earlHIS EXCELLENCY THE EARL OF MINTO.
HIS EXCELLENCY THE EARL OF MINTO.
HIS EXCELLENCY THE EARL OF MINTO.
When I say this I do not mean to bring an indictment against the English people or to assert that they are guilty of intentional wrongdoing. Neither do I mean to question the motives of those who are in authority. It has been my good fortune to become personally acquainted with Lord Minto, the present viceroy; with Lieutenant Governor Frazer, the chief executive of the province of Bengal; with Lieutenant Governor La Touche, chief executive of the United Provinces of Agraand Oudh, and with Governor Lamington, chief executive of the Bombay presidency, three of the largest Indian states. These men, I am sure, represent the highest type of their countrymen. Lord Minto is fresh from Canada, where he was governor general; Governor Lamington was the head of the Australian government before coming to India, and both Governors Frazer and La Touche have long official experience to their credit. That they will be just, as they understand justice, and do right as they see the right, I am satisfied. But what is justice?
The trouble is that England acquired India for England's advantage, not for India's, and that she holds India for England's benefit, not for India's. She administers India with an eye single to England's interests, not India's, and she passes upon every question as a judge would were he permitted to decide his own case. The officials in India owe their appointment directly or indirectly to the home government, and the home government holds authority at the sufferance of the people of England, not of the people of India. The official who goes out from England to serve a certain time and then return, whose interests are in England rather than in India and whose sympathies are naturally with the British rather than with the natives, can not be expected to view questions from the same standpoint as the Indians. Neither can these officials be expected to know the needs of the people as well as those who share their daily life and aspirations.
It is not necessary to review the earlier rule under the East India Company; that is sufficiently condemned by public record. That company was chartered for commercial purposes, and its rule had no other than a pecuniary aim. It secured control of state after state by helping one native prince against another where it did not actually instigate war between princes. The English government finally took the colony over, confessedly because of the outrageous conduct of the company's officials. No one now defends the rule of the East India Company, although Warren Hastings was finally acquitted by the House of Lords in spite of his crimes, out of consideration for his public service in extending English authority.
Is English rule in India just, as we find it to-day? Fortunately, England permits free speech in England, although she has sometimes restricted it in her colonies, and there has not been a public question under consideration in England for a century which has not brought out independent opinion. It is the glory of England that she was an early champion of freedom of speech, and it is the glory of Englishmen that they criticise their own government when they think it wrong. During the American revolution, Burke thundered his defense of the rights of the colonists, and Walpole warned his countrymen that theycould not destroy American liberty without asserting principles which, if carried out, would destroy English liberty as well. During the recent war in South Africa the British had no more severe critics than were to be found among her own people and in her own parliament. And so, to-day, British rule in India is as forcibly arraigned by Englishmen as by the Indians themselves. While Mr. Naoroji, an Indian, goes to England and secures from a meeting of a radical club the adoption of a resolution reciting that as "Britain has appropriated thousands of millions of India's wealth for building up and maintaining her British Indian empire and for drawing directly vast wealth to herself;" that as "she is continuing to drain about thirty million pounds sterling of India's wealth every year unceasingly in a variety of ways" and that as "she has thereby reduced the bulk of the Indian population to extreme poverty, destitution and degradation, it is therefore her bounden duty, in common justice and humanity, to pay from her own exchequer the costs of all famines and diseases caused by such impoverishment." And further, "that it is most humiliating and discreditable to the British name that other countries should be appealed to or should have to come to Britain's help for relief of Britain's own subjects, and after and by her un-British rule of about one hundred and fifty years."
viceVICEROY'S PALACE AT CALCUTTA.
VICEROY'S PALACE AT CALCUTTA.
VICEROY'S PALACE AT CALCUTTA.
While, I repeat, Mr. Naoroji was securing the unanimous adoption of the above resolution in England, Sir Henry Cotton, now a member of parliament, but for thirty-five years a member of the Indian civil service,was preparing his book, New India, in which he courageously points out the injustice from which India now suffers. Neither he nor Mr. Naoroji suggests Indian independence. Both believe that English sovereignty should continue, but Mr. Cotton shows the wrongs now inflicted upon India and the necessity for reform. Not only does he charge that the promises of the queen have been ignored and Indians excluded from service for which they were fitted, but he charges that the antagonism between the officials and the people is growing and that there is among civilian magistrates "an undoubted tendency to inflict severe sentences when natives of India are concerned, and to impose light and sometimes inadequate punishment upon offenders of their own race," and that in trials "in which Englishmen are tried by English juries" the result is sometimes "a failure of justice not falling short of judicial scandal." If justice can not be found in the court, where shall she be sought?
