242

ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE OBELISK OF LUXOR TO PARIS.

[Compiled for the Mech. Mag., from "Expedition du Luxor, par M. Angelin, Chirurgienmajor de l'Expedition ;" and "Notice sur les Obelisques de Luxor," in the Recueil de la Société Polytechnique: the latter drawn up chiefly from materials furnished by M. le Comte de Laborde.]

Far from the seats of modern civilisation-beneath the burning sun of Africa -between the waters of the Red Sea and the sands of the Desert-there lies a country, once great and flourishing, but now desolate and forsaken. The traveller, at sight of immense columns levelled with the ground, tall obelisks nearly overwhelmed in sand, and innumerable fragments of statuary of colossal magnitude, salutes with a sentiment of profound respect these august remains of departed grandeur. He asks-who the people were that erected masses so gigantic? By what means, and for what end? He examines a little more closely the magnificent remains before him, and learns from the hieroglyphic inscriptions, still legible upon them, that here, in times long past, lived a warlike and enlightened people; that here reigned the Pharaohs-here the great conqueror Sesostris, who enriched and adorned this remarkable spot with the spoils of all the then known world. Thebes! a name which of itself awakens recollections full of glory-Thebes, the cradle of the arts and sciences-Thebes, the ancient capital of the world-this once mightiest of cities it is, which lies prostrate in the dust. A few miserable Arabs now shelter amidst her ruins, to whom not only her history, but her very name, is all

unknown.

For

Among the surviving monuments of the glory of Thebes, the most, remarkable are two immense obelisks, or pyramids, which stand before what bears in modern times the name of the Temple of Luxor, each composed of a single block of granite, about 80 feet high. more than 3,000 years these pillars must have stood the assaults of time, and yet they are nearly in as perfect a condition as ever. To extract such masses from the quarry, and raise them to their appointed station, must have required all the resources of a mechanical science of the highest order.

Antiquarians inform us that it was a custom peculiar to the Egyptians to place

such gigantic monoliths as these before their temples and palaces, in order to distinguish them from private dwellings; and that on the sides of them were inscribed, in hieroglyphic characters, the name of the king by whom the palace was erected, or of the deity to whom the temple was consecrated. They were essentially, therefore, historical and sacred monuments; and there can be no doubt that this consideration served, equally with their beauty, to cause them to be so long respected and preserved.

When the merciless Cambyses overthrew the monuments of Egypt, his fary was arrested at the sight of these obelisks; he caused the burning of Thebes to cease, in order that they might be spared.

Augustus went farther; he conceived the noble idea of transporting two columns of this description, which he found standing at Alexandria, to the capital of the new world. He found Rome built of bricks, and desired not only (as has been said) to leave it of marble, but to embellish it with a species of stone at that time unknown to the nations of the west, which was said to reflect most brilliantly the rays of the sun, and to look as if spotted with gold.* An immense vessel was constructed for this purpose which conveyed the two obelisks to Rome, where one of them was placed in the Circus Maximus, and the other in the Campus Martius.

It is reasonable to suppose that on this occasion the Romans would spare no pains to ascertain how the Egyptians were able to hew out, iransport, and elevate so easily blocks of such enormous dimensions. But whatever their researches were, it is certain that they have yielded little begond mere conjecture for the information of later times.

The architect of Ptolemy Philadelphus could devise no better means of transporting one of the obelisks of Thebes to Alexandria, than the following very rude method:-He first dug a canal from the spot where the obelisk lay to the Nile. --this canal passing beneath the column (transversely), so that the ends rested one on each bank. He next brought under the column two barges, placed them side

*The obelisks were of the red granite of Syene, which may serve to account for the somewhat extravagant description in the text.-Fr.

by side, and filled them with weights double that of the column; and then he took out these weights, on which the barge rose, lifted the column along with them, and carried it off. Diodorus Siculus speaks of inclined planes or artificial mounds having been employed a method made use of to remove heavy weights at the present day by some nations of the East, little skilled in the arts. Pliny tells us that 20,000 men were required to raise one of these obelisks, and that the king's son was fastened to the top of it, to induce them to exert themselves with the proper vigour and address. It would be doing injustice, however, to the well-established skill of the ancient Egyptians in the mechanical arts, to give any credit to such a fable as this. Not only did they raise with facility monoliths such as thesethe weight of the heaviest of which did not exceed 700,000 lbs. - but entire temples of one single block, such as those of Sais and Butos, of the enormous weight of from 6 to 8,000,000 lbs.

