Ἐν δὲ τῷ τρίτῳ τῶν γεωγραφικῶν καθιστάμενος τὸν τῆς οἰκουμένης πίνακα γραμμῇ τινι διαιρεῖ δίχα ἀπὸ δύσεως ἐπʼ ἀνατολὴν παραλλήλῳ τῇ ἰσημερινῇ γραμμῇ, πέρατα δʼ αὐτῆς τίθησι πρὸς δύσει μὲν τὰς Ἡρακλείους στήλας, ἐπʼ ἀνατολῇ δὲ τὰ ἄκρα καὶ ἔσχατα ὄρη τῶν ἀφοριζόντων ὀρῶν τὴν πρὸς ἄρκτον τῆς Ἰνδικῆς πλευράν. γράφει δὲ τὴν γραμμὴν ἀπὸ στηλῶν διά τε τοῦ Σικελικοῦ πορθμοῦ καὶ τῶν μεσημβρινῶν ἄκρων τῆς τε Πελοποννήσου καὶ τῆς Ἀττικῆς μέχρι τῆς Ῥοδίας καὶ τοῦ Ἰσσικοῦ κόλπου. μέχρι μὲν δὴ δεῦρο διὰ τῆς θαλάττης φησὶν εἶναι τὴν λεχθεῖσαν γραμμὴν καὶ τῶν παρακειμένων ἠπείρων (καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴν ὅλην τὴν καθʼ ἡμᾶς θάλατταν οὕτως ἐπὶ μῆκος τετάσθαι μέχρι τῆς Κιλικίας), εἶτα ἐπʼ εὐθείας πως ἐκβάλλεσθαι παρʼ ὅλην τὴν ὀρεινὴν τοῦ Ταύρου μέχρι τῆς Ἰνδικῆς· τὸν γὰρ Ταῦρον ἐπʼ εὐθείας τῇ ἀπὸ στηλῶν θαλάττῃ τεταμένον δίχα τὴν Ἀσίαν διαιρεῖν ὅλην ἐπὶ μῆκος, τὸ μὲν αὐτῆς μέρος βόρειον ποιοῦντα τὸ δὲ νότιον, ὥσθʼ ὁμοίως καὶ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ διʼ Ἀθηνῶν ἱδρῦσθαι παραλλήλου καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ στηλῶν μέχρι δεῦρο θάλατταν.
IN the Third Book of his Geography Eratosthenes furnishes us with a chart of the habitable earth. This he divides into two portions, by a line running from east to west parallel to the equator. He makes the Pillars of Hercules the boundary of this line to the west, and to the east the farthest ridges of those mountains which bound India on the north. From the Pillars he draws the line through the Strait of Sicily, and the southern extremities of Peloponnesus and Attica, to Rhodes and the Gulf of Issus. He says, Through the whole of this distance the line mentioned is drawn across the sea and adjacent continents; the whole length of the Mediterranean as far as Cilicia extending in that direction. Thence it runs nearly in a straight line along the whole chain of the Taurus to India. The Taurus continuing in a straight line from the Pillars divides Asia through its whole length into two halves, north and south. So that both the Taurus and the sea from the Pillars hither lie under the parallel of Athens.
ταῦτα δʼ εἰπὼν οἴεται δεῖν διορθῶσαι τὸν ἀρχαῖον γεωγραφικὸν πίνακα· πολὺ γὰρ ἐπὶ τὰς ἄρκτους παραλλάττειν τὰ ἑωθινὰ μέρη τῶν ὀρῶν κατʼ αὐτόν, συνεπισπᾶσθαι δὲ καὶ τὴν Ἰνδικὴν ἀρκτικωτέραν ἢ δεῖ γινομένην. πίστιν δὲ τούτου φέρει μίαν μὲν ταύτην, ὅτι τὰ τῆς Ἰνδικῆς ἄκρα τὰ μεσημβρινώτατα ὁμολογοῦσι πολλοὶ τοῖς κατὰ Μερόην ἀνταίρειν τόποις, ἀπό τε τῶν ἀέρων καὶ τῶν οὐρανίων τεκμαιρόμενοι, ἐντεῦθεν δʼ ἐπὶ τὰ βορειότατα τῆς Ἰνδικῆς τὰ πρὸς τοῖς Καυκασίοις ὄρεσι Πατροκλῆς, ὁ μάλιστα πιστεύεσθαι δίκαιος διά τε τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἰδιώτης εἶναι τῶν γεωγραφικῶν, φησὶ σταδίους μυρίους καὶ πεντακισχιλίους· ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ Μερόης ἐπὶ τὸν διʼ Ἀθηνῶν παράλληλον τοσοῦτόν πώς ἐστιν ὥστε τῆς Ἰνδικῆς τὰ προσάρκτια μέρη συνάπτοντα τοῖς Καυκασίοις ὄρεσιν εἰς τοῦτον τελευτᾶν τὸν κύκλον.
