pressly to entrap M. Barrois, the wealthy amateur, who does not
believe at all in Champollion, and consequently bought it for 6000
fraiics. It was certainly beyond the expectation of the French
forgers that they should cheat two English archaeologists also.
HI. E ratosthenes of Cyrene in Africa, the famed Greek librarian
of king Ptolemy Evergetes at Alexandria, the
Fig. 3. greatest Astronomer, Geographer, and Chrono-
logist of his time, would indeed deserve a place
of honor in any ethnographical publication; but,
unhappily, there exists no antique likeness of
that eminent man, although the Chevalier Bunsen
prefixed the ideal drawing of a Greek bust to the
second volume of his “ ^Egyptens Stelle in der
Weltgeschichte. ’ ’18 Yet this effigy is altogether a
modern fancy-portrait, which originates solely
from the desire of the learned Chevalier to express
his veneration for the Sage of Cyrene. I
have suspected that it is not through accident, but
by design, that the snub-nose of the German edition has been twisted
into a somewhat aquiline form for
Flg' 4' Longman’s English translation of
the same work. Possibly, Bunsen,
in fear lest his authority might
introduce a false Eratosthenes into
good society —as really has happened
in the “ Types,”—took this
indirect method of unmaking the
creature of his own imagination.
IV. The portrait of H annibal
was oopied for the “ Types,” on the
faith of the “Univers pittoresque,”
(Afrique ancienne, 'Carthage), a collection
of several works by different
authors of different, merit.
Thus, for instance, next to the
description of Ancient Egypt hy
Champollion-Eigeac, and of China by Pauthier, we find Italy
described by the shallow Artaud, and Greece by Pouqueville.
However, the alleged portrait of the Carthaginian hero did not
answer your ethnographic expectations in any way, not being of the
“ Hamburg, 1845, frontispiece. Compare the one in Egypt’s Place in Universal History,
London, 1854, II., and p. xxi. The same genius for invention has supplied Archasology
with an equally-authentic portrait of M a n e t h o :— Op. cit., JDrittes Euch, frontispiece
O N HITMAN RACES A N D T H E I R ART , 93
type so strongly marked in his face as to lead to the suggestion,
“ that if his father was a Phoenico-Carthaginian, one would suspect
that his mother, as among the Ottomans and Persians of the present
day, must have been an imported white slave, or other female of the
purest Japhetic race.’ 19 This remark, embodying an acknowledgment
of the Japhetic cast of the features, was happily added to the
“p o r t r a i twhich can be found on some elegant silver coins accompanied
by a Phoenician inscription. Erom the time of Pulvius
Ursinus20: it was always taken for the effigy of Hannibal, until Pel-
lerin,2l and Eckhel,22 proved that these coins are not Carthaginian,
but Cilician and Phoenician. “ In 1846,” says the reviewer of
Types, in the Athenaeum Français, “ the Duc de Luynes ibund out
that it was the portrait of a Satrap of the king of Persia, who
governed Tarsus in the time of Xenophon; and thus,” he adds, “ in
the effigy published by Messrs. Gliddon and Hott, type, country,
epoch, and race, are all mistaken’ ’ !23 A sweeping conclusion indeed ;
still, it is not complete enough ; seeing, we may add, that the reviewer
himself is likewisé mistaken. Had he studied the Essay of the Due
de Luynes with sufficient care, he would have found that the head
formerly believed to be the effigy of Hannibal, and as such prefixed
to most of the editions of Silius Italicus, is not at all a portrait, but
the ideal representation of a hero ; since it is not 'only found on the
silver coins of Demes of Phoenicia (or rather, according to W. H
Waddington, of Datâmes of Cilicia),2* but likewise on the coin’s of
Pharnabazus, the powerful Satrap of Phrygia and Lydia, son-in-law
to Artaxerxes Mnemon. It cannot, therefore, be meant for either
ot them ; , so much the less, as there is no example of any Satrap
8~amping coin with his own portrait.
Visconti, in his Iconographie grecque,™ attributes a totally different
bust to Hannibal. Fully aware that the effigy on the above-mentioned
silver coins could not represent the illustrious Carthaginian,
be did not like to lose the illusion'that we possess such an interesting
portrait;, especially as the elder Pliny complains26 that “ two statues
were erected to Hannibal in the city, since so many foreign nations
baa been received into communion with Rome, that all former dif-
erences between them were abolished.” Accordingly, Visconti
attributes a small bronze bust to the greatest enemy of the Romans;
1 8 5 4 ^ 2 9 4 ^ ^ ’ P’ 136’ % 87 ; and S0Uihem Quarterly Seview’ Chariest°n, S. C.. Oct.
” Imagine’s mus'tr. virorum pi 63 I T t ™ * — Sa ’ p Athenceum 1F™ran*ç™ais’, ÏFéSvrie r1 815845’6 P, 'p 2. 6142'
* ’ iu- P- 59- -V o l.iii. pl.xvi.
ctrma nummorum veterum, iii. p. 412. » Hist. Hat. xxxiv. | 16.