Greek Texts & Translations

But Apollodorus does not seem to have carefully examined the statements of Ephorus, for he confounds and misrepresents the words of Homer. He ought first to have inquired of Ephorus why he placed the Chalybes within the peninsula, who were situated at a great distance from Sinope, and Amisus towards the east. Those who describe the isthmus of this peninsula to be on the line drawn from Issus to the Euxine, lay down this line as a sort of meridian line, which some suppose to pass through Sinope, others through Amisus; but no one through the Chalybes, for such a line would be altogether an oblique line. For the meridian passing through the Chalybes, drawn through the Lesser Armenia, and the Euphrates, would comprise (on the east) the whole of Cappadocia, Commagene, Mount Amanus, and the Bay of Issus.

But if we should grant (to Ephorus) that this oblique line is the direction of the isthmus, most of these places, Cappadocia in particular, would be included, and (the kingdom of) Pontus, properly so called, which is a part of Cappadocia on the Euxine; so that if we were to admit the Chalybes to be a part of the peninsula, with more reason we ought to admit the Cataonians, the two nations of Cappadocians, and the Lycaonians, whom even he himself has omitted. But why has he placed in the interior the Chalybes, whom the poet, as we have shown, calls Halizoni? It would have been better to divide them, and to place one portion of them on the sea-coast, and another in the inland parts. The same division ought to be made of the Cappadocians and Cilicians. But Ephorus does not even mention the former, and speaks only of the Cilicians on the sea-coast. The subjects, then, of Antipater of Derbe, the Homonadeis, and many other tribes contiguous to the Pisidians, men, who know not the sea, nor have ever eaten food seasoned with salt, ^note where are they to be placed? Nor does he say whether the Lydians and the Meonians are two nations or the same nation, or whether they live separately by themselves or are comprehended in another tribe. For it was impossible for Ephorus to be ignorant of so celebrated a nation, and does he not, by passing it over in silence, appear to omit a most important fact? 14.5.25

But who are the mixed nations? For we cannot say that he either named or omitted others, besides those already mentioned, whom we should call mixed nations. Nor, indeed, should we say that they were a part of those nations whom he has either mentioned or omitted. For if they were a mixed people, still the majority constituted them either Greeks or Barbarians. We know nothing of a third mixed people. 14.5.26

But how (according to Ephorus) are there three tribes of Greeks who inhabit the peninsula? Is it because anciently the Athenians and Ionians were the same people? In that case the Dorians and the Aeolians should be considered as the same nation, and then there would be (only) two tribes (and not three, inhabiting the peninsula). But if, following modern

practice, we are to distinguish nations according to dialects, there will be four nations, as there are four dialects. But this peninsula is inhabited, especially if we adopt the division by Ephorus, not only by Ionians, but also by Athenians, as we have shown in the account of each particular place.

It was worth while to controvert the positions of Ephorus, Apollodorus however disregards all this, and adds a seventeenth to the sixteen nations, namely, the Galatians; although it is well to mention this, yet it is not required in a discussion of what Ephorus relates or omits; Apollodorus has assigned as the reason of' the omission, that all these nations settled in the peninsula subsequently to the time of Ephorus. 14.5.27

Passing then to Homer, Apollodorus is correct in saying that there was a great intermixture and confusion among the barbarous nations, from the Trojan war to the present time, on account of the changes which had taken place; for some nations had an accession of others, some were extinct or dispersed, or had coalesced together.

But he is mistaken in assigning two reasons why the poet does not mention some nations, namely, either because the place was not then occupied by the particular people, or because they were comprehended in another tribe. Neither of these reasons could induce him to be silent respecting Cappadocia or Cataonia, or Lycaonia itself, for we have nothing of the kind in history relating to these countries. It is ridiculous to be anxious to find excuses why Homer has omitted to speak of Cappadocia [Cataonia] and Lycaonia, and not to inform us why Ephorus omitted them, particularly as the proposed object of Apollodorus was to examine and discuss the opinions of Ephorus; and to tell us why Homer mentions Maeonians instead of Lydians, and also not to remark that Ephorus has not omitted to mention either Lydians or Maeonians. ^note 14.5.28

Apollodorus remarks, that Homer mentions certain unknown nations, and he is right in specifying Caucones, Solymi, Ceteii, Leleges, and the Cilicians from the plain of Thebe; but the Halizones are a fiction of his own, or rather of those who, not knowing who the Halizones were, frequently altered the mode of writing the name, and invented the existence of

mines of silver and of many other mines, all of which are abandoned.

With this vain intention they collected the stories related by the Scepsian, (Demetrius,) and taken from Callisthenes and other writers, who did not clear them from false notions respecting the Halizones; for example, the wealth of Tantalus and of the Pelopidae was derived, it is said, from the mines about Phrygia and Sipylus; that of Cadmus from the mines about Thrace and Mount Pangaeum; that of Priam from the gold mines at Astyra, near Abydos (of which at present there are small remains, yet there is a large quantity of matter ejected, and the excavations are proofs of former workings); that of Midas from the mines about Mount Bermium; that of Gyges, Alyattes, and Croesus, from the mines in Lydia and the small deserted city between Atarneus and Pergamum, where are the sites of exhausted mines. ^note