General description of Tripoly; its Castle and Port — The Buildings
of Tripoly commended by Leo Africanus — Present condition of
the City — Its existing ancient remains — Burial-ground of
the ancient City — Sepulchral urns of glass discovered there by
Mr. Consul Warrington — Remarks of Leo Africanus on the soil
and level of Tripoly, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
— Accumulation of soil since that period — Advance of the
sea, mentioned by Leo Africanus, still observable on the coast
of Northern Africa — These appearances adduced in confirmation
of Major Rennell’s remarks on the Lake Tritonis and the Lesser
Syrtis — Historical sketch of Tripoly — Its actual state and
improved condition under the present Bashaw — Abolition of Piracy,
and partial discontinuance of the Slave Trade.
The town of Tripoly has been built on a foundation of rock, and
is washed, to the northward, on two sides, by the sea; while
the remaining parts, those to the southward and westward, are
bounded by a large sandy plain, which is notwithstanding partially
cultivated[1].
The form of the town is very irregular, but it is completely
surrounded by high and thick walls, which appear to have been once
very strong. They are now falling fast into ruin; yet wherever
any part of the old work is seen, through the mud and irregular
fragments of stone, with which the ravages of time have been
partially concealed, it appears to be solid and good[2]. The walls
are besides provided with ramparts, on which are planted a number
of guns quite sufficient to make themselves tolerably respected,
were it not that the impertinent interference of rust, and the
occasional want of carriages for the guns, might contribute to
prevent their effect. The castle is built at the south-eastern angle
of the city, close to the water’s edge; and may be said to connect
the line of ramparts along the beach with that which encloses the
town to the southward. The walls of the castle are unusually high,
and have been fortunately made to incline a good deal inwards:
we say fortunately, for so bad is the state of repair, in which
the exterior is kept, that without this convenient inclination to
the centre, they would not probably be standing at all. Yet they
are certainly of considerable thickness; and it is owing to the
very unworkmanlike manner in which the building has been from time
to time augmented, for we ought not to call it repaired, that its
strength has been materially diminished[3].
Appearances, however, are by no means disregarded; and the surface of
His Highness’s castle and residence (for the building is both one
and the other) displays a bright coating of plaster and whitewash
over the unseemly patchwork beneath it.
The city walls and ramparts are for the most part disguised under a
cloak of the same gay material; and the whole together, viewed under
an African sun, and contrasted with the deep blue of an African sky,
assumes a decent, we may even say, a brilliant appearance. It must,
however, be confessed that this is much improved by distance; for
a too close inspection will occasionally discover through their
veil the defects which we have alluded to above; and large flakes
of treacherous plaster will occasionally be found by near observers
to have dropt off and left them quite exposed.
Leo Africanus has informed us that the houses and bazars of Tripoly
were _handsome_ compared with those of Tunis. How far this epithet
might have been applicable at the period here alluded to, we are
not ourselves able to judge; but we must confess that the beauty
of the existing houses and bazars of Tripoly did not appear to
us particularly striking: and if the comparison drawn by Leo may
be still supposed to hold, we do not envy the architects of Tunis
whatever fame they may have acquired by the erection of the most
admired buildings of that city. The mosques and colleges, as well as
hospitals, enumerated by our author, must have been very different
from those now existing to entitle them to any commendation; and the
rude and dilapidated masses of mud and stone, or more frequently,
perhaps, of mud only, here dignified by the appellation of houses,
do not certainly present very brilliant examples either of taste,
execution, or convenience. Indeed, if we consider the actual state
of Tripoly, we might be authorized, perhaps, in disputing its claims
to be ranked as a city at all; and they who are unaccustomed to
Mahometan negligence might imagine that they had wandered to some
deserted and ruinous part of the town, when in reality they were
traversing the most admired streets of a populous and fashionable
quarter. This want of discernment, however, is chiefly confined
to Europeans; for the greater part of the Mahometan inhabitants of
Tripoly are strongly convinced of its beauty and importance; while
the wandering Arab who enters its gates, and looks up to the high
and whitewashed walls of the Bashaw’s castle, expresses strongly
in his countenance the astonishment which he feels how human hands
and ingenuity could have accomplished such a structure.
Of the ancient remains now existing in Tripoly, the Roman arch we
have already alluded to, with a few scattered fragments of tesselated
pavement, and some partial ruins of columns and entablatures, here
and there built into the walls of modern structures, are all that
we were able to discover[4].
