PROLEGOMENA.

...those itineraries which he used as the foundation of measuring, he also received into his own work? Certainly, there is nothing that compels us to lean toward that opinion, and even Partsch, who generally uses sober judgment, did not sufficiently restrain himself when he approved this, nor when he attributed to Agrippa the towns enumerated by Pliny on p. 2, or those things noted on the Peutinger Table on p. 11 concerning nations and natural matters. Now, indeed, if we consider that the image of the shape of the provinces, estimated by length and breadth from the routes, is made very false, since the routes are not made by a straight edge but through various detours, and furthermore if we concede that this matter was, as is fitting, not unknown to Agrippa for his prudence, it follows that he looked not so much to the truth as to the utility of his work; which utility he could also attain if his painted world did not place before the eyes the true location of regions any more than the Peutingerian map did. One must have regard for this matter if we wish to rightly judge how great the excellence of the work was. Certainly, Muellenhoff IX 185 sq. says the map was of little value, distinguished only by its size and beauty. Which causes for this judgment he brought forth, Partsch has already in part refuted well; 1 nor is it confirmed by the fact that he says Agrippa confused the city of Himera and the river Himera in frg. 8: for that is not the error of Agrippa himself, who also believed the story about the Himera river dividing central Sicily into two parts, narrated by Stesichorus who was himself from Himera (cf. p. 149, 2) and believed by the whole of antiquity 2. Nor does Pliny in frg. 36 (if it is in his book) seem to criticize the 'error of the number' in Agrippa himself, but in his copyists. On the contrary, the same author in III 17 exclaims, 'Who could believe that Agrippa erred?' and praises the great diligence of the man. It does not seem that there is a reason for us to despise Agrippa's work; however, it must also be guarded against that we do not value it too highly, either in the book or in the painted itinerary; but let us refer the authority that he flourished with among posterity rather to the dignity of Agrippa himself and to the distinguished place which the map occupied in the most crowded region of Rome, most beautifully painted, 3 pleasing to the sight, easy to understand, useful to know.

1) Partsch p. 74 from Agr. 20 and Dim. 9 attributes this also to Agrippa's praise: that he was the first and only one of the ancients who had removed that senseless notion by which the Tanais divides Europe from Asia.

2) cf. Vitruvius VIII 3, 7. Mela II 7. Ptolemy III 4, 3 and 7. cf. also Partsch p. 54.

3) Mannert conjectured on p. 6 that it was long, which, as to Ritschl on p. 515, seems to me most probable and very suitable for the portico, yet not so that I would think it was stretched out in length like the Peutinger Table; Muellenhoff p. 191 attributes an oblong roundness to it, pressing the word orbis; Mommsen calls it round in Reports of the Saxon Literary Society 1851 p. 102.