The Kuwenzori Range. 



mistake made 1)y Stanley, wh<>, after Lalling I'tolemy "the Raveiisteiii or the 

 Justus Perthes of his period" (Vol. II, p. 270), says that the easteruiuost lake 

 was called by Ptolemy Coloc Pains, whereas this lake is expressly described 

 in the Alexandrian's work as belonging to the secondary basin of the Bahr 

 el-Azrek. (-^') 



Meanwhile, from the facts so far pointed out, we clearly see how greatly 

 those authors are at fault who place the two lakes of the Upper Nile, and as 

 a necessary consequence the Mountains of the Moon too, in the highland region 

 of Abyssinia, thus turning the Ptolemaic data upside down, and stating in 

 support of their assumption that the ancients knew of oidy one system of 

 snowy mountains in Africa, namely, that of the Abyssinian Semen. All the 

 less can we accept the opinion of those writers who, with Ravenstein (-^), prefer 

 Marinus Tyrus to Ptolemy, and locate the Upper Xile lakes in the neighbour- 

 hood of the east coast, and precisely in the territory of the Afars (Dankali), 

 that is at over 11 of noith latitude. 



Those two famous lakes are, l)eyond doubt, identical, the eastern with 

 Lake Victoria, the western with Lake Albert or All)ert Edward, or probably 

 with both of them taken together. Nor does the ol)jection hold which is 

 suggested by the too great difference (i^ degrees) in the longitudes of the two 

 lacustrine basins, as, besides the uncertainty in Avhich Ptolemy leaves us 

 regarding the locality of the eastern lake, of which he gives us the geographical 

 relations, it may lie remarked that the difference might have ])een caused by 

 the windings of the routes that had to he traversed to get from the southern 

 shores of the eastern lake to any point of the western. (--') It is further objected 

 that Ptolemy tells us nothing as to the size of the two lakes, which seems 

 strange, especially as regards Lake Victoria, a rival in area of the largest lakes 

 in the Laurentian l»asin of North America. On this point I may remark that 

 neither for any of the other lakes does Ptolemy tell us anything respecting 

 their extent. Why, then, should he make a solitary exception in the case of 

 the two Nilotic ones 1 Nor should it 1>e forgotten that in his comprehensive 

 work Ptolemy shows himself more especially in the light of an astronomer. 

 The geographer appears, so to say, only in the second place. In fact, no trace 

 is to be found of a physical description of the world, of its morphology, or of 

 any of the other sul)jects that form the main object of pure geography. In 

 this respect Ptolemy is far inferior to Strabo. His chief aim, saj's Bunbury, 

 was to rectify the general map of the habitable glol)e, not only by supplying 

 what had remained unknown to his predecessors, bi;t also l\v applying from 

 beminiinfi; to end a more scientitìc system based on solid astronomic founda- 

 tions. He again inclined to the idea that had long l)efore been entertained l>y 



295 



