LECTURES ON ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHY.
LECTURES
ON
ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY
AND GEOGRAPHY,
COMPRISING
GREECE AND HER COLONIES, EPIRUS, MACEDONIA,
ILLYRICUM, ITALY, GAUL, SPAIN, BRITAIN,
THE NORTH OF AFRICA, ETC.
BY
B. G. NIEBUHR.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN EDITION OF DR. ISLER, BY
DR. LEONHARD SCHMITZ, F.R.S.E.
RECTOR OF THE HIGH SCHOOL OF EDINBURGH;
WITH ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS FROM HIS OWN MS. NOTES.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
LONDON:
WALTON AND MABERLY,
UPPER GOWER STREET, AND IVY LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW.
M.DCCC.LIII.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY J. WERTHEIMER AND CO.,
CIRCUS PLACE, FINSBURY CIRCUS.
TO THE RIGHT REVEREND
CONNOP THIRLWALL, D.D.,
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDS,
ETC., ETC.
MY DEAR LORD,
Independently of your merits as a profound historian and an inquirer into
the institutions and languages of the Ancient World, whereby you have
given a fresh impulse and a new life to the scholarship of this country,
I cannot, as a pupil of the illustrious Niebuhr, call to mind what you
have done to make British scholars familiar with his labours without a
sense of deep gratitude. This feeling is heightened by the unvarying
friendship with which you have honoured me during the last sixteen years,
and which I have always found ready and willing to assist, in whatever
circumstances it was appealed to. The very idea of publishing any of the
Lectures of Niebuhr would, perhaps, never have occurred to me, had it
not been suggested by your Lordship. Some fifteen years ago, when you
inspected my MS. notes of the Lectures on Ancient, and especially on
Greek, History, you at once perceived their value, and urged on me the
desirableness of their publication. With a natural timidity I at first
shrank from so arduous and responsible an undertaking; and it was not
till I found that no one else would venture upon it, that I resolved to
do my best to carry out your suggestion and to rescue those precious
remains from oblivion. It is now pretty generally admitted that these
Lectures are doing some service to the study of classical antiquity,
and it affords me the greatest satisfaction to have this opportunity
of publicly acknowledging that, in the first instance, the public is
indebted to your Lordship for whatever benefit their publication has
conferred upon the students of ancient history. My own humble but
conscientious labour, in bringing them before the British public, will
be amply rewarded, if the manner in which I have executed my task
should meet with your approbation. With this hope I beg your Lordship’s
acceptance of the present volumes as a small tribute to your genius and
learning, and as a token of the veneration and gratitude with which
I shall ever remain,
My dear Lord,
Your’s faithfully and sincerely,
L. SCHMITZ.
PREFACE.
The Lectures here offered to the English public were delivered by
Niebuhr in the university of Bonn during the winter of 1827-28, and were
published by Dr. Isler at Berlin in 1851. The German editor, in a short
preface, remarks, that for a time he hesitated as to the propriety of
publishing the present course of Lectures unabridged, because from its
very nature the historian had been obliged here to treat of many topics
which are discussed in the Lectures already published. But a regard for
those readers who may not be possessed of the volumes containing the
other courses of Lectures, and at the same time a desire to keep each
course complete in itself, induced him to give the lectures uncurtailed
and as complete as he found them in the MS. notes. It must also be borne
in mind that Niebuhr, delivering his discourses extempore, cannot be said
exactly to have repeated what he had said on previous occasions; but
that, generally, the statements made in one course of Lectures rather
supplement and complete those put forth at another time.
The relation in which the present English version stands to the German
original is precisely the same as that described in my Preface to the
“Lectures on Ancient History”; but the present volumes differ from the
previous ones in so far as they do not appear in the _form_ of Lectures.