The harbour is formed by a long reef of rocks running out into
the sea in a north-easterly direction, and by other reefs at some
distance to the eastward of these, all of which make together a
very good shelter. In the deepest part, however, there is very
little more than five and six fathoms water.
At the extremity of a rocky projection to the northward, forming
part of the first-mentioned reef, are two batteries, called the New,
and Spanish, forts; and to the westward of these, on an insulated
rock, is a circular one called the French fort. Besides these,
there are two others on the beach to the eastward, which, with
the New and Spanish forts, would prove of considerable annoyance
to hostile vessels entering the harbour. The forts are in better
condition than the walls and ramparts, which we have already stated
to be very much dilapidated, and the guns very little attended to.
The mosques and baths of Tripoly, with its coffee-houses, bazars,
&c., as well as the manners and customs, dresses, prejudices,
and other peculiarities, of the people who are in the habit of
frequenting them, have been so amply, and so well described in other
publications, that we need not here attempt any account of them[5].
We may, however, be allowed a few words on the peculiarities of
soil, at present observable in the neighbourhood of Tripoly, as
contrasted with those which appear to have existed in the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries.
It has been observed by Leo Africanus, (who flourished during the
pontificate and under the protection of Leo the Tenth,) that there
was at all times a scarcity of grain in Tripoly, and that the country
about it was incapable of cultivation; but it will appear from the
passages which we have quoted below, as well as from the actual
state of the place, that it is merely the want of rain (which is
occasionally experienced) that now prevents the soil in question
from producing good crops very regularly[6].
When we inquire into the cause of this difference, a more interesting
result will be afforded by the inquiry than any which relates to
the quantity of corn produced at Tripoly. We find, for instance,
that the lands to the southward of Tripoly (we mean those in the
immediate neighbourhood of the town) were subject, in the time of
the African Geographer, to be overflowed for some extent by the sea;
while the same parts are now above the level of the water, which
never reaches high enough to cover them[7]. “All the country about
Tripoly” (says Leo Africanus) “is sandy like that of Numidia;
and the reason of this is, that the sea enters freely towards the
southward, (entra assai verso mezzogiorno,) so that the lands which
ought to be cultivated are all covered with water. The opinion of
the inhabitants,” he continues, “with respect to this _riviera_,
is, that there was formerly a considerable tract of land extending
to the northward; but that for many thousand years the sea has
been advancing and covering it; which is observable,” he adds,
“and known to be the case, on the coast of Monasteer, as well as
at Mahdia, Sfax, Gabes, and the island of Girbe; with other cities
to the eastward, whose shores have but little depth of water; so
that one may walk a mile or two into the sea without being up to
the waist. Wherever this occurs,” (continues Leo) “such places
are said to be considered as parts of the _soil_ overflowed by the
sea;” (that is, not within the original bounds of the latter,)
“and the inhabitants of Tripoly,” he tells us, “are of opinion,
that their city stood formerly more to the northward; but that owing
to the continual advance of the sea it has been gradually extended
in a southerly direction; they also declare,” says our Author,
“that remains of houses and other buildings may still be observed
under water[8].”
From this account, contrasted with the actual appearance of the place
in question, we must either suppose that the level of the lands
here alluded to, which are those in the _immediate_ neighbourhood
of Tripoly, is higher, at the present time, than it was in the age
of Leo, or that the sea has retired since that period. For although
the soil of Tripoly still continues to be sandy, there is now no
part of it, as we have stated above, overflowed to the southward of
the town[9]. As we cannot suppose that the sea has retired since the
time of the author in question—(for we shall hereafter point out
several instances on the coast, between this part of Northern Africa
and Alexandria, in which it rather appears to have gained)—we must
conclude that, since the age of Leo Africanus, the land alluded to
has been rising in a greater proportion than the sea.
This elevation of soil is, at the same time, by no means
inconsistent with the rise of the waters already mentioned; for, as
the coast is here sandy, we may venture to conclude, that the sea,
notwithstanding it continued to rise, threw up, from time to time,
a sufficient quantity of sand to raise the level of the country
above it; and we shall thus have an additional confirmation of
what appears to be actually the case on the coasts of the Greater
Syrtis, and Cyrenaica, as well as of the ingenious conjectures of
Major Rennell with regard to the Lake Tritonis and the Lesser Syrtis.
