No More Learning

He eagerly objects to the statement of
Neanthes of Cyzicus, that the Argonauts, when they sailed to the
Phasis,[280] founded at Cyzicus the temples of the Idæan Mother. [281]
Though their voyage is attested both by Homer and other writers, he
denies that Homer had any knowledge whatever of the departure of Jason
to the Phasis. In so doing, he not only contradicts the very words of
Homer, but even his own assertions. The poet informs us that Achilles,
having ravaged Lesbos[282] and other districts, spared Lemnos[283] and
the adjoining islands, on account of his relationship with Jason and his
son Euneos,[284] who then had possession of the island. How should he
know of a relationship, identity of race, or other connexion existing
between Achilles and Jason, which, after all, was nothing else than that
they were both Thessalians, one being of Iolcos,[285] the other of the
Achæan Pthiotis,[286] and yet was not aware how it happened that Jason,
who was a Thessalian of Iolcos, should leave no descendants in the land
of his nativity, but establish his son as ruler of Lemnos? Homer then
was familiar with the history of Pelias and the daughters of Pelias, of
Alcestis, who was the most charming of them all, and of her son

“Eumelus, whom Alcestis, praised
For beauty above all her sisters fair,
In Thessaly to king Admetus bore,”[287]

and was yet ignorant of all that befell Jason, and Argo, and the
Argonauts, matters on the actual occurrence of which all the world is
agreed. The tale then of their voyage in the ocean from Æeta, was a mere
fiction, for which he had no authority in history.

39. If, however, the expedition to the Phasis, fitted out by Pelias, its
return, and the conquest of several islands, have at the bottom any
truth whatever, as all say they have, so also has the account of their
wanderings, no less than those of Ulysses and Menelaus; monuments of the
actual occurrence of which remain to this day elsewhere than in the
writings of Homer. The city of Æa, close by the Phasis, is still pointed
out. Æetes is generally believed to have reigned in Colchis, the name is
still common throughout the country, tales of the sorceress Medea are
yet abroad, and the riches of the country in gold, silver, and iron,
proclaim the motive of Jason’s expedition, as well as of that which
Phrixus had formerly undertaken. Traces both of one and the other still
remain. Such is Phrixium,[288] midway between Colchis and Iberia, and
the Jasonia, or towns of Jason, which are every where met with in
Armenia, Media, and the surrounding countries. Many are the witnesses to
the reality of the expeditions of Jason and Phrixus at Sinope[289] and
its shore, at Propontis, at the Hellespont, and even at Lemnos. Of Jason
and his Colchian followers there are traces even as far as Crete,[290]
Italy, and the Adriatic. Callimachus himself alludes to it where he
says,

”[The temple of] Apollo and [the Isle of] Anaphe,[291]
Near to Laconian Thera. ”[292]

In the verses which commence,

“I sing how the heroes from Cytæan Æeta,
Return’d again to ancient Æmonia. ”[293]

And again concerning the Colchians, who,

“Ceasing to plough with oars the Illyrian Sea,[294]
Near to the tomb of fair Harmonia,
Who was transform’d into a dragon’s shape,
Founded their city, which a Greek would call
The Town of Fugitives, but in their tongue
Is Pola named. ”

Some writers assert that Jason and his companions sailed high up the
Ister, others say he sailed only so far as to be able to gain the
Adriatic: the first statement results altogether from ignorance; the
second, which supposes there is a second Ister having its source from
the larger river of the same name, and discharging its waters into the
Adriatic, is neither incredible nor even improbable. [295]

40. Starting from these premises, the poet, in conformity both with
general custom and his own practice, narrates some circumstances as they
actually occurred, and paints others in the colours of fiction. He
follows history when he tells us of Æetes and Jason also, when he talks
of Argo, and on the authority of [the actual city of Æa], feigns his
city of Ææa, when he settles Euneos in Lemnos, and makes that island
friendly to Achilles, and when, in imitation of Medea, he makes the
sorceress Circe

“Sister by birth of the all-wise Æetes,”[296]

he adds the fiction of the entrance of the Argonauts into the exterior
ocean as the sequel to their wanderings on their return home. Here,
supposing the previous statements admitted, the truth of the phrase “the
renowned Argo,”[297] is evident, since, in that case, the expedition
was directed to a populous and well-known country. But if, as
[Demetrius] of Skepsis asserts, on the authority of Mimnermus, Æetes
dwelt by the Ocean, and Jason was sent thither far east by Pelias, to
bring back the fleece, it neither seems probable that such an expedition
would have been undertaken into unknown and obscure countries after the
Fleece, nor could a voyage to lands desert, uninhabited, and so far
remote from us, be considered either glorious or renowned.

[Here follow the words of Demetrius. ]

“Nor as yet had Jason, having accomplished the arduous journey,
carried off the splendid fleece from Æa, fulfilling the dangerous
mission of the insolent Pelias, nor had they ploughed the
glorious wave of the ocean. ”

And again:

“The city of Æetes, where the rays of the swift sun recline on
their golden bed by the shore of the ocean, which the noble Jason
visited. ”




CHAPTER III.


1. Eratosthenes is guilty of another fault in so frequently referring to
the works of men beneath his notice, sometimes for the purpose of
refuting them; at others, when he agrees with them, in order to cite
them as authorities. I allude to Damastes, and such as him, who even
when they speak the truth, are utterly unworthy of being appealed to as
authorities, or vouchers for the credibility of a statement. For such
purposes the writings of trustworthy men should only be employed, who
have accurately described much; and though perhaps they may have omitted
many points altogether, and barely touched on others, are yet never
guilty of wilfully falsifying their statements. To cite Damastes as an
authority is little better than to quote the Bergæan,[298] or Euemerus
the Messenian, and those other scribblers whom Eratosthenes himself
sneers at for their absurdities. Why, he even points out as one of the
follies of this Damastes, his observation that the Arabian Gulf was a
lake;[299] likewise the statement that Diotimus, the son of Strombicus
and chief of the Athenian legation, sailed through Cilicia up the
Cydnus[300] into the river Choaspes,[301] which flows by Susa,[302] and
so arrived at that capital after forty days’ journey. This particular he
professes to state on the authority of Diotimus himself, and then
expresses his wonder whether the Cydnus could actually cross the
Euphrates and Tigris in order to disgorge itself into the Choaspes. [303]

2. However, this is not all we have to say against him. Of many places
he tells us that nothing is known, when in fact they have every one been
accurately described. Then he warns us to be very cautious in believing
what we are told on such matters, and endeavours by long and tedious
arguments to show the value of his advice; swallowing at the same time
the most ridiculous absurdities himself concerning the Euxine and
Adriatic. Thus he believed the Bay of Issus[304] to be the most easterly
point of the Mediterranean, though Dioscurias,[305] which is nearly at
the bottom of the Pontus Euxinus, is, according to his own calculations,
farther east by a distance of 3000 stadia. [306] In describing the
northern and farther parts of the Adriatic he cannot refrain from
similar romancing, and gives credit to many strange narrations
concerning what lies beyond the Pillars of Hercules, informing us of an
Isle of Kerne there, and other places now nowhere to be found, which we
shall speak of presently.

