Jacoby Online cover image

page iii

On the Development of Greek Historiography

and the plan for a new collection of the fragments of the Greek historians

Felix Jacoby

the 1956 text with the editorial additions of Herbert Bloch

translated by Mortimer Chambers and Stefan Schorn

Histos Supplement 3

Newcastle upon Tyne

2015

page iv

Published by

Histos

School of History, Classics and Archaeology,

Newcastle University,

Newcastle upon Tyne,

NE1 7RU,

United Kingdom

ISSN (Online): 2046-5963 (Print): 2056-5955

‘Über die Entwicklung der griechischen Historiographie und den Plan einer neuen Sammlung der griechischen Historikerfragmente’,

in F. Jacoby, Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtschreibung, herausgegeben von Herbert Bloch

copyright © 1956 E. J . Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands

English translation

copyright © 2015 Mortimer Chambers and Stefan Schorn

page vii

Preface

This translation of Felix Jacoby’s paper on the development of Greek historical writing (‘Über die Entwicklung der griechischen Historiographie und den Plan einer neuen Sammlung der griechischen Historikerfragmente’), probably the most important discussion of this question in the twentieth century, is based on the essay as edited by Professor Herbert Bloch in his selection of Jacoby’s essays and reviews, in F. Jacoby, Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtschreibung, ed. H. Bloch (Leiden, Brill, 1956), 16–63. In editing the essay Professor Bloch included references to other writings by Jacoby, especially in his multi-volume Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin–Leiden, 1923-58), cited as FGrHist, his Atthis: The Local chronicles of Ancient Athens (Oxford, 1949), cited as Atthis, and his articles in Pauly’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 18945–1980), cited as RE. Professor Bloch’s additions are normally placed within square brackets; he also cited later writings in his ‘Anhang vom Herausgeber’, Abhandlungen, 423-6. These are often references to historians whose remains have been gathered up in FGrHist or articles in RE. Sometimes it was necessary to include them in the main text, which may disturb some readers, in order not to change the numbering of the footnotes. The page numbers in the right-hand margins are those of this essay as it appeared in the Abhandlungen.

We have also benefited from Leone Porciani’s ‘aggiornamento bibliografico’ in Aspetti dell’opera di Felix Jacoby, ed. C. Ampolo (Pisa, 2006) 445-55, which assisted us in assigning numbers (in square brackets at the time of their first mention in the essay) to the many authors who had not been assigned their numbers within FGrHist when Jacoby published this article in 1909. We did not, however, include

page viii

his references to collections of fragments published after Jacoby except for references to FGrHist Continued. To assist readers who may not know Greek, we have usually given brief translations of Greek names and terms within square brackets. In the transliteration of Greek words and names, we have sometimes used forms familiar in English (Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle) but have usually followed Jacoby’s spelling (Hekataios, Hellanikos), which is closer to the original Greek. For the titles of works ending in –ka we have chosen to transliterate the title itself rather than insert a translation; the reader should be aware that this neuter plural suffix is equivalent to ‘things’ or ‘matters’, so that a term such as Makedonika will mean something like ‘Macedonian matters’ or ‘Macedonian affairs’.

English translations in the text are by A. de Sélincourt–J. Marincola (Harmondsworth, 203) for Herodotus; by C. F. Smith in the Loeb Classical Library (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1928-30) for Thucydides, and by C. H. Oldfather, also of the Loeb Classical Library, volume 1 (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1933) for Diodorus.

We are grateful to Brill Publishers and Jennifer Pavelko, Senior Acquisitions Editor for Classical Studies and Philosophy, for permission to use the original German text of this essay. We thank Professors Stanley Burstein (Los Angeles), John Marincola (Tallahassee), and Guido Schepens (Leuven) for reading, and often improving, our translation. We also thank Alexander Skufca of Florida State University for compiling the Index, and the Histos team for their help in bringing this translation to a wider audience. We take full responsibility for any remaining errors or infelicities.

Mortimer Chambers and Stefan Schorn, 26 October 2015

page ix

Abbreviations

Abhandlungen | F. Jacoby, Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtschreibung, ed. H. Bloch (Leiden, 1956)

Atthis | F. Jacoby, Atthis: The Local chronicles of Ancient Athens (Oxford, 1949).

FGrHist | F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 15 vols. in 3 parts (Berlin and Leiden, 1923–58).

FHG | C. and Th. Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 5 vols. (Paris, 1841–70).

RE | A. Pauly, G. Wissowa and W. Kroll, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften (Stuttgart, 1894–1978).

page 1

On the Development of Greek Historiography and the Plan for a New Collection of the Fragments of the Greek Historians* 1

The Müller Collection

The need for a new collection of the fragments of the Greek historians requires no special explanation. Anyone who is compelled to work long with Müller’s five volumes —even with all approval for the creator of a useful and until now indispensable resource —will have complained often enough about the lack of independence, the failure of criticism, and the incompleteness of the collection; perhaps even more often, about the inconvenient, at many times absolutely arbitrary order of the fragments and the authors. Even if one disregards the first volume and forgives the combining, in a totally illogical way, of historians of different types and of various times2 as a consequence of external necessities, one will still be unable to judge the organisation favourably: the chronological

page 2

boundaries of the separate books are not useful and are usually wrongly determined; the ordering of the authors is often arbitrary and breaks up the principle of arrangement or is simply erroneous, as for example when Asklepiades of Tragilos [FGrHist 12] appears among five namesakes in Book 6, which contains the writers ‘from the fall of Corinth to Caesar Augustus’; or when Euphantos of Olynthos [FGrHist 74] is placed in the epoch, itself poorly chosen, 247–146 BC. Anyone who wants to read the writers about Persia will find most of them in Volume II, but in various places [FGrHist 680–696]; one is in Volume IV (Baton of Sinope [FGrHist 268); Ktesias [FGrHist 688] is wholly missing: one must seek him out in a strange union with Eratosthenes [FGrHist 241] in the appendix to another publication.3 And again, the historians of Alexander are in yet another, as if they did not belong to the historians at all.4

The Principle of a New Collection

For me, who for many years have been at work on the collecting and re-editing of the fragments of the historians, and who because of the size of the project will still be long engaged on it before publication can be considered, the question naturally arose as I was beginning to collect the material: how could one finally group in a clear and scientific manner the profusion of names, which often in effect are only names? To discover a principle that would unite these two virtues appeared to me, even more clearly the longer I considered it, the true main duty of the editor, as almost all other questions are intimately involved with this basic problem.

page 3

Four principles seemed to me a priori conceivable in general: (1) the purely alphabetical; (2) the purely chronological; (3) the local-geographic; (4) the one based on historical development.

Alphabetical Order

Of these four principles, the alphabetical arrangement according to authors’ names is without doubt the most convenient for the editor, probably also for the occasional user, for whom all that matters is a single fragment, a single piece of information, and finding it quickly. But it is also the most primitive5 and the least scientific. Its use virtually blocks the way towards solving all the questions that we wish to answer with the help of a collection of fragments. For this collection is not an end in itself, but only a means towards the goal. If the historian wants to learn what information we have about a people, a city, a man, a certain epoch; how the different authors and traditions are related to one another; whether we find progress towards more exact research, or, on the contrary, romantic and tendentious embellishment or distortion, the alphabetical arrangement makes the task harder rather than easier. Naturally, it is the same with all questions of literary history: where and in which forms did a genre of historiography arise? Which branches has it developed? In what order? What influence do they bring to bear on one another? How are they related to the other literary products of a specific epoch?—and so on. The only advantage of the alphabetic arrangement—the seeming convenience in looking up an author —can, however, be equally well provided by a precise index of authors.

page 4

Chronological Order

The chronological principle according to the time of the authors is essentially the one chosen by Müller, even though it is often violated. If it were applied in a better way, specifically with more thoughtful consideration of the frontiers of the various literary epochs, one could say much to its credit. At the least it provides a number of useful cross-sections throughout the historical literature. But, in exchange, it has two disadvantages. With this principle too authors that belong together through literary genre and content are inevitably separated from one another; and in practice this ordering absolutely cannot be carried out in its pure form, because at least half of all known authors’ names cannot be dated clearly enough and must therefore follow as an alphabetically-arranged swarm. Both disadvantages weigh so heavily that I renounce this principle without hesitation.

Local Order

The situation is different but no better with the local principle. Wilamowitz was the first to use this principle systematically on the large group of local historians or horographers,6 if we leave aside occasional collections of ancient literary tradition in special studies and histories of single regions and cities. Here the principle is appropriate and brings order to a chaos of names and books, which presents itself to us if this literature is grouped in alphabetic or chronological order. One could use this as the basic principle of the whole collection, if it were somewhat altered, specifically so that one did not take where the work was written as the basic principle, but rather the local content of the material, i.e. the geographic extent of the

page 5

treated subject.7 One would have to begin with the works that embrace the whole known world, proceed to the Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika] and the histories of single barbarian peoples, and close with the special works about cities or even separate institutions. But then one would have the following picture: at the head of the collection would stand the Περίοδοι Γῆς [Journeys around the World]. There would follow, from the actual historical writings, not even Ephoros—the reason for this is that he only wrote κοιναὶ πράξεις Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων [Mutual Accomplishments of Greeks and Barbarians], that is, Greek history, and barbarian history only so far as it is bound up with Greek history; furthermore, he wrote Greek history only from a later, arbitrarily chosen time —but the late ‘universal historians’ who wrote by excerpting other writers, authors like Diodoros and the world chronicles in the style of Kastor.8 We would then have a collection that could perhaps serve as an illustration to the highly meritorious, but in its orientation too one-sided, book by Wachsmuth, which also suffers from other grave deficiencies.9

The Principle Based on Historical Development

All the three principles that I have reviewed have the common feature that they are useful and in part necessary

page 6

within the collection, but not useful as the basic principle. Thus there remains only the point of view based on historical development, the arrangement of the historical writings according to literary genres. That this approach alone truly allows a grouping that is really scientifically founded, the only useful one for the aims of the historian and for the historian of literature, and also an organisation that does not render occasional consultation too laborious —this conviction became ever stronger within me. But along with this, the seemingly external question of the grouping of the fragments immediately comes down to that of the development of Greek historical writing in general: of the number, the form, and the origin of its separate γένη [genres], of their characteristic peculiarities and yet once again of the threads that bind them together. How I conceive this development and how, through it, the general structure of the collection of the fragments is determined, I wish to try to set forth.

Hekataios

I must begin with a banality: Greek historiography —using the word in its broad ancient sense, as we must, since in antiquity there was absolutely no independent science that exactly corresponded to our ‘History’, specifically dedicated to the research and narration of historical events of the distant or more recent past10 — begins with Hekataios and his two works, the Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies] and the Περίοδος γῆς [Journey around the World], whose origin out of, and in contrast to, epic poetry is an uncontested and incontestable fact. They replace and succeed the ‘Hesiodic’, the didactic epic poetry, and constitute a leap forward, precisely because they clothe their scholarly matter also in the language of scholarship. That the totality of their fragments, even if we certainly would not call the author a

page 7

historian in the modern sense, must form the first volume of the collection, is clear. It is true that there is the possibility, even the probability, that before Hekataios there were geographic-ethnographic narratives in Miletos and elsewhere.11 But it remains doubtful whether they became works of literature in the true sense; and, if so, they do not belong, to judge by their literary character, before Hekataios,12 but rather at the head of the geographic literature in the narrower sense, or—in ancient terminology—periegetic literature; and both the existence of the Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies] and the character of the Περίοδος [Journey around the World] forbid placing Hekataios himself in this group.13

Rather, at the beginning of this volume, which will not be too thick, will be aptly placed the few testimonia about the general development of historical literature and the limited material from antiquity about the theory and method of historiography.14 The testimonia about the individual writers will of course be placed with their fragments. Detailed discussions, however, such as Müller

page 8

gives as introductory matter, do not belong at all in a collection of fragments, but will remain reserved for the urgently needed book about the development of Greek historiography. The model in this case is Diels’ Vorsokratiker, with the exception that one can probably go somewhat farther with short notes on disputed questions and scholarly literature.15

The Geographic Literature

The probable existence of written geographic narratives even before Hekataios, essentially different in character from his work, demands, in my opinion, already at this point the fundamental separation of historians from geographers. No matter how little these frigid terms are suitable for the earliest period, and no matter how closely both fields remain bound together, even when later a ‘science of geography’ arises, we can see how, already in the fifth century, periegetic literature establishes itself as a separate literary γένος [genre] and, despite close connections especially with ethnography, travels a separate path.16 So Hekataios’ ‘geographic’ book had two descendants in literature: first, the ethnographic-geographic descriptions of individual barbarian lands, which I call ‘ethnographies’ for short; but also, second, periegetic works in the strict sense that describe either the whole world or part of it. As the former, in the course of development, emphasise more and more the historical element—to abide by modern terminology —but without ever losing the peculiar descriptive character of all geographic literature, so the latter emphasise the geographic. Therefore the former

page 9

group, the ethnographic, at the same time pays attention to the Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies] and is constantly more and more influenced by true historical literature, namely contemporary history; the periegetic works, on the other hand, do take on the form of the Περίοδος [Journey around the World], but also join with and use the narratives of seafarers, which are equally independent from both the epic and Hekataios17 and serve only practical necessity. In fact, the periegetic writings are basically closer to such narratives than to the scientifically conceived book of Hekataios.

Descendants of Hekataios

In the writings of the man from Miletos lie the germs of three of the four most important genres of historical literature of the fifth century: the genres of genealogy (mythography), ethnography, and the contemporary history of the Greek people. Of the major genres, horography [local history] is the only fully independent one: it is linked, if at all, by a loose connection at the most to the true ‘father of history’. Thus, at this point, three further volumes for the collection of fragments appear: II. Genealogy; III. Ethnography; IV. Contemporary Greek History.

I shall discuss these genres separately, first, in order to justify what I have said; but also, because within the collection they need subdivisions, which cannot be formed according to the same principles. Here, the principles of organisation that we have rejected earlier [that is, alphabetic, chronological, and local organisation] enter in a subsidiary way. For the most important thing to guard against in a collection that is designed for practical use is pedantic consistency in formal principles.

page 10

Genealogy

The connection of genealogical writing with Hekataios is especially unmistakable in its beginnings. But its further development compels us to divide it into various groups; these are distinguished less by their content than by the spirit prevailing in each one. Essentially, these groups signify just so many different epochs. I shall organise as Chapter ( the direct and most authentic descendants of the oldest Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies], namely the works of those men who, in the fifth century and down into the beginning of the fourth century, write the ‘history’ of the mythical period—because for both author and reader this is accepted as history; I mean the true genealogists Pherekydes [FGrHist 2], Akusilaos [FGrHist 3], Eumelos [FGrHist 45], and others down to Anaximandros [FGrHist 9] about 400 BC. At that time genuine mythography comes to an end; and the mythical period is either wholly dismissed from the field of historiography, as was done by Ephoros, who misunderstood Thucydides, or is united with contemporary history, a genre that in the meantime had come into existence; and thus it now forms the first part of a Greek universal history from the beginning of the world down to the present. Such is the rhetorical history of a Zoilos and an Anaximenes [FGrHist 71; 72]. Only one other man must be included here,18 Asklepiades of Tragilos [FGrHist 12], whose work may be characterised by two different equations:

Τραγωιδούμενα : Tragedy = Ἡρωολογία : Epos

[subjects of tragedy] [narratives of heroes]

or

Ephoros : Asklepiades = Herodotus : Hekataios.19

page 11

But this literary genre [mythography] celebrates a revival, as it might seem, after nearly 300 years: in the age of compiling grammarians, separate works about the period now called ‘mythical’ are again written; no longer by historians, but by philologists, along with at least partial inclusion of the new material that Hellenistic poetry had contributed. Therefore I shall include, as the last chapter of the volume on genealogy, this mythography of the compiling grammarians, the remains of the mythological handbooks, and so on down to the Tabula Iliaca and the Bibliotheca [of Apollodoros], which Müller —perhaps the best idea in his collection—placed after his few genealogists.20 So by that time in the concept of mythological history another change had taken place that produced, as parallel phenomena, the literary types of the chronicle of Kastor [FGrHist 250], the historical work of Diodoros, and the mythological handbooks.

However, the connection between the mythography of the fifth and the first centuries is not so immediate as Müller thought. Eduard Schwartz once accurately described these handbooks as ‘learned light reading’.21 Thus other branches of literature as well were the influence behind them. If the external form and the same content join these writings above all with the old Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies], they owe the adjective ‘learned’ to the good Hellenistic philology, whose descendants are their authors, and they owe their character as light reading at least partly to the mythological novel. But it appears indubitable that this form of novel,

page 12

which we can show in existence from the beginning of the fourth century, is a direct successor to the old authentic Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies]; the novel is their substitute, a modern reworking of the older writings with stronger rationalisation on the basis of influences from philosophy, natural sciences, and geography.22 We cannot separate Euhemeros [FGrHist 63; cf. Jacoby (9107a) 980 ff.] and the many novels about gods and heroes, literarily influenced by him, from Herodoros [FGrHist 3; cf. Jacoby 1912c) 980 ff.] and his associates. To exclude these works from the collection of the fragments of the historians is impossible, especially because the compiling historians and grammarians exploited them. They must, however, have their own chapter in the collection. In this chapter will be found names especially from the fourth to the second centuries BC.

