13. Timaeus asserts that Demochares was guilty of unnatural lust, and that his lips therefore were unfit to blow the sacred fire; and that in morals he went beyond any stories told by Botrys and Philaenis and all other writers of indecent tales. Foul abuse and shameless accusations of this sort are not only what no man of cultivation would have uttered, they go beyond what you might expect from the lowest brothels. It is, however, to get credit for the foul and shameless accusations, which he is always bringing, that he has maligned this man: supporting his charge by dragging in an obscure comic poet. Now on what grounds do I conjecture the falsity of the accusation? Well, first, from the fact of the good birth and education of Demochares; for he was a nephew of Demosthenes. And in the second place, from the fact that he was thought worthy at Athens, not only of being a general, but of the other offices also; which he certainly would not have obtained, if he had got into such troubles as these. Therefore it seems to me that Timaeus is accusing the people of Athens more than Demochares, if it is the fact that they committed the interests of the country and their own lives to such a man. For if it had been true, the comic poet Archedicus would not have been the only one to have made this statement concerning Demochares, as Timaeus alleges: it would have been repeated by many of the partisans of Antipater, against whom he has spoken with great freedom, and said many things calculated to annoy, not only Antipater himself, but also his successors and friends. It would have been repeated also by many of his political opponents: and among them, by Demetrius of Phalerum, against whom Demochares has inveighed with extraordinary bitterness in his History, alleging that “his conduct as a prince, and the political measures on which he prided himself, were such as a petty tax-gatherer might be proud of; for he boasted that in his city things were abundant and cheap, and every one had plenty to live upon.” And he tells another story of Demetrius, that “He was not ashamed to have a procession in the theatre led by an artificial snail, worked by some internal contrivance, and emitting slime as it crawled, and behind it a string of asses; meaning by this to indicate the slowness and stupidity of the Athenians, who had yielded to others the honour of defending Greece, and were tamely submissive to Cassander.” Still, in spite of these taunts, neither Demetrius nor any one else has ever brought such a charge against Demochares.
13. ταύτην δὲ τὴν λοιδορίαν καὶ τὰς ἐμφάσεις οὐχ οἷον ἄν τις διέθετο πεπαιδευμένος ἀνήρ, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τῶν ἀπὸ τέγους ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος εἰργασμένων οὐδείς. ὁ δʼ ἵνα πιστὸς φανῇ κατὰ τὴν αἰσχρολογίαν καὶ τὴν ὅλην ἀναισχυντίαν, καὶ προσκατέψευσται τἀνδρός, κωμικόν τινα μάρτυρα προσεπισπασάμενος ἀνώνυμον. πόθεν δʼ ἐγὼ καταστοχάζομαι τοῦτο; πρῶτον μὲν ἐκ τοῦ καὶ πεφυκέναι καὶ τεθράφθαι καλῶς Δημοχάρην, ἀδελφιδοῦν ὄντα Δημοσθένους, δεύτερον ἐκ τοῦ μὴ μόνον στρατηγίας αὐτὸν ἠξιῶσθαι παρʼ Ἀθηναίοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τιμῶν, ὧν οὐδὲν ἂν αὐτῷ συνεξέδραμε τοιαύταις ἀτυχίαις παλαίοντι. διὸ καὶ δοκεῖ μοι Τίμαιος οὐχ οὕτως Δημοχάρους κατηγορεῖν ὡς Ἀθηναίων, εἰ τοιοῦτον ἄνδρα προῆγον καὶ τοιούτῳ τὴν πατρίδα καὶ τοὺς ἰδίους βίους ἐνεχείριζον. ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἔστι τούτων οὐδέν. οὐ γὰρ ἂν Ἀρχέδικος ὁ κωμῳδιογράφος ἔλεγε ταῦτα μόνος περὶ Δημοχάρους, ὡς Τίμαιός φησιν, ἀλλὰ πολλοὶ μὲν ἂν τῶν Ἀντιπάτρου φίλων, καθʼ οὗ πεπαρρησίασται πολλὰ καὶ δυνάμενα λυπεῖν οὐ μόνον αὐτὸν Ἀντίπατρον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐκείνου διαδόχους καὶ φίλους γεγονότας, πολλοὶ δὲ τῶν ἀντιπεπολιτευμένων, ὧν ἦν καὶ Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεύς. οὗ ʼκεῖνος οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν πεποίηται κατηγορίαν ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις, φάσκων αὐτὸν γεγονέναι τοιοῦτον προστάτην τῆς πατρίδος καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις σεμνύνεσθαι κατὰ τὴν πολιτείαν, ἐφʼ οἷς ἂν καὶ τελώνης σεμνυνθείη βάναυσος. ἐπὶ γὰρ τῷ πολλὰ καὶ λυσιτελῶς πωλεῖσθαι κατὰ τὴν πόλιν καὶ δαψιλῆ τὰ πρὸς τὸν βίον ὑπάρχειν πᾶσιν, ἐπὶ τούτοις φησὶ μεγαλαυχεῖν αὐτόν· καὶ διότι κοχλίας αὐτομάτως βαδίζων προηγεῖτο τῆς πομπῆς αὐτῷ, σίαλον ἀναπτύων, σὺν δὲ τούτοις ὄνοι διεπέμποντο διὰ τοῦ θεάτρου, διότι δὴ πάντων τῶν τῆς Ἑλλάδος καλῶν ἡ πατρὶς παρακεχωρηκυῖα τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐποίει Κασσάνδρῳ τὸ προσταττόμενον, ἐπὶ τούτοις αὐτὸν οὐκ αἰσχύνεσθαί φησιν. ἀλλʼ ὅμως οὔτε Δημήτριος οὔτʼ ἄλλος οὐδεὶς εἰρή κει περὶ Δημοχάρους τοιοῦτον οὐδέν.
14. Relying therefore on the testimony of his own countrymen, as safer ground than the virulence of Timaeus, I feel no hesitation in declaring that the life of Demochares is not chargeable with such enormities. But even supposing that Demochares had ever so disgraced himself, what need was there for Timaeus to insert this passage in his History? Men of sense, when resolved to retaliate upon a personal enemy, think first, not of what he deserves, but of what it is becoming in them to do. So in the case of abusive language: the first consideration should be, not what our enemies deserve to be called, but what our self respect will allow us to call them. But if men measure everything by their own ill temper and jealousy, we are forced to be always suspicious of them, and to be ever on our guard against their exaggeration. Wherefore, in the present instance, we may fairly reject the stories to the discredit of Philochares told by Timaeus; for he has put himself out of the pale of indulgence or belief, by so obviously allowing his native virulence to carry him beyond all bounds of propriety in his invectives.
14. ἐξ ὧν ἐγώ, βεβαιοτέραν τὴν τῆς πατρίδος ἡγούμενος μαρτυρίαν ἢ τὴν Τιμαίου πικρίαν, θαρρῶν ἀποφαίνομαι μηδενὶ τὸν Δημοχάρους βίον ἔνοχον εἶναι τῶν τοιούτων κατηγορημάτων. καίπερ εἰ κατʼ ἀλήθειαν ὑπῆρχέ τι τοιοῦτον ἀτύχημα περὶ Δημοχάρην, ποῖος καιρὸς ἢ ποία πρᾶξις ἠνάγκασε Τίμαιον ταῦτα κατατάττειν εἰς τὴν ἱστορίαν; καθάπερ γὰρ οἱ νοῦν ἔχοντες, ἐπὰν ἀμύνασθαι κρίνωσι τοὺς ἐχθρούς, οὐ τοῦτο πρῶτον σκοποῦνται τί παθεῖν ἄξιός ἐστιν ὁ πλησίον, ἀλλὰ τί ποιεῖν αὐτοῖς πρέπει, τοῦτο μᾶλλον οὕτως καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιδοριῶν, οὐ τί τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἀκούειν ἁρμόζει, τοῦτο πρῶτον ἡγητέον, ἀλλὰ τί λέγειν ἡμῖν πρέπει, τοῦτʼ ἀναγκαιότατον λογιστέον. περὶ δὲ τῶν πάντα μετρούντων ταῖς ἰδίαις ὀργαῖς καὶ φιλοτιμίαις ἀνάγκη πάνθʼ ὑποπτεύειν ἐστὶ καὶ πᾶσι διαπιστεῖν πέρα τοῦ δέοντος λεγομένοις. διὸ δὴ καὶ νῦν ἡμεῖς μὲν εἰκότως ἂν δόξαιμεν ἀθετεῖν τοῖς ὑπὸ Τιμαίου κατὰ Δημοχάρους εἰρημένοις· ἐκεῖνος δʼ ἂν οὐκ εἰκότως τυγχάνοι συγγνώμης οὐδὲ πίστεως ὑπʼ οὐδενὸς διὰ τὸ προφανῶς ἐν ταῖς λοιδορίαις ἐκπίπτειν τοῦ καθήκοντος διὰ τὴν ἔμφυτον πικρίαν.
