Chapter III (2)

Hipparchus possessed the true spirit of philosophy: having resolved to devote himself to the study of astronomy, his first general [principal->principle] was to take nothing for granted; but setting aside all that had been taught by former astronomers, to begin anew, and examine and judge for himself: he determined not to admit any results but such as were grounded either in observations and experiments entirely new, made by himself or on a new examination of former observations, conducted with the utmost care and caution. In short, he may justly be regarded as one of the first philosophers of antiquity who had a slight glimpse of the grand maxim, which afterwards immortalized Bacon, and which has introduced modern philosophers to a knowledge of the most secret and most sublime operations of nature.

One of his first endeavours was, to verify the obliquity of the ecliptic, as settled by Eratosthenes: he next fixed, as accurately as possible, the latitude of Alexandria; but it would lead us far from the object of our work, if we were even briefly to mention his discoveries in the science of pure astronomy. We must confine ourselves to those parts of his discoveries which benefitted geography, either directly or indirectly. After having, as successfully as his means and the state of the science would permit him to do, fixed the position of the stars, he transferred the method which he had employed for this purpose to geography: he was the first who determined the situation of places on the earth, by their latitudes and longitudes, with any thing like accuracy. The latitude, indeed, of many places had been fixed before; and the means of doing it were sufficiently simple and obvious: but with respect to some general and safe mode of ascertaining the longitudes, the ancient philosophers before Hipparchus, were ignorant of it. He employed for this purpose the eclipses of the moon. After having ascertained the latitudes and longitudes of a great many places, he proposed to draw up a catalogue of terrestial latitudes and longitudes, but this he was not able to accomplish: he had set the example, however and it was followed by subsequent astronomers. He fixed on the Fortunate Islands, which are supposed to be the Canaries, for his first meridian. His principal works most probably were destroyed in the conflagration of the Alexandrian library. His catalogue of the stars is preserved in the Almagest of Ptolemy; and his commentary on Aratus and Eudoxus is still extant.

Such is a brief sketch of the advantages which geography, as founded on astronomy, derived from the labours of Hipparchus. We possess little information respecting his ideas of the form of the earth, or the relative position or extent of the different quarters and countries on the surface of the globe. He seems to have been the first who conceived the idea of a southern continent, uniting Africa and India: he had evidently some information, though very vague and erroneous, of India, beyond the Ganges. On the east coast of Africa, his knowledge did not extend beyond Cape Guardaferi. On the whole, geography is more indebted to him for his discoveries in astronomy, and, above all, for his setting the example of carefully ascertaining facts, and not indulging, so much as his predecessors had done, in conjectures and hypotheses, than for any actual discoveries or advances he made in it. The eulogium which Pliny has pronounced on him is very eloquent, and fully deserved. "Hipparchus can scarcely receive too high praise: he has proved, more satisfactorily than any other philosopher, that man is allied to heaven, and his soul derived from on high. In his time, more than one new star was discovered, or rather appeared for the first time; and this induced him to believe, that future ages might witness stars for the first time moving from the immense regions of space, within the limits of our observation. But the grandeur and boldness of Hipparchus's mind rested not here: he attempted, and in some measure succeeded in doing, what seems above human knowledge and power: he numbered the stars, laid down rules by which their rising and setting might be ascertained beforehand; and, finally, he constructed an apparatus on which the position of each star was accurately given, and a miniature picture of the heavens, with the motions of the celestial bodies, their rising and setting, increase and diminution. He thus may be said to have left the heavens as a legacy to that man, if any such were to be found, who could rival him and follow his steps."

From the time of Hipparchus to that of Ptolemy the geographer, the Alexandrian school, though rich in philosophers, who devoted their studies and labour to other branches of physical and metaphysical science, did not produce one, who improved geography, or the sciences on which it depends, with the exception of Posidonius. This philosopher, who belonged to the sect of the Stoics, was born at Apamea in Syria: he usually resided at Rhodes, and was the friend of Pompey and Cicero. The former, on his return from Syria, came thither to attend his lectures. Arriving at his house, he forbad his lictor to knock, as was usual, at the door; and paid homage to philosophy, by lowering the fasces at the abode of Posidonius. Pompey, being informed that he was at that time ill of the gout, visited him in his confinement, and expressed himself very much disappointed that he could not have the benefit of his lectures. Posidonius, thus honoured and flattered, in spite of his pain, delivered a lecture in the presence of his noble visitor; the subject of which was to prove, that nothing is good which is not honourable. Cicero informs us, that he also attended his lectures; and according to Suidas Marcellus, brought him to Rome in the year of the city 702; in this, however, Suidas is not supported by other and contemporary writers.

We are indebted to Cleomedes for most of what we know of his opinions and discoveries; with such as relate to morals or to pure astronomy, we have no concern. But he was of service also to geography. He measured an arc of the terrestrial meridian; but his operation, as far as we can judge by the details which have reached us, was far from exact, and of course his result could not be accurate; it would appear, however, that his object was rather to verify the ancient measures of the earth, particularly that of Eratosthenes, and that he found them to agree nearly with his own. He explained the ebbing and flowing of the sea, from the motion of the moon, and seems to have been the first who observed the law of this phenomenon. In order to represent the appearance of the heavens, Cicero informs us that he constructed a kind of planetarium, by means of which he exhibited the apparent motion of the sun, moon, and planets round the earth. It is on the authority of Posidonius, that Strabo relates the voyage of Eudoxus of Cyzicum from the Persian Gulf round Africa to Cadiz, which we have already mentioned.

