τὴν μὲν οὖν τοιαύτην αἰτιολογίαν ἧττον ἄν τις ἀποδέξαιτο· μᾶλλον δʼ ἀπὸ τῶν φανερωτέρων καὶ τῶν καθʼ ἡμέραν τρόπον τινὰ ὁρωμένων ἀναπτέον τὸν λόγον· καὶ γὰρ κατακλυσμοὶ καὶ σεισμοὶ καὶ ἀναφυσήματα καὶ ἀνοιδήσεις τῆς ὑφάλου γῆς μετεωρίζουσι καὶ τὴν θάλατταν, αἱ δὲ συνιζήσεις ταπεινοῦσιν αὐτήν· οὐ γὰρ μύδροι μὲν ἀνενεχθῆναι δύνανται καὶ μικραὶ νῆσοι, μεγάλαι δʼ οὔ· οὐδὲ νῆσοι μέν, ἤπειροι δʼ οὔ. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ συνιζήσεις καὶ μικραὶ καὶ μεγάλαι γένοιντʼ ἄν, εἴπερ καὶ χάσματα καὶ καταπόσεις χωρίων καὶ κατοικιῶν, ὡς ἐπὶ Βούρας τε καὶ Βιζώνης καὶ ἄλλων πλειόνων, ὑπὸ σεισμοῦ γενέσθαι φασί· καὶ τὴν Σικελίαν οὐδέν τι μᾶλλον ἀπορρῶγα τῆς Ἰταλίας εἰκάζοι τίς ἂν ἢ ἀναβληθεῖσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ Αἰτναίου πυρὸς ἐκ βυθοῦ συμμεῖναι· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὰς Λιπαραίων νήσους καὶ Πιθηκούσσας.
Some, however, may be disinclined to admit this explanation, and would rather have proof from things more manifest to the senses, and which seem to meet us at every turn. Now deluges, earthquakes, eruptions of wind, and risings in the bed of the sea, these things cause the rising of the ocean, as sinking of the bottom causes it to become lower. It is not the case that small volcanic or other islands can be raised up from the sea, and not large ones, nor that all islands can, but not continents, since extensive sinkings of the land no less than small ones have been known; witness the yawning of those chasms which have ingulfed whole districts no less than their cities, as is said to have happened to Bura, Bizone, and many other towns at the time of earthquakes: and there is no more reason why one should rather think Sicily to have been disjoined from the main-land of Italy than cast up from the bottom of the sea by the fires of Aetna, as the Lipari and Pithecussan Isles have been.
̔ο δʼ οὕτως ἡδύς ἐστιν ὥστε καὶ μαθηματικὸς ὢν οὐδὲ τὴν Ἀρχιμήδους βεβαιοῖ δόξαν, ὅτι φησὶν ἐκεῖνος ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῶν ὀχουμένων, παντὸς ὑγροῦ καθεστηκότος καὶ μένοντος τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν σφαιρικὴν εἶναι, σφαίρας ταὐτὸ κέντρον ἐχούσης τῇ γῇ· ταύτην γὰρ τὴν δόξαν ἀποδέχονται πάντες οἱ μαθημάτων πως ἁψάμενοι. ἐκεῖνος δὲ τὴν ἐντὸς θάλατταν, καίπερ μίαν οὖσαν, ὥς φησιν, οὐ νομίζει ὑπὸ μίαν ἐπιφάνειαν τετάχθαι, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τοῖς σύνεγγυς τόποις. καὶ μάρτυράς γε τῆς τοιαύτης ἀμαθίας ἀρχιτέκτονας ἄνδρας ποιεῖται, καὶ τῶν μαθηματικῶν καὶ τὴν ἀρχιτεκτονικὴν μέρος τῆς μαθηματικῆς ἀποφηναμένων. φησὶ γὰρ καὶ Δημήτριον διακόπτειν ἐπιχειρῆσαι τὸν τῶν Πελοποννησίων ἰσθμὸν πρὸς τὸ παρασχεῖν διάπλουν τοῖς στόλοις, κωλυθῆναι δʼ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχιτεκτόνων ἀναμετρησάντων καὶ ἀπαγγειλάντων μετεωροτέραν τὴν ἐν τῷ Κορινθιακῷ κόλπῳ θάλατταν τῆς κατὰ Κεγχρεὰς εἶναι, ὥστε, εἰ διακόψειε τὸ μεταξὺ χωρίον, ἐπικλυσθῆναι ἂν ἅπαντα τὸν περὶ Αἴγιναν πόρον καὶ αὐτὴν Αἴγιναν καὶ τὰς πλησίον νήσους, καὶ μηδὲ τὸν διάπλουν ἂν γενέσθαι χρήσιμον. διὰ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ τοὺς εὐρίπους ῥοώδεις εἶναι, μάλιστα δὲ τὸν κατὰ Σικελίαν