On this codex
Brequigny
chiefly depended
for his edition.
for his edition.
Strabo
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. It contains the last
eight books, and resembles No. 81 of the Vatican. Collated by Bandini
for Falconer.
Venetian Codices:
No. 377 of the catalogue contains the first twelve books, and is written
in the 15th century. Formerly the property of Cardinal Bessarion.
No. 378 contains the seventeen books, of which the first twelve are
apparently copies of the above, No. 377; the remaining five are
transcribed from some other codex. This was, also, formerly the property
of Cardinal Bessarion.
No. 640 contains the last eight books. It was written, as appears from a
note A. D. 1321, by different hands. A great part of the 14th book is
wanting; eight blank pages are left for the completion of it; but this
was not done by the transcriber to whom this portion was assigned. It is
placed by Kramer in the first class of manuscripts, and was wholly
collated by him.
No. 379 is of the 15th century. It contains the Epitome of Gemistus
Pletho of the first ten books, and the whole of the last seven books. It
is the codex which served for the copy, No. 1398, in the Imperial
Library at Paris. Formerly the property of Cardinal Bessarion.
No. 606 contains the last eight books, and was written towards the end
of the 15th century. It contains nothing which is not to be found in
other manuscripts.
Codices in the Ambrosian Library, Milan:
Codex M. 53 contains all but book ii. , and is of the 15th century. The
books are not written on paper of the same size, nor in consecutive
order, although by the same hand. Book ii. is to be found in Codex N.
289, together with portions of other authors, written by a different
transcriber, no doubt with the intention of completing this codex.
According to Kramer, the first ten books are copied from Codex 5 of the
Medici MS. The 13th, 14th, 12th books (the order in which they stand)
from the Medici MS. 19, and the 11th, 15th, 16th, 17th, from the Medici
MS. 15. Partly collated by Kramer.
Codex G. 53 contains the seventeen books, and is of the end of the 15th
century. Five leaves at the beginning, and two at the end, are destroyed
by damp, traces of which are to be seen throughout. Partly collated by
Kramer.
In the Library of Eton College is a codex containing the first ten
books; it was written at Constantinople. Kramer, who, however, did not
see it, conjectures that the Medici MS. , Codex 15, containing the last
eight books, was formerly united to it, and completed the whole work.
Collated for Falconer.
In the Library of the Escurial is a codex completed, as we are informed
by a note at the end, A. D. 1423. Collated by Bayer for Falconer.
The Madrid Library possesses a codex written in the latter part of the
15th century, containing the seventeen books.
In the Library at Moscow is a codex containing the seventeen books; it
was written at the end of the 15th or beginning of the 16th century. The
first nine books resemble the Paris Codex, No. 1397; the last eight, the
Venetian Codex, No. 640. It came from one of the monasteries of Mount
Athos, and was not destroyed, as Groskurd suspects, in the great fire of
1812, but is still to be found in the Library of the Holy Synod, under
No. 204 (Matt. ccv. ), as I am informed by the Archimandrite Sabba, who
dates from the Kremlin, April 4th, 1857.
A codex also is yet to be found in one of the monasteries of Mount
Athos. From the accounts of learned travellers (Zacharias, _Reise in den
Orient_, and Fallmerayer, in the _Allgem. Zeitg. 5 Jun. 1843_), it
contains nothing which can supply the deficiencies of those MSS. with
which we are acquainted.
Besides the above codices, there exist four epitomes of the Geography of
Strabo, of which,
1. The Epitome Palatina, in the Heidelberg Library, is the oldest of all
MSS. of this work. It is probably of the beginning of the 10th century,
although Dodwell places it between 976 and 996. The codex from which it
was copied appears to have been perfect, and contained the whole of the
7th book, which is imperfect in all other codices. It is, however, to be
regretted that the author did not confine himself to following the text
of Strabo; he has not only indulged in curtailing, transposing, and
changing the words and sentences of the original, but has sometimes also
added expressions of his own.
2. The Vatican Epitome is of more value than the preceding; the extracts
are more copious, the author seldom wanders from the text of Strabo, and
in no instance inserts language of his own. The codex which served as
the basis for the Epitome contained the 7th book entire, and from this
and the Palatine Epitome Kramer collected the fragments of the last part
of the 7th book, which appear for the first time in his edition (see
vol. i. of the Translation, p. 504). This codex was written in the
middle of the 14th century, and has suffered much by time and
carelessness; several leaves are lost, and lines of the text at the top
and bottom of the pages have been cut off in the binding.
3. The Parisian Epitome, on which no great value is placed by Kramer.
4. The Epitome of Gemistus Pletho, referred to above, is of great value,
and held in the highest estimation by all editors.