Having thus exhibited a view of the discoveries in geography, the advances in the sciences connected with it, and the commercial enterprises of the Egyptians, while under the dominion of the Ptolemies, it will be proper, before beginning an account of the geographical knowledge and commercial enterprises of the Romans (who, by their conquest of Egypt, may be said to have absorbed all the geographical knowledge, as well as all the commerce of the world, at that period), to recapitulate the extent of the Egyptian geography and commerce, especially towards the east We shall direct our retrospect to this quarter, because the commodities of the east being most prized, it was the grand object of the sovereigns and merchants of Egypt, to extend and facilitate the intercourse with that quarter of the globe as much as possible. And we are induced to undertake the retrospect, because the exact limit of the geographical knowledge and commercial enterprise of the Ptolemies is differently fixed by different authors: some maintaining that the Egyptians had a regular and extensive trade directly with India, and of course, were well acquainted with the seas and coasts beyond the Red Sea; while other authors maintain, that they never passed the straits of Babelmandeb, and that even within the straits, their geographical knowledge and commercial enterprises were very limited.

It cannot be doubted that commerce and the spirit of discovery flourished with more vigour, and pushed themselves to a greater distance in the reigns of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and Ptolemy Euergetes, than in the reign of any of their successors. If, therefore, there are no proofs or traces of a direct and regular trade with India in their time, we may safely conclude it did not exist in Egypt, previously to the conquest of that country by the Romans.

We are well aware, that there are great authorities opposed to the opinion which we hold; but these authorities are modern; they are not, we think, supported by the ancient writers, and in opposition to them, we can place the authority of Dr. Vincent, a name of the very greatest weight in questions of this nature. The authorities we alluded to in support of the opinion, that there was a direct trade with India under the Ptolemies, are Huet, in his History of the Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients; Dr. Robertson, in his Disquisition on India, and Harris, or perhaps, more properly speaking, Dr. Campbell, in his edition of Harris's Collection of Voyages and Travels. Huet, as is justly remarked by Dr. Vincent, drops the prosecution of the question at the very point he ought to introduce it; and afterwards countenances, or seems to countenance, the opposite opinion. Dr. Robertson bestows much labour, ingenuity, and learning in support of the opinion, that under the Ptolemies, a direct trade was carried on with India; yet, after all, he concludes in this manner: "it is probable that their voyages were circumscribed within very narrow limits, and that under the Ptolemies no considerable progress was made in the discovery of India:" and when he comes to the discovery of the Monsoon by Hippalus and the consequent advantage taken of it to trade directly to India, by sailing from shore to shore, he acknowledges that all proofs of a more early existence of such a trade are wanting. Dr. Campbell virtually gives up his support of the opinion, that a direct trade was carried on under the Ptolemies, in the same manner.

We have already remarked, that the strongest spirit of enterprize that distinguished Egypt existed in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus and Ptolemy Euergetes; that these monarchs pushed their discoveries, and extended their commercial connections much farther than any of their predecessors; and that therefore, if a direct and regular communication between Egypt and India did not take place in their reigns, we may be assured it was unknown to the Egyptians at the period of the Roman conquest. To their reigns, then, we shall principally direct our enquiries.

That Ptolemy Philadelphus was extremely desirous to improve the navigation of the Red Sea, is evident from his having built Myos Hormos, or rather improved it, because it was more convenient than Arsinoe, on account of the difficulty of navigating the western extremity of that sea: he afterwards fixed on Berenice in preference to Myos Hormos, when the navigation and commerce on this sea was extended and improved, since Berenice being lower down, the navigation towards the straits was shorter, as well as attended with fewer difficulties and dangers. But there is no evidence that his fleets, which sailed from Berenice, were destined for India, or even passed the Straits of Babelmandeb. It is, however, not meant to be asserted that no vessels passed these straits in the time of this Ptolemy. On the contrary, we know that his admiral, Timosthenes, passed the straits as low as Cerne, which is generally supposed to be Madagascar; but commerce, which in our times, directed by much superior skill and knowledge, as well as stimulated by a stronger spirit of enterprize and rivalship, and a more absorbing love of gain, immediately follows in the track of discovery, was then comparatively slow, languid, and timid as well as ignorant; so that it is not surprizing that it did not follow the track of Timosthenes. Ptolemy Philadelphus also pushed his discoveries by land as far as Meroc: he opened the route between Coptus and Berenice, establishing ports and opening wells; and from these and other circumstances he seems to have been actuated by a stronger wish to extend commerce, and to have formed more plans for this purpose, than any of his successors.

