δεῖ δὲ ταῦτα προϋποθέμενον σκοπεῖν τί λέγουσιν οἱ φήσαντες περὶ Σικελίαν ἢ Ἰταλίαν γενέσθαι τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ τὴν πλάνην καθʼ Ὅμηρον· ἔστι γὰρ ἀμφοτέρως τοῦτο δέξασθαι, καὶ βέλτιον καὶ χεῖρον· βέλτιον μέν, ἂν οὕτω δέχηται ὅτι πεισθεὶς ἐκεῖ τὴν πλάνην τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ γενέσθαι, λαβὼν ἀληθῆ ταύτην τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ποιητικῶς διεσκεύασε· τοῦτο γὰρ οἰκείως ἂν λέγοιτο περὶ αὐτοῦ· καὶ οὐ μόνον γε περὶ Ἰταλίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μέχρι τῶν ἐσχάτων τῆς Ἰβηρίας ἐστὶν εὑρεῖν ἴχνη τῆς ἐκείνου πλάνης καὶ ἄλλων πλειόνων. χεῖρον δέ, ἐάν τις καὶ τὴν διασκευὴν ὡς ἱστορίαν δέχηται, ἐκείνου ὠκεανὸν καὶ ᾄδην καὶ Ἡλίου βόας καὶ παρὰ θεαῖς ξενίας καὶ μεταμορφώσεις καὶ μεγέθη Κυκλώπων καὶ Λαιστρυγόνων καὶ μορφὴν Σκύλλης καὶ διαστήματα πλοῦ καὶ ἄλλα πλείω τοιαῦτα τερατογραφοῦντος φανερῶς. οὔτε δὲ πρὸς τοῦτον ἄξιον ἀντιλέγειν οὕτω φανερῶς καταψευδόμενον τοῦ ποιητοῦ, καθάπερ οὐδʼ εἰ φαίη τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον γενέσθαι τὸν εἰς τὴν Ἰθάκην κατάπλουν τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως καὶ τὴν μνηστηροφονίαν καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγροῦ συστᾶσαν μάχην τοῖς Ἰθακησίοις πρὸς αὐτόν, οὔτε πρὸς τὸν δεξάμενον οἰκείως προσπλέκεσθαι δίκαιον.
Having premised thus much, we must now take into consideration the reasons of those who assert that Homer makes Ulysses wander to Sicily or Italy, and also of those who denied this. The truth is, he may be equally interpreted on this subject either way, according as we take a correct or incorrect view of the case. Correct, if we understand that he was convinced of the reality of Ulysses’ wanderings there, and taking this truth as a foundation, raised thereon a poetical superstructure. And so far this description of him is right; for not about Italy only, but to the farthest extremities of Spain, traces of his wanderings and those of similar adventurers may still be found. Incorrect, if the scene-painting is received as fact, his Ocean, and Hades, the oxen of the sun, his hospitable reception by the goddesses, the metamorphoses, the gigantic size of the Cyclopae and Laestrygonians, the monstrous appearance of Scylla, the distance of the voyage, and other similar particulars, all alike manifestly fabulous. It is as idle to waste words with a person who thus openly maligns our poet, as it would be with one who should assert as true all the particulars of Ulysses’ return to Ithaca, the slaughter of the suitors, and the pitched battle between him and the Ithacans in the field. But nothing can be said against the man who understands the words of the poet in a rational way.
