Γεωγραφικα 2.1.23

2.1.23

οὕτω δʼ ὁλοσχερεῖ τινι τύπῳ τὴν δευτέραν ἀποδιδοὺς σφραγῖδα πολὺ ταύτης ὁλοσχερέστερον ἀποδίδωσι τὴν τρίτην σφραγῖδα κατὰ πλείους αἰτίας. πρώτην μὲν τὴν λεχθεῖσαν, ὅτι οὐκ εὐκρινῶς ἀφώρισται ἡ ἀπὸ Κασπίων πυλῶν ἐπὶ Καρμανίαν, ἥτις κοινή ἐστι τῇ τρίτῃ πρὸς τὴν δευτέραν σφραγῖδα πλευρά· ἔπειθʼ ὅτι εἰς τὴν νότιον πλευρὰν ὁ Περσικὸς ἐμπίπτει κόλπος, ὅπερ καὶ αὐτός φησιν, ὥστʼ ἠνάγκασται τὴν ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος λαβεῖν γραμμὴν ὡς ἂν εὐθεῖάν τινα διὰ Σούσων καὶ Περσεπόλεως μέχρι τῶν ὅρων τῆς Καρμανίας καὶ τῆς Περσίδος, ᾗ δυνατὸς ἦν εὑρεῖν μεμετρημένην ὁδόν, σταδίων οὖσαν τὴν ὅλην μικρῷ πλειόνων ἢ ἐνακισχιλίων· ἣν νότιον μὲν καλεῖ πλευράν, παράλληλον δʼ οὐ λέγει τῇ βορείῳ. δῆλον δʼ ὅτι οὐδʼ ὁ Εὐφράτης, ᾧ τὸ ἑσπέριον ἀφορίζει πλευρόν, σύνεγγύς ἐστιν εὐθείᾳ γραμμῇ, ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀρῶν ἐπὶ τὴν μεσημβρίαν ῥυεὶς εἶτʼ ἐπιστρέφει πρὸς ἕω καὶ πάλιν πρὸς νότον μέχρι τῆς εἰς θάλατταν ἐκβολῆς. δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ μὴ εὐθύπορον τοῦ ποταμοῦ, φράζων τὸ σχῆμα τῆς Μεσοποταμίας, ὃ ποιοῦσι συμπίπτοντες εἰς ἓν ὅ τε Τίγρις καὶ ὁ Εὐφράτης, ὑπηρεσίῳ παραπλήσιον, ὥς φησι. καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ πᾶν μεμετρημένον ἔχει τὸ ἑσπέριον πλευρὸν τὸ ἀφοριζόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ Εὐφράτου, ἀλλὰ φησὶ τὸ πρὸς τῇ Ἀρμενίᾳ μέρος καὶ τοῖς ἀρκτικοῖς ὄρεσι μὴ ἔχειν πόσον ἐστὶ διὰ τὸ ἀμέτρητον εἶναι. διὰ δὴ ταῦτα πάντα τυπωδῶς φησιν ἀποδιδόναι τὴν τρίτην μερίδα· καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὰ διαστήματά φησιν ἐκ πολλῶν συναγαγεῖν τῶν τοὺς σταθμοὺς πραγματευσαμένων, τινὰς καὶ ἀνεπιγράφους καλεῖ. ἀγνωμονεῖν δὴ δόξειεν ἂν ὁ Ἵππαρχος πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην ὁλοσχέρειαν γεωμετρικῶς ἀντιλέγων, ἐν ᾗ χάριν εἰδέναι δεῖ τοῖς καὶ ὁπωσοῦν ἀπαγγείλασιν ἡμῖν τὴν τῶν τόπων φύσιν. ὅταν δὲ δὴ μηδʼ ἐξ ὧν ἐκεῖνος λέγει λαμβάνῃ τὰς γεωμετρικὰς ὑποθέσεις ἀλλʼ ἑαυτῷ πλάσας, ἐκφανέστερον ἂν τὸ φιλότιμον καταμηνύοιτο.

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. 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, 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.