OBSERVATIONS

UPON THE

ANCIENT HISTORY OF EGYPT,

AND

The Nations that were connected with it: wherein an Account is given of the SHEPHERD KINGS and the ISRAELITES: and the Place where they both refided is determined. The whole calculated to rectify in fome degree the Chronology and Geography of that Kingdom and to clear up the Difficulties with which they have hitherto been attended.

W

E are informed in the Mofaic account of the fojournment of the Ifraelites in Egypt, that the place of their allotment was the land of Gofben. As Egypt was very fpacious, and consisted of many large prefectures, as well as fubordinate districts, it has employed the wit of many eminent writers to determine to which of these this particular land is to be afcribed. Some have thought that it was fituated in the fields of Zoan. But where are the fields of Zoan? Others, at the entrance into the country, of which it was a portion. In fhort, it has been placed in Egypt; out of Egypt; upon the Red-fea; and upon the borders of Canaan; juft as peoples fancies have directed them. Thefe, and many more, have

been

been the opinions of writers upon this fubject; who, being guided merely by caprice, have advanced notions not only unfupported by any evidence, but often contradictory to the best accounts in history, and to the very authorities that they appeal to. The greatest part of what these authors advance consists of a dry investigation, which is carried on by a train of unwarrantable suppositions, not at all edifying or fatisfa&tory, though enforced with a great deal of learning. In inquiries after mathematical truths, the process is very different. We advance upon fome fure grounds, proceeding from one truth to another, till we arrive at the knowledge required. And we have been taught the same way of reasoning in the researches that we make in nature. Some data are first stated; fome determined and undeniable principles laid down, which are examined and compared: and then, by fair inferences and neceffary deductions we arrive at the truth. Hence have arisen those great improvements, that for this last century have been made in every branch of philosophy: much to the honour of our ifland; where this method of investigation was first recommended and introduced, and has been continually profecuted with the greatest diligence and fuccess; to the discouragement of all hypothesis and unwarrantable conjecture.

It is true, that in historical difquifitions we cannot expect mathematical certainty; much lefs can we obtain experimental knowledge: the nature of the evidence will not admit of fuch a proof. Yet there are not wanting proper data to proceed upon; matters of fact well stated, that are illustrated by other contingencies, especially such as have been never controverted. There is oftentimes, in respect to an historical tranfaction, fuch a connection and correspondence with other events; fo marvellous a coincidence of collateral circumstances, as produces an internal proof superior to the testimony of the writer, through whofe hands we receive the

account.

account. So that we yield our affent, not merely on the credibility of the narrator: but from being certified in our belief, by an aggregate of circumftances, credible of themselves fingly; but of infinite force and influence, when they are brought collectively to a point, and operate together. From hence many truths may be deduced; fuch as we may fairly affent to; and of which we may be morally certain. And the evidence refulting in this cafe is as home and fatisfactory, as any that is founded on mathematical knowledge; and the affent we yield to it is as determined and full. But it may be said, that, in very remote inquiries we cannot always obtain this fatisfactory light: and, though no one can well hesitate to pronounce that there was once fuch a country as Chaldæa or Egypt: yet there are many circumstances relating to the origin and chronology of those kingdoms; many particulars that regard the history and situation of their cities, of which we cannot be fo accurately informed. All this is true: and, where we cannot obtain the light we wish for, we must rest contented with what can be procured: and if there really be none, we should take care not to make use of a false light to bewilder ourselves, and to mislead others. This caution cannot be too religiously observed: that we do not impose upon our own judgment; and fancy that we fee light, when there is none; and then endeavour to captivate the ignorant and unwary by illufions of our own raifing. In fhort, let us not go merely on furmise; but have fome grounds, whereon to found our conjectures. Let us not proceed blindly in a track, we are unacquainted with; and then fupport our reveries with wicked wit and illicit learning. How often do writers obtrude upon their readers a bare poffibility for a probability, and make inferences in confequence of it? arguing from the filence of authors; from terms relative and comparative; from a supposed convenience and expediency, which they frame in the luxuriancy of their fancy, but which no where

