heard the name of _E’ Saqieh_, “the Water-wheel;” but my friend and
fellow-traveller, H. Abeken, who was also on the spot, confirmed me in
the name which Robinson gives in his map (_Abu Keischeib_). The French
scholars, on the contrary, write _Abou Keycheyd_.
[268] _Mém. sur l’Eg._ i. p. 166.
[269] _L’Eg. sous les Phar._ ii. p. 89.
[270] _Descr. de l’Eg._ xi. p. 378.
[271] _Antiq. Jud._ ii. 7, 8.
[272] p. 75, ed. Parthey and Pinder (p. 170, Wess).
[273] _Mém. sur l’Eg._ t. i. p. 151, &c.
[274] Herod. ii. 158.
[275] Plin. H. N. V. ix. 9.
[276] S. Wilkinson, _Eg. and Thebes_, vol. i. p. 311.
[277] In his _Mémoire sur les anciennes limites de la mer rouge_, in the
_Descr. de l’Eg._ t. xi. (Panck.) p. 371, &c.; and in the _Notice sur le
séjour des Hébreux en Egypte_, t. viii. p. 112, &c.
[278] p. 768.
[279] p. 767.
[280] Strabo, ii. p. 85, 86, &c.
[281] The first imperfect copy is in the _Descr. de l’Eg. Antiq._ vol.
v. pl. 29, No. 6-8. The best is given by Wilkinson in his _Materia
Hieroglyphica_, Append. No. 4.
[282] King Ramses was therefore just as much the local god of the town
Ramses, as the god Hero of the town Hero.
[283] ii. 158. Compare iv. 42.
[284] _Meteorolog._ i. 14, p. 352, b (Bekk).
[285] i. 33.
[286] p. 38, p. 804. Compare p. 780.
[287] _Hist. Nat._ vi. 29, § 165-167.
[288] iv. 5.
[289] _L’Isthme de Suez_, in the _Révue des Deux Mondes_, _livr. du 15
Juill. 1841_.
[290] Herod. ii. 102.
[291] The height of the Red Sea was discovered to be 30 feet 6
inches above the level of the Mediterranean Sea. [By the very latest
investigations the difference of 30 feet, which was formerly accepted,
has been reduced to 3 feet.]
[292] _Descr. de l’Eg._ Atlas, pl. 23, 31.
[293] ii. 158, iv. 42.
[294] Herod. ii. 159.
[295] _Descr. de l’Eg._ (Panck.) _Ant._ vol. viii. p. 27, &c. Compare
vol. v. p. 451, and Jomard, _carte de la basse Egypte_. A copy of the
fragment is given in a copper-plate, _Ant._ vol. v. pl. 29.
[296] [The spot has now been re-discovered, and marked upon the map
of the Société d’Etudes de l’Isthme de Suez. _Travaux de la Brigade
Française._ Rapport de l’Ingénieur. 1847.]
[297] _Descr. de l’Eg._ Atlas, pl. 23, 31.
[298] Letronne was probably led to this opinion because, as above
mentioned, he thought that Heroonpolis was on the sea.