This is owing to the fact that the division into Lectures is not marked
either in the German edition or in any of the sets of notes which I
had opportunities of collating. The want of such a division, in this
instance, is perhaps scarcely to be regretted, because the subject itself
renders division and subdivision absolutely necessary; and if the merely
accidental division into Lectures had been added, it would frequently
disturb rather than assist the reader.
Many of the localities and countries here described have been more fully
explored since the delivery of these Lectures, and much information
might accordingly have been added in notes; but I have thought it right
to adhere to the principle which I have followed in the publication of
the Lectures on Ancient and on Roman History, as it is not my object
to furnish complete treatises on these subjects, but to preserve and
bring before the public the views and opinions of a man who still stands
unrivalled as an historical inquirer.
L. S.
_Edinburgh, October, 1853._
CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
PAGE
Preliminary observations 1
History of ancient Ethnography and Geography 4
Ancient authorities and introductory remarks 11
GREECE.
Greece in general 24
Peloponnesus 26
The Homeric Catalogue 31
Divisions of Peloponnesus 33
Argolis, Argos 37
Aegina 54
Laconia 56
Cythera 63
Messene 64
Arcadia 70
Elis 77
Achaia 79
GREECE BEYOND PELOPONNESUS.
Attica and Megaris 84
Megaris 87
Attica 90
Athens 93
Acropolis, Κιμώνειον τεῖχος, Πελασγικόν, Propylaea 97
The Theatre, Agora, Buleuterium, Prytaneum 98
The Pnyx, Museum, the New Town, Olympieum 99
Academia, Lyceum, Cynosarges 99
Piraeeus, Munychia 100
The Long Walls 102
Population of Athens 107
Salamis 111
Boeotia 113
The Locrian Tribes 123
Phocis 126
Doris 134
Aetolia 136
Acarnania 147
The Cephallenian Islands 153
Thessaly 155
Peraebia (Magnesia) 168
Achaia (Phthiotis) 170
Melians and Malians 171
The Dolopians 172
Euboea 175
Northern islands, Sciathos, Scopelos, Scyros 180
Peparethos, Halonnesos, Lemnos and Imbros 181
Samothrace, Thasos 182
The Cyclades 183
Delos 184
Paros, Siphnos, Seriphos 186
Ceos, Andros, Tenos, Syros, Rhenea, Myconos, Naxos 187
Melos, Thera 189
Ios, Amorgos, Crete 190
Carpathos, Astypalaea, Nisyros 195
Rhodes 196
Dorian Tripolis in Asia Minor 203
Ionia 204
Samos 209
Chios 213
Panionium 215
Aeolis 215
Lesbos 218
Magnesia on the Maeander 220
The Kingdom of Pergamus 221
Greek Settlements in Macedonia and Thrace 224
Chersonesus Thracica 234
Chersonesus Taurica 244
The north coast of Asia Minor 248
Epirus 251
Thesprotia 256
The Suliots 258
The Chaonians 260
The Molottians 261
The Atintanians 269
The Pelagonians 269
The Orestians 269
The Parauaeans 269
The Amphilochians 269
The Agraeans 270
Corcyra 272
Macedonia 275
Athamania 280, _n._
Macedonia prima 281
Emathia 286
Pieria 288
The Bottiaeans 288
The Paeonians 288, 296
Mygdonia 288
The Edonians 288
The Agrianians 296
Illyricum 297
The Amantians 306
The Bulliones 306
The Dessaretans 309
The Autariatae 309
Migrations of Nations 310
Ardyaeans and Parthinians 311
Dalmatia 312
Pharos 314
Corcyra Melaena 314
Melite 314
LECTURES
ON
ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHY.
All history resolves itself into a knowledge of the circumstances in the
midst of which events occur, and of the events themselves; in an abstract
point of view, the two are conveniently kept apart, although concretely
they can never appear separated. A history which does not enter into the
development of circumstances at all, and altogether pre-supposes them
to be known, is scarcely conceivable, unless indeed it were written for
contemporaries alone. Nevertheless, however, the one side or the other
predominates, according to the predilection of the individual historian.
