No More Learning

The two remaining
sides are contained by its mountains and the river [Indus], so that it
presents a kind of rectilinear figure. [552] As to Ariana, he considered
three of its sides well fitted to form a parallelogram; but of the
western side he could give no regular definition, as it was inhabited by
various nations; nevertheless he attempts an idea of it by a line drawn
from the Caspian Gates[553] to the limits of Carmania, which border on
the Persian Gulf. This side he calls western, and that next the Indus
eastern, but he does not tell us they are parallel to each other;
neither does he say this of the other sides, one bounded by the
mountains, and the other by the sea; he simply calls them north and
south.

23. Having in this manner but imperfectly traced the outlines of his
second section, the third section, for various reasons, is still less
exact. The first cause has been already explained, viz. that the line
from the Caspian Gates to Carmania is not clearly defined, as the side
of the section is common both to the third and second sections.
Secondly, on account of the Persian Gulf interrupting the continuity of
the southern side, as he himself tells us, he has been obliged to take
the measured road running through Susa and Persepolis to the boundaries
of Carmania and Persia, and suppose it straight. [554] This road, which
he calls the southern side, is a little more than 9000 stadia. He does
not, however, tell us, that it runs parallel to the northern side. It is
also clear that the Euphrates, which he makes the western boundary, is
any thing but a straight line. On leaving the mountains it flows south,
but soon shifts its course to the east; it then again pursues a
southerly direction till it reaches the sea. In fact, Eratosthenes
himself acknowledges the indirect course of this river, when he compares
the shape of Mesopotamia, which is formed by the junction of the Tigris
and Euphrates, to the cushion on a rower’s bench. The western side
bounded by the Euphrates is not entirely measured; for he tells us that
he does not know the extent of the portion between Armenia and the
northern mountains,[555] as it has not been measured. By reason of these
hinderances he states that he has been only able to give a very
superficial view of the third section, and that his estimate of the
distances is borrowed from various Itineraries, some of them, according
to his own description, anonymous. Hipparchus therefore must be
considered guilty of unfairness, for criticising with geometrical
precision a work of this general nature. We ought rather to be grateful
to a person who gives us any description at all of the character of such
[unknown] places. But when he urges his geometrical objections not
against any real statement of Eratosthenes, but merely against imaginary
hypotheses of his own creation, he shows too plainly the contradictory
bent of his mind.

24. It is in this general kind of description of the third section that
Eratosthenes supposes 10,000 stadia from the Caspian Gates to the
Euphrates. This he again divides according to former admeasurements
which he found preserved. Starting from the point where the Euphrates
passes near to Thapsacus, he computes from thence to the place where
Alexander crossed the Tigris 2400 stadia. The route thence through
Gaugamela,[556] the Lycus,[557] Arbela,[558] and Ecbatana,[559] whither
Darius fled from Gaugamela to the Caspian Gates, makes up the 10,000
stadia, which is only 300 stadia too much. Such is the measure of the
northern side given by Eratosthenes, which he could not have supposed to
be parallel to the mountains, nor yet to the line drawn from the Pillars
of Hercules through Athens and Rhodes. For Thapsacus is far removed from
the mountains, and the route from Thapsacus to the Caspian Gates only
falls in with the mountains at that point. [560] Such is the boundary on
the northern side.

25. Thus, says Eratosthenes, we have given you a description of the
northern side; as for the southern, we cannot take its measure along the
sea, on account of the Persian Gulf, which intercepts [its continuity],
but from Babylon through Susa and Persepolis to the confines of Persia
and Carmania there are 9200 stadia. This he calls the southern side, but
he does not say it is parallel to the northern. The difference of length
between the northern and southern sides is caused, he tells us, by the
Euphrates, which after running south some distance shifts its course
almost due east.

26. Of the two remaining sides, he describes the western first, but
whether we are to regard it as one single straight line, or two, seems
to be undecided. He says,—From Thapsacus to Babylon, following the
course of the Euphrates, there are 4800 stadia; from thence to the mouth
of the Euphrates[561] and the city of Teredon, 3000[562] more; from
Thapsacus northward to the Gates of Armenia, having been measured, is
stated to be 1100 stadia, but the distance through Gordyæa and Armenia,
not having yet been measured, is not given. The eastern side, which
stretches lengthwise through Persia from the Red Sea towards Media and
the north, does not appear to be less than 8000 stadia, and measured
from certain headlands above 9000, the rest of the distance through
Parætacena and Media to the Caspian Gates being 3000 stadia. The rivers
Tigris and Euphrates flowing from Armenia towards the south, after
having passed the Gordyæan mountains, and having formed a great circle
which embraces the vast country of Mesopotamia, turn towards the rising
of the sun in winter and the south, particularly the Euphrates, which,
continually approaching nearer and nearer to the Tigris, passes by the
rampart of Semiramis,[563] and at about 200 stadia from the village of
Opis,[564] thence it flows through Babylon, and so discharges itself
into the Persian Gulf. Thus the figure of Mesopotamia and Babylon
resembles the cushion of a rower’s bench. —Such are the words of
Eratosthenes.

27. In the Third Section it is true he does make some mistakes, which we
shall take into consideration; but they are nothing like the amount
which Hipparchus attributes to him. However, we will examine his
objections. [In the first place,] he would have the ancient charts left
just as they are, and by no means India brought more to the south, as
Eratosthenes thinks proper. Indeed, he asserts that the very arguments
adduced by that writer only confirm him the more in his opinion. He
says, “According to Eratosthenes, the northern side of the third section
is bounded by a line of 10,000 stadia drawn from the Caspian Gates to
the Euphrates, the southern side from Babylon to the confines of
Carmania is a little more than 9000 stadia. On the western side,
following the course of the Euphrates, from Thapsacus to Babylon there
are 4800 stadia, and thence to the outlets of the river 3000 stadia
more. Northward from Thapsacus [to the Gates of Armenia] is reckoned
1100 stadia; the rest has not been measured. Now since Eratosthenes says
that the northern side of this Third Section is about 10,000 stadia, and
that the right line parallel thereto drawn from Babylon to the eastern
side is computed at just above 9000 stadia, it follows that Babylon is
not much more than 1000 stadia east of the passage of [the Euphrates]
near Thapsacus. ”

