̔η δʼ αὐτὴ ἁμαρτία καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἀγνοεῖν τὸν ἰσθμὸν τὸν μεταξὺ τοῦ Αἰγυπτίου πελάγους καὶ τοῦ Ἀραβίου κόλπου καὶ περὶ τοῦ ψευδῶς λέγεσθαι Αἰθίοπες, τοὶ διχθὰ δεδαίαται ἔσχατοι ἀνδρῶν. καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο ἐκείνου λέγοντος καλῶς ἐπιτιμῶσιν οἱ ὕστερον οὐκ εὖ. τοσούτου γὰρ δεῖ τοῦτʼ ἀληθὲς εἶναι τὸ ἀγνοεῖν Ὅμηρον τὸν ἰσθμὸν τοῦτον, ὥστε ἐκεῖνον μέν φημι μὴ εἰδέναι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποφαίνεσθαι ἄντικρυς, τοὺς δὲ γραμματικοὺς μηδὲ λέγοντος ἐκείνου αἰσθάνεσθαι ἀπὸ Ἀριστάρχου καὶ Κράτητος τῶν κορυφαίων ἐν τῇ ἐπιστήμῃ ταύτῃ. εἰπόντος γὰρ τοῦ ποιητοῦ Αἰθίοπας, τοὶ διχθὰ δεδαίαται, ἔσχατοι ἀνδρῶν, περὶ τοῦ ἐπιφερομένου ἔπους διαφέρονται, ὁ μὲν Ἀρίσταρχος γράφων οἱ μὲν δυσομένου Ὑπερίονος, οἱ δʼ ἀνιόντος, ὁ δὲ Κράτης ἠμὲν δυσομένου Ὑπερίονος, ἠδʼ ἀνιόντος, οὐδὲν διαφέρον πρὸς τὴν ἑκατέρου ὑπόθεσιν οὕτως ἢ ἐκείνως γράφειν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀκολουθῶν τοῖς μαθηματικῶς λέγεσθαι δοκοῦσι τὴν διακεκαυμένην ζώνην κατέχεσθαί φησιν ὑπὸ τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ· παρʼ ἑκάτερον δὲ ταύτης εἶναι τὴν εὔκρατον, τήν τε καθʼ ἡμᾶς καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ θάτερον μέρος. ὥσπερ οὖν οἱ παρʼ ἡμῖν Αἰθίοπες οὗτοι λέγονται οἱ πρὸς μεσημβρίαν κεκλιμένοι παρʼ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην ἔσχατοι τῶν ἄλλων παροικοῦντες τὸν ὠκεανόν, οὕτως οἴεται δεῖν καὶ πέραν τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ νοεῖσθαί τινας Αἰθίοπας ἐσχάτους τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ εὐκράτῳ, παροικοῦντας τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον ὠκεανόν· διττοὺς δὲ εἶναι καὶ διχθὰ δεδάσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ. προσκεῖσθαι δὲ τὸ ἠμὲν δυσομένου Ὑπερίονος, ἠδʼ ἀνιόντος, ὅτι τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ κατὰ κορυφὴν ὄντος ἀεὶ τῷ ἐν τῇ γῇ ζωδιακῷ, τούτου δʼ οὐκ ἐκβαίνοντος ἔξω τῆς Αἰθιόπων ἀμφοῖν τῇ λοξώσει, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν πάροδον τοῦ ἡλίου πᾶσαν ἐν τῷ πλάτει τούτῳ νοεῖσθαι, καὶ τὰς ἀνατολὰς καὶ τὰς δύσεις συμβαίνειν ἐνταῦθα ἄλλας ἄλλοις καὶ κατʼ ἄλλα ἢ ἄλλα σημεῖα. εἴρηκε μὲν οὕτως ἀστρονομικώτερον νομίσας· ἦν δὲ καὶ ἁπλούστερον εἰπεῖν αὐτὸ σώζοντα τὸ οὕτω διῃρῆσθαι δίχα τοὺς Αἰθίοπας, ὡς εἴρηται, ὅτι ἀφʼ ἡλίου ἀνιόντος μέχρι δύσεως ἐφʼ ἑκάτερα παροικοῦσι τῷ ὠκεανῷ Αἰθίοπες. τί οὖν διαφέρει πρὸς τὸν νοῦν τοῦτον ἢ οὕτως εἰπεῖν ὥσπερ αὐτὸς γράφει, ἢ ὡς Ἀρίσταρχος οἱ μὲν δυσομένου Ὑπερίονος, οἱ δʼ ἀνιόντος; καὶ γὰρ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ καὶ πρὸς δύσιν καὶ πρὸς ἀνατολὴν ἐφʼ ἑκάτερα τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ οἰκεῖν. ὁ δʼ Ἀρίσταρχος ταύτην μὲν ἐκβάλλει τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, δίχα δὲ μεμερισμένους οἴεται λέγεσθαι τοὺς καθʼ ἡμᾶς Αἰθίοπας τοὺς τοῖς Ἕλλησι πρὸς μεσημβρίαν ἐσχάτους. τούτους δὲ μὴ μεμερίσθαι δίχα ὥστε εἶναι δύο Αἰθιοπίας, τὴν μὲν πρὸς ἀνατολὴν τὴν δὲ πρὸς δύσιν, ἀλλὰ μίαν μόνην τὴν πρὸς μεσημβρίαν κειμένην τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἱδρυμένην δὲ κατʼ Αἴγυπτον. τοῦτο δὲ ἀγνοοῦντα τὸν ποιητήν, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα, ὅσα εἴρηκεν Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῷ περὶ νεῶν καταλόγου δευτέρῳ, καταψεύσασθαι τῶν τόπων τὰ μὴ ὄντα.