Having remarked that the ancients, whether out on piratical excursions,
or for the purposes of commerce, never ventured into the high seas, but
crept along the coast, and instancing Jason, who leaving his vessels at
Colchis penetrated into Armenia and Media on foot, he proceeds to tell
us that formerly no one dared to navigate either the Euxine or the seas
by Libya, Syria, and Cilicia. If by _formerly_ he means periods so long
past that we possess no record of them, it is of little consequence to
us whether they navigated those seas or not, but if [he speaks] of times
of which we know any thing, and if we are to place any trust in the
accounts which have come down to us, every one will admit that the
ancients appear to have made longer journeys both by sea and land than
their successors; witness Bacchus, Hercules, nay Jason himself, and
again Ulysses and Menelaus, of whom Homer tells us. It seems most
probable that Theseus and Pirithous are indebted to some long voyages
for the credit they afterwards obtained of having visited the infernal
regions; and in like manner the Dioscuri[307] gained the appellation of
guardians of the sea, and the deliverers of sailors. [308] The
sovereignty of the seas exercised by Minos, and the navigation carried
on by the Phœnicians, is well known. A little after the period of the
Trojan war they had penetrated beyond the Pillars of Hercules, and
founded cities as well there as to the midst of the African coast. [309]
Is it not correct to number amongst the ancients Æneas,[310]
Antenor,[311] the Heneti, and all the crowd of warriors, who, after the
destruction of Troy, wandered over the face of the whole earth? For at
the conclusion of the war both the Greeks and Barbarians found
themselves deprived, the one of their livelihood at home, the other of
the fruits of their expedition; so that when Troy was overthrown, the
victors, and still more the vanquished, who had survived the conflict,
were compelled by want to a life of piracy; and we learn that they
became the founders of many cities along the sea-coast beyond
Greece,[312] besides several inland settlements. [313]

3. Again, having discoursed on the advance of knowledge respecting the
Geography of the inhabited earth, between the time of Alexander and the
period when he was writing, Eratosthenes goes into a description of the
figure of the earth; not merely of the habitable earth, an account of
which would have been very suitable, but of the whole earth, which
should certainly have been given too, but not in this disorderly manner.
He proceeds to tell us that the earth is spheroidal, not however
perfectly so, inasmuch as it has certain irregularities, he then
enlarges on the successive changes of its form, occasioned by water,
fire, earthquakes, eruptions, and the like; all of which is entirely out
of place, for the spheroidal form of the whole earth is the result of
the system of the universe, and the phenomena which he mentions do not
in the least change its general form; such little matters being entirely
lost in the great mass of the earth. Still they cause various
peculiarities in different parts of our globe, and result from a variety
of causes.

4. He points out as a most interesting subject for disquisition the fact
of our finding, often quite inland, two or three thousand stadia from
the sea, vast numbers of muscle, oyster, and scallop-shells, and
salt-water lakes. [314] He gives as an instance, that about the temple
of Ammon,[315] and along the road to it for the space of 3000 stadia,
there are yet found a vast amount of oyster shells, many salt-beds, and
salt springs bubbling up, besides which are pointed out numerous
fragments of wreck which they say have been cast up through some
opening, and dolphins placed on pedestals with the inscription, Of the
delegates from Cyrene. Herein he agrees with the opinion of Strato the
natural philosopher, and Xanthus of Lydia. Xanthus mentioned that in the
reign of Artaxerxes there was so great a drought, that every river,
lake, and well was dried up: and that in many places he had seen a long
way from the sea fossil shells, some like cockles, others resembling
scallop shells, also salt lakes in Armenia, Matiana,[316] and Lower
Phrygia, which induced him to believe that sea had formerly been where
the land now was. Strato, who went more deeply into the causes of these
phenomena, was of opinion that formerly there was no exit to the Euxine
as now at Byzantium, but that the rivers running into it had forced a
way through, and thus let the waters escape into the Propontis, and
thence to the Hellespont. [317] And that a like change had occurred in
the Mediterranean. For the sea being overflowed by the rivers, had
opened for itself a passage by the Pillars of Hercules, and thus, much
that was formerly covered by water, had been left dry. [318] He gives as
the cause of this, that anciently the levels of the Mediterranean and
Atlantic were not the same, and states that a bank of earth, the remains
of the ancient separation of the two seas, is still stretched under
water from Europe to Africa. He adds, that the Euxine is the most
shallow, and the seas of Crete, Sicily, and Sardinia much deeper, which
is occasioned by the number of large rivers flowing into the Euxine
both from the north and east, and so filling it up with mud, whilst the
others preserve their depth. This is the cause of the remarkable
sweetness of the Euxine Sea, and of the currents which regularly set
towards the deepest part. He gives it as his opinion, that should the
rivers continue to flow in the same direction, the Euxine will in time
be filled up [by the deposits], since already the left side of the sea
is little else than shallows, as also Salmydessus,[319] and the shoals
at the mouth of the Ister, and the desert of Scythia,[320] which the
sailors call the Breasts. Probably too the temple of Ammon was
originally close to the sea, though now, by the continual deposit of the
waters, it is quite inland: and he conjectures that it was owing to its
being so near the sea that it became so celebrated and illustrious, and
that it never would have enjoyed the credit it now possesses had it
always been equally remote from the sea. Egypt too [he says] was
formerly covered by sea as far as the marshes near Pelusium,[321] Mount
Casius,[322] and the Lake Sirbonis. [323] Even at the present time, when
salt is being dug in Egypt, the beds are found under layers of sand and
mingled with fossil shells, as if this district had formerly been under
water, and as if the whole region about Casium and Gerrha[324] had been
shallows reaching to the Arabian Gulf. The sea afterwards receding left
the land uncovered, and the Lake Sirbonis remained, which having
afterwards forced itself a passage, became a marsh. In like manner the
borders of the Lake Mœris resemble a sea-beach rather than the banks of
a river. Every one will admit that formerly at various periods a great
portion of the mainland has been covered and again left bare by the sea.
Likewise that the land now covered by the sea is not all on the same
level, any more than that whereon we dwell; which is now uncovered and
has experienced so many changes, as Eratosthenes has observed.
Consequently in the reasoning of Xanthus there does not appear to be any
thing out of place.