πορθμόν, ὅν φησιν ὁμοιοπαθεῖν ταῖς κατὰ τὸν ὠκεανὸν πλημμυρίσι τε καὶ ἀμπώτεσι· δὶς γὰρ μεταβάλλειν τὸν ῥοῦν ἑκάστης ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, καθάπερ τὸν ὠκεανὸν δὶς μὲν πλημμυρεῖν δὶς δὲ ἀναχωρεῖν. τῇ μὲν οὖν πλημμυρίδι ὁμολογεῖν τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Τυρρηνικοῦ πελάγους εἰς τὸ Σικελικὸν καταφερόμενον ὡς ἂν ἐκ μετεωροτέρας ἐπιφανείας, ὃν δὴ καὶ κατιόντα ὀνομάζεσθαι, ὁμολογεῖν δʼ ὅτι καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν ἄρχεταί τε καὶ παύεται καθʼ ὃν αἱ πλημμυρίδες· ἄρχεται μὲν γὰρ περὶ τὴν ἀνατολὴν τῆς σελήνης καὶ τὴν δύσιν, λήγει δʼ ὅταν συνάπτῃ τῇ μεσουρανήσει ἑκατέρᾳ, τῇ τε ὑπὲρ γῆς καὶ τῇ ὑπὸ γῆς· τῇ δὲ ἀμπώτει τὸν ἐναντίον, ὃν ἐξιόντα καλεῖσθαι, ταῖς μεσουρανήσεσι τῆς σελήνης ἀμφοτέραις ἐναρχόμενον, καθάπερ αἱ ἀμπώτεις, ταῖς δὲ συνάψεσι ταῖς πρὸς τὰς ἀνατολὰς καὶ δύσεις παυόμενον.
However, so nice a fellow is Eratosthenes, that though he professes himself a mathematician, he rejects entirely the dictum of Archimedes, who, in his work On Bodies in Suspension, says that all liquids when left at rest assume a spherical form, having a centre of gravity similar to that of the earth. A dictum which is acknowledged by all who have the slightest pretensions to mathematical sagacity. He says that the Mediterranean, which, according to his own description, is one entire sea, has not the same level even at points quite close to each other; and offers us the authority of engineers for this piece of folly, notwithstanding the affirmation of mathematicians that engineering is itself only one division of the mathematics. He tells us that Demetrius intended to cut through the Isthmus of Corinth, to open a passage for his fleet, but was prevented by his engineers, who, having taken measurements, reported that the level of the sea at the Gulf of Corinth was higher than at Cenchrea, so that if he cut through the isthmus, not only the coasts near Aegina, but even Aegina itself, with the neighbouring islands, would be laid completely under water, while the passage would prove of little value. According to Eratosthenes, it is this which occasions the current in straits, especially the current in the Strait of Sicily, where effects similar to the flow and ebb of the tide are remarked. The current there changes twice in the course of a day and night, like as in that period the tides of the sea flow and ebb twice. In the Tyrrhenian sea the current which is called descendent, and which runs towards the sea of Sicily, as if it followed an inclined plane, corresponds to the flow of the tide in the ocean. We may remark, that this current corresponds to the flow both in the time of its commencement and cessation. For it commences at the rising and setting of the moon, and recedes when that satellite attains its meridian, whether above [in the zenith] or below the earth [in the nadir]. In the same way occurs the opposite or ascending current, as it is called. It corresponds to the ebb of the ocean, and commences as soon as the moon has reached either zenith or nadir, and ceases the moment she reaches the point of her rising or setting. [So far Eratosthenes.]
περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν πλημμυρίδων καὶ τῶν ἀμπώτεων εἰρήκασιν ἱκανῶς Ποσειδώνιός τε καὶ Ἀθηνόδωρος· περὶ δὲ τῆς τῶν πορθμῶν παλιρροίας, ἐχόντων καὶ αὐτῶν φυσικώτερον λόγον ἢ κατὰ τὴν νῦν ὑπόθεσιν, τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν ἀπόχρη, ὅτι οὔτε εἷς τρόπος τοῦ ῥοώδεις εἶναι τοὺς πορθμούς, ὅ γε κατʼ εἶδος (οὐ γὰρ ἂν ὁ μὲν Σικελικὸς δὶς ἑκάστης ἡμέρας μετέβαλλεν, ὡς οὗτός φησιν, ὁ δὲ Χαλκιδικὸς ἑπτάκις, ὁ δὲ κατὰ Βυζάντιον οὐδὲ μετέβαλλεν, ἀλλὰ διετέλει τὸν ἔκρουν μόνον ἔχων τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Ποντικοῦ πελάγους εἰς τὴν Προποντίδα, ὡς δὲ Ἵππαρχος ἱστορεῖ, καὶ μονάς ποτε ἐποιεῖτο), οὔτʼ εἰ τρόπος εἷς εἴη, ταύτην ἂν ἔχοι τὴν αἰτίαν, ἥν φησιν ὁ Ἐρατοσθένης, ὅτι ἡ ἐφʼ ἑκάτερα θάλαττα ἄλλην καὶ ἄλλην ἐπιφάνειαν ἔχει· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ποταμῶν τοῦτο γένοιτʼ ἄν, εἰ μὴ καταράκτας ἔχοιεν· ἔχοντες δὲ οὐ παλιρροοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τὸ ταπεινότερον ἀεὶ φέρονται. καὶ τοῦτο δὲ συμβαίνει διὰ τὸ κεκλιμένον εἶναι τὸ ῥεῦμα καὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ· ὥστʼ οὐχ ὅτι παλιρροοῦντας, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ καθεστῶτας καὶ μένοντας, συρροίας μὲν ἐν αὐτοῖς οὔσης, μὴ μιᾶς δὲ ἐπιφανείας, ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν ὑψηλοτέρας τῆς δὲ ταπεινοτέρας. πελάγους δὲ τίς ἂν φαίη κεκλιμένην ἐπιφάνειαν; καὶ μάλιστα κατὰ τὰς σφαιροποιούσας ὑποθέσεις τὰ τέτταρα σώματα, ἃ δὴ καὶ στοιχεῖα φαμέν· οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἡ γῆ κατὰ ἕξιν ἐσχημάτισται στερεὰ οὖσα, ὥστε καὶ κοιλάδας ἔχειν συμμενούσας καὶ ἀναστήματα, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, ἀλλʼ αὐτῇ τῇ κατὰ τὸ βάρος ῥοπῇ τὴν ὄχησιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιεῖται καὶ τοιαύτην λαμβάνει τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν οἵαν ὁ Ἀρχιμήδης φησιν.
The nature of the ebb and flow has been sufficiently treated of by Posidonius and Athenodorus. Concerning the flux and reflux of the currents, which also may be explained by physics, it will suffice our present purpose to observe, that in the various straits these do not resemble each other, but each strait has its own peculiar current. Were they to resemble each other,. the current at the Strait of Sicily would not change merely twice during the day, (as Eratosthenes himself tells us it does,) and at Chalcis seven times; nor again that of Constantinople, which does not change at all, but runs always in one direction from the Euxine to the Propontis, and, as Hipparchus tells us, sometimes ceases altogether. However, if they did all depend on one cause, it would not be that which Eratosthenes has assigned, namely, that the various seas have different levels. The kind of inequality he supposes would not even be found in rivers only for the cataracts; and where these cataracts occur, they occasion no ebbing, but have one continued downward flow, which is caused by the inclination both of the flow and the surface; and therefore though they have no flux or reflux they do not remain still, on account of a principle of flowing which is inherent in them; at the same time they cannot be on the same level, but one must be higher and one lower than another. But who ever imagined the surface of the ocean to be on a slope, especially those who follow a system which supposes the four bodies we call elementary, to be spherical. For water is not like the earth, which being of a solid nature is capable of permanent depressions and risings, but by its force of gravity spreads equally over the earth, and assumes that kind of level which Archimedes has assigned it.
