Chapter X

OBSERVATIONS ON THE GULF AND SHORES OF THE GREATER SYRTIS.

The Dimensions of the Gulf, according to Ancient Writers, considered, and compared with those resulting from the Observations of the Expedition — Difference in the Statements of the several Writers quoted — Reasons why a Difference may be expected in their Accounts — Observations of Major Rennell on the Measurements of the Ancients — Ptolemy’s Outline of the Gulf more correct than any hitherto given — Number of Square Miles of Error in modern Charts of the Greater Syrtis — The Ideas of Ancient Writers (Herodotus excepted) with respect to the Nature and Resources of the Syrtis (the _Territory_, not the _Gulf_ of the Greater Syrtis is here meant) more erroneous than the Dimensions which have been assigned to the Gulf itself — The General Character of the Syrtis not that of a Sandy Plain — Incorrectness of the Arab Accounts of what is termed by them the Desert of Barka — Account of Herodotus considered — Apparent Accuracy of his Statements — Inferences drawn from them — Ancient Accounts of the _Gulf_ of the Greater Syrtis, dimensions excepted, very correct — Accumulation of Soil on the Shores of the Gulf accounted for — Apparent Elevation of the General Level of the Syrtis — Advance of the Sea on the Northern Coast of Africa — Appearance of the Coast at Alexandria and Carthage consistent with that of the Shores of the Greater Syrtis and Cyrenaica — Observations of Major Rennell and Dr. Shaw on the Elevation of the Coast of Tunis, and the Advance of the Sea in that quarter — Observations of Lucan on the Level of the Greater Syrtis — Dangers of the Navigation of the Gulf of Syrtis considered — Inset into the Gulf still existing to a great extent — Flux and Reflux of the Sea mentioned by Strabo and Mela considered — Remarks on the Derivation of the term _Syrtis_.

In considering the dimensions which have come down to us of the Greater Syrtis, those allotted to it by Strabo (in the seventeenth book) are so singularly inconsistent with each other, that there appears to be no possible mode of reconciling the measurements he has given of its diameter, with those which he has in the same place ascribed to its circumference, without material alterations in the text. “The circumference of the Greater Syrtis” (observes the geographer) “is about nine hundred and thirty stadia[1]; and its diameter, at the bottom of the Gulf, is one thousand five hundred stadia: the breadth of the entrance (or mouth) is about the same[2]:” that is, about fifteen hundred stadia. Here we have a circumference considerably less than its diameter, and no way of getting rid of a difficulty so formidable to mathematicians, without making such decided alterations in the text as no sober-minded editor would hazard[3]. Various readings have been given, by different commentators, of this passage; but it will be useless to compare their several merits; since both the measurements in question will be found to be no less inconsistent with the truth than they have been seen to be with each other. For the actual circumference of the gulf of the Greater Syrtis may be estimated at four hundred and twenty-two geographic miles, and its diameter at two hundred and forty-six[4]: so that it would be necessary to alter both the circumference and diameter given by Strabo before any use could be made of his dimensions; and then the measurements must be taken on the authority of the commentators, since they would be no longer those of the geographer. In short, the difficulty appears to be scarcely surmountable; for though it is evident that the passage is not as Strabo left it, we have no sufficient data for deciding what it really was originally[5]. The measurements given by Pliny are somewhat nearer the truth[6]; indeed his diameter of the gulf may be considered as remarkably accurate; for it is stated at three hundred and thirteen Roman miles, equal to two hundred and forty-eight and a quarter geographic miles, and there is consequently no more than two miles and a quarter difference between these dimensions and the actual diameter. His circumference, however, is not by any means so accurate; it is given at six hundred and twenty-five Roman miles, which are equal to four hundred and ninety-four geographic miles, and will therefore leave a difference of seventy-two geographic miles between this measurement of the circuit and the actual one. The difference also exists on the wrong side; that is to say, the whole distance of Pliny is not only much more than the actual distance by observations, but much more than the actual road-distance, which is the longest which can be allowed. The diameter of the gulf, already stated, of this author, will be found to coincide remarkably well with the measurement which may be deduced from the distance he has given us in another place, between the cities of Leptis Magna and Berenice, of three hundred and eighty-five Roman miles[7]: for the distance between Lebida (Leptis Magna) and Mesurata, the western extremity of the gulf, may be reckoned at fifty-eight geographic miles, equal to seventy-three Roman miles; so that this being deducted from the whole distance given, of three hundred and eighty-five M. P. we shall have a remainder of three hundred and twelve of the same for the distance between Mesurata and Bengazi, leaving a difference of only one mile between the diameter of the gulf thus deduced and that above stated of three hundred and thirteen. But although we may infer, from the coincidence of the two measurements, that the three hundred and twelve miles in question may be taken as distance _across_ the gulf, they are by no means stated to be such in the text; and if they had chanced to coincide with the circumference instead of the diameter of the gulf, they might just as well have been taken for the road-distance between Mesurata and Bengazi; the measurements which we find in the Itinerary of Antoninus, of the distance between Leptis Magna and Berenice, come nearer to the actual road-distance between these places, by one hundred and thirty Roman miles, than that which is obtained by adding the seventy-three miles between Lebida and Mesurata to the circumference of the gulf given by Pliny; for the whole distance of the Itinerary from Leptis to Berenice is not estimated at more than five hundred and sixty-eight Roman miles, while those above mentioned being added together would make no less than six hundred and ninety-eight. So that the circumference of the gulf which may be deduced from the Itinerary differs only from the actual circuit by road-distance in thirty-seven Roman miles, or twenty-nine and a half geographic.

