Dorylaüs, her great grandfather, was a distinguished officer, and friend of Euergetes; but the latter being assassinated at Sinope, whilst Dorylaüs was engaged in levying troops in Crete, he determined to remain there. In that island he obtained the highest honours, having successfully, as general of the Cnossians, terminated a war between that people and the Gortynians. He married a Macedonian lady, of the name of Sterope; the issue of which marriage was Lagetas, Stratarchas, and a daughter. He died in Crete. Lagetas had a daughter, who, says Strabo, was "the mother of my mother."

Mithridates Eupator, who succeeded to the kingdom of Pontus on the death of his father, had formed from infancy a close friendship with another Dorylaüs, son of Philetærus (brother of the first-mentioned Dorylaüs), and besides conferring on him distinguished honours, appointed him high priest of Comana Pontica. The king extended also his protection to his cousins, Lagetas and Stratarchas, who were recalled from Crete. The prosperity of the family suddenly terminated by the discovery of an intrigue carried on by Dorylaus with the Romans, for the overthrow of his benefactor. The motives assigned by Strabo for his disaffection and treachery were the declining prospects of the king, and the execution of his son Theophilus and a nephew Tibius.

Dorylaüs made overtures to Lucullus for the revolt of the kingdom of Pontus to the Romans, and in return received great promises of reward, which were never fulfilled. Lucullus ceased to command in the war, and was succeeded by Pompey, who, through enmity and jealousy, prevailed on the senate not to confirm the conditions entered into by his predecessor. As before observed, there is no mention of Strabo's father in the works which have come down to us. MalteBrun, in his Life of Strabo in the Biographie Universelle, collects several passages tending to show that he was a Roman. The name of Strabo, or "squinting," originally Greek, was used by the Romans, and applied to the father of Pompey the Great, among others. How the geographer acquired this name is not related.

When a very young man, he received instruction in grammar and rhetoric from Aristodemus, at Nysa in Caria. He

afterwards studied philosophy under Xenarchus of Seleucia, the Peripatetic philosopher. Strabo does not say whether he heard him at Seleucia in Cilicia, or at Rome, where he afterwards taught.

Strabo also attended the lessons of Tyrannio of Amisus, the grammarian. This must have been at Rome; for Tyrannio was made prisoner by Lucullus, B.C. 71, and carried to Rome, probably not later than B.C. 66.

Strabo states that he studied the philosophy of Aristotle with Boethus of Sidon, who afterwards became a Stoic philosopher. Notwithstanding all these advantages, Strabo was not possessed of all the knowledge of his times, particularly in astronomy and mathematics, but he was well acquainted with history and the mythological traditions of his nation. He was a devout admirer of Homer, and acquainted with the other great poets.

The philosophical sect to which he belonged was the Stoic, as plainly appears from many passages in his Geography.

He wrote a History, which he describes as composed in a lucid style; it is cited by Plutarch, and also by Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities. It consisted of forty-three books, which began where the history of Polybius ended, and was probably continued to the battle of Actium. This valuable History is lost.

Strabo was a great traveller, and apparently had no professional or other occupation. We may therefore conclude that his father left him a good property. Much of his geographical information is the result of personal observation. In a passage of his 2nd book he thus speaks: "Our descriptions shall consist of what we ourselves have observed in our travels by land and sea, and of what we conceive to be credible in the statements and writings of others; for in a westerly direction we have travelled from Armenia to that part of Tyrrhenia which is over against Sardinia; and southward, from the Euxine to the frontiers of Ethiopia. Of all the writers on geography, not one can be mentioned who has travelled over a wider extent of the countries described than we have. Some may have gone farther to the west, but then they have never been so far east as we have; again, others

may have been farther east, but not so far west; and the same with respect to north and south. However, in the main, both we and they have availed ourselves of the reports of others, from which to describe the form, size, and other peculiarities of the country." He mentions having been in Egypt, the island Gyarus, Populonium near Elba, Comana in Cappadocia, Ephesus, Mylasa, Nysa, and Hierapolis in Phrygia. He visited Corinth, Argos, Athens, and Megara; but, on the whole, he does not appear to have seen more of Greece than in passing through it on his way to Brundusium, while proceeding to Rome. Populonium and Luna in Italy were the limit of his travels northwards. It is probable he obtained his information as to Spain, France, Britain, and Germany, while staying at Rome.

The first systematic writer on geography was ERATOSTHENES [see volume five, page 25], who died at the age of 80, about B. C. 196. His work consisted of three books.

