Chapter I: The Contribution of the Ancient World

Footnote 2:

The _De caelo et mundo_ should not be confused with the _De mundo_
(Περὶ κόσμου), a spurious work ascribed to Aristotle and dating from
about 100 B. C. See preface to E. S. Forster’s translation of the _De
mundo_ in the Oxford translation of the works of Aristotle, vol. iii,
1914.

Footnote 3:

On the geography of Posidonius see below, p. 371, note 55, and also
the two important recent studies: Wilhelm Capelle, _Die griechische
Erdkunde und Posidonius_, in: Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische
Altertum, Jahrgang 23, vol. liv, Leipzig, 1920, pp. 305–323, and Karl
Reinhardt, _Poseidonios_, Munich, 1921, especially pp. 59–135 for the
geography and pp. 135–176 for the meteorology.

Footnote 4:

For a brief general outline of the main trend of Greek geography see
Berger, _Geschichte_, 1903, Überblick, pp. 1–24. See also Bunbury,
_Ancient Geogr._, 1879; Tozer, _Ancient Geogr._, 1897; Tillinghast,
_Geogr. Knowl._, 1889. An extensive recent treatment of ancient
geography has come to the attention of the writer as this book is
going to press: Gisinger’s article “Geographie” in _Paulys
Real-Encyclopädie_, 1924. This contains many references to secondary
works; it is particularly valuable as a synthesis of recent German
research in the field.

Footnote 5:

That Pliny’s _Natural History_ was extensively read in the Middle Ages
is proved by the large number of times its title appears in medieval
library catalogues. For example, in twelfth-century French catalogues
alone it occurs in no less than six different places; in German
catalogues in five different places before the twelfth century. Though
at first glance these figures do not appear large, when compared with
similar figures for the works of other writers they show that,
relatively speaking, Pliny was very popular. We are also confirmed in
this opinion by the frequency of citations of Pliny (M. Manitius,
_Philologisches_, 1892, pp. 59–60; idem, _Römische Prosaiker_, 1890,
pp. 380–384). Furthermore, we have in manuscripts dating from the
eighth century and onward a series of excerpts from Books II, III, IV,
VI, and XVIII of the _Natural History_. These contain the outstanding
geographical elements of Pliny’s work and attest to its great
popularity (see Rück, _Auszüge_, 1888; idem, _Exzerpt_, 1902; idem,
_Naturalis Historia_, 1898, pp. 203–318). On p. 287 of the _Exzerpt_
Rück writes that the existence of these excerpts forms “a weighty
literary-historical proof of the continued life of Pliny in later
centuries.”

Footnote 6:

The _Collectanea_ is mentioned in France in one catalogue from before
the twelfth century, in five from the twelfth, and in four from the
thirteenth. In Germany it is mentioned in six catalogues from before
the twelfth century, in four from the twelfth, and in two from the
thirteenth. It is also mentioned in catalogues of British and Italian
libraries. Its popularity was equal to that of Pliny and was perhaps
even greater (see M. Manitius, _Philologisches_, pp. 78–79).

Footnote 7:

Columba (_Questione soliniana_, 1920) holds that the materials in
Solinus’ _Collectanea_ came in large part from a common source of
Pliny’s _Natural History_ and Pomponius Mela’s _Corographia_. This was
a lost work which Columba styles _Corographia Varro-Sallustiana_. It
was worked over (according to his theory) by an unknown compiler and
reduced by Solinus into the form of a compendium, with borrowings here
and there direct from Pliny. See note on Columba’s monograph in
Bollettino della Reale Società Geografica Italiana, vol. lviii, Rome,
1921, p. 44.

Footnote 8:

Seneca’s popularity as shown by the library catalogues was less than
that of Pliny, though the _Quaestiones naturales_ were read rather
extensively in France in the twelfth century (M. Manitius,
_Philologisches_, p. 42; idem, _Geschichte_, 1911, vol. i, p. 38).

Footnote 9:

Capella merely followed the Latin tradition, which tended to restrict
the field of geography and at the same time to limit the science of
geometry to the art of measurements. The _De nuptiis Philologiae et
Mercurii_ served to pass on to the Middle Ages this attitude in regard
to geography and geometry (Mori, _Misuraz. eratos._, 1911, pp.
186–187; see also Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, p. 89).

Footnote 10:

M. Manitius, _Philologisches_, p. 112, informs us that, next to Virgil
and the Vulgate, the _De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii_ was the most
popular book of the Middle Ages. References to copies of it are found
in nearly all medieval library catalogues. See also Mori, _Misuraz.
eratos._, pp. 388–391.

Footnote 11:

Macrobius seems to have come next to Martianus Capella in popularity,
particularly in the twelfth century, when his book finds mention more
than a dozen times in the catalogues of both French and German
libraries of the period. It was also read in Italy, Spain, and Great
Britain. In the latter country there are five entries from the early
thirteenth century (M. Manitius, _Philologisches_, p. 106).

