forces, in conjunction with provincial troops, the kings of Egypt commenced their attacks on Asia, the islands, and Cyrene, and, having subjected Phanice and Cyprus, brought the arms of Persia on themselves.

The columns therefore, supposed to have been erected to denote the power of their ancient kings, and the limits of their empire, were called pillars of Sesostris. Those in Palestine, thus named and mentioned by Herodotus, M. Zoega considers as erected by this prince; but entertains doubts concerning others in Ionia, attributed to the same king, whilst the pillars of Sesos. tris in Ethiopia he admits to have been erected by Egyptians, who traded thither, but not by Sesostris himself.

Of Osiris it is remarked, that he undertook no expeditions, that excepted from Ethiopia to Egypt. By him the Egyptians were brought to more cultivated life, through the arts he communicated to them; and from him their republic was established on the basis of legal institution. Hence, to him those pillars are assigned which were inscribed with moral or economical precepts, and in honour of the gods.

The next pillar adverted to is that of king Technates, father of Bocchoris, as the only one of its kind. This contained imprecations against Mine or Mena, who was said to have led the Egyptians from simple habits of feeding into luxurious excesses.

Other pillars occur in great numbers, to which were com mitted the record of important occurrences, the history of Egypt and the adjacent regions, also of the Atlantis; and the temples of the Egyptians are said to have possessed pillars on, which was engraven the universal history of the ancient. world.

But the most celebrated of all pillars were those of Hermes, which contained the documents of astronomy, and astrology united with philosophy and theology, and are said to have been preserved in caverns and shrines. The ancient Egyptians acknowledged one Thoth or Hermes alone, whilst Manetho, to adumbrate two ages of sciences and the arts, pretends there were two. With Hermes, Anubis was conjoined, as the genius of the star Sirius, presiding over astronomy and predictions.

The notes to this section have respect to the pillars of Darius, Alexander, Ptolemy Euergetes, Bacchus, and Hercules, and contain also passages from ancient writers relative to Sesostris,

In arranging the different classes of pillars, our author begins with the portable ones formed of various substances, preserved in modern museums, instancing particularly one with two faces, of red granite, in the Barberini gardens, twelve palms high, decorated on either face with sculpture, and sacred to the god Ammon. He then adverts to others, inscribed with hieroglyphics, which were observed by Niebuhr in a mountain of Arabia.

Proceeding hence to the pillars properly styled obelisks, he points out the Mahutaan, Minervean, Mattheianian, Medicean, Borgian, and Albanian, as containing the praises of the gods, and belonging to those Osiridian pillars which were erected in sacred places; whilst the little obelisk at Florence, as also that in the Barberini gardens, on the summit of which is sculptured the figure of Hermes, is referred to the class of pillars denominated Hermetic.

The latter indeed was placed in a temple dedicated to the honour of Hermes, and deposited in its interior, like the small ones in the ruins at Thebes. A gradation is next marked from simply monumental stones to those of more extended height, and thence to lofty obelisks which were erected in temples, not so much to transmit remarkable events, as for their decoration; whence it happened, that they were sometimes without, as well as with, inscriptions. On these it is observable, that at both top and bottom are represented the forms of the divinities to whom they were consecrated. Of the Pamphilian obelisk it is remarked, that it was dedicated to Isis and her son Orus; and an explanation is offered of its summit, which terminates in the form of a pyramid. The same part of the obelisk at Wansted is held to have been dedicated to Osiris and Orus.

The obelisk of the Campus Martius is inferred from Heliopo lis, the place whence it was brought; and, by the inscription, engraved by Augustus on its basis, is supposed to have been dedicated by Sesostris to the Sun and Arveris, or Orus, the genius of the Sun. In conformity with this conjecture, an explanation is attempted at some length, of the figures on the pyramid and base, but not to our conviction.

The Flaminian obelisk is likewise referred to the same divinities; and similar explanations are offered of the figures on its pyramid, capital, and base. In addition to this, it is observed that the Sallustian obelisk is chiefly a counterpart of the Flaminian, with some additional figure on the top and base of one of the sides relating to Osiris and Typhon.

