thrown down. It was to the care of Pope Sixtus V. that Rome is indebted for the re-eftablishment of this famous monument. What was most aftonishing is, that this obelifk, as well as that of Auguftus, was broke in many pieces; yet they found the means of repairing them without impairing their beauty. It was the famous architect Dominique Fontana whom they charged with the care of repairing them. He directed all the operations of that important undertaking. We know that it was not without 'a great number of machines and fingular precautions, they were able to erect them t. The obelifks, without contradiction, are a fpecies of monuments the most fingular which now remain to us of antiquity. There have been found perfons who, at the fight of these monftrous maffes, have ridiculously imagined that nature had no part in them, that they were entirely the effect of art. Some have believed that the Egyptians had the fecret of melting marble and stones in the fame manner nearly that we run metals. Thefe columns, thefe obelisks of one piece, and of an extraordinary height, give, fay they, room to think that these pieces have been caft and run into moulds as we run a piece of metal. Others have thought that the obelisks were a fort of factitious ftone composed of different flints pounded, cemented, and afterwards incorporated by means of fome gum fufficiently hard to bear the cutting and polishing. They alledge in proof of their fentiment, that, in the whole world, we cannot find at this time a quarry where we can fee blocks of fuch a fize. Further, add they, if one could find them, it would be impoffible to draw them out, for example, a piece of the fize of the obelisk of Rameffes, and still more impoffible to tranfport it. They propofe likewife other objections which I fhall not ftop to relate ". Those who reason thus, fhew plainly that they have not ↑ See vita di Sifto V. da Greg. Leti, parte 3. 1. 1. p. 4. &c. p. 22. &c.; fee alfo Father Kirker, de orig. & erectione obelifcorum. "See Maillet, defcription of Egypt, fect. 9. p. 39. & 40.; Shaw's voyage, t. 2. p. 82.; Mem. de Trev. Juill. 1703. p. 1218. & 1219.; Traité de l' opinion, t. 6. p. 608.; Diarium Ital. P. Montfaucon, c. 17. p. 247. acquired acquired much knowledge in the arts. With refpect to the firit, who have imagined that the obelisks had been melted and caft like pieces of metal; they are apparently ignorant that marble and stones are not fufible. There are only fands and flints that are fo. Moreover, could we even fuppose that the Egyptians had had in this particular fome fecret unknown to us, are thefe perfons ignorant that the effect of fufion is to vitrify thefe fort of fubftances, and by confequence to change them? Inftead of the monuments of marble which we now fee, this fecret could only have produced monuments of glafs. As to thofe who believe that the marble of the obelifks was only a fpecies of factitious ftone, an affemblage of flints united and incorporated with cement; the objection is more fpecious, but not more folid. Do they imagine it would be poffible to form with mastic, pieces of the fize equal to that of the obelisks, and of a hardness capable of refifting the injuries of fo many ages as have paffed fince the erection of those monuments? We know, it is true, of these sorts of compofitions able to bear the chifel, and even fufceptible of polish. But experience has fhewn that we have not yet found the art to make with maftic, a compofition fufficiently hard and folid to refift the action of the fun in our climates, and by much greater reason in Egypt. Besides, it is not neceffary to have recourfe to all thofe expedients to explain the manner in which the Egyptians have procured themfelves the enormous maffes which ferved for the conftruction of their obelisks. Pliny informs us, that these people got from the mountains of the Upper Egypt, the granite which they used. They have even discovered the quarry whence they prefume these obelisks were cut. We there remark even at this day the matrices of these famous monuments. In that chain of mountains which bound Egypt on the weft, and which run along the Nile towards the defert, we find divers forts of marbles, and particularly of granite, the fame which had been used for the obelifks. We ftill fee in thefe places, fay the tra * L. 36. fect. 13. &. 14. p. 735. vellers, vellers, columns half cut, and other pieces of marble ready to be detached from the mountains 7. The infpection of thefe quarries fuffices to deftroy the opinion of those who imagine that the marbles which the Egyptians used for their monuments, were a compofition of which the secret is loft. These pieces came from the hands of nature; art had no other part but the working 2. As to the objections which they form on the impoffibility of being able to cut fuch maffes, they fuppofe little knowledge of the natural history of Egypt. The quarries from whence the obelisks were taken, have no resemblance to the quarries in our countries. They were not obliged to dig the earth, and from thence extract thefe marbles. They found them on the fides of that chain of mountains of which I have spoken. They chofe a place which was floped, and nearly on a level with, the highest rifing of the Nile. They there cut a piece of marble of the height and thickness they judged proper. I imagine, that the Egyptians proceeded in this work, near by the fame manner that we proceed at prefent among us. On a hill fituated in Lower Normandy, we find immenfe blocks of granite equal with the furface. They cut and raised them eafily by digging into the entire mass a trench of fome inches depth, into which they afterwards drove, by force, wedges of iron which divided the ftone almost as uniformly as if it had been feparated with a faw. They have wrought pieces five and forty feet long, eighteen wide, and fix thick. This expofition fuffices to make us comprehend with what facili y Obfervations de Belon, 1. 