After the Indian mutiny, the Queen, in a proclamation, promised that natives should be freely and impartially admitted to offices, "the duties of which they might be qualified by their education, ability and integrity to discharge." Lord Lytton, a viceroy of India, in a confidential document which afterward found its way into print, speaking of the pledges of the sovereign and the parliament of England, said: "We all know that these claims and expectations never can be fulfilled. We have had to choose between prohibiting them (the natives of India) and cheating them, and we have chosen the least straightforward course." And again: "Since I am writing confidentially, I do not hesitate to say that both the governments of England and of India appear to me, up to the present moment, unable to answer satisfactorily the charge of having taken every means in their power of breaking to the heart the words of promise they had uttered to the ear."
The government of India is as arbitrary and despotic as the government of Russia ever was, and in two respects it is worse. First, it is administered by an alien people, whereas the officials of Russia are Russians. Second, it drains a large part of the taxes out of the country, whereas the Russian government spends at home the money which it collects from the people. A third disadvantage might be named since the czar has recently created a legislative body, whereas England continues to deny to the Indians any form of representative or constitutional government. Under British rule there is no official corruption and the government is probably as impartial as an alien government can be expected to be, but British rule has the defects which are inherent in a colonial policy.
The people of India are taxed, but they have no voice in the amount to be collected or in the use to be made of the revenue. They pay into the government nearly two hundred and twenty-five millions of dollars a year, and of this nearly one hundred millions is expended upon an army in which Indians can not be officers. It is not necessary to keep such an army merely to hold the people in subjection, if the Indians are really satisfied with English rule; and if the army is intended to keep Russia from taking India, as is sometimes claimed, why should not the British government bear a part of the burden? Would it not be wiser to so attach the Indian people to the British government that they would themselves resist annexation to Russia?
diggsSIR JAMES DIGGS LA TOUCHE.
SIR JAMES DIGGS LA TOUCHE.
SIR JAMES DIGGS LA TOUCHE.
The home charges, as they are called, absorb practically one-third of the entire revenues. About one hundred million dollars go out of Indiato England every year, and over fifteen millions are paid to European officials in the civil employ. What nation could stand such a drain without impoverishment?
Taxation is nearly twice as heavy in India as in England, in proportion to the income of the people. Compared with the people of other countries, the Indian's income is, on an average, one-twentieth of the average English income, one-seventh of the average Spaniard's income, one-sixth of the average Italian's income, one-fifth of the (European) Russian's income, and one-half of the income of the Turk. Sir Henry Cotton shows that the average per capita deposit in banks in England is one hundred dollars while the average per capita deposit in India is fifty cents; but how can the Indian be expected to have a large bank account when the average yearly income is only ten dollars? I have, in another article, referred to the jewelry worn by Indian women. The bracelets and anklets are silver except among the poorest, and this was formerly a form of hoarding, but the suspension of the coinage of silver deprived the people of the privilege of converting this hoarded silver into rupees. It will be remembered that the late Senator Wolcott, a member of the monetary commission appointed by President McKinley in 1897, on his return to Europe declared that the suspension of the coinage of silver in India had reduced the value of the savings of the people to the amount of five hundred millions of dollars. The suspension was carried out for the benefit of European interests, regardless of the welfare of the masses.
So great have been the drain, the injustice to the people and the tax upon the resources of the country, that famines have increased in frequency and severity. Mr. Gokhale, one of the ablest of India's public men, presided over the meeting of the last Indian national congress (held in December) and declared in his opening speech that the death rate had steadily risen from twenty-four to the thousand in 1882-4 to thirty in 1892-4 and to thirty-four at the present time. I have more than once within the last month heard the plague referred to as a providential remedy for over-population! Think of it, British rule justified because "it keeps the people from killing each other" and the plague excused because it removes those whom the government has saved from slaughter!
The railroads with all their advantages have been charged with adding to the weight of famine by carrying away the surplus grain in good years, leaving no residue for the years of drouth. While grain can now be carried back more easily in times of scarcity, the people are too poor to buy it with two freights added. The storage of grain by the governmentat central points until the new crop is safe would bring some relief, but it has not been attempted.
If it is argued that the railroads have raised the price of grain in the interior by furnishing a cheaper outlet to the sea, it must be remembered that the benefit has accrued not to the people, nearly all of whom are tenants, but to the landlords, the government being the largest holder.
