φαίνεται δʼ οὔτε τοῦ Ἐφόρου τὴν ἀπόφασιν διαιτῶν ἱκανῶς τά τε τοῦ ποιητοῦ ταράττων καὶ καταψευδόμενος. Ἐφόρου τε γὰρ τοῦτο πρῶτον ἀπαιτεῖν ἐχρῆν, τί δὴ τοὺς Χάλυβας τίθησιν ἐντὸς τῆς χερρονήσου τοσοῦτον ἀφεστῶτας καὶ Σινώπης καὶ Ἀμισοῦ πρὸς ἕω; οἱ γὰρ λέγοντες τὸν ἰσθμὸν τῆς χερρονήσου ταύτης τὴν ἀπὸ Ἰσσοῦ γραμμὴν ἐπὶ τὸν Εὔξεινον, ὡς ἂν μεσημβρινήν τινα τιθέασι ταύτην, οἱ μὲν εἶναι νομίζουσι τὴν ἐπὶ Σινώπης οἱ δὲ τὴν ἐπʼ Ἀμισοῦ, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν Χαλύβων οὐδείς· λοξὴ γάρ ἐστι τελέως. ὁ γὰρ δὴ διὰ Χαλύβων μεσημβρινὸς διὰ τῆς μικρᾶς Ἀρμενίας γράφοιτʼ ἂν καὶ τοῦ Εὐφράτου τὴν Καππαδοκίαν ὅλην ἐντὸς ἀπολαμβάνων καὶ τὴν Κομμαγηνὴν καὶ τὸν Ἀμανὸν καὶ τὸν Ἰσσικὸν κόλπον. εἰ δʼ οὖν καὶ τὴν λοξὴν γραμμὴν ὁρίζειν τὸν ἰσθμὸν συγχωρήσαιμεν, τὰ πλεῖστά γε τούτων καὶ μάλιστα ἡ Καππαδοκία ἐντὸς ἀπολαμβάνοιτʼ ἂν καὶ ὁ νῦν ἰδίως λεγόμενος Πόντος τῆς Καππαδοκίας μέρος ὢν τὸ πρὸς τῷ Εὐξείνῳ, ὥστʼ εἰ τοὺς Χάλυβας τῆς χερρονήσου θετέον μέρος, πολὺ μᾶλλον τοὺς Κατάονας καὶ Καππάδοκας ἀμφοτέρους καὶ Λυκάονας δέ, οὓς καὶ αὐτοὺς παρῆκε. διὰ τί δʼ ἐν τοῖς μεσογαίοις ἔταξε τοὺς Χάλυβας, οὓς ὁ ποιητὴς Ἁλιζῶνας ἐκάλεσεν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀπεδείξαμεν; ἄμεινον γὰρ ἦν διελεῖν καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάττῃ φάναι τοὺς δὲ ἐν τῇ μεσογαίᾳ· ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς Καππαδοκίας ποιητέον καὶ τῆς Κιλικίας. ὁ δὲ τὴν μὲν οὐδʼ ὠνόμακε, τοὺς Κίλικας δὲ τοὺς ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάττῃ μόνον εἴρηκεν. οἱ οὖν ἐπʼ Ἀντιπάτρῳ τῷ Δερβήτῃ καὶ οἱ Ὁμοναδεῖς καὶ ἄλλοι πλείους οἱ συνάπτοντες τοῖς Πισίδαις, οἳ οὐκ ἴσασι θάλατταν / ἀνέρες, οὐδέ θʼ ἅλεσσι μεμιγμένον εἶδαρ ἔδουσι / τίνα λάβωσι τάξιν; ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ Λυδοὺς οὐδὲ Μῄονας εἴρηκεν, εἴτε δύο εἴθʼ οἱ αὐτοί εἰσι, καὶ εἴτε καθʼ ἑαυτοὺς εἴτʼ ἐν ἑτέρῳ γένει περιεχομένους. οὕτω γὰρ ἐπίσημον ἔθνος οὐκ ἀποκρύψαι δυνατόν, ὅ τε μὴ λέγων περὶ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν οὐκ ἂν δόξειε παραλιπεῖν τι τῶν κυριωτάτων;
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, 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?
τίνες δʼ εἰσὶν οἱ μιγάδες; οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἔχοιμεν εἰπεῖν παρὰ τοὺς λεχθέντας τόπους ἢ ὠνομάσθαι ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ ἢ παραλελεῖφθαι ἄλλους οὓς ἀποδώσομεν τοῖς μιγάσιν, οὐδέ γε αὐτῶν τινας τούτων ὧν ἢ εἶπεν ἢ παρέλιπε. καὶ γὰρ εἰ κατεμίχθησαν, ἀλλʼ ἡ ἐπικράτεια πεποίηκεν ἢ Ἕλληνας ἢ βαρβάρους· τρίτον δὲ γένος οὐδὲν ἴσμεν τὸ μικτόν.
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.
