Christian Topography 1 part 1/22

PROLOGUE. First of all, I exhort those who are about to peruse this book, that they make their reading with all attention and care, and not run through it carelessly, but that with all zeal they diligently commit to memory both the places and the figures and the accounts set forth in it, and that after the end of the book they also look closely into the volume composed by us for Constantine, lover of Christ, in which is inscribed more broadly the whole earth — both that beyond the Ocean and this one — and all the regions, and also the southern parts from Alexandria as far as the southern Ocean, I mean the river Nile and the neighboring regions and the nations of all Egypt and of Ethiopia, and also the Arabian Gulf and the neighboring regions and nations as far again as the same Ocean, and likewise the land between the river and the Gulf, and the cities and the regions and the nations in it — in order to show that the things said by us are true, and those of our opponents false, on whose account both this book and the descriptions contained in it have come to be, I mean concerning the size of the sun and their much-vaunted and much-talked-of uninhabitable "burnt" earth, as men vomiting forth fictions and myths.

Prologue. Let them also seek out the sketch (skariphos) of the universe and of the motion of the stars, made by us in imitation of the mechanical sphere of the outsiders, and the treatise concerning it sent to the most God-loving deacon Homologos; and let whoever, with God's help, is capable, look closely into it, so that together with this book and that volume he may, from the very foundations, destroy the error of the Greek hypotheses.

For whoever, being a Christian, possesses these three things, and by divine grace is diligently occupied with the divine Scripture, easily refutes the folly of the mythologizers.

For through the very shape and the construction of the world, and through the very nature of things, he establishes that the divine Scripture is most true, and likewise the preaching of the Christians.

Farewell, Christians in the Lord.

(Table.) TABLE, WITH GOD'S HELP, OF THIS VOLUME. (Table.) Book One of the Christian: Against those who wish to be Christians, yet, following the outsiders, suppose and maintain that the heaven is spherical in shape.

Book Two: Christian hypotheses concerning the shapes and the location of the whole world, having their proofs from the divine Scripture.

Book Three: That the divine Scripture, both Old and New Testament, is firm and trustworthy, and narrates in harmony with itself, by itself, and also signifies the usefulness of the figures of the whole world.

Book Four: A brief recapitulation and delineation of the figures of the world according to the divine Scripture, and the refutation of the sphere.

Book Five: In which is the delineation of the tabernacle, and the harmony of the prophets and the apostles.

Book Seven: Against Anastasius, that the heavens are indestructible.

Book Eight: On the Song of Hezekiah, and on the retrogression of the sun.

Book Nine: A description of the course of the stars.

Book Ten: Citations of the Fathers agreeing with the whole treatise.

Book Eleven: A description of Indian animals, and an account concerning them;

and also concerning trees and concerning Taprobane.

And yet another, Book Twelve: Showing that many of the ancient outside writers bear witness to the antiquity of the divine Scriptures spoken through Moses and the prophets, and that the Greeks appear to have learned letters, and about the divine Scriptures, later than all others, holding their unbelief deeply rooted.

— being reputed to be Christians, yet reckoning the divine Scripture as nothing, but despising and disdaining it after the manner of the outside philosophers, supposing the shape of heaven to be spherical, being led astray by the solar and lunar eclipses.

I have accordingly divided the whole subject-matter of the book fittingly into five parts.

First of all, the first book was made against the aforesaid and erring persons, showing that it is not possible for one who wishes to be a Christian to be led away by the plausible error of the outsiders, since the divine Scripture lays down other things;

for indeed, if anyone should wish to examine closely the Greek hypotheses, he will assuredly find them to be fictions and mythical sophistries and altogether impossible.

(ēpso.) Then, further, he goes on to speak as it were on behalf of the Christian who has made the request:

"Since these are refuted, what true hypotheses must be introduced in their place?" The second book was made, expounding the Christian hypotheses proceeding from the divine Scripture, and declaring the shape of the whole world, and showing that certain of the ancient outsiders held this same opinion.

Then again, as if someone were perplexed and saying:

"Whence is it evident whether Moses and the prophets speak truly in saying such things?" — the third book demonstrates the trustworthiness of Moses and the prophets, and shows that they did not speak of themselves, but, being inspired by divine revelation and tested by deed and fact, having foreseen these things, spoke them out accordingly — both those in the Old Testament and those in the New; and shows what is the usefulness of the figures of the world, and whence the supposition of the sphere took its occasion and beginning.

Then again, concerning those who desire to grasp the figures by sight, the fourth book was made, being a brief recapitulation and delineation of what has been said before, and the refutation of the sphere and of the antipodes.

