which this navigation was accomplished: it is maintained, that even at
present, it would certainly require eighteen months to coast Africa from
the Red Sea to the straits of Gibraltar; and "allowing nine months for each
interval on shore, between the sowing and reaping, the Phoenicians could
not have been more than eighteen months at sea."

To this objection it may be replied, in the first place, that between the
tropics (within which space nearly the whole of the navigation was
performed) nine months is much too long a time to allow for each interval
on shore, between the sowing and the reaping: and, secondly, that though
the period occupied by the whole voyage, and some of the circumstances
attending it, may be inaccurately stated, the voyage itself ought not to be
wholly discredited on these accounts.

The very circumstance which the historian rejects as incredible, is one of
the strongest arguments possible in favour of the tradition; though this
alone is not decisive, for the Phoenicians might have sailed far enough to
the south to have observed the sun to the north, even if they had not
accomplished the navigation of Africa. The strongest argument, however, in
our opinion, in support of the actual accomplishment of this
circumnavigation, has been unaccountably overlooked, in all the various
discussion to which the subject has given rise. It is evident that in most
voyages, false and exaggerated accounts may be given of the countries
visited or seen, and of the circumstances attendant upon the voyage;
whereas, with respect to this voyage, one most important and decisive
particular lay within reach of the observation of those who witnessed the
departure and arrival of the ships. If they sailed from the Red Sea, and
returned by the Mediterranean, they must have circumnavigated Africa. It is
obvious that if such a voyage was not performed, the story must have
originated with Herodotus, with those from whom he received his