Chapter XLVI: Introduction: To the Chronology of the Egyptians (3)

But Josephus has rendered the narrative of Lysimachus still more confused, and by that means has also led astray later scholars. He relates, namely, as follows, in the second book of his controversy with Apion: “Manetho says that the Jews wandered out of Egypt in the reign of _Tethmosis_, 393 years before the flight of Danaus to Argos; but Lysimachus makes it under King _Bocchoris_, that is, 1700 years ago; Molon and others make it as it seems best to them; but Apion, the one most to be depended upon of all of them, placed the Exodus exactly in the _seventh Olympiad_, and in the _first year_ of it, in which, as he says, the Phœnicians founded Carthage.”

It was impossible that Josephus could place Bocchoris 1700 years before his own time, for that would make him nearly cotemporary with the first kings of the Egyptian succession, whose names he cites, without, however, mentioning a Bocchoris among them. This king lived, rather, according to Manetho, about 750, and not about 1650 before Christ. If, furthermore, it is asserted that Apion placed the Exodus at the Olympiad 7. 1., namely, B.C. 752, that is most decidedly contradicted by Clemens of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, and Africanus, in passages above referred to, who, on the contrary, agree in relating that Apion followed Ptolemy Mendesius, and placed the Exodus under Amosis, therefore about 1650 years before Christ. It is evident that Josephus has here in his careless way confused the authors and the numbers with one another. He meant to say, or ought to have said, that Manetho fixed the Exodus (not of the Jews, indeed, but of the Hyksos) 393 years before Danaus, _i. e._ 1700 years before Josephus, and Lysimachus fixed it, during the reign of _Bocchoris_. The fabulous narrator, Lysimachus, could hardly have affixed any statement of time to the name of Bocchoris, or he would certainly have discovered his error; but Apion, the grammatist and hyper-critic, had probably subjected the opinion of Lysimachus to his own critical examination, and reckoned that if he assumed Bocchoris to be the king under whom the Exodus was made, he must intend to fix his date at Olympiad 7. 1. At any rate there is no doubt that the Olympiad calculation belonged to Lysimachus, and the 1700 years to the Manethonic statement. The latter point might be remedied if we could place the words τουτέστι πρὸ ἐτῶν χιλίων ἑπτακοσίων (That is one thousand seven hundred years) after Δαναοῦ φυγῆς (The flight of the Danai). But we should certainly be wrong to change the number 1700, as Böckh[222] has done, into 700; or with Ewald[223] and Bunsen[224], to accuse Apion of the confusion of which Josephus alone is guilty.

If it is therefore impossible to place the Exodus of Moses, regarding it from the _Egyptian_ point of view—which has been singularly misunderstood by all the ancient and modern authors we have mentioned—under any other Pharaoh than MENEPHTHES, the son of the great Ramses, in the 19th Dynasty, nothing remains to the opponents of this view than to attack the truth of this statement from the standing point of the Hebrew authorities, and to show that there are irrefutable grounds in the _Mosaic_ accounts which prove the falsity of the Egyptian annals. But, upon a closer consideration, this is so little the case that, on the contrary, the Hebrew account confirms in the most unequivocal manner the Manethonic disposal of this event in the Egyptian history.

There are certainly very few features in the Mosaic account of the Exodus from which we could obtain in a direct manner any information about the condition of Egypt at the time of its occurrence. Whatever Egyptian manners and customs are occasionally mentioned, are generally little characteristic of any particular epoch of time; greater events, such as wars, change of government, the erection of famous buildings, are still less mentioned, everything is so exclusively apprehended and rendered in an Israelitish point of view. The great change which was introduced by Joseph in the agrarian condition of the country is almost the only exception made here, because it happens to be so closely connected with him personally. Farther on we shall consider the historical inferences which may be founded upon it concerning the time of Joseph. The complete absence of Egyptian proper names, which might so frequently be opportunely mentioned, is particularly striking. Neither the name of the Pharaoh in whose reign Abraham came into Egypt, nor he of whom Joseph was the minister, nor, finally, the one in whose house Moses was brought up, or his successor, in whose reign he left Egypt, are mentioned. This undoubtedly shows a total indifference about chronological points of union for the special history of the Israelites of those times, which is remarkably opposed to the very exact dates, apparently avoiding all breaks, from which our current chronology of the Old Testament is summed up.

Only a few _geographical_ names of Egyptian towns and localities enable us to contemplate, at least in some degree, the theatre of that great event. But there are two among them of peculiar importance to us here, because they also throw a light which was much needed upon Egyptian relations of time, and interpret in a remarkable manner sundry accounts of the old authors.

It is said in Exodus i. 2: “Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom and Raamses.” The Hebrew name of the latter town is רעמסס, and is therefore exactly the same as that of King _Ramses_ in hieroglyphics, 𓂋𓐰𓂝𓄠𓋴𓋴. Now it is difficult to believe that this king’s name was given to a town before any King Ramses had reigned. We could not, therefore, on account of its name, place the building of this town earlier than under the 19th Manethonic Dynasty, because this dynastic name first appears here.

It seems to me, that we may now point out the historical relation of this town _Ramses_, with a particular King _Ramses_, among the many kings of that name. We shall, then, for the first time, learn the full significancy of the passage. But it will be necessary for this purpose to examine more closely the _geographical_ conditions at that time of the Isthmus of Suez, which formed the boundary between Egypt and Asia, and was therefore the theatre of the Exodus.

