We read that the ancient Hebrews set up stones to record signal events, and such stones are called by Strabo "books of history;" but, as they were uninscribed, the Egyptian monoliths are much more so. The Celts, too, have left similar stones in every country in which they settled, as our own islands sufficiently prove, whether in those of the Channel or of Ireland and Scotland. The Scandinavian nations have in more recent periods left similar records, some of them inscribed with Runic characters, which, like the hieroglyphics of Egypt, are now translated. Egyptian obelisks are all of very nearly similar proportions, however they may differ in height; the width of the base is usually about one-tenth of the length of the shaft, up to the finish or pyramidion, which, again, is one-tenth of the length of the shaft. The image of gold set up by king Nebuchadnezzar agrees with these proportions--viz., sixty cubits high and six cubits wide. They are generally cut out of granite, though there are two small ones in the British Museum of basalt, and one at Philoe of sandstone. The pyramidions of several appear to be rough and unfinished, leading some persons to suppose that they were surmounted with a cap of bronze, or of rays. Bonom writes, that Abd El Latief saw bronze coverings on those of Luxor and that of Materiah in the 13th century; with such a belief it is not improbable that the obelisk of Arles, in France, found and re-erected to the glory of the Great Louis, was surmounted with a gilt sun. The temples of Egypt may be considered not only as monuments of the intelligence and ancient civilization of mankind, as vignettes in the great book of history, but also as possessing a peculiar interest, as belonging to a people intimately connected with sacred records.