5. In regard to Strato, however, we must remark that, leaving out of the
question the many arguments he has properly stated, some of those which
he has brought forward are quite inadmissible. For first he is
inaccurate in stating that the beds of the interior and the exterior
seas have not the same level, and that the depth of those two seas is
different: whereas the cause why the sea is at one time raised, at
another depressed, that it inundates certain places and again retreats,
is not that the beds have different levels, some higher and some lower,
but simply this, that the same beds are at one time raised, at another
depressed, causing the sea to rise or subside with them; for having
risen they cause an inundation, and when they subside the waters return
to their former places. For if it is so, an inundation will of course
accompany every sudden increase of the waters of the sea, [as in the
spring-tides,] or the periodical swelling of rivers, in the one instance
the waters being brought together from distant parts of the ocean, in
the other, their volume being increased. But the risings of rivers are
not violent and sudden, nor do the tides continue any length of time,
nor occur irregularly; nor yet along the coasts of our sea do they cause
inundations, nor any where else. Consequently we must seek for an
explanation of the cause either in the stratum composing the bed of the
sea, or in that which is overflowed; we prefer to look for it in the
former, since by reason of its humidity it is more liable to shiftings
and sudden changes of position, and we shall find that in these matters
the wind is the great agent after all. But, I repeat it, the immediate
cause of these phenomena, is not in the fact of one part of the bed of
the ocean being higher or lower than another, but in the upheaving or
depression of the strata on which the waters rest. Strato’s hypothesis
evidently originated in the belief that that which occurs in rivers is
also the case in regard to the sea; viz. that there is a flow of water
from the higher places. Otherwise he would not have attempted to account
for the current he observed at the Strait of Byzantium in the manner he
does, attributing it to the bed of the Euxine being higher than that of
the Propontis and adjoining ocean, and even attempting to explain the
cause thereof: viz. that the bed of the Euxine is filled up and choked
by the deposit of the rivers which flow into it; and its waters in
consequence driven out into the neighbouring sea. The same theory he
would apply in respect to the Mediterranean and Atlantic, alleging that
the bed of the former is higher than that of the latter in consequence
of the number of rivers which flow into it, and the alluvium they carry
along with them. In that case there ought to be a like influx at the
Pillars and Calpe,[325] as there is at Byzantium. But I waive this
objection, as it might be asserted that the influx was the same in both
places, but owing to the interference of the ebb and flow of the sea,
became imperceptible.

6. I rather make this inquiry:—If there were any reason why, before the
outlet was opened at Byzantium, the bed of the Euxine (being deeper than
either that of the Propontis[326] or of the adjoining sea[327]) should
not gradually have become more shallow by the deposit of the rivers
which flow into it, allowing it formerly either to have been a sea, or
merely a vast lake greater than the Palus Mæotis? This proposition being
conceded, I would next ask, whether before this the bed of the Euxine
would not have been brought to the same level as the Propontis, and in
that case, the pressure being counter-poised, the overflowing of the
water have been thus avoided; and if after the Euxine had been filled
up, the superfluous waters would not naturally have forced a passage and
flowed off, and by their commingling and power have caused the Euxine
and Propontis to flow into each other, and thus become one sea? no
matter, as I said above, whether formerly it were a sea or a lake,
though latterly certainly a sea. This also being conceded, they must
allow that the present efflux depends neither upon the elevation nor the
inclination of the bed, as Strato’s theory would have us consider it.

7. We would apply the same arguments to the whole of the Mediterranean
and Atlantic, and account for the efflux of the former, not by any
[supposed] difference between the elevation and inclination of its bed
and of that of the Atlantic, but attribute it to the number of
rivers which empty themselves into it. Since, according to this
supposition, it is not incredible that had the whole of the
Mediterranean Sea in times past been but a lake filled by the rivers,
and having overflowed, it might have broken through the Strait at the
Pillars, as through a cataract; and still continuing to swell more and
more, the Atlantic in course of time would have become confluent by that
channel, and have run into one level, the Mediterranean thus becoming a
sea. In fine, the Physician did wrong in comparing the sea to rivers,
for the latter are borne down as a descending stream, but the sea always
maintains its level. The currents of straits depend upon other causes,
not upon the accumulation of earth formed by the alluvial deposit from
rivers, filling up the bed of the sea. This accumulation only goes on at
the mouths of rivers. Such are what are called the Stethe or Breasts at
the mouth of the Ister,[328] the desert of the Scythians, and
Salmydessus, which are partially occasioned by other winter-torrents as
well; witness the sandy, low, and even coast of Colchis,[329] at the
mouth of the Phasis,[330] the whole of the coast of Themiscyra,[331]
named the plain of the Amazons, near the mouths of the Thermodon[332]
and Iris,[333] and the greater part of Sidene. [334] It is the same with
other rivers, they all resemble the Nile in forming an alluvial deposit
at their mouths, some more, some less than others. Those rivers which
carry but little soil with them deposit least, while others, which
traverse an extended and soft country, and receive many torrents in
their course, deposit the greatest quantity. Such for example is the
river Pyramus,[335] by which Cilicia has been considerably augmented,
and concerning which an oracle has declared, “This shall occur when the
wide waters of the Pyramus have enlarged their banks as far as sacred
Cyprus. ”[336] This river becomes navigable from the middle of the plains
of Cataonia, and entering Cilicia[337] by the defiles of the Taurus,
discharges itself into the sea which flows between that country and the
island of Cyprus.

8. These river deposits are prevented from advancing further into the
sea by the regularity of the ebb and flow, which continually drive them
back. For after the manner of living creatures, which go on inhaling and
exhaling their breath continually, so the sea in a like way keeps up a
constant motion in and out of itself. Any one may observe who stands on
the sea-shore when the waves are in motion, the regularity with which
they cover, then leave bare, and then again cover up his feet. This
agitation of the sea produces a continual movement on its surface, which
even when it is most tranquil has considerable force, and so throws all
extraneous matters on to the land, and

“Flings forth the salt weed on the shore. ”[338]

This effect is certainly most considerable when the wind is on the
water, but it continues when all is hushed, and even when it blows from
land the swell is still carried to the shore against the wind, as if by
a peculiar motion of the sea itself. To this the verses refer—

“O’er the rocks that breast the flood
Borne turgid, scatter far the showery spray,”[339]

and,

“Loud sounds the roar of waves ejected wide. ”[340]

9. The wave, as it advances, possesses a kind of power, which some call
the purging of the sea, to eject all foreign substances. It is by this
force that dead bodies and wrecks are cast on shore. But on retiring it
does not possess sufficient power to carry back into the sea either dead
bodies, wood, or even the lightest substances, such as cork, which may
have been cast out by the waves. And by this means when places next the
sea fall down, being undermined by the wave, the earth and the water
charged with it are cast back again; and the weight [of the mud] working
at the same time in conjunction with the force of the advancing tide, it
is the sooner brought to settle at the bottom, instead of being carried
out far into the sea. The force of the river current ceases at a very
little distance beyond its mouth. Otherwise, supposing the rivers had an
uninterrupted flow, by degrees the whole ocean would be filled in, from
the beach onwards, by the alluvial deposits. And this would be
inevitable even were the Euxine deeper than the sea of Sardinia, than
which a deeper sea has never been sounded, measuring, as it does,
according to Posidonius, about 1000 fathoms. [341]