Hellanikos and Chronography

Before these authors we must place Hellanikos, whose comprehensive activity deserves a special chapter as a counterpart to, so to speak, and also as a fulfillment of, the literary genres inaugurated by Hekataios himself. He can be grouped neither with the pure genealogists nor with the ethnographers, the periegetic writers, or the horographers. He embraces and definitively closes all the genres that had formed themselves in the fifth century. Even though Hellanikos [FGrHist 4; 323a; cf. Jacoby 1912b) 104 ff.] could not be included with him in the same volume of the collection, he perhaps stands closest to Ephoros in spirit. What Hellanikos does may be described, in summary, as the first attempt at a universal history of Greece, with a decided striving to reconcile the disparate traditions and descriptions in order to create a unified narrative. But the

page 13

external framework is still not unified; he still treats the separate periods of Greek history, as they were already at that time essentially established, in works of different character. The program, as is not surprising, seems to succeed, for the time being, only for the mythical period: ᾿Aσωπίς, Δευκαλιωνεία, Φορωνίς, Κραναικά [Asopis, Deukalioneia, Phoronis, Kranaika], etc., are each chapters or books of at least a system or even of a work that could rightly be designated as Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies] and that forms the starting point for Ephoros and the firm foundation for all later constructions. For the so-called spatium historicum [historical period as opposed to mythical], which entered into the literature only with Herodotus and was coherently treated23 for the first time after the publication of most of the ὧροι [chronicles] by Ephoros, Hellanikos could only prepare, in his chronicles of the various leading cities, the unifying systematic order. These chronicles form a characteristic mixture of local horography, Ionic ἱστορίη [research], and personal systematisation. It is not possible here even to touch on the mass of his separate treatises, not even that of his ethnographic writings, which coheres to form only a few groups and probably a few major works. But one of these monographs must nevertheless be mentioned especially in this context, because it goes beyond the existing genres and creates a new type by combining their particular features. The Ἱέρειαι τῆς Ἥρας [Priestesses of Hera at Argos], which I should without hesitation wish to call the most important work of Hellanikos, belongs in its external form to horography but, in terms of its content, to genealogy and ethnography and even to contemporary history. Quite unlike Hellanikos’ own Ἀττικὴ ξυγγραφή [History of Attica],

page 13

this is the chronicle not of a single state but of all Greece.24 The most important events in Greek history are organised on the thread of the list of Priestesses of Hera at Argos, according to name and year of office. This is to be regarded as the same procedure as when the Marmor Parium, a document that presupposes the existence of literary chronicles, uses the organising thread of the kings of Attica to list, not events taken out of an Atthis, but notes chosen from the entire historical literature. In that way Eratosthenes later used the names of the Spartan kings, as Apollodoros used the names of these kings and of the Attic archons, while Kastor used the Olympiads. Alongside the latter, the threads of kings and magistrates then play at the most a secondary role. With the Ἱέρειαι [Priestesses of Hera at Argos] begins the new γένος [genre] of chronography,25 which from now on progresses along with contemporary history or, rather, follows the latter form. That demands a special volume in the collection, which will appropriately, as Part V, directly attach itself to the volume containing the works on contemporary history.26

page 14

Ethnography No less numerous than the descendants of the Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies] are those of the Περίοδος Γῆς [Journey around the World]. I am not thinking of the genuine periegetic works; we have already separated them and have assigned them to the volume containing the geographers. Rather am I thinking of the works that no longer describe the entire known world, but a single land, from the geographicethnographic point of view; these works are also the connecting link between the Περίοδος [Journey around the World] and Herodotus. I wish to call them ethnographies, although the term in this form is not ancient,27 that is, the

page 15

Περσικά, Λυδιακά, Αἰγυπτιακά [Persika, Lydiaka, Aigyptiaka] and so on. That these works arose, as it were, from the dissolution of the Περίοδος [Journey around the World] into a series of λόγοι [narratives] seems to me to follow most clearly from the composition of Herodotus’ work. His Λυδιακά, Περσικά, Σκυθικά [Lydiaka, Persika, Skythika], and so on—for so we must name them—show very clearly a system28 for the description of barbarian peoples,29 in which the following four points of view can be recognised: there is discussion (1) about the land itself, (2) about its history, in genealogical succession of the royal dynasties and the kings,30 (3) about the θαυμάσια [wonders] (for the most part, buildings), (4) about the νόμοι [laws, customs] of the inhabitants. These separate λόγοι [narratives] are completely independent in themselves. Instead of the loose historical thread that binds them within Herodotus’ work,

page 16

one can equally well, in fact, better conceive them as bound together by the geographically uniting cord of the περιηγεῖσθαι [description of the world]. Then we have a Περίοδος γῆς [Journey around the World] whose author describes the known world, ὁμοίως σμικρὰ καὶ μεγάλα ἄστεα ἀνθρώπων ἐπεξιών [‘telling the story as I go along of small cities of men no less than of great’, Hdt. 1.5]. But if we allow the λόγοι [narratives] to stand without such a connection, which is always only an external one, we have a group of examples of the new γένος [genre] of ethnography, whose first essential characteristic is that it consists of the single parts of the Περίοδος [Journey around the World], which have become independent. That this kind of emancipation of the parts of the Periodos had taken place in the meantime is revealed by the manner in which Herodotus employs the λόγοι [narratives];31 it also lies in the nature of the Periodos itself. The old Περίοδος [Journey around the World] did indeed contain, along with its portrait of the world, not only geographic-ethnographic descriptions of lands and peoples, but also historical tradition, especially so far as such tradition was related to natural and artistic monuments of the individual lands. But such things were only occasional additions which, in view of the limited length of the whole work, cannot have been substantial in the case of most of the lands.

It was natural that the further development began here above all. In place of occasional bits of information related to myth and history (which, of course, are not separated from one another) there entered a complete history of the several peoples, from the origins down to the present; but this did not mean that the descriptive element, that is, topographic and ethnographic description based on autopsy, oral information, and written sources, disappeared. This development fulfilled itself slowly. Specialised works

page 17

were written only about those peoples about whom there was in general enough to say and who were especially interesting, to the Ionians above all. It is easy to understand that the oldest book of the new genre, the Περσικά [Persika] of Dionysios of Miletos [FGrHist 687] is not only written at the same time as the Ionian Revolt but is also undoubtedly inspired by it. The public needed to learn as much as possible about the ruling people, and this need created the first example of ethnography.32 It is equally understandable that, in the fifth century, along with Περσικά [Persika], we find only Λυδιακά [Lydiaka], perhaps also Αἰγυπτιακά [Aigyptiaka], if Hellanikos’ Αἰγυπτιακά was an independent work [FGrHist 4 FF 53–5.] For the rest, Egypt above all was described by Hellanikos and then by Herodotus in such detail that no need was felt for a new specialist study, at least so long as Egypt remained a province of Persia. These remained for a long time the only ethnographies. It is only the campaigns of Alexander that inspire an enormous flowering of the γένος [genre]. Almost at the same time there appear, as independent books,33 Βαβυλωνιακά, Φοινικικά, Αἰθιοπικά, Ἀραβικά, Ἰνδικά, Ἰουδαϊκά, Ῥωμαϊκά [Babyloniaka, Phoenikika, Aithiopika, Arabika, Indika, Ioudaïka, Romaïka]; many revised editions of most of these books rapidly followed one another.

page 18

All these books will be included, if only for practical reasons, in one volume, even though we must recognise an essential formal difference between the true ethnographies —that is, the descriptions of barbarian peoples written by Greeks—and certain others, now arising,34 which were written by natives of the lands themselves. The former group, however much room they may allow to the historical element, that is, the narrative of events, always bear the descriptive-ethnographic character and moreover that of autopsy typical of Ionian ἱστορίη [research];35 the latter group, namely the Babyloniaka of Berossos, the Aigyptiaka of Manetho, Ioudaïka and Romaïka, take the form of chronicles and, because the backbone of their narrative is shaped by the official ἀναγραφαί [lists of

page 19

magistrates], they actually stand closer in form to Greek horography than to ethnography.

Ethnography afterward experiences a second expansion, as the philologists take control of it in the later Hellenistic period; at that time Σκυθικά, Βιθυνιακά, Λυκιακά, Καρικά, Ποντικά, Ἰλλυρικά, Ἠπειρωτικά [Skythika, Bithyniaka, Lykiaka, Karika, Pontika (the Black Sea), Illyrika, Epeirōtika (Epirus)], and so on shoot up like mushrooms from the earth; one also has to include in this group Θεσσαλικά, Ἀχαικά [Thessalika, Achaika] and so on, books that were written only about Greek or half-Greek regions that developed no historical chronicles.36 Finally pure compilation (Alexandros Polyhistor [FGrHist 273; cf. especially III a, 250 ff.]) puts an end to this production too. But the vitality of this type of history was not wholly extinct even in the Roman empire; very late in time Παρθικά, Ἰσαυρικά,37 Καππαδοκιακά [Parthika, Isaurika, Kappadokiaka] made their appearance, and the ᾿Αραβικά [Arabika], for example, underwent revisions that did not disavow the old character of ἱστορίη [research].

The collection of fragments must include all these works, without trying to establish a lower limit in time.38 Concerning the organisation, only the geographic principle comes into question: all works that deal with a single land should be grouped together, with the separate authors in chronological order.39 The lands themselves, from the purely scientific standpoint, would best be placed in the chronological order in which they penetrated the horizon of the Greeks (that is, essentially of the Ionians) and thus

page 20

entered into the literature. In practice, however, it is probably best, for the sake of convenience, to use alphabetical order according to the names of the lands.

This grouping of all ethnographies allows a few more observations about the essence of the genre:

(1) A genuine ethnography always embraces everything that can be said about the land under discussion. Thus when there are several ethnographies about a single people—and that is the case with all the more important ones—the later ethnography is not the continuation, but the enlarged revision of the earlier one (merely to emphasise this point). Therein lies one of the most fundamental differences from the Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika], where one work continues another. The difference is thus explained: ethnography, according to its origin, is not narrative, like contemporary Greek history, but descriptive. The description of the land and of the νόμοι [laws, customs] of its inhabitants is always the foundation and point of departure for the ethnographer. But this description can only be presented as a whole. Thus does the original character of this genre persist, even when—obviously under the influence of the Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika]—the narrative, in other words the historical element, in certain ethnographies constantly gains more ground.40 The difference that Eduard Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums V §909 [(1902) 338–9 = (1958) 331–2] perceives in the Περσικά [Persika] between Ktesias [FGrHist 688], the ‘late-comer to the old historiography in the Ionian style’, and the ‘thoroughly scientific’ writers Herakleides of Kyme and Dinon [FGrHist 689; 690], is in this form unjustified. Should we somehow identify Ionian ἱστορίη [research] with lack of scientific spirit and reject the scientific character of a whole characteristic literary genre of the highest importance, simply because Ktesias is personally a fraud? That reminds one of the equally unjustified,

<=.pb 21=>

exaggerated emphasis on the ‘romance-novel element’ in the ethnographies of the periods of Alexander and his successors. In Ktesias, just as in Herakleides and Dinon, the narrative element already preponderates strongly; and the difference between them is only one of their personal credibility. One can probably best observe the approximation of ethnography to contemporary Greek history in the Σικελικά [Sikelika], that is, the histories of western Greece, which one would almost be inclined to call contemporary history in some of their representatives.41 Antiochos [FGrHist 555] seems, in his style and content, to have wholly followed Ionian ethnography, whose dialect he uses,42 while Philistos already writes pure contemporary history in his second Σύνταξις [treatise]. But his work Περὶ Διονυσίου [On Dionysios], even though it is cited as a separate work and also seems to have been an artistic unit,43 is not a monograph in the spirit of Thucydides. It hung together inseparably44 with the first Σύνταξις [treatise] entitled Περὶ

page 22

Σικελίας [On Sicily; FGrHist 556 FF 1–27], and this part, which began with prehistoric times, appears to have borne wholly the character of ethnography.45 When Philistos then turns to the history of Dionysios II, we have a continuation of contemporary history almost in the style of the Hellēnika. But this changeover from ethnography to the Hellēnika-type is unmistakeable only when Athanas [FGrHist 562] summarily completes this unfinished history and then himself describes the period of Dion in detail. But the most important in the ranks of writers of Σικελικά [Sikelika], Timaios [FGrHist 566], begins again with prehistoric times and writes in the style of fourth-century ethnography, moreover already with a strong antiquarian–grammarian streak. The result is that, even within these Sicilian histories one can, in the end, recognise only a strong approximation to contemporary Greek history, brought about by the material concerning Greek matters that they report. However, we cannot regard them as works of contemporary history, so that we have to include them in our collection alongside the ethnographers.46

(2) In general, there are true ethnographies only concerning the lands that are politically independent, and

page 23

only as long as they remain so.47 Naturally this statement allows exceptions; but they really do here confirm the rule. There are Λυδιακά [Lydiaka] written in the fifth century, although Lydia is a Persian province from the middle of the sixth century. But there is only one book about Lydia. It is certainly not only the excellence of Xanthos’ work that precluded the rise of others, but above all the fact that Lydia had no further history after 546 BC. Thus there is no need for an expanded edition, but at the most a need for one suited in style to the taste of later readers, which Menippos [FGrHist 765 T 7] provided, in the Hellenistic period, in the form of an epitome of Xanthos (Diog. Laert. 6.101). For this work is naturally to be judged in the same manner as, for example, Theopompos’ epitome of the history of Herodotus [FGrHist 115 FF 1–4].

Even more significant is the fact that there appear to have been no independent Αἰγυπτιακά [Aigyptiaka] in the fifth century. In view of the interest of the Greeks in the land of the pharaohs, this can hardly be explained only by the existence of the descriptions by Hekataios and Herodotus: these were detailed, and yet considerably lesser in scope than, for example, the descriptions of the Περσικά [Persika] of Dionysios and the Λυδιακά [Lydiaka] of Xanthos. Here too the other reason will have been decisive, and when we then find in the fourth century the first independent book about Egypt, the Αἰγυπτιακά [Aigyptiaka] of Aristagoras of Miletos [FGrHist 608 T 2], who was οὐ πολλῶι νεώτερος Πλάτωνος [‘not much younger than Plato’], it is truly an easy step to connect the origin of this book ‘with the interest in the land of the pharaohs that was newly

page 24

awakened by Ochos’ expedition’ (Schwartz (1894b) 850.5-6).48 The proof e contrario is supplied, so to speak, by the especially numerous Περσικά [Persika], given that during the fifth and fourth centuries, in intervals of about one generation, Dionysios of Miletos [FGrHist 687],49 Herodotus,

page 25

Hellanikos, Ktesias, Herakleides of Kyme [FGrHist 689], and Dinon [FGrHist 690] follow one another. But with Dinon this ethnographic group comes to a close. The fall of the Persian empire already seems no longer to have been treated in Περσικά [Persika],50 but only within the historiography of Alexander; and this historiography is never called Περσικά, because it belongs to the Hellēnika type. 51 Where the title Περσικά still appears in later times,

page 26

we can be certain a priori that we have to do, on the one hand, with purely rhetorical works, whose purpose lies only in the stylistic transformation of material collected by earlier writers, without any independent research and without continuing the narrative down to the writer’s own time.52 We should allow this rhetorical historiography or, rather, this historiographic rhetoric, in which the material is entirely secondary and the treatment is everything, to remain totally ignored, both here and in the collection, if it had not occasionally to be considered as a source for older works that can be recognised only through their having been used by it. Or, on the other hand, such Περσικά [Persika] are compilations by grammarians from all older ethnographies: here, on the contrary, the material is everything, the treatment nothing. Both types are, in respect of their origin, essence, and purpose completely different from the products of Ionian ἱστορίη [research]. But, on practical grounds, one cannot segregate them from the genuine ethnographies in the collection.

ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑΙ [Deeds of the Greeks]

(Contemporary Greek History)

We come now to the most important volume of the collection, which I shall discuss as briefly as possible, in order not to fall into the Boundless. It will include all authors who have narrated general Greek history of their own time, or down to their own time, without limitation to any locality. There is no ancient name that covers this whole class of writing in its three literary forms —monograph, universal history, Hellēnika-type —even though

page 27

in comparison with the other genres it was perceived as a unity.53 With regard to content, the designation as Ἑλληνικά

page 28

[Hellēnika] would be justified;54 but the ancient term denotes only a limited, though clearly the most important, group of literature here under discussion. It would probably be best to refer to them as Πράξεις Ἑλληνικαί [Accomplishments of the Greeks] and add a modern accompanying title, ‘contemporary Greek history’. With this secondary title we make it clear that the whole genre is to be considered a successor to the work of Thucydides—leaving Herodotus aside for a moment. The fact seems to me clear. But the reason is, however, not the one often given, that the oldest narrators of contemporary history, the representatives of the Hellēnika-type in the narrower sense, namely Kratippos and the historian of Oxyrhynchos,55 Theopompos, and

page 29

Xenophon, continue Thucydides in external form and also, at least in part, stand under the influence of his historical style,56 and because others too begin their narratives where

page 30

these first successors end. The basic cause lies deeper: only with Thucydides did Greek historiography reach τὴν αὑτῆς φύσιν [‘its true nature’, a phrase taken from Aristotle’s Poetics 1449 a 15], in that it creates the genre that now permanently remains the noblest and most significant, which actually alone truly ranks as ‘historiography’, namely contemporary history. Its distinguishing features are: (1) that it perceives the main duty of the historian in the description of the time that he himself has lived through, no matter whether he describes this age alone or begins at some earlier time of his own choosing; (2) that it takes its standpoint on the side of the Greeks; (3) that this standpoint is in no way limited to any locale but is pan-Hellenic, worldhistorical.57 That standpoint had existed, down to this time, only for the mythical period. The Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies] were, even if they preferred to narrate a definite group of sagas,58 nevertheless still panhellenic, like epic poetry, out of which they arose. The general Greek contemporary history, by contrast, was, down to this time, never treated independently, i.e., ex officio (a fact easily explained by the development of historiographical writing), but was treated either from the standpoint of some barbarian people, above all the Persians, or from the limited standpoint of the local historians. There were histories called ἔργα Περσῶν, Λυδῶν, etc., and ἔργα Σαμίων, Λαμψακηνῶν [Deeds of the Persians, Lydians, etc., and Deeds of the Samians, Lampsakenes] but not yet any πράξεις Ἑλλήνων [Accomplishments of the Greeks].59

<=.pb 31=>

It results at once very clearly from these facts that Greek historiography in the true sense did not, as one might believe, grow up out of a compilation of local histories. It has nothing whatever to do with these histories: in fact, horography is even later in time than historiography.60 Both genres of historical literature exist side by side and touch one another only so far as from time to time the historian uses the ὧροι [chronicles] as a source for details61 and, on the other hand, the horographer takes the κοιναὶ ἱστορίαι [general histories] into account in the interest of local patriotism, that is, usually polemically.62 The compilation of the ὧροι would, at the most, have created chronography. But chronography, too, stands in much closer relationship to universal history; and whether horography—and not only the ἀναγραφαί [lists of magistrates] —contributed to bringing about the genesis of chronography is more than doubtful.

Positively, and without difficulty, the two sources that together created the stream of contemporary history can be identified:

(1) It arises as the expansion and continuation of the Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies] for the spatium historicum [historical period, as opposed to the mythical], a concept that we find

page 32

worked out as early as Herodotus.63 Herodotus —for he and not Thucydides here plays the decisive role—apparently ties in with the genealogical literature and feels himself as its continuator. Anyone sees this who considers his proem (1.1-5), in which the first stages of the world-historical opposition between Orient and Occident are briefly stated, actually only mentioned, and are called into the reader’s memory by way of introduction. A detailed account of this part of Greek history is expressly declined,64 surely not out of clearly formed critical suspicion about the truth and the historical accuracy of the tradition about this period, but out of a purely external and practical point of view: these stages —Io, Europa, Helena —have already received an extended critical (that is, rationalising and historicising) treatment from Herodotus’ predecessors. Herodotus briefly reports their narrative, which departs so notably from the picture in Greek epics and which is the result of their criticism and ἱστορίη [research] among the eastern λόγιοι

page 33

[learned men]; he does so without the claim or even the suggestion that he is contributing something new. On the contrary, it is very clear that the content of these chapters, which deal with the period of the epics, has already passed through the intermediate phase of the quasi-historical narrative in the Genealogies.65

The accuracy of this conception, if it still needed any proof, is shown by a remark about the kings of Sparta which is wholly analogous, but this time also gives the specific reason (Hdt. 6.55): ὅτι δὲ ἐόντες Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ ὅτι ἀποδεξάμενοι ἔλαβον τὰς Δωριέων βασιληίας, ἄλλοισι γὰρ περὶ αὐτῶν εἴρηται, ἐάσομεν αὐτά∙ τὰ δὲ ἄλλοι οὐ κατελάβοντο, τούτων μνήμην ποιήσομαι [‘How it happened that Egyptians came to the Peloponnese, and what they did to make themselves kings in that part of Greece, has been chronicled by other writers; I will add nothing, therefore, but proceed to mention some points which no one else has yet touched upon’]. With these words, the narrative of the ancient history of the Heraclids, which had been satisfactorily treated by poets and genealogists, is dismissed, and in its place the description of the constitutional γέρεα [powers] of the Spartan kings is inserted. I probably need not set forth in detail that Thucydides for his part, despite all differences, nevertheless sees himself once again as the successor of Herodotus, whereas he dismisses the local

page 34

chronicles.66 The inner connection of the three works, Hekataios’ Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies] —Herodotus’ Μηδικά [Mēdika] —Thucydides’ Πελοποννησιακὸς πόλεμος [Peloponnesian War] —is certain. These are the three stages that the development of Greek historiography ran through from its beginning to its fulfillment.