The first appearance of Strabo’s work in print was a Latin translation
by Guarini, of Verona, and Gregorio of Tiferno. Of this, thirteen
editions were printed, the first in 1469 or 1471, the twelfth in 1559,
and the last in 1652. It is not known from what manuscripts the
translation was taken, nor whether they now exist; but, though the
translation itself is barbarous, and in many passages erroneous, its
fidelity to the original is so apparent, that all editors to the present
time have consulted it as a manuscript.
The first edition of the Greek text was printed at Venice by Aldus in
1516, and was taken from so corrupt a manuscript that Coraÿ compares it
to the Augean stable. The second edition was a repetition of the Aldine,
accompanied by the Latin translation of Guarini, and was published by
Hopper and Heresbach, at Bâsle, in 1549. The third edition, by Xylander,
in 1570, was also a repetition of the text of Aldus; but a new Latin
translation accompanied it. The fourth and fifth editions, which do not
essentially differ, were published in 1587 and 1620, by Isaac Casaubon.
He collated for his edition four manuscripts, which he obtained from his
father-in-law, H. Stephens, and was the first to add a commentary; but
it is not known what manuscripts were made use of. The edition of
Almeloveen, 1707, being a reprint of Casaubon, with notes, and an
edition commenced by Brequigny, Paris, 1763, but not continued beyond
the first three books, can scarcely be placed among the number of new
editions. Brequigny left a French translation in manuscript and notes in
Latin, which were consulted by the French translators.
The seventh edition was that of Thomas Falconer of Chester, and of
Brasenose College, published in 2 vols. folio, at Oxford, 1807. For the
first time since Casaubon’s last edition, nearly 200 years before,
manuscripts were collated for this edition, namely, those of Eton,
Moscow, the Escurial, and the Laurentian library; the conjectural
emendations of Tyrwhitt, and notes of the editor and others, are added.
“It has everything that is valuable in Casaubon’s edition, besides
having corrected numberless typographical errors. In the account given
of it, the public are as much wronged as we are abused; for no view
whatever is laid before them of its nature or its merits. ”[18] Thos.
Falconer, having prepared the greater part of the work for the press,
died in 1792. A little more than the two first books were edited by John
Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough, and formerly Master of Balliol College,
Oxford; but the whole work was, ultimately, in 1802 given up to Thomas
Falconer (nephew of the former), of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, who
completed it and wrote the preface. A complete revisal of the text,
however, was not attempted.
The eighth edition was that of Professor J. P. Siebenkees, of which
great expectations were formed. The deficiencies of his performance are
strongly commented on by Kramer. Siebenkees lived to complete only the
first six books; the remainder of the work was undertaken by Tzchucke,
and conducted with greater skill and ability than by his predecessor. It
was published in 1811, 6 vols. 8vo.
The ninth edition is that by Coraÿ, Paris, 1815-1818, 4 vols. 8vo.
Kramer passes an unfavourable opinion on it. The editor, according to
him, did not possess an aptitude for discriminating the value of the
different manuscripts he collated, and considered more what he thought
ought to have been written than what were really the author’s words.
Hence, although he was successful in restoring the true readings of many
passages, he corrupted not a few, and left untouched many errors. Yet he
was a very able scholar, and has the merit of attempting the first
critical edition of Strabo.
The tenth edition is that by Professor Gustavus Kramer, in 3 vols. 8vo,
the first of which appeared in 1844, the last in 1852. The editor has
brought to his task great ability and unwearied labour; of the many
years spent in the preparation of it, were passed in Italy for the
purpose of collating manuscripts. This edition surpasses all others in
completeness, and little is left for correction by subsequent editors.
A. Meineke published at Leipsic, in 3 vols. , 1852, a reprint of Kramer’s
text, with some emendations of his own contained in his work,
“Vindiciarum Straboniarum Liber. ” Berlin, 1852.
C. Müller and F. Dübner have also published the first vol. , Paris, 1852,
of a reprint of Kramer’s text, with Meineke’s corrections. It is
accompanied by a new Latin translation, of which the first six books are
by Dübner, and the remainder by Müller.
In modern languages, we have a translation by Alfonso Buonacciuoli, of
Ferrara, in Italian, 2 vols. 8vo, Venice, 1552. It is a very literal
translation from a manuscript, and is frequently quoted by the French
translators. Also a translation in German by Abr. Penzel, in 4 vols. ,
Lemgow, 1775. It is not literal, and abounds with wilful additions and
alterations of the author’s meaning.