Not only are the people being impoverished, but the land is being worn out. Manure, which ought to be used to renew the fields, is consumed as fuel, and no sight is more common in India than that of women and children gathering manure from the roads with their hands. This, when mixed with straw and sun-dried, is used in place of wood, and from the amount of it carried in baskets, it must be one of the chief articles of merchandise. There are now large tracts of useless land that might be brought under cultivation if the irrigation system were extended. Proof of this is to be found in the fact that the government of India has already approved of extensions which, when made, will protect seven million acres and irrigate three million acres. The estimated cost of these extensions is about forty-five million dollars, and the plans are to be carried out "as funds can be provided." Ten per cent of the army expenditure, applied to irrigation, would complete the system within five years, but instead of military expenses being reduced, the army appropriation was increased more than ten million dollars between 1904 and 1905.
frazerSIR ANDREW FRAZER.
SIR ANDREW FRAZER.
SIR ANDREW FRAZER.
Of the total amount raised from taxation each year, about forty per cent is raised from land, and the rate is so heavy that the people can not save enough when the crops are good to feed themselves when the crops are bad. More than ten per cent of the total tax is collected on salt, which now pays about five-eighths of a cent per pound. This is not only a heavy rate when compared with the original cost of the salt; but it is especially burdensome to the poor. The salt tax has been as high as one cent a pound, and when at that rate materially reduced the amount of salt consumed by the people.
curzonLORD CURZON.
LORD CURZON.
LORD CURZON.
The poverty of the people of India is distressing in the extreme; millions live on the verge of starvation all the time, and one would think that their very appearance would plead successfully in their behalf.
The economic wrong done to the people of India explains the political wrong done to them. For more than twenty years an Indian national congress has been pleading for a modified form of representative government—not for a severing of the tie that binds India to Great Britain, but for an increasing voice in their local affairs. But this request can not be granted. Why? Because a local government, composed of natives selected by the people, would protest against so large an army, reduce the taxes and put Indians at lower salaries into places now held by Europeans. It is the fear of what an Indian local government would do that prevents the experiment, although two other reasons, both insufficient, are given. One of these is that the Indian people are not intelligent enough and that they must be protected from themselves by denying them a voice in their own affairs. The other is that the Indians are so divided into tribes and religious sects that they can not act harmoniously together. The first argument will not impress any unprejudiced traveler who has come into contact with the educated classes. There are enough well informed, college trained native Indians, not to speak of those, who, like our own ancestors a few centuries ago, have practical sense and good judgment without book learning, to guide public opinion. While the percentage of literacy is deplorably small, the total number of educated men is really considerable, and there are at this time seventeen thousand students above the secondary schools and studying for the B. A. degree. There is not a district of any considerable size that has not some intelligent men in it, and these could be relied upon to direct the government until a larger number are qualified to assist. It is true that native princes have often seemed indifferent to the welfare of their subjects—Princes who have lived in great luxury while the people have been neglected, but to-day some of the native states vie with those controlled by European officials in education and material advancement. And is not the very fact that the people are left under the government of native princes in the native states conclusive proof that in all the states the government could be administered without the aid of so large a number of Europeans?
The second argument is equally unsound. To say that the Indians would necessarily fight among themselves is to ignore the progress of the world. There was a time when Europe was the scene of bloody religious wars, and our own country is indebted to the persecution of the pilgrims in England for some of its best pioneers. There has been a growth in religious tolerance during the last century, and this is asnoticeable in India as elsewhere. Already the intellectual leaders of all the sects and elements of the Indian population are mingling in congresses, conferences and public meetings. Already a national spirit is growing which, like the national spirit in England and America, disregards religious lines and emphasizes more and more the broad social needs which are common to all; and with the increase of general education there will be still more of unity and national sentiment. Those who make this argument also forget that as long as England maintains sovereignty it will be impossible for religious differences to lead to war and that differences in council and in congress would strengthen rather than weaken her position.
But why is there a lack of intelligence among the Indians? Have they not had the blessings of British rule for several generations? Why have they not been fitted for self-government? Gladstone, whose greatness of head and heart shed a lustre upon all Europe, said: "It is liberty alone which fits men for liberty. This proposition, like every other in politics, has its bounds; but it is far safer than the counter doctrine, 'wait till they are fit.'"
How long will it take to fit the Indians for self-government when they are denied the benefits of experience? They are excluded from the higher civil service (ostensibly open to them) by a cunningly devised system of examinations which makes it almost impossible for them to enter. Not only are the people thus robbed of opportunities which rightfully belong to them, but the country is deprived of the accumulated wisdom that would come with service, for the alien officials return to Europe at the end of their service, carrying back their wisdom and earnings, not to speak of the pensions which they then begin to draw.