(2) Βut Greek contemporary history is not only the continuation of the Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies]; it is also perceived at the same time, as the term τὰ Ἑλληνικά [ta Hellēnika], which is already used by Thucydides, shows quite well, as a complement, or still better as a counterpart, to the ethnographies. And, in fact, this relationship is also clear to anyone who reflects on the genesis of the work of

page 35

Herodotus.67 It is created because the historical approach— τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι’ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι [‘and especially to show why the two peoples fought with each other’, Hdt. 1 praef.] —prevails over the descriptive one and finally overcomes the latter. What leads Herodotus to a level above Hekataios is the subordination of his individual λόγοι [narratives], which in themselves and according to their genesis could be parts of a Περίοδος [Journey around the World] or independent ethnographies,68 not under the descriptive point of view of the περιοδεύειν [describing the world in a periegetic way], but under the historical one of the confrontation between Orient and Occident. How deeply or superficially this thought is pursued, even whether in itself it was Herodotus’ own idea, here appears to be of no consequence. The fact that, leaving aside the unimportant links that hold the text together, in two thirds of his work the old descriptive point of view almost alone dominates, does not diminish the importance of the stride forward that Herodotus took for the development of historical writing. But there is surely something else to note: the introduction of that historical idea is not by itself

page 36

enough. It would, in the place of the Περίοδος [Journey around the World], have created not Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika], but only Περσικά [Persika]. Or are Books (–9 anything other than a Περίοδος Γῆς [Journey around the World], clothed in the outward form of Περσικά [Persika]?69 One has only to change the place of the Lydian λόγος [narrative: Hdt. 1.6–94], and then the resemblance is complete: Herodotus gives a narrative of the land, people, νόμοι [laws, customs], and above all the ἔργα [achievements] of the Persian people, who subdued all other peoples of the Orient, so that their description, in the form of excursuses from the main narrative, can be fitted in. But this main narrative is organised, like Dionysios’ Περσικά [Persika], according to the genealogical succession of the Persian kings.

The truly decisive step taken by Herodotus, which turned ethnography into history, is seemingly wholly negative.70 The author carries his Περσικά not down to his own time, not even to the end of the rule of Xerxes—one may safely state this despite the controversy, which has certainly long since been resolved, about the end point of

page 37

his work. On the contrary, he breaks off, or by his own decision wanted to break off, at the end of an epoch which has always been designated, in the narrower sense, as τὰ Μηδικά [ta Mēdika: here = The Persian Wars].71 But especially for that reason, the last part of his work (Books 7–9) appears, and is meant to appear, not simply as a conclusion, but rather as the peak and true goal of his narrative. Thus the final part receives a kind of proem of its own.72 It is only in this part that Herodotus —he, as the first —chooses his standpoint on the side of the Greeks. What we read in his last books is not ἔργα Περσῶν [deeds of the Persians] but ἔργα Ἑλλήνων [deeds of the Greeks]: Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika], not Περσικά [Persika]. There is no doubt that Herodotus himself saw in the six books of Persian history [1–6] only the introduction to the narrative of the Persian war of 480. But with that something is created that we can describe in no other way than as a historical monograph, the artistically rounded description of a specific event in Greek history, written for the sake of its towering historical significance. Even though this first monograph, in its unformed state, still bears, like a newly-hatched chick, the eggshells of its birth on itself, there was now still only one step —and no longer a very large one —to the monograph of contemporary history about the Peloponnesian War. In this monograph the goal is reached: historical thinking and the narrative element reign in their fullest rigour; even the descriptions and reflections, through the medium of oratory, have become narrative. The Greek standpoint steps forward quite clearly, perhaps too clearly. Both achievements, once accomplished, are never again lost. If later writers again allow more extensive space to the descriptive-ethnographic element than Thucydides does in his sparing and perhaps too brief excursuses of this kind, the proportion in the mixture has,

page 38

once and for all, become a different one from that in ethnography. The geographic-ethnographic element from now on bears in historiography the character either of an auxiliary science (Ephoros) or of artistic-novelistic seasoning designed for the reader’s taste (Theopompos). Even later times maintain the awareness that descriptive ethnography and genuine history are different things, that an overly strong emphasis on the descriptive element damages the character of the genre that is history: thus did Arrian, with accurate instinct, devote an individual book, in the form of ethnography, to the description of India, but in his history of Alexander say only so much about the land, ὅσον ἐς τὰ Ἀλεξάνδρου ἔργα ἀποχρῶν ἐφαίνετο [‘as much as appeared adequate to understand Alexander’s achievements’] (Anab. 5.5.1).

I need not discuss in detail what deep and yet merely secondary differences separate his so-called ‘Continuators’ from Thucydides. Briefly said, it is the neglect of the historic and artistic consciousness of the goal, which defines the essence of the monograph, in favour of a more epic, chronicle-like narrative of a period that, at both beginning and end, is more defined by chance. The perpetuae historiae [continuous histories] appear in place of the bella [wars]. The true literary successors of Thucydides are therefore not the authors of universal histories and Hellēnika, but those of the monographs about the Sacred War and other individual events of the Hellenistic period down to Sallust; in very limited scope —more in rhetoric than in fact —Theopompos in his Philippika and a few, by no means all, historians of Alexander.

However, a separation between the monographs and the works of the Hellēnika-type —these productions that continue one another or feud with one another in parallel narratives and, considered as works of art, always have the character of fragments —is simply not feasible, within the collection of fragments, if only because their authors are often the same ones. Again, one cannot effect a separation between these two groups of works of purely contemporary

page 39

history and the universal Greek history of an Ephoros, which is chronologically expanded backward in time to completion, because an essential difference between them was not felt and in fact does not exist.73 For in universal history, as well, the narrative of the writer’s own time always surpasses, in breadth of treatment and importance, the older parts,74 which usually have the character of a

page 40

compilation and claim merit only for their style. In these men, who scorn the fragment-like character of Hellēnika, artistic sensitivity simply ranks higher; not for nothing are they without exception rhetoricians or at least actively interested in rhetoric.75 Moreover, the Hellēnika-type itself embraces not only the works especially titled Hellēnika, but also Φιλιππικά [Philippika] and Μακεδονικά [Makedonika], which only in their title take account of the shift in the relationships of power.76 Their immediate continuation is,

page 41

then, the histories of Alexander,77 to which the narratives of the following era, called Τὰ μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον Ἑλληνικά, Μακεδονικά, or simply Ἱστορίαι [Hellēnika, Makedonika, Histories, all after Alexander], for their part attach themselves.

page 42

We shall also place here the contemporary histories of the individual successor-states and of certain city-states that rise above the narrow point of view of horography. All these works have in common the panhellenic standpoint and range of material; also common to them is the tendency to treat contemporary history, no matter whether the works limit themselves to contemporary history or, beginning at some arbitrary point in the past, come down to the present while always becoming more detailed.

Taken as a whole, these works would yield a comprehensive history of the Greek people, in which some epochs, however, would receive two or more narratives.78 The volume that contains the sad remains of this vast building and, as the most voluminous one in the collection, needs subdividing into chapters for the sake of clarity, can for that reason be judiciously arranged only according to a historical principle: that is, according to the chronological order of the epochs being treated. I conceive more or less the following chapters: (1) Hellēnika of the fourth century; (2) Ephoros and universal history; (3) Theopompos and the Φιλιππικά [Philippika]; (4) historians of Alexander; (5) Τὰ μετ’ Ἀλέξανδρον Μακεδονικά, Ἑλληνικά, and Ἱστορίαι [Makedonika, Hellēnika, Histories, all after Alexander] down to Poseidonios [FGrHist 87];79 (6) monographs and individual histories of Hellenistic states;80 (7) literature of memoirs and ἱστορικά [historical] hypomnemata; (8) the compiling universal

page 43

historians of the first century; (9) contemporary historical writings of the end of Antiquity (the Roman Empire). [H. Bloch, Abhandlungen 423, adds that Part II of FGrHist, nos. 64–238, includes these nine genres, but in different order (1–2, 5, 8, 9, 3–7), and the chronological tables.]

However, the last of these chapters clearly places us before another difficult question,81 namely whether and when we wish to set a lower chronological limit for our collection and whether this limit should be the same for all genres. I believe, however, that I must say no to this latter question from the beginning; thus the difficulty for all subgenres disappears. For genealogy ends definitively with the compilations; after that come only novels and books presenting fictitious data. Genealogical notes from later, and even from the latest, Byzantine writers can easily be placed in the ἄδηλα [texts of uncertain provenance] section.82 But we shall include everything from ethnography and horography that shows, through its titles and fragments, that it actually belongs in these groups. The chronological ambiguity of many local historians makes this the practical decision at once. But, moreover, there is no other compelling reason to fix another limit here than the one that the end of the genre itself supplies. It would be simply foolish to exclude, for example, Arrian’s Βιθυνιακά [Bithyniaka, FGrHist 156 FF 14–29, 57–111] or his Ἰνδική [Indikē; FGrHist 133 FF 1, 5–11; 715 FF 5, 6, 9-20, 23, 42; 721 FF 3, 6, 16], Memnon’s work about Herakleia [FGrHist 434], and others. Even the books titled Πάτρια [Ancestral Customs]—if they are not, like those about Constantinople, available in special editions —will be included in the collection, because they are the immediate continuation of

page 44

the Hellenistic city histories. In general, local history will be understood in the broadest sense and will be included.83

One cannot act in the same way concerning contemporary history and chronography, which is intimately bound up with it. Strictly speaking, in this sphere there is no limit of time other than the year 1453. For the Byzantines followed so closely in the paths of classical literature, above all in historical writing at the higher level, that every break is more or less arbitrary, whether we wish to call Theophanes or Malalas the first Byzantine,84 that is, whether to close the collection with the reign of Justinian or of Phokas; or whether one might better, with Krumbacher, consider the reign of Constantine and the year 324 as the beginning of a new period of history, and thus let contemporary history close with Zosimos, the last pagan writer of the genre. I personally could imagine, for anyone who does not wish to pursue the development to the end of the Empire, no better end point than the reign of Augustus and the turning point of our era. In the first century BC not only the productivity of ancient science is extinguished, but also that of historiography. In all fields there appear the great compilations: in mythography the handbooks, in ethnography the collections of excerpts by Polyhistor, in chronography the compilation of Kastor, and in

page 45

contemporary history Diodoros, Nikolaos, Pompeius Trogus. Not coincidentally, after this time there begins the great gap in contemporary historiography.85 The Greeks of the first two centuries AD write no contemporary history, which now would have to be the history of the Roman Empire. In the Greek language there appear, at the most, monographs about single wars fought by the emperors, such as Arrian’s Παρθικά [Parthika; FGrHist 156 FF 30–51] and about the emperors themselves. The former works are likely to be mostly of a kind that richly deserved Lucian’s mockery, while the latter, mainly composed by rhetoricians, are probably encomia, not historical biographies. The total mass of this literature is not big at all,86 and significant names are wholly missing, for Josephus and Justus belong in the Ἰουδαϊκά [Ioudaïka]. Arrian’s Παρθικά [Parthika], too, has taken on the form of narrative ethnography rather than that of a monograph about contemporary history. In any case, the artistic character of the true monograph is missing in all these works. And then, when the history of the Roman Empire and contemporary history in the Greek language

page 46

revive, with Dio Cassius, we then find the classicising imitation in the form that remains the dominant one until the end of the Empire. For the rest, from that time on we possess most of what was written.

Each closing point between the reign of Augustus and the capture of Constantinople marks a compromise. Since practical necessity compels us to accept compromises,87 it is in the end not very important whether we close the collection at 325 or allow the remains of Byzantine contemporary history, as well, to follow in another chapter, but in that case down to 1453 and with the further inclusion of church history.

On the other hand, we must in my opinion proceed differently in the volume dedicated to chronography. In this case, to assert the demand that the collection must also include the fragments of Johannes Antiochenus, because C. Müller printed them as an appendix, is to stretch the framework too wide. The man of Antioch belongs with his completely preserved brothers, the popular worldchroniclers from Malalas onward, in the CSHB [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae], where he can stand in the appendix to Malalas or in the one to the Paschal Chronicle.

Naturally, we shall not end the volume on chronography with Kastor. Rather, if we admit contemporary history beyond the time of Augustus, we shall also include within chronography the works that stand in the series starting with Kastor: that is, the works that ‘unite Roman and oriental history with Greek and Hellenistic in a survey in the form of a table’ (Wachsmuth (1895) 139); and we shall naturally also include those who more soberly begin with the fall of Troy or the first Olympiad: that is, Dionysios of Halicarnassos, Περὶ Χρόνων [On Chronology, FGrHist 251], Phlegon’s Ὀλυμπιάδες [Olympic Cycles, FGrHist 257 FF 1(–34], Charax’s Χρονικά [Chronicle, FGrHist 103 FF

page 47

15–30], Dexippos’ Χρονικὴ Ἱστορία [Chronicle, FGrHist 100 FF 1–5] and his continuator Eunapios [FHG IV.7–56], Porphyry [FGrHist 260] and others. On the other hand, it already appears to me doubtful whether we should also reserve a place for Jewish chronography ( Justus, Thallos [FGrHist 734, 256]). Although these books may also have been meant for Greeks, nevertheless their starting point, the equation Moses–Ogygos, in place of the one accepted by the Greeks, Belos–Ogygos, is no longer an ancient one; equally far from antiquity is the authors’ wish to parallel Jewish chronology and history with that of the pagans; but then even less ancient is the church’s interest, which constantly becomes more and more dominant, in Christian chronography. For, naturally, one cannot then exclude Christian chronography, since the new evolutionary series clearly does not begin with Africanus, but rather with the Jews. [H. Bloch, Abhandlungen 424, adds that Jacoby did not include Christian chronography in FGrHist; cf. FGrHist II A, p. VIII.] After all, the practical interest that seeks to have in one volume all reports about antiquity, even those that are tendentiously distorted, can lead us to accept these people as well—the remains of the Jewish chronographers, of Africanus, Hippolytos, Annianus, Panodoros, and the fragments of the monks’ chronicles (Excerpta Barbari [cf. Jacoby (1909) 1566–76], Papyrus Goleniščev, etc.). But when it comes to the popular world-chronicles, one must finally draw the line; Johannes Antiochenus belongs as little in the FHG as Malalas does in ancient chronography; it would be even more suitable if we were to include them in the local history of Antiocheia.

At this point, then, the discussion of the three great genres of historical writing, which evolved in the fifth century with their varieties and offshoots, out of the two books of Hekataios, passing through their separate ways and separate phases, has come to an end. The permanent result of the development of historiography in the first century of its existence is a less frequent appearance of the two genres (genealogy and ethnography) that directly

page 48

continued those books and the separation of the periegetic literature —which incidentally was not dependent only on the Περίοδος [Journey around the World] —as an individual genre. As true historical writing, from the fourth century onward, there was acknowledged only the gradually developed ‘contemporary history of Greece’, which, at least in its two first and greatest representatives [Herodotus and Thucydides], does not deny its origin from and its connection with Hekataios, and which is characterised by two main literary forms, the monograph and the perpetuae historiae [continuing histories].

Horography

Completely separated now from this development, in its origin, form,88 and content, stands the final major genre, the annals of individual Greek cities, the ὧροι [hōroi, i.e., chronicles] or ὡρογραφίαι [hōrographiai, chronicle writings].89

page 49

The psychological motives that led to the rise of the genre are essentially different from those that inspired the ancient Milesian [Hekataios] and his successors. In the latter we have the clear realism of scientific criticism and of the Ionian striving for research, the recognition that history is the ‘teacher’ of politics; here too the panhellenic content and an outlook directed at the whole known world. In the former we have a retreat from the present, a dreamlike sinking into a more beautiful past90 and the most narrowminded local patriotism. This entire genre of literature pays attention to panhellenic genealogy and contemporary history only so far as it finds it important to establish for its own city a founding and a prehistory of the kind and the largest possible role in the great achievements of the recent past, both of which can happen only through attaching the city to panhellenic history.91

page 50

But these are known facts. I should like here to discuss in more detail only one point, which seems to me not meaningless for the history of the origin of horography as well: I mean its age, which seems to me to have often been much overestimated in recent years along with the greater attention paid to these works. This is, in my opinion, the result of a confusion, or at least an insufficiently sharp division, difficult to comprehend and yet often to be perceived, between the more or less official but not literary ἀναγραφαί [lists of magistrates] of individual cities, festival places, and temples, which are attested in Greece from the beginning of the eighth century,92 and the literary treatments of them, always private, even when the writers

page 51

belong to those official circles, treatments that usually, but not always, follow the ἀναγραφαί [lists] of the eponymous magistrates. I make the following statement in contradiction to the usual view: horography is not only younger than genealogy and ethnography; it is also younger than Herodotus. With this I do not wish to say that all Greek local chronicles were published later than Herodotus’ history; rather, that they did not yet exist, when Herodotus collected that material from which he later wrote his work under the influence of certain external conditions. That is, they did not yet exist between 460 and ±440. Around 430 some may already have existed. We certainly cannot learn this from Herodotus; for as he composed his work, which obviously did not require a very long time, he did not then trouble himself with these books, if they existed and if he knew them. For they could tell him —so he may have believed — nothing more than what he had already learned, one or two decades earlier, in conversation with the λόγιοι [learned men] from the states and temples in question.

