1. BYZACIA is near the Syrtes; it has a circumference of two thousand stades, and is circular in shape.... Hippo, Singa, Tabraca, are cities in Libya. Chalkeia, however, is not, as Demosthenes ignorantly states, the name of a city, but means only a “bronze-factory.”...
1. Πολύβιος … Βυζακίδα χώραν εἶναί φησι περὶ τὰς Σύρτεις ἐν δωδεκάτῳ· "σταδίων μὲν οὖσα τὴν περίμετρον δισχιλίων, τῷ δὲ σχήματι περιφερής." Ἱππών, Λιβύης πόλις. Πολύβιος δωδεκάτῳ. Σίγγα, πόλις, Λιβύης, ὡς Πολύβιος δωδεκάτῳ. Τάβρακα, πόλις Λιβύης. Πολύβιος δωδεκάτῳ. χαλκεῖα, πόλις Λιβύης· ὁ πολυΐστωρ ἐν Λιβυκῶν τρίτῳ, ὡς Δημοσθένης· ᾧ μεμφόμενος Πολύβιος ἐν τῷ δωδεκάτῳ ὧδε γράφει· "ἀγνοεῖ δὲ μεγάλως καὶ περὶ τῶν Χαλκείων· οὐδὲ γὰρ πόλις ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ χαλκουργεῖα."
2. The lotus is not a large tree; but it is rough and thorny, and has a green leaf, like the rhamnus (black or white thorn), a little longer and broader. The fruit is like white myrtle-berries when they are come to perfection; but, as it grows, it becomes purple in colour, and in size about equal to round olives, and has a very small stone. When it is ripe they gather it: and some of it they pound up with groats of spelt, and store in vessels for their slaves; and the rest they also preserve for the free inhabitants, after taking out the stones, and use it for food. It tastes like a fig or a date, but is superior to them in aroma. A wine is made of it also by steeping it in water and crushing it, sweet and pleasant to the taste, like good mead; and they drink it without mixing it with water. It will not keep, however, more than ten days, and they therefore only make it in small quantities as they want it. Vinegar also is made out of it....
2. τὰ παραπλήσια τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἡρόδοτον ἱστορεῖ περὶ τοῦ ἐν Λιβύῃ καλουμένου λωτοῦ αὐτόπτης γενόμενος ὁ Μεγαλοπολίτης Πολύβιος ἐν τῇ ιβ# τῶν ἱστοριῶν λέγων οὕτως· " ἔστι δὲ τὸ δένδρον ὁ λωτὸς οὐ μέγα, τραχὺ δὲ καὶ ἀκανθῶδες, ἔχει δὲ φύλλον χλωρὸν παραπλήσιον τῇ ῥάμνῳ, μικρὸν βαθύτερον καὶ πλατύτερον. ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τὰς μὲν ἀρχὰς ὅμοιός ἐστι καὶ τῇ χρόᾳ καὶ τῷ μεγέθει ταῖς λευκαῖς μυρτίσι ταῖς τετελειωμέναις, αὐξανόμενος δὲ τῷ μὲν χρώματι γίνεται φοινικοῦς, τῷ δὲ μεγέθει ταῖς γογγύλαις ἐλαίαις παραπλήσιος, πυρῆνα δὲ ἔχει τελέως μικρόν. ἐπὰν δὲ πεπανθῇ, συνάγουσι, καὶ τὸν μὲν τοῖς οἰκέταις μετὰ χόνδρου κόψαντες σάττουσιν εἰς ἀγγεῖα, τὸν δὲ τοῖς ἐλευθέροις ἐξελόντες τὸν πυρῆνα συντιθέασιν ὡσαύτως, καὶ σιτεύονται τοῦτον. ἔστι δὲ τὸ βρῶμα παραπλήσιον σύκῳ καὶ φοινικοβαλάνῳ, τῇ δὲ εὐωδίᾳ βέλτιον. γίνεται δὲ καὶ οἶνος ἐξ αὐτοῦ βρεχομένου καὶ τριβομένου διʼ ὕδατος, κατὰ μὲν τὴν γεῦσιν ἡδὺς καὶ ἀπολαυστικός, οἰνομέλιτι χρηστῷ παραπλήσιος, ᾧ χρῶνται χωρὶς ὕδατος. οὐ δύναται δὲ πλέον δέκα μένειν ἡμερῶν· διὸ καὶ ποιοῦσι κατὰ βραχὺ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν. ποιοῦσι δὲ καὶ ὄξος ἐξ αὐτῶν."
3. The excellence of the soil of Libya must excite our admiration. But one would feel inclined to say of Timaeus, not merely that he had never studied the country, but that he was childish and entirely unintelligent in his notions; completely enslaved to those old traditional stories of Libya being wholly sandy, parched, and barren. The same too holds good about its animals. The supply of horses, oxen, sheep, and goats in it is beyond anything to be found in any other part of the world; because many of the tribes in Libya do not use cultivated crops, but live on and with their flocks and herds. Again what writer has failed to mention the vast number and strength of its elephants, lions, and panthers, or the beauty of its buffalos, or the size of its ostriches? Of these not one is to be found in Europe, while Libya is full of them. But Timaeus, by passing them over without a word, gives, as though purposely, an impression exactly the reverse of the truth. And just in the same random way in which he has spoken about Libya, he has also done about the island called Cyrnus. For, when mentioning it in his second book, he says that wild goats, sheep, wild oxen, stags, hares, wolves, and some other animals are plentiful in it; and that the inhabitants employ themselves in hunting them, and in fact spend most of their time in that pursuit. Whereas in this island there are not only no wild goats or wild oxen, but not even hare, wolf, or stag, or any animal of the sort, except some foxes, rabbits, and wild sheep. The rabbit indeed at a distance looks like a small hare; but when taken in the hand, it is found to be widely different both in appearance and in the taste of its flesh; and it also lives generally underground.
3. τὴν μὲν τῆς χώρας ἀρετὴν πᾶς ἄν τις θαυμάσειε, τὸν δὲ Τίμαιον εἴποι τις ἂν οὐ μόνον ἀνιστόρητον γεγονέναι περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Λιβύην, ἀλλὰ καὶ παιδαριώδη καὶ τελέως ἀσυλλόγιστον καὶ ταῖς ἀρχαίαις φήμαις ἀκμὴν ἐνδεδεμένον, ἃς παρειλήφαμεν, ὡς ἀμμώδους πάσης καὶ ξηρᾶς καὶ ἀκάρπου καθυπαρχούσης τῆς Λιβύης. ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ περὶ τῶν ζῴων. τό τε γὰρ τῶν ἵππων καὶ τῶν βοῶν καὶ προβάτων, ἅμα δὲ τούτοις αἰγῶν πλῆθος τοσοῦτόν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν χώραν ὅσον οὐκ οἶδʼ εἰ δύναιτʼ ἂν εὑρεθῆναι κατὰ τὴν λοιπὴν οἰκουμένην, διὰ τὸ πολλὰ τῶν κατὰ Λιβύην ἐθνῶν τοῖς μὲν ἡμέροις μὴ χρῆσθαι καρποῖς, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν θρεμμάτων καὶ σὺν τοῖς θρέμμασιν ἔχειν τὸν βίον. καὶ μὴν τὸ τῶν ἐλεφάντων καὶ λεόντων καὶ παρδάλεων πλῆθος καὶ τὴν ἀλκήν, ἔτι δὲ βουβάλων κάλλος καὶ στρουθῶν μεγέθη, τίς οὐχ ἱστόρησεν; ὧν κατὰ μὲν τὴν Εὐρώπην τὸ παράπαν οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἡ δὲ Λιβύη πλήρης ἐστὶ τῶν προειρημένων. περὶ ὧν οὐδὲν ἱστορήσας Τίμαιος ὥσπερ ἐπίτηδες τἀναντία τοῖς κατʼ ἀλήθειαν ὑπάρχουσιν ἐξηγεῖται. καθάπερ δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν κατὰ Λιβύην ἀπεσχεδίακεν, οὕτως καὶ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν νῆσον τὴν προσαγορευομένην Κύρνον. καὶ γὰρ ὑπὲρ ἐκείνης μνημονεύων ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ βύβλῳ φησὶν αἶγας ἀγρίας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ βοῦς ἀγρίους ὑπάρχειν ἐν αὐτῇ πολλούς, ἔτι δʼ ἐλάφους καὶ λαγὼς καὶ λύκους καί τινα τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων, καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους περὶ ταῦτα διατρίβειν κυνηγετοῦντας καὶ τὴν ὅλην τοῦ βίου διαγωγὴν ἐν τούτοις ἔχειν. κατὰ δὲ τὴν προειρημένην νῆσον οὐχ οἷον αἲξ ἄγριος ἢ βοῦς, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ λαγὼς οὐδὲ λύκος οὐδʼ ἔλαφος οὐδʼ ἄλλο τῶν τοιούτων ζῴων οὐδέν ἐστι, πλὴν ἀλωπέκων καὶ κυνίκλων καὶ προβάτων ἀγρίων. ὁ δὲ κύνικλος πόρρωθεν μὲν ὁρώμενος εἶναι δοκεῖ λαγὼς μικρός, ὅταν δʼ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας λάβῃ τις, μεγάλην ἔχει διαφορὰν καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν βρῶσιν· γίνεται δὲ τὸ πλεῖον μέρος κατὰ γῆς.
