No More Learning

12. The places situated next to these towards the south, and extending
to Mount Taurus, are so intermixed, that parts of Phrygia, Lydia, Caria,
and Mysia running into one another are difficult to be distinguished.
The Romans have contributed not a little to produce this confusion, by
not dividing the people according to tribes, but following another
principle have arranged them according to jurisdictions, in which they
have appointed days for holding courts and administering justice.

The Tmolus is a well compacted mass of mountain,[1549] of moderate
circumference, and its boundaries are within Lydia itself. The Mesogis
begins, according to Theopompus, from Celænæ,[1550] and extends on the
opposite side as far as Mycale,[1551] so that Phrygians occupy one part,
towards Celænæ and Apameia; Mysians and Lydians another; Carians and
Ionians a third part.

So also the rivers, and particularly the Mæander, are the actual
boundaries of some nations, but take their course through the middle of
others, rendering accurate distinction between them difficult.

The same may be said of plains, which are found on each side of a
mountainous range and on each side of a river. Our attention however is
not required to obtain the same degree of accuracy as a surveyor, but
only to give such descriptions as have been transmitted to us by our
predecessors.

13. Contiguous on the east to the plain of Caÿster, which lies between
the Mesogis and Tmolus, is the plain Cilbianum. It is extensive, well
inhabited, and fertile. Then follows the Hyrcanian plain, a name given
by the Persians, who brought colonists from Hyrcania (the plain of
Cyrus, in like manner, had its name from the Persians). Next is the
Peltine plain, belonging to the Phrygians, and the Cillanian and the
Tabenian plains, the latter of which contains small towns, inhabited by
a mixed population of Phrygians, with a portion of Pisidians. The plains
have their names from the towns.

14. After crossing the Mesogis, situated between the Carians[1552] and
[CAS. 629] the district of Nysa,[1553] which is a tract of country
beyond the Mæander, extending as far as the Cibyratis and Cabalis, we
meet with cities. Near the Mesogis, opposite Laodicea,[1554] is
Hierapolis,[1555] where are hot springs, and the Plutonium, both of
which have some singular properties. The water of the springs is so
easily consolidated and becomes stone, that if it is conducted through
water-courses dams are formed consisting of a single piece of stone.

The Plutonium, situated below a small brow of the overhanging mountain,
is an opening of sufficient size to admit a man, but there is a descent
to a great depth. In front is a quadrilateral railing, about half a
plethrum in circumference. This space is filled with a cloudy and dark
vapour, so dense that the bottom can scarcely be discerned. To those who
approach round the railing the air is innoxious, for in calm weather it
is free from the cloud which then continues within the enclosure. But
animals which enter within the railing die instantly. Even bulls, when
brought within it, fall down and are taken out dead. We have ourselves
thrown in sparrows, which immediately fell down lifeless. The
Galli,[1556] who are eunuchs, enter the enclosure with impunity,
approach even the opening or mouth, bend down over it, and descend into
it to a certain depth, restraining their breath during the time, for we
perceived by their countenance signs of some suffocating feeling. This
exemption may be common to all eunuchs, or it may be confined to the
eunuchs employed about the temple, or it may be the effect of divine
care, as is probable in the case of persons inspired by the deity, or it
may perhaps be procured by those who are in possession of certain
antidotes.

The conversion of water into stone is said to be the property of certain
rivers in Laodiceia, although the water is fit for the purpose of
drinking. The water at Hierapolis is peculiarly adapted for the dyeing
of wool. Substances dyed with “the roots,”[1557] rival in colour those
dyed with the coccus, or the marine purple. There is such an abundance
of water, that there are natural baths in every part of the city.

15. After Hierapolis are the parts beyond the Mæander. Those about
Laodiceia and Aphrodisias,[1558] and those extending to Carura, have
been already described. The places which succeed are Antiocheia[1559] on
the Mæander, now belonging to Caria, on the west; on the south are
Cibyra the Great,[1560] Sinda,[1561] and Cabalis, as far as Mount Taurus
and Lycia.

Antiocheia is a city of moderate size situated on the banks of the
Mæander, at the side towards Phrygia. There is a bridge over the river.
A large tract of country, all of which is fertile, on each side of the
river, belongs to the city. It produces in the greatest abundance the
fig of Antioch, as it is called, which is dried. It is also called
Triphyllus. This place also is subject to shocks of earthquakes.

A native of this city was Diotrephes, a celebrated sophist; his disciple
was Hybreas, the greatest orator of our times.

