Column at Alexandria. 3 



The first letter, as given by Dr. Clarke, is without a date, 

 but evidently written later than February 1803 ; it is as follows : 

 " I believe the paper presented to the Antiquary Society, con- 

 tains the best history of the discovery of the Alexandrian in- 

 scription. I wish not to be brought forward in any literary 

 dispute, but the fact is, that most of the letters were discovered 

 by me while Messrs. Hamilton and Leake were in Upper Egypt. 

 I had seen the same inscription in Pococke's Travels before I 

 knew of its existence from that book." The second letter is 

 dated Alexandria, Christmas-day, 1801. " Here let me remark 

 that it is not impossible but that part of the inscription on the 

 great pillar may yet be read, fl and O are legible enough, 

 and by other remains of characters, I can plainly perceive that 

 the inscription consisted of four lines in Greek. With sulphur, 

 an impression of these characters might be taken, and perhaps 

 something satisfactory discovered. Before we quit the country, 

 I will certainly endeavour to make the experiment *.*' 



The conclusions drawn from these letters by Dr. Clarke, 

 imply that Messrs. Leake and Hamilton have assumed to them- 

 selves a share in a discovery to which they had no right : this 

 is a very serious charge, and which does not appear to me to 

 be sustained by the letters themselves, even admitting the 

 statements in them to be perfectly correct. Colonel Squire does 

 indeed claim for himself the having discovered most of the 

 letters during the absence of Messrs. Leake and Hamilton, in 

 Upper Egypt ; but this could not be called a discovery, for the 

 same had long before been done by Pococke, and nothing can 

 be more different than the ascertaining that detached letters are 

 distinguishable, and the deciphering a sufficiency of the in- 

 scription to show its sense, and to whom the column was de- 

 dicated. Indeed, the only two letters Colonel Squire claims as 

 having made out, were fl and O, and these had already been 

 given by Pococke, who had also given the following or third letter; 



• On this Dr. Clarke observes, " that even the device of the sulphur 

 was due to him." There was but little merit in this device ; it was tried, 

 and a third part of the inscription was taken off; but without the dis* 

 covery of a single additional letter. It was, in fact^ totally useless. 



B2 