[299] Letronne, in this treatise mentioned, has further attempted to show
that the connecting canal between the Nile and the Red Sea continued till
about the third century after Christ, but was then interrupted until
it was re-opened by the Caliph ʾOmar in the year 639. Since that time
it continued till the year 762 or 767, when the canal was designedly
filled up by the Caliph El Mansur. The ingenious combinations by which
Letronne assumes that the canal was filled up with sand, about the time
of Septim. Severus, because at that time the Porphyry quarries of Gebel
Dochân appear to have been neglected, is not, however, a sufficient
reason for this conclusion. The canal might easily have been deepened
again, as in the time of ʾOmar, and many other reasons might be given
for the neglect of the stone-quarries in the Red Sea. But there is a
positive proof _against_ it in Ibn el Maqrizi (_Notices et Extr. des
MSS._ tom. vi. p. 337, 366), where it is said, according to Langlès:
_Hadrien dirigea ensuite sa marche vers l’Egypte, où il fit recreuser le
canal qui allait du Nil à la mer de Qolzoum; les vaisseaux y passaient
encore à l’apparition de l’islamisme: c’est le même que ʾAmrou ben
el-ʾAss fit nettoyer_; and farther on (p. 340), where Amru says: _Je sais
qu’avant l’islamisme, des vaisseaux amenaient chez nous des marchandises
de l’Egypte. Depuis que nous avons fait la conquête de ce pays, cette
communication est interrompue; le canal est encombré et les marchands en
ont abandonné la navigation._ It is evident from this, that the canal
during the rising of the Arabs, shortly before the Egyptian conquest, had
been designedly filled up by the Egyptians as an inimical and prudential
measure, for the same reason that it was afterwards again filled up by
the Caliph El Mansur, when Mohammet ben ʾAbdallah rose against him at
Medina, in the year 762 (according to others 767). The year also of its
restoration appears to me still doubtful. Maqrizi, indeed, says (p. 334):
_Lorsque le Très-Haut accorda l’islamisme aux hommes, et que ʾAmrou ben
el-ʾAss fit la conquête de l’Egypte, ce général, d’après l’ordre de ʾOmar
ben âl-Khaththâb, prince des fidèles, s’occupa de faire recreuser de
canal dans l’année de la mortalité._ This famine year was certainly the
year 18 after the flight of the prophet—_i. e._ A.D. 639. But in the same
year Egypt was also conquered, and it is not very probable that cutting
the canal, which would occupy six months, was the first and immediate
undertaking of the conqueror, although it was undoubtedly soon called for
by the famine in Arabia, which made it necessary to import provisions
from Egypt. From the words of Amru also, quoted above, there appears to
have been a longer period between the conquest and the cleaning out the
canal. I, therefore, think that we ought rather to follow the defined
statement of El-Kendi, who is cited by Maqrizi himself (p. 343), and
who wrote about 880. He places the restoration of the canal five years
later—namely, in the year 23; _i. e._ 644, the last year of Amru. For the
history of the canal, compare, besides the treatises of Letronne which we
have cited, what the same scholar said at a former time in his edition of
the _Dicuil._ 1814, 8vo, p. 10, &c., and in his translation of the 17th
book of Strabo, p. 382; also Mannert, _Geogr. von Africa_, Abth. i. p.
503, &c., and Weil, _Gesch. der Chalifen_, Bd. i. p. 119, &c.; the last
of whom likewise places the restoration of the canal after 641.
The result we have arrived at with regard to the whole history of this
remarkable connecting canal is, therefore, briefly, the following:
c. 1350 B.C. _Ramses II._ (_Sesostris_) digs the canal from Bubastis to
Heroonpolis (Mukfâr, near Seba-Biar), and with the assistance of the
Israelites builds near it the towns _Pithom_ and _Ramses_.
c. 600 B.C. _Nekô_ appears to have conducted the canal as far as the
Bitter lakes.
c. 500 B.C. _Darius_, for the first time, makes the whole connection,
since he cuts through the elevation between the Bitter lakes and the sea.
c. 350 B.C. In the time of Aristotle the canal appears to have fallen
into disuse.
c. 250 B.C. _Ptolemæus Philadelphus_ digs a wide canal, _amnis
Ptolemæus_, from the sea to the Bitter lakes, constructs an artificial
sluice, and builds Arsinoë on the sea.
c. 100 A.D. _Trajan_ opens a new canal, _amnis Traianus_, from Babylon to
Heroonpolis.
643 (644) A.D. _ʾOmar_ re-opens the interrupted connection.
762 (767) A.D. _Mohammet ben ʾAbdallah_ fills up the canal.
[300] Jomard, _carte de la basse Egypte. Wilkinson, Mod. Eg. and Thebes_,
i. p. 187.
[301] It is a great mistake if Champollion—_L’Eg. sous les Phar._ ii. p.
244—considers these the ruins of the town built by the Israelites.
[302] Wilkinson (_Mod. Eg._ p. 319) misunderstands the passage when he
supposes that _Patumos_ was situated at the other end of the canal, on
the Red Sea. He appears here to have followed Jomard, who, in his map
of the Delta, also places it at the head of the bay, although he places
Pithom in the right position.
[303] Compare Steph. Byz.
[304] Πά-τουμος, Pi-thom, ⲡⲓ-ⲑⲟⲙ, means “_the_ (namely the _Temple_,
the _Dwelling-place_) _of the Tum_” of the well-known Egyptian god
𓏏𓍃𓅓𓅱𓀭, who was much honoured exactly in this part of Egypt. He is
frequently found upon the Flaminian obelisks, which come from Heliopolis,
as well as upon the monuments of Ramses at Abu-Keshêb.
