CHAPTER III.

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE PROGRESS OF DISCOVERY, AND COMMERCIAL ENTERPRIZE,

FROM THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT, TO THE TIME OF PTOLEMY THE

GEOGRAPHER, A.D. 150.--WITH A DIGRESSION ON THE INLAND TRADE BETWEEN INDIA

AND THE SHORES OF THE MEDITERRANEAN, THROUGH ARABIA, FROM THE EARLIEST

AGES.

For several centuries after the death of Alexander, the impulse and

direction of discovery and commercial enterprize continued towards the

countries of the East. Of his successors, Seleucus Nicanor and some of the

Ptolemies of Egypt prosecuted his plans of commerce with this part of the

world with the most zeal and success. Seleucus, after the death of

Alexander, obtained possession of those provinces of his empire which were

comprized under the name of Upper Asia; he, therefore, naturally regarded

the conquered districts of India as belonging to him. In order to secure

these, and at the same time to derive from them all the political and

commercial advantages which they were capable of bestowing, he marched into

India; and it is supposed that he carried his arms into districts that had

not been visited by Alexander. The route assigned to his march is obscurely

given; but it seems to point out the country from the Hyphasis to the

Hysudrus, from thence to Palibothra, at the junction of the Saone and the

Ganges, or, perhaps, where Patna now stands. There is no good reason to

believe, with some authors, that he reached the mouth of the Ganges.

Seleucus was stopt in his progress by the intelligence that Antigonus was

about to invade his dominions; but before he retraced his steps towards the

Euphrates, he formed a treaty with the Indian king Sandracottus, who

resided at Palibothra: and afterwards sent Megasthenes, who had some

knowledge of the country, from having accompanied Alexander, as his

ambassador to him. In this city, Megasthenes resided several years, and on

his return he published an account of that part of India; fragments of this

account are given by Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and Arrian; and though it

contains many false and fabulous stories, yet these are intermixed with

much that is valuable and correct. He gives a faithful picture of the

Indian character and manners; and his account of the geography and

dimensions of India is curious and accurate. Some further insight into

these countries was derived from the embassy of Daimachus, to the son and

successor of Sandracottus; this terminated the connection of the Syrian

monarchs with India which was probably wrested from them soon after the

death of Seleucus. At the time when this monarch was assassinated, Pliny

informs us, that he entertained a design of joining the Euxine and Caspian

seas, by means of a canal; he was undoubtedly the most sagacious of the

Syrian kings, and the only one who imitated Alexander in endeavouring to

unite conquest with commerce.

But it is to the Egyptian successors of Alexander that we must look for the

systematic extension of commerce; towards which they were in a manner

impelled by the highly favourable situation of Alexandria. It has justly

been observed by Harris, in his Collection of Voyages, that most of the

cities founded by the Syrian kings existed little longer than their

founders; and, perhaps, with the exception of Antioch, on the Orontes, and

Seleucia, on the Tigris, none of them, from the situation in which they

were built, and the countries by which they were surrounded, could under

any circumstances be of long duration. With respect to the cities founded

by Alexander it was quite otherwise. The Alexandria of Paropamisus may

still be traced in Candahar; and the Alexandria on the Iaxartes, in Cogend:

and the Alexandria of Egypt, after surviving the revolutions of empires for

eighteen ages, perished at last, (as a commercial city,) only in

consequence of a discovery which changed the whole system of commerce

through the world.

On the destruction of Tyre, Alexander sought for a situation on which he

might build a city that would rival it in the extent of its commerce; and

he quickly perceived the advantages that would be derived from the seat of

commerce being established near one of the branches of the Nile. By means

of this river his projected city would command at once the commerce of the

Red Sea and the Mediterranean. It was, however, necessary to select a spot

near the mouths of the Nile, which would secure these advantages in the

highest degree, and which would at the same time be of the highest

importance in a military point of view, and afford a harbour constantly

accessible. The site of Alexandria combined all these advantages: on three

sides it has the sea, or the lake Mareotis, which, according to Strabo, was

nearly 300 stadia long, and 150 broad; the country adjoining this lake was

fertile, and by means of it, and natural or artificial channels, there was

a communication with the Delta and Upper Egypt. Between this lake and the

Canopic branch of the Nile, Alexander built his city: to less sagacious

minds this site would have appeared improper and injudicious in some

respects; for the sea-coast from Pelusium to Canopus is low land, not

visible at a distance; the navigation along this coast, and the approach to

it, is dangerous, and the entrance into the mouths of the Nile, at some

seasons, is extremely hazardous. But these disadvantages the genius of

Alexander turned to the benefit of his city, by the erection of the Pharos,

and the plan of a double harbour, which was afterwards completed by the

Ptolemies; for he thus united in a single spot the means of defence and

facility of access.

Denocrates, a Macedonian architect, who proposed to Alexander to cut Mount

Athos in the form of a statue holding a city in one hand, and in the other

a bason, into which all the waters of the mountain should empty themselves,

was employed by that monarch to build and beautify Alexandria. Its site was

on a deep and secure bay, formed by the shore on the one side, and the

island of Pharos on the other; in this bay numerous fleets might lie in

perfect safety, protected from the winds and waves. The form in which the

city was built was that of a Macedonian chlamys, or cloak; the two ports,

one of which only was built by Alexander, though both (as has been already

observed) were projected by him, were formed and divided from each other by

a moat a mile long, which stretched from the isle of Pharos to the

continent: that harbour which lay to the north was called the Great

Harbour, and the other, to the west, was called Eunostus, or the Safe

Return. In order to secure the vessels from the storms of the

Mediterranean, even more effectually than they could be by the natural

advantages of these harbours, the piers on each side were bent like a bar,

so that only a small space was left for the entrance of vessels.

The successors of Alexander in the Egyptian empire followed his example, in

nourishing commerce and improving Alexandria. Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, as

soon as he took possession of Egypt, established the seat of government

there, and succeeded, partly by harsh and despotic measures, and partly by

offering great advantages, and by his just and humane character, to draw

thither a great number of inhabitants. He began, and his son completed, the

famous watch-tower in the island of Pharos; the causeway which united it to

the main land, already mentioned, was built by Dexiphanes. Sostratus, the

son of this architect, was employed to erect the watch-tower: the design of

this tower was to direct the vessels which entered the harbour, and it was

justly reckoned one of the wonders of the world. It was a large and square

structure of white marble, on the top of which fires were constantly kept

burning for the direction of sailors. The building of this tower cost 800

talents, which, if they were Attic talents, were equivalent to 165,000_l_.

sterling, but if they were Alexandrian, to double that sum. This stupendous

and most useful undertaking was completed in the fortieth year of the reign

of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, and in first year of the reign of Ptolemy

Philadelphus; and at the same time that Sostratus finished it, his father,

Dexiphanes, finished the mole, which united the island of Pharos to the

continent. The inscription on the tower was, "King Ptolemy to the Gods, the

saviours, for the benefit of sailors;" but Sostratus put this inscription

on the mortar, while underneath he cut, in the solid marble, the following

inscription, "Sostratus the Cnidian, son of Dexiphanes, to the Gods, the

saviours, for the benefit of sailors." In process of time the mortar wore

off, the first inscription disappeared along with it, and the second

inscription became visible.

The erection of the tower of Pharos was by no means the only service the

first Ptolemy did to commerce; throughout all his reign he manifested great

attention to it and maritime affairs, as well as to those sciences by which

they might be improved and advanced. As soon as he had made himself master

of Palestine, Syria, and Phoenicia, he turned his thoughts to the conquest

of Cyprus: this island abounded in wood, of which Egypt was almost

destitute; and on this account, as well as on account of its situation, in

the bosom, as it were, of the Levant, it was of the utmost importance to a

maritime power. He succeeded in obtaining possession of this valuable

island, and thus improved and enlarged the commercial advantages of Egypt.

His next step, with this view, was to invite the sailors of Phoenicia to

his new capital. His increasing power, especially at sea, roused the envy

of Antigonus, who, by extraordinary exertions, in the course of twelve

months built and equipped a fleet, which was able to cope with the naval

power of Ptolemy. It is foreign to our purpose to notice the wars between

them, except in so far as they are connected with the commercial history of

Alexandria. This city was benefited by these wars, for Antigonus, in his

progress, had driven many of the inhabitants of Syria, Palestine, and

Phoenicia from their native lands: to these Ptolemy gave great

encouragement, and extraordinary privileges and immunities, which induced

them to settle in Alexandria, where they followed their mercantile or

commercial pursuits. The report of these advantages granted to foreigners,

led Jews, Greeks and Macedonians to flock to Egypt, by which means the

population and wealth of that country, and particularly of its capital,

were greatly augmented.

The foundation of the museum and library of Alexandria, both of which

contributed so essentially to science and to the establishment of the

Alexandrian school of philosophy, which, as we shall afterwards perceive,

produced men that greatly advanced geographical knowledge, is another proof

of the wise and comprehensive character of Ptolemy's mind.

But Ptolemy rather prepared the way for the advancement of commerce and

maritime discovery, than contributed directly to them himself: fortunately,

his son, Ptolemy Philadelphus, was a worthy successor, and emulous of

treading in his father's steps. About the beginning of his reign, Tyre, the

ancient station of the trade with India, again reared its head as a

commercial city, and engaged extensively and successfully in this lucrative

traffic. It became necessary, therefore, in order to draw it from Tyre and

to secure its centering in Alexandria, to extend the facilities and

advantages of this city for this traffic. With this view, Ptolemy sent

travellers to penetrate into the interior of his dominions, bordering on

the Red Sea, by land, while his fleet was exploring the coast: he began to

make a canal, 100 cubits broad and 30 deep, between Arsinoe on the Red Sea,

and the eastern branch of the Nile, in order to complete a

water-communication between India and Alexandria. This canal, however, was

never completed; probably on account of the tedious and difficult

navigation towards the northern extremity of the Red Sea. He therefore

altered his plan, and instead of Arsinoe fixed on Myos Hormos, as the port

from which the navigation to India should commence. The same reason which

induced him to form this port; led him afterwards to the establishment of

Berenice; he was farther led to this, as Berenice was lower down in the Red

Sea, and consequently ships sailing from it reached the ocean sooner and

with less difficulty. It appears, however, that till the Romans conquered

Egypt, the greatest portion of the trade between Alexandria and

[Egypt->India] was carried on through Myos Hormos. The route in the time of

Ptolemy and his successors was as follows: vessels passed up the Canopic

branch of the Nile to Memphis, and thence to Coptus; from Coptus the goods

were transported in caravans to Myos Hormos: from this port the vessels

sailed for Africa, or Arabia in the month of September, and for India in

July. As the country over which the caravans travelled was the desart of

Thebais, which is almost destitute of water, Ptolemy ordered springs to be

searched for, wells to be dug, and caravanseras to be erected.

In order to protect his merchant ships in the Mediterranean and the Red

Sea, he fitted out two great fleets, one of which he constantly kept in

each sea. That in the Mediterranean was very numerous, and had several

ships of an extraordinary size: two of them in particular had 30 oars on a

side, one 20, four 14, two 12, fourteen 11, thirty 9, &c., besides a great

number of vessels of four oars and three oars on a side. With these fleets

he protected the commerce of his subjects, and kept in subjection most of

the maritime provinces of Asia Minor; viz. Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia and

Caria. The names of some of the most celebrated geographers who were

patronized by this monarch, have been handed down to us: Pliny mentions

Dalion, Bion, Boselis, and Aristocreon, as having visited Ethiopia, and

contributed to the geographical knowledge of that country; and Simonides as

having resided five years at Meroe. Timosthenes lived in this reign: he

published a description of the known sea-ports, and a work on the measure

of the earth. He sailed down the coast of Africa, probably as far as

Madagascar, certainly lower down than the Egyptians traded under the

Ptolemies, or even under the Romans.