Following the example of Augustus, Caligula transported to Rome a third obelisk, and the ship or raft employed for the purpose was of so vast a size, that it served under the Emperor Claudius as a foundation for a tower in the port of Ostia, similar to the Pharos of Alexandria.

Constantine, ambitious of surpassing all his predecessors in this matter, resolved to transport from Thebes to Byzantium (the modern Constantinople), a still larger obelisk than any which had been yet removed from Egypt. He only succeeded, however, in getting it the length of Alexandria; and, on his death, his son Constans changed its destination from Byzantium to Rome. A vessel was employed to convey it, which is said to have been the largest that, up to that period, was ever constructed. It took 300 rowers to propel it, and the mast was so large that two men could not embrace it. The vessel with its precious cargo reached the banks of the Tiber in safety; but in so low a state were the mechanical arts at that time in Rome, that it required the most unheard-of efforts to unload it. There was constructed for the purpose, says Ammianus Marcellinus, a framework, of so many immense beams, and with such a profusion of cords, pulleys, &c., that it had the resemblance of a forest; and the efforts of several thousand men were necessary to raise the gigantic monolith, in the midst of this most gigantic apparatus.

The trouble which it cost to set up another obelisk, removed at a later period, under the reign of the Emperor

Theodosius, to Constantinople, shows still less skill. It appears from an inscription on the pedestal, that it took no less than "thirty-two suns," or days, to raise it from the ground.

The difficulties with which these different operations were attended, prove but too clearly that every trace of the science and skill of ancient Egypt must have been lost.

The incursions of the northern barbarians overthrew the obelisks, along with nearly every other monument of Roman glory; and eight centuries passed away before any thought of raising them again from the dust was entertained. There, in fact, they lay-utterly neglected-almost forgotten-till Rome became a second time the capital of the civilized world.

Sextus the Fifth resolved to set up once more the obelisk of Caligula. When his intention became known, there were many projects submitted to him for its accomplishment; that by Fontana received the preference; but what a pro

ject! It was the scene described by Marcellinus over again. He employed 800 men, 80 horses, 100 capstans, and a forest of wood-work-triple the power necessary! The operation was, nevertheless, considered so wonderful, that twenty medals were cast to transmit it with due honour to posterity.

After this time, the taste for this description of ancient relics seems to have suffered a long eclipse. Columns, bearing the name of obelisks, were indeed erected at different periods, and in different countries, but they merely consisted of a number of separate blocks put together in a pyramidal form, and bore no other similarity to the genuine Egyptian monolith.

For ten centuries the land of the Pharaohs had remained sunk in barbarism, when there arose in the west a second Sesostris, who conceived the noble design of restoring it to its ancient glory. Led by him the armies of France advanced beyond the Pyramids, nor stopped in their victorious career till in sight

of the magnificent ruins of Thebes. In the enthusiasm of the moment Napoleon would fain have sent home the whole of these surprising monuments; but this, circumstances forbidding, he resolved that at least some of the more remarkable should be transported to adorn the capital of his country, and serve as everFig. 4.

245

the Government of France, and a determination formed to transport one of the obelisks at Luxor to Paris. The difficulties to be overcome were great; a ship had to be constructed which should be large enough to contain the obelisk, strong enough to bear a long voyage through stormy seas, and of so little draught of water as to navigate with ease such rivers as the Nile and the Seine. In 1829, orders were given for the construction, at Toulon, of a transport which should have all these properties. It received the name of the Luxor, and was placed under the command of Lieut. Vernniac. The superintendence of the operations connected with the removal and transport of the obelisk was confided to M. Lebas, naval engineer, formerly of the Polytechnic School. The crew consisted of 120 seamen, 12 artisans, selected from the arsenal, and a master of works, to act under M. Lebas. All the requisite preparations having been made, the ves Fig. 6.

lasting memorials of her power and greatness. The interruption of the communications by sea, in consequence of the war with England, put a stop, however, to the accomplishment of this design; and other events soon arrived to cause its entire postponement to a later period.*

After the lapse of nearly thirty years the scheme of Napoleon was revived by Fig. 5.

