A history of ancient geography among the Greeks and Romans, from the earliest ages till the fall of the Roman Empire

Preface

The present work is designed to supply a deficiency, which I have reason to believe has been felt by classical scholars. While there is no want of elementary treatises on ancient geography, and the requirements of the more advanced student are fully answered by the elaborate articles in Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Ancient Geography, so far as relates to the details of particular places and countries, it is remarkable that there does not exist in the English language any such historical review of the subject as a whole, as is to be found in the introductions to the works of Mannert, Ukert, and Forbiger. But even these treatises, besides being confined to students who are familiar with the German language, can hardly be said to meet the demands of either the scholar or the geographer at the present day. Ukert's introductory volume was published as far back as 1816, and that of Mannert still earlier, while the more recent work of Forbiger (itself published in 1841) is so disfigured by the accumulation of cumbrous and unnecessary lists of names as to be altogether repulsive to the English reader. Since the date of the works in question, not only has there been a great advance in classical scholarship, and the critical study of the ancient authorities; but still greater progress has been

a 2

IV PREFACE.

made in the detailed examination of the regions and localities described by ancient geographers, many of which were very imperfectly known in modern times down to a recent period. It is not too much to say that there is scarcely a disputed question in ancient geography upon which some additional light has not been thrown by local researches and investigations within the last fifty years.

It has been my object in the following pages to present to the reader the results of these recent inquiries : and while basing my work in all cases upon a careful and critical examination of the ancient authorities, to avail myself to the fullest extent of the assistance to be derived from modern travellers and geographers. Several instances have occurred during the progress of my researches, where additional information of this kind has served to elucidate questions which were still obscure when the chapters in which they are discussed were originally written.

At the same time it must be constantly borne in mind that it is the main purpose of a historical review, such as the one I have attempted to give, of the progress and development of geography in ancient times, to record the ideas formed and the information possessed by the different authors from whom we derive our knowledge ; and with a view to this I have endeavoured in every instance, so far as possible, to arrive at my conclusions from a conscientious and independent study of the ancient authorities themselves, before consulting or referring to the comments and discussions of modern writers. In pursuing this plan, I have been materially aided by the valuable editions of Strabo by

PKEFACE.

Kramer, and of Pliny by Sillig — both of them subsequent to the publication of the three German text-books above referred to — as well as by the admirable edition of the Geographi Grceci Minor es edited by Dr. C. Muller, a work which has conferred an inestimable boon upon all students of ancient geography.

In referring, as I have done above, principally to the labours of the Germans in the same field with myself, I must not be regarded as ignoring what has been done in this country and in France in connection with the same subject. The first volume of Mr. Cooley's History of Maritime and Inland Discovery (published in Dr. Lardner's Cyclopsedia in 1833) contains a good popular sketch of the progress of geographical knowledge in ancient times ; but is certainly not adapted to meet the requirements of the classical scholar. The far superior work of M. Vivien de St. Martin — the Histoire de la Geographie et des Decouvertes Ge'ographiques — which was not published until the present work was already far advanced — contains a sufficiently full review of the whole subject for the purposes of the general reader : but the limits within which the author was necessarily confined, in order to include in a single volume the whole history of geographical progress down to our own time, precluded his entering in detail into many questions the discussion of which formed an essential part of my own plan.

In one respect I have thought it expedient to depart from the example of my German predecessors, who have deemed it necessary to treat separately of mathematical and physical geography, apart from the descriptive and historical portions of the subject. In a work of which

VI PREFACE.

the historical form is an essential character, it appeared to me desirable to bring together all portions of the subject under one view; so that the reader might see at once the condition of geographical knowledge at every successive period : — say for instance in the time of Eratosthenes, Strabo, Pliny and Ptolemy — instead of having to turn to several different chapters for the information he requires. The unity and completeness thus given to the successive portions of the historical review appear to me greatly to outweigh the advantages derived from the more methodical subdivision.

The comprehensive character of such a work as the one now submitted to the reader unavoidably exposes it to one disadvantage. It must of necessity comprise many subjects which could not be fully discussed without extending it beyond all reasonable limits. The geography of Herodotus ; that of the Anabasis of Xenophon ; of the campaigns of Alexander ; the voyages of Nearchus and Hanno — might well require a volume to each of them instead of a chapter : while several special topics, such as the passage of the Alps by Hannibal, the landing of Caesar in Britain, or the defeat of Varus in Germany, have to be dispatched in a few pages, though each of them has formed the subject of numerous tracts and treatises amounting to a little literature of its own. In such cases I have been compelled to bring together in a brief summary the grounds of the judgement at which I have arrived in each case, without being able to enter into the discussion as fully as I could wish. If in some cases I may have in consequence appeared to pass rather slightly over the arguments on the other side, I can only beg

PREFACE. Vll my readers to believe that this arises from the necessity of the case rather than from any overweening confidence in my own conclusions.

