LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 GIF^T OF" 
 
 Class 
 
A STUDY 
 
 IN THE 
 
 SOURCES OF THE MESSENIACA 
 OF PAUSANIAS. 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
 
 THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 
 
 DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 BY 
 
 HERMAN LOUIS EBELING, Ph. D., 
 
 Projesaor of Greek in Miami University, Oxford^ Ohio. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 JOHN MURPHY & CO, 
 I 892. 
 
A STUDY 
 
 IN THE 
 
 * SOURCES OF THE MESSENIACA 
 
 OF PAUSANIAS. 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
 
 THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 
 
 DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, 
 
 BY 
 
 HERMAN LOUIS EBELING, Ph. D., 
 
 Professor of Greek in Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 JOHN MURPHY & CO, 
 
 1892. 
 
^^ 
 
 >v 
 
 \iV 
 
 # 
 
 f,. 
 
 Vl^^' 
 
TO 
 
 MY DEAR PARENTS. 
 
 < inn 
 
 90 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Pagk. 
 Preface, 5 
 
 A Sketch of Messenian History, 7 
 
 Chronological Table, - - - - 10 
 
 E E K A T A . 
 A few obyious misprints are passed without notice. 
 
 Pages 51, 53, 56, 58, 78 
 75, I. 1, 4, and 13 
 13, 1. 3 from bottom 
 23, 1. 16 
 28, 1. 13 
 33,1.17 
 35,1. 17 
 58, 1. 8 
 
 66, 1. 2 " top 
 
 67, 1. 5 
 67, 1. 11 
 17, 1. 1 
 18,1. 5 
 
 67, 1. 6 " bottom- 
 72, 1. 5 
 
 -for Conat 
 - " Com on 
 
 — " c. VI, a 
 
 — " p. 25 
 
 — '' p. 11 
 
 read Couat. 
 " Conon. 
 " proof of. 
 " p. 62. 
 " p. 24. 
 " p. 19. 
 
 — " that pan of the first war read that part the first war. 
 
 — *' c. VII, b, end read p. 64. 
 
 — ■' Althis " Atthis. 
 
 — " p. 13 " p. 16. 
 
 — " yfvf<r6ai " yfi-fcrOat 
 
 — divide iKSo6(v—Tos 
 
 — " ueT(irf/j,—TrovTO 
 'XTop-Ticrwv 
 
 VII. Myron's history rKoaAiJjji ±j^<juuxjrju ^j.-, ^k^^^.^.,^ 
 
 Kestoration, 54-58 
 
 a. Various Reasons Assigned to Prove Myron's Authorship, - - 54 
 
 b. The Part Played by Destiny Points to Myron, - - - - 57 
 
 c. Khianus and Myron, ---------58 
 
 VIII, a. The Third Messenian War, 65 
 
 b. Chapter XXV, 69 
 
 c. Chapter XXVI, - - - 72 
 
 Conclusion, .-- -.-76 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 Preface, 5 
 
 A Sketch of Messenian History, 7 
 
 Chronological Table, ----- 10 
 
 I. Introduction, 11 
 
 II. Pausanias' Introduction taken froa: Myron, - - - 14-22 
 
 a. Comparison between Introduction and Account of First War, - 14 
 
 b. Teleclus, 17 
 
 c. Diodorus, 18 
 
 d. Polychares, --- 20 
 
 III. Pausanias' Sketch of the Close of the First War, - - - 22 
 
 IV. a. The Sources for Chapters XIV-XVII other than Myron, - 26 
 
 6. Ephorus and Tyrtaeus, 27 
 
 c. Sosibius, --. 29 
 
 d. Reasons why Ephorus' History not used more Extensively, - - 30 
 
 e. Ehianus, -- -31 
 
 V. Myron the Chief Source for Chapters XIV-XVII'**, - - 32-45 
 
 a. Myron used Tradition pertaining to the Second War, - - - 32 
 
 b. Certain parts dealing with Aristomenes from Myron, - - - 35 
 
 c. The Allies, -----------38 
 
 d. Tyrtaeus, -. 43 
 
 Review, -..--45 
 
 VI. Consideration op Possible Sources for the Account of the 
 
 Restoration, -- 45-51 
 
 a. It was not constructed by Pausanias from Fragments, - - - 46 
 
 b. The Story of tlie Restoration joined to an Account of the Previous 
 
 History, - - - - - -. 48 
 
 c. Rhianus, 51 
 
 VII. Myron's History Probably Included an Account of the 
 
 Restoration, 54^58 
 
 a. Various Reasons Assigned to Prove Myron's Authorship, - - 54 
 
 b. The Part Played by Destiny Points to Myron, - - - - 67 
 
 c. Rhianus and Myron, 58 
 
 VIII. a. The Third Messenian War, 65 
 
 b. Chapter XXV, - - - 69 
 
 c. Chapter XXVI, - - - 72 
 
 Conclusion, -------76 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 It has long been recognized that the style of Pausanias' Messe- 
 niaca is an improvement on that of the other books of his Descriptio 
 Graeciae, and very justly this improvement has been referred to 
 the sources he had used. 
 
 Kohlmann, Quaeationes 3Iesseniacae, 1866, has shown that these 
 sources were to a large extent Myron of Priene, a rhetorician, and 
 the epic poet Rhianus of Bene. Hoping to prove Pausanias' 
 dependence upon Rhianus more in detail, I undertook to examine 
 the Messeniaea with a view to poetic style. I compared with it 
 the extant epigrams of Rhianus, but without success. A search for 
 poetical words revealed one here and there, but these may be found 
 in the other books as well. Moreover, that part of the fourth book 
 which has been attributed to Myron is not without poetical color, 
 owing no doubt somewhat to the sources which Myron himself had 
 used. Myron also came in for a share of my attention. Kohlmann 
 among other things cited a number of passages containing moral re- 
 flections, which he referred to the rhetorician as their source. But 
 on further reading in Pausanias, moral reflections appeared very 
 frequently in the other books, so that they ofiered no test of 
 authorship. 
 
 Hoping still to throw some light on the style of the fourth book, 
 which would enable me to mark off" the different parts of it, I 
 examined the style of Pausanias more generally. This only proved 
 to me that Pausanias has a style of his own, such as it is, which 
 seems to be characterized nowhere so well as in Gurlitt, Uber Pau- 
 sanias, 1890, p. losqq. This view is supported by the fact that 
 the multitude and variety of the sources which Pausanias used, 
 made it necessary for him to resist at least a literal transfer. 
 
 5 
 
6 Preface. 
 
 C. Wernicke, De Pamaniae Periegetae Studiis Herodofeis (Ber- 
 olini, 1884), has shown in parallel columns how Pausanias adopted 
 matter from Herodotus. One may say of these passages that with- 
 out exception they have been changed in diction and in structure, 
 and Pausanias' desire to assimilate the material to his style can be 
 seen most markedly in those passages where the borrowing is close. 
 The same may be said on comparing Pausanias VIII, 49-51, with 
 Plutarch's Philopoemen (see Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen ub. 
 die Quellen des Livius, p. 287 sqq., Berlin, 1863). Besides Pausa- 
 nias shows considerable skill in extracting, condensing and com- 
 bining his material, to which he seems ever ready to make some 
 slight additions from memory. A certain amount of independence 
 may also be seen in the alterations which he makes. 
 
 This independence, then, and the mosaic-like character of his 
 work explains the difficulty of separating one part from the other 
 by detecting differences of style. I therefore determined to make 
 an attempt at defining the limits of the sources of the Messeniaca 
 from internal evidence before continuing my study of the style. 
 
 The result has been the following study of the sources of the 
 Messeniaca, in which it has been attempted to prove that Pausanias 
 made a larger use of Myron's work than is generally supposed. 
 
A SKETCH OF MESSENIAN HISTORY. 
 
 As it might assist the reader in understanding the arguments of 
 the following discussion, I give below a short sketch of Messenian 
 history according to Pausanias, to which I append a chronological 
 table, giving some dates of important events in this history, as well 
 as of those ancient writers whose testimony we have to consider. 
 
 Long before the siege of Troy Polycaon came to the unoccupied 
 land that lay west of the Taygetus range of mountains and took 
 possession of it. From his wife's name, Messene, the land was 
 called Messenia. The government under Polycaon and his succes- 
 sors was on the whole peaceful ; cities were founded and religious 
 institutions established. At the return of the Heraclidae the Dorian 
 Cresphontes drew lots for this fertile country with the sons of 
 Aristodemus, and through an understanding with Temenus, king 
 of Argos, to whom the lot drawing had been entrusted, Cresphontes 
 had Messenia assigned to himself. This brought Messenia under 
 Dorian rule, and although in an uprising Cresphontes was killed, 
 his son Aepytus was placed on the throne by the help of the Arca- 
 dian king Cypselus and the above mentioned sons of Aristodemus, 
 and so the family of Cresphontes ruled Messenia for many years 
 until the race became extinct with the death of Euphaes, who was 
 killed in the first Messenian war. It was during the reign of 
 Phintas that the first occasion arose which caused a feeling of 
 enmity between the Lacedaemonians and Messenians. They had 
 been in the habit of worshipping together in the temple of Artemis 
 Limnas, which was situated on the border of Messenia and Lace- 
 daemonia. At one of such religious festivals a disturbance arose 
 between the Messenians and Spartans, during which the Spartan 
 king Teleclus was killed. Later on a difficulty arose between a 
 
 7 
 
8 A Sketch of Messenian History. 
 
 Messenian named Polychares and a Spartan named Euaephnus. 
 All attempts to smooth the matter over proved unavailing, and the 
 war broke out by the Spartans' seizing the Messenian town Ampheia 
 743 B. C. 
 
 The war lasted twenty years, and was conducted bravely by the 
 Messenians against great odds ; at first under the leadership of their 
 king Euphaes, and then under that of Aristodemus, who was elected 
 in spite of the protests of the priests. For Ai-istodemus, in his 
 eagerness to serve his country, had attempted in obedience to the 
 oracle, to sacrifice his daughter, but owing to the opposition he 
 met with from the lover of the maiden, had in a fit of passion slain 
 her with his own hand. Shortly before this tragedy the Messe- 
 nians had retreated to the mountain fortress Tthome, where they 
 held out against the attacks of the Spartans for many years, but 
 finally a succession of unfavorable oracles and omens threw them 
 and their leader into desj)air. Aristodemus committed suicide on 
 the grave of his daughter, and five months later, at the end of the 
 twentieth year, Ithome was surrendered. Some of the Messenians 
 went into exile, but the majority remained and were sorely oppressed 
 by Spartan rule. Thirty-nine years after the surrender of Ithome 
 the Messenians tried to throw off the Spartan yoke. They were 
 now led by Aristomenes, who performed many wonderful deeds of 
 bravery, and struck terror into the hearts of the Spartans. The 
 oracle advised them to ask the Athenians for a counsellor, who sent 
 them the lame school-master Tyrtaeus. He, however, succeeded in 
 reviving the courage of the Lacedaemonians with his war-songs. 
 At the battle of the Great Trench the Messenians suffered an over- 
 whelming defeat owing to the treachery of the Arcadian king 
 Ai'istocrates, who unexpectedly withdrew his troops from the field 
 of battle. The Messenians now retreated to the mountain Eira, 
 where they held out against a siege for eleven years, during which 
 time Aristomenes made repeated inroads upon Spartan territory 
 with a band of trusty followers. Finally, 668 B. C, the Messe- 
 nians were forced to capitulate, and sought refuge "with their Arca- 
 dian neighbors. The treachery of the Arcadian king Aristocrates 
 was discovered, and he was put to death. Most of the Messenians 
 set sail for Sicily, where they had been called by Anaxilas, king of 
 Rhegium. They got possession of the town Zancle and changed its 
 
A Sketch of JTessenian History. 9 
 
 name to Messene. Aristomenes ended his days on the island of 
 Rhodes, where he had accompanied one of his daughters, who had 
 married the king of lalysus, a town on this island. 
 
 The third Messenian war (464 B. C.) was occasioned by an 
 earthquake, which proved so disastrous to the Spartans that those 
 of the Helots who were descended from the Messenians thought 
 an opportunity had arrived to gain their liberty. They entrenched 
 themselves on Mt. Ithome, and succeeded in resisting all attacks 
 that were made upon them for a number of years. Finally, how- 
 ever, they were forced to capitulate, whereupon the Athenians turned 
 over to them the city Naupactus to inhabit. While here they cap- 
 tured a town, Oeniadae, in Acarnania, which was hostile to the 
 Athenians, but held it only for one year. 
 
 After the battle of Aegospotami, 405 B. C, they M^ere driven out 
 of Naupactus by the Spartans. Some of them went to their coun- 
 trymen in Sicily and to Rhegium, but most of them set sail for 
 Libya under the leadership of Comon, and settled in Eusperitae. 
 
 Thirty-five years later they were recalled by Epaminondas, who 
 organized a new Messenian state 370 B. C. Comon, who had been 
 apprised beforehand by a dream of their return to Greece, led 
 them back. 
 
 Great preparations were now made for building on Mt. Ithome 
 a town which was to be called Messene. When everything was in 
 readiness all present offered sacrifices to their respective gods, and 
 thereupon, to the accompaniment of flutes, they began the construc- 
 tion of the walls of the new city. 
 
 Pausanias continues with an account of the later history of the 
 Messenians down to the year 183 B. C, but as this part has little 
 to do with our subject, it has been omitted. 
 
 It may perhaps not be superfluous to warn the reader against 
 confusing Aristodemus with Aristomenes. 
 
 Aristodemus was the king of the Messenians in the first war. 
 
 Aristomenes was the national hero of the Messenians, who per- 
 formed heroic deeds in the second war. 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF MESSENIAN HISTORY. 
 
 B. C. 
 
 1104. Cresphontes. 
 
 826. Teleclus. 
 
 743. First Messenian War. 
 
 685. Second Messenian War. 
 
 464. Third Messenian War. 
 
 455. Messenians settle in Naupactus. 
 
 405. Messenians driven from Naupactus. 
 
 370. Messenia restored by Epaminondas. 
 
 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE SOURCES. 
 
 B. C. 
 
 
 685. 
 
 Tyrtaeus. 
 
 445. 
 
 Herodotus. 
 
 419. 
 
 Thucydides, 
 
 396 (446-355). 
 
 Xenojihon. 
 
 369. 
 
 Isocrates. 
 
 338. 
 
 Ephorus. 
 
 251 (about). 
 
 Sosibius. 
 
 222, 
 
 Rhianus. 
 
 200. (?) 
 
 Myron of Priene. 
 
 146. 
 
 Polybius. 
 
 1st Cent. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus. 
 
 — 
 
 Strabo. 
 
 — 
 
 Troo;us Pompeius (Epitome of bis History by 
 
 
 Justinus, 400 A. D. (?) 
 
 A. D. 
 
 
 150. 
 
 Pausanias. 
 
 — 
 
 Polyaenus. 
 
 200. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus. 
 
 300. 
 
 Eusebius Caesariensis. 
 
 400. (?) 
 
 Justinus. 
 
 Note. — References 
 
 are made to pages of thesis or to chapters. 
 
 10 
 
 
A STUDY IN THE SOURCES OF THE MESSENIACA 
 OF PAUSANIAS. 
 
 I. Introduction. 
 
 Sober history knows but little in reference to the Messenian wars. 
 Busolt, Griech. Gesch., I, 134, considers the verses of Tyrtaeus to 
 be nearly our only reliable source of information concerning them. 
 They were probably the only source which the ancients themselves 
 possessed, whose collection of Tyrtaean verses containing historical 
 information was, as O. Miiller, Dorier, 1844, p. 141, remarked, 
 hardly larger than that which we have at the present day. 
 
 But although there was little reliable information of these early 
 wars handed down, yet there was an abundance of tradition cher- 
 ished by the Messenians, A\'hich clustered chiefly about the deeds of 
 Aristomenes, who was looked upon as the national hero. Isocrates, 
 Archiclamus, draws on Mythology to establish the claim of the 
 Spartans to Messenia, and speaks also of oracles that had gone out 
 from Delphi in answer to the inquiries sent there both by the Mes- 
 senians and Lacedaemonians. When the Messenians were restored 
 to their country by Epaminondas, 370 B. C, it was but natural 
 that the interest in these early events should be largely increased, 
 and in consequence of this several Avriters undertook to Avork up 
 the existing material into a literary form. Of the Messeniaca by 
 jEschylus of Alexandria mentioned by Athenaeus, 13, 599, e, 
 nothing; further is known. But from Pausanias we know that 
 Rhianus of Bene seized upon this material to write an epic poem 
 in imitation of Homer's Iliad, in which Aristomenes was the cen- 
 tral figure ; also that Myron, using to a large extent the same 
 material, wrote a history of the Messenians in prose, in which other 
 heroes played prominent roles along with Aristomenes. 
 
 11 
 
12 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 The following discussion deals chiefly with Myron's history^ 
 therefore a characterization of his work, as far as known, is neces- 
 sary. Unfortunately there are no fragments of his work extant, 
 if we except two short passages in Athenaeus, and we have to rely 
 chiefly on the account of the first Messenian war in Pausanias for 
 our information. 
 
 There is no doubt that Myron served Pausanias as a source for 
 writing the history of the first Messenian war. Pausanias' own 
 words in c. 6, besides Kohlmann's investigation alluded to above, 
 prove this. And, as it is also highly probable that Myron was the 
 only source for this part of the Messeniaca, I shall proceed in my 
 investigation on the assumption that all of the first Messenian war 
 reflects Myron's manner of treatment, although it seems that, as 
 usual, Pausanias manipulated his material and put it in his own 
 language. 
 
 We see in the Myron of Pausanias a rhetorician, Boeckh, Opuse.^ 
 IV, 211, 4, and C. Miiller, Fragm. Hist. Gr., lY, 461, have iden- 
 tified him with the rhetorician of that name mentioned by Rutilius 
 Lupus, De figg. sentent,, I, 20; II, 1 ; and Kohlmann has sufficiently 
 pointed out the rhetorical character of the account of the first Mes- 
 senian war in Pausanias to support this view. An examination of 
 the account of the first war also shows that Myron was more bent 
 on furbishing up tradition than on writing history, and so Kohl- 
 mann justly calls him scy-iptor fabularum magis, quam historiarum. 
 Busolt (Neue Jahrb.f. Phil., 1883, p. 814), has thrown considerable 
 light on the manner in which Myron composed his history. He 
 says : " Der Rahmen fur die Geschichte des ersten messenischen 
 Krieges ist also aus Thukydides und Xenophon zusammengeflickt. 
 Zur Fiillung desselben wurden allerlei Details, Fabeln und Wun- 
 dergeschichten verwendet, die der Gewahrsmann des Pausanias 
 [Myron] nach Erzahlung der Messenier und dem Epos compo- 
 nierte." This explains the air of unreality in so many passages of 
 Pausanias' llesseniaca, and in this light we are able to appreciate 
 the criticism that Pausanias himself, c. 6, passed on Myron : Mvpcova 
 oe eTTt re a\Xoi<i KarafxaOelv ecrrLV ou Trpoopco/xevov el yfrevSi] re koL 
 ov TTidava 8o^6C Xeyeiv, koI oi)^ -^JKiara iv rf^e rj] MecrcrT^i/ia 
 (TvyypacjiTJ. 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 13 
 
 But we should not censure Mvrou for writing; a fictitious account 
 of the Messeniau wars ; for, as history has failed us here, we have 
 thus had preserved for us an interesting though imaginary picture 
 of these wars. It is true the partisan spirit displayed is very 
 marked, yet we are very willing to have our sympathies aroused 
 for the Messenians, who had to suffer so severe a punishment. 
 
 That Myron felt a bitterness for the Spartans can be seen from 
 Athenaeus, 14, 657, d : otl 8e Tol<i Fj'iXwcri v/SpiarcKM^; irdvv 
 i'y^poiVTO AaKeSaifiovioi kul ^Ivpcov 6 IIpLrjvev<; icnopel ev Sevrepco 
 ^leacrriviaKwv 'ypd<f>(ov oi5t&)<? Voi? 8' EiXaxrt irdv v^piariKov epyov 
 iTTLTaTTOvaL TTpo? irdcrav a.'yov (iTifilav k. t. X. 
 
 We have accordingly the following important characteristics of 
 Myron's style : animosity displayed towards the Spartans ; elements 
 of a rhetorical style shown, for instance, in the frequent speeches ; 
 fictitious descriptions of battles ; frequent anachronisms ; and lastly 
 imitations of passages in Thucydides, in Xenophon, and to some 
 extent, I think, in Herodotus. 
 
 I shall undertake to prove, in the first place, that Pausanias is 
 indebted to Myron for the whole of his introduction, aside from 
 short paragraphs added by Pausanias, and for the sketch of the 
 close of the first war, in addition to the history of the first war 
 down to the death of Aristodemus, which is generally conceded to 
 Myron. 
 
 On both of these positions the words of Pausanias in c. 6, which 
 seem to deal with the limits of Myron's history, have an important 
 bearing. Although it will be shown below that Pausanias could 
 not have meant these words to be taken literally, yet they are stated 
 so positively that the reader is led to suppose that Myron failed to 
 write an introduction to his history, and that he brought the same 
 to a close with the death of Aristodemus, five months before the end 
 of the war. In respect to the latter point scholars have interpreted 
 this passage in the above literal manner, although in regard to the 
 former they grant that Myron may have written an introduction. 
 Yet the proof this which Immerwahr, Lakonika, 140, finds in the 
 assumption that Myron was also used by Diodorus as a source, does 
 not seem to rest on a sure foundation (see 11, c.) ; neither is it likely 
 
14 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 that his view that the introduction in Pausanias was compiled from 
 different sources, is correct. 
 
 II. Pausanias' Introduction taken from Myron. 
 a). Comparison betioeen Introduction and Account of First War. 
 
 An examination of Pausanias' introduction to the Messenian wars 
 in the light of Myron's characteristics of style, as given above, 
 and a comparison of this introduction with the account of the first 
 war down to the death of Aristodemus {i. e., c. 5, 9 to c. 13. 5), will 
 make it probable that Pausanias was indebted to Myron for the 
 whole of his introduction. 
 
 It may be remarked at the outset that it seems incredible that 
 Myron's history, a prose work which seemed to take in all the cir- 
 cumstances that pertained to the first war, should have omitted to 
 write an introduction, but should have commenced with the taking 
 of Ampheia (c. 6). That the contrary is true may be seen in the 
 first place by comparing Pausanias' introduction with the account 
 which Ephorus gave of tlie causes that led to the Messenian wars. 
 Strabo, 279 : "E<^opo9 S' ovrw Xeyet T€pl rrjq /crtVew? eiroXefxavv 
 A^aKeSatfjLOVtoi, yiecro'rjvloi'i aTroKrelvacn rbv jBaaCKea TrjXeKKov et? 
 M.€acn]i>7)v d(f)tKo/xevov eVl Ova-lav, 6fi6(Tavre<; fir] Trporepov i-Travij^ecv 
 oiKaSe irplv rj M.€acr}]V7]v aveXelv y) TrdvTa<i diroOavelv. The sequel 
 to this oath is the story about the Partheniae (Strabo, 1. c), which 
 is not in Pausanias. According to Ephorus, we notice, the killing 
 of Teleclus was the immediate cause of the war, aud the Spartaus 
 swear in consequence to destroy Messene (M.ea(TrjVT)v dveXelv). 
 
