§1.3.12περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν πλημμυρίδων καὶ τῶν ἀμπώτεων εἰρήκασιν ἱκανῶς Ποσειδώνιός τε καὶ Ἀθηνόδωρος· περὶ δὲ τῆς τῶν πορθμῶν παλιρροίας, ἐχόντων καὶ αὐτῶν φυσικώτερον λόγον ἢ κατὰ τὴν νῦν ὑπόθεσιν, τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν ἀπόχρη, ὅτι οὔτε εἷς τρόπος τοῦ ῥοώδεις εἶναι τοὺς πορθμούς, ὅ γε κατʼ εἶδος (οὐ γὰρ ἂν ὁ μὲν Σικελικὸς δὶς ἑκάστης ἡμέρας μετέβαλλεν, ὡς οὗτός φησιν, ὁ δὲ Χαλκιδικὸς ἑπτάκις, ὁ δὲ κατὰ Βυζάντιον οὐδὲ μετέβαλλεν, ἀλλὰ διετέλει τὸν ἔκρουν μόνον ἔχων τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Ποντικοῦ πελάγους εἰς τὴν Προποντίδα, ὡς δὲ Ἵππαρχος ἱστορεῖ, καὶ μονάς ποτε ἐποιεῖτο), οὔτʼ εἰ τρόπος εἷς εἴη, ταύτην ἂν ἔχοι τὴν αἰτίαν, ἥν φησιν ὁ Ἐρατοσθένης, ὅτι ἡ ἐφʼ ἑκάτερα θάλαττα ἄλλην καὶ ἄλλην ἐπιφάνειαν ἔχει· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ποταμῶν τοῦτο γένοιτʼ ἄν, εἰ μὴ καταράκτας ἔχοιεν· ἔχοντες δὲ οὐ παλιρροοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τὸ ταπεινότερον ἀεὶ φέρονται.
Now, concerning the floods and ebbs of the tide, Posidonius and Athenodorus have spoken sufficiently; but concerning the reciprocal flow of straits, which themselves also have a more physical explanation than according to the current hypothesis, it is enough to say this much: that neither is there only one way for straits to have currents, at least in species (for otherwise the Sicilian strait would not change twice each day, as he says, while the Chalcidic changes seven times, and the one near Byzantium does not change at all, but continues having only its outflow from the Pontic Sea into the Propontis, and, as Hipparchus records, even experienced standstills at times), nor, if there were only one way, would it have this cause which Eratosthenes states, namely that the sea on either side has a different surface; for not even in the case of rivers would this happen, unless they had cataracts; and even when they have them, they do not flow reciprocally, but are always carried toward the lower level.
καὶ τοῦτο δὲ συμβαίνει διὰ τὸ κεκλιμένον εἶναι τὸ ῥεῦμα καὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ· ὥστʼ οὐχ ὅτι παλιρροοῦντας, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ καθεστῶτας καὶ μένοντας, συρροίας μὲν ἐν αὐτοῖς οὔσης, μὴ μιᾶς δὲ ἐπιφανείας, ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν ὑψηλοτέρας τῆς δὲ ταπεινοτέρας.
And this happens because the current and its surface are inclined; so that they not only do not flow reciprocally, but would not even remain at rest and still, when there is a confluence in them, if the surface is not one, but one part is higher and another lower.
πελάγους δὲ τίς ἂν φαίη κεκλιμένην ἐπιφάνειαν;
But who would say that the sea has an inclined surface?
καὶ μάλιστα κατὰ τὰς σφαιροποιούσας ὑποθέσεις τὰ τέτταρα σώματα, ἃ δὴ καὶ στοιχεῖα φαμέν· οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἡ γῆ κατὰ ἕξιν ἐσχημάτισται στερεὰ οὖσα, ὥστε καὶ κοιλάδας ἔχειν συμμενούσας καὶ ἀναστήματα, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, ἀλλʼ αὐτῇ τῇ κατὰ τὸ βάρος ῥοπῇ τὴν ὄχησιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιεῖται καὶ τοιαύτην λαμβάνει τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν οἵαν ὁ Ἀρχιμήδης φησιν.
Especially according to the hypotheses of spherical formation of the four bodies, which indeed we also call elements; for water is not shaped according to a permanent state like the earth, which is solid so as to have valleys and heights that remain, but by its very weight-directed inclination it makes its support upon the earth and assumes such a surface as Archimedes says.
§1.3.13Ἐπιφέρει δὲ τοῖς περὶ τοῦ Ἄμμωνος καὶ τῆς Αἰγύπτου ῥηθεῖσιν, ὅτι δοκοίη καὶ τὸ Κάσιον ὄρος περικλύζεσθαι θαλάττῃ καὶ πάντα τὸν τόπον, ὅπου νῦν τὰ καλούμενα Γέρρα, καθʼ ἕκαστα τεναγίζειν συνάπτοντα τῷ τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς κόλπῳ, συνελθούσης δὲ τῆς θαλάττης ἀποκαλυφθῆναι.
