of the Elanite gulf, and this position is called Berenice by Ptolemy. The Arabic name of Meena Zuhub, signifying the port of of gold, had reference to the riches there debarked on the return from Ophir. This place is now called Calaat el Accaba, Castle of the descent, according to D'Anville, while the Elanite gulf is named Bahr el Accaba, the Sea of the descent. The point Ras Mohammed, which separates this gulf from the Heroum near Suez, was called Posidium from the Greek Пoσed☎v, Neptune, a name common to many promontories. Ezion-geber, it is clear from the Chronicles,' and Eloth, were in Idumæa, or the land of Edom, which David had conquered, as we learn from the second book of Samuel. The ships of Solomon and Hiram sailed from Ezion-geber for Ophir and Tharsis, and returned together.3 The ships from Tyre came from the Mediterranean into the Red Sea piece-meal, transported in that state on the backs of camels, and at their journey's end were put together, and re-constructed for their voyage to Ophir, We learn from Agatharchides in Photius, Heliodorus's Ethiopics, book the fourth, that the Tyrians trafficked on the Red Sea; and from Herodotus book iv. c. 42, and Major Rennell's Geography of Herodotus, that the Hebrews were not the only people to whom they were of use, since the Egyptians also were indebted to them for service and assistance in navigation. The mode of transporting vessels on men's shoulders was practised by the Argonauts, as we read in the fourth book of Apollonius Rhodius, vv. 1375, 1386, for twelve days and nights successively; also by Cleopatra after the battle of Actium from the Mediterranean to the Arabian gulf; and by the Turks from the Mediterranean on the backs of camels over land into the Red Sea. But it is highly probable that the kings of Egypt before this period had made a canal from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, or Arabian gulf, a thing of no impossibility to a people that had raised the Pyramids. See Strabo, p. 38. and 804. of Sesostris, and Major Rennell's Geography of Herodotus, p. 452. If Sesostris dug the first canal, it was too late for Solomon and Hiram, as Susac.or Sesostris lived, according to Josephus' Antiquities Vol. 1. Edit. Hudson, in the time of Rehoboam the son of Solomon, and laid Jerusalem and its temple waste. 12 Chron. viii. 17. 2 2 Sam. viii. 14. 3 1 Kings x. 11, 12. I Enough has been said to refute the notion of Grotius and Vatablus, who thought that Hiram brought the vessels which he sent to Solomon from the obscure islands of Tyr and Aradus2 in the Red Sea, which I have looked for in vain in Niebuhr, since they were Tyrus and Aradus two small islands in the Persian Gulf.3 2dly. It should appear that Ophir was a country of Eastern Africa, particularly Sofala, and Tharsis a country of Western Africa, and of Spain particularly, some place not far from the mouth of the river Bætis. It is not to be supposed with Ptolemy, that Africa is confined to Prasum or the Mosambic, as the ancients pushed their navigations much farther; and all the Eastern part of Africa may be called Ophir, from Gardefan, the most easterly point of Africa, to the southern extremity of Zanguebar, between 3 North and 9 South latitude. For the same reason Ophir may be named Sofala, which is in the one-and-twentieth degree of South latitude, where much more commerce has been carried on thản elsewhere. From the quantity of gold that has been found in the Eastern part of Africa, particularly at Sofala, it may fairly be conjectured that from hence came Hiram's and Solomon's treasure in that metal. The position of Ophir and Sofala was near the shore, such as suited well with sailors whose voyage was a coasting voyage. They could easily arrive thither from Ezion-geber almost without losing sight of land. The distance of the places was not great, the coast was even without gulfs or straits, and every year brought gold from Ophir; but three years were necessary to go and come from Tharsis. Ophir indeed has been translated in some places by Africa; but if it be closely examined, it will appear in both the Chaldee interpreter, and Origen on Job, that it is Tharsis, and not Ophir, which the Chaldee interpreter Jonathan has rendered Africa, and that the version of Origen is equally objectionable. The opinion, however, of these ancient interpreters is in favor of an interpretation that the voyage was on the coast of Africa. Josephus, Theodoret, and St. Jerome, in their Antiquities, comments, and interpretations of the Old and New Testament, have placed Ophir in India, in the golden Chersonese; but in that case the voyage would have been longer, 1 Kings ix. 27. Critici Sacri. 2 Strabo, lib. 16. and more clogged with insurmountable difficulties; and it has been well observed by Ortelius, and Marsham, that the country was not called golden because it produced that metal in abundance, but because gold was brought thither for the purchase of its merchandise. Others have placed Ophir in Peru, or St. Domingo; but in this they have shown their ignorance of ancient navigation, which, unassisted by the compass, and rather than be exposed to the variable winds of an open sea, always hugged the shore. The Ægean and the Ionian might indeed be passed, by consulting the stars; but the ancients dared not trust themselves to the Ocean, or attempt to double the Capes of the old and new world, by the aid of the Greater or Lesser Bear, that could only be of use in an unclouded sky. From Ophir we must pass on to Tharsis. There were two voyages performed by the fleets of Hiram and Solomon, one from the Red Sea to Ophir, and to the coast of Guinea from the Mediterranean. The name of Spain was known under that of Tarteseus, or Tharsis, by Eusebius in his Chronicle, by Goropius, Grotius, and Bochart. All the merchandise brought back to Solomon was furnished by Africa and Tharsis. Tharsis' is