πρὸς δὲ τὸν Ἵππαρχον κἀκεῖνο, ὅτι ἐχρῆν, ὡς κατηγορίαν πεποίηται τῶν ὑπʼ ἐκείνου λεχθέντων, οὕτω καὶ ἐπανόρθωσίν τινα ποιήσασθαι τῶν ἡμαρτημένων· ὅπερ ἡμεῖς ποιοῦμεν. ἐκεῖνος δʼ εἰ καί που τούτου πεφρόντικε, κελεύει ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἀρχαίοις πίναξι προσέχειν, δεομένοις παμπόλλῳ τινὶ μείζονος ἐπανορθώσεως ἢ ὁ Ἐρατοσθένους πίναξ προσδεῖται. καὶ τὸ ἐπιφερόμενον δʼ ἐπιχείρημα τῆς αὐτῆς ἔχεται μοχθηρίας. λαμβάνει γὰρ ἐν λήμματι τὸ ἐκ τῶν μὴ διδομένων κατασκευασθέν, ὡς ἠλέγξαμεν ἡμεῖς, ὅτι Θαψάκου Βαβυλὼν ἀνατολικωτέρα ἐστὶν οὐ πλείοσιν ἢ χιλίοις σταδίοις· ὥστʼ εἰ καὶ πάνυ συνάγεται τὸ πλείοσιν ἢ δισχιλίοις καὶ τετρακοσίοις σταδίοις ἀνατολικωτέραν αὐτὴν εἶναι ἐκ τῶν λεγομένων ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἐρατοσθένους, ὅτι ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ Τίγριδος διάβασιν, ᾗ Ἀλέξανδρος διέβη, ἀπὸ Θαψάκου ἐστὶ σύντομος σταδίων δισχιλίων τετρακοσίων, ὁ δὲ Τίγρις καὶ ὁ Εὐφράτης ἐγκυκλωσάμενοι τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν, τέως μὲν ἐπʼ ἀνατολὰς φέρονται, εἶτʼ ἐπιστρέφουσι πρὸς νότον καὶ πλησιάζουσι τότε ἀλλήλοις τε ἅμα καὶ Βαβυλῶνι, οὐδὲν ἄτοπον συμβαίνει τῷ λόγῳ.
In another respect also we have to complain of Hipparchus, because, as he had given a category of the statements of Eratosthenes, he ought to have corrected his mistakes, in the same way that we have done; but whenever he has any thing particular to remark, he tells us to follow the ancient charts, which, to say the least, need correction infinitely more than the map of Eratosthenes.
The argument which follows is equally objectionable, being founded on the consequences of a proposition which, as we have shown, is inadmissible, namely, that Babylon was not more than 1000 stadia east of Thapsacus; when it was quite clear, from Eratosthenes’ own words, that Babylon was above 2400 stadia east of that place; since from Thapsacus to the passage of the Euphrates where it was crossed by Alexander, the shortest route is 2400 stadia, and the Tigris and Euphrates, having encompassed Mesopotamia, flow towards the east, and afterwards take a southerly direction and approach nearer to each other and to Babylon at the same time: nothing appears absurd in this statement of Eratosthenes.