They are again mistaken when they say that he was not aware of the isthmus between the sea of Egypt and the Arabian Gulf, and that his description is false, The Ethiopians, utmost of mankind, / These eastward situate, those toward the west. / Nevertheless he is correct, and the criticism of the moderns is quite out of place: indeed, there is so little truth in the assertion that Homer was ignorant of this isthmus, that I will venture to affirm he was not only acquainted with it, but has also accurately defined it. But none of the grammarians, not even the chiefs of their number, Aristarchus and Crates, have understood the words of our poet on this subject. For they disagree as to the words which follow this expression of Homer, The Ethiopians, utmost of mankind, / These eastward situate, those towards the west, / Aristarchus writing, These towards the west, and those towards the east, / and Crates, As well in the west as also in the east. / However, in regard to their hypotheses, it makes no difference whether the passage were written this way or that. One of them, in fact, takes what he considers the mathematical view of the case, and says that the torrid zone is occupied by the ocean, and that on each side of this there is a temperate zone, one inhabited by us and another opposite thereto. And as we call the Ethiopians, who are situated to the south, and dwell along the shores of the ocean, the most distant on the face of the inhabited globe; so he supposed that on the other side of the ocean, there were certain Ethiopians dwelling along the shores, who would in like manner be considered the most distant by the inhabitants of the other temperate zone; and thus that the Ethiopians were double, separated into two divisions by the ocean. He adds, as well in the west as also in the east, because as the celestial zodiac always corresponds to the terrestrial, and never exceeds in its obliquity the space occupied by the two Ethiopias, the sun’s entire course must necessarily be within this space, and also his rising and setting, as it appears to different nations according to the sign which he may be in.
He (Crates) adopted this version, because he considered it the more astronomical. But it would have maintained his opinion of the division of the Ethiopians into two parts, and at the same time have been much more simple, had he said that the Ethiopians dwelt on either side of the ocean from the rising to the setting of the sun. In this case what difference does it make whether we follow his version, or adopt the reading of Aristarchus, These towards the west, and those towards the east? / which also means, that whether east or west, on either side of the ocean, Ethiopians dwell. But Aristarchus rejects this hypothesis. He says, The Ethiopians with whom we are acquainted, and who are farthest south from the Greeks, are those described by the poet as being separated into two divisions. But Ethiopia is not so separated as to form two countries, one situated towards the west, the other towards the east, but only one, that which lies south of the Greeks and adjoins Egypt; but of this the poet was ignorant, as well as of other matters enumerated by Apollodorus, which he has falsely stated concerning various places in his second book, containing the catalogue of the ships.