It is well known that Tripoly, after the destruction of Carthage,
became a Roman province; and that on the conquest of a great part
of Northern Africa by the Vandals, it passed into the hands of those
barbarians, from which it was rescued, in the reign of Justinian, by
the valour and abilities of Belisarius. The rapid and extraordinary
progress of Mahometanism, soon after the death of its founder,
involved Tripoly, together with the whole of Northern Africa, in the
general wreck of civilization and Christianity: since that period
it has remained, with few exceptions, in the hands of its Moslem
conquerors, passing successively from the government of the Caliphs
to the tyranny of Morocco, Fez, Tunis, and the Porte. After the
erection of the walls of the town, already mentioned as the work of
Dragut, Tripoly became the secure resort of most of the Corsairs who
roved under Turkish colours; and from that port they continually make
attacks and descents on the opposite shores of the Mediterranean.
After the death of Dragut, the Porte continued to send Governors to
Tripoly under the titles of Sangiac and Bashaw; and the castle was
garrisoned by Turkish troops while the Moors inhabited the city. At
length, in the year 1714, it was finally rescued from the oppression
of the Turks by the great-grandfather of the reigning Bashaw; who,
having contrived to assassinate the whole of the garrison, took
the reins of government into his own hands, and obtained the title
of Hamet the Great. From that time to the present it has remained
under the government of the Moors, although the supremacy of the
Grand Signor is still acknowledged, and tribute is paid to the Porte.
We may say, in allusion to the actual state of Tripoly, that
it appears to be making some advances towards civilization, and
is beginning to feel the good effects which result from a state
of security and tranquillity. Indeed, when we reflect upon its
deplorable condition at the time of the accession of Sidi Yusuf,
and look back upon the horrors of civil discord and contention to
which it had been for more than eight years exposed—impoverished at
the same time by indiscriminate extortion and plunder, and subjected
during the period of these heavy calamities to the dreadful effects
of famine and plague—we may venture to assert that the present
state of Tripoly is far better than might have been expected. It
is now secure under the protection of an established government,
property is respected, and commerce is improving; its markets are
well supplied, its manufactures are encouraged, and its population
appears to be increasing[10].
A considerable portion of the revenue of Tripoly was formerly drawn
from the plunder obtained by her corsairs; and a very lucrative
branch of her commerce consisted in the traffic of slaves. The
humane interference, and the decisive measures, of England, have
contributed to check, if not quite to abolish, these execrable
sources of profit. Piracy, so far at least as we were able to learn,
has been wholly superseded by commerce; and when the Tripolines find
that it is more to their interest to give up their traffic in human
kind than to continue it, we may hope to see this also relinquished.
It may, however, be added (we fear) that _till then_ such a
consummation must not be expected, however devoutly it may be
wished. Indeed, we cannot reasonably expect that it should; for the
feelings which result from a high state of civilization will never
be found to precede civilization itself: and humanity, however
strongly we may believe, or may wish to believe, it is implanted
in the breasts of all mankind, has not often been found to weigh
very heavy against the scale in which interest, or inclination,
has been opposed to it.
GEOGRAPHICAL REMARKS ON THE TOWNS AND DISTRICT OF TRIPOLY.
The town of Tripoly has been usually considered to occupy the
site of the ancient Oea; one of the cities which, with Sabrata
and Leptis Magna, the Tripoli Vecchia and Lebida of modern times,
composed the three principal towns of a district which took from
them the appellation of Tripolis.
At what precise period this tract of country assumed the title
of Tripolis does not appear to be clearly ascertained; but we may
probably conclude that it acquired it in the reign, either of Titus,
or of his successor Domitian; soon after the building of Sabrata
and Oea, which may be supposed to have taken place before the middle
of the first century[11].
It seems to be still more uncertain when the name of the _district_
was bestowed upon the _cities_ of Tripoly; for although Tripoli
Vecchia (which we have already called Sabrata) has been said to
be the first which assumed it, there does not appear to be any
other proof in favour of this supposition, (at least we are not
ourselves acquainted with it,) than that which may be inferred from
the epithet _vecchia_, by which this town has been for centuries
distinguished. Both cities appear to have flourished together
under the Romans; and were in all probability destroyed at the same
time, in the Saracen invasion of the country. As Sabrata, however,
continued to remain in ruins, while a new town sprung up on the site
of the ancient Oea, the name of Tripoly may have, perhaps, been first
assumed by the latter; while Sabrata, from the circumstance of its
being in ruins, was distinguished by the epithet which it retains.