In some instances, on the other hand, my readers may be disposed to complain that I have left questions unsettled, without pronouncing any opinion, where the evidence does not appear to me such as to afford reasonable grounds for a decision. To both classes of objections I can only reply in the words of Cicero — adopted by Ukert as the motto of his work — " sequimur probabilia, nee ultra quam id quod verisimile occurrerit progredi possumus, et refellere sine pertinacia, et refelli sine iracundia parati sumus."

It is only those who have devoted a considerable amount of attention to the study of ancient geography who are fully aware of the difficulties that beset the path of the inquirer at almost every step. But these difficulties have in many instances been greatly aggravated by the unwillingness of modern writers to apply to the statements of ancient authors the same rules of reasonable criticism by which they would be guided in other cases. Not only is geography in its very nature a progressive science, but the slightest attention to its history in mediaeval or modern times will show that the steps of its progress are often vacillating and uncertain. Vague and fluctuating ideas concerning distant regions will be found floating as it were in a dim haze of twilight long before their outlines come to be distinctly discerned. Even the most trustworthy travellers are compelled to rely to a certain extent upon hearsay evidence, in regard to the countries or provinces that they have not themselves visited ; and in the case of

Vlll PREFACE.

less qualified observers it is generally difficult to distinguish what they have really learnt from their own observation and what they have derived from other sources. Without recurring to the case of Marco Polo and other mediaeval travellers, it will be sufficient to turn to the map of Central Africa as it stood before the time of Park and Hornemann, and to trace the progress of discovery in that great continent, and the various theories by which geographers sought to explain or reconcile the statements of successive travellers, in order to see what difficulties surround any such attempt in the absence of clear and definite information.

But if this is the case even in modern times, where the information of the geographer is derived from the statements of trustworthy observers and scientific travellers, far more does it apply to the position of the ancient geographer. Voyages and travels for the purpose of exploration were almost entirely unknown : and he had to pick up his information as best he could from the accounts of merchants and casual travellers. The inaccuracy of these reports, and the consequent vagueness of the statements derived from them, is frequently pointed out by ancient writers. But they had nothing else to fall back upon, and no means of correcting them by more accurate observations.

Yet, notwithstanding this obvious consideration, it has been too much the custom in modern times to treat the ancient writers on this subject as if they possessed an authority to which they are certainly not entitled. Instead of at once drawing the line, as would be done without hesitation in the case of a mediaeval writer, between what was accurate and trustworthy and what

PREFACE. IX

was vague and inaccurate, the most fanciful suggestions have been made and ingenious theories invented to account for what was simply erroneous. Even the supposition of vast physical changes has been introduced or adopted, rather than acknowledge that Herodotus or Strabo can have made a mistake. It has been my endeavour in the following pages, as far as possible, to exercise a discriminating judgement in sifting truth from falsehood ; and while doing full justice to the real merits of successive writers, to discard without scruple those statements where they have been obviously misled by imperfect information, or by adherence to a mistaken theory.

The historical form of the present work necessarily involves a certain amount of repetition. Nor have, I been careful to avoid this. Many persons will, I believe, take up particular chapters of the book who will shrink from the labour of perusing the whole : and I have therefore endeavoured to make each successive portion — especially the reviews of the different leading authors on the subject, such as Strabo, Pliny, or Ptolemy — as complete in itself as possible. No English book, as far as I am aware, contains a similar analysis of these well-known authors, who are too often quoted for detached statements by writers who are wholly unacquainted with their real authority and value.

I am aware that I shall incur the censure of many of the more advanced scholars of the present day for having adhered to the old orthography of Greek names. I must confess myself one of those who fail to see the advantage of the changes recently introduced : changes that can hardly yet be said to form a permanent or

PREFACE.

established system. But, independent of my own preference for the system to which I have been accustomed from my youth, two considerations would in themselves have deterred me from introducing any such innovations in the present work. The one is that as my subject included Roman as well as Greek geography, I should have had to follow two different systems of orthography in different portions of the book, and to write the same names in two different modes, according as I was reviewing a Greek or a Latin author. To this must be added that as the book now presented to the reader is, from its nature, in some degree a supplement to the two valuable Dictionaries of Ancient Biography and Geography edited by Dr. Smith, which are at present in the hands of all scholars, I should have been unwilling to deviate from the practice which has been there adopted.