2. c. 21. p. 210.; Maillet, defcript. de l'Egypte, lettr. 8. p. 319. lettr. 9. p. 39. &c.; Granger voyage en Egypte, p. 76, & 77.; P. Lucas, t. 3. p. 159, &c.; Shaw's travels, t. 2. p. 81. & 82.; Rec. d' obiervations curieuf. t. 3. p. 158. 2 See Belon, obfervat. 1. 2. c. 21. p. 210.; Mem. de Trev. Juill. 1703. p. 1219.; Diar. Ital. P. Montfaucon, c. 17. p. 247. M. Guettard has difcovered in many districts of France, banks of granite, from which we might get blocks fit for obelisks ftill more confiderable than all those of the Egyptians. Acad. des fcien. ann. 1751. H. p. 11.-14. & 15. Plin. 1. 36. fect. 14. p. 735.; Maillet, defcript. de l' Egypte, p. 3-6.; Granger, p. 98, Acad. des fcien. loco cit. p. 15. ty ⚫ty the Egyptians might have cut their obelifks. Accordingly the ancient authors who have fpoke of them, have acknowledged, that the difficulty of removing and fetting them on their bafe was, without comparifon, much more difficult than the cutting of them . The Nile was of great ufe to the Egyptians for tranfporting these enormous maffes. This river at its greatest height flows to the foot of the mountains where they cut the obelifks. They drew a canal which ended at the place where the obelifk was laid, and which even passed under the piece which they wanted to take away for they took care that the breadth of the canal should be fo proportioned, that the obelisk fhould be fupported by its two extremities on the earth, and form a bridge. After having estimated nearly what would be the weight of that mafs, they built, according to its weight, two floats which they put into the canal of which I have juft fpoken. They were conftructed in fuch a manner that the surface exceeded the height of the edge of the canal; they loaded thofe floats with bricks to make them fink confiderably in the water, then they made it run under the obelifk: when they were certain of this, they took away the bricks with which they had loaded it. Thefe rafts being thus lightened, raised themselves to the furface of the canal, and took away the obelifk. They contrived afterwards to conduct it by water as near as poffible to the place where they would have it erected. As Egypt was formerly cut with an infinity of canals, there were fcarce any places where they could not eafily convey thefe enormous maffes, whofe weight might have made any other fort of machines give way except these floats. We can fay nothing certain of the rest of thofe contrivances which they ufed to land them, to conduct them to the place where they were to be fixed, and to erect them on their base. The ancients have tranfmitted nothing to us on an object so curious. and fo important for mechanics *. e Plin. 1. 36. fe&t. 14. p. 735. Befides, * We have at present an effort of art ftill more furprising than the removing. VOL. II, S and Befides, we find that no other nation has ever been curious to imitate the Egyptians in their tafte for obelisks: even the Romans do not appear to have regarded them. They contented themselves with transporting into their capital, fome of these enormous maffes, rather, without doubt, for the fingularity than for the real beauty of these monuments. What we have feen of the magnificence and the tafte of the works executed by Sesoftris, would make me believe, that this prince may very well have been the author of a great part of the ornaments of Thebes, that city so famous in antiquity. It is certain, that its foundation afcends to ages very remote: but it must have been fome time before it could attain that degree of fplendor and magnificence of which the ancients fpeak. That interval, neverthelefs, may not have been extremely confiderable. At the time of the war of Troy, Thebes paffed for the moft opulent, and the beft peopled city in the univerfe. Thefe confiderations engaged me to place in the ages we are now running over, what I have to fay of this famous capital of Egypt. The ancients are not agreed about the cir cumference of Thebes . Homer gives it an hundred gates; and erection of the obelisks. These are the two ftones which form the pediment of the Louvre. They are 52 feet long, 8 broad, and weigh each more than 80 thousand weight. We may judge of the labour and pains that thefe two pieces must have coft cutting. They must have been drawn from the bottom of the quarry, have been conveyed by land near two leagues, and placed at a height more than 120 feet from the level of the ground. Yet it was not fo much on account of their weight as their form, that these two stones have been fo difficult to raife. In fact, though they were 52 feet long and 8 broad, they were at most only 18 inches thick. This form exposed them to be easily broken, if they had not been always equally fupported during the time of their elevation. We may fee in the tranflation of Vitruvius by Perrault, the precautions which must be taken to avoid all the inconveniencies' that might happen. p. 339. not. 4. f See Marth. p. 395. & 396. Iliad. 1. 9. v. 381. &c.; Odyff. 1. 4. v. 126. & 127. In comparison of the cities of Afia Minor and of Greece, which were then very small. b By Cato's account, it was 400 ftadia long. Apud Steph. Byzant. voce Διοσπόλις, Ρ. 240. Diodorus, l. 1. p. 54. fays, that the circuit of Thebes was 140 ftadia. According to Strabo, 1. 17. p. 1170. the ruins of that city took up 80 ftadia in length. Euftathius |