(ēpso.) Then again, to him who asked for the Christian hypotheses, the fifth book was made, showing that we have neither spoken nor described these things by fashioning them for ourselves, nor by inventing new myths, but from the revelation and command of God who created the world, having contemplated the model (ekmageion) of the whole world — I mean the tabernacle constructed by Moses, which the New Testament likewise declared to be an impression (ektypōma) of the whole world — which tabernacle Moses also, dividing it by the veil, made one into two; just as God also, from the beginning, divided the one space, that from earth to heaven, by means of the firmament, into two spaces;

in the tabernacle there is the outer and the inner part; here, correspondingly, there is the lower and the upper space;

the lower is this world, and the upper is the world to come, where also the Master Christ, having risen from the dead according to the flesh, ascended first of all, and the righteous will afterward likewise ascend.

(ēpso.) And it shows that from Adam to Moses, and from Moses to John, and from John onward all the apostles and evangelists, all in harmony, both by words and by types, spoke concerning these two states, and that none of them disagreed, neither speaking of another before this one, nor supposing a third after the second, but all, as inspired by one and the same divine Spirit, spoke of these two states alone.

(ēpso.) Wherefore, taking courage in the truly divine Scripture, we have also described the figures of the whole world and the very places themselves, in which you will find both the exodus of the Israelites and the mountain on which they received the law in writing and were taught the experience of letters, and the delineation of the tabernacle, and their possession of the land in the land of promise, until he who was expected from them and proclaimed beforehand through all the men of old and the prophets came, manifesting the second state that was to be, which, having come, he showed in himself to all of us, entering into the inner tabernacle, into the upper heavenly space, into which he calls the righteous at the second coming, saying:

(ēpso.) The marginal notes, then, that are set in this book are inserted for the sake of a clearer exposition of the text.

Let the reader, therefore, first read the text, and then in this way read the marginal note.

(t.) BOOK ONE. Against those who wish to be Christians, yet, following the outsiders, suppose and maintain that the heaven is spherical in shape.

As many as long with desire for true knowledge, and are lovers of the true light, and hasten to be fellow-citizens of the saints in the age to come — who hold the Old and New Testament to be truly divine Scripture, who are persuaded by Moses and by Christ, who follow their own first principles unto the end, who confess that the world was in no way whatsoever produced apart from God, and who believe that a resurrection of men takes place, and a judgment, and that the righteous inherit the kingdom of heaven — these look about throughout the whole of divine Scripture, to see whether there happen to be written by Moses, who composed the account of creation, or by the other prophets, the places and figures of the whole creation, among which is also signified the place where the kingdom of heaven is, which the Master Christ promises that God will grant to righteous men.

And finding the Old and New Testament to be in harmony with itself, they remain grounded in it and unshaken, in no way being overturned by their opponents.

But those who are adorned with the wisdom of this world, and who trust in themselves by conjectural arguments to grasp its shape and its position, mock the whole divine Scripture as though it were myths, calling Moses and the prophets, the Master Christ and the apostles, babblers and purveyors of fantasy; and, with brows raised on high, as though achieving something great by outwitting the rest of mankind, they bestow upon the heaven a spherical shape and a circular motion, and by geometrical methods and calculations of the stars and dice-play of arguments and worldly cunning they attempt to grasp the position and the shape of the world from the solar and lunar eclipses, deceiving and being deceived, insisting that such phenomena could not occur if the shape were otherwise.

And concerning such men we have no need to argue, since they sufficiently refute one another.

But those who wish to be Christians, and yet also wish again to be adorned with the arguments and the wisdom and the manifold error of this world, and who contend to accept both the one and the other, are like unto nothing so much as a shadow, which, when a body mediates, is naturally formed in the light, but when no body mediates, is not naturally formed in the light; nay rather, when the body is illumined on every side by the light, it even vanishes altogether.

For it is against such men that my argument is directed, concerning whom, when similar persons once became sojourners in Samaria, the divine Scripture cries out, saying:

"They feared God, and burned incense on the high places, and served [other gods]." Whoever should call such men "double-formed" would not err;

for they wish to be both with us and with those others, now setting aside the renunciation of Satan, which they renounced at baptism, and running back again to him.

For such men cannot be with us at all, but exist as a kind of middle thing, empty houses standing somehow suspended in mid-air, having no foundations upon the ground, nor yet anything holding them from above.

For almost before they have even begun, they abolish their own first principles, and, without yet having abolished them, they show their own ends to be unfinished, being firmly settled neither in this nor in that, but rather they mock all men and are mocked by all.

