Kitap 14
2.28
But when Homer uses these expressions, Masthles commanded the Carians, who speak a barbarous language,Il. ii. 867, in which the reading is νάστης, but μέσθλης in Il. ii. 864. it does not appear why, when he was acquainted with so many barbarous nations, he mentions the Carians alone as using a barbarous language, but does not call any people Barbarians. Nor is Thucydides right, who says that none were called Barbarians, because as yet the Greeks were not distinguished by any one name as opposed to some other. But Homer himself refutes this position that the Greeks were not distinguished by this name: A man whose fame has spread through Greece and Argos;Od. i. 344. and in another place— But if you wish to go through Hellas and the middle of Argos.Il. xv. 80. But if there was no such term as Barbarian, how could he properly speak of people as Barbarophonoi (i. e. speaking a barbarous language)?
2.28
Neither is Thucydides nor Apollonius the grammarian right, because the Greeks, and particularly the Ionians, applied to the Carians a common term in a peculiar and vituperative sense, in consequence of their hatred of them for their animosity and continual hostile incursions. Under these circumstances he might call them Barbarians. But we ask, why does he call them Barbarophonoi, but not once Barbarians? Because, replies Apollonius, the plural number does not fall in with the metre; this is the reason why Homer does not call them Barbarians. Admitting then that the genitive case (βαρβάοͅων) does not fall in with the measure of the verse, the nominative case (βάοͅβαοͅοι) does not differ from that of Dardani (δάοͅδανοι); Trojans, Lycians, and Dardani; and of the same kind is the word TroïiIl. v. 222. in this verse, Like the Troïi horses (τοͅώιοι ἵπποι).