Since the Israelites departed from Ramses, this town must have been their central point and place of meeting. According to Manetho, the lepers, as the Hyksos before them, were finally driven out of Abaris. We might therefore be inclined at first to consider these two towns as one and the same. This was also the opinion of an old abbreviator of Eusebius[225], who says of Jacob: καὶ παροικεῖ ἐν τῇ Ῥαμέσῃ τῇ πάλαι Ἀβάρῃ καλουμένῃ—(And he sojourns in Ramses, which was formerly called Abare). Many scholars are of the same opinion[226]; Rozière[227] also, the great traveller, but who seldom hits on the right point, places Abaris in the spot where we at least believe we ought to place Ramses; and the same opinion, although given with hesitation, is found even in the masterly researches of D’Anville[228]. It is still more extraordinary that Ewald[229] holds Abaris to be _Baal Zephon_, and therefore seeks it in the immediate neighbourhood of the Red Sea.

The situation of the town of Abaris can only be decided by the accounts of Manetho; for all other authors, who mention this town, refer to the same passages in the work of Manetho, which we find most fully communicated by Josephus[230]. The first mention of the town occurred in the account of the invasion of the Hyksos, who entered the country from Syria about 2100 years before Christ, and governed it for many centuries. The easy success of this invasion, owing to the hitherto unfortified state of the eastern boundary, immediately directed the attention of Salatis, the first king of the Hyksos, to the necessity of closing the gate, which had stood open to them, against every future invader. He therefore did not delay, as Manetho relates[231], to make use of his experience: “He resided in Memphis, collected tribute from the Upper and Lower country, and left garrisons in the most suitable places. But he fortified the eastern boundaries, especially, as a precaution against the Assyrians, who were at that time very powerful, and who might afterwards be desirous like them to invade the same kingdom. Now he found a town particularly suitable for his purpose, situated to the east of the _Bubastic_ arm in the _Sethroitic_ Nome; and, according to the old tradition of the gods, it was named ABARIS. This he built up and fortified with strong walls, and placed as a guard within a garrison of 240,000 armed men. Thither he came, in the summer season, partly on account of the harvest and to issue the pay, partly in order to practise the garrison diligently in arms to the terror of the foreigners.” But when at the termination of the rule of the Hyksos, in the reign of Misphragmuthosis, these hereditary enemies were driven back out of the whole country, “the king finally enclosed them in that place called Abaris. It was 10,000 arura in extent, and (according to Manetho) the Hyksos surrounded it with a great and strong wall.” Since he could not capture them by a siege, he came to an agreement with them, and permitted them to depart with all their property to Syria.

Abaris is mentioned for the last time at the Exodus of the lepers, as we have seen above. It is here called an old Typhonic town, which had been uninhabited since the departure of the Hyksos, and was given up to the unclean after they were delivered from their oppression. But they fortify it again, call the Hyksos from Jerusalem to their assistance, and from this firm point for many years maintain the upper hand over the feeble king, until he, with the aid of an Ethiopian army, drove them back to the borders of Syria.

In these accounts there is an explicit statement about the geographical situation of Abaris, which determines it to have been placed in the _Sethroitic_ Nome. For it has been long acknowledged that we should read it so, instead of the _Saitic_ Nome, as it is in our present text. This is also shown by the reading of Eusebius, which, indeed, is still incorrectly written in the Armenian translation[232], but evidently purports to say, _in nomo Methraite_ in place of _Sethraite_, and by many other passages in which this town, though without a name, is mentioned by Manetho, and is placed in the Sethroitic Nome[233]. But even if this correct reading had not been preserved to us by others, we must still have rejected the Saitic Nome, because this is situated in the western part of the Delta, while Abaris ought to be placed to the east of the Bubastic arm of the Nile.

There can be no doubt about the general situation of the _Sethroitic_ Nome, from the statements of Strabo[234], and of Ptolemy[235], who was born in Egypt. It lay eastward along the northern part of the Bubastic, or Pelusaic arm of the Nile. Its capital was Heracleopolis Parva, and Pelusium, from its position, must also have belonged to this Nome, although this is never expressly said. Abaris must accordingly be situated there.

The object also which was to have been gained, by the original founding of Abaris, directs us to this province, and to its most north-eastern portion in the neighbourhood of Pelusium. It was to serve as a _boundary fortification_ against Syria. In all times, ancient as well as modern, there was only _one_ military entrance from that country. The road led from Gaza, along the sea-coast by Raphia (Refah), Rhinokolura (El Arisch), Mons Casius, along the Lake of Serbon, to Pelusium, which is situated at the mouth of the eastern arm of the Nile. This part of the Nile, which extended far out towards the east, was the first within reach; therefore, although the destination of most travellers lay considerably to the south, the northern circuitous route by this road was rendered necessary, and for the march of armies indeed it was quite unavoidable. When _Sesostris_ led home his conquering army from Asia, he returned by this road. According to Herodotus[236], Δάφναι αἱ Πηλούσιαι (Daphni of Pelusium) was the place where his treacherous brother met him; according to Manetho[237] and Diodorus[238], it was PELUSIUM itself. It is said that from this place the same Sesostris fortified the eastern frontiers as far as Heliopolis[239]. Hither Sethôs, the priest of Ptha, came to meet Sanherib, because, as Herodotus[240] adds, “here was the entrance into Egypt.” In this neighbourhood, at the Pelusaic mouth, below Bubastis, the Ionians and Carians brought hither by Psammeticus were stationed undoubtedly as frontier guards, at a place which afterwards bore the name of Στρατόπεδα[241]. In the strong town of PELUSIUM, Psammenitus waited for Cambyses, and by losing this position, lost besides all Egypt to the Persian conqueror[242]. In later times, the great Macedonian entered by Pelusium[243]. In Strabo’s time, also, Pelusium, to which point according to him Phenicia extended[244], was the frontier post in the direction of Syria and Arabia, and the road to Egypt led through this “inaccessible” country, not only from Phenicia, but also from the Nabatain Arabia[245]. _Amru_ (_Amr ebn el As_) also took the same road with his 4000 Arabs, when he conquered Egypt from the side of Syria, A.D. 639, having first taken the strong town of Pelusium by a thirty days’ siege; even down to the latest times, we see the Egyptian armies marching _to_ and from Syria by this road.