Having considered the Lateran obelisk as consecrated to Ammon, or the Theban Jupiter, the figures on the pyramid, capital, and base, are explained, as before.

Remarks follow on the interpretation of Hermapion, in respect to the Flaminian obelisk, which is considered as an epi tome of what had been expressed more at length in explaining the hieroglyphic characters inscribed on the obelisk.

The fifth principal division of the work treats on the history of obelisks, the first chapter of which contains an inquiry into their date. After considering what Herodotus, Diodorus, and Pliny, have observed concerning them, M. Zoega is forced to admit that the few notices, transmitted on the subject by the ancients are obscure and dissonant. In examining, however, the style of

sculpture, he finds it to be of two characters, and thence concludes them to be of two ages. In pointing out the discriminations of each, he pronounces the more ancient to be terse, exact, and sober, while the other betrays an appearance of negligence, with somewhat of flourish. Conceiving the commencement of Psammetichus to be the intermediate period between both; the Lateran, Flaminian,Campensian, Mahutaan, Mattheianian, Medicean,Constantinopolitan, the two of Alexandria, the Heliopolitan, Thebaan, Philensian, are referred to an antecedent date; and to a subsequent, the Pamphilian, Barberinian, the Insular, Albanian, Borgian, Beneventine, with the Florentine, that at Wansted, and the Faiumensian. The Catanensiac, though not of Egyptian work, is placed in the same division, whilst the Minervean and Sallustian, though supposed to have been executed at Rome, are referred to the former.

M. Zoega considers the epoch of Sesostris as in a great measure a hinge to the history of all Egypt: but though exact precision concerning it be not attainable, he thinks it may be properly fixed to the fifteenth century before the beginning of the vulgar æra. From the rudeness of their workmanship, the Mahutean, Medicean, and Matheianian are deemed to be the most ancient obelisks now remaining. At Thebes, the custom of erecting obelisks in temples is said to have originated; but in respect to their founders, nothing more is transmitted than what Diodorus relates, that they were the successors of Busiris. Mesphres, who erected the first obelisk at Heliopolis, is said to have lived in the seventeenth century before the vulgar æra. Afterward four others, in which number that of the Campus Martius and the Heliopolitan are included, were added by Sothis, who was the same with Sesostris and Sethosis. The same king is asserted to have dedicated two obelisks at Thebes in the temple of Jupiter, which M. Zocga supposes are the two still standing at Luxor. To Sesostris succeeded the elder Ramesses, the author of the Flaminian obelisk. He was followed by Amenephtes, and soon after by another Ramesses, who erected at Heliopolis four obelisks, and a fifth at Thebes larger than all the preceding. This is now in the Lateran. To king Mestires, who was, perhaps, of the twentieth dynasty of Manetho, or first after the overthrow of Ilium, the obelisks at Alexandria are given. Of the following dynasty, Zmarres and Phius placed at Heliopolis two more obelisks, but without figures or inscription.

Of the second age, two obelisks are mentioned, and both also plain; one cut out by Nectebis, or Necho, son of Psammetichus, and carried afterwards to Alexandria; the other by Se menpserteus, son of Amasis, which was broken in removing, and is now placed in the Vatican. Those seen by Herodotus at Saïs, our author thinks, were placed there by Amasis, as was that at Faiume by Psammetichus.

His discussion upon the second epoch of obelisks is introduced by the position, that, after the capture of Egypt by Cambyses, the usage of erecting them ceased. The Lagida, however, decorated Alexandria with the obelisks of ancient kings. That of Nectebis was transferred by Ptolemy Philadelphus to the temple of Arsinoë; two others, cut out by Mestires, were set up in the temple of Cæsar at the port, perhaps carried thither by the last Cleopatra; and in the acropolis two more were erected by the Ptolemies near Pompey's pillar. To this section are added various references concerning it, as a note to the description of the sophist Aphthonius. Happily, however, from the vestiges of the dedication to Diocletian, discovered upon it by three meritorious young officers, the sagacity of Dr. RAINE has ascertained the Pompey to whom it owes its origin.