The reign of Ptolemy Euergetes was equally distinguished, with, those of

his predecessors, by attention to commerce, and a desire to extend it. As

the navigation of the Red Sea had now become a source of great wealth to

his subjects, he deemed it necessary to free it as much as possible from

the pirates that infested it's coasts; for this purpose, as well as to

preserve a communication between Egypt and the countries which extended to

its mouth, he established governors from the isthmus of Suez, along the

Arabian and African coasts, as far as the straits of Babelmandeb; and

planted colonies of Greeks and Egyptians to carry on the commerce, and

protect the interests of his subjects. But the most extraordinary instance

of his enterprising spirit is to be found in his conquest (evidently for

the purpose of facilitating and securing the commerce of the Red Sea) of

part of Abyssinia. The proof of this, indeed, rests entirely on an

inscription found at Aduli, which there can be no doubt is the harbour and

bay of Masuah; the only proper entrance, according to Bruce, into

Abyssinia. The inscription to which we have alluded was extant in the time

of Cosmas (A.D. 545), by whom it was seen. From it, Ptolemy appears to have

passed to the Tacazze, which he calls the Nile, and to have penetrated into

Gojam, in which province the fountains of the Nile are found. He made

roads, opened a communication between this country and Egypt, and during

this expedition obliged the Arabians to pay tribute, and to maintain the

roads free from robbers and the sea from pirates; subduing the whole coast

from [Leucke->Leuke] Come to Sabea. The inscription adds: "In the

accomplishment of this business I had no example to follow, either of the

ancient kings of Egypt, or of my own family; but was the first to conceive

the design, and to carry it into execution. Thus, having reduced the whole

world to peace under my own authority, I came down to Aduli, and sacrificed

to Jupiter, to Mars, and to Neptune, imploring his protection for all who

navigate these seas."

Ptolemy Euergetes was particularly attentive to the interests of the

library at Alexandria. The first librarian appointed by Ptolemy the

successor of Alexander, was Zenodotus; on his death, Ptolemy Euergetes

invited from Athens Eratosthenes, a citizen of Cyrene, and entrusted to him

the care of the library: it has been supposed that he was the second of

that name, or of an inferior rank in learning and science, because he is

sometimes called Beta; but by this appellation nothing else was meant, but

that he was the second librarian of the royal library at Alexandria. He

died at the age of 81, A.C. 194. He has been called a second Plato, the

cosmographer and the geometer of the world: he is rather an astronomer and

mathematician than a geographer, though geography is indebted to him for

some improvements in its details, and more especially for helping to raise

it to the accuracy and dignity of a science. By means of instruments, which

Ptolemy erected in the museum at Alexandria, he ascertained the obliquity

of the ecliptic to be 23° 51' 20". He is, however, principally celebrated

as the first astronomer who measured a degree of a great circle, and thus

approximated towards the real diameter of the earth.

The importance of this discovery will justify us in entering on some

details respecting the means which this philosopher employed, and the

result which he obtained.

It is uncertain whether the well at Syene, in Upper Egypt, which he used

for this purpose, was dug by his directions, or existed previously. Pliny

seems to be of the former opinion; but there is reason to believe that it

had a much higher antiquity. The following observations on its structure by

Dr. Horsley, Bishop of Rochester, are ingenious and important. "The well,

besides that it was sunk perpendicularly, with the greatest accuracy, was,

I suppose, in shape an exact cylinder. Its breadth must have been moderate,

so that a person, standing upon the brink, might safely stoop enough over

it to bring his eye into the axis of the cylinder, where it would be

perpendicularly over the centre of the circular surface of the water. The

water must have stood at a moderate, height below the mouth of the well,

far enough below the mouth to be sheltered from the action of the wind,

that its surface might be perfectly smooth and motionless; and not so low,

but that the whole of its circular surface might be distinctly seen by the

observer on the brink. A well formed in this manner would afford, as I

apprehend, the most certain observation of the sun's appulse to the zenith,

that could be made with the naked eye; for when the sun's centre was upon

the zenith, his disc would be seen by reflection on the water, in the very

middle of the well,--that is, as a circle perfectly concentric with the

circle of the water; and, I believe, there is nothing of which the naked

eye can judge with so much precision as the concentricity of two circles,

provided the circles be neither very nearly equal, nor the inner circle

very small in proportion to the outer."

Eratosthenes observed, that at the time of the summer solstice this well

was completely illuminated by the sun, and hence he inferred that the sun

was, at that time, in the zenith of this place. His next object was to

ascertain the altitude of the sun, at the same solstice, and on the very

same day, at Alexandria. This he effected by a very simple contrivance: he

employed a concave hemisphere, with a vertical style, equal to the radius

of concavity; and by means of this he ascertained that the arch,

intercepted between the bottom of the style and the extreme point of its

shadow, was 7° 12'. This, of course, indicated the distance of the sun from

the zenith of Alexandria. But 7° 12' is equal to the fiftieth part of a

great circle; and this, therefore, was the measure of the celestial arc

contained between the zeniths of Syene and Alexandria. The measured

distance between these cities being 5000 stadia, it followed, that 5000 X

50 = 250,000, was, according to the observations of Eratosthenes, the

extent of the whole circumference of the earth.

If we knew exactly the length of the stadium of the ancients, or, to speak

more accurately, what stadium is referred to in the accounts which have

been transmitted to us of the result of the operations of Eratosthenes,

(for the ancients employed different stadia,) we should be able precisely

to ascertain the circumference which this philosopher ascribed to the

earth, and also, whether a nearer approximation to the truth was made by

any subsequent or prior ancient philosopher. The circumference of the earth

was conjectured, or ascertained, by Aristotle, Cleomedes, Posidonius, and

Ptolemy respectively, to be 400, 300, 240, and 180 thousand stadia. It is

immediately apparent that these various measures have some relation to each

other, and probably express the same extent; measured in different stadia;

and this probability is greatly increased by comparing the real distances

of several places with the ancient itinerary distances.

The observation of Eratosthenes respecting the obliquity of the ecliptic

(though undoubtedly not so immediately or essentially connected with our

subject as his observation of the circumference of the earth) is too

important to be passed over entirely without notice. He found the distance

between the tropics less than 53° 6', and greater than 52° 96', which gives

a mean of 23° 51' for the obliquity of the ecliptic. The observations of

Hipparchus (who flourished at Alexandria about 140 years before Christ, and

whom we shall have occasion to mention more particularly afterwards)

coincided with those of Eratosthenes. Plutarch, however, who died A.D. 119,

informs us, that, in his time, the gnomons at Syene were no longer

shadowless on the day of the summer solstice. As the interval between

Eratosthenes and Plutarch was only about 512 years, Bishop Morsley has very

naturally expressed his doubts of the accuracy of Plutarch's assertion. He

says, that the change in the obliquity of the ecliptic in this interval was

only 2' 36". "A gnomon, therefore, at Syene, of the length of twelve

inches, if it cast no shadow on the day of the solstice in the time of

Eratosthenes, should have cast a shadow in the time of Plutarch of the

length only of 9/1000th, or not quite 1/100th part of an inch. The shadow

of a perpendicular column of the height of 100 feet would have been 9/10ths

of an inch." As, however, the ancients do not appear to have constructed

gnomons of such a size, and as gnomons of inferior size would have given a

shadow scarcely perceptible, it is probable that Plutarch is mistaken in

his assertion; or, at any rate, that the very small variation which did

take place between his time and that of Eratosthenes (if it were observed

at all) was ascertained by means of the well itself, which would point it

out much more distinctly and accurately than any gnomon the ancients can be

supposed to have used.

We are also indebted to Eratosthenes for the first regular parallel of

latitude, and also for tracing a meridian. His parallel of latitude began

at the Straits of Gibraltar, and passed eastward through Rhodes to the

mountains of India; the intermediate places being carefully set down. His

meridian line passed through Rhodes and Alexandria, as far as Syene and

Meroe. Meroe, on this account, became an object of the greatest interest

and importance to all the succeeding ancient geographers and astronomers,

and they have taken the utmost labour and care to ascertain its latitude

accurately. Strabo informs us, that Eratosthenes constructed a map of the

world; but he does not give such particulars as will enable us to trace the

extent of his geographical knowledge. At the extremity of the world to the

east, bounded by the ocean, Thina was placed in the map of Eratosthenes, in

the parallel of Rhodes; a parallel which passes through the empire of

China, within the Great Wall. Eratosthenes, according to Strabo, (to whom

we are indebted for nearly all we know respecting this philosopher,)

asserts that Thina had been, previously to the construction of his map,

incorrectly placed in the more ancient maps. His information respecting

Meroe or Abyssinia, is most probably derived from Dalion, Aristocreon, and

Bion, who had been sent by Ptolemy Philadelphus and his successors into

that country, or from Timosthenes, who sailed down the coast of Africa as

low as Cerne. His information on the subject of India (which, however, as

far as regards oriental commerce, is very confused) must have been derived

from the Macedonians. There is little doubt that the library of Alexandria

afforded him access to all the knowledge which then existed respecting the

various countries of the globe; but the turn of his mind led him rather to

astronomical than geographical studies; or rather, perhaps, he directed his

labours and his talents to the discovery of the figure and circumference of

the earth, thinking, that till this was effected, the delineation of the

habitable world, and the relative position of different countries, must be

very inaccurate as well as incomplete. This opinion regarding Eratosthenes,

that he was more of a geometrician than a geographer, seems to be confirmed

by the testimony of Marcian of Heraclia, who informs us, that Eratosthenes

took the whole work of Timosthenes, preface and all, as it stood, and in

the very same words. If this account be accurate, it is probable that

Eratosthenes' knowledge of Thina, and his being able to correct the

erroneous position of this country in more ancient maps, was derived from

Timosthenes, who had commanded the fleet of Ptolemy Philadelphus on the

Indian Ocean.

If we reflect on the rude and imperfect state of science at this period,

the paucity and inadequacy of the instruments by means of which it might be

improved, and the superstitions and prejudices which opposed the removal of

error or the establishment of truth, we shall not be disposed to question

the justice of the panegyric pronounced by Pliny on Eratosthenes. This

author, after detailing all that was then known on the subject of the

circumference of the earth, and on the distances which had been ascertained

by actual admeasurement, or approximated by analogy or probable conjecture,

between the most remarkable places on its surface, adds, that Eratosthenes,

whose acuteness and application had advanced him far in every branch of

knowledge, but who had outstripped all his predecessors or contemporaries

in that particular branch which was connected with the admeasurement of the

earth, had fixed its circumference at 250,000 stadia; a bold and almost

presumptuous enterprize, (_improbum ausum_,) but which had been conducted

with so much judgment, and on such sound principles, that it commanded and

deserved our credit. Hipparchus, who was distinguished for his correctness

and diligence in every part of geometrical and astronomical science, and

who had specially exerted those qualities in his endeavours to correct the

errors of Eratosthenes, had been able to add only the comparatively small

extent of 25,000 stadia to the computation of Eratosthenes.--_Plin. Nat.

Hist._ lib. ii. c. 108.

