Greek Texts & Translations

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 14.5.29

We may impute another fault to Apollodorus, that although he frequently censures modern writers for introducing new readings at variance with the meaning of Homer, yet in this instance he not only neglects his own advice, but actually unites together places which are not so represented (by Homer).

(For example), Xanthus the Lydian says, that after the Trojan times the Phrygians came from Europe (into Asia) and the left (western) side of the Euxine, and that their leader Scamandrius conducted them from the Berecynti and Ascania. Apollodorus adds, that Homer mentions the same Ascania as Xanthus, Phorcys and the divine Ascanius led the Phrygians from the distant Ascania. ^note If this be so, the migration (from Europe to Asia) must be later than the Trojan war; but in the Trojan war the auxiliaries mentioned by the poet came from the opposite continent, from the Berecynti and Ascania. Who then were the Phrygians, who were then encamped on the banks of the Sangarius, when Priam says, And I joined them with these troops as an auxiliary? ^note

And how came Priam to send for the Phrygians from among the Berecynti, between whom and himself no compact existed, and pass over the people who were contiguous to him, and whose ally he formerly had been?

Apollodorus, after having spoken of the Phrygians in this manner, introduces an account concerning the Mysians which contradicts this. He says that there is a village of Mysia called Ascania, near a lake of the same name, ^note out of which issues the river Ascanius, mentioned by Euphorion: ^note near the waters of the Mysian Ascanius; and by Alexander of Aetolia: they who dwell on the stream of Ascanius, on the brink of the Ascanian lake, where lived Dolion, the son of Silenus and Melia. The district, he says, about Cyzicus, on the road to Miletopolis, is called Dolionis and Mysia.

If this is the case, and if it is confirmed by existing places and by the poets, what prevented Homer, when he mentioned this Ascania, from mentioning the Ascania also of which Xanthus speaks?

I have already spoken of these places in the description of Mysia and Phrygia, and shall here conclude the discussion.