Humanitext Reader

Strabo · Geography §1.2.37-1.2.38

Refutation of Apollodorus and Demetrius of Scepsis

Passage 30 of 577 · Greek

Summary

This chunk discusses Apollodorus' censure of Callimachus and Demetrius of Scepsis' claim regarding Homer's geographical knowledge, followed by Strabo's refutation.

§1.2.37Ἀπολλόδωρος δὲ ἐπιτιμᾷ Καλλιμάχῳ, συνηγορῶν τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἐρατοσθένη, διότι καίπερ γραμματικὸς ὢν παρὰ τὴν Ὁμηρικὴν ὑπόθεσιν καὶ τὸν ἐξωκεανισμὸν τῶν τόπων, περὶ οὓς τὴν πλάνην φράζει, Γαῦδον καὶ Κόρκυραν ὀνομάζει.
And Apollodorus censures Callimachus, agreeing with the followers of Eratosthenes, because although he was a grammarian, contrary to the Homeric hypothesis and the relocation of the places to the outer ocean, around which he describes the wandering, he names Gaudus and Corcyra.
ἀλλʼ εἰ μὲν μηδαμοῦ γέγονεν ἡ πλάνη, ἀλλʼ ὅλον πλάσμα ἐστὶν Ὁμήρου τοῦτο, ὀρθὴ ἡ ἐπιτίμησις· ἢ εἰ γέγονε μέν, περὶ ἄλλους δὲ τόπους, δεῖ λέγειν εὐθὺς καὶ περὶ τίνας, ἐπανορθούμενον ἅμα τὴν ἄγνοιαν.
But if the wandering occurred nowhere, but this is entirely a fiction of Homer, the censure is correct; or if it did occur, but around other places, he ought to state immediately also around which places, correcting at the same time the ignorance.
μήτε δὲ ὅλου πλάσματος εἶναι πιθανῶς λεγομένου, καθάπερ ἐπεδείκνυμεν, μήτʼ ἄλλων τόπων κατὰ πίστιν μείζω δεικνυμένων, ἀπολύοιτʼ ἂν τῆς αἰτίας ὁ Καλλίμαχος.
But since it can neither be plausibly said to be entirely a fiction, as we were demonstrating, nor are other places shown with greater credibility, Callimachus would be acquitted of the charge.
§1.2.38οὐδʼ ὁ Σκήψιος δὲ Δημήτριος εὖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ Ἀπολλοδώρῳ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἐνίων αἴτιος ἐκεῖνος κατέστη.
Nor is Demetrius of Scepsis correct, but indeed he became the cause of some of the errors even for Apollodorus.
πρὸς γὰρ Νεάνθη τὸν Κυζικηνὸν φιλοτιμοτέρως ἀντιλέγων εἰπόντα ὅτι οἱ Ἀργοναῦται πλέοντες εἰς Φᾶσιν τὸν ὑφʼ Ὁμήρου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμολογούμενον πλοῦν ἱδρύσαντο τὰ τῆς Ἰδαίας μητρὸς ἱερὰ περὶ Κύζικον, ἀρχὴν φησὶ μηδʼ εἰδέναι τὴν εἰς Φᾶσιν ἀποδημίαν τοῦ Ἰάσονος Ὅμηρον.
For in arguing somewhat contentiously against Neanthes of Cyzicus, who said that the Argonauts, sailing to Phasis—the voyage agreed upon by Homer and the others—founded the sanctuaries of the Idaean Mother around Cyzicus, he says that Homer did not even know at all of Jason's journey to Phasis.
τοῦτο δʼ οὐ μόνον τοῖς ὑφʼ Ὁμήρου λεγομένοις μάχεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ.
But this conflicts not only with the things said by Homer, but also with those said by himself.
φησὶ γὰρ τὸν Ἀχιλλέα Λέσβον μὲν πορθῆσαι καὶ ἄλλα χωρία, Λήμνου δʼ ἀποσχέσθαι καὶ τῶν πλησίον νήσων διὰ τὴν πρὸς Ἰάσονα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν Εὔνεων συγγένειαν τότε τὴν νῆσον κατέχοντα.
