Revue des tudes Grecques

On Apollodori Bibliotheca
Marchinus H. A. L. H. Van der Valk

Abstract
The author particularly studies the character of Bibliotheca and its relation to its sources. He thinks that the book was originally
destined for a youthful public, as he tries to prove from a number of instances which show the author' s love of decency. He then
enters on the modern views and thinks that Bibliotheca has been underestimated. He shows that the pre-Byzantine Scholia of
Homer, of the Tragedians, etc. have made extensive use of it and that already at an early date the work was ascribed to
Apollodorus. In his opinion, Bibliotheca has not made such an extensive and mechanical use of general manuals, as critics are
mostly inclined to think. To this end he especially investigates the relation of Bibliotheca to Pherecydes, Akousilaos and
Hellanicus. He tries to find traces and fragments of them in Bibliotheca. In this connection he also studies the Historiai of the
Homeric D Scholia. He proposes as a hypothetical date the first century A. D.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Van der Valk Marchinus H. A. L. H. On Apollodori Bibliotheca. In: Revue des tudes Grecques, tome 71, fascicule 334-338,
Janvier-dcembre 1958. pp. 100-168;

doi : 10.3406/reg.1958.3538

http://www.persee.fr/doc/reg_0035-2039_1958_num_71_334_3538

Document gnr le 26/01/2017

On Apollodori Bibliotheca (*)

arguments
exclusively
made
have
above
Homeric
of
existence
into
envisaged,
mythography
adopted
and
Bibl.
mythological
abandoned
investigate
1878We
The
the
the
nearly
second
doubt
been
(2).
called
and
of
the
suspicion,
this
also
which
old
study
manual
author
these
Dmore
Bethe,
of
preserved
when
since,
mythographers,
unanimously.
followed
question.
the
draw
centuries
Scholia,
into
which
of
were
Diodorus
mythographers
and
which
very
difficult,
for
Bibliotheca
doubt
most
we
inadduced
attention
the
has
mythographical
only
Schwartz
one
1887,
existence
The
try
A.
hecritics
IV
its
date
come
D.
The
of
alleges
because
instudy
tosuch
pointed
to
authenticity
(3).
Important
isthe
by fragments.
of
get
has
have
attributions
the
(5)
down
of
beset
him
Though
asthe
to
most
of
the
an
been
Pherecydes
has
following
Pherecydes
to
retained
have
manuals
the
with
to
work
in
idea
majority
the
important
called
isquestioned,
(1),
us.
order
his
Even
been
relation
also
of
difficulties.
correspondence
are
of
which
the
assumption
point.
(4)
into
the
(6).
the
these
the
used
and
to
of
uncertain,
idea
sources
date
of
We
prove
the
doubt
question
These
only
view
Akousilaos.
for
Several
by
fragments
the
that
sources
First
will
vary
Wilamowitz
both
of
handbook
has
which
the
between
difficulties
sources
since
Bibl.
aof
try
of
between
since
authors
reliability
inauthenticity
common
quoted
are
the
Even
here
Robert's
all
offer
Cof
andpassages
been
not
on
the
sources
has
Robert
has
Diodorus
to
the
the
must
by
passages
Bibl.
of
person
always
Greek
called
Bibl.
been
first
the
be
of
in
is

(*) In April 1957 I delivered a paper on Apollodorus for the Neder-

landsch Philologencongres at Gent, in which paper part of the matter which
is treated here was discussed ; cf. Handelingen van het XXIIe Vlaams Filo-
logencongres, pp. 120-124.
(1) C Robert, De Apollodori Bibliotheca, Dissert. Berlin 1873. In the
following pages it will be cited as Robert
(2) For convenience sake we will call the author of the Bibliotheca by
the name of Bibl. .
(3) E. Bethe, Quaestiones Mylhographae Diodoreae, Dissert. Gttingen,
1887. In the following pages we will refer to it as Bethe
(4) Cf. Wendel, RE XVI, p. 1367 s-v. Mythographie , where an
excellent exposition of the present state of the question is given. Cf. also the
article of Schwartz in jRE I, pp. 2876-2880 s.v. Apollodoros .
(5) E. Schwartz, De Scholiis Homeric:* ad Historiam fabularem pertinen-
tibus, Jahrb. Phil. Suppl. XII (1881). We will refer to this work as
Schwartz, De schol
(6) Wilamowitz, Kleine Sciir'flcn \, a, pp. i26-r56. The thesis of
Wilamowitz has been successfully combated by Jacoby, Mnemos. 1947* i3-64
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 101

Bibl. are no longer valid, at least cannot stand the test of a serious
scrutiny. However, one of his arguments is of great importance He observed
that in Bibl. II, 5 the Chronika of Kastor (a5o FGH 8) were mentioned
and since this author was a contemporary of Cicero, Bibl. cannot be ascribed
to Apollodorus, if the passage mentioning Castor is genuine. Critics, however,
went further. Because Bibl. seemed to be unauthentic, they considered it to
to be a second-rate production, whose author exclusively depended on
mythological manuals. In this connection, however, reservations will have to be made,
as we will discuss in the following passages.

When studying Bibl. we will try first of all to define its general character
and the kind of public for which it was destined. Already Robert (pp. 35 ff.),
on the strength of Bibl. , emitted the view that Bibl aimed at decencv.
Since, however, for the illustration of his view, Robert had precisely chosen
a passage which was not entirely suitable for his purpose, he was successfully
combated by Schwartz (RE I 2880) and his thesis was dropped. However,
an investigation of Bibl. reveals that, in fact, passages can be found in which
the love for decency is unmistakable. We refer to Bibl I, a5. According
to Bibl. Orion and was, thereupon, made drunk and
blinded by her father. It is unimaginable that Orion should have been
blinded by Oinopion, because he sought his daughter in marriage. As,
moreover, the corresponding version in Ps. Erastosthenes, Catast. (7) shows, Orion
violated the girl ; wo thus see that of Bibl. is a deliberate
alteration for the sake of decency.
We further refer to Bibl. II, gi. Heracles aids Dexatncnos '
. A comparison
with Diod. IV 33 shows that, in fact, Eurytion tried to violate the girl (8).
We further refer to Bibl. I, 69. The story of Meleager was specially
annoying in this respect for, according to Homer, the hero was married
to Kleopatra, whereas according to the well-known saga the troubles about
the hide of the Kalydonian boar arose because of his love for Atalante
Bibl. has avoided difficulties by saying that Meleager, while he was married
to Kleopatra /. It is clear
that Bibl. has avoided expressly the word (Diod. IV, 3/j, 4) in
order to give a decent picture of the hero. Sometimes this tendency seems
to become comical. We point to Bibl. Ill, 194 on Tereus, Procne and
Philomela. Bibl. relates that after Tereus' marriage with Procne he falls in lo-ve
with Philomela and misuses (' the word may be equivocal) her.
Then Bibl. proceeds / / , . Thus
Bibl. gives the impression, as if Tereus had really married Philomela (9).
When we pay attention to this fact another passage also becomes
understandable. It is well-known that among the labours of Theseus the combat

(7) Catast. 32 ; .
() .
(9) We observe that in post-classical Greek can also- be used in
the meaning of , c- for it Cobet, Variae Lectiones (Leiden
1873), p. 322 f., where examples from Lucian are given, cf. also L. Se. J. s.v.
I, 2. However, I do not think that this meaning must be applied here.
102 VAN DER VALK
with Prokroustes occupies a prominent place. Both Diod. (IV, 59, 5) and
Hyginus (fab. 38) mention the name of this opponent. We can further sea
that in the report of Theseus' labours Diod. (IV 5o) and Bibl. (Ill, 216-218
and Epit. I, i-5) closely correspond. Bibl., however, does not mention
Prokroustes' name, but speaks of , bv .
The fact that the name of Prokroustes is not mentioned, is the more
surprising, since Bibl., as one can see, offers a variant. Thus we cannot but
think that the name has been omitted on purpose. The fact becomes
explicable, if we consult Bekker, Anecd. (10), for from it we learn that
was also used in the sense of having sexual intercourse . It is clear that
for this reason Bibl. has avoided to mention the well-known surname of
Theseus'
adversary (11). This example seems to me of importance. As for
the other examples one might have thought that Bibl. in general tried to
preserve decency. We know, however, that children and adolescents have the
inclination to take words ' , especially when they can be taken
in an obscene sense. Whereas adults could not take offence at the name
of Prokroustes, young people might misuse it. Thus it appears, in my opinion,
that Bibl. was originally destined for young readers let us say for use in
schools (12).
We now may also have a look at the example presented by Robert and
combated by Schwartz. It concerns Bibl. I, 101 and 3 FGH 33 (= Schol. V
~k 287). In the subscriptio of Schol. V the story is ascribed to Pherecydes
^ . We have already observed that the subscriptio's cannot always
be trusted. This time we have to deal with the story of Melampous, Phy-
lakos and the way in which the letter's son, Iphiklos, lost and recovered
his virility. Both Bibl. and Schol. V closely correspond in their reports.
Bibl. relates that Phylakos was castrating rams and then placed
(of the rams) . The latter
became afraid, fled and lost his virility. Schol. V, on the other hand, does
not mention the castrating of the rams (12 a). In its turn it offers another
detail. According to Schol. V Phylakos onoe pursued his son Iphiklos, who
was still young . Robert observed
that this detail was omitted by Bibl. for reasons of decency, whereupon
Schwartz retorted that this observation also holds good for Schol. V, since
the castrating of the rams has been omitted there. Both critics were right.
We must not forget that we have to deal with an interesting phenomenon

(10) I Bekker, Anecdota Graeca (Berlin i8i4), ,

' ) .
( 1 1 ) Also the representation seems to have been altered for this reason by
Bibl. Thus Diod. I- 1. says ' . Bibl. says
.
(ia) It is likely that Bibl. did not only make alterations for the sake o
decency, but also modified details of the original stories which he considered
loo crude. We refer to Bibl. I, i36. As we know Medea's children were
either killed by herself or by the Corinthians. Bibl., however, says of the
children . For further instances, cf.
also below.
(12 a) For this detail we also refer to Schol. Thcocr. Ill, 43, where also
the story of Melampous occurs. Sch. Theocr. says :
. One sees that the castration of the rams has been
altered here into a more decent notice.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 103

which can sometimes be observed in Greek authors. The archaic stories are
often somewhat crude and realistic and offer details which are objectionable
to a later more cultivated public. In my opinion, the original version of
Pherecydes must be reconstructed with the aid of both Bibl. and Schol. V.
Since Pherecydes narrated somewhat realistic details concerning the sexual
domain, both Hellenistic authors who made use of him, took exception at
some of the details. However, the scruples of the authors are individual ;
they take exception at different details. The original story of Pherecydes,
in my opinion, ran as follows. Phylakos was castrating rams (Bibl.).
Thereupon, he saw that his son did something queer (Schol. V). It is obvious
that Iphiklos onanized which has been hinted at in veiled terms by Schol. V.
Consequently, Phylakos grew angry and with the knife in his hand he
pursued his son, etc. It is clear that in the original story both Phylakos and
Iphiklos were occupied with actions concerning the sexual domain. For this very
reason Phylakos' pursuit had an obnoxious influence on Iphiklos' virility.
We see that the more refined posterior authors were shocked at the ancient
story and, each in his way, tried to avoid the inconveniencing details.
As is further shown by the correspondence between Bibl. and Schol. V, both
seem to have followed Pherecydes. Schol. V seems to have more faithfully
preserved the original (i3), whereas Bibl. has abridged it (i4) Accordingly
one can state that the subscriptio of Schol. V is trustworthy (i5) and that
the subscriptio's of the D. Scholia are less unreliable than Schwartz would
have us believe (16). We may also pay attention here to the question of the
intermediary manual which is supposed to have been the source of Bibl.
As we observed, Bibl. has abridged here the original version of Pherecydes.
The same practice can be observed in different parts of Bibl. (17) One
would be inclined to think that in these cases we have to deal with the
same author i. e. with Bibl. himself. This also holds good for the alterations
made for the sake of decency. As we have observed, these alterations can
be found in different parts of Bibl. They can be explained from the
character of Bibl. Since also in this story these alterations occur, I am inclined
to ascribe them to Bibl. himself.
As for the alterations made for reasons of decency, which, as we saw,
differed in both authors, who took over the original, we may refer to a similar
mentality in Christian authors, for we can see that certain details are omitted
by one Christian author as objectionable from a Christian point of view,

(i3) We refer to Bibl. " , Schol.

V offers I should think
that the Schol. faithfully reflects here the archaic style of Pherecydes.
One may compare the Homeric expression . Thus
Pherecydes said , ; .
( k) Thus the episode of the vulture has been abridged in Bibl., while
the episode of the two goalers of Melampous has been omitted altogether.
(15) We observe that in the subscriptio the seventh book of Pherecydes
is quoted. I should say that a reference of this kind seems to be
particularly reliable.
(16) We observe that the so-called Scholia minora or Scholia Didymi are
called in the Iliad D Scholia. In the Odyssey Dindorf, in his edition of the
Scholia, calls them V Scholia.
(17) Cf. below our discussion of the story of Danae and the childhood
o Perseus.
 104 VAN DER VALK

whereas they have been transmitted by another Christian author who

apparently had no scruples about them (18). Whe mention this fact, because
it might be objected that sometimes passages occur in Bibl., in which the same
details as were altered by him in other cases, have been retained (19) In
dealing with this fact, we must not forget that Bibl. treated a matter in which
decency was not easily to be prejserved. For mythological history abounds
with stories in which rapes of women by gods and men occur. Moreover,
we must leave room for individual treatment. Man is a being that is not
consistent, as can often be observed in orthographical matters. Therefore,
we need not be surprised when Bibl. sometimes retains details which lie has
altered in other passages-

We have already observed above that modern scholars mostly consider Bibl.
a second-rate compilation which can perhaps be dated in the second century
A. D. (20) and which was composed at that date, because culture was m ils
decline and because the public was in need of a manual in which all kinds
of mythological genealogies, etc. could be consulted with ease by the reader.
Though the book had no merits, it only survived because of its practical
usefulness Those critics, however, who have practised the reading of Greek
scholia will have been struck by the fact that Bibl. has been so often
consulted by them. Thus it is repeatedly quoted and often taken over literally
by the Homeric D Scholia, the Platonic Scholia (21), the Scholia of Euri-

(18) For this we refer to our observations in REG 69 (1956), 45 1.

(19) Thus e.g. Bibl. I, 27 while referring to Orion says of him
.
(20) Cf. e.g. H. Diels, Rhein. Mus. 3i (1876), p. 8.
(21) We refer e.g. to Schol. Min. 3a 1 a Greene, Scholia Platonica,
Haverford 1988, p. 2o5 , as compared with Bibl. Ill, 209 ff. Since the
report of Schol. Plat, about Minos, Theseus, etc. covers several paragraphs
of Bibl., he does not offer a literal transcription. However, we can see that
he closely follows Bibl. It is interesting to see that the reading
(Bibl. Ill, 209), which has been corrupted in the mss- of Bibl...
is confirmed by Schol. Plat. (Wagner has omitted to adduce the testimony
of Schol. Plat.) We further refer to Schol. Lpgg. 931 b (Greene, p. 366 f),
where three scholia are found on Oidipous, Phoinix and Hippolytos
successively. It is not to be doubted that the scholia on Oidipous and Phoinix
have been borrowed from Bibl. Ill, 56 and 175. Only schol. Plat, relates
the details offered by Bibl. in his own words. Therefore, it is obvious that
for the story of Hippolytos Bibl. has been consulted, too (Epit. I, 18 f.).
Greene wrongly thinks that Asklepiades (12 FGH 28) has been followed.
On the whole Greene has not sufficiently seen or indicated that the Schol.
Plat, for the, historiai are often dependent on Bibl. For the edition of
Greene, cf. rightly H. Erbse, Untersuchungen zu den Attizistischen Lexika,
p. 48, n. 2.
We further refer to Schol. Menex. 243 a (Greene, p. i85), cf. Bibl. I,
82 and 83. The passage is of special interest. Bibl. apparently has been
consulted (Greene has not observed the relation). We refer to Schol. Plat.
,
as compared with Bibl.
',
". Now it is interesting to see that according to Bibl.
Phrixos and Helle mounted the ram with the golden fleece (-/
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 105

pides (22) and the Paroemiographer Zenobius (23). It must be admitted

here that the Scholia mentioned just now, are often considered late
compilations of Byzantine origin (24) In this connection, however, we may point
to the Homeric D Scholia. It is clear that these Scholia offer interesting
material and are not of Byzantine origin. Especially important is the fact that
in the D Scholia Bibl. is always quoted under the name of Apollodorus (2 5),
while the genuine works of Apollodorus, i. e. the works whose authenticity
has never been called into doubt, are also quoted under his name there (26).
In this connection, we may also refer to another example, viz. Schol. Soph.
Antig. 977, where extensive information is offered on the sons of Phineus, etc.
The scholiast, after having offered part of his information, observes
^ , . The
testimony of this schol. cannot be lightly set aside, because we have to deal

xptdv), whereas Schol. Plat, speaks of . Now

in both versions Nephele receives from Hermes the instrument by which her
children can escape. Thus it cannot be doubted that Schol. Plat, follows Bibl.
We see that Schol. Plat, did not accept the fabulous story of the ram, but
replaced it by a vessel. I think that the author of the Schol. was not a
Byzantine. The Christian Byzantines were not interested in the fabulous pagan
stories and were not inclined to alter them, if they did not hurt their
Christian feelings. The author seems to be rather a rationalist and must be
dated earlier.
(22) We refer e.g. to Schol. Hippol. 977 as compared with Bibl. Epit. I,
4 The schol. interprets a reference of Euripides to Sinis ; it wrongly
narrates about Sinis the story which belongs to Prokroustes. Otherwise Schwartz
ad loc, App. Cr. Hypoth. Pind. Isihm. (Drachmann III, p. 192) also speaks of
. In reality Sinis and Prokroustes were different
persons and thus I think we have to deal in these cases with mistakes
Above (cf. . 1 1) we observed that Bibl. offered a special version of the
story of Prokroustes. Now the particulars occurring in Bibl. are again found
in Schol. Hippol. Cf. Bibl. -/ ;
', ' as compared with Schol. Hippol.
, ', - (thus ,
Schwartz) . The testimony of Schol. Hippol. confirms that
Wilamowitz was right in rending in Bibl. (Wagner, ,
cod. . Likewise Schol. Hippol. 979 on Skciron has made use of
Bibl. Epit I, 2 f. Now Schol. Hippol. says
. Therefore, I think that Bibl. originally had
<~ ^>. We can see that the
scholiast replaces by . The word, however, is correct
Hellenistic. I do not think that the scholiast was a Byzantine.
23) Usually these passages are ascribed to the so-called interpolator
Zenobii. In my opinion, the question, whether we have to deal with a
Byzantine interpolator has not yet been decided and is open for discussion.
(24; Schwartz, De Schol. Homer., p. 457, says that Bibl. was not used
in the scholia before the Byzantine age.
(25) Cf. e.g. Schol. AD A 42 Here the number of the book is also
indicated : ' . Cf. also Schol. AD A 196,
AD 3 '
(26) Cf. Schol. AD 284 (244 FGH i58), Schol. DN'i (F. 178 a) ;
Schol. AD 3oi (F. 179) ; Schol. AD 296 (F. 119). It is not to bo
doubted that these scholia must be ascribed to the author who has offered
the historiai.
406 VAN DER VALK
with a learned schol-, whose author has consulted other sources besides Bibl.
and offers variants. Thus for the names of Phineus' children and of his
second wife he offers other variants besides the version of Bibl. (27) and
also mentions one of Sophocles' pieces which does not belong to the pieces
of the choice which have been only preserved to us (28). With regard to
these facts I do not think that the scholiast can be dated later than the second
century A. D. and is perhaps earlier. Thus we see that this schol. already
ascribes the Bibl. to Apollodorus.
We may now mention a passage which is of special importance for our
purpose viz. Bibl. Ill, 121 which must be compared with Schol. Eur. Ale. 1 ;
Schol. Pind Pyth. 3, 96 and Sextus Empir., Adv. Mathem. I, 260-262.
Bibl. relates in this context the story of Asklepios ; in III, 1 18-120 it narrates
his birth and his career as a physician ; in ch. 122 it offers the story
of his death. Ch. 120 after having related his miraculous cures, narrates that
he even raised the dead. Ch. 121 then offers a number of testimonies
mentioning persons who had been raised from the dead ( ;
). This chapter is generally considered a
spurious one. It is not only athetised by the present editor of Bibl., Wagner,
as well as by Hercher, but it was already cancelled by Heyne who cannot

be suspected of any bias against the author of Bibl. In fact the chapter pan
be omitted without any damage to the context, since ch. 120 and 122 can
be connected directly. It is understandable that for this reason critics have
considered it 'a typical example of a marginal interpolation. I think, however,
that those critics who have offered their verdict on the passage, have not
paid sufficient attention to the special structure which is characteristic of
Bibl. The students who have perused Bibl. will have been struck by the fact
that in it observations are often given which have the form of marginal
notes and which, in another author, would be considered interpolations. This
peculiarity is caused by the fact that Bibl. often does not content himself
with offering a mythological story, but likes to add variants, relating
different versions, and to present additional notes. The reader of Bibl. has
opportunities to verify this fact again and again. Therefore, only a few examples
may suffice to confirm our statement. We refer to Bibl. Ill, g4 f In the
preceding chapters Bibl. relates the story of Alkmaion, his madness,
wanderings, marriages and death. The story is complete in itself- However, Bibl.
Ill, 94 f adds a particular version only presented by Euripides which relates
about two children of Alkmaion and their fate.
We further point to Bibl. I, 118. For the story of the Argonauts, as
Robert has shown, Bibl. mainly follows Apoll. Rh. Argonautika (either directly
or indirectly). In accordance with his source Bibl. I, 117 relates that Heracles
was left behind in Mysia because of his search for Hylas, etc. Bibl. I, tig,
again following the source, narrates that the Argonauts left Mysia behind
them, etc. It is obvious that Ch. 117 and ng can be directly connected
without any damage to the context. Now Ch. 118 enumerates a number of
testimonies concerning Herakles' connection with the expedition of the Argo-

(27) Thus after having mentioned Bibl. he adds ;

" etc. It is of secondary importance that the Schol. makes slight
mistakes.
(28) ;.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 107
nauts. As we learn from this chapter and know from elsewhere, the ancient
authors differed on this theme. For this reason Bibl. has assembled inch. 118
a number of testimonies on tho subject. No critic has ever called into doubt
the authenticity of Bibl. I, 118. They have rightly understood that the
chapter is typical of Bibl. However, when we admit this fact we cannol
deny the fact that I, 118 and III 12 r bear exactly the same stamp.
Accordingly, the athetesis of that chapter cannot Be accepted unless strong reasons
are offered in its support (29).
Now Bibl. Ill, 121 offers the following list of persons raised by Asklepios :
, , ',
, , , ',
' , , .
Schol. Ale. is a learned and extensive schol- First of all it discusses the
reason for Apollo's staying with Admetos and offers different testimonies. Then
it enters on the subject which is also discussed in Bibl. Ill, 121 and says :
' ? '
, ' , ' ,
' ' ', .
So far Schol. Ale. has offered the same testimonies which occur in Bibl.
Then, however, it offers new information which does not occur there :
^ ' ^
, ', 1 ,
.
We may sum up the situation as follows. Schol. Ale. offers more
testimonies ; on the other hand, the testimonies which occur in both authors are
given more completely by Bibl. (3o). This may be easily explained by the
fact that Bibl. has rendered his source more completely in these matters
In fact critics are mostly unanimous in thinking that we have to deal here
with a list of testimonies, a Zitatenncst , which was originally given by
a learned Hellenistic author and which was used by Bibl., Schol. Ale, Schol.
Pind., Sext. Bmp. and Philodemus respectively (3i). Mnzel has thought that
this time we are even able to trace the source to which the authors in
question are indebted. For Schol. Ale. at the beginning of its notices ascribes

(29) In this connection we also refer to Zenob. I, 18 (on )

where Bibl. Ill, 119 ff has been consulted and partly taken over. After
having taken over information from Bibl. Ill, 120, Zenob. says
6> Thereupon, he continues with part
ch. 122. I think that Zenob. alludes here to ch. 121. If one thinks that
he might allude to the end of ch. iao ' '
we observe that Zenob. speaks oE which clearly
alludes to ch. 121 ' ' . Moreover,
Zenob. like Bibl. Ill, 121 speaks of , whereas ch. 120 makes use of
.
(30) Thus only Bibl. mentions the Eriphylc of Stesichoros and says that
Glaukos was a son of Minos. It is also only Bibl. who transmits that tho
raising of Hippolytos was to be found in the Naupaktika.
(31) For a discussion of the relation between the different sources, cf.
R. Munzel, Quaestiones Mythographae, Berlin i883, pp. 3-io. We also point
to Wendel, RE XVI, p. i365 f. Es kann als siclier gelten dass der Ver-
fasser der Bibl. seine Zitaten den gelehrten Kallimacheern des 3. Jhdts ver-
dankt
 108 VAN DER VALK
the raising of Hippolytos to ApoUodoros. As we know from Bibl. the notice
was in reality derived from the Naupaktika. Schol. Ale. (cf. rightly Munzel)
follows a practice which occurs more often in antiquity. When taking over
a number of testimonies from, a source, it does not attribute the testimony
which it places at the head of the list, to the original author who was
mentioned in the source, but instead it ascribes it to the source itself, from
which it derives all its data. Accordingly, Jacoby (244 FGH i3g) has placed
the information among the. fragments of Apollod. : Though it is
true that the learned Hellenistic scholar is particularly suited to be the source
of the information, many critics will have been struck by a curious
coincidence. We saw that the information found in Schol. Ale. is also offered by
Bibl. This work, however, was in antiquity ascribed to Apollodoros and, as
we observed above, the D Scholia of Homer and the learned Schol. of Soph,
quote information from Bibl. under the name of Apollod. We also tried to
show that Bibl. Ill, 121 is not an interpolation. Thus the notices of Bibl.
Ill, 121 occur in a work which was ascribed in antiquity to Apollod. and,
on the other hand, Schol. Ale. hints that it is indebted for its information
to Apollod., too. Therefore. I cannot but think that Schol. Ale. does not
refer to an unknown passage of Apollod. , but that is has
consulted Bibl. Ill, 121.
In this connection, we may also point to the following facts. It appears
that the order in which the testimonies are given in Bibl. and in Schol.
Ale. respectively, is inverted. If we except the testimony of the Naupahlika
which in Schol. Ale. is placed at the head of the list (32), we see that
Bibl. begins with Stesichorus and ends with Melesagoras (33), whereas Schol.
Ale. begins with the latter and ends with Stesichorus (34) Of course one
is inclined to think that one of the two authors has reversed the order of
the source. For this detail we draw attention to the following fact. Bibl.
begins by mentioning Stesichorus. In one of the preceding chapters (BibJ.
Ill, 117) that author had been mentioned. It might be supposed that in this
part of his work Bibl. should have consulted Stesichorus for Lacedaemonian
genealogies in III, 1 17. As this author was still on his desk, he used him
for III, 121, too, and accordingly this is the very reason that in Bibl.
Stesichorus figures at the head of the list. We may illustrate the method which
we wish to ascribe to Bibl. by the example of Eumelos. The latter, just as-
Stesichorus, is an author who does not belong to the principal sources which
are quoted in Bibl., but is only mentioned by him on a few occasions. On
checking the testimonies we see that the three instances in which Eumelos
is quoted, arc found in close proximity (Bibl. Ill, 100, 102 and i33).
Perhaps we may imagine ourselves that at some moment Bibl. took the roll
containing Eumelos from his library and kept it on his desk for some lime.
The same fact can be stated with regard to the epic poem Aigimios, quoted

