APPENDIX.

Our narrative of Cleopatraâ€™s Needle would be incomplete were we to fail in recording some few memoranda which have fallen in our way, of the personal history of the obelisk: and the first of these to which we shall direct attention is derived from an extract from theBombay Courier, of June 9, 1802, courteously communicated to us by Major-General Bellasis. It runs as follows:â€”

â€œThe pedestal of the fallen Needle of Cleopatra having been heeled to starboard, and a proper excavation made in the centre of the base stone, this inscription on a slab of marble was inserted, and the pedestal restored to its former situation. The Needle was likewise turned over, and the hieroglyphics on the side it had so long lain on found fresh and entire.â€œIn the year of the Christian era 1798, the Republic of France landed on the shores of Egypt an army of 40,000 men, commanded by their most able and successful commander, General Bonaparte. The conduct of the general and the valour of the troops effected the subjection of that country. But, under Divine Providence, it was reserved for the British nation to annihilate their ambitious designs. Their fleet was attacked, defeated, and destroyed in Aboukir Bay, by a British fleet ofequal force, commanded by Admiral Lord Nelson. Their intended conquest of Syria was counteracted at Acre by a most gallant resistance, under Commodore Sidney Smith; and Egypt was rescued from their dominion by a British army, inferior in numbers, but commanded by General Sir Ralph Abercromby, who landed at Aboukir on the 8th of March, 1801; defeated the French on several occasions, particularly in a most decisive action near Alexandria, on the 21st of that month; when they were driven from the field, and forced to shelter themselves in their garrisons of Cairo and Alexandria, which places subsequently surrendered by capitulation. To record to future ages these events, and to commemorate the loss sustained by the death of Sir Ralph Abercromby, who was mortally wounded at the moment of victory on that memorable day, is the design of this inscription, which was deposited here in the year of Christ, 1802, by the British army, on their evacuation of this country, and restoring it to the Turkish empire.â€

â€œIn the year of the Christian era 1798, the Republic of France landed on the shores of Egypt an army of 40,000 men, commanded by their most able and successful commander, General Bonaparte. The conduct of the general and the valour of the troops effected the subjection of that country. But, under Divine Providence, it was reserved for the British nation to annihilate their ambitious designs. Their fleet was attacked, defeated, and destroyed in Aboukir Bay, by a British fleet ofequal force, commanded by Admiral Lord Nelson. Their intended conquest of Syria was counteracted at Acre by a most gallant resistance, under Commodore Sidney Smith; and Egypt was rescued from their dominion by a British army, inferior in numbers, but commanded by General Sir Ralph Abercromby, who landed at Aboukir on the 8th of March, 1801; defeated the French on several occasions, particularly in a most decisive action near Alexandria, on the 21st of that month; when they were driven from the field, and forced to shelter themselves in their garrisons of Cairo and Alexandria, which places subsequently surrendered by capitulation. To record to future ages these events, and to commemorate the loss sustained by the death of Sir Ralph Abercromby, who was mortally wounded at the moment of victory on that memorable day, is the design of this inscription, which was deposited here in the year of Christ, 1802, by the British army, on their evacuation of this country, and restoring it to the Turkish empire.â€

In the year 1820, we have a more intimate introduction to the obelisk in a very interesting letter from Mr. Briggs, formerly Consul at Alexandria, addressed to the Right Honourable Sir Benjamin Blomfield, one of the ministers of His Majesty George the Fourth.

Letter fromConsul Briggsto theRight Hon. Sir Benjamin Blomfield.â€œUpper Tooting, Surrey.â€œ11th April, 1820.â€œSir,â€œHaving, on my late visit to Egypt, witnessed the stupendous labours of the celebrated Mr. Belzoni, and received from him the assurance that he could confidently undertake the removal to England of one of the granite obelisks at Alexandria; and the Viceroy of Egypt, Mahommed Ali Pacha, having frequently expressed to me his desire of making some acknowledgment for the handsome equipment of his corvette, the â€˜Africa,â€™ and for the presents sent him by His Majesty on the return of that ship to Egypt in the year 1811, I was encouraged to submit to His Highness my opinion that one of the obelisks at Alexandria, known in Europe under the appellation of Cleopatraâ€™s Needles, might possibly be acceptable to His Majesty, as unique of its kind in England, and which might, therefore, be considered a valuable addition to the embellishments designed for the British metropolis. His Highness promised to take the subject into consideration; and, since my return to England, I have received a letter from his Minister, authorising me, if I deemed it acceptable, to make, in his masterâ€™s name, a tender of one of those obelisks to His Majesty, as a mark of his personal respect and gratitude.â€œIt is scarcely necessary to say, those obelisks have for ages been admired for their magnitude, workmanship, and antiquity. After the glorious termination of the conjoint expedition to Egypt in 1801, it was proposed by some officers of high rank to convey to England this identical obelisk as an appropriate trophy.â€œRepresentations were actually made, and subscriptions entered into, among the officers of both army and navy; but, being found inadequate, the design was reluctantly relinquished; and it was generally understood to have been a subject of regret with the administration of that period, that government had been apprised of it too late o afford the necessary means towards its accomplishment.

Letter fromConsul Briggsto theRight Hon. Sir Benjamin Blomfield.

â€œUpper Tooting, Surrey.â€œ11th April, 1820.

â€œSir,

â€œHaving, on my late visit to Egypt, witnessed the stupendous labours of the celebrated Mr. Belzoni, and received from him the assurance that he could confidently undertake the removal to England of one of the granite obelisks at Alexandria; and the Viceroy of Egypt, Mahommed Ali Pacha, having frequently expressed to me his desire of making some acknowledgment for the handsome equipment of his corvette, the â€˜Africa,â€™ and for the presents sent him by His Majesty on the return of that ship to Egypt in the year 1811, I was encouraged to submit to His Highness my opinion that one of the obelisks at Alexandria, known in Europe under the appellation of Cleopatraâ€™s Needles, might possibly be acceptable to His Majesty, as unique of its kind in England, and which might, therefore, be considered a valuable addition to the embellishments designed for the British metropolis. His Highness promised to take the subject into consideration; and, since my return to England, I have received a letter from his Minister, authorising me, if I deemed it acceptable, to make, in his masterâ€™s name, a tender of one of those obelisks to His Majesty, as a mark of his personal respect and gratitude.

â€œIt is scarcely necessary to say, those obelisks have for ages been admired for their magnitude, workmanship, and antiquity. After the glorious termination of the conjoint expedition to Egypt in 1801, it was proposed by some officers of high rank to convey to England this identical obelisk as an appropriate trophy.

â€œRepresentations were actually made, and subscriptions entered into, among the officers of both army and navy; but, being found inadequate, the design was reluctantly relinquished; and it was generally understood to have been a subject of regret with the administration of that period, that government had been apprised of it too late o afford the necessary means towards its accomplishment.

â€œAmong the officers who had ample opportunities, after the conquest of Egypt, of examining this monument of art, and who may be competent to give a just idea of its merit, may be enumerated, Lord Cavan, Sir Richard Bickerston, Sir David Baird, Sir Hildebrand Oakes, Lord Beresford, Admiral Donelly, and, lately, Sir Miles Nightingale, who visited it on his return from India a few months ago. The two commanders-in-chief of the Egyptian expedition, Lord Keith and Lord Hutchinson, had quitted the country before the plan of removal was in contemplation.â€œThis obelisk is formed of a single block of red granite (weighing 183 tons, exclusive of the pedestal and steps), originally brought from the quarries in Upper Egypt, near the cataracts. It is now close to the sea-shore at Alexandria, suspended horizontally on its pedestal, in the manner it was placed by our officers in the year 1802, near to the site where the other obelisk is erected. It is about sixty-eight feet in height from the base to the apex, and about seven feet square at the base. On the four sides it is richly sculptured with hieroglyphics in a superior style, more than an inch deep; and though in the lapse of ages it has partially suffered on two sides from the desert winds, the other two are in good preservation.â€œThe pedestal is a plain block of the same granite, about eight feet and a-half square, and six feet and a-half high. All travellers mention it with encomiums. Clarke, Walsh, and Sir Robert Wilson, lament, in their works, it was not secured to England; and Denon contemplated the feasibility of one day transporting it to France.

â€œThis obelisk is formed of a single block of red granite (weighing 183 tons, exclusive of the pedestal and steps), originally brought from the quarries in Upper Egypt, near the cataracts. It is now close to the sea-shore at Alexandria, suspended horizontally on its pedestal, in the manner it was placed by our officers in the year 1802, near to the site where the other obelisk is erected. It is about sixty-eight feet in height from the base to the apex, and about seven feet square at the base. On the four sides it is richly sculptured with hieroglyphics in a superior style, more than an inch deep; and though in the lapse of ages it has partially suffered on two sides from the desert winds, the other two are in good preservation.