 We find the same in Diod., XV, 66 : yu-era he ravra Tr]\€K\ov 
 Tov l3aaL\ea)<i rcov AaKeSai/MOVLCov diroOavovTO'i ev d<yo}VL KareiroXe- 
 fjL'i']6rjaav vtto AaKeSaifxavLcov ol ^ecrarjvtoi, ' tovtov 8e tov TroXe/xov 
 elKocraerrj <f}acrt yevicrOai, Karo/xoa-afievaiv tcov AaKeSai/xovicov [xr] 
 dvaKafiy^eiv eZ? ttjv ^irdprriv, idv' fxr) M.€crcrijvriv ekoiai ; and in 
 Justinus, III, 4 : His igitur moribus ita brevi civitas convaluit, id, 
 cum Messeniis, propter stupratas virgines suas in solemni Messeni- 
 orum sacrificio (the occasion on which Teleclus was killed, cf. Pans., 
 c. 2), bellum intalissent, gravissima se execratione obstrinxerint, non 
 prius quam Messenani expugnassent, reversuros. 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanius. 15 
 
 All of the above is supposed to <ro back to Epliorus, except that 
 Busolt does not believe that Ephorus knew anything about the 
 violation of the maidens, of which Justinus speaks. See Enmaun, 
 Untersuch. Pomp. Trog., p. 125, and Busolt, Gricch. Gesch., I, p. 
 153, 1. We find all of the above in Pausanias, but with some 
 changes and many additions, such as we might expect to find in 
 such an historical romance as we know Myron's Messeniaca to 
 have been. 
 
 The oath according to Epliorus is strictly adhered to ; not so in 
 Pausanias (cc. 7, 7 ; 5, 8), for although Myron, his source, had 
 recorded the oath, yet he evidently found it inconvenient to handle 
 the narrative of the Messeniau M'ar, with the Spartans constantly 
 on the scene. 
 
 Again we find that whereas, according to Ephorus the Spartans 
 wish to punish the Messenians for killing Teleclus, in Pausanias 
 this aiFair is allowed to pass unnoticed (c. 4, 3), and not until a 
 generation later does the aifair with Polychares take place, which 
 becomes the immediate cause of the war. This permits a much 
 longer discussion of the causes, and so helps to put the Spartans in 
 a much worse light, which is in perfect accord with Myron's atti- 
 tude towards them. 
 
 The Spartans' aim is, according to Strabo, 279 : M.eaa-i'jvriv dve- 
 \€iv ; according to Diod., XV, 76 : fir] avaKd/jL-yfreiv et? rrjv 
 '%Trdpr7]v, eav firj Meaa-ijvrjv eXcoai ; according to Just., Ill, 4 : 
 non priKS quam MesHenam expugnassent, reversuros. In Pausanias, 
 c. 5, 8, on the other hand, we read this rhetorical statement : 
 Trpoo/jii'vovatv opKOV fiyre rov TroXefMOU fjbrjKa, fjv [irj St oXiyov 
 Kptd^, fi^'jTe Td<; crvp,<popd<i, el /jbeyuXat, TroXe/jiovarL yevotvro, airo- 
 Tp€^freov (T(f>d<; irplv rj Krtjcraivro -^copav ri]v yiecra-r^viav SopidXcoTOv • 
 Tavra 7rpoop,6(Tavre<i e^oSov vvKTwp iiroiovvTo iirl "A/x(f>eiav. Now 
 the charge, that the Spartans wanted the Messenian land, is a con- 
 trolling idea in the discussion of the causes of the war, occurring 
 also in c. 4, 3, and c. 5, 3, the latter passage being a fierce outburst 
 against the Spartan greed of gain. And as it is also found in the 
 part which Pausanias, c. 6, expressly says was written by Myron, 
 namely in cc. 7, 9 ; 7, 10 ; 8, 2, being there expressed in the speeches 
 respectively of Theopompus, Euphaes and in the reproaches uttered 
 
16 A Study in the Sourcoi of 
 
 by the Messenians on the battlefield, the close connection between 
 the introduction and the account of the first war is manifest. 
 
 Again a correspondence can be seen between these two parts, in 
 the charge brought against the Spartans that they were the aggres- 
 sors. As far back in the introduction as c. 4, 3, we read that the 
 Spartans had not demanded satisfaction for the killing of Teleclus 
 for the following reason : a-vveiSora^i ax? dp^aiev aSiKLa^;, and again 
 (c. 4, 4), Kal Tjp^av ol AuKeSaifj^ovcoL irokeixov. This same accusa- 
 tion is made in Myron's part, where we read (c. 6, 6) that Euphaes 
 encouraged the Messenians after the capture of the Ampheia with 
 the words koX to ev/nevearepov ecrecrOai irapa roiv deSiv cifjuvvovcrt 
 tt} oLKela Kal ovk dSiKiwi ap-^ovcnv. 
 
 We read in the account of the war, c. 8, 2, that the Messenians 
 consider the aggression of the Spartans all the greater as they were 
 both of the same race, as follows : ol 8e eKeivovi tS re iyx^eiptj/jLari 
 avocTLOV^, i'Trel 7r\€ove^ia<; eveKa koI evrt dvSpa<; avy<yev€l<i iiTiaat, 
 K. T. X. A similar charge is brought in the introduction, c. 5, 3 : 
 K.pOicr(p re avTot<i Soypa aToareiXavrL jevecrdac (j)i\ov<i ^ap^apw 
 7rp(OT0v<;, a<^ ov ye rov<; re dXXov<; tov<; ev rfj ^Aaia KareSovXco- 
 craTo"EX,\7]va<; Kal oaot ^copiec<; ev t^ l^apiKy KaroiKovcriv ■qireipto. 
 
 That Myron was guilty of anachronisms has been mentioned 
 above. So we find in the account of the war c. 12, 2 : rot? /Saac- 
 XeCcrt Kal toi<; e(f)6poi<i, and likewise in the introduction, c. 4, 8 : 
 (fyoLTMV 69 Tr)v AaKeSai/jiova Tol<i paaiXevcriv r^v Kal toi<; e^opoL<; ht 
 o-^Xov ; cf. also introduction, c. 5, 4. These are the only passages 
 where Ephors are mentioned in the account of the first tw^o Mes- 
 senian wars. Busolt, I, 147, 2, says: Aus Diod., VIII, 7, und 
 Pans., IV, 4, 5 (wahrscheinlich nach Myron von Priene), folgt 
 natiirlich niGht, dass schon beim Ausbruche des ersten messenischen 
 Krieges das Ephorat bestand. Id., I, 148. Noch zur Zeit des 
 zweiten messenischen Krieges lag, wie aus einem Tyrtaios-Fragment 
 erhellt, die Leitung des Staates wesentlich in den Handen des 
 Konigs und der Gerusia. (Cf. also id., I, 149, 4.) 
 
 A correspondence between the introduction and the account of 
 the first war may also be seen in the references made to the well 
 known fraud of Cresphontes, which was not only told in its proper 
 connection in the recital of the early history in c. 3, 3-6, but was 
 also brought forward as one of the causes of the war in c. 5, 1, as 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 17 
 
 follows : AaKeBaifxovioi fiev Sij IloXv^apou? re eveKa ovk eK^oOe- 
 VTO'i cr(})iaL, Kai oia rov Trj\eK\ov (povov, Kal irpoTepov ert i'ttotttw? 
 €')(0VTe<i Sia TO Kpea(f)ovTov KaKOvpyrjfia is rov KXPjpov, ■Ko\eixi)(Tai 
 Xi'yovaiv. Reference is clearly made to this in the account of the 
 war in the oracle quoted, c. 12, 1 : 'AW' airaTT] fxev e';y;et yalav 
 M.€cr(rriviSa Xao<;, k, t. \. 
 
 Let us now examine in succession the stories told in the intro- 
 duction about Teleclus and Polychares, in each of which we sliall 
 find clear indications of Myron's style. A partisan spirit is quite 
 manifest. In the case of Teleclus, where there are tAvo versions, 
 the ISIessenian one comes last, and is the longer ; likcAvise in the 
 summing up of the causes after the Polychares story (c. 5), the 
 Spartan view is simply stated in not quite four lines, whereupon 
 follows a fierce attack, made from the Messenian standpoint, occu- 
 pying fully a page. That Pausanias is following his source here is 
 evident (cf especially c. 5, 5). Examine also III, 3, 1 ; IV, 4, 1 ; 
 4, 3 ; 5, 3, where he makes a show of impartiality. 
 
 b). Teleclus. 
 
 Of the two versions that are given of the Teleclus affair, the 
 Spartan one, as Pausanias tells it (c. 4, 2), may be had by combining 
 Strabo, 279, with 362 and 257, which would include the same 
 description of the temple of Artemis Limnas as Pausanias gives in 
 c. 4, 2, and III, 2, 5. At the same time Pausanias' work as a 
 compiler can be seen in the genealogy of Teleclus, which he doubt- 
 less took from Sosibius (cf Immerwahr, op. cit., 7 sqq.) However 
 that may be, Pausanias is evidently following Myron in the Mes- 
 senian version. In fact it does not seem to be altogether unlikely 
 that Myron himself mentioned the Spartan version, and then con- 
 tinued with what he represented as the true story. 
 
 The Messenian versfon bears a striking resemblance to the story 
 told in Hdt., v. 20, so that when we consider that Myron wrote a 
 fictitious account, getting his suggestions from scraps of history, it 
 seems possible that he followed Herodotus in composing this story. 
 A comparison of the two stories will show the likelihood of this 
 supposition : 
 
18 
 
 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 Pans., c. 4, 3 : 'M.ecrcrrjVLOi he 
 TOL<; iXdovcri cr(f)cov e? to lepov 
 7rpa>T€vovcriv ev ^etrcn'^vr] Kara 
 a^'nofxa, TovToi<i (pacrlv eTri/Sov 
 Xevcrai Ti]\eKX,ov, airtov 8e elvai 
 TTJi; ■)(^u>pa<; r?}? Mecrcr7?i^ta<f t7]v 
 apert^v, em^ovXevoi'Ta 8e eVtXe- 
 ^at -tTrapTiarcov, oiroaoi ttco 
 lyeveia ov/c el')(ov, rovrov? 8e 
 €a6fjTi Kal Koafxw tm Xolttm 
 (TKevdcravra &)<? 7rap9evov<; ava- 
 7ravo/j,evoi<; Tot'i ^eacn]VLOi<i 
 €7r€icra'yayetv, Sovra iy^^^eLplSia 
 Kal Toijt; M.eaaT]VLOV<; afiuvofie- 
 vov<; TOv<i re dyevetovi veavia- 
 Kovi Kal avTov dTroKrelvai 'Yr]- 
 \6k\ov. 
 
 Hdt, v., 17 : M67ay8a^09 he 
 
 • • ' TrefjiTrec ajyeXovi; e9 Ma/ce- 
 8ovi7}v dv8pa<i eirra Tlepcra<i, ol 
 fxer avTov eKelvov fjcrav 8oKif^ci)- 
 raroi ev tc5 (rTpaT07re8a). eVe- 
 fxirovTO 8e ' • ' alrrjcrovTe^ yrjv 
 re Kal v8(op; V, 20 : auro? 8e o 
 ^ We^av8po<i icrovf; rjjai yvvac^l 
 dpidfjbov dv8pa<i Xeioyevelov^ rr} 
 TOiv yvvaLKOiv iaOrjn aKevdcraf 
 Kal ey^eipi8La 8ov<; Traprjye ecrco 
 
 • • • • 01 8e, eVet re cr^ewv ol 
 YlepcraL y^aveiv eiretpeovro, 8cep- 
 yd^ovro avrov<i. 
 
 c). Diodorus. 
 
 The Polychares episode involves the question whether Diodorus 
 also used Myron as a source ; for the fragments of Book VIII con- 
 tain the Polychares story, and have also other matter bearing more 
 or less resemblance to the account of the first war in Pausanias. 
 Enmann, op. cit,, 123, who has been followed by Busolt, I, 135, 
 and Immerwahr, Lakonika, 140, seems to have been the first to 
 assert that Myron was a source for Diod. VIII. Although this 
 view would throw welcome light upon the present investigation, 
 yet a closer examination makes the truth of this assertion rather 
 doubtful. 
 
 The passage in Diod., XV, Q6, reading as follows, euLOL 8e rov 
 Api(TTOfievr)v yeyovevai (paal Kara rov elKoaaerr) TroXefiov, has 
 been thought to refer to Myron, for Pausanias, c. 6, tells us that 
 Myron had made the mistake of associating Aristomenes with the 
 first war, and so the fragment in Diod., VIII, 10, which tells of a 
 dispute between Aristomenes and Kleonnis, one of the Messenian 
 leaders in the first Messenian war, might seem to have been taken 
 from Myron, with whose history it seems to agree in style. But I 
 shall show below (c. V, a) that the tradition concerning the first 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 19 
 
 two Messenian wars had been frequently confused ; besides, the fol- 
 lowing passages prove that such a confusion was widespread in the 
 case of Aristomenes.^ Plutarch, Agis, 21, says: Meaaijvlcov 8e 
 Kal ©eoTTO/iTTOi/ litt' WpicTTOfxevovi irecrelv \€<y6vT(i)v ov (f)a(Tt AaKe- 
 Saifxovioi, 7r\riryr]vai 8e fiovov. Two versions are implied in this 
 passage, according to which Aristomenes was a contemporary of 
 Theopompus, who took part in the first war. Again, in Clem, 
 Alex., Protrept., Ill, 42, we read : 'Apiarofxevr]^ yovv 6 Meo'crrj'j'to? 
 To5 ^lOco/MTjrrj All rpiaKocriovi airecrc^a^ev, TOcravTa<; o/xou Kal tol- 
 avra<i KaWuepelv oiofMCvo^ €KaTo/jL/3a<i iv 0I9 Kal ©eoTroyu-Tro? ^v 6 
 AaKeSacfjiovicov ^acrtkev'?, lepetov evyevi'i. This same passage 
 occurs in Euseb., Praeparat. Evavg., IV, 16, 12. It is plain then 
 that others besides Myron could have presented to Diodorus the 
 confusion as to the period of Aristomenes. The reference then to 
 the view of those who said that Aristomenes had taken part in the 
 twenty years war, cited above from Diod., XV, QQ, need not have 
 been aimed at Myron. In fact, as the sketch of the Messenian 
 wars given in Diod., XV, QQ, was taken from Ephorus (Busolt, 
 Griech. Gesch., I, 134), it is probable that the above-mentioned 
 view was included, for no doubt Ephorus had himself to reckon 
 w^ith the two opinions as to the period of Aristomenes (see c. IV, 6). 
 As to the Kleonnis-Aristomenes fragment in Diod., VIII, it is 
 more than doubtful whether this ought to be credited to Diodorus, 
 for it would have been inconsistent on the part of Diodorus to 
 represent in book VIII Aristomenes as taking part in the first war, 
 and then to associate him with the second war in XV, 6Q. The 
 fact of his referring to the other view in the latter passage argues 
 against the plea of an oversight. Such a discrepancy in Diodorus' 
 history would be especially remarkable if Eporus' history served 
 Diodorus as a source both for XV, QQ, and for book VIII (En- 
 mann, Pomp. Trog., 123 flP.). Fried. Jacobs, Verm. Schrif., S''' Bd., 
 Leipzig, 1844, thought it better to restore the Kleonnis-Aristomenes 
 fragment to the anonymous writer, under which title H. Stephanus 
 had edited it. Kohlmann, op. cit., 9, thought it was from Myron 
 himself, which view is worthy of consideration. 
 
 'Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I, 135, says: "Diese Geschichte [the story that Aristo- 
 menes killed Theopompos, who lived in the first war] war freilich keine dem 
 Myron eigene Erfindung, soudern gehorte zu der Spateren messenischen Uber- 
 lieferung," etc. 
 
20 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 Diod., VIII, 6, corresponds with Paus., c. 9, 14, but only in so 
 far as Diodorus gives in prose the oracle which is quoted by Paus- 
 anias. Verbal agreement is therefore of no consequence, for these 
 oracles were without doubt widely known. Eusebius, Praep. 
 Evang., V, 27, 3, has the same oracle, although somewhat con- 
 densed, expressed in hexameters. A like correspondence exists 
 between Pans., c. 12, 1, and Diod., VIII, 13, as another oracle 
 quoted by Pausanias is also quoted by Diodorus; but here, too, 
 Eusebius, op. ciL, V, 27, 1, has the same oracle, this time word for 
 word. For the frequency of these oracles, compare Strabo, 257, 
 where still another oracle concerning the downfall of Messenia is 
 mentioned, and also Isocrates, Archidam., 31 : Trefiyjrdvroiv a/x^ori- 
 pcov et9 A6\0ou9. 
 
 According to Diod., VIII, 6, the occasion for sending to the 
 oracle was partly owing to the howling of the dogs. In Pans., c. 
 13, 1, the howling of dogs is also mentioned, but in an entirely 
 different connection (see c. V, «). Moreover, the cavilling in this 
 passage of Diodorus at the efficiency of the seers does not harmonize 
 with the respect shown Epebolus, nor with the sending of Tisis to 
 Dolphi, who was also a seer, nor with the religious tone generally 
 in Pausanias' account. 
 
 There is one small fragment, i. e., Diod., VIII, 13, 2, whose 
 contents are to the effect that the Spartans do not require long 
 exhortations, and the ISIessenians trust to their valor, which, it is 
 true, would agree very well with Myron's account; but it is rather 
 general in its application, and could easily belong to another source. 
 
 The examination of the fragments so far shows that there is not 
 sufficient evidence in them to prove that Diodorus drew on Myron 
 for his account of the first Messenian war. The decision in the case 
 of the Polychares fragment must be made therefore upon the merits 
 of the latter alone. 
 
 d). Polychares. 
 
 We shall find on examining this fragment that on the one hand 
 the differences between the two versions are too great for Myron to 
 have been the source of both of them, and on the other hand that 
 Pausanias' version harmonizes with what is known of Myron's 
 style. 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 21 
 
 The Polychares story is only found in Pausanias and Diodorus, 
 and, as regards the essentials, is about the same in both of tliese 
 writers. But the mere telling of the same story is no proof of the 
 identity of the source, as the essentials could have been found in 
 diiferent writers just as we find tliem now in Pausanias and in 
 Diodorus. Moreover, in comparing the two stories, differences in 
 detail can be observed, and it will also be evident that the one in 
 Pausanias is favorable to the Messenians, whereas the other has a 
 flavor of Spartan sympathy. 
 
 The differences in the two versions cannot be due to either Dio- 
 dorus or Pausanias, for the former tells his story in the ace. and 
 inf., and has evidently given a condensation ; and we know of the 
 latter that his literary activity consisted mainly in condensing and 
 compiling. Besides those parts wherein Pausanias differs from 
 Diodorus are mainly in the line of animosity shown towards the 
 Spai-tans. Accordingly the avariciousness of Euaephnus, which is 
 an intrinsic part of the story, is merely stated in Diodorus, but 
 sharply criticised in Pausanias (cf p. 19). 
 
 Both versions have by accident the same length, L e., 35 lines of 
 the Teubner text. This however is brought about by the expand- 
 ing of different parts of the story in the respective accounts. In 
 Diodorus the conviction of Euaephnus is the principal part ; in 
 Pausanias this part is not only meagrely treated, but different. So 
 we find that in Diodorus all the herdsmen escape and come back to 
 Polychares ; in Pausanias only one. In Diodorus, after they have 
 told their story they are concealed by Polychares, who sends for 
 Euaephnus, and while this one is telling a fabricated story, Poly- 
 chares confronts him with the escaped herdsmen. This marks a 
 climax in Diodorus' account, and has dramatic power. In Pausa- 
 nias the single herdsman who escaped finds Euaephnus already with 
 Polychares, which is tame. In Diodorus Polychares' son, who is 
 to be murdered, is only mentioned when he is sent with Euaephnus 
 to receive the money for the cattle. In Pausanias Euaephnus pleads 
 with the son as well as with the father to be forgiven, and then 
 asks that the son go with him in order to receive the money, which 
 makes the crime of Euaephnus in killing the young man appear all 
 the blacker. In fact, the murder of Polychares' son forms a climax 
 in Pausanias' account ; in Diodorus it is told without color. 
 2 
 
22 A Study hi the Sources of 
 
 Finally, according to Diodorus, Polychares demands that the 
 culprit be delivered up to him ; but the Lacedaemonians send the 
 son of JEuaeplinus to him with a letter, asking him to come to 
 Sparta and lay his complaint before the Ephors and kings. Then 
 Polychares commits a crime in his turn, and murders the son of 
 Euaephnus, thus bringing destruction on his country. The story 
 in Diodorus is clearly intended to bring discredit on the Messe- 
 nians. According to Pausanias Polychares goes repeatedly to the 
 kings and Ephors, and complains bitterly of his wrongs, and only 
 after he finds that no attention is paid him does he become desperate 
 and then kills every Lacedaemonian that falls into his hands. 
 
 We have thus seen that Diodorus' version of the Polychares story 
 could not have been derived from Myron. At the same time the 
 strong Messenian bias in Pausanias' version, and the intimate con- 
 nection and harmony of this story with the rest of the discussion 
 concerning the causes of the war, make it highly probable that 
 Myron served Pausanias also as a source for this part of the 
 introduction. 
 
 We have found, on examining the introduction and comparing 
 it with the account of the war, that there are a number of striking 
 resemblances in these two parts. So we find, not to mention other 
 points, the same charges made against the Spartans in the introduc- 
 tion that are referred to in the account of the war : moreover, the 
 same partisanship, the same elaboration of detail, and the same style 
 of romancing. If we read continuously, we shall find that there is 
 no break at the place where the war begins, but all is closely linked 
 together. The conclusion, therefore, seems justified that, leaving 
 aside some minor additions, Pausanias did not compile his intro- 
 duction to the Messenian wars from different sources, but that he 
 depended entirely on Myron. 
 
 Ill, Pausanias' Sketch of the Close of the 
 First War. 
 
 Let us now turn our attention to the end of Myron's history of 
 the first war, which must have been strangely cut short, if we are 
 to trust to Pausanias, c. 6 : o /Mev Tr)<i re 'A/ji(f)eia^ rrjv aXwaiv kuI 
 Ta e06^?79 (TVvedriKev, ov Trpocrco rrj^; ^ApicrToSyj/iou reXevrrj';. These 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausomas. 23 
 
 words seem to have been taken literally by most scholars. So 
 Eumann, Tt'og. Pomp., 124, says : " iNIyron hatte den ersten Krieg 
 nur bis zura Tode des Aristodemus erzahlt (Pans., IV, 6, 2). In 
 Folge desseu lasst es Pausanias ganz im Unklarcn, wie der Krieg 
 schliessHch geeudet liabe (Pans., IV, 13, 6)." That Pausanias 
 himself did not take his own words literally can be seen in c. 23, 6 : 
 /j,era)Kr)ae 8e 'AX/ciSa/itSa? ck Mecrcr77i/7;<? e<? 'Y't^yiov fxera rrjv 
 ^ApiaToSij^ov Tov ^aatXeaxi reXevrrjv Kol 'I^to/i?;"? ttjv aXoicnv. 
 Here the death of Aristodemus and the fall of Ithonie, events sepa- 
 rated only by the space of five months, are treated as contempora- 
 neous. If Myron had omitted to extend his history to the capture 
 of Ithome, where could Pausanias have found an account of the 
 end of the war as he gives it ; very much condensed it is true, yet 
 in perfect accord with the previous history ? For we must remem- 
 ber that Myron's account was to a large extent fictitious. 
 
