I cannot conceive a greater proof of a man being blinded by attachment to his own opinion, than this quotation. For Memphis was in lat. 29° 50´, and the point of the Delta was in 30°, and this being the latitude of Geeza, it cannot be that of Memphis. That city must be sought for ten or eleven miles farther south. If, as Dr Shaw supposes, it was nineteen miles round, and that it was five or six miles in breadth, its greatest breadth would probably be to the river. Then 10 and 6 make 16, which will be the latitude of Metrahenny, according to [87]Dr Shaw’s method of computation. But then it cannot be said that Geeza is either in the key or inlet of the country; all to the westward of Geeza is plain, and desert, and no mountain nearer it on the other side than the castle of Cairo. Dr Shaw[88] thinks that this is further confirmed by Pliny’s saying that Memphis was within fifteen miles of the Delta. Now if this was really the case, he suggests a plain reason, if he relies on ancient measures, why Geeza, that is only ten miles, cannot be Memphis. If a person, arguing from measures, thinks he is intitled to throw away or add, the third part of the quantity that he is contending for, he will not be at a great stress to place these ancient cities in what situation he pleases. Nor is it fair for Dr Shaw to suppose quantities that never did exist; for Metrahenny, instead of [89]forty, is not quite twenty-seven miles from the Delta; such liberties would confound any question. The Doctor proceeds by saying, that heaps of ruins [90]alone are not proof of any particular place; but the agreeing of the distances between Memphis and the Delta, which is a fixed and standing boundary, lying at a determinate distance from Memphis, must be a proof beyond all exception[91]. If I could have attempted to advise Dr Shaw, or have had an opportunity of doing it, I would have suggested to him, as one who has maintained that all Egypt is the gift of the Nile, not to say that the point of the Delta is a standing and determined boundary that cannot alter. The inconsistency is apparent, and I am of a very contrary opinion. Babylon, or Cairo, as it is now called, is fixed by the Calish or Amnis Trajanus passing through it. Ptolemy[92] says so, and Dr Shaw says that Geeza was opposite to Cairo, or in a line east and west from it, and is the ancient Memphis. Now, if Babylon is lat. 30°, and so is Geeza, they may be opposite to one another in a line of east and west. But if the latitude of Memphis is 29° 50´ it cannot be at Geeza, which is opposite to Babylon, but ten miles farther south, in which case it cannot be opposite to Babylon or Cairo. Again, if the point of the Delta be in lat. 30°, Babylon, or Cairo, 30°, and Geeza be 30°, then the point of the Delta cannot be ten miles from Cairo or Babylon, or ten miles from Geeza.