But instead of being surprized at the differences which obtain between the measurements which have descended to us from the ancients, we ought rather, perhaps, to wonder that they do not differ even more than they are usually found to do from each other. It is true that abundant materials were furnished to the early geographers, by the numerous military and naval expeditions which enterprizing or ambitious states had fitted out for the purposes of conquest or discovery[8]; but the maps and charts which resulted from them were laid down without the aid of astronomy; and the distances between the places described in them were either measured or computed along the roads which the armies traversed, or deduced from the track of vessels along the coast. Major Rennell has observed, that the difference which will generally be found between the measurements of Eratosthenes and Strabo, and those which appear in modern geography, will be that which exists between the measure of a _direct_ line, drawn from one place to another, and that of the _road_ distance between them. “Nothing can speak more strongly to this point,” (says the well-informed and intelligent writer here quoted,) “than the circumstance of Strabo’s giving the number of stades in Nearchus’s coasting navigation for the lengths of the coasts of Persia and Caramania[9].”

In fact it was not till the time of Ptolemy that geography began to be placed upon that solid basis on which it now stands so conspicuously; and it certainly appears somewhat singular, that the writers on this subject who flourished between the time of Hipparchus and that of the Alexandrian geographer (among whom were Strabo and Pliny,) should not have availed themselves of the discoveries of the former to check the measurements which appear in their works[10]. Various errors have been pointed out in the geography of Ptolemy; but as it can scarcely be supposed that he had sufficient observations to regulate the position of all the places which he has laid down, we ought not to be surprized at this circumstance. His outline of the Gulf of Syrtis, though it cannot be called correct, is notwithstanding more so than those which have since been given of it; and the prolongation of the gulf at its southern extremity, so erroneously marked in modern charts, as well as the inlet called the Gulf of Zuca, which we have stated does not exist, are neither of them laid down in it at all. It may therefore be said, that the true character of the gulf is much better preserved in the loose outline of Ptolemy than in any other of which we are aware. Whatever may be the reasons which have induced modern geographers to introduce into the Gulf of Syrtis the errors which we have alluded to, it is certain that the best chart which they have hitherto produced of it must undergo a correction of ninety miles in longitude, and upwards of thirty miles in latitude, that is to say, it must part with nearly six thousand square miles of ground, before it will be consistent with the truth.

Should we pass from the measurements to the general character of the Syrtis, we shall find that if the ancient authorities have erred in their dimensions of it, they have been no less deceived with regard to its nature and resources. The whole country from Bengazi to Mesurata appears to have been generally considered by the writers of antiquity as a dreary tract of sand, without water or vegetation, and swarming with venomous serpents. But we have already shewn that there are spots in this tract where vegetation is very luxuriant, and where water may be readily procured; and although the extent of marshy ground is in many places considerable, yet the proportions between the barren and the productive parts of the Syrtis are not so little in favour of the latter as appears to have been generally imagined. The whole tract is so thinly inhabited, that a very trifling portion of it only is cultivated; but this circumstance is owing more to the character of the Bedouins who frequent it, and to the government to which they are subjected, than to the incapacity of the soil itself.

The Bedouin, though active, is far from industrious; and if he can gain a livelihood from the flocks which he possesses, he will seldom trouble himself to cultivate even the most productive soil; indeed, if he were to do so, he has in general no security that any part of the produce or the profits of it would be his own. His tent and flocks may be removed at a few minutes’ notice, but his crop of corn or vegetables could not be so disposed of; and they who came as his friends, for the purpose of collecting tribute, or as enemies, for the purpose of spoliation, would take care to be with him before his crops were cut, and make sure of the object of their visit. We remember asking an Arab, in the district of Syrt, why his tribe would not trouble themselves to dig a few more wells in a place which they frequented, where there was plenty of water, at no great depth from the surface of the soil: his answer was that, if they were to do so, the Bashaw’s troops who collected the tribute would more easily overtake them, when they chose to run away, than if the supply of water were more scanty: for without a good supply of water the troops could not advance more than a short distance into the interior, and would consequently be less likely to overtake them in their flight. This reason was sufficient in his opinion to account for the circumstance; but it is probable that, if there were no grounds for apprehension on this head, neither our friend himself, nor any Arab of his tribe, would have had resolution enough to sink a single well, however much they might chance to be in want of it; and that they would have preferred removing their whole establishment to another place, which might be better provided with water, to the trouble of digging for it where they were.