Livy gives scarcely anything but the narration of events; earlier
historians were fond of occupying themselves with the description of
circumstances, and the more ancient the historian the more striking is
this peculiarity. Thucydides, the greatest of all historians, whenever
he has an opportunity, as in his description of nations, dwells upon
the representation of circumstances. In the earliest times, therefore,
ethnography and chorography were always the principal objects of
attention, while subsequently this tendency decreased more and more, and
the narration of events alone was attended to. The two, however, ought
not to be separated, for without a knowledge of the circumstances in the
midst of which events take place, the study of history is altogether
useless. The mere knowledge of a country, however, is not sufficient;
the peculiarities of its inhabitants, its products and the like, must
be well known to the student; and without this history has no life. On
the other hand, we are often unable to picture to ourselves even modern
European nations from a mere narrative of events, unless we have at the
same time some insight into their manners and customs. But the history
of ancient nations more particularly cannot be understood without a
knowledge of the circumstances arising from the peculiarities of their
countries. Philological knowledge is the _conditio sine qua non_; but
were a man ever so great a philologer, unless he be at the same time
acquainted with the ancient constitutions, the political divisions, and
the soil and climate of the countries, his ability to interpret the
ancient authors would be nothing but “a sounding brass and a tinkling
cymbal”; he would be in the same condition in which we find the wretched
grammarians of old.
A knowledge of the ancients may exist in an endless variety of degrees;
a perfect knowledge is altogether unattainable. The time which separates
us from them cannot be removed; but the difference of space presents
no such insurmountable difficulty. The soil and the atmosphere of the
classic countries have something so peculiar, and so utterly foreign to
us, that to obtain a perfect familiarity with the ancient classics, it is
necessary to know those countries and live in them, for unless we have
seen them with our own eyes, we easily form erroneous notions; and this
is required more particularly of him who wishes to understand the Latin
poets. But still, even if a person cannot actually visit the countries,
he may supply the defect, in a great measure, by a loving and diligent
study. To initiate you into this, and at the same time to indicate to
you those facts which are absolutely certain as points to start from, is
the object of these Lectures. I shall give positive results which you
may receive with confidence, and which I have arrived at by diligent
and laborious research: they chiefly refer to changes of nations and
countries, but at the same time topography shall not be excluded.
It is easy to perceive that this department of knowledge may be treated
in various ways, for there are histories in which every thing that
happened at the same period, is related synchronistically, while we may
also look at events from the point of view of one particular nation. The
same difference exists in ethnography and chorography. In the present
Lectures it is my intention to give information about the classical
nations of antiquity, and about the whole range of nations which are
connected with them either by literature or by history, but I do not
mean to treat of all the nations of antiquity in the widest sense of
the term. I shall speak of the East and of Africa only so far as they
come within the reach of the Greeks and Romans; I shall not touch upon
the non-classical nations, though they are now better known from native
accounts. I shall notice the migrations in Africa and those of the
Scythians, as well as the Bactrian empire and other eastern countries.
Of India I shall not speak according to Indian authorities, which were
unknown to the ancients, but I shall follow the accounts furnished by the
Greeks. Scandinavia will, for the most part, be dealt with in the same
manner; the Finnian nations will be passed over altogether, as well as
those parts of Africa which do not come in contact with the classical
nations.
The time, which for us forms the boundary between antiquity and the
middle ages, cannot be determined with absolute precision; ancient
and middle-age history cannot, in their whole extent, be separated by
a straight line; the line undulates without any definite law. With
some nations it falls at an earlier, and with others at a later time,
according as their countries were taken possession of by barbarous
tribes at an earlier or later period. For most European nations, the
migration of nations forms the line of demarcation, and the immigration
of the Franks, Suevi, Vandals, Burgundians and others forms the close
of antiquity, while in the eastern empire it lasted till the Arab
conquest. It is but seldom that in this respect we shall be apparently
inconsistent, when, for example, we describe the condition of Rome and
Ravenna during the period of the exarchate; for in point of fact, these
two cities down to the restoration of the western empire, belong to
ancient, and not to mediaeval history. Such lines of demarcation cannot
be slavishly adhered to without pedantry.