* The historical accuracy of this passage is open to some very obvious exceptions. It may suffice to observe, that the "second Sesostris" contemplated rather a strange way of bringing about the restoration of Egypt to her ancient glory, when he resolved on robbing her of her most precious monuments.-Translator.

sel sailed from Toulon on the 15th April, 1831, and entered the port of Alexandria on the 3d May. After remaining there twelve days, she proceeded up the Nile; but in consequence of the extreme sinuosity of the river, and an unusual delay in the rising of the waters, she did not reach her destination before the 12th of July. The preparations for lowering and embarking the obelisk occupied from the 11th of July to the 31st of October. The arrangements made for this purpose we shall now proceed to describe.

[To be continued in our next, when an explanation of the accompanying engravings will be given.]

* M. Angelin observes on this head" According to all who have hitherto written of the Nile, the rise commences about the 15th or 20th of June, and continues rising till the 20th Sept. I can bear witness, however, that in 1831 the rise began in the first week of June, while in 1832 there was no rise perceptible before the 1st of July." 1

THE ASCENT OF SMOKE-POPULAR

ERROR CORRECTED.

Sir,-At page 175 of your valuable Magazine there is an inquiry relating to the "ascent of smoke;" with your kind permission I will make thereon a few remarks.

It is demonstrated by writers on hydrostatics, that an equal bulk of a heavier fluid will sink in a lighter, with a force proportionate to the difference of their weights; from which we may deduce, that if our atmosphere were lighter than smoke, then it would be impossible for smoke to ascend. But as it does ascend almost invariably, it follows that the air must generally be the specifically heavier body. Occasionally a very considerable diminution takes place in the density of the air, and consequently in its buoyant power; and then, as your correspondent observes, the smoke ascends with difficulty. Every one must have noticed that this occurs most frequently in damp and foggy weather. The "extreme heaviness" of the air at such times is commonly said to be the cause, though, in point of fact, it is because the air is then in its lightest state that the smoke is slow to ascend. In clear and serene weather, when the atmospheric pressure is the greatest, smoke ascends with almost uniform freeness and ease,

Aristotle's notion of the elements was, that the earth and water were positively heavy, fire positively light, and air not positively either the one or the other. Hence his followers affirm, that the ascent of bodies is owing to their intrinsic levity; but it is now universally agreed that this doctrine was wholly erroneous. Bodies ascend-flame and smoke, for example-not because they are intrinsically light, but only because they are lighter than some other body or medium on which they are dependent. It is a well-known fact, and one which helps considerably to strengthen this view of the matter, that smoke in an exhausted receiver settles to the bottom in a darkish body, leaving the upper part clear and transparent; which is not because the air is too heavy, but obviously because it is too light to afford the requisite support.

May we not, however, reasonably suppose that smoke itself may, at different times, undergo some slight alteration in heaviness? Or, at least, that smoke,

arising from fires composed of different materials, may be of different weights ? Some time ago I witnessed a very singular phenomenon. Almost close to where I reside there is a lime-kiln; it had not been long kindled, and the smoke issuing from it instead of ascending, as it commonly does, appeared to creep along the ground, about a foot in height, and when it came to the edge of the bank, on which the kiln is situated, it rolled down in beautiful curls, almost as if some one were pouring dust from the bank; the smoke was of a muddy colour. After it had reached the ground it slowly crossed a canal, continuing about the same height, and when it had reached the opposite side it was taken off by a gentle south wind. While we stood watching it, the wind suddenly changed from south to west, and almost directly it was taken off the ground, and rose in the air as smoke commonly does. Now, though the smoke must have been specifically heavier than the air around it, as was certain from its rolling downward, yet that which issued from the neighbouring chimneys appeared not to have the least inclination to come down. This may possibly have arisen from the greater lightness of the atmosphere, at the elevation of the chimney-tops; but it seems to me more probable, that it was owing partly (only) to that cause, and partly to a difference in the density of the two descriptions of smoke.

Perhaps many of the inhabitants of London are not much wiser than are the inhabitants of the country, even in such simple matters as these; yet one would imagine that, in a city which is so troubled with smoke, even the most illiterate would not be ignorant of the cause of its not always ascending with equal rapidity. It would be as reasonable to expect that a ship, or a cork, should be more buoyed up in fresh than in salt water, as to suppose that smoke should be kept down by the air being too dense. Hydrogen gas being twelve times lighter than cominon air, is employed to fill balloons; but if the "heaviness" of the air were the reason why smoke will not ascend, why not find some gas which is twelve times heavier than common air for the same purpose?

I am, Sir, &c.

Bulbourne, June 21, 1834.

J. L.