Volume 1 — Ancient Authorities and Introductory Remarks.

Ancient chorography is not, like Roman antiquities, a department of knowledge created by modern philology; the ancient authorities for it are not inconsiderable, for they not only furnish the materials, but the work of Strabo, for example, is an ample digest of them. The Greeks in general took an intense interest in geography, and were in this respect quite different from the Romans; there is no nation that could have done more and that actually did less for geography than the Romans; they shewed a perfect indifference in regard to the knowledge of their immense empire. If we except the Germania of Tacitus, and a few passages in Caesar about Britain and Germany, which are indeed excellent, Latin literature furnishes nothing. Pomponius Mela and Pliny give only abridged summaries of the knowledge possessed by their contemporaries. We know the extent of Latin literature so perfectly as to be able to assert, that nothing of importance is lost; the Romans never had a great chorographical work like that which Strabo wrote for the Greeks.

But even before Strabo, the Greeks had great works of this kind; nay, their earliest work in prose, of which we have any knowledge (if we except the genealogies of Pherecydes, Acusilaus and others, the simplicity of which is almost beyond our conception), the γῆς περίοδος of Hecataeus the Milesian, was devoted to chorography. Its character is not accurately described by any of the ancient authors, but we know that the titles of his works were “Asia” and “Europe;” and we know from Stephanus of Byzantium, that he mentioned an immense number of towns and nations, though probably not in a systematic manner. He seems to have connected separate narratives with one another, but his real objects were chorography and ethnography, and not history, whence he is scarcely ever quoted as an authority on historical matters. It is true, however, that he did not entirely exclude historical events; it is very possible also that he may have spoken of the revolt of the Ionians under Aristagoras, in which he himself had acted so unfortunate a part; and there can be little doubt that incidentally he also mentioned the history of the countries of which he was treating.

Descriptions or γῆς περίοδοι of this kind probably existed in Greece in great numbers; they were written in a lively manner to afford entertainment, and for such persons as wished to gain information about the earth and its inhabitants. But there also existed another kind of descriptions intended for the practical guidance of merchants and sailors; these men who had no ambition to investigate the interior of countries, could not but feel an interest in the descriptions of the coasts. As navigation was chiefly coasting, the want of such descriptions was felt, men being anxious to know in what manner town followed after town, harbour after harbour, and promontory after promontory. These are the περίπλοι: the most ancient is that by Scylax of Caryanda, a contemporary of Philip of Macedonia, as I have shewn by incontrovertible arguments⁠[3]⁠. Besides this description of the Mediterranean, there were others of the Euxine and the Erythraean Sea, which were composed at a much later period. Throughout the middle ages, these and similar περίπλοι were used, and the modern Greeks still have guides similar to those of their ancestors of old. Even till very recent times, sailors who confined themselves to the navigation of the Mediterranean, made use of what are called Portolani del Mare, which, previously to the invention of printing, were circulated in manuscript. The ancients accordingly had two kinds of materials, descriptions of coasts and descriptions of countries.

After the time of Hecataeus, 150 years passed away before a real geography was written by Eratosthenes, whose object was to furnish a scientific chorography. In Herodotus chorography and history are combined, both are equally his object. He rarely combats Hecataeus, and not by name, but he often attacks his system, being conscious that he can give more accurate information. His work shows us the limits of the science in his time.

