"pours." But although the beauties of the country failed of making an impreffion, its various produce, both of art and nature, was viewed with eager and avaricious eyes; and the pillar of Alexandria was not omitted in the catalogue of premeditated plunder. ged the particulars in his own mind, as to give the details, and even state the expences of the undertaking. But his project was cheap and easy, compared with another, which amufed the vanity of his nation fome years before. What this was, we may learn from a dedication to Louis XIV. prefixed by the French translator to Murtadi's "Wonders of Egypt." The conqueft of thofe unknown regions, which conceal the fource of the Nile, he flightly mentions as the preliminary step to his defign. "Your Majefty then," continues he, "will caufe our admira"tion of the pyramids to ceafe, by work of importance and gran"deur, and of a character entirely "different. That will be (if our 66 66 a This is the key to open the fecret meaning of many of their obfervations. They not unfrequently enumerate all the articles of commerce, by which Egypt might become profitable to France. Its civil and military ftate is expofed: the expiring authority of the Porte; the fmall number of Mamelukes; their continual diffentions and feuds; the miferable ftate of their difcipline; and their ridiculous ignorance of the art of war. On the other hand are re- prayers are heard, and our hopes presented, in the ftrongeft colours, "fulfilled,) to turn the course of the the oppreffed condition of the peo-Nile, and withhold its fertilizing ple; their ftrength in labour, and fortitude in fuffering; and, above all, the probability of their taking arms against their oppreffors, whenever a favourable opportunity fhall offer. Now, if it should be asked, with what view has all this been done, one of the most acute and mischievous of French travellers will fupply us with an anfwer; not directly to the point indeed, but too plain to be mistaken. "I have for fome time entertain"ed an opinion," fays Volney, "that nothing is eafier than to ef"fect in Afia a great revolution, "both political and civil." Let us however do juftice to thefe unprincipled fpoilers, and acknowledge, that they are not the firft of their countrymen, who have entertained ideas of aggrandizing France at the expence of this devoted kingdom. In the beginning of this century, Maillet, the French conful at Cairo, fuggefted a plan for removing the pillar to Paris. The fcheme indeed was not perfectly honourable; for he was to obtain it under falfe pretences; and he had fo far arran waters from Egypt, till the pre"fent infidel inhabitants have aban"doned it; and to restore the "ftreams to their former channel, "when more lawful and worthy pof"feffors fhall arrive to cultivate the "country." How little do the banifhment of the Hugonots and the burning of the Palatinate appear, when compared with this grand and comprehenfive project of famine and extirpation! In the commencement of my inquiry concerning that ftupenduous column of Alexandria, with which the general voice of modern times has connected the name of Pompey, it is neceffary to remark, that this connexion, unheard of in the ages immediately fucceeding his own, refts only upon a dark and doubtful tradition, and receives no colour of bability from any authority of ancient hiftory. Other remains of antiquity have been in like manner afcribed to the celebrated rival of Cæfar. pro At the eaftern mouth of the Bofphorus a fragment of uncertain age and character is called by his name, name, though ftanding on a fpot which he certainly never vifited, and which was never fignalized by his arms. But by whom, it may be afked, could the Alexandrian column, a monument of fuch extraordinary fplendour and magnificence, have ever been erected in honour of Pompey? There is neither evidence nor probability, that it was raised by the weak and effeminate prince whom he had restored to the throne of Egypt. It is ftill lefs likely to have been erected by the treacherous boy + who, regardless of the obligations of gratitude, was induced, from motives of the moft refined but deteftable policy, to murder the patron and benefactor of his family. Nor can we poffibly fuppofe it to have been dedicated to the honour of this illuftrious Roman, by his more fortunate rival Cæfar, or any of his fucceffors in the Empire. Difregarding, therefore, a name, which apparently refts on groundless tradition, and has its foundation only in vulgar error, let us endeavour to obtain fome more fatisfactory information, and to arrive at a conclufion, which history may warrant, and reafon approve. And here it evidently becomes an effential and leading object, to inquire at what period this ftupendous column was erected. For, whether it were the production of regal power and munificence, or were reared by a loyal community in gratitude to an imperial benefactor; whether it ftood fingle, and formed a whole by itself, 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 first aim of every author who has written upon the fubject; and the attempt has given rife to conjectures the moft wild * Ptolemy Auletes. and extravagant. Paradoxical in quirers have difagreed fo widely re fpecting the age of the column, that on the one hand its origin has been affigned to the fecond century of the Chriftian æra, and on the other to the remote and unknown period which witneffed the building of the parymids. The Arabic expreffion Amud Iffawari, by which pompey's pillar was diftinguished in the middle ages, has no other fignification whatever, than "The Column of the Pillars,' To an English ear this phrafe will perhaps appear rather