There is no ground for considering the Geography of Strabo an improved edition of that of Eratosthenes. Strabo’s work was intended for the information of persons in the higher departments of administration, and contains such geographical and historical information as those engaged in political employments cannot dispense with. Consistently with this object he avoids giving minute descriptions, except where the place is of real interest, but supplies some account of the important political events that had occurred in various countries, and sketches of the great men who had flourished or laboured in them. It is a lively, well-written book, intended to be read, and forms a striking contrast to the Geography of Ptolemy. His language is simple, appropriate to the matter, without affectation, and mostly clear and intelligible, except in those passages where the text has been corrupted. Like many other Greeks, Strabo looked upon Homer as the depository of all knowledge, but he frequently labours to interpret the poet’s meaning in a manner highly uncritical. What Homer only partially knew or conjectured, Strabo has made the basis of his description, when he might have given an independent description, founded on the actual knowledge of his time: these observations apply especially to his books on Greece. He does not duly appreciate Herodotus; nor does he discriminate between the stories which Herodotus tells simply as stories he had heard, and the accounts he relates as derived from personal observation. He likewise rejects the evidence of Pytheas of Marseilles as to the northern regions of Europe, and on more than one occasion calls him a liar, although it is very certain that Pytheas coasted along the whole distance from Gadeira, now Cadiz, in Spain, to the river he calls Tanaïs, but which was probably the Elbe; however, from the extracts which have been preserved it seems that he did not give simply the results of his own observations, but added reports which he collected respecting distant countries, without always drawing a distinction between what he saw himself and what was derived from the report of others. Strabo’s authorities are for the most part Greek, and he seems to have neglected the Latin memoirs and historical narratives of the campaigns of the Romans, which might have furnished him with many valuable geographical facts for the countries as well of Asia as of Europe. He made some use of Cæsar’s description of France, the Alps, and Britain; he alludes to the voyage of Publius Crassus in speaking of the Cassiterides, and also the writings of Asinius Pollio, Fabius Pictor, and an anonymous writer whom he calls the Chorographer; but he might have obtained much additional information if he had taken pains to avail himself of the materials he could have procured during his stay at Rome.