15. For my part I cannot feel satisfied with his abuse of Agathocles either, even admitting him to have been the worst of men. I refer to the passage at the end of his History in which he asserts that in his youth Agathocles was “a common stale, extravagantly addicted to every unnatural vice,” and that “when he died, his wife in the course of her lamentations exclaimed Ah, what have I not done for you I what have you not done to me?” To such language one can only repeat what has been already said in the case of Demochares, and express one’s astonishment at such extravagant virulence. For that Agathocles must have had fine natural qualities is evident from the narrative of Timaeus itself. That a man who came as a runaway slave to Syracuse, from the potter’s wheel and smoke and clay, at the early age of eighteen, should have within a short time advanced from that humble beginning to be master of all Sicily, and after being a terror to the Carthaginians, should have grown old in office and died in enjoyment of the royal title,—does not this prove that Agathocles had some great and admirable qualities, and many endowments and talents for administration? In view of these the historian ought not to have recounted to posterity only what served to discredit and defame this man, but those facts also which were to his honour. For that is the proper function of history. Blinded, however, by personal malignity, he has recorded for us with bitterness and exaggeration all his defects; while his eminent achievements he has passed over in entire silence: seeming not to be aware that in history such silence is as mendacious as misstatement. The part of his history, therefore, which was added by him for the gratification of his personal spite I have passed over, but not what was really germane to his subject....
15. καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ ταῖς κατʼ Ἀγαθοκλέους ἔγωγε λοιδορίαις, εἰ καὶ πάντων γέγονεν ἀσεβέστατος, εὐδοκῶ. λέγω δʼ ἐν τούτοις, ἐν οἷς ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ τῆς ὅλης ἱστορίας φησὶ γεγονέναι τὸν Ἀγαθοκλέα κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἡλικίαν κοινὸν πόρνον, ἕτοιμον τοῖς ἀκρατεστάτοις, κολοιόν, τριόρχην, πάντων τῶν βουλομένων τοῖς ὄπισθεν ἔμπροσθεν γεγονότα. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, ὅτʼ ἀπέθανε, τὴν γυναῖκά φησι κατακλαιομένην αὐτὸν οὕτως θρηνεῖν· "τί δʼ οὐκ ἐγὼ σέ; τί δʼ οὐκ ἐμὲ σύ; " ἐν γὰρ τούτοις πάλιν οὐ μόνον ἄν τις ἐπιφθέγξαιτο τὰ καὶ περὶ Δημοχάρους, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν θαυμάσειε τῆς πικρίας. ὅτι γὰρ ἐκ φύσεως ἀνάγκη μεγάλα προτερήματα γεγονέναι περὶ τὸν Ἀγαθοκλέα, τοῦτο δῆλόν ἐστιν ἐξ αὐτῶν ὧν ὁ Τίμαιος ἀποφαίνεται. εἰ γὰρ εἰς τὰς Συρακούσας παρεγενήθη φεύγων τὸν τροχόν, τὸν καπνόν, τὸν πηλόν, περὶ ἔτη τὴν ἡλικίαν ὀκτωκαίδεκα γεγονώς, καὶ μετά τινα χρόνον ὁρμηθεὶς ἀπὸ τοιαύτης ὑποθέσεως κύριος μὲν ἐγενήθη πάσης Σικελίας, μεγίστους δὲ κινδύνους περιέστησε Καρχηδονίοις, τέλος ἐγγηράσας τῇ δυναστείᾳ κατέστρεψε τὸν βίον βασιλεὺς προσαγορευόμενος, ἆρʼ οὐκ ἀνάγκη μέγα τι γεγονέναι χρῆμα καὶ θαυμάσιον τὸν Ἀγαθοκλέα καὶ πολλὰς ἐσχηκέναι ῥοπὰς καὶ δυνάμεις πρὸς τὸν πραγματικὸν τρόπον; ὑπὲρ ὧν δεῖ τὸν συγγραφέα μὴ μόνον τὰ πρὸς διαβολὴν κυροῦντα καὶ κατηγορίαν ἐξηγεῖσθαι τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ πρὸς ἔπαινον ἥκοντα περὶ τὸν ἄνδρα· τοῦτο γὰρ ἴδιόν ἐστι τῆς ἱστορίας. ὁ δʼ ἐπεσκοτημένος ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας πικρίας τὰ μὲν ἐλαττώματα δυσμενικῶς καὶ μετʼ αὐξήσεως ἡμῖν ἐξήγγελκε, τὰ δὲ κατορθώματα συλλήβδην παραλέλοιπεν, ἀγνοῶν ὅτι τὸ ψεῦδος οὐχ ἧττόν ἐστι περὶ τοὺς τὰ γεγονότα γράφοντας ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις. ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸ μὲν ἐπιμετρεῖν τῆς ἀπεχθείας αὐτοῦ χάριν ἀφήκαμεν, τὰ δʼ οἰκεῖα τῆς προθέσεως αὑτῶν οὐ παρελείψαμεν. — νεανίσκων δυεῖν περί τινος οἰκέτου διαφερομένων συνέβαινε παρὰ μὲν τὸν ἕτερον καὶ πλείω χρόνον γεγονέναι τὸν παῖδα, τὸν δʼ ἕτερον ἡμέραις δυσὶ πρότερον εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν ἐλθόντα μὴ παρόντος τοῦ δεσπότου μετὰ βίας εἰς οἶκον ἀπηχέναι τὸν δοῦλον, κἄπειτα τὸν ἕτερον αἰσθόμενον ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν, καὶ λαβόντʼ ἀπάγειν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχήν, καὶ φάναι δεῖν κύριον αὐτὸν εἶναι διδόντα τοὺς ἐγγυητάς·
16. Two young men had a dispute about the ownership of a slave. This slave had been in the possession of one of them for a long time; but two days before, as he was going to the farm without his master, the other laid violent hands upon him and dragged him to his house. When the first young man heard of this, he came to the house, seized the slave, and taking him before the magistrate asserted his ownership and offered sureties. For the law of Zaleucus ordained that the party from whom the abduction was made should have possession of the property in dispute, pending the decision of the suit. But the other man in accordance with the same law, alleged that he was the party from whom the abduction had been made, for the slave had been brought before the magistrate from his house. The magistrates who were trying the case were in doubt, and calling in the Cosmopolis referred the point to him. He interpreted the law as meaning that “the abduction was always from that party in whose possession the property in dispute had last been for a certain period unquestioned; but that if another abducted this property from a holder, and then the original holder repossessed himself of it from the abductor, this was not abduction in the sense of the law.” The young man, who thus lost his case, was not satisfied, and alleged that such was not the intention of the legislator. Thereupon the Cosmopolis summoned him to discuss the interpretation in accordance with the law of Zaleucus; that is, to argue on the interpretation of the law with him before the court of the one thousand, and with a halter round the neck of each: whichever should be shown to be wrong in his interpretation was to lose his life in the sight of the thousand. But the young man asserted that the compact was not a fair one, for the Cosmopolis, who happened to be nearly ninety, had only two or three years of life left, while in all reasonable probability he had not yet lived half his life. By this adroit rejoinder the young man turned off the affair as a jest: but the magistrates adjudged the question of abduction in accordance with the interpretation of the Cosmopolis.
