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.
GREECE.
The geography of Greece presents great difficulties at the very outset.
Hellas is not a country with natural boundaries; and the application
of the name varies at different times. The ancients did not take it in
the same sense in which we do; with them the names of countries are so
intimately connected with those of the nations inhabiting them, that
they called Hellas all the countries inhabited by Hellenes, including
the Siceliot and Italiot towns as well as the colonies in Asia Minor,
as far as Iberia and Scythia. The country to the east and south of
Ambracia, until the time of the Romans, was not simply called Ἑλλάς, but
ἡ συνεχὴς Ἑλλάς. This designation, however, so peculiar to the whole mode
of thinking of the ancients, is too national, and for us inconvenient,
and we unhesitatingly apply the name of Greece to the country called by
the ancients ἡ συνεχὴς Ἑλλάς. It extends beyond the natural boundary of
Mount Oeta and the Aetolian mountains which are connected with Oeta,
because Thessaly must necessarily be included. We must choose the most
convenient designation; and if in this we differ from the ancients, it is
a necessary deviation made for the purpose of making ourselves understood.
The only countries which have natural boundaries are first Peloponnesus,
and secondly those parts which are separated from Thessaly by mountains.
But these boundaries are only partial, and the natural limits of the
whole country ought to be extended as far as the north of Thrace, so
as to include that country together with Macedonia and Illyricum as
far as Mount Scardus, and the heights which separate Illyricum and
Macedonia from Servia. But only a portion of this extensive territory
was inhabited by Greeks. Originally it was one united country, being
inhabited by the race of the Pelasgians, while in the historical times
the Hellenes became separated from them; but how this nation arose is
one of the most mysterious points in history. All we can do is carefully
to distinguish between Pelasgians and Hellenes, although there was a
relationship between the two, which is perfectly obscure to us. In
the historical period the whole is already in a state of confusion.
The Hellenic nation, like that of the Latins in Italy, seems to have
proceeded from a small centre; but how this came to pass is a question
involved in impenetrable darkness. A nation calling itself Σελλοί, Ἑλλοί,
Ἕλληνες, is said to have inhabited the highest mountains of Epirus,
and thence to have spread over the whole country which was inhabited
by Pelasgians. This nation was called by its neighbours by the name of
Γραικοί which however was never employed by the nation itself.
The divisions of Greece are partly natural and partly accidental;
natural is that into Thessaly, Peloponnesus, and the country between the
two. This last, however, has no common name, that of _Hellas proprie
sic dicta_ is quite wrong, because it takes no notice of the islands
and colonies. The question as to whether Greece in the earliest times
had any common name or not, was discussed even by Strabo and others.
My opinion is, that the Homeric names cannot be doubted; during the
period represented by Homer, Argos is the name of the country from the
coast of Peloponnesus as far as the frontiers of Macedonia, and we may
therefore draw a distinction between Hellas and Argos. But that name
lasted only till the development of the Hellenic character.[9] The name
Ἀργεῖοι, applies to the Greeks, who had not yet separated themselves as
Hellenes; and Δαναοί seems to be the name of the Pelasgian inhabitants of
Peloponnesus. When we read in Thucydides that at the time of the Iliad,
Greeks and barbarians were not yet separated, the expression may be
variously interpreted; his opinion probably is, that in those times many
parts of Greece were inhabited by nations, such as Caucones, Leleges, and
others, which were not assimilated to the Greeks, but were distinct in
language and manners; still, however, they are comprised under the name
of Argives, i.e., Pelasgians, for Ἀργεῖοι is not a Hellenic name. The
name Ἀχαιοί is not Hellenic either, and it must be remarked in general,
that Hellenes and Pelasgians were not yet distinguished from each other,
but were vaguely comprised under one name.
In the earliest times two of those natural divisions, Peloponnesus and
Thessaly, though perfectly independent of each other, appear to have
been of primary importance. We shall first direct our attention to
Peloponnesus, as the purest Greek country, and the only one which forms
a moral and naturally united community, and shows a vigorous nation, not
only because it contained the seats and dominions of the ancient kings,
but because for a long time after, Peloponnesians possessed the supremacy
over the rest of Greece.
