OBSERVATIONS ON THE GULF AND SHORES OF THE GREATER SYRTIS.
The Dimensions of the Gulf, according to Ancient Writers,
considered, and compared with those resulting from the Observations
of the Expedition — Difference in the Statements of the several
Writers quoted — Reasons why a Difference may be expected in their
Accounts — Observations of Major Rennell on the Measurements of the
Ancients — Ptolemy’s Outline of the Gulf more correct than any
hitherto given — Number of Square Miles of Error in modern Charts
of the Greater Syrtis — The Ideas of Ancient Writers (Herodotus
excepted) with respect to the Nature and Resources of the Syrtis
(the _Territory_, not the _Gulf_ of the Greater Syrtis is here meant)
more erroneous than the Dimensions which have been assigned to the
Gulf itself — The General Character of the Syrtis not that of a
Sandy Plain — Incorrectness of the Arab Accounts of what is termed
by them the Desert of Barka — Account of Herodotus considered —
Apparent Accuracy of his Statements — Inferences drawn from them
— Ancient Accounts of the _Gulf_ of the Greater Syrtis, dimensions
excepted, very correct — Accumulation of Soil on the Shores of the
Gulf accounted for — Apparent Elevation of the General Level of
the Syrtis — Advance of the Sea on the Northern Coast of Africa
— Appearance of the Coast at Alexandria and Carthage consistent
with that of the Shores of the Greater Syrtis and Cyrenaica —
Observations of Major Rennell and Dr. Shaw on the Elevation of
the Coast of Tunis, and the Advance of the Sea in that quarter —
Observations of Lucan on the Level of the Greater Syrtis — Dangers
of the Navigation of the Gulf of Syrtis considered — Inset into
the Gulf still existing to a great extent — Flux and Reflux of
the Sea mentioned by Strabo and Mela considered — Remarks on the
Derivation of the term _Syrtis_.
In considering the dimensions which have come down to us of the
Greater Syrtis, those allotted to it by Strabo (in the seventeenth
book) are so singularly inconsistent with each other, that there
appears to be no possible mode of reconciling the measurements
he has given of its diameter, with those which he has in the
same place ascribed to its circumference, without material
alterations in the text. “The circumference of the Greater
Syrtis” (observes the geographer) “is about nine hundred and
thirty stadia[1]; and its diameter, at the bottom of the Gulf,
is one thousand five hundred stadia: the breadth of the entrance
(or mouth) is about the same[2]:” that is, about fifteen hundred
stadia. Here we have a circumference considerably less than its
diameter, and no way of getting rid of a difficulty so formidable
to mathematicians, without making such decided alterations in the
text as no sober-minded editor would hazard[3]. Various readings
have been given, by different commentators, of this passage; but
it will be useless to compare their several merits; since both the
measurements in question will be found to be no less inconsistent
with the truth than they have been seen to be with each other. For
the actual circumference of the gulf of the Greater Syrtis may
be estimated at four hundred and twenty-two geographic miles, and
its diameter at two hundred and forty-six[4]: so that it would be
necessary to alter both the circumference and diameter given by
Strabo before any use could be made of his dimensions; and then the
measurements must be taken on the authority of the commentators,
since they would be no longer those of the geographer. In short,
the difficulty appears to be scarcely surmountable; for though it
is evident that the passage is not as Strabo left it, we have no
sufficient data for deciding what it really was originally[5]. The
measurements given by Pliny are somewhat nearer the truth[6]; indeed
his diameter of the gulf may be considered as remarkably accurate;
for it is stated at three hundred and thirteen Roman miles, equal
to two hundred and forty-eight and a quarter geographic miles,
and there is consequently no more than two miles and a quarter
difference between these dimensions and the actual diameter. His
circumference, however, is not by any means so accurate; it is given
at six hundred and twenty-five Roman miles, which are equal to four
hundred and ninety-four geographic miles, and will therefore leave a
difference of seventy-two geographic miles between this measurement
of the circuit and the actual one. The difference also exists
on the wrong side; that is to say, the whole distance of Pliny
is not only much more than the actual distance by observations,
but much more than the actual road-distance, which is the longest
which can be allowed. The diameter of the gulf, already stated,
of this author, will be found to coincide remarkably well with the
measurement which may be deduced from the distance he has given us
in another place, between the cities of Leptis Magna and Berenice,
of three hundred and eighty-five Roman miles[7]: for the distance
between Lebida (Leptis Magna) and Mesurata, the western extremity
of the gulf, may be reckoned at fifty-eight geographic miles, equal
to seventy-three Roman miles; so that this being deducted from the
whole distance given, of three hundred and eighty-five M. P. we
shall have a remainder of three hundred and twelve of the same for
the distance between Mesurata and Bengazi, leaving a difference of
only one mile between the diameter of the gulf thus deduced and
that above stated of three hundred and thirteen. But although we
may infer, from the coincidence of the two measurements, that the
three hundred and twelve miles in question may be taken as distance
_across_ the gulf, they are by no means stated to be such in the
text; and if they had chanced to coincide with the circumference
instead of the diameter of the gulf, they might just as well have
been taken for the road-distance between Mesurata and Bengazi;
the measurements which we find in the Itinerary of Antoninus,
of the distance between Leptis Magna and Berenice, come nearer
to the actual road-distance between these places, by one hundred
and thirty Roman miles, than that which is obtained by adding the
seventy-three miles between Lebida and Mesurata to the circumference
of the gulf given by Pliny; for the whole distance of the Itinerary
from Leptis to Berenice is not estimated at more than five hundred
and sixty-eight Roman miles, while those above mentioned being added
together would make no less than six hundred and ninety-eight. So
that the circumference of the gulf which may be deduced from the
Itinerary differs only from the actual circuit by road-distance in
thirty-seven Roman miles, or twenty-nine and a half geographic.
