« AnteriorContinuar »
Saïs, according to the coinmon usage of his language. What Ρlato terms Σαϊτικος νομος, had been more, truly expressed Σαϊνιτικος and Τσαϊνιτικος. So likewise in Pomponius Mela, the city near Memphis, mentioned among those so remote from the sea, might instead of Saïs, have been with more propriety written Tsaïs, being the Tsain of the Egyptians : but this would not have been consonant to the analogy of the two languages.
What has been here said may in some degree remedy a difficulty, which occurs in Manetho, where he speaks of the city Abaris. He tells us, that the first pastor king Salatis built it in the nome of Saïs, on the east side of the river Bubastus. “Eυρων δε [Σαλατια] εν νομώ τω Σαϊτη σολιν επικαιροτατην, , κειμενην μεν προς ανατολην τε Βεβαςιτε ποταμό, καλεμενην δ' απο τινος αρχαιας θεολογιας Αβαριμ, ταυτην εκτισε. Now this city Abaris I have shewn to have been over against the apex of Delta, where the Nile was first divided, at a great distance from the city and nome of 34 Saïs : and the river of 35 Bubastus was
32 They have no words, which begin with those double letters. 33 Joseph. contra Apion. lib. 1. § 14.
34 Saïs, at the distance of three days sailing down the river from Cairo; called now Se al Hajar, or antient Saïs. Egmont and Heyman. vol. 2. pag. 113.
35 The river of Bubastus was the upper part of the great Pelusiac branch of the Nile ; at the commencement of which the city Abaris was situated.
equally remote: so that these circumstances cannot be reconciled, but upon the principles above. .
Syncellus seems to have perceived a mistake; and 36 endeavours to amend it in another manner, by. substituting for the Saïtic, the Sethroïtic nome. This is an arbitrary manner of proceeding; and not supported by any authority: but it favours his notion, that Zoan was Tanis, to which Sethron was next in situation. But there was no relation between Zoan and Tanis : and they who have maintained this notion, have been misled by a similitude of sound; and that but a faint resemblance: which at any rate would be too fallacious to found an opinion upon, when unsupported by other 37 evidence.
We may learn from what has been said, that the name of the province Zaïn was of antient date; and the memory of it almost effaced in the time of the Grecians. Plato however, and Mela have preserved it; but with some variation. They both describe it at the very top of lower Egypt, at the first division of the Nile. I have abundantly shewn, that the land of Goshen was there; that it was a place of pastures, the plain of Egypt, and the particular
where the Israelites resided : in other
36 Syncellus. pag. 61.
37 Had he called it the Sethite nome, instead of the Sethroite, he would have been nearer the truth; as hereafter will appear.
words it was the field of Zoan. As the Saïs of Plato and Mela was here, I think that there can be no doubt, but it was the same place, of which we have been treating, the Zaïn or Zoan of the Scriptures.
It may be thought, that I have inferred more from Plato, than is contained in his words__38
περι ο κατα κορυφην σχιζεται το τε Νειλε ρευμα : which may be said not to have been designed to describe the situation of the nome and city of Saïs, but to define the figure of Delta. If this be the case, Plato is guilty of great impropriety; and his drift is unaccountable. The exact situation of cities is defined by others in their vicinity, and by the provinces, which are nearest. "But Plato, in mentioning city, dwells upon circumstances the most remote from it; and instead of a general description of the place gives a partial account of the country. What is it to the purpose in the introduction of a story, which related to Saïs, to mention, that the Nile was divided at the top of Delta; unless it was designed to signify, that the city was in the vicinity of that part of Egypt? Besides, it is not Plato only, who places a city in these parts; but Mela likewise : and we learn from Eusebius, that the first Pastor king, who reigned, was a Saïte : and that prince was far enough removed from lower Saïs.
38 In Timæo. vol. 3. pag. 21.
Manetho indeed calls this king by the name of Salatis : but Eusebius, who seems to have been particularly diligent and inquisitive, calls him, as I have before observed, Saïtes; intimating, that he was of the province of Saïs. Africanus mentions him in the same manner : but adds farther, that it was his real name; which he did not take from the province, but bequeathed the name to it: wp' óu.xco • Eaütns vouos exam. In. If the province, which was called after him, was by the Greeks termed Saïtes, it is very manifest that the name of this prince was Saït or Saïd; a name very common among the Arabians at this day; and which occurs in histories of the most remote antiquity. He held the greater part of Egypt tributary; but was properly termed king of Zoan : for that was particularly the Cusean province. This title in the original language was Melech Al Tzaan or Tsuïn : but for Al Tsaïn the Greeks by mistake put Salatin ; wherein there is no essential change, but a nere transposition of letters: which arose from their not being expert in reducing the elements to order : just as they formed Ourotal from injx x. It is to be observed, that this person was certainly king of this part of Egypt called 91% 7'sain : and the name Salatis naturally résolves itself into words of the same composition and purport: which we cannot sup-. pose to be merely the effect of chance. therefore, I think, be satisfied, that the Salatis of Vanetho and Josephus' was derived from the Me
lech al Tsain of the Cuseans, changed to Salatin, and with the Greek termination Salatis.
What I have said may remedy the seeming contradiction, which has subsisted between writers about these two cities of the same name: but it does not precisely certify the situation of that, which is mentioned by Plato : the other is sufficiently determined. The upper part of Delta has been amply described : the land of Goshen was there ; which I have shewn was a portion of the field of Zoan : consequently in these parts must have been the city in request. According to Plato, the city Saïs was near the point of Delta, where the Nile was first divided ; and where stood the city Cercasora. If we suppose this to be the exact situation of Tsaïs, these two must have been one city under different names. This is possible : but there are circumstances, which render it highly improbable. In respect to Cercasora, I have described it as the first city in Delta, which occurred in passing down the Nile : but it is not spoken of as a large city; and was besides in the neighbourhood of Heliopolis, to which it was in every respect inferior. On the other hand, the Saïs of Plato is represented as a principal city, if not the most considerable of any; peyisn nodis Eaïs; a character not at all applicable to Cercasora. I should therefore be induced to think that Heliopolis was the city alluded to under the name of Saïs : that it was the Zain or Zoan of the Scriptures; where the sacred