Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine Vol. 56, No. 346, August, 1844 by Various

V >> Various >> Blackwood\'s Edinburgh Magazine Vol. 56, No. 346, August, 1844

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

[1] On this point D'Anville, Gosselin, and Major Rennell agree.

[2] Genesis, xlvi. 34.

Yet, with this restraint on his power, Joseph succeeded in effecting
the greatest change in the condition of the Egyptians which any nation
ever submitted to in peace. As vizier of the country, he converted the
property of all the agricultural class from a freehold inheritance into
a lease from government, at a rent of one-fifth of the produce of the
land.[1] The project was doubtless adopted to augment the revenues of
the crown, for the purpose of improving the irrigation, and augmenting
the produce and population of Egypt. We know that it made the race of
Egyptians a race of warriors and conquerors, until it exhausted their
resources; and then, by placing the property of the people at the mercy
of the government, is prepared the way for the extermination of the
native Egyptian or Coptic population.

[1] Genesis, xlvii. 18-26.

The Nomads, or Hyksos, were driven from the throne of Egypt by the kings
of Thebes, a native race; and under their government the prosperity and
population of the country rapidly increased. The demand for land capable
of cultivation became immense. Moeris constructed the wonderful
artificial lake, for the purpose of regulating the inundation, and
augmenting the productive powers of Egypt, which was always regarded as
one of the most extraordinary undertakings of man. Monsieur Linant has
lately discovered the traces of this lake, and has shown that it was
formed by making embankments round a high level, from which the waters
could be drawn off for irrigation. The absurd opinion of many travellers
and geographers, that the _Birket-el-Karaun_, a salt lake in a deep
natural basin, was the lake of Moeris, is therefore completely exploded;
that lake could never have been any thing but a cess-pool for the
superabundant waters of the lake Moeris, and a sink for the waste waters
of the Nile.

When land became of so great value in Egypt as to cause such vast
undertakings to be made for improving its fertility as the formation of
the lake Moeris, it is not to be supposed that the Egyptians would
overlook the capabilities of the land of Goshen. The Israelites were
regarded with no favourable eye. They had been the friends of the
foreign rulers of the land; and, consequently, both the people and the
native princes declared against them, and resolved to drive them from
the territory they occupied.[1] This was effected in the reign of
Amenoph II., after they had remained in Egypt 430 years.[2]

[1] Exodus, i. 8, 9.

[2] Exodus, xii. 40.

At the time of the exodus, therefore, it is evident that no canal could
have existed in the valley of Goshen. The population of Israelites and
Nomads, however, which dwelt on the confines of the irrigable land, must
have been very great; as the Hebrews alone exceeded 600,000 souls, and
they were accompanied by "a mixed multitude," which is the phrase used
in Scripture to designate the nomad Arabs. But though no canal existed
at this period, we find evidence that a considerable trade in the
produce of Egypt was already carried on through this district, caused by
the want of agricultural produce in Arabia; and this trade induced the
Egyptians to "guild for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom and Raamses."[1]

[1] Compare Genesis, xlvii. 11, Exodus, i. 11, and xii. 37.

As soon as the children of Israel were driven out of the land of Goshen,
the new occupants would naturally commence the formation of a canal, for
irrigating the land they had gained. Now, a great part of the valley of
Seba Biar is lower than the level of the Nile at the height of the
inundation, this was easily done. A canal from the eastern branch of the
river, near Bubastes, did not require to be cut to a greater distance
than seven miles, in order to allow the waters to fill the valley. By
this operation, the irrigation could have been carried as far as the
northern boundary of the bitter lakes, between Suez and the
Mediterranean; and at least 20,000 acres of land gained for agricultural
purposes. This irrigation would extend itself to the Serapeion--a
distance of about forty-five miles from Bubastes, and about forty from
the Red Sea.

Let us now observe the chronology of the events we have already
noticed. Without pretending to offer any opinion on the disputed
questions of Egyptian chronology, we shall adopt the dates given by Dr
Nolan in his memoir on the use of the ancient cycles in settling the
differences of chronologists, published in the Transactions of the
Royal Society of Literature.[1] It must be observed, that the 430 years
of the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt is to be computed
from the call of Abraham, and not from the going down of Israel, as is
explained by St Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians, chap. iii. v.
17.[2]

[1] Vol. iii. p. 2.

[2] Josephus, Antiquit. Jud. ii. 15, 2; Clinton's Fasti Hellenici,
i. 297.