It is a very interesting inquiry—first undertaken and carried out in an admirable manner by J. H. Voss—to trace the different notions entertained by the ancients about the form of the earth, and to examine their geographical knowledge at the different periods. His merits in this respect will never be forgotten; but the more I, for my own part, look with reverence and gratitude upon his inquiries as real models, the more do I consider myself entitled to make a few observations regarding the mistakes into which he has fallen. The first is his supposition, that a thing which is not mentioned by an author, although it is not opposed to his other statements, must be regarded as if it had been unknown to him; but the fact is, that authors often knew things without mentioning them. If Aristotle, during his walks in Piraeeus, a place frequented by men from all parts of the world, questioned the ναύκληροι, he might have written a geography, which would excite our astonishment, as it is excited by his history of animals: the fact that he chanced not to write a geography does not entitle us to draw a conclusion as to his knowledge of countries and nations. It is this manner of viewing things that gave rise to the opinion, that the Greeks knew nothing about Rome; but there can be no doubt that even Hecataeus spoke of Rome; he was however not much read,⁠[4] and hence we cannot infer that Rome was unknown to the Greeks. This inference, however, that a man is ignorant of a thing, because he does not mention it, is common even in earlier times. The second mistake of Voss is that he considers the opinions of a great writer as the standard of the knowledge of his age. This may indeed be said of Eratosthenes, whose works were in the hands of all who wished to gain information; and Eratosthenes, moreover, stands already within the sphere of what may be called a learned or literary period; but before his time circumstances were very different. We can form a clear notion of this, if we contemplate nations which have not yet arrived at definite notions about geography. Eastern people, for example, never have any scruples about geography; I am acquainted with Asiatics and others, with whom I have conversed much about ethnography, and who had never had a geographical book in their hands; they scarcely ever possess any broad geographical views, but are deeply interested in it; the one has a knowledge of one thing, and another of another. There is indeed a certain average amount of knowledge, which every individual may be supposed to possess, but apart from this, the knowledge of persons who in other respects are equally well educated, is very different according to the circumstances in which they are placed. Every inhabitant of Tripoli and Morocco knows of Bournou, but many are ignorant of everything beyond its name, and few are acquainted with the interior. In like manner the knowledge possessed by the learned in ancient Greece was of a very different kind from that diffused among the people, and every one might for himself acquire a certain range of knowledge. Some persons who had travelled in distant lands possessed an extensive knowledge of countries, and those anxious to learn derived their information from them. It is therefore generally impossible to say how much geographical knowledge an otherwise well educated man may have possessed. That which in later times was to be found in books which were generally read, was known also to every well-read Greek. But the living knowledge among the people was far more extensive Herodotus became acquainted in Scythia with people who had made distant journeys, or had heard accounts from others extending as far as the Ural mountains; and in like manner, others who visited Massilia might have obtained equally accurate information from people that visited Britain; such knowledge, however, was not generally diffused, but was possessed only by navigators and some others. All knowledge was purely practical, until some curious inquirer in some much frequented port collected the scattered information, put together all the περίοδοι and περίπλοι, and thus formed a geography. Eratosthenes lived in a large port town, and possessing an extensive library, he was the first to draw up a general ethnography; before he wrote his work, the geographical knowledge of one man was immensely different from that of another.

The early Greeks and Asiatics entertained the notion that the earth was a circular plain, floating in the middle between heaven above and the nether world below. And this was the most natural conception: where there is no cause for assuming any other form, the circular is the most probable. The notion of Homer evidently is, that the plain is somewhat depressed in the centre, forming a basin in which the waters of the Mediterranean are collected, and that the world-river Oceanus flows round the upper edge of the plain. This opinion prevailed for a long time; it was entertained by Hecataeus as well as by Homer.

Another notion was, that warmth and cold were not to be explained by the relation of the sun to the earth alone. To this the ancients were led by the observations, so natural in the south, on the nature of the winds, which are altogether of a different character from our winds; their character cannot be traced to topographical causes. We in the north consider winds as currents of air which bring warmth or cold, according to the different quarters from which they blow; but a person who has lived in the south, or has conversed with southern people about the matter, knows that the winds there have something quite unaccountable. In order to explain the different peculiarities of the north winds at Rome (due north, north-west, and north-east), one must assume essentially different characters in them in regard to the dispersing of clouds, to brightness of the sky, to the moisture, the effect on the thermometer, &c. In like manner the three south winds have their peculiarities. It cannot be explained why the east wind, which blows across the land, produces rain at Rome, while the west wind, which comes from the sea, is mild and for the most part dry. Such differences also exist in Greece, and this led the ancients into speculations. They conceived the winds to be distinct powers, with original properties which belonged to them alone. The peculiarities of the winds as described by Pliny may be recognised even now; I have, however, observed at Rome, that they have shifted a few points of the compass further west. I am personally firmly convinced of this; in the present state of physical science one need not fear to be laughed at, as about 40 years ago: I have mentioned the subject to several natural philosophers, and requested them to investigate it.