[305] iv. 5, 53.
[306] Compare Böckh, _Manetho_, p. 293 and p. 229.
[307] Exod. ii. 23.
[308] Ramses III., also, whose reign happened soon after the Exodus
of the Israelites, waged war with the northern nations, and therefore
undoubtedly passed through Syria and Palestine. But it is not probable
that his marches were ever of any considerable duration, or were
connected with long periods of possession, so that we may venture to
believe that these transitory marches against the _powerful_ nations of
this country, to whom the Jews did not at that time belong, could have as
yet little effect upon them, unless, indeed, it happened, perhaps, when
they were themselves subjugated by the Mesopotamians or the Moabites.
Such a supposition would be still less probable if the Jews had departed
as early as the reign of _Tuthmosis III._, or of _Amosis_, because in
that case that Egyptian occupation of the country would have happened
when the Jews had already become quite established, and masters of the
land.
[309] _Handb. d. Chron._ i. p. 569, 578, 580.
[310] Josephus, _Ant. Jud._ II. xv. 2, calculates 430 years from the
entrance of Abraham into Canaan to the Exodus of Moses. Compare VIII.
iii. 1.
[311] [Ideler, _Handbuch der Chron._ i. p. 507, 543.]
[312] Ideler, _Handb. d. Chron._ i. p. 531.
[313] Abraham ben David (about 1161) says, in his book Sepher
_hakabbala_, col. 33, b (Amsterd.): “The second period begins from the
great synagogue of Simeon the Just. The Persian empire was destroyed in
his time by Alexander, the King of Greece (Javan). He came to Jerusalem
... in the year 40 after the building of the temple ... and commanded
that they should commence the reckoning of their contract from this
year, which is the year 1000 since their Exodus from Egypt, and the year
3450 since the Creation.” But he placed the year of the Exodus at 2448;
therefore the year 3450 is properly the 1003rd, not the 1000th, since the
Exodus. R. Isaac Israëli (about 1250), in the book _Jesod Olam_. Bl. 84,
b, says, “And the Talmud was concluded in the year 3949, according to
the calculation of the world, which is the year 500 of the Contract.” We
thence obtain for the commencement of the era of the Contract the year
3450 = 312.
[314] _Semach David_ (written about 1592), p. 60-65, in the Latin
translation by Vorst (Lugd. Bat. 1644), cites several more authorities
for the year 3448; among them also Abraham ben David, but who, as we have
seen, expressly writes 3450, in spite of the mention of the 1000-yeared
period since the Exodus.
[315] Ant. XI. viii. 5.
[316] _Thesaur. tempp. Euseb._ 1658, tom. ii. p. 72.
[317] S. Ideler, _Handb._ i. p. 579.
[318] In the year 318 the determination of Easter, according to the
different Christian calendars, was transferred from the Nicene Council
to the Alexandrian chronologists. S. du Cange, _praef. ad Chron. pasch._
This difficult work at once presupposed a careful consideration and
investigation of the different eras still in use, but especially of the
Jewish computation of time, because the feast of Easter was connected
with the solemnisation of the Jewish Paschal feast, which was instituted
at the time of the _Exodus from Egypt_. Therefore in those days, when
chronological studies were more especially practised, there was a
particular cause for obtaining the true date of the Exodus, which, to
Egyptian scholars in particular, could not have been difficult.
[319] _Handb._ i. p. 581.
[320] It was also called “the Era of _Alexander_.” Ideler, _Chron._ i. p.
449.
[321] It would be important to inquire when the year 2448 is first
mentioned in Jewish literature as that of the Exodus, and which of the
Rabbis first clung to this epoch in the outline of history, which was at
first probably only marked in the calendar.
[322] We have already seen above, that neither the Apostle Paul nor
Josephus recognised the calculation of the 480 years. Africanus just as
little, who reckoned 748 years. (Routh, _Reliqu. sacræ_, vol. ii. p. 313,
ff.) Eusebius (reckons 600, or even 610 years; _Præp. Ev._ x. 14, compare
Routh elsewhere; but in his _Canon_ he calculates 480), Clemens Alexandr.