πλημμελεῖ δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς ἐπιχειρήματι, ἐν ᾧ συνάγειν βούλεται, ὅτι τὴν ἀπὸ Θαψάκου ἐπὶ Κασπίους πύλας ὁδόν, ἣν μυρίων σταδίων Ἐρατοσθένης εἴρηκεν, οὐκ ἐπʼ εὐθείας ἀναμεμετρημένην ὡς ἐπʼ εὐθείας παραδίδωσι, τῆς εὐθείας πολὺ ἐλάττονος οὔσης. ἡ δʼ ἔφοδός ἐστιν αὐτῷ τοιαύτη. φησὶν εἶναι κατʼ Ἐρατοσθένη τὸν αὐτὸν μεσημβρινὸν τόν τε διὰ τοῦ Κανωβικοῦ στόματος καὶ τὸν διὰ Κυανέων, διέχειν δὲ τοῦτον τοῦ διὰ Θαψάκου ἑξακισχιλίους τριακοσίους σταδίους, τὰς δὲ Κυανέας τοῦ Κασπίου ὄρους ἑξακισχιλίους ἑξακοσίους, ὃ κεῖται κατὰ τὴν ὑπέρθεσιν τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ Κάσπιον πέλαγος ἐκ Κολχίδος, ὥστε παρὰ τριακοσίους σταδίους τὸ ἴσον εἶναι διάστημα ἀπὸ τοῦ διὰ Κυανέων μεσημβρινοῦ ἐπί τε Θάψακον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ Κάσπιον· τρόπον δή τινα ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μεσημβρινοῦ κεῖσθαι τήν τε Θάψακον καὶ τὸ Κάσπιον· τούτῳ δʼ ἀκολουθεῖν τὸ ἀφεστάναι ἴσον τὰς Κασπίους πύλας Θαψάκου τε καὶ τοῦ Κασπίου, πολὺ ἐλάττους ἀφεστάναι τῶν μυρίων, ὅσους φησὶν ἀφεστάναι Ἐρατοσθένης τῆς Θαψάκου, ἄρα πολὺ ἐλάττους ἢ μυρίους ἀφεστάναι τοὺς ἐπʼ εὐθείας. κυκλοπορίαν ἄρα εἶναι τοὺς μυρίους, λογίζεται ἐκεῖνος ἐπʼ εὐθείας ἀπὸ Κασπίων πυλῶν εἰς Θάψακον. ἐροῦμεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτόν, ὅτι τοῦ Ἐρατοσθένους ἐν πλάτει λαμβάνοντος εὐθείας, ὅπερ οἰκεῖόν ἐστι γεωγραφίας, ἐν πλάτει δὲ καὶ τὰς μεσημβρινὰς καὶ τὰς ἐπὶ ἰσημερινὴν ἀνατολήν, ἐκεῖνος γεωμετρικῶς αὐτὸν εὐθύνει καὶ ὡς ἂν διʼ ὀργάνων λάβοι τις τούτων ἕκαστον, οὐδὲ αὐτὸς διʼ ὀργάνων ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον στοχασμῷ λαμβάνων καὶ τὸ πρὸς ὀρθὰς καὶ τὸ παραλλήλους. ἓν μὲν δὴ τοῦθʼ ἁμάρτημα· ἕτερον δὲ τὸ μηδὲ τὰ κείμενα παρʼ ἐκείνῳ διαστήματα τίθεσθαι ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ, μηδὲ πρὸς ἐκεῖνα τὸν ἔλεγχον προσάγεσθαι, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ πλαττόμενα. διόπερ πρῶτον μὲν ἐκείνου τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος ἐπὶ Φᾶσιν εἰπόντος σταδίων ὀκτακισχιλίων, καὶ προσθέντος τοὺς εἰς Διοσκουριάδα ἐνθένδε ἑξακοσίους, τὴν δʼ ἀπὸ Διοσκουριάδος εἰς τὸ Κάσπιον ὑπέρθεσιν ἡμερῶν πέντε, ἥτις κατʼ αὐτὸν Ἵππαρχον εἰκάζεται λέγεσθαι ὅσον χιλίων σταδίων, ὥστε τὴν σύμπασαν κατʼ Ἐρατοσθένη κεφαλαιοῦσθαι ἐννακισχιλίων ἑξακοσίων· αὐτὸς συντέτμηκε καὶ φησὶν ἐκ μὲν Κυανέων εἰς Φᾶσιν πεντακισχιλίους ἑξακοσίους, εἰς δὲ Κάσπιον ἐνθένδε ἄλλους χιλίους· ὥστʼ οὐ κατʼ Ἐρατοσθένη συμβαίνοι ἂν ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πως μεσημβρινοῦ τό τε Κάσπιον εἶναι καὶ τὴν Θάψακον, ἀλλὰ κατʼ αὐτόν. φέρε δʼ οὖν κατʼ Ἐρατοσθένη· πῶς οὖν τούτῳ ἕπεται τὸ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ Κασπίου ἐπὶ Κασπίους πύλας ἴσην εἶναι τῇ ἀπὸ Θαψάκου ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ σημεῖον;
The next objection of Hipparchus is likewise false. He attempts to prove that Eratosthenes, in his statement that the route from Thapsacus to the Caspian Gates is 10,000 stadia, gives this as the distance taken in a straight line; such not being the case, as in that instance the distance would be much shorter. His mode of reasoning is after this fashion. He says, According to Eratosthenes, the mouth of the Nile at Canopus, and the Cyaneae, are under the same meridian, which is distant from that of Thapsacus 6300 stadia. Now from the Cyaneae to Mount Caspius, which is situated close to the defile leading from Colchis to the Caspian Sea, there are 6600 stadia, so that, with the exception of about 300 stadia, the distance from the meridian of the Cyaneae to that of Thapsacus, or to that of Mount Caspius, is the same: and both Thapsacus and Mount Caspius are, so to speak, under the same meridian. It follows from this that the Caspian Gates are about equi-distant between Thapsacus and Mount Caspius, but that the distance between them and Thapsacus is much less than the 10,000 stadia mentioned by Eratosthenes. Consequently, as the distance in a right line is much less than 10,000 stadia, this route, which he considered to be in a straight course from the Caspian Gates to Thapsacus, must have been a circumbendibus.