tautologous. Our language affords no correfpondent term, no word equally extenfive with Amud; which includes both the round and the fquare pillar; and may be applied to a Grecian column, or an Egyptian obelisk. At the time when the Arabic language first 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, Amud il Bahri, "The Column of the Sea," and the other, Amud Iffawári, "The Column of the Pillars." It is, however, neceffary to fhow that fome reafon exifted for the ufe of this appellation, as defcriptive of the column. Now Bishop 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 moft 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 Coeur de Lion, there were more than four hundred of thefe pillars standing in the immediate vicinity of the column. So that this magnificent monument at that time might evidently be called, with fingular propriety, The fon of Ptolemy Auletes. priety, The Column of the Pillars." 66 hiftorian fays nothing like it; he fimply relates the fact, that in half a year the books were entirely confumed: but how many baths were employed in their deftruction, he neither fays nor infinuates. The incredible multitude of the volumes, therefore, vanishes at once. If during the whole time which elapsed, whilst these precious monuments of antiquity were gradually confuming, no fentiment of remorfe or compunction arose in the breafts of the conquerors, no with to refcue the ftill remaining treasures of this ineftimable library from further ravage and deftruction, well might Abulpharajus exclaim, "Hear The Alexandrian Library-Opinions of Gibbon criticised. "The fentence of Omar," fays Mr Gibbon, 66 was executed with "blind obedience: the volumes of paper or parchment were diftribu"ted to the four thousand baths; "and fuch was their incredible mul❝titude, that fix months were bare"ly fufficient for the confumption "of this precious fuel. Since the "Dynafties of Abulpharagius have "been given to the world in a Latin "verfion, the tale has been repeated"ly transcribed; and every scholar, "with pious indignation, has deplor-" and wonder!" Hear and wonder "ed the irreparable fhipwreck of the "learning, the arts, and the genius, "of antiquity. For my own part, I am ftrongly tempted to deny both "the fact and its confequences. The "fact is indeed marvellous; Read "and wonder!' fays the hiftorian "himfelf." "This anecdote," fubjoins Mr Gibbon in a note on this paffage, "will be in vain fought in the annals "of Eutychius, and the Saracenic "hiftory of Elmacin. The filence "of Abulfeda, Murtadi, and a crowd "of Moflems is lefs conclufive, from "their ignorance of Chriftian litera❝ture." But first, we may afk, is the ftory of Abulpharajus itfelf correctly reported by Mr Gibbon? Surely it is an unfair inference, which he has made from the hiftorian's words, that all the four thousand baths of the city were fupplied with thefe books for fuel. Their diftribution amongst any number of the baths would juftify the expreffion of Abulpharajus, and the meaning which I would affix to it. He does not fay, that fix months were barely fufficient for the confumption: this is a falfe comment upon a mistaken text. The Arabic at the brutal ignorance and unrelenting fury of the barbarians! Secondly, even if I fhould grant to Mr Gibbon, that we have only the evidence of Abulpharajus for the general fact, I fee no ground for rational fcepticism with regard to its reality. I will concede even more ; I will allow that Abulpharajus himfelf does not mention the circumftance in his Syriac Univerfal History, though he generally defcribes the period when it happened. They both contain in general the fame narrative, but with occafional additions and omiffions, as appeared to the author moft interesting to the clafs of readers for whom he was writing. Thus many particulars concerning the fiege and capture of Acca, with the various meffages which paffed betwixt our lion-hearted Richard and his generous rival Saladin, are given at large in the Syriac, but entirely paffed over in the Arabic: on the contrary, the request of Philoponus, and the burning of the Alexandrian library, are given in the Arabic, but omitted in the Syriac. Inftances of this kind are numerous; and every general fcholar may judge for himself, as both the hiftories * The two universal histories of Abulpharajus, written in the Syriac and Arabic languages. hiftories in the original languages, together with the Latin tranflations, are before the public. I truft, therethat we shall hear no more of the objection urged by Mr Gibbon, "that the folitary report of a ftran66 ger, who wrote at the end of fix "hundred years on the confines of "Media, is overbalanced by the fi"lence of two annalifts of a more "earlier date, both Chriftians, both "natives of Egypt, and the most an "cient of whom, the patriarch Eutychius, has amply defcribed the "conqueft of Alexandria." If Abulpharajus himself, in his Syriac Univerfal History, has both given the life of Omar and noticed the capture of Alexandria, and yet omitted mentioning the burning of the library, and even the very name of Philoponus, why might not the two annalifts do the fame ? The high literary as well as ecclefiaftical rank of this illuftrious primate of the East, and the numerous concurrent teftimonies, as well of Mahometans as Chriftians, to the gravity and fanctity of his character, would, in my opinion, even if he were found to ftand fingle in his teftimony, more than overbalance the frivolous cavils of Mr Gibbon. But further, to the negative argument of Mr Gibbon I fhall venture to oppofe the pofitive teftimony of two Arabic hiftorians, both writers of unquestionable authority, and