We may further raise the question, as to whether the geographical
knowledge of the ancients, that is, an examination of their notions
about the earth, its parts and its inhabitants should come within our
sphere. In so far as their notions were erroneous, such discussions would
be tedious and disagreeable; and they form no part of our objective
consideration of ethnography and chorography. This science, however,
the creation of Voss, is a very essential part of the propaedeutics
to a right understanding of the ancient authors: it belongs, in a
subjective point of view, to the history of geography, and the gradual
extension of geographical knowledge. We shall take into our consideration
only those parts of that science which have a direct bearing upon our
object, by shewing us the condition of the countries at the time, and
the connections and relations among peoples distant from one another.
Whoever treats of geography as a science, that is, whoever intends to
give a history of geography, must dwell upon these points; but then he
cannot confine himself to the Greeks and Romans, he must at the same time
discuss the geographical knowledge of the Arabs, Scandinavians, and other
nations.
The history of ancient geography and ethnography after the revival
of letters, is the same as that of all other studies connected with
the investigation of antiquity. After the restoration of learning,
all information about ancient geography was sought exclusively in the
ancient authors; the whole of the middle ages had added nothing to it;
whatever advances were made, proceeded from practical men, and not from
the learned. The consequence of this state of things was the unfortunate
separation of dead learning from practical life: the knowledge of the
learned had its root in their books, and was thereby spoiled in its very
beginning; it is true, all erudition is based on books, but it must be
amalgamated with practical knowledge. To transfer that which was handed
down in books to the actual, visible world was a very difficult task,
and the acquisition of practical experience was no part of a scholar’s
business. This state of things remained the prevailing evil until the
17th century; and during that period, the ἰδιῶται were much more learned
than the λόγιοι. The first attempts of geographers consisted of lifeless
compilations from ancient books; and only that which was not found in
them was sparingly derived from the actual and living knowledge. The most
striking example of this kind is Raphael Volaterranus, in that part of
his Encyclopaedia, in which he treats of geography; for in describing the
countries of Europe, which had become entirely changed, he copies Pliny
and Mela, and it is not till they cease to furnish him with information,
that he borrows a few things from the actual knowledge of his time.
Although he lived at Rome, he describes it as it had been a thousand
years before him. In the East, and especially at Constantinople, the maps
of Ptolemy were used throughout the middle ages—whether the same was
the case in Italy, I cannot decide; the earliest Italian maps are not
older than the fifteenth century. The maps of Ptolemy were then brought
over to the western countries; and from them the learned formed some
sort of notion of the geographical and ethnographical knowledge of the
ancients. But as early as the thirteenth century—the Arabs had done so
even before—the Venetians, Genoese, and Catalanians had become acquainted
with the Greek and Arabic maps, and it was these unlearned men that,
in extending geographical knowledge, took these maps as their basis,
and remodelled them into new and practical maps, especially sea-charts,
which they had so much improved. But this was unknown to the scholars
of the fifteenth century; and even in the sixteenth, their ignorance is
almost inconceivable. It was not till the seventeenth century that the
nations of western Europe arrived at the age of maturity; that century
checked this irrational philological tendency, and for a time, philology
itself; it gave a different direction to scholarship, and thus laid the
foundation of our modern philology. The time had now come, when a living
account of ancient geography based on autopsy could be undertaken.
