dison, Kemarks on Italy). (See this question fully discussed and investigated by Zumpt, über den Stand der Bevölkerung im Alterthum. 4to. Berlin, 1841.)

Gallia Cisalpina, including Venetia and the part of Liguria N. of the Apennines, seems to have been by far the most flourishing and populous part of Italy under the Roman empire. Its extraordinary natural resources had been brought into cultivation at a comparatively late period, and were still unexhausted nor had it suffered so much from the civil wars which had given a fatal blow to the prosperity of the rest of Italy. It would appear also to have been comparatively free from the system of cultivation by slave labour which had proved so ruinous to the more southern regions. The younger Pliny, indeed, mentions that his estate near Comum, and all those in its neighbourhood, were cultivated wholly by free labourers. (Plin. Ep. iii. 19.) In the latter ages of the Empire, also, the establishment of the imperial court at Mediolanum (which continued from the time of Maximian to that of Honorius) must have given a fresh stimulus to the prosperity of this favoured region. But when the Empire was no longer able to guard the barrier of the Alps against the irruptions of barbarians, it was on Northern Italy that the first brunt of their devastations naturally fell; and the numerous and opulent cities in the plains of the Padus were plundered in succession by the Goths, the Huns, and the Lombards.

VII. AUTHORITIES.

Considering the celebrity of Italy, and the importance which it enjoyed, not only under the Romans but during the middle ages, and the facility of access which has rendered it so favourite a resort of travellers in modern times, it seems strange that our knowledge of its ancient geography should be still very imperfect. Yet it cannot be denied that this is the case. The first disadvantage under which we labour is, that our ancient authorities themselves are far from being as copious or satisfactory as might be expected. The account given by Strabo, though marked by much of his usual good sense and judgment, is by no means sufficiently ample or detailed to meet all our requirements. He had also comparatively little interest in, and was probably himself but imperfectly acquainted with, the early history of Rome, and therefore did not care to notice, or inquire after, places which had figured in that history, but were in his time, sunk into decay or oblivion. Mela dismisses the geography of Italy very hastily, as being too well known to require a detailed description (ii. 4. § 1): while Pliny, on the contrary, apologises for passing but lightly over so important and interesting a subject, on account of the impossibility of doing it justice (iii. 5. s. 6). His enumeration of the different regions and the towns they contained is nevertheless of the greatest value, and in all probability based upon authentic materials. But he almost wholly neglects the physical geography, and enumerates the inland towns of each district in alphabetical order, so that his mention of them gives us no assistance in determining their position. Ptolemy's lists of names are far less authentic and trustworthy than those of Pliny; and the positions which he professes to give are often but little to be depended on. The Itineraries afford valuable assistance, and perhaps

and trustworthy guides; but they fail us exactly where we are the most in want of assistance,—in the more remote and unfrequented parts of Italy, or those districts which in the latter ages of the Empire had fallen into a state of decay and desolation. One of the most important aids to the determination of ancient localities is unquestionably the preservation of the ancient names, which have often been transmitted almost without change to the present day; and even where the name is now altered, we are often enabled by ecclesiastical records to trace the ancient appellation down to the middle ages, and prove both the fact and the origin of its alteration. In numerous instances (such as Aletium, Sipontum, &c.) an ancient church alone records the existence and preserves the name of the decayed city. But two circumstances must guard us against too hasty an inference from the mere evidence of name: the one, that it not unfrequently happened, during the disturbed periods of the middle ages, that the inhabitants of an ancient town would migrate to another site, whether for security or other reasons, and transfer their old name to their new abode. Instances of this will be found in the cases of ABELLINUM, AUFIDENA, &c., and the most remarkable of all in that of CAPUA. Another source of occasional error is that the present appellations of localities are sometimes derived from erroneous traditions of the middle ages, or even from the misapplication of ancient names by local writers on the first revival of learning.

