It seems to be still more uncertain when the name of the district was bestowed upon the cities of Tripoly; for although Tripoli Vecchia (which we have already called Sabrata) has been said to be the first which assumed it, there does not appear to be any other proof in favour of this supposition, (at least we are not ourselves acquainted with it,) than that which may be inferred from the epithet vecchia, by which this town has been for centuries distinguished. Both cities appear to have flourished together under the Romans; and were in all probability destroyed at the same time, in the Saracen invasion of the country. As Sabrata, however, continued to remain in ruins, while a new town sprung up on the site of the ancient Oea, the name of Tripoly may have, perhaps, been first assumed by the latter; while Sabrata, from the circumstance of its being in ruins, was distinguished by the epithet which it retains.
We are not aware of any proof that either Sabrata or Oea had changed their names before their destruction by the Saracens; and as no town appears to have been erected on the ruins of the former, there was no necessity for distinguishing it by another. When a new town arose on the ruins of Oea, it is probable that the appellation by which it is at present known to the Moors, and which is merely a corruption of the Roman term for the district[12], was the first name which either town assumed after the loss of those which formerly distinguished them. Tráblis would have been known to the nations of Europe as the same name with that of Tripolis; and they would naturally have written the term like that of the district, whenever there might have been occasion to mention it. Supposing this to be the case, we may fairly assume, that the name of Tripolis was never given by the ancients at all to either of the cities in question; and that it is only, in fact, since the Mahometan conquest that the name of the district has been applied to them.
This appears to be more probable when we consider that the title of—The district of the three cities—as Tripolis must be translated, would be a very unappropriate term for a single town, although it might be well applied to a department. Such an objection, however, would by no means appear to the Mahometan invaders of the country, who may certainly be imagined to have been ignorant of the language from which the word in question is compounded; and they would discover no reason why the former name of the district might not be a proper one for their new town.
We have not been at the pains to search minutely into this question, which would probably receive light from the writers of the Lower Empire; and we offer the conjectures which we have hazarded above, in the absence of more decided information. At the same time, however, it may here be remarked, that the propriety of adopting the word Tripolis, which appears in the printed copies of Ptolemy, is questioned on very good authority. In support of this assertion we need only refer our readers to the Fourth Book of Cellarius, (chap. 3,) where the question is amply discussed; and as the adoption of this reading, instead of that of Leptis Magna, which appears to be decidedly the proper one, would create an endless and unnecessary confusion in the geography of that part of the country which lies between Tripoli Vecchia and Lebida, we have thought it not irrelevant to allude to it[13].
It is perhaps the more necessary that we should do so, as Signor Della Cella has availed himself of the reading above mentioned, and of a passage which he has quoted from Pliny, to identify the modern town of Tripoly with Neapolis; which is too evidently the same town with Leptis Magna (or Lebida), to admit of any similar arrangement[14].
We have by no means any wish to detract from the merits of this gentleman, who deserves every credit for the spirit of inquiry which has led him to encounter the fatigues and privations of a journey like that which he has accomplished. He is the first European who has crossed the Greater Syrtis since the occupation of Northern Africa by the Romans; at least he is the only one that we know of, since that period, who has published any account of such a journey; and he is therefore entitled to the merit of having afforded us the only information which has been given for many centuries of an interesting and extensive tract of country. But as we shall frequently have occasion to refer to his work in the course of the present narrative, we trust that we shall not be suspected of undervaluing its merits, because we may sometimes find it necessary to point out what we conceive to be its errors.
In considering the modern town of Tripoly as Oea, one difficulty will however present itself: Oea is no where mentioned as a port, that we have been able to discover; whereas Tripoly must always have been one. But as many cities are mentioned as ports by one writer, while they are merely styled cities by another, this objection may readily be waived. Garapha is by Ptolemy styled λιμην, by Scylax πολις, by Pliny, Oppidum; Abrotonum is by Strabo called πολις, by Scylax πολις και λιμην, by Pliny, Oppidum: Leptis Magna is rarely mentioned as a port, although it is well known to have been one; and many more examples might be adduced by those who would take the trouble to collect them.
What is now called modern Tripoly has been said by some writers to have been built by the early inhabitants of Northern Africa, under the name of Tarabilis or Trebiles; and the same authors have stated that the Roman term of Tripolis is derived from the name which they bestowed upon it. We have already noticed the improbability of this latter supposition; and we may now venture to add, that there appears to be no proof of any town having been built upon the site of modern Tripoly before the erection of the city of Oea. Leptis Magna is known to have been built by the Phœnicians, on the authority of several writers of antiquity; but the other two cities composing the Tripolis have always been considered of Roman origin, and no mention is made of any other having ever been assigned to them in works not comparatively modern.
Leo Africanus, who may be supposed to have compiled his account of Africa from the authority chiefly of Mahometan historians, has given his testimony in favour of the native origin of Tripoly, while he states that Tripoli Vecchia was built by the Romans. “Questa,” (Tripoli Vecchia) says the African geographer, “è una città antica edificata pur da’ Romani;” but of the other town he states, “Tripoli fu edificata da gli Africani, dopo la rovina della Vecchia Tripoli”—without any allusion whatever to the circumstance of its having been originally a Roman city.
Whatever may be the earliest authority for this supposition, it appears to be evidently founded on an imperfect knowledge of the place; for if there were even no reason for supposing Tripoly to be Oea, we must still have allowed it Roman origin; or at least we must have admitted it to have been in existence at the time when the Romans held the country. The Roman arch, which has been given in the work of Captain Lyon, is sufficient to establish this circumstance; and the inscription which it bears, also given in the same publication, and mentioned in the Memoirs of Consul Tully[15], refers this edifice to the time of Marcus Aurelius. In stating that Tripoly was built by the Africans, after the ruin of Tripoli Vecchia, we might have imagined that Leo only meant to allude to its re-construction under the Mahometans; but from the circumstance of his having just before mentioned Tripoli Vecchia, as a city which was built by the Romans, it seems to be probable that, had he been aware of them, he would equally have noticed the pretensions of modern Tripoly to a higher antiquity than he has assigned to it.