â€œThe pedestal is a plain block of the same granite, about eight feet and a-half square, and six feet and a-half high. All travellers mention it with encomiums. Clarke, Walsh, and Sir Robert Wilson, lament, in their works, it was not secured to England; and Denon contemplated the feasibility of one day transporting it to France.

â€œThe removal to England of so massive a body would, no doubt, be a work of some difficulty and expense; but similar undertakings have been accomplished by the ancient Romans; and this would have been performed by our countrymen in 1802, had the individual resources of our officers been adequate to the expense.â€œIn the present state of the arts and sciences in England, it may reasonably be presumed no obstacle can exist but what the munificence of the sovereign can readily surmount. What Belzoni has already done, with only common local means, in conveying to Alexandria, from ancient Thebes, the colossal head which now ornaments the British Museum, together with the success of his other labours, is an earnest of what he is capable of performing; while, at the same time, the unprecedented extent of the excavations attest the liberal character of the present ruler of Egypt, no less than the various improvements he has of late years introduced into the country.â€œEminently brilliant as the government of His Majesty has been, during the Regency, in arms and politics, it will, in future times, be no less distinguished for the liberal encouragement given to the arts and sciences, and for the splendid embellishments conferred on the metropolis. Rome and Constantinople are the only cities in Europe which can boast of Egyptian monuments of this description. They, however, still attest the power and grandeur of the ancient masters of the world; and if the bronze column erected at Paris in modern times serves to ornament that city, and perpetuate the trophies of the French arms, this Egyptian obelisk, in the capital of England, would equally remain a permanent memorial of British achievements, and would be admired by posterity, as well as by the present age, for the boldness of the undertaking as much as for its intrinsic merits.

â€œIn the present state of the arts and sciences in England, it may reasonably be presumed no obstacle can exist but what the munificence of the sovereign can readily surmount. What Belzoni has already done, with only common local means, in conveying to Alexandria, from ancient Thebes, the colossal head which now ornaments the British Museum, together with the success of his other labours, is an earnest of what he is capable of performing; while, at the same time, the unprecedented extent of the excavations attest the liberal character of the present ruler of Egypt, no less than the various improvements he has of late years introduced into the country.

â€œEminently brilliant as the government of His Majesty has been, during the Regency, in arms and politics, it will, in future times, be no less distinguished for the liberal encouragement given to the arts and sciences, and for the splendid embellishments conferred on the metropolis. Rome and Constantinople are the only cities in Europe which can boast of Egyptian monuments of this description. They, however, still attest the power and grandeur of the ancient masters of the world; and if the bronze column erected at Paris in modern times serves to ornament that city, and perpetuate the trophies of the French arms, this Egyptian obelisk, in the capital of England, would equally remain a permanent memorial of British achievements, and would be admired by posterity, as well as by the present age, for the boldness of the undertaking as much as for its intrinsic merits.

â€œI respectfully submit to you, Sir, in the first instance, this offer of the Viceroy of Egypt, as being in its nature more personal than official, and, therefore, more complimentary to His Majesty. Should you deem it proper to take His Majestyâ€™s pleasure thereon, I shall be happy to convey to His Highness the Viceroy the acceptance of his offer, if approved. But should you consider it more correct that I should make this communication to His Majestyâ€™s ministers, I shall immediately comply with your suggestion.â€œI have the honour to be, with the highest consideration,Sir,â€œYour most obedient and humble servant,â€œSamuel Briggs,â€[Formerly Consul at Alexandria.

â€œI have the honour to be, with the highest consideration,

Sir,

â€œYour most obedient and humble servant,â€œSamuel Briggs,â€[Formerly Consul at Alexandria.

We have next to record the unwearied exertions of our kind friend, General Sir James Alexander; to whom we are indebted for our first knowledge that the old Egyptian obelisk was within reach of acquirement by the son of an old naval officer, from whose lips we had often listened eagerly to its praises, and to the narration of the brave deeds of our never-to-be-forgotten heroes, Nelson and Abercromby. Sir James Alexanderâ€™s communication takes the form of a paper read to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1868; entitled, â€œObservations relative to the Desirableness of Transporting from Alexandria to Britain the Prostrate Obelisk presented to George IV. by Mahommed Ali Pacha.â€ By General Sir J. E. Alexander, K.C.L.S., F.R.S.E., &c.

â€œIn the month of September last (1867), when visiting the Great Exhibition in Paris, I was particularly struck with the fine appearance of the obelisk of Luxor in the Place de la Concorde, and I thought that, as the French had taken the trouble and gone to the expense of moving this highly interesting monolith, it was a reflection on our nation and on the engineering skill of Britain, that the prostrate obelisk at Alexandria (one of Cleopatraâ€™s Needles, as it is commonly termed), was not occupying a place of honour in England or Scotland.â€œThis obelisk was presented to George IV. many years ago by Mahommed Ali Pacha, who also generously offered to move it on rollers to the sea, from which it is 30 yards distant, and, embarking it on rafts and lighters, convey it to a vessel for transport to England.â€œThe state of public affairs at the time, perhaps, prevented the accomplishment of this enterprise; now the time may be more favourable for it.â€œSir Gardner Wilkinson and other writers on Egypt and its antiquities, are of opinion that Cleopatraâ€™s Needles (one of which is upright) were brought by one of the Ptolemies from Heliopolis, near Cairo, to decorate a palace at Alexandria. On the obelisks appear the names of Thothmes III. (b.c.1463), of Rameses the Great, and of Osirei I. (b.c.1232), long before Cleopatraâ€™s time. Sandys, who travelled in 1610, calls the prostrate obelisk â€˜Pharaohâ€™s Needle,â€™ and says â€˜it is half buried in rubbish.â€™ It is of red granite; and, looking down a hole, its top is seen with crowned hawks sculptured on it. Lord Nugent, writing in 1845, says the hieroglyphics on three sides are well preserved. Colonel Ayton, of H.M. Bombay Engineers, informed me, that whilst in Egypt in 1862, and whilstthere was an idea of a memorial for Prince Albert first started, Mr. Clark, of the telegraph department, uncovered the prostrate obelisk, removed the sand and rubbish from it, found the hieroglyphics on three sides in good preservation, and, as the obelisk was not then wanted, he covered it up again.â€œThis obelisk, with others, is well ascertained to have been quarried at SyenÃ©, at the extreme boundary of Upper Egypt. It is not easy to find out how the hieroglyphics were graven on such a hard surface, and what was the process of hardening the bronze tools used for this purpose. The Messrs. Macdonald of Aberdeen, and other workers in granite in this country, might be able to explain this: possibly the assistance of emery-powder was brought in.â€œDenon alludes to Cleopatraâ€™s Needles, and says they might be moved without difficulty, and form interesting trophies. To remove works of art from countries where they form ornaments, and are conspicuous objects of interest, is quite unworthy of a great people; but the obelisk in question lies in dishonour among low huts in the outskirts of Alexandria, and might well be spared to ornament one of our capital cities. In a conversation with Mr. David Laing, the well-known antiquary, about it, he suggested the open space in front of the British Museum as the most appropriate for it. Still, it might not be sufficiently seen there: further west might be better, or in our Charlotte Square.â€œI corresponded with Mr. Newton, the keeper of antiquities, British Museum, about the obelisk; and he writesâ€”â€˜It seems to me that if, by public subscription, a sufficient sum could be raised to transport this obelisk to England, it would be a just matter of national satisfaction; but you will understand that, while this may be a case fully justifying an appeal to the public for a subscription, it may not be onesufficiently strong to justify the trustees and officers of the British Museum in moving in the matter officially, because we have to make so many applications to the Treasury for grants for excavations, &c.â€™â€œI communicated with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company regarding the means of transporting the obelisk; and the secretary for the managing directors statesâ€”â€˜We would beg to suggest that the matter should be referred by you to the Foreign Office, whose agents have made all the necessary calculations on the subject, and without whose permission nothing could be done.â€™â€œThe Foreign Office was accordingly communicated with, and an answer was returned that the matter is now under the consideration of Lord Stanley.â€œThe eminent civil engineer, Professor Macquorn Rankine, was asked what he thought of the means of transporting the obelisk, and he saidâ€”â€˜I regret I cannot form any opinion whatsoever as to the best way of transporting the obelisk without having detailed information, which, I believe, I could not obtain except by visiting the spot where it lies. The subject is undoubtedly one of very great interest, and I should very much like to be present when it is discussed.â€™â€œIn the Royal United Service Institution, London, I found thirteen large plans, carefully drawn, illustrating how, by means of inclined planes, a flat-bottomed vessel, machinery for raising the obelisk on a pedestal, &c., it could be sent to and set up in England. These plans are supposed to have been prepared in 1820, by Captain Boswell, R.N., for the government; but no action was then taken in the matter.â€œIt appears to me (having studied and been employed formerly as anengineer) that there might be no need for a vessel being built on purpose to carry the obelisk. A large Clyde lighter, raised upon, might transport it, across the Bay of Biscay in summer; or, if an old ship, sufficiently seaworthy, is got, and the masts taken out of her, and the beams cut across, the obelisk might be taken alongside, raised, and lowered into her, iron beams being ready, with bolts and screws, to connect and secure the cut beams of the vessel, then towed by a steamer to England. Once there, little difficulty would ensue before it occupied a place of distinction; but not necessarily on a pedestal, which would change its original character through giving it additional height. It is 68 feet long, weighs 184 tons, and is 7 to 8 feet square at the base of the shaft.â€œI understand that, in an apartment in the Louvre, part of the machinery is preserved, by means of which the transport of the French obelisk was effected. This could be seen, or even lent to assist our engineers, and save heavy cost; and this need not be heavy, unless with gross mismanagement and a mere job made of it. Honestly gone about, the cost would be moderate.â€œLord Stanley wrote me that he was not aware that the parliament would vote a sum of money to move the obelisk. This might be asked, however.â€œI quite concur with Professor Piazzi Smyth in denouncing the barbarism of breaking off pieces of, and carrying away, Egyptian antiques; but I think we might remove the prostrate obelisk hidden and buried in the sand, leaving, of course, the twin obelisk set up in its place, and always most interesting as a â€˜Cleopatraâ€™s Needle.â€™ The prostrate one might be converted into building materials ere long, if not looked after.â€œLately, in Glasgow, I made myself acquainted with the engineer of theClyde Navigation, Mr. A. Duncan. I went over the matter with him of the means of transporting the obelisk, and I suggested an iron casing or vessel built round it. He approved of this; and on my asking him to give his ideas on the matterâ€”also to look at the plans from the United Service Institutionâ€”he kindly consented to do so; and his clear and excellent method for carrying out what is so much desiredâ€”the removal of the obelisk to Britainâ€”is placed before the Royal Society of Edinburgh.â€A very important result of Sir James Alexanderâ€™s agitation of the question, is made evident by the following letter, addressed to Lord Henry Lennox so recently as the spring of 1876:[56]â€”â€œHotel Abbat, Alexandria.â€œApril 1st, 1876.