4. The idea, however, of all the animals in the island being wild, has arisen in the following way: The caretakers cannot keep up with their animals, owing to the thick woods and rocky broken nature of the country; but, whenever they wish to collect them, they stand on some convenient spots and call the beasts together by the sound of a trumpet; and all of them flock without fail to their own trumpets. Now, when ships arrive at the coast. and the sailors see goats or cattle grazing without any one with them, and thereupon try to catch them, the animals will not let them come near them, because they are not used to them, but will scamper off. But as soon as the keeper sees the men disembarking and sounds his trumpet, they all set off running at full speed and collect round the trumpet. This gives the appearance of wildness; and Timaeus, who made only careless and perfunctory inquiries, committed himself to a random statement. Now this obedience to the sound of a trumpet is nothing astonishing. For in Italy the swineherds manage the feeding of their pigs in the same way. They do not follow close behind the beasts, as in Greece, but keep some distance in front of them, sounding their horn every now and then; and the animals follow behind and run together at the sound. Indeed, the complete familiarity which the animals show with the particular horn to which they belong seems at first astonishing and almost incredible. For owing to the populousness and wealth of the country, the droves of swine in Italy are exceedingly large, especially along the sea coast of the Tuscans and Gauls: for one sow will bring up a thousand pigs, or sometimes even more. They therefore drive them out from their night styes to feed, according to their litters and ages. Whence, if several droves are taken to the same place, they cannot preserve these distinction of litters; but they of course get mixed up with each other, both as they are being driven out, and as they feed, and as they are being brought home. Accordingly the device of the horn-blowing has been invented to separate them, when they have got mixed up together, without labour or trouble. For as they feed, one swineherd goes in one direction sounding his horn, and another in another: and thus the animals sort themselves of their own accord, and follow their own horns with such eagerness that it is impossible by any means to stop or hinder them. But in Greece, when the swine get mixed up in the oak forests in their search for the mast, the swineherd who has most assistants and the best help at his disposal, when collecting his own animals, drives off his neighbour’s also. Sometimes too a thief lies in wait, and drives them off without the swineherd knowing how he lost them; because the beasts straggle a long way from their drivers, in their eagerness to find acorns, when they are just beginning to fall....
4. δοκεῖ γε μὴν πάντʼ εἶναι τὰ ζῷα κατὰ τὴν νῆσον ἄγρια διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν. οὐ δύνανται κατὰ τὰς νομὰς συνακολουθεῖν οἱ ποιμαίνοντες τοῖς θρέμμασι διὰ τὸ σύνδενδρον καὶ κρημνώδη καὶ τραχεῖαν εἶναι τὴν νῆσον· ἀλλʼ ὅταν βούλωνται συναθροῖσαι, κατὰ τοὺς εὐκαίρους τόπους ἐφιστάμενοι τῇ σάλπιγγι συγκαλοῦσι τὰ ζῷα, καὶ πάντα πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν ἀδιαπτώτως συντρέχει σάλπιγγα. λοιπὸν ὅταν τινὲς προσπλεύσαντες πρὸς τὴν νῆσον αἶγας ἢ βοῦς θεάσωνται νεμομένας ἐρήμους, κἄπειτα βουληθῶσι καταλαβεῖν, οὐ προσίεται τὰ ζῷα διὰ τὴν ἀσυνήθειαν, ἀλλὰ φεύγει. ὅταν δὲ καὶ συνιδὼν ὁ ποιμὴν τοὺς ἀποβαίνοντας σαλπίσῃ, προτροπάδην ἅμα φέρεται καὶ συντρέχει πρὸς τὴν σάλπιγγα. διὸ φαντασίαν ἀγρίων ποιεῖ· ὑπὲρ ὧν Τίμαιος κακῶς καὶ παρέργως ἱστορήσας ἐσχεδίασε. τὸ δὲ τῇ σάλπιγγι πειθαρχεῖν οὐκ ἔστι θαυμάσιον· καὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν οἱ τὰς ὗς τρέφοντες οὕτω χειρίζουσι τὰ κατὰ τὰς νομάς. οὐ γὰρ ἕπονται κατὰ πόδας οἱ συοφορβοὶ τοῖς θρέμμασιν, ὥσπερ παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἀλλὰ προηγοῦνται φωνοῦντες τῇ βυκάνῃ κατὰ διάστημα, τὰ δὲ θρέμματα κατόπιν ἀκολουθεῖ καὶ συντρέχει πρὸς τὴν φωνήν, καὶ τηλικαύτη γίνεται συνήθεια τοῖς ζῴοις πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν βυκάνην ὥστε θαυμάζειν καὶ δυσπαραδέκτως ἔχειν τοὺς πρώτους ἀκούσαντας. διὰ γὰρ τὴν πολυχειρίαν καὶ τὴν λοιπὴν χορηγίαν μεγάλα συμβαίνει τὰ συβόσια κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν ὑπάρχειν, καὶ μάλιστα [τὴν παλαίαν], παρά τε τοῖς Τυρρηνικοῖς καὶ Γαλάταις, ὥστε τὴν μίαν τοκάδα χιλίους ἐκτρέφειν ὗς, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ πλείους. διὸ καὶ κατὰ γένη ποιοῦνται καὶ καθʼ ἡλικίαν τὰς ἐκ τῶν νυκτερευμάτων ἐξαγωγάς. ὅθεν εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον προαγομένων καὶ πλειόνων συστημάτων οὐ δύνανται ταῦτα κατὰ γένη τηρεῖν, ἀλλά γε συμπίπτει κατά τε τὰς ἐξελασίας καὶ νομὰς ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως δὲ κατὰ τὰς προσαγωγάς. ἐξ ὧν αὐτοῖς ἐπινενόηται πρὸς τὸ διακρίνειν, ὅταν συμπέσῃ, χωρὶς κόπου καὶ πραγματείας τὸ κατὰ βυκάνην. ἐπειδὰν γὰρ τῶν νεμόντων ὁ μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος προάγῃ φωνῶν, ὁ δʼ ἐφʼ ἕτερον ἀποκλίνας, αὐτὰ διʼ αὑτῶν χωρίζεται τὰ θρέμματα καὶ κατακολουθεῖ ταῖς ἰδίαις βυκάναις μετὰ τοιαύτης προθυμίας ὥστε μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι βιάσασθαι μηδὲ κωλῦσαι μηδενὶ τρόπῳ τὴν ὁρμὴν αὐτῶν. παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ἕλλησι κατὰ τοὺς δρυμούς, ἐπειδὰν ἀλλήλοις συμπέσῃ διώκοντα τὸν καρπόν, ὁ πλείονας ἔχων χεῖρας καὶ κατευκαιρήσας περιλαβὼν τοῖς ἰδίοις θρέμμασιν ἀπάγει τὰ τοῦ πλησίον. ποτὲ δὲ κλέπτης ὑποκαθίσας ἀπήλασεν, οὐδʼ ἐπιγινώσκοντος τοῦ περιάγοντος πῶς ἀπέβαλε, διὰ τὸ μακρὰν ἀποσπᾶσθαι τὰ κτήνη τῶν περιαγόντων, ἁμιλλώμενα περὶ τὸν καρπόν, ὅταν ἀκμὴν ἄρχηται ῥεῖν. πλὴν ταῦτα μὲν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον.
4a. It is difficult to pardon such errors in Timaeus, considering how severe he is in criticising the slips of others. For instance he finds fault with Theopompus for stating that Dionysius sailed from Sicily to Corinth in a merchant vessel, whereas he really arrived in a ship of war. And again he falsely charges Ephorus with contradicting himself, on the ground that he asserts that Dionysius the Elder ascended the throne at the age of twenty-three, reigned forty-two years, and died at sixty-three. Now no one would say, I think, that this was a blunder of the historian, but clearly one of the transcriber. For either Ephorus must be more foolish than Coroebus and Margites, if he were unable to calculate that forty-two added to twenty-three make sixty-five; or, if that is incredible in the case of a man like Ephorus, it must be a mere mistake of the transcriber, and the carping and malevolent criticism of Timaeus must be rejected.