It has long been noted how closely Herodotus, in certain sections of his work, agrees with the material in the local chronicles.93 It is equally clear, yet not equally widely recognised, that this agreement in content is not to be explained through his direct and personal use of written sources of whatever kind, but through his dependence on the same tradition, knowledge of which the author had gained through oral transmission, through personal inquiry from private hosts, priests, and others who preserved the πάτρια [traditional knowledge], in a word the λόγιοι ἄνδρες [learned men]. Oral tradition comes into consideration for practically everything that Herodotus reports about Greek affairs.94 Equally, however, it has long been known that in

page 52

other sections, along with his own research and oral tradition, he has written sources available, which he follows, although, so far as possible, he also controls their reports from his own research.95 These literary sources consist of Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies] and Περίοδοι [Journeys around the World]; presumably even, although a truly definitive proof cannot here be produced, ethnographies. The controversial details are not important to me, only the fact itself, which is certain: for Herodotus cites such books,96 while the use or mention of chronicles nowhere occurs.

page 53

How does this notable division in Herodotus’ stance towards the different genres of historical literature from the fifth century explain itself? I believe that the only credible explanation lies in the relationship in time of these genres to Herodotus’ work. There were, as he was collecting his material, Genealogies in prose, Periodoi, and ethnographies; but there were no literary local chronicles, just as there were no Hellēnika or biographies. It is impossible for me to agree with the view recently expressed by Wilamowitz: ‘in his (that is, Herodotus’) rejection of all chronology he consciously sets himself in opposition to the impersonal chronicles, which he must have known.’97 In this ‘must’ I

page 55

page 56

can see only an impermissible petitio principii. For what do we know about the date when horographic literature arose? Not even for one single chronicle can publication be proven before the last third of the fifth century. On the contrary: where we have indications of time, they often lead significantly lower in time, not only for the ὧροι [chronicles] of the mainland but also for those of Asia Minor. Hellanikos was the first to publish not only the chronicles of Argos, Athens, and the Karnea, but also those of Lesbos. And yet here there were demonstrably very old ἀναγραφαί [lists of magistrates], reaching back at least into the seventh century. Eresos first obtained its chronicle through the work of the Peripatetic Phainias [FGrHist 1012]; Kyme obtained hers through Ephoros [FGrHist 70 FF 1, 97–100]. The chronicles of Greece itself, of Athens, Megara, and so on, can be shown to appear only in the fourth century. In Ionia, too, the situation is not much better.98

page 57

Despite the inscription of Priene, No. 37 [cf. above, n. 53], I am in no doubt about the authenticity of Maiandrios’ Ὧροι Μιλησίων [Chronicles of the Milesians, FGrHist 491–492]. But that they were written long before 400 is neither demonstrable nor credible. The second chronicler of Miletos is again a Peripatetic, Klytos [FGrHist 490]. The revised edition or first publication of these books in the last third of the fourth century is connected with the reformation of the cities of Asia Minor by Alexander and the Diadochs.99 Moreover, who will declare whether, and how far, Euagon of Samos, Eualkes of Ephesos, Eudemos of Paros, and Deiochos of Prokonnesos [FGrHist 535, 418, 497, 471] reach back into the fifth century? Thucydides —and this is actually the only secure date— certainly knows, along with Hellanikos’ Ἱέρειαι [Priestesses of Hera at Argos], Atthis, and Καρνεονίκαι [Winners of the Karnea at Sparta], a chronicle of Samos: his words and his way of dating teach us that (1.13.3).100 But that report stands in the ‘Archaeology’ [Thuc.

page 58

1.3-19] and thus hardly proves even the existence of a chronicle in the fifth century. For Chios, the inscription from Priene mentions only Theopompos [FGrHist 115 F 305]; therefore there was no older chronicle.101 Only Charon’s Ὧροι Λαμψακηνῶν [Chronicle of the Lampsakenes, FGrHist 262] are certainly from the fifth century; but that he wrote earlier than Herodotus is again a widespread but unproved and hardly correct assumption.102

page 59

I also find it questionable whether we can infer anything at all, from the transfer of epic and mythical authors’ names to prose chronicles —Kadmos’ Μιλησιακά [Milēsiaka, FGrHist 489, 335], Kreophylos’ Ἐφεσιακά [Ephesiaka, FGrHist 417], Eumelos’ Κορινθιακά [Korinthiaka, FGrHist 451] —about the age of these books.103 In my opinion these names definitely lead us into the Hellenistic period. I do not see why I should judge the chronicle of Kadmos, which moreover was not even a true chronicle, but rather a Κτίσις Μιλήτου καὶ τῆς ὅλης Ἰωνίας [Founding of Miletos and of All Ionia] differently from the Ἀτθίς [Athenian Chronicle] of the splendid Amelesagoras [FGrHist 330; cf. FGrHist III b Suppl. I, 598–607]. On the contrary, we must state that the authentic ὧροι [chronicles], that is, the oldest representatives known to us of the genre from the transition between the fifth and fourth centuries, bear authentic names of men, which according to their nature and the character of the period is no different from what we should expect. Their authors are neither frauds nor hiding themselves, because of modesty or for any other reason, behind pseudonyms and anonymity. Quite the reverse, the books that are decked out with the primeval names related to epic, myths, priestly traditions, or poetry, are partly demonstrably, partly probably (for here one clearly forged book drags behind itself the whole group) Hellenistic forgeries: if not a forgery of the book, in any case of the title. One can sometimes also imagine the existence of reworkings of poems in prose, written out of learned interest in the material: for example, in the case of Ion’s Χίου Κτίσις [Founding of Chios] and also Simonides’ Σαμίων Ἀρχαιολογία [Early History of the Samians, FGrHist 534], if in the latter case the author’s name is not actually apocryphal.

page 60

All that we know about the rise of horographic literature agrees completely with the results obtained from our study of Herodotus. This literature begins to develop in the last third of the fifth century; it becomes extensive only in the fourth century. Herodotus used not a single one of these histories of cities; he knows no literature about the spatium historicum. Thucydides knows, besides the works of Hellanikos, at least one authentic history of a city, that of Samos; but he probably also knew others, such as Charon’s chronicle of Lampsakos.104 To be able to place the beginnings of Greek horography at a higher date, we should therefore really have to impute to Herodotus a ‘conscious rejection of all chronology’.105 Have we a right to do this? In the case of the man who, despite his notorious lack of talent for measurement as well as counting, supplies so many dates and calculations for the age of the gods and heroes, who does his best to date the Greek poets as well with the aid of numerals or synchronisms with barbarian kings, who finally transcribes the duration and individual reigns of these barbarian royal families with touching eagerness? Yes, transcribes. That is the heart of the matter. Here he has enough texts that provide dates.106 If he gives no such dates for the Greek world after the time of the epics, no reason is imaginable other than that here he had none.107 The

page 61

conclusion, that he simply did not use the available texts, is impermissible and incredible.

And yet: at one place, which to my knowledge has never been evaluated for its relevance to the question under discussion here, he supplies an annalistic date. The Persian invades Attica Καλλιαδέω ἄρχοντος Ἀθηναίοισιν [‘when Kalliades was archon among the Athenians’] (8.51). That sounds as if it were taken from an Ἀτθίς [Athenian Chronicle]. Is it perhaps interpolated? Impossible; for the wish for exact dating in that chapter, with its reference to the months, is too clear. Or did Herodotus have this date in his memory? Inconceivable; for it is purely Athenian. Or did he here, by exception, open an Atthis, just as Thucydides, by exception, registers an especially important year according to different eponymous magistrates and once even takes an in itself unimportant event from Hellanikos’ Ἱέρειαι [Priestesses of Hera at Argos] (4.133)? That too is impossible. When Herodotus was writing, it can be shown that there was as yet no Ἀτθίς [Athenian Chronicle]. The oldest book of this kind appeared in fact only after 406. So how does the matter stand? This date of the Persian invasion stuck in the memory not indeed of mankind, but of the Athenians. Herodotus learned the archon’s name from their λόγιοι ἄνδρες [learned men]108 and entered it in the manuscript of the lecture probably originally designed for Athens. When he later composed his work, designed for all Greeks, out of the existing λόγοι [narratives], he let the archon’s name stand, without considering that it meant nothing to most of his readers, unless the separation in time from the event down to the present in ἔτη ἐς ἐμέ [years to my time] were given. That is what Thucydides, who had a chronicle for Samos and could thus count off the eponymous magistrates, did; Herodotus himself does the same for the dates of the

page 62

time of the sagas and of the history of the barbarians. If he does not do this for Greek dates of the historical period, obviously this clearly means that he cannot do it. The lists of eponymous magistrates had not yet been published. And the same happened to him again: πρότεροι γὰρ Σάμιοι ἐπ’ Ἀμφικράτεος βασιλεύοντος ἐν Σάμωι στρατευσάμενοι ἐπ’ Αἴγιναν μεγάλα κακὰ ἐποίησαν Αἰγινήτας καὶ ἔπαθον ὑπ’ ἐκείνων [‘for some time previously, when Amphicrates was king of Samos, the Samians had attacked Aegina and inflicted great damage on the island —though not without suffering heavy loss themselves’], we read in 3.59. The cases are so similar that even the preconceived belief in the older age of the Ionic ὧροι [chronicles] will hardly state that Herodotus here used a Samian chronicle.109 If that had been the case, his reports about Samos would probably appear different from their present state; moreover, he would hardly have put them so very unskillfully into different places in his work, but would perhaps have decided to include a coherent Samian λόγος [narrative], like a Scythian and Libyan one, which might well have received its place before 3.139 (the conquest of Samos by the Persians).110 On

page 63

the other hand, Herodotus gives, for example, no date from Olympia, none from Delphi. We know that the chronicle of Delphi was first published by Aristotle; and it is from Herodotus himself that we can infer that, when he wrote, Hippias had not yet published the list of Olympic victors. The priests here clearly could not or would not give him any dates; otherwise we should probably find a date for Pheidon based on reckoning by Olympiads at 6.127.111

Therefore once again: Greek horography as a branch of historical writing is younger than Herodotus. His work, above all, teaches us that, especially in comparison with Thucydides’ introduction. What we learn from the rest of tradition agrees; and the general conditions that led to the rise of this genre do not contradict this conclusion. As one of these conditions I regard one that, to my knowledge, has not yet been considered: it was precisely the publication of Herodotus’ work that, in my opinion, stimulated the publication of a series of local chronicles, especially those of the Greek motherland.112 The seemingly panhellenic, in truth clearly Athenian, tendency of his Μηδικά [Mēdika], and its portrayal of the behaviour of the Greek states in the Persian War, which was often influenced by the political constellation of its own times, inevitably led to attacks, excuses, and addenda, which could best be voiced through the medium of local history. Here local patriotism, as so often, confronted Great History. The best known example is the Θηβαίων ὧροι [Chronicles of the Thebans] of Aristophanes of Boeotia, which in any case are no later than the time of

page 64

the political rise of Thebes.113 Rather, earlier: because at that time Thebes’s interests were already represented in works of the Hellēnika-type. The clear opposition to Herodotus has surely not been read into it first by Plutarch; that it was present from the beginning is shown by the report about the leader of the Theban contingent at Thermopylae, ἐκ τῶν κατ’ ἄρχοντας ὑπομνημάτων [from the notes arranged according to archons], that is, from official ἀναγραφαί [lists of magistrates, cf. FGrHist 379 F 6]. That statement, by Aristophanes, is understandable only as polemic against a single point in Herodotus’ narrative.

The answer to the question about the time when the local chronicles arose was necessary in order to define the place that they have to occupy within the collection, if we use historical development as its basic principle; they belong after the genres that directly and indirectly descend from Hekataios’ writings, namely genealogy, ethnography, contemporary history, and chronography. In the preparation of the volume on horography, a question arises for the editor that is also not unimportant for the fragments of genealogy and ethnography,114 but becomes a burning

page 65

question here above all: namely, whether we should, as Müller usually did, prefer to rest content with the fragments that have been transmitted under definite authors’ names.

To pose the question means in my opinion to answer it in the negative. At the least we must surely include the collective citations from the chronicles of a city. We certainly cannot be satisfied, for example, in the case of Samos, with the scanty fragments of Euagon [FGrHist 535], Duris [FGrHist 76 FF 22–6], Olympichos [FGrHist 537], and Uliades [FGrHist 538], but must include the texts that are by no means so scarce and are cited as ἐν Σαμίων ὥροις [‘in the chronicles of the Samians’] or in similar ways [FGrHist 544]. And if we do that, it is incomprehensible why we should leave out a note, surely taken from the chronicle, such as Thucydides 1.13.3 about the building of the first Samian warships or 1.13.6 about Polycrates, simply because the

page 66

certain source is not expressly cited.115 And that again leads one step further. Herodotus has inserted in Book 3 a perfect, yet not complete, λόγος Σαμιακός [narrative about Samos] in several sections. It does not, indeed, come from a chronicle, but it does nevertheless include the same material that later stood in the chronicles. The collection of fragments must take account of it, whether through a complete printing of the text or at least through a reference and summary of the content.116

So I believe: the collection of fragments must here rise above Müller’s narrow approach; it must include all the material that the ancient sources give us about a specific place.117 In practice, this happens thus: for each place, we shall first list the fragments of the named chronicles in chronological order, then the collective citations, finally the facts that are cited without identification of source but can be traced back to local histories. This last-named information will be given either by the chronological order of the events or alphabetically according to the source.

Yet another question attaches itself to this volume. The horography of most states, or in any case of the most important ones, that is, historically most significant ones, whose ὧροι [chronicles] were always being augmented and revised, as the independent political life of these cities is brought to a close by collective chronicles, the Συναγωγαί [Collections] of the Hellenistic grammarians.118 The same grammarians, in addition, compose writings that must be

page 67

called a new branch of historical literature in the widest sense and that the collection of fragments cannot leave out. I have in mind the antiquarian literature, the books titled Περὶ τῶν Ἀθήνησιν θυσιῶν, ἀγώνων, ἑορτῶν, μνημάτων, μυστηρίων, δήμων [On the Athenian Sacrifices, Contests, Festivals, Monuments, Mysteries, Demes]; ἐπιγράμματα Ἀττικά [Athenian Epigrams]; ψηφισμάτων συναγωγή [Collection of Decrees]; περὶ τῆς Ἀθήνησιν ἀκροπόλεως [On the Athenian Acropolis]; περὶ τῆς ἱερᾶς ὁδοῦ [On the Sacred Way]; and so on. They are in part purely antiquarian, in part more historical, but in each case they provide historical material. It seems to me that, because of its mainly local character, one cannot very well separate this literature from the local chronicles.119 It acts, in a manner of speaking, as a substitute for the chronicles and, at the same time, as an expansion of the chronicles regarding the descriptive element.120

The only question is whether we should place these special antiquarian writings each time with the relevant city, or whether we should divide the volume dedicated to

page 68

horography into the two parts: the authentic horography and the antiquarian literature, that is, histories of cities and descriptions of cities. A purely practical consideration speaks for the second alternative: while the true horographer, in accordance with the purely local character of the γένος [genre], publishes or continues exclusively the chronicle of his city, this limitation disappears for the collecting grammarian. Istros [FGrHist 334] compiles the chronicles of Athens, Argos, and Elis respectively, while Polemon [FGrHist III B, p. 189] writes about Athens, Sikyon, Sparta, Thebes, Delphi, Dodona, Ilium, Samothrace, Carthage, and other cities; in addition, there are also his writings of another character, such as Κτίσεις [Foundations], books on art history, commentaries on earlier historians, polemic of multiple kinds.

Now since under no circumstances may the remains of a writer be split up in the collection; since none of the groups of writings so towers in importance over the others that we could subordinate the latter to them as an appendix; since finally the situation with the other grammarians and antiquarians is wholly of the same kind, it is best to unite this whole literature and group it by author’s name in alphabetic order. In that way we gain the further advantage that we can group here all the works that with regard neither to their sources nor to their external form assign themselves to a specific genre, but through the identity of their authors and their descriptive collective character do hang together with those just discussed; that is, the Ὑπομνήματα [Minutes, Memoranda], Νόμιμα [Laws, Customs], Κτίσεις [Foundations]; the books Περὶ ποταμῶν, κρηνῶν, λιμένων, νυμφῶν [On Rivers, Springs, Harbours, Nymphs]; Θαυμάσια [Marvels], Εὑρήματα [Discoveries or Inventions]; antiquarian writings that do not treat only the antiquities of one city (Περὶ ἀγώνων [On Contests] and so on); and others. To have all this gathered in one volume is especially desired because we lack a collection of the Fragmenta Grammaticorum Graecorum. [H. Bloch, Abhandlungen 424: The splitting up of the remains of an author: ‘from

page 69

time to time: out of practical considerations, Jacoby violated this principle, for example in the cases of Agatharchides (FGrHist 86 and in vol. V) and Eratosthenes (FGrHist 241 and vol. V)’.]

I fear that I may already have outstripped the time allotted to me. So I should like to content myself with saying briefly that Volume VII will contain the biographers and historians of literature (arrranged in alphabetic order by authors); VIII will have the geographic literature with the perhaps necessary subdivisions; IX the authors whom one cannot assign, for one reason or another, to any of the designated groups and whom one could, using a witticism of Wilamowitz, call ἄδηλοι τῶν ἐν πάσηι παιδείαι διαλαμψάντων [‘those unidentifiable persons who are conspicuous in any branch of learning’: a play on the title of a work by Callimachus]. An index volume, as detailed as possible, arranged according to authors, titles of books, subjects, and words will close the collection.

The editing of the various parts will still have to decide a whole series of questions. For example, whether and where one must include the political pamphlets, especially of the fifth and fourth centuries, which in fact do not actually belong to historical literature. Also, whether we should include a certain group of Sophistic lectures, the city orations not only of the classical age but also of the Hellenistic and Roman eras, the λόγοι Δηλιακοί, Ῥοδιακοί, Κρητικοί [Delian, Rhodian, Cretan Orations], and so on [FGrHist 396–401; 507–523; 458–467]. In content, and in other ways as well, they stand closest to the Ὧροι [chronicles], just as in general the significance of the older sophists for the knowledge of and research on local tradition is in no way to be underestimated. In this respect as well they are predecessors of Aristotle. Then the question whether we should, especially in the section on contemporary history, include historiography in Latin deserves to be more carefully weighed. Furthermore, what we should do, when an author (as certainly is frequent in the Hellenistic age) is active in several genres. So far as these

page 70

authors do not belong among the grammarians and antiquarians—and that is not always the case —the decision must be taken a parte potiori: Hellanikos belongs, despite his Περίοδος [Journey around the World], ῾Iέρειαι [Priestesses of Hera at Argos], chronicles and so on, to the genealogists [FGrHist 4]; Ephoros, despite his Εὑρήματα [Inventions] and Ἐπιχώριον Σύνταγμα [Local Constitution] in contemporary history [FGrHist 70]; Apollodoros, despite his Περὶ Θεῶν [On the Gods] and Νεῶν Κατάλογος [Catalogue of the Ships in Homer], under the chronographers [FGrHist 244]. In the case of others, such as for example Menaichmos of Sikyon [FGrHist 131] or Arrian [FGrHist 156], the decision may be more difficult. Here one must not shy away from hacking through some Gordian knots. One can achieve a great deal by references in different places (thus Arrian’s name will appear at least four times), through the general index and the catalogues of authors in the individual volumes; in general, through the whole external organisation. It is not possible —on this point, if I had not known this already, discussion after this lecture, in which votes were heard for Müller’s organisation and also for alphabetic order, could have instructed me— for a collection of fragments to please everyone. That lies in its nature. Fragments, whose individual ordering for each author also makes additional new difficulties, not touched on here, are simply not so easy to use as a Corpus Scriptorum. But I believe, nevertheless, that the objective order of the collection, yoking itself to the development of the literature, once one has made himself familiar with it, will enable the specialist to find quickly what he seeks and to use the fragments in a practical way. The occasional user must here, as is generally the case, assist himself with the indexes.

In conclusion, therefore, I also give a schematic survey of the planned corpus.121

page 71

Vol. I: Testimonia. Hekataios.

II: Genealogy (Mythography).

Chap. 1) The genealogists of centuries V / IV.

Chap. 2) Hellanikos.

Chap. 3) The mythological novels.

Chap. 4) The compiling (grammatical) genealogists of centuries II and later.

Chap. 5) ἄδηλοι (genealogical notes without authors’ names).

III: Ethnography (In alphabetic order of the lands)

Aigyptiaka

Babyloniaka

Epirotika

Indika

Lydiaka

Persika

Thessalika, etc.

page 72

IV: Contemporary Greek History.

Chap. 1) Hellēnika (Greek History) of the fourth century

Chap. 2) Ephoros and the universal historians of century IV

Chap. 3) Theopompos and the Philippika

Chap. 4) Historians of Alexander

Chap. 5) Τὰ μετ’ Ἀλέξανδρον Μακεδονικά, Ἑλληνικά, Ἱστορίαι [Makedonika, Hellēnika, Ηistories, all after Alexander] down to Poseidonios

Chap. 6) Monographs, histories of single states

Chap. 7) Memoirs and hypomnemata literature

Chap. 8) The compiling universal histories of centuries I ff.

Chap. 9) Contemporary history of the end of antiquity (down to 325 AD)

Chap. 10) Contemporary history of Byzantium

V. Chronography.

VI. Horography (Local history).

Chap. 1) Authentic horography

Chap. 2) Antiquarian literature of the Hellenistic period

VII. Biography and History of Literature.

VIII. Geographical Literature.

IX. Adeloi [known writers whose work cannot be defined].

X. Indexes.

page 73

Bibliography

Beloch, J. (1893) Griechische Geschichte. I. Bis auf die sophistische Bewegung und den Peloponnesischen Krieg (Strassburg).

—— (1914) Griechische Geschichte. II 1. Bis auf die sophistische Bewegung und den Peloponnesischen Krieg2 (Strassburg).

