No More Learning

If, therefore, political philosophy is advantageous to the
ruler, and geography in the actual government of the country, this
latter seems to possess some little superiority. This superiority is
most observable in real service.

19. But even the theoretical portion of geography is by no means
contemptible. On the one hand, it embraces the arts, mathematics, and
natural science; on the other, history and fable. Not that this latter
can have any distinct advantage: for instance, if any one should relate
to us the wanderings of Ulysses, Menelaus, and Jason, he would not seem
to have added directly to our fund of practical knowledge thereby,
(which is the only thing men of the world are interested in,) unless he
should convey useful examples of what those wanderers were compelled to
suffer, and at the same time afford matter of rational amusement to
those who interest themselves in the places which gave birth to such
fables. Practical men interest themselves in these pursuits, since they
are at once commendable, and afford them pleasure; but yet not to any
great extent. In this class, too, will be found those whose main object
in life is pleasure and respectability: but these by no means
constitute the majority of mankind, who naturally prefer that which
holds out some direct advantage. The geographer should therefore chiefly
devote himself to what is practically important. He should follow the
same rule in regard to history and the mathematics, selecting always
that which is most useful, most intelligible, and most authentic.

20. Geometry and astronomy, as we before remarked, seem absolutely
indispensable in this science. This, in fact, is evident, that without
some such assistance, it would be impossible to be accurately acquainted
with the configuration of the earth; its climata,[61] dimensions, and
the like information.

As the size of the earth has been demonstrated by other writers, we
shall here take for granted and receive as accurate what they have
advanced. We shall also assume that the earth is spheroidal, that its
surface is likewise spheroidal, and above all, that bodies have a
tendency towards its centre, which latter point is clear to the
perception of the most average understanding. However we may show
summarily that the earth is spheroidal, from the consideration that all
things however distant tend to its centre, and that every body is
attracted towards its centre of gravity; this is more distinctly proved
from observations of the sea and sky, for here the evidence of the
senses, and common observation, is alone requisite. The convexity of the
sea is a further proof of this to those who have sailed; for they cannot
perceive lights at a distance when placed at the same level as their
eyes, but if raised on high, they at once become perceptible to vision,
though at the same time further removed. So, when the eye is raised, it
sees what before was utterly imperceptible. Homer speaks of this when he
says,

Lifted up on the vast wave he quickly beheld afar. [62]

Sailors, as they approach their destination, behold the shore
continually raising itself to their view; and objects which had at first
seemed low, begin to elevate themselves. Our gnomons, also, are, among
other things, evidence of the revolution of the heavenly bodies; and
common sense at once shows us, that if the depth of the earth were
infinite,[63] such a revolution could not take place.

Every information respecting the climata[64] is contained in the
“Treatises on Positions. ”[65]

21. Now there are some facts which we take to be established, viz. those
with which every politician and general should be familiar. For on no
account should they be so uninformed as to the heavens and the position
of the earth,[66] that when they are in strange countries, where some of
the heavenly phenomena wear a different aspect to what they have been
accustomed, they should be in a consternation, and exclaim,

“Neither west
Know we, nor east, where rises or where sets
The all-enlightening sun. ”[67]

Still, we do not expect that they should be such thorough masters of the
subject as to know what stars rise and set together for the different
quarters of the earth; those which have the same meridian line, the
elevation of the poles, the signs which are in the zenith, with all the
various phenomena which differ as well in appearance as reality with the
variations of the horizon and arctic circle. With some of these matters,
unless as philosophical pursuits, they should not burden themselves at
all; others they must take for granted without searching into their
causes. This must be left to the care of the philosopher; the statesman
can have no leisure, or very little, for such pursuits. Those who,
through carelessness and ignorance, are not familiar with the globe and
the circles traced upon it, some parallel to each other, some at right
angles to the former, others, again, in an oblique direction; nor yet
with the position of the tropics, equator, and zodiac, (that circle
through which the sun travels in his course, and by which we reckon the
changes of season and the winds,) such persons we caution against the
perusal of our work. For if a man is neither properly acquainted with
these things, nor with the variations of the horizon and arctic circle,
and such similar elements of mathematics, how can he comprehend the
matters treated of here? So for one who does not know a right line from
a curve, nor yet a circle, nor a plane or spherical surface, nor the
seven stars in the firmament composing the Great Bear, and such like,
our work is entirely useless, at least for the present. Unless he first
acquires such information, he is utterly incompetent to the study of
geography. *So those who have written the works entitled “On Ports,” and
“Voyages Around the World,” have performed their task imperfectly, since
they have omitted to supply the requisite information from mathematics
and astronomy. *[68]

22. The present undertaking is composed in a lucid style, suitable alike
to the statesman and the general reader, after the fashion of my
History. [69] By a statesman we do not intend an illiterate person, but
one who has gone through the course of a liberal and philosophical
education. For a man who has bestowed no attention on virtue or
intelligence, nor what constitutes them, must be incompetent either to
blame or praise, still less to decide what actions are worthy to be
placed on record.

23. Having already compiled our Historical Memoirs, which, as we
conceive, are a valuable addition both to political and moral
philosophy, we have now determined to follow it up with the present
work, which has been prepared on the same system as the former, and for
the same class of readers, but more particularly for those who are in
high stations of life. And as our former production contains only the
most striking events in the lives of distinguished men, omitting
trifling and unimportant incidents; so here it will be proper to dismiss
small and doubtful particulars, and merely call attention to great and
remarkable transactions, such in fact as are useful, memorable, and
entertaining. In the colossal works of the sculptor we do not descend
into a minute examination of particulars, but look principally for
perfection in the general _ensemble_. This is the only method of
criticism applicable to the present work. Its proportions, so to speak,
are colossal; it deals in the generalities and main outlines of things,
except now and then, when some minor detail can be selected, calculated
to be serviceable to the seeker after knowledge, or the man of business.

We now think we have demonstrated that our present undertaking is one
that requires great care, and is well worthy of a philosopher.




CHAPTER II.


1. No one can [justly] blame us for having undertaken to write on a
subject already often treated of, unless it appears that we have done
nothing more than copy the works of former writers. In our opinion,
though they may have perfectly treated some subjects, in others they
have still left much to be completed; and we shall be justified in our
performance, if we can add to their information even in a trifling
degree. At the present moment the conquests of the Romans and Parthians
have added much to our knowledge, which (as was well observed by
Eratosthenes) had been considerably increased by the expedition of
Alexander. This prince laid open to our view the greater part of Asia,
and the whole north of Europe as far as the Danube. And the Romans [have
discovered to us] the entire west of Europe as far as the river Elbe,
which divides Germany, and the country beyond the Ister to the river
Dniester. The country beyond this to the Mæotis,[70] and the coasts
extending along Colchis,[71] was brought to light by Mithridates,
surnamed Eupator, and his generals. To the Parthians we are indebted for
a better acquaintance with Hyrcania,[72] Bactriana,[73] and the land of
the Scythians[74] lying beyond, of which before we knew but little. Thus
we can add much information not supplied by former writers, but this
will best be seen when we come to treat on the writers who have preceded
us; and this method we shall pursue, not so much in regard to the
primitive geographers, as to Eratosthenes and those subsequent to him.
As these writers far surpassed the generality in the amount of their
knowledge, so naturally it is more difficult to detect their errors when
such occur. If I seem to contradict those most whom I take chiefly for
my guides, I must claim indulgence on the plea, that it was never
intended to criticise the whole body of geographers, the larger number
of whom are not worthy of consideration, but to give an opinion of those
only who are generally found correct. Still, while many are beneath
discussion, such men as Eratosthenes, Posidonius, Hipparchus, Polybius,
and others of their stamp, deserve our highest consideration.

