Early Ionian Historians

I

EARLY IONIAN HISTORIANS BY

LIONEL PEARSON

GREEN"VOOD PRESS, PUBLISHERS WESTPORT, CONNECTICUT

PREFACE

Library of ('ungr.·ss ('atotuging in l'ubll ... Uon Hata

Pearson, Lionel Ignacius Cusack. Early Ionian historians. Reprint of the 1939 ed. published by Clarendon Press, Oxford. Includes bibliographies and index. 1. Historians--Greece. 2. Greece--Historiography. 1. Title. DF212.A2P4 1975 938' .007'2022 75-136874 ISBN 0-8371-5314-x

kA.

Ib!3

3'27~

Originally published in 1939 by The Clarendon Press, Oxford This reprint has been authorized by The Clarendon Press Oxford Reprinted in 1975 by Greenwood Press, a division of Williamhouse-Regency Inc. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 75-136874 ISBN 0-8371-5314-X Printed in the United States of America

HE predecessors and contemporaries of Herodotus have received their fair share of attention in scholarly writings; and though conjecture has played a prominent part in these writings, many of them contain work of great value. But by far the greatest portion of the work has been done by German. scholars. To many a student, seeking in vain for a comprehensive treatment of the subject in English, Hecataeus, Hellanicus, and the other so-called logographers have remained mere names and no more. Nor have German scholars been satisfied with the work of their countrymen. Felix Jacoby, whose article on Hecataeus in the Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopiidie is by far the most successful discussion of that author, complained of the lack of the 'urgently needed monograph'. Since the publication of his article in 1912 efforts have been made, both by Germans and by other scholars, to elucidate certain aspects of Hecataeus and other Ionian historians. For the most part, however, this discussion has arisen from an attempt to understand Herodotus rather than because these other Ionians were thought worthy of study for their own sake. The object of this book is to examine the special characteristics of these writers, and it is for this reason that the discussion has been confined to four individuals-Hecataeus, Xanthus, Charon, andHellanicus. It seems only logical that an attempt should be made to understand the work of these individuals before the more general question of the literary sources of Herodotus is approached; and the fragments, though they seem scanty at first acquaintance, become less barren and more full of meaning as one comes to know them better. One of our greatest difficulties in trying to discover what these Ionian historians wrote is the unwillingness of Herodotus to mention their works by name. Though many modern scholars would do well to imitate his lucidity of style, no one would now dare try, as he did, to conceal his obligations to his predecessors. In the bibliographies given at the end of the chapters in this book I have done my best to reveal to

T

r

PREFACE

vi

the full my obligations to earlier critics. But since the book is concerned with the work of the logographers themselves rather than with the literary sources of Herodotus, I have not attempted to list the numerous critical studies of Herodotus which are relevant to this problem, nor have I attempted to offer a bibliography for the first chapter. Anyone who has· studied the fragments of the Greek historians knows that there is one man to whom my debt is greater than to any other-Felix Jacoby. He has completed and brought up to date a large proportion of the work that the brothers Karl and Theodor Muller did in the nineteenth century, but has not been able to finish the tremendous task which he set himself. This book has gradually taken shape over a period of six years, during which I was a member of the Department of Classics at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. The \ accurate work done by the Oxford University Press has made the final stages of preparation very much less arduous than they might have been. To their learned and careful reader I am indebted for valuable criticism on many points of detail. For such errors and faults as the following pages may still contain no one but myself can be held responsible. L. P.

CONTENTS I.

Introductory: The Logographers

II.

Introduction . Hecataeus of Miletus. I. II. The Periegesis " " III. The Genealogiae

"

"

1

25 34 96

III. Xanthus the Lydian

109

IV. Charon of Lampsacus

139

V.

Hellanicus of Lesbos Index

NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT

February, 1939

ERRATA P. 32, lines 1-3. For "library catalogue" read "bibliographical guide." For "the same post" read "the post." P. 167, 13. For "a club" read "a blow of his fist." P. 212, 28. For "i.97" read "i.22." P. 220, 28. For "Herodotus" read "Herodorus."

NOTE TO REPRINT EDITION

CHAPTER I

The fragments of Xanthus and Charon, here quoted from Miiller's FHG, are now available in Jacoby's F.Gr.Hist., iii. The following tables may be useful to the reader: XANTHUS FHG

F.Gr.Hist.

FHG

CHARON F.Gr.Hist.

FHG

iii, C,765 Fr.1,2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

F.16 12 13 14 26 28 15 29 19 17 18 20 2 3

F.Gr.Hist. iii,A,262

Fr.17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

F.5 6 14&T.5 7 9 10 8 11 27 25 30 31 32 33

Fr.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

F.9 10 3 14 11&4 7&T.2 8 13 17 2 12a 12b

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS a literary age is represented by the work of only W HEN a very few authors and the work of their contemporaries has been lost, if not forgotten, the critic with no specialized knowledge is at a loss what to think. He cannot decide whether he should accept the verdict of time and content himself with the thought that those works have survived which deserved to survive; or should he question the decision of a public whose tastes he does not properly understand, and believe that many of the forgotten works would be equal in quality to those that have been remembered? By confining our attention to the masterpieces which have survived intact or nearly intact we gain certain advantages. But even these cannot be understood unless we try to discover the relation which they bear to other contemporary work. Far less can we properly understand the development of the Greek literary genius by studying only isolated examples of it. It is true that many times an attempt to discover the character of some lost poem or historical work, if it brings any result at all, leads to the conclusion that the quality of this work, as literature, was negligible. But this does not mean that we should ignore it in a study of Greek literary development. The surviving manuscripts of ancient authors, though they preserve the finest literary achievements of an age, do not offer a complete account of its literary abilities and taste. Some of the papyrus fragments have shown another side of the picture. Unfortunately papyri offer little new evidence for the literary history of those ages in which Greek poetry and Greek prose first developed into artistic forms. But we cannot hope to obtain a complete understanding of the development of early epic and early history-writing by studying only the Homeric poems and the history of Herodotus. Homer, admittedly, has not only dwarfed but completely absorbed all the work of his predecessors. The Iliad and the Odyssey, whilst they represent the culmination point in the literary 4SI5

B

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

development of an age, are not only the sole survivipg examples of that age but the only examples about which later Greek critics seemed to know or care very much. There is no evidence available which could help us to judge the influence of literary predecessors and contemporaries on the author of the Homeric poems. With Herodotus, however, the case is different. Although his work is the last and only surviving representative of the Ionian historiography which owes its origin and development to the Ionian epic, he belongs to an age about which we have literary as well as archaeological information. The information which Homer gives about his contemporaries is confined to his description of the songs sung by the a.DLaot at the palaces in Phaeacia and Ithaca. Herodotus, besides frequent allusions to 'the Ionians' and 'the Greeks', and their remarks on matters of history and geography, does on several occasions refer to Hecataeus, a famous representative of the Ionian school of prose-writers. If, however, our knowledge about the literary predecessors and contemporaries of Herodotus were confined to his own remarks, it would be both scanty and vague. Our knowledge of them rests mainly on the frequent references which later Greek authors make to these early historians and geographers, showing that their works were not lost and, even when they were lost, were not forgotten. These references have been collected and published as 'fragments' of early Greek historians: first by Friedrich Creuzer and other scholars of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, I who confined themselves to only a few early authors; then by Karl and Theodor Muller, who in their five volumes of Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (Didot, Paris, 1841-70) and Karl's two volumes of Geographi Graeci Minores (1882) attempted to offer a complete collection of all the quotations and references to be found in extant Latin and Greek authors. The work of the MulIers is being revised and supplemented by Felix Jacoby, who has so far published two parts (five volumes) of his Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin, 1923-30).2 The industry of these scholars I

2

For titles see the special bibliographies. Jacoby's F. Gr. Hist. is arranged on a different system from Miiller's FHG.

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

3

has thus put the evidence at our disposal in a convenient form for reference. But before approaching any individual author it will be well to examine some of the evidence about the general literary outlook of the fifth century in Ionia, in order that it may become more clear how Herodotus and Thucydides earned their positions as the two most eminent historians of their day. Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the fifth chapter of his essay on Thucydides gives the following useful summary: 'Before I begin to discuss the work of Thucydides, I want to say a few words about the other historians, his predecessors and contemporaries, which will throw light on the method of the m~n, thanks to which he was able to excel those who went before hIm, and his genius. Now of earlier historians before the Peloponnesian War there were a great number in a great many different places; among them may be mentioned Eugeon of Samos, Deiochus of Proconnesus, Eudemus of Paros, Democles of Phigalia, Hecataeus of Miletus, the Argive Acusilaus, Charon from Lampsacus, and Amelesagoras from Chalcedon; and among those who go back a little way before the Peloponnesian War and extend down to the age of Thucydides, Hellanicus of Lesbos, Damastes of Sigeum, Xenomedes of Ceos, Xanthus the Lydian, and numerous others. These men all adopted a similar method as regards the choice of themes and in talents did not differ very widely from one another, some of them writing Hellenic histories (as they called them), others barbarian histories; but instead of coordinating their accounts with each other, they treated of individual peoples and cities separately and brought out separate accounts of them; they all had the one same object, to bring to the general knowledge of the public the written records that they found preserved in temples or in secular buildings in the form in which they found them, neither adding nor taking away anything; among these records were to be found legends hallowed by the passage of time and melodramatic adventure stories, which to the modern reader seem very naive indeed; I the language which they used was for the most part similar (as many of them as adopted The fragments of Hecataeus, Xanthus, Charon, and Hellanicus all appear in the first volume of the Miiller collection, but only those of Hecataeus and Hellanicus appear in the first volume of Jacoby's; Xanthus and Charon are reserved for Part III, which is not yet published. I fLvOot TtvES' a1To rov 1TOAAOV 1T€1TtGT€Vp-eVOL Xpovou KUI. 8€aTpLKal 'TLV€S' 1TEpL1TeT£tuL TToAv TO ~A;8tov £X€tv TOtS' vvv 30KoVaat.

4

INTRO DUCTO RY: THE LOGOG RAPHE RS

the same: dialect of Greek), clear, simple, unaffected, and concise, approp nate to the subject-matter, and not revealing any elabora te art in composition; there is nevertheless a certain charm and grace which runs through their writings, to a greater degree in some than in others, thanks to which their works still survive.' Dionys ius then goes on to describ e how Herodo tus, without making any radical change in metho d or choice of subject-m atter, develo ped and perfect ed their style, followi ng in their footsteps but improv ing on their work in all manne r of ways; not confini ng himsel f to the history of a single people or city, but includ ing all manne r of differe nt histori cal events within the compa ss of a single work, and makin g great advanc es in literary art and style withou t breaki ng away from the old traditi on of a MgLS' aa4>~S' Kal KOLvTJ Kal Ka8apa Kat aUJJTOjLOS'. Thucy dides, on the other hand, was a great innova tor in that he did not attemp t to deal with such a compre hensiv e theme, neglec ted more remote times in favour of a restrict ed period of contem porary history , and develo ped a new style of his own quite differe nt from the traditio nal Ionic of Herodo tus and the others. Later in the essay Dionys ius offers a more elabor ate and technic al criticis m of their literary style,1 and Hermo genes writing probab ly a centur y and a half later, also has som~ brief but pointe d remark s about the style of Hecata eus and Hellan icus in the closing paragr aphs of his work IJ€pt lSduJJ. 2 Such criticis ms as these, howev er, can better be apprec iated after an examin ation of the fragme nts, and they will be left until later. As an introdu ction to the early Greek histori ans the fifth chapte r of Dionys ius' essay is more instruc tive. Side by side with it may be put some remark s of Strabo who is a very severe critic of histori cal writing , belongin~' really to the Thucy didean school, untouc hed by the more . . roman tic style which in his own day Livy was bringin g to , ::-+f perfect ion. He is full of scorn for the mythic al elemen t which Herodo tus and the logogr aphers introdu ced so readily into their work: 'One might more readily ', he says, 'believ e Hesiod and Homer , with their stories of heroic times, and the tragic poets, than Ctesias and Herodo tus and Hellan icus 1 Chap. 23. 2 ii. 399-400 (pp. 411-12, ed. Rabe).

INTRO DUCTO RY: THE LOGOG RAPHE RS

5

and the rest of them.'1 And he speaks of the 'absurd imaginary names which Hellan icus and Herod otus and Eudox us have dinned into our ears'.2 In his first book, when in sobere r mood, he briefly gives his opinio n about the part played by the early Ionian prose-w riters in Greek literar y history : 'The language of prose, of artistic prose at least, might be said to be an imitati on of the language of poetry. Poetic style was the first to come to the fore and achieve recognition; then, in imitati on of this style, droppi ng the restrictions of metre but retainin g all the other characteristics of poetry, Cadmus, Pherecydes, Hecataeus, and their school began to write in prose; then their successors, removing the poetic characteristics one after anothe r, transformed it into its present shape, as though bringing it down off its high horse, and making it truly prose or pedestrian (7TE~OS') language.'3 Strabo , who is not a rhetori cian like Dionys ius or Hermo genes, is thinkin g of the actual su~jects about which 'Cadm us, Pherec ydes, Hecata eus, and their school ' wrote, when he compa res their work to poetry . For his purpos e, as a studen t of geogra phy and ethnog raphy, they are neithe r more nor less useful than 'Home r, Hesiod , and the tragic poets'; that is to say, their works contain both fact and fiction, and experien ce and care are needed in order to disting uish the one clemen t from the other. Becaus e prose recogn ized none of the limitat ions of the epos, the Greeks gave to it the same name as the langua ge of conver sation, logos, and those who first took to using prose as a literary form were natura lly called Aoyoypar/JoL or AOYO7TOLOL, conven tionall y anglici zed into 'logogr apher'. As the use of prose as a literary form increas ed with the develo pment of history , oratory , and philoso phy, and other poetic forms develo ped to the exclusi on of the older epos, the origina l distinc tion of epos and logos was no longer adequa te; just as an E7T07TOLOS' was a certain kind of poet, differe nt from a traged ian or lyric poet, so the term 'logogr apher' had to take on a narrow er meanin g. The early prose-w riters had dealt with myth, anecdo te, legend , saga, nation al traditio n, 1 xi. 6, 3. 2 xii. 3, 21. 3 i. 2, 6.

6

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

popular history-in short, they had told stories such as were designated in Greek by the name of '\oyot. Accordingly the term '\oyoypa1>os came to mean not prose-writer in general but story-teller, raconteur, chronicler, or even, one might say, historical novelist. It has been customary with classical scholars, however, whilst recognizing this meaning of the word, to limit its use to the Ionian chroniclers and storytellers of the fifth century B.C., who have indeed a double title to the name, as the first to use logos instead of epos for narrative and as narrators of logoi. The responsibility for thus confining the use of the term is generally laid at the door of Friedrich Creuzer lone of the . ' pIOneers in collecting the fragments of early prose-writers, who in 1803 first published his book The Historical Art of the Greeks in its Origin and Development. 2 The propriety of using the term 'logographer' in this restricted sense has been attacked on the ground that this 'narrow, restricted use of ~he term with reference to literary history finds no support m Greek usage; the word is used at most in a few instances in the broader sense of historian in general.'3 The word '\0y'0ypa1>os in Athens also denoted the professional speechwnter, who wrote speeches for his clients to deliver in the law-courts, but the designation was apparently not liked by the speech-writers and was used by them principally as a term of abuse. Aeschines speaks scornfully of the logographos who has pieced together a defence for his adversary;4 he and Demosthenes call one another '\oyoypa1>os,s whilst Plato speaks of the enemy who continued to call Lysias by this name in all his attacks upon him. 6 Evidently, when an orat?r in Athens called his adversary a '\oyoypa4os, the implicatIOn was that for a paltry fee he was ready to put together .. ~ Cf. W. Schmid, Griech. Literaturgesch. I. i, p. 691; Bux, RE., s.v. Logographen, 1021. Z Die historische Kunst der Griechen in ihrer Entstehung und Fortbildung (2nd ed. 1845). See especially p. 265. 3 Bux, lac. cit., col. 1022. For earlier critiCIsm on the same lines cf. G. Curtim, .Ueber zwei Kunstausdriicke der griechischen Literaturgesch., Berichte der k. sachsIsc~en Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1866, pp. 14154; reprmted in his Kleine Schriften, ii, pp. 239-47. 4 In Tim. 94. 5 Aesch. In Gtes. 173, DeJals. Leg. 180; Dem. xix. 246, 250. 6 Phaedrus, 257 C•

Xlll.

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

7

some sort of speech without any regard for truth or relevance, that he was, in fact, an unworthy member of an honourable profession-because there was nothing dishonourable about the profession of speech-writing in itself. This derogatory sense which the word acquired in the Athenian law-courts in the fourth century was extended to its use by literary critics, so that when Plutarch or Polybius calls an historian '\oyoypa1>os or '\0Y07TOLOS, the implication is that this writer has little regard for truth or accuracy. I But it is the use of the word by Thucydides which has established its particular application to the lonians of the fifth century: he complains about the false impression of ancient times given by poets with their romantic exaggeration and '\oyoypa1>ot who are more anxious to please their hearers and readers than to tell the truth. 2 From this passage the meaning of the word is surely clear enough; those who write about the past in prose are logographers, and Herodotus is evidently designated as one of them. With the development of a more severe attitude towards history, these early Ionian writers naturally fell into disrepute as impostors who pretended to be telling the truth about subjects of which they were totally ignorant. It is quite unnecessary to accept the suggestion of Bux, who thinks that the term '\oyoypa1>os came to have a derogatory meaning because the immigrants or refugees from Ionia during the Pentecontaetia, with their more worldly outlook, were disliked in the less cosmopolitan I Plutarch, De Iside, 20, speaking of the less edifying legends of Isis and Osiris writes: OTt 0' aUK €OLK£ Taiha KOP.LOfj f-Lv8£up.aow apaw'is Kat. OLaKlYOtS 1TAaOfLaOtv: ora 7roL7JTai. Kat. >toyoypa¢JOL Ka8a1T£p ai a.paxvar. y£vvawT£S d¢' €avrwv a11" apxf}s aVV1TOO€TOV vt/Jalvovot Kat a1TOT£lvovaLV, &,\,\' £XO TLvas anoplas Kat 7TaBwv OL7Jy~O£LS' oCuO' aVT~. Babbit (Loeb ed.) translates Aoyoypacpol as 'writers of prose'. Cf. also De defectu oracu[orum, 15: 7TA£'UTOV 8£ Tfj, dA1/0£{a, 8,al-'apTaVOvulv 01 iJ£Acpwv 8£oAO,),OL VOJLl~OVT£S' €VTav8ti 1TO'Tf 7TpO'; ocptV 'Tep Of

Yfv£oIJat, Kai. 'TaU'Ta 7TOtTJ'TOS Kat AOYOYP&'¢ov,; £v 8fa'TpOt'; aywv,{op.£vov,; A£ynv £WVT€';.

Cf. Polybius vii. 7, I. For similar references about AOY01TOIO{ see Bux, loco cit., col. I025-{i. 2 i. 21 : £K O£ TWV flPTJp.£vwv TfKfLTJplwv op.w,; To,aUTa av T''; vop.l{wv p,aAtUTa & a,fjA.OOV oux af'a(JTavo" KaL OVrf W'; 7TotTJTaL vp.vT]KaUL 7TfPL athwv E71'L TO J.L€"OV KOUJ.L0VVTfS J.La.>J..ov 1T'UT€VWV, oVr£ ws A.oyoypa¢ot ,vv£8€oav £'TL TO 71'pooaywYOT€POV rfi aKpOo.on ~ aA.7J8EC1T€POV, ov-ra aV€,£AfYK'Ta KaL TO. 71'OAAa V1TO XPOVOV aV-rwv Q..7TlUTWS £1Ti. TO I'VOWOfS EKV€V'K7]KOTa, €vpfjo8at 8E ~YTJOal'fvOS EK TWV £1T,cpaV€OTo.'TWV UTJl'€twv ws 7TaAa,a flva, a1ToXPWVTWS.

INTRODUCTOR Y: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

!l

atmosphere of Athens, and were classed by serious conservative Athenians with the sophists. I Since the tradition of public lectures given by Herodotus and Hippias of Elis is so well founded,z it is sometimes taken for granted that the Ionian logographers also gained fame and wealth by lectures on historical subjects, and wandered from city to city like the sophists. 3 But beyond a chance remark in Thucydides, which most probably is intended to apply only to Herodotus,4 there is no evidence to support such an assumption. 5 More worthy of notice is the tradition which takes Herodotus and Hellanicus to the court of Macedonia,6 whose kings were famous for their patronage of the poets. Late and untrustworthy though this tradition is, it is interesting because it associates the logographers with poets rather than philosophers. 'Hellanicus', says Suidas, 'with Herodotus spent some time at the court of Amyntas, king of Macedonia, in the times of Euripides and Sophocles.' Furthermore, the authority of these logographers is more often cited by commentators on the poets than by writers of history and philosophy. The scholiasts on Homer, Lycophron, and Apollonius of Rhodes are continually alluding to them,. showing how their work seemed to offer a kind of connecting link between the old epic and the Alexandrian poems. Over and over again their names are coupled with the names of poets: by Thucydides in the passage quoted in the previous paragraph; by Strabo in his tirades about their disregard for accuracy; and by Athenaeus, Plutarch, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus.7 No doubt the close association of these logographers with the poets can partially be accounted for by the interest of Loc. cit., col. 1027. Lucian, Herodotus; Plutarch, De mal. Hdti. 862B; Plato, Hippias Maior, 285D. 3 Cf. e.g. Jacoby, RE., s.v. Hellanikos, viii. 106. 4 In i. 21 (see p. 7, n. 2, above) Thucydides speaks of Aoyoypaq,ot composing their work E7Tt TO 7TpoaaYWYOTEpOV Tfi aKpoaan. Cf. the famous remark about his own work in the following chapter: KTijp.a TE ES aid p.a)J,ov 1i aywvwp.a .S TO I

2

1TapaXP'YJf-La clKOVHV gUYK€LTaL. 5 Plutarch, De defectu oraculorum, 15 (see p. 7, n. I, above), is referring to his own time. 6 Suidas, s.v. 'HpOf>oToS and 'EUavtKos. 7 Besides the passages already cited cf. Dion. Hal. De compo verborum, 16; Plutarch, De vita Homeri, 72.

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

9

Alexandrian scholars in the details of mythology, and the interest which later students of their poems continued to show in the same subject. Of this almost scientific interest in mythology there are not many traces in Athenian literature of the fifth century. It is an interest which the Alexandrians inherited with their cult of the Hesiodic tradition. Critics have often noticed the strange silence of fifth- and fourthcentury Athens about these Ionian logographers, as compared to the freedom with which post-Alexandrian writers allude to them. In some cases this silence has caused them to suspect that a forgery at Alexandria is responsible for the change in outlook; that the original work was lost and almost forgotten as early as the fourth century; that a clever forger produced a manuscript which he claimed to be a genuine copy and sold it for a high price, as something rare and valuable, to the library at Alexandria. I If the silence of the fourth century applied only to one or two authors, Hecataeus and Xanthus, for example, one might be prepared to entertain this theory. But a glance at the fragments of the logographers will show that the silence of the fourth century applies to them all. The explanation is not hard to find. The works of the logographers, especially the mythographic works, were not popular at Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries because they could not compete in quality with I the native products of the dramatists, orators, and philoso- ' phers, and the histories of Thucydides the Athenian and Herodotus the Halicarnassian who adopted Athens as his home. Hence these Ionian works made their way to Alexandria not by way of Athens but by a direct route. In all probability some of the Alexandrian writers who came from Asia Minor brought with them from their native cities a knowledge of works which had never found their way to Athens at all, and were able to introduce to Alexandria the work of fifth-century authors of which not a single copy had ever been sold in Athens. This is not to say that the work of these little-known authors which they brought with them was of first-class I See Chaps. II and III for a discussion of the alleged forgeries of Hecataeus and Xanthus.

4515

c

,1

10

W1./

INTRODUCTORY; THE LOGOGRAPHERS

quality. On the contrary, it was doubtless often of very poor quality indeed, but the librarian, with a collector's interest in rare works, was eager to acquire copies for his library. Such a state of affairs naturally made forgery well worth while, and the reports and rumours of it are many .. It is, however, exceedingly important to emphasize the fact that no one would have been tempted to forge copies of early historical works unless genuine copies of some works had actually been introduced from Asia Minor; in other words, no forger would have gone to work unless there already existed a partially satisfied demand for the kind of literature which he proposed to imitate. A love of the recondite was characteristic of Alexandrian scholarship and literature. It was therefore natural enough {, J l that the Ionian logographers, with their unusual versions , of familiar legends, should come into favour. The influence which these logographers exercised on Alexandrian literature is a subject beyond the scope of this book. For the present it is enough to point out how Apollonius of Rhodes drew much of the geographical detail for his Argonautica from the llEpL~YYJaLC; of Hecataeus;2 how the mythographer known as Apollodorus, who wrote the Bibliotheca, took his versions of myths not , from the okl epic poets or the Athenian tragedians but from ,(. Pherecydes and Hellanicus; how Eratosthenes and the real Apollodorus, in their efforts to establish an accurate chronology of early times, found their information in Hellanicus. In Athens the Homeric poems were held too sacred and taken too literally for mythological innovation and rationalization to be popular; the experiments of Euripides in this direction roused considerable antagonism. There is no space here to set forth in detail the reasons why the logographers should command at Alexandria the popularity which they failed to achieve at Athens. The fact remains that our knowledge of their work is due in the first place to the interest taken in them by Alexandrian scholars.

v

I Cf. Galen, In Hippocratis De natura hominis, i. 44, 105 (Corpus Med. Graec. V.9, I). 2 Cf. L. Pearson, Apollonius of Rlwdes and the Old Geographers, Amer. Joum. of Philology,lix (1938), pp. 443-59.

INTRODUCTORY; THE LOGOGRAPHERS

II

Thanks to this interest, their names were still familiar in Byzantine times, and in no author are there so many allusions to them as in the geographical lexicon of Stephanus of Byzantium-a work written in the sixth century after Christ, of which we possess only an abridged edition. The ~ctual fate which the manuscripts of their works suffered IS another question altogether. Many of the man~scripts doubtless perished in the fire which burnt down the lIbrary at Alexandria, and although other copies of their more popular works must have existed elsewhere, many of the later authors who refer to them seem to have been content with a knowledge of their work at second hand. Strabo's quotations, for example, are frequently taken from Eratosthenes, to whom he is honest enough to admit his obligations. 1 M~ny of t~e allusions of the scholiasts are doubtless due to theIr acquamtance with Hellenistic handbooks of mythology. The Christian chroniclers have certainly taken their references from the Chronica of Apollodorus, and it is unlikely that Eusebius, Julius Africanus, Syncellus, Tzetzes, 01: Clement of Ale:c an dria actually consulted the original texts of Hellamcus, Acusilaus or Pherecydes . .' More puzzling is the knowledge claimed by S;idas, who compiled his lexicon as late as the eleventh century. Hopelessly muddled and incorrect thou?,h his statements often are, his claim to a knowledge of bIOgraphical details about literary men which no earlier writers record cannot be set down as entirely false. Even a most slender acquaintance with the lexicon will show how necessary it is tQ mistrust almost e~ery stat~ment that he m~kes; but it is nevertheless true that mformatIOn on many subjects, the reliability of which we cannot check, has reached him through channels entirely unknown. To the scholiasts and the Christian chroniclers one may be permitted t~ deny a first-hand acquaintance with the logographers' work, although when they quote the ac~ual words of an author or give an exact reference to a partlcul~r s.ection of a particular work one is not justified in q~estIOnmg their accuracy. The case of the lexicographers Stephanus, Hesychius, and Harpocration (who frequently support one I

Cf. especially i. 3, 1-3.

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

another) is somewhat different. As often as not they cite the authority of a logographer simply for the name of a city or tribe, sometimes familiar, sometimes obscure. It is hard to understand how Stephanus should be able, or why he should be anxious, to give so many references t? the logographers and to numerous different works of theirs unless he had seen the actual texts. The same holds true of Athenaeus, who is concerned largely with displaying his erudition and refers to the logographers not in support of general statements but for small, often very trifling, details. His quotations do not, as a rule, reveal any interest on his part in the main themes of their work; they are not long quotations, and it is unlikely that he had read many of the original works right through. Different again is the kind of interest and familiarity shown by Plutarch, Dionysius ofHalicarnassus, and Nicolaus of Damascus. All these were interested in finding accounts of early historical events which differed from those given by standard Greek and Latin authors. Plutarch, both in the Lives and in the De malignitate Herodoti (if indeed he is the author of that work), and Nicolaus found in the logographers versions of events which differed widely from those given by Herodotus: stories about the life of Theseus, the history of Lydia, and the struggle between Greece and Persia. Dionysius found accounts of the Pelasgians, the Etruscan, Trojan, and Greek settlements in Italy, which he prized very highly because they were written by authors who were not influenced at all by Roman nationalist ideals and were likely to commend themselves to the Greek readers for whom his Roman Antiquities was intended. This account of how interest in the logographers continued from Alexandrian into Roman imperial and Byzantine times cannot be further developed here. It should be enough for the moment to show how their works aroused the interest of writers of widely different types, so that their names were mentioned and their authority cited in commentaries on Homer, Euripides, and Lycophroll (to give only one example of a poet from three different periods); in works of geography and ethnography like those of Strabo, Pausanias, and Stephanus of Byzantium; in works of his tori-

cal and literary criticism like those ofDionysius and Plutarch; and by fathers of the Church such as Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria. Such fragmentary evidence as is afforded by these later authors often enables us to guess with fair confidence the subject-matter with which the logographers dealt and the point of view which they took in certain controversial matters. It is not, however, adequate in itself to justify any general verdict about the historical value of these early historical writings, and it gives little or no information about the place which they should be allotted in the history of literature. For information of this kind one must look to the classical period itself. A study of Herodotus and Thucydides in conjunction with the fragments reveals, as might be expected, that despit~ their claim to almost complete independence they have not been able entirely to ignore the logographers. Herodotus mentions Hecataeus on only four occasions, Thucydides refers once to Hellanicus, I and neither of them mentions any other logographer by name. Herodotus, however, is full of vague allusions to the incompetence of his predecessors, whom he calls 'the Ionians', 'certain Greeks anxious to distinguish themselves by their learning', and other similar names. 2 The fragments do not always afford adequate evidence for us to decide whether this scornful attitudeisjustified. It is the habit of Herodotus never to refer to these predecessors of his except to contradict them orto correct them; we cannot therefore tell how much he has taken from them without acknowledgement. But this is a subject which must wait for more detailed treatment in the next chapter. In the course of the sixth century all the states of Greek Asia Minor lost their independence, some of them becoming subjects of the Lydian king before they were absorbed by the expanding Persian Empire. Thus at a time when the Athenians were exalting Solon, Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Cleisthenes, and Miltiades to the rank of national heroes, the Ionians, in their search for national ideals, were driven back into the more distant past; they had to look back to the time of Greek colonization in Asia Minor, when the famous cities

12

I

Hdt. ii. 143, v. 36, 125, vi. 137; Thue. i. 97.

2

e.g. ii.

13

2,

15,

20.

lIt

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

ofthe coast built up their prosperity and traditions of civilization. Consequently their interest in the old epic poems was of a different kind from the interest felt by the Athenians. Many cities claimed Homer for their own national poet, and from their earliest days adopted the Iliad and Odyssey as standards by which their own literary productions were to be judged. There was in Ionia a literary tradition of epic poetry dependent on Humer for its model; there is no trace of this in Athens before Solon, and it is most likely that Homer did not take a specially prominent place in Athenian literary tradition until after the time of Peisistratus. With the loss of political independence lyric poetry, treating of the individual emotions and often of contemporary things, came to receive official encouragement, ousting the epos, which was essentially a national or even nationalistic form of art, from its former place of honour. Lyric poets found patrons in the tyrants, but there is no record of an epic poet enjoying their favour. Indeed, though the epic tradition remained, few new epics were written until Panyasis, whom tradition calls the uncle of Herodotus , tried to 'revive the fire which had been extinguished'. I But Panyasis was a fierce nationalist with republican ideals who lost his life in a rebellion against Lygdamis, the tyrant of Halicarnassus. He was not at all the kind of artist likely to receive recognition at the hands of a tyrant who owed his position to the Persian government and was pledged to repress any nationalistic feeling among his su~iects. Much has been written about the encouragement of art and literature offered by the tyrants and their liberal patron~ge of poets. But patronage always has its disadvantages; It almost always restricts freedom of expression. It is noteworthy that Greek court poets, from the time of the Ionian tyrants to the Ptolemies in Alexandria, were rarely natives of the country whose ruler offered them patronage. At Samos, under Polycrates' patronage, Anacreon came from Teos, Ibycus from Rhegium; Alcaeus was a fierce opponent of the tyrants of his native Mytilene. In states with a democratic tradition like the Ionian city-states nationalist ideals [ Suidas, s.v. lIavvaaL,.

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

'5

could not find expression under a tyranny, least of all under a tyrant who was himself the vassal of a foreign king. Hence came the inevitable decline of epic poetry and the exile, whether voluntary or not, of democratic Ionians (including literary men with liberal ideas) from their native cities. As a result of this development there arose two new types of literary men: the wandering sophist and the wandering logographer, exiles who felt more comfortable on the Greek mainland or in the new world of Magna Graecia. The opening words of the history of Herodotus are familiar: 'Herodotus of Halicarnassus here sets forth his inquiry into the past, in order that the things men have done may not be forgotten in the course of time and the great and splendid achievements, both of Greeks and barbarians, may not go unrecorded (aKA-En).' This, then, is the aim of Herodotus, that worthy deeds may not lack KA-EO>, and his readers would remember that the Homeric bards sang of KAEa avSpwv, perpetually reminding their hearers of the glories of the past. So long as the epic poets continued to celebrate national glories there was no need of an historian. But, as all Ionian Greeks knew very well, epic poetry had been silenced. History, then, was to take its place, a feeble imitation, as its first readers must have thought, of the epic poem.' The dependence of historical writing on Homer was insisted upon' in Alexandrian times and later. Strabo's persistence in citing the authority of Homer gives some idea how strong the Homeric tradition must have been for the Ionian logographers. Homer, in the view of Eratosthenes, whom Strabo accepts ~s his authority, was the first geographer, followed by Anaxlmander and Hecataeus;2 to say in so many words " that he was the first historian was unnecessary because it was so obvious. The earliest historians, so we are told, were at the same time primitive in their literary methods and inclined to confuse mythology with history. Such was the bitter complaint of Thucydides, who includes Herodotus in his general c~ndemn~tion of his predecessors. A student of literary hIstory wIll say that It was natural for their style to be 2 • [ cr. Strabo i. 2, 8. 1. " II.

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

unadorned, because the art of writing Greek prose was still in its infancy. But apart from their style, to which Dionysius grants 'a certain charm and grace', their method seems primitive in that 'they quoted official records just as they found them, neither adding anything nor taking anything away'. For this procedure one might perhaps supply a political explanation as well as a literary one. To glorify and magnify the past, perhaps at the expense of the present, as epic poetry did, was dangerous, if not actually forbidden under the Persian domination. But simply to tell the truth, to record events such as were described in the annals of their cities, could not possibly be considered dangerous or subversive of authority. Some of the titles of these annalistic works have been preserved, though the fragments are very scanty. They were sometimes called "Qpot or Annals (because cLp0i> is an old Greek word for 'year')/ and the title is sometimes imitated by later writers who followed the early models. 2 Sometimes when a work was devoted in particular to the story of a city's colonization, its title announced its subject, like the KTtmi> MtA:r]TOV of Cadmus, the Xtov KTtmi> of Ion of Chios, the IIEpL X{ov KT{UEWi> of Hellanicus, which is probably a portion from a more general work KTtUEti> JBvwv KaL 7TOAEWV. Or else a book announced that it was treating of the history of some particular nation or eBvoi> by a title such as AioAtKcL, IIEputKcL, AlYV7TnaKcL, EKvBtKcf, all of which titles are ascribed, whether correctly or not, to Hellanicus. Besides writing about the events recorded in the annals of particular cities, which is the only kind of strictly historical writing with which Dionysius credits them, many of the logographers dealt with mythical subjects. But in cities where the Homeric poems provided the established model of narrative, it is only natural that no sharp distinction should be generally recognized between history and mythology. It is the lack of this distinction that Thucydides particularly deplores, because, to put his criticism into modern terms, it

showed that none of these writers had any conception of scientific history or cultivated a critical spirit of investigation. Before they began to write there existed on the one hand the Homeric poems, on the other the official civic records. Accordingly there resulted two different kinds of literary productions: on the one hand prose works dealing with Homeric subjects or subjects such as Homer might have treated, in which they tried to show more regard for consistency of narrative, exactness in genealogy and chronology, and more realism in so far as they were less ready to admit miracles; on the other hand literary adaptations of bald official records, in which they attempted to tell an interesting story without too much disregard of recorded facts. Hellanicus of Lesbos is a good example of an author who produced works belonging to both the~e categories. Some of his works are called by titles that might have been given to epic poems-Phoronis, Deucalioneia, Asopis, Troica, others by titles with a less Homeric flavour, Foundings if Cities, Persica, The Victors at the Carnean Festival (KapvEovLKat). Another kind of prose work which began to be developed early in the fifth century was the geographical guide-book, the Periegesis or IIEp{oooi> riji>. If the so-called historical works may be described as a compromise between the epos and the bald official annals, the Periegesis might be described as a compromise between the epos and the scientific philosophical work which was just shaking off the shackles of metre. A popular scientific work, a handbook of geography and ethnography-in such terms might the Periegesis of Hecataeus be described. With the increase in geographical knowledge that came later after the wars of Alexander this type of book regained its popularity, and copies still exist of IIEp{7TAOt, falsely attributed to ScylaxofCaryanda and Scymnus of Chios, written in Alexandrian times. Avienus, writing a similar guide-book in Latin iambic trimeters late in the fourth century after Christ, describes his sources as follows: Multa rerum iunximus ex plurimorum sum pta commentariis. Hecataeus istic quippe erit Milesius, Hellanicusque Lesbius, Phileus quoque

Athenaeus x. 4 2 3E • e.g. Duris of Samos (F. Gr. Hist. ii, pp. 144-6); Alexis of Samos (FHG. iv, p. 299); Neanthes ofCyzicus (F. Gr. Hist. ii, p. 192). I

2

4515

D

17

.8

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

Atheniensis, Caryandeus Scylax, Pausimachus inde, prisca quem genuit Samos, quin et Damastes nobili natus Sige, Rhodoque Bacoris ortus, Euctemon quoque popularis urbis Atticae, Siculus Cleon, Herodotus ipse Thurius, tum qui decus magnum Ioquendi est, Atticus Thucydides. I

Victor Berard has suggested that Phoenician mariners' guides or handbooks of navigation played a part either directly. or indirectly, as a source for the story of Odysseus' wandermgs. 2 If he is right, the tradition of the Periplus is actually ol~er than the Homeric tradition. Greek geography as a sCIentlfic study, however, originated in Miletus in the sixt~ century> w~en Ana~imander produced the first map.3 PerSIan dommatIOn certamly exercised an encouraging influence on this study. Contact with Persia involved contact with the Far East, in particular with India, and with Arabia and equatorial Africa, regions on which hitherto Homer had been the undisputed authority. Accordingly the Periegesis of Hecataeus, written probably about the end of the sixth century, satisfied a popular demand for information which the scientific treatises of Thales and Anaximander could not supply. But the jump from the uncontrolled fiction of early writers to a g~nuinely scientific treatment suitable for popular consumptIOn could scarcely be accomplished at one step. I t. is not s~r?risin.g, therefore, to find that Herodotus regards With. SuspICIOn hIS predecessor's claim to exact knowledge, and IS amused at the manner in which writers of ll€p{OOOL 'represent the ocean as flowing round the earth and the ea~th itself as r~un~ as though it were turned by a lathe, and ASIa as equal m SIze to 'Europe'.4 Indeed, the interests of Hecataeus were not confined to geography; he wrote, besides the Periegesis, a work on mythology which, for all its claims to accuracy, cannot have been very different from the work of other Ionian mythographers. The growing interest in geography may be taken as an I 2

3

Ora Maritima, 40--5 0 • LesPMniciens et l'Odyssee,passim; Did Homer Live? chap. vi. Strabo i. I, 1 I. 4 iV.3 6 •

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

19

indication of the literary taste of the general reader in the Greek cities of Asia Minor. The loss of national traditions, the increase in wealth and luxury caused by the development of commerce, the progress of science and philosophy inevitably affected their literary tastes as well as their moral standards. Similar conditions in the modern world have, at different periods, resulted in a taste for realism in literature, especially realistic fiction. Pure fiction seems to have been unknown at this period of the Greek world; hence the serious manner in which Herodotus always regards the romantic tales from Persia and Egypt. But it is natural enough that there should be a demand for more credible versions of the myths and a literary treatment of historical and geographical knowledge. This was what the logographers provided, leaving lyric poetry to the few who could write it and appreciate it. Meanwhile in Athens, where the social development and the political situation were very different, the drama was developing side by side with the various forms oflyric poetry. If the general public in the Greek Asiatic cities was inclined to be literal-minded, and so to lose its interest in more imaginative forms of literature, this development was not entirely without useful results. It is true that Ionia and Aeolis lost the places of honour they had once held as the homes of poetry, whilst the supremacy passed first to Athens and then to Alexandria, and that Asiatic Greeks who showed real talent for poetry generally went elsewhere to seek fame and fortune. But a useful result was the development of history as a form of popular literature. Out of respect for the Homeric tradition and for lack of any existing models in prose the logographers were unanimous, so far as we can tell, i,r.:tadopting the Ionian dialect. Whether they came from Ionian Miletus, Aeolian Lesbos, Dorian Halicarnassus, or even Lydian Sardis, both the testimony of ancient authorities and the actual quotations which they preserve without adaptation show that alliogographers used Ionian in preference to any other dialect. Perhaps the most curious evidence is the unconscious testimony of Nicolaus of Damascus who, although he is adapting rather than quoting from the Lydiaca of Xanthus, often departs from his usual KOLvr} and slips into

gO

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

the Ionian dialect of his source. Because of this prevalence of the Ionic dialect it has become customary to class the_ logographers as Ionian authors, irrespective of their places of origin, and to describe the form of literature which they popularized as Ionian historiography. There is one· more aspect of the Homeric tradition in Ionia which deserves mention. The Homeric poems present an attitude towards religion and morals which did not commend itself to orthodox opinion in Athens, despite the insistence on the study of Homer in Athenian education. The treatment of the gods in Homer has been discussed many times. It represents most probably the attitude of people who have been driven by hardship to adopt a rather cynical or even fatalistic view of life and to temper their cynicism with a sense of humour. The religious outlook of the Homeric poems is in fact what one would expect to find in the age of the migrations when old national ties were being forgotten and fresh national traditions had not yet been built up. New traditions were doubtless established in the Greek cities of Asia Minor during the eighth and seventh centuries, but we know little about them, because in the sixth century these new national traditions were broken down again. It is not surprising, therefore, if the Ionian authors of the sixth and fifth centuries, in an age of migration which is also an age of sci entific development, reveal an attitude towards the gods that is comparable to the Homeric attitude. Indeed, the combined influences of Homeric literary tradition, a changing political environment, and the growth of scientific speculation render it almost inevitable that Ionian mythography should be just as unsparing of divine reputation as Homer had been, and just as insistent in its view of the power of destiny and nemesis. Failure to appreciate the importance of such simple facts as these has led many critics completely to misunderstand the attitude of Herodotus towards V{3PLS and vlfLEULS. 1 This attitude, which tempers its uncertainty about the Olympian theology2 with a vague deism and a belief in destiny, is not I For conventional views see How and Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, i, pp. 43, 48-50; Macan, Herodotus IV-VI, i, pp. cx-cxviii. 2 cr. Hdt. ii. 53.

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

21

complacent piety but uncomfortable agnosticism. One can well believe that scandalous or flippant tales about the Olympian gods gave no offence, provided that the apparent lack of respect was tempered with a belief in some supernatural power. This, after all, is essentially the attitude of the Homeric poems and is entirely in accordance with the epic tradition. None of the fragments of the logographers is long enough for us to judge with certainty to what extent their religious attitude corr~sponded with that of Herodotus. But ifit had been different'Herodotus would probably have criticized it, and his own attitude is almost certainly typical of his age. The fragments, however, if they give no direct information about the general religious attitude of the logographers, show that the flippant treatment of the gods, as represented by such Homeric anecdotes as that in which Hera entices Zeus to sleep with her on the mountain-side and Ares is made a laughing-stock among the gods, retained or perhaps regained its popularity in the time of the logographers. Herodotus and Hecataeus claim to despise the 'foolish and pointless stories' told by 'the Greeks'/ but these stories continue to occur. There was, however, a limit beyond which good taste could not permit this flippant:y to go. Dionysius Scytobrachion, in Alexandrian times, pretended to derive his satirical stories about Uranus, Cybele, and other divine characters from early poets and logographers, and Diodorus was simple enough to believe that his quotations were genuine. 2 The stories which he tells are entirely out of harmony with the epic traditions because they poke fun at rationalism as well as at mythological tradition. There is no trace of such satirical treatment in Ionian times. Rationalism had its vogue, as many of the fragments of the logographers show clearly enough; and side by side with rationalism went the traditional taste for the flippant stories about the gods. Satirical treatment is a later development, and one of the consequences of its development is to bring the traditional tales into disrepute. Socrates was before his time in objecting to these traditional tales; to him they seemed I

Hdt. ii. 45; Hec. F.

I.

2

See Chap. III.

INTRO DUCTO RY: THE LOGOG RAPHE RS

satirica l; but genera l public opinio n had not yet advanc ed to this stage, as the treatm ent of the gods in the earlier plays of Aristop hanes testifies clearly . Socrat es objecte d to the flippan t tales in Home r not only becaus e they were false; his compl aint was M.II Tt, fL~ KaAW, ifieJ8'Y}Tat;I he was not objecti ng merely on rationa listic ground s. There is no reason to think that his view is represe ntative of fifth-ce ntury Ionia. If Ionia in the fifth centur y was, in religious and philoso phic though t, more advanc ed than Athens , its differe nce reveale d itself in a tenden cy to rationa lism. It was this rationa listic attitud e toward s gods and myths that offend ed Athen ian public opinio n and attract ed Euripid es. We find traces of it in the fragme nts of the logogr aphers , but such traces are more rare in Herodo tus, who has more conser vative tastes and has been educat ed in the epic traditio n. But in Athens genera l public opinio n still accept ed stories about the gods withou t seriously consid ering their religious implic ation. Before approa ching the actual fragme nts it is necess ary to point out some of the charac teristic habits of ancien t author s in borrow ing or quotin g from the works of their predecessors. In moder n times a writer acknow ledges his debt to earlier author s, partly from a sense of obligat ion, partly because, even if he tries to concea l it, his readers , with easy access to earlier books on the same subject , will probab ly find it out. In the ancien t world no such custom prevai led. No inform ation is availab le about the custom s safegu arding Homer ic bards from imitato rs, but the early histori ans seem to have had no compu nction about borrow ing from works alread y publish ed withou t acknow ledgem ent. It is, of course , only fair to point out that they had reasons and motives for it which now no longer exist. There was, for one thing, compa rativel y little risk of detecti on; and even if a few malicio us readers (includ ing the ill-used author and his friends) should find out the theft, they had no newspa pers or periodi cals to which they could write indign ant letters. Besides, it could hardly be expect ed of a writer that he adverti se to his reader s the talents of a compe titor of whom perhap s they have never heard and are never likely to hear /fRep.

ii. 377D •

INTRO DUCTO RY: THE LOGOG RAPHE RS

23

unless he tells them. We have no inform ation about the facility with which copies of books passed from one city to anothe r in fifth-ce ntury Ionia, but it would certain ly be absurd to compa re it with the easy interch ange of books in moder n times. Accord ingly one author m:;ght be ready to name anothe r purely for the sake of criticiz ing him severely, as Thucy dides mentio ns Hellan icus only to describ e his work as brief and inaccu rate (i. 97), and Herodo tus never refers to 'the lonian s' or TWII 'E)vI'I}lIwlI TtIlE, except to quarre l with their opinion s. But when an author wanted to adopt some story or argum ent from a predec essor he would do so withou t acknow ledgem ent, perhap s makin g a few slight alterat ions for the sake of appear ances in case the theft should be discov ered. This habit of unscru pulous borrow ing from predecessors was, as may be imagin ed, preval ent especially among early writers of history . But despite the opport unity which Alexan drian author s had for compa ring differe nt histori cal works and enterin g upon the endless study of sources which the Germa ns call Quellenkunde, actual charge s of plagiar ism agains t the early Greek histori ans are not found until later times. At the time when they are made, howev er, the truth of these charge s is genera lly taken for grante d. 'Why should I tell you', writes Porphy ry I in the third century after Christ, 'that the Barbarica Nomima of Hellani cus is compil ed from the works of Herodo tus and Damas tes? or how Herodo tus in his second book took many passage s word for word from the Periegesis of Hecata eus the Milesia n with a few alterat ions-as , for exampl e, the descrip tions of the phoeni x and the hippop otamus and the crocod ile-hun ting? or how the remark s about the torture of slaves in the speech of Isaeus About the Estate rif Cyton are almost in the same words to be found in the Trapeziticus of Isocrate s and the speech of Demos thenes against One tor in an action of ejectment?'

Porphy ry goes on to give other examp les. The tenth book of Eusebi us' Evangelical Preparation is largely devote d to decryi ng the dishon esty of the Greeks in the matter ofliter ary thievin g, since he, like Cleme nt of Alexan dria from whom he quotes I

Eusebius, Praep. Evangel. x. 3, r6.

24

INTRODUCTORY: THE LOGOGRAPHERS

at some length, is anxious to show that many ideas of the Greeks were of Jewish origin. His charges are often farfetched, and those against later authors do not concern us here; but it is noteworthy that he mentions a letter of Pollio, About the Thievery of Ctesias, and a l3LflAwv of the same author, IlEpl, TfjS" 'HPOOOTOV KAo7TijS".I

The critic, therefore, should be prepared to discover that the impression of independent research which is given by the language and manner of Herodotus is to some extent false. He should also be ready to admit that such false pretensions on the part of the historian do not deserve such severe criticism as they would earn if they were made by a later author. Earlier critics of Herodotus seemed to regard it as their duty to defend him against charges of plagiarism. This is a mistaken attitude. In attempting to conceal his obligations the historian was conforming to the customs of his day, and he can scarcely be blamed for doing so. On the other hand, he would deserve censure if he had completely ignored the work of his predecessors and refused to profit by their experience. Hence, use of the words 'plagiarism' and 'compilation' is not justified in the case of Herodotus. He seems more frequently to disagree than to agree with the opinions of earlier writers, and even if he does sometimes agree with them this is not in itself a ground for criticism. Very little can be learned about Herodotus by the reader who approaches his history in the same spirit as that in which he would approach a modern historical work. Equally profitless for the student of literary history is the method of approach which consists in judging him according to the standards set by Thucydides. The student of history may regret that his ideals are not the ideals of Thucydides. But the student of historiography, as opposed to the student of history, cannot remain contented with this verdict. IX.

3, 23.

CHAPTER II

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

I.

INTRODUCTION

is a more life-like figure and a more outH ECATAEUS standing historical character than many an author whose works have survived in full, because of the mention that he receives in the pages of Herodotus. Herodotus relates how, when Aristagoras was discussing with his supporters plans for the Ionian revolt, Hecataeus showed considerable independence in the advice which he gave: 'Everyone else was unanimous, urging that there should be a rebeiIion, but Hecataeus the AOY077OL6, in the first place advised against starting a war with the Persian king, enumerating all the tribes under the rule of Darius and showing how great that king's power was; but when he could not persuade them to agree with him, he recommended that if they did revolt they should gain control of the sea; otherwise (he said) he did not see how success was possible (for he knew the weakness of the power of Miletus), but if they took the treasures in the temple at Branchidae, which had been given as donations by Croesus the Lydian, it seemed to him very likely that they could become masters of the sea; then they would be able to profit by this wealth and would prevent their enemies from laying their hands on it."

Thus we learn that about the year 500 B.C. Hecataeus was a man of some importance in Miletus, influential enough to gain a hearing if not to carry his point in the conference. Five years later, when failure of the revolt seemed almost inevitable, Aristagoras is described by Herodotus as holding another conference of his supporters: 'He told them it would be better if they could have some place of refuge, in case they should be driven out of Miletus; he might lead them in founding a colony in Sardinia or at Myrcinus in the country of the Edonians, the place which Histiaeus had receive~ as a gift from Darius and fortified with walls. Thus Aristagoras asked their advice. The opinion of Hecataeus, son ofHegesander, the author (avopo, AOY07TOWiJ), was in favour of neither of these I

4515

v.36• E

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

alternatives; his suggestion was that he build a fortress on the island of Leros and retire there if he should be driven out of Miletus; using this place as a base it would be possible for him to make good his return to Miletus. This was the advice of Hecatacus, but general opinion supported Aristagoras' own suggestion of leading a colony to Myrcinus.,J

either already written or in process of being written. The fragments themselves, as the subsequent pages will show, fit in very well with such an hypothesis. Everything goes to show that this work was written some time in the last decade of the sixth century. Other details about his life are totally lacking. Agathemerus calls him a 'much-travelled man' (d.v~p 7ToAV7TAav~s), J but except for his visit to Egypt the extent of his travels is not at all adequately revealed by the fragments of his work. He cannot have been a pupil of Protagoras, as the Suidas text has it; probably Suidas is guilty of some confusion, though there may be a textual corruption involved. Diodorus, in a passage probably taken from Ephorus, relates how Hecataeus was sent as an emissary by the Ionians to Artaphernes to ask why he distrusted the Ionians; and when Artaphernes said he was afraid they would bear a grudge for the sufferings they endured after their defeat, he replied: 'Then if their suffering makes them suspect, fair treatment will make the cities loyal to the Persians.'2 Such an anecdote has not such good authority as those of Herodotus, but there is no valid reason for denying its truth altogether. Hecataeus is credited with two works, a mythographical work variously referred to as rEVEYJAoy{at, 'Hpwo>..oy{a, and 'Iurop{at, and a geographical nEpt~YYJUtS or nEp{OOOS rfjs. Thus, except for Dionysius of Miletus, whose very existence is a matter of doubt and about whose works we have no certain information, he is the first prose-writer in the field both of mythology and geography. In both these works he was working in accordance with the traditions of Ionian turop{YJ, anxious to correct current misconceptions and ready to propose a new theory of his own when dissatisfied with the existing view. There is no evidence that his turop{YJ was, even in the Herodotean sense of the word, historical inquiry. Indeed, later critics, Strabo in particular, are somewhat disgusted with his unscientific attitude towards both history and geography,3 an attitude which he shared not only with his

:16

So once again Hecataeus is overruled; Aristagoras goes to Thrace, where he is killed by hostile Thracians. Herodotus, moreover, besides indicating that Hecataeus had a prominent part in Milesian politics, tells us also that he belonged to an old Milesian family, because on a visit to Thebes in Egypt he described his ancestry to the priests and claimed to be only sixteen generations removed from a divine forefather: 2 what particular god or goddess Herodotus does not reveal. As a member of an old Ionian family it is only fitting that Aristagoras should have consulted him. An aristocratic pride seems to reveal itself in the opening sentence of his work entitled Genealogies: 'The following is the account of Hecataeus the Milesian; for the Greeks, in my opinion, tell a great many foolish stories.'3 It was on this mention of his activities by Herodotus, no doubt, that Suidas, or his source of information, relied in trying to fix his date. Suidas gives the 65th Olympiad (52o-5r6 B.C.) as the date of hisfloruit,4 twenty years previous to his activity during the Ionian revolt. Presumably he argued that at this time he was a person of ripe experience, sixty years old or more. The remark of Herodotus that he enumerated the tribes subject to Darius suggests, indeed, that his geographical work, the nEpt~YYJUtS, was v. 12 4---{). ii. 143. Heidel, however (Mem. qf Amer. Acad. qf Arts and Sciences, xviii. 2, pp. 93-5), thinks that in telling this story Hecataeus was perpetrating an elaborate hoax on his readers and that he was much too intelligent to believe in divine ancestry. It is true that sixteen generations back is somewhat late for a divine ancestor. Cf. Ed. Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, i, pp. I

2

172-3· 3

F.

I.

4 S.V,'

jL£Ta

In Jacoby's F. Gr. Hist. F. stands for Fragmentum, T. for Testimonium.

'El(aTaLO~ 'HY7Jaav8pov MLA~aLos' y£yov£ 'Kara TOUS

KaJL{3vUTJv {3arnAEuaaVTos,

OTe Kat

L1"ovvatos

7]V .)

.dapElov Xpovous TOV MtA-"JGLOS, E'TTL TfjS ~E' oAvp.-

1TL&'OOS' icrropl.oypafjJos. 'HpOOOTOS BE <> 'AALKapvaauevs wr/>€ATJTat TOv-rOV, VEWTEPOS
avyyparPrw

t5. €P€KVt5T/S (T.

I).

I

2

3

Geographiae Informatio, i. I-Hec. T. 12a. x. 25, 4-T. 7. Cf. Jacoby's note in F. Gr. Hist. cr. T. 10, 13-Strabo viii. 3, 9, vii. 3,6; T. g-Aelian, Hist. Animal. ix. 23.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

contemporaries but with a number of his successors. He was interested, like many other Ionian writers, in finding the historical foundation of Homeric and other legends and in the genealogy of families which, like his own, claimed divine ancestry. The fragments do not show that he rationalized legends and miracles to the same extent as some of his successors. No doubt he added a number of original incidents to familiar stories and offered explanations of his own; but, to judge by the fragments, his reputation in this particular field cannot compare with that of Hellanicus. It is as a pioneer in geographical inquiry that he was most famous. His name is coupled with that of Anaximander, who was the first to draw and publish a map of the OlKOVp.,EVYj.I Possibly the 7TLvag which, according to Herodotus,2 Aristagoras showed to King Cleomenes at Sparta, when trying to gain his support in the Ionian revolt, was the map of his countryman Hecataeus; this was a map on which yfjs a7TaaT)S 7TEpEooos had been cut in bronze. It is unfortunate that the evidence does not enable us to determine how much he added to the map of Anaximander or his increase in geographical knowledge over his predecessor. Herodotus is full ofscorn for any maps of the world he has seen: 'It makes me laugh', he writes, 'to see how many people have produced yfjS' 7T€PLOOOt and no one has completed the task intelligently; they all represent Ocean flowing round the earth, and the earth itself perfectly round as though finished on a lathe; and they make Asia exactly equal in size to Europe.'3 Herodotus makes no distinction between the purely theoretical

belief in a circumambient ocean and the belief that the earth is round which was due to astronomical observation. There is no way of telling how much real scientific knowledge Hecataeus had; but his belief in Ocean is certainly established, not only by the repeat.ed scorn which Herodotus poured on this belief, but by particular fragments which will be discussed in their proper context. Other characteristics of his map and of his general geographical system will be discussed in the course of the chapter. I Ancient critics are, in general, severe on the subject of his accuracy. But he seems to have been a learned man after the style of his age, possessed of a large and miscellaneous assortment of information: the sort of information which, as Heraclitus remarks in a famous fragment, does not necessarily make its possessor a scholar: 7ToAvp.,aBLYj voov EX€LV OU

I I >vvl IlE OTI /-IE> ·O/-lTJPo, Tfj, yEwypacpla, ~pgEV. cpavfpoL OE Kat ot €1TaKOAoUeljuavTf~ aUTcp avSp€~ dgtOAOYOL Kat ¢nAoao¢>tas, £Lv TOUS 7TPWTOVS p.£8' "Of1.7]pOV Svo CP'Y)OLV 'EpaTOa8€v1]S 'Avaft-

I T. IIb-Strabo i. I, apKfL'Tw OLKE'iOl.

'Tn AEx8lvTa.

p.avopov TE, 6>aAov YEYOVOTU YVWptf-LOV Kat 7TO)..{TTjV, Kat fEKUTatOV TOY MtAljatOv· TOV plv oov EKOOVVai. 7TPWTOV '}'EwypacpLKov 7TlvaKU, TOY BE 'EKaTaiov KaTaAt7TEiv ypa/Lf1. Q , 1TLCTTOlJ/LEVOV £KEtVQV ETva£. €K TijS ru7JS' am-ou 'Ypa¢>fjs.

T. 12a-Agathemerus, Ceog. Inform. i. I •Avagl/-lavllpo, ,; MIA~UIO" aKovUT~, '1TPWTO~ ETOAfL1JU€ T~V OlKOVf.1.'€VTJv EV 7T{vaKL ypaifJat. JLEO' OY fEKaTa'io~ 0 MJ.~UIO" avTJp 7ToAV7TAav»" SI'fJKplf3wUEV WUTE Bav/-IauBfj>al TO 1TpaY/-la' 'E>J.avIKo, 'Yap 0 AEUPLOS', avr,p 1TOAVtU'TWP, a1TAaU'TwS' 7Tap€8wKE T~V laToplav. T. 12b-Schol. Dion. Perieg., p. 428, 7 (ed. Muller) TlvE, 1Tp6TEPOV £V 7TlvaKI B&A€W,

29

OtoaaK€L' 'HaEoSov "Pap Q.v €OLoagE Kat IIvBayopYjv aOTLS TE 8EvocpaV€a TE Kat 'EKaTatOv. 2 When general criticism is directed against mythographers and AOY07TOWL for their un-

trustworthiness and failure to distinguish fact from fiction, his name is generally among those singled out for mention. On the other hand, the verdicts on his literary style are all favourable. Dionysius ofHalicarnassus 3 grants to the Ionian logographers in general 'a certain grace and charm, thanks to which their works have survived', whilst admitting that Herodotus surpasses them all. Hermogenes is more specific: 4 .J. ' , , , . Ka B' H eca t aeus IS apos Kat, aa'l'YjS, €V OE Ttat Kat YjOVS ov p.,ETp£WS· he uses the pure Ionic dialect, not the 7TO£KLAYj 'las of Herodotus, which renders his lalJ.guage less poetic; and, since he is not so careful or polished as Herodotus, he is not such a pleasing author to read. Demetrius 5 points out how he used abrupt short sentences, as, indeed, did all early prose-writers, and the author of On the Sublime6 quotes one passage to show how he introduced direct speech of his characters with a dramatic abruptness comparable to that of Homer. The fragments are not of such a kind as to enable us to test these ~,

I

T~V OLKOVJ.L£V7JV €ypa~av; 1TPWTOS ' Ava,tjLavSpos, OftJT£pOS MI.A~aLoS' 'EKara'ios, -rplroS'

2

.1'fJ/-I6KPITO' eaAov /-IaB'fJT~', TtrapTo, Eii8ogo,. Cf. Heidel, Proc. qf Amer. Acad. qf Arts and Sciences, Ivi (1921), pp. 239-88. 2 V.49. 3 iV.36.

4

S

,~"

See the index for special topics. T. 21-Heraclitus 12B 40 (Diels 3 ). 3 De Thuc. 5-T. 17a . fl£pi lll£wv, ii. 12, p. 4II, 12 (Rabe)-,-T. 18. De doc. 12-T. 19. 6 27, I-T. 20.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

judgements of the ancient critics thoroughly. But the few direct quotations certainly indicate an abrupt and str.a~g~t­ forward style with few subordinate clauses or long partiCIpial phrases. . . There seems very little doubt that as a pIOneer In prose style he had great influence on his successors, but with the rise of oratory he is entirely forgotten. With the great advances of prose writing in the fifth century, writers who attempted to preserve the old abrupt style could claim little attention; so it is not surprising that the same Hermogenes who praises the style of Hecataeus points out how that of Hellanicus attracted no attention at all and had no influence on anyone. 1 Hecataeus lived at a time when he could claim to be a pioneer not only in style but in choice of literary forms. No prose Periegesis, no prose mythological work is known to have existed before his time, but he has many imitators in these forms, some of whom look to him as the founder of the Periegesis or (as it was more commonly called in later times) the IIr::p{rrAov,. As a literary form the Periegesis is extremely simple: merely a description of different cities and peoples taken in order as they would be passed by. so~e one sailing in a ship along the coast. Such a descnptIOn would include brief mention of curious customs and ()UVj1-UTU and often a remark about the origin of some settlement or the part it played in ancient Jegend. Later writers in this form differed from Hecataeus in confining themselves almost entirely to the coast. Hecataeus covered much territory at some distance from the sea, and it is not always easy to see what system he followed in arranging his material about such regions. In dealing with the sea-coast of the Mediterranean later writers began with the Pillars of Heracles and worked eastwards along the European coast, returning westwards along the African shore. 2 There are numerous indications that Hecataeus followed this same method;3 his arrangement of

material about regions farther east will be discussed in its proper place. Jacoby has put the fragments in order beginning with Spain and ending with Libya, and it seems best to divide discussion of them according to geographical regions. The work was divided into two books, EvpumY) and 'Au/Y), the latter including Egypt, Ethiopia, and Libya; Hecataeus belonged to the school of thought which believed in two, not three, continents. But these and other details must await discussion later in the chapter. The influence ofHecataeus on Herodotus is a subject which cannot be discussed until after a careful examination of the fragments. For the present it is necessary to point out that, except for the mention by Heraclitus and Eratosthenes, no authors quote from him previous to the Christian era. Some of them passed criticisms on him and noted the existence of his works,1 but most of the quotations come from late lexicographers, the scholiasts, and Athenaeus. This somewhat surprising state of affairs gave rise to a theory that the work of Hecataeus was, in fact, lost at an early date, previously to the establishment of the library at Alexandria, and that no genuine copy existed in that library. The foundation for this view is a passage in Athenaeus, in which, before quoting from Hecataeus' Asia, the author adds in parenthesis, 'if this book is the genuine work of Hecataeus; for Callimachus ascribes it to Nesiotes.'2 Similar doubt about this book's authenticity is re-echoed in a later passage of Athenaeus 3 where he speaks of 'Hecataeus or whoever it was that wrote the Periegesis description under the title of Asia'; and in a passage of Arrian,4 who, before quoting Hecataeus, remarks 'or if the work dealing with Egypt is by some other author than Hecataeus'. It is the first of these passages which is the important one, since evidently the doubt concerning the

Iii. 12, p. 412, I-Hellanicus (F. Gr. Hist.), T. IS. . .. e.g. Ephorus, Books IV-V (see Jacoby's note on F. 3O-S3, F. Gr. HlSt. 11), Scylax Pseudo-Scymnus, Avienus. 3 C;osstephan, Beitriige ;cur Periegese des Hekataios, disputes this point. 2

I Strabo goes back to earlier authorities. It is not possible to tell how frequently writers like Ephorus and Theopompus referred to him. 2 ii. 70A-T. 15a 'EKuTaLos 8' <> ML"~atOs EV 'Aalas IIEpt.1]y~a€t, £1 yv~aLOv TOU avyypacplws 'TO P,PAtov-Ka).Atp.axos yap N1)atw7'oV au'To avaypacpEL. Cf. Callimachus' verdict on Euripides' Andromache, Scho!. Eur. Androm. 44S' 3 ix. 4IOE-T. Isb WS KaL 'EKamios 157]>'oi ~ .; y£ypacpws 'Tas 1T'0Y01TOW{, ~ d 15~ 'TOV a>.>.ov ~ 'EKa'TatOV EaTL 'Ta UP.",L 'Tn Yii 7'n Alyv1T7'{q. 1To,~p.a7'a.

32

HECAT AEUS OF MILETU S

authen ticity of the Asia goes back to an entry in the library catalog ue of Callim achus. In contra st to Eratos thenes , who held the same post as librari an at Alexan dria and appare ntly never questio ned the authen ticity of the library copy, I CaIlimachu s doubte d the genuin eness of what purpor ted to be the second volum e of Hecata eus' Periegesis. The genera l subjec t of forgeries in the Alexan drian library was discussed briefly in the preced ing chapte r. The appare nt neglec t into which the work of Hecata eus had fallen in the fourth and third centuri es render s it intellig ible that there should be some uncert ainty on the part of a librari an. Cobet is genera lly credite d with having reintro duced the subjec t into moder n scholarship.2 His argum ents, apart from the intrins ic probab ility of a forgery being in existence, rest on the interpr etation of certain fragme nts which resemb le very closely passages in Herodo tus. Because of this resemb lance, he argued that the forger concoc ted the Periegesis out of Herodo tus in order to make it appear that Herod otus was in certain passages following Hecata eus. There is a passag e about the Thraci an Chersonese and anothe r about distanc es in the Helles pont which recall very closely passages in Herodotus ix. 18 and iv. 86 which are appare ntly attribu ted to Hecata eus by Stepha nus of Byzan tium and Herod ian; but both entries have been emend ed, probab ly correct ly, by Jacoby . 3 Wells, the chief expone nt of the forgery theory in more recent years, has tried to strengt hen the positio n by arguin g that some of the fragme nts about Italy do not fit in with conditi ons in the sixthce ntury.4 Individ ual argum ents Strabo i. I, II-T. lIb (quoted in p. 28, n. I, above). Mnemosyne, xi, p. 3; xii, p. 81. 3 Jacoby's text runs as follows: F. 163-Ste ph. Byz. S.v. X.PPOVTJuos' "oA., EV Tfj KaTa KvlSov X.pp0vTju,!, • •. EUTI fl' 17'oAIS £v Tfj eWKTI X.PPOVTJU OS, 17'.pt 1}s 'EKaTa'ios €vEvpdJ1Trr " €V 8' aUroraL 7TOALS' X£ppOVT}UOS €v rep laOJLip TfjS x€ppovTjaov. n I

2

/(a~ 'TOV 7TOAlTT}v

Xfppov~aLf!JV CPTJUL' '" AYII,v(J{oujl, 1TPOS /LEUTJf-LfJplav 0POVPEOV(: TL

(X'PPOvTjUIOI." 'HpoSoTOS (ix. 1I8) 1TVPYWV

My...

S'

X'PPOVTJuIT7Js)' "X,ppoVTJuiTaI am) TWV

€C17Jf1:r]VaVTO TOtal,' A8T)valoLaL TO yeyovOSo" TOVTOVS Kal. • ** XePPoVTJulovs

F. I 96-Epim er. Hom., Cramer, Anecdota Gr. Ox. i, p. 287, 28; Herodia n (ed. Lentz) ii, p. 225, 9. p,£}l£Tpeara" TOVTO' /WVtKOV e(J"rtv. ws yap V€VOTJVTut V£VoEaTat

, Kat" 7T€pt1TOLT) VTat 7T€pL'TT'OI.€ a-ral"

'EKaTa{cp

iv.86).

** 0 }LEV oJv BauTr0pos

'" OVTWS'

Ka~

Kat."

P.€JLETpTJ VTa,

"

I J-LEJl-ETp€ aTat

"

,

....

7Tupa-rep

0 llanos OVTW Kat 0 'EMljU1TOVTOS KTA. (Hdt. 4 JHS. xxix (1909), pp. 41-52.

