Babylon, or Cairo, as it is now called, is fixed by the Calish or Amnis Trajanus passing through it. Ptolemy [1] 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.
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, ma-king
- ↑ Ptol. Geograph. lib. iv. cap. 5.