28. We answer, that if the Caspian Gates and the boundary line of
Carmania and Persia were exactly under the same meridian, and if right
lines drawn in the direction of Thapsacus and Babylon would intersect
such meridian at right angles, the inference would be just. [565] For
then the line [from the common frontier of Carmania and Persia] to
Babylon, if produced to the meridian of Thapsacus, would appear to the
eye equal, or nearly equal, to that from the Caspian Gates to Thapsacus.
Consequently, Babylon would only be east of Thapsacus in the same
proportion as the line drawn from the Caspian Gates to Thapsacus exceeds
the line drawn from the frontier of Carmania to Babylon. [566]
Eratosthenes, however, does not tell us that the line which bounds the
western coast of Ariana follows the direction of the meridian; nor yet
that a line drawn from the Caspian Gates to Thapsacus would form right
angles with the meridian of the Caspian Gates. But rather, that the line
which would form right angles with the meridian, would be one which
should follow the course of the Taurus, and with which the line drawn
from the Caspian Gates to Thapsacus would form an acute angle. Nor,
again, does he ever say that a line drawn from Carmania to Babylon would
be parallel to that drawn [from the Caspian Gates] to Thapsacus; and
even if it were parallel, this would prove nothing for the argument of
Hipparchus, since it does not form right angles with the meridian of the
Caspian Gates.

29. But taking this for granted, and proving, as he imagines, that,
according to Eratosthenes, Babylon is east of Thapsacus rather more than
1000 stadia, he draws from this false hypothesis a new argument, which
he uses to the following purpose; and says, If we suppose a right line
drawn from Thapsacus towards the south, and another from Babylon
perpendicular thereto, a right-angled triangle would be the result;
whose sides should be, 1. A line drawn from Thapsacus to Babylon; 2. A
perpendicular drawn from Babylon to the meridian of Thapsacus; 3. The
meridian line of Thapsacus. The hypotenuse of this triangle would be a
right line drawn from Thapsacus to Babylon, which he estimates at 4800
stadia. The perpendicular drawn from Babylon to the meridian of
Thapsacus is scarcely more than 1000 stadia, the same amount by which
the line drawn [from the Caspian Gates] to Thapsacus exceeds that [from
the common frontier of Carmania and Persia] to Babylon. The two sides
[of the triangle] being given, Hipparchus proceeds to find the third,
which is much greater than the perpendicular[567] aforesaid. To this he
adds the line drawn from Thapsacus northwards to the mountains of
Armenia, one part of which, according to Eratosthenes, was measured, and
found to be 1100 stadia; the other, or part unmeasured by Eratosthenes,
Hipparchus estimates to be 1000 stadia at the least: so that the two
together amount to 2100 stadia. Adding this to the [length of the] side
upon which falls the perpendicular drawn from Babylon, Hipparchus
estimated a distance of many thousand stadia from the mountains of
Armenia and the parallel of Athens to this perpendicular, which falls on
the parallel of Babylon. [568] From the parallel of Athens[569] to that
of Babylon he shows that there cannot be a greater distance than 2400
stadia, even admitting the estimate supplied by Eratosthenes himself of
the number of stadia which the entire meridian contains;[570] and that
if this be so, the mountains of Armenia and the Taurus cannot be under
the same parallel of latitude as Athens, (which is the opinion of
Eratosthenes,) but many thousand stadia to the north, as the data
supplied by that writer himself prove.

But here, for the formation of his right-angled triangle, Hipparchus not
only makes use of propositions already overturned, but assumes what was
never granted, namely, that the hypotenuse subtending his right angle,
which is the straight line from Thapsacus to Babylon, is 4800 stadia in
length. What Eratosthenes says is, that this route follows the course of
the Euphrates, and adds, that Mesopotamia and Babylon are encompassed as
it were by a great circle formed by the Euphrates and Tigris, but
principally by the former of these rivers. So that a straight line from
Thapsacus to Babylon would neither follow the course of the Euphrates,
nor yet be near so many stadia in length. Thus the argument [of
Hipparchus] is overturned. We have stated before, that supposing two
lines drawn from the Caspian Gates, one to Thapsacus, and the other to
the mountains of Armenia opposite Thapsacus, and distant therefrom,
according to Hipparchus’s own estimate, 2100 stadia at the very least,
neither of them would be parallel to each other, nor yet to that line
which, passing through Babylon, is styled by Eratosthenes the southern
side [of the third section]. As he could not inform us of the exact
length of the route by the mountains, Eratosthenes tells us the distance
between Thapsacus and the Caspian Gates; in fact, to speak in a general
way, he puts this distance in place of the other; besides, as he merely
wanted to give the length of the territory between Ariana and the
Euphrates, he was not particular to have the exact measure of either
route. To pretend that he considered the lines to be parallel to each
other, is evidently to accuse the man of more than childish ignorance,
and we dismiss the insinuation as nonsense forthwith.

30. There, however, are some instances in which one may justly accuse
Eratosthenes. There is a difference in dissecting _limb by limb_, or
merely cutting off _portions_ [indiscriminately], (for in the former you
may only separate parts having a natural outline, and distinguished by a
regular form; this the poet alludes to in the expression,

“Cutting them limb from limb;”[571]

whereas in regard to the latter this is not the case,) and we may adopt
with propriety either one or other of these plans according to the time
and necessity. So in Geography, if you enter into every detail, you may
sometimes be compelled to divide your territories into _portions_, so to
speak, but it is a more preferable way to separate them into limbs, than
into such chance pieces; for thus only you can define accurately
particular _points and boundaries_, a thing so necessary to the
geographer. When it can be done, the best way to define a country is by
the rivers, mountains, or sea; also, where possible, by the nation or
nations [who inhabit it], and by its size and configuration. However, in
default of a geometrical definition, a simple and general description
may be said always to answer the purpose. In regard to size, it is
sufficient to state the greatest length and breadth; for example, that
the habitable earth is 70,000 stadia long, and that its breadth is
scarcely half its length. [572] And as to form, to compare a country to
any geometrical or other well-known figure. For example, Sicily to a
triangle, Spain to an ox-hide, or the Peloponnesus to a plane-leaf. [573]
The larger the territory to be divided, the more general also ought its
divisions to be.