16. The Cabaleis, it is said, were Solymi. The hill situated above the
Termessian fortress is called Solymus, and the Termessians themselves
Solymi. Near these places is the rampart of Bellerophon and the
sepulchre of Peisandrus his son, who fell in the battle against the
Solymi. This account agrees with the words of the poet. Of Bellerophon
he speaks thus,

“he fought a second time with the brave Solymi;”[1562]

and of his son,

“Mars, unsated with war, killed Peisandrus his son fighting
with the Solymi. ”[1563]

Termessus is a Pisidian city situated very near and immediately above
Cibyra.

17. The Cibyratæ are said to be descendants of the Lydians who occupied
the territory Cabalis. The city was afterwards in the possession of the
Pisidians, a bordering nation, who occupied it, and transferred it to
another place, very strongly fortified, the circuit of which was about
100 stadia. It flourished in consequence of the excellence of its laws.
The villages belonging to it extended from Pisidia, and the bordering
territory Milyas, as far as Lycia and the country opposite to Rhodes.
Upon the [CAS. 631] union of the three bordering cities, Bubon,[1564]
Balbura,[1565] and Œnoanda,[1566] the confederation was called
Tetrapolis; each city had one vote, except Cibyra, which had two, for it
could equip 30,000 foot soldiers and 2000 horse. It was always governed
by tyrants, but they ruled with moderation. The tyrannical government
terminated in the time of Moagetes. It was overthrown by Murena, who
annexed Balbura and Bubon to the Lycians. Nevertheless the Cibyratic
district is reckoned among the largest jurisdictions in Asia.

The Cibyratæ used four languages, the Pisidic, that of Solymi, the
Greek, and the Lydian, but of the latter no traces are now to be found
in Lydia.

At Cibyra there is practised the peculiar art of carving with ease
ornamental work in iron.

Milya is the mountain-range extending from the defiles near Termessus,
and the passage through them to the parts within the Taurus towards
Isinda, as far as Sagalassus and the country of Apameia.

THE
GEOGRAPHY
OF
STRABO.


LITERALLY TRANSLATED, WITH NOTES.

THE FIRST SIX BOOKS

BY H. C. HAMILTON, ESQ.

THE REMAINDER

BY W. FALCONER, M. A. ,

LATE FELLOW OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD,
RECTOR OF BUSHEY, HERTFORDSHIRE.

IN THREE VOLUMES.

VOL. III.

WITH A COMPLETE INDEX.

LONDON:
HENRY G. BOHN, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN.
MDCCCLVII.

JOHN CHILDS AND SON, PRINTERS.




PREFACE.


Strabo, the author of this work, was born at Amasia, or Amasijas, a town
situated in the gorge of the mountains through which passes the river
Iris, now the Ieschil Irmak, in Pontus, which he has described in the
12th book. [1] He lived during the reign of Augustus, and the earlier
part of the reign of Tiberius; for in the 13th book[2] he relates how
Sardes and other cities, which had suffered severely from earthquakes,
had been repaired by the provident care of Tiberius the present Emperor;
but the exact date of his birth, as also of his death, are subjects of
conjecture only. Coraÿ and Groskurd conclude, though by a somewhat
different argument, that he was born in the year B. C. 66, and the
latter that he died A. D. 24. The date of his birth as argued by
Groskurd, proceeds on the assumption that Strabo was in his
thirty-eighth year when he went from Gyaros to Corinth, at which latter
place Octavianus Cæsar was then staying on his return to Rome after the
battle of Actium, B. C. 31. We may, perhaps, be satisfied with following
Clinton, and place it not later than B. C. 54.

In the 17th book our author speaks of the death of Juba as a recent
occurrence. This event took place A. D. 21, or A. D. 18 or 19, according
to other chronologists; he, therefore, outlived that king, but for how
long a period we have no means of ascertaining.

The only information which we can obtain of the personal history of
Strabo is to be collected from the scanty references made to himself in
the course of this work;[3] for although a writer of the Augustan age,
his name and his works appear to have been generally unknown to his
contemporaries, and to have been passed over in silence by subsequent
authors who occupied themselves with the same branch of study. The work
being written in Greek, and the subject itself not of a popular kind,
would be hindrances to its becoming generally known; and its voluminous
character would prevent many copies being made; moreover, the author
himself, although for some time a resident at Rome, appears to have made
Amasia his usual place of residence, and there to have composed his
work. But wherever it was, he had the means of becoming acquainted with
the chief public events that took place in the Roman Empire.

It is remarkable that of his father and his father’s family he is
totally silent, but of his mother and her connexions he has left us some
notices. She was of a distinguished family who had settled at Cnossus in
Crete, and her ancestors had been intimately connected with Mithridates
Euergetes and Mithridates Eupator, kings of Pontus; their fortunes
consequently depended on those princes.