It appears accordingly undoubted that ABARIS, which during the time of the Hyksos, and in the reign of Menephthes, was destined for the same purpose as Pelusium at a later period, could not have been far removed from it also in point of situation. To me, indeed, it seems very probable that it was the ancient name of PELUSIUM. According to the accounts we receive, both towns were of considerable extent, and it cannot be supposed that there were several of such a description in that neighbourhood. No proof is required to show that Πηλούσιον was not, as the Greeks imagined, formed from πηλός, although the Arabs in their translation of _Tineh_—_i. e._ _Lutetia_—accepted the quibble. It is much more probably referred to the Philistine name Pelistim, which is already proved in the above-mentioned tradition of its heros eponymos Παλαιστινός, or Πηλούσιος. We must, therefore, explain Pelusium by “Philistine” or “Palestine-town.” It appears to me that Ewald[246] has successfully attributed a similar origin to the name of the town Ἄβαρις[247], as the “_town of the Hebrews_,” _of the Abarim_. A peculiar historical epoch may, perhaps, be indicated in this change in the name. Ewald’s searching investigations concerning the history of the Israelites, have demonstrated that the term Hebrew nation had originally a far more comprehensive signification than has been hitherto commonly accepted. It comprised the most south-westerly Semitic tribes[248], and extended to the gates of Egypt, therefore as far as our frontier town. But we afterwards find in these very same countries the immigrated race of the PHILISTINES, who had driven back the Hebrews from that spot. Ewald[249] does not place this change before the time of the Judges. Therefore, if our town had formerly been an advanced frontier-post in the land of the Hebrews, and afterwards in the land of the Philistines, and was undoubtedly each time filled with a large Semitic population, it may have exchanged its earlier name Ἄβαρις, Hebrew town, for the later Πηλούσιον, Philistine-town.

Abaris has frequently been identified with Heroonpolis, by D’Anville[250], Larcher[251], Champollion[252], Gesenius[253], Jomard[254], and others. The only apparent reason which is cited for this opinion is that Stephanus, of Byzantium, quotes the otherwise unauthenticated tradition, that Typhon was struck with lightning at Heroonpolis; and that Manetho called Abaris, according to an old tradition, a Typhonic town[255]. This comparison does not at all overbalance the distinct geographical statement of Manetho, that Abaris was situated in the Sethroitic Nome, to which Heroonpolis, as we shall see, could not belong. That tradition, indeed, seems only to be founded upon a misunderstanding of Stephanus; namely, upon the unauthentic information that Ἡρώ was also called Αἷμος. Greek tradition[256], namely, connected Αἷμος (not a town, however, but the Thracian mountains), as it did other mountains, with Typhon, and probably, only on account of its name, imagined that it was here he was killed, and shed his blood.

On the other hand, this tradition about Typhon refers us again to the idea that Abaris was the most ancient name of Pelusium. Typhon was always considered as the particular god of the hereditary enemy of the Asiatic Hyksos. The mythological evidence of this assertion, which is far from new, does not belong here. But this was, perhaps, the reason why this god, according to tradition, was also brought into local connection with that important point on the frontier, the only entrance into the kingdom of Osiris from the land of Typhon. Herodotus related[257], probably, therefore, from a native Egyptian tradition, that it was there—namely, in the Lake of Serbonis, so dangerous to all travellers, which stretched out directly from Pelusium eastwards, that Typhon, who was struck by lightning, lay chained; and others, also, make him fly away from Jupiter out of Syria, as far as Pelusium[258].

But, perhaps, another Typhonic trace may still be referred to Pelusium. It might have been expected, namely, that the town of Abaris, or Pelusium, had, besides these signs which were deduced from its origin or from its population, a real Egyptian name; still more, because we find that most Egyptian towns had a double name—the popular name which usually appears in the Coptic and Arabic writings, and the sacred name derived from the local gods, which the Greeks generally, though not always, retained in their translations. Πηλούσιον undoubtedly answered to the popular name of the town. The sacred name, according to report, could only be derived from Typhon. Now we find the Nome to which Pelusium belonged always called Σεθρωΐτης, or Σεθραΐτης, not Ἡρακλεοπολίτης, as we should have expected, since Ἡρακλέους πόλις is cited as its capital. This denomination necessarily presupposes a town, which in Greek would have been Σεθρώη, Σεθρώ, Σεθραΐς. Stephanus, of Byzantium, also mentions such a town, and calls it Σέθρον. Perhaps, instead of reading ⲥⲉⲑⲣⲟⲛ, we should read, with Salmasius, ⲥⲉⲑⲣⲟⲏ[259].

It is, however, extraordinary, that we should find the town which gave its name to a Nome, only once mentioned. But this is explained, if we admit that the denomination of the Nome was taken from the sacred name of a town, which was unfamiliar to the Greeks, as in Διὸς πόλις, Ἡλίου πόλις, Πανὸς πόλις. If we may now venture to admit, that the beginning of the name Σεθρώ, signified the god _Seth_, or _Set_, _i. e._ Typhon[260], it is not improbable that this was the sacred name of the Typhonic town Pelusium, which had once been of greater importance, and had given the name Σεθρωΐτης to the Nome.