It is not only in the works of early writers that we find the nature of the Syrtis misunderstood; for the whole of the space between Mesurata and Alexandria is described by Leo Africanus (under the title of Barca), as “a wild and desert country, where there is neither water nor land capable of cultivation[11].” He allows, however, that the country was inhabited, _after_ the occupation of Africa by the Arabs, though not before that period; and tells us, that the most powerful among the Mahometan invaders possessed themselves of the fertile parts of the coast, leaving the others only the desert for their abode, exposed to all the miseries and privations attendant on it: for this desert, he continues, is far removed from any habitation, and nothing is produced there whatever. So that if these poor people would have a supply of grain, or of any other articles necessary to their existence, they are obliged to pledge their children to the Sicilians who visit the coast; who on providing them with these things, which they bring with them from Sicily, carry off the children they have received. Here we have the whole of the Syrtis and Cyrenaica described as a desert tract of country; and although the same author states, that “Sert was an ancient city, built, as some think, by the Egyptians, and, as others believe, by the Romans,” he informs us that the country in which it was situated was uninhabited, from Mesurata to Alexandria, before the arrival of the Mahometans in Africa[12].

It must, however, be confessed, that the half-starved Musselmen with whom he has peopled it were scarcely more deserving of our commisseration than the “vastæ Nasamon populator Syrtis,” or any other of the very respectable personages of antiquity who are said to have inhabited this coast. The Sicilians were most probably aware of the character of their customers before they exacted from them the hostages above described; for Leo goes on to say, that these Arabs were the greatest thieves and the most treacherous people to be found in the whole world. They ranged the country round, as far as Numidia, attacking and plundering the poor pilgrims who were unfortunate enough to meet them; and not contented with taking from them everything that was to be found upon their persons, they made them swallow a quantity of hot milk, and then shook them about till it acted as an emetic, so violently as to leave nothing whatever on the stomach.

This was done lest the poor unhappy patients, to whom the medicine was administered, should have taken the precaution of swallowing their money to prevent its being taken from them by their assailants. “Perciocché dubitano queste bestie (says our indignant author) che i viandanti, come s’appressano a quel diserto, inghiottino i danari perchè non gli siano trovati adosso.”

It appears to be chiefly from Leo Africanus that modern historians have derived the very unfavourable idea of what they term the district and desert of Barca. Yet the whole of the Cyrenaica is comprehended within the limits which they assign to it; and the authority of Herodotus (without citing any other) would be amply sufficient to prove that this tract of country, not only was no desert, but was at all times remarkable for its fertility.

We find on the same authority, that the Libyans (or Africans) who inhabited, at an early period, the southern shores of the Mediterranean, were divided into pastoral and agricultural tribes; and that the former, most of whom were inhabitants of Barca, were by no means in the miserable condition in which they have been by some represented.

They are described by Herodotus as living on flesh and milk; and the prejudice which they entertained for what Englishmen would term cow-beef, could scarcely have existed among a people who were scantily provided with the necessaries of life[13].

With regard to the present inhabitants of the district of Barca (we mean the part of it comprehended in the Syrtis and Cyrenaica), we should certainly call them a healthy and good-looking race; and not at all the ugly, meagre, grim-visaged people, which they have been described to be in some of our best received accounts of them. We allude in particular to the Bedouin (or wandering) tribes, which are those more immediately in question; and who are generally a finer people, both in character and appearance, than what are termed the more civilized inhabitants of Arab cities. Whatever may be the descent of the present inhabitants of this part of Africa, they appear to lead exactly the same kind of life, and to have as nearly as possible the same resources, as the early possessors of the regions which they occupy.

The penetration of Herodotus has not failed to discover among the African tribes which he enumerates, that they were a very healthy race of people; and the practice of cautery, still adopted by their Mahometan successors, and to which he is uncertain whether or not to attribute the healthy appearance of the Libyans, is mentioned by this author as one of their peculiarities[14].

No allusion is made by Herodotus to the parched and barren sandy soil which later writers have bestowed upon the country in question, described by Leo Africanus as a region “dove non si trova ne acqua ne terreno da cultivare;” and we may safely affirm that the impression left upon our minds of this part of the coast and its inhabitants (after reading the account of Herodotus) would be much more consistent with the appearance and peculiarities of both, in their actual state, than that which would result from the descriptions of any succeeding writer.

The parts which are nearest the sea he describes as inhabited by Nomadic, or pastoral tribes; and the inference is, that where there are flocks and shepherds, there is also pasturage and water. The country inland of these, and immediately adjoining them, he states to be abounding with wild beasts; and for these animals, also, more shelter and moisture is necessary than could be afforded them in the burning sands of a desert: we may therefore conclude that the parts where they are found would most probably contain caves, or woods, which might serve them as habitations and places of retreat and security. This tract we should consequently imagine to be wild and stony, unadapted to cultivation, and affording little or no pasturage, but certainly not wholly of sand, or altogether unprovided with water. The third region, mentioned by Herodotus as succeeding to the two before enumerated, and placed farther inland than either, is the sandy tract of country usually, though not necessarily, implied by the term desert, in which there is neither water, nor vegetation of any kind; nothing, in fact, by which life could be sustained[15]. This tract he merely states to be a long ridge of sand, extending itself from Egypt to the pillars of Hercules[16]. It is but justice to state, in confirmation of the account here submitted to us by the father of history, whose veracity has been so much called in question, that (so far as our own experience, and that of the Arabs whom we have questioned on the subject, has enabled us to judge) it is perfectly consistent with the truth. What was beyond the sandy desert was little known to Herodotus, and must not therefore be adverted to in considering this description.

