SUMMARY.
That geographical investigation is not inconsistent with philosophy.—That
Homer gives proof of it throughout his poems.—That they who first wrote
on the science have omitted much, or given disjointed, defective, false, or
inconsistent accounts.—Proofs and demonstrations of the correctness of
this statement, with general heads containing a summary description of the
disposition of the whole habitable earth.—Credit to be attached to the
probabilities and evident proofs that in many regions the land and sea have
been shifted, and exchanged places with each other.
1.1If the scientific investigation of any subject be the proper
avocation of the philosopher, Geography, the science of which
we propose to treat, is certainly entitled to a high place; and
this is evident from many considerations. They who first
ventured to handle the matter were distinguished men,
Homer, Anaximander the Milesian, and Hecatæus, (his fellow-citizen
according to Eratosthenes,) Democritus, Eudoxus,
Dicæarchus, Ephorus, with many others, and after these
Eratosthenes, Polybius, and Posidonius, all of them philosophers.
Nor is the great learning, through which alone this subject
can be approached, possessed by any but a person acquainted
with both human and divine things,2 and these attainments
constitute what is called philosophy. In addition to its vast
importance in regard to social life, and the art of government,
Geography unfolds to us the celestial phenomena, acquaints us
with the occupants of the land and ocean, and the vegetation,
fruits, and peculiarities of the various quarters of the earth,
a knowledge of which marks him who cultivates it as a man
earnest in the great problem of life and happiness.
2. Admitting this, let us examine more in detail the points
we have advanced.
And first, [we maintain,] that both we and our predecessors,
amongst whom is Hipparchus, do justly regard Homer as the
founder of geographical science, for he not only excelled all,
ancient as well as modern, in the sublimity of his poetry, but
also in his experience of social life. Thus it was that he not
only exerted himself to become familiar with as many historic
facts as possible, and transmit them to posterity, but also
with the various regions of the inhabited land and sea, some
intimately, others in a more general manner. For otherwise
he would not have reached the utmost limits of the earth, traversing
it in his imagination.
3. First, he stated that the earth was entirely encompassed
by the ocean, as in truth it is; afterwards he described the
countries, specifying some by name, others more generally by
various indications, explicitly defining Libya,3 Ethiopia, the
Sidonians, and the Erembi (by which latter are probably intended
the Troglodyte Arabians); and alluding to those farther
east and west as the lands washed by the ocean, for in
ocean he believed both the sun and constellations to rise and
set.
“Now from the gently-swelling flood profound
The sun arising, with his earliest rays,
In his ascent to heaven smote on the fields.”
4
“And now the radiant sun in ocean sank,
Dragging night after him o’er all the earth.”
5
The stars also he describes as bathed in the ocean.6
4. He portrays the happiness of the people of the West, and
the salubrity of their climate, having no doubt heard of the
abundance of Iberia,7 which had attracted the arms of Hercules,8
afterwards of the Phœnicians, who acquired there an
extended rule, and finally of the Romans. There the airs of
Zephyr breathe, there the poet feigned the fields of Elysium,
when he tells us Menelaus was sent thither by the gods:—
“Thee the gods
Have destined to the blest Elysian isles,
Earth’s utmost boundaries. Rhadamanthus there
For ever reigns, and there the human kind
Enjoy the easiest life; no snow is there,
No biting winter, and no drenching shower,
But Zephyr always gently from the sea
Breathes on them, to refresh the happy race.”
9
5. The Isles of the Blest10 are on the extreme west of
Maurusia,11 near where its shore runs parallel to the opposite
coast of Spain; and it is clear he considered these regions also
Blest, from their contiguity to the Islands.
6. He tells us also, that the Ethiopians are far removed, and
bounded by the ocean: far removed,—
“The Ethiopians, utmost of mankind,
These eastward situate, those toward the west.”
12
Nor was he mistaken in calling them separated into two
divisions, as we shall presently show: and next to the ocean,—
“For to the banks of the Oceanus,
Where Ethiopia holds a feast to Jove,
He journey’d yesterday.”
13
Speaking of the Bear, he implies that the most northern part
of the earth is bounded by the ocean:
“Only star of those denied
To slake his beams in Ocean’s briny baths.”
14
Now, by the “Bear” and the “Wain,” he means the Arctic
Circle; otherwise he would never have said, “It alone is deprived
of the baths of the ocean,” when such an infinity of
stars is to be seen continually revolving in that part of the
hemisphere. Let no one any longer blame his ignorance for
being merely acquainted with one Bear, when there are two.
It is probable that the second was not considered a constellation
until, on the Phœnicians specially designating it, and employing
it in navigation, it became known as one to the Greeks.15
Such is the case with the Hair of Berenice, and Canopus,
whose names are but of yesterday; and, as Aratus remarks,
there are numbers which have not yet received any designation.
Crates, therefore, is mistaken when, endeavouring to
amend what is correct, he reads the verse thus:
Οἶος δ’ ἄμμορός ἐστι λοετρῶν,
replacing οἴη by οἶος, with a view to make the adjective agree
with the Arctic Circle, which is masculine; instead of the
Arctic Constellation, which is feminine. The expression of
Heraclitus is far more preferable and Homeric, who thus figuratively
describes the Arctic Circle as the Bear,—“The Bear
is the limit of the dawn and of the evening, and from the region
of the Bear we have fine weather.” Now it is not the
constellation of the Bear, but the Arctic Circle, which is the
limit of the rising and the setting stars.
By the Bear, then, which he elsewhere calls the Wain,
and describes as pursuing Orion, Homer means us to understand
the Arctic Circle; and by the ocean, that horizon into
which, and out of which, the stars rise and set. When he
says that the Bear turns round and is deprived of the ocean,
he was aware that the Arctic Circle [always] extended to the
sign opposite the most northern point of the horizon. Adapting
the words of the poet to this view, by that part of the
earth nearest to the ocean we must understand the horizon, and
by the Arctic Circle that which extends to the signs which
seem to our senses to touch in succession the most northern
point of the horizon. Thus, according to him, this portion of
the earth is washed by the ocean. With the nations of the
North he was well acquainted, although he does not mention
them by name, and indeed at the present day there is no regular
title by which they are all distinguished. He informs
us of their mode of life, describing them as “wanderers,”
“noble milkers of mares,” “living on cheese,” and “without
wealth.”16
7. In the following speech of Juno, he states that the ocean
surrounds the earth.
“For to the green earth’s utmost bounds I go,
To visit there the parent of the gods,
Does he not here assert that ocean bounds all its extremities,
and does it not surround these extremities? Again, in the
Hoplopœia,18 he places the ocean in a circle round the border
of Achilles’ shield. Another proof of the extent of his knowledge,
is his acquaintance with the ebb and flow of the sea,
calling it “the ebbing ocean.”19 Again,
“Each day she thrice disgorges, and again
Thrice drinks, insatiate, the deluge down.”
20
The assertion of thrice, instead of twice, is either an error of
the author, or a blunder of the scribe, but the phenomenon is
the same, and the expression soft-flowing,21 has reference to
the flood-tide, which has a gentle swell, and does not flow with
a full rush. Posidonius believes that where Homer describes
the rocks as at one time covered with the waves, and at another
left bare, and when he compares the ocean to a river, he
alludes to the flow of the ocean. The first supposition is correct,
but for the second there is no ground; inasmuch as there
can be no comparison between the flow, much less the ebb of
the sea, and the current of a river. There is more probability
in the explanation of Crates, that Homer describes the whole
ocean as deep-flowing, ebbing, and also calls it a river, and
that he also describes a part of the ocean as a river, and the
flow of a river; and that he is speaking of a part, and not the
whole, when he thus writes:—
“When down the smooth Oceanus impell’d
By prosperous gales, my galley, once again,
Cleaving the billows of the spacious deep,
Had reach’d the Ææan isle.”
22
He does not, however, mean the whole, but the flow of the river
in the ocean, which forms but a part of the ocean. Crates
says, he speaks of an estuary or gulf, extending from the
winter tropic towards the south pole.23 Now any one quitting
this, might still be in the ocean; but for a person to leave
the whole and still to be in the whole, is an impossibility.
But Homer says, that leaving the flow of the river, the
ship entered on the waves of the sea, which is the same as the
ocean. If you take it otherwise you make him say, that departing
from the ocean he came to the ocean. But this requires
further discussion.
8. Perception and experience alike inform us, that the earth
we inhabit is an island: since wherever men have approached
the termination of the land, the sea, which we designate ocean,
has been met with: and reason assures us of the similarity of
those places which our senses have not been permitted to survey.
For in the east24 the land occupied by the Indians, and
in the west by the Iberians and Maurusians,25 is wholly encompassed
[by water], and so is the greater part on the south26
and north.27 And as to what remains as yet unexplored by
us, because navigators, sailing from opposite points, have not
hitherto fallen in with each other, it is not much, as any one
may see who will compare the distances between those places
with which we are already acquainted. Nor is it likely that
the Atlantic Ocean is divided into two seas by narrow
isthmuses so placed as to prevent circumnavigation: how
much more probable that it is confluent and uninterrupted!
Those who have returned from an attempt to circumnavigate
the earth, do not say they have been prevented from continuing
their voyage by any opposing continent, for the sea remained
perfectly open, but through want of resolution, and
the scarcity of provision. This theory too accords better with
the ebb and flow of the ocean, for the phenomenon, both in the
increase and diminution, is every where identical, or at all
events has but little difference, as if produced by the agitation
of one sea, and resulting from one cause.
9. We must not credit Hipparchus, who combats this opinion,
denying that the ocean is every where similarly affected; or that
even if it were, it would not follow that the Atlantic flowed in
a circle, and thus continually returned into itself. Seleucus,
the Babylonian, is his authority for this assertion. For a further
investigation of the ocean and its tides we refer to Posidonius
and Athenodorus, who have fully discussed this subject: we
will now only remark that this view agrees better with the uniformity
of the phenomenon; and that the greater the amount
of moisture surrounding the earth, the easier would the
heavenly bodies be supplied with vapours from thence.
10. Homer, besides the boundaries of the earth, which he
fully describes, was likewise well acquainted with the Mediterranean.
Starting from the Pillars,28 this sea is encompassed
by Libya, Egypt, and Phœnicia, then by the coasts
opposite Cyprus, the Solymi,29 Lycia, and Caria, and then by
the shore which stretches between Mycale30 and Troas, and
the adjacent islands, every one of which he mentions, as well
as those of the Propontis31 and the Euxine, as far as Colchis,
and the locality of Jason’s expedition. Furthermore, he was
acquainted with the Cimmerian Bosphorus,32 having known
the Cimmerians,33 and that not merely by name, but as being
familiar with themselves. About his time, or a little before,
they had ravaged the whole country, from the Bosphorus
to Ionia. Their climate he characterizes as dismal, in
the following lines:—
“With clouds and darkness veil’d, on whom the sun
Deigns not to look with his beam-darting eye,
*******
But sad night canopies the woeful race.”
34
He must also have been acquainted with the Ister,35 since he
speaks of the Mysians, a Thracian race, dwelling on the banks
of the Ister. He knew also the whole Thracian36 coast adjacent
thereto, as far as the Peneus,37 for he mentions individually
the Pæonians, Athos, the Axius,38 and the neighbouring
islands. From hence to Thesprotis39 is the Grecian
shore, with the whole of which he was acquainted. He was
besides familiar with the whole of Italy, and speaks of Temese40
and the Sicilians, as well as the whole of Spain41 and
its fertility, as we have said before. If he omits various intermediate
places this must be pardoned, for even the compiler
of a Geography overlooks numerous details. We must forgive
him too for intermingling fabulous narrative with his historical
and instructive work. This should not be complained
of; nevertheless, what Eratosthenes says is false, that the
poets aim at amusement, not instruction, since those who have
treated upon the subject most profoundly, regard poesy in
the light of a primitive philosophy. But we shall refute
Eratosthenes42 more at length, when we have occasion again
to speak of Homer.
11. What we have already advanced is sufficient to prove
that poet the father of geography. Those who followed in
his track are also well known as great men and true philosophers.
The two immediately succeeding Homer, according
to Eratosthenes, were Anaximander, the disciple and fellow-citizen
of Thales, and Hecatæus the Milcsian. Anaximander
was the first to publish a geographical chart. Hecatæus left
a work [on the same subject], which we can identify as his
by means of his other writings.
12. Many have testified to the amount of knowledge which
this subject requires, and Hipparchus, in his Strictures on
Eratosthenes, well observes, “that no one can become really
proficient in geography, either as a private individual or as a
professor, without an acquaintance with astronomy, and a
knowledge of eclipses. For instance, no one could tell whether
Alexandria in Egypt were north or south of Babylon,
nor yet the intervening distance, without observing the latitudes.43
Again, the only means we possess of becoming acquainted
with the longitudes of different places is afforded by
the eclipses of the sun and moon.” Such are the very words
of Hipparchus.
13. Every one who undertakes to give an accurate description
of a place, should be particular to add its astronomical
and geometrical relations, explaining carefully its extent, distance,
degrees of latitude, and “climate.”44 Even a builder
before constructing a house, or an architect before laying out
a city, would take these things into consideration; much
more should he who examines the whole earth: for such
things in a peculiar manner belong to him. In small distances
a little deviation north or south does not signify, but
when it is the whole circle of the earth, the north extends to
the furthest confines of Scythia,45 or Keltica,46 and the south to
the extremities of Ethiopia: there is a wide difference here.
The case is the same should we inhabit India or Spain, one
in the east, the other far west, and, as we are aware, the antipodes47
to each other.
14. The [motions] of the sun and stars, and the centripetal
force meet us on the very threshold of such subjects, and
compel us to the study of astronomy, and the observation of
such phenomena as each of us may notice; in which too, very
considerable differences appear, according to the various
points of observation. How could any one undertake to
write accurately and with propriety on the differences of the
various parts of the earth, who was ignorant of these matters?
and although, if the undertaking were of a popular character,
it might not be advisable to enter thoroughly into detail,
still we should endeavour to include every thing which could
be comprehended by the general reader.
15. He who has thus elevated his mind, will he be satisfied
with any thing less than the whole world? If in his anxiety
accurately to portray the inhabited earth, he has dared to
survey heaven, and make use thereof for purposes of instruction,
would it not seem childish were he to refrain from examining
the whole earth, of which the inhabited is but a part,
its size, its features, and its position in the universe; whether
other portions are inhabited besides those on which we dwell,
and if so, their amount? What is the extent of the regions
not peopled? what their peculiarities, and the cause of their
remaining as they are? Thus it appears that the knowledge
of geography is connected with meteorology48 and geometry,
that it unites the things of earth to the things of heaven, as
though they were nearly allied, and not separated.
“As far as heaven from earth.”
49
16. To the various subjects which it embraces let us add
natural history, or the history of the animals, plants, and
other different productions of the earth and sea, whether serviceable
or useless, and my original statement will, I think,
carry perfect conviction with it.
That he who should undertake this work would be a benefactor
to mankind, reason and the voice of antiquity agree.
The poets feign that they were the wisest heroes who travelled
and wandered most in foreign climes: and to be familiar
with many countries, and the disposition of the inhabitants,
is, according to them, of vast importance. Nestor prides himself
on having associated with the Lapithæ,50 to whom he went,
“having been invited thither from the Apian51 land afar.”
So does Menelaus:—
“Cyprus, Phœnicia, Sidon, and the shores
Of Egypt, roaming without hope I reach’d;
In distant Ethiopia thence arrived,
And Libya, where the lambs their foreheads show
With budding horns defended soon as yean’d.”
52
Adding as a peculiarity of the country,
“There thrice within the year the flocks produce.”
53
And of Egypt:—“Where the sustaining earth is most prolific.”54
And Thebes,
“the city with an hundred gates,
Whence twenty thousand chariots rush to war.”
55
Such information greatly enlarges our sphere of knowledge,
by informing us of the nature of the country, its botanical and
zoological peculiarities. To these should be added its marine
history; for we are in a certain sense amphibious, not exclusively
connected with the land, but with the sea as well.
Hercules, on account of his vast experience and observation,
was described as “skilled in mighty works.”56
All that we have previously stated is confirmed both by the
testimony of antiquity and by reason. One consideration
however appears to bear in a peculiar manner on the case in
point; viz. the importance of geography in a political view.
For the sea and the earth in which we dwell furnish theatres
for action; limited, for limited actions; vast, for grander
deeds; but that which contains them all, and is the scene of
the greatest undertakings, constitutes what we term the habitable
earth; and they are the greatest generals who, subduing
nations and kingdoms under one sceptre, and one political
administration, have acquired dominion over land and sea. It is
clear then, that geography is essential to all the transactions of
the statesman, informing us, as it does, of the position of the
continents, seas, and oceans of the whole habitable earth. Information
of especial interest to those who are concerned to
know the exact truth of such particulars, and whether the places
have been explored or not: for government will certainly be better
administered where the size and position of the country, its
own peculiarities, and those of the surrounding districts, are
understood. Forasmuch as there are many sovereigns who rule
in different regions, and some stretch their dominion over others’
territories, and undertake the government of different nations
and kingdoms, and thus enlarge the extent of their dominion,
it is not possible that either themselves, nor yet writers on
geography, should be equally acquainted with the whole, but
to both there is a great deal more or less known. Indeed,
were the whole earth under one government and one administration,
it is hardly possible that we should be informed of
every locality in an equal degree; for even then we should be
most acquainted with the places nearest us: and after all, it
is better that we should have a more perfect description of
these, since, on account of their proximity, there is greater
need for it. We see there is no reason to be surprised that
there should be one chorographer57 for the Indians, another for
the Ethiopians, and a third for the Greeks and Romans.
What use would it be to the Indians if a geographer should
thus describe Bœotia to them, in the words of Homer:—
“The dwellers on the rocks
Of Aulis follow’d, with the hardy clans
Of Hyria, Schœnus, Scolus.”
58
To us this is of value, while to be acquainted with the Indies
and their various territorial divisions would be useless, as it
could lead to no advantage, which is the only criterion of the
worth of such knowledge.