Dorylaüs, her great grandfather, was a distinguished officer, and friend
of Euergetes; but the latter being assassinated at Sinope, whilst
Dorylaüs was engaged in levying troops in Crete, he determined to remain
there. In that island he obtained the highest honours, having
successfully, as general of the Cnossians, terminated a war between that
people and the Gortynians. He married a Macedonian lady, of the name of
Sterope; the issue of which marriage was Lagetas, Stratarchas, and a
daughter. He died in Crete. Lagetas had a daughter, who, says Strabo,
was “the mother of my mother”.

Mithridates Eupator, who succeeded to the kingdom of Pontus on the death
of his father, had formed from infancy a close friendship with another
Dorylaüs, son of Philetærus (brother of the first-mentioned Dorylaüs),
and besides conferring on him distinguished honours, appointed him high
priest of Comana Pontica. The king extended also his protection to his
cousins, Lagetas and Stratarchas, who were recalled from Crete. The
prosperity of the family suddenly terminated by the discovery of an
intrigue carried on by Dorylaüs with the Romans, for the overthrow of
his benefactor. The motives assigned by Strabo for his disaffection and
treachery were the declining prospects of the king, and the execution
of his son Theophilus and a nephew Tibius.

Dorylaüs made overtures to Lucullus for the revolt of the kingdom of
Pontus to the Romans, and in return received great promises of reward,
which were never fulfilled. Lucullus ceased to command in the war, and
was succeeded by Pompey, who, through enmity and jealousy, prevailed on
the senate not to confirm the conditions entered into by his
predecessor. As before observed, there is no mention of Strabo’s father
in the works which have come down to us. Malte-Brun, in his Life of
Strabo in the Biographie Universelle, collects several passages tending
to show that he was a Roman. The name of Strabo, or “squinting,”
originally Greek, was used by the Romans, and applied to the father of
Pompey the Great, among others. How the geographer acquired this name is
not related.

When a very young man, he received instruction in grammar and rhetoric
from Aristodemus, at Nysa in Caria. [4] He afterwards studied philosophy
under Xenarchus of Seleucia, the Peripatetic philosopher. [5] Strabo does
not say whether he heard him at Seleucia in Cilicia, or at Rome, where
he afterwards taught.

Strabo also attended the lessons of Tyrannio of Amisus,[6] the
grammarian. This must have been at Rome; for Tyrannio was made prisoner
by Lucullus, B. C. 71, and carried to Rome, probably not later than B.
C. 66.

In book xvi. ,[7] Strabo states that he studied the philosophy of
Aristotle with Boethus of Sidon, who afterwards became a Stoic
philosopher. Notwithstanding all these advantages, Strabo was not
possessed of all the knowledge of his times, particularly in astronomy
and mathematics, but he was well acquainted with history and the
mythological traditions of his nation. He was a devout admirer of Homer,
and acquainted with the other great poets.

The philosophical sect to which he belonged was the Stoic, as plainly
appears from many passages in his Geography.

He wrote a History, which he describes (vol. i. p. 21) as composed in a
lucid style; it is cited by Plutarch, and also by Josephus in his
Jewish Antiquities, xiv. 7. It consisted of forty-three books, which
began where the history of Polybius ended, and was probably continued to
the battle of Actium. This valuable History is lost.

Strabo was a great traveller, and apparently had no professional or
other occupation. We may therefore conclude that his father left him a
good property. Much of his geographical information is the result of
personal observation. In a passage of his 2nd book[8] he thus speaks:
“Our descriptions shall consist of what we ourselves have observed in
our travels by land and sea, and of what we conceive to be credible in
the statements and writings of others; for in a westerly direction we
have travelled from Armenia to that part of Tyrrhenia which is over
against Sardinia; and southward, from the Euxine to the frontiers of
Ethiopia. Of all the writers on geography, not one can be mentioned who
has travelled over a wider extent of the countries described than we
have. Some may have gone farther to the west, but then they have never
been so far east as we have; again, others may have been farther east,
but not so far west; and the same with respect to north and south.
However, in the main, both we and they have availed ourselves of the
reports of others, from which to describe the form, size, and other
peculiarities of the country. ” He mentions having been in Egypt, the
island Gyarus, Populonium near Elba, Comana in Cappadocia, Ephesus,
Mylasa, Nysa, and Hierapolis in Phrygia. He visited Corinth, Argos,
Athens, and Megara; but, on the whole, he does not appear to have seen
more of Greece than in passing through it on his way to Brundusium,
while proceeding to Rome. Populonium and Luna in Italy were the limit of
his travels northwards. It is probable he obtained his information as to
Spain, France, Britain, and Germany, while staying at Rome.

The first systematic writer on geography was Eratosthenes, who died at
the age of 80, about B. C. 196. His work consisted of three books.