To this we reply, that Eratosthenes, as is usual in Geography, speaks of right lines, meridians, and parallels to the equator, with considerable latitude, whereas Hipparchus criticizes him with geometrical nicety, as if every line had been measured with rule and compass. Hipparchus at the same time himself frequently deciding as to right lines and parallels, not by actual measurement, but mere conjecture. Such is the first error of this writer. A second is, that he never lays down the distances as Eratosthenes has given them, nor yet reasons on the data furnished by that writer, but from mere assumptions of his own coinage. Thus, where Eratosthenes states that the distance from the mouth of the [Thracian Bosphorus] to the Phasis is 8000 stadia, from thence to Dioscurias 600 stadia, and from Dioscurias to Caspius five days’ journey, (which Hipparchus estimates at 1000 stadia,) the sum of these, as stated by Eratosthenes, would amount to 9600 stadia. This Hipparchus abridges in the following manner. From the Cyaneae to the Phasis are 5600 stadia, and from the Phasis to the Caspius 1000 more. There fore it is no statement of Eratosthenes that the Caspius and Thapsacus are under the same meridian, but of Hipparchus himself. However, supposing Eratosthenes says so, does it follow that the distance from the Caspius to the Caspian Gates, and that from Thapsacus to the same point, are equal.
Ἐν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ ὑπομνήματι ἀναλαβὼν πάλιν τὴν αὐτὴν ζήτησιν τὴν περὶ τῶν ὅρων τῶν κατὰ τὸν Ταῦρον, περὶ ὧν ἱκανῶς εἰρήκαμεν, μεταβαίνει πρὸς τὰ βόρεια μέρη τῆς οἰκουμένης· εἶτʼ ἐκτίθεται τὰ λεχθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἐρατοσθένους περὶ τῶν μετὰ τὸν Πόντον τόπων, ὅτι φησὶ τρεῖς ἄκρας ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων καθήκειν· μίαν μὲν ἐφʼ ἧς ἡ Πελοπόννησος, δευτέραν δὲ τὴν Ἰταλικήν, τρίτην δὲ τὴν Λιγυστικήν, ὑφʼ ὧν κόλπους ἀπολαμβάνεσθαι τόν τε Ἀδριατικὸν καὶ τὸν Τυρρηνικόν. ταῦτα δʼ ἐκθέμενος καθόλου πειρᾶται τὰ καθʼ ἕκαστα περὶ αὐτῶν λεγόμενα ἐλέγχειν γεωμετρικῶς μᾶλλον ἢ γεωγραφικῶς. ἔστι δὲ τοσοῦτον τῶν ἁμαρτανομένων ἐν αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἐρατοσθένους τὸ πλῆθος, καὶ ὑπὸ Τιμοσθένους τοῦ τοὺς λιμένας συγγράψαντος (ὃν ἐπαινεῖ μὲν ἐκεῖνος μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων, διαφωνῶν δʼ ἐλέγχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν πλεῖστα), ὥστʼ οὐκ ἄξιον ἡγοῦμαι διαιτᾶν οὔτʼ ἐκείνους ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον διαμαρτάνοντας τῶν ὄντων, οὔτε τὸν Ἵππαρχον. καὶ γὰρ οὗτος τὰ μὲν παραλείπει τῶν ἡμαρτημένων τὰ δʼ οὐκ ἐπανορθοῖ, ἀλλʼ ἐλέγχει μόνον ὅτι ψευδῶς ἢ μαχομένως εἴρηται. αἰτιάσαιτο μὲν γὰρ καὶ τοῦτʼ ἂν ἴσως τις, ὅτι φησὶν ἄκρας τρεῖς τῆς Εὐρώπης, μίαν μὲν τιθεὶς τὴν ἐφʼ ἧς ἡ Πελοπόννησος· ἔχει γάρ τι πολυσχιδές· καὶ γὰρ τὸ Σούνιον ἀκρωτηριάζει ὁμοίως τῇ Λακωνικῇ, οὐ πολὺ ἧττον μεσημβρινώτερον ὂν τῶν Μαλεῶν καὶ κόλπον ἀπολαμβάνον ἀξιόλογον. καὶ ἡ Θρᾳκία Χερρόνησος ἀπολαμβάνει πρὸς τὸ Σούνιον τόν τε Μέλανα κόλπον καὶ τοὺς ἐφεξῆς τοὺς Μακεδονικούς. εἰ δʼ οὖν παρείημεν τοῦτο, καὶ τῶν διαστημάτων τὰ πλεῖστα φανερῶς ψευδογραφούμενα ἐλέγχει τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν τόπων ὑπερβάλλουσαν καὶ οὐ δεομένην γεωμετρικῶν ἐλέγχων, ἀλλὰ φανερῶν καὶ αὐτόθεν ἐκμαρτυρεῖσθαι δυναμένων· οἷον ὅτι ἐξ Ἐπιδάμνου πρὸς τὸν Θερμαῖον κόλπον ἡ ὑπέρβασίς ἐστι πλειόνων ἢ δισχιλίων σταδίων· ὁ δʼ ἐνακοσίων φησίν· ἐκ δὲ Ἀλεξανδρείας εἰς Καρχηδόνα ὑπὲρ μυρίους καὶ τρισχιλίους, οὐ πλείους ὄντας τῶν ἐννακισχιλίων, εἴπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μεσημβρινοῦ ἐστι κατὰ τοῦτον τῇ μὲν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ Καρία καὶ Ῥόδος, τῇ δὲ Καρχηδόνι ὁ πορθμός. πάντες γὰρ ὁμολογοῦσι μὴ πλειόνων εἶναι τὸν ἐκ Καρίας ἐπὶ πορθμὸν πλοῦν σταδίων ἢ ἐνακισχιλίων· ὅ τε μεσημβρινὸς ἐν μεγάλῳ μέν τινι διαστήματι λαμβανόμενος δοθείη ἂν ὁ αὐτὸς εἶναι τοσοῦτον δυσμικώτερος πρὸς τὸν ἑωθινώτερον ὅσον ἡ Καρχηδών ἐστι τοῦ πορθμοῦ πρὸς δύσει μᾶλλον, ἐν δὲ τετρακισχιλίοις σταδίοις ἔχει καταφανῆ τὸν ἔλεγχον. ὁ δὲ καὶ τὴν Ῥώμην τιθεὶς ἐπὶ ταὐτοῦ μεσημβρινοῦ τὴν τοσοῦτον καὶ Καρχηδόνος δυσμικωτέραν, ὑπερβολὴν οὐκ ἀπολείπει τῆς τῶν τόπων ἀπειρίας καὶ τούτων καὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς πρὸς δύσιν μέχρι στηλῶν.
In the second book of his Commentaries, Hipparchus, having again mooted the question concerning the mountains of the Taurus, of which we have spoken sufficiently, proceeds with the northern parts of the habitable earth. He then notices the statement of Eratosthenes concerning the countries situated west of the Euxine, namely, that the three [principal] headlands [of this continent], the first the Peloponnesian, the second the Italian, the third the Ligurian, run from north [to south], enclosing the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian Gulfs. After this general exposition, Hipparchus proceeds to criticise each point in detail, but rather on geometrical than geographical grounds; on these subjects, however, the number of Eratosthenes’ errors is so overwhelming, as also of Timosthenes the author of the Treatise on the Ports, (whom Eratosthenes prefers above every other writer, though he often decides even against him,) that it does not seem to be worth my time to review their faulty productions, nor even what Hipparchus has to say about them; since he neither enumerates all their blunders, nor yet sets them right, but only points out how they falsify and contradict each other. Still any one might certainly object to the saying of Eratosthenes, that Europe has but three headlands, and considering as one that which terminates by the Peloponnesus, notwithstanding it is broken up into so many divisions. In fact, Sunium is as much a promontory as Laconia, and not very much less south than Malea, forming a considerable bay, and the Thracian Chersonesus and Sunium form the Gulf of Melas, and likewise those of Macedonia. Added to this, it is manifest that the majority of the distances are falsely stated, thus arguing an ignorance of geography scarcely credible, and so far from requiring geometrical demonstration that it stands out prominent on the very face of the statements. For example, the distance from Epidamnus to the Thermaic Gulf is above 2000 stadia; Eratosthenes gives it at 900. So too he states the distance from Alexandria to Carthage at 13,000 stadia; it is not more than 9000, that is, if, as he himself tells us, Caria and Rhodes are under the same meridian as Alexandria, and the Strait of Messina under the same as Carthage, for every one is agreed that the voyage from Caria to the Strait of Sicily does not exceed 9000 stadia.