10. Some, however, may be disinclined to admit this explanation, and
would rather have proof from things more manifest to the senses, and
which seem to meet us at every turn. Now deluges, earthquakes, eruptions
of wind, and risings in the bed of the sea, these things cause the
rising of the ocean, as sinking of the bottom causes it to become lower.
It is not the case that small volcanic or other islands can be raised up
from the sea, and not large ones, nor that all islands can, but not
continents, since extensive sinkings of the land no less than small ones
have been known; witness the yawning of those chasms which have ingulfed
whole districts no less than their cities, as is said to have happened
to Bura,[342] Bizone,[343] and many other towns at the time of
earthquakes: and there is no more reason why one should rather think
Sicily to have been disjoined from the mainland of Italy than cast up
from the bottom of the sea by the fires of Ætna, as the Lipari and
Pithecussan[344] Isles have been.

11. However, so nice a fellow is Eratosthenes, that though he professes
himself a mathematician,[345] he rejects entirely the dictum of
Archimedes, who, in his work “On Bodies in Suspension,” says that all
liquids when left at rest assume a spherical form, having a centre of
gravity similar to that of the earth. A dictum which is acknowledged by
all who have the slightest pretensions to mathematical sagacity. He says
that the Mediterranean, which, according to his own description, is one
entire sea has not the same level even at points quite close to each
other; and offers us the authority of engineers for this piece of folly,
notwithstanding the affirmation of mathematicians that engineering is
itself only one division of the mathematics. He tells us that
Demetrius[346] intended to cut through the Isthmus of Corinth, to open a
passage for his fleet, but was prevented by his engineers, who, having
taken measurements, reported that the level of the sea at the Gulf of
Corinth was higher than at Cenchrea,[347] so that if he cut through the
isthmus, not only the coasts near Ægina, but even Ægina itself, with the
neighbouring islands, would be laid completely under water, while the
passage would prove of little value. According to Eratosthenes, it is
this which occasions the current in straits, especially the current in
the Strait of Sicily,[348] where effects similar to the flow and ebb of
the tide are remarked. The current there changes twice in the course of
a day and night, like as in that period the tides of the sea flow and
ebb twice. In the Tyrrhenian sea[349] the current which is called
descendent, and which runs towards the sea of Sicily, as if it followed
an inclined plane, corresponds to the flow of the tide in the ocean. We
may remark, that this current corresponds to the flow both in the time
of its commencement and cessation. For it commences at the rising and
setting of the moon, and recedes when that satellite attains its
meridian, whether above [in the zenith] or below the earth [in the
nadir]. In the same way occurs the opposite or ascending current, as it
is called. It corresponds to the ebb of the ocean, and commences as
soon as the moon has reached either zenith or nadir, and ceases the
moment she reaches the point of her rising or setting. [So far
Eratosthenes. ]

12. The nature of the ebb and flow has been sufficiently treated of by
Posidonius and Athenodorus. Concerning the flux and reflux of the
currents, which also may be explained by physics, it will suffice our
present purpose to observe, that in the various straits these do not
resemble each other, but each strait has its own peculiar current. Were
they to resemble each other, the current at the Strait of Sicily[350]
would not change merely twice during the day, (as Eratosthenes himself
tells us it does,) and at Chalcis seven times;[351] nor again that of
Constantinople, which does not change at all, but runs always in one
direction from the Euxine to the Propontis, and, as Hipparchus tells us,
sometimes ceases altogether. However, if they did all depend on one
cause, it would not be that which Eratosthenes has assigned, namely,
that the various seas have different levels. The kind of inequality he
supposes would not even be found in rivers only for the cataracts; and
where these cataracts occur, they occasion no ebbing, but have one
continued downward flow, which is caused by the inclination both of the
flow and the surface; and therefore though they have no flux or reflux
they do not remain still, on account of a principle of flowing which is
inherent in them; at the same time they cannot be on the same level, but
one must be higher and one lower than another. But who ever imagined the
surface of the ocean to be on a slope, especially those who follow a
system which supposes the four bodies we call elementary, to be
spherical. [352] For water is not like the earth, which being of a solid
nature is capable of permanent depressions and risings, but by its force
of gravity spreads equally over the earth, and assumes that kind of
level which Archimedes has assigned it.

13. To what we cited before concerning the temple of Ammon and Egypt,
Eratosthenes adds, that to judge from appearances, Mount Casius[353] was
formerly covered by sea, and the whole district now known as Gerra lay
under shoal water touching the bay of the Erythræan Sea,[354] but was
left dry on the union[355] of the [Mediterranean] Sea [with the ocean].
A certain amphibology lurks here under this description of the district
lying under shoal water and touching the bay of the Erythræan Sea; for
to touch[356] both means to be close to, and also to be in actual
contact with, so that when applied to water it would signify that one
flows into the other. I understand him to mean, that so long as the
strait by the Pillars of Hercules remained closed, these marshes covered
with shoal-water extended as far as the Arabian Gulf, but on that
passage being forced open, the Mediterranean, discharging itself by the
strait, became lower, and the land was left dry.

On the other hand, Hipparchus understands by the term _touching_, that
the Mediterranean, being over-full, flowed into the Erythræan Sea, and
he inquires how it could happen, that as the Mediterranean flowed out by
this new vent at the Pillars of Hercules, the Erythræan Sea, which was
all one with it, did not flow away too, and thus become lower, but has
always retained the same level? and since Eratosthenes supposes the
whole exterior sea to be confluent, it follows that the Western
Ocean[357] and the Erythræan Sea are all one; and thus [remarks
Hipparchus] as a necessary consequence, the sea beyond the Pillars of
Hercules, the Erythræan Sea, and that also which is confluent with
it,[358] have all the same level.

14. But, Eratosthenes would reply, I never said that, in consequence of
the repletion of the Mediterranean, it actually flowed into the
Erythræan Sea, but only that it approached very near thereto: besides,
it does not follow, that in one and the self-same sea, the level of its
surface must be all the same; to instance the Mediterranean itself, no
one, surely, will say it is of the same height at Lechæum[359] and at
Cenchrea. [360] This answer Hipparchus anticipated in his Critique; and
being aware of the opinion of Eratosthenes, was justified in attacking
his arguments. But he ought not to have taken it for granted, that when
Eratosthenes said the exterior sea was all one, he necessarily implied
that its level was every where the same.

