Sivut kuvina


on one hand and Arabia on the other. And when he is giving a description of the upper part of the river near the apex of Delta, where was the nome of Heliopolis to the east, and the Arabian nome and Cercasora to the west, he says, ἡ μεν ουν Ηλιοπολιτις εν τη Αραβία εσιν, εν δε τη Λιβυη Κερκεσουρα πολις, κατα τας Ευδοξε On this account the Heliopolitan κείμενη σκοπας. nome is to be referred to Arabia; and Cercesura, which is opposite to the observatories of Eudoxus, must be looked upon in Libya. I make use of the words---to be referred to, because no part of Lower Egypt was really in Arabia; however ascribed to it by Strabo, for the sake of including it within one continent or the other. On this account he had better have followed Herodotus, and made it at large a portion of Asia; which would have been nearer the truth. However, he pursues the same mode of partition in passing higher up. Εντευθεν δε ὁ Νειλος εσιν ὁ ὑπες Δελτα, τοτε δε τα μεν δεξια και λεσι Λιβυην αναπλέοντι.---τα δ' εν αρισερα Αραβίαν, From this point at Cercesura, we meet with the Nile above Delta; and the country to the right of it they call Libya; and all to the left Arabia. He is here in every respect right, and deter


Strabo, 1. 17. p. 1160.

2 Ibid.

[ocr errors]

mines the situation of each place truly. But when he adjudges the eastern part of Delta to Arabia, he goes contrary to all precedent, and has been the cause of much perplexity. Pliny tells us,---ultra Pelusium' Arabia est: therefore all that was within should be distinguished from it.

The Situation of the City more particularly described.

We may perceive that the ancient city of this name was situated in Egypt; and for this we have the evidence of Herodotus and Pliny. Yet there are many writers who have adjudged it to another part of the world. This has arisen partly from their not apprehending the true meaning of Strabo, and partly from their not considering that there were two cities of this name. In respect to the authority of Strabo, it is true that he places Heliopolis in Arabia; but this does not exclude it from being in Egypt; for he ascribes Egypt itself, at least a part of it, to the same country. The city therefore might be, and certainly was,

* Strabo, 1. 5. p. 259.

[ocr errors]

within the limits of the Nile. This is farther manifest from Pliny. Intus, et Arabiæ conterminum, claritatis magnæ, Solis oppidum. Within the boundaries (of Egypt) stands the celebrated city of the Sun, bordering upon Arabia.

The true name of the city was On, which was given on account of the worship. For the deity there honoured was the Sun, stiled by the Egyptians improperly On; and the city in consequence of it had the name of Heliopolis and Civitas Solis, which refer to the same object. We find it to have been a place of great antiquity, for it existed before the arrival of Joseph' in Egypt. This is manifest from his marrying the daughter of Potiphera, a priest of On. Gen. xli. 45. And it is farther said of him, that he had two sons, which Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. ver. 50. That it was rendered Ηλιοπολις, Heliopolis, we learn from Cyril. Nesv HλISTORIS. On, which is Heliopolis. The like is to be found in the Greek version of the Bible, Genesis xli. 45. The same occurs in every history either Greek or Roman where the city is mentioned. It stood towards the western part of the province, and upon the

Pliny, 1. 5. p. 258.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


Cyril contra Hoseam.



Sebennytic, or central branch of the Nile, so that nobody could pass upwards through the middle of Egypt, but he was obliged to go by it in the course of his navigation. This is abundantly shewn by Herodotus, as well as by Strabo. The former says farther, that the inhabitants of this place were esteemed the wisest of the Egyptians. Hence many of the Grecians resorted thither for knowledge; and among these Solon, Eudoxus, and Plato. Strabo speaks of the observatories of Eudoxus as remaining in his time; but he adds, vove μεν ουν πανέρημος ἡ πολις. The city is now entirely deserted. From the description given by these and other writers, we may know for a certainty where this ancient and original city stood; which we find was near the first division of the Nile; and the nome of Heliopolis lay between the Pelusiac and Sebennytic branches.


* L. 17.

* Ενθευτεν μεν (απο θαλασσης) και μεχρι Ηλιοπολιος, ες την μισο1. 2. c. 7. p. 106.


Εςι δε όδος ες την Ηλιόπολιν ανω ιόντι.

Η δ' ες Ηλιδπολίν απο θαλασσης.

-απο δε Ηλιεπολιος ανω ιοντι.
p. 1158.




Heliopolis of the Desert.

This city of the same name was of later date, and according to the authors of the Greek version was built by the Israelites dur-. ing their servitude in Egypt.---' nas wrodoμn-: σαν πολεις οχυρας τῷ Φαραῳ την τε Πίθω, και Ραμεσση, και Ωκ, ή εσιν Ηλιόπολις. And they built for Pharaoh some cities of strength, Pithom, and Ramesses, and On, which is Heliopolis. The latter part concerning On, and Heliopolis is not in the original. This gives reason to suspect, that it was an interpolation, and inserted for a particular purpose, in order to enhance the honour of the place by this pretended antiquity. We may however perceive from hence, that in the time of the Hellenistic Jews of Egypt a secondary city of this name existed.

And we not only find that there were two: cities of this name, but their situation also may be easily ascertained. The one stood within the limits of Egypt, as has been shewn; the other in the desert of Arabia, about twelve miles from Letopolis and


Babylon, and to The proximity of

the north-east of both.

Exod. i. 11.

? See Antoninus, p. 169.

« EdellinenJatka »