There is no ground for considering the Geography of Strabo an improved
edition of that of Eratosthenes. Strabo’s work was intended for the
information of persons in the higher departments of administration, and
contains such geographical and historical information as those engaged
in political employments cannot dispense with. Consistently with this
object he avoids giving minute descriptions, except where the place is
of real interest, but supplies some account of the important political
events that had occurred in various countries, and sketches of the great
men who had flourished or laboured in them. It is a lively, well-written
book, intended to be read, and forms a striking contrast to the
Geography of Ptolemy. His language is simple, appropriate to the matter,
without affectation, and mostly clear and intelligible, except in those
passages where the text has been corrupted. Like many other Greeks,
Strabo looked upon Homer as the depository of all knowledge, but he
frequently labours to interpret the poet’s meaning in a manner highly
uncritical. What Homer only partially knew or conjectured, Strabo has
made the basis of his description, when he might have given an
independent description, founded on the actual knowledge of his time:
these observations apply especially to his books on Greece. He does not
duly appreciate Herodotus; nor does he discriminate between the stories
which Herodotus tells simply as stories he had heard, and the accounts
he relates as derived from personal observation. He likewise rejects the
evidence of Pytheas of Marseilles as to the northern regions of Europe,
and on more than one occasion calls him a liar, although it is very
certain that Pytheas coasted along the whole distance from Gadeira, now
Cadiz, in Spain, to the river he calls Tanaïs, but which was probably
the Elbe; however, from the extracts which have been preserved it seems
that he did not give simply the results of his own observations, but
added reports which he collected respecting distant countries, without
always drawing a distinction between what he saw himself and what was
derived from the report of others.

Strabo’s authorities are for the most part Greek, and he seems to have
neglected the Latin memoirs and historical narratives of the campaigns
of the Romans, which might have furnished him with many valuable
geographical facts for the countries as well of Asia as of Europe. He
made some use of Cæsar’s description of France, the Alps, and Britain;
he alludes to the voyage of Publius Crassus in speaking of the
Cassiterides, and also the writings of Asinius Pollio, Fabius Pictor,
and an anonymous writer whom he calls the Chorographer; but he might
have obtained much additional information if he had taken pains to
avail himself of the materials he could have procured during his stay at
Rome.

Strabo considered that mathematical and astronomical knowledge was
indispensable to the science of geography; he says in book i. ,[9] that
without some such assistance it would be impossible to be accurately
acquainted with the configuration of the earth; and that every one who
undertakes to give an accurate description of a place, should describe
its astronomical and geometrical relations, and explain its extent,
distance, latitude, and climate. [10] As the size of the earth, he says,
has been demonstrated by other writers, we shall take for granted what
they have advanced. We shall also assume that the earth is spheroidal,
and that bodies have a tendency towards its centre. He likewise says,
the convexity of the sea is a further proof that the earth is spheroidal
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. [11] He also observes, “our gnomons 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, such a revolution could not take place. ”[12] But Strabo did
not consider the exact division of the earth into climates or zones, in
the sense in which Hipparchus used the term, and the statement of the
latitudes and longitudes of places, which in many instances were pretty
well determined in his time, as essential to his geographical
description.

With regard to the lost continent of Atlantis, Strabo is very cautious
in criticising[13] Poseidonius; he observes, “he did well, too, in
citing the opinion of Plato, that the tradition concerning the island of
Atlantis might be received as something more than a mere fiction, it
having been related by Solon, on the authority of the Egyptian priests,
that this island, almost as large as a continent, was formerly in
existence, although now it had disappeared,” and remarks that
Poseidonius thought it better to quote this than to say, He who brought
it into existence can also cause it to disappear, as the poet did the
wall of the Achivi.

The measure adopted by Strabo was the stadium. In book vii. chap. vii.
§ 4, he says, “From Apollonia to Macedonia is the Egnatian Way; its
direction is towards the east, and the distance is measured by pillars
at every mile, as far as Cypsela and the river Hebrus. The whole
distance is 535 miles. But reckoning, as the generality of persons do, a
mile at eight stadia, there may be 4280 stadia. And, according to
Polybius, who adds two plethra, which are a third of a stadium, to every
eight stadia we must add 178 stadia more,—a third part of the number of
miles. ” In book xi. chap. xi. § 5, he compares the parasang with the
stadium, and states that some writers reckoned it at 60, others at 40,
and others at 30 stadia.