(32) It is possible that jSchol. Ale. placed the testimony of the Naupaktika
at the head of the list, because the author did not wish to commit himself
with regard to the authorship of that cyclic poem. As is well-known, the
authorship of the Cyclic poems was a debated point.
(33) For this author, cf. 33o FGH. The testimonies about the orthography
of the name are divided, cf. Jacoby, I. I.
(34) The only slight exception is formed by the fact that in Schol. Ale.
the Orphikoi are mentioned after Panyassis.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 109

under the names of Hesiod and Kerkops. At the beginning of book II (Bibl.
II, 5-7) Bibl. needed it for the adventures of Io. Thereupon, he only quotes
the poem in II, 23, i.e. in the direct neighbourhood of the above passage.
Thereupon, Bibl. mentions the Naupaktika and Panyassis. When studying
Bibl. we see that the authors who are most frequently quoted by him arc
the mythographers Pherecydes and Akousilaos, followed by Hesiod and the
epic poems. We see that the order of the list of Bibl. Ill, 121 is in
conformity with this practice, because, after Stesichorus, the Naupaklika and
Panyassis i. e. epic poems are mentioned. The Orphikoi and Melesagoras are
only mentioned at the end. When consulting the indices presented by Wagner
one sees that the sources followed by Bibl. are either quoted very often or
else occur only once or twice, The latter sources are only consulted for
special reasons, such as for instance in Bibl. Ill, 176 a local Thessalian
historian Philocrates (601 FGH 1) is once mentioned for the genealogy of
Achilles. Thus we can understand that Bibl. Ill, 121, which had to mention
persons raised from the dead, has also consulted religious sources such as
the Orphies and the Attic mystificator Melesagoras.
We may also point to another interesting fact. The author of the
Naupaktika is called here . Now we can see that
the epic poems of the Cycle are always cited in Bibl. in the same manner.
We refer to Bibl. I, 74 ', , 23
, E'pit 5, 1 4 , . It is well-known that the
Cyclic poems are not always indicated in this way. In several testimonies they
are quoted under the names of authors (35). Even when they are not
attributed to special authors, they can be circumscribed in other terms than those
occurring in Bibl. Thus we read ol or
(36), whereas Bibl. constantly speaks of . One will
admit that the identity of the terms occurring in Bibl. makes it likely that
we have to deal with one and the same author. On the other hand, the
references occur in different parts of Bibl. which makes it improbable that
Bibl. should always have followed the same source (the intermediary manual)
here. Moreover, according to the prevalent view, the source in this case is
believed to be Apollod., .
The following difficulty seems to remain. As we saw, Schol. Ale. offered
more testimonies than Bibl. It seems obvious that Schol. Ale. reproduces
the original source more fully. When criticizing this view, we must fix oar
attention on two points : I Bibl. only offers the names of persons who have
been raised from the dead. To this list Schol. Ale. only adds the testimony
of Pherecydes, for the other testimonies of Schol. Ale. concern persons who
have been cured by Asklepios. When comparing the context of Bibl., we see
Asklepios'
that he wished activity.
to expose
These dangers
the dangers
caused
which
himwere
to be
presented
killed by
to the
Zeus.godsIt byis
clear that it was only by the resurrection of dead persons that Zeus felt
himself menaced. For this reason Bibl. only mentions this class of persons.
II Critics are often inclined to think, when a corresponding list is found
in two authors that both these authors have followed another unknown source.

(35) For the question, cf. Wilamowitz, Homerische Untersuchungcn

(Berlin i884), pp. 344 ff.
(36) Cf. Wilamowitz, II., p. 346.
110 VAN DER VALK
The author who offers the most extensive list is thought to give the best
rendering of the original source. This explanation can, in fact, often be
applied, but we must not forget that it does not offer the only possible,
solution. The sources may be interdependent and again, the author offering
the shortest list may be the original one. The second author, while following
the other, has made new additions, either on the strength of his own
information or because he has consulted another source. The second author is no
secondary author in this case. He must be a critic of personal abilities, who
has learned information at his disposal. It it understandable that such a crilic
should try to improve on his source and offer fresh information. We may
refer to Schol. Antig. discussed above, where the author besides Bibl., whom
he quotes, has consulted other sources. I think that also a comparison of the
Homeric D Scholia with the BT Scholia reveals this fact. We can sometimes
state there that the BT Scholia, while offering information which is of laier
date and which makes use of the historiai of the D Scholia, improve on
the latter and offer more or better material (37).
If we adopt this explanation, which solves the above difficulty, we hold
the view that Schol. Ale. must have been composed by a learned critic with
a wide range of knowledge. He made use of the list found in Bibl., because
that list was at his disposal, but he was able to enlarge it. It is interesting
to compare Schol. Pind. Pyth. 3, 96 with Schol. Ale. This schol. mentions
the same testimonies as occur in Schol. Ale. Only it mostly omits the names
of the authors and contents itself with saying ot . Since we have
tried to indicate that Bibl., Schol. Ale. and Schol. Pind. do not follow an
unknown and original source, the only conclusion which is left to us, is that
Schol. Pind. has made use of Schol. Ale. I think that this view is confirmed
by a study of the facts. We refer to the literal correspondence between the
two scholia in the words ot ? 'Y'j/ivaiov,
(38).
We also point to the following detail. As we observed above, Schol. Ale.
consists of two parts. The first part, which is identical with Bibl., and, as
I think, is derived from it ; the second part, which, in my opinion, has
been composed by the author of Schol. Ale. himself. In Schol. Pind. the
first part directly corresponds with the first part of Schol. Ale. and offers
the testimonies in the same order. In the second part, however, schol. Pind.
has exactly reversed the order which occurs in Schol. Ale. Whereas Schol.
Ale. begins this part (i. e. the, in our opinion, personal additions) with the
testimony of Pherecydes and ends with the daughters of Proitos, schol. Pind.
begins with the daughters of Proitos and ends with Pherecydes. This is the
more remarkable, because the testimony of Pherecydes still concerned persons
who had been raised from the dead and thus was closely connected in schol.
Ale. with the testimonies directly preceding it, which treated the same matter.

(37) In this connection we also point to our observations below on

Schol. AD 3ig.
(38; This is the more striking, because Schol. Pind. had already related
the name of Kapaneus before. We also refer to the beginning of Schol.
Pind. He opens the list by saying : '
. As we observed above this testimony was placed by Schol.
Ale. at the head of the list. We see that Schol. Pind. Pyth. offers the
same beginning.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 111

Schol. Pind., however, by placing Phere.cydes' testimony at the end of the

list, has broken the original connection. As we see, Schol Pind. applies to
the second part the same method, which, as we tried to make probable, was
applied by Schol. Ale to the list offered by Bibl. I think that the most
likely conclusion is that schol. Pind. must be ascribed to the same critic as
the one who is responsible for Schol. Ale For if Schol. Pind. had been
composed by a different critic, who reproduced and followed Schol. Ale, we
would have expected him either to have offered the same order which was
found in Schol. Ale, be it with some minor deviations, or to have reversed
the entire order which was found in schol. Ale. If Schol. Pind. had been
composed by a different author, that author could not have been aware of
the fact that precisely the second part of Schol. Ale, to begin with Phene-
cydes'
testimony, had been composed by Schol. Ale. itself. As it is, however,
Schol. Pind. seems to be divided into two parts. Thus in the first part the
testimonies are first of all mentioned anonymously, and at the end the names
of the authors (Orphikoi and Stesichoros) are mentioned. In the same way
the second part offers first of all anonymous indications and then it
mentions the names of authors (Phylarchos and Pherecydes). These facts
cannot be overlooked. They get a satisfactory solution, if we accept the above
view. For then we can understand that the author of schol. Ale, when he
composed schol. Pind., reproduced the first part of the schol. which he
had borrowed from elsewhere. When, thereupon, he got to his personal notices,
he reversed the order.
If this view is true, it would be tempting to think of Didymus in this
connection, for we know that Didymus was a commentator of Pindar and
we also know that notices of his have been preserved in the scholia. We
also know that he was a commentator of Euripides (3o,), in whose scholia
likewise notices of his have been preserved. However, we only put forward
this view with great caution, for in that case we should have to assume that
Didymus was already acquainted with Bibl. and ascribed it to Apollod.
We now have to discuss the testimony of Sext. Emp. which runs as follows :
' '
^, .
' " ,
^
' -
' ,
; ,
^ : , -', ^; ' '
. In this passage the following facts strike
us. i. Sext. who offers the same testimonies as are found in Schol. Ale,
adds the testimony of Staphylos, a local Arcadian historian. 2. The testimonies
of Sext. are very elaborate ; they are the most complete that are found in the
different authors. Sext. not only mentions the authors but also their works
and sometimes even the number of the book in which the story is to be
found. Again one would be inclined to think that Sext., Schol. Ale, etc.
go back on one original unknown source which is reproduced by Sext. in its
original extensive form.

(39) Cf. Wilamowitz, Einlcitung in die Griechische Tragdie, pp. i58-i6o.

112 VAN DER VALK
In this connection we wish to refer to the following points. Sext. offers
ai\ extensive notice from Slaphylos. This notice cannot have been derived
from the common source , for according to Staphylos' notice Hippolytos
was cured of his wounds by Asklepios, whereas according to Bibl., Schol.
Ale, etc., Hippolytos was raised from the dead. These notices which are
mutually exclusive cannot have occurred, in my opinion, in the same
source (4o). Thus we see that Sext. (or his direct source) has independently
consulted a local Arcadian historian and transmits an extensive testimony from
that author. We also refer to Sextus' notice from Phylarchos. Schol. Ale.
(Bibl. does not offer the testimony) only says .
Sext, however, cites the seventh book of the histories of Phylarchos and
says that the sons of Phineus who had been blinded, were cured by Asklepios,
who wished to render a service to their mother. If one should observe
that the extensive notice had occurred in the original source , this
could not be directly refuted. However, we invite the reader to review the
testimonies offered by Bibl. and Schol. Ale. One will not be able to adduce
from them, a single example that is equally extensive. Of course, we may
assume that Bibl. and Schol. Ale. have abridged the common source .
In that case, however, we would have expected a trace of the original
extensiveness to have been left somewhere in the different testimonies. One
can state that in all the instances offered by Bibl. and Schol. Ale only
the persons who have been raised from the dead or cured are mentioned.
On the. other hand, when we compare Sext and precisely the notice from
Staphylos which apparently must be ascribed to him personally, we see the
same extensiveness which occurs in the notice from Phylarchos.
This time, for a correct appreciation of the instances offered by Sext.,
we must pay attention to the mentality of Sextus himself. When reading the
context we see that his aim is to combat and disparage the historians. To
this end he takes the history of the founder of his own medical science,
Asklepios. He first of all observes that the historians promulgate the false
story of his having been struck by a thunder-bolt. Then he wishes to make
it clear that the works of the historians are untrustworthy and incredible.
They a ppear to be untrustworthy, because they do not agree in their renderings
of the same fact (the cause of Asklepios' death) and as Sextus observes -
. This divergency can be easily proved by an
enumeration of the versions which, in fact, differ widely. At the same time,
Sext. wishes to show that the facts narrated by them are incredible.
Therefore, he offers the list of Asklepios' activities according to a definite pattern.
He alternates a Story of a cure by Asklepios with, a story of a raising from
the dead (4i). The alternation tends to show the divergency of the historians ;

(40) Even Miinzel, I. 1., p. 10, does not derive this notice from the
common source . He says Testimonium a catalogo alienum est, a Didymo, si
dis placet, doctrine male conlocata adglutinatum .
(41) For this very reason the example of the cure of Hippolytos,
borrowed from Staphylos, has been added by Sextus. The latter needs four
instances of persons who have been cured. Since he (wrongly) reckons Orion
among the persons who have been raised from the dead, he has to add a
new instance to the examples occurring in -Schol. Ale. As for the passage
itself, we may observe that according to Sextus Hippolytos was cured, when
he was fleeing from Troizcn '
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 113
the mentioning of raisings from the dead must expose to the sceptic and
rationalistic readers the absurdity of their tales (4s) For this special reason
the order presented by Sextus has been reversed by him in the last two
examples (5 and 6). He ought to have offered in 5 a raising from the
dead (43). Instead, he prejsents a cure, and ends by mentioning a raising
from the dead. He expressly wishes to end his list with an example of the
more absurd kind. i
Since Sextus has the definite aim of exposing the untrustworthiness of the
historians, it is necessary that he is as exact as possible (44) Therefore,

. Jacoby cf. Comment, on 269 FGH 3 wrongly

thinks that Sextus alludes to the Tragoidoumena of Asklepiades. In my
opinion, we have to deal with a minor inaccuracy of Sextus. The latter points
to the well-known (I think that is disparaging, cf. 42 on
) stories of the tragedies, since Hippolytos' adventures were
famous because of Euripides' tragedy. Sextus did not pay attention to the
fact that in Euripides' Hippolytus the hero was killed. We may expect a
sceptic who was not interested in mythical tales, to commit this inadvertency.
The Arcadian historian Staphylos seems from local pride to have localised
Asklepios in his own native country.
(4a) In this connection we refer to Sext. .
The word ' has a disparaging meaning. Likewise at the beginning
Sextus says ^. The other authors had
mentioned the names of the persons who had been raised from the dead.
The sceptic author only indicates them as .
(43) This example, which concerns the raising of Orion, is interesting.
Sextus says (according to the mss.) / ,
. Since, however, Telesarchos, according to 3og
FGH 1, has not written an Argolikos but Argolika, Jacoby, following Munzcl
(on 3og FGH 2, App. Cr.), proposes to read ( ?) ' The
emendation is not attractive. I observe in the first place that only in the
testimony taken from Phylarchos, Sextus mentions the number of the book.
Further we see that the instance of Orion is the last of the six instances
mentioned by Sextus. We need not assume that Sextus has turned up all the
passages which he quotes. Especially at the end of the list his attention may
have abated. This is confirmed by the fact that the example of Orion seems
to be false. Schol. Ale, as the context shows, adduces Orion among the
persons who have been cured. This tradition is the right one, since Orion
has been blinded and cured (cf. e. g. Bibl. I, 25). Accordingly, there
seems to have been a tradition offered by Telesarchos, that Orion was cured
by Asklepios For Orion, cf. also Wchrli in RE XVIII, p. 1075. The
information is incomplete, since Schol. Ale. is not mentioned. Wehrli's view
cannot be accepted either. Accordingly, Sextus has made a misstatement
He also made a slight mistake insomuch as he called the work Argolikos
instead of Argolika.
(44) The reader will perhaps observe that in the previous notes we have
mentioned inaccuracies committed by Sextus. This is not contrary to our
present observation. The sceptic author is sometimes inexact, because in reality
he does not interest himself in mythological matters. However, for the reasons
exposed above he tries to bo exact. Thus I think that in fact he has
consulted Phylarchos, since he quotes the ninth book and offers details which
are not found in the other authors (Bibl., Schol. Ale). We may also refer to
the example of Polyarchos (thus Schol Ale.) or Polyanthos (thus Sextus).
I think that Sextus, this time, is most likely to offer the correct text (cf. also
RFG. LXXI, 1958, n 334-338. 8
 1\ 4 VAN DER VALK
we see that he not only mentions the authors, but also the titles of their
books and, if possible, the number of the volume in which the reference
can be found. He wishes to show the reader that his polemics are well-
founded and can be verified immediately. Thus the aims of Bibl., Schol.
Ale, on the one hand, and of Sextus, on the other, are different. Bibl. and
Schol. Ale only wish to offer information to their readers about Asklepios. elc.
Sextus, however, who wishes to expose the historians, must be more exact.
I think that Sextus (or his direct source) has taken a source in which
notices were offered, as his basis and has expanded it by personal additions.
Already Wilamowitz has offered the view that the testimonies of Kinesias
and Telestes about Hippolytos' death which testimonies are found in Philo-
demus must be considered personal additions of Philodemus himself (45).
The process may be compared with the growing in size of a snowball
Successive authors expand the source which they consult.

When we examine the sources of Bibl., we may begin with the Argonautiku
of Apoll. Rhod. (46), because in this case the source itself has also been
preserved, whereas in the case of Pherecydes, etc. we only possess fragments.
We refer to Bibl. I, i36 ,
as compared with . Rh. IV ga5 on the Planktai $
' , ...... ' .
One sees that the correspondence is very close, a fact which one would like
to ascribe to the fact that Bibl. actually follows Ap. Rh. and does not
make use of a manual. Bibl. I, i3g relates the sea-voyage from Corcyra to
Crete. In Ap. Rh. IV, 1228 ff. the Argonauts, after their departure from
Corcyra, are driven by a tempest to Libya. This passage has been omitted
in Bibl. However, Bibl. needs a tempest for the arrival of the Argonauts
at Crete. To this end he has made use of another passage of Ap. Rh.
(IV, 1694 ff-)> the arrival at Anaphe, which in Ap. Rh. only takes place
after the arrival at Crete. This episode has been faithfully taken over by
Bibl. Thus the erection of an altar in honour of Apollo, the jokes of Medea
and her servants, the aition of the sacrifice which occur in Ap. Rh., are
all offered by Bibl.
One is surprised to see that Bibl. who, as we stated, abridged his source,
should have taken over this passage in its entirety. A similar feature, however,
can be observed in other passages of Bibl. We refer to Bibl. II, 118. The
passage occurs in the report of the expedition of Herakles to the Hesperkles

Jacoby I p. 519 on 37 FGH), for he quotes the work of the author and
also offers a detail about Hera's anger, which does not occur in Schol. Ale.
(45) Cf. Robert, p. 57 f. and p. 58 n. 3. Miinzel has wrongly called into
doubt the explanation offered by Wilamowitz.
(46) The connection between Bibl. I, n4-i43 and Apoll. Rh. was first
observed by Robert, pp. 77 ff. For Bethe, cf. pp. 87 ff.. Robert presented
the view that Bibl. had also consulted the Scholia of Ap. Rh. In itself this
view would be possible, since as Wilamowitz, Einleitung in die Grie-
chische Tragodie, p. 166 f., pointed out Roman poets such as Valerius Flaccus
already made use of Greek texts which were provided with Scholia. However,
Bethe, I. I., has rightly observed that Robert's view cannot be upheld.
Moreover, one can easily state that the details preserved in Bibl. are not
confirmed or corroborated by the existing scholia of Ap. Rh.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 115

(Bibl. II, Ii3-i22), a passage in which, as critics agree, Bibl., either directly
or indirectly, mainly follows Pherecydes (47) In Ch. 118 an adventure
of Herakles on Rhodos is narrated. This passage cannot go back on
Pherecydes and seems to have been taken over from Callimachus, as Knaack has
suggested (48)- This passage, just as Bibl. I, i3a, also relates an aition
which, according to Bibl., is still observed at the time of his writing.,
We also refer to Bibl. Ill, 210, where the story of Minos and Androgeos
is narrated. We do not know which author is followed here by Bibl., but
we draw attention to the fact that Bibl. again relates an aition and observes
that it has been retained up till his own time (4g) I do not think that these
facts can be overlooked. We see that in completely different parts of Bibl.
the same method can be met with. This practice, as it seems, does not go
back on a manual, for in that case we would have to assume the same
manual to have been followed in those different parts of Bibl. Bibl. himself
is responsible for these notices. If this is correct, we can see that the
adaptation of the story of the Argonauts must also go back on him and that
accordingly, Bibl. directly followed Apoll. Rh.
Bibl. I, i33 again follows Ap. Rh. (IV, 3o5 ff.). The difference is that
in Bibl. Apsyrtos is represented as a child which is killed in order to retard
the pursuit, whereas in Ap. Rh. he is one of the Colchian commanders.
The version of Bibl. also occurs in Pherecydes (3 FGH 3a) and since
Pherecydes is one of the sources which are most often quoted in Bibl., one can
understand that Bibl. this time has abandoned his main source in order
to follow one of his other principal sources.
Wo further refer to Bibl. , i4o and i4i, where the arrival of the
Argonauts at Crete and the story of Talos are narrated. About him Bibl.
offers three versions : i. He is a representPtivc of the ^
(the version of Ap. Rh. IV, i64i), a. He is a who has been
presented by Hephaistos to Minos. 3. He is a bull. Further Bibl. relates that
a vein ran through Talos' body at the end of which, at the heels, a copper
nail was to be found. This detail does not occur in Ap. Rh. With regard
to his death Bibl. again offers throe versions, i. Some say that he died
(the version of Ap. Rh. IV,
665 ff) 2. Others say that Medeia, while promising to make him immortal,
took out the nail and lett tho flow away. 3. Others say that Poias
hit him in the heels. First of all we can see that the testimony of Ap. Rh.,
who is the principal source for this part of Bibl., is both times placed at
the head of the list in this chapter, too. We may further surmise that
the second variants about Talos' origin and death go back on the same source,
since also the first variants could be traced back to the same source (Ap. Rh.).
I think that the second variants give the impression of going back on an
archaic author. In this version a bad and strong giant, Talos, occurs, who
is at the same time a blockhead and can be easily deceived. Also the idea

(47) Cf. Wilamowitz, Kl. Schr. V, a, i45 f.

(48) Knaack, Callimachen (Stettin 1887), p. 9 ; cf. also von Geisau, RE
V A, p. 1606 f., and Wilamowit/. /. /.
(4g) I should think that this detail is borrowed from Callimachos, cf.
Pfeiffer, F. 7. Pfeiffer, I, p. i3, thinks that Bibl. follows the Scholia
of Callim. However, in the other instances, we saw that in Bibl. the poets
themselves (Ap. Rh. and Callim.) and not their scholia were followed.
1 16 VAN DER VALK
of a vein running through the whole body and containing the life-blood
seems to be archaic. Therefore, I think that this detail belongs to the same
source from which the second variants have been derived. Now Pherecydes is
an archaic mythographer. We also know that ha is one of the principal sources
of Bibl. and has been followed by Bibl. at the expense of Ap. Rh. in a
passage which we mentioned just now. We further remind the reader of the
fact that the idea of presents given by the gods to men and endowing them
with supernatural powers, occurs in Pherecydes. We refer to 3 FGH 72,
where Herakles receives (undoubtedly from one of the gods) a divine
instrument, just as the giant Talos is given by Hephaistos to Minos. Also Talos'
stupidity can be paralleled by a version of Pherecydes, 3 FGH 11, where
the dangerous Graiai are deceived by Perseus' astuteness. If this is true,
I should think that the version of Pherecydes has also formed the basis o
the representation offered by Ap. Rh., the latter having, however, modernised
the details which seemed too simple to him. We observe, how in Ap. Rh.,
too (IV, 1646-1648), Talos can only be wounded in the heel, where a thin
membrane . (5).
If we pay attention for a moment to the view of a manual having
been followed by Bibl., we should have to assume that this manual not only
reproduced the version of Ap. Rh., but also, as Bethe has observed, offered
the variants which are found in Bibl. in this part. If this were true, we
might ask what activity is to be ascribed to Bibl. himself, for if he only
transcribed the versions and variants which were made ready for him by his
manual, he was little better than a copyist. Even Diod. Sic, who has made
an abundant use of his sources, offers a number of passages and observations
which must be traced back to him personal, as critics rightly assume.
Bethe, however, (/ I p. 88 f) has pointed to Bibl. I, I23, where
' is quoted for a detail. He has observed that one
cannot refer in this way to an author whom one is following as one's main
source. Bethe's remark seems to be well-founded, for Bibl. never mentions
Ap. Rh. except for the detail mentioned just now. In this passage, which
deals with Phineus and the death of the Harpees, Bibl. offers a version
which is different from that of Ap. Rh. After having mentioned the version
which he accepts, he then adduces and quotes the version of Ap. Rh. On
this point we must take into account the mentality of ancient authors
following a source. These authors, especially when they are largely dependent
on their sources, like to mask this fact Therefore, they mostly mention
these sources by name only when details are concerned, as is the case here.
Thus their dependency is not exposed.
If we accept that Bibl. has directly consulted Apollonius, we can make
the following statements. We can see that Bibl. has made an abundant use
of his source and has closely followed it for the greater part of the
expedition of the Argonauts. However, sometimes as in the case of Apsyrtos' death
or ihc adventure with Talos, he abandoned it. We see that the versions which
arc preferred here, are more archaic and make a stronger appeal to the
imagination. We must not forget that Bibl. was destined for a young

(5o) The detail that Talos suffers himself to be deceived has in this case
also been altered by Apoll. Rh., as being too simple-minded,. If we are
right Sophocles, too, made use of the version of Pherecydes.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 117

public. To their minds the story of a child cut to pieces was no doubt more
fascinating than the more sophisticated version of Ap. Rh. If we pay attention
to this fact, we understand that Bibl. will have a preference for versions of
this kind. Now these versions are especially characteristic of archaic authors
such as Pherecydes. For this reason we can understand that Pherecydes is
often mentioned in Bibl. We also see that Bibl. does not content himself with
reproducing a source, but again and again intersperses the main story with
variants. This is specifically characteristic of Bibl. and can he found in
nearly every part of his work. In the story of the Argonauts the passage
of , 1 18, which we already mentioned above, is especially interesting",
As we observed before, Bibl. is closely following Ap. Rh. I, g46 ff and
1207 ^ m Bibl I, 116 and 117 ; also in I, 119 he faithfully reproduces
Ap. Rh. II, 1 ff. In I, 118, however, on the occasion of the mention of
Herakles, he offers a number of testimonies on the relation of that hero
with the expedition of the Argonauts. I should think that here we are most
likely to trace the personal contribution of Bibl. Thus we can surmise that
for important points of his history Bibl. presents to his readers extensive
information and consulted other testimonies (5i).