Ἐπιφέρει δὲ τοῖς περὶ τοῦ Ἄμμωνος καὶ τῆς Αἰγύπτου ῥηθεῖσιν, ὅτι δοκοίη καὶ τὸ Κάσιον ὄρος περικλύζεσθαι θαλάττῃ καὶ πάντα τὸν τόπον, ὅπου νῦν τὰ καλούμενα Γέρρα, καθʼ ἕκαστα τεναγίζειν συνάπτοντα τῷ τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς κόλπῳ, συνελθούσης δὲ τῆς θαλάττης ἀποκαλυφθῆναι. τὸ δὴ τεναγίζειν τὸν λεχθέντα τόπον συνάπτοντα τῷ τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς κόλπῳ, ἀμφίβολόν ἐστιν, ἐπειδὴ τὸ συνάπτειν σημαίνει καὶ τὸ συνεγγίζειν καὶ τὸ ψαύειν, ὥστε, εἰ ὕδατα εἴη, σύρρουν εἶναι θάτερον θατέρῳ. ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν δέχομαι καὶ τὸ συνεγγίζειν τὰ τενάγη τῇ Ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάττῃ, ἕως ἀκμὴν ἐκέκλειστο τὰ κατὰ τὰς στήλας στενά, ἐκραγέντων δὲ τὴν ἀναχώρησιν γενέσθαι, ταπεινωθείσης τῆς ἡμετέρας θαλάττης διὰ τὴν κατὰ τὰς στήλας ἔκρυσιν. Ἵππαρχος δὲ ἐκδεξάμενος τὸ συνάπτειν ταὐτὸν τῷ σύρρουν γενέσθαι τὴν ἡμετέραν θάλατταν τῇ Ἐρυθρᾷ διὰ τὴν πλήρωσιν, αἰτιᾶται τί δή ποτε οὐχὶ τῇ κατὰ τὰς στήλας ἐκρύσει μεθισταμένη ἐκεῖσε ἡ καθʼ ἡμᾶς θάλαττα συμμεθίστα καὶ τὴν σύρρουν αὐτῇ γενομένην τὴν Ἐρυθράν, καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ διέμεινεν ἐπιφανείᾳ, μὴ ταπεινουμένη· καὶ γὰρ κατʼ αὐτὸν Ἐρατοσθένη τὴν ἐκτὸς θάλατταν ἅπασαν σύρρουν εἶναι, ὥστε καὶ τὴν ἑσπέριον καὶ τὴν Ἐρυθρὰν θάλατταν μίαν εἶναι. τοῦτο δʼ εἰπὼν ἐπιφέρει τὸ ἀκόλουθον, τὸ τὸ αὐτὸ ὕψος ἔχειν τήν τε ἔξω στηλῶν θάλατταν καὶ τὴν Ἐρυθρὰν καὶ ἔτι τὴν ταύτῃ γεγονυῖαν σύρρουν.
To what we cited before concerning the temple of Ammon and Egypt, Eratosthenes adds, that to judge from appearances, Mount Casius was formerly covered by sea, and the whole district now known as Gerra lay under shoal water touching the bay of the Erythraean Sea, but was left dry on the union of the [Mediterranean] Sea [with the ocean]. A certain amphibology lurks here under this description of the district lying under shoal water and touching the bay of the Erythraean Sea; for to touch both means to be close to, and also to be in actual contact with, so that when applied to water it would signify that one flows into the other. I understand him to mean, that so long as the strait by the Pillars of Hercules remained closed, these marshes covered with shoal-water extended as far as the Arabian Gulf, but on that passage being forced open, the Mediterranean, discharging itself by the strait, became lower, and the land was left dry.