The illiteracy of the Indian people is a disgrace to the proud nation which has for a century and a half controlled their destiny. The editor of the Indian World, a Calcutta magazine, says in last February's number:
"If India has not yet been fit for free institutions, it is certainly not her fault. If, after one and a half centuries of British rule, India remains where she was in the Middle Ages, what a sad commentary must it be upon the civilizing influences of that rule! When the English came to India, this country was the leader of Asiatic civilization and the undisputed center of light in the Asiatic world; Japan was then nowhere. Now, in fifty years, Japan has revolutionized her history with the aid of modern arts of progress and India, with an hundred and fifty years of English rule, is still condemned to tutelage."
Who will answer the argument presented by this Indian editor?And he might have made it stronger. Japan, the arbiter of her own destiny and the guardian of her own people, has in half a century bounded from illiteracy to a position where ninety per cent of her people can read and write and is now thought worthy to enter into an Anglo-Japanese alliance, while India, condemned to political servitude, and sacrificed for the commercial advantage of another nation, still sits in darkness, less than one per cent of her women able to read and write and less than ten per cent of her total population sufficiently advanced to communicate with each other by letter or to gather knowledge from the printed page. In the speech above referred to, Mr. Gokhale estimates that four villages out of every five are without a school house, and this, too, in a country where the people stagger under an enormous burden of taxation. The published statement for 1904-5 shows that the general government appropriated but six and a half million dollars for education while more than ninety millions were appropriated for "army service," and the revised estimate for the next year shows an increase of a little more than half a million for education while the army received an increase of more than twelve millions.
The government has, it is true, built a number of colleges (with money raised by taxation), but it is gradually extending the system of primary and secondary schools (also with taxes), though the progress is exceedingly slow and the number of schools grossly inadequate. Benevolent Englishmen have also aided the cause of education by establishing private schools and colleges under church and other control, but the amount returned to India in this way is insignificant when compared with the amount annually drawn by England from India.
It is not scarcity of money that delays the spread of education in India, but the deliberate misappropriation of taxes collected, and the system which permits this disregard of the welfare of the subjects and the subordination of their industries to the supposed advancement of another nation's trade is as indefensible upon political and economic grounds as upon moral grounds. If more attention were given to the intellectual progress of the people and more regard shown for their wishes, it would not require so many soldiers to compel loyalty to England, neither would it require a large army to preserve peace and order. If agriculture were protected and encouraged and native industries built up and diversified, England's commerce with India would be greater, for prosperous people would buy more than can be sold to India to-day, when so many of her sons and daughters are like walking shadows.
Lord Curzon, the most brilliant of India's viceroys of recent years, inaugurated a policy of reaction. He not only divided Bengal with aview of lessening the political influence of the great province, but he adopted an educational system which the Indians believe was intended to discourage higher education among the native population. The result, however, was exactly the opposite of that which was intended. It aroused the Indians and made them conscious of the possession of powers which they had not before employed. As the cold autumn wind scatters winged seeds far and wide, so Lord Curzon's administration spread the seeds of a national sentiment, and there is more life in India to-day, and therefore more hope, than there has ever been before. So high has feeling run against the government that there has been an attempted boycott of English made goods, and there is now a well organized movement to encourage the use of goods made in India.
lamGOV. LAMINGTON—BOMBAY, INDIA
GOV. LAMINGTON—BOMBAY, INDIA
GOV. LAMINGTON—BOMBAY, INDIA
Let no one cite India as an argument in defense of colonialism. On the Ganges and the Indus the Briton, in spite of his many noble qualities and his large contributions to the world's advancement, has demonstrated, as many have before, man's inability to exercise, with wisdom and justice, irresponsible power over helpless people. He has conferred some benefits upon India, but he has extorted a tremendous price for them. While he has boasted of bringing peace to the living, he has led millions to the peace of the grave; while he has dwelt upon order established between warring tribes, he has impoverished the country by legalized pillage. Pillage is a strong word, but no refinement of language can purge the present system of its iniquity. How long will it be before the quickened conscience of England's Christian people will heed the petition that swells up from fettered India and apply to Britain's greatest colony the doctrines of human brotherhood that have given to the Anglo-Saxon race the prestige it now enjoys?
Note—The article on British Rule in India has been severely criticized by the government papers in India and as heartily praised by prominent representatives of the native population. Delegations of Indians called upon me in London, Paris and New York to express their thanks.In view of this criticism, I give below a few facts in support of the views expressed in the article.