We can now proceed to a study of the relation to Pherecydes who is, as

critics admit, the principal or one of the principal sources of Bibl. (52).
Here, too, the leading critics such as Jacoby, think that Pherecydes has only
been indirectly used by Bibl. We refer to the history of Perseus, Bibl. II,
34-48, one of the parts, where the relation can be best studied, because
extensive fragments of Pherecydes (cf. 3 FGH 10 and 11) seem (53) to have

(51) We may also point to another characteristic of Bibl. Bibl. I, i34 is

following Ap. Rh. IV, 557 ff. In Ap. Rh. the Argonauts, who have killed
Apsyrtos, have to avoid a tempest sent by Zeus' wrath. Therefore, they leave
the Adriatic sea, pass through the Po and the Rhone and thus arrive in
the Tyrrhenic sea. It is understandable that on their way, they are said by
Ap. Rh. (IV, 646 f.) to pass 8t' .
Thereupon, they arrive at the island of Circe, which is situated in Italy. Bibl.
likewise says
. Bibl., however, says nowhere
that they pass from the Adriatic through the Po and the Rhone. Thus the
representation of Bibl. is somewhat strange, for the Argonauts, though coming
from the Adriatic, are thought, according to Bibl., to have passed through
the peoples of Northern Italy (Ligurians and Celts). Thus it seems likely that
Bibl. has masked the facts. Apparently he did not wish to relate the passing
through the Po and the Rhone into the Adriatic sea, because he knew that
representation was false. Since, however, he did not wholly abandon his source,
he offered this strange representation. Thus we see that Bibl. pays attention
to a geographical detail. Perhaps the mentioning by Bibl. I, i34 of the
Apsyr tides islands, which do not occur in Ap. Rh. (IV, 565 ff.), is also
to be explained in this way, that Bibl. takes an interest in geographical
details and, therefore, mentions islands which are situated in the region
under discussion.
(52) Ci' Robert, p. 66, of Pherecydes cui facile primus locus tribuendus
est . The fact had already been pointed out by Heyne, in his edition of
Apoll. Bibl., Praef. p. VIII Pherecyden utique in plerisque .
(53) We are speaking with a certain reserve. Both fragments have been
preserved by the scholia of Ap. Rh. (IV. 109 1 and IV, i5i5). The first schol.
{i8 VAN DER VALK

been
Perseus' preserved
birth, the
here.
exposure
First o
of Danae
all, in in3 the
FGH chest
10 and
(cf. the
Bibl.
arrival
II, 34
on Seriphos
and 35)
have been narrated (54) The passage of Bibl. closely corresponds, as Schwartz
has observed (55), with Schol. AD on 3ig, a fact to which we will
come back. In my opinion, both passages (Schol. Ap. Rh. and Bibl.) go back
on Pherecydes. We only have to take account of the different aims of both
authors who reproduced him. Bibl. who composes a manual is constrained
by the vastness of his subject-matter and, therefore, when treating the
mythological histories, he will be inclined to abridge his sources.
First of all we see that both authors mention
as being the wife of Akrisios. In the passage which follows the
correspondence is particularly striking. Schol. Ap. Rh. says : (scil.
Akrisios) 6 , '
.1 , 7, , . Bibl.
says :
, . One sees that
the correspondence is sometimes literal. The archaic author (as preserved in
Schol. Ap. Rh.) is only more circumstantial and has been modernised and
abridged by Bibl. Both authors, thereupon, narrate the episode of the
subterranean chamber. But Bibl. is very concise. Thus he does not mention that
the chamber was built in the court and altogether omits the figure of
Danae's nurse. For this we may refer to the story of Melampous in Bibl.,
which version, as we discussed above, apparently goes back on Pherecydes.
Here Pherecydes (3 FGH 33) offers an episode about a man and a woman,
goalers of Melampous, who treated the prisoner in different ways and met
with a different fate. Bibl. has altogether omitted this episode, which is
irrelevant for the main story. The same fact can be observed with regard to
the episode of the nurse.
Thereupon, according to Schol. Ap. Rh., after the discovery of Perseus'
birth, Akrisios takes his daughter to the altar of Zeus Herkeios (omitted
in Bibl.) and asks her about the origin of the boy. Danae mentions Zeus
as being the father of the boy, which does not find credence with Akrisios.
I think it is obvious that the passage of Schol. Ap. Rh. is a faithful
reproduction of Pherecydes. The fact that the supernatural birth is considered a
mystification, seems to me to be characteristic of an archaic author of the
fifth century. In those times such mystifications occurred, as we learn e. g.
from Herodotus I, 6o. If Herodotus is prone to interpret such occurrences
as mystifications (56), we must not forget that he already mirrors the
mentality of the age of the sophists, when supernatural events were often sus-

begins his notices with the words v tj ' . The other schol.
mentions the same fact in the subscriptio ) .
It might be possible that in the relation of the facts by the schol., they did
not exclusively follow Pherecydes. Jacoby, however, (FGH I, p. 3gi) thinks
(in my opinion, rightly) that the scholia go directly back on Pherecydes.
(54) We observe that according to Jacoby Bibl. here does not go back on
Pherecydes, cf. FGH I, p. 3gi Die sachlich im wesentlichen iiberein-
stimmende, aber nicht aus Pherec. schopfende Bibl. .
(55) Schwartz, De schol. Homer, p. 447 f
(56) Cf. e. g. the rationalistic interpretation of Zalmoxis' conduct in
Herodotus, IV, o5.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 119
pected. Pherecydes, however, who seems to have been Herodotus' senior,
represents an earlier stage, when the rationalistic attitude had not yet become
predominant. As for the next adventure of the chest, etc. we refer to Schol.
Ap Rh. which says : ?
'. ,
, . If we pay attention lo the
archaic sentence-structure which is paratactical (57) and to the primitive
features of the story (58), we cannot but think that Schol. Ap. Rh., in fact.,
reproduces an archaic author and that, accordingly, its attribution to
Pherecydes is entirely justified. When we compare Bibl., we see that he only says :
.
I think that Bibl. this time wishes to avoid the primitive details occurring
in the archaic story. Therefore, he does not mention Dictys' net or Danae's
entreaties. We meet here with a special characteristic of Bibl. which may
be compared with his love for decency. Bibl., who writes for a civilised and
modern public, avoids details of his archaic sources which seem to be
primitive.
For this we refer to Bibl. I, 108, as compared with 3 FGH io5. It
seems that for the story of Iason, which is narrated here, Bibl. again follows
Pherecydes. Now Pherecydes, when narrating the detail of Iason losing his
sandal, while crossing the river Anauros, says :
. Bibl. says :
. The modern author dismisses Iason's (5,) as being less
creditable. The Iason of Bibl. rather smacks of the persons of Theocritus
who have a sentimental longing for the country.
Further, Bibl. has added a variant about Perseus' origin. He relates that,
according to some authors, Danae had been seduced by her uncle Proitos.
This detail is of special interest, because Bibl. has left it anonymous by
ascribing it to ', whereas in Schol. AD on 3ig, the actual source
Pindar (Turyn, Fgm. 181) is mentioned. It is understandable that Schwartz
(cf. above) has concluded that Schol. AD cannot be dependent on Bibl., but
that Schol. AD and Bibl. follow the same source. If Schwartz should be
right, the result would be that Bibl. could not have consulted Pherecydes
directly, but followed a manual. It is true that in the Greek Scholia names
of authors, which in the older testimonies were still mentioned, have
disappeared in later testimonies or have been replaced by the colourless
wdrd . However, when considering the above case, we must not forget
a fact to which Schwartz has not paid sufficient attention, viz. that in the
Homeric D Scholia Bibl. has often been followed and has sometimes been
transmitted nearly literally (60). When we compare the Schol. AD with the
text of Bibl., we can see that this time, too, it follows Bibl. and sometimes

(57) Cf. . A. Groningen, Paratactische compositie in de oudste Grieksche

literatuur, Mededel. Kon. Akad .83 (1937), Nr. 3.
(58) We refer to Dictys fishing up the chest and to Danae who is crying
for aid from out of the chest.
(5g) Aristarch, on the other hand, admitted for the Homeric
heroes, cf. A. Roeftier, Die Howierexegese Aristarchs, Paderborn 1924,
pp. ig4 ff.
(60) We refer to n. a5 above. We may add to the passages mentioned
there Schol. D on A 10, A 126, 4g4 and M 117.
120 VAN DER VALK
takes over the text literally (61). I think that the dependency of the Scliol.
on Bibl. also clearly appears in the passage, where the two variants occur.
Schol. AD says : a?t? d?, ?? f?s? ???da??? ?a? ?te?? ? t??e?, ?f????
?p? ????t??, ?? de evtot fas?. ?e?? ?te. When one reads Schol. AD, one
gels the impression that the version about Proitos is the current one. In
reality, however, we know that the version about Zeus renders the vulgate,
whereas the other version is peculiar to Pindar. The curious formulation of
Schol. AD is caused by the fact that he follows Bibl. ?? e???? ?????s??
e???? as??. After having inserted his own notice about Pindar, he again
follows Bibl. ??'???? fas??). If he had not done so, he would have said
?? de ol p?e???? fas??. Above we already pointed to the fact that a
secondary source may improve on a previous source which it follows. I think
that in this passage we have a palpable proof of our hypothesis.
In this connection, we draw attention to the fact that the author on whom
the historiai of the Homeric D Scholia go back, the so-called Mythographus
Homericus, is a critic who muit not be underestimated. He seems to have a
wide range of reading at his command and thus we can understand that he
was able to identify the source which was only anonymously related by the
author whom he followed (Bibl.) (62).
In the remaining part of Perseus' story, occurring in 3 FGH 11 and Bibl.
II, 36-46, we draw attention to the following feature. This time details which
in all probability have been narrated in Pherecydes and which have been
omitted by Schol. Ap. Rh. (3 FGH n), have been preserved by Bibl. Thus
the original text of Pherecydes must here be reconstructed with the aid of
Schol. Ap. Rh. and Bibl. (63). In this respect we refer to our above
observations about the story of Melampous and Phylakos (64) For the rest we
find the same characteristics here which could be observed in the preceding
passage. Schol. Ap. Rh. again offers the archaic paratactic sentence-structure
and presents features which have been modernised in Bibl. Thus Sch. Ap. Rh.
says that Perseus stole the eye of the Graiai (65). Pherecydes represents his
hero in the fairy-tale style (66), as a person who, by his astuteness and with

(61) We draw attention to the fact that D is a popular commentary,

destined for a broad public. Therefore, he offers extensive information. Thus,
when speaking of Proitos, he adds the notice t?? pat?ad??f?? a?t?; and
also says of Seriphos t?? ??s??, ?a? t?? ?????d??.
(62) We may compare how Strabo, who is frequently following sources,
sometimes improves on them.
(63) Thus the episode of the interview between Perseus and Polydektes,
as Jacoby (FGH I, p. 3qi, 11. 20 ff.) has observed, has been abridged in
Schol. Ap. Rh. and must be supplemented by the information offered by Bibl.
(64) On the other hand, we must observe that Bibl. has added observations
which do not belong to the original text of Pherecydes. Thus Sch. Ap. Rh.
only says that Perseus met with the Graiai, Bibl. adds a description of them
??a?a? e? ?e?et??, ?'?a te ?f?a??? a? t?e?? ?a? e?a ?d??ta e????
?????a??. We must not forget that Bibl. is a manual which purports to offer
information to its readers. Therefore, Bibl. thinks it to be his duty to inform
his readers about the figure of the Graiai, etc.
(65) ??t?? ?fa??e?ta? t?? ?f?a??? ?a? t?? ?d?'?ta ??e???s?? ?????a??.
(66) Schol. ??. Rh. (Jacoby, FGH I, p. 62, 2-4) narrates how Perseus,
when having been deceived by Polydektes, withdraws to one of the ends
of the island and is comforted by Hermes. This time Pherecydes has
 ON APOLLODORI B1BLIOTHECA 121

the aid of the gods, succeeds in having the better of dangerous but stupid
adversaries. Bibl. doubtless considered this detail to be improper for Perseus
and therefore formulates , ^ . Schol.
. Rh. further says that the Graiai when perceiving that they are bereft
of their eye cry and beseech Perseus . We are reminded of Danae crying
from out of the chest. This lively detail, characteristic of the ancient mytho-
grapher, has been purposely omitted by Bibl. (67). We also refer to Schol.
Ap Rh. (Jacoby, p. 62, i3 f.)
"
and Bibl. Il, 39 , ,
^ , ( , where
the correspondence is very close. One sees that in Bibl. the paratactic
sentence-structure of Pherecydes has been abandoned and that the present tense,
characteristic of the lively archaic story, has been replaced by the aorist(68).
Another particular must be taken account of. When Bibl. (II, 38)
mentions tho , he adds [ "
: < (Scut. 228 f). '
. ]. The part which is here
put in brackets, is missing in Zenob. I, hi, where the passage has been
transmitted. This has been one of the reasons for its athetesis by modern
critics. First of all the omission in Zenobius can be easily explained, for
the latter wished to give stories illustrating his proverbs. We can understand
that he should omit the etymologies, offered by Bibl., since they were
irrelevant to the story itself. Moreover, we must not forget that critics consider
the interpolator Zenobii to have been a Byzantine. Thus if the passage had
been a marginal note of a reader, it must have been posterior to the
interpolator Zen. As it stands, it refers to a passage of Pindar which does not
occur in the poems which have been preserved. Accordingly, we would have
to assume that the Byzantine interpolator of Bibl. was still acquainted with
this part of Pindar's poetry, which is unlikely. On the other hand, we know
that Bibl., while mainly reproducing a source, liked to add personal
notices (69). If the interpolation only referred to Hesiod's Scutum we might

imitated the adventure of Telemachus in . The detail does not occur

in Bibl.
(67) In Sch. Ap. Rh. Perseus promises to return the eye v -
. (Jacoby, p. 62, 1. g f.). Bibl. II, 37 has replaced
it by the less lively ; .
Likewise (Jacoby p. 62, 12) has been changed in
Bibl. II, 39 into the more stately , . We are reminded
here of the activity of the Alexandrian critics with regard to the Homeric
text, for by their alterations they also made it less lively.
(68) For this cf- van der Valk, Textual Criticism of the Odyssey (Leiden
1949), p. io4 and 160-168. We also point to the fact that Bibl. wrongly puts
the taking of the kibisis at the beginning. Pherecydes, just like Homer, first
makes his heroes put on their toot-wear. We see that the later author (Bibl.)
is not sufficiently acquainted with the realities from daily life. The same
characteristic can be observed in Aristarchus cf. van der Valk, 1.1., p. ii^tt. We
also see that } has been altered into the Hellenistic
.
(69) For this passage, we refer to our observations on Bibl. II, 34 and 37,
ci. above N. 64
1 22 VAN DER VALK
have understood that a careful reader added in the margin a reference to
that poem. The mentioning of the Pindaric passage in question, however,
shows that we have to deal with a scholar who is well-informed. The same
fact appears from the etymology of kibisis which is presented here. In the
Homeric D Scholia this kind of etymologies repeatedly occurs. I think that
we must refer the notice to Bibl. himself. Such notices are characteristic of
him and show that he did not slavishly copy his sources. On the contrary,
when he comes across the rare word kibisis, while reproducing his source,
he adds a learned notice for the benefit of his readers.
We further see that Bibl. narrates that Medousa is killed by means of an
offered by Hermes (Bibl II, 3q) and of a
(II, 4i), in which Medousa's figure is mirrored. These details are not found
in Schol. Ap. Rh. Therefore, it cannot be proved that they occurred in
Pherecydes, for, as we saw above, when studying the relation between Bibl.
and Ap. Rh. in the case of Apsyrtos, Bibl. sometimes suddenly abandons his
source. This time, however, I think that the details go back on Pherecydes.
I point to the fact that the harpe is a present of Hermes. The offering by
the gods of presents which facilitate the hero's task is archaic and can be
traced in Pherecydes. Moreover, we can see that in this part of the story the
correspondence between Schol. Ap. Rh. (i.e. Pherecydes) and Bibl. is very
close (70) .
At the end of Perseus' story, in the report about Akrisios' death, Bibl.
and Pherecydes do not correspond. Whereas Pherecydes observed that the
pentathlon did not yet exist (71), Bibl. II, 47 says -
It is possible that Bibl. here follows another source (72). It is,
however, also possible that Bibl., while abridging his source, quotes it
incorrectly. We know that authors who abridge their sources are liable to commit
inaccuracies (73).

(70) We refer to Sch. Ap. Rh. (Jacoby, p. 62, ig f.)

and Bibl. 11,4a
. Bibl. expressly alters the text of the original, because he did
not wish to say that his hero flew before the Gorgons which would have
been unsuitable. Therefore, he prefers he went back again . We further
refer to Bibl. II, 46, the restitution to the original owners of the
instruments used by Perseus, where Bibl. also closely corresponds with Sch. Ap. Rh.
(71) Cf. also Pind., Isthm. 1, 26. Pindar here is dependent on Pherecydes.
Laqueur, RE XIX, p. 2000, wrongly has reversed the relation.
(72) In this connection we refer to the fact that, according to Bibl. (II, 47),
Perseus attends the funeral games of king Teutamidas of Larissa. Sch. Ap.
Rh. only says . It is possible that Bibl. here follows
another source. We refer to Hellanicus, 4 FGH l\, where Teutamidas is
mentioned among the Pelasgian kings of Larissa. According to Wilamowitz,
Kl. Schr. V, 2, p. j45, Bibl. followis a version which is older than
Pherecydes. I do not think this view to be likely, for Pherecydas is one of the
oldest mythographers. Therefore, we would have to assume that in this
case Bibl. followed Hesiod ; Hesiod, however, will not have mentioned the
pentathlon. Jacoby, FGH I, p. 3q2, concludes from the discrepancy that
for the story of Perseus Bibl. is not directly dependent on Pherecydes. This
conclusion is not neoesjsary, for, as we saw above, Bibl. sometimes abandons
his source for the relation of certains details.
(73) Thus Sch. Ap. Rh. (Pherecydes) says that Akrisios was not killed
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 123
I think that the story of Perseus likewise makes it probable that Bibl.
has directly followed his source (Pherecydes). We saw that in many parts
of the story Bibl. closely corresponded with Pherecydes. We further saw
that Bibl. abridged the original and that he also modernised it and added
learned observations. The abridgement and the addition of learned
observations could be also stated in the part where Ap. Rh. was followed and, as
we tried to show above, the latter was consulted directly by Bibl. In the
passage of Perseus the modernisations are of special interest, for as we
learned from a detailed investigation, a clearly individual author, while following
his source, has altered or omitted the archaic details. The alterations are
just such as we can expect from an author who adapted older sources to
the needs of a modern public (Bibl.).
We further refer to the history of Herakles, especially to the adventures
with the Hesperides and with Geryones. Already Heyne pointed out (76)
that in the expedition to the Hesperides cf. Bibl. II, n3-i22 and 3 FGH
16 and 17 Pherecydes had been followed by Bibl. Again we meet with
the same features we found above in the passage of Perseus, for here, too,
the original version has been abridged (75) and modernised (76) The
hypothesis of a close dependency on Pherecydes may also serve to explain another
interesting detail. Herakles, when setting out on the expedition to the
Hesperides, arrives, according to Bibl. II, 11 !\, at a river situated
North of Greece, in Macedonia proper. Here he is challenged by 'Kyknos, a
son of Ares and . After having killed Kyknos, he is attacked by Ares,
whereupon a thunder-bolt sent by Zeus parts them. The combat between
Herakles and Kyknos-Ares is well-known from the Scut. Hesiod., but in
that poem the action takes place in Trachis. Bibl. himself mentions this
combat (II, i55). Kyknos is hero called a son of Ares and Pelopia, which
name is mostly attributed to Kyknos' mother. It seems that in the above
instance (Bibl. II, 11 4) we have to deal with a method which seemsHerakles"
to have
occurred in ancient mythographers and especially in the case of
adventures. Originally these adventures were represented as taking place in

outright, a fact which is understandable, because he was only wounded in

the legs. Bibl., however, says that he dies at oncef.
(74) Chr. G. Heyne, Ad Apollodori Bibliothecam Observationes, (Gttin-
gen, i8o3), p. 166 : Unde patet ex Pherecyde id maxime esse expressum ;
eundem fit probabile etiam in ceteris Herculis laboribus duoem praecipuum
fuisse . Cf. also Jacoby, FGH I, p. 34
(75) Thus 3 FGH 17 mentions persons of Busiris' surroundings who were
killed by Herakles ; Bibl. II, 116 has omitted them.
(76) Thus Pherecydes F 16 extensively narrates how Nereus when captured
by Herakles changed himself into fire, water, etc. Bibl. II, n5 only says
. Pherecydes says that Prometheus besought
Herakles (Jacoby, p. 65, 1. 3a); the detail has been omitted by Bibl. (II, 119),
just as he omitted the cries of Danae or of the Graiai. Pherecydes F 17
(Jacoby, p. 66, 1. 1) narrates that Prometheus, in exchange for his liberation
( ), gave Herakles the advice not to go personally after the apples.
The detail is characteristic of the archaic author, who holds the view that
man lives by the law of do ut des . Bibl. II, 120 only says
because in those times one had a higher ethical
conception of the ancient heroes. In Pherecydes Atlas bears the skies ; Bibl. II,
120 has altered it into the less naive statement that he bore the .
1 24 VAN DER VALK
Greece itself or else in unknown regions which cannot be localised and which
were thought to be situated in far-away places. We may compare with them
Odysseus' adventures in the Odyssey, which are also represented as taking
place in unidentifiable regions. When, however, the geographical horizon of
the Greeks was widened, the sphere of Herakles' actions was expanded, too.
This time his adventures were connected with foreign countries which were
known to the Greeks. Thus Herakles' expedition against Geryones, which
was originally connected with a mythical island named Erytheia, situated in
the Okeanos in the extreme West, was placed by Stesichoros in the
neighbourhood of Tartessos in Spain (77) Likewise stories, which originally
occurred in Greece, were located in foreign countries, as Wilamowitz has
shown with regard to the story of Herakles and Omphale (78), which
originally was localised in Trachis.
The same interpretation holds good for the saga of Kyknos. The original
combat was removed from Trachis to Macedonia-Thrace. Now Kyknos' mother
bears a name whose formation in - may be paralleled by other
names of women and those may have been chosen arbitrarily for reasons which
are unknown to us. However, we are reminded of Herodotus II, 33, who.
though incorrectly speaking of a town , nevertheless appears to be
acquainted with the name of the Pyrenees. At first sight a connection with
the Pyrenees of a person living in Northern Macedonia seems to be absurd.
Since, however, Bibl. in all probability goes back here to a source and this
source seems to be Pherecydes, the situation is easier to explain. In the
first half of the fifth century, when Pherecydes lived, the knowledge of
geographical matters, especially with authors living outside Ionia, mast
necessarily have been defective. Especially the acquaintance of the Greeks with
Western Europe was very imperfect, as may even be learned from an author
of the fourth century. Ephoros, who still holds strange views on this point.
Since Pherecydes' notions of the West must have been vague, we can
understand that he connected the Pyrenees with a region to the North of
Greece. Probably he imagined the Pyrenees to be a mountain-range extending
as far as the North of Macedonia. Thus the notice preserved by Bibl. may
be interesting as an example of the geographical ideas of authors of the
early fifth century.
We may corroborate our view by another example which seems to be of
the same pattern. According to Bibl. II, 109 Herakles, when returning from
his expedition against Geryones, is attacked in Northern Italy (Liguria) (79)
by two giants, and . The former ( has been
identified by Wilamowitz and has been connected with the Alps (80). I
think that the latter can be identified, too, on the supposition that in the
original Ionian alphabet used by Pherecydes (81) his name was written

(77) Cf. Stesich. F 4 Diehl.

(78) Cf. Wilamowitz, Euripides Herakles (Berlin, 1895), pp. 73-77.
Wilamowitz thinks (p. 6) that the change of locality is due to a poet. It may,
however, be due to a mythographer.
(79) A offers - in Bibl. II, 109. Wagner reads with Gale
. I would propose to road , which seems to be the
original name used by Pherecydes for Liguria.
(80) Wilamowitz, Kl. Schr. "V, 2, p. i5o f.
(81) Even though Pherecydes was an Athenian, he must have written Ionian
and have used the Ionian alphabet.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 125

. which ia the transcription was wrongly altered (82)

Thus we would have the first testimony for the Hercynian wood, a wood
localised by the Greeks in Central Europe.
If this is true, we see that here again an incorrect localisation has been
offered by Pherecydes. We can understand that the oldest Greeks had a vague
notion o regions in Europe which were difficult and dangerous for the
traveller. A representation of these regions in the image of hostile giants is,
in fact, appropriate. If, however, the Hercynian wood can be connected with
Northern Italy, it is understandable that the Pyrenees should be connected
by Pherecydes with Northern Macedonia. When accepting these views, we
see again that Bibl. has followed Pherecydes and has preserved details which
are only found here.
There remains, however, a difficulty to which Jacoby (FGH I p. 3g4 f)
has drawn attention. On the expedition of the Hesperides who are placed
by Pherecydes in the extreme North, Herakles according to Pherecydes
(3 FGH 17) seems to makie a tour of the whole world. First of all he goes
West, in order to learn from Nereus, where the abode of the Hesperides
is situated. Thereupon, he traverses Libya and Egypt, arrives at Thebes
in Egypt and passes through the mountains (Jacoby
p. 65, 1. 28), until he arrives at ' , where
he moiints a golden cup which he has received from Helios. On it he traverses
the Okeanos and arrives at the Caucasus, etc. According to 3 FGH 17
these adventures have been narrated in Pherecydes' second book. According
to Athenaeus (3 FGH 18 a) the expedition against Geryones occured in
Pherecydes' third book. According to Athenaeus, who seems to transmit Pherecydes
directly, Herakles, when arriving in the extreme West of Europe, bends his
bow against Helios, whereupon he receives from the latter his golden cup
by means of which he traverses the Okeanos, until he arrives at Erytheia.
On his sea-voyage he is frightened by Okeanos, against whom he also bends
his bow, whereupon he is reconciled. In all probability Athenaeus is
reliable ; the story shows typical archaic features and goes directly back
on Pherecydes (83).
From, it a serious difficulty arises. It would be very strange for Herakles

(82) The name of the Hercynian wood often occurs in Greek without
aspiration. However, aspiration is also found, cf. RE VIII, p. 6i5. Though
Herodotus did not use aspirated forms, we must not forget that Pherecydes was
an Athenian and that the name is a proper name, too.
(83) Thus the combat of the hero with gods is archaic. For the combat
with Helios, cf. Jacoby, FGH I, p. 397 Also the combat with Okeanos is
interesting. The latter represents the stream which has never been traversed
by human beings. It is understandable that he prevents Herakles from
entering his stream. . In this connection we are reminded of Dante's lines (Inferno,
cant 26, 11. 106 ff.) about Ulysses penetrating into the Ocean and meeting
there with his fate. I also refer to C Luetke, Pherecydea (Diss- Gttingen
i8g3/ This dissertation of a pupil of Wilamowitz lias its merits and reveals
a sober judgement. However, the reader who consults it must not forget that
it was written in an age of hjpercriticism. Just as in the preceding age
of Cobet critics tried to shatter the reliability of manuscripts, so the age of
Wilamowitz adapted this method to the authors themselves. Only with this
mental reservation we can consult Luetke's dissertation. Of course we do not
wish to deny here the great merits of Wilamowitz and his school.
126 VAN DER VALK
to make use of Helios' cup in Pherecydes' second book (during the expedition
of the Hesperides), whereas the third book narrated the way in which he
succeeded in receiving this cup from Helios. For this reason Jacoby (cf. FGH I
p. 65, 11. 27-31) has athetised in F. 17 the passage narrating the traversing
of the sea in Helios' cup. Wilamowitz (84), however, has rightly pointed out
a feature which may be observed by every attentive reader of the Phere-
cydean passage (85). When comparing Bibl. II, 119 with 3 FGH 17, we see
that in Bibl. Heracles after having left Egypt, traverses Arabia, kills
Emathion (86) and , , crosses the
sea by means of Helios' cup (87). The terms of F 17 and
which have been changed by Bibl. into are clearly
archaic and cannot but have occurred in an archaic author. If Jacoby were
right, we should have to assume that Pherecydes had been transmitted and
interpolated by a source which was also archaic and which, moreover, was
followed by Schol. Ap. Rh. (3 FGH 17) as being the genuine Pherecydes. It
is clear that this view is unacceptible. However, Wilamowitz' solution rests
upon his false theory about the person of Pherecydes, which has been rightly
refuted by Jacoby (88). So it cannot be accepted either. In my opinion, only
one solution is left, which is, moreover, comparatively easy. The testimony
of Athenaeus contains a mistake. In reality, the expedition of Herakles against
Geryones has not been narrated in the third, but in the second book of
Pherecydes.
One will admit that the arrangement which is ordinarily ascribed to
Pherecydes and according to which the adventure of the Hesperides preceded that
of Geryones, would be a very strange one. For the adventure of the Hesperides
mu,st be the last or the last but one of Herakles' labours, because the voyage
to the nether- world and the acquisition of the immortal apples could not but
form the climax of Heracles' career. By these acts he conquered death and
acquired immortality. Now we might assume Pherecydes to have reversed the

(84) Wilamowitz, Kl. Schr. V, 2, p. i45 f.