HECAT AEUS OF MILETU S

33

will be dealt with, where necessary, during discussion of the fragme nts. All the impor tant argum ents have alread y been answer ed, I and a length y treatm ent of the questio n is quite unnece ssary here. It is, indeed , surpris ing that Grosst ephan, writing in 1915,z could bring up old argum ents which had been so effectu ally refuted by earlier critics. The ever-re curring argum ent, that the silence of pre-Al exandr ian critics is a proof of the early disapp earanc e of Hecata eus' work, has been shown in the previo us chapte r to be of no value. It is perhap s necess ary to point out, as Jacoby does,3 that the ancien t questio n of whethe r the library copy at Alexan dria was genuin e is a separa te questio n from the genuin eness or trustwo rthines s of the fragme nts. But the verdic t of Callimachu s cannot be allowe d to pass unchal lenged , especially since it was reverse d by Eratos thenes . Worth y of quotat ion is the scornfu l rhetori c of Gutsch mid, in which he rejects the theory of Milller that there were two copies at Alexan dria, an authen tic one and a forgery : '0 malignos illos libros gemellos, quorum spurius Callimachi, cum omnem ille bibliothecam in tabulas referret, oculos feliciter ad se converteret, genuinus vero in angulo quodam latens exspectaverit dum altero illo nescio quo terrarum, ut ne vestigium quid em eius inveniri posset, facessere iusso, Eratostheni in manus incurreret! Profecto fN3>.w>.6.8u£ erant ambo, non bibliothecarii; obliviscebantur enim Muellero auctore librorum omnium manibus tritorum !'4 He is equally severe on Milller 's alterna tive sugges tion that Eratos thenes was not careful enough and read only the genuin e part of the Periegesis, omittin g the spuriou s Asia. After the essays of Gutsch mid and Diels, publish ed in 1885 and 1887, respect ively, very little remain ed to be said on the subjec t. The argum ent in favour of forgery is no longer alive, the death- blow (if a further one was necessary) having been dealt by Jacoby . One of the reasons for its existence was a desire to empha size the indepe ndence of Herodo tus, on the I A. von Gutschm id, Philologus, x (1885), pp. 522-42 (reprinte d in his Kl. Schriften, i); H. Diels, Hermes, xxii (1887), pp. 411-44; M. O. B. Caspari, JHS. xxx (1910), pp. 236-48; Jacoby, RE., s.v. Hekataios. 2 Grosstep han, op. cit. 3 F. Gr. Hist. i, p. 318. 4 Gutschm id, op. cit., p. 534; Miiller, FHG. i, pp. xiii-xiv.

4515

F

34

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

g~oun~ that ~ r~habilitation of Hecataeus implied charging ~lm wlt.h pl~glansm. To what extent such a fear was justified It remams for the following pages to show.

II.

THE PERIEGESIS

ft'estern

~urojJe

Herodotus was unwilling to believe anything that was reported about western Europe. But his contemporaries ~ere far less sceptical. The confidence of those who pubhshed m~p~ of the world with the Ocean flowing round it seemed ndiculous to him, since he was not aware of any good evidence for the existence of such an ocean to the north and west of Euro.pe. 1 All that he would admit to be proven abou~ the mystenous western regions was that the Danube had .ItS ~ource t?ere, 2 and that, although the report of the C:assltendes as Islands was unworthy of belief,3 'the most dIstant parts of the earth were richest in natural resources.'4 S~ch scepticism seems like a warning to his readers not to be ml~led by the dogmatic manner of Hecataeus, one of those wnters who '\0Y

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

It is disappointing to find no fragment about the actual city of Tartessus or Gades or the Atlantic coast of Spain; nothing farther west than 'Elibyrge, a city of Tartessus'l and 'Calathe, a city not far from the pillars ofHeracles'.2 Indeed, the existence of Tartessus as an independent city must have come to an end before the close of the sixth century.3 But its name continued to be used for territory near the pillars of Heracles,4 which was presumably at one time subject to the kings of Tartessus; and the story of the offer made by King Arganthonius to the Phocaeans to 'settle anywhere they liked in his country'S suggests that, in the opinion of the Greeks at least, this territory had been considerable. Accordingly Hecataeus described Elibyrge as a 'city of Tartessus'; it has been identified with various cities on the Baetis, the former Tartessus River. 6 Stephanus has a note on "IfJvMa, 7TO'\tS' TapT'y)aataS', which may, perhaps, be taken from Hecataeus, and this city may be Hispalis or its neighbour Ilipa;7 but there is no certainty. I t is certainly surprising to find no reference in any of the fragments to the Carthaginians. But since none of the fragments about Ionia, Lydia, or Caria contains any allusion to the Persians (though Hecataeus wrote at a time when these regions were under Persian domination), we cannot deduce from his silence about the Carthaginians that he wrote before they had gained a firm footing in Spain. 8 Interpretation of these fragment~, therefore, must be restricted to an attempt to identify the cities and tribes. 9 I F. 38-Steph. Byz. S.v. 'EA'/3Vpyrr waA'S TapTTJuUoV. 'EKaTaios EupcfJ7TT/' TO £8V'KOV 'EA,/3vpyLOS. 2 F. 3g-id. s.v. KaM.8TJ· WOALS ou woppw nov 'HpaKAdwv UTTJAWV. 'EKaTaios EUpw7TTJ. "Eq,opos S£ KaM.80vuav aVT~v q,TJU'V. 3 Schulten in RE., s.v. Tartessos, and Klio, xxii (1928), pp. 284-91. There is no good reason for supposing that Hecataeus is the source of Stephanus' note s.v. Tap'TT}uaos' 7TOAtS" 'If37Jpias, a1To 1TOT'ap,OV 'TOU ct1TO 'TOU 'Apyupov opovS" plonos, OC1TLS"

Iii. 21-3; iii. lIS; iv. 8, 36 . • 11·33; IV. 49· 3 ••• 6 ' S' • , lll. lIS· 10 . a, £~xaTLa, KWS TijS OlK£OP.'>"UTa .Aaxov. This remark IS made with partlcular respect to the wealth of the east but he has stories about the north and west in mind. ' 5 ' 8 z ••

IV • •

7ToTap.oS" Kal.

KaaalTfpov

€V TapTTJauip KaTuc!>'pn.

Kat 'EpaTou8
4 ••• • lll.

35

Strabo iii. 2,

II

36

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

The Mastic ni, otherw ise known as the Massie ni, are

coupled with the Elbestii;1 these latter seem to be the Elbysinii of Herodo rus and the Olbysi i of Stepha nus. z For the positio n of these people on the map we must look to Avienu s: Hic Chrysu s amnis intrat altum gurgite m. ultra citraqu e quattuo r gentes colunt. nam sunt feroces hoc Libyph oenices loco, sunt Massie ni, regna Selbyss ina sunt feracis agri et divites Tartess ii, qui porrigu ntur in Calacti cum sinum. 3

The Elbesti i or Selbyssini, then, are on the west of the Chrysu s (the moder n Guadia ra, the Roman Barbes ula), the Mastie ni to the east of it, with their three cities Molyb dine, Maeno bora, and Sixos; the latter two are still known to Pliny as Maenu ba and Sexi.4 Hecata eus is credite d with having mentio ned three Iberian cities, two Iberian tribes, two islands off Iberia, and the Iberian Ilaraug ates with a river of the same name (F. 45-9). Avienu s gives the name Iberi to inhabi tants north of the Sucro as far as the Oranus ;s and Sicana and Crabas is, two of the Iberian cities of Hecata eus, are eviden tly on the north bank of the Sucro.6 The other places and tribes are not identif iable with any certain ty. In genera l, the names of Spanis h towns attribu ted to Hecataeus are not incons istent with a period later than the destructi on of Tartess us but before the abando nment of the Phocae an cities in the south-e ast: some time in the last quarte r of the sixth century . Furthe r examin ation of the fragme nts will confirm the probab ility of such a date of compo sition. There are six fragme nts relatin g to the Celts and Liguri ans which have arouse d consid erable discussion. I have tried Hispaniae Antiquae, i; Rhys Carpenter, The Greeks in Spain; the articles in RE., s.v. Tartessos, Edetani, Elbestii, Massieni, Mainake, Sexi, Molybdine, Sikaner; and W. Aly, Hermes, Ixii (1927), pp. 307-12. F. 40 ... 'EKaTaio~ EvpwTrTJ ' 'E)". Kat M.' These words are certainly preceded by a lacuna in the text of Stephanus. 2 Herodorus, F. 2a (F. Gr. Hist. i. 31); Steph. Byz. s. v. 'O)..{J,JUWL. 3 419-24. • N.H. iii. 7. cr. Mela ii. 94. 5 611-14. 6 F. 45, 46; Avienus 479, 489. I

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS 37 elsewh ere to explain the error of Herodo tus, who puts the source of the Danub e at Pyrene in Celtic territo ry in the extrem e west of Europe , by recons tructin g the map of Hecataeus. 1 If the Celts were in Spain in his time, Hecata eus can scarcel y have known about them, since it is most unlikel y that he has any knowle dge of the interio r or the Atlant ic coast. Most author ities are agreed that they had not yet crossed the Alps, but presum ably they occupi ed the northe rn and wester n fringes of the Alpine countr y: near the actual source of the Danub e on the one hand, and betwee n the Alps and Pyrene es on the other. The fragme nts fit in very well with such a situati on: N arbo as an EJL7TOPWV Ka~ 7TO'\LS' KE'\TLK~ (F. 54),z and Massal ia as a 7TO'\L, Tfj, ALyvaTLKfj, Ka~a T~V KE'\TLK~V (F. 55), i.e. to the east and south of CeltIC territor y. If Nvpag, the 7TO'\L, KE'\TLK~ (F. 56), could be identif ied, greate r accura cy might be attaine d, but even as things are the situati on is clear enou gh.. . Our most valuab le eviden ce for the tern tory occupI ed by the Celts during the sixth centur y is to be found in the old Periplu s, preserv ed in the Ora Maritima of Avienu s; but they and their countr y were known to its author only throug h the mediu m of Tartes sian traders who made their way there by sea' with the fall of Tartess us and the closing of the Straits of Gibral tar to Phocae an ships,3 Greek contac t could be made only by the overla nd route from Narbo nne to Bordeaux. Such a situati on in the last quarte r of the sixth centur y corresp onds perfect ly with the descrip tion of Nar~o as a Celtic city and Massal ia as a Liguri an city next to CeltIc territor y. Compa rable to these fragme nts are the lines of Scymn us: his knowle dge of the interio r and west c?ast of Spain is so vague that he describ es the Tartess us nver as 'bringi ng down tin from the Celtic countr y', and says that beyond Tartess us is 'the Celtic countr y extend ing as far as xxix (1934), pp. 328-37· It has been doubted (e.g. by Atenstaedt, loc. cit., p. 156) whether this description is taken from Hecataeus. But for its appropriateness see next paragraph. . 3 The two certain dates are (I) 537-35, Phocaean naval defeat AlalIa by Carthaginians and Etruscans; (2) 509, first treaty of Rome withnear Carthage, forbidding navigation through the Straits of GibraItar. I

2

Class. Phil.

HECATAEUS OF MILET US

HECAT AEUS OF MILET US

the sea facing Sardin ia'. I Herod otus calls the Celts the most wester ly people in Europe next to the Cynete s, and it is most likely that Hecata eus describ ed them in the same way. But if, as seems probab le, he knew nothin g about their extension into Spain, such a descrip tion is unders tandab le only if he though t N arbo to be west of Gibral tar, and represented the east coast of Spain as runnin g from north-w est to south-e ast. 2 Older traditio n, which had grown up in the days of commu nicatio n with Tartess us, had doubtle ss established the Celts as the greates t nation in the West, and Hecata eus, with less inform ation than had been availab le in earlier times, could not disrega rd such traditio n.

references to Nola, Capua , and Capri have occasio ned considerab le discussion, and have indeed been used as eviden ce by those who believe in a forgery of the Periegesis. That Hecata eus should have describ ed Nola as a 1T6Ats Ava6vw v (F. 61), althou gh it was probab ly under Etrusc an domin ation (the Samni tes had not yet entered Campa nia),! is unders tandab le enough , consid ering his prefere nce for giving the geogra phical or ethnog raphic al rather than the politic al affiliation of a city. 2 But no such explan ation is possible for the other two lemma ta: KamJa' 1T6AtS 'ITaAtas. 'EKaTatOS EUpw1TT/. am) Ka:TTVOS TOU TpwtKOU (F. 62) and Ka-

Italy and Sicily Hecata eus' descrip tion of Narbo and Massal ia as 'Celtic ' and 'Liguri an' cities respect ively is a very clear indica tion that he was accusto med to describ e a city with referen ce to the name of its native inhabi tants as well as to those who held the politic al power there. This custom of his can be seen in his descrip tions of the Greek cities in Spain, and more clearly still in his descrip tion of the Greek colonies on the Liguri an coast and in Magna Graeci a. Hence M6votKOS is 1T6AtS AtyvaTtK~ (F. 57), not m5"ts MaaaaAtWTEwV, and the unkno wn 'Liguri an city' of Ampel us (F. 58) is probab lyanother Massal iot colony. Aethal e, or Elba, on the other hand, is an 'island of the Etrusc ans' (F. 59) both from a politic al and from a geogra phical point of view. Stepha nus does not preserv e any referen ce to any city of Etruria or to any Sardin ian or Corsic an settlem ents, except the unintel ligible note KJpvos' vfjaos 1Tp6a{3oppos 'Ia1TVYLas,3 where critics suspec t either a corrup tion of the text, a lacuna , or a referen ce (misun derstoo d perhap s by Stepha nus' epitom ator) to some small island in the southe rn Adriat ic. The fragme nts referri ng to Italian cities form a more represe ntative collection. All except three out of the twenty two lemma ta refer to sites in the extrem e south of the peninsula, and this is indeed what one might expect . But the I

3

162-8. 2 See sketch-m ap, Class. Phil. xxix, p. 333. F.60. See Jacoby's commen t.

39

1TPt~VYJ' vfjaos '!TaMas. 'EKaTatOS EUpw1TT/. MyovTat Ka~ Ka1Tptat

(F. 63). Antioc hus of Syracu se, a contem porary of Herod otus, is the first author known to have defined the extent of the countr y known as Italia; the testimo ny of Strabo is perfect ly clear, and there is no need for contro versy such as was carried on by Italian scholar s in the last quarte r of the ninete enth century :3 The country on the coast south ofLuca nia as far as the Sicilian strait is occupied by the Brettii; the distance along the coast (i.e. the west coast) being 1,350 stades. Antiochus in his book IIEp' 7fjS' 'lTo.>.taS' says that this country was known under the name of Italy and is the subject of his book, and that formerly it was called Oenotria. As boundaries he gives on the Tyrrhe nian Sea the same bounda ry that I gave for Bruttium, the River Laus, and on the Sicilian Sea, Metapontum. The territory of Tarent um, which borders on Metapontum, is not included as part of Italy; he calls its inhabitants Iapyges. At an earlier time, he says, the only people called Oenotrians and Italians were those between the Sicilian strait and the isthmus, 160 stades across, formed by the two bays, the Sinus Hipponiates (Golfo di S. Eufemia), which Antiochus calls the K6A7TOS' Na7TTJT'ivos, and the Sinus Scylleticus (Golfo di Squillace) ..• The distance by sea around E. Ciaceri, Storia della Magna Crecia, i, p. 39. Cf. B. Schulze, De Hecataei Milesii fragmentis quae ad Italiam meridiona lem spectant, pp. 7g-81, who dismisses the clumsy explanat ions of earlier critics with the simple solution: 'Hecatae us non indicari vult, quinam urbem possidea nt, sed quinam habitent ; non politicas rationes sequitur , sed mere ethnogra phicas.' 3 For a summar y of this controve rsy see G. Tropea, Ilrwme ltalia, Riv. di Storia Antica, I. iv (1895), pp. 12(}-49. Cf. also Ciaceri, op. cit., i, pp. 45-6. 4 This is the disputed portion of the passage: fTL /l' avwT£poV OlVWTPOV, T£ t'Lt'LP.JvOV, I

2

40

HECAT AEUS OF MILETU S

this country between the isthmus and the strait is 2,000 ·stades. At a later date, he says, the name of Italy and of the Oenotrians extended as far as the territory of Metapontum and Siris, because these regions were settled by a peaceful Oenotr ian tribe, the Chones, who called their country Chone." This accoun t is clear enough , and the accoun t given by Dionysius of Halica rnassu s must be interpr eted in the light ofit. 2 At what epoch the name of Italy was extend ed to the whole of Bruttiu m it is not necess ary to discuss here. Two things are certain : (I) of the four other cities which Stepha nus calls 'cities of Italy' on the author ity of Hecata eus, the three which can be certain ly identif ied are south of the isthmu s formed by the Golfo di S. Eufem ia and the Golfo di Squilla ce: Medm a, Locri and Caulon ia (F. 81, 83, 84); (2) the name of Italy cannot in Hecata eus' time have extended as far as Campa nia. Hence the descrip tion of Capua and Capri respect ively as 'a city' and 'an island' of Italy is inappr opriate to him. Probab ly the descrip tion is due to Stepha nus; this is certain ly the simplest explan ation. 3 The same explan ation must be accept ed for his note on 'Ia7Tvy{a· ouo 7T()AHS, fJ-{a EV r5 'lTaAtq. Kat ETEpa EV r5 'IMvptot,4 becaus e the Iapygi an penins ula is expressly put outside the boundaries of Italy by Antioc hus. One can never be certain that the geogra phical descrip tion is copied from Hecata eus, and is not due to Stepha nus or his epitom ator, unless it is patent ly a descrip tion approp riate to the time of Hecata eus and less 1TopBp.ov. EaTL

S' aUTOS

TOU T€ ~I1T7TwvLaTov,

<> lu8p.os €KaTOV KaL €g~KovTa uTaowL P.€TagU OV€tV K6A1TWV, ov ' AVTloxoS' NaTTrJT'ivov €Lp7jK€, KaL TOU EKVAA7jTLKOU.

vi. 1, 4. Cf. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, i, p. 60. A.R. i. 35 'lraJ..ia ava xpovov wvof1au01J £17' av8pos ouvaUTou DVOf1a 'lraJ..ofi. TOUTOV OE cPTJULV ' AVTloxoS' 0 EvpaKotluLoS o:yaOov Kat aocpov y€y€vTJP.£vov I

8.

2

KaL TWV 7TATJaLOXwpwv TOUS /-LEV AOYOLS aIJa1TEt8ovTa, TOUS OE f3tq. 7Tpouay6p.€IJovJ a:rraaav ixp' €avTip 7ToL~uauBaL T~V yijv OUT] EnoS' 1]v TWV KoA7TWV TOU TE Na1TTJTlvov Kat TOU IKU>'>"1JT{VOU· ~V o~ 17pWT1JV KA.1}fJijvat 'lraAiav £17< Tofi 'lra).ofi.

In i. 73, where he is giving Antiochu s' account of the coming of Sicelus from Rome, the parenthesis >Iv TOT< 'haAia ~ a170 Tapav-ros U.Xpt lIounowv ias 17apaAtOs is evidently an addition of his own, not part of his quotatio n from Antiochu s. Cf. also Jacoby's introduc tory note on F. 80-5. 3 Cf. Ciaceri, op. cit., i, pp. g, 44; Tropea, Riv. di Storia Antica, ii. 2, p. 86; Schulze, op. cit., pp. 20-2. Nissen (op. cit. i, p. 60, n. 5) regards the F. as evidence for a late forgery, Grosstep han, Beitriige, pp. 36--7 as evidence for a 'second edition'. 4 F. 86. See below.

0.

HECAT AEUS OF MILETU S

41

approp riate to later times. Anyon e who neglects this considerat ion in criticiz ing the fragme nts is likely to make serious mistakes. Hence there is no real justific ation for assumi ng that the deriva tion of the name Capua (i1ro Ka7Tvos TOU TPWtKOU is taken from Hecata eus. This fragme nt presen ts anothe r difficulty besides. Did Capua exist under that name as early as the time of Hecataeus?1 Servius 2 mentio ns the eviden ce for its founda tion by Trojan s, Samnit es, and Etrusc ans, and Dionysius 3 lets it be unders tood that the eviden ce for a Trojan founda tion is by no means weak or late, though it is uncert ain whethe r he makes Antioc hus respon sible for this detail. Unless one is predisp osed, like Nissen,4 to believe in a forgery ofHeca taeus, one natura lly accepts this fragme nt as eviden ce for the existence of Capua under its own name in the sixth centur y, not under the Latin name of Vultur nus, which, accord ing to Servius, is a Latin transla tion of Capua . The lack of references to northe rn and central Italian cities is natura l enough , consid ering that Greek access to these regions was cut off by the Etrusc ans. s On the other hand, the remark able numbe r of references to cities in Bruttium-S tephan us mentio ns nine cities of the Oenotr ians on Hecata eus' author ity (F. 64-71) , and sixteen more withou t mentio ning his source -corre sponds with the flouris hing colonia l power of Croton and Sybari s. Sybari s was connected with Miletu s by close ties offrien dship,6 and Hecata eus would certain ly have been inform ed about its progre ss in Magna Graeci a. All nine of these Oenot rian cities are describ ed as EV fJ-woyrdq. or EV T0 fJ-woYELcp,7 and not one of them can be identif ied with certain ty. There is no trace I Livy iv. 37; Velleius i. 7. Cf. DieIs, Hermes, xxii, pp. 416--18; B. Niese, Gott. Gel. Anz. (1885), i, p. 240; Hi.ilsen, RE., s.v. Capua, iii. 1555-6; Ciaceri, op. cit. i, pp. 389-97. 2 Ad Aen. x. 145. 3 A.R. i. 73. 4 Op. cit., ii, p. 6g8. 5 Cf. M. Caspari, JHS. xxx, p. 244. 6 Hdt. vi. 21. 7 Provided one accepts this emendat ion of F. 64, which in the text of Stephanus reads' Ap{y(J1J· 170'\tS OtVWTPWV £V f1€ao17oTaf1iq.. ]. Wells, JHS. xxix, p. 5 I, took this lemma as proof offorger y and made the strange and often-qu oted commen t: 'The south of Italy is notoriou sly scant of water; but some light is perhaps thrown on the fragmen t by the fact that there is an Interamn ia in Bruttium . Perhaps "a little learning is a dangerou s thing" for a forger.'

4515

G

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

of their names in other literature, unless the KO(Juu of F. 68 is the much disputed 'Cosa in agro Thurino', where Milo is said by Caesar to have been killed;1 it may be the modern Cassano. 2 The similarity of 'Ap{v8TJ (F. 64) to the present Rende on the River Arento, and of Nwu{u (F. 7 I) to the present S. Donato di Ninea is certainly very convincing; but no such near equivalents can be found for the other names. 3 Only the development by the Sybarites of an overland route to the Tyrrhenian Sea (by which they kept in touch with the Etruscan merchants) can explain the existence of these numerous settlements; by no means all of them can have deserved to be called 'cities', but Hecataeus may have been as generous with this title as Herodotus. 4 No such elaborate inland development on the part of Croton is known to have existed, so that one may conclude from the fragments that this part of the Periegesis was written before or certainly not long after the destruction ofSybaris in 510 B.C. According to his custom Hecataeus called these settlements 'cities of the Oenotrians', though they must have been really Greek foundations. Oenotria, as Antiochus says, was the old name for this region, and Hecataeus seems to have followed the older tradition in using the word ltalia only for the country in the extreme south of the peninsula: where Locri Epizephyrii,5 for instance, was to be found, and Medma6 and Caulonia.'

Scyllaeum is mentioned only as an UKpU/ the town was not yet founded; Strabo (vi. I, 5) describes how Anaxilas, ,":,ho became tyrant of Rhegium in 493/ built a naval statIOn there to protect the straits from Etruscan pirates; but most probably in Hecataeus' time the ~lace was still a dese~te~ promontory. Crotalla3 is not mentIOned elsewhere, but It IS probably to be connected with the River Crotalus (modern AlIi), 4 on the east coast of the original ltalia. There remain 'the River Lametus and Lametini', on which the note of Stephanus is unluckily corrupt: AUJLTJTLVOt· 7TO'\t, ('!Tu'\{u,),

42

I B.C. iii. 22. Most authorities, from Nissen (ii, p. 821, n. 9) onwards, deny that such a place ever existed. 2 Lenormant, La Grande Grece, i, p. 227; Kiepert, Forma Orbis A~tiqui, xix. Dk. 3 For discussion see Schulze, op. cit., pp. 73-116. 4 Cf. Caspari, loco cit., p. 241. S F. 83 AOKPO' 'E1rt{£q,vp.o.· 1TO,\.S '!Ta).[as. 'EKaTatosEvpaJ1T'!I. 6 F. 81 M,'O/-,:rr 1T0,\., '!TaMas Ka, KP~V7J 0f'clJVvf'0s. 'EKaTaios EvpclJ1T'!I' a1TO M''Of'''1s KOP7JS nvos. 7 F. 84 Kav'\wvla' 1TO,\.S ' !TaMas ~v Av'\wvlav 'EKaTaios Ka,\£L, TO f'€G7Jv avAwvos € tvat.. 0.110 yap -rfjs AVAWVOS' VC1T£POV JLerwvoJLaaf}-q Kav.lwvta, to)' a110 MfTa{3ov ijpwoS' TO MfTa1TOVTLOV Kat. 'JE1Tl8avpoS' 'ETrlT4VPOS Kat r:tt K>t.a'oJL€val ll'\a{of'€vaL The use of the form Aulonia is puzzling. All reconis refer to the city as Caulonia (for coins see B. Head, Histaria Nummarum, ed. ~, p. 92). Cf., however, the note of Steph. Byz. S.v. Av'\wv •.• EaT. Ka, Av'\"v OV E1To,\.aav KpoTwv.aTa., ifT" WVOf"1.u87J Kav'\wvla, which Jacoby (note on ?) regards as giving the substance of what Hecataeus said. Cf. Nissen ,ii, p. SSO, n. I.

a."

, \ A uJL7JTOV ' 7TOTUJLOV~

U7TO

t 7TPO,\

43

K' t <EKUTUtO, E"VPW7T'f} . EV ' pOTWV. A

DE AaJLTJTo, 7TOTUJLO" EV DE AUJLTJTLVOt. 5 The 'river

Lamet~s

in Italy' is mentioned by the scholiasts on Lycophron6 and IS presumably the modern Lamato, running into the KO'\7TO, AUJLTJTtKO" the bOUI~dary of old ltalia, otherwise known. as KO'\7TO, NU7T7JTLVO, or <17T7TwvtaTTJ" the Golfo di S. Eufemla.' This is a long way from Croton, and the conventional emendation 7TPO, KPOTWVU or KPOTWVt is useless: possibly KPOTWV is a corruption of some case of KO'\7TO,. No site for the city can be identified (the form of the name recalls Leontini), but there is no good reason for doubting its existence on or near the river.8 It is difficult to know when to accept the word of Stephan us or his epitomator that a name was used by Hecataeus to denote a city rather than a region. The name of Iapygia is familiar as the old Greek term for the Latin Calabria, F. 82 L'Kv,uaLov' o.Kpa, wEpl ~S' 'EKa'Ta'ioS' EV Evpc1J1TT/ cP'Y]utv. Camb. Anc. Hist. iv, p. 366. 3 F. 8s KpoTaMa' 1TO,\.S ' !Ta,\las. 'E«aTaios EvpamT/. • Cf. Schulze, op. cit., pp. 54 If., for discussion of the exact site. s F.80. '!Ta,\las is inserted by Meineke. Philipp in RE., s.v. Lametus, quotes without comment the old reading of Muller, Fr. 40 EK Acif''1JT0S 1ToTaf'OV Aaf'7JTivo., an arbitrary and unnecessary emendation. 6 Schol. Lye. 1084. 7 Aristot. Pol. vii. 10,3; Strabo vi. 1,4; Dion. Hal. A.R. i. 35. 8 As Klausen did, making the name applicable to a region controlled by Croton, between that city and the coast. Jacoby comments on the F., 'KpOTWV, das eher auf die krotoniatische Herrschaft uber diese Gegenden geht, als auf eine Bestimmung der Lage oder Grenze, stammt so wenig aus H. wie das verkehrte 1TO,\,S.' Less understandable is the comment of Philipp, loco cit., 'Mit Kroton ist naturlich das Gebiet von KrotOI1 gemeint wie immer bei Hekataios', since Croton occurs in no other fragment. cr. also Schulze, pp. S7 If. I

2

a.

44

HECAT AEUS OF MILETU S

the has Kat\

penins ula formin g the heel of Italy; but Stepha nus the following note: 'Ia7TVy{a' SVO 7TelA€ts", pia EV rfi 'lra.\Lq. " , T'[J~ '1·'IVIVptot \ '''0 , WS" " EKaTatos" ~ €Tfpa €V \ 'J,'a7TVSt. Kat\ . TO\'8 € VtKOV 'Ia7TvywS" Kat 'Ia7Tvy{a (F. 86). Wells regard ed this note as eviden ce of geogra phical ignora nce on the part of the forger,! but references to the Eleutii , an f£8voS" TijS" 'Ia7Tvy{aS", and Chand ane, a 7TelAtS" TijS" 'Ia7Tvy{aS" (F. 87, 88), show that the Periegesis recogn ized Iapygi a as a name for a region . Probab ly this note on Iapygi a is simply inaccu rate; with this probab ility the critic must rest conten t, not expect ing Stepha nus and his epitom ator to be free from mistak es in their references to Hecata eus. 2 Iapygi a was not so thorou ghly Hellen ized as Bruttiu m, and it is possible that the Eleutii (comm only connec ted with the town of Valetiu m)3 were an indepe ndent tribe. On Chand ane Stepha nus remark s 7TelAtS" 'Ia7TvyLaS". 'EKaratoS" EVPW7T'[J' 'EV oE XavoavYJ 7TelAtS", IUTa SE ll€VKa' iot' (F. 88). Chandane is otherw ise unkno wn, but if the Peucae i are the same as the ll€VK€T{aVTfS, describ ed as f£8voS" TOts" OlVWTPOts" 7TpoG€XIS" (F. 89), it must be in the northe rn part of the peninsula. The ll€VKln ot (presu mably anothe r name for the llWK€T{aVT€S") are mentio ned by Strab04 as extend ing into the interio r, so that their territo ry natura Uy extend s to the north-e ast bound ary of the Oenot rian countr y. Thus Hecata eus accom modate s his geogra phical descrip tion to the myth, accord ing to which Peucet ius and Oenotr us are brothe rs.s It is, as Jacoby points out,6 a mistak e to regard the Peucae i as a tribe of Iapygi a. Our knowle dge of Hecata eus' descrip tion of Italy may be summe d up as follows: About northe rn Italy he seems to have record ed little, which is natura l since few Greeks penetrated there. His division of southe rn Italy into regions corresp onded to the old division mentio ned by Antioc hus restric ting the name of Italia to the southe rn portion of Bruttiu m, and calling the northe rn portion of Bruttiu m I

]HS. xxix, p. 51 : 'A different kind of mistake is the turning of districts into So Iapygia is a city.' 2 Cf. Schulze, pp. 20 ff. F.87. See Schulze, pp. 28 ff.; Philipp, RE., s.v. Iapyges, ix. 738--g. vi. 3, 8. 5 Pherecyd es, F. 156 (Jacoby )-Dion. Hal. A.R. i. 13. Introduc tory note on F. 86-9.

7ToA£<~. 3

4

6

HECAT AEUS OF MILETU S

45

Oenot ria or the countr y of the Oenotr ians; to the north- east this countr y border ed on the territo ry of the Peucae i or Peucet iantes, to the north-w est on the countr y of the Ausones. He used the old names in prefere nce to the names of the Greeks or Etrusc ans who held the politic al power. His enume ration of so many inland 'cities of the Oenotr ians' is eviden ce for the extent of the power of Sybari s, and shows that he must have written this part of the Periegesis either before or not long after the destruc tion of that city in 5 ro. This eviden ce fits in very well with the fragme nts relatin g to Spain, which sugges t some time during the last quarte r of the sixth centur y as a likely date for its compo sition. The fragme nts relatin g to Sicily do not call for much comment. Jacoby remark s that the absenc e of any ethnog raphical materi al (the cities are called simply 7TelAEts" EtK€A{aS" and there is no allusio n to their founde rs) can scarcel y be blame d on Stepha nus and his epitom ator. 1 It corresp onds with the metho d of Hecata eus in dealing with Spain that he should make no mentio n of the Phoeni cians, Chalci dians, or any of the other colonists, though it is not likely that he was silent about the pre-Gr eek inhabi tants of the island. All the cities are familia r,' whethe r Greek founda tions like Zancle -Messa na, Mylae , Catana , and Syracu se (F. 72 , 79, 73, 74), or Cartha ginian like Motya , Solus and Himer a (F. 76, 77, 78). There are a few indicat ions of date useful for establi shing the authen ticity of this part of the Periegesis: Lilyba eum is still merely a promo ntory, not a city 2 (the Cartha ginian settlem ent dates from 396 B.C.); Zancle was rechris tened Messa na by Anaxil as of Rhegiu m 3 some time after 493, but Hecata eus eviden tly knew only the old name;4 nor does he know of Catana 's change of name to Aetna by Hiero in 476, nor of the destruc tion of Himer a in 409. Solus and Motya are both connec ted with the story of Heracl es,s Introduc tory note to F. 72-9. • \ F. 75 A,MpcuoV' 1j 1TPO~ Svaw aKpa Tfj~ £'K
2

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

who, according to the usual version of the legend, visited Sicily on his way back from Erytheia with the oxen of Geryones, although the version given in the Genealogiae places Erytheia in Epirus (F. 26). Mention of the orthodox ver~.ion here does not of course imply that Hecataeus accepted It as correct. It is not impossible that the connexion of the town of Motya with Heracles-Melkart rests on local Phoenician tradition, though Hecataeus has Hellenized the story; the coins of Motya display a female head with the inscription MTVA, possibly representing the 'woman who told Heracles who had stolen his oxen' mentioned by Hecataeus in F. 76. I

due either to the Etruscans or the Veneti. I The Greek vases discovered there point to the fifth century.2 After quoting the authority of Hecataeus for the city of Adria, Stephanus goes on to relate the reports of the marvellous prosperity of the country, where the cattle were said to calve twice in the year and the hens to lay twice in the day; reports which are to be found about Illyria in the pseudoAristotelian De mirabilibus auscultatibus. 3 It is impossible to say whether Hecataeus or Theopompus or some one else was originally responsible for popularizing these tales, which appear also in Scymnus. 4 But such rumours, coupled with the archaeological evidence, show that Venetia and Istria had been at one time a trading-ground for Greek merchants, offering access to the Danube by way of the Save. This easy route from the Adriatic to the Pontus is possibly responsible for the strange rumour that the Balkan peninsula was extremely narrow and that one of the mouths of the Danube entered the Adriatic; and for the less strange rumour that half-way between the two seas there was a common agora for traders from east and west. Herodotus relates that the Phocaeans were the first to penetrate to these regions. But they remained unfamiliar to most people. Apollonius of Rhodes invents a fantastic geography for the region, and even Scylax believes in the Adriatic mouth of the Danube. How much or how little Hecataeus knew does not appear from the fragments, which mention the Istri, 'a tribe on the Ionian Gulf' (F. 91),5 and the Caulici 'near the Ionian Gulf' (F. 92). The Mentores, who in the Argonautica murder Hyllus,6 are 'a tribe next to the Liburnians' (F. 94). Scymnus puts them above the

The Coast of the Adriatic or Ionian Sea When Herodotus says of the Phocaeans that TOV T€ 'A8pt7]v . . . OVTot €Lat Ot Ka-raoEgaVT€S",2 he evidently means by 0 'A8p{7]S" not what we now understand by the Adriatic Sea nor what was known in his time as the Ionian Sea or the Ionian Gulf, 3 but rather the northern portion of this Ionian Sea and the neighbourhood of the town of Adria or Atria. 4 Indeed, according to a fragment of Hecataeus it was from this town that the sea and also a river took the name of Adrias,5 and there is no good reason for doubting the truth of his statement. 6 It is true that, according to the Etymologicum Magnum, the city was founded by Dionysius I of Syracuse and the Adriatic Sea took its name from the city.7 But these two statements contradict one another: if the latter is true, the city is much older than the fourth century. Modern historians, therefore, whilst admitting that Dionysius may have captured the city, regard the original foundation as £AaaaV'TaS' TO(,S aVTOV pauso 'EKara"ioS' EvpcJJ7r[j. F. 77 EOAOVS" 170'\"S' EtKE)..{US wS' EV EVpOJ7Tn. £KAIj(J'Y} Be a1To EOAOVVTOS KaKo,Ivov, DV av£'iA(V 'HpaKA'ijso l:'K£Mas is Meineke's certain emendation of K';"'KLas. I Cf. K. Ziegler in RE., s.v. Motya, xvi. 387. 2 i. 163. 3 Cf. vi. 127, vii. 20, ix. 92. 4 Cf. E. H. Bunbury in Smith's Dictionary if Greek and Roman Geography, s.\'. Adriaticum Mare, and Strabo vii. 5, g. 5 F. go. 'ASpluo 7TOAtS' Ka~ wap' aiYr~v KO'\1TOS' 'ASplas Kat 1Torap.OS' OfLolwS'1 WS'

47

J

'EKaru'ioS'

'EKurULOSo 6 7

Grosstephan, op. cit., p. 39, questions the genuineness of the fragment. s.v. ' ASp{as.

I Beloch, Gr. Gesch. III. i, p. 119; Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Altertums, v, pp. 122, 164; H. Berve, Gr. Gesch. ii, p. 89; Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, ii, p. 216; Hiilsen in RE., s.v. Atria. See also Strabo v. I, 8 and Plutarch, Dion I I. R. L. Beaumont, JHS. lvi, p. 180, calls it 'a mixed settleme9t Or Greeks and Etruscans'but uses the evidence of ancient authors without due regard for their date. 2 Cf. R. Schone, Antichita del museo Bocchi di Adria, Intro., pp. xii-xiii, items no. 3 and 7 (Tab. xiii. 4, xv. I). Cf. F. von Duhn in Neue Heidelberger Jahrbiicher, ii, pp. 57-8. 3 128. cr. Aristot. Hist. Animal. vi. I. 4 3 6 g-87. 5 Ps.-Aristot. op. cit. 104-5. Cf. Beaumont, loco cit., pp. 199-202 • 6 • lV. 55 I.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

Istri.I Variation of this sort is only what might be expected. Apart from the inadequate information of most Greek writers, the continual tribal movements in the IlIyrian countries make it impossible for us to know when any given statement is correct at any particular time. Subsequent tribal changes after the Celtic invasion make it impossible for us to reconstruct the description ofHecataeus by reference to Strabo or any of the later geographers. After the Istri (whose traditional domicile in Istria has never been questioned) the chief IlIyrian tribes mentioned by Hecataeus seem to be the Liburni and Taulantii. The puzzling and probably inaccurate note of Stephanus on , T '<:' , ' \ " -'].- \ , \" , - '1-\ \ '<:' , La7Tvyta' ovo 7TOI\EtS, f.Lta EV TTl TfLlltf[- Kat ETEpa EV TTl I\I\Vpwt, WS

(F. 103, 104, 105). The latter are familiar from the legend which represents them as giving shelter to Cadmus and Harmonia after their flight from Thebes, but this legend and the supposed connexion of their name with eels (€YXEAELS) I has only made it more difficult to determine their geographical position. Their name soon passed into legend, and they are in consequence lost to history.2 The Chaones, on the other hand, are familiar enough. 3 They are commonly placed in the north ·west portion of Epirus. Of their tribe the Dexari it is not much help to be told that it was next to the Enchelees (F. 103), and BaulKTJ, 7ToAtS TijS Xaovtas (F. 104) is otherwise unknown. The fragments add nothing to our knowledge of the barbarian tribes; it is particularly unfortunate that Stephanus' note on Chaonia, which contains a quotation from Hecataeus, is corrupt (F. 105)' About the fragments referring to Oricum, the Molossian Orestae, and Dodona (F. 106, 107, 108) there is nothing to remark. One would certainly welcome any allusion to other Greek cities in the Balkan regions, where there is no archaeological evidence of colonial or trading enterprise until much later. 4 About Epirus Hecataeus is likely to have been fairly well informed. Two passages in Strabo, which correspond to the note of Stephan us on AaKf.LWv (F. 102), give assurance on this point. In his description of Epirus Strabo actually refers to Hecataeus for his statements about the rivers Aous and Inachus: 'Hecataeus calls the Aous Aias and says that from the same place, or rather from the same remote inland spot (TOU aVTOV f.LVXov) both the Inachus and the Aeas rise, the former flowing towards (Amphilochian) Argos to the south, the latter towards the west and the Adriatic.'s He refers to

(F. 86, 97) suggests that Hecataeus knew about the tribe usually known as Iapudes or Iapodes, but gives no indication where he placed them. The Liburni 2 are well known by name as the first major tribe south of the Istrians. Hecataeus mentions the Mentores and Syopii as their neighbours (F. 94, 95) arid the Hythmitae as 'next to the Liburni and Syopii' (F. 96), a description which suggests that either they or the Syopii dwelt inland. N one of these tribes is expressly called IlIyrian by Stephanus. Oedantium, on the other hand, is simply a 'city of the IlIyrians', with no more exact description, mentioned by Theopompus presumably because it played some part in the Macedonian-Illyrian war.3 This city is otherwise unknown, but the Taulantii, with their city Sesarethus, and their neighbouring or subject tribes the Chelidonii and Habri (F. 99, 100, 101) are mentioned by both Thucydides and Strab04 as inhabitants of the country behind Epidamnus, who proved very troublesome to the Greek settlers. After the Taulantii come the Chaones and Enchelees 'EKaTaLOS

49

Cf. chapter on Hellanicus, p. 166. Cf. Ap. Rhod. iv. 516-18. Some of the wandering Colchians settled in this country: oi 8' ap' E1T' ,IXAuptKoio Jl.EAupfJa8eos 1ToTaj.LO'io, 'f3 •• 'A Pf.L~VL7JS' ' n,a~p.oLo 17' I~ .,~ ~vp. ~S' tv, TE, 1TVPYOV EO£Lp.av I

2

' 394. 2 F. 93. The description l8vos 1TPOU£XlS Tip Ev80Tlpcp fLIp£< TOV •A8p,aTtKOV K6)I1TOV is certainly an addition of Stephanus. Hec. would not define their

position in such terms once his description of the IIlyrian tribes had started. 3 F. 98 Ol80.VTLOV· 1T6A,s •lAAvp'wv. 8£61TOfL1TOS
I

I

avopamv Eyx£A££umv £q,£UT'O'.

Cf. Thuc. ii. 80,81. Cf. K. Patsch, Die Lika in romiscMr Zeit, p. 27; id., Die Herzegovina einst und jetzt, p. 76; Stanley Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, pp. 316-27. 5 Strabo vii. 5, 8-F. I02b. Hec. must have written 'towards the Ionian 3

4

451S

H

HECAT AEUS OF MILETU S

HECAT AEUS OF MILETU S

Hecata eus again to point out that he distinguishes the Epirot river Inachu s, which flows past Amphi lochian Argos, from the famous river Inachu s in Argolis: 'and he says it was named by Amphi lochus who also named Amphi lochia n Argos; this river, he says, drains into the Achelous and the Aeas flows westwards toward s Apollo nia.' 1 This second passage suggests that Hecata eus told the story of how Amphi loch us left Argos, discon tented with the state of affairs there, and founde d this new Argos in Ambra cia: the story that Thucy dides tells in ii. 68. It would be interes ting if one could compa re his accoun t of the Achelous with that of later author s. As it is, one cannot tell to what extent Thucy dides is indebt ed to him for the inform ation he offers in his geographi cal digressions about Epirus and Acarna nia. 2

Pelopo nnese' (F. 120). (2) Refere nce to the origin ofa city's name or the name of its founde r is much more commo n than elsewhere. One cannot always be certain how much of his inform ation Stepha nus takes from Hecat aeus-a s in fragmen ts like the following: Kopwv€La' 7TOAtS- BotWT{as-. 'EKaTaLosEVpw117J. d7T(~ Kopwvo v TOU e€paav Spov (F. 117) and 'EMVYJ'

Greece from Acarnania to Thessaly 'Ephor us says', writes Strabo,3 'that Greece begins on the west with Acarna nia', whilst other geogra phers begin with Ambra cia. The fragme nts do not tell us to which of these two schools Hecata eus belong ed; 'Lyzeia , a city of Acarn ania', is the first Greek city for which Stepha nus cites his author ity (F. III). Since he is now dealing with more familia r countr y, one expects a change of some kind in his metho d of descrip tion. There is no need for him to describ e the customs of the inhabi tants, and so many of the more impor tant cities are at a distanc e from the sea that he can scarcel y have describ ed Greece from the point of view of a man taking a coastal voyage. The fragme nts relatin g to Greece differ from those relatin g to more wester n parts in two ways: (I) Stepha nus does not define the geogra phical positio n of a city with referen ce to the sea, but rather with referen ce to anothe r city or a mountain or some other natura l feature of the land. Phocis is 'aroun d Parnas sus' (F. 114), Olycra e is 'a city near Naupactus ' (F. 112), Corint h 'a city within the isthmu s of the Gulf', not 'towards the Adriatic '. Beaumo nt (loc. cit., p. 203) is not justified in using the fragmen ts to argue that' Alip{a<; was the sixth-cen tury name for the whole Adriatic . I °vi. 2, 4-F. 102C. • Cf. Jacoby'S note on F. 102. 3 viii. 1,3.

vfjaos- Tfjs- 'ATTtKfjS-. 'EKa'TaLOS- EVpw117J. EK€L yap u7Tof3fjva{ cpaat , 'E"I\€VYJV 1 TTJV JL€Ta"~'" 1 TTJV at\watv '1°'I\toV. " "" n6 ' €Kal\€tTO "'" TO O€ lYlaKptSota

(F. 128). We can, howev er, at least be certain that Hecata eus derive d the name of Crisa from Crisus, son of Phocus. Stepha nus, in his usual manne r, writes: 'Crisa, a city ofPhoc is. Hecata eus in the Europe. From Crisus, the son of Phocus ' (F. lIsa). Eustath ius, howev er, is more explici t: , 'v a7TO nptaao v TWOS- TVpavvov, 7J ws- 'EKaTatoS- 't'YJat 7Tatoos- '¥WKOV, n;. 1 and Herod ian says the same thing. 2 Accord ingly when Stepha nus writes 'Phocis , the territo ry around Parnassus. Hecata eus in the Europe. From a certain Phocus' (F. 114), we may conclu de that here too Hecata eus gave the origin of the name, if not also the story of the settlem ent of the countr y. It would, indeed , not be at all surpris ing if, when there was no need of much geogra phical descrip tion, Hecata eus took refuge in myths and genealogy. In later times Strabo , when he came to write about Greece , used most of his energy in explain ing geogra phical allusions in Homer . The fragme nts of Hecata eus are neithe r explici t nor full enough to make proof possible, but they certain ly do suggest that he indulg ed his taste for mythology. Anoth er peculia rity about these fragme nts is that they attribu te to Hecata eus a prefere nce for oddities in spelling. 'Lyzeia , a city of Acarn ania' (F. III), named after a certain Lyzeus, is eviden tly the same as Alyzeia, though there is no eviden ce for this shorten ed form except an uncert ain readin g in Diodor us, 3 and the eponym ous hero is otherwise unknow n. 4 'Olycr ae, a city near Naupa ctus' (F. 112), is eviden tly MolyJLfjKos-

1

,

1

'"

-I,J.

Schol. Homer, Iliad ii. 520. J1£pL Kal!o)"'q< ; 1Tpoaw/i{a<;, xi (ed. Lentz, i, 3 xviii. II, I. Cf. B6ke in RE., s.v. Lyzeia.

""

I

2

4

p. 266, IO).

Not mention ed in Roscher' s lexicon or in RE.

1

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

ereia, the only authority for such a form of the name being Hcrodian. 1 And again it seems that he called Mantineia MallTLIIrJ (F. 123). It also seems that he liked to use archaic names for cities: Epileucadii instead of Leucas, 2 Gephyra as an old name for Tanagra (F. 118), and various old names for Corinth (F. 120). Presumably there is generally a reason for mentioning these old names, since they can lead up to a discussion of the origin and early history of the city. Worth quoting is the fragment about Coroneia: 3 'A city of Boeotia. Hecataeus in the Europe. From Coronus, son of Thersander. In this city not a single mole is found, though the animal lives everywhere else in Boeotia; and if one is brought into Coroneia from outside it cannot live.' There is nothing to prove that this curious piece of information comes from Hecataeus, but there is no mention of any other source. The story of the foundation of Coroneia is told by Pausanias ;4 it is part of the Argonaut saga: Athamas, thinking all his sons dead, adopts Goronus and Haliartus, sons of his nephew Thersander; and when Phrixus unexpectedly returns from Colchis, they resign their claim to the inheritance, and leave Orchomenus to found Coroneia and Haliartus. It is likely that Hecataeus told this story in the Genealogiae and merely hinted at it briefly here. The fragments give a reference to one town otherwise unknown, Photinaeum in Thessaly (F. 134), and 'Aegoneia, a city of the Malians' (F. 132), is not heard of elsewhere except in Lycophron,s who does nothing to indicate its position. The other places in the north-east whose names appear in the fragments are familiar enough. Hecataeus is, as usual, very free with the term 7T6..\LS", giving it to Cynus, which was really only the E7TLVEWV of OpUS,6 and even to the deme

Thoricus, I thus showing that the word, as he used it, had a very flexible meaning. Strabo writes: 'Hecataeus of Miletus, in speaking about the Peloponnese, says that before the Hellenes came it was inhabited by barbarians'/ and then proceeds to show that this remark will hold good of almost every part of Greece. There is no proof that Hecataeus is responsible for what Strabo says of the Dryopes, Caucones, Leleges, and other 'barbari"an' inhabitants of Greece in early times; but he told the story of Cadmus in the Genealogiae, and Herodotus 3 himself quotes his account of the Pelasgians in Attica:

JI£pt 7TaBwv, F. 545a (ed. Lentz, ii, p. 348). F. 110 'E7TI>'£vKcl.SWI· m)>'IS 1-'£70. ' AKapvav{av. 'EKa7a'ios EVpw7TTJ. Cf. Scylax 34. The phrase P£7o. 'AKapvav{av is puzzling. Does it simply mean 'farther away than Acarnania', i.e. to the west of it? 3 F. 117. Jacoby omits the remark about the moles. 4 ix. 34, 6--8. 5 g0 3. cr. Bursian, Geog. von Griechenland, i, p. g6; Hirschfeld in RE., s.v. Aigoneia. I

2

6

F.

1TOALV

131

Kvvos·

aVT~v ¢TJGw.

€1T{VlLOV '01TOUVT031

ws iJ>[Awv

Kai

IIavaavlas. 'E«ara'ios

O€

53

I cannot say whether or not the Athenians were justified in expelling the Pelasgians from Attica; I can only recor~ t~e different accounts. Hecataeus, the son of Hegesander, III hIS book (EV 70Lat Aoyotat)4 says they were not justified. His account is that when the Athenians saw how the land beneath Hymettus, on which they had allowed them to settle in reward for the wall that they had built around the Acropolis, had been well cult~vated by them, whereas previously it had been barren and consIdered worthless, they were seized with envy and a desire for the land; accordingly the Athenians drove them out without further ado, and without offering any other excuse.' Herodotus then gives the account of 'the Athenians themselves'; that the Pelasgians were continually attacking Athenian women and were finally detected in a conspiracy, and, although they might have been put to death for this, were merely obliged to leave Attica. Very probably Herodotus learned about this second account in Athens when he asked people if the account of Hecataeus was correct. A discussion of this method of inquiry about the statements of Hecataeus on the part of Herodotus is better postponed until the fragments about Egypt are dealt with. There remains to be discussed one more fragment dealing with early Greek history. Stephanus' note on Tl.cpvpa runs F. 126 BOPIKCJs- S1jI-'OS 71jS ' A KapaVT{Sos rpv>.1js. 'EKa7aios SE 7TO>'1V aVT1}V rp'1)OlV. vii. 7, I-F. Ilg. 3 vi. 137-F. 127. 4 There is no definite proof that Hdt. is referring here to the Periegesis rather than the Genealogiae. But the story seems to arise most naturally from a mention, in his account of Athens, of the so-called Pelasgian wall. Cf. Ed. Meyer, Forschungen, i, p. 8. I

2

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

as follows: 1I'6'\,S' BOtw'TtaS'. 'TtVES' DE 'TouS' au-TOuS'

E lvat

Kat '.I.' OVl ' Kat, a'f'

~ WS' "'-''Tpa'flWV Kat"EKa'TawS'. nq,vpata ~ LJTJw (F. 118). Strabo's account is as follows: l 'Then there is Graea, a place near Oropus, with the temple of Amphiaraus and the monument of Narcissus the Eretrian which is called the monument of Sigel us, because peopl; keep silent when they pass it. Some say that this place is the same as Tanagra. The Poemandrian territory is the same as the Tanagraean, and the people of Tanagra are also called Gephyraeans.' Herodotus, after pointing out that Harmodius and Aristogeiton belonged to the clan of the Gephyraei, says that these people 'according to their own account came originally from Eretria, but I find by investigating2 that they were Phoenicians, members of the company that came with Cadmus to the country now called Boeotia, and that they settled there, receiving the district of Tanagra as their portion. Then, after the Cadmeans had been expelled from Boeotia by the Argives, these Gephyraeans in their turn were driven out by the Boeotians and took refuge in Athens; the Athenians admitted them to citizenship on certain conditions, declaring them to be debarred from a number of unimportant privileges.'3 And a little later he refers again to their arrival in Athens: 'And they have temples in Athens, to which other Athenians are not admitted; these temples are kept separate from the rest; among them is a temple of Demeter Achaea with special rites.'4 The account which connects the Gephyraeans with Tanagra is evidently the same as that connecting them with Eretria, as Strabo's words show,S and evidently the Gephyraean

", ' . I 'f'auLV, . I .lavaypaLOVS'

I·

IX.

2

,

'"'

2,10.

cOs €yw ava1TvvOav0(.l£voS £Vp{UKW. For his Phoenician theory cf. Wilamo-

witz, Phil. Untersuch. i, p. 151, who rejects it as worthless. But the theory receives some support from Suidas' note s.v. ro!wp{s· gEVT] Ka, €rrduaKTos and his note ~.v. SOpv KTJPVKEtOV, where the oracle given to the Gephyraeans, t~IIing them to follow some oxen and settle where they lie down to rest in weariness, is comparable to the oracle which led to the foundation of Cadmean Thebes (SchoI. Homer, Iliad ii. 494-Hellanicus, F. 51; cf. chapter on Hellanicus, p. 164). 3 v. 57. 4 v.61. 5 There are similarities in the dialect of Oropus and Eretria. Cf. Wilamowitz, Oropos und die Graer, Hermes, xxi (1886), pp. 103 ff.; C. D. Buck Greek Dialects (2nd ed. 1927), pp. 172-4. '

55

and the Achaean Demeter are the same though the peculiarities of this cult are unknown. l It certainly appears, however, that Herodotus is, as commonly, doing his best to disagree with an earlier authority, who must be Hecataeus. His discussion of the Gephyraean question is an 'unofficial fragment' of Hecataeus-of which many are to be found in his account of Egypt.

Macedonia and Thrace It is curious that, although the mainland of Greece is well represented in the fragments, there is not a single one referring to Crete or the Cyclades. Indeed, the only Aegean islands represented are close to the shore of Thrace or Asia Minor. Stephanus gives the position of Chi os as 'facing Erythrae' and Corseae as 'an island of Ionia', but they were treated in the Europe, not in the Asia. 2 Hence to say that Chios, Oenussae, Corseae, and Lesbos were treated in connexion with the coast-line of Asia Minor is incorrect. There must have been a general discussion of the islands either before or after the treatment of northern Europe; Lemnos and Tenedos may have been described in connexion with Thrace and the Chersonese, since Lemnos is described by Stephanus as vijuoS' 1I'poS' 'Tfj {9P1KTJ and Tenedos as EV 'EMTJu1I'6v'Tcp (F. 138, 139). When Stephanus, after citing Hecataeus for the name of a city, mentions an etymology or a legend about its foundation, it does not follow that he is still quoting Hecataeus. But it appears that in writing about Greece Hecataeus did speak about such legends and discuss origins of names. It is accordingly likely that he continued this practice in writing about the Greek islands and dropped it when he came to qescribe less familiar barbarian regions. Stephanus, after 2 I Nothing is to be learned from the mention of Demeter Achaea in IG. ii • 5153, or in Aristophanes, Acharn. 708-9. For the whole question see J. Toepffer, AttiscM Genealogie, pp. 293-300. 2 F. 141-Steph. Byz. s.v. X{os· ~ £1TUpaV€aTaTTJ vijuos TWV •Iwvwv, £xovua Ka, 1TOA'V OJLWVVf-Lov. 'EKa-ra'ios EvpwTT'{J' 'Xlos Ka-ra 'Epv8pas' £V 8E 776'\,s Xlos.' a170 Xtov rijs- ' DK£avov 1j a7To -rfjs xu5vos -rfjs £K£i YLVOp'£vqS 1TO>.AfjS 1j a7To vVp.CPTJS TijS X,oVT]s. F. 143 Kopu€a{· vijuos TijS' Iwv{as aVT'Kpv l:ap.ov. 'EKaTa'ios EVpW1TT/. Cf. F. 140, 142.

56

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

quoting 'Hecataeus in the Europe', offers etymologies for Lemnos and its city Myrina, for Tenedos, Mytilene, and Chios; but never offers any for the numerous Thracian names. On Lemnos he writes as follows: .llfjfLVOS· vfjaos 7TpOS CI' <>, 7TOI\HS '\" U.I.' nK' " EKaTTl~ Ctpq.KTl, OVO €xovaa, 'n'f'awnav Kat\ lV1VptVaV, WS TaLos EVpw7TTJ. a7TO Tfjs M€YaATJs A€yofLEVTJS ()€OiJ, ~V AfjfLVOV cpaaw. mUTT} OE Kat 7Tap()EVOVS ()uw()at. The use of the infinitive ()uw()at indicates that he is quoting Hecataeus and that not

only was the etymology given in the original but something was said about the Thracian rites of the 'great goddess' Lemnos or Bendis. One is therefore willing to believe that he gave the etymology ofTenedos, TEVVOV goos, and recounted legends about the other islands. Since Chalastra, at the mouth of the Axius, and Therme are described as Thracian cities (F. 146), it is evident that Hecataeus allowed only a very limited coast-line to Macedonia. There is no evidence of how he defined its northern or western boundaries, but at the end of the sixth century its growth and development as a united state had scarcely begun. The only two fragments which refer explicitly to Macedonia, neither of which is from Stephan us, give no indication of the method he followed in describing the country. I There are thirty-seven fragments referring to places in Thrace or called Thracian, twenty-one of them referring to cities or tribes on or near the coast. Despite the lack of clear evidence, Jacoby has tried to reconstruct the order in which Hecataeus dealt with the different parts of the country.z He has also argued that Hecataeus regarded Mount Haemus as the northern boundary of Thrace, since tribes to the north of it and in the Danube region are not called Thracian in the fragments; but the argument is not entirely conclusive, because there are a number of ff()vTJ ep4Kta whose position cannot be determined. In general, it is probable that Hecataeus used the term Thrace to cover a larger territory than later writers, if only because he confined Macedonia within I F. 144,145. Meineke (on Steph. Byz. p. 554, 17) wants to assign to Hecataeus some entries in Steph. where towns generally known as Macedonian are described as 'cities of Thrace'. 2 RE. vii. 2715.

57

such narrow limits. He seems not to have used the convenient fifth-century phrase TO. E7Tt ep4KTJS. It is disappointing to find only one fragment referring to the customs of the people. Athenaeus, in his discussion of beer, quotes Hecataeus as an authority first for the beerdrinking of the Egyptians, and then adds: 'And in his Periegesis of Europe he says that the Paeonians drink {3piJTOV a7TO TWV Kpt()WV Kat 7Tapa{3{TJv a7TO KEYXPOV Kat KOVU~"IS. And they anoint themselves, so he says, with oil made from milk.'1 Since Herodotus has such abundant information about the customs of inland Thracians,z one is willing to believe that a fair proportion of it came from Hecataeus. But the fragments offer no proof of this. The Paeonians, whose customs he did discuss, seem to have occupied a much more extensive territory in early times. Herodotus speaks of Xerxes marching through their country on his route from Acanthus to Therme,3 and Hecataeus' description of Galepsus, on the Sithonian promontory of Chalcidice, as 'a city of Thrace and the Paeonians' (F. 152) is consistent with the statements of Herodotus. Furthermore, he described Therme as a 7ToAtS 'E'\'\~vwv epllKWV,4 if the text is substantially correct. The Greek colonization of this region would cause Paeonians and other natives either to retire into the interior or, if they remained , to lose their national characteristics. Tomaschek5 is inclined to believe that before the rise of Macedonia the Paeonians' territory extended from Emathia and Bottiaea as far as Chalcidice. Little comment is necessary about the fragments referring to towns in Chalcidice, or on the coast between the Axius and the Strymon. Herodotus mentions these towns in his description of Xerxes' march, and the L1apawt of Hecataeus are probably the L1€paaLot who lived in the Strymon valley.6 The fact that Herodotus does mention all these towns, some F. 154-Athen. x. 447 D. Cf. F. 323a and Hellanicus F. 66. V.3- 1O • 3 vii. 124. 4 F. 146 . There is some uncertainty about the text of Steph. Byz. . 5 Die alten Thraker, i, Sitz.-Ber. der k. Akad., Wien (1893), Abhandlung IV, p. 18. Cf. also Strabo vii. 5, I; 7, 4; Fr. 4, 12a, 37, 38 (jones, Loeb ed.); Polyb. xxiv. 8. 6 F. 175; Hdt. vii. 110; Thuc. ii. 101. I

2

4515

I

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

of wh.ich were not touched by either the Persian army or fleet, IS regarded as a proof that Herodotus is making full use of a geographical source; and this source is commonly thought to be the Periegesis, except by those who hold fast to the view that it is 'an official Persian source'. J acobyl points out that the reference to old regional names, such as Phlegra as an old name for Pall ene, is a strong indication that Herodotus used an old geographical description. Perhaps the most illuminating passage is vii. 124: €1TOPEVETO DE (sc. 0

'as 1T6ALS 7TEpl tE>.A~a1TOVTOV (F. 139, 162) raises the question of what extent Hecataeus gave to the term 'E>.A~a1ToVTo<;. Strabo's discussion of the different meanings of the term 1 mentions the view that it includes the M€Aa<; KOA1TO<;, and the description of Cypasis as 1TEpi 'E>.A~a1TovTov is understandable only on such a bas1.s. Limnae and Madytus, two cities on the Thracian Chersonese, are described respectively as 1TOAL<; €V 'E>.A7Ja1TOVT

.A7Ja1TovTta, although Limnae is almost certainly on its western shore, near the Suvla salt-marshes. 2 Any remarks of Hecataeus about the Chersonese are precious, since he wrote at a time when either the first or the second Miltiades was still tyrant there. It is curious that, although Herodotus mentions several cities in his territory and speaks of a Prytaneum, in which Stesagoras was assassinated,3 he never tells us what the 1TOAL<; of the tyrant was. Hecataeus, however, mentions a city called Chersonesus, on the isthmus of the Chersonese, for the existence of which there is no other evidence except in an unintelligent note by a scholiast on Aristophanes. 4 Herodotus, it is true, does mention.'a city called Agora' on the isthmus between Pactye and Cardia, through which Xerxes passed on his march, and the continued existence of this city is proved by the Athenian quota-lists which record payments of 'the Chersonesites from Agora'.5 Hence it is possible that this city is the Chersonesus of Hecataeus, which changed its name after the collapse of the tyranny of Miltiades and lost its importance as a political centre. Casson6 has argued from the appearance of the name XEpaOV7Ja'iTaL on other tribute lists where Pactye and Cardia do not appear that this term covered a federal group of cities. Evidence for the sixth century, however, is lacking and further speculation is not profitable.

';;" c7J<; ) OLa "" T7)<; ...,EPS

n aLOVLK7J<;- KaL np7JaTWVLK7J<; E1TL 1TOTafLov 'EXEt'T?

C'

-,

, ,

,

~K

,

owpOV, 0.<; EK np7JaTwvaLWV apC;afLEVO<; pEEL OLa lr.WYOOVL7J<; XWp7J<;. In the tIme of Herodotus the territory of Creston was too far inland to be touched by the route of Xerxes; but in the time of Hecataeus, when Greek exploitation of Chalcidice was in its early stages, Crestonaeans as well as Paeonians doubtless extended farther south. 2 There are several fragments referring to places between the Strymon and the Thracian Chersonese. All these places and tribes are mentioned by Herodotus, except for Drys and Cypasis, which are familiar from other sources. The £aTPOK€VTaL are very possibly neighbours of the £aTpaL and the Eav80L may be t~e people of Xantheia. 3 Hecataeu~' dependence on Homenc geography is shown by his description of Zone and Maroneia as cities of the Cicones,4 a tribe which is famili~r f~om. the .Oqyssey, but seems to have disappeared early m hls~oncal tImes; and the retention of their name by Herodotus IS thought to be an indication of his dependence on H~cataeus. Another survival from Homeric geography is the tnbe of £Kat or £KaLOt, 'a tribe between the Troad and Thrace', which is evidently to be connected with the Scaean gate of Troy.s The description of Tenedos as €V 'E>.A7Ja1TCJVT

'"

T?

"

<:"

<:'

,

RE. vii. 2714-15 Cf. Herrmann, Klio, xi, pp. 382 -4. 153 Kp1}UTWV' 770'\', erxf.K1J, ••• 'EKaTa'io, S€ Kp1JUTwva, aUTov, ~v Evp 177J (sc. "'1Julv). 3 F. 157, 181, Hdt. vii. 111-12; F. 180. 4 F. 161 ZwV1J' 770'\" K'KOVWV. 'EKaTa'io, EVpw177J. F. 159. Mapwvoa' 770'\', E ' Ka:a" ' [ x~paoVYJ~Ov. , ] ('EK~TaLos Evp~'"P)' 'EV 8€ 'Alp.VI) MaprsJ , 'I(O,VLa~ T7JVa ~Pf!.~7Jv EV SE Mapwvoa 770'\',. Memeke IS responsIble for gIvmg the quotation to I

: wy.

Hecataeus; Holste would have preferred Hellanicus. See also Meineke's note on Steph. Byz. S.v. KlKOVE,. S F. 182. Cf. Jacoby, RE. vii. 2716; Burchner, RE., s.v. Skaiisches Tor.

59

vii, Fr. 58 (Jones), 57 (Meineke). F. 164, 165; cf. Stanley Casson, Macedonia, Thrace, and Illyria, p. 220. 3 vi. 38. 4 F. 163; Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 262. 5 Hdt. vii. 58; Tod, Gk. Historical Inscriptions, No. 66, 150-1; 71, 50-I. cr. Burchner in RE., s.v. Chersonesos (3). Casson (op. cit., p. 216) points out that Agora pays the highest tribute of all the recorded Chersonese towns. 6 Op. cit., p. 223. I

2

61

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

Of the inland tribes and cities mentioned in the fragments, whether strictly 'Thracian' or not, a number are unknown. Such are 'Orgame, a city on the Danube', the territory of Itone 'at the foot of Thracian Haemus', and the city of Cabessus, which is reached 'after crossing Thracian Haemus' (F. 172, 168, 169). Othryoneus is mentioned in the Iliad as coming 'from Cabessus'! in the hope of marrying Cassandra, and the ancient commentators were uncertain where this place was. Stephanus, among other suggestions, refers to the Cabessus of Hecataeus and adds that the hope of marriage was consonant with Thracian oxoAaula. It has been thought, though without justification, that this note of Stephanus is part of his quotation of Hecataeus and that Hecataeus told the story of Othryoneus. z The Crobyzi, 'a tribe to the south of the Danube', are mentioned also by Herodotus, who in describing the tributaries of the Danube which rise in Haemus enumerates some which flow Sui epllKY)S Kat epllKWV TWV Kpo{3v'wv. 3 Scymnus also calls these people Thracians, but the lexicographers, coupling them with the T€PL'OL (whom Hecataeus called Tpt'OL), number them among the Getae who are famous for their belief in immortality and their cult of Zalmoxis. 4 Such variation adds to the difficulty of deciding where Hecataeus put the boundary of Thrace. The ancient name of Cape Kaliakra, TtP',LS axpa, proves that the Terizi at some time extended to the coast of the Euxine. Possibly, then, Hecataeus mentioned these people in his treatment of the west coast of the Black Sea. Presumably he described the coast-line as far as Olbia, though there is only one fragment to suggest it, a quotation of his actual words by Herodian: 'Next comes Boryza, a city of the Persians, and then Thynias.'5 This city is unknown except for mention by Stephanus, who calls it 7TOA'S IIovnK~; whether it is north or south of Cape Thynias depends on whether Hecataeus went from north to south or from south to north in his

description of this coast. The curious thing is that he should have called it 7TOA'S II€pu€wv. This is quite contrary to his usual manner, which is to describe a city's position geographically rather than according to its political allegiance or the nationality of its inhabitants. Indeed, such a description is scarcely intelligible, unless the city simply did not exist until it was founded by Darius on his Scythian expedition. This is Jacoby's view, and he regards the fragment as an indication of date for the Periegesis. I If this is the correct interpretation, the fragment has considerable importance, as showing that Darius attempted to consolidate the Persian position in this country by founding cities to compete with the existing Greek cities; there is no other evidence for such a procedure on his part. There remain a few fragments referring to unknown tribes. Ai"K~, the .daroA€7TTOL, Llwopal, and 'EvTp,{3al are entirely· unknown. Tomaschekz suggests that the LlauLAoL are the Llav(}aMiTa" near the source of the Strymon, among the Thracian tribes in this region mentioned by Herodotus (viii. I IS), and that the Tplu7TAa, are a Paeonian tribe like the Paeoplae of Herodotus. 3 The Bantii and Darsii, on the other hand, are numbered among Illyrian tribes by Polybius and Appian. 4 There is no reason why they should not be the same as Hecataeus' 'Thracian tribes', having migrated westwards, possibly as a result of the Scythian invasion. The discussion of this portion of the Periegesis could be extended to a great length by a careful examination of every chapter of Herodotus which deals with Thrace, whether with the customs of the people or the march of Xerxes. But the fragments give no idea of the extent to which Hecataeus commented on the customs of the Thracians, and there is no reason to assume that Herodotus owed all his knowledge of the region to the Periegesis. Since neither the manner nor the method of Hecataeus in dealing with this country can be established, one must be content with the few conclusions which do emerge from an examination of the fragments:

60

I

2

3

4

5

xiii. 363. Weissbach in RE., s.v. Kabassos (2). F. 170; Hdt. iv. 49. Scymnus 750; Et. M. and Suidas s.v. ZUfwAg,S. F. 166-Herodian Il£p' fLOV7}poVS >.Eg£ws 31, 26 (ed. Lentz, ii, p. 937, 10).

I

3

4

Note on F. 166. 2 Op. cit., p. 62. Op. cit., p. 19; Hdt. v. 15, vii. 113. Polyb. v. 108,8; Appian, Bell. Ill. i. 2.