Bickermann, E. and J. Sykutris (1928) Speusipps Brief an König Philipp: Text, Übersetzung, Untersuchungen (Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philologisch-historische Klasse 80.3; Leipzig).

Christ, W. von (1908) Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. I. Klassische Periode der griechischen Literatur5, bearbeitet von W. Schmid (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 7.1; Munich).

Diels, H. (1891) ‘Über die Genfer Fragmente des Xenophanes und Hippon’, in Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 575–83.

—— (1906-10) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und deutsch2. 3 vols. (Berlin).

—— (1951-2) and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und deutsch6. 3 vols. (Berlin).

Dittenberger, W., ed. (1898) Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2, vol. 1 (Leipzig).

—— (1917) Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum3, vol. 1 (Leipzig).

Gisinger, F. (1927) ‘Skylax (2)’, RE 3 A 1, 619–46.

Grenfell, B. P. and A. S. Hunt (1908) ‘Theopompos (or Kratippos), Hellenica’, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri V (London) 110–242.

Hiller von Gaertringen, F. (1906) Inschriften von Priene (Berlin).

Jacoby, F. (1907a) ‘Euemeros (3) von Messene’, RE 6.1, 952–72.

—— (1907b) ‘Euthymenes (6) von Massilia’, RE 6.1, 1509–11.

—— (1909) ‘Excerpta Barbari’, RE 6.2, 1566–76.

—— (1912a) ‘Hekataios (3) von Milet’, RE 7.2, 2667–750.

—— (1912b) ‘Hellanikos (7) von Lesbos’, RE 8.1, 104–53.

page 74

—— (1912c) ‘Herodoros (4) aus Herakleia am Pontos’, RE 8.1, 980–7.

—— (1913) ‘Herodotos (7)’, RE Suppl. II, 205–520.

—— (1919) ‘Kallisthenes (2) von Olynth’, RE 10.2, 1674–707.

—— (1923) ‘P. Oxy. 1801( und Phylarchos’, Hermes 58: 239–40 [= Abhandlungen 352–3].

—— (1923-58) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 15 vols. (Berlin, later Leiden). Cited as FGrHist.

—— (1924) ‘Der Verfasser der Hellenika von Oxyrhynchos’, Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 13–18 [= Abhandlungen 316–21].

—— (1938 [1939]) ‘Charon von Lampsakos’, SIFC n.s. 15: 207–42 [=Abhandlungen 178–206].

—— (1947) ‘Some Remarks on Ion of Chios’, CQ 41: 1–17 [= Abhandlungen 144–68].

—— (1949) Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens (Oxford). Cited as Atthis.

—— (1950) ‘The Authorship of the Hellenica of Oxyrhynchus’, CQ 44: 1–11 [= Abhandlungen 322–33].

—— (1956) Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtschreibung, zu seinem achtzigsten Geburtstag am 19. März 1956, ed. H. Bloch (Leiden). Cited as Abhandlungen.

Köhler, U. (1877) ‘Über die Archäologie des Thukydides’, in Commentationes philologae in honorem Theodori Mommseni scripserunt amici (Berlin) 370–7.

Körte, A. (1904) ‘Die Entstehung der Olympionikenliste’, Hermes 39: 224–43.

—— (1905) ‘Anaximenes von Lampsakos als Alexanderhistoriker’, Rh. Mus. n. F. 60: 476–80.

Laqueur, R. (1908) ‘Review of Stähelin (1907)’, Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 28: 956–69.

Lehmann-Haupt, C. F. (1900) ‘Xerxes und die Babylonier’, Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie 17: 959–65.

—— (1901) ‘Die historische Semiramis und Herodot’, Klio 1: 256–81.

—— (1902) ‘Zur Geschichte und Überlieferung des ionischen Aufstandes’, Klio 2: 334–40.

page 75

—— (1906) ‘Chronologisches zur griechischen Quellenkunde. I. Hellanikos, Herodot, Thukydides’, Klio 6: 127–39.

—— (1907) ‘Zu Herodot I 183’, Klio 7: 447–8.

—— (1908) ‘Zum Historiker aus Oxyrhynchus’, Klio 8: 265.

Mess, A. von (1908) ‘Die Hellenika von Oxyrhynchos’, Rh. Mus. n. F. 63: 370–91.

Meyer, E. (1892–99) Forschungen zur alten Geschichte. 2 vols. (Halle).

—— (1901) Geschichte des Altertums. III. Das Perserreich und die Griechen. 1. Buch. Bis zu den Friedenschlüssen von 448 und 446 v. Chr. (Stuttgart).

—— (1902) Geschichte des Altertums. V. Das Perserreich und die Griechen. 4. Buch. Der Ausgang der griechischen Geschichte 404–350 v. Chr. (Stuttgart).

—— (1907) Geschichte des Altertums. I.1 Einleitung. Elemente der Anthropologie2 (Stuttgart).

—— (1910) Geschichte des Altertums. I.1 Einleitung. Elemente der Anthropologie3 (Stuttgart).

—— (1939) Geschichte des Altertums. IV 1. Das Perserreich und die Griechen bis zum Vorabend des peloponnesischen Krieges3 [contains vol. III and the first part of vol. IV].

—— (1958) Geschichte des Altertums. Das Perserreich und die Griechen. Der Ausgang der griechischen Geschichte 404-350 v. Chr.4 (Stuttgart).

Müller, K. (1841-70) Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, collegit, disposuit, notis et prolegomenis illustravit. 5 vols. (Paris). (Vol. I with Th. Müller). Cited as FHG.

—— (1846) Scriptores rerum Alexandri Magni (…). Fragmenta collegit, disposuit, vertit, annotatione instruxit, de vitis scriptisque auctorum disseruit, indicem plenissimum adjecit, in F. Dübner, Arriani Anabasis et Indica (…). (Paris), following p. 327 with new pagination.

—— (1858) Ctesiae Cnidii et chronographorum Castoris, Eratosthenis, etc. fragmenta, dissertatione et notis illustrata, in W. Dindorf, Herodoti historiarum libri IX, recognovit et commentationem de dialecto Herodoti praemisit (…). (Paris), following p. 516 with new pagination.

page 76

Niese, B. (1888) ‘Die Chroniken des Hellanikos’, Hermes 23: 81–91.

—— (1891) Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea. I. Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen und seiner Nachfolger und der Westhellenen bis zum Jahre 281 v. Chr. (Handbücher der alten Geschichte, Serie II, II. Abteilung, Vol. 1; Gotha).

—— (1907) ‘Herodot-Studien besonders zur spartanischen Geschichte’, Hermes 42: 419–68.

Reuss, F. (1908) ‘Hellenistische Beiträge. 3. Kleitarchos’, Rh. Mus. n. F. 63: 58–78.

Roberts, W. Rhys, ed. (1901) Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Three Literary Letters (Ep. ad Ammaeum I, Ep. ad Pompeium, Ep. ad Ammaeum II) (Cambridge).

Schmid, W. (1929) Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. I. Die klassische Periode der griechischen Literatur. @. Die griechische Literatur vor der attischen Hegemonie (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 7.1.1; Munich).

Schwartz, E. (1894a) ‘Apollodoros (61) aus Athen. II. A.s Schriftstellerei’, RE 1.2: 2856–86.

—— (1894b) ‘Aristagoras von Milet’, RE 2.1: 848–9.

—— (1895) ‘Aristophanes (13) von Theben’, RE 2.1: 994.

—— (1896) ‘Atthis (3)’, RE 2.2: 2180–3.

—— (1897) ‘Baton (7) von Sinope’, RE 3.1: 143–4.

—— (1899a) ‘Charon (7) von Lampsakos’, RE 3.2: 2179–80.

—— (1899b) ‘Tyrtaeos’, Hermes 34: 428-68.

—— (1899c) ‘Timaeos Geschichtswerk’, Hermes 34: 481–93.

—— (1900) ‘Kallisthenes Hellenika’, Hermes 35: 106–30.

—— (1905) ‘Dionysios (112) von Milet’, RE 5.1: 933–4.

—— (1907) ‘Ephoros (1) von Kyme’, RE 6.1: 1–16.

Stähelin, F. (1907) Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater2 (Leipzig).

Strasburger, H. (1954) ‘Die Entdeckung der politischen Geschichte durch Thukydides’, Saeculum 5: 395–428.

Wachsmuth, C. (1895) Einleitung in das Studium der alten Geschichte (Leipzig).

Walker, E. M. (1908) ‘Cratippus or Theopompus?’, Klio 8: 356–71.

page 77

Wentzel, G. (1896) ‘Asklepiades (28) von Myrlea’, RE 2.2: 1628–31.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1875) Analecta Euripidea. Inest Supplicum fabula ad codicem archetypum recognita (Berlin).

—— (1893) Aristoteles und Athen. 2 vols. (Berlin).

—— (1905) ‘Die griechische Literatur des Altertums’, in Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache (Leipzig) 1–236.

—— (1918a) Greek Historical Writing and Apollo. Two Lectures Delivered before the University of Oxford June 3 and 4, 1908, trans. G. Murray (Oxford).

—— (1918b) ‘Thukydides VIII’, Hermes 43: 578–618.

—— (1912) ‘Die griechische Literatur des Altertums’, in Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache3 (Berlin) 3– 318.

—— (1925–6) Reden und Vorträge4. 2 vols. (Berlin).

Wilcken, U. (1908) ‘Ein Theopompfragment in den neuen Hellenika’, Hermes 43: 475–7.

Notes

* Klio 9 (1909) 80–123

1 Lecture, delivered 8 August [1908], to the International Congress for Historical Sciences [Berlin]. I have retained the form of the lecture, but here I offer my complete manuscript, which because of the limits of time in the meeting I could deliver only in selection and often severely shortened. I have occasionally expanded the notes; I have done the same to one section of the text, on which the discussion after the lecture especially concentrated (see below, pp. 45ff.).

2 Hekataios [FGrHist 1]; a horographer (Charon) [FGrHist 262]; an ethnographer (Xanthos) [FGrHist 765]; three genealogists (with Hellanikos [FGrHist 4, 323a, 601a, 645a, 687a], as the first of them!) [Pherekydes, FGrHist 3; Akusilaos, FGrHist 2]; and a late mythographic compilation [the Bibliotheca of Apollodoros]; three books about the history of Sicily [Antiochos, FGrHist 555; Philistos, FGrHist 556; Timaios, FGrHist 566]; three Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika]: Ephoros, FGrHist 70; Theopompos, FGrHist 115; Phylarchos, FGrHist 81]; Atthidographers [FGrHist 323; 325; 324; 327; 328; 334]. And to conclude the chaos, as an appendix the Marmor Parium [FGrHist 239] and the Rosetta Stone.

3 [Ctesiae Cnidii … Fragmenta, edited by Carl Müller in the Appendix to Fr. Dübner’s edition of Herodotus (Paris 1844), which includes Kastor and Eratosthenes, FGrHist 250 and 241.]

4 [In the Appendix to Fr. Dübner’s Didot edition of Arrian (Paris 1846), edited by Carl Müller.]

5 Müller’s volume IV should actually suffice to leave this arrangement of the whole material out of the question.

6 Wilamowitz (1893) II.21 ff. [Compare FGrHist III.]

7 In genuine local histories the place of origin and the local extent of the content are one and the same.

8 Before them would also come those late Hellenistic historians, such as Demetrios of Kallatis [FGrHist 85] and Agatharchides of Knidos [FGrHist 86], who organise their universal history as Hekataios did with his Περίοδος [Journey around the World]. In doing so they showed less understanding for the special character of historical narrative than the first actual Greek historian already did: for Herodotus, when he wrote his ‘World History’, freed himself from the descriptive principle of the Periodos, so far as the nature of the material that he had gathered allowed it (cf. below, pp. 36 f.).

9 [Waschsmuth (1895).]

10 Compare the statements of Wilamowitz (1908a) 15 ff. [cf. id. (1925–6) II.216 ff.].

11 Euthymenes of Massilia (cf. Jacoby 1907b) 1509 f.) and Skylax of Karyanda [FGrHist 709, 1000]. [Cf. Gisinger (1927) 619 ff.]

12 This remains true, even if he knew of such narratives and used them in writing the Περίοδος [Journey around the World]. And that he did so is very probable. See, on Euthymenes, Diels (1891) 582 n. 3; Jacoby (1907b) 1511 [and generally Jacoby (1902a) 2688 ff.].

13 The Περίοδος [Journey around the World] is a successor of the epic and just for that reason, so to speak, systematic, scientific. The Περίπλοι [Circumnavigations] owe their rise to practical life, since they serve practical aims. Where they take on a scientific character, the influence of the Περίοδος is to be recognised. The scientific character even of the geographic work of Hekataios cannot be emphasised sharply enough, if one is to evaluate his activity rightly. The fact that scientific work can also be turned to practical aims in no way contradicts this statement. In general, ‘scientific’ is naturally to be understood cum grano salis and not equated with ‘theoretical’ or ‘ivory-towered’. The only question is about the intellectual attitude that drives the man of Miletos [Hekataios] to take up writing.

14 [Now transferred to Part VI: cf. FGrHist I, p. V.]

15 Above all there will be brief summaries of the results of studies of the sources; furthermore, explanations of the facts and references.

16 About the varieties in this genre —γεωγραφία [geography] and χωρογραφία [description of a country] (τοπογραφία, περιήγησις [description of places, description of the world]) —I do not here wish to expand.

17 Since they are partly older than he.

18 About the character of the Τραγωιδούμενα [Subjects of Tragedy] not as a ‘grammatical’ but ‘historical’ portrayal of the oldest Greek history, analogous to the Genealogies, doubt is no longer possible. Compare Wilamowitz (1875) 181 n. 3, and Wentzel (1896) 1628.

19 The meaning of this equation will become clear in the discussion of the work of Herodotus (below, pp. 33 ff.). It also remains valid if we insert Hellanikos for Asklepiades. The feeling of opposition between the narrator of the spatium historicum [historical period, as opposed to mythical], who considers himself the true historian, and the genealogist, is already present in Herodotus. In Ephoros, however, this feeling has become distinctly sharper.

20 [FHG I.104–79. H. Bloch, Abhandlungen 423: ‘Despite this verdict, Jacoby later decided against including the Bibliotheca of Apollodoros in the collection of fragments.’]

21 Schwartz (1894a) 2880, with valuable discussions about the genesis of these books.

22 In this context, the question, which can hardly be answered, whether these writers viewed the traditions of the oldest time as ‘History’ or ‘Myth’, is really of no great importance.

23 Here too we can set up an equation. The following relationship can be seen: Ephoros : Local Chronicles = Genealogy : Epics.

24 So, rightly, Niese (1888) 86 and Schwartz (1896) 2181. By the way, both chronicles deserve a new and more detailed discussion; I can fully agree neither with the interpretation of Wilamowitz (1893) I.281 n. 33, who fails to see or does not sufficiently emphasise the universal character of the Ἱέρειαι [Priestesses of Hera at Argos], nor with that of Niese, who wholly denies that there was a local Argive tradition. [Cf. Jacoby (1912b) 144-8; FGrHist 4 FF 74–84; Atthis 68-70, 199 f.; FGrHist III b Suppl. I, 1 ff. and II, 3–8.]

25 What Beloch (1893) I.621 [= Beloch (1914) II.1.252] says in general about Hellanikos’ activity is especially valid for the Ἱέρειαι [Priestesses of Hera at Argos]: ‘in his activity, he laid special emphasis on chronology, and he has the glory of having established this branch of historical science’.

26 We cannot consider combining chronography and horography because they each have annalistic form and date their events according to eponymous magistrates. This similarity is purely external. For the dating in chronography seeks to be universal, as is its content; although it is forced to adopt the list of eponymous officers of a single state, in the absence of a general numbering of years, it chooses at least one state or one list of the widest possible generally recognised importance. And chronography soon changes to a synchronistic juxtaposition of several datings and in so doing also casts away the external similarity to the ὧροι [chronicles]. In horography, content and form are locally limited. Moreover, there is scarcely any literary connection between the two forms, other than that in both cases the form is patterned after the official ἀναγραφαί [lists of magistrates]. Since the Ἱέρειαι [Priestesses of Hera at Argos] appeared in the years 430–420 BC [cf. FGrHist III b Suppl. I, 4], it is also rather doubtful whether Hellanikos knew any ἀναγραφαί that had already become literary in form, that is, ὧροι [chronicles]. See below, n. 98.

27 Just as terminology in the field of historiography is generally scanty [cf. Atthis 228 n. 8], so too Antiquity did not sharply distinguish between horography, that is, the annalistic history of Greek cities, on the basis of official public records, and ethnography, that is, the geographic-ethnographic description of land and people, especially of barbarian, but also of Greek, peoples and tribes, resting on a scholar’s own ἱστορίη [research] or on ἱστορίη done by someone else. Only for horography does there exist a technical term (see below, n. 89). The ἐθνικαὶ καὶ τοπικαὶ ἱστορίαι [ethnic and local histories] mentioned by Dionysios of Halikarnassos, De Thuc. 7 (I.333.15 Usener–Radermacher) should not be thought of as separating two γένη [genres], as a glance at the catalogue of those κατ’ ἔθνη καὶ κατὰ πόλεις διαιροῦντες (τὰς ἱστορίας) [writers who separate (their histories) according to tribes and cities], Thuc. 5, shows. Again, the titles of the books Περὶ Ἐθνῶν [On Peoples] or Ἐθνῶν Ὀνομασίαι [Names of Peoples], which we know as works by Hellanikos (FHG I.57, 92, 93) [= FGrHist 4 FF 69, 97;], Damastes (FHG II.64, 1) [= FGrHist 5 F 1], and Hippias (Diels (1906–10) II.1, p. 583, no. 2 [= Diels–Kranz (1951–2) II.2, p. 330, no. 2 = FGrHist 6 F 1]), should not be so interpreted. The few fragments known with certainty as coming from them show Περίοδος [Journey around the World]-character; and the whole content also probably corresponded, perhaps with stronger emphasis on etymological speculation and the antiquarian element than on true ἱστορίη [research], as suited the interests of the sophists who practised epideictic oratory. [Cf. FGrHist I2 a, 454, 5–10; III b Suppl. I, 1.]

28 This system is fixed, in so far as the same topics everywhere return; it is variable, in so far as we do not always find all topics and in so far as their sequence is conditioned by practical considerations and their length is determined by the actual conditions of the land under discussion [cf. Jacoby (1913) 330 ff.]. Thus in the λόγος [narrative] about Lydia there is no independent description of the land (for reasons easy to see), while the political history is treated in great detail and the θαυμάσια [wonders, monuments] and the νόμοι [laws, customs] are present as sharply defined sections (Hdt. 1.93, 94). In the λόγος about the Massagetae the θαυμάσια are omitted, unless 1.215 is meant to take their place. In the Egyptian λόγος the order of narrative is: land; people (νόμοι [laws, customs]); history. The θαυμάσια are worked into the history, and so on.

29 It is very significant that this system is valid only for the barbarian peoples. Cf. below, p. 62 f. 30 Here the influence of epic and prose Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies] is clear.

31 It is of no importance that he did not circulate his ethnographies through book-sellers, but presented them in the form of public lectures [cf. Jacoby (1913) 281 f., 327–30].

32 I remind the reader of the significant scene, when, during the council of war among the Ionians, Hekataios warns against the revolt [Hdt. 5.36 = FGrHist 1 T 5], καταλέγων τά τε ἔθνεα πάντα τῶν ἦρχε Δαρεῖος καὶ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ [‘enumerating the resources at Darius’ command, and supporting his point with a long list of the nations under Persian dominion’]. The scene shows how closely scholarship (ἱστορίη) and life here hang together. I do not intend to go into the question of the writings of Dionysios. The catalogue in the Suda must be judged on the basis of the most important fragment, Schol. Herod. 3.61 [= FGrHist 687 F 2], missing in Müller. I also consider Schwartz’s treatment of the question ((1915) 934) erroneous [cf. Jacoby (1913) 405.27 ff.; Atthis 311 n. 8].