Footnote 12:

Aristotle, _De caelo_, I, 3; Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, 1913, p. 173.

Footnote 13:

Aristotle, _Meteor._, I, 2; Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 164.

Footnote 14:

These ideas are developed in Plato’s _Timaeus_ and in Aristotle’s _De
generatione et corruptione_, II, 11. See Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i,
pp. 164–169.

Footnote 15:

Berosus in the third century before Christ described Chaldean theories
regarding the Great Year (Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 69).

Footnote 16:

_ibid._, vol. i, pp. 70–71.

Footnote 17:

Notably Philolaus (_ibid._, vol. i, p. 77).

Footnote 18:

Seneca, _Quaest. nat._, III, 28–29; Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 70.

Footnote 19:

For example, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Empedocles (Duhem,
_op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 70–71, 167).

Footnote 20:

Aristotle, _De caelo_, I, 10; _Meteor._, I, 14, as interpreted by
Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 167–168.

Footnote 21:

Günther, _Apokatastasis_, 1916, p. 85.

Footnote 22:

See E. S. McCartney, _Fossil Lore in Greek and Latin Literature_, in:
Proceedings of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters,
vol. iii, New York, 1924, pp. 23–38, especially pp. 37–38.

Footnote 23:

Aristotle, _Meteor._, I, 14; Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 167. In the
important paper cited in note 20 above, Günther traces the development
in antiquity and during the Middle Ages of (1) theories of
astronomical periods and (2) theories of the _apokatastasis_, or
restoration of the earth to its previous condition after destruction
by fire or by water. He shows that the ancient and medieval
philosophers conceived of a complete parallelism between these two
sets of phenomena. It is, however, difficult to follow his argument
that they failed to recognize any causal relation whatsoever between
the astronomical periods and the _apokatastasis_, although it is
doubtless true that no attempt was made to explain in detail the
manner in which celestial circumstances operated to produce effects
upon the earth.

Footnote 24:

See Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 65–85, 275–297.

Footnote 25:

Cumont, _After Life_, 1922, pp. 12–13.

Footnote 26:

Al-Masʿūdī and Al-Bīrūnī describe the theory as it prevailed in India
(Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 67–69; vol. ii, pp. 213–220).

Footnote 27:

Plato gives a formula from which it has been deduced that he believed
the duration of the Great Year to be 760,000 terrestrial years.
Aristotle explained that the figure could be found by determining the
least common multiple of the periods of revolution of the various
celestial bodies. Cicero calculated it at 12,954, and Macrobius at
15,000 years. See Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 84, 165, 283, 288.

Footnote 28:

Ptolemy describes Hipparchus’ discovery of the precession of the
equinoxes in the _Almagest_, VII, 2–3 (as cited by Duhem, _op. cit._,
vol. ii, pp. 180–185).

Footnote 29:

_Almagest_, VII, 2 (Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 185).

Footnote 30:

Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 212–223.

Footnote 31:

“... l’évolution de la science hellène révèle non pas l’existence de
luttes perpétuelles pour ou contre la sphéricité mais au contraire un
accord, en somme assez rapide, établi avant la fin du v^e siècle entre
les penseurs de toutes écoles” (Thalamas, _Géogr. d’Ératosthène_,
1921, p. 103; see also the same, p. 99, note 3).

Footnote 32:

Berger thinks that Anaximander may well have believed in a spherical
earth (_Geschichte_, 1903, p. 32, note 2, and p. 34); this opinion has
not been accepted by recent students, who ascribe to Anaximander
participation in the older doctrine of a disk-shaped earth (Stegmann,
_Anschauungen_, 1913, pp. 14–15; Heidel, _Anaximander_, 1921, p. 246;
Gisinger, “Geographie” in: _Paulys Real-Encyclopädie_, 1924, p. 543).
See also below, p. 372, note 61.

Footnote 33:

_Phaedo_, 109. Plato thought that the universe, as well as the earth,
is a sphere because the sphere is the most perfect of forms
(_Timaeus_, 33). An obscure mathematical passage, _Timaeus_, 55, seems
to liken the universe to a dodecahedron. See the _Dialogues_, Jowett’s
transl., 1892, vol. iii, p. 363, and Boffito, _Leggenda_, 1903, p.
584.

Footnote 34:

These proofs were worked out by Aristotle in two ways (_De caelo_, II,
14). First he explained that physical laws require that the earth must
be spherical; then he demonstrated that observation shows that it
actually is a globe. Aristotle’s physics were built upon a theory that
superficially has been compared with the Newtonian theory of
gravitation, although fundamentally it is entirely different. A
principal law of Aristotelian physics is that all heavy bodies seek
the center of the universe, whereas Newton’s law is that all bodies,
whether heavy or light, attract each other (see Duhem, _Système_, vol.
i, p. 210). Aristotle (_De caelo_, II, 4) showed by mathematical
argument that water, in obedience to his physical law, will, if
unhindered, become a perfect sphere, with the center of the universe
as its center, and that land, though it cannot become a perfect sphere
owing to its rigidity, will tend to assume such a form.

