Our narrative of Cleopatra’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 the
_Bombay Courier_, of June 9, 1802, courteously communicated to us by
Major-General Bellasis. It runs as follows:—
“The 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.
“In 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 of equal 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.”
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 from_ CONSUL BRIGGS
_to the_ RIGHT HON. SIR BENJAMIN BLOMFIELD.
“UPPER TOOTING, SURREY.
“_11th April, 1820._
“SIR,
“Having, 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 ‘Africa,’ 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 Cleopatra’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 master’s name, a tender of one of those obelisks to
His Majesty, as a mark of his personal respect and gratitude.
“It 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.
“Representations 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
to afford the necessary means towards its accomplishment.
“Among 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.
“This 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.
“The 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.
“The 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.
“In 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.
“Eminently 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.
“I 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 Majesty’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 Majesty’s ministers, I shall immediately
comply with your suggestion.
“I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration,
Sir,
“Your most obedient and humble servant,
“SAMUEL BRIGGS,”
[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 Alexander’s communication takes the form of a paper read to the
Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1868; entitled, “Observations relative
to the Desirableness of Transporting from Alexandria to Britain the
Prostrate Obelisk presented to George IV. by Mahommed Ali Pacha.” By
General Sir J. E. Alexander, K.C.L.S., F.R.S.E., &c.
“In 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 Cleopatra’s Needles, as it is commonly
termed), was not occupying a place of honour in England or Scotland.
“This 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.
“The state of public affairs at the time, perhaps, prevented the
accomplishment of this enterprise; now the time may be more favourable
for it.
“Sir Gardner Wilkinson and other writers on Egypt and its antiquities,
are of opinion that Cleopatra’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 Cleopatra’s time. Sandys, who travelled in 1610,
calls the prostrate obelisk ‘Pharaoh’s Needle,’ and says ‘it is half
buried in rubbish.’ 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 whilst there 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.
“This obelisk, with others, is well ascertained to have been quarried
at Syené, 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.
“Denon alludes to Cleopatra’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.
“I corresponded with Mr. Newton, the keeper of antiquities, British
Museum, about the obelisk; and he writes—‘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 one
sufficiently 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.’
“I communicated with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation
Company regarding the means of transporting the obelisk; and the
secretary for the managing directors states—‘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.’
“The Foreign Office was accordingly communicated with, and an answer
was returned that the matter is now under the consideration of Lord
Stanley.
“The eminent civil engineer, Professor Macquorn Rankine, was asked what
he thought of the means of transporting the obelisk, and he said—‘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.’
“In 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.
“It appears to me (having studied and been employed formerly as an
engineer) 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.
“I 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.
“Lord 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.
“I 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 ‘Cleopatra’s Needle.’ The prostrate one
might be converted into building materials ere long, if not looked
after.
“Lately, in Glasgow, I made myself acquainted with the engineer of the
Clyde 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 matter—also to look at the plans from the
United Service Institution—he kindly consented to do so; and his clear
and excellent method for carrying out what is so much desired—the
removal of the obelisk to Britain—is placed before the Royal Society of
Edinburgh.”
A very important result of Sir James Alexander’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]—
[56] “Through Persia by Caravan,” vol. ii., page 268: 1877.
“HOTEL ABBAT, ALEXANDRIA.
“_April 1st, 1876._
“DEAR LORD HENRY LENNOX,
“A long time has elapsed since our conversation, in July last, with
reference to the removal of the obelisk, commonly known as ‘Cleopatra’s
Needle,’ 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.
“The 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 Athens—a caryatide, rudely carved in
wood, 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
‘spoiling the Egyptians.’
“The desirability of removing the obelisk resolves itself into two
questions—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 visible—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,
would be 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:—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.
“In 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 it
hung 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.
“The 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 builder’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 blasting—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 the
harbour, 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 Majesty’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.
“Finally, I would say that Captain Methven seems to be of opinion that
all this could be accomplished at a cost of about £5,000.
“Yours faithfully,
“ARTHUR ARNOLD.”
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, in _The Builder_ for 1851, vol. v.,
we find the following communication with respect to two plans proposed
by Captain (afterwards Admiral) Smyth.
“One, 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.
“His 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
canal made 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
vessel’s frame. This method is very similar to that
mentioned by Pliny.”
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 “Pictorial Gallery of Arts,” we find a description of
the transport of the Theban obelisk to Paris, from the pen of our old
friend, Charles Knight:—
“The 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 and
provision-stores; and the establishment of such
arrangements as should ensure the comfort of the men
during the operations for the removal of the obelisk.
“The 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 river—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.
“Although 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 a
man-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.”
Another writer, alluding to the same subject in _The Builder_ for 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 time—
“Considered 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:—
“This monolith stood on the east bank of the
Nile, at Luxor, part of the territory or soil of
Thebes—famous for its 500 gates; the ancient and
celebrated capital of Egypt.
“It 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 Syené 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.
“It was on a pedestal 3 feet 9 inches high, which was
not brought to France.
“England having obtained the fallen pillar, called
Cleopatra’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.
“Thebes 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.
“The 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 8¾ inches. Its weight, between 250
and 280 tons.
“France 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.
“This vessel, designed by the French government to
bring this trophy to France, was built at Toulon,
and called the ‘Lusquor.’ 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.
“It 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.
“The 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 ‘Sphynx’ 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.
“At Cherbourg she was visited by King Louis Philippe
on the 2nd September.
“She put to sea on the 12th September; was taken in
tow by the ‘Phœnix,’ 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.
“Thus the ‘Lusquor’ occupied above four years and
a-half, from the commencement of its building to
delivering the obelisk at Paris.
“On its arrival at Paris, a wooden erection of
similar size, covered with 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 l’Etoile cost £400,000, the cost of the obelisk
at £85,000 will not appear too extravagant. It was
raised on its pedestal on the 25th October, 1834.
“The 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.
“It was thus raised:—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.
“And this plan has not improbably been the one
adopted in ancient times—perhaps by the Celts and
Druids of our own island, who were exceedingly fond
of monoliths, of which an astonishing number still
remain.”
It does not fall within the scope of this book to attempt the panegyric
of the brave men who fought like heroes under their country’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.
“General 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 years’ 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.”
In his letters home, he speaks with enthusiastic
language of Egypt:—“Gizeh,” he says, “where
the enemy lies, ten miles off; and, across the
Nile—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.”
“The general’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 Pompey’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), hoist
the tri-colour French flag on the column, which shall
remain until ten o’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.”
The date of General Clayton’s death would appear to
have been March 16th, 1845; aged 74.
_Translation of the Text of the British Obelisk, by_ DEMETRIUS
MOSCONAS: 1877.
Since the final “Revise” of our last sheet, we have received a quarto
pamphlet from Alexandria, entitled, “Deux mots sur les Obelisques
d’Egypte,” with a translation of the inscriptions on Cleopatra’s
Needle, now on its way to England. The author’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 of _offerings_,
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 the
pschent. 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.