Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine — Volume 56, No. 346, August, 1844

by Various

A HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE CANAL WHICH CONNECTED THE NILE AND THE RED SEA IN ANCIENT TIMES.

The questions relating to the different lines of communication between Europe and India have been so frequently discussed of late, and such a mass of ill-digested information on the subject has been printed, that we shall not plunge into any discussion relating to the conflicting opinions of the moderns, but proceed, without preface, to supply an accurate history of the ancient canal which connected the Nile with the Red Sea.[1] We are satisfied that any exact knowledge of what actually existed in former times, and the precise object of the ancient undertaking, are necessary, in order to form sound conclusions concerning the future.

[1] For modern information, we refer our readers to the Reports on Steam Navigation with India. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. 14th July 1834, and 15th July 1837.

This canal, like every other in Egypt, had its origin in the formation of a canal for irrigation, caused by an increased demand for arable land, in consequence of the augmentation of the population. It was, in its origin, one of the numerous canals which spread the waters of the Nile for the irrigation of the land of Egypt.

The country between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea is intersected in its longitude by a valley, which commences at Suez and joins the lake Menzaleh and the eastern mouth of the Nile. The level of the Red Sea is considerably higher than that of the Mediterranean. The difference at high water is about thirty-two feet, six inches; and this difference is seldom less than twenty-five feet, even at low water. The whole of this valley would be inundated, and the waters of the Red Sea would flow into the Mediterranean, through a series of lakes, were it not for a strong embankment of elevated sand which forms the shore at Suez.

The existence of the bitter lakes in the lower levels of this valley induced Aristotle,[1] and many of the ancients, to believe that Africa had once been an island—Egypt having been separated from Syria and Arabia by the union of the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. Colonel Leake, in his map of Egypt, observes, "that there is no material obstacle to a communication by lakes and inundations from Suez to the lake Menzaleh, and to Tineh—by which Africa would become an island." And some observations on the formation of a canal in this valley, will be found in the Mémoire sur la communication de la Mer des Indes à la Méditerranée par la Mer Rouge et l'Isthme de Soueys, in the great French work on Egypt.[2]

[1] Meteorologica, i. 14.

[2] Chap. iii. § iii. and iv. p. 60 of the Mémoire.

The valley running from Suez to Tineh is joined, about halfway between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, by another valley called Seba Biar, which meets it at right angles, stretching in latitude from the elevated ground on the right bank of the eastern branch of the Nile. The valley of Seba Biar was the land of Goshen.[1] When this district is first mentioned in history, it consisted of a low level, liable to partial inundation, and affording good pasturage, though hardly suited to regular cultivation. For this reason, and from its vicinity to Syria, it was given by Joseph to the children of Israel, who were a pastoral tribe. Though Joseph was the prime minister of the country, under a dynasty of foreign conquerors—the Hyksos or Nomad Arabs—still the laws and usages of a dense native population placed such restraint on the sovereign's power, that the Israelites, being a race of shepherds, would not be mixed with the Egyptians, or put in possession of any arable land. On this account, Joseph told his father and brethren to say to the king—"Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we and also our fathers; that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen: for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians."[2]

[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] Mémoire sur la communication de la Mer des Indes à la Méditerranée, par la Mer Rouge et l'Isthme de Soueys, par M.J.M. Le Père.

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. § 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 Arsinöe 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 Arsinöe to India, disposing of their Egyptian cargo on the way, and returning with their Indian goods to Berenice, and sometimes to Arsinöe. 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 Arsinöe 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. § 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 Arsinöe, and was called the river of Ptolemy.—"Eae viae omnes Arsinöen ducunt, conditam sororis nomine in sinu Charandra, a Ptolemaeo Philadelpho, qui primus Troglodyticen excussit, et amnem qui Arsinöen praefluit, Ptolemaeum appellavit."[1]

[1] Plinii Natur. Hist. lib. vi. § 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.