2. Let us first examine Eratosthenes, reviewing at the same time what
Hipparchus has advanced against him. Eratosthenes is much too creditable
an historian for us to believe what Polemon endeavours to charge against
him, that he had not even seen Athens. At the same time he does not
merit that unbounded confidence which some seem to repose in him,
although, as he himself tells us, he passed much of his time with
first-rate [characters]. Never, says he, at one period, and in one city,
were there so many philosophers flourishing together as in my time. In
their number was Ariston and Arcesilaus. This, however, it seems is not
sufficient, but you must also be able to choose who are the real guides
whom it is your interest to follow. He considers Arcesilaus and Ariston
to be the coryphæi of the philosophers who flourished in his time, and
is ceaseless in his eulogies of Apelles and Bion, the latter of whom,
says he, was the first to deck himself in the flowers of philosophy, but
concerning whom one is often likewise tempted to exclaim, “How great is
Bion in spite of his rags! ”[75] It is in such instances as the following
that the mediocrity of his genius shows itself.

Although at Athens he became a disciple of Zeno[76] of Citium, he makes
no mention of his followers; while those who opposed that philosopher,
and of whose sect not a trace remains, he thinks fit to set down amongst
the [great characters] who flourished in his time. His real character
appears in his Treatise on Moral Philosophy,[77] his Meditations, and
some similar productions. He seems to have held a middle course between
the man who devotes himself to philosophy, and the man who cannot make
up his mind to dedicate himself to it: and to have studied the science
merely as a relief from his other pursuits, or as a pleasing and
instructive recreation. In his other writings he is just the same; but
let these things pass. We will now proceed as well as we can to the task
of rectifying his geography.

First, then, let us return to the point which we lately deferred.

3. Eratosthenes says that the poet directs his whole attention to the
amusement of the mind, and not at all to its instruction. In opposition
to his idea, the ancients define poesy as a primitive philosophy,
guiding our life from infancy, and pleasantly regulating our morals, our
tastes, and our actions. The [Stoics] of our day affirm that the only
wise man is the poet. On this account the earliest lessons which the
citizens of Greece convey to their children are from the poets;
certainly not alone for the purpose of amusing their minds, but for
their instruction. Nay, even the professors of music, who give lessons
on the harp, lyre, and pipe, lay claim to our consideration on the same
account, since they say that [the accomplishments which they teach] are
calculated to form and improve the character. It is not only among the
Pythagoreans that one hears this claim supported, for Aristoxenus is of
that opinion, and Homer too regarded the bards as amongst the wisest of
mankind.

Of this number was the guardian of Clytemnestra, “to whom the son of
Atreus, when he set out for Troy, gave earnest charge to preserve his
wife,”[78] whom Ægisthus was unable to seduce, until “leading the bard
to a desert island, he left him,”[79] and then

“The queen he led, not willing less than he,
To his own mansion. ”[80]

But apart from all such considerations, Eratosthenes contradicts
himself; for a little previously to the sentence which we have quoted,
at the commencement of his Essay on Geography, he says, that “all the
ancient poets took delight in showing their knowledge of such matters.
Homer inserted into his poetry all that he knew about the Ethiopians,
Egypt, and Libya. Of all that related to Greece and the neighbouring
places he entered even too minutely into the details, describing Thisbe
as “abounding in doves,” Haliartus, “grassy,” Anthedon, the “far
distant,” Litæa, “situated on the sources of the Cephissus,”[81] and
none of his epithets are without their meaning. But in pursuing this
method, what object has he in view, to amuse [merely], or to instruct?
The latter, doubtless. Well, perhaps he has told the truth in these
instances, but in what was beyond his observation both he and the other
writers have indulged in all the marvels of fable. If such be the case
the statement should have been, that the poets relate some things for
mere amusement, others for instruction; but he affirms that they do it
altogether for amusement, without any view to information; and by way of
climax, inquires, What can it add to Homer’s worth to be familiar with
many lands, and skilled in strategy, agriculture, rhetoric, and similar
information, which some persons seem desirous to make him possessed of.
To seek to invest him with all this knowledge is most likely the effect
of too great a zeal for his honour. Hipparchus observes, that to assert
he was acquainted with every art and science, is like saying that an
Attic eiresionè[82] bears pears and apples.

As far as this goes, Eratosthenes, you are right enough; not so,
however, when you not only deny that Homer was possessed of these vast
acquirements, but represent poetry in general as a tissue of old wives’
fables, where, to use your own expression, every thing thought likely to
amuse is cooked up. I ask, is it of no value to the auditors[83] of the
poets to be made acquainted with [the history of] different countries,
with strategy, agriculture, and rhetoric, and such-like things, which
the lecture generally contains.

4. One thing is certain, that the poet has bestowed all these gifts upon
Ulysses, whom beyond any of his other [heroes] he loves to adorn with
every virtue. He says of him, that he

“Discover’d various cities, and the mind
And manners learn’d of men in lands remote. ”[84]

That he was

“Of a piercing wit and deeply wise. ”[85]

He is continually described as “the destroyer of cities,” and as having
vanquished Troy, by his counsels, his advice, and his deceptive art.
Diomede says of him,

“Let him attend me, and through fire itself
We shall return; for none is wise as he. ”[86]

He prides himself on his skill in husbandry, for at the harvest [he
says],

“I with my well-bent sickle in my hand,
Thou arm’d with one as keen. ”[87]

And also in tillage,

“Then shouldst thou see
How straight my furrow should be cut and true. ”[88]

And Homer was not singular in his opinion regarding these matters, for
all educated people appeal to him in favour of the idea that such
practical knowledge is one of the chief means of acquiring
understanding.

5. That eloquence is regarded as the wisdom of speech, Ulysses manifests
throughout the whole poem, both in the Trial,[89] the Petitions,[90] and
the Embassy. [91] Of him it is said by Antenor,

“But when he spake, forth from his breast did flow
A torrent swift as winter’s feather’d snow. ”[92]

Who can suppose that a poet capable of effectively introducing into his
scenes rhetoricians, generals, and various other characters, each
displaying some peculiar excellence, was nothing more than a droll or
juggler, capable only of cheating or flattering his hearer, and not of
instructing him.

Are we not all agreed that the chief merit of a poet consists in his
accurate representation of the affairs of life? Can this be done by a
mere driveller, unacquainted with the world?

The excellence of a poet is not to be measured by the same standard as
that of a mechanic or a blacksmith, where honour and virtue have nothing
to do with our estimate. But the poet and the individual are connected,
and he only can become a good poet, who is in the first instance a
worthy man.