One of the most important and trustworthy auxiliaries in the determination of ancient names and localities, that of inscriptions, unfortunately requires, in the case of Italy, to be received with much care and caution. The perverted ingenuity or misguided patriotism of many of the earlier Italian antiquarians frequently led them either to fabricate or interpolate such documents, and this with so much skill and show of learning, that many such fictitious or apocryphal inscriptions have found their way into the collections of Gruter, Muratori, and Orelli, and have been cited in succession by numerous modern writers. Mommsen has conferred a great service upon the student of Italian antiquities by subjecting all the recorded inscriptions belonging to the kingdom of Naples to a searching critical inquiry, and discarding from his valuable collection (Inscriptiones Regni Neapolitani Latinae, fol. Lips. 1852) all those of dubious authenticity. It is much to be desired that the same task may be undertaken for those of the rest of Italy.

The comparative geography of ancient and modern Italy had more or less engaged the attention of scholars from the first revival of learning. But of the general works on the subject, those before the time or Cluverius may be regarded more as objects of curiosity than as of much real use to the student. Biondo Flavio (Blondus Flavius) is the earliest writer who has left us a complete and connected view of Italian topography, in his Italia Illustrata (first published in 1474, afterwards with his other works at Basle, in 1531 and 1559): after him came Leandro Alberti, whose Descrizione di tutta Italia (Venice, 1551) contains some valuable notices. But the great work of Cluverius (Italia Antiqua, 2 vols. fol. Lugd. Bat. 1624) altogether superseded those which had preceded him, and became the foundation of all subsequent inquiries. Cluverius has not only brought together, with the

ancient authors bearing upon his subject, but he had himself travelled over a great part of Italy, noting the distances and observing the remains of ancient towns. It is to be regretted that he has not left us more detailed accounts of these remains of antiquity, which have in many cases since disappeared, or have not been visited by any more recent traveller. Lucas Holstenius, the contemporary and friend of Cluver, who had also visited in person many of the more unfrequented districts of Italy, has left us, in his notes on Cluverius (Adnotationes ad Cluverii Italiam Antiquam, 8vo. Romae, 1666), a valuable supplement to the larger work, as well as many important corrections on particular points.

It is singular how little we owe to the researches of modern travellers in Italy. Not a single book of travels has ever appeared on that country which can be compared with those of Leake or Dodwell in Greece. Swinburne's Travels in the Two Sicilies is one of the best, and greatly superior to the more recent works of Keppel Craven on the same part of Italy (Tour through the Southern Provinces of the Kingdom of Naples, 4to. Lond. 1821; Excursions in the Abruzzi and Northern Provinces of Naples, 2 vols. 8vo. Lond. 1838). Eustace's well-known book (Classical Tour through Italy in 1802) is almost wholly worthless in an antiquarian point of view. Sir R. Hoare's Classical Tour, intended as a sort of supplement to the preceding, contains some valuable notes from personal observation. Dennis's recent work on Etruria (Cities and Cemeteries of the Etruscans, 2 vols. 8vo. Lond. 1848) contains a far more complete account of the antiquities and topography of that interesting district than we possess concerning any other part of Italy. Sir W. Gell's Topography of Rome and its Vicinity (2 vols. 8vo. Lond. 1834; 2nd edit. 1 vol. 1846*), taken in conjunction with the more elaborate work of Nibby on the same district (Anulisi della Carta dei | Dintorni di Roma, 3 vols. 8vo. Rome, 1849), sup- | plies much valuable information, especially what is derived from the personal researches of the author, but is far from fulfilling all that we require. The work of Westphal on the same subject (Die Römische Kampagne, 4to. Berlin, 1829) is still more imperfect, though valuable for the care which the author bestowed on tracing out the direction and remains of the ancient roads throughout the district in question. Abeken's Mittel Italien (8vo. Stuttgart, 1843) contains a good sketch of the physical geography of Central Italy, and much information concerning the antiquities of the different nations that inhabited it; but enters very little into the topography of the regions he describes. The publications of the Instituto Archeologico at Rome (first commenced in 1829, and continued down to the present time), though directed more to archaeological than topographical researches, still contain many valuable memoirs in illustration of the topography of certain districts, as well as the still existing remains in ancient localities.