17. Even if we descend to the consideration of such trivial
matters as hunting, the case is still the same; for he will be
most successful in the chase who is acquainted with the size
and nature of the wood, and one familiar with the locality
will be the most competent to superintend an encampment,
an ambush, or a march. But it is in great undertakings that
the truth shines out in all its brilliancy, for here, while the
success resulting from knowledge is grand, the consequences
of ignorance are disastrous. The fleet of Agamemnon, for instance,
ravaging Mysia, as if it had been the Trojan territory,
was compelled to a shameful retreat. Likewise the Persians
and Libyans,59 supposing certain straits to be impassable, were
very near falling into great perils, and have left behind them
memorials of their ignorance; the former a monument to
Salganeus on the Euripus, near Chalcis, whom the Persians
slew, for, as they thought, falsely conducting their fleet from the
Gulf of Malea60 to the Euripus; and the latter to the memory
of Pelorus, who was executed on a like occasion. At the time
of the expedition of Xerxes, the coasts of Greece were covered
with wrecks, and the emigrations from Æolia and Ionia furnish
numerous instances of the same calamity. On the other
hand, matters have come to a prosperous termination, when
judiciously directed by a knowledge of the locality. Thus it
was at the pass of Thermopylæ that Ephialtes is reported to
have pointed out to the Persians a pathway over the mountains,
and so placed the band of Leonidas at their mercy, and
opened to the Barbarians a passage into Pylæ. But passing
over ancient occurrences, we think that the late expeditions
of the Romans against the Parthians furnish an excellent example,
where, as in those against the Germans and Kelts, the
Barbarians, taking advantage of their situation, [carried on the
war] in marshes, woods, and pathless deserts, deceiving the
ignorant enemy as to the position of different places, and concealing
the roads, and the means of obtaining food and
necessaries.
18. As we have said, this science has an especial reference
to the occupations and requirements of statesmen, with whom
also political and ethical philosophy is mainly concerned; and
here is an evidence. We distinguish the different kinds of
civil government by the office of their chief men, denominating
one government a monarchy, or kingdom, another an
aristocracy, a third a democracy; for so many we consider
are the forms of government, and we designate them by
these names, because from them they derive their primary
characteristic. For the laws which emanate from the sovereign,
from the aristocracy, and from the people all are different.
The law is in fact a type of the form of government.
It is on this account that some define right to be the interest
of the strongest. If, therefore, political philosophy
is advantageous to the ruler, and geography in the actual
government of the country, this latter seems to possess some
little superiority. This superiority is most observable in
real service.
19. But even the theoretical portion of geography is by no
means contemptible. On the one hand, it embraces the arts,
mathematics, and natural science; on the other, history and
fable. Not that this latter can have any distinct advantage:
for instance, if any one should relate to us the wanderings of
Ulysses, Menelaus, and Jason, he would not seem to have
added directly to our fund of practical knowledge thereby,
(which is the only thing men of the world are interested in,)
unless he should convey useful examples of what those wanderers
were compelled to suffer, and at the same time afford
matter of rational amusement to those who interest themselves
in the places which gave birth to such fables. Practical men
interest themselves in these pursuits, since they are at once
commendable, and afford them pleasure; but yet not to any
great extent. In this class, too, will be found those whose
main object in life is pleasure and respectability: but these
by no means constitute the majority of mankind, who naturally
prefer that which holds out some direct advantage. The
geographer should therefore chiefly devote himself to what is
practically important. He should follow the same rule in
regard to history and the mathematics, selecting always
that which is most useful, most intelligible, and most authentic.
20. Geometry and astronomy, as we before remarked, seem
absolutely indispensable in this science. This, in fact, is evident,
that without some such assistance, it would be impossible
to be accurately acquainted with the configuration of the
earth; its climata,61 dimensions, and the like information.
As the size of the earth has been demonstrated by other
writers, we shall here take for granted and receive as accurate
what they have advanced. We shall also assume that the
earth is spheroidal, that its surface is likewise spheroidal, and
above all, that bodies have a tendency towards its centre,
which latter point is clear to the perception of the most average
understanding. However we may show summarily that
the earth is spheroidal, from the consideration that all things
however distant tend to its centre, and that every body is attracted
towards its centre of gravity; this is more distinctly
proved from observations of the sea and sky, for here the
evidence of the senses, and common observation, is alone requisite.
The convexity of the sea is a further proof of this
to those who have sailed; for they cannot perceive lights at a
distance when placed at the same level as their eyes, but if
raised on high, they at once become perceptible to vision,
though at the same time further removed. So, when the eye
is raised, it sees what before was utterly imperceptible.
Homer speaks of this when he says,
Lifted up on the vast wave he quickly beheld afar.
62
Sailors, as they approach their destination, behold the shore
continually raising itself to their view; and objects which
had at first seemed low, begin to elevate themselves. Our
gnomons, also, are, among other things, evidence of the revolution
of the heavenly bodies; and common sense at once shows us,
that if the depth of the earth were infinite,63 such a revolution
could not take place.
Every information respecting the climata64 is contained in
the “Treatises on Positions.”65
21. Now there are some facts which we take to be established,
viz. those with which every politician and general
should be familiar. For on no account should they be so
uninformed as to the heavens and the position of the earth,66
that when they are in strange countries, where some of the
heavenly phenomena wear a different aspect to what they
have been accustomed, they should be in a consternation, and
exclaim,
“Neither west
Know we, nor east, where rises or where sets
The all-enlightening sun.”
67
Still, we do not expect that they should be such thorough
masters of the subject as to know what stars rise and set
together for the different quarters of the earth; those which
have the same meridian line, the elevation of the poles, the
signs which are in the zenith, with all the various phenomena
which differ as well in appearance as reality with the variations
of the horizon and arctic circle. With some of these
matters, unless as philosophical pursuits, they should not burden
themselves at all; others they must take for granted without
searching into their causes. This must be left to the care
of the philosopher; the statesman can have no leisure, or very
little, for such pursuits. Those who, through carelessness and
ignorance, are not familiar with the globe and the circles
traced upon it, some parallel to each other, some at right
angles to the former, others, again, in an oblique direction;
nor yet with the position of the tropics, equator, and zodiac,
(that circle through which the sun travels in his course, and
by which we reckon the changes of season and the winds,)
such persons we caution against the perusal of our work. For
if a man is neither properly acquainted with these things,
nor with the variations of the horizon and arctic circle, and
such similar elements of mathematics, how can he comprehend
the matters treated of here? So for one who does
not know a right line from a curve, nor yet a circle, nor a
plane or spherical surface, nor the seven stars in the firmament
composing the Great Bear, and such like, our work is
entirely useless, at least for the present. Unless he first acquires
such information, he is utterly incompetent to the study
of geography. *So those who have written the works entitled
“On Ports,” and “Voyages Around the World,” have
performed their task imperfectly, since they have omitted to
supply the requisite information from mathematics and astronomy.*68
22. The present undertaking is composed in a lucid style,
suitable alike to the statesman and the general reader, after
the fashion of my History.69 By a statesman we do not intend
an illiterate person, but one who has gone through the course
of a liberal and philosophical education. For a man who has
bestowed no attention on virtue or intelligence, nor what
constitutes them, must be incompetent either to blame or
praise, still less to decide what actions are worthy to be placed
on record.
23. Having already compiled our Historical Memoirs, which,
as we conceive, are a valuable addition both to political and
moral philosophy, we have now determined to follow it up with
the present work, which has been prepared on the same system
as the former, and for the same class of readers, but more
particularly for those who are in high stations of life. And
as our former production contains only the most striking
events in the lives of distinguished men, omitting trifling and
unimportant incidents; so here it will be proper to dismiss
small and doubtful particulars, and merely call attention
to great and remarkable transactions, such in fact as are useful,
memorable, and entertaining. In the colossal works of
the sculptor we do not descend into a minute examination of
particulars, but look principally for perfection in the general
ensemble. This is the only method of criticism applicable to
the present work. Its proportions, so to speak, are colossal; it
deals in the generalities and main outlines of things, except
now and then, when some minor detail can be selected, calculated
to be serviceable to the seeker after knowledge, or the
man of business.
We now think we have demonstrated that our present undertaking
is one that requires great care, and is well worthy
of a philosopher.
1. No one can [justly] blame us for having undertaken to
write on a subject already often treated of, unless it appears
that we have done nothing more than copy the works of former
writers. In our opinion, though they may have perfectly
treated some subjects, in others they have still left much to
be completed; and we shall be justified in our performance,
if we can add to their information even in a trifling degree.
At the present moment the conquests of the Romans and Parthians
have added much to our knowledge, which (as was well
observed by Eratosthenes) had been considerably increased by
the expedition of Alexander. This prince laid open to our
view the greater part of Asia, and the whole north of Europe
as far as the Danube. And the Romans [have discovered to us]
the entire west of Europe as far as the river Elbe, which divides
Germany, and the country beyond the Ister to the river
Dniester. The country beyond this to the Mæotis,70 and the
coasts extending along Colchis,71 was brought to light by Mithridates,
surnamed Eupator, and his generals. To the Parthians
we are indebted for a better acquaintance with Hyrcania,72 Bactriana,
73
and the land of the Scythians74 lying beyond, of which
before we knew but little. Thus we can add much information
not supplied by former writers, but this will best be seen when
we come to treat on the writers who have preceded us; and
this method we shall pursue, not so much in regard to the
primitive geographers, as to Eratosthenes and those subsequent
to him. As these writers far surpassed the generality in the
amount of their knowledge, so naturally it is more difficult to
detect their errors when such occur. If I seem to contradict
those most whom I take chiefly for my guides, I must claim
indulgence on the plea, that it was never intended to criticise
the whole body of geographers, the larger number of whom
are not worthy of consideration, but to give an opinion of
those only who are generally found correct. Still, while
many are beneath discussion, such men as Eratosthenes, Posidonius,
Hipparchus, Polybius, and others of their stamp,
deserve our highest consideration.
2. Let us first examine Eratosthenes, reviewing at the same
time what Hipparchus has advanced against him. Eratosthenes
is much too creditable an historian for us to believe
what Polemon endeavours to charge against him, that he had
not even seen Athens. At the same time he does not merit
that unbounded confidence which some seem to repose in him,
although, as he himself tells us, he passed much of his time
with first-rate [characters]. Never, says he, at one period,
and in one city, were there so many philosophers flourishing
together as in my time. In their number was Ariston and
Arcesilaus. This, however, it seems is not sufficient, but you
must also be able to choose who are the real guides whom it is
your interest to follow. He considers Arcesilaus and Ariston
to be the coryphæi of the philosophers who flourished in his
time, and is ceaseless in his eulogies of Apelles and Bion,
the latter of whom, says he, was the first to deck himself in
the flowers of philosophy, but concerning whom one is often
likewise tempted to exclaim, “How great is Bion in spite of
his rags!”75 It is in such instances as the following that the
mediocrity of his genius shows itself.
Although at Athens he became a disciple of Zeno76 of
Citium, he makes no mention of his followers; while those
who opposed that philosopher, and of whose sect not a trace
remains, he thinks fit to set down amongst the [great characters]
who flourished in his time. His real character appears
in his Treatise on Moral Philosophy,77 his Meditations, and
some similar productions. He seems to have held a middle
course between the man who devotes himself to philosophy,
and the man who cannot make up his mind to dedicate himself
to it: and to have studied the science merely as a relief
from his other pursuits, or as a pleasing and instructive recreation.
In his other writings he is just the same; but let
these things pass. We will now proceed as well as we can to
the task of rectifying his geography.
First, then, let us return to the point which we lately deferred.
3. Eratosthenes says that the poet directs his whole attention
to the amusement of the mind, and not at all to its instruction.
In opposition to his idea, the ancients define poesy
as a primitive philosophy, guiding our life from infancy, and
pleasantly regulating our morals, our tastes, and our actions.
The [Stoics] of our day affirm that the only wise man is the
poet. On this account the earliest lessons which the citizens
of Greece convey to their children are from the poets; certainly
not alone for the purpose of amusing their minds, but
for their instruction. Nay, even the professors of music, who
give lessons on the harp, lyre, and pipe, lay claim to our consideration
on the same account, since they say that [the accomplishments
which they teach] are calculated to form and
improve the character. It is not only among the Pythagoreans
that one hears this claim supported, for Aristoxenus is of that
opinion, and Homer too regarded the bards as amongst the
wisest of mankind.
Of this number was the guardian of Clytemnestra, “to
whom the son of Atreus, when he set out for Troy, gave
earnest charge to preserve his wife,”78 whom Ægisthus was
unable to seduce, until “leading the bard to a desert island,
he left him,”79 and then
“The queen he led, not willing less than he,
But apart from all such considerations, Eratosthenes contradicts
himself; for a little previously to the sentence which
we have quoted, at the commencement of his Essay on Geography,
he says, that “all the ancient poets took delight in
showing their knowledge of such matters. Homer inserted
into his poetry all that he knew about the Ethiopians, Egypt,
and Libya. Of all that related to Greece and the neighbouring
places he entered even too minutely into the details, describing
Thisbe as “abounding in doves,” Haliartus, “grassy,”
Anthedon, the “far distant,” Litæa, “situated on the sources
of the Cephissus,”81 and none of his epithets are without their
meaning. But in pursuing this method, what object has he
in view, to amuse [merely], or to instruct? The latter, doubtless.
Well, perhaps he has told the truth in these instances,
but in what was beyond his observation both he and the other
writers have indulged in all the marvels of fable. If such be
the case the statement should have been, that the poets relate
some things for mere amusement, others for instruction; but
he affirms that they do it altogether for amusement, without
any view to information; and by way of climax, inquires,
What can it add to Homer’s worth to be familiar with many
lands, and skilled in strategy, agriculture, rhetoric, and similar
information, which some persons seem desirous to make
him possessed of. To seek to invest him with all this knowledge
is most likely the effect of too great a zeal for his honour.
Hipparchus observes, that to assert he was acquainted with
every art and science, is like saying that an Attic eiresionè82
bears pears and apples.
As far as this goes, Eratosthenes, you are right enough;
not so, however, when you not only deny that Homer was
possessed of these vast acquirements, but represent poetry in
general as a tissue of old wives’ fables, where, to use your
own expression, every thing thought likely to amuse is
cooked up. I ask, is it of no value to the auditors83 of the
poets to be made acquainted with [the history of] different
countries, with strategy, agriculture, and rhetoric, and suchlike
things, which the lecture generally contains.
4. One thing is certain, that the poet has bestowed all these
gifts upon Ulysses, whom beyond any of his other [heroes]
he loves to adorn with every virtue. He says of him, that he
“Discover’d various cities, and the mind
And manners learn’d of men in lands remote.”
84
That he was
“Of a piercing wit and deeply wise.”
85
He is continually described as “the destroyer of cities,” and
as having vanquished Troy, by his counsels, his advice, and
his deceptive art. Diomede says of him,
“Let him attend me, and through fire itself
We shall return; for none is wise as he.”
86
He himself on his skill in husbandry, for at the harvest
[he says],
“I with my well-bent sickle in my hand,
Thou arm’d with one as keen.”
87
And also in tillage,
“Then shouldst thou see
How straight my furrow should be cut and true.”
88
And Homer was not singular in his opinion regarding
these matters, for all educated people appeal to him in favour
of the idea that such practical knowledge is one of the chief
means of acquiring understanding.
5. That eloquence is regarded as the wisdom of speech,
Ulysses manifests throughout the whole poem, both in the
Trial,89 the Petitions,90 and the Embassy.91 Of him it is said by
Antenor,
“But when he spake, forth from his breast did flow
A torrent swift as winter’s feather’d snow.”
92
Who can suppose that a poet capable of effectively introducing
into his scenes rhetoricians, generals, and various other
characters, each displaying some peculiar excellence, was nothing
more than a droll or juggler, capable only of cheating
or flattering his hearer, and not of instructing him.
Are we not all agreed that the chief merit of a poet consists
in his accurate representation of the affairs of life? Can
this be done by a mere driveller, unacquainted with the world?
The excellence of a poet is not to be measured by the same
standard as that of a mechanic or a blacksmith, where honour
and virtue have nothing to do with our estimate. But the
poet and the individual are connected, and he only can become
a good poet, who is in the first instance a worthy man.
6. To deny that our poet possesses the graces of oratory is
using us hardly indeed. What is so befitting an orator, what
so poetical as eloquence, and who so sweetly eloquent as Homer?
But, by heaven! you’ll say, there are other styles of
eloquence than those peculiar to poetry. Of course [I admit
this]; in poetry itself there is the tragic and the comic style;
in prose, the historic and the forensic. But is not language
a generality, of which poetry and prose are forms? Yes, language
is; but are not the rhetorical, the eloquent, and the
florid styles also? I answer, that flowery prose is nothing but
an imitation of poetry. Ornate poetry was the first to make
its appearance, and was well received. Afterwards it was
closely imitated by writers in the time of Cadmus, Pherecydes,
and Hecatæus. The metre was the only thing dispensed
with, every other poetic grace being carefully preserved.
As time advanced, one after another of its beauties was
discarded, till at last it came down from its glory into our
common prose. In the same way we may say that comedy
took its rise from tragedy, but descended from its lofty grandeur
into what we now call the common parlance of daily life.
And when [we find] the ancient writers making use of the
expression “to sing,” to designate eloquence of style, this
in itself is an evidence that poetry is the source and origin
of all ornamented and rhetorical language. Poetry in ancient
days was on every occasion accompanied by melody.
The song or ode was but a modulated speech, from whence the
words rhapsody, tragedy, comedy,93 are derived; and since
originally eloquence was the term made use of for the poetical
effusions which were always of the nature of a song, it soon
happened [that in speaking of poetry] some said, to sing, others,
to be eloquent; and as the one term was early misapplied to
prose compositions, the other also was soon applied in the
same way. Lastly, the very term prose, which is applied to
language not clothed in metre, seems to indicate, as it were,
its descent from an elevation or chariot to the ground.94
7. Homer accurately describes many distant countries, and
not only Greece and the neighbouring places, as Eratosthenes
asserts. His romance, too, is in better style than that of his successors.
He does not make up wondrous tales on every occasion,
but to instruct us the better often, and especially in the Odyssey,
adds to the circumstances which have come under his
actual observation, allegories, wise harangues, and enticing
narrations. Concerning which, Eratosthenes is much mistaken
when he says that both Homer and his commentators
are a pack of fools. But this subject demands a little more of
our attention.
