PTOLEMY'S GEOGRAPHY OF THE COAST FROM CARNARVON TO CUMBERLAND. By T. Glazebrook Rylands, F.S.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., F.R.A.S. [*READ DECEMBER 13TH, 1877.] 66 I received a short time ago a request from Dr. Hume, that I would give you what he was good enough to call "a chip from my workshop." I at once took hammer in hand, and broke off one for the purpose. It is a little larger than I intended: so that it will allow me time for but these few words by way of introduction. The piece of the coast which forms the subject of my paper has these advantages:-First, it is one well known to ourselves, and has been the subject of considerable discussion; and this, too, in connexion with the geography of Ptolemy. At the same time, existing as it does in the extreme N.W. of Ptolemy's habitabilis, and being a bit of coast about which he could have had no special information, and which possessed no peculiar interest, it affords perhaps the best test for us of his accuracy as a geographer. Before I begin, let me ask you, in what follows, to make a broad distinction between facts and opinions. I shall be satisfied if you will weigh my facts with all the care you can command; and if I am led to express opinions, I will cheerfully allow you to take them for what they are worth. *The paper was originally spoken-not written. It was of unusual length and fulness, and was given from brief notes which contained little more than the extracts and actual numbers. A shorthand writer had undertaken to give the discourse in extenso, but he was soon overwhelmed by technical terms with which he was not familiar, and ceased writing. Subsequently, on Thursday, June 6th, the author repeated the substance slowly from his notes, and a friend took it down in the present form. This is only a portion, however, of what was originally laid before the Society.-ED. G One objection I have met with more than once, in dealing with this portion of Ptolemy's geography. It is this:-Is it worth while to re-open this question, when the best authorities have so long decided it? My reply is,-Let us see a brief retrospect of what has been already done will clear the ground for all of us. It will be sufficient as an illustration to take a single station of Ptolemy, and I have selected his Belisama. Let us see what the authorities teach us. * In such inquiries, every Englishman at least begins with Camden. He makes the Belisama the Ribble, or, as he would write it, the "Rhe-bell," and he sees in that word the remainsas somebody expresses it-of the words River-Belisama. I do not know what you will think of such etymology. With me, I confess it has no value whatever. Our next authority is John Horsley. He says the Belisama, "from its situation, must be the Mersey." Here we get the first geographical element; but Horsley's "must be" (as he gives us no reason for the statement) is of little more value than Camden's etymology. Indeed it may be sufficient to oppose to it, one by your townsman, Mr. Picton, who says+- By no mode of calculation can the situation of the Mersey "and the description of the geographer be made to agree." I am very willing to admit that Mr. Picton meant, by no mode of calculation with which he was acquainted. But it might have been as well if he had said so. We must not, however, leave Mr. Horsley; for though I have the most profound respect for his work and the manner in which he did it, yet, as I believe much of the confusion which exists has been due to a passage in his 66 Roman "Antiquities of Britain," I must ask you to allow me to quote it. He says: "As for the degrees of longitude, what I would most wish *Britannia. Ed. 1594, p. 582. † Liverpool Literary and Philosophical Society, February 19th, 1849. 66 "for is, to know with exactness and certainty what space or number of miles he allowed to a degree in the several parts of Britain. One would think that the common well-known "property of the sphere, that at 60° latitude, the space 66 66 answering to a degree of latitude, or of the great circle, is "double the space of a degree of longitude, could not escape "Ptolemy's notice. And this would adjust the proportion of 66 66 one to the other. If a degree of longitude in any part of "Britain be, according to Ptolemy, 40 miles (as some affirm), it must be in the south of England, where the latitude is "least. Nor must we here allow them the usual length of the English computed miles. A degree of latitude, or a degree in the great circle, seems to me, according to Ptolemy, "to be near enough our usual reckoning, 60 computed miles." p. 361. 66 66 Let me now call your attention to those passages in the extract, which, for the purposes of distinction, I have printed in Italics. The first is, he would like to know" what space "or number of miles," &c. It is quite evident from this passage, that though good John Horsley had copied out with sufficient accuracy Ptolemy's description of Britain, he had not otherwise read the book; for Ptolemy allows the same number of miles to a degree of longitude in every part of Britain. 66 The next is, one would think that the common property "of the sphere," &c. This passage not only confirms the statement already made, but shows how a wrong has been done to Ptolemy; who has been classed by the late Mr. De Morgan (than whom there was no better judge) with "the two "other great leaders-Aristotle and Euclid." Next we read nor must we here allow," &c. Here he refers to Halley, in the Phil. Trans. (No. 193), but does not give the quotation. Halley's paper says 26 English miles 28 Roman. = We are now prepared to see the error which has resulted from the concluding words of the quotation. "A degree of "latitude," &c. This has been read to mean, by writers even to the present time, that a degree of latitude, both as held by Ptolemy and by moderns, is 60 English miles. What Horsley plainly meant to say was, that a degree according to Ptolemy must be taken at about 60 computed miles of our usual reckoning, which is not very far from the truth; while the modern mean degree of a great circle is a little over 69 miles. It is needless to state the error and confusion resulting inevitably from such a mistake as this. Mr. Horsley may be right as regards the Belisama, but we have nothing except his bare statement on the subject. We next come to Mr. Whitaker, the historian of Manchester, with whom Horsley's book was a manual in constant requisition. He says that the Belisama is the Mersey, but Mr. Whitaker not only makes a degree of latitude 60 English miles (both Ptolemy and modern), but in latititude 57 deg. he makes a degree of longitude 60 miles also! He says in his History of Manchester,* "and coming 20 miles to the N. "(i.e., 20 min. of a degree of latitude), and 30 miles to the “E. (i.e., 30 min. of a degree of longitude); thus he reckons both degrees alike, and both wrong. Next we come to Dr. Whitaker, the historian of Whalley, of whom the editor of the recent edition of his work says, that "his book exhibits all the carelessness of genius," or, as I should be inclined to read it, all the genius of carelessness. Dr. Whitaker not only adopts without remark the errors of his predecessor, but adds others of his own; thus making confusion worse confounded. Let us have his own words:-"But if we "stretch from the mouth of the Dee, 20 miles northward, according to the geographer's directions, we shall find "ourselves out at sea indeed, but in a latitude exactly 66 *History of Manchester. B. 1, c. 5. |