Eratosthenes seems, from the nature of his studies, not to have availed

himself so much as he might have done of the treasures contained in the

Alexandrian library under his care, to correct or extend the geographical

knowledge of his contemporaries. The same observation will not apply to

Agatharcides, who was president of the library after Eratosthenes. The

exact time at which he flourished is not known: according to Blair, he was

contemporary with Eratosthenes, though younger than him, and flourished 177

A.C., Eratosthenes having died at the age of eighty-one, in the year 194

A.C. Dodwell, however, fixes him at a later period; viz. 104 A.C.; but this

date must be erroneous, because Artemidorus of Ephesus, who evidently

copies Agatharcides, undoubtedly lived 104 A.C. Agatharcide's was born at

Cnidus in Caria: no particulars are known respecting him, except that he

was president of the Alexandrian library, in the reign of Ptolemy

Philometor, if he flourished 177 A.C.; and in the reign of Ptolemy

Lathyrus, if, according to Dodwell, he did not flourish till 104 A.C.

The only work of his which is preserved, is a Treatise on the Erythraean

Sea; and this we possess only in the Bibliotheca of Photius, and

incorporated in the history of Diodorus Siculus. The authority of

Agatharcides was very high among the ancients. Strabo, Pliny, and Diodorus,

always mention him with the utmost respect, and place implicit confidence

in his details. Diodorus expressly states that Agatharcides and Artemidorus

(who, as we have already mentioned, was merely his copyist) are the only

authors who have written truth concerning Egypt and Ethiopia; and Strabo

follows him in all that relates to the latter country, the countries lying

to the south of Egypt, and the western coast of Arabia. In fact, for nearly

200 years, the ancient historians and geographers drew all the information

they possessed respecting the portions of the world embraced in the work of

Agatharcides from that work. It has been well observed, "that when Pliny

speaks of the discoveries on the coast of Malabar in his own age, and adds,

that the names he mentions are new, and not to be found in previous

writers, we ought to consider him as speaking of all those who had followed

the authority of the Macedonians, or the school of Alexandria; of which, in

this branch of science, Eratosthenes and Agatharcides were the leaders."

From the circumstance that Strabo appeals very frequently to the authority

of Eratosthenes, in conjunction with that of Agatharcides, it has been

conjectured, that the work of the latter contains all that the former knew,

with the addition of his own information; and this conjecture is highly

probable, considering that Agatharcides had access to the sources whence

Eratosthenes drew his information; to the works of Eratosthenes themselves,

which of course would be deposited in the Alexandrian library; and to all

the additional works which had enriched the library from the time of

Eratosthenes, as well as the additional information which the extensive

commerce of Alexandria would supply.

The work of Agatharcides, therefore, having been in such estimation by the

ancient historians and geographers, and the only source from which, during

200 years, they drew their information, and having been compiled by a

person, who, it is probable, had better and fuller means of rendering it

accurate and complete than any of his contemporaries enjoyed; it will be

proper to give a pretty full abstract of the most interesting and important

part of its contents.

The veracity of this author was questioned by Plutarch, from his narrating

a circumstance, which, to us of the present day, is a strong confirmation

of the truth and accuracy of his information. Agatharcides takes notice of

the worm which is formed in the legs, and which insinuates itself there in

such a manner, that it is necessary to wind it out with the utmost caution.

Plutarch ridicules and rejects this story, and says it never has happened,

and never will. But that such a worm exists, and that when it insinuates

itself into the leg it must be drawn out with the utmost caution, lest the

smallest portion of it remain, and thus produce disease, is directly and

fully attested by all the travellers, and particularly by Bruce, who

carried with him to the grave the marks and effects of the attack of this

species of worm.

But the most curious and important portion of the work of Agatharcides on

the Red Sea, relates to Abyssinia; for in this work we meet with the first

genuine characteristics of this nation. He specifies particularly the gold

mines wrought by the kings of Egypt on the coast of the Red Sea;--the

process which they followed to procure and separate this metal;--the

sufferings which the miners underwent in their operations are painted in

very strong language: "The multitude of bones still found in these

excavations, he says, is incredible, of wretches crushed by the falling-in

of the earth, as must naturally happen in a loose and crumbling soil." He

adds a circumstance, to which there are many parallel in our own country,

in those mines which are supposed to have been wrought by the Romans; viz.

the tools of copper found in these gold mines, supposed to have been used

by the native Egyptians, prior to the conquest of Egypt by the Persians.

The next particular mentioned by Agatharcides, respecting the Abyssinian

coast of the Red Sea, is very conclusive, with respect to his accuracy and

credibility. In Meroe, or Abyssinia, he says, they hunt elephants and

hamstring them, and afterwards cut the flesh out of the animal alive: he

adds, that the inhabitants are so extremely fond of the flesh of the

elephant, thus procured, that when Ptolemy would have paid any price to

purchase these animals alive, as he wanted them for his army, the

Abyssinian hunters refused his offer, declaring that not all the wealth of

Egypt would tempt them to forego their favourite and delicious repast. It

is a remarkable fact, that the credit of Bruce on this topic should thus be

confirmed by a writer who lived nearly 2000 years before him, of whose

writings we possess only a very short treatise, and of whose life we know

scarcely a single particular. It may be added, that Strabo, in a passage,

in which he is apparently copying Agatharcides, mentions [Greek:

Kreophagoi] and as he would scarcely particularize the fact of a native

eating the flesh of animals cooked, it is to be presumed, he means raw

flesh. In the same place he mentions the _excisio feminarum_.

Every reader of Brace's Travels in Abyssinia must remember the fly, called

Tsalpsalza, an insect more formidable than the strongest or most savage

wild beasts: "As soon as the buzzing of this insect is heard, the utmost

alarm and trepidation prevails; the cattle forsake their food and run

wildly about the plain, till at length they fall down, worn out with

terror, hunger and fatigue; even the camel, elephant and rhinoceros, are

not safe from the attacks of this formidable insect." This fly is described

by Agatharcides in the same manner as by Bruce. The ensete tree of Bruce,

the leaves of which resemble the banana, with fruit like figs, but not

eatable, with a trunk esculent till it reaches its perfect growth and is

full of leaves, resembles in some of its particulars a tree described by

Agatharcides. This author also describes the locusts, as generally used for

food; the troglodytes; the rhinoceros; the cameleopard; what he calls

sphinxes, but which are represented as tame, and are supposed to be apes,

distinguished from the common ape in the face being smooth and without

hair. He also mentions an animal he calls crocetta, which is described as

being between a wolf and a dog, and as imitating the human voice; these

particulars seem to point it out as the hyena, though some suppose it to be

the jackall. It deserves to be remarked, that the animals enumerated by

Agatharcides as natives of Abyssinia, are all named in the same manner, as

well as depicted on the celebrated Palestrine Mosaic.

In his description of the coast of the Red Sea he commences with Arsinoe,

and goes down the western side as far as Ptolemais Theron; a place so

called, because elephants were there hunted and taken, and are still,

according to Bruce. Agatharcides adds, that the usual navigation was to

this place for elephants. He notices Myos Hormos, but not Berenice; he has

even mentioned the islands at the straits of Babelmandeb, and the prodigies

which in his time, and much later, were supposed to lie beyond them. There

is, however, one part of his work, in which he seems to indicate the

curvature of the African coast to the east beyond the straits; but it is

doubtful whether in this place he is speaking of the coast within or

without the straits.

In his description of the coast between Myos Hormos and Ptolemais, he

points out a bay, which, both from the identity of the name, and the

circumstances respecting it which he narrates, undoubtedly is the Foul Bay

of the moderns. Strabo, who, as we have already stated, borrows freely and

frequently from Agatharcides, describes this bay as full of shoals and

breakers, and exposed to violent winds; and he adds, that Berenice lies at

the bottom of it. The accuracy of our author, even when he is opposed by

the testimony of Bruce, is fully proved in what he relates of the coast

below Foul Bay: after mentioning two mountains, which he calls the Bulls,

he particularly adverts to the dangerous shoals which often proved fatal to

the elephant ships on their passage to and from Ptolemais. Bruce says no

such shoals exist; but, as is justly observed by Dr. Vincent; the

correctness of the ancients respecting them, especially Eratosthenes,

Agatharcides and Artemidorus, is fully borne out by the danger and loss to

which many English ships have been exposed by reason of these very shoals.

The description of Agatharcides of this side of the coast of the Red Sea,

reaches no lower down than Ptolemais; this circumstance is remarkable,

since we have seen that, from the inscription found at Aduli there can be

no doubt that Ptolemy Euergetes had conquered Abyssinia, and established a

commerce considerably lower down than Ptolemais Theron. As, however, we

have not the original, and perhaps not the entire work of Agatharcides, we

cannot infer any thing, either respecting his ignorance or inattention,

from this omission.

Agatharcides, having thus described this coast, returns from Ptolemais to

Myos Hormos, and passing the Bay of Arsinoe, crosses to Phoenicum, in the

Elanitic Gulf, and describes the coast of Arabia as far as Sabea. Almost

the very first particular noticed by him in this part of his work, bears

evidence to his accuracy as a geographer. He states that, at the entrance

of the Elanitic Gulph there are three islands, one of which is dedicated to

Isis: he describes them as, "covering several harbours on the Arabian

shore. To these islands succeeds the rocky coast of Thamudeni, where, for

more than 1000 stadia, there is no harbour, no roadsted in which a vessel

could anchor, no bay into which she could run for shelter, no point of land

which could protect her; so that those who sail alone this part of the

coast are exposed to certain destruction, if they should be overtaken by a

storm." Yet these islands lying in such a conspicuous situation, and of

such importance to the mariner, and this coast so dangerous to him, do not

appear to have been noticed in any European chart or description, till,

after the lapse of twenty centuries, they were restored to geography by Mr.

Irwin.

As one of our principal objects is to do justice to the accuracy of the

ancient geographers, by pointing out instances of the extreme care which

many of them took to obtain correct information we shall adduce one other

proof of this accuracy and care in Agatharcides. This author particularly

describes the sea as having a white appearance off the coast of Arabia; on

this point he was well informed though the circumstance is treated as

fabulous by the ancients, and even by some of the moderns; but more

observant modern travellers confirm this phenomenon. It is well observed by

Dr. Vincent, that we are every day lessening the bulk of the marvellous

imputed to the ancients; and as our knowledge of the east increases, it is

possible that the imputation will be altogether removed.

The account which Agatharcides gives of Sabæa is very curious and

important; and, as we shall afterwards have occasion to make use of it, in

endeavouring to prove that, in very early ages, the Arabians supplied the

western world with the productions of the east, we shall extract here what

he says of Sabæa from the translation of Dr. Vincent.

"Sabæa, (says Agatharcides,) abounds with every production to make life

happy in the extreme: its very air is so perfumed with odours, that the

natives are obliged to mitigate the fragrance by scents that have an

opposite tendency, as if nature could not support even pleasure in the

extreme. Myrrh, frankincense, balsam, cinnamon, and casia are here

produced, from trees of extraordinary magnitude. The king, as he is, on the

one hand, entitled to supreme honour, on the other, is obliged to submit to

confinement in his palace; but the people are robust, warlike, and able

mariners: they sail in very large vessels to the country where the

odoriferous commodities are produced; they plant colonies there, and import

from thence the larimna, an odour no where else to be found. In fact, there

is no nation on the earth so wealthy as the Gerrheans and Sabeans, as being

in the centre of all the commerce that passes between Asia and Europe.