The only reason which could be employed against Abaris and Pelusium being identical places, and which is really given by D’Anville is, that it would have been mentioned by Manetho. But this reason may be used against every other town, and in that case we must suppose that the enormous town had afterwards been entirely deserted, and that no traces of its ruins remained, which is more than improbable. It is more likely that either Manetho did not know himself to what modern town the ancient name ought to be applied, which he only met with in old writings, or that he mentioned it in a passage which Josephus has not preserved. For Josephus himself at least supposed, that by Abaris, Pelusium was meant, as his words show in the 29th chapter, where he even puts the last name in the mouth of Manetho: τοὐναντίον γὰρ αὐτὸς εἴρηκεν ὡς ὁ παῖς τοῦ Ἀμενώφιος τριάκοντα μυριάδας ἔχων εἰς Πηλούσιον ὑπηντίαζεν—(For, on the contrary, he said that the son of Amenophis, having thirty myriads, advanced to _Pelusium_)—and Chairemon[261] had no doubt about it, since he does not name Abaris, but makes the lepers march to Pelusium.

Now, if it is certain that Abaris was the ancient name for Pelusium, or at any rate was situated in the neighbourhood of this town, it is impossible at the same time to consider it to be Heroonpolis; but neither could it be Ramses. On the contrary, both these latter towns are brought into close connection with each other, even by the Seventy, since they placed the town of Heroonpolis in the district of Ramses, in which undoubtedly the town of Ramses must have been situated[262].

Scholars also hold the most different opinions about the situation of Heroonpolis, it will therefore be necessary to examine this question next.

Strabo[263] says that the town was situated “in the _angle of the Arabian Gulf_,” and thence people concluded that it must have been situated in the neighbourhood of the present Suez[264], and on that account assert that the gulf itself was called after it κόλπος Ἡρωοπολίτης[265], and cites the statement of Ptolemy[266], according to which Heroonpolis is placed at 30° north latitude, which corresponds nearly with the present Suez. These reasons appear to be of great importance. Nevertheless we cling, without hesitation, to the opinion of those scholars who place Heroonpolis far more north, namely, on the ancient Nile canal, west from Birket e’ temsah, in the neighbourhood of the valley Seba-Biar. D’Anville was also of this opinion, though he was not then aware of the ruins of ancient towns which are found there. The French expedition pointed out two of them. Adjoining Seba-Biar, at the west end of this low district, lie the ruins which are now called _Mukfâr_, and farther west those of _Abu-Keshêb_[267]. The latter are considered by Et. Quatremère[268], Champollion[269], Du Bois Aymé[270], and others, as the remains of Heroonpolis. I am more in favour of those at _Mukfâr_.

With regard to the general situation of Heroonpolis in this country, we must next remark, that it would be singular if _three_ towns, Arsinoë, Klysma, and Heroonpolis, had been crowded together at the head of the gulf, while the ruins of _two_ only are to be seen. But it is a still more important consideration, that we find the meeting between Joseph and Jacob placed at Heroonpolis not only by Josephus[271], but also by the Seventy, who must undoubtedly have known the situation. Heroonpolis existed in their time, indeed it appears to have been first mentioned by them. But it was impossible that they could have made Joseph go to Suez, if he wished to meet his father, who came out of Syria. It must have been situated on the road from Syria, and they undoubtedly mentioned it, because in their time it was the capital of that province, which they considered to be the district of Goshen and Ramses. But the situation which the Itinerarium Antonini[272] gives to the town _Hero_, which is Heroonpolis, is decisive, since it places it XXIV. mille passus from _Thoum_, XVIII. from _Serapiu_, and the latter L. from _Klysma_. But Et. Quatremère[273] has most completely pointed out that Klysma was situated at the head of the gulf opposite Arsinoë, as it is marked in the tablet of Peutinger. But _Thoum_, _i. e._ _Pithom_, was situated on the Nile, in the neighbourhood of Bubastis[274]. Thereby the situation of Heroonpolis is placed somewhere near the above-mentioned ruins.

This was a convenient situation for the capital of that part of the country to which it gave its name[275]. But the province, which extended as far as the gulf, might have been suitably named after it. The account given by the Seventy also agrees very well with this, since the road from the north to Cairo still passes in this neighbourhood[276]. But the question is, how can Strabo, who places Heroonpolis in the _angle of the gulf_, be made to accord with this? In consequence of these different statements, Du Bois Aymé believed he was justified in the supposition[277], which he has fully stated, that in earlier times the gulf extended much farther north, and filled up all the low districts of the now dry so-called Bitter lakes, but afterwards being covered by sand, withdrew itself within its present shore. I do not think that it is necessary to believe in such a physical change; and the idea of it seems to me most completely set aside by the remains of an artificial canal, more than four leagues in length, which runs from Suez towards the north, and which was pointed out by the French expedition, for no canal could be cut where there was sea; the utmost that was necessary was to render the passage navigable when it was filled up with sand. But the opening of this canal must have had nearly the same results as those which may be derived from the belief in the extended sea. The wide basins of the Bitter lakes were filled by the canal, as well as the adjoining lakes to the north, and the low district of Seba-Biar, which extends even to the ruins of Mukfâr. Here first commenced the real Nile canal, which received its water from the west. Here was the harbour, as Strabo expressly says[278], in which they embarked for a voyage on the Red Sea. On account of the natural and extensive shore of the lake, the notion of a sea voyage was here imparted to the traveller; and, therefore, this part artificially drawn into the gulf might naturally be called the μυχὸς τοῦ κόλπου, the innermost angle of the gulf. Strabo, or Eratosthenes, whom he cites, even says expressly in one place, that Heroonpolis was situated on the Nile, that is to say, on a canal of the Nile, and yet calls the town itself at the same time the μυχὸς τοῦ Αραβίου κόλπου (The innermost part of the Arabian Gulf)[279].