But instead of being surprized at the differences which obtain
between the measurements which have descended to us from the
ancients, we ought rather, perhaps, to wonder that they do not differ
even more than they are usually found to do from each other. It is
true that abundant materials were furnished to the early geographers,
by the numerous military and naval expeditions which enterprizing
or ambitious states had fitted out for the purposes of conquest or
discovery[8]; but the maps and charts which resulted from them were
laid down without the aid of astronomy; and the distances between
the places described in them were either measured or computed along
the roads which the armies traversed, or deduced from the track
of vessels along the coast. Major Rennell has observed, that the
difference which will generally be found between the measurements of
Eratosthenes and Strabo, and those which appear in modern geography,
will be that which exists between the measure of a _direct_ line,
drawn from one place to another, and that of the _road_ distance
between them. “Nothing can speak more strongly to this point,”
(says the well-informed and intelligent writer here quoted,)
“than the circumstance of Strabo’s giving the number of stades
in Nearchus’s coasting navigation for the lengths of the coasts
of Persia and Caramania[9].”
In fact it was not till the time of Ptolemy that geography
began to be placed upon that solid basis on which it now stands
so conspicuously; and it certainly appears somewhat singular,
that the writers on this subject who flourished between the time
of Hipparchus and that of the Alexandrian geographer (among whom
were Strabo and Pliny,) should not have availed themselves of the
discoveries of the former to check the measurements which appear
in their works[10]. Various errors have been pointed out in the
geography of Ptolemy; but as it can scarcely be supposed that he
had sufficient observations to regulate the position of all the
places which he has laid down, we ought not to be surprized at
this circumstance. His outline of the Gulf of Syrtis, though it
cannot be called correct, is notwithstanding more so than those
which have since been given of it; and the prolongation of the gulf
at its southern extremity, so erroneously marked in modern charts,
as well as the inlet called the Gulf of Zuca, which we have stated
does not exist, are neither of them laid down in it at all. It may
therefore be said, that the true character of the gulf is much better
preserved in the loose outline of Ptolemy than in any other of which
we are aware. Whatever may be the reasons which have induced modern
geographers to introduce into the Gulf of Syrtis the errors which we
have alluded to, it is certain that the best chart which they have
hitherto produced of it must undergo a correction of ninety miles
in longitude, and upwards of thirty miles in latitude, that is to
say, it must part with nearly six thousand square miles of ground,
before it will be consistent with the truth.
Should we pass from the measurements to the general character of
the Syrtis, we shall find that if the ancient authorities have
erred in their dimensions of it, they have been no less deceived
with regard to its nature and resources. The whole country from
Bengazi to Mesurata appears to have been generally considered by
the writers of antiquity as a dreary tract of sand, without water or
vegetation, and swarming with venomous serpents. But we have already
shewn that there are spots in this tract where vegetation is very
luxuriant, and where water may be readily procured; and although
the extent of marshy ground is in many places considerable, yet
the proportions between the barren and the productive parts of the
Syrtis are not so little in favour of the latter as appears to have
been generally imagined. The whole tract is so thinly inhabited,
that a very trifling portion of it only is cultivated; but this
circumstance is owing more to the character of the Bedouins who
frequent it, and to the government to which they are subjected,
than to the incapacity of the soil itself.
The Bedouin, though active, is far from industrious; and if he
can gain a livelihood from the flocks which he possesses, he will
seldom trouble himself to cultivate even the most productive soil;
indeed, if he were to do so, he has in general no security that
any part of the produce or the profits of it would be his own. His
tent and flocks may be removed at a few minutes’ notice, but his
crop of corn or vegetables could not be so disposed of; and they
who came as his friends, for the purpose of collecting tribute,
or as enemies, for the purpose of spoliation, would take care to be
with him before his crops were cut, and make sure of the object of
their visit. We remember asking an Arab, in the district of Syrt,
why his tribe would not trouble themselves to dig a few more wells
in a place which they frequented, where there was plenty of water,
at no great depth from the surface of the soil: his answer was
that, if they were to do so, the Bashaw’s troops who collected
the tribute would more easily overtake them, when they chose to run
away, than if the supply of water were more scanty: for without a
good supply of water the troops could not advance more than a short
distance into the interior, and would consequently be less likely
to overtake them in their flight. This reason was sufficient in his
opinion to account for the circumstance; but it is probable that,
if there were no grounds for apprehension on this head, neither our
friend himself, nor any Arab of his tribe, would have had resolution
enough to sink a single well, however much they might chance to be
in want of it; and that they would have preferred removing their
whole establishment to another place, which might be better provided
with water, to the trouble of digging for it where they were.
