xcii
CLtVERIUS—1Λ∖∖V il.l.E.
seduced, it knows of no scruples. But the sin is always essen-
tially the same. The ancients exhort us to be conscientious,
and we ought to follow their counsel; we must feel that the
reputation of past ages depends upon us, and that we commit
a crime, if we impair that reputation by giving praise or
censure where it is not deserved.
Every one must see that our own personal views and
opinions can be of little avail in history, if they are not in
accordance with things and relations which really existed.
Hence we must have an accurate knowledge of the nature of
the countries whose history we are studying, of the internal
condition of a nation, of its political constitution, its religion,
etc. If, therefore, Eoman antiquities should at any future
time be written and worked out into a definite and indepen-
dent science, they must, like ancient geography, serve as an
introduction to the study of Roman history. The earlier-
works on Antiquities contain much that is excellent in regard
to those times for which we have contemporary authorities;
the modern ones are very indifferent. As regards ancient
geography, we still want a good chorography of ancient Italy.
The work of Mannert can be recommended only with very
great restrictions. Notwithstanding all that we may find fault
with in the detail of the works of Cluverius, his “ Italia
Antiqua,” and his “ Sicilia, Sardinia, et Corsica Antiqua,” are
gigantic productions and excellent in the highest degree. But
copies of them are so scarce and costly, that I can hardly con-
sider them as works to refer you to. If we examine them
from the point of view from which Cluvcrius worked, we
shall find little to add to what he has written. What he says
about the earliest nations of Italy, and his generalisations, are
the weakest parts of the book ; but the nature of the countries,
if we make some allowance for the time in which he lived, is
described in the most admirable manner.
The only map which I can recommend is that of D1Anville,
though I do not mean to say that there are no faults at all in
it. D’Anville was a genius who knew how to make use of
everything, and who possessed the sagacity to discover very
soon, whether the statements he had before him deserved credit
or not. Proofs of this may be seen in his works on modern
geography; for instance, in his geography of Africa, where he
has achieved wonderful things, although lie had only fewmore
d’anville’s maps.
xciii
resources than Iiis predecessors. It is with him as with a
talented artist, who produces greater effects by a simple appa-
ratus than others with the most abundant materials. All the
improvements in the instruments of sculptors have not enabled
them to produce anything so perfect as the works of the
Greeks, whose instruments were far more simple than ours.
The maps of D’Anville are excellent, though some points
might be made more exact; and those of Gaul, Spain, and
Britain, cannot be surpassed in correctness. That of Greece
is less perfect, especially Epirus and Macedonia; for there
were at the time no maps except the bad Venetian ones, of
which D’Anville himself complains, and the interior of the
country was never visited by travellers. As regards the out-
lines of Greece, it is remarkable that D’Anville drew those of
Peloponnesus from the Portulane maps, and some maps of the
Mediterranean. Barbie du Bocage, his pupil, was a talented
man, but he was in an unfavourable position, as he had a
predecessor of such extraordinary genius. He remarked, for
instance, that D’Anville had placed Patras thirty minutes too
far north : but his discovery met with no favour, and he was
obliged, twenty years later, to retract his observation, although
it was correct. The only fault of any importance in D’Anville’s
map of Italy is in the south-east of Naples, where the country
of the Sallentines is about twenty minutes further east than
the site assigned to it by D’Anville. IIe had no other maps
than the Venetian ones, in which the outlines of the coast are
generally very exact; but the longitudes are mostly incorrect.
If we compare his maps with those of his predecessors, such as
Delisle, and others, we cannot sufficiently admire his genius,
which produced quite a new creation; not that it had been
his desire to find fault with previous productions, but he could
not help discovering where his predecessors had worked hastily
or carelessly. IIis map of Egypt is an extraordinary produc-
tion, if we consider that he had no materials for it but the
rude drawings of Arabian and Turkish maps. All that may
be said against D Anville’s map of Italy refers to an imperfec-
tion which is only apparent, that it represents the state of the
country only at one particular time. He made his division of
Italy as it was in the time of Augustus, and refers all political
relations to this time, unless he expressly marks out two distinct
divisions, as he does in the case of Gaul. His division of Italy,