(_Strom._ p. 386, Pott. 567), Syncellus (p. 175, 659), and others. Among
modern scholars, Des Vignoles (_Chronol. de l’hist. sainte_, t. i. p.
172) has especially treated the question in detail. He finally decides
upon the acceptation, that the period consisted of 648 years, but that
the number 480 arose from a mistake in the text (p. 184), as others
before him had declared. Böckh lastly says, that the number appears to
him to have been _inserted at a later period_. (_Manetho_, p. 190.)
Several other numbers of the Old Testament, especially all indeterminate
numbers, as the 40 and its multiplicates, as well as the greater sums,
_e. g._ Exodus xii. 40; Judges xi. 26; 1 Kings vi. 1; and in other
places, and the whole uninterrupted chain of numbers, originating in
them, appear to me to have been for the first time adopted since that
early part of the Old Testament was last combined and revised, at all
events for the first time after the exile. The opinion also adopted by
Bertheau (_Richter_, p. 34), that this revision proceeds from Ezra,
appears to me to be very probable.
[323] Numb. i. 26.
[324] Ezra ii. 59; Nehemiah vii. 61.
[325] Ezra ii. 62; Neh. vii. 64.
[326] Contra. Ap. i. 7.
[327] Gospel Matth. i. 2, &c.; Luke iii. 23, &c. The great differences
between the two genealogies have been considered in a variety of ways,
but, as it appears, they have not yet been satisfactorily explained.
Therefore, they do not permit of any immediate chronological conclusions.
[328] The removal of some of the difficulties indicated in the following
table are obvious, and may, therefore, have been expressed long before
me, in the critical-biblical literature already published, although I
am unable to point it out. But the aim we have in view requires us to
examine this subject somewhat more accurately. I see, besides, that
Ewald also, _Gesch. Isr._ i. p. 31, ii. p. 433, and in other passages,
considers the two generations from Levi to Saul and to Heman, as the most
complete, and, therefore, all the others as incomplete.
[329] According to the Septuagint. In the Hebrew text, chap. v. & vi.
[330] [Hebrew text, 1 Chron. vii. 20, 21, 24-27.]
[331] It is impossible that the descendants of Ephraim, mentioned in
1 Chron. viii. 20, 21, could have been all killed at the same time by
the men of Gath (therefore, in Palestine), since they include eight
generations. The march to _Gath_ also, which is mentioned, could not have
been from Egypt (Bunsen, _Æg._ i. p. 220) (Tr. vol. i. p. 178), since
they went _down_. It is equally impossible that _Non_ and _Jehoshuah_ can
be rightly placed in v. 27, since the latter ought to stand in the ninth
in place of the third degree from Ephraim.
[332] _Gesch. Isr._ ii. p. 371.
[333] _Buch. d. Richt._ p. xix. xx.
[334] Heb. Text, 1 Chron. vi. 39, 43.
[335] Unless the name of _Jahath_, the son of Gershom, is to be
withdrawn, and Shimei put into its place, by which means this genealogy
also would only have eleven degrees from Moses to Solomon.
[336] See above, p. 402.
[337] De Wette, in his translation, makes no distinction in v. 22.
[338] See Luther’s German Trans. of Bible.—TR.
[339] The names of _Levi_, _Gershom_, _Jahath_, _Sima_ (_Zimmah_),
_Adaiah_ (_Iddo_), Zerah agree. It only differs in Ethan (Joah), and
_Ethni_ (Jeaterai). Shimei and Libni appear to be brothers. But, on that
account again, the name of Jahath, as above remarked, ought to be rubbed
out of both lists, and perhaps be considered as a common surname of the
brothers. For Jahath appears in the 1 Chron. vii. 43 as the father of
Shimei, xxiii. 10 as the son of Shimei, vii. 20 as the son of Libni,
but, xxiii. 8, not among the sons of Laadan, who nevertheless, xxiii. 7,
stands in the place of Libni.
[340] Gesen. Thes. l. Hebr. p. 1011.
[341] The omission may perhaps be explained by Exodus vi. 24, where
Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph literally appear beside one another as sons
of _Korah_, while it was probably intended that, as his sons, they should
succeed one another.
[342] We should, perhaps, also take into consideration the preference
which is given in the genealogical tables of the Old Testament to _three_
sons.
