εἰ δὲ πολλῶν προειπόντων ἐπιχειροῦμεν καὶ αὐτοὶ λέγειν περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν, οὔπω μεμπτέον, ἂν μὴ καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον διελεγχθῶμεν ἐκείνοις ἅπαντα λέγοντες. ὑπολαμβάνομεν δʼ ἄλλων ἄλλο τι κατορθωσάντων ἄλλο πολὺ μέρος ἔτι τοῦ ἔργου λείπεσθαι· πρὸς οἷς ἂν καὶ μικρὸν προσλαβεῖν δυνηθῶμεν, ἱκανὴν δεῖ τίθεσθαι πρόφασιν τῆς ἐπιχειρήσεως. καὶ γὰρ δὴ πολύ τι τοῖς νῦν ἡ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐπικράτεια καὶ τῶν Παρθυαίων τῆς τοιαύτης ἐμπειρίας προσδέδωκε, καθάπερ τοῖς μετὰ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου στρατείαν, ὥς φησιν Ἐρατοσθένης· ὁ μὲν γὰρ τῆς Ἀσίας πολλὴν ἀνεκάλυψεν ἡμῖν καὶ τῶν βορείων τῆς Εὐρώπης ἅπαντα μέχρι τοῦ Ἴστρου· οἱ δὲ Ῥωμαῖοι τὰ ἑσπέρια τῆς Εὐρώπης ἅπαντα μέχρι Ἄλβιος ποταμοῦ τοῦ τὴν Γερμανίαν δίχα διαιροῦντος τά τε πέραν Ἴστρου τὰ μέχρι Τύρα ποταμοῦ· τὰ δὲ ἐπέκεινα μέχρι Μαιωτῶν καὶ τῆς εἰς Κόλχους τελευτώσης παραλίας Μιθριδάτης ὁ κληθεὶς Εὐπάτωρ ἐποίησε γνώριμα καὶ οἱ ἐκείνου στρατηγοί· οἱ δὲ Παρθυαῖοι τὰ περὶ τὴν Ὑρκανίαν καὶ τὴν Βακτριανὴν καὶ τοὺς ὑπὲρ τούτων Σκύθας γνωριμωτέρους ἡμῖν ἐποίησαν, ἧττον γνωριζομένους ὑπὸ τῶν πρότερον· ὥστε ἔχοιμεν ἄν τι λέγειν πλέον τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν. ὁρᾶν δʼ ἔσται τοῦτο μάλιστα ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τοῖς πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἡμῶν, ἧττον μὲν τοὺς πάλαι, μᾶλλον δὲ τοὺς μετʼ Ἐρατοσθένη καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον· οὓς εἰκὸς ὅσῳπερ πολυμαθέστεροι τῶν πολλῶν γεγόνασι, τοσούτῳ δυσελεγκτοτέρους εἶναι τοῖς ὕστερον, ἄν τι πλημμελῶς λέγωσιν. εἰ δʼ ἀναγκασθησόμεθά που τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀντιλέγειν, οἷς μάλιστα ἐπακολουθοῦμεν κατʼ ἄλλα, δεῖ συγγνώμην ἔχειν· οὐ γὰρ πρόκειται πρὸς ἅπαντας ἀντιλέγειν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς μὲν πολλοὺς ἐᾶν, οἷς μηδὲ ἀκολουθεῖν ἄξιον, ἐκείνους δὲ διαιτᾶν, οὓς ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις κατωρθωκότας ἴσμεν, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ πρὸς ἅπαντας φιλοσοφεῖν ἄξιον, πρὸς Ἐρατοσθένη δὲ καὶ Ἵππαρχον καὶ Ποσειδώνιον καὶ Πολύβιον καὶ ἄλλους τοιούτους καλόν.