We are not aware of any proof that either Sabrata or Oea had changed
their names before their destruction by the Saracens; and as no town
appears to have been erected on the ruins of the former, there was
no necessity for distinguishing it by another. When a new town arose
on the ruins of Oea, it is probable that the appellation by which it
is at present known to the Moors, and which is merely a corruption of
the Roman term for the district[12], was the first name which either
town assumed after the loss of those which formerly distinguished
them. Tráblis would have been known to the nations of Europe as
the same name with that of Tripolis; and they would naturally have
written the term like that of the district, whenever there might
have been occasion to mention it. Supposing this to be the case,
we may fairly assume, that the name of Tripolis was never given by
the ancients at all to either of the cities in question; and that
it is only, in fact, since the Mahometan conquest that the name of
the district has been applied to them.
This appears to be more probable when we consider that the title
of—_The district of the three cities_—as Tripolis must be
translated, would be a very unappropriate term for a single town,
although it might be well applied to a department. Such an objection,
however, would by no means appear to the Mahometan invaders of
the country, who may certainly be imagined to have been ignorant
of the language from which the word in question is compounded; and
they would discover no reason why the former name of the district
might not be a proper one for their new town.
We have not been at the pains to search minutely into this question,
which would probably receive light from the writers of the Lower
Empire; and we offer the conjectures which we have hazarded above,
in the absence of more decided information. At the same time,
however, it may here be remarked, that the propriety of adopting
the word Tripolis, which appears in the printed copies of Ptolemy,
is questioned on very good authority. In support of this assertion
we need only refer our readers to the Fourth Book of Cellarius,
(chap. 3,) where the question is amply discussed; and as the
adoption of this reading, instead of that of Leptis Magna, which
appears to be decidedly the proper one, would create an endless and
unnecessary confusion in the geography of that part of the country
which lies between Tripoli Vecchia and Lebida, we have thought it
not irrelevant to allude to it[13].
It is perhaps the more necessary that we should do so, as Signor
Della Cella has availed himself of the reading above mentioned,
and of a passage which he has quoted from Pliny, to identify the
modern town of Tripoly with Neapolis; which is too evidently the
same town with Leptis Magna (or Lebida), to admit of any similar
arrangement[14].
We have by no means any wish to detract from the merits of this
gentleman, who deserves every credit for the spirit of inquiry which
has led him to encounter the fatigues and privations of a journey
like that which he has accomplished. He is the first European who
has crossed the Greater Syrtis since the occupation of Northern
Africa by the Romans; at least he is the only one that we know of,
since that period, who has published any account of such a journey;
and he is therefore entitled to the merit of having afforded us
the only information which has been given for many centuries of
an interesting and extensive tract of country. But as we shall
frequently have occasion to refer to his work in the course of
the present narrative, we trust that we shall not be suspected of
undervaluing its merits, because we may sometimes find it necessary
to point out what we conceive to be its errors.
In considering the modern town of Tripoly as Oea, one difficulty
will however present itself: Oea is no where mentioned as a port,
that we have been able to discover; whereas Tripoly must always have
been one. But as many cities are mentioned as ports by one writer,
while they are merely styled cities by another, this objection
may readily be waived. Garapha is by Ptolemy styled λιμην,
by Scylax πολις, by Pliny, Oppidum; Abrotonum is by Strabo
called πολις, by Scylax πολις και λιμην, by Pliny, Oppidum:
Leptis Magna is rarely mentioned as a port, although it is
well known to have been one; and many more examples might be
adduced by those who would take the trouble to collect them.
What is now called modern Tripoly has been said by some writers to
have been built by the early inhabitants of Northern Africa, under
the name of Tarabilis or Trebiles; and the same authors have stated
that the Roman term of Tripolis is derived from the name which
they bestowed upon it. We have already noticed the improbability
of this latter supposition; and we may now venture to add, that
there appears to be no proof of any town having been built upon
the site of modern Tripoly before the erection of the city of
Oea. Leptis Magna is known to have been built by the Phœnicians,
on the authority of several writers of antiquity; but the other
two cities composing the Tripolis have always been considered of
Roman origin, and no mention is made of any other having ever been
assigned to them in works not comparatively modern.
