In considering Wad’ el Kháhan as the Cinyphus, which its position with regard to Lebida, and the appearances already pointed out, will very decidedly authorize us to do, one difficulty will be found to arise. It is the impossibility of reconciling the distance from the sea, of the nearest range of hills to the southward, with that assigned by Herodotus to the Hill of the Graces, in which he affirms the Cinyphus to have its source.
The Hill of the Graces is laid down by this geographer at 200 stadia from the sea[17]; whereas the distance of the nearest range of hills, to the southward of Wad’ el Kháhan, is little more than four English miles from the coast; and we could perceive in this range no aperture or break through which we might imagine that a stream could have passed in its course from the southward to the sea. We should certainly infer, from the appearance of this chain, that the river must have had its source in it; and one of the hills of which it is composed does certainly present an appearance of three peaks, as we may imagine the Hill of the Graces did; but then we must suppose that some mistake has been made, either by Herodotus himself, or by his editors, in the number of stades above mentioned; and, although it is possible that such an error might have occurred, we have no greater right to dispute the passage in question, than we have to challenge the accuracy of any other statement which is received on the authority of the geographer. We mean, with reference to the text itself, exclusive of local information; for the passage is simply and clearly stated, without the least appearance of ambiguity; and the habit of doubting every statement of an author which does not coincide with our own ideas and observations, is scarcely to be indulged without danger to the cause of truth.
We had determined on our return (among other things which we had no time to examine minutely in advancing) to trace the river Kháhan to its source, and thus decide the point beyond dispute; but unforeseen circumstances prevented our returning by way of Tripoly, and the promised examination never took place. We will not therefore venture decidedly to assert that this stream does not rise to the southward of the chain of hills above mentioned; but we should certainly be surprised (from the view which we had of the range in passing) to learn hereafter that it had been proved, by local observation, to have its source in the mountains farther inland. We may observe, at the same time, that the distance of the Terhoona[18] range from the coast, as it is laid down by Captain Lyon, will answer tolerably well to that of the 200 stadia at which Herodotus has placed his Hill of the Graces from the sea; taking the stade of this geographer at 732 to a degree, or 10¼ to a common English mile, which is the mean allowed by Major Rennell to the stade of Herodotus. There are, however, several other inferior chains of hills (besides the one nearest to the coast) between the Terhoona range and the sea; and we scarcely think it possible that the Cinyphus (or Kháhan) could have found its way through these impediments[19].
In the chart of Cellarius, as Dr. Della Cella has truly observed, we find the Cinyphus placed to the eastward of the Cephalas Promontorium, in opposition to the testimonies of Strabo and Ptolemy, and of most other writers of respectability. But it is merely with a view to reconcile contending authorities that this position has been assigned to the river; for it will be evident, by a reference to the text of Cellarius, that it is not the one adopted by himself[20]. It may be possible, also, (in addition to the authorities of the Itinerary and the Augustan table which he mentions) that Cellarius has been induced to place his Cinyphus thus far to the eastward, in consequence of a passage in Pliny, and of a remark which he has also quoted from Ptolemy. Pliny fixes the country of the Lotophagi in the most southern recess of the Greater Syrtis, and Ptolemy observes of these people, that they inhabited the neighbourhood of the Cinyphus[21]. It becomes necessary, therefore, in order to reconcile these statements, either to place the Cinyphus nearer to the centre of the Gulf, or to move the Lotophagi nearer to the Cinyphus.
Mela places the Lotophagi still further to the eastward than Pliny, for he tells us that they are said to inhabit the country between the Promontories of Borion and Phycus, which are both of them in the Cyrenaica[22]; and this statement may be considered as an additional reason for moving the Cinyphus to the eastward of its actual position, if the observation of Ptolemy in question be attended to. It is certain, however, that the position of the Cinyphus, on the authorities of Strabo, Ptolemy, and Scylax, is to the westward of the Cephalas Promontorium; Pliny places it in the country between the two Syrtes, and Mela to the westward of Leptis Magna[23]: there is therefore no sufficient authority for moving the river to the eastward of the Cephalas; although it must be confessed that the position of the Lotophagi, in the neighbourhood of the river Cinyphus, is certainly very clear and decided.