It is doubtless permissible in very great distances to consider as under one and the same meridian places which are not more east and west of each other than Carthage is west of the Strait; but an error of 3000 stadia is too much; and when he places Rome under the same meridian as Carthage, notwithstanding its being so far west of that city, it is but the crowning proof of his extreme ignorance both of these places, and likewise of the other countries farther west as far as the Pillars of Hercules.
̔ιππάρχῳ μὲν οὖν μὴ γεωγραφοῦντι ἀλλʼ ἐξετάζοντι τὰ λεχθέντα ἐν τῇ γεωγραφίᾳ τῇ Ἐρατοσθένους οἰκεῖον ἦν ἐπὶ πλέον τὰ καθʼ ἕκαστα εὐθύνειν. ἡμεῖς δʼ ἐν οἷς μὲν κατορθοῖ, τὸ πλέον δʼ ἔτι ὅπου καὶ πλημμελεῖ, τὸν καθʼ ἕκαστα οἰκεῖον λόγον ᾠήθημεν δεῖν προσάγειν, τὰ μὲν ἐπανορθοῦντες, ὑπὲρ ὧν δʼ ἀπολυόμενοι τὰς ἐπιφερομένας αἰτίας ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἱππάρχου, καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν Ἵππαρχον συνεξετάζομεν, ὅπου τι φιλαιτίως εἴρηκεν. ἐν δὲ τούτοις ὁρῶντες ἤδη τὸν μὲν τελέως παραπαίοντα, τὸν δὲ δικαίως ἐπικαλοῦντα, ἀρκεῖν ὑπολαμβάνομεν, ἂν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ γεωγραφίᾳ τὰ ὄντα λέγοντες ἐπανορθῶμεν αὐτόν. ἐφʼ ὧν γὰρ συνεχῆ καὶ ἐπιπολάζοντά ἐστι τὰ ἁμαρτανόμενα, κρεῖττον μηδὲ μεμνῆσθαι πλὴν εἰ σπάνιόν τι καὶ καθόλου, ὅπερ πειρασόμεθα ποιεῖν ἐν τοῖς καθʼ ἕκαστα. καὶ νῦν δʼ εἰρήσθω ὅτι καὶ Τιμοσθένης καὶ Ἐρατοσθένης καὶ οἱ ἔτι τούτων πρότεροι τελέως ἠγνόουν τά τε Ἰβηρικὰ καὶ τὰ Κελτικά, μυρίῳ δὲ μᾶλλον τὰ Γερμανικὰ καὶ τὰ Βρεττανικά, ὡς δʼ αὕτως τὰ τῶν Γετῶν καὶ Βασταρνῶν. ἐπὶ πολὺ δʼ ἀγνοίας ἐτύγχανον ἀφιγμένοι καὶ τῶν κατʼ Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὸν Ἀδρίαν καὶ τὸν Πόντον καὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς προσαρκτίων μερῶν· εἰ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἴσως φιλαίτια. τοῦ γὰρ Ἐρατοσθένους ἐπὶ τῶν πόρρω διεστηκότων τὰ παραδεδομένα φάσκοντος ἐρεῖν διαστήματα, μὴ διισχυριζομένου δὲ καὶ λέγοντος ὡς παρέλαβε, προστιθέντος δʼ ἔστιν ὅπου τὰ ἐπʼ εὐθείας μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον, οὐ δεῖ προσάγειν τὸν ἀκριβῆ ἔλεγχον τοῖς μὴ ὁμολογουμένοις πρὸς ἄλληλα διαστήμασιν· ὅπερ ποιεῖν πειρᾶται ὁ Ἵππαρχος ἔν τε τοῖς πρότερον λεχθεῖσι καὶ ἐν οἷς τὰ περὶ τὴν Ὑρκανίαν μέχρι Βακτρίων καὶ τῶν ἐπέκεινα ἐθνῶν ἐκτίθεται διαστήματα, καὶ ἔτι τὰ ἀπὸ Κολχίδος ἐπὶ τὴν Ὑρκανίαν θάλατταν. οὐ γὰρ ὁμοίως ἐπί τε τούτων ἐξεταστέον αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἠπειρῶτιν παραλίαν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς οὕτω γνωρίμους τόπους· ἀλλʼ οὐδʼ ἐπὶ τούτων γεωμετρικῶς, ὅπερ ἔφην, ἀλλὰ γεωγραφικῶς μᾶλλον. αἰτιασάμενος δʼ οὖν τινα τῶν Αἰθιοπικῶν ἐπὶ τέλει τοῦ δευτέρου ὑπομνήματος τῶν πρὸς τὴν Ἐρατοσθένους γεωγραφίαν πεποιημένων, ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ φησὶ τὴν μὲν πλείω θεωρίαν ἔσεσθαι μαθηματικήν, ἐπὶ ποσὸν δὲ καὶ γεωγραφικήν· οὐδʼ ἐπὶ ποσὸν μέντοι δοκεῖ μοι ποιήσασθαι γεωγραφικήν, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν μαθηματικήν, διδόντος καὶ τοῦ Ἐρατοσθένους τὴν τοιαύτην πρόφασιν. πολλαχοῦ γὰρ ἐκπίπτει πρὸς τὸ ἐπιστημονικώτερον τῆς προκειμένης ἱστορίας, ἐκπεσὼν δὲ οὐκ ἀκριβεῖς ἀλλʼ ὁλοσχερεῖς ποιεῖται τὰς ἀποφάσεις, τρόπον τινὰ ἐν μὲν τοῖς γεωγραφικοῖς μαθηματικὸς ἐν δὲ τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς γεωγραφικὸς ὤν, ὥστε πρὸς ἄμφω δίδωσιν ἀφορμὰς τοῖς ἀντιλέγουσιν, ἐν δὲ τούτῳ τῷ ὑπομνήματι καὶ δικαίας καὶ οὗτος καὶ ὁ Τιμοσθένης, ὥστʼ οὐδʼ ἡμῖν καταλείπεται συνεπισκοπεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἀρκεῖσθαι τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἱππάρχου λεχθεῖσιν.