15. Hipparchus rejects as false the [account] of the inscription on the
dolphins “by the delegates from Cyrene,” but the reason he assigns for
this is insufficient, viz. that though Cyrene was built in times of
which we have record, no one mentions the oracle,[361] as being situated
on the sea-shore. But what matters is that no historian has recorded
this, when amongst the other proofs from which we infer that this place
was formerly on the sea-shore, we number this of the dolphins which were
set up, and the inscription, “by the delegates from Cyrene? ”[362]
Hipparchus agrees that if the bottom of the sea were raised up, it would
lift the water with it, and might therefore overflow the land as far as
the locality of the oracle, or more than 3000 stadia from the shore; but
he will not allow that the rising would be sufficient to overflow the
Island of Pharos and the major portion of Egypt, since [he says] the
elevation would not be sufficient to submerge these. He alleges that if
before the opening of the passage at the Pillars of Hercules, the
Mediterranean had been swollen to such an extent as Eratosthenes
affirms, the whole of Libya, and the greater part of Europe and Asia,
must long ago have been buried beneath its waves. Besides, he adds, in
this case the Euxine would in certain places have been connected with
the Adriatic, since in the vicinity of the Euxine, [near to its
source,][363] the Ister is divided in its course, and flows into either
sea, owing to the peculiarities of the ground. [364] To this we object,
that the Ister does not take its rise at all in the vicinity of the
Euxine, but, on the contrary, beyond the mountains of the Adriatic;
neither does it flow into both the seas, but into the Euxine alone, and
only becomes divided just above its mouths. This latter, however, was an
error into which he fell in common with many of his predecessors. They
supposed that there was another river in addition to the former Ister,
bearing the same name, which emptied itself into the Adriatic, and from
which the country of Istria, through which it flowed, gained that
appellation. It was by this river they believed Jason returned on his
voyage from Colchis.

16. In order to lessen surprise at such changes as we have mentioned as
causes of the inundations and other similar phenomena which are supposed
to have produced Sicily, the islands of Æolus,[365] and the Pithecussæ,
it may be as well to compare with these others of a similar nature,
which either now are, or else have been observed in other localities. A
large array of such facts placed at once before the eye would serve to
allay our astonishment; while that which is uncommon startles our
perception, and manifests our general ignorance of the occurrences which
take place in nature and physical existence. For instance, supposing any
one should narrate the circumstances concerning Thera and the Therasian
Islands, situated in the strait between Crete and the Cyrenaic,[366]
Thera being itself the metropolis of Cyrene; or those [in connexion
with] Egypt, and many parts of Greece. For midway between Thera and
Therasia flames rushed forth from the sea for the space of four days;
causing the whole of it to boil and be all on fire; and after a little
an island twelve stadia in circumference, composed of the burning mass,
was thrown up, as if raised by machinery. After the cessation of this
phenomenon, the Rhodians, then masters of the sea, were the first who
dared to sail to the place, and they built there on the island a temple
to the Asphalian[367] Neptune. Posidonius remarks, that during an
earthquake which occurred in Phœnicia, a city situated above Sidon was
swallowed up, and that nearly two-thirds of Sidon also fell, but not
suddenly, and therefore with no great loss of life. That the same
occurred, though in a lighter form, throughout nearly the whole of
Syria, and was felt even in some of the Cyclades and the Island of
Eubœa,[368] so that the fountains of Arethusa, a spring in Chalcis, were
completely obstructed, and after some time forced for themselves another
opening, and the whole island ceased not to experience shocks until a
chasm was rent open in the earth in the plain of Lelanto,[369] from
which poured a river of burning mud.

17. Many writers have recorded similar occurrences, but it will suffice
us to narrate those which have been collected by Demetrius of Skepsis.

Apropos of that passage of Homer:—

“And now they reach’d the running rivulets clear,
Where from Scamander’s dizzy flood arise
Two fountains, tepid one, from which a smoke
Issues voluminous as from a fire,
The other, even in summer heats, like hail
For cold, or snow, or crystal stream frost-bound:”[370]

this writer tells us we must not be surprised, that although the cold
spring still remains, the hot cannot be discovered; and says we must
reckon the failing of the hot spring as the cause. He goes on to relate
certain catastrophes recorded by Democles, how formerly in the reign of
Tantalus[371] there were great earthquakes in Lydia and Ionia as far as
the Troad,[372] which swallowed up whole villages and overturned Mount
Sipylus;[373] marshes then became lakes, and the city of Troy was
covered by the waters. [374] Pharos, near Egypt, which anciently was an
island, may now be called a peninsula, and the same may be said of Tyre
and Clazomenæ. [375]

During my stay at Alexandria in Egypt the sea rose so high near
Pelusium[376] and Mount Casius[377] as to overflow the land, and convert
the mountain into an island, so that a journey from Casius into Phœnicia
might have been undertaken by water. We should not be surprised
therefore if in time to come the isthmus[378] which separates the
Egyptian sea[379] from the Erythræan,[380] should part asunder or
subside, and becoming a strait, connect the outer and inner seas,[381]
similarly to what has taken place at the strait of the Pillars.

At the commencement of this work will be found some other narrations of
a similar kind, which should be considered at the same time, and which
will greatly tend to strengthen our belief both in these works of nature
and also in its other changes.

18. The Piræus having been formerly an island, and lying πέραν, or off
the shore, is said to have thus received its name. Leucas,[382] on the
contrary, has been made an island by the Corinthians, who cut through
the isthmus which connected it with the shore [of the mainland]. It is
concerning this place that Laertes is made to say,

“Oh that I possess’d
Such vigour now as when in arms I took
Nericus, continental city fair. ”[383]

Here man devoted his labour to make a separation, in other instances to
the construction of moles and bridges. Such is that which connects the
island opposite to Syracuse[384] with the mainland. This junction is now
effected by means of a bridge, but formerly, according to Ibycus, by a
pier of picked stones, which he calls _elect_. Of Bura[385] and
Helice,[386] one has been swallowed by an earthquake, the other covered
by the waves. Near to Methone,[387] which is on the Hermionic Gulf,[388]
a mountain seven stadia in height was cast up during a fiery eruption;
during the day it could not be approached on account of the heat and
sulphureous smell; at night it emitted an agreeable odour, appeared
brilliant at a distance, and was so hot that the sea boiled all around
it to a distance of five stadia, and appeared in a state of agitation
for twenty stadia, the heap being formed of fragments of rock as large
as towers. Both Arne and Mideia[389] have been buried in the waters of
Lake Copaïs. [390] These towns the poet in his Catalogue[391] thus speaks
of;

“Arne claims
A record next for her illustrious sons,
Vine-bearing Arne. Thou wast also there
Mideia. ”[392]

It seems that several Thracian cities have been submerged by the Lake
Bistonis,[393] and that now called Aphnitis. [394] Some also affirm that
certain cities of Trerus were also overwhelmed, in the neighbourhood of
Thrace. Artemita, formerly one of the Echinades,[395] is now part of the
mainland; the same has happened to some other of the islets near the
Achelous, occasioned, it is said, in the same way, by the alluvium
carried into the sea by that river, and Hesiod[396] assures us that a
like fate awaits them all. Some of the Ætolian promontories were
formerly islands. Asteria,[397] called by Homer Asteris, is no longer
what it was.

