Part 11
“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.”