were guided, by supernatural assistance, to an outlet; by which, it must be supposed, that Apollonius meant the lesser Syrtis, or gulf of Kabes; because, in fact, this outlet communicated, and does communicate yet, with the lake Tritonis.-The Argonauts having gained the sea, sailed wide of the promontory of Phycus, now cape Razat, and arrived at Crete.-Having past that island, they encountered a storm among the Sporades. -Having weathered this storm, they past between Egina and the coast of Attica, and so proceeded to the bay of Fagasa. The material features, which strike us, as the sins against true geography, in this narrative, are the sailing on the Po, the passing from the Po to the Rhone, and then the sailing on the Rhone to the Ligustic sea; their being entangled, and nearly lost, in the Syrtis; their carrying their vessel over land, to the lake Tritonis, and passing from that lake, by a narrow outlet, to the main sea. In all this, disguised as it is with fable, there seems to be a certain groundwork of reality. I have not the least doubt, of such an expedition from Greece having actually taken place, whatever might have been the original motive that produced it, or the object to which it was directed. The original accounts of it were, certainly, much tinctured with fable; and, at every re. move from the first relators, its authenticity was diminished, and new embellishments, and fabulous circum.stances, were added. I proceed to lay before the reader some considerations, which may help to point out the origin of those errors, which have crept into the accounts of the Argonautic expedition; and explain how it happened, that these erroneous accounts should have been so generally received, and past current, instead of revolting the minds of men.-For, it is remarkable, that though the different accounts of the Argonautic enterprise vary, in many circumstances, they all concur, in the violation of geographical truth.-In the first place, the fond admiration, which the Greeks attached to the Argonautic expedition, which was one of their favourite enterprises, disposed them to throw as much of the marvellous, as they could, into the story of it; and to receive, with a degree of partiality, the tales, which were handed down, from generation to generation, concerning the dangers and the labours of the band of heroes, who were engaged in this bold enterprise.—In the next place, we must remember, that, at the time of the Argonautic expedition, and even long after it, the navigation of the Greeks was in a very rude and imperfect state; and, though they had many vessels, they were small and inconvenient, imperfectly formed and rigged, and ill calculated, for encountering the violence of the storms and rough seas. -Though the Greeks made many excursions, partly commercial, partly piratical, they consumed much time, in traversing, comparatively speaking, inconsiderable spaces; and confined themselves to coasting voyages, within the Grecian seas, and on the coasts, of their own country, and of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.-Hence, it followed, that the ancients, at this period, were very imperfectly acquainted with the relative positions, bearings, and distances of places; and that they chiefly judged of the distance of one place from another, by the time the passage from one to the other usually required, a very fallible and uncertain criterion.—It is plain, too, that the little geographical knowledge, which could have been acquired by the voyagers and adventurers of ancient Greece, must have * See preceding essay on the Argonautic expedition. been been confined to acquaintance with the ports and maritime regions; and that, as to the inland country, the pursuit of rivers to their sources, the ranges of mountains, and other particulars of that kind, their notices must have been very confused and imperfect. It is not surprising, that, with such scanty materials, and fallacious sources of information, even the most grave and intelligent writers, of remote antiquity, should have erected very fantastic and unsubstantial systems of geography.It is not surprising, that they should have confounded together synonimous cities, regions, rivers, and mountains, of which there were very many. This, in itself, was an abundant source, of error, confusion, and falsification.-There was an obvious mistake, which, in the infancy of geography, and while the knowledge of the inland parts of remote countries was very imperfect, might have led the ancient Greeks, into many other errors: this was the considering subordinate, or tributary rivers, which fall into other rivers, and augment their streams, as parts of those rivers, to which they join their waters, and in whose currents they are absorbed. Another mistake, somewhat analogous, was the supposing, that different rivers, which nearly approximated to each other, in their courses, actually communicated: and that rivers, which, in their courses, nearly approached the sea, actually flowed into it, in their own persons, if I may be allowed the expression. -Another error, at least, in the poetical writers, was the supposing rivers indiscriminately to be navigable.All these causes must have produced much confusion among the ancient geographers, in their descriptions of remote countries, and rivers, with which they had not opportunities of being very accurately acquainted. Let us now consider how these circumstances might have operated, in the first place, with respect to the Danube. Danube. This river, rising in the western part of Ger many, from the hill Abnoba, runs through Bavaria, Austria, Hungary, Servia, Bulgaria, Moldavia, Bessarabia, and parts of Tartary; receives about sixty different rivers, in its course, and falls, at last, into the Black sea. It was properly called the Ister, say the ancients, towards Illyricum.-Now, the country through which the Danube flows, is so intersected by a multitude of rivers, that it is by no means surprising, that ancient geographers, with the imperfect knowledge which they possessed, respecting the country, should confound the names of these rivers with each other, or suppose them to be ramifications of the capital river, which attracted the chief notice; and should thus apply to them, all that was properly true of some one only. And, again, it was natural, that, as many of the dif ferent rivers, which communicate with the Danube, do very nearly approach, and almost seem to meet the rivers of Hungarian Dalmatia and Croatia, which lie on the upper part of the Adriatic sea, and were the ancient Liburnia, they should be supposed, actually to join those rivers, which they thus nearly approach; and, in fact, that the rivers of this Dalmatia and Croatia, should be confounded with the Danube. -Now, this country abounds in rivers; and most of the rivers of this region, though their course is but short, are navigable.-From these circumstances it may have happened, that ancient geographers were led into the error of supposing, like Apollonius Rhodius, that the Danube discharged one of its branches into the Adriatic sea, or gulf of Venice, which they called the Tonian sea; and that the embouchures of that river, in the Euxine, or Black sea, were only the outlets of another of his arms.—If we admit a supposition of this kind, we may follow it up, with some plausibility, and pursue the course of the Danube, from the the Black sea to Belgrade, where it meets the Saave.This last river passes through Morlachia, and part of Carniola. The ancients might have imagined it to be, and actually have called it, part of the Danube. The Kalpa, or Colapis, joins the Saave, and brings this range or course of waters, with an uninterrupted communication, from the shores of the Euxine, near the coast of the Adriatic sea.-Further, the course of the Kalpa, or Colapis, is not far from the head of the widespreading Unna, which falls into the Adriatic sea, on the coast of Hungarian Dalmatia.—All this will appear plainly, if the reader will take the trouble of resorting to the map.-On a review of what has been said, the application of the principles of error, pointed out above, will appear, which may serve to account for the supposition of the ancients, that the Danube or Ister had two great branches, one of which discharged itself, by dif ferent mouths, into the Ionian or Adriatic sea.- First, the approach of a number of rivers to each other, which actually nearly continues and comprehends the communication, by water, through the whole vast extent, which separates the two seas in question: and, secondly, the confusion of names, and want of distinguishing the different waters, from each other, which had distinct appellations, must have been a fruitful source of error, where the region, to which I allude, was irrigated by such a multitude of streams. I proceed to the second extraordinary point, in the Orphic or Argonautic geography, the source which it attributes to the Ister. "A river, stately-winding, deep, and wide, "Far |