§1.4.7̔εξῆς δὲ περὶ τῶν ἠπείρων εἰπὼν γεγονέναι πολὺν λόγον, καὶ τοὺς μὲν τοῖς ποταμοῖς διαιρεῖν αὐτὰς τῷ τε Νείλῳ καὶ τῷ Τανάιδι νήσους ἀποφαίνοντας, τοὺς δὲ τοῖς ἰσθμοῖς τῷ τε μεταξὺ τῆς Κασπίας καὶ τῆς Ποντικῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τῷ μεταξὺ τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς καὶ τοῦ Ἐκρήγματος, τούτους δὲ χερρονήσους αὐτὰς λέγειν, οὐχ ὁρᾶν φησι πῶς ἂν εἰς πράγματα καταστρέφοι ἡ ζήτησις αὕτη, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἔριν διαιτώντων κατὰ Δημόκριτον εἶναι.
Next, having said that there has been much discussion concerning the continents, and that some, dividing them by rivers—namely the Nile and the Tanais—declare them to be islands, while others, dividing them by isthmuses—namely that between the Caspian and the Pontic Seas and that between the Red Sea and the Outlet—call them peninsulas, he says that he does not see how this inquiry can lead to practical matters, but is merely a dispute of arbitrators, as Democritus says.
μὴ ὄντων γὰρ ἀκριβῶν ὅρων, καθάπερ Κολυττοῦ καὶ Μελίτης, οἷον στηλῶν ἢ περιβόλων, τοῦτο μὲν ἔχειν φάναι ἡμᾶς ὅτι τουτὶ μέν ἐστι Κολυττὸς τουτὶ δὲ Μελίτη, τοὺς ὅρους δὲ μὴ ἔχειν εἰπεῖν.
For when there are no precise boundaries, as in the case of Colyttus and Melite, such as boundary posts or walls, he says we can indeed say that "this is Colyttus and this is Melite," but we cannot state the boundaries.
διὸ καὶ συμβαίνειν κρίσεις πολλάκις περὶ χωρίων τινῶν, καθάπερ Ἀργείοις μὲν καὶ Λακεδαιμονίοις περὶ Θυρέας, Ἀθηναίοις δὲ καὶ Βοιωτοῖς περὶ Ὠρωποῦ.
Wherefore disputes often arise concerning certain lands, just as between the Argives and Lacedaemonians concerning Thyrea, and between the Athenians and Boeotians concerning Oropus.
ἄλλως τε τοὺς Ἕλληνας τὰς τρεῖς ἠπείρους ὀνομάσαι οὐκ εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην ἀποβλέψαντας, ἀλλʼ εἴς τε τὴν σφετέραν καὶ τὴν ἀπαντικρὺ τὴν Καρικήν, ἐφʼ ᾗ νῦν Ἴωνες καὶ οἱ ἑξῆς· χρόνῳ δὲ ἐπὶ πλέον προϊόντας ἀεὶ καὶ πλειόνων γνωριζομένων χωρῶν εἰς τοῦτο καταστρέψαι τὴν διαίρεσιν.
Especially since the Greeks named the three continents not by looking at the whole inhabited world, but at their own land and that opposite, namely Caria, where now the Ionians and those after them dwell; and as they advanced further over time and more lands became known, they arrived at this threefold division.
πότερον οὖν οἱ πρῶτοι διορίσαντες τὰς τρεῖς, ἵνα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἄρξωμαι διαιτῶν τὴν ἔριν, μὴ κατὰ Δημόκριτον ἀλλὰ κατʼ αὐτόν, οὗτοι ἦσαν οἱ πρῶτοι τὴν σφετέραν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀντικειμένης τῆς τῶν Καρῶν διορίσαι ζητοῦντες;
Whether, then, the first to define the three—so that I may begin to arbitrate the dispute from the very extremes, not according to Democritus but according to him himself—were those who sought to define their own land from the opposite land of the Carians?
ἢ οὗτοι μὲν τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἐπενόουν μόνην καὶ τὴν Καρίαν καὶ ὀλίγην τὴν συνεχῆ, οὔτε δʼ Εὐρώπην οὔτε Ἀσίαν ὡσαύτως οὔτε Λιβύην, οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπιόντες ὅση ἦν ἱκανὴ ὑπογράψαι τὴν τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐπίνοιαν, οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰς τρία διαιροῦντες;
Or did these people conceive of Greece alone, Caria, and a little of the contiguous territory, and likewise neither Europe, Asia, nor Libya, whereas the rest who came after, when there was sufficient ground to sketch the conception of the inhabited world, were the ones who divided it into three?
πῶς οὖν οὐ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐποιοῦντο διαίρεσιν;
How then did they not make a division of the inhabited world?
τίς δὲ τρία μέρη λέγων καὶ καλῶν ἤπειρον ἕκαστον τῶν μερῶν οὐ προσεπινοεῖ τὸ ὅλον, οὗ τὸν μερισμὸν ποιεῖται;
And who, speaking of three parts and calling each of the parts a continent, does not also conceive of the whole, of which he makes the division?
εἰ δʼ ἐπινοοῖ μὲν μὴ τὴν οἰκουμένην, μέρους δέ τινος αὐτῆς τὸν μερισμὸν ποιοῖτο, τίνος ἄν τις μέρους τῆς οἰκουμένης μέρος εἶπε τὴν Ἀσίαν ἢ τὴν Εὐρώπην ἢ ὅλως ἤπειρον;
If he conceives not of the inhabited world, but makes a division of some part of it, of what part of the inhabited world would one say Asia, Europe, or a continent in general, is a part?
ταῦτα γὰρ εἴρηται παχυμερῶς.