These are the nations which have enriched the kingdom of Ptolemy: these are

the nations that furnish the most profitable agencies to the industry of

the Phoenicians, and a variety of advantages which are incalculable. They

possess themselves every profusion of luxury, in articles of plate and

sculpture, in furniture of beds, tripods, and other household

embellishments, far superior in degree to any thing that is seen in Europe:

their expence of living rivals the magnificence of princes: their houses

are decorated with pillars glistening with gold and silver: their doors are

crowned with vases and beset with jewels: the interior of their houses

corresponds with the beauty of their outward appearance, and all the riches

of other countries are here exhibited in a variety of profusion. Such a

nation, and so abounding in superfluity, owes its independence to its

distance from Europe; for their luxurious manners would soon render them a

prey to the European sovereigns, who have always troops on foot prepared

for any conquest; and who, if they could find the means of invasion, would

soon reduce the Sabeans to the condition of their agents and factors;

whereas they are now obliged to deal with them as principals."

The importance and the bearing of these curious facts, first brought to our

notice by Agatharcides, as well as the inferences which may be drawn from

them regarding the mode in which the ancients obtained their commodities of

India, will call our particular attention afterwards: at present we shall

merely notice the characteristic and minute picture which Agatharcides has

drawn of the Sabeans, and the just notions he had formed on the nature of a

commerce, of which all the other writers of antiquity seemed to have been

utterly ignorant.

Beyond Sabæa to the east, Agatharcides possessed no information, though,

like all the ancients, he is desirous of supplying his want of it by

indulging in the marvellous: it is, however, rather curious that, among

other particulars, undoubtedly unfounded, such as placing the Fortunate

islands off the coast beyond Sabæa, and his describing the flocks and herds

as all white, and the females as polled;--he describes that whiteness of

the sea, to which we have already alluded, as confirmed by modern

travellers. From these unfounded particulars, our author soon emerges again

into the truth; for he describes the appearance of the different

constellations, and especially notices that to the south of Sabæa there is

no twilight in the morning; but when he adds, that the sun, at rising,

appears like a column--that it casts no shadow till it has been risen an

hour, and that the evening twilight lasts three hours after it has set; it

is obvious that the information of that age (of which we may justly suppose

the library of Alexandria was the great depository) did not extend beyond

Sabæa.

That Agatharcides had access to and made ample use of the journal of

Nearchus (of which we have given such a complete abstract), is evident from

various parts of his work; but it is also evident, by comparing his

description of those countries and their inhabitants, which had been

visited and described by Nearchus, that he had access to other sources of

intelligence, by means of which he added to the materials supplied by the

latter.

It will be recollected that Nearchus describes in a particular manner, the

Icthyophagi of Gadrosia: Agatharcides also describes Icthyophagi, though it

is not clear whether he means to confine his description to those of

Gadrosia, or to extend it to others on the coast of Arabia and Africa. The

mode practised by the Icthyophagi, according to him, is exactly that which

was practised by them in catching fish, according to Nearchus: he also

coincides with that author in various other particulars respecting the use

of the bones of whales, or other large fish, in the construction of their

houses; their ignorance and barbarism, their dress and mode of life. All

this he probably borrowed from Nearchus; but he adds one circumstance which

indubitably proves, that the knowledge of the eastern part of the world had

considerably advanced since the era of Alexander: he expressly states, that

beyond the straits that separate Arabia from the opposite coast, there are

an immense number of islands, scattered, very small, and scarcely raised

above the surface of the ocean. If we may advert to the situation assigned

to these islands, on the supposition that the straits which separate Arabia

from the opposite coast, mean the entrance to the Gulph of Persia, we shall

not be able to ascertain what these islands are; but if in addition to the

circumstances of their being scattered, very small, and very low, we add

what Agatharcides also notices, that the natives have no other means of

supporting life but by the turtles which are found near them in immense

numbers, and of a very large size, we shall be disposed, with Dr. Vincent,

to consider these as the Maldive Islands. It may be objected to this

supposition, that the Maldives are situated at a very great distance from

the straits that separate Arabia from the opposite coast; but a cursory

acquaintance with the geographical descriptions of the ancients will

convince us, that their information respecting the situation of countries

was frequently vague and erroneous, (as indeed it must have been,

considering the imperfect means they possessed of measuring or even judging

of distances, especially by sea) while, at the same time, their information

respecting the nature of the country, the productions of its soil, and the

manners, &c. of its inhabitants, was surprisingly full and accurate. In

identifying places mentioned by the ancients, we should therefore be guided

more by the descriptions they give, than by the locality they assign to

them. Agatharcides, it is true, adds that these islands extend along the

sea, which washes Gadrosia and India; but he probably had very confused

notions of the extent and form of India; and, at any rate, giving the

widest latitude to the term, the same sea may be said to wash Gadrosia and

the Maldive Islands. If these are the islands actually meant by

Agatharcides, it is the earliest notice of them extant.

Our concern with Agatharcides relates only to the geographical knowledge

which his writings display; and even of that we can only select such parts

as are most important, and at the same time point out and prove the

advances of geographical knowledge, and of commercial enterprize; before,

however, we leave him, we may add one fact, not immediately relating to our

peculiar subject, which he records: after stating that the soil of Arabia

was, as it were, impregnated with gold, and that lumps of pure gold were

found there from the size of an olive to that of a nut, he adds, that iron

was twice, and silver ten times, the value of gold. If he is accurate in

the proportionate values which he respectively assigns to these metals, it

proves the very great abundance of gold; since, in most of the nations of

antiquity, the values of gold and silver were the reverse of what they were

in Arabia, gold being ten times the value of silver. The comparative high

value of iron to gold is still more extraordinary, and seems to indicate

not only a great abundance of the latter metal, but also a great scarcity

of the former, or a very great demand for it in consequence of the extended

and improved state of those arts and manufactures in which iron is an

essential requisite, and which indicate an advanced degree of knowledge and

civilization. We are not aware of a similar fact, with respect to the

proportionate value of iron and silver, being recorded of any other nation

of antiquity. It is not to be supposed, however, that the cheapness of

gold, measured by iron and silver, could long continue in Arabia, unless we

believe that their intercourse with other nations was very limited; because

a regular and extensive intercourse would soon assimilate, in a great

degree at least, the value of gold measured by iron and silver, as it

existed in Arabia, to its value, as measured by the same metals in those

countries with which Arabia traded.

But to return from this slight digression;--Artemidorus has been already

mentioned as a geographer subsequent to Agatharcides, who copied

Agatharcides, and from whom Diodorus Siculus and Strabo in their turns

copied. There were two ancient writers of this name born at Ephesus; the

one to whom we have alluded, is supposed to have lived in the reign of

Ptolemy Lathyrus, A.C. 169; by others he is brought down to A.C. 104.

Little is known respecting him; nor does he seem to have added much to

geographical science or knowledge: he is said by Pliny to have first

applied the terms of length and breadth, or latitude and longitude. By

comparing those parts of Diodorus Siculus and Strabo, which they avowedly

copy from him, with the track of Agatharcides: in the Red Sea, we are

enabled to discover only a few additions of importance to the geographical

knowledge supplied by the former: Agatharcides, it will be remembered,

brings his account of the African side of the Red Sea no lower down than

Ptolemais: he does not even mention the expedition of Ptolemy Euergetes to

Aduli; nor the passage of the straits, though Eratosthenes, as cited by

Strabo, proves that it was open in his time. In the time of Artemidorus,

however, the trade of Egypt on the coast of Africa had reached as low down

as the Southern Horn; that this trade was still in its infancy, is apparent

from a circumstance mentioned by Strabo, on the authority of Artemidorus;

that at the straits the cargo was transferred from ships to boats; bastard

cinnamon, perhaps casia lignea or hard cinnamon, is specified as one of the

principal articles which the Egyptians obtained from the coast of Africa,

when they passed the straits of Babelmandeb.

The next person belonging to the Alexandrian school, to whom the sciences

on which geography rest, as well as geography itself, is greatly indebted,

was Hipparchus. Scarcely any particulars are known respecting him: even the

exact period in which he flourished, is not accurately fixed; some placing

him 159 years, others 149, and others again bringing him down to 129 years

before Christ. He was a native of Nice in Bithynia, but spent the greater

part of his life at the court of one of the Ptolemies. It is supposed that

he quitted his native place in consequence of some ill treatment which he

had received from his fellow citizens: at least we are informed by Aurelius

Victor, that the emperor Marcus Aurelius obliged the inhabitants of Nice to

send yearly to Rome a certain quantity of corn, for having beaten one of

their citizens, by name Hipparchus, a man of great learning and

extraordinary accomplishments. They continued to pay this tribute to the

time of Constantine, by whom it was remitted. As history does not inform us

of any other person of note of this name, a native of Nice in Bithynia, it

is highly probable that this was the Hipparchus, the astronomer and

geographer. That it was not unusual for conquerors and sovereigns to reward

or punish the descendants of those who had behaved well or ill to

celebrated men who had flourished long previously, must be well known to

those conversant with ancient history. The respect paid to the memory of

Pindar, by the Spartans, and by Alexander the Great, when they conquered

Thebes, is a striking instance of the truth of this observation.

Hipparchus possessed the true spirit of philosophy: having resolved to

devote himself to the study of astronomy, his first general

[principal->principle] was to take nothing for granted; but setting aside

all that had been taught by former astronomers, to begin anew, and examine

and judge for himself: he determined not to admit any results but such as

were grounded either in observations and experiments entirely new, made by

himself or on a new examination of former observations, conducted with the

utmost care and caution. In short, he may justly be regarded as one of the

first philosophers of antiquity who had a slight glimpse of the grand

maxim, which afterwards immortalized Bacon, and which has introduced modern

philosophers to a knowledge of the most secret and most sublime operations

of nature.

One of his first endeavours was, to verify the obliquity of the ecliptic,

as settled by Eratosthenes: he next fixed, as accurately as possible, the

latitude of Alexandria; but it would lead us far from the object of our

work, if we were even briefly to mention his discoveries in the science of

pure astronomy. We must confine ourselves to those parts of his discoveries

which benefitted geography, either directly or indirectly. After having, as

successfully as his means and the state of the science would permit him to

do, fixed the position of the stars, he transferred the method which he had

employed for this purpose to geography: he was the first who determined the

situation of places on the earth, by their latitudes and longitudes, with

any thing like accuracy. The latitude, indeed, of many places had been

fixed before; and the means of doing it were sufficiently simple and

obvious: but with respect to some general and safe mode of ascertaining the

longitudes, the ancient philosophers before Hipparchus, were ignorant of

it. He employed for this purpose the eclipses of the moon. After having

ascertained the latitudes and longitudes of a great many places, he

proposed to draw up a catalogue of terrestial latitudes and longitudes, but

this he was not able to accomplish: he had set the example, however and it

was followed by subsequent astronomers. He fixed on the Fortunate Islands,

which are supposed to be the Canaries, for his first meridian. His

principal works most probably were destroyed in the conflagration of the

Alexandrian library. His catalogue of the stars is preserved in the

Almagest of Ptolemy; and his commentary on Aratus and Eudoxus is still

extant.

Such is a brief sketch of the advantages which geography, as founded on

astronomy, derived from the labours of Hipparchus. We possess little

information respecting his ideas of the form of the earth, or the relative

position or extent of the different quarters and countries on the surface

of the globe. He seems to have been the first who conceived the idea of a

southern continent, uniting Africa and India: he had evidently some

information, though very vague and erroneous, of India, beyond the Ganges.