A translation in French was published at Paris in five vols. 4to, from
the year 1805 to 1819.
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. It contains the last
eight books, and resembles No. 81 of the Vatican. Collated by Bandini
for Falconer.
Venetian Codices:
No. 377 of the catalogue contains the first twelve books, and is written
in the 15th century. Formerly the property of Cardinal Bessarion.
No. 378 contains the seventeen books, of which the first twelve are
apparently copies of the above, No. 377; the remaining five are
transcribed from some other codex. This was, also, formerly the property
of Cardinal Bessarion.
No. 640 contains the last eight books. It was written, as appears from a
note A. D. 1321, by different hands. A great part of the 14th book is
wanting; eight blank pages are left for the completion of it; but this
was not done by the transcriber to whom this portion was assigned. It is
placed by Kramer in the first class of manuscripts, and was wholly
collated by him.
No. 379 is of the 15th century. It contains the Epitome of Gemistus
Pletho of the first ten books, and the whole of the last seven books. It
is the codex which served for the copy, No. 1398, in the Imperial
Library at Paris. Formerly the property of Cardinal Bessarion.
No. 606 contains the last eight books, and was written towards the end
of the 15th century. It contains nothing which is not to be found in
other manuscripts.
Codices in the Ambrosian Library, Milan:
Codex M. 53 contains all but book ii. , and is of the 15th century. The
books are not written on paper of the same size, nor in consecutive
order, although by the same hand. Book ii. is to be found in Codex N.
289, together with portions of other authors, written by a different
transcriber, no doubt with the intention of completing this codex.
According to Kramer, the first ten books are copied from Codex 5 of the
Medici MS. The 13th, 14th, 12th books (the order in which they stand)
from the Medici MS. 19, and the 11th, 15th, 16th, 17th, from the Medici
MS. 15. Partly collated by Kramer.
Codex G. 53 contains the seventeen books, and is of the end of the 15th
century. Five leaves at the beginning, and two at the end, are destroyed
by damp, traces of which are to be seen throughout. Partly collated by
Kramer.
In the Library of Eton College is a codex containing the first ten
books; it was written at Constantinople. Kramer, who, however, did not
see it, conjectures that the Medici MS. , Codex 15, containing the last
eight books, was formerly united to it, and completed the whole work.
Collated for Falconer.
In the Library of the Escurial is a codex completed, as we are informed
by a note at the end, A. D. 1423. Collated by Bayer for Falconer.
The Madrid Library possesses a codex written in the latter part of the
15th century, containing the seventeen books.
In the Library at Moscow is a codex containing the seventeen books; it
was written at the end of the 15th or beginning of the 16th century. The
first nine books resemble the Paris Codex, No. 1397; the last eight, the
Venetian Codex, No. 640. It came from one of the monasteries of Mount
Athos, and was not destroyed, as Groskurd suspects, in the great fire of
1812, but is still to be found in the Library of the Holy Synod, under
No. 204 (Matt. ccv. ), as I am informed by the Archimandrite Sabba, who
dates from the Kremlin, April 4th, 1857.
A codex also is yet to be found in one of the monasteries of Mount
Athos. From the accounts of learned travellers (Zacharias, _Reise in den
Orient_, and Fallmerayer, in the _Allgem. Zeitg. 5 Jun. 1843_), it
contains nothing which can supply the deficiencies of those MSS. with
which we are acquainted.
Besides the above codices, there exist four epitomes of the Geography of
Strabo, of which,
1. The Epitome Palatina, in the Heidelberg Library, is the oldest of all
MSS. of this work. It is probably of the beginning of the 10th century,
although Dodwell places it between 976 and 996. The codex from which it
was copied appears to have been perfect, and contained the whole of the
7th book, which is imperfect in all other codices. It is, however, to be
regretted that the author did not confine himself to following the text
of Strabo; he has not only indulged in curtailing, transposing, and
changing the words and sentences of the original, but has sometimes also
added expressions of his own.
2. The Vatican Epitome is of more value than the preceding; the extracts
are more copious, the author seldom wanders from the text of Strabo, and
in no instance inserts language of his own. The codex which served as
the basis for the Epitome contained the 7th book entire, and from this
and the Palatine Epitome Kramer collected the fragments of the last part
of the 7th book, which appear for the first time in his edition (see
vol. i. of the Translation, p. 504). This codex was written in the
middle of the 14th century, and has suffered much by time and
carelessness; several leaves are lost, and lines of the text at the top
and bottom of the pages have been cut off in the binding.
3. The Parisian Epitome, on which no great value is placed by Kramer.
4. The Epitome of Gemistus Pletho, referred to above, is of great value,
and held in the highest estimation by all editors.