No one can [justly] blame us for having undertaken to write on a subject already often treated of, unless it appears that we have done nothing more than copy the works of former writers. In our opinion, though they may have perfectly treated some subjects, in others they have still left much to be completed; and we shall be justified in our performance, if we can add to their information even in a trifling degree. At the present moment the conquests of the Romans and Parthians have added much to our knowledge, which (as was well observed by Eratosthenes) had been considerably increased by the expedition of Alexander. This prince laid open to our view the greater part of Asia, and the whole north of Europe as far as the Danube. And the Romans [have discovered to us] the entire west of Europe as far as the river Elbe, which divides Germany, and the country beyond the Ister to the river Dniester. The country beyond this to the Maeotis, and the coasts extending along Colchis, was brought to light by Mithridates, surnamed Eupator, and his generals. To the Parthians we are indebted for a better acquaintance with Hyrcania, Bactriana, and the land of the Scythians lying beyond, of which before we knew but little. Thus we can add much information not supplied by former writers, but this will best be seen when we come to treat on the writers who have preceded us; and this method we shall pursue, not so much in regard to the primitive geographers, as to Eratosthenes and those subsequent to him. As these writers far surpassed the generality in the amount of their knowledge, so naturally it is more difficult to detect their errors when such occur. If I seem to contradict those most whom I take chiefly for my guides, I must claim indulgence on the plea, that it was never intended to criticise the whole body of geographers, the larger number of whom are not worthy of consideration, but to give an opinion of those only who are generally found correct. Still, while many are beneath discussion, such men as Eratosthenes, Posidonius, Hipparchus, Polybius, and others of their stamp, deserve our highest consideration.
πρῶτον δʼ ἐπισκεπτέον Ἐρατοσθένη παρατιθέντας ἅμα καὶ τὴν Ἱππάρχου πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀντιλογίαν ἔστι δʼ ὁ Ἐρατοσθένης οὔθʼ οὕτως εὐκατατρόχαστος ὥστε μηδʼ Ἀθήνας αὐτὸν ἰδεῖν φάσκειν, ὅπερ Πολέμων ἐπιχειρεῖ δεικνύναι, οὔτʼ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον πιστὸς ἐφʼ ὅσον παρεδέξαντό τινες, καίπερ πλείστοις ἐντυχών, ὡς εἴρηκεν αὐτός, ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν. ἐγένοντο γάρ φησίν ὡς οὐδέποτε, κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν ὑφʼ ἕνα περίβολον καὶ μίαν πόλιν οἱ κατʼ Ἀρίστωνα καὶ Ἀρκεσίλαον ἀνθήσαντες φιλόσοφοι. οὐχ ἱκανὸν δʼ οἶμαι τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ τὸ κρίνειν καλῶς οἷς μᾶλλον προσιτέον. ὁ δὲ Ἀρκεσίλαον καὶ Ἀρίστωνα τῶν καθʼ αὑτὸν ἀνθησάντων κορυφαίους τίθησιν· Ἀπελλῆς τε αὐτῷ πολύς ἐστι καὶ Βίων, ὅν φησι πρῶτον ἀνθινὰ περιβαλεῖν φιλοσοφίαν· ἀλλʼ ὅμως πολλάκις εἰπεῖν ἄν τινα ἐπʼ αὐτοῦ τοῦτο οἵην ἐκ ῥακέων ὁ Βίων. ἐν αὐταῖς γὰρ ταῖς ἀποφάσεσι ταύταις ἱκανὴν ἀσθένειαν ἐμφαίνει τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γνώμης· ᾗ τοῦ Ζήνωνος τοῦ Κιτιέως γνώριμος γενόμενος Ἀθήνησι τῶν μὲν ἐκεῖνον διαδεξαμένων οὐδενὸς μέμνηται, τοὺς δʼ ἐκείνῳ διενεχθέντας καὶ ὧν διαδοχὴ οὐδεμία σώζεται, τούτους ἀνθῆσαί φησι κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον. δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ ἡ περὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐκδοθεῖσα ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ πραγματεία καὶ μελέται καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτο τὴν ἀγωγὴν αὐτοῦ, διότι μέσος ἦν τοῦ τε βουλομένου φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ τοῦ μὴ θαρροῦντος ἐγχειρίζειν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν ὑπόσχεσιν ταύτην, ἀλλὰ μόνον μέχρι τοῦ δοκεῖν προϊόντος, ἢ καὶ παράβασίν τινα ταύτην ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐγκυκλίων πεπορισμένου πρὸς διαγωγὴν ἢ καὶ παιδιάν· τρόπον δέ τινα καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐστὶ τοιοῦτος. ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνα ἐάσθω, πρὸς δὲ τὰ νῦν ἐπιχειρητέον ὅσα δύναιτʼ ἂν ἐπανορθοῦν τὴν γεωγραφίαν, καὶ πρῶτον ὅπερ ἀρτίως ὑπερεθέμεθα.