Leo Africanus, who may be supposed to have compiled his account of
Africa from the authority chiefly of Mahometan historians, has given
his testimony in favour of the native origin of Tripoly, while he
states that Tripoli Vecchia was built by the Romans. “Questa,”
(Tripoli Vecchia) says the African geographer, “è una città
antica edificata pur da’ Romani;” but of the other town he
states, “Tripoli fu edificata da gli Africani, dopo la rovina
della Vecchia Tripoli”—without any allusion whatever to the
circumstance of its having been originally a Roman city.
Whatever may be the earliest authority for this supposition, it
appears to be evidently founded on an imperfect knowledge of the
place; for if there were even no reason for supposing Tripoly to
be Oea, we must still have allowed it Roman origin; or at least
we must have admitted it to have been in existence at the time
when the Romans held the country. The Roman arch, which has been
given in the work of Captain Lyon, is sufficient to establish this
circumstance; and the inscription which it bears, also given in the
same publication, and mentioned in the Memoirs of Consul Tully[15],
refers this edifice to the time of Marcus Aurelius. In stating
that Tripoly was built by the Africans, _after the ruin of Tripoli
Vecchia_, we might have imagined that Leo only meant to allude to
its re-construction under the Mahometans; but from the circumstance
of his having just before mentioned Tripoli Vecchia, as a city which
was built by the Romans, it seems to be probable that, had he been
aware of them, he would equally have noticed the pretensions of
modern Tripoly to a higher antiquity than he has assigned to it.
Tripoli Vecchia was destroyed, under the caliphate of Omar,
by the Saracen invaders of the country. The city was pillaged,
after a siege of six months, and its inhabitants either slain or
carried prisoners to Egypt and Arabia. This is stated by Leo; and
here we have a date for the destruction of the city of Sabrata,
which appears to have never been rebuilt: but _how long_ after the
occurrence of this event Modern Tripoly first appeared on the ruins
of Oea we have not been informed by our author. And it seems to be
evident that he considered the African town as the first which had
been raised upon the spot.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: _Three_ sides of the town of Tripoly are said, in
Tully’s Memoirs, to be washed by the sea, which is certainly not
now the case.]
[Footnote 2: The noted corsair Dragūt is said to have been the
author of this defence, and two forts which were situated near the
sea are also attributed to this person.
But Leo Africanus, who flourished at the same period with Dragūt,
at the beginning of the 16th century, has mentioned the walls
of Tripoly as being high and handsome, though not very strong;
and as the existing walls of the town, if they be really those of
Dragūt, bear all the appearance of having once been very solid,
we may perhaps suppose that those mentioned by Leo were standing
before the present ones were constructed.
The greatest length of the city, including the walls, may be said to
be about 1360 yards, and its extreme breadth about a thousand yards.]
[Footnote 3: The happy confusion of buildings which surmount the
walls of the castle, raised at various times for the convenience
and accommodation of the royal family, together with the little
world which is contained within its limits, have been well, and
correctly described in Tully’s Memoirs.]
[Footnote 4: To the eastward of the town, however, on a tract of
rocky and elevated ground, is the burial-place of the ancient city;
where the researches of Mr. Consul Warrington have brought to light
some very interesting objects; particularly several large sepulchral
urns of glass, the most perfect we have ever seen.]
[Footnote 5: We allude principally to the works of Consul Tully and
Captain Lyon, and to Blaquiere’s Letters from the Mediterranean.]
[Footnote 6: “In our way home” (says the artless and amiable
writer of Tully’s Memoirs) “we passed through a street noted for
its corn-wells, or rather caverns, dug very deep into the earth. They
are situated on each side of the street, at about thirty yards’
distance. They were designed for magazines to lay up corn in, where
they say it will keep perfectly good for an hundred years. Happy
were it for the inhabitants of this country if these caverns were
filled now as they were _formerly_ when the country was _so rich
in the produce of corn_, that it was from hence exported to many
parts of the world, and prized almost above any other. The barley
when sown here yields twice as much as it does in Europe. When
it grows properly, they reckon thirty and thirty-five ears for
one an ordinary produce; while in Europe fourteen or fifteen is
considered as a good return.” In dry seasons, however, which
frequently occur, the case appears to be far otherwise. “The
times are so much altered now,” (continues the authoress above
mentioned,) “that corn is imported at an immense expense. This
melancholy change is attributed _to the want of rains_, which have
failed for several years past. There have not been more than one
or two good harvests for thirty years. If cargoes of wheat do not
soon arrive from Tunis, the state of this place will be dreadful
beyond description.”—_Tully’s Narrative_, p. 49.—Again,
the same writer says, p. 67, “It has been ascertained by the
Bashaw to-day, that there is only barley for sale at two bazars,
or market-places, left in the place. _A few years since the barley
here grew so favourably, that it produced in return three times as
much as in any part of Europe. Such quantities of it were exported,
that Tripoly was enriched by its sale;_ but the failure of rain
has left the country for several years without one good harvest.”