πρὸς μὲν οὖν Κράτητα μακροῦ λόγου δεῖ καὶ ἴσως οὐδὲν ὄντος πρὸς τὰ νῦν. Ἀριστάρχου δὲ τοῦτο μὲν ἐπαινῶμεν, διότι τὴν Κρατήτειον ἀφεὶς ὑπόθεσιν δεχομένην πολλὰς ἐνστάσεις περὶ τῆς καθʼ ἡμᾶς Αἰθιοπίας ὑπονοεῖ γεγονέναι τὸν λόγον· τὰ δʼ ἄλλα ἐπισκοπῶμεν. καὶ πρῶτον ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς μικρολογεῖται μάτην περὶ τῆς γραφῆς. καὶ γὰρ ἂν ἑκατέρως γράφηται, δύναται ἐφαρμόττειν τοῖς νοήμασιν αὐτοῦ. τί γὰρ διαφέρει λέγειν ἢ οὕτως δύο εἰσὶ καθʼ ἡμᾶς Αἰθίοπες, οἱ μὲν πρὸς ἀνατολὰς οἱ δὲ πρὸς δύσεις, ἢ οὕτως καὶ γὰρ πρὸς ἀνατολὰς καὶ πρὸς δύσεις; ἔπειθʼ ὅτι ψευδοῦς προΐσταται δόγματος. φέρε γὰρ τὸν ποιητὴν ἀγνοεῖν μὲν τὸν ἰσθμόν, τῆς δὲ κατʼ Αἴγυπτον Αἰθιοπίας μεμνῆσθαι ὅταν φῇ Αἰθίοπας, τοὶ διχθὰ δεδαίαται. πῶς οὖν; οὐ διχθὰ δεδαίαται οὕτως, ἀλλʼ ἀγνοῶν οὕτως εἴρηκεν ὁ ποιητής; πότερʼ οὐδʼ ἡ Αἴγυπτος, οὐδʼ οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Δέλτα ἀρξάμενοι μέχρι πρὸς Συήνην ὑπὸ τοῦ Νείλου δίχα διῄρηνται οἱ μὲν δυσομένου Ὑπερίονος, οἱ δʼ ἀνιόντος; τί δʼ ἄλλο ἡ Αἴγυπτός ἐστι πλὴν ἡ ποταμία, ἣν ἐπικλύζει τὸ ὕδωρ; αὕτη δʼ ἐφʼ ἑκάτερα τοῦ ποταμοῦ κεῖται πρὸς ἀνατολὴν καὶ δύσιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν ἡ Αἰθιοπία ἐπʼ εὐθείας ἐστὶ τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ παραπλησίως ἔχει πρός τε τὸν Νεῖλον καὶ τὴν ἄλλην φύσιν τῶν τόπων. καὶ γὰρ αὕτη στενή τέ ἐστι καὶ μακρὰ καὶ ἐπίκλυστος. τὰ δʼ ἔξω τῆς ἐπικλύστου ἔρημά τε καὶ ἄνυδρα καὶ σπανίως οἰκεῖσθαι δυνάμενα, τὰ μὲν πρὸς ἕω τὰ δὲ πρὸς δύσιν κεκλιμένα. πῶς οὖν οὐχὶ καὶ δίχα διῄρηται; ἢ τοῖς μὲν τὴν Ἀσίαν ἀπὸ τῆς Λιβύης διαιροῦσιν ἀξιόλογον τοῦθʼ ὅριον ἐφάνη ὁ Νεῖλος, μῆκος μὲν ἀνατείνων ἐπὶ τὴν μεσημβρίαν πλειόνων ἢ μυρίων σταδίων, πλάτος δέ, ὥστε καὶ νήσους ἀπολαμβάνειν μυριάνδρους, ὧν μεγίστη ἡ Μερόη τὸ βασίλειον καὶ μητρόπολις τῶν Αἰθιόπων, αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν Αἰθιοπίαν οὐχ ἱκανὸς ἦν διαιρεῖν δίχα; καὶ μὴν οἵ γε ἐπιτιμῶντες τοῖς τὰς ἠπείρους τῷ ποταμῷ διαιροῦσι τῶν ἐγκλημάτων τοῦτο μέγιστον προφέρουσιν αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τὴν Αἴγυπτον καὶ τὴν Αἰθιοπίαν διασπῶσι καὶ ποιοῦσι τὸ μέν τι μέρος ἑκατέρας αὐτῶν Λιβυκόν, τὸ δʼ Ἀσιατικόν· ἢ εἰ μὴ βούλονται τοῦτο, ἢ οὐ διαιροῦσι τὰς ἠπείρους ἢ οὐ τῷ ποταμῷ.
To refute Crates would require a lengthened argument, which here perhaps may be considered out of place. Aristarchus we commend for rejecting the hypothesis of Crates, which is open to many objections, and for referring the expression of the poet to our Ethiopia. But the remainder of his statement we must discuss. First, his minute examination of the reading is altogether fruitless, for whichever way it may have been written, his interpretation is equally applicable to both; for what difference is there whether you say thus—In our opinion there are two Ethiopias, one towards the east, the other to the west; or thus—For they are as well towards the east as the west? Secondly, He makes false assumptions. For admitting that the poet was ignorant of the isthmus, and that he alludes to the Ethiopia contiguous to Egypt, when he says, The Ethiopians separated into two divisions; / what then? Are they not separated into two divisions, and could the poet have thus expressed himself if he had been in ignorance? Is not Egypt, nay, are not the Egyptians, separated into two divisions by the Nile from the Delta to Syene, These towards the west, those towards the east? / And what else is Egypt, with the exception of the island formed by the river and overflowed by its waters; does it not lie on either side of the river both east and west?
