Book 1
2.25
To refute Crates would require a lengthened argument, which here perhaps may be considered out of place. Aristarchus we commend for rejecting the hypothesis of Crates, which is open to many objections, and for referring the expression of the poet to our Ethiopia. But the remainder of his statement we must discuss. First, his minute examination of the reading is altogether fruitless, for whichever way it may have been written, his interpretation is equally applicable to both; for what difference is there whether you say thus—In our opinion there are two Ethiopias, one towards the east, the other to the west; or thus—For they are as well towards the east as the west? Secondly, He makes false assumptions. For admitting that the poet was ignorant of the isthmus,The isthmus of Suez. and that he alludes to the Ethiopia contiguous to Egypt, when he says, The Ethiopians separated into two divisions;Odyssey i. 23.Odyssey i. 23. what then? Are they not separated into two divisions, and could the poet have thus expressed himself if he had been in ignorance? Is not Egypt, nay, are not the Egyptians, separated into two divisions by the Nile from the Delta to Syene,This explanation falls to the ground when we remember, that prior to the reign of Psammeticus no stranger had ever succeeded in penetrating into the interior of Egypt. This was the statement of the Greeks themselves. Now as Psammeticus did not flourish till two and a half centuries after Homer, that poet could not possibly have been aware of the circumstances which Strabo brings forward to justify his interpretation of this passage which he has undertaken to defend. These towards the west, those towards the east? And what else is Egypt, with the exception of the island formed by the river and overflowed by its waters; does it not lie on either side of the river both east and west?