Dr. Smith, in his Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, says, “We
think that Ukert has satisfactorily shown an accurate description of a
place should be particular to add its astronomical and geometrical
relations, explaining carefully its extent, distance, degrees of
latitude, and temperature of atmosphere. He says likewise, as the size
of the earth has been demonstrated by other writers, we shall take for
granted that the Greeks had not different standards of length, but
always used the Olympic stadium and the foot corresponding to it. He
states that the stadium was equal to 600 Greek, or 625 Roman feet, or to
125 Roman paces, and the Roman mile contained 8 stadia. Hence the
stadium contained 606 feet 9 inches, English. This standard prevailed
throughout Greece under the name of the Olympic stadium, because it was
the exact length of the stadium or foot-race course at Olympia, measured
between the pillars at the two extremities of the course. ” Still Dr.
Smith further observes, “But although the stadium and the foot connected
with it were single definite measures throughout Greece, yet we find in
the eastern countries, Babylon, Syria, and Egypt, and in some
neighbouring Greek states, feet longer than the Olympic, the origin of
which is to be explained by the coëxistence, in the Babylonian system,
of a _royal_ or _sacred_ and a _common_ foot and cubit, which were so
related to one another, that the royal cubit was three finger-breadths
longer than the common. ”

We may conclude that Strabo’s stadium varied considerably, as he
sometimes received his distance from personal observation or credible
report, and often quoted other writers, and reduced other standards, as
the mile, the parasang, and the schœnus, to the stadium. In addition to
this, the most ancient mode of reckoning distances was by the number of
days required to perform the journey, and this was transferred into
stadia by reckoning a certain number of stadia to a day’s journey. [14]

Siebenkees and Heeren (De Fontibus Geographicorum Strabonis) have
examined the authorities to which Strabo had, or might have had, access,
and Groskurd has availed himself of their researches.

The following is a short summary of the seventeen books from these
sources, but for a more detailed account of their contents the
translation itself must be referred to.
The first two books may be considered as an independent treatise, and by
themselves form a remarkable contrast with the rest of the work, in the
manner of treating the subjects, and in the difficulties which they
present both of language and matter.

In the 1st book, the author enters into a long discussion on the merits
of Homer, whom he considers to have been the earliest geographer, and
defends him against the errors and misconceptions of Eratosthenes. He
corrects some faults of Eratosthenes, and, in his inquiry concerning the
natural changes of the earth’s surface defends Eratosthenes against
Hipparchus. In conclusion, he again corrects Eratosthenes as regards the
magnitude and divisions of the inhabited world. The most remarkable
passage in this book is that in which he conjectures the existence of
the great Western Continents. [15]

The 2nd book is chiefly occupied with some accounts of mathematical
geography, and the Author defends against Hipparchus the division of the
inhabited world adopted by Eratosthenes into sections. Then follows a
criticism of the division of the earth into six zones, as taught by
Poseidonius and Polybius. The pretended circumnavigation of Africa by
Eudoxus is referred to, as well as some geographical errors of Polybius.
He makes observations of his own on the form and size of the earth in
general, as well as of the inhabited portion of it, describing the
method of representing it on a spherical or plane surface. A short
outline is given of seas, countries, and nations; and he concludes with
remarks on the system of climates,[16] and on the shadows projected by
the sun.

The 3rd book commences with Iberia, and the subject of Europe is
continued to the end of the 10th book. His references are the Periplus
of Artemidorus, Polybius, and Poseidonius; all three of whom wrote as
eye-witnesses. For descriptions and measurement of distances,
Artemidorus is chiefly depended upon. The information possessed by
Eratosthenes of these countries was meagre and uncertain. For the
nations of southern Iberia, he adopts the account of Asclepiades of
Myrlea, who had lived and been educated there. Some statements also are
borrowed from Roman authors.

The 4th book contains Gallia, according to the four divisions then
existing, viz. Gallia Narbonensis, Acquitanensis, Lugdunensis, and the
Belgæ; also Britain, with Ierne, and Thule; and lastly, the Alps.

Here Eratosthenes and Ephorus are of little service. His chief guide is
Julius Cæsar, whom he frequently quotes _verbatim_. Polybius is his
guide for the Alps. Pytheas is the source of some scanty information
respecting Ierne and Thule. Throughout his description he adds accounts
obtained at Rome from travellers.

The 5th book commences with a general sketch of Italy, and refers
principally to northern Italy. Dividing its history into ancient and
modern, his chief reference for the former is Polybius, and for the
latter we are indebted to the observations of the author himself, or to
accounts received from others. Still the description of Upper Italy is
poor and unsatisfactory, from the author not sufficiently availing
himself of Roman resources. Then follows some account of Etruria with
its neighbouring islands, Umbria, Samnium, Latium, and Rome, chiefly the
result of the author’s own researches and observations. The book
concludes with some remarks on the inhabitants of the mountainous
districts of Samnium and Campania.

The 6th book is a continuation of the same subject. Magna Græcia,
Sicily, and the adjacent islands, are noticed, and the author concludes
with a short discussion on the extent of the Roman Empire. Descriptions
of some places are from his own observations; but the sources whence he
takes his other account of Italy and the islands are the works of
Polybius, Eratosthenes, Artemidorus, Ephorus, Fabius Pictor, Cæcilius
(of Cale Acte in Sicily), and some others, besides an anonymous
chorographer, supposed to be a Roman, from the circumstance of his
distances being given, not in stadia, but in Roman miles.