On the other hand, Hipparchus understands by the term touching, that the Mediterranean, being over-full, flowed into the Erythraean Sea, and he inquires how it could happen, that as the Mediterranean flowed out by this new vent at the Pillars of Hercules, the Erythraean Sea, which was all one with it, did not flow away too, and thus become lower, but has always retained the same level? and since Eratosthenes supposes the whole exterior sea to be confluent, it follows that the Western Ocean and the Erythraean Sea are all one; and thus [remarks Hipparchus] as a necessary consequence, the sea beyond the Pillars of Hercules, the Erythraean Sea, and that also which is confluent with it, have all the same level.
Ἀλλʼ οὔτʼ εἰρηκέναι τοῦτό φησιν Ἐρατοσθένης, τὸ σύρρουν γεγονέναι κατὰ τὴν πλήρωσιν τῇ Ἐρυθρᾷ, ἀλλὰ συνεγγίσαι μόνον, οὔτʼ ἀκολουθεῖν τῇ μιᾷ καὶ συνεχεῖ θαλάττῃ τὸ αὐτὸ ὕψος ἔχειν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπιφάνειαν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὴν καθʼ ἡμᾶς, καὶ νὴ Δία τὴν κατὰ τὸ Λέχαιον καὶ τὴν περὶ Κεγχρεάς. ὅπερ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἵππαρχος ἐπισημαίνεται ἐν τῷ πρὸς αὐτὸν λόγῳ· εἰδὼς οὖν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ τοιαύτην ἰδίᾳ τι πρὸς αὐτὸν λεγέτω, καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἑτοίμου λαμβανέτω, ὡς ἄρα ὁ φήσας μίαν εἶναι τὴν ἔξω θάλατταν σύμφησι καὶ ὅτι μία ἐστὶν αὐτῆς ἡ ἐπιφάνεια.
But, Eratosthenes would reply, I never said that, in consequence of the repletion of the Mediterranean, it actually flowed into the Erythraean Sea, but only that it approached very near thereto: besides, it does not follow, that in one and the self-same sea, the level of its surface must be all the same; to instance the Mediterranean itself, no one, surely, will say it is of the same height at Lechaeum and at Cenchrea. This answer Hipparchus anticipated in his Critique; and being aware of the opinion of Eratosthenes, was justified in attacking his arguments. But he ought not to have taken it for granted, that when Eratosthenes said the exterior sea was all one, he necessarily implied that its level was every where the same.
ψευδῆ δʼ εἶναι φήσας τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς δελφῖσιν ἐπιγραφὴν Κυρηναίων θεωρῶν αἰτίαν ἀποδίδωσιν οὐ πιθανήν, ὅτι ἡ μὲν τῆς Κυρήνης κτίσις ἐν χρόνοις φέρεται μνημονευομένοις, τὸ δὲ μαντεῖον οὐδεὶς μέμνηται ἐπὶ θαλάττῃ ποτὲ ὑπάρξαν. τί γάρ, εἰ μηδεὶς μὲν ἱστορεῖ, ἐκ δὲ τῶν τεκμηρίων, ἐξ ὧν εἰκάζομεν παράλιόν ποτε τὸν τόπον γενέσθαι, οἵ τε δελφῖνες ἀνετέθησαν καὶ ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐγένετο ὑπὸ Κυρηναίων θεωρῶν; συγχωρήσας δὲ τῷ μετεωρισμῷ τοῦ ἐδάφους συμμετεωρισθεῖσαν καὶ τὴν θάλατταν ἐπικλύσαι τοὺς μέχρι τοῦ μαντείου τόπους, πλέον ἀπὸ θαλάττης διέχοντας τῶν τρισχιλίων σταδίων, οὐ συγχωρεῖ τὸν μέχρι τοσούτου μετεωρισμὸν ὥστε καὶ τὴν Φάρον ὅλην καλυφθῆναι καὶ τὰ πολλὰ τῆς Αἰγύπτου, ὥσπερ οὐχ ἱκανοῦ ὄντος τοῦ τοσούτου ὕψους καὶ ταῦτα ἐπικλύσαι. φήσας δέ, εἴπερ ἐπεπλήρωτο ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἡ καθʼ ἡμᾶς θάλαττα πρὶν τὸ ἔκρηγμα τὸ κατὰ στήλας γενέσθαι, ἐφʼ ὅσον εἴρηκεν ὁ Ἐρατοσθένης, χρῆναι