Ptolemy also says, that the _Trajanic river_ (as the canal was called, which was afterwards cut from Babylon) flowed through Heroonpolis. On account of the sharp angle so far removed to the east, which is formed here by the Nile canal and the extended gulf, this provincial capital was particularly adapted for the more general geographical determinations of those countries, for which purpose it had been especially used by Strabo, and earlier, also, by Eratosthenes[280].

With regard to the statement of numbers given by Ptolemy, the longitude agrees very well with our acceptation, and also prevents us placing the town still farther west. But the latitudes, according to which Ἡρώων πόλις would fall under 30° (others give 29° 50′), the μυχὸς τοῦ κόλπου (innermost part of the gulf) under 29° 50′, and Ἀρσινόη under 29° 30′ (or 29° 10′, also 29° 20′), certainly contain an error, wheresoever we place the μυχός, because Arsinoë, which was undoubtedly situated in the neighbourhood of Suez, is placed 30′, or even 50′, too far south. It is, therefore, more probable, that we ought only to consider the distances of the three places from one another as correctly fixed, somewhat in the order, 29° 50′, 29° 50′, 29° 10′, exactly as they are given in the codex Mediceus, but that there is an error easy of explanation throughout the numbers, by which they have all been placed 50′ too far south. For the true position, according to other proofs, demanded for Heroonpolis (Mukfâr), and for the μυχός (Seba-Biar), bordering on it, 30° 40′, for Arsinoë (not far north of Suez), 30°.

Thus the statements of Ptolemy also appear to me to be no longer opposed to our acceptation. We decide, therefore, for Mukfâr, rather than for Abu-Keshêb, because the first was in reality situated close to the μυχός of Seba-Biar, while Abu-Keshêb lay about an hour and a half farther west on the canal, and not on the lake.

There is, besides, the additional reason, that we believe we have found in the ruins of Abu-Keshêb the still more ancient town of _Ramses_, which must have been situated in this neighbourhood, and yet can hardly be the same as Heroonpolis. The Seventy say that Heroonpolis was situated in the province of Ramses. Thence follows that in their time at least the town no longer bore the name of Ramses. This last name, moreover, is nowhere found except in the Old Testament. The town had therefore undoubtedly been already forsaken and forgotten, and appears to have been exactly supplanted and replaced by Heroonpolis, which was afterwards built in its neighbourhood; whilst no reason could be discovered wherefore the old Egyptian name of Ramses should have been changed into the later Egyptian name of Heroonpolis.

But that we may really seek for Ramses in the ruins of Abu-Keshêb is most decidedly confirmed by a monument which was found upon those very ruins as early as the time of the French expedition. It is a group of three figures cut out of a block of granite, which represents the gods Ra and Tum, and between them the King Ramses II. The shields of this the greatest of the Pharaohs are repeated six times in the inscriptions on the back[281].

It was therefore King RAMSES-MIAMUN who built this town, and was worshipped there, as is shown by this monument, and he it was who gave his name to the town[282]; for it is not easy to believe that it was founded by his grandfather, Ramses I., who only reigned about one year.

This leads us to the history of the remarkable canal on which the town was built. It is known that this canal afterwards served to connect the Nile and the Red Sea. Concerning this connection, we read in Herodotus[283] that it was first undertaken by Nekôs, who also caused Africa to be circumnavigated, but that it was interrupted before its completion. Darius then took up the work. The connection actually existed in the time of Herodotus, as we learn from his words. The assertions of Aristotle, Diodorus, Strabo, and Pliny appear to contradict this, who some of them fix the period of the first plan of the connection much earlier than Herodotus, since they ascribe it to Sesostris, and some make the completion of the work later than him, namely, that it was only finished in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

Aristotle[284] says that both Sesostris and afterwards Darius commenced the work, but gave it up because the sea was discovered to be higher than the land, and it was therefore feared that the Nile water might be spoilt by the rushing in of the sea. Aristotle does not mention Nekôs; it therefore appears that in his day the connection which existed in the time of Herodotus had again ceased.

We can thus understand why Diodorus[285] ascribes the final completion of the canal to PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS. He makes no more mention of Sesostris, than Herodotus did. But according to him, Nekôs as well as Darius are prevented from completing it, lest by that means they should overflow the country. This does not weaken the testimony of Herodotus concerning the existing connection. Ptolemy Philadelphus did not only re-open the connections, but he built an artificial sluice at its extreme point, at Arsinoë, from which this canal received the name of the Ptolemaic.

Strabo[286] says, that SESOSTRIS began it, but desisted, being afraid of the higher level of the Red Sea. It was not finished by the son of Psammeticus (_Nekôs_), on account of his premature death. _Darius_ also discontinued the almost completed work, because he feared that he should overflow Egypt; the Ptolemies at length finished the opening, and made a sluice at Arsinoë. By that means, the salt-water of the Bitter lakes became sweet, and abounded with fish.

Of the more ancient kings, Pliny[287] only mentions SESOSTRIS and DARIUS, but he says of PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS, that he cut a canal 100 feet wide and 40 feet deep, as far as the Bitter lakes, called it _amnis Ptolemæus_, and built Arsinoë upon it. He discontinued cutting the canal, being afraid of an inundation.

Lastly, we must again cite here what has been already casually mentioned in a former place, that a Τραϊανὸς ποταμὸς is named by Ptolemy[288], which ran through Babylon and Heroonpolis.

The contradictions which these different statements of the ancient authors appear to contain, have been frequently brought forward, but even the full deliberation which Letronne has bestowed on this interesting subject[289], does not appear to me to have given a perfectly true picture of the history of this connecting canal. It has everywhere been forgotten, that the question is not about _one_, but _two_ canals.

