Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:42:48.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thucydides and the Geographical Tradition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Lionel Pearson
Lionel Pearson
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since geography was one of the accepted branches of Ionian Ίστορíη, it is not surprising that geographical description and discussion should play so large a part in the work of Herodotus. Nor is it surprising that, since he covered so much ground, he should occasionally borrow information from his predecessors. Apart from particular passages where comparison with the fragments of Hecataeus shows that he borrowed from this author's Periegesis, there are numerous others which, although strictly relevant fragments are lacking, by their style and manner betray the influence of Hecataeus. The so-called ΛιβυκῸσ λΌγος for example, in Book IV is full of the conventional formulae familiar to anyone who has studied the fragments; consequently Jacoby is prepared to say that it provides even more valuable material for the method and style of Hecataeus than the treatment of Egypt in Book II, where more specific evidence of borrowing is available. There are countless other passages and isolated sentences where the style suggests, if not actual dependence on the text of Hecataeus, at least adherence to the Hecataean tradition of geographical description.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 1939 , pp. 48 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 48 note 1 The locus classicus on this subject is Diels, H., Herodot und Hekataios, Hermes XXII (1887), pp. 411–44Google Scholar. Diels' conclusions are in the main upheld by Jacoby, RE s.v. Hekataios von Milet.

page 48 note 2 Die Fragmente der griech. Historiker (F. Gr. Hist.) I, pp. 371–72. Cf. also Grosskinsky, A., Zur Herodots Periogese Libyens, Hermes LXVI (1931), pp. 362–67Google Scholar.

page 48 note 3 F. Gr. Hist. I 1, T. 1, 3, 4. All fragments (F.) and Testimonia (T.) are quoted from this collection.

page 48 note 4 E.g. I 1, 1; 11.

page 48 note 5 VI 1 ἄπειροι ο πολλοì πντες τοȗ μεγθουσ τς νσον καì τν νοικοντων τοȗ πλθους καì ‘Eλλνων καì βαρβρων, καì τι οὐ πολλῷ τινι ὐποδεστερον πῸλεμον ν νηροȗντο ἦ τῸν πρῸς Πελοποννησíους.

page 49 note l VII 173 ἕμειν7alpha;ν δ λíγας μρας νθαȗτα πικῸμενοι γρ ἔγγελοι παρ 'Aλεξνδρου τοȗ Aμντεω νδρῸς MακεδῸνος συνεβολευῸν σφι παλλσσεσθαι μηδ μνοντας ν τῇ σβολῇ καταπατηθναι ὑπῸ τοȗ στρατοȗ τοȗ πιῸντος, σημαíνοντες τΌ πλθς τε τς στρατις καᇬ τς νας ὡσ δ οὖτοí σφι ταȗτα συνεβολευον, χρηστ γρ δῸκεον συμβουλεειν καí σφι ενοοσ φαíνετο ὠν MακεδÎν, πεíθοντο. δοκειν δ' μοι, ρρωδíη ᾖν τῸ πεîθον, ὡς πθοντο καí ἄοȗσαν σβολν ς Өεσσαλοὺς κατ τν ἄνω MακεδονῚην δι Πεῤῥαιβ7nu; κατ ΓῸννον πῸλιν, τῇ περ δ καí αβαλε στρατιή Ξρξεω. Cf. Willrich, H., Perikles, p. 51Google Scholar.

page 49 note 2 Les Phénicitns et l'Odyssée, passim; Did Homer live? (London, 1931), chaps, iv and viGoogle Scholar.

page 49 note 3 Cf. Schulten, A., Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae I (Barcelona and Berlin, 1922)Google Scholar. Objection has been taken to many of Schulten's views by Bertbelot, A., Festus Avienus: Ora Maritima (Paris, 1934)Google Scholar, but his main thesis remains unshaken.

page 50 note 1 Grosstephan, J., Beiträge zur Periegese des Hekatäus von Milet (Diss. Strasbourg, 1915)Google Scholar, has tried, though with little success, to show that the direction was the reverse of this.

page 50 note 2 E.g. IV 86.

Page 51 note 1 ὑπερβντι Aίμον Cf. Hecataeus F. 169 ὑπερβντι τῸν Өρκιον Aίμον.

page 51 note 2 Cf. Hecataeus F. 102—Steph. Byz. s.v. Δάκμων ἄκρα τοȗ πíνδον ρους, ξ ἧς Iναχος καí Aίας ῥεî ποταμῸς, ὡς ‘Eκαταîος ν α.

page 51 note 3 II 97. Cf. Hec. F. 289, κ Mκων ς 'Aράξην ποτα7mu;Ὸν

page 51 note 4 E.g. II 34, V 50.

page 51 note 5 Hec. mentioned Σεσρηθος πΌλις Tαυλαντíων (F.99) and “Aβροι, ἔθνος αυλαντων (F.101).

page 52 note 1 Cf. e.g. Hec. F. 217 (quoted by Strabo XII 3, 22) πì δ 'AλαξῚᾳ πΌλι ποταμῸς 'Oδρσσης ῥων δι Mυγδονíης πεδíου π δσιος κ τς λíμνης τς Δασκυλιτíδος ἐς ‘Pνδακον σβλλει. πῸ δσιος is incorrect, but is retained in the text by all editors.

page 52 note 3 Contrast with this passage his conciseness in IV 103 καí φικμενος περì δεíλην πì τῸν Aὐλνα καí Bορμíσκον. ᾗ BΌλβη λíμν7eta; ξíησιν σθλασσαν, καí δειπνοποιησμενος χώρει τν νκτα. For the formula cf. Hecataeus' description of Xanthus in Lycia παρ' ᾖ Ξáνθος ξíησι ποτσμΌς (F.255).

page 52 note 3 F. 141. Cf. Thuc. IV 53 τ δ Kθηρα νσῸς στιν πικεîται δ τῇ Aακωνικῇ κατ Mαλαν.

page 52 note 4 E.g. the Hermae (VI 27), Colonus (VIII 67), the pnyx (VIII 97).

Page 52 note 5 Note especially Steph. Byz' quotation from Hec. (F. 116): ἐν δ Xαιρώνεια πῸλις τ πρτα—i.e. first after crossing the border.

page 53 note 1 IV 104 Ɵουκυδíδην τόν 'OλῸρου, δσ τδε ξυνγραψεν, ἄντα περì Ɵσον (ἔστι δ νσος Παρíων ποικíα, πχουσα τς 'AμφιπῸλεως μíσεος μρας μλιστα πλοȗν) κελεοντες σφíσι βοηθεîν. Much more relevant is the note in III 102 that Molycreium was ‘a colony of the Corinthians, but Subject to Athenian rule‘.

page 53 note 2 In Book I of the Hellenica the only geographical remark is the description of Arginusae αὖται δ' εῚσíν ντìον τς Mυτιλνης (I vi 27). Such comparatively obscure places as Madytus, Thoricum, Pygela and Coressus are left for the reader to identify.

page 53 note 3 I 22 καí σ μν κρΌασιν ίσως τό μ μνθδες αὐτν τερπστερον φανεîται.