Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, Volume 1 (of 5): In the years 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772 and 1773Bruce, James
History
Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, Volume 1 (of 5): In the years 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772 and 1773
Bruce, James
Egypt -- Description and travel; Ethiopia -- Description and travel; Ethiopia -- History; Natural history -- Ethiopia; Nile River
It is ten miles from Geeza, and ten miles from Babylon, or Cairo,
and therefore the distances do not agree as Dr Shaw says they do;
nor can the point of the Delta, as he says, be a permanent boundary
consistently with his own figures and those of Ptolemy, but it must
have been washed away, or gone 10´ northward; for Babylon, as he says,
is a certain boundary fixed by the Amnis Trajanus, and, supposing the
Delta had been a fixed boundary, and in lat. 30°, then the distance of
fifteen miles would just have made up the space that Pliny says was
between that point and Memphis, if we suppose that great city was at
Metrahenny.
I shall say nothing as to his next argument in relation to the distance
of Geeza from the Pyramids; because, making the same suppositions, it
is just as much in favour of one as of the other.
His next argument is from [93]Herodotus, who says, that Memphis lay
under the sandy mountain of Libya, and that this mountain is a stony
mountain covered with sand, and is opposite to the Arabian mountain.
Now this surely cannot be called Geeza; for Geeza is under no mountain,
and the Arabian mountain spoken of here is that which comes close to
the shore at Turra.
Diodorus says, it was placed in the straits or narrowest part of Egypt;
and this Geeza cannot be so placed, for, by Dr Shaw’s own confession,
it is at least twelve miles from Geeza to the sandy mountain where the
Pyramids stand on the Libyan side; and, on the Arabian side, there is
no mountain but that on which the castle of Cairo stands, which chain
begins there, and runs a considerable way into the desert, afterwards
pointing south-west, till they come so near to the eastern shore as to
leave no room but for the river at Turra; so that, if the cause is to
be tried by this point only, I am very confident that Dr Shaw’s candour
and love of truth would have made him give up his opinion if he had
visited Turra.
The last authority I shall examine as quoted by Dr Shaw, is to me so
decisive of the point in question, that, were I writing to those only
who are acquainted with Egypt, and the navigation of the Nile, I would
not rely upon another.
Herodotus[94] says, “At the time of the inundation, the Egyptians do
not sail from Naucratis to Memphis by the common channel of the river,
that is Cercasora, and the point of the Delta, but over the plain
country, along the very side of the Pyramids.”
Naucratis was on the west side of the Nile, about lat. 30° 30´, let us
say about Terrane in my map. They then sailed along the plain, out of
the course of the river, upon the inundation, close by the Pyramids,
whatever side they pleased, till they came to Metrahenny, the ancient
Memphis.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account