33 About most of these lands in earlier times one could read only in the general periegetic writings; Hellanikos too gives shorter or longer digressions about almost all lands of the known world.

34 Xanthos [FGrHist 765], the fully Hellenised Lydian, has a place in Greek literature wholly different from that of Berossos, Manetho [FGrHist 680; 609], and their companions. He has been called ‘the first barbarian who wrote the history of his land in Greek’ (Christ–Schmid (1918) I.428), but that is not very happily expressed. [More cautious is Schmid (1929) 7047 f.]

35 Modern critics are often inclined to underestimate this ἱστορίη-character [research-character] in the descriptions of eastern lands and speak too often of a ‘novelistic’ treatment or even of a ‘travel romance’. But the blending in of fabulous things, which is incidentally already criticised by the ancient geographers from the time of Eratosthenes, even though these wondrous tales surely rest in part on ἀκοή [oral tradition] and are reported in good faith, gives us no right to speak of ‘romance’. Otherwise we should have to classify Herodotus as well among the novelists. Despite all fabulous infusions, ethnography in the older Hellenistic period is definitely written in the scientific spirit and differs equally sharply from the popular wonder-literature of the travel romances as from the noble political and philosophical novel. The geographic framework that writers of that time like to add to their utopian theories and to pure light reading, with borrowings partly from true ethnography, does not discredit this kind of literature in the slightest. The advanced technique of narrative and the rhetorical and artistic raiment, in which many of the genuine ethnographies may have been clothed, discredit them just as little. These ethnographies were in fact scientific books with whose help alone Eratosthenes could set his new map of the world against that of the old Περίοδοι [Journeys around the World].

36 [They have, however, finally been included in FGrHist III B.]

37 Here it is not always possible to decide which writings are ethnography and which ones are monographs on war. The titles are the same; so, basically, is the content. Only the form is varied, and the form cannot be established on the basis of the fragments.

38 See below, p. 44 [and FGrHist II A, p. VIII: lower limit of time for Part III: Justinian].

39 About the anonymous fragments see below, n. 114.

40 In addition, the space given to the descriptive portions also expands. It is only the relationship of the parts that shifts in favour of the narrative.

41 In general, the Σικελικά [Sikelika] differ from true ethnography because their writers are virtually all Sicilians and the island is regarded as Greek soil. These facts alone have as a consequence that they come close to and form, as it were, a supplementary parallel phenomenon to the history of Greece itself [cf. FGrHist III b I, 479–82].

42 [FGrHist III b I, 486 f.]

43 There was also a parallel narrative of this time, probably with a different tendency, by Hermeias of Methymna (FHG II.*) [= FGrHist 558]). Unfortunately we know too little about this work, which is cited as Σικελικά [Sikelika]. Perhaps it was actually a monograph on contemporary history, as were later the various accounts of Agathocles’ rule, which stand alongside the comprehensive work of Timaios. [For such accounts, see Duris, FGrHist 76 FF 16–21; Kallias, FGrHist 564; Antandros, FGrHist 565.]

44 Dionysios ad Cn. Pomp. 5 (II.242.14 ff. Usener–Radermacher [= FGrHist 556 T 12]): ὑπόθεσιν εἴληφε … μίαν καὶ ταύτην τοπικήν. διήιρηκε δ’ αὐτὴν εἰς γραφὰς δύο, Περὶ Σικελίας μὲν τὴν προτέραν ἐπιγράφων, Περὶ Διονυσίου δὲ τὴν ὑστέραν. ἔστι δὲ μία∙ καὶ τοῦτο γνοίης ἂν ἀπὸ τοῦ τέλους τῆς Σικελικῆς. [‘He has taken a single and local subject. He has divided it into two parts, entitling the former Concerning Sicily, the latter Concerning Dionysios. But the subject is one, as may be seen from the conclusion of the Sicilian section’, trans. W. Rhys Roberts.] Cf. Diod. 13.103.3; Cic. ad Q. fr. 2.11.4 [= FGrHist 556 TT 11, 17].

45 I infer this above all from the criticism of Dionysios, loc. cit. (II.242.21 [= FGrHist 556 T 16 b]) about the τάξις δυσπαρακολούθητος [organisation that is difficult to follow], which one must compare with the praise of Theopompos that follows the discussion of Philistos (ad Cn. Pomp. 6, II.245.17–246.2 [= FGrHist 115 T 20]), in order to grasp the real meaning. One should also compare Thucydides’ monograph about the Sicilian expedition with the short piece, Περὶ Σικελίας [On Sicily; Thuc. 6.1.2–6 = FGrHist 577 F 9], which precedes it as an introduction, to measure the difference that divides Σικελικά [Sikelika] from contemporary Greek history.

46 It is otherwise with the works entitled Μακεδονικά [Makedonika], which are actually in part genuine contemporary history of the Greek people (see below, p. 42).

47 This is also beyond doubt a result of the influence of the Hellēnika type. ‘Greek history’ is contemporary history (see p. 31); the narrative, no matter when it begins, is brought down to the present. Therefore the historian can seek his topic only where contemporary history still exists. The older genres of ethnography and horography also complied with this law. Rhetorical historiography, which offers narratives of any period of the past (cf. pp. 26 f.), shows most clearly its purely rhetorical character precisely through ignoring this basic law.

48 We could also account for it through Egypt’s revolt at the beginning of the rule of Artaxerxes Mnemon, if Hellanikos had written his Αἰγυπτιακά [Aigyptiaka] at that time. As to its date, there is no evidence against its having been written after 404. I am uncertain only whether we really have to reckon with a series of independent ethnographies by Hellanikos and not with a single larger work, Περὶ Ἐθνῶν [On Peoples]. [More cautious on the place of Hellanikos’ Αἰγυπτιακά [Aigyptiaka]: Jacoby (1912b) 110, 130.]

49 About Charon of Lampsakos [FGrHist 262] I agree essentially with Schwartz (1899a) 2179 f. Especially in the evaluation of Charon, the failure to keep literary genres separate from one another has done considerable damage. So far as we can judge from the very scanty fragments, the first two of the four books of his Ὧροι Λαμψακηνῶν [Chronicle of the Lampsakenes] contained the earlier history of Lampsakos; Books 3 and 4 were dedicated to the fifth century. Just as in the former books the general history of Ionia was often dealt with —and the nature of the tradition available to us brings with it the fact that precisely such excerpts are most likely to be preserved—, the Persian wars form the major content of the latter books; these wars and their consequences were, for Lampsakos, the main event of the century, just as they were for the rest of the Greek world. A strict concentration on one’s own city alone is almost impossible for the chronicle, which had now become literary in form, and does not conform to its essence. On the contrary: according as a single city had fewer events of general interest to report, the chronicler will have narrated in ever more detail the events that concern world history, even if they only superficially touched on his city. Only the standpoint from which he told his story remained local. As a result, if the two latter books, with a semblance of justification, could be referred to as Περσικά [Persika], they still remain something quite different from the actual, that is, the ethnographic Περσικά, and in other ways they differ, equally clearly, from the ‘Περσικά’ of Herodotus. The Persian wars are treated in literature: (1) by the ethnographers as ἔργα Περσῶν [deeds of the Persians]; (2) by almost all the local historians of the several Greek cities that were affected in any way by the wars, as ἔργα [deeds] of these cities. There was surely a large group of such Περσικά as were written by Charon; (3) by Herodotus and the later universal historians as ἔργα [deeds] of the Greek people. Those are three different standpoints, which call for three different kinds of narrative. It is therefore erroneous, when Meyer (1901) III §142 [= Meyer (1939) IV.1.226] (cf. Meyer (1892–9) II.230) states that ‘Charon of Lampsakos gave us the first historical treatment of the Persian wars (long after 464) in his Persian history’—the first account was rather given by Dionysios of Miletos [cf. Jacoby (1913) 404]. And it appears to me even more erroneous, if he and Beloch (1893) I.620 [= Beloch (1914) II.1.243]) believe that Charon’s account was displaced by that of Herodotus. That would be as if one were to say that a work on the history of Berlin would be displaced by a general history from Treitschke or Sybel. Charon and Herodotus address completely different circles of readers. [In many respects different about Charon from the sketch here, Jacoby (1938 [1939) 213–14 = Abhandlungen 183, and the commentary on FGrHist 262.]

50 Unfortunately we are as ignorant about the endpoint of Dinon’s work as about the date of its publication (the arguments of Reuss (1908) 62 f. are also not decisive). It cannot be shown, and is to me unlikely, that he came so far down as to narrate the fall of the empire. How firmly this law [the one discussed above, pp. 23 f. as no. 2] was established, we can perhaps perceive from the fact that Arrian closes his Βιθυνιακά [Bithyniaka] with the last Nikomedes, ὃς τελευτῶν τὴν βασιλείαν Ῥωμαίοις κατὰ διαθήκας ἀπέλιπεν [‘who willed his kingdom to Rome on his death’] [FGrHist 156 F 14]. The fates of the Roman province here play no further part. Only by describing the condition of the land would he occasionally be able to touch on them.

51 When E. Meyer (1892-9) I.205 n. 1 calls Περσικά the ‘natural title of the history of the Persian wars fought by Alexander’, and when Niese (1893-1903) I.4, says of Kallisthenes that he ‘probably described the first part of Alexander’s campaign in his Persian history’, that can be explained only by pointing to the still frequent neglect by our historians of the differences between genres of historical literature. A book in which a Greek narrates the deeds of Alexander is entitled Τὰ κατ’ Ἀλέξανδρον [Events Regarding Alexander]. It can also be titled Μακεδονικά [Makedonika] or Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika], in certain cases Ἀλεξάνδρου πράξεις or ἐγκώμιον ᾿Αλεξάνδρου [Deeds of Alexander or In Praise of Alexander]. But never and under no conditions Περσικά. We should also note that Kallisthenes’ Περσικά owe their existence only to the corruption of a citation (Schwartz (1900) 107) [see below, n. 77].

52 That is the case with the Περσικά of Baton of Sinope [FGrHist 268]. On him cf. FHG IV.347 and Schwartz (1897) 143; id. (1899b) 454 f. [and especially the commentary to FGrHist 268].

53 Ἱστορίαι [histories], as many of these works, especially about Hellenistic history, are referred to, is too imprecise, because this term can refer to all forms of historical writing; in the same way, ἱστοριογράφος [historiographer] often stands, as the most general designation, alongside ποιητής [poet]. It is hardly the case that the term ἱστορίαι is preferred to designate contemporary history as history κατ’ ἐξοχήν [of the highest kind]; equally often, the term denotes Γενεαλογίαι [Genealogies]. But even the local chronicles are called ἱστορίαι in the wellknown inscription from Priene [Hiller von Gaertringen (1906) no. 37; cf. FGrHist 491 F 1; Atthis 361 n. 56]; and in the inscription from Magnesia [Dittenberger, SIG2 no. 259.13 = SIG3 no. 560.13; cf. FGrHist 482 F 1], the ἱστοριογράφοι οἱ συγγεγραφότες τὰς Μαγνητῶν πράξεις [historians who have narrated the accomplishments of the Magnesians] are contrasted with the ποιηταί [poets]. By contrast, this name does not cover the monographs on contemporary history that have special titles. The usual title for works of contemporary history, especially of the fourth century, Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika], is simply for that reason not suitable as a general title. Incidentally, Thucydides 1.97.2 already uses this word almost as a terminus technicus: ἔγραψα δὲ αὐτὰ … ὅτι τοῖς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἅπασιν ἐκλιπὲς τοῦτο ἦν τὸ χωρίον καὶ ἢ τὰ πρὸ τῶν Μηδικῶν Ἑλληνικὰ ξυνετίθεσαν ἢ αὐτὰ τὰ Μηδικά [‘And I have made a digression to write of these matters for the reason that this period has been omitted by all my predecessors, who have confined their narratives either to Hellenic affairs [Hellēnika] before the Persian War [ta Mēdika] or the Persian War [ta Mēdika] itself’]. However, he seems, in his words πρὸ τῶν Μηδικῶν Ἑλληνικά [‘Greek history [Hellēnika] before the Persian Wars [ta Mēdika]’], to mean the period treated by the genealogists. What he announces in 1.97.1 as the content of the following passage corresponds to the later term κοιναὶ ἱστορίαι [common histories], because the κοιναὶ πράξεις Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων [activities in common of Greeks and barbarians] are described. But in any case, ῾Ελληνικά [Hellēnika] also covers only that which Cicero, ep. [ad fam.] 5.12.2 designates as perpetuae historiae [continuous histories] in contrast to the bella [wars], or historical monographs. (Here I should like at once to object to the interpretation of Cicero’s words offered by Laqueur (1908) 961. That Cicero is actually requesting from Lucceius a separate monograph, de rebus suis [about his accomplishments], not simply a book composed in the style of a monograph within the structure of his general work, is beyond doubt because of the context and the parallels brought up by Cicero himself. The other comments by Laqueur, which are very valuable, remain untouched by my disagreement.) Closest to ancient usage might perhaps come, as a general title, Πράξεις Ἑλληνικαί [Accomplishments of the Greeks], which can cover all forms of contemporary history. According to Socrat. epist. 30.1, Antipatros of Magnesia [FGrHist 69], whom Speusippos recommends to Philip, is writing such histories in Athens (whether or not the letter is genuine, is not important; it contains very good material [H. Bloch in his ‘Anhang’, Abhandlungen 423: ‘The authenticity of the letter was shown by Bickermann (1928) 18-47’], and Theopompos himself seems already to have called his work πράξεις Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων [Accomplishments of Greeks and Barbarians], which was later cited as Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika]; at least he referred to its contents in this way (Phot. Bibl. 176 p. 121 a 1 [= FGrHist 115 F 25]). Moreover, Isokrates (Antid. 45) contrasts the τὰς πράξεις τὰς ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις συναγαγόντες [compilers of accomplishments in wars] with the genealogists (οἱ τὰ γένη τὰ τῶν ἡμιθέων ἀναζητοῦντες [those who research the descent of the demigods]). (In Panath. ( he speaks of λόγοι τοὺς τὰς παλαιὰς πράξεις καὶ τοὺς πολέμους τοὺς Ἑλληνικοὺς ἐξηγούμενοι [accounts that research the ancient deeds and wars of the Greeks].) Also the expression Ἑλληνικαὶ πραγματεῖαι [historical treatises on the Greeks] is used.

54 Cf. below, p. 35 f.

55 Who are, however, probably one and the same person. It is not wholly understandable to me how precisely our most competent judges, Eduard Meyer and Wilamowitz, could seriously sponsor the identification of this historian with Theopompos. Of the ten arguments brought forth in his favour in Oxyrhynchus Papyri V (1908) 127 ff., only the last two are positive, the comparison of the descriptions of locales in Asia Minor in cols. VI 45 and XV 17 (London fragments) [FGrHist 66 c. VII 3 f.; XIII 4 f.] with Theopompos fr. 290, 264 [= FGrHist 115 FF 391, 385] and the use of the ethnic Καρπασεύς [Karpaseus, ib. 115 F 19]. But this latter agreement, even in itself hardly conclusive, is more than outweighed by the discrepancy in the form of the name Ἀκραίφνιον [Akraiphnion, FGrHist 115 F 362], which actually alone is sufficient to exclude Theopompos. And the suggestion that col. VI 45 ff. actually fits so well with Theopompos fr. 290 [FGrHist 115 F 391] (Strabo 13.629) that the former must be the source of the latter, is also made no more probable by Wilcken (1908) 475. His restoration of the torn text is possible, but remains uncertain, the more so as he must assume that a word has dropped out. Nor does his restoration achieve a full, truly conclusive solution. Indeed, there remain discrepancies that only strengthen our suspicions, no matter how brilliantly Wilcken explains their origin. But his demonstration is wholly inconclusive, because agreement and discrepancies between the Anonymous and Strabo are much better accounted for, if Theopompos used the Anonymous and the chain of transmission is therefore Anonymous—Theopompos— Strabo. What speaks against Theopompos is for the most part already stated by Blass in the edition of Grenfell–Hunt, in Oxyrhynchus Papyri V. Heaviest in the scale, alongside the already noted discrepancy in the name of a city, fall the weight of the impossibility in chronology and the style. Von Mess (1908) 373 has already partly pulled the rug out from under the attempt by Wilamowitz to convert this style into an argument for Theopompos, and then to assume a stylistic development in Theopompos from the follower of Thucydides to—let us say one of Isokrates. The Anonymous took from Thucydides only the annalisticsynchronistic organisation, but in style he stands far apart from him. Also, he follows other principles in the admission of excursuses. In this respect he is less Thucydidean than Xenophon. If we wish to give the Anonymous a definite name, only Kratippos is really available. As a possibility, this name will serve. [Correction by F. J.: see the latest discussion of the question by Walker (1908) 356 ff., for Kratippos.] [On the question of the author see also Jacoby (1924) and (1950) = Abhandlungen 316–33.]

56 The annalistic-synchronistic organisation in the Anonymous and Xenophon, Hellēnika I–II; the type of characterisation and the aversion to excursuses in the latter, an aversion which is no longer found in the Anonymous and even less in Theopompos (but fits well in Philistos: see Dionysios, ad Cn. Pomp. 5, II.243.1 Usener–Radermacher [= FGrHist 556 T 16 b]); the striving towards external and internal psychological motivation of events and actions, for which Theopompos was especially praised (Dionysios, loc. cit. 246.6 ff. [= FGrHist 115 T 20a]), although here above all he departs widely from the spirit and form of Thucydides, while the Anonymous stands much closer to him; and so on.

57 Naturally an Athenian, Spartan, Boeotian, or Macedonian tendency on the part of the historian is compatible with this.

58 The place of Argos, for example in Akusilaos, or that of Corinth in the so-called Eumelos, may aptly be compared to the just-named tendencies of the different Hellēnika.

59 One should definitely note that the oldest accounts of the major accomplishments of the Greek people as a whole in historical times are not found in Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika], but in Περσικά [Persika] (Dionysios of Miletos). This fact might also explain in the most uncomplicated way another fact, namely that Phrynichos and Aeschylus do not portray the victory of the Greeks in their dramas about Persia, but the defeat of the Persians, and that they choose their standpoint on the Persian side.

60 See p. 49 ff. [ Jacoby here means ‘echte’ or strict ‘Historiographie’.]

61 Thucydides in the Archaeology, 1.1–19, and the excursus on Themistokles, 1.138.6 [cf. FGrHist III a, 6; Atthis 101 and below, n. 104]. Ephoros exploited this source especially often (Wilamowitz (1893) II.16).

62 Somewhat closer is the link between horography and genealogy, since the former often has to use the latter in order to secure the appropriate place of the historian’s own city in panhellenic prehistory.

63 Hdt. 3.122: Πολυκράτης γάρ ἐστι πρῶτος τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν Ἑλλήνων ὃς θαλασσοκρατεῖν ἐπενοήθη, πάρεξ Μίνωος … καὶ εἰ δή τις ἄλλος πρότερος τούτου ἦρξε τῆς θαλάσσης∙ τῆς δὲ ἀνθρωπηίης λεγομένης γενεῆς Πολυκράτης πρῶτος [‘Polycrates was the first Greek we know of to plan the dominion of the sea, unless we count Minos and any other who may possibly have ruled the sea at a still earlier date. In ordinary human history at any rate, Polycrates was the first’]. Nevertheless I say expressly ‘continuation’, not ‘opposition’ to the genealogies, since Herodotus is still far from rejecting the earliest period as a ‘time of sagas’. We see in him only an unrecognised, very weak feeling that the historical memories and the epic tradition are wholly incommensurable things. Cf. Meyer (1892–9) I.185 n. 22 [see also Jacoby (1913) 474]. The uncertainty of the feeling with which Herodotus confronts the ancient period can be seen in a completely analogous way in the sentence from the Proem quoted in the next note.