â€œThis obelisk was presented to George IV. many years ago by Mahommed Ali Pacha, who also generously offered to move it on rollers to the sea, from which it is 30 yards distant, and, embarking it on rafts and lighters, convey it to a vessel for transport to England.

â€œThe state of public affairs at the time, perhaps, prevented the accomplishment of this enterprise; now the time may be more favourable for it.

â€œSir Gardner Wilkinson and other writers on Egypt and its antiquities, are of opinion that Cleopatraâ€™s Needles (one of which is upright) were brought by one of the Ptolemies from Heliopolis, near Cairo, to decorate a palace at Alexandria. On the obelisks appear the names of Thothmes III. (b.c.1463), of Rameses the Great, and of Osirei I. (b.c.1232), long before Cleopatraâ€™s time. Sandys, who travelled in 1610, calls the prostrate obelisk â€˜Pharaohâ€™s Needle,â€™ and says â€˜it is half buried in rubbish.â€™ It is of red granite; and, looking down a hole, its top is seen with crowned hawks sculptured on it. Lord Nugent, writing in 1845, says the hieroglyphics on three sides are well preserved. Colonel Ayton, of H.M. Bombay Engineers, informed me, that whilst in Egypt in 1862, and whilstthere was an idea of a memorial for Prince Albert first started, Mr. Clark, of the telegraph department, uncovered the prostrate obelisk, removed the sand and rubbish from it, found the hieroglyphics on three sides in good preservation, and, as the obelisk was not then wanted, he covered it up again.

â€œThis obelisk, with others, is well ascertained to have been quarried at SyenÃ©, at the extreme boundary of Upper Egypt. It is not easy to find out how the hieroglyphics were graven on such a hard surface, and what was the process of hardening the bronze tools used for this purpose. The Messrs. Macdonald of Aberdeen, and other workers in granite in this country, might be able to explain this: possibly the assistance of emery-powder was brought in.

â€œDenon alludes to Cleopatraâ€™s Needles, and says they might be moved without difficulty, and form interesting trophies. To remove works of art from countries where they form ornaments, and are conspicuous objects of interest, is quite unworthy of a great people; but the obelisk in question lies in dishonour among low huts in the outskirts of Alexandria, and might well be spared to ornament one of our capital cities. In a conversation with Mr. David Laing, the well-known antiquary, about it, he suggested the open space in front of the British Museum as the most appropriate for it. Still, it might not be sufficiently seen there: further west might be better, or in our Charlotte Square.

â€œI corresponded with Mr. Newton, the keeper of antiquities, British Museum, about the obelisk; and he writesâ€”â€˜It seems to me that if, by public subscription, a sufficient sum could be raised to transport this obelisk to England, it would be a just matter of national satisfaction; but you will understand that, while this may be a case fully justifying an appeal to the public for a subscription, it may not be onesufficiently strong to justify the trustees and officers of the British Museum in moving in the matter officially, because we have to make so many applications to the Treasury for grants for excavations, &c.â€™

â€œI communicated with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company regarding the means of transporting the obelisk; and the secretary for the managing directors statesâ€”â€˜We would beg to suggest that the matter should be referred by you to the Foreign Office, whose agents have made all the necessary calculations on the subject, and without whose permission nothing could be done.â€™

â€œThe Foreign Office was accordingly communicated with, and an answer was returned that the matter is now under the consideration of Lord Stanley.

â€œThe eminent civil engineer, Professor Macquorn Rankine, was asked what he thought of the means of transporting the obelisk, and he saidâ€”â€˜I regret I cannot form any opinion whatsoever as to the best way of transporting the obelisk without having detailed information, which, I believe, I could not obtain except by visiting the spot where it lies. The subject is undoubtedly one of very great interest, and I should very much like to be present when it is discussed.â€™

â€œIn the Royal United Service Institution, London, I found thirteen large plans, carefully drawn, illustrating how, by means of inclined planes, a flat-bottomed vessel, machinery for raising the obelisk on a pedestal, &c., it could be sent to and set up in England. These plans are supposed to have been prepared in 1820, by Captain Boswell, R.N., for the government; but no action was then taken in the matter.

â€œIt appears to me (having studied and been employed formerly as anengineer) that there might be no need for a vessel being built on purpose to carry the obelisk. A large Clyde lighter, raised upon, might transport it, across the Bay of Biscay in summer; or, if an old ship, sufficiently seaworthy, is got, and the masts taken out of her, and the beams cut across, the obelisk might be taken alongside, raised, and lowered into her, iron beams being ready, with bolts and screws, to connect and secure the cut beams of the vessel, then towed by a steamer to England. Once there, little difficulty would ensue before it occupied a place of distinction; but not necessarily on a pedestal, which would change its original character through giving it additional height. It is 68 feet long, weighs 184 tons, and is 7 to 8 feet square at the base of the shaft.

â€œI understand that, in an apartment in the Louvre, part of the machinery is preserved, by means of which the transport of the French obelisk was effected. This could be seen, or even lent to assist our engineers, and save heavy cost; and this need not be heavy, unless with gross mismanagement and a mere job made of it. Honestly gone about, the cost would be moderate.

â€œLord Stanley wrote me that he was not aware that the parliament would vote a sum of money to move the obelisk. This might be asked, however.

â€œI quite concur with Professor Piazzi Smyth in denouncing the barbarism of breaking off pieces of, and carrying away, Egyptian antiques; but I think we might remove the prostrate obelisk hidden and buried in the sand, leaving, of course, the twin obelisk set up in its place, and always most interesting as a â€˜Cleopatraâ€™s Needle.â€™ The prostrate one might be converted into building materials ere long, if not looked after.

â€œLately, in Glasgow, I made myself acquainted with the engineer of theClyde Navigation, Mr. A. Duncan. I went over the matter with him of the means of transporting the obelisk, and I suggested an iron casing or vessel built round it. He approved of this; and on my asking him to give his ideas on the matterâ€”also to look at the plans from the United Service Institutionâ€”he kindly consented to do so; and his clear and excellent method for carrying out what is so much desiredâ€”the removal of the obelisk to Britainâ€”is placed before the Royal Society of Edinburgh.â€

A very important result of Sir James Alexanderâ€™s agitation of the question, is made evident by the following letter, addressed to Lord Henry Lennox so recently as the spring of 1876:[56]â€”

â€œHotel Abbat, Alexandria.â€œApril 1st, 1876.