The local works and histories of particular districts and cities in Italy are innumerable. But very few of them will be found to be of any real service to the student of ancient geography. The earlier works of this description are with few exceptions characterised by very imperfect scholarship, an almost total want of criticism, and a blind cre

dulity, or still blinder partiality to the native city of each particular author. Even on those points on which their testimony would appear most likely to be valuable, such as notices of ruins, inscriptions, and other remains of antiquity,-it must too often be received with caution, if not with suspicion. A striking exception to this general remark will be found in the treatise of Galateo, De Situ Iapygiae (8vo. Basel, 1551; republished by Graevius in the Thesaurus Antiquitatum Italiae, vol. ix. part v.): those of Barrio on Calabria (the modern province of the name) and Antonini on Lucania (Barrius, de Antiquitate et Situ Calabriae, fol. Romae, 1737; Antonini, La Lucania, 4to. Naples, 1741), though not without their merit, are of far inferior value. The results of these local researches, and the conclusions of their authors, will be for the most part found, in a condensed form, in the work of the Abate Romanelli (Antica Topografia Istorica del Regno di Napoli, 3 vols. 4to. Naples, 1815), which, notwithstanding the defects of imperfect scholarship and great want of critical sagacity, will still be found of the greatest service to the student for the part of Italy to which it relates. Cramer, in his well-known work, has almost implicitly followed Romanelli, as far as the latter extends; as for the rest of Italy he has done little more than abridge the work of Cluverius, with the corrections of his commentator Holstenius. Mannert, on the contrary, appears to have composed his Geographie von Italien without consulting any of the local writers at all, and consequently without that detailed acquaintance with the actual geography of the country which is the indispensable foundation of all inquiries into its ancient topography. Reichard's work, which appears to enjoy some reputation in Germany, is liable in a still greater degree to the same charge:* while that of Forbiger is a valuable index of references both to ancient and modern writers, but aspires to little more. Kramer's monography of the Lake Fucinus (Der Fuciner See, 4to. Berlin, 1839) may be mentioned as a perfect model of its kind, and stands unrivalled as a contribution to the geography of Italy. Niebuhr's Lectures on the Geography of Italy (in his Vorträge über Alte Länder u. Völker-kunde, pp. 318-576) contain many valuable and important views, especially of the physical geography in its connection with the history of the inhabitants, and should be read by every student of antiquity, though by no means free from errors of detail. [E. H. B.]

ITA'LICA ('Iráλika, Strab. iii. p. 141; Ptol. ii. 4. § 13; 'Iraλikh, Appian, Hisp. 38; Steph. B. s. v.), a Roman city, in the country of the Turdetani, in Hispania Baetica, on the right bank of the Baetis, opposite HISPALIS (Seville), from which it was distant only 6 M. P. to the NW. (Itin. Ant. p. 413, comp. p. 432.) It was founded by Scipio Africanus, on the site of the old Iberian town of Sancios, in the Second Punic War (B. c. 207), and peopled with his disabled veterans; whence its name, "the Italian city." It had the rank of a municipium: it is mentioned more than once in the history of the Civil Wars: and it was the native place of the emperors Trajan, Hadrian, and Theodosius the Great, and, as some say, of the poet Silius Italicus. (See Dict. of Greek and Rom. Biog. s. v.)

Roman History (vol. iii. p. xciv. 2d edit.).

while he believes the modern capital town of Bathý to occupy the site of Crocyleia. (Il. l. c.) It is true that Strabo (pp. 376, 453) places Aegilips and Crocyleia in Leucas; but this appears inconsistent with Homer and other ancient authorities. (See Leake, l. c.)

