Γεωγραφικά 2.1.41

2.1.41

̔ιππάρχῳ μὲν οὖν μὴ γεωγραφοῦντι ἀλλʼ ἐξετάζοντι τὰ λεχθέντα ἐν τῇ γεωγραφίᾳ τῇ Ἐρατοσθένους οἰκεῖον ἦν ἐπὶ πλέον τὰ καθʼ ἕκαστα εὐθύνειν. ἡμεῖς δʼ ἐν οἷς μὲν κατορθοῖ, τὸ πλέον δʼ ἔτι ὅπου καὶ πλημμελεῖ, τὸν καθʼ ἕκαστα οἰκεῖον λόγον ᾠήθημεν δεῖν προσάγειν, τὰ μὲν ἐπανορθοῦντες, ὑπὲρ ὧν δʼ ἀπολυόμενοι τὰς ἐπιφερομένας αἰτίας ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἱππάρχου, καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν Ἵππαρχον συνεξετάζομεν, ὅπου τι φιλαιτίως εἴρηκεν. ἐν δὲ τούτοις ὁρῶντες ἤδη τὸν μὲν τελέως παραπαίοντα, τὸν δὲ δικαίως ἐπικαλοῦντα, ἀρκεῖν ὑπολαμβάνομεν, ἂν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ γεωγραφίᾳ τὰ ὄντα λέγοντες ἐπανορθῶμεν αὐτόν. ἐφʼ ὧν γὰρ συνεχῆ καὶ ἐπιπολάζοντά ἐστι τὰ ἁμαρτανόμενα, κρεῖττον μηδὲ μεμνῆσθαι πλὴν εἰ σπάνιόν τι καὶ καθόλου, ὅπερ πειρασόμεθα ποιεῖν ἐν τοῖς καθʼ ἕκαστα. καὶ νῦν δʼ εἰρήσθω ὅτι καὶ Τιμοσθένης καὶ Ἐρατοσθένης καὶ οἱ ἔτι τούτων πρότεροι τελέως ἠγνόουν τά τε Ἰβηρικὰ καὶ τὰ Κελτικά, μυρίῳ δὲ μᾶλλον τὰ Γερμανικὰ καὶ τὰ Βρεττανικά, ὡς δʼ αὕτως τὰ τῶν Γετῶν καὶ Βασταρνῶν. ἐπὶ πολὺ δʼ ἀγνοίας ἐτύγχανον ἀφιγμένοι καὶ τῶν κατʼ Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὸν Ἀδρίαν καὶ τὸν Πόντον καὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς προσαρκτίων μερῶν· εἰ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἴσως φιλαίτια. τοῦ γὰρ Ἐρατοσθένους ἐπὶ τῶν πόρρω διεστηκότων τὰ παραδεδομένα φάσκοντος ἐρεῖν διαστήματα, μὴ διισχυριζομένου δὲ καὶ λέγοντος ὡς παρέλαβε, προστιθέντος δʼ ἔστιν ὅπου τὰ ἐπʼ εὐθείας μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον, οὐ δεῖ προσάγειν τὸν ἀκριβῆ ἔλεγχον τοῖς μὴ ὁμολογουμένοις πρὸς ἄλληλα διαστήμασιν· ὅπερ ποιεῖν πειρᾶται ὁ Ἵππαρχος ἔν τε τοῖς πρότερον λεχθεῖσι καὶ ἐν οἷς τὰ περὶ τὴν Ὑρκανίαν μέχρι Βακτρίων καὶ τῶν ἐπέκεινα ἐθνῶν ἐκτίθεται διαστήματα, καὶ ἔτι τὰ ἀπὸ Κολχίδος ἐπὶ τὴν Ὑρκανίαν θάλατταν. οὐ γὰρ ὁμοίως ἐπί τε τούτων ἐξεταστέον αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἠπειρῶτιν παραλίαν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς οὕτω γνωρίμους τόπους· ἀλλʼ οὐδʼ ἐπὶ τούτων γεωμετρικῶς, ὅπερ ἔφην, ἀλλὰ γεωγραφικῶς μᾶλλον. αἰτιασάμενος δʼ οὖν τινα τῶν Αἰθιοπικῶν ἐπὶ τέλει τοῦ δευτέρου ὑπομνήματος τῶν πρὸς τὴν Ἐρατοσθένους γεωγραφίαν πεποιημένων, ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ φησὶ τὴν μὲν πλείω θεωρίαν ἔσεσθαι μαθηματικήν, ἐπὶ ποσὸν δὲ καὶ γεωγραφικήν· οὐδʼ ἐπὶ ποσὸν μέντοι δοκεῖ μοι ποιήσασθαι γεωγραφικήν, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν μαθηματικήν, διδόντος καὶ τοῦ Ἐρατοσθένους τὴν τοιαύτην πρόφασιν. πολλαχοῦ γὰρ ἐκπίπτει πρὸς τὸ ἐπιστημονικώτερον τῆς προκειμένης ἱστορίας, ἐκπεσὼν δὲ οὐκ ἀκριβεῖς ἀλλʼ ὁλοσχερεῖς ποιεῖται τὰς ἀποφάσεις, τρόπον τινὰ ἐν μὲν τοῖς γεωγραφικοῖς μαθηματικὸς ἐν δὲ τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς γεωγραφικὸς ὤν, ὥστε πρὸς ἄμφω δίδωσιν ἀφορμὰς τοῖς ἀντιλέγουσιν, ἐν δὲ τούτῳ τῷ ὑπομνήματι καὶ δικαίας καὶ οὗτος καὶ ὁ Τιμοσθένης, ὥστʼ οὐδʼ ἡμῖν καταλείπεται συνεπισκοπεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἀρκεῖσθαι τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἱππάρχου λεχθεῖσιν.