“There is a rocky isle
In the mid-sea, Samos the rude between
And Ithaca, not large, named Asteris.
It hath commodious havens, into which
A passage clear opens on either side. ”[398]

There is no good anchorage there now. Neither is there in Ithaca the
cavern, nor yet the temple of the nymphs described to us by Homer.
It
seems more correct to attribute this to change having come over the
places, than either to the ignorance or the romancing of the poet. This
however, being uncertain, must be left to every man’s opinion.

19. Myrsilus tells us that Antissa[399] was formerly an island, and so
called because it was opposite to Lesbos,[400] then named Issa. Now,
however, it forms one of the towns of Lesbos. [401] Some have believed
that Lesbos itself has been disjoined from Mount Ida in the same way as
Prochytas[402] and Pithecussa[403] from Misenum,[404] Capreæ[405] from
the Athenæum, Sicily from Rhegium,[406] and Ossa from Olympus. [407]
Many changes similar to these have occurred elsewhere. The river Ladon
in Arcadia ceased for some time its flow. Duris informs us that the
Rhagæ[408] in Media gained that appellation from chasms made in the
ground near the Gates of the Caspian[409] by earthquakes, in which many
cities and villages were destroyed, and the rivers underwent various
changes. Ion, in his satirical composition of Omphale, has said of
Eubœa,

“The light wave of the Euripus has divided the land of Eubœa from
Bœotia; separating the projecting land by a strait. ”

20. Demetrius of Callatis, speaking of the earthquakes which formerly
occurred throughout the whole of Greece, states that a great portion of
the Lichadian Islands and of Kenæum[410] were submerged; that the hot
springs of Ædepsus[411] and Thermopylæ were suppressed for three days,
and that when they commenced to run again those of Ædepsus gushed from
new fountains. That at Oreus[412] on the sea-coast the wall and nearly
seven hundred houses fell at once. That the greater part of
Echinus,[413] Phalara,[414] and Heraclæa of Trachis[415] were thrown
down, Phalara being overturned from its very foundations. That almost
the same misfortune occurred to the Lamians[416] and inhabitants of
Larissa; that Scarpheia[417] was overthrown from its foundations, not
less than one thousand seven hundred persons being swallowed up, and at
Thronium[418] more than half that number. That a torrent of water
gushed forth taking three directions, one to Scarphe and Thronium,
another to Thermopylæ, and a third to the plains of Daphnus in Phocis.
That the springs of [many] rivers were for several days dried up; that
the course of the Sperchius[419] was changed, thus rendering navigable
what formerly were highways; that the Boagrius[420] flowed through
another channel; that many parts of Alope, Cynus, and Opus were
injured,[421] and the castle of Œum, which commands the latter city,
entirely overturned. That part of the wall of Elateia[422] was thrown
down; and that at Alponus,[423] during the celebration of the games in
honour of Ceres, twenty-five maidens, who had mounted a tower to enjoy
the show exhibited in the port, were precipitated into the sea by the
falling of the tower. They also record that a large fissure was made [by
the water] through the midst of the island of Atalanta,[424] opposite
Eubœa,[425] sufficient for ships to sail in; that the course of the
channel was in places as broad as twenty stadia between the plains; and
that a trireme being raised [thereby] out of the docks, was carried over
the walls.

21. Those who desire to instil into us that more perfect freedom from
[ignorant] wonder, which Democritus and all other philosophers so highly
extol, should add the changes which have been produced by the migrations
of various tribes: we should thus be inspired with courage, steadiness,
and composure. For instance, the Western Iberians,[426] removed to the
regions beyond the Euxine and Colchis, being separated from Armenia,
according to Apollodorus, by the Araxes,[427] but rather by the
Cyrus[428] and Moschican mountains. [429] The expedition of the Egyptians
into Ethiopia[430] and Colchis. The migration of the Heneti,[431] who
passed from Paphlagonia into the country bordering on the Adriatic Gulf.
Similar emigrations were also undertaken by the nations of Greece, the
Ionians, Dorians, Achaians, and Æolians; and the Ænians,[432] now next
neighbours to the Ætolians, formerly dwelt near Dotium[433] and Ossa,
beyond the Perrhæbi;[434] the Perrhæbi too are but wanderers here
themselves. Our present work furnishes numerous instances of the same
kind. Some of these are familiar to most readers, but the migrations of
the Carians, the Treres, the Teucrians, and the Galatæ or Gauls,[435]
are not so generally known. Nor yet for the most part are the
expeditions of their chiefs, for instance, Madys the Scythian, Tearko
the Ethiopian, Cobus of Trerus, Sesostris and Psammeticus the Egyptians;
nor are those of the Persians from Cyrus to Xerxes familiar to every
one. The Kimmerians, or a separate tribe of them, called the Treres,
have frequently overrun the countries to the right of the Euxine and
those adjacent to them, bursting now into Paphlagonia, now into Phrygia,
as they did when, according to report, Midas[436] came to his death by
drinking bull’s blood. Lygdamis led his followers into Lydia, passed
through Ionia, took Sardis, but was slain in Cilicia. The Kimmerians and
Treres frequently made similar incursions, until at last, as it is
reported, these latter, together with [their chief] Cobus, were driven
out by Madys, king of the “Scythians. ”[437] But enough has been said in
this place on the general history of the earth, as each country will
have a particular account.

22. We must now return to the point whence we digressed. Herodotus
having observed that there could be no such people as Hyperboreans,
inasmuch as there were no Hypernotii,[438] Eratosthenes calls this
argument ridiculous, and compares it to the sophism, that there are no
epichærekaki,[439] inasmuch as there are no epichæragathi;[440] [adding]
perhaps there are Hypernotii; since at all events in Ethiopia Notus does
not blow, although lower down it does.

It would indeed be strange, since winds blow under every latitude, and
especially the southern wind called Notus, if any region could be found
where this latter was not felt. On the contrary, not only does Ethiopia
experience our Notus, but also the whole country which lies above as far
as the equator. [441]

If Herodotus must be blamed at all, it is for supposing that the
Hyperboreans were so named in consequence of Boreas, or the north wind,
not blowing upon them. The poets are allowed much licence in their modes
of expression; but their commentators, who endeavour always to give us
the correct view, tell us that the people who dwelt in the extreme
north, were styled Hyperboreans. The pole is the boundary of the
northern winds, and the equator of the southern; these winds have no
other limit.

23. Eratosthenes next finds fault with the writers who fill their
narrative with stories evidently feigned and impossible; some as mere
fable, but others as history, which did not deserve mention. In the
discussion of a subject like his, he should not have wasted his time
about such trifles. Such is the way in which this writer completes the
First Book of his Memoirs.




