M. Letronne adopts the conjecture which refers the sounds pro-

ceeding from the ruins remaining in their place after the fall of the anterior portion of the statue, to the sudden difference of tempe- rature between night and day. The massive blocks with which, at a later period, it was loaded, forced it, by their weight, to resist this influence. This pretended miracle, therefore, thus confined in duration within the limits of two centuries, he considers was not the result of fraud, as the Egyptian priests did not attempt to attach to it a religious importance.
This system is plausible ; sufficiently so, indeed, to tempt one, on a cursory glance, to regard the problem as definitively solved : on reflection, however, several grave objections present them- selves.
First, the silence of Herodotus and of Diodorus furnish, it is confessed, an argument of apparent weight ; but it is one of a negative character only. To make it conclusive, it must be shewn that, if the fact were true, these authors could not have avoided making mention of it. But, in exploring a foreign country, some things may escape the attention of the observer ; and, still more possibly, some of those things which he has seen or been informed of, may be omitted in description. The learned of modern times have had proof of this in Egypt itself, when they visited that country with works of their predecessors in their hands. Fur- ther, it was a history, not a description, that was written by He- rodotus. This distinction is important : description cannot be too complete, while history, passing by even interesting details, gives prominency only to the principal features.
We will not take advantage of the exaggerated accusation with which Josephus stigmatizes Herodotus, as having, through igno- rance, disfigured the history of the Egyptians.* But Herodotus
* Joseph. Adv. Apion. lib. i.
342 ILLUSTRATIONS.
himself, in his journey to Memphis,* to Heliopolis, and to Thebes mentions, that from what he had been able to learn, he intended merely to notice the names of the divinities. When an author thus fixes beforehand the limits of the information he proposes to give, what argument can be drawn by the critic, from his silence, respecting facts of which he has declared his determination not to speak ?
The plan of Diodorus being on a still more comprehensive scale than that of Herodotus, allows still less of detail. We may ob- serve also, that this writer, who flourished in the reign of Augus- tus, just concludes his work at the period when, according to M. Letronne, the vocal powers of the statue were well attested. He has not, however, spoken of it. Is it fair to conclude, from his silence, something against the reality of a lately ascertained fact, sufficiently singular to attract his attention ? Certainly not ; as his silence, proves nothing against the real existence of the ancient and well known apparent miracle.
Secondly, M. Letronne looks on the passage from Manethon, quoted by Eusebius, as an interpolation, merely because Josephus has omitted quoting it in from the text of the Egyptian priests ;f yet, in a quotation otherwise exact, an incidental phrase is fre- quently suppressed, if it do not bear on the subject treated of, or if it tend to distract the reader's attention from the point on which it is desirable to fix it. Josephus had no concern in the identity of the statues of Amenophis and of Memnon ; and as irrelevant to the Jewish history, he has passed over these particu- lars in silence. In fact, he expressly says, at the close of the quotation, that for the sake of brevity he purposely omits many things. This acknowledgment is sufficient to overturn M. Le- tronne's argument. The passage of Manethon exists, as it was •quoted by Eusebius, who could have no object in altering it. The
* Herodot. lib. n. cap. m. t Joseph. Adv. Ajnon. lib. i.
ILLUSTRATIONS. 343
vocal powers of the colossus and its form, were then facts known in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus ; thence they might be re- ferred to a much earlier time, even to the reign of Cambyses.
Thirdly, the mutilation of the colossus, falsely ascribed to the Persian King, was, according to Strabo, the effect of an earthquake : the same which, says M. Letronne, in the twenty- seventh year of our era, overturned the whole of Thebes. The Greek text of Eusebius confirms this opinion ; but the Armenian version corrects the exaggeration of the extent of this disaster, limiting its effects to the suburbs.
An earthquake has at all times been a rare phenomenon in Egypt : a circumstance proved by the number of ancient edifices that, after the lapse of so many centuries, remain stand- ing in tbat country. The Egyptians, therefore, were not likely to forget a catastrophe so fatal to their ancient capital, and to a monument which was the object of national veneration. Yet the terms are very vague, in which the testimony by Strabo respecting it, is addressed. His words are, "It is said that the upper part was overthrown."
The consideration which has been supposed to supplant the theory which I combat, namely, that Strabo must have wit- nessed the earthquake in the year 27 b.c.,* mentioned by Eusebius, does not make his language the less extraordinary. The expedition of Aelius Gallus into Arabia took place in the year 24 b.c., according to Dionysius Cassius : and we must assign the same date to the journey of Strabo, when he visited Thebes in company with that General. Would, we may inquire, such a judicious writer have expressed himself so incorrectly, respecting a contemporary event ; or one, the traces of which must still have been obvious, after the interval of only two or three years ?
Again, how can we admit that five hundred years after
* The Armenian versions of Eusebius, place this event three years later, the year 24 b.c.
344 ILLUSTRATIONS.
the death of Cambyses, the mutilation of the colossus could have been attributed to that Prince, if it were really the effect of an earthquake, of which all Egypt must have been aware, and must long have retained in their remembrance ? Would the contemporaries of Charles VII. have attributed the fall of an edifice crumbling away before their eyes, to the ravages of the Normans, to whom Charles the Simple yielded Neustria ? The coincidence between the passages of Eusebius and of Strabo is an hypothesis, contrary to all probability, and supported by no certain indication ; yet this forms the foundation of M. Le- tronne's theory.
What, I would ask, is the testimony of Strabo ? — He visits the statue, hears the miraculous voice, and quits the spot without further research, convinced that it is better to believe anything, than to admit that stones, so disposed, were capable of pro- ducing sound ! This is the language of a witness too prejudiced to allow of consideration for bis opinions.