First of all, then, having examined together with them the question of the spherical shape — that this cannot be, nor indeed does it agree with the nature of things — we shall afterward demonstrate that our own doctrines are possible and agree with the nature of things.

For they themselves perceived that it is not possible for it, being composed of these elements, to be borne in a circle.

But again, in this very matter they are caught being blind, and they suppose that those who see keenly do not see.

For although different and various colors are clearly seen in it, from which the inherent power of heating and cooling is manifested to them, they say that the sight of all men has been deceived on account of the excessive distance.

Let whoever wishes, then, come forward into the midst and speak;

[Let him say:] The fixed stars set, according to you, in the unwandering sphere — evidently, since the visual power is sent forth as from the center of the earth, how, being at unequal distances from our sight, do they appear different in colors and in sizes? And how is it that, in comparison with the star called by you Ares [Mars], which holds a lower rank, many of the fixed stars are equal to it and similar, and likewise we see not a few resembling that of Zeus [Jupiter]? Moreover, we do not even behold the heaven itself as being of one uniform color to itself;

for the cloud-like convolutions in it, to which you have given the name "Milky Way" — imposing this appellation on them from nothing other than their different color — whence should we suspect that they appear thus, when the surface upon which the current of sight strikes is one and the same? I think that, when I say these things are evidences of different composition and mixture, no one would dare to speak against it, even if he were a lover of falsehood, let alone those who always give precedence to truth.

But if it was not fashioned from one element having its own proper circular motion, but from the mixture of the four elements, it does not properly revolve.

For it has been said that it will either be moved downward, if the heavy element predominates in it, or it will be borne upward, if the opposite element prevails, or it will stand still, if neither should predominate in it;

and this indeed is evident to everyone.

For no one would admit ever to have seen it borne either upward or downward.

It remains, then, to affirm that it is fixed motionless.

But if they say — whence, in a simple and quality-less element, could there be different motions? — we ask this if indeed they assert that those which they call "planets" revolve in the direction opposite to the whole, and in this they are not mistaken;

likewise, if indeed, according to certain periods which the Creator has determined, they are clearly seen to make their course from east to west, so that not even they themselves deny it.

Then again, growing dizzy and being perplexed — which is wont to befall those who flee from the truth — and finding no way out, they say that the stars make retrogressions and stationary points.

But, O you who are skilled in all things at weaving and unweaving arguments, if motion belongs to them by nature, whence comes their standing still? For there is nothing opposite to them that could restrain them from their natural impulse.

And what necessity compels these to pass over into the opposite course? Let no one say to me that this is a deception of sight;

for the distance by which they run ahead is not small;

and they are often seen shifting from a following zodiacal sign into a preceding one.

And what need is there to say more, seeing that they themselves, having passed on to the very operations of the stars, in which they run aground upon the extremity of absurdity, do not understand that the stars, when stationary or in retrogression, are inert and feeble? And a star seen formerly in Aries, but now in Pisces, one would say is not in the house of Ares [Mars], but in that of Zeus [Jupiter], and that it produces effects not such as they are wont to babble of it as having while it was in Aries, but such as they attribute to it while it runs through Pisces.

But if they do not agree with what appears in the backward retrogression, whence then, or for what reason, comes their motion in both directions? Perhaps, again, they will blame for this the invisible epicycles, which they have supposed for them as vehicles, and they insist that the stars are borne upon these;

but nothing extraordinary will result from this contrivance at all;

for we shall demand of them for what reason vehicles were needed by them.

Is it, then, because they are unable to move by themselves? But how then could you say that they are ensouled, and with more divine souls? Or is it because they are able to move by themselves? I think it is ridiculous even to conceive of that.

And why did the moon and the sun not obtain epicycles? Is it because they are unworthy on account of their lower rank? But that is not the reasoning of sober men.

Or was the Creator unable to fashion vehicles for them because of a scarcity of suitable material? May that blasphemy be turned back upon your own head!

Cease, O most wise ones, your foolish babbling about things worthy of nothing.

Learn, even if late, to follow the divine oracles, and not your own baseless speculations.

How can you suppose that the stars of the fixed sphere move contrary to the whole? Is this motion peculiar to the stars alone, or does it belong to the sphere in which they are? But if it belongs to the stars themselves, how do they traverse unequal circles in equal time? And how is it that none of those within the Milky Way has ever been found outside it, nor does any of those outside it appear closer to it than those within it? But if someone should say that the sphere itself moves contrariwise, it will be found that at the same time it moves contrary to itself.