[1] Mémoire sur l'Isthme de Suez, dans la Revue des deux Mondes, tom. xxvii. 223.

[2] Plutarch in Anton., § 81.—Langhorn's Translation, in 1 vol., p. 656.

[3] Plutarch in Anton., § 69.—Translation, p. 652.

The canal was of far too great importance to the prosperity of Egypt, and the revenues of the country were too immediately connected with its existence, as one of the highways for exporting the produce of the Delta, for the Romans to neglect its conservation. It is true that the Romans never paid much attention to commerce, which they despised; and during the long period they governed their immense empire in comparative tranquillity, they did less to improve and extend its relations than any other people of antiquity. But they were always peculiarly attentive to preserve every undertaking which was connected with the agricultural industry and land revenue of their provinces. Unless, therefore, their attention had been directed to the canal of Suez, either as an important military line of communication, or as an instrument for displaying the pride and power of the empire, it would have undergone no improvement under the Roman emperors.

It happened, however, that when Trajan became anxious to display his magnificence in adorning Rome with new buildings, that the fashion of the times rendered the granite and the porphyry in the neighbourhood of the Red Sea indispensable. To obtain the immense columns, and the enormous porphyry vases, which were then admired, with sufficient celerity and in sufficient quantity, it became necessary to render the canal navigable for a longer period of time every year. In order to effect this, Trajan constructed a new canal from the vicinity of Babylon, and connected it with the ancient canal through the valley of Seba Biar.[1] This new work is called the river of Trajan by Ptolemy the geographer; and as it gave an additional elevation of thirteen feet to the stream which fed the canal, it may have supplied the means of keeping the navigation open for about six months yearly.[2]

[1] Babylon was near Cairo.

[2] Ptolemy, lib. iv. 5.

The quarries of granite and porphyry which supplied the Romans in the time of Trajan, were discovered by Sir Gardner Wilkinson and Mr Burton, in the years 1821-22, at Djebel-Fattereh and Djebel-Dokhan; and Monsieur Letronne has pointed out the connexion of these quarries with the improvements made by Trajan in the canal.[1] Many large works of porphyry exist, which must have been worked in the quarries of Djebel-Dokhan. We need only enumerate the great porphyry vase in the Vatican, which exceeds fourteen feet in diameter—that of the museum at Naples, which is cut out of a block nearly as large—the tombs of St Helen in the Vatican, and of Benedict XIII. in St John Lateran—and the blocks of the porphyry column at Constantinople. It is evident that the masses could never be conveyed from Djebel-Dokhan to the Nile by land; but no great difficulty would be found in transporting them to Myos Hormos on the Red Sea, and embarking them there for Arsinöe; from whence their conveyance to Alexandria, by the canal and the Nile, was easy. It is well known that the quarries of porphyry in Egypt could not have grown into importance until after the reign of Claudius, as Vitrasius Pollio sent the first porphyry statues which had been seen at Rome as a present to that emperor.[2] The chief, if not the only quarries of red porphyry known to the ancients were in the Thebaid, at Djebel-Dokhan.

[1] Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, vol. ii.

[2] Plinii Natur. Hist. xxxvi. 11.

At the granite quarries of Djebel Fattereh, Sir Gardner Wilkinson found many columns in various stages of completion, some ready to be removed; and of these there were several of the enormous size of fifty-five feet long, and nearly eight feet in circumference. These quarries are at least thirty miles distant from the Red Sea; but, as the ground affords a continual descent, and some traces of the road exist, there cannot be a doubt that these immense columns were destined to be carried to Philotera, and there shipped for Arsinöe, and that, like the porphyry vases, they were to find their way to Rome, by the canal, the Nile, and the port of Alexandria. Sir Gardner Wilkinson has shown that these granite quarries were abandoned not long after the reign of Hadrian; and an inscription, quoted by Letronne, proves that the granite quarries at Syene were first worked about the years A.D. 205-209. The great facilities afforded by the Nile for transporting the largest columns from Syene to Alexandria, appears to have caused the immediate abandonment of the quarries of Djebel Fattereh; as the expense of transporting the columns already finished was doubtless greater than the cost of working and conveying new ones from Syene to Alexandria.