â€œDear Lord Henry Lennox,â€œA long time has elapsed since our conversation, in July last, with reference to the removal of the obelisk, commonly known as â€˜Cleopatraâ€™s Needle,â€™ as proposed by General Sir James Alexander to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Detained in Persia by an attack of fever, and by unlooked-for difficulties in travelling, I have arrived in Egypt later, by more than three months, than I intended when I left England.â€œThe taking away of the ancient monuments from a country which they were originally designed to adorn, is a policy against which there is much to be said. It is almost pitiful to contemplate upon the now carefully-protected Acropolis of Athensâ€”a caryatide, rudely carved inwood, doing duty with her four lovely sisters of marble, in hearing the entablature of the Erectheum, while the original is in London instructing the art-world, perhaps no better than would a plaster cast, in the beauty and grace of Greek sculpture. But these considerations do not apply, with any considerable force, to the prostrate obelisk now lying upon the shore of the new port of Alexandria. It forms no part of any structure; it is not protected, nor in any way cared for by the Egyptians; and, within fifty yards of the ground in which the English column is lying, there is another, apparently of the same age and size, carved with hieroglyphics of similar character. It appears to me, therefore, that the English people could, if they please, appropriate this gift free from any fear or feeling that in doing so they would be â€˜spoiling the Egyptians.â€™â€œThe desirability of removing the obelisk resolves itself into two questionsâ€”the cost, and the value and interest of the monument as compared with the necessary expenditure. There can be no doubt as to the feasibility of removal. An opinion has certainly prevailed in England that the obelisk is so much defaced and broken as to have lost all interest. But I will venture to say that this opinion has not been formed by any one who has seen the whole of three sides which have been exposed by the excavations recently made by Sir James Alexander. The opinion was formed when but very little more than the upper side of the base was visibleâ€”a valueless part which appears never to have been sculptured, and to have been intended for burial in the foundation when the obelisk was in position. The column, as at present exposed, is at once seen to be a monument of great value and interest; one which, not only for its antiquity, but also from its quality as a monolith, wouldbe specially notable in London, which, unlike most of the capital cities of Europe, possesses no adornment of this character. The English people cannot see in their own country a carved stone even approaching the dimensions of this colossal obelisk of red granite. As to the condition of the monument, I have examined three of the four sides, and there is no part of any one of the hieroglyphics the carving of which is not distinctly traceable. The edges of the carving are somewhat worn, and the angles of the obelisk rounded; but the interest of the monument is in no place substantially impaired, nor is there discernable any important fracture of the stone. The dimensions of the obelisk are:â€”Total length from extremity of base to apex, sixty-six feet; seven feet square at base, and four and a-half feet square at base of apex. The weight is probably about 250 tons.â€œIn considering the method and cost of removal to England, I have had the great advantage of the assistance, on the ground, of Captain Methven, the senior captain and commodore of the fleet of steam-ships belonging to the Peninsular and Oriental Company. The base of the obelisk is less than twenty yards from the waters of the Mediterranean; and within about 100 yards there is a depth of two and a-half fathoms of water. It has been suggested to float the obelisk by attaching to it a sufficient quantity of timber. But this is a very crude proposal, apart from the fact that no sufficient quantity of timber is obtainable in this almost treeless country. Undoubtedly it would be possible to remove and to ship the obelisk by constructing a railway on piles for such a distance as would admit of the approach of a vessel capable of carrying it securely to England. In this case the obelisk would be suspended in slings from running-gear, and moved out to sea until ithung over its destined position in the vessel. But the shore is not the most suitable for this plan, which, moreover, would involve a very large expenditure.â€œThe position of the obelisk is favourable for the adoption of a third method, which appears both to Captain Methven and to myself to be the most easy, safe, and practicable; and, at the same time, the least costly of any that have been suggested. The ground in which the obelisk now lies seems sufficiently firm (with proper supports at the sides of the necessary excavation) to sustain girders from which the column could be slung without any change in its position. To ensure a proper distribution of the weight, it would be desirable that these girders should rest on iron plates, and that they should be of greater substance in the centre, where the weight of the obelisk would be borne. Captain Methven is confidently of opinion that the obelisk could be safely conveyed to England in an iron vessel not exceeding 400 tons of builderâ€™s measurement, 120 feet in length, and drawing, when loaded, not more than six feet of water. This decked iron vessel, or barge, would be constructed in England, and sent in pieces to Alexandria, where it would be put together in the space to be excavated beneath the suspended obelisk, the channel necessary to get to the deep water being at the same time formed by a steam dredge, or, if the shore is rocky, by blastingâ€”a method which has been very successfully adopted, on a much larger scale than would be requisite here, by the Peninsular and Oriental Company at Bombay. When the vessel was ready to receive the obelisk, the intervening wall of earth between the base of the stone and the sea would be thrown down, and the incoming water would raise the vessel to its burden. The iron barge could then be towed into theharbour, when it would be decked, and have so much freeboard added as appeared desirable. Captain Methven feels quite sure, that by any competent steam-ship of Her Majestyâ€™s navy the vessel could be towed to England without danger of damage to the towing-ship, or risk of losing the obelisk, regard being had to the season and to the state of the barometer on quitting this port and that of Gibraltar.â€œFinally, I would say that Captain Methven seems to be of opinion that all this could be accomplished at a cost of about Â£5,000.â€œYours faithfully,â€œArthur Arnold.â€

â€œDear Lord Henry Lennox,

â€œA long time has elapsed since our conversation, in July last, with reference to the removal of the obelisk, commonly known as â€˜Cleopatraâ€™s Needle,â€™ as proposed by General Sir James Alexander to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Detained in Persia by an attack of fever, and by unlooked-for difficulties in travelling, I have arrived in Egypt later, by more than three months, than I intended when I left England.

â€œThe taking away of the ancient monuments from a country which they were originally designed to adorn, is a policy against which there is much to be said. It is almost pitiful to contemplate upon the now carefully-protected Acropolis of Athensâ€”a caryatide, rudely carved inwood, doing duty with her four lovely sisters of marble, in hearing the entablature of the Erectheum, while the original is in London instructing the art-world, perhaps no better than would a plaster cast, in the beauty and grace of Greek sculpture. But these considerations do not apply, with any considerable force, to the prostrate obelisk now lying upon the shore of the new port of Alexandria. It forms no part of any structure; it is not protected, nor in any way cared for by the Egyptians; and, within fifty yards of the ground in which the English column is lying, there is another, apparently of the same age and size, carved with hieroglyphics of similar character. It appears to me, therefore, that the English people could, if they please, appropriate this gift free from any fear or feeling that in doing so they would be â€˜spoiling the Egyptians.â€™

â€œThe desirability of removing the obelisk resolves itself into two questionsâ€”the cost, and the value and interest of the monument as compared with the necessary expenditure. There can be no doubt as to the feasibility of removal. An opinion has certainly prevailed in England that the obelisk is so much defaced and broken as to have lost all interest. But I will venture to say that this opinion has not been formed by any one who has seen the whole of three sides which have been exposed by the excavations recently made by Sir James Alexander. The opinion was formed when but very little more than the upper side of the base was visibleâ€”a valueless part which appears never to have been sculptured, and to have been intended for burial in the foundation when the obelisk was in position. The column, as at present exposed, is at once seen to be a monument of great value and interest; one which, not only for its antiquity, but also from its quality as a monolith, wouldbe specially notable in London, which, unlike most of the capital cities of Europe, possesses no adornment of this character. The English people cannot see in their own country a carved stone even approaching the dimensions of this colossal obelisk of red granite. As to the condition of the monument, I have examined three of the four sides, and there is no part of any one of the hieroglyphics the carving of which is not distinctly traceable. The edges of the carving are somewhat worn, and the angles of the obelisk rounded; but the interest of the monument is in no place substantially impaired, nor is there discernable any important fracture of the stone. The dimensions of the obelisk are:â€”Total length from extremity of base to apex, sixty-six feet; seven feet square at base, and four and a-half feet square at base of apex. The weight is probably about 250 tons.

â€œIn considering the method and cost of removal to England, I have had the great advantage of the assistance, on the ground, of Captain Methven, the senior captain and commodore of the fleet of steam-ships belonging to the Peninsular and Oriental Company. The base of the obelisk is less than twenty yards from the waters of the Mediterranean; and within about 100 yards there is a depth of two and a-half fathoms of water. It has been suggested to float the obelisk by attaching to it a sufficient quantity of timber. But this is a very crude proposal, apart from the fact that no sufficient quantity of timber is obtainable in this almost treeless country. Undoubtedly it would be possible to remove and to ship the obelisk by constructing a railway on piles for such a distance as would admit of the approach of a vessel capable of carrying it securely to England. In this case the obelisk would be suspended in slings from running-gear, and moved out to sea until ithung over its destined position in the vessel. But the shore is not the most suitable for this plan, which, moreover, would involve a very large expenditure.