That the earth actually is a globe, the Stagirite maintained, is
revealed by the circular shadow it casts upon the moon in an eclipse.
Furthermore, a traveler journeying from north to south sees new
constellations appear above the southern horizon and vice versa,
constellations that could only be hidden from him at his starting
point by the curvature of a spherical earth (Duhem, _Système_, vol. i,
pp. 211–215).

Adrastias of Aphrodisias, one of the Peripatetic school, adduced
proofs similar to those of Aristotle (Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp.
473–474), although he presented them with greater clarity. He showed
by the argument of the appearance of new constellations to a traveler
journeying north or south that the earth is convex from north to
south. That it is also convex from east to west he proved from the
observation that the same celestial body rises sooner in the eastern
parts of the habitable world than it does in the western. This could
be demonstrated by any eclipse of the moon: the eclipse appears at a
later hour of the night and higher in the heavens to an observer in
the east than it does to one in the west. As both observers see the
same eclipse, it follows that the moon must in reality rise in the
east before it rises farther west. If the earth were flat both
observers would necessarily see the eclipse at the same hour of local
time.

Footnote 35:

_De motu corp. cael._, I, 8 (as cited by Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, p.
471).

Footnote 36:

_Hist. nat._, II, 64. Both Cleomedes and Pliny demonstrated the
sphericity of the sea by noting that mountains may be seen when the
lower parts of the land are invisible and that shores become visible
from the masthead of a ship before persons on deck can see them. Pliny
(_op. cit._, II, 65) had a theory to explain the sphericity of the sea
that differed widely from that of Aristotle. The gist of this was that
it is in the inherent nature of water to assume a spherical form.
Traces of this view are to be found in the writings of Alexander
Neckam in the thirteenth century. See below, p. 438, note 34.

Footnote 37:

Ptolemy, _Almagest_, I, 4. Ptolemy’s proofs were similar to those of
Aristotle and Adrastias (see above, note 33). He neglected arguments
of the physical necessity of a globular earth (Duhem, _Système_, vol.
i, p. 480).

Footnote 38:

_De nupt. Phil. et Merc._, VI, 590–598. Martianus Capella brought
together and vigorously presented many of the arguments of his
predecessors: that of Aristotle that the shadow of the earth on the
moon is curved, the argument of the different appearance of the
heavens in different latitudes, and the argument from the eclipses
(see above, note 33).

Footnote 39:

On the heliocentric theory in antiquity see Duhem, _Système_, vol. i,
pp. 399–426, and Heath, _Aristarchus_, 1913.

Footnote 40:

Philolaus worked out an elaborate hypothesis which placed an immobile
fire, the Hearth of the Universe, the seat of divinity, in the center
of the cosmic system. Around this fire revolves our earth; an
anti-earth counterbalances our earth on the opposite side of the fire,
but man can never see either the Hearth or the anti-earth because he
dwells on the side of our earth that is always turned outward from the
center. See Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 11–21. Hicetas and Ecphantus
modified the system of Philolaus by doing away with the anti-earth and
placing our earth in the middle of the universe, enclosing the central
fire within it. They accounted for day and night by a diurnal rotation
of the earth around its axis (_ibid._, vol. i, pp. 21–27).

Footnote 41:

Some thought in antiquity that a passage in the _Timaeus_, 40, shows
that Plato believed that the earth rotates on its axis; but this
interpretation of the passage was disputed even in classical times,
and other passages in Plato’s works seem to confirm us in holding that
he thought that the earth stands immobile (Duhem, _Système_, vol. i,
p. 86). It should be noted that though Plato placed the World Soul in
the center of the earth and of the universe, he was also convinced
that great fires exist in the earth’s interior. See above, p. 32.

Footnote 42:

_Timaeus_, 34. See also Lutz, _Geographical Studies_, 1924, pp.
166–167.

Footnote 43:

Aristotle’s abstruse reasoning about the immobility of the earth is
interpreted by Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 219–230. Duhem clarifies
the arguments of the Stagirite by resolving them into four main
propositions:

(1) “The movement of the heavens requires the existence of an
immovable body distinct from the heavens at the center of the
universe” (Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, p. 220). Why such an immovable
body is necessary is explained in _De caelo_, I, 8, and in _Physics_,
IV, 4 (cited by Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 198–210, 221). Later
writers and commentators confused Aristotle’s views here set forth
with a theory which the philosopher—if he wrote it—presents in the _De
motu animalium_ and which is, in brief, as follows. “For every animal
that moves there must be without it something immovable, but
supporting itself upon which that which is moved moves. For were that
something always to give way (as it does for mice walking in grain, or
persons walking in sand) advance would be impossible, and neither
would there be any walking unless the ground were to remain still”
(_De motu anim._, 2; translated by A. S. L. Farquharson in the _Works
of Aristotle_, 1913, p. 698b). Although the writer of this passage
expressly states that he does not intend this simple theory to be
applied to the movements of the heaven in relation to the earth, it
was, none the less, passed on by way of the Moslems to the West as an
argument in favor of the immobility of the earth.