CHAPTER IV.


1. In his Second Book Eratosthenes endeavours to correct some errors in
geography, and offers his own views on the subject, any mistakes in
which we shall endeavour in our turn to set right. He is correct in
saying that the inductions of mathematics and natural philosophy should
be employed, and that if the earth is spheroidal like the universe, it
is inhabited in all parts; together with some other things of this
nature. Later writers do not agree with him as to the size of the
earth,[442] nor admit his measurement. However Hipparchus, when noting
the celestial appearances for each particular locality, adopts his
admeasurements, saying that those taken for the meridian of Meroe,[443]
Alexandria, and the Dnieper, differ but very slightly from the truth.
Eratosthenes then enters into a long discussion concerning the figure of
the globe, proving that the form of the earth together with the water is
spheroidal, as also the heavens. This however we imagine was foreign to
his purpose, and should have been disposed of in the compass of a few
words.

2. After this he proceeds to determine the breadth of the habitable
earth: he tells us, that measuring from the meridian of Meroe[444] to
Alexandria, there are 10,000 stadia.

From thence to the Hellespont[445] about 8100. Again; from thence to
the Dnieper, 5000; and thence to the parallel of Thule,[446] which
Pytheas says is six days’ sail north from Britain, and near the Frozen
Sea, other 11,500. To which if we add 3400 stadia above Meroe in order
to include the Island of the Egyptians,[447] the Cinnamon country, and
Taprobane,[448] there will be in all 38,000 stadia.

3. We will let pass the rest of his distances, since they are something
near,—but that the Dnieper is under the same parallel as Thule, what
man in his senses could ever agree to this? Pytheas, who has given us
the history of Thule, is known to be a man upon whom no reliance can be
placed, and other writers who have seen Britain and Ierne,[449] although
they tell us of many small islands round Britain, make no mention
whatever of Thule. The length of Britain itself is nearly the same as
that of Keltica,[450] opposite to which it extends. Altogether it is not
more than 5000 stadia in length, its outermost points corresponding to
those of the opposite continent. In fact the extreme points of the two
countries lie opposite to each other, the eastern extremity to the
eastern, and the western to the western: the eastern points are situated
so close as to be within sight of each other, both at Kent and at the
mouths of the Rhine. But Pytheas tells us that the island [of Britain]
is more than 20,000 stadia in length, and that Kent is some days’ sail
from France. With regard to the locality of the Ostimii, and the
countries beyond the Rhine,[451] as far as Scythia, he is altogether
mistaken. The veracity of a writer who has been thus false in describing
countries with which we are well acquainted, should not be too much
trusted in regard to unknown places.

4. Further, Hipparchus and many others are of opinion that the parallel
of latitude of the Dnieper does not differ from that of Britain; since
that of Byzantium and Marseilles are the same. The degree of shadow from
the gnomon which Pytheas states he observed at Marseilles being exactly
equal to that which Hipparchus says he found at Byzantium; the periods
of observation being in both cases similar. [452] Now from Marseilles to
the centre of Britain is not more than 5000 stadia; and if from the
centre of Britain we advance north not more than 4000 stadia, we arrive
at a temperature in which it is scarcely possible to exist. Such indeed
is that of Ierne. [453] Consequently the far region in which Eratosthenes
places Thule must be totally uninhabitable. By what guesswork he
arrived at the conclusion that between the latitude of Thule and the
Dnieper there was a distance of 11,500 stadia I am unable to divine.

5. Eratosthenes being mistaken as to the breadth [of the habitable
earth], is necessarily wrong as to its length. The most accurate
observers, both ancient and modern, agree that the known length of the
habitable earth is more than twice its breadth. Its length I take to be
from the [eastern] extremity of India[454] to the [westernmost] point of
Spain;[455] and its breadth from [the south of] Ethiopia to the latitude
of Ierne. Eratosthenes, as we have said, reckoning its breadth from the
extremity of Ethiopia to Thule, was forced to extend its length beyond
the true limits, that he might make it more than twice as long as the
breadth he had assigned to it. He says that India, measured where it is
narrowest,[456] is 16,000 stadia to the river Indus. If measured from
its most prominent capes it extends 3000 more. [457] Thence to the
Caspian Gates, 14,000. From the Caspian Gates to the Euphrates,[458]
10,000. From the Euphrates to the Nile, 5000. [459] Thence to the
Canopic[460] mouth, 1300. From the Canopic mouth to Carthage, 13,500.
From thence to the Pillars at least 8000. Which make in all 70,800
stadia. To these [he says] should be added the curvature of Europe
beyond the Pillars of Hercules, fronting the Iberians, and inclining
west, not less than 3000 stadia, and the headlands, including that of
the Ostimii, named Cabæum,[461] and the adjoining islands, the last of
which, named Uxisama,[462] is distant, according to Pytheas, a three
days’ sail. But he added nothing to its length by enumerating these
last, viz. the headlands, including that of the Ostimii, the island of
Uxisama, and the rest; they are not situated so as affect the length of
the earth, for they all lie to the north, and belong to Keltica, not to
Iberia; indeed it seems but an invention of Pytheas. Lastly, to fall in
with the general opinion that the breadth ought not[463] to exceed half
the length, he adds to the stated measure of its length 2000 stadia
west, and as many east.

6. Further, endeavouring to support the opinion that it is in accordance
with natural philosophy to reckon the greatest dimension of the
habitable earth from east to west, he says that, according to the laws
of natural philosophy, the habitable earth ought to occupy a greater
length from east to west, than its breadth from north to south. The
temperate zone, which we have already designated as the longest zone, is
that which the mathematicians denominate a continuous circle returning
upon itself. So that if the extent of the Atlantic Ocean were not an
obstacle, we might easily pass by sea from Iberia to India,[464] still
keeping in the same parallel; the remaining portion of which parallel,
measured as above in stadia, occupies more than a third of the whole
circle: since the parallel drawn through Athens,[465] on which we have
taken the distances from India to Iberia, does not contain in the whole
200,000 stadia.