 A detailed examination of the text of Pausanias will show the 
 close agreement with the previous history, c. 13, 5 : Tol<i Be 
 MecrcTT^ytoi? uTreyvcoKevai ra 7rpdyfx,aTa irapiaTaro, wcrre koI 
 copfjurjaav iKeaiav e? tov<s Aa/ce8ai/jiovLou<i uTrocneWeiv ovrw (T(f)0- 
 Spa KaTeTrXrj^ev avrov^ rj tov ^ApicrTo8i]/jLov reXevrr). Kal tovto 
 jjuev 6 du/xb<i e'jrecr')(ev avTov<i firj irotfjaao. The anger of the Mes- 
 senians is a marked feature of Myron's account (see p. 19 and c. 
 VI, a). Continuing, we find in c. 13, 5 : avWeyevTe^i 8e e? 
 €KK\7}(Tiav /SaaiXea jxev ovSeva, Ad/jitv Be aTpaTTjyov avTOKpdropa 
 eXXovTo. This democratic feature of the assembly was also peculiar 
 to Myron, as the following passages will show : cc. 5, 6 ; 6, 6 ; 9, 1 ; 
 9, 3 ; 9, 4 ; 12, 5. The freedom of speech implied in the above 
 passages gave of course to Myron, the rhetorician, the desired 
 opportunities to compose orations. There is no trace of the eKKXTjcrla 
 in the account of the second war. Having called the assembly, c. 
 13, 5, they elect a leader as follows : ^acriXea fxev ovBeva, ^afxtv 
 he (TTpaTriyov avroKpdropa el'XovTo • o Be KXeovviV re avrw Kai 
 <t>vXea eX6/jbevo<; avvdp'xpvrm k. t. X. Compare with this c. 10, 6, 
 where Aristodemus, on becoming king, shows marked attention to 
 Kleonnis and Damis, who have been his rivals. It was then quite 
 natural that Damis should later follow the precedent set by the king. 
 
 The text continues : [Aa/it9] TrapeaKevd^ero tw? kuI eK tmv 
 Trapovrwv <TVvd-^<ov p^d-y^rjv • eTrrjvdyKa^e yap ij re TroXiopKca Kat 
 
24 A Study in the Sov,rces of 
 
 ov^ ^/ciCTTa Xi/jibf Kol \to\ air avrov Seo<?, fMr) koX 7rpoota<pdapMcnv 
 vTTo iv8eia<;. This fighting before the walls of the besieged Ithome 
 seems to have been a feature of Myron's history. At no time did 
 the Spartans actually attack the walls of this stronghold ; but even 
 after retiring to Ithome all the fighting is done outside of the walls. 
 It was different at the siege of Eira, for there the walls were scaled 
 with ladders (c. 21, 1). 
 
 The text continues : aperfj fxev Srj koI ToXixruxaa-iv ovSe rore 
 aTreSirjcre to, rwv yieaarjvlcov airedavov Se oT re arparrjiyoi a(j)iacv 
 a7ravTe<i koI tmv aWwv ol \6<yov [xakicrTa d^iot. This heroism of 
 the Messenians is the same that is displayed in the previous chap- 
 ters. Finally we read : to Se (Itto tovtov fji,rjva<; jxev ttov irevre 
 fjuaXccTTa avTe(T-)(ov • irepl Se rov iviavrov Xrjyovra e^ekiirov rrjv 
 *16co/jbr]v, 7roXeiJb7]cravT€'i errj ra iravra eiKocrt, Kada Br) koI TvpraLO) 
 Treiroirjjxeva eariv. 
 
 etKocrrw) S^ol p,ev Kara iriova epya \t'7rovr€<i 
 (f)€V'yov Idco/xaicov e/c [xeyakcov opicov. 
 
 It is not simply stated here that they fought twenty years ; but the 
 time is measured out with care, so that we are made to see that the 
 Messenians left Ithome at the close of the twentieth year. This 
 seems to show that Pausanias followed Myron in writing the con- 
 clusion of the war ; but, as usual, found in Ephorus (see c. IV, 6) 
 the verses of Tyrtaeus, which he quotes. And as Ephorus inter- 
 preted these verses to mean that the war lasted nineteen years (cf. 
 Strabo, 279 : M.eaa't^vrj 8e eakco TroXep^rjOelaa evveaKaiheKa errj 
 Kaddirep Kal TvpTalo'i (^r^aiv " a/i<^' avrrjv k. t. \.), this may be the 
 very reason why Pausanias, in adopting the usual number of twenty 
 years, as Myron no doubt had it (cf. c. 12, 7 : Kal yap elKocrrbv 
 eT09 eTT'^ei to5 iroXepbU)), laid some stress on this very point in oppo- 
 sition to Ephorus' nineteen years, and, curiously, chose the last two 
 verses from a quotation from Tyrtaeus, which Ephorus had (Strabo, 
 279) to prove this, although he quotes the other verses a few chap- 
 ters below (c. 1 5, 2), as follows : ayu^' avrrjv S'ifid^ovr^ ivvea Kal 
 SeK err), k. t. X. 
 
 The above discussion shows, I think, that Myron did continue 
 his history to the end of the war. The account Pausanias gives is 
 probably very much condensed, and no doubt also full of omissions. 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 25 
 
 just as we find the allusions Euphaes makes (c. 7, 10-11) to tlie 
 horrors suffered by the inhabitants of Ampheia at the hands of the 
 Lacedaemonians not fully justified by the account of its capture 
 (c. 5, 9). It would have been unaccountable if Myron had really 
 ended his history with the death of Aristodemus, in view of the 
 comparatively broad manner in Avhich he has treated the first war. 
 It is however not so difficult to understand why Pausanias should 
 have mentioned the death of Aristodemus instead of the capture of 
 Ithome. For, as the narrative reaches its climax with the death of 
 Aristodemus, and the end was then so near that Pausanias consid- 
 ered the fall of Ithome as happening at the same time (see p. 23), 
 it may be that Pausanias fixed the end of the war with the most 
 important event. But there may have been also the following 
 reasons : Myron did not represent the war he described as the first 
 war (see c. V, a), nor did his history end with the fall of Ithome, 
 as will be shown below. Therefore Pausanias had to construct a 
 transition from Myron's history to an account of the second war, 
 and probably found it difficult to find a suitable point from which 
 to bridge over. For that reason he directed his attention to the 
 death of Aristodemus as the virtual conclusion of the first war, and 
 condensed the final outcome so as hardly to mention the exiles, 
 which probably made a transition to the second war easier. 
 
 That Myron also wrote of the banishment of the Messeniaus is 
 very probable, since I have shown that he extended his history to 
 the capture of Ithome. This probability is strengthened when we 
 observe that the exiles sought refuge with the Sicyonians, Argives 
 and Arcadians, who had been the allies of the Messeniaus, and we 
 consider that this alliance was probably the fiction of Myron (see 
 c. Y, c). 
 
 But this departure of the Messeniaus from Ithome implies that 
 the Spartans allowed them to leave under a truce. Now we read 
 in Thucydides, I, 103, that at the end of the third war the Messen- 
 iaus were allowed to depart, which may easily have been the source 
 for the idea that at the end of the first and second wars (c. 14, 1 
 and c. 21, 12) the Messenians were allowed each time to depart. 
 The account of Rhianus cannot be considered historical, and there 
 
26 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 seems to be no other evidence outside of Pausanias that the Messen- 
 ians left their country at the end of the first war, although we see 
 in Strabo, 257, and Heracl. Pont.. Po^. ' (Miiller, Frag. Hist. Gr., 
 219), that there had been some Messenian fugitives before the first 
 war. Accordingly, we read in the sketch of the Messenian wars 
 given by Diodorus, XV, QQ, only of the banishment after the third 
 war. 
 
 It therefore appears likely that Pausanias had no other source 
 for the exile after the first war than Myron, who, as we have seen 
 (p. 12), used Thucydides as a model. A sign of this dependence 
 may be seen in c. 14, 4, where it is stated that the Lacedaemonians 
 made the Messenians swear not to revolt, Avhich seems a somewhat 
 useless exaction, and was probably an imitation of Thuc, I, 103, 
 according to which passage the Messenians are allowed to depart on 
 condition that they should never return to the Peloponnesus under 
 penalty of becoming the slave of whosoever might capture them. 
 
 IV. The Sources for Chapters XIV-XVII other 
 THAN Myron. 
 
 a). I next undertake to investigate the sources which Pausanias 
 used in writing the first half of the second Messenian war. We 
 have therefore to do with the chapters which lie between the close 
 of the first war, which Myron described, and the beginning of 
 Rhianus' epic (i. e., cc. 14—17, 10). According to c. 6, Pausanias 
 had neither Myron nor Rhianus to depend on for this part, as the 
 former had nothing to say about the second war, and Rhianus' 
 poem must have begun with the siege of Eira (c. 17, 11). 
 
 It is easy to see that Pausanias used no single source for filling 
 in these chapters. In the first place, with regard to the duration of 
 the war, there exists a discrepancy between the account in Pausa- 
 nias, according to which it lasted fourteen years, and the dates 
 given by him, according to which it lasted seventeen years. A sign 
 of Pausanias' greater activity in these chapters can be seen in the 
 more frequent employment of the first person (cf. cc. 14, 78 ; 15, 2; 
 15, 3; 16, 6; 16, 7). Then in c. 14, 2, he repeats, with some 
 slight changes, a passage w^hich occurs in III, 18, 8. 
 
The Mcsseniaca of Fausanias. 27 
 
 The sources which Pansauias used in writing chapters cc. 14-17, 
 10, seem to have been Ephorus, Sosibius, Ivhianus, and more par- 
 ticularly, as I shall show in c. V, Myron. I shall take them up 
 in order. 
 
 h). Ephorus and Tyrtaeus. 
 
 Kohlmann (op. cit., 23), thought that Pausanias had drawn on 
 Ephorus and Diodorus for these chapters, but that the quotations 
 were taken from Tyrtaeus at first hand. I think, however, that 
 Ephorus was used only to a slight extent, and that chiefly to get 
 the quotations from Tyrt^ieus. 
 
 That Pausanias was familiar with the history of Elphorus, 
 although he does not mention his name, is a priori quite likely, as 
 Ephorus' history was widely read and largely excerpted by later 
 historians, owing no doubt in a great measure to convenient arrange- 
 ment. But there is also direct proof that Pausanias made extracts 
 from him in book III (cf. Immerwahr, op. cit. 11 and 17), and, as 
 the frequent references show, this book was closely associated in 
 Pausanias' mind with the one under consideration. Cf. Ill, 1, 1-5 ; 
 2, 6 ; 3, 1-4 ; 7, 4-5 ; 11, 8 ; 13, 1 ; 14, 4 ; 15, 10 ; 1<S, 7 ; 20, 6 ; 
 26, 3 ; 26, 6-S. 
 
 Now as Myron had included Aristomenes in his account of the 
 first war, and this same Aristomenes was the chief figure in Rhia- 
 nus' poem, Pausanias had to decide which of these two to follow. 
 He accordingly gives some reasons in c, 6 why he intends to follow 
 Rhianus ; but as Rhianus dealt only with a part of the war, and 
 was himself untrustworthy, according to Pausanias' own statement, 
 we must look elsewhere for some clear guide, who could map out 
 the first and second wars, and show from the proper position of 
 Aristomenes that Rhianus was the one to be followed. Ephorus 
 could have been that guide, for he gives a sketch of the two wars, 
 and distinctly states that Aristomenes took part in the second war 
 (Diod., XV, 66). 
 
 As to the quotations from Tyrtaeus, these have been pretty gen- 
 erally looked upon as being at first hand. Yet we cannot trust 
 Pausanias in this respect, for, as Enmanu {Jahrb.f. Phil., 129, p. 
 
28 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 519) says, we must expect Pausanias to have made use of the labors 
 of others, or else he would never have succeeded in collecting such 
 a great mass of learning. Besides, there are other quotations in 
 Pausanias which seem to be at first hand, although taken from an 
 intermediate source. 
 
 Thus in c. 1 there are quotations from Homer which are at 
 second hand, although they seem to have been made independently, 
 and although Pausanias would make us believe that he was especi- 
 ally well versed in Homer. In II, 21, 10, he says : irpoa-KeL/uLat 
 <yap TrXeov ri rj ol \017rol ry 'O/xijpov ironqaeL ; and in II, 4, 2 : 
 i<ydi re ireidoiJbai koI oara to, 'Ojjbrjpov fir) Trdpepjov iTreXe^aro. 
 And yet, on comparing Pans., c. 1, with Strabo, 364, it is plain 
 that both passages go back ultimately to the same source, which 
 was probably Aristarchus (cf. Sengebusch, Jahrhucher /. CI. Phil., 
 1853, p. 615). Enmann and L. v. Sybel have shown the close 
 resemblance between Pausanias and Strabo generally in Homeric 
 geography, a resemblance due to their common source. 
 
 Now we know that Ephorus based his history on the verses of 
 Tyi-taeus (cf. O. Miiller, Dorier, I, 149, 3 ; Busolt, Gr. Gesch. I, 
 134; Enmann, Trog. Pomp., 126); and we find in Strabo, 279, 
 under Ephorus' name, the same verses from Tyrtaeus which are 
 quoted by Pausanias (c. 13, 6, and c. 15, 2). As regards the 
 former of these passages it must be observed that Pausanias sepa- 
 rated the verses from their proper connection in order to make his 
 own application of them (see p. 25). This he did likewise with the 
 verses of Homer mentioned above, whose application in Pausanias 
 is diiferent from that in Strabo. Again, the verses of Tyrtaeus 
 quoted in c. 14, 5, which tell of the sufferings of the Messenians, 
 were no doubt also quoted by Ephorus, as they are indicated in 
 Justinus, III, 5 (cf. Enmann, Trog. Pomp.): Dein, (mm per annos 
 ootoginta gravia servitutis verbera, plerumque et vlncula, ceteraque 
 captivitatis mala perpessi essent, post longam poenarum patientiam,, 
 helium insiaurant. 
 
 It seems also reasonable to suppose that the quotation (c. 6, 5) 
 from Tyrtaeus, 
 
 'HyLterepw ^aa-Lkrjl deolcn <^i\(p ^eoiro/jb'rrQ), 
 
 '^Ov 8ia M.ecrarjvrjv eiXojxev €upv)(^opov, » 
 
The Messeniaca of Pcmsanias. 29 
 
 was taken from Ephorus. Pausanias cited them to demonstrate 
 that Theopompus had survived the first war, thus showing the 
 inaccuracy of ^lyron, according to whom Theopompus had been 
 killed before the death of Aristodemus by Aristomenes (see c. II, c). 
 But Ephorus had in all probability to deal with the same question 
 as to the period of Aristomenes, and so the statement in Diod., XV, 
 66 : evioc 8e tov ^Apicrrofiivrjv yeyovevat <f>a<jl Kara top eiKOcraeTrj 
 TToXefxov, was in all likelihood taken from Ephorus with the rest 
 of that sketch. 
 
 Again, when Pausanias in c. 15, 2-3, seems to reason out the 
 interval between the first two wars on the basis of the verses of 
 Tyrtaeus, we shall be safe in attributing this use of these verses to 
 his imitation of Ephorus, who quotes the same verses (Strabo, 279), 
 and had to make a similar calculation. If Pausanias had to make 
 his quotations from Tyi-taeus independently we might expect to see 
 some feeling for the Spartans displayed, but there is none of this, 
 and Tyrtaeus himself is but a shadowy figure in the pages of 
 Pausanias. 
 
 c). Sosibius. 
 
 Pausanias did, however, not follow Ephorus in his chronology, 
 w4io placed the first war much earlier than 743 B. C. (Pans., c. 5, 
 10; Busolt, Gr. Gesch., L, 151), and made the interval between 
 the first and second war eighty years (cf Enmann, op. cit., 126). 
 It is the chronology of Sosibius which Pausanias follows. Kohl- 
 mann was the first to show this by pointing out that the dates for 
 the first war, which Pausanias gives, agree with the chronology of 
 Sosibius ; and Immerwahr, following up the work done by Weber,^ 
 has shown that a work on genealogy by Sosibius had been exten- 
 sively used by Pausanias in book III, and probably to some extent 
 in book IV. He also makes it appear highly probable that the 
 chronology of Sosibius had been used for the second war. Yet 
 Immerwahr lays rather too much stress upon the use Pausanias 
 made of Sosibius in the Messeniaca. See Immenvahr, Lakonika, 
 138, sqq. 
 
 ^ QuaestUmum Laconicarum Capita Duo. Gottingae, 1887. 
 
30 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 d). Reasons why Ephorus' History vot used more Extensively. 
 
 But why should Pausanias not use Ephorus' history more exten- 
 sively if he had it before him ? Simply because it was so widely 
 known, and the plan of Pausanias was to avoid telling over again 
 at length what other well known authors had described before him. 
 In VIII, 43, 4, he refrains from going into details ; for he says : 
 rdhe fxev aXkoi efypa^lrav e? ro aKpi^ea-Tarov ; likewise in I, 23, 
 10 : ra oe e'9 'J^p/u,oXvKov top 7ra<^/KpaTtaaTr}v koI ^opfitoava tov 
 'Ao-WTTt^of ypa-^lravToov erepcov irapiriixi, ; yet he is ever ready to 
 make additions to what is generally known, so he continues : e? Se 
 f^opfxicova Tocrovhe e-^oa irXeov ypdyjrai,. In X, 17, we find three 
 and three-fourths pages on the island of Sardinia ; his reason for 
 this long digression being that this island was little known to the 
 Greeks, just as it has been comparatively little ]cuov>'n in modern 
 times' (cf. also II, 30, 10; III, 17, 7 ; III, 18, 10). Now it was 
 the highly colored narrative of Myron and the epic of Rhianus 
 which Pausanias recognized as being less known, and which he 
 therefore was quite willing to draw upon. 
 
 But I must add another reason why Pausanias would prefer the 
 accounts of Myron and Rhianus, and that is because they were 
 written from the Messeniau point of view. It was evidently part 
 of the plan of Pausanias to let each people of the diiferent countries 
 which he described speak for themselves, even in the historical 
 introductions, which, as is generally accepted, were taken from 
 literary sources. As regards the use of verba dicendi where literary 
 sources are at hand, Gurlitt (op. cit., c. 1, N. 48) has shown that 
 this was a matter of style with Pausanias and not of deception. 
 Observe the following passages — I, 41, 4 : ijco Be <ypd(j)eiv /xev 
 ideXco M.€<yapevcnv ofjioXcyovvra, 41, 7: ypd-^co 8e Kal rd e? 
 avrrjv oirola M.eyapel'i XiyovaLv. In the Corinthiaka he appeals 
 to the Corinthians, II, 1 : Aio? Be elvau KopLvdov ovBeva olBa 
 elirovra ttco (tttovBt] TrXrjv ^opLvOiwv tmv ttoWcov; II, 4, 6 : 'HXlov 
 Be, CO? ol Ko(f>tvdioi (jiacrcv. Likewise he appeals to the Sicyonians 
 in II, 5, 6 : ^ikvcovlol Be, ovtol yap ravrj] ls^opivdiot<i elcrlv 6p,opoL, 
 Trepl Tt)<; ■)(u)pa<i Tr}<; a(j)6Tepa'i Xeyovaiv. Having come to Argos 
 
 'Daniel, Lehrbvch. d. Oeogr., 1882, p. 212. 
 
The Messetiiaca of Pausanias. 31 
 
 he lets the Argives speak for themselves (II, 21, 8), thougii f'ol- 
 lowiug right upon an account of Gorgophone, who is spoken of 
 again in III, 1, 4, and c. 2, 4, an account very probably taken from 
 a litemry source. On coming to ^jacedaemon we read, III, 1,1: 
 <»<? 8e avTol AaKeSaifiovtoi Xe/yovat, AeXe^ avr6')(d(iiv, which heads 
 the current genealogy ; and it is not likely that Pausanias here neg- 
 lected the already existing genealogical lists and prepared a new one 
 (cf." Kalkmann, Pans. d. Perieget, 15). 
 
 A curious example illustrating Pausanias' plan to let each people 
 tell its own story, even when literary sources were used, is seen in 
 the account of the mother of Asclepius. In II, 26, 6-9, Pausanias 
 accepts the story that the Epidaurians tell and rejects the Messenian 
 version, and says : o 8e Tp'no<^ rcov Xoycov rjKLo-ra, ifiol SoKetv, dX?;- 
 ^779 ecTTLV, ^ Kp<TLv6ri<i 7roc7](7a^ elvat ttj^ AevKLTnrov iraiBa ActkXt]- 
 tnov, K. T. \. And again : ovto<; 6 ^pT^cr^o? St/A-oI /xdXiaTa ovk 
 ovra \\(XK\i]7rcbv W.pcnvoi)'^, dXXa 'HcrtoSoy rj to)v rivd ifjLireTrocTjKO 
 Tcov e? rd 'HcrtoSou rd Girrj avvdevra e? ry^v ^eaaTjviwv '^(cipiv. 
 Yet on turning to c. 32, we read : \\pai,v67]<; ydp \\(TK\T]'m6v t?)? 
 AevKLTTTTOv Koi ov K.opoyvlSo'i iralSa elvat,; again, in c. 31, 12: 
 'A(TA:X777ri09, Wpaiv6ri<; oiv Xojw tco ^lecraTjVicov, In III, 26, 4, 
 the Messenian version is also mentioned without dispute ; here we 
 must remember the intimate connection between books III and IV. 
 That Pausanias had not forgotten the Epidaurian version is made 
 certain by the words koI ov Kop(ovi8o<i iralSa elvat, nor is it likely 
 that he w^ould have forgotten when we consider the emphatic rejec- 
 tion of the Messenian version in II, 26, 6-9. 
 
 The apparent change of his opinion is explained simply by the 
 fact that he wishes each people to tell its own story. Now the 
 accounts of Myron and Rhianus were both written from the Messe- 
 nian point of view, and hence were accepted by Pausanias as utter- 
 ances of Messenians. 
 
 <?). Bhianus. 
 
 Although Rhianus did not write about the battles that preceded 
 the retreat to Eira, yet just as he is quoted in c. 1, 6, so it is very 
 likely that Rhianus furnished some material for these intervening 
 chapters. Thus in c. 14, 7, the mother of Aristomenes, Niko- 
 teleia, is mentioned ; but from Stephanus Byzantinus we learn that 
 
32 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 Rhianus had mentioned her in his fourth book (s. v. Acotlov). Yet 
 Pausauias has here only a fragmentary notice, as can be seen by 
 the matter that follows, which has been partly given in III, 10, 3. 
 Immerwahr suggests that Rhianus furnished in c. 17, 1, the story 
 of the expedition to Aigila, where Aristomenes is captured by 
 women, and liberated by Archidameia, an old love of his (cf 
 Poly den., II, 31, 2) ; but this may be doubted, because a romance 
 like that could very well have belonged to Myron's story. See 
 also c. VI, b, for the significance of the fact that Demeter enters 
 into this anecdote. But no doubt there were other touches here 
 and there, introduced into these chapters from Rhianus, as viz., the 
 names of the seers Theoclus and Hecas. 
 
 V. Myron the Chief Source for Chapters XIY-XVIIi" 
 a). Myron used Tradition that pertained to the Second War. 
 
 To a much larger extent, however, was Myron's history used. 
 Before showing this in detail it will be necessary to explain how 
 this M^as possible ; for, as it is generally understood, Myron wrote 
 only the history of the first war. Above (p. 12) it was pointed 
 out that Myron wrote rather a romance than a history. To this 
 fact must be added another, viz., that Myron made use of the tradi- 
 tion relating to the second war as well as of that which pertained 
 to the first. 
 