Let us first examine Eratosthenes, reviewing at the same time what Hipparchus has advanced against him. Eratosthenes is much too creditable an historian for us to believe what Polemon endeavours to charge against him, that he had not even seen Athens. At the same time he does not merit that unbounded confidence which some seem to repose in him, although, as he himself tells us, he passed much of his time with first-rate [characters]. Never, says he, at one period, and in one city, were there so many philosophers flourishing together as in my time. In their number was Ariston and Arcesilaus. This, however, it seems is not sufficient, but you must also be able to choose who are the real guides whom it is your interest to follow. He considers Arcesilaus and Ariston to be the coryphaei of the philosophers who flourished in his time, and is ceaseless in his eulogies of Apelles and Bion, the latter of whom, says he, was the first to deck himself in the flowers of philosophy, but concerning whom one is often likewise tempted to exclaim, How great is Bion in spite of his rags! It is in such instances as the following that the mediocrity of his genius shows itself.
Although at Athens he became a disciple of Zeno of Citium, he makes no mention of his followers; while those who opposed that philosopher, and of whose sect not a trace remains, he thinks fit to set down amongst the [great characters] who flourished in his time. His real character appears in his Treatise on Moral Philosophy, his Meditations, and some similar productions. He seems to have held a middle course between the man who devotes himself to philosophy, and the man who cannot make up his mind to dedicate himself to it: and to have studied the science merely as a relief from his other pursuits, or as a pleasing and instructive recreation. In his other writings he is just the same; but let these things pass. We will now proceed as well as we can to the task of rectifying his geography.
First, then, let us return to the point which we lately deferred.
ποιητὴν γὰρ ἔφη πάντα στοχάζεσθαι ψυχαγωγίας, οὐ διδασκαλίας. τοὐναντίον δʼ οἱ παλαιοὶ φιλοσοφίαν τινὰ λέγουσι πρώτην τὴν ποιητικήν, εἰσάγουσαν εἰς τὸν βίον ἡμᾶς ἐκ νέων καὶ διδάσκουσαν ἤθη καὶ πάθη καὶ πράξεις μεθʼ ἡδονῆς· οἱ δʼ ἡμέτεροι καὶ μόνον ποιητὴν ἔφασαν εἶναι τὸν σοφόν. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τοὺς παῖδας αἱ τῶν Ἑλλήνων πόλεις πρώτιστα διὰ τῆς ποιητικῆς παιδεύουσιν, οὐ ψυχαγωγίας χάριν δήπουθεν ψιλῆς, ἀλλὰ σωφρονισμοῦ· ὅπου γε καὶ οἱ μουσικοὶ ψάλλειν καὶ λυρίζειν καὶ αὐλεῖν διδάσκοντες μεταποιοῦνται τῆς ἀρετῆς ταύτης· παιδευτικοὶ γὰρ εἶναί φασι καὶ ἐπανορθωτικοὶ τῶν ἠθῶν. ταῦτα δʼ οὐ μόνον παρὰ τῶν Πυθαγορείων ἀκούειν ἐστὶ λεγόντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀριστόξενος οὕτως ἀποφαίνεται. καὶ Ὅμηρος δὲ τοὺς ἀοιδοὺς σωφρονιστὰς εἴρηκε, καθάπερ τὸν τῆς Κλυταιμνήστρας φύλακα ᾧ πόλλʼ ἐπέτελλεν Ἀτρείδης Τροίηνδε κιὼν εἴρυσθαι ἄκοιτιν, τόν τε Αἴγισθον οὐ πρότερον αὐτῆς περιγενέσθαι πρὶν ἢ τὸν μὲν ἀοιδὸν ἄγων ἐς νῆσον ἐρήμην κάλλιπεν· τὴν δʼ ἐθέλων ἐθέλουσαν ἀνήγαγεν ὅνδε δόμονδε. χωρὶς δὲ τούτων ὁ Ἐρατοσθένης ἑαυτῷ μάχεται· μικρὸν γὰρ πρὸ τῆς λεχθείσης ἀποφάσεως ἐναρχόμενος τοῦ περὶ τῆς γεωγραφίας λόγου φησὶν ἅπαντας κατʼ ἀρχὰς φιλοτίμως ἔχειν εἰς τὸ μέσον φέρειν τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν τοιούτων ἱστορίαν. Ὅμηρον γοῦν ὑπέρ τε τῶν Αἰθιόπων ὅσα ἐπύθετο καταχωρίσαι εἰς τὴν ποίησιν καὶ περὶ τῶν κατʼ Αἴγυπτον καὶ Λιβύην, τὰ δὲ δὴ κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα καὶ τοὺς σύνεγγυς τόπους καὶ λίαν περιέργως ἐξενηνοχέναι, πολυτρήρωνα μὲν τὴν Θίσβην λέγοντα, Ἁλίαρτον δὲ ποιήεντα, ἐσχατόωσαν δὲ Ἀνθηδόνα, Λίλαιαν δὲ πηγῇς ἔπι Κηφισσοῖο, καὶ οὐδεμίαν προσθήκην κενῶς ἀπορρίπτειν. πότερον οὖν ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα ψυχαγωγοῦντι ἔοικεν ἢ διδάσκοντι; νὴ Δία, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν οὕτως εἴρηκε, τὰ δʼ ἔξω τῆς αἰσθήσεως καὶ οὗτος καὶ ἄλλοι τερατολογίας μυθικῆς πεπληρώκασιν. οὐκοῦν ἐχρῆν οὕτως εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ποιητὴς πᾶς τὰ μὲν ψυχαγωγίας χάριν μόνον ἐκφέρει τὰ δὲ διδασκαλίας· ὁ δʼ ἐπήνεγκεν ὅτι ψυχαγωγίας μόνον, διδασκαλίας δʼ οὔ. καὶ προσεξεργάζεταί γε, πυνθανόμενος τί συμβάλλεται πρὸς ἀρετὴν ποιητοῦ πολλῶν ὑπάρξαι τόπων ἔμπειρον ἢ στρατηγίας ἢ γεωργίας ἢ ῥητορικῆς ἢ οἷα δὴ περιποιεῖν αὐτῷ τινες ἐβουλήθησαν; τὸ μὲν οὖν ἅπαντα ζητεῖν περιποιεῖν αὐτῷ προεκπίπτοντος ἄν τις θείη τῇ φιλοτιμίᾳ, ὡς ἂν εἴ τις, φησὶν ὁ Ἵππαρχος, Ἀττικῆς εἰρεσιώνης κατηγοροίη καὶ ἃ μὴ δύναται φέρειν μῆλα καὶ ὄγχνας, οὕτως ἐκείνου πᾶν μάθημα καὶ πᾶσαν τέχνην. τοῦτο μὲν δὴ ὀρθῶς ἂν λέγοις, ὦ Ἐρατόσθενες· ἐκεῖνα δʼ οὐκ ὀρθῶς, ἀφαιρούμενος αὐτὸν τὴν τοσαύτην πολυμάθειαν καὶ τὴν ποιητικὴν γραώδη μυθολογίαν ἀποφαίνων, ᾗ δέδοται πλάττειν, φησίν, ὃ ἂν αὐτῇ φαίνηται ψυχαγωγίας οἰκεῖον. ἆρα γὰρ οὐδὲ τοῖς ἀκροωμένοις τῶν ποιητῶν οὐδὲν συμβάλλεται πρὸς ἀρετήν; λέγω δὲ τὸ πολλῶν ὑπάρξαι τόπων ἔμπειρον ἢ στρατηγίας ἢ γεωργίας ἢ ῥητορικῆς, ἅπερ ἡ ἀκρόασις, ὡς εἰκός, περιποιεῖ.