[343] The genealogy was certainly originally _brought down_ from father
to son; therefore the names _carried up_ from Elkanah to Heman precede
those from Kohath to Joel (and Heman), although Kohath is the _elder_
brother. We follow the correct order.
[344] _Azariah_ appears to have been the true father of _Joel_; Samuel
was, perhaps, his father-in-law, or his uncle, for although, 1 Sam. viii.
2, _Joel_ and _Abiah_ are also stated to be sons of Samuel, our fourth
genealogy, 1 Chron. vii. 28, calls them Vashni and Abiah.
[345] In the series of Eli, Ἀχίτωβος must stand in place of Ἰοχάβης, for
the ancestors of Zadok and Achimelech were both named Ahitub, which might
at all events easily produce confusion. The name Ἰοχάβης seems to be
founded upon Ichabod, the brother of Ahitub (1 Sam. iv. 21; xiv. 3).
[346] According to Eratosthenes, Apollodor., Diodor. &c.; see Larcher,
_Hérod._ tom. vii. p. 51, 53, 68, 395, 397.
[347] _Æg._ i. p. 209-214. (Tr. vol. i. p. 166-171.)
[348] Two points may, perhaps, strike the reader in the survey of the
different statements of numbers given here from the Book of Judges,
upon which I will subjoin what follows in explanation. I have placed
the 20 years under the Canaanites to the right, the 20 of Sampson and
Saul to the left; not arbitrarily, but from the following reason: In the
first section of this epoch, which ends with Gideon, all the numbers
are indeterminate except those exactly which relate to the oppressions
by other nations. This does not seem to me to be accidental; why
should not the times of the oppression have been firmer fixed in the
memory than the other divisions of time, the recollection of which is
principally connected only with celebrated persons? The number 20 does
not belong to the round numbers; it bears in itself, therefore, the
probability of being historical. On the other hand, the 20 years of
Sampson and Saul are in the third division, in which all the remaining
numbers are unhistorical, as the eight preceding are all historical.
The person of Sampson is especially so poetically represented, that
it is perfectly adapted to its unchronological neighbourhood. It is
possible, also, that it belonged entirely to the preceding Philistine
time of 40 years, and ought therefore to be quite omitted. But the 20
years of Saul was even received in the Acts of the Apostles, and by
Josephus, as a round number, and was therefore exchanged with 40. The
period of Saul also was certainly not better known than that of David
and Solomon. The second point is, that it might appear remarkable to see
the periods of oppression placed generally together with those of the
separate Judges, whilst both classes are however quite heterogeneous.
I would have separated them, if by that means the result would have
been very different. But it is so circumstanced, that the mean number
of the historical statements, if we separate the periods of oppression,
amounts to 11 years, in place of 12 years; therefore the total sum is 304
years, in place of 318 years. But this is the same result to us; as we
cannot look for an exact sum in the calculation, it therefore appeared
more suitable, because more prudent, to leave those statements in their
historical order.
[349] By the kind permission of Chevalier Bunsen we are enabled to give
the following note, which contains the result he has arrived at on this
subject:—Chevalier Bunsen agrees with Dr. Lepsius in the conviction that
the arrival of the Israelites cannot have taken place under the Hyksos.
On the question whether they arrived before or after them, Chevalier
Bunsen differs from Dr. Lepsius, since he believes that Jacob’s family
came to Egypt at a far earlier period, viz., in the reign of Sesurtesen
(Sesostris) the Second (or Third, according to some), in whose reign he
thinks the ancient writers place those changes in the tenure of land
which the Bible ascribes to Joseph’s advice as prime minister. This
Sesurtesen (Sesostris) reigned, according to the tables of Bunsen, about
2650 B.C., and since he agrees with Dr. Lepsius in placing the Exodus
in the reign of Menephthes, 1210 B.C., he allows an interval of 1440
years to elapse between Joseph and the Exodus, more than _fourteen_
centuries.—TR.
[350] They are called by Manetho Φοίνικες and Ποιμένες, and from the most
ancient times the north-eastern neighbours of the Egyptians were never
other than Semitic nations. The unfounded opinion that the Hyksos were
the Scythians has been long ago refuted.
[351] Evidently the same name as that of the Heliopolitan priest
פוטיפרע, which only, being more complete, has the ע at the end,
and which the Seventy likewise write Πετεφρῆ. In hieroglyphics the name
would be 𓊪𓂞𓁛 or 𓊪𓂞𓇳𓏤 Pet-Ra, or with the article, which can also be
written in hieroglyphics, Pet-Ph-Ra, _i. e._ “he who is consecrated to
the sun.”