For he says that Achilles plundered Lesbos and other places, but abstained from Lemnos and the neighboring islands on account of his kinship with Jason and his son Euneus, who then held the island.
πῶς οὖν ὁ ποιητὴς τοῦτο μὲν ᾔδει, διότι συγγενεῖς ἢ ὁμοεθνεῖς ἢ γείτονες ἢ ὁπωσοῦν οἰκεῖοι ὑπῆρχον ὅ τε Ἀχιλλεὺς καὶ ὁ Ἰάσων (ὅπερ οὐδαμόθεν ἄλλοθεν ἀλλʼ ἐκ τοῦ Θετταλοὺς ἀμφοτέρους εἶναι συνέβαινε, καὶ τὸν μὲν Ἰώλκιον τὸν δʼ ἐκ τῆς Φθιώτιδος Ἀχαιίδος ὑπάρχειν), τοῦτο δʼ ἠγνόει, πόθεν ἦλθε τῷ Ἰάσονι, Θετταλῷ καὶ Ἰωλκίῳ ὑπάρχοντι, ἐν μὲν τῇ πατρίδι μηδεμίαν καταλιπεῖν διαδοχήν, Λήμνου δὲ καταστῆσαι κύριον τὸν υἱόν;
How then did the poet on the one hand know this, that Achilles and Jason were kinsmen or of the same nation or neighbors or in some way related (which happened from no other source than from both being Thessalians, and the one being of Iolcus and the other from Phthiotis in Achaea), but on the other hand was ignorant of this: from what source did it come to Jason, who was Thessalian and Iolcian, to leave no succession in his fatherland, but to establish his son as lord of Lemnos?
καὶ Πελίαν μὲν ᾔδει καὶ τὰς Πελιάδας καὶ τὴν ἀρίστην αὐτῶν καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς Εὔμηλον, τὸν ὑπʼ Ἀδμήτῳ τέκε δῖα γυναικῶν Ἄλκηστις, Πελίαο θυγατρῶν εἶδος ἀρίστη, τῶν δὲ περὶ τὸν Ἰάσονα συμβάντων καὶ τὴν Ἀργὼ καὶ τοὺς Ἀργοναύτας, τῶν ὁμολογουμένων παρὰ πᾶσιν, ἀνήκοος ἦν, ἐν δὲ τῷ ὠκεανῷ τὸν παρʼ Αἰήτου πλοῦν ἔπλαττεν, ἀρχὴν μηδεμίαν ἐξ ἱστορίας λαβών;
And while he knew Pelias and the Peliades and the best of them and her son Eumelus, "whom to Admetus bore the noble among women, Alcestis, the best in form of the daughters of Pelias," was he unheard of the events concerning Jason and the Argo and the Argonauts, which are agreed upon by all, and did he fashion the voyage from Aeetes in the ocean, taking no starting point at all from history?

Notes

  1. §1.2.37διότι — The conjunction διότι introduces the causal clause explaining why Apollodorus censures Callimachus. The subject of the participle ὢν (concessive with καίπερ) inside this clause is Callimachus.
  2. §1.2.37μήτε δὲ ὅλου πλάσματος εἶναι πιθανῶς λεγομένου ... μήτʼ ἄλλων τόπων ... δεικνυμένων — Two genitive absolute constructions coordinated by the correlative conjunctions μήτε... μήτε... They establish the conditional background for the potential optative verb ἀπολύοιτο in the main clause.
  3. §1.2.38ἀρχὴν — An adverbial accusative of the noun ἀρχή. Combined with the following negative particle μηδέ, it forms a strong negation meaning "not at all" or "not even in the first place."
  4. §1.2.38πόθεν ἦλθε τῷ Ἰάσονι — An indirect question serving as the object of the verb ἠγνόει. It is based on the idiomatic expression ἔρχομαί τινι ("to happen to someone" or "to come upon someone"), with τῷ Ἰάσονι as the dative of interest, meaning "how such a situation came about for Jason."

Cite this passage

Strabo, Geography §1.2.37-1.2.38. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0099.tlg001.humanitext-grc2:1.2.37-1.2.38

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.