Note—The article on British Rule in India has been severely criticized by the government papers in India and as heartily praised by prominent representatives of the native population. Delegations of Indians called upon me in London, Paris and New York to express their thanks.
In view of this criticism, I give below a few facts in support of the views expressed in the article.
In Whitaker's Almanac for 1906 (published in London), the appropriation for education is given at 1,298,000 pounds in 1902-3, 1,368,000 pounds in 1903-4, and 1,474,000 pounds in 1904-5. The appropriation for army services is given at 17,346,000 pounds for 1902-3, 17,892,000 pounds for 1903-4, and 20,463,000 pounds for 1904-5. (The figures for 1904-5 are described as "revised estimates" in both cases.) Multiplying the pounds by five, it will be seen that the appropriationfor education is about seven million dollars and the appropriation for army services (for the last year) about one hundred and two millions. What defense can be made for the expenditure of more than thirteen times as much for the army as for education?
Within a few days after the publication of my article, Hon. John Morley, Secretary for India, delivered a speech in Parliament upon the Indian budget. The following quotations show that he has made the same criticism on three important matters. First, on the salt tax. He says:
"But for my part I cannot regard, and I will not regard with satisfaction, or even with patience, the continuance at a high scale of a tax on a prime necessity of life. (Cheers.)"
And again:
"It is not that the Indian is more heavily burdened in the matter of the salt duty than the Italian. But, however that may be, I am glad to think that the very able and expert financial member of the Viceroy's council hopes to make further reduction in the duty, even though he cannot go so far as I should like to go, and sweep the thing away altogether. (Cheers.)"
indianINDIAN STUDENTS.
INDIAN STUDENTS.
INDIAN STUDENTS.
On the expenditure for the army, he says:
"So far, I have given a rose-colored—I hope a true colored—picture. In military expenditure, however, we have the shadow. Comparing broadly 1906-7 with the figures of ten years ago, there is an increase in the strength of the army of four thousand one hundred and forty seven men. In 1896-7 the number was two hundred and twenty-seventhousand men and in 1906-7, two hundred and thirty-one thousand five hundred men. But the remarkable circumstance comes out that in British cavalry and infantry there is no increase. The only important addition to the fighting strength of the army are an increase in our artillery and an increase in the number of British officers to the tune of one thousand. That is a large and costly addition, but I will not argue it now. The net army expenditure in India, British and native, in 1896-7, was fifteen million pounds; the estimate for 1906-7 is eighteen million seven hundred thousand pounds—an increase of three million seven hundred thousand pounds. (This is an estimate of the net expenditure, the Whitaker estimate is gross.) This has to be divided into two equal items of one million eight hundred and fifty thousand pounds for ordinary and special military expenditure. I invite the House to attend to one element in the increase in the ordinary expenditure. The House will remember that the late government found it necessary to grant additional pay to the non-commissioned officers and men in the British army in India. Those were circumstances for which neither the Government nor the governed in India had a shadow of responsibility. They were not responsible for those social circumstances which made it necessary to add to the pay of the British soldier, but the increase of pay in the British contingent of the Indian military force was saddled on India to the tune of nearly a million sterling."
On higher civil service he confesses the injustice done the Indians. He says:
"In regard to the question of the employment of Indians in the higher offices, I think a move—a definite and deliberate move—ought to be made with the view of giving competent and able natives the same access to the higher posts in the administration that are given to our own countrymen. (Cheers.) There is a famous sentence in the Queen's proclamation of 1858 which says:—'It is our further will that, so far as may be, our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service-offices, the duties of which they may be qualified by their educational talents and ability duly to discharge.' I think those words, 'so far as may be,' have been somewhat misinterpreted in the past. I do not believe that the ministers who advised Queen Victoria in framing one of the most memorable documents in all our history meant those words to be construed in a narrow, literal, restricted or pettifogging sense. (Cheers.) I do not believe that parliament ever intended this promise of the Queen's should be construed in any but a liberal and generous sense. The Governor-General of India to-day is, I am glad to say, a man of a firmtexture of mind. I do not believe the Governor-General has any intention of riding off on a narrow interpretation of a promise which was as wise and politic as it was just. (Hear, hear.) I do not know if there is any case in history of an autocratic, personal or absolute government co-existing with free speech and free right of meeting. For as long a time as my poor imagination can pierce through, for so long a time our government in India must partake, and in no small degree, of the personal and absolute element. But that is no reason why we should not try this great experiment of showing that you can have a strong and effective administration along with free speech and free institutions, and being all the better and all the more effective because of free speech and free institutions. (Cheers.) That policy is a noble one to think of, but the task is arduous; and because it is noble and because it is arduous, I recommend the policy, of which I have only given a broad outline, to the adoption of the House." (Cheers.)
asokaFAMOUS ASOKA PILLAR.