Eratosthenes says that the poet directs his whole attention to the amusement of the mind, and not at all to its instruction. In opposition to his idea, the ancients define poesy as a primitive philosophy, guiding our life from infancy, and pleasantly regulating our morals, our tastes, and our actions. The [Stoics] of our day affirm that the only wise man is the poet. On this account the earliest lessons which the citizens of Greece convey to their children are from the poets; certainly not alone for the purpose of amusing their minds, but for their instruction. Nay, even the professors of music, who give lessons on the harp, lyre, and pipe, lay claim to our consideration on the same account, since they say that [the accomplishments which they teach] are calculated to form and improve the character. It is not only among the Pythagoreans that one hears this claim supported, for Aristoxenus is of that opinion, and Homer too regarded the bards as amongst the wisest of mankind.
Of this number was the guardian of Clytemnestra, to whom the son of Atreus, when he set out for Troy, gave earnest charge to preserve his wife, whom Aegisthus was unable to seduce, until leading the bard to a desert island, he left him, and then The queen he led, not willing less than he, / To his own mansion. /
But apart from all such considerations, Eratosthenes contradicts himself; for a little previously to the sentence which we have quoted, at the commencement of his Essay on Geography, he says, that all the ancient poets took delight in showing their knowledge of such matters. Homer inserted into his poetry all that he knew about the Ethiopians, Egypt, and Libya. Of all that related to Greece and the neighbouring places he entered even too minutely into the details, describing Thisbe as abounding in doves, Haliartus, grassy, Anthedon, the far distant, Litaea, situated on the sources of the Cephissus, and none of his epithets are without their meaning. But in pursuing this method, what object has he in view, to amuse [merely], or to instruct? The latter, doubtless. Well, perhaps he has told the truth in these instances, but in what was beyond his observation both he and the other writers have indulged in all the marvels of fable. If such be the case the statement should have been, that the poets relate some things for mere amusement, others for instruction; but he affirms that they do it altogether for amusement, without any view to information; and by way of climax, inquires, What can it add to Homer’s worth to be familiar with many lands, and skilled in strategy, agriculture, rhetoric, and similar information, which some persons seem desirous to make him possessed of. To seek to invest him with all this knowledge is most likely the effect of too great a zeal for his honour. Hipparchus observes, that to assert he was acquainted with every art and science, is like saying that an Attic eiresionè bears pears and apples.
As far as this goes, Eratosthenes, you are right enough; not so, however, when you not only deny that Homer was possessed of these vast acquirements, but represent poetry in general as a tissue of old wives’ fables, where, to use your own expression, every thing thought likely to amuse is cooked up. I ask, is it of no value to the auditors of the poets to be made acquainted with [the history of] different countries, with strategy, agriculture, and rhetoric, and suchlike things, which the lecture generally contains.