With regard to the water afforded by the Syrtis, we find the Psylli inhabiting a tract of country inland of that possessed by the Nasamones, who occupied the south-eastern coast of the Gulf[17]; these people must therefore have been provided with water, though they were nearer to the sandy desert than the Nasamones; and if we are told that, in consequence of their supplies being dried up, they were compelled to emigrate, and perished in their journey to the southward, we must at the same time conclude that, previous to this accident, they had water enough to support them at home, though it might not have been very plentiful. On the whole, we may observe, without entering further into this subject, that the district of Barca, including all the country between Mesurata and Alexandria, neither is, nor ever was, so destitute and barren as it has been represented; that the part of it which constitutes the Cyrenaica is capable of the highest degree of cultivation, and that many parts of the Syrtis afford excellent pasturage, while some of it is not only adapted to cultivation, but does actually produce good crops of barley and dhurra. We may remark, at the same time, that the proportion of sand which is actually to be found in the Syrtis will by no means authorize us to call it a sandy region, and that the proportion of water which it actually possesses will not justify us in asserting that it is unprovided with that necessary. We may observe, too, that the number of serpents and venomous reptiles, so freely bestowed upon the Syrtis by Roman writers, and by others who flourished after the occupation of Northern Africa by Roman colonies, appears to be greatly exaggerated: that it possesses, in fact, no terrors peculiar to itself, at least, not that we are acquainted with; and no difficulties which may not be readily surmounted by those who are acquainted with the nature of the country, and will adopt the precautions which are necessary[18].

From the regions of the Greater Syrtis let us pass to the Gulf itself; and of this we may remark, that the accounts which have come down to us of its peculiarities do certainly appear to be much better founded than those which we possess of the country along its shores. Herodotus, although he has minutely described the people who inhabited the coasts of the Syrtes, has left no account of the Gulfs; but we learn from Strabo, that the dangers which presented themselves to navigators, in the Gulfs both of the Greater and Lesser Syrtis, were occasioned by the frequent occurrence of banks and shallows, formed by the flux and reflux of the sea, on which vessels were continually striking, and it rarely happened that any of them were got off. “For this reason,” he adds, “it was usual to keep away from the coast, in order to avoid being embayed[19].”

What we must here understand by the flux and reflux of the sea, is not (we should imagine) the usual action of the tides, which is very trifling in the Mediterranean, compared with that which is observable in other seas; but the inset occasioned by violent winds blowing for any long continuance on shore, and the subsequent reaction of the sea in regaining its original level.

As northerly winds are very prevalent, and very strong on this coast, which fronts the widest part of the Mediterranean, they might no doubt occasion the accumulation of soil alluded to in this passage of Strabo; and we certainly find that a great part of the coast is so exceedingly shallow as to make the landing very hazardous and difficult. It is probable, also, that this accumulation of soil has raised the level of the low lands in the Greater and Lesser Syrtes much above what it formerly was, and that both these regions were once covered with water to a greater depth than at present.

We have already observed that the sea appears to have made great advances on the whole line of coast of Northern Africa; and this fact seems to be proved from the circumstance of our finding the remains of ancient towns, along its shores, at present under water to a considerable extent. We may now pass in boats over the ruins of the northern part of Alexandria, (as many travellers of our time can testify); and remains of the city of Carthage, “for the space of three furlongs in length, and half a furlong, or more, in breadth,” are well known (on the authority of Shaw[20]) to be at the present day “entirely under water.” In the intermediate space, we may instance the maritime towns of the Cyrenaica, where the sea has made considerable advances; those parts of the Greater Syrtis which are not exposed to the accumulation of sand, and the town of modern Tripoly, the northern part of which (as we have already stated in the words of Leo Africanus) appears to have been in his time under water.

This rise in the level of the Mediterranean could scarcely fail to have occasioned an overflow in the low grounds of the Syrtie, to a much greater extent than formerly, if it had not been accompanied by, at least, a proportionate accumulation of soil: but it will rather appear that in these regions the land may be said to have advanced upon the sea; since we find their ancient ports now filled up with sand, their lakes to have taken the character of marshes, and their quicksands (if ever they had any) to have become solid and firm[21].

To these remarks we may add the observations of Major Rennell, on the actual and former state of the Lake Tritonis and the Lesser Syrtis, which we will give in the author’s own words.

“From the authorities which we shall presently adduce, we can suppose no other than that this Syrtis” (the Gulf of the Lesser Syrtis) “did once enter much deeper into the land; and that it even formed a junction with the Lake Lowdeah within it—the Tritonis Palus of the ancients. Otherwise we must not only reject the reports of Herodotus and Ptolemy, but that of Scylax also, the writer of a periplus, and who ought to have known the truth.” Again, after a learned and ingenious discussion—“In effect the ancients, as Dr. Shaw justly observes (p. 213), seem to have described this quarter from report, or uncertain information only[22]; and therefore we can hardly expect consistent, much more critical, descriptions. They appear, however, to have furnished us with very good grounds for believing that the Syrtis and Lake Tritonis communicated in former times; and that the communication continued even to the time of Ptolemy. We think it equally probable that the river Triton flowed into the lake, and that the island called by some Triton, by Herodotus, Phla, together with the temple of Minerva, (in which the Triton is said to have deposited Jason’s tripod) was situated near the mouth of it: moreover, that the island in question is now a part of the sandy plain in which the rivulet of Hammah, the supposed river of Triton, loses itself. For it appears to us that the difference between the present state of things, at this place, and the ancient description of the lake and Syrtis, may be reconciled, by merely adverting to the changes that have taken place on other sandy shores; and more particularly at the head of a gulf where the tide exerts its greatest power of casting up the sand to a higher point. That which has happened at the head of the Red Sea may be adduced in point; and, as the shore of the Syrtis is much flatter than the other, the operation has probably gone on with greater rapidity.”