4a. ὅτι διασύρας ὁ Πολύβιος τὸν Τίμαιον ἐν πολλοῖς αὖθίς φησι· τίς ἂν ἔτι δοίη συγγνώμην ἐπὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις ἁμαρτήμασιν ἄλλως τε καὶ Τιμαίῳ τῷ προσφυομένῳ τοῖς ἄλλοις πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας παρωνυχίας; ἐν αἷς Θεοπόμπου μὲν κατηγορεῖ διότι Διονυσίου ποιησαμένου τὴν ἀνακομιδὴν ἐκ Σικελίας εἰς Κόρινθον ἐν μακρᾷ νηί, Θεόπομπός φησιν ἐν στρογγύλῃ παραγενέσθαι τὸν Διονύσιον, Ἐφόρου δὲ πάλιν ἄγνοιαν καταψεύδεται, φάσκων λέγειν αὐτὸν ὅτι Διονύσιος ὁ πρεσβύτερος παρελάμβανε τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐτῶν εἴκοσι τριῶν ὑπάρχων, δυναστεύσαι δὲ τετταράκοντα καὶ δύο, μεταλλάξαι δὲ τὸν βίον προσλαβὼν τοῖς ἑξήκοντα τρία· τοῦτο γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴπειε δήπου τοῦ συγγραφέως εἶναι τὸ διάπτωμα, τοῦ δὲ γραφέως ὁμολογουμένως· ἢ γὰρ δεῖ τὸν Ἔφορον ὑπερβεβηκέναι τῇ μωρίᾳ καὶ τὸν Κόροιβον καὶ τὸν Μαργίτην, εἰ μὴ δυνατὸς ἦν συλλογίζεσθαι διότι τὰ τετταράκοντα καὶ δύο προστεθέντα τοῖς εἴκοσι καὶ τρισὶν ἑξήκοντα γίνεται καὶ πέντε· ἢ τούτου μηδαμῶς ἂν πιστευθέντος ὑπὲρ Ἐφόρου φανερὸν ὅτι τὸ μὲν ἁμάρτημα ἐστι τοῦ γραφέως, τὸ δὲ Τιμαίου φιλεπίτιμον καὶ φιλέγκλημον οὐδεὶς ἂν ἀποδέξαιτο.
4b. Again, in his history of Pyrrhus, he says that the Romans still keep up the memory of the fall of Troy by shooting to death with javelins a war-horse on a certain fixed day, because the capture of Troy was accomplished by means of the “Wooden Horse.” This is quite childish. On this principle, all non-Hellenic nations must be put down as descendants of the Trojans; for nearly all of them, or at any rate the majority, when about to commence a war or a serious battle with an enemy, first kill and sacrifice a horse. In making this sort of ill-founded deduction, Timaeus seems to me to show not only want of knowledge, but, what is worse, a trick of misapplying knowledge. For, because the Romans sacrifice a horse, he immediately concludes that they do it because Troy was taken by means of a horse.
4b. καὶ μὴν ἐν τοῖς περὶ Πύρρου πάλιν φησὶ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους ἔτι νῦν ὑπόμνημα ποιουμένους τῆς κατὰ τὸ Ἴλιον ἀπωλείας ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τινὶ κατακοντίζειν ἵππον πολεμιστὴν πρὸ τῆς πόλεως ἐν τῷ Κάμπῳ καλουμένῳ, διὰ τὸ τῆς Τροίας τὴν ἅλωσιν διὰ τὸν ἵππον γενέσθαι τὸν δούριον προσαγορευόμενον, πρᾶγμα πάντων παιδαριωδέστατον· οὕτω μὲν γὰρ δεήσει πάντας τοὺς βαρβάρους λέγειν Τρώων ἀπογόνους ὑπάρχειν· σχεδὸν γὰρ πάντες, εἰ δὲ μή γʼ, οἱ πλείους, ὅταν ἢ πολεμεῖν μέλλωσιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἢ διακινδυνεύειν πρός τινας ὁλοσχερῶς, ἵππον προθύονται καὶ σφαγιάζονται, σημειούμενοι τὸ μέλλον ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ζῴου πτώσεως.
4c. These instances clearly show how worthless his account of Libya, Sardinia, and, above all, of Italy is; and that, speaking generally, he has entirely neglected the most important element in historical investigation, namely, the making personal inquiries. For as historical events take place in many different localities, and as it is impossible for the same man to be in several places at the same time, and also impossible for him to see with his own eyes all places in the world and observe their peculiarities, the only resource left is to ask questions of as many people as possible; and to believe those who are worthy of credit; and to show critical sagacity in judging of their reports.
4c. ὁ δὲ Τίμαιος περὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος τῆς ἀλογίας οὐ μόνον ἀπειρίαν, ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον ὀψιμαθίαν δοκεῖ μοι πολλὴν ἐπιφαίνειν, ὅς γε, διότι θύουσιν ἵππον, εὐθέως ὑπέλαβε τοῦτο ποιεῖν αὐτοὺς διὰ τὸ τὴν Τροίαν ἀφʼ ἵππου δοκεῖν ἑαλωκέναι. πλὴν ὅτι γε κακῶς ἱστόρηκε καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν Λιβύην καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν Σαρδόνα, καὶ μάλιστα τὰ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν, ἐκ τούτων ἐστὶ συμφανές, καὶ καθόλου διότι τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀνακρίσεις μέρος ἐπισέσυρται παρʼ αὐτῷ τελέως· ὅπερ ἐστὶ κυριώτατον τῆς ἱστορίας. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ αἱ μὲν πράξεις ἅμα πολλαχῇ συντελοῦνται, παρεῖναι δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν πλείοσι τόποις κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν ἀδύνατον, ὁμοίως γε μὴν οὐδʼ αὐτόπτην γενέσθαι πάντων τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην τόπων καὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἰδιωμάτων τὸν ἕνα δυνατόν, καταλείπεται πυνθάνεσθαι μὲν ὡς παρὰ πλείστων, πιστεύειν δὲ τοῖς ἀξίοις πίστεως, κριτὴν δʼ εἶναι τῶν προσπιπτόντων μὴ κακόν.
4d. And though Timaeus makes great professions on this head, he appears to me to be very far from arriving at the truth. Indeed, so far from making accurate investigations of the truth through other people, he does not tell us anything trustworthy even of events of which he has been an eye-witness, or of places he has personally visited. This will be made evident, if we can convict him of being ignorant, even in his account of Sicily, of the facts which he brings forward. For it will require very little further proof of his inaccuracy, if he can be shown to be ill-informed and misled about the localities in which he was born and bred, and that too the most famous of them. Now he asserts that the fountain Arethusa at Syracuse has its source in the Peloponnese, from the river Alpheus, which flows through Arcadia and Olympia. For that this river sinks into the earth, and, after being carried for four thousand stades under the Sicilian Sea, comes to the surface again in Syracuse; and that this was proved from the fact that on a certain occasion a storm of rain having come on during the Olympic festival, and the river having flooded the sacred enclosure, a quantity of dung from the animals used for sacrifice at the festival was thrown up by the fountain Arethusa; as well as a certain gold cup, which was picked up and recognised as being one of the ornaments used at the festival....
4d. ἐν ᾧ γένει μεγίστην ἐπίφασιν ἕλκων Τίμαιος πλεῖστον ἀπολείπεσθαί μοι δοκεῖ τῆς ἀληθείας· τοσοῦτο γὰρ ἀπέχει τοῦ διʼ ἑτέρων ἀκριβῶς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐξετάζειν ὡς οὐδὲ τούτων ὧν αὐτόπτης γέγονε καὶ ἐφʼ οὓς αὐτὸς ἥκει τόπους, οὐδὲ περὶ τούτων οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς ἡμῖν ἐξηγεῖται. τοῦτο δʼ ἔσται δῆλον, ἐὰν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Σικελίαν δείξωμεν αὐτὸν ἀγνοοῦντα περὶ ὧν ἀποφαίνεται· σχεδὸν γὰρ οὐ πολλῶν ἔτι προσδεήσει λόγων ὑπέρ γε τῆς ψευδολογίας, ἐὰν ἐν οἷς ἔφυ καὶ ἐτράφη τόποις, καὶ τούτων ἐν τοῖς ἐπιφανεστάτοις [ἐν τούτοις] ἀγνοῶν εὑρεθῇ καὶ παραπαίων τῆς ἀληθείας. φησὶ τοιγαροῦν τὴν Ἀρέθουσαν κρήνην τὴν ἐν ταῖς Συρακούσαις ἔχειν τὰς πηγὰς ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Πελοπόννησον διά τε τῆς Ἀρκαδίας καὶ διὰ τῆς Ὀλυμπίας ῥέοντος [ποταμοῦ] Ἀλφειοῦ· ἐκεῖνον γὰρ δύντα κατὰ γῆς καὶ τετρακισχιλίους σταδίους ὑπὸ τὸ Σικελικὸν ἐνεχθέντα πέλαγος ἀναδύνειν ἐν ταῖς Συρακούσαις, γενέσθαι δὲ τοῦτο δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ κατά τινα χρόνον οὐρανίων ὄμβρων ῥαγέντων κατὰ τὸν τῶν Ὀλυμπίων καιρὸν καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοὺς κατὰ τὸ τέμενος ἐπικλύσαντος τόπους, ὄνθου τε πλῆθος ἀναβλύζειν τὴν Ἀρέθουσαν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τὴν πανήγυριν θυομένων βοῶν καὶ φιάλην χρυσῆν ἀναβαλεῖν, ἣν ἐπιγνόντες εἶναι τῆς ἑορτῆς ἀνείλοντο.