The canal of Trajan continued to be kept open, after the building mania, to which it owed its origin, had ceased. It had extended the sphere of the export trade of the Delta; and it continued to serve as the means of transporting the blocks of porphyry—for which there was a constant demand at Rome and Constantinople, and, indeed, in almost every city of wealth in the Roman empire. Eusebius, in his ecclesiastical history, mentions that the porphyry quarries of the Thebaid were worked during the time of the great persecution, in the reign of Dioclesian. He says, "that one hundred martyrs were selected from the innumerable crowd of Christians condemned to labour in the Thebaid, in the place called Porphyritis, from the marble which was quarried at the spot."[1]

[1] Eusebius, lib viii. c. 8.

In the reign of Justinian, we find these quarries still worked on a considerable scale, as they are alluded to more than once by Paul the Silentiary, in his description of the Church of St Sophia at Constantinople. He affords evidence that the porphyry still continued to be transported by the Nile to Alexandria; and though his words contain no express mention of the canal, it is evident that the workmen of Justinian would always prefer the easier road by Myos Hormos and Arsinöe, to the almost impracticable task of conveying the blocks across the desert.[1] In the reign of Justin I., the trade of the Red Sea was of great importance, and must have created an immense demand for the agricultural produce of Egypt. The King of Ethiopia, resolving to attack Dunaan, the Jewish king of the Homerites in Arabia, collected, during the winter, a fleet of seven hundred Indian vessels, and six hundred trading ships, belonging to the Roman and Persian merchants who visited his kingdom.[2]

[1] Pauli Silentianii Descripto Magnae Ecclesiae Sanctae Sophiae, v. 379, 620.

[2] Acts of the Martyrs; Metaphrast. Ap. Sur. tom v. p. 1042.

After the reign of Justinian, it is not improbable that the repairs necessary for maintaining the navigation of the canal open began to be neglected, as we know that the population and industry of Egypt began to decline. The tribute of grain to Constantinople, and the public distributions to the people of Alexandria, appear to have exhausted all the surplus produce of the country; and to facilitate their collection, Justinian forbade the exportation of grain from any part of Egypt but Alexandria, except under great restrictions.[1] This edict, doubtless, ruined both the canal and the trade in the Red Sea, and may be looked upon as one of the proximate causes of the increasing power of the Arabs about the time of the birth of Mohammed. The Arabian caravans became possessed of the commerce formerly carried on in the northern part of the Red Sea; and as the wealth and civilization of the Arabs increased, a demand for a new religion, and a more extended empire, arose.[2] Had the complete abandonment of the canal not taken place shortly after the publication of Justinian's edict, it must have been completed during the universal anarchy which prevailed while Phocas reigned at Constantinople. Shortly after Heraclius delivered the empire from Phocas, the Persians invaded Egypt, and kept possession of it for ten years; nor is it probable that Heraclius could have made any efforts to restore the canal during the time he ruled Egypt, after recovering it from the Persians. When the Saracens conquered Egypt, they found the canal filled with sand.

[1] Edict xiii., Lex de Alexandrinis et Egyptiaciis provinciis.

[2] Transport, in some states of civilization, is cheaper by caravan than by sea.

The principle of all Mohammedan governments places the supreme power of the state in the person of the sovereign; and these sovereigns, in the simplicity or barbarism of their political views, have always considered the construction of wells, fountains, caravanseries, and mosques, as the only public works, except palaces, (if palaces can be properly so called,) worthy of a monarch's attention. Ports and canals they have always utterly despised, and roads and bridges have been barely tolerated. It is as difficult to civilize the mind of a true Mohammedan, as it is to wash the skin of a negro white. But the earlier caliphs were not moulded into true Mussulmans; they had been witnesses to the making of their religion; and, when they forsook the rude superstitions of their forefathers of the desert, they had admitted some gleams of common sense and sound reason into their minds, along with the sermons of Mohammed.