We may observe, with regard to these eaters of the lotus, that they have been so very differently placed by different authorities, that it is scarcely possible to say in what part of the map they may, or may not, be laid down; and this circumstance will serve to prove how widely the lotus-tree must have been spread, at various times, over the coast and country of Northern Africa.
The region of the Cinyphus has been celebrated for its extraordinary fertility; Herodotus asserts that it yielded three hundred for one, and other writers have concurred in extolling the richness of its soil[24]. It is remarkable, however, that some authors who have highly commended the soil of the Byzacium, have, at the same time, omitted to notice the fertility of the region of the Cinyphus; while others, on the contrary, who have recorded the extraordinary produce of the district last mentioned, have failed to make any allusion to the productive qualities of the Byzacium. This circumstance has induced Dr. Della Cella to imagine that some of the writers in question intended to include both these districts in one; and in support of this idea he cites passages from Pliny and Strabo, which appear to him decisive in its favour. Pliny says (it is Dr. Della Cella who speaks) that “the people who inhabit the Byzacium are called Libyphœnices[25];” it is therefore only necessary to ascertain in what country the Libyphœnices dwelt, to determine the position of the Byzacium[26]. And here, continues the Doctor, is a very clear reply of Strabo to this desideratum of ancient geography—“Upon the sea-coast, extending from Carthage to the Cephalas Promontorium, and to the Masselibii[27], is the territory of the Libyphœnices.”
But it will scarcely, we imagine, be thought absolutely necessary to conclude, that, because Byzacium may have formed a part of the territory of the Libyphœnices, the whole of the country inhabited by these people must therefore be called Byzacium; for Strabo himself has informed us that the Byzacians extended only to the eastern limits of Carthage (that is, of Carthage Proper, or Zeugitana); whereas the tract which he has assigned to the Libyphœnices generally, comprehended the whole of the Carthagenian territory, from the Cephalas Promontorium to the country of the Massæsyli. The Massæsyli were a people of Numidia, and their district formed the western boundary of that country and Mauretania; so that between them and the Byzacians (whom we may, surely, conclude to be the inhabitants of the country from which their name is derived) the whole of Numidia and Carthage Proper intervenes. The Libyphœnices appear to have been the descendants of the Phœnicians (or Carthaginians) and of the several native African, or Libyan, tribes in their neighbourhood; so that Byzacium would naturally be peopled by them to a considerable extent, without its being necessary to infer from that circumstance that all Libyphœnices were Byzacians.
We may add that Strabo does not seem to be aware of any fertility in the soil of the Byzacium; for he continues to state (after the passage above quoted from the Second Book of his Geography) that all the country between Carthage and the columns of Hercules is fertile—not including, of course, either the Byzacium, or the region of the Cinyphus[28].
The extent of the territory which is supposed by Signor Della Cella to have been included in the province of Byzacium, that is, (as we have stated above) from the country of the Massæsyli, on the western side, to the Cephalas Promontorium on the east, would occupy a coast-line of no less than 700 miles, exclusive of its limits in a southerly direction; and it will more readily be seen how much this extent differs, from that of the actual Byzacium, by comparing it with the dimensions which Pliny has given of the country, in the passage which Signor Della Cella has partially quoted above[29]. We shall there find that the district of Byzacium was comprehended within a circuit of no more than 250 Roman miles; so that it is difficult to imagine how Pliny could have intended to extend its limits, either eastward or westward, to the points which the Doctor has claimed for it: since the historian’s intentions must have been sadly at variance with his assertions, had he really meant to bestow upon Byzacium so much more than he has stated it to contain[30].