5. I happened to have visited the city of the Locrians on several occasions, and to have been the means of doing them important services. For it was I that secured their exemption from the service in Iberia and Dalmatia, which, in accordance with the treaty, they were bound to supply to the Romans, And being released thereby from considerable hardship, danger, and expense, they rewarded me with every mark of honour and kindness. I have therefore reason to speak well of the Locrians rather than the reverse. Still I do not shrink from saying and writing that the account of their colonisation given by Aristotle is truer than that of Timaeus. For I know for certain that the inhabitants themselves acknowledge that the report of Aristotle, and not of Timaeus, is the one which they have received from their ancestors. And they give the following proofs of this. In the first place, they stated that every ancestral distinction existing among them is traced by the female not the male side. For instance, those are reckoned noble among them who belong to “the hundred families”; and these “hundred families” are those which were marked out by the Locrians, before embarking upon their colonisation, as those from which they were in accordance with the oracle to select the virgins to be sent to Ilium. Further, that some of these women joined the colony: and that it is their descendants who are now reckoned noble, and called “the men of the hundred families.” Again, the following account of the “cup-bearing” priestess had been received traditionally by them. When they ejected the Sicels who occupied this part of Italy, finding that it was a custom among them for the processions at their sacrifices to be led by a boy of the most illustrious and high-born family obtainable, and not having any ancestral custom of their own on the subject, they adopted this one, with no other improvement than that of substituting a girl for one of their boys as cupbearer, because nobility with them went by the female line.
5. ἐμοὶ δὴ συμβαίνει καὶ παραβεβληκέναι πλεονάκις εἰς τὴν τῶν Λοκρῶν πόλιν καὶ παρεσχῆσθαι χρείας αὐτοῖς ἀναγκαίας· καὶ γὰρ τῆς εἰς Ἰβηρίαν στρατείας αὐτοὺς παραλυθῆναι συνέβη διʼ ἐμὲ καὶ τῆς εἰς Δαλματεῖς, ἣν ὤφειλον κατὰ θάλατταν ἐκπέμπειν Ῥωμαίοις κατὰ τὰς συνθήκας. ἐξ ὧν καὶ κακοπαθείας καὶ κινδύνου καὶ δαπάνης ἱκανῆς τινος ἀπολυθέντες πᾶσιν ἡμᾶς ἠμείψαντο τοῖς τιμίοις καὶ φιλανθρώποις· διόπερ ὀφείλω μᾶλλον εὐλογεῖν Λοκροὺς ἢ τοὐναντίον. ἀλλʼ ὅμως οὐκ ὤκνησα καὶ λέγειν καὶ γράφειν ὅτι τὴν ὑπʼ Ἀριστοτέλους παραδιδομένην ἱστορίαν περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας ἀληθινωτέραν εἶναι συμβαίνει τῆς ὑπὸ Τιμαίου λεγομένης. σύνοιδα γὰρ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὁμολογοῦσιν ὅτι παραδόσιμος αὐτοῖς ἐστιν αὕτη περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας ἡ φήμη παρὰ πατέρων, ἣν Ἀριστοτέλης εἴρηκεν, οὐ Τίμαιος. καὶ τούτων γε τοιαύτας ἔφερον ἀποδείξεις. πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι πάντα τὰ διὰ προγόνων ἔνδοξα παρʼ αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν, οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐστιν, οἷον εὐθέως εὐγενεῖς παρὰ σφίσι νομίζεσθαι τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἑκατὸν οἰκιῶν λεγομένους· ταύτας δʼ εἶναι τὰς ἑκατὸν οἰκίας τὰς προκριθείσας ὑπὸ τῶν Λοκρῶν πρὶν ἢ τὴν ἀποικίαν ἐξελθεῖν, ἐξ ὧν ἔμελλον οἱ Λοκροὶ κατὰ τὸν χρησμὸν κληροῦν τὰς ἀποσταλησομένας παρθένους εἰς Ἴλιον. τούτων δή τινας τῶν γυναικῶν συνεξᾶραι μετὰ τῆς ἀποικίας, ὧν τοὺς ἀπογόνους ἔτι νῦν εὐγενεῖς νομίζεσθαι καὶ καλεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἑκατὸν οἰκιῶν. πάλιν ὑπὲρ τῆς φιαληφόρου παρʼ αὐτοῖς λεγομένης τοιαύτη τις ἱστορία παραδέδοτο, διότι καθʼ ὃν καιρὸν τοὺς Σικελοὺς ἐκβάλοιεν τοὺς κατασχόντας τὸν τόπον τοῦτον τῆς Ἰταλίας, ὧν καὶ ταῖς θυσίαις προηγεῖτο τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων καὶ τῶν εὐγενεστάτων ὑπάρχων παῖς, αὐτοὶ καὶ πλείω τῶν Σικελικῶν ἐθῶν παραλαβόντες διὰ τὸ μηδὲν αὐτοῖς πάτριον ὑπάρχειν καὶ τοῦτο διαφυλάττοιεν ἀπʼ ἐκείνων, αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο διορθώσαιντο, τὸ μὴ παῖδα ποιεῖν ἐξ αὑτῶν τὸν φιαληφόρον, ἀλλὰ παρθένον, διὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν εὐγένειαν.
6. And as to a treaty, none ever existed, or was said to have existed, between them and the Locrians in Greece; but they all knew by tradition of one with the Sicels: of which they give the following account. When they first appeared, and found the Sicels occupying the district in which they are themselves now dwelling, these natives were in terror of them, and admitted them through fear into the country; and the newcomers made a sworn agreement with them that “they would be friendly and share the country with them, as long as they stood upon the ground they then stood upon, and kept heads upon their shoulders.” But, while the oaths were being taken, they say that the Locrians put earth inside the soles of their shoes, and heads of garlic concealed on their shoulders, before they swore; and that then they shook the earth out of their shoes, and threw the heads of garlic off their shoulders, and soon afterwards expelled the Sicels from the country. This is the story current at Locri.... By an extraordinary oversight Timaeus of Tauromenium commits himself to the statement that it was not customary with the Greeks to possess slaves.... These considerations would lead us to trust Aristotle rather than Timaeus. His next statement is still more strange. For to suppose, with Timaeus, that it was unlikely that men, who had been the slaves of the allies of the Lacedaemonians, would continue the kindly feelings and adopt the friendships of their late masters is foolish. For when they have had the good fortune to recover their freedom, and a certain time has elapsed, men, who have been slaves, not only endeavour to adopt the friendships of their late masters, but also their ties of hospitality and blood: in fact, their aim is to keep them up even more than the ties of nature, for the express purpose of thereby wiping out the remembrance of their former degradation and humble position; because they wish to pose as the descendants of their masters rather than as their freedmen. And this is what in all probability happened in the case of the Locrians. They had removed to a great distance from all who knew their secret; the lapse of time favoured their pretensions; and they were not therefore so foolish as to maintain any customs likely to revive the memory of their own degradation, rather than such as would contribute to conceal it. Therefore they very naturally called their city by the name of that from which the women came; and claimed a relationship with those women: and, moreover, renewed the friendships which were ancestral to the families of the women. And this also indicates that there is no sign of Aristotle being wrong in saying that the Athenians ravaged their territory. For it being quite natural, as I have shown, that the men who started from Locri and landed in Italy, if they were slaves ten times over, should adopt friendly relations with Sparta, it becomes also natural that the Athenians should be rendered hostile to them, not so much from regard to their origin as to their policy. It is not, again, likely that the Lacedaemonians should themselves send their young men home from the camp for the sake of begetting children, and should refuse to allow the Locrians to do the same. Two things in such a statement are not only improbable but untrue. In the first place, they were not likely to have prevented the Locrians doing so, when they did the same themselves, for that would be wholly inconsistent: nor were the Locrians, in obedience to orders from them, likely to have adopted a custom like theirs. (For in Sparta it is a traditional law, and a matter of common custom, for three or four men to have one wife, and even more if they are brothers; and when a man has begotten enough children, it is quite proper and usual for him to sell his wife to one of his friends.) The fact is, that though the Locrians, not being bound by the same oath as the Lacedaemonians, that they would not return home till they had taken Messene, had a fair pretext for not taking part in the common expedition; yet, by returning home only one by one, and at rare intervals, they gave their wives an opportunity of becoming familiar with the slaves instead of their original husbands, and still more so the unmarried women. And this was the reason of the migration....