64 Hdt. 1.5: ἐγὼ δὲ περὶ μὲν τούτων οὐκ … ἔρχομαι ἐρέων ὡς οὕτω ἢ ἄλλως κως ταῦτα ἐγένετο, τὸν δὲ οἶδα αὐτὸς πρῶτον ὑπάρξαντα ἀδίκων ἔργων ἐς τοὺς ῾Έλληνας, τοῦτον σημήνας προβήσομαι ἐς τὸ πρόσω τοῦ λόγου [‘I have no intention of passing judgement on its [what he has just narrated] truth or falsity. I prefer to rely on my own knowledge, and to point out what it was in actual fact that injured the Greeks; then I will proceed with my history’]. [Cf. Jacoby (1913) 468.]

65 The fact that Herodotus tells the stories as λόγοι [narratives] of the Persians and Phoenicians will cause no one to doubt their being from a Greek written source. On the other hand, we cannot decide the question whether Herodotus cites the barbarian λόγιοι [learned men] because they already appeared in the older genealogies, that is, probably in Hekataios, as sources for the ‘rational’ account of the past, in contrast to the λόγοι πολλοί τε καὶ γελοῖοι [many both contradictory and ridiculous tales] of the ῞Eλληνες [Greeks] [FGrHist 1 F 1] (that is, of the epic poets); or whether his reason was that he himself had questioned the λόγιοι [learned men] as to the truth of the narrative that he had found in books, and had received it confirmed by them (cf. for such questioning Herodotus 2.113, 118). In any case books in Greek are the prerequisites for Herodotus’ account and in any case the barbarian λόγιοι are, for the Greeks, the actual sources [cf. Jacoby (1913) 392 ff.].

66 The formal proof for Thucydides’ position towards Herodotus is not supplied by either his individual criticisms or his disapproval of his predecessor’s method, but only by the structure of the long excursus about the origin and growth of Athenian power (1.89-118). The second part of this excursus (1.97-118) is even specially designated as ἐκβολὴ τοῦ λόγου [digression from the account] and is justified with the imperfection of the narrative given by Hellanikos in his Ἀττικὴ ξυγγραφή [History of Athens; cf. FGrHist III b Suppl. I, 16 ff.]. In the first part, by contrast, he very briefly recapitulates (1.89.2) what Herodotus, 9.114 ff., had narrated in detail; but then Thucydides for his part continues this narrative down to the founding of the Delian League and the first τάξις φόρου [assessment of tribute] [1.96]. That is the point at which the series of developments begun in Herodotus’ final book clearly converge, that is, the final point foreseen by Herodotus (cf. also Wilamowitz (1893) I.26 f.). [Jacoby (1913) 374.] In Thucydides’ view, Herodotus would have reached this point, if he had been able to finish his work, or at least, in the judgement of the younger man, he would have been compelled to come this far. That is to say, it is of no importance whether Thucydides thought Herodotus’ work unfinished, or whether he thought that his final point was wrongly chosen. And it is equally unimportant for our judgement of his relationship to Herodotus whether the whole excursus is written in one draft. For in any case he did continue Herodotus, but he replaced Hellanikos, and with this ‘substitutional passage’ [1.89–118] he formed the link between Herodotus’ work and his own, just as Herodotus himself through the excursus in his proem (Περσέων μέν νυν—Φοίνικες λέγουσι [the Persians say —the Phoenicians say], chap. 5) sought the link with the genealogies. [On the following aspects, cf. Jacoby (1913) 330 ff.]

67 I here take a stand, as in the previous discussion, in sharp opposition to the recent discussion by Meyer (1907) I.1 §§ 132–3. [= Meyer (1907) 226–8 = (1910) 228–30] about the rise of historical literature, if I have rightly understood his opinion. He derives it generally from two separate tendencies in the human spirit; he sees, as the two main representatives of these tendencies among the Greeks, Hesiod–Hekataios, and on the other hand Charon–Herodotus. I cannot agree with that, because from Hesiod the line of development runs unbroken over Hekataios and Herodotus to Thucydides. The line is, when seen from our standpoint, a rising one. Only if one interprets the concept of historical literature very widely (that is, with the inclusion of ‘Geography’), do two tendencies appear, but not those designated by Meyer. In such an interpretation, historical literature falls into two classes, the descriptive and the narrative. One branch depicts what is; the other, what has been. One tells us what man sees with his own eyes; the other, what he learns through tradition (no matter in what form) and thus must accept as it is handed down, until criticism awakes.

68 As epideixeis [public lectures] they were actually independent works. [Cf. above, n. 31.]

69 [Cf. Jacoby (1913) 347; ff.]

70 Seemingly: for this negative achievement is naturally conditioned by positive motives. They are of a kind that lead Herodotus very close to his great successor. But about the ‘tendency’ of Herodotus’ work—for this is the decisive element that turned the man who described lands in a periegetic way and gave epideictic lectures into the prose writer and historian, the element that turned the successor of Hekataios into the predecessor of Thucydides —I need not expand. I can refer to Eduard Meyer’s words (Meyer (1892–9) II.197-8), which I endorse without hesitation. Herodotus’ admiration for Athens and its king-like statesman [Pericles] created the first Greek work of history that deserves this name. Athens also gave the world historiography, not first through Thucydides, but already before him through Herodotus [cf. Jacoby (1913) 352–60]. I have the impression that Wilamowitz (1905) 56 [cf. Wilamowitz (1912) 96 f.] actually underestimates the place of Herodotus in the development of historiography, or at least presents him to the reader as too much of a pleasant story-teller; although I agree with all the details in his discussion of Herodotus as a historian (it is basically the appraisal given by Thucydides), the final judgement in my opinion must be expressed differently.

71 Hdt. 9.64, Thuc. 1.97.2, cf. 1.23.1 [cf. Jacoby (1913) 351 f.].

72 Hdt. 7.19–21. The comparison of these chapters with the opening of Thucydides’ work is quite interesting. It also shows how many ideas Thucydides owes to his predecessor.

73 Because Diyllos [FGrHist 73] continues the work of Ephoros, as Psaon [FGrHist 78] again does for him. This does not change the fact that Ephoros perceives himself rather as a contrast to Hellanikos. The relationship of the two is analogous to the one established between Herodotus and the genealogists. What Hellanikos achieved for the mythical period, Ephoros carries out for the historical one (as he conceives it). One can express the development in a family tree, which, to be sure, like all literary family trees, must be taken cum grano salis: Ἑκαταίου Γενεαλογίαι Περίοδος Γῆς [Genealogies of Hekataios] [Journey around the World] Ἑλλάνικος (Conclusion) Ἡροδότος [Hellanikos] [Herodotus] Ἔφορος (Continuation and Contrast) Θουκυδίδης [Ephoros] [Thucydides] Διόδωρος and relatives Ἑλληνικά [Diodoros] [Hellēnika] (compiling universal history)

74 Eduard Schwartz emphasised this in the case of Ephoros (Schwartz (1907) 5 f.). He needs probably 17 books for the ca. 700 years down to 404/3; for the following 48 years, 12 books, and of them10 for the 30 years from the King’s Peace down to the Phocian War [cf. FGrHist II C, 28]. The first σύνταξις [treatise] of Anaximenes comprises 12 books for the time from the origin of the gods down to the battle of Mantineia, 362 BC; the second, at least 8 books for the history of Philip; from the third, τὰ περὶ Ἀλέξανδρον [Concerning Alexander], a 9th book is cited in the papyrus of Didymos. One wonders whether Körte (1905) 476 ff., is really correct in assuming that all the books were numbered consecutively. A corruption in the number —there is no need to assume that it must have been 'B —is however not so incredible [cf. also Jacoby (1923) 457 f. = Abhandlungen 344 f.]. Theopompos treats the 17 years from 411 to 394 in 12 and the history of Philip in 48 books [FGrHist 115 TT 12–18]. Diyllos needs 9 books for the 40 years from 357/6 to 316; twice as many for the following 20 years down to 297/6 [FGrHist 73 TT 1–3].

75 At least in the cases of Zoilos and Anaximenes we may probably explain the extension backward in time only by taking their profession into account. When they used their art in the field of history, they pushed the question of style one-sidedly, but all the more energetically, into the foreground. A κύκλος ἱστορικὸς ὑπὸ διαφόρων πληρούμενος συγγραφέων [historical cycle, filled out by various writers], such as the Hellēnika produce when collected together, did not satisfy their demands. Unity of style was only to be reached, if one work offered the whole of history. So too Ephoros will have thought. But this conception is to be seen with special clarity in the plan devised by the young Theopompos, of which, it is true, only small portions were carried out, namely the epitome of Herodotus and the Hellēnika. He would probably also have written an epitome of Thucydides, if he had not soon abandoned his plan. [Differently on Theopompos, Jacoby, FGrHist II D, 354 f.] In addition, one has to take the competitive character of historicising rhetoric into account as well. And in the end it was easier for the rhetorician to write a universal history in broad outline than contemporary history alone, in which, without research and effort devoted to the material, the project surely could not succeed.

76 It may suffice to point to one external feature: Duris’ Ἱστορίαι [Histories] are usually called Μακεδονικά [Makedonika], but are once called Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika] (Diod. 15.60.6 [= FGrHist 76 T 5]). What could determine the choice of the former title is excellently shown by the description of the content of Antipatros’ Πράξεις Ἑλληνικαί [Achievements of the Greeks] in Epist. Socratic. 30. (Whether the letter is authentic is here also not important) [cf. above, n. 53].) Of course, a confusion of title cannot be assumed for every book on Macedon; on the contrary, Μακεδονικά [Makedonika] also form no small group among ethnographies. For there we shall have to group books together, such as the Μακεδονικά of Marsyas [FGrHist 135–136] and Balakros [FGrHist 773], the book of Nikomedes [FGrHist 772] which was probably so named, the Μακεδονικὴ ἱστορία [Macedonian History] of Herakleitos of Lesbos (FGrHist 167), the Μακεδονικὴ Περιήγησις [Tour of Macedon] by one Antigonos [FGrHist 775], the Πάτρια Μακεδονικά [Macedonian Ancestral Customs] of Theagenes [FGrHist 774] (cited simply as Μακεδονικά [Makedonika] by Stephanus of Byzantium). There will also have been many other books, whose names we do not even know. They were produced (like ethnography in general) by the interest in the people who energetically penetrated the horizon of the Greeks from the beginning of the fourth century onward; the books display, so far as we can judge, the character of ethnography, just as do the Σικελικά [Sikelika], that is, a character that closely approaches contemporary Greek history owing to the world-historical importance and the Greek nationality of both lands. (Even more strongly is this later the case in the Ῥωμαϊκά [Romaïka].) But the essential difference always remains. Duris’ Μακεδονικά–Ἑλληνικά [MakedonikaHellēnika] and Marsyas’ Μακεδονικά [Makedonika], which begins with the prehistory of the people, stand in more or less the same relationship to one another as do Xenophon’s Hellēnika and Philistos’ Σικελικά [Sikelika].

77 Here too we may mention simply the external detail that Kallisthenes [FGrHist 124], who certainly himself gave his own books their titles, calls not only the narrative of the years 387/6–356/5 Ἑλληνικά [Hellēnika] but gives the same name to his unfinished work about Alexander (see Schwartz (1900) 106) [cf. above, n. 51]. [ Jacoby (1919) 1686 f. abandoned Schwartz’s opinion, accepted here and in n. 51 above, about the title of this work. Cf. FGrHist II D, p. 420 f.] This was quite natural, since, for him, Ἀλεξάνδρου πράξεις [Deeds of Alexander] are identical to Ἑλλήνων πράξεις [Deeds of the Greeks]. That is completely analogous to Duris’ title, Μακεδονικά [Makedonika]. On the other hand, Diyllos, for example, must also have described the campaign of Alexander in his Hellēnika, just as Duris also did. These are parallel narratives that one may, mutatis mutandis, compare with the different narratives of the wars for the hegemony in the first half of the fourth century, which differ above all through their tendency. The title of a book, if it comes from the author, may at once here indicate its tendency.

78 To these narratives we must, to be practical, add the later reworkings of past periods of history by historicising rhetoricians. It would be pedantic and impossible in practice to group this genre of rhetoric by itself in a special volume. It is a fact that Curtius and Arrian belong to the historians of Alexander, just as Arrian’s Ἰνδική [Indikē] must be placed with the remains of the authentic ethnographies about India.

79 Not including Strabo [FGrHist 91], who compiled only a collection of material (Ὑπομνήματα); yet we should consider whether chaps. 5–6 [immediately above in text] should be combined.

80 Certain biographies of men of historical importance will probably also find their place here.

81 This question provoked an especially lively discussion after the lecture. Unanimity seemed to rule in the wish that everything that is also in Müller should be included in the new collection.

82 Cf. below, n. 114.

83 See p. 64 ff. Moreover, what survives is not very much. The literature of local histories closes, excepting a few cities and lands, with the compilations and collections of excerpts of the first century, with Polyhistor [FGrHist 273] on one hand and Timagenes [FGrHist 88], Diodoros, and Nikolaos [FGrHist 90] on the other. Only the genre of the periegesis continues to flower.

84 In the discussion of this matter after the lecture, U. von Wilamowitz named the former, K. J. Neumann named the latter and would also consider Simokatta as belonging to Antiquity. If it is a matter of a chronological limit to Antiquity, it certainly seems better to let it more or less coincide with the beginning of the ‘Dark Ages’ than to seek it in the sixth century. Incidentally, Wilamowitz himself also wanted to include Johannes Antiochenus, which requires coming down below his first chronological limit. [On Johannes Antiochenus cf. FGrHist II A, p. VII and below p. 48.]

85 ‘It is, however, unmistakeable that classicism was not auspicious for historiography; in order to be so, it would have needed true historical research in the field of ancient history. But people read the historical classics and swore by their words. However, the history of the Empire was written just as seldom as the history of the Ptolemies’, says Wilamowitz (1905) 154 [= Wilamowitz (1912) 229]. Here, classicism is probably only a symptom. The general cultural decline of the Greek people in the first centuries both BC and AD is unmistakeable. In addition, the political factor must be considered. Poseidonios could still write history as a Greek; now, to write history, one would have had to feel like a Roman. And this the Greeks never achieved. They wrote again only when the decline of Rome began and the division of the east from the west was forming.

86 One has only to glance once at the list of names before Books 7–9 in Müller to recognise how modest in volume the historical production of six centuries is and how few traces it has left behind. Out of the approximately 100 names, only a limited portion, moreover, are actually historians; mixed in among them are many rhetoricians and grammarians. In addition, the authors are mostly ethnographers and local historians.

87 Otherwise, the fragments of contemporary history of late antiquity and of the Byzantine period would have to be collected in a volume of a new Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae [cf. FGrHist II A, p. VIII].

88 Concerning an attempt to build a bridge between the external form of the ὧροι [chronicles] and that of the oldest contemporary history, see below, n. 97.

89 That is the terminus technicus for the histories of cities, which emphasises their most characteristic feature, the annalistic form (on the τοπικαὶ ἱστορίαι [local histories], see above, n. 27): Diod. 1.26.5 ἀφ’ ἧς αἰτίας καὶ παρ’ ἐνίοις τῶν Ἑλλήνων τοὺς ἐνιαυτοὺς ὥρους καλεῖσθαι καὶ τὰς κατ’ ἔτος ἀναγραφὰς ὡρογραφίας προσαγορεύεσθαι [‘and it is for this reason that among some of the Greeks the years are called “seasons” (horoi) and that their yearly records are given the name “horographs”’]. Censorin. die nat. 19.6: et Graecos annales horus eorumque scriptores horographos. Hesych. ὡρογραφοί∙ ἱστοριογράφοι, <οἱ> τὰ κατ’ ἔτος πραττόμενα <ἀνα>γράφοντες. ὧροι γὰρ οἱ ἐνιαυτοί [horographers: historians, who write down the things done year by year. For horoi means eniautoi (years)]; Et. Mag. 823.48 ὧρος∙ ὁ ἐνιαυτὸς … καὶ ὡρογραφίαι αἱ κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἀναγραφαὶ γινόμεναι τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν [horos: the year … and horographies: narratives written year by year about events in the cities] (cf. ib. 350.3). [Cf. Jacoby, Atthis 68, 289 n. 110.] In the titles of books and quotations we find the words ὧροι [chronicles] and ὡρογράφοι [writers of chronicles] (naturally, never λογογράφοι [narrators of tales] or Χρονικά [Chronicles]), especially, but not exclusively, for histories of Ionian cities. In other cases the titles were taken from the epics (Ἀτθίς, cf. Schwartz (1896) 2181; [Atthis 79 ff.]) or formed like those of the ethnographies (e.g. Μεγαρικά [Megarika]). In the Hellenistic period this form of title is especially often found; but also περὶ πόλεως τινός [on a certain city]. These titles are more comprehensive: they do not limit themselves to the genuine, that is, annalistically organised histories of cities. The Κτίσεις-literature [Foundations-literature] in prose has nothing to do with the Ὧροι [Chronicles], but is a separate group, written especially by grammarians of the Hellenistic age, which is, however, to be placed with local history in the collection.

90 Eduard Schwartz has pointed out the ‘romantic’ nature of the local chronicles and of the histories of cities in Schwartz (1899) 491 [cf. Jacoby, Atthis 289 n. 111, 295 n. 35]. Among the various streams that here flow together, the rise in the national consciousness that was awakened by the Persian wars seems to me especially significant. It expresses itself in literature in various ways, in each case according to the actual results that this event had for the life of the individual citystates: Athens produces the panhellenic history of Herodotus, but no chronicle; Ionia brings about the ὧροι [chronicles] of Charon, which treat the greatest event in the history of the nation from the standpoint of parochial politics.

91 The narrow standpoint is common to all these books and creates a chasm not only between them and the two panhellenic genres of history but also in relation to the more important ethnographies, which are much more universal in approach. The Athenian chronicle may be historically weightier than that of Siphnos, its description of the historic period may be relatively very much longer than those in the small cities that lack a history—but it too does not offer contemporary history in the previously established meaning of the word; at the most it offers the raw material for such history. The difference between the two genres becomes so apparent in, for example, the copious fragments of Philochoros, and even in such an inferior representative of the Hellēnika type as Xenophon, that De Sanctis’ idea, which I know only from the justified criticism by Lehmann-Haupt (1908) 265, that the Oxyrhynchos historian is Androtion, is totally inconceivable [cf. FGrHist III b Suppl. II, 98 n. 121; above, n. 55; and Jacoby (1950) 2 = Abhandlungen 324].

92 I wish, however, to state here that I consider the constantly repeated questioning by scholars about the authenticity of the older parts of the Olympic victor lists (see most recently Körte (1904) 324 ff.) unjustified. Its basis is a misinterpretation of the reports about their publication by Hippias. This publication was by no means unique; it cannot be judged otherwise than, for example, the publication of the list of victors in the Karneia by Hellanikos (which also reaches farther back than the lists of winners in the Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian games) and that of the lists of the various eponymous magistrates. It is a fatal error to see in the fifth-century editors the authors or creators of the chronicles and of the documents preserved in them. Moreover, if the Olympic victor list was inauthentic, the falsifier was indubitably not Hippias, but the people from whom he received the list, namely the priests of Olympian Zeus. [As for the authenticity of the Olympic victor list, Jacoby later was much more sceptical: see Atthis 353 n. 3; FGrHist III b I, 226 ff.; II, 152 ff.] [H. Bloch, Abhandlungen 424 adds: ‘On the age of the local chronicles see most recently, Strasburger (1954) 398.]