(2) “Physical reasons prove that it is not possible for the earth to
move” with a circular motion. The normal motion of the particles which
compose the earth is in a straight line toward the earth’s center.
Correspondingly “the movement which is natural to each part must also
be natural to the whole, in such a way that the earth taken as a whole
certainly has for its natural motion that movement in a straight line
and directed toward the center which characterizes heavy bodies”
(Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, p. 226). Any other movement, such as a
movement of rotation, “being, then, constrained and unnatural ...
could not be eternal. But the order of the universe is eternal” (_De
caelo_, II, 14; translated by J. L. Stocks in the _Works of
Aristotle_, 1922, p. 296a).

(3) “Experiments show that as a matter of fact the earth does not move
at all.” If the earth moved “there would have to be passings and
turnings of the fixed stars. Yet no such thing is observed” (_De
caelo_, II, 14; Stocks’s translation, p. 296b). In other words, if the
earth moved one would expect to observe parallaxes of the fixed stars
(Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, p. 227). “It is clear, then, that the earth
must be at the center and immovable, not only for the reasons already
given, but also because heavy bodies thrown quite straight upward
return to the point from which they started, even if they are thrown
to an infinite distance” (_De caelo_, II, 14; Stocks’s translation, p.
296b).

(4) “Physics teaches us the cause of the immobility of the earth.” As
all heavy bodies tend to seek the center of the universe, the various
parts of the earth have arranged themselves around the center in such
a manner that an equilibrium is established, and this equilibrium
produces immobility (_De caelo_, II, 14, Stocks’s translation, p.
297a; Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 216, 228–229).

Footnote 44:

_Hist. nat._, II, 5.

Footnote 45:

Ptolemy (_Almagest_, I, 7) discussed the immobility of the earth in
much the same manner as Plato and Aristotle. From Aristotle he derived
the argument of the heavy body thrown into the air. See above, note
42, paragraph (3) and Duhem _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 480–484.

Footnote 46:

_De caelo_, II, 14.

Footnote 47:

_Hist. nat._, II, 108.

Footnote 48:

_De architectura_, I, 6 (edited by F. Krohn, Leipzig (Teubner), 1912;
English translation by M. H. Morgan, Cambridge, Mass., 1914).

Footnote 49:

_De nupt. Phil. et Merc._, VI, 596.

Footnote 50:

_In som. Scip. comm._, I, 20, 20.

Footnote 51:

_De motu corp. cael._, I, 10.

Footnote 52:

See Thalamas, _Géogr. d’Ératosthène_, 1921, pp. 162–163. Konrad
Miller, _Erdmessung_, 1919, pp. 5–6, argued that Eratosthenes
calculated the circumference at 252,000 stades, not 250,000. Even if,
as Cleomedes tells us, he calculated it at 250,000 stades, it seems
probable that it was Eratosthenes himself and not some later scientist
who arbitrarily raised it to 252,000 in order to obtain a figure
divisible by 60 or perhaps by 360.

Footnote 53:

_De motu corp. cael._, I, 10.

Footnote 54:

Strabo, _Geogr._, II, 2 (edited by A. Meineke, 3 vols., Leipzig
(Teubner), 1904–1909; English translation by H. L. Jones, 2 vols.,
London, 1917–1923); Berger, _Geschichte_, 1903, pp. 579–582.

Footnote 55:

Thalamas, _op. cit._, p. 151.

Footnote 56:

Miller, _Erdmessung_, pp. 12–14. For other possible explanations of
Posidonius’ figures, see Berger, _op. cit._, pp. 579–582, and Oscar
Viedebantt, _Eratosthenes, Hipparchos, Poseidonios: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte des Erdmessungsproblems im Altertum_, in: Klio: Beiträge
zur alten Geschichte, vol. xiv, Leipzig, 1914, pp. 208–256; idem,
_Poseidonios, Marinos, Ptolemaios: Ein weiterer Beitrag zur Geschichte
des Erdmessungsproblems im Altertum_, in: _ibid._, vol. xvi, 1920, pp.
94–108.

Footnote 57:

_De motu corp. cael._, I, 10. See Thalamas’ clear and reasonable
discussion of Eratosthenes’ measurement, _op. cit._, pp. 128–164.

Footnote 58:

_De nupt. Phil. et Merc._, VI, 596. Capella’s account of Eratosthenes’
measurement differs slightly from that of Cleomedes (Mori, _Misuraz.
eratos._, 1911, p. 584; Thalamas, _op. cit._, pp. 140–141).

Footnote 59:

Miller, _op. cit._, p. 7.

Footnote 60:

Thalamas, _op. cit._, pp. 158–159.

Footnote 61:

_ibid._, p. 170.

Footnote 62:

See White, _Warfare_, 1920, vol. i, pp. 89–90. Lutz, _Geographical
Studies_, 1924, p. 168, holds that “the fundamental notions of the
Homeric poems, of Hesiod and Aeschylus regarding the earth [a disk
surrounded by an ocean stream] are Babylonian in origin.”

