τὸ δὲ ἐξαίρεσθαι τὴν γῆν ποτε καὶ ἱζήματα λαμβάνειν καὶ μεταβολὰς τὰς ἐκ τῶν σεισμῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν παραπλησίων, ὅσα διηριθμησάμεθα καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὀρθῶς κεῖται παρʼ αὐτῷ· πρὸς ὃ καὶ τὸ τοῦ Πλάτωνος εὖ παρατίθησιν, ὅτι ἐνδέχεται καὶ μὴ πλάσμα εἶναι τὸ περὶ τῆς νήσου τῆς Ἀτλαντίδος, περὶ ἧς ἐκεῖνος ἱστορῆσαι Σόλωνά φησι πεπυσμένον παρὰ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ἱερέων, ὡς ὑπάρχουσά ποτε ἀφανισθείη, τὸ μέγεθος οὐκ ἐλάττων ἠπείρου· καὶ τοῦτο οἴεται βέλτιον εἶναι λέγειν ἢ διότι ὁ πλάσας αὐτὴν ἠφάνισεν, ὡς ὁ ποιητὴς τὸ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν τεῖχος. εἰκάζει δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν Κίμβρων καὶ τῶν συγγενῶν ἐξανάστασιν ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας γενέσθαι, οὐ κατὰ θαλάττης ἔφοδον ἀθρόαν συμβᾶσαν. ὑπονοεῖ δὲ τὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης μῆκος ἑπτά που μυριάδων σταδίων ὑπάρχον ἥμισυ εἶναι τοῦ ὅλον κύκλου καθʼ ὃν εἴληπται, ὥστε (φησίν) ἀπὸ τῆς δύσεως εὔρῳ πλέων ἐν τοσαύταις μυριάσιν ἔλθοι ἂν εἰς Ἰνδούς.
However, he is right in attributing to earthquakes and other similar causes, which we also have enumerated, the risings, slips, and changes which at various periods come over the earth. He did well, too, in citing the opinion of Plato, that the tradition concerning the Island of Atlantis might be received as something more than a mere fiction, it having been related by Solon on the authority of the Egyptian priests, that this island, almost as large as a continent, was formerly in existence, although now it had disappeared. Posidonius thinks it better to quote this than to say, He who brought it into existence can also cause it to disappear, as the poet did the wall of the Achivi. He (Posidonius) is also of opinion that the emigration of the Cimbrians and other kindred races from their native territory, was gradual, and occasioned by the inundation of the sea, and by no means a sudden movement. He supposes that the length of the inhabited earth is about 70,000 stadia, being the half of the whole circle on which it is taken; so that, says he, starting from the west, one might, aided by a continual east wind, reach India in so many thousand stadia.
Ἐπιχειρήσας δὲ αἰτιᾶσθαι τοὺς οὕτω τὰς ἠπείρους διορίσαντας, ἀλλὰ μὴ παραλλήλοις τισὶ τῷ ἰσημερινῷ, διʼ ὧν ἔμελλον ἐξαλλάξεις δείκνυσθαι ζῴων τε καὶ φυτῶν καὶ ἀέρων, τῶν μὲν τῇ κατεψυγμένῃ συναπτόντων τῶν δὲ τῇ διακεκαυμένῃ, ὥστε οἱονεὶ ζώνας εἶναι τὰς ἠπείρους, ἀνασκευάζει πάλιν καὶ ἐν ἀναλύσει δίκης γίνεται, ἐπαινῶν πάλιν τὴν οὖσαν διαίρεσιν, θετικὴν ποιούμενος τὴν ζήτησιν πρὸς οὐδὲν χρησίμως. αἱ γὰρ τοιαῦται διατάξεις οὐκ ἐκ προνοίας γίνονται, καθάπερ οὐδὲ αἱ κατὰ τὰ ἔθνη διαφοραί, οὐδʼ αἱ διάλεκτοι, ἀλλὰ κατὰ περίπτωσιν καὶ συντυχίαν· καὶ τέχναι δὲ καὶ δυνάμεις καὶ ἐπιτηδεύσεις ἀρξάντων τινῶν κρατοῦσιν αἱ πλείους ἐν ὁποιῳοῦν κλίματι. ἔστι δέ τι καὶ παρὰ τὰ κλίματα, ὥστε τὰ μὲν φύσει ἐστὶν ἐπιχώριά τισι τὰ δʼ ἔθει καὶ ἀσκήσει. οὐ γὰρ φύσει Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν φιλόλογοι, Λακεδαιμόνιοι δʼ οὒ καὶ οἱ ἔτι ἐγγυτέρω Θηβαῖοι, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἔθει· οὕτως οὐδὲ Βαβυλώνιοι φιλόσοφοι φύσει καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι, ἀλλʼ ἀσκήσει καὶ ἔθει· καὶ ἵππων δὲ καὶ βοῶν ἀρετὰς καὶ ἄλλων ζῴων οὐ τόποι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀσκήσεις ποιοῦσιν. ὁ δὲ συγχεῖ ταῦτα· ἐπαινῶν δὲ τὴν τοιαύτην διαίρεσιν τῶν ἠπείρων, οἵα νῦν ἐστι, παραδείγματι χρῆται τῷ τοὺς Ἰνδοὺς τῶν Αἰθιόπων διαφέρειν τῶν ἐν τῇ Λιβύῃ· εὐερνεστέρους γὰρ εἶναι καὶ ἧττον ἕψεσθαι τῇ ξηρασίᾳ τοῦ περιέχοντος· διὸ καὶ Ὅμηρον πάντας λέγοντα Αἰθίοπας δίχα διελεῖν οἱ μὲν δυσομένου Ὑπερίονος, οἱ δʼ ἀνιόντος, Κράτητα δʼ εἰσάγοντα τὴν ἑτέραν οἰκουμένην, ἣν οὐκ οἶδεν Ὅμηρος, δουλεύειν ὑποθέσει· καὶ ἔδει (φησί) μεταγράφειν οὕτως ἠμὲν ἀπερχομένου Ὑπερίονος, οἷον ἀπὸ τοῦ μεσημβρινοῦ περικλίνοντος.
Next he undertakes to find fault with those who gave to the continents their present division, instead of marking them out by lines drawn parallel to the equator, by which means the different animals, plants, and temperatures would have been distinguished, according as they approached the frigid or the torrid zones; so that each continent would have formed a kind of zone. Afterwards, however, he overturns and gives up altogether this view, bestowing every commendation on the existing system, and thus making his argument altogether worthless and of no avail. In fact, the various arrangements [of a country] are not the result of premeditation, any more than the diversities of nations or languages; they all depend on circumstances and chance. Arts, forms of government, and modes of life, arising from certain [internal] springs, flourish under whatever climate they may be situated; climate, however, has its influence, and therefore while some peculiarites are due to the nature of the country, others are the result of institutions and education. It is not owing to the nature of the country, but rather to their education, that the Athenians cultivate eloquence, while the Lacedaemonians do not; nor yet the Thebans, who are nearer still. Neither are the Babylonians and Egyptians philosophers by nature, but by reason of their institutions and education. In like manner the excellence of horses, oxen, and other animals, results not alone from the places where they dwell, but also, from their breeding. Posidonius confounds all these distinctions.
In praising the division of the continents as it now stands, he advances as an argument the difference between the Indians and the Ethiopians of Libya, the former being more robust, and less dried by the heat of the climate. It is on this account that Homer, who includes them all under the title of Ethiopians, describes them as being separated into two divisions, These eastward situate, those toward the west. / [Crates], to support his hypothesis, supposes another inhabited earth, of which Horner certainly knew nothing; and says that the passage ought to be read thus, towards the descending sun, viz. when having passed the meridian, it begins to decline.