This account is consistent with the above, and we have here some
idea of what may be meant by the word _formerly_, in the passage
first quoted, which is certainly somewhat indefinite.]
[Footnote 7: Part of the sandy plain to the south-eastward is,
however, occasionally flooded during the prevalence of strong
northerly gales, and there is a tract of marshy ground, to the
westward of the town, between the cultivated parts and the sea.]
[Footnote 8: (Leo Africanus in Ramusio, p. 72.)—With respect to
the former extension of Tripoly to the northward, here mentioned
by the African geographer, the observation is certainly in some
degree correct, and consistent with the present appearance of other
parts of the coast of Northern Africa; but we must at the same time
observe that the town could scarcely have projected any farther
to the northward than the sites of the French and Spanish forts;
for beyond these we get into five and eight fathoms water.]
[Footnote 9: We must, however, confess, that we cannot altogether
understand, why the loss of the ground in the immediate neighbourhood
of Tripoly, said by Leo Africanus to have been flooded in his days,
should have necessarily occasioned to the inhabitants of the town so
great a scarcity of grain as that mentioned by this geographer. For
the high grounds immediately beyond the parts which were overflowed,
must at all times, we should conceive, from their rocky foundation,
have been placed above the level of the sea at its greatest height,
and might therefore have been cultivated as we find them to be
at present; and the Gharian mountains, as well as the country of
Tagiura, both of which are still very productive, are mentioned
by Leo as places highly cultivated at the period of the overflow
alluded to.
We may remark on this subject—that the coincidence of the former
with the present state of the last-mentioned places, appears to be
the more worthy of notice, from the circumstance of our finding the
actual produce of other districts, both in Tunis and Tripoly, very
different from what it appears to have been in earlier periods. Among
other examples, in proof of this assertion, we may notice the
great difference which has taken place in the produce and soil of
Byzacium. This district was formerly much renowned for its fertility;
and we are informed by Pliny that one grain of corn from the Byzacium
was sent to the Emperor Augustus, which yielded four hundred shoots;
and that three hundred and forty stems had been afterwards sent to
Nero, produced equally from a single grain of corn[a]. But whatever
be the cause of the change which has taken place, we find the
soil of the Byzacium to have greatly fallen off from its former
extraordinary fertility; in proof of which we need only extract
the following observations from Shaw’s Travels in Barbary.
“The many parts which I have seen of the ancient Byzacium, or
winter circuit, fall vastly short in fertility of the character
which has been attributed to them by the ancients. For such as
are adjacent to the sea coast are generally of a dry, sandy nature,
with no great depth of soil in the very best portion of them. This is
called the Sahul, and is planted for the most part with olive-trees,
which flourish here in the greatest perfection. Neither is the
inland country in a much better condition.”]
[Footnote a: Misit ex eo loco Divo Augusto procurator ejus, ex uno
grano, (vix credibile dictu) quadringenta paucis minus germina,
extantque de ea re epistolæ. Misit et Neroni similiter CCCXL
stipulas ex uno grano.—_Nat. Hist._ l. xviii. c. 10.
Again (lib. v. c. 4.) Ita (Byzacium) appellatur regio CCL. M. P.
circuitu, fertilitatis eximiæ, cum centesima fruge agricolis
fœnus reddente terra.]
[Footnote 10: Before we take leave of Tripoly it may be proper to
recommend, for the information of those who may hereafter visit
that country, the useful precaution of not subjecting themselves to
the fluctuation which is usual in the exchange of the place. Money,
in Tripoly, is in the hands of a few; and its possessors, who are
by no means unacquainted with the most profitable methods of laying
it out, are not at all times particularly remarkable for a liberal
treatment of strangers. We found the exchange get more unfavourable
as our demand for money increased; and having been obliged to make
some comparatively heavy payments in Spanish dollars, the value
of them rose in proportion as it was known we had occasion for
them[a]. In order to remedy, or rather to prevent impositions of
a similar nature, it would be advisable for travellers to take
with them, in Spanish dollars, the amount of the sums they may
have occasion for in Tripoly; for even if the exchange should be
good on their arrival there, it would most probably lower as they
were known to have occasion for money. Should this be inconvenient,
bills might be drawn on Malta, and the money in _Spanish dollars_[b]
forwarded by the first secure vessel which might be sailing from
that port to Tripoly.]