62

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

that he used the term Thrace in a very broad sense, including much territory that was afterwards thought of as Macedonian; that he knew at least the names of a number of tribes which were afterwards forgotten or else migrated elsewhere; and that he was not concerned to show how far the Greek colonists had extended their influence in the country.

new information can he add as a result of the increased number of Greek settlements north of the Euxirre and the material gathered by the expeditions of Cyrus and Darius? In what order did he discuss the various tribes, and how does his arrangement of material compare with that of Herodotus ? None of these questions is answered by the critic who decides that in a certain chapter Herodotus is following or differing from Hecataeus. Nor is it ever an adequate explanation of any story to say that Herodotus got it from Hecataeus, if it remains to find out how Hecataeus heard of the story. Herodotus himself mentions Aristeas of Proconnesus as one of his sources, and gives his opinion about the extent of that poet's travels. He does not mention Hecataeus, but there are a few passages which are sufficient to indicate a desire to disagree with his predecessor. First, there is the celebrated denunciation of maps and map-makers in iv. 36. Then it is evident that Hecataeu& used the term 'Scythian' in a broader sense than Herodotus. He calls the Melanchlaeni a Scythian tribe, whereas Herodotus insists they are a'\'\o EBvos Kat OU EKVBtKOV.' He also calls the Issedones and MaTVKETat Scythian; Herodotus speaks of the Massagetae (probably the same as the MaTUKETat) as beyond the Araxes, opposite to the Issedones, and adds €Lat DE oiTtv€s Kat EKVBtKOV ,\Eyovat TOVTO TO gBvos €tvat. z This looks like a reference to the Periegesis. He also frequently uses phraseology of a kind that suggests a Periplus or a Periegesis. But since the sentences written in this style in different chapters are sometimes inconsistent with one another, very little help is to be expected from them. Since Herodotm had himself travelled on the north coast of the Euxine, he was not disposed to be so scornful about Hecataeus here as in his remarks about western Europe; but he insists that no one knows anything about a northern ocean. 3 Of the so-called Scythian tribes mentioned in the Europe the Issedones and the Melanchlaeni are familiar from Herodotus

Scythia and the North-East: The Boundary between Europe and Asia The fragments referring to Scythia and the north-east are very scanty, and in only one case does Stephanus give more than the mere name of an gBvos or 7TO'\tS. Of the Melanchlaeni, the 'black-cloaked people', he adds: 'Their name comes from the clothes that they wear, as the Hippemolgi get their name from milking mares and the Mossynoeci from the kind of house in which they live' (F. 185). But even this solitary reference to customs may not be taken from Hecataeus, since Stephanus could have found the information in Herodotus.' Taken by themselves, therefore, the fragments are of little use and offer no information. An attempt to reconstruct this portion of the Periegesis is impossible apart from an interpretation of the EKVBtKOS ,\oyos in Herodotus, book iv. The sources of this account have been investigated many times and the problem cannot be dealt with here in ful1. 2 It is worth while to point out, however, that the investigations have usually been carried out from the point of view of Herodotus, and the investigators have been more interested in his method of borrowing information than in reconstructing the description of Hecataeus. It is easy to believe that Herodotus made considerable use of Hecataeus in writing the fourth book; but a discovery of this kind helps us very little towards reconstructing the Periegesis. There are so many important questions that must remain unanswered: To what extent does Hecataeus depend on or differ from Aristeas and other early poets? How much I

iv.

cr.

10 7.

R. W. Macan, Herodotus IV-VI, Appendix ii; F. Windberg, De Herodoti Scythiae et Libyae descriptione; M. I. Rostovtzeff, Skythien und der Bosporus, pp. 2

'7- 2 5.

I F. 1 85-Steph. Byz. S.v. M€'\'ayx'\'a,vO<" .lJvos l:KVO'KOI', 'EKa'T'aios EvpcfJ1TV. Hdt. iv. 20. 2 F. '93; Hdt. i. 201. See Philipp, Berliner Phil. Woch. (19 14), pp. 373-4. 3 iV.3 6.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

and later writers; the MaTVKl.rat and the 'mOL are probably the Massagetae and the Edones;1 the city of KapKtvtn" though its site is a matter of dispute, appears in Herodotus as KapKLv7J and in other forms in later writers. 2 According to his manner Hecataeus called this city 7TOAt, ,EKVetK~, though it was a Greek settlement. The Mvpyl.rat, the city of Kap87Juuo" and the tribe called "Iu7J7To, are entirely unknown (F. 190, 188, 187). All these tribes were mentioned in the Europe, though there is some doubt about the Issedones, since the manuscripts of Stephanus read 'EKarato, 'AUL~. Admittedly the position of this tribe is a matter of doubt; it is possible to interpret Herodotus in such a way as to assign them to Asia rather than Europe. 3 Furthermore, Hecataeus does mention the ' /a,.tat in Asia (F. 2 I 5), and in this instance there is no excuse for emending the text of Stephanus, since the tribe is not mentioned elsewhere. It is in any case very difficult to decide what Hecataeus accepted as the boundary between Europe and Asia. The two conventional boundaries, both mentioned by Herodotus,4 are (I) the Phasis, (2) the Tanais, Pal us Maeotis, and Cimmerian Bosporus. Jacoby tries to show that there is confusion between the Tanais (Don) and the Hypanis (Kuban), and that the latter river under the name of Tanais was at one time regarded as the boundary; and that the establishment of the Tanais (Don) as boundary is later. s Such elaborate explanation is not necessary, and he takes no account of Pseudo-Hippocrates IIEp't dEpwv 13, where the Pal us Maeotis is accepted as the boundary. The passage in the anonymous Periplus of the Euxine which seems to suggest such a confusion is corrupt, and hence cannot be used in argument. Unfortunately the fragments of Hecataeus appear to be inconsistent. Phanagoreia, the Coraxi, and their neighbours

the KWAOt, 'a tribe near the Caucasus', are all assigned to the Asia; but two other 'tribes near the Caucasus', the Dandarii and the Tipanissae, are assigned to the Europe. 1 Moreover, in telling the Argonaut story in the Genealogiae, Hecataeus represented the Phasis as connecting with the Ocean (F. 18), thus tacitly accepting it as an intercontinental boundary, comparable to the Straits of Gibraltar. It seems simplest to suppose that the subject-matter of the Asia and the Europe overlapped to a certain extent: that in the Europe Hecataeus mentioned tribes which he recognized as belonging to the other continent for the purpose of linking together his accounts of the two continents. Inland tribes in the north-east, unless they were thought of as neighbours to some part of the Persian Empire or to Greek cities on the north-east coast of the Euxine, would more naturally be mentioned in the Europe than in the Asia. From the treatment of Phanagoreia in the Asia it seems that, whatever his view about the Phasis' connexion with the Ocean, he took the Cimmerian Bosporus as his boundary; but that in the treatment of Scythia in his Europe he trespassed on the other continent to the extent of mentioning some tribes in the Caucasus. This explanation, moreover, accounts for the apparent lack of interest shown by Herodotus in the territory between the Palus Maeotis and the Phasis. Rostovtzeff, 2 in comparing the accounts of Scythia given by Herodotus and Hecataeus, emphasizes this gap in the Herodotean account, but offers no satisfactory explanation. If, however, Hecataeus treated of this region in his Asia, except for a few incidental allusions in the Europe, it is easy to account for the silence of Herodotus by supposing he was not familiar with that part of the Asia. Now from an examination of the fragments it appears that Hecataeus went from west to east in discussing the south coast of the Euxine. 3 His treatment of the region between the Pal us Maeotis and the Phasis, then, would not follow immediately after his treatment of Scythia, but would come

F. 189, 186. Cf. Philipp, loco cit. F. 184; Hdt. iv. 55, 99. Cf. E. H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks, pp. 490-2. 3 Cf. Herrmann in RE., s.v. Issedoi, ix:. 2238, and S. Casson, Herodotus and the Caspian, Ann. if Brit. School at Athens, xxiii (19/8-19), pp. 175-93. 4 • IV·45· 5 Note on F. 195. On this whole question of the division of continents cf. J. L. Myres, Geographical Journal, viii (1896), pp. 624-9. I

2

I

2

3

4515

F. 212, 210, 209; 191, 192. Skythien und der Bosporus, pp. 19-21. Cf. Myres, op. cit., pp. 624-5. Cf. esp. F. 204, 207, and Jacoby's note on F. 196. K

66

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

in the middle of the book; unless Herodotus read the whole Periegesis from beginning to end, he might have been unaware that this territory came in for treatment at all. Instead of speculating about the manner in which Hecataeus described the origin of the Scythians and which of the three accounts given by Herodotus goes back to him,1 it is more salutary to come back to the actual fragments and see how little evidence there is to justify a reconstruction of this part of the Periegesis. Conclusions drawn from Scymnus, Scylax, Ephorus, and later geographers are never more than provisional and it does not seem worth while to discuss them here. Nevertheless, the situation is unusually tantalizing, because Herodotus certainly owes a great deal of his information about Scythia to Hecataeus. But his account is, geographically speaking, not at all clear, and it is hard to believe that he studied the map of Hecataeus carefully. If he has not properly understood his predecessor, one is not justified in drawing many conclusions from his account about details of the Periegesis. A cautious critic dares not add much to the brief treatment in Rostovtzeff's Skythien und der Bosporus 2 and in the relevant section of Jacoby's article in Paury-Wissowa. 3

The order of Jacoby's arrangement, which he admits is hypothetical,1 may well be retained. First the Asiatic shore of the Euxine, then the Hellespontine region, the western and southern shores of Asia Minor, south-west Asia, the inland region on a line between the Red Sea and the Pontus, then eastern Asia; the description of Africa, which is also part of the Asia, follows an order fixed by the Mediterranean coast-line. The description of the Asiatic shore of the Euxine went in a direction from west to east, as is shown by quotations like

Asia: The Asiatic Shore of the Euxine Granted that the description of Europe begins with Spain, there is no difficulty in deciding the order in which the various regions were dealt with. Details of the method must often remain uncertain, since a description of the coast-line is only a small portion of the work; but the general arrangement is settled by the Mediterranean coast-line itself. With Asia, on the other hand, the decision is not so simple. We cannot be certain even where the description begins, whether with the Thracian or Cimmerian Bosporus or even in the far east. Owing to the necessity for more extensive treatment of territory unconnected with any coastal region, there is no natural order suggested by the geographical circumstances. The critic must therefore be content to take the fragments in the order which he himselffinds most convenient. I

2

e.g. cf. V. Ehrenberg, pp. 19-21.

Zu

Herodot, Klio, xvi (1920), pp. 327-31. 3 vii. 2717-18.

- OE <;:, \ , I A" I , I , tfJapYJvotut 7TpOS YJIIWV aVtUXOVTa If.lOUavVOtKOt OJ-tOVpEOVUt. EV 0' aVToL'Ut XOtpaOES 7TOAtS or again XoL'Ut 0' OJ-tOVPEOVUt 7TPOS ijAWV av{uxovTa J{'YJPES (F. 204, 207). Naturally one must beware 'T'

\,,~

.l

~

of thinking that his description of Asia was confined to the coast-line. But since the great majority of fragments do refer to places on the coast, it will be most convenient to follow the coast-line in discussing them, and to start from the Thracian Bosporus first in an easterly, then in a southwesterly direction. One might argue that the quotation given by Herodian and the 'Emj-tEptuj-tOt 'OJ-tYJptKO{2 justifies a belief that this was the actual order of treatment: 0 j-tEV ovv BOU7TOpOS Kat 0 IIovTos OVTW Kat 0 'EM~U7TOVTOS KaTa TavTa j-tOt j-tEj-tETpEaTat. If the evidence of Ammianus Marcellinus 3 is worth anything, it seems that Hecataeus gave either the length or the duration of a coastal voyage around the Euxine. The fragments offer very few unfamiliar names for the south shore of the Euxine, but a number of the names which are familiar in later writers cannot be found in the earlier poets. This circumstance suggests the possibility that Hecataeus was the first to make known these tribal names, which became traditional among later writers, whether geographers, historians, or poets; that his description of the region served F. Gr. Hist. i, pp. 354-5. F. 196-Epimer. Hom., Cramer, Anecdota Gr. Ox. i, p. 287, 28; Herodian (ed. Lentz), ii, p. 225, 9. See, however, p. 32, above, for emendation of this F. 3 F. 197-Amm. Marc. xxii. 8, 10 'Omnis autem eius velut insularis circuitus litorea navigatio, viginti tribus dimensa milibus stadiorum, ut Eratosthenes adfirmat et Hecataeus et Ptolomaeus aliique huius modi cognitionum minutissimi scitatores, in speciem Scythici arcus, nervo coagmentati, geographiae totius adsensione formatur'. I

2

68

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

as a model for those that came after him. This is an attractive hypothesis, but no proof is obtainable. Going from west to east we have first the Maryandini, with the unknown city Stephanis (F. Ig8); the Leucosyri, who in other early writers are called simply l:vPOt or l:vPWt, whose city Teiria is otherwise unknown (F. 200, 201); the Chalybi and their city of Stamene, mentioned by Scylax,1 and the Armenians of Armenia Minor; the Tibareni and the Mossynoeci with their city Choerades, mentioned by Scylax and Ephorus;2 the Mares and Macrones, whom Herodotus mentions as forming the nineteenth satrapy of Darius with the Mossynoeci and as members of Xerxes' army;3 the Becheires, mentioned by Scylax and Apollonius of Rhodes, and the Dizeres, who are probably the Byzeres mentioned in these same authors;4 the island of Hermonassa and its city (Strabo calls it a Ka70tKLa fJ-€7pLa);S farther on are the Coli and the Coraxi, north of the Phasis, and finally Phanagoreia with the bay where the Hypanis enters the sea which Hecataeus apparently called the KOA7TOS" 'A7TClTOVpOS" (F. 209, 210, 211,

Unfortunately there is nothing to indicate how much he recorded about the customs and peculiarities of any of these people. From the words of Herodotus in ii. 104 one is inclined to believe that he mentioned the practice of circumcision among the Macrones, as well as the tower-like houses of the Mossynoeci and the iron industry of the Chalybi. Another interesting question is the extent to which he indulged, in this part of his work, in mythological digression and explanation of Homeric passages. Strabo,1 in discussing the hotly disputed question of the' El'€70L, who are mentioned in the Trojan catalogue of allies, points out that Hecataeus identified their native city, Enete, with Amisus, which (Strabo adds) is east of the Halys in the country of the Leucosyri. Again, in discussing another Homeric problem, the famous line from the Trojan catalogue,

212).

The cities of Cross a and Patrasys, called respectively

7TPOS"

70 IIol'7CfJ and IIol'TtK~ (F. 213, 214), are unidentifiable and

cannot be placed with such a vague geographical description. The Ixibatae are probably the same as the tribe that appears under slightly different names in later writers, and the Iamae appear elsewhere as the Iamoi. 6 More than that there is nothing known about them. The Choi are totally unfamiliar,' more probably a coastal tribe, to judge by the quotations, than the Taoi with whom Tomaschek wants to identify them. s The three verbatim quotations given by Stephanus suggest that Hecataeus had something more to say about this tribe besides giving its geographical position. I 2

3 4

F. 202, 203; Scylax 88 ETal-'£voa 1TOA'S" 'EAA'IvlS". F. 204; Scylax 86; Ephorus F. 43. F. 205, 2~6! Hdt. iii',94, ;ii. ,78; A'" , , A' , F. 207 Xo,· EOVOS" BEXOPWV EyyVS". EKaTawS" EV Aa'If·" ES" I-'EV TOVTO 'IBEX.'p'K7J.

£xoVTa£ 8' ath-wv Xo{." Kat 1TclALV "p.EXP£ P.€V TOVTWV Xo(". Kai. 1TcfALv "Xoiul. 8' O/Lovp£ova, 1TPOS" ijA,ov dvlaxovTa .dl~'Ip.S"". Cf. Scylax 82-5 and Ap. Rhod. ii.

394, 12 4 2 -4. 6 F. 215, 216. References in Jacoby's note. 7 F. 207. See n. 4, above.

5

F. 208; Strabo xii. 3, 17.

77JA6BEl' Eg 'AAvf37JS', aBEl' apyvpov EaTL yEv~BA7J,

Strabo mentions the explanation of Hecataeus, which he quotes from Demetrius of Scepsis. 2 This explanation, which Strabo does not think a good one, is that the Halizones came from Alazia on the river Odrysses, 'which flows eastwards through the Mygdonian plain, rising in the lake of Dascylitis and joining the Rhyndacus'. Opportunities for discussing the position of cities and tribes mentioned in the Trojan catalogue would have been plentiful in describing the Hellespontine region, but there is not much mention in Homer of tribes farther to the east. Since the description of this region, so far as it is presented in the fragments, offers few important differences from that outlined by Herodotus in his enumeration of the Persian satrapies and the sketch in Apollonius of Rhodes, who is supposed to be dealing with mythical times, one cannot say that his description belongs to one century rather than another. The frequent agreement between Apollonius' description and the fragments does indeed suggest that this poet, searching for the oldest description Gbtainable, consulted that of Hecataeus; but this argument cannot be developed in detail here. 3 We have not enough evidence to I

8

RE., s.v. Choi, Becheires.

69

3

xii. 3, 25-F. 199. 2 xii. 3, 22-F. 217. Cf. pp. 70-1, below. Cf. L. Pearson, Amer. Journ. of Philology, lix (1938), pp. 443-59.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

tell how much credit is due to Hecataeus for establishing the traditional account of the region which became current among later writers. But this traditional account does in fact seem to correspond very closely with the description which he gave.

far north, beyond the Borysthenes, but Hecataeus did not go so far afield, pointing to the city of Alazia in Hellespontine Phrygia: 'And near this city is the River Odrysses which flows through the Mygdonian plain, out of Lake Dascylitis and into the Rhyndacus.' 'He says', adds Strabo, 'that Alazia is at present deserted, but there are a number of villages of the Alazones inhabited on the river Odrysses; and that in these Apollo receives special honour, particularly on the Cyzicene boundary.' Strabo is not, apparently, quoting Hecataeus at first hand, and we cannot tell how fully the Periegesis dealt with Homeric problems of this sort. What is interesting to note is that he puts the Homeric problemcities as near home as possible, instead of searching for them in remote regions. A similar tendency appears in his placing ofErytheia, whence the oxen of Geryones came, in Ambracia instead of in the far west (F. 26). Other mythological allusions concern the etymology of names of cities and legends of their foundation. There is, as usual, the difficulty of deciding whether or not Stephanus is still alluding to Hecataeus when he gives an etymology, as in F. 228 'EpvOpat· 7ToA.s 'Jwvwv. 'EKaTatOS 'Autc[-. £KaAr:tTO ()~ KVW7TOVrrOALS ci7TJ KVW7TOV and F. 256 IIrJ.Tapa· 7ToALS AVKtas. 'EKaTatOS 'AutC[-. £KAIJOT} ()~ a7T(~ IIaTfi.pov TOU 'A7ToMwvos Kat AVKtas rils Ed.vOov. But in one fragment the actual words of Hecataeus are quoted: 'Next comes the city of Nagidos, called after the steersman Nagis, and the island of Nagidoussa' (F. 266). Hecataeus is the sole authority for this legend, whatever the story may be; the city of Nagidos is familiar from Strabo and inscriptions, but its eponymous hero is mentioned nowhere else. l More familiar is the legend of Cnopus, illegitimate son of Codrus, who colonized Erythrae. 2 The story ofLycian colonization is told by Herodotus •Ollpva01JS (;;s) ;,lwv Il,,' Muyllovt"lS 7TElltou a7Te Maws EK TfjS M/LV1Js TfjS ,1uaKu>.tT.llos

The Coast of Asia Minor from the Hellespont to Cilicia This large group of fragments (F. 217-68) may well be treated in one section, because the territory to which they refer was familiar to Greek readers and, when Hecataeus wrote, all under Persian domination. An examination does not, however, reveal any fresh characteristics peculiar to the group. There is some evidence to suggest that Hecataeus returned to the mythological method which he seems to have followed in describing Greece and the Aegean islands. On the other hand, the almost complete lack of fragments referring to the barbarian interior of Asia Minor makes it impossible to judge the extent of his geographical knowledge. The fragments offer, as usual, a number of unfamiliar names of cities, enough to show that our present knowledge of the Greek communities in this region is far from complete, and enough to suggest that some cities declined in importance or even disappeared completely under Persian rule. Before discussing the significance of these unfamiliar names it will be well to point out the few indications of mythological digression. Strabo's reference to Hecataeus in his discussion of Enete, the problem city of the Trojan catalogue in the Iliad, has already been mentioned (F. 199). He refers to Hecataeus in two other passages discussing similar problems -he tells us that Hecataeus identified the Homeric tf>OELPWVOpos with Mount Latmus behind Miletus,I and in his discussion of the much-disputed passage from the Trojan catalogue, AtlTttp 'AAL~WVWV 'Ostos Ka~ 'E7TLUTPOCPOS -ryPXov T1JA6fhv €g 'AAv{31JS, [JBEV npyvpov €(TT~ YEVEBA1J,z

he gives the view of Hecataeus as quoted by Demetrius of Scepsis. 3 Others had wanted to place the Halizones in the I F. 23g-Strabo xiv. 1,8; It. ii. 868. 2 It. ii. 856--7. 3 xii. 3, 22-F. 217 E7TULVE' Ile (sc. "IK~.pWS) /La>'LO'TU TT,V 'EKUTUtOU TOU ML>'''Iatou Kat M£V£KpdTOV~ TOU 'E).alTov, TWV EEvoKpaTovs yvwplJ.LwV civSpos, 30gav Kat 'T~V IIa>.uupaTou, wv " /LEV EV rfjs IIEpL61lCfJ 'u~t'?- 7T6>.. 7ToTu/Les

ES 'PvvlluKOV Eaf3aU .. n. This is the text as given by Jacoby, but the passage is full of corruptions, not all of which have been dealt with. a7Te Maws is plainly wrong, since the river flows from east to west. The translation in the text aims at giving the substance of what Hecataeus must have said. I Strabo xiv. 5, 3; Ruge in RE., s.v. Nagidos. Victor Berard maintains that the name is Semitic (Les Phiniciens et l'Odyssie, i, p. 182, 1927 edition). 2 F. 228. Cf. Strabo xiv. I, 3; Pausanias vii. 3, 7 (where the name is given as Cleopus).

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

(i. 173), but Xanthus and Patarus as eponymous heroes of the cities Xanthus and Patara are not so well known. 1 Side, daughter of Taurus and wife ofCimolus, who gave her name to the Pamphylian city of Side is not known, though the name is common in mythology for eponymous heroines. 2 It is particularly likely that her story was told by Hecataeus, since Herodian, after citing 'Hecataeus in the Asia', has exactly the same words as Stephanus. 3 Strabo and Scylax are content to point out how the city was settled by Aeolians from Cyme. 4 Stephanus gives the authority of Hecataeus for the Doliees, mythical or semi-mythical inhabitants ofCyzicus, more generally known as the Doliones (F. 219). What he said about them is not recorded, but Apollonius of Rhodes represents the Argonauts as welcomed by the Doliones and their king Cyzicus and speaks of them as fearing attack from the Pelasgians;5 these latter are evidently the Pelasgians of Placie and Scylace mentioned by Herodotus (i. 57) in a context that suggests the influence of Hecataeus. It is very likely that Hecataeus gave some account of the foundation and early history of the city, from which Apollonius borrowed details and fitted them into his Argonaut story.6 Some of the names of cities listed in the fragments appear in unfamiliar form or spelling; others are totally unknown, such as MVP~KOfJ>, 'a city opposite Tenedos and Lesbos',7 Coloura near Priene and Sidele in Ionia, Cyne and Mimnedus in Lydia, Laeia, Xylus, Tnyssus, and Messaba in Caria, Melanippium, Cordytus, and Cyrbe in Pamphylia. 8 Medmasus in Caria appears in Pliny, but nowhere else, as

Medmassa, and probably the Maovaa7» of the Athenian tributelists come from this city. 1 Another Ionian city, Hipponesus, is likewise found nowhere else except in Pliny,z where it is put in the Ceramicus Sinus. Corydalla, 'a city of the Rhodians', is probably to be placed near Rhodiapolis in Lycia, though Jacoby suggests it may be part of the Rhodian territory in Caria, near Loryma. 3 The site of Cyllandus, another 'city of Caria', is likewise uncertain, though its name appears in the Athenian tribute-lists (F. 250). Sindia, a 'city of Lycia', also provides difficulty,4 as does Idyrus in Pamphylia. 5 Lirnyteia is doubtless the Lyrnessus of which Strabo remarks that 'they say it is between Phaselis and Attaleia'. 6 Where a name is more familiar but the site uncertain, the fragment sometimes even adds a difficulty of its own. In seeking to locate Abarnus, which was near Lampsacus, Leaf is forced to ignore Hecataeus' description of it as an aKpa of Lampsacus;7 and if Apollonius, who calls it a sandy beach, 8 is following Hecataeus, he must have read, rightly or wrongly, dKT7} instead of aKp7]. Old Gargarus is mentioned as Ent 7fi aKpq. T7» "]07]>, and here Leaf has been able to profit by his description. 9 The fragment about Sigeum (or Sige, as he called it) does not tell us whether the Athenians still occupied it when he wrote: it is simply 'a city of the Troad' (F. 221). Sige may have been a more archaic form of the name than Sigeion, and he indulges his taste for archaic or at least unusual names of cities (as in his treatment of Greece) by calling Cyme 'AfLa'ovwv because of its occupation by the

I

F. 255, 256. Cf. Roscher's Lexicon, s.v. Pataros and Xantlws (8).

2 F. 262. Cf. Zwicker in RE., s.v. Side (7) and (9). _3 IIEp' K~IIOA,tKfjS ~poa'i'S[us (~. ~entz: i, p. 311, II). K€KA'1TUt el' ,bra l::[llTJs T'1S IIUYUTPOS /-LEV Tuupou. yuvatKOS SE Kt/-LwAou. 4 Strabo xiv. 4, 2; Scylax 101. Coins as early as the sixth century have been found (Lanckoronski, Stiidte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, i, p. 126). 5 i. 961, 1022. 6 cr. Biirchner in RE., s.v. Doliones. Not all the authorities are cited here; see Schol. Ap. Rhod. i. 1024, 1037, 1065. 7 F. 222. Cf. Ruge in RE., s.v. MUptKOVS. 8 F. 234, 236-8, 251-4, 259, 263-4. It has been suggested that Messaba is the Metaba of the Notitiae (cf. Jacoby's note on F. 252, Ruge in RE., s.v. Messaba).

I

2

73

F. 244; N.H. v. 107. Cf. W. R. Paton and]. L. Myres inJHS. xvi, p. 205. F. 245; N.H. v. 134. Biirchner in RE., s.v. Hipponesos, is not convinced

that the same town is referred to. J F. 246 and Jacoby's note. cr. Ruge in RE., s.v. Korydalla; Sir W. Ramsay, The Historical Geography if Asia Minor, p. 425· 4 F. 257 and]acoby's note; Ruge in RE., s.v. Isinda (2). 5 F. 260. Cf. Theophr. de Vent. 53; Scylax 100. 6 F. 261; Strabo xiv. 4, I. 7 F. 220; W. Leaf, Strab? a~~ th,e !road, ~3-4. B';t X~n. Hell. ii. I, 29 speaks of Conon as KaTaaxwv E1Tt T'1V A{3apvt/Ja T'1V Aa/-LtPaKou aKpav. 8 i.932. 9 F. 224-Steph. Byz. S.v. rupyapa' 1TClA" TfjS Tpwu/Jos £1Tl Tll aKpq. TfjS "Iel'1s, IIMato. (1TuAat J ac.) rupyapos KMOU/-L€VTJ. ~v AloAtK~V dvo/-Lu~Et l::TpU{3WV Kal 'EKaTaLos. Leaf, op. cit., pp. 258-63.

pp.

4515

L

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

Amazons, and the Gulf of Smyrna the MlAT)'TOS KOA7TOS after the river Meles (F. 226, 227). So much for the individual names, familiar and unfamiliar. The other question of purely geographical interest is his view of the regional boundaries, the geographical meaning he gave to terms like the Troad, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, and Cilicia. His extended use of the term Hellespontos has already been discussed, I and he evidently divided up his description of the country according to these regional boundaries, since he is cited as mentioning Sigeum, Lamponia, and Gargara as 'cities of the Troad', Cyme and the Gulf of Smyrna EV 'TOtS AloAtKotS (F. 221, 223, 224, 226, 227). So far the classification is on orthodox lines, but the description of Miletus as 7TOAtS EV Kaptq. 'TWV 'Iwvwv is curiously exact (F. 240); he evidently varied his formula of description when the turn of his native city came. More remarkable, however, is the small extent which he granted to Lycia, since, to the evident surprise of Stephanus, he put Phellus, Melanippium, and Idyrus in Pamphylia (F. 258-60), as though the boundary came soon after Patara. The story told by Herodotus (i. 176) of the extermination of the Lycians in their struggle against Harpagus may have something to do with this definition of Lycia. How he defined the regional boundaries inland there is no way of telling; he mentions a tribe in Phrygia (the name itself is corrupt),2 but no fragment survives referring to Pisidia or the Solymi, and the two Lydian cities which occur in the fragments are unknown. Some of the fragments must be considered from another point of view: with regard to their historical importance as evidence for the condition of Asia Minor at the end of the sixth century. There is no mention of the Persians, no more than there is of the Carthaginians in the fragments relating to Spain. But, just as in Spain and southern Italy, some cities which flourished in Caria and Ionia in the sixth century may have sunk into insignificance at the beginning of the fifth: the reflections of Herodotus on the varying fortunes of cities 3 certainly suggest that this was the case. Where the

name of a city is entirely unknown from other sources except Hecataeus, one cannot of course be sure. But when he mentions Myonnesus as 'a city between Teos and Lebedos', whereas, according to Stephanus, Artemidorus called it a xwptov and Pliny speaks of cities that had perished at Myonnesus and Diarrheusa, I the situation is different. In Thucydides iii. 32 the place appears as a convenient harbour where the Spartan commander Alcidas can put in to slaughter .h!s prisoners-which suggests that it was deserted. If the cntlc objects that Hecataeus uses the term 7ToAtS elsewhere of all sorts of insignificant hamlets, it may be replied that he:e he is on his native heath and his practice is likely to be stncter. Hence one may compare Stephanus' note on Myndos, 7ToAtS Kaptas' 'EKa'TatOS 'Autq.. Eun Ka~ 7TOAtS Kaptas ruT) llaAata MVVDOS, with Pliny's w.ords Inde Myndos et ubifuit P~lae"!yndo!.2 The present tense, as opposed to Pliny'sfuit, certamly Imphes that the city was still standing when Hecataeus wrote. On the other hand we learn that the city of Heraclea at the foot of Mount Latmus, which became prominent in Hellenistic times, existed under the name Latmus in his day, the mountain retaining its Homeric name of CPO€tpWV opOS.3 ~he Athenian tribute-lists give the Aa:rlLtot among the Canan contributors, but there is no other authority except Hecataeus for the city's existence in the sixth century. . It is the historian who should most regret the loss of thIS part of the Periegesis. If it survived it would be a valuable document for the state of the Greek cities in Asia Minor at the end of the sixth century, and it may therefore be compared in its importance with the portion dealing with the Greek cities in Spain and southern Italy.

74

I

Supra, p. 59.

2

F. 27o--Steph. Byz. S.v. MVALu,v(?)' pvylas. 'EKaTatOS 'Aullf.

l

.

1·5·

75

Other Asiatic Provinces of the Persian Empire If a large number of fragments were preserved from this portion of the Periegesis, they might help towards solving the I F. 23 2 ; N.H. v. 137 'Myonnesos, Diarrheusa-in utraque oppida intercidere'. 2 F. 243; N.H. v. 107. Cf. Ruge in RE., s.v. Myndos (I). l F. 239-Strabo xiv. I, 8 ;gfidi' £UT'V 0 AaTJLl.KOS KOA1TOS, £v,p 'HpaKA"a T].mo AaTfLw A€yofLEVYJ, 1TOAlXV'OV V"'oPfLoV <xov. £KaA€tTO 8£ 1TPOT€POV AaTfLos OfLwVVfLWS TW V1r~PKOP.'VW opn,01T£p 'EKara'ios ILEV £JLcPalV£L, TO aUro ElvaL vopi'wv 'Tip t}'rro TOV

1T~'1JTOiJ tI>/J"pi»v oP" A€YOJ1.EV'l'· lJ1T£P yap Tfis AaTfLou "'1JU' TO tI>/J"pWV opos KiLU/Ja..

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

eternal problem of Herodotean sources. As it is, the fragments are neither enough nor of such a kind as either to refute or encourage those critics who are anxious to see the influence of Hecataeus everywhere in the 'AUavptKoL and MYJStKOt .\6yot of Herodotus. There are admittedly a few fragments which lend a slight degree of probability to this view, but the conclusions of critics like Prasek 1 are not really justified by the evidence. No fragments relating to Babylonia are preserved, so that this region must be excluded entirely from the discussion; and the solitary reference to KaftapYJvoL, vf]UOt 'Apa{:3twv (F. 27 I), is the only hint that he even described Arabia or the Asiatic coast ,of the Red Sea. There are eight fragments referring to Phoenician or Syrian cities, but they are all of the colourless variety, giving no indication of the manner in which he described the region. More interesting are the references to cities which he apparently called Persian, though not all of them are in Persis, and to the tribes and cities in the eastern portion of the Persian Empire. Here we find a few references to geographical features of the country and to the clothing worn by the people; but there is not enough to show how his knowledge of these regions compared with that of Herodotus, nor how much he had learned from the report of the voyage ofScylax. These general statements will have to be justified by discussion of individual fragments; but there is nothing to be gained by lengthy argument. The fragments themselves give no indication of the manner in which Hecataeus arranged his material, how he organized his discussion or grouped the different peoples. Jacoby has argued that the brief discussion of Asiatic geography in Herodotus iv. 37-41 uses the material and consequently represents the arrangement of Hecataeus.:\ But this is unlikely. In the preceding chapter Herodotus expresses his scorn for map-makers and their II€pLoSot rf], and says it will not take him long to show the size of each continent Kat oiY) TL, Eunv E, ypmp¥ €KauTTJ. This is polemic against Hecataeus, and what follows must be an alternative to rather than a summary of his description. His account centres around the Klio, iv, pp. 193-208.

2

F. Gr. Hist. i, p. 354.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

77

Persians, whose position is taken for granted, as though it were quite unnecessary to explain it-IUpuat OlKEOVUt Kan}KOVT€S E7Tt ~v VOTLY)V (}cD.aauav ~v 'Epv(}pTJv KaA€OftEVTJV. 1 All the rest of the description is from the point of view of the Persians. This does not mean that Herodotus is using the 'official Persian source', which is always being mentioned by critics; but it does mean that he is offering an antidote to the Greek writers who have attempted to describe Asia from the point of view of Ionia. A careful examination of the passage reveals his irritation at many points: he is not concerned with retailing the description of Hecataeus; he has been in Persia himself, and tries to reproduce the Persian point of view, which is more likely to be correct than the Greek. The more one examines the passage, the less willing one is to extract the description of Hecataeus out of it. At one point only does he slip: he says that to the east of India the country is desert, and then, as though to correct this unwarranted statement, adds: 'and no one is in a position to say what it is like'.:\ Hecataeus may have been responsible for the remark about the desert; but this is not a very valuable discovery. If the conclusions of this paragraph are correct, the discussion of this portion of the Periegesis should be restricted to the actual fragments. These contain, as usual, a few unfamiliar names: Ftyy'\vJ-tWTTJ, tPOtVLKTJS 7T6'\ts, is entirely unknown, and so is Alya if it is really a 'city of Phoenicia', and not the Cilician seaport town (F. 277, 276). tPOtVtKOVuua, 'a city of the Phoenicians in Syria', is equally hard to identify.3 Equally unknown are XavSavaKy), 7T6'\t, II€putK~,4 the tribe of KaTaVVOL near the Caspian (F. 290), and the city of the Matieni called 'YcfJ7TTJ (F. 287). KvpYJ, vf]uo, EV Tip II€putKip 7T6vTtp (F. 281), is not known by name, but Herodotus mentions the islands in the Persian Gulf to which the great king banishes political offenders. s More important than the names themselves are the foriv. 37. 2 iv. 40. F. 278. See E. Honigmann, Historische Topographie von Nordsyrien im Altertum, Zeitschrift des deutschen Paliistinavereins, xlvii (1924), p. 3 I, no. 376b . 4 F.283. cr. Tomaschek in RE., s.v. Chandanake. 5 iii. 93. I

3

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

mulae of description. Gabala, Sidon, Dorus (or Dora), Aiga, and TtYYAV/1-WTTj are all 'cities of Phoenicia' (F. 273-7)' According to the later more exact description of those qui subtilius dividunt, I Sidon would be in Phoenicia, Dorus would be on its southern boundary, but Gabala would be beyond its northern limit. If Hecataeus meant by the term the part of the coast inhabited and controlled by Phoenicians before the Persian conquest, he might have extended its limits even farther so as to include the Cilician Aegae as a city of Phoenicia. 2 The doubtful position of TtyyAV/1-WTTj and
Asiatic Ethiopians. I XaVoavuKTj, likewise a 'Persian city', is unknown (F. 283), and the site of };tTTUKTj is disputed, some identifying it with the town on the Tigris, others with "'PtTTUKTj and the xwpa "'PtTTaKTjV~ which is in Persis. 2 It is quite likely that Hecataeus, in dealing with the inland parts of Asia, is less interested in the geography than in the customs of the people. It was a territory about which exact and intelligible geographical information, conforming to his standards of accuracy, would be hard for a Greek to obtain, whereas stories about the customs abounded. Furthermore, the Greek reader was more interested in their customs than in the geography of an inland country, which he was not likely to visit. So we find his actual words about the Cissians: 'Their dress is the Persian Cypassis' (F. 284) (a statement which Weissbach verifies by reference to Persian basreliefs),3 and about the people of Hyope, an unknown city of the Matieni: 'The people wear the same costume as the Paphlagonians. '4 On the other hand, there are four fragments, in three of which we have the actual words of Hecataeus, that offer a different type of geographical description from any fragments discussed hitherto. Media is the country 'lying alongside the Caspian gates';5 of the country around the Caspian Sea

I Pliny, N.H. v. 67 'Qui subtilius dividunt, circumfundi Syria Phoenicen volunt et esse oram maritimam Syriae, cuius pars sit Idumaea et Iudaea, dein Phoenicen, dein Syriam.' 2 Cf. Scylax, 104. 3 ii. 159, iii. 5. 4 Pliny, N.H. v. 82. See also Hardouin's note (i, p. 579) and Honigmann, op. cit., p. 7, no. 243.

79

iii. 92, 94. F. 285. Cf. Ctesias, F. 54 (Gilmore), who also calls the place IIEpa'K~. Weissbach in RE., s.v.l:'7"7"aK7J, says IIEPaLK~ = 'belonging to the Achaemenid empire' (which is not in accordance with Hecataeus' usual style) and wants to identify this city with the familiar Sittace on the Tigris. Earlier opinion believed in two different towns of the same name: cf. MacMichael in Journal of Philology, iv, pp. 136-41. The town in Persis appears in Steph. Byz. as 'l"TTaK7J, and Aristotle, De Mirabilibus Ausc. 35, has xwpa 'l"7"7"aK7JV~. 3 RE., s.v. K,aa'a. ~ 4 F ....28?-~teph: Byz: S'/V, ';w:"" 7T?At,S .,MaTL1JVwv: 71'fOaEX~s 'TOrS r~p3{OLS. EKaTaw, Aa"", " Ev IlE ?TO)." Ywm}" 0' Il avOpw?To, Ea07JTa q,0PEOVaLV 0 '7JV ?TEp IIaq,).ayovE,." The Matieni of this F. are evidently those of Hdt. i. 72, on the right bank of the Halys, opposite the Phrygians, so that Gordium, the capital of Phrygia, is meant. Those of F. 288 Moaxo,' Ko).xwv .Ovo" ?TPOaEX<'" MaTL7Jvo" are probably the Matieni of Hdt. v. 49, 52, i. 202, iii. 94, who are near the Saspeires. Jacoby seems unaware of the distinction between the various Matieni, and Weissbach in RE., s.v. Matienoi (2), surprisingly says that Hec. seems to have known only the M. in Asia Minor. • 5 F._28~~tep~. ~yz., S.v. ~~Il'a. x~pa Ta" Kaa?T,aL<; ?TapaKEK).'fL£v7J ?Tv).aL<;. I

2

I

TO',

EKaTa,o, Aa"". a?TO M7Jllov v,ov M7JIlELa,.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

he writes: 'Around the so-called Hyrcanian Sea are high mountains, thick with forests, and on the mountains are aKav()a Kvvapa' (whatever these may be, dog-roses or some variety of artichoke) ; and again: 'To the east of the Parthians the land is occupied by the Chorasmii, who have both plains and mountains in their coun':ry; and on the mountains are trees growing wild, aKav()a Kvvapa, poplar and tamarisk.' 1 Herodotus, after insisting on the uncertainty of all information about the distant east, in which passage he is plainly thinking of Hecataeus, goes on to introduce his story of the plain surrounded by mountains, filled with water by blocking the five exits, which the Great King used as a reservoir to be drawn on in case of necessity, in the Chorasmian territory; at least 'it used to belong to the Chorasmians, but since the Persians have gained control, it belongs to the King'. 2 Kiessling has argued that the description of the country originates with Hecataeus,3 but the description of the country and the tale belong together. Herodotus presumably gives the story as a commentary on Hecataeus' remark about the Chorasmians, possibly to show his own superior knowledge, for he adds: W~ S' EYW olSa dKovaa~, XPTJI-"am I-"EycDta 7TPTJaa6I-"EVO~ dvo{YEt mJ.pEg TOU cP6pov. This story is his parting shot at Hecataeus for the time being; it is his last word about the geography of Asia; he dismisses the story with a final mum I-"EV S~ EXEt OVTW, and resumes his treatment of Persian history. The fragments about Indian cities and tribes are not very illuminating, except as showing that Hecataeus did include this region in his account of Asia; which one might, in any case, have deduced from what Herodotus says about the Eaxana{. Some of the names occur in Herodotus: Caspapyrus (or KaU7TaTVpo~) and the Gandarae,4 the MVKOt and the KaAaT{at. 5 It is easy to explain Hecataeus' knowledge of these names by his reading of Scylax, who is made the scapegoat for all

curious information about India, like Aristeas for Scythia. One precious fragment gives an example of his manner of description: EV S' aVTOt~ OlK€OVatV avBpW7TOt 7Tapa TOV 'IvSov

80

•

I

2 3 4

5

cr.

F. 291, 292• For a hazardous interpretation see Prasek, op. cit. iii. II 7. RE. ix. 470-1 (s.v. Hyrkania). F. 295, 294; Hdt. iii. 91, 102, iv. 44. F. 289, 298. cr. Steph. Byz. S.v. Mcf.KaL· £91'Os fL£r~v KapfLavlas Ka' 'ApaPlas. also Hdt. iii. 93 with Stein's note.

81

\ 'f')' 'c;:,' fJ aatllTJwv. \ , I-"EXpt , TOVTOV , 'f')' ,\ 7TOTaI-"OV "~7Ttat, EV OE TEtXO~ "~7Ttat. a7TO SE TOVTOV EPTJI-"{TJ I-"€XPt~ 'IvSwv (F. 299). He is not credited A

with any curious stories about Indian customs; but this is scarcely a proof that he refrained from delighting his readers with them, although, no doubt, a good number remained over for Herodotus to use.

Egypt This section could easily be swollen to a disproportionate length. The actual fragments relating to Egypt are not particularly numerous, but many critics are inclined to believe that Hecataeus played a most important part in introducing Greek readers to the history and social customs of the Egyptians; that Herodotus is indebted to him for a great deal of his information about the country, both true and false; that the Periegesis is in fact the source of those Greek notions about Egypt which Egyptologists have shown to be so curiously misleading. A recent example of this kind of criticism is Professor Heidel's remarkable monograph on Hecataeus and the Egyptian Priests in Herodotus Book II. 1 Herodotus' references to the priests in Egyptian temples have for a long time been under suspicion, on the ground that as a mere Greek tourist he could not have conversed with these august personages, and, even if he had, they could not have told him the preposterous stories with which he credits them. Heidel, who has not a very high opinion of the intelligence of Herodotus, tries to show that these references to the priests, besides a good deal more in book ii, are taken from Hecataeus; that Hecataeus was a wit who liked to tell preposterous stories and pretend that they were told him in sober earnest by Egyptian priests, with whom he had not conversed any more than Herodotus had; and that 'our sober-sides', as Heidel calls Herodotus, was not intelligent enough to see that he was playing the fool in the manner later adopted by Dionysius Scytobrachion. I

Mem. qf American Acad. qf Arts and Sciences, xviii. 2 (1935), pp. 53-134. 4515

M

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

The usual objection to such a theory is that in seeking an answer to the question 'How or where did Herodotus get a certain piece of information?' it merely puts the unanswerable question one stage further back; that is to say, it puts Herodotus in the debt of Hecataeus and leaves us to face the even more completely unanswerable question 'How or where did Hecataeus get the information?' Heidel, however, has the courage to face this second question more honestly than his predecessors. He tries to show that Hecataeus based his account of Egyptian history on a papyrus roll containing a list of kings (which he counted, but could not decipher), on the association of certain monuments with certain kings' names, and on a series of statues; and that without consulting any trustworthy native authority he built up his account on these imperfectly understood data. To criticize his argument in detail would be impossible here because of limitations of space; and, indeed, it is scarcely necessary to do so, because those who approve of his method of argument will prefer to form their own conclusions, and those who disapprove of it will reject his conclusions in toto. There is no tradition preserved that Hecataeus related anything about Egyptian history, and Jacoby is satisfied that this absence of a tradition offers a valid argument ex silentio. I Since the aim of the present chapter is to examine the evidence about the Periegesis, Jacoby's attitude rather than Heidel's must be adopted. But the final word has not yet been spoken. Earlier critics tried to show that Herodotus made up for the inadequate extent of his own travels in Egypt by extensive plagiarism of literary sources, particularly of Hecataeus' Periegesis. 2 There is no doubt that Herodotus did consult this book in writing about Egypt, and the matter was most Note on F. 300. Cf. A. H. Sayce, Hero[fotus I-III, pp. xxii, 164; The Season and Extent if the Travels of Herodotus in Egypt, Journal of Philology, xiv (1885), pp. 257-86 ; A. Wiedemann, Herodots zweites Buch, passim; for'lists of the earlier literature see pp. 23-7. For a contrary view see D. D. Heath, Herodotus in Egypt, Journal if Philology, xv (1886), pp. 215-40; A. Croiset, La Veracite d'Herodote, Rev. des etudes grecques, i (1888), pp. 154-62; C. Sourdille, La Duree et l'Etendue du Voyage d'Herodole en Egypte (Paris, 1910), esp. pp. 123-8, 155-61, 19 1- 21 7.

lucidly discussed by Diels. dotus himself that

1

83

There is the statement of Hero-

. 'Hecataeus the AOY01TOL6s, when he was in Thebes, expounded hIS ancestry and traced it back to a god in the sixteenth generation' a?d the priests did for him what they also did for me, though dId not expound my ancestry. They took him into a large hall and pointing out a number of colossal wooden statues counted them for him; their number corresponded to that which I have already mentioned. Each high priest sets up a statue of himself the~e in his own lifetime .. Whilst showing these to me and counting theIr number, they pomted out that there was a continuous succession from father to son, and they named all of them for me, from the most recent to the earliest. So when Hecataeus traced back. his ancestry to a god in the sixteenth generation, they retahated by counting these statues, since they did not believe that any man could actually be the son of a god.'2

i

Again Eusebius, in writing about the plagiaristic habits of Greek writers, quotes Porphyry as saying: 'Why should I tell you how Herodotus in his second book took many passages almost verbatim from the Periegesis of Hecataeus? the description of the phoenix, for example, and the hippopotamus and the method of hunting crocodiles.'3 And again Arrian says that both Herodotus and Hecataeus called Egypt Swpov TOU 7ToTalLou.4

These three passages, apart from others which will be discussed later, are quite enough to prove that Herodotus made s?me use of the Periegesis. The question is, How did he use I~? Did?e merely copy statements from it to supplement hIS own Ignorance, or did he attempt to verify its statements\ using the book as a guide to his travels and to the questions he should ask of people? On some occasions he did attempt to verify Hecataeus' remarks and contradicted them with a show of irritation. How many other passages, apart from those mentioned by Porphyry, he copied

I

2

I

P~.

Hermes, xxii, pp. 411-44. Cf. Ed. Meyer, Forschungen, i, pp. 183-4, and

!!-. Legrand, Hirodote (C?llection ~ude), Histoires, ii, pp. 21-4.

II. I 43-F. 300. Sourdille, op. CIt., p. 205, and Legrand, p. 22, insist that Hecataeus could not have told this story against himself. 3 Praep. Evangel. x. 3, p. 466B (F. 324a); Hdt. ii. 70-3. • Anab. v. 6, 5-F. 301; Hdt. ii. 5.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

without comment the evidence does not enable us to decide. I Speculation on this point may be valuable for those who regard Hecataeus purely as a means to the interpretation of Herodotus. It is useless to a critic who is trying to find out not merely how Herodotus used his sources, but what Hecataeus wrote and in what manner. An attempt of this kind must depend on a careful study of Herodotus' account of Egypt. But the passages in that account which offer definite ground for argument must be distinguished carefully from those which merely give opportunity for conjecture. The Herodotean passage quoted above shows that Hecataeus actually described the temple, that he had been in Egypt and related his own experiences in the country. This is a valuable piece of information, the like of which we do not possess for any other portion of the Periegesis. It does not, unfortunately, give us any indication how extensive his travels were or enable us to compare his powers of observation with those of Herodotus. But it leads us to believe that much of what he has to say about the customs of Egypt is the result of his own O"'LS' and iaTOp(1). He speaks, as also does Herodotus, about the special kind of bread made by the Egyptians, called KVAAaanS', remarking how they were apTo~ayoL and how they made a drink from barleY-TaS' KpdJaS' £S' TO 7TWfJ-a KaTaAEOvaLV. Z The famous Egyptian 'u80S' was so familiar to Greeks by the time of Herodotus that one scarcely need speak of his copying from Hecataeus here. As for his description of the phoenix, the hippopotami, and the crocodiles, he evidently did not think it worth while to verify the account, which contains some inaccuracies. But he did hope for an opportunity to refute his predecessor when visiting some of the places described by him. He was evidently disappointed that his own experience in the temple

of the colossal statues should duplicate so precisely that of his predecessor, and tried to assert his independence by snubbing him for his pretensions to divine ancestry. He was likewise disappointed that he had to agree with him in admitting that Lower Egypt was a 'gift of the river'. But this time he refuses Hecataeus any credit for his discovery by saying that any intelligent observer could have seen it for himself-01]Aa yap o~ Kat fJ-~ 7TpOaK01JaaVn, lo6vn 8/, oaTLS' yE aVvEaLv EXEL. I In writing about the supposedly floating island of Chemmis (Hecataeus called it Chembis, which is said to be a more correct spelling) he again tries to show his superiority: 'This island is in a deep and wide lake near the temple at Buto, and is said by the Egyptians to float on the water. For my part I never saw it float or move at all, and am astonished at hearing that an island can really float on the water.'z This passage provides an interesting contrast with the unadorned statement of Hecataeus, whose original words are preserved: £V BOVTOLS' 7TEpt TO LEPOV T1]S' A1)TOUS' Ean v1]aoS' XEfJ-f3LS' QV0fJ-a, ;p~ TOU 'A7T6MwvoS', Ean O€ ~ v1]aoS' fJ-ETapa(1) Kat 7TEPL7TAeL Kat KLVEETaL £7Tt TOU iJoaToS' (F. 305). Herodotus has at last found an opportunity to sneer at his predecessor's credulity. But it is quite likely that the legend of Apollo's having hid there was in Hecataeus' book, although he cites the authority of the Egyptians for it; it is simply a parallel story to the Greek legend of Delos, and the fragments show that in this part of the Periegesis, as elsewhere, Hecataeus was ready to offer his own versions of Greek legends. In speaking of the term £7TCKT1)T6S' TE Y1] Kat owpOV TOU 7ToTafJ-0u Herodotus is careful to point out that it applies only to that part of Egypt £S' T~V "EAA1)VES' vavTCMovTat. I Later on he expresses his disagreement with the view of the Ionians who say that Egypt consists only of the Delta (ii. IS), and by a rather childish quibbling argument tries to show that their point of view is inconsistent and silly. Once again it is the question of the division of continents. To what continent, if any, did Egypt belong, and was the Delta separate from all continents? Stephanus refers some of the cities in Upper Egypt to the IlEpL~Y1)aLS' AlYV7TTOV, others to the Periegesis of

I It has been suggested that Hecataeus is the source of his error in ii. 8, where he says that four days above Heliopolis Egypt becomes broad again. Scylax compares the shape of Egypt to that of a double axe, and this comparison is thought to have originated with Hecataeus. Cf. A. Wiedemann, Philologus, xlvi (1888), pp. 172-3; Jacoby, RE. vii. 2680. Sourdille, pp. 12233, rejects this theory, because Hdt. is speaking on his own account in this chapter; he thinks there is a misunderstanding arising out of his own observation. Cf. also V. Ehrenberg, Klio, xvi (1920), pp. 321-3. 2 F. 322, 323-Athen. iii. I 14c, x. 447c; Hdt. ii. 77.

I··

11.

5.

2

ii. 156.

85

86

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS 1 Asia or of Libya. If Hecataeus reckoned Libya as part of Asia, there is nothing surprising about the inconsistent manner in which Stephanus refers to his authority. He would naturally be shocked by such heterodox geography, and would attempt to fix for himself some dividing line between Libya and Asia-possibly the Nile. But some of the names of cities are unidentifiable and any argument is incomplete. Accordingly one is thrown back on the polemic of Herodotus and earlier remarks about Egypt in seeking what geographical definition of the country Hecataeus offered. 2 It seems clear that Herodotus is attacking two distinct geographical views: (I) the view that Egypt consisted only of the Delta; (2) the view that the three continents were separated from one another by water boundaries-which leaves it uncertain to which continent the Delta belongs, especially if the Nile is thought to flow out of the Ocean. It is not necessary to believe that both these views were expressed by Hecataeus. Indeed, the first view, when Herodotus attacks it, seems to carry with it a belief that there are only two continents. Herodotus says that those who restrict the term Egypt to the Delta allot the rest of the country inhabited by Egyptians partly to Arabia, partly to Libya; and these terms, Arabia and Libya, refer not to continents but to countries; since otherwise the distinction would be between Asia and Libya. For his own part he never decides to which continent Egypt belongs, perhaps indeed accepting, without acknowledging, the Hecataean view that Libya is part of Asia. The restriction of Egypt to the Delta was not confined to Hecataeus, as is shown by Aeschylus' words: T~V Tp£ywvov is X86va NEtAWTtv. 3

The difficulty arises only if one combines this view with the belief that the Nile is a continental boundary. There is no evidence that Hecataeus did this, although a reference to his mythological work reveals his belief that it did flow from the Ocean.4 Herodotus finds himself wanting to use the I F. 313-16. Sourdille, p. 123, n. 1, is misleading on this point. 2 Hdt. ii. 15-16. 3 Prom. Vinet. 813-14. 4 F. 18a 'EKaTaios S€ .; M'A~a,os €K Toil tpaa,Sos (sc. cp'T]alv) S..AO.iv
HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

87

pithy remark that Egypt is a gift of the river; but, because he will not accept the whole view of Hecataeus about Egypt, he has to spoil its point by adding ES -rT]v "EAATJVES vaV'TtAAoVTat. The various theories of the Ionians about the source of the Nile roused the scorn of Herodotus,1 but he never mentions any of the geographers by name. In telling the story of the A!gonauts Hecataeus made them return up the Phasis into the Ocean, and then back to the Mediterranean by way of the Nile. Taken alone this reference to the Genealogiae is not enough to prove that he really believed the Nile rose in the Ocean. But Herodotus refers in such very scornful terms to this view that there can be no doubt it did appear in the Periegesis. Diodorus refers it to the Egyptian priests (whose authority Hecataeus may possibly have invoked), but Diodorus is capable of misunderstanding or muddling any account. 2 It is interesting to note the language with which Herodotus dismisses the theory: aVE7TtaTTJp.OVEaTEpTJ P.EV Ean TijS AEAEYP.EVTJS, AOYCP DE El7TEtV ()wp.aatWTEPTJ. 3 Such language is a hint that he thought Hecataeus was deliberately sensational, preferring TO JLV()WDES and ()avp.aTa to sensible scientific discussion-the same sort of criticism which Thucydides in his turn levelled at Herodotus. The accounts of the phoenix and the floating island of Chembis show that he was not above relating ()avp.aTa without comment on their probability. It is certainly quite clear that he combined his geographical description with mythological excursuses. He gave some account of the story of Menelaus and Helen in Egypt, which may have prompted Herodotus to investigate it. 4 Stephanus quotes the Periegesis for a place near Canopus called 'EMvEWV, whilst Herodian and Aristides point out that he derived the names of Pharos and Canopus from steersmen of Menelaus. s Even in Egypt he did not give up his favourite device of explaining the origin of place-names by referring them to characters of , ilK€aVOV, .ha €K.ifJ.v .ls TOV N.iAOV, o9.v .ls T~V iJp.'Tlpav 9aAaaaav. On this F. see section on GeTU!a/ogies, p. 101. 'ii. 20-3. 2 i. 37, 7. W. Aly, Hermes, lxii (lg27), pp. 305-7, suggests that Hecataeus' source was Euthymenes of Massalia. 3 ii.21. 4 ii. 112-1g. 5 F. 309, 307, 308. The story of Canopus is also in Scylax 106.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

Greek mythology. The precise form in which he told the famous story cannot very well be settled, unless we believe, with Heidel, that Herodotus is taking the story from him unchanged, and is lying when he writes €AEYOV DE ILOt Ot tPEE~ tUTOPEOVTt Tn 7TEPt, 'EMV7Jv YEVEu8at cLik I Herodotus shows his anxiety to give the Egyptian point of view about Helen and Menelaus, just as in writing about Persia he is at pains to reproduce the Persian point of view as opposed to the Greek. It is scarcely necessary to point out that the story is not really an Egyptian story; but it may have re~eived certain embellishments at the hands of Greeks in Egypt, and been circulated among Egyptians. 2 The same may be said of the tale ofPsammetichus' experiment to find out which was the most ancient race. 3 Herodotus objects to the 'foolish additions to the story made by the Greeks', and, in attacking the view that Egypt is confined to the Delta, complains that, if the Egyptians are no older than the formation of the Delta, they would surely never have shown such anxiety to prove the antiquity of their race. 4 Many critics have therefore supposed that the same author who confined Egypt to the Delta told the story of Psammetichus, and that Herodotus is attacking Hecataeus for foolish inconsistency.s But the fact remains that he does claim to have consulted the priests about it. The fragments offer no indication of the method of geographical description. Indeed, Stephanus is even less helpful than usual in showing how Hecataeus related one place to another; he rarely says more than 7T()AL~ AlYV7TTOV, W~ 'EKaTa'io~, or uses some equivalent formula. 'EMVELOV is described as T07TO~ 7TpO~ To/ Kavw{3cp. The brief quotation of the actual words 'A8apaIL{3tTYJr; VOILO~ Kat, 'A8apaIL{3YJ 7ToALr; (F. 304) suggests that the description was divided up according to vOlLot -which one might have expected. Presumably the Delta was treated separately from the rest of Egypt. But the divi-

sion was not clear enough to prevent Stephanus from being confused, if'A8apuIL{3YJ (referred to by Hecataeus as an Egyptian city) is the same as "A8AL{3L~ in Arabia, for which he quotes no particular authority. The mention of tPuKovuuaL, the starting-point of the NileRed Sea Canal, I naturally raises the question whether he told the stories of canal-digging, which Herodotus records of Sesostris, Necho, and Darius. Heidel has argued that Herodotus took the whole story of Sesostris from Hecataeus, on the ground that it is a Greek legend masquerading as an Egyptian legend. 2 Another argument that Hecataeus connected Colchis with the Sesostris legend is supplied by the peevish insistence of Herodotus that he noticed the similarities between Colchians and Egyptians independently, without having heard of them from any ~:me else: vo~ua~ O€ 7TpOTEPOV aUTo~ ~ aAAwv dxovua~ Myw. 3 This remark, however, is not so much an indication that he took the whole story from Hecataeus as that he was comparing Hecataeus' version with one which he heard independently. The solution remains a matter for conjecture. A few names occur in the fragments which are mentioned either very briefly, in passing, or not at all by Herodotus. MayowAo~, 7TOAL~ AlYV7TTOV, is thought to be a different place from the Magdolus where Necho beat the Syrians in battle. 4 MVAWV, 7TOAL~ AlYV7TTOV, may be the place where there was a cult of Isis mentioned by a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus. s The city of BOA{3LTtVYJ (F. 306) is unknown, though the BOA{3tTtVOV uTolLa occurs in Herodotus (ii. 17): yet another example of an inexplicable 7TOAL~ in Hecataeus. AtYJ{3PL~, a city of Phoenicians in Egypt (F. 316), recalls the settlement of Phoenicians in Memphis described by Herodotus (ii. 112). The various islands in the Nile, named after famous Greek cities, Ephesus, Chios, Lesbos, Cyprus, Samos Kat, aAAaL (F. 310),

ii. 113; Heidel, op. cit., p. 77. 2 Legrand, op. cit., p. 32, suggests that Egyptian guides adapted the story for their clients 'au mieux de leur amour-propre national'. Heidel, p. I I 7, prefers to see in it Hecataeus' 'whimsical humor'. 3 ii. 2. 4 ii. IS. S Heidel, pp. 58-63; Wiedemann, Herodots zweites Buch, p. 45.

fJa>..aaCJ7}S. l:'Tpa{3wv cJ>aKOVUClat vijaot Kat.

88

I

89

F. 303-Steph. Byz. S.v. t1'>aKovaa' KWI1:'1 f.L£'T~V Alyv1T'TOV Kat 'Tijs 'EpvfJpiis (I, 26). 'EKa'TaLOS Of t1'>aKovaaa, Kat t1'>aKovaaa<s "'''1at. Kat

I

,r

4>aKaLOt.

Op. cit., pp. 71-5. See also his earlier article A Suggestion concerning Plato's Atlantis, Proc. qf American Acad. qf Arts and Sciences, lxviii, pp. 2 I 7 ff. 3 ii. 104. 4 F. 317; Hdt. ii. 159. 5 F. 318; Pap. Ox. xi. 1380, col. i. 16. 2

4SIS

N

90

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

show that the Greek traders preferred to name islands themselves rather than adopt native names. KpaJ-t{3ovTL<:;, 'Ovtd{3aTL<:;, and Ta{3L<:; (F. 314, 320, 321) are apparently totally unknown. From a purely geographical point of view there is very little known about Hecataeus' treatment of Egypt. The fragments reveal neither the extent of his knowledge nor his method of description. They reveal that he told some aetiological anecdotes, but give no indication how much Egyptian history he related; about Egyptian customs he had something to say, possibly more than about other countries, since he did actually visit Egypt. In seeking to reconstruct the description from the second book of Herodotus one is forced to depend on one's own opinion about the manner in which Herodotus used his sources. On this subject proof remains impossible. One can reach fairly certain conclusions if one believes that Herodotus copied Hecataeus closely and unintelligently and had no scruples about misinforming his readers. But not many critics will be prepared to start out with this assumption.

Ethiopia and Libya In an excellent introductory note to this section Jacoby points out that the AL{3VKD<:; .:\oyoS" of Herodotus in book iv, even more than his account of Egypt, really deserves to be included among the fragments of the Periegesis; and that our idea of Hecataeus' treatment of Africa depends on it far more than on the fragments strictly so called. 1 These fragments, indeed, are far less promising than those relating to Egypt. Except for a single reference in the Homeric scholia to his description of the pygmies' method of fighting (F. 328), they consist entirely of lexicographical entries, thirty-one from Stephanus and one from Herodian. Herodotus never mentions Hecataeus in his treatment of Libya, but reveals his obligations by tell-tale phraseology, as in a sentence like the following (iv. 168): OiKEOVaL D€ KaTa TaDE At{3VES". U7T' " , t.' 'A<:'DvpJ-taxwaL '<:' A L{JVWV R' , A LYV7TTOV apsaJ-tEVOL 7TPWTOL KaTOLKT}VTaL, Ot~ F. Gr. Hist. i, p. 371. F. Windberg, De Herodoti Scythiae et Libyae descriptione, holds a different view, but his conception of the methods of Hdt. is somewhat I

naIve.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

\' A"LYV7TTWLUt xpEWVTaL, , 'e-T}Ta DE <:'\.1. ' 7TI\EW EU 't'0PEOVUt OLT}V 7TEp 0;' aAAOt At{3VE<:;. Such a sentence looks almost like a transcription from Hecataeus, recalling such a fragment as ' DE <:, \ 7TOl\ts" " 'v' "ePW7TOt EU 'e-.I.' " F • 2 87 EV I. W7TTJ· Ot'<:" D av T}Ta 't'0PEOVUW OtT}V 7TEp IIatfo.:\ayovES". Admittedly Herodotus has some additions of his own to make: as when he speaks about Cyrene (where he claims to be using information given by Cyreneans, Theraeans, and Lacedaemonians), Aziris, and Barca. His story of the destruction of the Psylli on their expedition against the south wind is told on the authority of natives (Myw o€ TaVTa a Myovut At{3vE<:;);1 such a story appears to conflict not only with the Hecataean fragment about these people, 2 but with his own introductory remark, NauaJ-twut D€ 7TPOUOJ-tovpot Eiut (sic) 1JfJAAOL, which is very probably taken directly from the Periegesis. 3 The AL{3VKO<:; .:\oyoS" as a whole is an interesting object of study, providing as it does many parallels with the general construction of his history. There is a mythological introduction, as in the opening of book i, and the historical portion resembles a version on a small scale of the main story of the history. But an analysis of this cannot be undertaken here. It must suffice to point out characteristics in his geographical and ethnological treatment which recall characteristics of Hecataeus, more particularly passages which either conflict or correspond with the fragments. On several occasions Herodotus claims to have made independent inquiries (presumably on the occasion of his visit to Cyrene), but there is no such certain evidence of polemic against his predecessor as is to be found in his treatment of Egypt. His discussion of the customs of some nomads in 187 closes with the remark Myw D€ Ta Myovut aVTo~ At{3VES", and no surviving fragment of Hecataeus can be brought

, VoJ-totUt

\ Ta\ J-tEV

iv. 173. F. 332-Steph. Byz. s.v. '1''':'\'\0' Kat 'I'V'\'\'KOS KO'\1TOS· EV Tep A,{3VKep KO'\1TCP. 'EK~T~!OS • H£P'TJ'Y'Ion TT ' A 'I'VTJS· Q' " , ITI \ \ • '\ , • Q ()' -, 0 TV/"UKOS KOl\7rOS Juyas Ka'l'a VS, TP'WV TJJ1.£PWV I

2

7T'\OVS. 3 Stein, in his note, remarks: 'genauer ware ~oav'. The fact that the Psylli were not entirely destroyed in this expedition is irrelevant. Hdt. says that they were, and his £lol is therefore unintelligible unless it is transcribed from a literary source. Cf. Windberg, op. cit., p. 49.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

into relation with this chapter or the two chapters on the same theme which follow. His description of the fauna in the country of the nomads is supposed to be the result of independent inquiry, OUOV ~J-tE'iS tUTOPEOVTES E7rt J-tUKP0TaTOV orot TE EYEV0J-tEBu E~LKEuBaL (192). And his only report about the western part of the continent is referred to the Carthaginians (195). In 189 he plays his favourite game of deriving Greek religious customs from barbarians, arguing that the aegis of Athena is modelled on the dress worn by Libyan women. This passage comes in a context where he is describing customs according to the account of the Libyans themselves; but his various remarks on the sexual habits of the savages ( 172, 176, 180) all occur in chapters where the style indicates that he is following Hecataeus. An interesting feature of the fragments is the relatively large proportion of Greek place-names, even in the neighbourhood of Carthage. It is arguable that this preference for Greek instead of Semitic names is in keeping with Hecataeus' narrow Greek outlook, which showed itself in his treatment of Persian territory, in contrast with the more cosmopolitan attitude of Herodotus. 1 He prefers to speak of the If'VMLKoS KoA7rOS instead of the Syrtes, whilst Herodotus prefers the latter name. 2 More remarkable are such names as KavB"f}>..{a· 7rOALS 7rEpt KapX"f}Dova (F. 338), 'Donkey City', EVDEL7rV"f}' vfjuos AL{3V"f}S (/JOLVLKWV (F. 339), 'Good-feast isle', TauAos' vfjuos 7rPOS Tfi KaPX"f}DovL (F. 341), 'Ship isle', Kv{3os' 7rOALS 'Jwvwv EV AL{3VTJ (/JOLl/LKWV (F. 343), and METaywvLOv' 7rOALS AL{3V"f}S (F. 344). The last of these names is a problem in itself. It has been identified with the promontory Cap de l'agua at the eastern end of the Bay of Melilla in Mauretania Tingitana. 3 There is no trace of such a word in any dictionary, but it looks like a Greek word, possibly a geometrical term like Kv{3os describing a natural feature of the land. Muller proposed the not very satisfactory theory that one promontory was called TWVLOV (The Corner), and the tribes west of it were J-tETU TO yWVLOV. 4

From the other names a Greek meaning can be extracted without any difficulty. The question is whether, when they refer to Carthaginian and not Greek settlements, they are genuinely Greek names and not translations of Semitic names. In his study of the Greek place-names in Spain Schulten has shown that they are in the main limited to the coast where Greeks settled and traded, with a few in the inland regions with which Greeks happened to be familiar. 1 Other names he classifies as pseudo-Greek or Grecized, Greek versions (correct or incorrect) of native names. It is interesting to note that some of these names from the region of Carthage recall Spanish place-names: KuvB1)ALU and 'Ovouuuu 2 probably both mean 'Donkey City'. TauAos recalls not only the Aeolian island of ETpOyyvA"f}, but a Spanish isle of the same name. 3 And the unidentified KpoJ-tJ-tvwv 7rOALS (F. 349), 'Onion Town', recalls not only the Corinthian settlement KPEJ-tJ-tVWV and the Cyprian KpoJ-tJ-tvov Q.Kpa, but also the Spanish island KpoJ-tvovuu (F. 51).4 Victor Berard has shown how Semitic place-names and Greek translations of them occur side by side, often as alternatives, in the Oqyssey.5 The occurrence of Greek names for Semitic settlements in Hecataeus suggests that this tradition of translating Semitic names continued in post-Homeric times. There is nothing either in the fragments or in Herodotus to indicate whether Hecataeus had travelled in Libya, and no way therefore of deciding whether his information was accurate or trustworthy. Certainly there is little indication of polemic on the part of Herodotus; but it is likely that Herodotus' know ledge ofLibya did not extend beyond Cyrene. One possible example of polemic occurs in iv. 191. Hecataeus referred to the Mcf,VES as nomads;6 Herodotus writes TO DE

92

I

3

4

Cf. supra, p. 77. Schwabe, RE., s.v. Metagonium (I). Ptolemy iv. I, 3, ed. Muller (p. 583).

