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.