6. To deny that our poet possesses the graces of oratory is using us
hardly indeed. What is so befitting an orator, what so poetical as
eloquence, and who so sweetly eloquent as Homer? But, by heaven! you’ll
say, there are other styles of eloquence than those peculiar to poetry.
Of course [I admit this]; in poetry itself there is the tragic and the
comic style; in prose, the historic and the forensic. But is not
language a generality, of which poetry and prose are forms? Yes,
language is; but are not the rhetorical, the eloquent, and the florid
styles also? I answer, that flowery prose is nothing but an imitation of
poetry. Ornate poetry was the first to make its appearance, and was well
received. Afterwards it was closely imitated by writers in the time of
Cadmus, Pherecydes, and Hecatæus. The metre was the only thing dispensed
with, every other poetic grace being carefully preserved. As time
advanced, one after another of its beauties was discarded, till at last
it came down from its glory into our common prose. In the same way we
may say that comedy took its rise from tragedy, but descended from its
lofty grandeur into what we now call the common parlance of daily life.
And when [we find] the ancient writers making use of the expression “to
sing,” to designate eloquence of style, this in itself is an evidence
that poetry is the source and origin of all ornamented and rhetorical
language. Poetry in ancient days was on every occasion accompanied by
melody. The song or ode was but a modulated speech, from whence the
words rhapsody, tragedy, comedy,[93] are derived; and since originally
eloquence was the term made use of for the poetical effusions which were
always of the nature of a song, it soon happened [that in speaking of
poetry] some said, to sing, others, to be eloquent; and as the one term
was early misapplied to prose compositions, the other also was soon
applied in the same way. Lastly, the very term _prose_, which is applied
to language not clothed in metre, seems to indicate, as it were, its
descent from an elevation or chariot to the ground. [94]

7. Homer accurately describes many distant countries, and not only
Greece and the neighbouring places, as Eratosthenes asserts. His
romance, too, is in better style than that of his successors. He does
not make up wondrous tales on every occasion, but to instruct us the
better often, and especially in the Odyssey, adds to the circumstances
which have come under his actual observation, allegories, wise
harangues, and enticing narrations. Concerning which, Eratosthenes is
much mistaken when he says that both Homer and his commentators are a
pack of fools. But this subject demands a little more of our attention.

8. To begin. The poets were by no means the first to avail themselves of
myths. States and lawgivers had taken advantage of them long before,
having observed the constitutional bias of mankind. Man is eager after
knowledge, and the love of legend is but the prelude thereto. This is
why children begin to listen [to fables], and are acquainted with them
before any other kind of knowledge; the cause of this is that the myth
introduces them to a new train of ideas, relating not to every-day
occurrences, but something in addition to these.

A charm hangs round whatever is new and hitherto unknown, inspiring us
with a desire to become acquainted with it, but when the wonderful and
the marvellous are likewise present, our delight is increased until at
last it becomes a philtre of study. To children we are obliged to hold
out such enticements, in order that in riper years, when the mind is
powerful, and no longer needs such stimulants, it may be prepared to
enter on the study of actual realities.

Every illiterate and uninstructed man is yet a child, and takes delight
in fable. With the partially informed it is much the same; reason is not
all-powerful within him, and he still possesses the tastes of a child.
But the marvellous, which is capable of exciting fear as well as
pleasure, influences not childhood only, but age as well. As we relate
to children pleasing tales to incite them [to any course] of action, and
frightful ones to deter them, such as those of Lamia,[95] Gorgo,[96]
Ephialtes,[97] and Mormolyca. [98] So numbers of our citizens are
incited to deeds of virtue by the beauties of fable, when they hear the
poets in a strain of enthusiasm recording noble actions, such as the
labours of Hercules or Theseus, and the honours bestowed on them by the
gods, or even when they see paintings, sculptures, or figures bearing
their romantic evidence to such events. In the same way they are
restrained from vicious courses, when they think they have received from
the gods by oracles or some other invisible intimations, threats,
menaces, or chastisements, or even if they only believe they have
befallen others. The great mass of women and common people, cannot be
induced by mere force of reason to devote themselves to piety, virtue,
and honesty; superstition must therefore be employed, and even this is
insufficient without the aid of the marvellous and the terrible. For
what are the thunderbolts, the ægis, the trident, the torches, the
dragons, the barbed thyrses, the arms of the gods, and all the
paraphernalia of antique theology, but fables employed by the founders
of states, as bugbears to frighten timorous minds.

Such was mythology; and when our ancestors found it capable of
subserving the purposes of social and political life, and even
contributing to the knowledge of truth, they continued the education of
childhood to maturer years, and maintained that poetry was sufficient to
form the understanding of every age. In course of time history and our
present philosophy were introduced; these, however, suffice but for the
chosen few, and to the present day poetry is the main agent which
instructs our people and crowds our theatres. Homer here stands
pre-eminent, but in truth all the early historians and natural
philosophers were mythologists as well.

9. Thus it is that our poet, though he sometimes employs fiction for the
purposes of instruction, always gives the preference to truth; he makes
use of what is false, merely tolerating it in order the more easily to
lead and govern the multitude. As a man

“Binds with a golden verge
Bright silver:”[99]

so Homer, heightening by fiction actual occurrences, adorns and
embellishes his subject; but his end is always the same as that of the
historian, who relates nothing but facts. In this manner he undertook
the narration of the Trojan war, gilding it with the beauties of fancy
and the wanderings of Ulysses; but we shall never find Homer inventing
an empty fable apart from the inculcation of truth. It is ever the case
that a person lies most successfully, when he intermingles [into the
falsehood] a sprinkling of truth. Such is the remark of Polybius in
treating of the wanderings of Ulysses; such is also the meaning of the
verse,

“He fabricated many falsehoods, relating them like truths:”[100]

not _all_, but _many_ falsehoods, otherwise it would not have looked
like the truth. Homer’s narrative is founded on history. He tells us
that king Æolus governed the Lipari Islands, that around Mount Ætna and
Leontini dwelt the Cyclopæ, and certain Læstrygonians inhospitable to
strangers. That at that time the districts surrounding the strait were
unapproachable; and Scylla and Charybdis were infested by banditti. In
like manner in the writings of Homer we are informed of other
freebooters, who dwelt in divers regions. Being aware that the
Cimmerians dwelt on the Cimmerian Bosphorus, a dark northern country, he
felicitously locates them in a gloomy region close by Hades, a fit
theatre for the scene in the wanderings of Ulysses. That he was
acquainted with these people we may satisfy ourselves from the
chroniclers, who report an incursion made by the Cimmerians either
during his lifetime or just before.

10. Being acquainted with Colchis, and the voyage of Jason to Æa, and
also with the historical and fabulous relations concerning Circe and
Medea, their enchantments and their various other points of resemblance,
he feigns there was a relationship between them, notwithstanding the
vast distance by which they were separated, the one dwelling in an
inland creek of the Euxine, and the other in Italy, and both of them
beyond the ocean.

It is possible that Jason himself wandered as far as Italy, for traces
of the Argonautic expedition are pointed out near the Ceraunian[101]
mountains, by the Adriatic,[102] at the Posidonian[103] Gulf and the
isles adjacent to Tyrrhenia. [104] The Cyaneæ, called by some the
Symplegades,[105] or Jostling Rocks, which render the passage through
the Strait of Constantinople so difficult, also afforded matter to our
poet. The actual existence of a place named Æa, stamped credibility upon
his Ææa; so did the Symplegades upon the Planctæ, (the Jostling Rocks
upon the Wandering Rocks,) and the passage of Jason through the midst of
them; in the same way Scylla and Charybdis accredited the passage [of
Ulysses] past those rocks. In his time people absolutely regarded the
Euxine as a kind of second ocean, and placed those who had crossed it in
the same list with navigators who had passed the Pillars. [106] It was
looked upon as the largest of our seas, and was therefore _par
excellence_ styled the Sea, in the same way as Homer [is called] the
Poet. In order therefore to be well received, it is probable he
transferred the scenes from the Euxine to the ocean, so as not to
stagger the general belief. And in my opinion those Solymi who possess
the highest ridges of Taurus, lying between Lycia and Pisidia, and those
who in their southern heights stand out most conspicuously to the
dwellers on this side Taurus, and the inhabitants of the Euxine by a
figure of speech, he describes as being beyond the ocean. For narrating
the voyage of Ulysses in his ship, he says,

“But Neptune, traversing in his return
From Ethiopia’s sons, the mountain heights
Of Solymè, descried him from afar. ”[107]

It is probable he took his account of the one-eyed Cyclopæ from Scythian
history, for the Arimaspi, whom Aristæus of Proconnesus describes in his
Tales of the Arimaspi, are said to be distinguished by this peculiarity.