both orthodox profeffors of the Muffulman faith, Macrifi and Abdollatif; who not only agree in ftating the fact, the burning of the library, but also point out to us the exact fpot on which the library flood. For, after defcribing the column, commonly called Pompey's Pillar, and mentioning the adjacent ruins of fome ancient edifice, they add, that "there was the libra66 ry which Amru Ebn El Aas burnt "by the command of the Khalif O"mar." I conclude, therefore, that both the burning, or, more strictly fpeaking, the defpoiling *, of the library by Amru, and its actual fituation, are indifputably ascertained. A fatisfactory answer having now, I hope, been given to the fceptical infinuation of Mr Gibbon, I advance a ftep farther. As the library defpoiled by Amru was a royal library, and as the first Ptolemæan library was unfortunately burnt by Julius Cæfar, this muft neceffarily have been the fecond Ptolemæan library; and confequently part of the temple of Serapis. We have at length, then, by the affiftance of Arabic writers, unexpectedly discovered the fite of the Serapeum; a discovery eagerly fought for by the curious for more than a century; and hence arises one ftrong proof, that a knowledge of Arabic may be made peculiarly fubfervient to the illuftration of Egyptian antiquities. But are there no paffages, it may be afked, in Greek or Latin authors, which corroborate the evidence of Arabic writers refpecting the fite of the Serapeum? I answer, that certainly there are; though their meaning has hitherto been wholly overlooked, and perhaps would for ever have been loft in obfcurity, had not a ray of light broken in from the Eaft. Such, however, is the accummulated force of these paffages, when properly confidered, as to leave no room to doubt that the temple of Serapis was contiguous to what is commonly called the Pillar of Pompey. REMARKS Abulpharajus affirms, that the books were ordered to be diftributed amongst the baths, and used as fuel for heating them. It being then explicitly ftated, that they were not burnt in the library, we may fairly infer, that the edifice itself, that is, its walls, rooms, and colonnades, remained after the books were committed to the flames. REMARKS ON THE LANGUAGE AND POETRY OF THE ANGLO SAXONS. From Ellis's Specimens of the early English Poets. THERE is, perhaps, no fpecies of reading fo popular as that which presents a description of manners and cuftoms confiderably different from our own; and it is the frequency of fuch pictures, interfperfed in the relations of voyages and travels, that principally recommends them to notice, and explains the avidity with which they are ufually received by the public. But as the pleasure we derive from this fource must be proportionate to the degree of interest which we take in the perfons defcribed; it is probable that a feries of the works of our own ancestors, and particularly of their poetry, which, whatever may be its defects, is fure to exhibit the moft correct and lively delineation of contemporary manners, would attract very general notice, if it were not confidered by the greater number of readers as a hopeless attempt, to fearch for thefe fources of amufement and information, amidst the obfcurity of a difficult, and almost unintelligible language. The veil which obfcures the writings of our early poets cannot now be wholly removed: and, perhaps, among the admirers of antiquity, there may be some who would regret its removal; becaufe, like other veils, it leaves much to the imagination, But the present trivial work having been compiled for the convenience of indolent and cursory readers, it appeared neceffary to adopt, as generally as poffible, in all the extracts which are hereafter given, the orthography of the prefent day; not as being quite rational (which it certainly is not,) but as being in fome degree confiftent, and fixed by cuftom and authority. Thofe obfolete words, which, having been long fince elbowed out of the language by Ed. Mag. July 1801. French, or Latin, or Greek fubftis tutes, were not reducible to any definite mode of spelling; those which, having undergone a change in their vowel founds, or in their number of fyllables, could not be reformed without disturbing the rhyme or metre; and thofe which were fo far difguifed as to offer no certain meaning, have been left to that fortuitous combination of letters which the original tranfcribers or printers had affigned to them. All fuch are printed in italics, for the purpose of more easy reference to the gloffarial notes, in which their meaning is explained or conjectured. It has not been fufficiently confidered that there was a period, and that of confiderable duration, during which the English language did not exist, or at leaft was not, and could not be applicable to any literary purpofe. The language of the church was Latin; that of the king and nobles, Norman; and that of the people, Anglo-Saxon: and the AngloNorman jargon was only employed in the commercial intercourfe between the conquerors and the conquered. It was likely to be compofed almost entirely of fynonymous terms, which evidently can only encumber, without enriching the speech of any nation; and that this was the cafe, is proved by our exifting language, in which the names of the neceffaries of life, as ox and beef, fheep and mutton, flesh and meat, befides many other words of frequent recurrence, had originally an identical meaning. This ftate of things would neceffarily continue fo long as the Norman and Anglo-Saxon people were feparated by mutual hatred and prejudice; and their languages could only be amalgamated into one common and confiftent form of speech, when |