The first work of eminence was the production of a German, Philip Cluver,
on Italy, Sicily, and Germany; it ranks very high, though all its parts
are not equal in value, the _Germania_ being very considerably inferior
to the two others. The _Italia_ and _Sicilia_ must be regarded as one
work; what he has done for these countries is excellent, and nearly all
the passages of the ancients referring to them have been fully collected
by him. When we are told, that he collected the materials for his work in
the space of eighteen months, we must probably understand this to mean,
that, after having previously read through all the ancient authors, he
collected in his mature age his reminiscences within the short period
alluded to. He was professor in the university of Leyden; and the states
general of Holland, which were usually very active in their support of
learned men, granted him permission for a journey to Italy, and at the
same time allowed him the enjoyment of his salary.[1] He had great tact
in discovering and remembering localities; he knew how to see things with
his own eyes, and at the same time had a clear intellect in examining
things impartially. His reputation is firmly established, his work is
immortal among scholars, it will always be great and classical, and
there is but very little that can be added to it. But he did not rightly
understand the ethnography and history of the Italian nations, nor did he
sufficiently attend to the stages through which ancient history passes,
and by which the nations ascend as by the steps of a ladder. Ancient
history becomes confused by the supposition that no event is historical,
which is not recorded in the extant ancient authors. Such a view can
be entertained only by timid minds. There are often manifest gaps in
history, which are not noticed by the ancients, because they themselves
did not perceive them, or because they did not find them pointed out in
earlier writers. Even the great Perizonius combats such narrow views; and
it is for this reason that Cluver’s accounts of nations are often full
of mistakes. This is the defect in his excellent work, but its details
are not the less valuable on that account. He did not live long enough to
revise his work, for he did not attain an advanced age.
His example was followed by a no less distinguished man, who attempted to
compose a chorography of Greece, which was even far more difficult than
that of Italy. This undertaking was the more laborious, because there
were scarcely any preparatory works that could be made use of; for Italy
had been visited before, and the travels of Baptista Alberti furnished
Cluver with a very good foundation. The maps of Greece, which were then
in use, were very wretched; those of Ptolemy are badly projected, and
only a few countries are treated with any degree of minuteness. In the
middle ages, Greece was very little visited by Europeans, so that during
that period it was almost as unknown as Ethiopia is now; and a geography
of Greece was therefore a want that was seriously felt. Paulmier de
Grentemesnil (Palmerius), a French nobleman of Normandy, undertook a
journey to Greece. He, together with the two brothers Valois, closes
the glorious array of the great French philologers, who combined the
knowledge of language with that of things. Unfortunately he did not
complete his work, because he had planned it on too grand a scale: his
scheme also embraced Illyricum and Macedonia, and he completed only
his account of these two countries, together with that of Epirus and
Acarnania. He, too, has left much that requires to be rectified, but this
does not detract from his greatness. The idea of continuing the work has
occurred to no one, though at present there are men who possess all the
qualifications for such a task. However, the completion of the work in
the form given to it by its author is now no longer a desideratum.
In the reign of Louis XIV, when a friendly intercourse with the Ottoman
Porte commenced, and when the relations with it became more intimate,
Greece was first visited by French travellers; maps were then drawn,
which were not indeed quite accurate, but still tolerably good. Thus
De la Guilletiere described Peloponnesus, but his work, which contains
many a valuable observation, has no maps. The first real journey of
discovery to Greece was that undertaken by Spon and Wheler; light was
afterwards thrown upon the geography of Peloponnesus, about the end of
the 17th century, by the campaigns of the Venetian admiral Morosini,
who, for the purpose of his military operations against the Porte,
caused charts and plans to be made of several places by Coronelli; the
struggle for the possession of Candia also was beneficial. Then followed
the excellent travels of Tournefort; some natives of Greece likewise
collected important materials for a description of their country: thus
the archbishop of Janina, known under the name of Meletias, gave a
description of Greece. Yet the materials brought together were never
wrought out in the manner in which Palmerius would have done it.