πῶς δὲ τρία γένη τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐστὶ τὰ τὴν χερρόνησον οἰκοῦντα; εἰ γάρ, ὅτι τὸ παλαιὸν οἱ αὐτοὶ ἦσαν Ἴωνες καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι. λεγέσθωσαν καὶ οἱ Δωριεῖς καὶ οἱ Αἰολεῖς οἱ αὐτοί, ὥστε δύο ἔθνη γίνοιτʼ ἄν· εἰ δὲ διαιρετέον κατὰ τὰ ὕστερα ἔθη, καθάπερ καὶ τὰς διαλέκτους, τέτταρα ἂν εἴη καὶ τὰ ἔθνη, καθάπερ καὶ αἱ διάλεκτοι. οἰκοῦσι δὲ τὴν χερρόνησον ταύτην, καὶ μάλιστα κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Ἐφόρου διορισμόν, οὐκ Ἴωνες μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς καθʼ ἕκαστα δεδήλωται. τοιαῦτα μὲν δὴ πρὸς τὸν Ἔφορον διαπορεῖν ἄξιον· Ἀπολλόδωρος δὲ τούτων μὲν ἐφρόντισεν οὐδέν, τοῖς δὲ ἑκκαίδεκα ἔθνεσι προστίθησιν ἑπτακαιδέκατον, τὸ τῶν Γαλατῶν, ἄλλως μὲν χρήσιμον λεχθῆναι, πρὸς δὲ τὴν δίαιταν τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἐφόρου λεγομένων ἢ παραλειπομένων οὐ δέον· εἴρηκε δὲ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτός, ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα νεώτερα τῆς ἐκείνου ἡλικίας.
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.
μεταβὰς δʼ ἐπὶ τὸν ποιητὴν τοῦτο μὲν ὀρθῶς λέγει, διότι πολλὴ σύγχυσις γεγένηται τῶν βαρβάρων ἐθνῶν ἀπὸ τῶν Τρωικῶν εἰς τὰ νῦν διὰ τὰς μεταπτώσεις· καὶ γὰρ προσγέγονέ τινα καὶ ἐλλέλοιπε καὶ διέσπασται καὶ συνῆκται εἰς ἕν. οὐκ εὖ δὲ τὴν αἰτίαν διττὴν ἀποφαίνει διʼ ἣν οὐ μέμνηταί τινων ὁ ποιητής· ἢ τῷ μήπω τότʼ οἰκεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἔθνους τούτου, ἢ τῷ ἐν ἑτέρῳ γένει περιέχεσθαι. τὴν γὰρ Καππαδοκίαν οὐκ εἴρηκεν, οὐδὲ τὴν Καταονίαν, ὡς δʼ αὕτως τὴν Λυκαονίαν, διʼ οὐδέτερον τούτων· οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν τοιαύτην ἱστορίαν ἐπʼ αὐτῶν οὐδεμίαν. γελοῖόν τε τὸ τοὺς Καππάδοκας καὶ Λυκάονας διὰ τί μὲν Ὅμηρος παρέλιπε φροντίσαι καὶ ἀπολογήσασθαι, διὰ τί δʼ Ἔφορος παρῆλθε παρελθεῖν καὶ αὐτόν, καὶ ταῦτα παραθέμενον πρὸς αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὴν ἀπόφασιν τἀνδρός, πρὸς τὸ ἐξετάσαι καὶ διαιτῆσαι· καὶ διότι μὲν Μῄονας ἀντὶ Λυδῶν Ὅμηρος εἶπε διδάξαι, ὅτι δʼ οὔτε Λυδοὺς οὔτε Μῄονας εἴρηκεν Ἔφορος μὴ ἐπισημήνασθαι.
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.
φήσας δὲ ἀγνώτων τινῶν μεμνῆσθαι τὸν ποιητήν, Καύκωνας μὲν ὀρθῶς λέγει καὶ Σολύμους καὶ Κητείους καὶ Λέλεγας καὶ Κίλικας τοὺς ἐκ Θήβης πεδίου, τοὺς δʼ Ἁλιζῶνας αὐτὸς πλάττει, μᾶλλον δʼ οἱ πρῶτοι τοὺς Ἁλιζῶνας ἀγνοήσαντες τίνες εἰσί, καὶ μεταγράφοντες πλεοναχῶς καὶ πλάττοντες τὴν τοῦ ἀργύρου γενέθλην καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ μέταλλα, ἐκλελειμμένα ἅπαντα. πρὸς ταύτην δὲ τὴν φιλοτιμίαν κἀκείνας συνήγαγον τὰς ἱστορίας, ἃς ὁ Σκήψιος τίθησι παρὰ Καλλισθένους λαβὼν καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν, οὐ καθαρευόντων τῆς περὶ τῶν Ἁλιζώνων ψευδοδοξίας· ὡς ὁ μὲν Ταντάλου πλοῦτος καὶ τῶν Πελοπιδῶν ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ Φρυγίαν καὶ Σίπυλον μετάλλων ἐγένετο· ὁ δὲ Κάδμου περὶ Θρᾴκην καὶ τὸ Παγγαῖον ὄρος· ὁ δὲ Πριάμου ἐκ τῶν ἐν Ἀστύροις περὶ Ἄβυδον χρυσείων, ὧν καὶ νῦν ἔτι μικρὰ λείπεται· πολλὴ δʼ ἡ ἐκβολὴ καὶ τὰ ὀρύγματα σημεῖα τῆς πάλαι μεταλλείας· ὁ δὲ Μίδου ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὸ Βέρμιον ὄρος· ὁ δὲ Γύγου καὶ Ἀλυάττου καὶ Κροίσου ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν Λυδίᾳ καὶ τῆς μεταξὺ Ἀταρνέως τε καὶ Περγάμου πολίχνη ἐρήμη ἐκμεμεταλλευμένα ἔχουσα τὰ χωρία.