Ἀλλὰ μὴν ταῦτά γε πάντα ὁ ποιητὴς Ὀδυσσεῖ προσῆψεν, ὃν τῶν πάντων μάλιστα ἀρετῇ πάσῃ κοσμεῖ· οὗτος γὰρ αὐτῷ πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα καὶ νόον ἔγνω, οὗτος δʼ ὁ πτολίπορθος ἀεὶ λεγόμενος καὶ τὸ Ἴλιον ἑλὼν βουλῇ καὶ μύθοισι καὶ ἠπεροπηίδι τέχνῃ· τούτου γʼ ἑσπομένοιο καὶ ἐκ πυρὸς αἰθομένοιο ἄμφω νοστήσαιμεν, φησὶν ὁ Διομήδης. καὶ μὴν ἐπί γε τῇ γεωργίᾳ σεμνύνεται· καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἀμητῷ ἐν ποίῃ δρέπανον μὲν ἐγὼν εὐκαμπὲς ἔχοιμι, καὶ δὲ σὺ τοῖον ἔχοις καὶ ἐν ἀρότῳ, τῷ κέ μʼ ἴδοις, εἰ ὦλκα διηνεκέα προταμοίμην. καὶ οὐχ Ὅμηρος μὲν οὕτω φρονεῖ περὶ τούτων οὐχὶ δὲ πάντες οἱ πεπαιδευμένοι μάρτυρι χρῶνται τῷ ποιητῇ ὡς ὀρθῶς λέγοντι περὶ τοῦ τὴν τοιαύτην ἐμπειρίαν εἰς φρόνησιν συντείνειν μάλιστα.
One thing is certain, that the poet has bestowed all these gifts upon Ulysses, whom beyond any of his other [heroes] he loves to adorn with every virtue. He says of him, that he Discover’d various cities, and the mind / And manners learn’d of men in lands remote. / That he was Of a piercing wit and deeply wise. / He is continually described as the destroyer of cities, and as having vanquished Troy, by his counsels, his advice, and his deceptive art. Diomede says of him, Let him attend me, and through fire itself / We shall return; for none is wise as he. / He prides himself on his skill in husbandry, for at the harvest [he says], I with my well-bent sickle in my hand, / Thou arm’d with one as keen. / And also in tillage, Then shouldst thou see / How straight my furrow should be cut and true. / And Homer was not singular in his opinion regarding these matters, for all educated people appeal to him in favour of the idea that such practical knowledge is one of the chief means of acquiring understanding.
̔η δὲ ῥητορικὴ φρόνησίς ἐστι δήπου περὶ λόγους, ἣν ἐπιδείκνυται παρʼ ὅλην τὴν ποίησιν Ὀδυσσεὺς ἐν τῇ διαπείρᾳ, ἐν ταῖς λιταῖς, ἐν τῇ πρεσβείᾳ, ἐν ᾗ φησίν ἀλλʼ ὅτε δὴ ὄπα τε μεγάλην ἐκ στήθεος εἵη καὶ ἔπεα νιφάδεσσιν ἐοικότα χειμερίῃσιν, οὐκ ἂν ἔπειτʼ Ὀδυσῆί γʼ ἐρίσσειε βροτὸς ἄλλος. τίς ἂν οὖν ὑπολάβοι τὸν δυνάμενον ποιητὴν εἰσάγειν ῥητορεύοντας ἑτέρους καὶ στρατηγοῦντας καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἐπιδεικνυμένους τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔργα αὐτὸν εἶναι τῶν φλυάρων ἕνα καὶ τῶν θαυματοποιῶν, γοητεύειν μόνον καὶ κολακεύειν τὸν ἀκροατὴν δυνάμενον, ὠφελεῖν δὲ μηδέν; προτέραν δʼ οὐδʼ ἀρετὴν ποιητοῦ λέγοιμεν ἂν ἡντινοῦν ἄλλην ἢ τὴν μιμητικὴν τοῦ βίου διὰ λόγων. πῶς ἂν οὖν μιμοῖτο ἄπειρος ὢν τοῦ βίου καὶ ἄφρων; οὐ γὰρ οὕτω φαμὲν τὴν τῶν ποιητῶν ἀρετὴν ὡσεὶ τεκτόνων ἢ χαλκέων· ἀλλʼ ἐκείνη μὲν οὐδενὸς ἔχεται καλοῦ καὶ σεμνοῦ, ἡ δὲ ποιητοῦ συνέζευκται τῇ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἀγαθὸν γενέσθαι ποιητὴν μὴ πρότερον γενηθέντα ἄνδρα ἀγαθόν.