He then declares that the ancient geographical chart wants revision; that in it the eastern portion of the Taurus is made to run too far north, India itself being also too much drawn in the same direction. One proof which he offers in support of this is, that the most southern extremities of India are under the same latitude as Meroe, as attested by many, both from astronomical observations and the temperature of the climate. From thence to the most northerly point by the mountains of the Caucasus, there are 15,000 stadia, according to Patrocles, a writer whom we are bound to believe, both on account of his worth, and the vast amount of his geographical attainments. Now since the distance from Meroe to the parallel of Athens is nearly the same, the most northerly points of India next to the Caucasian mountains ought to be under the same degree of latitude.
ἄλλην δὲ πίστιν φέρει τοιαύτην, ὅτι τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰσσικοῦ κόλπου διάστημα ἐπὶ τὴν θάλατταν τὴν Ποντικὴν τρισχιλίων πώς ἐστι σταδίων πρὸς ἄρκτον ἰόντι καὶ τοὺς περὶ Ἀμισὸν ἢ Σινώπην τόπους, ὅσον καὶ τὸ πλάτος τῶν ὀρῶν λέγεται· ἐκ δὲ Ἀμισοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἰσημερινὴν ἀνατολὴν φερομένῳ πρῶτον μὲν ἡ Κολχίς ἐστιν, ἔπειτα ἡ ἐπὶ τὴν Ὑρκανίαν θάλατταν ὑπέρθεσις καὶ ἡ ἐφεξῆς ἡ ἐπὶ Βάκτρα καὶ τοὺς ἐπέκεινα Σκύθας ὁδὸς δεξιὰ ἔχοντι τὰ ὄρη· αὕτη δʼ ἡ γραμμὴ διὰ Ἀμισοῦ πρὸς δύσιν ἐκβαλλομένη διὰ τῆς Προποντίδος ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλλησπόντου. ἀπὸ δὲ Μερόης ἐπὶ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον οὐ πλείους εἰσὶ τῶν μυρίων καὶ ὀκτακισχιλίων σταδίων, ὅσοι καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ μεσημβρινοῦ πλευροῦ τῆς Ἰνδικῆς πρὸς τὰ περὶ τοὺς Βακτρίους μέρη, προστεθέντων τρισχιλίων τοῖς μυρίοις καὶ πεντακισχιλίοις, ὧν οἱ μὲν τοῦ πλάτους ἦσαν τῶν ὀρῶν οἱ δὲ τῆς Ἰνδικῆς.
But there is another method (says Eratosthenes) of proving this. The distance from the Gulf of Issus to the Euxine, proceeding in a northerly direction towards Amisus and Sinope, is about 3000 stadia, which is as much as the supposed extent of the mountains [of the Taurus]. The traveller who directs his course from Amisus due east, arrives first at Colchis, then at the high lands by the Hyrcanian Sea, afterwards at the road leading to Bactra, and beyond to the Scythians; having the mountains always on the right. The same line drawn through Amisus westward, crosses the Propontis and Hellespont. From Meroe to the Hellespont there are not more than 18,000 stadia. The distance is just the same from the southern extremity of India to the land of Bactria, if we add to the 15,000 stadia of that country the 3000 which its mountains occupy in breadth.
πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀπόφασιν ταύτην ὁ Ἵππαρχος ἀντιλέγει διαβάλλων τὰς πίστεις· οὐδὲ γὰρ Πατροκλέα πιστὸν εἶναι, δυεῖν ἀντιμαρτυρούντων αὐτῷ Δηιμάχου τε καὶ Μεγασθένους, οἳ καθʼ οὓς μὲν τόπους δισμυρίων εἶναι σταδίων τὸ διάστημά φασι τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ μεσημβρίαν θαλάττης, καθʼ οὓς δὲ καὶ τρισμυρίων· τούτους τε δὴ τοιαῦτα λέγειν καὶ τοὺς ἀρχαίους πίνακας τούτοις ὁμολογεῖν. ἀπίθανον δή που νομίζει τὸ μόνῳ δεῖν πιστεύειν Πατροκλεῖ, παρέντας τοὺς τοσοῦτον ἀντιμαρτυροῦντας αὐτῷ, καὶ διορθοῦσθαι παρʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τοὺς ἀρχαίους πίνακας, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐᾶν οὕτως, ἕως ἄν τι πιστότερον περὶ αὐτῶν γνῶμεν.