The administration of Joseph occurred during the reign of
the last king of the race of the Hyksos, B.C. 1687
The reign of Mephres, or Moeris, B.C. 1538
The exodus occurred in the year B.C. 1492

The Egyptians enjoyed a long period of prosperity after they had driven
out the Israelites. Their national history, during a period of four
hundred years, is recorded on their monuments; and, though not very
intelligible in its details, it affords irrefragable proof that their
country was always in a flourishing condition, and possessed a
considerable commerce with other nations. The Egyptians, however, had as
great an aversion to foreign traders as to shepherds; and it was long
before they undertook any work for improving their commercial
communications. At length, however, the canal, which had been carried as
far as the longitudinal valley between the Red Sea and the
Mediterranean, began to excite their attention as affording a cheap
means of transport for that portion of the produce of the country which
was purchased by the inhabitants of Arabia and of the shores of the Red
Sea. We have the testimony of Aristotle, Strabo, and Pliny, that the
project of forming a canal to unite the Nile with the Red Sea was
entertained by Sesostris.[1] Aristotle says, "that Egypt, the most
ancient seat of mankind, was formed by the river Nile, as appears from
the examination of the country bordering on the Red Sea. One of the
ancient kings attempted to form a navigable communication between the
river and the sea; but Sesostris, finding that the waters of the Red
Sea were higher than those of the Nile, both he and Darius, after him,
desisted from the attempt, lest the lower part of the delta should be
inundated with salt water." It is extremely difficult to ascertain what
king is meant by Sesostris, since that name seems to have been given by
the Greeks to more that one of the distinguished monarchs of the
country. Aristotle, however, clearly refers in his account to the king
he calls Sesostris, and to an earlier monarch. The one may have been
Sethosis, who reigned about B.C. 1291, and the other, Sesonchis of
Bubastes, the Shishac of Scripture, in the year B.C. 976. These
sovereigns may have converted the canal of irrigation into a regular
commercial route; and the last may have commenced the greater work of
connecting it with the bitter lakes. The fear of inundating the Delta
with salt water, by cutting through the northern shore of the Red Sea,
and allowing a communication with the bitter lakes to remain always
open, has been shown by the French engineers, whose report is printed
in the great work on Egypt, to be no idle fear.[2]

[1] Arist. Meteorol. i. 14. Strabo, lib. i. c. 2, vol. i. p. 60; lib.
xvii. c. 1, vol. iii. 443.--Ed. Tauch. Plinii Natur. Hist., lib. vi. 33.

[2] _Memoire sur la communication de la Mer des Indes a la Mediterranee,
par la Mer Rouge et l'Isthme de Soueys, par_ M.J.M. Le Pere.

Several circumstances combine to show that the completion of the canal,
and the importance of opening a direct navigable communication between
the Nile and the Red Sea, must have occupied more particularly the
attention of Sesonchis than of the preceding kings. He was a native of
Bubastes; and the seat of his power was in the Delta. The importance of
this navigation for enriching his fellow-citizens, and placing the
whole trade of the Delta, to the eastward, under his control, was
evident; but the great wealth which might be gained from sharing in the
trade on the Red Sea, was also forced on his attention, by the immense
riches which Solomon had been able to accumulate on acquiring a share
in this trade, which had been previously in the hands of the
Phoenicians. Solomon had extended the trade he carried on in the Red
Sea, by means of the ports on the gulf of Eloth, (Ailath,) far beyond
its former bounds.[1] Now, as the grain and provisions, required for
supplying the fleets in the Red Sea, and the greater part of the
commercial population on its coasts, must have been drawn from Egypt by
the port of Suez, and as Egypt must have afforded one of the most
valuable markets for the produce of Arabia and India, it is not
surprising that Sesonchis made great endeavours to obtain a share in a
branch of commerce from which he had seen Solomon derive such wealth.
From some reason, he abandoned the project of completing the canal to
Suez; but, in order to secure a portion of Solomon's riches, he invaded
Judea, and plundered Jerusalem.[2] "So Shishak king of Egypt came up
against Jerusalem: and he took away the treasures of the house of the
Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he even took away all: and
he carried away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made." That
this Shishak, or Sesonchis of Bubastes, was the Sesostris alluded to by
Aristotle, Strabo, and Pliny, though it cannot perhaps be positively
proved, can nevertheless hardly admit of a doubt.

[1] I Kings, ix. 26; 2 Chronicles, viii. 17.

[2] I Kings, xiv. 27; 2 Chronicles, xii. 2.