̔ο Ἐρατοσθένης δὲ πρὸς ἀμφοτέρας τὰς ἀποφάσεις ἀπήντηκεν οὐκ εὖ· πρὸς μὲν τὴν δευτέραν, ὅτι πειρᾶται διαβάλλειν φανερῶς ψευδῆ καὶ οὐκ ἄξια λόγου διὰ μακρῶν, πρὸς δὲ τὴν προτέραν, ποιητήν τε ἅπαντα ἀποφήνας φλύαρον καὶ μήτε τόπων ἐμπειρίαν μήτε τεχνῶν πρὸς ἀρετὴν συντείνειν νομίσας· τῶν τε μύθων τῶν μὲν ἐν τόποις οὐ πεπλασμένοις πεφημισμένων, οἷον ἐν Ἰλίῳ καὶ Ἴδῃ καὶ Πηλίῳ, τῶν δὲ ἐν πεπλασμένοις, καθάπερ ἐν οἷς αἱ Γοργόνες ἢ ὁ Γηρυόνης, ταύτης φησὶ τῆς ἰδέας εἶναι καὶ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν Ὀδυσσέως πλάνην λεγομένους, τοὺς δὲ μὴ πεπλάσθαι λέγοντας ἀλλʼ ὑποκεῖσθαι ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μὴ συμφωνεῖν ἐλέγχεσθαι ψευδομένους· τὰς γοῦν Σειρῆνας τοὺς μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς Πελωριάδος καθιδρύειν, τοὺς δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν Σειρηνουσσῶν πλείους ἢ δισχιλίους διεχουσῶν σταδίους· εἶναι δʼ αὐτὰς σκόπελον τρικόρυφον διείργοντα τὸν Κυμαῖον καὶ Ποσειδωνιάτην κόλπον. ἀλλʼ οὔθʼ ὁ σκόπελος οὗτος ἐστὶ τρικόρυφος οὔθʼ ὅλως κορυφοῦται πρὸς ὕψος, ἀλλʼ ἀγκών τις ἔκκειται μακρὸς καὶ στενὸς ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ Συρρεντὸν χωρίων ἐπὶ τὸν κατὰ Καπρίας πορθμόν, ἐπὶ θάτερα μὲν τῆς ὀρεινῆς τὸ τῶν Σειρήνων ἱερὸν ἔχων, ἐπὶ θάτερα δὲ πρὸς τῷ Ποσειδωνιάτῃ κόλπῳ νησίδια τρία προκείμενα ἔρημα πετρώδη, ἃ καλοῦσι Σειρῆνας, ἐπʼ αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ πορθμῷ τὸ Ἀθήναιον, ᾧπερ ὁμωνυμεῖ καὶ ὁ ἀγκὼν αὐτός.
Eratosthenes, though on no sufficient grounds for so doing, rejects both these opinions, endeavouring in his attack on the latter, to refute by lengthened arguments what is manifestly absurd and unworthy of consideration, and in regard to the former, maintaining a poet to be a mere gossip, to whose worth an acquaintance with science or geography could not add in the least degree: since the scenes of certain of Homer’s fables are cast in actual localities, as Ilium, Pelion, and Ida; others in purely imaginary regions, such as those of the Gorgons and Geryon. Of this latter class, he says, are the places mentioned in the wanderings of Ulysses, and those who pretend that they are not mere fabrications of the poet, but have an actual existence, are proved to be mistaken by the differences of opinion existing among themselves: for some of them assert that the Sirenes of Homer are situated close to Pelorus, and others that they are more than two thousand stadia distant, near the Sirenussae, a three-peaked rock which separates the Gulfs of Cummaea and Posidonium. Now, in the first place, this rock is not three-peaked, nor does it form a crest at the summit at all, but a long and narrow angle reaching from the territory of Surrentum to the Strait of Capria, having on one side of the mountain the temple of the Sirens, and on the other side, next the Gulf of Posidonius, three little rocky and uninhabited islands, named the Sirenes; upon the strait, is situated the Athenaeum, from which the rocky angle itself takes its name.
Ἀλλʼ οὐδʼ εἰ μὴ συμφωνοῦσιν οἱ τὴν ἱστορίαν τῶν τόπων παραδιδόντες, εὐθὺς ἐκβάλλειν δεῖ τὴν σύμπασαν ἱστορίαν· ἀλλʼ ἔσθʼ ὅτε καὶ πιστοῦσθαι τὸ καθόλου μᾶλλόν ἐστιν. οἷόν τι λέγω, ζητουμένου εἰ κατὰ Σικελίαν καὶ Ἰταλίαν ἡ πλάνη γέγονε καὶ εἰ αἱ Σειρῆνες ἐνταῦθά που λέγονται· ὁ μὲν φήσας ἐν τῇ Πελωριάδι πρὸς τὸν ἐν ταῖς Σειρηνούσσαις διαφωνεῖ, ἀμφότεροι δὲ πρὸς τὸν περὶ Σικελίαν καὶ Ἰταλίαν λέγοντα οὐ διαφωνοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μείζω πίστιν παρέχουσιν, ὅτι καίπερ μὴ τὸ αὐτὸ χωρίον φράζοντες ὅμως οὐκ ἐκβεβήκεσάν γε τοῦ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν ἢ Σικελίαν. ἐὰν δὲ προσθῇ τις ὅτι ἐν Νεαπόλει Παρθενόπης δείκνυται μνῆμα μιᾶς τῶν Σειρήνων, ἔτι πλείων προσεγένετο πίστις, καίτοι τρίτου τινὸς λεχθέντος τούτου τοῦ τόπου. ἀλλʼ ὅτι ἐν τούτῳ τῷ κόλπῳ τῷ ὑπὸ Ἐρατοσθένους λεχθέντι Κυμαίῳ, ὃν ποιοῦσιν αἱ Σειρηνοῦσσαι, καὶ ἡ Νεάπολις ἵδρυται, βεβαιοτέρως πιστεύομεν τὸ περὶ τούτους τοὺς τόπους γεγονέναι τὰς Σειρῆνας· οὔτε γὰρ τὸν ποιητὴν ἀκριβῶς ἕκαστα πυθέσθαι, οὔθʼ ἡμεῖς παρʼ ἐκείνου ζητοῦμεν τὸ ἀκριβές· οὐ μὴν οὐδʼ οὕτως ἔχομεν ὡς ὑπολαμβάνειν καὶ μηδὲν πεπυσμένον περὶ τῆς πλάνης, μήθʼ ὅπου μήθʼ ὅπως γεγένηται, ῥαψῳδεῖν.