8. To begin. The poets were by no means the first to
avail themselves of myths. States and lawgivers had taken
advantage of them long before, having observed the constitutional
bias of mankind. Man is eager after knowledge, and
the love of legend is but the prelude thereto. This is why
children begin to listen [to fables], and are acquainted with
them before any other kind of knowledge; the cause of this is
that the myth introduces them to a new train of ideas, relating
not to every-day occurrences, but something in addition to
these.
A charm hangs round whatever is new and hitherto unknown,
inspiring us with a desire to become acquainted with
it, but when the wonderful and the marvellous are likewise
present, our delight is increased until at last it becomes a
philtre of study. To children we are obliged to hold out such
enticements, in order that in riper years, when the mind is
powerful, and no longer needs such stimulants, it may be
prepared to enter on the study of actual realities.
Every illiterate and uninstructed man is yet a child, and
takes delight in fable. With the partially informed it is much
the same; reason is not all-powerful within him, and he still
possesses the tastes of a child. But the marvellous, which
is capable of exciting fear as well as pleasure, influences not
childhood only, but age as well. As we relate to children
pleasing tales to incite them [to any course] of action, and
frightful ones to deter them, such as those of Lamia,95 Gorgo,96
Ephialtes,97 and Mormolyca.98 So numbers of our citizens are
incited to deeds of virtue by the beauties of fable, when they
hear the poets in a strain of enthusiasm recording noble actions,
such as the labours of Hercules or Theseus, and the
honours bestowed on them by the gods, or even when they
see paintings, sculptures, or figures bearing their romantic
evidence to such events. In the same way they are restrained
from vicious courses, when they think they have
received from the gods by oracles or some other invisible intimations,
threats, menaces, or chastisements, or even if they
only believe they have befallen others. The great mass of
women and common people, cannot be induced by mere force
of reason to devote themselves to piety, virtue, and honesty;
superstition must therefore be employed, and even this is insufficient
without the aid of the marvellous and the terrible.
For what are the thunderbolts, the ægis, the trident, the
torches, the dragons, the barbed thyrses, the arms of the gods,
and all the paraphernalia of antique theology, but fables employed
by the founders of states, as bugbears to frighten
timorous minds.
Such was mythology; and when our ancestors found it capable
of subserving the purposes of social and political life,
and even contributing to the knowledge of truth, they continued
the education of childhood to maturer years, and maintained
that poetry was sufficient to form the understanding of
every age. In course of time history and our present philosophy
were introduced; these, however, suffice but for the
chosen few, and to the present day poetry is the main agent
which instructs our people and crowds our theatres. Homer
here stands pre-eminent, but in truth all the early historians
and natural philosophers were mythologists as well.
9. Thus it is that our poet, though he sometimes employs
fiction for the purposes of instruction, always gives the preference
to truth; he makes use of what is false, merely tolerating
it in order the more easily to lead and govern the multitude.
As a man
“Binds with a golden verge
so Homer, heightening by fiction actual occurrences, adorns
and embellishes his subject; but his end is always the same
as that of the historian, who relates nothing but facts. In
this manner he undertook the narration of the Trojan war,
gilding it with the beauties of fancy and the wanderings of
Ulysses; but we shall never find Homer inventing an empty
fable apart from the inculcation of truth. It is ever the case
that a person lies most successfully, when he intermingles
[into the falsehood] a sprinkling of truth. Such is the remark
of Polybius in treating of the wanderings of Ulysses;
such is also the meaning of the verse,
“He fabricated many falsehoods, relating them like truths:”
100
not all, but many falsehoods, otherwise it would not have
looked like the truth. Homer’s narrative is founded on history.
He tells us that king Æolus governed the Lipari Islands, that
around Mount Ætna and Leontini dwelt the Cyclopæ, and certain
Læstrygonians inhospitable to strangers. That at that
time the districts surrounding the strait were unapproachable;
and Scylla and Charybdis were infested by banditti. In like
manner in the writings of Homer we are informed of other
freebooters, who dwelt in divers regions. Being aware that
the Cimmerians dwelt on the Cimmerian Bosphorus, a dark
northern country, he felicitously locates them in a gloomy region
close by Hades, a fit theatre for the scene in the wanderings
of Ulysses. That he was acquainted with these people
we may satisfy ourselves from the chroniclers, who report an
incursion made by the Cimmerians either during his lifetime
or just before.
10. Being acquainted with Colchis, and the voyage of Jason
to Æa, and also with the historical and fabulous relations
concerning Circe and Medea, their enchantments and their
various other points of resemblance, he feigns there was a
relationship between them, notwithstanding the vast distance
by which they were separated, the one dwelling in an inland
creek of the Euxine, and the other in Italy, and both of them
beyond the ocean.
It is possible that Jason himself wandered as far as Italy,
for traces of the Argonautic expedition are pointed out
near the Ceraunian101 mountains, by the Adriatic,102 at the Posidonian103
Gulf and the isles adjacent to Tyrrhenia.104 The
Cyaneæ, called by some the Symplegades,105 or Jostling Rocks,
which render the passage through the Strait of Constantinople
so difficult, also afforded matter to our poet. The
actual existence of a place named Æa, stamped credibility
upon his Ææa; so did the Symplegades upon the Planctæ,
(the Jostling Rocks upon the Wandering Rocks,) and the
passage of Jason through the midst of them; in the same
way Scylla and Charybdis accredited the passage [of Ulysses]
past those rocks. In his time people absolutely regarded the
Euxine as a kind of second ocean, and placed those who had
crossed it in the same list with navigators who had passed the
Pillars.106 It was looked upon as the largest of our seas,
and was therefore par excellence styled the Sea, in the
same way as Homer [is called] the Poet. In order therefore
to be well received, it is probable he transferred the scenes
from the Euxine to the ocean, so as not to stagger the general
belief. And in my opinion those Solymi who possess the
highest ridges of Taurus, lying between Lycia and Pisidia,
and those who in their southern heights stand out most conspicuously
to the dwellers on this side Taurus, and the inhabitants
of the Euxine by a figure of speech, he describes as
being beyond the ocean. For narrating the voyage of Ulysses
in his ship, he says,
“But Neptune, traversing in his return
From Ethiopia’s sons, the mountain heights
Of Solymè, descried him from afar.”
107
It is probable he took his account of the one-eyed Cyclopæ
from Scythian history, for the Arimaspi, whom Aristæus
of Proconnesus describes in his Tales of the Arimaspi, are
said to be distinguished by this peculiarity.
11. Having premised thus much, we must now take into
consideration the reasons of those who assert that Homer
makes Ulysses wander to Sicily or Italy, and also of those who
denied this. The truth is, he may be equally interpreted on
this subject either way, according as we take a correct or incorrect
view of the case. Correct, if we understand that he
was convinced of the reality of Ulysses’ wanderings there,
and taking this truth as a foundation, raised thereon a poetical
superstructure. And so far this description of him is
right; for not about Italy only, but to the farthest extremities
of Spain, traces of his wanderings and those of similar adventurers
may still be found. Incorrect, if the scene-painting is
received as fact, his Ocean, and Hades, the oxen of the sun,
his hospitable reception by the goddesses, the metamorphoses,
the gigantic size of the Cyclopæ and Læstrygonians, the monstrous
appearance of Scylla, the distance of the voyage, and
other similar particulars, all alike manifestly fabulous. It is
as idle to waste words with a person who thus openly maligns
our poet, as it would be with one who should assert as true
all the particulars of Ulysses’ return to Ithaca,108 the slaughter
of the suitors, and the pitched battle between him and the
Ithacans in the field. But nothing can be said against the
man who understands the words of the poet in a rational way.
12. Eratosthenes, though on no sufficient grounds for so
doing, rejects both these opinions, endeavouring in his attack
on the latter, to refute by lengthened arguments what is manifestly
absurd and unworthy of consideration, and in regard to
the former, maintaining a poet to be a mere gossip, to whose
worth an acquaintance with science or geography could not
add in the least degree: since the scenes of certain of Homer’s
fables are cast in actual localities, as Ilium,109 Pelion,110 and Ida;111
others in purely imaginary regions, such as those of the Gorgons
and Geryon. “Of this latter class,” he says, “are the
places mentioned in the wanderings of Ulysses, and those who
pretend that they are not mere fabrications of the poet, but
have an actual existence, are proved to be mistaken by the
differences of opinion existing among themselves: for some of
them assert that the Sirenes of Homer are situated close to
Pelorus,112 and others that they are more than two thousand
stadia distant,113 near the Sirenussæ,114 a three-peaked rock
which separates the Gulfs of Cumæa and Posidonium.”
Now, in the first place, this rock is not three-peaked, nor
does it form a crest at the summit at all, but a long and narrow
angle reaching from the territory of Surrentum115 to the
Strait of Capria,116 having on one side of the mountain the
temple of the Sirens, and on the other side, next the Gulf
of Posidonium, three little rocky and uninhabited islands,
named the Sirenes; upon the strait, is situated the Athenæum,
from which the rocky angle itself takes its name.
13. Further, if those who describe the geography of certain
places do not agree in every particular, are we justified in at
once rejecting their whole narration? Frequently this is a
reason why it should receive the greater credit. For example,
in the investigation whether the scene of Ulysses’ wanderings
were Sicily or Italy, and the proper position of the
Sirenes, they differ in so far that one places them at Pelorus,
and the other at Sirenussæ, but neither of them dissents from
the idea that it was some where near Sicily or Italy. They
add thereby strength to this view, inasmuch as though they
are not agreed as to the exact locality, neither of them makes
any question but that it was some where contiguous to Italy or
Sicily. If a third party should add, that the monument of
Parthenope, who was one of the Sirens, is shown at Naples,
this only confirms us the more in our belief, for though a
third place is introduced to our notice, still as Naples is situated
in the gulf called by Eratosthenes the Cumæan, and
which is formed by the Sirenussæ, we are more confident
still that the position of the Sirenes was some where close by.
That the poet did not search for accuracy in every minor
detail we admit, but neither ought we to expect this of him;
at the same time we are not to believe that he composed his
poem without inquiring into the history of the Wandering,
nor where and how it occurred.
14. Eratosthenes “thinks it probable that Hesiod, having
heard of the wanderings of Ulysses, and of their having taken
place near to Sicily and Italy, embraced this view of the case,
and not only describes the places spoken of by Homer, but
also Ætna, the Isle of Ortygia,117 near to Syracuse, and Tyrrhenia.
As for Homer, he was altogether unacquainted with
these places, and further, had no wish to lay the scene of the
wanderings in any well-known locality.” What! are then
Ætna and Tyrrhenia such well-known places, and Scyllæeum,
Charybdis, Circæum,118 and the Sirenussæ, so obscure? Or is
Hesiod so correct as never to write nonsense, but always follow
in the wake of received opinions, while Homer blurts out
whatever comes uppermost? Without taking into consideration
our remarks on the character and aptitude of Homer’s
myths, a large array of writers who bear evidence to his statements,
and the additional testimony of local tradition, are
sufficient proof that his are not the inventions of poets or contemporary
scribblers, but the record of real actors and real
scenes.
15. The conjecture of Polybius in regard to the particulars
of the wandering of Ulysses is excellent. He says that Æolus
instructed sailors how to navigate the strait, a difficult matter
on account of the currents occasioned by the ebb and flow,
and was therefore called the dispenser of the winds, and reputed
their king.
In like manner Danaus for pointing out the springs of
water that were in Argos, and Atreus for showing the retrograde
movement of the sun in the heavens, from being
mere soothsayers and diviners, were raised to the dignity of
kings. And the priests of the Egyptians, the Chaldeans,
and Magi, distinguished for their wisdom above those around
them, obtained from our predecessors honour and authority;
and so it is that in each of the gods, we worship the discoverer
of some useful art.
Having thus introduced his subject, he does not allow us to
consider the account of Æolus, nor yet the rest of the Odyssey,
as altogether mythical. There is a spice of the fabulous
here, as well as in the Trojan War,119 but as respects Sicily,
the poet accords entirely with the other historians who
have written on the local traditions of Sicily and Italy. He
altogether denies the justness of Eratosthenes’ dictum, “that
we may hope to discover the whereabout of Ulysses’ wanderings,
when we can find the cobbler who sewed up the winds
in the leathern sack.” “And [adds Polybius] his description
of the hunt of the galeotes120 at Scylla,
‘Plunged to her middle in the horrid den
She lurks, protruding from the black abyss
Her heads, with which the ravening monster dives
In quest of dolphins, dog-fish, or of prey
accords well with what takes place around Scyllæum: for the
thunny-fish, carried in shoals by Italy, and not being able to
reach Sicily, fall into [the Strait], where they become the
prey of larger fish, such as dolphins, dog-fish, and other cetacea,
and it is by this means that the galeotes (which are also
called sword-fish) and dogs fatten themselves. For the same
thing occurs here, and at the rising of the Nile and other
rivers, as takes place when a forest is on fire. Vast crowds
of animals, in flying from the fire or the water, become the
prey of beasts more powerful than themselves.”
16. He then goes on to describe the manner in which they
catch the sword-fish at Scyllæum. One look-out directs the
whole body of fishers, who are in a vast number of small
boats, each furnished with two oars, and two men to each
boat. One man rows, the other stands on the prow, spear in
hand, while the look-out has to signal the appearance of a
sword-fish. (This fish, when swimming, has about a third of
its body above water.) As it passes the boat, the fisher darts
the spear from his hand, and when this is withdrawn, it leaves
the sharp point with which it is furnished sticking in the flesh
of the fish: this point is barbed, and loosely fixed to the spear
for the purpose; it has a long end fastened to it; this they pay
out to the wounded fish, till it is exhausted with its struggling
and endeavours at escape. Afterwards they trail it to the
shore, or, unless it is too large and full-grown, haul it into
the boat. If the spear should fall into the sea, it is not lost,
for it is jointed of oak and pine, so that when the oak sinks
on account of its weight, it causes the other end to rise, and
thus is easily recovered. It sometimes happens that the rower
is wounded, even through the boat, and such is the size of the
sword with which the galeote is armed, such the strength of
the fish, and the method of the capture, that [in danger] it is
not surpassed by the chase of the wild boar. From these facts
(he says) we may conclude that Ulysses’ wanderings were close
to Sicily, since Homer describes Scylla122 as engaging in a pursuit
exactly similar to that which is carried on at Scyllæum.
As to Charybdis, he describes just what takes place at the
Strait of Messina:
“Each day she
thrice disgorges,”
123
instead of twice, being only a mistake, either of the scribe or
the historian.
17. The customs of the inhabitants of Meninx124 closely correspond
to the description of the Lotophagi. If any thing
does not correspond, it should be attributed to change, or to
misconception, or to poetical licence, which is made up of
history, rhetoric, and fiction. Truth is the aim of the historical
portion, as for instance in the Catalogue of Ships,125 where
the poet informs us of the peculiarities of each place, that one
is rocky, another the furthest city, that this abounds in doves,
and that is maritime. A lively interest is the end of the
rhetorical, as when he points to us the combat; and of the
fiction, pleasure and astonishment. A mere fabrication would
neither be persuasive nor Homeric; and we know that his poem
is generally considered a scientific treatise, notwithstanding
what Eratosthenes may say, when he bids us not to judge poems
by the standard of intellect, nor yet look to them for history.
It is most probable that the line
“Nine days by cruel storms thence was I borne
Athwart the fishy deep,”
126
should be understood of merely a short distance, (for cruel
storms do not blow in a right course,) and not of being carried
beyond the ocean, as if impelled by favourable winds. “And,”
says Polybius, “allowing the distance from Malea127 to the
Pillars to be 22,500 stadia, and supposing the rate of
passage was the same throughout the nine days, the voyage
must have been accomplished at the speed of 2500 stadia per
diem: now who has ever recorded that the passage from Lycia
or Rhodes to Alexandria, a distance of 4000 stadia, has been
made in two days? To those who demand how it was that
Ulysses, though he journeyed thrice to Sicily, never once navigated
the Strait, we reply that, long after his time, voyagers
always sedulously avoided that route.”
18. Such are the sentiments of Polybius; and in many
respects they are correct enough; but when he discusses the
voyage beyond the ocean, and enters on minute calculations
of the proportion borne by the distance to the number of days,
he is greatly mistaken. He alleges perpetually the words of
the poet,
“Nine days by cruel storms thence was I borne;”
but at the same time he takes no notice of this expression,
which is his as well,
“And now borne sea-ward from the river stream
and this,
“In the island of Ogygia, the centre of the sea,”
129
and that the daughter of Atlas130 dwells there. And the following
concerning the Phæacians,
“Remote amid the billowy deep, we hold
Our dwelling, utmost of all human kind,
And free from mixture with a foreign race.”
131
These passages clearly refer to the Atlantic Ocean,132 but
though so plainly expressed, Polybius slily manages to overlook
them. Here he is altogether wrong, though quite correct
about the wandering of Ulysses having taken place round
Sicily and Italy, a fact which Homer establishes himself.
Otherwise, what poet or writer could have persuaded the
Neapolitans to assert that they possessed the tomb of Parthenope133
the Siren, or the inhabitants of Cumæ, Dicæarchia,134
and Vesuvius [to bear their testimony] to Pyriphlegethon, the
Marsh of Acherusia,135 to the oracle of the dead which was near
Aornus,136 and to Baius and Misenus,137 the companions of Ulysses.
The same is the case with the Sirenussae, and the Strait
of Messina, and Scylla, and Charybdis, and Æolus, all which
things should neither be examined into too rigorously, nor
yet [despised] as groundless and without foundation, alike remote
from truth and historic value.
19. Eratosthenes seems to have had something like this
view of the case himself, when he says, “Any one would believe
that the poet intended the western regions as the scene
of Ulysses’ wanderings, but that he has departed from fact,
sometimes through want of perfect information, at other times
because he wished to give to scenes a more terrific and marvellous
appearance than they actually possessed.” So far
this is true, but his idea of the object which the poet had in
view while composing, is false; real advantage, not trifling,
being his aim. We may justly reprehend his assertion on this
point, as also where he says, that Homer places the scene of
his marvels in distant lands that he may lie the more easily.