Ptolemy Euergetes directed his thoughts more to conquest than to commerce, though he rendered the former, in some degree, useful and subservient to the latter. After having passed the Nile, and subdued the nations which lay on the confines of Egypt, he compelled them to open a road of communication between their country and Egypt. The frankincense country was the next object of his ambition: this he subdued; and having sent a fleet and army across the Red Sea into Arabia, he compelled the inhabitants of the district to maintain the roads free from robbers, and the sea from pirates--a proof that these people had made some advances in seafaring matters, and also of the attention paid by Euergetes to the navigation of the Red Sea, as well as to the protection of land commerce. Indeed the whole of his progress to Aduli, which we have more particularly mentioned in another place, was marked as much by attention to commerce as by the love of conquest; but though by this enterprize he rendered both the coasts of the Red Sea tributary, and thus better adapted to commerce, there is no proof that he passed the Straits of Babelmandeb. It is true, indeed, that he visited Mosullon, which lies beyond the straits, but not by sea, having marched by land to that place, through the interior of Abyssinia and Adel. From the whole of this enterprize of Euergetes we may justly infer, that though he facilitated the intercourse by land between Egypt and those parts of Africa which lay immediately beyond the straits, yet his ships did not pass the straits, and that in his reign the discoveries of Timosthenes had not been followed up or improved for the purpose of trading by sea with the coast of Africa. The navigation of the whole of the Red Sea, at least on the Arabian side, from Leuake Kome to Sabaea, was undoubtedly known and frequently used at this period; but this was its utmost limit.

In the reign of Ptolemy Philometor, when Agatharcides lived, the commercial enterprizes of the Egyptians had begun rather to languish; on the Arabian side of the Red Sea, they did indeed extend to Sabaea, as in the time of Euergetes; but there is evidence that on the opposite coast they did not go so low, as in the reign of the latter sovereign. Agatharcides makes no mention of Berenice; according to his account, Myos Hormos had again become the emporium, and the only trade from that part seems to have been for elephants to Ptolemais Theron. It may, indeed, be urged that Berenice was not, properly speaking, a harbour, but only an open bay, to which the ships did not come from Myos Hormos, till their cargoes were completely ready. But that Myos Hormos was the great point of communication with Coptus is evident from the account which Agatharcides gives of the caravan road between these two places. Even so late as the time of Strabo, this road was much more frequented than the road between Coptus and Berenice: of the latter he merely observes, that Philadelphus opened it with his army, established ports, and sunk Wells; whereas he particularly describes the former road, as being seven or eight days' journey, formerly performed on camels in the night, by observation of the stars, and carrying water with them. Latterly, he adds, deep wells had been sunk, and cisterns formed for holding water. Every detail of the road to Berenice is Roman, and relates to periods considerably posterior to the conquest of Egypt by the Romans--a proof that the plan of Philadelphus, of substituting Berenice for Myos Hormos, had not been regularly adopted by his successors, nor till the Romans had firmly and permanently fixed themselves in Egypt.

In the extract we have already given from Agatharcides respecting Arabia, he expressly mentions that the Gerrheans and Sabeans are the centre of all the commerce that passes between Asia and Europe, and that these are the nations which have enriched the Ptolemais: this statement, taken in conjunction with the fact that his description of the coast of the Red Sea reaches no farther than Sabaea on the one side, and Ptolemais Theron on the other, seems decisive of the truth of the opinion, that in the time of Philometor the Egyptians did not trade directly to India. It may be proper to add, that in the extracts from Agatharcides, given by Photius, it is expressly mentioned that ships from India were met with by the Egyptian ships in the ports of Sabaea. The particulars of this trade between India and Egypt, by means of the Arabians, will be afterwards detailed, and its great antiquity traced and proved; at present we have alluded to it merely to bear us out in our position, that Indian ships, laden with Indian commodities, frequenting the ports of Sabaea, and those ports being described by Agatharcides as the limits of his knowledge of this coast of the Red Sea, we are fully justified in concluding, that, in the reign of Philometor, there was not only no direct trade to India, but no inducement to such trade; and that 146 years after the death of Alexander, the Greek sovereigns of Egypt had done little to complete what that monarch had projected, and in part accomplished by the navigation of Nearchus--the communication by sea between Alexandria and India.

Under the successors of Philometor, the trade in the Red Sea languished rather than increased, and the full benefits of it were not reaped till some time after the Roman conquest. Even in the time of Strabo, the bulk of the trade still passed by Coptus to Myos Hormos. We are aware of a passage in this author, which, at first, sight seems to contradict the position we have laid down, and to prove, that at least in his time, there was a direct and not unfrequent navigation between the Red Sea and India. He expressly states, that in the course of six or seven years, 120 ships had sailed from Myos Hormos to India: but on this it may be observed, in the first place, that he begins his description of India, with requesting his readers to peruse what he relates concerning it with indulgence, as it was a country very remote, and few persons had visited it; and even with regard to Arabia Felix, he says, that the knowledge of the Romans commenced with the expedition of his friend Ælius Gallus into that country;--facts not very consistent with his statement that 120 ships had sailed in six or seven years to India: secondly, he expressly mentions, that formerly scarcely twenty ships dared to navigate the Red Sea, so far as to shew themselves beyond the straits; but we can hardly suppose that skill, enterprize, and knowledge, had increased so rapidly as to extend within a very few years navigation, not merely beyond the straits, but even to India; we say a few years, for certainly, at the time when the Romans conquered Egypt, the straits were not usually passed: lastly, the name India was used so vaguely by the ancients, even by Strabo occasionally, that it is not improbable he meant by it, merely the coast of Arabia, beyond the straits. It is well asked by Dr. Vincent, in reference to this account of Strabo, might not that geographer, from knowing the ships brought home Indian commodities, have supposed that they sailed to India, when in reality they went no farther than Hadramant, in Arabia, or Mosullon, on the coast of Africa, where they found the produce of India?