He adds to what has been said about Ammon and Egypt, that Mount Casius also seemed to be washed around by the sea, and all the place where what are now called Gerrha are, was in each part marshy, connecting with the gulf of the Red Sea, but when the sea came together and retreated, it was laid bare.
τὸ δὴ τεναγίζειν τὸν λεχθέντα τόπον συνάπτοντα τῷ τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς κόλπῳ, ἀμφίβολόν ἐστιν, ἐπειδὴ τὸ συνάπτειν σημαίνει καὶ τὸ συνεγγίζειν καὶ τὸ ψαύειν, ὥστε, εἰ ὕδατα εἴη, σύρρουν εἶναι θάτερον θατέρῳ.
Now, that the said place was marshy, connecting with the gulf of the Red Sea, is ambiguous, since "connecting" (synaptein) means both to be near and to touch, so that, if there were waters, one would be confluent with the other.
ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν δέχομαι καὶ τὸ συνεγγίζειν τὰ τενάγη τῇ Ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάττῃ, ἕως ἀκμὴν ἐκέκλειστο τὰ κατὰ τὰς στήλας στενά, ἐκραγέντων δὲ τὴν ἀναχώρησιν γενέσθαι, ταπεινωθείσης τῆς ἡμετέρας θαλάττης διὰ τὴν κατὰ τὰς στήλας ἔκρυσιν.
I, indeed, accept that the marshes "were near" the Red Sea as long as the straits at the Pillars were still closed, but when they were broken through, the retreat took place, our sea being lowered because of the outflow at the Pillars.
Ἵππαρχος δὲ ἐκδεξάμενος τὸ συνάπτειν ταὐτὸν τῷ σύρρουν γενέσθαι τὴν ἡμετέραν θάλατταν τῇ Ἐρυθρᾷ διὰ τὴν πλήρωσιν, αἰτιᾶται τί δή ποτε οὐχὶ τῇ κατὰ τὰς στήλας ἐκρύσει μεθισταμένη ἐκεῖσε ἡ καθʼ ἡμᾶς θάλαττα συμμεθίστα καὶ τὴν σύρρουν αὐτῇ γενομένην τὴν Ἐρυθράν, καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ διέμεινεν ἐπιφανείᾳ, μὴ ταπεινουμένη·
But Hipparchus, taking "connecting" to be the same as our sea becoming "confluent" with the Red Sea because of the filling up, blames him: why on earth, when our sea shifted thither because of the outflow at the Pillars, did it not also shift the Red Sea which had become confluent with it, and why did it remain at the same surface, not being lowered?
καὶ γὰρ κατʼ αὐτὸν Ἐρατοσθένη τὴν ἐκτὸς θάλατταν ἅπασαν σύρρουν εἶναι, ὥστε καὶ τὴν ἑσπέριον καὶ τὴν Ἐρυθρὰν θάλατταν μίαν εἶναι.
For indeed, according to Eratosthenes himself, the whole outer sea is confluent, so that both the western sea and the Red Sea are one.
τοῦτο δʼ εἰπὼν ἐπιφέρει τὸ ἀκόλουθον, τὸ τὸ αὐτὸ ὕψος ἔχειν τήν τε ἔξω στηλῶν θάλατταν καὶ τὴν Ἐρυθρὰν καὶ ἔτι τὴν ταύτῃ γεγονυῖαν σύρρουν.
And having said this, he adds the consequence, that the sea outside the Pillars, the Red Sea, and moreover the one that has become confluent with it, must have the same height.
§1.3.14Ἀλλʼ οὔτʼ εἰρηκέναι τοῦτό φησιν Ἐρατοσθένης, τὸ σύρρουν γεγονέναι κατὰ τὴν πλήρωσιν τῇ Ἐρυθρᾷ, ἀλλὰ συνεγγίσαι μόνον, οὔτʼ ἀκολουθεῖν τῇ μιᾷ καὶ συνεχεῖ θαλάττῃ τὸ αὐτὸ ὕψος ἔχειν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπιφάνειαν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὴν καθʼ ἡμᾶς, καὶ νὴ Δία τὴν κατὰ τὸ Λέχαιον καὶ τὴν περὶ Κεγχρεάς.
But Eratosthenes has neither said this, namely that it became confluent with the Red Sea during the filling up, but only that it came near, nor does it follow for a single and continuous sea to have the same height and the same surface, just as our own sea does not, and indeed, by Zeus, that near Lechaeum and that around Cenchreae.
ὅπερ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἵππαρχος ἐπισημαίνεται ἐν τῷ πρὸς αὐτὸν λόγῳ· εἰδὼς οὖν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ τοιαύτην ἰδίᾳ τι πρὸς αὐτὸν λεγέτω, καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἑτοίμου λαμβανέτω, ὡς ἄρα ὁ φήσας μίαν εἶναι τὴν ἔξω θάλατταν σύμφησι καὶ ὅτι μία ἐστὶν αὐτῆς ἡ ἐπιφάνεια.
Which indeed Hipparchus himself points out in his argument against him; knowing therefore his opinion to be such, let him say something to him privately, and let him not take it for granted that the one who says the outer sea is one thereby agrees that its surface also is one.