Remote localities have not furnished him with near so many
wonderful narrations as Greece, and the countries thereto adjacent;
witness the labours of Hercules, and Theseus, the
fables concerning Crete, Sicily, and the other islands; besides
those connected with Cithærum, Helicon,138 Parnassus,139 Pelion,140
and the whole of Attica and the Peloponnesus. Let us not
therefore tax the poets with ignorance on account of the myths
which they employ, and since, so far from myth being the
staple, they for the most part avail themselves of actual occurrences,
(and Homer does this in a remarkable degree,) the
inquirer who will seek how far these ancient writers have
wandered into fiction, ought not to scrutinize to what extent
the fiction was carried, but rather what is the truth concerning
those places and persons to which the fictions have been
applied; for instance, whether the wanderings of Ulysses did
actually occur, and where.
20. On the whole, however, it is not proper to place the
works of Homer in the common catalogue of other poets,
without challenging for him a superiority both in respect of
his other [excellences] and also for the geography on which
our attention is now engaged.
If any one were to do no more than merely read through
the Triptolemus of Sophocles, or the prologue to the Bacchæ
of Euripides, and then compare them with the care taken by
Homer in his geographical descriptions, he would at once
perceive both the difference and superiority of the latter, for
wherever there is necessity for arrangement in the localities
he has immortalized, he is careful to preserve it as well in
regard to Greece, as to foreign countries.
“They
On the Olympian summit thought to fix
Huge Ossa, and on Ossa’s towering head
Pelion with all his forests.”
141
“And Juno starting from the Olympian height
O’erflew Pieria and the lovely plains
Of broad Emathia;
142 soaring thence she swept
The snow-clad summit of the Thracian hills
143
Steed-famed, nor printed, as she pass’d, the soil,
*******
From Athos
144 o’er the foaming billows borne.”
145
In the Catalogue he does not describe his cities in regular
order, because here there was no necessity, but both the
people and foreign countries he arranges correctly. “Having
wandered to Cyprus, and Phœnice, and the Egyptians, I came
to the Ethiopians, and Sidonians, and Erembi, and Libya.”146
Hipparchus has drawn attention to this. But the two tragedians,
where there was great necessity for proper arrangement,
one147 where he introduces Bacchus visiting the nations,
the other148 Triptolemus sowing the earth, have brought in
juxta-position places far remote, and separated those which
were near.
“And having left the wealthy lands of the Lydians and
Phrygians, and the sunny plains of the Persians and the Bactrian
walls, and having come over the stormy land of the
Medes, and the Happy Arabia.”149 And the Triptolemus is
just as inaccurate.
Further, in respect to the winds and climates, Homer shows
the wide extent of his geographical knowledge, for in his
topographical descriptions he not unfrequently informs us of
both these matters. Thus,
“My abode
Is sun-burnt Ithaca.
Flat on the deep she lies, farthest removed
Toward the west, while situate apart,
Her sister islands face the rising day.”
150
And,
“It has a two-fold entrance,
One towards the north, the other south.”
151
And again,
“Which I alike despise, speed they their course
With right-hand flight towards the ruddy east,
Or leftward down into the shades of eve.”
152
Ignorance of such matters he reckons no less than confusion.
“Alas! my friends, for neither west
Know we, nor east; where rises or where sets
The all-enlightening sun.”
153
Where the poet has said properly enough,
“As when two adverse winds, blowing from Thrace,
Eratosthenes ill-naturedly misrepresents him as saying in an
absolute sense, that the west wind blows from Thrace; whereas
he is not speaking in an absolute sense at all, but merely of
the meeting of contrary winds near the bay of Melas,155 on the
Thracian sea, itself a part of the Ægæan. For where Thrace
forms a kind of promontory, where it borders on Macedonia,156
it takes a turn to the south-west, and projects into the ocean,
and from this point it seems to the inhabitants of Thasos,
Lemnos, Imbros, Samothracia,157 and the surrounding sea, that
the west winds blow.158 So in regard to Attica, they seem to
come from the rocks of Sciros,159 and this is the reason why
all the westerly winds, the north-west more particularly, are
called the Scirones. Of this Eratosthenes was not aware,
though he suspected as much, for it was he who described
this bending of the land [towards the south-west] which we
have mentioned. But he interprets our poet in an absolute
sense, and then taxes him with ignorance, because, says he,
“Zephyr blows from the west, and off Spain, and Thrace does
not extend so far.” Does he then think that Homer was not
aware that Zephyr came from the west, notwithstanding the
careful manner in which he distinguishes its position when he
writes as follows:
“The east, the south, the heavy-blowing Zephyr,
And the cold north-wind clear.”
160
Or was he ignorant that Thrace did not extend beyond the
Pæonian and Thessalian mountains.161 To be sure he was well
acquainted with the position of the countries adjoining Thrace
in that direction, and does he not mention by name both the
maritime and inland districts, and tells us of the Magnetæ,162
the Malians,163 and other Grecian [territories], all in order, as
far as Thesprotis;164 also of the Dolopes165 bordering on Pæonia,
and the Sellæ who inhabit the territory around Dodona166
as far as the [river] Achelous,167 but he never mentions
Thrace, as being beyond these. He has evidently a predilection
for the sea which is nearest to him, and with which he is
most familiar, as where he says,
“Commotion shook
The whole assembly, such as heaves the flood
21. Some writers tell us there are but two principal winds,
the north and south, and that the other winds are only a
slight difference in the direction of these two. That is, (supposing
only two winds, the north and south,) the south wind
from the commencement of the summer quarter blows in a
south-easterly direction; and from the commencement of the
winter quarter from the east. The north wind from the decline
of the summer, blows in a westerly direction, and from
the decline of the winter, in a north-westerly direction.
In support of this opinion of the two winds they adduce
Thrasyalces and our poet himself, forasmuch as he mentions
the north-west with the south,
“From the north-west south,”
169
and the west with the north,
“As when two adverse winds, blowing from Thrace,
But Posidonius remarks that none of those who are really
acquainted with these subjects, such as Aristotle, Timosthenes,
and Bion the astronomer, entertain so mistaken an opinion in
regard to the winds. They say that the north-east (Cæcias)
blows from the commencement of summer, and that the south-west
wind (Libs), which is exactly opposite to this, blows from
the decline of winter. And again, the south-east wind (Eurus),
which is opposite to the north-west wind (Argestes), from the
commencement of winter. The east and west winds being
intermediate.
When our poet makes use of the expression “stormy zephyr,”
he means the wind which is now called by us the north-west;
and by the “clear-blowing zephyr” our west wind; our Leuconotus
is his Argestes-notus, or clearing south wind,171 for this
wind brings but few clouds, all the other southern winds
bringing clouds and rain,172
“As when whirlwinds of the west
A storm encounter from the clearing south.”
173
Here he alludes to the stormy zephyr, which very frequently
scatters the feathery clouds brought up by the Leuconotus,
or, as it is called by way of epithet, the clearing south.
The statements made by Eratosthenes in the first book of
his Geography, require some such correction as this.
22. Persisting in his false views in relation to Homer, he
goes on to say, “He was ignorant that the Nile separated into
many mouths, nay, he was not even acquainted with the name
of the river, though Hesiod knew it well, for he even
mentions it.”174 In respect of the name, it is probable that it
had not then been given to the river, and as to the mouths, if
they were obscure and little known, will not every one excuse
him for not being aware whether there were several or merely
one? At that time, the river, its rising, and its mouths were
considered, as they are at the present day, amongst the most
remarkable, the most wonderful, and most worthy of recording
of all the peculiarities of Egypt: who can suppose that
those who told our poet of the country and river of Egypt, of
Egyptian Thebes, and of Pharos, were unaware of the many
embouchures of the Nile; or that being aware, they would
not have described them, were it not that they were too generally
known? “But is it not inconceivable that Homer
should describe Ethiopia, and the Sidonians, the Erembi, and
the Exterior Sea,175—should tell us that Ethiopia was divided
into two parts, and yet nothing about those things which were
nearer and better known?” Certainly not, his not describing
these things is no proof that he was not acquainted with them.
He does not tell us of his own country, nor yet many other
things. The most probable reason is, they were so generally
known that they did not appear to him worth recording.176
23. Again, they are entirely wrong when they allege as a
mark of Homer’s ignorance, that he describes the island of
Pharos177 as entirely surrounded by the sea. On the contrary,
it might be taken advantage of as a proof that our poet was
not unacquainted with a single one of the points concerning
Egypt which we have just been speaking of: and thus we
demonstrate it:—Every one is prone to romance a little in
narrating his travels, and Menelaus was no exception to the
rule. He had been to Ethiopia,178 and there heard much discussion
concerning the sources of the Nile, and the alluvium
which it deposited, both along its course and also at its
mouths, and the large additions which it had thereby made to
the mainland, so as fully to justify the remark of Herodotus179
that the whole of Egypt was a gift from the river; or if not
the whole, at all events that part of it below the Delta, called
Lower Egypt. He had heard too that Pharos was entirely
surrounded by sea, and therefore misrepresented it as entirely
surrounded by the sea, although it had long ago ceased so to
be. Now the author of all this was Homer, and we therefore
infer that he was not ignorant concerning either the sources
or the mouths of the Nile.
24. They are again mistaken when they say that he was
not aware of the isthmus between the sea of Egypt and the
Arabian Gulf, and that his description is false,
“The Ethiopians, utmost of mankind,
These eastward situate, those toward the west.”
180
Nevertheless he is correct, and the criticism of the moderns
is quite out of place: indeed, there is so little truth in the
assertion that Homer was ignorant of this isthmus, that I will
venture to affirm he was not only acquainted with it, but has
also accurately defined it. But none of the grammarians, not
even the chiefs of their number, Aristarchus and Crates, have
understood the words of our poet on this subject. For they
disagree as to the words which follow this expression of
Homer,
“The Ethiopians, utmost of mankind,
These eastward situate, those towards the west,”
181
Aristarchus writing,
“These towards the west, and those towards the east,”
and Crates,
“As well in the west as also in the east.”
However, in regard to their hypotheses, it makes no difference
whether the passage were written this way or that. One of
them, in fact, takes what he considers the mathematical
view of the case, and says that the torrid zone is occupied by
the ocean,182 and that on each side of this there is a temperate
zone, one inhabited by us and another opposite thereto. And
as we call the Ethiopians, who are situated to the south, and
dwell along the shores of the ocean, the most distant on the
face of the inhabited globe; so he supposed that on the other
side of the ocean,183 there were certain Ethiopians dwelling
along the shores, who would in like manner be considered the
most distant184 by the inhabitants of the other temperate zone;
and thus that the Ethiopians were double, separated into two
divisions by the ocean. He adds, “as well in the west as also
in the east,” because as the celestial zodiac always corresponds
to the terrestrial, and never exceeds in its obliquity the space
occupied by the two Ethiopias, the sun’s entire course must
necessarily be within this space, and also his rising and setting,
as it appears to different nations according to the sign which
he may be in.
He (Crates) adopted this version, because he considered it
the more astronomical. But it would have maintained his
opinion of the division of the Ethiopians into two parts, and
at the same time have been much more simple, had he said
that the Ethiopians dwelt on either side of the ocean from the
rising to the setting of the sun. In this case what difference
does it make whether we follow his version, or adopt the
reading of Aristarchus,
“These towards the west, and those towards the east?”
which also means, that whether east or west, on either side
of the ocean, Ethiopians dwell. But Aristarchus rejects this
hypothesis. He says, “The Ethiopians with whom we are
acquainted, and who are farthest south from the Greeks,
are those described by the poet as being separated into two
divisions. But Ethiopia is not so separated as to form two
countries, one situated towards the west, the other towards
the east, but only one, that which lies south of the Greeks
and adjoins Egypt; but of this the poet was ignorant, as well
as of other matters enumerated by Apollodorus, which he has
falsely stated concerning various places in his second book,
containing the catalogue of the ships.”
25. To refute Crates would require a lengthened argument,
which here perhaps may be considered out of place.
Aristarchus we commend for rejecting the hypothesis of
Crates, which is open to many objections, and for referring
the expression of the poet to our Ethiopia. But the remainder
of his statement we must discuss. First, his minute examination
of the reading is altogether fruitless, for whichever
way it may have been written, his interpretation is equally
applicable to both; for what difference is there whether you
say thus—In our opinion there are two Ethiopias, one towards
the east, the other to the west; or thus—For they
are as well towards the east as the west? Secondly, he
makes false assumptions. For admitting that the poet was
ignorant of the isthmus,185 and that he alludes to the Ethiopia
contiguous to Egypt, when he says,
The Ethiopians separated into two divisions;
186
what then? Are they not separated into two divisions, and
could the poet have thus expressed himself if he had been in
ignorance? Is not Egypt, nay, are not the Egyptians, separated
into two divisions by the Nile from the Delta to Syene,187
These towards the west, those towards the east?
And what else is Egypt, with the exception of the island
formed by the river and overflowed by its waters; does it not
lie on either side of the river both east and west?
Ethiopia runs in the same direction as Egypt, and resembles
it both in its position with respect to the Nile, and
in its other geographical circumstances. It is narrow, long,
and subject to inundation; beyond the reach of this inundation
it is desolate and parched, and unfitted for the habitation
of man; some districts lying to the east and some to the west
of [the river]. How then can we deny that it is separated into
two divisions? Shall the Nile, which is looked upon by some
people as the proper boundary line between Asia and Libya,188
and which extends southward in length more than 10,000 stadia,
embracing in its breadth islands which contain populations of
above ten thousand men, the largest of these being Meroe, the
seat of empire and metropolis of the Ethiopians, be regarded
as too insignificant to divide Ethiopia into two parts? The
greatest obstacle which they who object to the river being
made the line of demarcation between the two continents are
able to allege, is, that Egypt and Ethiopia are by this means
divided, one part of each being assigned to Libya, and the
other to Asia, or, if this will not suit, the continents cannot
be divided at all, or at least not by the river.
26. But besides these there is another method of dividing
Ethiopia. All those who have sailed along the coasts of
Libya, whether starting from the Arabian Gulf,189 or the
Pillars,190 after proceeding a certain distance, have been
obliged to turn back again on account of a variety of
accidents; and thus originated a general belief that it was
divided midway by some isthmus, although the whole of
the Atlantic Ocean is confluent, more especially towards
the south. Besides, all of these navigators called the final
country which they reached, Ethiopia, and described it
under that name. Is it therefore at all incredible, that
Homer, misled by such reports, separated them into two
divisions, one towards the east and the other west, not
knowing whether there were any intermediate countries
or not? But there is another ancient tradition related by
Ephorus, which Homer had probably fallen in with. He
tells us it is reported by the Tartessians,191 that some of the
Ethiopians, on their arrival in Libya,192 penetrated into the
extreme west, and settled down there, while the rest occupied
the greater part of the sea-coast; and in support of this statement
he quotes the passage of Homer,
The Ethiopians, the farthest removed of men, separated into two
divisions.
27. These and other more stringent arguments may be
urged against Aristarchus and those of his school, to clear
our poet from the charge of such gross ignorance. I assert
that the ancient Greeks, in the same way as they classed all
the northern nations with which they were familiar under the
one name of Scythians, or, according to Homer, Nomades, and
afterwards becoming acquainted with those towards the west,
styled them Kelts and Iberians; sometimes compounding the
names into Keltiberians, or Keltoscythians, thus ignorantly
uniting various distinct nations; so I affirm they designated
as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries towards the
ocean. Of this there is evidence, for Æschylus, in the Prometheus
Loosed,193 thus speaks:
There [is] the sacred wave, and the coralled bed of the Erythræan
Sea, and [there] the luxuriant marsh of the Ethiopians, situated near
the ocean, glitters like polished brass; where daily in the soft and tepid
stream, the all-seeing sun bathes his undying self, and refreshes his weary
steeds.
And as the ocean holds the same position in respect to the
sun, and serves the same purpose throughout the whole southern
region,194 he195 therefore concludes that the Ethiopians inhabited
the whole of the region.
And Euripides in his Phaeton196 says that Clymene was
given
“To Merops, sovereign of that land
Which from his four-horsed chariot first
The rising sun strikes with his golden rays;
And which its swarthy neighbours call
The radiant stable of the Morn and Sun.”
Here the poet merely describes them as the common stables
of the Morning and of the Sun; but further on he tells us
they were near to the dwellings of Merops, and in fact the
whole plot of the piece has reference to this. This does not
therefore refer alone to the [land] next to Egypt, but rather
to the whole southern country extending along the sea-coast.
28. Ephorus likewise shows us the opinion of the ancients
respecting Ethiopia, in his Treatise on Europe. He says, “If
the whole celestial and terrestrial globe were divided into
four parts, the Indians would possess that towards the east,
the Ethiopians towards the south, the Kelts towards the
west, and the Scythians towards the north.” He adds that
Ethiopia is larger than Scythia; for, says he, it appears that
the country of the Ethiopians extends from the rising to the
setting of the sun in winter; and Scythia is opposite to it.
It is evident this was the opinion of Homer, since he places
Ithaca
Towards the gloomy region,
197
that is, towards the north,198 but the others apart,
Towards the morning and the sun,
by which he means the whole southern hemisphere: and again
when he says,
“speed they their course
With right-hand flight towards the ruddy east,
Or leftward down into the shades of eve.”
199
And again,
“Alas! my friends, for neither west
Know we, nor east, where rises or where sets
The all-enlightening sun.”
200
Which we shall explain more fully when we come to speak
of Ithaca.201
When therefore he says,
“For to the banks of the Oceanus,
Where Ethiopia holds a feast to Jove,
He journey’d yesterday,”
202
we should take this in a general sense, and understand by it
the whole of the ocean which washes Ethiopia and the southern
region, for to whatever part of this region you direct
your attention, you will there find both the ocean and Ethiopia.
It is in a similar style he says,
“But Neptune, traversing in his return
From Ethiopia’s sons the mountain heights
Of Solymè, descried him from afar.”
203
which is equal to saying, “in his return from the southern
regions,”204 meaning by the Solymi, as I remarked before, not
those of Pisidia, but certain others merely imaginary, having
the same name, and bearing the like relation to the navigators
in [Ulysses’] ship, and the southern inhabitants there
called Ethiopians, as those of Pisidia do in regard to Pontus
and the inhabitants of Egyptian Ethiopia. What he says
about the cranes must likewise be understood in a general
sense.
“Such clang is heard
Along the skies, when from incessant showers
Escaping, and from winter’s cold, the cranes
Take wing, and over ocean speed away.
Woe to the land of dwarfs! prepared they fly
For slaughter of the small Pygmæan race.”