FAMOUS ASOKA PILLAR.
FAMOUS ASOKA PILLAR.
We have been moving among the oldest monuments reared by man, and they make the rest of the world seem young. In Japan a Buddhist temple, built twelve hundred years ago, impressed us with the youthfulness of American institutions; in China we were shown temples that had stood for twenty centuries and were told of customs and laws even older; in India we found a pagoda some twenty-five hundred years old, and visited the site of a city whose foundations were probably laid more than three thousand years ago; but here we see the mummied forms of human beings who lived two thousand years before Christ was born, inspect the handiwork of men who laid down the chisel before Abraham appeared upon the earth, look upon colors that have withstood the changes and defied the elements of forty centuries, and handle wheat that grew upon the banks of the Nile long before Joseph built granaries for Pharaoh. The guides count centuries as trippingly on the tongue as a treasury expert or an insurance magnate handles millions. They discuss dynasties that rose and fell when Europe was shrouded in darkness, before the light of history dawned upon the Ganges and the Yangtse; they decipher hieroglyphics that kept their secrets for ages and lead one among ruins that astonish by their immensity as well as by the artistic skill which they reveal.
Back in the misty past—in the prehistoric period—there were two Egyptian kingdoms, one occupying upper, and the other lower Egypt. This was prior to 2,500B. C., and from the stirring scenes engraved upon stone, one can imagine the conflicts which took place along the fertile valley of the Nile before Menes, the earliest known ruler, united the two kingdoms, assumed the title, Lord of Both Lands, fashioned a double crown for himself, and adopted the lily, or lotus, and the papyrus as symbols of his consolidated empire. We are probably indebted to certain natural peculiarities of Egypt for the preservation of the unique evidences of ancient civilization found here. First, there is but a small area of tillable land stretched along the mostwonderful of rivers and guarded on either side by a barren waste that offers greater protection than a wall. Second, the climate of Egypt is dry, and there are no drenching rains to deface and no violent changes of temperature to disintegrate. Third, the temples and tombs are so massively built as to discourage the vandal; and fourth, the sands of the desert have drifted in and concealed for a hundred generations many of the most valuable of these relics of a bygone age.
There is such a wealth of archæological treasures here that one scarcely knows where to begin or how to condense the most important things into the space allotted to a newspaper article. I shall not attempt to describe things chronologically, because some of the temples have been added to by different kings and dynasties, until they represent the art and life of many hundred years. The temple at Karnak, for instance, bears the impress of Egypt's rulers from Thutmosis to the Rameses, and from the Rameses to the Ptolemies, a period of some twelve hundred years, and the building of the numerous pyramids covered even a longer time.
karnakKARNAK TEMPLE.
KARNAK TEMPLE.
KARNAK TEMPLE.
As the tourist usually begins a trip through Egypt with a visit to Cairo, he is likely to find the great Egyptian museum, the Museum of Gizeh, a fitting introduction to his subsequent investigations. Here one finds samples of all the antiquities of the country, excepting the pyramids and the temples, and there are mummies, sarcophagi, statues, carvings and hieroglyphics from these. A considerable space is devoted to mummies, some from the tombs of kings, but many of morehumble rank. The early Egyptians believed that man was composed of several different entities. First, there was the body, and second, the double—a sort of invisible form reproducing the features of the body. Next came the soul, represented as a human-headed bird and then a spark of the divine fire called Khu, which has been translated as "the Luminous." It was to prevent the departure of these attending forms that embalming was resorted to. By suspending the decomposition of the body, they thought that they could preserve the connection between it and the Double, the Soul and the Luminous, and by prayers and offerings these could be saved from the second death. This is the explanation of the mummy given by archæologists. The Double, it was supposed, never left the place where the mummy rested, and the Soul, while it went away to commune with the gods, returned from time to time, and for this reason rooms were made for the reception of the Soul and for the habitation of the Double.One can hardly believe as he looks upon the shriveled forms that they were interred so long ago. I will enclose with this article a photograph of the mummy of Egypt's great builder, and known as "the Pharaoh of the Oppression," who died more than three thousand years ago. The hand no longer sways the scepter; the eyes look no more upon the gigantic statues which he scattered along the Nile, and the voice does not now demand the making of "bricks without straw," but the mortal remains of this famous ruler vividly recall the days of Israel's bondage.
mummyMUMMY.WOODEN STATUE.