On the east coast of Africa, his knowledge did not extend beyond Cape

Guardaferi. On the whole, geography is more indebted to him for his

discoveries in astronomy, and, above all, for his setting the example of

carefully ascertaining facts, and not indulging, so much as his

predecessors had done, in conjectures and hypotheses, than for any actual

discoveries or advances he made in it. The eulogium which Pliny has

pronounced on him is very eloquent, and fully deserved. "Hipparchus can

scarcely receive too high praise: he has proved, more satisfactorily than

any other philosopher, that man is allied to heaven, and his soul derived

from on high. In his time, more than one new star was discovered, or rather

appeared for the first time; and this induced him to believe, that future

ages might witness stars for the first time moving from the immense regions

of space, within the limits of our observation. But the grandeur and

boldness of Hipparchus's mind rested not here: he attempted, and in some

measure succeeded in doing, what seems above human knowledge and power: he

numbered the stars, laid down rules by which their rising and setting might

be ascertained beforehand; and, finally, he constructed an apparatus on

which the position of each star was accurately given, and a miniature

picture of the heavens, with the motions of the celestial bodies, their

rising and setting, increase and diminution. He thus may be said to have

left the heavens as a legacy to that man, if any such were to be found, who

could rival him and follow his steps."

From the time of Hipparchus to that of Ptolemy the geographer, the

Alexandrian school, though rich in philosophers, who devoted their studies

and labour to other branches of physical and metaphysical science, did not

produce one, who improved geography, or the sciences on which it depends,

with the exception of Posidonius. This philosopher, who belonged to the

sect of the Stoics, was born at Apamea in Syria: he usually resided at

Rhodes, and was the friend of Pompey and Cicero. The former, on his return

from Syria, came thither to attend his lectures. Arriving at his house, he

forbad his lictor to knock, as was usual, at the door; and paid homage to

philosophy, by lowering the fasces at the abode of Posidonius. Pompey,

being informed that he was at that time ill of the gout, visited him in his

confinement, and expressed himself very much disappointed that he could not

have the benefit of his lectures. Posidonius, thus honoured and flattered,

in spite of his pain, delivered a lecture in the presence of his noble

visitor; the subject of which was to prove, that nothing is good which is

not honourable. Cicero informs us, that he also attended his lectures; and

according to Suidas Marcellus, brought him to Rome in the year of the city

702; in this, however, Suidas is not supported by other and contemporary

writers.

We are indebted to Cleomedes for most of what we know of his opinions and

discoveries; with such as relate to morals or to pure astronomy, we have no

concern. But he was of service also to geography. He measured an arc of the

terrestrial meridian; but his operation, as far as we can judge by the

details which have reached us, was far from exact, and of course his result

could not be accurate; it would appear, however, that his object was rather

to verify the ancient measures of the earth, particularly that of

Eratosthenes, and that he found them to agree nearly with his own. He

explained the ebbing and flowing of the sea, from the motion of the moon,

and seems to have been the first who observed the law of this phenomenon.

In order to represent the appearance of the heavens, Cicero informs us that

he constructed a kind of planetarium, by means of which he exhibited the

apparent motion of the sun, moon, and planets round the earth. It is on the

authority of Posidonius, that Strabo relates the voyage of Eudoxus of

Cyzicum from the Persian Gulf round Africa to Cadiz, which we have already

mentioned.

Having thus exhibited a view of the discoveries in geography, the advances

in the sciences connected with it, and the commercial enterprises of the

Egyptians, while under the dominion of the Ptolemies, it will be proper,

before beginning an account of the geographical knowledge and commercial

enterprises of the Romans (who, by their conquest of Egypt, may be said to

have absorbed all the geographical knowledge, as well as all the commerce

of the world, at that period), to recapitulate the extent of the Egyptian

geography and commerce, especially towards the east We shall direct our

retrospect to this quarter, because the commodities of the east being most

prized, it was the grand object of the sovereigns and merchants of Egypt,

to extend and facilitate the intercourse with that quarter of the globe as

much as possible. And we are induced to undertake the retrospect, because

the exact limit of the geographical knowledge and commercial enterprise of

the Ptolemies is differently fixed by different authors: some maintaining

that the Egyptians had a regular and extensive trade directly with India,

and of course, were well acquainted with the seas and coasts beyond the Red

Sea; while other authors maintain, that they never passed the straits of

Babelmandeb, and that even within the straits, their geographical knowledge

and commercial enterprises were very limited.

It cannot be doubted that commerce and the spirit of discovery flourished

with more vigour, and pushed themselves to a greater distance in the reigns

of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and Ptolemy Euergetes, than in the reign of any of

their successors. If, therefore, there are no proofs or traces of a direct

and regular trade with India in their time, we may safely conclude it did

not exist in Egypt, previously to the conquest of that country by the

Romans.

We are well aware, that there are great authorities opposed to the opinion

which we hold; but these authorities are modern; they are not, we think,

supported by the ancient writers, and in opposition to them, we can place

the authority of Dr. Vincent, a name of the very greatest weight in

questions of this nature. The authorities we alluded to in support of the

opinion, that there was a direct trade with India under the Ptolemies, are

Huet, in his History of the Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients; Dr.

Robertson, in his Disquisition on India, and Harris, or perhaps, more

properly speaking, Dr. Campbell, in his edition of Harris's Collection of

Voyages and Travels. Huet, as is justly remarked by Dr. Vincent, drops the

prosecution of the question at the very point he ought to introduce it; and

afterwards countenances, or seems to countenance, the opposite opinion. Dr.

Robertson bestows much labour, ingenuity, and learning in support of the

opinion, that under the Ptolemies, a direct trade was carried on with

India; yet, after all, he concludes in this manner: "it is probable that

their voyages were circumscribed within very narrow limits, and that under

the Ptolemies no considerable progress was made in the discovery of India:"

and when he comes to the discovery of the Monsoon by Hippalus and the

consequent advantage taken of it to trade directly to India, by sailing

from shore to shore, he acknowledges that all proofs of a more early

existence of such a trade are wanting. Dr. Campbell virtually gives up his

support of the opinion, that a direct trade was carried on under the

Ptolemies, in the same manner.

We have already remarked, that the strongest spirit of enterprize that

distinguished Egypt existed in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus and

Ptolemy Euergetes; that these monarchs pushed their discoveries, and

extended their commercial connections much farther than any of their

predecessors; and that therefore, if a direct and regular communication

between Egypt and India did not take place in their reigns, we may be

assured it was unknown to the Egyptians at the period of the Roman

conquest. To their reigns, then, we shall principally direct our enquiries.

That Ptolemy Philadelphus was extremely desirous to improve the navigation

of the Red Sea, is evident from his having built Myos Hormos, or rather

improved it, because it was more convenient than Arsinoe, on account of the

difficulty of navigating the western extremity of that sea: he afterwards

fixed on Berenice in preference to Myos Hormos, when the navigation and

commerce on this sea was extended and improved, since Berenice being lower

down, the navigation towards the straits was shorter, as well as attended

with fewer difficulties and dangers. But there is no evidence that his

fleets, which sailed from Berenice, were destined for India, or even passed

the Straits of Babelmandeb. It is, however, not meant to be asserted that

no vessels passed these straits in the time of this Ptolemy. On the

contrary, we know that his admiral, Timosthenes, passed the straits as low

as Cerne, which is generally supposed to be Madagascar; but commerce, which

in our times, directed by much superior skill and knowledge, as well as

stimulated by a stronger spirit of enterprize and rivalship, and a more

absorbing love of gain, immediately follows in the track of discovery, was

then comparatively slow, languid, and timid as well as ignorant; so that it

is not surprizing that it did not follow the track of Timosthenes. Ptolemy

Philadelphus also pushed his discoveries by land as far as Meroc: he opened

the route between Coptus and Berenice, establishing ports and opening

wells; and from these and other circumstances he seems to have been

actuated by a stronger wish to extend commerce, and to have formed more

plans for this purpose, than any of his successors.

Ptolemy Euergetes directed his thoughts more to conquest than to commerce,

though he rendered the former, in some degree, useful and subservient to

the latter. After having passed the Nile, and subdued the nations which lay

on the confines of Egypt, he compelled them to open a road of communication

between their country and Egypt. The frankincense country was the next

object of his ambition: this he subdued; and having sent a fleet and army

across the Red Sea into Arabia, he compelled the inhabitants of the

district to maintain the roads free from robbers, and the sea from

pirates--a proof that these people had made some advances in seafaring

matters, and also of the attention paid by Euergetes to the navigation of

the Red Sea, as well as to the protection of land commerce. Indeed the

whole of his progress to Aduli, which we have more particularly mentioned

in another place, was marked as much by attention to commerce as by the

love of conquest; but though by this enterprize he rendered both the coasts

of the Red Sea tributary, and thus better adapted to commerce, there is no

proof that he passed the Straits of Babelmandeb. It is true, indeed, that

he visited Mosullon, which lies beyond the straits, but not by sea, having

marched by land to that place, through the interior of Abyssinia and Adel.

From the whole of this enterprize of Euergetes we may justly infer, that

though he facilitated the intercourse by land between Egypt and those parts

of Africa which lay immediately beyond the straits, yet his ships did not

pass the straits, and that in his reign the discoveries of Timosthenes had

not been followed up or improved for the purpose of trading by sea with the

coast of Africa. The navigation of the whole of the Red Sea, at least on

the Arabian side, from Leuake Kome to Sabaea, was undoubtedly known and

frequently used at this period; but this was its utmost limit.

In the reign of Ptolemy Philometor, when Agatharcides lived, the commercial

enterprizes of the Egyptians had begun rather to languish; on the Arabian

side of the Red Sea, they did indeed extend to Sabaea, as in the time of

Euergetes; but there is evidence that on the opposite coast they did not go

so low, as in the reign of the latter sovereign. Agatharcides makes no

mention of Berenice; according to his account, Myos Hormos had again become

the emporium, and the only trade from that part seems to have been for

elephants to Ptolemais Theron. It may, indeed, be urged that Berenice was

not, properly speaking, a harbour, but only an open bay, to which the ships

did not come from Myos Hormos, till their cargoes were completely ready.

But that Myos Hormos was the great point of communication with Coptus is

evident from the account which Agatharcides gives of the caravan road

between these two places. Even so late as the time of Strabo, this road was

much more frequented than the road between Coptus and Berenice: of the

latter he merely observes, that Philadelphus opened it with his army,

established ports, and sunk Wells; whereas he particularly describes the

former road, as being seven or eight days' journey, formerly performed on

camels in the night, by observation of the stars, and carrying water with

them. Latterly, he adds, deep wells had been sunk, and cisterns formed for

holding water. Every detail of the road to Berenice is Roman, and relates

to periods considerably posterior to the conquest of Egypt by the Romans--a

proof that the plan of Philadelphus, of substituting Berenice for Myos

Hormos, had not been regularly adopted by his successors, nor till the

Romans had firmly and permanently fixed themselves in Egypt.

In the extract we have already given from Agatharcides respecting Arabia,

he expressly mentions that the Gerrheans and Sabeans are the centre of all

the commerce that passes between Asia and Europe, and that these are the

nations which have enriched the Ptolemais: this statement, taken in

conjunction with the fact that his description of the coast of the Red Sea

reaches no farther than Sabaea on the one side, and Ptolemais Theron on the

other, seems decisive of the truth of the opinion, that in the time of

Philometor the Egyptians did not trade directly to India. It may be proper

to add, that in the extracts from Agatharcides, given by Photius, it is

expressly mentioned that ships from India were met with by the Egyptian

ships in the ports of Sabaea. The particulars of this trade between India

and Egypt, by means of the Arabians, will be afterwards detailed, and its

great antiquity traced and proved; at present we have alluded to it merely

to bear us out in our position, that Indian ships, laden with Indian

commodities, frequenting the ports of Sabaea, and those ports being

described by Agatharcides as the limits of his knowledge of this coast of

the Red Sea, we are fully justified in concluding, that, in the reign of

Philometor, there was not only no direct trade to India, but no inducement

to such trade; and that 146 years after the death of Alexander, the Greek

sovereigns of Egypt had done little to complete what that monarch had

projected, and in part accomplished by the navigation of Nearchus--the

communication by sea between Alexandria and India.