said in Ezekiel to have been abundant in metals, but there were none at Carthage but what were brought thither from other places in Africa. The voyage then from Ezion-geber to Ophir, Uphaz, and Parvajim, which in fact were one and the same country, was the first voyage. Ophir means abundance, from the root in Hebrew pareh, to be fruitful, or productive. Uphaz, from ai phaz, an Island auriferous, or abounding in gold. Parvajim in the dual, alike from pareh, the name of a country with similar products. Thus the precious stone Topaz gets its name from an Island in Arabia, of the name that produces it.3 We come now, thirdly, to the nature of the commerce for which the voyages were undertaken. It appears from the tenth of the first of Kings, verse 22, that the products of the navy of Tharsis, or that went to Tharsis, and returned in three years, brought other things than gold, and sailed from a port in the Mediterranean. Jeremiah tells us that gold was brought from Uphaz, and silver in plates from Tharsis, argentum bracteatum, such as was used for statues. From Tharsis also came apes, and Ezekiel xxvii. 12. 2 Jer. x. 5.-Dan. x. 5. 3 Pliny, lib. 6. c. 59. et Stephanus. peacocks; the Hebrew word for peacocks, tukkiim, which originally were introduced from India into Persia, and gave, it is probable, name to the region and inhabitants of Taoca in the Persian Gulf, Taocene regio, and Tárxos or Taóxos, in Dionysius Periegetes, v. 1069. Strabo, in his fifteenth book, speaks of the king's palace at Oca, or, as Ptolemy has it more correctly, Taśxn. From hence in Greece the peacock was called Tas, and carried in great numbers to Samos, and sold in the Mediterranean markets, as a great rarity, to all collectors of curiosities. The voyage then to Ophir produced gold, and was from the Red Sea; the voyage to the coast of Guinea, which brought home peacocks, was from the Mediterranean. It appears therefore that two distinct expeditions by sea were performed by the fleets of Solomon and Hiram. See 1 Kings, c. ix. v. 26.—x. 22. See also Josephus lib. viii. c. 7. Gold indeed made a part of the products of each voyage, and the apes were brought from the coast of Guinea, but the peacocks from the Mediterranean, because the country that produced the one did not afford the other. S. WESTON. ANSWER To PROFESSOR LEE'S Observations inserted in the 46th Number of the Classical Journal, p. 371, on the Pyramidical Inscription brought to England by MR. BELZONI. By J. GREY JACKSON. IN these observations the Professor ludicrously denominates me a profound critic! It has been justly observed, that there is no argument so potent to the cursory reader as ridicule, and the Professor has labored in this paper to substantiate this opinion. But if we divest his arguments from the dust of the schools, we shall perceive that little remains to support his assertions, but his own ipse dixit. The Professor does not seem inclined to admit the truth, that living languages, such as the Arabic, cannot be sufficiently acquired but by a residence in the countries where they are vernacular, or by colloquial intercourse; but I think no impartial critic will deny this incontrovertible fact! The great Orientalist, Sir William Jones, would not believe this till he went to India, and there found, that with all his profound knowledge of the Oriental languages, he was unintelligible to the natives! The celebrated Doctor Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester, one of the most accomplished writers of his age, and perhaps the best epistolary writer in our language, was such a profound critic in the French language, that the literary men of that nation set a high value on his criticisms, yet he never could hold colloquial intercourse in French. Mr. Lee says, Classical Journal, p. 372, "Supposing such errors to exist in masterly translations of Arabic works, it is not in the power of Mr. Jackson to point them out :" this, to use the Professor's own words, is a tolerably modest conclusion. But 1 deny the assertion, that it is not in my power to point them out; I am prepared to give better proof that I can point them out, than that of denying the fact, as Mr. Lee does. This erudite gentleman then adds, "that I have committed many blunders, of which he is ready to give proof." I hope this PROFOUND CRITIC does not mean one of these proofs to be, his learned dissertation on the word delk or dellik; which, I shall presently demonstrate, discovers his own imperfect acquaintance with Arabic, and that he is himself the Tiro that he would represent me to be. 1 The Professor accuses me of presumption, by assuming that I wished to insinuate that my translation was the true one. The Oriental professors in this country, on the continent, and elsewhere, will form their opinions on this subject; in the mean time I shall have no difficulty, if the point be disputed, to prove, if any further proof be necessary, that the Professor had no authority whatever for introducing his interpolation and innovation into this inscription. Is it to be supposed that the king of Egypt would employ an ignorant uneducated man, incapable of writing his own language, to record an event which the King was interested in transmitting to a remote posterity? Or, is it probable that his Majesty (George IV.), or the British nation, will suffer an illiterate stonecutter, incapable of writing the English language, to inscribe on the contemplated monument the commemoration of his august father, and the father of his people, so as to give future remote nations an opportunity of correcting the language of the inscription? If this can be admitted by the rational and unprejudiced part of mankind, then I will admit that the learned Professor was authorised in making his new arrangement of the words of this inscription! Mr. Lee agrees with Mr. Salemé, and says, that the natives of |