when they came first from Babylonia; and was the same as Litopolis: at least it was a citadel or garrison to that town. After the expulsion of the Cuseans, it lay in great measure deserted; being on the Arabian side of the Nile, and therefore neglected; and the name of it was almost antiquated and lost. After the conquest of Egypt, that country became a receptacle for many nations; and this part was particularly occupied by strangers. Some Babylonians might settle here: it is certain many of the Jews did, after their captivity, especially in the time of the Ptolemies; and the hill, on which Babylon stood, still retains the name of "the hill of the Jews." By some of these people probably this city was rebuilt, and recovered its original name. Thus much we may gather from Josephus to confirm, what I am proving: that Litopolis was a very antient place, and in ruins, when the children of Israel left Egypt: that it was a place of general rendezvous at their departure; from which time for many ages it lay neglected; * Βαβυλων γαρ ύστερον κτίζεται εκει : “ for Babylon was "built there long afterwards:" so that he allows

$7

6

Josephus had perhaps said more truly, that it lay in ruins after their departure: for they lived there, and seem to have rebuilt it but upon their departure it again lay desolate.

Antiq. Jud. lib. 2. cap. 15.

Litopolis (or, as he erroneously call it, Letopolis) to have been the same as Babylon, though he differs about the time of its construction. Strabo indeed distinguishes between these two places; making Litopolis a town, and Babylon opgiov eguμvov, a strong citadel or fortress: but they were certainly contiguous, being situated on the same spot.

THE Greeks by their modifications of words, and unnecessary terminations often caused names of quite a different meaning and etymology to become nearly the same in sound. There have been by this means two cities in Egypt confounded, which ought necessarily to be placed in a proper light; as they stood in the vicinity of each other, and their history is of great consequence in this inquiry. The city Aur at the top of Delta was called Auris and Avaris, as I have shewn: and the subordinate district was named in the same manner from it. When the Shepherd king and his people are said to have been driven to their city Avaris, and there pent up in a fortification of 10000 arouras in ex

tent; it must mean the land of Cushan, which was thus fortified, and was probably of these dimensions. Some copies of Josephus call this place Abaris; but it is a mistake, as may be proved from 'Eusebius, who writes it truly Avagıs, Avaris : and as he quotes the passage from Josephus, we may infer that this was the true reading both in Josephus and Manetho. There would have been no impropriety in terming the city Avaris, Abaris, according to the Grecian manner of inflexion: only in this place it causes a great ambiguity, as there is a city very near called Abaris, of a different meaning and derivation. This has not been taken notice of; but it is apparent, if we attend to the history. The former was by the natives styled Aur, or "the city of Orus:" the latter, the city Abarim, or Habarim. This, which had the better title to the name of Abaris, stood, according to Manetho, * προς ανατολην τε Βεβαςιτε ποταμε, in Arabia, to the east of the Bubastic stream; and was close by Babylon, which seems to have been a citadel to it. It was directly over against the city of Orus, and close by the quarries: on which account it was called afterwards Lithopolis. It is

2

Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. 10. cap. 13. 2 Joseph. contra Apion. lib. 1. § 14.