Hipparchus tries to invalidate this view of Eratosthenes, by sneering at the proofs on which it rests. Patrocles, he says, merits little credit, being contradicted by the two writers Deimachus and Megasthenes, who say that the distance taken from the southern ocean, is in some places 20,000, in others 30,000 stadia; that in this assertion they are supported by the ancient charts, and he considers it absurd to require us to put implicit faith in Patrocles alone, when there is so much testimony against him; or that the ancient charts should be corrected; but rather that they should be left as they are until we have something more certain on the subject.
οἶμαι δὴ πολλὰς ἔχειν εὐθύνας τοῦτον τὸν λόγον. πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι πολλαῖς μαρτυρίαις ἐκείνου χρησαμένου μιᾷ φησι τῇ Πατροκλέους αὐτὸν χρῆσθαι. τίνες οὖν ἦσαν οἱ φάσκοντες τὰ μεσημβρινὰ ἄκρα τῆς Ἰνδικῆς ἀνταίρειν τοῖς κατὰ Μερόην; τίνες δʼ οἱ τὸ ἀπὸ Μερόης διάστημα μέχρι τοῦ διʼ Ἀθηνῶν παραλλήλου λέγοντες; τίνες δὲ πάλιν οἱ τὸ τῶν ὀρῶν πλάτος τοσοῦτον, ἢ οἱ τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς Κιλικίας ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀμισὸν τὸ αὐτὸ τούτῳ λέγοντες; τίνες δὲ οἱ ἀπὸ Ἀμισοῦ διὰ Κόλχων καὶ τῆς Ὑρκανίας μέχρι Βακτρίων καὶ τῶν ἐπέκεινα εἰς τὴν ἑῴαν θάλατταν καθηκόντων ἐπʼ εὐθείας τε εἶναι λέγοντες καὶ ἐπʼ ἰσημερινὰς ἀνατολὰς καὶ παρὰ τὰ ὄρη ἐν δεξιᾷ ἔχοντι αὐτά; ἢ πάλιν τὸ ἐπὶ τὴν δύσιν ἐπʼ εὐθείας ταύτῃ τῇ γραμμῇ, διότι ἐπὶ τὴν Προποντίδα ἐστὶ καὶ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον; ταῦτα γὰρ ὁ Ἐρατοσθένης λαμβάνει πάντα ὡς καὶ ἐκμαρτυρούμενα ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τοῖς τόποις γενομένων, ἐντετυχηκὼς ὑπομνήμασι πολλοῖς, ὧν εὐπόρει βιβλιοθήκην ἔχων τηλικαύτην ἡλίκην αὐτὸς Ἵππαρχός φησι.
This argument, I think, is in many instances unfounded. Eratosthenes availed himself of the statements of many writers, although Hipparchus alleges he was solely led by Patrocles. Who then are the authors of the statement that the southern extremity of India is under the same parallel as Meroe; and who are they who estimate the distance from Meroe to the parallel passing through Athens? Or who, again, were those who asserted that the whole breadth occupied by the mountains was equal to the distance from Cilicia to Amisus? Or who made known that, travelling from Amisus, the course lay in a straight line due east through Colchis, the [sea of] Hyrcania, so on to Bactria, and beyond this to the eastern ocean, the mountains being always on the right hand; and that this same line carried west in a straight line, traverses the Propontis and the Hellespont? These things Eratosthenes advances on the testimony of men who had been on the spot, and from the study of those numerous memoirs which he had for reference in that noble library which Hipparchus himself acknowledges to be gigantic.