 That Myron should have ignored the existence of the second 
 Messenian war, although the verses of Tyrtaeus clearly show that 
 there had been two early wars, is not at all unlikely, for there are 
 passages from other writers which likewise overlook the existence 
 of the second war. To understand this it must be observed that it 
 was only natural that the minds of men would revert to the war 
 through which the Messenians first lost their liberty. Thus Iso- 
 crates, Archidam., 57, refers only to the first war. Likewise 
 Plutarch, De Superstitione, 8, in making a reference to the war in 
 which Aristodemus figured (i. e., the first war), makes no distinc- 
 tion between a first and a second war, but simply refers to "the 
 war with the Lacedaemonians," 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 33 
 
 Again we read in Plutarch, De S. N. V., p. 548, F: tl yap 
 Meaarjvlocii 6(j)6\o<; toi<; Trpoavoipedeia-i rrj^i 'ApiaroKparovi ti/xco- 
 pLa<i, 09 7rpo8ov<i rrjv eVl Tdcfipo) fidxv^ /<^«t XaOcov virep eiKO<nv 
 err] koI . . . varepov eScoKe SUrju. Here Aristocrates, who betrayed 
 the Messenians, according to Pans., c. 17, in the second war, is 
 placed in the first. The first war is evidently the one referred to 
 in this passage, for the second war lasted at most only seventeen 
 years, and Aristocrates, according to Pausanias (c. 22), was pun- 
 ished soon after the capture of Eira : that is, eleven years after his 
 betrayal. It must of course be admitted that, even if Plutarch is 
 made to refer to the first war, the lapse of twenty years before the 
 punishment of Aristocrates cannot be made out, because the be- 
 trayal would have taken place about five years after the beginning 
 of the war ; but in a loose reference such as the above evidently 
 was, the period of twenty years was probably suggested by the fact 
 that the first war was known as a twenty years war. 
 
 Another very striking confusion of the two wars is to be found 
 in Suidas, where Tyrtaeus is associated with the twenty years war 
 (see c. V, d). Finally, that others besides Myron had connected 
 Aristomenes with the first war has been shown above (see p. 11). 
 
 Further evidence to show that the two wars were not sharply 
 defined in tradition can be found in the similar features which 
 appear in Myron's and Rhianus' account; or, perhaps, this simi- 
 larity merely shows that Myron made no distinction. In the first 
 place, we must call to mind that Pausanias omitted all that related 
 to Aristomenes from his account of the first war. But even so, we 
 see that raids, which mode of carrying on war was peculiar to 
 Aristomenes in the second war, were also made in the first, as 
 Pausanias tells it (cf. c. 7, 1, sqq. and c. 10, 7, with c. 18, 1, sqq.). 
 Nearly all the exploits of Aristomenes were performed with small 
 bodies of picked men. The Messenians are called XoydSe'i in the 
 first war (c. 11, 4), although there is no mention of Aristomenes. 
 
 Again, we find in both accounts mention of the desperation of 
 the Messenians. This was natural enough from the point of view 
 of the known outcome of these wars (cf. cc. 6, 6 ; 8, 4, with c. 21, 
 5). Likewise we have heroic sacrifice in both accounts. In the 
 
34 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 first war Tisis delivers his message and dies (c. 9, 4) ; Aristodemus 
 sacrifices his daughter (c. 9, 8) ; Euphaes dies a heroic death (c. 10, 
 3) ; Aristodemus commits suicide (c. 13, 4). In the second war 
 Theochis rushes into the enemies' lines and is slain (c. 21, 10) ; 
 Euergetides with fifty volunteers allows himself to be cut to pieces 
 by the Spartans (c. 23, 2), In both wars seers are active. In the 
 first war (c. 10, 5), Epebolus and Ophioneus oppose the election of 
 Aristodemus ; in the second Theoclns and Hecas take a prominent 
 part. 
 
 In the account of Myron, as well as in that of Rhianus, the 
 contending parties look upon the Messenian territory as already 
 belonging to the Lacedaemonians (cf. c. 7, 1, with c. 18, 1). This 
 appears a little strange in Myron's acconnt, because Messenia had 
 not yet been conquered, and such an event was at that time (c. 7, 
 1) remote. 
 
 Again, in both accounts the howling of dogs is associated with 
 the close of the respective wars (i. e., c. 13, 1, and c. 21, 1), In 
 Plut. De Superstitione, 8, the howling of dogs is mentioned in a 
 passage which bears a strong resemblance to Pans., c. 13, 1 ; so 
 much so that Plutarch must have drawn either from Myron or, 
 what is more probable, from Myron's source. On the other hand, 
 in Diod., VIII, 6, the howling of dogs is also mentioned as taking 
 place in the first war, but in a different connection from that in 
 Pans., c. 13, 1, which illustrates very well the confused condition 
 of the tradition. 
 
 For the occurrence of Corinthians in both accounts see c. V, c, 
 €nd. 
 
 Cretan archers figure as allies of the Lacedaemonians in Myron's 
 account as well as in that of Rhianus (cf. cc. 8, 3 ; 8, 12 ; 10, 1 ; 
 with cc. 19, 4; 20, 8). This must have been overlooked by O. 
 Miiller, Dorier, I, 144, 6, who says : " Die Kretischen Bogen- 
 schiitzen hat Rhianus aus seiner Heimat hinein gebracht ; es gab 
 gewiss da so friih keine Soldliuge," which remark was adopted by 
 Meineke, AhhandLungen, Berlin, 1832, and Kohlmann, op. cit. 19. 
 For the fact that Cretans also play a r6le in Myron's account seems 
 to imply that they figured in the tradition. And yet Cretans are 
 mentioned as hired troops in Thuc, VII, 57, 9, and as archers 
 ibid., VI, 25, 2, and 43, which is significant for Myron since he 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 35 
 
 worked out lii.s history, as Busolt has shown, from a frame-work 
 which he derived from Thucydides and Xenophon (see p. 12). 
 
 In c. 6 Pausanias almost tells us that Myron had written of the 
 first two Messenian wars as if they had constituted but one. We 
 <?an plainly see in this chapter, where Pausanias discusses the works 
 of Myron and Rhianus, the influence of both these writers: that of 
 Rhianus in the reference to the Iliad (c. 6, 13) and the Trojan war 
 (c. 6, 1); that of Myron in the sentence (c. 6, 3): 'Apiarofievrjv, 
 0? Kat TrpMTO'i Kai /u,aX.i(TTa to Meaarjvqii ovofia e? d^lw/jia irporj- 
 <yaye, tovtov top dvSpa eTreicDJya'ye [xev 6 Ylpcrjvev^; e? ttjv avyypa- 
 <f)r]v. The attribute Trpcoro? could have been applied by Pausanias 
 to Aristoraenes only in case this one had figured in the first war, 
 for otherwise Eujihaes and Aristodemus would have preceded him. 
 Now it was, in my opinion, tiie influence of Myron which induced 
 Pausanias (c. 6) to speak of the two wars together as one war. 
 This he does very clearly (c. 6, 1), and it is easy to see him gradu- 
 ally making a distinction. After speaking several times of the 
 two wars together as one, he makes the statement (c. 6, 2) that 
 Myron wrote only from the taking of Ampheia to the death of 
 Aristodemus, and then calls that part of the first war. Such a 
 development would have been superfluous if Myron's history had 
 not contained so much tradition that pertained to the second war. 
 
 6). Ch'tain parts dealing vy'ith Aristomenes from Myron. 
 
 Let ns now see what parts of cc. 14-17, 10, can be referred to 
 Myron. Most of the passages will naturally contain matter 
 concerning Aristomenes, for he was the hero of the second war. 
 Pausanias (c. 6) tells us that Rhianus' poem began with the events 
 after the battle of the Great Trench (c. 17), and on the other hand 
 that Myron had included Aristomenes in his history, and adds : 
 6 TOLVVV 'Aptcrro/jba-'rj'i So^y ye e/xj] yeyovev iirl rov TroXe/jLov rov 
 varepov, koI ra e'v avrov, iirethav i^ tovto o Xoyo<; a(f)iKi]Tac, 
 rrjviKavra eTre^eifii. 
 
 According to Diod., XV, 66, Aristomenes alone persuaded the 
 Messenians to revolt, which agrees with the prominence Rhianus 
 assigns to him, and is justified by Polybius (IV, 33), who calls the 
 second one the " war of Aristomenes." But in Pausanias others 
 
36 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 besides Aristomenes urged the Messenians to revolt (c. 14, 6-8)j 
 which agrees with Myron's history, where the whole Messenian 
 people are prominently brought out. Moreover, the words in c. 
 14, 6—7, evrj'yov he ovp^^ rfKcara e? tovto koI ol veayrepot, 'rroXe/jLOV 
 fiev ert aTreipw'^ e')(0VTe<i . . . 'EvreTpacf)?; 8e veoTTj^; koI aXXa'X^ov 
 Tr]<i y[e(r(n}VLa<;, ol 8e aptcnoi kol apcOfMOV ifkelcrTOi, Trepc ttju 
 ^AvSavlav, remind one of Thuc., II, 8 : Tore Se koI veorr]^ ttoWtj 
 fiev ovaa iv rfj IleKo7rovv7]cr(p, TroWrj S'eV ral^ ^ KOrjvaL'^ ovk 
 dK0v<TL0<; VTTO air6LpLa<i rjirrero • rov 7ro\ep,ov k. t. X., and it was 
 shown above that Myron depended on Thucydides. That Aris- 
 tomenes was not the only one of the youth of Andania who played 
 a prominent part can be seen in the story about Panormus and 
 Gonippus (cf. c. 27, 1). We also read that Aristomenes was 
 elected to be king, but refused the title, whereupon they made 
 him crTpaT7)'yo<i avTOKpdrwp (c. 15, 4). This statement seems 
 strange in this place, when we consider that Aristomenes in the 
 second war, from first to last, directed the war, and there was no 
 king nor general to share his power. On the other hand, this title 
 would have been quite suitable in the first war, where there were 
 kings to wield the chief power, so that Aristomenes could have 
 carried on his guerilla warfare. Besides we have seen above that 
 the title aTpaTi]>yb<i avroKpdrcop occurred in Myron's history (cf. 
 p. 23). 
 
 The passage (c. 16, 3) telling about Aristomenes and his picked 
 men at the battle of Capron Sema, was probably derived from 
 Myron. Pausanias says inc. 16, 3 : Kara 8e avrbv 'AptcrTo/xivt]!/ 
 el')(ev OVTW • XoydSe^; irepl avrov oySoTjKOvra rjcrav M.ecra7]vlcov, k. 
 T. X, ; but in the Rhianus part, c. 18, 1, we read : "A.ptaTOfjbevrj'i he 
 Toi"? irepl aurov \oydha<i 69 TpiaKoalcov dpidfiov TTporj'ya'yev. Now 
 in Thuc, VI, 43, we find : ro^orat'^ he rot<i irdaiv oyhoijKovra 
 Kol rerpaKoaiovi [koL tovtcov }^prjTe<; ol oyhoi^Kovra ycrav), where 
 a select company of eighty is made conspicuous. We have seen 
 above (p. 34) that Myron had possibly introduced Cretans into his 
 account from Thucydides. 
 
 At the battle of the Great Trench, at which the Arcadian king 
 Aristocrates betrayed the Messenians, Aristomenes, according to 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausankts. 37 
 
 Pansanias, led his countrymen. We have already seen the likeli- 
 hood that Plutarch had associated this event with the twenty years' 
 war (p. 32). The following considerations point clearly to Myron 
 as Pausanias' source for this battle. Almost the first words of this 
 account seem noteworthy (c. 17, 2) : kol M€a(7r}Vioc<; ^ApKciScov 
 fie^orjOrjKOTwv airo iracrSiv rcov iroXewv, when comj)ared with a 
 passage in the account of the first war (c. 11, 1) : rol<i 8e Meaa7]VL- 
 049 oi T6 'A/j/caSe? TTava-rpana, for it seems very improbable that 
 the lohole of Arcadia would have participated in these struggles, 
 and we may see, therefore, in this a bit of Myron's romancing. 
 Then, upon the statement that the Lacedaemonians bribed the 
 Arcadian king Aristocrates, follows (c. 17, 3-5) a long tirade against 
 the Spartans, who are said to have been the first to resort to bribery 
 in war. The animosity displayed here is quite of a piece with that 
 which has been shown to have been so prominent a feature in 
 Myron's history. Besides it must be remembered that Pausanias' 
 own attitude was that of an impartial historian (see c. VI, «, end). 
 The threat of retribution made in c. 17, 6, also agrees with Myron's 
 history (see c. VII, 6). In c. 17, 6, there are indications that 
 Aristocrates delivered a speech. In c. 17, 7, the Eleans, Argives 
 and Sicyonians are mentioned, which allies (as will be shown below) 
 were very probably spoken of only in Myron's account. 
 
 In c. 17, 8, follows a detail which, by its very strangeness, re- 
 minds one of c. 7, whore the Messenians, who are stationed before 
 an impassable trench, made a rampart of stakes, not only on their 
 flanks and on their rear, but also on i\\e\Y front. Here we are told 
 that the Arcadians, who occupied the left wing and centre, when 
 treacherously made to retreat by Aristocrates, are furthermore led 
 through the lines of the Messenians, Sta ^ap M-ea-ariviwv iiroielro Trjv 
 (jivyyjv, and this was done while the Spartans were advancing. This, 
 then, would appear to be some of Myron's unmilitary romancing. 
 
 As the Arcadians pass through the lines of the Messenians, the 
 latter chide them for their treachery, as follows : at 8e koI \oi8opiac<i 
 €9 avTOv<; ft)9 e? av8pa<; 7rpo8oTa<; koX ov 8t,KaL0V<; e'y^pcovTo, which 
 reminds the reader of the passage in the first war, where the con- 
 tending armies indulge in mutual abuse (c. 8, 2) : e? re XoL8op[a<; 
 TrpoijyovTo, K. r. \. The great expectations of the Messenians were 
 thus dashed to the ground by one blow. AaKe8aifiovLO}v 8€cnr6Ta<i 
 3 
 
38 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 avrX SovXcov eaeadat vofj,i^ovTa<i. It was not owing to the fact 
 that the Messenians had already been slaves that avrl 8ov\(ov is 
 used, for as already mentioned, these accounts of the early Messe- 
 nian wars were written from the point of view of later times ; and 
 moreover, in the account of the first war (c. 8, 2), the Lacedaemo- 
 nians are made to say : ol fiev olK6Ta<i avrwv r^hrj rou? M.ea(7rivLovi; 
 Kol ovBev ekevOepwrepovi a'TroKa\ovvre<; rcov ¥il\(OTcov. As far as 
 the accounts in Pausanias go, the Messenians had a far better right 
 to expect to become the masters of the Spartans in the early part 
 of the first war than at any period of the second. 
 
 Now the account of this battle would fill a palpable gap in Pau- 
 sanias (c. 9, 1). We read in c. 8 of such a gallant struggle being 
 made by the Messenians that they seemed in a fair way to come 
 out of the war victorious. Notwithstanding all this, in the fol- 
 lowing chapter everything suddenly takes an evil turn, for which 
 no adequate explanation is offered. The principal reason alleged 
 for this unfortunate turn of affairs is that the Messenians had to 
 spend large sums in guarding the different towns ; and yet in c. 7, 
 2, we are told that the Lacedaemonians, having found them well 
 fortified, had given up their attacks upon them. The story of the 
 treachery of Aristocrates would give a sufficient explanation of this 
 sudden change of fortune. 
 
 Finally the passage in the account of the second war which tells 
 of the retreat of the Messenians to Mt. Eira, bears a striking 
 resemblance to the one in the account of the first war, that tells of 
 the retreat to Mt. Ithome (c. 17, 10) : ^Apia-TOfjuevr]^ Be fxera rrjv 
 [jbd')(riv TOv<; StaTrecjievjoTa'; rcov yieaarjvicov crwqdpoL^e, Koi ^AvSa- 
 vlav fiev Kal et ti aWo ev fieaoyala TroXLcr/jua eireLcre ra iroWa 
 eKXetTrecv, e? Se rrjv Yiipav to 6po<; dvoiKi^eadat ; with this com- 
 pare c. 9, 1 : ^ovXevo fxevoi^ he irpo^ rd Trapovra eSoKei rd fiev 
 TToWd TToXbafiara rd e? fieaoyaiav iravra eKXeiireLV, e? he to 6po<i 
 avoLKL^ecrdai Trjv ^Idcofirjv. 
 
 c). The Allies. 
 
 Let us now examine the allies who are mentioned by Pausanias. 
 If we should follow the statement in Strabo, 362 (of which passage 
 O. Miiller, Dorier, I, 149, 3, says : " Es ist deutlich dass dieses 
 
The 3Iesseniaca of Pausanias. 39 
 
 alles aus Tvrtaeus ist "), we should conelnde that in the first war 
 the Messenians had no allies, but in the second were assisted by 
 the Argives, Eleans, Pisatans and Arcadians. How is it then that 
 in Pausanias' account such an important part is played by the allies 
 in the first war ? The reason is, in my opinion, that Myron, in 
 the case of the allies too, combined the traditions concerninor the 
 second war with those of the first. But if the names that Strabo 
 gives of the allies are the traditional ones, we might expect Myron 
 to have the same. Yet an exact correspondence with Strabo need 
 not be looked for here, and we notice in Pausanias that Sicyonians 
 take the place of the Pisatans. At the same time it must be 
 remarked that the names mentioned by Strabo are not altogether 
 certain (cf. Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I, 165, 1 ; O. Miiller, Dorier, I, 
 149, 3). 
 
 The handiwork of Myron may be recognized in the amount of 
 detail given concerning the allies in the first war, which stands in 
 sharj) contrast with the scanty notice of allies in Strabo, and with 
 the fact that Thucydides, I, 15, knows of no wars in early times 
 in which there was a general participation of different states. 
 
 If now we turn to the second war we find nearly the same allies 
 taking part as in the first. This is not because Pausanias depended 
 in this part on Ephorus or some other source, but because Pausa- 
 nias, in reconstructing the gap, introduced the same allies that he 
 found in Myron's history. Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I, 165, 1, seems to 
 recognize this when he says : " Was Pausanias, IV, 15, 7, iiber die 
 beiderseitigen Bundesgenossen sagt, hat keinen Wert." Vgl. Busolt, 
 Lakedahn., I, 101, 48. "Es ist eine freie Komposition der die 
 politische Gruppierung im Jahre 418 zum Vorbilde diente." This 
 remark, according to the generally accepted notion of the extent of 
 Myron's history, ought to have been applied only to the allies 
 mentioned in the first war (cf. p. 13). No doubt Pausauias knew 
 from Ephorus that some of these allies had assisted the Messenians 
 in the second war, but from lack of detail he was obliged to have 
 recourse to Myron, in which he seemed justified, as Myron had 
 evidently taken other features of the second war along with the 
 stories about Aristomenes into his account. 
 
 A close examination will show that the allies are more intimately 
 interwoven with the events of the first war than with those of the 
 
40 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 second, and that the passages in which they are cited in the second 
 war were all, or nearly so, merely imitations of those in the first. 
 This demonstrates again that Pausanias was not following here a 
 connected account, but was piecing together parts from different 
 sources. I shall content myself with merely mentioning the pas- 
 sages where allies are referred to in the first war (i. e., cc. 8, 3 ; 10,. 
 1; 10, 6; 10, 7; 11, 1; 11,2; 11,7; 11,8; 12,3; 14,1.) 
 
 The passages where they are spoken of in the account of the 
 second war are : cc. 14, 8 ; 15, 1 ; 15, 4 ; 15, 7 ; 15, 8 ; 16, 2 ; 17, 
 9 ; 19, 1 ; 23, 5. In the first of these (c. 14, 8) we are told that 
 Aristomenes sent secretly to Argos and Arcadia to ask whether they 
 would assist the Messenians as readily as they had done in the first 
 war. This cannot be from Rhianus, who probably had nothing or 
 next to nothing about allies, and no one besides Pausanias and 
 Myron could have known of any such help being given the Messe- 
 nians in the first war. Now we read in the account of the first war 
 (c. 12, 3) that, when the Lacedaemonians had sent embassies to 
 these very Arcadians and Argives in order to win them from their 
 alliance with the Messenians, Aristodemus sent an embassy not to 
 these states to counteract the influence of the Spartans, but to the 
 oracle — Pausanias' words being : Tre/^Tret koI avro'i eprjaofjuevovi 
 rov Oeov, which is an indication of an omission at this point, as the 
 sending to the oracle has clearly nothing to do with the attempt of 
 the Spartans to break up the alliance, and it is to be noted that 
 there is no further reference made to this embassy. Bearing in 
 mind that Aristomenes had been omitted from Myron's history, it 
 seems likely that his sending secretly to Argos and Arcadia (c. 14^ 
 8) was transferred by Pausanias from its original connection in 
 c. 12, 3. The only change necessary to make c. 14, 8 fit in here 
 is that of eir\ rov iroXe^ov rod irporepov to eVt t?}? yLta^T/? rr}? 
 Trporepa? {i. e., the battle described in c. 11). 
 
 Again, in c. 15, 1 we are told that the allies were more eager for 
 war than had been expected, and that the hate of the Argives and 
 Arcadians was intense. This seems however to be an idle asser- 
 tion, for the allies do not come until nearly two years later. So 
 again, in c. 15, 4, they are mentioned, but only to say that they 
 were not present at the battle of Derae. The mention of the hatred 
 of tlie Argives and Arcadians in the above passage (c. 15, 1) 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 41 
 
 reminds us of the passage (c. 10, 7) in the account of the first war, 
 where the hostile acts of the Arcadians and the enmity of the 
 Argives are spoken of. Likewise the absence of the allies men- 
 tioned in c. 15, 4, may be compared with a similar absence spoken 
 of in c. 10, 1. It is noteworthy that in the second war, as in the 
 first, the allies do not participate until the war has made some pro- 
 gress ; but notice is taken^of them in both accounts more than once 
 before the descriptions are given of the two battles in which they 
 figure. These battles then seem to be of corresponding magnitude. 
 
 Before describing these battles the allies on both sides are enumer- 
 ated, which passages in the two accounts (c. 11 and c. 15, 7-8) bear 
 a striking resemblance to each other. A comparison, however, 
 will show that in the jii'st war the allies form an integral part of 
 the army ; in the second their position in the line of battle is not 
 even mentioned, and the talk about the allies seems to be only a 
 rough setting for the recital of Aristomenes' deeds of valor. 
 
 It is curious to see in c. 15, 7, how the catalogue of allies was 
 made to swell. In the first place there came to the assistance of 
 the Messenians the Eleans, Arcadians, Argives and Sicyonians. Of 
 these the Eleans befriended the Messenians at the end of the second 
 war (c. 23, 5), which Pausanias knew from Rhianus (cf. also c. 17, 
 7, and c. V, c, end) ; but the Arcadians, Argives and Sicyonians 
 are mentioned together in cc. 10, 6, 11, 1, and 11, 2, each time in 
 this order, and once in c. 14, 1, in the opposite order. In the latter 
 place wc learn that the fugitive Messenians seek refuge with them. 
 
 It is also worth noticing that it is stated in the accownt of the 
 second war (c. 14, 8) that Aristomenes sent only to Argos and 
 Arcadia for assistance, and j^et the Sicyonians also come, which 
 reminds one of the passage (c. 10, 6) in the account of the first 
 war, where we learn that Aristodemus had sent presents to all three 
 states. All of which shows that Pausanias drew on Myron in his 
 efforts to construct the first part of the second Messenian war. 
 