31. [In the system of Eratosthenes], the habitable earth has been
admirably divided into two parts by the Taurus and the Mediterranean
Sea, which reaches to the Pillars. On the southern side, the limits of
India have been described by a variety of methods; by its
mountains,[574] its river,[575] its seas,[576] and its name,[577] which
seems to indicate that it is inhabited only by one people. [578] It is
with justice too that he attributes to it the form of a quadrilateral or
rhomboid. Ariana is not so accurately described, on account of its
western side being interwoven with the adjacent land. Still it is pretty
well distinguished by its three other sides, which are formed by three
nearly straight lines, and also by its name, which shows it to be only
one nation. [579] As to the Third Section of Eratosthenes, it cannot be
considered to be defined or circumscribed at all; for that side of it
which is common to Ariana is but ill defined, as before remarked. The
southern side, too, is most negligently taken: it is, in fact, no
boundary to the section at all, for it passes right through its centre,
leaving entirely outside of it many of the southern portions. Nor yet
does it represent the greatest length of the section, for the northern
side is the longest. [580] Nor, lastly, can the Euphrates be its western
boundary, not even if it flowed in a right line, since its two
extremes[581] do not lie under the same meridian. How then is it the
western rather than the southern boundary? Apart from this, the distance
to the Seas of Cilicia and Syria is so inconsiderable, that there can be
no reason why he should not have enlarged the third section, so as to
include the kingdoms of Semiramis and Ninus, who are both of them known
as Syrian monarchs; the first built Babylon, which he made his royal
residence; the second Ninus,[582] the capital of Syria;[583] and the
same dialect still exists on both sides of the Euphrates. The idea of
thus dismembering so renowned a nation, and allotting its portions to
strange nations with which it had no connexion, is as peculiarly
unfortunate. Eratosthenes cannot plead that he was compelled to do this
on account of its size, for had it extended as far as the sea and the
frontiers of Arabia Felix and Egypt, even then it would not have been as
large as India, or even Ariana. It would have therefore been much better
to have enlarged the third section, making it comprehend the whole space
as far as the Sea of Syria; but if this were done, the southern side
would not be as he represents it, nor yet in a straight line, but
starting from Carmania would follow the right side of the sea-shore from
the Persian Gulf to the mouth of the Euphrates; it would then approach
the limits of Mesene[584] and Babylon, where the Isthmus commences which
separates Arabia Felix from the rest of the continent. Traversing the
Isthmus, it would continue its course to the recess of the Arabian Gulf
and Pelusium,[585] thence to the mouth of the Nile at Canopus. [586] Such
would be the southern side. The west would be traced by the sea-shore
from the [river’s] mouth at Canopus to Cilicia. [587]

32. The fourth section would consist of Arabia Felix, the Arabian Gulf,
and the whole of Egypt and Ethiopia. Its length bounded by two
meridians, one drawn through its most western point, the other through
its most eastern; and its breadth by two parallels through its most
northern and southern points. For this is the best way to describe the
extent of irregular figures, whose length and breadth cannot be
determined by their sides.

In general it is to be observed, that length and breadth are to be
understood in different ways, according as you speak of the whole or a
part. Of a whole, the greater distance is called its length, and the
lesser its breadth; of a part, that is to be considered the length which
is parallel to the length of the whole, without any regard whether it,
or that which is left for the breadth, be the greater distance. The
length of the whole habitable earth is measured from east to west by a
line drawn parallel to the equator, and its breadth from north to south
in the direction of the meridian; consequently, the length of any of the
parts ought to be portions of a line drawn parallel to the length of the
whole, and their breadth to the breadth of the whole. For, in the first
place, by this means the size of the whole habitable earth will be best
described; and secondly, the disposition and configuration of its parts,
and the manner in which one may be said to be greater or less than
another, will be made manifest by thus comparing them.

33. Eratosthenes, however, measures the length of the habitable earth by
a line which he considers straight, drawn from the Pillars of Hercules,
in the direction of the Caspian Gates and the Caucasus. The length of
the third section, by a line drawn from the Caspian Gates to Thapsacus,
and of the fourth, by one running from Thapsacus through Heroopolis to
the country surrounded by the Nile: this must necessarily be deflected
to Canopus and Alexandria, for there is the last mouth of the Nile,
which goes by the name of the Canopic[588] or Heracleotic mouth. Whether
therefore these two lengths be considered to form one straight line, or
to make an angle with Thapsacus, certain it is that neither of them is
parallel to the length of the habitable earth; this is evident from what
Eratosthenes has himself said concerning them. According to him the
length of the habitable earth is described by a right line running
through the Taurus to the Pillars of Hercules, in the direction of the
Caucasus, Rhodes, and Athens. From Rhodes to Alexandria, following the
meridian of the two cities, he says there cannot be much less than 4000
stadia,[589] consequently there must be the same difference between the
latitudes of Rhodes and Alexandria. Now the latitude of Heroopolis is
about the same as Alexandria, or rather more south. So that a line,
whether straight or broken, which intersects the parallel of Heroopolis,
Rhodes, or the Gates of the Caspian, cannot be parallel to either of
these. These lengths therefore are not properly indicated, nor are the
northern sections any better.

34. We will now return at once to Hipparchus, and see what comes next.
Continuing to palm assumptions of his own [upon Eratosthenes], he goes
on to refute, with geometrical accuracy, statements which that author
had made in a mere general way. “Eratosthenes,” he says, “estimates that
there are 6700 stadia between Babylon and the Caspian Gates, and from
Babylon to the frontiers of Carmania and Persia above 9000 stadia; this
he supposes to lie in a direct line towards the equinoctial rising,[590]
and perpendicular to the common side of his second and third sections.
Thus, according to his plan, we should have a right-angled triangle,
with the right angle next to the frontiers of Carmania, and its
hypotenuse less than one of the sides about the right angle!
Consequently Persia should be included in the second section. ”[591]