Plutarch (Quaest. Graec. 43) and Stephanus B. (s. v.) state that the proper name of the ancient capital of Ithaca was Alcomenae or Alalcomenae, and that Ulysses bestowed this appellation upon it from his having been himself born near Alalcomenae in Boeotia. But this name is not found in Homer; and a passage in Strabo tends to identify it with the ruins on the isthmus of Aetos, where the fortress and royal residence of the Ithacan chieftains probably stood, on account of the advantages of a position so easily accessible to the sea both on the eastern and western sides. It is argued by Leake (1. c.) that the Homeric capital city was at Polis, a little harbour on the NW. coast of the island, where some Hellenic remains may still be traced. For the poet (Od. iv. 844, seq.) represents the suitors as lying in wait for Telemachus on his return from Peloponnesus at Asteris, a small island in the channel between Ithaca and Samos (Cephalonia)," where the only island is that now called Aaσkálov, situated exactly opposite the entrance to Port Polis. The traditional name of Polis is alone a strong argument that the town, of which the remains are still visible there, was that which Scylax (in Acarnania), and still more especially Ptolemy (iii. 14), mentions as having borne the same name as the island. It seems highly probable that wóλis, or the city, was among the Ithacans the most common designation of their chief town. And if the Homeric capital was at Polis, it will follow that Mt. Neium, under which it stood (10άкns Trоvntov, Od. iii. 81), was the mountain of Exoge (Ital. Exoi), at the northern extremity of the island, and that one of its summits was the Hermaean hill ('Epuaîos λópos, Od. xvi. 471) from which Eumaeus saw the ship of Telemachus entering the harbour. It becomes probable, also, that the harbour Rheithrum ('Peipov), which was 66 under Neium" but "apart from the city" (voodi Tóλnos, Od. i. 185), may be identified with either of the neighbouring bays of Afáles or Frikes. Near the village of Exoge may be observed the substructions of an ancient building, probably a temple, with several steps and niches cut in the rock. These remains are now called by the neighbouring peasants "the School of Homer."

The Homeric "Fountain of Arethusa " is identified with a copious spring which rises at the foot of a cliff fronting the sea, near the SE. extremity of Ithaca. This cliff is still called Korax (Kópa§), and is, doubtless, that alluded to at Od. xiii. 407, seq., xiv. 5, seq., xiv. 398. (See, especially on this point, Leake, l. c., and Mure, Tour in Greece, vol. i. p. 67, seq.)

The most remarkable natural feature of Ithaca is the Gulf of Molo, that inlet of the sea which nearly divides the island into two portions; and the most remarkable relic of antiquity is the socalled "Castle of Ulysses," placed, as has been already intimated, on the sides and summit of the steep hill of Aëtós, on the connecting isthmus. Here may be traced several lines of inclosure, testifying the highest antiquity in the rude structure of massive stones which compose them. The position of several gates is distinctly marked; there are also traces of a tower and of two large subterranean cis

terns. There can be little doubt that this is the spot to which Cicero (de Orat. i. 44) alludes in praising the patriotism of Ulysses. "ut Ithacam illam in asperrimis saxis tanquam nidulam affixam sapientissimus vir immortalitati anteponeret." The name of Aëtos, moreover, recalls the striking scene in Od. ii. 146, seq. At the base of this hill there have been discovered several ancient tombs, sepulchral inscriptions, vases, rings, medals, &c. The coins of Ithaca usually bear the head of Ulysses, with the pileus, or conical cap, and the legend '10ak@v; the reverse exhibiting a cock, an emblem of the hero's vigilance, Athena, his tutelar deity, or other devices of like import. (See Eckhel.)

The Homeric port of Phorcys (Od. xiii. 345) is supposed to be represented by a small creek now called Dexia (probably because it 's on the right of the entrance to the harbour of Bathý), or by another creek now called Skhinos, both on the southern side of the Gulf of Molo. (Leake, 1. c.) At a cave on the side of Mount Stephanos or Merovugli, above this gulf, and at some short distance from the sea, is placed the "Grotto of the Nymphs," in which the sleeping Ulysses was deposited by the Phoenicians who brought him from Scheria. (Od. xii. 116, seq.) Leake (l. c.) considers this to be "the only point in the island exactly corresponding to the poet's data."