[352] This was especially the dress of the Egyptian priests, as well as
of the king himself, whose transparent upper garments, of fine linen,
are known by the monuments. Compare Herod. ii. 37; Plin. H. N. xix. 2.
The elevation of Joseph into the most distinguished class, that of the
priests, is shown by this laying on of fine linen garments.
[353] Precious necklaces and chains were bestowed by the Egyptian
kings as particular marks of distinction. Several very illustrative
representations of this from Thebes and Tel-el-Amarna will be disclosed
in the work of the Prussian Expedition.
[354] At festive processions the chariot of the queen used to follow that
of the king, and after it the chariot of the princes. Joseph was thus
treated like the son of a king.
[355] For other points of comparison, see Hengstenberg, _Die Bücher Moses
und Ægypten_, p. 21-76.
[356] Jablonski, _Voc. Æg._ _s. v._ _Psonthomphanech_; Gesenius,
_Thesaur._ p. 1181.
[357] xvii. p. 788.
[358] Maqrizi in Quatremère. Mém. ii. 318, 401.
[359] ii. 37.
[360] i. 54.
[361] i. 72, 74. Compare c. 71.
[362] Compare also Strabo, xvii. p. 787, upon the taxes to the king.
[363] Exodus i. 8.
[364] Exodus ii. 23.
[365] Even if we take into account the months also, subtracting 80 years
and 8 months from 510 years and 10 months, we shall obtain 430 years and
2 months.
[366] I do not, however, lay more importance upon this agreement than
it deserves. The coincidence of this number with the Hebrew periods,
originating in a different manner, may certainly have first caused it
to be believed that the Hyksos were the Jews. I am the less inclined to
reject this opinion, as we shall see below that the Hebrew number may
also be explained in a different manner.
[367] Böckh is also of this opinion, _Manetho_, p. 227.
[368] Ps. xc. 10.
[369] So Ewald, _Gesch. d. Volks Israel_. Bd. i. p. 30, 339 &c. Bunsen,
_Ægypten_, i. p. 215, 225. (Trans. vol. i. p. 171, 181.)
[370] Ewald, i. p. 31. Compare Bunsen, i. p. 220.
[371] Ewald, i. p. 354, 387, &c.
[372] P. 204, 206. (Trans. by C. H. Cottrell, vol. i. p. 161-163.)
[373] Ægyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte. Hamburg, 1845.
[374] Die Chronologie der Ægypter. Berlin, 1849.
[375] These dates were obligingly supplied by Dr. Lepsius himself, in a
letter dated Berlin the 5th of July, 1853.
[376] From the Edinburgh Philosophical Journal for July, 1850.
[377] Bericht über die zur Bekanntmachung geeigneten Verhandlungen der
Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Aus dem Jahre,
1844.
[378] The breadth of the river itself. See Letter to Hr. Böckh, p. 27.
[379] Dr. Lepsius, after he had seen this paper, informed me that
Katakomben was a misprint for Katarakten.—L. H.
[380] Miss Martineau’s Eastern Life, vol. i. p. 99.
[381] Reisen in Europa, Asien und Afrika, in der Jahren 1835, bis 1841.
Stuttgart, 1841-1846.
[382] With reference to the object of this paper.
[383] Reisen, Bd. ii. 545.
[384] “Über den Stromlauf und das zunächst liegende Uferland des Nils,
von der zweiten Katarakte bis Assuan, besitzen wir eine vortreffliche
Karte nämlich:” “Land zwischen der kleinen und grossen Katarakten
des Nils. Astronomisch bestimmt und aufgenommen in J. 1827, durch v.
Prokesch. Nil Grundrisse der Monumente. Wien, 1831.”—Reisen, Bd. ii. Thl.
iii. 86.
[385] Russegger, Reisen, Bd. i. 258.
[386] Travels in Ethiopia, p. 272.
[387] Description de l’Egypte.—Separate Memoir, entitled “Description de
Syène et des Cataractes.”
[388] Russegger, Bd. ii. 3 Thl. 85.
[389] Russegger, Bd. ii. 3 Thl. 76.
[390] Travels, p. 257.