Italy and Greece therefore are the only countries which were at all
made the subjects of any learned inquiries. In the meantime books of
travels, which combined ancient and modern geography, also furnished
many materials to increase the knowledge of other countries. Much was
gained by the voyages of the English to India: Egypt was thus brought
to light; and Syria and some of the countries of Asia Minor were laid
open, by Richard Pococke; and many a discovery was made accidentally
during the active intercourse with those countries. The travels of Shaw
are an excellent work for the ethnography of northern Africa, especially
Numidia and the Roman province of Africa: he did for those countries what
Cluver and Paulmier before him had done for others. During the eighteenth
century, the great D’Anville, one of the most brilliant geniuses I know,
without writing many books, contributed, by his maps, more than any other
man to advance geographical knowledge at a gigantic rate. I cannot allow
any opportunity to pass without avowing my admiration of that man’s
greatness: by the light he has thrown upon ancient geography, he has
acquired as much merit in historical philology as in ancient history.
Major Rennell, who is still alive, has undeservedly been placed by the
side of D’Anville; he has done much that is invaluable, he is diligent
and indefatigable in collecting materials; but there is one point in
which he differs from D’Anville, and in which he is far inferior to him.
D’Anville possessed a peculiar power of divination and of estimating
the value of his materials; he was not only extremely industrious in
collecting them, but knew how to value each point most correctly, and
how to use and combine his matter in the most sagacious manner, always
clearly distinguishing between what he knew and what he did not know;
while Major Rennell, on the other hand, has spoiled his best materials
by his scrupulous attempts to reconcile what is incorrect with what is
correct. D’Anville’s _Mémoire sur la Mer Rouge_, for example, is the most
excellent chart of the Arabian Gulf. All the earlier ones were copied
from the ancient Venetian ones; but all at once D’Anville furnished an
accurate, detailed, and astronomically correct description of the coasts,
islands, and countries, which he had compiled from the most different and
wretched materials, furnished by Portuguese, Turkish, and other maps. He
discerned with the most marvellous tact which statements were entitled to
belief and which not. Any one knowing what geography was before the time
of D’Anville, cannot sufficiently admire him. Two of his works, that on
ancient and modern Egypt and that on Gaul, are particularly excellent;
his little manual is of less value. But the whole series of maps in his
Atlas of the ancient world will be unsurpassed, until another D’Anville
arises who shall draw his maps according to the improved geographical
knowledge we now possess. Southern Italy is not yet perfect in his map;
but whenever his representations are incomplete, he himself points it
out; as, for example, in his map of Epirus, which country has now become
much better known in consequence of several military officers of learning
having resided in it. After D’Anville’s death, Barbié du Bocage unjustly
made several alterations in his maps, but in subsequent editions he has
withdrawn them.
Chorography thus made constant progress, but ethnography did not keep
pace with it. The German work of Mannert, which is extensively used
and has acquired great celebrity, arose out of the materials then
accumulated; the author has worked at it for a period of more than thirty
years, and new and improved editions of the first volumes were published
before the whole was completed. It contains many valuable materials, but
they are by no means wrought out as they should be. The author commenced
his work with very slender scholarship, such as it was at the time, and
without extensive reading. These disadvantages became the more dangerous,
because he was not sufficiently conscious of them, and because he wrote
with animation and interest: he has no survey of his subject, he wants
the real historical tact, and has not read the ancients thoroughly. He
has made many hasty combinations, without sufficient foundation. If any
one wished to review the work, mistakes might be discovered in great
numbers. Thus, _e.g._, he sets up the hypothesis, that the Herodotus who
during the insurrection against Persia was sent as ambassador from Ionia
to Greece, was the same as the historian, without considering that, in
this case, he must have been at least ninety years old when he began to
write his history, and accordingly must have lived at least to the age of
one hundred and twenty years. The maps of Reichardt are thoroughly bad[2].
A work on ancient topography is still a desideratum, and one of the
many tasks which a good scholar might undertake; every year in our time
furnishes means to make it more complete.
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.