The 7th book relates, first, to the people north of the Danube,—the
Germans, Cimbri, Getæ, Dacians (particularly the European Scythians),
and the Crimea; secondly, to the people south of the Danube, viz. those
inhabiting Illyricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, the eastern coast of Thrace to
the Euxine, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, and the Hellespont. The latter
part of this book is not preserved entire in any manuscript, but Kramer
has, in his own opinion, succeeded in restoring from the epitomes left
to us the greater part of what was wanting. Of Germany, Strabo had
tolerable information, but he nowhere states whence it is derived; he
may have been partly indebted to Asinius Pollio, whose work he had
already examined for the Rhine. For the remaining northern countries, he
had Poseidonius and the historians of the Mithridatic war. For the
southern countries, he had a lost work of Aristotle on forms of
government, Polybius, Poseidonius, and his chief disciples, Theopompus
and Ephorus. Incidentally also he quotes Homer and his interpreters, and
Philochorus.

The three following books are dedicated to the description of Greece,
with the adjacent islands. The 8th comprises the Peloponnesus and its
well-known seven provinces, Elis, Messenia, Laconia, Argolis, Corinthia
with Sicyonia, Achaia, and Arcadia: the 9th, Attica, with Megaris,
Bœotia, Phocis, both Locri and Thessaly: the 10th, Eubœa, Ætolia, and
Acarnania, with the islands. After a long digression on the subject of
the Curetes, the description of Europe closes with some account of Crete
and the islands of the Ægean Sea. The design and construction of these
three books differ considerably from the preceding. Homer is adopted as
the foundation of his geographical descriptions; some things Strabo must
have learnt as an eye-witness, but more from _vivâ voce_ communications
at Athens or at Corinth. All is interwoven together without any clear
line of separation, and the result is some confusion. Athens, Corinth,
Argos, and their neighbourhood, were the only parts of Greece our author
saw. Heeren, indeed maintains that he had seen the whole of it, and the
Archipelago, but satisfactory proof of this is altogether wanting.

The 11th book commences with the description of the countries separated
from Europe by the Tanaïs or Don. Asia is divided by our author (who
here follows Eratosthenes) into two parts by the Taurus, which runs in a
direction east and west. The northern part of Asia (or this side Taurus)
is divided into four parts. The first part comprises the countries lying
between the Don, the Sea of Azoff, the Euxine, and the Caspian; the
second, the countries east of the Caspian; and the third, the countries
south of Caucasus. These three parts of the first or northern division
of Asia are contained in the 10th book; the remaining fourth part
occupies the 12th, 13th, and 14th books.

The chief authorities for the first part are, besides information
obtained from travellers and merchants at Amasia, Herodotus for the Don;
Artemidorus and Eratosthenes for distances; Poseidonius and Theophanes
of Mitylene, historians, of the Mithridatic war; Metrodorus of Skepsis;
Hypsicrates of Amisus; and Cleitarchus for the digression on the
Amazons.

For the second part, are principally Patrocles and Aristobulus,
historians of the Asiatic campaigns of Alexander. For the third part, or
Media and Armenia, are, Dellius, who wrote a history of the war against
the Parthians, in which he had served under Antony; Apollonides of
Nicæa, who wrote a Periplus of Europe; and other writers before
mentioned.

The 12th book commences with a detailed account of Anatolia, and
contains the northern part. It was to have been expected that Strabo
would have described most of these countries as an eye-witness, lying,
as they do, so near his native country, Cappadocia. But this expectation
vanishes, when we discover the meagreness of his account. With the
exception of Pontus and Cappadocia, he had seen little of the rest, and
depends upon historians and oral information. For earlier times, his
authorities are Herodotus, Hellanicus, Theopompus, Ephorus, Artemidorus,
Apollodorus, and Demetrius of Skepsis; for later times, historians of
the wars of Mithridates and Pompey. For the ancient history of the
Mysians and Phrygians, he is indebted to the celebrated Lydian historian
Xanthus, and Menecrates.

The 13th book continues the description of Anatolia. The greater part of
the book is occupied with a dissertation on the Troad. Strabo had
travelled over the country himself, but his great authority is Homer and
Demetrius of Skepsis, the author of a work in twenty-six books,
containing an historical and geographical commentary on that part of the
second book of the Iliad, in which the forces of the Trojans are
enumerated. A learned digression on the Leleges, Cilices, and Pelasgi,
who preceded the Æolians and Ionians in the occupation of the country,
is principally taken from Menecrates and Demetrius of Skepsis. The
description then turns to the interior, and the account of the Æolian
cities is probably due to Poseidonius. Throughout this book are
evidences of great care and desire for accuracy.