Under the successors of Philometor, the trade in the Red Sea languished

rather than increased, and the full benefits of it were not reaped till

some time after the Roman conquest. Even in the time of Strabo, the bulk of

the trade still passed by Coptus to Myos Hormos. We are aware of a passage

in this author, which, at first, sight seems to contradict the position we

have laid down, and to prove, that at least in his time, there was a direct

and not unfrequent navigation between the Red Sea and India. He expressly

states, that in the course of six or seven years, 120 ships had sailed from

Myos Hormos to India: but on this it may be observed, in the first place,

that he begins his description of India, with requesting his readers to

peruse what he relates concerning it with indulgence, as it was a country

very remote, and few persons had visited it; and even with regard to Arabia

Felix, he says, that the knowledge of the Romans commenced with the

expedition of his friend Ælius Gallus into that country;--facts not very

consistent with his statement that 120 ships had sailed in six or seven

years to India: secondly, he expressly mentions, that formerly scarcely

twenty ships dared to navigate the Red Sea, so far as to shew themselves

beyond the straits; but we can hardly suppose that skill, enterprize, and

knowledge, had increased so rapidly as to extend within a very few years

navigation, not merely beyond the straits, but even to India; we say a few

years, for certainly, at the time when the Romans conquered Egypt, the

straits were not usually passed: lastly, the name India was used so vaguely

by the ancients, even by Strabo occasionally, that it is not improbable he

meant by it, merely the coast of Arabia, beyond the straits. It is well

asked by Dr. Vincent, in reference to this account of Strabo, might not

that geographer, from knowing the ships brought home Indian commodities,

have supposed that they sailed to India, when in reality they went no

farther than Hadramant, in Arabia, or Mosullon, on the coast of Africa,

where they found the produce of India?

It is not, however, meant to be denied that a few vessels, in the time of

Ptolemies, reached some part of India from the Red Sea, by coasting all the

way. The author of the Periplus of the Red Sea, informs us that, before the

discovery of the monsoon, by Hippalus, small vessels had made a coasting

voyage from Cana, in Arabia, to the Indies. But these irregular and

trifling voyages are deserving of little consideration, and do not militate

against the position we have laid down and endeavoured to prove, that in

the time of the Ptolemies the commerce of Egypt was confined within the

limits of the Red Sea, partly from the want of skill and enterprize, and

from the dangers that were supposed to exist beyond the straits, but

principally because the commodities of India could be procured in the ports

of Sabæa.

Many instances have already been given of the patronage which the Ptolemies

bestowed on commerce, of the facilities and advantages they afforded, and

of the benefits which the science of geography derived from the library and

observatory of Alexandria: every instrument which could facilitate the

study of astronomy was purchased by the Ptolemies and placed in that

observatory, for they were fully aware of the dependency of a full and

accurate knowledge of geography, as a science, on a full and accurate

knowledge of astronomy. With respect to commerce, the advancement of which,

may fairly be supposed to have had some weight in their patronage of these

sciences, they encouraged it as much as possible to centre in Alexandria,

and with citizens of Egypt, by making it a standing law of the country,

that no goods should pass through the capital, either to India or Europe,

without the intervention of an Alexandrian factor, and that even when

foreign merchants resided there, they should employ the same agency. The

roads and canals they formed, and the care they took to keep the Red Sea

free from pirates, are further proofs of their regard for commerce.

And justly was it held by the Ptolemies in high estimation, for from it

they derived their immense wealth. We are informed by Strabo, that the

revenue of Alexandria, in the worst of times, was 12,500 talents,

equivalent to nearly two millions and a half sterling; and if this was the

revenue under the last and most indolent of the Ptolemies, what must it

have been under Ptolemy Philadelphus, or Ptolemy Euergetes? But the account

given by Appian of the treasure of the Ptolemies is still more

extraordinary: the sum he mentions is 740,000 talents, or £191,166,666,

according to Dr. Arbuthnot's computation; we should be disposed to doubt

the accuracy of this statement, did we not know that Appian was a native of

Alexandria, and did he not moreover inform us, that he had extracted his

account from the public records of that city. When we consider that this

immense sum was accumulated by only two of the Ptolemies, Ptolemy Soter and

Ptolemy Philadelphus, and that the latter maintained two great fleets, one

in the Mediterranean, and the other in the Red Sea, besides an army of

200,000 foot, and 40,000 horse; and that he had 300 elephants, 2000 armed

chariots, and an armoury at Alexandria, stocked with 300,000 complete suits

of armour, and all other necessary weapons and implements of war,--we shall

form some idea of the extent and fruitfulness of Egyptian commerce, from

which the whole, or nearly the whole, of this immense wealth must have been

derived.

Having thus brought our historical sketch of the progress of discovery and

commercial enterprize among the Egyptians down to the period of the

conquest of Egypt by the Romans, we shall, in the next place, revert to the

Romans themselves, in whom, at the date of their conquest of this country,

the geographical knowledge and the commerce of the whole world may justly

be said to have centered. As, however, we have hitherto only adverted to

the Romans, in our account of the discoveries and commerce of the

Carthaginians, it will be proper to notice them in a much more detailed and

particular manner. We shall, therefore, trace, their geographical

knowledge, their discoveries and their commerce, from the foundation of

Rome, to the period of their conquest of Egypt; and in the course of this

investigation, we shall give a sketch of the commerce of those countries

which successively fell under their dominion--omitting such as we have

already noticed: by this plan, we shall be enabled to trace the commerce of

all the known world at that time, down to the period when Rome absorbed the

whole.

The account which Polybius gives, that before the first Carthaginian war

the Romans were entirely ignorant of, and inattentive to sea affairs--if by

this statement he means to assert that they were unacquainted with maritime

commerce, as well as maritime warfare, is expressly contradicted by the

treaties between Rome and Carthage, which we have already given in our

account of the commerce of Carthage. The first of those treaties was made

250 years before the first Punic war; and the second, about fifty years

before it. Besides, it is not probable that the Romans should have been

entirely ignorant of, and inattentive to maritime commerce for so long a

period; since several nations of Italy, with which they were at first

connected, and which they afterwards conquered, were very conversant in

this commerce, and derived great consideration, power, and wealth from it.

The Romans had conquered Etruria, and made themselves masters of the Tuscan

powers both by sea and land, before the commencement of the first Punic

war; and though at this period, the Tuscans were not so celebrated for

their commerce as they had been, yet the shipping and commerce they did

possess, must have fallen into the power of the Romans; and we can scarcely

suppose that these, together with the facilities which the Tuscans enjoyed

for commerce, by means of their ports, and their skill and commercial

habits and connections, would be entirely neglected by their conquerors.

Besides, there are several old Roman coins, by some supposed to have been

as old as the time of the kings, and certainly prior to the first Punic

war, on the reverses of which different parts of ships are visible. Now, as

the Roman historians are diffuse in the accounts they give of the wars of

the Romans, but take no notice of their commercial transactions, we may

safely conclude, from their not mentioning any maritime wars, or

expeditions of a date so early as these coins, that the ships at that

period preserved by the Romans, and deemed of such consequence as to be

struck on their coins, were employed for the purposes of commerce.

The Tuscans and the Grecian colonies in the south of Italy, certainly had

made great progress in commerce at an early period; and as,--if their

example did not stimulate the Romans to enterprises of the same kind,--the

Romans, at least when they conquered them, became possessed of the commerce

which they then enjoyed, it will be proper to take a brief view of it.

If we may credit the ancient historians, the Etrurians or Tyrrhenians, even

before the reign of Minos, had been for a long time masters of the greatest

part of the Mediterranean Sea, and had given their name to the Tyrrhenian

Sea, upon which they were situate. Piracy, as well as commerce, was

followed by them; and they became at last so expert, successful, and

dangerous, for their piracies, that they were attacked, and their maritime

power greatly abridged, by the Carthaginians and the Sicilians. Their most

famous port was Luna, which was situated on the Macra, a river which,

flowing from the Apennines, divided Liguria from Etruria, and fell into the

Tyrrhenian Sea. There seems good reason to believe that Luna was a place of

great trade before the Trojan war; it was extremely capacious, and in every

respect worthy of the commercial enterprise and wealth of the Tuscans.

Populonium, a city which was situate on a high promontory of the same name,

that ran a considerable way into the sea, also possessed a very commodious

harbour, capable of receiving a great number of ships. It had an arsenal

well supplied with all kinds of naval stores, and a quay for shipping or

landing merchandize. One of the principal articles of export consisted in

copper vessels, and in arms, machines, utensils, &c. of iron: these metals

were at first supplied to the inhabitants from the island of Æthalia (now

Elba); but the copper-mines there failing, iron alone, from the same

island, was imported for the purpose of their various manufactures; the

trade in these flourished in very remote times, and continued in the days

of Aristotle and Strabo.

But the most direct and unequivocal testimony to the power of the Tuscans,

and that that power was principally, if not entirely, derived from their

maritime skill and commerce, is to be found in Livy. This historian informs

us, "that before the Roman empire, the Tuscan dominions extended very far

both by sea and land, even to the upper and lower sea, by which Italy is

surrounded, in form of an island. Their very names are an argument for the

vast power of this people; for the Italian natives call the one the Tuscan

Sea, and the other the Adriatic, from Adria, a Tuscan colony. The Greeks

call them the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic Seas. This people, in twelve cities,

inhabited the country extending to both seas; and by sending out colonies

equal in number to the mother cities, first on this side of the Apennines

towards the lower sea, and afterwards as many on the other side, possessed

all the country beyond the Po, even to the Alps, except the corner

belonging to the Venetians, who dwelt round a bay of the sea." Homer,

Heraclides, Aristides, and Diodorus Siculus, all concur in their

representations of the maritime power and commercial opulence of the

Tuscans at a very early period. Diodorus Siculus expressly says, that they

were masters of the sea; and Aristides, that the Indians were the most

powerful nation in the east, and the Tuscans in the west.

Of the Grecian colonies in the south of Italy, that of Tarentum was the

most celebrated for its commerce. Polybius expressly informs us, that

Tarentum, their principal city, was very prosperous and rich, long before

Rome made any figure, and that its prosperity and riches were entirely the

fruit of the extensive and lucrative trade they carried on, particularly

with Greece. The city of Tarentum stood on a peninsula, and the citadel,

which was very strong, was built on the narrowest and extremest part of it;

on the east was a small bay, on the west the main sea; the harbour is

represented by ancient historians as extremely large, beautiful and

commodious. Its vicinity to Greece, Sicily, and Africa, afforded it great

opportunities and facilities for commerce. The inhabitants are represented

by some authors as having been the inventors of a particular kind of ship,

which retained in some degree the form of a raft or float. Their

government, which at first was aristocratical, was afterwards changed to a

democracy; and it is to this popular form of government that their

prosperity and wealth are ascribed. The number of people in the whole state

amounted to 300,000; Tarentum had twelve other cities under its dominion.

Besides a considerable fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, they had constantly

on foot a very large army, principally of mercenaries. Eighteen years

before the first Punic war, the Romans had entered into a maritime treaty

with the Tarentines; according to this treaty, neither party were to

navigate beyond the Cape of Lacinia. Soon afterwards, however, the Roman

fleet accidentally appearing near Tarentum, the inhabitants took the alarm,

sunk four of the ships, killed or took prisoners the commander and some

other officers, sold the seamen for slaves, and behaved with great

insolence to the ambassador whom the Romans sent to remonstrate and demand

satisfaction. They were soon, however, obliged to submit to the superior

power of the Romans. In the second Punic war, it was finally subdued, and a

Roman colony planted there.