The first appearance of Strabo’s work in print was a Latin translation
by Guarini, of Verona, and Gregorio of Tiferno. Of this, thirteen
editions were printed, the first in 1469 or 1471, the twelfth in 1559,
and the last in 1652. It is not known from what manuscripts the
translation was taken, nor whether they now exist; but, though the
translation itself is barbarous, and in many passages erroneous, its
fidelity to the original is so apparent, that all editors to the present
time have consulted it as a manuscript.
The first edition of the Greek text was printed at Venice by Aldus in
1516, and was taken from so corrupt a manuscript that Coraÿ compares it
to the Augean stable. The second edition was a repetition of the Aldine,
accompanied by the Latin translation of Guarini, and was published by
Hopper and Heresbach, at Bâsle, in 1549. The third edition, by Xylander,
in 1570, was also a repetition of the text of Aldus; but a new Latin
translation accompanied it. The fourth and fifth editions, which do not
essentially differ, were published in 1587 and 1620, by Isaac Casaubon.
He collated for his edition four manuscripts, which he obtained from his
father-in-law, H. Stephens, and was the first to add a commentary; but
it is not known what manuscripts were made use of. The edition of
Almeloveen, 1707, being a reprint of Casaubon, with notes, and an
edition commenced by Brequigny, Paris, 1763, but not continued beyond
the first three books, can scarcely be placed among the number of new
editions. Brequigny left a French translation in manuscript and notes in
Latin, which were consulted by the French translators.
The seventh edition was that of Thomas Falconer of Chester, and of
Brasenose College, published in 2 vols. folio, at Oxford, 1807. For the
first time since Casaubon’s last edition, nearly 200 years before,
manuscripts were collated for this edition, namely, those of Eton,
Moscow, the Escurial, and the Laurentian library; the conjectural
emendations of Tyrwhitt, and notes of the editor and others, are added.
“It has everything that is valuable in Casaubon’s edition, besides
having corrected numberless typographical errors. In the account given
of it, the public are as much wronged as we are abused; for no view
whatever is laid before them of its nature or its merits. ”[18] Thos.
Falconer, having prepared the greater part of the work for the press,
died in 1792. A little more than the two first books were edited by John
Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough, and formerly Master of Balliol College,
Oxford; but the whole work was, ultimately, in 1802 given up to Thomas
Falconer (nephew of the former), of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, who
completed it and wrote the preface. A complete revisal of the text,
however, was not attempted.
The eighth edition was that of Professor J. P. Siebenkees, of which
great expectations were formed. The deficiencies of his performance are
strongly commented on by Kramer. Siebenkees lived to complete only the
first six books; the remainder of the work was undertaken by Tzchucke,
and conducted with greater skill and ability than by his predecessor. It
was published in 1811, 6 vols. 8vo.
The ninth edition is that by Coraÿ, Paris, 1815-1818, 4 vols. 8vo.
Kramer passes an unfavourable opinion on it. The editor, according to
him, did not possess an aptitude for discriminating the value of the
different manuscripts he collated, and considered more what he thought
ought to have been written than what were really the author’s words.
Hence, although he was successful in restoring the true readings of many
passages, he corrupted not a few, and left untouched many errors. Yet he
was a very able scholar, and has the merit of attempting the first
critical edition of Strabo.
The tenth edition is that by Professor Gustavus Kramer, in 3 vols. 8vo,
the first of which appeared in 1844, the last in 1852. The editor has
brought to his task great ability and unwearied labour; of the many
years spent in the preparation of it, were passed in Italy for the
purpose of collating manuscripts. This edition surpasses all others in
completeness, and little is left for correction by subsequent editors.
A. Meineke published at Leipsic, in 3 vols. , 1852, a reprint of Kramer’s
text, with some emendations of his own contained in his work,
“Vindiciarum Straboniarum Liber. ” Berlin, 1852.
C. Müller and F. Dübner have also published the first vol. , Paris, 1852,
of a reprint of Kramer’s text, with Meineke’s corrections. It is
accompanied by a new Latin translation, of which the first six books are
by Dübner, and the remainder by Müller.
In modern languages, we have a translation by Alfonso Buonacciuoli, of
Ferrara, in Italian, 2 vols. 8vo, Venice, 1552. It is a very literal
translation from a manuscript, and is frequently quoted by the French
translators. Also a translation in German by Abr. Penzel, in 4 vols. ,
Lemgow, 1775. It is not literal, and abounds with wilful additions and
alterations of the author’s meaning.
A translation in French was published at Paris in five vols. 4to, from
the year 1805 to 1819.