[Footnote a: It must, however, be observed, in justice to the house
of Messrs. Beaussier and Co., that we experienced a more liberal
treatment from them than from any other house in Tripoly.]
[Footnote b: The _Spanish_ dollar is the coin in most general
request in the northern and inland parts of Africa.]
[Footnote 11: We find both these cities mentioned by Pliny; and one
of them (Oea) by Pomponius Mela, while nothing is said by Strabo
either of the cities or the district. Pliny died A.D. 79; Mela is
supposed to have flourished about the middle of the first century,
and Strabo in the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. We may infer, from
the silence of Strabo on the subject, that neither Sabrata nor Oea
existed in his time; and as Pliny, though he mentions both cities,
appears to have been unacquainted with the name of the district
in question, we may also perhaps infer that it was bestowed upon
it after his time. What is stated by Cellarius on the subject of
Tripolis, appears to confirm this opinion: for he tells us that he
knew of no one before the time of Solinus, who made any mention in
Africa of the name[a]; and that _he_ only applied the term to the
district, and not to any particular city.
Solinus is known to have written after Pliny, towards the close of
the first century; and we may therefore, perhaps, conclude, that
the district called Tripolis, received that appellation between
the times of Pliny and Solinus.]
[Footnote a: Nec qui ante Solinum, non antiquissimum scriptorem,
mentionem vocis Tripolis in Africa fecerit succurrit nobis; qui vero,
non urbem, sed trium oppidorum regionem intellexit.—(Lib. iv.
cap. 3. § 18.)]
[Footnote 12: Tráblis, the Moorish name of the town, is not,
however, properly a _corruption_ of Tripolis; it is merely the same
word articulated through the medium of Arab pronunciation.
Some authors have imagined an early African name _Tarabilis_, or
_Trebilis_, from which the Roman name Tripolis was derived; but
this is merely imaginary, since the meaning of Tripolis clearly
points out its origin to be Greek.]
[Footnote 13: In hoc tractu autem, post Cinyphum fluvium, prima
Ptolemæo est Νεαπολις (Neapolis) de qua, in editis, exstat, ἡ καὶ
Τριπολις (quæ etiam Tripolis vocatur): in Palatino autem codice nihil
de Tripoli legitur, sed ἡ καὶ Λεπτις μεγαλη (quæ, Neapolis, etiam
Leptis Magna dicitur.)—Geog. Antiq. lib. iv. cap. 3.
It may be added, in support of the reading in the Palatine
manuscript, that Neapolis is mentioned by Ptolemy immediately after
the Cinyphus, which lies to the _eastward_ of Leptis Magna; so that
the geographer, in passing, as he does, from east to west, must be
supposed to have omitted Leptis Magna altogether, if Neapolis be
not intended to denote it.]
[Footnote 14: This reading of Ptolemy, as will appear from the passage
which we have quoted above from Cellarius, is contradicted by the
Palatine manuscript; and must be rejected on the authority of Scylax and
Strabo, and even of Ptolemy himself.—(See the Fourth Book of Cellarius).
The passage of Pliny is not so easily disposed of. After mentioning the
city of Sabrata, this author observes, in speaking of the country which
lies between the Great and Lesser Syrtis, “Ibi civitas Oensis, Cynips
fluvius ac regio, oppida, Neapolis, Taphra, Abrotonum, Leptis altera,
quæ cognominatur magna.”—(Hist. Nat. lib. v. cap. 5.) Here we find
Neapolis mentioned immediately after Oea, and distinguished from Leptis
Magna. “Io crederei,” says Signor della Cella, “che sia piu conforme al
vero, l’ammettere che Tripoli degli antichi geografi debba riconoscersi
nelle rovine che trovansi a ponente de Tripoli tuttora chiamato Tripoli
Vecchio. Pare che l’abbandono, qualunque ne fosse la cagione, di questa
città, desse luogo alla formazione di quella che attualmente ne porta
il nome, e che in quell’ epoca fu chiamata _Tripoli il nuovo_, o la
nuova città, e da’ Greci Νεαπολις. In questa opinione consente la
vera lezione di Tolommeo, ove leggesi Νεαπολις ἡ καὶ Τριπολις. (Neapoli
che dicesi anche Tripoli.) Ho detto la vera lezione di Tolommeo, perchè
io ho per apocrifa quella adottata dal Cellario, dove in vece di
Τριπολις, avendo sostituito Λεπτις, tutto rimane alterato e confuso.