205
For it is not in Greece alone that the crane is observed to
emigrate to more southern regions, but likewise from Italy
and Iberia,206 from [the shores of] the Caspian, and from Bactriana.
But since the ocean extends along the whole southern
coast, and the cranes fly to all parts of it indiscriminately
at the approach of winter, we must likewise believe that the
Pygmies207 were equally considered to inhabit the whole of it.
And if the moderns have confined the term of Ethiopians
to those only who dwell near to Egypt, and have also restricted
the Pygmies in like manner, this must not be
allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients. We
do not speak of all the people who fought against Troy as
merely Achæans and Argives, though Homer describes the
whole under those two names. Similar to this is my remark
concerning the separation of the Ethiopians into two divisions,
that under that designation we should understand the
whole of the nations inhabiting the sea-board from east to
west. The Ethiopians taken in this sense are naturally separated
into two parts by the Arabian Gulf, which occupies
a considerable portion of a meridian circle,208 and resembles a
river, being in length nearly 15,000 stadia,209 and in breadth not
above 1000 at the widest point. In addition to the length,
the recess of the Gulf is distant from the sea at Pelusium only
three or four days’ journey across the isthmus. On this account
those who are most felicitous in their division of Asia
and Africa, prefer the Gulf210 as a better boundary line for the
two continents than the Nile, since it extends almost entirely
from sea to sea, whereas the Nile is so remote from the ocean
that it does not by any means divide the whole of Asia from
Africa. On this account I believe it was the Gulf which the
poet looked upon as dividing into two portions the whole
southern regions of the inhabited earth. Is it possible, then,
that he was unacquainted with the isthmus which separates
this Gulf from the Egyptian Sea?211
29. It is quite irrational to suppose that he could be accurately
acquainted with Egyptian Thebes,212 which is separated
from our sea213 by a little less than 5000214 stadia; and yet ignorant
of the recess of the Arabian Gulf, and of the isthmus
there, whose breadth is not more than 1000 stadia. Still
more, would it not be ridiculous to believe that Homer was
aware the Nile was called by the same name as the vast country
[of Egypt], and yet unacquainted with the reason why?
especially since the saying of Herodotus would occur to him,
that the country was a gift from the river, and it ought therefore
to bear its name. Further, the best known peculiarities
of a country are those which have something of the nature of
a paradox, and are likely to arrest general attention. Of this
kind are the rising of the Nile, and the alluvial deposition
at its mouth. There is nothing in the whole country to
which travellers in Egypt so immediately direct their inquiries,
as the character of the Nile; nor do the inhabitants possess
any thing else equally wonderful and curious, of which to inform
foreigners; for in fact, to give them a description of the
river, is to lay open to their view every main characteristic of
the country. It is the question put before every other by
those who have never seen Egypt themselves. To these considerations
we must add Homer’s thirst after knowledge, and
his delight in visiting foreign lands, (tastes which we are assured
both by those who have written histories of his life, and
also by innumerable testimonies throughout his own poems,
he possessed in an eminent degree,) and we shall have abundant
evidence both of the extent of his information, and the
felicity with which he described objects he deemed important,
and passed over altogether, or with slight allusion, matters
which were generally known.
30. These Egyptians and Syrians215 whom we have been
criticising fill one with amazement. They do not understand
[Homer], even when he is describing their own countries,
but accuse him of ignorance where, as our argument proves,
they are open to the charge themselves. Not to mention a
thing is clearly no evidence that a person is not acquainted
with it.216 Homer does not tell us of the change in the current
of the Euripus, nor of Thermopylæ, nor of many other remarkable
things well known to the Greeks; but was he therefore
unacquainted with them? He describes to us, although
these men, who are obstinately deaf, will not hear: they have
themselves to blame.
Our poet applies to rivers the epithet of “heaven-sent.”
And this not only to mountain torrents, but to all rivers alike,
since they are all replenished by the showers. But even what
is general becomes particular when it is bestowed on any
object par excellence. Heaven-sent, when applied to a mountain
torrent, means something else than when it is the epithet
of the ever-flowing river; but the force of the term is doubly
felt when attributed to the Nile. For as there are hyperboles
of hyperboles, for instance, to be “lighter than the shadow of
a cork,” “more timid than a Phrygian hare,”217 “to possess an
estate shorter than a Lacedæmonian epistle;” so excellence
becomes more excellent, when the title of “heaven-sent” is
given to the Nile. The mountain torrent has a better claim
to be called heaven-sent than other rivers, but the Nile exceeds
the mountain torrents, both in its size and the lengthened
period of its overflow. Since, then, the wonders of this river
were known to our poet, as we have shown in this defence,
when he applies this epithet to the Nile, it must only be understood
in the way we have explained. Homer did not
think it worth mentioning, especially to those who were acquainted
with the fact, that the Nile had many mouths, since
this is a common feature of numerous other rivers. Alcæus218
does not mention it, although he tells us he had been in
Egypt. One might infer the fact of its alluvial deposit, both
from the rising [of the river] and what Homer tells us concerning
Pharos. For his account, or rather the vulgar report
concerning Pharos, that it was distant from the mainland a
whole day’s voyage, ought not to be looked upon as a downright
falsehood.
It is clear that Homer was only acquainted with the rising
and deposit of the river in a general way, and concluding
from what he heard that the island had been further removed
in the time of Menelaus from the mainland, than it was in
his own, he magnified the distance, simply that he might
heighten the fiction. Fictions however are not the offspring
of ignorance, as is sufficiently plain from those concerning
Proteus, the Pygmies, the efficacy of charms, and many others
similar to these fabricated by the poets. They narrate these
things not through ignorance of the localities, but for the sake
of giving pleasure and enjoyment. But [some one may inquire],
how could he describe [Pharos], which is without
water as possessed of that necessary?
“The haven there is good, and many a ship
Finds watering there from rivulets on the coast.”
219
[I answer,] It is not impossible that the sources of water may
since have failed. Besides, he does not say that the water
was procured from the island, but that they went thither on
account of the safety of the harbour; the water was probably
obtained from the mainland, and by the expression the poet
seems to admit that what he had before said of its being
wholly surrounded by sea was not the actual fact, but a hyperbole
or fiction.
31. As his description of the wanderings of Menelaus may
seem to authenticate the charge of ignorance made against
him in respect to those regions, it will perhaps be best to
point out the difficulties of the narrative, and their explanation,
and at the same time enter into a fuller defence of our
poet. Menelaus thus addresses Telemachus, who is admiring
the splendour of his palace:
“After numerous toils
And perilous wanderings o’er the stormy deep,
In the eighth year at last I brought them home.
Cyprus, Phœnicia, Sidon, and the shores
Of Egypt, roaming without hope, I reach’d,
In distant Ethiopia thence arrived,
It is asked, What Ethiopians could he have met with on
his voyage from Egypt? None are to be found dwelling by our
sea,221 and with his vessels222 he could never have reached the
cataracts of the Nile. Next, who are the Sidonians? Certainly
not the inhabitants of Phœnicia; for having mentioned
the genus, he would assuredly not particularize the species.223
And then the Erembi; this is altogether a new name. Our
contemporary Aristonicus, the grammarian, in his [observations]
on the wanderings of Menelaus, has recorded the
opinions of numerous writers on each of the heads under
discussion. It will be sufficient for us to refer to them
very briefly. They who assert that Menelaus went by sea to
Ethiopia, tell us he directed his course past Cadiz into the
Indian Ocean;224 with which, say they, the long duration of his
wanderings agrees, since he did not arrive there till the eighth
year. Others, that he passed through the isthmus225 which
enters the Arabian Gulf; and others again, through one of
the canals. At the same time the idea of this circumnavigation,
which owes its origin to Crates, is not necessary; we do
not mean it was impossible, (for the wanderings of Ulysses are
not impossible,) but neither the mathematical hypothesis, nor
yet the duration of the wandering, require such an explanation;
for he was both retarded against his will by accidents
in the voyage, as by [the tempest] which he narrates five
only of his sixty ships survived; and also by voluntary delays
for the sake of amassing wealth. Nestor says [of him],
“Thus he, provision gathering as he went,
And gold abundant, roam’d to distant lands.”
226
[And Menelaus himself],
“Cyprus, Phœnicia, and the Egyptians’ land
As to the navigation of the isthmus, or one of the canals,
if it had been related by Homer himself, we should have
counted it a myth; but as he does not relate it, we regard
it as entirely extravagant and unworthy of belief. We
say unworthy of belief, because at the time of the Trojan war
no canal was in existence. It is recorded that Sesostris, who
had planned the formation of one, apprehending that the level
of the sea was too high to admit of it, desisted from the undertaking.228
Moreover the isthmus itself was not passable for ships, and
Eratosthenes is unfortunate in his conjecture, for he considers
that the strait at the Pillars was not then formed,
so that the Atlantic should by that channel communicate
with the Mediterranean, and that this sea being higher
than the Isthmus [of Suez], covered it; but when the Strait
[of Gibraltar] was formed, the sea subsided considerably; and
left the land about Casium229 and Pelusium230 dry as far over
as the Red Sea.
But what account have we of the formation of this strait,
supposing it were not in existence prior to the Trojan war?
Is it likely that our poet would make Ulysses sail out through
the Strait [of Gibraltar] into the Atlantic Ocean, as if that
strait already existed, and at the same time describe Menelaus
conducting his ships from Egypt to the Red Sea, as if it
did not exist. Further, the poet introduces Proteus as saying
to him,
“Thee the gods
Have destined to the blest Elysian Isles,
Earth’s utmost boundaries.”
231
And what this place was, namely, some far western region,
is evident from [the mention of] the Zephyr in connexion
with it:
“But Zephyr always gently from the sea
This, however, is very enigmatical.
32. But if our poet speaks of the Isthmus of Suez as ever
having been the strait of confluence between the Mediterranean
and the Red Seas, how much more credit may we attribute
to his division of the Ethiopians into two portions, being
thus separated by so grand a strait! And what commerce
could he have carried on with the Ethiopians who dwelt by
the shores of the exterior sea and the ocean? Telemachus
and his companions admire the multitude of ornaments that
were in the palace,
“Of gold, electrum, silver, ivory.”
233
Now the Ethiopians are possessed of none of these productions
in any abundance, excepting ivory, being for the most
part a needy and nomad race. True, [you say,] but adjoining
them is Arabia, and the whole country as far as India.
One of these is distinguished above all other lands by the
title of Felix,234 and the other, though not dignified by that
name, is both generally believed and also said to be pre-eminently
Blessed.
But [we reply], Homer was not acquainted with India, or
he would have described it. And though he knew of the
Arabia which is now named Felix, at that time it was by no
means wealthy, but a wild country, the inhabitants of which
dwelt for the most part in tents. It is only a small district
which produces the aromatics from which the whole territory
afterwards received its name,235 owing to the rarity of the commodity
amongst us, and the value set upon it. That the
Arabians are now flourishing and wealthy is due to their vast
and extended traffic, but formerly it does not appear to have
been considerable. A merchant or camel-driver might attain
to opulence by the sale of these aromatics and similar commodities;
but Menelaus could only become so either by plunder,
or presents conferred on him by kings and nobles, who
had the means at their disposal, and wished to gratify one so
distinguished by glory and renown. The Egyptians, it is
true, and the neighbouring Ethiopians and Arabians, were
not so entirely destitute of the luxuries of civilization, nor so
unacquainted with the fame of Agamemnon, especially after the
termination of the Trojan war, but that Menelaus might have
expected some benefits from their generosity, even as the
breastplate of Agamemnon is said to be
“The gift
Of Cinyras long since; for rumour loud
And we are told that the greater part of his wanderings were
in Phœnicia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, around Cyprus, and, in
fact, the whole of our coasts and islands.237 Here, indeed, he
might hope to enrich himself both by the gifts of friendship
and by violence, and especially by the plunder of those who had
been the allies of Troy. They however who dwelt on the exterior
ocean, and the distant barbarians, held out no such encouragement:
and when Menelaus is said to have been in
Ethiopia, it is because he had reached the frontiers of that country
next Egypt. But perhaps at that time the frontiers lay more
contiguous to Thebes than they do now. At the present day the
nearest are the districts adjacent to Syene and Philæ,238 the former
town being entirely in Egypt, while Philæ is inhabited by a
mixed population of Ethiopians and Egyptians. Supposing
therefore he had arrived at Thebes, and thus reached the
boundary-line of Ethiopia, where he experienced the munificence
of the king, we must not be surprised if he is described
as having passed through the country.239 On no better authority
Ulysses declares he has been to the land of the Cyclops,
although he merely left the sea to enter a cavern which
he himself tells us was situated on the very borders of the
country: and, in fact, wherever he came to anchor, whether
at Æolia, Læstrygonia, or elsewhere, he is stated to have
visited those places. In the same manner Menelaus is said
to have been to Ethiopia and Libya, because here and there
he touched at those places, and the port near Ardania above
Parætonium240 is called after him “the port of Menelaus.”241
33. When, after mentioning Phœnicia, he talks of Sidon,
its metropolis, he merely employs a common form of expression,
for example,
He urged the Trojans and Hector to the ships.
242
For the sons of magnanimous Œneus were no more, nor was he himself
surviving; moreover, fair-haired Meleager was dead.243
He came to Ida—and to Gargarus.
244
He possessed Eubœa, Chalcis, and Eretria.
245
Sappho likewise [says],
Whether Cyprus, or the spacious-harboured Paphos.
246
But he had some other cause besides this for mentioning
Sidon immediately after having spoken of the Phœnicians:
for had he merely desired to recount the nations in order, it
would have been quite sufficient to say,
Having wandered to Cyprus, Phœnice, and the Egyptians, I came to
the Ethiopians.247
But that he might record his sojourn amongst the Sidonians,
which was considerably prolonged, he thought it well to refer
to it repeatedly. Thus he praises their prosperity and skill
in the arts, and alludes to the hospitality the citizens had
shown to Helen and Alexander. Thus he tells us of the
many [treasures] of this nature laid up in store by Alexander.248
“There his treasures lay,
Works of Sidonian women, whom her son,
The godlike Paris, when he crossed the seas
With Jove-begotten Helen, brought to Troy.”
249
And also by Menelaus, who says to Telemachus,
“I give thee this bright beaker, argent all,
But round encircled with a lip of gold.
It is the work of Vulcan, which to me
The hero Phædimus presented, king
Of the Sidonians, when on my return
Beneath his roof I lodged. I make it thine.”
250
Here the expression, “work of Vulcan,” must be looked upon
as a hyperbole: in the same way all elegant productions are
said to be the work of Minerva, of the Graces, or of the Muses.
But that the Sidonians were skilful artists, is clear from the
praises bestowed [by Homer] on the bowl which Euneos gave
in exchange for Lycaon:
“Earth
Own’d not its like for elegance of form.
Skilful Sidonian artists had around
Embellish’d it, and o’er the sable deep
Phœnician merchants into Lemnos’ port
34. Many conjectures have been hazarded as to who the
Erembi were: they who suppose the Arabs are intended, seem
to deserve the most credit.
Our Zeno reads the passage thus:—
I came to the Ethiopians, the Sidonians, and the Arabians.
But there is no occasion to tamper with the text, which is of
great antiquity; it is a far preferable course to suppose a
change in the name itself, which is of frequent and ordinary
occurrence in every nation: and in fact certain grammarians
establish this view by a comparison of the radical letters.
Posidonius seems to me to adopt the better plan after all, in
looking for the etymology of names in nations of one stock and
community; thus between the Armenians, Syrians, and Arabians
there is a strong affinity both in regard to dialect, mode
of life, peculiarities of physical conformation, and above all
in the contiguity of the countries. Mesopotamia, which is a
motley of the three nations, is a proof of this; for the similarity
amongst these three is very remarkable. And though in
consequence of the various latitudes there may be some difference
between those who dwell in the north252 and those of the
south,253 and again between each of these and the inhabitants
of the middle region,254 still the same characteristics are
dominant in all. Also the Assyrians and Arians have a great
affinity both to these people and to each other. And [Posidonius]
believes there is a similarity in the names of these
different nations. Those whom we call Syrians style themselves
Armenians and Arammæans, names greatly like those of
the Armenians, Arabs, and Erembi. Perhaps this [last] term
is that by which the Greeks anciently designated the Arabs;
the etymon of the word certainly strengthens the idea. Many
deduce the etymology of the Erembi from ἔραν ἐμβαίνειν, (to go
into the earth,) which [they say] was altered by the people of a
later generation into the more intelligible name of Troglodytes,255
by which are intended those Arabs who dwell on that side of
the Arabian Gulf next to Egypt and Ethiopia. It is probable
then that the poet describes Menelaus as having visited these
people in the same way that he says he visited the Ethiopians;
for they are likewise near to the Thebaid; and he mentions them
not on account of any commerce or gain, (for of these there
was not much,) but probably to enhance the length of the
journey and his meed of praise: for such distant travelling
was highly thought of. For example,—
“Discover’d various cities, and the mind
And manners learn’d of men in lands remote.”
256
And again:
“After numerous toils
And perilous wanderings o’er the stormy deep,
In the eighth year at last I brought them home.”
257
Hesiod, in his Catalogue,258 writes,
And the daughter of Arabus, whom gracious Hermes and Thronia,
descended from king Belus, brought forth.
Thus, too, says Stesichorus. Whence it seems that at that
time the country was from him named Arabia, though it is
not likely this was the case in the heroic period.259
35. There are many who would make the Erembi a tribe
of the Ethiopians, or of the Cephenes, or again of the Pygmies,
and a thousand other fancies. These ought to be regarded
with little trust; since their opinion is not only incredible,
but they evidently labour under a certain confusion as to the
different characters of history and fable. In the same category
must be reckoned those who place the Sidonians and Phœnicians
in the Persian Gulf, or somewhere else in the Ocean, and
make the wanderings of Menelaus to have happened there.
