Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T14:55:49.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legend of Cadmus and the Logographi. I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

A. W. Gomme
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an article in the Annual of the British School at Athens. I have endeavoured to show that the geography of Boeotia lends no support to the theory that the Cadmeans were Phoenicians. Yet from the fifth century onwards at least, there was a firmly established and, as far as we know, universally accepted tradition that they were—a tradition indeed lightly put aside by most modern scholars as unimportant. If the arguments from geography are sound, then this tradition must be learned theory, and theory only. That this is so cannot of course be proved; for the authors by whom it was established, if it was established, are lost to us. We cannot even show, for this theory itself, that it is probable; for the methods even of Herodotus, and his reasons for his theories, are often obscure. But if we can show that it is a possibility—and not a bare possibility, but a very natural one—then the arguments brought forward in the Annual can be allowed their full weight.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 33 , November 1913 , pp. 53 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1913

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 B.S.A. xviii. (1911–2).

2 ii. 10 ff. (ed. Wagner, Teubner, 1894) (Story of the descendants of Belus as far as the Heracleids), iii. 1 ff. (the descendants of Agenor). The ‘Genealogy of the Catalogues’ given by Crusius, p. 833, as from Apollodorus and the Hesiodic fragments, is mere contaminatio, and altogether unjustified by the evidence.

3 See Roscher's Lexikon, s.vv. Agenor, Phoinix, Harmonia, etc.

4 Od. v. 333. Most of the references in this chapter are to be found in the articles by Helbig and Crusius in Roscher, s.vv. Europa and Kadmos. My arrangement and use of them is somewhat different. The latter of course I follow in his main conclusion; and, granted his two chief premisses, that the Theogony gives us our oldest ‘ausführliche Nachricht,’ and that the sources of the tragedians are the epic poets, not the logographers, his article is an admirable statement of the evidence. But both his promisses I dispute.

5 Il. iv. 385, x. 288, xxiii. 680, etc.; Od. xi. 276. (It is noticeable that Homer always speaks of the inhabitants as Cadmeans, and of the town as Thebes. Aeschylus must indeed be following an old version of the story of the Seven, if it is to the point that he calls the town ἡ Καδμεία only, never Θῆβαι (Verrall, ed. Septem). In the Iliad the adjective Θῆβαῖος only occurs once, of the Asiatic Thebes: in the Odyssey (x. 492, 565, xi. 90, 165, xii. 267, xxiii. 323) always in the phrase Θῆβαῖου Τειρεσίαο

6 Il. xiv. 321–2. ‘Die Bd. i. Sp. 1410 von Heibig angeführte Iliasstelle gehört bekanntlich zu den spätesten Interpolationen,’ says Crusius (Roscher, ii. p. 826, n.). To the later, expurgated editions of Homer? But these dogmas are not allowable. Aristophanes and Aristarchus also rejected this passage, which is of the kind referred to always as ‘diese schon von den Alten atherisierten Verse’. There is much virtue in ‘schon’; as though this fact proved anything except that modern are like ancient scholars.

7 Il. xiv. 323.

8 Fr. 2, ed. Kinkel.

9 Epigoni, fr. 2.

10 937, 940 ff., 975 ff. Hesiod, fr. 233 (ed. Rzach, 1902), ἄγαλμα = ὄρμος has been supposed to refer to the necklace given by Athena or some other god (authorities differ) to Harmonia, at the wedding (Crusius, p. 832). It may do so.

11 Op. cit., p. 825.

12 The whole of this theory ultimately goes back to the problem that occupied the ancient critics, Why did Homer begin his Catalogue of Ships with the Boeotians? A difficult question sufficiently answered by Aristarchus, that he had to begin somewhere.

13 The reason given for the expedition of the Seven—μήλων ἔνεκ Οίδιπόδαο (v. 163)—is echt·boiotisch (and pointedly different from the object of the Trojan war, ῾Ελένης ἔνεκ᾿ ἠυκόμοιο v. 165.)