MUMMY.WOODEN STATUE.
MUMMY.WOODEN STATUE.
With the mummies are many mummy cases, some covered with hieroglyphics, some ornamented with pictures in colors, and most of them covered with a lid upon which are a face mask and an outline of the form of the occupant. The process by which these bodies have been preserved is still a mystery, but the fact that they have outlived dynasties and survived the countless changes of so many centuries gives to them a lasting interest. The collection of statues and images of gods, human beings, beasts and birds runs up into the thousands. Some of these are heroic in size, others are not more than an inch in height; some are strong, some beautiful and some grotesque. Granite, both red and black, alabaster, stone, iron, bronze and clay—all have been brought into requisition for this work. Some of the bronze has, upon analysis, been found to contain practically the same combination of metals as the bronze now used. There are even statues in wood, and one of these—a photograph of which I secured—attracted my attention because the head and face bear a resemblance to the late Senator Hanna. It is called "Sheikh el Beled" or Village Chief; that it should have resisted decay for more than forty centuries is little less than marvelous.
While the excavators have been searching for historical records, they have occasionally found treasures of great pecuniary value. A considerable quantity of gold and silver in the form of jewelry has been unearthed, and the museum contains specimens of exquisite workmanship which not only display the skill of the artificers but portray the habits and customs of the early Egyptians.
The museum also contains enough of cloth, found with the mummies, and of pictures of looms, to show that weaving was an industry with which the people of those days were familiar.
But we must leave the museum and proceed to those masterpieces which are too large for any roof, save that formed by the vaulted skies. I am, however, constrained to offer one criticism of the museum in passing. It is under the control of a French society, and the only catalogue obtainable is printed in French. While most of the exhibitsbear a brief description in both French and English, some are labeled in French only and a few not at all. As there are no guides to show a visitor through the numerous rooms and point out the principal objects of interest, those who are unable to read French are at a great disadvantage. Considering the number of English and American tourists it seems strange that more attention should not be paid to their accommodation.
But to the temples. We reached Egypt after the regular tourist season was over and could not visit all the ruins. We selected the most famous, those of the two ancient cities, Thebes and Memphis, and they alone would repay a visit to Egypt. The present city of Luxor, four hundred and twenty miles from Cairo, covers a small part of the vast area once occupied by "Hundred-gated Thebes." In the very heart of the city a mammoth temple has been found where kings worshiped through many reigns. It was built during the eighteenth dynasty (B. C.1500) on the site of a still older sanctuary and dedicated to Ammon, his wife, Mut, and their son, Khons, the Moon-god. Some of the columns are twelve feet in diameter, more than forty feet in height, and support great blocks of red granite twenty feet long and four feet in width and thickness. Some of the columns represent clustered papyrus and have capitals shaped like the lotus bud. In the temple are a number of statues of Rameses II, some sitting, some standing. One of these statues is forty-five feet in height, and another of less dimensions was unearthed only about a year ago. When excavations were begun houses were serenely resting on the top of the temple, and it is believed that further excavations will disclose an avenue leading to other temples two miles away.
In front of the Luxor temple is an obelisk of pink granite, a part of which is still under ground. Obelisks were always erected in pairs, and the companion of this one was removed some years ago to Paris. These great monoliths come down to us from the period when the Egyptians worshiped the sun, and they were intended to represent his rays. The oldest Egyptian obelisk is at Heliopolis, not far from Cairo, and is sixty-six feet in height. It is supposed to have been erected 2000 to 2200B. C., but it is in an excellent state of preservation and bids fair to bear testimony for ages yet to the reverence felt by the ancients for the sun. At one time Heliopolis was a thriving city and is referred to in the Bible as "On," but to-day the obelisk stands alone in the midst of cultivated fields, all the buildings having disappeared.
While the obelisk at Heliopolis outranks all others in age, the one at Karnak, in the suburbs of Luxor, has the distinction of being thetallest one yet remaining. It is eight and a half feet in diameter at the base and ninety-seven and a half feet in height (eight and a half feet less than the obelisk at Rome). The obelisks were cut in a single shaft, most of them from granite quarries near Assuan. These quarries are more than five hundred miles south of Cairo, and it is supposed that the obelisks were transported on the Nile to the places where they have since been found, but how they were handled or placed in position no one knows.