And in the early ages of the caliphate, Syria and Egypt were inhabited by a numerous Christian population of the Nestorian and Jacobite heresies, firmly attached to the Saracen power, on their hatred to the orthodox Roman emperors at Constantinople. The importance of the canal of Suez to the well-being of these useful subjects of the Arab empire, could not escape the attention of the caliphs. The native population of Egypt had, with the greatest unanimity, joined the Saracens against the Romans; and the Caliph Omar would have been led by policy to restore the canal, in order to enrich these devoted partisans, as he was induced to burn the library of Alexandria to diminish the moral influence of the Greeks.

The Arabian historians and geographers contain numerous passages relating to the re-opening of the canal, and many of these will be found translated at the end of the Mémoire sur le Canal des Deux Mers. They state that Omar ordered the canal of Trajan to be cleared out in its whole extent. The necessity of securing a greatly increased supply of grain for the holy cities of Medina and Mecca, whose population had been suddenly augmented by their becoming the capitals of all Arabia, and the centres of the Mohammedan power, could not be overlooked. But the mind of Omar was particularly directed to the subject, in consequence of a famine which prevailed in Arabia in the eighteenth year of the Hegira, (A.D. 639,) which was afterwards called the year of the mortality. In that year, the caliph's attention was also more especially called to the fertility of Egypt, as Amron, at his pressing demand for provisions, sent such an immense caravan, that the Arabian writers, with their usual exaggeration, declare, that the convoy was so numerous as to extend the whole way from Medina to Cairo; the first camel of the train entering the Holy City with its load, as the last of the uninterrupted line quitted Misr. The descriptions of the abundance this supply spread among the Arabs are indeed less miraculous, though such eloquence is displayed in painting the gastronomic delights of the hungry Mussulmans, in devouring the savoury food cooked with the fat of the beasts of burden which had transported it.[1]

[1] Ebn-A'bdoul-Hokin.

The account of the canal given by the geographer Makrizy, requires to be transcribed in his own words, from the accurate summary which it contains of the later history of this great monument of civilization. "When the Most High," says the writer, "gave Islamism to mankind, and Amrou-Ben-el-A'ss conquered Egypt by the order of Omar-ben-âl-Khatâb, chief of the Faithful, he cleared out the canal in the year of the mortality. He carried it to the sea of Qolzoum, from which ships sailed to the Hedjâz, to Yemen, and to India. This canal remained open until the time when Mohammed-ben-Abdoullah-ben-El-Hosseïn-ben-Aly-ben-Aby-Thâleb revolted in the city of the Prophet (Medina) against Abou-dja'far-Abdoullah ben-Mohammed Al-Manssour, then caliph of Irâk. This prince immediately wrote to his lieutenant in Egypt, ordering him to fill up the canal of Qolzoum, that it might not serve to transport provisions to Medina. The order was executed, and all communication was cut off with the sea at Qolzoum. Since that time, matters have remained in the state we now see them."[1] As the rebellion of Mohammed Abdoullah against the caliph, Al Manssour, occurred between the 145th and the 150th years of the Hegira, (A.D. 762-767,) the canal had remained open for about 125 years under the Arab government.

[1] See the extracts of Makrizy in the work on Egypt, and in the Notice par Langlès dans les notices et extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque du Roi, vi. 334.

We have now traced the history of the canal to its close; and we believe our readers will allow that we have proved, by incontrovertible evidence, that a continued navigation from the Nile to the Red Sea existed from the time of Darius (B.C. 500) to the time of Al-Manssour, (A.D. 765,) with the interruption of a short period preceding the extinction of the Roman power in the east. It hardly requires any proof to establish that system of navigation, and a commercial route, which remained in use for nearly 1300 years, must have been based on the internal sources of Egypt, and been regarded as absolutely necessary, under every vicissitude of foreign trade, to the prosperity of the country. The great object of the canal was to afford a high-road for the exportation of the produce of Egypt; and its connexion with the Indian trade was merely a secondary and unimportant consideration. Its connexion with the existence of the agricultural, Egyptian, or Coptic population, was more immediate.