11. Having premised thus much, we must now take into consideration the
reasons of those who assert that Homer makes Ulysses wander to Sicily
or Italy, and also of those who denied this. The truth is, he may be
equally interpreted on this subject either way, according as we take a
correct or incorrect view of the case. Correct, if we understand that he
was convinced of the reality of Ulysses’ wanderings there, and taking
this truth as a foundation, raised thereon a poetical superstructure.
And so far this description of him is right; for not about Italy only,
but to the farthest extremities of Spain, traces of his wanderings and
those of similar adventurers may still be found. Incorrect, if the
scene-painting is received as fact, his Ocean, and Hades, the oxen of
the sun, his hospitable reception by the goddesses, the metamorphoses,
the gigantic size of the Cyclopæ and Læstrygonians, the monstrous
appearance of Scylla, the distance of the voyage, and other similar
particulars, all alike manifestly fabulous. It is as idle to waste words
with a person who thus openly maligns our poet, as it would be with one
who should assert as true all the particulars of Ulysses’ return to
Ithaca,[108] the slaughter of the suitors, and the pitched battle
between him and the Ithacans in the field. But nothing can be said
against the man who understands the words of the poet in a rational way.

12. Eratosthenes, though on no sufficient grounds for so doing, rejects
both these opinions, endeavouring in his attack on the latter, to refute
by lengthened arguments what is manifestly absurd and unworthy of
consideration, and in regard to the former, maintaining a poet to be a
mere gossip, to whose worth an acquaintance with science or geography
could not add in the least degree: since the scenes of certain of
Homer’s fables are cast in actual localities, as Ilium,[109]
Pelion,[110] and Ida;[111] others in purely imaginary regions, such as
those of the Gorgons and Geryon. “Of this latter class,” he says, “are
the places mentioned in the wanderings of Ulysses, and those who pretend
that they are not mere fabrications of the poet, but have an actual
existence, are proved to be mistaken by the differences of opinion
existing among themselves: for some of them assert that the Sirenes of
Homer are situated close to Pelorus,[112] and others that they are more
than two thousand stadia distant,[113] near the Sirenussæ,[114] a
three-peaked rock which separates the Gulfs of Cumæa and Posidonium. ”
Now, in the first place, this rock is not three-peaked, nor does it form
a crest at the summit at all, but a long and narrow angle reaching from
the territory of Surrentum[115] to the Strait of Capria,[116] having on
one side of the mountain the temple of the Sirens, and on the other
side, next the Gulf of Posidonium, three little rocky and uninhabited
islands, named the Sirenes; upon the strait, is situated the Athenæum,
from which the rocky angle itself takes its name.

13. Further, if those who describe the geography of certain places do
not agree in every particular, are we justified in at once rejecting
their whole narration? Frequently this is a reason why it should receive
the greater credit. For example, in the investigation whether the scene
of Ulysses’ wanderings were Sicily or Italy, and the proper position of
the Sirenes, they differ in so far that one places them at Pelorus, and
the other at Sirenussæ, but neither of them dissents from the idea that
it was some where near Sicily or Italy. They add thereby strength to
this view, inasmuch as though they are not agreed as to the exact
locality, neither of them makes any question but that it was some where
contiguous to Italy or Sicily. If a third party should add, that the
monument of Parthenope, who was one of the Sirens, is shown at Naples,
this only confirms us the more in our belief, for though a third place
is introduced to our notice, still as Naples is situated in the gulf
called by Eratosthenes the Cumæan, and which is formed by the
Sirenussæ, we are more confident still that the position of the Sirenes
was some where close by.

That the poet did not search for accuracy in every minor detail we
admit, but neither ought we to expect this of him; at the same time we
are not to believe that he composed his poem without inquiring into the
history of the Wandering, nor where and how it occurred.

14. Eratosthenes “thinks it probable that Hesiod, having heard of the
wanderings of Ulysses, and of their having taken place near to Sicily
and Italy, embraced this view of the case, and not only describes the
places spoken of by Homer, but also Ætna, the Isle of Ortygia,[117] near
to Syracuse, and Tyrrhenia. As for Homer, he was altogether unacquainted
with these places, and further, had no wish to lay the scene of the
wanderings in any well-known locality. ” What! are then Ætna and
Tyrrhenia such well-known places, and Scyllæum, Charybdis,
Circæum,[118] and the Sirenussæ, so obscure? Or is Hesiod so correct as
never to write nonsense, but always follow in the wake of received
opinions, while Homer blurts out whatever comes uppermost?
Without
taking into consideration our remarks on the character and aptitude of
Homer’s myths, a large array of writers who bear evidence to his
statements, and the additional testimony of local tradition, are
sufficient proof that his are not the inventions of poets or
contemporary scribblers, but the record of real actors and real scenes.

15. The conjecture of Polybius in regard to the particulars of the
wandering of Ulysses is excellent. He says that Æolus instructed sailors
how to navigate the strait, a difficult matter on account of the
currents occasioned by the ebb and flow, and was therefore called the
dispenser of the winds, and reputed their king.

In like manner Danaus for pointing out the springs of water that were in
Argos, and Atreus for showing the retrograde movement of the sun in the
heavens, from being mere soothsayers and diviners, were raised to the
dignity of kings. And the priests of the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, and
Magi, distinguished for their wisdom above those around them, obtained
from our predecessors honour and authority; and so it is that in each
of the gods, we worship the discoverer of some useful art.

Having thus introduced his subject, he does not allow us to consider the
account of Æolus, nor yet the rest of the Odyssey, as altogether
mythical. There is a spice of the fabulous here, as well as in the
Trojan War,[119] but as respects Sicily, the poet accords entirely with
the other historians who have written on the local traditions of Sicily
and Italy. He altogether denies the justness of Eratosthenes’ dictum,
“that we may hope to discover the whereabout of Ulysses’ wanderings,
when we can find the cobbler who sewed up the winds in the leathern
sack. ” “And [adds Polybius] his description of the hunt of the
galeotes[120] at Scylla,

‘Plunged to her middle in the horrid den
She lurks, protruding from the black abyss
Her heads, with which the ravening monster dives
In quest of dolphins, dog-fish, or of prey
More bulky,’[121]

accords well with what takes place around Scyllæum: for the thunny-fish,
carried in shoals by Italy, and not being able to reach Sicily, fall
into [the Strait], where they become the prey of larger fish, such as
dolphins, dog-fish, and other cetacea, and it is by this means that the
galeotes (which are also called sword-fish) and dogs fatten themselves.
For the same thing occurs here, and at the rising of the Nile and other
rivers, as takes place when a forest is on fire. Vast crowds of animals,
in flying from the fire or the water, become the prey of beasts more
powerful than themselves. ”