The temple of Ammon, at Karnak, is generally regarded as the most interesting of temple-ruins in Egypt. It is the work of many kings, one adding a sanctuary, another a pylon, another a court, etc.—each placing his cartouche, or seal, upon his work. This temple, which was officially styled the Throne of the World, covers an immense area. One pylon, or gateway, is more than three hundred feet wide, nearly a hundred and fifty feet high, and has walls sixteen feet thick. One court covers almost a thousand square yards, and one aisle leads between pillars sixty-nine feet in height, about twelve feet in diameter and supporting capitals of eleven feet. The stones used in this temple are of enormous size, and they were probably raised to their positions on scaffolding of earth—this being also the method employed where attempts have recently been made to restore fallen columns.
The hieroglyphics upon the walls, the columns, the obelisks and the statues, after remaining a puzzle for ages, have been deciphered and woven into a consecutive history. This was made possible by the discovery, in 1799, of what is known as the "Rosetta stone" (now in the British Museum) at the mouth of the Rosetta arm of the Nile by a French engineer named Bouchard. This stone bears a decree inscribed in three languages—ancient Egyptian, modern Egyptian and Greek, and furnishes the key to unlock the secrets of ancient history.
The pictures represent sacrificial ceremonies, domestic and industrial scenes, battles, triumphal processions—all phases of life, in fact. One wall contains, in hieroglyphics, the treaty of peace which Rameses II concluded with the Hittites, while another wall represents Rameses III holding a group of prisoners by the hair and raising a club as if to strike. Close by, the god Ammon is delivering to him chained representatives of different vanquished nations, the faces being so true to life that the Israelities brought from Palestine can be easily distinguished from the Ethiopians and Nubians of the south. One of the heads seen often in the drawings resembles "the yellow kid," and the donkeys are exactly like those seen to-day.
Luxor and Karnak are on the east bank of the Nile, but Thebes required both sides of the river for her great population, and the west bank is also rich in evidences of ancient civilization. The Rameseum is here and would attract more attention if it were not overshadowed by larger temples; here also are the "Colossi of Memmon," one of them known to literature as the singing statue. This is described by Strabo and Juvenal and bears many inscriptions in Latin and Greek made by those who visited it under the Roman rule. Hadrian looked upon it 150A. D., and a poetess of his day declares that the statue greeted the emperor. It is supposed that the sound which for many years issued from the head of the statue just after sunrise was caused by the change in temperature, the granite having been cracked; at any rate, the sound ceased when the statue was repaired. It now sits silent, and with its companion gazes upon the barley field that reaches out in every direction from their feet.
But more interesting than the Rameseum or the Colossi are the tombs of the kings, some forty-two of which have already been discovered. At this point the west side of the valley of the Nile is walled in by a range of limestone hills, one of which bears a striking resemblance to a pyramid. (Could it have suggested the idea of a pyramid for a tomb?) Leaving the valley of the Nile about two miles north of this pyramidal hill, there is a small dry valley which wends its way back through the hills and terminates at the foot of steep walls just west of the hill mentioned. Here are the tombs, hewn in the solid rock, the most elaborate of which is the tomb of Sethos, or Seti, the father of Rameses II. This tomb burrows into the hill to the depth of three hundred and thirty feet, a flight of steps leading down through different levels and different chambers to the final vault. The walls are covered with figures in colors representing the king in the act of making offerings to the various gods. There are also drawings illustrating scenes in this world and life as it is supposed to be in the next world. Some of these pictures portray a hell where the wicked are punished with fire, and there are also drawings which have been interpreted to represent the resurrection and judgment.
Not far away is the tomb of "the Pharaoh of the Exodus" which contains a granite image of the king, and close by this tomb is another in which the mummied form of a Pharaoh still reposes. Grave robbing, however, was so popular an amusement in those days that the bodies of nearly all the kings had been removed for safety to a secret vault, which was so carefully concealed that they were not found until the nineteenth century.
At Memphis, which is only about eighteen miles from Cairo, there are tombs of less importance, colossal statues of Rameses II and the sarcophagi of the sacred bulls. In one of the tombs or Mastabas, as tombs of this style are called, are some of the drawings that have been most widely reproduced. In one place a boy is fattening geese by the stuffing process; in another, cranes are being fed; here, rams are treading in the seed, and the cattle, horned and hornless, are being driven through a river. Agriculture, ship-building, carpentering and other industries are minutely pictured. While the human figures are stiff and angular, the birds and beasts are so exactly like what we see to-day that one could easily believe them to have been drawn by a modern artist.