93 See, for the Atthis, Wilamowitz (1893) I.29 ff. [Cf. Jacoby, Atthis 221 ff.]

94 Niese (1907) 426 ff. has recently again quite rightly pointed out the authentic ἱστορίη-character [research-character] of Herodotus’ assembling of his material. That the use of written materials is in itself entirely compatible with this ἱστορίη-character should definitely go without saying. The question whether Herodotus is following written sources or oral tradition is in this form falsely stated. He knows and uses both. The question is, first, where, and for which things, written sources were available to him; second, in what way he uses these written sources. [Cf. Jacoby (1913) 394, 404; Atthis 180, 360 n. 48.]

95 That is possible for a large part of the ethnographic material, to which the history of the barbarian peoples belongs. Here Herodotus himself can again question those who supplied his sources with information and use his own eyes. On the other hand, he usually accepts the genealogical material without question and takes it for granted in the form in which Hekataios and his followers had transmitted it to him. Here too occasional questioning of the barbarian λόγιοι [learned men] is found. But we can seldom decide whether the references to the λόγιοι should not already be credited to the genealogist who preceded him. [Cf. Jacoby (1913) 394 ff.]

96 I have referred (above, p. 33 f.) to the two places (Hdt. 1.5; 6.55) that show knowledge of genealogies. For the writers of Περίοδοι [Journeys around the World] (world map and accompanying text), see Hdt. 4.36. These direct quotations are found where Herodotus criticises or where he omits a treatment of his own and refers to already available literature. Since these three places are enough, it is unnecessary to add others that do not name books explicitly. Besides, a place like Hdt. 2.5 naturally shows exactly the same. The assumption that Herodotus has used Dionysios of Miletos is truly hard to avoid (Meyer (1892–9) I.176). How far his use of Dionysios went is unimportant for the question in principle. Probably it consisted only of taking over factual information. A good example for this is provided by 1.183, the removal of the statue of Bel from Babylon by Xerxes, a report that has convincingly been explained by Lehmann-Haupt (1900) 964 f. (cf. id. (1901) 271 n. 2, 273 f.; (1902) 337; (1907) 447 f.). I can also accept Dionysios as the source for individual data about the Ionian revolt, while I must reject the opinion that ‘the Ionian vulgate about the revolt comes from the Περσικά [Persika] of Dionysios’ (Lehmann Haupt (1902) 339). But above all I consider it a mistake, when Lehmann-Haupt (1902) 338 raises the ‘question, which probably merits a positive answer, whether in the choice of the end point in Herodotus’ history […] the discontinuation of a primary source (he means the book Τὰ μετὰ Δαρεῖον [Events following Darius]) played a decisive role’. Also, even after the more cautious and at the first glance tempting modification that Lehmann-Haupt assigns to his idea in (1906) 136, I cannot align myself with this view of Herodotus’ method, but must stand by the opinion that the Herodotean tradition about both the Ionian revolt and the two Persian wars gives the impression throughout, including its basics, of oral transmission. From the literary point of view, Dionysios is just as little a predecessor of Herodotus as Charon is, even though the former, as an ethnographer, stands closer to him than does the local historian. [Cf. Jacoby (1913) 405; Atthis 100.]

97 Wilamowitz (1918a) 6 [cf. id. (1926) 220 f. and Jacoby, Atthis 382 n. 10]. I am equally reluctant to agree with another remark [of Wilamowitz], written by way of explaining Thucydides’ principles of composition (Wilamowitz (1918b) 581), because it assumes an influence of horography on historiography that is neither demonstrable nor —if we consider the origin and development of contemporary history— even probable: ‘on the other hand, the division into half-yearly periods is, nevertheless, probably made following the year-division of Ionic ὧροι [chronicles]; but here too we lack the parallels.’ I am uncertain whether, on the basis of the division of the Thucydidean year, we should here infer a similar practice for the Ionian ὧροι [chronicles]. I should consider that mistaken, for not even the narrative in Thucydides according to years has anything to do with the narrative in the horographers. (I was astonished that Wilamowitz, in the discussion after the lecture in Berlin, spoke of Thucydides as of an annalist.) [Cf. Jacoby, Atthis 87.] That a writer who, for the first time, wishes to provide a clear survey of the events of a larger span of contemporary history, divides this period by years, is so natural (because such a division is supplied by life itself) that one will seek no literary model for it. But if one were to appeal to the argument that the horographers even before Thucydides used the year as a unit of time in their narratives, it is all the clearer that the apparently identical form has a completely different origin, so that to treat the two forms as parallel is wholly impossible. Thucydides himself allows no doubt whatever about this. The division within horography is simply adopted from the official ἀναγραφαί [lists of magistrates]; the horographers write κατ’ ἔτος [year by year]. By contrast, Thucydides organises his material according to his own technical term, well chosen by him, κατὰ θέρη καὶ χειμῶνας [by summers and winters; cf., e.g., Thuc. 2.1], that is, by natural (not astronomical) years or war years. And this division is his own intellectual property, just as is his conception of the unity of the whole war. He establishes both these principles in an analogous way, speaking on his own behalf in 5.20 and 5.26. That much tortured chap. 5.20 in fact just sets up an equation between the Thucydidean war year and the civic year of office (naturally, we can infer nothing from this chapter about the lengths of θέρος [summer] and χειμών [winter] and their mutual relationship). The chapter explains at the same time why the civic officials’ year was useless for him. It gives therefore the comment or the motivation: (1) for the criticism, 1.97.2, of the Atthis of Hellanikos, which was organised according to officials’ years of office; (2) for the fact that Thucydides, the Athenian, neither describes the war according to Athenian years nor gives dates according to Athenian officials. The only case of a date according to officials —for the documents are not Thucydides and the note, 4.133, has the character of an exception— is the synchronism for the beginning of the war, 2.2.1: a necessary concession due to the lack of a generally valid way of dating a year. The year simply could not be established in any other way. The way in which the horographers date is, first of all, not useful for Thucydides, because it breaks up the natural order of the events and thus damages the accurate survey of history, instead of making it clearer through division into shorter periods of time. His own type of year not only keeps close contact with the events of the war in Greece; it also has the special advantage that the Peloponnesian War happened to break out at the beginning of such a natural year: ἅμα ἦρι ἀρχομένωι [at the beginning of spring] the attack on Plataia took place. I see in this coincidence the psychological impulse for the choice of precisely this way of counting the years. For the sake of using this kind of dating, Thucydides actually sacrifices the clear, specific dating of the beginning of the war; not only in 5.20, but also from 2.7 onward he reckons the beginning of the war from the first attack on Attica. This lack of clarity exists and is the reason for many modern discussions and impossible interpretations. [Cf. FGrHist III b Suppl. I, 16 ff. and Jacoby (1928) = Abhandlungen 207-38] Two facts supply the cross-check for the proof that Thucydides’ division of the year has nothing to do with horography: (1) the historiae perpetuae [continuous histories] of a Theopompos, of an Ephoros, even that of Xenophon in his continuation of his narrative beyond Thucydides, do not use his division according to war years, because this division had been invented for a monograph about a particular war and was suitable only for this one. Into its place steps a division, better suited for the historia perpetua, organised according to topics. If the historian of Oxyrhynchos provides an exception, then this also shows that he stands closest in time to Thucydides among all writers of Hellēnika. [Cf. FGrHist II C, 6.] (2) When later—that is, after Timaios and Hellenistic chronography had fashioned a conventional way of numbering years —the annalistic form truly takes over contemporary history, then the latter form too uses the annalistic year, thus precisely the one that Thucydides had rejected.

98 I cannot agree with the conclusion of Wilamowitz (1893) II.20. It is quite uncertain to me whether the usually accepted relationship between Hellanikos and the ὧροι [chronicles] is correct or rather has to be reversed, i.e. that it was the publications of Hellanikos and the analogous publications and lectures of the sophists —such as Hippias’ Olympic chronicle and his ἐπιδείξεις [lectures] about the ‘Archaeology’, delivered certainly not only in Sparta, but in many places —that first gave the decisive impetus to the writing of local histories [cf. Atthis 68, 289 n. 111]. Hellanikos’ information and that of the sophists concerning foreign cities was limited. We can still perceive that in the remains of his Atthis and we find it natural: for he does not belong to the preservers of the Πάτρια [ancestral traditions] but is, rather, forced to do research by interviewing them. Hellanikos’ books are actually not at all authentic ὧροι [chronicles]. But the kind of lecture that Hippias delivered, such as Hellanikos surely also gave, was able to induce a λόγιος ἀνήρ [learned man] to expound for his fellow citizens the antiquities and history of his homeland more extensively and with closer attention to documents. Moreover, what was the point of lectures, such as those of Hippias, if there were already literary ὧροι in the relevant city?

99 [Regarding the ἀναγραφαί (lists of magistrates) cf. Jacoby, Atthis 180 f., 359 n. 27, 353 n. 3; on the date of the first chronicle of Miletos, Atthis 359 n. 30, 362 n. 57; FGrHist III b, I, 401, 405 with n. 14.]

100 It is therefore instructive to compare this chapter with the two passages in Herodotus (8.51; 3.59) cited below, pp. 61 f. In his panhellenic work of history Herodotus cites for purposes of dating, very naively, annual magistrates of Athens and Samos, which, in the absence of any indication of how long ago they held office, is of no use to the reader [cf. Jacoby (1913) 404; Atthis 182 f.]. Thucydides cites no names of local magistrates, because they would be understood only locally; but in their place he does give a date for the facts catalogued in the chronicle under their names by means of distance in time to a generally known, panhellenic date. [Cf. FGrHist III b, Suppl. I.4 f.] In other respects as well, the comparison of the introductory chapters with Herodotus is interesting, because it becomes clear that a gap in the historical literature is beginning to be filled in in the period between the two authors. Köhler (1877) 370–7 pointed to the division of historical material in these chapters, of which the first part includes 1.2–12 and ends with the period of wanderings, while the second part (1.13–19) includes the later so-called spatium historicum [historical period]. He also said, yet not with absolute clarity, that the division in the material corresponds to a difference in the sources. The sources for the first part consist of epic poetry and its later rationalisation in genealogies; for the second part, ‘partly popular tradition, partly a (?) chronicle-like record’. Herodotus displays (something that Köhler overlooked) the same division of the material (cf. above, n. 63) and, for the first period of time, the same sources. But for the second period he lacked the written narratives. He had to consult oral tradition alone. [On Thuc 1.13, cf. also Atthis 361 n. 56 and FGrHist III b I.456 with n. 18.]

101 Thus it is actually shown without doubt that Ion, who otherwise would be the oldest datable chronicler (incidentally, he outlived Herodotus), wrote no ὧροι [chronicles] about Chios in prose [but cf. Atthis 364 n. 62; see also Jacoby (1947) 4 f. = Abhandlungen 149 f. and FGrHist III b I, 192 ff.]. We can conclude this because his book was preserved. But the same is already shown by the title Χίου Κτίσις [Founding of Chios] as recorded by the scholiast to Aristophanes, Peace 835, and Et. Magnum 569.35 [= FGrHist 392 T 2, F 3.] In the fifth century this title points to an epic or elegiac poem; Κτίσεις [Foundings] in prose (incidentally, not of individual cities) are first found in the Hellenistic period. Rightly, then, did Müller, FHG II.45a, already think of a prose reworking of the poem.

102 Quite right is Schwartz (1899a) 2179. Cf. above, n. 49 [and Jacoby (1938) [1939] 207–42 = Abhandlungen 178–206].

103 Wilamowitz (1893) II.20 seems to do so. But his n. 12 is more cautiously expressed and apparently leaves it doubtful whether the claim of these books ‘to be very old’ was justified. He even designates the Delphika of Melissos as apocryphal [cf. FGrHist 402].

104 [Cf. FGrHist III a, 6; 17 f.; Atthis 164, 335 n. 26 and above, n. 61.]

105 [Cf. above, n. 100.]

106 Also oral inquiry. Thus did the Egyptian priests give him a series of dates regarding kings. They stand independently and do not fit into his chronological system (Meyer (1892–99) I.164 f.) and are for the reader just as useless and uninformative as the (shortly to be mentioned) names of Greek eponymous magistrates, which at some time or other his informants in Athens and Samos told him: that he records them is after all a sign of what high value he places generally on chronological information. In his enthusiasm he entirely overlooks the fact that the reader can make nothing of such isolated dates. [See above, n. 100.]

107 One should not assert, for instance, that the diversity of the horographic dates made him doubt their accuracy. To judge from the often totally contradictory chronological data found in his work, he would probably have wholly overlooked it.

108 If he had wished, he probably could also have learned the names of eponymous magistrates of other states for this year.

109 In the discussion following the lecture in Berlin, I was contradicted by Wilamowitz, who found, in the mention of the βασιλεύς [‘king’ = the eponymous magistrate] of Samos, the evidence for the existence of a Samian chronicle. To me the mention of a ‘king’ shows only the existence of a continuously maintained ἀναγραφή [list of magistrates], probably also supplied with historical notes, whose existence one probably would not have doubted in any case. In addition, the Samian λόγος [narrative] in Herodotus shows very clear traces of his inquiries: cf., for example, 3.45. If Pausanias had written that, one would deduce that there were two Samian chroniclers, whose reports a grammarian had joined together. Here we can think only of two narratives, between which Herodotus himself decides on the basis of εἰκός [probability], as he also does elsewhere (cf. 3.56). In other passages of the λόγος he reckons with generations (3.48, 55). [Cf. FGrHist III b I, 455; II, 268 n. 5.]

110 In this context it is after all worth mentioning that Herodotus in no way thinks that a Greek state could, like a barbarian people, lay claim to have its history written in an individual λόγος [narrative] rather than only in an ἐκβολὴ λόγου [digression from the narrative]. Otherwise, how easily could he have accommodated at least the history of Athens and Sparta, in combined λόγοι [narratives], for example before Darius’ expedition, instead of dispersing their parts, so far as he knows them at all, and subordinating them to barbarian history, by means of motives that are historically ‘worth exactly as much as the transitions in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’ [Wilamowitz (1893) I.33 n. 8].

111 Anyone who likes can also forge from this passage a weapon against the authenticity of the Olympic victor list [cf. above, n. 92].

112 Cf. above, n. 98 on Hellanikos and horography. Local history is later than the great literature and does not precede it.

113 So Schwartz (1895) 994. [Cf. FGrHist 379 and especially III b I, 160.]

114 In a collection of fragments that truly deserves the name, in order to select an arbitrary example, the history of the house of Atreus in Thucydides 1.9 cannot possibly be absent; for here clearly lies a written source at the basis for the narrative, something that sceptics about Herodotus 1.1–5 might possibly still be able to deny. But I should also not wish simply to place this chapter among the fragments of Hellanikos, however probable it is that he is the source. For in the majority of cases of this kind we cannot name a specific author with full certainty. It will be best to allow ἄδηλοι [anonymous excerpts in extant authors] to follow the genealogists who are quoted by name, and to group them by their subject matter or, better, alphabetically according to the sources in which they are found. [Bloch, Abhandlungen 424: ‘Jacoby did not follow the principle of closing the volume on genealogy with excerpts without authors’ names.’] It is exactly so with ethnography. The complete outline of Sicilian archaeology in Thucydides 6.2–5 must be included [FGrHist 577 F 9]; but again not under the fragments of Hellanikos, however certainly I consider him the source here as well. For others judge differently about the source. The only way here, in my opinion, is to allow the passages about each country without authors’ names to follow after the ethnographers with names. Thus, for example: Περσικά [Persika] a) named authors, b) ἄδηλοι [anonymous excerpts in extant authors]. Subjective assignment of anonymous excerpts to specific authors must in every case be avoided, since such a practice would make using the collection more difficult. Where a certain author is probable, a reference is enough. The Herodotean single λόγοι [narratives] must also not be ignored in this volume. By contrast, the same procedure is not feasible in the part devoted to contemporary history, because in that way its content would grow to monstrous size. For Ephoros alone, the inclusion of the pieces that should probably be assigned to him would yield a large book [cf. FGrHist II A, p. V]. And a compilation of the ἄδηλοι [anonymous excerpts in extant authors] would fill a series of volumes. (One could imagine an edition of Diodoros that would be expanded to create such a collection of the whole preserved historical tradition. That would be no useless book.) Here, brief references to the state of the transmission for the separate eras, and to the results of the study of the sources for the individual authors, will have to suffice. Everything else is to be left to the monographs that we need for Ephoros, Theopompos, and in general for every important author, and even more for each epoch of Greek history. [Cf. FGrHist II A, p. VII.]

115 [See above, n. 100.]

116 [Cf. FGrHist III b II, 268 n. 3.]

117 We shall not be able to exclude even the remains of the versified histories of cities (and, equally, those of the ethnographies), which are frequent in Hellenistic, Roman, and early Byzantine times. The material is actually the same in prose and poetic treatments; and often we lack certainty about their form.

118 The development in the field of ethnography is analogous; the only difference is that here the end follows two centuries later. However, both forms enjoy a revival in the Roman Empire.

119 Otherwise, one could consider, at the most, grouping them with the writers of periegeses. They have certain features in common with the latter group, especially their descriptive character; and some of the authors under consideration, such as Polemon and Diodoros [FGrHist 372], even bear the distinctive title ὁ Περιηγητής [the Periegete, i.e., writer of books of tours]. But, on the other hand, they nevertheless differ so sharply from the authentic geographic periegesis that combining the two forms does not appear advisable, even if one wished to distinguish between complete and partial examples of the periegesis.

120 Here, too, with the usual restriction, we can give a pattern of the development: Ἀτθίδες [Athenian chronicles], fourth century Epic. Tragedy Ἀτθίς of Philochoros ~ Antiquarian literature Συναγωγὴ Ἀτθίδων [collection of Atthides] Poetic adaptations of Hellenistic period

121 [A survey about the planned corpus (by H. Bloch, Abhandlungen, 424): during the execution of the plan as it is here set forth [that is, by Jacoby in 1909], the plan went through a number of changes, of which the following above all deserve to be pointed out. The ten ‘volumes’ were transformed into six ‘parts’ (Teile). Volumes I and II now form Part I. The Testimonia (in Vol. I) are now omitted, as are the ἄδηλοι [anonymous excerpts in extant authors] (in Vol. II, chap. 8; cf. above, on n. 114). Volumes III and VI are combined in Part III so that Vol. VI, chap. ( and, in part, chap. 2 are now to be found in Part III B (Greek local history), while Volume III (Ethnography) has now become Part III C. Part III A includes authors on several cities or regions. Volumes IV (contemporary Greek history) and V (chronography) are combined in one Part (II); only chap. () of the fourth volume (contemporary Byzantine history) is omitted (cf. above p. 44 on the changes in the ordering of the sections of ‘contemporary history’). Volume VI, chap. 2 will partly, and Volume VII entirely, be incorporated in Part IV, which is not yet [i.e. in 1956] in preparation. Volume VIII (geographic writings) corresponds with Part V, which is now being prepared by Friedrich Gisinger. Part VI will include the Adeloi (= Volume IX), the Testimonia (a part of Volume I) and the Indices (Volume X).]