It is not only in the works of early writers that we find the nature
of the Syrtis misunderstood; for the whole of the space between
Mesurata and Alexandria is described by Leo Africanus (under the
title of Barca), as “a wild and desert country, where there is
neither water nor land capable of cultivation[11].” He allows,
however, that the country was inhabited, _after_ the occupation
of Africa by the Arabs, though not before that period; and tells
us, that the most powerful among the Mahometan invaders possessed
themselves of the fertile parts of the coast, leaving the others
only the desert for their abode, exposed to all the miseries
and privations attendant on it: for this desert, he continues,
is far removed from any habitation, and nothing is produced there
whatever. So that if these poor people would have a supply of grain,
or of any other articles necessary to their existence, they are
obliged to pledge their children to the Sicilians who visit the
coast; who on providing them with these things, which they bring with
them from Sicily, carry off the children they have received. Here
we have the whole of the Syrtis and Cyrenaica described as a desert
tract of country; and although the same author states, that “Sert
was an ancient city, built, as some think, by the Egyptians, and, as
others believe, by the Romans,” he informs us that the country in
which it was situated was uninhabited, from Mesurata to Alexandria,
before the arrival of the Mahometans in Africa[12].
It must, however, be confessed, that the half-starved Musselmen
with whom he has peopled it were scarcely more deserving of our
commisseration than the “vastæ Nasamon populator Syrtis,”
or any other of the very respectable personages of antiquity who
are said to have inhabited this coast. The Sicilians were most
probably aware of the character of their customers before they
exacted from them the hostages above described; for Leo goes on
to say, that these Arabs were the greatest thieves and the most
treacherous people to be found in the whole world. They ranged the
country round, as far as Numidia, attacking and plundering the
poor pilgrims who were unfortunate enough to meet them; and not
contented with taking from them everything that was to be found
upon their persons, they made them swallow a quantity of hot milk,
and then shook them about till it acted as an emetic, so violently
as to leave nothing whatever on the stomach.
This was done lest the poor unhappy patients, to whom the
medicine was administered, should have taken the precaution of
swallowing their money to prevent its being taken from them by their
assailants. “Perciocché dubitano queste bestie (says our indignant
author) che i viandanti, come s’appressano a quel diserto,
inghiottino i danari perchè non gli siano trovati adosso.”
It appears to be chiefly from Leo Africanus that modern historians
have derived the very unfavourable idea of what they term the
district and desert of Barca. Yet the whole of the Cyrenaica is
comprehended within the limits which they assign to it; and the
authority of Herodotus (without citing any other) would be amply
sufficient to prove that this tract of country, not only was no
desert, but was at all times remarkable for its fertility.
We find on the same authority, that the Libyans (or Africans)
who inhabited, at an early period, the southern shores of the
Mediterranean, were divided into pastoral and agricultural tribes;
and that the former, most of whom were inhabitants of Barca, were
by no means in the miserable condition in which they have been by
some represented.
They are described by Herodotus as living on flesh and milk; and
the prejudice which they entertained for what Englishmen would
term cow-beef, could scarcely have existed among a people who were
scantily provided with the necessaries of life[13].
With regard to the present inhabitants of the district of Barca
(we mean the part of it comprehended in the Syrtis and Cyrenaica),
we should certainly call them a healthy and good-looking race;
and not at all the ugly, meagre, grim-visaged people, which they
have been described to be in some of our best received accounts of
them. We allude in particular to the Bedouin (or wandering) tribes,
which are those more immediately in question; and who are generally
a finer people, both in character and appearance, than what are
termed the more civilized inhabitants of Arab cities. Whatever may
be the descent of the present inhabitants of this part of Africa,
they appear to lead exactly the same kind of life, and to have as
nearly as possible the same resources, as the early possessors of
the regions which they occupy.
The penetration of Herodotus has not failed to discover among the
African tribes which he enumerates, that they were a very healthy
race of people; and the practice of cautery, still adopted by their
Mahometan successors, and to which he is uncertain whether or not
to attribute the healthy appearance of the Libyans, is mentioned
by this author as one of their peculiarities[14].
No allusion is made by Herodotus to the parched and barren sandy
soil which later writers have bestowed upon the country in question,
described by Leo Africanus as a region “dove non si trova ne
acqua ne terreno da cultivare;” and we may safely affirm that
the impression left upon our minds of this part of the coast and
its inhabitants (after reading the account of Herodotus) would
be much more consistent with the appearance and peculiarities of
both, in their actual state, than that which would result from the
descriptions of any succeeding writer.
The parts which are nearest the sea he describes as inhabited by
Nomadic, or pastoral tribes; and the inference is, that where there
are flocks and shepherds, there is also pasturage and water. The
country inland of these, and immediately adjoining them, he states
to be abounding with wild beasts; and for these animals, also,
more shelter and moisture is necessary than could be afforded them
in the burning sands of a desert: we may therefore conclude that
the parts where they are found would most probably contain caves,
or woods, which might serve them as habitations and places of
retreat and security. This tract we should consequently imagine to
be wild and stony, unadapted to cultivation, and affording little
or no pasturage, but certainly not wholly of sand, or altogether
unprovided with water. The third region, mentioned by Herodotus
as succeeding to the two before enumerated, and placed farther
inland than either, is the sandy tract of country usually, though
not necessarily, implied by the term desert, in which there is
neither water, nor vegetation of any kind; nothing, in fact, by
which life could be sustained[15]. This tract he merely states to
be a long ridge of sand, extending itself from Egypt to the pillars
of Hercules[16]. It is but justice to state, in confirmation of
the account here submitted to us by the father of history, whose
veracity has been so much called in question, that (so far as our
own experience, and that of the Arabs whom we have questioned on
the subject, has enabled us to judge) it is perfectly consistent
with the truth. What was beyond the sandy desert was little known
to Herodotus, and must not therefore be adverted to in considering
this description.
