of the primary elements of fire and darkness or night. Anaximander (611-c. 547 B.C.), a disciple of the more practical Ionian school, and a pupil or companion of Thales, conceived an earth of the form of a cylinder. He is said to have introduced into Greece the gnomon, a primitive instrument for determining time and latitude, and to have made a map. The first actual record of a Greek or Miletan map, however, occurs half a century after his time, when in 499 B.C. Aristagoras, tyrant of Miletus, asked aid of Cleomenes of Sparta against Persia, and showed him a map, engraved on bronze, of the route of his proposed expedition. Anaximenes, of Anaximander’s school, gave the earth an oblong rectangular form.
The physical division of land into continents, though obvious, presupposes the existence of a certain measure of geographical theory. Still more obvious as a primitive division would be a division simply between “my land” and “yours.” But there was a clear necessity at a very early period for names to distinguish, generally, the lands which lay on one side and the other of the Ægean-Mediterranean waters. It may well be that the names of Europe and Asia did not possess precisely this application in their original forms. Their derivation has been assigned to an Asiatic source; they signify on this view the lands respectively of darkness or sunset and of sunrise or light—that is to say, the lands towards west and towards east. The earliest known Greek reference to Europe, moreover, does not indicate on the face of it a distinction from Asia, though it does indicate a distinction from lands separated from it partly or wholly by water. The Homeric hymn to Apollo, which may be dated in the eighth or seventh century B.C., refers to dwellers in the rich Peloponnese and in Europe and in the sea-girt islands—albeit in place of “Europe” some scholars would read a word signifying simply “mainland.” The name of Europe, if admitted here, is taken to mean no more than northern Greece, and would thus lend some colour to an early tradition that it was derived from a Macedonian city called Europus. However this may be, it is easy to conceive that the name of Europe, being at no time given to a territory with defined frontiers, was capable of an elastic application, which would be gradually extended, or (as is more probable under primitive conditions of geographical knowledge) would remain so vague as to permit of no clear definition.
But when the names of continents emerge in Greek usage they afford the necessary distinction between the lands on either side of the Ægean-Mediterranean. They so emerge in the 6th–5th centuries B.C., and the distinction appears by that time to have been perfectly familiar, though the precise application, as will be seen, was a matter of controversy. The poet Æschylus (525–456 B.C.), who, by the way, was also a traveller, possibly to Thrace, certainly to Sicily, was acquainted with the distinction, as appears, for example, from passages in the historical drama of the Persæ, which deals with the failure of Xerxes’s invasion of Europe from Asia, and his retreat across the Hellespont. The distinction would hardly have been introduced into a stage-play if it had not been commonly recognized. In Prometheus Unbound, again, Æschylus refers to the river Phasis (Aras) as the boundary between Europe and Asia. Finally, Herodotus states in an early chapter of his work that the Persians appropriate to themselves Asia and the barbarian races inhabiting it, while they consider as separate Europe and the Greek race, and he does not find it necessary to offer any explanation of the names here. At a later stage the continental distinction appears to have been based on or associated with a distinction between temperate and hot lands.
Fig. 2.—The World as supposed to have been conceived by Hecatæus.
Hecatæus of Miletus (c. 500 B.C.) has been hailed as the father of geography on the ground of his authorship of a Periodos, or circuit of the earth, the first attempt at a systematic description of the known world and its inhabitants. But even if he wrote such a work, evidence has been adduced that the extant fragments of it belong to a later forgery. However, he was a Miletan and a traveller, besides a statesman. The map which is supposed to have accompanied his work maintained the old popular idea of the earth as a circular disc, encircled by the ocean. Greece was the centre of the world, and the great sanctuary of Delphi was the centre of Greece. If this Periodos is taken as a forgery, there is a parallel case in the Periplus of the Mediterranean attributed to Scylax of Caryanda, a contemporary of Hecatæus. If Scylax wrote any such work, in its extant form it is a century and a half later than his time. He is said to have explored the Indus at the command of Darius Hystaspis, and to have returned by the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea.
Herodotus of Halicarnassus (c. 484–425 B.C.) was a historian, but was widely travelled, and understood the importance of a knowledge of the geography of a country, and its bearings on the history of its people. He only introduces geographical information in so far as it throws light on the history with which he is dealing, or because it seemed to him of special interest, or as a report of curious information obtained from the countries which he visited; but he has certainly some more exact information about the restricted world of which Greece was the centre than any of his predecessors. He visited Egypt and the Greek colony of Cyrene, on the coast of what is now Tripoli. There is reason to believe that in Asia he got as far as Babylon on the Euphrates, and perhaps as far as Susa beyond the Tigris. He crossed the Euxine to the northern shore as far as Olbia on the Borysthenes, and probably went round to the south-east coast to the country of the Colchians, whose characteristics he describes as if from personal knowledge. He does not seem to have got very far west in the Mediterranean, though he spent the latter part of his life in southern Italy. There is little doubt that he visited several of the Grecian islands. But apart from the information about the countries round the Mediterranean which he collected personally, his history contains material from various sources concerning the countries and peoples in Europe, Asia, and Africa. This information, on the whole, is of the vaguest kind, and shows that the Greeks whom Herodotus may be taken to represent were only groping their way with regard to a knowledge of the world outside the limits of their own restricted sphere. This vague knowledge included a considerable section of western Asia as far as the Caspian Sea and the river Araxes. Herodotus had also heard of India and of the Indus river, and had a fair knowledge of the Persians, the Medes, and the Colchians, as also of part at least of Arabia. Eastwards, in what might be called Central Asia, he had heard of the Bactrians and Sogdians to the south of the Jaxartes (Syr-darya, the northern of the two great affluents of the Sea of Aral), and of the Massagetæ, Issedones, Arimaspians, and other races or peoples; those to the north of the Jaxartes being included, according to Herodotus, in Europe, which he took to extend from the Pillars of Hercules (Strait of Gibraltar) to the Hellespont and up the Phasis (Rion) river, from its mouth in the Black Sea, to the Caspian. He also divided Asia from Libya (Africa) along the axis of the Red Sea, and was thus in conflict with others who had divided Europe from Asia at the Tanais, and Asia from Libya at the Nile. He would not permit a theoretical boundary-line to “bisect a nationality,” as the Nile does.
Fig. 3.—The World according to Herodotus B.C. 450.
It may be well to examine Herodotus’s geographical knowledge in some detail, as representing the general knowledge possessed by a student (increased by his own travels) as distinct from that possessed by traders and colonists in different particular directions. His knowledge of Europe proper was contained within rather narrow limits. He knew, from personal knowledge, or from information obtained from merchants and colonists familiar with the shores of the Euxine (Black Sea), of the country lying to the north of that sea for some distance, of the rivers which flowed into it from the north and from the west, and of various peoples either settled in or wandering over the land that is now mainly included in Russia. His notions of the comparative dimensions of the Euxine and of the Mæotis Palus (Sea of Azov) are altogether erroneous, as might have been expected; but he knew (though in the main vaguely) of the Tanais (Don), the Borysthenes (Dnieper), and other rivers which flow into those seas. The Ister (Danube) he knew as a river of considerable importance, but he made it rise in Spain and flow north-east and east through the greater part of Europe. He conceived it as corresponding to some extent in the direction of its course with that of the Nile on the other side of the Mediterranean. He had some vague notion of the Iberians and of the Celts, as inhabiting the country to the north of the Pillars of Hercules. He knew something of the country lying to the north of Greece, Illyria,