14 Doubtless those ancient critics were right who considered that the Oceanid Europa was entirely distinct from the daughter of Phoenix. (Schol. Eur., Rhes. 29Google Scholar.)

15 Paus. ix. 39. 4–5 (the reference in Roscher to be corrected)

16 Antim. fr. 3; Paus. ix. 19. 1.

17 Fr. 45.

18 Fr. 30, ap. Schol. Ven., A et B ad Il. xii. 292Google Scholar (at the end Schol. B has ἱστορεῖ ῾Ησίοδος only).

19 E.g. Eur., Rhes. 29Google Scholar (Schol. ad loc), and Hellanicus (as quoted by this Scholiast: the fragment is not in the Fragm. Hist. Grace). Tümpel, (ap. Roscher, ii. p. 986Google Scholar) asserts that Hesiod, like some later authors, called Cassiepea the mother of Europa: ‘der bei Schol., A. Il. M 292Google Scholar fehlende Kassiepeianaime ist aus Schol. A Il. Εὐρώπη 321, Eustath. p. 989, 35 ff. zu ergänzen.' But Hesiod is not there mentioned as the authority; we have only Εὐρώπη Φοίνικος καὶ Κασσιεπείας θυγατήρ (Bekker, p. 301; as also the Townley Schol. ed. Maass, vol. v. p. 453.)

20 iii. 2–5.

21 ii. 94. ‘Danach (i.e. the prologue to Euripides, Phrixus, for which see below) lässt sich in der aus verschiedenen Quellen contaminierten mythographischen Haupturkunde bei Apollodor ein hesiodischer Kern mit Sicherheit ausscheiden,’ Crusius, p. 833. But he applies this to the entire story of the Search, and the founding of Phoenicia, Cilicia, Thasos, and Thebes, which may not be from Hesiod; while he actually omits in his quotation the two passages given above which do show some similarity of language. Nor need Euripides be drawing from the Catalogues, as Crusius directly asserts (see also his remarks on p. 827).

22 Fr. 258. It is classed among the doubtful fragments by Rzach, , and as a fragment of the Astronomia (17Google Scholar) by Kinkel, . Cadmus may have been mentioned in the Melampodia, Hes. Fr. 161Google Scholar.

23 i. 2. 34, p. 42 (of. Apollod, ii. 11, Aegyptus in Arabia).

24 Fr. 23. In Od. iv. 84, Zenodotus wanted to read ᾿Αραβάς τε for καὶ ᾿Ερέμβουσ (in connexion with this Arabos, acc. to Eustathius, ad loc., p. 1484Google Scholar, 50 ff.).

25 Apollodorus knows nothing of her (she is not mentioned in the article Belus, in Roscher). Tümpel (ap. Röscher, s.v. Cassiepea, ii. p. 989) would identify her with Thronia, eponyma of the Locrian town Thronion (Didymus, on Il. ii. 533Google Scholar).

26 x. 1. 8, p. 447. Most probably Strabo, or his authority, is relying on learned theory: we cannot show that Hesiod's Arabos had anything to do with Euboea; presumably not, as Strabo quotes him with reference to Arabia.