καὶ τὴν Λιβύην πᾶσαν καὶ τῆς Εὐρώπης τὰ πολλὰ καὶ τῆς Ἀσίας κεκαλύφθαι πρότερον, τούτοις ἐπιφέρει διότι καὶ ὁ Πόντος τῷ Ἀδρίᾳ σύρρους ἂν ὑπῆρξε κατά τινας τόπους, ἅτε δὴ τοῦ Ἴστρου ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ τὸν Πόντον τόπων σχιζομένου καὶ ῥέοντος εἰς ἑκατέραν τὴν θάλατταν διὰ τὴν θέσιν τῆς χώρας. ἀλλʼ οὔτʼ ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ τὸν Πόντον μερῶν ὁ Ἴστρος τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχει, ἀλλὰ τἀναντία ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἀδρίου ὀρῶν· οὔτʼ εἰς ἑκατέραν τὴν θάλατταν ῥεῖ, ἀλλʼ εἰς τὸν Πόντον μόνον, σχίζεταί τε πρὸς αὐτοῖς μόνον τοῖς στόμασι. κοινὴν δέ τινα τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ τισιν ἄγνοιαν ταύτην ἠγνόηκεν, ὑπολαβοῦσιν εἶναί τινα ὁμώνυμον τῷ Ἴστρῳ ποταμὸν ἐκβάλλοντα εἰς τὸν Ἀδρίαν ἀπεσχισμένον αὐτοῦ, ἀφʼ οὗ καὶ τὸ γένος Ἴστρων, διʼ οὗ φέρεται, λαβεῖν τὴν προσηγορίαν, καὶ τὸν Ἰάσονα ταύτῃ ποιήσασθαι τὸν ἐκ τῶν Κόλχων ἀνάπλουν.
Hipparchus rejects as false the [account] of the inscription on the dolphins by the delegates from Cyrene, but the reason he assigns for this is insufficient, viz. that though Cyrene was built in times of which we have record, no one mentions the oracle, as being situated on the sea-shore. But what matters it that no historian has recorded this, when amongst the other proofs from which we infer that this place was formerly on the sea-shore, we number this of the dolphins which were set up, and the inscription, by the delegates from Cyrene? Hipparchus agrees that if the bottom of the sea were raised up, it would lift the water with it, and might therefore overflow the land as far as the locality of the oracle, or more than 3000 stadia from the shore; but he will not allow that the rising would be sufficient to overflow the Island of Pharos and the major portion of Egypt, since [he says] the elevation would not be sufficient to submerge these. He alleges that if before the opening of the passage at the Pillars of Hercules, the Mediterranean had been swollen to such an extent as Eratosthenes affirms, the whole of Libya, and the greater part of Europe and Asia, must long ago have been buried beneath its waves. Besides, he adds, in this case the Euxine would in certain places have been connected with the Adriatic, since in the vicinity of the Euxine, [near to its source,) the Ister is divided in its course, and flows into either sea, owing to the peculiarities of the ground. To this we object, that the Ister does not take its rise at all in the vicinity of the Euxine, but, on the contrary, beyond the mountains of the Adriatic; neither does it flow into both the seas, but into the Euxine alone, and only becomes divided just above its mouths. This latter, however, was an error into which he fell in common with many of his predecessors. They supposed that there was another river in addition to the former Ister, bearing the same name, which emptied itself into the Adriatic, and from which the country of Istria, through which it flowed, gained that appellation. It was by this river they believed Jason returned on his voyage from Colchis.
Cite This Text