6. συνθῆκαι δὲ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα Λοκροὺς οὔτʼ ἦσαν οὔτʼ ἐλέγοντο παρʼ αὐτοῖς γεγονέναι, πρὸς μέντοι Σικελοὺς πάντες εἶχον ἐν παραδόσει. περὶ ὧν ἔλεγον διότι, καθʼ ὃν καιρὸν ἐκ τῆς πρώτης παρουσίας καταλάβοιεν Σικελοὺς κατέχοντας ταύτην τὴν χώραν, ἐν ᾗ νῦν κατοικοῦσι, καταπλαγέντων αὐτοὺς ἐκείνων καὶ προσδεξαμένων διὰ τὸν φόβον, ὁμολογίας ποιήσαιντο τοιαύτας, ἦ μὴν εὐνοήσειν αὐτοῖς καὶ κοινῇ τὴν χώραν ἕξειν, ἕως ἂν ἐπιβαίνωσι τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ καὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς ἐπὶ τοῖς ὤμοις φορῶσι. τοιούτων δὲ τῶν ὅρκων γινομένων φασὶ τοὺς Λοκροὺς εἰς μὲν τὰ πέλματα τῶν ὑποδημάτων ἐμβαλόντας γῆν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς ὤμους σκόρδων κεφαλὰς ἀφανεῖς ὑποθεμένους οὕτως ποιήσασθαι τοὺς ὅρκους, κἄπειτα τὴν μὲν γῆν ἐκβαλόντας ἐκ τῶν ὑποδημάτων, τὰς δὲ κεφαλὰς τῶν σκόρδων ἀπορρίψαντας μετʼ οὐ πολὺ καιροῦ παραπεσόντος ἐκβαλεῖν τοὺς Σικελοὺς ἐκ τῆς χώρας. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν λέγεται παρὰ Λοκροῖς. — ἐκ τούτων ἄν τις συλλογιζόμενος Ἀριστοτέλει πρόσσχοι μᾶλλον ἢ Τιμαίῳ· καὶ μὴν τὸ συνεχὲς τούτῳ τελέως ἄτοπον· τὸ γὰρ ὑπολαμβάνειν, καθάπερ ἐκεῖνος ὑποδείκνυσιν, ὡς οὐκ εἰκὸς ἦν τοὺς οἰκέτας τῶν Λακεδαιμονίοις συμμαχησάντων τὴν τῶν κυρίων εὔνοιαν ἀναφέρειν πρὸς τοὺς ἐκείνων φίλους εὔηθες· οὐ γὰρ μόνον τὰς εὐνοίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ξενίας καὶ τὰς συγγενείας τῶν δεσποτῶν οἱ δουλεύσαντες, ὅταν εὐτυχήσωσι παραδόξως καὶ χρόνος ἐπιγένηται, πειρῶνται προσποιεῖσθαι καὶ συνανανεοῦσθαι τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἀναγκαίων μᾶλλον, αὐτῷ τούτῳ σπουδάζοντες τὴν προγεγενημένην περὶ αὐτοὺς ἐλάττωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀδοξίαν ἐξαλείφειν, τῷ βούλεσθαι τῶν δεσποτῶν ἀπόγονοι μᾶλλον ἐπιφαί νειν ἤπερ ἀπελεύθεροι. τοῦτο δὲ μάλιστα περὶ τοὺς Λοκροὺς εἰκός ἐστι γεγονέναι· πολὺ γὰρ ἐκτοπίσαντες ἐκ τῶν συνειδότων καὶ προσλαβόντες συνεργὸν τὸν χρόνον, οὐχ οὕτως ἄφρονες ἦσαν ὥστε ταῦτʼ ἐπιτηδεύειν, διʼ ὧν ἔμελλον ἀνανέωσιν ποιεῖσθαι τῶν ἰδίων ἐλαττωμάτων, ἀλλὰ μὴ τοὐναντίον διʼ ὧν ἐπικαλύψειν ταῦτα. διὸ καὶ τὴν ὀνομασίαν τῇ πόλει τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν εἰκότως ἐπέθεσαν καὶ τὴν οἰκειότητα τὴν κατὰ τὰς γυναῖκας προσεποιήθησαν, ἔτι δὲ τὰς φιλίας καὶ τὰς συμμαχίας τὰς προγονικὰς τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν ἀνενεοῦντο. ᾗ καὶ τὸ τοὺς Ἀθηναίους πορθῆσαι τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν οὐδέν ἐστι σημεῖον ψευδῆ λέγειν τὸν Ἀριστοτέλην· εὐλόγου γὰρ ὄντος ἐκ τῶν προειρημένων, εἰ καὶ δεκάκις ἦσαν οἰκέται, τοῦ προσπεποιῆσθαι τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων φιλίαν τοὺς ἐξάραντας ἐκ τῶν Λοκρῶν καὶ κατασχόντας εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν, εὔλογος γίνεται καὶ [ἡ] τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἀλλοτριότης ἡ πρὸς πάντας τοὺς προειρημένους, οὐχ οὕτως ἐξεταζόντων τὸ γένος ὡς τὴν προαίρεσιν. νὴ Δίʼ ἀλλὰ πῶς αὐτοὶ μὲν ἐξαπέστελλον οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τοὺς ἀκμάζοντας εἰς τὴν πατρίδα τεκνοποιίας χάριν, τοὺς δὲ Λοκροὺς τὸ παραπλήσιον οὐκ εἴων ποιεῖν; ἕκαστα δὲ τούτων οὐ μόνον κατὰ τὸ πιθανόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν μεγάλην ἔχει διαφοράν. οὔτε γὰρ κωλύειν τοὺς Λοκροὺς ἔμελλον, αὐτοὶ τὸ ὅμοιον ποιοῦντες — ἄτοπον γάρ — οὐδὲ μὴν κελευόντων αὐτῶν οἱ Λοκροὶ πάντως ποιήσειν ἐκείνοις τὸ παραπλήσιον. παρὰ μὲν γὰρ τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ πάτριον ἦν καὶ σύνηθες τρεῖς ἄνδρας ἔχειν τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τέτταρας, τοτὲ δὲ καὶ πλείους ἀδελφοὺς ὄντας, καὶ τὰ τέκνα τούτων εἶναι κοινά, καὶ γεννήσαντα παῖδας ἱκανοὺς ἐκδόσθαι γυναῖκά τινι τῶν φίλων καλὸν καὶ σύνηθες. διόπερ οἱ Λοκροὶ μήτε ταῖς ἀραῖς ὄντες ἔνοχοι μήτε τοῖς ὅρκοις, οἷς ὤμοσαν οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι μὴ πρότερον εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν ἐπανήξειν πρὶν ἢ τὴν Μεσσήνην κατὰ κράτος ἑλεῖν, τῆς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κοινὸν ἐξαποστολῆς εὐλόγως οὐ μετέσχον, κατὰ δὲ μέρος τὰς ἐπανόδους ποιούμενοι καὶ σπανίως ἔδοσαν ἀναστροφὴν ταῖς γυναιξὶ πρὸς οἰκέτας γενέσθαι συνηθεστέραν ἢ πρὸς τοὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄνδρας, ταῖς δὲ παρθένοις καὶ μᾶλλον· ὃ καὶ τῆς ἐξαναστάσεως αἴτιον γέγονεν. — ὅτι πολλὰ ἱστορεῖ ψευδῆ ὁ Τίμαιος, καὶ δοκεῖ τὸ παράπαν οὐκ ἄπειρος ὢν οὐδενὸς τῶν τοιούτων, ὑπὸ δὲ τῆς φιλονεικίας ἐπισκοτούμενος, ὅταν ἅπαξ ἢ ψέγειν ἢ τοὐναντίον ἐγκωμιάζειν τινὰ πρόθηται, πάντων ἐπιλανθάνεται καὶ πολύ τι τοῦ καθήκοντος παρεκβαίνει.
7. Timaeus makes many untrue statements; and he appears to have done so, not from ignorance, but because his view was distorted by party spirit. When once he has made up his mind to blame or praise, he forgets everything else and outsteps all bounds of propriety. So much for the nature of Aristotle’s account of Locri, and the grounds on which it rested. But this naturally leads me to speak of Timaeus and his work as a whole, and generally of what is the duty of a man who undertakes to write history. Now I think that I have made it clear from what I have said, first, that both of them were writing conjecturally; and, secondly, that the balance of probability was on the side of Aristotle. It is in fact impossible in such matters to be positive and definite. But let us even admit that Timaeus gives the more probable account. Are the maintainers of the less probable theory, therefore, to be called by every possible term of abuse and obloquy, and all but be put on trial for their lives? Certainly not. Those who make untrue statements in their books from ignorance ought, I maintain, to be forgiven and corrected in a kindly spirit: it is only those who do so from deliberate intention that ought to be attacked without mercy.