(85) It is to be regretted that Jacoby, in his new edition of FGH. I
(Leiden 1957), does not enter on the question and in the Nachtrge (I, p. 537)
only refers to Wilamowitz' paper.
(86) According to Wilamowitz, /./., Emathion was placed by Pherecydes in
Macedonia, cf. also Jacoby I, p. 4*3. He points to Schol. Hes. Th. 985
(= 3 FGH 73) ' .
. It is clear that Wilamowitz has made
a mistake, for an attentive reader will admit that the Schol. contains two
notices. The first notice goes back on the scholiast himself, who connect*
Emathion with Macedonia-Emathia (a name well-known from Alexandrian and
Roman poets). Only then the quotation from Pherecydes begins. For the
localisation of Emathion in Arabia by Pherecydes we also have the testimony
of Bibl., who, as we hope to show, is dependent for this part on Pherecydes
(87) The text of Bibl. in this passage seems to be corrupt. Bibl. (II, 119)
offers , .. I think
that the easiest correction is the emendation of for .
Perhaps one might read <^> which is not absolutely
necessary. Wagner follows Robert in reading <^7:' ' ~^> .
However, for to accept from a person does
not seem to me a fine Greek construction.
(88) Cf. above N. 6.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 127

original order of the labours. In combating this view, however, we may

point to the geographical facts.
It is clear that in Pherecydes (cf. F. 16, 17 and 18 and Bibl.) the
expedition of Herakles against Geryones contained the journey of the hero
to the Western side of the world. If we accept the notices of Bibl. about
Alebion, etc. as going back on Pherecydes, we see that Herakles' return
from Spain version
Pherecydes' throughabout
Italythehasexpedition
been narrated,
to the Hesperides,
too. Now wewhensee considering
that here,
too, Herakles first of all goes to the Western side of the world. Thereupon,
he passes through Libya, Egypt, Arabia, the Caucasus and thus makes
a tour of the world. One will admit that even for an ancient mythographer,
it would be very strange to have his hero first of all make a voyage round
the whole oikoumene, which voyage brought him also to Western Europe, and
then later on to narrate a voyage of the same hero to Western Europe.
The bare facts themselves reveal that only the following version can be
attributed to the ancient mythographer.
The first labours of Herakles took place in Greece itself. Thereupon,
Herakles' ninth labour was directed against the Amazons, who dwelled on
the Thermodon (Bibl. II, q8-io3). This labour was narrated by Pherecydes
and occured in his second book (F i5). On this expedition Herakles visited
the Eastern part of the oikoumene, viz. the Aegean sea, Asia minor, etc.
During his tenth labour (Geryones) he visited the Western part of the
world (Spain, Italy, Illyria). Thus one gets a gradual evolution. The Eastern
part of the world was less unknown to the Greeks. Therefore, Herakles
first of all visits these regions and only then he goes to the Western side
of the world. Finally Herakles made a tour of the whole world on his
expedition to the Hesperides. On that tour he could make use of the cup of
the sun, which he had obtained on a previous expedition. In this way all
the facts find their proper explanation. One sees that Pherecydes takes
a special interest in foreign regions ; the Hesperides and Atlas are placed
in the North (89), so that the hero can visit the whole world.
It seems, accordingly, that in the above instances Bibl. goes back on
Pherecydes. Sometimes he may have altered or omitted parts of the original (90).
On the other hand, he seems also to have preserved specific parts of it.
Thus in Bibl. II, 11 1 one of the cows has wandered to Eryx in Sicily.
Herakles then commits his cows to the charge of Hephaistos and goes in search
of the lost one. Though Bibl. does not mention the detail, Hephaistos is
apparently represented here as living on the Liparian isles. We get an idea
of the way in winch Herakles has been represented in Pherecydes. He must

(89) According to Bibl. II, 11 3, Atlas dwelled in the region of the

Hyperboreans. The detail goes back 011 Pherecydes, since in that author, too, (F i")
Atlas dwelled in the Northern part of the world. Robert (pi 21) wrongly
observed that Bibl. offered fabulous localisations which cannot be expected
in a scientific author. Bibl. is only following his source here.
(90; Thus Bibl. II, 107 has omitted the adventure with Okeanos (3 FGH
18 a). He has also altered (Bibl. II, 106) the mythical surroundings in which
Erytheia was placed and rather identified it with Gadeira. For this
identification, cf. also Ephoros, 70 FGH 129. In doing so Bibl. did not pay
attention to the fact that Herakles now no longer needed the cup of Helios in
order to cross the Okeanos.
\ 28 VAN DER VALK
have been pictured as a person who combats gods (Helios, Okeanos) and
converses with them (Hephaistos). The supernatural element seems to be slill
very important in Pherecydes.
We also refer to Bibl. II, 116, 117 and 118, dealing with Herakles'
adventures in Egypt and Rhodos. The adventure on Rhodos, as we observed
above, has been traced back to Callimachus (91). Wilamowitz and Knaack
think that the adventures with Busiris have also been taken over from
Callimachus by Bibl. (92). Though Callimachus actually mentions Busiris (g3),
I do not think that Bibl. II, 116 and 117 go back on him (g4) Bibl. relates
the story of the seer Phrasios of Cyprus, who gave Busiris the advice of
sacrificing strangers and who was himself the first victim. Further Bibl.
narrates how Herakles was going to be sacrificed and how he killed Busiris.
In the Aitia Callimachus has paralleled Busiris and Phalaris. Just as Busiris
kills Phrasios, thus Phalaris makes the technician who has constructed th.3
copper bull its first victim. It is likely that Callimachus has combined both
stories because of their conformity and in order to add a notice of a
moralising tendency. Now Ovid, Ars Amat. 655 f., after having related the
fate of Thrasius and Perillus who were sacrificed, ends by saying Iustus
uterque fuit, neque enim lex aequior ulla est quam necis artificem arte perire
sua . Since Ovid was acquainted with Callimachus and since Callimachus
liked to add personal observations to the stories which he narrated, it is
likely that the moralising notice of Ovid goes back on Callimachus.
Thus Callimachus narrated the story of Thrasius and Perillus in order
to draw from it the moralising conclusion : Those who aid tyrants, become
their victims themselves . In this connection I cannot think that the deaths
of Busiris and Phalaris have been narrated by Callimachus here. For a report
of their deaths would be superfluous and, moreover, it would weaken the moral
of the observation. On the other hand, Callimachus, when narrating the story
of Phrasios must have followed a source. We know that he sometimes made
use of Pherecydes (g5) ; we also know that in this part Bibl. is mainly
following Pherecydes. Finally we know that Pherecydes has narrated the
r.dventure with Busiris (3 FGH 17). Thus Callimachus, for the story of
Busiris-Thrasios (96), seems to have followed Pherecydes (97), who is also
reproduced by Bibl. ^

(91) Cf. above n. 48 Callimachus had narrated a parallel story about

Herakles being denied food by Theiodamas ; that story occurred in Trachis,
cf. Callim. Pf. Fr. 24 However, Callimachus also mentioned the sacrifice
of the Lindians, cf. Pf. Fr. 7, 19 ff. and Fr. 22 and a3. Thus he seems
to have treated two parallel stories occurring in different regions. It is
understandable that just like the Argonautika of Ap. Rh. the Aitia of
Callimachus have been used in Bibl.
(93) Cf. Wilamowitz, Kl. Schr. V, 2, p. i46 ; and Knaack, Callimachsa
(Stettin, 1887), pp. 6 ff.
(93) Cf. Pf. Fr. 44-47.
(g4) Pfiffer, too, is cautious, cf. his observations on Fr. 44 (I, p 55).
(g5) Cf. e.g. Wilamowitz, Homerischc Untersuchungen, p. i46 f.
(96) Bibl. II, 1 16 offers , whereas the other sources present ,
which is no doubt the correct reading. It cannot be made out, whether the
mistake must be ascribed to the copyists of Bibl. or to Bibl. himself.
(97) Already Knaack, l-l., p. 9, held the view that Callimachus was
following Pherecydes here. However, he did not draw the necessary conclusions
from it.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 129
Pherecydes' version of the story must be reconstructed with the aid of Schol.
Ap. Rh. (3 FGH 17) and Bibl. Schol. Ap. Rh. offers the names of Busiris'
son and herald which have been omitted in Bibl., whereas Bibl. offers the
story of Thrasios which has been omitted by Sch. Ap. Rh. For the fact
that details of the original version of Pherecydes are sometimes missing in
the reports of Schol. Ap. Rh., who refer to Pherecydes, we point to the
story of Antaios which occurs in the same schol. From 3 FGH 5 and 76
we learn that Schol. Ap. Rh. has omitted details (98).
Since the report of Bibl. about the tenth and eleventh labours seems to
follow Pherecydes, it is reasonable to suppose that also the twelfth labour
(descent to Hades, Bibl. II, 122-137) goes back on him. Now in Bibl. II,
122 (99) Herakles, before his descent to Hades, has to be initiated in the
Eleusinian mysteries. Since the tradition of Pherecydes' Athenian origin is
reliable (100), the detail is of interest. In the oldest tradition the initiation
in the mysteries cannot have occurred, since Herakles was represented as a
hero endowed with supernatural qualities and aided by the gods (101). Though
Pherecydes seems to offer a similar representation of Herakles, as we saw
above, he- seems to have yielded to local patriotism this time. It is, therefore,
probable that also for the twelfth labour Bibl. follows Pherecydes1,
Before studying the relation of Bibl. to his other sources, we may draw
attention to the following particular. It seems that for the story of Iason
and Pelias Bibl. (I, 107-109) also follows Pherecydes (F io5) (102). Though
minor divergencies occur (io3), the correspondence is a close one on the
whole. We refer to the fatal advice about the expedition to Colchis which
both in Bibl. and Pherecydes is suggested by Iason himself. Pherecydes says :
" " , ' .
Bibl. offers : , ;, ' ", ''
. It seems that Bibl. here has again modified his
source in a characteristic way. In Pherecydes, just as in Homer, the actions
of men are guided and prompted by the gods. Bibl., however, writes for a
modern and rationalistically- minded public. Therefore, he not only mentions
the version of Pherecydes, but adds that Iason may have given the advice
of his own accord. Thus he brings his source into line with the ideas of his
own age (io4).

(98) We also refer to our above discussion of the story of Danae. Details
which were preserved by Bibl., were lost in Schol. Ap. Rh.
(99) The same detail is offered by Diod. IV, 25.
(100) Cf. Jacoby, Mnemos. 1947 > r ff
(101) Cf. e.g. the Iliad 366-36g.
(102) Already Robert, p. 67, has pointed to this fact.
(103) Thus Bibl. calls Iason's mother , whereas Pherecydes (F. io4)
speaks of '. In proper names contaminations and alterations often
occur (cf. also Bethe, p. i5, n. 17). The detail about the sandals is also
different in Bibl. We further sec that in Bibl. Pelias directly asks Iason for
his advice, whereas in Pherecydes he puts the fatal question only the next
day. The difference is due to abridgement on the side of Bibl. For the
alteration in Bibl. about the ploughing o Iason, cf. above p. 119.
(104) The fact that the fatal advice is suggested by the hero himself
seems to be characteristic of Pherecydes. We refer to 3 FGH 11, where
Perseus, too, tenders the fatal advice about the head of the Gorgon.
REG. LXXI, 1958, 11 33V-338. 9
130 VAN DER VALK
Above, we tried to make it probable that Bibl. I, g8-io3 (the story of
Melampous) followed Pherecydes. Since part of the story of Iason-Pelias,
which occurs in its direct neighbourhood, can be traced back on him, it
becomes likely that Pherecydes has been one of the main sources of Bibl.
for the stories of Melampous, Iason and Pelias. When, therefore,
Pherecydes (F io5) and Bibl. (I, 109) say that Medea came as an evil for Pelias,
we may surmise that the death of Pelias by means of Medea occurred in
Pherecydes and that Bibl. possibly goes back on him (io5). Since the point
of Hera's anger against Pelias also occurred in Pherecydes (F io5), it is
possible that Bibl. I, 92 also follows him here. In this connection we point
to 3 FGH 117 (= Schol. V 28) The genuineness of the passage has
been questioned by Jacoby because of Schwartz' criticisms of the
reliability of the Homeric D Scholia. It seems, however, as we observed above,
that Schwartz' theory needs revision. Schol. V says
"? ; (6), which facts are also
mentioned by Bibl. I, g3 -
(7) The correspondence of Schol. V with Bibl. may be an indication
of the fact that Schol. V is actually following Pherecydes, as the subscriptio
indicates.
In this part for which, as we tried to show, Pherecydes was probably the
principal source of Bibl., the exposure of Pelias and Neleus by Tyro is
mentioned (Bibl. I, 91). According to the report of Bibl. a horse, which
passed by, struck one of the exposed children and
. The horse-keeper adopted the children ; one of the boys
was called Pelias after the accident ; the other one was called Neleus. Thus
Bibl. It is clear that this version of Bibl. must be connected with Schol.
AD 335, where the exposure of the children is narrated, too. According
to the schol. one of the children was sucked by a dog and was called Neleus
, the other one was struck by a horse and was called
Pelias ' .
I think that both versions go back on one and the same source and that
the passage is again characteristic of Bibl. In my opinion, it is evident that
Bibl. must have found in his source notices about accidents befalling both
children and about the etymologies of their respective names. Bibl., however,
has omitted the notice about Neleus, because the sucking of a child by a
dog must have seemed strange to a rationalistic public. One may expect
such notices to have been omitted by Bibl., whenever this was possible (108).

(105) The matter cannot be proved by a fragment from Pherecydes. Only

3 FGH n3 speaks of Iason having been boiled and made young by Medea.
(106) The final part of Schol. V o '
must be explained in another
way. The D Scholia, as we will discuss below, always try to bring the
communications of their sources into lino with the Homeric text. Thus the report
about Orchomenos is inserted because of 28'l, cf. also for &
I 38i.
(107) L. Pearson, Early Ionian Historians (Oxford, 1989), p. 174, n. i,
thinks that Bibl. here follows Hellanicus. However, the notice about Neleus'
marriage which occurs in Bibl. and in Schol. V is not found in Hellanicus.
In the following pages Pearson's book will be quoted as EIH.
(108) This was not always possible or advisable. Thus Bibl. Ill, i5o
mentions the sucking of Paris by a she-bear.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 131

The D Schol. unfortunately has no subscriptio. However, 4 FGH 123 offers

the following fragment of Hellanicus ,
'. The correspondence
seems to me evident and therefore I cannot but think that both Bibl. and
Schol. D go back on Hellanicus (109). We offer this example, because it
shows that the reports of Bibl. in their relation to their sources must be
treated with great caution. Thus in this part of Bibl., where Pherecydes
seems to be an important source, Hellanicus suddenly appears to have been
used. A similar fact could be stated in the relation of Bibl. to Apollonius
Argonautika, as we saw above.

Returning to the sources of Bibl., we draw attention to Akousilaos. Since

the latter is the oldest Argive mythographer that we know of, it would be
understandable, if his influence was found in Bibl. II, 1-10, where the earliest
Argive mythographical history is exposed. According to Bibl the Argive kings
are descended from Inachos, after whom the river Inachos has been
named . His children are Phoroneus and Aigialeus, after whom the whole
country was named Aigialeia. The latter dies childless. Phoroneus begets Apis
and Niobe. Apis becomes tyrannical and is killed by Telchis and Thelxion.
The Ploponnse is called after Apis Apia ; he himself is worshipped as a
god and is called Sarapis. Niobe who is the first woman with whom Zeus
has intercourse, hais a son Argos, from whom the Argive kings are descended.
So far Bibl. (II, i-3), who adds that according to Akousilaos Niobe also has
a son Pelasgos, after whom the Pelasgians are named, whereas according to
Hesiod Pelasgos was
Now we first of all can see that among the fragments of Akousilaos
no less than four (2 FGH 25-28) belong to the beginning of Bibl. II.
Though in the other parts of Bibl., too, Akousilaos is quoted, the quotations
are nowhere so frequent. We further point to Niobe being called by
Bibl. the first mortal woman by whom Zeus begot children. The prominence
which is given here to an otherwise unknown woman, becomes understandable,
if we assume the notice to go back on a local Argive mythographer who of
course liked to give this representation of a woman from whom the Argive
kings were descended. In this connection, we may point to the fact that in
Akousilaos (a FGH 23 a) Phoroneus is represented as the first man on
earth. If one objects that in Bibl. this detail about Phoroneus is not mentioned,

(109) We observe that Hellanicus said , BibJ.

offers "/^ . The diction is
artificial and it seems that Bibl. has avoided as being too crude-
Robert, Hermes 5i, p. 293 f., thinks that Bibl. has followed other sources
here viz. Odyss. 235 ff., the Catalogues of Hesiod and the Tyro and Salmo-
neus of Sophocles. I cannot imagine that Bibl. has consulted for one fact
so many sources, even if we assume that it is not Bibl. but the intermediary
manual which would have used these sources. Robert points to
', which is offered by Ven. A and which seems to be
poetical. The Lascaris edition of D offers , So long as we do not possess
a critical edition of the D Scholia, we must reckon with the fact that
is an alteration made by Lascaris. However, offspring is
an easy emendation for . The word is used of animals.
 132 VAN DER VALK
while also in Bibl. the latter is preceded by another mortal man, Inachos, we
point to the following fact.
Akousilaos was a local Argive mythographer. whereas Bibl. in his manual
tries to present the entire mylhographical history. It is understandable,
therefore, that Bibl., who will have consulted several other genealogies, did
not accept Akousilaos' chauvinist assertion about Phoroneus having been the
first mortal (no) and, therefore, dropped the notice. The notice about Niobe
was retained by Bibl., because it was less trenchant and was not in contradiction
cither with notices from elsewhere unlike the information about Phoroneus.
Akousilaos' influence can be also found in the cases of Aigialeus, Apis and
Pelasgos, the latter of whom is expressly traced back by Bibl. to Akousilaos.
Since they all die childless and have the Ploponnse named after them,
we cannot doubt that they have been introduced into the Argive genealogy
for a definite purpose. The original source inserted these names in order
to extol his native country, as having presented kings who gave their names
to the whole Ploponnse. The source must have been an old one, since
Apis is connected with the Homeric passage, A 270 and since
the etymology which connects the words with the Ploponnse was already
rejected by the Alexandrian critics (in). Thus the indications seem to show,
in my opinion, that the notice goes back on Akousilaos.
We do not forget Wilamowitz' assertion (112) that the opening part of
Bibl. II seems to go back on the chronographer Castor, whose name is
mentioned in Bibl. II, 5- In this connection Wilamowitz points to the Sicyonian
list of kings given by Castor (2 5o F Gil 2) which is headed by Aigialeus
and, thereupon, presents Europs, Apis, Telchin and Thelxion. The
correspondence of the names in the Sicyonian list and in Bibl. II has apparently struck
Wilamowitz. In reality, the occurrence of the names in the Sicyonian list is
caused by the same tendency which we tried to attribute to Akousilaos.
Apparently Castor was enabled to consult an old Sicyonian list of kings.
Just as Akousilaos, the Sicyonians, too, tried to annex those figures which
could be connected with the oldest names of the Ploponnse. Therefore,
they likewise adopted Aigialeus and Apis, and, just as we may expect from
posterior authors, they even extended their claims, because they also inserted
Europs, after whom central Greece or Europe was called. In particular it
is obvious that in the list of Sicyon, which was situated in the Aigialeia,
Aigialeus was placed at the head of the list. If, however, Bibl. had made use
of Castor, we would not have expected Aigialeus to have been represented as
being childless. Thus we may surmise that the Sicyonian list of Castor in
reality makes use of figures which had been furnished by Akousilaos (n3).

(no) With regard to Inachos we observe that in Akousilaos the latter was
not considered a mortal but the river-god. Thus his son Phoroneus could be
called the first mortal by Akou.silaos. Bibl., however, has altered this
information and has made Inachos a morlal after whom the river was called.
(in) For the view of the Alexandrians, cf. the scholia on A 270. The notice
about Apis being identical with the god Sarapis (Bibl. II, 2) has no doubt been
added by Bibl. himself.
(112) Kl. Schr., V 2, p. 6/,, 2.
(n3) We also point to the fact that in llic Argive list of kings, presented
by Castor (200 FGH 3), the first Argive king is contemporary with the
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 133

If. we accept Akousilaos as the principal source for Bibl. II, i-io, another
fact also receives a satisfactory explanation. We refer to Bibl. II, 4, where
a strange figure occurs, to whom Wilamowitz has rightly called attention (n4)
Here a person Argos, who is no king himself, but a descendant of the
Argive kings is described. According to Bibl. he had eyes all over his
body, possessed overpowering strength and killed a bull which damaged
Arcadia. He wrapped himself in its hide, also killed a Satyr who damaged
Arcadia ; finally he killed an Echidna in her sleep and took revenge for
Apis' death. Wilamowitz rightly observed that the unusual representation
which is offered here of a salyr cannot but be archaic. I should think
that the whole passage goes back on Akousilaos and is typical of him.
We point to the fact that the hero bears the name of the country (Argos)
and thus is a national hero whose story must tend to glorify the country
which he represents. It is obvious, I think, that the Argos who occurs here
has been copied after Herakles, the national Greek hero. Just like Herakles,
he clothes himself in the hide of the beast he has killed. It is clear that
Argos has been copied after Herakles and not Herakles after Argos (n5).
The representation of a dangerous satyr cannot but have arisen in archaic
times, when the satyrs had not yet become exclusively the lazy and harmless
companions of Dionysos. Thus here, too, the indications make it probable
that the story goes back on an archaic mythographer, viz. Akousilaos.
One serious difficulty seems to remain. The Argos of Bibl. II, 4 is said
to have had eyes all over his body and thus one cannot but think that he
must be identified with Argos , the well-known guardian of Io.
About this Argos, however, we possess an explicit testimony from Akousilaos
(2 FGH 27) which says that he was . The Argos of Bibl. II, 4,
on the other hand, was descended from the Argive kings. Nevertheless I think
that the discrepancy can be explained and that we get an interesting insight
into Akousilaos' mentality and local pride. It will be admitted that the figure
of Argos, the guardian of Io, was annoying to an Argive mythographer. For
this Argos, who was named after the country itself, was a subordinate and
was killed by one of the gods, to boot. It would be unacceptable to local
pride to connect this Argos with the Argive kings. Therefore, we can
understand that precisely in Akousilaos he is represented as being .
In my opinion, Akousilaos has made things palatable by the following device.
First of all he mentioned an Argos, son of Niobe, and forefather of the
Argive kings. Thereupon, he split the figure of Argos about whom the myths
narrated as being the guardian of Io. First of all he created out of him a
national hero, Argos, a second Herakles. This hero is connected with the
Argive list of kings and has even taken over from his name-sake the latter 's
most outstanding quality viz. his being Finally he mentioned the
third Argos, the guardian of Io. By doubling the figure of Argos Akousilaos
could now satisfy local pride (116).