It is not, however, meant to be denied that a few vessels, in the time of Ptolemies, reached some part of India from the Red Sea, by coasting all the way. The author of the Periplus of the Red Sea, informs us that, before the discovery of the monsoon, by Hippalus, small vessels had made a coasting voyage from Cana, in Arabia, to the Indies. But these irregular and trifling voyages are deserving of little consideration, and do not militate against the position we have laid down and endeavoured to prove, that in the time of the Ptolemies the commerce of Egypt was confined within the limits of the Red Sea, partly from the want of skill and enterprize, and from the dangers that were supposed to exist beyond the straits, but principally because the commodities of India could be procured in the ports of Sabæa.

Many instances have already been given of the patronage which the Ptolemies bestowed on commerce, of the facilities and advantages they afforded, and of the benefits which the science of geography derived from the library and observatory of Alexandria: every instrument which could facilitate the study of astronomy was purchased by the Ptolemies and placed in that observatory, for they were fully aware of the dependency of a full and accurate knowledge of geography, as a science, on a full and accurate knowledge of astronomy. With respect to commerce, the advancement of which, may fairly be supposed to have had some weight in their patronage of these sciences, they encouraged it as much as possible to centre in Alexandria, and with citizens of Egypt, by making it a standing law of the country, that no goods should pass through the capital, either to India or Europe, without the intervention of an Alexandrian factor, and that even when foreign merchants resided there, they should employ the same agency. The roads and canals they formed, and the care they took to keep the Red Sea free from pirates, are further proofs of their regard for commerce.

And justly was it held by the Ptolemies in high estimation, for from it they derived their immense wealth. We are informed by Strabo, that the revenue of Alexandria, in the worst of times, was 12,500 talents, equivalent to nearly two millions and a half sterling; and if this was the revenue under the last and most indolent of the Ptolemies, what must it have been under Ptolemy Philadelphus, or Ptolemy Euergetes? But the account given by Appian of the treasure of the Ptolemies is still more extraordinary: the sum he mentions is 740,000 talents, or £191,166,666, according to Dr. Arbuthnot's computation; we should be disposed to doubt the accuracy of this statement, did we not know that Appian was a native of Alexandria, and did he not moreover inform us, that he had extracted his account from the public records of that city. When we consider that this immense sum was accumulated by only two of the Ptolemies, Ptolemy Soter and Ptolemy Philadelphus, and that the latter maintained two great fleets, one in the Mediterranean, and the other in the Red Sea, besides an army of 200,000 foot, and 40,000 horse; and that he had 300 elephants, 2000 armed chariots, and an armoury at Alexandria, stocked with 300,000 complete suits of armour, and all other necessary weapons and implements of war,--we shall form some idea of the extent and fruitfulness of Egyptian commerce, from which the whole, or nearly the whole, of this immense wealth must have been derived.

Having thus brought our historical sketch of the progress of discovery and commercial enterprize among the Egyptians down to the period of the conquest of Egypt by the Romans, we shall, in the next place, revert to the Romans themselves, in whom, at the date of their conquest of this country, the geographical knowledge and the commerce of the whole world may justly be said to have centered. As, however, we have hitherto only adverted to the Romans, in our account of the discoveries and commerce of the Carthaginians, it will be proper to notice them in a much more detailed and particular manner. We shall, therefore, trace, their geographical knowledge, their discoveries and their commerce, from the foundation of Rome, to the period of their conquest of Egypt; and in the course of this investigation, we shall give a sketch of the commerce of those countries which successively fell under their dominion--omitting such as we have already noticed: by this plan, we shall be enabled to trace the commerce of all the known world at that time, down to the period when Rome absorbed the whole.

The account which Polybius gives, that before the first Carthaginian war the Romans were entirely ignorant of, and inattentive to sea affairs--if by this statement he means to assert that they were unacquainted with maritime commerce, as well as maritime warfare, is expressly contradicted by the treaties between Rome and Carthage, which we have already given in our account of the commerce of Carthage. The first of those treaties was made 250 years before the first Punic war; and the second, about fifty years before it. Besides, it is not probable that the Romans should have been entirely ignorant of, and inattentive to maritime commerce for so long a period; since several nations of Italy, with which they were at first connected, and which they afterwards conquered, were very conversant in this commerce, and derived great consideration, power, and wealth from it.

