601 See Athen. XIV. p. 857 D. Diodorus probably follows him, since he represents Cleonnis in the first war and Aristomenes as fighting together, Fragm. N. p. 637, Wessel. In XV. 66. he means him among the ἔνιοι. Boivin and Wesseling endeavour in vain to reconcile the contradictions. The genuineness of the fragment of Diodorus is however doubtful. 602 IV. 15. 1. 603 Concerning Rhianus see Jacobs in the Index Auctorum to the Anthology. 604 See Strabo, VIII. p. 362. _ 605 E.g._ it was a _Messenian_ account which Myron followed (Pausan. IV. 6. 2), that Aristomenes killed the king Theopompus (contrary to Tyrtæus, as may be seen from Plutarch Agid. 21.). 606 I will now point out some instances of modern fiction in the narrative of Pausanias. The account of Polychares and Euæphnus supposes a greater power in the Areopagus than it ever possessed; nor did the quarrel come at all within the province of the Argive Amphictyons. Besides Pausanias, see Diodorus Excerpt, p. 547, who generally follows the same authorities. The Cretan bowmen must have been introduced by Rhianus from his own country; it is certain that there were no mercenaries at so early a period. How could the Corinthians have gone to Laconia without passing through an enemy’s country, and who would have allowed them a free passage? The flight of the initiated to Eleusis is contrary to all probability; and this the more, as in the second war they were quiet spectators, Pausan. IV. 16. 1. Yet we are told the sacred torchbearers (δᾳδοῦχοι) fought at Athens in military array. The disposition of the light-armed troops in separate bodies (IV. 7. 2.) is contrary to the account of Tyrtæus and to ancient usage, compare IV. 8. 4. Οἱ Μεσσήνιοι δρόμῳ ἐς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους ἐχρῶντο (IV. 18. 1.) is contrary to Herodotus (VI. 112). Many events are attributed to very improbable causes, _e.g._ that they left the fortified cities (IV. 9. 1.) from want of money. There is absolutely no reason given for the subjection of Messenia. That the Argives came in a private capacity, and not at the command of the state, appears from Herodot. VI. 92. The oracle in IV. 9. 2. in iambic verses is of a late date, but nevertheless _more_ ancient than the corresponding one in hexameters preserved by Eusebius Præp. Ev. V. 27. p. 130. ed. Steph. The verse in Pausan. IV. 12. 1. ἀλλ᾽ ἀπάτῃ μὲν ἔχει γαῖαν Μεσσηνίδα λαὸς, refers to the fraud of Cresphontes at the original division. In the oracle in Pausan. IV. 12. 3. and Eusebius ubi sup. should be written, ἦ γὰρ Ἄρης κείνων εὐήρεα τείχη, Καὶ τειχέων στεφάνωμα πικροὺς οἰκήτορας ἕξει. Whence these oracles were derived does not appear: nor is it easy to decide concerning the date of such short pieces. (The above