Before the rise of mathematical and physical geography, which Aristotle understood perfectly, though he did not work it out for others, and down to the time of Eratosthenes, the notion of the ancients was, that the north wind, which was so disagreeable to them, came from mount Haemus; to this belief they were probably led by the fact, that they heard of terrific winds blowing on the coast of Thrace—the Greeks told one another things about those winds, which made their hair stand on ends;—they were further told, that in the more northern countries, in Bulgaria, Wallachia, and in general on the northern slopes of mount Haemus, the violence of the winds was not to be compared with what it was in Macedonia and Thrace. Those mountains, therefore, were regarded by them as the abode of Boreas, and the countries beyond them were believed to be mild and lovely; in this belief they were confirmed by the stories about the paradise-like climate in Wallachia. They did not take into consideration the height of the mountains, and conceived that countries were milder, the further they were removed from Boreas: the countries beyond Haemus were, in their opinion, protected against the Scirocco, which was the most troublesome to them. This is the simple and childlike story about the Hyperboreans. Herodotus thinks that, if they really did exist, there must also be Hypernotians, and this would be quite correct, if Notus had been believed, like Boreas, to dwell in a mountain; but the fact is, that Notus was conceived to roam over the endless sandy deserts of Africa which extend to the ends of the earth.

The maps which existed among the Greeks at a very early period, were made in accordance with these notions. Herodotus’ account of Aristagoras, who laid a map before Cleomenes, king of Sparta, is certainly authentic. We may regard Hecataeus as the author of a map, on which the measures which Herodotus made use of, were already indicated. As the Hebrews regarded Jerusalem, so the Greeks considered Greece, and more especially Delphi and mount Olympus, which lie about the same degree of longitude, as the centre of the earth. When Herodotus went to Scythia, and there learned how many days the merchants who traded with the savage nations, had to travel to the Ural mountain, and when, on the other hand, he heard at Massilia how near it was from that city to the Garonne and the ocean, he naturally extended the form of the inhabited earth in different directions and to different points so far, that his conception did not at all harmonize with that of the circular plain. On the one hand, he found at Massilia, that the world-surrounding ocean was not very far from the Mediterranean, while on the other side it was at an immeasurable distance, so that in the south and west it was nearer to Delphi than in the north and east; hence he says, “I smile at those who conceive the earth to be circular, as if it were made by a turner, and to be surrounded by the ocean.” His tendency was quite different from that of his predecessors: it was the peculiarity of his nature minutely to examine the details, and not to be uneasy, if he did not find in the whole of his conception a place for every particular point. Some men feel the necessity of conceiving all things together as one whole, they cannot understand the parts otherwise than as portions of the whole, and in the part they even see the whole foreshadowed; but others, who are of an empirical nature, are the most fit persons to prosecute inquiries; they form distinct notions of details, distinguish that which they cannot yet comprehend, and discern the places where they must add something for the purpose of filling up a gap; they place one detail by the side of another, and put them in relation with each other, but are unconcerned about the place which every particular point occupies in the whole system. If they do reach the height from which they can command a general view, they survey accurately, but if not, they are aoristic. The latter might be called atomists, and the former dynamists. Herodotus belongs to the atomists, and in this respect my father bears a great resemblance to him; the highest perfection is implied in a complete combination of the idea of the whole with the most sober investigation of details, and this perfection we find in d’Anville. While, however, Herodotus wants to get rid of arbitrary outlines and fancies, he himself unconsciously invents some definite form in his own mind, though he does not set it forth externally. Hence, as I have shewn in the transactions of the Berlin Academy⁠[5]⁠, he conceives the Ister and the Nile to flow parallel but in opposite directions, and according to him, the Ister flows from north to south into the Euxine, just as the Nile flows from the south into the Mediterranean; in like manner the Indus and Araxes, according to him, flow from west to east, and the latter river, as conceived by him, is almost entirely fictitious. Geography, therefore, at that time was not universally known; its changeableness and accidental character is no where more obvious than in Herodotus himself. His notion of the course of the Nile is, that above the first cataract it flows from west to east, and that near Elephantine it turns round; and yet he might without difficulty have informed himself of the true state of the case. From an inscription found near the cataract among the ruins of the temple at Ipsambul, and which belongs to some Ionians and Carians, who had gone into those parts either as soldiers or as ostrich-hunters⁠[6]⁠, it is clear that those Greeks went far beyond the cataracts, and were very well aware that the Nile flowed from the south. Another proof is furnished by the Attic orators: when Alexander had crossed the frontier mountains of India, Aeschines⁠[7] conceived that he had advanced as far as the polar circle. Such expressions about the polar circles do not occur in Herodotus, for he does not know that the earth is a globe; this notion was probably first formed in the East, whence Eudoxus, the astronomer, received it in forming his sphaera, even before the time of Aristotle; and many of the expressions referring to it may have found their way into the language of ordinary life. At Athens all this was very confused, and many men, according to their own experience, formed individually very different notions of the geography of the earth. But as Scylax was accurate in regard to the East, so others were well informed about other parts; and at Massilia, e.g., much was known about the north from the voyages of Pytheas and others. For a long time people did not know what conception to form of the sea beyond Massilia; at Athens many, in the time of Plato, still believed that the ocean commenced on the west of Italy: but Polybius is already well acquainted with the road from Narbonne to the Ligeris, and thence to Britain. We must, therefore, not believe that this country was unknown to the Romans until the conquests of Caesar, and that it had no place in the maps of Eratosthenes.

Such was the reputation which Strabo enjoyed among the later Greeks, that he was always simply called the geographer (Eustathius never quotes him by any other name), just as Aristotle was simply styled the philosopher. It is well known that he was a native of Amasia or Amasea, in a distant part of Pontus, and although his birth-place was not a Greek town, he seems to have belonged to a Greek family. He was born in the reign of Augustus, and wrote under Tiberius. We see, from his work, that he was one of those men who have not chosen their pursuit with a due regard to their real natural talents: for by profession he was a speculative philosopher, a Stoic, while in reality he had a genuine historical mind, and a true historical tact. He composed two great works, one of which has perished in such an inconceivable manner, that I very much doubt whether it was ever published. It was a continuation of Polybius which he wrote, because he was dissatisfied with that of Posidonius, and the task was one for which he was most eminently qualified. His geography is an excellent work, and considering the loss of that of Eratosthenes, it is invaluable, for he was a man of great judgment; but unfortunately it has not come down to us quite entire. Until a late period of the middle ages, it existed only in a single manuscript, which is probably now at Paris; its outward damages seem to indicate that it is the source from which all the later MSS. were taken. It is a remarkable fact, that several such MSS. of Greek authors, from which all others are derived, are still in existence, so that it is superfluous to collate the others. I may mention, for example, Athenaeus and the orator Aristides; the MS. of the latter is at Florence, the library of which city appears to have been particularly rich in such original MSS., and it is possible, that they were obtained directly from Constantinople. Eustathius and Stephanus of Byzantium still had complete copies of Strabo. This geographer has done all that his materials enabled him to do: the whole of geography, so far as it was known in his time, is laid down in his book, and that not only the contemporary geography, but also that of earlier ages with especial reference to the illustration of the poets, particularly Homer, whence from the very beginning we often meet with digressions, which do not seem to us to be in exact proportion to the whole work. We may assert that until the fourth and fifth century, the geography of the Romans did not extend beyond what had been known to Strabo; he did not indeed possess the information about Germany and Britain, which we find in Tacitus; but, generally speaking, we may say that, with few exceptions, geography during several centuries made no progress. In Ptolemy we see that the knowledge of the East, especially of India, had been advanced and extended by merchants, while in Strabo the knowledge about those countries is rather limited, commerce not having extended to them till a later period. The knowledge of the Romans about Egypt, though they had ruled over it for upwards of fifty years, was still very scanty. Strabo is altogether unmathematical, and Eratosthenes was farther advanced in this respect, so far indeed as it was possible for him, though he too, in regard to longitudes, was often satisfied with mere guesses, which sometimes entirely displaced the right point of view. All that Strabo knows on these points is derived from Eratosthenes, whose measurements were still highly imperfect. The division of the heavens into 360 degrees is very ancient, while that of the earth is of a very late date, Marinus of Tyre, who lived shortly before Ptolemy, being the first to introduce it into his maps. One great drawback in Strabo is an ungenerous hostility towards the great Eratosthenes; the cause of this desire to quarrel is unknown, and his censure is often very foolish.