With regard to the orthography of oriental names, which are necessarily of frequent occurrence in the following pages, I have contented myself with writing them as I found them in the authority before me, or in the case of well-known names in the mode commonly received. Having no knowledge myself of any of the oriental languages, it was impossible for me to attempt to follow any uniform system in this respect.

The present work, like those of Mannert and Ukert, is confined to the geography of the ancient world as known to us through the Greeks and Romans. In the very brief introductory chapter, I have only touched upon that of other nations with reference to its bearing upon the geography of the Greeks at the earliest period when we have any information concerning it. To in-

PREFACE. XI

vestigate the details of the geographical knowledge — limited as it undoubtedly was — possessed by the Egyptians or Assyrians, would be wholly foreign to my subject, and is a task for which I feel myself entirely incompetent.

It may perhaps be necessary to observe that the maps inserted in these volumes are not designed in any degree to supply the place of an Atlas of Ancient Geography, but solely to illustrate the particular subjects discussed, or to bring more distinctly before the eyes of the reader the general outline of the geographical systems formed by successive writers, so far as it is possible to extract these from their writings alone. In the preparation of these maps, I have derived the greatest assistance from the series of those contributed by Dr. C. Muller to the valuable " Atlas of Ancient Geography edited by Dr. Smith and Mr. Grove;" and I take this opportunity of expressing in the strongest manner my sense of the obligations that I owe him. Scarcely less valuable is the aid I have received from his admirable edition of the Geographi Grceci Minor es (already referred to), without which it would have been scarcely possible for me to have executed in a satisfactory manner the portions of my work relating to the writers in question.

CONTENTS OF YOL. I

CHAPTEE I.

INTRODUCTORY.

1. Geography more or less studied by different nations according to circumstances— little cultivated by the Chalda?ans or Egyptians. § 2, Or by the Jews. No influence exercised in this respect upon the Greeks. § 3. The Phoenicians ; their extensive commerce and long voyages. § 4. Geographical knowledge derived from thence : its extent and limits very imperfectly known. § 5. Trade of the Phoenicians in tin : the Cassiterides, or Tin Islands. Gades, the centre of the trade. § 6. Their trade in amber, brought from the northern shores of Europe. § 7. The carrying trade of the iEgean and the Mediterranean in their hands. § 8. The Cretans the earliest Greek people devoted to navigation. Notices of them in the Odyssey. § 9. The Trojan War a proof of an advanced state of navigation .. .. .. Page 1

CHAPTEE II.

VOYAGE OF THE ARGONAUTS.

1. The voyage of the Argonauts a mere legendary tale — originally quite unconnected with Colchis or the Phasis. § 2. Applied by the Greek colonies to the localities on the Euxine. § 3. Various accounts of their return. § 4. That given by Apollonius Pthodius. § 5. Different accounts of earlier writers. Possible basis of truth in the legend. 19

PAGE

NOTE A. Argonautica of Orpheus .. .. 28

CHAPTEE III.

HOMERIC GEOGRAPHY.

Section 1. — General Views

Earliest notions of Greek geography derived from the Homeric Poems — these perverted by later writers and commentators. Necessity of adhering to the original. § 2. Ideas of Homer concerning the earth

XIV

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

§1.

and heavens. His mention of Atlas. § 3. Ideas concerning the sun and stars. § 4. No names for cardinal points. Names of winds. § 5. His views of the sea and the Ocean river. § 6. No knowledge of the three continents .. .. .. .. .. .. Page 31

Section 2. — Geography of the Iliad

Local geography of Greece and the neighbouring seas well known to Homer : but all beyond vague or unknown. § 2. The Catalogue of the ships. § 3. Catalogue of the Trojan forces. § 4. Extent of knowledge proved by these very limited. § 5. Vague indications of more distant countries. § 6. Knowledge of Phoenicia and Egypt. § 7. Vague and fabulous ideas of /Ethiopia . . . . . . 39

