PROLEGOMENA.

often lacking any reason — let the little stream of Adonis in Syria on p. 31 be an example — and he described their course at length, which description, poorly composed, contains many things both fabulous and inept (how they could have been painted on a map can scarcely be understood, cf. c. 7–8). But nevertheless, in the rivers too, it is certain that he or at least his recension B depends on an illustrated map, which he calls the 'present' (i.e., the copy) on p. 38, 4 B, and according to which the Nile 'ascends' into the upper, i.e., the northern, part of the map on p. 49, 9 B; but he also took his information about the rivers from another source, whether you prefer to call it the 'book of rivers' or you think a copious description of rivers was added in the blank part of the map. In the rest, he transcribed the map or 'sphere' (inscribed also c. 50). Nor, indeed, did he succeed happily in transcribing. What of the fact that (to take a few examples) the Pyramids are shown among the mountains, the Adonis among the provinces, Arachosia among the peoples, the Dahae and Celtiberia among the towns, the Syrtes among the islands, the Orcades among the seas, the Maeotae among the rivers? What of the fact that he has the Chatti and other German peoples in the eastern part in c. 13, to which recension B adds even more Germans? Perhaps he had seen some annotation added to the blank space in the eastern part of the map, which contained the names of these peoples. But as for the fact that not a few names are found the same in two parts of the earth, I would have you understand it this way: that those names, placed on the borders of the parts, passed from one into the other. Thus the words 'the Caspian Sea in both' (c. 2 B, cf. c. 28) signify that this sea is located in the eastern and northern parts (which are also separated by the Amanus and Caucasus and Bodua mountains). The next task for those who study these things must be that that map be restored as certainly as possible.

Julius Honorius the teacher excerpted this map 'in a correct description of orthography' (c. 51), by which words it is simply indicated that he did not neglect the orthography of the names shown on the map, but either religiously preserved it or perhaps even corrected it where there was need. He excerpted it solely for the use of his own students, so that the sphere 'would not by chance disturb the intellect of the reader because of some windings (this must be corrected) and be an acrostichis acrostic to our detriment (or perhaps acrostichides acrostics)?' (c. 1), that is: because on the map not all names were written in straight lines, but many, as the layout of the place suggested, were either written straight to the perpendicular like an acrostic, or were curved and disjointed in the manner of windings (cf. Livy XXI 37, 3), he excerpted them all into a booklet so that they might be read easily and correctly, and he handed down those excerpts or the content of the map to his students. There was, therefore, one copy of the excerpts, joined to that one map which was in Honorius's school: for which reason 'its sphere' in c. 1 is easily