seventh Sicyonian king. Thus Castor lias no doubt followed Sicyonian

tradition in which the authors tried to make Sicyon preponderant.
(n/i) Herakles I, p. 62, n. n3.
(n5) In this connection, wo refer to Theseus, who was also made a
second Herakles, this time by the Athenians.
(116) In the epic of Aigimioi' (cf. Bibl. II, 6), Argos is called a son
134 VAN DER VALK
Another difficulty concerns the notice of Bibl. II, 2 about Apis having
been a tyrannical ruler, who was killed, a view which seems to be strange
in an Argive mythographer. First of all we may observe that the murder of
Apis is revenged according to Bibl. II, 4 We further point to the fact that
in order to heighten the renown of the Argive kings, Apis had to make room
for a son of his sister Niobe and of Zeus. In the case of Aigialeus, Akousilaos
could make that person childless and at the same time the younger son, so
that Phoroneus could be represented as the Argive ruler. With Niobe this
possibility was excluded, because she was a woman. Therefore, Akousilaos
had to make Apis the ruler and also had to have him killed. As for Apis'
alleged tyrannical rule, it would be possible that Akousilaos used
in its original sense of , which was misunderstood by Bibl. However,
it is also possible that Akousilaos actually represented him as being tyrannical.
Apis' murderers, Telchis and Thelxion, have names which might seem to be
unfavourable and to denote them as magicians, a fact which would plead for
Apis not being tyrannical. We must not forget, however, that both persons
occur in the Sicyonian list o kings presented by Castor (cf. above) and
seem originally to have been representatives of Sicyon which, according to a
tradition, was called (117) Therefore, I think that in Akousilaos'
representation local animosities existing between Argos and Sicyon may have
been mirrored.
Also Hellanicus must be considered one of the sources of Bibl. It is curious
that Bibl., who frequently quotes Pherecydes and Akousilaos, should never
mention Hellanicus, though he has doubtlessly often consulted that author.
One might surmise that Hellanicus was the principal source of Bibl., because
ancient authors are sometimes inclined to suppress all mention of their
principal sources. Preller, in fact, thought that Bibl., for his material, chiefly
depended on Hellanicus, a thesis which has been successfully combated by

of Ismene, the daughter of Asopos. It seems that here we meet with Boiotian
tendencies.
(117) For the name cf. Sleph. Byz. s. v. Sicyon. I think that the name
(Telchima) is typical of Sicyon and serves to illustrate the position of that
city in early mythography. We draw attention to the fact that one of the
Homeric cities called Ephyra (Z i52) must have been situated in the
neighbourhood of Gorinth-Sicyon. Now Ephyra is an important mythical city, which
was localised in different regions. The inhabitants of the city are represented
as being acquainted with magical practices. We also point to the fact that
Sicyon was called , ci'. Strabo VIII. 38a C. Now Ilesiodus, Theog.
535 f., narrates that gods and men met one another and settled their claims
in . In this connection, I refer to the fact that in Egyptian religion
Memphis is represented as being the balance of the two countries, Upper and
Lower Egypt. Now Memphis is situated on the point, where the two halves
of Egypt meet, just as Sicyon-Corinth are situated at the isthmus, where the
two halves oi Greece meet. For the fact that Memphis is called the balance
of the two countries , we refer e.g. to K. Sethe, Dramatische Texte zn
Altaegyptischen Mysterienspielen (Leipzig 1928), p. 35 f. Vereinigt sind
sie im Hause des Ptah, der Wage der beiden Lander in der das
oberaegyptische und das unteraegyptische Land gewogen wordm sind . For
other testimonies, cf. Erman-Grapow, Wrterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache,
Vol. II, p. i3o i3.I owe these references to Dr. B.H. Strieker. As for Sicyon,
it is understandable that a city of such a character should be connected
with supernatural and magic qualities.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA. 135

Robert (118). It is, however, possible, as Jacoby has cautiously suggested (119),
that for the structure and disposition of his work Bibl. has followed Hellanicus.
For the dependence of Bibl. on Hellanicus with regard to subject-matter,
we refer to Bibl. Ill, i38-i55, the Trojan histories. The of
Hellanicus belong to his most widely known works. Even authors like Epictetus,
who are disinterested in mythographical history, mention Hellanicus, when
speaking of Trojan history (120). And" even the late B2 Scholia of Homer
make use of Hellanicus for their illustration of Trojan history (121). Thus
it is possible that the report of Bibl. on Trojan history follows Hellanicus,
just as for the oldest Argive history Bibl. seems to have followed the
specialist Akousilaos (122).
Summarising the Trojan passage of Bibl., we see that Bibl. begins by
narrating the history of Electra, Iasion, Dardanos in Samothrace (III, i38).
Then he relates Dardanos' migration to Troy, his descendants, the foundation
of Troy by Ilos and the adventures leading up to it ( i/|2 f.), Uos'
descendants ( i46 f.), the birth and exposure of Paris ( i48-i5o), the
genealogy of Priamos' children ( i5i-i53) and finally the story of Paris
and Oinone ( i54 f.) We can see that in this part Trojan genealogies are
continuously alternated with stories. As for the genealogies we can clearly
trace the influence of Hellanicus. Critics have already pointed to
, cf. Bibl. Ill, i3g and 4 FGH 4a c (i23) ; to
, cf. Bibl. Ill, i4o and 4 FGH i38 ; to , cf. Bibl.
, i46 (124) and 4 FGH i3q.
According to the last notice of Hellanicus, Laomedon married Strymo.
The same notice is transmitted by Schol. 237. In the Schol., however,
the source (Hellanicus) is not mentioned. I think that the situation here can
be cleared up. The commentary to whom the BT Scholia are indebted for
these notices has consulted Hellanicus for the genealogies of the Trojans,
mentioned in book Y. This commentator, however, has mentioned his source
by name only in the first schol. on this matter, viz. Schol. 219 which
has been incorrectly placed near 236. If this is so, as cannot be doubted,
Schol. T. Y 236, which mentions as the wife of Ilos ,
a notice which also occurs in Bibl. Ill, i46, can be vindicated for Hellanicus.

(118) Cf. Robert, pp. 88-91. Preller's thesis has been revived by Pearson,
El II, 159 ff. However, Pearson is not acquainted with specialist studies on
Bibl. such as the works of Robert and Bethe.
(119) Cf. Jacoby, RE VIII, i52 and also FGH I, p. 43i and 435. We also
draw attention to Merkelbach, Gnomon 1955, 6. He observes that the
Hesiodic Catalogues and Bibl. seem to offer the same disposition. If this
is right, it would be possible that Hellanicus already followed the order
presented by the Catalogues.
(120) Cf. Arrian. Epict. Diss. II, 19,
(121) Cf. Schol. B2 on a/ia (Dindorf, Scholia Homerica II, p. 264).
(122) Jacoby (FGH I, p. i4o) thinks that Bibl. only followed Hellanicus'
for the stemma and not for the subject-matter. Cf. also Pearson,
EIH, pp. 181 ff.
(i23j Cf. Schwartz, De Scholiis Homericis, p. 409.
(124^ Bibl. says : , 8
, ' (cf. 3 FGH i36 c). Bibl., as
we see, has consulted different sources on this point. As usual the first notice
is derived from his principal source in this part (Hellanicus).
136 VAN DER VALK
On account of the correspondence between Hellanicus and Bibl. in the above
genealogies, I think that for the remaining Trojan genealogies, for which
no testimonies of Hellanicus exist, Bibl. has also followed that author (i25).
It would be of interest, however, if not only the genealogies, but also the
Trojan stories preserved by Bibl. could be associated with Hellanicus. In this
connection, we refer to Bibl. Ill, i54 f. the story of Paris and Oinone,.
According to Bibl. Oinone. has got from Rhea the power of divination. She
foretells Paris' future, warns him for Helen and advises him to ask for her
aid, when he is wounded, etc. Now Hellanicus must have mentioned Oinone,
as we learn from 4 FGH 29, a story of Oinone 's and Paris' son Korythos
which has been transmitted by Parthenius and is ascribed in the subscriptio to
Hellanicus' Troica and to Cephalo of Gergis (126). The story of Paris and
Oinone is also transmitted by Parlhenius (Am. Narr. IV = 45 FGH 2).
However, it is not ascribed there to Hellanicus, but to Nicander and Cephalo.
Nevertheless, I think that Hellanicus has narrated the same story and for
this I may adduce the following arguments :
Bibl. relates that Oinone was a daughter of the river-god Kebren and was
married to Paris (12*7). We refer to our above observations that in
Hellanicus the wives of Trojan princes are nearly always daughters of river-gods.
We further observe that since Hellanicus mentioned Oinone and her
connection with Paris, he could not avoid narrating that Oinone was abandoned for
Helen. This story, however, is found in Bibl. and occurs in a part, where, as
we saw, Hellanicus has often been followed. We further observe that
according to Bibl. Oinone predicts the future to Paris, but does not find credit.
In this connection we refer to 4 FGH 1^2, where Hellanicus narrates that
the Trojans received an oracle ,
. The Trojans, however, dit not obey the oracle and, accordingly,
met their doom, just as Paris did not follow the oracle. Likewise, according
to Hellanicus in 4 FGH 25 a, Ilos was warned by Apollo against founding
a city on the hill of Ate. Nevertheless, Troy was founded on this hill.
These testimonies cannot be easily set aside, the less since, in my opinion,
they seem to be characteristic of the mentality of Hellanicus and of the
spiritual sphere in which he moved. We know him to have been a
rationalistic author who often rationalised mythical history (128). On the other hand,

Priamos'
(i25) Thuschildren
Jacoby,
(Bibl.
FGHIll,I, i5a)
p. 466.
goesrightly
back observes
on Hellanicus.
that tho catalogue of
(26) Jacoby ad locum thinks that the story goes back on Hellanicus
( Hell, scheint Hauptautor ). This is not certain, however. It is possible
that Hellanicus only mentioned Korythos as a son of Paris and Oinone.
(12) The notice that Paris married her may be due to Bibl. because o
his love for decency. The fact is not certain, however.
(128) We refer to 4 FGH 1. In the original story of Kadrnos (cf. e.g. 3
FGH 22 c) it was narrated that the giants arising from the seed of the
dragon's teeth combated each other. Hellanicus, however, has dropped the
whole combat. Apparently he considered it to be absurd. Likewise in
Hellanicus the dragon is no longer a son of Ares. It is possible that he avoided
the notice that a monster should be descended from a god. In 4 FGH 96
Kadmos kills the dragon with a stone. For a rationalistic author this
representation is in fact more likely than its being killed by a sword (thus e.g.
Pherecydes). According to Pherecydes (3 FGH 72) Herakles received from
the gods a rattle to pursue the Stymphalian birds. Hellanicus (\ FGH io4)
narrated that he made the rattle himself.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 137
however, we must not lose sight of the fact that the rationalism of Hellanicus
must not be confused or identified with that of the authors of the fourth
century such as Ephorus. He rather seems to stand halfway between the
naive archaic viewpoint of Pherecydes and that of the authors of the fourth
century. Thus we can understand that Hellanicus tries to eliminate the archaic
representation of gods who continuously appear on the human scene or that
at least he tries to rationalise it (129). When, however, the gods no longer
corporeally interfere with human affairs, as we see them doing in Homer,
Hesiod or Pherecydes, we may expect that their interference has been
transposed into another domain.
Now with respect to the middle of the fifth century, let us say the period
of 460-420 B. C., the influence of the oracles must not be underestimated.
We know that they played a prominent part in the eyes of Sophocles and no
doubt of many of his contemporaries (i3o). This is the very age in which
Hellanicus must apparently be dated. I think that an author like Hellanicus
must have felt attracted to the oracles. For in this domain we do not meet with
the archaic and nave representation of gods interfering corporeally, and
nevertheless the gods are intimately connected with human affairs. The
relation to the gods may become the more interesting, since mortals are no longer
influenced or awed now by their corporeal presence and thus may make light
of their warnings. This representation can be found in Sophocles' plays, where
at the end the oracle often proves to be true, though at first it was despised
or neglected. For Hellanicus we already adduced two explicit testimonies.
I think that the mentioning of oracles is characteristic of him. Especially
Trojan history, where we meet with a people which was finally destroved,
was appropriate for the introduction of oracles which did not find credit, but
proved to be true after all. Thus the Trojans could be continuously warned
against their approaching doom. Therefore, 1 think that the mentioning of
Oinone's prophetic powers which did not find credit with Paris, goes back
on Hellanicus. We may even surmise that the person of Oinone was first
introduced into Trojan history by him.
We may further call attention to Bibl. Ill, i47"i5i, relating Paris' birth.
Bibl. relates Hekabe's well-known dream and narrates, how Priamos is warned
by Aisakos, a son from his first marriage, against educating the child that
will be born. Accordingly Paris is exposed, sucked by a she-bear for five
days ; birth
Paris' saved and
and exposure
educatedis byalsoa transmitted
herdsman ofin Priamos
three Homeric
(i3i). DThe
Scholia
story viz.
of
on 325, M 98 and 34 1 Unfortunately none of these Scholia has a
subscriptio. There is also some discrepancy in the information provided by

(129) Cf. e.g. 4 FGH 26 a.

(130) For the significance of the oracles in this time, cf. Webstdr,
Sophocles (Oxford 10,36), p. 22 f. and C.M. Bowra, Sophoclean Tragedy
(Oxford ig44) p 12.
(131) The herdsman is called according to the mss. of Bibl-
Tzetz. Lye. i38 offers . Schol. 35 the notice does not
occur in the D Scholia, but has been derived by the archetype of A from
Porphyry offers ,
/ It is clear that Asklepiades
has read (the confusion of A and in the majuscal script is
frequent).
138 VAN DER VALK
the Scholia. Thus Schol. D 325 observes that Paris got his name
. Then it relates Hekabe's dream, its
interpretation by ol ? , the exposure of
the child, the sucking by a she-bear and the education by the herdsman.
Schol. D M g3 likewise relates Hekabe's dream. Then it proceeds
, . Then
it relates the sucking by a she-bear, the saving by the herdsman and
'
adds '

;
.

', '
,. Schol.
D ,
34
which is the shortest, refers to the preceding Scholia, summarizes the well-
known facts and then, to our surprise, explains the name of Paris '
. It is understandable that the reader should suppose the
differences between the Scholia to have been caused by the fact that they were
composed by different commentators. 1 do not think, however, that this
hypothesis is necessary. In this connection I point to the fact that precisely
Schol. D 34, which offers the etymology rejected by the two preceding
Scholia, refers to these Scholia and that in a way to make us think that he is
the author of the above scholia. Therefore, in my opinion, the facts must be
explained in the following way. The Homeric D Scholia have a special
predilection for etymologies. When, therefore, D (i32) treated the story of
Paris for the first time in Schol. D 325, he followed a source for the
story itself, but addad a personal etymology ( ) (33).
In M g 3 D again followed his source. This time he is more explicit about the
etymology, for he says that derive the name from which view he
rejects in favour of the etymology which had already been offered by him in
the preceding Schol. The situation is clear. The etymology - was
offered by the source which was followed by D for the story.
Schol. D M g3 also observes that Paris was not exposed on the advice of
the seers but by the will of the gods. This view seems to contrast with the
one expressed in the preceding schol. However, it is perfectly understandable
that the same author or commentator, in different passages, saw matters from
a somewhat different angle. In Sch. D 3a5 he was closely following his
source for this detail. In Sch. D M 93, where he was already polemising
against his source about the etymology, he also makes a correction on it for
this detail. The opposite attitude can be seen in Sch. D 34*, for this
time D closely follows his source and even reproduces the latter's etymology.
Thus, in my opinion, the D Scholia follow the same source ; this source offers
the same facts as Bibl. (i34).
Though the D Scholia offer no subscriptio, I think it likely that the com-

(132) When speaking of D in this connection, we have in mind the source

of D for the historiai, the so-called Mythographus Homericus.
(133) This view is confirmed by the fact that the first part of the schol.
docs not yet belong to the historia proper. D first of all explains the form
; and then offers an etymology of the name. Only then he offers the
historia : . . Dindorf in Sch. 325 falsely
gives the following interpunction ' .
(34> The D Scholia make no mention of the seer Aisakos, but instead
Schol. D 325 speaks of . The difference is unimportant ;
the scholiast who does not wish to enter into details about the person of
Aisakos, speaks in general of .
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 139

menlator for this passage consulted the expert on Trojan history, Hellanicus,
just as the BT Scholia, as we saw above, followed that author for Trojan
matters. The assertion would, however, seem to be gratuitous, if it could not be
confirmed by other facts. Thus Aisakos, according to Bibl., is married to
Asterope, a daughter of the river-god Kebren. Above we pointed out that it is
characteristic of Hellanicus to have Trojan princes married to daughters of
river-gods. We further see that the future dangers are prophesied by
Aisakos (i35), but that his warnings arc given in vain. Again, we can refer to
previous observations on the significance of oracles in Hellanicus and their being
neglected by the persons whom they concern. We further hear about the
exposure of Paris and his being named after the event. Here we may refer
to our above observations on the exposure of Pelias and Neleus. We saw
that, in all probability, in the version of Hellanicus Neleus was sucked by a
dog, just as Paris is sucked here by a she-bear. Farther we saw that both
children were named after events taking place at the exposure, just as Paris
is named after his being brought, up in a . We also observed above that
in the Trojan passage of Bibl. Hellanicus has been consulted. I think it,
therefore, likely that both Bibl. and the D Scholia go back on Hellanicus (i 36).
We further refer to the story of the foundation of Ilion, Bibl. Ill, 1^2 f.
Ilos is victorious in a contest, receives a cow and follows it until it lies
down on the hill of Ale ; then Ilion is founded. According to Hellanicus
F 25 a, Ilos had received an oracle which warned him against founding a
city on the hill of Ate (137). The story of a cow lying down on a spot
where a city is to be founded reminds us o and seems to be a copy of the
story of Kadmos. Now Schol. AD 4g4j which offers the story of Kadmos
and the cow, is ascribed in the subscriplio to the Boiotiaka of Hellanicus
and to Apollodorus. The subscriptio is reliable, as regards Apollodorus, for
the schol. reproduces Bibl. Ill, 21 ff. In the Homeric D Scholia a number
of scholia occur in which a schol. is ascribed in the subscriptio to two
authors (i38). Mostly the situation shows that the schol. follows one of the
two authors, whereas the other author presents a detail which occurs in the
story (i3g). Thu;s it is likely that one or some of the details occurring in the
schol. was also found in Hellanicus. Doubtlessly Hellanicus who has written
Boiotiaka, has spoken of the foundation of Thebes by Kadmos (cf. 4
FGH 96). Thus it is possible that the story of the cow occurred in Hellanicus,
Moreover, we see that the story of a cow occurs in the Trojan history of
Bibl., in which part, as we observed, Hellanicus may have been followed.

(135) Hellanicus may have expressly diversified his informalion. This time
ihe future is exposed by an interpreter of dreams. Oinone got her knowledge
from the great Asiatic goddess Rhea-Cybcle. Other times, oracles exposed
ihe future.
(136) Knaack, Jahrb. Phil. 137 (1888), p. i/JG, points to Serv. Verg. Aen.
II, 32, where a story about Aisakos, derived from Euphorion, is mentioned.
The latter tells about a son of Thymoites, born on the same day as Paris.
It is uncertain, whether in Euphorion Paris was exposed.
(137) Cf. also Pearson, EIH, 181 f.
(138) We refer to Schol. AD i45, 242, M 397, 66, II 233.
(139) We refer to AD M 397, where Hesiod and Bacchylidcs are mentioned.
The schol. seems to follow Hesiod ; one of the details seems to go back on
Bacchylides.
 1 40 VAN DER VALK
We also point to the warning of the oracle which is neglected by Ilos, a
feature which seemed to be typical of Hellanicus.
In this connection, we may also adduce Lycophr. 29, where Cassandra says
that she is prophesying " oit' . The scholia
on the spot refer for " to Hellanicus, Troika. When explaining
they refer to Lesses of Lampsakos (i4o), according to
whom a cow of Ilos got astray and Ilion was founded on the spot where it
was found. No doubt the commentators were well-informed and the notice
offered above occurred in Lesses. However, I think that the commentators
have made a mistake. For the detail of the hill of Ate Lycophron followed
Hellanicus, as the scholia admit. I suppose that for he has
followed the same author. The scholiasts have been led astray, because they
interpreted too literally, as having the meaning of to err, to
stray . Therefore, they connected it with the story related by Lesses. In
reality, however, Lycophron alluded to the cow which strolled over plains
and hills () until it had led Ilos to the hill of Ate. Thus I think
lhat for the Trojan histories, at least for the majority of them, Bibl. followed
Hellanicus (I41)
We may add a few observations on Hellanicus. Thus Lye. 137/4-1377,
narrating the colonisation of Lesbos by Orestes who was prompted by an
oracle, has been commented on in a schol. which has been rightly traced back
to Hellanicus (i4a). I think lhat Lycophron himself, too, followed Hellanicus
here. We see, how the latter again made use of the motive of an oracle.
We further refer to Lye. 33-3*7, where the poet relates Herakles' combat
with the Trojan monster and narrates how the hero jumped into the latter's
mouth and lost his hair in its stomach. We point to Schol. D Y 1^7 (= 4
FGH 26 b), where we have a version of the same event. The Schol. begins
with the building of the walls of Troy by Poseidon and Apollon. When the
gods are defrauded by Laomedon, they send a monster, to which Hesione is
delivered. Laomedon promises the immortal horses of Tros to her rescuer.
Herakles undertakes the task, has an ,' built by Athene in
order to protect him ; thereupon
. Thereupon, Herakles is also defrauded
by Laomedon, captures Troy, etc.
The subscriptio ascribes the story to Hellanicus. Jacoby, however, has called
into doubt the trustworthiness of the schol., seemingly for very specious
reasons. For according to 4 FGH 26 a it was not the wall, as the schol. says

(140) The author is not mentioned in RE.

(141) Bibl. Ill, 1 38 relates that Dardanos' brother, Iasion, loved Demeter
and tried to violate hsr. 4 FGH 23 (a schol. of Ap. Rh.) also offers
information about Iasion. According to the schol. he was struck, because he insulted
a statue of Demeter. It is not certain that this detail goes back on Hellanicus.
Ps. Scymn. 678-692, when relating early Trojan history, offers the same
detail about insulting a statue of Demeter. Now Ps. Scymnus, as far as we
can ascertain, did not follow Hellanicus, but made an extensive use of
Ephoros. Thus the detail might go back on that author. It is also possible
that Hellanicus is the source and that Bibl. differs from him in this point.
Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. I, 53, in a passage, where he may have followed
Hellanicus, likewise relates that Iasion was struck by lightning, because he
violated Demeter.
(142) Cf. Jacoby, FGH I, p. Mfi ., on 4 FGH 3a and Pearson, E1H, ig5 L
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 141
but the citadel of Troy which was built by the gods. We may refer to the
two following points. Since Hellanicus was an authority on Trojan history,
we may think it probable that the scholiast has really consulted him, when
he says he has done so. We must also take account of the special mentality
of the D Scholia. When studying the historiai of the D Scholia, we can
state again and again that it was the scholiast's aim to bring the histories
which he derived from his sources into conformity with the Homeric text
which he explained. Therefore, when his sources transmitted details which
did not agr"ee with the Homeric text, these details were omitted or altered.
On the other hand, details from the Homeric text which did not occur in
the sources, were introduced in the scholia.
So we can understand that D has altered the detail about the citadel
occurring in Hellanicus. A similar fact can be stated with regard to the wall built
by Athene. Jacoby (FGH I, p. 444) already rightly observed that it is
superfluous for Herakles to jump into the mouth of the monster. Accordingly,
the detail about the wall of Athene was not offered by Hellanicus, but has
been inserted by D from the Homeric text ( i45-i47) However, the other
details of the schol., in my opinion, go back on Hellanicus. Thus we see
that Laomedon receives an oracle ordering him to sacrifice his daughter.
We draw attention to the point of the oracle which seems to be characteristic
of Hellanicus. We further point to Heracles jumping into the stomach of the
monster, which detail is also narrated by Lycophron. Since Lycophron in the
passage directly preceding it (1. 29, cf. above) already followed Hellanicus,
it is understandable that here, too, he is indebted to him (i/j3). The story
is of interest because of the phantastical things it depicts. We see that
mythological history, even if it is deprived by Hellanicus of its supernatural
character, nevertheless threatens to become phantastical.
As for Lycophron, we further point to Lye. 1242 ff . which says that Rome
was founded by Aineias and Odysseus, a detail which is also transmitted by
Hellanicus, 4 FGH 84 (i44). so that Lycophron seems to follow that author
here, too. In this connection, we refer to Lye. I25o-ia52, where the
fulfilment of old oracles is related, when Aineias' companions eat the tables
containing the food. Since Hellanicus is especially partial to oracles and
since he has been followed in the preceding part, it might be possible that
this detail has also been derived from him. In this connection, we may also
refer to another line of this passage, Lye. ia44 where Odysseus is called
, ' . The schol. says that Odysseus was
called by the Tyrrhenians nanos which has the meaning of the
wanderer . No doubt Lycophron wishes to indicate the meaning of
wanderer , when he speaks here of nanos . Now Hellanicus, 4 FGH 4,
when offering the genealogy of the Pelasgian kings, mentions a king Nanas,
during whose reign the Pelasgians were expelled by the Greeks and wandered
to Italy. If we remember the notice of the schol. of Lycophron, we get the

(i43) Therefore, I think that the notice of Herakles getting bald in the
stomach of the monster, which notice is only transmitted by Lycophron, also
goes back on Hellanicus.
(i44)) According to Lye. ia36 fi.'. Aineias arrived in Italy, while coming
from Chalcidice. According to Hellanicus ho came from the region of the
Molossians. It is possible that Lycophron purposely abridged the wanderings of
Aineias here.
142 VAN DER VALK
impression that Hellanicus offered this name, because he explained it as having
the meaning of the wanderer (i45). Therefore, it is possible that for
the above-named detail Lycophron also follows Hellanicus.
When returning to Bibl. we may draw attention to the catalogue of the fifty
sons of Lykaon, occurring in Bibl. Ill, 96-99 Jacoby traced the catalogue
of the sons of Priamos, offered by Bibl. Ill, i5i f. (cf. Jacoby I, p. 466)
back to Hellanicus. It might be possible that for the catalogue of Lykaon's
sons, Bibl. is also indebted to him. We know that Hellanicus had a liking
for genealogical stemmata and catalogues and was considered an authority on
that point. We further know that this catalogue occurs in a part of Bibl.,
where Hellanicus often has been followed (i46).
We may adduce another argument. If one investigates the catalogue, on
which there exists a study by Wilamowit/, (147), one sees that the list seems
to have been composed according to a definite scheme, for the names
beginning with the same letter are often placed together. We refer to the names
beginning with a <p : , ( 48) , to the words beginning
with an : , ', ( Wilamowitz), (i4g)>
(5). Now the names beginning with an aspirate alpha are not
placed in this list. Therefore, one would be inclined to think that when the
list was composed the aspirate was still used as an independent letter. Thus
it would be likely that the list goes back on an archaic author viz.
Hellanicus (i5i).
With regard to the passage on Trojan mythography offered by Bibl., we
finally point to Bibl. Ill, i44 f, where a history about the origin of the
Palladion is offered, which passage is usually condemned as an
interpolation (i52). I think that the following arguments plead in favour of its
authenticity. It is a special characteristic of Bibl., as we saw above, to
offer digressions. Thus an inquiry about the Palladion would be appropriate

(145) We know that Hellanicus sometimes offered etymologies, cf. e.g-4

FGH 111
(146) We may refer to Bibl. Ill, iio-i55, the story of the Atlantides.
Jacoby has pointed to the fact (FGH I, p. 437) that in this part the Atlantis
of Hellanicus has been used, at least for the genealogies.
(147) Kl. Schr. V, 2, i53-i56.
(il{8) For this reason I do not think that Wilamowitz is right in saying
that the word is dittographic for the preceding word.
(149) So it appears that the corrupt word seems to have begum with an a.
(150) The name denotes , the Achaian sea-town. It reflects the
Arcadian claims on Achaian territory.
(i5i)) Wilamowitz has pointed to the fact that three kinds of names are
found in it : Arcadian place-names, names of other tribes and common heroic
names. With regard to the names of other tribes, we think it possible that
they reflect the relation between the Arcadians and the Pelasgians-Tvrrhe-
nians. In this way the occurrence of the name of ; can be explained,
as well as that of , , . We know that the Pelasgians
wandered about in Greece. Since they were connected with Thessaly, the name
of ; might be explained. ; may be a corruption of , the
Locrian city, where according to Steph. Byz. lived the Lelegians. may
conceal the name of ATvo, the Chalcidian city.
(i52)) Consequently RE XVIII, s- v. Pallas, does not even mention notices
about Pallas, the daughter of Trilon, occurring here.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 143

in Bibl. We further draw attention to the end of the passage, where Bibl.
says . A notice of this kind
is likely to be found in an author who has added a digression and is
returning to his main subject (i53), whereas we would not have expected it,
if the passage had been added in the margin (i54)

Already repeatedly we had an opportunity to touch upon the question of

the reliability of the D Scholia and their subscriptions (cf. e. g. above p. io3).
Though the question is difficult and must be studied on a larger scale (i55),
we enter on it here for the following reasons. As we know, Pherecydes is
one of the authors who is often quoted in Bibl. and who may have been one
of the important sources. This author, however, is often quoted in the
subscriptions of the D Scholia. Consequently, for a good understanding of the relation
of Bibl. to Pherecydes, it is important to know whether the stories of the
D Scholia ascribed to Pherecydes are reliable or not.
In this connection, I may discuss some of the D Scholia of book , in
which book, as is understandable, several historiai occur. Most of these
histories are ascribed to Pherecvdes (i56) ; the remaining part is ascribed
to Akousilaos (Schol. V 52, on Eurypylos), to the neotcroi (Schol- V
298, Helen and the birth from the egg), to Androtion (Schol. V 271,
Oidipous), while also a number of Scholia are ascribed to Asklepiades (cf.
12 FGH 27-31). First of all, we may ask why the D Scholia should have
taken the trouble of quoting different authors, if in fact their information
was totally unreliable. I further think that if we wish to test the reliability
of the D Scholia, the only means at our disposal is to pay attention to the
mentality of the authors who have been mentioned and to ask, if the story
related in the Schol. seems to correspond with the mentality of the author
to whom it is ascribed.
In the case of Pherecydes we can expect : 1) archaic style and words
(Ionian) ; 2) archaic representation i.e. supernatural facts, etc. In this
connection, we may refer to the story of Melampous (Schol. V 287) which
we tried above to trace back to Pherecydes and where many supernatural
details are found. The same can be observed with respect to Schol. V 322
(Theseus). With regard to the style we refer to Schol. V 3ai (3 FGH 3A,
Kephalos-Prokris), where Wilamowitz has stressed the archaic character of
the style and has drawn attention to the Ionian words (5).

