Sivut kuvina

and the same. The original Clysma was, as I have said, an inlet of the Red-sea, at the mouth of the valley called Phi-Hiroth, and there was an encampment named from it. Where it was situated may be farther seen above from Ptolemy and Antoninus. In time it gave name to the whole bay which was called the bay of Clysma, and by the Arabs Bayer al Colsum, And as there was a town towards the upper part of the sinus, this obtained the name of Clysma and Colsum. People have confounded these different places, which has caused great uncertainty in the histories where they occur. Writers, therefore, are in the wrong in supposing that the ancient Clysma was a town, and then making inferences in consequence of this supposition. For the original Clysma was an inlet of the sea; and, as I have said, gave name both to the bay and to the town, below which it lay several miles. This we learn from those ancient authors who have treated of it, and, ascertained its situation.

According to Ptolemy, p. 116. the

latitude of Heroum was

The latitude of Clysma


[blocks in formation]

According to Ulug Beig the latitude


of the Town of Colsum was 29° 30′ The difference from Heroum to the inlet at Clysma was one degree, or near seventy miles; but to the town of Colsum only twenty-two or twenty-three miles. They were therefore different places. Antoninus makes the distance to Clysma nearly the same. From Heroum to Serapium eighteen miles, to Clysma fifty. Total sixty-eight. Ptolemy began his estimate from the farthest point of the sinus, but Antoninus from the city which stood on one side of it, and somewhat lower; which has produced the difference of about a mile and an half.

One of the canals, which were with great labour carried on from the Nile to the Redsea, passed into this inlet. It was probably the same through which a person in * Lucian is said to have been carried in his way from Egypt towards India. Harduin, in his Notes upon Pliny, quotes a passage from an author concerning this canal and the place of its exit, which is remarkable. Hodie in cosmographiâ, quæ sub Julio Cæsare et Marco Anto


* Lucian. Pseudomantis, p. 893. Salmur.

'P. 170.
3 Vol. 1. c. 6. p. 340. notis.

nino consulibus facta est, scriptum inveni, pärtem Nili fluminis exeuntem in Rubrum Mare juxta civitatem Ovilam et castra Monseï. In this last word there is certainly a mistake of a letter, and for castra Monseï we should read castra Mouseï, the encampment of Moses. From hence we may be induced to think that the Pergior Kλvoμatos of Ptolemy, the same as the castrum Clysmatis of Hierocles was not of old a real præsidium, but a place so called from the encampment of the children of Israel, and in memory of Moses..

In short, it is generally agreed by writers who treat of the subject, that the passage of the Israelites across was at the bay of Colsum or Clysma. Haud procul ab Alkolsum est. locus in mari, ubi demersus est Pharaone. Not far from Alkolsum is the place where Pharaoh (and his army) were overwhelmed. Κλυσμα, δι' 3 παλαι και το Ισραηλιτικον φευγοντες τις Αιγυπτιες αβροχῳ το ρείθρον διεπεραιώθησαν ποδι. Clysma was the place through which the Israelites of old, when they fled from Pharaoh, passed over to the other side without wetting their feet.



' Abulfeda. See Shaw's Travels, p. 349. notis.


Philostorgius, 1. 3. c. 5. p. 489. edit. Reading.

We are told by Dr' Shaw, that near this place (Corondel) the natives still preserve a tradition that a numerous army was formerly drowned near Bedea, the same as Clysma.

Opinions canvassed.


The curious traveller Niebuhr seems to intimate, that he sometimes had entertained an opinion, that the passage of the Israelites over the Red-sea was near * Bedea. But he recedes from it afterwards, and gives his reasons, which I shall take the liberty to consider; as, from an examination of his objections, we may possibly obviate those of others. In speaking of the testimony of Josephus, he says, 3 Il semble d'abord, je l'avoue, que l'auteur ait voulu designer la vallée de Bedea, si tant est, qu'il ait jamais été. Mais l'écriture saint ni parle ni de montagnes, ni de rochers a cette occasion. Il paroit même que s'ils avoient



1 P.


* On panche encore pour Bedea. Description d'Arabie, p. 349.

3 Ibid. p. 350. The author mistakes the true route. The Israelites went the contrary way.

été près de Bedea, Pharaon n'auroit pu dire : ils se sont égarés dans le pays, et enfermés dans le désert: cars ils auroient a la vérité eu la Mer Rouge devant eux à l'est; mais ausi en s'en approchant ils auroient trouvé le chemin le long de la mer vers le nord depuis la vallée de Bedea jusques a Suès; et jusques au bout du golfe, route qu' a pris Monconys. The author is certainly mistaken in respect to the route which he supposes the Israelites to have taken. They did not go by the passage from Upper Egypt, called now Derb el Tourick, to Clysma; and then like Monconys pass upwards to the north, to the extremity of the sinus. But their route was by the general and more frequented way, called now Derb el Ejenef, by which the caravans from Cairo go to the Red-sea at this day. They passed over the desert with the mountain of Arabia upon their right hand, and so proceeded to the western point of the Red-sea and the upper border of Etham. Here they were ordered to turn; a circumstance always to be kept in


Here the author himself places Etham---Il paroit que tout le district autour de l'extremite du golfe Arabique a été nommé Etham. p. 352. Concerning the two roads I have made mention before from Shaw and Niebuhr.

« EdellinenJatka »