With regard to the water afforded by the Syrtis, we find the Psylli
inhabiting a tract of country inland of that possessed by the
Nasamones, who occupied the south-eastern coast of the Gulf[17];
these people must therefore have been provided with water, though
they were nearer to the sandy desert than the Nasamones; and if
we are told that, in consequence of their supplies being dried up,
they were compelled to emigrate, and perished in their journey to the
southward, we must at the same time conclude that, previous to this
accident, they had water enough to support them at home, though it
might not have been very plentiful. On the whole, we may observe,
without entering further into this subject, that the district of
Barca, including all the country between Mesurata and Alexandria,
neither is, nor ever was, so destitute and barren as it has been
represented; that the part of it which constitutes the Cyrenaica is
capable of the highest degree of cultivation, and that many parts
of the Syrtis afford excellent pasturage, while some of it is not
only adapted to cultivation, but does actually produce good crops
of barley and dhurra. We may remark, at the same time, that the
proportion of sand which is actually to be found in the Syrtis will
by no means authorize us to call it a sandy region, and that the
proportion of water which it actually possesses will not justify
us in asserting that it is unprovided with that necessary. We may
observe, too, that the number of serpents and venomous reptiles, so
freely bestowed upon the Syrtis by Roman writers, and by others who
flourished after the occupation of Northern Africa by Roman colonies,
appears to be greatly exaggerated: that it possesses, in fact, no
terrors peculiar to itself, at least, not that we are acquainted
with; and no difficulties which may not be readily surmounted by
those who are acquainted with the nature of the country, and will
adopt the precautions which are necessary[18].
From the regions of the Greater Syrtis let us pass to the Gulf
itself; and of this we may remark, that the accounts which have
come down to us of its peculiarities do certainly appear to be much
better founded than those which we possess of the country along its
shores. Herodotus, although he has minutely described the people who
inhabited the coasts of the Syrtes, has left no account of the Gulfs;
but we learn from Strabo, that the dangers which presented themselves
to navigators, in the Gulfs both of the Greater and Lesser Syrtis,
were occasioned by the frequent occurrence of banks and shallows,
formed by the flux and reflux of the sea, on which vessels were
continually striking, and it rarely happened that any of them were
got off. “For this reason,” he adds, “it was usual to keep
away from the coast, in order to avoid being embayed[19].”
What we must here understand by the flux and reflux of the sea,
is not (we should imagine) the usual action of the tides, which
is very trifling in the Mediterranean, compared with that which
is observable in other seas; but the inset occasioned by violent
winds blowing for any long continuance on shore, and the subsequent
reaction of the sea in regaining its original level.
As northerly winds are very prevalent, and very strong on this coast,
which fronts the widest part of the Mediterranean, they might no
doubt occasion the accumulation of soil alluded to in this passage
of Strabo; and we certainly find that a great part of the coast is
so exceedingly shallow as to make the landing very hazardous and
difficult. It is probable, also, that this accumulation of soil has
raised the level of the low lands in the Greater and Lesser Syrtes
much above what it formerly was, and that both these regions were
once covered with water to a greater depth than at present.
We have already observed that the sea appears to have made great
advances on the whole line of coast of Northern Africa; and this
fact seems to be proved from the circumstance of our finding the
remains of ancient towns, along its shores, at present under water
to a considerable extent. We may now pass in boats over the ruins of
the northern part of Alexandria, (as many travellers of our time can
testify); and remains of the city of Carthage, “for the space of
three furlongs in length, and half a furlong, or more, in breadth,”
are well known (on the authority of Shaw[20]) to be at the present
day “entirely under water.” In the intermediate space, we may
instance the maritime towns of the Cyrenaica, where the sea has
made considerable advances; those parts of the Greater Syrtis which
are not exposed to the accumulation of sand, and the town of modern
Tripoly, the northern part of which (as we have already stated in the
words of Leo Africanus) appears to have been in his time under water.
This rise in the level of the Mediterranean could scarcely fail to
have occasioned an overflow in the low grounds of the Syrtie, to a
much greater extent than formerly, if it had not been accompanied by,
at least, a proportionate accumulation of soil: but it will rather
appear that in these regions the land may be said to have advanced
upon the sea; since we find their ancient ports now filled up with
sand, their lakes to have taken the character of marshes, and their
quicksands (if ever they had any) to have become solid and firm[21].
To these remarks we may add the observations of Major Rennell,
on the actual and former state of the Lake Tritonis and the Lesser
Syrtis, which we will give in the author’s own words.
“From the authorities which we shall presently adduce, we can
suppose no other than that this Syrtis” (the Gulf of the Lesser
Syrtis) “did once enter much deeper into the land; and that it
even formed a junction with the Lake Lowdeah within it—the Tritonis
Palus of the ancients. Otherwise we must not only reject the reports
of Herodotus and Ptolemy, but that of Scylax also, the writer of a
periplus, and who ought to have known the truth.” Again, after
a learned and ingenious discussion—“In effect the ancients,
as Dr. Shaw justly observes (p. 213), seem to have described
this quarter from report, or uncertain information only[22]; and
therefore we can hardly expect consistent, much more critical,
descriptions. They appear, however, to have furnished us with
very good grounds for believing that the Syrtis and Lake Tritonis
communicated in former times; and that the communication continued
even to the time of Ptolemy. We think it equally probable that the
river Triton flowed into the lake, and that the island called by some
Triton, by Herodotus, Phla, together with the temple of Minerva,
(in which the Triton is said to have deposited Jason’s tripod)
was situated near the mouth of it: moreover, that the island in
question is now a part of the sandy plain in which the rivulet of
Hammah, the supposed river of Triton, loses itself. For it appears
to us that the difference between the present state of things, at
this place, and the ancient description of the lake and Syrtis,
may be reconciled, by merely adverting to the changes that have
taken place on other sandy shores; and more particularly at the
head of a gulf where the tide exerts its greatest power of casting
up the sand to a higher point. That which has happened at the head
of the Red Sea may be adduced in point; and, as the shore of the
Syrtis is much flatter than the other, the operation has probably
gone on with greater rapidity.”