27 Theog. 1013; Fr. 4. (On these verses see Wilamowitz, , Hermes xxxiv, pp. 609–11Google Scholar.) Cf. Frr. 65–7.

28 Fr. 53.

29 Fr. 11.

30 Frr. 24 and 25.

31 Frr. 60, 62.

32 The question is complicated by the fact that it is uncertain how much of the Scholium on Apoll. Rh. ii. 178 is from Hesiod: Φινεὺσ ᾿Αγηνορίδης ᾿Αγήνορος γὰρ παῖς ἐστὶν ὡς ῾Ελ λάνικοσ (Fr. 38). ὠς δὲ ῾Ησίοδός φησιν (Fr. 31), Φοίνικος τοῦ ᾿Αγήνορος καὶ Κασσιεπείας ὀμοίωσ δὲ καὶ ᾿Ασκληπιάδησ (F.H.G. iii. 303) καὶ ᾿Αντι μαχοσ (om. Kinkel) καὶ Φερεκύδησ (Fr. 41) φασίν ἐκ δὲ Κασσιεπείας τῆς ᾿Αράβου φοίνικι γίνεται Κιλιξ καὶ φινεὺς καὶ Δόρυκλος καὶ ᾿´Ατυμνοσ ἐπίκλησιν γίνεται δὲ ἐκ Διός ᾿´Ατυμνοσ Some suppose this last sentence to be from Hesiod (e.g. Stoll, ap. Roscher, s.v. Agenor, i. pp. 102–103—not apparently s.v. Doryklos; Jessen, ibid.s.v. Phineus, iii. p. 2369); others take it as belonging to Pherccydes, Asclepiades, and Antimachus only (e.g. Tümpel, ibid.s.v. Kassiepeia, ii. p, 986); others that it belongs to the Scholiast only, e.g. Müller, (F.H.G. i. p. 83Google Scholar, and Rzach (Hesiod, edd. mai. et min. 1902)), neither of whom prints it. The first view is probably the right one; partly from the way the Scholiast makes the remark, partly because in the later mythographers generally followed by scholiasts, e.g. Apollodorus, Cilix and Phineus are sons of Agenor, not of Phoenix; and Doryclus is only mentioned here; nor is Atymnus (cf. Apollod, iii. 6) ever named among the numerous heroes afterwards given as sons to Agenor or Phoenix, and as brothers to Cadmus. The view that is certainly wrong is Tümpel's. If this sentence is Hesiod's, then according to him clearly Phineus, Cilix, Doryclus, and Atymnus were the only sons of Phoenix and Cassiepea, and are not brothers of Cadmus or of Europa (as Jessen, l.c., supposes, who merely amalgamates authorities in the fashion of Apollodorus or Lemprière). See above, p. 56, n. 19. Cassiepea, daughter of Arabos, is from Hesiod (Fr. 23, above), and for Pherecydes, see below, p. 66.

33 Fr. 31. This is the Thracian Phineus, of the Harpy legend, whose story Hesiod seems to have told at some length (Frr. 52–59, 151); but, if we may judge from his relationship to Phoenix and Cilix, who later appear in the Cadmus legend, he was not in early times distinguished from the Eastern Phineus.

34 Fr. 32. No later authority seems to have followed Hesiod in this respect; and this Phoenix may have been to him a Greek hero. It is instructive to note how—geographically—the area widens. Panyassis (Fr. 25) said Adonis was the son of Theias, ‘king of the Assyrians.’ Later Antimachus (Fr. 103) made him the son of Agenor. In Apollodorus (iii. 181 ff.) he is completely Oriental.

35 So Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. There is but little evidence.

36 Fr. 7, ap. Paus. vii. 4. 1–2.

37 Op. cit. p. 873, under ‘isolierte Lokal-bezieliungen.’

38 The Scholiast on Eur. Phoen. 5 (overlooked by Crusius) preserves a genealogy that may be a contaminatio of Asius' genealogy and the one adopted by later mythographers. It is clear from the way Pausanias quotes Asius that the latter differed from this.

39 Cf. also the two quoted by Athen, iii. 125 D, xii. 525 E.

40 Pausanias quotes him as authority for Theban legend, for the genealogy of the Aeaeid house, for Thestius the Aetolian, for Polyeaon of Messenia, for Alcmene, for Pelasgus, and for Ptous son of Athamas (see the fragments in Kinkel); and in the last case, at least, Asius has preserved an older and truer form of the legend as against the ‘local’ knowledge of Pindar, (Schol. ad Paus. ix. 23–6; Höfer ap. Koscher, iii. 3268.)