The obelisks of Axuma, an Egyptian colony in Ethiopia, M. Zoega is inclined, with Bruce, to suppose were erected by Ptolemy Euergetes; but a doubt raised by the largest of them, from the plate of it in Bruce's Travels, induces him rather to ascribe them to the Axumite kings, who were connected with the Byzantine by friendship and commerce, the style of their execution according better with the sixth century of the vulgar æra, than with the workmanship of the Greeks.

The third epoch calls our author's attention to the two obelisks which Augustus, on the capture of Egypt, carried from Heliopolis to Rome, and placed, ten years before the vulgar æra, in the Circus Maximus: one, as a commemorative ornament, and the other, for a gnomon in the Campus Martius, dedicating each to the Sun. Observations are introduced concerning the ship which brought them, and the ball on the tops; and it is shown that the obelisk of the Campus Martius was intended not as an hour-dial, but to mark the meridian. The basis of each is particularly adverted to. The third obelisk, brought from Egypt by Caius Cæfar, was dedicated to Augustus and Tiberius, in the circus of the Vatican. Observations alfo follow on its base, and the vessel which brought it. The notes under this section conceru the journey of Strabo to Egypt; the effect of an earthquake on the Campanian obelisk, and the globe on the obelisk of the Vatican.

The most considerable in bulk of all the obelisks conveyed from Egypt, was that placed in the Circus Maximus, by the emperor Constantius in the year of the Christian epoch 357This, Constantine, his father, had removed from Thebes to Alexandria, for the purpose of being sent to Rome. The mode of erecting it, and its base, are also remarked on.

Among the other obelisks carried to Rome, are particularly mentioned those which appear to have been erected in the Mausoleum by the Flavian family; and that in the Sallustian gardens, which was sculptured at Rome, about the time of

Commodus and Gallienus. The imitation of Egyptian pictures is stated to have been brought into Italy, along with theworship of the divinities of Alexandria: and the Roman Iseumi to have been adorned with works of this sort, among which the Minervean obelisk is reckoned. Hadrian, however, attempted to introduce into the arts a new style of ornament in preference to the ancient Egyptian.-The opinion of Kircher, in relation to the Sallustian and Minervean obelisks, is offered in the notes.

Having particularised the Arelatensian obelisk, transferred by Constantine the Great, and the Constantinopolitan by Theodosius the Elder, our author proceeds to the ruin of the Roman obelisks; and, after pointing out that in the Vatican as the only one which kept its standing, observes that the overthrow of the rest is to be ascribed, rather to the intestine wars which raged in the city, than to the ravages of barbarians; there being no proof of their dejection by Totila, and the subversion of the Campensian obelisk is assigned to the time when the city was burned by Robert Guischard in 1084.

The fourth and last epoch includes the dates and circumstances of the re-erection of obelisks, and specifies that of the Vatican, transferred to the area of St. Peter by Sixtus V, in 1586, who also restored the Esquiline in the following year, and the Lateran in 1588. In 1589 the Pamphilian was erected by Innocent X; the Minervean in 1667 by Alexander VII; the Mahutean by Clement XI in 1711; the obelisk dug from the ruins of the mausoleum of Augustus, by order of Pius VI, was placed in the Quirinal area 1786, between the colossal statues of the Castors; as was also the Sallustian on the Pincian hill 1789. The obelisk of the Campus Martius, discovered under Julius II, was dug up by Benedict XIV, and restored on the Monte Citatorio in 1792.

The notes closing this section have a retrospect to John Antenorius the architect, and the Barberini obelisk that still lies prostrate.

The chapter which closes the work is occupied with a chronological synopsis of obelisks, according to Mercati, Kircher, and the author; followed by several pages of corrections and additions.

After the view we have now presented of this extensive res search, it would give us much pleasure to examine many of its discussions; but from this we are unavoidably precluded. Against some of them we have much to object: most of them we highly approve; yet, on the whole, must lament, that, notwithstanding the labour and learning bestowed on the subject, we are, in respect to hieroglyphics, just where we set out. The work however, on many accounts, does honour to the author; and, though he may have failed in the main object, APP. Vol. 33. 2 Q