16. κελεύειν γὰρ τὸν Ζαλεύκου νόμον τοῦτον δεῖν κρατεῖν τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων ἕως τῆς κρίσεως παρʼ οὗ τὴν ἀγωγὴν συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι. τοῦ δʼ ἑτέρου κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν νόμον παρʼ αὑτοῦ φάσκοντος γεγονέναι τὴν ἀγωγήν — ἐκ γὰρ τῆς οἰκίας τῆς ἐκείνου τὸ σῶμα πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἥκειν ἀπαγόμενον — τοὺς προκαθημένους ἄρχοντας διαποροῦντας ὑπὲρ τοῦ πράγματος ἐπισπάσασθαι καὶ συμμεταδοῦναι τῷ κοσμοπόλιδι. τὸν δὲ διαστείλασθαι τὸν νόμον, φήσαντα παρὰ τούτων τὴν ἀγωγὴν αἰεὶ γίνεσθαι, παρʼ οἷς ἂν ἔσχατον ἀδήριτον ᾖ χρόνον τινὰ γεγονὸς τὸ διαμφισβητούμενον· ἐὰν δέ τις ἀφελόμενος βίᾳ παρά τινος ἀπαγάγῃ πρὸς αὑτόν, κἄπειτα παρὰ τούτου τὴν ἀγωγὴν ὁ προϋπάρχων ποιῆται δεσπότης, οὐκ εἶναι ταύτην κυρίαν. τοῦ δὲ νεανίσκου δεινοπαθοῦντος καὶ μὴ φάσκοντος εἶναι τοῦ νομοθέτου ταύτην τὴν προαίρεσιν, προκαλέσασθαί φασι τὸν κοσμόπολιν, εἴ τι βούλεται λέγειν ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώμης κατὰ τὸν Ζαλεύκου νόμον. τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ καθισάντων τῶν χιλίων καὶ βρόχων κρεμασθέντων λέγειν ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ νομοθέτου γνώμης· ὁπότερος δʼ ἂν αὐτῶν φανῇ τὴν προαίρεσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ἐκδεχόμενος, τὸν τοιοῦτον διὰ τῆς ἀγχόνης ἀπόλλυσθαι βλεπόντων τῶν χιλίων. ταῦτα προτείναντος τοῦ κοσμοπόλιδος, τὸν νεανίσκον εἰπεῖν φασιν ἄνισον εἶναι τὴν συνθήκην· τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἔτη δύʼ ἢ τρία καταλείπεσθαι τοῦ ζῆν· συνέβαινε γὰρ εἶναι τὸν κοσμόπολιν οὐ πολὺ λεῖπον τῶν ἐνενήκοντʼ ἐτῶν· αὑτῷ δὲ τοῦ βίου τὸ πλεῖον ἐκ τῶν εὐλόγων ἔτι μένειν. ὁ μὲν οὖν νεανίσκος οὕτως εὐτραπελευσάμενος ἐξέλυσε τὴν σπουδήν, οἱ δʼ ἄρχοντες ἔκριναν τὴν ἀγωγὴν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κοσμοπόλιδος γνώμην.
17. That I may not be thought to detract wantonly from the credit of such great writers, I will mention one battle, which is at once one of the most famous ever fought, and not too remote in point of time; and at which, above everything else, Callisthenes was himself present. I mean the battle between Alexander and Darius in Cilicia. He says that “Alexander had already got through the pass called the Cilician Gates: and that Darius, availing himself of that by the Amanid Gates, made his way with his army into Cilicia; but on learning from the natives that Alexander was on his way into Syria, he followed him; and having arrived at the pass leading to the south, pitched his camp on the bank of the river Pinarus. The width of the ground from the foot of the mountain to the sea was not more than fourteen stades, through which this river ran diagonally. On first issuing from the mountains its banks were broken, but in its course through the level down to the sea it ran between precipitous and steep hills.” Starting with this description of the ground, he goes on to say that “When Alexander’s army faced about, and, retracing its steps, was approaching to attack them, Darius and his officers determined to draw up their whole phalanx on the ground occupied by his encampment, as it then was, and to defend his front by the river, which flowed right along his camp.” But he afterwards says that Darius “stationed his cavalry close to the sea, his mercenaries next along the river, and his peltasts next resting on the mountains.”
17. ἵνα δὲ μὴ δόξωμεν τῶν τηλικούτων ἀνδρῶν καταξιοπιστεῖσθαι, μνησθησόμεθα μιᾶς παρατάξεως, ἣν ἅμα μὲν οἵαν ἐπιφανεστάτην εἶναι συμβέβηκεν, ἅμα δὲ τοῖς καιροῖς οὐ μακρὰν ἀπηρτῆσθαι, τὸ δὲ μέγιστον, παρατετευχέναι τὸν Καλλισθένη. λέγω δὲ περὶ τῆς ἐν Κιλικίᾳ γενομένης Ἀλεξάνδρῳ πρὸς Δαρεῖον, ἐν ᾗ φησὶ μὲν Ἀλέξανδρον ἤδη διαπεπορεῦσθαι τὰ στενὰ καὶ τὰς λεγομένας ἐν τῇ Κιλικίᾳ Πύλας, Δαρεῖον δὲ χρησάμενον τῇ διὰ τῶν Ἀμανίδων λεγομένων Πυλῶν πορείᾳ κατᾶραι μετὰ τῆς δυνάμεως εἰς Κιλικίαν· πυθόμενον δὲ παρὰ τῶν ἐγχωρίων προάγειν τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον ὡς ἐπὶ Συρίαν, ἀκολουθεῖν, καὶ συνεγγίσαντα τοῖς στενοῖς στρατοπεδεῦσαι παρὰ τὸν Πίναρον ποταμόν. εἶναι δὲ τοῦ μὲν τόπου τὸ διάστημʼ οὐ πλείω τῶν τεττάρων καὶ δέκα σταδίων ἀπὸ θαλάττης ἕως πρὸς τὴν παρώρειαν· διὰ δὲ τούτου φέρεσθαι τὸν προειρημένον ποταμὸν ἐπικάρσιον, ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν ὀρῶν εὐθέως ἐκρήγματα τῶν πλευρῶν, διὰ δὲ τῶν ἐπιπέδων ἕως εἰς θάλατταν ἀποτόμους ἔχοντα καὶ δυσβάτους λόφους. ταῦτα δʼ ὑποθέμενος, ἐπεὶ συνεγγίζοιεν οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον ἐξ ὑποστροφῆς ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς ἀναχωροῦντες, κρῖναί φησι Δαρεῖον καὶ τοὺς ἡγεμόνας τὴν μὲν φάλαγγα τάξαι πᾶσαν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ στρατοπεδείᾳ, καθάπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἶχε, χρήσασθαι δὲ τῷ ποταμῷ προβλήματι διὰ τὸ παρʼ αὐτὴν ῥεῖν τὴν στρατοπεδείαν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτά φησι τοὺς μὲν ἱππεῖς τάξαι παρὰ θάλατταν, τοὺς δὲ μισθοφόρους ἑξῆς τούτοις παρʼ αὐτὸν τὸν ποταμόν, ἐχομένους τούτων τοὺς πελταστὰς συνάπτοντας τοῖς ὄρεσι.
18. Now it is difficult to understand how he could have drawn up these troops in front of his phalanx, considering that the river ran immediately under the camp: especially as their numbers were so great, amounting, on Callisthenes’s own showing, to thirty thousand cavalry and thirty thousand mercenaries. Now it is easy to calculate how much ground such a force would require. At the most cavalry in a regular engagement is drawn up eight deep, and between each squadron a clear space must be left in the line to enable them to turn or face about. Therefore eight hundred will cover a stade of front; eight thousand, ten stades; three thousand two hundred, four stades; and so eleven thousand two hundred would cover the whole of fourteen stades. If therefore he were to put his whole thirty thousand on the ground, he would have to mass his cavalry alone nearly three times the usual depth; and then what room is left for his large force of mercenaries? None, indeed, unless on the rear of the cavalry. But Callisthenes says this was not the case, but that these latter engaged the Macedonians first. We must therefore understand half the front, that nearest the sea, to have been occupied by the cavalry; the other half, that nearest the mountains, by the mercenaries. We may by these data easily calculate the depth of the cavalry, and the distance the river must have been from the camp to allow of it. Again, he says that “on the approach of the enemy Darius himself, who was on the centre, ordered up the mercenaries from the wing.” It is difficult to see what he means by this: for the point of junction of the mercenaries and the cavalry must have been at the centre. Where and how then, and to what point could Darius, who was himself actually among the mercenaries, be said to “order them up”? Lastly, he says that “the cavalry on the right wing charged Alexander; and that his men stood the charge gallantly, and, making a counter charge, kept up an obstinate fight.” But he quite forgets that there was a river between them, a river, too, of the nature that he had just himself described.