Lucan (as Major Rennell has justly observed) “appears to believe that the bottom of the Syrtis” (that is, the Greater Syrtis) “was growing firmer, and the water shallower; and surmises that it may hereafter become dry and solid.” “What changes” (he continues), “in point of form and extent, they may have undergone, or if any, we know not: but it is certain they have hitherto preserved their original properties.”

We insert below the lines of Lucan alluded to, from Rowe’s translation[23].

It will be seen that the principal danger of the Syrtes, according to the passage above quoted from Strabo, consisted in the difficulty of what is termed by seamen working off a lee-shore, for which the vessels of the ancients were very ill adapted; and we can readily believe, from what we have seen of the coast, that (under the influence of the heavy surf which rolls over the shallows when the wind blows strongly on shore) few vessels which chanced to strike could escape. The inset into the gulf, at the same time, being great, (when the north and east winds blow strongly against the coast,) it must have been extremely difficult for vessels of this description to avoid being drawn into its vortex; and indeed we may observe that few ships will, at the present day, sail from Bengazi, westward, when the wind is blowing strongly into the gulf, on account of this consequent indraught[24].

“The improved state of navigation” (Major Rennell very justly observes) “has, however, stripped the Syrtes of the greatest part of their terrors;” and it is probable that the report of them which we shall have from Captain Smyth will in consequence prove to be much less formidable than the accounts which have descended to us from the ancients.

It appears, from Mela, that the Syrtes were not only considered to be dangerous on account of the frequent occurrence of shoals, but more so in consequence of the flux and reflux of the sea which we have already mentioned above[25]. This rise and fall (as we have stated) can scarcely have been the customary motion of the tides; but it may reasonably be supposed that the reaction of such a body of water as must (under the influence of violent and continued winds) have been driven over the low lands of the Greater Syrtis, was occasionally very considerable. This may have been the reflux (we imagine) alluded to; while the inset into the Gulf, caused by strong winds blowing into it, may have been the rise which is mentioned as the flux.

Of the indraught in question there can be no doubt; indeed, we may remark that a rise of this nature is more or less observable in gulfs in general; and when we consider that an unbroken sweep of level ground, very slightly raised above the surface of the sea, will be found extending itself on the western coast of the Greater Syrtis for the space of a hundred miles in length, and occasionally as much as fifteen in breadth, we may easily allow that the reflux of the water, driven over a tract of such dimensions, may well be considered as formidable.

It appears to be from the effect of the flux and reflux alluded to, that the names by which the Gulfs of Syrtis are distinguished have been derived; that is, if we may suppose them to be of Greek origin, as Sallust and others have asserted[26].

Cellarius has, however, been censured by Signor Della Cella for having ventured to adopt this derivation, and for “not knowing that Sert meant desert in Arabic, and that this name is still preserved in the bottom of the (Greater) Syrtis[27].” But were we even to agree with Dr. Della Cella, that the district called Syrt is a desert, (which our friend Shekh Mahommed, who lives there, with many others, very comfortably, would be very unwilling, and very ungrateful to allow,) there does not appear to be any reason why the regions in question should be particularly distinguished as deserts, when the country which bounds them to the southward, and which is much more entitled to the appellation of desert than they are, was never called Syrtis either by ancients or moderns. The term existed, it is evident, in the age of Scylax and Herodotus, both of whom we find to have used it; but, in enumerating the several tribes which inhabited the shores of these gulfs, it by no means appears (as we have stated above) that the latter of these writers meant to characterise their country as a desert, or that he was aware of any such meaning implied by the term in question, Syrtis. If, therefore, we suppose the word to be of oriental origin, we should rather look beyond the language of the Arabs for its root; and as the Phœnicians were well acquainted with these shores at a very early period of history, we might suppose, with some appearance of probability, that the term has originated with them. As the peculiarities of the Gulfs of Syrtis appear to be more striking than those of the territory within them, it is also probable that the country would have been named from them, and not the gulfs from the country; particularly as the Phœnicians were a naval nation, and may be supposed (at the early period to which we allude) to have been better acquainted with the Gulfs than with the country here in question.

The Phœnician (or Hebrew) words from which the term Syrtis might originate, are probably the roots of the Arab phrase Sahara (صحرا), to which Signor Della Cella appears to allude; but instead of applying them to the country of the Syrtis, as expressive of its barren and desolate appearance, we should rather apply them to the Gulfs themselves, as expressive of the violent storms of wind which are known to prevail in them, and of the agitation and confusion resulting from their influence.

The terms to which we allude are the Hebrew words Saar (סַעַר), or Saàrat (סַעַרַת), signifying whirlwind, or tempest; and the root Sàar (סָער), from which they spring, expressive of agitation and disturbance; Soarah (סֹעַרח), tempest-tossed, is also another derivative of Sàar.