2

F. 332; Hdt. iv. 169, 173.

93

7rpOS EU7rEP"f}S TOU TptTWVOS 7rOTaJ-t0u AVUEWV €XOVTaL apoTfjpEs ifD7J Die Griechen in Spanien, Rhein. Mus. lxxxv (1936), pp. 308-35. Livy xxi. 22; Schulten, op. cit., p. 318. 3 Avienus 453; Schulten, p. 315. 4 Schulten, p. 324, identifies this last island with Minorca, where oil was made from onions according to Diod. v. 17,2. 5 us Phiniciens et I'Odyssle, passim, esp. i, ch. 2, 'Noms de lieux'. • ~ F: 33~-:-Steph. ,Byz. s.~ . •Ma,v<s· ,ot AI/J61Js vOfla8<S. 'EKa'Ta,os II
2

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

94

'a KaL" oLKLaS' , VOp..L~OVT€S' 'Y ,~ B ~" ~/T2t A L!-'V€S' €KTYJa at, TOtat ovvop..a KHTat lr1tkSV€S'. If these Magv€S', despite Stephanus' contradiction, are the same as the Ma'v€S', there is a correction here comparable to what Herodotus says of the Melanchlaeni----aMo f[BvoS' Kat OU .EKvBtK6v l -in contradiction of Hecataeus, who seems to have called them Scythian (F. 185).2 Herodotus makes the River Triton the border between the nomad and the farming Libyans; Hecataeus mentioned an actual border city MEyaaa, but the fragment does not show to which of the tribes it belonged (F. 335); it would suit Ma'v€S' or Magv€S' well. Other critics prefer to identify Hecataeus' Ma'v€S' with the MaXAV€S' of Herodotus iv. 178-80,3 who are east of the Triton and so nomads. Thus the Magv€S' would have no place in the Hecataean fragments and there would be no disagreement. Herodotus' way of using a different spelling from that of Hecataeus has been noted already.4 Another example appears in their accounts of the honey-gatherers, whom Herodotus calls TV'aVT€S', Hecataeus ZvyaVT€S' (iv. 194, F. 337). It is noteworthy that Herodotus quotes no authority for their honey industry, but immediately after mentioning it refers to the Carthaginians for his description of the island ofKvpavtS' nearby (iv. 195), as though he were adding something to what Hecataeus had reported. So too Hecataeus apparently spoke of MaaKwToS' as TTAYJa{ov TWV 'EaTTEp{OwV, but Herodotus prefers the form EUWTT€p{O€S' (F. 333, iv. 171). Both agree on the form ZavYJK€S' (F. 336, iv. 193). On the other hand, in speaking of the expedition sent against the Ammonians by Cambyses, Herodotus mentions the city called "GaatS' (iii. 26), evidently a settlement near the Oasis Maior;5 Hecataeus seems to have preferred "YaatS' or "YaatS' (F. 326). Stephanus is evidently confused, since besides his note on "YaatS'· TT6ALS' At{3vYJS', where he quotes no authority, he has the entry 'Yaa€tS'· vijaoS' p..tKpa Kat p..€ycfAYJ AlBt6TTWV. 'EKaTatoS' II€ptYJrfJan AlyVTTTOV. Strabo's comparison of the oases to A

iv. 20. 2 This is the view of A. Grosskinsky, Zu Herodots Periegese Libyens, Hermes, !xvi (1931), pp. 362-7, who also thinks the vehement negative statements ofiv. 187 are contradictions of Hecataeus. 3 Jacoby, note on F. 334; Schwabe, RE., s.v. MaX>'V£S". 4 Cf. supra, pp. 63-4. 5 See Stein's note. I

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

95

islands I and the remark of Herodotus that the Greek name for the city of Oasis is MaKapwv vijaot explain his confusion. The fragments themselves are not sufficient to show what method Hecataeus used in describing Libya, except for the fragment about Megasa, where we have his actual words Eg aUTijS' atTocpaYOt Kat apoTijp€S' (F. 335), providing evidence (if that is necessary) that he went from east to west. For want of further information and lack of evidence to the contrary Jacoby assumes that Herodotus' division of the country into four zones, (I) the sea-coast with its numerous inhabitants, (2) TJ BYJPLWOYJS' At{3vYJ, (3) the oCPpvYJ !f;ap..p..ov, and (4) TJ Ep~p..YJ, is taken from Hecataeus. 2 The ultimate origin of this arrangement remains a mystery. 'For the coast-line, especially the coast west of Cyrene which was unfamiliar to Greek mariners, the reports of Phoenician Periegeses would naturally come in useful. There are four fragments certainly referring to places on the western shore or near the straits: Lake Douriza (F. 355) is formed by the river Lix or Lixos near its mouth on the western coast of Mauretania, sixty miles from Tingis. 3 Strab04 says that the native name of a city which Eratosthenes called Lixos was Tp{yg, which naturally recalls the 6}p{YKYJ of F. 356; but this is TT6ALS' TT€pt TaS' aT~AaS'.5 As for Tingis itself, 6}p{YKYJ seems less likely than 6}{yyYJ, TT6AtS' At{3vYJS' (F. 354). Melissa 6 is probably the same as the place mentioned by Hanno on the west coast. The At{3VKOS' A6yOS' of Herodotus indicates that Hecataeus did his usual share of describing native customs, but the Bavp..am seem to be confined almost entirely to the Ethiopians in the south. The description of the pygmies and their method of fighting the cranes is not only an example of his describing a Bavp..a, but also an interpretation of Homer; it is the Homeric scholiast who preserves the fragment.7 He is I

2 3

.•

XVll. I,

5.

F. Gr. Hist. i, p. 37 I. Cf. also Wind berg, op. cit., pp. 57-9, for another view. Dessau, RE., s.v. Lix.

xvii. 3, 2. Strabo, however, confuses this city with Tingis. H. Treidler, RE., s.v. eplYKTJ and elYYTJ, is unwilling to decide. Klausen identified the latter with Strabo's Tply~. 6 F. 357-Steph. Byz. s.v. M.!>.wuu· 710>'" A'/3vwv. 'EKuTu'io,' Aulq.. See Jacoby's note and Schwabe, RE., s.v. M'!>"TTU. 7 F. 328a-Schol. A. B. T. Hom. Iliad iii. 6 ~VT( 71£p K>'Uyy~ Yfpavwv 7r.!>''' ovpuvolh 4

5

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

the first author to mention the remarkable tribe of .EKLa7T08E" who shaded themselves from the sun by lying on their backs and raising their huge feet in the air. I He put them in Libya, not in India where Scylax and later authors put them. The confusion between eastern and western Ethiopians readily accounts for this change; there is said to be no trace of them in Oriental legend. 2 There is the usual collection of unidentified place-names. 3 There are also names which do not appear elsewhere except in authors as late as Strabo and Ptolemy.4 The fragments offer no evidence of mythological digressions, nothing about the Lotophagi (whom Herodotus mentions merely by name in iv. 178) nor Atlas nor even Lake Tritonis. AboutJason's adventures in Lake Tritonis Herodotus gives an account in iv. 179, with the introduction EaTL 8E Kat 08E Aoyo, AEyofLEVO" in between two purely geographical chapters. But whether this story was told by Hecataeus in the Periegesis or the Genealogies cannot be decided.

as an authority on mythology, and was quoted by scholiasts principally because of his earlier date. Stephanus of Byzantium contributes only eight citations, considerably less than his usual proportion; the remaining fragments are shared between various scholiasts, Athenaeus, Pausanias, and others. The citations mention four books, and cite the work either as rEVETjAoylaL, 'IO'ToplaL, or 'HpwoAoyla. The fragments, however, are not sufficient to reveal the scheme of the work or to show very clearly how the material was divided between the four books. Two fragments from the second book refer to labours of Heracles (F. 6, 7), and it is therefore likely that the legend of Heracles was treated in this book. But for the other books no satisfactory conclusion can be reached. The other fragments with references to books by number are all, except one, geographical. The references to the Thessalian Athena Itonia and to Phalanna in book i (F. 2, 5) probably belong to the Deucalion story, which one would expect to find in this book. Athenaeus tells us that in book iii Hecataeus described an Arcadian banquet (F. 9), and this is the only reference to this book. Stephanus refers to book iv for two Carian cities and for TPEfLLAEIS as a name for the inhabitants of Lycia (F. 10, II, 12); Jacoby thinks, therefore, that the book may have dealt with the Trojan legend, and that the fragment about Lycia belongs to the story of Sarpedon. One is not justified in supposing that the order of legends was the same in Hecataeus as in Hellanicus. It will be better, therefore, to discuss the fragments referring to various legends without taking into account the order in which they may have been treated. The most familiar fragment is the arrogant opening sentence of the work, quoted by Demetrius and Gregory of Corinth: 1 'EKaTaLo, MLA~aLO, W8E fLv8ELTat· Ta8E ypacpw w,

96

III.

THE GENEALOGIAE

There are only thirty-five fragments which can with reasonable certainty be attributed to the Genealogiae, as compared with over three hundred from the Periegesis. This comparative scarcity of fragments from his mythographical work seems to suggest that Hecataeus' fame as a mythographer was considerably less lasting than his fame as a geographer. It is likely, indeed, that he was overshadowed by Hellanicus

I

ar ..,' £7T£;' oJv xn/Lwva tPVyov Ka~ &.8£ucPaTov 0fL{3pov, II(~aYYii Tat )IE 1TETOVTat £17' , DKEdVOLO poawv, I av8pa<]I. lIuyp.atoult ¢6vov Ka, Kfjpa tPepovaat] Ka, 'rep glvqJ Tij~ [erroplas tPvxaywyeL Ka, TOV Upouv avg£l,' KpO'Ta~OLS yap aVTas aA'~OV7"aL. ¢T)U! 8€ av.rovs tEKd'Taios, £71" U)(f1j1.aTWV KptWV EgU)VTdS a>"lgau8aL aUras, Tas 8E Ka'Ta
7TPO,

I

F. 32 7-Steph. Byz. s.v. EK,a7Toll.s· ;Ovos A10,o7T,K6v. u's 'EKaTa,os tv II.p,· Alyv7T'Tov. Cf. Harpocration, s.v., who refers to Antiphon, and Aristoph.

7]Y~(]"

Aves 1553. 2 Herrmann, RE., s.v. Skiapodes. 3 F. 325, 350, 351, 352 Map/J-aKlS 19vos AlO,07T'K6v. Mw'\vs At{3v(](]a 7TO'\,S. ETOta, 7TO>"S A,{3.f7]s. ETPW7J 7T6'\,s A,{3.f7]s. + Lake Douriza in the west, Z~{3V'T'TLS which may possibly be the Z~/J-vOo> of Ptolemy iv. 4, 7 in the territory of Cyrene, Cynossema, Ausigda; the last of these is mentioned by Callimachus and Lycophron 885; see L. Malten, Cyrene, Phil. Untersuch. xx, p. 129.

97

fLOL 80KEL MTj8'a Elvat· Ot yap 'EM~vwv AOYOL 7ToMol TE Kat YEAoLOL, EfLOt cpalVOVTaL, eiaLv. This opening address to the reader

w,

may reveal the aristocratic pride of the author, but it is quite a mistake to imagine that it indicates original and impartial research on his part or is evidence for his rationalistic I F. la-Demetrius, De Etoc. 12; Gregory of Corinth, Rhetores Graeci, ed. Walz, vii, p. 1215.

4515

o

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

tendencies. It merely reveals his familiarity with the Hesiodic tradition and his determination to confine himself to a single version of legends; as Hesiod wrote:

Deucalion, whose story was presumably told in book i. At the very start there occurs a strange piece of unorthodoxy, for which no explanation can be found: Hellen is not, as with other writers, the son of Deucalion, but his grandson; a scholion on Thucydides tells us that according to Hecataeus Deucalion had three sons, Pronoos, Orestheus, and Marathonius, and Hellen was the son of Pronoos. I As Wilamowitz has pointed out,2 the name of Pronoos is readily derived from Pronoe, Deucalion's mother according to Hesiod,3 but the reason for inventing this extra generation is entirely obscure. The device of inserting an extra generation into a genealogy is a favourite one with Hellanicus, and it is interesting to note that Hecataeus used it before him. There are no fragments relating to the flood or any of the familiar incidents of the Deucalion myth. One scholiast joins Hecataeus with Hesiod as an authority for the reign of Deucalion's descendants in Thessaly,4 but otherwise he is cited only for his unorthodox versions. His three sons of Deucalion are otherwise entirely unknown, and there is no other fragment to report anything of Pronoos or Marathonius. The latter is presumably connected with Attica, and Jacoby thinks the name is evidence that Hecataeus wrote the Genealogies after the battle of Marathon. S The point of inventing Marathonius would be to make him bring a population to Attica before Hellen, a pre-Hellenic, Pelasgian population, about which we know that Hecataeus had stories to tell. 6 Orestheus, on the other hand, is supposed to have become king of Aetolia; a bitch belonging to him there gave birth to a piece of wood, which was buried in the ground and a flourishing vine sprung from it; Orestheus accordingly

98

'TOV8E 8' P.E Trpwna'Ta 8Eat Trpds p.v8ov lEtTrOV, MovaaL ' OAvp.7r£a8Es, KovpaL Lhds alYLoxoW' IIoLp.'v€'> u.ypavAoL, KaK' ~MyXEa, yaa'T'pES otov, t8P.EV ifJ€158Ea TroAAel. MyHV ~'Tt)P.OWLV op.o'ia, t8P.EV 8', EV'T' ~8'AwP.EV, dA7J8'a Y7Jpvaaa8aL I

Herodotus does not consistently follow the same tradition, announcing his intention to record 'Tel. AEyop,Eva, irrespective of whether he believes them or not; but it is noteworthy that on one occasion (discussing the stories of Heracles in Egypt, where he owed something to Hecataeus) he speaks in the same tone as his predecessor: MYOVUL DE TroMel. Kat /J.Ma ciVEmaKlTT'TWS" ot "EM'rjvES"' dJ1}(}'rjS" DE av'T(uv Kat oDE 0 p,u(}oS" Ean 'TOV TrEpt 'TOU 'HpaKMoS" MyovaLv. 2 It is also interesting to note how Hecataeus follows the custom of putting his name in the prologue, just as Herodotus and Thucydides do. Jacoby argues that this work was written considerably later than the Periegesis, some time between 490 and 480, on the ground that the mythological tradition shows many more traces of rationalism. 3 This argument is too incomplete to justify lengthy discussion; in fact the so-called contradictions between the two works of Hecataeus can be easily disposed of;4 but there is nothing specifically against his conclusion. One point that might be emphasized is the presence of geographical touches in this mythological work. The plain where the Amazons lived is precisely defined: ~ DE BEp.taKvp'rj 7TEDLov Ea'TLV ci7TO XaDtaL'rjS" p,expt BEpp,wDOV'TOS" (F. 7a); the Epeians are distinguished from the Eleans (F. 25); and Pausanias refers to him in discussing the position ofOechalia (F. 28). Another point of resemblance with the Periegesis is the preference for archaic and unusual names, such as TPEp,tAEIS for the Lycians (F. 10), Tentheus instead of Pentheus (F. 31). There are four fragments referring to the descendants of I

Theog. 24-8 .

ii. 45. For similar expressions see ii. 2, 16, 134. cr. G. De Sanctis, Riv. di Filol. N.S. xi (1933), pp. I-IS. 3 F. Gr. Hist. i, p. 319; RE. vii. 2741. Schmid, Gr. Literaturgesch. I. i, p. 695, thinks the Genealogies was written first. ~ Cf. pp. 45-6 above. 2

I

99

F. I3-SchoI. Thuc. i. 3. 2 'EKaTatos laTOp€t, OTtJEUKaAlwv TP€tS 7Tat8as EaX£,

IIpovoov, 'Op£u8Ea Kat Mapa(JwvLov. npovoov O€ TOV "EAA1'}va cP1JUL y£vEu(JaL.

Hermes, xxxiv (1899), p. 6I1. Schol. Homer, Od. x. 2 JEUKaAlwv .•. IIpop.TJ(JEws p.£v .)v vl6s, P.TJTpOS 8£ ws Ol7T).£ta-rO' Myova, K).VP.EV7JS, ws 8. 'Hal080s IIpvv£lTJs (IIpov6TJs). The reading here is disputed because ofSchol. Ap. Rhod. iii. 1086 OTt IIpop.TJ(JEws Kat IIav8wpas vlos JEUKaAlwv, 'Hal08os
3

101

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

named his own son Phytios, and his son, too, was named Oeneus after the vine; Aetolus was the son of Oeneus. I Thus we see that Hecataeus traced back the ancestry of the Aetolians, no less than of the Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians, to Deucalion. Pausanias, without citing his authority, tells a similar story about the origin of the name of the Ozolian Locrians: that they were so called from the branches (O'OL) of the vine growing from the stick that Orestheus buried in the ground. 2 Plutarch 3 tells another aetiological legend in answer to the question TL, ~ gVALVTj KVWV 7TUpU AOKPOt<;; where Physkios, son of Amphictyon, is father of Lokros. Stephanus and Scymnus4 mention Physkos as son of Aetolus, so that a fragment of Hecataeus, mentioning both Physkos and Lokros,s evidently refers to this same family. Unfortunately the text of Herodian, who quotes the fragment, is corrupt; it is impossible to accept the version given by Jacoby: "Iwv DE 7Tpm[3vTEpos AOKPOV 7Jv, lPvaKov 7TUtS. One cannot believe that a Milesian like Hecataeus would be content to derive the Ionians from an Aetolian origin. From this point onwards there is no way of telling how Hecataeus dealt with the descendants of Deucalion. It is a precarious business to draw any conclusions from the names of three Thessalian towns for which Stephanus cites the first book of the Genealogies (F. 3,4,5). Eventually, however, in dealing with the Aeolian branch of the family, he would reach the story of the Argonauts. One detail is recorded about his version of the Phrixus and Helle story: he represented the ram as speaking to Phrixus with a human voice after Helle fell into the sea, an incident which Apollonius of Rhodes borrowed from him.6 Again, Apollonius speaks of the Argo as €pyov 'AOTjVULTj<; 'lTwvLDos, and the scholiast

in explanation points out that Hecataeus, in the first book of his Histories, spoke of the Thessalian Itonian Athena. I It is a reasonable, though by no means a certain, inference that Apollonius found Athena under this form connected with the building of the Argo already in Hecataeus. But the borrowing of these two details by the poet is very far from being proof that he followed Hecataeus closely; the scholiasts are at pains to show how he differed from Hecataeus in his account of the return of the heroes; but there is some uncertainty ab~ut the text of the scholia. One scholion states clearly that in the account of Herodorus of Heraclea the Argonauts returned by the same way that they came; but that according to Hecataeus they made their way from the Phasis to the Ocean, thence to the Nile, and so back to the Mediterranean; and that this version was assailed as false by Artemidorus of Ephesus. 2 Another scholion, however, after discussing the various opinions held about the course of the Danube, reads as follows in the manuscript: 'HaLoDos DE DLu lPamDos UVTOV<; ELa7TE7TAEvKEVaL MYEL. 'EKUTUtO<; DE

100

I

F. 15-Athenaeus ii. 35 A-

3

Quaest. Graee. 15.

4

Steph. Byz. s.v.

B•

2

x.38.

Scymnus 587-90: S' Ev{3otas KaTOl.KOVUI.V AOKpol, wv 1TPWTOS ~p~EVJ ens Alyova" 'AfLcpLKTVWV oLllVKaA{WVOS', EXOfLEVOS S' aep' aZ,..,.uTos AlTWAOS, EtTa f/JVUKOS', oS' YEVV{t AOKp6v. VGKOS.

, A1r€vavTl.

5 F. 16-Herodian IIEpl fLOV~POVS MtEWS 41, 25 (ii, p. 947, 8, ed. Lentz). F. 17-Schol. Ap. Rhod. i. 256.

6

€Myxwv UVT(>v taTOpEt J.L~ €KDLDovuL EL<; T~V OaAuaauv TOV lPfiaLv' oVDE DLu TuvaLDos €7TAWaUV, dMu KUTU TOV UVTOV 7TAOVV KUO' OV KU~ 7TpOTEpOV. 3 Most critics regard the text as at fault here;

Jacoby and Wendel, in his edition of the scholia, follow Hollander4 in thinking there is a lacuna after 'EKUTUtOS DE ••• , and that this view attributed here to Hecataeus should be assigned to Artemidorus as in the earlier scholion. It is unfortunate that we are not better informed about Hecataeus' European river system. s But it is at least arguable that his account of the Argonauts' return in the Genealogies has no counterpart in the Periegesis, for the simple reason that he was ignorant about the courses of these rivers; in his mythological work he might be permitted to indulge his I F. 2-Schol. Ap. Rhod. i. 55 I ' lrwv{as ' AIi1Jviis ErrTLV lEPOV EV KOpWVE{q. TijS BOI.WTtas. <> /-LEVTOl. 'A1TO>v\WVLOS OUK £IV "'yo, T~V '} A07]viiv £17';' KQTaaKEUil TfjS 'ApyovS' 0.170 TfjS EV KOPWVElq, E7TLK"~aEwS'J p.a>J..ov O€ a1TD BEUaaALKfjs '} ITwv{as, 1TEpl. 1}s

'EKaTa'ios p.f.V EV 2

TV 1TPWTTJ TWV 'IuTopLwv )..EyO.

F. 18a-Schol. iv. 257-62b.

3

F. 18b-Schol. iv. 282-9Ib.

De Heeataei Milesii descriptione terrae, p. 21. For a defence of the MS. reading see W. Aly, Volksmiirehen, Sage u. Novelle bei Herodot, p. I I9. 5 For a conjectural restoration see L. Pearson, Class. Phil. xxix (I934), 4

PP·3 24-37·

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

imagination, but scarcely in his more scientific geographical treatise. Herodotus attacks him for his unfounded confidence in describing western Europe, but gives no indication that he committed himself to such detailed writing about the north and the east. In the city of Chemmis in Upper Egypt Herodotus asked the natives why they had a temple of Perseus and received in answer the story of Perseus' Egyptian ancestry: Ec/>auav TOV

with some emphasis on the Egyptian origin of the family; and that this was a subject which he felt specially qualified to discuss because of his travels in Egypt. With the trustworthiness or historical value of this account we are not concerned here. The statement that he allowed Aegyptus less than twenty sons instead of the traditional fifty is perhaps evidence of a tendency towards rationalism; but the text has to be emended to supply this statement. It would be interesting to know if he rationalized the myth of Zeus' appearance to Danae in a shower of gold. Herodian makes the statement that the phrase 7fj L1av~ P.,tayETnL ZEUS" occurs €V 7fj XP~UEt TWV WOLV{KWV, ws" aUTOS" c/>T]Ut, I thus leading one to believe that the story was told indirectly or that different versions were offered of it. There remains only the fragment explaining the origin of the name of Mycenae from the cap (p..VKT]S") which fell from the scabbard of Perseus. 2 The fragments of the Periegesis relating to Egypt show how Hecataeus liked to connect Greek mythological characters with that country. Herodotus was especially interested in the Egyptian connexions of Heracles, and it would not be surprising if he inherited this interest from Hecataeus. The fragments offer no proof of this; but it is worth noting that the story of how Heracles attacked and killed the Egyptians who were going to sacrifice him is introduced with the scorn that he reserves elsewhere for Hecataeus: Myovut DE 7ToMa "\ \ 'aVE7TLUKE7TTWS" , \ , '0T]S" OE " , aVTWV , "c:, , "ll , Kat, al\l\a Ot, "E'\I\I\T]VES"· EVT] DOE 0 p..VVOS"

I02

llEpuEa €K TfjS" €WVTWV 7TO'\WS" YEyovEVat· TOV yap L1avaov Ka~ TOV AVYKEa €OVTaS" XEp..p..{TaS" €K7T,\wUat €S" rTJv 'EMaDa. cl7TO DE TOVTWV YEvET]'\0YEOVTES" KaTE{3atvov /.<; TOV llEpuEa. I Anxious though

Herodotus is to represent this discovery as his own independent contribution, two fragments render it likely that the germ of the story was to be found in Hecataeus. 2 Hecataeus shows his eagerness to prove the origin of many Greek customs in Egypt by his refusal to believe in the Phoenician origin of the alphabet; according to his account it was not Cadmus but Danaus who brought letters to Greece. 3 Another fragment, as printed by Jacoby, following the emendations of Weil and Wilamowitz, runs as follows: 4 ~ 7ToM~ "'t ' 'A"tYV7TTOV Ets" , "A PyoS", Ka 0'a7TEp al\l\ot "\\ oo!,a KaTEXEt p..T]"..1.a'f'tX0at TOV , ..I. ' 'E ~ '..I. " " '0 '" A" , , T€ 'f'aUt Kat KaTawS" ypa'f'wv OVTWS"· OE tYV7TTOS" aVTOS" p..Ev OUK i],\OEV dS" "ApyoS", 7TaLoES" 01., €OVTES", WS" p..Ev 'HU{ODOS" , , , " EyW, OE, '" OVOE '" ' " E7TOtT]UE, 7TEVTT]KOVTa, wS" EtKOUt. "1 t seems l·k 1 e1y, therefore, that Hecataeus told in full the story of the Danaids I··

11.g!.

II

£VPET~V1 TfjS SE 4>OtVlKWV £Vp€U£WS 7TPOS ~p'as 8Ul.KTOPOV yey£vijC18ru, ens KaL 'Hpo8oTOS £V 'TatS' 'IcrroplatS' Kat. 'APtOTOT£AT]S lerropEi'. g,aa'i yap O'TL f/JOlVtK£S' p,£v £opov 'To. UTO<XEia, Ka8pos 8£ TJyaYEv atfra £ls T~V 'EA>.a8a. IIv868wpos 8£ €V -r

Kat. fEKa-ra'io~,

~

€un. The argument might be put in this way: Hecataeus liked to connect Greek heroes with Egypt; Hecataeus certainly related many stories of Heracles; some author, whom Herodotus knew and disliked, connected Heracles with Egypt; Hecataeus is the most likely candidate for this position. The fragments relating to Heracles are clear enough, but give no idea of the manner in which Hecataeus arranged the stories. One fragment gives us the opening sentence of his story about the Erymanthian boar.4 Others (of no particular 3

• Sayee, Journal qf Philology, xiv, p. 268, suggests that the story was invented by Chemmites, whom Hdt. met at Memphis or in the Delta-because the geographical inaccuracies forbid him to believe that Hdt. actually visited Chemmis. Sourdille, La Duree et l'itendue du voyage d' Hirodote en Egypte, pp. I 55-6, contests this view. Cf. also H. Panofsky, Quaestionum de historiae Herodoteae fontibus pars prior, pp. 6, 55. 3 F. 2o--Schol. Dionys. Thrac., Grammatici Graeci, ed. Hilgard, iii, p. I83 7WV errol, x£{wv E:Up£'T~V aAAot 7(£ Kat EcP0pos €v l)ElJT€PCP K&.8p,ov g,aalv· 01 l>£ oVX

Llt.OVUOLO~

I03

OVS

Kat. ' A7TO,uo8wpo~ £v N£wv KaTaA0YlP 7Tapa'Tt8£Tat.

cr.

A. W. Gomme, JHS. xxxiii, pp. 6I-2. 4 F. Ig-Schol. Eur. Orest. 872. For the various readings see E. Schwartz's edition of the scholia.

I

2 4

F. 2I-Herodian IIEpL pOln}povs M~EWS 7, 32 (ii, p. 9I2, 23, ed. Lentz). F. 22-Schol. Homer, Iliad xv. 302. 3 ii. 45. F. 6-Steph. Byz. s.v. 'i'wq,ts .•• 'EKaTaios rEVEaA0Y";'V f3" "KaTrpos ~v €V

Tip opn Kat. tpW¢L8lovs KUKa 7ToM' EOPY£V."

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

interest) refer to the Lernaean hydra, the Amazons, Augeas, and Oechalia, which is placed in Euboea (F. 24, 7, 25, 28). Another refers to the Arcadian Auge, who was found by her father to have given birth to a child by Heracles, exposed in a boat with the boy, and carried over the sea to the river Caicus, where she met Teuthras and married him;1 no earlier authority is known for this story. There are two good instances of rationalism. Heracles, according to Hecataeus, never went to the underworld to fetch Cerberus; the 'hound of hell' was merely a name for a deadly serpent at Taenarum, and Heracles duly overpowered it and brought it to Eurystheus. 2 The other instance is reported by Arrian as follows: 3 'Geryones, against whom Herac1es was sent by Eurystheus to drive away his cattle and bring them to Mycenae, had nothing to do with the country of the Iberians (so Hecataeus says), and it was not to an island called Erytheia out in the ocean that Heracles was sent; Geryones was king of the country round about Ambracia and the Amphilochians, and it was from this region of the mainland of Greece that Heracles drove away the cattle; eve~ this he regards as no small labour.'

this story of the descendants of Heracles. Herodotus, in his discussion of the origin of the dual kingship at Sparta (vi. 51-5), refers to the version KaTa TO. AEyofLEva 1m' 'EAA~vwv which traces their origin through Alcmena, TOU emu a1TEovToS, to Perseus, and so through Danae and Acrisius to an Egyptian origin. It certainly looks as though Herodotus has either taken this directly from Hecataeus or is applying his theories to this particular question. He drops the whole question abruptly on the ground that it has already been discussed: Kat TaUTa fLEV VVV 1TEpt TOVTWV Elp~ueW' 0 Tt oE, EOVTES AlYV1TTLOL,

104

Arrian proceeds to point out that this is a most reasonable interpretation of the legend. It is uncertain whether this is an original version of Hecataeus or an older version of the story which took shape at a time when the geographical knowledge of the Greeks did not extend very far to the west. 4 The legend of Heracles was evidently continued with that of the Heraclidae. The author of On the Sublime quotes the reply of Ceyx to them when they asked his help in their expedition: 5 KfJug oE Tafha OELVa 1TOLOVfLEVOS aUTtKa EKEAEUE TOUS 'HpaKAEtoas ETTtyovous EKXWPELV' 013 yap VfLLV ouvaTos ElfLt ap~YEtv. WS fL~ JiV aUTot TE a1ToA£EUeE KafLE TPWUETE, ES aMov TWa 07jfLOV a1Totxw()E.

There is no way of telling how far down Hecataeus carried F. 2g-Pausanias viii. 4, 8; 47, 4. 2 F. 27-Pausanias iii. 25, 5· F. 26-Arrian, Anab. ii. 16,5. 4 cr. Weicher in RE., s.v. Geryoneus, vii. 1288; De Sanctis, Ria. di Filo!', N.S. xi (1933), pp. 9-10. The conflict between this version and that implied in F. 76 has been discussed already, pp. 45-6. 5 F. 30-De Sublim. 27, 2. I

3

\"

Kat

0

,

,

<;,

n\

{;'

TL a1TOOEsafLEVOt ,...."

f3OV Tas \ ,(,JWPLEWV f3aULII1)tas, \' A

Ella ,

105

,

,

I

,

\

!!\'

~ \

,

1TEpL aVTWV €Lp1)TaL, EauofLEV aUTa' Ta OE al\ll.OL OU

n\ \

\

allllOLUL yap

'/3 KaTElla OVTO, ,

TOVTWV fLV~fL1)V 1TOL~UOfLaL. I

IfHecataeus emphasized Heracles' Egyptian descent on his mother's side, that would help to explain his connexions, and those of Perseus, with Egypt. In the light of these conclusions one would certainly welcome some fragments referring to Cadmus and the question of Theban ancestry. Unfortunately there are only two fragments referring to the Theban legends. One tells us that Hecataeus spoke of Pentheus as Tentheus, and another that he regarded Parthenopaeus, the sixth of the seven Argive champions, as son not of Atalanta but ofTalaus (Y. 31, 32). Both these points seem to show that he followed the earliest version of the legend. 2 Further evidence about his treatment of the Theban saga is not forthcoming. A fragment referring to Amphiaraus is unintelligible; equally obscure is the reference to a drunken Amazon coming from Sinope to a certain Lytidas, whose name is otherwise unknown (F. 33, 34). The fragments themselves give no indications of chronological treatment. Theories about Hecataeus' chronological system and the number of years he reckoned to a generation depend on evidence from other sources. There is no reason to suppose that Hecataeus worked out such a complete chronological system as Hellanicus, refashioning heroic genealogies and attempting to bring the various myths into relation with one another. But it is to be expected that he had some kind of chronological scheme, however incomplete. Eduard Meyer3 has tried to show that his scheme was based I

vi. 55. 4515

2

See Jacoby's notes. p

3

Forschungen, i, pp. 153-88.

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

on the genealogy of the Spartan kings; that by reckoning forty years to a generation he was able to fix a date about 1330 B.C. for Heracles. He then argues that some other logographer, still before the time of Herodotus, confused this scheme by adopting his date for Heracles and working out other genealogies on a basis of thirty or thirty-three years to a generation. His argument, however, fails for lack of solid evidence; it is little better than a series of ingenious conjectures. This being the case, it becomes necessary to give up the subject and admit we cannot find the key to the curious chronological muddle of early Greek and oriental history in Herodotus. The first logographer whose chronological scheme can be reconstructed is Hellanicus.

F. ATENSTAEDT. De Hecataei Milesiifragmentis quae ad Hispaniam pertinent. Leip::;iger Studien, xiv (1893), pp. 1-171. H. BERGER. Die Lehre von der K ugelgestalt der Erde im Altertum. Geographische Zeitschrift, xii (1906), pp. 21-37. RHYS CARPENTER. The Greeks in SPain. (Bryn Mawr monograph, 19 25.) M. O. B. CASPARI. On the Tijr; Il£p{ooor; of Hecataeus. Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxx (1910), pp. 236-48. C. G. COBET. Hecataei Milesii scripta o/£Vo£7T{yparpa. Mnemosyne, xi (1883), PP·I-7· G. DE SANCTIS. Intorno al Ra::;ionalismo di Ecateo. Rivista di Filologia, Nuova serie, xi (1933), pp. 1-15. V. EHRENBERG. ZU Herodot. Klio, xvi (1920), pp. 318-31. C. FRIES. Quaestiones Herodoteae. (Dissertation, Berlin, 1893.) A. W. GOMME. The Legend of Cadmus and the AoyoyparpoL. Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxxiii (1913), pp. 53-72, 223-45. j. GROSSTEPHAN. Beitriige ::;ur Periegese des Hekataios. (Dissertation, Strasbourg, 1915.) A. VON GUTSCHMID. De rerum Aegyptiacarum scriptoribus Graecis ante Alexandrum Magnum. Philologus, x (1855), pp. 522-42, 636-700; reprinted in his Kleine Schriften, i, pp. 35-149. W. A. HEIDEL. Hecataeus and the Egyptian Priests in Herodotus Book II. Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, XVIII. ii (1935), Pp·53- 134·

106

BIBLIOGRAPHY The fragments.

F. CREUZER. Historicorum Graecorum antiquissimorum fragmenta. (Heidelberg, 1806.) R. H. KLAUSEN. Hecataei Milesii fragmenta, Scylacis Caryandensis Periplus. (Berlin, 1831.) C. and T. MULLER. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (FHG.), i, pp. 1-31, ix-xvi; iv, pp. 623, 627. (1841.) F. JACOBY. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (F. Gr. Hist.), i, no. I, pp. 1-47,3 17-75. (19 23.) Editions

of Herodotus.

H. Stein, R. W. Macan (Books IV-IX), A. H. Sayce (I-III), A. Wiedemann (II), Ph. E. Legrand (I-II), W. W. How and j. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus. General discussion of Hecataeus. F. JACOBY. Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopiidie (RE.) , s.v. Hekataios von Milet, vii. 2667-750. (1912.) H. DIELS. Herodot und Hekataios. Hermes, xxii (1887), pp. 411-44. W. SCHMID. Muller's Handbuch, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, I. i (1929),

pp.693-7 01 . *H. HOLLANDER. De Hecataei Milesii descriptione terrae. (Dissertation, Bonn, 1861.)1 A. MOMIGLIANO. Enciclopedia Italiana, s.v. Ecateo, xiii, p. 386. (1932.) Special studies. W. ALY. Die Entdeckung des Westens. Hermes, lxii (1927), pp. 299-341,

4 85-9. 1 Works marked with an

* have not been accessible to me.

107

- - Anaximander's Book, the Earliest Known Geographical Treatise. Proceedings of the American Academy, lvi (192 I), pp. 239-88. - - The Frame of the Ancient Greek Maps. American Geographical Society,

Research Series, No. 20. (New York, 1937.) *C. F. LEHMANN-HAUPT. ZU Herodot und Hecataios. Festschrift fur H. Kiepert (1898).

EDUARD MEYER. Die Pelasger, in his Forschungen ::;ur alten Geschichte, i, PP·3- 12 4· - - Herodots Chronologie der griechischen Sagengeschichte. Ibid. i, pp. 154-88. A. MOMIGLIANO. II Ra::;ionalismo di Ecateo di Mileto. Atene e Roma, xii (193 1), pp. 133-42. j. L. MYRES. An Attempt to Reconstruct the Maps used by Herodotus. Geographical Journal, viii (1896), pp. 605-31. B. NIESE. Review of H. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde. Giittingische Gelehrte An::;eigen, 1885, i, pp. 240-4. H. PANOFSKY. Quaestionum de historiae Herodoteae fintibus pars prior. (Dissertation, Berlin, 1885.) L. PEARSON. Herodotus on the Source of the Danube .• Classical Philology, xxix (1934), pp. 324-37. FR. PFISTER. Zur iilteren griechischen Historiographie und Chronologie. Klio, xv (19 18), pp. 195-9. A. PIRRO. Ecateo e Xanto in rela::;ione ad Erodoto. Studi Storici, i (1892), PP·44 2- 6 1.

108

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS

j. V. PRASEK. Hekataios als Herodots QueUe zur Geschichte Vorderasiens. Klio, iv (1904), pp. 193-208. A. H. SAYCE. The Season and Extent of the Travels of Herodotus in Egypt. Journal of Philology, xiv (1885), pp. 257-86. A. SCHULTEN. Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, i. (Barcelona-Berlin, 1922.) - - Tartessos. (Hamburg, 1922.) - - Tartessos. Klio, xxii (1928), pp. 284-91. - - Die Griechen in Spanien. Rheinisches Museum, lxxxv (1936), pp. 28g-346. B. SCHULZE. De Hecataei Milesii fragmentis quae ad Italiam meridionalem spectant. (Dissertation, Leipzig, 1912.) C. SOURDILLE. La Duree et l'etendue du voyage d'Herodote en Egypte. (Paris, 19 10.) G. TROPEA. Ecateo di Mileto ed iframmenti della Periegese. *(1) Atti della Reale Accademia Peloritana, xi, pp. 6g- 133. (2) Rivista di storia antica, ii. 2 (1897), pp. 82-97. j. WELLS. The Genuineness of the rij, ll€p{ooo, of Hecataeus. Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxix (1909), pp. 41-52. A. WIEDEMANN. Zu dem Periplus des Pseudo-Skylax. Philologus, xlvi (1888), pp. 170-4· F. WINDBERG. De Herodoti Scythiae et Libyae descriptione. (Dissertation, Giittingen, 1913.) .Among works on Ionian historiography the following may be mentioned: W. ALY. Volksmarchen, Sage und Novelle bei Herodot und seinen Zeitgenossen. (Giittingen, 1921.) For Hecataeus see especially pp. 20g-15. - - Formprobleme der fruhen griechischen Prosa. Philologus, Supplementband 21, Heft 3. j. BELOCH. Griechische Geschichte, I. i (ed. 2, 1924), esp. pp. 444-6. j. BURY. Ancient Greek Historians (1909), chap. i, esp. pp. 8-18. F. CREUZER. Die historische Kunst deT Griechen (ed. 2, Leipzig, 1845), esp. pp. 277-86. E. HOWALD. Ionische Geschichtsschreibung. Hermes, lviii (1923), pp. I 13-46. F. JACOBY. Ober die Entwicklung der griechischen Historiographie. Klio, ix (1909), pp. 80- 12 3. - - Griechische Geschichtsschreibullg. Die Antike, ii (1926), pp. 1-29. C. F. LEHMANN-HAUPT, in Gercke-Norden's Einleitullg in die Altertumswissenschaft, iii (1914), esp. pp. 78-9.

CHAPTER III

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

THE work of Xanthus has suffered a fate similar to that of Hecataeus. It has been questioned whether a genuine copy of his Lydiaca survived into Alexandrian times; and, as in the case of Hecataeus, the argument rests on a passage in Athenaeus. 'The Lydians', writes Athenaeus, 'reached such a stage of decadence that they were the first to use women eunuchs; such is the story told by Xanthus the Lydian, or the author of the historical books attributed to him-Dionysius Scytobrachion, according to what Artemon of Cassandrea says in his book On Bibliography; but Artemon is unaware that the historian Ephorus mentions him as an older writer who provided Herodotus with his starting-point.'l The last phrase-wS" 7TaAUWTEPOV OVTO, KUL 'HpoSem.p TaS" ar/JopttaS" S€SWKoToS"-is difficult to translate 2 and just as difficult to interpret. In the light of the surviving fragments, the most likely interpretation seems to be that, according to Ephorus, Herodotus found inspiration in the work of Xanthus; that he took his idea of historiography, his combination of historical narrative with anecdote, from the Lydiaca ofXanthus; th<;lt Xanthus gave Herodotus a 'starting-point', 'something to go on', even 'provided him with a model'. Athenaeus does not tell us what Artemon's reasons were for assigning the Lydiaca to Dionysius Scytobrachion. Little enough is known about this Artemon of Cassandrea,3 except 'Touoihov ~>'lIov 'Tpvq,ij~, W~ Kal 7TPW'TOI yvva'Ka~ 1j 0 Tas £ls o.va,p£pop.Evas iUTopias ws 'ApTlp.wv ,pTJULV 0 Kaaav8p£vS' £11 'Tip ll£plEvvaywyijs BI{3>.lwv, ayvowv 071 'Eq,opo~ .; uvyypaq,dJS 1-'V7}I-'0v£vn arhoii WS 7TaAalO'T<poV OV'TO~ Kal 'HpoM'Ttp 'TaS aq,opl-'0S 1l£IlWK6'To~. The MSS. read 7j .; £ls athov 'Ta~ avaq,£p0l-'
xii, p. 515D Avllol 11£

£l~

£vllovxlaaL, WS lUTop£'i Bav80s 0 Av8os, auyy£ypa~mS', ~,ov6o,oS' 0 EKVTO/3paXlwv,

am-oil

favourite version of those who write in Latin, being a pleasantly ambiguous phrase. Cf. also C. Hachtmann, De ratione inter Xanthi Lydiaca et Herodoti Lydiae historiam, pp. 6-7. 3 Cf. Wentzel in RE., s.v. Artemon (18), ii. 1446-7; Miiller, FHG., iv, pp. 340-3.

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

what can be guessed from the titles of his books: IJEPL {1t{1>dWII avllaywyfjS', IJEPL {1t{1~.tWII xp~aEwS', possibly also a work on music IJEPL TOV LltollVataKOV avaT~fLaToS', and a work on painters IJEPL ZwypucpwII. I He is usually regarded as a younger contem-

gives a poem on Dionysus and Athena, a prose work on the Argonauts, and MV()tKa 7TPOS' IJapfLEIIOllTa.1 There is considerabfe confusion here, after the manner of Suidas, who frequently assigns the same work to more than one author. The Mythica certainly do not belong to the earlier logographer, nor do the three books of Troica, as the words of Diodorus will show. Diodorus says that he used a certain Dionysius as a source in his third book, 2 and found him very useful because he collected the various traditions. He calls him simply Dionysius, but there can be no doubt that he refers to the man whom Suidas and the scholiast call the Mytilenean. Both Diodorus and the scholiast refer to a Dionysius for the story of the Amazons in Libya,3 and they obviously mean the same author. A careful reading of what Diodorus has to say, however, makes one wonder what manner of author this Dionysius was. Diodorus begins his account of the Amazons in Libya by saying he knows the story will be entirely unfamiliar to his readers, but explains that the later fame of the Amazons round the river Thermodon entirely eclipsed the glory of the Libyan Amazons, who became extinct many generations before the Trojan War (iii. 52, 2). He has, however, so he says, found mention of these Libyan Amazons in numerous old poets and prose-writers, and he will accordingly tell the 'fl" A ," st ory b ne y aKOI\OV'()WS' .(.JtoJIVatcp TCfJ avJITETaYfLEIICfJ Ta" 7TEpt TOVS'

110

porary of the grammarian Aristarchus (belonging, therefore, to the first century B.C.), and possibly identical with the Artemon of Pergamum, whose opinions as an LaTOptKoS' are quoted in several Pindaric scholia. Because of the titles of the first two of his works, Welcker2 regarded him as a valuable authority on literary history. But one cannot judge a man's critical ability merely by the titles of his books. About Dionysius Scytobrachion we are rather better informed. 3 The evidence, which at first seems very badly muddled, disentangles itselfin most satisfactory fashion. Even before it is disentangled, it shows that this author was a man who wrote on Greek mythology in an original manner. A Homeric scholiast records the story of this Dionysius that Helen and Paris had a son called Dardanus,4 and this statement is entirely unsupported by earlier mythological tradition. s The scholia on the Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes record the names ofDionysius the Mytilenean and Dionysius the Milesian as authorities for different versions of episodes in the Argonaut story.6 To Dionysius the Milesian (who has acquireda: great reputation for so shadowy a figure) Suidas assigns a Periegesis, Persica, TO. fLETo. LlapEtOll, three books of Troica, a KVKAoS' LaTOptKoS', and Mythica. 7 To Dionysius of Mytilene, 'an epic poet, known also as Scytobrachion', he Athenaeus xii, p. 515D, xv, p. 694A-C, xiv, pp. 636E, 637B; Harpocration, 2 Kleine Schriften, i, p. 433. 3 Cf. Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinerzeit, ii, pp. 45-9; E. Schwartz in RE., s.v. Dionysius (lOg) Skytobrachion, v. 92g-32. Both writers cite earlier literature on the subject, but the last word is with Schwartz. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. i, no. 32, collects the fragments, but adds nothing to the discussion. 4 F. II-Schol. A. Homer, Iliad iii. 40. 5 Jacoby (note on F. II) doubts this: 'Er war schwerlich der erste, der die Ehe von Paris und Helena fruchtbar sein Iiess.' 6 F. 1-5-Schol. Ap. Rhod. ii. 206-8b, 963-5c; iii. 200, 240; iv. 177, "53. These citations are in accordance with C. Wendel's edition of the scholia. 7 s.v. LhovVULOS MLA1jULOS'J iUTOPU
S.V. Ilo>'vyvwTO'.

III

'ApyollaVTaS' Kat TOil LltoJIVaoll Kat ETEpa 7ToMo. TWII 7TaAatoTuTOtS' XPOIIOtS' 7Tpax()EJlTWII.

Ell

TOtS'

Then the story begins with the conquests of the Amazons in western Africa-a land still unfamiliar in Alexandrian times-including the ~onquest of the Gorgons. So that there will not be any conflict with established mythology, a note is added that the Gorgons afterwards grew powerful again and were conquered by Perseus, and finally, together with I S.v. Lltovvu£oS'

MVTLA,71vai'OS',

E7T07TOL6,. 007-05' EKA~81J

EKVTOfJpaXlwv

Kat. 2KVTf:Vs.

T,y,v ~£ovVO'ov Kat. ' A8f}viis uTpaT£G.v. ' ApyovaVTat EV {JtfJ'\lOLS' E~' ,aUTa Se (UTI. 77£'&. MvlJ'Ka 7TPO, IlaplLlvoVTa. 2 iii. 52, 3; 66, 5. 3 Ibid. 52; Schol. Ap. Rhod. ii. 206-8b. The scholiast says J'OVV<7tOS EV TOL, 'ApyovaVTa£" a work which Suidas gives to the Mytilenean.

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

the Amazons, annihilated by Heracles when he set up the 'pillars of Heracles' in Libya, SE:WOV ~y01;fl-€VOS, €l 7TPO€AOfl-€VOS

of Heracles, Thamyris, and Orpheus, wrote a book 'in Pelasgian characters', telling various stories, including the story of Dionysus ; and that Thymoetes, a contemporary of Orpheus, dealt with the same subject in his so-called C/Jpvyta 7TO{YJUCS, apxai"Kot.S rfi T€ StaMKT

112

TO YEVOS' KO£vfj TWV av8pcimwv €V€PY€T€tV 7T€ptoif;€Tat Ttva TWV e8vwv yvVatKOKpaTOVfl-€Va. I

Then follows the story of the god Uranus, originally a king in the extreme west of Libya, who, because of an elementary knowledge of astronomy, was declared a god by his subjects. 2 The story of the origin of the other gods descended from him and his favourite concubine Ge (also afterwards deified) is told in a manner which to orthodox Greek taste of the classical period would seem indecent and blasphemous, but in Alexandrian times might be thought amusing as a parody of rationalistic mythography. The Magna Mater is supposed (in Libya) to earn the name by looking after her eighteen brothers with a mother's care, or (in Phrygia) by discovering charms to cure sick children; and Atlas is supposed to discover that the world is round. 3 Story follows story, each one plainly satirical, though Diodorus does not seem to recognize the fact. He tells various versions of the Dionysus legend, and finally adds that the inhabitants of western Libya have a tradition of their own about the birth of Dionysus, maintaining that his birth-place, Nysa, is in their country and that there are many signs of his sojourning there. 'I am also well aware', says Diodorus, 'that many of the old poets and mythographers among the Greeks, as well as a fair number of later writers, agree with this story. Accordingly, not wanting to pass over any of the tales which are told about Dionysus, I am describing briefly the version current among the Libyans, recorded by such Greek writers as agree with this account-especially by Dionysius, who put together the ancient legends. This writer has collected the stories about Dionysus and the Amazons, about the Argonauts and the events connected with the Trojan War and many other legends besides, comparing the versions of early authors, both prose-writers and poets.'4 It is only in the following chapters that the names of some of these 'early writers' are divulged, and their works are patently fictitious. It is recorded that Linus, the teacher I'"

lll.

55, 3.

2

iii. 56.

3

iii. 57-60.

• iii. 66.

I

13

iii. 67, 5. De Illustr. Gramm. 7 'M. Antonius Gnipho, ingenuus in Gallia natus, sed expositus, a nutritore suo manumissus institutusque (Alexandriae quidem, ut aliqui tradunt, in contubernio Dionysii Scytobrachionis; quod quidem non temere crediderim, cum temporum ratio vix congruat) . . .' Apparently Suetonius thinks Gnipho too young for Scytobrachion to have been his master. 3 Susemihl, op. cit. ii, pp. 45-7, says he must have lived in the latter half of the second and the earlier part of the first century B.C. Jacoby (F. Gr. Hist. i, p. 509) says 'nearer 150 than 90 B.C.', but (p. 510) 'if Artemon of Cassandre a is the Artemon of Pergamum mentioned in the Pindaric scholia, he was a contemporary of Scytobrachion'. • RE. v. 932: 'Ob diese Romane eine geschmacklose Nachiiffung oder eine freche Parodie hellenistischer Mythographie sein soli ten, ob D. ein ehrbarer Pedant oder ein frivoler Witzbold war, dariiber liesse sich nur urteilen, wenn I

2

~515

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

thinks, accordingly, that Dionysius of Mytilene, the epic poet, is a creature of Scytobrachion's imagination, I from whom he quoted passages of his own composition; and that the confusion between the Milesian and Mytilenean Dionysii is due to his play with quotations from real early authors; doubtless he attributed to them statements and 'lost works' which they had never written. This explanation accounts perfectly for the confusion of Suidas, who perhaps did not understand the wit of Scytobrachion any better than Diodorus did. If Scytobrachion 'quoted' in this way from real authors like Dionysius of Miletus, it is very likely that he 'quoted' imaginary passages from Xanthus, knowing that his references would in either case be hard to verify. Accordingly Artemon, knowing his book to be a piece of fooling, supposed that any author whom he named, unless of established and unimpeachable reputation, was imaginary. Hence his belief that Dionysius was responsible for the Lydiaca. For his part, perhaps, he had never heard ofXanthus on better authority, and it remained for Athenaeus-who probably appreciated the wit of Dionysius perfectly-to point out what Ephorus had said. Except on some such hypothesis as this the method of Athenaeus in criticizing Artemon-merely pointing to the mention of Xanthus by Ephorus-is foolish and pointless. If Artemon said that the work attributed to Xanthus in the Alexandrian library was a forgery, then no one would argue with him by saying that the genuine work once existed; if, on the other hand, he said that Scytobrachion had invented the name and the work of Xanthus, the retort of Athenaeus is understandable and refutes him completely.2 Evidently, then, Artemon simply made a mistake through excusable ignorance. His statement has nothing to do with the report of Diogenes Laertius, who, in his life of Menippus

the Cynic philosopher, mentions an earlier Menippus who wrote a history of the Lydians and summarized the work of Xanthus. I No other mention of this Menippus has been discovered; all we know about his date is that he is earlier than Menippus the Cynic, and so may belong to the fourth century. References to Xanthus, therefore, in authors later than the second century B.C., may be of three kinds: they may be based on the original work of Xanthus, on the epitome of Menippus, or on the 'quotations' in Scytobrachion. Ifbased on these last, they most certainly are not trustworthy and are not likely to appear so. For example, Clement of Alexandria says that Xanthus gave the date of the founding of Thasos as the 18th Olympiad. 2 It is well established on the word of Polybius 3 that Timaeus was the first historian to record dates according to Olympiads. Hence it is generally agreed that Clement's reference is not genuine, but depends on Scytobrachion. It follows from the preceding discussion that the evidence of Suidas, unless supported from another quarter, is not to be trusted in this connexion at all. His testimony, moreover, is ambiguous: saveor;, KavoavAou, Auoor; EK Eapo€wv, LUTOptK6r;, y€yovwr; E7Tt 7fjr; aAWU€Wr; Eapo€wv. AUOtaKa {3t{3ALa 0'. He then quotes two statements of Xanthus which will be discussed later. His initial statement contains two points for discussion. First, what exactly does his chronological indication mean? Is he giving the date of Xanthus' birth or his floruit? and does he mean the capture of Sardis by the Persians, in the time of Croesus and Cyrus (546 B.C.), or its capture by the Greeks in the Ionian revolt (500)? Naturally one's interpretation depends on whether one thinks his informa-

Hingere Bruchstucke Diodors faden Excerpten zur Seite triiten.' Jacoby objects to the phraseology, but not to the conclusions of Schwartz. I Jacoby (p. 510) on totally inadequate grounds suggests that Mytilene may have been the real home of Scytobrachion. 2 Jacoby is still inclined to believe that Scytobrachion brought out a 'second edition' of Xanthus. This view was once held by Wilamowitz (Homerische Untersuchungen, p. 361), but decisively rejected by his pupil Bethe, Quaestiones J?iodoreae Mythographicae, p. 10. Cf. also Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterturns, ed. I, 1, pp. 499-500.

115

vi. 101. Fr. 27-Strom. i. 131, 6-7 (p. 81, ed. Stiihlin) Nat p.~v Kat TEp1Tavopov apxat'ova{ TLVES" 'EAAaVtI.0xov v.vp.1Ttaoa. This Dionysius is taken to be the Halicarnassian in his [J.pt Xpovwv. The above punctuation of the passage is adopted by Muller in his Corrigenda, FHG. iv, p. 629. 3 xii. II. I

2

116

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

tion is correct or not. Creuzer wanted to emend .Eapo€wv to 'A8TJvwv: 'ut Suidas floruisse Xanthum dicat, quo tempore Athenae a Persis Xerxe rege captae sint'.1 Rohde's interpretation is more convincing: 2 he thinks 'the capture of Sardis' as a distinct date must mean the capture by Cyrus, and that Suidas· incorrectly regarded Xanthus as living at this time, because he described this event in his history. For evidence, then, about the date of Xanthus we must look elsewhere. Strabo, who speaks on the authority of Eratosthenes, says that Xanthus described a great drought in Asia Minor which took place in the reign of Artaxerxes. 3 This gives the year of Artaxerxes' accession, 464, as a certain terminus a quo for the publication of his work. Furthermore, Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentions Xanthus, together with Hellanicus, Damastes of Sigeum, and Xenomedes of Chios, as one of the writers 'living rather earlier than the time of the Peloponnesian War and extending as far as the age of Thucydides' .4 If the evidence of Suidas is rejected altogether, as perhaps it should be, there is nothing except the statement ofEphorus to show whether Xanthus was an older or a younger contemporary of Herodotus. Ephorus said that Xanthus was an older writer and that Herodotus used his work either as source or modeL s Dionysius of Halicarnassus appears to regard all the Ionian writers as predecessors of Herodotus, whom Thucydides rejected as of no value to him; he does not insist on the chronological relations, but there is no good reason for casting aside the verdict of Ephorus. The other point in Suidas' statement which needs discussion is the name of the historian's father, Candaules. This name naturally recalls the Lydian king whom Gyges murdered, 'whom the Greeks call Myrsilus', as Herodotus says.6 It has been suggested, therefore, that Xanthus was descended from the family of Candaules, the royal house of the Heraclids.7 Others, on the contrary, have taken excepI Hist. Graee. Antiq. Fragmenta, pp. 135-8, where the various possibilities are considered. Cf. MUller, FHG. i, p. xx. Z Rhein. Mus. xxxiii (1878), pp. 206--7. 3 i. 3, 4. 4 De Thue. 5. 5 Cf. p. J09 above. 6 i.7. 7 H. Gelzer, Rhein. Mus. xxxv (1880), p. 522.

117

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

tion to the royal name of Candaules and think it originated with Scytobrachion, who, in order to make his 'quotations' seem the more impressive, pretended that his author belonged to this distinguished family.l If this latter view is correct (and it is certainly very plausible), all the difficulties in the entry of Suidas are explained. Suidas has taken from Scytobrachion not only the name Candaules but also the date E7T/' Tfj, aAwa€W, .Eapo€wv, invented because it was appropriate for a Lydian author of royal blood. Scytobrachion doubtless also said that Xanthus came from Sardis (as Suidas does), but Strabo, who follows Eratosthenes, is more cautious: Auoo, /LEV .\€Y€Tat, €i oE EK .Eapo€wv OUK ia/L€v. 2 Strabo's knowledge about the work of Xanthus came through the medium of the librarian Eratosthenes' but the testimony of Suidas is evidently worthless, since he did not understand the methods or the wit of Scytobrachion. . The statement that his Lydiaca consisted of four books IS borne out by references in Stephanus of Byzantium. It is, however, quite impossible to tell how he arranged his material in these four books, or what proportion of his work was concerned with pre-Mermnad times. His evident fondness for anecdote leads one to believe that his historical arrangement was just as loose as that of Herodotus. But besides the Lydiaca there is one reference to a work entitled MaytKa, and another to a Life oj Empedocles. That Xanthus, a Lydian with some knowledge of Persian customs, should have written a book on Persian religion is not in itself impossible. But the evidence is highly suspicious. There is a reference to the Magica in Clement of Alexandria , whose reference to Xanthus for the date of the founding of Thasos has already been rejected as unreliable. Here he claims to quote the actual words of Sav8o, EV TOL, E7Ttypac/>O/L€~A" ~ lrltYVVVTat ~A"' "",/.,'" " '. VOt, lrlaytKOt,' O€, 'f'TJatV, Ot /Layot /LTJTpaat Kat 8uyaTpaat , ,'" \,/., ~ , 8 8 ' . . , .. , ~ Kat aO€II'f'at, /Ltyvva at €/LtTOV Etvat· KotVa, T€ Etvat Ta, yuVatKa" -' \ \ , avVaLVOVVTWV , ',/.,' " 8EIIY} '\ YTJ/Lat ~ OU, fJ'tC[- Kat'\lIa'8PC[-, al\l\a a/L'f'oT€pWV, OTav 3 o ET€PO, rT]V TOU ET€POV. Anti-Persian and staunch nationalist I

3

Cf. Welcker, op. cit., p. 444. Fr. 28-Clem. Alex. Strom. iii.

2

1 I, I

(p. 200, ed. Stahlin).

xiii. 4, 9·

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

though Xanthus may have been, it is hardly credible that he should have written this seriously; such nonsense corresponds more to Scytobrachion's sense of humour. Parallel with this reference is another in the Preface of Diogenes Laertius:

in association with magical practices. I It is difficult to transfer his name from such surroundings into the work of a fifthcentury logographer. The same is true of Astrampsychos, whose name is suspiciously Greek in appearance in contrast to Gobryas and Pazates, the other supposed successors of Zoroaster. There is no trace of his name again until Christian times, when books on the interpretation of dreams and some magical and astrological works were foisted on him; Suidas credits him also with a so-called 'Medical book' on the care of donkeys. 2 Diogenes also refers to Xanthus' work on Empedocles: chat 8' atYrov (sc. 'E/L7T€80KAEa) Kat 'AptaToTEA1]S eAEv8EpOV _~'\' (3aaLIlELav " , .. YEYOVEvat KaL 7TaU1JS apX1]S aNlOTPWV, E£ yE T7]V avTCp <;,<;, 8 ~/8 ' \ , OWOfLEV1JV 7TapTlT7]aaTO, Ka a7TEp .!:;av os EV TOtS 7TEpt aVTOV IIEyEL, ' ~V ALT6T7]Ta 81]Aov6TL 7TAEov aya7T7)aas. 3 Though not suspicious in itself, the fact that Diogenes has shown himself fallible in quoting from Scytobrachion may be taken as evidence that this reference also is untrustworthy. But the question is rather a trifling one. One other fragment should be mentioned in this context. Athenaeus quotes a long passage from Mnaseas of Patara, in which there occurs the following sentence: ~ 8E yE 'A TapyaTLS, " ~/8 \1 '..1<;'1 '\~lfl.l. -..1<;,-'\WO"7TEP .!:;av os IIEy€L 0 VOOS, V7TO lVJO'!'OV TOV voov allovaa KaTE8 \ '1 8 _'\ \ 7TOVTLa 1] fLETa X vos TOV VWV EV TTJ 7TEpt 'A aKaIIWVa IItfLVTJ 8£(1. ~v v{3pw, Kat lmO TWV lX8vwv KaTE{3pw81].4 Mnaseas, though reputed a pupil of Eratosthenes, has not a very good name as a geographer, and there is more nonsense than serious information in his fragments. s Accordingly one would be inclined to reject this reference, as a spurious quotation from the Magica and typical of the style of Scytobrachion, were it not for the similar myths about Atargatis attributed to

II8

'A1T(~ OE TeOV Maywv, c1)v apgat ZwpoacT'rp7]v T6V lltpUT)v, 'Ep/L6owpOS /LEV 6 llAaTWVtK6S EV TtfJ ll€pt Ma87]/LaTwv cP7]aLV €ls T~V Tpolas aAWUtV ET7] y€yovtvat 7T€VTaKtUxlAta. Sav80s oE 6 AV06S Els T~V Stpgov ota{3autv a7T6 TOU ZwpoauTpov ;gaKtuxlAta (v.l. ;gaK6uta) cP7]Ut· Kat /L€T' allT6V y€yovtvat 7TOAAOVS TtVas Mayovs KaTa Otaoox~v, 'OUTavas Kat 'AUTpa/L!fVXovs Kat rw{3pvas Kd lla~aTas, /Ltxpt TijS TeVV ll€puwv im' 'AA€gavopov KaTaAVU€Ws. 1

The closing phrase is presumably an addition, and not part of the quotation. This text is quoted by A. W. V. Jackson in his study of Zoroaster as the first allusion to the prophet in Greek writings. 2 Herodotus knows nothing of Zoroaster, and his remarks on Persian religion3 are taken as evidence that only a debased or popular form of Zoroastrianism was introduced into the Greek cities of Asia Minor, including the strictly unorthodox cults of Mithras and Anaitis. The interest of Greeks in the Magi dates from Alexandrian times. The ZwpoauTpov A6YLa, to which Nicolaus of Damascus refers in his account of the end of Croesus, are familiar as forgeries from other sources. 4 In fact, apart from the brief reference in the pseudo-Platonic Alcibiades 1,s there is no other mention of Zoroaster in pre-Alexandrian literature. The statement that he lived six thousand years before the invasion of Xerxes is in the same vein as Pliny's that he wrote two million lines. 6 Even more suspect than the reference to Zoroaster is the name of Ostanes. All the references to him are late. It is true that he and Zoroaster are both connected with Mithraism by Lactantius Placidus,7 but his name appears more frequently in papyri and in the Church Fathers I

2

3

Fr. 29-Diog. Laert. Proem. 2. Zoroaster, Prophet if Ancient Iran, p. 232. i. 131-2. Cf. Camb. Ane. Hist. iv, pp. 205-11.

Nic. Dam. F. 68, II; Jackson, op. cit., pp. 259-60. 12IE-122A. 6 N.H. xxx. 3. Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 46, places him 5,000 years before the Trojan War. 7 Schol. on Statius, Thebais, i. 718. 4

5

I

I

\ '

I

I

,

....

119

"

\

-\1

I

-,

-,

-

\

I

I e.g. K. Preisendanz, Pap. Graee. Magic. iv. 2006, xii. 123; Cyprian, Quod idola di non sunt, 6; Tertullian, De Anima, 57; Eusebius, Praep. Evangel. v. 14I. For further references see Th. Weidlich, Die Sympathie in der antiken Literatur, pp. 16-17,26-30; K. Dilthey, Rhein. Mus. xxvii (1872), p. 386; Kopp, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Chemie, pp. 409-". 2 s.v .• Acrrpup,.pvxo,. Cf. W. Christ, Grieeh. Literaturgeseh. II. ii, p. 805; Riess in RE., s.v. Astrampsyehos.

3 4

5

Fr. 3o-Diog. Laert. viii. 63. Fr. II-Athen. viii, p. 346E. Cf. Hesychius, s.v.• Anayu(7). Cf. Laqueur in RE., s.v. Mnaseas (6).

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

Ctesias. In view of the stories which Ctesias tells, it seems more reasonable to assign it to the Lydiaca, because, according to Stephanus of Byzantium, in book iv of that work Xanthus described the foundation of Ascalon, one of the centres of the cult of Atargatis, by a Lydian called Ascalus, son of Hymenaeus (or Tymenaeus) in the reign of good king Alkimos (or Akiamos). 2 It is a hopeless task to try to sort out these various names and establish when Alkimos was king or the chronological relation between him and Mopsus. 3 Too much stress should not be laid on the reference to book iv rather than an earlier book. It is enough to notice that Xanthus carried both his narrative and his love for aetiologicallegend far afield. Although l)ionysius ofHalicarnassus, in his essay on Thucydides, speaks slightingly about the mythographic tendency of the so-called historians earlier than Herodotus,4 in his major work on Roman Antiquities he gives Xanthus high praise. He calls him 'a man with an exceptionally sound knowledge of early history, who must be considered second to none in establishing the history of his own country'.5 This comment, which refers to the wide range and authoritative character of Xanthus' work, is a most valuable piece of evidence. An intelligent writer like Dionysius, whatever modern critics may say against his inability to detect forgeries, could not possibly have come to this conclusion on the basis of Scytobrachion's 'quotations'. If he had not seen the actual text of the Lydiaca, he must have been familiar with the epitome of Menippus. Many of the earlier historical works were lost before his time, as he himself says;6 but the epitome may have

preserved quite enough for him to be able to state his opinion on Xanthus with confidence. Dionysius passes this verdict on Xanthus before recording his disagreement with the account given by Herodotus of the colonization of Etruria. Herodotus says that the Lydians emigrated there, led by their king's son Tyrsenus, in whose honour they re-named themselves Tyrsenians or Tyrrhenians. I According to Xanthus, says Dionysius, Lydus and Torrhebus, who divided the kingdom between them, both remained in Asia; and the subjects over whom they ruled re-named themselves in honour of them, calling themselves Lydians and Torrhebians respectively. He quotes the actual words ofXanthus: a:lTO Avoov /LEV yLvoVTat AvooL, am) OE Topp~{3ov

120

1

I

2

J. Gilmore, The Persika qf Ktesias, pp. 24--8. Fr. 23-Steph. Byz. s.v. 'AaKaAwv· 1ToA" l:vpla, 1TPO, Tfi 'IovBalq.. EavlJo, £V

T€TapTV AVDLaKwv cPT/ULV, OTt TUVTaAOS Kat'" AUKaAOS' 1TaL'8€S' 'Yp.€va{ov· 'TOV 8£ "AUKaAOV V1TO ' AKLafJ-0V TOU Avowv /3a(]'t.A(wS' aipfdJ€VTa uTpaTT/Yov £ls Euplav u-rpaT€Vaa, " KaK£L 1TapO€VOv €paa8€VTa 7ToALV KTLaat, ~v &¢' (aurou oVrwS' wvop.aue

Tel. aVTa. Kat NLKOAaoS' £11 T£TaPTTJ IUTOp{q.. 3 Cf. Fr. 10, Nic. Dam. F. 44, 10. Possibly Nic. Dam. in F. 16 is drawing on the same collection of stories as Xanthus. • De Thuc. 6. 5 i. 28. 6 De Thuc. 23 OU'TE yap B,uaw~oVTa, TeVV 1TA"ovwv at ypuq,at p.£Xp, TWV KalJ' TJJ1-fis Xpovwv, QUO' ali>taaw,op.£vaL 7Tapa. 'Trautv WS €KE{VWV ovaat TWV av8pwv 1TtUT£VOV,

..,

•

TT I~

....

111 \ '

\

T~l.· (va,S' EtCT!V at. T,E" .n. aoJLov TOU J.J'.1I.I\TjUtOV Kat

TWV 1Taparr'A1Jatwv TOVTO',.

'A pUTTaLOV '

TOV

IIpOK0VV7]al,OV " Ka(.

TOppYJ{3ot· TOVTWV d,\,\~'\ovs M/LaTa

121

~ y'\wuua a'\Lyov 7Tapao/€p€L, Ka~ VVV ETL UV'\OVULV OUK aMya, WU7T€P "[WV€s Ka~ LlWpt€L".2 Evidently

there are two parallel versions of the story here. Herodotus claims to be speaking on the authority of 'the Lydians themselves' ,and gives no indication that he knows of any alternative verSlOn. Torrhebus' name occurs again in a fragment of Nicolaus of Damascus. The story he tells is that Torrhebus, son of Atys, when wandering by a lake (which was afterwards called Torrhebia in his honour), 'heard the voice of nymphs, whom the Lydians also call muses, and so learnt music and himself taught it to the Lydians; and because of this the melodies were called Torrhebian'. 3 The connexion of i.94. 2 This is Muller's text (Fr. I). According to the Teubner text (C.Jacoby, 1885) the Lydians and Torrhebians do not borrow words (avAova,v) from each other's dialect, but mock and disparage one another (atAAovatv). See the critical note. 3 Nic. Dam. F. Is-Steph. Byz. s.v. TOpp1Jf3o,· 1ToA" AvSla, a1To Topp~f3ov TOU • ATVO, (TO £IJV'KOV Topp~f3w, Kat IJ1JAVKOV TOpp1Jf3l;-- £V Tfi TOpp1Jf3lB, £aTLV opo, Kapl,os KaA€6f-L€VOV Kat 'TO L€POV 'TDU Kaplov €K€L. Kapl,os OE Lhos 7TaLS' Kat TopPTJf3{aS w, N'KoAao, B'), 0, 1TAa~op.£vo, 1T£pl T'va Alp.v1Jv, ijT<, a1T' mhou TOpp1Jf3la £KA~IJ1J' I

S'

I

cfoBoyyijs vUf-LcPwv aKovaas,

mho, TO",

as Kat Movaas

Avoot KaAOUal" Kat I1-DVal,K~V fOLOaxBTJ Kat

AvBo", £SlSat£. Kat TO. p.iA1J B,a TOUTO Topp~f3,a £KA~IJ1J. Such is the text of Stephanus. The parenthesis marks are my own, but they are essential to show the meaning of the passage, which is clumsily put together. As Muller prints the text (Fr. 2) the lake appears to be called Torrhebia in honour of Carius, which is absurd; Jacoby, seeing this difficulty, thinks there is a lacuna in the text of Stephanus and prints as follows: Kcip'o, Ll"" 1Ta" Kat TopP1Jf3lu, w, N'KoAao, B',
B.