18. πῶς δὲ προέταξε τούτους πρὸ τῆς φάλαγγος, τοῦ ποταμοῦ ῥέοντος παρʼ αὐτὴν τὴν στρατοπεδείαν, δυσχερὲς κατανοῆσαι, καὶ ταῦτα τῷ πλήθει τοσούτων ὑπαρχόντων. τρισμύριοι μὲν γὰρ ἱππεῖς ὑπῆρχον, ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ Καλλισθένης φησί, τρισμύριοι δὲ μισθοφόροι· πόσου δʼ εἶχον οὗτοι τόπου χρείαν, εὐχερὲς καταμαθεῖν. πλεῖστον μὲν γὰρ ἱππέων τάττεται βάθος ἐπʼ ὀκτὼ πρὸς ἀληθινὴν χρείαν, καὶ μεταξὺ τῶν ἰλῶν ἑκάστης ἴσον ὑπάρχειν δεῖ διάστημα τοῖς μετώποις πρὸς τὸ ταῖς ἐπιστροφαῖς δύνασθαι καὶ τοῖς περισπασμοῖς εὐχρηστεῖν. ἐξ ὧν τὸ στάδιον ὀκτακοσίους λαμβάνει, τὰ δὲ δέκα τοὺς ὀκτακισχιλίους, τὰ δὲ τέτταρα τρισχιλίους διακοσίους, ὥστʼ ἀπὸ τῶν μυρίων χιλίων διακοσίων πεπληρῶσθαι τὸν τῶν τετταρεσκαίδεκα σταδίων τόπον. ἐὰν δὲ πάντας ἐκτάττῃ τοὺς τρισμυρίους, βραχὺ λείπει τοῦ τριφαλαγγίαν ἐπάλληλον εἶναι τῶν ἱππέων αὐτῶν. εἰς ποῖον οὖν τόπον ἐτάττετο τὸ τῶν μισθοφόρων πλῆθος; εἰ μὴ νὴ Δία κατόπιν τῶν ἱππέων. ἀλλʼ οὔ φησιν, ἀλλὰ συμπεπτωκέναι τούτους τοῖς Μακεδόσι κατὰ τὴν ἐπαγωγήν. ἐξ ὧν ἀνάγκη ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐκδοχὴν διότι τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ τοῦ τόπου τὸ παρὰ θάλατταν ἡ τῶν ἱππέων ἐπεῖχε τάξις, τὸ δʼ ἥμισυ τὸ πρὸς τοῖς ὄρεσιν ἡ τῶν μισθοφόρων. ἐκ δὲ τούτων εὐσυλλόγιστον πόσον ὑπῆρχε τὸ βάθος τῶν ἱππέων καὶ ποῖον ἔδει τόπον ἀπέχειν τὸν ποταμὸν ἀπὸ τῆς στρατοπεδείας. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα συνεγγιζόντων τῶν πολεμίων φησὶ τὸν Δαρεῖον αὐτόν, κατὰ μέσην ὑπάρχοντα τὴν τάξιν, καλεῖν τοὺς μισθοφόρους ἀπὸ τοῦ κέρατος πρὸς αὑτόν. πῶς δὲ λέγεται τοῦτο, διαπορεῖν ἔστι· τῶν γὰρ μισθοφόρων ἀνάγκη καὶ τῶν ἱππέων τὴν συναφὴν κατὰ μέσον ὑπάρχειν τὸν τόπον, ὥστʼ ἐν αὐτοῖς ὢν τοῖς μισθοφόροις ὁ Δαρεῖος ποῦ καὶ πρὸς τί καὶ πῶς ἐκάλει τοὺς μισθοφόρους; τὸ δὲ τελευταῖόν φησι τοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ δεξιοῦ κέρατος ἱππεῖς ἐπαγαγόντας ἐμβαλεῖν τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον, τοὺς δὲ γενναίως δεξαμένους ἀντεπάγειν καὶ ποιεῖν μάχην ἰσχυράν. ὅτι δὲ ποταμὸς ἦν ἐν μέσῳ, καὶ ποταμὸς οἷον ἀρτίως εἶπεν, ἐπελάθετο.
19. His account of the movements of Alexander are equally vague. He says that “he crossed into Asia with forty thousand infantry and four thousand five hundred cavalry; but that when he was about to enter Cilicia he was joined by a reinforcement of five thousand infantry and eight hundred cavalry.” From these numbers, if one were to make the liberal allowance of three thousand absentees from the infantry and three hundred from the cavalry on various services, there would still remain forty-two thousand infantry and five thousand cavalry. Starting with these numbers, he goes on to say “that Alexander heard of the entrance of Darius into Cilicia when he was a hundred stades away from him, having already marched through the pass: that he therefore retraced his steps through the pass, his phalanx on the van, his cavalry next, and his baggage on the rear. But that as soon as he had debouched upon the open country, he gave general orders to form up into a phalanx, at first thirty-two deep; then sixteen; and lastly, when they were nearing the enemy, eight deep.” Now this is a worse blunder than the last. A stade, allowing for the distances which must be kept on a march, and reckoning the depth at sixteen, admits of one thousand six hundred men, each man covering six feet. It is plain, therefore, that ten stades will admit of only sixteen thousand men, and twenty twice that number. Hence, when Alexander caused his men to form sixteen deep, he would have wanted a width of ground of twenty stades; and even then, the whole of the cavalry and ten thousand infantry would have been unaccounted for.
19. τούτοις δʼ ἐστὶ παραπλήσια τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον. φησὶ γὰρ αὐτὸν ποιήσασθαι τὴν εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν διάβασιν, πεζῶν μὲν ἔχοντα τέτταρας μυριάδας, ἱππεῖς δὲ τετρακισχιλίους καὶ πεντακοσίους, μέλλοντι δʼ εἰς Κιλικίαν ἐμβάλλειν ἄλλους ἐλθεῖν ἐκ Μακεδονίας πεζοὺς μὲν πεντακισχιλίους, ἱππεῖς δʼ ὀκτακοσίους. ἀφʼ ὧν εἴ τις ἀφέλοι τρισχιλίους μὲν πεζούς, τριακοσίους δʼ ἱππεῖς, ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖον ποιῶν τὴν ἀπουσίαν πρὸς τὰς γεγενημένας χρείας, ὅμως πεζοὶ μὲν ἀπολειφθήσονται τετρακισμύριοι δισχίλιοι, πεντακισχίλιοι δʼ ἱππεῖς. τούτων οὖν ὑποκειμένων, φησὶ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον πυθέσθαι τὴν Δαρείου παρουσίαν εἰς Κιλικίαν ἑκατὸν ἀπέχοντα σταδίους ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, διαπεπορευμένον ἤδη τὰ στενά· διόπερ ἐξ ὑποστροφῆς πάλιν ποιεῖσθαι τὴν πορείαν διὰ τῶν στενῶν, ἄγοντα πρῶτον μὲν τὴν φάλαγγα, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τοὺς ἱππεῖς, ἐπὶ πᾶσι τὸ σκευοφόρον. ἅμα δὲ τῷ πρῶτον εἰς τὰς εὐρυχωρίας ἐκπεσεῖν, διασκευάζεσθαι παραγγείλαντα πᾶσιν ἐπιπαρεμβαλεῖν τὴν φάλαγγα, καὶ ποιῆσαι τὸ βάθος αὐτῆς ἐπὶ τριάκοντα καὶ δύο, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πάλιν εἰς ἑκκαίδεκα, τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον, ἐγγίζοντα τοῖς πολεμίοις, εἰς ὀκτώ. ταῦτα δʼ ἐστὶ μείζω τῶν προειρημένων ἀλογήματα. τοῦ γὰρ σταδίου λαμβάνοντος ἄνδρας ἐν τοῖς πορευτικοῖς διαστήμασιν, ὅταν εἰς ἑκκαίδεκα τὸ βάθος ὦσι, χιλίους ἑξακοσίους, ἑκάστου τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἓξ πόδας ἐπέχοντος, φανερὸν ὅτι τὰ δέκα στάδια λήψεται μυρίους ἑξακισχιλίους, τὰ δʼ εἴκοσι τοὺς διπλασίους. ἐκ δὲ τούτων εὐθεώρητον ὅτι καθʼ ὃν καιρὸν ἐποίησε τὴν δύναμιν Ἀλέξανδρος ἑκκαίδεκα τὸ βάθος, ἀναγκαῖον ἦν εἴκοσι σταδίων ὑπάρχειν τὸ τοῦ τόπου διάστημα καὶ περιττεύειν ἔτι τοὺς μὲν ἱππεῖς πάντας, τῶν δὲ πεζῶν μυρίους.
20. Again, he says that Alexander was marching in line when he was about forty stades from the enemy. A greater blunder it is difficult to conceive. For where could one find a ground, and especially in Cilicia, twenty stades broad by forty deep, for a phalanx armed with sarissae to march in line? It would not be easy to count all the impossibilities in the way of such an arrangement and such a movement. One that is mentioned by Callisthenes himself is sufficient to establish the point. For he remarks that the winter torrents which descend from the hills make so many gullies in the plain, that, in the course of the flight, the chief part of the Persians are said to have lost their lives in deep places of that kind. But, it may be urged, Alexander wished to be ready for battle as soon as the enemy were in sight. But what could be less ready than a phalanx in a disordered and straggling line? Is it not much easier to form up a phalanx from a proper column of route, than to bring a disordered and straggling line back into the same alignment, and get it into order of battle on a broken and woody ground? It was, therefore much better to march twice or four times the ordinary depth of a phalanx in good order, for which sufficient ground could possibly be found. And it was easy to deploy his men quickly into the line of the phalanx, because he was able by means of scouts to ascertain the presence of the enemy in plenty of time. But in this case, beside other absurdities, while bringing his men in line across the level, he did not even (we are told) put the cavalry in front, but marched with them in the same alignment.
20. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτά φησι μετωπηδὸν ἄγειν τὴν δύναμιν, ἀπέχοντα τῶν πολεμίων περὶ τετταράκοντα σταδίους. τούτου δὲ μεῖζον ἀλόγημα δυσχερὲς ἐπινοῆσαι· ποῦ γὰρ ἂν εὕροι τις τοιούτους τόπους, ἄλλως τε καὶ κατὰ Κιλικίαν, ὥστʼ ἐπὶ σταδίους εἴκοσι μὲν τὸ πλάτος τετταράκοντα δὲ τὸ μῆκος μετωπηδὸν ἄγειν φάλαγγα σαρισοφόρον; τοσαῦτα γάρ ἐστιν ἐμπόδια πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην τάξιν καὶ χρείαν, ἅ τις οὐδʼ ἂν ἐξαριθμήσαιτο ῥᾳδίως. ἓν δὲ τῶν ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ Καλλισθένους λεγομένων ἱκανὸν ὑπάρχει πρὸς πίστιν· τοὺς γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀρῶν χειμάρρους καταφερομένους τοσαῦτά φησι ποιεῖν ἐκρήγματα κατὰ τὸ πεδίον ὥστε καὶ τῶν Περσῶν κατὰ τὴν φυγὴν διαφθαρῆναι λέγουσι τοὺς πλείστους ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις κοιλώμασι. νὴ Δίʼ, ἀλλʼ ἕτοιμος ἐβούλετʼ εἶναι πρὸς τὴν τῶν πολεμίων ἐπιφάνειαν. τί δʼ ἀνετοιμότερον φάλαγγος ἐν μετώπῳ διαλελυμένης καὶ διεσταμένης; πόσῳ γὰρ ἐκ πορευτικῆς ἀγωγῆς ἁρμοζούσης παρατάξαι ῥᾷον ἢ διαλελυμένην ἐν μετώπῳ καὶ διεσπασμένην δύναμιν ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτὴν εὐθεῖαν ἀγαγεῖν καὶ συστῆσαι πρὸς μάχην ἐν τόποις ὑλώδεσι καὶ περικεκλασμένοις; διόπερ οὐδὲ παρὰ μικρὸν ἦν κρεῖττον ἄγειν διφαλαγγίαν ἢ τετραφαλαγγίαν ἁρμόζουσαν, ᾗ καὶ τόπον πορείας εὑρεῖν οὐκ ἀδύνατον, καὶ τὸ παρατάξαι ταχέως ῥᾴδιόν γε, δυνάμενον διὰ τῶν προδρόμων ἐκ πολλοῦ γινώσκειν τὴν τῶν πολεμίων παρουσίαν. ὁ δὲ χωρὶς τῶν ἄλλων οὐδὲ τοὺς ἱππεῖς προέθετο, μετωπηδὸν ἄγων τὴν δύναμιν ἐν τόποις ἐπιπέδοις, ἀλλʼ ἐξ ἴσου ποιεῖ τοῖς πεζοῖς.
21. But the greatest blunder is still to come. “As soon as Alexander,” he says, “was within distance of the enemy he caused his men to take up order eight deep,” which would have necessitated ground forty stades wide for the length of the line; and even had they, to use the poet’s expression, “laid shield to shield and on each other leaned,” still ground twenty stades wide would have been wanted, while he himself says that it was less than fourteen. [We have also to deduct from these fourteen stades the space occupied by the two divisions of the cavalry, one on the left next the sea, the other on the right]; and to allow for the fact that the whole force was kept a considerable distance from the hills, to avoid being exposed to the enemy occupying the skirts of the mountains; for we know that Callisthenes represents the wing to have been facing these, at an angle with the centre. We are also leaving out of account the ten thousand foot, whom we showed to be too many according to his own calculation. The upshot is that eleven stades at most is left for the whole length of the phalanx, even taking Callisthenes’s own account, in which thirty-two thousand men standing shield to shield must necessarily be drawn up thirty deep; while he asserts that they fought eight deep. Such blunders admit of no defence: for the facts at once demonstrate the impossibility of the assertion. We have only to compare the space occupied by each man, the width of the whole ground, and the number of the men, to prove its falsity.
21. τὸ δὲ δὴ πάντων μέγιστον· ἤδη γὰρ σύνεγγυς ὄντα τοῖς πολεμίοις αὐτὸν εἰς ὀκτὼ ποιῆσαί φησι τὸ βάθος. ἐξ οὗ δῆλον ὅτι κατʼ ἀνάγκην ἐπὶ τετταράκοντα σταδίους ἔδει γενέσθαι τὸ μῆκος τῆς φάλαγγος. εἰ δʼ ὅλως συνήσπισαν κατὰ τὸν ποιητὴν οὕτως ὥστε συνερεῖσαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὅμως εἴκοσι σταδίων ἔδει τὸν τόπον ὑπάρχειν. αὐτὸς δέ φησι λείπειν τῶν δεκατεττάρων σταδίων καὶ τούτου μέρος μέν τι πρὸς θαλάττῃ τοὺς ἡμίσεας ἐπὶ τοῦ δεξιοῦ· ἔτι δὲ τὴν ὅλην τάξιν ἀπὸ τῶν ὀρῶν ἱκανὸν τόπον ἀφεστάναι πρὸς τὸ μὴ τοῖς πολεμίοις ὑποπεπτωκέναι τοῖς κατέχουσι τὰς παρωρείας. ἴσμεν γὰρ ὃ ποιεῖ πρὸς τούτους ἐπικάμπιον. Ὑπολειπόμεθα καὶ νῦν ἡμεῖς τοὺς μυρίους πεζούς, πλείους ὄντας τῆς ἐκείνου προθέσεως. ὥστʼ ἐκ τούτων ἕνδεκα σταδίους ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖον ἀπολείπεσθαι τὸ τῆς φάλαγγος μῆκος κατʼ αὐτὸν τὸν Καλλισθένην, ἐν οἷς ἀνάγκη τοὺς τρισμυρίους καὶ δισχιλίους ἐπὶ τριάκοντα τὸ βάθος ὑπάρχειν συνησπικότας. ὁ δέ φησιν εἰς ὀκτὼ τεταγμένων γενέσθαι τὴν μάχην. τὰ δὲ τοιαῦτα τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων οὐδʼ ἀπολογίαν ἐπιδέχεται· τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον ἐν πράγμασιν αὐτόθεν ἔχει τὴν πίστιν. διόπερ ὅταν καὶ τὰ κατʼ ἄνδρα διαστήματα καὶ τὸ πᾶν τοῦ τόπου μέγεθος ὡρισμένον ὑποθῶσι καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἀναπολόγητον γίνεται τὸ ψεῦδος.
22. It would be tedious to mention all his other absurdities in connexion with this battle. I must be content with a very few. He says, for instance, that “Alexander took care in arranging his order of battle to be himself personally opposed to Darius; and that at first Darius was equally anxious to be opposite Alexander, but afterwards altered his mind.” But he does not vouchsafe to tell us how these kings learnt at what part of their respective forces they were each posted, or to what point in his own line Darius re-transferred himself. Again, how could a phalanx mount to the edge of the river bank, when it was precipitous and covered with brushwood? Such a piece of bad generalship must not be attributed to Alexander, because he is acknowledged by all to have been a skilful strategist and to have studied the subject from childhood: we must rather attribute it to the historian’s want of ability to descern between what is or is not practicable in such movements. So much for Ephorus and Callisthenes....
22. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἅμα τούτοις ἀλογήματα μακρὸν ἂν εἴη λέγειν πάντα πλὴν τελέως ὀλίγων. φησὶ γὰρ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον σπουδάζειν κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, ἵνα κατὰ τὸν Δαρεῖον αὐτὸν ποιήσηται τὴν μάχην· ὁμοίως δὲ κατὰ μὲν ἀρχὰς καὶ τὸν Δαρεῖον αὐτὸν βούλεσθαι κατὰ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον, ὕστερον δὲ μετανοῆσαι. πῶς δʼ ἐπέγνωσαν ἀλλήλους οὗτοι ποῦ τῆς ἰδίας δυνάμεως ἔχουσι τὴν τάξιν, ἢ ποῦ μετέβη πάλιν ὁ Δαρεῖος, ἁπλῶς οὐδὲν λέγεται. πῶς δὲ προσανέβη πρὸς τὴν ὀφρὺν τοῦ ποταμοῦ φαλαγγιτῶν τάξις, ἀπότομον οὖσαν καὶ βατώδη; καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο παρὰ λόγον. Ἀλεξάνδρῳ μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἐποιστέον τὴν τοιαύτην ἀτοπίαν διὰ τὸ πᾶσιν ὁμολογουμένην παραλαμβάνεσθαι περὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς ἐμπειρίαν καὶ τριβὴν ἐκ παιδός, τῷ δὲ συγγραφεῖ μᾶλλον, ὃς διὰ τὴν ἀπειρίαν οὐδὲ τὸ δυνατὸν καὶ τὸ μὴ δυνατὸν ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις δύναται διευκρινεῖν. περὶ μὲν οὖν Ἐφόρου καὶ Καλλισθένους ταῦθʼ ἡμῖν εἰρήσθω.
