The Ruwenzori Range. 
mistake made by Stanley, who, after calling Ptolemy “ the Raven stein or the 
Justus Perthes of his period” (Yol. II, p. 270), says that the easternmost lake 
was called by Ptolemy Coloe Pains, whereas this lake is expressly described 
in the Alexandrian’s work as belonging to the secondary basin of the Bahr 
el-Azrek. ( 20 ) 
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 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 ( 21 ), prefer 
Marinus Tyrus to Ptolemy, and locate the Upper Nile lakes in the neighbour¬ 
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, beyond doubt, identical, the eastern with 
Lake Victoria, the western with Lake Albert or Albert Edward, or probably 
with both of them taken together. Nor does the objection 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 Ptolenyy 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 by 
the windings of the routes that had to be traversed to get from the southern 
shores of the eastern lake to any point of the western. ( 22 ) 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 basin of North America. On this point T 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 be 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 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 habitable globe, not only 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 