καὶ αὐτὴ δὲ ἡ τοῦ Πατροκλέους πίστις ἐκ πολλῶν μαρτυριῶν σύγκειται, τῶν βασιλέων τῶν πεπιστευκότων αὐτῷ τηλικαύτην ἀρχήν, τῶν ἐπακολουθησάντων αὐτῷ, τῶν ἀντιδοξούντων, ὧν αὐτὸς ὁ Ἵππαρχος κατονομάζει· οἱ γὰρ κατʼ ἐκείνων ἔλεγχοι πίστεις τῶν ὑπὸ τούτου λεγομένων εἰσίν. οὐδὲ τοῦτο δὲ ἀπίθανον τοῦ Πατροκλέους, ὅτι φησὶ τοὺς Ἀλεξάνδρῳ συστρατεύσαντας ἐπιδρομάδην ἱστορῆσαι ἕκαστα, αὐτὸν δὲ Ἀλέξανδρον ἀκριβῶσαι, ἀναγραψάντων τὴν ὅλην χώραν τῶν ἐμπειροτάτων αὐτῷ· τὴν δʼ ἀναγραφὴν αὐτῷ δοθῆναί φησιν ὕστερον ὑπὸ Ξενοκλέους τοῦ γαζοφύλακος.
Besides, the credibility of Patrocles can be proved by a variety of evidence—the princes who confided to him so important trusts—the authors who follow his statements—and those, too, who criticise them, whose names Hipparchus has recorded. Since whenever these are refuted, the credit of Patrocles is by so much advanced. Nor does Patrocles appear to state any thing improbable when he says that the army of Alexander took but a very hasty view of every thing [in India], but Alexander himself a more exact one, causing the whole country to be described by men well acquainted with it. Which description he says was afterwards put into his hands by Xenocles the treasurer.
ἔτι φησὶν ὁ Ἵππαρχος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ ὑπομνήματι αὐτὸν τὸν Ἐρατοσθένη διαβάλλειν τὴν τοῦ Πατροκλέους πίστιν ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Μεγασθένη διαφωνίας περὶ τοῦ μήκους τῆς Ἰνδικῆς τοῦ κατὰ τὸ βόρειον πλευρόν, τοῦ μὲν Μεγασθένους λέγοντος σταδίων μυρίων ἑξακισχιλίων, τοῦ δὲ Πατροκλέους χιλίοις λείπειν φαμένου· ἀπὸ γάρ τινος ἀναγραφῆς σταθμῶν ὁρμηθέντα τοῖς μὲν ἀπιστεῖν διὰ τὴν διαφωνίαν, ἐκείνῃ δὲ προσέχειν. εἰ οὖν διὰ τὴν διαφωνίαν ἐνταῦθα ἄπιστος ὁ Πατροκλῆς, καίτοι παρὰ χιλίους σταδίους τῆς διαφορᾶς οὔσης, πόσῳ χρὴ μᾶλλον ἀπιστεῖν ἐν οἷς παρὰ ὀκτακισχιλίους ἡ διαφορά ἐστι, πρὸς δύο καὶ ταῦτα ἄνδρας συμφωνοῦντας ἀλλήλοις, τῶν μὲν λεγόντων τὸ τῆς Ἰνδικῆς πλάτος δισμυρίων σταδίων, τοῦ δὲ μυρίων καὶ δισχιλίων;
Again, in the second volume of his Commentaries, Hipparchus accuses Eratosthenes of himself throwing discredit on the statement of Patrocles, on account of his differing with Megasthenes, as to the length of India on its northern side; Megasthenes stating the length at 16,000 stadia, and Patrocles at 1000 less. Being biassed by a certain Itinerary, Eratosthenes was led to reject them both on account of this discrepancy, and to follow the Itinerary. If then merely the difference of 1000 stadia is sufficient to cause the authority of Patrocles to be rejected, how much more should this be the case when we find a difference of 8000 stadia between his statement and that of two writers who agree perfectly in theirs, that the breadth of India is 20,000 stadia, while he gives only 12,000!
Ἐροῦμεν δʼ ὅτι οὐ ψιλὴν τὴν διαφωνίαν ᾐτιάσατο, ἀλλὰ συγκρίνων πρὸς τὴν ὁμολογίαν καὶ τὴν ἀξιοπιστίαν τῆς ἀναγραφῆς τῶν σταθμῶν. οὐ θαυμαστὸν δὲ εἰ πιστοῦ γίνεταί τι πιστότερον, καὶ εἰ τῷ αὐτῷ ἐν ἑτέροις μὲν πιστεύομεν ἐν ἑτέροις δʼ ἀπιστοῦμεν, ὅταν παρά τινος τεθῇ τι βεβαιότερον. γελοῖόν τε τὸ τὴν παρὰ πολὺ διαφωνίαν ἀπιστοτέρους ποιεῖν νομίσαι τοὺς διαφωνοῦντας· τοὐναντίον γὰρ ἐν τῷ παρὰ μικρὸν συμβαίνειν τοῦτο μᾶλλον ἔοικε. παρὰ μικρὸν γὰρ ἡ πλάνη συμβαίνει μᾶλλον οὐ τοῖς τυχοῦσι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς πλέον τι τῶν ἑτέρων φρονοῦσιν· ἐν δὲ τοῖς παρὰ πολὺ ὁ μὲν τυχὼν ἁμάρτοι ἄν, ὁ δʼ ἐπιστημονικώτερος ἧττον ἂν τοῦτο πάθοι· διὸ καὶ πιστεύεται θᾶττον.
