fitting trousers (anaxyrides), and by their tunics, which cover head and chin. The trappings of the Greek or Persian horses also can easily be distinguished.

It is a pity that this sarcophagus should ever have been represented as that of Alexander the Great. It would be worthy of that honour as a work of art, but all historical evidence is against such a supposition. Without entering into details, it is safe to say that Alexander died at Babylon, and that his body was taken to Egypt, first to Memphis, then to Alexandria. It was at Alexandria that Augustus saw it. No one seems ever to have seen it anywhere else. There is a tradition that Caligula took away the breast plate, to wear it himself at Rome. At that time the tomb of Alexander was at Alexandria, and no one has ever spoken of it as being at Sidon. There is one figure on horseback with a lion's skin on his head, and this was taken as a sure indication that the figure was meant for Alexander. But Alexander is not the only kingly person represented with that headgear. Supposing, however, that the sarcophagus had been intended for Alexander, would any artist in his senses have introduced the King in a corner of the picture, undistinguished by any royal insignia; and would he have reproduced on the sarcophagus scenes in which the Persians are the conquerors rather than the conquered? To call it the sarcophagus of Clitus is equally groundless. The story published in the papers of the discovery of the real tomb of Alexander and of Cleopatra seems to have been a mere hoax. Nothing was known of it at Alexandria, as I was assured by H. E. Tégrané Pashah. Why not practise a little agnosticism and confess that as yet we have no indication as to the person for whom this and the other beautiful sarcophagi were intended? Beautiful they are, each in its own way, and most interesting from an historical point of view.

But here also much caution is needed. These monuments, though found in the same place, need not be considered as contemporaneous, nor as representing local Phoenician art. To judge from the Egyptian sarcophagus of King Tabnith, there can be little doubt that the rich princes and merchants of Phoenicia bought their sarcophagi in Egypt and elsewhere, even if they had been occupied before. Thus, and thus only, can it be explained that we should find in the same place monuments of Egyptian, Lycian, and Greek workmanship. The specimens of Greek workmanship are the most perfect of their kind, though they do not belong to the heyday of Greek art. The sarcophagus called Les Pleureuses, in which a mourning woman is represented in ever so

many attitudes of grief, appeals from the first moment to our sympathy, but after a time it leaves a monotonous impression, and shows a poverty of artistic imagination. We miss the touching simplicity of the more ancient funeral monuments, showing the departed as shaking hands for the last time with wife and children, and looking sadly at his dog. We see here the same woman in every conceivable attitude of grief, and as if saying to the spectator, "Lookhow I am crying and mourning!"

The so-called sarcophagus of Alexander is of the same type as the famous Fugger sarcophagus which I saw at Vienna, only far better preserved. The grouping is excellent, the execution of the single figures full of life and spirit. But the figures are crowded, and there is no longer the simple grandeur and repose of the highest art of Greece. It is Greek art of the Alexandrian and post-Alexandrian period, full of dramatic movement, full of sentiment, but without the simple dignity of the Parthenon sculptures. The Lycian sarcophagus is a splendid specimen of Lycian art, more perfect than anything at the British Museum, and more advanced in artistic decoration. The so-called Sarcophage du Satrape strikes one at first as somewhat stiff and unfinished, but it comes nearest to the master-works of Greek art. So little has yet been said by competent archæologists about these new discoveries that we may safely look forward to many new revelations as to their origin and meaning. But whatever the final verdict may be, everybody will recognise the greatness of the discovery here made, and be ready to give full credit to Hamdy Bey for the perseverance with which he has overcome the innumerable difficulties which faced him on every side. Whoever it was that these monuments were meant to commemorate, they will for ever commemorate the name of the first Turkish archæologist, Hamdy Bey, and of his enlightened patron, Sultan Abdul Hamid.

There are many more monuments, chiefly funereal, on the ground floor of the new Museum; others stand outside, a Lycian tomb among the rest, waiting to be housed when room can be found for them. In the upper storey there are curious collections of antiquities sent to the Turkish Government by Schliemann and other explorers. There are many Babylonian, Accadian, and so-called Hittite inscriptions which, though properly arranged and labelled, would fully reward the labours. of specialists. All these treasures are freely thrown open, and both Hamdy Bey and his brother are there ready to receive all serious students and to assist them in their researches with truly Turkish courtesy.

F. MAX MULLER.