Footnote 63:

Thales thought that the earth was created out of water (Norlind,
_Problem_, 1918, p. 8).

Footnote 64:

Berger, _Geschichte_, 1903, p. 285.

Footnote 65:

Pliny gives details of explorations which he believed had proved the
existence of connections between the Caspian Sea, the Atlantic, and
the Indian Ocean (_Hist. nat._, II, 167).

Footnote 66:

Probably the best treatment of the history of theories of the
antipodes is to be found in Rainaud, _Le continent austral_, 1893.

Footnote 67:

_Meteor._, II, 5. Pliny also thought that the polar and equatorial
regions are uninhabitable, although he was aware of the fact that the
northern boundary of the uninhabitable part of the equatorial regions
must be well south of the Tropic of Cancer (_Hist. nat._, II, 68, 74,
76, 108). See also below, p. 377, note 172.

Footnote 68:

_De caelo_, II, 14.

Footnote 69:

_Meteor._, II, 5.

Footnote 70:

“Quantum est enim, quod ab ultimis litoribus Hispaniae usque ad Indos
iacet? Paucissimorum dierum spatium, si navem suus ferat ventus
implebit” (_Quaest. nat._, I, praef., 13). Doubt has been expressed by
critics as to whether or not Seneca had in mind a passage westward
across the Atlantic. See Edward Channing, _A History of the United
States_, vol. i, New York, 1905, p. 31. Strabo discussed Eratosthenes’
views on the possibility of sailing from Spain to India in his
_Geography_, I, 64, 65. See Channing, _op. cit._, p. 30.

Footnote 71:

See Tillinghast, _Geogr. Knowl._, 1889, pp. 6–12; Berger,
_Geschichte_, 1903, p. 625; Norlind, _Problem_, 1918, _passim_, for
discussions of the continental and oceanic theories in antiquity and
in the Middle Ages. Roger Bacon (_Opus majus_, Bridges’ edit., vol. i,
1897, p. 290) states that “Ptolemaeus vero in libro de dispositione
sphaerae vult quod fere sexta pars terrae est habitabilis propter
aquam, et totum residuum est coopertum aqua.” That this should have
been the opinion of Ptolemy is difficult to reconcile with his
advocacy of unknown lands beyond the _oikoumene_ enclosing the Indian
and Atlantic Oceans (_Geogr._, I, 17, 6; VII, 3, 6; VII, 5, 2; see
Berger, _Geschichte_, pp. 625, 627, 629).

Footnote 72:

See above, p. 187.

Footnote 73:

For a summary of Aristotle’s theories in regard to the elements, see
Lippmann, _Chemisches_, 1910.

Footnote 74:

Gilbert, _Meteorol. Theorien_, 1907.

Footnote 75:

“Causas autem illi mutationis et inconstantiae alias terra praebet,
cuius positiones, hoc et illo versae, magna ad aeris temperiem momenta
sunt....” (_Quaest. nat._, II, 11). Possibly “temperiem” should be
translated “quality” rather than “temperature.”

Footnote 76:

_Meteor._, I, 4; I, 7; II, 4. See Lones, _Arist. Researches_, 1912,
pp. 30–33.

Footnote 77:

_Meteor._, I, 9–12. See also Lones, _op. cit._, pp. 32–33, 42–45.

Footnote 78:

See above, pp. 99–101, and below, p. 406, note 93.

Footnote 79:

_Quaest. nat._, V. See Gilbert, _Meteorol. Theorien_, 1907, pp.
537–539.

Footnote 80:

Aristotle, _Meteor._, II, 4–5; Seneca, _Quaest. nat._, V, 7–14; Pliny,
_Hist. nat._, II, 44.

Footnote 81:

Capelle, _Berges- und Wolkenhöhen_, 1916, pp. 1–2.

Footnote 82:

_ibid._, pp. 16–17, 28.

Footnote 83:

_ibid._, pp. 26–27.

Footnote 84:

Posidonius understood, from observation of differences between the
Indians and Ethiopians dwelling in the same latitude, that latitude
was not the only determining element in the distribution of natural
products and races of man but that other factors should also be given
consideration (Berger, _Geschichte_, 1903, p. 557). Peschel,
_Geschichte_, 1877, p. 226, wrote that in the Middle Ages Jordanus of
Severac was the only man to recognize the fact that a meridian may
mark the boundary between dissimilar areas of plant or of animal life.
See, however, Giraldus Cambrensis’ observations on this matter (see
above, p. 177).

Footnote 85:

For further discussion of ancient _climata_, see above, pp. 242–243.

Footnote 86:

_Quaest. nat._, III, 6; IVa, 2.

Footnote 87:

The voyage of Pytheas of Marseilles was the source of the greater part
of ancient beliefs in regard to high northern latitudes.

Footnote 88:

_Hist. nat._, II, 78.