7. πλὴν ταῦτα μὲν ἡμῖν ὑπὲρ Ἀριστοτέλους εἰρήσθω πῶς καὶ τίσι προσέχων τοιαύτην ἐποιήσατο τὴν περὶ τῶν Λοκρῶν ἐξήγησιν· τὰ δὲ λέγεσθαι μέλλοντα περὶ Τιμαίου καὶ τῆς ὅλης συντάξεως αὐτοῦ καὶ καθόλου περὶ τοῦ καθήκοντος τοῖς πραγματευομένοις ἱστορίαν τοιάνδε τινὰ λήψεται τὴν ἀπάντησιν. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀμφότεροι κατὰ τὸν εἰκότα λόγον πεποίηνται τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν, καὶ διότι πλείους εἰσὶ πιθανότητες ἐν τῇ κατʼ Ἀριστοτέλην ἱστορίᾳ, δοκῶ, πᾶς ἄν τις ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ὁμολογήσειεν· ἀληθὲς μέντοι γε καὶ καθάπαξ διαστεῖλαι περί τινος οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἐν τούτοις. οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ ἔστω τὸν Τίμαιον εἰκότα λέγειν μᾶλλον. διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν δεήσει πᾶν ῥῆμα καὶ πᾶσαν φωνὴν ἀκούειν καὶ μόνον οὐ θανάτου κρίσιν ὑπέχειν τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις ἧττον εἰκότα λέγοντας; οὐ δήπου. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ κατʼ ἄγνοιαν ψευδογραφοῦσιν ἔφαμεν δεῖν διόρθωσιν εὐμενικὴν καὶ συγγνώμην ἐξακολουθεῖν, τοῖς δὲ κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἀπαραίτητον κατηγορίαν.
8. It must then either be shown that Aristotle’s account of Locri was prompted by partiality, corruption, or personal enmity; or, if no one ventures to say that, then it must be acknowledged that those who display such personal animosity and bitterness to others, as Timaeus does to Aristotle, are wrong and ill advised. The epithets which he applies to him are “audacious,” “unprincipled,” “rash”; and besides, he says that he “has audaciously slandered Locri by affirming that the colony was formed by runaway slaves, adulterers, and man-catchers.” Further, he asserts that Aristotle made this statement, “in order that men might believe him to have been one of Alexander’s generals, and to have lately conquered the Persians at the Cilician Gates in a pitched battle by his own ability; and not to be a mere pedantic sophist, universally unpopular, who had a short time before shut up that admirable doctor’s shop.” Again, he says that he “pushed his way into every palace and tent:” and that he was “a glutton and a gourmand, who thought only of gratifying his appetite.” Now it seems to me that such language as this would be intolerable in an impudent vagabond bandying abuse in a law court; but an impartial recorder of public affairs, and a genuine historian, would not think such things to himself, much less venture to put them in writing.
8. ἢ δεικτέον οὖν τὸν Ἀριστοτέλην κατὰ τὸν ἄρτι λόγον τὰ περὶ Λοκρῶν εἰρηκότα χάριτος ἢ κέρδους ἢ διαφορᾶς ἕνεκεν ἢ μηδὲ τολμῶντας τοῦτο λέγειν ὁμολογητέον ἀγνοεῖν καὶ παραπαίειν τοὺς τοιαύτῃ χρωμένους ἀπεχθείᾳ καὶ πικρίᾳ κατὰ τῶν πέλας οἵᾳ κέχρηται Τίμαιος κατʼ Ἀριστοτέλους. φησὶ γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶναι θρασύν, εὐχερῆ, προπετῆ, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις κατατετολμηκέναι τῆς τῶν Λοκρῶν πόλεως, εἰπόντα τὴν ἀποικίαν αὐτῶν εἶναι δραπετῶν, οἰκετῶν, μοιχῶν, ἀνδραποδιστῶν. καὶ ταῦτα λέγειν αὐτόν φησιν οὕτως ἀξιοπίστως ὥστε δοκεῖν ἕνα τῶν ἐστρατηγηκότων ὑπάρχειν καὶ τοὺς Πέρσας ἐν ταῖς Κιλικίαις πύλαις ἄρτι παρατάξει νενικηκότα διὰ τῆς αὑτοῦ δυνάμεως, ἀλλʼ οὐ σοφιστὴν ὀψιμαθῆ καὶ μισητὸν ὑπάρχοντα καὶ τὸ πολυτίμητον ἰατρεῖον ἀρτίως ἀποκεκλεικότα, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις εἰς πᾶσαν αὐλὴν καὶ σκηνὴν ἐμπεπηδηκότα, πρὸς δὲ γαστρίμαργον, ὀψαρτυτήν, ἐπὶ στόμα φερόμενον ἐν πᾶσι. δοκεῖ δή μοι τὰ τοιαῦτα μόλις ἂν ἄνθρωπος ἀγύρτης καὶ προπετὴς ἐπὶ δικαστηρίου ῥιψολογῶν ἀνεκτὸς φανῆναι· μέτριος μὲν γὰρ οὐ δοκεῖ. συγγραφεὺς δὲ κοινῶν πράξεων καὶ προστάτης ἱστορίας ἀληθινὸς οὐδʼ ἂν αὐτὸς ἐν αὑτῷ διανοηθῆναι μή τι δὴ καὶ γράφειν τολμήσαι τοιοῦτον.
9. Let us now, then, examine the method of Timaeus, and compare his account of this colony, that we may learn which of the two better deserves such vituperation. He says in the same book: “I am not now proceeding on conjecture, but have investigated the truth in the course of a personal visit to the Locrians in Greece. The Locrians first of all showed me a written treaty which began with the words, ‘as parents to children.’ There are also existing decrees securing mutual rights of citizenship to both. In fine, when they were told of Aristotle’s account of the colony, they were astonished at the audacity of that writer. I then crossed to the Italian Locri and found that the laws and customs there accorded with the theory of a colony of free men, not with the licentiousness of slaves. For among them there are penalties assigned to man-catchers, adulterers, and run-away slaves. And this would not have been the case if they were conscious of having been such themselves.”
9. σκεψώμεθα δὴ καὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Τιμαίου προαίρεσιν, καὶ τὰς ἀποφάσεις συγκρίνωμεν ἐκ παραθέσεως, ἃς πεποίηται περὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἀποικίας, ἵνα γνῶμεν πότερος ἄξιος ἔσται τῆς τοιαύτης κατηγορίας. φησὶ τοιγαροῦν κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν βύβλον, οὐκέτι κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν εἰκότα λόγον χρώμενος τοῖς ἐλέγχοις, ἀλλʼ ἀληθινῶς αὐτὸς ἐπιβαλὼν εἰς τοὺς κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα Λοκρούς, ἐξετάζειν τὰ περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας. τοὺς δὲ πρῶτον μὲν ἐπιδεικνύειν αὐτῷ συνθήκας ἐγγράπτους, ἔτι καὶ νῦν διαμενούσας, πρὸς τοὺς ἐξαπεσταλμένους, αἷς ὑπογεγράφθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν τοιαύτην "ὡς γονεῦσι πρὸς τέκνα. " πρὸς δὲ τούτοις εἶναι δόγματα, καθʼ ἃ πολιτείαν ὑπάρχειν ἑκατέροις παρʼ ἑκατέροις. καθόλου διακούοντας τὴν Ἀριστοτέλους ἐξήγησιν περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας θαυμάζειν τὴν ἰταμότητα τοῦ συγγραφέως. μεταβὰς δὲ πάλιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ Λοκροὺς εὑρίσκειν ἀκολούθους καὶ τοὺς νόμους φησὶ τοὺς παρʼ αὐτοῖς καὶ τοὺς ἐθισμοὺς οὐ τῇ τῶν οἰκετῶν ῥᾳδιουργίᾳ, τῇ δὲ τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀποικίᾳ· πάντως γὰρ καὶ τοῖς ἀνδραποδισταῖς ἐπιτίμια τετάχθαι παρʼ αὐτοῖς, ὁμοίως τοῖς μοιχοῖς, τοῖς δραπέταις· ὧν οὐδὲν ἂν ὑπάρχειν, εἰ συνῄδεισαν αὑτοῖς ἐκ τοιούτων πεφυκόσι.