Since the time that Bochart derived the name of Europe from the Phoenician ‎‏ערב‏‎, it has been generally assumed by all intelligent inquirers, that the name of our part of the world actually owes its origin to some Phoenician division of the countries of the earth; it is also well known that Europa is called a daughter of the Phoenician king Agenor. Owing to the ill-use which Bochart often makes of Phoenician etymologies, this one too has been disputed, but it is only those who throw away the wheat with the chaff that reject his derivation of the name Europe. Homer seems to have divided the earth into two parts, viz., πρὸς ἠῶ τ’ ἠέλιόν τε, and πρὸς ζόφον, but his not mentioning other parts may be merely accidental, and I should therefore not like to adopt Voss’ opinion, that Homer knew of no other division. The division, according to the quarters of the world, into Europe, Asia, Libya and Hesperia, seems to have been very ancient and general among the Greeks. Eratosthenes made the division according to the four great nations, which is less convenient, as these nations become mixed and amalgamated with one other. The opinion that Asia derived its name from the Asian marshes in Lydia appears to me unsatisfactory; for it was not customary with the Greeks first to use a name in a limited sense and afterwards to extend it in the manner in which the Latins⁠[8] gave the name Italia to the smallest portion of the country, and afterwards extended it instead of applying it to the whole country at once. Libya is evidently a Phoenician name, as is clear from Lilybaeum, which signifies “opposite to Libya,”—a name which the Carthaginians would not have given to a place unless they had called Africa Libya. The opinion which regards Hesperia as a fourth part of the world is only a hypothesis, but it is a fact that the name was applied to the whole of western Europe. Afterwards it was united with Europe, just as Libya was for a time treated as a part of Asia, though afterwards it was again regarded as a separate part of the world, while Hesperia has ever since been considered as only a portion of Europe.

The boundaries of Europe accordingly likewise differed at different times. The most ancient mention of the name of Europe in Greek literature occurs in the hymn on Apollo (v. 251), where it is used in a very peculiar way: in the north, Europe is quite indefinitely separated from the barbarous countries, and seems to comprise only Greece exclusive of Peloponnesus, the islands, Macedonia, Illyricum and Italy. The poet accordingly applies the name to all the countries north of Peloponnesus. In Aristotle’s Politics the name is again used in quite a singular way: after having previously spoken of Asia, he mentions Europe as opposed to Greece. There may have been many more such designations, but they never acquired any great importance.

The river Phasis was probably the boundary between Europe and Asia at an early period: this remark of Voss appears to me to have a high degree of probability; in Herodotus, as we may see from his description of Scythia, the Tanais forms the boundary, but he entertains erroneous notions about its course, for he conceives that one-half of it flows from the north to the south. This boundary afterwards remained, as in Scylax of Caryanda and Eratosthenes, and in like manner the pillars of Heracles were commonly supposed to form the southern boundary between Europe and Libya. In regard to Asia and Libya, there existed various views as to how they should be divided; for a time, probably ever since the days of Hecataeus, they were regarded as separated by the Nile; in opposition to this Herodotus remarks, that by such a division Egypt was torn to pieces, and he justly asks to which of the two parts the Delta is to belong. The Arabian Gulf forms the true and natural boundary, and this is the view which was adopted even by Eratosthenes.