16. He then goes on to describe the manner in which they catch the
sword-fish at Scyllæum. One look-out directs the whole body of fishers,
who are in a vast number of small boats, each furnished with two oars,
and two men to each boat. One man rows, the other stands on the prow,
spear in hand, while the look-out has to signal the appearance of a
sword-fish. (This fish, when swimming, has about a third of its body
above water. ) As it passes the boat, the fisher darts the spear from his
hand, and when this is withdrawn, it leaves the sharp point with which
it is furnished sticking in the flesh of the fish: this point is
barbed, and loosely fixed to the spear for the purpose; it has a long
end fastened to it; this they pay out to the wounded fish, till it is
exhausted with its struggling and endeavours at escape. Afterwards they
trail it to the shore, or, unless it is too large and full-grown, haul
it into the boat. If the spear should fall into the sea, it is not lost,
for it is jointed of oak and pine, so that when the oak sinks on account
of its weight, it causes the other end to rise, and thus is easily
recovered. It sometimes happens that the rower is wounded, even through
the boat, and such is the size of the sword with which the galeote is
armed, such the strength of the fish, and the method of the capture,
that [in danger] it is not surpassed by the chase of the wild boar. From
these facts (he says) we may conclude that Ulysses’ wanderings were
close to Sicily, since Homer describes Scylla[122] as engaging in a
pursuit exactly similar to that which is carried on at Scyllæum. As to
Charybdis, he describes just what takes place at the Strait of Messina:

“Each day she _thrice_ disgorges,”[123]

instead of _twice_, being only a mistake, either of the scribe or the
historian.

17. The customs of the inhabitants of Meninx[124] closely correspond to
the description of the Lotophagi. If any thing does not correspond, it
should be attributed to change, or to misconception, or to poetical
licence, which is made up of history, rhetoric, and fiction. Truth is
the aim of the historical portion, as for instance in the Catalogue of
Ships,[125] where the poet informs us of the peculiarities of each
place, that one is rocky, another the furthest city, that this abounds
in doves, and that is maritime. A lively interest is the end of the
rhetorical, as when he points to us the combat; and of the fiction,
pleasure and astonishment. A mere fabrication would neither be
persuasive nor Homeric; and we know that his poem is generally
considered a scientific treatise, notwithstanding what Eratosthenes may
say, when he bids us not to judge poems by the standard of intellect,
nor yet look to them for history.

It is most probable that the line

“Nine days by cruel storms thence was I borne
Athwart the fishy deep,”[126]

should be understood of merely a short distance, (for cruel storms do
not blow in a right course,) and not of being carried beyond the ocean,
as if impelled by favourable winds. “And,” says Polybius, “allowing the
distance from Malea[127] to the Pillars to be 22,500 stadia, and
supposing the rate of passage was the same throughout the nine days, the
voyage must have been accomplished at the speed of 2500 stadia per diem:
now who has ever recorded that the passage from Lycia or Rhodes to
Alexandria, a distance of 4000 stadia, has been made in two days? To
those who demand how it was that Ulysses, though he journeyed thrice to
Sicily, never once navigated the Strait, we reply that, long after his
time, voyagers always sedulously avoided that route. ”

18. Such are the sentiments of Polybius; and in many respects they are
correct enough; but when he discusses the voyage beyond the ocean, and
enters on minute calculations of the proportion borne by the distance to
the number of days, he is greatly mistaken. He alleges perpetually the
words of the poet,

“Nine days by cruel storms thence was I borne;”

but at the same time he takes no notice of this expression, which is his
as well,

“And now borne sea-ward from the river stream
Of the Oceanus;”[128]

and this,

“In the island of Ogygia, the centre of the sea,”[129]

and that the daughter of Atlas[130] dwells there. And the following
concerning the Phæacians,

“Remote amid the billowy deep, we hold
Our dwelling, utmost of all human kind,
And free from mixture with a foreign race. ”[131]

These passages clearly refer to the Atlantic Ocean,[132] but though so
plainly expressed, Polybius slily manages to overlook them. Here he is
altogether wrong, though quite correct about the wandering of Ulysses
having taken place round Sicily and Italy, a fact which Homer
establishes himself. Otherwise, what poet or writer could have persuaded
the Neapolitans to assert that they possessed the tomb of
Parthenope[133] the Siren, or the inhabitants of Cumæ, Dicæarchia,[134]
and Vesuvius [to bear their testimony] to Pyriphlegethon, the Marsh of
Acherusia,[135] to the oracle of the dead which was near Aornus,[136]
and to Baïus and Misenus,[137] the companions of Ulysses. The same is
the case with the Sirenussæ, and the Strait of Messina, and Scylla, and
Charybdis, and Æolus, all which things should neither be examined into
too rigorously, nor yet [despised] as groundless and without foundation,
alike remote from truth and historic value.

19. Eratosthenes seems to have had something like this view of the case
himself, when he says, “Any one would believe that the poet intended the
western regions as the scene of Ulysses’ wanderings, but that he has
departed from fact, sometimes through want of perfect information, at
other times because he wished to give to scenes a more terrific and
marvellous appearance than they actually possessed. ” So far this is
true, but his idea of the object which the poet had in view while
composing, is false; real advantage, not trifling, being his aim. We may
justly reprehend his assertion on this point, as also where he says,
that Homer places the scene of his marvels in distant lands that he may
lie the more easily. Remote localities have not furnished him with near
so many wonderful narrations as Greece, and the countries thereto
adjacent; witness the labours of Hercules, and Theseus, the fables
concerning Crete, Sicily, and the other islands; besides those connected
with Cithærum, Helicon,[138] Parnassus,[139] Pelion,[140] and the whole
of Attica and the Peloponnesus. Let us not therefore tax the poets with
ignorance on account of the myths which they employ, and since, so far
from myth being the staple, they for the most part avail themselves of
actual occurrences, (and Homer does this in a remarkable degree,) the
inquirer who will seek how far these ancient writers have wandered into
fiction, ought not to scrutinize to what extent the fiction was carried,
but rather what is the truth concerning those places and persons to
which the fictions have been applied; for instance, whether the
wanderings of Ulysses did actually occur, and where.

20. On the whole, however, it is not proper to place the works of Homer
in the common catalogue of other poets, without challenging for him a
superiority both in respect of his other [excellences] and also for the
geography on which our attention is now engaged.

If any one were to do no more than merely read through the Triptolemus
of Sophocles, or the prologue to the Bacchæ of Euripides, and then
compare them with the care taken by Homer in his geographical
descriptions, he would at once perceive both the difference and
superiority of the latter, for wherever there is necessity for
arrangement in the localities he has immortalized, he is careful to
preserve it as well in regard to Greece, as to foreign countries.

“They
On the Olympian summit thought to fix
Huge Ossa, and on Ossa’s towering head
Pelion with all his forests. ”[141]

“And Juno starting from the Olympian height
O’erflew Pieria and the lovely plains
Of broad Emathia;[142] soaring thence she swept
The snow-clad summit of the Thracian hills[143]
Steed-famed, nor printed, as she pass’d, the soil,

* * * * *

From Athos[144] o’er the foaming billows borne. ”[145]

In the Catalogue he does not describe his cities in regular order,
because here there was no necessity, but both the people and foreign
countries he arranges correctly. “Having wandered to Cyprus, and
Phœnice, and the Egyptians, I came to the Ethiopians, and Sidonians, and
Erembi, and Libya. ”[146] Hipparchus has drawn attention to this. But the
two tragedians, where there was great necessity for proper arrangement,
one[147] where he introduces Bacchus visiting the nations, the
other[148] Triptolemus sowing the earth, have brought in juxta-position
places far remote, and separated those which were near.