(i53) We refer to Herodotus IV, 96. After having made a digression on

Zamolxis, Herod, returns to his main subject with the words
Za[AoXi .
(/!,/ Sir J. Frazer, Apollodorus. (Loeh Library, 192 1), accepts the
authenticity of the passage. In Bibl. Ill, i45 the words may
indicate the ;. For another explanation, cf Frazer, 1. 1. Electra
is then brought to Troy, bocauso it is situated on higher ground.
(155) I hope to return to this subject elsewhere.
(156) Cf. Schol. V 366 (Alcmene), 281 (Ncleus), 287
(Melampous), 3a (Kephalos-Prokris), 3^2 (Theseus and the labyrinth),
326 (Maira).
(157) Hermes iS (i883), p. 42/1, 2 Wilamowitz thinks that in
Pherecydes Minos and Prokris' slay with him (cf. Bibl. Ill, 197) did not occur,
because he is not mentioned by the V Schol. However, we must reckon with
 444 VAN DER VALK
Of interest in this respect is the story of Iason-Pelias, of which a rendering
of Pherecydes (3 FGH io5) and of Asklepiades (12 FGH 3i = Schol. V
. 69)) have been preserved. The version of Pherecydes has already 'been
discussed above and contains, as we saw, typical archaic features. On the
other hand, the version ascribed by Schol. V to Asklepiades, shows, in my
opinion, typical Hellenistic traits. Thus in it Aison is the rightful king of
Iolkos, who after his death leaves Pelias as a guardian () of Iason.
The letter's mother has the child removed for fear of Pelias and has it
educated by Cheiron. When Iason, on coming of age, claims the rule, Pelias
informs him that first of all he has to fulfil a task and must bring the
golden fleece. Thereupon, Iason asks Cheiron for advice, etc It is clear that
in the Schol. the story of Iason-Pelias has been represented in a romantic
way, as we may expect from a romantic and Hellenistic author.
To that end the original situation has been altered, for Pelias is no longer
lawful king of Iolkos but has become an and a bad one, into
the bargain. We are reminded of the relations existing at the Hellenistic
courts. Pelias has been portrayed after Kassander and other Hellenistic princes.
On the other hand, the wicked Pelias is contrasted by the virtuous and
unselfish Cheiron, which is a romantic representation of facts, since good
and bad persons are contrasted and the good ones are introduced in order
to neutralize the influence of the bad ones and to cause that all ends well.
We further point to a detail of the Schol. which testifies to a rationalising
tendency. Phineus gives the advice of sending a pigeon through the Symple-
gades, before the Argonauts undertake the adventure. Also from elsewhere
it is known that this detail certainly goes back on Asklepiades (cf. 12 FGH 2).
In Asklepiades, Phineus is no longer the prophet foretelling the future, but
lias become a clever counsellor, making good the Euripidean saying [-
, . Thus we see that the account which is
ascribed by Schol. V to Asklepiades answers the mentality which we can
expect of an Hellenistic author, since the original story has been romanticised
and rationalised. Accordingly, we think it likely that the subscriptio is again
reliable.
The romantic way of representation by Hellenistic authors may be illustrated
with a typical example taken from Diodorus IV, 54-56, the story of Medea's
revenge on Iason, etc. Critics have rightly observed (i58) that Diodorus in
this passage is partly dependent on Dionvsius Scytobrachion, an author who
also offered a romantic representation of mythographical history (i5<)).

the fact that V abridged and only mentioned the essential details of the story.
Wilamowitz also thinks that in Bibl. Ister has been followed, a view which
m my opinion is improbable. As for the vocabulary, W thinks that
is a vulgarism, a view which is open to doubt. The form is rare, cf. L.
Sc. J. s. v.
(i58) Cf. Bethe I. I. pp. 17 fi.
(i5o) For Dionysios Skyt., cf. Schwartz, RE V, pp. 929-932. Schwartz
leaves the question undecided as to whether Dionysios' works offer eine
gcschmacklose Nachaffung oder eine freche Parodie hellenistischer Mytho-
graphie . The point is not doubtful, in my opinion. Dionysios edited two
works on the god Dionysos and on the Argonauts respectively, which works
have been largely used by Diodorus. In the story of the Argonauts Herakles
^>lays a prominent part, whereas the mythographers mostly represent that hero
 ON APOLLODORI BIBHOTHECA 145
According to Diodorus (IV, 55), after the murder of Medea's children, Iason
is pitied by nobody. The children receive heroic honours from the Corinthians ;
Thessalos, who has escaped, becomes king of the Thessalians (160). Thereupon,
Medea goes to Herakles in Thebes, who cannot be of any use, because he is
suffering of his madness. She then goes to Aigeus in Athens and, as Diodorus
observes, some say (-) that she had a child Medos with Aigeus ; others
narrate () that she was summoned before a tribunal by Hippotes
in Thebes. Here, however, she was acquitted Thereupon, on Theseus' return
she is banished '^. Aigeus presents her with an escort
to Phoenicia, where she marries the king and gives birth to Medos, who
becomes king of Media. Thereupon, Diod. IV, 56 offers another version which
version as Bethe has rightly observed, cannot go back on Dionysius Scvtobrachion.
The main story, however, which we related, goes back on him, in my
opinion, and is typical for that Hellenistic author (6). When studying the
report about Medea's story, we can see that Dionys. Scyt. is sympathetic
towards Medea and wishes to evoke this sympathy in his public. Thus at
the very beginning he stresses the fact that Iason is rightly punished. We
observe the same trait in Medea's visit to Herakles. Since the latter, as we
know from testimonies, was mediator of Medea's marriage in Dionys. Scyt., it
is reasonable to assume that her visit to Herakles after Iason's breach of faith
has been borrowed by Diodorus from that author. If accordingly Medea goes
to Herakles and cures the hero from his madness, we cannot but think that
he will be sympathetically disposed towards Medea and her deeds. Since, as
we observed above, Herakles is one of the principal heroes of Dionysius'
book on the Argonauts, we soe that this important person is sympathetical
towards Medea.
The same altitude can be observed in the report of Medea's acquittal from
the accusation by Hippoles. Medea, though accused of murder of her children,
is acquitted, just as in the tragedians Orestes is acquitted of the murder of
his mother. I should think that this detail goes back on Dionysius Scyt. (162).

as not taking any part in the expedition at all. Likewise in the story of
Dionysos the latter is the prominent figure. This prominence is of
importance, because Herakles and Dionysos are figures who stand just on the
borderline separating or connecting gods and men. In my opinion, Diony-
sios Skyt. purposely chose these heroes, because just like Euhemeros he was
interested in the problem of the gods and, therefore, he narrated the life of
such persons as made the transition from men to gods understandable. We
also see that in Dionysios Skyt. the ethical element is dominant, whereas in
ihe old religion the religious element was preponderant. Thus his works reflect
Hellenistic tendencies and are not be considered as parodies.
(160) When Diodorus says thai he is not unaware of the fact that other
explanations of the name of the Thessalians have been given, this
observation must be considered a parenthesis, made by Diodorus himself.
(161) Bethe, I. I., who only admits dependency on Dionysios Skyt. for
part of the history, is wrong, in my opinion.
(162) Bethe has wrongly denied this. We may confirm our view by
pointing to the following particular. When Diodorus relates the version of
Medea having a child by Algous, he makes use of the term , whereas
he has the term when he relates the indictment by Hippoles.
Now Bethe himself (p. 23, N. 27) has rightly observed that Diodorus when
following Dionysios Skyt. makes use oi the term , while he offers
REfi, 1, 19J8 n :<34-338 10
 1 46 VAN DER VALK
This sympathetic altitude towards Medea can be also found in the episode
of Theseus. Ordinarily she is represented as trying to poison him. Diodorus
only says that she is accused of it and makes us suppose that the accusation
was unfounded, since Aigeus gives her an escort. Thus we can see. in this
passage, the characteristics of one and the same author who offered a
sympathetic representation of Medea. This author can have been no other than
Dionysius Scyt. In this connection, we also point to the detail of the heroic
honours attributed to Medea's children. For this we may refer to Dionysius'
Scyt. book on the god Dionysos, as it is rendered by Diodorus. At the end
of his life Dionysos receives divine honours. This idea completely fits in
with the euhemeristic system according to which the gods are deified mortals.
When we admit this fact, we can also see that the story is interesting in
order to illustrate the mentality of an Hellenistic author. In the time of
Euripides, Medea's deeds evoked horror. The Hellenistic public, however,
seems to have been interested in and to feel sympathy for the woman in
general and for her position in society. Therefore, Medea is represented
sympathetically. Especially surprising is Medea's acquittal. Orestes was acquitted,
because a son's revenge for his father was considered righteous. This time
a woman who vindicates her position, even while sacrificing her children, is
acquitted. In my opinion, such a representation of facts, in which the author
does not take account of the real ethical proportions, must be considered
typically romantic.

As for the question of the manual which we discussed above, we saw that
Bibl. often seems to follow his sources directly. It might, however, be possible
that he sometimes made use of a comprehensive source or manual and as
such the story of Herakles may be studied. It appears, as especially Bethe
has shown (I. I. passim), that both Bibl. (II, 54-i6o) and Diodorus (IV,
10-39) largely agree in the representation of Heraklcs'life. In both authors
his life has been divided into two parts ; in the first part his labours are
narrated ; in the second his other adventures are presented.
In the story of the labours, as we pointed out above, Bibl. seems to show
traces which previous critics already ascribed to Pherecydes. For this part we
can also consult the Tabula Albana (4o FGH) (i63) and then we see that
Diodorus and Tabula Albana closely correspond over against Bibl. Thus both
Diodorus (IV, 12) and Tabul. Alb- have the labour of the boar precede that
of the deer, whereas Bibl. (II, 81 ff.) offers the reverse order. It is obvious
that Diodorus-Tabula Alb. offer the original order, for just as the lion and
the hydra, the boar is a dangerous animal. Thus in the original version, first
of all, three labours, representing combats with dangerous animals were
offered. In the same way Diodorus-Tabula Alb. rightly offer the Stymphalian
birds and the cleaning of Augeias' stables as fifth and sixth labours
respectively, whereas Bibl. (II, 88-90) again has the reverse order- It is likely that
in the original version first of all five labours against animals occurred,
whereupon five others followed which brought Ilerakles into contact with

[, when he follows his mythographical sources. Thus it is apparent

that the story of Hippotes goes back on Dionysios.
(i63) For the labours, cf. sub c (Jacoby, p". 268. 5-i5).
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 147
men (6). So the cleaning of Augeias' stables must have been narrated
as the sixth labour.
Also for tlie last two labours Diodorus (IV, 25 f.) and Tabula Alb offer
the original order, which has been reversed in Bibl. (II, n3 ff.) (i65),
for in reality the descent to Hades must precede the expedition against the
Hesperides (166). I think that the divergencies exposed here must be
attributed to Bibl. himself, for also in some other minor points, he may have
altered his source. Thus Diodorus (IV, 12) represents Eurystheus as concealing
himself in a copper jar, when the Erymanthian boar is brought by Herakles.
Tins representation, which also occurs on the vases, is the original one, for
the boar was the first monsler which was brought to Eurystheus without
having been killed. In Bibl., however (II, 76) the construction of the jar
is placed at the beginning of the labours.
As for the connection with Pherecydes we remind the reader of the fact
that in the last three labours, as narrated by Bibl., Pherecydes seemed to
be followed. Thus it might be likely that for the other labours, too,
Pherecydes was the original source. In this connection, we refer to the combat
of the Centaurs (Bibl. II, 80-87) and the report about Cheiron's wound and
death (Bibl. II, 85) which closely correspond with 3 FGH 83. We further
point to Bibl. II, 86 relating how the remaining Centaurs sought a refuge in
Eleusis. As we saw above, Pherecydes seems to have inserted a reference to
the Eleusinian mysteries. Thus here, too, he may have made mention of his
native city.
We observe that in the second part of Herakles' life Bibl. and Diodorus,
notwithstanding some minor divergencies (167), present the adventures in
nearly the same order. Thus it is likely that they go back on the same source.

(16/4) It might be possible that lh names of two of the three children of

Herakles and Megara / and (lie who guards himself against
his enemies) account for this subdivision of the labours. The subdivision of
the labours into two groups of five also shows a fact which was known from
elsewhere, viz. that the two final exploits of Herakles, the descent to Hades
and the acquisition of the apples, originally do not belong to the labours. They
are necessary preliminaries the overcoming of death and the acquisition of
the food of immortality for Herakles' ascent to heaven.
(165) Bethe, p. 43, followed by Wilamowitz, Euripides Herakles I, p. fir,
"X. HI. wrongly thinks that Bibl. originally also offered the order as it was
found in Diodorus - Tabula Albana. He is misled by Schol. D. 36 which
is following Bibl. and explicitly mentions the descent to Hades as the eleventh
labour. However, Schol. D is misleading, as anyone who studies the question
can see. Because Schol. D only wishes to relate the descent to Hades, it
directly but wrongly connects tho words ,
(Bibl. II, 3), with which the expedition to the Hesperides opened, with
the descent to Hades.
(166) It is clear that the order of Diodorus-Tabula Albana is the original
one, for originally Herakles first of all had to overcome death and then he
acquired the food of immortality.
(167) Thus Diodorus (IV, 29 f.) after live completion of the labours first
of all extensively relates the colonisation of Sardinia by the sons of Herakles.
Bibl. offers this fact only in II, 1/19. Since Diodorus was a Sicilian ho
was interested in Italian affairs, as also appears from his report of the
expedition against Geryones. Therefore, lie gives a prominent place to this
colonisation.
148 VAN DER VALK
In this connection, we may refer to Diod. IV, 3a, 2. According to Bibl.
(II, 1 34) Herakles sailed to Troy '. Now Diodo-
rus says , oxfft, ; ,
" , It is likely that the reference to
Homer was made by Diodorus himself. Accordingly by he refers to his
main source which appears to be identical with Bibl. (168)
We may also refer here to a curious divergency between Bibl. and
Diodorus. Bibl. II, i55 relates a combat between Herakles and a king Amyntor.
According to Bibl. it took place, when Herakles (i6n) (i. e.
the locality of Ormenion) . Diod. IV, 37, /j. when narrating the same
fact says that Herakles (170) . Thus Diodorus
has made a mistake in taking Ormenios to be the proper name of a king.
This, may, however, be a personal mistake of Diodorus and, nevertheless,
both authors may have used the same source (171).
This time, the relation with Pherecydes is less apparent, for both Bibl.
(II, 127 ff.) and Diod. IV, 3i narrate that Herakles, after having completed
the labours, first of all goes to Oichalia, sues for Iole and is refused her
hand. Thereupon, he murders Iphitos, etc. According to Pherecydes, however
(3 FGH 82 a) Herakles comes to Eurytos , asks Iole's hand
for his son Hyllos and, after having been rejected, captures Oichalia which
is situated in Arcadia. There is no reason to doubt this testimony. Thus it
seems that for the second part of Herakles' labours and perhaps also for the
first part Diodorus and Bibl. have made use of a common source or manual.
As for the relation with Pherecydes we may make the following observations.
Pherecydes seems to have narrated Herakles' life in two books (II and III)
and thus he seems to have made an extensive report about the hero. We know
that F i5, 16, 17 and 18 (172) belong to book II and we see that all these

(168) seems to be closer to the original source than

of Bibl. We know that in Herodot the term
occurs.
(16g) A (ms. of Bibl.) and Argumentum Trachiniae (where this part of
Bibl. has been reproduced) offer /. Since the author of Argum.
Trach. already has found this reading in his copy of Bibl., it is possible that
the mistake of / for already goes back on the author of
Bibl. himself.
(170) According to Vogel in his edition, D (an impoitant ms. of Diodorus)
offers /, Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 2, 3o, however, presents
which clearly shows that Diodorus offered .
(171)) We point to this fact, because Bibl. and Diodorus might seem to
follow different sources. For according to Bibl. Herakles kills Amyntor,
because the latter would not allow him to pass through his country. Diodorus,
however, says that Herakles sued for the hand of Amyntor's daughter. When
the latter was refused to him, because he was already married, he slew
Amyntor and had a son Ktesippos by Amyntor's daughter. In this connection, we
may recall our observations about the decency which was observed by Bibl.
Since Herakles was already married, Bibl. may have altered the text. For the
same reason he does not mention either (II, i55) that Herakles had a son by
the daughter of the king of the Dryopes, a fact which is mentioned by
Diodorus (IV, 37, 1). One might object that Bibl. II, 149 mentions a
connection of Herakles with the daughter of the king of Ephyra- This time,
however, the offspring of the union was TIepolemos, a well-known hero, also
mentioned by Homer, whom Bibl. apparently did not wish to omit.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 149

fragments treat of adventures connected with the labours. To book HI only

F 19 can be attributed with certainty, a fragment which narrates the
expedition against the Dryopians, an event which takes place during the second
part of Herakles" life (cf. Bibl.-Diodorus). We further know that 3 FGH
77-82 treat of other adventures of Herakles (the Kerkopes, Kos, Augeias,
Amyntor), which occur in Bibl.-Diodorus during the second part of Herakles'
life. It is tempting to think that these fragments must be attributed to book III
and that, accordingly, the labours and the other adventures have been treated
by Pherecydes in books II and III respectively (173).
Now a division of Herakles' life into two distinct parts, such as is made
by Bibl.-Diodorus, is artificial. We must not forget that in the case of
Herakles it was especially difficult to present a coherent report. For, on the
one side, there were the labours which were meant to fill a life-time and
to culminate in the apotheosis of the hero. On the other hand, different
adventures and expeditions were ascribed to him. If, therefore, the labours
and the other adventures are clearly separated and are arranged according
to a definite scheme, we will have to admit that here we have the deliberate
action of an author, who tried in this way to produce order out of the chaos.
It is likely that this author is not a poet but a mythographer, for the mytho-
graphers were the first authors who had to offer a continuous prose Herakles'
narrative
and who were thus confronted with the problem of arranging
adventures. It is, therefore, possible that Pherecydes is to be made responsible
for this division of Herakles' life.
As for details of the report by Bibl.-Diodorus of the second part of
Herakles' life and their relation with Pherecydes, we may refer to the
following points. The murder of Iphilos and the stay with Omphale was according
to 3 FGH 82 b (== Schol. MV 22) narrated by Pherecydes. The story of
the schol. runs as follows. Iphitos, the son of Eurytos, is in search of his
horses. Though he has been warned by the seer Polyidos, ho goes to Tiryns,
where he is murdered by Herakles, because of the refusal of Iole's hand.
Herakles is, thereupon, punished by Zeus and sold by Hermes for three talents
to Omphale.
Jacoby {FGH I p. 4*5) mistrusts the schol., because it does not agree with
3 FGH 82 a, while that testimony cannot be mistrusted, as far as our
information goes. Moreover, we know that the Homeric D Scholia are not always
reliable. I do not think, however, that the report of the D Scholia is totally
false. We saw above that it is likely that a great part of the adventures which
have been attributed in Bibl. - Diodorus to the second part of Herakles'
career, were mentioned in Pherecydes. Among the adventures related by
Bibl.-Diodorus, the murder of Iphitos takes a prominent place. We further
know that Iphitos' murder by Herakles was mentioned by Homer. Since,
however, Pherecydes oflen followed Homer and even discussed those persons

(172) For the attribution of this fragment to book II, cf. above p. 126.
(17;?) Therefore, I think it unlikely that Jacoby (FGH I, p. ^) is
right in his opinion that in Pherecydes the capture of Oichalia occurred
directly a tier the completion of the labours or of one of the labours.
curious version is preserved in Schol. D 3g2. Tliis version cannot,
however, be connected with 3 FGH 82 a Oichalia is here localised in
Boiotia The version represents a succinct and confused report of Herakles'
adventures. The capture of Oichalia is mentioned here in a false context.
150 VAN DER VALK
who were only casually mentioned in Homer (cf. e. g. 3 FGH i5g), it is
also unlikely from this side that Iphitos' murder should not have been
mentioned by Pherecydes.
Now in the report of the adventure with Iphitos, as narrated by Bibl.,
the following details may be of interest. According to Bibl. II, i3o. Rerakles,
when having been struck by a serious illness because of Iphitos' murder,
consults the Delphian oracle. When he is denied entrance, a combat ensues
between him and Apollo which is ended by Zeus separating the combatants
by a thunder-bolt. The same motif occurs in the story of Kyknos, as narrated
by Bibl. II, n4> for here Herakles and Ares are separated by a thunder-bolt.
One will remember, how we observed above that the passage about Kyknos
seemed to go back on Pherecydes. Since authors, especially ancient authors,
are inclined to repeat the same motives, a practice which can already be
found in Homer, and since both passages occur in the report of Bibl. about
Herakles, it seems in fact likely that both features go back on the same author
and that accordingly also in the report about Iphitos the hand of Pherecydes
can be traced.
In this connection, we also point to the fact that in Bibl. II, 129 Iphitos
is in search of cows which have been stolen by Autolykos. Homer, however
(o 22 ff.) speaks of horses in a context, where one cannot but think that
they have been stolen by Herakles himself. We also see that in Bibl. II, 129
Iphitos is only killed by Herakles, because the latter went temporarily mad.
In Homer, however, Herakles deliberately kills Iphilos and is blamed therefore
by -the poet. Thus one can see that in the report about Iphitos by Bibl.
Herakles is exculpated as much as possible (174) In this connection, we
may refer to the adventure of Herakles at Kos, reported by Bibl. II, 1.S7 f. (175),
on which also a D Schol. on 255 (= 3 FGH 78) exists (176), which
Schol. is ascribed in the subscriptio to Pherecydes. Again Jaooby (FGH I,
p. 4i4) calls into doubt the reliability of the Scholion.
In that passage Bibl. and Schol. D closely correspond. In both versions
Herakles is driven by a tempest to Kos ; he is wrongly taken for a pirate
and attacked by the inhabitants of the island. He is accordingly forced to
defend himself and kills the king Eurypylos (177) We can expect that the
mylhographer Pherecydes should have related Herakles' adventure on Kos,
which was already mentioned by Homer. In this story, however, Herakles is
again exculpated. If, therefore, the story goes back on Pherecydes, as the
subscriptio says, we see that from this side, too, the fact appears that Herakles
was exculpated by that mythographer.
We further point to Herakles' adventure with Augeias and the Molionides,
which is reported by Bibl. II, 139-142 and which occurs in a D Schol. which

(174) It was easy to throw the blame of the theft on Aulolykos, since the
latter was famous for his tliefts in Greek mythology. The version is clearly
secondary.
(175) The adventure has not been narrated by Diodorus.
(17c) Unfortunately, Jacohy when presenting the Scholion does not
mention that it occurs in D. It is to be stressed that these Scholia, even if they
also occur in A, B -, Gen. or other mss-, are always original in D.
(177) According to Schol. D Herakles also has a son Thessalos by the
king's daughter. Bibl. does not mention this fact. We know that Bibl. wa*
inclined to omit such notices for reasons of decency.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 151
is again ascribed to Pherecydes viz. 3 FGH 79 b (= Schol. D 709).
Luetke, who also has treated the passage (I I- pp. 40-^2) thinks that only
the detail of Herakles' fight with the Molionides can be traced back with
certainty on Pherecydes (178). I think that we can go a step further. When
Schol. D says
-
. rH and when we compare 3 FGH 79 a,
we may suppose that in Pherecydes' version Herakles has overcome the
Molionides by laying an ambush. This fact is also reported by Bibl. II,
i/io (179) Bibl. also narrates that Herakles fell ill on the expedition against
Elis and, therefore, made a truce. This truce was broken by the Molionides
who attacked and defeated his army. If these details do not occur in Schol.
D, we must take into account that the schol. only succinctly narrates the
story. In the report of Bibl. we can see that Herakles is again exculpated
and that his adventures are deliberately represented as favourably as possible
with regard to the hero himself. In the report of Bibl. Herakles' conduct is
made acceptable to Greek ethics (180), because the Molionides have started
the quarrel.
These details which we exposed in Bibl. reveal a similar mentality. Now
we must not forget that in oldest Greek literature and in the myths the views
on Herakles must have been divergent. The hero was beneficent in killing
monsters, etc. But also the capture of towns and many arbitrary deeds had
to be charged to his account. Homer, as we know, openly condemned his
conduct, ( a6-36). A mythographer who had to compose Herakles' story was
confronted with a serious problem because of the divergency of the hero's
deeds. I think it, therefore, understandable that the earliest mythographers
will have tried to exculpate the great Greek hero. In Pherecydes this
tendency can, in my opinion, in fact be revealed. For this we refer to 3 FGH
82 a. According to the common and no doubt original version Herakles
destroys Oichalia out of love for Iole. According to Pherecydes, however, he
captures the town, because he asks Iole in marriage for his son Hyllos. The
version is clearly a secondary one. However, it reveals a particular mentality.
Hyllos has been substituted for Herakles, because the author tries to exculpate
the hero. In Bibl. we saw the same tendency and we also tried to expose
that some indications here pointed to Pherecydes. I think that this view is
confirmed by a comparison with FGH 82 a.