Ethiopia runs in the same direction as Egypt, and resembles it both in its position with respect to the Nile, and in its other geographical circumstances. It is narrow, long, and subject to inundation; beyond the reach of this inundation it is desolate and parched, and unfitted for the habitation of man; some districts lying to the east and some to the west of [the river]. How then can we deny that it is separated into two divisions? Shall the Nile, which is looked upon by some people as the proper boundary line between Asia and Libya, and which extends southward in length more than 10,000 stadia, embracing in its breadth islands which contain populations of above ten thousand men, the largest of these being Meroe, the seat of empire and metropolis of the Ethiopians, be regarded as too insignificant to divide Ethiopia into two parts? The greatest obstacle which they who object to the river being made the line of demarcation between the two continents are able to allege, is, that Egypt and Ethiopia are by this means divided, one part of each being assigned to Libya, and the other to Asia, or, if this will not suit, the continents cannot be divided at all, or at least not by the river.
χωρὶς δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ καὶ ἄλλως διαιρεῖν τὴν Αἰθιοπίαν. πάντες γὰρ οἱ παραπλεύσαντες τῷ ὠκεανῷ τὴν Λιβύην, οἵ τε ἀπὸ τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν στηλῶν, μέχρι ποσοῦ προελθόντες εἶτα ἀνέστρεψαν ὑπὸ πολλῶν ἀποριῶν κωλυόμενοι, ὥστε καὶ πίστιν κατέλιπον τοῖς πολλοῖς, ὡς τὸ μεταξὺ διείργοιτο ἰσθμῷ· καὶ μὴν σύρρους ἡ πᾶσα Ἀτλαντικὴ θάλαττα, καὶ μάλιστα ἡ κατὰ μεσημβρίαν. ἅπαντες δὲ οὗτοι τὰ τελευταῖα χωρία, ἐφʼ ἃ πλέοντες ἦλθον, Αἰθιοπικὰ προσηγόρευσαν καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν οὕτως. τί οὖν ἄλογον, εἰ καὶ Ὅμηρος ὑπὸ τοιαύτης ἀκοῆς ἀχθεὶς δίχα διῄρει, τοὺς μὲν πρὸς ἀνατολὴν λέγων, τοὺς δὲ πρὸς δύσιν, τῶν μεταξὺ οὐ γινωσκομένων εἴτε εἰσὶν εἴτε μὴ εἰσίν; ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἄλλην τινὰ ἱστορίαν εἴρηκεν παλαιὰν Ἔφορος, ᾗ οὐκ ἄλογον ἐντυχεῖν καὶ Ὅμηρον. λέγεσθαι γάρ φησιν ὑπὸ τῶν Ταρτησσίων Αἰθίοπας τὴν Λιβύην ἐπελθόντας μέχρι αὐάσεως τοὺς μὲν αὐτοῦ μεῖναι, τοὺς δὲ καὶ τῆς παραλίας κατασχεῖν πολλήν· τεκμαίρεται δʼ ἐκ τούτου καὶ Ὅμηρον εἰπεῖν οὕτως Αἰθίοπες, τοὶ διχθὰ δεδαίαται, ἔσχατοι ἀνδρῶν.
But besides these there is another method of dividing Ethiopia. All those who have sailed along the coasts of Libya, whether starting from the Arabian Gulf, or the Pillars, after proceeding a certain distance, have been obliged to turn back again on account of a variety of accidents; and thus originated a general belief that it was divided midway by some isthmus, although the whole of the Atlantic Ocean is confluent, more especially towards the south. Besides, all of these navigators called the final country which they reached, Ethiopia, and described it under that name. Is it therefore at all incredible, that Homer, misled by such reports, separated them into two divisions, one towards the east and the other west, not knowing whether there were any intermediate countries or not? But there is another ancient tradition related by Ephorus, which Homer had probably fallen in with. He tells us it is reported by the Tartessians, that some of the Ethiopians, on their arrival in Libya, penetrated into the extreme west, and settled down there, while the rest occupied the greater part of the sea-coast; and in support of this statement he quotes the passage of Homer, The Ethiopians, the farthest removed of men, separated into two divisions.