The first and the oldest canal was only conducted from the Nile to Seba-Biar, in an exact easterly direction. This canal was undoubtedly cut by Ramses (Sesostris), because, as has been remarked, in the neighbouring ruins of Abu-Keshêb, a granite group has been found, which represents this king, and which must have stood in the temple of the place. Letronne, who appears to have been unaware of this circumstance, is therefore wrong, when (p. 7) he considers the information given by Aristotle, Strabo, and Pliny, that Sesostris commenced the connection, but did not restore it, as a later tradition, only arisen since the time of Herodotus, in order to enhance still more the name of Sesostris. This canal, like many others cut by this king, had its own particular purpose; he acquired thereby a considerable portion of the desert. But if we consider the especial attention which Sesostris also paid to ship-building, since he first navigated the Arabian Gulf with war ships[290], it could not have appeared to him a very strange idea to cut through the narrow isthmus between the Arabian Gulf and the Bitter lakes. The Egyptians had for ages possessed the art of levelling in the greatest perfection, and practised it more than ever in the time of Sesostris, therefore there was nothing extraordinary at that time in the reasons given by Aristotle and Strabo why the opening was not ventured upon, because it was discovered that the Red Sea was too high[291].

NEKÔS, however, undertakes it, but leaves it off again, according to Herodotus, influenced by an oracle, who told him he worked for the barbarians (a danger which likewise has always made the calculating Mehemet Ali disinclined to the undertaking), and according to Strabo, because he died. Diodorus attributes this scruple to him in place of to Sesostris, but incorrectly, because the levelling must have been made before the section could have been commenced. It was necessary, however, to dig through a double elevation of the ground, and distinct traces of both these connecting trenches may still be found upon the careful map of the French engineer, who took the level of this part of the country[292]. The first cutting which restored the connection between Seba-Biar and the Bitter lakes, was insignificant, and only consisted of about 7000 metres; the second, between the Bitter lakes and the sea, was the most important, and almost four times as long as the former. Now, it is possible that Nekôs undertook the first cutting either with the intention of fertilising the extensive land round the Bitter lakes by the pouring in of the Nile water, or thus to prepare for the second more difficult cutting. We can easily imagine that the idea of connecting the two seas must have been a very natural one to that same Nekôs, who, according to Herodotus[293], caused Africa to be circumnavigated, and triremes to be constructed for various enterprises, both on the Mediterranean Sea, as well as on the Arabian Gulf[294]. The opinion of Letronne seems to me, therefore, of little value, who imagined that he first borrowed the idea from the plan of his cotemporary, PERIANDER, for cutting through the Isthmus of Corinth. The reverse is evidently a much more probable supposition, since the Greek plan was much more difficult to accomplish, was less called for by necessity, and was conceived at a time in which, probably, Egyptian hydraulic architects would have been employed, since this profession had flourished for ages in Egypt, but nothing similar to it had been accomplished in Greece.

DARIUS must have certainly cut through the district between the sea and the Bitter lakes, and thus have restored the first real connection by water, between the sea and the Nile, for it existed in the time of Herodotus, whatever Aristotle, Diodorus, and Strabo may say to the contrary, who again transfer the old tradition about the fear of an inundation from Sesostris to Darius. It was never possible, indeed, to make a perfectly free connection, on account of the different height of the water, and the ebb and flow of the Red Sea. I conjecture, therefore, that Darius constructed a sluice at the inner extremity of the new canal, where it discharges itself into the Bitter lakes, in order to protect the inner waters and the adjacent fertile lands from the overflowing sea. This was undoubtedly the most suitable point for such a work, since it would not be so difficult as immediately on the sea. The passage through, would be regulated by the level of the sea, which changes with the ebb and flow of the tide, as must be the case with a simple sluice.

But it is in the monuments that we again find the opinion most certainly confirmed, that a passage existed here as early as the times of the Persians. During the French expedition, the chief engineer, De Rozière, discovered, on a military excursion from Suez, a heap of ruins in a district which is not accurately defined, but which cannot have been far from the southern extremity of the Bitter lakes, upon which were scattered the remains of the statue of a _Persian_ king, and several fragments of _cuneiform inscriptions_, all in red granite[295]. It appears that no traveller has since visited this spot[296]. But how can the existence of Persian ruins in this part of the isthmus be explained, if they were not connected with the opening of the canal, situated there? Besides this, the largest portion of the cuneiform writings mentioned above contains precisely the name of King _Darius_, followed by the addition _narpa vas-(arqa)_, _princeps magnus_, which is also found in other inscriptions, from which we may deduce with certainty that this king, whom the image also undoubtedly represented, took an active part here. At all events it was only a narrow canal, and not constructed for large ships. Therefore it might afterwards be again filled up with sand, and fall into disuse, and, indeed, be so far forgotten that Aristotle might imagine it had never been completed.

PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS undertook its restoration. He appears to have had the magnificent intention of restoring a connection by water between the two seas for ships of war also. This alone explains the grand idea of constructing a canal to the Bitter lakes, 100 feet wide, and 40 feet deep, which would have been quite unnecessary for common ships of burden. At the same time he constructed an artificial sluice, probably at the point where the sea entered, where he also built the town Arsinoë. But as Pliny expressly says, he only carried this work from the sea to the Bitter lakes. It is only this canal that we must undoubtedly understand by the ποταμὸς Πτολεμαῖος, _amnis Ptolemæus_, which, according to Diodorus and Pliny, received its name from the second Ptolemy. The immense difference between this canal and the two northern ones, is visible in the plan of the French engineer[297], therefore it does not even require the ingenious explanation of Letronne in order to understand that it was impossible for Cleopatra, after the battle of Actium, to cause ships of war to be brought from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, except by land.