23. Timaeus attacks Ephorus with great severity, though he is himself liable to two grave charges—bitterness in attacking others for faults of which he is himself guilty, and complete demoralisation, shown by the opinions which he expresses in his memoirs, and which he endeavours to implant in the minds of his readers. If we are to lay it down that Callisthenes deserved his death, what ought to happen to Timaeus? Surely there is much more reason for Providence to be wroth with him than with Callisthenes. The latter wished to deify Alexander; but Timaeus exalts Timoleon above the most venerable gods. The hero of Callisthenes, again, was a man by universal consent of a superhuman elevation of spirit; while Timoleon, far from having accomplished any action of first-rate importance, never even undertook one. The one expedition which he achieved in the course of his life took him no farther than from Corinth to Syracuse; and how paltry is such a distance when compared with the extent of the world! I presume that Timaeus believed that if Timoleon, by gaining glory in such a mere saucer of a place as Sicily, should be thought comparable to the most illustrious heroes, he too himself, as the historian of only Italy and Sicily, might properly be considered on a par with the writers of universal history. This will be sufficient defence of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Callisthenes, Ephorus, and Demochares against the attacks of Timaeus: and it is addressed to those who believe that this historian is impartial and truthful....
23. ὅτι κατὰ τοῦ Ἐφόρου Τίμαιος πλείστην πεποίηται καταδρομήν, αὐτὸς ὢν δυσὶν ἁμαρτήμασιν ἔνοχος, τῷ μὲν ὅτι πικρῶς κατηγορεῖ τῶν πέλας ἐπὶ τούτοις οἷς αὐτὸς ἔνοχός ἐστι, τῷ δὲ διότι καθόλου διέφθαρται τῇ ψυχῇ, τοιαύτας ἀποφάσεις ἐκτιθέμενος ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι καὶ τοιαύτας ἐντίκτων δόξας τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι. πλὴν εἰ τὸν Καλλισθένην θετέον εἰκότως κολασθέντα μεταλλάξαι τὸν βίον, τί χρὴ πάσχειν Τίμαιον; πολὺ γὰρ ἂν δικαιότερον τούτῳ νεμεσήσαι τὸ δαιμόνιον ἢ Καλλισθένει. ἐκεῖνος μὲν οὖν ἀποθεοῦν Ἀλέξανδρον ἐβουλήθη, Τίμαιος δὲ μείζω ποιεῖ Τιμολέοντα τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων θεῶν, καὶ Καλλισθένης μὲν ἄνδρα τοιοῦτον, ὃν πάντες μεγαλοφυέστερον ἢ κατʼ ἄνθρωπον γεγονέναι τῇ ψυχῇ συγχωροῦσιν, οὗτος δὲ Τιμολέοντα τὸν οὐχ οἷον δόξαντά τι πεπραχέναι μεγαλεῖον, ἀλλʼ οὐδʼ ἐπιβαλόμενον, μίαν δʼ ἐν τῷ βίῳ γραμμὴν διανύσαντα, καὶ ταύτην οὐδὲ σπουδαίαν τρόπον τινὰ πρὸς τὸ μέγεθος τῆς οἰκουμένης, λέγω δὲ τὴν ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος εἰς Συρακούσας. ἀλλά μοι δοκεῖ πεισθῆναι Τίμαιος ὡς, ἂν Τιμολέων, πεφιλοδοξηκὼς ἐν αὐτῇ Σικελίᾳ, καθάπερ ἐν ὀξυβάφῳ, σύγκριτος φανῇ τοῖς ἐπιφανεστάτοις τῶν ἡρώων, κἂν αὐτὸς ὑπὲρ Ἰταλίας μόνον καὶ Σικελίας πραγματευόμενος εἰκότως παραβολῆς ἀξιωθῆναι τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς οἰκουμένης καὶ τῶν καθόλου πράξεων πεποιημένοις τὰς συντάξεις. περὶ μὲν οὖν Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ Θεοφράστου καὶ Καλλισθένους, ἔτι δʼ Ἐφόρου καὶ Δημοχάρους, ἱκανὰ ταῦθʼ ἡμῖν ἐστι πρὸς τὴν Τιμαίου καταδρομήν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἀφιλοτίμως πεπεισμένους ἀληθεύειν τὸν συγγραφέα τοῦτον. — ὅτι διαπορεῖν ἔστι περὶ τῆς αἱρέσεως Τιμαίου.
24. We may fairly judge Timaeus on the principles which he has himself laid down. According to him, “poets and historians betray their own tastes by the incidents which they repeatedly record in their writings. Thus the poet by his fondness for banqueting scenes shows that he is a glutton; and in the same way Aristotle, by frequently describing rich food in his writings, betrays his love of dainty living and his greediness.” On the same principle he judges Dionysius the tyrant because he “was always very particular in the ornamentation of his dining-couches, and had hangings of exquisite make and variegated colours.” If we apply this principle to Timaeus, we shall have abundant reason to think badly of him. In attacking others he shows great acuteness and boldness; when he comes to independent narrative he is full of dreams, miracles, incredible myths,—in a word, of miserable superstition and old wives’ tales. The truth is that Timaeus is a proof of the fact, that at times, and in the case of many men, want of skill and want of judgment so completely destroy the value of their evidence, that though present at and eye-witnesses of the facts which they record, they might just as well have been absent or had no eyes....
24. φησὶ γὰρ τοὺς ποιητὰς καὶ συγγραφέας διὰ τῶν ὑπεράνω πλεονασμῶν ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι διαφαίνειν τὰς ἑαυτῶν φύσεις. λέγων τὸν μὲν ποιητὴν ἐκ τοῦ δαιτρεύειν πολλαχοῦ τῆς ποιήσεως ὡς ἂν εἰ γαστρίμαργον παρεμφαίνειν, τὸν δʼ Ἀριστοτέλην, ὀψαρτύοντα πλεονάκις ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν, ὀψοφάγον εἶναι καὶ λίχνον. τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπὶ τοῦ Διονυσίου τοῦ τυράννου, κλινοκοσμοῦντος καὶ τὰς τῶν ὑφασμάτων ἰδιότητας καὶ ποικιλίας ἐξεργαζομένου συνεχῶς. ἀνάγκη τὴν ἀκόλουθον ποιεῖσθαι διάληψιν καὶ δυσαρεστεῖσθαι κατὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν. οὗτος γὰρ ἐν μὲν ταῖς τῶν πέλας κατηγορίαις πολλὴν ἐπιφαίνει δεινότητα καὶ τόλμαν, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἰδίαις ἀποφάσεσιν ἐνυπνίων καὶ τεράτων καὶ μύθων ἀπιθάνων καὶ συλλήβδην δεισιδαιμονίας ἀγεννοῦς καὶ τερατείας γυναικώδους ἐστὶ πλήρης. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ διότι γε συμβαίνει διὰ τὴν ἀπειρίαν καὶ κακοκρισίαν πολλοὺς ἐνίοτε καθάπερ εἰ παρόντας τρόπον τινὰ μὴ παρεῖναι καὶ βλέποντας μὴ βλέπειν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων τε νῦν καὶ τῶν Τιμαίῳ συμβεβηκότων γέγονε φανερόν. — ὅτι περὶ τοῦ ταύρου τοῦ χαλκοῦ τοῦ παρὰ Φαλάριδος κατασκευασθέντος ἐν Ἀκράγαντι, εἰς ὃν ἐνεβίβαζεν ἀνθρώπους, κἄπειτα πῦρ ὑποκαίων ἐλάμβανε τιμωρίαν παρὰ τῶν ὑποταττομένων τοιαύτην ὥστʼ ἐκπυρουμένου τοῦ χαλκοῦ τὸν μὲν ἄνθρωπον πανταχόθεν παροπτώμενον καὶ περιφλεγόμενον διαφθείρεσθαι, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἀλγηδόνος, ὁπότʼ ἀναβοήσειε, μυκηθμῷ παραπλήσιον τὸν ἦχον ἐκ τοῦ κατασκευάσματος προσπίπτειν τοῖς ἀκούουσι.
