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 Zain or Zoan of the Scriptures.

It may be thought, that I have inferred more from Plato, than is contained in his words-38 περι ὁ κατα κορυφην σχίζεται το τα Νειλα 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 a 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 Sais. 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: ap' u nar ὁ Σαΐτης νομος εκληθη. If the province, which was called after him, was by the Greeks termed Saites, it is very manifest that the name of this prince was Sait or Said; 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 Tsain: but for Al Tsain the Greeks by mistake put Salatin; wherein there is no essential change, but a mere transposition of letters: which arose from their not being expert in reducing the elements to order: just as they formed Ourotal from mix . It is to be observed, that this person was certainly king of this part of Egypt called Tsain: and the name Salatis naturally resolves itself into words of the same composition and purport: which we cannot sup-. pose to be merely the effect of chance.

We may

therefore, I think, be satisfied, that the Salatis of Manetho 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 ; μεγιση πολις Σαΐς; 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 Sais: that it was the Zain or Zoan of the Scriptures; where the sacred

writers seem to have fixed the residence of the Pharaohs, during the abode of the Israelites in Egypt. Hence Joseph took his wife, the daughter of Potipherah: and there are not wanting other 39 writers, who affirm, that the kings of Egypt did reside here in those times. 40 Καί πολλών βασιλεων ἡγουμένων, Παλμανωθής εβασίλευσε των περι Ἡλισπολιν TOTW; so that if this authority may be admitted, Heliopolis was certainly Zoan. As to the country of this name, I imagine it to have been the province originally possessed by the Cuseans, where they particularly inhabited; the same as the land of Goshen. The name of it was grown obsolete in the time of the Grecians; and was otherwise neglected by them: for they omitted the genuine names of places, which they treated of, as barbarous; and substituted others of their own framing, such as Diospolis, Panopolis, Cynopolis, Licopolis, Pelusium, names given from the supposed object of worship in those cities, and from other mistaken notions. And as they changed Tsaïn to

30 Και μαθών ποιμένας είναι της μετ' αυτό, συνεχώρησεν αυτοίς την εν Ήλιο πολει κατοικησιν. Zonaras, lib. 1. cap. 11. It was not at Heliopolis that the Israelites resided, but in Goshen; which in the time of the Greeks was indeed included, and absorbed in the nome of Heliopolis. These evidences however bring us near the scene of action: and show, that in this part of Egypt these oc currences did happen.

40 Chron. Pasch. pag. 63.

Saïs, it caused so much uncertainty between that city and the other of the same name, that they were glad to define it by a circumstance peculiar to itself, and call it the city of the Sun: which was a name, that did not properly relate to the city, but to the temple, so greatly celebrated; called On, Ain, and Ain Shemesh; by them interpreted Heliopolis. And as they were fond of attributing to every city a nome of the same name, they called the province the Heliopolitan nome; so that the original name both of Goshen, and of Tsaan became in a manner obliterated and lost. Of the last some faint traces only are to be found in the authors, which I have had recourse to, in Plato, Manetho, and Pomponius Mela.

It is extremely remarkable, that among the many dynasties of Egyptian kings, who reigned at different places, there is no list transmitted to us of any Heliopolitan princes. Yet Heliopolis was a seat of royalty and kings did certainly reign there; of whom there are many memorials. The only reason, that can be supposed for this omission is, that they were called kings of Tzaan, and on that account have by mistake been transferred to Tanis : of whose kings there are several dynasties; though it was not a place of great eminence. Some too have been attributed to Saïs.

I made mention lately of a prophecy in 41 Ezekiel,

41 Chap. 30. v. 14, 15.