41 Frr. 10–12, Kinkel.

42 Fr. 18, Kinkel (Schol. Ap. Rh. iii. 1178). Crusius (p. 848) supposes that Musaeus treated of the story of Cadmus in connexion with his support of Zeus against Typhoeus, a legend found in Nonnus, which may go back to the epic poet Peisander (a fragment not in Kinkel); and traces it back more suo still further to the Hesiodic Shield, because ‘Typhaonion’ is near the Sphinx mountain, vv. 32–3. This keeps Cadmus in Boeotia.

43 Fr. 15, Bgk. (Schol. Eur., Phoen. 670)Google Scholar.

44 Fr. 64 (above, p. 325): he agreed with Hesiod too in the theory that Iphigeneia was the same as Hecate (fr. 38, Hes. fr. 100).

45 Fr. 34 from the Oresteia. He has been thought to refer to the marriage of Cadmus and Harmonia in fr. 36, also from the Oresteia. Aleman (fr. 84, Bgk.) refers to Ino as a sea-goddess, but in what connexion we do not know.

46 Hymn i. 5 ff. In the fragment of the other hymn to Dionysus, of the same date according to Sykes and Allen, (vii. 57) Semele is called Καδμηίσ simply.

47 pp. 781–6.

48 p. 783.

49 Fr. 361, F.H.G. i. p. 28. He bases upon it, moreover, arguments as to the contents of the third book of Hecataeus' Genealogies. See his note ad loc.

50 Fr. 128, F.H.G. i. p. 270.

51 Fr. 1, F.H.G. ii. p. 5 (cf. Anaximander, fr. 2, ibid. p. 67).

52 Op. cit. p. 874; so too p. 878.

53 ‘Von Herodot war wohl Sophokles angeregt, wenn er von Φοινικίοις γράμμασι sprach, fr. 471.’ Sophokles kannte ja keinen anderen Autor als Herodot!

54 Baehr, of course (and Müller on the Dionysius fragment), rightly supposes Herodotus to be, as often, directly contradicting Hecatacus; the words οὐκ ἐόντα πρὶν ᾿Ελλησι ὠς ἐμοὶ δοκέειν (omitted by Cmsius) are pointed.

55 iii. 66. 6, 67. 1.

56 So Müller, in F.H.G. ii. p. 5Google Scholar. Pauly Wissowa distinguishes Dionysius of Miletus, contemporary with Hecataeus, the one here quoted by the grammarian in Bekker (and once elsewhere in conjunction with Hecataeus, Hellanicus, and Eudoxus), who wrote Persica; the Κυκλογράφοσ called a Samian by Athenaeus, iii–ii cent. B.C., the author of a mythological handbook much used in the Hellenistic period; and, thirdly, Dionysius Scytobrachion, the writer quoted by Diodorus, of the same period.

57 Περσέων οἰ λόγιοι cannot be lightly dismissed as figments of Greek imagination. There was at the least a tradition (at Halicarnassus or elsewhere) that the Persians had their own view of the Io myth, however Greeks may have smiled at it. Herodotus gives the story in some detail: the Phoenician mariners were five or six days off Argos before Io the king's daughter came down to barter; in the attack most of the women escaped, but some were captured along with Io. And οὔτω μὲν ᾿Ιοῦν ἐσ Αἴγυπτον ἀπικέσθαι λέγουσι πέρσαι οὐκ ὠσ ῾´Ελληνεσ There was probably in any case a large Eastern element in the stories of Io, Europa, Cadmus, and others. This may be part of it, but rejected in Greece.

58 ii. 49. Crusius supposes this to be straight from the epic: ‘Herodot drückt hier einfach epische Ueberlieferung in seiner Weise aus’ (p. 878): a misguided theory.

59 v. 57, 58.

60 For this, see below, Part II.

61 iv. 147.

62 ii. 44. The island was named after Thasos ‘the Phoenician,’ or ‘the son of Phoenix,’ vi. 47.

63 iv. 45. Sarpedon, a son of Europa in Herodotus as in Hesiod (see above, p. 56), led the colonists from Crete to Lycia (i. 173). Modern scholars will recognize the type of phrase, ‘Europa is manifestly Asiatic,’ as a step in the argument.