That eloquence is regarded as the wisdom of speech, Ulysses manifests throughout the whole poem, both in the Trial, the Petitions, and the Embassy. Of him it is said by Antenor, But when he spake, forth from his breast did flow / A torrent swift as winter’s feather’d snow. / Who can suppose that a poet capable of effectively introducing into his scenes rhetoricians, generals, and various other characters, each displaying some peculiar excellence, was nothing more than a droll or juggler, capable only of cheating or flattering his hearer, and not of instructing him.
Are we not all agreed that the chief merit of a poet consists in his accurate representation of the affairs of life? Can this be done by a mere driveller, unacquainted with the world?
The excellence of a poet is not to be measured by the same standard as that of a mechanic or a blacksmith, where honour and virtue have nothing to do with our estimate. But the poet and the individual are connected, and he only can become a good poet, who is in the first instance a worthy man.
τὸ δὲ δὴ καὶ τὴν ῥητορικὴν ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τὸν ποιητὴν τελέως ἀφειδοῦντος ἡμῶν ἐστι. τί γὰρ οὕτω ῥητορικὸν ὡς φράσις; τί δʼ οὕτω ποιητικόν; τίς δʼ ἀμείνων Ὁμήρου φράσαι; νὴ Δία, ἀλλʼ ἑτέρα φράσις ἡ ποιητική. τῷ γε εἴδει, ὡς καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ποιητικῇ ἡ τραγικὴ καὶ ἡ κωμική, καὶ ἐν τῇ πεζῇ ἡ ἱστορικὴ καὶ ἡ δικανική. ἆρα γὰρ οὐδʼ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶ γενικός, οὗ εἴδη ὁ ἔμμετρος καὶ ὁ πεζός; ἢ λόγος μέν, ῥητορικὸς δὲ λόγος οὐκ ἔστι γενικὸς καὶ φράσις καὶ ἀρετὴ λόγου; ὡς δʼ εἰπεῖν, ὁ πεζὸς λόγος, ὅ γε κατεσκευασμένος, μίμημα τοῦ ποιητικοῦ ἐστι. πρώτιστα γὰρ ἡ ποιητικὴ κατασκευὴ παρῆλθεν εἰς τὸ μέσον καὶ εὐδοκίμησεν· εἶτα ἐκείνην μιμούμενοι, λύσαντες τὸ μέτρον, τἆλλα δὲ φυλάξαντες τὰ ποιητικά, συνέγραψαν οἱ περὶ Κάδμον καὶ Φερεκύδη καὶ Ἑκαταῖον· εἶτα οἱ ὕστερον ἀφαιροῦντες ἀεί τι τῶν τοιούτων εἰς τὸ νῦν εἶδος κατήγαγον ὡς ἂν ἀπὸ ὕψους τινός· καθάπερ ἄν τις καὶ τὴν κωμῳδίαν φαίη λαβεῖν τὴν σύστασιν ἀπὸ τῆς τραγῳδίας καὶ τοῦ κατʼ αὐτὴν ὕψους καταβιβασθεῖσαν εἰς τὸ λογοειδὲς νυνὶ καλούμενον. καὶ τὸ ἀείδειν δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ φράζειν τιθέμενον παρὰ τοῖς πάλαι ταὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐκμαρτυρεῖ, διότι πηγὴ καὶ ἀρχὴ φράσεως κατεσκευασμένης καὶ ῥητορικῆς ὑπῆρξεν ἡ ποιητική. αὕτη γὰρ προσεχρήσατο τῷ μέλει κατὰ τὰς ἐπιδείξεις· τοῦτο δʼ ἦν ᾠδὴ ἢ λόγος μεμελισμένος, ἀφʼ οὗ δὴ ῥαψῳδίαν τʼ ἔλεγον καὶ τραγῳδίαν καὶ κωμῳδίαν. ὥστʼ ἐπειδὴ τὸ φράζειν πρώτιστα ἐπὶ τῆς ποιητικῆς ἐλέγετο φράσεως, αὕτη δὲ μετʼ ᾠδῆς * τὸ ἀείδειν αὐτοῖς τὸ αὐτὸ τῷ φράζειν ὑπῆρξε παρʼ ἐκείνοις. καταχρησαμένων δʼ αὐτῶν θατέρῳ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πεζοῦ λόγου, καὶ ἐπὶ θάτερον ἡ κατάχρησις διέβη. καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ πεζὸν λεχθῆναι τὸν ἄνευ τοῦ μέτρου λόγον ἐμφαίνει τὸν ἀπὸ ὕψους τινὸς καταβάντα καὶ ὀχήματος εἰς τοὔδαφος.