Not the least cause for mistrusting these writers is the manner
in which they contradict each other. One half would have
us believe that the Sidonians are a colony from the people
whom they describe as located on the shores of the [Indian]
Ocean, and who they say were called Phœnicians from the
colour of the Erythræan Sea, while the others declare the
opposite.260
Some again would transport Ethiopia into our Phœnicia,
and make Joppa the scene of the adventures of Andromeda;261
and this not from any ignorance of the topography of those
places, but by a kind of mythic fiction similar to those of
Hesiod and other writers censured by Apollodorus, who, however,
couples Homer with them, without, as it appears, any
cause. He cites as instances what Homer relates of the
Euxine and Egypt, and accuses him of ignorance for pretending
to speak the actual truth, and then recounting fable, all the
while ignorantly mistaking it for fact. Will any one then accuse
Hesiod of ignorance on account of his Hemicynes,262 his Macrocephali,263
and his Pygmies; or Homer for his like fables, and
amongst others the Pygmies themselves; or Alcman264 for describing
the Steganopodes;265 or Æschylus for his Cynocephali,266
Sternophthalmi,267 and Monommati;268 when amongst
prose writers, and in works bearing the appearance of veritable
history, we frequently meet with similar narrations, and
that without any admission of their having inserted such
myths. Indeed it becomes immediately evident that they
have woven together a tissue of myths not through ignorance
of the real facts, but merely to amuse by a deceptive narration
of the impossible and marvellous. If they appear to do
this in ignorance, it is because they can romance more frequently
and with greater plausibility on those things which
are uncertain and unknown. This Theopompus plainly confesses
in the announcement of his intention to relate the fables
in his history in a better style than Herodotus, Ctesias, Hellanicus,
and those who had written on the affairs of India.
36. Homer has described to us the phenomena of the ocean
under the form of a myth; this [art] is very desirable in a
poet; the idea of his Charybdis was taken from the ebb
and flow of the tide, and was by no means a pure invention
of his own, but derived from what he knew concerning
the Strait of Sicily.269 And although he states that the ebb
and flow occurred thrice during the four and twenty hours,
instead of twice,
“(Each day she thrice disgorges, and each day
we must suppose that he said this not through any ignorance
of the fact, but for tragic effect, and to excite the fear which
Circe endeavours to infuse into her arguments to deter
Ulysses from departing, even at a little expense of truth.
The following is the language Circe makes use of in her
speech to him:
“Each day she thrice disgorges, and each day
Thrice swallows it. Ah! well-forewarn’d beware
What time she swallows, that thou come not nigh,
For not himself, Neptune, could snatch thee thence.”
271
And yet when Ulysses was ingulfed in the eddy he was not
lost. He tells us himself,
“It was the time when she absorb’d profound
The briny flood, but by a wave upborne,
I seized the branches fast of the wild fig,
To which bat-like I clung.”
272
And then having waited for the timbers of the wreck he seized
hold of them, and thus saved himself. Circe, therefore, had
exaggerated both the peril, and also the fact of its vomiting
forth thrice a day instead of twice. However, this latter is a
hyperbole which every one makes use of; thus we say thrice-happy
and thrice-miserable.
So the poet,
“Thrice-happy Greeks!”
273
Again,
“O delightful, thrice-wished for!”
274
And again,
“O thrice and four times.”
275
Any one, too, might conclude from the passage itself that
Homer even here hinted at the truth, for the long time which
the remains of the wreck lay under water, which Ulysses, who
was all the while hanging suspended to the branches, so anxiously
desired to rise, accords much better with the ebb and
flow taking place but twice during the night and day instead
of thrice.
“Therefore hard
I clench’d the boughs, till she disgorged again
Both keel and mast. Not undesired by me
They came, though late; for at what hour the judge,
After decision made of numerous strifes
Between young candidates for honour, leaves
The forum, for refreshment’s sake at home,
Then was it that the mast and keel emerged.”
276
Every word of this indicates a considerable length of time,
especially when he prolongs it to the evening, not merely saying
at that time when the judge has risen, but having adjudicated
on a vast number of cases, and therefore detained
longer than usual. Otherwise his account of the return of the
wreck would not have appeared likely, if he had brought it
back again with the return of the wave, before it had been
first carried a long way off.
37. Apollodorus, who agrees with Eratosthenes, throws
much blame upon Callimachus for asserting, in spite of his
character as a grammarian, that Gaudus277 and Corcyra278 were
among the scenes of Ulysses’ wandering, such an opinion
being altogether in defiance of Homer’s statement, and his description
of the places as situated in the exterior ocean.279
This criticism is just if we suppose the wandering to have
never actually occurred, and to be merely the result of Homer’s
imagination; but if it did take place, although in other
regions, Apollodorus ought plainly to have stated which they
were, and thus set right the mistake of Callimachus. Since,
however, after such evidence as we have produced, we cannot
believe the whole account to be a fiction, and since no other more
likely places have as yet been named, we hold that the grammarian
is absolved from blame.
38. Demetrius of Skepsis is also wrong, and, in fact, the
cause of some of the mistakes of Apollodorus. He eagerly
objects to the statement of Neanthes of Cyzicus, that the
Argonauts, when they sailed to the Phasis,280 founded at
Cyzicus the temples of the Idæan Mother.281 Though their
voyage is attested both by Homer and other writers, he
denies that Homer had any knowledge whatever of the departure
of Jason to the Phasis. In so doing, he not only
contradicts the very words of Homer, but even his own assertions.
The poet informs us that Achilles, having ravaged
Lesbos282 and other districts, spared Lemnos283 and the adjoining
islands, on account of his relationship with Jason and his son
Euneos,284 who then had possession of the island. How should
he know of a relationship, identity of race, or other connexion
existing between Achilles and Jason, which, after all,
was nothing else than that they were both Thessalians, one
being of Iolcos,285 the other of the Achæan Pthiotis,286 and yet
was not aware how it happened that Jason, who was a Thessalian
of Iolcos, should leave no descendants in the land of his
nativity, but establish his son as ruler of Lemnos? Homer
then was familiar with the history of Pelias and the daughters
of Pelias, of Alcestis, who was the most charming of them
all, and of her son
“Eumelus, whom Alcestis, praised
For beauty above all her sisters fair,
In Thessaly to king Admetus bore,”
287
and was yet ignorant of all that befell Jason, and Argo, and
the Argonauts, matters on the actual occurrence of which all
the world is agreed. The tale then of their voyage in the
ocean from Æeta, was a mere fiction, for which he had no
authority in history.
39. If, however, the expedition to the Phasis, fitted out by
Pelias, its return, and the conquest of several islands, have at
the bottom any truth whatever, as all say they have, so also
has the account of their wanderings, no less than those of
Ulysses and Menelaus; monuments of the actual occurrence
of which remain to this day elsewhere than in the writings of
Homer. The city of Æa, close by the Phasis, is still pointed
out. Æetes is generally believed to have reigned in Colchis,
the name is still common throughout the country, tales of the
sorceress Medea are yet abroad, and the riches of the country
in gold, silver, and iron, proclaim the motive of Jason’s expedition,
as well as of that which Phrixus had formerly undertaken.
Traces both of one and the other still remain.
Such is Phrixium,288 midway between Colchis and Iberia, and
the Jasonia, or towns of Jason, which are every where met
with in Armenia, Media, and the surrounding countries.
Many are the witnesses to the reality of the expeditions of
Jason and Phrixus at Sinope289 and its shore, at Propontis, at the
Hellespont, and even at Lemnos. Of Jason and his Colchian
followers there are traces even as far as Crete,290 Italy, and the
Adriatic. Callimachus himself alludes to it where he says,
”[The temple of] Apollo and [the Isle of] Anaphe,
291
Near to Laconian Thera.”
292
In the verses which commence,
“I sing how the heroes from Cytæan Æeta,
Return’d again to ancient Æmonia.”
293
And again concerning the Colchians, who,
“Ceasing to plough with oars the Illyrian Sea,
294
Near to the tomb of fair Harmonia,
Who was transform’d into a dragon’s shape,
Founded their city, which a Greek would call
The Town of Fugitives, but in their tongue
Is Pola named.”
Some writers assert that Jason and his companions sailed
high up the Ister, others say he sailed only so far as to be
able to gain the Adriatic: the first statement results altogether
from ignorance; the second, which supposes there is a second
Ister having its source from the larger river of the same name,
and discharging its waters into the Adriatic, is neither incredible
nor even improbable.295
40. Starting from these premises, the poet, in conformity
both with general custom and his own practice, narrates some
circumstances as they actually occurred, and paints others in
the colours of fiction. He follows history when he tells us of
Æetes and Jason also, when he talks of Argo, and on the authority
of [the actual city of Æa], feigns his city of Ææa,
when he settles Euneos in Lemnos, and makes that island
friendly to Achilles, and when, in imitation of Medea, he makes
the sorceress Circe
“Sister by birth of the all-wise Æetes,”
296
he adds the fiction of the entrance of the Argonauts into the
exterior ocean as the sequel to their wanderings on their return
home. Here, supposing the previous statements admitted,
the truth of the phrase “the renowned Argo,”297 is evident,
since, in that case, the expedition was directed to a populous
and well-known country. But if, as [Demetrius] of Skepsis
asserts, on the authority of Mimnermus, Æetes dwelt by
the Ocean, and Jason was sent thither far east by Pelias,
to bring back the fleece, it neither seems probable that such
an expedition would have been undertaken into unknown and
obscure countries after the Fleece, nor could a voyage to
lands desert, uninhabited, and so far remote from us, be considered
either glorious or renowned.
[Here follow the words of Demetrius.]
“Nor as yet had Jason, having accomplished the arduous journey, carried
off the splendid fleece from Æa, fulfilling the dangerous mission of
the insolent Pelias, nor had they ploughed the glorious wave of the
ocean.”
And again:
“The city of Æetes, where the rays of the swift sun recline on their
golden bed by the shore of the ocean, which the noble Jason visited.”
1. Eratosthenes is guilty of another fault in so frequently
referring to the works of men beneath his notice,
sometimes for the purpose of refuting them; at others,
when he agrees with them, in order to cite them as authorities.
I allude to Damastes, and such as him, who even when
they speak the truth, are utterly unworthy of being appealed
to as authorities, or vouchers for the credibility of a statement.
For such purposes the writings of trustworthy men should only
be employed, who have accurately described much; and though
perhaps they may have omitted many points altogether, and
barely touched on others, are yet never guilty of wilfully falsifying
their statements. To cite Damastes as an authority is
little better than to quote the Bergæan,298 or Euemerus the
Messenian, and those other scribblers whom Eratosthenes
himself sneers at for their absurdities. Why, he even points
out as one of the follies of this Damastes, his observation that
the Arabian Gulf was a lake;299 likewise the statement that
Diotimus, the son of Strombicus and chief of the Athenian
legation, sailed through Cilicia up the Cydnus300 into the river
Choaspes,301 which flows by Susa,302 and so arrived at that capital
after forty days’ journey. This particular he professes to state
on the authority of Diotimus himself, and then expresses his
wonder whether the Cydnus could actually cross the Euphrates
and Tigris in order to disgorge itself into the Choaspes.303
2. However, this is not all we have to say against him.
Of many places he tells us that nothing is known, when
in fact they have every one been accurately described. Then
he warns us to be very cautious in believing what we are
told on such matters, and endeavours by long and tedious
arguments to show the value of his advice; swallowing at
the same time the most ridiculous absurdities himself concerning
the Euxine and Adriatic. Thus he believed the
Bay of Issus304 to be the most easterly point of the Mediterranean,
though Dioscurias,305 which is nearly at the bottom of the
Pontus Euxinus, is, according to his own calculations, farther
east by a distance of 3000 stadia.306 In describing the northern
and farther parts of the Adriatic he cannot refrain from similar
romancing, and gives credit to many strange narrations
concerning what lies beyond the Pillars of Hercules, informing
us of an Isle of Kerne there, and other places now nowhere
to be found, which we shall speak of presently.
Having remarked that the ancients, whether out on piratical
excursions, or for the purposes of commerce, never ventured
into the high seas, but crept along the coast, and instancing
Jason, who leaving his vessels at Colchis penetrated into Armenia
and Media on foot, he proceeds to tell us that formerly
no one dared to navigate either the Euxine or the seas by
Libya, Syria, and Cilicia. If by formerly he means periods
so long past that we possess no record of them, it is of
little consequence to us whether they navigated those seas or
not, but if [he speaks] of times of which we know any thing,
and if we are to place any trust in the accounts which have
come down to us, every one will admit that the ancients appear
to have made longer journeys both by sea and land than their
successors; witness Bacchus, Hercules, nay Jason himself,
and again Ulysses and Menelaus, of whom Homer tells us.
It seems most probable that Theseus and Pirithous are indebted
to some long voyages for the credit they afterwards
obtained of having visited the infernal regions; and in like
manner the Dioscuri307 gained the appellation of guardians of
the sea, and the deliverers of sailors.308 The sovereignty of
the seas exercised by Minos, and the navigation carried on
by the Phœnicians, is well known. A little after the period
of the Trojan war they had penetrated beyond the Pillars of
Hercules, and founded cities as well there as to the midst of
the African coast.309 Is it not correct to number amongst the
ancients Æneas,310 Antenor,311 the Heneti, and all the crowd of
warriors, who, after the destruction of Troy, wandered over
the face of the whole earth? For at the conclusion of the war
both the Greeks and Barbarians found themselves deprived,
the one of their livelihood at home, the other of the fruits of
their expedition; so that when Troy was overthrown, the
victors, and still more the vanquished, who had survived the
conflict, were compelled by want to a life of piracy; and we
learn that they became the founders of many cities along the
sea-coast beyond Greece,312 besides several inland settlements.313
3. Again, having discoursed on the advance of knowledge
respecting the Geography of the inhabited earth, between the
time of Alexander and the period when he was writing, Eratosthenes
goes into a description of the figure of the earth;
not merely of the habitable earth, an account of which would
have been very suitable, but of the whole earth, which should
certainly have been given too, but not in this disorderly manner.
He proceeds to tell us that the earth is spheroidal, not
however perfectly so, inasmuch as it has certain irregularities,
he then enlarges on the successive changes of its form,
occasioned by water, fire, earthquakes, eruptions, and the
like; all of which is entirely out of place, for the spheroidal
form of the whole earth is the result of the system of the universe,
and the phenomena which he mentions do not in the
least change its general form; such little matters being entirely
lost in the great mass of the earth. Still they cause
various peculiarities in different parts of our globe, and result
from a variety of causes.
4. He points out as a most interesting subject for disquisition
the fact of our finding, often quite inland, two or three
thousand stadia from the sea, vast numbers of muscle, oyster,
and scallop-shells, and salt-water lakes.314 He gives as an
instance, that about the temple of Ammon,315 and along the road
to it for the space of 3000 stadia, there are yet found a vast
amount of oyster shells, many salt-beds, and salt springs bubbling
up, besides which are pointed out numerous fragments
of wreck which they say have been cast up through some
opening, and dolphins placed on pedestals with the inscription,
Of the delegates from Cyrene. Herein he agrees with the
opinion of Strato the natural philosopher, and Xanthus of
Lydia. Xanthus mentioned that in the reign of Artaxerxes
there was so great a drought, that every river, lake, and well
was dried up: and that in many places he had seen a long way
from the sea fossil shells, some like cockles, others resembling
scallop shells, also salt lakes in Armenia, Matiana,316 and
Lower Phrygia, which induced him to believe that sea had
formerly been where the land now was. Strato, who went more
deeply into the causes of these phenomena, was of opinion that
formerly there was no exit to the Euxine as now at Byzantium,
but that the rivers running into it had forced a way
through, and thus let the waters escape into the Propontis,
and thence to the Hellespont.317 And that a like change had
occurred in the Mediterranean. For the sea being overflowed
by the rivers, had opened for itself a passage by the Pillars of
Hercules, and thus, much that was formerly covered by water,
had been left dry.318 He gives as the cause of this, that anciently
the levels of the Mediterranean and Atlantic were not
the same, and states that a bank of earth, the remains of
the ancient separation of the two seas, is still stretched under
water from Europe to Africa. He adds, that the Euxine is
the most shallow, and the seas of Crete, Sicily, and Sardinia
much deeper, which is occasioned by the number of large
rivers flowing into the Euxine both from the north and east,
and so filling it up with mud, whilst the others preserve their
depth. This is the cause of the remarkable sweetness of the
Euxine Sea, and of the currents which regularly set towards the
deepest part. He gives it as his opinion, that should the rivers
continue to flow in the same direction, the Euxine will in time
be filled up [by the deposits], since already the left side of the
sea is little else than shallows, as also Salmydessus,319 and the
shoals at the mouth of the Ister, and the desert of Scythia,320
which the sailors call the Breasts. Probably too the temple of
Ammon was originally close to the sea, though now, by the continual
deposit of the waters, it is quite inland: and he conjectures
that it was owing to its being so near the sea that it became
so celebrated and illustrious, and that it never would have
enjoyed the credit it now possesses had it always been equally
remote from the sea. Egypt too [he says] was formerly
covered by sea as far as the marshes near Pelusium,321 Mount
Casius,322 and the Lake Sirbonis.323 Even at the present time,
when salt is being dug in Egypt, the beds are found under
layers of sand and mingled with fossil shells, as if this district
had formerly been under water, and as if the whole region
about Casium and Gerrha324 had been shallows reaching to the
Arabian Gulf. The sea afterwards receding left the land uncovered,
and the Lake Sirbonis remained, which having afterwards
forced itself a passage, became a marsh. In like
manner the borders of the Lake Mœris resemble a sea-beach
rather than the banks of a river. Every one will admit that
formerly at various periods a great portion of the mainland
has been covered and again left bare by the sea. Likewise
that the land now covered by the sea is not all on the same
level, any more than that whereon we dwell; which is now
uncovered and has experienced so many changes, as Eratosthenes
has observed. Consequently in the reasoning of Xanthus
there does not appear to be any thing out of place.