25. The story of the brazen bull is this. It was made by Phalaris at Agrigentum; and he used to force men to get into it, and then by way of punishment light a fire underneath. The metal becoming thus red hot, the man inside was roasted and scorched to death; and when he screamed in his agony, the sound from the machine was very like the bellowing of a bull. When the Carthaginians conquered Sicily this bull was removed from Agrigentum to Carthage. The trap door between the shoulders, through which the victims used to be let down, still remains; and no other reason for the construction of such a bull in Carthage can be discovered at all: yet Timaeus has undertaken to upset the common story, and to refute the declarations of poets and historians, by alleging that the bull at Carthage did not come from Agrigentum, and that no such figure ever existed there; and he has composed a lengthy treatise to prove this.... What epithet ought one to apply to Timaeus, and what word will properly characterise him? A man of his kind appears to me to deserve the very bitterest of the terms which he has applied to others. It has already been sufficiently proved that he is a carping, false and impudent writer; and from what remains to be said he will be shown to be unphilosophical, and, in short, utterly uninstructed. For towards the end of his twenty-first book, in the course of his “harangue of Timoleon,” he remarks that “the whole sublunary world being divided into three parts —Asia, Libya, and Europe....” One could scarcely believe such a remark to have come, I don’t say from Timaeus, but even from the proverbial Margites....
25. τούτου δὲ τοῦ ταύρου κατὰ τὴν ἐπικράτειαν Καρχηδονίων μετενεχθέντος ἐξ Ἀκράγαντος εἰς Καρχηδόνα, καὶ τῆς θυρίδος διαμενούσης περὶ τὰς συνωμίας, διʼ ἧς συνέβαινε καθίεσθαι τοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν τιμωρίαν, καὶ ἑτέρας αἰτίας, διʼ ἣν ἐν Καρχηδόνι κατεσκευάσθη τοιοῦτος ταῦρος, οὐδαμῶς δυναμένης εὑρεθῆναι τὸ παράπαν, ὅμως Τίμαιος ἐπεβάλετο καὶ τὴν κοινὴν φήμην ἀνασκευάζειν καὶ τὰς ἀποφάσεις τῶν ποιητῶν καὶ συγγραφέων ψευδοποιεῖν, φάσκων μήτʼ εἶναι τὸν ἐν Καρχηδόνι ταῦρον ἐξ Ἀκράγαντος μήτε γεγονέναι τοιοῦτον ἐν τῇ προειρημένῃ πόλει· καὶ πολλοὺς δή τινας εἰς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος διατέθειται λόγους. — κατὰ τῆς Τιμαίου τί ποτε δεῖ λέγειν ὄνομα καὶ ῥῆμα; πάντα γὰρ ἐπιδέχεσθαί μοι δοκεῖ τὰ πικρότατα τὸ γένος, οἷς ἐκεῖνος κέχρηται κατὰ τῶν πλησίον. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐστι φιλαπεχθὴς καὶ ψεύστης καὶ τολμηρός, σχεδὸν ἱκανῶς ἐκ τῶν προειρημένων ὑπεδείχθη· διότι δʼ ἀφιλόσοφός ἐστι καὶ συλλήβδην ἀνάγωγος συγγραφεύς, ἐκ τῶν λέγεσθαι μελλόντων ἔσται συμφανές. ἐν γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ καὶ εἰκοστῇ βύβλῳ, καὶ ταύτης ἐπὶ τελευτῇ, λέγει κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Τιμολέοντος παράκλησιν ταῦτα, διότι τῆς γῆς τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ κόσμῳ κειμένης εἰς τρία μέρη διῃρημένης, καὶ τῆς μὲν Ἀσίας, τῆς δὲ Λιβύης, τῆς δʼ Εὐρώπης προσαγορευομένης. ταῦτα γὰρ οὐχ οἷον Τίμαιον εἰρηκέναι τίς ἂν πιστεύσειεν, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τὸν λεγόμενον Μαργίτην ἐκεῖνον. τίς γὰρ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἀδαής, οὐ λέγω τῶν πρὸς ὑπομνήμασι γεγονότων ὅτι περὶ Τιμαίου φησὶν ὁ Πολύβιος ὁ Μεγαλοπολίτης·
25a. The proverb tells us that one drop from the largest vessel is sufficient to show the whole contents. This is applicable to the present case. When one or two false statements have been discovered in a history, and they have been shown to be wilful, it is clear that nothing which such an historian may say can be regarded as certain or trustworthy. But in order to convince the more careful student, I must speak on his method and practice in regard to public speeches, military harangues, ambassador’s orations, and all compositions of that class; which are, as it were, a compendium of events and an epitome of all history. Now that he has given these in his writings with entire disregard of truth, and that of set purpose, can any reader of Timaeus fail to be aware? He has not written down the words actually used, nor the real drift of these speeches; but imagining how they ought to have been expressed, he enumerates all the arguments used, and makes the words tally with the circumstances, like a school-boy declaiming on a set theme: as though his object were to display his own ability, not to give a report of what was in reality said....
25a. καθάπερ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν παροιμιῶν ἱκανὸν εἶναί φασι σταλαγμὸν ἕνα τοῦ μεγίστου τεύχους εἰς τὸ γνῶναι τὸ πᾶν ἔγχυμα, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ περὶ τῶν ὑποκειμένων χρὴ διαλαμβάνειν· ἐπειδὰν γὰρ ἓν ἢ δεύτερον εὑρεθῇ ψεῦδος ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασι, καὶ τοῦτο γεγονὸς ᾖ κατὰ προαίρεσιν, δῆλον ὡς οὐδὲν ἂν ἔτι βέβαιον οὐδʼ ἀσφαλὲς γένοιτο τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ τοιούτου συγγραφέως λεγομένων. ἵνα δὲ καὶ τοὺς φιλοτιμότερον διακειμένους μεταπείσωμεν, ῥητέον ἂν εἴη περὶ τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ μελέτης τῆς κατὰ τὰς δημηγορίας καὶ τὰς παρακλήσεις, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς πρεσβευτικοὺς λόγους, καὶ συλλήβδην πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτο γένος, ἃ σχεδὸν ὡς εἰ κεφάλαια τῶν πράξεών ἐστι καὶ συνέχει τὴν ὅλην ἱστορίαν· διότι γὰρ ταῦτα παρʼ ἀλήθειαν ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι κατατέταχε Τίμαιος, καὶ τοῦτο πεποίηκε κατὰ πρόθεσιν, τίς οὐ παρακολουθεῖ τῶν ἀνεγνωκότων; οὐ γὰρ τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφεν, οὐδʼ ὡς ἐρρήθη κατʼ ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλὰ προθέμενος ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι, πάντας ἐξαριθμεῖται τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους καὶ τὰ παρεπόμενα τοῖς πράγμασιν οὕτως ὡς ἂν εἴ τις ἐν διατριβῇ πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν ἐπιχειροίη ὥσπερ ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεως ποιούμενος, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐξήγησιν τῶν κατʼ ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένων. — ὅτι τῆς ἱστορίας ἰδίωμα τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ τὸ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτοὺς τοὺς κατʼ ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένους, οἷοί ποτʼ ἂν ὦσι, γνῶναι λόγους, δεύτερον τὴν αἰτίαν πυνθάνεσθαι, παρʼ ἣν ἢ διέπεσεν ἢ κατωρθώθη τὸ πραχθὲν ἢ ῥηθέν·
25b. The special province of history is, first, to ascertain what the actual words used were; and secondly, to learn why it was that a particular policy or argument failed or succeeded. For a bare statement of an occurrence is interesting indeed, but not instructive: but when this is supplemented by a statement of cause, the study of history becomes fruitful. For it is by applying analogies to our own circumstances that we get the means and basis for calculating the future; and for learning from the past when to act with caution, and when with greater boldness, in the present. The historian therefore who omits the words actually used, as well as all statement of the determining circumstances, and gives us instead conjectures and mere fancy compositions, destroys the special use of history. In this respect Timaeus is an eminent offender, for we all know that his books are full of such writing.
25b. ἐπεὶ ψιλῶς λεγόμενον αὐτὸ τὸ γεγονὸς ψυχαγωγεῖ μέν, ὠφελεῖ δʼ οὐδέν· προστεθείσης δὲ τῆς αἰτίας ἔγκαρπος ἡ τῆς ἱστορίας γίνεται χρῆσις. ἐκ γὰρ τῶν ὁμοίων ἐπὶ τοὺς οἰκείους μεταφερομένων καιροὺς ἀφορμαὶ γίνονται καὶ προλήψεις εἰς τὸ προϊδέσθαι τὸ μέλλον, καὶ ποτὲ μὲν εὐλαβηθῆναι, ποτὲ δὲ μιμούμενον τὰ προγεγονότα θαρραλεώτερον ἐγχειρεῖν τοῖς ἐπιφερομένοις· ὁ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν παρασιωπῶν, ψευδῆ δʼ ἀντὶ τούτων ἐπιχειρήματα καὶ διεξοδικοὺς λέγων λόγους, ἀναιρεῖ τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας ἴδιον· ὃ μάλιστα ποιεῖ Τίμαιος· καὶ διότι τούτου τοῦ γένους ἐστὶ πλήρη τὰ βυβλία παρʼ αὐτῷ, πάντες γινώσκομεν.
25c. But perhaps some one may raise the question as to how it comes about that, being the sort of writer that I am showing him to be, he has obtained acceptance and credit among certain people. The reason is that his work abounds with hostile criticism and invective against others: and he has been judged, not by the positive merits of his own composition and his independent narrative, but by his skill in refuting his fellow historians; to which department he appears to me to have brought great diligence and an extraordinary natural aptitude. The case of the physicist Strato is almost precisely similar. As long as this man is endeavouring to discredit and refute the opinions of others, he is admirable: directly he brings forward anything of his own, or expounds any of his own doctrines, he at once seems to men of science to lose his faculties and become stupid and unintelligent. And for my part, I look upon this difference in writers as strictly analogous to the facts of everyday life. In this too it is easy to criticise our neighbours, but to be faultless ourselves is hard. One might almost say that those who are most ready at finding fault with others are most prone to errors in their own life.
25c. ἴσως δʼ οὖν ἄν τις ἐναπορήσειε πῶς τοιοῦτος ὢν οἷον ἡμεῖς ὑποδείκνυμεν τοιαύτης παρʼ ἐνίοις ἀποδοχῆς τέτευχε καὶ πίστεως. τούτου δʼ ἐστὶν αἴτιον διότι πλεοναζούσης αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν πραγματείαν τῆς κατὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιτιμήσεως καὶ λοιδορίας οὐκ ἐκ τῆς αὑτοῦ θεωρεῖται πραγματείας οὐδʼ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀποφάσεων, ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῆς τῶν πέλας κατηγορίας, πρὸς ὃ γένος καὶ πολυπραγμοσύνην δοκεῖ μοι καὶ φύσιν προσενέγκασθαι διαφέρουσαν· παραπλήσιον γὰρ δή τι τοιοῦτο συμβέβηκε καὶ Στράτωνι τῷ φυσικῷ· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ὅταν ἐγχειρήσῃ τὰς τῶν ἄλλων δόξας διαστέλλεσθαι καὶ ψευδοποιεῖν, θαυμάσιός ἐστιν· ὅταν δʼ ἐξ αὑτοῦ τι προφέρηται καί τι τῶν ἰδίων ἐπινοημάτων ἐξηγῆται, παρὰ πολὺ φαίνεται τοῖς ἐπιστήμοσιν εὐηθέστερος αὑτοῦ καὶ νωθρότερος. καί μοι δοκεῖ παντάπασιν ὅμοιόν τι γίνεσθαι περὶ τοὺς γράφοντας τῷ περὶ τὸν ὅλον ἡμῶν βίον συμβαίνοντι· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τούτῳ τὸ μὲν ἐπιτιμῆσαι τοῖς πέλας ἐστὶ ῥᾴδιον, τὸ δʼ αὑτὸν ἀναμάρτητον παρέχεσθαι χαλεπόν, καὶ σχεδὸν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἴδοι τις ἂν τοὺς προχειρότατα τοῖς πέλας ἐπιτιμῶντας πλεῖστα περὶ τὸν ἴδιον βίον ἁμαρτάνοντας.
25d. Besides these I may mention another error of Timaeus. Having stayed quietly at Athens for about fifty years, during which he devoted himself to the study of written history, he imagined that he was in possession of the most important means of writing it. To my mind this was a great mistake. History and the science of medicine are alike in this respect, that both may be divided broadly into three departments; and therefore those who study either must approach them in three ways. For instance the three departments of medicine are the rhetorical, the dietetic, and the surgical and pharmaceutical. [The second of these though important is discredited by some.] The first, which takes its rise from the school of Herophilus and Callimachus of Alexandria, does indeed rightly claim a certain position in medical science; but by its speciousness and liberal promises acquires so much reputation that those who are occupied with other branches of the art are supposed to be completely ignorant. But just bring one of these professors to an actual invalid: you will find that they are as completely wanting in the necessary skill as men who have never read a medical treatise. Nay, it has happened before now that certain persons, who had really nothing serious the matter with them, have been persuaded by their powerful arguments to commit themselves to their treatment, and have thereby endangered their lives: for they are like men trying to steer a ship out of a book. Still such men go from city to city with great éclât, and get the common people together to listen to them. But if, when this is done, they induce certain people to submit as a specimen to their practical treatment; they only succeed in reducing them to a state of extreme discomfort, and making them a laughing stock to the audience. So completely does a persuasive address frequently get the advantage over practical experience. The third branch of the medical science, though it involves genuine skill in the treatment of the several cases, is not only rare in itself, but is also frequently cast into the shade, thanks to the folly of popular judgment, by volubility and impudence.
25d. τῷ δὲ Τιμαίῳ καὶ ἕτερόν τι χωρὶς τῶν προγεγραμμένων συμβέβηκεν· ἀποκαθίσας γὰρ Ἀθήνησι σχεδὸν ἔτη πεντήκοντα καὶ πρὸς τοῖς τῶν προγεγονότων ὑπομνήμασι γενόμενος ὑπέλαβε τὰς μεγίστας ἀφορμὰς ἔχειν πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν, ἀγνοῶν, ὥς γʼ ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ. ἐχούσης γάρ τι παραπλήσιον τῆς ἱστορίας καὶ τῆς ἰατρικῆς διὰ τὸ κατὰ τὰς ὁλοσχερεῖς διαφορὰς ἑκατέραν αὐτῶν ὑπάρχειν τριμερῆ, παραπλησίους εἶναι συμβαίνει καὶ τὰς τῶν ἐπιβαλλομένων ἐπʼ αὐτὰς διαθέσεις· οἷον εὐθέως τῆς ἰατρικῆς, ἑνὸς μὲν μέρους αὐτῆς ὑπάρχοντος λογικοῦ, τοῦ δʼ ἑξῆς διαιτητικοῦ, τοῦ δὲ τρίτου χειρουργικοῦ καὶ φαρμακευτικοῦ, γένους ὁλοσχερῶς. ε … μαι τῶι καταψεύδεσθαι τοῦ ἐπιτηδεύματος τὸ δὲ λογικόν, ὃ δὴ πλεῖστον ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας ἄρχεται παρὰ τῶν Ἡροφιλείων καὶ Καλλιμαχείων ἐκεῖ προσαγορευομένων, τοῦτο μέρος μέν τι κατέχει τῆς ἰατρικῆς, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐπίφασιν καὶ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοιαύτην ἐφέλκεται φαντασίαν ὥστε δοκεῖν μηδένα τῶν ἄλλων κρατεῖν τοῦ πράγματος· οὓς ὅταν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀπαγαγὼν ἄρρωστον ἐγχειρίσῃς, τοσοῦτον ἀπέχοντες εὑρίσκονται τῆς χρείας ὅσον [καὶ] οἱ μηδὲν ἀνεγνωκότες ἁπλῶς ἰατρικὸν ὑπόμνημα· οἷς ἤδη τινὲς τῶν ἀρρώστων ἐπιτρέψαντες αὑτοὺς διὰ τὴν ἐν λόγῳ δύναμιν οὐδὲν ἔχοντες δεινὸν τοῖς ὅλοις πολλάκις ἐκινδύνευσαν. εἰσὶ γὰρ ἀληθῶς ὅμοιοι τοῖς ἐκ βυβλίου κυβερνῶσιν· ἀλλʼ ὅμως οὗτοι μετὰ φαντασίας ἐπιπορευόμενοι τὰς πόλεις, ἐπειδὰν ἁθροίσωσι τοὺς ὄχλους ἐπʼ ὀνόματος, τοὺς ἐπʼ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων ἀληθινὴν πεῖραν δεδωκότας αὑτῶν εἰς τὴν ἐσχάτην ἄγουσιν ἀπορίαν καὶ καταφρόνησιν παρὰ τοῖς ἀκούουσι, τῆς τοῦ λόγου πιθανότητος καταγωνιζομένης πολλάκις τὴν ἐπʼ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων δοκιμασίαν. τὸ δὲ τρίτον, τὸ τὴν ἀληθινὴν προσφερόμενον ἕξιν ἐν ἑκάστοις τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων, οὐ μόνον ὑπάρχει σπάνιον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολλάκις ὑπὸ τῆς στωμυλίας καὶ τόλμης ἐπισκοτεῖται διὰ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν ἀκρισίαν.