The 14th book continues with the remainder of Anatolia, and an account
of the islands Samos, Chios, Rhodes, and Cyprus. The authorities
followed are, on the whole, the same as in the previous book—Herodotus,
Thucydides, Ephorus, Artemidorus, Eratosthenes, and Poseidonius; besides
Pherecydes of Syros, who wrote on the Ionian migration, and Anaximenes
of Lampsacus, the author of a history in Greek of the Milesian colonies.
For Caria, he had the historians of Alexander and an author named
Philip, who wrote on the Leleges and Carians. For Cyprus he had Damastes
and Eratosthenes.

The 15th and 16th books contain a description of the second portion of
Asia, namely, the southern or the other side of Taurus. In the 15th
book, Strabo describes India and Persia, the latter in two chief
divisions, viz. Ariana or East Persia, and Persis or West Persia. These
countries Strabo never saw; his description, therefore, is founded on
the authority of travellers and historians. The topography of India is
meagre, and limited to a few towns and rivers; but his account of the
people of the country is more copious, he being supplied with materials
from the historians of Alexander and of the campaigns of Seleucus in
India. He looks on Megasthenes, Onesicritus, Deïmachus, and Cleitarchus
as fabulous writers: but his confidence rests chiefly on Patrocles,
Aristobulus (one of the companions and historians of Alexander), and
Nearchus, the chief commander of Alexander’s fleet. Artemidorus and
Nicolaus of Damascus are occasionally consulted. For Ariana or East
Persia, he had for his principal authority Eratosthenes; and for Persia
Proper, he had, besides the above authors, Herodotus, Xenophon, and
Polycletus of Larissa, an historian of Alexander.

In the 16th book, he describes the westerly half of south Asia, viz.
Assyria with Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Phœnicia, and Palestine, the
Persian and Arabian Gulfs, the coast of Ethiopia, and lastly, Arabia.
For the three first countries (the old Assyrian kingdom), his chief
authorities are, besides some of Alexander’s historians, Eratosthenes,
Poseidonius, and Herodotus; for the remainder he had, in addition to the
same writers, Artemidorus, and probably also Nicolaus of Damascus. The
account of Moses and the Jews, Heeren surmises, comes from Poseidonius,
but it probably proceeds from oral communication had in Egypt; of these
countries our author could describe nothing as an eye-witness, except
the north-west of Syria. The accounts of Arabia, the Indian and the Red
Seas, are from Agatharchides; and much that he describes of Arabia was
obtained from his friends, Ælius Gallus and the Stoic, Athenodorus.

The 17th book concludes the work with the description of Egypt,
Ethiopia, and the north coast of Africa. Strabo had travelled through
the whole of Egypt, as far as Syene and Philæ, and writes with the
decided tone of an eye-witness. Much verbal information, also, he
collected at Alexandria. His most important written authorities are, for
the Nile, Eratosthenes (who borrowed from Aristotle), Eudoxus, and
Aristo. For the most remarkable events of Egyptian history, he had
Polybius, and for later times probably Poseidonius, besides _vivâ voce_
accounts.

For the oracle at Ammon, he had the historians of Alexander; for
Ethiopia, the accounts of Petronius, who had carried on war there,
Agatharchides, and Herodotus. Of Libya or Africa Proper he had nothing
new or authentic to say. Besides Eratosthenes, Artemidorus, and
Poseidonius, his chief authorities, he had Iphicrates, who wrote on the
plants and animals of Libya. The whole concludes with a short notice of
the Roman Empire.

The dates at which particular books were written, as attempted to be
given by Groskurd and Coraÿ, must be received with caution.

In book iv. c. vi. § 9, Strabo says that the Carni and Taurisci had
quietly paid tribute for thirty-three years; and both these tribes were
reduced to subjection by Tiberius and Drusus, B. C. 14. This book was
therefore written in A. D. 19.

In book vi. c. iv. § 2, Cæsar Germanicus is spoken of as still living.
He died in Syria, A. D. 20 (19). This book was therefore written before
that year.

In book xii. c. viii. § 11, Strabo says that Cyzicus was still a free
state. It lost its liberty A. D. 25. This book was therefore written
before A. D. 25. Whether Strabo was alive or dead at this date, we have
no means of determining.

The codices or manuscripts which exist of Strabo’s work appear to be
copies of a single manuscript existing in the middle ages, but now lost.
From the striking agreement of errors and omissions in all now extant
(with such differences only as can be accounted for, arising from the
want of ability or carelessness of the copyist), it appears most
probable that to this single manuscript we are indebted for the
preservation of the work. Strabo himself describes the carelessness of
bad scribes both at Rome and Alexandria,[17] in the following expressive
language: “Some vendors of books, also, employed bad scribes and
neglected to compare the copies with the originals. This happens in the
case of other books, which are copied for sale both here and at
Alexandria. ” After what Kramer has done for the text, we can hope for
little improvement, unless, what is beyond all expectation, some other
manuscript should be discovered which is either derived from another
source, or is a more correct copy.

