Page images
PDF
EPUB

the author turned to the left hand towards the north, he went over the very ground where the Israelites encamped before their passage through the sea, but in a contrary direction.

I have supposed, that the children of Israel were stopped and entangled at the bottom of this pass at Clysma, rather than, as some people have thought, at the top and entrance, which was nearer to the modern Suez. My reason is, because, when a mountain terminates in a high cliff towards the sea, as the Arabian mountain does, though it leaves sufficient room below, yet this passage cannot be stiled τομα, a mouth; or as the Latins would express it, fauces montis. There must be a valley or aperture, each way bounded by hills, to constitute such an opening. In the next place, if the Israelites had been at this place within sight of the Egyptians, they would not have stopped here, but entered the defile; as people, when hard pressed, always retire as far as they can, however they may ultimately despair. They never unnecessarily stop. For let the enemy be ever so numerous, or so well provided, a small body in a narrow pass has a chance for a time to make some stand against them. Father Sicard thinks that this passage,

[ocr errors]

which extends along that part of the Arabian mountain called now Gibel Attake, is not sufficiently capacious to receive such numbers as were concerned in this march. But this objection seems to be of no weight. For, as it is well known, that caravans consisting of many thousands of people, with their horses, camels, and carriages, came every year this way to and from Upper Egypt, I do not see how any number of persons can be excluded. A large army as well as a small may in time pass over the same bridge. I have called it a defile, but in the maps of Niebuhr and in other maps it appears of sufficient breadth for every purpose required. In some places it seems to have been two or three miles wide, though gradually contracted towards the bottom. Bishop Pocock supposes the passage to

L

have been here, and Dr Shaw places it in the same part of the sinus. But he makes the Israelites pass directly from Egypt to it by the nearest road, not considering that they went first to Etham at the top of the sinus, and then by an alteration in their route came to their sițuation below.

See Monconys, vol. 1. p. 410.

[ocr errors]

Of the Transit being at Clysma.

I am therefore obliged to accede to Euse bius, and those writers who place the trajectus Israelitarum at the Clysma of Ptolemy and Antoninus. Josephus tells us, that the Israelites before their transit were hemmed in on every side by the sea and mountains, and by the enemy in their rear. This situation can no where be found but at Clysma. This opinion would be attended with little difficulty, were it not for the town called by the Arabs Colsum, and Al Kolsum, which name is supposed to be only a variation of Clysma. This place they have farther imagined to have been the same as the ancient Arsinoe, the same also as the modern Suez. Hence they have maintained, that near this city Suez was the place of passage where the children of Israel were miraculously conducted over,

It will therefore be proper to consider the situation of the places with which we are principally concerned; for this will lead us to discover the grounds of the mistake into which writers have been led in treating of Clysma. It has originated from their confounding different objects which they have taken for one

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

Difference

29° 50′

28

50

[merged small][ocr errors]

According to Ulug Beig the latitude

of the Town of Colsum was

[ocr errors]

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 He roum 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

'P. 170. * Lucian. Pseudomantis, p. 893. Salmur. 3 Vol. 1. c. 6. p. 340. notis.

« PreviousContinue »