64 vii. 91. ‘“Agenor” was nothing if not “a man” (here ἀνδρὸς φοίνικοσ).’ Macan.

65 i. 56; cf. v. 61. In i. 146, he just mentions the Cadmeans, as inhabitants of Boeotia, who helped to colonize Ionia: cf. Hellanicus, fr. 95 (Cadmeans at Priene). It is perhaps worth noting that Herodotus never makes the Persians put forward the Phoenician origin of Cadmus as a reason for the Thebaps joining them, as they do Perses son of Perseus to the Argives (vii. 150); especially if the last three books were the first written, as Macan contends.

66 Fr. 8; Apollod, iii. 3–4, 21–5; Schol. Il. ii. 494. Cf. frr. 2 (Schol. Ap. Rh. iii. 1178, 1185) and 9 (Schol. Eur., Phoen. 666)Google Scholar.

67 Βοιωτία from βούσ first appears here.

68 With a stone (as Eur., Phoen. 883)Google Scholar, whereas Pherecydes said, with a sword. On this difference Germans have built up theories as to the contents and tendencies of the lost epics of the Theban cycle.

69 In fr. 2, from the Scholia on Apollonius, he says by the advice of Ares, in fr. 8, from the Homeric Scholia, by the advice of Athena. The Homeric Scholiast is following the more ordinary story and may be misrepresenting Hellanicus. There is another similar difference between them: see below, n. 73.

70 ‘Hellanikos hat offenbar in summarischer, auf genealogische Zwecke gerichteter Darstelung den ihm unverständlichen Spartenkampf ausgemerzt’ (Crusius, pp. 828–9). On the contrary, it is clear that he told the story in detail, even if his object was genealogy, which is quite uncertain.

71 Fr. 77. Harpocrat. s.v. Αύτόχθονεσ αὐτόχθονες δὲ καὶ ᾿Αρκάδες ἦσαν ὡς ῾Ελλάνικόσ φησι καὶ Αἰγινῆται καὶ Θηβαῖοι The last words probably belong to Hellanieus.

72 Fr. 38 (Schol. Ap. Rh. ii. 178).

73 Fr. 129: this also is from the Scholia on Apollonius (i. 916), and may represent Hellanieus better than the Homeric Scholiast (who is quoting Apollodorus too, who does not agree in all details with Hellanieus). The full account of this story is in Diodorus, v. 47 ff., who draws partly upon Hellanieus, partly on local tradition. Crusius (p. 856) decides ‘durchaus neu ist es, dass Harmonia nach Samothrake gesetzt wird. Im übrigen fügt sich die Ueberlieferung in die bisher behandelte Epische ein.’

74 Fr. 58.

75 II. 135 ff.

76 II. 412–4, 476. Aeschylus gave the names of the five surviving Sparti (fr. 376), in agreement with Pherecydes (fr. 44) and Hellanieus (fr. 2). Nauck rejects this fragment, from no good cause (it comes from Schol. Eur., Phoen. 942Google Scholar—generally a trustworthy source). (It is to be noted that Aeschylus is not consistently archaic in the Septem, as Verrall suggested: the Delphic oracle, for example, plays a part in the reference to the Oedipus-Laius legend, 11. 745 ff, 800 ff. Yet in his Oedipus (fr. 173) he placed the Cleft Way at Potniae, the suburb of Thebes—presumably an older version of the story.)

77 Arg. Semeies, Nauck 2, p. 73.

78 Fr. 99.

79 Pyth. iii. 14–91. Cf. Ol. ii. 86, and fr. 32.

80 Ol. ii. 24–33; cf. Pyth. xi. 1 ff.

81 Ol. ii. 30; Isthm. vii. 3–5 ; fr. 75.

82 Pyth. ix. 82; Isthm. i. 30; vii. 19.

83 Nem. i. 51; iv. 21; Isthm. iii. 71, etc. Cf. Κάδμου πύλαι (as in the Tragedians): Pyth. viii. 47; Isthm. vi. 75.

84 Fr. 25.

85 Theognis, too, refers to the presence of the Muses and the Graces at Cadmus' wedding (11. 15–18). It is a plausible idea of Crusius' (p. 826) that the story was told by one of the epic poets, though he may not have been of the Hesiodic circle.

