in an upright posture. How inconsistent Dr. Clarke is with himself, we shall show in one single instance. He here acknowledges that Joseph was put into a coffin of like form, and that similar sarcophagi are found in other countries, but in p. 75, he says,

"Let it also be remarked, that the Alexandrian sarcophagus bids defiance to the arts, at any other period than that of Ptolemy, and in any other country than that of Egypt.".

After various remarks on the deification of Alexander, Dr. Clarke appears to take it for granted, that nothing Greek could possibly be expected to distinguish the place of his deposit. For that with the Egyptians, under such circumstances, it could not pretend to be the tomb of Alexander. For if the tomb of an Egyptian god should exhibit the letters of the Greek alphabet, instead of an inscription,

ΕΝΤΕΡΟΙΣ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΣΙΝ, it would thereby contradict all our knowledge of history and of ancient Egypt.' But there is one fact, and it is a fact recorded by Pausanias, that militates very forcibly against these remarks. It is a fact too, which Dr. Clarke in the testimonies, and Mr. Henley in the additional remarks, have kept entirely from the reader's view. It is that Alexander was buried,.not according to the funeral rites of Egypt, but qu Twv Mazedovwv, with Grecian rites. Why was the following passage omitted in the testimonies-x21 MaxedorшY TOUS TAXSevras TOY Axavopov vexpor esas ξειν ἀνέπεισεν αυτώ παραδούναι, και τον μεν ΝΟΜΩ ΤΩΝ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ εξαπτεν E Maus. Yet, says Dr. Clarke, p. 49, We have sufficient proof of the indispen sable necessity of hieroglyphic characters.'

But once more we resume the testimonies. The funeral procession, conducted from Babylon by Perdiccas, was met on the confines of Syria by Ptolemy; its destination was changed; till a sumptuous shrine could be prepared for its reception, it was conveyed to Memphis; and, ulti