4515

R

122

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

Torrhe~us with musical invention is supported by Plutarch, De Aluslca/ and by Boethius, De institutione musica,2 who says that Toroebus, son of Atys, king of the Lydians, added a fifth string to the lyre. It is generally admitted that Nicolaus of Damascus made great use of Xanthus' Lydiaca,3 and a long argument is not necessary to show it. In his Universal History Nicolaus wrote in detail about L~dian history, often following Herodotus, but equally often dIffering from him and describing incidents not touched upon by him. Since no earlier author except Xanthus is known to have written at length on Lydian history, even without further evidence it would seem almost certain that Nicolaus knew his work. The passage just quoted about Torrhebus, for whose name the only early authority is Xanthus, is a definite indication that he knew the Lydiaca, and the remarkable similarity of other passages with fragments of Xanthus offers additional proof. As many as nine of the fragments of Xanthus deal with events described by Nicolaus. The.fragments will be discussed individually in their turn and there is no need to do more than summarize them now: Xanthus' mention of Scamandrius as leader of the Phrygians who settled in Asia (Fr. 5) is corroborated by a fragment of N~colaus (F. 26). His mention of King Alkimos (not otherWIse known) as EVaEfNaTaTO, KU~ TTpq.OTaTO, avBpcimwv, and a most successful king (Fr. 10), seems to be re-echoed in the remark of Nicolaus that Ardys €f3uat'\wE IUTa 'AKtJ1-WV TTavTWv <;, ~ B' \ ,/. \ , UptaTu, KUt a'f'oopu ytVETUt A VOOt, KUTU VIUO, KUt 'f'tI\ODtKUW, (F. 44,10). Nicolaus' story of King Camblites (F. 22) is simply an elaboration of Xanthus' tale (Fr. I2).4 A final argument is Nicolaus' use of Ionic forms, especially Ionic genitives like 'ADvaTTEw, rVYEW, uncontracted forms like KaAE0J1-EVOV, phrases like KU~ 0" and in many places his style is reminiscent of Herodotus. s In other parts of his history, except where he "

\

,/. '<;'

,

15, p. 1136c. 2 i. 20. See e.g. th~ ~~rliest edition or Nic. Dam. by Orelli (Leipzig, 1804). For more recent CrItiCIsm see Jacoby's commentary and R. Laqueur, RE., s.v. Nikolaos (20) von Damaskos, xvii. 38 7-9 0 . 4 cr. also Xanthus, Fr. 5, 11,23 with Nic. Dam. F. 26, 16, 18. S On these points cr. E. Seidenstucker, De Xantho Lydo, pp. 26-9; P. Pomtow, De Xantho et Hcrodoto, pp. 15-21. I

3

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

12 3

is following Herodotus, he shows no Ionic tendencies. These ionicisms show how little effort he made to alter what he found in his source; and this habit of adopting the diction and vocabulary of his source seems to have been general with him throughout his history. The editors of his fragments have been at pains to show how it was his habit to adopt certain peculiarities of the style and vocabulary of his source, no matter whether the earlier writer might be poet or historian. His use of Ionic forms, therefore, in this context where he is not following Herodotus, leads us to believe he is following another work in the Ionic dialect; and no other except the Lydiaca is known to have existed. Apart from Nicolaus, our most valuable information about Xanthus' work comes from Strabo. Strabo had not himself seen the Lydiaca, but speaks on the authority of Eratosthenes. A passage in his first. book (i. 3,4) shows that Xanthus sometimes indulged in geological speculation, and that he did not confine himself to a mere chronicle oflocal history. This combination of historical writing with scientific inquiry is in the spirit of Herodotus, and this is probably one reason why Ephorus spoke of Xanthus as 'HpODOTCfJ TO., afOpJ1-a, DEDwKOTO" He is said to have described a great drought which occurred in the reign of Artaxerxes, when rivers, lakes, and wells were dried up; and furthermore, he himself had seen (or 'knew about' if the reading ElD€vut is preferred to lDELv) in many places far from the sea, in Armenia, Matiene, and Lower Phrygia, 'stones in the shape of a bivalve, shells of the pecten order, impressions of scallop shells, and a salt-marsh, and therefore was persuaded that these plains were once sea' .1 This fragment of Xanthus invites comparison with Herodotus ii. IO. Herodotus says that the space between the mountains above Memphis looked as though it had been at one time an inlet of the sea, 'like the country round Ilium t

Fr. 3-Strabo i. 3, 4 Taii-ra S' £l·",;'v (sc . .; 'EpaToafJEV'Y}s)

T~V ETpaTwvos £1I"aLV£'

8o~av TaU

cpVUC,KOU, Kat ETc, Eav80v TaU Av8ov" TaU #LEV Eav80v A£yOVTOS E1Tt 'ApTa~£p~ov y£v£u8ac, piyav avXp.ov, tOur' EKAc,1T£Lv'n'oTap.o-us Kat Alp.vas Kat cppEQTa" awav

T£ lS£,v (v.I. £iSriVaL) 1I"o>J.axfj 1I"poaw 0.11"0 TijS fJaAaaC1T]S >.tfJovs T£ Koyxv'\,wllns Kat

ocrrpaKa KT£vW8£a Kat X"Ipap.v8wv TV7Twp.aTa, KaL Ac,p.voBaAaTTav EV 'App.£vloc,s Kat MaTc,'T]vOLS Kat EV tPpvylq. Tfj KaTW, ~v £v£Ka 'n'£tB£u8ac, TO. 7i£8la 11'0T£ 8aAaTTav Y£VEOfJat. The translation quoted is by H. L.Jones (Loeb ed.).

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

and Teuthrania and Ephesus and the plain of the Maeander, if small things may be compared with great'. He does not develop the comparison. Does he refrain from doing so because the theory that these regions had been at one time under the sea had already been suggested by Xanthus? Does he leave the subject for the same reason that he elsewhere deserts subjects already dealt with by other writers?1 Strabo (xv. I, 16), writing about India, recalls how, according to Nearchus, the plains of the Hermus, Cayster, Maeander, and Caicus were created by the silt which these rivers brought down from the mountains; he refers to the plain of the Nile as a parallel and to what Herodotus says about Egypt being 'a gift of the river'. This does not help towards answering the question of the previous paragraph, since there is no suggestion of any reference to Xanthus. But his words in xii. 8, 19, where he is writing about geological changes in Asia Minor, most decidedly support an affirmative answer to the question: they suggest that Herodotus found his geological theories in Xanthus. Strabo says: 'It is worth while also to remember what the early historians have to say. Xanthus, for example, the author of the Lydian History, describes the changes that from time to time have affected this region, and I referred to this earlier in my work. Furthermore they make this country the scene of Typhon's sufferings and the story of the Arimi, and they say that this is the Katakekaumene (i.e. 'burnt up') country.'

problem for the translator;1 and they do not seem to follow on after the previous sentence. As the text stands, TOGUVTa must refer to KUTUKEKuufLEVT); but to argue that a country deserves the epithet 'burnt up' because it contains a large number of lakes, rivers, and hollows in the ground is absurd. When he refers to Xanthus in this passage, he recalls his mention of him in i. 3, 4. There he quoted his opinion that much of Asia Minor was at one time submerged by the sea. Evidently Strabo wants to connect the volcanic nature of the country with this theory of Xanthus. Surely, then, the large number of rivers, lakes, and hollows in the ground is cited as an argument in favour of his theory, suggesting that the country 'between the Maeander and the Lydians' was at one time submerged by the sea. This at least was the view of Herodotus, and he may have taken it from Xanthus. Hthis is the case, there is a lacuna in the passage ofStrabo; a clause or possibly even a whole sentence has been lost before OUK OKVOVUt DE, and this loss is perhaps responsible for corruption in the sentence which follows describing the lake between Laodicea and Apamea. One cannot hope to restore the exact words which have been lost; presumably they were to this effect: ~yOVVTat D~ Ta noMa Tfj<; xwpu<; TUVTT)<; YEVEU8ut

124

In another passage Strabo says that Xanthus named Arimou~ as ~ king of the Katakekaumene country.z Evidently,

despIte hIs references to 'early historians' in general, what he has to say here about this volcanic region may be referred in particular to Xanthus. He continues as follows: OUK OKVOVUt D~ KU~ Ta /LETagV Muu5.vDpou KU~ AuDwv anuv8' VrrOVOELV TotUVTU

\ DtU\

KUt

\

TO

, -80,

-,

nl\T)

Kw8/Lwvu<; Tfj<; yfj<;. ,

Q

R

'S

-

\

-

\

,

TWV I\t/LVWV KUt nOTU/LWV KUt TOU, noMuxov

~ D~ /LETUgV AuoDtKdu, KU~ 'AnU/LELU<; A[/LVTJ

,~,

')

A..

,~

,,'-

KUt !-'0p!-'opw T) KUt unovofLov TTJV uno",opuv EXEG nEl\uytU OUUU.

These words are very puzzling indeed, and provide a difficult I cr. vi. 55 Kat -rav-ra /L£Y vvv 1TEPl. 'TotYrwv €lprjaOw· 07' 81, l6VTES' AiYV7TTLOt, Kat

o

TL a1To8EgU/-L€VOt tAapov -raS' L1WPLEwv {3aat'A:1J(aS J ciAAoLaL yap 7T£P' aUTWV £'ipT)'Tat, £uaO/l€V aUTa' SE
'Tn

on Hecataeus, p. 105 above.

cr.

2

xiii. 4, II-Fr. 4 adfin.

12 5

nOT~ 8&,AUUUUV.

This is a violent method of dealing with the text, but the passage calls for it; and, besides curing the immediate trouble, it explains the passage in which Herodotus alludes to the theory that the plain of the Maeander had been submerged. Mention of Typhon (or Typhoeus) and the Arimi seems to show that Xanthus followed the Ionian tradition in seeking to establish the scene of certain myths. His claim that the scene of the giant's punishment was the Katakekaumene may be regarded as a comment on the Homeric lines: Ely 'APL/LOtS 08t c/>UUL Tvc/>wlos £/L/LEyat

EVyas. Z

King Arimous, on the other hand, is entirely unknown, and 1 Especially the closing sentence. H. L. Jones (Loeb ed.) renders: 'And the lake between Laodiceia and Apameia, although like a sea (i.e. in size and depth), emits an effluvium that is filthy and of subterranean origin.' This is unsatisfactory. Mr. M. N. Tod suggests that urroq,opa may mean 'outflow' like urroppo1) and would prefer to render 'the outflow of the lake is turbid and subterranean'. 2 Iliad ii. 783.

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

he may be simply an invention of the writer's to account for the name of the Arimi, no less legendary than Lydus and Torrhebus. At the same time, since Arimous is king of a country that, like all volcanic regions, has associations with the underworld, it is tempting to connect his name with Ahriman,I and to supposethatXanthus is recording an Oriental tradition that the Katakekaumene is the Devil's Country. Other fragments testify to his interest in topographical description and native legend. According to Stephanus of Byzantium he described how a city in Phrygia called Locozus or more accurately Locoxus was ftooded. 2 The scholiast on Apollonius of Rhodes also gives the authority of Xanthus for the existence of a shrine of the 'OpEta M~TTJP near the river Sangarius in Phrygia. 3 Taken in conjunction with a passage in Strabo, these passages provide evidence that his geographical and ethnographical interests were not confined to Lydia. Strabo relates that Xanthus represented the Phrygians as coming from Europe into Asia after the Trojan War, coming from the left-hand side of the Pontus and led by Scamandrius from the country of the Berecyntes and Ascania. 4 Like the remark about the Arimi, this fragment also leads back to a passage in the Homeric catalogue: cJ>6PKV<; ao cJ>prya<; ?jy€ Kat 'AuKavLO<; O£O€tS~<; TijA'

Jg

'AUKav{7J<;. 5

Strabo in discussing the site of Scepsis, on the river Scamander, says that its inhabitants were removed from Palaiscepsis to the later city by Scamandrius and Ascanius, sons of Hector and Aeneas; and that the descendants of these two continued for some time as kings ofScepsis. 6 Xanthus' statement that the Cf. Pomtow, op. cit., p. 13. Fr. 6-Steph. Byz. S.v. AOKO~O" 1TOAL~ tPpvy{a, ~v ciJKOVV Bpij.K£' AOKo~wL' Ka..,EKAvu87] aE, ws EcivOos 0 AVDos, as Kai. aLa. TOU § ypa¢£t EVT01TlwS', AOKogtras TOVTOV, KaAWV. EVT01T{W, is Muller's conjecture for the unintelligible EV T01TOL, (PRG. iv, p. 628). 3 Fr. 7-Schol. Ap. Rhod. ii. 722. Jl-TJTpO, is a fairly certain correction of the MSS. reading .d~Jl-TJTPO" 4 Fr. 5-Strabo xiv. 5, 29 0 Jl-£V yap SavOo, 0 AvBo, Jl-£To. TO. TPWtKa rPTJULV I

2

EABErv


TOUS

Iliad ii. 862-3.

6

xiii.

I,

52.

a'

127

Phrygians came from Europe remains unexplained (though it is easy to invent an explanation), but Strabo is evidently thinking ofXanthus here, as is shown by a scholion on Euripides, Andromache 10. The text is badly corrupt, but the issue which the scholiast raises is clear enough. Andromache speaks of her son as thrown from the walls of Troy, a fate hinted at in the famous lines of the Iliad; and Lysanias objected to Euripides assuming the reality of this fate. Then the scholiast appears to say that Euripides preferred the better-attested story to the account of Xanthus. 1 Exactly what words he used it does not matter, because Strabo has supplied us with all the necessary material. Xanthus evidently identified the Ascanius of the Trojan catalogue with the son of Aeneas (ou 7TClvv O/LTJPLKWS) , and, because of the settlement on the river Scamander, gave him Scamandrius, otherwise known as Astyanax, for his companion. A fragment of Nicolaus of Damascus, quoted by Stephanus of Byzantium, provides final proofofhis distortion of the Homeric ' no/us ,~"'.., 1\T'~ "" , '" ~ , account: 'A UKaVLa' .lpWLKTJ. HLKOllaoso LUTOPUF ";"'Ka/LavSpws "EKTOpOS Kat' AvSpo/LflXTJS €K TijS "ISTJS Kat TOU L1 aUKvAEtov Kat ' "2 TijC; 'AUKaVLas Kallov/LEvTJS, TJv EKTLUEV 0~ A'LVEWV naLS 'A uKavws. Yet another fragment must be mentioned in this context. According to Strabo, Xanthus, followed by Menecrates of Elea derived the origin of the name of the Mysians from mys~, the Lydian word for a kind of beech-tree which the Greeks called oguTJ; I

,

'

t'\"

I

...

'and this oxya grows in abundance near Mt. Olympus, where they say that 01. 8€KaTwO/vn.<; (a tenth part of the people, doomed in fulfilment of some vow) were exposed; their descendants were the people later called Mysians, so called from the oxya. Their dialect also bears witness to the truth of this account, being a mixture of Lydian and Phrygian; because for a time they lived near Mt. Olympus, but when the Phrygians crossed over from I E. Schwartz in his edi tion of the scholia prin ts as follows: Avuav{a, KaTTJyop.i EVpL1T{Bov KaKw, Mywv aiJTov Eg .. ATJrPEvaL TO 1Tap' • OJl-~P'i' [.Q 735] A£X OEV C" 7f Tt, , AXaLlov p".pn xnpos ;'\wv a17'o 7TVPYOU ") OUX ens '7TaV'TwS' Y£VOfL£vOV aM' £iKa~6J.L£vov waf;' £A£y£ KaTaKav8-rju£o8aL TOV 1TaiSa 7j TL liAAO. Eav80v S£ 'TOV Tn AVOLUKa. ypa!jJaVTa * rpaaiv 0'" * * <> EVPL7TLOT/S Bav8cp '7Tpooexov 1T£P.i 'TWV TPW"iKWV J.LV8wv, T~iS' ..oe XPTJULJl-WTEPOL, Ka, dgW1TLaTOTEpOL,. He suggests fillmg the: lacuna after rPauLv OTt

*

with QUK E{30VA£TO. 2 F. 26-Steph. Byz. S.v. 'AuKav{a.

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

Thrace, the Mysians gave way to them and went to settle near the Lydians up above the sources of the Caicus.'1

sister who was tall and beautiful. Watching till Darius should com: and seat himself outside the city of the Lydians, they then acted in the following way: they dressed their sister in the finest clothes they had, and sent her to fetch water, carrying a pitcher on her head, leading a horse with one arm and spinning flax. As this woman passed him, the attention of Darius was aroused; because what the woman was doing was not in accordance with Persian or Lydian custom, nor with the custom of any people in Asia. His attention being aroused, he sent some of his bodyguard with orders to watch what the woman would do with the horse. They followed her, and when she came to the river, she watered the horse, and after doing this and filling the pitcher with water returned along the same way, carrying the water on her head, l~ading the horse with her arm and turning th.e spindle. 'Darius, astonished at what the observers told hIm and at what he himself had seen, ordered that the woman be brought before him. When she was brought, her brothers also appeared, as they had been watching from a short distance away. Wh:n Darius asked from what country she came, the young men saId that they were Paeonians and she was their sister. He a~ked who the Paeonians were and in what part of the world they hved, and what their purpose was in coming to Sardis; and they told him that they had come to put themselves in his hands, that Paeo?ia was a settled district on the river Strymon, the Strymon bemg not far from the Hellespont, and had been colonized by the Teucrians from Troy. These various things they told him, and he asked if all the women in their country were as industrious as this. Most certainly they were, they told him; this was the explanation of their sister's behaviour. So Darius then sent orders to Megabazus, whom he had left in command in Thrace, telling him to evict the Paeonians from their dwelling-places and bring them to him, men, women, and children.'

128

Side by side with this fragment about the Mysians must be put a passage from Nicolaus of Damascus: 'In the days of Alyattes, king of the Lydians, a certain man with his wife and children set out from Mysia, the land of the Thracians (which Homer also mentions, speaking of 'Mysians who fight close in the fray and lordly Hippemolgi'); he crossed over into Asia, into the country called Lydia, and settled near to the city of Sardis. When the king was sitting near to the city wall, the wife of the Thracian walked past carrying an earthen jar on her head, and in her hands a distaff and spindle, and behind her came a horse, which was tethered to her girdle. The jar on her head was full of water, and she was working with her hands, spinning the spindle from the distaff, and the horse who followed behind tethered to her girdle had been watered at a spring. When the king saw her, he was filled with amazement, and asked her whence she came, who she was, and to what city she might belong. She replied that she was by birth a Mysian, "and this is the little city in Thrace". Accordingly the king, roused to action by the sight of the woman, sent a delegation to the king of Thrace, who was called Cotys, and obtained from his country a fair number of immigrants, men with their wives and children. It was after these people that the inhabitants of Asia Minor who are called Thracesii took their name' (F. 7 I ) . A similar story, different in several details, is told by Herodotus in v. 12-14. Darius has just returned to Sardis after the Scythian expedition, leaving Megabazus in Thrace; 'and it happened that, because of the following sight which he saw, he decided to order Megabazus to round up the Paeonians and remove them from Europe into Asia. There were two Paeonians, Pigres and Mast yes, who, after Darius had crossed back into Asia, wanting to make themselves tyrants of the Paeonians, came to Sardis; and they brought with them their I Fr. 8-Strabo xii. 8, 3. In translating I have omitted a corrupt section. The last part runs as follows in Jones's text: TEWS !-"V yap ";KEiv auTO"S TTEpi TOV 'OAV!-'TTOV, TWV Ii, <1>pvywv EK TijS 13prf.KTJS TTEpa,w8EVTwV aVEAoVTWV TE TijS Tpo{as apxoV'Ta Kat 'T7]S 7TA'Y'jU{OV yfjs £K£{VOVS /-LEV €vTav8a OiKfjUa.t., TOUS SE Mvaovs fmf.p TnS' TO;; KatKov 7TTJyas TTATJu{ov Avliwv. aVEAoVTwV is not a very happy emendation for EiAoVTO TOV. One would think that this clause refers to the leadership of Scamandrius and Ascanius.

12 9

Then follows the account of what Megabazus did on receiving the command of Darius. The three main differences between the accounts are: (1) Nicolaus has Alyattes, king of Lydia, instead of Darius, so that the date of the story is different; (2) Nicolaus makes the woman a European Mysian,I Herodotus a Paeonian; (3) the reaction of Alyattes is very different from that of I Strabo unfortunately does not report all ofXanthus' account of the Mysians (see p. 127 above). Cf. Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterturns (ed. 5), I. ii, pp. 69 1 -3.

4515

5

130

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

Darius. The other differences are not important, bel('mging to the embellishment rather than to the essential part of the tale. The two accounts obviously depend ultimately on a folktale, told differently at different times to suit the occasion. The theme is commonplace enough: the luxurious king impressed by the industry and dexterity of a people whose existence was hitherto unknown to him. One cannot prove that Nicolaus' version is taken directly from Xanthus; but it is a Lydian story, and has two elements typical of Ionian logography, a reference to a Homeric line and an attempt to account for the name of the Thracesii. It is not therefore a simple folk-tale, but a literary version of one on which he was drawing; and Xanthus' Lydiaca is the obvious place in which he would have found such a version. I Then there arises the question whether Herodotus knew of this version of the tale. One might suppose that he simply ignored it, as he ignored the story of Lydus and Torrhebus, in favour of a more up-to-date version. There is no reason why his source should not be an oral one; there are no learned literary touches in his account. The differences between the versions of this tale in Herodotus and Nicolaus are great enough to make it clear that the two authors are drawing on different sources. But with their versions of the story of Croesus and the pyre this is not the case. 2 Nicolaus' version of this episode is simply an adaptation of the Herodotean account, with a few additional touches for rhetorical and dramatic effect. There is no reason to suppose that his account owes anything to Xanthus; least of all can it be supposed that the mention of the .\oyLa of Zoroaster and the Sibyl is due to Xanthus. 3 I Pomtow, op. cit., p. 21, thinks Nic.'s story has no connexion with Xanthus because of its rhetorical style and lack of ionicisms ; but Nicolaus is quite capable of adding rhetorical touches of his own; see p. 131 below. For theories of contarninatio see Jacoby, note on F. 71, and Ed. Meyer, FOTschungen, i, p. 168, n. I. 2 Nic. Dam. F. 68, Hdt. i. 86--8. 3 As P. S6del thinks, Defabellis ad Croesurn pertinentibus, pp. 43-4, though he admits that in general Nic.'s account is simply adapted from Hdt. Cf. Jacoby, note on F. 68. Both these critics accept Xanthus Fr. 29 with the reference to Zoroaster as genuine; but cf. pp. 117-19 above. On Nic.'s story see also E. Seidenstiicker, De Xantho Lydo, pp. 34-44, R. Schubert, Gesch. deT Kiinige

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

There are other stories attributed to Xanthus, some of them very strange. The myth of Niobe would naturally be related in the course of the Lydiaca; but Parthenius quotes Xanthus for the less common version of the story, according to which she is the daughter not of Tantalus but of Assaon; and, instead of being turned to stone, hurls herself from a rock. I Much more remarkable and less Hellenic in its grotesqueness is the tale of a gluttonous Lydian king, Cambles, who one night cut his own wife to pieces and devoured her; in the morning he woke up to find her hand in his mouth, and was so horrified that he killed himself.2 Nicolaus records the story with greater circumstantial detail, allowing himself to improve on the original tale, in much the same manner as he tried to improve on the Herodotean account of the Croesus-Cyrus story.3 The fact that he calls the king Camblites instead of Cambles is of no importance; in any case, there is no way of telling when this king is supposed to have lived. 4 It is entirely unnecessary to argue that, because of the differences in the two accounts, Athenaeus, who refers to von Lydien, p. 122, and Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterturns (ed. I), i, pp. 604-5, who states dogmatically: 'Die ausfiihrliche Geschichte bei Nic. Dam. ist lediglich eine Ausspinnung und Rationalisierung der Angaben Herodots; die Einfiigung der Sibylle und der Aoy,a Zwpoacrrpov verrath die antiquarische Gelehrsamkeit der hellenistischen Zeit.' Such a view is more convincing than elaborate theories of contarninatio, for which see R. Laqueur, RE. xvii. 38 7-9. I Fr. 13-Parthenius 33. 2 Fr. 12-Athenaeusx, p. 415c-n EavOos /)€ £v TO'iS AV/)taKO'iS Kal-'fJA1)Ta q,1)0, TOV {JaulA£tJUaVTa Au8wv 1ToAvcpayov yEvla8at Kat 7TOAV1TOT7]V, ;T" Se: yucrrplp.apyov· TOVrOV OUV TrOTt; VVKTOS T~V EUVTOU yvvalKa KaTaKp€Ovpy~aavTa KaTa¢ay€'iv· E1THTU

1TPWt £vpOVTa T~V X€Lpa riJs yvVatKOS £vovaav €V Tip uTop.aTt, Eavrov O:1Toacpa.gal. 1T£P"fJO~TOV 'T~S 7Tp6.~EwS YEVOI-'EVTJS. J F. 22-Constant. Porphyrogen. De Virtutibus, i, p. 339, 5 OTt Kal-'fJAlras (3aa,,)..€vs Av8tas. TOVTOv)"lY£'TaL yaU'Tplp.apyov a¢6Spa y£v£aOat, waT£' Kai T~V av'Tov yvva'iKa £7TtOvl-'~oaVTa Karaq,aYE'iv. aVros yE I-'~v £avrov /)o~as V7TO q,ap/-,aKow fJEfJAaq,Oa£ 7T£ptf30~'TOV 'TOV rrpaYf'aTo~ y£vop.lvov ~tcPo~ £Xwv '1TA'YJ8vova7J~ ayoPQS £v piuqJ a'Tas £l7T£v' I f W Z£v, £L f'EV al7' Ep.aV'TOV S(OpaKa 'Tau'Ta ~ SlopaKa Ttuatf" EV Ep.aV'Tlp Ta~ 8iKa~· £L OE Vrro r!>app.aKwv 8,a¢8ap£t~, ol Eft€: r!>app.agaV'T£~ l7a80t£v." 'TaV'Ta £17T£ Kal.

ws

OpWV'TWV 7TaV'TWV £aV'Tov arrlacPag£v. Kat ol ILEV TOVTOV €K£P'TOP.Ovv yaC1'Tptpapyov, WKTEtpOV ws q,pEvofJAafJ~ 1m0 q,apl-'aKOW ./)o~a~ov /). TOV ' Jap/)avov Taiha 7TE7TO£1)~EVa, /)Ul TO "XOos. Cf. Eustathius on Homer, Od. ix. 288 (ed. Rom.,

o. /).

p. 1630 ), who calls the king Kal-'fJvOtS fJao'AEvs Av/)wv; Aelian, VaT. Hist. i. 27, mentions Kal-'fJ1)S the Lydian in his list of great gluttons. 4 L. Alexander, The Kings if Lydia, pp. 40-2, identifies Cambles with Sadyattes, the third Mermnad.

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

Xanthus for the story, depends on a forgery, Nicolaus on the genuine Lydiaca. Such a solution is equally unnecessary to reconcile two other contradictory fragments. According to Athenaeus, Xanthus referred the practice of first using female eunuchs to King Adramyttes; according to Suidas, he attributed it to Gyges. I Since both authors refer to the second book of the Lydiaca, it is likely that one of them is guilty of a mistake or a misunderstanding of the text. 2 The name of King Adramyttes is unknown, though Nicolaus mentions an illegitimate son of Sadyattes called Adramys. 3 It is indeed likely enough that we have to deal with an alternative name for Gyges, since comparison of the various accounts of Lydian history suggests that each king had more than one name. 4 When Herodotus finishes his treatment of Gyges, he hints that he might have said more about him, but does not think it worth while; he leaves the subject abruptly, after saying that Gyges, like his successors, attacked Miletus and Smyrna and that he captured Colophon: aM' OV8EV yap fLEya a7T' aVTou

to repeat, such stories as that which was discussed in the last paragraph and which he might reasonably refuse to believe. If Xanthus recorded stories of this type-and the fragments of Nicolaus suggest that he introduced many anecdotes into his story-Herodotus, claiming to be in search of the truth, might show irritation at this treatment of an important historical personage. Alternatively, he may be hinting that other stories about Gyges are of no value, so as to excuse himself for not reporting what Xanthus had written. There is another passage in his account of Gyges which offers stronger proof that he was well acquainted with an entirely different tradition about him. In i. 13, after describing how Gyges murdered King Candaules and made himself master of the kingdom, without warning he speaks of a quarrel 'between the partisans of Gyges and the rest of the Lydians', which was settled by asking the Delphic oracle whether or not it accepted Gyges as king. 1 To understand the meaning of this 'quarrel' we must tllrn to the account of Nicolaus (F. 47). In this account the king is called not Candaules but Sadyattes, this being most probably a sacred name applicable to all Lydian kings. 2 It is a much more complicated story in this version. Gyges' grandfather, DascyIus, was murdered by an earlier king, and the family has lived in exile for two generations. Now young Gyges has been recalled and, despite the objections of many advisers, King Sadyattes has made him his favourite. He is sent to escort the king's bride from Mysia, tries to seduce her on the journey and is repulsed; she tells the king of it, and he swears to kill him. Gyges hears of his danger through a servant, and forms a conspiracy with his friends, 'thinking it better to kill the king than to be killed by him'. The murder takes place and various other people are killed, Gyges defending himself against the anger of the populace by a strong bodyguard, and finally establishing himself by an appeal to the Delphic oracle. This is an entirely different tradition from

132

"\ \ " " Q \, " ", a/\II.O EPYOV EYEVETO fJaatllEVauVTo, ovwv OEOVTU

' " TEaaEpuKovTa ETEU,

TOUTOV fLEV 7Tup~aOfLEV ToauuTa E7TtfLVrpBEVTE,.5

This is surely another way of pointing out that there were various fLUTUWt AoYOt current about Gyges, which he thought it unnecessary I

Fr. Ig-Athenaeus xii, p. 515D AvSot SJ el, TOUOVTOV

~).8ov

TPVq,ij,.

w, Kat

1TPWTOL yvvaLKas €UVOUxlaat, WS La-ropeL Eav80s 0 ./lvS6s, 1] <> -ras £ls aurol' avag,epop.Eva, iUTop{a, avyyeypaq,w, KTA. (see p. 109 above) •.. ., S· OVV Ecfv8o, EV TV SeVTEpq. TWV Avo£aKaw ' Aopap.VT1]v cp1]OI. TWV Av8wv !3aotAla 1TPWTOV yvvaLKas EuvovxloavTa xpiju8a, aliTa" aVTL avSpwv EUVOVxwv. Suidas s.v. Ecfv8o, .•. AvS,aKG. {3,{3Ata S'. EV OE 'Tep OEVTtpcp TOVTWV lU-rOPEL, wS' 7TPWTOS' rVrrJS 0 Auowv /3ao£AEvS' j'vvaLKas EVYQVXtOEV, 01TWS aVTais XpcpTO nEI. veatouaaLSo 2 For the older arguments see Muller on Fr. Ig. Cf. Gutschmid Kleine Schriften, iv, p. 31 r. ' 3 F.63. Jacoby in his note remarks that he is a different person from Xanthus' King Adramyttes. Vossius, De histoTicis gTaecis, ed. 2, p. 33, calls him the brother of Croesus. Alexander, op. cit., pp. 42-3, identifies Adramys and Adramyttes with Aiyattes, father of Croesus. He thinks confusion arose because in a discussion of the vices of Gyges he was said to use women eunuchs 'like Adramyttes', and that Athenaeus wrongly assumed this to be the name of an earlier king. It is also arguable that the name Adramyttes is an invention ofXanthus to account for the name of Adramyttium; as probably Ascalus was invented to account for Ascalon (Fr. 23) and Dascylus for Dascylium (Nic. Dam. F. 44-7). 4 For the so-called 'sacred names' of Lydian kings cf. G. Radet, La Lydie, p.775 i. 14.

I

W~

yap

Guv£{3TJuav

o~

ES

O£

Avoot

O€LVQV

€7TOL€VVTO

Z

e,

TO KavoavAfw 7TaeO~ Kai.

TWVTO Ot TE TOU ruyf.W GTaULWTaL Kat ot AOL7TOL

~P?GTTj~L~V a.VEAIJ //Ltv f3~aL~€a ,(tllaL

HpaKA ..Su, T7JV apX7Jv. Cf. p. 132 n. 2 above.

01TtUW

133

Auowv,

'T()V

oE

EV 07TAOLGL 1}aav, Avoot, ~v pEl' S~ 'TO

{JauLAfufLV, ~v

oe

JL~J a1TooovvaL

134

XANTHUS

TH~LYDIAN

that which Herodotus follows. But by alluding to the 'partisans of Gyges' he seems to show knowledge of the other version and to have momentarily confused it with his own. It is not possible to know how closely Nicolaus followed the account of Xanthus, but for the moment this is immaterial. The main outlines of this version are clear enough, and any mention of UTaUtWTat belongs to it, not to the Herodotean account. Other passages in Herodotus' treatment of Lydia offer only very slender evidence of his use of Xanthus. It has been suggested that one of the 'three different stories' about the birth of Cyrus, which he chooses to ignore in favour of 'a more correct version', is the story of Xanthus. 1 More plausible is the suggestion that he is referring to Xanthus in iv. 45, when he discusses the origin of the name of Asia and says the Lydians derived it from Asias, son of Cotys, son of Manes. 2 To carry the investigation further would be tedious. There seems no hope of reaching such a certain and satisfactory conclusion as was reached by examining the fragments of Hecataeus. There is no evidence that in any instance Herodotus actually followed or copied the account of Xanthus. 3 There are a number of instances where he seems deliberately to differ from him, but there is no conclusive proof that this divergence is not due to ignorance. On the other hand, there is nothing to prove that Ephorus was wrong in saying that Xanthus provided Herodotus with his dcpopp.al, with a method of historical writing for him to imitate. Indeed, the fragments do show that the Lydiaca was a work in which myth, anecdote, and more sober historical narrative were blended together in such a way as to form an interesting and readable book. So much cannot be said of any other early logographer. This conclusion means, then, that Xanthus' Lydiaca was a considerable advance on the work of Hecataeus. It still retains a number of the characteristics of the earlier author, I C£ A. Bauer, Die Kyros-Sage und Verwandtes, Sitzungber. der k. Akad., Wien, phil.-hist. Klasse, c (1882), p. 517. 2 C£ Pomtow, op. cit., p. 30. 3 This does not mean that Gutschmid, KleiM Schriften, iv, p. 3 I I, and Ed. Meyer, Forsc!lungen, i, pp. 167-8, are justified in saying that Hdt. neither knew nor used the Lydiaca.

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

135

characteristics which still appear in Hellanicus; there are attempts to establish the scene of ~egends, fictitious eponymous heroes, and etymologies (sometimes fantastic) to explain the origin of nations and tribes. Just as in Hecataeus, Stephanus found a number of cities mentioned in the Lydiaca not otherwise attested. I But, to judge by the fragments, Xanthus had a greater love for the sensational than Hecataeus or Hellanicus, whose ()avp.aTa are of a more pedestrian kind. If Herodotus learned anything specific from him that he did not learn from Hecataeus, it was the art of introducing Oriental legends into his history. Xanthus, though he wrote in Greek and for Greeks, was not totally hellenized in his tastes. In view of these considerations it would be surprising if Xanthus earned a reputation as a trustworthy historian. Of the fragments quoted directly from his Lydiaca there is not a single one which is helpful in serious historical criticism of Herodotus. This, one might object, may be the fault of those who happen to quote him rather than his own fault; Strabo, Athenaeus, and Stephanus of Byzantium are more interested in other aspects of his work than in the historical narrative. But the narrative of Lydian history in Nicolaus of Damascus does not inspire confidence as a trustworthy account. The story of Gyges' accession is merely another version of the popular tale which Herodotus records. More serious is the fact that his tales of the earlier so-called Heraclid dynasty bear a remarkable likeness to those told of the Mermnads. Spermus becomes king through an intrigue with Damonno, wife of King Cadys, just as Gyges did; and we are led to believe that his story is mere fiction by Nicolaus' remark that his name is not recorded ev TOtS {3autA.€{otS (F. 44, 7). The death of King Sadyattes, last of the Heraclids, is represented as just retribution for his ancestor's murder of Gyges' ancestor; this is the same motive that runs through the story of Croesus (F. 44-7). Besides, popular folk-tales play so large a part in the story of these Heraclid kings that we cannot take the narrative seriously. The Oriental touch is perhaps most evident in the tale of I Fr. 15, 18,20,21,22,24,25,26. 'ApBvVIOV, €V elsewhere only in Nic. Dam. F. 47.

e~fJ7JS

7T€litcp (Fr. 17), is found

136

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

Spermus. Damonno tries to poison her husband King Cadys for the sake of her lover Spermus. A physician is treating him with some success; accordingly she invites him to dinner, makes him sit on a couch which falls through the floor, and he is never heard of again. Cadys then dies and Spermus becomes king as her husband, forcing her brother, Ardys, into exile. Ardys sets up as an innkeeper abroad and cultivates a distinguished clientele of Lydian legitimists. Spermus accordingly hires a bandit named Kerses to murder him in return for the hand of his daughter. But when Kerses arrives at the inn, he is so deeply impressed by the beauty of Ardys' daughter that he reveals the plot to Ardys and (in return for the promise of his daughter's hand) offers to go back to Sardis and murder Spermus. So Ardys cuts off his hair, attaches it to a wooden head, and Kerses sets off to Sardis with it; on arrival he sends in news to Spermus that he has Ardys' head with him. He invites Spermus to see it in privacy, and when he bends down to examine it cuts off his head and sets out to take it to Ardys. On the way he stops at an inn and, under the influence of wine, reveals his triumph to the innkeeper. The innkeeper thereupon kills him and sets out to tell Ardys the good news that Spermus is dead and there will be no need for his daughter to marry Kerses after all. Ardys is delighted at the news, is welcomed back to Sardis, and enjoys a long and successful reign. Between mythical times and the invasion of the Cimmerians there was a long period to be filled in with names of kings and it is not surprising that certain names should occur more than once. There is no necessity to limit the number of kings here. In dealing with the later kings, it may be sometimes necessary to suppose that different names refer to the same man: for example, the last Heraclid king murdered by Gyges is Sadyattes or Adyattes in Nicolaus; in Herodotus he is 'Candaules, whom the Greeks call Myrsilus'. But it is useless to try to identify all the early kings; there is plenty of room for legendary figures like Mopsus and the glutton Cambles, Meles, and Akimios.'

Attempts have been made to show that these earlier kings have been invented according to the model of the Mermnads; and it is in itself likely that many of them were invented to fill up the period prior to the Cimmerian invasion from which no records survived. Some of the most valuable remarks in the fragments are those that hint at the Oriental connexions of the Lydian kings before Gyges: Meles goes into exile to Babylon, and there is mention of the foundation of Ascalon by a Lydian general. I Such fragments certainly suggest that Gyges was not the first king to seek Assyrian alliances, but that his alliance with Assurbanipal was a continuation of the policy of the earlier dynasty. The truth about this period of Lydian history, however, if it is discoverable, is for the archaeologist and the Oriental scholar to find. It is improbable that Xanthus' Lydiaca, even if it survived in full, would be very helpful. But the un-Hellenic character of the stories in Nicolaus makes one unwilling to believe that these pre-Mermnad kings were the invention of Greek genealogists-of the ubiquitous Dionysius of Miletus, as Eduard Meyer suggests. 2 It may be that Heracles was introduced for the benefit of Greek readers, but there is no reason why native tradition should not have traced its kings back to Sandon, the Lydian counterpart of Heracles, before Xanthus adapted the story for a Greek public.

L. Alexander attempts vainly to identify these legendary figures with later kings.

137

BIBLIOGRAPHY The fragments. F. CREUZER. Historicorum Graecorum antiquissimorumfragmenta, pp. 135-232. C. and T. MULLER. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (FHG.), i, pp. 3644, xx-xxiii; iv, pp. 628-g. F. JACOBY. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (F. Gr. Hist.), ii, no. 90 (fragments of Nicolaus of Damascus). Brief accounts of Xanthus. W. ALY. Volksmiirchen, Sage und Novelle bei Herodot und seinen Zeitgenossen, pp.220-5· F. CREUZER. Die historische Kunst der Griechen, ed. 2, pp. 287-90. W. SCHMID. Muller's Handbuch, Griechische Literaturgeschichte,

1.

i, pp.

70 4-7.

W. SMITH. Smith's Dictionary oJGreek and Roman Biography, s.v. Xanthus (2).

I

I

Nic. Dam. F. 45, Xanthus Fr. 23.

4SlS

2

T

Forschungen, i, p. 176.

13 8

XANTHUS THE LYDIAN

SPecial studies. L. ALEXANDER. The Kings of Lydia. (Dissertation, Princeton, 1913.) H. GELZER. Das Zeitalter des Gyges, ii. Rheinisches Museum, xxxv (1880), pp. SI4-28. A. VON GUTSCHMID. Aus Vorlesungen uber die Geschichte der griechischen Historiographie. Kleine Schriften, iv, pp. 307-1S. C. HACHTMANN. De ratione inter Xanthi Lydiaca et Herodoti Lydiae historiam. Nachricht tiber das konigliche Piidagogium zu Halle, 186g. ED. MEYER. Herodots Chronologie der griechischen Sagengeschichte. Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, i, p. IS4-88. P. POMTOW. De Xantho et Herodoto. (Dissertation, Halle, 1886.) G. RADET. La Lydie et le monde grec au temps des Mermnades. (Paris, 18g3.) W. RADTKE. Eeitriige zu den lydischen Geschichten des Xanthos. (Programm, Bischweiler, 18g8.) R. SCHUBERT. Geschichte der Kiinige von Lydien. (1884.) E. SEIDENSTUCKER. De Xantho Lydo rerum scriptore quaestiones selectae. (Dissertation, Kiel, 18gS.) P. SODEL. De fabellis ad Croesum pertinentibus, with Appendix, De ratione quae intercedit inter Herodotum et Xanthi Lydiaca. (Dissertation, Gottingen, Igl 1. ) F. G. WELCKER. Ober die uniichten Lydiaka von Xanthos. Kleine Schriften (Bonn, 1844), i, pp. 431-So.

CHAPTER IV

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS fragments of Charon are even more scanty than those T ofHEXanthus, and such slight evidence as there is about his life and the number of his works is muddled and unsatisfactory. In his case there is no question of an alleged forgery. 1 The difficulties in the evidence about him are almost exactly the same as those which occur in the evidence about Hellanicus; they relate to his date and the number of his works. The discussion, therefore, should be a useful preparation for a study of Hellanicus. In one way his fragments differ from those of the other logographers: there are no references to him in Stephanus of Byzantium ; the principal fragments come from Athenaeus, Plutarch, and the scholiasts on Apollonius of Rhodes. In attempting to establish his date the only sure point of departure is a passage in Plutarch's Themistocles 27, where we learn that Charon, like Thucydides, represented the exiled Themistocles as taking refuge at the court of Artaxerxes, after Xerxes' death. Like Strabo's statement that Xanthus described a great drought which took place in the reign of Artaxerxes, 2 this remark of Plutarch establishes the date of Charon's literary activity as subsequent to 464 B.C., but does not tell us whether he was an older or younger contemporary of Herodotus. In the De malignitate Herodoti his evidence is compared with that of Herodotus as of an dvYjp 7TPW{JVTEPOS, 3 and T ertullian speaks of him as Herodoto prior;4 but such remarks as these are untrustworthy, since they may simply reflect the opinion, common in later times, that all logographers were earlier than Herodotus. The evidence of Suidas, as the previous chapter has shown, can never stand on its own authority; and in this instance I There is no foundation for the belief of Schwartz, RE. iii. 2179-80, in a later 'abridged edition' of his work. 2 Xanthus Fr. 3-Strabo i. 3, 4. 3 Chap. 20, p. 859B. 4 De Anima 46.

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS

it is muddled, or else the text is corrupt; it is printed as follows in Adler's edition:

difficulty again about the number of books. Athenaeus refers both to the ""QpOL and the Persica by name;! but apart from these two no work of Charon is mentioned by name by any other author except Suidas, and all except four fragments (including one of the additional ones in Muller's Corrigenda) can conveniently be referred to one or other of these two works. The four remaining fragments are mythological in content, and no specifically mythological work is attributed to Charon. Hence any decision about the remaining titles listed by Suidas must be purely arbitrary. It is not necessary to report in detail the various discussions about them. 2 Creuzer points out the various other writers with whom Suidas might have confused Charon of Lampsacus: 3 Charon of Carthage and Charon of Naucratis, both mentioned by Suidas; Chares, the. friend of Apollonius of Rhodes, and Chares, the historian of Alexander; Chaereas, whom Polybius once mentions,4 and the geographer Xenophon of Lampsacus, mentioned by Pliny the Elder. 5 Some of the works in his list, therefore, can be explained away as belonging to other authors. The Persica and the Chronicles of Lampsacus, however, are works about which we have some basis for forming an opinion. It seems best first to examine the fragments which may be attributed to these two works, in an attempt to discover their content and character; and then to examine the remaining fragments for any indication they may give of general characteristics of Charon's work. Athenaeus refers only to ""QpOL not °"QpOL Aa[LrpaKTJvwv, and neither of his passages refers explicitly to Lampsacene affairs. The existence of several other fragments, however, referring specifically to Lampsacene local history, is enough to prevent one from believing that the work was just Chronicles in general; the time for universal history had not yet arrived in the fifth century. The confusion of the title ""QpOL with "OPOL,

140

, .t.'" D " , Xapwv, AafL't'aKYJvoe;, vwe; IIVUOKAEove;, YEvofLEvoe; KaTa" TOV 7T~WT~V LlapEtOV, 00' d'\vfLmal'iL' fLii'\'\ov 8E ~v E7Tt TWV IIEpatKWV, Ka;a TYJ: OE' d'\vfLma8a' iaTOptK6e;. Eypa.pEv ALOwmKU, IIEpatKU EV 13tf3'\wte; {3 , 'E,\ATJHKu EV {3t{3'\{ote; 8', IIEpt .l1afL.paKov {3', At{3vKa, "Qpove; AafL.paKYJVWV EV {3t{3'\{ote; 8', IIpVTaVELe; ~ "ApxovTae; Tove; TWV AaKE8atfLoVLwV' EaTL 8E XPOVtKa' KTLaELe; 7T6'\EWV EV {3t{3'\LOte; {3', KpYJTLKU EV {3t{3,\{ote; y" MyEL 8E Kat Tove; 1mb MLvwoe; TEOEvTae; v6fLove;' IIEPL7T,\OVV TWV EKTbe; TWV 'HpaKMove; aTYJ,\wv.

As this text stands the indication of date is hopelessly confused. 08' o:\V[L7TLaDL (01. 79, 464-461 B.C.) does not correspond to KaTu TOV TTPWTOV LlapELov, but if YEvo[LEvoe; indicates not the date of birth but thefloruit, it does correspond to the remark of Plutarch about Themistocles and Artaxerxes. Suidas' next statement, [LaMov DE liv ETTlTWV IIEpaLKwv, is probably merely a deduction from the fact that he wrote about the Persian Wars. Among earlier critics Creuzer emended 08' to t8' (01. 69, 504-501 B.C.),! Gutschmid to 0[3' (01. 72, 492-489 B.C.),2 Wiedemann to 0' (01. 70, 500-4~7 B:C.).3 Instead of emending, however, a better alternatIve IS to suppose that Suidas has confused the date of bi.rth and ~he floruit; that he meant to say Charon was born III the reIgn of Darius and 'flourished' in 464 B.C., which would mean that he lived through the Persian War. The large number of works attributed to him by Suidas has aroused general scepticism. It is easy to decide that IIEpt Aa[LrpaKov is merely an alternative name for ""QpOL Aa[LrpaKTJVWV, Chronicles of Lampsacus; the earlier reading "OPOL, found in the manuscripts of Suidas and some manuscripts of Athenaeus, is certainly to be rejected. 4 Muller rejects this identification because Suidas counts two books of the former and four books of the latter work; but Suidas can scarcely be trusted in such matters. So also Hellenica may be an alternative name for Persica, a general history of the Persian Wars and events leading up to them, though there is the same I 2

4

Hist. Graec. Antiq. Frag., pp. 89-90. Cf. Muller, FHG. i, p. xvii. Kl. Schriften, i, pp. 36-8. 3 Philologus, xliv, pp. 171-3. Cf. Schweighauser, Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas, ii, pp. 645-8;

vi, p. 129.

141

Fr. 3-Athen. ix, p. 394E; Fr. 9-xii, p. 520D. Schwartz, loc. cit., thinks it is self·evident that Charon wrote only one book, the ~Qpo,. Wiedemann, loc. cit., gives him four-Aethiopica (same as Libyca), Persica, Hellenica (= ·Qpo, AaK£8a'p.ovtwv (sic)), [hp' Aap..puKov (= IlptrruVHS' ~ • ApxoV7'£S' 'TWV Aap..paKTJvwv). F.]. Neumann, De CharoM Lampsaceno, § 3, gives him five works, Aethiopica (= Libyca), Persica, Hellenica, ·Qpo, Aap.faKTJvwv, K'TtUHS' 1T6,\£wv. 3 Op. cit., pp. g6-8. 4 iii. 20, 5. 5 N.H. IV. 95. I

2

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS

moreover, is more readily understandable when we find two fragments actually dealing with boundaries. Strabo quotes Charon for his opinion about the boundaries of the Troad: Charon made the Troad extend from the river Practius (or a town of that name) as f:tr as Adramyttium. 1 Since the territory of Lampsacus evidently begins to the northeast of the river Practius, one might reasonably suppose that Strabo is quoting from the geographical introduction to the "'Dpot. In his discussion about Sybaris Athenaeus writes as follows: 'To such a point had they carried their luxurious refinement that they had even trained their horses to dance at their feasts to the accompaniment of pipes. Now the people of Croton knew this when they made war on the Sybarites, as Aristotle records in his account of their Constitution, and struck up the dance tune for the horses; for they had with them pipers in military uniform; and no sooner did the horses hear the pipes than they danced away, and not only that, but with the riders on their backs they deserted to the people of Croton. The same story is recorded also of the people of Cardia by Charon of Lamp sac us in the second book of his Annals, writing as follows: "The Bisaltians took the field against Cardia and won the victory. Naris was leader of the Bisaltians. He, when a child, had been sold in Cardia, and after serving as a slave to a Cardian had become a barber. Now the Cardians had an oracle that the Bisaltians would come against them, and they would often talk about it as they sat in the barbershop. So Naris, escaping from Cardia to his native land, put the Bisaltians in readiness to attack the Cardians, and was appointed leader by the Bisaltians. All the Cardians had schooled their horses to dance at their drinking-parties to the accompaniment of the pipes, and rising on their hind legs and, as it were, gesticulating with their front feet, they would dance, being thoroughly accustomed to the pipe-melodies. Knowing these facts, Naris purchased a flute-girl from Cardia, and on her arrival in Bisaltia she taught many pipers; accordingly he set out with them to attack Cardia. And when the battle was on, he gave orders to play all the pipe-melodies which the Cardian horses knew. And when the horses heard the piping, they stood on their hind legs

and began to dance; but since the whole strength of the Cardians lay in their cavalry, they were beaten in this way." ' I

142

I

Fr. 8-Strabo xiii. ~,

~TaOI.O,Vs,

I,

4. Xapwv Il' ,; AaJL.paKTJvoS TpLaKoaLovs u,uovs aq,aLpE' - yapI ,€LaLV a1TO " II ' us ' I Ipawrwv' ' TOUOVTOl. apwu

" npaKTt,OV ' , ,

a:ro

ap~o/L(YOs'

EWS JLEVTOL Ai'lpaJLvT'TLOV 1TpOElaL.

143

This is the longest passage from Charon that we have, and it is a fine example of the straightforward Ionian narrative style. It seems, however, to have nothing to do with Lampsacus directly (though Cardia is not far away); and its presence in the -''f"JpOt suggests that Charon was inclined to digress from his main theme. This impression is confirmed by another reference of Athenaeus to the same work: 'Charon of Lampsac us in the "'Dpot says that even in his day at Sparta they claimed to display the cup given to Alcmena by Zeus, when he visited her disguised as Amphitryon.'2 One might suppose that Charon mentions this fact in illustration of some story of Heracles, as though it were proof of his divine parentage. This appeal to some monument or offering as evidence for the truth of a story is very much in the manner of Herodotus, and it is interesting as showing that Charon, presumably, visited Sparta and was shown the sights just as Herodotus was conducted round Delphi. These two fragments, then, reveal some decidedly Herodotean characteristics in the work of Charon. Other fragments show that, in the manner of Hecataeus, he did not fail to point out the 'old name' of Lampsacus and the legend explaining its later name: 'Charon says', writes the scholiast on Apollonius, 'that the territory of the Lampsacenes also was called Bebrycia from the Bebrycians who lived there, but this people has disappeared completely as a result of the subsequent wars.'3 Mention of the Bebrycians would very naturally lead to some account of the adventures of the Argonauts among these people and the triumph of Polydeuces-over Amycus; for it would be quite in the manner of I Fr. g--Athen. xii, p. 520C-F. The translation in the text is that of C. B. Gulick (Loeb ed.). 2 Fr. II-Athen. xi, p. 475B-C Xapwv Il' ,; AaJL.paKTJVos £V TOLS "gpOLS 1Tapa AaKEOal./LovloLS cP7}Uc.v £TL Hal Els aVTov OElKvvaOat TO aE7Tas TO Sa8Ev ' AAJ(f.L~V17 V7TO Lltos. aTE' AJLq,LTPVWVL ElKaaBTJ. A. Schafer, Philologus, xxvi, pp. 194--6, wants to read' AilaAKOJLEVLOLS instead of AaKEllaLJLovLOLs, on the ground that Alcmena has no place at Sparta. 3 Fr. 7-Schol. Ap. Rhod. ii. 2 Xapwv III q,TJaL Kat T~V AaJL.paKTJvCJV xwpav

-rrpOTEPOV BE{3pvKlav KaAE'iuOaL, chro TWV KaTOl.K7JUaVTwv alrr~v BE!3PVKWV, TO Of "EVOS aVTwv ~¢&.vL(rra"

o(.(i Tavs

YEVO/LEVOVS

1ToAl/Lovs.

145

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS

a logographer to point out the association of his native city with the ancient legend; Hecataeus in the Periegesis was in the habit of briefly indicating such associations, and it is to be expected that Charon would deal with them more fully in a special work on Lampsacus. From Plutarch we learn that he derived the name of Lampsacus from a certain Lampsace:' Phobus, from Phocaea, gained the goodwill of Mandron, king of the Bebrycians 'who are also called the fityoessenians', and at his request sent some Phocaeans to settle in their city Pityoessa, in order to help Mandron in his wars with his neighbours. The natives before long became envious of their success in acquiring booty, and, when Mandron was away on a journey, planned to massacre them. Mandron's daughter, however, by name Lampsace, revealed the plot to the Phocaeans, and they invited the Pityoessenians to a banquet in the proasteion: 'Then dividing themselves into two parties, some of them occupied the walls whilst the others put the Bebrycians to death. After thus becoming masters of the city, they sent for Mandron and asked him to reign jointly with some representatives of their own. Lampsace died from sickness and they gave her a magnificent funeral in the city and named the city Lampsacus in her honour.' Mandron, however, left them, refusing to join in the government, 7TPOOOUtas imor/ltav rp€Vywv, and was permitted to take with him the wives and children of the Bebrycians who had been killed. Lampsace subsequently received divine honours. Polyaenus tells the same story more briefly,z not mentioning his source of information but using a number of phrases similar to those of Plutarch, suggesting either that he took the story from Plutarch or that both of them had it from a common source. 3 Both of them, however, have compressed the story to such an extent that one cannot draw any conclu-

sions from their accounts about the manner in which Charon dealt with the details of this aetiological legend. One point should be mentioned: Plutarch says, on Charon's authority, that Phobus was the first to cast himself into the sea from the Leucadian rocks (a feat afterwards attributed to Sappho and others crossed in 10ve).1 In this story also, then, Charon found opportunity for a digression, seizing his chance to point out how Phobus was the 'first to do something'another characteristic weakness of Herodotus. 2 Polyaenus tells another story about the Lampsacenes which, although he names no authority, may very probably come from Charon's ""QPOL. 3 Because it is concerned with the boundaries of Lampsacene territory, earlier critics, who thought of Charon's work as "OPOL, not "'QpOL, were convinced the story must be due to him;4 once this reason is disregarded, no other argument but probability remains. The story is that the people of Lampsacus and of the neighbouring city of Parium agreed to settle a dispute about the boundaries of their territory by sending out men from their cities at cockcrow and fixing the boundary at the point where the two parties met. The Lampsacenes, however, persuaded some local fishermen to delay the march of their rivals by inviting them to share in a feast of fish and wine and a sacrifice to Poseidon; the trick was successful, and the Parians delayed so long that the Lampsacenes reached the Hermaeum, seventy stades from Parium, before meeting the other delegation. This exhausts all the fragments which can with reasonable certainty be referred to the Chronicles of Lampsacus, unless the foundation of Astacus, sometimes spelled Ostacus, by the Chalcedonians belongs here also. s But one anecdote which Herodotus tells about Lampsacus should be noticed :6 when Miltiades, son of Cypselus, was taken prisoner by the

144

I

<>

1 De virtutibus mulierum, xviii, p. 255A-E. Since Plutarch has evidently compressed the story and told it in his own words, it is not necessary to quote the Greek. Z Strategem. viii. 37. 3 Cf. Creuzer, op. cit., pp. 121-2; Adolf Schmidt, Das perikleische Zeitalter, ii, pp. 120-1. J. Melber, Ober die Quellen und den Wert der Strategemensammlung Polyaens, Jahrbiicher fur class. Phil. Supp. xiv (1885), p. 596, is more ready to believe Polyaenus has the story directly from Charon.

EK <1>wKala, TOU KoSp'Swv ylvov, ~C1av as.A,poL St8vp.o, <1>of30, Kat BANJO,' eLv

lPoflos a1TO TWV A£UKa8wv 1T£TPWV TrpWTOS arpfjK£v EaUTOV fis OaAaTTav, tOS Xapwv

o AaJ.U/1aK7Jvos Zcrr0P"lKO'. Z

Cf. e.g. Hdt. i. 23, 94.

3

Strategem. vi. 24. Cf. the references on p. 144 n. 3 above.

Cf. Creuzer, op. cit., p. 121. FHG. iv, p. 627; Photius, Lexicon, s.v. oC1TaKO" o[ S£ aC1TaKo" Kapaf30v .lSo,· " T"I'}V 1TOllI.V '\ ~7JV" '''A a-raKOV, ·0O'TaKOV .,.J.wv£s. T I " "0 " fJ TJ ~a~ 'Trap ' 0 X apwv· . c:rraKOS £KTl.U V1TO XaAK1JSov,wv. 6 V!. 37. 4

5

C\

'ISIS

u

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS

Lampsacenes, Croesus, who was a loyal friend of his, ordered them to release him or else he would destroy them 'like a fir-tree' (urp€a<; TTtroO<; 'TPOTTOV €K'TPU/JEtV). The Lampsacenes, Herodotus records, did not at first understand the meaning of this threat, until one of the older men among them pointed out that the fir-tree, unlike other trees, once it is cut down does not recover. Oddly enough, he does not point out that Croesus' threat puns on the old name of their city, Pityoussa or Pityoessa, mentioned by Charon in the fragment quoted above and by Strabo, xiii. I, 18. This omission has been taken as proof that Herodotus did not know the work of Charon; but one cannot base an argument on such a trifling point. 1 In fact, the evidence for the relation between Herodotus and Charon is far too scanty to justify a decision. In the De malignitate Herodoti the account of Herodotus is twice compared with that of Charon, who is called uviJp TTpEu{1vnpo<;. In each case the actual words of Charon are given, but they imply such a brief account of the incidents in question that the comparison is entirely pointless. Herodotus describes at some length how Pactyas, leader of the Lydian revolt against Cyrus, when his capture was ordered, fled first to Cyme; the people of Cyme, when ordered by Mazares to surrender him, consulted the oracle at Branchidae and were told to obey the order; but because of the insistence of a certain Aristodicus they refused to comply, and they sent him off to Mytilene. The Mytileneans were prepared to give him up in return for a sum of money, but the Cymaeans helped him to escape to Chios, where the Chians dragged him away from the temple of Athena and surrendered him to the Persians. 2 The author of the De malignitate remarks that Charon has no such discr~ditable tales to tell of the Chians and M ytileneans, -mV'Tt OE Ka'Ta Mgtv y€yparpE' IIaKTVYJ<; OE w<; €."u(}E'TO

distorted, and quotes the following sentence of Charon Ka'Ta AE!,tV' 't. '"A(}YJvawt - OE <;, , " ' " \ , HKOUt 'TptYJPEUt ETTIIEuuav ETTtKOUpYJUOV'TE<; 'Tot:<; "tWUt, Kat\ Et<; , ~'~' , \ f', \ \ , apoEt<; EU'Tpa'TEUUaV'TO, Kat EtllOV 'Ta TTEpt EapoEL<;

146

\ ,


,

" n EpatKOV, ' "O/XE'TO 'f'EVYWV '/" " /LEV , apn

TTpOUEllaVVOV'Ta 'TOV a-rpa'TOV 'TOV ~A:

,

-\ ,

"

<;, ,

,

Et<; lYlV'TI.IIYJVYJV, ETTEt'Ta OE EL<;

X'WV'

"

-,

I

T7-

"

Kat av-rov EKpaTYJUE fiVP0<;. 3

He likewise objects to the account given by Herodotus of the siege of Sardis, which he maintains is shockingly I cr. Macan's note ad loco 2

i. 157-60.

3

Fr. I-De mal. H.

20,

p. 859B.

147 I

.,

,_

I

_

Q

\

I

aTTav-ra, XWpt<; 'TOU 'TELXOU<; 'TOU !-,autIlYJwu'

_

<;"

,

'Tav-ra OE TTOtYJuav-rE<;

€TTaVaxwpovuw EL<; M{).YJ'TOV."I

We are not entitled to conclude from such fragments as these that the Persica was merely a concise chronicle of events, but there is far less evidence about this work than about the 'F'QPOt. Tertullian says that Charon recorded Astyages' prophetic dream about his daughter Mandane in the same manner as Herodotus, 2 thus revealing that Charon described Persia's rise to power and did not disregard the romantic touches in his story. If Tertullian is correct in speaking of Charon as 'Herodoto prior', we may reasonably conclude that when Herodotus claims to know three versions of the story of Cyrus, one of these three was the version of Charon. 3 No fragment is preserved of his account of the great Persian expeditions to Greece except a curious remark in Athenaeus, in his account of various kinds of doves and pigeons: 'Charon of Lampsacus, in the Persica, writing about Mardonius and the Persian force which was wrecked off Mount Athos, also makes the following remark: "And then for the first time white pigeons were seen by the Greeks having previously been unknown." '4 Aelian records the sam~ observation. s One might be inclined to disregard this remark as trifling, were it not for the statement of Herodotus that both lepers and white pigeons are guilty of sinning against the sun, according to Persian belief, and are accordingly driven away by them. 6 This text of Herodotus has puzzled Fr. 2-De mal. H. 24, p. 86IC-D. !r. 4-De anima 46 'Hoc etiam Charon Lampsacenus, Herodoto prior, tradit.' 3 cr. A. von Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften, v, p. 66; Ed. Meyer, FOTschungen, ii, P·240 . • Fr',3-;-Athen. ix, p. 394E Xapwv Il' 0 Aap..paK7JVOs EV 'rois II£palKoi<;, 1T£pt 1

2

M~pllo~,ov
II

Kal. A£VKaL

ou ",yvop.£val."

(is ·EAATJvas ErPaVT}Oav, 7Tp6'TfpOV 5 Hist. VaT. i. 15. Abrp1Jv ~ A€tJK7]V €X71, ES 7T6ALV OVTOS au KaT£pX£7aL II/pono,. cpaoi. 8£ J.LLV €S TOil ijALOV Q.jLap'Tovra 'T'

7TfpLOTfpal, TeSTE 7TpWTOV

6 i. 138 os av a~ TWV aO'7'wv ou8£ ovp.p.lay£TaL TOtOL aAAoLoL Taiha £X£'V. f£LVOV tS€ 1TaVTa 'TOV >..ap..f3avop..£vov V1TO 'T01n-WV 1TOAAOL £,£>"avvova, £K 'Tijs

XWfY'}" Kat

T(Xs"

;\£VKas 1T£PUn'£pO.s, TiJV av'T~V alT[1JV £1TLtP£pOVT£S.

148

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS

the editors, and Stein thinks some words have dropped out; since white pigeons were sacred to Astarte, he thinks that Phoenician sailors brought some of these birds on shipboard with them. 1 Even so, the remark of Charon does not help to explain the passage of Herodotus, and there is no good reason for thinking there is any connexion between their two accounts of white pigeons. The only other fragment which might be referred to the Persica is the report of Plutarch that Charon mentioned the flight of Themistocles to the court of Artaxerxes. 2 It does not follow that Charon carried on his account of the struggle between Greeks and Persians as far down as this; one good reason against such a view is the emphatic statement of Thucydides that no history of the Pentecontaetia existed, except the totally inadeq uate account in Hellanicus' Atthis. 3 Granted Charon's taste for digressions, one may reasonably suppose that he took the occasion of outlining the future career of Themistocles at some earlier stage in his account of the Persian Wars. The remaining fragments are concerned with mythology, and it is useless to attempt to assign them to one work rather than another, since an opportunity for a digression may occur at any time. His mention of Cybele (he used the spelling Kvf1~fJlJ) might occur anywhere at all. 4 Pausanias says that Charon mentioned Carcinus of Naupactus as author of the epic known as the NaV1TaKTLa E7TTJ;5 Charon would be most likely to refer to this poem in some mythological discussion. More interesting is the scholiast's report of his story about a certain Rhoecus and a hamadryad nymph. 6 The

story is evidently compressed and the original wording not preserved; it is that Rhoecus earned the gratitude of a nymph, when her oak-tree was on the point of falling to the ground, by ordering his servants to prop it up; when the nymph promised him any favour he liked to ask, he asked the privilege of being her lover; she consented but said he must be faithful to her always and that a bee would act as messenger between them; 'and one time when he was playing at TTEaUot the bee flew past him; he spoke rather angrily, which enraged the nymph, so that he was blinded'. The scholiast has so condensed the story that the last part is unintelligible as it stands. The scholiast on Theocritus iii. 13 adds a few details, calling Rhoecus a Cnidian and placing the scene of the story in Niniveh, and recognizes that the bee is a conventional go-between in affairs of love. The clue, however, as Wilamowitz has seen,1 is to be found in a fragment of Pindar, preserved only in the Latin version of Plutarch's Aetia Physica, in the answer to the question 'Cur apes citius pungunt qui stuprum dudum fecerunt?'2 The bee is said to be quick at detecting the unfaithful lover; and besides quoting the passage of Theocritus alluding to Anchises and his blindness, which prompted the scholiast to tell the story of Rhoecus, he quotes Pindar: 'Parvula favorum fabricatrix, quae Rhoecum pepugisti aculeo, domans illius perfidiam.' Rhoecus, then, was blinded by the bee because he was unfaithful to the nymph. A parallel story to this one is referred to Charon by the scholia on Lycophron 480 (Fr. 13):

I

Note ad loco

2

Themistocles

'Tf8V"f]KOTOS

3

i. 97.

2 7 eovKvSIS"I~ /LEV o'!v Kat Xapwv .; Aa,...paK7Jvo~ lO'7'opoiio. EEpgOU 1TPOS TOV vlov «UrDU Tip BffL£C1TOK'Af.L y£v£a8at, T~V EVT£VeLV.

,

FHG. iv, p. 627-Photius, Lexicon, S.V. KvfJ"IfJo~' .; KaT£XO/L£Vo~ Tfj /L"ITpt TWV (hwv, (hO'>'ovoa oll/L
149

'Areas, son of Zeus (or Apollo) and Callisto, Lycaon's daughter, so Charon relates, met a hamadryad nymph when he was out hunting; she was in danger of being killed, with the oak-tree to which she belonged, and carried away by the torrential stream; £~£~Tii(]a TqJ., fPol~4J

xapw, J.L£V,

aLT"IoaaBa. on fJoIlAo'TO.

w~

S£

Efa~K£v ~l~EvaL U1T€P ,7';;S aW;-fJ!{a:, ,€1T€-TP€1T£V", Sf: £K£LVO~

"ItLOv ovyy£v£oliat aVT'[J, V1T£OX£TO SOllva.

TOVTO' ¢>vAaeau8a, P.EVTO' Y€ ETEpaS yvv«t/"lav 1Tap?Jyy€LA€V, EU€UOa, 8e p.€Tafu aV'TlOV aYY€AOV p.EA,uuav. Kat 1TOT€ 1T€UU£VOVTOS aUTOV TTapL1TTaTO ~ p.EALUUa" 17"-

KPOT£POV S' n a1To
Chap. xxxvi.

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS

Arcas diverted the river and steadied the tree's foundation by piling up a mound of earth against it; the nymph (whose name, according to Eumelus, was Chrysopeleia) became his mistress and the mother of Elatus and Amphidamas, from whom the Arcadians are descended.'

Such legends as these might be introduced in almost any context, and one can neither defend nor refute MUller's suggestion that they were told in the K-r£UEt>, a general work dealing with the founding of cities-a work of the kind also attributed to Hellanicus. The interest of these legends is that they are of the particular romantic variety that appealed to Alexandrian taste, not in the Homeric nor precisely in the Hesiodic tradition. The occurrence of both of them in the work of Charon is also interesting as suggesting that he liked to present parallel legends and might for that reason be classed as an elementary student of folk-lore. Since the evidence is exhausted, nothing is to be gained by attempting to carry the discussion of Charon further. His fragments, such as they are, suggest that his method resembled that of Herodotus even more closely than the method of other logographers; they exhibit, scanty though they are, a love of digression on his part, a taste for the curious tale and aetiology, combined with a desire to write serious history. For this reason it would be particularly interesting to know whether his work preceded or followed that of Herodotus; but the evidence is not sufficient to justify any decision on this point.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The fragments. F. CREUZER. Historicorum Graecorum antiquissimorum fragmenta, pp. 8g132. C. and T. MULLER. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (FHG.), i, pp. 32-5, xvi-xx; iv, pp. 627-8. General discussion. W. ALY. Volksmiirchen, Sage und Novelle bei Herodot und seinen Zeitgenossen, pp. 216-20. F. J. NEUMANN. De Charone Lampsaceno eiusque fragment is dissertatio. (Dissertation, Breslau, 1880.)

CHARON OF LAMPSACUS W. SCHMID.

Muller's Handbuch, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, I. i, pp.

702-3. E. SCHWARTZ. RE., s.v. Charon (7) von Lampsakos, iii. 217g-80.