Since Hipparchus does not furnish a Geography of his own, but merely reviews what is said in that of Eratosthenes, he ought to have gone farther, and corrected the whole of that writer’s mistakes. As for ourselves, it is only in those particulars where Eratosthenes is correct (and we acknowledge that he frequently errs) that we have thought it our duty to quote his own words, in order to reinstate them in their position, and to defend him when he could be acquitted of the charges of Hipparchus; never failing to break a lance with the latter writer whenever his objections seemed to be the result of a mere propensity to find fault. But when Eratosthenes is grossly mistaken, and the animadversions of Hipparchus are just, we have thought it sufficient in our Geography to set him (Eratosthenes) right by merely stating facts as they are. As the mistakes were so continual and numerous, it was better not to mention them except in a sparse and general manner. This principle in the details we shall strive to carry out. In the present instance we shall only remark, that Timosthenes, Eratosthenes, and those who preceded them, were but ill acquainted with Iberia and Keltica, and a thousand times less with Germany, Britain, and the land of the Getae and Bastarnae. Their want of knowledge is also great in regard to Italy, the Adriatic, the Euxine, and the countries north of these. Possibly this last remark may be regarded as captious, since Eratosthenes states, that as to distant countries, he has merely given the admeasurements as he finds them supplied by others, without vouching for their accuracy, although he sometimes adds whether the route indicated is more or less in a right line. We should not therefore subject to a too rigorous examination distances as to which no one is agreed, after the manner Hipparchus does, both in regard to the places already mentioned, and also to those of which Eratosthenes has given the distance from Hyrcania to Bactria and the countries beyond, and those from Colchis to the Sea of Hyrcania. These are points where we should not scrutinize him so narrowly as [when he describes] places situated in the heart of our continent, or others equally well known; and even these should be regarded from a geographical rather than a geometrical point of view. Hipparchus, at the end of the second book of his Commentaries on the Geography of Eratosthenes, having found fault with certain statements relative to Ethiopia, tells us at the commencement of the third, that his strictures, though to a certain point geographical, will be mathematical for the most part. As for myself, I cannot find any geography there. To me it seems entirely mathematical; but Eratosthenes himself set the example; for he frequently runs into scientific speculations, having little to do with the subject in hand, and which result in vague and inexact conclusions. Thus he is a mathematician in geography, and in mathematics a geographer; and so lies open to the attacks of both parties. In this third book, both he and Timosthenes get such severe justice, that there seems nothing left for us to do; Hipparchus is quite enough.
Cite This Text