Thus far we have only been able to draw a few inferences relating to the
canal, from historical facts connected with the subject; but from this
period we become furnished with materials for a consecutive history.
Herodotus is the earliest author who affords direct testimony of the
completion of the canal, and its employment for carrying on a navigable
communication between the Nile and the Red Sea. His description requires
to be cited in his own words, in order to testify the sagacity of his
enquiries and the accuracy of his information. "Psammetichus had a son,
whose name was Nekos. This prince first commenced that canal leading to
the Red Sea, which Darius, king of Persia, afterwards continued. The
length of the canal is equal to a four days' voyage, and it is wide
enough to admit two triremes abreast. The water enters it from the Nile,
a little above the city of Bubastes. It terminated in the Red Sea, not
far from Patumos, an Arabian town. In the prosecution of this work,
under Nekos, no less than 120,000 Egyptians perished. He at length
desisted from his undertaking, being admonished by an oracle, that all
his labour would turn to the advantage of a barbarian." As soon as Nekos
discontinued his labours with respect to the canal, he turned all his
thoughts to military enterprise. He built vessels of war, both on the
Mediterranean and in that part of the Arabian gulf which is near the Red
Sea.[1]

[1] Herod. book ii. Sec. 158. Beloe's Translation, vol. i. p. 411.

This statement of Herodotus is confirmed by Diodorus Siculus, another
Greek historian, who had visited Egypt, and, like Herodotus, paid great
attention to its history and antiquities. The words of Diodorus are--"A
canal has been dug from the Pelusiac branch of the Nile to the gulf of
Arabia and the Red Sea. It was commenced by Nekos, son of Psammetichus,
and afterwards continued by Darius, king of the Persians, who made some
progress with the work, but abandoned it when he learned that, if the
isthmus was dug through, all Egypt would be inundated, as the level of
the Red Sea is higher than that of the soil of Egypt. At last Ptolemy
II. (Philadelphus) completed the undertaking; having adapted an
ingenious contrivance to the ingress of the canal, which was opened when
a vessel was about to enter, and afterwards closed. Experience proved
the utility of this invention. The waters which flow in this canal are
called the river of Ptolemy, the king who executed this great work. The
town of Arsinoee is constructed at its mouth."[1]

[1] Diodorus Siculus, i. 33. Nekos reigned B.C. 616 to 601. See also 2
Kings, chap. xxiii. ver. 29.

It must be recollected that Diodorus wrote about four hundred years
after Herodotus; and his information concerning the earlier events, from
want of precision, appears to be deficient in accuracy. These two
passages make it evident that Nekos had commenced some great
improvements on the canal of Sesostris; and it appears to have been his
intention to have made use of it in order to secure a naval superiority
in the Red Sea. It is plain, too, from the statement of Herodotus, that
Darius had completed the canal, in so far as that was possible, without
the invention of locks, for forming an immediate communication with the
Red Sea. And from the account of Diodorus, it seems that he viewed the
canal of Darius, which for ages had served for a commercial route, as
incomplete; because the actual junction of the waters of the canal and
the Red Sea had not taken place until Ptolemy Philadelphus, by applying
the invention of locks, had enabled vessels to quit the canal in order
to navigate the sea.

Strabo, who was also well acquainted with Egypt, from personal
residence, mentions the locks constructed by Ptolemy. After saying that
even Darius had left the junction of the canal with the Red Sea
incomplete, from the danger of inundating the country, he adds--"During
the government of the Ptolemies, the isthmus was cut through, and a
closed passage (a _euripus_) formed, so that a ship, whenever it was
required, could enter the outer sea or pass into the canal."[1]

[1] Strabo, xvii. c. 1. Vol. iii. p. 444.--Ed. Tauch.

Though the canal constructed by Darius had been in general use for
commercial purposes, and was regarded by Herodotus, when he visited
Egypt, as a work in every way complete, still there can be no doubt that
its importance would be greatly increased by the locks connecting it
with the Red Sea. The augmentation in the trade, and the improvement in
the class of vessels which navigated the canal, induced Ptolemy to make
the changes in the whole course, from which it received the name of the
river of Ptolemy. A very great addition was thus made to the prosperity
of Egypt, as the canal would remain navigable for four months annually,
from the end of August to the end of December. During this season of the
year, the people of the Delta had little to attend to but the
exportation of their surplus produce, and clearing their granaries for a
new harvest, by selling all that portion of their grain which was
neither required for seed nor for the maintenance of their families.