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.
ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα μέμψαιτο ἄν τις τοῦ Ἀπολλοδώρου, ὅτι τῶν νεωτέρων καινοτομούντων πολλὰ παρὰ τὰς Ὁμηρικὰς ἀποφάσεις, εἰωθὼς ταῦτʼ ἐλέγχειν ἐπὶ πλέον, ἐνταῦθα οὐκ ὠλιγώρηκε μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τἀναντία εἰς ἓν συνάγει τὰ μὴ ὡσαύτως λεγόμενα. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ξάνθος ὁ Λυδὸς μετὰ τὰ Τρωικά φησιν ἐλθεῖν τοὺς Φρύγας ἐκ τῆς Εὐρώπης καὶ τῶν ἀριστερῶν τοῦ Πόντου, ἀγαγεῖν δʼ αὐτοὺς Σκαμάνδριον ἐκ Βερεκύντων καὶ Ἀσκανίας. ἐπιλέγει δὲ τούτοις ὁ Ἀπολλόδωρος, ὅτι τῆς Ἀσκανίας ταύτης μνημονεύει καὶ Ὅμηρος ἧς ὁ Ξάνθος Φόρκυς δὲ Φρύγας ἦγε καὶ Ἀσκάνιος θεοειδὴς / τῆλʼ ἐξ Ἀσκανίης. / ἀλλʼ εἰ οὕτως ἔχει, ἡ μὲν μετανάστασις ὕστερον ἂν εἴη τῶν Τρωικῶν γεγονυῖα, ἐν δὲ τοῖς Τρωικοῖς τὸ λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ ἐπικουρικὸν ἧκεν ἐκ τῆς περαίας ἐκ τῶν Βερεκύντων καὶ τῆς Ἀσκανίας. τίνες οὖν Φρύγες ἦσαν οἵ ῥα τότʼ ἐστρατόωντο παρʼ ὄχθας Σαγγαρίοιο, / ὅτε ὁ Πρίαμος ἐπίκουρος ἐὼν μετὰ τοῖσιν ἐλέγμην / φησί; πῶς δὲ ἐκ μὲν Βερεκύντων μετεπέμπετο Φρύγας ὁ Πρίαμος, πρὸς οὓς οὐδὲν ἦν αὐτῷ συμβόλαιον, τοὺς δʼ ὁμόρους καὶ οἷς αὐτὸς πρότερον ἐπεκούρησε παρέλιπεν; οὕτω δὲ περὶ τῶν Φρυγῶν εἰπὼν ἐπιφέρει καὶ τὰ περὶ τῶν Μυσῶν οὐχ ὁμολογούμενα τούτοις· λέγεσθαι γάρ φησι καὶ τῆς Μυσίας κώμην Ἀσκανίαν περὶ λίμνην ὁμώνυμον, ἐξ ἧς καὶ τὸν Ἀσκάνιον ποταμὸν ῥεῖν, οὗ μνημονεύει καὶ Εὐφορίων Μυσοῖος παρʼ ὕδασιν Ἀσκανίοιο. / καὶ ὁ Αἰτωλὸς Ἀλέξανδρος οἳ καὶ ἐπʼ Ἀσκανίῳ δώματʼ ἔχουσι ῥόῳ, / λίμνης Ἀσκανίης ἐπὶ χείλεσιν· ἔνθα Δολίων / υἱὸς Σιληνοῦ νάσσατο καὶ Μελίης. / καλοῦσι δέ, φησί, Δολιονίδα καὶ Μυσίαν τὴν περὶ Κύζικον ἰόντι εἰς Μιλητούπολιν. εἰ οὖν οὕτως ἔχει ταῦτα, καὶ ἐκμαρτυρεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν δεικνυμένων νῦν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν, τί ἐκώλυε τὸν Ὅμηρον ταύτης μεμνῆσθαι τῆς Ἀσκανίας, ἀλλὰ μὴ τῆς ὑπὸ Ξάνθου λεγομένης; εἴρηται δὲ καὶ πρότερον περὶ τούτων ἐν τῷ περὶ Μυσῶν καὶ Φρυγῶν λόγῳ, ὥστε ἐχέτω πέρας.
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. 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? 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, out of which issues the river Ascanius, mentioned by Euphorion: 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.
Cite This Text