Lucan (as Major Rennell has justly observed) “appears to believe
that the bottom of the Syrtis” (that is, the Greater Syrtis) “was
growing firmer, and the water shallower; and surmises that it may
hereafter become dry and solid.” “What changes” (he continues),
“in point of form and extent, they may have undergone, or if any,
we know not: but it is certain they have hitherto preserved their
original properties.”
We insert below the lines of Lucan alluded to, from Rowe’s
translation[23].
It will be seen that the principal danger of the Syrtes, according
to the passage above quoted from Strabo, consisted in the difficulty
of what is termed by seamen working off a lee-shore, for which the
vessels of the ancients were very ill adapted; and we can readily
believe, from what we have seen of the coast, that (under the
influence of the heavy surf which rolls over the shallows when
the wind blows strongly on shore) few vessels which chanced to
strike could escape. The inset into the gulf, at the same time,
being great, (when the north and east winds blow strongly against
the coast,) it must have been extremely difficult for vessels of
this description to avoid being drawn into its vortex; and indeed
we may observe that few ships will, at the present day, sail from
Bengazi, westward, when the wind is blowing strongly into the gulf,
on account of this consequent indraught[24].
“The improved state of navigation” (Major Rennell very justly
observes) “has, however, stripped the Syrtes of the greatest part
of their terrors;” and it is probable that the report of them
which we shall have from Captain Smyth will in consequence prove
to be much less formidable than the accounts which have descended
to us from the ancients.
It appears, from Mela, that the Syrtes were not only considered
to be dangerous on account of the frequent occurrence of shoals,
but more so in consequence of the flux and reflux of the sea which
we have already mentioned above[25]. This rise and fall (as we have
stated) can scarcely have been the customary motion of the tides;
but it may reasonably be supposed that the reaction of such a body
of water as must (under the influence of violent and continued
winds) have been driven over the low lands of the Greater Syrtis,
was occasionally very considerable. This may have been the reflux
(we imagine) alluded to; while the inset into the Gulf, caused
by strong winds blowing into it, may have been the rise which is
mentioned as the flux.
Of the indraught in question there can be no doubt; indeed, we may
remark that a rise of this nature is more or less observable in
gulfs in general; and when we consider that an unbroken sweep of
level ground, very slightly raised above the surface of the sea,
will be found extending itself on the western coast of the Greater
Syrtis for the space of a hundred miles in length, and occasionally
as much as fifteen in breadth, we may easily allow that the reflux
of the water, driven over a tract of such dimensions, may well be
considered as formidable.
It appears to be from the effect of the flux and reflux alluded to,
that the names by which the Gulfs of Syrtis are distinguished have
been derived; that is, if we may suppose them to be of Greek origin,
as Sallust and others have asserted[26].
Cellarius has, however, been censured by Signor Della Cella for
having ventured to adopt this derivation, and for “not knowing that
Sert meant desert in Arabic, and that this name is still preserved in
the bottom of the (Greater) Syrtis[27].” But were we even to agree
with Dr. Della Cella, that the district called Syrt is a desert,
(which our friend Shekh Mahommed, who lives there, with many others,
very comfortably, would be very unwilling, and very ungrateful to
allow,) there does not appear to be any reason why the regions in
question should be particularly distinguished as deserts, when the
country which bounds them to the southward, and which is much more
entitled to the appellation of desert than they are, was never
called Syrtis either by ancients or moderns. The term existed,
it is evident, in the age of Scylax and Herodotus, both of whom
we find to have used it; but, in enumerating the several tribes
which inhabited the shores of these gulfs, it by no means appears
(as we have stated above) that the latter of these writers meant
to characterise their country as a desert, or that he was aware
of any such meaning implied by the term in question, Syrtis. If,
therefore, we suppose the word to be of oriental origin, we should
rather look beyond the language of the Arabs for its root; and as
the Phœnicians were well acquainted with these shores at a very
early period of history, we might suppose, with some appearance
of probability, that the term has originated with them. As the
peculiarities of the Gulfs of Syrtis appear to be more striking
than those of the territory within them, it is also probable that
the country would have been named from them, and not the gulfs from
the country; particularly as the Phœnicians were a naval nation,
and may be supposed (at the early period to which we allude) to
have been better acquainted with the Gulfs than with the country
here in question.
The Phœnician (or Hebrew) words from which the term Syrtis
might originate, are probably the roots of the Arab phrase Sahara
(صحرا), to which Signor Della Cella appears to allude; but
instead of applying them to the country of the Syrtis, as expressive
of its barren and desolate appearance, we should rather apply them
to the Gulfs themselves, as expressive of the violent storms of
wind which are known to prevail in them, and of the agitation and
confusion resulting from their influence.
The terms to which we allude are the Hebrew words Saar (סַעַר),
or Saàrat (סַעַרַת), signifying whirlwind, or tempest; and
the root Sàar (סָער), from which they spring, expressive of
agitation and disturbance; Soarah (סֹעַרח), tempest-tossed,
is also another derivative of Sàar.