πρῶτον μὲν οὖν οἱ πρὸς Αἰγύπτῳ Αἰθίοπες καὶ αὐτοὶ δίχα διαιροῦνται· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ εἰσὶν οἱ δʼ ἐν τῇ Λιβύῃ, οὐδὲν διαφέροντες ἀλλήλων. ἔπειθʼ Ὅμηρος οὐ διὰ τοῦτο διαιρεῖ τοὺς Αἰθίοπας, ὅτι τοὺς Ἰνδοὺς ᾔδει τοιούτους τινὰς τοῖς σώμασιν (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀρχὴν εἰδέναι τοὺς Ἰνδοὺς εἰκὸς Ὅμηρον, ὅπου γε οὐδʼ ὁ Εὐεργέτης κατὰ τὸν Εὐδόξειον μῦθον ᾔδει τὰ κατὰ τὴν Ἰνδικήν, οὐδὲ τὸν πλοῦν τὸν ἐπʼ αὐτήν), ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον κατὰ τὴν λεχθεῖσαν ὑφʼ ἡμῶν πρότερον διαίρεσιν. ἐκεῖ δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς γραφῆς τῆς Κρατητείου διῃτήσαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν διαφέρει οὕτως ἢ ἐκείνως γράφειν· ὁ δὲ τοῦτο μὲν διαφέρειν φησί, κρεῖττον δʼ οὕτως εἶναι μεταθεῖναι ἠμὲν ἀπερχομένου. τί οὖν διαφέρει τοῦτο τοῦ ἠμὲν δυσομένου; πᾶν γὰρ τὸ τμῆμα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ μεσημβρινοῦ ἐπὶ δύσιν δύσις καλεῖται, καθάπερ καὶ τὸ τοῦ ὁρίζοντος ἡμικύκλιον· ὅπερ καὶ Ἄρατος ἐπισημαίνεται ἧχί περ ἄκραι μίσγονται δύσιές τε καὶ ἀντολαὶ ἀλλήλῃσιν. εἰ δʼ ἐπὶ τῆς Κρατητείου γραφῆς οὕτω βέλτιον, φήσει τις καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου δεῖν. τοσαῦτα καὶ πρὸς Ποσειδώνιον· πολλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἐν τοῖς καθʼ ἕκαστα τυγχάνει τῆς προσηκούσης διαίτης, ὅσα γεωγραφικά· ὅσα δὲ φυσικώτερα, ἐπισκεπτέον ἐν ἄλλοις ἢ οὐδὲ φροντιστέον· πολὺ γάρ ἐστι τὸ αἰτιολογικὸν παρʼ αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ Ἀριστοτελίζον, ὅπερ ἐκκλίνουσιν οἱ ἡμέτεροι διὰ τὴν ἐπίκρυψιν τῶν αἰτιῶν.
First, then, the Ethiopians next Egypt are actually separated into two divisions; one part being in Asia, the other in Libya, otherwise there is no distinction between them. But it was not on this account that Homer divided the Ethiopians, nor yet because he was acquainted with the physical superiority of the Indians, (for it is not probable that Homer had the slightest idea of the Indians, since, according to the assertion of Eudoxus, Euergetes was both ignorant of India, and of the voyage thither,) but his division rather resulted from the cause we formerly mentioned. We have shown that as for the alteration of Crates, it makes no difference whether it be read so or not. Posidonius, however, says that it does make a difference, and would be better altered into towards the descending [sun]. But in what can this be said to differ from towards the west, since the whole section of the hemisphere west of the meridian is styled the west, not only the mere semicircle of the horizon. This is manifested by the following expression of Aratus, Where the extremities of the west and east blend together. / However, if the reading of Posidonius be preferable to that of Crates, any one may likewise claim for it a superiority over that of Aristarchus. So much for Posidonius. There are, however, many particulars relating to Geography, which we shall bring under discussion; others relating to Physics, which must be examined elsewhere, or altogether disregarded; for he is much too fond of imitating Aristotle’s propensity for diving into causes, a subject which we [Stoics] scrupulously avoid, simply because of the extreme darkness in which all causes are enveloped.
Cite This Text