Con Tolommeo concorda Plinio che ha per due città diverse Neapoli e
Leptis Magna, e tra queste due tramette Gaffara e Abrotano; e Plinio,
per le cognizione che poteva attinger nella città, e ne’ tempi ne’ quali
scriveva, merita sopra ogni altro credenza intorna alla geografia di
questa parte dell’ Africa.”—(Viaggio da Tripoli, &c. p. 41.)
It will not here be very evident how the modern town of Tripoly
can, on the authority of Pliny, be supposed to be the same with
Neapolis. For Tripoly is identified by the best authorities with Oea;
and Neapolis is mentioned, in the passage alluded to, as situated
between Oea and Taphra, (the Graphara and Garapha of Scylax and
Ptolemy.) But supposing it to be, as Signor della Cella has stated,
that the decay of the “_Tripoli_ degli _antichi_ geografi”
had really given occasion to the building of the present one,
under the title he has conferred upon it of Neapolis; it follows
that the former city must have borne the name of Tripolis in the
time of Pliny, who, so far from knowing any town of that name,
does not even recognise the district under the title.
It must, however, be confessed, that the introduction of Neapolis,
in the situation which Pliny has assigned to it, is by no means
very easily accounted for. At the same time it is certain, that the
position in question is directly in opposition to the authority
of Strabo, as well as to that of Scylax and of Ptolemy; who, all
of them, identify Neapolis with Leptis Magna, as will be seen by
a reference to Cellarius. This author, who insists very properly
upon the authority of Strabo, &c., that Neapolis is Leptis Magna,
supposes, with Hardouin, that Pliny has adopted the passage above
quoted from Mela, whom he censures for having brought together places
so distant from each other. But Mela is evidently speaking of the
country to the westward of the _Lesser_ Syrtis; of Leptis Parva,
and the Neapolis Colonia of Ptolemy, situated near the extremity
of the Mercurii Promontorium, in the vicinity of Clypea; so that,
although the towns and cities which he enumerates do not come in
the proper succession, they all of them belong to the part of the
country which he is describing; and not, as Cellarius imagines,
to both sides of the river Triton, which would have made a much
more serious confusion. It is therefore less easy to imagine whence
Pliny has derived his Neapolis, or what is his authority for the
order in which he places the other cities of the district; if indeed
he intended them to be in order at all, which from his mention of
Oea (the civitas Oeensis) conjointly with the river Cinyphus[a],
we might probably be authorized in denying. We find _Abrotonum_
also introduced by Cellarius, instead of _Acholla_, in the passage
which he has quoted from Mela: the proper reading is—Hadrumetum,
Leptis, Clypea, _Acholla_, Taphrure[b], Neapolis, hinc ad Syrtim
adjacent, ut inter ignobilia celeberrimæ.]
[Footnote a: The Taphrure of Mela must not be confounded with
Pliny’s Taphra, which is the same with Graphara or Garapha.]
[Footnote b: Mela has however done the same (ultra est Oea oppidum,
et Cinypus fluvius, per uberrima arva decidens . . .) and the
difficulty is increased by what follows—_tum_ Leptis altera,
&c.; both accounts are very confused, and open to much discussion,
but this is not the place for it, and we have already perhaps said
too much upon the subject.]
[Footnote 15: Or rather of a female relation of Consul Tully,
to whom the work in question is attributed.
It is observed in the same work, “When this arch was built,
there were few habitations nearer this place than Lebida, the
Leptis Magna of the ancients;” and farther on, “the Romans
strayed to the spot where Tripoly now stands, to hunt wild beasts;
and under this arch they found a welcome retreat from the burning
rays of the sun.” But the arch was erected after the middle of
the _second_ century; and both Sabrata and Oea were extant in the
time of Pliny, who flourished in the middle of the _first_,—the
conclusion is obvious.]