What could anyone conceive more absurd than this? They compete in such shamelessness — or rather impiety — as to leave no excess to anyone surpassing them, to the point of not blushing to confess that some people live under the earth.

What then, when someone poses this difficulty to them, saying:

Does the sun travel through empty space beneath the earth? Instantly, with no regard for ridicule, they will say that there are antipodean dwellers borne along head-downward, and rivers there having a position opposite to ours — attempting to turn everything upside-down rather than follow the doctrines of truth, in which there is nothing of the sophistries of vanity, but all things are easy and full of godliness, and procure salvation for those who approach them soberly.

Since you know how to give a cause for everything, say:

For what reason does your sphere not revolve from north to south, or from one wind-direction to the one blowing opposite it? And do not say to me:

This seemed better to the Maker of the world — for in saying so you would merely be voicing my own arguments in another way.

How do you suppose you are speaking in accordance with the nature of things, when you posit that heaven moves and revolves entirely, yet do not posit — even fictitiously — any place or body outside it? For it is not possible for anything to move apart from the four elements, that is, either upon earth, or upon water, or upon air, or upon fire, or else to pass from place to place infinitely, or forever to turn about in the same place.

But if it passes into infinite place as it rolls, then you posit an infinite earth outside it, into which it rolls, leaving desolate places behind it. But if you posit one of the other three elements, into neither of these is a sphere naturally disposed to roll and turn — rather, being hurled like a javelin, it would rush along with a whizzing sound.

But if, on the other hand, it always rolls and turns in the very same place, not moving from place to place, then it must necessarily be supported by pivots, as a lathe is, or as an artificial sphere is, or by an axle, as a machine or a wagon is.

And if this is so, one must again ask upon what the pivots, or the axle, are supported.

And how are we to suppose that the axle passes through the middle of the earth? Of what substance, tell me? Since, then, these things are impossible by the nature of things, it remains — as we said before — that heaven is fixed and does not revolve.

Moreover, in positing the earth as the center, the middle of the universe, you very swiftly refute yourselves by then saying that the middle is also "below".

For it is impossible for the same thing, in the same respect, to be both the middle and the below.

For "the middle" is the middle between above and below, or between right and left, or between front and back.

How then, besieged as you are by this difficulty, can you help but utter incoherent and unnatural things from your mouths? For, fearing lest someone should raise this objection to you, saying:

How is it possible for the earth's so many immeasurable weights to hang suspended beneath the air, and to stand still, and not fall down? Having devised myths not of true things but of strange fabrications, you say inversely that the middle is "below" — as would be shown if someone were to posit fire, instead of earth, at the middle: you would then say the middle is "above" instead of "below", since fire tends upward.

To me, then, they seem to overturn their first statements by means of their second, and their second by means of their first.

...things, such as the very lightest feather or the smallest piece of chaff — it is impossible for the air to hold fast or support them; rather, being thin and soft, it is cut through, and the object passes on as far as the impetus of what propels it carries it. How then are such utterly false hypotheses to be accepted? But if anyone should wish to inquire more thoroughly concerning the antipodes as well, he will easily uncover their old wives' tales.

For suppose the feet of one man are joined opposite to the feet of another man, and suppose they set both pairs of feet either in earth, or in water, or in air, or in fire, or in whatever body they please — how will both be found standing upright? How will it not be that one of them is upright according to nature, while the other is found head-downward, contrary to nature? Such things are irrational and foreign to our nature and order.

And again, when rain falls upon both antipodean peoples, how is it possible to say that the rain descends upon both of them in the same manner? Should we not rather say that for the one it descends, while for the other it ascends, or moves contrariwise, or moves inward and outward? For to conceive of antipodes compels one to conceive also of a counter-raining upon them.

And one may reasonably laugh at these ridiculous hypotheses, which give voice to things discordant, disorderly, and unnatural.

And if one should also examine their other sophistry — I mean their claim that the earth becomes filled with wind, and that earthquakes occur when the enclosed wind, so they say, violently shakes the earth — he would marvel at the deception and at the self-contradiction of their own arguments.

For if the earth stands unshaken and unswerving because it is pushed equally by wind from every side, then when it is filled with wind in one particular part, it ought rather to be weighed down in that part and to lean, just as indeed they themselves use the example drawn from man.

For indeed, man not only shakes and trembles when filled with wind, but he also trembles when seized by fear, and by drunkenness from wine, and when oppressed by cold, and when his blood boils over in anger, and when enraged, and from old age, and from weakness.

And when he shakes because he is filled with wind, he often falls into illness and dies.

