THE shadow of Hecataeus, magni nominis umbra if ever there was one, constantly obstructs our attempts to assess and understand Herodotus' principles, objectives and achievements. Perplexing and elusive as the details of Hecataeus' work may be, no-one disputes his importance as an intermediary between catalogue-poetry such as we associate with Hesiod, with its clear subordination of geography to genealogy, 1 and the more sophisticated method of synthesising knowledge about the oikoumene demonstrated by Herodotus; some have even argued that the great Milesian has a better claim than Herodotus to the title of pater historiae. 2 The advance of scholarship since Jacoby wrote his masterly RE-article in 1912 has brought nothing to call in question his opening sentence: 'Hekataios ist eine der bedcutendsten Erscheinungen in der Geschichte der alteren Prosaliteratur und dcr Wissenschaft, der crste Vertretcr ionischer icrropiri auf den Gebieten, die wir jetzt Geschichte und Geographie nennen.' 3 Yet if we turn from a modern general account to the surviving fragments, we are likely to feel, at least initially, some disappointment. At first reading most of them seem scarcely more inviting than the entries of a gazetteer, while the relatively scanty group exemplifying Hecataeus' treatment of Greek legend displays a depressing propensity to confuse the commonplace with the true which sacrifices the very elements that make the stories memorable. It is Herodotus who breathes life into the dry bones.Much has been written about the relationship between the two authors, but little attention has been paid to the question, important for our view of both alike, how far literary artifice and stylization have affected Herodotus' presentation of his forerunner. This essay concentrates on his explicit references to Hecataeus; I cannot altogether avoid more sophisticated (and to my mind largely unanswerable) questions connected with unacknowledged debts, but these are peripheral to my theme.Hecataeus' peculiar eminence among Herodotus' intellectual creditors is demonstrated by the latter's last reference to him, when he contrasts Hecataeus' account of the expulsion of the Pelasgians from Attica with the Attic version (vi 137; FGrH 1 F 127): oi eirem EK TTJS 'ATTIKT^S OTTO 'A9r|vaicov ec;£|3Af|0r]CTav, EITE COV 8f) SIKOICOS E!TE CCSIKCOS' TOOTO y a p OUK ixco cppdaai, TTXT\V TO AEyonEva, OTI ' EKCCTCCTOS UEV 6 'Hyr|adv6pou Ecpnae EV TOTCTI Aoyoiai AEycov d8iKcos' ETTEITE y a p ISETV TOUS 'A6r)vaious TT)V X^P 1 "^. T 1 1 V CT91 auToi OTTO TOV 'Y|ar|aa6v iouaav ISoaav oiKfiaai |aia06v TOO TEIXEOS TOU TTEpi TTIV dxpoTToAiv KOTE EAr|Aa|iEvou, TOUTT|V COS iSeiv TOUS 'A0r|vaious EcJEpyaaiaEvriv EU, TT)V TrpoTEpov ETVOI KaKr)v TE Koi TOU PT|8EV6S d£(r|v, Aa(3Eiv
Herodotus holds an honoured place among the pioneers of Greek epigraphy. We seek in vain for earlier signs of any appreciation of the historical value of inscriptions, and though we may conjecture that the antiquarian interests of some of his contemporaries or near-contemporaries might well have led them in this direction, our view of the beginnings of Greek epigraphical study must be based on Herodotus, whether or not he truly deserves to be regarded as its ⋯ρχηγέτηϲ.Apart from its significance in the history of scholarship Herodotus' use of inscriptions may be expected to throw some light on his methods and on his conception of his task. He cites epigraphic evidence throughout his work and in relation to a wide range of topics; if his use of this material suggests any general conclusions, we do not need to allow for the bias of a single source or the effect of peculiar local conditions, as we must when we consider his accounts of individual episodes or areas.We are relatively well placed to assess his procedure. We have a reasonably clear idea of the general appearance of the various scripts concerned (both Greek and Oriental), and in this respect enjoy a considerable advantage over the majority of Herodotus' original audience. Three of the inscriptions which he cites have been wholly or partly preserved, and thus provide a simple gauge of his accuracy in reporting such evidence.
The second line of the poem in which Archilochus related his fable of the fox and the ape was a source of perplexity to Hellenistic scholars. According to Athenaeus Apollonius Rhodius explained it by reference to the Spartan practice of winding official dispatches round a staff or baton: ὅτι δ λευκῷ ἱμντι περιειλοντες τν σκυτλην οἱ Λκωνες ἔγρφον ἅ ἠβολοντο εἴρηκεν ἱκανς Ἀπολλώνιος Ῥδιος ν τῷ περ Ἀρχιλχου. This interpretation evidently failed to satisfy Aristophanes of Byzantium, who wrote a monograph (σγγραμμα) περ τς χνυμνης σκυτλη' view has held the field.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.