“And having left the wealthy lands of the Lydians and Phrygians, and the
sunny plains of the Persians and the Bactrian walls, and having come
over the stormy land of the Medes, and the Happy Arabia. ”[149] And the
Triptolemus is just as inaccurate.

Further, in respect to the winds and climates, Homer shows the wide
extent of his geographical knowledge, for in his topographical
descriptions he not unfrequently informs us of both these matters. Thus,

“My abode
Is sun-burnt Ithaca.
Flat on the deep she lies, farthest removed
Toward the west, while situate apart,
Her sister islands face the rising day. ”[150]

And,

“It has a two-fold entrance,
One towards the north, the other south. ”[151]

And again,

“Which I alike despise, speed they their course
With right-hand flight towards the ruddy east,
Or leftward down into the shades of eve. ”[152]

Ignorance of such matters he reckons no less than confusion.

“Alas! my friends, for neither west
Know we, nor east; where rises or where sets
The all-enlightening sun. ”[153]

Where the poet has said properly enough,

“As when two adverse winds, blowing from Thrace,
Boreas and Zephyrus,”[154]

Eratosthenes ill-naturedly misrepresents him as saying in an absolute
sense, that the west wind blows from Thrace; whereas he is not speaking
in an absolute sense at all, but merely of the meeting of contrary winds
near the bay of Melas,[155] on the Thracian sea, itself a part of the
Ægæan. For where Thrace forms a kind of promontory, where it borders on
Macedonia,[156] it takes a turn to the south-west, and projects into
the ocean, and from this point it seems to the inhabitants of Thasos,
Lemnos, Imbros, Samothracia,[157] and the surrounding sea, that the west
winds blow. [158] So in regard to Attica, they seem to come from the
rocks of Sciros,[159] and this is the reason why all the westerly winds,
the north-west more particularly, are called the Scirones. Of this
Eratosthenes was not aware, though he suspected as much, for it was he
who described this bending of the land [towards the south-west] which we
have mentioned. But he interprets our poet in an absolute sense, and
then taxes him with ignorance, because, says he, “Zephyr blows from the
west, and off Spain, and Thrace does not extend so far. ” Does he then
think that Homer was not aware that Zephyr came from the west,
notwithstanding the careful manner in which he distinguishes its
position when he writes as follows:

“The east, the south, the heavy-blowing Zephyr,
And the cold north-wind clear. ”[160]

Or was he ignorant that Thrace did not extend beyond the Pæonian and
Thessalian mountains. [161] To be sure he was well acquainted with the
position of the countries adjoining Thrace in that direction, and does
he not mention by name both the maritime and inland districts, and tells
us of the Magnetæ,[162] the Malians,[163] and other Grecian
[territories], all in order, as far as Thesprotis;[164] also of the
Dolopes[165] bordering on Pæonia, and the Sellæ who inhabit the
territory around Dodona[166] as far as the [river] Achelous,[167] but he
never mentions Thrace, as being beyond these. He has evidently a
predilection for the sea which is nearest to him, and with which he is
most familiar, as where he says,

“Commotion shook
The whole assembly, such as heaves the flood
Of the Icarian deep. ”[168]

21. Some writers tell us there are but two principal winds, the north
and south, and that the other winds are only a slight difference in the
direction of these two. That is, (supposing only two winds, the north
and south,) the south wind from the commencement of the summer quarter
blows in a south-easterly direction; and from the commencement of the
winter quarter from the east. The north wind from the decline of the
summer, blows in a westerly direction, and from the decline of the
winter, in a north-westerly direction.

In support of this opinion of the two winds they adduce Thrasyalces and
our poet himself, forasmuch as he mentions the north-west with the
south,

“From the north-west south,”[169]

and the west with the north,

“As when two adverse winds, blowing from Thrace,
Boreas and Zephyrus. ”[170]

But Posidonius remarks that none of those who are really acquainted with
these subjects, such as Aristotle, Timosthenes, and Bion the
astronomer, entertain so mistaken an opinion in regard to the winds.
They say that the north-east (Cæcias) blows from the commencement of
summer, and that the south-west wind (Libs), which is exactly opposite
to this, blows from the decline of winter. And again, the south-east
wind (Eurus), which is opposite to the north-west wind (Argestes), from
the commencement of winter. The east and west winds being intermediate.

When our poet makes use of the expression “stormy zephyr,” he means the
wind which is now called by us the north-west; and by the “clear-blowing
zephyr” our west wind; our Leuconotus is his Argestes-notus, or clearing
south wind,[171] for this wind brings but few clouds, all the other
southern winds bringing clouds and rain,[172]

“As when whirlwinds of the west
A storm encounter from the clearing south. ”[173]

Here he alludes to the stormy zephyr, which very frequently scatters the
feathery clouds brought up by the Leuconotus, or, as it is called by way
of epithet, the clearing south.

The statements made by Eratosthenes in the first book of his Geography,
require some such correction as this.

22. Persisting in his false views in relation to Homer, he goes on to
say, “He was ignorant that the Nile separated into many mouths, nay, he
was not even acquainted with the name of the river, though Hesiod knew
it well, for he even mentions it. ”[174] In respect of the name, it is
probable that it had not then been given to the river, and as to the
mouths, if they were obscure and little known, will not every one excuse
him for not being aware whether there were several or merely one? At
that time, the river, its rising, and its mouths were considered, as
they are at the present day, amongst the most remarkable, the most
wonderful, and most worthy of recording of all the peculiarities of
Egypt: who can suppose that those who told our poet of the country and
river of Egypt, of Egyptian Thebes, and of Pharos, were unaware of the
many embouchures of the Nile; or that being aware, they would not have
described them, were it not that they were too generally known? “But is
it not inconceivable that Homer should describe Ethiopia, and the
Sidonians, the Erembi, and the Exterior Sea,[175]—should tell us that
Ethiopia was divided into two parts, and yet nothing about those things
which were nearer and better known? ” Certainly not, his not describing
these things is no proof that he was not acquainted with them. He does
not tell us of his own country, nor yet many other things. The most
probable reason is, they were so generally known that they did not
appear to him worth recording. [176]

23. Again, they are entirely wrong when they allege as a mark of Homer’s
ignorance, that he describes the island of Pharos[177] as entirely
surrounded by the sea. On the contrary, it might be taken advantage of
as a proof that our poet was not unacquainted with a single one of the
points concerning Egypt which we have just been speaking of: and thus we
demonstrate it:—Every one is prone to romance a little in narrating
his travels, and Menelaus was no exception to the rule. He had been to
Ethiopia,[178] and there heard much discussion concerning the sources of
the Nile, and the alluvium which it deposited, both along its course and
also at its mouths, and the large additions which it had thereby made to
the mainland, so as fully to justify the remark of Herodotus[179] that
the whole of Egypt was a gift from the river; or if not the whole, at
all events that part of it below the Delta, called Lower Egypt. He had
heard too that Pharos was entirely surrounded by sea, and therefore
misrepresented it as entirely surrounded by the sea, although it had
long ago ceased so to be. Now the author of all this was Homer, and we
therefore infer that he was not ignorant concerning either the sources
or the mouths of the Nile.