â€œThe position of the obelisk is favourable for the adoption of a third method, which appears both to Captain Methven and to myself to be the most easy, safe, and practicable; and, at the same time, the least costly of any that have been suggested. The ground in which the obelisk now lies seems sufficiently firm (with proper supports at the sides of the necessary excavation) to sustain girders from which the column could be slung without any change in its position. To ensure a proper distribution of the weight, it would be desirable that these girders should rest on iron plates, and that they should be of greater substance in the centre, where the weight of the obelisk would be borne. Captain Methven is confidently of opinion that the obelisk could be safely conveyed to England in an iron vessel not exceeding 400 tons of builderâ€™s measurement, 120 feet in length, and drawing, when loaded, not more than six feet of water. This decked iron vessel, or barge, would be constructed in England, and sent in pieces to Alexandria, where it would be put together in the space to be excavated beneath the suspended obelisk, the channel necessary to get to the deep water being at the same time formed by a steam dredge, or, if the shore is rocky, by blastingâ€”a method which has been very successfully adopted, on a much larger scale than would be requisite here, by the Peninsular and Oriental Company at Bombay. When the vessel was ready to receive the obelisk, the intervening wall of earth between the base of the stone and the sea would be thrown down, and the incoming water would raise the vessel to its burden. The iron barge could then be towed into theharbour, when it would be decked, and have so much freeboard added as appeared desirable. Captain Methven feels quite sure, that by any competent steam-ship of Her Majestyâ€™s navy the vessel could be towed to England without danger of damage to the towing-ship, or risk of losing the obelisk, regard being had to the season and to the state of the barometer on quitting this port and that of Gibraltar.

â€œFinally, I would say that Captain Methven seems to be of opinion that all this could be accomplished at a cost of about Â£5,000.

â€œYours faithfully,â€œArthur Arnold.â€

Our memoranda next lead us to the consideration of suggestions which have been made, from time to time, for the transport of the obelisk from Alexandria to England. Thus, inThe Builderfor 1851, vol. v., we find the following communication with respect to two plans proposed by Captain (afterwards Admiral) Smyth.

â€œOne, by building a pier from the immediate vicinity of the obelisk into the little harbour, to the end of which a north-country-built vessel could be brought, with her stern-frame cut out; the obelisk to be conveyed along the pier on rollers in such a manner that half of it should be in the vessel before the weight was felt.â€œHis other plan was to excavate the ground on which it was lying, so as to form a dry dock beneath; then build under it a lighter, into which the monolith could be lowered, and then letting the water into a canalmade to the port to float it away; such vessel subsequently to be towed by a steamer: in either case, the vessel to be properly dunaged with bales of cotton and fascines, so that the Needle, being in midships, would lie easy, and press equally on the vesselâ€™s frame. This method is very similar to that mentioned by Pliny.â€

â€œHis other plan was to excavate the ground on which it was lying, so as to form a dry dock beneath; then build under it a lighter, into which the monolith could be lowered, and then letting the water into a canalmade to the port to float it away; such vessel subsequently to be towed by a steamer: in either case, the vessel to be properly dunaged with bales of cotton and fascines, so that the Needle, being in midships, would lie easy, and press equally on the vesselâ€™s frame. This method is very similar to that mentioned by Pliny.â€

These several details relating to the British obelisk, naturally awaken our interest to everything bearing upon the subject; and, amongst others, to the method of conveyance of the Luxor obelisk to Paris. Thus, in the â€œPictorial Gallery of Arts,â€ we find a description of the transport of the Theban obelisk to Paris, from the pen of our old friend, Charles Knight:â€”

â€œThe transport of one of these two obelisks to Paris was a very remarkable enterprise. When Napoleon accompanied the French army to Thebes, he was so struck with these magnificent towering masses, that he conceived the idea of sending one of them to France; but his subsequent reverses prevented the idea from being carried out. Thirty years afterwards, Charles X. obtained from Mehemet Ali permission to make the transfer, and he and his successor, Louis Philippe, proceeded with the necessary arrangements. A vessel was built of fir and other light wood, strong enough to bear the sea, but shallow enough to descend the Nile and ascend the Seine. The expedition, comprising about 140 persons, sailed from Toulon in April, 1831, and arrived at Thebes in August of the same year. The difficulties of navigating the vessel up the Nile were very great, and the men suffered much from heat, sand-storms, ophthalmia, cholera, and other visitations of that climate. The officers, on landing at Luxor, superintended the erection of barracks, sheds, and tents; the building of baking-ovens andprovision-stores; and the establishment of such arrangements as should ensure the comfort of the men during the operations for the removal of the obelisk.â€œThe obelisk was upwards of seventy feet high, weighed 240 tons, and was situated 1,200 feet from the Nile, with a difficult intervening space of ground. The first work was the formation of an inclined plane from the base of the obelisk to the edge of the riverâ€”a task which occupied about 700 Arabs and Frenchmen for three months. The obelisk was then cased in wood from top to bottom, to prevent the hieroglyphic sculptures from being injured; and it was safely lowered to the ground by a careful arrangement of cables, anchors, beams, and other apparatus. It was lowered on a kind of stage or cradle, and then dragged along the inclined plane by manual labour. The bow end of the ship had been meanwhile cut off in a singular manner, so as to present a wide mouth into which the obelisk gradually glided, while the ship lay high and dry on the sandy shore of the river. The severed bow of the ship was then adjusted in its proper place, and the obelisk was thus housed for the present.â€œAlthough the obelisk was thus placed in the vessel in November, 1831, it was not till August, 1832, that there was sufficient water in the Nile to float it. A period of more than three months elapsed before the adventurers reached the mouth of the Nile, after a voyage of great difficulty and tediousness. The voyage from thence to Toulon occupied them, with various delays, till May. But as the land journey from Toulon to Paris (four hundred and fifty miles) is one which would have been insurmountable with the obelisk, the vessel sailed round to Cherbourg, where it arrived in August, 1834, having been towed by aman-of-war all the way from Egypt. From Cherbourg the vessel was towed to Havre, and from thence by a steam-boat up the Seine to Paris. During the year 1835, preparations were made for the obelisk in the centre of the Place de la Concorde; and in August, 1836, it was placed in the spot destined for it, in presence of the royal family and half the population of Paris.â€

â€œThe obelisk was upwards of seventy feet high, weighed 240 tons, and was situated 1,200 feet from the Nile, with a difficult intervening space of ground. The first work was the formation of an inclined plane from the base of the obelisk to the edge of the riverâ€”a task which occupied about 700 Arabs and Frenchmen for three months. The obelisk was then cased in wood from top to bottom, to prevent the hieroglyphic sculptures from being injured; and it was safely lowered to the ground by a careful arrangement of cables, anchors, beams, and other apparatus. It was lowered on a kind of stage or cradle, and then dragged along the inclined plane by manual labour. The bow end of the ship had been meanwhile cut off in a singular manner, so as to present a wide mouth into which the obelisk gradually glided, while the ship lay high and dry on the sandy shore of the river. The severed bow of the ship was then adjusted in its proper place, and the obelisk was thus housed for the present.

â€œAlthough the obelisk was thus placed in the vessel in November, 1831, it was not till August, 1832, that there was sufficient water in the Nile to float it. A period of more than three months elapsed before the adventurers reached the mouth of the Nile, after a voyage of great difficulty and tediousness. The voyage from thence to Toulon occupied them, with various delays, till May. But as the land journey from Toulon to Paris (four hundred and fifty miles) is one which would have been insurmountable with the obelisk, the vessel sailed round to Cherbourg, where it arrived in August, 1834, having been towed by aman-of-war all the way from Egypt. From Cherbourg the vessel was towed to Havre, and from thence by a steam-boat up the Seine to Paris. During the year 1835, preparations were made for the obelisk in the centre of the Place de la Concorde; and in August, 1836, it was placed in the spot destined for it, in presence of the royal family and half the population of Paris.â€

Another writer, alluding to the same subject inThe Builderfor 1851, vol. ix., also supplies us with interesting details, from personal observation, as to the transport of the Luxor obelisk. He says, that having for some timeâ€”

