§2.1.41̔ιππάρχῳ μὲν οὖν μὴ γεωγραφοῦντι ἀλλʼ ἐξετάζοντι τὰ λεχθέντα ἐν τῇ γεωγραφίᾳ τῇ Ἐρατοσθένους οἰκεῖον ἦν ἐπὶ πλέον τὰ καθʼ ἕκαστα εὐθύνειν.
For Hipparchus, therefore, who was not writing a geography but examining what had been said in the Geography of Eratosthenes, it was appropriate to correct the individual points in greater detail.
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.
But as for us, in the points where Eratosthenes is right, and still more where he errs, we have thought it necessary to apply the appropriate argument to each individual case, on the one hand correcting his mistakes, and on the other hand defending him against the charges brought by Hipparchus, and at the same time we examine Hipparchus himself where he has spoken in a fault-finding manner.
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.
But in these matters, seeing already that the one is completely off the mark and the other is justly accusing him, we think it sufficient if, in the geography itself, we correct him by stating the facts.
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.
For in the case of those whose errors are continuous and superficial, it is better not even to mention them except rarely and in general, which is what we shall try to do in the individual parts.
ἐπὶ πολὺ δʼ ἀγνοίας ἐτύγχανον ἀφιγμένοι καὶ τῶν κατʼ Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὸν Ἀδρίαν καὶ τὸν Πόντον καὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς προσαρκτίων μερῶν·
And for now let it be said that Timosthenes, Eratosthenes, and those still earlier than they, were completely ignorant of Iberian and Celtic affairs, and ten thousand times more so of Germanic and Britannic affairs, and likewise of those of the Getae and Bastarnae.
εἰ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἴσως φιλαίτια.
And they had reached a great depth of ignorance concerning the regions of Italy, the Adriatic, the Pontus, and the succeeding northern parts; even if such matters are perhaps equally open to censure.
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·
For since Eratosthenes, in the case of far distant regions, says that he is merely stating the reported distances, and does not assert them positively but says he received them as such, adding in some cases that they are more or less in a straight line, one ought not to apply a strict refutation to distances that do not agree with one another.
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.
Yet this is what Hipparchus attempts to do, both in the points mentioned before and in those passages where the distances concerning Hyrcania as far as Bactria and the nations beyond are set forth, and further the distances from Colchis to the Hyrcanian Sea.
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.
For he ought not to be examined in the same way in these cases as in the case of the continental coast and other places so well known; indeed, not even in these latter cases geometrically, as I said, but rather geographically.
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·
At any rate, after finding fault with some of the Ethiopian matters at the end of his second treatise written against Eratosthenes' Geography, he says in the third that the greater part of the inquiry will be mathematical, but to some extent also geographical.
οὐδʼ ἐπὶ ποσὸν μέντοι δοκεῖ μοι ποιήσασθαι γεωγραφικήν, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν μαθηματικήν, διδόντος καὶ τοῦ Ἐρατοσθένους τὴν τοιαύτην πρόφασιν.
Yet it does not seem to me that he has made it geographical even to any extent, but entirely mathematical, Eratosthenes himself also giving such an excuse.
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.
For in many places Eratosthenes digresses towards the more scientific aspect of the inquiry before him, and having digressed, he makes statements that are not precise but general, being in a way a mathematician in geographical matters and a geographer in mathematical matters, so that he gives handles to his opponents in both. And in this treatise, both Eratosthenes and Timosthenes have given just handles, so that it is not left to us to join in the examination, but it is enough to rest content with what has been said by Hipparchus.