It has been supposed very generally, but on no adequate authority, that
Ptolemy Philadelphus constructed this canal, with a view of making it
the route of the Indian trade; but this was by no means the case. Even
Robertson, in his historical disquisition concerning ancient India,
falls into this error, to which he adds the greater mistake of
declaring, "that the work was never finished."[1] On the other hand, he
points out with accuracy the real direction which Ptolemy gave to the
trade with India, by Berenice and Coptos, and the great works he
constructed for the convenience of transporting goods from the Nile
across the desert to the Red Sea; and it may be remarked, that the
Indian trade always kept this route, or one similar, until the
discovery of that by the Cape of Good Hope--the great route of the
merchants being either by Coptos and Berenice, or by Coptos and Myos
Hormos, or, at a later period, by the Vicus Apollinis to Philotera.
Ptolemy was perfectly aware of all the difficulties of the navigation
of the northern part of the Red Sea, during the summer months, against
the north wind. The great object of the canal was, the export of
produce from the Delta, for which there was a great demand in the
countries on the northern shores of the Red Sea. But there can be no
doubt that ships would often sail from Arsinoee to India, disposing of
their Egyptian cargo on the way, and returning with their Indian goods
to Berenice, and sometimes to Arsinoee. Lucian, indeed, mentions, that
"a young man, having sailed up the Nile to Clysina, and finding a ship
ready to depart for India, was induced to embark."[2]

[1] P. 46, and note xvii.

[2] Alexander, 44.

The fact that the ancients found the navigation of the Nile more
commodious and cheaper than that of the Red Sea, even though it entailed
on them the burden of transporting their merchandise from Coptos by
caravan, for six or seven days, to Berenice or Myos Hormos, should not
be lost sight of in examining the objects for which the ancient canal to
Arsinoee was constructed. The immense extent of the Indian trade, by
Berenice and Myos Hormos, is attested by many passages in the Greek and
Roman classics.[1]

[1] Compare Strabo, xii. c. 5, vol. i. p. 187, ed. Tauch.; xviii. i.
vol. iii. p. 461. Plinii Hist. Nat. vi. 23; xii. 18. Arriani Perip.
maris Erythr. in Hudson's Geog. min. Tom. i. 32. Athenaeus, v. p. 201.

The opinion which prevails very generally concerning the great
inferiority of the ancients in naval skill, requires also to be confined
strictly to nautical knowledge, and should not lead us to underrate
their mechanical powers, or their means of transporting objects of as
great bulk as ourselves by sea. The parade which was made at Paris about
transporting the obelisk from Egypt, and erecting it in the Place de
Concorde, caused our neighbours to overlook the fact, that there are
several larger obelisks still existing at Rome, which were brought from
Egypt, and there is one at Constantinople. The largest obelisk at Rome
was brought there from Alexandria in the tine of Constantius, when the
arts and sciences are generally supposed to have been in a declining
state.[1]

[1] The height of the Parisian obelisk is 76 feet 6 inches, that of the
Lateran, 105 feet 6 inches; of the Piazza del Popolo, 87 feet 6 inches;
of the Piazza San Pietro, 83 feet. Only about 50 feet of the obelisk in
the Atmeidan at Constantinople is now in existence, but its proportions
indicate that it must originally have exceeded 80 feet. We have two
obelisks in the British Museum, but we cannot boast much of our
mechanical or naval skill in transporting them, as they are only eight
feet each in length.

That the Romans found little difficulty in transporting the largest
obelisks and columns by sea, is not wonderful, when we attend to the
great size of some of the vessels which were constructed in ancient
times. Our ignorance of the manner in which forty banks of oars were
disposed in vessels larger than our three-deckers, in such a way as to
enable them to make long voyages, does not authorize us to doubt the
fact, with such proofs as exist. Our ideas of ancient navies are
generally derived from our recollections of the battle of Salamis, as
described by Herodotus, and of the engagements between the Romans and
Carthaginians, in Polybius. This, however, was the infancy of the navel
art, though the Romans had made great advances beyond the Athenians.
Polybius, in noticing the improvement, observes that they never made use
of vessels like the small triremes of the Greek states, but constructed
only quinqueremes for war; and that of these they lost seven hundred in
the first Punic war, while the Carthaginians lost five hundred.[1]

[1] The war lasted twenty-three years, from B.C. 264 to 241.--POLYBIUS,
i. 63.

It may not, however, be superfluous to mention the measurement of some
of the largest ships constructed by the ancients. A very large ship was
built for Hiero, king of Syracuse, under the direction of Archimedes. We
ought, therefore, to pause before we decide, that any deficiency in
scientific skill rendered it a useless and unwieldy hulk. That it was
not calculated to keep the sea when an English frigate would be sailing
under close-reefed topsails, there can be no doubt; but we must know the
intentions with which the ancients constructed their enormous ships,
before we decide on their insufficiency. The ship constructed by
Archimedes had twenty banks of oars, and was built as a man-of-war. It
was sent from Syracuse to Egypt, as a present to Ptolemy Philopater, and
was laid up in the docks of Alexandria.