10. Now the first point one would be inclined to raise is, as to what Locrians he visited and questioned on these subjects. If it had been the case that the Locrians in Greece all lived in one city, as those in Italy do, this question would perhaps have been unnecessary, and everything would have been plain. But as there are two clans of Locrians, we may ask, Which of the two did he visit? What cities of the one or the other? In whose hands did he find the treaty? Yet we all know, I suppose, that this is a speciality of Timaeus’s, and that it is in this that he has surpassed all other historians, and rests his chief claim to credit,—I mean his parade of accuracy in studying chronology and ancient monuments, and his care in that department of research. Therefore we may well wonder how he came to omit telling us the name of the city in which he found the treaty, the place in which it was inscribed, or the magistrates who showed him the inscription, and with whom he conversed: to prevent all cavil, and, by defining the place and city, to enable those who doubted to ascertain the truth. By omitting these details he shows that he was conscious of having told a deliberate falsehood. For that Timaeus, if he really had obtained such proofs, would not have let them slip, but would have fastened upon them with both hands, as the saying is, is proved by the following considerations. Would a writer who tried to establish his credit on that of Echecrates,—he mentioning him by name as the person with whom he had conversed, and from whom he had obtained his facts about the Italian Locri,—taking the trouble to add, by way of showing that he had been told them by no ordinary person, that this man’s father had formerly been entrusted with an embassy by Dionysius,—would such a writer have remained silent about it if he had really got hold of a public record or an ancient tablet?
10. πρῶτον δὴ διαπορήσαι τις ἂν πρὸς τίνας τῶν Λοκρῶν παραγενόμενος ἐπυνθάνετο περὶ τούτων. εἰ μὲν γὰρ συνέβαινε, καθάπερ τοὺς ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ Λοκρούς, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα μίαν πόλιν ἔχειν, τάχʼ ἂν οὐκ ἔδει διαπορεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἦν ἂν εὐθεώρητον· ἐπεὶ δὲ δύʼ ἔθνη Λοκρῶν ἐστι, πρὸς ποτέρους ἦλθε καὶ πρὸς ποίας πόλεις τῶν ἑτέρων, καὶ παρὰ τίσιν εὗρε τὰς συνθήκας ἀναγεγραμμένας; οὐδὲν γὰρ ἡμῖν διασαφεῖται τούτων. καίτοι διότι τοῦτʼ ἴδιόν ἐστι Τιμαίου καὶ ταύτῃ παρημίλληται τοὺς ἄλλους συγγραφέας καὶ καθόλου τῇδέ πῃ τῆς ἀποδοχῆς — λέγω δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις καὶ ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς ἐπίφασιν τῆς ἀκριβείας καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ἐπιμέλειαν — δοκῶ, πάντες γινώσκομεν. διὸ καὶ θαυμάζειν ἐστὶν ἄξιον πῶς οὔτε τὸ τῆς πόλεως ὄνομα, παρʼ οἷς εὗρεν, οὔτε τὸν τόπον, ἐν ᾧ συμβαίνει τὴν συνθήκην ἀναγεγράφθαι, διεσάφησεν ἡμῖν, οὔτε τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοὺς δείξαντας αὐτῷ τὴν ἀναγραφὴν καὶ πρὸς οὓς ἐποιεῖτο τὸν λόγον, ἵνα μηδενὶ διαπορεῖν ἐξῇ μηδέν, ἀλλʼ ὡρισμένου τοῦ τόπου καὶ τῆς πόλεως ἐνῇ τοῖς ἀμφισβητοῦσιν εὑρεῖν τὴν ἀκρίβειαν. ὁ δὲ πάντα ταῦτα παραλελοιπὼς δῆλός ἐστι συνειδὼς αὑτῷ κατὰ πρόθεσιν ἐψευσμένῳ. διότι γὰρ τῶν τοιούτων ἐπιλαβόμενος οὐδὲν ἂν παρέλειπε Τίμαιος, ἀλλʼ ἀπρίξ, τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον, ἀμφοῖν τοῖν χεροῖν ἐπέφυ, προφανὲς ἐκ τούτων. ὁ γὰρ πρὸς τὴν Ἐχεκράτους πίστιν ἀπερεισάμενος ἐπʼ ὀνόματος, πρὸς ὅν φησι περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ Λοκρῶν ποιήσασθαι τοὺς λόγους καὶ παρʼ οὗ πυθέσθαι περὶ τούτων, καὶ προσεξειργασμένος, ἵνα μὴ φανῇ τοῦ τυχόντος ἀκηκοὼς ὅτι συνέβαινε τὸν τούτου πατέρα πρεσβείας κατηξιῶσθαι πρότερον ὑπὸ Διονυσίου, ἦ πού γʼ ἂν οὗτος δημοσίας ἀναγραφῆς ἐπιλαβόμενος ἢ παραδοσίμου στήλης παρεσιώπησεν;
11. This is the man forsooth who drew out a comparative list of the Ephors and the kings of Sparta from the earliest times; as well as one comparing the Archons at Athens and priestesses in Argos with the list of Olympic victors, and thereby convicted those cities of being in error about those records, because there was a discrepancy of three months between them! This again is the man who discovered the engraved tablets in the inner shrines, and the records of the guest-friendships on the doorposts of the temples. And we cannot believe that such a man could have been ignorant of anything of this sort that existed, or would have omitted to mention it if he had found it. Nor can he on any ground expect pardon, if he has told an untruth about it: for, as he has shown himself a bitter and uncompromising critic of others, he must naturally look for equally uncompromising attacks from them. Being then clearly convicted of falsehood in these points, he goes to the Italian Locri: and, first of all, says that the two Locrian peoples had a similar constitution and the same ties of amity, and that Aristotle and Theophrastus have maligned the city. Now I am fully aware that in going into minute particulars and proofs on this point I shall be forced to digress from the course of my history. It was for that reason however that I postponed my criticism of Timaeus to a single section of my work, that I might not be forced again and again to omit other necessary matter....
11. ὁ γὰρ τὰς συγκρίσεις ποιούμενος ἀνέκαθεν τῶν ἐφόρων πρὸς τοὺς βασιλεῖς τοὺς ἐν Λακεδαίμονι καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοὺς Ἀθήνησι καὶ τὰς ἱερείας τὰς ἐν Ἄργει παραβάλλων πρὸς τοὺς ὀλυμπιονίκας, καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας τῶν πόλεων περὶ τὰς ἀναγραφὰς τὰς τούτων ἐξελέγχων, παρὰ τρίμηνον ἐχούσας τὸ διαφέρον, οὗτός ἐστι. καὶ μὴν ὁ τὰς ὀπισθοδόμους στήλας καὶ τὰς ἐν ταῖς φλιαῖς τῶν νεῶν προξενίας ἐξευρηκὼς Τίμαιός ἐστιν. ὃν οὔθʼ ὑπάρχον τι τῶν τοιούτων ἀγνοεῖν οὔθʼ εὑρόντα παραλιπεῖν πιστευτέον οὔτε ψευσαμένῳ συγγνώμην δοτέον οὐδαμῶς· πικρὸς γὰρ γεγονὼς καὶ ἀπαραίτητος ἐπιτιμητὴς τῶν πέλας εἰκότως ἂν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πλησίον αὐτὸς ἀπαραιτήτου τυγχάνοι κατηγορίας. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ προφανῶς ἐν τούτοις ἐψευσμένος, μεταβὰς ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ Λοκροὺς πρῶτον μέν φησι τήν τε πολιτείαν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ φιλάνθρωπα τοῖς Λοκροῖς ἀμφοτέροις Ἀριστοτέλη καὶ Θεόφραστον κατεψεῦσθαι τῆς πόλεως. ἐγὼ δʼ οὐκ ἀγνοῶ μὲν ὅτι καὶ ταύτῃ τῆς πραγματείας ἀναγκασθήσομαι παρεκβαίνειν, διοριζόμενος καὶ διαβεβαιούμενος περὶ τούτων· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν εἰς ἕνα τόπον ὑπερεθέμην τὸν περὶ Τιμαίου λόγον, ἵνα μὴ πολλάκις ἀναγκάζωμαι τοῦ καθήκοντος ὀλιγωρεῖν. — ὅτι Τίμαιός φησι μέγιστον ἁμάρτημα περὶ τὴν ἱστορίαν εἶναι τὸ ψεῦδος· διὸ καὶ παραινεῖ τούτοις, οὓς ἂν ἐξελέγξῃ διεψευσμένους ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν, ἕτερόν τι ζητεῖν ὄνομα τοῖς βυβλίοις, πάντα δὲ μᾶλλον ἢ καλεῖν ἱστορίαν. — καθάπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν κανόνων, κἂν ἐλάττων ᾖ τῷ μήκει κἂν τῷ πλάτει ταπεινότερος, μετέχῃ δὲ τῆς τοῦ κανόνος ἰδιότητος, κανόνα φησὶ δεῖν προσαγορεύειν ὅμως, ὅταν δὲ τῆς εὐθείας καὶ τῆς πρὸς ταύτην οἰκειότητος ἐκπέσῃ, πάντα μᾶλλον δεῖν ἢ κανόνα καλεῖν, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ τῶν συγγραμμάτων ὅσα μὲν ἂν ἢ κατὰ τὴν λέξιν ἢ κατὰ τὸν χειρισμὸν ἢ κατʼ ἄλλο τι διαμαρτάνηται τῶν ἰδίων μερῶν, ἀντέχηται δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας, προσίεσθαί φησι τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας ὄνομα τὰς βύβλους, ὅταν δὲ ταύτης παραπέσῃ, μηκέτι καλεῖσθαι δεῖν ἱστορίαν.
