DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6552#0322
APPENDIX.
283
marble mentioned by Greaves in the great passage or gallery, nor
the pilasters5 mentioned by Pococke in the antechamber. He
observes, that pilasters were a comparatively modern invention,
and that marble was not used by architects before the fifteenth
olympiad, seven hundred and twenty years before Christ.6 He
then entered the King's Chamber, and admired the wonderful
skill with which it was constructed. Six ranges of stone formed
the sides, which were twenty feet high; its length was about
thirty-six feet, its width eighteen; the ceiling was composed of
nine slabs. Near the western side was a sarcophagus of the
same granite" as that of which the chamber was composed ; its
external length was seven feet three inches and a half, its depth
three feet three inches and three quarters, and its breadth the
same. He then took a cursory view of the other Pyramids, but
has nothing to communicate respecting them but what would be
a repetition of what has been already related by other writers.
But he observed, when on the summit of the Great Pyramid,
that the Second had, near its vertex, the remains of a covering as
of a plating of stone, which had once invested all its four sides;
and he says, that by some this revetment was erroneously sup-
posed to have been marble. And he observed, also, that it was
surrounded by a paved court, with walls on the outside, in which
were places for doors or portals, and that it had likewise an ad-
vanced work or portico.8
5 The pilasters were the grooves of the portcullis.
6 Under the term " marble," the antients appear to have included any hard
stone that would take a good polish.
7 Dr. Clarke states, that " this beautiful relic was entire when our troops were
landed in Egypt," and mentions, that it had been reverenced and left unlouched by
all people and nations, till it was broken by the English soldiers and sailor?. Now,
it is stated by M. Palerme, who travelled in 1581, that he brought away a piece of
it as a relic ;—"de la pierre de laquelle nous emporlames un morceau par curiosite."
M, Thevenot, who travelled in 1655, also mentions that pieces had been broken off
With hammers to be made into seals;—"pour en faire des cachets." And
Mr. Melton, who travelled in 1661, mentions, that he took with him a hammer for
the express purpose of breaking off a piece of it, but that he did not succeed
i" doing so, owing to the hardness of the stone. It is very probable that our people
may have injured this monument, as fools of all nations have, in other instances,
mutilated and destroyed the remains of antiquity; but Dr. Clarke should have been
certain of the fact, before he preferred an exaggerated accusation against the British
army, and drawn an invidious and unjust comparison between them and the French
Soldiery.
' The walls are rocks. The portico must be the Temple on the eastern side.
283
marble mentioned by Greaves in the great passage or gallery, nor
the pilasters5 mentioned by Pococke in the antechamber. He
observes, that pilasters were a comparatively modern invention,
and that marble was not used by architects before the fifteenth
olympiad, seven hundred and twenty years before Christ.6 He
then entered the King's Chamber, and admired the wonderful
skill with which it was constructed. Six ranges of stone formed
the sides, which were twenty feet high; its length was about
thirty-six feet, its width eighteen; the ceiling was composed of
nine slabs. Near the western side was a sarcophagus of the
same granite" as that of which the chamber was composed ; its
external length was seven feet three inches and a half, its depth
three feet three inches and three quarters, and its breadth the
same. He then took a cursory view of the other Pyramids, but
has nothing to communicate respecting them but what would be
a repetition of what has been already related by other writers.
But he observed, when on the summit of the Great Pyramid,
that the Second had, near its vertex, the remains of a covering as
of a plating of stone, which had once invested all its four sides;
and he says, that by some this revetment was erroneously sup-
posed to have been marble. And he observed, also, that it was
surrounded by a paved court, with walls on the outside, in which
were places for doors or portals, and that it had likewise an ad-
vanced work or portico.8
5 The pilasters were the grooves of the portcullis.
6 Under the term " marble," the antients appear to have included any hard
stone that would take a good polish.
7 Dr. Clarke states, that " this beautiful relic was entire when our troops were
landed in Egypt," and mentions, that it had been reverenced and left unlouched by
all people and nations, till it was broken by the English soldiers and sailor?. Now,
it is stated by M. Palerme, who travelled in 1581, that he brought away a piece of
it as a relic ;—"de la pierre de laquelle nous emporlames un morceau par curiosite."
M, Thevenot, who travelled in 1655, also mentions that pieces had been broken off
With hammers to be made into seals;—"pour en faire des cachets." And
Mr. Melton, who travelled in 1661, mentions, that he took with him a hammer for
the express purpose of breaking off a piece of it, but that he did not succeed
i" doing so, owing to the hardness of the stone. It is very probable that our people
may have injured this monument, as fools of all nations have, in other instances,
mutilated and destroyed the remains of antiquity; but Dr. Clarke should have been
certain of the fact, before he preferred an exaggerated accusation against the British
army, and drawn an invidious and unjust comparison between them and the French
Soldiery.
' The walls are rocks. The portico must be the Temple on the eastern side.