 In c. 15, 8, the Corinthians and Lepreates are mentioned as the 
 allies of the Spartans. It is safe to say that the connection that 
 these states are represented as having had with the early Messenian 
 wars also lacks all historical basis. O. Miiller, Dorier, 1, 144, 6, 
 commenting on the unhistorical nature of some of the statements 
 made in Pausanias concerning these wars, says : " Wie kamen 
 
42 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 Korinther nach Lakonien, ohne durch feindliches Gebiet zu geheu^ 
 iind wer hatte sie durchgelassen " (cf. Pans., c. 11, 8). Now the 
 Corinthians are mentioned several times as allies of the Spartans in 
 the account of the first war {j. e., c. 11, 1, bis, and c. 11, 8), and it 
 is easy to see that those passages are more closely connected with 
 the narrative than the one under discussion {i. e., c. 15, 8). A place 
 in the line of battle is assigned to them (c. 11, 1), and the difficulty 
 of their return home after the defeat is commented on. Whereas, 
 in c. 1 5, 8 their presence is simply mentioned, and nothing is said of 
 their position in the line of battle, nor is any concern expressed about 
 their returning home safely, although the Spartans were defeated 
 at the battle of Capron Sema, just as they had been before Ithome, 
 and the Corinthians were therefore in the same situation here as there. 
 
 The Corinthians are also mentioned once as the allies of the 
 Spartans in the Rhianus part (c. 19, 1); but evidently they form 
 no vital part of Rhianus' epic, as he describes a siege, and it does 
 not appear anywhere that the Spartans found any difficulty in sus- 
 taining it. Moreover, the Corinthians do not appear to form a 
 necessary part of this exploit of Aristomenes, because Polyaenus in 
 II, 31, tells the same story essentially without the Corinthians. 
 Besides Pausanias (c. 18, 5) was acquainted with two versions of 
 this story (cf. Immerwahr, Lakonika, 171), and it is to be expected 
 that Myron had also told this story. If so, we recognize the source 
 for the general remark in c. 18, 4 : e? rov KedSav • ifi^dWovo-i, 8e 
 ivravda ov<; av i'Tvl fiejLcrToci; rtficopcovrac, for in Thuc, I, 134, 4, we 
 read : /cal avrov efjueWrjcrav fiev e^ rov "KatdSav ovirep toi)<; kukov- 
 pyov<i ifi^dXkeiv. Polyaenus does not mention the place at all. 
 
 Of the Lepreates no mention is made in the account of the first 
 war. It is stated there (c. 11, 1) that the Corinthians were the 
 only ones of the Peloponnesians who came to the assistance of the 
 Spartans. But it also appears that the assistance the Lepreates are 
 said to render the Spartans in the second war is in conflict with 
 c. 24, 1 ; for there we are told that Aristomenes gave one of his 
 daughters in marriage to a Lepreat (cf. O. Miiller, Dorier, I, 151, 
 4). Now we read in III, 8, 3-6, that the Lacedaemonians took 
 the part of the Lepreates against the Eleans, of which the words 
 (c. 15, 8), Kol Keirpearoiv tiv€<; Kara e')(6o<i to 'HA.etft)v are evi- 
 dently a reminiscence. It therefore seems likely that Pausanias, 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausaniaa. 43 
 
 on his owD authority, thought it proper to introduce them here as 
 allies of the Spartans. 
 
 The enumeration of the allies who came to the battle of Capron 
 Sema (c. 15, 7) includes also the descendants of the Messenian king 
 Androcles. These are mentioned again in c. 16, 2 and c. 17, 9). 
 It is not clear on what source Pausanias relied in this instance, but 
 it is possible that the notice of them was taken with other matter 
 from Myron. At any rate they seem to have figured in Myron's 
 account to some extent (cf. cc. 4, 4 ; 5, 6 ; 14, 3). 
 
 Very noticeable is the close correspondence between the passages 
 c. 14, 1 and c. 15, 7 — the former telling of the exile of the Messe- 
 nians at the end of the first war, the latter of the return of the exiles, 
 as follows (c. 14, 1) : M.€acr7]VL(DV 8e 6(T0i<t fiev erv^^ov ev ^iKvoivt 
 oxxjat Kat ev ' Apyec irpo^evLai koI irapa rcbv ^ApKciScov naiv, outoc 
 fiev e? ravra^ Ta<; TroXe^? aTre'^^coprjaav, i<; ^YiXevalva 8e ol rov 
 yevov<; tS>v lepecov koX @eat<; Tat<i fjbe<yaXai,<i T€\ovvT€<i ra 6p<yia. 
 8e o^\o9 o TToXi"? Kara ra? 7raTptSa<i eKacrroi Ta<; ap^ata9 icTKe- 
 SdaOrjaav, and 15, 7 : rjKovrcov dfi(f)OT€pot<; Koi t(ov o-fyLt/ia^&)i/, 
 . . . Mecro-T/ytoi? fiev ovv 'HXetot kuI 'Ap/caSe?, €ti Se i^ "Apyov^ 
 d(f)LKero Kol ^iKV(ovo<i ^orjOeta. Traprjcrav 8e koX oaot Trporepov 
 roiv ^lecrcrrjvicov ec^evyov €KovalQ)<i, i^ 'EXeucrii/o? re ol? Trdrpiov 
 hpav rd opyca roiv jxeydXwv ^eSiv, k. t. X. Not only is the 
 correspondence between these two passages noteworthy, but this 
 attempt to join the second war to the first seems hasty, for who 
 would believe that the same men participated in two wars that 
 were separated by an interval of thirty-nine years, especially as 
 the first one had lasted twenty years ! Concerning the flight of the 
 priests to Eleusis, O. Miiller, Dorier, I, 144, 6, says : '* Die Flucht 
 der Eingeweihten nach Eleusis ist ganz ungeschichtlich gedacht ; 
 uoch mehr dass sie im zweiten Kriege ruhig zusehen. Kampften 
 doch in Atheu selbst Daduchen in Reih und Glied." This bit of 
 improbability agrees with Myron's style of romancing. 
 
 d). Tyrtaeus. 
 
 From whom did Pausanias take his information about Tyr- 
 taeus? Duncker, VI, 106, says that the story about the lame 
 school-master whom the Athenians sent to the Spartans in de- 
 
44 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 rision, which is most completely developed in Pausanias, is of 
 very late origin. Tyrtaeus is mentioned four times as an active 
 participant in the second Messenian war (cf. cc. 15, 6; 16, 2 ; 16, 6 ; 
 18, 3) : three times in that part which was made up by Pausanias, 
 and once (c. 18, 3) in the part where Rhianus was his chief source. 
 But even here I have no doubt that it was inserted, since, as in 
 the previous passages, Tyrtaeus is barely mentioned, and only 
 enough to bring in some bit of well-known tradition. It is my 
 opinion that Tyrtaeus was included in Myron's history just as 
 Aristoraenes was. 
 
 That late tradition did actually place Tyrtaeus in the first war 
 we learn from Suidas (s. v. Tyrtaeus) : TvpraZo^; on AaKeSat/jiovLot 
 co^oaav rj WLeaaijpi^v alprjaeiv t) avTol Tedvrj^ecrOaL • ^pT^crat'ro? Be 
 Tov Oeov (TTpaT7]'yov irapa Adr)vaiO)v 'kajBetv, \a/ji,/3dvovat Tvpralov 
 Tov TTOLrjTrjv, ')(^U)\ov avSpa ' o? evr' aperrjv avTOv<i irapaKaXwv etke 
 rm K €Tei ttjv M.eaarjvqv, k. t. \. The oath as well as the numeral 
 show that the first war is meant. Now in Pans., c. 15, 6, where 
 we learn that the Lacedaemonians, in obedience to the oracle 
 applied to the Athenians for a leader, we read the following : 
 ^ XOrjvaloi he ovSerepa Oe\ovTe<i, ovre AaKeSaifjiovlovi avev fieyaXwv 
 Kivhvvwv 7rpoa\a/3e2p fxalpav roiv ev TieXoirovvi^crfp rrjv dpiarrjv, 
 ovre K. T. \. I have shown above that Myron brought out very 
 prominently the desire of the Spartans to get the Messenian land, 
 with which irpoaXa^elv jxolpav above agrees. Besides, this would 
 have been suitably said in the first war, before the Lacedaemonians 
 had got possession of Messenia, but not after they had held it for 
 thirty-nine years. 
 
 Again, one of the measures that Tyrtaeus proposed in order to 
 strengthen the Spartan cause was to take Helots into the army (cf. 
 Pans., c. 16, 6 ; Justin., Ill, 5) ; but we find these assisting already 
 in the first war (c. 11, 1), and there a marked progress may be 
 observed, for whereas, in c. 8, 3 we read only of Perioeci assisting 
 the Lacedaemonians, in c. 11, 1 we find Perioeci and Helots. 
 
 It appears from the foregoing discussion concerning the chapters 
 14-17 (which constitute the beginning of the account of the second 
 war) that, as Myron's history ostensibly dealt only with the first 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 45 
 
 ■war, and Rhianus' epic with the latter part of the second, Pausanias 
 had to turn elsewhere for material. An outline he may have found 
 in Ephorus and Sosibius ; but this was probably too bare to be in 
 keeping with the preceding story of the first war, and the part of 
 the second war which Rhianus treated. Now as Pausanias knew 
 that Myron had included in his history not only the stories about 
 Aristomenes, but also other matter, he decided to utilize this mate- 
 rial. The various considerations that have been advanced, and the 
 close relationship which appears to exist between the part under 
 discussion and the account of the first war, make this hypothesis 
 very probable. 
 
 Let us pause for a moment to review the investigation into 
 Pausanias' indebtedness to Myron's history, as far as it has been 
 made. I began wath the generally accepted view that Myron had 
 written the history of the first war from the taking of Ampheia 
 down to the death of Aristodemus. Starting from this point, it 
 was shown that his history had begun with an introduction ; that 
 it had not only related the events of the w^ar to its close, but had 
 told of the exile of the Messenians, and finally that Myron's history 
 had virtually extended into the territory of the second war, inas- 
 much as tradition that pertained to the second war had been 
 included. So far, then, the investigation has considered Myron's 
 history as simply dealing with the first war, although in a larger 
 sense than is generally supposed. Noiv the attempt will be made 
 to prove that Myron had not stopped here, but had continued wath 
 the recital of the later doings of the Messenians, and especially 
 had shown how they had been finally restored to their country by 
 Epaminondas. 
 
 YI. CONSIDERATIOX OF POSSIBLE SOURCES FOR THE ACCOUNT 
 
 OF THE Restoration. 
 
 a). It 7uas not constructed by Pausanias from Fragments. 
 
 It must be evident from the foregoing discussion that Myron 
 and Rhianus were the principal sources that Pausanias used when 
 writing the history of the first two Messenian wars. The question 
 now arises, where did Pausanias get his material for the subsequent 
 
46 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 history ? We must accept one of three propositions : Firstly, Paii- 
 sanias worked up the account of the restoration from fragments of 
 tradition ; secondly, he adapted an account of the restoration which 
 was complete in itself; thirdly, he had access to some history of 
 the Messenian wars which included the story of the restoration. 
 
 The objection to the first proposition is, that Pausanias would 
 never have produced an harmonious narrative, such as we now 
 find, from raw material handed down by tradition. This can be 
 seen by examining the last two chapters of the historical part of 
 the Messeniaca {i. e., cc. 28 and 29). These two chapters, which 
 sketch the history of the Messeuians subsequent to the restoration, 
 i. e., from 370 B. C. to 183 B. C, bear unmistakable signs of 
 having been composed by Pausanias himself. He refers to his 
 Attica in c. 28, 3 ; to his Sicyonia in c. 29, 1 ; and if we compare 
 these chapters with I, 13, 6 ; II, 9, 2 ; YII, 7, 4 ; YIII, 49, 4 ; 
 50, 2 ; 50, 5, it will be easy to see that they were not originally 
 written by Pausanias to be Messenian history ; in fact, the part 
 from c. 29, 6 to c. 29, 13 is largely a condensation of that part of 
 his Arcadian history in which Philopoemen figures. 
 
 There is no doubt then that Pausanias himself is responsible for 
 the composition of these two chapters. But how different they are 
 from the part that precedes ! As the reader turns to these chapters 
 he finds the Messenians fade, as it were, into the distance. Twice 
 they draw near again — once when an expedition is made by 
 them against Elis (c. 28), and again when they are attacked by 
 Demetrius (c. 29). But as these anecdotes, which are evidently 
 taken from some Messenian source, are not brought into organic 
 unity with the rest, it becomes evident that Pausanias could not 
 have produced an harmonious account of the restoration if he had 
 depended on fragments of tradition. Myron and Rhianus wove 
 their fragments together by drawing on their imagination. Pausa- 
 nias, in his capacity as compiler, turned to his sources, and hence 
 could not be expected to attain the same unity of composition. 
 
 Besides this it is very noticeable that the intense Messenian bias 
 so prominent in the previous part of the history is lacking in the 
 above named chapters. Pausanias himself evidently favored the 
 Lacedaemonians as much as the Messenians, for he not only de- 
 voted a book to Laconia, in which there is no evidence of a feeling 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 47 
 
 against them, but he shows a special interest in Theopompus, the 
 Spartan king who reigned at the time of tlie first Messenian war 
 (cf. Immerwahr, Lakonika, 20, and Pans., Ill, 3, 2), and speaks 
 of the merits of Polydorus, the other king, in III, 3, 2-3. More- 
 over, as already mentioned, he assumes an impartial attitude, which 
 is in striking contrast with the one-sided Messenian version (cf. 
 Ill, 3, 2 ; IV, 4, 3 ; 5, 5). If, on the other hand, Pausanias had 
 acquired a strong Messenian sympathy from his IMessenian sources, 
 we should expect him to continue in this frame of mind to the end 
 of this history ; but such is not the case. If it were not for the 
 expedition against Elis in c. 28 and the attack of Demetrius in c. 
 29, in both of which chapters the Messenians are represented as 
 endowed w^ith their former valor, our feelings would be turned 
 against them. This darker picture of the Messenian character is 
 no doubt truer to history, and agrees with the estimate put upon it 
 by Polybius (IV, 32). Accordingly, in c. 28, 2, we read that they 
 became the allies of Philip, the son of Amyntas, for which reason 
 they took no part in the battle of Chaeroneia. But such an alliance 
 ought to have appeared especially reprehensible to Pausanias, who 
 censures Philip severely in I, 25, 3, and in VIII, 7, 5, and soon 
 after mentioning the alliance, says (c. 28, 4) : ^iklir'n-ov he rov 
 ^A/juvvTOV rd T6 aWa oiroara e'lprjTat KaKovp<yr)(Tavro^ T-qv 'EXXaoa, 
 Kol 'HXeteuy rov<i hvvarovq hia^deipavro^ 'y^pi^fiaat. It was just 
 such a charge that the Messeniaus had brought against the Lace- 
 daemonians in c. 5, 3 : Kpotcrco re avrol<i hwpa airocneiKavTL '^/eve- 
 Ocrai <f>i,\ov<i ^ap^dpw irpoiTovq, k. t.\. (see also p. 15). For the 
 alliance with Philip Pausanias makes no excuse, unless we may 
 consider as an excuse his explanation of the non-appearance of the 
 Messenians at Chaeroneia, with the words (c. 28, 3) : ou [ju-qv ovSe 
 Tol<i"^Wrj(TLV ivavTia Oeadac ra oirXa rj66\i]crav. Again, in the 
 case of Philopoemen, for whom Pausanias must have felt an interest, 
 to judge from the account of his life in VIII, to which he refers, 
 there is the same failure to appreciate the discredit that the Messe- 
 nians had brought upon themselves. He simply says (c. 29, 12) : 
 Meaarji/Lcov Be oi re ^tXoTroifievL airioi tt}? reXefT?}? ehocrav 8[Ka<;, 
 Kol r) IS^lea-a-TjvT] avvereXea-ev avOc^ e? to 'Ay^a'cKov. The lack of 
 sympathy for the Messenians that is apparent in these chapters, 
 which w^ere undoubtedly constructed by Pausanias, and the want 
 
48 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 of unity of composition, show that the previous chapters must 
 have been derived from some complete account. This opinion is 
 strengthened by the evidence given above, which proves that some 
 particular source of Pausanias must have ceased suddenly to flow 
 when the story of the restoration had been told. 
 
 h). The Story of the Restoration joined to an Account of the 
 Previous History. 
 
 According to the second proposition Pausanias would have used 
 as a source some complete account of the restoration, but one inde- 
 pendent of the earlier history. But surely if anyone had written 
 of the restoration he would not have neglected to bring it into 
 connection with the wars which had effected the banishment. In 
 fact, it may be urged against both the foregoing propositions that 
 it would be highly improbable for no one before Pausanias' time 
 to have brought the story of the restoration into connection with 
 the early wars. At the period of the restoration, or, at least, at a 
 time not so far remote as that of Pausanias, who lived in the 
 second century A. D., would it be natural to look for an unusual 
 interest to manifest itself in the fortunes of the Messenians, an 
 interest such as produced the works of Myron, Rhianus and Aes- 
 chylus of Alexandria. 
 
 Now there is clear evidence that the restoration had been joined 
 to the earlier history in the source which Pausanias used. For 
 chapter 25, which is totally the work of the imaginaticm, was un- 
 doubtedly written for the purpose of bridging over the gap between 
 the history of the wars and the account of the restoration, and we 
 can also see a close relation existing between the beginning of the 
 Messeniaca and the account of the restoration. For evidence in 
 regard to c. 25, see c. VIII, b. As to the latter proposition, the 
 following comparison between the above-named parts of the Messe- 
 niaca will show that it is true. 
 
 Especial prominence is given in the Messeniaca to the rites per- 
 formed in honor of the Great Goddesses. Pausanias (c. 33, 4) says 
 he considers them, performed at Carnasium, only next in majesty 
 to the Eleusinian mysteries. Soon after the occupation of Messenia 
 by Polycaon the rites of the Great Goddesses, as we are told, were 
 
The Messeniaca of Paitsanias. 49 
 
 brought from Eleusis to Andania by Caucon and revealed there to 
 Messene, the wife of Polycaoii. Many years later these rites were 
 raised to greater honor by Lyons, the son of Pandion. These 
 matters are spoken of as important events, and are discussed in five 
 consecutive paragraphs. The presence of these religious ceremonies 
 gave to Andania a special importance. Next to Andania the town 
 Oichalia, known later by the name Carnasium, is spoken of as a 
 place famous for its worship of the Great Goddesses. Besides 
 Caucon, Lycus and Messene, the names of Eurytus, Apharaeus 
 and his sons are mentioned in connection with these rites. It was 
 to Aphareus, the son of Perieres, and his children, that Lycus 
 revealed the rites at Andania. 
 
 Now in the account of the restoration the same degree of import- 
 ance is attached both to the rites of the Great Goddesses and to the 
 places and heroes that are associated with them in the introduction. 
 So it is stated in c. 26, 6, that when Epaminondas wanted to build 
 a town for the Messenians, they positively refused to rebuild either 
 Andania or Oichalia, as their calamities had come upon them while 
 living there. The joining of the name Oichalia with Andania was 
 evidently made on account of the fact that the celebration of the 
 mysteries was also connected with this place ; for otherwise Arene, 
 Pylus or Stenyclarus should have been mentioned instead, as they 
 had been in the early times successively the seats of government 
 after Andania. While Epaminondas was in doubt, in consequence 
 of the above-mentioned refusal, where to build the city, a vision of 
 the priest Caucon appeared to him, commanding him to restore to 
 the Messenians their land. The same vision appeared also to 
 Epiteles, who commanded the Argive contingent of forces, telling 
 him to dig at a certain place on Mt. Ithome. He obeyed, and 
 found a roll of tin finely wrought, on which were inscribed the 
 rites of the Great Goddesses. In consequence of these events 
 Epaminondas decided to found a city on Mt. Ithome, and the 
 priests inscribed in books the rites that had been discovered. 
 
 Then, before beginning work on the city, sacrifices were offered 
 by all the parties engaged, but especially by the Messenians, who, 
 together with their priests, offered sacrifices to Zeus Ithomatas, the 
 Dioscuri, the Great Goddesses, Caucon, Messene, Eurytus, Aphareus 
 and his sons, Cresphontes Aipytus and Aristomenes. Here it 
 
50 A Study in the Sow^ces of 
 
 should be noted that not only are the Great Goddesses and the 
 names that are associated with their rites mentioned, but also that 
 the other divinities and heroes to whom sacrifices are offered play 
 an important role in the introduction, as well as in the account of 
 the wars. A connection with the body of the history is also 
 observable. The priests of the Great Goddesses are mentioned in 
 cc. ]4, 1 and 15, 7, and their rites in c. 20 (see c. VI, c, end). For 
 the frequent mention of Zeus Ithomatas see c. VII, a, ff., and of 
 the Dioscuri c. VII, 6, ff. Aristomenes, of course, plays an im- 
 portant role in the second war, and it may be remarked that in c. 
 17, 1 he owes his life to a priestess of Demeter. There can be no 
 doubt then that Pausauias made use of some source in which the 
 restoration was already in organic unity with the earlier as well as 
 the later history. 
 
 Further evidence can be seen in a passage that was pointed out 
 by Kohlmann, op. cit., 21. We have already seen how Pausanias, 
 after telling of the restoration of the Messenians to their country, 
 proceeds in cc. 28 and 29 to give a sketch of the later history, 
 down to the year 183 B. C. He then concludes the historical part 
 of the Messeniaca with these words (c. 29, 13) : "A;^pt fiev 8r) rovSe 
 o \oyo<i eirrfkOe [juol M.ecrcr7]VLa)v ra ttoWo, iraOrjixara, koI co? o 
 haifxcov a(f)d'i eiri re 7779 ra ea')(^aTa koX eirl ra iroppcorara YleXo- 
 TTOvvrjcrov aKeSdcra^ varepov ')(^povcp Kal e? rrjv otKeiav aveawcre • 
 ro he airo rovrov rri<; -^(opa<i Kal TroXecov rpairoyfieOa e? d(f)j]'y7]cnv. 
 This passage clearly indicates that some source that Pausanias used 
 ended with the account of the restoration, for if Pausanias had 
 been responsible for the construction of all the later history, he 
 would not have overlooked what he had related in cc. 28 and 29. 
 
 If the reasoning so far has been correct, it follows that either 
 Rhianus or Myron furnished Pausanias with material for writing 
 the account of the restoration. A third source might of course be 
 thought of; but as it has been shown that the account of the resto- 
 ration must have been attached to a history of the wars, such a 
 third source would have been more important to Pausanias than 
 either Myron or Rhianus. Yet Pausanias (c. 6), when discussing 
 the relative trustworthiness of Myron and Rhianus, has nothing to 
 say of a third source. Furthermore, it has been well substantiated 
 that Myron and Rhianus were the chief sources for the history of 
 
The Messeniaca of Pmisanias. 51 
 
 the wars, and it is therefore more natural to look to them for an 
 account of the restoration than to assume some unknown source. 
 This view is supported by the fact that so many points in the 
 account of the restoration are closely connected with those parts 
 which have recognizedly been taken from Myron and Rhianus. 
 One of the best examples of this is the story of the roll of tin on 
 which the rites of the Great Goddesses had been inscribed, which 
 Epiteles found on Mt. Ithome, and which had been deposited there 
 by Aristomenes. The circumstances concerning this deposit, told 
 in c. 20, and again in c. 26, stand in such intimate relation that it 
 is impossible that Pausanias could have obtained them from two 
 distinct sources. But c. 20 belongs to that part of the account of 
 the second war which presumably was taken from Rhianus. If 
 then this circumstance owes its origin to Rhianus, it follows that 
 he was also the author of the account of the restoration. But 
 weighty reasons show that this cannot be true. 
 
 c). Mhianus. 
 