â€œConsidered the matter of bringing the column of Luxor to Paris, and that having reached that city just before the preparations for its erection were finished, and again before the materials had been removed, he can give the following particulars:â€”â€œThis monolith stood on the east bank of the Nile, at Luxor, part of the territory or soil of Thebesâ€”famous for its 500 gates; the ancient and celebrated capital of Egypt.â€œIt was executed about 1,600 years before the Christian era, and about the time of Moses and the exodus of the Israelites, and is consequently about 3,500 years old; though some give it 1,000 or 1,200 years more. It is of reddish SyenÃ© granite, beautifully polished, and sculptured with 1,600 figures. The inscription tells us that Pharaoh Rameses II. erected the great northern temple at the palace of Luxor, in honour of his father Ammon.â€œIt was on a pedestal 3 feet 9 inches high, which was not brought to France.â€œEngland having obtained the fallen pillar, called Cleopatraâ€™s Needle, at Alexandria, France demanded, and got the standing one; but those at Luxor being in a perfect state, whilst those at Alexandria had suffered from the climate, France requested, and was allowed to give up, that of Alexandria for that of Luxor.â€œThebes is about 500 miles above Alexandria; and the distance it had to be brought to Paris, including the various detours, is estimated at 3,000 miles.â€œThe height of the pillar, from the pedestal to the summit, is 75 feet 10 inches. The breadth, on the widest face of its base, 8 feet and a quarter of an inch. The breadth at the top, where the pyramid begins, 5 feet 8Â¾ inches. Its weight, between 250 and 280 tons.â€œFrance had, early in 1830, determined on its removal, and began preparations. A vessel was built of yellow pine strengthened with oak, of 140 feet by 28 feet, like a Dutch galliot, intended to draw only two feet of water. It had a complement of 136 men, including shipwrights, carpenters, masons, and smiths; twelve enormous beams, 75 feet by above 2 feet; deals, blocks, pullies, anchors, and 20,000 yards of the largest and best cordage, &c., &c.â€œThis vessel, designed by the French government to bring this trophy to France, was built at Toulon, and called the â€˜Lusquor.â€™ It sailed in March, 1831; arrived at Alexandria in eighteen days, on the 3rd of May, when it entered the old port, and cast anchor under the walls of the palace of Mehemet Ali. It drew nearly nine feet of water, and was a very bad sea-boat, whence arose the necessity of a steamer to tow it home.â€œIt sailed from Alexandria for Rosetta on the 14th June; it left Cairo, and proceeded up the Nile, on the 19th July, and reached Luxor on the 15th August. At Alexandria the stores and machinery were taken out, and sent forward to Thebes, with carpenters, smiths, masons, and others.â€œThe obelisk was dismounted from its pedestal on the 31st October, and safely got on board the vessel on the 19th December. Four hundred Arabs were employed with the crew. It required a month to run the obelisk to the ship, being a distance of 450 yards; the greatest difficulty was in keeping it straight on the causeway. It was there detained until the 1st October, 1832; arrived again at Alexandria on the 2nd January, 1833. The fall of the Nile is said to be no more than twenty feet in forty leagues; the rise of the inundation at Luxor, about seven feet. At Rosetta the ship was lightened as much as possible to cross the bay. She was brought down to seven feet, and was in considerable danger; she had camels to assist her. She sailed for France on the 1st of April, and once more reached Toulon on the 1st May, having been towed by the â€˜Sphynxâ€™ steamer, and again sailed for Paris on the 22nd June. During her progress she arrived at Rhodes on the 6th April; reached Corfu the 23rd; 10th May reached Toulon, and was there repaired; 22nd June, sailed; passed Gibraltar the 30th June; and reached Cherbourg on the 12th August.â€œAt Cherbourg she was visited by King Louis Philippe on the 2nd September.â€œShe put to sea on the 12th September; was taken in tow by the â€˜PhÅ“nix,â€™ and reached Rouen on the 14th; and finally arrived at Paris on the 23rd December, 1833. On the 9th August, 1834, the monolith was dragged out of the vessel.â€œThus the â€˜Lusquorâ€™ occupied above four years and a-half, from the commencement of its building to delivering the obelisk at Paris.â€œOn its arrival at Paris, a wooden erection of similar size, coveredwith drawings copied from the original, was placed in various parts of the capital, that the best locality for effect might be selected; and the place where it now stands was finally fixed on. Of the propriety of its position there can be no doubt; and when it is considered that the Barriere de lâ€™Etoile cost Â£400,000, the cost of the obelisk at Â£85,000 will not appear too extravagant. It was raised on its pedestal on the 25th October, 1834.â€œThe pedestal on which it now stands was cut from a beautiful black granite rock near Brest, where it is found in the form of large boulders; such boulders being of much finer colour than the black granite formation on which they lie. The property on which the granite was found belongs to M. Bazil.â€œIt was thus raised:â€”The column was first carried up an inclined plane to the level of the pedestal, securely placed, the base foremost; and then the pyramid end was raised by an extraordinary multiplication of pullies; and thus was the column lifted into its place.â€œAnd this plan has not improbably been the one adopted in ancient timesâ€”perhaps by the Celts and Druids of our own island, who were exceedingly fond of monoliths, of which an astonishing number still remain.â€

â€œThis monolith stood on the east bank of the Nile, at Luxor, part of the territory or soil of Thebesâ€”famous for its 500 gates; the ancient and celebrated capital of Egypt.

â€œIt was executed about 1,600 years before the Christian era, and about the time of Moses and the exodus of the Israelites, and is consequently about 3,500 years old; though some give it 1,000 or 1,200 years more. It is of reddish SyenÃ© granite, beautifully polished, and sculptured with 1,600 figures. The inscription tells us that Pharaoh Rameses II. erected the great northern temple at the palace of Luxor, in honour of his father Ammon.

â€œIt was on a pedestal 3 feet 9 inches high, which was not brought to France.

â€œEngland having obtained the fallen pillar, called Cleopatraâ€™s Needle, at Alexandria, France demanded, and got the standing one; but those at Luxor being in a perfect state, whilst those at Alexandria had suffered from the climate, France requested, and was allowed to give up, that of Alexandria for that of Luxor.

â€œThebes is about 500 miles above Alexandria; and the distance it had to be brought to Paris, including the various detours, is estimated at 3,000 miles.

â€œThe height of the pillar, from the pedestal to the summit, is 75 feet 10 inches. The breadth, on the widest face of its base, 8 feet and a quarter of an inch. The breadth at the top, where the pyramid begins, 5 feet 8Â¾ inches. Its weight, between 250 and 280 tons.

â€œFrance had, early in 1830, determined on its removal, and began preparations. A vessel was built of yellow pine strengthened with oak, of 140 feet by 28 feet, like a Dutch galliot, intended to draw only two feet of water. It had a complement of 136 men, including shipwrights, carpenters, masons, and smiths; twelve enormous beams, 75 feet by above 2 feet; deals, blocks, pullies, anchors, and 20,000 yards of the largest and best cordage, &c., &c.

â€œThis vessel, designed by the French government to bring this trophy to France, was built at Toulon, and called the â€˜Lusquor.â€™ It sailed in March, 1831; arrived at Alexandria in eighteen days, on the 3rd of May, when it entered the old port, and cast anchor under the walls of the palace of Mehemet Ali. It drew nearly nine feet of water, and was a very bad sea-boat, whence arose the necessity of a steamer to tow it home.

â€œIt sailed from Alexandria for Rosetta on the 14th June; it left Cairo, and proceeded up the Nile, on the 19th July, and reached Luxor on the 15th August. At Alexandria the stores and machinery were taken out, and sent forward to Thebes, with carpenters, smiths, masons, and others.

â€œThe obelisk was dismounted from its pedestal on the 31st October, and safely got on board the vessel on the 19th December. Four hundred Arabs were employed with the crew. It required a month to run the obelisk to the ship, being a distance of 450 yards; the greatest difficulty was in keeping it straight on the causeway. It was there detained until the 1st October, 1832; arrived again at Alexandria on the 2nd January, 1833. The fall of the Nile is said to be no more than twenty feet in forty leagues; the rise of the inundation at Luxor, about seven feet. At Rosetta the ship was lightened as much as possible to cross the bay. She was brought down to seven feet, and was in considerable danger; she had camels to assist her. She sailed for France on the 1st of April, and once more reached Toulon on the 1st May, having been towed by the â€˜Sphynxâ€™ steamer, and again sailed for Paris on the 22nd June. During her progress she arrived at Rhodes on the 6th April; reached Corfu the 23rd; 10th May reached Toulon, and was there repaired; 22nd June, sailed; passed Gibraltar the 30th June; and reached Cherbourg on the 12th August.

â€œAt Cherbourg she was visited by King Louis Philippe on the 2nd September.

â€œShe put to sea on the 12th September; was taken in tow by the â€˜PhÅ“nix,â€™ and reached Rouen on the 14th; and finally arrived at Paris on the 23rd December, 1833. On the 9th August, 1834, the monolith was dragged out of the vessel.

â€œThus the â€˜Lusquorâ€™ occupied above four years and a-half, from the commencement of its building to delivering the obelisk at Paris.

â€œOn its arrival at Paris, a wooden erection of similar size, coveredwith drawings copied from the original, was placed in various parts of the capital, that the best locality for effect might be selected; and the place where it now stands was finally fixed on. Of the propriety of its position there can be no doubt; and when it is considered that the Barriere de lâ€™Etoile cost Â£400,000, the cost of the obelisk at Â£85,000 will not appear too extravagant. It was raised on its pedestal on the 25th October, 1834.

â€œThe pedestal on which it now stands was cut from a beautiful black granite rock near Brest, where it is found in the form of large boulders; such boulders being of much finer colour than the black granite formation on which they lie. The property on which the granite was found belongs to M. Bazil.

â€œIt was thus raised:â€”The column was first carried up an inclined plane to the level of the pedestal, securely placed, the base foremost; and then the pyramid end was raised by an extraordinary multiplication of pullies; and thus was the column lifted into its place.