The Romans had conquered Etruria, and made themselves masters of the Tuscan powers both by sea and land, before the commencement of the first Punic war; and though at this period, the Tuscans were not so celebrated for their commerce as they had been, yet the shipping and commerce they did possess, must have fallen into the power of the Romans; and we can scarcely suppose that these, together with the facilities which the Tuscans enjoyed for commerce, by means of their ports, and their skill and commercial habits and connections, would be entirely neglected by their conquerors. Besides, there are several old Roman coins, by some supposed to have been as old as the time of the kings, and certainly prior to the first Punic war, on the reverses of which different parts of ships are visible. Now, as the Roman historians are diffuse in the accounts they give of the wars of the Romans, but take no notice of their commercial transactions, we may safely conclude, from their not mentioning any maritime wars, or expeditions of a date so early as these coins, that the ships at that period preserved by the Romans, and deemed of such consequence as to be struck on their coins, were employed for the purposes of commerce.

The Tuscans and the Grecian colonies in the south of Italy, certainly had made great progress in commerce at an early period; and as,--if their example did not stimulate the Romans to enterprises of the same kind,--the Romans, at least when they conquered them, became possessed of the commerce which they then enjoyed, it will be proper to take a brief view of it.

If we may credit the ancient historians, the Etrurians or Tyrrhenians, even before the reign of Minos, had been for a long time masters of the greatest part of the Mediterranean Sea, and had given their name to the Tyrrhenian Sea, upon which they were situate. Piracy, as well as commerce, was followed by them; and they became at last so expert, successful, and dangerous, for their piracies, that they were attacked, and their maritime power greatly abridged, by the Carthaginians and the Sicilians. Their most famous port was Luna, which was situated on the Macra, a river which, flowing from the Apennines, divided Liguria from Etruria, and fell into the Tyrrhenian Sea. There seems good reason to believe that Luna was a place of great trade before the Trojan war; it was extremely capacious, and in every respect worthy of the commercial enterprise and wealth of the Tuscans. Populonium, a city which was situate on a high promontory of the same name, that ran a considerable way into the sea, also possessed a very commodious harbour, capable of receiving a great number of ships. It had an arsenal well supplied with all kinds of naval stores, and a quay for shipping or landing merchandize. One of the principal articles of export consisted in copper vessels, and in arms, machines, utensils, &c. of iron: these metals were at first supplied to the inhabitants from the island of Æthalia (now Elba); but the copper-mines there failing, iron alone, from the same island, was imported for the purpose of their various manufactures; the trade in these flourished in very remote times, and continued in the days of Aristotle and Strabo.

But the most direct and unequivocal testimony to the power of the Tuscans, and that that power was principally, if not entirely, derived from their maritime skill and commerce, is to be found in Livy. This historian informs us, "that before the Roman empire, the Tuscan dominions extended very far both by sea and land, even to the upper and lower sea, by which Italy is surrounded, in form of an island. Their very names are an argument for the vast power of this people; for the Italian natives call the one the Tuscan Sea, and the other the Adriatic, from Adria, a Tuscan colony. The Greeks call them the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic Seas. This people, in twelve cities, inhabited the country extending to both seas; and by sending out colonies equal in number to the mother cities, first on this side of the Apennines towards the lower sea, and afterwards as many on the other side, possessed all the country beyond the Po, even to the Alps, except the corner belonging to the Venetians, who dwelt round a bay of the sea." Homer, Heraclides, Aristides, and Diodorus Siculus, all concur in their representations of the maritime power and commercial opulence of the Tuscans at a very early period. Diodorus Siculus expressly says, that they were masters of the sea; and Aristides, that the Indians were the most powerful nation in the east, and the Tuscans in the west.

Of the Grecian colonies in the south of Italy, that of Tarentum was the most celebrated for its commerce. Polybius expressly informs us, that Tarentum, their principal city, was very prosperous and rich, long before Rome made any figure, and that its prosperity and riches were entirely the fruit of the extensive and lucrative trade they carried on, particularly with Greece. The city of Tarentum stood on a peninsula, and the citadel, which was very strong, was built on the narrowest and extremest part of it; on the east was a small bay, on the west the main sea; the harbour is represented by ancient historians as extremely large, beautiful and commodious. Its vicinity to Greece, Sicily, and Africa, afforded it great opportunities and facilities for commerce. The inhabitants are represented by some authors as having been the inventors of a particular kind of ship, which retained in some degree the form of a raft or float. Their government, which at first was aristocratical, was afterwards changed to a democracy; and it is to this popular form of government that their prosperity and wealth are ascribed. The number of people in the whole state amounted to 300,000; Tarentum had twelve other cities under its dominion. Besides a considerable fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, they had constantly on foot a very large army, principally of mercenaries. Eighteen years before the first Punic war, the Romans had entered into a maritime treaty with the Tarentines; according to this treaty, neither party were to navigate beyond the Cape of Lacinia. Soon afterwards, however, the Roman fleet accidentally appearing near Tarentum, the inhabitants took the alarm, sunk four of the ships, killed or took prisoners the commander and some other officers, sold the seamen for slaves, and behaved with great insolence to the ambassador whom the Romans sent to remonstrate and demand satisfaction. They were soon, however, obliged to submit to the superior power of the Romans. In the second Punic war, it was finally subdued, and a Roman colony planted there.

The Spinetes, Liburnians, and Locrians, were also celebrated for their skill in naval affairs, and for their commerce, before Rome manifested the slightest wish to distinguish herself in this manner. Indeed, the situation of Italy naturally turned the attention of its inhabitants (especially of those who were early civilized, as the Tuscans, or those who had emigrated from a civilized country, as the nations in the south of Italy,) to naval affairs and maritime commerce. Washed by three seas, the Adriatic on the north-east, the Tyrrhenian on the west, and the Ionian on the south, Italy enjoyed advantages possessed by few nations of antiquity. Of the first of these seas, the Spinetes became masters, of the second the Tuscans, and of the third the Tarentines. The Spinetes, were originally Pelasgi, who had emigrated and settled by chance rather than design, on the south banks of the Po. Spina, their capital, was situated on the north side of the southernmost mouth of that river. We do not possess any particular account of their commerce, but that it rendered them powerful and rich we are assured; and their dominion over the Adriatic is a decisive proof of the former, while their magnificent offerings to Delphos may as justly be deemed a proof of the latter. Spina was strong both by nature and art, on the sea side, but the reverse on the land side; so that at last it was abandoned by its inhabitants not being able to withstand the attacks of their neighbours, who were either jealous of their prosperity, or attracted to the assault by the love of plunder. In the reign of Augustus it was reduced to a small village; and the branch of the Po, on which it was situated, had changed its course so much, that it was then upwards of fifteen miles distant from the sea, on the shore of which it had been built. The gradual alteration in the course of the river, it is probable, contributed with the other cause already mentioned to reduce it to comparative insignificance.

Opposite to the Spinetes across the Adriatic, on the coast of Dalmatia, the Liburnians dwelt. In some respects their coast was preferable to that of Italy for maritime affairs, as it is studded with islands, which afforded shelter to ships, and likewise possessed many excellent harbours; but the Liburnians, as well as most of the inhabitants of Illyria, were more eager after piracy than commerce; and, as we shall afterwards see, carried their piracies to such a daring and destructive extent, that the Romans were compelled to attack them. Their devotedness to piracy explains what to Mons. Huet appears unaccountable. He observes, that it is remarkable that neither the Dalmatians, who were powerful at sea by means of their port Salona, which was their capital, nor the Liburnians themselves, according to all appearance, had the use of money among them. Commerce cannot be carried on to great extent, or in a regular and expeditious manner, by natives ignorant of the use of money; but money seems to be not at all requisite to the purposes of piracy. The Liburnian ships, or more properly speaking, those ships which were denominated Liburnian, from having been invented and first employed by this people, were of two kinds; one large, fit for war and long voyages, but at the same time built light and for quick sailing. After the victory of Actium, which Augustus gained in a great measure by means of these ships, few were built by the Romans of any other construction. The other Liburnian vessels were small, for fishing and short voyages; some of these were made with osiers and covered with hides. But strength and lightness, and quick sailing, were the qualities by which the Liburnian ships were chiefly distinguished and characterised.

At what precise period the Romans directed their attention to maritime affairs we are not accurately informed: that the opinion of Polybius on this subject is not well founded, is evident from several circumstances. He says, that before the first Punic war the Romans had no thought of the sea; that Sicily was the first country, out of Italy, in which they ever landed; and that, when they went to that island to assist the Mamertines, the vessels which they employed in that expedition were hired, or borrowed from the Tarentines, the Locrians, &c. He is correct in his statement that Sicily was the first country in which the Romans had any footing; but that he is inaccurate with respect to the period when the Romans first applied themselves to maritime affairs, will appear from the following facts.

In the first place, the Romans (as we have already shown in our account of the Carthaginian commerce,) had several treaties with the Carthaginians, which may properly be called commercial treaties, before the first Punic war. The earliest treaty, according to Polybius himself, was dated about 250 years before the war; and in this treaty the voyages undertaken by the Romans on account of trade to Africa, Sardinia, and that part of Sicily at that time possessed by the Carthaginians, are expressly mentioned and regulated. The second treaty, about 100 years before the first Punic war, is not so specific respecting commerce. The third treaty, occasioned by the invasion of Italy by Pyrrhus, points out a decline in the naval power of the Romans; for it stipulates, that the Carthaginians should furnish them with ships, if required, either for trade or war. Secondly, seventy-four years before the first Punic war, the Romans having subdued the Antiates, and thus become masters of their fleet, among which were six armed with beaks, the tribune was ornamented with these beaks, the ships to which they belonged were burnt, and the others were brought to Rome and laid upon the place allotted to the building and preservation of ships. Lastly, the circumstances which gave rise to the war between the Romans and Tarentines, to which we have already adverted, plainly prove that Polybius is wrong in his assertion. Valerius, who commanded the Roman fleet, which was attacked by the Tarentines, according to Livy, was one of the _duumviri navales_, officers who had been already appointed nearly thirty years (that is, nearly fifty years before the first Punic war), on the motion of Decius Mus, expressly for the purpose of equipping, repairing, and maintaining the fleets.

From these circumstances, it appears that the Romans possessed ships both for war and commerce, previous to the commencement of their wars with the Carthaginians, though it is extremely probable that their commerce was very limited, and for the most part carried on in vessels belonging to the other maritime nations of Italy, and that their ships of war were very small and rude in their construction and equipment.