or any

elfe is to be found. How often do they pitch upon a circumstance, the leaft to be depended on, to determine all the reft? where the first position is as doubtful as the second, which are inferred from it: fo that every step they take, they recede farther and farther from the truth. And, during the whole course of their inquiries, they are too apt to magnify and enhance on one hand, and to soften and extenuate on the other; according as the evidence fuits, or is unfavourable to their purpose. Nor is this to be observed among people of low endowments only, and of a moderate degree of literature: many writers of exquifite talents and an ample share of learning, are misled by the like prejudices: by which means much embarrasment and perplexity has enfued; and an obscurity been cast on fome interesting parts of history. This has been in great measure owing to their not having originally fet out upon fomething well known and affured: by neglecting which they have misapplied much good learning, and given a sanction to a multiplicity of errors. For the bane of truth is ill-grounded conjecture; and the more ingeniously it is fupported, the greater is the evil. These errors are particularly fatal in geographical inquiries; and generally very complicated. For every city and district being in the vicinity of fome other, if one is, through the whim and capriciousness of a writer, misplaced; all that have a connection with it must suffer a change in their situation; in order to keep up that relation and correspondence, which must neceffarily fubfift between them. As I would not have expreffed myself with so much severity, if I had not good reason for what I alledge; I will, with the reader's leave, lay before him fome instances of the unwarrantable affumptions that writers have made bold with, and a complication of mistakes in confequence of them.

As I purpose to make fome inquiries into the ancient hiftory of Egypt; I will begin with this question, Where was

the

the land of Gofben? The ingenious Lakemacher, in order to investigate this point, looks out first for the place of residence of Pharaoh. This he prefumes was Zoan; and Zoan, he says, was Tanis. He accordingly places it on the Pelufiac branch of the Nile, towards the bottom: and as Gofben is fuppofed to be near the refidence of Pharaoh, it is placed to the east both of Tanis and the river, in Arabia, in a spot oppofite to them. This allotment of Goshen neceffarily determines the fituation of many other places, that must be made to agree with it. For not only Ramefes and Pithom, but the nome of Bubaftus, with its city and appendages; and likewise that of Heliopolis must accord with this fituation of Gofben: so that, if there be an error in the first principle, there will be found a fad feries of mistakes, before we come to a conclufion. chief points that he proceeds upon are these- " that Goshen "was in the way to Egypt, at the entrance of it, as people came "from Canaan: that it was near to Tanis, and was a place of

The

pastures: and lastly, that the spot he attributes to Goshen "had this excellency; and was particularly adapted to flocks "and herds." I fhall not enter into a detail of all his false reafoning; nor point out the paffages in ancient authors, that he

has

Jo. Gothofr. Lakemacheri Gr. et Orient. Ling. Prof. Ord. Obfervationes Philologice 3. Vol. Helmftadii. 1730. See Vol. 2d. p. 297. and the map at page 1. De fitu Gofenitidis. p. 314. Ad eum verò indagandum ipfæ nobis Sacra litera adminicula nonnulla fubminiftrant. Sunt autem hæc iria; I. Gofenitis in eâ Ægypti parte fuit, quam qui ex Canaane advenirent primam intrabant. II. Vicina fuit Tani, fedi regiæ. III. Terra fuit pafcuofa, pecoribufque alendis cum primis idonea - Comperiemus utique fitam fuiffe Gofenitidem in Egypti anterioribus, Canaanem inter fedemque regiam, ubi nomos erat Bubafticus et Arabicus, fimul cum parte quadam Sethroitæ: præfertim cum addatur loco pofteriori Jofephum curru junto obviam proceffiffe parenti in Gofenitidem.-Nam W,

in linguâ Arabicâ, cui haud dubiè cognata fuit Egyptiaca, loricam Jonat et partem anteriorem, veftis quidem fpeciatim, fed et generatim cujufcunque rei. He places Tanis upon the river of Pelufium: and to the east of it the Arabian nome, the nome of Bubaftus, and part of the Setkreitic, between that river and Canaan. Here was the land of Goßen fituated according to him, in Arabia beyond the limits of Deita.