We have very slender pretensions to any skill in Hebrew, and merely offer the above suggestions for the consideration of those who may be inclined to reject the Greek origin of the term Syrtis; which, for our own part, we are very well contented to allow, on the authority of the writers already quoted, and on inspection of one of the places in question. It may be possible, however, that some Phœnician term, like those we have instanced, may have descended from that people to the Greeks, and afterwards through the latter to the Romans, who may have looked for the origin of it in some word of the Greek language which appeared to them expressive of the qualities of the Gulfs, without considering that the Greeks might themselves have received it from others.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: The stade of Strabo has been estimated by Major Rennell, in his admirable treatise on the itinerary stade of the Greeks, at 700 to a geographical degree; and 930 stades will, on this computation, be equal to 100½[a] Roman miles, or 80⅒ geographic miles. While the dimensions of the diameter, 1500 stades, will be equal to 162½ Roman miles, or 128⁵⁷⁄₁₀₀ geographic.]

[Footnote a: The geographical and Roman miles differ (says Shaw, on the authority of D’Anville) as 60 is to 75½, that is, 60 geographical miles and 75½ Roman miles are equal to one degree of a great circle. The Roman mile is consequently one-fifth less than a geographic mile.—Vol. i. p. 30.]

[Footnote 2: Ἡ δε μεγαλη Συρτις τον μεν κυκλον εχει σταδιων εννακοσιων τριακοντα που· την δ᾽ επι τον μυχον διαμετρον χιλιων πεντακοσιων· τοσουτον δε που και το του στοματος πλατος.—Lib. xvii. p. 385.]

[Footnote 3: In the second book, however, the measurements given by Strabo are more consistent; for he tells us that the circumference of the Greater Syrtis is (according to Eratosthenes) five thousand stadia, or 428⁴⁵⁄₁₀₀ geographic mile[a]; and its depth, from the Hesperides to Automala, and the limits of the Cyrenaica, one thousand eight hundred, or 154²⁹⁄₁₀₀ geographic miles. Others, he adds, make the circumference four thousand stadia, 342⁸⁸⁄₁₀₀ geographic miles; and the depth one thousand five hundred stadia, or 128⁵⁷⁄₁₀₀ geographic miles; the same, he says, as the breadth of the gulf at its mouth.—Lib. xi. p. 123.]

[Footnote a: At the rate of 700 stades to a degree.]

[Footnote 4: This estimate of the circumference is deduced from the camel-track, corrected by observations; and the accuracy to which this mode of computation may be brought by care and attention, and by making the proper allowances, will be seen in the examples which we shall hereafter submit of it.]

[Footnote 5: If, however, we take the measurements just quoted from the second book of Strabo, as those which he intended to be received in the present case, we shall find that the 428⁴⁵⁄₁₀₀ miles, resulting from the 5000 stadia of Eratosthenes, come very near the truth. The other measurements, however, are far from correct. It will be observed that the diameter given in this place is the same with that mentioned in the second book (1500 stadia).]

[Footnote 6: Inde Syrtis Major, circuitu DCXXV. aditu autem, CCCXIII. M. Passuum.—Nat. Hist. lib. v. cap. 4.]

[Footnote 7: Nec procul ante Oppidum (Berenice) fluvius Lethon, lucus sacer, ubi Hesperidum horti memorantur. Abest a Lepti CCCLXXXV. M. P.—(Lib. v. cap. 5.)]

[Footnote 8: Sesostris is said to have recorded his march in maps, and to have given copies of them not only to the Egyptians, but to the remote and uninformed inhabitants of Scythia, who viewed them with the greatest astonishment. The expeditions of Alexander furnished the materials for an interesting survey, a copy of which was given to Patroclus the geographer; it was from the work of Patroclus that Eratosthenes derived his principal materials in constructing the Oriental part of his map of the world, and it is frequently quoted both by Strabo and Pliny.

Many tolerably accurate surveys resulted from the conquests of the Romans; and we learn from Vegetius that their generals were always furnished with the maps of the provinces which were to be the scenes of their operations. Julius Cæsar ordered a general survey to be made of the whole empire, which occupied twenty-five years; and the Itinerary of Antonine, as well as that which was constructed in the reign of Theodosius the Great, commonly called the Peutingerian table, are well known as valuable authorities.

“The expedition of Alexander” (says Major Rennell, in the preliminary remarks attached to his Illustrations of Herodotus,) “besides the _éclat_ of the military history belonging to it, furnished in Greece and Egypt an _epoch_ of geographical improvement and correction, which may not unaptly be compared with that of the discoveries of the Portuguese along the coasts of Africa and India; or of that of the present time, in which geography has been improved in every quarter of the globe.”

“To a philosopher,” (observes the same author,) “the changes in the comparative state of nations, in different ages of the world, are very striking, and lead one to reflect what may be the future state of some _now_ obscure corner of New Holland or of North America; since our own island was known only for its tin-mines by the most celebrated of ancient nations, whose descendants, in turn, rank no higher with us than as dealers in figs and currants!”]

[Footnote 9: “Variations ever did and ever will exist (continues the Major) on computed distances; instances of which existed on our own public roads previous to their improvement, and which do yet exist on many of the cross-roads.” “It is probable,” he adds, “that Herodotus, Xenophon, Nearchus, Strabo, &c., all intended the same stade, but may have given occasion to different results, by reporting the numbers on the judgment of different persons.”]