5. In regard to Strato, however, we must remark that,
leaving out of the question the many arguments he has properly
stated, some of those which he has brought forward are
quite inadmissible. For first he is inaccurate in stating that
the beds of the interior and the exterior seas have not the
same level, and that the depth of those two seas is different:
whereas the cause why the sea is at one time raised, at another
depressed, that it inundates certain places and again
retreats, is not that the beds have different levels, some
higher and some lower, but simply this, that the same beds
are at one time raised, at another depressed, causing the sea
to rise or subside with them; for having risen they cause
an inundation, and when they subside the waters return to
their former places. For if it is so, an inundation will of
course accompany every sudden increase of the waters of
the sea, [as in the spring-tides,] or the periodical swelling
of rivers, in the one instance the waters being brought together
from distant parts of the ocean, in the other, their
volume being increased. But the risings of rivers are not
violent and sudden, nor do the tides continue any length of
time, nor occur irregularly; nor yet along the coasts of our
sea do they cause inundations, nor any where else. Consequently
we must seek for an explanation of the cause
either in the stratum composing the bed of the sea, or in that
which is overflowed; we prefer to look for it in the former,
since by reason of its humidity it is more liable to shiftings
and sudden changes of position, and we shall find that in these
matters the wind is the great agent after all. But, I repeat
it, the immediate cause of these phenomena, is not in the fact
of one part of the bed of the ocean being higher or lower than
another, but in the upheaving or depression of the strata on
which the waters rest. Strato’s hypothesis evidently originated
in the belief that that which occurs in rivers is also the case in
regard to the sea; viz. that there is a flow of water from the
higher places. Otherwise he would not have attempted to account
for the current he observed at the Strait of Byzantium in
the manner he does, attributing it to the bed of the Euxine being
higher than that of the Propontis and adjoining ocean, and
even attempting to explain the cause thereof: viz. that the
bed of the Euxine is filled up and choked by the deposit of
the rivers which flow into it; and its waters in consequence
driven out into the neighbouring sea. The same theory he
would apply in respect to the Mediterranean and Atlantic,
alleging that the bed of the former is higher than that of the
latter in consequence of the number of rivers which flow into
it, and the alluvium they carry along with them. In that case
there ought to be a like influx at the Pillars and Calpe,325 as
there is at Byzantium. But I waive this objection, as it might
be asserted that the influx was the same in both places, but
owing to the interference of the ebb and flow of the sea, became
imperceptible.
6. I rather make this inquiry:—If there were any reason
why, before the outlet was opened at Byzantium, the bed of the
Euxine (being deeper than either that of the Propontis326 or of
the adjoining sea327) should not gradually have become more
shallow by the deposit of the rivers which flow into it, allowing
it formerly either to have been a sea, or merely a vast
lake greater than the Palus Mæotis? This proposition being
conceded, I would next ask, whether before this the bed of
the Euxine would not have been brought to the same level as
the Propontis, and in that case, the pressure being counter-poised,
the overflowing of the water have been thus avoided;
and if after the Euxine had been filled up, the superfluous waters
would not naturally have forced a passage and flowed off, and
by their commingling and power have caused the Euxine and
Propontis to flow into each other, and thus become one sea?
no matter, as I said above, whether formerly it were a sea or a
lake, though latterly certainly a sea. This also being conceded,
they must allow that the present efflux depends neither upon
the elevation nor the inclination of the bed, as Strato’s theory
would have us consider it.
7. We would apply the same arguments to the whole of the
Mediterranean and Atlantic, and account for the efflux of the
former, not by any [supposed] difference between the elevation
and inclination of its bed and of that of the Atlantic, but
attribute it to the number of rivers which empty themselves into
it. Since, according to this supposition, it is not incredible that
had the whole of the Mediterranean Sea in times past been but
a lake filled by the rivers, and having overflowed, it might have
broken through the Strait at the Pillars, as through a cataract;
and still continuing to swell more and more, the Atlantic in
course of time would have become confluent by that channel,
and have run into one level, the Mediterranean thus becoming
a sea. In fine, the Physician did wrong in comparing the sea
to rivers, for the latter are borne down as a descending stream,
but the sea always maintains its level. The currents of
straits depend upon other causes, not upon the accumulation
of earth formed by the alluvial deposit from rivers, filling up
the bed of the sea. This accumulation only goes on at the
mouths of rivers. Such are what are called the Stethe or
Breasts at the mouth of the Ister,328 the desert of the Scythians,
and Salmydessus, which are partially occasioned by other
winter-torrents as well; witness the sandy, low, and even coast
of Colchis,329 at the mouth of the Phasis,330 the whole of the coast
of Themiscyra,331 named the plain of the Amazons, near the
mouths of the Thermodon332 and Iris,333 and the greater part of
Sidene.334 It is the same with other rivers, they all resemble
the Nile in forming an alluvial deposit at their mouths, some
more, some less than others. Those rivers which carry but
little soil with them deposit least, while others, which traverse
an extended and soft country, and receive many torrents in
their course, deposit the greatest quantity. Such for example
is the river Pyramus,335 by which Cilicia has been considerably
augmented, and concerning which an oracle has declared, “This
shall occur when the wide waters of the Pyramus have enlarged
their banks as far as sacred Cyprus.”336 This river becomes navigable
from the middle of the plains of Cataonia, and entering
Cilicia337 by the defiles of the Taurus, discharges itself into the
sea which flows between that country and the island of Cyprus.
8. These river deposits are prevented from advancing further
into the sea by the regularity of the ebb and flow, which
continually drive them back. For after the manner of living
creatures, which go on inhaling and exhaling their breath continually,
so the sea in a like way keeps up a constant motion
in and out of itself. Any one may observe who stands on the
sea-shore when the waves are in motion, the regularity with
which they cover, then leave bare, and then again cover up
his feet. This agitation of the sea produces a continual movement
on its surface, which even when it is most tranquil has
considerable force, and so throws all extraneous matters on
to the land, and
“Flings forth the salt weed on the shore.”
338
This effect is certainly most considerable when the wind is on
the water, but it continues when all is hushed, and even when
it blows from land the swell is still carried to the shore against
the wind, as if by a peculiar motion of the sea itself. To this
the verses refer—
“O’er the rocks that breast the flood
Borne turgid, scatter far the showery spray,”
339
and,
“Loud sounds the roar of waves ejected wide.”
340
9. The wave, as it advances, possesses a kind of power,
which some call the purging of the sea, to eject all foreign
substances. It is by this force that dead bodies and wrecks
are cast on shore. But on retiring it does not possess sufficient
power to carry back into the sea either dead bodies,
wood, or even the lightest substances, such as cork, which
may have been cast out by the waves. And by this means
when places next the sea fall down, being undermined by the
wave, the earth and the water charged with it are cast back
again; and the weight [of the mud] working at the same
time in conjunction with the force of the advancing tide, it is
the sooner brought to settle at the bottom, instead of being
carried out far into the sea. The force of the river current
ceases at a very little distance beyond its mouth. Otherwise,
supposing the rivers had an uninterrupted flow, by degrees
the whole ocean would be filled in, from the beach onwards,
by the alluvial deposits. And this would be inevitable
even were the Euxine deeper than the sea of Sardinia, than
which a deeper sea has never been sounded, measuring, as it
does, according to Posidonius, about 1000 fathoms.341
10. Some, however, may be disinclined to admit this explanation,
and would rather have proof from things more
manifest to the senses, and which seem to meet us at every
turn. Now deluges, earthquakes, eruptions of wind, and
risings in the bed of the sea, these things cause the rising
of the ocean, as sinking of the bottom causes it to become
lower. It is not the case that small volcanic or other islands
can be raised up from the sea, and not large ones, nor that
all islands can, but not continents, since extensive sinkings
of the land no less than small ones have been known;
witness the yawning of those chasms which have ingulfed
whole districts no less than their cities, as is said to have
happened to Bura,342 Bizone,343 and many other towns at the
time of earthquakes: and there is no more reason why one
should rather think Sicily to have been disjoined from the
mainland of Italy than cast up from the bottom of the sea by
the fires of Ætna, as the Lipari and Pithecussan344 Isles have
been.
11. However, so nice a fellow is Eratosthenes, that though
he professes himself a mathematician,345 he rejects entirely the
dictum of Archimedes, who, in his work “On Bodies in Suspension,”
says that all liquids when left at rest assume a spherical
form, having a centre of gravity similar to that of the earth.
A dictum which is acknowledged by all who have the slightest
pretensions to mathematical sagacity. He says that the
Mediterranean, which, according to his own description, is one
entire sea has not the same level even at points quite close
to each other; and offers us the authority of engineers for
this piece of folly, notwithstanding the affirmation of mathematicians
that engineering is itself only one division of the
mathematics. He tells us that Demetrius346 intended to cut
through the Isthmus of Corinth, to open a passage for his
fleet, but was prevented by his engineers, who, having taken
measurements, reported that the level of the sea at the Gulf
of Corinth was higher than at Cenchrea,347 so that if he cut
through the isthmus, not only the coasts near Ægina, but
even Ægina itself, with the neighbouring islands, would be
laid completely under water, while the passage would prove
of little value. According to Eratosthenes, it is this which
occasions the current in straits, especially the current in the
Strait of Sicily,348 where effects similar to the flow and ebb of
the tide are remarked. The current there changes twice in
the course of a day and night, like as in that period the
tides of the sea flow and ebb twice. In the Tyrrhenian sea349
the current which is called descendent, and which runs towards
the sea of Sicily, as if it followed an inclined plane,
corresponds to the flow of the tide in the ocean. We may
remark, that this current corresponds to the flow both in the
time of its commencement and cessation. For it commences
at the rising and setting of the moon, and recedes when that
satellite attains its meridian, whether above [in the zenith] or
below the earth [in the nadir]. In the same way occurs the
opposite or ascending current, as it is called. It corresponds to
the ebb of the ocean, and commences as soon as the moon has
reached either zenith or nadir, and ceases the moment she
reaches the point of her rising or setting. [So far Eratosthenes.]
12. The nature of the ebb and flow has been sufficiently treated
of by Posidonius and Athenodorus. Concerning the flux and
reflux of the currents, which also may be explained by physics,
it will suffice our present purpose to observe, that in the
various straits these do not resemble each other, but each strait
has its own peculiar current. Were they to resemble each other,
the current at the Strait of Sicily350 would not change merely
twice during the day, (as Eratosthenes himself tells us it does,)
and at Chalcis seven times;351 nor again that of Constantinople,
which does not change at all, but runs always in one direction
from the Euxine to the Propontis, and, as Hipparchus tells us,
sometimes ceases altogether. However, if they did all depend
on one cause, it would not be that which Eratosthenes
has assigned, namely, that the various seas have different levels.
The kind of inequality he supposes would not even be found
in rivers only for the cataracts; and where these cataracts
occur, they occasion no ebbing, but have one continued downward
flow, which is caused by the inclination both of the flow
and the surface; and therefore though they have no flux or
reflux they do not remain still, on account of a principle of
flowing which is inherent in them; at the same time they
cannot be on the same level, but one must be higher and one
lower than another. But who ever imagined the surface of
the ocean to be on a slope, especially those who follow a system
which supposes the four bodies we call elementary, to be
spherical.352 For water is not like the earth, which being of a
solid nature is capable of permanent depressions and risings,
but by its force of gravity spreads equally over the earth,
and assumes that kind of level which Archimedes has assigned
it.
13. To what we cited before concerning the temple of Ammon
and Egypt, Eratosthenes adds, that to judge from appearances,
Mount Casius353 was formerly covered by sea, and
the whole district now known as Gerra lay under shoal water
touching the bay of the Erythræan Sea,354 but was left dry on
the union355 of the [Mediterranean] Sea [with the ocean]. A
certain amphibology lurks here under this description of the
district lying under shoal water and touching the bay of the
Erythræan Sea; for to touch356 both means to be close to, and
also to be in actual contact with, so that when applied to
water it would signify that one flows into the other. I understand
him to mean, that so long as the strait by the Pillars of
Hercules remained closed, these marshes covered with shoal-water
extended as far as the Arabian Gulf, but on that passage
being forced open, the Mediterranean, discharging itself
by the strait, became lower, and the land was left dry.
On the other hand, Hipparchus understands by the term
touching, that the Mediterranean, being over-full, flowed into
the Erythræan Sea, and he inquires how it could happen,
that as the Mediterranean flowed out by this new vent at the
Pillars of Hercules, the Erythræan Sea, which was all one
with it, did not flow away too, and thus become lower, but has
always retained the same level? and since Eratosthenes supposes
the whole exterior sea to be confluent, it follows that the
Western Ocean357 and the Erythræan Sea are all one; and thus
[remarks Hipparchus] as a necessary consequence, the sea beyond
the Pillars of Hercules, the Erythræan Sea, and that also
which is confluent with it,358 have all the same level.
14. But, Eratosthenes would reply, I never said that, in consequence
of the repletion of the Mediterranean, it actually
flowed into the Erythræan Sea, but only that it approached
very near thereto: besides, it does not follow, that in one and
the self-same sea, the level of its surface must be all the same;
to instance the Mediterranean itself, no one, surely, will say it
is of the same height at Lechæum359 and at Cenchrea.360 This
answer Hipparchus anticipated in his Critique; and being
aware of the opinion of Eratosthenes, was justified in attacking
his arguments. But he ought not to have taken it for granted,
that when Eratosthenes said the exterior sea was all one, he
necessarily implied that its level was every where the same.
15. Hipparchus rejects as false the [account] of the inscription
on the dolphins “by the delegates from Cyrene,” but the
reason he assigns for this is insufficient, viz. that though Cyrene
was built in times of which we have record, no one mentions the
oracle,361 as being situated on the sea-shore. But what matters
is that no historian has recorded this, when amongst the other
proofs from which we infer that this place was formerly on
the sea-shore, we number this of the dolphins which were set
up, and the inscription, “by the delegates from Cyrene?”362 Hipparchus
agrees that if the bottom of the sea were raised up,
it would lift the water with it, and might therefore overflow
the land as far as the locality of the oracle, or more than 3000
stadia from the shore; but he will not allow that the rising
would be sufficient to overflow the Island of Pharos and the
major portion of Egypt, since [he says] the elevation would
not be sufficient to submerge these. He alleges that if before
the opening of the passage at the Pillars of Hercules, the
Mediterranean had been swollen to such an extent as Eratosthenes
affirms, the whole of Libya, and the greater part of
Europe and Asia, must long ago have been buried beneath its
waves. Besides, he adds, in this case the Euxine would in
certain places have been connected with the Adriatic, since
in the vicinity of the Euxine, [near to its source,]363 the Ister
is divided in its course, and flows into either sea, owing to the
peculiarities of the ground.364 To this we object, that the Ister
does not take its rise at all in the vicinity of the Euxine, but,
on the contrary, beyond the mountains of the Adriatic; neither
does it flow into both the seas, but into the Euxine alone, and
only becomes divided just above its mouths. This latter,
however, was an error into which he fell in common with
many of his predecessors. They supposed that there was
another river in addition to the former Ister, bearing the
same name, which emptied itself into the Adriatic, and from
which the country of Istria, through which it flowed, gained
that appellation. It was by this river they believed Jason
returned on his voyage from Colchis.
16. In order to lessen surprise at such changes as we have
mentioned as causes of the inundations and other similar
phenomena which are supposed to have produced Sicily, the
islands of Æolus,365 and the Pithecussæ, it may be as well to
compare with these others of a similar nature, which either
now are, or else have been observed in other localities. A
large array of such facts placed at once before the eye would
serve to allay our astonishment; while that which is uncommon
startles our perception, and manifests our general ignorance of
the occurrences which take place in nature and physical existence.
For instance, supposing any one should narrate the
circumstances concerning Thera and the Therasian Islands,
situated in the strait between Crete and the Cyrenaic,366 Thera
being itself the metropolis of Cyrene; or those [in connexion
with] Egypt, and many parts of Greece. For midway between
Thera and Therasia flames rushed forth from the sea
for the space of four days; causing the whole of it to boil
and be all on fire; and after a little an island twelve stadia
in circumference, composed of the burning mass, was thrown
up, as if raised by machinery. After the cessation of this
phenomenon, the Rhodians, then masters of the sea, were
the first who dared to sail to the place, and they built
there on the island a temple to the Asphalian367 Neptune.
Posidonius remarks, that during an earthquake which occurred
in Phœnicia, a city situated above Sidon was swallowed
up, and that nearly two-thirds of Sidon also fell, but not suddenly,
and therefore with no great loss of life. That the same
occurred, though in a lighter form, throughout nearly the whole
of Syria, and was felt even in some of the Cyclades and the
Island of Eubœa,368 so that the fountains of Arethusa, a spring
in Chalcis, were completely obstructed, and after some time
forced for themselves another opening, and the whole island
ceased not to experience shocks until a chasm was rent open
in the earth in the plain of Lelanto,369 from which poured a
river of burning mud.
17. Many writers have recorded similar occurrences, but it
will suffice us to narrate those which have been collected by
Demetrius of Skepsis.
Apropos of that passage of Homer:—
“And now they reach’d the running rivulets clear,
Where from Scamander’s dizzy flood arise
Two fountains, tepid one, from which a smoke
Issues voluminous as from a fire,
The other, even in summer heats, like hail
For cold, or snow, or crystal stream frost-bound:”
370
this writer tells us we must not be surprised, that although
the cold spring still remains, the hot cannot be discovered;
and says we must reckon the failing of the hot spring as the
cause. He goes on to relate certain catastrophes recorded by
Democles, how formerly in the reign of Tantalus371 there were
great earthquakes in Lydia and Ionia as far as the Troad,372
which swallowed up whole villages and overturned Mount
Sipylus;373 marshes then became lakes, and the city of Troy was
covered by the waters.374 Pharos, near Egypt, which anciently
was an island, may now be called a peninsula, and the same
may be said of Tyre and Clazomenæ.375
During my stay at Alexandria in Egypt the sea rose so
high near Pelusium376 and Mount Casius377 as to overflow the
land, and convert the mountain into an island, so that a
journey from Casius into Phœnicia might have been undertaken
by water. We should not be surprised therefore if in
time to come the isthmus378 which separates the Egyptian sea379
from the Erythræan,380 should part asunder or subside, and becoming
a strait, connect the outer and inner seas,381 similarly
to what has taken place at the strait of the Pillars.
At the commencement of this work will be found some
other narrations of a similar kind, which should be considered
at the same time, and which will greatly tend to strengthen our
belief both in these works of nature and also in its other changes.
18. The Piræus having been formerly an island, and lying
πέραν, or off the shore, is said to have thus received its name.
Leucas,382 on the contrary, has been made an island by the
Corinthians, who cut through the isthmus which connected it
with the shore [of the mainland]. It is concerning this place
that Laertes is made to say,
“Oh that I possess’d
Such vigour now as when in arms I took
Nericus, continental city fair.”
383
Here man devoted his labour to make a separation, in
other instances to the construction of moles and bridges.