-an

The modern capital of Ithaca extends in a narrow strip of white houses round the southern extremity of the horse-shoe port, or "deep" (Batú), from which it derives its name, and which is itself but an inlet of the Gulf of Molo, often mentioned already. After passing through similar vicissitudes to those of its neighbours, Ithaca is now one of the seven Ionian Islands under the protectorate of Great Britain, and contains a population exceeding 10,000 souls, industrious and prosperous community. It has been truly observed that there is, perhaps, no spot in the world where the influence of classical associations is more lively or more pure; for Ithaca is indebted for no part of its interest to the rival distinctions of modern annals, so much as its name scarcely occurring in the page of any writer of historical ages, unless with reference to its poetical celebrity. Indeed, in A. D. 1504, it was nearly, if not quite, uninhabited, having been depopulated by the incursions of Corsairs; and record is still extant of the privileges accorded by the Venetian government to the settlers (probably from the neighbouring islands and from the mainland of Greece) by whom it was repeopled. (Leake, 1. c.; Bowen, Ithaca in 1850, p. 1.)

It has been assumed throughout this article that the island still called Ithaca is identical with the Homeric Ithaca. Of that fact there is ample testimony in its geographical position, as well as in its internal features, when compared with the Odyssey. To every sceptic we may say, in the words of Athena to Ulysses (Od. xiii. 344),

-74, but they have been successfully confuted by Rühle von Lilienstern, Ueber das Homerische Ithaca. The fullest authorities on the subject of this article are Gell, Geography and Antiquities of Ithaca, London, 1807; Leake, Northern Greece, vol. iii. pp. 24-55; Mure, Tour in Greece, vol. i. pp. 38-81; Bowen, Ithaca in 1850, London, 1852.) [G. F. B.] ITHACE'SIAE INSULAE, is the name given by Pliny (iii. 7. s. 13) to some small islets opposite to Vibo on the W. coast of Bruttium. These can be no other than some mere rocks (too small to be marked on ordinary maps) which lie just opposite to the remains of Bivona, in the Golfo di Sta. Eufemia, and on which some traces of ancient buildings (probably connected with that port) were still visible in the days of Barrio. (Barrius, de Situ Calabr. ii. 13; Romanelli, vol. i. p. 57). [E. H. B.] ITHOME (Ιθώμη: Eth. Ιθωμήτης, Ιθωμαῖος). 1. A town of Histiaeotis in Thessaly, described by Homer as the" rocky Ithome" ('10wμŋ kλwμakóeσoa, I. ii. 729), is placed by Strabo within a quadrangle formed by the four cities, Tricca, Metropolis, Pelinnaeum, and Gomphi. (Strab. ix. p. 437.) It probably occupied the site of the castle which stands on the summit above the village of Fanári. Leake observed, near the north-western face of the castle, some remains of a very ancient Hellenic wall, consisting of a few large masses of stone, roughly hewn on the outside, but accurately joined to one another without cement. (Leake, Northern Greece, vol. iv. p. 510.)

2. A mountain fortress in Messenia, where the Messenians long maintained themselves against the Spartans in the First Messenian War. It was afterwards the citadel of Messene, when this city was founded by Epaminondas. For details, see MES

SENE.

ITHO'RIA (10wpía), a town in Aetolia, near the Achelous, and a short distance south of Conope. It was situated at the entrance of a pass, and was strongly fortified both by nature and by art. It was taken by Philip V., and levelled to the ground, B. C. 219. (Pol. iv. 64.)