We have very slender pretensions to any skill in Hebrew, and merely
offer the above suggestions for the consideration of those who
may be inclined to reject the Greek origin of the term Syrtis;
which, for our own part, we are very well contented to allow, on
the authority of the writers already quoted, and on inspection
of one of the places in question. It may be possible, however,
that some Phœnician term, like those we have instanced, may have
descended from that people to the Greeks, and afterwards through the
latter to the Romans, who may have looked for the origin of it in
some word of the Greek language which appeared to them expressive
of the qualities of the Gulfs, without considering that the Greeks
might themselves have received it from others.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: The stade of Strabo has been estimated by Major Rennell,
in his admirable treatise on the itinerary stade of the Greeks,
at 700 to a geographical degree; and 930 stades will, on this
computation, be equal to 100½[a] Roman miles, or 80⅒ geographic
miles. While the dimensions of the diameter, 1500 stades, will be
equal to 162½ Roman miles, or 128⁵⁷⁄₁₀₀ geographic.]
[Footnote a: The geographical and Roman miles differ (says Shaw,
on the authority of D’Anville) as 60 is to 75½, that is, 60
geographical miles and 75½ Roman miles are equal to one degree of
a great circle. The Roman mile is consequently one-fifth less than
a geographic mile.—Vol. i. p. 30.]
[Footnote 2: Ἡ δε μεγαλη Συρτις τον μεν κυκλον εχει σταδιων εννακοσιων
τριακοντα που· την δ᾽ επι τον μυχον διαμετρον χιλιων πεντακοσιων·
τοσουτον δε που και το του στοματος πλατος.—Lib. xvii. p. 385.]
[Footnote 3: In the second book, however, the measurements
given by Strabo are more consistent; for he tells us that the
circumference of the Greater Syrtis is (according to Eratosthenes)
five thousand stadia, or 428⁴⁵⁄₁₀₀ geographic mile[a]; and its depth,
from the Hesperides to Automala, and the limits of the Cyrenaica,
one thousand eight hundred, or 154²⁹⁄₁₀₀ geographic miles. Others, he
adds, make the circumference four thousand stadia, 342⁸⁸⁄₁₀₀ geographic
miles; and the depth one thousand five hundred stadia, or 128⁵⁷⁄₁₀₀
geographic miles; the same, he says, as the breadth of the gulf at
its mouth.—Lib. xi. p. 123.]
[Footnote a: At the rate of 700 stades to a degree.]
[Footnote 4: This estimate of the circumference is deduced from the
camel-track, corrected by observations; and the accuracy to which
this mode of computation may be brought by care and attention,
and by making the proper allowances, will be seen in the examples
which we shall hereafter submit of it.]
[Footnote 5: If, however, we take the measurements just quoted from
the second book of Strabo, as those which he intended to be received
in the present case, we shall find that the 428⁴⁵⁄₁₀₀ miles, resulting
from the 5000 stadia of Eratosthenes, come very near the truth. The
other measurements, however, are far from correct. It will be observed
that the diameter given in this place is the same with that mentioned
in the second book (1500 stadia).]
[Footnote 6: Inde Syrtis Major, circuitu DCXXV. aditu autem,
CCCXIII. M. Passuum.—Nat. Hist. lib. v. cap. 4.]
[Footnote 7: Nec procul ante Oppidum (Berenice) fluvius Lethon,
lucus sacer, ubi Hesperidum horti memorantur. Abest a Lepti
CCCLXXXV. M. P.—(Lib. v. cap. 5.)]
[Footnote 8: Sesostris is said to have recorded his march in maps,
and to have given copies of them not only to the Egyptians, but
to the remote and uninformed inhabitants of Scythia, who viewed
them with the greatest astonishment. The expeditions of Alexander
furnished the materials for an interesting survey, a copy of which
was given to Patroclus the geographer; it was from the work of
Patroclus that Eratosthenes derived his principal materials in
constructing the Oriental part of his map of the world, and it is
frequently quoted both by Strabo and Pliny.
Many tolerably accurate surveys resulted from the conquests of
the Romans; and we learn from Vegetius that their generals were
always furnished with the maps of the provinces which were to be
the scenes of their operations. Julius Cæsar ordered a general
survey to be made of the whole empire, which occupied twenty-five
years; and the Itinerary of Antonine, as well as that which was
constructed in the reign of Theodosius the Great, commonly called
the Peutingerian table, are well known as valuable authorities.
“The expedition of Alexander” (says Major Rennell, in the
preliminary remarks attached to his Illustrations of Herodotus,)
“besides the _éclat_ of the military history belonging to it,
furnished in Greece and Egypt an _epoch_ of geographical improvement
and correction, which may not unaptly be compared with that of the
discoveries of the Portuguese along the coasts of Africa and India;
or of that of the present time, in which geography has been improved
in every quarter of the globe.”
“To a philosopher,” (observes the same author,) “the changes
in the comparative state of nations, in different ages of the world,
are very striking, and lead one to reflect what may be the future
state of some _now_ obscure corner of New Holland or of North
America; since our own island was known only for its tin-mines by
the most celebrated of ancient nations, whose descendants, in turn,
rank no higher with us than as dealers in figs and currants!”]
[Footnote 9: “Variations ever did and ever will exist (continues
the Major) on computed distances; instances of which existed on our
own public roads previous to their improvement, and which do yet
exist on many of the cross-roads.” “It is probable,” he adds,
“that Herodotus, Xenophon, Nearchus, Strabo, &c., all intended
the same stade, but may have given occasion to different results,
by reporting the numbers on the judgment of different persons.”]