To this we reply, that the line drawn from Babylon to Carmania was
never intended as a parallel, nor yet that which divides the two
sections as a meridian, and that therefore nothing has been laid to his
charge, at all events with any just foundation. In fact, Eratosthenes
having stated the number of stadia from the Caspian Gates to Babylon as
above given,[592] [from the Caspian Gates] to Susa 4900 stadia, and from
Babylon [to Susa] 3400 stadia, Hipparchus runs away from his former
hypothesis, and says that [by drawing lines from] the Caspian Gates,
Susa, and Babylon, an obtuse-angled triangle would be the result, whose
sides should be of the length laid down, and of which Susa would form
the obtuse angle. He then argues, that “according to these premises, the
meridian drawn from the Gates of the Caspian will intersect the parallel
of Babylon and Susa 4400 stadia more to the west, than would a straight
line drawn from the Caspian to the confines of Carmania and Persia; and
that this last line, forming with the meridian of the Caspian Gates half
a right angle, would lie exactly in a direction midway between the south
and the equinoctial rising. Now as the course of the Indus is parallel
to this line, it cannot flow south on its descent from the mountains, as
Eratosthenes asserts, but in a direction lying between the south and the
equinoctial rising, as laid down in the ancient charts. ” But who is
there who will admit this to be an obtuse-angled triangle, without also
admitting that it contains a right angle? Who will agree that the line
from Babylon to Susa, which forms one side of this obtuse-angled
triangle, lies parallel, without admitting the same of the whole line as
far as Carmania? or that the line drawn from the Caspian Gates to the
frontiers of Carmania is parallel to the Indus? Nevertheless, without
this the reasoning [of Hipparchus] is worth nothing.

“Eratosthenes himself also states,” [continues Hipparchus,[593]] “that
the form of India is rhomboidal; and since the whole eastern border of
that country has a decided tendency towards the east, but more
particularly the extremest cape,[594] which lies more to the south than
any other part of the coast, the side next the Indus must be the same. ”

35. These arguments may be very geometrical, but they are not
convincing. After having himself invented these various difficulties, he
dismisses them, saying, “Had [Eratosthenes] been chargeable for small
distances only, he might have been excused; but since his mistakes
involve thousands of stadia, we cannot pardon him, more especially since
he has laid it down that at a mere distance of 400 stadia,[595] such as
that between the parallels of Athens and Rhodes, there is a sensible
variation [of latitude]. ” But these sensible variations are not all of
the same kind, the distance [involved therein] being in some instances
greater, in others less; greater, when for our estimate of the climata
we trust merely to the eye, or are guided by the vegetable productions
and the temperature of the air; less, when we employ gnomons and
dioptric instruments. Nothing is more likely than that if you measure
the parallel of Athens, or that of Rhodes and Caria, by means of a
gnomon, the difference resulting from so many stadia[596] will be
sensible. But when a geographer, in order to trace a line from west to
east, 3000 stadia broad, makes use of a chain of mountains 40,000 stadia
long, and also of a sea which extends still farther 30,000 stadia, and
farther wishing to point out the situation of the different parts of the
habitable earth relative to this line, calls some southern, others
northern, and finally lays out what he calls the sections, each section
consisting of divers countries, then we ought carefully to examine in
what acceptation he uses his terms; in what sense he says that such a
side [of any section] is the north side, and what other is the south, or
east, or west side. If he does not take pains to avoid great errors, he
deserves to be blamed, but should he be guilty merely of trifling
inaccuracies, he should be forgiven. But here nothing shows thoroughly
that Eratosthenes has committed either serious or slight errors, for on
one hand what he may have said concerning such great distances, can
never be verified by a geometrical test, and on the other, his accuser,
while endeavouring to reason like a geometrician, does not found his
arguments on any real data, but on gratuitous suppositions.

36. The fourth section Hipparchus certainly manages better, though he
still maintains the same censorious tone, and obstinacy in sticking to
his first hypotheses, or others similar. He properly objects to
Eratosthenes giving as the length of this section a line drawn from
Thapsacus to Egypt, as being similar to the case of a man who should
tell us that the diagonal of a parallelogram was its length. For
Thapsacus and the coasts of Egypt are by no means under the same
parallel of latitude, but under parallels considerably distant from each
other,[597] and a line drawn from Thapsacus to Egypt would lie in a kind
of diagonal or oblique direction between them. But he is wrong when he
expresses his surprise that Eratosthenes should dare to state the
distance between Pelusium and Thapsacus at 6000 stadia, when he says
there are above 8000. In proof of this he advances that the parallel of
Pelusium is south of that of Babylon by more than 2500 stadia, and that
according to Eratosthenes (as he supposes) the latitude of Thapsacus is
above 4800 stadia north of that of Babylon; from which Hipparchus tells
us it results that [between Thapsacus and Pelusium] there are more than
8000 stadia. But I would inquire how he can prove that Eratosthenes
supposed so great a distance between the parallels of Babylon and
Thapsacus? He says, indeed, that such is the distance from Thapsacus to
Babylon, but not that there is this distance between their parallels,
nor yet that Thapsacus and Babylon are under the same meridian. So much
the contrary, that Hipparchus has himself pointed out, that, according
to Eratosthenes, Babylon ought to be east of Thapsacus more than 2000
stadia. We have before cited the statement of Eratosthenes, that
Mesopotamia and Babylon are encircled by the Tigris and Euphrates, and
that the greater portion of the Circle is formed by this latter river,
which flowing north and south takes a turn to the east, and then,
returning to a southerly direction, discharges itself [into the sea].
So long as it flows from north to south, it may be said to follow a
southerly direction; but the turning towards the east and Babylon is a
decided deviation from the southerly direction, and it never recovers a
straight course, but forms the circuit we have mentioned above. When he
tells us that the journey from Babylon to Thapsacus is 4800 stadia, he
adds, following the course of the Euphrates, as if on purpose lest any
one should understand such to be the distance in a direct line, or
between the two parallels. If this be not granted, it is altogether a
vain attempt to show that if a right-angled triangle were constructed by
lines drawn from Pelusium and Thapsacus to the point where the parallel
of Thapsacus intercepts the meridian of Pelusium, that one of the lines
which form the right angle, and is in the direction of the meridian,
would be longer than that forming the hypotenuse drawn from Thapsacus to
Pelusium. [598] Worthless, too, is the argument in connexion with this,
being the inference from a proposition not admitted; for Eratosthenes
never asserts that from Babylon to the meridian of the Caspian Gates is
a distance of 4800 stadia. We have shown that Hipparchus deduces this
from data not admitted by Eratosthenes; but desirous to controvert every
thing advanced by that writer, he assumes that from Babylon to the line
drawn from the Caspian Gates to the mountains of Carmania, according to
Eratosthenes’ description, there are above 9000 stadia, and from thence
draws his conclusions.