[Footnote 10: Hipparchus of Nicæa (“who can never,” says Pliny, “be sufficiently commended,”) appears to have been the first who united geography with astronomy, by determining the position of some of the places which he described, according to their _latitude_ and _longitude_[a]. He died about one hundred and twenty-five years before Christ, and his important discoveries remained neglected, or at least unapplied, for nearly three hundred years, till they were adopted by Ptolemy in his Geographical Treatise.]

[Footnote a: See Ptolemy, Geog. lib. i. c. 4, and Pliny, Nat. Hist., lib. ii. c. 12—26.]

[Footnote 11: ——— Una campagna diserta et aspera, dove non si trova nè acqua nè terreno da coltivare.—(Leo Afr. in Ram. 5ta parte, p. 72.)]

[Footnote 12: Prima che gli Arabi venissero in Africa fu il detto diserto dishabitato: ma poi che, &c.

There can be no doubt that the desert of Barca, here described, is the whole tract of country bordering on the Mediterranean, from Mesurata to Alexandria; for, after having described Mesurata as situated on the coast, the author proceeds to observe—“This desert (that of Barca) begins from the confines of the district of Mesurata, and extends itself eastward as far as the confines of Alexandria, a space of about one thousand three hundred miles in length, and about two hundred in breadth.” The dimensions of Barca here given appear to be as singular as the description already noticed of it which follows; for besides that the length is much too great, the two hundred miles of breadth which is allotted to it would carry us far to the southward of Augila, into the desert of Libya, which does not seem, from other passages, to have been intended by Leo. We were ourselves, at one time, in passing along the eastern side of the Gulf of Syrtis, only four days’ journey from Augila; and it then bore to the eastward of the south; so that it could not be anything like two hundred miles from the coast, even reckoning from the most northern part of the Cyrenaica.

The place mentioned by Strabo in the following passage, as being _four_ days’ easy journey from the bottom of the Syrtis, could scarcely be any other than Augila.

Τεταρταιους μεν ουν φασιν απο του μυχου της μεγαλης Συρτεως τους κατ᾽ αυτο μαλακως βαδιζοντας ως επι χειμερινας ανατολας αφικνεισθαι. Εστι δε ο τοπος ουτος εμφερης τω Αμμονι, φοινικοτροφος τε και ευυδρος.—Lib. xvii. p. 838.

Procopius also (de Ædificiis, lib. v.) makes Augila _four_ days’ journey from Borium, (the Borium _Oppidum_, at the bottom of the Gulf.)]

[Footnote 13: Ουτο μεν μεχρι της Τριτωνιδος λιμνης απ᾽ Αιγυπτου νομαδες εισι κρεοφαγοι τε και γαλακτοποται Λιβυες· και θηλεων τε βοων ουτοι γευομενοι, &c.—Melp. ρπςʹ.]

[Footnote 14: Melp. ρπζ.—Sallust has observed of this coast and its inhabitants:—

“Mare sævum, importuosum. Ager frugum fertilis, bonus pecori, arbori infecundus: cœlo, terraque penuria aquarum: genus hominum salubri corpore, velox, patiens laborum: plerosque senectus dissolvit, nisi qui ferro, aut a bestiis interiere. Nam morbus haud sæpe quenquam superat, ad hoc malefici generis plurima animalia.”—(Bell. Jugurth. § 17.)

This account agrees very well with that of Herodotus; but the description which Sallust afterwards gives of the country where the Philænean altars were placed, conveys too much the idea of a flat sandy plain.]

[Footnote 15: That is, on the surface; for in most sandy deserts water may be found by digging.]

[Footnote 16: Ουτοι μεν ὁι παραθαλασσιοι των Νομαδων λιβυων ειρεαται. υπερ δε τουτων, ες μεσογαιαν, η θηριωδης εστι λιβυη· υπερ δε της θηριωδεος οφρυη ψαμμης κατηκει, παρατεινουσα απο θηβεων των Αιγυπτιεων επι Ηρακληιας στηλας. (Melp. ρπαʹ.)]

[Footnote 17: Strabo seems to place the Nasamones farther inland, whither they were probably driven by the Cyreneans subsequent to the account of Herodotus.

Την δε υπερκειμενην εν βαθει χωραν της Συρτεως και της Κυρηναιας κατεχουσιν ὁι Λιβυες παραλυπρον και αυχμηραν· πρωτον μεν ὁι Νασαμωνες, επειτα ψυλλοι και τινες γαιτουλοι, επειτα Γαραμαντες· (Lib. 17. p. 838.)]

[Footnote 18: The want of accurate information which has hitherto obtained, respecting the Gulf and the Shores of the Greater Syrtis, has not only occasioned their being incorrectly laid down in modern maps, but has necessarily subjected the observations of modern writers upon them to errors which would not otherwise have been made.

In alluding to the breadth across the mouth of the Greater Syrtis, Major Rennell has remarked as follows:—

“Scylax reckons it a passage of three days and nights across its mouth; which, however, measures no more than one hundred and eighty geographic miles on the best modern maps. This allows about sixty miles for each day and night collectively.”

But the actual distance across the Gulf, from Mesurata to Bengazi, is two hundred and forty-six geographic miles, instead of one hundred and eighty, and this would give a rate of eighty-six miles per day (considered as twenty-four hours).