[Footnote 10: Hipparchus of Nicæa (“who can never,” says Pliny,
“be sufficiently commended,”) appears to have been the first
who united geography with astronomy, by determining the position of
some of the places which he described, according to their _latitude_
and _longitude_[a]. He died about one hundred and twenty-five years
before Christ, and his important discoveries remained neglected,
or at least unapplied, for nearly three hundred years, till they
were adopted by Ptolemy in his Geographical Treatise.]
[Footnote a: See Ptolemy, Geog. lib. i. c. 4, and Pliny, Nat. Hist.,
lib. ii. c. 12—26.]
[Footnote 11: ——— Una campagna diserta et aspera, dove non si
trova nè acqua nè terreno da coltivare.—(Leo Afr. in Ram. 5ta
parte, p. 72.)]
[Footnote 12: Prima che gli Arabi venissero in Africa fu il detto
diserto dishabitato: ma poi che, &c.
There can be no doubt that the desert of Barca, here described,
is the whole tract of country bordering on the Mediterranean, from
Mesurata to Alexandria; for, after having described Mesurata as
situated on the coast, the author proceeds to observe—“This
desert (that of Barca) begins from the confines of the district
of Mesurata, and extends itself eastward as far as the confines
of Alexandria, a space of about one thousand three hundred miles
in length, and about two hundred in breadth.” The dimensions of
Barca here given appear to be as singular as the description already
noticed of it which follows; for besides that the length is much
too great, the two hundred miles of breadth which is allotted to
it would carry us far to the southward of Augila, into the desert
of Libya, which does not seem, from other passages, to have been
intended by Leo. We were ourselves, at one time, in passing along
the eastern side of the Gulf of Syrtis, only four days’ journey
from Augila; and it then bore to the eastward of the south; so that
it could not be anything like two hundred miles from the coast,
even reckoning from the most northern part of the Cyrenaica.
The place mentioned by Strabo in the following passage, as being
_four_ days’ easy journey from the bottom of the Syrtis, could
scarcely be any other than Augila.
Τεταρταιους μεν ουν φασιν απο του μυχου της μεγαλης Συρτεως τους
κατ᾽ αυτο μαλακως βαδιζοντας ως επι χειμερινας ανατολας αφικνεισθαι.
Εστι δε ο τοπος ουτος εμφερης τω Αμμονι, φοινικοτροφος τε και
ευυδρος.—Lib. xvii. p. 838.
Procopius also (de Ædificiis, lib. v.) makes Augila _four_ days’
journey from Borium, (the Borium _Oppidum_, at the bottom of the Gulf.)]
[Footnote 13: Ουτο μεν μεχρι της Τριτωνιδος λιμνης απ᾽ Αιγυπτου
νομαδες εισι κρεοφαγοι τε και γαλακτοποται Λιβυες· και θηλεων τε
βοων ουτοι γευομενοι, &c.—Melp. ρπςʹ.]
[Footnote 14: Melp. ρπζ.—Sallust has observed of this coast
and its inhabitants:—
“Mare sævum, importuosum. Ager frugum fertilis, bonus pecori,
arbori infecundus: cœlo, terraque penuria aquarum: genus hominum
salubri corpore, velox, patiens laborum: plerosque senectus
dissolvit, nisi qui ferro, aut a bestiis interiere. Nam morbus
haud sæpe quenquam superat, ad hoc malefici generis plurima
animalia.”—(Bell. Jugurth. § 17.)
This account agrees very well with that of Herodotus; but the
description which Sallust afterwards gives of the country where the
Philænean altars were placed, conveys too much the idea of a flat
sandy plain.]
[Footnote 15: That is, on the surface; for in most sandy deserts
water may be found by digging.]
[Footnote 16: Ουτοι μεν ὁι παραθαλασσιοι των Νομαδων λιβυων
ειρεαται. υπερ δε τουτων, ες μεσογαιαν, η θηριωδης εστι λιβυη·
υπερ δε της θηριωδεος οφρυη ψαμμης κατηκει, παρατεινουσα απο
θηβεων των Αιγυπτιεων επι Ηρακληιας στηλας. (Melp. ρπαʹ.)]
[Footnote 17: Strabo seems to place the Nasamones farther inland,
whither they were probably driven by the Cyreneans subsequent to
the account of Herodotus.
Την δε υπερκειμενην εν βαθει χωραν της Συρτεως και της Κυρηναιας
κατεχουσιν ὁι Λιβυες παραλυπρον και αυχμηραν· πρωτον μεν ὁι Νασαμωνες,
επειτα ψυλλοι και τινες γαιτουλοι, επειτα Γαραμαντες· (Lib. 17.
p. 838.)]
[Footnote 18: The want of accurate information which has hitherto
obtained, respecting the Gulf and the Shores of the Greater Syrtis,
has not only occasioned their being incorrectly laid down in modern
maps, but has necessarily subjected the observations of modern
writers upon them to errors which would not otherwise have been made.
In alluding to the breadth across the mouth of the Greater Syrtis,
Major Rennell has remarked as follows:—
“Scylax reckons it a passage of three days and nights across its
mouth; which, however, measures no more than one hundred and eighty
geographic miles on the best modern maps. This allows about sixty
miles for each day and night collectively.”
But the actual distance across the Gulf, from Mesurata to Bengazi,
is two hundred and forty-six geographic miles, instead of one hundred
and eighty, and this would give a rate of eighty-six miles per day
(considered as twenty-four hours).
