The ancient Pharaonic canal connected the Nile with the Red Sea, and partly avoided the destruction threatened by the unceasing advance of the sand dunes. The absence of harbors on the Mediterranean was compensated by the channel of the Nile, which afforded a passage over the bar for the light draft ships of that period. The French engineers, confident in the resources of modern science, have boldly conquered the difficulties which Egyptian engineers dared not encounter. It is well known that the distinguished engineer, Robert Stephenson, pronounced the work impracticable, and many cautious investigators have doubted its permanence. The objections may be classed under two heads: 1. To the permanency of the excavation of the canal. 2. To the permanency of the harbors. The arguments relating to the duration of the canal are drawn from history and the observations of travelers. “We can not approach history,” says M. de Lesseps, “without touching on Suez.” Its records, fragmentary and uncertain, are hid in the mists of five thousand centuries. The stream of its history, now lost, now re-appearing, is joined in its course by the tributary traditions of nearly all the Indo-Germanic and Semitic nations. The tramp of armies and the desolation of conquest has alternated with periods of intense activity in the arts, sciences, literature, and commerce. The Egyptian name, once a synonym of the profoundest learning, is now only known to us by an architecture which is still invested with a unique and imposing grandeur. The value of a canal to afford transportation for the products of the East occupied the attention of the Pharaohs at an early date. Since the time of Rameses II, it has been repeatedly reconstructed and repaired. This Pharaoh, who lived about the period of the Mosaic exodus (1400 B. C.), was probably the Sesostris of Aristotle, Strabo, and Pliny. If the Sesostris of the 12th dynasty was the constructor of the canal, its date would be carried back 2730 B. C. Its construction has also been attributed to other Egyptian rulers, but with more certainty to Nechao, B. C. 625. Sir G. Wilkinson accounts for this uncertainty by a very plausible explanation. The sandy site of the canal required frequent excavation. These operations gave to successive kings the credit of having commenced the work which they only repaired. The canal used by the Romans was afterward closed, and subsequently re-opened by the Caliph Omar. It was again closed for 134 years, when it was once more rendered navigable by El Hakim, A. D. 1000. It appears at this period to have extended to the Bitter Lakes before turning toward the Nile.