Footnote 89:

_Octavius_, 18. Minutius Felix was a Roman advocate, probably a
contemporary of Marcus Aurelius. His dialogue _Octavius_ (edited by C.
Halm in: _Corpus script. eccles. lat._, vol. ii; also in: Migne, _Pat.
lat._, vol. iii, cols. 231–360) is a defense of Christianity.

Footnote 90:

_Meteor._, II, 5.

Footnote 91:

_Hist. nat._, VI, 23.

Footnote 92:

_Meteor._, II, 4–5.

Footnote 93:

_Quaest. nat._, V, 18.

Footnote 94:

_Hist. nat._, II, 43–47.

Footnote 95:

Modern meteorological studies would seem to show that the ancients
were not far astray in associating the etesians of Greece with the
monsoons of the Indian Ocean: “the etesiens [_sic_] are not local
winds, due to limited and local causes; they belong to the great
system of the proasiatic low pressure and are connected with the
Indian monsoons” (J. S. Paraskévopoulos, _The Etesiens_, in: Monthly
Weather Review, vol. 50, Washington, D. C., 1922, p. 420).

Footnote 96:

_Quaest. nat._, III, 22.

Footnote 97:

_Meteor._, II, 3.

Footnote 98:

_Hist. nat._, II, 100.

Footnote 99:

_Meteor._, II, 1.

Footnote 100:

_Hist. nat._, II, 102.

Footnote 101:

_loc. cit._

Footnote 102:

_Meteor._, I, 13.

Footnote 103:

The Coraxi inhabited the rugged coast where the Caucasus Mountains run
parallel to the Euxine north of Colchis. Modern soundings show that
the sea attains an average depth of 3000 feet within a dozen miles of
the shore.

Footnote 104:

Tillinghast, _Geogr. Knowl._, 1889, p. 28.

Footnote 105:

_Meteor._, II, 1.

Footnote 106:

_In som. Scip. comm._, II, 9.

Footnote 107:

Tozer, _Anc. Geogr._, 1897, p. 185.

Footnote 108:

Probably the best work on ancient and medieval tide theories is
Almagià, _Dottrina_, 1905. See also Duhem, _Système_, vol. ii, 1914,
pp. 267–390. On the earliest Greek observations of the tides in the
Mediterranean see Giorgio Pasquali, _Ἄμπωτις und die ältesten
Beobachtungen der Gezeiten im Mittelmeer_, in: _Festschrift für
Wackernagel_, Göttingen, 1924, pp. 326–332 (not seen, title from
review in: Rivista geografica italiana, voi. xxxi, Florence, 1924, pp.
86–88).

Footnote 109:

Strabo, _Geogr._, I, 3.

Footnote 110:

Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 269–271.

Footnote 111:

Our knowledge of Posidonius’ theory of the tides, which was explained
in a treatise on the ocean, is derived from extracts from this
treatise given in Strabo, _Geogr._, III, 5, and from a Latin
translation of Priscian of Lydia’s _Solutiones_ (citations from Duhem,
_Système_, vol. ii, p. 280).

Footnote 112:

Strabo, _loc. cit._, quotes Posidonius as stating that the ebb and
flood are greatly increased at the time of the summer solstice, which,
of course, is not so. Priscian, _op. cit._, quaest. vi, gives a truer
statement, that the greatest tides are those at the equinoxes
(citations from Duhem, _Système_, vol. ii, p. 282).

Footnote 113:

_Hist. nat._, II, 97.

Footnote 114:

Duhem, _Système_, vol. ii, p. 286.

Footnote 115:

Pliny, _loc. cit._, also notes that there may be local differences in
the period of the tides in different estuaries, although he explains
this by differences in the times of the rising of the stars rather
than as resulting from the influence of the configuration of the
coast.

Footnote 116:

_Quaest. nat._, III, 28.

Footnote 117:

_In som. Scip. comm._, II, 9.

Footnote 118:

_Meteor._, II, 2.

Footnote 119:

_Hist. nat._, II, 65.

Footnote 120:

_Meteor._, I, 13; II, 8; Seneca, _Quaest. nat._, III, 15; III, 26; VI,
_passim_. See Gilbert, _Meteorol. Theorien_, 1907, pp. 399–402.

Footnote 121:

Seneca, _Quaest. nat._, III, 15. On the springs and fountains of the
ancient world, many of which were believed to be the outlets of
subterranean water courses, see J. R. Smith, _Springs and Wells in
Greek and Roman Literature: Their Legends and Locations_, New York and
London, 1922 (on the Arethusa and Alpheus myth see pp. 669–672).

Footnote 122:

Cumont, _After Life_, 1922, p. 78.

Footnote 123:

_ibid._, p. 79.

Footnote 124:

_ibid._, pp. 80–81.

Footnote 125:

_ibid._, pp. 7–12.

Footnote 126:

_ibid._, pp. 87–89.

Footnote 127:

_ibid._, p. 90.