37. Eratosthenes[599] cannot, therefore, be found fault with on these
grounds; what may be objected against him is as follows. When you wish
to give a general outline of size and configuration, you should devise
for yourself some rule which may be adhered to more or less. After
having laid down that the breadth of the space occupied by the mountains
which run in a direction due east, as well as by the sea which reaches
to the Pillars of Hercules, is 3000 stadia, would you pretend to
estimate different lines, which you may draw within the breadth of that
space, as one and the same line? We should be more willing to grant you
the power of doing so with respect to the lines which run parallel to
that space than with those which fall upon it; and among these latter,
rather with respect to those which fall within it than to those which
extend without it; and also rather for those which, in regard to the
shortness of their extent, would not pass out of the said space than for
those which would. And again, rather for lines of some considerable
length than for any thing very short, for the inequality of lengths is
less perceptible in great extents than the difference of configuration.
For example, if you give 3000 stadia for the breadth at the Taurus, as
well as for the sea which extends to the Pillars of Hercules, you will
form a parallelogram entirely enclosing both the mountains of the Taurus
and the sea; if you divide it in its length into several other
parallelograms, and draw first the diagonal of the great parallelogram,
and next that of each smaller parallelogram, surely the diagonal of the
great parallelogram will be regarded as a line more nearly parallel and
equal to the side forming the length of that figure than the diagonal of
any of the smaller parallelograms: and the more your lesser
parallelograms should be multiplied, the more will this become evident.
Certainly, it is in great figures that the obliquity of the diagonal and
its difference from the side forming the length are the less
perceptible, so that you would have but little scruple in taking the
diagonal as the length of the figure. But if you draw the diagonal more
inclined, so that it falls beyond both sides, or at least beyond one of
the sides, then will this no longer be the case; and this is the sense
in which we have observed, that when you attempted to draw even in a
very general way the extents of the figures, you ought to adopt some
rule. But Eratosthenes takes a line from the Caspian Gates along the
mountains, running as it were in the same parallel as far as the
Pillars, and then a second line, starting directly from the mountains to
touch Thapsacus; and again a third line from Thapsacus to the frontiers
of Egypt, occupying so great a breadth. If then in proceeding you give
the length of the two last lines [taken together] as the measure of the
length of the district, you will appear to measure the length of one of
your parallelograms by its diagonal. And if, farther, this diagonal
should consist of a broken line, as that would be which stretches from
the Caspian Gates to the embouchure of the Nile, passing by Thapsacus,
your error will appear much greater. This is the sum of what may be
alleged against Eratosthenes.

38. 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.

39. 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,[600] and the Cyaneæ,[601] are under the same meridian, which is
distant from that of Thapsacus 6300 stadia. Now from the Cyaneæ to Mount
Caspius, which is situated close to the defile[602] leading from Colchis
to the Caspian Sea, there are 6600 stadia,[603] so that, with the
exception of about 300 stadia, the distance from the meridian of the
Cyaneæ 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. [604] 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,[605] 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 Cyaneæ to the Phasis are 5600 stadia, and
from the Phasis to the Caspius 1000 more. [606] Therefore 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. [607]

40. 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,[608] 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. [609]
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[610] is as much a
promontory as Laconia, and not very much less south than Malea,[611]
forming a considerable bay,[612] and the Thracian Chersonesus[613] and
Sunium[614] form the Gulf of Melas,[615] and likewise those of
Macedonia. [616] 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[617] to the Thermaic Gulf[618] is
above 2000 stadia; Eratosthenes gives it at 900. So too he states the
distance from Alexandria to Carthage at 13,000[619] 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,[620] and the Strait of
Messina under the same as Carthage,[621] 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;[622] 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.

41. 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,[623]
and a thousand times less with Germany, Britain, and the land of the
Getæ and Bastarnæ. [624] 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,[625] 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.




CHAPTER II.


1. We will now proceed to examine the statements made by Posidonius in
his Treatise on the Ocean. This Treatise contains much geographical
information, sometimes given in a manner conformable to the subject, at
others too mathematical. It will not, therefore, be amiss to look into
some of his statements, both now and afterwards, as opportunity occurs,
taking care to confine ourselves within bounds. He deals simply with
geography, when he tells us that the earth is spheroidal and the
universe too, and admits the necessary consequences of this hypothesis,
one of which is, that the earth contains five zones.

2. Posidonius informs us that Parmenides was the first to make this
division of the earth into five zones, but that he almost doubled the
size of the torrid zone, which is situated between the tropics, by
bringing it beyond these into the temperate zones. [626] But according to
Aristotle the torrid zone is contained between the tropics, the
temperate zones occupying the whole space between the tropics and the
arctic circles. [627] Both of these divisions Posidonius justly condemns,
for the torrid zone is properly the space rendered uninhabitable by the
heat. Whereas more than half of the space between the tropics is
inhabited, as we may judge by the Ethiopians who dwell above Egypt. The
equator divides the whole of this space into two equal parts. Now from
Syene, which is the limit of the summer tropic, to Meroe, there are
5000 stadia, and thence to the parallel of the Cinnamon region, where
the torrid zone commences, 3000 stadia. The whole of this distance has
been measured, and it may be gone over either by sea or land; the
remaining portion to the equator is, if we adopt the measure of the
earth supplied by Eratosthenes, 8800 stadia. Therefore, as 16,800 is to
8800, so is the space comprised between the tropics to the breadth of
the torrid zone.