Section 3. — Geography of the Odyssey

§ 1. The outer world in the Odyssey — the scene of poetical fictions and legends. § 2. These worked up by Homer into a poetic whole, but not into a geographical system. § 3. Attachment of legends to definite localities. § 4. Voyage of Ulysses : the Cicones, Cape Malea, the Lotophagi. § 5. The Cyclopes. § 6. The Island of ^Eolus. § 7. The Lsestrygones. § 8. The Island of Circe — visit of Ulysses to Hades. The Cimmerians. § 9. Homeward voyage : the Sirens, Scylla and Charybdis. Thrinakia. § 10. Island of Calypso : voyage from thence to Phreacia. § 11. The Phseacians — a fabulous people, erroneously placed in Corey ra. § 12. Ithaca and the neighbouring islands : difficulties in regard to their description. § 13. Dulichium. No clear idea given of these western islands. § 14. Voyage of Menelaus. Egypt. § 15. The Ethiopians. § 16. Ignorance of Homer of the eastern nations : and of the west of Europe .. .. .. .. 49

PAGE

OT

Composition of the Homeric Poems

. 75

B.

Homeric idea of the world

. ib.

C.

The four winds in Homer

. 77

5>

D.

The Laestrygones

. ib.

E.

The Island of Circe

. 78

F.

The Planet*

.. 79

>J

G.

Course from Ogygia to Scheria

.. 81

n

H.

Dulichium

. ib.

'i

I. Homeric Ithaca

. 83

CONTENTS OF VOL. I. XV

CHAPTER IV.

HOMER TO HECAT.2EUS.

Section 1. — Poetical Notices subsequent to Homer

§ 1. Want of materials for tracing the progress of geographical knowledge after Homer. Hesiod : his poems largely interpolated. Geographical notices contained in them. § 2. The Epic Cycle and the Homeric Hymns. § 3. Other poets before the First Olympiad. Aristeas of Proconnesus .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Page 85

Section 2. — Colonies

§ 1. Great development of Greek enterprise in the 7 th and 8th centuries B.C. Foundation of colonies in Sicily. § 2. In Southern Italy. § 3. At Corcyra and in the Adriatic : and in Campania. § 4. Massilia and its colonies. § 5. The extension of Greek settlements in Spain and Africa checked by the Phoenicians. § 6. Cyrene and its colonies in Libya. § 7- Commercial intercourse with Egypt. Naucratis. § 8. Exploration oftheEuxine. Colonies of Miletus and Megara. §9. Settlements on the west and south coasts. § 10. On the northern shores and in the Crimea. § 11. Communications with the interior. Aristeas of Proconnesus. The Arimaspians and Hyperboreans. § 12. Destruction of Miletus, and fall of its power. § 13. The Phocseans : their voyage to Tartessus. Maritime power and trade of the Samians and Rhodians — Colonies of Rhodes. § 14. Commercial activity and naval power of Corinth. § 15. Of Megara. § 16. Of iEgina. § 17. Of Chalcis and Eretria in Eubcea. Colonies of Chalcis. Inferior position of Athens before the Persian War. § 18. Colonies and commerce limited to the inland seas — the Mediterranean and the Euxine. § 19. Relations of Greeks with the Phoenicians. § 20. And with Egypt. § 21. Individual visits to Egypt and Babylon. Increasing knowledge of Asia after the rise of the Persian monarchy .. .. .. 91

Section 3. — Physical Philosophers

1. Rise of philosophical speculation in Greece. Thales of Miletus, his astronomical views. § 2. Anaximander : the inventor of maps. § 3. Anaximenes. § 4. Pythagoras and his followers : their improved system of cosmical science. § 5. How far influenced by ideas derived from the East. The spherical form of the earth not yet a recognized truth.

PAGE

NOTE A. Date of foundation of Cyrene .. .. 127

„ B. Dates assigned to Greek colonies in the

Euxine 128

„ C. The " Thalassocraties " of Castor .. 130

XVI CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

CHAPTEB V.

HEOAT^JUS.

Section 1. — Geography of Hecatceus

§ 1. The work of Hecataaus of Miletus the first regular geographical treatise. His life and date. Imperfect character of existing remains. § 2. His work mostly a Periplus of the Mediterranean, but contained notices of Asia. § 3. His travels. § 4. Arrangement of his work. § 5. Extent of his information, in regard to the coasts of the Mediterranean. § 6. He had no knowledge of western and northern Europe. Imperfect acquaintance with Scythia. § 7. His knowledge of Asia in general. He gives the first notices of India. § 8. Described Egypt in detail. His notices of the rest of Africa. § 9. His general notions on geography. His map of the world. § 10. His division of the world into continents. §11. His want of judgement .. .. .. .. Page 134

Section 2. — Hecatceus to Herodotus

§ 1. Writers after Hecataaus. Hellanicus and Damastes. § 2. Geographical notices in iEschylus and Pindar. The wanderings of Io in the ' Prometheus Vinctus.' § 3. The ' Prometheus Solutus ' and the * Persa?.' § 4. Pindar: his geographical notions .. .. .. .. 148

PAGE

NOTE A. Character of extant fragments of Heca-

B. Intercourse of the Greeks with Etruria ib.

CHAPTEE VI.