It is foreign to the object of this work to enter into a detail of the wars between the Romans and the Carthaginians: but as the great efforts of the Romans to become powerful at sea were made during these wars; as these efforts, being successful, laid the foundation of the future commerce of Rome; and as by the destruction of Carthage, in some measure caused by the naval victories gained by the Romans, the most commercial nation of antiquity was utterly ruined, and their commerce transferred to Rome, it will be proper briefly to notice the naval contests between these rival powers during the three wars in which they were engaged.

The first Punic war was occasioned by a desire on the part of the Carthaginians to enlarge and secure their acquisitions in Sicily, and to preserve their dominion of the sea, and by a determination on the part of the Romans to check the progress of the Carthaginians in that island, so immediately adjoining the continent of Italy. An opportunity soon occurred, which seemed to promise to each the accomplishment of their respective objects: the Mamertines, being hard pursued by Hiero king of Syracuse, and shut up in Messina, the only city which remained to them, were divided in opinion; some were for accepting the protection offered them by Hannibal, who at that time commanded the Carthaginian army in Sicily; others were for calling in the aid of the Romans. Both these powers gladly accepted the proffered opportunity of extending their conquests, and checking their rival.

The consul Appius Claudius, was ordered by the senate to proceed to Sicily: previously to his departure, he despatched Caius Claudius, a legionary tribune, with a few vessels to Rhegium, principally, it would seem, to reconnoitre the naval force of the Carthaginians. The consul himself soon followed with a small fleet, hired principally from the Tarentines, Locrians, and Neapolitans. This fleet being attacked by the Carthaginian fleet, which was not only much more numerous, but better equipped and manned, and a violent storm rising during the engagement, which dashed many of the Roman vessels in pieces among the rocks, was completely worsted. The Carthaginians, however, restored most of the vessels they captured, only expostulating with the Romans on the infraction of the treaty at that time subsisting between the two republics. This loss was in some measure counterbalanced by Claudius capturing, on his voyage back to Rhegium, a Carthaginian quinquireme, the first which fell into the possession of the Romans, and which served them for a model. According to other historians, however, a Carthaginian galley, venturing too near the shore, was stranded, and taken by the Romans; and after the model of this galley, the Romans built many of their vessels.

Claudius was not in the least discouraged by his defeat, observing that he could not expect to learn the art of navigation without paying dear for it; but having repaired his fleet, he sailed again for Sicily, and eluding the vigilance of the Carthaginian admiral, arrived safe in the port of Messina.

After the alliance formed between the Romans and Hiero king of Syracuse, and the capture of Agrigentium, they resolved to use all their efforts for the entire subjugation of Sicily. As, however, the Carthaginians were extremely powerful by sea, they could not hope to accomplish this object, unless they were able to cope with them on that element. They resolved, therefore, no longer to trust in any degree to hired vessels, but to build and equip a formidable fleet of their own. Powerfully actuated by this resolution, they began the arduous undertaking with that ardour and spirit of perseverance, which so eminently distinguished them; they deemed it absolutely necessary to have 120 ships. Trees were immediately cut down in the forests, and the timber brought to the sea shore: and the whole fleet, according to Polybius, was not only built, but perfectly equipped and ready for sea, in two months from the time the trees were felled. Of the 120 vessels of which it was composed, 100 had five benches of rowers, and 20 of them had three benches.

There was, however, another difficulty to be overcome. It was absolutely necessary that the men, who were to navigate and fight these ships, should possess some knowledge of their art; but it was in vain to expect that with the Carthaginians, so powerful and watchful at sea, the Roman ships would be permitted to cruise safely long enough to make them practised sailors and fighters. To obviate this difficulty, they had recourse, according to Polybius, to a singular but tolerably effectual mode. "While some men were employed in building the galleys, others, assembling those who were to serve in the fleet, instructed them in the use of the oar after the following manner: they contrived benches on the shore in the same fashion and order as they were to be in the galleys, and placing their seamen, with their oars, in like manner on the benches, an officer, by signs with his hand, instructed them how to dip their oars all at the same time, and how to recover them out of the water. By this means they became acquainted with the management of the oar; and as soon as the vessels were built and equipped, they spent some time in practising on the water, what they had learnt ashore."

The necessity of possessing a fleet adequate to cope with that of the Carthaginians became more and more apparent; for though the Romans had obtained possession of all the inland cities in Sicily, the Carthaginians compensated for this by having the ascendancy by sea, and in the cities on the coast. The Roman fleet was commanded by Cornelius Scipio, who put to sea with seventeen ships, in order to secure at Messina reception and security for the whole fleet; but his enterprise was unfortunate; for, being deceived by false information, he entered the port of Lipara, where he was blockaded by the enemy, and obliged to surrender. This partial loss, however, was soon counterbalanced by a naval victory; for the remainder of the Roman fleet, amounting to 103 sail, being encountered by a Carthaginian fleet under Hannibal, who despising the Romans, had advanced to the contest with only fifty galleys, succeeded in capturing or destroying the whole of them.

In the mean time, the senate had appointed Duilius commander of the fleet; and his first object was to survey it accurately, and, if possible, to improve the construction or equipment of the vessels, if they appeared defective, either for the purpose of sailing or fighting. It seemed to him, on examining them, that they could not be easily and quickly worked during an engagement, being much heavier and more unwieldy than those of the Carthaginians. As this defect could not be removed, he tried whether it could not be compensated; and an engineer in the fleet succeeded in this important object, by inventing that machine which was afterwards called _corvus_.