 Kohlmann, op. cit., tried to prove by pointing out correspond- 
 ences between the account of the restoration and the history of the 
 second war, that Rhianus had not closed his epic with the death of 
 Aristodemus, as was generally supposed (cf. O. Midler, Dorkr, I, 
 152,3; Meineke, Analecta Alexandrina, 197), but had extended 
 his poem so as to include the story of the restoration of the Messe- 
 nians to their country by Epaminoudas. Busolt, Gh\ Gesch., I, 
 136, 5, says that Conat, Les MesHeniemies de Rhianus, Annales de 
 lafacuUe de Lettres de Bordeaux, II (1880), 377 sqq.,^ has at least 
 severely shaken this hypothesis. Conat, Poesie Alex., 338, in giv- 
 ing his reasons against Kohlmann's hypothesis, closes with the 
 objection that an account of the restoration would be a natural 
 termination of a detailed account of the two wars : not of a poem 
 devoted to the glorification of a single man like Aristomenes, and 
 practically confined to the siege of Eira. 
 
 The almost exclusive attention that is paid to Aristomenes in 
 the account of the second war is very striking. Nearly all the 
 
 ^Unfortunately I have been unable to see this article. 
 
52 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 fighting consists in personal encounters between Aristomenes and 
 the Spartans. The oracle predicting the fall of Eira is known only 
 to Aristomenes and to the priest Theoclus, who keep the informa- 
 tion to themselves (cf. cc. 20, 3; 21, 3). In the first war, on the 
 contrary, all the Messenians are represented as taking part in the 
 fighting and are familiar with the oracles. 
 
 The national hatred between Messenians and Spartans was intense 
 in the first war, as can be seen by examining the following passages : 
 cc. 4, 4 ; 7, 3 ; 7, 5 ; 8, 1 ; 8, 7 ; 11,5; 11,6; 13, 5 ; which har- 
 monize in sentiment with cc. 5, 3-5; 8, 2; 17, 3-6. This last 
 passage belonged to Myron, as was shown p. 37. On the other 
 hand, we are informed in the account of the second war only of the 
 feelings of Aristomenes and of the priest Theoclus (cf. 16, 5 ; 22, 
 3 ; 21, 11 ; 23, 2). The passage (c. 15, 1) where the hatred of the 
 Argives and Arcadians is mentioned, has been shown above (p. 40) 
 to be due to Pausanias. Still there is one passage {i. e., c. 23, 5) 
 at the close of the story of the second war, where the hatred of the 
 Messenian people is mentioned. It must be observed, however, 
 that this is done in a relenting spirit, with which compare c. 21, 12, 
 where the Spartans seem to relent. 
 
 We seem to be reading there the final act concerning the fortunes 
 of the Messenians as Rhianus had related them. At other times 
 the Messenian exiles scattered themselves in different directions. 
 So it was at the end of the first war, and after they were driven 
 from Naupactus, 405 B. C. ; but after the second war, we are told, 
 there was one grand exodus (c. 23, 3) : Kal fjberea-'xov airavre'i, 
 ttXtjv el yrjpd^; riva avretpyev rj fMrjSe eviropoiv €rv)(^ev e? rrjv airo- 
 Srjfiiav. It was, then, in accordance with this final act that Man- 
 ticlus is made to tell the Messenians to forget Messene and their 
 hatred of the Lacedaemonians (c. 23, 5). 
 
 Then we are treated to a fictitious account of how, on the invita- 
 tion of Anaxilas, whom we know to have lived in the fifth century 
 B. C. (cf. Bently, Dissertat. upon Phal., 1 90 sqq.), they attack 
 Zancle and with his help take possession of it ; whereupon they 
 show clemency to the conquered and make a treaty with them, and 
 change the name of the town to Messene (c. 23, 9). This seems a 
 fitting close to the history of the unfortunate Messenians, who 
 have now found a final resting-place, which is marked by the last 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 53 
 
 words of the chapter (c. 23, 10) : Mecro-Tyv/ot? fj^ev ovv rolf; (f)ev- 
 yovaiv eyeyovei Trepan tt}? aA,?;?. 
 
 Having thus closed his account of the Messenians, Rhianus re- 
 turns to Aristomenes to tell of his last days — how the hero gives 
 his daughters and a sister in marriage and goes to live with a 
 third daughter who married Damagetus, a king on the island of 
 Rhodus, where he ends his days. Pausanias closes his account of 
 him with the words (c. 24, 3) : ov yap eSei aufji,(f)opav ovhefxlav 
 KaKehatjxovLOLi; ert i^ WpicrTOfMevov^ yeveaOai, which words, as 
 Conat has pointed out, show that Rhianus had now come to the 
 end of his story. It must be evident that, as Rhianus' interest was 
 centered in Aristomenes (cf. c. 6, 3 : 'VcavM Se ev rot<i eirecrtv ovSev 
 W^picrTOfiivr)'; iarlv u(f)av€aTepo<i rj 'A|^iXA,eu9 iv 'IXtaSt 'Ofxrjpo)), 
 he should have had no motive to tell of the later fortunes of the 
 Messenian people after the death of his hero. As the account 
 stands in Pausanias it looks very much like tlie close of a story. 
 
 The above considerations show that Rhianus did not write of 
 the restoration. How, then, could he have written (c. 20) about 
 the deposit on Mt. Ithome of tiie roll containing the sacred rites, 
 which is closely connected M'ith the same? A negative answer is 
 supported by the following considerations : If Rhianus had told 
 this story, it would have been strange that Ithome and not Eira 
 should have been the spot chosen where to bury the roll, for Eira 
 and not Ithome was the stronghold of the Messenians in the second 
 war. Besides, as Eira was closely besieged, the future of Messenia 
 would have been jeoparded by attempting to pass through the lines, 
 a difficulty which is not adverted to. Again, the close intimacy 
 existing between Theoclus and Aristomenes, who share the knowl- 
 edge of the oracle which prophesied the coming destruction and 
 who are elsewhere brought into close relation with each other, and 
 the fact that Theoclus is priest, ought to have made him participate 
 in that religious act of Aristomenes ; but no one besides Aristo- 
 menes knows anything about it. Moreover, the fact that the rites 
 of the Great Goddesses are in question ; that Lykus, the son of 
 Pandion, is mentioned, and that Aristomenes prays to Zeus Itho- 
 matas, indicates that this episode is connected with the mythologi- 
 4 
 
64 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 cal period of the Messenian history, and at the same time with the 
 restoration, thus reaching far beyond the limits of Rhianus' epic. 
 On the other hand, we know that Myron had inchided the deeds 
 of Aristomenes in his history, and that Ithome was the place where 
 the Messenians resisted the attacks of the Spartans in the first war; 
 and it would, therefore, have been easy and natural, according to 
 Myron's account, for Aristomenes to bury the roll of tin there. But 
 if the passage under discussion was included in Myron's history, it 
 furnishes a clear proof that Myron had also written of the restoration. 
 
 VII. Myron's History Probably Included an Account 
 OF THE Restoration. 
 
 a). Various Reasons Assigned to Prove llyron's Authorship. 
 
 The reason that Myron has not been proposed as a source for 
 the account of the restoration seems to be the words of Pausanias 
 in c. 6, which apparently limit Myron's history to the first war : 
 (TVve')(oy<i fM€V Srj ra irdvTa e^ ap^rj'i e<f rov TroXefMOV rrjv TeXevrrjv 
 ovSerepo) Si^jwarraL, fjuepo^; Se m eKarepof; rjpeaKeTO, o fjuev Trj<i re 
 'A/x(^6ta.9 rrjv aXcocnv koI tcl e(j)e^i]<i avvedrjKev, ov Trpoaco tt}? 
 ^ KpLCTToZrjiJiOV Te\evT7)<i, 'Viavo<i he rovSe fiev rov TrpcoTov tmv irdXe- 
 fjLCOv ovSe ijyp^aro ap')(fjv, oirocra Be ')(^pov(p avve/3r] Tot<; M.ea-a-r]vlot<; 
 airoaTacriv citto AaKeSai/jiovLcov, 6 Be koI ravra fiev ov ra Trdvra 
 B'ypa-^e, T?79 fid')(ri<i Be rd vcrrepa r}V efxa')(^e(TavTO eVl ry Tdcjipo) rrj 
 KaXovfxevr) fMeydXy. But we must take into account that Pausa- 
 nias had to decide whether to follow Myron's history, which 
 embraced in its story of one great war nearly all the early tradi- 
 tion, including the tales about Aristomenes, or to tell of two wars 
 and relegate Aristomenes and some other matter that Myron's 
 history contained to the account of the second war. The words 
 (TvvexM<; — BirjvvaraL quoted above show us that Pausanias had in 
 mind only what pertained to these first two wars. This exclusive 
 reference to those wars, therefore, does not signify a denial on the 
 part of Pausanias that Myron had also written of other portions of 
 Messenian history. We have seen above that these words are not 
 to be taken literally, as Myron had written likewise of the causes 
 that led up to the wars and had told of the capture of Ithome. 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 55 
 
 This granted, the likelihood of Myron having written also of the 
 restoration of the Messenians becomes at once very strong, for his 
 history was that of the people, and the strong sympathy which he 
 displays for the ISIessenians would naturally prompt him to tell 
 how they were finally restored to their rights, and how their 
 bitter enemies, the Spartans, received the punishment which was 
 due them. 
 
 The exclusive mention of the Messenians in the account of the 
 restoration seems to reflect the devotion of Myron to the cause of 
 these peojjle. Thus we learn from various sources that Epami- 
 nondas did not colonize the new city Messene with Messenians 
 alone, but also with others (cf. Diod., XV, 6Q, and Isocrates, 
 Arckid., 28) ; yet in Pausanias we read only of the restoration of 
 the Messenians, and the vision that appears to Epaminondas, c. 
 26, 6, says : o-v he ^leacn]VLOi<i jrjv re irarpiha koX iroX.eL'^ airoho';. 
 Likewise in the short sketch of the third war only Messenians are 
 said to take part, which is contrary to Thucydides and Ephorus, 
 W' ho speak of Helots and others (see c. VIII, a ; cf, Busolt, II, 
 p. 439, w). 
 
 The poetical elements in cc. 26 and 27, which consist chiefly of 
 dreams and apparitions, were cited by Kohlraann to show their 
 relationship to the poem of Rhianus; but, although Pausanias tells 
 us (c. 6) that Myron wrote his history in prose, there is no doubt 
 as to the poetical character of his narrative, which was probably 
 due, to a large extent, to the sources which he used. L. Spengel 
 (^Abhandlungen d. Munchener Akad. Classe, 1, Bd. X) said : " Man 
 mochte auch den Myron gleich Rhianus fiir einen Dichter halten, 
 dieselbe beabsichtigte Concinnitat, bis ins Tragische gestaltet;" 
 and when Kohlmann (op. cit., 2 i) puts this aside with the words : 
 Quod ila rede sese non habere manifestum est, he did so probably 
 with the thought that, what Spengel considered poetical touches, 
 were but rhetorical embellishments. Yet rhetorical style alone 
 could not account for the character of Myron's narrative, and 
 Manso, Sparta, 1, p. 268, sqq., is possibly right in attributing the 
 poetical elements in the Messeniaca to epic lays, although it seems 
 far more probable that Myron and Phianus should have used them 
 as sources than that Pausanias should have constructed his history 
 with their help. 
 
56 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 Myron often lets the Messenians and Lacedaemonians fight in 
 heroic style outside of the line of battle (cf. cc. 8, 4; 10, 2). The 
 passage where Theopompus rushes forward to kill Euphaes, and 
 Euphaes likens his adversary to Polynices (c. 8, 8), is regarded 
 by Kohlmann as rhetorical, yet it may be due to a poetical source, 
 as Manso thought {Sparta, I, p. 268). Conat [Poesie Alex., p. 352) 
 compares the story (c. 1 8, 4) in the Rhianus part, where Aristo- 
 meues is struck senseless by a stone and so falls into the hands of 
 the Spartans, with Iliad, XIV, 409, ff., where Ajax strikes Hector 
 with a stone, and as the Achaeans rush forward to get possession 
 of the body of the fallen hero, is defended by the Trojans, who 
 rescue him from the fight. A parallel, which is perhaps better, 
 may be found in c. 10, 3, where Euphaes falls senseless in the thick 
 of the fight, although not struck by a stone ; but here, just as in 
 the case of Hector, his friends rush to his rescue and succeed in 
 bearing him oif. There can be no doubt, then, of the poetical 
 character of Myron's history. 
 
 We need, however, not be satisfied with a general correspondence 
 in poetic style, but can find a closer relationship between the dreams 
 related in the account of the restoration and Myron's history. Thus 
 the vision of Comon's mother (c. 26) was a sign of the coming 
 restoration, and so resembles the vision that Aristoraenes had in 
 the first war (c. 13, 2), which was a sign of the coming destruction. 
 This correspondence is strengthened by the peculiar hideousness of 
 these two dreams. On the other hand, the visions that are said to 
 have occurred in the second war pertain neither to the destruction 
 to be visited upon Messenia nor to the restoration. Besides, it was 
 shown above that chapters 14-17 were derived, to a large extent, 
 from Myron ; so, possibly, the vision of the Dioscuri at the battle 
 of Stenyclarus was taken from his history. The vision of Caucon, 
 which appears to Epaminondas and Epiteles, is clearly connected 
 with the earliest mythological period, as well as with the period 
 of the wars, and, as shown (c. VI, 6), probably belongs to Myron's 
 history. In c. 26, 3 we are told that the priest in Messene, the 
 colony in Sicily, had a dream in which it appeared that the god 
 Heracles Manticlus was invited by Zeus to partake of a feast on 
 Mt. Ithome. The fact that in Myron the Messenians retreat to 
 Mt. Ithome and defend themselves there makes it likely that refer- 
 
The 3Iesseniaca of Paibsanias. 57 
 
 ences to Ithome and Zeus Ithomatas were due to him. The fre- 
 quent references to Zeus Ithomatas in the Messeniaca strengthen 
 this view, for they make it probable that the mention of him was 
 not merely dne to fragments of tradition, but also to the design of 
 the author of the first Messenian war, in which Ithome plays such 
 a prominent role. In c. 3, 9 we are told that Glaucus instituted 
 the worship of Zeus on the top of Mt. Ithome ; in c. 12, 7 (cf. also 
 c. 12, 8-10) the oracle says the divinity gives the Messenian land 
 to those who first shall place a hundred tripods around the altar of 
 Zeus Ithomatas ; in c. 13, 1 Aristodemus sacrifices to him ; in c. 
 19, 3 Aristomenes oifers him the sacrifice of the Hecatomphonia ; 
 and in 20, 4 he prays to Zeus, who protects Ithome, to guard the 
 deposit he had made there. These two latter passages are found in 
 the Rhianus part; but c. 20, 4 has been shown (p. 53, sqq.) to 
 have belonged to Myron's history, and c. 19, 3 deals with Aristo- 
 menes, thus making it possible that Myron was a source. More- 
 over, the mention of Zeus Ithomatas that is made in c. 19, 3 is 
 omitted by Polyaenus, II, 31, 1, who speaks of the same sacrifice 
 as being offered by Aristomenes ; and, although Clem. Alex, (see 
 p. 19) mentions Zeus Ithomatas in this connection, there is still 
 some likelihood that Myron is responsible for the mention of Zeus 
 in the passage under discussion. 
 
 Finally, in c. 27, 6 Zeus Ithomatas heads the list of divinities to 
 whom the Messenians offer sacrifices, which fact, together with the 
 circumstances concerning this divinity mentioned above, show that 
 he played an important role in the history of the Messenians along 
 with the Dioscuri and the Great Goddesses. 
 
 b). The Fart Played by Destiny Points to Myron. 
 
 Further proof of the thesis that Myron had included an account 
 of the restoration in his history will be found in looking into the 
 fundamental plan of the Messeniaoa, according to which the affairs 
 of the Messenians, as well as of the Spai'tans, were controlled by 
 destiny. 
 
 Not only does the history itself reveal this plan, but the words 
 in cc. 29, 13 and 6, 1 clearly refer to the same. IMyron's history 
 of the first war corresponds with this conception, and Busolt, Gr. 
 
58 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 Gesch., I, 135, 6, says : " Die Messenier iinterliegen nicht durch 
 die Waffengewalt der Spartaner, sondern durch g5ttlichen Ratsch- 
 luss und List." 
 
 c). Rhianus and My7'on. 
 
 But so did, in a measure, Rhianus' epic, and Conat thought that 
 destiny was even more fully represented in this poem than in 
 Myron's history. The matter is complicated, both by the fact that 
 the work of destiny was recognized in the sources which were 
 accessible to Rhianus and Myron, and by the fact that, in writing 
 the history of the second war, Pausanias used some of the material 
 that Myron's history contained. But, although both accounts 
 represent the Messenian defeat as decreed by fate, it is Myron's 
 history which reaches back to an earlier time, when the Messenians 
 brought upon themselves the wrath of the gods, and then again 
 clearly looks forward into the future to a time of retribution. 
 
 It is true the following three passages, cc. 17, 6, 20, 4, 2], 10, in 
 the account of the second war refer to a retribution, but the first 
 two have been shown to have been derived from Myron (p. 36, if., 
 and p. 53, ff.), and therefore the third passage, c. 21, 10, which 
 records the last words of Theoclus, becomes insignificant when 
 compared with the references that are made to a retribution in 
 Myron's history. This is true even though we leave out of account 
 the above named passages (cc. 17, 6 and 20, 4), and compare c. 12, 
 7 with c. 21, 10. That the thought of retribution should occur in 
 Rhianus' poem is but another example of the fact that both 
 Rhianus and Myron had access to the same or similar tradition. 
 Now it is a significant fact that in the account of the restoration 
 no notice is taken of the words of Theoclus (c. 21, 10), whose utter- 
 ance stood nearer in point of time ; but, instead, the words of the 
 oracle cited in the account of the first war are quoted (cf. c. VII, 
 h, end). There are some other passages (cc. 18, 7 ; 20, 1 ; 21, 7 ; 
 etc.) in the account of the second war in which reference is made 
 to supernatural power, but they either have nothing to do with 
 destiny or have reference only to the second war. 
 
 The following considerations show that the idea of destiny was 
 worked out in Myron's history more fully than in Rhianus' epic : 
 Whereas a succession of oracles and omens in the first war settle 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 59 
 
 the fate of the Messenians ; the fall of Eira, on the other hand, 
 was really brought about by natural causes : the betrayal of the 
 Messenian woman, the inclement weather, and the wounding of 
 Aristomenes. Destiny reveals itself through oracles and omens 
 (cf Moulton, The Ancient Classical Drama, 93, sqq.) ; but, whereas 
 we find one oracle of two lines in the account of the second war, 
 there are quoted in the account of the first war four oracles, con- 
 sisting respectively of five, three, seven and six lines ; and what 
 gives this fact more importance is that the course of events in the 
 first war is guided, to a large extent, by these oracles. Again, 
 there are almost no omens worth mentioning in the account of the 
 second war in comparison with those that are enumerated in c. 13. 
 In the poem of Rhianus there seems neither to have been a 
 reference to the guilt of the Messenians, so as to explain why they 
 were punished, nor were the wrong doings of the Spartans set 
 forth, so as to justify the retribution. (Note that c. 17 belonged 
 to Myron's account, and that c. 14 is a paraphrase of a Tyrtaean 
 verse.) Accordingly the idea of retribution is only touched upon 
 in Rhianus (c. 21, 10), whereas in Myron it stands in close connec- 
 tion both with the earlier Messenian history and the restoration. 
 
 If we turn our attention more particularly to Myron's history 
 we shall find that destiny played an important role there. But let 
 us first examine some reasons that show us that Myron's introduc- 
 tion must have included a sketch of the earliest history of Messenia. 
 
 This account of the earliest history shows us that the Messenians 
 had a right to their land, and that this was recognized by the 
 Spartans. It also shows that the population of Messenia contained 
 a Spartan element, which makes intelligible the charge that the 
 Spartans were making war on their own kinsmen, and so were 
 guilty of sacrilege against Heracles, their common ancestor. These 
 early chapters also explain the friendship which bound the Messen- 
 ians to the Argives and Arcadians, for Polycarn had married 
 Messene from Argos, and Cresphontes had married Merope, the 
 daughter of the Arcadian Cypselus. 
 
 Furthermore, it is noteworthy that there is no break in the line 
 of succession of Messenian kings from Cresphontes, the first Dorian 
 
60 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 king in Messenia, down to Euphaes, which is an indication that 
 this early part is of one piec€ with the introduction, especially as 
 the narrative appears to be closely knit together. 
 
 The story of Aipytus, the son of Cresphontes, is told in c. 3, 8 ; 
 then follow in quick succession characterizations of the descendants 
 who are his successors, viz., Glaucus, Isthmius, Dotadas, Sybotas 
 and Phintas. Then we are told that in the reign of Phintas the 
 first difference arose between the Messenians and Spartans. It was 
 the occasion on which the Spartan king Teleclus met his death. 
 The successors of Phintas were his two sons, Antiochus and An- 
 drocles. During their reign the Poly chares episode took place, 
 which was the immediate cause of the war. Euphaes, finally, the 
 son of Antiochus, Avas the king during whose reign the war broke 
 out. Evidently there is a close connection between the recital of 
 the early mythology and the story of the causes that led up to the 
 Messenian wars. Seeing, then, that Myron wrote the story of the 
 first war and included an account of the causes that led to it, and 
 that there is a close connection between the earliest history and 
 the later parts, it is probable that Myron's history included a 
 sketch of the earliest Messenian history. 
 
 Now to recur to the question of the role that destiny played 
 in Myron's history : there is no doubt that Myron recognized 
 that the Messenians had incurred the wrath of the gods, for 
 in c. 12, 1 this oracle is quoted : dXk' airdrr) fiev e')(ei 'yalav 
 M.ecrcrr)ViBa \ao^, ral^ S' avrat<i ri'^yaicnv akwaerai atcnrep 
 virrfp^ev, which clearly points to the fraudulent manner in which 
 Cresphontes had obtained Messenia, and indicates that the Messe- 
 nians are going to suffer for it. It is also more than probable that 
 the story which relates how Cresphontes had Messenia allotted to 
 himself, which is related in c. 3, 4-5, must have been told by 
 Myron, because otherwise neither the above reference to it nor the 
 allusion in the enumeration of the charges made by the Messenians 
 against the Spartans (c. 5, 1) would be intelligible. Myron's his- 
 tory, then, not only took cognizance of Cresphontes' fraud in the 
 oracle quoted (c. 12, 1), but made this episode a distinct feature of 
 his history, by which the origin of the guilt that rested on the 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 61 
 
 Messenian people was explained. That some guilt rested on the 
 Messenians is referred to by Manilius, Astroii., Ill, 14 : Non 
 annosa canam Messenae bella nocentis. 
 
 The fraud of Cresphontes was sufficient cause, according to the 
 oracle (c. 12, 1), to turn the force of destiny against the Messe- 
 nians; but the wrath of the Dioscuri, in a certain sense the national 
 divinities of the Lacedaemonians, whom, however, the Messenians 
 also claimed as their own (Pans., Ill, 26, 3, and c. 31, 9), must be 
 accounted for. 
 
 The role that the Dioscuri play and their connection with parts 
 which have been shown above to have probably belonged to 
 Myron's history, makes it likely that Myron's history had dealt 
 with them also. 
 