If of the more recent measurements we prefer those which diminish the
size of the earth, such as that adopted by Posidonius, which is about
180,000 stadia,[628] the torrid zone will still only occupy half, or
rather more than half, of the space comprised between the tropics; but
never an equal space. [Respecting the system of Aristotle, Posidonius
farther says,] “Since it is not every latitude which has Arctic
Circles,[629] and even those which do possess them have not the same,
how can any one determine by them the bounds of the temperate zones,
which are immutable? ” Nothing however is proved [against Aristotle] from
the fact that there are not Arctic Circles for every latitude, since
they exist for all the inhabitants of the temperate zone, on whose
account alone the zone receives its name of temperate. But the objection
that the Arctic Circles do not remain the same for every latitude, but
shift their places, is excellent. [630]

3. Posidonius, who himself divides the earth into zones, tells us that
“five is the number best suited for the explanation of the celestial
appearances, two of these are periscii,[631] which reach from the poles
to the point where the tropics serve for Arctic Circles; two more are
heteroscii,[632] which extend from the former to the inhabitants of the
tropics, and one between the tropics, which is called amphiscius,[633]
but for matters relative to the earth, it is convenient to suppose two
other narrow zones placed under the tropics, and divided by them into
two halves, over which [every year] for the space of a fortnight, the
sun is vertical. ”[634] These zones are remarkable for being extremely
arid and sandy, producing no vegetation with the exception of
silphium,[635] and a parched grain somewhat resembling wheat. This is
caused by there being no mountains to attract the clouds and produce
rain, nor any rivers flowing[636] through the country. The consequence
is that the various species[637] are born with woolly hair, crumpled
horns, protruding lips, and wide nostrils; their extremities being as it
were gnarled. Within these zones also dwell the Ichthyophagi. [638] He
further remarks, that these peculiarities are quite sufficient to
distinguish the zones in question: those which are farther south having
a more salubrious atmosphere, and being more fruitful and better
supplied with water.




CHAPTER III.


1. Polybius supposes six zones: two situated between the poles and the
arctic circles; two between the arctic circles and the tropics; and two
between the tropics which are divided by the equator. However, it
appears to me that the division into five zones accords best both with
the order of external nature and geography. With external nature, as
respects the celestial phenomena, and the temperature of the atmosphere.
With respect to the celestial phenomena, as the Periscii and Amphiscii
are thereby divided in the best possible manner, and it also forms an
excellent line of separation in regard to those who behold the stars
from an opposite point of view. [639] With respect to the temperature of
the atmosphere, inasmuch as looked at in connexion with the sun, there
are three main divisions, which influence in a remarkable degree both
plants, animals, and every other animated thing, existing either in the
air, or exposed to it, namely, excess of heat, want of heat, and a
moderate supply of heat. In the division into [five] zones, each of
these is correctly distinguished. The two frigid zones indicate the want
of heat, being alike in the temperature of their atmosphere; the
temperate zones possess a moderate heat, and the remaining, or torrid
zone, is remarkable for its excess of heat.

The propriety of this division in regard to geography is equally
apparent; the object of this science being to determine the limits of
that one of the temperate zones which we inhabit. To the east and west,
it is true, the boundaries are formed by the sea, but to the north and
south they are indicated by the atmosphere; which in the middle is of a
grateful temperature both to animals and plants, but on either side is
rendered intemperate either through excess or defect of heat. To
manifest this threefold difference, the division of the globe into five
zones becomes necessary. In fact, the division of the globe, by means of
the equator, into two hemispheres, the one northern, wherein we dwell,
and the other southern, points to this threefold division, for the
regions next the equator and torrid zone are uninhabitable on account of
the heat, those next the poles on account of the cold, but those in the
middle are mild, and fitted for the habitation of man.

Posidonius, in placing two zones under the tropics, pays no regard to
the reasons which influenced the division into five zones, nor is his
division equally appropriate. It is no more than if he were to form his
division into zones merely according to the [countries inhabited] by
different nations, calling one the Ethiopian, another the Scythian and
Keltic,[640] and a third the Intermediate zone.

2. Polybius, indeed, is wrong in bounding certain of his zones by the
arctic circles,[641] namely, the two which lie under them, and the two
between these and the tropics. The impropriety of using shifting points
to mark the limits of those which are fixed has been remarked before;
and we have likewise objected to the plan of making the tropics the
boundary of the torrid zone. However, in dividing the torrid zone into
two parts [Polybius] seems to have been influenced by no inconsiderable
reason, the same which led us to regard the whole earth as properly
divided by the equator into two hemispheres, north and south. We at once
see that by means of this division the torrid zone is divided into two
parts, thus establishing a kind of uniformity; each hemisphere
consisting of three entire zones, respectively similar to each other.
Thus this partition[642] will admit of a division into six zones, but
the other does not allow of it at all. Supposing you cut the earth into
two portions by a line drawn through the poles, you can find no
sufficient cause for dividing the eastern and western hemispheres into
six zones; on the other hand, five would be preferable. For since both
the portions of the torrid zone, divided by the equator, are similar and
contiguous to each other, it would seem out of place and superfluous to
separate them; whereas the temperate and frigid zones respectively
resemble each other, although lying apart. Wherefore, supposing the
whole earth to consist of these two hemispheres, it is sufficient to
divide them into five zones. If there be a temperate region under the
equator, as Eratosthenes asserts, and is admitted by Polybius, (who
adds, that it is the most elevated part of the earth,[643] and
consequently subject to the drenching rains occasioned by the monsoons
bringing up from the north innumerable clouds, which discharge
themselves on the highest lands,) it would be better to suppose this a
third narrow temperate zone, than to extend the two temperate zones
within the circles of the tropics. This supposition is supported by the
statements of Posidonius, that the course of the sun, whether in the
ecliptic, or from east to west, appears most rapid in the region [of
which we are speaking], because the rotations of that luminary are
performed with a speed increased in proportion to the greater size of
the circle. [644]

3. Posidonius blames Polybius for asserting that the region of the
earth, situated under the equator, is the highest, since a spherical
body being equal all round, no part can be described as high; and as to
mountainous districts, there are none under the equator, it is on the
contrary a flat country, about the same level as the sea; as for the
rains which swell the Nile, they descend from the mountains of Ethiopia.
Although advancing this, he afterwards seems to adopt the other opinion,
for he says that he fancies there may be mountains under the equator,
around which the clouds assembling from both of the temperate zones,
produce violent rains. Here is one manifest contradiction; again, in
stating that the land under the equator is mountainous, another
contradiction appears. For they say that the ocean is confluent, how
then can they place mountains in the midst of it? unless they mean to
say that there are islands. However, whether such be the fact does not
lie within the province of geography to determine, the inquiry would
better be left to him who makes the ocean in particular his study.

