PROLEGOMENA.

because the causes are explained there, from Pliny, fragment 25, which most attribute to Polybius. Therefore, later geographers, whether wandering, following other authors, searching for new information, or looking back at things unchanged, even those who consulted Agrippa, transmitted them differently than he did. However, after Pliny, no geographer (besides those who drew from Pliny) mentions Agrippa in express words. — So much for Agrippa; I hope to be briefer in the rest.

The Dimensuratio provinciarum Measurement of the provinces or 'Epitome of the whole world', which I edited on pp. 9–14, and the Divisio orbis terrarum Division of the world (pp. 15–20), seem to be little works composed for the use of youth and perhaps added to illustrated world maps. Many things demonstrate that both return to the same source: I offer one [example], the length of Media and Parthia, which Agrippa estimates at 33,000 original: |XIII XX| passuum paces, is described in both little works by the same number, but it is written in a rather strange manner as |X|CCCXX(I), both in Dimensuratio 2 and in Divisio 23. Therefore, the first to claim that this source is Agrippa for the Dimensuratio were Muellenhoff (in Weltkarte World Map, p. 26), and for the Divisio, E. Schweder, who first edited it, in the book cited on p. 2. However, he who judged Schweder's booklet rightly said that it should not be derived from Agrippa's work itself, with nothing else interposed: 1) I add, there are also points where each disagrees either with the other or with Agrippa (e.g., concerning Baetica, Agrippa frag. 3; concerning Germany, the same frag. 21 has entirely different things than Dimensuratio 24 and 19 and Divisio 11, where the grouping of the provinces has also been changed): for which reason I recall the readers to what I said above regarding the authority of Agrippa among later writers. Therefore, when Schweder says on p. 42 that the very words of Agrippa (whom he also confuses with Augustus) can be restored from the consensus of both, he says too much. Even in the general order of the provinces, they do not agree with each other: the Dimensuratio starts from India, the Divisio on the contrary (like Pliny) from Spain, for which reason Muellenhoff and Partsch wanted to establish that Agrippa began from India, but Schweder [wanted to establish that he began] from Spain, as I stated on p. VII. The Dimensuratio seems to me to follow Agrippa more accurately than the Divisio, though it does not depend entirely on him, which Partsch tried to prove on p. 3 sqq., who made that one thing most certain, that it does not depend on Pliny. However, they do not align with each other (the things which he compared), Dimensuratio 10 with Pliny IV 58, Dimensuratio 16, 17 with Pliny III 80 and 84, Dimensuratio 27 with Pliny V 38, nor do I think Dimensuratio 13 with Pliny III 87; therefore, one cannot affirm for certain that either one flowed from

1. A. v. G. in ‘Literarisches Centralblatt’ 1877 p. 860.