Geography of Strabo Vol.III

499 Pages·03.203 MB·English

by  Strabo, H.C. Hamilton, W. Falconer

Project Gutenberg’s The Geography of Strabo, Volume III (of 3), by Strabo
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: The Geography of Strabo, Volume III (of 3)
Literally Translated, with Notes
Author: Strabo
Translator: H. C. Hamilton
W. Falconer
Release Date: February 13, 2014 [EBook #44886]
Language: English
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GEOGRAPHY OF STRABO, VOL III ***
Produced by Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber’s note:
Volumes I and II are available from Project Gutenberg at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44884
and http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44885 respectively.
In this book many city names are spelled in different ways. When the correct spelling is obvious
these have been corrected for the sake of consistency. See the list of modern names at the end of
this volume.
Minor index errors have also been corrected.
The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.
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, BUNGAY.
PREFACE.
S , the author of this work, was born at Amasia, or Amasijas, a town
TRABO
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 book2 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 . . 24. The date of his birth as argued by
A D
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 . . 54.
B C
In the 17th book our author speaks of the death of Juba as a recent
occurrence. This event took place . . 21, or . . 18 or 19, according to
A D A D
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,
. . 71, and carried to Rome, probably not later than . . 66.
B C B C
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 book8 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 . . 196. His work consisted of three books.
B C
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
criticising13 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