But the largest vessel on record was a ship constructed for Ptolemy
Philopater, which had forty banks of oars. This vessel was rather a
royal yacht, built to gratify the vanity of the court, than a ship
intended for any useful purpose. It was 424 feet in length, and 58
broad. The height of the forecastle from the water was 60 feet. The
longest oars were 58 feet, and their handles were loaded with lead to
facilitate their motion. The equipage consisted of 4400 men, of whom
4000 were rowers. A ship constructed for the voyages of the court on the
Nile, was 330 feet long, and 45 feet wide.[1]

These passages are sufficient to show the immense size of ancient ships,
and to prove that their system of naval architecture could not have been
directed to contend against contrary winds, but was calculated to
transport the largest burdens.

[1] A modern first-rate is about 205 feet long, 54 feet broad, and
draws 25 feet water. Its weight is about 4600 tons, when the guns and
provisions are on board. Of course, the weight even of Ptolemy's immense
ship could not have approached this. Athen. Deipnosophistae, lib. v.
Sec. 37, (p. 203.) Our skill in transporting large blocks of marble is so
small, that we have been compelled to cut in two some of the Lycian
monuments of no great size.

We must now notice the passages which have been supposed to controvert
the account we have given of the completion of the canal between the
Nile and the Red Sea. The first is a passage of Pliny the Elder, which
asserts that Ptolemy Philadelphus only carried the canal to the bitter
lakes. "Ex quo navigabilem alveum perducere in Nilum, qua parte ad Delta
dictum decurrit, sexagies et bis centena mill. passuum intervallo, (quod
inter flumen et Rubrum mare interest,) primus omnium Sesostris Aegypti
rex cogitavit: mox Darius Persarum: deinde Ptolemaeus sequens: qui et
duxit fossam latitudine pedum centum, altitudine XL, in longitudinem
XXXVII mill. D passuum usque ad Fontes amaros." It is needless to remind
the reader that Diodorus and Strabo, who lived before Pliny, and had
both resided long in Egypt, had seen the canal finished, and described
the lock by which it communicated with the Red Sea. It appears, indeed,
that the passage, as it stands, has arisen from some inadvertence of
Pliny, or perhaps from some blunder of his copyists; for he contradicts
his statement, that the canal of Ptolemy terminated at the bitter lakes,
in a subsequent passage, in which he mentions that Philadelphus
constructed the branch which reached Arsinoee, and was called the river
of Ptolemy.--"Eae viae omnes Arsinoeen ducunt, conditam sororis nomine in
sinu Charandra, a Ptolemaeo Philadelpho, qui primus Troglodyticen
excussit, et amnem qui Arsinoeen praefluit, Ptolemaeum appellavit."[1]

[1] Plinii Natur. Hist. lib. vi. Sec. 33.

The other passage is contained in Plutarch's life of Antony; and to a
casual reader, who forgets that the canal could only have been
navigable during the season of the inundation, in consequence of the
high level of the waters of the Red Sea, a difficulty in explaining the
passage will immediately occur, and an inference will be drawn against
the existence of the canal at the time. Monsieur Letronne, with his
usual critical sagacity, has, however, pointed out the combination of
facts which render the anecdote in Plutarch a confirmation of the
ordinary employment of the canal, rather than an argument against its
existence at the time.[1] Cleopatra, when alarmed at the result of the
war between Antony and Augustus, had sent her son Caesario, the reputed
child of Julius Cesar, with a considerable amount of treasure, through
Ethiopia into India.[2] "When Antony returned to Alexandria after the
battle of Actium, he found Cleopatra engaged in a very stupendous and
bold enterprise. She was endeavouring to transport her fleet over the
isthmus between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, which, in the
narrowest part, is three hundred stades, and by this means, with her
fleet in the Arabian gulf, and with her treasures, to escape from
slavery and war."[3] Letronne has pointed out, that the battle of
Actium having been fought on the 2nd of September, B.C. 31, it is
evident from the subsequent events, that Antony could not have rejoined
Cleopatra in Egypt before the month of February, or perhaps even later,
in the ensuing year. Now, this period coincides with that at which the
low state of the waters of the Nile must have rendered the canal
useless for the passage of Cleopatra's fleet. Her extreme terror would
not allow her to wait until the rise of the Nile again rendered the
canal navigable, and she resolved on transporting her fleet to the Red
Sea by land. It must be observed, however, that the project could
hardly have occurred to Cleopatra as feasible, unless she had been well
aware that vessels often passed from the Mediterranean into the Red
Sea. The project was abandoned, as the Arabs of Petra burned the first
ships that Cleopatra attempted to transport; and Antony soon persuaded
her that his affairs were by no means so desperate as she supposed.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22