PELOPONNESUS.
The name Peloponnesus is singular; it is very ancient, and occurs as
early as the Homeric hymn on Apollo. There can be no doubt that it has
some reference either to a people or to some ruler; how far it may
contain an allusion to the Pelasgians, is a question concerning which
nothing can be said with certainty. Where names differ so widely, a
healthy philology demands that we should abstain from any dangerous
attempt. If we employ a rational method of exegesis, we cannot doubt
that the Atreids were also called Pelopids, and that previously to the
immigration of the Heracleids and Dorians into the peninsula, there
existed an historical dynasty under that name. But whether Pelops is
the historical ancestor of that race, or some kind of hero, whether
he is different from the Pelasgus in the “Supplices” of Aeschylus,
who, according to different genealogies in the Arcadian traditions,
is sometimes called the first man, and sometimes a son of Zeus, are
questions about which, if we judge soberly and thoughtfully, we can say
nothing. The opinion prevalent in the time of the tragedians, that Pelops
was a Phrygian, belongs to a much later period, in which the Trojans too
were regarded as Phrygians, which according to the views of the epic
poems they never could be.
Another very ancient name, which the Greeks regard as the earlier and
native name, is Ἀπία, for there can be no doubt that it is a proper name,
though some Alexandrians declared it to be an adjective; ἐξ ἀπίης γῆς
does not signify “from a distant,” or “waterless country” (from πίνω),
but from the country of Apia. Those who are anxious to manufacture
history out of etymologies, may find in this name various allusions as,
for example, to the Opicans, but they are all equally hazardous. In
general etymology is necessary; but we cannot be sufficiently on our
guard not to fall into quibbles and fancies. Not to neglect the later
times, I will at once notice the subsequent change of the name into
Morea (ὁ Μορέας). This too has given rise to various etymologies: it is
a very common opinion among the modern Greeks, that the name Morea is
derived from the shape of the country; as the ancients often compared it
to the leaf of a plane tree, so the moderns compare it to the leaf of a
mulberry tree (_mora_), according to which the name would be of Italian
origin. But I am convinced that, at the time when the Bulgarians ruled in
Greece, and when the Slavonians, being pushed onward by them, inundated
Peloponnesus, the country, being the maritime province of the Bulgarian
kingdom, was called Morea from _more_ (the Slavonian word for _sea_), and
consequently, the name originally was in all probability not confined
to Peloponnesus. In the time of the Achaean league, the Romans called
it Achaia, from one of its provinces,—a name, which in fact wholly and
properly belongs to Peloponnesus, until it was extended to the rest of
Greece.
Peloponnesus, in a physical point of view, is a very remarkable country:
it rests upon a volcanic foundation; and although our history knows
nothing of any eruptions, still we hear of formidable earthquakes. The
island of Thera, in the Greek Archipelago, is the central point from
which a volcanic chain extends below the sea to Peloponnesus, and as far
as Epirus and Thesprotia, while on the other side, it proceeds to Sicily,
Ischia and Mount Vesuvius. Hence earthquakes were very frequent and
eventful occurrences in the physical history of the peninsula. When you
come down from the precipitous heights of Arcadia, or from the opposite
heights of Parnassus and Helicon, you at once see that the country
falls off, and has been formed by the ground sinking in consequence
of this volcanic nature; and I have no doubt that the Corinthian Gulf
was likewise the effect of such causes, for the land on both sides
of it breaks down abruptly. The range of Taygetus, of which Taenarus
forms the southern extremity, is particularly renowned for its internal
convulsions; the most fearful ravages are nowhere so frequent as there,
and about the time of the 80th Olympiad, in particular, the earth was
there in violent agitation: whether this is still the character of that
district, I do not know. The Peloponnesian coast of the Corinthian Gulf
is another scene of earthquakes; there Helice and Bura were swallowed up
by the earth, and as far as history can be traced, one town after another
was destroyed by convulsions of the earth, whence Ποσειδῶν Ἐνοσίχθων was
specially worshipped there, and on Mount Taenarus. Those earthquakes give
rise to lakes discharging their waters through subterraneous canals,
which at times are filled up, and at others are opened again; hence
the lakes are of varying extent, as for example, the Stymphalian lake
in Arcadia. Another effect is, that several rivers of Peloponnesus are
interrupted in their course: they sometimes continue it under ground, as,
for example, the Ladon, while at other times they change their beds, or
disappear entirely in caverns or lakes. Hence also the quantity of water
in some districts is different at different times; this was the case
especially in Argolis, which in the days of Aristotle had lost all its
waters.