Again—the same author observes—“Strabo says that Cato had ten thousand men, which he divided into separate bodies, that they might more conveniently obtain supplies of water in that arid region. That they marched on foot, and completed the tour of the Syrtis from Berenice in thirty days. Those who examine the distance will find that the rate of marching was eleven and a half geographic miles in direct distance, or about one mile above the mean of ordinary marches, which is 10.6.”

But as the circumference of the Greater Syrtis is ascertained (as above stated) to be four hundred and twenty-two geographic miles, it will follow that the rate of marching must here have been, in actual distance, about fourteen geographic miles for each day.]

[Footnote 19: Ἡ χαλεποτης δε και ταυτης της Συρτεως, και της μικρας, οτι πολλακου τεναγωδης εστιν ὁ βυθος, κατα τας αμπωτεις και τας πλημμυριδας, συμβαινει τισιν εμπιπτειν εις τα βραχη και καθιζειν· σπανιον δ᾽ ειναι το σωζομενον σκαφος. Διοπερ πορρωθεν τον παραπλουν ποιουνται, φυλαττομενοι μη εμπεσοιεν εις τους κολπους υπ᾽ ανεμων αφυλακτοι ληφθεντες. (Lib. 17. § 20.)

The word σκαφος here used, though it means literally _boat_, appears to be applied in this passage to vessels in general.]

[Footnote 20: Travels in Barbary, vol. i. p. 164.]

[Footnote 21: Major Rennell has noticed a parallel instance in our own country. “There can be no doubt” (he observes) “of the increase of the Goodwin (sand) at the present moment, and of its slow progression towards the state of firm land. Let those who doubt the facts here set forth attend to the changes at Ephesus, at Myriandrus, in the Gulf of Issus, and various other places.”]

[Footnote 22: In a note the author adds, “possibly with an exception to Scylax as a professed guide to others. The observations of Polybius would probably, had they come down to us, have saved us much conjecture.”]

[Footnote 23:

When Nature’s hand the first formation tried,

When seas from land she did at first divide,

The Syrts, nor quite of sea nor land bereft,

A mingled mass uncertain still she left;

For nor the land with seas is quite o’erspread,

Nor sink the waters deep their oozy bed,

Nor earth defends its shore, nor lifts aloft its head.

The site with neither and with each complies—

Doubtful and inaccessible it lies;

Or ’tis a sea with shallows bank’d around,

Or ’tis a broken land with waters drown’d;

Here shores advanced o’er Neptune’s rule we find,

And there an inland ocean lags behind.

* * * * * *

Perhaps, when first the world and time began,

Here swelling tides and plenteous waters ran;

But long confining on the burning zone,

The sinking seas have felt the neighb’ring sun:

Still by degrees we see how they decay,

And scarce resist the thirsty god of day.

Perhaps in distant ages ’twill be found,

When future suns have run the burning round,

These Syrts shall all be dry and solid ground:

Small are the depths their scanty waves retain,

And earth grows daily on the yielding main.—(Pharsalia, Book 9.)

It here seems evident, that the Gulfs of Syrtis in Lucan’s time were believed to be growing shallower, and the land advancing upon the sea. This is certainly consistent with the present appearance of the Greater Syrtis (as contrasted with the accounts of the ancients respecting it,) and, from all that we have been able to learn, of the Lesser Syrtis also. It must, however, be recollected, that this accumulation of soil is only observable in the low grounds, where the sand is constantly heaped up by the sea; for in other parts (as we have already stated) the sea has gained upon the land. The advance of the sea, which may be considered to be equally certain with that of the land, will serve to prove how rapidly the soil must have been accumulating in the lower parts of the Syrtis; since there is reason to believe that (notwithstanding the rise of the Mediterranean on these shores) they were formerly covered with a greater body of water than at present.]

[Footnote 24: We allude here to the vessels of the country, which we were told at Bengazi usually gave the Gulf a wide birth; thus realising, in modern days, what Strabo mentions of the vessels of the ancients.]

[Footnote 25: ——— importuosus atq. atrox, et ob vadorum frequentium brevia, magisq. etiam ob alternos motus pelagi affluentis ac refluentis infestus. (De Situ Orbis. Lib. 1. c. 7.) This is said of the Lesser Syrtis, but the Greater Syrtis is stated, immediately afterwards, to be nomine atque ingenio par priori. Pliny also mentions both these peculiarities very briefly but decidedly; he speaks of both Gulfs as being _vadoso_ ac _reciproco_ mari diros. (Lib. v. c. 4.)]

[Footnote 26: From συρειν, to draw, or drag along. Sallust’s words are “Syrtes ab tractu nominatæ.” Shaw has quoted Solinus, c. 6, and Dionysius Periegetes, 1. 198, as suggesting the same derivation. As if (he adds) “a συρω, quod in accessu et recessu arenam et cœnum ad se trahit et congerit.” (Vid. Eustath. Comm.) Travels in Barbary, vol. 1. p. 211.]

[Footnote 27: Viaggio da Tripoli, &c. p. 62.]

BY _Captn. F. W. Beechey R.N._

_J. & C. Walker Sculpt._

_Published as the act directs, April 1827, by J. Murray, Albemarle St. London._]