For these things are stated in a rough manner.
§1.4.8ἔτι δὲ παχυμερέστερον τὸ φήσαντα μὴ ὁρᾶν εἰς τί πραγματικὸν καταστρέφει τὸ τοὺς ὅρους ζητεῖν, παραθεῖναι τὸν Κολυττὸν καὶ τὴν Μελίτην, εἶτʼ εἰς τἀναντία περιτρέπεσθαι.
And it is even rougher, after having said that he does not see to what practical matter the search for boundaries leads, to cite Colyttus and Melite, and then to turn around to the opposite view.
εἰ γὰρ οἱ περὶ Θυρεῶν καὶ Ὠρωποῦ πόλεμοι διὰ τὰς τῶν ὅρων ἀγνοίας ἀπέβησαν, εἰς πραγματικόν τι καταστρέφον τὸ διαχωρίζειν τὰς χώρας·
For if the wars concerning Thyrea and Oropus occurred because of ignorance of the boundaries, then dividing territories does lead to something practical.
ἢ τοῦτο λέγει, ὡς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν χωρίων καὶ νὴ Δία τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστα ἐθνῶν πραγματικὸν τὸ διορίζειν ἀκριβῶς, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἠπείρων περιττόν;
Or does he mean that while in the case of territories and, by Zeus, individual nations, defining boundaries precisely is practical, but in the case of continents it is superfluous?
καίτοι οὐδὲ ἐνταῦθα ἧττον οὐδέν· γένοιτο γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων ἡγεμόσι μεγάλοις ἀμφισβήτησις, τῷ μὲν ἔχοντι τὴν Ἀσίαν, τῷ δὲ τὴν Λιβύην, ὁποτέρου δή ἐστιν ἡ Αἴγυπτος, δηλονότι ἡ κάτω λεγομένη τῆς Αἰγύπτου χώρα.
And yet, it is no less so here; for a dispute could arise even concerning these among great rulers, one holding Asia and the other Libya, as to which of the two Egypt—clearly the region called Lower Egypt—belongs.
κἂν ἐάσῃ δέ τις τοῦτο διὰ τὸ σπάνιον, ἄλλως φατέον διαιρεῖσθαι τὰς ἠπείρους κατὰ μέγαν διορισμὸν καὶ πρὸς τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην ἀναφερόμενον· καθʼ ὃν οὐδὲ τούτου φροντιστέον, εἰ οἱ τοῖς ποταμοῖς διορίσαντες ἀπολείπουσί τινα χωρία ἀδιόριστα, τῶν ποταμῶν μὴ μέχρι τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ διηκόντων μηδὲ νήσους ὡς ἀληθῶς ἀπολειπόντων τὰς ἠπείρους.
And even if one should ignore this due to its rarity, one should state otherwise that the continents are divided according to a major definition and in reference to the whole inhabited world; according to which we need not even care if those who divide them by rivers leave some regions undefined, because the rivers do not reach the ocean nor do they truly leave the continents as islands.
§1.4.9Ἐπὶ τέλει δὲ τοῦ ὑπομνήματος οὐκ ἐπαινέσας τοὺς δίχα διαιροῦντας ἅπαν τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων πλῆθος εἴς τε Ἕλληνας καὶ βαρβάρους, καὶ τοὺς Ἀλεξάνδρῳ παραινοῦντας τοῖς μὲν Ἕλλησιν ὡς φίλοις χρῆσθαι τοῖς δὲ βαρβάροις ὡς πολεμίοις, βέλτιον εἶναί φησιν ἀρετῇ καὶ κακίᾳ διαιρεῖν ταῦτα.
And at the end of his treatise, not praising those who divide the entire multitude of mankind into two, namely Greeks and barbarians, and those who advised Alexander to treat the Greeks as friends and the barbarians as enemies, he says it is better to divide them by virtue and vice.
πολλοὺς γὰρ καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἶναι κακοὺς καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων ἀστείους, καθάπερ Ἰνδοὺς καὶ Ἀριανούς, ἔτι δὲ Ῥωμαίους καὶ Καρχηδονίους οὕτω θαυμαστῶς πολιτευομένους.
For he says that many of the Greeks are bad and many of the barbarians are refined, such as the Indians and Arians, and furthermore the Romans and Carthaginians, who govern themselves so admirably.
διόπερ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον ἀμελήσαντα τῶν παραινούντων, ὅσους οἷόν τʼ ἦν ἀποδέχεσθαι τῶν εὐδοκίμων ἀνδρῶν καὶ εὐεργετεῖν·
Therefore, he says, Alexander, ignoring those who advised him, accepted as many of the reputable men as possible and benefited them.
ὥσπερ διʼ ἄλλο τι τῶν οὕτω διελόντων τοὺς μὲν ἐν ψόγῳ τοὺς δʼ ἐν ἐπαίνῳ τιθεμένων, ἢ διότι τοῖς μὲν ἐπικρατεῖ τὸ νόμιμον καὶ τὸ παιδείας καὶ λόγων οἰκεῖον, τοῖς δὲ τἀναντία.
As if those who made this division, putting some under blame and others under praise, did so for any other reason than that in the former the rule of law, education, and reason prevail, while in the latter the opposite prevails!
καὶ ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος οὖν οὐκ ἀμελήσας τῶν παραινούντων, ἀλλʼ ἀποδεξάμενος τὴν γνώμην τὰ ἀκόλουθα, οὐ τὰ ἐναντία ἐποίει, πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν σκοπῶν τὴν τῶν ἐπεσταλκότων.
Therefore, Alexander did not ignore those who advised him, but accepting their opinion, he did what followed from it, not the opposite, looking to the intention of those who had given the advice.