The immediate purpose which this machine was to serve is clearly explained by all the ancient authors who mention it: its use was to stop the enemy's ships as soon as the Roman vessels came up with them, and thus to give them an opportunity of boarding them; but the construction and mode of operation of these machines it is not easy to ascertain from the descriptions of ancient authors. Polybius gives the following description of them: "They erected on the prow of their vessels a round piece of timber, about one foot and a half in diameter, and about twelve feet long, on the top of which a block or pully was fastened. Round this piece of timber a stage or platform was constructed, four feet broad, and about eighteen feet long, which was strongly fastened with iron. The entrance was lengthways, and it could be moved about the piece of timber, first described, as on a spindle, and could be hoisted within six feet of the top. Round this there was a parapet, knee high, which was defended with upright bars of iron, sharpened at the end. Towards the top there was a ring, through which a rope was fastened, by means of which they could raise and lower the engine at pleasure. With this machine they attacked the enemy's vessels, sometimes on their bow, and sometimes on their broadside. When they had grappled the enemy with these iron spikes, if the ships happened to swing broadside to broadside, then the Romans boarded them from all parts; but when they were obliged to grapple them on the bow, they entered two and two, by the help of this engine, the foremost defending the forepart, and those who followed the flanks, keeping the boss of their bucklers level with the top of the parapet."

From this description of the corvus, it is evident that it had two distinct uses to serve: in the first place, to lay hold of and entangle the enemy's ships; and, secondly, after it had accomplished this object, it served as a means of entering the enemy's vessels, and also as a protection while the boarding was taking place. With respect to the question, whether the _harpagones_ or manus ferrææ; were the same with the _corvi_, it appears to us that the former were of much older invention, as they certainly were much more simple in their construction; and that, probably, the engineer who invented the corvi, borrowed his idea of them from the harpagones, and in fact incorporated the two machines in one engine. The harpagones were undoubtedly grappling irons, but of such light construction that they could be thrown by manual force; but they were of no other service; whereas the corvi were worked by machinery, and served, as we have shown, not only to grapple, but to assist and protect the boarders. We have been thus particular in our account of the corvus, because it may fairly be regarded as having essentially contributed to the establishment of the Roman naval power over that of the Carthaginians.

After Duilius had made a trial of the efficacy of this machine, he sailed in quest of the enemy. The Carthaginians, despising the Romans as totally inexperienced in naval affairs, did not even take the trouble or precaution to draw up their ships in line of battle, but trusting entirely to their own superior skill, and to the greater lightness of their ships, they bore down on the Romans in disorder. They, however, were induced, for a short time, to slacken their advance at the sight of the corvi; but not giving the Romans credit for any invention which could counterbalance their want of skill, experience, and self-confidence, they again pushed forward and attacked the Romans. They soon suffered, however, the consequences of their rashness: the Romans, by means of their corvi, grappled their ships so closely and steadily, that the fight resembled much more a land than a sea battle; and thus feeling themselves, as it were, on their own element, while their enemies seemed to themselves no longer to be fighting in ships, the confidence of the former rose, while that of the latter fell, from the same cause, and nearly in the same proportion. The result was, that the Romans gained a complete victory. The loss of the Carthaginians is variously related by the Roman writers: this is extraordinary, since they must have had access to the best possible authority; the inscription of the Columna Rostrata of Duilius, which is still preserved at Rome. According to this inscription, Duilius fitted out a fleet in sixty days, defeated the Carthaginians, commanded by Hannibal, at sea, took from them thirty ships, with all their rigging, and the septireme which carried the admiral himself; sunk thirty, and took several prisoners of distinction. When Hannibal saw the Romans about to enter his septireme, he leaped into a small boat and escaped.

A circumstance occurred during this engagement which clearly manifested the ardour and perseverance, by means of which the Romans had already become expert, not only in the management of their ships, but also in the use of their corvi. It has already been noticed that the Carthaginians bore down on them in disorder, each ship endeavouring to reach them as soon as possible, without waiting for the rest: among the foremost was Hannibal. After the defeat of this part of the fleet, the rest, amounting to 120, having come up, endeavoured to avoid the fate of their companions by rowing as quickly as possible round the Roman ships, so as not to allow them to make use of the corvi. But the Romans proved themselves to be even more expert seamen than their enemies; for, though their vessels were much heavier, they worked them with so much ease, celerity, and skill, that they presented the machines to the enemy on whatever side they approached them.

The vanquished Hannibal was disgraced by his country; whereas the victorious Roman was honoured and rewarded by the senate, who were fully sensible of all the advantages derived by a naval victory over the Carthaginians. The high and distinguished honour of being attended, when he returned from supper, with music and torches, which was granted for once only to those who triumphed, was continued to Duilius during life. To perpetuate the memory of this victory, medals were struck, and the pillar, to which we have already alluded, was erected in the forum. This pillar, called Columna Rostrata, from the beaks of the ships which were fastened to it, was discovered in the year 1560, and placed in the capital.