264 THE PYRAMIDS. 
CHAP, at present is to prove the intention for which 
'- -> the Pyramids were erected ; and in this, it is 
" Factus est Joseph quasi rex (otitis j^gt/pti, et vocaverunt turn /Jpis" 
says Kircher {(Edip. ^gypt. torn. I. p. 1J)6. Rum. lGo2); and he 
gives us from Varro the reason why he was called Serapis : " (2uia 
Area (inqiiit Varr.) in qua positus erat, Grace seu ^gyptiace dicitur 
'So^is, unde 'S,o^a,-;ri$, quasi Area Apis, deinde, una. lilerd tnutatd, 'Si^a.-ri; 
dictus est." Also, accordiag to Strubo, Apis was the same as OsiRis. 
"Of iiTTtv {"a^i;) S ocutos xa.) 'Oifl^i; [lib. xvii. ^J. 1 144. Ed. Oxon.) Hence 
it may be inferred, that as Joseph, together with the names of Apis 
and Serapis, also bore that of Osiris, the annual mournings which 
took place in Egypt for the loss of Osiris' body, and the exhibition of 
an empty Soros upon those occasions, were ceremonies derived from 
the loss of Joseph's body, which had been carried away by the Hebrews 
when they left the country. Julius Firmicus, who flourished under 
the two sons of Constantine, endeavours to explain the reason {De 
Error. Profan. Relig.) why Joseph was called Serapis. In opposition 
to the origin assigned by f^arro, for the name Serapis, it may be ob- 
served, that Plutarch {De Isid. et Osir. c.'zQ.) derides a notion which 
prevailed, maintaining that Serapis v,^as no God, but a mere name for 
the sepulchral chest where the body of APis was deposited: Ot)* iTnai 
Giou Tov '^d^afiv, iXXa tjj» 'AHIAOS SOPON ovtu; ovDfiat^irfai. But things 
which were rejected by the Greeks, as inconsistent with their religious 
opinions, may come much nearer, on this account, to truth, and to our 
own. A very popular notion has long been entertained, concerning 
an extraneous idol brought to Alexandria, by one of the Ptolemies, 
from the coast of PoNTUs, which received the appellation of SeJTy^w 
upon its arrival in Egypt. But the word Stnuipis is \t\ire\y Egyptian 
(Vid. Jabhnshi Panth. jEgypt. torn. I. p. 232. Francof. 1750); and 
there is something extremely improbable in the circumstances of the 
importation. That any of the Ptolemies, cooped as they were in Egypt, 
should insult the inhabitants of the country {Macrobius Suturnal. l.\. 
c. 7.) by the introduction of a strange Divinity from the EuxiNE, has 
always worn an appearance of fable. Jablonski has refuted the opi- 
nion, by proving that Scrap'ts was worshipped in Mejnphis long before 
the time of the Ptolemies (Panth, Egypt, lib. li. c. 5. />. 233. Franc. 
. nso). 