We reply, that [Eratosthenes] did not object [to the statement of Patrocles] merely because it differed [from that of Megasthenes], but because the statement of this latter as to the stadia was confirmed by the Itinerary, an authority of no mean importance. There is nothing wonderful in this, that though a certain statement may be credible, another may be more credible; and that while in some instances we follow the former, in others we may dissent from it on finding a more trust-worthy guide. It is ridiculous to say that the greater the difference of one writer from others, the less he should be trusted. On the contrary, such a rule would be more applicable in regard to small differences; for in little particulars the ordinary observer and the man of great ability are equally liable to err. On the other hand, in great matters, the ordinary run of men are more like to be deceived than the man of superior talent, to whom consequently in such cases greater deference is paid.
̔́απαντες μὲν τοίνυν οἱ περὶ τῆς Ἰνδικῆς γράψαντες ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ ψευδολόγοι γεγόνασι, καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν δὲ Δηίμαχος, τὰ δὲ δεύτερα λέγει Μεγασθένης, Ὀνησίκριτος δὲ καὶ Νέαρχος καὶ ἄλλοι τοιοῦτοι παραψελλίζοντες ἤδη. καὶ ἡμῖν δʼ ὑπῆρξεν ἐπὶ πλέον κατιδεῖν ταῦτα ὑπομνηματιζομένοις τὰς Ἀλεξάνδρου πράξεις· διαφερόντως δʼ ἀπιστεῖν ἄξιον Δηιμάχῳ τε καὶ Μεγασθένει. οὗτοι γάρ εἰσιν οἱ τοὺς ἐνωτοκοίτας καὶ τοὺς ἀστόμους καὶ ἄρρινας ἱστοροῦντες μονοφθάλμους τε καὶ μακροσκελεῖς καὶ ὀπισθοδακτύλους· ἀνεκαίνισαν δὲ καὶ τὴν Ὁμηρικὴν τῶν Πυγμαίων γερανομαχίαν, τρισπιθάμους εἰπόντες. οὗτοι δὲ καὶ τοὺς χρυσωρύχους μύρμηκας καὶ Πᾶνας σφηνοκεφάλους ὄφεις τε καὶ βοῦς καὶ ἐλάφους σὺν κέρασι καταπίνοντας· περὶ ὧν ἕτερος τὸν ἕτερον ἐλέγχει, ὅπερ καὶ Ἐρατοσθένης φησίν. ἐπέμφθησαν μὲν γὰρ εἰς τὰ Παλίμβοθρα, ὁ μὲν Μεγασθένης πρὸς Σανδρόκοττον ὁ δὲ Δηίμαχος πρὸς Ἀλλιτροχάδην τὸν ἐκείνου υἱὸν κατὰ πρεσβείαν· ὑπομνήματα δὲ τῆς ἀποδημίας κατέλιπον τοιαῦτα, ὑφʼ ἧς δή ποτε αἰτίας προαχθέντες. Πατροκλῆς δὲ ἥκιστα τοιοῦτος· καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι δὲ μάρτυρες οὐκ ἀπίθανοι, οἷς κέχρηται ὁ Ἐρατοσθένης […]
Generally speaking, the men who hitherto have written on the affairs of India, were a set of liars. Deimachus holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next, while Onesicritus and Nearchus, with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words [of truth]. Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Deimachus and Megasthenes. They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider-legs, and with fingers bent backward. They renewed Homer’s fable concerning the battles of the Cranes and Pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high. They told of ants digging for gold, of Pans with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all; meantime, as Eratosthenes has observed, reciprocally accusing each other of falsehood. Both of these men were sent ambassadors to Palimbothra,—Megasthenes to Sandrocottus, Deimachus to Allitrochades his son; and such are the notes of their residence abroad, which, I know not why, they thought fit to leave. Patrocles certainly does not resemble them; nor do any other of the authorities consulted by Eratosthenes contain such absurdities.
Cite This Text