No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The question of the genuineness of the fragments of Hecataeus has been much debated. To refer only to recent discussions, Cobet decides summarily that not only the geographical fragments but also those of the work on ‘Genealogies’ are forgeries; as, however, the great Dutch scholar devotes only seven pages to the discussion of the matter, his decision can hardly be accepted as final, although his great name is sufficient warrant for treating the question as one that may be fairly considered open. But since the article in Hermes of Professor Diels, the matter has, I think, generally been held to be settled the other way, and Hecataeus has not only been credited with the fragments in question as being really his own, but, on the strength of them, has been assigned a very important position in the development of Greek thought and especially of Greek geographical science.
2 Mnemosyne, 1883.
3 Vol. xxii. pp. 411 seq. 1887. References to it are giren in brackets ( ) throughout.
4 So Mahaffy, , Hist. of Greek Literature, ii. p. 14Google Scholar: ‘Hecataeus represents most distinctly the positive tendencies of the sixth century as opposed to its speculative and mystical aspirations. With him all was matter of fact, obser vation, and plain recording of observations’; and Gomperz, Eng. Trans, i. 256 (after quoting the preface to the genealogies of Hecataeus): ‘We find ourselves at the cradle of criticism. The same light that Xenophanes had poured on the natural universe, Hecataeus was now to turn on the universe of human affairs.’ Professor Bury, in his recent Lectures on the Ancient Greek Historians (p. 12Google Scholar) thinks that Herodotus (v. 36) derived from the ‘Geography’ of Hecataeus his information as to the advice given by the latter to the Ionic Greeks. It must indeed have been a comprehensive work. Cf. Berger, , Erdkunde der Griechen (p. 145Google Scholar) for a depreciation of Herodotus as compared to his predecessors in geography, including Hecataeus; the passage is too long to quote.
5 Cf. Hdt. iv. 44.
6 In Hippoc, . De Nat. Hom. xv. p. 109Google Scholar, ed. Kühn.
7 ii. 556.
8 There is a brief discussion of the Egyptian names in Hecataeus by Gutschmid, in Philologus x. (1855), 527–8Google Scholar.
9 In ii. 143, v. 36 and 125 Herodotus speaks of Hecataeus personally as ὁ λογοποιός In vi. 137 he combats his view of the Pelasgians; but this last passage is generally referred to his ‘Genealogies,’ and does not bear on the present question.
10 Diogenes Laertius, ix. 1.
11 Not counting the dubia lectio where Herodotus (or Hesiod) is quoted for the drinking of an eagle at the siege of Babylon, (Hist. Anim. viii. 18Google Scholar. 601 b 1).
11a Diels' argument that the fragment is the original authority, and Aristotle the copyist, because the definite ᾿Αδρία is substituted for ‘Illyria,’ breaks down in view of the fact that the name ‘Adria’ occurs in another passage of Aristotle, (Hist. Anim. vi. 1. 558Google Scholar b) where the same statements are repeated.
12 Frag. Hist. Graec. I. xii.
13 Quoted, in Philologue, 1860, xvi. p. 653Google Scholar; the whole subject is dealt with at length here.
14 Quoted, in Rhein. Mus. vi. (1848) 110Google Scholar: ὦν βιβλων τοὺς πίνακας Καλλίμαχος ἀπεγράψατο
15 viii. 8.
15a For the whole subject of the πίνακϵς, cf. Schneider, , Callimachus ii. 297Google Scholarseq. esp. p. 305, ‘continebant multa quae in bibliothecaram catalogis nemo facile aut exponat aut quaerat.’
16 De Exped. Alex. v. 6.
16a De Rubro Mari, 48.
17 i. 1 (Müller II. p. 471).
18 Aelian, , V.H. xii. 19Google Scholar.
19 Not the fourth-century traitor of Demosthenes, , De Cor. 324Google Scholar. The identification with the ‘Cercidas’ of Polybius is probable, as Aelian mentions him in the next extract to one about King Cleomenes, against whom the Polybian Cercidas intrigued. Cercidas is quoted by Athenaeus as an authority on eating (347) and also for a story (554 D), both dull and dirty, about ᾿Αφροδίτη καλλίπυγος
20 De Genere Dicendi, ii. 12.
21 De Gen. Anim. iii. 5: 756b, 5.
23 The passages are most clearly set forth in parallel columns in Diels, pp. 430–2.
22a Sayce, , Hdt. i.–iii. Introd. pp. 21Google Scholarseq.
23 Cf. Macan, , Hdt. vii.–ix., Introd. pp. 51Google Scholarseq.
24 p. 752.
25 I have said nothing of frs. 27 and 46: the former speaks of ‘Capua,’ which according to Livy (iv. 37) was called Vulturnus till 423, i.e. till long after the time of the genuine Hecataeus; Diels has well shown that the name may really be much older than Livy's date; in the latter Stephanus quotes Lilybaeum ἠ πρὸς δύσιν ἄκρα τῆς Σικελόας from the ‘Europa' of Hecataeus; he goes on ἐστι καὶ πόλις Of course the town of Lilybaeum did not exist till after 397 B.C. But it is not necessary to credit Hecataeus with more than Stephanus definitely attributes to him, though his defenders are fond of doing this, when it suits their argument.
26 Festschrift für H. Kiepert, 1898.
27 Klio, vol. iv.