With reference to this last work, Strabo mentions the PTOLEMAIC kings, this, connected with the fact that the town of Arsinoë, since the time of Strabo, is also mentioned under the name Κλεοπατρίς, leads to the supposition that one of the last Ptolemies, or Cleopatra herself, completed the workings on this canal, perhaps the sluices.

The name ποταμὸς Τραϊανός, by which Letronne also understands the whole connecting way as far as the sea[298], was undoubtedly as limited as the name ποταμὸς Πτολεμαῖος. Ptolemy designedly neither mentions Arsinoë or the sea; he says that Trajan’s canal flowed through Babylon and Heroonpolis. This, therefore, refers to the canal, of which traces are also still extant, which received its water much higher up than the ancient one of Sesostris, namely, at Babylon, and was afterwards conducted into it, and discharged itself with it into the basin of Seba-Biar at Heroonpolis[299].

This geographical digression, whose length may be excused owing to the peculiar interest of the subject, allows us now, as it seems to me, to judge confidently on two points, which are important in a critical examination of the Exodus of the Israelites. From the position of the two towns, Abaris and Ramses—the former situated on the Mediterranean Sea, near the mouth of the Pelusaic arm of the Nile, the latter half a degree more to the south, and almost as much more west—it follows that the Israelites, according to the Mosaic accounts, marched out of a different town, as well as in a different direction, from that taken by the unclean in the Manethonic narration.

On the other hand, we have found that the town of Ramses derived its name from the King Ramses-Miamun (Sesostris), by whom it was built, and that the ancient Nile canal, on which it was situated, was constructed, according to the Greek accounts, by Sesostris, _i. e._ Ramses-Miamun. It is evident that these two works, that of the canal and that of the town, are connected, and reciprocally corroborate each other. The new town was occasioned by the canal being cut. This connection will be still more apparent by two other facts.

In the western part of the Delta there is a village which to this day bears the same name as the town we are speaking of, namely, Ramses. This village also, and its name, are of ancient date, which is proved by the mound of ruins at that spot; and, what is still more important to us, it is situated, like the eastern Ramses, on the border of an _ancient canal_, which was conducted from the Canopic arm, and brought the water of the Nile to Hermopolis Parva (Damanhur)[300]. The existence of these ruins of Ramses appears to me alone to justify the very probable supposition that this great western canal was also cut by Ramses-Miamun, and that the royal constructor was worshipped as the eponymous divinity in the town which was there built. It is evident that the Israelites would not have been sent hither from Goshen in order to build _this_ town[301].

Besides the eastern RAMSES, the Israelites also built the town of PITHOM. The situation of this town cannot easily be mistaken. It has been long recognised in the town of Πάτουμος, of which Herodotus speaks when he says that the eastern Nile canal, which was conducted a little above Bubastis, flowed past it[302], the Arabian town[303]. It was probably situated opposite Bubastis (Tel Basta), on the border of the desert, and at the entrance of the Wadi, through which the canal is led. The ancient ruins of a town are found there under the name of _Tel el kebir_, and the _Itinerarium Antonini_ places the town of _Thoum_, which has certainly been properly recognised as the ancient town of _Tum_ Πά-τουμος[304], exactly in that place, namely, upon the road from Heliopolis to Pelusium, on the edge of the desert between Vicus Judæorum (Tel Jehudeh) and Tacasartha (Salhîeh?). Now if the Coptic translation in the passage which is cited from Gen. xlvi. 28, writes ⲡⲓⲑⲟⲙ in place of Heroonpolis, as is translated by the Seventy, it does not mean that Pithom was believed to be discovered in Heroonpolis, but that it was thought better to fix the place at which Joseph went to meet Jacob at Pithom rather than at Heroonpolis.

PITHOM, therefore, was situated at one end, and RAMSES at the other, of the ancient Nile canal, which was constructed by the great Pharaoh, Ramses-Miamun, in the land of Goshen. Both were founded in consequence of the new canal, and their direct connection in the Mosaic narrative, as well as the statement that they were built by the _Israelites_, is most decidedly confirmed by the geographical circumstances which have been exhibited. Taking it in a general point of view, there can be no doubt that the Israelites were chiefly settled in that very country, namely, below Heliopolis, in the neighbourhood of Bubastis (Tel Basta) and of the modern Belbês, where ruins are still extant called _Tel Jehudeh_; and the Itinerarium Antonini cites a place called _Vicus Judæorum_, where, finally, the Jewish temple of _Onias_ was built, probably at the Ὀνίου of Ptolemy[305].

The inference we have arrived at, that if the Israelites built these towns, they must have been still in Egypt in the reign of King Ramses, who founded them, and that they could not have departed several centuries previous, no longer rests upon the name of one single town, which might be explained by an accidental inexactitude of the writer, or by a confusion in dates[306], but upon the close connection of a series of facts, which reciprocally support and explain one another.

Hence the oppression took place more especially under Ramses, and the Exodus resulting from it under his son and successor Menephthes. According to the Mosaic narrative also, the Pharaoh by whom the towns were built was a different one from that of the Exodus[307]. Moses only returned from Midian upon hearing of the death of the first, and it seems that the event of the Exodus was directly connected with the change of government.

Another proof of the correctness of our opinion, that, according to the history of the Israelites, as recorded in the books of the Old Testament, the Exodus cannot be fixed before the reign of the second Ramses, is afforded by the accounts of the settlement of the Jews in Palestine. It is well known, and most thoroughly confirmed by the monuments, and the nearly contemporaneous Egyptian papyrus rolls, that Ramses-Miamun attacked and conquered a great part of Asia, and probably during his whole reign held under his dominion the adjoining lands, the peninsula of Petræa, and all Palestine. We also see his father, Sethôs I., represented upon the monuments in victorious warfare against the people of Syria, among whom the Canaanites are expressly named. These were the most glorious times in the whole Egyptian history. That they are nowhere mentioned in the books of Joshua and Judges, while the numerous far more transitory subjugations of the Israelites by the nations bordering upon them are so fully recorded, appears, in fact, to be a fresh proof that those warlike expeditions happened _before_ the Exodus of the Israelites[308].