The following is some account of those in existence:—

Codices in the Imperial Library, Paris:

1. No. 1397 of the catalogue. This is the principal codex existing in
the Imperial Library, and was written in the 12th century. It was
formerly in the Strozzi Palace at Rome, and was brought to Paris by
Maria de Medici. Not only are parts of the leaves, but even whole leaves
of the 9th book, damaged or destroyed by damp, mice, bad binding, and
careless attempts at correction. This codex contains the first nine
books; the second part, containing the last eight, is lost. Collated by
Kramer, and partly for Falconer, by Villebrune.

2. No. 1393 of the catalogue. On this codex Brequigny chiefly depended
for his edition. Montfaucon says that it is of the 12th or 13th
century; Kramer, however, judging from the character of the handwriting
and contractions, maintains that it belongs to the end of the 13th or
beginning of the 14th century. It contains the whole seventeen books of
the Geography, and was written in the East (not, however, by the same
hand throughout), and brought from Constantinople to Paris by the Abbé
Servin in 1732, to whom it had been presented by a Greek named
Maurocordato. Collated by Villebrune for Falconer, and partly by Kramer.

3. No. 1408 contains the seventeen books, and appears to have been
written towards the end of the 15th century. In general, the geography
of Strabo is divided by transcribers into two parts, the first
containing nine books, the second, the last eight; but in this codex
there is a blank leaf inserted between the 10th and 11th books, from
which it would appear that there was also another division of the work,
separating the subjects, Europe and Asia. Partly collated by Villebrune
for Falconer.

4. No. 1394. This contains the seventeen books, and is very beautifully
written, and illuminated with arabesque designs. It was made by the
order of Lorenzo the Magnificent; and its date, therefore, is after the
middle of the 15th century. Collated, as before, by Villebrune.

5. No. 1396 contains the whole seventeen books, and was probably written
about the end of the 15th or the beginning of the 16th century. The
division of the work is into ten books and seven books. In the
beginning, it is stated to be “the gift of Antony the Eparch to Francis
the great and illustrious king of France. ” Partly collated by Kramer.

6. No. 1395 contains the whole seventeen books, and served for the
Aldine edition of Strabo. The handwriting of this codex is excellent,
but the order of the words is arbitrarily changed, and there are
frequent omissions, sometimes even of whole lines: it is corrupt beyond
description, and among the worst we possess. Collated in some parts by
Kramer.

No. 1398, written about the end of the 15th century. It contains the
epitome of the first ten books, by Gemistus Pletho, and the last seven
books entire. It is a copy of No. 397, in the Library of St. Mark,
Venice. Collated by Villebrune.

Codices in the Vatican:

No. 1329 of the catalogue. This codex dates from the beginning,
probably, of the 14th century, and is remarkable for being the work of
thirteen different transcribers. It is much to be lamented, that the
greater part of it is lost; it begins from the end of the 12th book
only, and a part of the last leaf of the 17th book is also destroyed;
what remains to us surpasses all others in correctness of the text. The
whole has been collated for the first time by Kramer.

No. 174 is of the 15th century, and contains the seventeen books: the
first nine books are written by one transcriber, the last eight by
another hand. The first nine books have been collated by Kramer.

No. 173 contains the first ten books, and is of the middle of the 15th
century. It is badly and incorrectly written. The last seven books,
which would complete the codex, are, as Kramer conjectures from the
paper and handwriting, in the Library of the Grand Duchy of Parma. From
a note in Greek at the end of the 10th book, it appears to have been
brought to Rome A. D. 1466. Books 1, 2, 4, and 5, collated by Kramer.

No. 81 is tolerably well and correctly written. It contains the last
eight books, and is of the end of the 15th century. It appears to be a
copy of, or served as a copy to, the codex in the Laurentian Library,
No. 19. Partially collated by Kramer.

Medicean Codices, in the Laurentian Library, Florence:

Codex 5 is elegantly and correctly written; it is of the beginning,
probably, of the 15th century, and contains the first ten books. The 8th
and 9th books are not entire; passages are curtailed, and much is
omitted, to which the attention is not drawn, the lines being run on
without spaces left to mark omissions. Errors of the first transcriber
are corrected by a later hand, and noticed in the margin or between the
lines. Collated by Bandini for Falconer, and almost the whole by Kramer.

Codex 40 contains the first ten books; a copy, probably, of the former.
It was written after the middle of the 15th century.

Codex 15 is of the middle of the 15th century, and contains the last
seven books. It is not in any way remarkable.

Codex 19, written at the end of the 15th century.