How then, according to them, does the earth also — being filled with wind — not fall down and lose its own place? And how can they say that the land of Egypt is immune to earthquakes, on the ground that, being porous and vented, it makes those great furrows, when earthquakes have in fact often occurred in Egypt, so that cities have even fallen and been razed to the ground?

And not only this, but also in the times of the Greeks, when they held power and ruled — in the days of Alexander, Seleucus, Antiochus, and Ptolemy — they brought in philosophers, Aristotle and men like him, and did most things by their counsel; how then, when Antioch was being founded by Seleucus and Antiochus, were they not able to say of the land there that it was not immune to earthquakes, but rather quite prone to them — just as we ourselves have often seen it fallen in ruins from earthquakes?

And not only Antioch, but also Corinth, where the community of philosophers had its neighboring seat.

And if one should also examine their other opinion — namely, how they say that rain is produced from the moisture drawn up by heat, and they attempt to persuade us by examples, saying that, just as a bathhouse draws up moisture by heat and it drips down, and just as the lid of a cauldron draws up moisture by heat and it drips down, and just as a cupping-glass draws up moisture by means of tow and fire, so too the sun, drawing up moisture, drips it down again in due season — and from this rain comes — one would marvel at their so-great wisdom, which deceives the many by its plausibility.

For if the bathhouse has its heat not from above but from below, how is the moisture drawn up, rather than pushed up? Likewise also with the cauldron: it has its heat not from above but from below, and in both cases the moisture is pushed by the heat and by rebounding — the one drips from the ceiling, the other from the lid.

Likewise also with the cupping-glass: unless the instrument itself, by forcing nature and drawing, pulls the moisture, it would not draw moisture at all — even if one should apply fire and tow to it ten thousand times over.

So forcefully is moisture pushed by heat that, from the other end of a piece of wood, the moisture and the smoke are driven out.

And if someone kindles a fire on the ground, he observes the moisture that is in the wood being sent upward through the smoke — not drawn up from above, but pushed by the heat of the fire.

Moreover, one who washes a garment and spreads it on the ground will find, once it has been dried by the sun and he lifts the garment up, that the moisture — driven out by the heat — has been imprinted on the ground in the shape of the garment.

Likewise, one who puts hot food into a dish will observe the moisture being expelled through both directions, above and below, since the heat happens to be in the middle.

For from above he observes steam rising, and from below the dish sweating, and the moisture imprinted in the shape of the dish's base.

So that, contrary to what the wise men say, moisture is not drawn up, but rather heat pushes it.

And when we press this further difficulty against them, asking:

Why, when the region of the Thebaid is scorched by heat, is moisture not drawn up so that rain occurs there? In their defense they say that it is moderate heat, rather than excessive heat, that customarily draws up moisture.

To this we shall reply most briefly:

And how is it that, further within the Thebaid, into Ethiopia, where there is much more heat, many rains occur? And how can the many and most eminent sages say that the sun draws up moisture, while insisting that it is ground by friction from its revolution and thereby produces heat, and yet not positing that heat exists in it by nature? Moreover, since they say that the air is both moist and hot, what further need is there for these wise men to engage in sophistry and claim that moisture is drawn up from elsewhere, when they already have heat and moisture right there above? And if someone should demand of them to show a single element possessing, by itself, its own single quality, they are immediately at a loss and grant two qualities to the one element, saying:

Earth is dry and cold; water is cold and moist; air is moist and hot; fire is hot and dry — so that, besieged by this difficulty, they speak of eight qualities for the four elements.

And at other times they say that all the qualities exist in each single element.

Here again, then, they contradict their own arguments, by not describing each of the four elements as having a fourfold quality, but only a twofold one.

I marvel, then, at these most excellent sages, who assign to water the qualities cold and moist, and to air, moist and hot.

From where, then, do they say that water — that is, the cold and moist element — freezes and turns to ice in wintertime? Whence comes this extreme cold, so as even to work it into ice? And if they say that the sun's distance demonstrates its return to its natural state, how is it that this same distance does not likewise demonstrate air — which is by nature hot and moist — to remain in its nature, but on the contrary demonstrates it to become extremely cold? And how is it that the cold itself, namely water, does not freeze the air, namely the moist element, but on the contrary that air freezes this water, as we observe? Now, though I have much to say on this matter, and on the examples which they, erring yet again, adduce concerning it, I restrain myself, being ashamed at the vanity of what is said by them, having judged what has already been said on this matter to be sufficient, and being more eager instead to occupy myself with another sophism of these wise men, which I shall relate at once.