86 Pyth. iv. 46.

87 Busolt, , Gr. Gesch. II.2 p. 4.Google Scholar; cf. I.2 p. 150.

88 Frr. 40, 41.

89 The name Melia is known at Thebes too as that of an Oceanid, sister of Caanthus, and mother by Apollo of Ismenus and the seer Tenerus. Caanthus is a double of Cadmus; he was sent by his father in search of his ravished sister Melia, whom he found in the arms of Apollo. He attempted to storm the temenos and the god slew him. His grave was shown near the Ismenion. Paus. ix. 10. 5; cf. id. ix. 26. 1; Straho ix. 2. 34, p. 413. She is sister of Ismenus, and mother of Tenerus in Schol. Pind., Pyth. xi. 5, 6Google Scholar; Tzetzes, ad Lye. 1211Google Scholar; an Oceanid, mother by Poseidon of Amycus, king of Bebrycia, who challenged stradgers to box with him, and was killed by Pollux, acc. to Hyginus, , Praef. p. 11 (ed. Schmidt, 1852)Google Scholar, Fab. 17, 157; an autochthon in Callimachus, , Hymn. Lei. 80Google Scholar. The article in Roscher by Stoll is contaminatio, and inaccurate at that: these references are given as though they all agreed, and no mention is made of Caanthus, Poseidon, or Amycus. A daughter of Niobe was also called Melia according to Pherecydes (fr. 102 b)—presumably from the spring of that name at Thebes.

The name Argiope is known at Plataea (Hdt. ix. 57; Macan, ad loc.).

90 See above, p. 58, n. 32.

91 Fr. 42; Apollod, iii. 3. Apollodorus cannot be following Pherecydes in all details, for he makes Europa sister of Cadmus, Phoenix, and Cilix, and all children of Agenor and Telephassa (iii. 2): he adds, τινὲς δὲ Εύρώπην οὐκ ᾿Αγήνορος ἀλλὰ φοίνικος λέγουσι Agenor and Phoenix share one another's children in the varying accounts: to Pherecydes Cilix is a son of Phoenix, son of Agenor (fr. 41), as above, p. 58, n. 32.

92 Fr. 45 ; Apollod, iii. 25.

93 E.g. by Crusius, pp. 826, 842–3.

94 It is just possible that this version is to be connected with that of Hegesippus, in which Cadmus found an Europa (not his sister) ruling in Thrace (fr. 6, F.H.G. iv. p. 424; from Schol. Eur., Rhes. 29)Google Scholar: see Crusius, pp. 863 f.

95 Fr. l a, F.H.G. iv. 637 (from Schol. Aristid. p. 313, Dind.). The Scholiast is quoting from Antioehus and Pherceydes, and Muller would refer these words to the former only; but unnecessarily.

96 Fr. 31.

97 Paus. ix. 5. 1 (the first king); Aristodemus ap. Schol. Eur. Phoen. 1113Google Scholar, etc.: the Ogygian gate at Thebes. See Roscher, s.v. Ogygos (1).

98 This is not among the fragments of Pherecydes in the F.H.G., but is to be found under Hellanicus, fr. 9 (Schol. Eur. Phoen. 662)Google Scholar, where φερεκύδησ should certainly be read (with one MS. apparently) for φερεκράτησ See Valckenaer's, note given by Dindorf, , Schol. ad Eur. iii. p. 186Google Scholar.