Special points. A. VON GUTSCHMID. De rerum Aegyptiacarum scriptoribus Graecis ante Alexandrum Magnum. Philologus, x (1855), pp. 523-4. Reprinted in his Kleine Schriften, i, pp. 36-8. A. SCHAFER. ZU Charon von Lampsakos. Philologus, xxvi (1867), pp. 194-6. A. WIEDEMANN. ZuCharonvonLampsakos. Philologus,xliv (188S),PP. 17 1-7.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

CHAPTER V

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

THE evidence for the life and writings of Hellanicus contains much the same difficulties and contradictions as the evidence about Charon of Lampsacus. There is no question of forgery, but it is difficult to decide exactly when he lived and how many works he wrote. Aulus Gellius records that, according to the book of Pamphila, Hellanicus was sixty-five years old at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War.l According to Eusebius, however, in the version of St.Jerome, Hellanicus 'flourished' in 500 B.C. in company with Democritus, Heraclitus, and Anaxagoras 2-a very strange company for this date! But the article of Suidas3 is even worse, because it is more elaborate. Some editors have tried to emend it, but this is unnecessary; it is easier to explain the blunders as they stand in the text. Suidas begins, then, by saying that Hellanicus came from Mytilene, and for lack of other evidence we must believe this, though Wilamowitz would like to believe that he came from Eresus. 4 We cannot decide any better than Suidas whether his father was called Andromenes, Aristomenes, or Scamon. But he is plainly contradicting himself in saying that, in company with Herodotus, Hellanicus was at the I GeIIius xv. 23 'HeIIanicus, Herodotus, Thucydides, historiae scriptores, in eisdcm fere temporibus laude ingenti floruerunt et non nimis longe distantibus fuerunt aetatibus. Nam HeIIanicus initio belli Peloponnesiaci fuisse quinque et sexaginta annos videtur, Herodotus tres et quinquaginta, Thucydides quadraginta. Scriptum est hoc in libro undecimo Pamphilae'. (T. 3.) 2 01. 70, 1 'HeIIanicus historiografus et Democritus filosofus et Heraclitus ... et Anaxagoras fysicus clari habentur.' Cf. SynceII. i. 452, 14, ed. Bonn. (T.4.) 3 s.v. fE>J..avLKos· MV'TLA1Jvaios, iU-rOPLKOS' vias' Av8pop,EVOVS, at Se ' APLcrrO~EvovS, al Be IKap.wvos, 00 0f-Lawvp.ov eGXEV viov. a'ETpl,lp€ Oe 'EMaVLKOS GVV 'HpOSOTCP 'Trapa , AILUv-rCf Tep MaKEOovwV {JaaLAEt, Kara TOUS Xpovovs EVPL'TTlSov Kat, EOt/>OKAEOVS' Kai. tEKaraltp 70 M'A'1ulcp €1TEfJaAe yeyovoT£ Ka-ra. 'TeI. IIf.paLKa Kai. J.L,.,
153

court of the Macedonian king Amyntas, in the time of Euripides and Sophocles: because Amyntas I died before the great days of these dramatists, and Amyntas II did not succeed till after their death-probably in 392.1 This sentence is the worst in Suidas' article; what follows is more straightforward: Hellanicus was the successor of Hecataeus, who flourished in the days of the Persian Wars;2 he lived on into the reign of Perdiccas; he died in Perperene, on the mainland opposite Lesbos;3 he wrote a large number of works, both in prose and verse. The confusion of Suidas can easily be accounted for if one compares the statements of the chroniclers and of Pamphila. The chroniclers say he flourished at about the time when Pamphila says he was born, in the 70th Olympiad (5 00497 B.C.). This is a common enough confusion, and it is easy to see that Pam phil a is nearer the truth. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his letter to Pompey, groups Charon and Hellanicus together as contemporaries and predecessors of Herodotus, and in his essay on Thucydides he regards Herodotus and Hellanicus as contemporary predecessors ofThucydides. 4 But a more solid piece of evidence comes from the scholiast on Aristophanes' Frogs,S who gives Hellanicus as his authority for saying that the slaves who fought in the battle of Arginusae were given their freedom and enrolled as citizens of Plataea. This must mean that Hellanicus did not publish his work on Athenian history (the Atthis) till after 406 B.C. Since this date does not fit in with the statements of the chroniclers, attempts have been made to emend the text: Diels boldly alters 'EAAavLKoc; to e€(J7To/A7Tor; EV 'EAA1)VLKo'iC;; and Rutherford thinks the reference is to slaves who fought at Salamis, and that Philo chorus is the scholiast's authority for what Cf. Beloch, Griech. Gesch. (ed. 2) III. ii, pp. 49-62 . For emendation see p. 152 n. 3· 3 Cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ilap1Tapwv, where Thucydides, instead of Hellanicus, is mentioned-certainly in error. Cf. Jacoby, RE. viii. 107· • Ad Pomp. 3, 7; de Thuc. 9· 5 Schol. Aristoph. Ranae 694 TOUS avvvaujLax~aavTa, Sov.\ovs 'E.\.\av'Kos rP1f a ,v e>"£v(J£pw(JijvaL Kat eyypa4>'VTa~ W~ IlAa'TaLf.'i~ aVJ.L1TO>"LT£Uaaa8aL aUToi~J aL£gHtlV Ta E1TL •AI"T,yEvov, Toil KaJJ.{ov. Antigenes was archon 407-406. Since his successor was Cailias, Dubner (whom Jacoby follows, F. 171) reads Toil (1TpO) I

2

KaJJ.{ou. 4515

x

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

154

happened after Arginusae. 1 But such emendations, whilst palaeographically they are ridiculous, are totally unnecessary and entirely deserve the crushing rebuke of Wilamowitz. 2 To emend the scholion in favour of the confused evidence of the chroniclers and the emended text of Suidas 3 is surely very foolish; on this point the more recent critics are agreed. 4 With this additional material at our disposal it is easy to explain the contradictions of Suidas: he is combining the two accounts represented for us by Pamphila and Eusebius, and out of the confusion we may extract two statements: (I) Hellanicus was born in the reign of Amyntas I; (2) he spent some time at the court of Perdiccas. 5 Of these statements the first is probably true; the second is not unreasonable. The other chronological indication of Suidas ('in the times of Euripides and Sophocles'), if it is not an original remark of his own, evidently comes from the source whence Pamphila had her information; and according to Diels and Riihl 6 this source is the Chronica of Apollodorus. Riihl's argument is very ingenious: he thinks that Apollodorus identified the floruit of Hellanicus and Euripides; that Pam phil a interpreted this date as 456, the year in which Euripides produced his first tragedy, regarded this year as the fortieth year of Hellanicus' life, and so calculated his date of birth as 496. It is generally agreed now that this date is in fact a few years too early, since the Atthis cannot have been published before 406, and even the Macrobioi (formerly attributed to Lucian), that not very valuable list of long-lived men, allows him only eighty-five years. 7 The date of Hellanicus is a matter of some importance, because his chronological relation to Herodotus has to be J In his edition of the scholia Rutherford reads as follows: TOU, l:a>.ap.iv. Jlavp.aX'iaaVTa, /)ov'\ovs 'E,\M.v'K6, ¢nJa,v J'\w(J"pw8fjvat., KaL Jyypa.c!>,VTas ws II'\aTat.£i, avp.1T0'\'T£vaaa8a, aV-rok (KaL t/>,'\6xopo,) /).£gu1v TO. £1TL •AVT'YEVOV, TOU (1TpO)

Kill{ov (

).

Hermes, xi, p. 292 'Est hominum genus, qui utique certi quidpiam pronuntiari postulant, qui sententiae audacter prolatae confidunt, cum mendacii fortitudinem. subtilitatis modestiam esse capere non possint.' J For emendations see p. 152 n. 3. 4 Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. (F. 171) and RE. viii. 109; cf. Preller, Ausgewiihlte Aufsiitze, p. 25. 5 Cf. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. i, pp. 430-1. 6 Loc. cit. 7 Lucian, Macrobioi 22. 2

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

155

decided. The most -useful evidence is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the scholiast on Aristophanes. It was decided in the previous chapter that Charon was an elder contemporary of Herodotus; without doing violence either to the statements of Dionysius or to those of the scholiast, it can be maintained that Hellanicus, though perhaps not older in years than Herodotus,l published some of his works before Herodotus published his history. Many writers on Herodotus are inclined to believe that his history was published as early as 429-which is unlikely-but even if this were so, there is no reason why Hellanicus should not have written some of his work before that time. Wilamowitz is overdogmatic in insisting that Hellanicus published nothing before the Peloponnesian War;2 Jacoby is prepared to believe that his first publications may date from about 440 . 3 The case, then, may be briefly stated as follows: The Atthis was published shortly before the history ofThucydides, when Hellanicus was an old man. He had been publishing works, therefore, for many years before this. The tradition that he was born on the day of Salamis4 is worthless, resting as it does on the etymology 'E>J...a.V'KO~ from 'E>J...~vwv VLK'Yj. But the date of his birth is to be put about this time, or possibly a few years later. The statements of the chroniclers, Pam phil a, and Suidas are for the most part worthless; but Suidas is probably right in reckoning him as a contemporary of Euripides and Sophocles. The fragments are a motley collection and are referred to a large number of different works. As many as twenty-four titles are mentioned in the fragments, but no ancient author has preserved a list of his writings. Suidas certainly tells us that Hellanicus was a prolific writer ('he wrote many works both in prose and verse'), but, as Jacoby says, he was too lazy to copy out the list of works. Consequently there has been a dispute conducted on the same lines as the dispute about the works of Charon of Lampsacus. It has been argued I But the traditional date for Herodotus' birth (484-75) rests on no better evidence than Suidas and the chroniclers. 2 Loc. cit. 'Herodotus ... locuples testis est, ineunte bello Peloponnesiaco nobilissima Hellanici scripta edita nondum fuisse.' J RE. viii. 110. 4 Vita Euripidis, § 2 - T. 6.

15 6

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

-notably by Preller, Gutschmid, and Kullmer-that the number of works attributed to him is excessive, and that this large number is due to the fact that ancient authors have referred to the same work under different names, citing sometimes not the name of a whole work, but a sub-title or the title of a subdivision of the work. On general principles this hypothesis is reasonable, but it is impossible to decide with certainty how it should be worked out. Different schemes have been suggested, but there is not enough evidence for anyone to draw up confidently an abridged list of works. Jacoby, accordingly, decides that any such attempt is useless, and that critics who have devoted their efforts in this direction have been wasting their time. He argues that nearly all of the titles represent 'works which are bibliographically separate';I not subdivisions of larger works. It is useless to state an opinion on this point until after studying the fragments very carefully. For the moment it will be enough to mention the titles, which Jacoby (following the example of earlier scholars) copveniently divides into three groups: (I) M ythographic-Deucalioneia, Phoronis, Asopis, Atlantias, Troica; (2) Ethnographic 2 -Aeolica, Lesbiaca, A rgolica , II€pt ' ApKaStaS", Els "Af.Lf.LwvoS" dva{3aatS", Boeotiaca, Thessalica, Aegyptiaca, Cypriaca, l:Jdiaca, Persica, Scythica, KTta€ts" EBvwv, II€pt E()VWV, 'EBvwv Dvof.Laatat, Bap{3aptKU vOf.Ltf.La (he is prepared to believe that the last four are alternative titles of one work); (3) Horographic or Chronographic-Atthis, II€pt Xtov KTta€wS", 'UpHat TijS" "HpaS" aL EV "ApYH, Kapv€OvLKat. This makes twenty-four titles. Jacoby is prepared to admit twentyone separate works. The authorities for the fragments are the same as those with which the preceding chapters have had to deal: Athenaeus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Strabo, Josephus; the scholiasts to Homer, Pin dar, Euripides, Aristophanes, Lycophron, and Apollonius of Rhodes; the lexicographers and anthologists. Comparable to what Herodotus says about

Hecataeus is a single rather scornful remark about Hellanicus made by Thucydides, when he says that this writer had indeed written about the period between the Persian and the Peloponnesian Wars, but without due regard for chronological accuracy. I Apart from this solitary reference in a fifth-century author, there is no direct allusion in any writer till shortly before the Christian era. Strabo and Josephus 2 do not think highly of him as an historical authority, and he nowhere receives the sincere casual praise that is bestowed on Charon and Xanthus. 3 Hermogenes 4 ranks him as a stylist with Theopompus, Ephorus, and Philistus, whose style did not in any way serve as a model for later writers, as did the style ofHecataeus and Herodotus. Cicero, who probably did not know his work at first hand, says much the same. 5 It seems probable that his work survived mainly because of the abundant material which it contained about mythical times. Being a prose-writer hewas perhaps regarded, in and after Alexandrian times, as more authoritative than the poets-a point of view which irritated Strabo,6 because Hellanicus was highly unorthodox.

'Bibliographisch gesonderte Schriften'; loco cit., col. I 1I. Jacoby uses the term ethnographic to describe works which deal with the ethnography and geography of a single country-a type of work which is half-way between the old 1l.plo8o, rij, and the work of Hdt. (Klio, ix, p. 88.) I

2

157

THE MYTHOGRAPHICAL WORKS

Phoronis

Dionysius of Halicarnassus provides probably the best introduction to the mythographical works of Hellanicus. In the first book of his Roman Antiquities he makes great use of Hellanicus, quoting from his works explicitly on three separate occasions, and referring indirectly to him in several other passages. It is quite evident that in writing this portion of his work Dionysius was constantly referring to the Phoronis and to the Troica. The Phoronis dealt extensively with the Pelasgians, and was consequently important for the early history of Italy; and the Troica brought Aeneas to Latium. i. 97. 2 Strabo x. 2, 6; Josephus, contra Ap. i. 16-T. 23, 18. e.g. Dion. Hal. A.R. i. 28. 4 ll.p' l8.wv ii. 12, p. 412, I, ed. Rabe-T. 15. s De Oratore ii. 12, 53-T. 14. 6 xi. 6, 3 p~ov 8' UV TtS fHuu)3cp Kal. fOp.~pt.p '1TLUT£VU£L£V TJpwoAOYOVUL Kat TOtS TpaYLKois 1TO£1JTaLS 7j KT7Julq. T£ Kat fHpo86-Ttp Kal. fE>..>tavlKcp Kat dAAo,s '7"O£OV1'O£S'. (T.24·) I

J

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

The only explicit reference to the Phoronis is in i. 28 (F. 4), where he is discussing various theories about the origin of the Etruscans. He first mentions the view that they came from Lydia, but quotes from Xanthus the Lydian, 'a man whose knowledge of early history is second to none', a passage contradicting this view; I then he goes on:

Thessaly, and then migrated to Italy. But in the genealogical details of the story neither Herodotus nor Dionysius (though he quotes some of the names) was particularly interested. No authoritative statement by an ancient author survives to tell us what the scope of the Phoronis was. Its chief interest for most modern critics is that it described the origin and development of the Pelasgian people, but it also dealt with myths which have only a distant family conn ex ion with them; it was concerned with the descendants of Phoroneus, one branch of whom acquired the name 'Pelasgians', as one or more of its members bore the name Pelasgus. Since Phoroneus was regarded as one of the very earliest of men subsequent to the deluge, the ground that Hellanicus could have covered, had he wished, in a mythographical work of this kind seems practically unlimited. It is generally supposed that in selecting his material he made use of an earlier epic poem called Phoronis, which is mentioned by Strabo as well as by other later authors. 1 No remark of Hellanicus about Phoroneus, the founder of the line, is recorded. But it appears that he sketched separately the stories of the descendants of his three sons, finishing the account of one branch before starting on another. This is the method followed by the so-called Apollodorus in his Bibliotheca, and this mythographical handbook covers the same ground as the various mythographical works ofHellanicus, and agrees in many details with the fragments. As one fragment after another is examined, it will become increasingly clear how much the author of the Bibliotheca owes to Hellanicus; when one has seen how often he follows his heterodox views in individual instances, one is prepared to believe that he has likewise followed his example in arranging his material. More than eighty years ago Preller

158

'Hellanicus of Lesbos, however, says that the Tyrrhenians were formerly called Pelasgians, and obtained the name which they now hold when they settled in Italy. Here is the story as he tells it in the Phoronis: "Pelasgus, their king, and Menippe, the daughter of Peneius, had a son called Phrastor; his son was Amyntor, whose son was Teutamides, whose son was Nanas. Now during the reign of N anas the Pelasgians were expelled by Greeks, and after leaving their ships at the mouth of the river Spines in the Ionian Gulf, they captured the city of Croton inland, and beginning from there they settled the country which is now called Tyrrhenia." ,

This passage at once reminds the reader of what Herodotus says in i. 57: 'What language it was that the Pelasgians spoke I cannot say for certain. But if we are to judge by the Pelasgians who still survive, those who live in the city of Croton (according to other texts Creston)2 up country above the Etruscans, who were once upon a time neighbours to the people now called Dorians and who lived in those days in country which we now call Thessaly; and by the Pelasgians who at one time lived with the Athenians and now are settled at Placie and Scylace on the Hellespont, and all the other settlements of Pelasgian origin which changed their names,-to judge by these people the Pelasgians spoke a barbarian language.'

These two passages are undoubtedly based on the same authority. It is perfectly possible that Herodotus had seen this passage in the Phoronis; but a more cautious critic would state his case in this way: 'Herodotus had some knowledge of the view which Hellanicus incorporated in his Phoronis.' This 'view' was that the Pelasgians at one time lived in See Chap. III (Xanthus), pp. 120-1. Croton is evidently Cortona in Etruria. If Hdt. wrote Creston, an elaborate explanation is needed of the relation between the statements of Hdt. and Hellanicus. See the work of A. della Seta listed in the bibliography, where earlier literature is cited. I

2

159

I Strabo x. 3,19; Schol. Ap. Rhod. i. 1129; Clem. Alex. Strom. i. xxi, 102,6 (p. 66, ed. Stahlin); Etym. Magn. 374, 23. H. L. Jones (Strabo, ad loe,., Loeb ed.) thinks Strabo means Hellanicus, and Weizsacker (Roscher's Lexicon, s. v. PlwrolUus, cols. 2435-6) speaks of'das epische Gedicht Phoronis des Hellanikos'. Kinkel (EpieoTum Graee. Frag., pp. 210-12) collects "the fragments, but throws no light on the authorship. Preller-Robert (Gr. Mytlwlogie, ii, p. 279), discussing Phoroneus, speak of this epic as 'scarcely older than the sixth century'. No certain decision can be reached.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

realized this: 'In fragmentis digerendis utilissimum erat quod Apollodorus in bibliotheca his ipsis Hellanici operibus maxime usus esse videtur, et in singulis et in omni argumenti descriptione; quae res licet ad hue latuerit omnes, tamen satis probabiliter demonstrari potest.'I A careful reading of the Bibliotheca is essential for anyone who wants to know the character of Hellanicus' work. The subject-matter of the Phoronis falls naturally into three parts dealing with the descendants of lasus, Pelasgus, and Agenor, between whom Argos was divided. The different scholia give various accounts in explaining the threefold name of Argos, nlaaov, II€AaaytKov, and £7T7TOfJOTOV. The story of Eustathius is simplest: there were three sons of Phoroneus, lasus, Pelasgus, and Agenor; on their father's death they divided the kingdom, Agenor receiving the cavalry regiments because there was not enough land to go round. This story he attributes to Hellanicus, and notes the alternative version, that Argos was called £7T7TOfJOTOV because Agenor invaded it with a large force of cavalry after the death of his elder brothers.2 The Townley scholiast gives a similar account, but the Venetian gives only the alternative v~rsion of Eustathius: lasus and Pelasgus, who are not sons of Phoroneus but of Triopas, divide the kingdom, and after their death Agenor comes in with his cavalry: 'Hellanicus tells the story in the Argolica.' 3 There is evidently some confusion here and no evidence for solving the difficulty. Whether Hellanicus gave one or

both of these versions and whether the Argolica is a separate work I or part of the Phoronis are matters for conjecture, and it is not worth while to discuss them here. But the threefold division of Argos and the Argive origin of the Pelasgians must have been described at the beginning of the Phoronis. Apollodorus, who begins his second book with the lineage of Phorone us, the son oflnachus, has quite a different version and is of no assistance in this instance. I t is likely that Hellanicus made large alterations in the standard version of the tale in order to show more clearly the Argive origin of the Pelasgians; possibly he wished to refute the suggestion that Pelasgian Argos was Thessaly.2 Most probably it was he who first made it clear that there were two men called Pelasgus-I, a grandson of Phoroneus (probably not a son),3 II, the king who led his subjects to Thessaly. It was a favourite device of his to duplicate names; his genealogy of the Athenian kings in the Atthis is the most remarkable example of this method of reconciling contradictory legends or filling up missing generations in a genealogy. Dionysius recognizes both Pelasgus I and II in i. 17 and i. ~8, but the distinction cannot be attributed to any early logographer except Hellanicus. There is no way of knowing whether Hellanicus dealt first with the Agenor or the Pelasgus branch of the Phoronid family. We do know (from two scholia on Apollonius of Rhodes)4 that Cadmus, the son of Agenor, was dealt with in the first book; and it appears from a passage in Athenaeus 5 that the story of Heracles was treated in the second. It is generally thought that there were only two books of the Phoronis, and the text of Harpocration,6 which as it stands

160

) De Hellanico, op. cit., pp. 29-30. 2 Schol. Eust. Hom. II. iii. 75 q,"Iu, 'E>J..o.VLI(O' 7Tai8a, TfXi, tPWPWVEW, Y£VEUOat,

8.

'1ra-rpos 8aVDV'TOS St£vElp,aVTo T~V ' Ap'YElav. KaL ~ /L£V '"pas 'Epaalvcp -rep 1ToTallCiJ IIEAaay

, Wilamowitz)' 'Ay~vwp 8E, avaAwO£{<17I' Tij, yij" TT]V 7TaTp'KT]v 8,£l>."Iq,£v i1T1TOV' 08EV £V Tep «UTe;. Xpovcp wvo,.,,&'a8'1 'TO Apyos -rp'xws Iao-ov, WS Kai ~ , 08vou£La 81]AOi, IIEAaaytKOV Kat l7T1TOPOTOVo TLVES 8E ILETa 8avaTov TWV Svo d,8E)"q,WV E'TTUrrpaTEvaal q,auL TOV ' Ay~vopa 7TO'\'\~V ETTaYOJLEvoV i7T1TOV, acf/ ~s KA1J8fjval. TO ., Ap'Yos

oi

'TOU

161

Tn

JI

II

l7T7T6f30TOV (F. 36a). 3 Schol. Veneto A, ad loco "lauo, Ka, n£Aaayo, Tp,67Ta 7Tai8£,' T£AwT~uaVTo, 8E ath·ois TOV TT«Tpas 8'ElAOV'TO T~V fJam,AElav. Aaxwv 8£ Il£>..aayas JL£V Ttl 1Tpas 'Epauivov 7TOTa!'ov EKT'UE Ao.p,uav· "lauo, Tel 7TPO, 'HA'V (cf. supra). T£AW'T''1-

8.

uaVTwv 8e avTCov 0 v£wTaTos a8£AJpoS ' Ayr}vwp £1T£UTpaT£vo£ Tii XWPl!- 1ToM~v i1T1TOV £1Tay6JL£vos, o8£v £K>"~81J 11T1T6f3oTov JLEV TO "Apyos a1TO TfjS ' Ay~vopos i1T1TOV, a1TO 3e

'Icluov"lauov. l<1Top£i'E>J..o.V'KO' £V 'ApYOA'KOi, (F. 36b).

) Jacoby, RE. viii. 132, thinks that the material of the Phoronis and Argolica doubtless overlapped, bu~ that, t~is ~s no rea~OI~ f?r id;ntifyin?, t~e two ,worAks. 2 Cf. EustathlUs, loco Cit. TtU' 8£ TWV 7TaAa,wv ap£uK£< Apyo, t7T7T0f30TOV EVTavOa TT]V ewua>.lav vo£iv. Cf. Kullmer, p. 474: 'Unserm Logographen war es also darum zu tun, den Ursitz der Pelasger in der Peloponnes festzuhalten.' 3 There is no precedent for making Pelasgus son ofPhoroneus (as Eustathius does). Jacoby thinks the mistake arose from a variant n£Aaayo, •.. ,; Tp"')7Ta and'; (N,6f3"1' Tij,) tPopwv£w, (note on F. 36). See also Kullmer, p. 472, and Preller-Robert, Gr. Myth. ii, p. 284. 4 F. I-Schol. Ap. Rhod. iii. I 179, II86. 5 F. 2-Athenaeus ix. 4IOF. 6 F. 3-Harpocration S.V. 1:T£q,aV71q,6po,. cr. below, p. 167, n. 4. 4515

Y

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

refers to a tenth book, is usually emended so as to give a reference either to the first or the second. The fragments referring to the Pelasgus branch are the least numerous, and may be taken first. Jacoby refers them to the first book. Another scholion on Apollonius l supplies the only reference to the treatment of the Pelasgian branch before it left Argos for Thessaly. The scholiast points out that the town of Larisa in Thessaly was named after Larisa, the daughter of Pelasgus, 'as Hellanicus says'; 'and there are three places called Larisa: the oldest is the Argive one, which is the actual acropolis; the second is in the Pelasgian part of Thessaly, and the third Larisa of Gyrtone, which Apollonius mentions here'. It is open to question whether the scholiast means that all the three towns were mentioned by Hellanicus; but probably he does mean this,2 and probably Hellanicus used the existence of this name Larisa in Argos as an additional proof of the Argive origin of the Pelasgians. Furthermore, the recurrence of a triple division is interesting: Pelasgus is said to have founded an Argive Larisa, 3 in memory of his daughter, according to Pausanias;4 the strictly Thessalian Larisa is said to have been founded by Acrisius, presumably when he fled from Perseus into Thessaly, as Apollodorus ?escribes;: and the Larisa in the Pe1asgian part of Thessaly IS older, smce Apollodorus, who is quite probably following Hellanicus, makes Acrisius take refuge on this occasion with Teutamides, king of the Larisaeans. This Teutamides cannot possibly be the same as the great-grandson of Pelasgus II, who occurs in the fragment from Dionysius 6 as father of the king who led the Pe1asgians to Italy. No doubt Hellanicus used the name as a typical one for Pelasgian kings,' and its recurrence need cause no comment. When Dionysius, without mentioning any authority, speaks

of the division of Thessaly in Pelasgian times into three parts, Phthiotis, Achaea, and Pelasgiotis, I he almost certainly has the Phoronis iJ). mind; and so we have yet another example of threefold division in that work. Harpocration's statement that Hellanicus in the Thessalica divided Thessaly into four parts2 is not relevant here. 3 It refers to Thessaly in later historical times, and the Thessalica seems to be another work of Hellanicus-about which, it must be admitted, we have no further information. There remain only two more fragments which can be referred to the 'Pelasgian' section of the Phoronis. One is a reference in Stephanus to the city of Metaon in Lesbos, which, according to Hellanicus, was founded by an Etruscan, in other words a Pelasgian, called Metas. 4 Herodotus tells us about Pelasgians in Lemnos,s but for any record of them in Lesbos we are referred to Strabo, Diodorus, and Dionysius. 6 Their colony in Lesbos is subsequent to their career in Italy, and it is interesting to see how the name 'Pelasgian' has been dropped in favour of 'Etruscan'. The other fragment is from Photius (it is likewise to be found in Suidas and Zenobius).' It is explained how 'Pitane' is a proverbial term for anyone who combines exceptional good and bad fortune: Pitane (who according to Kullmer8 is a woman, not a city)

I F. 91-Schol. Ap. Rhod. i. 40 AapLUav T~V emua>..tas My£<, i}v £ICTIU.V , AKptUIOS· 'iTIS wvop.aulJ'J a1To AaptUTJS T-ijS n.AaayofJ, wS J.aviKos. ciu, /)e AapLUai TP'<S· apxaloTa~ p.ev ~ , Apy£..las· Ka, Aaptua rVpTWV']S, >}s vvvo' A1TO>J.WVIOS p.lp.V']Tai.

2 3

4 6

Jacoby thinks differently (note on F. 9 1 ). F. 36; see above, p. 160, n. 2. n. 24, I; see Jacoby on F. 91. Dion. Hal. A.R. i. 28. Cf. p. 158 above.

5 7

Bib. ii. 4, 4. Cf. Iliad ii. 840-3.

163

A.R. i. 17 £KrrI (I' VUT£POV y£v'il- (sc. after Phoroneus I) n.>"01TOVVTJUOV€K>"I1TOVT.S

I

T~V

8e

Se

TOTE Ilev Aip..ovlav, vvv @€TTaAtav ovop,a'op€V7Jv JL£TaV€CT7TJoav' ~i'OVVTO TfjS a7TOtKlas ' AXaLoS' Ka~ cP(}'iOS' Kat Il€AacryoS' ot Aaplu1]S Kat IIOOfLSWVDS viol. ... Kat V€p.oVTat T~V xwpav Tptxii, Tois ~Y€J.L6at 1TOt~aaVT€S OftWVVJLOVS ras p.olpas, 4>8LivTtV

€LS

Kat. ' Axntav Kat II£Aacryr.wTLv. 2 F. 52-Harpocration s.v. T£Tpapxta· T.TTapwv p.£pwv OVTWV T-ijs e'TTa>..tas fKacrrov fL'poS rerpas EKaA€'iTO, Ka9o. CPTJOtV fEAAo.VLKOS EV TOrS BeTTaAtKOLs. OVOJLa-ra SI cPTJ0r.v Elvat TarS' T€Tpa(ff, B£TTaALWTLV <1>8LWTLV II£AaayLwTLv fEcnr.aLWTLV.

Kullmer (p. 475) tries to reconcile the two fragments. F. 92-Steph. Byz. s.v. MI.Taov· 1TOA'S Aluf3ov, i}v Mhas Tvpp'Jvos cPK'U£V, cfJs 'E>J.aVIKOS. 5 Hdt. vi. 137. 6 Strabo xiii. 3, 3; Diod. v. 81; Dion. Hal. A.R. i. 18. 7 F. 93-Zenobius Provo v. 61; Photius, Suidas s.v. n'TaV'] £lp.t· av,'J 1Tap' 3

4

, AAKallfl K£LTaL. AlY£TaL 8€ KaTa TWV '1TVKVaLS' avpcpopaLS' Xpwp.£vwv ap.a Kat £inrpaylar.s, Trap' oaov Kat Tfj IILTaV[J TaVTa UV/L{3'{3YJK£ Trpa-yp.aTn, WV Kat 'E>J..aVtKOS'

P.I.P.V']Tat. "''JU' yap alrr~V .mo n.>..aaywv av/)pa1ToS,ulJfjva£ Ka, 1Ta>",v 1l1T' 'EpvlJpatwv (v.l. 'Ep£Tp,lwv) .I>"£vlJ'pwlJ-ijva,. Jacoby prints 'EpvlJpatwv, following Zenobius; he does not mention the alternative 'Ep.TP"WV, which is the reading of Photius

and Suidas. 8 p. 480-1. Hofer (in Roscher, s.v. Pilant) entirely rejects such a theory, and thinks the town in Aetolia is meant.

r HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

was enslaved by the Pelasgians, according to Hellanicus, and set free again either by the Eretrians or the Erythraeans (the reading is doubtful). This fragment is too scanty for any explanation to be possible. 1 Few and meagre as they are, these fragments do at least indicate that Hellanicus told the story of the Pelasgians from the very beginning, describing their various migrations to Thessaly, to Italy, and back again to the Aegean. The latter part of the story must have had some historical value, and altogether the 'Pelasgian' portion of the Phoronis is a far more serious loss than the other sections of the work, which were apparently concerned entirely with mythology and seem to have had no particular literary value. These were the portions, however, which interested Apollodorus, and in consequence it is possible to reconstruct them with far greater completeness than the 'Pelasgian' section. There are some difficulties and contradictions, but for the most part the remarkable agreement of the fragments with the story as told by Apollodorus makes work comparatively easy. One must be prepared to find oddities in the genealogy, for Hellanicus was not an orthodox mythographer, and difficulties are likely to occur in the fragments through attempts by the Homeric scholiasts to correct his radicalism. The story which comes first in the Agenor section, in book i, is the myth of Cadmus, whom Hellanicus most probably regarded as the son of Agenor and brother of Europa and Phoenix. 2 The story occurs with slight variations in Apollodorus and the Homeric scholiast. 3 Cadmus was sent out to search for Europa, whom Zeus had carried off, and came to Delphi for advice. The oracle told him to give up his search, but to follow the lead of a wandering cow, and found a city where it should fall exhausted on its right side (the derivation of Botw,rtu from f3ofj~ is typical of Hellanicus). The cow fell on the site of Thebes, and Cadmus, KuIImer, lac. cit., has a suggestion. Ap. Bib. iii. I, I; the scholiast calls Europa 'daughter of Phoenix', probably on his own initiative. 3 F. 51-Schol.A.D. Hom. II. ii. 494,Ap. Bib. iii. 4. Fordiscussioncf. Kohler, Leip<.ig. Stud. xviii, p. 2 I 9, and E. Schwartz, De scholiis Homericis, Jahrbucher fur class. Phil., Supp. xii (1881), p. 442. I

2

165

wishing to sacrifice it to Athena, sent his companions to fetch water from a spring. Most of them were killed by the dragon, said to be the offspring of Ares, which guarded the spring. Cadmus in anger killed the dragon, and at ~he bidding of Athena sowed its teeth in the ground, from whIch the Earth-born men in armour grew. Zeus, however, saved him from them, forbidding Ares to kill him, and gave him Harmonia for his wife on condition that he worked as a servant for a year in atonement for killing the dragon. Hellanicus evidently described the wedding ceremony, where the Muses sang and each one of the gods ga:,e a present to Harm~:mia.1 Two small apparent contradictlOns are to be found m the report given by the scholiast on Apollonius of Rhodes. According to this scholiast Cadmus sowed the dra~~n's .teeth :by the wish of Ares? and according to some cntIcs, mcludmg Jacoby,3 this means that Ares is taking the place of Athena as friend and adviser of Cadmus; for in the other account it is Athena who gives this advice to Cadmus. But the contradiction is not real at all: surely Ares 'wished' or 'wanted' him to sow the teeth in order that the men in armour might kill him, whilst Athena told him to do so knowing that Zeus would save him.4 The other apparent contradiction concerns the parentage of Harmonia, whom the Hom~ric scholiast call.ed daughter of Ares and Aphrodite: the schohast on Apollomus says explicitly that Hellanicus regarded her .as a da~ghte~ of Electra, the Atlantid;5 evidently the Homenc schohast gIves her divine parents on his own initiative, following the more usual version instead of accurately reproducing Hellanicus. These two details may seem unimportant in themselves. 1 The scholiast finishes his account thus: 'errop.L 'E>.M.v'KOS £V BOLwnaKoLs Ka, 'A7TOU61lwpos £V T0 y'. The Boeotiaca is generally admitted as.a na~e for ~his part of the Phoronis, but Jacoby follows Schwartz in not regardlllg this schohon as useful evidence. 2 F. la-Schol. Ap. Rhod. iii. 1179 'EUav'Kos £V a' tPopwvlllos, ,UTOPWV OT' Ka, TOVS d8oV'Tas EO'TT£tpe 'TOU 8paKOV'TOS Ka·r'OL, OvllaLos X06VLOS IU>.wp 'Y7r'P~vwp 'EX lwv . 3 Note on above fragment. 4 This is Kullmer's view. s F. 23-Schol. Ap. Rhod. i. 916 £K£L yap (sc. £V l:aJ.L00p4K'!/) .£KTpa .j JI

'" ATAaVTOS,

Kat

wvop.a'ero

uno

TWV Ei'xwplwv ETpaTT}yts· 7]V tPTJULV 'EMavl,KOS

'H>'£KTPVWVTjV Ka>.£LuOaL. £Y£VVTjU£ Il£ TP
166

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

The ~~portance of discussing them is to show how easy it is to mlSlnterpret a fragment which is not quoted word for word by the scholiast. It may easily happen that the scholiast adds something, a definition which he thinks will help the reader, or leaves out something which as he thinks will complicate the story. ' , The fragment about the Enchelees l is not illuminating.2 The next fra~m~nt in the Theban story deals with Oedipus, whose self-blmdmg Hellanicus seems to have described in the same way as Euripides in the Phoenissae. 3 For the gap between Cadmus and Oedipus one may refer to the account of Apollodorus,4 who is in all probability following Hellanicu~. Ne~t h~ de.scribed the quarrel of Eteocles and PolyneIce~, diffenng m many details from Pherecydes, and the schohast on the Phoenissae describes how Euripides used both o~ the two ve~sions.5 Hellanicus represented Polyneices as gIVen the chOice by Eteocles of being king or retiring to another city with part of the royal treasure; he preferred the latter alternative, and retired to Argos, taking with him the robe ~nd necklace which Athena and Aphrodite had given as weddmg presents to Harmonia. Apollodorus 6 describes how the tW? brothers agreed to rule in alternate years, and that, ~ccordmg to s.ome, Polyneices was king for the first year, makmg way for hIS brother at the end of his term whilst according to others, Eteocles was king first and wouid not h~nd over his office when the year ended. Either of these versions would fit equally well with the story told by the scholiast. For the subsequent story of the Seven against Thebes and the Epigoni the fragments offer no satisfactory evidence.7 I t remains to discuss the fragments about the story of F. 5o-Schol. R. Aristoph. Lys. 36 £v yap Tfi Kamatl3, >.lfLvrJ fLEYLJ.o.Vl,KOS I

tv

Toi~

BOtWTtaKOis tPTJGLV.

Diod. xix. 53, 4£ may possibly afford an explanation. 3 F. 97-Schol. Eur. Phoenissae 61. 4 Bib. iii. 5, 4-9. 5 F. g8-Schol. Eur. Phoen. 7113£, oliv £lI3Eva, OTt ou 1Tapa 1Tao, OVfL1 IIoAvVdKOVS Els "Apyos ri,bs. tPEP£KV&ryS yap £K{J£{3MjoOa, TOV IIoAvvdKT/v 1J01 fL£Ta {3las. ·E>J.o.VtKOS S£ {aTOp!, Ka'Ta avv8-r]K1JV ath-ov 1Tapaxwpfjaat. T~V {JauLA-flav 'ET€OKA£f. ..• o~£v . . ~up'7Tt8~s TatS' 3vo terropiaLS £xpTjuaTo, £natiOa JLEV rfj t/1€p£l(v8ovs, VUT£POV I3E 7Tn EAAav'Kov. 6 Bib. iii. 6, I. F. g9-Schol. Eur. Phoen. 150. C£ Ap. Bib. iii. 6, 3-8 and also HecataeusF. 32. 2

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

167

Heracles, which seems to have occupied an important place in book ii. Apollodorus tells the story at some length, and there are sixteen fragments in Jacoby's collection l referring to it. It belongs properly to the section of the Phoronis dealing with the descendants ofIasus, the section which was probably known also as the Argolica. The ground for referring the story of Heracles to the second book is a passage in Athenaeus,2 a passage which needs particular attention, since he appears to refer also to another work of Hellanicus, the Historiai: 'Hellanicus in the Historiai says that Archias was the name of the boy who poured out water for Heracles to wash his hands, whom Heracles killed with a club and on account of whom he had to leave Calydon. But in the second book ofthe Phoronis he calls him Chaerias.' One is unwilling to accept this solitary testimony for the existence of a separate work called Historiai. The probability is that Athenaeus read somewhere how Hellanicus 'in his histories' called this boy Archias, and then on looking up the Phoronis found that his text gave the name as Chaerias; that 'histories' is simply a general name for the works of Hellanicus, and that Athenaeus is quoting not two separate passages, but two readings of the same passage. 3 The only importance of the fragment-the matter of which is entirely trivial-is that it refers a story of Heracles to the second book. An entry in Harpocration and Suidas mentions Stephanephorus as a son of Heracles, according to Hellanicus EV D€Karcp (/JOPWV{DOS, but Preller, whom Muller and Jacoby follow, read EV D€Vr€pcp.4 The fragment is oflittle importance because there is no indication of context. I

F. 2 and 102-16. 2-Ath. ix. 410F TOV IlE

2 F.

T
xEpvl{3

fHpaK)..€1. ;;Swp, OY a:TTEKT£tv£V 0 cHpaKA:qs Kov8vAW, cEM&'v'KOS p.f.V £V TaL's 'juTopla,s

•ApXlav
T
I3EVTEp

ovop.a~EI..

3 Cf. Jawby's critical note: 'Ath. nahm, ohne es zu bemerken, zwei Zitate der gleichen Stelle auf.' 4 F. 3-Harpocration (cf. Suidas), s.v. ~T£aV'T/6pos· ••• ~'T€aV'T/6pov >1PVtav'Kos fV 8EKcl.Ttp (Gutschmid 1TPWT
168

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

There is no need to deal at length with the other fragments referring to Heracles. Most of them are straightforward enough and correspond to the narrative of Apollodorus. Hellanicus probably described all the labours of Heracles, as there are fragments referring to quite a number of them. Mention of 'Bembina, in the neighbourhood of Nemea,'1 suggests the story of the Nemean lion, the first labour. A note by a scholiast on the proverb TTPOS DUD DuD' 0 'HpaKAfjsz refers to the story told by Hellanicus, amongst others, that in his fight against the Lernaean hydra Iolaus had to help him, because of the crab sent by Hera to hinder him; and that the proverb originated with this story. Another fragment refers to the Stymphalian birds, and the manner in which Heracles scared them away with a clapper;3 others again refer to the horses of Diomede and to the Amazons.4 Next in order comes a more interesting fragment from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, connecting the origin of the name of Italy with one of the labours. s Dionysius is discussing the origin of this word 'I talia', and is rather attracted by the etymology of Hellanicus :

manner by Timaeus and Varro,1 who said that the land was called Italy because there were so many cows there, lTaAos being an old Greek word for cow or ox. Even if Hellanicus did not invent the etymology, he deserves credit for connecting the word with the oxen of Geryones. Apollodorus has the tale in full, with an additional etymology of Rhegium, where a bull, as he calls the animal, 'broke away' from the herd Z and fell into the sea. The story which follows of how Heracles had to fight with Eryx in Sicily to recover the animal may also fairly be attributed to Hellanicus, since an incident of this kind is needed to finish the story. There are also fragments referring to the capture of Troy by Heracles, and to the slave-girl of Omphale. 3 Those which refer to the part played by Heracles in the Argonauts' expedition are put by Jacoby in the Deucalioneia, although Hellanicus must have included this part of the Heracles saga in the Phoronis. 4 The passage from Athenaeus, referring to the troubles of the hero in Calydon, has already been mentioned. s Of the others there is one fragment which appears to refer to his founding of the Olympic festival, 6 and another perhaps to the division of the Peloponnese after the return of the Heraclidae, when Sparta fell to Procles and Eurysthenes (F. I I 6). Possibly, then, this section of the Phoronis came to an end with yet another triple division: the division of the Peloponnese into the 'lots' of Argos, Sparta, and Messene, as Apollodorus describes it at the end of his second book. 7 This reconstruction of the Phoronis is perhaps more com-

'Hellanicus of Lesbos says that, when Heracles was in Italy, driving the oxen of Geryones on the way to Argos, a heifer skipped away out of the herd and fled, traversed the whole peninsula, and, swimming across the strait intervening, reached Sicily. Heracles always asked the natives, to whose country he came in search for the heifer, if anyone had seen it, and the people in those parts, since they understood very little Greek, in answering inquiries about the heifer, called it vitulus, just as they do now, and all the country through which it passed was called, after the animal, Vitulia.

This etymology, which is quite possibly the invention of Hellanicus, was reproduced in an inferior and less dramatic F. 102-Steph. Byz. s.v. Blf113tva. F. 103-Schol. Plato, Phaedo 8ge 1TPO, 1lV0 0,)0' ,; 'HpaK>'ij,] •.• 'Hpoowpo, O€ KaL 'EMo.VLKOS rpauLv WS OTE T~V vSpav 'HpaKAfjs dvnpn T~V -Hpav atncp KapK{vov E~opf-Lfjaa'J 1TPOS Suo 8£ au Svvap.€vov p.aX€U8aL aVfLfLaXov €7T'KoA£uaaBaL TOV '16A€ltJv' Kat EVTJ.o.VLKO, EV {3'. 5 F. 1 II-Dion. Hal. A.R. i. 35. F. Ilo-Schol. Hesiod, Theog. 293, refers to Eurytion, the herdsman of Geryones. I

2

f

169

I Quoted by Aulus Gellius, N.A. xi. 1 'Timaeus in Historiis, quas oratione Graeca de rebus populi Romani composuit, et M. Varro in Antiquitatibus Rerum Humanarum, terram Italiam de Graeco vocabulo appellatam scripserunt, quoniam boyes Graeca vetere lingua hMO{ vocitati sint, quorum in Italia magna copia fuerit, bucetaque in ea terra gigni pascique solita sint complurima.' 2 Bib. ii. 5, 10 amI 'PTJY{ov ()~ a1TOPP~YVVaL Tavpo, KT>'. Cf. Diodorus iv. 22-3. Note that Eryx is called king of the Elymi who according to Hellanicus (F. 7gb) migrated to Sicily in the third generation before the Trojan War. 3 F. 109 (cf. Ap. Bib. ii. 6, 4), 112. 4 F. 130, 131. See below, p. 174. 5 F.2. Cf. Ap. Bib. ii. 7,6. See p. 167 above. 6 F. 113. About the numbers of the Hellanodicae; the context is a matter for conjecture. 7 Bib. ii. 8, 4.

.l,

4515

z

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

plete than it has any right to be, and it differs at several points from the versions of Kullmer and Jacoby. Some of the instances of triple division do not, perhaps, deserve to be emphasized so much, but symmetry seems to play an important part in the work of Hellanicus. It is undeniable that the material of the Phoronis divides itself naturally into three parts, and because there is no explicit quotation from a third book, this is no argument for insisting that there can be only two books. The suggestion, then, is that the first book-or at least the first part-known also as Boeotiaca, dealt with the descendants of Agenor and the Theban saga; the second, known as Argolica, dealt with Iasus and his descendants, more particularly Heracles; and the third book or 'part', perhaps known as Thessalica, dealt with the Pelasgian branch of the Phoronid family. One cannot insist on the accuracy of these alternative titles, but the arrangement is at least plausible. The main thesis of the Phoronis undoubtedly was to show that the Greek families of mythical times originated in the Peloponnese. I It evidently was intended to bring some of the chaos of Greek mythology into order. Obviously this could not be done unless the writer used his own imaginadon, and invented his own solutions of difficulties. Hellanicus was not in any sense of the word a conservative writer, and it will be found in examining his other works that he was always ready to sacrifice the conventional version, if some kind of order or symmetry could be achieved by so doing.

Deucalioneia The formal distinction between the Phoronis and the Deucalioneia which one is prepared to make before even looking at the fragments is a very simple one: the Phoronis should go back to the very beginnings of human life, since Phoroneus, according to the epic named after him, was the 'father of mortal men', and according to Acusilaus 'the first man';2 I Cf. e.g. F. 115 (the context of which is uncertain)-SchoI. Aristid. Panath. iii. 257 Dind. My .. I'lE ([),),.olJ,v ijKoVTas Ka, 1TO,ucp v,wrlpov, TOU, AaK,SCUJ.L0vlov,· KaL 'Yap .dwp..;:, 01'7', TO 1TaAa,ov n,A01Towr/a,o. VUT'POII "E"avaa" w, 'E,u&'V'KOS Al".. Kat «MOl. 1ToMOL 'TWV lcrroptKWV, 01 WEpt aVTWV'YPW/JaV'T£S. 2 Clem. Alex. Strom. i. xxi. 102,5 'AKovalAao. "ap tPopwvla 1TPWTOII rivIJpw1Tov

17 1

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

the Deucalioneia, on the other hand, should bcgin with the Deluge, Deucalion being the 'first' of all who lived after the Deluge, Phoroneus of those who lived before it, as Plato points out in the Timaeus. 1 This is the formal distinction which one would expect between the two works. Another distinction is this: the Hellenes proper spring from the seed of Deucalion, whilst the descendants of Phoroneus are Pelasgian or Argive, but not Hellenic. It is rather disappointing to find that these points are not emphasized at all strongly, so far as one can tell, by Hellanicus. The Bibliotheca of Apollodorus opens with some chapters on theogony, and after this goes on to deal with the family of Deucalion, thus lea,ding us to believe that the historical cycle of Hellanicus begins with the Deucalioneia, not with the Phoronis. This is the view of Preller,2 who thinks that the few fragments, which.are concerned with theogony, should be assigned to the former work,3 on the ground that Apollodor~s followed Hellanicus in his order and arrangement. It 1S at least true that, since Deucalion is the son of Prometheus,4 there is greater opportunity to introduce stories about Zeus, the Cyclopes, and the other giants at the beginning of this work than in the Phoronis. No certain reference to the Deucalioneia, however, goes back beyond Deucalion himself. A fragment from the first books mentions him as a king in Thessaly, where he instituted the worship of the twelve gods. This is orthodox enough, but in the account of the Deluge there is a peculiar piece of petty heresy. A Pindaric scholiast, commenting on the tradition that Deucalion and Pyrrha settled in Opus, near Parnassus, where the ark was left high and dry after the flood, "Y£v€u8at 'A€Y£L, 08EV Kal 0 Tij~ l/JopwvlSos 1TOlT}T~S Elva, aVTov £~T)

7TuTtpa

8V7JTWV

avlJpw1TwV. (Kinkel, Ep. Gr. Fr., p. 210, Acusilaus F. 23 a Jac.) I 22a. 2 Op. cit., p. 30. 3 Jacoby assigns F. 87-90 te'!'tatively to the P';oro~is. F; 89 mus~ belong. there, since the reference to Hellamcus (about the Il'law • .daK'TvAo,) IS put sIde by side with a quotation from the epic Phoronis. There is, however, some grou~~ for believing that Hellanicus wrote a separate work on theogony. Cf. RE. Vlll. 121. 4 F. 6b-SchoI. Ap. Rhod. iii. 1085 aT. I'lE np0J.LTJlJlw. vlos .dwKaAlwv '{3aalAEvaE 9maaAlas 'E,u&'v'Ka. "'TJm. s F. 6a-ibid. 1086.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

remarks: 'Some say that Pyrrha did not live in Opus. Apollodorus writes as follows: "The tale is that Deucalion lived in Cynus, and they say that Pyrrha is buried there." Hellanicus also has this account .... And Hellanicus says that the ark did not come to rest on Parnassus, but somewhere around Othrys in Thessaly.'1 The odd thing is that this passage quoted from Apollodorus does not resemble anything in the Bibliotheca, 2 which follows the traditional version, bringing the ark to rest on Parnassus. 3 It is natural enough that different Greek tribes should preserve the tradition of the ark coming to rest on different mountains, and Hellanicus has, after his manner, preferred the less usual version of the legend. Stephanus mentions the Deucalioneia as authority for the names of eight different towns, but the only other fragment explicitly referred to the Deucalioneia by an ancient author is a typical passage in Athenaeus: 'Hellanicus in the first book of the Deucalioneia says that Erysichthon, the son of Myrmidon, was called Aethon, because his hunger was insatiable.'4 Otto Crus ius has a long article on Erysichthon in Roscher's Lexicon, at the beginning of which he shows that Hellanicus is the oldest authority for his name and existence. The story was developed later by Callimachus,s and it is not possible to know in what form it was told by Hellanicus. It is possible, however, to decide in what context the story was told: it was told in describing the genealogy of Aeolus. Apollodorus gives the descendants ofDeucalion: first, Hellen his son; then the sons of Hellen, Dorus, Xuthus, and Aeolus (once again a triple division); and one of the daughters of Aeolus, Peisidice, marries Myrmidon. 6 This is where the tale of Erysichthon fits, but how it was told and whether or not Hellanicus invented it we cannot know. I F. I I 7-Schol. Pindar, 01. ix. 62a. • 'Non in bibliotheca, nisi dicas bibliothecam nunc forma parum genuina haberi' (Preller, note 19). 3 i. 7,2. 4 F. 7-Ath. x. 416B 'EUU.V'KOS 1)' £1' a' JmKaA"'lV£Las 'EpvulxfJovu.
173

The fact that there were three grandsons of Deucalion, from whom the different Greek tribes, Dorian, Ionian, and Aeolian, spring, makes one wonder if the Deucalioneia, like the Phoronis, falls into three divisions, each s~ction being devoted to the descendants of one of these three men. Of course one cannot assume exact parallelism in arrangement with the Phoronis, but it is worth while examining the fragments to see if they suggest any such arrangement. Stephanus quotes from two books, and there is never any suggestion of a third, but it is noticeable that all his references to the first book concern Aeolus and his descendants and the development of the Aeolians. Indeed, all the important fragments which can be assigned to the Deucalioneia refer to sons of Aeolus rather than to sons of Dorus or Xuthus. Furthermore, Apollodorus devotes most of his space in book i to the descendants of Aeolus. Hence one is inclined to infer that the other descendants of Deucalion were neglected in favour of the Aeolidae. After all, Hellanicus was himself an Aeolian, coming as he did from Lesbos. Athamas, father of Helle, is a son of Aeolus, and the scholiast on Apollonius of Rhodes mentions Hellanicus on four occasions for incidents in the prelude to the Argonaut story. We learn that he made Orchomenos the home of Athainas, 1 and that he made Helle meet her death near Pactye;2 that he made Phrixus hang up the golden fleece in the grove of Zeus, 3 and that he counted Jason as a descendant of Aeolus. 4 Apollodorus agrees with two of the fragments in telling the story of Pelias, in particular over one peculiar anecdote about him: how he was called Pelias because he was 7TEALW8Et~ in the face, marked and disfigured through being kicked by a mare when an infant.S One is ready to deduce from this agreement on a point of detail that the whole story, as told by Apollodorus, is substantially the same as that of HellaniF. 126-Schol. Ap. Rhod. iii. 265. • F. 127-ibid. ii. 1144. F. 12g-ibid. ii. 404. Apollonius puts it in the grove of Ares, and so does Apollodorus, without comment, although it is consecrated to Z£vs
3

'AUKTLUOO""" V1TO TOU t1T7TOV.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

cus: how Poseidon in the likeness of the river Enipeus lay with Tyro, who gave birth to twin sons and exposed them:

no fragment referring to any of the later episodes in the story until the flight of Medea from Athens to Corinth, I and her subsequent flight into the country called 'Aria', afterwards named Media in her honour, with her son, whom Hellanicus called not Medus, but Polyxenus, his father being Jason, not Aegeus. 2 It is unfortunate that no fragment mentions the supposed 'inland waterway' taken by the Argonauts on their return journey, by way of the Ister or the Eridanus. 3 It would be particularly interesting to compare the views of Hellanicus and Hecataeus on this point. With the story of Medea's flight Apollodorus regards the story of Deucalion's family as finished. Strictly speaking, however, he has confined himself to one branch of the family, the Aeolids. There are, indeed, no fragments of Hellanicus which suggest that he traced the history of the other branches, but there are a few referring to the family of Amphictyon, the other son of Deucalion, rather less distinguished than Hellen. J acoby4 is inclined to think that Hellanicus represented Amphictyon as 'father' of the Locrian, Phocian, and Aetolian peoples who, although less distinguished, have just as much right to an ancestry as the Dorians, Ionians, and Aeolians. This is a plausible view which one would like very much to establish, but the evidence of the fragments is scarcely adequate: these four fragments, which seem to be concerned with Locrian and Aetolian legends, form an unsatisfactory group. In one StraboS censures Hellanicus for not distinguishing properly between ancient and modern cities, and the other three are concerned only with details of nomenclature (F. 119-121). It does not seem possible to decide definitely what the

174

'As the babes lay forlorn, a mare, belonging to some passing horse-keepers, kicked with its hoof one of the two infants, and left a livid mark on its face. The horse-keeper took up both the children and reared them; and the one with the livid (pelion) mark he called Pelias, and the other Neleus. When they were grown up, they discovered their mother and killed..her stepmother Sidero. For knowing that their mother was ill-used by her, they attacked her, but before they could catch her she had taken refuge in the precinct of Hera. However, Pelias cut her down on the very altars, and ever after he continued to treat Hera with contumely. But afterwards the brothers fell out, and Neleus, being banished, came to Messene, and founded Pylos .. .' and so on.l

The story of Tyro is told in the Odyssey,2 but without any details of her suffering, and the story of the mark on Pelias' face is probably the invention of Hellanicus. 3 This passage of Apollodorus, one is ready to believe, represents quite accurately the narrative of Hellanicus, with its usual odd addition to the conventional story. It may be argued that Hellanicus learnt these oddities from the Hesiodic epic, but it is quite impossible to establish any such contention. The story goes on in Apollodorus-possibly he is following Hellanicus, but there is no way to prove it-till Jason comes to Iolcus and the Argo sets out on its voyage. The descent of Jason from Aeolus (F. 128) is orthodox enough, but it is not possible to know exactly what tradition he followed about Heracles, Hylas, and Aphetae. 4 Unluckily there is I Bib. i. g, 8-g (Frazer's trans. with one necessary alteration. Frazer calls Sidero 'their stepmother', following the incorrect version of Tzetzes ad Lye. 175 T~V £K£{VWV !-'''ITpv«lv.) For the last episode cf. F. 124-Schol. Hom. Od. iii. 4 N1'JA£V~ yap, W~ eLpT]'Tar. 'E).)..avlKcp, f-Lax£(raf-L£vo~ JI.£'Ta l1E)..{OV IWAKov ~K£V £ls Mmcn/V1Jv Kat T~V II';>.ov EKTLU£ MmU7Jv{wv xwpav ."apaaxoVTwv. Eust. on Od. iii. 4 writes: c/>aaL yovv Kai 'TOV 'EAAaVtKDV iO'7'OPEtV, aT' NTJAEVS l1£AlCf TtP ciSeAcPcp p.aXEuap.Evos ~A8€v Ee '!w)...KOV cds TO. Karu MEGcn]V7JV Kal EK'TLC1( lIvAov, TWV MeGU7Jvlwv

ee

"i

J

poipav TLva TllS xwpas XapLGUP.£vwv aVTcp,

xi. 235-60. Eust. on Od. xi. 253 introduces the story thus: llnlov Kat OTt ",lp£Ta, >.6yos ..• 4 Cf. F. 130, 131 with Bib. i. g, 18-lg. It should be mentioned that Ap. calls Hylas son of Theiodamas, whereas Hell. (F. 131a and b) called him son of Theiomenes. 2

3

S.

1

F. 133-Schol. Eur. Medea 9 .,,£pt S. TijS £is Kop,vlJov

175

!-,£To'K~a£ws "Irmvs

EK'Tl8€Tar. Kai 'EMav'Kos. 2 F. 132-Paus. ii. 3, 8. Ap. calls him Medus, son of Medea and Aegeus (Bib. i. g, 28). 3 Bib. i. g, 24 mentions the Eridanus, but not the Ister. 4 Note on F. 117. . s F. II8-Strabo x. 2, 6 (on the Aeolian cities Olenus and Pylene) 'E>'M.v'KOS ~E OVaE T~V 7T£pi. TaUras icrroplav of8O', aM' £os £'T' Kat. av'TC:Ov ovuwv EV 'TV apxalg.

,a' vC::£fov ~ai. -rfjs T~V IlHpa~A£t8wv, K~8oSov, KT'(J8£l~aSJ MaKVV,av Kat Mo>'VKpnav, £v Ta's apxa'ats KaTaA£yn, .,,>'nUT"Iv wx£p£,av £.",SnKvv!-'£WS £v "'0'U'[J ax£Sov 1'< T.iI ypa,pil. KaTacrrfun ~EJLVTJ~ru.· 'Tas

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

scope of the Deucalioneia really was. It is easy enough to decide what it ought to be, if it is to be worthy of its name: it should describe the growth of the different tribes named after the descendants of Deucalion; but the fragments suggest that its scope was more limited than that. It is worth while to quote, in conclusion, the paragraph in which Kullmer so confidently reconstructs it:

ters of Atlas, the Pleiades: l how Lacedaemon was the son of Taygete and Zeus; Hermes of Maia and Zeus; Dardanus of Electra and Zeus; Hyrieus of Alcyone. and Poseidon; Oenomaus of Sterope and Ares; Lycus of Celaeno and Poseidon; Merope had a mortal lover , and for this reason her star did not shine so brightly in the sky. Another Homeric scholion supplements this list by giving Iasion as the son of Zeus and Electra. 2 Apollodorus enumerates the divine lovers differently, 3 but some of the Hellanicean version is to be found in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus fragment, dating from the second century A.D.,4 which Hunt confidently attributes to the Atlantis. Mter quoting the passage in the scholiast he remarks: 'This passage alludes so patently to the text before us as to assure beyond any question an identification which the subject and dialect would of themselves naturally suggest. References to Hellanicus are not infrequent, but quotations of his ipsissima verba are extremely scarce; and the present addition to them, though regretfully small, is very acceptable.' Of the papyrus itself he says: 'Its handsome appearance indicates with sufficient clearness that this manuscript contained the Atlantis itself, and not merely some commentary or grammatical treatise in which the Atlantis was excerpted.' Its text, as restored by Hunt and Wilamowitz, runs as follows: [Ma~ 8€ Z€V<; p,tay€7"at Aav8d:]vwv EV a7Tijt' T[WV] 8€ ytYV€7"at 'Epp,[ijs] cfnA~TTJS, OTt atYrfi r/>tATJatp,[ws] avV€KOtp,[aTO]- Kat y[tYV€Tat 8€]wv Kij[pUg] a~p[aos] Kat &.8avaTO<;. K[€]AatVOL 8€ p,tay€Tat IIoa€t8lwv' TWV 8€ ytYV€Tat AVKO<;, OV <> Tran,p KaTotKt~€t , p,aKapwVVTjaOt<;, , , ' O€ ~, [Z ] \ , €V Kat,~ TrOtH a'8'avaTOV. T TJUYU"[J € vs p,tay€TatO TWV [8€ ytyverat AaK€8atp,wv ...]. The confidence of Hunt in assigning this fragment to the Atlantis seems rather excessive. The account given in the papyrus differs in no way from the version given by Apollodorus; Apollodorus agrees with Hell~micus over the children of Maia, Celaeno, and Taygete;

'The first book dealt with Deucalion, the Deluge and the foundation of the first cities. After this came the development of the Deucalion family, and its extension in Thessaly and the neighbouring regions; for the moment it is only the first two generations which concern us, the sons and grandsons of Deucalion. In the surviving fragments the family of Aeolus comes into special prominence, whilst the Argonau.t saga was here touched upon only incidentally. The transition from book i to book ii was afforded by Boeotia. The second book dealt principally with the spread of the Hellenes overseas (if I may use the expression), in Asia, that is to say, and linked up with this was the J\rgonau,t story and the later history ofJason and Medea.'l

This is a remarkable reconstruction, but in view of the scanty evidence it can scarcely be accepted.

Atlantis Asopis Troica These three works are best taken together, because they are all concerned, ifnot with the Trojan War, with material which leads up to it. A writer with a taste for genealogy, such as Hellanicus was, could not tell the story of the war without first explaining the ancestry of those who took a prominent part in it. On the Greek side the Atreidae and Achilles are the most distinguished figures; it is apparently with their ancestry, as descendants of Atlas and Asopus respectively, that the Atlantis2 and the Asopis are concerned.

1. Atlantis The only fragment which is referred to the first book of the Atlantis enumerates the divine lovers of six of the daughP.5 2 7. Sometimes quoted as Atlantias or Atlantica. For this work cf. the dissertation of A. von Blumental, Hellanicea: de Atlantiade. I

2

177

I F. Iga-Schol. A. Iliad xviii. 486 T/a, IlE Kat 'E>J.U.VLKOS lv T 1Tpdm.p TWV • ATAaV"TLKWV TaS /LEV .~ 1I£O's avvEAIIE'v· TaUY£TT/v .J.£, J.v YEV£allaL AaKElla{/Lova' Ma,av .J.£, d' J.v 'Ep/Lfjs' •HA£KTpav .Jot, J.v .Jc!.pllavos· •AAKvovT/V !1oa€LllwvL, J.v 'Ypt.evs· ETEp6mJv "Apn, <.Lv Olv6fLuos' KEAatvw IIoun8wvl. Kat atiT~v aVYYEv£u8a.,,·, tijv AVKOS' MEp67i1Jv 8£ I,uvrpqJ 8VTJT

Aa

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

it is in respec~ of the other Pleiades, whose names unluckily do not occur m the papyrus, that the account attributed to Hellanicus is unusual. Since, then, the papyrus fragment does not contain any of the details which are peculiar to Hellanicus, one is scarcely justified in hailing it as his work. A scholiast on Euripides l quotes the Atlantis for the names of Niobe's children, and Niobe seems on first thoughts rather remote from Lacedaemon or Mycenae; Apollodorus tells her s~o~y in connexion with Amphion and the Theban saga. 2 She IS Important, however, for the story of Hellanicus, not only because she marries Amphion, who is descended from Alcyone and Poseidon, but also because she is daughter, of Tantalus 3 and so sister of Pelops. Furthermore, according to Apollodorus, 4 her only surviving daughter, Chloris, marries Neleus and is mother of Nestor, another of the Greek heroes at Troy; but the name of Chloris does not appear in the list of her children attributed to Hellanicus. 5 Into the same context with Niobe one would like to fif another fragment,6 dealing with Pelops and Hippodameia, and the cu:se of ~elops on his two sons, Atreus and Thyestes, formurdermg then half-brother Chrysippus. Although Homer says nothing about this curse on the house of Atreus, which plays such an important part in Greek tragedy, Hellanicus could scarcely have left it out in describing the earlier history of the house. The point which needs decision is not whether or not this story belongs to the Atlantis (because it certainly does belong), but how Hellanicus connected Pelops with the Atlantidae. It is hard to believe that he was content w~th the.connexion through Helen, or the connexion through NIObe, sIster of Pelops, who married the Atlantid Amphion. He must have linked Pelops with the Atlantidae through his wife Hippodameia, the daughter of Oenomaus. Now the

son of the Atlantid Sterope, according to Hellanicus, I was called Oenomaus, but since Amphion, who marries Niobe, is (according to Ap. Bib. iii. 10, J) four generations removed from a daughter of Atlas, it is likely that Hellanicus distinguished between Oenomaus I, the son of Sterope, and Oenomaus II, his grandson, the father of Hippodameia. This is, of course, pure conjecture, but it is quite in the manner of Hellanicus to make a distinction of this sort, necessary as it is to clear away the confusion. The probability is that Hellanicus traced the descent of the house of Atreus in the following way:

178

I F. 21-Schol. Eur. Plwen. 159. The favoured reading (see Dindorf's ed.) 2 Bib. iii. 5, 6. is !v T~ ~1Ttypa"'OJLE'7l 'A~'\aVTlll.. DI~tmct from the NIObe of Argive saga, who is daughter of Phoroneus. • IbId. C£ Odyssey xi. 281-5. 5 Oddly enough she does not occur in the list of Apollodorus either but is mentioned afterwards. ' 6 F. 157-Schol. A. Iliad ii. 105. icrrop£' 'EMo.v'KOS, remarks the scholiast after telling the story, which he records because though so well known later it is foreign to Homer. ' ,

179

, ,-----,

Atlas

,

---

-------

Taygete Lacedaemon Amyclas Cynortas Oebalus (or Perieres) Tyndareus Helen (Pausanias iii. I, I.)

Sterope Oenomaus I Oenomaus II Hippodameia + Pelops Atreus Menelaus (Ap.

Alcyone Hyrieus Nycteus Antiope+Zeus Amphion + Niobe Bib. iii. 10, I.)

With this duplication of Oenomaus, making the second grandson of the first, all works out perfectly. Helen has a twofold right to appear in the Atlantis, first as the wife of Menelaus, the grandson of Pelops, secondly (if her father was indeed Tyndareus) as a descendant of Lacedaemon, son of Zeus and the Atlantid Taygete. There are no more fragments which can be referred to the Atlantis. Presumably the descent of Priam from the Atlantid Dardanus must have been described, but there is no fragment to suggest it. There is, however, a scholion referring to Dardanus and his mother Electra, quoting the authority of 'Hellanicus in the first book of the Troica'.2 This fragment F. 19a (see above, p. 177). F. 23-Schol. Ap. Rhod. i. 916 viiaov ES 'HMKTpTJS' AT'\aVTlllos] T~V I:aJLo8po.KT}V AEyo. lKfi yap
2

8.

£V

1TPWT<{J

TpWLKWV.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

has led some critics to believe that Atlantis is only another name for the first book of the Troica.

when still an infant. The mention by Hellanicus of a Thessalian city Thetideion, named after Thetis, I probably belongs to the Asopis; but there are no other fragments which can with any confidence be attributed to this work, unless the story of Patroclus' flight from Opus to Phthia belongs there and not to the Troica. Z Perhaps the starting-point of the Troica properly so called is the tracing of the Trojan genealogies, and it is this which introduces the story of the actual Trojan War. But to sort out the contents of the three works, Atlantis, Asopis, and Troica, is a task full of uncertainties. Certainly the simplest way out of the difficulty is to believe that the Asopis and Atlantis are no more than sub-sections of the first book of the Troica, receiving separate names because they were quite long digressions from the central theme-the story of the war.

180

II. Asopis The only actual mention of a work called the Asopis is in a passage from Marcellinus' Life if Thucydides: he describes the relation of Thucydides to Miltiades, tyrant of the Chersonese, and after quoting Pherecydes to establish the descent ofMiltiades frbm Aeacus, the son of Zeus , he adds: 'Hellanicus also bears witness to this in his work entitled Asopis.'1 This certainly does not seem a helpful fragment, nor likely to assist us in determining the scope of the Asopis. But it does at least connect the work with the Trojan story and the Troica; Harpocration says that the city of Crithote in the Chersonese was mentioned by Hellanicus in the first book of the Troica, and that, according to Ephorus, this city was founded by the Athenians who went out with Miltiades. z The importance of the two fragments taken together 3 is that they show how the Asopis, if not actually part of the first book of the Troica, was a kind of prelude or appendix to it. The theories of Miiller 4 and Heckers that the Asopis was part of the Deucalioneia or a history of early Sicyon rest on no foundation at all. Apollodorus does not begin to describe the genealogy of the Asopidae until he has finished describing the fall of Troy. Then he begins with Asopus and carries his account down to Peleus, father of Achilles, and Telamon, father of Ajax. 6 Kullmer7 thinks that he does this in imitation of Hellanicus, and in particular that Hellanicus is responsible for making Achilles and Ajax cousins, contrary to the version of Pherecydes. Particularly suggestive of Hellanicus is the absurd etymology of Achilles' name on TO. x€D..7J p.auToL<; ou 7TPOcnJV€YK€, recalling how his mother Thetis abandoned him F. 22-Marcellinus, Vita Thuc. 2-4. 2 F. 27-Harpocration, s.v. KpdJWT1}v ••• Kpdlcfrrr] JL{a 7TO'\', 'TWV £V X£ppovr]O'tp, Ka8a ¢>TJut.v tE>..AavLKos £v a' TpWI.KWV. OIE¢opos S€ £V Til a' cpTJu2v aVr~v KaTOLKLuOfjva, V7TO 'A07]va{wv 'TWV JL<'Ta. M'A'T,a8ov £K<;: 7TapaY£vOJLEVWV. Cf. Suidas. For the story of Miltiades and the Chersonese see Hdt. vi. 35 ff. 3 Jacoby (note on F. 27) denies the connexion of these two fragments; Kullmer follows Preller in accepting it, remarking that the mention of Miltiades can be only a passing one. 4 FHG. i, p. xxvi. 5 Philologus, v, p. 427. 6 Bib. iii. 12, 6. 7 p. 552. I

III. Troica The first book of the Troica contains more genealogies. Apollodorus seems to observe no orderly system in his description of them, and one is inclined to wonder whether it is really Hellanicus that is responsible for this haphazard arrangement. In many details the two of them agree. Both have Bateia or Batieia as Teucer's daughter, the wife of Dardanus, 3 a name otherwise unfamiliar in classical authors;4 Strymo as mother of Priam;s and Tros and Callirhoe as parents of Ganymede. 6 They also agree over the story of Tithonus and Aurora. 7 After Ganymede Apollodorus tells the story of Ilus founding a city on the 'hill of Ate' (where the dappled cow lies down to rest), following the instructions given by the Phrygian king at whose games he won the victory.8 This supplements a fragment of Hellanicus,9 acI F. 136-Steph. Byz. s.v. e'CJ'Tl8
HELLANICUS OF LESBOS ~ording

to which Dardanus rejects this site for a city, because 1t was the hill of Ate, whilst Ilus settled there despite the oracle's warning. Possibly this is the passage to which Strabo refers in his discussion of the site of Troy, where he criticizes the partiality of Hellanicus for the citizens of Novum Ilium in arguing that their city is on the original site.' Apollodorus does not mention here the theory ofHellanicus that Apollo and Poseidon were 'trying' Laomedon when they worked in his service building the walls of Troy;2 but he does mention it in his section dealing with Heracles, and in language very similar to the language of Hellanicus. 3 It is likely that Hellanicus introduced this story into the Phoronis also to explain the subsequent visit of Heracles to Troy. In what form, he told the story there we cannot tell; but a scholiast quotes the actual passage from the first book of the Troica: 4 why, he asks, did the gods work for Laomedon? 'EAM,vtK6S" cpTJat 7T£Lp&.~OVTEs" AaO/L€aOVTa. ypacpEt al £V a' nov TPWtKWV- " /LETa al Taiha MY€Tat nOa£LaW Ka~ , A7T6;\;\wva aovA€1Jaat '''' • 'R ,~ , • ~ \, , A aO/L£OOVTt, OTt Vf"'ptaTTJS" 'IV 7T£tPW/L£VOVS" aVTOV. l\£yoVTat /LEV OVV , , \ n....." '" , " \" avopaatv €WO/LEVOt £7Tt /Ltau
,~,

~,

Certainly the story as told in Homer is not quite clear and this interpretation of Hellanicus, whether it is origin'al to him or not, is ingenious. There is another interesting fragment from a scholiastS showing how Hell.anicus interpreted unexplained details in Ho~er. The Ilia~ mentio~s a certain Phereclus, killed by Menones, who bUllt the sh1ps for Paris 'that were the cause of destruction for all the Trojans and for himself, since he knew not the oracles of the gods'. The oracle, according to Hellanicus, was one which told the Trojans 'not to trade over ~he sea, but to devote themselves to farming, for fear that 1f they embarked on the sea they would destroy themselves I

2

• 3

xiii. " 42-F. 25b. See Jacoby's note on this fragment. F. 26a; less accurate F. 26b. ii. ,5, 9 : A1T6Mwv yap Kat llou€t8wv T~V AaOlLl8oV'ToS" v{3pw 1T€tpaua, (Jl>'oV'T€S"

E'I,Kaa8EVTES

4

5

av8pwTToLS VrrEUXOVTO £17"

p.r.a8ip

F. 26a-Schol. Gen. I. Iliad xxi. 444. F. '42-Schol. A.B. Iliad v. 64.

'TELXt£tV

'TO IIlpyaJLov.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

183

and their city'. This interpretation of the passage in Homer is found nowhere else, and presumably Hellanicus invented the oracle. 1 Yet another 'explanation' of this kind seems to refer to an incident which took place when the Greeks were on their way to Troy. Menelaus in the Ot[yssey wishes that Odysseus were back in Ithaca, strong as he once was when 'in wellbuilded Lesbos he quarrelled with Philomeides, and standing up wrestled with him, and threw him hard to the ground'.2 According to Hellanicus, so the scholiast records, this Philomeides was a king of Lesbos who challenged all those that passed by to wrestle with him; and when the Greeks anchored at Lesbos, he challenged them too; but Odysseus and Diomede killed him by a trick and established an inn for travellers at his tomb. 3 Cycnus was killed by Achilles when the Greeks first landed at Troy, according to Apollodorus,4 and Hellanicus seems to have described this incident: the scholiast on Theocritus , commenting on the phrase OfjAvv a7TO Xpotfjs KVKVOV, says that, according to Hellanicus, he was A€VKOS rTJv xpotav EK Y€VeTfjs.s The conventional explanation of Cycnus' name is that he was white-haired from birth,6 and Jacoby thinks this is what Hellanicus means. The scholiast cannot have thought this, or else he would not have cited Hellanicus to explain Theocritus, who calls Cycnus 'a woman to judge by his complexion'. Yet what can Hellanicus mean by saying he was 'fair of complexion' or 'white-skinned' from birth? Evidently the scholiast has misquoted or misunderstood. 7 Legend does not recognize many events belonging to the first eight years of the Trojan War, except such as are connected with the landing of the Greeks, and it is not surprising I For another discussion of this passage, independent of Hell., see Schol. Lye. 132. 2 Od. iv. 341-4 . • 3 Kullmer and Jacoby agree in placing this episode during the Greeks' .ourney to Troy. • Epit. iii. 31. 5 F. '48-Schol. Theocr. xvi. 49 . 6 Cf. Eust. on Od. xxiv. 499. 7 Tentatively I would suggest that the scholion should be punctuated ~£VK.lS" yap 1}v rr,v XPolflV' fK Y£V€TfjS". wS" "'''1uw 'EMav'KoS", and that the scholiast conveniently ignores the fact that Hellanicus refers to his hair Theocritus to his skin, '

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

to find that the next fragment refers to the fight of Achilles with the Scamander. Here Hellanicus becomes severely rationalistic: he explains in an entirely natural way this conflict with the river god, and a scholiast reports his actual words from the second book of the Troica: I 'The Scamander, swollen by the rain-water, overflowed its banks and flooded the low-lying ground. Achilles, who was at the head of the army, was the first to meet this advancing stream, and fearing that it might do him hurt, catching hold of some elmtrees growing in the plain, raised himself out of danger; and the rest, seeing the water advancing, scattered in different directions, each man where he could, and they climbed up on the hills above the plain.' It would be interesting to know whether Hellanicus rationalized any of the other miraculous incidents of the Iliad in which the gods interfere. This one example is disappointing because it is obvious; probably Hellanicus was not the first to offer this explanation. Unfortunately there are no other fragments referring to incidents in the story of the Iliad. Tzetzes, in the opening lines of his Posthomerica, mentions Hellanicus as describing how the queen of the Amazons, Hippolyta, came to seek fame at Troy.2 There is also a tantalizing fragment, which makes one suspect that he told the story of Achilles and Troilus, the son of Apollo: how Achilles could not win·the love of Troilus, and killed him in the temple of Thymbraean Apollo, where he had taken refuge; and Apollo in anger devised the death of Achilles in the place where he had killed his son. The fragment, it is true, quotes Hellanicus only for his peculiar spelling 'Dymbrian' instead of'Thymbrian' or 'Thymbraean',3 but Apollodorus, in a context already connected with Hellanicus,4 after mentioning Troilus as one of Hecuba's sons, adds: 'It is said that his father was Apollo.'