 Their wrath is spoken of in c. 26, 6, where Caucon appears to 
 Epaminondas in a dream and says : ai) he Me(Ta7]VLot9 <yriv re 
 TrarptSa koX iro\.ei<i a7roho<i, iireiSr) koL to ixi^vifxa 7]8r} a<^Lcn 
 TreTravTac to AtoaKovpcov. Pausanias tells, in c. 27, what he 
 thought had been the reason of the displeasure of the Dioscuri — 
 an event which happened before the battle of Stenyclarus. It was 
 the exploit of two youths from Andania, Panormus and Gonippus, 
 who, dressing so as to represent the two Dioscuri, come upon the 
 Lacedaemonians while celebrating a feast, and, being welcomed by 
 the people as the twin gods, succeed in killing a large number of 
 them. Kohlmann thought Pausanias had taken this story from 
 an earlier part of Rhianus' poem. But Rhianus described the 
 siege of Eira, and this happened before that; and it was shown 
 above that, although certain features in cc. 14-17 were taken from 
 Rhianus, the bulk of the material w^as drawn from Myrou. Be- 
 sides, this exploit is told of two young Messenians called Panormus 
 and Gonippus, and not of Aristomenes, as we should expect of 
 Rhianus, which fact becomes all the more significant when we see 
 that Polyaenus, II, 31, 31, who tells the same story, lets Aristo- 
 menes and a companion perform the deed. Again, Pausanias' 
 conjecture, which lets the deed occur in the second Avar, does not 
 explain the importance of the wrath of the Dioscuri which the 
 words of Caucon indicate. According to Pausanias their wrath is 
 only an incident of the second war, whereas Caucon's words to 
 Epaminondas, " Give back to the Messenians their land, as the 
 
62 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 wrath of the Dioscuri has ceased," seem to imply that the misfor- 
 tunes of the Messenians were largely due to the anger of these 
 divinities. 
 
 The fact that they are not spoken of in the first war, but in the 
 second, is because they are mentioned in connection with tales 
 about Aristomenes which we know were eliminated from the 
 account of the first war by Pausanias. In c. 16, 9 Aristomenes is 
 turned aside from a night attack on Sparta by a vision of Helen 
 and the Dioscuri, and in c. 16, 5 the twin gods are represented as 
 sitting on a fig tree during the battle of Stenyclarus, and when 
 Aristomenes tries to pass this against the warning of the priest 
 Theoclus, he loses his shield, and so the Lacedaemonians are able 
 to escape. It has been shown that Myron was the main source for 
 this part, and, as Myron had included Aristomenes in his account, 
 these stories were probably taken from him. The name of the 
 priest would, of course, have to be changed to Theoclus. More- 
 over, it must be observed that Aristomenes goes to Boeotia in 
 order to get his shield back. This would have caused a long 
 absence on his part ; but, as everything seemed to depend on him 
 in the second war, such an absence, before the Messenians had 
 sought refuge in Eira, would have been fraught with danger to 
 the Messenians, whereas in the first war there were other heroes 
 besides Aristomenes to lead their forces to victory. 
 
 But, even if we suppose these events to have taken place during 
 the first war, there is still lacking an explanation of the original 
 cause of the wrath of the Dioscuri. That such a cause must have 
 been at the root of the Messenian troubles was indicated, as already 
 said, by the words of Caucon, and is further substantiated by the 
 statement in c. 26, 6, that the Messenians refused to rebuild either 
 Andania or Oichalia, because, as they said, their troubles had come 
 to them while living there. These events must have occurred long 
 before the time of Cresphontes, who made Stenyclarus his residence 
 after the return of the Heraclidae. But before the Trojan war the 
 kings had inhabited successively Andania, Arene and Pylus, and, 
 as the successive changes of the residence of the kings are carefully 
 noted, so Andania, which was the place where the kings resided 
 from the earliest period down to the time of Aphareus, the father 
 of Idas and Lynceus, was synonymous with the earliest period of 
 
The Messeniaca of Fausaiiias. 63 
 
 Messenian history. There seems to be good reason, then, to con- 
 sider the combat of Idas and Lynceus (c. 3, 1) with tiie Dioscuri 
 as the calamity referred to in c. 26, 6. It is true Arene was the 
 residence of the king at this time, but the reference is approximate. 
 This contest, in which the sons of Aphareus were killed, seems to 
 be typical of the overthrow of the Messenian power by the Spar- 
 tans (cf. Preller, Gj\ Myth., I, 95), and was well adapted to head 
 the story of the calamities that came upon the Messenians. 
 
 Bearing in mind this affront to the Dioscuri, and the subsequent 
 fraud of Cresphontes, we can understand the decree of fate that the 
 Messenians w^ere to be driven from their land. We see in the 
 account of the first war how vain was the gallant defence of the 
 Messenians and how fruitless the heroic efforts of Aristodemus, 
 who, in trying to obey the oracle, even sacrificed his own daughter. 
 Seemingly a contest with a rival nation, it was really a battle with 
 destiny. We are made to feel the gloom of an adverse destiny, 
 which had settled on the Messenians in the first war, in touches 
 like the following : 
 
 Euphaes said, when he saw Theopompus, the Spartan leader, 
 advancing, that the case of the latter was like that of his ancestor 
 Polynices ; for Polynices had brought an army from Argos against 
 his country, and had killed his brother with his own hand and had 
 been killed in turn, and now Theopompus desired to bring upon 
 the race of Heracles the same guilt as rested on the descendants of 
 Laius and Oedipus. Again, when Aristodemus had rather mur- 
 dered than sacrificed his daughter, the priests refused to look upon 
 the death of the latter as the sacrifice which the oracle demanded, 
 and subsequently opposed, though in vain, the election of Aris- 
 todemus as king, since he was polluted by the murder of his 
 daughter. One adverse oracle after the other disheartened the 
 people, and when a series of evil omens finally threw Aristodemus 
 into despair, he slew himself on the grave of his daughter. He 
 had thought that he was to be the saviour of the Messenians, but 
 Tvxn liad rendered all his plans and deeds fruitless (c. 13, 4).^ 
 
 ^The idea that the Lacedaemonians conquered by rvxn, and not through their 
 own prowess, is mentioned again in c. 25, 5. 
 
64 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 In this manner the Lacedaemonians triumphed over the Messe- 
 nians. But, at the same time that the oracle at Delphi was sending 
 answers that showed that destiny was in favor of the Spartans, it 
 intimated a future overthroAV of the Lacedaemonian power. It is 
 interesting to observe that the specific charge that is brought against 
 the Messenians is deceit (c. 12, 1). 
 
 aX\' airdrr) fiev e')(et, <^aiav M-eacrrjviSa \ao<i, 
 
 Tat<; 8' avrac'; Te')(yaLcnv akcoaeTat alairep VTrrjp^ev. 
 
 But in this very oracle in which reference is made to Messenian 
 deceit {i. e., Cresphontes' fraud) as the ground of their downfall, it 
 points to the deceit of the Spartans, by which they are going to 
 conquer. This is referred to again in c. 12, 4, where the Messe- 
 nians are warned against Spartan wiles. But, by the employment 
 of the means of deceit, the Spartans seem to bring guilt upon them- 
 selves. At least, the oracle is reminded of such acts of the Spartans 
 as the night attack upon Ampheia, before war had been proclaimed, 
 or their bribing of Aristocrates to betray the Messenians. So we 
 are informed, in c. 12, 7, by an oracle which, though it is seemingly 
 intended for the Messenians, is really addressed to the Spartans, 
 
 Z6i'9 yap eveva ovTa)<i • airdrrj he ere rpoaOe rldijaiv, 
 7] S'oTTtcTft) TLcn<i iaTi, Kol ov deov e^a7raT(p7]^. 
 epS' oTTTrr} to ^(^pemv ' art] § dWoicrc irpo aWwv. 
 
 " Deceit now places the Spartans ahead ; but their punishment 
 will follow." It is to this oracle that reference is made in the 
 account of the restoration, c. 26, 4 : ^^yevero re ov fiera iroXv iv 
 A.evKTpoi^ AaKeBai/xovUov to dTV')(riixa ocfjeiXo/xevov eK TraXatov ' 
 ^ KpiaTohrjfKp yap tw /SaaiXevaavTi yieaarjviwv eirl TeXevTf tov 
 ho6evTO<i ecTTiV. 
 
 epB' OTTTrr] to ')(^pe(ov • citt] KaWoiai Trpo aXXoiV. 
 
 Myron's history makes the future punishment of the Spartans 
 appear deserved ; for, not to speak of the many acts of injustice 
 against other nartions which are charged against the Lacedaemonians 
 in c. 5, they are represented in this instance as waging an unjust 
 war, and that against their own kinsmen, and, though the Mes- 
 senians had been willing to leave their dispute to arbitration, the 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 65 
 
 Spartans rejectee! all overtures to peace, and without even giving 
 warning, fell upon Amphcia and captured it in a night attack. 
 They are charged by the Messenians with having provoked the 
 war, and that through greed, as they desired the IMessenian land. 
 Euphaes consoles the Messenians with the words (e. 6, 6) : koI to 
 ev/xevearepov ecrecrOai irapa rwv deoiv dfMvvovat, rfj oiKeia koI ovk 
 ciSiKiai; ap')^ouai. The last words bring to mind Medea's words 
 (Eurip. Medea, 165): u'i y e'^e Trpocrdev toX/xmct aBiKelv, which 
 recognize the wrong of those who are first in doing injury. 
 
 It must be evident that Myron's history would have been in- 
 complete without an account of the manner in which, in later 
 years, retribution had been meted out to the Spartans, and of the 
 way in which the Messenians had been restored to their country. 
 
 I have nearly come to the close of my argument. There remains 
 only to be added an investigation of the sketch of the third Messe- 
 nian war, of chapter 25, and of a few points in chapter 26. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 a). The Third Messenian War. 
 
 It is generally supposed that Pausanias got his account of the 
 third Messenian war from Thucydides. Unger, PhiloL, 41, 119, 
 says : " Pausanias, welcher die zwei ersten messenischen Kriege 
 so ausfiihrlich erzahlt, weiss von dem letzten auifallend wenig zu 
 berichten : was er angibt, . . . ist zum grossten Theil, oft wortlich, 
 aus Thuc, I, 101, 102 und 128 entlehnt. Weder die Dauer des 
 Kriegs und das Datum seiner Beendigung noch den Verlauf des- 
 selben weiss er anzugeben." Likewise, Busolt says, Gr. Gesch,., II, 
 439, 1 : " Der Bericht bei Pans., IV, 24, 5, und I, 29, 8 geht, 
 abgesehen von der Zeitangabe, der Hauptsache nach auf Thuc, I, 
 128 und I, 101 zuruck." 
 
 We find in Pausanias three paragraphs devoted to the third war, 
 W'hich is, as Unger remarks, exceedingly little when we contrast 
 therewith the detailed accounts about the first and second war. We 
 might seek in this a confirmation of the view expressed above (p. 
 30), that it was Pausanias' aim to avoid telling over again what 
 had been already told by some well known writer. But this ex- 
 planation is not satisfactory, if we believe, with the above named 
 
66 
 
 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 authorities, that Pausanias constructed his account from different 
 sources. His date he got from some Althis, according to Unger, 
 and possibly his confounding the date of the outbreak of the Helot 
 revolt with that of Cimon's expedition is to be traced to the same 
 source, according to Busolt, Gr. Gesch., II, 454, 7i. And of the 
 remainder of these three paragraphs it is only affirmed that most 
 of it, not all, was taken from Thucydides, and even here Thuc, I, 
 128 had to be combined with Thuc, I, 101, sqq. We should have 
 to admit, then, that Pausanias was not bent on condensing, but on 
 constructing independently an account of the third war, which view 
 does not harmonize with the meagre account that confronts us, 
 many things having been omitted that might very well have been 
 taken from Thucydides. 
 
 Busolt connects Pans., c. 24, 5 with I, 29, 8, and thinks that 
 both passages have been taken from Thucydides ; but on compari- 
 son we see a marked difference. In I, 29, 8 Helots alone are 
 mentioned as revolting, whereas in c. 24, 6 it is that part of the 
 Helots which had been Messenians (cf c. 24, 6 ; III, 11, 8). That 
 the sources for books I and IV should have been different is quite 
 natural, as book I was written much earlier, and had even been 
 published separately (cf. Gurlitt, op. cit., 3). Now Pans., c. 24, 5 
 cannot be from Thucydides, for Pausanias, as we have seen, says that 
 only the Messenian portion of the Helots revolted ; but Thucydides, 
 Gr. Gesch., 1, 101, says : ol ErXwre? avrol<i /cal twv TreptotKwv @ou- 
 pidraL re koI Aldati]^ e? ^lOoifMTjv airecTTqcrav. TrXelcrTOi Se twv 
 ^l\cot(ov iyevovTO ol tmv TraXaccov M^ecrcr'rjvlcov Tore 8ov\(odevT(ov 
 aTToyovoi • 77 kol M.6cra7]Vioi eKKrjBi^a'av ol Trayre?. Thucydides is 
 quite explicit about the matter, and, as Pausanias is equally explicit 
 in III, 11, 8, 1 cannot think that he owes this part to Thucydides. 
 
 A detailed comparison of the two accounts will show that Pau- 
 sanias did not necessarily derive his account from Thucydides. 
 
 Paus.,c. 24,5: AaKeSai/xovlaiv 
 dv8pe<; cnrodavelv irrl ijKXtjfMaTL 
 br(p 8rj KarayvaxTdevre'; iKerai 
 Karac^evyovcnv e? Talvapov ev- 
 revdev Se t) cipxv '^^^ icfyopcov 
 airo Tou jSwjxov a(j)d<i dirocriTa- 
 cracra ciTreKTeive. 
 
 Thuc, I, 128 : ol yap Aa/ce- 
 haifiovLOi dvacrT7]<TavTe<; irore e'/c 
 Tov lepov Tov UoaeiSiovoi; uTro 
 Tatvdpov Twv ¥jI\(ot(ov iKera^; 
 d7rayayovTe<; Si€(j)6€ipav. 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 
 
 67 
 
 Thucydides says the suppliants were Helots; Pausanias says 
 Lacedaemonians; on the other hand, Thucydides says Lacedae- 
 monians punished them ; Pausanias says the Ephors did so. We 
 have seen above that Myron had granted unusual powers to the 
 Ephors in the first war (p. 13). They are mentioned in cc. 4, 8, 
 5, 4 and 1 2, 2. In c. 5, 4 the phrase ro)v re ec^opwv Tr)v apx^v 
 occurs just as in c. 24, 5. It is also worth noticing that Pausanias' 
 version is particularized, which is also the case in the following: 
 
 Pans. : ^7rapTi(iTat<; Se ev ov- 
 S€vl X07&) Oe/x€voi<; tou9 i/c€Ta<i 
 ciTn^vTiiaev ck UocreiScovo^ /u,7]- 
 vtfia. 
 
 ThuC. : ol O Orj KOl (T(j)L(7LV 
 
 avTol<i vofxiXovai rov jxe-yav aec- 
 (T/jlov yeveadao ev ^irdprr). 
 
 Not only does Pausanias put in stronger relief the connection 
 between the execution of the suppliants and the earthquake, but 
 also between this and the revolt. He begins by saying : aTreaTt]- 
 aav Se Kaipov roiovSe evpovT€<;, and ends with eVl Se rfj crvfK^opa 
 Tavry (cf. Thuc, I, 101, 2). More serious is the following differ- 
 ence : Thucydides says nothing of the effect of the earthquake, 
 whereas Pausanias says : Ka'i, crc^Laiv e? eha<^o^ ri-jv ttoXiv rrdaav 
 KaTeXajSev 6 6e6^. This, however, has been very fully treated by 
 Ephorus (cf. Diod., XI, 63 ; Pint., Cimon, XYI, 6). But Ephorus 
 could not have been used as a source here, for it seems highly im- 
 probable that Pausanias should have condensed a long description 
 of the earthquake into a bald statement of the effect in order to in- 
 sert that in matter that he had derived from another source. Be- 
 sides, Ephorus spoke of Messenians and Helots as revolting (cf 
 Diod., XI, 63, 84, 7 ; Plut., Qmon, XVI, 6 ; XVII, 4), which 
 argues, as we have seen, against the employment of his account as 
 a source. 
 
 Pausanias continues : Aa/ce- 
 BaifxovLOi 8e aWa re /xereTre- 
 fjLTTOvro (TVixjjLa'^LKa eV avrov^ 
 KOL K.L/xa>va rov yitXndSov 
 irpo^evov (7(f)t(JLV ovra Kal A-drj- 
 vaiwv SvvafXLv. 
 
 Thuc, I, 102 : AaKeSatfiovioi 
 8e, w? avTol<i rrpoi; tov<; ev ^lOco- 
 fir] e/jirjKvvero TroA-e/xo?, dX\ov<i 
 re eTTeKoKecravro ^v/u.fxd')(^ov'i Kal 
 ^Adrjvatovf; ' ol 8' i]\6ov K//xa)- 
 vo<i crTparT}'yovvro<; irXi^Oei ouk 
 oXlyo). 
 
68 
 
 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 The phrase dWa re — koI is so eonimon in Pausanias that a verbal 
 correspondence need by no means to be thought of (of. cc. 1, 2 ; 1, 7 ; 
 1,9; 2,3; 2,5; 3,1; 3,6; 3,10; 4,5; 4,6; 4,7; 5,3; 5,4; 
 5, 6; 6, 4; 6, 6; 7, 1; 7, 3; 7,4; 8, 2; 9,6; 10, 1; 10,5; 10, 
 6; 11, 4; 11, 8; 12, 9; 12, 10; etc.). Moreover, allowance must 
 be made for the possibility that Thucydides was the ultimate source 
 for Pausanias' statements, which could come to him through Myron, 
 who, as we have seen, drew from Thucydides (see also p. 12). 
 
 Pans. : acf^tKOfievov; Se tov<; 
 ^Adrjvaiov^ v7ro7rTeu(raL Sokov- 
 CTiv ft)? T^X** v€(OTepLaovTa<i, Kal 
 
 VTTO Ti}9 UTTO-V^ta? aTTOTTefl'^a- 
 
 aOai /X6T ov TToXv ef ^ldcofirj<;. 
 
 Thuc, I, 102 : ol yap Aa/ce- 
 
 Sai/movLot, €7r€iSr] to '^wplov ^ia 
 oif^ rj\i<7K€TO, 8e[aavTe<i twv 
 "" Adrjvaioiv to To\fM7]pov Kol Trjv 
 vewTepoTTodav, koI aWo(f)u\ov<i 
 afxa rjyrjad/jLevoi, /xtj tc, rjv irapa- 
 fxetvcoaiv, viro tmv ev ^Wcofirj 
 TreiadevTeii vecoTeptcrwaL, /xovov<t 
 TOiV ^u/jifxd'^o)v dTreTrefi-^aVy 
 
 K. T. \. 
 
 Here the word vecoTepicrovTaq seems to come from vecoTepoTrouav 
 and vewTep'icTwaL. But this could very well have been preserved 
 in the source which Pausanias used, just as we find it in Plut., 
 Clmon, 17,4: direTrepL-^avTO fxovovf; tmv crvfxiJbd')(^a>v &)? vecoTepi- 
 aTd'i, which is still closer to the form of expression used by 
 Thucydides. 
 
 Pans. : ^Adrjvaloi Se ttjv e? 
 avTov<; TMV AaKeSaifMoviMv vtto- 
 vocav avvevT6<i ^Apy€LOi<; re <j)L- 
 XoL Si' avTO eyevovTO. 
 
 Pans. : Kal M.ecrcn]vcMv TOLii 
 ev ^IdM/xr) 7ro\iopKOVfjL€voi<i e'/t- 
 TreaovcTiv VTrocnrovBoii; eSoaav 
 ^aviraKTOv, d(f)e\6fievot Aok- 
 
 Thucy., I, 102,4: olS^'Aer). 
 valoL eyvMaav ovk eTrl tm /SeXTi- 
 ovi \oyM dTroTrefiTrofievoi, dWd 
 
 TlV0<i VTTOTTTOV y€V0/J,€V0V, Kal 
 
 Secvbv TTOti'iad^evoL . . . ^ Apyei- 
 oi<? Toi<; 6KelvMV TToXe/txtot? ^v- 
 fMfxa'X^ot eyevovTO. 
 
 Thucy., I, 103, 3 : e^rjXdov 
 8e avTol Kal TratSe? Kal yvval- 
 Ke<i, Kal avTov<; ^Adijvaioi Se^d- 
 fxevoi KaT e')(6o<i 7]8r) to Aa/ce- 
 
The Messeniaea of Pausanias. 
 
 69 
 
 pov'i Tov<; TTyoo? AiTcoXla KoXou- 
 
 Saofxovtcov €9 ^ainraKTOv Kara>- 
 Kicrav, rjv 6TV)(ov ^pijKore'i veco- 
 (ttI AoKpMV roiv 'O^oXcov ixov- 
 
 TCOV. 
 
 There is no verbal correspondence noticeable here. Pansanias 
 continnes : tol<; Se ^lea-crr^vioi^ Trapecr^ev aireXOelv i^ 'I^co/x?;? tov 
 re ^(wpiov TO i^vpov. This is not in Thucydides ; but in Pans., 
 c. 9, 3, we read : rjv Se ro 'X^coplov kol dWa)<; i'x^vpov • rj yap 'I^w/xt; 
 fieyedei re ov8evo<i ciTroSel tmp opoiv oiroaa evTo<^ icmv 'Icr^/xoO, koI 
 Sva/3aT0<i Kara rovro ixaXtcrra rjp. 
 
 Pans. : /cal cifia AaKeSaifxovt- 
 ot9 TTpoelirev t] YivOia rj jxrjv 
 elvai a<^L(Ti SIktjv d/j,apTovcnv 
 
 €9 TOV At09 TOV ^lOcOflUTa TOV 
 
 iKeTTjv. vTToaTrovSoi p.ev e/c Ile- 
 XoTTOWTjaov TovTcov ev€Ka a<^eL- 
 Orjaav. 
 
 Thuc, I, 103, 2: 7> Se Tt, 
 KoX ')(^pr]<TTrjpLov Tol<i AaKeSaL- 
 p,oviOi'i TIvOlkov irpo tov, tov 
 
 IKeT'lJV TOV Ai09 tov 'I6(Op,7]Ta 
 
 ac^Levai. 
 
 Thucydides simply mentions the lact tliat there had been an 
 oracle commanding the Lacedaemonians to release the suppliant 
 of Zeus Ithomatas. Pansanias says Pythia told them that punish- 
 ment was due them for having sinned against the suppliant of 
 Zeus Ithomatas. Here is evidently a reference to the Jii'st Messe- 
 nian war. 
 
 The above discussion, I think, makes it plausible that Pausa- 
 nias did not obtain his sketch of the third war from Thucydides, 
 but from some other source, probably Myron. 
 
 6). Chapter XXV. 
 
 To show that the following chapter (25) was taken from Myron 
 I shall first demonstrate its unreality. The third Messenian war 
 ended 462-1 B. C. (Busolt, G7\ Gesch., II, 475), after which the 
 Athenians settled the Messenians in Naupactus (Thuc, I, 103, 3), 
 and they were known thereafter as Mecra-TJvtoc ol iv ^avTraKToy 
 (Thuc, II, 9, 4). These Messenians, according to Pausanias, 
 wishing to distinguish themselves, made an expedition against the 
 
70 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 town Oeniadae. This town was so well fortified and so isolated 
 from the rest of Acarnania that it stood nearly always in a hostile 
 relation towards the rest of Acarnania (Bnrsian, 1, 122), and so we 
 find it on the side of the Lacedaemonians, although the rest of 
 Acarnania was friendly to the Athenians (Thuc, II, 82). 
 