I'TIUM PROMONTO'RIUM, is placed by Ptolemy (ii. 9. § 1) in Celtogalatia Belgica. After the mouths of the Seine, he mentions the outlet of the river Phrudis [FRUDIS], Icium (Iktov &крov), and then Gesoriacum (Inoopiakòv èπívetov), which is Boulogne. One of the old Latin versions of Ptolemy has Itium Promontorium, and others may have it too. He places Gesoriacum and Itium in the same latitude, and Itium due west of Gesoriacum. This is a great mistake, for, Itium being Cap Grisnez, the relative position of the two places north and south, instead of east and west. There is no promontory on this part of the French coast north or south of Boulogne except Grisnez, at which point the coast changes its direction from south to north, and runs in a general ENE. direction to Calais, Gravelines, and Dunkerque. It is therefore certain that there is a great mistake in Ptolemy, both in the direction of the coast and the relative position of Gesoriacum and Itium. Cap Grisnez is a chalk cliff, the termination on the coast of the chalk hills which cross the department of Pas de Calais. The chalk cliffs extend a few miles on each side of Cap Grisnez, and are clearly seen from the English coast on a fine day. This cape is the nearest point of the French coast to the opposite coast of Kent. [G. L.]

ITIUS PORTUS (Td "ITIOν, Strab. p. 199). When Caesar was preparing for his second British ex

pedition (B. C. 54), he says (B. G. v. 2) that he ordered his forces to meet at "Portus Itius, from which port he had found that there was the most convenient passage to Britannia,—about 30,000 passus." In his first expedition, B. c. 55, he says that he marched, with all his forces, into the country of the Morini, because the passage from that coast to Britannia was the shortest (B. G. iv. 21); but he does not name the port from which he sailed in his first expedition; and this is an omission which a man can easily understand who has formed a correct notion of the Commentaries. It seems a plain conclusion, from Caesar's words (v. 2) that he sailed from the Itius on his first expedition; for he marched into the country of the Morini, in order to make the shortest passage (iv. 21); and he made a good passage (iv. 23). In the fifth book he gives the distance from the Itius to the British coast, but not in the fourth book; and we conclude that he ascertained this distance in his first voyage. Drumann (Geschichte Roms, vol. iii. p. 294) thinks that the passage in the fifth book rather proves that Caesar did not sail from Itius on his first voyage. We must accordingly suppose that, having had a good passage on his first voyage to Britannia, and back to the place from which he had sailed, he chose to try a different passage the second time, which passage he had learned (cognoverat) to be the most convenient (commodissimum). Yet he landed at the same place in Britannia in both his voyages (v. 8); and he had ascertained (cognoverat) in the first voyage, as he says, that this was the best landing-place. So Drumann, in his way, may prove, if he likes, that Caesar did not land at the same place in both voyages.

The name Itius gives some reason for supposing that Portus Itius was near the Promontorium Itium; and the opinion now generally accepted is, that Portus Itius is Wissant or Witsand, a few miles east of Cap Grisnez. The critics have fixed Portus Itius at various places; but not one of these guesses, and they are all guesses, is worth notice, except the guess that Itius is Gesoriacum or Boulogne. But the name Gesoriacum is not Itius, which is one objection to the supposition. The only argument in favour of Boulogne is, that it was the usual place from which the Romans sailed for Britannia after the time of Claudius, and that it is in the country of the Morini. Gesoriacum was the best spot that the Romans could choose for a regular place of embarkation, for it is adapted to be the site of a town and a fortified place, and has a small river. Accordingly it became the chief Roman position on this part of the French coast. [GESORIACUM.]

The distance of Portus Itius from the nearest port of Britannia, 30 M. P., is too much. It seems to be a just conclusion, that Caesar estimated the distance from his own experience, and therefore that he estimated it either to the cliffs about the South Foreland, where he anchored, or to the place seven or eight miles (for the MSS. of Caesar vary here) further along the coast, where he landed. It is certain that he first approached the British coast under the high chalk cliffs between Folkestone and Walmer. It is a disputed point whether he went from his anchorage under the cliffs northwards to Deal, or southward to Sandgate or Hythe. This matter does not affect the position of Itius, and it is not discussed here; but the writer maintains that Caesar landed on the beach at Deal. There are difficulties in this question, which the reader may examine by referring to the authorities mentioned at the end of this article. The pas