(178) The etymology which is offered at the beginning of the D Schol.

certainly does not go back on Pherecydes (We know that the D Scholia like
to offer etymologies). D further describes the stature of the Molionides
(). This notice does not concern the historia and, therefore, it is
not certain that it goes back on Pherecydes.
(179) The story also occurs in Diodorus (IV, 33), where it has, however,
been altered considerably. This is caused by the fact that Diodorus likes to
represent Herakles as a great cultural hero (for this cf. below). Therefore,
he does not admit him to suffer a setback. Thus he only says of the first
battle with the Molionides -
. Also the detail about iho ambush has for this reason been altered
(Diodorus does not say , but ). For the fact that
in Diodorus only Kteatos is mentioned, cf. rightly Bethe, p. 72.
(180) The fact is embodied in the famous Greek adage
, cf. also the Homeric % , ' ( 35)
 152 VAN DER VALK
There seems to remain an objection, since in the Homeric scholion which
was attributed to Pherecydes (o FGH 82 b), no mention of Herakles' madness
was made, a detail which seemed to be characteristic of Pherecydes, while
also Iphitos is represented in search of horses, whereas in Bibl. he was
looking for cows stolen by Autolykos. We must, however, take account here of
the typical mentality of the D Scholia, to which we pointed above. Schol.
D speaks of horses, because these horses occur in the Homeric text which D
explains. As we showed, the D Scholia always try to bring the story which
they derive from their source into conformity with the Homeric text. The
detail of Herakles' madness may have been omitted, because the histonai of
course abridge the text of their sources.
Thus we think that Pherecydes has mentioned the murder of Iphitos. As
for a motivation of the fact, it is possible that he only attributed it to the
temporary madness of Herakles, as reported by Bibl. It is also likely that
the story of Omphale occurred in Pherecydes, since this story is intimately
connected with the story of Iphitos. In their report about Omphale Bibl. (II,
i3o-i33) and Diodorus (IV, 3i) closely correspond. Both mention the
Kerkopes and Syleus (181). Pherecydes, however (3 FGH 77) offers a different
tradition about the Kerkopes and thus he cannot have been followed here (182).
With regard to Pherecydes we also refer to Bibl. II, i48, where 3 FGH %
occurs. Bibl. relates the combat of Herakles and Acheloios ; the latter only
gets back the horn which Herakles has taken, if h gives the horn of Amal-
theia in exchange. Bibl. then points to Pherecydes who said
(83) , ?, , ' & -
(84) Jacoby (FGH I, p. 4o5) thinks that the notice occurred in
Pherecydes' report about Zeus' youth, while according to Wilamowitz (i85)
it was mentioned in the story of Geryones. We might as well assume that
it was mentioned on the occasion of the combat with Acheloios We may
suppose that Pherecydes, who gave an extensive account of Herakles'
adventures, has certainly not omitted the suing for Deianira. In this connection,
we also point to the fact that Amaltheia in Bibl. I. /. is not identified with
the goat which nursed Zeus, but is called a daughter of Armenios. This is a
specific tradition. I should think that this detail also goes back on
Pherecydes, who then rejected the story of the goat Amaltheia. If Pherecydes
mentioned the episode of the horn, he must also have explained why Herakles

(181) As for the text of Bibl., I should retain in II, 182

xxs. Wilamowitz has observed that the story of Omphale must
originally be located in Greece and was transposed into Lydia. Therefore, Aulis
may indicate the Boiotian locality and have been transposed in a clumsy way
into Lydia. For the fact that the Kerkopes were localised in Boiotia, cf 3
FGH 77.
(i8ri) Wilamowitz, 1. L, thinks Uiat the story of Omphale derives from
an epic source. We may, however, observe that in older times, as we know
from Homer, the talent had a low value. When, however, Herakles is said,
to have been sold for three talents, it must have had a higher value.
(183) I should prefer this reading which occurs in Hypoth. Track, to
'-/ of the mss.
(184) Also Schol. D IQ7 connects the horn of Amaltheia with the
combat between Herakles and Acheloios.
(185) Kleine Schrift. V, 2, i3/j ; cf. also Luetke, p. 33 f.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 453
accepted the horn of Amallheia and thus he had to narrate its miraculous
qualities (186).
As for Pherecydes, we further point to the following passages. Bibl. I, 85
narrates the story of Sisyphos and his punishment in Hades, because he
informed Asopos of the rape of the letter's daughter Aigina by Zeus. The story
of Sisyphos also occurs in Schol. D 53 which is ascribed by the sub-
scriptio to Pherecydes (3 FGH 119). In this schol. the information of the
rape of Aigina is also mentioned as the cause of Sisyphos' punishment. The
schol. also narrates the cunning way in which Thanatos is deceived by
Sisyphos. Since the report contains the archaic features, characteristic of a
fairy-tale, even Jacoby (FGH I, p. fai) has this time followed the indication
of the subscriptio and attributes the schol. to Pherecydes. We can compare
the story with the report about Melampous which is also as'cribed to
Pherecydes, as we saw. There we met with a seer who disposed of supernatural
knowledge. Here we see a man who even succeeds in overcoming supernatural
powers such as Death.
The defrauding of Thanalos does not occur, however, in Bibl. We must
take account here of the mentality of Bibl. Since the latter wrote for a
rationalistic public, he mostly omitted the details which seemed to be phantasti-
cal (187). On the other hand, Bibl. just as Schol. D relates a detail which
is archaic, viz. Sisyphos' punishment for a fact which cannot be condemned
ethically i. e. the indication of the rape of a woman. We see here, how the
offence against a god, even if it is ethically completely justifiable,
automatically brings about the punishment of a mortal. For this we may remind
of the persecution of Odysseus by Poseidon, though he had only defended
himself against the letter's son Polyphemos.
In this connection, we can also refer to the catalogue of the women in the
Odyssey, 3o5-33o. In this second part of the Catalogue, the poet mentions
persons who have tresspassed and who are, in my opinion, enumerated here
according to the principle of the descending scale (188). First of all the
greatest transgressors, the Aloads, who even tried to dethrone the gods are
mentioned, 11. 3o5-32i. Thereupon, Phaidra, Prokris and Ariadne occur,
11. 32i-3a6. Of these women only Ariadne is brought to the fore She is said
to have been killed by Artemis [^. It is clear that the

(186) Also Diodorus (IV, 35, l\) presupposes the story of the horn, etc.
The report has, however, been completely modernised. We also point to the
fact that in Bibl. precisely this detail is ascribed to Pherecydes. As we already
saw above, manuals like Bibl. do not like to narrate phantastical or
supernatural facts. If they narrate them, they prefer to attribute the responsibility
for them to a source. Thus Bibl. or his source may have expressly
mentioned Pherecydes for this reason.
(187) We also refer to Bibl. I, io4-ioG, the story of Admetos and Alkeslis.
Bibl. I, 106 says of Apollo , ) (scil.
Admetos) . Now Schol. Eurip. Ale. 12 relates that according
to Aischylos the Moirai were made drunk by Apollo. If this archaic detail
occurred in the source of Bibl., it has been purposely omitted, in my opinion.
Perhaps Aischylos was following a source which may have been Pherecydes.
In Bibl. the story occurs in surroundings, where Pherecydes has been
repeatedly followed.
(188) For this principle, cf. J. Tli. Kakridis, Homeric Researches,
Lund 1949
154 VAN DER VALK
poet hints at an offence against Dionysos. According to the practice often
followed by Homer, the fact is only mentioned in covert terms in 3a 4 f.
The lines have been wrongly altered by modern and ancient critics (189).
Since Ariadne is here represented as a sinner, she is also called
, though in 568 Minos is praisingly called
uV () '1 *ne third place Maira, Klymene and Eriphyle are mentioned.
Only Eriphyle is brought to the fore and is said to have betrayed her
husband for gold. Here again we meet with a typical characteristic of archaic
religion. In our eyes Eriphyle's offence greatly exceeds that of Ariadne.
Therefore, we would have expected the latter to have been mentioned directly
after the Aloads. To the archaic mind, however, Ariadne's transgression is the
more offensive, because she has sinned against a god. Therefore, she is
mentioned directly after the Aloads. As for the principle of the descending
scale, we can also find it in the Catalogue of the sinners, 582-6oi (191),
which has been wrongly attributed to an interpolator. Here, too Tityos, who
is mentioned first of all, is the greatest sinner, because he has tried to violate
a goddess.
If now we return to Sisyphos, we see that the report of Bibl. and o
Schol. D reflects an older stage of Greek religion. Therefore, it is possible
that Bibl. here follows Pherecydes. As for Pherecydes, we may further refer
to the story about Ixion in Bibl. Epit. 1, 20 f. and Diod. IV, 69 f. According
to Diodorus (192), Ixion's father is called . Now Schol. Apoll. Rh. Ill,
62 (=3 3 fGIl 5i b) observes : \ ,
(follows a quotation), . , ' ,
, / < .
. Then follow the murder of Eioneus, Ixion's
madness, his purification by Zeus, the adventure with Hra-Nephele and
Ixion's punishment. One would be inclined to ascribe the story to Pherecydes
according to the testimony of the schol. itself, if one had not to take account

(189) Thus Aristophanes of Byzanz read "Aptsp-i ', cp also Wilamo-

witz, Der Glaube (1er Hellenen, I, 4JI> where 326 is athctized. For
Ariadne, cp. also Herter, Gnomon 16 (ig^o), 4io-4i6.
(190) In antiquity commentators were at a loss to explain , cp.
Schol. QT on 322. The epithet can be explained, because Minos was the
father of Ariadne, who sinned against Dionysos. We may add that Ariadne
and Eriphyle are not punished in Hades. Their punishment consists in an
untimely death.
(191) We may add that the principle of the descending scale is not found
at the beginning of the catalogue, for it opens with a report about the sons
of Poseidon and Tyro, 235-2 52, while the sons of Zeus are not
mentioned till later on. This is due to a special reason, for Tyro is the ancestor
of Nestor, one of the principal heroes of the Ionians (for this, cp. Mnemosyne
1952, p. 2^4 and N. 1). Therefore, Tyro is called ( 235),
her father Salmoneus is called ( 236), though he is generally
considered an impious king. (Accordingly the scholia on 236 are surprised at
this fact). We remind the reader of the fact that also Neleus is called
.., ( 299) and , while Pelias and
Neleus arc called )' ( 2 55), the Enipeus
( 23g).
(192) Bibl. this time is less interesting, because Epit. seems to have
.abridged the original version.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 1 55
of Schol. Pind. Pyth. II, o a (= 3 FGH 5i a) saying :
, , .
Already Wesseling (19^) poiiited to the discrepancy ; Jacoby (3 FGH 5i a
and FGH I p. 07) and Wendel in his edition of the Scholia of Apoll. Rhod.
wish to follow Schol. Pind. and, therefore, they think Schol. Apoll. Rhod. to
be corrupt. In their opinion, after a lacuna must be assumed.
I do not think this view attractive, for in that case at any rate in the lacuna
the name of Aischylos must have occurred and consequently, if we read with
the ms. the history which follows must be ascribed to Aischylos. If
we read with Jacoby-Wendel act we must assume that the schol. only
offers the vulgate opinion. I do not think that a commentator such as the
scholiast of Apollonius Rh., when narrating Ixion's adventures, would
have recurred to a tragic author. He would rather have preferred a mythogra-
pher such as Pherecydes, whose report could be directly used. We further
know that the scholiast of Apollonius Rh. has often consulted Pherecydes. We
further refer to , occurring in the Schol., which presents an Ionian
form (194) and which wojld be easily explainable, if we assume that the
scholiast has taken it over from Pherecydes.
We further observe that according to Pherecydes (3 FGH 5i a) Ixion went
mad after the murder, which fact is also related by Schol. Apoll. Rh. (195).
Therefore, I think that Schol. Pind. and not Schol. Ap. Rh. is wrong (196).
In this way Schol. Apoll. Rh. also gets a proper explanation. The scholiast
this time has not offered a list of variants of the name of Ixion's father.
If he had wished to do so, he would have been able to present several
testimonies, for we know that he was generally well-informed. He only quotes
a line from Euripides for the name of Ixion's father, thereupon, he presents
the story borrowed from Pherecydes and since the name of the father was
different in Pherecydes, he expressly mentions the variant (197).
We further point to the story of Atreus and Thyestes, Ribl. Epit. 2,
10 ff. (198). According to Pherecydes (3 FGH i33) the quarrel between
the two brothers was caused by Artemis. The same reason is presented by
Bibl. (Epit. 2, 10 ff.), who offers the following story. Atreus vowed to

(^3) In his edition of Diodorus, p. 3 1 - . 5/|.

(194) The word also occurs in this form in Theophrastus, but there it has
the specific meaning of subterranean course of a river . Archiv f. Papyrus-
forsch. VII, p. 7, offers an instance from an epic, poem- Here it can be
explained, however, as a reminiscence from Homer.
(195; We point to the fact that Schol. Apollonius Rhod. here makes use
of the older Ionian word and not of .
(196) The fact that Schol. Pind. should have made a mistake is explainable,
for the scholiasts, who often offered extensive lists of authorities, can have
easily made minor mistakes.
(197) We also observe that in the part of Schol. Apoll. Rhod. which we
claim for Pherecydes, the name of Ixion's father-in-law is presented as
. Tins name must have also occurred in Diodorus, since his mss.
offer ';. Also Schol. DE 218 offers this name, while Schol. A. A
268 offers i.e. . Il is curious to see that in Diodorus IV,
70 and Schol. D A 203 Ilippodaineia, the wife of Ixion's son, is called a
daughter of , while Schol. D A a63 calls Peirithoos an Athenian. The
name of points to the well-known Athenian family o the Boutades.
(198) Diodorus (IV, 73) only offers the contest of Pelops and Oinomaos.
 VAN DER VALK
sacrifice to Artemis the finest animal of his flock, but when a golden lamb
appeared, he negle<:led to fulfil his vow. Then follows the punishment by
Artemis, the treacherous conduct of Atreus' wife and the quarrel, etc. (199).
Now Myrtilos, who is killed by Pelops, is mostly represented as a son of
Hermes. Since Myrtilos when he is dying calls down a curse upon Pelops,
most authors (cf. the testimonies in 3 FGH i33) ascribe to Hermes the
cause of the quarrel. Thus it is interesting to see that Bibl. and Pherecydes
differ from the vulgate in this detail. We may point to a still more
interesting fact. Bibl. II, 94 narrates that Minos vowed to sacrifice to Poseidon
( . When, thereupon, a beautiful bull appeared, Minos
retained it and sacrificed another. The bull was driven mad by Poseidon and
was finally subdued by Herakles (seventh labour). The same story occurs
again in Bibl. Ill, 8 ff. This time Minos wishes to have his kingship
confirmed by the gods ; he prays to Poseidon to bring forward a bull out of the
sea. Then follows the story mentioned above. This time Bibl. adds the story of
the incestuous intercourse of Pasipha with the bull (200). In my opinion,
both stories about the bull go back on the same source. I also think it
probable that the story of the bull and that of the ram, both reported by Bibl.,
must be traced back to the same source, for we see in fact that they show
an identical pattern. In both versions the heroes pray the gods to confirm
their kingship by a token ; when this is given, they neglect to sacrifice it
and accordingly the gods make the token the cause of grave evils befalling
the hero and his family. We may also draw attention to another point of
identity by which the ancient religious mentality is illustrated. As is well-
known, Poseidon (201) is originally the husband of the earth-mother. To
him animals of larger dimensions such as horses and bulls are sacred. Artemis,
as (202), likewise dominates over the animals. Since Artemis,
however, is a woman, it is mostly animals of a smaller size, such as
hares (2o3) and deer that are attributed to her. I think that for this reason
the bull of Minos is connected with Poseidon, whereas the ram of Atreiis
is connected with Artemis. Now we may go a step further. We saw that the
story of Minos' bull is found in the report by Bibl. of Herakles' seventh
labour. As we tried to show above, the final labours, at any rate go back on
Pherecydes, and in all probability the other labours also go back on that
author. On the other hand, we saw that in the story of Atreus, offered by
Bibl., precisely the detail about the wrath of Artemis was only found in Phe-
recydies. I think that the testimonies point in the same direction and make
it likely that the version of Bibl. about the quarrel of Atreus and Thyestes
goes back on Pherecydes (2o4)

(199) An extensive account of the testimonies, where the stories of the

golden lamb, Thyestes, etc. can be found, is offered by Frazer, Apollodorus,
Ed. Loeb, I pp. 164 ff.
(200) Since in Bibl. II g4 the labours of Herakles form the main theme,
ho only narrates here those details which are necessary for the illustration
of the subject. In III, 8 ff., where the history of the Cretan kings is
narrated, lie offers a more extensive account.
(201) Cf. e.g. Wilamowilz, Der Glaube der Hellenen I pp. 211 ff.
(202) Cf . .g. Nilsson, Geschichte der Griechischen Religion I pp. 454 ff.
(203) Cf. e.g. Aeschyl. A gam. i34-i4o.
(204) We observe that in Bibl. II, g4 Akousilaos is quoted by name, while
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 157

We may point here to another detail. One would think that also the
preceding part of the story, relating Pelops' youth, his contest with Oinomaos, etc.
go back on Pherecydes. In fact he has treated of these points (cf. 3 FGH 3).
We can also see that Bibl. (Epit. i, 3-8), though he offers some variants,
in the main presents the same story as Diodorus (IV, 73). Both authors,
narrate that Oinomaos was warned by an oracle against giving his daughter
in marriage (ao5). Both authors also relate the contest and the death of
Oinomaos (206). Diodorus is less explicit, because he offers a more modern
representation and, therefore, avoids the more simple details. Now both Bibl.
and Diodorus assume that the contest took place in the Ploponnse, whereas
Pherecydes (F 3; b) narrates that Pelops after the contest returned to the
Ploponnse. Thus he seems to offer another tradition (cf. Schol. Orest. 990),
according to which Oinomaos dwelled in Lesbos (207). So he differs from
both authors.
As for the character of Bibl. we can sec that it is different from that
of Diodorus, who nevertheless treated the same subjects. In Diodorus the
representation is more modern. On the other hand, those authors who offer
a modernised representation of mylhographical history, such as Asklepiades
and Dionysius Skytobrachion, have not been used frequently by Bibl.
Asklepiades is only quoted twice by him (208). In this connection we also refer

the story of the Cretan bull which, as we think, goes back on Pherecydes, is
attributed to ;. This may be due to the fact that the principal source
is purposely mentioned anonymously.
(205) The same idea occurs in the story of Akrisios and Danae, where we
tried to show that it went back on Pherecydes. One will observe that above
we also tried to show that the delivering of oracles was characteristic of Hella-
nicus. However, in the case of Hellanicus we can see that the oracles were
neglected by the persons to whom they were addressed, whereas in the cases of
Akrisios and Oinomaos they were obeved.
(206) About Oinomaos' death Bibl. (Epit. I, 7) relates two versions,
neither of whicli occurs in Diodorus. According to the latter Oinomaos
committed suicide after his defeat. Bethe (p. 5i) has rightly seen that this
version must be attributed to Diodorus himself. For this a reason can be
given. Diodorus likes to represent the ancient Greek kings as cultured
persons (cf. e.g. for Pelops
) . Since one of the versions of Bibl. relates that Oinomaos
was killed by Pelops, I think that this version occurred in Diodorus' source
and was purposely avoided by him. The other version of Bibl. relates that
Oinomaos got entangled in the reins of his horses. This reminds us of the
death of Hippolytos in Eurip. and of Orestes in Soph. Electra. It may have
been copied after these and thus be derived from a later source. It may
perhaps be connected with the oilier variant, related in Bibl., that Oinomaos
did not give his daughter in maniagt1, because he loved her. In this case both
motives would have been derived by Bibl. from the same source. We observe
that the latter motive is ascribed by Schol. Eur. Or. 990 to
. may recall hero the term which
is used in the Homeric Scholia by Didymus and which, as I have tried to
show elsewhere (Van der Valk, Textual Criticism of the Odyssey, pp. 157 f),
precisely indicates the later manuscripts. Here, too, this term might indicate the
later historiographers.
(207) Cf. RE XVI pp. n53 ff. and XVII. p. 22^,7, and also Schwartz,
Scholia Homcrica, pp. 45A-456.
(208,) This fact may not seem convincing, because Hellanicus is never
158 VAN DER VALK
to Herodorus. The latter is sometimes quoted by Bibl. and may sometimes have
been used by him (209). When we survey the fragments of Herodoras, we
see that he offered a sophisticated representation of Herakles, who was
depicted as a philosopher (F i3 and i4)> made use of supernatural food
(F 1), while the lion which he combated was represented as originating from
another earth (210). Of this kind of representation no trace can be found in
Bibl. Though in Bibl. the sources are somewhat modernised and rationalised,
as we saw above, the features occurring in the archaic authors are in the
main preserved.
In this connection a comparison of Bibl. with Diodorus is of interest. For
this we may compare the representation by Bibl. of the history of Herakles
with that offered by Diodorus and Tabula Albana. Thus in Tabula Alb- in
the principal version (4<> FGH a), the labours are missing ; they are only
treated at the end (4o FGH c). This is caused by the fact that in Tabula
Alb. Herakles' life has been rationalised. He is no longer represented as an
archaic hero combating monsters, but as a victorious king after the pattern
of Alexander the great. For this reason the labours narrating victories over
beasts or mythical adventures such as the descent to Hades, have got no
place assigned to them in the main story (211). In Tabula Alb. the principal
story can be divided into two parts (212). The second part (beginning
FGH I p. 262, 1. 68) contains the great expeditions. These expeditions,
which start from the North of Greece (2i3) are not directed to the West,

quoted in Bibl. and, as we saw, has often been consulted by him. However,
the romantic kind of representation which seems to be typical of Asklepiades
is not found in Bibl.
(209) We refer to 3i FGH 17 Herakles being educated by the cow-herds of
Amphitryon, cf. Bibl. II, 64 ; 3i FGH 19 and Bibl. II, 64 (the height of
Herakles) ; 3i FGH 32 Herakles went mad twice, cf. Bibl. II, i4* We
must reckon with the fact that some of the above-named details may have
been derived by Herodoras from earlier authors who were also followed
in Bibl.
(210) F 4, cf. also F 21 on Cf. also F 22 a (on
the vultures), F 3o (Prometheus), F 3i (Kerberos) which do not correspond
with Bibl.
(211) This tendency can already be observed in Eurip. Herald. 35g ff
Thus Euripides for instance omits the labour of the boar, as being less
distinguished. He can do so, because in mythical history (cf. e. g. Bibl. II,
83-87) tms labour is intimately connected with the fight with the Centaurs.
Therefore, Euripides only retained the Centaurs. We can also see that
Euripides has recurred to a refined device in order to avoid giving a prominent
place to victories over beasts. For this reason the expedition to the Hespe-
rides which occured at the end of the labours, was placed by Euripides in
ihe middle. He also expanded this expedition to three labours- Accordingly
the labour which did not contain fights with beasts was made by Euripides
the principal piece. On the other hand, Soph. Trachin. 1091-1100 mentions
the boar, etc. Unlike Euripides Sophocles does not offer a modernised
version of the labours.
(213) We point to the fact that the institution of the Olympic games
(II. 64 f.) is expressly placed at the end of the adventures in Greece. Thus
this important fact is placed in the middle of the description of Herakles' life.
(2i3) Herakles begins by subjecting the Dryopes who have revolted. We
can see how in Tabula Alb. the original story has been rationalised, for ori-
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 159

as was the case wilh the ancient mythographers, but to the East. They
imitate Alexander's conquests (ai4) The other part of Tabula Alb. contains
the other feats of Herakles' life, viz. the adventures in Greece and the
expeditions to Lydia and Troy. It is interesting to see that in Tabula Alb.
these two expeditions are placed at the beginning of Herakles' life. Since
Tabula Alb. omitted the labours, he had now to place at the beginning other
deeds illustrating the hero's greatness. As such he takes the expeditions, because
they better illustrate this fact than the adventures in Greece.
In Diodorus we can observe the same fact. Herakles is no longer represented
as an archaic hero, but rather as a promotor and patron of culture. This
feature can already be observed in the narrative of the labours, because it is
not Herakles' strength, but his acuteness and insight which are praised by
Diodorus (214 bis). We further see that in Bibl. the labours have been
narrated in one continuous sequence. Diodorus, however, when about half of
the labours have been completed, makes a pause and narrates in IV, i4 and
1 5 the institution of the Olympic games, the battle with the Gigantes at
Pallene and the rescue of Prometheus. The reason for this seems to be
apparent. Since Herakles is above all a cultural hero to Diodorus, he first
has to complete some labours, because the original story presented this
pattern and also because he had to become famous by them. As soon as
possible, however, he proceeds to his cultural task.
This difference can be also seen in the following particular. In Bibl. II,
71 Herakles, at the beginning of his career, receives several gifts from the
gods, such as a swiord, a Low, etc. In Diodorus (IV, i4> 3) Herakles receives
similar gifts, which are, however, only presented to him in the middle of
his career, when he has instituted the Olympic games. In Diodorus he
receives the gifts as an acknowledgement of his virtue and personal
achievements (2i5). However, the original scheme is presented by Bibl. Here,
the archaic hero is at Ihe beginning of his career provided by the gods
with the weapons which will be helpful to him when fulfilling his tasks.
Already in Homer Herakles is aided by the gods, just as Perseus in
Pherecydes, as we saw above, gains his object with the aid of the gods (216).