Here too his reasoning is incorrect. For this speculation respecting
the temperate zone which we inhabit, and whereof the habitable earth is
a part, devolves properly on those who make mathematics their study. But
it is not equally the province of one treating of the habitable earth.
For by this term we mean only that portion of the temperate zone where
we dwell, and with which we are acquainted. But it is quite possible
that in the temperate zone there may be two or even more habitable
earths, especially near the circle of latitude which is drawn through
Athens and the Atlantic Ocean. After this he returns to the form of the
earth, which he again declares to be spheroidal. Here he exhibits the
same churlishness we have previously pointed out, and goes on abusing
Homer in his old style. He proceeds:

7. “There has been much argument respecting the continents. Some,
considering them to be divided by the rivers Nile and Tanais,[466] have
described them as islands; while others suppose them to be peninsulas
connected by the isthmuses between the Caspian and the Euxine Seas, and
between the Erythræan Sea[467] and Ecregma. ”[468] He adds, that this
question does not appear to him to be of any practical importance, but
rather, as Democritus observed, a bone of contention for angry
litigants. Where there are no precise boundary marks, columns, or walls,
as at Colyttus and Melitè,[469] it is easy for us to say such a place is
Colyttus, and such another Melitè; but not so easy to show the exact
limits: thus disputes have frequently arisen concerning certain
districts; that, for instance, between the Argives and Lacedæmonians
concerning [the possession of] Thyrea,[470] and that between the
Athenians and Bœotians relative to Oropus. [471] Further, in giving names
to the three continents, the Greeks did not take into consideration the
whole habitable earth, but merely their own country and the land exactly
opposite, namely, Caria, which is now inhabited by the Ionians and
other neighbouring tribes. In course of time, as they advanced further
and daily became acquainted with new countries, this their division came
to be general. ”

I take this last part first, and (to use Eratosthenes’ own words, not
those of Democritus) willing to pick my bone of contention, inquire,
whether they who first made the division of the three continents were
the same persons as those who first desired to distinguish their own
land from that of the Carians opposite, or whether they were only
acquainted with Greece, Caria, and some few other adjoining countries,
and not with Europe, Asia, or Africa; but that others who followed them,
and were able to write a description of the habitable earth, were the
real authors of the division into three continents. How did he know that
these were not the men who made this division of the habitable earth?
And he who divided the earth into three parts, giving to each portion
the name of “continent,” could he not form in his mind a just idea of
that taken as a whole, which he had so parcelled out. But if indeed he
were not acquainted with the whole habitable earth, but merely made a
division of some part thereof, pray what portion of that part did he
denominate Asia, or Europe, or simply continent? Such talk is altogether
nonsense.

8. The reasoning of Eratosthenes, however, is still more absurd, when he
declares that he sees no advantage in being acquainted with the exact
boundaries of countries, and then cites the example of Colyttus and
Melitè, which prove just the contrary of his assertion. Surely if a want
of certainty respecting the boundaries of Thyrea and Oropus gave rise to
war, a knowledge of the limits of different districts must be of
practical importance. Will he tell us that the boundaries of districts,
or the limits of kingdoms, may be of some service, but when applied to
continents it is carrying the matter too far. We reply, it is of equal
consequence here. Suppose a dispute between two powerful princes, one
claiming the possession of Asia and the other of Africa, to which of
these should Egypt, I mean the country called Lower Egypt, appertain.
Will any one pass over such cases on account of their rarity? By no
means. It is acknowledged by every one that the limits of each continent
ought to be defined by some notable boundary, indicated by the
configuration of the whole habitable earth. In following out this
principle, we should not be very particular if they who determine
boundaries by the rivers leave some districts undefined, since the
rivers do not reach from sea to sea, nor leave the continents altogether
as islands.

9. At the close of the book Eratosthenes blames the system of those who
would divide all mankind into Greeks and Barbarians, and likewise those
who recommended Alexander to treat the Greeks as friends, but the
Barbarians as enemies. [472] He suggests, as a better course, to
distinguish them according to their virtues and their vices, “since
amongst the Greeks there are many worthless characters, and many highly
civilized are to be found amongst the Barbarians; witness the Indians
and Ariani,[473] or still better the Romans and Carthaginians, whose
political system is so beautifully perfect. Alexander, considering this,
disregarded the advice which had been offered him, and patronized
without distinction any man he considered to be deserving. ” But we would
inquire whether those men who thus divided the human race, abandoning
one portion to contempt, and exalting to dignity the other, were not
actuated to this because they found that on one side justice, knowledge,
and the force of reason reigned supreme, but their contraries on the
other. Alexander did not disregard the advice tendered him, but gladly
embraced and followed it, respecting the wisdom of those who gave it;
and so far from taking the opposite course, he closely pursued that
which they pointed out.




BOOK II.

SUMMARY.


In the Second Book, having proposed for discussion the [opinions]
of Eratosthenes, he examines and refutes whatever that writer may
have incorrectly said, determined, or laid down. He likewise
brings forward many statements of Hipparchus, which he disproves,
and finishes with a short exposition or synopsis of the whole
subject, namely, geographical knowledge.




CHAPTER I.


1. 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,[474] and the southern extremities of Peloponnesus and Attica, to
Rhodes and the Gulf of Issus. [475] He says, “Through the whole of this
distance the line mentioned is drawn across the sea[476] 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[477] lie under the parallel of Athens. ”

2. 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,[478] 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.

3. 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[479] and Sinope,[480] is about 3000 stadia,
which is as much as the supposed extent of the mountains [of the
Taurus]. [481] The traveller who directs his course from Amisus due
east,[482] arrives first at Colchis, then at the high lands by the
Hyrcanian Sea,[483] afterwards at the road leading to Bactra,[484] 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. [485] 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.

4. 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[486] 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.

5. 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[487] 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[488] 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,[489] 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[490] which Hipparchus himself acknowledges to be gigantic.

6. Besides, the credibility of Patrocles can be proved by a variety of
evidence—the princes[491] 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.

7. 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;[492] Megasthenes stating the
length at 16,000 stadia, and Patrocles at 1000 less. Being biased 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!

8. 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
trustworthy 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.

9. 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,[493]—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.

10. [494]If the meridian of Rhodes and Byzantium has been rightly
determined to be the same, then that of Cilicia and Amisus has likewise
been rightly determined; many observations having proved that the lines
are parallel, and that they never impinge on each other.

11. In like manner, that the voyage from Amisus to Colchis, and the
route to the Caspian, and thence on to Bactra, are both due east, is
proved by the winds, the seasons, the fruits, and even the sun-risings.
Frequently evidence such as this, and general agreement, are more to be
relied on than the measurement taken by means of instruments. Hipparchus
himself was not wholly indebted to instruments and geometrical
calculations for his statement that the Pillars and Cilicia lie in a
direct line due east. For that part of it included between the Pillars
and the Strait of Sicily he rests entirely on the assertion of sailors.
It is therefore incorrect to say that, because we cannot exactly
determine the duration of the longest and shortest days, nor the degree
of shadow of the gnomon throughout the mountainous region between
Cilicia and India, that therefore we are unable to decide whether the
line traced obliquely on the ancient charts should or should not be
parallel, and consequently must leave it unreformed, keeping it oblique
as the ancient charts have it. For in the first place, not to determine
any thing is to leave it undetermined; and to leave a thing
undetermined, is neither to take one view of the matter nor the other:
but to agree to leave it as the ancients have, that is to take a view of
the case. It would have been more consistent with his reasoning, if he
had told us to leave Geography alone altogether, since we are similarly
unable to determine the position of the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the
mountains of Thrace,[495] Illyria,[496] and Germany.