HERODOTUS.

Section 1. — General Views — Europe.

1. Importance of the work of Herodotus in a geographical point of view. Its desultory and irregular character. Slight notice of the Carthaginians and Tyrrhenians. § 2. Brief notices of Southern Italy and Sicily. § 3. His travels : their extent. § 4. Outline of his views of the configuration of the world. Asia. The projecting Actaa. § 5. Explanation of his views. § 6. His ignorance of the west and north of Europe. He rejected the notion of the Cassiterides, and of the river Eridanus ; and of a northern ocean. § 7. Imperfect knowledge of central Europe. Thrace and the Danube. The Getaa and Sigynna\ § 8. His description of the Danube and its tributaries. The Carpis and Alpis.

CONTENTS OF VOL. I. XVII

§ 9. The Keltai and Kynetes. § 10. His comparison of tne Nile and the Ister: their mouths opposite to one another .. .. Page 150

Section 2. — Scythia.

§ 1. Extensive information obtained by Herodotus concerning Scythia. § 2. Derived in part from personal knowledge. He discards the tables current concerning the Hyperboreans, &c. § 3. His account of the Euxine Sea. § 4. Erroneous estimate of its length. § 5. Exaggerated notion of the Palus Mceotis. § 6. Erroneous idea of the Tauric Peninsula. § 7. Great rivers of Scythia : the Ister. § 8. Its magnitude and equable flow. § 9. The Tyras. § 10. The Borysthenes. § 11. The Tanais. § 12. Extent of his knowledge of these rivers. § 13. Other rivers : the Panticapes, the Hypacyris, and the Gerrhus, cannot be identified. §14. The Oarus, the Lycus, &c, equally obscure. §15. Imperfect sources of information. § 16. Valuable ethnographical notices. His Scythians a distinct people. § 17. Form and boundaries of Scythia. § 18. Division of the Scythian tribes. § 19. Nations surrounding Scythia. The Agathyrsi : the Neuri. § 20. The Androphagi : the Melanchlaeni. § 21. The Budini and Geloni. § 22. The Sauromatse. § 23. Nations towards the north-east beyond the Budini. Thyssageta3 and Iurcse. The Argippasi. § 24. Fabulous nations to the north. The Issedones. § 25. The Arimaspians. Abundance of gold. § 26. No mention of the Volga. § 27. The Caspian regarded by Herodotus as surrounded on all sides by land .. .. 172

Section 3. — Expedition of Darius into Scythia

§ 1. Geographical details of the expedition accord well with the other statements of Herodotus. § 2. Narrative as given by Herodotus. § 3. Its difficulties : cannot be received as historically correct ; but presents few geographical difficulties .. .. .. .. .. 202

PAGE

The Actae of Herodotus .. .. 207 The Cimmerians .. ... ..208

The Greek Stadium • 209

Navigation of the Borysthenes .. 211

Rivers of Scythia 212

The river Oarus 213

Limits of Scythia .. .. .. 214

Ethnographical relations of the Scythians

of Herodotus .. .. .. 215

Expedition of Darius .. .. .. 217

VOL, I.

NOTE A.

B.

C.

D.

j>

E.

F.

G.

H.

XV111 CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

CHAPTEE VII.

GEOGRAPHY OF HERODOTUS I ASIA.