99 Fr. 44; Apollod, iii. 24–5. The names of the five were the same as those given by Hellanicus. For the parallels between the Cadmus and the Jason legends, see Crusius 836, 843, 848: he makes the interesting suggestion that in one form of the story Cadmus wins Harmonia from Ares through his victory over the dragon, and so rules in Thebes. This may be due to Pherecydes, but that it goes back to Hesiod (id. p. 849) is pure supposition.

100 Frr. 1, 5, 27–30, 44–56, 61, 79, 84, 87, 102–3; and perhaps 3, 25, 112.

101 Fr. 6.

102 Fr. 6: both from Strado, x. 3. 21, p. 472. Pherecydes clearly did not take Acusilaus' view. The reading is uncertain, but the sense is fairly clear.

103 Apollod, ii. 94 (above, p. 56).

104 Fr. 28: ‘Poeta in dithyrambo aliquo Europae raptum videtur enarrasse.’ Bergk; who suggests that Horace, , Od. iii. 27Google Scholar, may be following Simonides or Bacchylides.

105 Fr. 10: see above, p. 56: ‘fuerit dithy rambus eius arguments sicut Europa Simonidis fuit.’ Blass.

106 xvi. (ed. Teubn.) 28 ff., 53 ff.

107 xviii. 39 ff.

108 Oed. Col. 1533–4.

109 Ant. 1115 ff. He mentions the worship of Dionysus at Nysa in Asia, as well: fr. 874 (Strabo xv. p. 687).

110 Fr. 471: see above, p. 62, n. 53; Hesychius (who quotes the fragment) gives his own view, ἐπεὶ δοκεῖ Κάδμος αὐτὰ ἐκ Φοινίκης κεκο μικέναι

111 Fr. 578.

112 Fr. 396, 389 (which doubtless belongs to the Palamedes, not the Naumplius), 438.

113 ii. 82–3, 109. (In fr. 587 Sophocles may be thinking of Cadmus and a sister Eidothea, wife of Phineus, in Thrace; but this is doubtful.)

114 Fr. 819. The MSS. reading (from Schol. Eur. Phoen. 6Google Scholar) for the last word is Θάσοσ which Dindorf, Nauck, and Crusius would keep, against Schneidewin's emendation. Thasos is indeed sometimes the son of Agenor (e.g. in Paus. v. 25. 12; in Herodotus vi. 47—cf. ii. 44 —referred to by Crusius, he is probably the son of Phoenix and nephew of Cadmus); but if Agenor has three sons, and Cadmus is one, and Cilix and Phoenix are two of them, Thasos cannot be a fourth (unless perhaps Euripides went on to say that Cadmus was the son of a second wife, as Pherecydes did, above, p. 66). He appears to have told the story of Europa too in the Phrixus, perhaps in a chorus: she was taken from Phoenicia to Crete (Fr. 820).

115 11. 4 ff., 202 ff. (esp. 216–9), 244 ff. (where the chorus hardly recognize that they too are descended from Inachus, and are really kinsmen of the Argives), 280 ff., 291 ff., 301 ff., 638 ff.; and Io 676 ff., 828–9.

116 Yet in 497–8 the chorus speak as though they were foreigners to Eteocles.

117 Cf. too 818 ff., 931 ff.

118 170–2.

119 Cf. esp. his speech, 1302 ff.

120 1330 ff.; cf. perhaps Fr. 930. Crusius (pp. 849–852) supposes that this story too (found in many later writers, e.g. Apollonius Rhodius, Apollodorus, etc.) goes back to the ‘Corinthian’ epic (Eumelus, etc.) and the Catalogues; but on the very flimsiest evidence.