184

The rest of the story is variously told in the epitomes of Apollodorus and in the scholia on Lycophron,1 and it is of course impossible to know in how great detail and in what form Hellanicus told it. 2 A very tantalizing fragment invites us to guess how much of the story of Oenone Hellanicus told, and in how many details his account coincided with the familiar version. Parthenius,3 citing the authority only of Nicander and Cephalon Gergithius, tells the story of how Oenone foretold to Paris that he would bring Helen to Troy and in the war which followed would receive a wound that only she could heal; and how Paris, as he lay wounded, sent for her, and she, after sending the heartless message that killed him, arrived to find him dead and killed herself. But elsewhere the same writer cites the Troica of Hellanicus as well as Cephalon for the story of Cory thus, son of Paris and Oenone: how he came to fight for the Trojans, fell in love with Helen, and found favour because of his beauty; and how Paris, out of jealousy, killed him.4 Later mythographers represent Oenone as bringing Cory thus and Helen together to spite Paris, 5 but there is nothing to suggest that Hellanicus told the tale in this way. Jacoby thinks that all the story which Parthenius takes from Nicander and Cephalon may originate with Hellanicus,6 and very probably he is right. One cannot tell what to make of the fragment about the Idaean Dactyli.7 In Apollonius of Rhodes they are Cretan,S but in the old epic Phoronis, which the scholiast quotes, they are Phrygian. Different mythographers seem to have explained the origin of their name differently. Hellanicus says that they were called Idaean Dactyli because they met Rhea inside Mount Ida, took the goddess by the hand, and touched

I F. 28-Schol. B. Iliad xxi. 242. The opening passage of the quotation is corrupt, and is omitted in the translation given in the text. Preller, whom Jacoby follows without acknowledgement, reads as follows: lJ1TO SE TOVTOV TOV Xpovov EV Tfj • ISn. q,"Iatv, (" 1I.0S" J.) oll.v KTIt. 2 F. 149--Posthomerica 14. For another reference to H.'s account of the Amazons see F. 107-Schol. Tz. Antehomerica 23, p. 8 Schirach. 3 F. 151-Steph. Byz. S.v. evp.{3pa, Eust. on Iliad x. 430. 4 Bib. iii. 12,5. See p. 181 for connexion of iii. 12,2 with Hellanicus.

185

EPit. iii. 32, Schol. Lyc. 307. 2 Cf. Kullmer, p. 582. Na". amat. 4. 4 F. 29-Parthenius, Narr. amat. 34 {aTop.i 'EItIteJ.VtKOS" TPWtKWV ({3') (the number of the book is Heyne's conjecture). 5 Cf. Lyc. 57-61 and the scholia, Photius, Bib. cod. 186, p. 134b; these accounts vary and elaborate the story. 6 Note on Hegesianax (Cephalon), F. Gr. Hi;t. i, no. 45, F. 2, 'was Parthenios hier gibt, kann sehr wohl H. sein, dem Nikandros im wesentlichen folgte.' 7 F. 89--Schol. Ap. Rhod. i. 1129. 8 i. 1129 LlaKTVItOt 'ISatot Kp"lTatE£>. I

3

4515

B

b

186

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

her fingers. This absurd etymological explanation is quite after the manner of Hellanicus, but it is impossible to determine its context. Some of the purely topographical fragments from Stephanus are interesting because of their connexion with Hecataeus. Stephanus cites both Hellanicus and Hecataeus for Gargara and Lamponeia, but it is Hellanicus who has the unusual spelling. I More interesting is his attempt to explain the famous line in the Iliad

Hellanicus was probably the first writer to decide on what day of the month Troy was captured. Menestheus was king in Athens, certainly, because the sons of Theseus, though they went to Troy, refused to fight under his command;! but the actual day of the month in the last year of Menestheus' reign was the twelfth of Thargelion. 2 Why he should decide on this date is a mystery. The chroniclers indeed give further details: how Hellanicus fixed the twelfth of Thargelion as ~ _.f.' , <:>' .J.8' \ TWV the d ay, an d TLVES' Ta\ 'A TTLKa\ avyyp""f'afLEvwvoyaoTJ 'f' LvaVTOS' (as the Pari an Marble), the moon being full and Menestheus in the last year of his reign at Athens. Tzetzes dates the capture by a priestess:

T7JA68EV

£g 'AAv{37JS',

08EV apyvpov £aTt YEv€8A7J, 2

which Hecataeus had tried to explain before him. 3 He called Alybe 'a lake in Pontus', 4 thus making his contribution to a discussion that was not finished by Strabo's time. It is a matter of no importance whether these towns were mentioned in the Troica or elsewhere. Stephanus cites the Troica for the Acarnanian city of Phoetiae or Phoeteum (F. 30), but TO. 7TEP~ Avotav which he cites for the Azeiotae, 'a tribe in the Troad',s must be a section from some other work, probably not a mythographical one. The remaining topographical fragment is the famous remark of Strabo that Hellanicus, out of partiality for the people of Novum Ilium, supported their claim that their city-or rather their KaToLKta, for the city grew up only later -was on the site of ancient Troy.6 Strabo rejected this view sternly, but we now know that the logographer was right, and that Novum Ilium was on the site of Mycenaean and Homeric Troy. Kullmer remarks jubilantly that this fragment may well increase our respect for the historical researches ofHellanicus.' If only we knew what arguments he used to justify his view, we should be in a better position to criticize these so-called 'historical researches'. F. 158, 159. Hell. spoke of rapyaaos and AafL7TwvtOv. Iliad ii. 857. Cf. Strabo xii. 3, 20 if. J See chapter on Hecataeus, pp. 70-1. 4 F. 146-Steph. Byz. S.v. 'AMP", ... 'E>J.av'Kos ~E t/>",a,v AlfLV7JV £tva, 1l0VT'K..]v. s F. 58 ' A {£<wTa.· E8vos rijs Tpwa~os. ws 'E>J.av'Kos £V TO'S 7T£P' Av~tav (Av~Las. Jacoby) My£<. 6 F. 25b--Strabo xiii. I, 42 £7T' ~£ TWV Av~wv ~ vvv £KTLa8", KaTo'Kta Ka, TO l£pOV' oil J.L~V '7TOAr.s 'Y~ 1}v.t llid:. 7ToMots XPOVOLS VClTEpOV Kat KaT' o'\{YOI', WS E'lPTJTaL.t T'1)v a,j~",a,v EaX£V' 'E>J.av'Kos ~£ Xap'{OfL£vOS TOls 'I>,.£va,v, olas £K£lvov 8VfLOS. C1VV7JyoP£' TO T~V av-r~v £tVat 7TO>'W T~V vvv Tfi TOT£. 7 p. 589. I

2

187

KaAAwTW S' Upna -ryv KAnvaLS' £V 'A8~vaLS' OlKTPOTfL-rOV p.Eyu.Aov AVKu.{3avToS' KdVTJ £V wPTl, KdvTI VVKTl, <> A€a{3wS' 'EAAu.VLKOS' aElSn, avv TcfJ KaL .1qvPLS', Tpolav lA€nv IIavaxawvS'.

Because of this priestess Jacoby and Kullmer want to refer the chronological details to the Priestesses, regarding €V :4e~vaLS' simply as a mistake on the part of Tzetzes. 3 This is a very uncertain conclusion. The chief interest of the lines lies in the scansion of 'EMavLKoS' and in the word aEtOH, which is evidence of a sort in support of Suidas' statement that Hellanicus wrote poetry as well as prose. 4 After describing the fall of Troy Hellanicus must explain the famous prophecy which Poseidon, in the Iliad, makes before the gods in council: vvv Sl S~ AlvElao f3l7J TpwwaLv aVu.gH Kat 7TalSwv 7TaLSES', Tol KEV p.ET67TLaBE ylvwvTuL. 5

Evidently the story that he tells about the flight of Aeneas, which is reproduced at some length by Dionysius of HaliI F. 143-Schol. Eur. Hec. 123 'E>J.av.Kos ~E tfrrJa,v av-rovs £CJTpaT£vKEVat. 07TWS. €l p.Ev EAOLEV "1)..'01', 'Aacpvpov aVr~v Aafior.&. £l 8E I':r], Ko'V AUTpwaaLVTo 3WPOL<;. t/>EVyEL" 8£ atiTovs Sui 7'0 JL~ /lovA€u8aL apx£u8at. V1TO M£v£u8£ws. 2 F. 15 2-(a) Clem. Alex. Strom. i. xxi. 104 (cf. Eusebius P.E. x. 12, p. 49 2b); (b) Tzetzes, Posthomerica 770-80. Cf. Dion. Hal. A.R. i. 63· J Jacoby's parenthesis 'die Dummheit £v:A8..]vatS macht nichts aus' is a poor basis for argument (note on the F.). Miiller, FHG. i, p. xxviii, refers the F. to the Atthis. For another possible reference by Tzetzes to the Troica see p. '9 2, n. I, below. 4 CJ1IV£ypa.paTO ~£ 7T>'£'CJTa 7T€{WS T£ Kal7To'''IT'Kws. Cf. also F. 85 and pp. 2312 below. S Iliad xx. 307-8.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

carnassus, I is designed to fit in with this prophecy. The story of how Aeneas with his family and other survivors took refuge on Mount Ida belongs to the epic cycle. 2 But the subsequent return of Ascanius to Troy was told by Hellanicus almost certainly in an original manner. Ascanius was first sent to be king of the Dascylitis region, at the request of the inhabitants: this is his typical explanation of the lake called Ascania in this region. 3 Here Ascanius remained for a short time, but at the invitation of Scamandrius and the other sons of Hector, who had been released from captivity by Neoptolemus, he returned to Troy and helped them to restore their authority there-KuTaywv UVTOU~ E7T/. rryv 7TUTPCPUV

called Crusaeans lived there, and they granted them a safe refuge. There they remained through the winter season, and set up a temple of Aphrodite on one of the promontories, and founded a city, Aeneia, where they left behind those who were too weak to travel and as many as wished to remain there, where they could pass the rest of their lives on land which belonged to them.'

188

, \ 'rr I '"I.. .... Up)(Y}V €L~ .L pOtUV U,/,tKVELTUt.

Here the story of Ascanius ends (7TEP/.P.EV 'AUKUVtOV Toauihu MYETUt). But this does not show the fulfilment of the prophecy, since Ascanius does not himself become king of the new Troy, but restores the sons of Hector. The Romans of Virgil's time knew well enough, of course, what they thought the prophecy meant: is it possible that Hellanicus was one of the earliest writers to refer this prophecy to the foundation of Rome ? The text ofDionysius deserves very careful reading here: 'So much, then, is recorded of Ascanius. But Aeneas, taking with him his other sons and his father and the statues of the gods, when the ships were ready, crossed the Hellespont, making the crossing where the Chersonese is nearest to Asia to the point which juts out on the European side and is called Pallene. A Thracian tribe lived in this region, the Crusaean tribe as it was called, which had been the most energetic of all those who helped them in the war. This is the most trustworthy account of the flight of Aeneas; amongst early historians Hellanicus adopted it in his Troica.'4 After this Dionysius mentions various alternative versions of the story, but in 49, 4 he takes up the narrative again: 'First then they came to Thrace, and anchored at the place called Pallene on the Chersonese; and, as I said, some barbarians I 2

3

4

F. 3I-Dion. Hal. A.R. i. 45-7. The 'IMov lIEpa,s (Homeri Opera, Oxford text, vol. v, p. 107). Dion. Hal. i. 47, 5. See Jacoby's note on the fragment. i. 47,6-48, I.

The long account of the wanderings of Aeneas which follows is not necessarily all taken from Hellanicus. Dionysius claims to be relying principally on the monuments left in Greece, showing where they anchored or took refuge when sailing was impossible. I But Hellanicus is not forgotten. Aeneas in his wanderings goes to Delos, Cythera, Arcadia, and Zacynthus, 'and the Zacynthians received his band as their friends because of blood-relationship. The story is that Dardanus, the son of Zeus and the Atlantid Electra, had two sons by Bateia, Zacynthus and Erichthonius; the latter of these was an ancestor of Aeneas, and Zacynthus was the founder of this island; so, calling to mind this relationship, and treated kindly by the inhabitants, they remained here for a time.'2 This passage is a clear reference to Hellanicus: Bateia as a name for the wife of Dardanus is peculiar to him, and the description of Dardanus as 'son of Zeus and the Atlantid Electra' recalls other fragments of the Troica. 3 From Zacynthus Aeneas goes on to Leucas, Actium, and Ambracia, and probably it is in describing this journey that Hellanicus has occasion to mention the Acarnanian people called 'Phoetians'.4 Whilst Anchises takes the ships to Buthrotum he goes to consult the oracle at Dodona, where he meets some Trojans with Helenus; he rejoins Anchises and they cross the Ionian sea to Italy; instead of settling at once they go on to Sicily, where they meet with Aegestus. Dionysius tries to substantiate his story by referring to monuments and customs in all the places supposed to be visited by Aeneas; finally, after bringing the Trojans to the coast of Latium, I

3

4

i. 49, 3.

F.24. Cf. p. 181 above. F. 30. Cf. p. 186 above.

2

i. 50, 3.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

190

and describing how they give the name Troia to the place where they encamp, he writes: 'I was obliged to describe all this and make this digression, because some writers say that Aeneas never came to Italy with the Trojans, others that it was a different Aeneas, not the son of Aphrodite and Anchises, others that it was Aeneas' son Ascanius, and others again differ from this. And there are some who ~ay that Aeneas, the son of Aphrodite, after settling his company 10 Italy, returned back home again, and became king of Troy, and after his death handed on the kingdom to his son, and his descendants retained the royal name for a long time; these authors, I imagine, were misled by the words of Homer which they did not understand rightly'; and he quotes the famous prophecy of Poseidon. I Then Dionysius goes on to tell the familiar Latin stories about Latinus, Lavinia, and Turnus, but interrupts the narrative to show that the Trojans were just as much Greeks as the Arcadian settlers under Evander, and gives an account of their origin2 which is very probably taken from Hellanicus, perhaps, indeed, from the Atlantis. It represents Dardanus and his sons by Chryse as rulers in Arcadia; then because of a great flood they emigrate, leaving Deimas, one of the two sons of Dardanus, to reign in Arcadia, and they settle first in Samothrace; here lasus, brother of Dardanus, is struck by lightning because of a passion for Demeter, but Dardanus founds the city of Troy with the permission of Teucer. Then follows the account of Aeneas' origin. Bateia, daughter of Teucer, appears again as wife of Dardanus, and this time the genealogy is given in full: Atlas, Electra, Dardanus, Erichthonius, Tros, Capys, Anchises, Aeneas. The number of generations from Atlas corresponds exactly with the genealogy of the Atreidae and Helen as shown on page 179. The Hellanicean genealogical tree of the Atlantids, therefore, can now be shown more in full (see opposite page). This genealogical tree makes one more ready than ever to believe that the Atlantis is a sub-section of the Troica , probably part of the first book, since that is where the genealogies belong. It does not, of course, follow that Hellanicus t

i. 53, 4. Cf. p. 187 above.

• i.

60-2.

191

restated the descent of Aeneas in his account of his wanderings; Dionysius does this so as to appeal to his Greek readers, and convince them that the Romans are not, after all, barbarians. The story of Aeneas, however, is not yet finished. Dionysius recounts more Latin stories, but ten chapters later he Atlas

I

I

Taygete Lacedaemon :-\myclas Cynortas Oebalus or Perieres Tyndareus Helen

I

Sterape Oenomaus I

I

Alcyone Hyrieus Nycteus Antiope+Zeus

Oenomaus II Pelops+ HippoI dameia I Niobe + Amphion Atreus Menelaus, Agamemnon -

.. --

I

Electra Dardanus

I I

I

Erichthonius Tras

I I

Capys Anchises Aeneas

Ilus --

I

Laomedon Priam Hector

comes to the vexed point of the date of the foundation of Rome. Before giving the accounts of Latin writers and telling the familiar story of Rhea Silvia, he refers to some of the logographers. After mentioning Cephalon Gergithius and some others he says: 'The writer who made up the list of priestesses in Argos and the events belonging to the time of each of them says that Aeneas came from the Molottians with Odysseus (or after Odysseus),! founded the city, and named it Rome after one of the Trojan women. He says too that this woman, weary with their wandering, urged the other women to burn the ships and helped them to do this. The same account is given by Damastes of Sigeum and other writers.'2

It can scarcely be doubted that this is a quotation from Hellanicus. The mention of Damastes, who is elsewhere connected with him, provides the final proof. 3 It is indeed one of the most interesting of all the fragments, being one of t Mer' 'OSI/(TC1lW~ or /L£T' 'OSvC1C1la, the MSS. of Dian. Hal. vary; but the parallel references in Eusebius (Armenian version, p. 131, 33 Karst) and Syncellus (p. 361, 16 Bonn) show that 'with Odysseus' must be correct. • i. 72, 2-F. 84. 3 Cf. Damastes T. 4 (F. Gr. Hist. i, p. 153) and Jacoby's note.

192

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

the very earliest accounts of the foundation of Rome. Critics normally take it for granted that this is a fragment from the chronological work called Priestesses if Argos. But Hellanicus could scarcely have avoided the subject in his Troica, in which, as we have seen, the wanderings of Aeneas were traced, and it seems not at all improbable that Dionysius is really quoting from the Troica, referring to the Priestesses merely to point out that Hellanicus is a serious authority on questions of chronology. The mention of Odysseus is a reminiscence ofHesiod, Theogony 1013, where Latinus occurs as the son of Odysseus and Circe" I Hellanicus evidently recognized no distinction between Rome and Alba Longa, and at such an early date he would be entirely free from any Latin literary influence. Unfortunately it is not clear whether Hellanicus left Aeneas in Italy, regarding him as the founder of a new Troy, or not. Dionysius mentions how some writers made Aeneas return to Troy, so as not to contradict Poseidon's prophecy. But he shows such respect for the account of Hellanicus, who after all does make Aeneas found Rome, that one more readily believes Hellanicus looked upon Rome as a new Troy and was the first to explain the prophecy in this way. Perhaps one may conclude that he had talked with Greeks who had been in Campania, and so the 'Trojan origin' of Rome became for the first time known to Greek readers. If the Troica described the wanderings of Aeneas, one would expect that the Nostoi of other heroes were also dealt with. When Strabo objects to his identifying Cephallenia with Dulichium,2 he is probably thinking of a passage in the Troica treating of the return of Odysseus. His mention of the Cyclopes, who were named, so he says, from Cyclops, the son of Uranus, again seems to refer to Odysseus. 3 More startling is his statement that Telemachus married Nausicaa,4

and that the orator Andocides was descended from them. I The latter, if not both of these fragments, must belong to the Atthis, but there is one other reference to an Odyssean scene. Stephanus under the heading ~a{ag remarks: 'Hellanicus in the first book of the Priestesses writes: "Phaeax was the son of Poseidon and of Cercyra the Asopid, after whom the island was called Cercyra, its earliest name being Drepane or Scheria'" (F. 77). On this note of uncertainty investigation of the Troica must end. It is useless to disguise how difficult it is to sort out what belongs to the Troica from what belongs elsewhere, but one cannot very well allow this work to absorb the Priestesses as well as the Atlantis and Asopis. Presumably one must admit that in the Priestesses, an encyclopaedic work as it seems, Hellanicus described many incidents which he had also described, perhaps with less regard for chronology, in his mythographic works. The final verdict on the Troica must be that it is an extensive work, perhaps in more than two books, though no book later than the second is mentioned by any authority; that the first book contained the genealogies of prominent Greeks and Trojans (sections of which came to be known as the Atlantis and Asopis), whilst the second book contained an account of the Trojan War, followed, perhaps in a third or even a fourth book, by descriptions of the wanderings of some heroes, including Aeneas and Odysseus. An important feature of the work is its fondness for explaining or even rationalizing difficulties and obscurities in the Homeric story, and making clear the genealogies, hitherto obscure, of the heroes; hence its usefulness to the scholiasts and Stephanus of Byzantium, who have done their share in quoting from it, and must have borrowed from it on many occasions without acknowledgement.

Cf. also Lycophron 1242 and the scholion ' Oljuau£a aaty £y , ha1l{If aUVTUX£tV is probably a reference to the Troica. 2 F. 144-Strabo x. 2, 14. 3 F. 88-Schol. Hesiod, Theog. 139, which Jacoby refers tentatively to the PhoTonis. 4 F. 156-Schol. (Eustath.) Odyssey xvi. 118.

ETHNOGRAPHICAL WORKS

I

Alv£{If Kat auv(l~Ka~ /In' aM~'\wv Kat £lp~V1JV 1ToLijaaL, which

193

This is the most unsatisfactory portion of Hellanicus' literary work for the investigator to unravel. In the first place there are as many as seventeen titles,z which Jacoby groups I

F. 170c-Suidas s.v. ' AVIjOK{Ij'1" 4515

2

C C

See p. 156 for list of titles.

194

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

under the heading of Ethnographical Works, and iUs impossible to decide with certainty, from the scanty evidence, how many separate works there actually are. Some of the fragments which Jacoby assigns to ethnographic works, such as the Argolica, Thessalica, and Boeotiaca (F. 36b, 50-2), have already been discussed and assigned to the PhoTonis. 1 Jacoby wants to keep these works separate, but where evidence is so scanty argument is impossible; one is tempted to decide one way or the other, but it is impossible to prove any conclusion. However, if the Boeotiaca, Argolica, and Thessalica are regarded as alternative subtitles for sections or books of the Phoronis, the seventeen titles are reduced to fourteen. Jacoby is prepared to admit that the K-rlU€LC; or K-rlU€LC; eOvwv Kal. 7ToA€wv may be the same as IJ€pl. eOvwvand 'EOvwv ovofLaulaL and even Bap{3apLKa vOfLLfLa. Kullmer, however, thinks that all of these fourteen titles can be referred to two works: (I) a work dealing with Greek colonization in Asia Minor and the islands, which, following a quotation in Athenaeus from 'EMavLKoc; ev KTluWLV, he calls the Ctiseis; (2) Bap{3apLKa vOfLLfLa, a work dealing with foreign customs, parts of which were called Persica, Scythica, and Aegyptiaca. The names Barbarica Nomima and Ctiseis are well attested, and it is clear that Hellanicus wrote on the subjects that these titles suggest. The difficult question is the extent of these works. The idea of a book which would deal with the origins and early history of Greek cities in Asia Minor and the islands was not new in the time of Hellanicus. Indeed, the earliest of the logographers, Cadmus of Miletus, is credited with a book of this kind. 2 So also some logographers occupied themselves with the early history of a particular city, as, for example, Charon of Lampsacus devoted a book to the history of his native city. Of all the various titles mentioned in the fragments only two are quoted with reference to a book number, Lesbiaca and Persica. Stephanus of Byzantium refers twice to the first book of the Lesbiaca or Lesbica, and once to the second book

(F. 33, 34, 35 a ). He also refers to the first book of the Persica, and once to the second (F. 59, 60, 62), as also does Harpocration (F. 61). Such references seem quite sufficient to prove that the Lesbiaca and Persica were separate works. The quotation from the work on Aeolica is more problematical. According to the scholiast on Pindar, Hellanicus described the migration of Orestes to Aeolis ev T

1 pp. 160, 163, 166,170 • • Suidas, s.v. Ka8/Lo, Ilav8lovo,. But its authenticity is suspect. Cf. Jacoby, RE., s.v. Kadmos (6); W. Schmid, Gr. Literaturgesch. I. i, pp. 691-2.

195

'Orestes, after killing Aegisthus, received an oracular command to set out and found a colony; so he gathered together people of various tribes, whom they called Aeoleis because they came from all sorts of places,3 and he went to Lesbos. He soon died himself and did not succeed in founding a city; but a descendant of his, by name Gras or Graus, a hundred years later, became master of Lesbos and founded a town.'

This story, which should be compared with Strabo xiii. 1

I,

3,

F. 32-SchoI. Pindar, Nem. xi. 43 00,.0,8' (sc. IlElaav8po, Ewap·rLa77JS). "'''lot,

GUV 'OPEU77} ii:rrc/JI(7)C1(V £1( E7TapT7]S Kat T~V TEV£SOV KaTcpK7Ju£o T£VE8tos yap 0

'Ap'L(lTayop~s. ' ' t T1J; - '0pEG'TOV ' " T1JV A 'LO,\'.' , 'E'\\' , T
WPWTttJ

196

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

is suggestive of Hellanicus for one very good reason: the derivation of the tribal name AioA€t, from the adjective aioAo" 'varied' or 'variegated', is a touch that is typical of the logographer. I It also suggests a Lesbian source, for it brings Orestes to Lesbos before he dies, thus conferring a distinction on the island, whereas Strabo, following the more usual version, makes him die in Arcadia. Z Though not strictly eligible as a 'fragment' of Hellanicus this note is just as good as one. There is, however, an actual quotation by Athenaeus from the Ctiseis which must refer to the Aeolian colonization: 'Hellanicus in the Ctiseis says beer (TO {1pVrov) is also prepared from roots; these are his words: "They drink beer made from certain roots, just as the Thracians have a drink made from barley." '3 The Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus are more interested in the beer than in the people who drink it, but this quotation from Hellanicus is followed almost immediately by one from Hecataeus: 'In the Periodos of Europe Hecataeus says that the Paeonians drink beer made from barley.'4 {1pfYrov is the regular word for the beer of the northern peoples, as opposed to the {DBo, of the Egyptians,S and it is most likely that Hellanicus, like Hecataeus, is referring to the Paeonians. Since, according to Pausanias, 6 Paeon is a son of the Aeolid Endymion, it follows that the Paeonians are Aeolians. Since, then, this fragment, explicitly quoted from the Ctiseis, seems to be concerned with Aeolian peoples, it is easy to believe that the Ctiseis was largely concerned with Aeolian matters, and, indeed, that 'the first book concerning Aeolian matters' is the first book of the Ctiseis. This is the argument of Kullmer, which Jacoby scarcely notices. According to the usual story, as related by Strabo,7 the Aeolians reached Lesbos by way of Thrace and the Troad; but except for two topographical fragments about the Troad

in Stephanus (already mentioned in connexion with the Troica) , there is no trace of the narrative as told by Hellanicus. The topographical fragments about Lesbos, from the Lesbiaca (F. 33-5), are no more helpful. The references to a first and second book make one ready to believe it was a separate work from the Ctiseis, but about its contents nothing can be said. Some remarks about Lemnos and the Sinties are referred by the Homeric scholiast and Tzetzes to Hellanicus EV T
I

'Diese aetiologische Etymologie ist ganz hellaniceischer Art' (Kullmer,

TWV I
See Olck in RE., s.v. Bier.

6

v. 1,4'

7

...

Xlll. I,

3.

F. 158-9. Cf. p. 186 above. F. 7 Ia-Schol. Hom. Od. viii. 294 E{vTt£s
.t1~I"Vto" ws 'E>J.av'lJ.0' avlJpw1To,' £y£yov£wav BE l",g£>J.1)V£s. 'TOVTOVS El"~ £p~~~6p.£vo,. rOVTOLS UVJlc.pKLUaJl EaVTOVS aJlap.L~ wS 'ljAOOV aUTOO .. KaL KaT£AL7TOJl Jlavs 7TEJlT£. F. 7 I b -Tzetzes ad Lyc. 227 (cf. 224 and 462) EV .t1~l"vcp 1TPWTWS £vpelJ1) TO 'TE 1TOp I
F. 7lc-Schol. Ap. Rhod. i. 608. F. 64-5' But the reading 'E>J.av'lJ.av{Kov
4

P·593)· 2 Strabo xiii. 1,3. Cf. Hdt. i. 67-8· 3 F. 66-Ath. x. 447c 1T{VOVU' BE fJpOTOV £1< T'VWV p"wv, l
197

I

19 8

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

as an authority for the story of Zamolxis and his carefully planned disappearance and reappearance from his underground house which was to prove to the Getae that he was immortal. Two other fragments, however, lead one to believe that Barbarica Nomima, dealing with the Scythians-perhaps also the Srythica-are simply alternative names for portions of the Ctiseis. The scholiast on Apollonius, commenting on the mention of a Scythian tribe called Sindi, remarks: 'EAAaVLKO'i 8~ EV Tip IIEp't E(JVWV chUL· "BOU7TOPOV 8ta7TAEVUaVTL };{V80L, avw 8~ TOVTWV MaLWTaL };KV(JaL."1 After seeing this fragment one might be inclined to think that IIEp't E(JVWV was a work dealing with barbarian peoples separate from the Ctiseis, which dealt with Greeks. But a quotation by Stephanus seems to show that one work, the Ctiseis, dealt with both Greeks and barbarians, with both 7TOAEL'i and e(JVT); in his note on the Charimatae, a tribe on the Pontus, he remarks: Ka't 'E>..AavLKO'i EV KTtUEaLV E(JVWV Ka't 7TOAEWV· H KEpKETatwv 8' avw OiKOfiuL MOaxOL Ka't XapLJLaTaL, KaTw 8' 'HVtOXOL, avw 8~ Kopagol" .2 Yet another reference to the Ctiseis is seen in a papyrus fragment, on the strength of the syllable -KO'i and KTlUEat (the one complete word on the papyrus).3 The situation, then, may be summed up as follows: A remark by a scholiast (F. 32) shows that in the first book of an unnamed work Hellanicus dealt with the Aeolian migration; a reference by Athenaeus to the Ctiseis (F. 66), referring to the Aeolic Paeonians, suggests that this was the name of the work and that three other fragments (F. 158-60), from Stephanus and Strabo, referring to Aeolian cities in the Troad, belong to the same work. References to the Lesbiaca (F. 33-5), IIEp't Xlov KT{UEW'i (F. 71), Ta 7TEP't Av8tav (F. 58), and possibly also KV7TpLaKa (F. 57) may perhaps be assigned to the Ctiseis, since all these fragments could be taken from a work dealing with the Aeolian migration. The evidence, however, is far too scanty to justify any confident statement. Again, a reference to the K TtUEL'i E(JVWV Kat 7TOAEWV by Stephanus I 2

3

F. 6g-Schol. Ap. Rhod. iv. 321. F. 7o-Steph. Byz. s.v. Xap'p,rf.TaL. F. 68-Pap. Ox. xiii. 61 I, fro 8, col. ii. 208.

199

(F. 70) S?OWS ~at .this work, s~ far from confining itself to ~he Aeohan mIgration, dealt wIth Scythian tribes, and this IS confirmed by a scholiast's quotation from the IIEpt E(JVWV (F. 69). Accordingly one readily believes that the Srythica, to whIch Stephanus refers on two occasions (F. 64, 65), is part of the same work, and that Strabo's scornful remarks (F. 185-6) also refer to it, and that it mentioned the Hyperboreans (F. 187). Possibly it was also known under the name of Barbarica Nomima (F. 72, 73). . One ge~eral statement about the Ctiseis seems justified: It dealt WIth the Greek settlements in Asia Minor and the islands and the tribes with which they came into contact or which they thought to exist in the north. There is no suggestion that it dealt with the struggle against Persia or the history ofth~t empire or with the history and topography of Egypt and LIbya. Besides the Ctiseis Athenaeus refers to t~e ' E(Jvwv ovoJLau{at to show the extreme poverty of certain LIbyan tribes,1 and it seems a mistake to assume that this is the same work as the Ctiseis. It is rather disappointing to find no reference to a Libyca, but Athenaeus refers to an ~l'i "AJLJLwvo'i ava{1aat'i (the authenticity of which he questl?ns),2 and he :efers three times to the Aegyptiaca (F. 53-5). Smce the allusIOns are all due to the one author one is compelled to believe that the three works are sep~rate or else that the Aegyptiaca is the larger work which contains the other two. Most probably the El'i "AJLJLwvo'i ava{1aUL'i was only a short description of a journey through the desert and the '!£(Jvwv ovoJLau{at no more than its name implies--'a list of tnbes (perhaps only of Libyan tribes) with brief remarks about their customs. The name Aegyptiaca on the other hand implies more detailed treatment, perhap~ even a full-length work in two books like the Persica. These two works demand more careful investigation. In addition to the three references in Athenaeus there are F. 67-Ath. xi. 462A-B orna 1)£ Kat 'E>J.rf.V'KOV lv 'E8vwv 'Ovop,au{ats ).l"'oVTa A "VWV fJ ' TWV - vop.a'I) wv TWES "1 ' UJ\/\O -"\ \ KEICT1JVTaL , , ou)EV ij KoALIca Kat p.axal.pav KaL v3plav Kal OTt olKlas EXOVULV Ee o.V8EplKOU 1rE1TO'TJf'£vas ILI.KpaS Quav UKtaS £vEKa &s Kai

o

I

TL

1TEPLcP£POVULV 01rOV

•

2

av 7TOp€OWVTaL.

I

F. s6-Ath. xiv. 6S2A .po{v'Ka 1)£

'Ap,p,wvos 'AvafJrf.U£t, €l MUtoV

Tel

Kap1Telv Kat 'E>J.rf.v'Kos KtK>'T)K£V lv Til Els aVyypap,p,a. • TelV

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

four other fragments which can with fair certainty be r~ferred to the Aegyptiaca. Athenaeus on two occasions quotes the actual words ofHellanicus. Commenting on the word ~8av~ov , A'~yv1TT~aKO ~~s OVTWS " ypa'l'E~' 'A. erA'tyvnnwv , l\I\aV~KOS EV h e remark s: 'E"" EV Tots O'tKO~S KEtTa~ c/>~aA"f} Xa>V
excuse to Apries, who accordingly mutilates his nose and ears; and this act of cruelty finally turns the tide in favour of Amasis, who establishes himself on the throne. The two versions are evidently variants of a popular Egyptian tale. The remaining fragments which can be referred to the Aegyptiaca confirm the impression that it was a work in many respects comparable to the second book of HerodotWl. Herodotus claims to find the origin of many Greek cults and customs in Egypt. So Hellanicus maintains that vines were discovered in Egypt, [ and seems to connect Dionysus with Osiris; he added a characteristic etymology by calling Osiris "YO'Lp~S and connecting his name with VW,2 and so with rain and fertility. According to Diodorus he was one of the writers who gave fantastic explanations of the rising of the Nile waters,3 and he is said to have mentioned a cave in Thebes where the wind blew regularly except on the thirtieth day of every month, when it was always calm. 4 These fragments certainly suggest that the Aegyptiaca was rich in anecdote, but it very probably also contained more serious topographical and historical narrative. There is nothing to show whether it was published before or after the history of Herodotus, and no such close connexion can be shown between the two authors in their treatment of Egyptian matters as between Herodotus and Hecataeus. Because Hellanicus is accused of borrowing extensively from Herodotus in his treatment of Scythia, it does not follow that the same accusation ought to be made against him in his

200

xaAKEov."I

And again: 'Concerning the ever-blooming garlands of Egypt Hellanicus writes as follows in the Aegyptiaca: "There is a city on the river, 'Tindion by name, which is a meeting-place of the gods; and there is a large and holy temple in the middle of the city built of stone; its doors also are of stone. Within the temple precincts white and black thorn trees grow. On these trees, on top of the thorn blossom, garlands are set entwined of pomegranate and vine branches, and these are always in blossom; they were left there by the gods, on hearing in Egypt that Babys (who is Typho) was king." '2 After quoting a slightly different account of these thorn trees from a work on Egypt by a certain Demetrius, since the question of garlands is being discussed, the speaker continues: 'And this same Hellanicus tells how Amasis became king of Egypt, though in the earlier part of his life he was an ordinary private citizen, owing to the gift of a garland made out of the most beautiful flowers in blossom, which he sent to Patarmis, who was king of Egypt at the time, on the occasion of the king's birthday; Patarmis, delighted with the beauty of the garland, not only invited Amasis to dinner, but afterwards continued to regard him among his friends, and actually sent him out as military commander when the Egyptians rebelled against him; and they, because of their hatred for Patarmis, declared him king. '3 A somewhat different story is told by Herodotus: 4 the king's name is Apries, not Patarmis, and Amasis, a man of quite humble origin,S is sent out to pacify the rebels and acclaimed king by them; Apries then sends out a well-known and distinguished man called Patarbemis with orders to take Amasis alive; he returns unsuccessful and gives no proper I

3

5

F. 53-Ath . xi. 470D. F. 55-Ath . XV. 680B-C. ii. 17 2 8111LOTT)V TO 1rptV JOV7'a Kat

2

4

OlKlT)S

F. 54-Ath. xv. 679F. ii. [6[-3, [69-7 2.

O1iK €1Tf,q.,avlos.

20[

Aegyptiaca. It remains to mention the most curious and probably the

o.

F. [75-Ath. i. 34A 'E>J.aV'KOS 1>1]atv £V Tii IJ>..'VotVTl1TO'\EL A1YV1TTOV 1TPWTOV .vp.llTjva, T~V aP.1T.'\OV. 2 F. [76-Plutarch, de Iside 34, p. 364D Kat TOV Ll,ovvaov "Y1]v (sc. "E>J.1]v<s KaAouuu,:), WS KUPLOV TfjS Vypos q,VG€WS, oux £T£POV ovra TOV ' Oalpt8os' Kat yap TOV "Oatptv (EAAaVLKOS ·YO'Lptv €OtKEV aKTJKOlvat U1TO TWV LEplwv AEyOJ.LEVOV· OVTW yap OVOJ.La~wv 8LaTEAEi TOV OEOV, E1KoTws d1Td TijS ¢VUEWS Ka~ 'T7J~ £UpEUfW~. Jacoby denies the etymological point. But cf. Cleidemus Fr. 21 (FHG. i, p. 363). 3 F. [73-Diod. i. 37. 3 0< p.Ev yap 1TCpt TOV 'E>J.aV'KOV Kat KaS!,ov, fT' o· I

'EKa'Taiov Kai lTanES oi TOtDUTOt 7TUAatoi 7Tana7TaU'V DV'TES (LS Tas p,vOcfJS£l,S alTocpaU£l,S a7TEKA,vav (se. U11€P TijS ava/3uCTEws TOU NfO,OV).

4 F. I 74-Antigon. Hist. Mir. 126 'E,\,\Q.V'KOS O· .; A'aptos £V

(9~pa,s

Ta;s

Alyv7TTtatS {UTOPE;' u1T~Aa,ov €VaUTEt (Elva,), Ka8' 0 Elva, Tas fJ-€V TptaKaoas VTJvfp,taJ'~

Tas O· ruas 45[5

~p.'pas

av.p.ov. Cf. Callimachus Fr. 100f, 2 (Schneider). D

d

202

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

best-known reference to the Aegyptiaca, which was strangely misunderstood by earlier critics, and is not properly explained by Jacoby, though he presumably sees the point of it. This reference comes in one of the Dialogues of Epictelus recorded by Arrian, I but the passage cannot be understood unless it is taken in its context. Epictetus is pointing out that many students oflogic and indeed of other branches of philosophy, though they know what writers hold what views, cannot make up their own minds; so that they are just like grammarians, who answer questions only by quoting an ancient author. The following conversation is meant to illustrate his point: 'WhO' was Hector's father?' 'Priam.' 'Who were his brothers?' 'Alexander and Deiphobus.' 'And his mother?' 'Hecuba.' 'From what source have you this informatiQn?' 'From Homer. And, I think, Hellanicus and others like him have written about the same characters.'2 Now many students of logic are like the 'grammarian' or 'philologos', who knows the current views both of famous classic writers (like Homer) and of more obscure, second-rate writers (like Hellanicus). But of what use is this sort of ~nowledge, when there is no effort at criticism or independent Judgement? After reading more of the logicians, says Epictetus, you will speak about them with only the same academic interest as about disputed points of mythology: 'It is no great thing to have historical knQwledge if one does nQt form a private Qpinion. And in ethics we suffer the same thing even mQre. '''Tell me about good and evil." "Listen. 'The wind bearing me from Troy brQught me to' the CicQnes. Of objects some are gQod, SQme evil, some indifferent.''' "What is your authority?" "Hellanicus in the Aegyptiaca." "Yes. For what is the difference between saying this and saying 'Diogenes in his Ethics' Qr 'Chrysippus' or 'Cleanthes'?" , Of course this is not a genuine quotation from the Aegyptiaca of Hellanicus. It is painful to find that otherwise sound , Arrian, Diss. Epict. ii. 19. ~his is. probably a g~nuine reference to the Troica. Critics frequently mentIon this passage as eVIdence that this work continued to be regarded as the standard prose work on the Trojan War. 2

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

20 3

critics like Preller and Kullmer and their followers have ~ailed t~ see the joke. ~he speaker is asked for his authority m quotmg a f~mous lme of Homer and a famous Stoic aphorism-and he gives the ridiculous answer 'Hellanicus in the Aegyptiaca'; and the comment is, 'What does it matter whe~her you give the right reference or not, if your learning consIsts merely of memorized "tags" from poets and philosophers?' About the Persica there is not much useful information to be fou~d. Its .exist~nce as a separate work, apart from the Barbarzca Nomzma, IS satisfactorily proved by the reference of Stephanus and Harpocration to a first and second book. It appears to have been concerned with the various countries which in the time of Hellanicus were under Persian rule ~nd see~s to. have incl~ded a sketch of Assyrian history. A~ mterest~ng pIece ?f eVIdence showing its scope is given by Ce~hah?n, w.ho IS quoted by Eusebius and Syncellus as saymg: I begm my hIstory at the same point at which others began; first Hellanicus the Lesbian, then Ctesias of Cnidos, ~nd afterw~rds Herodotus the Halicarnassian. The Assyrians m olden tlm:s ruled over Asia.' I Like the Aegyptiaca, this work seems m many respects comparable to the work of Herodotus, but it also contains some of the devices which are familiar from the mythographic writings. The two quotations of Stephanus from the first book take us back into the mythical period of Persian and Median history. Conventional Greek etymology derived the names of these two peoples from Perses, son of Perseus and Andromeda, and Medus, son of Aegeus and Medea. Hellanicus differed from this version; he maintained that Medea took one of her sons with her in her flight to Aria, but it was not Medus but Polyxenus, her son by Jason. 2 No further information is forthcoming aDout his version of the Medians' origin, but Stephanus quotes some of his story about the '. F. 177-Eusebius, ehron. Annen., p. 28, 28 (Karst); Syncellus p. 315 (Dmdorf). Cf. Milller, FHG. i, p. xxvi. ' 2 F. 132-Paus. ii. 3, 8 (frag. referred by Jacoby to the Atthis, in which the whole story of Medea seems to have been told). For Aria cf. F. I 79-Steph. Byz. s.v. ~Apla . . . n£paLI<~ xwpa, WS ~E)J..av'Kos. TO E8vtKOl- "ApWt ws aUTOS c/>T}Ut, Kai 'ApL£VS. J

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

origin of the Persians: Andromeda was daughter of Cepheus, ruler in Babylonia, after whom his subjects were called KTJ4>.ryv€s. Perseus and Andromeda had a son Perses, who succeeded Cepheus in the kingship, and then 'after the death of Cepheus they set out in force from Babylon, deserted their country and occupied Artaea; their country is no longer called Cephenia, nor are its inhabitants called Cephenes, but Chaldaeans, and all this country is now called Chaldaea'.l So far this seems simple enough, but the vital details are missing from the quotation of Stephanus. Certainly he tells us, in commenting on the word Artaea,2 that Artaea 'was Persian territory', colonized by Perses, son of Perseus and Andromeda, according to Hellanicus in the first book of the Persica, and apTaLOt is the name given by the Persians to men of olden time, comparable to the Greek heroes. But he does not tell us what actually became of the Cephenes, whether it was they who became the Persians of later times (as Herodotus thinks), or whether they retained their old language and customs and were separate from the Persians strictly so called. In fact the fragment does not show whether Hellanicus accepted or denied the derivation of the Persian

name from Perses. Perhaps a passage from the scholiast on Dionysius Periegetes,r which Jacoby quotes in his commentary, gives the solution:

204

F. 59-Steph. Byz. s.v. XaAOa'OL" 0< 7TPOTEPOV K"IijvE<;, am) K"I'W<; TOO ap' ~S Kal. TOU Iho.pu€wS TOU LJavo.7]S Kat, Lito!) II/parts, arp' 00 0< K"IijVE<; Kat Xa,\oa,o, 7Tponpov (Ka'\OVJ1-EVO' n'paa,) "IVL"I KaA'ETaL avo' ciVOpW7TO' I

7TaTpos ~Av8pop..Eoas,

20 5

'Perseus had a son by Andromeda, whom his grandfather Cepheus brought up in his house and called Perses; and at his death he left the kingship of the Cephenes to him. The Chaldaeans, however, attacked him and drove him out from the country. So taking a considerable number of the Cephenes he retired to the land of the Artaeans, and finding them quarrelling among themselves joined one party and became master of the people; he called them Persians after himself, and had a son Achaemenes, after whom the Persians were called Achaemenids.'

This account fits in well with what we know of the version of Hellanicus. The Cephenes are not Persians at all,2 but Babylonians who come with Perses when he settles in Artaea and becomes king of the Artaeans, whom he calls Persians. Herodotus has tried to condense this story in a very brief compass, with the result that it is not clear enough. 3 Possibly they have the story from a common source. 4 There is an isolated remark in the scholiast on Aristophanes that Hellanicus recognized two distinct persons called Sardanapalus. 5 But a note in Photius and Suidas, if it is correctly emended by Jacoby, supports this fragment and gives more details. Under the heading l:apDava7TuAovs is the comment: EV f3' ll€patKWV Dvo 4>TJUt YEyovEVat (,EMuvtKOS wuavTws

0'

DE Kat) KaMtu{NvTJs, Eva fLEV DpauT~ptov Kat YEvvaLov, uMov DE

Kat ~ 'Xwpa aUT1J 1Taaa vuv XaA.OaLK~ Ka)..EETat."

fLaAaK6v' then follows an account of the famous monument

Such is Jacoby's reading. The words KaAOVJ1-EVOt n'paa, are inserted so as to make Hellanicus support Herodotus. But the actual quotation seems to suggest that a more likely and simpler emendation of Stephanus would be a' 00 Ka, K"IijVE<; XaAOalOt 7TPOTEPOV EK'\~O"laav, in which case a' 00 refers not to Perses but to Cepheus. 'ApTa{av, on the other hand, is certainly correct, and the insertion Tij, O€ Ba{1v'\wvo<;, though scarcely needed, makes the right meaning clearer. Latte, in RE., s.v. Kephenes and Kepheus (2), suggests that the Cephenes were not linked up with the Perseus legend until the fifth century. Can Hellanicus be made responsible for the connexion of Cepheus and the Cephenes? For another Cepheus cf. F. 37 and 99. 2 F. 6o-Steph. Byz. s.v. 'Apm{a' nEpa'K~ xwpa, ~v <7To'\ta£ n,pGTJ<; 0 nEpa'w<; Kat' AVOpOJLEOas' 'E>J..r5.VLKOS EV IIepaLKwv a'. oi OlKOUVT£S ' ApTaroL. apTalovs O£ II/pan" WU1TEP ot "EM'Y}VES TOUS 1TaAaLovs avfJpw7Tovs ijpwas, KaAovUL. TaXa BE Kat EVT£OO'V J1-0' OOKE;;' ApTag'pgat Ka, ' ApTapatOt, W<; Trap' AlYV7TT{Ot<; Nn,\aJ1-J1-WVE<; Ka, nava7To)J.wvE<;. Jacoby brackets ifpwa<;, but this is scarcely necessary. Weissbach, in RE., s.v. Artaioi, remarks that there is no cuneiform authority for the word.

and its verses. This is the reading of Jacoby, but many earlier critics had thought that this note should be referred to Hellanicus. 6 This duplication of Sardanapalus is found

EVOLKOUVTES K'Y'JcPfjVfSJ

0,

d,ud. Xa.Aoa'ioL.

0'

I 2

3

Schol. Dion. Per. 1053. Does not this support the emendation suggested in n. I, p. 204 above? vii. 61 IIlpoaL ••• €KaAloV'TO oE 11'aAaL inro JLEv 'E>..A~vwv K7J~fjv€s, V7rO J1.l~"TOL

otP€Wv av.rwv Kat TWV 7T€PLOlKWV 'ApTaLOL. €7r€i O€ IIEpoEVS 0 Llavc1.'Y}S T£ Kat Llu)s O:n.[«£To 1Tapa K'Y}tP€u TOV B-,JAOV Kat EOXE aVTOV 7'~V OvyaT£pa ' Av8pOJL£8'Y}v, ytvETaL aU-Tip nais Tep ovvoJ-la ;fJETO IIlpU'YJv, Tovrov BE aVTOV KaTaAEl1TEL o €TVYXavE yap a1TatS €WV 0 K'Y}tPEVS EPOEVOS yOvov. €1Tt TOVTOV o~ T~V E1T~VVJ.l{'Y}v EOXOVo

SoJacoby. s F. 63-Schol. Aristoph. Aves 1021 0 O€ 'E)J.avtKo<; EV TO" nEpatKO', OVO "I a , ];apoava7Ta'\ov<; YEyov'va,. 6 Jacoby remarks that no work called Persica is attributed to Callisthenes, and, like Kullmer, he refers to Ed. Meyer, Forschungen, i, p. 203 f., who thinks 4

206

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

nowhere else, and, as has been pointed out, Hellanicus invented many such duplicates. It also appears that Hellanicus recognized two queens called Atossa. No quotation survives referring to the famous wife of Darius, but the anonymous work De Mulieribus gives the following description under the heading of Atossa: I 'This woman, so Hellanicus says, was brought up as a man by her father Ariaspes and succeeded to the throne; and concealing her femininity she was the first to wear a tiara and gaiters, and instituted the use of eunuchs as servants, and carried on business by letters. She became ruler of many nations, and showed herself most soldierly and brave in all her actions.' The chroniclers-Tatian, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius-add: KU~ €7TtUTO'AaS UVVTCIUUHV (sc. €Vp€v) ~ II€puwv 1TOT€ , , , KU ()'..t. <;>'>fOVOfLU UVT'{J .T)YT)UUfL€VT) yvVT), U 'f'T)UtV 'E"" IV\UVtKO,' >fATOUUU O€

(F. 178b). Many of these attributes are conventionally given to Semiramis, and it is accordingly not surprising to find that in Castor's list of the Assyrian kings Atossa is treated as an alternative name for Semiramis. 2 It is interesting to see that this Semiramis-Atossa is called 'queen of the Persians', just as Sardanapalus is called f3UUt'AEl8 N{vov, II€putKfJ, xwpu,. Hellanicus uses the terms of his own time to describe peoples and cities of early times; because Assyria was later under Persian rule, he calls the rulers of Assyria, when still independent and powerful, 'rulers of the Persians'. Thus he is enabled to call each Atossa a 'Persian' queen, and they are both entitled to mention in his Persica. The remaining fragments confirm the impression that Hellanicus was unorthodox in his use of names and numbers and his enumeration of families, just as in the Troica. These fragments, however, are all concerned with the sixth and fifth centuries. Stephanus and Harpocration quote him as their only authority for the Thracian cities of Strepsa and that the type of Sardanapalus arose from the last great Assyrian king Assurbani pal, who in the legend absorbs his weak, degenerate successor, so that th:re are contradictions in his character, and Hellanicus solves the problem by havmg two kings of the same name. I F. I 78a-De Mu/., ch. 7.• AToaaa is Sturz's certain emendation for >'VrTovaa. 2 Exc. Barb. 37b, 16. For other references see Jacoby's commentary.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

Tyrodiza (€V II€patKWV f3'); the scholiast on Aeschylus' Persae quotes him three times to show his departure from the more familiar versions;1 and the author of the De malignitate Herodoti writes: '(According to Herodotus) the Naxians sent three triremes to support the barbarians, and one of the trierarchs, Democritus, persuaded the rest to desert to the Greek cause. Thus he does not know even how to praise without blaming as well, but in order that one man may be glorified the reputation of a whole city and people must suffer. We find evidence against him in Hellanicus among earlier writers and Ephorus among later ones: the former says the Naxians came to the aid of the Greeks with six, the latter with five triremes.'2 But finally there is an unimportant fragment which shows that Hellanicus and Herodotus did not always disagree. 3 As the fragment from the De malignitate shows, the Persica carried Persian history down as far as the battle of Salamis, I F. 18o-Schol. Aesch. Persae 770 Kupov vios Ka!-'pua."s· o.S.>.cf>oL S£ KaT" 'E>.Aav'Kov MaparP'S, Mlpr/>,s. So the Medici codex. Some later MSS. give the names as Mapr/>{as and MI!-,rP's or M6!-,rP's. F. 181-id. 778

,

.'

•

M'~l: t " , 1T€':'1TTOS 0,£, a~os TJPS~V, ~l,a~vV7J, TTaTpq.

Opovo,a, S apxaw,a,' TOV S. avv So>.cp 'ApTac/>plVTJS £KT£tv£V £u(J'Aos f.V BOILo,s (JVv tiv8pam,v r/>lAotul,v. TOVTOV 'E>.Aav'Kos ~arPlpV'T/v Ka>..r. This is the scholion in the Medici codex. F. 182-id. 719 'Hp6S0TOS (vii. 2) ~'rP."aL ~apdov 7TaiSas .tvu<, 'E>'>'av'Kos S£ ,a'. From Medici codex; scholia in other MSS. agree. Possibly the story told in the so-called A scholia (in later MSS.) on 776 contains a hidden allusion to the story of Hellanicus. One's suspicions are aroused by the remark that the Darius who plays a prominent part is not the father of Xerxes but some one else. It seems likely that the scholiast has somehow confused or attempted to blend two stories. This duplication of Darius would be typical of Hellanicus. Furthermore, from the 'J7T60m<s of the play in M and other MSS. and from a scholion on line 6 we learn that, besides the three well-known historical characters, there was a fourth Darius-Ttv£S S£ KaL TETapTov ~ap.iov .tvat yparP0vat. But presumably Aeschylus deserves credit for the absurd etymology given by the scholiast for Artaphrenes-

, ~ tifY',las,. £Xw~ ¢~Evas, rPP'v,s yap aV7'OV Ov!-'ov CPUKOUTP0rP0VV (767). 2 Ch. 36, p. 86gA-F. 183. Hdt. viii. 46 gives the Naxians four not three triremes. 3 F. 184-Phot. Bib. cod. 72, p. 43b, Ig (reporting Ctesias) 7T'pL TOV Oa.paV7'os TOV TTaT'pa 8ul TOV '7TVpOS 1Tapa TOV vap.ov. E~ 00 Kat EA€yxos 'EAAavtKou Kat 'Hpo8orov WS .p•.5S0V7'U<. a7ToUTams Kupov a7To TOV o.3£>.rP0v. I

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

and it began in mythical times. The evidence, however, does not permit us to decide in how great detail the different periods and episodes were treated. Like the Aegyptiaca, it seems to have been overshadowed by the more successful work of Herodotus, and it is quoted only for its oddities. Its historical value, therefore, cannot be estimated at all. This lack of adequate information renders lengthy discussion of such works unprofitable. It will be enough merely to point out a few considerations. Since the author of the De malignitate knew something of the Persica, he would certainly have seized upon any criticisms of Herodotus that were to be found in it; and if it had been published after the history of Herodotus had been recognized as the standard work on 'barbarian matters', it surely would have contained many criticisms of it, both explicit and implied. One is therefore inclined to think that the Persica is one of the earlier works, published before the history of Herodotus. About the Aeg)ptiaca and 'E8vwv ovo/Laatat, likewise the Scythica and Barbarica Nomima (whether or not these are separate independent works), one cannot be so sure. To what extent did Hellanicus depend on mere literary authority, and how much did he supplement his book-knowledge with independent Oftc; and {aTopLa? Does his work represent an advance on the rfjc; llEpLoooc; of Hecataeus or not? He seems to have been ready, like Hecataeus and Herodotus, to find the source of many elements of civilization in Egypt; but did he approach Persian and Assyrian customs in the same friendly spirit? Is he qnAo{3ap{3apoc; like Herodotus, or not? How anti-Persian was he in his narration of the Persian Wars, of which no trace survives except the note in the De malignitate? These are the unanswerable questions which one naturally wants to ask. And again about the Ctiseis, Lesbiaca, Cypriaca, and the other disputed works on early Greek history: Does he sacrifice fairly well-established historical facts to a theory of the migrations? To what extent does he take account of the local traditions of the different cities? Is he prejudiced in favour of Aeolians or Ionians? Do the Pelasgians playas important a part here as in the Phoronis? Does he say much

about the relations between the Greek settlers and the earlier inhabitants of Asia Minor? How comprehensive is his work or section to which Stephanus refers as TO. 71'Ept AvoLav (F. 58) ? What is its relation to the Lydiaca of Xanthus? One might ask many more questions of this kind, all of them equally unanswerable. Rather than attempt to overwork a barren theme, it seems better to proceed to the examination of the Atthis and the other works dealing with the history of the Greek mainland, about which there is more instructive and helpful evidence.

208

209

CHRONOGRAPHIC WORKS

Atthis Best known by name of the chronographic writings, and probably of all the works of Hellanicus, is his 'AT8Lc; or 'AT8LoEc; or 'ATTtK~ avyypar/>Tj, to which Thucydides alludes in i. 97, remarking that its treatment of the history of the Pentecontaetia is very brief and not very accurate in its chronology. The genuine historical character of this work, as well as its late date of composition, is shown by the remark of the scholiast on Aristophanes (already quoted on page 153), I that Hellanicus described how all slaves who fought on the Athenian side in the battle of Arginusae were given their freedom. Of the works which we have investigated up till now none can claim a genuine historical character except the Persica. But it appears that there were writers, whether numerous or not, besides Herodotus and Hellanicus, who had dealt with Greek history before or during the Persian Wars. The novelty ofthe Atthis was that it dealt with the Pentecontaetia. 'My predecessors', says Thucydides, 'omitted to deal with this period, but described either Greek events before the Persian Wars or the wars themselves; and the one man who did touch on the history of these years, Hellanicus in his Attic History, described them too briefly and with little regard for accuracy in the dates.'2 The work of Thucydides, however, marks an advance on the Atthis in another respect as well as its chronological I

F. 171-Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 694. Ee

HIS

z

F. 4g-Thuc. i. 97,

2.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF l.ESBOS

accuracy and literary merit. Thucydides selected a. brief period of Attic history for treatment, just as Sallust broke away from the tradition of earlier Latin chroniclers by selecting certain episodes and resolving to write Roman history carptim. 1 Hellanicus could not begin his Atthis at any other point than at the very beginning. As the fragments will show, it is a history of Athens from the earliest times down to his own day. It cannot, therefore, be otherwise than a bulky work. Several fragments refer to a first and a second book. Harpocration once refers to a fourth book (F. 44), but Jacoby emends 0' to o€V'dp

It is often difficult to decide whether certain myths were

210

I Cat. 4- 'Statui res gestas populi Romani carptim, ut quaeque memoria digna videbantur, perscribere.'

211

recounted in mythographical works or in the Atthis or in both-perhaps indeed with variations in different works. Certain myths already discussed in the sections dealing with the mythographic works may have been included in the Atthis also: in particular the myths relating to the part played by Athens in the Trojan War, Among the myths which received fairly exhaustive treatment is the Theseus legend. Theseus may, indeed, have figured in some of the mythographic works as well-in the Atlantis or Troical-but all discussion of this legend has purposely been reserved for this section. Some people might scarcely expect a supposedly historical work to concern itself much with Attic history before the time of Theseus, but it is just this earlier period which offers the greatest opportunities for chronological reconstruction. Ifthe claim of the Athenians to be autochthonous was to be justified, the Atthis would have to go back much further than Theseus, whose reign is, after all, only one generation before the Trojan War. An unsatisfactory note by Harpocration runs as follows: aVT6X(}OVES' OL 'A(}7JvatoL. ... uVT6X(}OVES O€ KUt o'L 'APKClOES rjauv, ws 'EMavtK6 s ~7Jat, Kat Alywf/TUt KUt 87J{3utot (F. 161). Jacoby, deciding that the authority of Hellanicus is invoked only for the Arcadians, assigns this fragment to the mysterious work IIEpt 'APKuOtuS. 2 But the real importance of the fragment is simply that it does show that Hellanicus supported the Athenian claim to be indigenous; Harpocration knew and quoted from the Atthis; and if this work denied the Athenian claim he would certainly have mentioned it in this note. In order to substantiate this claim, then, he should carry Athenian history back as far as the deluge. Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, and Syncellus all refer to Ogygus, who was king in Athens at the time of the deluge, giving Acusilaus as their authority; and Africanus mentions HellaniI Jacoby refers some of the fragments dealing with the Theseus legend to the Troica-e.g. F. 143. 2 The only evidence for this work is F. 37-Schol. Ap. Rhod. i. 162 livo £laL K7]P£LS, " P.EV' AA£ov ... <> Se €T€POS, 00 p.v7JVOV£V€, fEMavLKos EV TtP n£p' 'ApKaS{as.

Ii"

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

cus among those who followed him, reckoning 1,020 years from this time to the first Olympiad, Uncertain this evidence may be, for the chronicler may mention Hellanicus simply as a typical example of an Attic logographer; but his remarks , , " 0OVOS are worth quo t'tng: I '
of these late chroniclers, untrustworthy though it may be, is not in itself improbable. The general lack of interest in early times, which accompanied the decline of tragedy and mythography and the rise of oratory and philosophy, makes it understandable that the claims to chronological accuracy made by writers like Hellanicus and Acusilaus should soon be forgotten or at least passed over in silence. One thing at any rate is certain: Hellanicus began his Attic history at the very beginning with the legendary king Ogygus. It is not surprising, then, to find that gods and sons of gods playa prominent part in the work. Of the four fragments which refer to the first book one refers to Ares, another to a son of Hephaestus. But a scholiast on the Birds of Aristophanes seems to refer to an earlier fragment than either of these: 'Hellanicus says', he writes, 'that Colainus, who was descended from Hermes, set up a shrine of Artemis Colainis in obedience to an oracle.' I Pausanias, who could not obtain exact information about this shrine, mentions a tradition that Colainus ruled in Athens before Cecrops,2 and this is evidently the Hellanicean version. Elsewhere Pausanias mentions a Messenian tradition that Colainus led some emigrants to found a settlement at Colonides in Messenia, 3 and one may well wonder whether Hellanicus connected Colainus with Messenia, since other fragments reveal a tendency on his part to connect Attic history with Messenia 4 -an appropriate tendency politically, one might think. The list of Athenian kings in Apollodorus 5 begins with Cecrops, and it was evidently exceptional to go back beyond him. There can, however, be no doubt that Hellanicus did so, though one need not believe that he offered any coherent

212

<

'ITLcnEv(Nv70S;

ECP' o~ y'YOVEV apiyas Ka~ 7TPWTOS EV rfi 'ATTLKfi KaTa-

'm. " A pyELWV ' /,-,aULI\EVOVTOS, Q " KI\VUfLOS, 'VOpWVEWS <

\

, 7TpWT7]S " 0 'IIVfL1TLaoos, '<;' fLEXPL

,,

EvofLLuav,

"

ET7J

,

"0

'\"

07TO EV

"A KOVULI\aOS " ' ws LaTOPEL,
- \ <' \)

avvaYETaL XLI\La ELKOGLV ••• TaVTa yap

OL Ta

'AO7]-

vatwv unopovvTES 'E'\M.VLKOS TE Ka~ tPL.\0XOpos oZ TaS 'ATOtoas •••

Equally worthy of mention and much less reliable are the remarks of Africanus and Cyrillus that Hellanicus mentioned Moses, comparing his date with that of Ogygus in Athens and Inachus or Phoroneus in Argos. 2 Evidence of this sort is more likely to arouse one's curiosity than to help in establishing any certain conclusions. It certainly is difficult to understand why no earlier authorities should mention attempts ofHellanicus to establish the chronology of earlier times. But one can perhaps find the explanation in the scepticism about all early history to which Thucydides gives expression in his opening chapter. 3 Thucydides indeed excuses himself from discussing early Greek history on the ground that, so far as he could tell, it contained no events of any importance. This attitude held the field until archaeology proved Thucydides to be wrong. It does not follow, however, that the extreme scepticism of Thucydides was shared by all his literary contemporaries. Indeed, his famous chapter (i. 97) in which he apologizes for the absence of TO fLVOWOES in his history implies that his severe attitude was quite contrary to the prevailing fashion. The taste of a later age rejected Hellanicus as unequal to Thucydides both in literary merit and historical value. But he was evidently a more typical writer of his day than Thucydides; he had, as other fragments show, a liking for bringing chronological order into the remote past; accordingly the evidence EfLvrJu07]uav.

J F. 47a-Mricanus apud Euseb. P.E. x. 10, p. 488D. • F. 47b-Justin. Coho ad Graec. 9; Cyrillus, contra Julian. i, p. 15. 3 i. J 'ni yap 1TpO aVrwv Kat '7(i £TL 1Ta'AalT€pa oa¢wS' I-£EV £VPELV oui XpOVOV 71AfjBoS' aliVVaTa ojv KT)..

J

213

F. 163-Schol. V. Aristoph. Av. 873.

i. 31, 5 'T~V O£ €v MVPPlVOVV'Tl. KOAawtOa a7TO KOAUlvov KaA€La8ul, (sc. ~yo;;J..LaL). YEypa1TTal ()' 1)lil] 1-'01 EV TO 'S li~l-'olS <paval 1TO'uOVS WS Kat 1TpO Tij, apxijs '{1aal>'£1;OVTO Tij, KEKp01TO,· EaTl liE " K6).alvos avlipos ovol-'a 1Tp6TfpOV 1i KEKpO.p '{1aat>'wEv, ws 2

ol MVppLVOVULOL A'YOVO'LV, apgaVTO~. 3 iv. 34, 8 Tn Kopwvalwv OE 7ToAH €O'TI.V OJ..LopOS KOAWvlo€s' ol oE €V'TaiJ8a au M€aa~­ vw! ¢aar.y (IvaL, d""n EK TijS 'ATTtKfjS ayaY£Lv a¢f1s Ko'Aatvov >"€yovur. Ko'Aalvw 8e Kopu8ov

T~V opvLOa EK p.aVT€vp.aTo~ £l~ T~V a1ToLKlav ~y~(]'aaOaL.