At present, the question of restoring the canal is solely connected with the Indian trade. We own we have very great doubts whether its re-establishment, if destined only to connect our lines of steam-packets from India to Suez, and from Southampton to Alexandria, would be found a profitable speculation. The tedious navigation of the Red Sea, and, we may almost add, of the Mediterranean, would render the route by the Cape preferable for sailing vessels; and we have not yet arrived at such perfection in the construction of steamers, as to contemplate their becoming the only vessels employed in the Indian trade. It appears to us, that before any reasonable hope of restoring the canal can be entertained, or, at least, before it can ever be kept open with profit, that Egypt must be again in a condition to employ the irrigable land on the banks of the canal for agricultural purposes. Unless the country be flourishing, the population increasing, and the canal constantly employed, it would be half-filled with the sand of the desert every year. On the other hand, as soon as a demand for more irrigable land is created by an augmented population, a canal of irrigation would soon be carried through the valley of Seba Biar; and the surplus produce of the Delta would again seek for a market on the shores of the Red Sea and in Arabia. Until these things happen, even should a canal be excavated, whether from Cairo to Suez, or from Suez to Tineh, during some pecuniary plethora in the city, we venture to predict that the Suez canal shares, or Mohammedan bonds, will be as disreputable a security as honest Jonathan's American repudiated stock, or the Greek bonds of King Otho not countersigned by Great Britain.

We cannot close this article without alluding to two able pamphlets, which have been recently published, recommending the formation of a canal from Suez to Tineh, as that line might be kept always open, from the elevation of the Red Sea above the Mediterranean.[1] The subject has been ably treated by the French engineers in the great work on Egypt, and Monsieur Linant has since examined the question; but the information we possess on the effect of the currents and winds at Tineh, is not sufficient to enable any engineer to decide on the works which would be necessary to enable ships to enter the canal in bad weather. It is clear that a bar would immediately be formed; and almost as certain that any break-water but a floating one would soon be joined to the continent by a neck of sand. If it be possible to form any part at this point on the Egyptian coast, it could only be done at an enormous cost; and our information is at present too imperfect to warrant our entering on the subject. The question requires a more profound scientific examination than it has yet undergone.

[1] Enquiry into the Means of Establishing a Ship Navigation between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, with a Map. By Captain Veitch, R.E., F.R.S. Communications with India, China, &c.; Observations on the Practicability and Utility of Opening a Communication between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, by a Ship Canal through the Isthmus of Suez, with Two Maps. By Arthur Anderson.

One of the ablest scholars who has written on the subject of this canal, has advanced the opinion, that Nekos, the king of Egypt, who, Herodotus mentions, undertook the completion of this work, borrowed the idea of his project from the Greeks. Monsieur Letronne conjectures that he only imitated the plan, which is attributed to Periander, of having designed to cut through the isthmus of Corinth. Willing as we are to concede a great deal to Grecian genius, we are compelled to protest against the probability of the Egyptians having borrowed any project of canalization from the Greeks. We own we should entertain very great doubts whether Periander had ever uttered so much as a random phrase about cutting through the isthmus of Corinth, were it not that there are some historical grounds for believing that he was a professed imitator of Egypt. He had a nephew named Psammetichus, who must have been so called after the father of Nekos.[1] All projects for making canals in Greece had a foreign origin, from the time Periander imitated Egyptian fashions, down to the days of the Bavarian regency, which talked about making a ship canal from the Piraeus to Athens, and instructed a commission to draw up a plan of canalization for the Hellenic kingdom, where every thing necessary is wanting—even to the water. The earlier projectors who proposed to cut through the isthmus of Corinth, after Periander, were the Macedonian adventurer Demetrius Poliorcetes, and the Romans, Julius Caesar, Caligula, Nero, and Herodes Atticas.[2] We should not be surprised to see this notable project revived, or to hear that the Greeks were on the point of sinking new shafts at the silver mines of Laurium. A joint-stock company, either for the one or the other, would be quite as profitable to the capitalists engaged as the scheme of making sugar from beet-root at Thermopylae, which has found some unfortunate shareholders, both at Athens and Paris. Travellers, scholars, and antiquaries, would undoubtedly take more interest in the progress of the canal, and of the silver mine, than in the confection of the sugar.