Such is that which connects the island opposite to Syracuse384
with the mainland. This junction is now effected by means
of a bridge, but formerly, according to Ibycus, by a pier of
picked stones, which he calls elect. Of Bura385 and Helice,386
one has been swallowed by an earthquake, the other covered
by the waves. Near to Methone,387 which is on the Hermionic
Gulf,388 a mountain seven stadia in height was cast up during a
fiery eruption; during the day it could not be approached on
account of the heat and sulphureous smell; at night it
emitted an agreeable odour, appeared brilliant at a distance,
and was so hot that the sea boiled all around it to a distance
of five stadia, and appeared in a state of agitation for twenty
stadia, the heap being formed of fragments of rock as large as
towers. Both Arne and Mideia389 have been buried in the
waters of Lake Copaïs.390 These towns the poet in his Catalogue391
thus speaks of;
“Arne claims
A record next for her illustrious sons,
Vine-bearing Arne. Thou wast also there
It seems that several Thracian cities have been submerged by
the Lake Bistonis,393 and that now called Aphnitis.394 Some also
affirm that certain cities of Trerus were also overwhelmed, in
the neighbourhood of Thrace. Artemita, formerly one of the
Echinades,395 is now part of the mainland; the same has happened
to some other of the islets near the Achelous, occasioned,
it is said, in the same way, by the alluvium carried into the
sea by that river, and Hesiod396 assures us that a like fate
awaits them all. Some of the Ætolian promontories were
formerly islands. Asteria,397 called by Homer Asteris, is no
longer what it was.
“There is a rocky isle
In the mid-sea, Samos the rude between
And Ithaca, not large, named Asteris.
It hath commodious havens, into which
A passage clear opens on either side.”
398
There is no good anchorage there now. Neither is there in
Ithaca the cavern, nor yet the temple of the nymphs described
to us by Homer. It seems more correct to attribute this to
change having come over the places, than either to the ignorance
or the romancing of the poet. This however, being
uncertain, must be left to every man’s opinion.
19. Myrsilus tells us that Antissa399 was formerly an island,
and so called because it was opposite to Lesbos,400 then named
Issa. Now, however, it forms one of the towns of Lesbos.401
Some have believed that Lesbos itself has been disjoined from
Mount Ida in the same way as Prochytas402 and Pithecussa403
from Misenum,404 Capreæ405 from the Athenæum, Sicily from
Rhegium,406 and Ossa from Olympus.407 Many changes similar
to these have occurred elsewhere. The river Ladon in Arcadia
ceased for some time its flow. Duris informs us that
the Rhagæ408 in Media gained that appellation from chasms
made in the ground near the Gates of the Caspian409 by earthquakes,
in which many cities and villages were destroyed, and
the rivers underwent various changes. Ion, in his satirical
composition of Omphale, has said of Eubœa,
“The light wave of the Euripus has divided the land of Eubœa from
Bœotia; separating the projecting land by a strait.”
20. Demetrius of Callatis, speaking of the earthquakes
which formerly occurred throughout the whole of Greece,
states that a great portion of the Lichadian Islands and of
Kenæum410 were submerged; that the hot springs of Ædepsus411
and Thermopylæ were suppressed for three days, and that
when they commenced to run again those of Ædepsus gushed
from new fountains. That at Oreus412 on the sea-coast the
wall and nearly seven hundred houses fell at once. That the
greater part of Echinus,413 Phalara,414 and Heraclæa of Trachis415
were thrown down, Phalara being overturned from its very
foundations. That almost the same misfortune occurred to
the Lamians416 and inhabitants of Larissa; that Scarpheia417
was overthrown from its foundations, not less than one
thousand seven hundred persons being swallowed up, and at
Thronium418 more than half that number. That a torrent of water
gushed forth taking three directions, one to Scarphe and Thronium,
another to Thermopylæ, and a third to the plains of
Daphnus in Phocis. That the springs of [many] rivers were
for several days dried up; that the course of the Sperchius419
was changed, thus rendering navigable what formerly were highways;
that the Boagrius420 flowed through another channel;
that many parts of Alope, Cynus, and Opus were injured,421
and the castle of Œum, which commands the latter city, entirely
overturned. That part of the wall of Elateia422 was
thrown down; and that at Alponus,423 during the celebration of
the games in honour of Ceres, twenty-five maidens, who had
mounted a tower to enjoy the show exhibited in the port,
were precipitated into the sea by the falling of the tower.
They also record that a large fissure was made [by the water]
through the midst of the island of Atalanta,424 opposite Eubœa,425
sufficient for ships to sail in; that the course of the channel
was in places as broad as twenty stadia between the plains;
and that a trireme being raised [thereby] out of the docks,
was carried over the walls.
21. Those who desire to instil into us that more perfect freedom
from [ignorant] wonder, which Democritus and all other
philosophers so highly extol, should add the changes which have
been produced by the migrations of various tribes: we should
thus be inspired with courage, steadiness, and composure.
For instance, the Western Iberians,426 removed to the regions
beyond the Euxine and Colchis, being separated from Armenia,
according to Apollodorus, by the Araxes,427 but rather by
the Cyrus428 and Moschican mountains.429 The expedition of
the Egyptians into Ethiopia430 and Colchis. The migration of
the Heneti,431 who passed from Paphlagonia into the country
bordering on the Adriatic Gulf. Similar emigrations were also
undertaken by the nations of Greece, the Ionians, Dorians,
Achaians, and Æolians; and the Ænians,432 now next neighbours
to the Ætolians, formerly dwelt near Dotium433 and Ossa, beyond
the Perrhæbi;434 the Perrhæbi too are but wanderers here
themselves. Our present work furnishes numerous instances
of the same kind. Some of these are familiar to most readers,
but the migrations of the Carians, the Treres, the Teucrians,
and the Galatæ or Gauls,435 are not so generally known. Nor
yet for the most part are the expeditions of their chiefs, for
instance, Madys the Scythian, Tearko the Ethiopian, Cobus
of Trerus, Sesostris and Psammeticus the Egyptians; nor are
those of the Persians from Cyrus to Xerxes familiar to every
one. The Kimmerians, or a separate tribe of them, called the
Treres, have frequently overrun the countries to the right of
the Euxine and those adjacent to them, bursting now into
Paphlagonia, now into Phrygia, as they did when, according
to report, Midas436 came to his death by drinking bull’s blood.
Lygdamis led his followers into Lydia, passed through Ionia,
took Sardis, but was slain in Cilicia. The Kimmerians and
Treres frequently made similar incursions, until at last, as it
is reported, these latter, together with [their chief] Cobus, were
driven out by Madys, king of the “Scythians.”437 But enough
has been said in this place on the general history of the earth,
as each country will have a particular account.
22. We must now return to the point whence we digressed.
Herodotus having observed that there could be no such people
as Hyperboreans, inasmuch as there were no Hypernotii,438
Eratosthenes calls this argument ridiculous, and compares
it to the sophism, that there are no epichærekaki,439 inasmuch
as there are no epichæragathi;440 [adding] perhaps there are
Hypernotii; since at all events in Ethiopia Notus does not
blow, although lower down it does.
It would indeed be strange, since winds blow under every
latitude, and especially the southern wind called Notus, if any
region could be found where this latter was not felt. On
the contrary, not only does Ethiopia experience our Notus,
but also the whole country which lies above as far as the
equator.441
If Herodotus must be blamed at all, it is for supposing that
the Hyperboreans were so named in consequence of Boreas, or
the north wind, not blowing upon them. The poets are allowed
much licence in their modes of expression; but their commentators,
who endeavour always to give us the correct view,
tell us that the people who dwelt in the extreme north, were
styled Hyperboreans. The pole is the boundary of the northern
winds, and the equator of the southern; these winds have no
other limit.
23. Eratosthenes next finds fault with the writers who fill
their narrative with stories evidently feigned and impossible;
some as mere fable, but others as history, which did not deserve
mention. In the discussion of a subject like his, he
should not have wasted his time about such trifles. Such is
the way in which this writer completes the First Book of his
Memoirs.
1. In his Second Book Eratosthenes endeavours to correct
some errors in geography, and offers his own views on the
subject, any mistakes in which we shall endeavour in our turn
to set right. He is correct in saying that the inductions of
mathematics and natural philosophy should be employed, and
that if the earth is spheroidal like the universe, it is inhabited
in all parts; together with some other things of this nature.
Later writers do not agree with him as to the size of the
earth,442 nor admit his measurement. However Hipparchus,
when noting the celestial appearances for each particular locality,
adopts his admeasurements, saying that those taken for
the meridian of Meroe,443 Alexandria, and the Dnieper, differ
but very slightly from the truth. Eratosthenes then enters
into a long discussion concerning the figure of the globe,
proving that the form of the earth together with the water is
spheroidal, as also the heavens. This however we imagine
was foreign to his purpose, and should have been disposed of
in the compass of a few words.
2. After this he proceeds to determine the breadth of the
habitable earth: he tells us, that measuring from the meridian
of Meroe444 to Alexandria, there are 10,000 stadia.
From thence to the Hellespont445 about 8100. Again;
from thence to the Dnieper, 5000; and thence to the parallel
of Thule,446 which Pytheas says is six days’ sail north from
Britain, and near the Frozen Sea, other 11,500. To which
if we add 3400 stadia above Meroe in order to include the
Island of the Egyptians,447 the Cinnamon country, and Taprobane,448
there will be in all 38,000 stadia.
3. We will let pass the rest of his distances, since they are
something near,—but that the Dnieper is under the same
parallel as Thule, what man in his senses could ever agree to
this? Pytheas, who has given us the history of Thule, is known
to be a man upon whom no reliance can be placed, and other
writers who have seen Britain and Ierne,449 although they tell
us of many small islands round Britain, make no mention
whatever of Thule. The length of Britain itself is nearly the
same as that of Keltica,450 opposite to which it extends. Altogether
it is not more than 5000 stadia in length, its outermost
points corresponding to those of the opposite continent.
In fact the extreme points of the two countries lie opposite to
each other, the eastern extremity to the eastern, and the
western to the western: the eastern points are situated so
close as to be within sight of each other, both at Kent and at
the mouths of the Rhine. But Pytheas tells us that the island
[of Britain] is more than 20,000 stadia in length, and
that Kent is some days’ sail from France. With regard to
the locality of the Ostimii, and the countries beyond the
Rhine,451 as far as Scythia, he is altogether mistaken. The
veracity of a writer who has been thus false in describing
countries with which we are well acquainted, should not be
too much trusted in regard to unknown places.
4. Further, Hipparchus and many others are of opinion
that the parallel of latitude of the Dnieper does not differ
from that of Britain; since that of Byzantium and Marseilles
are the same. The degree of shadow from the gnomon which
Pytheas states he observed at Marseilles being exactly equal
to that which Hipparchus says he found at Byzantium; the
periods of observation being in both cases similar.452 Now
from Marseilles to the centre of Britain is not more than
5000 stadia; and if from the centre of Britain we advance
north not more than 4000 stadia, we arrive at a temperature in
which it is scarcely possible to exist. Such indeed is that of
Ierne.453 Consequently the far region in which Eratosthenes
places Thule must be totally uninhabitable. By what guess-work
he arrived at the conclusion that between the latitude
of Thule and the Dnieper there was a distance of 11,500
stadia I am unable to divine.
5. Eratosthenes being mistaken as to the breadth [of the
habitable earth], is necessarily wrong as to its length. The
most accurate observers, both ancient and modern, agree that
the known length of the habitable earth is more than twice
its breadth. Its length I take to be from the [eastern] extremity
of India454 to the [westernmost] point of Spain;455 and
its breadth from [the south of] Ethiopia to the latitude of Ierne.
Eratosthenes, as we have said, reckoning its breadth from the
extremity of Ethiopia to Thule, was forced to extend its length
beyond the true limits, that he might make it more than twice
as long as the breadth he had assigned to it. He says that
India, measured where it is narrowest,456 is 16,000 stadia to the
river Indus. If measured from its most prominent capes it
extends 3000 more.457 Thence to the Caspian Gates, 14,000.
From the Caspian Gates to the Euphrates,458 10,000. From
the Euphrates to the Nile, 5000.459 Thence to the Canopic460
mouth, 1300. From the Canopic mouth to Carthage,
13,500. From thence to the Pillars at least 8000. Which
make in all 70,800 stadia. To these [he says] should be added
the curvature of Europe beyond the Pillars of Hercules,
fronting the Iberians, and inclining west, not less than 3000
stadia, and the headlands, including that of the Ostimii, named
Cabæum,461 and the adjoining islands, the last of which, named
Uxisama,462 is distant, according to Pytheas, a three days’ sail.
But he added nothing to its length by enumerating these last,
viz. the headlands, including that of the Ostimii, the island of
Uxisama, and the rest; they are not situated so as affect the
length of the earth, for they all lie to the north, and belong to
Keltica, not to Iberia; indeed it seems but an invention of
Pytheas. Lastly, to fall in with the general opinion that the
breadth ought not463 to exceed half the length, he adds to the
stated measure of its length 2000 stadia west, and as many east.
6. Further, endeavouring to support the opinion that it
is in accordance with natural philosophy to reckon the greatest
dimension of the habitable earth from east to west, he
says that, according to the laws of natural philosophy, the
habitable earth ought to occupy a greater length from east to
west, than its breadth from north to south. The temperate
zone, which we have already designated as the longest zone,
is that which the mathematicians denominate a continuous
circle returning upon itself. So that if the extent of the
Atlantic Ocean were not an obstacle, we might easily pass by
sea from Iberia to India,464 still keeping in the same parallel;
the remaining portion of which parallel, measured as above
in stadia, occupies more than a third of the whole circle:
since the parallel drawn through Athens,465 on which we have
taken the distances from India to Iberia, does not contain in
the whole 200,000 stadia.
Here too his reasoning is incorrect. For this speculation
respecting the temperate zone which we inhabit, and whereof
the habitable earth is a part, devolves properly on those who
make mathematics their study. But it is not equally the
province of one treating of the habitable earth. For by this
term we mean only that portion of the temperate zone where
we dwell, and with which we are acquainted. But it is quite
possible that in the temperate zone there may be two or even
more habitable earths, especially near the circle of latitude
which is drawn through Athens and the Atlantic Ocean. After
this he returns to the form of the earth, which he again
declares to be spheroidal. Here he exhibits the same churlishness
we have previously pointed out, and goes on abusing
Homer in his old style. He proceeds:
7. “There has been much argument respecting the continents.
Some, considering them to be divided by the rivers Nile
and Tanais,466 have described them as islands; while others suppose
them to be peninsulas connected by the isthmuses between
the Caspian and the Euxine Seas, and between the Erythræan
Sea467 and Ecregma.”468 He adds, that this question does not appear
to him to be of any practical importance, but rather, as
Democritus observed, a bone of contention for angry litigants.
Where there are no precise boundary marks, columns, or walls,
as at Colyttus and Melitè,469 it is easy for us to say such a place
is Colyttus, and such another Melitè; but not so easy to show
the exact limits: thus disputes have frequently arisen concerning
certain districts; that, for instance, between the
Argives and Lacedæmonians concerning [the possession of]
Thyrea,470 and that between the Athenians and Bœotians relative
to Oropus.471 Further, in giving names to the three continents,
the Greeks did not take into consideration the whole
habitable earth, but merely their own country and the land
exactly opposite, namely, Caria, which is now inhabited by
the Ionians and other neighbouring tribes. In course of time,
as they advanced further and daily became acquainted with
new countries, this their division came to be general.”
I take this last part first, and (to use Eratosthenes’ own
words, not those of Democritus) willing to pick my bone of contention,
inquire, whether they who first made the division of
the three continents were the same persons as those who first
desired to distinguish their own land from that of the Carians
opposite, or whether they were only acquainted with Greece,
Caria, and some few other adjoining countries, and not with
Europe, Asia, or Africa; but that others who followed them,
and were able to write a description of the habitable earth,
were the real authors of the division into three continents.
How did he know that these were not the men who made this
division of the habitable earth? And he who divided the
earth into three parts, giving to each portion the name of
“continent,” could he not form in his mind a just idea of that
taken as a whole, which he had so parcelled out. But if indeed
he were not acquainted with the whole habitable earth,
but merely made a division of some part thereof, pray what
portion of that part did he denominate Asia, or Europe, or
simply continent? Such talk is altogether nonsense.
8. The reasoning of Eratosthenes, however, is still more
absurd, when he declares that he sees no advantage in being
acquainted with the exact boundaries of countries, and then
cites the example of Colyttus and Melitè, which prove just
the contrary of his assertion. Surely if a want of certainty
respecting the boundaries of Thyrea and Oropus gave rise to
war, a knowledge of the limits of different districts must be
of practical importance. Will he tell us that the boundaries
of districts, or the limits of kingdoms, may be of some service,
but when applied to continents it is carrying the matter too
far. We reply, it is of equal consequence here. Suppose a
dispute between two powerful princes, one claiming the possession
of Asia and the other of Africa, to which of these should
Egypt, I mean the country called Lower Egypt, appertain.
Will any one pass over such cases on account of their rarity?
By no means. It is acknowledged by every one that the
limits of each continent ought to be defined by some notable
boundary, indicated by the configuration of the whole habitable
earth. In following out this principle, we should not be
very particular if they who determine boundaries by the rivers
leave some districts undefined, since the rivers do not reach
from sea to sea, nor leave the continents altogether as islands.
9. At the close of the book Eratosthenes blames the system
of those who would divide all mankind into Greeks and Barbarians,
and likewise those who recommended Alexander to
treat the Greeks as friends, but the Barbarians as enemies.472
He suggests, as a better course, to distinguish them according
to their virtues and their vices, “since amongst the
Greeks there are many worthless characters, and many highly
civilized are to be found amongst the Barbarians; witness the
Indians and Ariani,473 or still better the Romans and Carthaginians,
whose political system is so beautifully perfect. Alexander,
considering this, disregarded the advice which had been
offered him, and patronized without distinction any man he
considered to be deserving.” But we would inquire whether
those men who thus divided the human race, abandoning one
portion to contempt, and exalting to dignity the other, were
not actuated to this because they found that on one side justice,
knowledge, and the force of reason reigned supreme, but their
contraries on the other. Alexander did not disregard the
advice tendered him, but gladly embraced and followed it,
respecting the wisdom of those who gave it; and so far from
taking the opposite course, he closely pursued that which they
pointed out.