Footnote 128:

See above, p. 227, and below, p. 450, note 80.

Footnote 129:

_Phaedo_, 112.

Footnote 130:

_Meteor._, I, 13.

Footnote 131:

_Quaest. nat._, III, 9–10.

Footnote 132:

_Meteor._, _loc. cit._

Footnote 133:

See Capelle, _Berges- und Wolkenhöhen_, 1916, pp. 2–12, for a full
discussion of the sources of Aristotle’s statements regarding the
connection between mountains and the sources of rivers.

Footnote 134:

Seneca, _Quaest. nat._, III, 10. On Gregory’s theory see Kretschmer,
_Phys. Erdk._, 1889, p. 93.

Footnote 135:

See Khvostov, _Istoriya_, 1907, pp. 53–56; Langenmaier, _Alte
Kenntnis_, 1916, _passim._

Footnote 136:

_Quaest. nat._, IV, _passim_.

Footnote 137:

These proofs were of two sorts: first, those which were intended to
demonstrate the physical impossibility of there being any snow in
Ethiopia; and, secondly, those which were intended to show that river
floods actually known to be caused by melting snow do not come in
midsummer but earlier in the year.

Footnote 138:

See above, pp. 206–207.

Footnote 139:

_Hist. nat._, V, 9.

Footnote 140:

_ibid._, II, 86–92.

Footnote 141:

_ibid._, II, 90. Plato describes the disappearance of Atlantis in the
_Timaeus_ and in the _Critias_; he states that the story came from an
Egyptian priest at Sais (_Dialogues_, Jowett’s transl., 1892, vol.
iii, pp. 429–433).

Footnote 142:

_Phaedo_, III. On ancient and medieval theories regarding the interior
of the earth, see Stegmann, _Anschauungen_, 1913, _passim_.

Footnote 143:

_Meteor._, II, 7–8. “Aristotle sums up his views of the causes of
winds, earthquakes, lightning, and thunder towards the end of
_Meteor._, II, 9, where he says that they all are essentially the
same, viz. a dry exhalation which produces earthquakes when operating
within the earth, winds when operating about the surface of the earth,
and lightning and thunder when operating among the clouds” (Lones,
_Arist. Researches_, 1912, p. 45).

Footnote 144:

_Quaest. nat._, VI, is devoted almost entirely to earthquakes.

Footnote 145:

_Hist. nat._, II, 79–80.

Footnote 146:

_Meteor._, II, 8.

Footnote 147:

_Hist. nat._, II, 106.

Footnote 148:

See especially Capelle, _Berges- und Wolkenhöhen_, 1916. See also
below, p. 447, note 27a.

Footnote 149:

_Meteor._, I, 13; Capelle, _op. cit._, p. 3. See also Günther,
_Optische Beweisung_, 1920, p. 374, note.

Footnote 150:

“Dicaearchus, vir in primis eruditus, regum cura permensus montes, ex
quibus altissimum prodidit Pelium MCCL passuum ratione perpendiculari”
(_Hist. nat._, II, 65). Dicaearchus also wrote a treatise on the
mountains of the Peloponnesus and of other parts of Greece. See
Günther, _Bergbesteigungen_, 1896.

Footnote 151:

Capelle, _op. cit._, p. 16.

Footnote 152:

_ibid._, p. 17.

Footnote 153:

_ibid._, pp. 19–20. See also Thalamas, _Géogr. d’Ératosthène_, 1921,
pp. 104–110.

Footnote 154:

See above, p. 214.

Footnote 155:

Capelle, _op. cit._, p. 24. For discussion of other figures regarding
the heights of mountains as they were estimated in antiquity, see the
same, pp. 30–31.

Footnote 156:

Berger, _Geschichte_, 1903, p. 640.

Footnote 157:

_ibid._, p. 407.

Footnote 158:

Peschel, _Geschichte_, 1877, pp. 43–44.

Footnote 159:

The sun and the moon appear to revolve around the earth every
twenty-four hours more or less. If the same eclipse of the moon is
seen at A (to the west of B) one hour earlier than at B, obviously the
difference in longitude between A and B will be 1/24 of the
circumference of the earth, or 15°.

Footnote 160:

Berger, _op. cit._, pp. 18, 468–476.

Footnote 161:

_Hist. nat._, II, 70.

Footnote 162:

_Geogr._, I, 4.

Footnote 163:

A useful general history of ancient cartography (i. e. of the
Egyptians, Hebrews, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Greeks), though
sometimes misleading in details, is Cebrian, _Geschichte der
Kartographie_, 1923. This includes an appendix by Joseph Fischer,
_Ptolemaios als Kartograph_, pp. 113–129. See also Kubitschek’s
important article “Karten” in _Paulys Real-Encyclopädie_, 1919.

Footnote 164:

So called because it was discovered by Conrad Peutinger in 1507.
Reproduced on two-thirds the scale of the original in colors by Konrad
Miller in _Weltkarte des Castorius_, 1888; also a photographic
reproduction by the Imperial Library, Vienna, 1888. See also more
especially Miller, _Itin. rom._, 1916. Miller (_Itin. rom._, pp.
xxvi-xxxvi) ascribes its composition to a certain Castorius of the
fourth century of our era.