To deny that our poet possesses the graces of oratory is using us hardly indeed. What is so befitting an orator, what so poetical as eloquence, and who so sweetly eloquent as Homer? But, by heaven! you’ll say, there are other styles of eloquence than those peculiar to poetry. Of course [I admit this]; in poetry itself there is the tragic and the comic style; in prose, the historic and the forensic. But is not language a generality, of which poetry and prose are forms? Yes, language is; but are not the rhetorical, the eloquent, and the florid styles also? I answer, that flowery prose is nothing but an imitation of poetry. Ornate poetry was the first to make its appearance, and was well received. Afterwards it was closely imitated by writers in the time of Cadmus, Pherecydes, and Hecataeus. The metre was the only thing dispensed with, every other poetic grace being carefully preserved. As time advanced, one after another of its beauties was discarded, till at last it came down from its glory into our common prose. In the same way we may say that comedy took its rise from tragedy, but descended from its lofty grandeur into what we now call the common parlance of daily life. And when [we find] the ancient writers making use of the expression to sing, to designate eloquence of style, this in itself is an evidence that poetry is the source and origin of all ornamented and rhetorical language. Poetry in ancient days was on every occasion accompanied by melody. The song or ode was but a modulated speech, from whence the words rhapsody, tragedy, comedy, are derived; and since originally eloquence was the term made use of for the poetical effusions which were always of the nature of a song, it soon happened [that in speaking of poetry] some said, to sing, others, to be eloquent; and as the one term was early misapplied to prose compositions, the other also was soon applied in the same way. Lastly, the very term prose, which is applied to language not clothed in metre, seems to indicate, as it were, its descent from an elevation or chariot to the ground.
Ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τὰ σύνεγγυς μόνον, ὥσπερ Ἐρατοσθένης εἴρηκε, καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν πόρρω πολλὰ λέγει καὶ διʼ ἀκριβείας Ὅμηρος καὶ μᾶλλόν γε τῶν ὕστερον μυθολογεῖται, οὐ πάντα τερατευόμενος, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ἐπιστήμην ἀλληγορῶν ἢ διασκευάζων ἢ δημαγωγῶν ἄλλα τε καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν Ὀδυσσέως πλάνην, περὶ ἧς πολλὰ διαμαρτάνει τούς τʼ ἐξηγητὰς φλυάρους ἀποφαίνων καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν ποιητήν· περὶ ὧν ἄξιον εἰπεῖν διὰ πλειόνων.
Homer accurately describes many distant countries, and not only Greece and the neighbouring places, as Eratosthenes asserts. His romance, too, is in better style than that of his successors. He does not make up wondrous tales on every occasion, but to instruct us the better often, and especially in the Odyssey, adds to the circumstances which have come under his actual observation, allegories, wise harangues, and enticing narrations. Concerning which, Eratosthenes is much mistaken when he says that both Homer and his commentators are a pack of fools. But this subject demands a little more of our attention.
Cite This Text