Since Hipparchus does not furnish a Geography of his own, but merely reviews what is said in that of Eratosthenes, he ought to have gone farther, and corrected the whole of that writer’s mistakes. As for ourselves, it is only in those particulars where Eratosthenes is correct (and we acknowledge that he frequently errs) that we have thought it our duty to quote his own words, in order to reinstate them in their position, and to defend him when he could be acquitted of the charges of Hipparchus; never failing to break a lance with the latter writer whenever his objections seemed to be the result of a mere propensity to find fault. But when Eratosthenes is grossly mistaken, and the animadversions of Hipparchus are just, we have thought it sufficient in our Geography to set him (Eratosthenes) right by merely stating facts as they are. As the mistakes were so continual and numerous, it was better not to mention them except in a sparse and general manner. This principle in the details we shall strive to carry out. In the present instance we shall only remark, that Timosthenes, Eratosthenes, and those who preceded them, were but ill acquainted with Iberia and Keltica, and a thousand times less with Germany, Britain, and the land of the Getae and Bastarnae. Their want of knowledge is also great in regard to Italy, the Adriatic, the Euxine, and the countries north of these. Possibly this last remark may be regarded as captious, since Eratosthenes states, that as to distant countries, he has merely given the admeasurements as he finds them supplied by others, without vouching for their accuracy, although he sometimes adds whether the route indicated is more or less in a right line. We should not therefore subject to a too rigorous examination distances as to which no one is agreed, after the manner Hipparchus does, both in regard to the places already mentioned, and also to those of which Eratosthenes has given the distance from Hyrcania to Bactria and the countries beyond, and those from Colchis to the Sea of Hyrcania. These are points where we should not scrutinize him so narrowly as [when he describes] places situated in the heart of our continent, or others equally well known; and even these should be regarded from a geographical rather than a geometrical point of view. Hipparchus, at the end of the second book of his Commentaries on the Geography of Eratosthenes, having found fault with certain statements relative to Ethiopia, tells us at the commencement of the third, that his strictures, though to a certain point geographical, will be mathematical for the most part. As for myself, I cannot find any geography there. To me it seems entirely mathematical; but Eratosthenes himself set the example; for he frequently runs into scientific speculations, having little to do with the subject in hand, and which result in vague and inexact conclusions. Thus he is a mathematician in geography, and in mathematics a geographer; and so lies open to the attacks of both parties. In this third book, both he and Timosthenes get such severe justice, that there seems nothing left for us to do; Hipparchus is quite enough.