Further, if those who describe the geography of certain places do not agree in every particular, are we justified in at once rejecting their whole narration? Frequently this is a reason why it should receive the greater credit. For example, in the investigation whether the scene of Ulysses’ wanderings were Sicily or Italy, and the proper position of the Sirenes, they differ in so far that one places them at Pelorus, and the other at Sirenussae, but neither of them dissents from the idea that it was some where near Sicily or Italy. They add thereby strength to this view, inasmuch as though they are not agreed as to the exact locality, neither of them makes any question but that it was some where contiguous to Italy or Sicily. If a third party should add, that the monument of Parthenope, who was one of the Sirens, is shown at Naples, this only confirms us the more in our belief, for though a third place is introduced to our notice, still as Naples is situated in the gulf called by Eratosthenes the Cumaean, and which is formed by the Sirenussae, we are more confident still that the position of the Sirenes was some where close by.
That the poet did not search for accuracy in every minor detail we admit, but neither ought we to expect this of him; at the same time we are not to believe that he composed his poem without inquiring into the history of the Wandering, nor where and how it occurred.
Ἐρατοσθένης δὲ Ἡσίοδον μὲν εἰκάζει πεπυσμένον περὶ τῆς Ὀδυσσέως πλάνης ὅτι κατὰ Σικελίαν καὶ Ἰταλίαν γεγένηται, πιστεύσαντα τῇ δόξῃ μὴ μόνον τῶν ὑφʼ Ὁμήρου λεγομένων μεμνῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ Αἴτνης καὶ Ὀρτυγίας τοῦ πρὸς Συρακούσαις νησίου καὶ Τυρρηνῶν· Ὅμηρον δὲ μήτε εἰδέναι ταῦτα μήτε βούλεσθαι ἐν γνωρίμοις τόποις ποιεῖν τὴν πλάνην. πότερον οὖν Αἴτνη μὲν καὶ Τυρρηνία γνώριμα, Σκύλλαιον δὲ καὶ Χάρυβδις καὶ Κίρκαιον καὶ Σειρηνοῦσσαι οὐ πάνυ; ἢ καὶ Ἡσιόδῳ μὲν ἔπρεπε μὴ φλυαρεῖν, ἀλλὰ ταῖς κατεχούσαις δόξαις ἀκολουθεῖν, Ὁμήρῳ δὲ πᾶν ὅ τι ἂν ἐπʼ ἀκαιρίμαν γλῶσσαν ἴῃ κελαδεῖν; χωρὶς γὰρ τῶν λεχθέντων περὶ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς πρεπούσης Ὁμήρῳ μυθοποιίας καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν συγγραφέων τῶν ταὐτὰ θρυλούντων κἀκ τῆς κατὰ τοὺς τόπους ἐπιχωριαζούσης φήμης διδάσκειν δύναται, διότι ταῦτα οὐ ποιητῶν πλάσματά ἐστιν οὐδὲ συγγραφέων, ἀλλὰ γεγενημένων ἴχνη καὶ προσώπων καὶ πράξεων.
Eratosthenes thinks it probable that Hesiod, having heard of the wanderings of Ulysses, and of their having taken place near to Sicily and Italy, embraced this view of the case, and not only describes the places spoken of by Homer, but also Aetna, the Isle of Ortygia, near to Syracuse, and Tyrrhenia. As for Homer, he was altogether unacquainted with these places, and further, had no wish to lay the scene of the wanderings in any well-known locality. What! are then Aetna and Tyrrhenia such well-known places, and Scyllaeum, Charybdis, Circaeum, and the Sirenussae, so obscure? Or is Hesiod so correct as never to write nonsense, but always follow in the wake of received opinions, while Homer blurts out whatever comes uppermost? Without taking into consideration our remarks on the character and aptitude of Homer’s myths, a large array of writers who bear evidence to his statements, and the additional testimony of local tradition, are sufficient proof that his are not the inventions of poets or contemporary scribblers, but the record of real actors and real scenes.
Cite This Text