4. Posidonius, in speaking of those who have sailed round Africa, tells
us that Herodotus was of opinion that some of those sent out by Darius
actually performed this enterprise;[645] and that Heraclides of Pontus,
in a certain dialogue, introduces one of the Magi presenting himself to
Gelon,[646] and declaring that he had performed this voyage; but he
remarks that this wants proof. He also narrates how a certain Eudoxus of
Cyzicus,[647] sent with sacrifices and oblations to the Corean
games,[648] travelled into Egypt in the reign of Euergetes II. ;[649] and
being a learned man, and much interested in the peculiarities of
different countries, he made interest with the king and his ministers on
the subject, but especially for exploring the Nile. It chanced that a
certain Indian was brought to the king by the [coast]-guard of the
Arabian Gulf. They reported that they had found him in a ship, alone,
and half dead: but that they neither knew who he was, nor where he came
from, as he spoke a language they could not understand. He was placed in
the hands of preceptors appointed to teach him the Greek language. On
acquiring which, he related how he had started from the coasts of India,
but lost his course, and reached Egypt alone, all his companions having
perished with hunger; but that if he were restored to his country he
would point out to those sent with him by the king, the route by sea to
India. Eudoxus was of the number thus sent. He set sail with a good
supply of presents, and brought back with him in exchange aromatics and
precious stones, some of which the Indians collect from amongst the
pebbles of the rivers, others they dig out of the earth, where they have
been formed by the moisture, as crystals are formed with us. [650]

[He fancied that he had made his fortune], however, he was greatly
deceived, for Euergetes took possession of the whole treasure. On the
death of that prince, his widow, Cleopatra,[651] assumed the reins of
government, and Eudoxus was again despatched with a richer cargo than
before. On his journey back, he was carried by the winds above
Ethiopia, and being thrown on certain [unknown] regions, he conciliated
the inhabitants by presents of grain, wine, and cakes of pressed figs,
articles which they were without; receiving in exchange a supply of
water, and guides for the journey. He also wrote down several words of
their language, and having found the end of a prow, with a horse carved
on it, which he was told formed part of the wreck of a vessel coming
from the west, he took it with him, and proceeded on his homeward
course. He arrived safely in Egypt, where no longer Cleopatra, but her
son,[652] ruled; but he was again stripped of every thing on the
accusation of having appropriated to his own uses a large portion of the
merchandise sent out.

However, he carried the prow into the market-place, and exhibited it to
the pilots, who recognised it as being come from Gades. [653] The
merchants [of that place] employing large vessels, but the lesser
traders small ships, which they style horses, from the figures of that
animal borne on the prow, and in which they go out fishing around
Maurusia,[654] as far as the Lixus. [655] Some of the pilots professed to
recognise the prow as that of a vessel which had sailed beyond the river
Lixus, but had not returned. [656]

From this Eudoxus drew the conclusion, that it was possible to
circumnavigate Libya; he therefore returned home, and having collected
together the whole of his substance, set out on his travels. First he
visited Dicæarchia,[657] and then Marseilles, and afterwards traversed
the whole coast as far as Gades. Declaring his enterprise everywhere as
he journeyed, he gathered money sufficient to equip a great ship, and
two boats, resembling those used by pirates. On board these he placed
singing girls, physicians, and artisans of various kinds, and launching
into open sea, was carried towards India by steady westerly winds. [658]
However, they who accompanied him becoming wearied with the voyage,
steered their course towards land, but much against his will, as he
dreaded the force of the ebb and flow. What he feared actually occurred.
The ship grounded, but gently, so that it did not break up at once, but
fell to pieces gradually, the goods and much of the timber of the ship
being saved. With these he built a third vessel, closely resembling a
ship of fifty oars, and continuing his voyage, came amongst a people who
spoke the same language as that some words of which he had on a former
occasion committed to writing. He further discovered, that they were men
of the same stock as those other Ethiopians, and also resembled those of
the kingdom of Bogus. [659] However, he abandoned his [intended] voyage
to India, and returned home. On his voyage back he observed an
uninhabited island, well watered and wooded, and carefully noted its
position. Having reached Maurusia in safety, he disposed of his vessels,
and travelled by land to the court of Bogus. He recommended that
sovereign to undertake an expedition thither.

This, however, was prevented on account of the fear of the [king’s]
advisers, lest the district should chance to expose them to treachery,
by making known a route by which foreigners might come to attack them.
Eudoxus, however, became aware, that although it was given out that he
was himself to be sent on this proposed expedition, the real intent was
to abandon him on some desert island. He therefore fled to the Roman
territory, and passed thence into Iberia. Again, he equipped two
vessels, one round and the other long, furnished with fifty oars, the
latter framed for voyaging in the high seas, the other for coasting
along the shores. He placed on board agricultural implements, seed, and
builders, and hastened on the same voyage, determined, if it should
prove too long, to winter on the island he had before observed, sow his
seed, and having reaped the harvest, complete the expedition he had
intended from the beginning.

5. “Thus far,” says Posidonius, “I have followed the history of Eudoxus.
What happened afterwards is probably known to the people of Gades and
Iberia;” “but,” says he, “all these things only demonstrate more clearly
the fact, that the inhabited earth is entirely surrounded by the ocean. ”

“By no continent fettered in,
But boundless in its flow, and free from soil. ”