The peninsula of Peloponnesus is properly a system of mountains of very
different kinds; those by which it is connected with the main land
of Greece, the Geranean and Oenean mountains, are of very different
formation from the rest: they are more rugged and barren, and have little
or no vegetation; those in the interior of the peninsula display the
most luxuriant vegetation, and are far more fertile than the mountains
of Italy. Few countries are equal to Peloponnesus in the abundance and
beauty of its vegetation, which in spite of all devastations always
revives with youthful vigour. Its mountains, although they contain
districts without water, are on the whole abundantly supplied with
it, especially in Arcadia, and it is this circumstance that makes the
vegetation so splendid. I have been told by persons who had been in
Arcadia, that no country on earth can compete with it in beauty on
account of the forms of its mountains, its trees, etc., and the most
magnificent Alpine vegetation is not richer than that of Arcadia.
The highest points of the peninsula are the mountains which separate
the maritime country of Achaia from Arcadia, in the neighbourhood of
Stymphalus. In the ravines of those mountains snow is found even in
summer, though not on the tops of the mountains, and there is not one
mountain in all the peninsula, which is capped with snow. All Arcadia
is a conglomeration of mountains, which, even with the assistance of
maps can hardly be divided into their elements; whence it is a vain and
useless attempt to fix the definite names which are mentioned by the
ancients. We cannot, for example, define Mount Maenalus, and what is
generally described as the site of Erymanthus, is only conjectural. All
we can say, is that Maenalus was perhaps the central, and Lycaeus the
southern range of Arcadian mountains. All these mountains and rivers
now have different names: a proof that the Slavonians entirely changed
the ancient population. The traveller asks in vain where the Alpheus
is; Mount Taygetus is now called Pentadactylon, and all the other names
are barbarous. Taygetus is very high, but not quite so high as the
highest Arcadian mountains; the name belongs to the whole range from the
frontiers of Arcadia down to Cape Taenarus, now Cape Matapan.
Peloponnesus has but few plains which do not almost deserve the name of
valleys: those of Elis and Argos—perhaps that of Sicyon also, though it
is not quite plain—are the only ones which deserve special notice. Elis
is a plain, encircled by a range of hills which are not high; Argos is
properly still more spacious and less enclosed, though the mountains
of Corinth are continued along the Acte. The district of Calamata, in
Messenia, is a real valley, the work of the river Pamisus; and Laconia,
along the Eurotas is a real river-valley. All these valleys are of
extraordinary fertility, and the only barren portions of Peloponnesus
are about Corinth, where the ground is very rocky, and the district in
Argolis between ancient Mycenae, Epidaurus and Troezen; the plain of
Sicyon is undulating and capable of cultivation. Achaia, on the northern
slope of the Arcadian mountains is less hilly, if we except Cape Rhion;
it has only low hills, but considerable valleys along the rivers.