â€œAnd this plan has not improbably been the one adopted in ancient timesâ€”perhaps by the Celts and Druids of our own island, who were exceedingly fond of monoliths, of which an astonishing number still remain.â€

It does not fall within the scope of this book to attempt the panegyric of the brave men who fought like heroes under their countryâ€™s flag in Egypt; but the following extract from one of the illustrated newspapers, of about the date of April, 1845, and sent to us by the daughter of the subject of the article, may be considered a not unfitting conclusion to our present labours.

â€œGeneral Robert Browne Clayton, K.C., of Adlington Hall, Lancashire, and of Carrickburn, in the county of Wexford, entered the army at the early age of fourteen; rose, during sixty yearsâ€™ service, through every gradation of rank; and achieved a well-earned fame by the side of many of the heroes of the late war. He was Lieut.-Colonel of the 12th Light Dragoons, or Royal Lancers. With that regiment he fought in Egypt, under Sir Ralph Abercromby, taking part there in the actions of the 8th, 13th, and 21st of March, 1801.â€In his letters home, he speaks with enthusiastic language of Egypt:â€”â€œGizeh,â€ he says, â€œwhere the enemy lies, ten miles off; and, across the Nileâ€”Cairo and its lofty minarets, with the dreary Mokattan rising above. In such a situation, one hour of life is worth an age at home; no time or space can efface those recollections.... On our approach to Cairo, which it was expected would be given up to plunder, numerous bodies of Turks and hosts of Bedouin Arabs collected; and I was assured that the Grand Vizier was obliged to issue, daily, 18,000 rations of corn for horses alone.â€â€œThe generalâ€™s patriotic services in the campaign under Sir Ralph Abercromby, have obtained a lasting testimonial in the erection of a lofty column on the rock of Carrick-a-Daggon, county of Wexford. It is a facsimile of Pompeyâ€™s Pillar, but not monolithic; it consists of Carlow granite, and has a staircase in the shaft: its total height rises to 94 feet 4 inches; the architect is Mr. Cobden. Placed considerably above the sea-level, it stands a conspicuous landmark for mariners. The events of the campaign are further to be commemorated by the appointment of trustees, under the will of General Browne Clayton, who shall annually, at sunrise on the 21st of March (the anniversary of the French attack on the British encampment before Alexandria), hoistthe tri-colour French flag on the column, which shall remain until ten oâ€™clock, when the British flag is to be fixed and kept up till sunset. On the 28th of March, annually, the British flag is to be raised half-standard high, as a memorial of the death of Sir Ralph Abercromby. The first commemoration took place in March, 1842, General Browne Clayton himself superintending the ceremony.â€The date of General Claytonâ€™s death would appear to have been March 16th, 1845; aged 74.

In his letters home, he speaks with enthusiastic language of Egypt:â€”â€œGizeh,â€ he says, â€œwhere the enemy lies, ten miles off; and, across the Nileâ€”Cairo and its lofty minarets, with the dreary Mokattan rising above. In such a situation, one hour of life is worth an age at home; no time or space can efface those recollections.... On our approach to Cairo, which it was expected would be given up to plunder, numerous bodies of Turks and hosts of Bedouin Arabs collected; and I was assured that the Grand Vizier was obliged to issue, daily, 18,000 rations of corn for horses alone.â€

â€œThe generalâ€™s patriotic services in the campaign under Sir Ralph Abercromby, have obtained a lasting testimonial in the erection of a lofty column on the rock of Carrick-a-Daggon, county of Wexford. It is a facsimile of Pompeyâ€™s Pillar, but not monolithic; it consists of Carlow granite, and has a staircase in the shaft: its total height rises to 94 feet 4 inches; the architect is Mr. Cobden. Placed considerably above the sea-level, it stands a conspicuous landmark for mariners. The events of the campaign are further to be commemorated by the appointment of trustees, under the will of General Browne Clayton, who shall annually, at sunrise on the 21st of March (the anniversary of the French attack on the British encampment before Alexandria), hoistthe tri-colour French flag on the column, which shall remain until ten oâ€™clock, when the British flag is to be fixed and kept up till sunset. On the 28th of March, annually, the British flag is to be raised half-standard high, as a memorial of the death of Sir Ralph Abercromby. The first commemoration took place in March, 1842, General Browne Clayton himself superintending the ceremony.â€

The date of General Claytonâ€™s death would appear to have been March 16th, 1845; aged 74.

Translation of the Text of the British Obelisk,

byDemetrius Mosconas: 1877.

Since the final â€œReviseâ€ of our last sheet, we have received a quarto pamphlet from Alexandria, entitled, â€œDeux mots sur les Obelisques dâ€™Egypte,â€ with a translation of the inscriptions on Cleopatraâ€™s Needle, now on its way to England. The authorâ€™s name is Demetrius Mosconas; and as the text differs somewhat from that derived from Burton and Chabas, we have thought it well to place it before our readers.

On each side of the pyramidion is a bas-relief ofofferings, representing the sun-god, protector of the city of On, seated on a throne, adorned with the pschent, or double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt, and receiving gifts from Thothmes, who is represented as a sphynx, symbolising the power of the lion. On the other sides, the sun-god is represented differently: sometimes as a man, crowned with the solar disk; sometimes with the head of a hawk, surmounted with thepschent. And the offerings likewise vary: they may be wine, or milk, or water, or any other thing that shall in itself be pure and good.

Above the god is inscribed:â€”

â€œRa, the great god, master of the city of On, who giveth eternal life.â€

Above and below the king, the inscription runs thus:â€”

â€œThe king,sun creator of the world(Ra-men-kheper), lord of Upper and Lower Egypt, the son of the sun, Thothmes, offers libations of wine to him who gives eternal life.â€

Next follows the standard of the king, and below that, the columns of hieroglyphs; in this instance the middle column representing the address of Thothmes, on the three sides of the obelisk exposed to view:â€”

1. â€œHe is Horus (Apollo), the powerful bull, friend of truth, the king,sun creator of the world(Ra-men-kheper, prenomen), who hath made monuments for his father, thesun of the two zones, and who hath erected two great obelisks with pyramidions of gold, which shine with brilliancy at the panegyries....2. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull, son of truth, the king,sun creator of the world, who hath been established on the throne of Seb by his father, the god Toum, who hath given him the dignity of ThorÃ©, in magnifying his name among the inhabitants of On and of the whole world, the son of the sun, Thothmes, giving life like the sun for ever.3. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull, friend of truth,the king,sun creator of the world, the protector of the temples of the gods, who hath given at every epoch gifts to the divinities of the city of On, and to their servants (the priests), that they may live as saints; moreover, like his grandfather, he hath established numerous festivals; the son of the sun, Thothmes, beloved of the god Toum,sun ofthe two zones, giving life like the sun for ever.â€

2. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull, son of truth, the king,sun creator of the world, who hath been established on the throne of Seb by his father, the god Toum, who hath given him the dignity of ThorÃ©, in magnifying his name among the inhabitants of On and of the whole world, the son of the sun, Thothmes, giving life like the sun for ever.

3. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull, friend of truth,the king,sun creator of the world, the protector of the temples of the gods, who hath given at every epoch gifts to the divinities of the city of On, and to their servants (the priests), that they may live as saints; moreover, like his grandfather, he hath established numerous festivals; the son of the sun, Thothmes, beloved of the god Toum,sun ofthe two zones, giving life like the sun for ever.â€

Of the texts of Rameses II., occupying the side columns, the translations of five are given:â€”

1. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull, friend of truth, the king,sun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra(Ra-ouser-ma-sotep-en-Ra, prenomen), the lord of Upper and Lower Egypt; he who governeth Egypt and chastiseth foreign countries, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon, the ruler and benefactor of the temple of his father, than whom none has done so much as he in this temple, the lord of the two worlds,sun,guardian of justice,the preferred of Ra, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon, who giveth life like the sun for ever.2. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull, son of truth, the king,sun,guardian of justice,the preferred of Ra, the lord of the panegyries, like unto his father the god Toum, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon, the germ of his father whom he loveth, whom the goddess Athor hath nourished, he is the glory and the lord of the two worlds, thesun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the son of the sun,RamesesMaÃ¯amon, who, like the sun, giveth life for ever.3. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull in Egypt, the king,the sun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the golden hawk, the guardian of flourishing years, the son of the sun,RamesesMaÃ¯amon, whose name eternal the puissant ofAssyria have graven on their rocks, and in the temple of his father, the lord of the two worlds,thesun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon, the truthful, the beloved of the great god Ammon, who giveth life like the sun for ever.4. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull, friend of truth, the king,sun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the sublime, the offspring of the gods, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon, the victorious, the puissant, the watchful, the bull of princes, the king of kings, the lord of the two worlds, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon,the sun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the beloved of the god Toum, the lord of On, who, like the sun, giveth life for ever.5. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull, son of truth, the king,sun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the lord of Upper and Lower Egypt, he who governeth Egypt and scourgeth foreign countries, the son of the sun,RamesesMaÃ¯amon; numerous victories hath he achieved over foreigners, and he hath carried his conquering arms to the four columns of heaven, the lord of the two worlds,sun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon, giving life like the sun for ever.â€

2. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull, son of truth, the king,sun,guardian of justice,the preferred of Ra, the lord of the panegyries, like unto his father the god Toum, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon, the germ of his father whom he loveth, whom the goddess Athor hath nourished, he is the glory and the lord of the two worlds, thesun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the son of the sun,RamesesMaÃ¯amon, who, like the sun, giveth life for ever.

3. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull in Egypt, the king,the sun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the golden hawk, the guardian of flourishing years, the son of the sun,RamesesMaÃ¯amon, whose name eternal the puissant ofAssyria have graven on their rocks, and in the temple of his father, the lord of the two worlds,thesun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon, the truthful, the beloved of the great god Ammon, who giveth life like the sun for ever.

4. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull, friend of truth, the king,sun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the sublime, the offspring of the gods, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon, the victorious, the puissant, the watchful, the bull of princes, the king of kings, the lord of the two worlds, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon,the sun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the beloved of the god Toum, the lord of On, who, like the sun, giveth life for ever.

5. â€œHe is Horus, the powerful bull, son of truth, the king,sun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the lord of Upper and Lower Egypt, he who governeth Egypt and scourgeth foreign countries, the son of the sun,RamesesMaÃ¯amon; numerous victories hath he achieved over foreigners, and he hath carried his conquering arms to the four columns of heaven, the lord of the two worlds,sun,guardian of justice,preferred of Ra, the son of the sun,Rameses MaÃ¯amon, giving life like the sun for ever.â€

M. Mosconas likewise favours us with part of an heroic poem, translated by Mariette Bey, from a tablet[57](stÃ¨le) preserved in the Boulaq Museum. This poem is written in honour of the author of the British obelisk, Thothmes III., and is said to be several centuries older than Homer, or even than the Bible. It is regarded by Egyptologists as a precious relic, and as a treasuredexample of the poetry of that ancient period. The Pharaoh presents libations and offerings to the sun-god Amon-Ra, who then recites a long list of the achievements of the king, assuring him of the divine assent, and informing him, that it was to the forethought and participation of the deity that he owed his successes. He speaks thus:â€”

â€œCome to me and rejoice in the contemplation of my grace, my son, my avenger. Sun, Creator of the World, living for ever, I am resplendent through thy vows; my heart expands with thy welcome presence in my temple; I embrace thy members in mine arms, that I may infuse into them health and life. Loveable are thy blessings, through the presentment which thou settest up in my sanctuary. It is I who give thee recompense; it is I who give thee power and victory over all nations; it is through me that thy genius and the fear of thy power have taken possession of every land, and its dread hath expanded to the four columns of heaven. I magnify the alarm which thy name inspireth throughout the world. It is with my accord that thy war-cries pierce the very midst of thy barbarian foes, and the kings of every nation fall in under thy hand; I myself stretch forth my arms; I draw together and congregate for thee the Nubians in tens of thousands and thousands, and the northern peoples in millions. It is with my accord that thou hurlest thine enemies beneath thy sandals, that thou smitest the chiefs of the unclean as I have ordered thee; the world, in all its length and breadth, from west to east, is at thy command. Thou spreadest gladness into the heart of all the peoples; none amongst them dare trample onthe territory of thy majesty; but I am thy guide to lead thee to them. Thou hast crossed the great river of Mesopotamia, conqueror and mighty, as I had pre-ordered; the cries of war resounded in their caves; I withheld from their nostrils the breath of life....â€œI am come, and with my accord thou smitest the princes of Tahi (Syria). I hurl them beneath thy feet when thou marchest through their countries. I have shown them thy majesty as a lord of light; thou beamest upon them like unto mine own image.â€œI am come, and I allow thee to smite the dwellers in Asia, to lead into captivity the chiefs of the Rotennu (Assyria). I have revealed to them thy majesty compassed with thy girdle, grasping thy weapon, and wielding it from thy chariot of war.â€œI am come, that I might sanction thee to smite the countries of the East, to force thy way to the very cities of the Holy Land. I have revealed to them thy majesty as like unto the star Seschet (Canopus), which darts forth in flame, and gives birth to the morning dew.â€œI am come, and I permit thee to smite the countries of the West: Kefa (Cyprus) and Asia tremble with terror in thy presence: I have shown them thy majesty like unto a bull young and courageous; he that, embellished with horns, nothing is able to resist.â€œI am come, and I permit thee to smite the peoples of every region; the countries of Maten (Amatuses) shake with the terror of thy name. I have revealed to them thy majesty as like unto the crocodile; he, the formidable master of the waters, whom none dare approach.â€œI come, to grant thee permission to smite the inhabitants of islands; the dwellers on the sea-coasts tremble at the sound of thy war-cry; I have shown them thy majesty like unto an avenger who springs upon the shoulders of his victim.â€œI come, to permit thee to smite Tahennu (Libyans). The islands of Tanaou (DanaÃ«) are possessed of thy genius. I have shown them thy majesty as like unto a terrible lion, who maketh his couch of their carcasses, and stretcheth himself across their valleys.â€œI come, to permit thee to smite the regions of the floods, that those who abide nigh unto the great sea may be held in subjection. I have made them view thy majesty as of the king of birds, that hovers oâ€™er its prey, and seizes what it lists.â€œI come, to permit thee to smite the denizens of the desert, that the Herusha may be brought into captivity. I have made them look upon thy majesty, as like unto the jackal of the dayâ€”he that maketh his way in concealment, and travelleth the country through.â€œI am come, and I accord to thee the right to smite the Anu of Nubia, that the Remenem (nomad tribes) thou mayâ€™st hold in thine hand. I have made them regard thy majesty as like unto those who are thy two brothers, their arms stretched over thee for thy protection.â€...

â€œI am come, and with my accord thou smitest the princes of Tahi (Syria). I hurl them beneath thy feet when thou marchest through their countries. I have shown them thy majesty as a lord of light; thou beamest upon them like unto mine own image.

â€œI am come, and I allow thee to smite the dwellers in Asia, to lead into captivity the chiefs of the Rotennu (Assyria). I have revealed to them thy majesty compassed with thy girdle, grasping thy weapon, and wielding it from thy chariot of war.

â€œI am come, that I might sanction thee to smite the countries of the East, to force thy way to the very cities of the Holy Land. I have revealed to them thy majesty as like unto the star Seschet (Canopus), which darts forth in flame, and gives birth to the morning dew.

â€œI am come, and I permit thee to smite the countries of the West: Kefa (Cyprus) and Asia tremble with terror in thy presence: I have shown them thy majesty like unto a bull young and courageous; he that, embellished with horns, nothing is able to resist.

â€œI am come, and I permit thee to smite the peoples of every region; the countries of Maten (Amatuses) shake with the terror of thy name. I have revealed to them thy majesty as like unto the crocodile; he, the formidable master of the waters, whom none dare approach.

â€œI come, to grant thee permission to smite the inhabitants of islands; the dwellers on the sea-coasts tremble at the sound of thy war-cry; I have shown them thy majesty like unto an avenger who springs upon the shoulders of his victim.

â€œI come, to permit thee to smite Tahennu (Libyans). The islands of Tanaou (DanaÃ«) are possessed of thy genius. I have shown them thy majesty as like unto a terrible lion, who maketh his couch of their carcasses, and stretcheth himself across their valleys.

â€œI come, to permit thee to smite the regions of the floods, that those who abide nigh unto the great sea may be held in subjection. I have made them view thy majesty as of the king of birds, that hovers oâ€™er its prey, and seizes what it lists.

â€œI come, to permit thee to smite the denizens of the desert, that the Herusha may be brought into captivity. I have made them look upon thy majesty, as like unto the jackal of the dayâ€”he that maketh his way in concealment, and travelleth the country through.

â€œI am come, and I accord to thee the right to smite the Anu of Nubia, that the Remenem (nomad tribes) thou mayâ€™st hold in thine hand. I have made them regard thy majesty as like unto those who are thy two brothers, their arms stretched over thee for thy protection.â€...

M. Mosconasâ€™ work is illustrated with two pictorial sheets, representing, admirably, every hieroglyph depicted on three of the sides of the British obelisk, with its phonetic equivalent in Egyptian, and its signification in French; the figure and its explanation standing side by side. It is a work which will be found of great value by the Egyptological student, and highly satisfactory to the more learned explorer of hieroglyphography.[58]

M. Mosconas alleges that the Alexandrian obelisks were brought from Heliopolis by Cleopatra, and were left neglected for eleven years on the beach of the eastern port of Alexandria; and that they were afterwards erected by Barbarus, Prefect of Egypt, under Augustus CÃ¦sar.

FINIS.

BRAIN & CO., PRINTERS, 26, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.

Back to Index Next