Footnote 165:

The questions of whether or not Ptolemy drew maps to accompany the
text of his _Geography_, whether or not the existing maps in Greek
manuscripts and in printed fifteenth-century texts of Ptolemy’s
_Geography_ can really be ascribed to Ptolemy, and whether they are
more, or less, authentic than the texts of the _Geography_ are the
subject of bitter controversies in the history of geography. For
further discussion of this matter and for references to the literature
dealing with it, see the works of Dinse, Schütte, Tudeer, and Fischer,
cited in the Bibliography.

Footnote 166:

See Detlefsen, _Ursprung_, 1906; Lessert, _L’oeuvre géogr._, 1909.

Footnote 167:

See Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. i, 1897, p. 379, note 2.

Footnote 168:

Miller, _Mappaemundi_, vol. i, 1895, pp. 66–70, and vol. ii, 1895,
_passim_; Beazley, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 378. The Roman maps would
seem to be in turn related to Greek maps of the Eratosthenic school in
general form and extent. Some of them showed, doubtless, in addition
to the _orbis terrarum_, an austral continent beyond the equator (see
below, p. 385, note 58). While in a broad way we may accept Miller’s
main conclusions that the cartography of imperial Rome exerted some
influence over medieval cartography, it is not impossible that Miller
is occasionally over-ingenious in his attempt to demonstrate specific
relationships. See below, p. 458, note 17.

Footnote 169:

These were the invention of Hipparchus (Avezac, _Projection_, 1863,
pp. 16–20). The stereographic projection, called planisphere, was
described by Ptolemy in a treatise entitled _Planisphere_ which was
translated into Latin from the Arabic during the time of the Crusades.
See below, p. 398, note 36.

Footnote 170:

Eratosthenes placed Meroë at 10,000 stades south of Alexandria and the
limit of the _oikoumene_ at 3400 stades south of Meroë (Strabo,
_Geogr._, I, 4, 2). He placed the tropic at Syene 5000 stades south of
Alexandria (Cleomedes, _De motu corp. cael._, I, 10). Therefore the
limit of the _oikoumene_ according to Eratosthenes must have been
10,000 + 3400 − 5000 = 8400 stades south of the tropic. As
Eratosthenes reckoned the circumference of the earth at 252,000 stades
(see above, p. 371, note 51), 1° must have contained 700 stades, and
the limit of the _oikoumene_ must have fallen in his opinion 8400 ÷
700 = 12° south of the tropic, or at approximately latitude 11° 30′ N.

Footnote 171:

See Barthold, _Erforschung des Orients_, 1913, p. 10.

Footnote 172:

On ancient theories regarding the sources of the Nile see Khvostov,
_Istoriya_, 1907, pp. 53–68, and Langenmaier, _Alte Kenntnis_, 1916,
pp. 1–144.

Footnote 173:

Pliny says (_Hist. nat._, II, 108) that the distance from the
southernmost limits of the habitable world to Meroë in Ethiopia is
1000 Roman miles and that the distance by river from Syene, on the
tropic, to Meroë was found by an expedition sent out by Nero to be 871
miles. If we make this arbitrarily 700 miles in order to take into
account the windings of the river, we get a total of 1700 miles. In
the same passage Pliny states that Eratosthenes found the
circumference of the earth to be 252,000 stades, or 31,500 Roman
miles. The 1700 miles which represent the distance south of the tropic
at which Pliny places the Ethiopian Ocean are therefore equivalent to
13,600 stades, and these, in turn, to 19³⁄₇° (see above, note 169, for
method of calculating this figure). The southern limit of the
_oikoumene_ thus falls at about latitude 4° N. (23½°–19³⁄₇°).

Footnote 174:

See Langenmaier, _op. cit._, pp. 6–37, for the most recent and
thorough attempt at an interpretation of the Ptolemaic geography of
these parts of Africa.

Footnote 175:

That Ptolemy’s knowledge of the Central African lake region was
derived from the east coast of Africa rather than from the upper Nile
valley is shown by Langenmaier, _op. cit._, and by Khvostov,
_Istoriya_, 1907. pp. 65–66.

Footnote 176:

“Nam Syene sub ipso tropico est, Meroe autem tribus milibus
octingentis stadiis in perustam a Syene introrsum recedit, et ab illa
usque ad terram cinnamoni feracem sunt stadia octingenta, et per haec
omnia spatia perustae licet rari tamen vita fruuntur habitantes. Ultra
vero jam inaccessum est propter nimium solis ardorem” (Macrobius, _In
som. Scip. comm._, II, 8, 3). In other words, the border of the
habitable part of the world was placed by Macrobius 3800 + 800 = 4600
stades, or about 6½°, south of the tropic, that is to say at about
latitude 17° N.

NOTES