Posidonius is certainly a most strange writer; he considers that the
voyage of the Magus,[660] related by Heraclides, wants sufficient
evidence, and also the account given by Herodotus of those sent out [to
explore] by Darius. But this Bergæan[661] nonsense, either the coinage
of his own brain, or of some other story-teller, in whom he trusts, he
pretends to be worthy of our belief. But in the first place, what is
there credible in this tale of the Indian missing his way? The Arabian
Gulf, which resembles a river, is narrow, and in length is from 5000 to
10,000 stadia up to its mouth, where it is narrowest of all. It is not
likely that the Indians in their voyage out would have entered this Gulf
by mistake. The extreme narrowness of the mouth must have warned them of
their error. And if they entered it voluntarily, then there was no
excuse for introducing the pretext of mistake and uncertain winds. And
how did they suffer all of themselves but one to perish through hunger?
And how was it that this surviver was able to manage the ship, which
could not have been a small one either, fitted as it was for traversing
such vast seas? What must have been his aptitude in learning the
language of the country, and thus being able to persuade the king of his
competence, as leader of the expedition? And how came it that Euergetes
was in want of such guides, so many being already acquainted with this
sea? How was it that he who was sent by the inhabitants of Cyzicus to
carry libations and sacrifices, should forsake his city and sail for
India? How was it that so great an affair was intrusted to him? And how
came it that on his return, after being deprived of every thing contrary
to expectation, and disgraced, a yet larger cargo of goods was intrusted
to him? And when he had again returned into Ethiopia, what cause induced
him to write down the words, or to inquire whence came the portion of
the prow of the boat? For to learn that it was a ship of some sailing
from the west, would have been no information to him, as he himself
would have to sail from the west on his voyage back. When, on his return
to Alexandria, he was detected in having appropriated to himself much of
the merchandise, how came it that he was not punished, but allowed to go
about interrogating the pilots, and exhibiting his bit of prow? And that
one of these fellows actually recognised the relic, is it not delicious!
Eudoxus too believed it, this is still richer; and inspired by the hope,
hastens home, and then starts on a voyage beyond the Pillars of
Hercules! But he could never have left Alexandria without a passport,
still less after having stolen the royal property. To set sail on the
sly was impossible, as the port and every other exit was kept by a
numerous guard, which still exists, as we very well know who have lived
in Alexandria for a long time, although it is not so strict since the
Romans have had possession, but under the kings the guards were
infinitely more alert. But allowing that he reached Gades, that he there
constructed ships, and sailed thence with quite a royal fleet, when his
vessel was shattered, by what means was he able to construct a third
boat in a desert land? And when, being again on his voyage, he found
that the Ethiopians of the West spoke the same language as those of the
East, how came it that he, so proud of his travelling propensities,
forgot the completion of his voyage, when he must have had so good an
expectation that there was but little now left unexplored, but
relinquishing these prospects, set his mind on the expedition being
undertaken by Bogus? How did he become acquainted with the snare spread
for him by that king? And what advantage would have accrued to Bogus by
making away with the man, rather than by dismissing him? When Eudoxus
learned the plot against himself, what means had he to escape to safer
quarters? It is true that not one of these situations was actually
impossible, but still they were difficult circumstances, such as one
rarely escapes from by any prosperous fortune. However, he always came
off with good luck, notwithstanding he was never out of danger. Besides
this, how did it happen, that having escaped from Bogus, he was not
afraid to sail round Africa a second time, with all the requisites for
taking up his abode on the island? All this too closely resembles the
falsehoods of Pytheas, Euhemerus, and Antiphanes. They however may be
pardoned; for their only aim was that of the juggler. But who can
forgive a demonstrator and philosopher, and one too striving to be at
the head of their order? it is really too bad!

6. 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. ”[662] 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. [663] 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.

7. 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 peculiarities 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
Lacedæmonians 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. ”[664]

[Crates], to support his hypothesis, supposes another inhabited earth,
of which Homer 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.

8. 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. ”[665]

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.




CHAPTER IV.


1. Polybius, in his Chorography of Europe, tells us that it is not his
intention to examine the writings of the ancient geographers, but the
statements of those who have criticised them, such as Dicæarchus,
Eratosthenes, (who was the last of those who [in his time] had laboured
on geography,) and Pytheas, by whom many have been deceived. It is this
last writer who states that he travelled all over Britain on foot, and
that the island is above 40,000 stadia in circumference. It is likewise
he who describes Thule and other neighbouring places, where, according
to him, neither earth, water, nor air exist, separately, but a sort of
concretion of all these, resembling marine sponge, in which the earth,
the sea, and all things were suspended, thus forming, as it were, a link
to unite the whole together. It can neither be travelled over nor sailed
through. As for the substance, he affirms that he has beheld it with his
own eyes; the rest, he reports on the authority of others. So much for
the statements of Pytheas, who tells us, besides, that after he had
returned thence, he traversed the whole coasts of Europe from Gades to
the Don.

2. Polybius asks, “How is it possible that a private individual, and one
too in narrow circumstances, could ever have performed such vast
expeditions by sea and land? And how could Eratosthenes, who hesitates
whether he may rely on his statements in general, place such entire
confidence in what that writer narrates concerning Britain, Gades, and
Iberia? ” says he, “it would have been better had Eratosthenes trusted to
the Messenian[666] rather than to this writer. The former merely
pretends to have sailed into one [unknown] country, viz. Panchæa, but
the latter, that he has visited the whole of the north of Europe as far
as the ends of the earth; which statement, even had it been made by
Mercury, we should not have believed. Nevertheless Eratosthenes, who
terms Euhemerus a Bergæan, gives credit to Pytheas, although even
Dicæarchus would not believe him. ”

This argument, “although even Dicæarchus would not believe him,” is
ridiculous, just as if Eratosthenes ought to take for his standard a
writer whom Polybius is himself for ever complaining of. [667]

The ignorance of Eratosthenes respecting the western and northern
portions of Europe, we have before remarked. But both he and Dicæarchus
must be pardoned for this, as neither of them were personally familiar
with those localities. But how can one excuse Polybius and Posidonius?
especially Polybius, who treats as mere hearsay what Eratosthenes and
Dicæarchus report concerning the distances of various places; and many
other matters, about which, though he blames them, he is not himself
free from error. Dicæarchus states that there are 10,000 stadia from the
Peloponnesus to the Pillars, and something above this number from the
Peloponnesus to the recess of the Adriatic. [668] He supposes 3000 stadia
between the Peloponnesus and the Strait of Sicily; thus there would
remain 7000 between the Strait of Sicily and the Pillars. [669]

“I will not inquire,” says Polybius, “whether the statement concerning
the 3000 stadia is correct or not, but 7000 stadia is not the correct
measure [from the Strait of Messina to the Pillars of Hercules], whether
taken along the sea-shore, or right across the sea. The coast closely
resembles an obtuse angle, one side reaching to the Strait of Sicily,
the other to the Pillars, the vertex being Narbonne. Now let a triangle
be constructed, having for its base a right line drawn through the sea,
and its sides forming the aforementioned angle. The side reaching from
the Strait of Sicily to Narbonne is above 11,200 stadia, while the other
is below 8000. Now the greatest distance from Europe to Libya, across
the Tyrrhenian Sea,[670] is not above 3000 stadia, and across the Sea of
Sardinia[671] it is less still.