Section 1. — General Views

§ 1. Limits of his knowledge of Asia nearly confined to the Persian Empire. § 2. Imperfect acquaintance with Arabia. § 3. The Erythraean Sea and Arabian Gulf. No knowledge of the Persian Gulf. § 4. Ignorance of the countries north of the Persian Empire. § 5. Confused notions of the Araxes. § 6. The Massageta3 ; their abundance of gold. § 7. Account of India: his knowledge confined to the countries on the Indus. § 8. Voyage of Scylax of Caryanda. § 9. The Pactyans : their mode of procuring gold. Indian ants. § 10. Probable locality and origin of the fable. § 11. Scanty information concerning India in other respects .. .. .. .. .. .. Page 218

Section 2. — Persian Empire. Satrapies

§ 1. His catalogue of the Satrapies derived from an authentic source. § 2. Erroneous geographical notion of Asia Minor. § 3. Imperfect ideas of the provinces of Upper Asia. No knowledge of the Taurus as a mountain system. § 4. His enumeration of the Satrapies properly ethnographical, rather than geographical. § 5. Satrapies of Asia Minor : the first, second and third, including Cappadocia. § 6. The fourth, Cilicia : the fifth, Syria : the sixth, Egypt and the Cyrena'ica. § 7. The seventh Satrapy — the Gandarians, &c. § 8. The eighth, Susiana : the ninth, Babylonia and Assyria. § 9. The tenth, Media : the eleventh, the Caspians, &c. § 10. The twelfth, Bactria : the thirteenth, Armenia and adjacent tribes. § 11. The fourteenth, the Sagartians, Zarangians, &c. § 12. The fifteenth, the Sac® and Caspians. § 13. The sixteenth, the Parthians, Chorasmians, Sogdians, and Arians. § 14. The seventeenth, the Paricanians and Ethiopians. § 15. The eighteenth, the Matienians, Saspirians, &c. : the nineteenth, the Moschi, Macrones, &c. : the twentieth, India. § 16. Character of this list : a statistical document, without any attempt at geographical arrangement. § 17. Curious account in Herodotus of a plain surrounded by mountains and sending forth five rivers. Impossible to identify . . .. 231

Section 3. — Royal Road to Susa

§ 1. Account of the line of route from Sardis to Susa, introduced as an incidental digression. § 2. Its details and distances. § 3. Its valuable character. Difficulties in detail. §4. Followed the upper road from Sardis to the Tigris ; not that taken by Cyrus and Alexander 249

PAGE

NOTE A. Indian Tribute 255

„ B. Scylax of Caryanda .. .. .. 256

CONTENTS OF VOL. I. XIX

NOTE C. Caspatyrus

„ D. Indian ants

„ E. Ecbatana

„ F. Royal road to Susa

„ G. Uncertainty of measurement

PAGE

256 257 258 259 261

CHAPTER VIII.

GEOGRAPHY OF HERODOTUS ! AFRICA.

Section 1. — General knowledge of the Continent

§ 1. Character of his acquaintance with African shores of the Mediterranean. His knowledge of the interior derived through Egypt and Cyrene. § 2. His account of the Upper Nile as far as Meroe. § 3. Meroe. The Automoli. § 4. Supposed the Nile above Meroe to flow from the west. § 5. Agreement of this view with his account of the Macrobian Ethiopians. § 6. Sources of the Nile unknown : theory of Herodotus. § 7. Narrative of the expedition of the Nasamonians into the interior. Their discovery of a great river, probably the Joliba or Quorra. § 8. The Macrobian Ethiopians : expedition of Cambyses against them. § 9. Erroneously placed on the Nile by Strabo. § 10. Division of Northern Africa into three zones. § 11. Line of inhabited spots from distance to distance in a direction from east to west. § 12. The Oasis of Ammon. § 13. Augila. The Garamantes. § 14. The Atarantes and Atlantes. § 15. Desert character of the interior. § 16. The Troglodyte Ethiopians. § 17. Libyan tribes adjoining the Cyrenaica, and along the shores of the Mediterranean. § 18. The Nasamones and Psylli. The Lotophagi : the Machlyans : the island of Cyraunis. § 19. Tales of fabulous races rejected by Herodotus. § 20. The Syrtis and the Lake Tritonis. § 21. Account of dumb commerce carried on by Carthaginian merchants on the Atlantic coast. Cape Soloeis. § 22. Foundation of belief that Africa was surrounded by the Ocean.

Section 2. — Circumnavigation of Africa by Necho

§ 1.- Narrative as reported by Herodotus. §2. Differences of opinion concerning it in ancient and modern times. § 3. Arguments of Major Rennell in its favour. § 4. Prima facie improbability of the story : absence of all details. § 5. Argument from the sun being on the right hand not conclusive. Other difficulties. § 6. Subsequent neglect of the voyage and discovery paralleled by similar cases in modern times. § 7. The voyage cannot be disproved, but must be regarded as extremely improbable. § 8. Other statements of the Carthaginians. § 9. Unsuccessful attempt of Sataspes .. .. .. 289

b2

XX CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

PAGE