The Spinetes, Liburnians, and Locrians, were also celebrated for their

skill in naval affairs, and for their commerce, before Rome manifested the

slightest wish to distinguish herself in this manner. Indeed, the situation

of Italy naturally turned the attention of its inhabitants (especially of

those who were early civilized, as the Tuscans, or those who had emigrated

from a civilized country, as the nations in the south of Italy,) to naval

affairs and maritime commerce. Washed by three seas, the Adriatic on the

north-east, the Tyrrhenian on the west, and the Ionian on the south, Italy

enjoyed advantages possessed by few nations of antiquity. Of the first of

these seas, the Spinetes became masters, of the second the Tuscans, and of

the third the Tarentines. The Spinetes, were originally Pelasgi, who had

emigrated and settled by chance rather than design, on the south banks of

the Po. Spina, their capital, was situated on the north side of the

southernmost mouth of that river. We do not possess any particular account

of their commerce, but that it rendered them powerful and rich we are

assured; and their dominion over the Adriatic is a decisive proof of the

former, while their magnificent offerings to Delphos may as justly be

deemed a proof of the latter. Spina was strong both by nature and art, on

the sea side, but the reverse on the land side; so that at last it was

abandoned by its inhabitants not being able to withstand the attacks of

their neighbours, who were either jealous of their prosperity, or attracted

to the assault by the love of plunder. In the reign of Augustus it was

reduced to a small village; and the branch of the Po, on which it was

situated, had changed its course so much, that it was then upwards of

fifteen miles distant from the sea, on the shore of which it had been

built. The gradual alteration in the course of the river, it is probable,

contributed with the other cause already mentioned to reduce it to

comparative insignificance.

Opposite to the Spinetes across the Adriatic, on the coast of Dalmatia, the

Liburnians dwelt. In some respects their coast was preferable to that of

Italy for maritime affairs, as it is studded with islands, which afforded

shelter to ships, and likewise possessed many excellent harbours; but the

Liburnians, as well as most of the inhabitants of Illyria, were more eager

after piracy than commerce; and, as we shall afterwards see, carried their

piracies to such a daring and destructive extent, that the Romans were

compelled to attack them. Their devotedness to piracy explains what to

Mons. Huet appears unaccountable. He observes, that it is remarkable that

neither the Dalmatians, who were powerful at sea by means of their port

Salona, which was their capital, nor the Liburnians themselves, according

to all appearance, had the use of money among them. Commerce cannot be

carried on to great extent, or in a regular and expeditious manner, by

natives ignorant of the use of money; but money seems to be not at all

requisite to the purposes of piracy. The Liburnian ships, or more properly

speaking, those ships which were denominated Liburnian, from having been

invented and first employed by this people, were of two kinds; one large,

fit for war and long voyages, but at the same time built light and for

quick sailing. After the victory of Actium, which Augustus gained in a

great measure by means of these ships, few were built by the Romans of any

other construction. The other Liburnian vessels were small, for fishing and

short voyages; some of these were made with osiers and covered with hides.

But strength and lightness, and quick sailing, were the qualities by which

the Liburnian ships were chiefly distinguished and characterised.

At what precise period the Romans directed their attention to maritime

affairs we are not accurately informed: that the opinion of Polybius on

this subject is not well founded, is evident from several circumstances. He

says, that before the first Punic war the Romans had no thought of the sea;

that Sicily was the first country, out of Italy, in which they ever landed;

and that, when they went to that island to assist the Mamertines, the

vessels which they employed in that expedition were hired, or borrowed from

the Tarentines, the Locrians, &c. He is correct in his statement that

Sicily was the first country in which the Romans had any footing; but that

he is inaccurate with respect to the period when the Romans first applied

themselves to maritime affairs, will appear from the following facts.

In the first place, the Romans (as we have already shown in our account of

the Carthaginian commerce,) had several treaties with the Carthaginians,

which may properly be called commercial treaties, before the first Punic

war. The earliest treaty, according to Polybius himself, was dated about

250 years before the war; and in this treaty the voyages undertaken by the

Romans on account of trade to Africa, Sardinia, and that part of Sicily at

that time possessed by the Carthaginians, are expressly mentioned and

regulated. The second treaty, about 100 years before the first Punic war,

is not so specific respecting commerce. The third treaty, occasioned by the

invasion of Italy by Pyrrhus, points out a decline in the naval power of

the Romans; for it stipulates, that the Carthaginians should furnish them

with ships, if required, either for trade or war. Secondly, seventy-four

years before the first Punic war, the Romans having subdued the Antiates,

and thus become masters of their fleet, among which were six armed with

beaks, the tribune was ornamented with these beaks, the ships to which they

belonged were burnt, and the others were brought to Rome and laid upon the

place allotted to the building and preservation of ships. Lastly, the

circumstances which gave rise to the war between the Romans and Tarentines,

to which we have already adverted, plainly prove that Polybius is wrong in

his assertion. Valerius, who commanded the Roman fleet, which was attacked

by the Tarentines, according to Livy, was one of the _duumviri navales_,

officers who had been already appointed nearly thirty years (that is,

nearly fifty years before the first Punic war), on the motion of Decius

Mus, expressly for the purpose of equipping, repairing, and maintaining the

fleets.

From these circumstances, it appears that the Romans possessed ships both

for war and commerce, previous to the commencement of their wars with the

Carthaginians, though it is extremely probable that their commerce was very

limited, and for the most part carried on in vessels belonging to the other

maritime nations of Italy, and that their ships of war were very small and

rude in their construction and equipment.

It is foreign to the object of this work to enter into a detail of the wars

between the Romans and the Carthaginians: but as the great efforts of the

Romans to become powerful at sea were made during these wars; as these

efforts, being successful, laid the foundation of the future commerce of

Rome; and as by the destruction of Carthage, in some measure caused by the

naval victories gained by the Romans, the most commercial nation of

antiquity was utterly ruined, and their commerce transferred to Rome, it

will be proper briefly to notice the naval contests between these rival

powers during the three wars in which they were engaged.

The first Punic war was occasioned by a desire on the part of the

Carthaginians to enlarge and secure their acquisitions in Sicily, and to

preserve their dominion of the sea, and by a determination on the part of

the Romans to check the progress of the Carthaginians in that island, so

immediately adjoining the continent of Italy. An opportunity soon occurred,

which seemed to promise to each the accomplishment of their respective

objects: the Mamertines, being hard pursued by Hiero king of Syracuse, and

shut up in Messina, the only city which remained to them, were divided in

opinion; some were for accepting the protection offered them by Hannibal,

who at that time commanded the Carthaginian army in Sicily; others were for

calling in the aid of the Romans. Both these powers gladly accepted the

proffered opportunity of extending their conquests, and checking their

rival.

The consul Appius Claudius, was ordered by the senate to proceed to Sicily:

previously to his departure, he despatched Caius Claudius, a legionary

tribune, with a few vessels to Rhegium, principally, it would seem, to

reconnoitre the naval force of the Carthaginians. The consul himself soon

followed with a small fleet, hired principally from the Tarentines,

Locrians, and Neapolitans. This fleet being attacked by the Carthaginian

fleet, which was not only much more numerous, but better equipped and

manned, and a violent storm rising during the engagement, which dashed many

of the Roman vessels in pieces among the rocks, was completely worsted. The

Carthaginians, however, restored most of the vessels they captured, only

expostulating with the Romans on the infraction of the treaty at that time

subsisting between the two republics. This loss was in some measure

counterbalanced by Claudius capturing, on his voyage back to Rhegium, a

Carthaginian quinquireme, the first which fell into the possession of the

Romans, and which served them for a model. According to other historians,

however, a Carthaginian galley, venturing too near the shore, was stranded,

and taken by the Romans; and after the model of this galley, the Romans

built many of their vessels.

Claudius was not in the least discouraged by his defeat, observing that he

could not expect to learn the art of navigation without paying dear for it;

but having repaired his fleet, he sailed again for Sicily, and eluding the

vigilance of the Carthaginian admiral, arrived safe in the port of Messina.

After the alliance formed between the Romans and Hiero king of Syracuse,

and the capture of Agrigentium, they resolved to use all their efforts for

the entire subjugation of Sicily. As, however, the Carthaginians were

extremely powerful by sea, they could not hope to accomplish this object,

unless they were able to cope with them on that element. They resolved,

therefore, no longer to trust in any degree to hired vessels, but to build

and equip a formidable fleet of their own. Powerfully actuated by this

resolution, they began the arduous undertaking with that ardour and spirit

of perseverance, which so eminently distinguished them; they deemed it

absolutely necessary to have 120 ships. Trees were immediately cut down in

the forests, and the timber brought to the sea shore: and the whole fleet,

according to Polybius, was not only built, but perfectly equipped and ready

for sea, in two months from the time the trees were felled. Of the 120

vessels of which it was composed, 100 had five benches of rowers, and 20 of

them had three benches.

There was, however, another difficulty to be overcome. It was absolutely

necessary that the men, who were to navigate and fight these ships, should

possess some knowledge of their art; but it was in vain to expect that with

the Carthaginians, so powerful and watchful at sea, the Roman ships would

be permitted to cruise safely long enough to make them practised sailors

and fighters. To obviate this difficulty, they had recourse, according to

Polybius, to a singular but tolerably effectual mode. "While some men were

employed in building the galleys, others, assembling those who were to

serve in the fleet, instructed them in the use of the oar after the

following manner: they contrived benches on the shore in the same fashion

and order as they were to be in the galleys, and placing their seamen, with

their oars, in like manner on the benches, an officer, by signs with his

hand, instructed them how to dip their oars all at the same time, and how

to recover them out of the water. By this means they became acquainted with

the management of the oar; and as soon as the vessels were built and

equipped, they spent some time in practising on the water, what they had

learnt ashore."

The necessity of possessing a fleet adequate to cope with that of the

Carthaginians became more and more apparent; for though the Romans had

obtained possession of all the inland cities in Sicily, the Carthaginians

compensated for this by having the ascendancy by sea, and in the cities on

the coast. The Roman fleet was commanded by Cornelius Scipio, who put to

sea with seventeen ships, in order to secure at Messina reception and

security for the whole fleet; but his enterprise was unfortunate; for,

being deceived by false information, he entered the port of Lipara, where

he was blockaded by the enemy, and obliged to surrender. This partial loss,

however, was soon counterbalanced by a naval victory; for the remainder of

the Roman fleet, amounting to 103 sail, being encountered by a Carthaginian

fleet under Hannibal, who despising the Romans, had advanced to the contest

with only fifty galleys, succeeded in capturing or destroying the whole of

them.

In the mean time, the senate had appointed Duilius commander of the fleet;

and his first object was to survey it accurately, and, if possible, to

improve the construction or equipment of the vessels, if they appeared

defective, either for the purpose of sailing or fighting. It seemed to him,

on examining them, that they could not be easily and quickly worked during

an engagement, being much heavier and more unwieldy than those of the

Carthaginians. As this defect could not be removed, he tried whether it

could not be compensated; and an engineer in the fleet succeeded in this

important object, by inventing that machine which was afterwards called

_corvus_.

