"teemed broad, till you get as high as Heliopolis; “ being all the way open and champain, marshy "and without water-As you pass upwards from 66 66 Heliopolis, it grows narrow on account of the “ mountain of Arabia, that here runs parallel with “ the country, tending from north to south, and “ continually verging towards the Red Sea. In “ this mountain are the quarries, from whence "the stones were taken for the construction of the Here [at σε pyramids, that are near Memphis. " these quarries] is the hither end of the mountain, "from whence it extends itself in the direction I 66 “ have mentioned.” 33 Ενθευτεν 23 μεν και μέχρι Ἡλιοπολιος" ες την μεσογαιαν εςι ευρέα Αιγυπτος, εουσα πασα ὑπτιη τε και ανυδρος, και ιλύς. κ. τ. λ. Απο δε Ηλιεπολιος ανω ιοντι, κείνη εσιν Αίγυπτος" τη μεν γαρ της Αραβίης όρος παρατε ταται, φερον απ' αρκτε προς μεσαμβρίης τε και νοτ8, αιει ανω τεινον ες την Ερυθρήν καλεομένην θάλασσαν εν τῷ αι λιθοτομίαι ενεισι, αι ες τας Πυραμίδας κατατμηθεῖσαι τας εν Μέμφι. Ταυτη μεν ληγον, ανακαμπτει ες τα είρηται ορος. It is manifest from hence that the nome of Heliopolis was a mediterranean district and consequently the two provinces Phacusa and Bubastus, that are always mentioned with it, were so likewise. This is evident from Ptolemy; who, in giving an 22 There was a town there that they gave name to, called Latopolis. 23 Lib. 2. cap. S. 24 account of all the nomes in lower Egypt from the bottom upwards, ends with these three; Αραβίας νομος, και μητροπολις Φακεσα· Βεβας της νομος, και μητρο πολις Βεβασος· Ἡλιοπολιτης νομος, και μητροπολις Ήλιος πολις. The first of these Phacusa, called by Strabo Phaccusa, but mentioned only as a village, was the province at whose summit the Nile was first divided, where stood the city Cercasora. Many writers, misled by its being called the Arabian nome, have supposed it to be situated in that country: but I have shewn that it could not be so. Besides, what may seem a paradox, this very circumstance of its being called the Arabian nome proves it. The author of the Itinerary mentions many places of upper Egypt, that were in Arabia: and Ptolemy speaks of several nomes above Delta, to the number of nineteen or twenty, one half of which (at least a great number) were to the east of the Nile, and in Arabia. Among others Aphroditopolis, Antinoopolis, Panopolis, were certainly there. If Phacusa had been in that part of the world, they could never have called it the Arabian province by way of distinction; when there were so many others that were in the same situation. The title conferred upon it would not have been adequate to the end proposed: and what would have been given by way of eminence to particularize, must have proved 24 Geogr. lib. 4. και matter of doubt and confusion. The title therefore was conferred for another reason; as I shall hereafter shew. Ptolemy has taken care to guard us against this mistake; by distinguishing between the province termed Arabian, and the places that were really in that country: Agabias voμos, μητροπολις Φακέσα. The nome called Arabian was Phacusa; but the places really situated upon the borders of that part of the world were Babylon, Heliopolis, Heroum : εν μεθοριῳ Αραβίας και Αφροδι τοπολεως, Βαβυλων, Ἡλιεπολις, Ηρώων πολις. From hence we gain this additional evidence, that there were two cities of Egypt called Heliopolis; which is a circumstance that has never been attended to by any one historian antient or modern, and has been the cause of very great confusion. The first of these was a city of lower Egypt, that gave name to a province; the same that is so particularly mentioned by Herodotus. The other was a city to the east of the Nile in Arabia; whose situation is thus described in the Itinerary, agreeable to what is above said by " Ptolemy; Aphrodito Scenas Mandras M. P. XX. M. P. XII. M. P. XII. 25 Hence Cellarius is certainly to blame for placing these three provinces in the deserts of Arabia; and for founding his opinion Neither the last city nor Babylon are mentioned by Herodotus; for they did not exist in his time: but the other Heliopolis, the more antient and famous, he gives an ample description of, as we have seen above. It is mentioned too by Diodorus Siculus and Josephus; but by neither of them accurately for they make one account of two places, and confound them together. Though some of these writers had been in Egypt, yet it is certain that they did not know that there were two cities of the same name; for not one of them, except Ptolemy, makes any distinction. They are always confused when they speak of this part of the world; upon the evidence of Ptolemy, which he did not sufficiently attend to. Extra Delta, Arabiam versus, Ptolemæus tres nomos posuit. Primum dicit Arabia nomon, cujus metropolim Phacusam facit, Bubastico Alumini adpositum: secundum Bubasticum nomon, cujus urbs est Bubastus seu Bubastis ad idem flumen sita, cui nomen dat: tertium Heliopolitanum nomon. There is a mistake in the first position; for Ptolemy does not place these nomes, nor any nomes in Arabia. He besides mentions but one Arabian nome; though I think Heliopolis may likewise be esteemed such not on account of its situation, but for another reason that I shall here after mention. All that Ptolemy says is this; Agabias ropes, rai μητροπολις Φακεσα· Βεβαρίτης νόμος, και μητροπολις Βάβατος. Ηλιοπολίτης νόμος, και μητροπολις Ηλιοπολις. Εν μεθοριῳ Αραβίας και Αφροδιτοπολεως, Βαβυλων, Ἡλιοπολις, Ηρωων πολις. Phacusa is by many writers included in Heliopolis, so that one province is constituted out of two. and the circumstances of both places are referred to one only. Strabo is in some degree plain and intelligible for, having mentioned the town of Phacusa, and the great canal that began immediately from it, he says, "These places are towards “the top of Delta: there is likewise Bubastus " and its nome, and likewise Heliopolis above, &c." 26 Ουτοι δ ̓ ὁι τοποι πλησιάζεσι τη κορυφή το Δελτα αυτέ δε και ἡ Βέβαςος πολις, και ὁ Βεβαςιτης νομος, και ὑπερ αυτών ὁ Ἡλιοπολίτης νομος. Ενταυθα δ' εσιν ή τε Ήλιε πολις. His Epitomiser says the same-περι την αρχην τα Δελτα εσιν ή τε Βέβαςος πόλις, και Μέμφις, και Ηλιοπολις. In respect to this antient city, Herodotus always speaks of it as lying in a line, as you pass from the sea upwards to Thebes and superior Egypt. He makes use of it as a landmark to be directed by in going up the Nile; as an intermediate point to measure from, in stating the length of the country. Ενθεύτεν μεν [απο θαλασσης] και μεχρι Ηλιοπολις L. 2. 7. εςι δε όδος ες την Ηλιοπολιν άνω ιοντι L. 2. 7. |