Again—the same author observes—“Strabo says that Cato had ten
thousand men, which he divided into separate bodies, that they might
more conveniently obtain supplies of water in that arid region. That
they marched on foot, and completed the tour of the Syrtis from
Berenice in thirty days. Those who examine the distance will find
that the rate of marching was eleven and a half geographic miles
in direct distance, or about one mile above the mean of ordinary
marches, which is 10.6.”
But as the circumference of the Greater Syrtis is ascertained (as
above stated) to be four hundred and twenty-two geographic miles,
it will follow that the rate of marching must here have been,
in actual distance, about fourteen geographic miles for each day.]
[Footnote 19: Ἡ χαλεποτης δε και ταυτης της Συρτεως, και της μικρας, οτι
πολλακου τεναγωδης εστιν ὁ βυθος, κατα τας αμπωτεις και τας πλημμυριδας,
συμβαινει τισιν εμπιπτειν εις τα βραχη και καθιζειν· σπανιον δ᾽ ειναι
το σωζομενον σκαφος. Διοπερ πορρωθεν τον παραπλουν ποιουνται,
φυλαττομενοι μη εμπεσοιεν εις τους κολπους υπ᾽ ανεμων αφυλακτοι
ληφθεντες. (Lib. 17. § 20.)
The word σκαφος here used, though it means literally _boat_,
appears to be applied in this passage to vessels in general.]
[Footnote 20: Travels in Barbary, vol. i. p. 164.]
[Footnote 21: Major Rennell has noticed a parallel instance in
our own country. “There can be no doubt” (he observes) “of
the increase of the Goodwin (sand) at the present moment, and of
its slow progression towards the state of firm land. Let those who
doubt the facts here set forth attend to the changes at Ephesus,
at Myriandrus, in the Gulf of Issus, and various other places.”]
[Footnote 22: In a note the author adds, “possibly with an
exception to Scylax as a professed guide to others. The observations
of Polybius would probably, had they come down to us, have saved
us much conjecture.”]
[Footnote 23:
When Nature’s hand the first formation tried,
When seas from land she did at first divide,
The Syrts, nor quite of sea nor land bereft,
A mingled mass uncertain still she left;
For nor the land with seas is quite o’erspread,
Nor sink the waters deep their oozy bed,
Nor earth defends its shore, nor lifts aloft its head.
The site with neither and with each complies—
Doubtful and inaccessible it lies;
Or ’tis a sea with shallows bank’d around,
Or ’tis a broken land with waters drown’d;
Here shores advanced o’er Neptune’s rule we find,
And there an inland ocean lags behind.
* * * * * *
Perhaps, when first the world and time began,
Here swelling tides and plenteous waters ran;
But long confining on the burning zone,
The sinking seas have felt the neighb’ring sun:
Still by degrees we see how they decay,
And scarce resist the thirsty god of day.
Perhaps in distant ages ’twill be found,
When future suns have run the burning round,
These Syrts shall all be dry and solid ground:
Small are the depths their scanty waves retain,
And earth grows daily on the yielding main.—(Pharsalia, Book 9.)
It here seems evident, that the Gulfs of Syrtis in Lucan’s time
were believed to be growing shallower, and the land advancing upon
the sea. This is certainly consistent with the present appearance of
the Greater Syrtis (as contrasted with the accounts of the ancients
respecting it,) and, from all that we have been able to learn,
of the Lesser Syrtis also. It must, however, be recollected, that
this accumulation of soil is only observable in the low grounds,
where the sand is constantly heaped up by the sea; for in other
parts (as we have already stated) the sea has gained upon the
land. The advance of the sea, which may be considered to be equally
certain with that of the land, will serve to prove how rapidly the
soil must have been accumulating in the lower parts of the Syrtis;
since there is reason to believe that (notwithstanding the rise of
the Mediterranean on these shores) they were formerly covered with
a greater body of water than at present.]
[Footnote 24: We allude here to the vessels of the country, which
we were told at Bengazi usually gave the Gulf a wide birth; thus
realising, in modern days, what Strabo mentions of the vessels of
the ancients.]
[Footnote 25: ——— importuosus atq. atrox, et ob vadorum frequentium
brevia, magisq. etiam ob alternos motus pelagi affluentis ac refluentis
infestus. (De Situ Orbis. Lib. 1. c. 7.) This is said of the Lesser
Syrtis, but the Greater Syrtis is stated, immediately afterwards, to be
nomine atque ingenio par priori. Pliny also mentions both these
peculiarities very briefly but decidedly; he speaks of both Gulfs as
being _vadoso_ ac _reciproco_ mari diros. (Lib. v. c. 4.)]
[Footnote 26: From συρειν, to draw, or drag along. Sallust’s words are
“Syrtes ab tractu nominatæ.” Shaw has quoted Solinus, c. 6, and
Dionysius Periegetes, 1. 198, as suggesting the same derivation. As if
(he adds) “a συρω, quod in accessu et recessu arenam et cœnum ad se
trahit et congerit.” (Vid. Eustath. Comm.) Travels in Barbary, vol.
1. p. 211.]
[Footnote 27: Viaggio da Tripoli, &c. p. 62.]
[Illustration: Plan of the PORT _and_ NEIGHBOURHOOD of BENGAZI
BY _Captn. F. W. Beechey R.N._
_J. & C. Walker Sculpt._
_Published as the act directs, April 1827, by J. Murray, Albemarle
St. London._]