24. They are again mistaken when they say that he was not aware of the
isthmus between the sea of Egypt and the Arabian Gulf, and that his
description is false,

“The Ethiopians, utmost of mankind,
These eastward situate, those toward the west. ”[180]

Nevertheless he is correct, and the criticism of the moderns is quite
out of place: indeed, there is so little truth in the assertion that
Homer was ignorant of this isthmus, that I will venture to affirm he was
not only acquainted with it, but has also accurately defined it. But
none of the grammarians, not even the chiefs of their number,
Aristarchus and Crates, have understood the words of our poet on this
subject. For they disagree as to the words which follow this expression
of Homer,

“The Ethiopians, utmost of mankind,
These eastward situate, those towards the west,”[181]

Aristarchus writing,

“These towards the west, and those towards the east,”

and Crates,

“As well in the west as also in the east. ”

However, in regard to their hypotheses, it makes no difference whether
the passage were written this way or that. One of them, in fact, takes
what he considers the mathematical view of the case, and says that the
torrid zone is occupied by the ocean,[182] and that on each side of this
there is a temperate zone, one inhabited by us and another opposite
thereto. And as we call the Ethiopians, who are situated to the south,
and dwell along the shores of the ocean, the most distant on the face of
the inhabited globe; so he supposed that on the other side of the
ocean,[183] there were certain Ethiopians dwelling along the shores, who
would in like manner be considered the most distant[184] by the
inhabitants of the other temperate zone; and thus that the Ethiopians
were double, separated into two divisions by the ocean. He adds, “as
well in the west as also in the east,” because as the celestial zodiac
always corresponds to the terrestrial, and never exceeds in its
obliquity the space occupied by the two Ethiopias, the sun’s entire
course must necessarily be within this space, and also his rising and
setting, as it appears to different nations according to the sign which
he may be in.

He (Crates) adopted this version, because he considered it the more
astronomical. But it would have maintained his opinion of the division
of the Ethiopians into two parts, and at the same time have been much
more simple, had he said that the Ethiopians dwelt on either side of the
ocean from the rising to the setting of the sun. In this case what
difference does it make whether we follow his version, or adopt the
reading of Aristarchus,

“These towards the west, and those towards the east? ”

which also means, that whether east or west, on either side of the
ocean, Ethiopians dwell. But Aristarchus rejects this hypothesis. He
says, “The Ethiopians with whom we are acquainted, and who are farthest
south from the Greeks, are those described by the poet as being
separated into two divisions. But Ethiopia is not so separated as to
form two countries, one situated towards the west, the other towards the
east, but only one, that which lies south of the Greeks and adjoins
Egypt; but of this the poet was ignorant, as well as of other matters
enumerated by Apollodorus, which he has falsely stated concerning
various places in his second book, containing the catalogue of the
ships. ”

25. To refute Crates would require a lengthened argument, which here
perhaps may be considered out of place. Aristarchus we commend for
rejecting the hypothesis of Crates, which is open to many objections,
and for referring the expression of the poet to our Ethiopia. But the
remainder of his statement we must discuss. First, his minute
examination of the reading is altogether fruitless, for whichever way it
may have been written, his interpretation is equally applicable to both;
for what difference is there whether you say thus—In our opinion there
are two Ethiopias, one towards the east, the other to the west; or
thus—For they are as well towards the east as the west? Secondly, he
makes false assumptions. For admitting that the poet was ignorant of the
isthmus,[185] and that he alludes to the Ethiopia contiguous to Egypt,
when he says,

The Ethiopians separated into two divisions;[186]

what then? Are they not separated into two divisions, and could the poet
have thus expressed himself if he had been in ignorance? Is not Egypt,
nay, are not the Egyptians, separated into two divisions by the Nile
from the Delta to Syene,[187]

These towards the west, those towards the east?

And what else is Egypt, with the exception of the island formed by the
river and overflowed by its waters; does it not lie on either side of
the river both east and west?

Ethiopia runs in the same direction as Egypt, and resembles it both in
its position with respect to the Nile, and in its other geographical
circumstances. It is narrow, long, and subject to inundation; beyond the
reach of this inundation it is desolate and parched, and unfitted for
the habitation of man; some districts lying to the east and some to the
west of [the river]. How then can we deny that it is separated into two
divisions? Shall the Nile, which is looked upon by some people as the
proper boundary line between Asia and Libya,[188] and which extends
southward in length more than 10,000 stadia, embracing in its breadth
islands which contain populations of above ten thousand men, the largest
of these being Meroe, the seat of empire and metropolis of the
Ethiopians, be regarded as too insignificant to divide Ethiopia into two
parts? The greatest obstacle which they who object to the river being
made the line of demarcation between the two continents are able to
allege, is, that Egypt and Ethiopia are by this means divided, one part
of each being assigned to Libya, and the other to Asia, or, if this will
not suit, the continents cannot be divided at all, or at least not by
the river.

26. But besides these there is another method of dividing Ethiopia. All
those who have sailed along the coasts of Libya, whether starting from
the Arabian Gulf,[189] or the Pillars,[190] after proceeding a certain
distance, have been obliged to turn back again on account of a variety
of accidents; and thus originated a general belief that it was divided
midway by some isthmus, although the whole of the Atlantic Ocean is
confluent, more especially towards the south. Besides, all of these
navigators called the final country which they reached, Ethiopia, and
described it under that name. Is it therefore at all incredible, that
Homer, misled by such reports, separated them into two divisions, one
towards the east and the other west, not knowing whether there were any
intermediate countries or not? But there is another ancient tradition
related by Ephorus, which Homer had probably fallen in with. He tells us
it is reported by the Tartessians,[191] that some of the Ethiopians, on
their arrival in Libya,[192] penetrated into the extreme west, and
settled down there, while the rest occupied the greater part of the
sea-coast; and in support of this statement he quotes the passage of
Homer,

The Ethiopians, the farthest removed of men, separated into two
divisions.

27. These and other more stringent arguments may be urged against
Aristarchus and those of his school, to clear our poet from the charge
of such gross ignorance. I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same
way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were
familiar under the one name of Scythians, or, according to Homer,
Nomades, and afterwards becoming acquainted with those towards the
west, styled them Kelts and Iberians; sometimes compounding the names
into Keltiberians, or Keltoscythians, thus ignorantly uniting various
distinct nations; so I affirm they designated as Ethiopia the whole of
the southern countries towards the ocean. Of this there is evidence, for
Æschylus, in the Prometheus Loosed,[193] thus speaks:

There [is] the sacred wave, and the coralled bed of the Erythræan
Sea, and [there] the luxuriant marsh of the Ethiopians, situated
near the ocean, glitters like polished brass; where daily in the
soft and tepid stream, the all-seeing sun bathes his undying
self, and refreshes his weary steeds.

And as the ocean holds the same position in respect to the sun, and
serves the same purpose throughout the whole southern region,[194]
he[195] therefore concludes that the Ethiopians inhabited the whole of
the region.

And Euripides in his Phaeton[196] says that Clymene was given

“To Merops, sovereign of that land
Which from his four-horsed chariot first
The rising sun strikes with his golden rays;
And which its swarthy neighbours call
The radiant stable of the Morn and Sun. ”

Here the poet merely describes them as the common stables of the Morning
and of the Sun; but further on he tells us they were near to the
dwellings of Merops, and in fact the whole plot of the piece has
reference to this. This does not therefore refer alone to the [land]
next to Egypt, but rather to the whole southern country extending along
the sea-coast.

28. Ephorus likewise shows us the opinion of the ancients respecting
Ethiopia, in his Treatise on Europe. He says, “If the whole celestial
and terrestrial globe were divided into four parts, the Indians would
possess that towards the east, the Ethiopians towards the south, the
Kelts towards the west, and the Scythians towards the north. ” He adds
that Ethiopia is larger than Scythia; for, says he, it appears that the
country of the Ethiopians extends from the rising to the setting of the
sun in winter; and Scythia is opposite to it.