[1] Aristotolis Politic, lib. v. cap. 10, § 22, p. 193.—Ed. Tauch.

[2] A collection of the classic authorities for the different attempts at cutting the canal through the isthmus of Corinth, may be interesting to some of our readers. PERIANDER'S Diogenes Laertius, i. 99—DEMETRIUS POLIORCETES, Strabo, vol. i. p. 86, ed. Tauch.—JULIUS CAESAR, Dion Cassius, xliv. 5. Plutarch in Caesar, lviii. Suetonius in Caesar. xliv.—CALIGULA, Suetonius in Calig. xxi.—NERO, Plinii, N.H. iv. 4. Lucian, Nero. Philostratus in vit. Apollon. Tyan. iv. 24. Zonaras, i. 570, ed. Paris.—HERODES ATTICUS, Philostratus in vit. Sophist. ii. 26.

There was another canal in Greece which proved a sad stumbling-block to the Roman satirist Juvenal, whose unlucky accusation of "lying Greece," is founded on his own ignorance of a fact recorded by Herodotus and Thucydides.

—"Creditur olim
Velificatus Athos, et quicquid Graecia mendax
Audet in historia."

The words of Herodotus and Thucydides, would leave no doubt of Xerxes having made a canal through the isthmus to the north of Mount Athos, in the mind of any but a Roman.[1] But since there are modern travellers as ready to distrust the ancients, as a gentleman we once encountered at Athens was to doubt the moderns, we shall quote better evidence than any Greek. Our acquaintance of the Athenian inn, who had a very elegant appearance, appealed to us to confirm the Graecia mendax, saying, he had just returned from Marathon, and his guide had been telling him far greater lies than he ever heard from an Italian cicerone. "The fellow had the impudence to say, that his countrymen had defeated 500,000 Persians in the plain he showed me," said the gentleman in green. "Let alone the number—that fable might be pardoned—but he thought me such an egregious ass as not to know that the war was with the Turks, and not with the Persians at all." We bowed in amazement to find our English friend more ignorant than Juvenal. We shall now transcribe the observations of Colonel Leake, the most sharp-sighted and learned of the modern travellers who have visited the isthmus of Mount Athos:—"The modern name of this neck of land is próvlaka, evidently the Romanic form of the word [Greek: proaulax], having reference to the canal in front of the peninsula of Athos, which crossed the isthmus, and was excavated by Xerxes. It is a hollow between natural banks, which are well described by Herodotus as [Greek: kolônoi ou megaloi], the highest points of them being scarcely 100 feet above the sea. The lowest part of the hollow is only a few feet higher than that level. About the middle of the isthmus, where the bottom is highest, are some traces of the ancient canal; where the ground is lower, it is indicated only by hollows, now filled with water in consequence of the late rains. The canal seems to have been not more than sixty feet wide. As history does not mention that it was ever kept in repair after the time of Xerxes, the waters from the heights around have naturally filled it in part with soil in the course of ages. It might, however, without much labour, be renewed; and there can be no doubt that it would be useful to the navigation of the Egean, such is the fear entertained by the Greek boatmen of the strength and uncertain direction of the currents around Mount Athos."[2]

[1] Herodotus, vii. 21. Thucydides, iv. 109

[2] Leake's Travels in Northern Greece. Vol. iii. p. 143.