ταῦτά τε δὴ πρὸς τὸν Ἀρίσταρχον λέγοι ἄν τις καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἀκολουθοῦντας αὐτῷ καὶ ἄλλα τούτων ἐπιεικέστερα, ἀφʼ ὧν τὴν πολλὴν ἄγνοιαν ἀφαιρήσεται τοῦ ποιητοῦ. φημὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων δόξαν, ὥσπερ τὰ πρὸς βορρᾶν μέρη τὰ γνώριμα ἑνὶ ὀνόματι Σκύθας ἐκάλουν ἢ νομάδας, ὡς Ὅμηρος, ὕστερον δὲ καὶ τῶν πρὸς ἑσπέραν γνωσθέντων Κελτοὶ καὶ Ἴβηρες ἢ μικτῶς Κελτίβηρες καὶ Κελτοσκύθαι προσηγορεύοντο, ὑφʼ ἓν ὄνομα τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστα ἐθνῶν ταττομένων διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν, οὕτω τὰ μεσημβρινὰ πάντα Αἰθιοπίαν καλεῖσθαι τὰ πρὸς ὠκεανῷ. μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα. ὅ τε γὰρ Αἰσχύλος ἐν Προμηθεῖ τῷ λυομένῳ φησὶν οὕτω φοινικόπεδόν τʼ ἐρυθρᾶς ἱερὸν χεῦμα θαλάσσης, χαλκοκέραυνόν τε παρʼ ὠκεανῷ λίμναν παντοτρόφον Αἰθιόπων, ἵνʼ ὁ παντόπτας Ἥλιος αἰεὶ χρῶτʼ ἀθάνατον κάματόν θʼ ἵππων θερμαῖς ὕδατος μαλακοῦ προχοαῖς ἀναπαύει. παρʼ ὅλον γὰρ τὸ μεσημβρινὸν κλίμα τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ ταύτην πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἴσχοντος τὴν χρείαν καὶ τὴν σχέσιν, παρʼ ὅλον καὶ τοὺς Αἰθίοπας τάττων φαίνεται. ὅ τʼ Εὐριπίδης ἐν τῷ Φαέθοντι τὴν Κλυμένην δοθῆναί φησι Μέροπι τῆσδʼ ἄνακτι γῆς, ἣν ἐκ τεθρίππων ἁρμάτων πρώτην χθόνα Ἥλιος ἀνίσχων χρυσέᾳ βάλλει φλογί· καλοῦσι δʼ αὐτὴν γείτονες μελάμβροτοι Ἕω φαεννὰς Ἡλίου θʼ ἱπποστάσεις. νῦν μὲν δὴ κοινὰς ποιεῖται τὰς ἱπποστάσεις τῇ τε Ἠοῖ καὶ τῷ Ἡλίῳ, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἑξῆς πλησίον αὐτάς φησιν εἶναι τῇ οἰκήσει τοῦ Μέροπος· καὶ ὅλῃ γε τῇ δραματουργίᾳ τοῦτο παραπέπλεκται, οὐ δή που τῆς κατʼ Αἴγυπτον ἴδιον ὄν, μᾶλλον δὲ τῆς παρʼ ὅλον τὸ μεσημβρινὸν κλίμα διηκούσης παραλίας.
These and other more stringent arguments may be urged against Aristarchus and those of his school, to clear our poet from the charge of such gross ignorance. I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were familiar under the one name of Scythians, or, according to Homer, Nomades, and afterwards becoming acquainted with those towards the west, styled them Kelts and Iberians; sometimes compounding the names into Keltiberians, or Keltoscythians, thus ignorantly uniting various distinct nations; so I affirm they designated as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries towards the ocean. Of this there is evidence, for Aeschylus, in the Prometheus Loosed, thus speaks: There [is] the sacred wave, and the coralled bed of the Erythraean Sea, and [there] the luxuriant marsh of the Ethiopians, situated near the ocean, glitters like polished brass; where daily in the soft and tepid stream, the all-seeing sun bathes his undying self, and refreshes his weary steeds. And as the ocean holds the same position in respect to the sun, and serves the same purpose throughout the whole southern region, he therefore concludes that the Ethiopians inhabited the whole of the region.
And Euripides in his Phaeton says that Clymene was given To Merops, sovereign of that land / Which from his four-horsed chariot first / The rising sun strikes with his golden rays; / And which its swarthy neighbours call / The radiant stable of the Morn and Sun. / Here the poet merely describes them as the common stables of the Morning and of the Sun; but further on he tells us they were near to the dwellings of Merops, and in fact the whole plot of the piece has reference to this. This does not therefore refer alone to the [land] next to Egypt, but rather to the whole southern country extending along the sea-coast.
Cite This Text