121 Including the Chrysippus, which was written, according to Prof.Murray, (Hist. Gk. Lit. p. 263)Google Scholar, ‘in condemnation of that relation between boys and men which the age regarded as a peccadillo, and which Euripides only allowed to the Cyclops.’ Compare the passage in Aelian, , Var. Hist. ii. 21Google Scholar: ἤρα δὲ φασὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ Αγάθωνος τούτον καὶ Εὐριπίδης ὁ ποιητὴσ καὶ τὸν Χρύσιππον τὸ δρᾶμα αὐτῷ χαριζόμενοσ λέγεται διαφρυντίσαι

122 Fr. 881 (Apollod, ii. 11): in the Schol. Aesch. Suppl. 317Google Scholar, quoted by Nauck, ὀ Εύρ πίδης πέντε φησὶ παῖδας Βήλου Αἴγυπτον Δαναὸν φοίνικα φινέα ᾿Αγήνορα Phoenix may be a mistake for Cepheus, if Euripides was consistent (Phoenix being a son of Agenor in the Phrixus) or the Scholiast careful in his statements: though see Roscher, iii. p. 2356.

123 Johannes, Antioch. in F.H.G. iv. p. 544Google Scholar.

124 Nonnus, iii. 296 (Roscher, s.v. Phineus, iii. p. 2356). ‘Die fünf Brüder kommen sonst nicht neben einander vor,’ says Crusius, p. 876, overlooking the Schol. Eur., Phoen. 217Google Scholar, have quoted.

125 Schol. Eur., Phoen. 217Google Scholar.

126 B. M. Cat. Phoenicia, p. cxlii., so coins of Sidon, with Europa and the Bull ibid. p. cx), and a coin of Aegeae, with Cadmus founding Thebes (B. M. Cat. Cilicia, p. cxvi).

127 Cf. the sixth-century vase figured in Roscher, ii. p. 842; and the throne of Amyclae (Paus. iii. 18. 12).

128 Crusius, p. 527. In quoting he omits [Κάδμος ]ἔμολε τάνδε γᾶν Τύριους presumably of set purpose, because this is not from the epic (although he considers that the Phrixus prologue is); yet if Euripides could diverge in this, he may not be following it elsewhere. It is interesting to note that Pausanias preserves a variant version of the foundation of Thebes: Oadmus comes with a Phoenician host and drives out the Hyantes and Aones (ix. 5. 1). This is inconsistent with the story of the Delphic oracle.

129 The one given (Crusius, p. 833) differs widely from all these authors, and the only link with Hesiod—Cassiepea as mother of Europa—is doubtful, to say the least.

130 Id. p. 833. The best example of Crusius' method is his treatment of the evidence concerning the rock Sarpedon in Thrace (in later writers connected with the son of Europa, and with the Cadmus legend); ‘die Schol. Apoll. Rh. (i. 216) leiten den Namen ἀπό Σαρπηδόνος τοῦ τῆς Θράκης βαπιλέως ἀδεχφοῦ Πόλτυος ab: wie das Schol, zu 211 = Pherek. fr. 104 zeigt, steht dahinter Pherekydes, d.h. das Epos.’ Yet even the reference to Pherecydes is conjecture only; for fr. 104 only has περὶ δὲ τῆς Θρᾳκιας Σαρπηδονίας πέτρας ὄτι πρὸς τῷ Αἴμῳ ὄρει ἐστι φερεκύδης φησὶ περὶ τῆς ἀρπαγῆς ἰστορῶν τῆς Ωρειθυίας and the same scholiast also quotes from Simonides (fr. 3) that Oreithyiawas taken from Brilessus to the Sarpedonian rock in Thrace.

131 See Allen, T. W., Cl. Quart, ii. (1908) 64–74, 81–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; iii. 286–8. And see his opening remarks for our evidence as to the contents of the Epics.

132 An example would be Pind., Pyth. ix. 6Google Scholar, where the Scholiast says Pindar is borrowing from the Eoiai, and quotes the opening lines (Hes. fr. 128). There is no such note on Pindar's lines about Cadmus and Harmonia. Or, again, we may assume (till further knowledge upsets the assumption) that when a scholiast (on Ap. Rh. i. 45) says that neither Homer nor Hesiod nor Pherecydes says that Iphiclus was one of the Argonauts, Pherecydes was regarded as an authority, and an independent one, not merely as a transcriber of the epic.