But it even appears as if the true epoch of Egyptian history in which the Exodus of the Israelites occurred, has been preserved in late Jewish traditions. I will at least bring forward one circumstance from _Rabbinical chronology_, which deserves, perhaps, to be followed up by those who are more familiar with this literature.

This Jewish chronology, namely, deviates in a most striking manner from every other, and as late as the times of the Persian kings it differs no less than about 160 years from the recognised numbers. The different authorities present few deviations among themselves. They reckon by the years of the world, a mode of reckoning which, as Ideler[309] also considers, most probably was first discovered, and gradually introduced, by the Rabbi Hillel Hanassi, in the year 344 after Christ, simultaneously with the whole of the present arrangement of the year among the Jews. They place the Creation 3761 years before Christ, and till the time of Joseph they agree perfectly with the customary mode of reckoning in the Hebrew text. They fix the Flood 1656 years after Adam; Abraham’s birth 1948; Isaac’s 2048; Jacob’s 2108; Joseph’s 2199; Jacob’s march to Egypt 2238; Joseph’s death 2309. It is only when they come to Moses that they immediately deviate about 210 years, because, following the precedent of Josephus and others, they reckon the 400 years of the sojourn in Egypt from the birth of Isaac, and not from the entrance of Jacob[310]. They fix the birth of Moses at 2368, and his Exodus at 2448 after the Creation.

_But this year 2448 of their era corresponds with the year 1314 [-1313]_ B.C.[311], and therefore, according to the Manethonic chronology, occurs in the time of King Menephthes, who reigned nineteen years, therefore the _same_ king whom the Egyptian annals called the King of the Exodus. Besides this, the latter tell us of a flight of thirteen years which the king made into Ethiopia. If this flight took place, as it probably did, in the first or second year after the change of government, he must have returned and driven away the lepers in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of his reign. _But the year 1314 is exactly the fifteenth year of Menephthes_, according to the Manethonic calculation.

This coincidence is certainly striking, but might possibly be only accidental, if other circumstances were not added to it. For instance, the same Jewish chronology places the building of the temple by Solomon, according to the 1 Kings vi. 1, about 480 years after the Exodus, therefore 2928 = 834 B.C., the march of Shishak against Rehoboam 2969 = 793, that of Zerah against Asa 2998 = 764, the banishment of Israel 3205 = 557, the destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar 3338 = 424, Darius (Hystaspes) 3406 = 356, the building of the second Temple 3408 = 354. These, as well as the intervening numbers, which I omit here, are all of them about 165 years too late. But from this place the correct dates are suddenly restored; Alexander of Macedon is placed 3442 = 320, therefore only sixteen years too late; his government of the world, and a march which he is said to have made to Jerusalem, 3448 = 314; his death 3454 = 308, and so forth.

About this time, the Jews being subject to the Syrian government, adopted the Syrian _Era of the Seleucidæ_, which was called by them the “Era of the Greeks,” or, on account of its being used in civil affairs, “the Era of Contracts.” Its commencement happens, as is well known, in the year 312 before Christ, and we find it adopted in the Book of the Maccabees[312]. This era is also mentioned in the rabbinical chronology, and is _quite correctly_ placed by the more ancient authorities in the year of the world 3450 = 312 B.C.[313] If Ganz[314], in place of this, gives the year 3448 = 314, it is evidently either an arbitrary change, or perhaps first devised by him for the sake of the exact period of a thousand years between the Exodus (2448) and the new era (3448). This connection that subsisted between the two numbers to form a monarchy of a thousand years’ duration, was not in fact very remote; we should only have expected that the number of the Exodus would rather have been advanced two years, in conformity with the fixed and universally introduced era of the Seleucidæ, and not, on the contrary, that the latter should be sent so far back. But the number 2448 was left standing, which still more indicates a determinate selection of this year, independent of a cyclical or arbitrary arrangement.

There is proof also that the Rabbis did not alter the commencement of the Seleucidic Era, in the circumstance, that it has retained its correct place in chronology, in spite of the universal displacement in the chain of events. According to that displacement, Alexander first began to reign 3442 = 320, and died in 3454 = 308. The beginning of the new era, therefore, according to this, happened in the reign of Alexander himself, who in reality had been dead twenty-one years at the time of the battle of Gaza, which occasioned the new era. In consequence of these contradictions the _number_ was retained, and the _event_ was changed to agree with it, since the introduction of the era of Seleucus was transferred to Alexander, and connected with an account of his presence in Jerusalem, which is otherwise only mentioned by Josephus[315], and the so-called Barbarus of Scaliger[316].

But the question is, how we can reconcile the remarkable displacement of events with the true numbers? IDELER has shown that we must refer the first establishment of the era of the world, and consequently the foundation of the whole chronological system that we are considering, to the author of the Moleds, or new moons, and particularly of the late Jewish calendars, therefore to the Rabbi Hillel, in the first half of the fourth century. In the time of Eusebius, and Theon of Alexandria, people could not possibly be so completely ignorant of the history of the last centuries before Christ, as the rabbinical chronology supposed. It was least to be believed of such a learned mathematician, astronomer, and chronologist, as we imagine the reformer of the Jewish calendar to have been, who founded it upon the nineteenth-yeared cycle of Meton and Calippus[317].