It is evident this was the opinion of Homer, since he places Ithaca

Towards the gloomy region,[197]

that is, towards the north,[198] but the others apart,

Towards the morning and the sun,

by which he means the whole southern hemisphere: and again when he says,

“speed they their course
With right-hand flight towards the ruddy east,
Or leftward down into the shades of eve. ”[199]

And again,

“Alas! my friends, for neither west
Know we, nor east, where rises or where sets
The all-enlightening sun. ”[200]

Which we shall explain more fully when we come to speak of Ithaca. [201]

When therefore he says,

“For to the banks of the Oceanus,
Where Ethiopia holds a feast to Jove,
He journey’d yesterday,”[202]

we should take this in a general sense, and understand by it the whole
of the ocean which washes Ethiopia and the southern region, for to
whatever part of this region you direct your attention, you will there
find both the ocean and Ethiopia. It is in a similar style he says,

“But Neptune, traversing in his return
From Ethiopia’s sons the mountain heights
Of Solymè, descried him from afar. ”[203]

which is equal to saying, “in his return from the southern
regions,”[204] meaning by the Solymi, as I remarked before, not those of
Pisidia, but certain others merely imaginary, having the same name, and
bearing the like relation to the navigators in [Ulysses’] ship, and the
southern inhabitants there called Ethiopians, as those of Pisidia do in
regard to Pontus and the inhabitants of Egyptian Ethiopia. What he says
about the cranes must likewise be understood in a general sense.

“Such clang is heard
Along the skies, when from incessant showers
Escaping, and from winter’s cold, the cranes
Take wing, and over ocean speed away.
Woe to the land of dwarfs! prepared they fly
For slaughter of the small Pygmæan race. ”[205]

For it is not in Greece alone that the crane is observed to emigrate to
more southern regions, but likewise from Italy and Iberia,[206] from
[the shores of] the Caspian, and from Bactriana. But since the ocean
extends along the whole southern coast, and the cranes fly to all parts
of it indiscriminately at the approach of winter, we must likewise
believe that the Pygmies[207] were equally considered to inhabit the
whole of it.

And if the moderns have confined the term of Ethiopians to those only
who dwell near to Egypt, and have also restricted the Pygmies in like
manner, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the
ancients. We do not speak of all the people who fought against Troy as
merely Achæans and Argives, though Homer describes the whole under those
two names. Similar to this is my remark concerning the separation of the
Ethiopians into two divisions, that under that designation we should
understand the whole of the nations inhabiting the sea-board from east
to west. The Ethiopians taken in this sense are naturally separated into
two parts by the Arabian Gulf, which occupies a considerable portion of
a meridian circle,[208] and resembles a river, being in length nearly
15,000 stadia,[209] and in breadth not above 1000 at the widest point.
In addition to the length, the recess of the Gulf is distant from the
sea at Pelusium only three or four days’ journey across the isthmus. On
this account those who are most felicitous in their division of Asia and
Africa, prefer the Gulf[210] as a better boundary line for the two
continents than the Nile, since it extends almost entirely from sea to
sea, whereas the Nile is so remote from the ocean that it does not by
any means divide the whole of Asia from Africa. On this account I
believe it was the Gulf which the poet looked upon as dividing into two
portions the whole southern regions of the inhabited earth. Is it
possible, then, that he was unacquainted with the isthmus which
separates this Gulf from the Egyptian Sea? [211]

29. It is quite irrational to suppose that he could be accurately
acquainted with Egyptian Thebes,[212] which is separated from our
sea[213] by a little less than 5000[214] stadia; and yet ignorant of the
recess of the Arabian Gulf, and of the isthmus there, whose breadth is
not more than 1000 stadia. Still more, would it not be ridiculous to
believe that Homer was aware the Nile was called by the same name as the
vast country [of Egypt], and yet unacquainted with the reason why?
especially since the saying of Herodotus would occur to him, that the
country was a gift from the river, and it ought therefore to bear its
name. Further, the best known peculiarities of a country are those which
have something of the nature of a paradox, and are likely to arrest
general attention. Of this kind are the rising of the Nile, and the
alluvial deposition at its mouth. There is nothing in the whole country
to which travellers in Egypt so immediately direct their inquiries, as
the character of the Nile; nor do the inhabitants possess any thing else
equally wonderful and curious, of which to inform foreigners; for in
fact, to give them a description of the river, is to lay open to their
view every main characteristic of the country. It is the question put
before every other by those who have never seen Egypt themselves. To
these considerations we must add Homer’s thirst after knowledge, and his
delight in visiting foreign lands, (tastes which we are assured both by
those who have written histories of his life, and also by innumerable
testimonies throughout his own poems, he possessed in an eminent
degree,) and we shall have abundant evidence both of the extent of his
information, and the felicity with which he described objects he deemed
important, and passed over altogether, or with slight allusion, matters
which were generally known.

30. These Egyptians and Syrians[215] whom we have been criticising fill
one with amazement. They do not understand [Homer], even when he is
describing their own countries, but accuse him of ignorance where, as
our argument proves, they are open to the charge themselves. Not to
mention a thing is clearly no evidence that a person is not acquainted
with it. [216] Homer does not tell us of the change in the current of the
Euripus, nor of Thermopylæ, nor of many other remarkable things well
known to the Greeks; but was he therefore unacquainted with them? He
describes to us, although these men, who are obstinately deaf, will not
hear: they have themselves to blame.

Our poet applies to rivers the epithet of “heaven-sent. ” And this not
only to mountain torrents, but to all rivers alike, since they are all
replenished by the showers. But even what is general becomes particular
when it is bestowed on any object _par excellence_. Heaven-sent, when
applied to a mountain torrent, means something else than when it is the
epithet of the ever-flowing river; but the force of the term is doubly
felt when attributed to the Nile. For as there are hyperboles of
hyperboles, for instance, to be “lighter than the shadow of a cork,”
“more timid than a Phrygian hare,”[217] “to possess an estate shorter
than a Lacedæmonian epistle;” so excellence becomes more excellent, when
the title of “heaven-sent” is given to the Nile. The mountain torrent
has a better claim to be called heaven-sent than other rivers, but the
Nile exceeds the mountain torrents, both in its size and the lengthened
period of its overflow. Since, then, the wonders of this river were
known to our poet, as we have shown in this defence, when he applies
this epithet to the Nile, it must only be understood in the way we have
explained. Homer did not think it worth mentioning, especially to those
who were acquainted with the fact, that the Nile had many mouths, since
this is a common feature of numerous other rivers. Alcæus[218] does not
mention it, although he tells us he had been in Egypt. One might infer
the fact of its alluvial deposit, both from the rising [of the river]
and what Homer tells us concerning Pharos. For his account, or rather
the vulgar report concerning Pharos, that it was distant from the
mainland a whole day’s voyage, ought not to be looked upon as a
downright falsehood.

It is clear that Homer was only acquainted with the rising and deposit
of the river in a general way, and concluding from what he heard that
the island had been further removed in the time of Menelaus from the
mainland, than it was in his own, he magnified the distance, simply that
he might heighten the fiction. Fictions however are not the offspring of
ignorance, as is sufficiently plain from those concerning Proteus, the
Pygmies, the efficacy of charms, and many others similar to these
fabricated by the poets. They narrate these things not through ignorance
of the localities, but for the sake of giving pleasure and enjoyment.
But [some one may inquire], how could he describe [Pharos], which is
without water as possessed of that necessary?