Wherever in Peloponnesus the plough can be applied, the soil rewards the
labour; the trees are magnificent, and most of them are fruit trees. The
heights are rich in chesnuts and eatable acorns; the olive tree grows
admirably in Peloponnesus, and for it the peninsula seems specially
created; it is found upon all the lower hills, and extends even high up
into the mountains; hence, the cultivation of olives was the principal
object of agriculture; the vine was not so much cultivated, though many
districts produce good wine. When Peloponnesus was thickly peopled,
it did not produce grain sufficient for its inhabitants, whence corn
had to be imported from Sicily, and this necessity easily explains the
settlements in Sicily and Italy. The Arcadian Alps afford very excellent
pasturage, and although the Arcadian shepherd little answers to the ideas
which were entertained of him some seventy or eighty years ago, yet the
inhabitants, a strong and robust race of men, are still chiefly occupied
in sheep breeding. Mutton is still eaten there in great quantity as in
the East, while beef is a luxury. Cattle-breeding was also carried on on
mount Taygetus, in Laconia, but with this difference, that the shepherds
in Arcadia were free men, while those in Laconia were serfs.
The political division of Peloponnesus, or the geography of the
population, as might be expected, was different at different periods,
from the age of the poetical mythus down to that of the decay of
ancient life. If I wanted to confine myself to the intermediate or
really classical period, I should render an accurate survey a matter
of considerable difficulty, as I should constantly have to refer to
earlier and later states of things. I shall therefore notice the
different divisions of Peloponnesus from the earliest times, beginning
with the mythical geography so far as it is mentioned with any degree of
certainty, and then pass on to that of the historical period. We shall
accordingly commence with the survey given by Homer in the second book of
the Iliad.
The Homeric Catalogue is a very remarkable document: it is a very
ancient historical piece of composition, drawn up in the verse most
favourable to being remembered, and in which the ancients preserved all
their traditions; but it is quite foreign to poetry. Few subjects of the
Iliad have engaged the attention of the learned in the same degree as
this Catalogue; it was not Strabo alone that took it on every occasion
as the text of his book, as we see from his work itself, but a number
of other writers had done the same thing before him. But our point of
view is different from that which was taken about the time of Ephorus.
We see that there was a time when the Catalogue was regarded as a
historical document, as a conscientious, careful, and learned account of
the state of Greece at the time of the Trojan war. I have no doubt that
this opinion was the prevailing one at the time of Ephorus, who was a
contemporary of Demosthenes and Philip of Macedonia; that it was regarded
in this light at an earlier period, is attested by the statement,
that in the time of Solon, the Athenians and Megarians endeavoured to
establish their claims to the possession of Salamis by appealing to the
Catalogue, a fact which at least proves its early historical authority,
even though the story should not be true. But since we have arrived at
more unbiassed views about Homer, and no longer bind ourselves to the
superstition of his undoubted authenticity—an advantage which, though
it may possibly be abused, should never again be abandoned—our point of
view in judging of this part of the Homeric poems is likewise changed.
We find in this Catalogue several statements which are irreconcilable
with each other, which refer to different times, and betray a different
origin. Thus we meet, for example, with the Heracleido-Doric colonies in
Rhodes and the neighbouring islands of Cos and Syme, while according to
our traditions those settlements are of a more recent date than those
of the Ionians in those parts, and probably the most recent of all,
which even if it were not attested by tradition, would in itself be more
credible. Here we have an evident interpolation, introduced in a Doric
or Rhodian recension, which itself, however, is comparatively speaking,
very ancient. We are naturally tempted to trace the geography laid down
in the Catalogue to a definite period: but this is impossible without
falling into contradictions; all we can say is, that the author of the
Catalogue intended to describe Greece, its inhabitants and towns, as
they were before the Doric migration, when the boundaries were indeed
very different from what they were during the period subsequent to that
migration. But although this intention of the author is manifest, yet it
is not accurately carried out, and is opposed to other traditions. Such a
contradiction occurs most strikingly in regard to the Ionians. The later
country of Achaia on the Corinthian Gulf is said, in our traditions, to
have been inhabited by Ionians, until the Achaeans, being expelled by
the Heracleids from Argos and Mycenae, went to Aegialos, displaced the
Ionians and established themselves in their country; in the Catalogue,
on the other hand, we find a tradition which is irreconcilable with this
account, the truth of which I must leave undecided.