 Pericles made an unsuccessful attack upon it in 454 B. C. (Thuc, 
 I, 111, 2), and in 429 B. C. the Athenians, under Phormion, to- 
 gether with four hundred Messenians, made an expedition into 
 Acarnania, but did not attack Oeniadae for the reason that, being 
 winter, its situation made it impossible to do so (Thuc, II, 102). 
 In the following year Asopus, the son of Phormion, made an 
 attack on Oeniadae in the summer, hoping thus to succeed where 
 his father had failed (Thuc, III, 7, 4-5). But, though he made 
 his attack by land and sea, he was also unsuccessful. Finally, in 
 the year 424 B. C, the Acarnanians force the Oeniadans to join 
 the Athenian alliance (Thuc, IV, 77). 
 
 Now we read in Pausanias that the Messenians captured this 
 town, held it for a year, and were then driven out by the Acarna- 
 nians. This account fairly bristles with impossibilities and im- 
 probabilities. They must have taken it between 462 and 424 B. C. 
 During this time the Athenians were fully alive to its importance, 
 and, as we have seen, tried hard to get possession of it. Yet after 
 the Messenians had captured it, without assistance and without 
 ships, they are allowed to remain there a year without any atten- 
 tion being paid them, not even by the inhabitants of Naupactus ; 
 and, what is just as strange, the Messenians themselves do not 
 herald their success. At the end of this time the Acarnanians, 
 who are friendly to the Athenians, seem to ignore the fact that the 
 Messenians are allies, attack them, and after eight months the 
 Oeniadans are brought into such straits that they make a sally, 
 and so succeed in fighting their way back to Naupactus. 
 
 I think this account is an invention of Myron, who wrote it to 
 fill out the period of exile. A careful historian could have found 
 other material in Thucydides which would have served the same 
 purpose. But, as the author of c 25 evidently desired to glorify 
 the Messenians, he preferred to draw on his imagination. 
 
 A detailed examination will give support to this hypothesis. 
 Pausanias, c 25, 1, says : 'Evrel Se ea')(ov rrjv 'HaviraKTov, ovk 
 
The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 71 
 
 wrre')(pr} ttoXlv re auTo2<i koX yciypav el\ri<^evai irap ^Adrjvaioyv, uWa 
 a(j>a^ 7ro6o<; eZ^ez^ ia-)^upo<; %fpcrl Tal<i avrcov (pavrjvai Xojov ri 
 K€KTrjfievov<i d^iov. It seem.s that immediately on occupying Nau- 
 pactus they are bent on doing something great. So in the follow- 
 ing sentence, c. 25, 1 : ovre? Se dpidfio) jxev ov TrXetou?, aperf he 
 Kai TToXv d/jb€cvove<; ovre^ rfj a^^erepa viKwai, koX eiroXiopKovv 
 KaTaK€KXec/xivov<; e? to rel')(^o(;, k.t.X. Compare with this c. 11, 4: 
 dptdfiQi fiev 8r) Tcov evavriajv direXei'TrovTO, Xo<ydBe<i Be ovt€<; ifid- 
 ')(OVTO 7rpo(; Bij/xov koI ou% 6/iot&J9 Trpo? KpeLTTOV<;, k. t. X. We 
 must be surprised to see such prowess iu a conquered race. It is 
 plain that what is said of the occupation of the town is pure fiction. 
 Paus., c. 25, 3 : kuI iviavrov fxev fMaXicrra ol ^ieaarjVLOi KaTecryov 
 TT]v ttoXlv Kol eve/u,ovTo Tr]v ■)(^copav. They took no pains to make 
 known their remarkable success. Pans., c. 25, 3 : tw Be erei rw 
 varepw Bvvajjbiv ol WKapvdve<; utto Tracron' crvXXe^avT?<i tcov tto- 
 Xecov e/3ovXevovTo eVl ttjv NavTruKTov crTpaTeveiv. But both 
 parties were allied with the Athenians ! The phrase ol ^ AKapvdve<i 
 diro Traacov avXXe^avTe<; tmv iroXecov reminds one strongly of 
 Pans., c. 17, 2 : WpKaBcop ^ej3o7)$7]K6TO)v diro iracrcov tcov rroXeoiv, 
 and c. 11, 1 : oi' re 'Ap/caSe? TravcrTpaTia, both of which are from 
 Myron (see p. 37). The Acarnanians then change their minds 
 and attack the Messenians in Oeniadae, notwithstanding the fact 
 that the Messenians were friendly to the Athenians, and that it 
 was these very Acarnanians who finally brought Oeniadae into the 
 Athenian alliance. They did not think that the Messenians (c. 
 25, 4) e? ToaovTov dirovoia^ 'tj^eiv as to resist the whole Acarnanian 
 force. Here we have the thought of desperation again, which was 
 so marked in the first two wars, especially in the first. Neverthe- 
 less the Messenians determine to resist, and at first before the walls 
 of their town, just as they fought before the walls of Ithome in the 
 first war (see p. 24). Paus., c. 25, 5 : /jbrjBe ovTa<i Mecrcrr)VL0v<i, at 
 jjLTjBe AaKeBaifiovicov dvBplci tv^V ^^ rjXaTTcodrjaav, KaTaTreirXi]- 
 "X^dai Tov y]K0VTa o-yXov e^ WKapvavla';. It was in the first war 
 especially that tvxv was opposed to the Messenians (see p. 63). 
 
 In the battle that follows the Acarnanians try to surround the 
 Messenians, but these keep the city at their backs (c. 25, 6) : al 
 TTvXai re direlpyov Kara vcorov rol^ WeacrrjVLOi'; yivofxevoL ; in the 
 same manner c. 11,2: ['ApicrroST^/xo?] rrpoeiBero Be kol oirwi 
 
72 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 TerayfX€VOL<; a^iai to 6po<i rj ^Woo/jlt] Kara vdorov fyivono. The 
 Messenians succeeded in holding the entire force of the Acarna- 
 nians at bay till nightfall. Then, however, the Acarnanians receive 
 reenforcements ! They had far outnumbered the Messenians before 
 this. The Messenians now hold out against a siege for eight 
 months, and finally succeed in escaping, as stated above. The 
 purpose of chapter 25 was evidently to describe the period of exile, 
 and so lead over to the restoration. Hence it is closely connected 
 with the third war, which preceded, and also with the restoration, 
 which is related in the next chapter. 
 
 c). Chapter XXVI. 
 
 Chapter 26 begins as follows : ro he cnro tovtov tov re aWov 
 ypovov iv6K€tr6 (Tcf)iai ro e? AaK68a(,fMOVi,ov<i fiicro^, koI rrjv e')(dpav 
 69 avTom /juaXt(TTa eirehei^avTO eVl rov jevofievov UeXorrovvrjcrLOif; 
 TToof; ^ Kdrjvaiov^ TroXejjiOV • ttjv re fyap ^aviraKTOv opfirjT^ptov eVt 
 rfj TleXoTTowq (70) TrapeLxovro. The prominence given here to the 
 hatred which the Messenians bore the Spartans shows, I think, 
 the same spirit which has been so often noted above in Myron's 
 history. We find it expressed again in c. 26, 5 : ol Se Odcra-ov rj 
 ft)9 dv Tt<; rjXiTLO-e avveXe'X^drjaav y?}? re T779 irarpthoq ttoOm koI Sia 
 TO €9 AaK68aifjLovLov<i fjiLcro<i Trapa/jueivav ael at^taiv. No doubt 
 this hatred for the Spartans, just as their friendship for the Arca- 
 dians, was frequently spoken of (cf. Polyb., IV, 32), and so we 
 find it mentioned again in c. 29, 3, which lies outside of Myron's 
 sphere. The remark concerning hate in c. 29, 6 is made by Pau- 
 sanias himself. Nevertheless the prominence which is given to 
 hatred in the passages quoted above (c. 26, 1-5) makes this 
 resemble the fury which animated the contending parties in the 
 first war. Very different is c. 23, 5 in the Rhianus part, where 
 Manticlus tells the Messenians to forget their hatred of the 
 Spartans. 
 
 Pausanias, c. 26, 1, continues : koI tov^ iv tj} Xc^aKTripia Xttu- 
 pTtaTOiV d7ro\rj(f)0evTa<; M.e<Ta-r]VLO)v cr(^evhovrjTai twv e'/c Nauvra/c- 
 Tov crvve^eTkov, The help that the Messenians afford at Sphakteria 
 is told by Thucydides, IV, 36, 1, sqq. ; but he speaks of archers. 
 On the other hand, slingers are mentioned in the account of the 
 
Tlie Mcsseniaca of Pausanias. 73 
 
 first war (c. 11, 3). Pans., c. 26, 2, continues : eVet Se to iraTcr^a 
 ijevero to WdrjvaLcov iv Xl'yo'i 7roTafiot<;, ovrto kol eK ISlavTraKTOu 
 Tovi; ^l€aa-7]viov<; €K/3dX\ovaiv ol AaKeSuLfiovioi vavcrlv iiriKpa- 
 TOvvTe<i, 01 €9 —tKeXlav re irapa rov^ crvyyeveU koL e? 'Vi]'yLov 
 iaTd\7]aav. Rhianiis had told only of the colony that went to 
 Zancle at the invitation of Anaxilas. Myron's account of the 
 exiles was very much condensed, and yet we read in c. 23, 6 : 
 /jL6Ta>K7]ae 8e AXKi8a/u,i8a<; eK M.eaa7]VT]<i e? 'Vt^jlov fxera rrjv 
 ^XpL(nohi]p.ov Tov /3acri\,e(jo<i reXevrrjv koI ^l6cofxr]'i rrjv aXwa-LV, 
 which shows that he had said more of exiles than Pausauias lets 
 us see. 
 
 The third place to which the Messenians now fled, according to 
 Pausanias, was Africa. This account w'ould be a puzzle, unless we 
 recognize the constructive genius of Myron to have been at w'ork. 
 It seems to be a combination of what Diodorus, XIV, 34, 2, sqq., 
 tells of the dispersion of the Messenians after they were driven out 
 of Xaupactus, and of some statements in Thucydides which have 
 nothing to do with the Messenians ; but this material has been 
 much changed and additions made to it. Pausanias (c. 26, 2) says : 
 TO ifkelarov he avTwv e? re Ai^vrjv d(j)LK€T0 koI At/Sin]^ e'9 Kveaire- 
 piTa<i ' 01 <yap ILveaTreplrat, TroXe/xo) KaK(o0€VTe<i vtto /3apl3dpo)v 
 irpocTOLKWv irdvTa Tivd"^XXrjva eireKaXovvTO ctvvolkov. e? tovtov^ 
 TOiv ^lecrarjvicov to ttoXv dire'^^copTja-ev. Diodorus, XIV, 34, 2, 
 sqq., tells us that the Messenians went to diiFerent countries and 
 took part in the wars there ; with this the account in Pausanias 
 would harmonize fairly well ; also when Diodorus says : et? Kvpij- 
 vrjv eirXevcrav irepl Tpua-x^iXiovi, which might justify the statement 
 in Pausanias : to irXelarov he avTwv e? re Ai/3ur)v d(j)LKeTO. Yet 
 ■Diodorus says that they went to Cyrene, whereas Pausanias says 
 to Euesperides, a town lying west of Cyrene. This discrepancy 
 cannot be an accident, for the names Cyrene and Euesperitae recur 
 in both accounts. 
 
 If now we bear in mind the free manner in which Myron used 
 suggestions he found in the history of Thucydides, it will be easy 
 to see a close correspondence in this case. Thuc, VII, 19, 3, says : 
 ol S'eV rr} UeXoTTOvvi^cra) direcTTeXXov Tvepl tov avTov ')(povov Tat<i 
 oXKacri Tov<; orrXiTa<; e'9 T?)y l^iKeXiav, AaKeSaifMoviOL fiev tcov re 
 E/XcoTcoy eirtXe^d/jbepoi tou9 /3eXTi<TTOV^ kol roiv veoSa/iKoScov, 
 
74 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 ^vvafjL(})OT€p(ov €9 e^aKoaiov<i oTrXlra'^, k. t. \. This expedition is 
 referred to again in Thucy., VII, 50, 2 : rov<i e'/c Trj'^ Hekoirovvrj- 
 crov rov rjpo'i ev ral^ oXKaaiv 07rXira<i a'iro(jra\evra<;, a(f)iKO/jL€vovq 
 CLTTO TTj^ Ai/3iir}^ €9 ~<e\cvovvTa. arreve')(6evTe<; yap 69 Ai^vrjv, koI 
 SovTcov K.vprjvaioyv Tpirjpei^; Svo kol rov irXov rjyefxovafi, koX ev toS 
 TrapcLTrXw Euecr7reptTat9 7ro\LopKOV/jb€VOL<; viro Ai/3v(i)v ffyx/^a^?;- 
 (TavT6<i Kol viK7]aavT€<;. Toi)9 At/3u9, Kol avTodev TrapaifKevdavre^ 
 €9 Neav ttoXlv, k. t. X. Although there were no Messenians in 
 this expedition, yet there were Helots, and one familiar with 
 Thucydides, as Myron must have been, could easily have remem- 
 bered some of the circumstances, especially as the Euesperitans are 
 only mentioned here. Besides, this expedition met with success in 
 Africa, as in Pausanias' account, whereas Diodorus says of the 
 Messenians : ol he yiecrcrrivioi a')(ehov a7ravTe(i avrjpedr^aav, of 
 which disaster there is not a hint in Pausanias. 
 
 Moreover, the name of the Messenian leader which Pausanias 
 (c. 26, 2) gives must be considered ; he says : 69 TovTov<i tmv 
 ^ecrarjvicov to ttoXv airej^oiprjaev ' ijyefioov Be ac^icnv rjv ^ofxcov, 09 
 Kol irepl TTjv ^(j)aKT7]piav icrTpaT7]'yi]ae avT0t<;. Neither Thucy- 
 dides nor anybody else knows anything about this Coraon. He is 
 represented as the leader who had conducted the Messenians from 
 Naupactus to Africa, and now in his old age is permitted to ex- 
 perience tlie joy of the restoration. He is also one of the first to 
 be apprised of this fact, as follows (c. 26, 3) : ^viavrm Se Trporepov 
 rj KUTOpdwaac @r]/3aiOV<; ra ev AevKrpoi^, 7rpoae(T7]fiaLvev Sal/xcov 
 ^ecrcrriviOi^ ttjv e<i UeXoTTOvvrjcrov KaOohov . . . tovto 8e ev EuecrTre- 
 ptrai'i Js^6/xa)V crvyyeveaOai veKpa rfj firjTpl eSoKec, avyyevofxevov 
 he, av6L<i ol rrjv fxr^repa ava^tSivai, (cf. this dream with that of 
 Aristodemus, pp. 56, 57). koI /xev iin^XTri^ev ^ Adrjvaicov hvvrj- 
 OevTcov vavTLKw KaOohov eaeadai cr^iaiv e'? ^aviraKTOV • to 8e a pa 
 cStjXov to oveipov avaawaeaOai y[eaa-^vi]v. ^^jjei'ero re ov /lera 
 TToXu ev AeuKTpoL<i AaKehaLfjboviwv to ciTv^rjfia 6(pet\o/xevov eK 
 TToXaiov. Very noteworthy is the artistic feature that this gray- 
 haired Messenian interprets the dream to mean only that he is to 
 return to Naupactus ; but the much greater happiness of being 
 restored to his country is reserved to heighten his joy. Now this 
 is what happens : Comon leads the Messenians back to their 
 countrv, and thev there build the walls of their city Messene. In 
 
The Messeniaea of Pausanias. 75 
 
 the same manner Comon returned to Athens and rebuilt the walls 
 there (Xen., Hell., lY, 8, 10). Besides, in Thuc, VII, 31, 4, we 
 read : iK^iKveirat he koI Kof wv irap avTov<i, 09 ypx^ NavTraKTOv, 
 K. T. X. ; that is, Comon was also a commander of Naupactus. 
 "What an easy change to imagine a Comon to be also a leader of 
 the Naupactian Messenians, who is destined to lead them back to 
 their country ! We must bear in mind while examining Pausanias' 
 account of the restoration that Xenophon omitted to say anything 
 about it, and we have to thank Pausanias for most of what we 
 know (Grote, Gk. Hist, IX, 449). Here was, then, an excellent 
 opportunity for Myron to reconstruct the history of the restoration 
 of the Messenians to their cjountry. And, as I have pointed out 
 above that Comou's restoration of the walls of Athens was su^jres- 
 tive to him, so I find also in the same connection in Xen., IV, 8, 
 10 : 6 8e a<piKOfj.€vo<; iroXv rov rei'^ovq Mpdwae . . , koI reKrocn 
 Kol XiOoXoyoi'; fitaOov SiSoixi, koI dWo et n avwyKoiov rjv, haira- 
 vatv. A similar detail is mentioned in Pans,, c. 27, 5 : \idov<i re 
 ayeaOai KeXevwv koX dv8pa<i fMeTaTre/uuTrofjLevo'i, ol'i re'yvr} crTevo}7rov<s 
 Karare/jiveadat kol olK[a<; koI lepa olKohop^elcrOai koL T€i.')^r) irept- 
 ^dWeaOai. The following sentence in Pausanias, co? Se iyi'yovet 
 TCL TrdvTa iv eTol/juo), to evTevOev . . . e6vov, intimates that Epami- 
 nondas remained on the spot until all of these extensive preparations 
 for building were complete. This seems very improbable, when 
 we remember that Epaminondas had many other things to attend 
 to during his stay in the Peloponnesus, and while there overstayed 
 his time at the risk of being punished with death by the home 
 authorities (Pans., IX, 14, 5). 
 
 The importance of this restoration was well known, Pausanias, 
 IX, 15, 6, mentions a statue of Epaminondas with this inscription : 
 KoL iXeyeia eirearLV dWa re e? avrov Xeyovra, koI on MecrcTT^i/T^i? 
 yevotro olKiar^j<i koI rot? "^^Xrjo-tv virdp^eiev ekevOepia 81 avrov. 
 Therefore it seemed very appropriate that the extraordinary sacri- 
 fices which Pausanias (c. 27, 7) mentions should take place, and to 
 further celebrate the occasion elpyd^ovro 8e koI vtto jjuova-LKri^ 
 dWr]<; fi€V ov8a/j.id<;, avXcop Se Hokotlcov koI ^Apyeicov. This finds 
 a parallel in Xen., Hell., II, 2, 23, where Xenophon describes how 
 the walls of Athens were torn down. This was also considered 
 the beginning of liberty, and was also celebrated with the music of 
 
76 A Study in the Sources of 
 
 flutes : Kal ra lel'^r] KareaKairTov utt' avXrjrpihoov ttoWj) irpoOv- 
 fjbia, vo^it,ovTe<i iK€ivrjv rr]v yj/xepav rfj 'EXXaSi ap')(eLV rrj^; ikev- 
 Oepia<;. 
 
 I add a few words in conclusion in order to sum up the results 
 that have been attained. 
 
 The pith of the Messenian history lies in a few facts. In very 
 early times the Messenian people were conquered by the Spartans, 
 and, while a part of them may have gone into exile, the majority 
 were reduced to the state of the Helot class. Then, after about 
 300 years, Epaminondas reorganized the Messenian state, and thus 
 put an everlasting check on Spartan power. 
 
 Almost nothing is known about these events, and Pausanias' 
 a"COunt owes its origin to the brains of patriotic Messenians, who 
 invented tales whose aim was to glorify the Messenian nation at 
 the expense of their perennial foes, the Spartans. To weave a 
 connected account out of this material required the imaginative 
 brains of such men as the poet Rhianus and the rhetorician Myron. 
 We have seen the limits of Rhianus' poem. In regard to Myron, 
 however, the investigation has shown, step by step, that his Messe- 
 nian history must have had a wider scope than is generally 
 supposed. 
 
 I began with the generally conceded assumption that his account 
 told of the capture of Ampheia and extended as far as the death 
 of Aristodemus. It was shown, however, that this assumption 
 narrowed the limits of Myron's history unduly, as it was based on 
 a false interpretation of c. 6. Others liad supposed that Myron's 
 history may have had an introduction, and pointed i^iz. to the 
 Polychares episode as coming from Myron. I showed, by an 
 extended examination of the introduction, that this was so closely 
 related to the account of the first war that the conclusion that it 
 had been written by Myron seems inevitable. Next it was shown 
 that Myron's history had extended to the close of the first war, and 
 had even related how the Messenians had been exiled. Now 
 already the scope of Myron's history appeared such that it would 
 have seemed strange if Myron would have been satisfied to stop at 
 the first war. But another chapter, which dealt with cc. 14-17, 
 showed that Myron had not undertaken to write distinctly of the 
 first war ; but, as he had included the stories about Aristomenes, 
 
The Ifesseniaca of Pausanias. 77 
 
 besides other matter which pertained to the second war, he had 
 possibly had a larger aim in view, which was to tell all about the 
 way in which the Messenians had been subjugated by the Spartans. 
 In doing this he used all the tradition available, in order to tell of 
 one great war. From this conception of Myron's history it was 
 but a step to another conclusion, namely, that Myron had also 
 related how the Messenians had been restored to their country by 
 Epaminondas. An examination of the account of the restoration 
 has made it clear that this had actually been the case. Accord- 
 ingly, we see that Myron's history had extended from the earliest 
 mythological period down to 370 B. C, which limits would natu- 
 rally present themselves to one who wished, as Myron did, to 
 glorify the Messenian nation. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 A. BoECKH. Opuscula Academica Berolinensia. Lepsiae, 1874. 
 
 C. BuESiAN. Geographie von Griechenland. Leipzig, 1862. 
 
 BusoLT. Griecliisclie Geschichte. Gotha, 1885-1888. 
 
 BusoLT. Zu den Quellen der Messeniaka des Pausanias. (Neue Jahrbiicher f. 
 
 Philologie, 1883, p. 814.) 
 A. CoNAT. Po&ie Alexandrine. Paris, 1882. 
 
 M. DtTNCKER. Geschichte des Alterthums. VI, 106. Leipzig, 1882. 
 A. Enmann. Die Quellen des Pompeius Trogus. Dorpat, 1880. 
 GtJELiTT. ijber Pausanias. 1890. 
 Grote. History of Greece. London, 1869. 
 W. Immerwahr. Die Lakonika des Pausanias. Berlin, 1889. 
 Fr. Jacobs. Vermischte Schriften. S'^r B^. Leipzig, 1844. 
 A. Kalioiann. Pausanias der Periaget. Berlin, 1886. 
 Ph. Kohlmann. Quaestiones Messeniacae. Bonnae, 1866. 
 Meineke. Abhandlungen. Berlin, 1832. 
 Meineke. Analecta Alexandrina. 
 O. MiixLER. Die Dorier. Breslau, 1844. 
 
 C. MiJLLER. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Paris, 1848. 
 H. NissEN. Kritische Untersuchungen lib. die Quellen der vierten u. fiinften 
 
 Decade des Livius. Berlin, 1863. 
 C. Wernicke. De Pausaniae Periegetae Studiis Herodoteis. Berolini, 1884. 
 
 78 
 
iM A* 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 Fine schedule: 25 cents on first day overdue 
 
 50 cents on fourth day overdue 
 One dollar on seventh day overdue. 
 
 l^. 
 
 I 
 
 yAN 2 8 1985 
 
 •84 
 
 26*72 -4 P«*j 
 
 LD 21-100m-12,'46(A2012sl6)4120 
 

 110R9: