2. The Portuguese, Ludolf, and Le Grand: The Nile Myth is Shattered:
By Dr. Richard Pankhurst:-
We saw last week that many Ethiopian and foreigners of yesteryear
thought that the rulers of Ethiopia could divert the course of the Nile.
Now read on:
Waning Belief in the Practicability of Nile Diversion
The arrival in Ethiopia of the Portuguese diplomatic mission, in
1520, and the publication, in 1540, of Alvares’s report on it,
represented an important
European belief in Ethiopia’s supposed ability to divert the river
nevertheless died slowly. It was voiced by two notable early seventeenth
century travellers to the East. William Lithgow, a Scotsman, claimed,
in 1616, that the Turkish sultan paid the ruler of Ethiopia an annual
tax of 50,000
gold coins, “lest he impede and withdraw the course of
Nylus, and so bring Aegypt to desolation”. A decade or so later, a
Spaniard, Antonio of Castelon, likewise reiterated that the Ethiopian
ruler had control over the Nile, for which reason his subjects were
exempt from taxation in Turkish territory.
The Jesuit “Discovery” of the Source of the Nile
The coming to Ethiopia of the Jesuits, and their “discovery” of the
source of the Nile, in April 1618, was of major importance. It removed
much of the mystery still surrounding both the Nile, and the land in
which it flowed. This made the difficulty of diverting the river
increasingly apparent. The new, post-medieval, view was stated
succinctly by a leading Jesuit writer, Baltazar Tellez. He declared,
emphatically, that the Nile, with its immense mass of water, could not
be re-directed over the vast area suggested, particularly as it was the
site of steep and rugged mountains.
Hiob Ludolf
Later in the century, the German scholar Ludolf was greatly intrigued
with the question “whether it be in the power of the Abyssine Kings to
divert the Course of the Nile, that it should not overflow Egypt?”. He
discussed the matter with his Ethiopian friend and informant, Abba
Gorgoreyos. Asked if he knew the story of Patriarch Michael of
Alexandria reportedly dispatched to Ethiopia over half a millennium
earlier, Gorgoreyos replied in the negative. He stated, however, that he
had “heard from persons of great Credit” that “not far from the
Cataracts of the Nile, all the Land toward the East” was “level”; and
that, but for a single mountain, the river would “rather flow that way,
than into Egypt”.
Gorgoreyos believed that if this mountain were “digg’ed through, a
thing to be done with pains and difficulty”, the river’s course might be
“turn’d and carry’d into the Red-Sea”. This, he thought, was “well
known” to both the Turks and the Portuguese, and that it was for that
reason that the Ethiopian Emperors had obtained “advantageous Conditions
from the Saracens”. Gorgoreyos added that it was said that an
Ethiopian emperor had once had “an intention” to divert the Nile,
“and had commanded his Subjects to undertake the Work”, but had been
“prevail’d upon to desist at the entreaty of the Egyptian Christians”.
Despite his admiration for Gorgoreyos, Ludolf accepted the latter’s
views on the Nile only reservedly. Doubtless influenced by the Jesuits,
he doubted the country’s ability to divert the river. He admitted that
the question had “much perplex’d him”, but was inclined to believe that
the task of raising “a Mole or Dam of Stones” required “so much toyl and
labour” that it was in “no way” agreeable to “the nature of the
Abessins”. He felt moreover that it was “unlikely that so vast a River,
so long accustom’d to a declining and headlong Course”, could be
diverted. He argued that, if the Ethiopian monarch really controlled the
Nile, he would “have had all Egypt at his Devotion”, for the Turks
would “deny him nothing” Moreover, if the project had been practicable,
he wondered why the Jesuits had not persuaded the Ethiopians to make use
of “that Power which Nature had put into their hands”, and why they had
not used “Threats rather than Intreaties and Bribes” to obtain the
facilities they enjoyed at the Red Sea ports by the favor of their
Turkish governor.
“Near the Cataracts”
Despite these reservations, the German scholar felt that the Nile
diversion might be possible, not from the Ethiopian heartland, which lay
“many Leagues distant from the Sea”, but rather, as Gorgoreyos had
suggested, from territory “near the Cataracts”, i.e. towards Sudan. Such
action, he declared, was, however, no longer politically possible. The
Ethiopian monarch no longer ruled the areas whence the river could be
re-directed. Ludolf therefore concluded that what might have been done
in the past was no longer possible. It was not that “the nature of the
place” obstructed the river’s diversion but that the Emperor lacked “the
Power” to carry it out, or had “no inclination” to do so. Were it not
for that, Ludolf could not think it either “absurd” or “improbable” that
the Ethiopian rivers might be conveyed through the sandy lowlands to
the north, and thus produce a “vast diminution of the Egyptian Stream”.
To do so, it would, however, be necessary to employ “skilful Artists”,
to survey the area, and establish the places “most proper to carry off
the Water”.
Ludolf was the last serious student of Ethiopia, prior to the modern era, to take the Nile diversion seriously.
The Abbe Joachim Le Grand
By the early eighteenth century the idea that the Ethiopians could
divert the Nile was largely rejected in Europe. This is apparent in the
writings of the French cleric Abbe Joachim Le Grand. Writing in 1726, he
declared that Abyssinia was “most full of mountains”, some so high that
the Alps were “mere hills in comparison”, while the Nile lay over a
hundred leagues from the Red Sea. After reviewing all available
historical data, he declared: “We do not pretend that a canal cannot be
dug from the Nile to the Red-Sea, but the Abyssinians cannot do it”.
Emperor Takla Haymanot, and James BruceBelief in the possibility of
diverting the Nile nevertheless lingered on in Ethiopia. Early in the
eighteenth century Emperor Takla Haymanot (1706-1708), infuriated that a
French ambassador, Lenoir du Roule, and Murad, an Armenian trader, had
been detained by the Muslim rulers of Sennar, wrote a strong protest to
the Pasha of Cairo. In it he declared that the detention violated “the
law of nations”, and continued:
“We could very soon repay you in kind if we were inclined to revenge
the insult you have offered to the man Murad on our part; the Nile would
be sufficient to punish you, since God hath put in our power his
foundation, his outlet, and his increase, and that we can dispose of the
same to do you harm”.
The Egyptian pasha was probably not impressed, for the belief that
the Ethiopians could divert the Nile had by then evaporated. Bruce was
emphatic about this. Writing a little over half a century later, he
declares that “no sensible man in Abyssinia” believed that the diversion
of the Nile was possible, “and few that it had ever been attempted”
Such was the traveller’s final judgement, and that of his generation.
Conclusion
The medieval belief that the rulers of Ethiopia could divert the
waters of the Nile, and thereby ruin Egypt, exercised a major, and long
enduring, influence over Ethiopians, Egyptians, and Europeans, for half a
millennium. Threats were made, fears expressed, prayers uttered, hopes
voiced, and travellers’ tales published. The myth that the Nile had, or
could, be re-directed by the misnamed-named Prester John, became a
feature of Ethio-Egyptian statecraft, a question of direct relevance to
the Coptic Church, an item on the agenda of Christian European
diplomacy, and even, far away, a subject of Italian creative literature.
There is, however, little evidence that the Ethiopians ever made
plans for the diversion of the Nile, let alone that they executed them.
Variations in the annual flow of water reaching Egypt were the result of
erratic rainfall in the Ethiopian highlands rather than of action on
part of their rulers. One may even doubt whether changing the course of
the Nile, however much desired, or feared, ever lay within the
technological possibilities of the time.
Source: http://www.linkethiopia.org
No comments:
Post a Comment