12. Timaeus says that the greatest fault in history is want of truth; and he accordingly advises all, whom he may have convicted of making false statements in their writings, to find some other name for their books, and to call them anything they like except history.... For example, in the case of a carpenter’s rule, though it may be too short or too narrow for your purpose, yet if it have the essential feature of a rule, that of straightness, you may still call it a rule; but if it has not this quality, and deviates from the straight line, you may call it anything you like except a rule. “On the same principle,” says he, “historical writings may fail in style or treatment or other details; yet if they hold fast to truth, such books may claim the title of history, but if they swerve from that, they ought no longer to be called history.” Well, I quite agree that in such writings truth should be the first consideration: and, in fact, somewhere in the course of my work I have said “that as in a living body, when the eyes are out, the whole is rendered useless, so if you take truth from history what is left is but an idle tale.” I said again, however, that “there were two sorts of falsehoods, the ignorant and the intentional; and the former deserved indulgence, the latter uncompromising severity.”... These points being agreed upon—the wide difference between the ignorant and intentional lie, and the kindly correction due to the one and the unbending denunciation to the other—it will be found that it is to the latter charge that Timaeus more than any one lays himself open. And the proof of his character in this respect is clear.... There is a proverbial expression for the breakers of an agreement, “Locrians and a treaty.” An explanation given of this, equally accepted by historians and the rest of the world, is that, at the time of the invasion of the Heracleidae, the Locrians agreed with the Peloponnesians that, if the Heracleidae did not enter by way of the isthmus, but crossed at Rhium, they would raise a war beacon, that they might have early intelligence and make provisions to oppose their entrance. The Locrians, however, did not do this, but, on the contrary, raised a beacon of peace; and therefore, when the Heracleidae arrived opposite Rhium, they crossed without resistance; while the Peloponnesians, having taken no precautions, found that they had allowed their enemies to enter their country, because they had been betrayed by the Locrians.... Many remarks depreciatory of divination and dream interpretation may be found in his writings. But writers who have introduced into their books a good deal of such foolish talk, so far from running down others, should think themselves fortunate if they escape attack themselves. And this is just the position in which Timaeus stands. He remarks that “Callisthenes was a mere sycophant for writing stuff of this sort; and acted in a manner utterly unworthy of his philosophy in giving heed to ravens and inspired women; and that he richly deserved the punishment which he met with at the hands of Alexander, for having corrupted the mind of that monarch as far as he could.” On the other hand, he commends Demosthenes, and the other orators who flourished at that time, and says that “they were worthy of Greece for speaking against the divine honours given to Alexander; while this philosopher, for investing a mere mortal with the aegis and thunderbolt, justly met the fate which befell him from the hands of providence....”
12. ἐγὼ δὲ διότι μὲν ἡγεῖσθαι δεῖ τῶν τοιούτων συγγραμμάτων τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὁμολογῶ, καὶ κατὰ τὴν πραγματείαν αὐτός που κέχρημαι λέγων οὕτως, ὅτι, καθάπερ ἐμψύχου σώματος τῶν ὄψεων ἐξαιρεθεισῶν ἀχρειοῦται τὸ ὅλον, οὕτως ἐξ ἱστορίας ἐὰν ἄρῃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, τὸ καταλειπόμενον αὐτῆς ἀνωφελὲς γίνεται διήγημα. — δύο μέντοι τρόπους ἔφαμεν εἶναι ψεύδους, ἕνα μὲν τὸν κατʼ ἄγνοιαν, ἕτερον δὲ τὸν κατὰ προαίρεσιν, καὶ τούτων δεῖν τοῖς μὲν κατʼ ἄγνοιαν παραπαίουσι τῆς ἀληθείας διδόναι συγγνώμην, τοῖς δὲ κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἀκαταλλάκτως ἔχειν. — τούτων δʼ ἡμῖν ὁμολογουμένων, αὐτοῦ τούτου τοῦ ψεύδους μεγάλην ὑπολαμβάνω διαφορὰν εἶναι τοῦ κατʼ ἄγνοιαν γινομένου καὶ τοῦ κατὰ προαίρεσιν, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐπιδέχεσθαι συγγνώμην καὶ διόρθωσιν εὐμενικήν, τὸ δʼ ἀπαραιτήτου δικαίως ἂν τυγχάνειν κατηγορίας· ᾧ γένει μάλιστʼ ἂν εὕροι τις ἔνοχον αὐτὸν ὄντα τὸν Τίμαιον· διότι δʼ ἐστὶ τοιοῦτος σκοπεῖν ἤδη πάρεστιν. — ἐπὶ τῶν ἀθετούντων τὰς ὁμολογίας προφερόμεθα ταύτην τὴν παροιμίαν "Λοκροὶ τὰς συνθήκας." τοῦτο δέ τις ἐξεύρηκεν ὅτι καὶ παρὰ τοῖς συγγραφεῦσι καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις ὁμολογούμενόν ἐστι, διότι κατὰ τὴν τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν ἔφοδον συνθεμένων τῶν Λοκρῶν τοῖς Πελοποννησίοις πολεμίους πυρσοὺς αἴρειν, ἐὰν συμβῇ τοὺς Ἡρακλείδας μὴ κατὰ τὸν Ἰσθμόν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ Ῥίον ποιεῖσθαι τὴν διάβασιν, χάριν τοῦ προαισθομένους φυλάξασθαι τὴν ἔφοδον αὐτῶν, οὐ ποιησάντων δὲ τῶν Λοκρῶν, πᾶν δὲ τοὐναντίον φιλίους ἀράντων πυρσούς, ὅτε παρῆσαν, τοὺς μὲν Ἡρακλείδας συνέβη μετʼ ἀσφαλείας χρῆσθαι τῇ διαβάσει, τοὺς δὲ Πελοποννησίους κατολιγωρήσαντας λαθεῖν παραδεξαμένους εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν τοὺς ὑπεναντίους παρασπονδηθέντας ὑπὸ τῶν Λοκρῶν. κατηγορεῖν καὶ θειασμὸν διασύρειν τῶν ὀνειρωττόντων καὶ δαιμονώντων ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν· ὅσοι γε μὴν αὐτοὶ πολλὴν τῆς τοιαύτης ἐμπεποίηνται φλυαρίας, τοὺς τοιούτους ἀγαπᾶν ἂν δέοι μὴ τυγχάνοντας κατηγορίας, μηδʼ ὅτι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων αὐτοὺς κατατρέχειν· ὃ συμβέβηκε περὶ Τίμαιον. ἐκεῖνος γὰρ κόλακα μὲν εἶναί φησι τὸν Καλλισθένην τοιαῦτα γράφοντα καὶ πλεῖστον ἀπέχειν φιλοσοφίας, κόρδαξί τε προσέχοντα καὶ κορυβαντιώσαις γυναιξί· δικαίως δʼ αὐτὸν ὑπʼ Ἀλεξάνδρου τετευχέναι τιμωρίας διεφθαρκότα τὴν ἐκείνου ψυχὴν καθʼ ὅσον οἷός τʼ ἦν· καὶ Δημοσθένην μὲν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ῥήτορας τοὺς κατʼ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν ἀκμάσαντας ἐπαινεῖ καί φησι τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀξίους γεγονέναι, διότι ταῖς Ἀλεξάνδρου τιμαῖς ταῖς ἰσοθέοις ἀντέλεγον, τὸν δὲ φιλόσοφον αἰγίδα καὶ κεραυνὸν περιθέντα θνητῇ φύσει δικαίως αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου τετευχέναι τούτων ὧν ἔτυχεν. — ὅτι Τίμαιός φησι Δημοχάρην ἡταιρηκέναι μὲν τοῖς ἄνω μέρεσι τοῦ σώματος, οὐκ εἶναι δʼ ἄξιον τὸ ἱερὸν πῦρ φυσᾶν, ὑπερβεβηκέναι δὲ τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασι τὰ Βότρυος ὑπομνήματα καὶ τὰ Φιλαινίδος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀναισχυντογράφων·