The Iluwenzori Kaiim'. 



mistake made l.y Stanley, wIk., after calling Ptolemy " the Kaven.stein or the 

 Justus Perthes of his perioil " (Yd. II, p. 270), says that the easternmost lake 

 was called liy Ptolemy Color Pahis, whereas this lake is expressly described 

 in the Alexandrian's work as l)elonging 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 Upjjfr Nile, and as 

 a n8c^ssary eonseciusnce the Mountains of the Moon too, in the highland region 

 of Aliyssinia, thus turning the Ptolemaic data upsiile down, and stating in 

 support of their assumption that the ancients knew of only 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 (-i), prefer 

 Marinus Tyrus to Ptolemy, and locate the Upper Nile lakes in the neighl>our- 

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

 that is at over 11 of north latitude. 



Those two famous lakes are, lieyond doubt, identical, the eastern with 

 Lake Victoria, the western with Lake Albert or Albert Edward, or piol)al)ly 

 with both of them taken together. Nor does the i)l>jection hold which is 

 suggested by the too great difference (8 degrees) in the longitudes of the two 

 lacustrine basins, as, besides the uncertainty in which Ptolemj- leaves us 

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

 relations, it may be remarked that the difference might have been caused )>y 

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

 shores of the easterii 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 ^'icto^ia, a rival in ai-ea of the largest lakes 

 in the Laurentian basin 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, shoidd he make a solitary exception in the ease of 

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

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

 The geographer appears, so to sax, only in the seconfl place. In fact, no trace 

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

 any of the othei- subjects that form the main object of pure geography. In 

 this respect Ptolemy is far inferior to Strabo. His chief aim, says Bunbury, 

 was to rectify the general map of the hal)ital)le globe, not onl}' by supplying 

 what had remained unknown to his predecessors, but also by applying from 

 beginning to end a more scientific system based on solid astronomic founda- 

 tions. He again inclined to the idea that had long before been entertained by 



295 