ginally the Dryopes were an older tribe which was expelled by the Dorians
under Herakles.
(ai4) In this connection, we observe that Tabula Albana calls his report
' . We recall the fact that Kallisthenes' work on Alexander
was called ' Ilpaet, of. 124 FG11 28. We further observe that
the expedition to Ethiopia (Emathion) and to Egypt. (Busiris) which
originally were connected with the twelfth labour (Hesperides) arc in Tabula
Albana (11. i2,5-i35) disengaged from it and connected with the great
expedition to the East.
(214 bis) Cf. Diod. IV, 11, 6, the killing of the hydra ^
'/ ; IV, lu, 2, the boar ;
IV, 3, l, the deer / ^
; IV, 3, 2, the Slymphalian birds / .
; IV, 1 3, , the stables of Augeias
.
(2 1 5) Cf. Diod. IV, 1 4, 3
. In Diodorus the number of the gifts is greater than that
mentioned in Bibl.
(216) In the same way in Diod. IV, 10, 4 Herakles defeats the Minyans,
160 VAN DER VALK
We further observe that in Bibl. II, 72 Herakles' madness is caused by
Hera, as also the vulgate relates. Diodorus (IV, 11, i), however, eliminates the
goddess and offers a psychological explanation, the madness being caused by
,. This way of explanation is also found in the story of Phaedra
and Hippolytos, as related by Diod. IV, 62, cf. Bibl. Epit. 1, 18 f.
Bethe (I. I. p. 86) has already rightly pointed to the correspondence between
Diodorus and the Prologue of Euripides' Hippolytos. Bethe, however, thinks
that the Hippolytos cannot have been directly used by Diodorus, because he
often differs from it. We can even- see that sometimes Bibl. seems to be
more in conformity with Euripides than Diodorus, for Bibl. contains
Theseus' three wishes, the bull arising from the sea, etc., which are missing
in Diodorus. However, in my opinion, it appears that Diodorus has directly
followed the prologue of the Hippolytos (217). The differences between the
drama and Diodorus musl be explained by the special mentality of the latter.
Thus Diodorus purposely omits Poseidon's curse and the appearance of the
bull, because the modern author rejects supernatural details and prefers to
motivate the course of events by inner psychological conflicts. Therefore,
the horses are not frightened by a bull, but because Hippolytos
. Theseus, too, does not directly believe Phaedra's imputations.
Diodorus does not wish to represent the great hero, as being credulous, for,
as we observed above, in Diodorus the archaic heroes have great spiritual
qualities. Therefore, Theseus .
Thus the differences between the drama and Diodorus can be explained as
personal alterations, made by Diodorus. For we see that in the beginning of
the story Diodorus closely corresponds with the Hippolytos and narrates in
the same way as the drama how Phaedra fell in love with Hippolytos, when
the latter came to Athens for the mysteries and how she erected a temple of
Aphrodite. We may reason in the following way- Euripides, in his drama,
still made ample use of supernatural elements and thus in this respect he

because he and his companions take the weapons which have been dedicated
in the temples. In Bibl. II, 69 we have the original representation. Herakles
receives the weapons from Athena. Thus in Bibl. II, g3 Herakles expels the
Stymphalian birds by means of a rallie, offered him by Athena ; in Diod.
iV, i3, 2 he expels them by his own ingenuity.
(317) A similar fact can be observed in the story of Oedipus, where Diod.
IV, 64, in my opinion, has directly followed the Prologue of the Phoenissae
o Euripides, a fact which has been denied by Bethe cf., however, also
C. Robert, Oidipus (Berlin, 191 5), pp. 5 1 1-564 The correspondence is
very close, cf. e. g. Diodorus . ' '
with Phorn. 20
6V . Cf also Diod. with Phoen. 26 f The
differences between both can be explained as alterations made by Diodorus
himself. Thus Phoen. 21 says about Laios ') /
Just as in the case of Hippolytos, this representation is
closer to Bibl. (Ill, 48) } than to Diodorus -
/ '. Diodorus has omitted this detail, because
lie considered it indecent. Bibl. offered the archaic representation which was
also retained by Euripides. The fact that Diodorus calls Iokaste a daughter
of Kreon must be explained as a slip of Diodorus, caused, in my opinion,
by the fact that Phoen. 10 f. placed the names in each
other's neighbourhood. Other minor differences can be explained, because
Diodorue abridges his source.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA
closely followed the archaic version. Diodorus, however, rationalises these
elements. When comparing Bibl., we seem to meet with a version which is
more archaic. After Phaedra has got a repulse from Hippolytos, she tears
her clothes, breaks the doors of her bedroom and thus accuses Hippolytos.
I should think that this nave representation in which Phaedra tries to offer
palpable proofs of Hippolytos' guilt may be archaic (218).
We also refer to the history of Salmoneus, Bibl. 1, 89 and Diod. VI,
fgm. 7, (219). The account of Bibl. is again naive and realistic and makes
an archaic impression. Diodorus, however, has altered the primitive details
of the dried skins and copper kettles and has modernised the story (220).
We finally point to the story of Meleager, where Diodorus (IV, 34 and
35) and Bibl. (I, 64-76) seem to have followed different sources (221).
Here, too, the version of Bibl. is the more archaic one. Thus in Bibl. Melea-
ger's uncles directly try to deprive Atalante of the hide of the boar and are
accordingly killed by Meleager. In Diodorus they afterwards lay an ambush ;
Meleager first of all tries to persuade them ; only when they pay no heed
to his entreaties does he slay them. In Bibl. we have the older version, in
which the angry hero, just like Achilles, directly asserts his own interests
and does not even refrain from murder. Bibl. also offers the interesting
detail, no trace of which is to be found in Diodorus, of a woman practising
the occupations of man such as hunting. For we learn from Bibl. (I, 69) that
the other heroes do not wish Atalante, as being a woman, to partake of the
expedition against the boar. They only admit her when forced by Meleager
to do so. We may compare Bibl. I, 64.. where he is doubtlessly following the
same source. When speaking about Deianeira he observes '
'. Here, too, a woman enters on the domain reserved
for man. For this reason, too, Meleager s uncles do not permit a woman to
accept the first prize and claim it for themselves -
xetv , ' . I should think that
this detail is an archaic one, showing as it does, the original close coherence
of the family, just as we know it from the Athenian orators. The next of
kin are the first to be entitled to the privileges and duties concerning the
family or one of its members. Thus we can see that the source followed by
Bibl. seems to have made the position of the woman who tried to encroach
on the privileges of man one of the central parts of the story (222).

(218) In Bibl. Phaedra only commits suicide after Hippolytos' death which
may be the older representation which was altered by Euripides. We also
point to Asklepiadcs, 12 FGH 28 (= Schol. V 3a ), whose account in
the main is in conformity with that of Euripides. I do not think it unlikely
that Asklepiades followed Euripides, the more so since for the story of
Hippolytos the version of Euripides was the dominant one.
(219) Bethe p. 07 f. thinks that Bibl. and Diodorus follow the same
source.
(220) Thus the detail of Salmoncus appropriating to himself the sacrifices
which were usually brought to Zeus, which detail only occurs in Bibl. no
doubt is original.
(221) Bethe p. 61 f. thinks that they follow the same source.
(222) Bibl. I, 72 f. offers a second version, in which Atalante has been
eliminated. This is caused by the fact that the source of Bibl. apparently paid
special attention to the Homeric account of book I. In it Meleager's wife,
Kleopatra, has a prominent place, a fact which can hardly be brought into
REG, LXXI. ID08, n 3:U-338. 11
 162 VAN DKR VALK
The above examples show that Bibl., as compared with the other sources,
mostly offers the archaic version. This also appears from the sources which
are mostly quoted in Bibl., for Pherecydes, Akousilaos and Hesiod are most
often quoted by him (223). We further see that the tragedians, who in fact
treated many mythographical subjects, are quoted rarely (22/5), while also
Pindar and Simonides occur only once. On the other hand, the cyclic poems
and epic poets such as Asios, Pisander and Kerkops are more often quoted.
Though the authors in question are mostly quoted once, the testimonies when
taken together, are relatively frequent. In this connection, we also point to
the fact that the cyclic poems are always quoted anonymously (viz.
) by Bibl. Pausanias and Athenaeus show that the cyclic poems
were often ascribed to different authors. We also know that the above-named
authors (Athenaeus, etc.), when quoting a cyclic poem, like to add
observations about the authenticity and the name of the author. Bibl., however*
always refrains from this quasi-scientific method and cautiously leaves the poems
anonymous, a fact which in my opinion attests to his scientific viewpoint.
In this connection the following fact is of interest. At the beginning of
book II (cf. above), Bibl. has made use of the epic poem Aigimios (225) for
the history of Io, Argos Panoptes, etc. Now just as in the case of the epic
poems, the author of the Aigimios was unknown or under debate ; the epic
being either ascribed to Hesiod or to Kerkops (226). For this reason
cautious and scientific authors, such as the scholiasts of Apollonius Rhod. and
of Euripides (227) only quote the poem as ?[.: . In view
of the above observations on the Cyclic poems, we could not but have expected
Bibl. to act in the same way. However, here we observe the following situation.
Bibl. II, 5, when relating the name of Io's father, quotes Hesiod. It is
obvious that here he refers to the Aigimios, just as in II, 5 when speaking
of the oath of lovers and quoting for it Hesiod, he also refers to it. However,
Bibl. II, 6 refers to the Aigimios by the name of Kerkops and also Bibl. II,
23 (228) speaks of Kerkops (229).

line with his love for Atalante. For this reason the quarrel does not arise here
because of Atalante. i
(2a3) For it, cf. the indices of Wagner's Edition (p. 33i f.).
(224) Sophocles is quoted once, Euripides four times. Further Bibl thrice
mentions the tragedians, while he then has in mind Sophocles (once) and
Euripides (thrice). The fact that Euripides is quoted most, is understandable,
since in Hellenistic times and afterwards his tragedies were the most popular.
(225) For the Aigimios, cf. Kinkel, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta,
pp. 82-86.
(226) Gf. e. g. Athen. XI, 5o3 D - '., '' ''
, ' . Unfortunately Kinkel only offers the
fragments and omits the testimonies. For the epic, cf. RE I, q63 f. (Bethe) and
XI, 3 1 1\ (Kroll). The latter does not refer to the authorship or the author of
the poem.
(227) Cf. Kinkel, Fr. I, 2 and 5.
(228) The fragment has been omitted by Kinkel.
(22a) For the fact that Bibl. II, 5 ff. is following the Aigimios, cf. also
Kinkel, Fr. 6. We observe that Kinkel's reference in reality concerns Heracl.
Alleg. g3, 3. The schol. Ven. which is quoted by Kinkel only reproduces
Heraclitus. In this fragment the name of Argeiphontes is explained from the
killing of Argos by Hermes. The same fact is related by Bibl. II, 7 who
apparently follows the Aigimios.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 163
Thus we sec that Bibl. not only docs not mention the epic anonymously,
but also seems to be misleading us, since he ascribes the same poem to two
different authors. We might think that Bibl. likes to mask his sources and
also likes to give the impression of being a learned author by referring to
as many names of authors as possible. Even if we should admit this fact, we
remain confronted with the peculiarity that for the cyclic epics Bibl. has not
followed this practice. Therefore, another explanation must be found- Now
it is well-known that the cyclic epic poems, with respect to which Bibl. follows
the scientific method, were ascribed either to Homer or to unknown poets. At
any rate, they were reckoned to the Homeric Corpus. The Aigimios, however,
belonged to the Hesiodeic Corpus. If now we recall the attitude of the great
Alexandrian critics, such as Aristarch, we know that the latter reserved a
special position for the Iliad and the Odyssey and made a sharp division
between Homer and the so-called neoteroi, to whom also Hesiod was reckoned.
In the Aristarchean school the unchallenged dogma existed, that the cyclic
poems could in no way be brought into relation with Homer. This attitude,
however, did not extend to the neoteros Hesiod. Though Aristophanes of
Byzanz denied the authenticity of the Scutum, of Hesiod, we must not forget
that in the Arislarchean school the question of the genuineness or inauthenti-
city of Hesiodeic poems was not a question of principle, as was the case with
the cyclic poems and their relation to Homer. If, therefore, we can state a
different attitude of Bibl. with regard to the cyclic poems and the Hesiodeic
Corpus, I think that we have to deal with a specific point of view. The
author of Bibl. reveals the influence of the Aristarchean school (a3o).
We may also refer to the above passage in connection with the quotations
occurring, in Bibl. As we observed the quotations are often believed to have
been derived by Bibl. from learned manuals. Now in Bibl. II, 6 we see that
he refers for the origin of Io's father to Pherecydes, Asklepiades, Kerkops
and Akousilaos. Of these sources Pherecydes, as we know, is the author who
is most frequently quoted in Bibl., so that the mentioning of him cannot
surprise us. We further saw that Akousilaos and Kerkops (Aigimios) seem
to have been precisely followed in this very part of Bibl. Thus three of
the authors who are quoted (a3i) can be explained on account of the premises
of the passage itself. If Bibl. was indebted here to a learned manual for
the quotations, we might have expected him to mention other names. We
also refer to Bibl. II, 3i. For the history of the Chimaira Bibl. no doubt
follows a source. For the origin of the Chimaira he only quotes Homer and

(230) Robert, pp. 22-a5, while pointing to details occurring in Bibl., which
do not accord with Aristarchus' views, concluded that the author cannot have
undergone Aristarchean influence. However, the examples adduced by R.
are not cogent, because Bibl. is following sources there and thus cannot be
made responsible himself.
(23 1 ) Asklepiades may have been mentioned here, because he offers an
interesting variant. For he mentions as Argos' father Inachos and, as we can
state (cf. Bibl. II, 5), other sources mentioned Inachos as father of Io. In
the only other passage, where Asklepiades is quoted (Bibl. Ill, 7) we can see
that here, too, he seems to have been mentioned because of an interesting
variant. Bibl. first of all mentions the current tradition about Minos' wife
being Pasiphae. Then he adds that according to Asklepiades his wife was
called Krete.
164 VAN DER VALK
llesiod. These authors are known to every Greek reader. Bibl. did not need
a manual in order to quote them.
For the quotations we also refer to Bibl. Ill, 45-47> the number and
names of Niobe's children. For the number of the children Bibl. quotes
Hesiod, Herodorus and Homer. Then he mentions the names of the children
who were said to have survived the disaster and quotes Telesilla. Of these
authors Homer and Hesiod are well-known and seem to have been quoted,
because the youths who made use of Bibl. might be supposed to be acquainted
with them. Herodorus may have been mentioned, because the number of the
children related by him was very small and thus interesting. Telesilla seems
to have been mentioned, because she offered names differing from those of
the vulgate (cf. above) and which were, therefore, interesting. In this
respect we refer to Bibl. I, 32, where the story of Triptolemos is mentioned
and the current names of his parents Keleos and Metaneira are given.
Thereupon, Bibl. adds a reference to Panyassis, who called Triptolemos' father
Eleusis (232) and to Pherecydes, who called him Okeanos. I think that
Panyassis'
version is given, because it mentions a name different from the current
version .
For the fact that Bibl., for the lists of quotations which ho offers, does
not seem to have followed a learned Hellenistic manual, we may also refer
to the following point. Above we discussed the version of Euripides' Alkmaion,
exposed by Bibl. Ill, 94 f It would be perfectly possible that Bibl- had
found in a manual a list of authors mentioning the names of Alkmaion's
children and that among these authors Euripides was mentioned. However,
Bibl. does not mention the names only, but offers the complete story, as it
was presented by Euripides.
The same fact can be learned from Bibl. Ill, i83-i85, the story of Adonis.
Bibl. mentions variants from Hesiod and Panyassis, which might have been
derived from a learned manual. Bibl., however, adds an extensive report about
the incest of Adonis' parents, a story made famous by Ovid and which seems
to have been derived here from Panyassis (a33). Again we see that this story
cannot have occurred in a list of quotations. Likewise in Bibl. Ill, 69-73,
the story of Teiresias, Bibl. extensively narrates both the version of Phere-
cydes and that of Hesiod. The reason is that both versions wereCallimachus'
considered
interesting by Bibl. Pherecydes' version was made famous by
hymn, where Pherecydes had been used. Hesiod's version was interesting
because of ils unusual and famous comments on the relation between man
and woman (234). Therefore, Bibl. this time offers both versions (a35).

(232) It is understandable that Panyassis, who was an inhabitant of Asia

Minor, because of the distance was less intimately acquainted with the details
of Attic myths. Since Dcmeter's connection with Eleusis was well-known,
he represented Triptolemos as a son of Eleusis.
(233) Kinkel, p. 264, Fgm. a5 rightly seems to attribute the story to
Panyassis.
(234) It might be objected that the story of Hesiod is not very decent
and might seem to be shocking in a book which was so much concerned
with decency, as we stated in the case of Bibl. In this connection, we may
observe that ancient commentators, as we already pointed out above, are not
logical. Moreover, the comment on the above facts will have been so interesting
that even Bibl. did not wish to omit it.
(235) For the story of Teiresias, cf. also Schol. HQ 4<)4, which seems
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 165

We may now pay attention to the idiom of Bibl. Robert (/. I., pp. 4a-4i)
thinks that it is characteristic of later Greek (2 nd century A. D.) ; he has
adduced a number of instances in order to prove his point. He has been
followed by Wagner in the Edition of Bibl. (cf. pp. lv-lx, Preface). The
instances adduced by Robert need revision and are not conclusive. We must
not forget that when Robert wrote, Cobet reigned, which involves that at
that time forms which were not genuinely Attic were often condemned. Most
of the instances adduced by Robert can be located in Hellenistic authors.
We may refer to the following examples : which occurs in Polyb.,
; (236) which is found iu Isocrates (i5, 283),
in the meaning of to die which occurs in the Axiochus (237),
which occurs in Aristotle, occurring in Epicurus,
in the meaning of ulcisci which is Hellenistic. Also a genitive
of the kind of (Bibl. I, 32), >.
(, 5) and (I, i2i) is to be considered
Hellenistic (238). Likewise the construction of the genitive, as it is found
in (Bibl. I, 106) occurs in Polybius and Dio-
dorus (23g)). In Bibl. Ill, 120 the mss. AS offer
(24). The construction of cum Accus, rei is found

to follow Hesiod directly. In Schol. (3 FGH 92 b. By Dindorf it is

offered in the Appendix II, p. 782) another version of the story occurs. At
the beginning of the schol. Pherecydes is quoted. In fact, the detail about
the blindness goes back on him. Then the schol. relates that Teiresias
originally was a maiden, was violated by Apollo and was going to be burned by
her father, when Apollo intervened and altered her into a man. This part
of the schol. cannot go back on Pherecydes, because in that author Teiresiae
was not a maiden. It is probable that the scholiast follows a Hellenistic
author. The schol. contains corruptions, but I think that only single words
which could not be read by the copyist, have been omitted. Thus I would
read : ; <>
&-/ ' ' (cod. )
. The situation as
presented by the schol. seems to be clear. In Hesiod the change of Teiresias from
a man into a woman and vice versa was caused by a strange mythical accident,
the killing of serpents. The Hellenistic author altered this into the romantic
story of Apollo's love. Wilamowitz, Homerische Untersuchungen, p. 1 46 N. 6,
thinks that Eustathius had more extensive scholia at his disposal. This is not
true. Eusl. i665, -^ follows Schol. HQ and then adds a passage from
Ptolemaios Chennos, cf. Chatzis, Studien zur Geschihte und Kullar des
Altertums VII, 2 (191/j), Ed. Chennos, pp. n-i4 For the versions of the
poem of Hesiod (Bibl. Ill, 72), cf. also Immisch, Rhein. Mus. 6 (1891),
6i3 f., whose views are, however, improbable.
(236) Robert : qui pluralis florentibus Iitcris Graecis a poctis tantum
usurpalur .
(237) Even if the Axiochus should not be Platonic, it is at least Hellenistic.
(238) For this genitive, cf. also- E. Skard, Symb. Oslo-ms. 26 (19/18),
1 34 ff- Skard does not appear to have paid attention to the instances
from Bibl.
(.23g) Cf. F. H. Allen, The use- of the Infinitive in Polybius compared
with the use of the Inf. in Biblical Greek, Diss. Chicago, 1907, p. 32 f.
Cf. also Blass-Debrunncr. Neulestamentliche Grammatik 4oo, where also
parallels for h ypovo (adduced by Robert) can be found.
(a/jo) Wagner, E<1., wrongly following Ztn., offers .
166 VAN DER VA.LK
in LXX. Robert also points to " (Bibl. I, 106),
" (cf. also ' Epit a, 7) This construction is
frequent in New-Testamentic Greek, but is already attested from the first
century B. Chr. onwards (241) Robert also points to thereupon
which frequently occurs in Bibl. In Hellenistic Greek, however,
what follows occurs. in the meaning of to divorce
a wife (Bibl. I, i45 and II 179) is only attested from later authors
(Diog. Laert.) (242), the active , however, occurs in this
meaning in Polybius (2 43).
As for Wagner we may point to the following instances. Praef. LVIII he
observes that sometimes in Bibl. the Aor. Pass, occurs, where Attic Greek
makes use of Aor. Med. He adduces among other examples , which
form, however, already occurs in Polybius (2, 67, 8). Wagner (I. I.) further
observes that in Bibl. forms of Aor. I tend to replace forms of Aor. II.
Thus he adduces (Bibl. I, i45) which form is already found
in Thucydides (IV, i33, 2). We meet here with processes which already
began in Hellenistic Greek. The examples, therefore, are not conclusive.
We refer e.g. to (Bibl. II, 32) which form is only attested
from Plutarch and Pausanias which does not prove that it cannot have
occurred earlier (244) Wagner (Praef. LV f.) also refers to forms such as
and which are used promiscuously in Bibl He observes that in
the first centuries A. D. the forms occur promiscuously in the inscriptions.
However, the form is already attested in the Attic inscriptions from
2$ . Chr. onwards (245) and then gradually replaces vcoc (246)
We further mention the following instances which strike us in Bibl.
In III, i3 occurs. The form for already occurs
in LXX. Bibl. Ill, 210 . constructed with the
accusative occurs in Polyb., Diod. Sic, LXX. Bibl. I, 71 in a
transitive meaning. We may refer to Ioseph. and Plut, but also to Xen.
Oecon. Bibl. Ill 75 . can be compared with
Thuc. 7, 72 . Bibl. II, 8 .

(a4i) Cf. Dionys. Halic. Anl. Roman. I, 83.

(242) The word is also found in the meaning of to give up , cf.
Lucian. 67, 12, ' , or in the meaning of
to omit , cf. Schol. D - .
(The instances are not offered by L. Se. J.).
(243) For , adduced by Robert, cf. Wagner, Praef. LIV. He
thinks it to be an epic reminiscence. The word is also found in I G III, 1278
(time of Commodus).
(244) We may e.g. refer to he remained dead (Bibl.
Epit. I, 1 5). The expression is attested from Sisyphos of Kos (5o FGH 1, 1.
21) who may have borrowed it from Dictys. Ths expression may, however,
be older (i. e. Hellenistic).
(245) Cf. Meisterhans, Grammatik dcr attischen Inschriftcn (Berlin 1900),
p. 127.
(246) Wagner (Praef. LV1I) also points to ' (Epit. r, 3) and
(Epit. 1, 19). The verb occurs in poetry and in later authors
(Plutarch, Lucian). II might bo possible that in Bibl. the word is derived from
a source ( occurs in Hdl. VI, 41) However, it is also possible that
the verb is characteristic of later Greek.
 ON APOLLODORI BIBLIOTHECA 167

with accusative is attested from Plutarch (Luc. 34) Bibl. II, i4

; cf also Bibl. Ill, i84 .
The accumulation of prepositions is in fact characteristic of later Greek
and can be most frequently observed for instance in Diod. Cassius. The
above instance can be paralleled from Philo. We further refer to Bibl. Ill, 47
, where, however, might be corrected,
Epit. 2, i3 , , where it is easy to correct .
Epit. 2, 4 offers the curious ' /; Here
might be corrected. We further refer to III 92 ',
where is connected with an infinitive. An instance of bad style is
also to be found in Bibl. Ill, o,5
, where we would write at least '
' . We may compare Pausan.
II, 28, 2 -. t ', where we would
expect Nor can we admire from a stylistic standpoint Bibl.
III, 56 of Oedipus when the things which
were hidden, came to the light, Bibl. HI, 56 (by means of)
can be paralleled by the Homeric .
Bibl. I, i45 for seems to be
Hellenistic, though we do not know any testimonies of the word. In Bibl.
I, 26 of Orion '. seems correct to me.
has the meaning of to kindle, inflame . The sight of Orion
is kindled by the rays of the sun.
If we survey these instances, we see that the argument of the idiom does
not offer certain and incontestable indications. It might be possible that
Bibl. already belonged to the first century B.C. However, I should be inclined
to think, on account of the idiom, that it belongs to the first century A.D.
In this connection we may come back to the reference to Kastor which was
found in Bibl. II, 5. It is not permissible, in my opinion, to cancel or
alhetise this reference. Thus Bibl. cannot be ascribed to Apollodorus. Its date
must at the earliest be placed after the first part of the first century B.C.
We may further draw attention to the poem which occurs at the beginning
of Bibl. (Wagner, Ed. p. 3). Though it is only transmitted by Photius, it
seems to me to be genuine, i. e. it was composed, in my opinion, by the
author of Bibl. We know that the tradition of our mss. is defective and that,
accordingly, its omission by them is of no account (247) The author says
that the reader may fret acquainted with the ancient myths ^'
1 '. The idea of Time being represented as
a serpent-god, whose coils represent the successive chronological periods,
seems to me ingenious (248). The representation of Aion in this way is
understandable (a4g). The author further says that all kind of mythological

(247) For the text and the mss. of Bibl., cf. A. Diller, TAPA 66 (iq34),
296-3i3.
(248) The idea of drawing () the coils of time is not
fine. We must not forget, however, that the author, in all probability, was
not a professional poet. Not every scholar had the wisdom of Aristarchus who
abstained from writing poetry.
(249) Cf. Nilsson, Geschichte Griecli. Relig. II pp. 478-482. Already in
Orphic theology Chronos is represented as a serpent, cf. Nilsson p. 479 N. 5.
168 VAN DER VALK
information can be found in his book (a5o) so that one no longer needs to
study other books such as Homer (a5i), the elegy, the tragedians, melic
poetry (i.e. Pindar and Bacchylides) (2 5a) and the .
The cyclic poems are disparagingly called loquacious , which is in
accordance with the tendency of Bibl. itself. For, as we saw above, the author
showed the influence of Aristarch and, as we know, the cyclic poems were
not highly valued by the Aristarcheans. It is curious to see that no
Alexandrian poets have been mentioned, though Callimachus, Lycophron, etc. treated
of mythological subjects. However, we can draw no inference from this fact
M. VAN DER VALK.

(a5o) It is no doubt for this reason that the book is called a .

Thus the view exposed in the poem is in conformity with the title of the
book which may be also used as an argument to prove that the author of the
poem is identical with the author of Bibl.
(25i) Hesiod has not been mentioned. Obviously he is included in Homer.
(25a) The poem speaks of , poetry which is sung.