The immediate purpose which this machine was to serve is clearly explained

by all the ancient authors who mention it: its use was to stop the enemy's

ships as soon as the Roman vessels came up with them, and thus to give them

an opportunity of boarding them; but the construction and mode of operation

of these machines it is not easy to ascertain from the descriptions of

ancient authors. Polybius gives the following description of them: "They

erected on the prow of their vessels a round piece of timber, about one

foot and a half in diameter, and about twelve feet long, on the top of

which a block or pully was fastened. Round this piece of timber a stage or

platform was constructed, four feet broad, and about eighteen feet long,

which was strongly fastened with iron. The entrance was lengthways, and it

could be moved about the piece of timber, first described, as on a spindle,

and could be hoisted within six feet of the top. Round this there was a

parapet, knee high, which was defended with upright bars of iron, sharpened

at the end. Towards the top there was a ring, through which a rope was

fastened, by means of which they could raise and lower the engine at

pleasure. With this machine they attacked the enemy's vessels, sometimes on

their bow, and sometimes on their broadside. When they had grappled the

enemy with these iron spikes, if the ships happened to swing broadside to

broadside, then the Romans boarded them from all parts; but when they were

obliged to grapple them on the bow, they entered two and two, by the help

of this engine, the foremost defending the forepart, and those who followed

the flanks, keeping the boss of their bucklers level with the top of the

parapet."

From this description of the corvus, it is evident that it had two distinct

uses to serve: in the first place, to lay hold of and entangle the enemy's

ships; and, secondly, after it had accomplished this object, it served as a

means of entering the enemy's vessels, and also as a protection while the

boarding was taking place. With respect to the question, whether the

_harpagones_ or manus ferrææ; were the same with the _corvi_, it appears to

us that the former were of much older invention, as they certainly were

much more simple in their construction; and that, probably, the engineer

who invented the corvi, borrowed his idea of them from the harpagones, and

in fact incorporated the two machines in one engine. The harpagones were

undoubtedly grappling irons, but of such light construction that they could

be thrown by manual force; but they were of no other service; whereas the

corvi were worked by machinery, and served, as we have shown, not only to

grapple, but to assist and protect the boarders. We have been thus

particular in our account of the corvus, because it may fairly be regarded

as having essentially contributed to the establishment of the Roman naval

power over that of the Carthaginians.

After Duilius had made a trial of the efficacy of this machine, he sailed

in quest of the enemy. The Carthaginians, despising the Romans as totally

inexperienced in naval affairs, did not even take the trouble or precaution

to draw up their ships in line of battle, but trusting entirely to their

own superior skill, and to the greater lightness of their ships, they bore

down on the Romans in disorder. They, however, were induced, for a short

time, to slacken their advance at the sight of the corvi; but not giving

the Romans credit for any invention which could counterbalance their want

of skill, experience, and self-confidence, they again pushed forward and

attacked the Romans. They soon suffered, however, the consequences of their

rashness: the Romans, by means of their corvi, grappled their ships so

closely and steadily, that the fight resembled much more a land than a sea

battle; and thus feeling themselves, as it were, on their own element,

while their enemies seemed to themselves no longer to be fighting in ships,

the confidence of the former rose, while that of the latter fell, from the

same cause, and nearly in the same proportion. The result was, that the

Romans gained a complete victory. The loss of the Carthaginians is

variously related by the Roman writers: this is extraordinary, since they

must have had access to the best possible authority; the inscription of the

Columna Rostrata of Duilius, which is still preserved at Rome. According to

this inscription, Duilius fitted out a fleet in sixty days, defeated the

Carthaginians, commanded by Hannibal, at sea, took from them thirty ships,

with all their rigging, and the septireme which carried the admiral

himself; sunk thirty, and took several prisoners of distinction. When

Hannibal saw the Romans about to enter his septireme, he leaped into a

small boat and escaped.

A circumstance occurred during this engagement which clearly manifested the

ardour and perseverance, by means of which the Romans had already become

expert, not only in the management of their ships, but also in the use of

their corvi. It has already been noticed that the Carthaginians bore down

on them in disorder, each ship endeavouring to reach them as soon as

possible, without waiting for the rest: among the foremost was Hannibal.

After the defeat of this part of the fleet, the rest, amounting to 120,

having come up, endeavoured to avoid the fate of their companions by rowing

as quickly as possible round the Roman ships, so as not to allow them to

make use of the corvi. But the Romans proved themselves to be even more

expert seamen than their enemies; for, though their vessels were much

heavier, they worked them with so much ease, celerity, and skill, that they

presented the machines to the enemy on whatever side they approached them.

The vanquished Hannibal was disgraced by his country; whereas the

victorious Roman was honoured and rewarded by the senate, who were fully

sensible of all the advantages derived by a naval victory over the

Carthaginians. The high and distinguished honour of being attended, when he

returned from supper, with music and torches, which was granted for once

only to those who triumphed, was continued to Duilius during life. To

perpetuate the memory of this victory, medals were struck, and the pillar,

to which we have already alluded, was erected in the forum. This pillar,

called Columna Rostrata, from the beaks of the ships which were fastened to

it, was discovered in the year 1560, and placed in the capital.

In the year after this splendid victory the Romans resolved to attempt the

reduction of Corsica and Sardinia; for this purpose L. Cornelius Scipio

sailed with a squadron under his command. He easily succeeded in reducing

Corsica; but it appears, from an inscription on a stone which was dug up in

the year 1615, in Rome, that he encountered a violent storm off the coast

of that island, in which his fleet was exposed to imminent danger. The

words of the inscription are, "He took the city of Aleria and conquered

Corsica, and built a temple to the tempests, with very good reason." This

storm is not mentioned in any of the ancient authors. Scipio was obliged to

be more cautious in his attempts on Sardinia, but afterwards the Romans

succeeded in gaining possession of this island.

The Romans having thus acquired Corsica and Sardinia, and all the maritime

towns of Sicily, determined to invade, or at least to alarm, the African

dominions of Carthage. Accordingly Sulpicius, who commanded their fleet,

circulated a report that he intended to sail for the coasts of Africa: this

induced the Carthaginians to put to sea; but after the hostile fleets had

approached each other, and were about to engage, a storm arose and

separated them, and obliged them both to take shelter in the ports of

Sardinia. As soon as it abated, Sulpicius put to sea again, surprised the

Carthaginians, and captured or destroyed most of their ships.

Five years after the victory of Duilius, the Romans were able to put to sea

a fleet of 330 covered gallies. Ten of these were sent to reconnoitre the

enemy, but approaching too near, they were attacked and destroyed. This

unfortunate event did not discourage the consul Attilius Regulus, who

commanded: on the contrary, he resolved to wipe off this disgrace by

signalizing his consulship in a remarkable manner. He was ordered by the

senate to cross the Mediterranean, and invade Carthage. The Roman fleet,

which consisted of 330 galleys, on board of each of which were 120 soldiers

and 300 rowers, was stationed at Messina: from this port they took their

departure, stretching along the coast of Sicily, till they doubled Cape

Pachynum, after which they sailed directly to Ecnomos. The Carthaginian

fleet consisted of 360 sail, and the seamen were more numerous, as well as

more skilful and experienced, than those of the Romans: it rendezvoused at

Heraclea, not far from Ecnomos. Between these two places the hostile fleets

met, and one of the most obstinate and decisive battles ensued that are

recorded in ancient history. As Polybius has given a very particular

account of the manner in which the respective fleets were drawn up, and of

all the incidents of the battle, we shall transcribe it from him, because

the issue of it may justly be regarded as having proved the Roman

superiority at sea, and because the details of this accurate historian will

afford us a clear insight into the naval engagements of the ancients.

As there were 330 ships, and each ship had on board 300 rowers, and 120

soldiers, the total number of men in the fleet amounted 140,000. The whole

fleet was formed into four divisions: the first was called the first

legion; the second, the second; and the third, the third legion. The fourth

division had a different name; they were called triarians: the triarii who

were on board this division, being old soldiers of approved valour, who, in

land battles, formed the third line of the legion, and hence obtained their

appellation. The first division was drawn up on the right, the second on

the left, and the third in the rear of the other two, in such a manner that

these three divisions formed a triangle, the point of which was the two

gallies, in which were the consuls, in front of their respective squadrons,

parallel to the third legion, which formed the base of the triangle, and in

the rear of the whole fleet; the triarian division was drawn up, but

extended in such a manner as to out-flank the extremes of the base. Between

the triarian division and the other part of the squadron, the transports

were drawn up, in order that they might be protected from the enemy, and

their escape accelerated and covered in case of a defeat; on board of the

transports were the horses, and baggage of the army.

According to Polybius, the seamen and troops on board the Carthaginian

fleet amounted to 150,000 men. Their admiral waited to see the disposition

of the Roman fleet before he formed his own in order of battle; he divided

it into four squadrons, drawn up in one line; one of these was drawn up

very near the shore, the others stretched far out to sea, apparently for

the purpose of out-flanking the Romans. The light vessels were on the

right, under the command of Hanno; the squadron on the left, which was

formed of heavier vessels, was under the command of Hamilcar.

It is evident from this description of the order of battle of the

Carthaginians, that their line, being so much extended, could easily be

broken; the Romans perceiving this, bore down on the middle with their

first and second divisions. The Carthaginians did not wait the attack, but

retired immediately with the intention of drawing the Romans after them,

and thus by separating, weakening their fleet. The Romans, thinking the

victory was their own, pushed after the flying enemy, thus weakening their

third division, and at the same time exposing themselves to an attack while

they were scattered. The Carthaginians, perceiving that their manoeuvre had

so far succeeded, tacked about, and engaged with their pursuers. But the

Romans, by means of their corvi, which they were now very skilful in using,

grappled with the enemy, and as soon as they had thus rendered the

engagement similar to a land battle, they overcame them.

While these things were going on between Hamilcar with the left wing of the

Carthaginian fleet, and the first and second divisions of the Romans,

Hanno, with his light vessels, which formed the right wing, attacked the

triarians, and the ships which were drawn up near the shore, attacked the

third legion and the transports. These two attacks were conducted with so

much spirit and courage, that many of the triarians, transports, and third

legion were driven on shore, and their defeat would probably have been

decisive, had not the Roman first and second divisions, which had defeated

and chased to a considerable distance the Carthaginians opposed to them,

returned most opportunely from the chace, and supported them. The

Carthaginians were no longer able to withstand their enemies, but sustained

a signal defeat; thirty of their vessels having been sunk, and sixty-three

taken. The immediate result of this victory was, that the Romans landed in

Africa without opposition.

The next victory obtained by the Romans over the Carthaginians was achieved

soon after the defeat and captivity of Regulus, and was justly regarded by

them as an ample compensation for that disaster. It was a wise and politic

maxim of the Roman republic never to appear cast down by defeat, but, on

the contrary, to act in such a case with more than their usual confidence

and ardour. Acting on this maxim they equipped a fleet and sent it towards

Africa, immediately after they learnt the defeat of Regulus. The

Carthaginians, who were endeavouring to take all possible advantage of

their victory, by expelling the Romans from Africa, as soon as the news

arrived of the sailing of this fleet, abandoned the seige of Utica, before

which they had sat down,--refitted their old ships, built several new ones,

and put to sea. The hostile fleets met near Cape Herme, the most northern

point of Africa, a little to the north-east of Carthage. They were again

unsuccessful on what they had formerly justly regarded as their own

element. One hundred and four of their ships were captured, and 15,000 men,

soldiers, and rowers, were killed in the action.

This victory, however, proved of little benefit to the Romans in their

grand enterprise of establishing a firm and permanent footing, in Africa;

for, in consequence of their inability to obtain a regular supply of

provisions for their army, they were obliged soon afterwards to evacuate

Clupea and Utica, the principal places they held there, and to re-embark

their troops for Italy.