There is no ground for considering the Geography of Strabo an improved edition of that of Eratosthenes. Strabo's work was intended for the information of persons in the higher departments of administration, and contains such geographical and historical information as those engaged in political employments cannot dispense with. Consistently with this object he avoids giving minute descriptions, except where the place is of real interest, but supplies some account of the important political events that had occurred in various countries, and sketches of the great men who had flourished or laboured in them. It is a lively, well-written book, intended to be read, and forms a striking contrast to the Geography of Ptolemy. His language is simple, appropriate to the matter, without affectation, and mostly clear and intelligible, except in those passages where the text has been corrupted. Like many other Greeks, Strabo looked upon Homer as the depository of all knowledge, but he frequently labours to interpret the poet's meaning in a manner highly uncritical. What Homer only partially knew or conjectured, Strabo has made the basis of his description, when he might have given an independent description, founded on the actual knowledge of his time: these observations apply especially to his books on

Greece. He does not duly appreciate Herodotus; nor does he discriminate between the stories which Herodotus tells simply as stories he had heard, and the accounts he relates as derived from personal observation. He likewise rejects the evidence of Pytheas of Marseilles as to the northern regions of Europe, and on more than one occasion calls him a liar, although it is very certain that Pytheas coasted along the whole distance from Gadeira, now Cadiz, in Spain, to the river he calls Tanaïs, but which was probably the Elbe; however, from the extracts which have been preserved it seems that he did not give simply the results of his own observations, but added reports which he collected respecting distant countries, without always drawing a distinction between what he saw himself and what was derived from the report of others.

Strabo's authorities are for the most part Greek, and he seems to have neglected the Latin memoirs and historical narratives of the campaigns of the Romans, which might have furnished him with many valuable geographical facts for the countries as well of Asia as of Europe. He made some use of Cæsar's description of France, the Alps, and Britain; he alludes to the voyage of Publius Crassus in speaking of the Cassiterides, and also the writings of Asinius Pollio, Fabius Pictor, and an anonymous writer whom he calls the Chorographer; but he might have obtained much additional information if he had taken pains to avail himself of the materials he could have procured during his stay at Rome.

Strabo considered that mathematical and astronomical knowledge was indispensable to the science of geography; he says that without some such assistance it would be impossible to be accurately acquainted with the configuration of the earth; and that every one who undertakes to give an accurate description of a place, should describe its astronomical and geometrical relations, and explain its extent, distance, latitude, and climate. As the size of the earth, he says, has been demonstrated by other writers, we shall take for granted what they have advanced. We shall also assume that the earth is spheroidal, and that bodies have a tendency towards its centre. He likewise says, the convexity of the sea is a further proof that the earth is spheroidal to those who have sailed; for they

cannot perceive lights at a distance when placed at the same level as their eyes, but if raised on high, they at once become perceptible. He also observes, " our gnomons are, among other things, evidence of the revolution of the heavenly bodies, and common sense at once shows us that if the depth of the earth were infinite, such a revolution could not take place." But Strabo did not consider the exact division of the earth into climates or zones, in the sense in which Hipparchus used the term, and the statement of the latitudes and longitudes of places, which in many instances were pretty well determined in his time, as essential to his geographical description.

With regard to the lost continent of Atlantis, Strabo is very cautious in criticising Poseidonius; he observes, “he did well, too, in citing the opinion of Plato, that the tradition concerning the island of Atlantis might be received as something more than a mere fiction, it having been related by Solon, on the authority of the Egyptian priests, that this island, almost as large as a continent, was formerly in existence, although now it had disappeared," and remarks that Poseidonius thought it better to quote this than to say, He who brought it into existence can also cause it to disappear, as the poet did the wall of the Achivi.

The following is a short summary of the seventeen books from these sources.

The first two books may be considered as an independent treatise, and by themselves form a remarkable contrast with the rest of the work, in the manner of treating the subjects, and in the difficulties which they present both of language and matter.

In the 1st book, the author enters into a long discussion. on the merits of Homer, whom he considers to have been the earliest geographer, and defends him against the errors and misconceptions of Eratosthenes. He corrects some faults of Eratosthenes, and, in his inquiry concerning the natural changes of the earth's surface defends Eratosthenes against Hipparchus. In conclusion, he again corrects Eratosthenes as regards the magnitude and divisions of the inhabited world. The most remarkable passage in this book is that in which he conjectures the existence of the great Western Continents.