'

•

Cf. Kullmer, p. 604. 5 Bib. iii. 14, I K€KpOI/J aVToxBwv, avp.qJVfs £Xwv oWJ1.a av8poS' Kat 8paKOVTOS', TfjS 4

, ATTLKijS' EfJaU[)\EUU£ 1TpWTOS.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

narrative of these very early times. Besides Ogygus· and Colainus, his second book is quoted for another king, Munychus, son of Pantacles, after whom Munychia was named: 1 the story of Hellankus (according to the scholiast on Demos-thenes, who knows of it through the medium of Diodorus) was that the inhabitants of Minyan Orchomenoswere driven out of Boeotia by some invading Thracians, and came to Athens for refuge; King Munychus granted them permission to settle in the place which they afterwards called Munychia in his honour. If Harpocration's reference of this incident to the second book is not a mistake (as, of course, it may be), it follows that it was narrated not in its chronological context but in a digression-at a later stage in the history, when Munychia is mentioned for the first time in the course of the narrative. The Bibliotheca gives the list of Attic kings as follows: 2 Cecrops, Cranaus, Amphictyon, Erichthonius, Pandion, Erechtheus, Cecrops II, Pandion II, Aegeus, Theseus. Now with this list of kings, if a reign is equal to a generation, the chronology which the chroniclers attribute to Hellanicus works out perfectly. According to Africanus, Hellanicus and Philochorus reckoned 1,020 years from the flood (when Ogygus reigned in Athens) to the first Olympiad-this puts the reign ofOgygus as beginning in the year 17g6 B.C. 3 Philochorus,4 whom the chroniclers regard as following Hellanicus, reckoned 18g years from Ogygus to Cecrops, so that Cecrops' reign begins in 1607, as compared with 1581 in the Parian Marble. From Cecrops to Demophon, second successor of Theseus, is eleven generations or (reckoning three generations to the century, as Herodotus does) 367 years, so that Demophon succeeds in 1240. Troy, according to Hellanicus, fell at the beginning of his reign;5 and 1240 seems to be a most suitable date,

800 years before the floruit of Hellanicus and Herodotus, which is the date that Herodotus (ii. 145) seems to regard as likely. Unless Hellanicus accepted this count of eleven generations from Cecrops to Demophon, he could not have made the dates work out right. Hence, ifhe is to be regarded as a successful pioneer in chronological exactitude, it must be admitted that the list in the Bibliotheca is the list of Hellanicus. I At all events a shorter list is impossible. Unfortunately there are only three helpful fragments referring to this period from Cecrops to Theseus. 2 The first refers to the origin of the name of the Areopagus. Suidas gives as one reason for the name 'because this was the spot where Ares planted his spear in the ground in his trial before Poseidon over Halirrothius, whom he killed for attempting to violate Alcippe, his daughter by Agraulus, daughter of Cecrops, as Hellanicus records in his first book'. 3 Apollodorus tells the story in describing the reign of Cecrops,4 whilst the Parian Marble assigns it to the reignofCranaus. 5 Amphictyon, successor of Cranaus, seems to have been in no way remarkable: Apollodorus remarks of him merely that 'after he had

F. 4za-Harpocration, Suidas, Scho!. Dem. xviii. 107a Movvvxla' • ; • T01l"0, Til 'ATT£Kjj. fEMavI,KOS 8£ EV /3' 'A-r8lSos wvop.aaBw. 4nJaiv a1To Movvvxov TtVO, {3aatA€W, TOO IlaVTaKA€ov,. F. 42lJ-Scho!. Dem. xviii. 107b. z iii. 14, 5 ff. 3 There seems no necessity to doubt that Eusebius is correctly interpreting, though not exactly quoting, a statement of Hellanicus. 4 Fr. 8 (FHG. i, p. 385). 5 Cf. p. 187 above. For the length of a generation according to Hellanicus see V. Costanzi, Riv. di storia antica, viii (1904), pp. 348-51. I

1Tapa8aAaau£os EV

21 5

I This conclusion is generally accepted. It is denied by M. Wellmann, de [stro Callimachio, p. 56; B. Niese, Hermes, xxiii, p. 83. For further discussion of the list of kings see C. Frick, Beitriige ;:,ur Chronologie; J. Brandis, De temporum graecorum antiquorum rationibus; A. v. Gutschmid, Kl. Schriften, i, p. 540; A. Schafer, Abriss der Quellenkunde, p. 18; Miiller, FHG. iv, pp. 633-4 (note); V. Costanzi, Riv. di storia antica, viii, pp. 203-17, 343-8; M. Wellmann, Hermes, xlv, PP·554-63· z F. 38-40. F. 41 merely invokes the authority of the first book of.the Atthis for the neuter form Atp.ov, as opposed to the more familiar masculine Alp.o,. 3 F. 38-Suidas s.v. "Ap'~07J III Kai "ApoVtKa 8£Ka.,E'L .. 0 8€ ., Ap1JS E'TTL TWV cpOVWV. 1j O'TI. E1TT}g£ TO 86pv EK€i fV rfi 1TPOS IIoO'£LSwva tnTf:p W

fAAtppo8lov SlK"{J,

07£

J

a1T€K7£LV£V aVrov pLaaap.£vov 'AAKl1T1TTJV 7T]V av-rov I(at

w,

'Aypav>.ov Tij, KlKP01l"0, OvyaTlpa, r/rrJa&v 'EAAavLKo, £v a'. The 'first' book is obviously book i of the Atthis. Note the HeIIanicean etymology-1Tayo, connected with ~yvvp.&. 4 iii. 14, 2. W. Nestle (Neue Jahrbiicher, xix (1907), p. 332), arguing that Aeschylus refers to this story in Eum. 332, thinks the dramatist borrowed it from HeIIanicus-surely a chronological impossibility. 5 Ep. 3 d.tppolJlov TOO Iloa'~07J "Ap'£vovTO, 'A07JvwV Kp[avaJoO. This puts the trial fifty years after the accession of Cecrops. Because Alcippe is granddaughter of Cecrops, KuIImer wants to put the trial in the reign of Amphictyon; but surely the trial should take place when Alcippe is stilI young.

216

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

reigned twelve years he was expelled by Erichthonius', I .and he is probably no more than a stopgap put in to complete the list. Erichthonius, on the other hand, was, according to Hellanicus, son of Hephaestus, and was the first to celebrate the Panathenaea. 2 Apollodorus tells the story of his birth to account for the name Erichthonius, and describes how he was reared by Athena in her precinct on the Acropolis: hence it is very proper that the founding of the Panathenaea should be attributed to him, and much of the story may have been told in the Atthis. The remaining fragment, which refers to the reign of Erechtheus, does not correspond to anything in Apollodorus. Harpocration, supported by Suidas and the Etymologicum Magnum, in a note on ifJopfJaVT€'iov, remarks that according to Andron of Halicarnassus this heroon was named after Phorbas, king of the Curetes, who was killed by Erechtheus; and according to Hellanicus, in the first book of the Atthis, he was a son of Poseidon (F. 40). This Phorbas must be distinguished from the Attic hero Phorbas, charioteer of Theseus, after whom other authorities say that the Phorbanteum was named. 3 But the story of this earlier Phorbas appears in a Euripidean scholiast, perhaps in the form in which Hellanicus told it.4 Eumolpus, the Thracian king, is said to have come to Eleusis to be initiated in the mysteries in the reign of Erechtheus, and the Hellanicean line of succession is given-Erechtheus, Pandion (II), Aegeus, Theseus -omitting, it must be admitted, the name of Cecrops II. Eumolpus fought for the Eleusinians in their war with Athens, and was killed, Kal. aMot 8uo Vtol. [Jou€t8wvo<; Trapa TOU ' Ep€-

Apollodorus describes the Eleusinian War without any mention of Phorbas, but there is another event of the reign of Erechtheus which he describes in common with Hellanicus: the trial and banishment by the Areopagus of Cephalus for accidentally killing his wife Procris, the king's daughter. I It appears from two scholia on the Orestes of Euripides that Hellanicus described the four famous trials before the Areopagus: that of Ares for killing Halirrothius,2 of Cephalus for killing Procris, of Daedalus for killing Talos, and .fin.ally the trial of Orestes. Unfortunately one of these schoha IS hopelessly corrupt3 (which is particularly unlucky as the scholiast is quoting the actual words of Hellanicus).' but the second scholion, on line 1651 (F. 16gb), commentmg on the words Trayotutv EV ' ApdotatV summarizes the first thus: EVTav8a TrpWTOV t£EV "Ap1)<; KaL [Jou€t8wv ~y£OvtuavTo' OEUTEPOV 8E t£ETa TPEIS Y€VEa<;
x(Nw<; aIJ'[Jp€(JT)uav EV EK€tVCP Tip TroMt£cp avt£t£aXOVVT€<; Evt£0ATrcp, ifJopfJa<; Kal. ' It£t£apa80<;.

I

Ep'XOOVLOS"

Hq,a,UTov, KaOa q,71uLV EMav'KoS" Tf Ka. AvSpoTLWV, fKaTfpoS" fV a 'AT8l8oS'. 7TpO TOUTOV 8E' A8~val,a £KaJ..£LTO WS 8£81j;\WK£V" Ia-rpoS' EV y' TWV' ATTLKWV. 0

J

See Roscher's Lexicon, s.v. Phorbas (3) and (4). Cf. Pherecydes F. 152 and Jacoby's note. 4 Schol. Eur. Phoen. 854, quoted in Jacoby's note on F. 40. See also Schol. T. Iliad xviii. 483. 3

2

Cf. F. 38.

TijS" 'OPEUTOV Kp{UfWS" £V 'Apf{'!' 1I"&.Y,!, lcrrop€t Kat (EMaVLKOS' TaVTa yprfq,wv· u Tots EK AaK£OaLJLOvoS' {A8ouat Kat TqJ , OpEam ai ' A8T/vaLot * * * £cPpaaav. TlAOS' Sf ap,¢OT€pWV €1Tar,VOVV7WV 01 'A81}vaiot. T~V SlKfJV EVEoTTJaav, EVVEa Y€VE'aLS VOT€POV ~ T~V" ApE't Kat IIoOE'f.,3wVL 7T£P" 'A}..Lppo8lov SlK7Jv' JLfTa SE T~V KHp&'AOV TOU .171,oVEWS", OUT'S T~V IIpoKpLV T~V 'EpfXOEWS" EXWV 3

I iii. 14, 6. Pausanias tells much the same story (i. 2, 6), but according to Philochorus (ap. Athen. ii. 38e) he is largely responsible for introducing the cult of Dionysus and the custom of mixing wine with water. See Roscher's Lexicon, s.v. Amphiktyon. , 2 F., 39~~arpo,cration, s:v. IIav~8~v~La' ; . . tjr~Y£ a£ ~v (?rn;~V 7TP~TO~

Bib. iii. 15, I. F. I6ga-Schol. Eur. Or. 1648

21 7

1I"fpt

l.e '

yvv«'iKa Kat a1TOKTf:lvas ApE'lov '1Tayov 3lK7Jv [WS' 8tKaaBE'IS] Eq;VY£l'J;g y€v£aiS' VUTfpOV. JLfTa SE T~V .1a<S&.AOIl SlK71V T&'AW TOV dSfAq,'SOUV uoq,{aS" 1I"EP' dywv.~o­ jL£VOV a7TOKT£lvav-roS' 8o'\6€VTL OaVc1.Tcp Kat ,pvy6VTOS 8lKTJV 'Tpl,Gt y£v£ais VG'TE"pOV avT'T} ~ TijS" KAlJTa'fLv.]uTpaS" TijS" TlIVS&.pfW ' AyaJLEJLvova d1l"oKT£L~aU71S". S{K71 V1I"0 : 0PEUTOV

£yEvETO." Such is the text as given by Jacoby. For dIscussIOn see KIrchhoff,

Hermes, viii, pp. 184-90, and Schwartz's edition of the scholia. 4 Cf. RE. viii. 140. 4515

Ff

218

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

one,1 the trial of Cephalus, said to be three generations after the first trial, belongs to the reign of Erechtheus, four reigns later. Then the trial of Daedalus will fall under the reign of Aegeus, and that of Orestes in the reign of Demo phon, where it belongs. One must not insist that each of the trials be separated by exactly one hundred years, or even that the fourth trial be placed exactly three hundred years after the first. It is possible, however, to arrive at a satisfactory, though by no means certain, reconstruction of the chronology of Hellanicus, keeping the exact figure of eleven generations equals 36 7 years from the accession of Cecrops to the fall of Troy, and putting the trial of Orestes ten to fifteen years later. A plan will make this clear. Dates are given in years B.C. for the sake of convenience:

that the Athenians should furnish the ship, and that the youths should embark and sail with him carrying no warlike weapon, and that if the Minotaur was killed the penalty should cease.'1

I.

2.

3· 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. g. 10. 1 I.

12.

Cecrops . Cranaus . . trial of Ares and Poseidon Amphictyon (short reign). Erichthonius. Pandion. Erechtheus trial of Cephalus Cecrops II. Pandion II. Aegeus trial of Daedalus Theseus. Menestheus fall of Troy Demophon trial of Orestes

. accession 1607 c. 1550

2 19

The more familiar story which Plutarch tells before mentioning the version of Hellanicus is that ~h~se~s offer~d himself as a victim of his own accord, and It IS mterestmg to see that Hellanicus denies him the credit for this act of selfsacrifice. The{e is no other allusion to Hellanicus in the story of Theseus and the Minotaur; but there are several allusions to Pherecydes and Philochorus, showing that there were many different versions of the tale. Among the episodes of Theseus' youth one would expect to find the rape of Helen. But Plutarch records: "rj81J 8e " , . WS' , 't'1JUtV -I. 'E'"IV\UVtKOS', ' " t TU\ 7TEpt\ T1JV \ 7TEv-n}KOVTU E'T1} YEYOVWS', E7TpUSE 'EMV7Jv, OU KU()' WpUV."2 And more striking still is the scholion on Lycophron 513 '(F. I 68b) : CP1JUI, 8e 0 'EMavtKoS' E7T'Taerfj , ,\ co' A c;, \ , , , 8 oouuv 'EAEV7JV Up7TUY1JVUt V7TO
U~V TETDKVtUV rryv 'IcptYEvnuv,

lines

~

()~

which reiterates the notes on

. c. 1440.

yap TUV'T1}V 7TPWTOV ap7TauuS' B1JUEVS' /LETa TO TEKEtV eg uVTfjS' 'IcptYEVEtUV cicprIPE()1J UVT~V and 143 7TPWTOS' B1JUEVS' E7TTUETfj TUV'T1}V ap7TauuS', Ku()a CP1JUtV JoiJptS' 0 Ea/LtoS'. This version

c. 1330.

was evidently adopted by Hellanicus, if not invented by him, simply because Theseus belongs to the generation before Helen and chronological accuracy had to be preserved even at the 'expense of tradition. His account is given more in full by the note of a Homeric scholiast:

12 4 0 •

c.1230-1225.

For the story of Theseus Plutarch refers several times to Hellanicus, evidently regarding him and Andron as two of the most important authorities. How much of the story Plutarch may have taken from Hellanicus without acknowledgement it is useless to speculate. But Hellanicus told the story of Theseus .and the Minotaur with such additions as a real historian might be able to add as a result of some inquiry: 'Hellanicus says that the city did not send its young men and maidens by lot, but that Minos himself used to come and pick them out, and that he now pitched upon Theseus first of all, following the terms agreed upon; and he says the agreement was I Ap. Bib. iii. 14,6 (only twelve years). Cf. also Marm. Par. Ep. 10, which reckons an event in the reign of Erichthonius only 76 years after the accession ofCecrops.

102 E7TTUETfj

'As Hellanicus tells the story, Peirithous and Theseus, the one being the son of Zeus, the other of Poseidon, made an agreement to marry the daughters of Zeus; and carrying off Helen when she was still very young (KOf'tSij vlav) , they entrusted he: to Aethra, daughter of Pittheus and mother of Theseus, at Aphldna in Attica. Then they went down to Hades for Persephone. But the Dioscuri, when their sister was not restored to them, ravaged Attica and took Aethra prisoner.'3

Plutarch does not refer to Hellanicus in describing any of the political institutions of Theseus, except his institution I F. 164-Plut. Theseus 17 (trans. B. Perrin, Loeb edition). • F. 168a-Plut. Theseus 31. 3 F. 1 34-Schol. A. Iliad iii. 144.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

of the Isthmian games, about which he knew several different accounts. The foundation by Theseus of an Isthmian festival in honour of Poseidon is compared with the foundation of the Olympic festival by Heracles in honour of Zeus ; I and although Hellanicus is not cited expressly for this comparison, he probably did emphasize it, because, as the remaining fragments will show, he seems to have represented Theseus as an Athenian counterpart of Heracles :

names; so that Hellanicus had opportunity enough to indulge his taste for etymology. Thus Plutarch cites Hellanicus for five events in the career of Theseus: the Minotaur episode, the founding of the Isthmian games, the expedition against the Amazons, the victory in Attica over the Amazons, and the rape of Helen. The epitome of Apollodorus, it should be noted, does not seem to be following Hellanicus very closely in its account of these episodes; probably, then, its description of the other exploits of Theseus affords no clue to his narrative. The words of Plutarch, however, show that Hellanicus told the story of Theseus in some detail. F or the historical period after Theseus the evidence of the fragments is very meagre indeed. Harpocration refers four times to the second book: we learn that this book contained an account of the hierophants at Eleusis, I and possibly of the tribal organization of Cleisthenes;2 that Munychia and a heroon of Stephanephorus were mentioned (F. 42, 46); and Pegae, in the Megarid, received mention somewhere in the fourth book, if Harpocration's quotation is correct. 3 Harpocration also refers to Hellanicus in his note on 'Epv8pa'iot (F. 48)-'Erythra, a city in Ionia, one of those founded by Neleus, son ofCodrus, according to Hellanicus in the 'Ar8Lo€s-.' But there are no references at all to Draco, Solon, the Peisistratids, or any of the famous episodes of the sixth century. The Atthis must have included some account of the history of these times, but there is absolutely no trace to be found of this portion of the work. The loss of this section is unfortunate, because it would be most valuable to the historian and the critic of Herodotus. The lack of citations from this section is also instructive, showing as it does how later writers were prepared to accept the verdict of Herodotus without

220

'But some say that the Isthmian games were instituted in honour of Sciron, and that Theseus thus made expiation of his murder, because of the relationship between them ... for Sciron was a son of Canethus and Henioche, who was the daughter of Pittheus. And others have it that Sinis, not Sciron, was their son, and that it was in his honour rather that the games were instituted by Theseus. However that may be, Theseus made a formal agreement with the Corinthians that they should furnish Athenian visitors to the Isthmian games with a place of honour as large as could be covered by the sail of the state galley which brought them thither, when it was stretched to its full extent. So Hellanicus and Andron of Halicarnassus have it.'2

Theseus again challenges comparison with Heracles by his expedition against the Amazons, which, according to Plutarch, Hellanicus described: 'He also made a voyage into the Euxine Sea, as Philochorus and sundry others say, on a campaign with Heracles against the Amazons, and received Antiope as a reward of his valour; but the majority of writers, including Pherecydes, Hellanicus, and Herodotus, say that Theseus made this voyage on his own account after the time of Heracles, and took the Amazon captive; and this is the more probable story. For it is not recorded that anyone else who shared his expedition took an Amazon captive.'3

Hellanicus also described how the Amazons invaded Attica, crossing the frozen Cimmerian Bosporus and actually encamping within the city.4 Plutarch regards certain placenames in Attica as evidence of events in this war, and probably the story originated from an attempt to explain these Theseus 2S. 2 F. 16s-Theseus 2S, 4-S. F. 166-Theseus 26. 4 F. I 67a-Theseus 27; F. 167b-Schol. Lyc. 1332; F. 167c-Tz. Posthomerica p. 7 Schirach. ' I

3

I

221

F. 4s-Harp. s.v. '!Epoq,aVTTJS' ••• 1TEP' O£ 'TOU "lvous 'TOU {Epoq,aVTwv

OEO~'\WKEV

'E'\'\av'Kos

EV

f3'

'A'Tl)t80s.

F. 43-Harp. S.V. ' A,\01TTJ' ••• KEPKUOVOS l)uya'TTJp E~ ,?S Ka, llOUELOWVOS '[~o I)' , - '1 I) 'O.J. \ - " , 'E'\\' , 'R"A • ,OWV ? TTJ: ~ 7r1TO, owvn~os 'f'VI\1J~ £7rC:vvp.os,:vS" .... l\I\avLKoS",TfE £v f.I ,T1)'0 LOOS' Kat 2

Evp,mOTJS

EV

'Tep OJLWVVJLep /lpara'TL Ka' ,,1 ELV~PXOS

EV; 'TV

/l,~/l'K.aa,~ ~a,\,TJPEW,V.

•

F. 44-Harp. s.v. llTJ"at· ••• 'T01TOS EV ME"apoLS, WS EV /l 'TTJS A'TI),/los
222

question, except in dealing with the Persian Wars, where his contemporaries frequently differed from him. Even Thucydides has no remarks to make about Hellanicus' account of the sixth century, contenting himself with correcting some inaccuracies of Herodotus. I There are, however, three incidents of the Peloponnesian War for which the authority of Hellanicus is cited. Plutarch, in describing the prosecutions which followed the mutilation of the Hermae in Athens, mentions, as one of those involved, 'the orator Andocides, whom Hellanicus the historian reckoned as one of the descendants of Odysseus'. Z Suidas also speaks of Andocides as a 'descendant of Telemachus, son of Odysseus, and Nausicaa, as Hellanicus says';3 whilst a Homeric scholion cites Hellanicus as an authority for the marriage of Telemachus and Nausicaa. 4 But to see the point of this ancestry one must refer to the Lives of the Ten Orators (attributed to Plutarch); the Life of Andocides begins thus (F. I 7oa): 'AVDOK{D1]' AEWYOPOV JLEV -ryv 7TaTpo, (TOU 'AVDOK!SOV) TOU BEJL'VOV 7TOTE 7TPO, AaKEDatfLov{oV, Elpr]v1]v 'AB1]va{ot" TWV Dr]JLWV DE KVDaBr]vaw, ~ BOPEV" y'vov, ElJ7TaTptDWV, D' 'E>.Ao.VtKO, Ka~ a7To 'EpJLou' KaBr]KEt yap EL, aVTOV TO K1]PVKWV y'vo,. Dto Ka~ 7TpOEXEtp{uB1] 7TOTE JLETa rAavKwvo, aVv vavu~v ELKOUt KEpKvpa{Ot, {301]Br]uwv DtacpEpoJL'VOt, 7TPO, KopwB{ov, (then follows an account

w,

of his part in the Hermae episode). The text of this passage and the accuracy of its statements have often been disputed,S but lengthy discussion is unnecessary here. Thucydides in i. 51 mentions Andocides, son of Leogoras (whom some critics take to be not the orator but his grandfather), as one of the commanders of the ships sent to Corcyra, but because his -name does not appear in the inscription recording Athenian e.g. in the account of Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Alcibiades 21-F. 170b. 3 F. 170c-Suidas, s.v. 'AVOOKtO,]s. 4 F. 156-Schol. Eust. Odyssry xvi. 118 ' Ap,u-rOT€>',]S 0' £V ' IlJaK7]atwv llO>"T"q. Ka~ tEMavtKOS S€ TTJAlf.!axov cpaat. NaVac,Kaav yijl-'al. T~V ' AAKI.VOOV Kat y€VVijaal. 'TOV ll'pa€-,r-ro>',v. Is this merely a reference to the Atthis or to some portion of the Troica dealing with the return of Odysseus? 5 See Jacoby's note on F. 170. Probably the parenthesis KalJ..jKn yap .ls av...ov TO K']PVKWV y€VOS should not be attributed to Hellanicus. Cf. also Blumental, Hellanicea, p. 22, who wants to refer this F. to the Atlantis, Hermes being son of the AtIantid Maea, and Jacoby in RE. viii. 117. 1

2

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

223

expenses for this campaign, I this statement is suspect. Z The inscription, however, does not prove Thucydides wrong (for Thucydides does not say he was a UTpaT1]Yo,), and if he could claim Corcyrean ancestry by representing himself as a descendant of Nausicaa, he was certainly a suitable person to be sent on a mission of this sort.3 Evidently this is what Hellanicus pointed out, using his taste for genealogy to explain what was perhaps a curious appointment-particularly curious if this Andocides was either the orator (who would have been too young) or his grandfather (who would have been too old). The story of his relationship to Hermes is probably to be connected with what Timaeus said about Hermocrates the Sicilian: that he was descended from Hermes on his father's side, so that the failure of the Athenian expedition to Sicily, after their mutilation of the Hermae, was inevitable. 4 The remaining two incidents belong to the archons hip of Antigenes (407-406), and were evidently narrated towards the end of the Atthis. The scholiasts on Aristophanes cite the authority of Hellanicus first for the enfranchisement of the slaves who fought at Arginusae, secondly for the minting of a gold coinage in the year when Antigenes was archon. s The difficulties and implications of the first of these two scholia have already been discussed, but one important detail remains to be pointed out. The scholiast says that Hellanicus described the enfranchisement of these slaves DtEgtWV TO. E7T~ 'Avny'vov,: is this evidence enough to justify a statement that he recorded the events of each year separately, naming the archon in each case? The scarcity of fragments dealing with IG. i 2 • 295; Tod, Gk. Hist. Inscriptions, no. 55. See, e.g., Marchant's edition of book i, note ad loc., and Tod, loco cit. (where an explanation of the error is suggested). 3 Jacoby ingeniously suggests that Andocides was sent 'als eine Art Zivilkommissar urn seiner genealogischen Verbindung mit Korkyra willen'. Cf. also Boeckh, Kl. Schriften. vi, p. 75 (A. as a naval expert not holding official rank), and Hicks, Gk. Hist. Inscriptions, no. 41 ('A. the orator unofficially attached to the expedition'). 4 [Anon.] De Sublim. iv. 5 F. 17 I -Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 694 (706 Dindorf) TO,)S C1VVVavl'ax..JaaVTas oov>.ovs 'E>'>'clY'K(" o/ria,Y £>'.vlJ.pwlJfjva, Kat £'Y'Ypa",€VTas ,os ll>'aTat".,..vaaalJa, av...ois, Ot<~'WY TO. £-rrt 'AVT'Y€YOVS TOV <-rrpo> Ka>.>.tov. F. I 72-Schol. V. Ran. 720 (732 Dindorf) T0 -rrpOT€Pcp 'Tn £-rrt ' AVT'Y€YOVS 'E>'>'clY'KOS "'']C1t xpvaovy YOI'Lal'a 1

2

K07rijvaL. Kat

CP,>"oXopos ofLoiws TO EK TWV

xpvawv

N'KWV.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

historical times makes it impossible to answer this question decisively; but the criticism of Thucydides must make any one reluctant to believe that Hellanicus adopted this system for the Pentecontaetia, whatever method he may have used for the closing period of the Peloponnesian War. 1 Owing to the lack of fragments dealing with important historical episodes, the chief interest of the Atthis should be in its chronological method. For the early period it is evident that Hellanicus adopted the system of measuring by generations, and to make his calculations work out correctly he adopted his favourite device of introducing new names and duplicating familiar ones in order to lengthen the list of kings. The combined evidence of the Christian chroniclers and Alexandrian mythographers enables us to see quite clearly how he organized his account of early Athenian history, from the beginning to the time of the Trojan War. For his chronology of the later kings and earlier archons there is no evidence at all. When archons were elected annually, there was no longer any possibility of reckoning by generations; except in cases where one family retained a prominent position for several generations (as the Alcmaeonidae did), the old system of chronology was useless. Hence the confusion which makes it impossible to reconstruct accurately Athenian history in the seventh and sixth centuries. Evidently no records were kept in Athens, and Hellanicus had no documents to which he could refer to verify the dates of events. Certain events, of course, like the accession of Peisistratus, the archons hip of Cleisthenes, and the great battles of the Persian Wars, were associated with definite dates, and the tendency was to date other events so many years before or after one of these events. Even in the Pentecontaetia it seems that no exact records were kept: how else could there be uncertainty about such incidents as the battle of Eurymedon and the peace of Callias? There is nothing to show that the Atthis had any definite

system for the seventh and sixth centuries and the Pentecontaetia. Thucydides in his first book rarely dates an event by the name of an archon, I and his chronology is probably in no way more accurate than that of Hellanicus. It is only with the opening of book ii that exactness becomes possible:

224

I Jacoby remarks (note on F. 171-2): 'An der Datierung nach Archonten in der •AT(){S ist nicht zu rutteln. Dass H. die vollstandige Liste gab, ist damit nicht unbedingt gesagt. Aber der Ausdruck des Scholiasten macht Chronikform mindestens fur den historischen Teil wahrscheinlich.' Cf. Niese, Hermes, xxiii, p. 82.

225

'The thirty years truce, which was entered into after the conquest of Euboea, lasted fourteen years. In the fifteenth, in the forty-eighth year of the priestess-ship of Chrysis at Argos, in the ephorate of Aenesias at Sparta, in the last month but two of the archonship of Pythodorus at Athens, and six months after the battle of Potidaea, just at the beginning of spring, a Theban force ... made an armed entry into Plataea.'2

So also Hellanicus, when he reached events of his own time, was on a sure enough footing, and when he reached events which had taken place after the time that he had embarked on his history, he was capable of dating them with real exactness and thought it worth while to do so. The wording of the scholiast, therefore, which describes him as 'narrating the events in the archonship of Antigenes', must not be taken as evidence for the character of earlier portions of the Atthis. In another work, however, The Priestesses of Hera in Argos, he made an attempt to work out a chronological system over a long period. But if this work had been at all helpful in clearing up the chronology of the Pentecontaetia, Thucydides could hardly have passed it by.

The Priestesses of Hera in Argos The Carneonicae I. The Priestesses The evidence for the existence of this important work is confined to two authors, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Stephanus of Byzantium. The '!EpHat or '!EpHat "Hpa, at EV "ApYH, to give the fullest form of the title, is twice quoted by Dionysius and as many as ten times QY Stephanus, who helps us to assign his quotations to their proper chronological context by always quoting the number of the book. He quotes from three books of the Priestesses, and since his quotation from the third book appears to refer to an incident of the year 429,3 I

2

4515

Cf. e.g. 13, 2-3, 18, for dates; for their absence g8-g. ii. 2. 3 F. 83. See below.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

there can scarcely have been more than three books: It is generally admitted to be one of the later works ofHellanicus, though there is nothing to show that it is as late as the Atthis; when Thucydides dates an incident in his own lifetime by referring to the Argive priestess,1 it does not follow that he is taking the information from Hellanicus. Though Jacoby is prepared to state that it was not published till 423 (on the ground that Thucydides takes from ithis date for the burning of the temple of Hera in Argos and the flight of the priestess Chrysis in iv. 133),2 a more certain terminus post quem is provided by the note of Stephanus on Chaonia (F. 83): v' , - 'R ' , v' 'E'"lV\aVLKOS , .<1.aOVLa· p..€aTJ TT]S 7T€LpoV' OL" OLKT]TOP€S .<1.aov€s· 'J,€p€LWV - "Rpas y '•t t 'A J-Lf3 paKLWTaL - KaL" " v' OL p..€T aVTWV .<1.aov€s KaL, 'H7T€LpWTaL." This phrase must refer to the campaign in Ambracia of 429, which Thucydides begins to describe in the following words (ii. 80): TO;; S' aUTO;; 8EPOVS (429), 013 7T0'\'\0 VaT€pOV TOVTWV, 'Ap..7TpaKLwTaL Ka~ Xaov€s {30vAOp..€VOL 'A KapvaVLav "~ '.1. 8aL KaL"A8T]vaLWV ' , TTJV 7Taaav KaTaaTp€",aa a7ToaTfjaaL

y€vluOaL Toil 7ToAtUJ-LaToS' Xatpwva." ToilTOV Sol J-LVOoAoyoiluLV 'A7TOAAWVOS' Ka~ BT}poilS', wS' 'EAAaVLKoS' €V {J' 'I€p€(wv 'HpaS' * * * " 'AOT}vaLoL Ka~ (Ot) J-LET' Ulhwv €7T~ TOOS' 'OPXOJ-L€vt~oVTaS' TWV BOLWTWV €7TEPXO\X ' 1\ '0PX0J-L€VLWV ,? \". , ~ 0,"," T} 7TOI\LS' ,\ J-LE~~L KaL ~L~WVE:av 7TOI\LV HI\OV. EKal\€LTO KaL ApVTJ TO apxawv. I

7T€t80vaL i1aK€SaLp..ovtovs VaVTLKOV

T€

7TapaaK€Vaaaa8aL KTA.

Since this is the only reference to the third book, Kullmer 3 argues that this book was concerned only with the Peloponnesian War, and refers some of the fragments from the second book to incidents of the Pentecontaetia. The difficulty about this hypothesis is that some fragments of the second book actually refer to mythical times ('the third generation before the Trojan War, when Alcyone was in her twenty-sixth year as priestess in Argos' (F. 79b)), and it is difficult to understand how a comprehensive chronological work, covering less than a thousand years altogether, should crowd the most important six hundred years into the second book. Accordingly one more readily accepts the verdict of Wilamowitz, 4 whomJ acoby follows in printing Stephanus' note on XaLpc..)V€La (F. 81) as follows: 7ToALS' 7TpbS' TOLS' OpOLS'
227

Kullmer, denying the lacuna, follows Niese in thinking Hellanicus is being cited for the Athenian campaign in Boeotia of 44 7; but Stephanus cites him as an authority for the parentage of Chaeron, and in any case another verb is needed before 'A8T]va'ioL. This last citation is probably from another historian, possibly Theopompus, and a line has been lost in the manuscript of Stephanus. 2 As many critics have often pointed out, there is nothing particularly 'Argive' about the work of Hellanicus. He adopted his system of dating events presumably because the list of Argive priestesses went back much further than any other list of officials, doubtful though its historical value might be for early times. To what extent he merely copied from the official list and to what extent he made calculations of his own it is impossible to decide. We learn nothing about his chronological method from fragments that derive the name of Macedonia from a son of Aeolus,3 Nisaea from Nisus (even though a quotation from the second book seems to allude to its capture by Minos),4 and Phaeacia from Phaeax, son of Poseidon and Corcyra, 5 except that the first book was concerned with mythical times. The fragments from the second book are more interesting, I Muller prints without showing a lacuna, but comments 'plura excidisse videntur'. 2 For further discussion see Niese, Hermes, xxiii, p. 87; O. Muller, Orchomerws, PP·4 1 0- 1 1. 3 F. 74-Steph. Byz. s.v. MaKESovia (Const. Por. De Them. ii, p. 48)·..j xwpa. 0.110 MUK£o6vos TO;; Lhc)s- Kai Bulas TfjS L1€vKaAlwvos, ws CP1]UtV 'Halo~)Os ... ti,\.\OI. 0' anD MaK€OOvoS' TOU Al6Aov~ W~ fEAAtiVLKOS fI£pnwv 1TPWTTl TWV £v ApY£L' Kat MaKESOvos (TOU) Al';AOU. (aq,') ov vuv MaKESov£S KaAOUVTa£, p.ovo£ p.ETa Muawv It

,

TOT£.

4

"...

OLKOVVT£~.

H

""

F. 75, 78-Id. s.v. N{aa£a' £TrivEWV MeyapiSos· Kat

Toil IIav3lovos' fEAAo.vl.KOS £v fI£.p£l,wy a'· Kat £V Tn {J'. TOY IIavoLovos Kat. M£.yap€a TOV 'OYX7}O"TLOV. n

U

alrr~..j

MEyap{s' aml Niaou

Kat. Nlaal.o.v T" £.lA£ Kat. N'iaov

5 F. 77- Id . S.V. <1>a{a~ Kat <1>a£aK{a' aTrO <1>a{aKOS' 'EA.\cJ.V£KOS 'IEpaIag .; IIoanSwvos Kat KEpdpas TijS 'Aaw1TiSos, aq,' 1}S ..j vijaos KEpKupa £KA~87j. TO Trptv JpE1TCiV1] TE Kat EXEpia KA7jIMaa." There remains F. 76 EiTruAos' TrOA£S <1>puyias. 'EilAav£Kos' IEpE£wv a'.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

particularly those which are concerned with the colonization of Sicily. Naturally they challenge comparison with the digression on early Sicilian history at the beginning ofThucydides' sixth book, and although, where evidence is so scanty, it would be foolish to insist that Thucydides is making use of the material in the Priestesses, it is at least extremely likely that he did so. The fragments are worth quoting in full. Dionysius of Halicarnassus I describes how the Sicels were gradually driven into the southern parts of Italy by the Pelasgians and Aborigines, where they constructed rafts and crossed over to Sicily; Sicily was at that time known as Sicania from the Sicani who lived there, an Iberian tribe driven from their native country by the Ligurians; since the Sicani were not numerous enough to occupy all the island, the Sicels had no difficulty in settling in the western regions, whence they gradually spread over all the island and caused it to be renamed Sicelia after themselves. 'In this way, as Hellanicus of Lesbos describes, the Sicels left Italy two generations before the Trojan War (rplrTJ YEVEij. 7Tp6rEpov rwv TPWtKWV), during the twenty-sixth year of the priestess-ship of Alcyone in Argos. Hellanicus reckons two Italian migrations to Sicily: the earlier migration of the Elymi, who, he says, were driven out by the Oenotrians, and the migration of the Ausonians, fleeing from the Iapygians in the fifth year after this one; and he mentions Sicelus as king of these people, after whom the people and the island were named.'

Another fragment from Stephanus shows that Hellanicus carried his history of Sicilian colonization further. In his note on the Euboean city of Chalcis he first quotes Hecataeus for the name and its derivation, and then quotes from the second book of the Priestesses: 'Theocles from Chalcis with the Chalcidians and Naxians founded a city (or cities) in Sicily.'1 And again he quotes Hellanicus, without giving any book title, for the derivation of Gela. 2 After reading these fragments it is interesting to turn to the opening chapters of Thucydides, book vi. One must grant that the account ofDionysius is tinged by his familiarity with Thucydides, to whose account he refers briefly at the end of the chapter, mentioning some of its peculiarities. But the actual language ofThucydides, with its occasional references to unnamed authorities, recalls passages in Herodotus where the author is quoting from Hecataeus. His account is not by any means identical with that of Hellanicus, and is indeed closer to the account of Antiochus of Syracuse;3 one would expect him to be familiar with more than one work on the subject. The earliest inhabitants are said to be Cyclopes and Laestrygonians, 'whose origin I cannot state for certain, neither whence they came nor where they went' -dpKE{rw OE

Better still is the quotation of Stephanus, also given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus: 2 'The island was formerly called Sicania, and afterwards rena~ed Sicelia, as Hellanicus describes in the second book of the Priestesses of Hera: "About the same time the Ausonians, ruled over by king Sicelus, were driven out of Italy by the Iapygians, and crossing over to Sicily, which was then called Sicania, they settled around Mount Etna, making their home there, and their king Sicelus established a kingdom; and from that beginning this Sicelus became master over all the island, which came to be known as Sicelia after this Sicelus who in fact established his kingdom there.'"

£KlI~OTJ 8£ amI K6fL{3TJ<; Tij<; XalIKL8o<; KalIoufLEV7J<;, OuyaTpo<; , AC1W1TOV ... Kat TO 07]Avl(ov op.dJVvp.ov Tfi 1ToA£" WI
A.R. i. 22-F. 79b . z F. 79a-Steph. Byz. s.v. l}'KE>.ta (Const. Por. de Them. ii, p. 58). I

229

~ ...." , f" I I " ws 7TOtTJrats TE etpTJra, Ka, ws EKaaros 7TT/ y'yvwaKft 7TEP' aVTWV.

Then come the Sicanians, who claim to be indigenous, WS oE I

F. 82-Steph. Byz. S.v. XallKL<;' 1T6l1,<; Ev{3oLa<;. 'EKaTaLO> EvpuJ1TT/ ••.

wS

'IEp"wv "Hpa<; {3" " eEOKlIij<; EK XalIKL8o<; fLETa XalIK,OEWV Kat NaeLWV EV l}'K<>.tT/ 1T6l1,v EKT.ta, . •.. KallELTa, o£ a1To 1ToTafLov rlAa J <> 3£ 7To-rap.os o'TL 1TO.u~V 1TaXVTJv 'YE'vv~· TaV'TrjV yap 'Tfj '07TLKWV t/Jwvfi Kai. l}'KElIwv yElIav My
p. 330), where some verses of Tzetzes are quoted for the derivation of Gela from the name of the river Gelas: oin-w, 'El7aq,p6o'TO" ws My«s, ypaq,.. • rElla, EKlI~OTJ

TeP l7aXV7Jv 1TO}..}..~V q,EP"V,

KAfjUl.V £KE'L yap .q 7Tcl)(V'1J 'TaVT"f}V ¢£P£l,. npo~£vo~ Sf: ovv 'Tr,ur,v tiAAOr,S A€y£l, r£AWVO~ av8poS' lK 'Tr,VOS' r£Aav 1TO..\r,V.

o

uvv tEAAavtKcp.

Cf. Muller, FHG. iv, p. 635. 3 FHG. i, pp. 181-3; Schmid, Gr. Literaturgesch. I. ii, p. 704. Jacoby (on F. 79) thinks Antiochus is the source for both Hellanicus and Thucydides.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

T] aA~8Eta EVp{uKE'Tat, they are Iberians driven from their home by the Ligurians; then some of the Trojans, who adopted the name of >lEAup.ot, and some Phocians driven out of their course by a storm on their homeward voyage from Troy; then the Sicels from Italy 'bdfJYJuav ES EtKEAtav o/EVyoV'T.EC;

the curious reference of Dionysius, when telling the strange story of the founding of Rome by Aeneas and Odysseus, to 'the writer who made up the list of priestesses in Argos and the events belonging to the time of each of them'.I It was suggested earlier in this chapter2 that this is in reality a quotation from the Troica, but that since the date of Rome's foundation is in question he mentions the Priestesses in order to show that Hellanicus is a serious authority on chronology; it is as though he said: 'No less an authority on chronology than the distinguished author of the Priestesses says in his other work, the Troica .. .' This seems the most satisfactory way of explaining this curiously indirect reference. Judging by the only fragments which can be referred with certainty to the Priestesses,3 one must conclude that the first book dealt entirely with mythical times, presumably covering much of the same ground as the mythographic works; that the second bridged the gap between mythical and historical times, corresponding chronologically to the Troica, Ctiseis, and the earlier part of the Atthis; whilst the third dealt with historical times, including some part of the Peloponnesian War.

230

'07TtK01JC;, ws p.Ev elKOS Kat MYE'Tat, E7Tt OXE'buvv, 'T7}p~UaV'TES 'TOV 7TOp()P.OV KanOV'TOS 'TOV av€p.ou, 'TaXa av 'bE Kat rows 7TWS EU7TAEVUaV'TES. I

The chief difference from Hellanicus is in the matter of chronology. According to Hellanicus the Elymi, driven out by Oenotrians, crossed over from Italy at least two generations before the Trojan War.2 Thucydides brings them over, to be followed at an unstated interval by the Sicels, shortly after the fall of Troy; and he remarks later in the chapter that the settlement of the Sicels was 'about three hundred years before Greeks came to Sicily'. Then come the Greek settlers: the Chalcidians from Euboea led by Thoucles (Hellanicus has the uncontracted form Theocles), but no date is given for their arrival, except that it is in the year before the foundation of Syracuse. 3 The events that follow, however, are all dated exactly. He gives no authority for these dates, and indeed in his whole account of the Greek settlements in Sicily never even suggests that there is any doubt at all or any difference of opinion. In this dating one may suspect the hand of Hellanicus, who without doubt described these migrations and dated them according to the years of Argive priestesses. 4 Antiochus of Syracuse, the only other likely source, is never credited with dating any event at all. The only other reference to the Priestesses which remains for discussion, apart from the geographical fragments,S is I

•

VI. 2.

~f. F. 7~b ~dfin.-;Antiochus F~. 1 ~MU!ler) 'AVT{O~OS liE ~ l:v pa,K01Ja.as x~6vov p..v ov li"lAO' T"IS li,afJaa.ws, l:'K.AOVS li. TOVS p..Tavaa-raVTas a7To.pa,v£' fJ,aaOEVTas •

2

8' (MSS. O'TpaTwv) TjYEJL6va rij~ a1TOc.KLas 7ro'''Iaap.'O{, driven out by 'U7rI'Y's. (2) Antiochus: l:'K.AO{ driven out by OiVWTPO' and '07r'KO{ (= Avaov£S). Fr. 8. (3) Thucydides: l:'K.>'O{ driven out by ·07T
T£

Olvw'TpwV Kat '07TLKWV, 2TpaTwva

231

II. The Carneonicae About the Carneonicae, which, to judge by its name, should be a list of the victors at the Carnea, the national Spartan festival in honour of Apollo, our information is too meagre to justify much discussion. The most interesting of the three references to it is a remark of Athenaeus: 'And here is something to prove that Terpander, too, is older than Anacreon: he is the first of all to win the victory at the Carnea, as Hellanicus records in the metrical Carneonicae and also in the prose version.'4 Despite the testimony of Suidas that migration. But none of these fragments gives any useful information about the Priestesses. I Dion. Hal. A.R. i. 72-F. 84. 2 p. Ig2. 3 Others which some are inclined to refer to this work are F. 101, 1 IS, 116, IS2, 188. 4 xiv. 63SE-F. 8sa OT< liE Kat T
HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

Hellanicus did write some verse, the general opihion of earlier critics was that the metrical arrangement of the Carneonicae was made some time after the death of the author, perhaps in Alexandrian times, I so that it would be easier to learn the list by heart. Jacoby, however, points out that such prejudice is groundless, and indeed that 'the metrical adaptation is simply a sign of the extent to which Hellanicus was affected by the sophists' method of appealing to the public'. 2 However this may be, it is hard to feel much interest in a work about which all we know is that it made Terpander the first Carnean victor in the time ofMidas,J and attributed to Arion the invention of KVKAtot xopo[.4

the labour. Jacoby has pointed out how in the mythographic works Hellanicus organized the genealogy so that all heroes were traced back to four principal ancestors. I His reputation as a mythographer depends on his ability to organize and arrange a collection of legends. The bulk of the fragments come from the mythographic works, which seem to have been more generally known than either his ethnographic or chronographic writings. The conclusion which this fact suggests is clear enough. As an historian he was superseded, to some extent by Thucydides, but completely so by the fourth-century writers of universal histories, such as Ephorus and Theopompus, and the authors of Atthides, of whom Philochorus was perhaps the best known. Ifhe was superseded by these historical writers, one might suppose that his mythographic works would likewise have been superseded by the Alexandrian handbooks. But the ancients always felt greater respect for an earlier authority on matters of mythology, and so his reputation continued among those who took mythography seriously. On the other hand, writers of the class whom one would expect to take more interest in his historical work-Strabo, for example, or Josephus-had no patience with my thographic experts, and were seriously prejudiced against Hellanicus because of his reputation among students of mythology. One can well imagine, therefore, that the historical works ofHellanicus appealed more particularly to those who cared little for Thucydides because of the absence of TO p,v(}Wo€<; in his history. Such people, though they may have been very numerous, are not of the kind whose opinions and tastes have been extensively preserved in extant Greek literature.

Conclusion With the Carneonicae this consideration of the works of Hellanicus must come to an end. There are a few fragments in Jacoby's collection to which no allusion has been made in the previous pages, but impossibility of determining their context renders any discussion of them useless. His main interest without a doubt is in genealogy and chronology, and he is in all probability one of the earliest writers to treat these two studies as complementary to one another. A patient and sanguine investigator might be able to work out a complete Hellanicean scheme by which all events of mythical times are put in their place and all genealogies made to harmonize with one another. But this could not be done without continually filling the gaps by conjecture, and it is doubtful whether the result would justify I Muller (FHG. i, p. xxix) suggests that Hell. used as a basis for his work a list of the victors written in hexameter verse, and then commented on it in prose. He adds in a footnote: 'Eadem ratione in Sacerdotibus egisse putari potest propter illud Tzetzae " A{afJws 'E>J.o.vLKos adl5£< (F. 152b; cf. above, p. 187). Verum non magni hoc faciendum esse bene scio.' 2 RE. viii. 143. 3 F. 85b---Clem. Alex. Strom. i. xxi, 131,6 val /L~v Kal Tlp7ravl5pov apxat'ova[ Ttv€S'· fEA'Ao.VLKOS' yovv TOV'TOV IUTopf.'i KaTa MCoav y€yov£vat. 4 F. 86-Schol. V. Aristoph. Av. 1403 ' AVTi7TaTpos 15£ Kal Ev
apxatOT€P0t. tEA)"cJ.VLKOS' Kat. L1 LKa{apxos ' Aplova TOV MT}8vfLva'iov, L1 LKalapxos P.€V EV Tip IIEpl. LltovVatUKc.tJV aywvwv, 'EMaVLKOS S' EV TOtS Kapv£ov{KatSo Kapv£ov{KaLS is a

correction of the MS. reading KapvaLKOtS or Kpava"iKOtS; see Muller, FHG. i, p. xxix.

233

BIBLIOGRAPHY The fragments. F. STORZ. Hellanici Lesbii fragmenta e variis scriptoribus. (Leipzig, 1787; 2nd ed., 1826.) C. and T. MULLER. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (FHG.), i, pp. 45-69, xxiii-xxxiii; iv, pp. 629-37. F. JACOBY. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (F. Gr. Hist.) , i. 4, pp. 104-5 2 , 430--75· I RE. viii. 125-6; but his deductions at the beginning of § 8 go too far. 4515

H

h

234

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

General treatment.

F. JACOBY. Pauly-Wissowa, RE., s.v. Hellanikos, viii. I04-51 (lgI2). H. KULLMER. Die Historiai des Hellanikos von Lesbos: ein &konstruktionsversuch. Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Philologie, Supp. xxvii (lgOI), pp. 455691. Reviewed by E. Schwartz in Berliner Phil. WoehensehriJt, Ig03, p.128. L. PRELLER. De Hellanico Lesbio, in Ausgewiihlte Aifsiitze ( 1864). R. KOHLER. Analeeta Hellanicea. Leip:<;.iger Stud. zur class. Philologie, xviii (18g8), pp. 213-313. W. SCHMID. Muller's Handbuch, Griech. Literaturgeschichte, I. ii, pp. 68~2. Briefer treatment.

J. B. BURY. Ancient Greek Historians, chap. i, pp. 27-33. G. BusoLT. Grieeh. Geschichte, i, pp. 151-3. V. COSTANZI. Enciclopedia Italiana, s.v. Ellanico, viii. 827 (193 2). F. CREUZER. Die historische Kunst der Grieehen (ed. 2, 1841), pp. 2g0-3. A. VON GUTSCHMID. Kleine Schriften, iv, pp. 316--26. C. F. LEHMANN-HAUPT. Gercke-Norden's Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, iii (1914), pp. 87--8. L. SCHMITZ. Smith's Dictionary ofGreek and Roman Biography, s.v. Hellanicus. Special studies.

W. ALY. Barbarika nomima. Philologus,lxxxv (1929), pp. 4 2-51. J. BASS. Ober das Verhiiltnis Herodots und Hellanikos. Wiener Studien, (1879), pp. 161-8. A. VON BLUMENTAL. Hellanicea: de Atlantiade. (Dissertation, Halle, 1913.) J. BRANDIS. De temporum graecorum antiquorum rationibus. (Bonn, 1857.) G. M. COLUMBA. Ellanico. Studi difilologia e di storia, I. i (Palermo, 188g), pp. 116--26. V. COSTANZI. De Hellanici aetate definienda. Riv. difilologia, xix (18gl), pp. 489-95. - - *Quaestiones Chronologicae. (Turin, 1901.) - - Paralipomena VII. Riv. di storia antica, vii (lg03), pp. 66--g. - - L' opera di Ellanieo di Mitilene nella reda;:;ione della [ista dei rei Ateniesi. Riv. di storia antica, viii (lg04), pp. 203-17, 243-53. H. DIELS. Chronologisehe Untersuchungen iiber Apollodors Chronika. Rhein. Mus. xxxi ( 18 76), pp. 47-54. C. FRICK. Hellanikos von Lesbos und die athenische Konigsliste: Beitriige zur griech. Chronol?/tie und Literaturgeschiehte. Programm, Haxter, 1880. A. KIRCHHOFF. Uber ein Bruchstiick des Hellanikos. Hermes, viii ( 18 74),

PP· 184-9°' R. KOHLER. Hellanicea, in Philologisch-historisehe Beitriige Curt Wachsmuth iiberreicht (Leipzig, I 8g7), pp. 173--85. *W. KUNZMANN. Quaestio de Ps.-Luciani libello qui est de Longaevis. (Leipzig, Ig08.) See also F. Ruh!. C. F. LEHMANN-HAUPT. Chronologisches zur griech. Quellenkunde; I. Hellanikos, Herodot, Thukydides. Klio, vi (lg06), pp. 127-39.

HELLANICUS OF LESBOS

235

J. H. LIPsrus. Chronologie des Hellanikos. Leipzig. Stud. zur class. Phil. iv (1881), pp. 153-4. ED. MEYER. See under Bibliography .of Hecataeus. B. NIESE. Die Chroniken des Hellanikos. Hermes, xxiii (1888), pp. 81-gl. E. PAIS. L'origine degli Etruschi e dei Pelasgi in Italia secondo Erodoto ed Ellanico. Studi storici, ii (1893), pp. 4g-87. B. PERRIN. The 'Upnat of Hellanicus. Amer. Journal of Philology, xxii (lgOI), pp. 38-43. W. ROHDE. Zur Chronologie der griech. Literaturgesehichte. Rhein. Mus. xxxvi (1881), pp. 388-401. F. RUHL. Die Zeitansiitzefiir Hellanikos. Rhein. Mus.lxi (1906), pp. 473-6. - - Noch einmal die Makrobier des Lukianos. Rhein. Mus.lxiv (lg09), p. 137. A. DELLA SETA. Erodoto ed Ellanico sull' origine degli Etruschi. Rendiconti dell' Accademia dei Lincei, xxviii. 3 (lgI8), pp. 173-82. R. STIEHLE. ZU den Fragmenten der griechischen Historiker. Philologus, viii ( 1853), pp. 59g-6°5· M. WELLMANN. De Hellanici Troieis. Commentationes philologae in honorem sodalitii philologorum Gryphiswaldiensis, pp. 54-67. (Berlin, 1887.) - - De Istro Callimachio: (Dissertation, Greifswald, 1886). - - Beitrag zur Geschichte der attischen Konigsliste. Hermes, xlv (lglO), PP·554-63· U. VON WlLAMOWITZ-MoELLENDORFF. Memoriae oblitteratae. Hermes, xi (1876), pp. 2g1-4· - - Hippys von Rhegion. Hermes, xix (1884), pp. 442-52.

INDEX

INDEX Achilles, 180, 183 f. Acusilaus of Argos, 3, I]o, 2II, 213. Aegyptiaca, 199-203, 208. Aegyptus, 102 f. Aeneas, 187-92,231. Aeolians, 72, 100, 173, 195-7; Aeolica, 195. Aeolus, sons of, 172-6, Ig(;, 227. Aeschylus, 86, 215 n.; scholia on, 207. Aethiopica, 140. Aetia, aetiological legends, 5 I , 120, 144 f., 150, 164, 168, 188, 210, 214-16,220 f. Agenor, descendants of, 160, 163-6. Alexandria, library at, 9-II, 31-4,

"4·

Alexandrian scholars, 9 f., 23, 10914, 224, 233· Alphabet, origin of, 102. Alyattes, 128 f. Amazons, 73 f., 98, 104 f., I I I f., 168, 184,220. Ammianus Marcellinus, 67. Anaximander, 15, 18, 28. Andocides, 193, 222 f. Andron of Halicarnassus, 216, 218, 220. Antigonus of Carystus, 20 I. Antiochus of Syracuse, 39, 44, 229 f. Apollodorus, Bibliotheca, 10, 159-62, 164-85, 213-18, 221. Apollodorus, author of Chronica, 10 f., 154· Apollonius of Rhodes, 8, 10,47,68 f., 72 f., 100-2, 141, 185; scholia on, 8, 72 n., 100 f., II 0, 126, 139, 143, 148,161 f., 165, 168, 171, 173, 179, 185, 197 f., 21 In. Archons, Athenian, 153, 223-5. .Areopagus, 215-18. Arginusae, battle of, 153 f., 209, 223. Argolica, 160 f., 167, 170. Argona~~ legend, 52, 87: 100-2, I 10 f., 143,''' I 73-6. Aristagoras, 25 f., 28. Aristarchus, 110. Aristeas of Proconnesus, 62 f., 8 I • Aristogeiton, see Harmodius. Aristophanes, comic poet, 22, 55 n., 96 n.; scholia on, 59, 153, 166,205, 20 9,2 13,223, 232. Aristotle, De mirabilibus auscultatibus, 47, 79 n.; Constitution if Croton, 142. Arrian, 83, 104, 202.

J5:

Artaxerxes, 116, 123, 139 f., 148. Artemidorus of Ephesus, 101. Artemon of Cassandrea, 109 r., 113 f.; of Pergamum, 110. Asopis, 180 f. Asopus, descendants of, 176, 180 f., 193· Athenaeus, on Hecataeus, 3 I, 84, 97, 100; on Xanthus, 109 f., 114, 119, 131 f., 135; on Charon, 139, 141-3, 147; on Hellanicus, 161, 167, 172, 196,199-201,231; see also 8, 12,31. Athens, in mythical times, 53 f., 187, 211-21; kings of, 187,210-18,224; see also A tthis. Atlantis, 176-80, 190. Atlas, descendants of, 176-80, 190 f., 222 n. Atossa, 206. Atreus, house of, 178-80. Atthis, 209-25. Avienus, 17,34-8, 93n.

Barbarica Nomima, 194-9, 208. Boeotiaca, 165, 170. Borrowing by ancient authors, 22-4, 197,201; by Herodotus, 33 f., 61-4, 82-90. Cadmus, founder of Thebes, 49, 53 f., 102, 105, 161, 164-6. Cadmus of Miletus, 5, 194. Callimachus, 31, 33, 96n., 172, 201 n. Candaules, "5-17, 133, 136. Carcinus of Naucratis, 148. Carneonicae, 23 I f. Carthaginians, 35, 37, 45, 74, 92-4. Catalogue of ships, of Trojan allies, see Homer. Cecrops, 213-15, 218. Celts, 36-8. Cephalon Gergithius, 185, 191, 203. Cephenes, 204 f. Chaereas, 141. Chares, 141. Charon of Carthage, 141. Charon of Lampsacus, 139-51; date, 139 f., 146, 150; number of works, 140 f.; on history of Lampsacus, 141-5; on mythology, 14&-50; Persica, 146-8. Charon of Naucratis, 141. Chroniclers, early, 6, 156; Christian, II, 152-4,206,211-14,224.

Chronological methods, 105-6, 115, 187, 209-", 214-18, 223-33· Cleisthenes, 13,221,224. Clement of Alexandria, I I, 23, 115, "7, 159n., 17on., 197,206,211, 232. Codrus,71. Colainus, 213. Colonies, Carthaginian, 92 f.; Greek, 57 f., 62, 73,93, 180, 221, 22&-3 0 ; Persian, 61; Phoenician, 89. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 131, 227 n., 228. Continents, division of, 31, 62-6, 85 f. Croesus of Lydia, 25, 115, 130, 146. Croton, 41-3, 142 f., 158. Ctesias, 4, 24, 51 f., 79 n., 120, 203, 207 n. Ctiseis, 16,50, 71 f., 140, 150, 194-9, 23 0 • Cyclic poets, 188; KVKAOS t<1'Top'1(6s, 110. Cypriaca, 198. Cyrus the elder, 115 f., 134, 147. Damastes of Sigeum, 18, i 16, 19 I, 197 n. Danae, 103, 105. Danaus, 102. Danube, 34, 37, 47,101,175· Dardanus, son of Paris and Helen, 110; son of Zeus and Electra, 179, 181,189 f. Darius of Persia, 25, 6 I, 63, 89, I 10, 12&-30, 140, 206, 207 n.; satrapies of, 68. Delphic oracle, 133, 164. Deluge, 99, 171 f., 176, 2I1, 214. Demetrius, On Style, 29, 97. Demetrius of Scepsis, 69 f. Deucalion, 97-100, 170-3, 176. Deucalioneia, 169, 170-6. Diodorus, 21, 27, 51, 87, 111-14, 169n., 181 n., 201. Diogenes Laertius, 114 f., 118 f. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, on the logographers, 3-5, 12, 16, 29, 116, 120 f.; on Xanthus, 116, 120 f.; on Hellanicus, 153 f., 157-63, 168, 187-92,225 f., 228 f., 231; on Italy, 40 f., 44. Dionysius of Miletus, 27, 110, "4, 137· Dionysius of Mytilene, see Dionysius Scytobrachion. Dionysius of Rhodes, I 10. Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, 46. Dionysius Periegetes, scholia on, 205.

237

Dionysius Scytobrachion, 21,81,10915, "7-20 . Dionysius Thrax, scholia on, 102 n. Dorians, 100, 173. Duris of Samos, 2 I 9. Egypt, 81-90, 199-203; in Greek mythology, 87 f., 102 f., 105, 20!. Enchelees, 48 f., 166. Ephorus, 27, 50, 66, 109, 114, 116, 123, 134, 157, 180, 207, 233· Epic poems, decline of, 14-16; relation to historical writing, 2, 5, 8, 15,159· Epictetus, 202 f. Eponymous heroes, 51 f., 71 f.; see also Aetia, Ctiseis. Eratosthenes, 10, 32 f., 116 f., 119, 123· Erechtheus, 216-18. Erichthonius, 2 I 6. Erysichthon, 172. Ethiopia, go-6. Ethnography, 12, 156, 193-209. Etruscans, 3&-41, 47,121,158,163, Etymologicum Magnum, 46, 159 n., 216. Etymology, 155, 164, 168, 180, 185 f., 195-7, 203, 215, 220 f.; see also Aetia. Euripides, 8, 10, 22, 153, 155, 166; scholia on, 12, 102, 127, 166, 175, 178,187, 216 f. Eusebius, II, 23, 83, 152, 191, 203, 206,212. Eustathius, 51, 131 n.; see also Homer, scholia on. Forgery, 9 f.; of Hecataeus, 31-4, 3941,44; of Xanthus, 109-15. Gellius, Aulus, 152. Genealogiae, of Hecataeus, 96-106. Genealogy, of Hecataeus, 26, 83, 85. Generations, length of, 105 f., 214 f., 2I] f. Geryones, oxen of, 46, 71, 104, 168 f. Gyges, 116, 132-7. Harmodius and Aristogeiton, 13, 54, 222 n. Harpocration, 96 n., 110, 161 f., 167, 180, 195,203,206,210 f., 214, 216, 221. Hecataeus of Miletus, 25-108; life, 25-7; authenticity of works, 3 1-4, 39,41,44 f.; date of works, 45, 61,

238

INDEX

98 f.; map, 28f.; ancient cntlcism of, 28 f.; historical authority, 75, 82, 90, 103; travels, 84, 93, 103; terminology, 42, 45, 59, 74, 78; on foundings of cities, 50-2, 55 f., 71 f.; myths in the Periegesis, 50 f.; narrow Greek outlook, 77, 92; etymologies, 55 f., 71 f.; unusual spelling, 51, 72 f.; old names of cities, 45, 52, 73 f., 98; towns and tribes not otherwise known, 42-4, 52, 61, 67 f., 75, 77, 90, 95; customs of people, 57,61 f., 69,76,78, 81, 84, 90, 95 f.; boundaries, contine.ntal, 31, 62--6,85 f.; boundaries, regional, 74, 78 ,85-7. Helen, 87 f., 110, 178 f., 185,219. Hellanicus, 152-235; life and date of works, 152-5, 208, 226; number of works, 155 f., 161, 163, 165, 167, 180 f., 190, 193 f.; relation to Thucydides, 153-5, 157; reduplicationofcharacters, 161, 178 f., 205 f., 210; Homeric interpretation, 1824, 186--8, 190, 193; chronological methods, 187, 209-11, 214-18, 223-33· Hellen, 99, 172, 175· Heracles, 45 f., 97 f., 103-6, 112 f., 143, 161, 166-9, 220. Heraclidae, 104 f., 169. Hermogenes, 4, 29, 157· Herodian, grammarian, 51 f., 60, 67, 72, 87, go, 100, 103. Herodorus of Heraclea, 36, 101. Herodotus, geographical knowledge of, 34, 37, 57 f., 76; travels of, 84; independent investigation, 54, 91 f., 102, 121; religious views, 20 f.; attitude towards his contemporaries, 2, 4, 13, 18, 23 f., 28, 34, 54 f., 76, 85-8, 98; refers to Hecataeus, 25 f., 53-5, 83; possible dependence on Hecataeus, 57 f., 61--6, 69, 72, 76, 80, 82-96, 98, 102 f.; relation to Xanthus, 109, 121, 1235, 128-34; relation to Charon, 139, 143, 145-7; relation to Hellanicus, 152-5, 157 f., 200-4, 207 f. Hesiod, 98 f., 101 f., 172n., 174, 192; Hesiodic tradition, 9, 97, 150. Hippias of Elis, 8. Hippocrates, 7r€P' rUpwv, 64. Homer, as geographer, 15, 18,51,58, 93; interpretation of, 28, 69, 95, 125-7, 182-4, 186-8, 190, 193; Trojan catalogue, 69 f., 125 f., 186; see also 10, 14, 20 f., 202 f.

Homer, scholia on, 8,12, go, 95, 99, 110, 160 f., 164--6, 177 f., 181-4, 192, 197,219,222. wPO" 16, 140-5, 156. Iasus, descendants of, 160, 166-70. Inscriptions, Greek, 55 n., 222 f. Ionian dialect, 19 f., 29, 122-3, 130; Ionian revolt, 25, 115; Ionians, origin of, 100, 173. Ister, see Danube. Italy, early history of, 157-9, 168 f.; name of, 39-42, 168 f. Jason, see Argonaut legend. Josephus, 157,233.

Lesbiaca, 194 f. Lexicographers, I I, 60, 90, 2 10; see also Harpocration, Stephanus of Byzantium, Suidas. Libya, 90--6; in Greek mythology, II If.

Libyca, 140, 199. Lycophron, 8, 52, 96 n., 185 n.; scholia on, 8, 12,43, 149, 172, 183, 185, 195, 197, 21 9. Lydian history, 115-38,209. Macedonian patronage, 8, 152 f. Maps, 28 f., 63, 76. Marvels, see Oavp.aTa. Medea, 175, 203. Medus, 203· Menecrates of Elea, 127. Menelaus, 87 f., 179, 183. Menippus, I IS, 120. Miletus, 41,70,74-8. Miltiades, the elder, 59, 145 f., 180; the younger, 13,59. Munychus, 21 4· Mysians, 127-9. Mythographical works, 96-106, 11013, 156-93,211,227,231,233. Myths, interpretation of, 10, 19, 11013,202. Nearchus, 124. Neleus, 174, 178. Nicander, 185. Nicolaus of Damascus, 12, 19, 120-38. Nile, 87, 101, 201. Niobe, 178. Ocean, the, 28 f., 34, 63, 65, 86 f., 101. Oedipus, 166. Oenomaus, 178 f.

INDEX Oenone, 185. Oenotrians, 39-42, 45, 228, 230. OgyguS,212- 14· Old names of cities and regions, 45, 52,58,73 r., ga, 143, 146 , 193· Orestes, 195, 21 7 f. Ores theus, 99 f. Paeonians, 57 f., 128 f., 196. Pamphila, 152-5. Panyasis, 14. Papyri, I, 89, 177 f., 198. Parian Marble, 187,214 f., 218 n. Paris, 110, 185. Parthenius, 131, 185. Pausanias, topographer, 52, 71 n., 97 f., 100, 104, 148, 162, 175, 179, 196,203 n., 213, 216 n. Pelasgians, 53, 72, 99, 157--64, 228; Pelasgian characters, 113. Pelias, I 73 f. Peloponnesian War, 3, 222-5, 226, 231. Pelops, 178 f. Periegesis, as literary form, 17 f., 29 f., 110; of Hecataeus, 25-96; Phoenician,95· Periplus, see Periegesis. Perses, 203-5. Perseus, 102 f., 105, III, 162,203-5. Persian, meaning of term in Hecataeus, 61, 76, 78 f. Persians, 27, 35, 70, 74-80, 203-8. Persica, 110, 140 f., 146--8, 194 f., 20 3-9. Pherecydes, 5he Atheni~n, 5, 10, 44n.,"166,'I80,'216n., 219f. ~ Philistus, 157. Philochorus, 153, 214, 216 n., 219 f., 223 n., 233. Phocaeans, 35-7, 46 f. Phoenicians, 45, 148. Phoroneus, 15g--61, 170,212. Phoronis, epic poem, 159, 170 f., 185; of Hellanicus, 157-70, 182. Photius, 148, 163, 185 n., 197, 205, 207 n. Pindar, 149; scholia on, 110, 17 1, 195. Plagiarism, see Borrowing. Plato, 6, 171; scholia on, 168. Pleiades, I 77 f. Pliny the elder, 72 f., 75, 78, 141. Plutarch, Lives, 12, 139, 148,218-22; other works, 7 f., 12, 122, 144--6, 149, 201, 207 f. 7rO'\'5, meaning of, in Hecataeus, 42, 45, 52 f., 75, 89· Polyaenus, 144 f.

239

Polybius, 7, 61, 115, 141. Porphyry, 23, 83. Priestesses of Hera at Argos, 187, 191-3, 210,217,225-33· Proverbs, 168. Ptolemy, 92 n., 96. Rationalism, 10,21 f., 28, 97 f., 103 f., 112, 184, 193. Religion, Ionian attitude to, 20-2; Persian, I 17-19, 147. Rome, foundation of, 188-92,231. Sallust, 210. Sardanapalus, 205 f. Sardis, I IS f., 128 f., 146. Satrapies, list of, 68 f. Scholiasts, see under Apollonius of Rhodes, Euripides, Homer, &c. Scylax, sixth-century traveller, 76, 80. Scylax of Caryanda, Periplus, 17, 34, 47,52 n., 66, 68, 78 n., 84, 87 n., 96. Scymnus, 17,34,37,47,60,66, 100. Scythia, 62--6, 197-9. Scythica, 197-9, 208. Semitic place-names, 92 f. Sesostris, 89. Sicily, 45 f., 228-30. Sin ties, 197. Solon, 13,221. Sophists, 8, IS. Sophocles, 8, 153, 155. Spain, Hecataeus on, 34-8; placenames in, 93. Sparta, kings of, 105 f., 169. Speech-writers, 6 f. Spermus, 135 f. Stephanus of Byzantium, references to Hecataeus, passim; reliability of his citations, 12, 40, 43-5, 48, 51, 55 f., 60, 64, 68, 71, 85 f., 88 f., 93 f., 100; refers to Xanthus, 127, 135; refers to Charon, 139; refers to Hellanicus, 153, 163, 168, 172 f., 194f., 197, 203 f., 206, 209,225-9. Strabo, as geographical authority, 39, 43 f·,49f., 54,57 n ., 73,94-6 , 195f.; verdict on logographers, 4, 8, I I, 27, 157,233; refers to Hecataeus, 69-72, 75; refers to Xanthus, 116 f., 1238, 135; refers to Charon, 142; refers to Hellanicus, 157, 175, 182, 186, 192, 197; interpretation of Homer, 51,69 f., 186. Suetonius, I 13. Suidas, reliability of, I I, 26, 110-17, 119, 139 f., 152-5; refers to Hecataeus, 26 f.; refers to Xanthus, 132;

240

INDEX

refers to Charon, 139 f.; refers to Hellanic us, 152-5, 167, 180 n., 197, 205, 215 f., 222, 231 f. Sybaris, 41 f., 142 f. Tartessu s, 35-7. TertulIia n, 139, 147· Thales of Miletus, 18. 8aV/-LaTa, 30, 47, 87, 95 f., 135· Thebes, legend of, 49, 105, 164-6. Themisto cles, 139, 148. Theocrit us, 183; scholia on, 149, 183. Theopom pus, 47 f., 153, 157, 227, 233· Theseus, 2II, 218-21. Thessalica, 163. Thrace, 56-62. Thucydi des, relation to predecessors, 3 f., 7 f., 13, 15, 23, 87, 116, 139, 148, 209 f.; relation to Hellanic us, 153-5, 209 f., 222-6, 228-30; on myths, 50, 2 I 2; geograph ical knowledge, 48, 50, 57 n., 75. Thucydi des, scholia on, 99, 229 n.; Life of, 180. Timaeus , historian , 115, 169, 223.

Torrheb us, 121 f., 126, 130. Trade routes, 37, 42, 47, 95· Tribute-l ists, Athenian , 59, 73, 75. Troica, IIO, 181-93, 202, 'HI. Trojan War, 97, I!2, 2II; date of, 187, 214,218 ,226,22 8,230. Troy, legend of, 169, 176-93; site of, 181 f., 186. Tyrants, Greek, 14 f. Tzetzes, II, 184, 187, 195, 197, 220n., 229n.

Vases, Greek, 47. Xanthus the Lydian, 109-38; date of, 115 f., authenti city of Lydiaca, 10915, 131 f.; oriental touches, 126, 135 f.; Magica, II7-19; Life qf Empedodes, 117, 119. Xenome des of Chios, 116. Xenopho n, historian , 73 n.; of Lampsacus, 141. Xerxes, expeditio n of, 57 f. Zoroaste r, I!7-19, 130.