Why do Strabo, Pliny and Diodorus cite Pytheas in disbelief?

Question

According to the wikipedia page on [Germanic tribes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples#Classification), (direct quotation) > The first news about the Germanic world are contained in the lost Pytheas work. It is believed that Pytheas travelled to Northern Europe, and his observations about the geographical environment, traditions and culture of the Northern European populations were a central source of information to later historians, possibly the only source.[38] Authors such as Strabo, Pliny and Diodorus cite Pytheas in disbelief, although Pytheas' observations are substantially correct. Though Pytheas was not the first explorer of those lands (for example Himilco, Phoenicians, Tartessians), he was the first to describe these populations, and it is fair to say that much of the Germanic peoples' history enters into view through Pytheas. Source #38 in Wikipedia is (direct quotation) > The only ancient authors we know by name who saw Pytheas' text were Dicaearchus, Timaeus, Eratosthenes, Crates of Mallus, Hipparchus, Polybius, Artemidorus and Posidonius, as Lionel Pearson remarked in reviewing Hans Joachim Mette, Pytheas von Massalia (Berlin: Gruyter) 1952, in Classical Philology 49.3 (July 1954), pp. 212–214. Despite this however, no citation is given for where Strabo, Pliny and Diodorus cite Pytheas in disbelief. But more importantly, there is no explanation as to why these scholars disbelieved in Pytheas. Hence, my question is simple: why did Strabo, Pliny and Diodorus disbelieve in Pytheas? What reason is there for this? Also, what evidence is there that Pytheas was largely correct, as Wikipedia claims without proof or citation? In addition, a citation, reference or link on where these scholars cite Pytheas in disbelief and what the context of the citation was would be appreciated.

Answer 1

While the question may be simple, the answer is not. The people who questioned Pytheas' account may have done so for different reasons. It is important to remember that these authors are writing nearly 300 years after Pytheas' voyage and written account. As with any historical figure from that long ago, their motives are difficult to determine with certainty. Of the authors listed, Strabo generally had the most negative reaction to Pytheas. In Book II Chapter 4 (https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/2D*.html) he claims the following about Pytheas' accounts,

"Now Polybius says that, in the first place, it is incredible that a private individual - and a poor man at that - could have traveled such distances by sea and by land; and that, although Eratosthenes was completely at a loss whether to believe these stories, he nevertheless believed Pytheas' account of Britain and the regions around Gades and of Iberia; but he says that it is far better to believe Euhemerus, the Messenian, than Pytheas.Euhemerus, at any rate, claims to have sailed to only one country, Panchaea, while Pytheas claims to have personally explored the whole northern region of Europe to the ends of the world - a claim that no man would believe, even if Hermes132 made it.".

Since we have lost Pytheas' writings, we can only say that Strabo's disbelief stems primarily from the fact that Pytheas' account is hard to believe for someone from the Mediterranean.

As for Pliny, he was generally not so harsh in his criticism of Pytheas.While the question may be simple, the answer is not. The individuals questioning Pytheas' account may have done so for different reasons. It is important to consider that these authors are writing nearly 300 years after Pytheas' voyage and written account. As with any historical figure from this long ago, their motives are difficult to state with certainty. Of the authors listed, Strabo generally had the most negative reaction to Pytheas. In Book II Chapter 4 (https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/2D*.html) he claims the following regarding Pytheas' accounts,

"Now Polybius says that, in the first place, it is incredible that a private individual — and a poor man too — could have travelled such distances by sea and by land; and that, though Eratosthenes was wholly at a loss whether he should believe these stories, nevertheless he has believed Pytheas' account of Britain, and the regions about Gades, and of Iberia; but he says it is far better to believe Euhemerus, the Messenian, than Pytheas. Euhemerus, at all events, asserts that he sailed only to one country, Panchaea, whereas Pytheas asserts that he explored in person the whole northern region of Europe as far as the ends of the world — an assertion which no man would believe, not even if Hermes​132 made it."

As we have lost Pytheas' writings, we can only say that Strabo's disbelief comes primarily from the fact that Pytheas' account is difficult to believe for someone from the Mediterranean, it is difficult to believe.

Regarding Pliny, he generally did not levy such harsh criticism toward Pytheas. While Strabo seems to have fully disregarded Pytheas' account, Pliny actually cites Pytheas several times in both Books II and IV of Natural History. Though Pliny does indicate that Pytheas was not trusted by his contemporaries at the end of Book II Chapter 113 ( https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D2&force=y). Essentially, Pliny takes Pytheas at his word, while cautioning his readers that his account may not be entirely accurate. This is generally considered to be a healthy way of looking at most ancient source material and indeed is the way we should consider Pliny, Strabo, and Diodorus Siculus themselves.

For Diodorus, the situation is rather the same as for Pliny. He cites Pytheas once directly in Book V of Bibliotheca historica. However, many of Diodorus' figures from this chapter seem to have derived from Pytheas' account. Of the three authors, it would seem Diodorus had the least to say explicitly regarding the veracity of Pytheas' account.

Ultimately, we do not know whether Strabo, Pliny, and Diodorus cited Pytheas with certainty or with disbelief. Modern perspective allows us to validate many of Pytheas' observations. His descriptions of phenomena like the midnight sun, which seemed incredible to Mediterranean observers, are now known to be accurate features of northern latitudes. This suggests that the ancient authors' skepticism reflected their limited geographical knowledge rather than actual problems with Pytheas' account.

This analysis suggests we should view ancient skepticism toward Pytheas within its historical context. What seemed implausible to Mediterranean writers of the time has often proven accurate, demonstrating how geographical and cultural distance can influence historical credibility assessments.