¹ The close association between the two is well illustrated by Ephorus' ascription of a line from the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (F 151) to τῆ καλουμένη γῆς περιόδῳ.

² Thus Jacoby (RE vii 2737) quotes with approval Meyer's judgment that Hecataeus was ‘der Begründer der Geschichtsschreibung bei den Griechen.’ Cf., e.g., de Sanctis, G., RF N.S.xi (1933)1Google Scholar, Huxley, G. L., The early Ionians (London, 1966) 135–9Google Scholar. Many modern accounts strongly suggest this conclusion, without explicitly stating it.

³ Hekataios (3), RE vii 2667–2750; hereafter cited as Jacoby.

⁴ Cf. Jacoby 2675: ‘Dass die Werke des Milesiers für Herodot eine besondere Bedeutung haben, ergibt sich widerspruchslos aus einem Faktum, dessen Bedeutung überhaupt nicht überschätzt werden kann: Herodot zitiert H. und nur H. namentlich’.

⁵ Jacoby assigned it to the Periegesis; but see von Fritz, K., Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung (Berlin 1967Google Scholar), Anm.-Bd. 47–8 n. 74.

⁶ For the fragments dealing with Egypt see FGrH 1 F 300–24. The new Photius has brought a valuable addition (Photii patriarchae lexicon ed. Theodoridis, C., i (Berlin-New York 1982Google Scholar), α 3352 (= Hekataios F 327 bis (Mette, H. J., Lustrum xxvii (1985) 34Google Scholar)): ᾌφθος. θεὸς παρ’ Αίγυπτίοις, ᾥσπερ ἡ Ισις καὶ ὁ Τυφῶν. Ἑκαταῑος Περιηγήσει Αἰγύπτου. Cf. Suid. φ 477 φθάς.’ ὁ Ἥφοαστος παρὰ Μεμφίταις. καὶ παροιμία. ὁ Φθάς σοι λελάληκεν. οἰ δὲ Ἀφθάς φασιν, ὡς σταφίς, ἀσταφίς, καὶ στάχυς, ἄσταχςξ. It is very remarkable that we do not find this name in Herodotus, though he gives several other Egyptian divine names (Osiris, Isis, Horus, Bubastis, ii 156.5 (and individually elsewhere), Amun 42.5), and the priests of Hephaestus at Memphis are cited as his main source for the history of Egypt before Psammetichus (ii 99–142. 1, passim).

⁷ Also applied to Aesop (ii 134.3), who does not fit the translation offered in LSJ, ‘prose-writer, esp. historian, chronicler’; ‘author’ may be the best rendering.

⁸ πρότερον in relation to Herodotus, but there is a jump forward in relation to the chronology of his Egyptian history, which has reached a point shortly before the accession of Psammetichus.

⁹ γενεηλογήσαντι ἑωυτόν might be thought to have heroic overtones. The heroes on the Trojan plain (like the Japanese samurai) rehearse their lineage before joining battle: cf. II. vi 145–211, xx 213–41. It has sometimes been suggested that Herodotus has failed to appreciate an element of irony or humorous self-depreciation in Hecataeus' account of his experiences at Thebes (thus Heidel, W. A., Hecataeus and the Egyptian priests in Herodotus, book ii (Boston 1935) 93–7Google Scholar, Momigliano, A., Terzo contributo alla storia degli studi classici (Rome 1966) 329Google Scholar, Armayor, O. K., Ancient World xvi (1987) 11–18Google Scholar; but few have found convincing this picture of a whimsical, somewhat Voltairean, Hecataeus, and irony would have been a dangerous device for an early prosewriter.

¹⁰ As Herodotus thought (ii 142.4); of all his many misconceptions this seems to be the one most irritating to Egyptologists.

¹¹ The Parian Marble (FGrH 239) dates the reign of Cecrops to 1581/0 and Deucalion's flood to 1573/2; Philochorus dated the reign of the ‘autochthon’ Ogygus, the earliest name in Attic history, to 0796/5 (FGrH 328 F 92: see Jacoby ad loc). Hecataeus is unlikely to have envisaged a longer time-scale.

¹² Thus, e.g., Bury, J. B., The ancient Greek historians (London 1909) 13Google Scholar f., Jacoby 2740 f., Olmstead, A. T., History of the Persian empire (Chicago 1948) 213Google Scholar, Fränkel, H., Dichtung u. Philosophie des frühen Griechentums² (Munich 1962) 392Google Scholar f. (= Early Greek poetry and philosophy (Oxford 1975) 344), Momigliano, A., Quarto contributo alla storia degli studi classici (Rome 1969) 33Google Scholar f., Tozzi, P., Athenaeum N.s.xliv (1966) 53Google Scholar. (The sobriety of Greek legend compared with Egyptian renders somewhat ironic the picture of Hecataeus inspired to demythologization as he sat musing among the departed glories of Karnak.)

¹³ Even if all the prermises of this demonstration are granted, it is not clear why it should be held to invalidate Greek legend; Hecataeus could have defended his claim to a divine ancestor 16 generations back by arguing that the gods must find Greek women more attractive than Egyptian. In any case, though the exhibition of statues might be regarded as evidence for the antiquity of the high priest's office, Hecataeus must simply accept his informant's assertion that none of these 345 had a divine father; we cannot be expected to believe that divine parentage would have disqualified a man for hereditary office and so caused a break in the succession.

¹⁴ Thus Drews, R., The Greek accounts of eastern history (Washington 1973) 13Google Scholar ‘The story … would have constituted a perfect preface for a work which was intended to show the foolishness of the Greek logoi’.

¹⁵ See Sourdille, C., La durée et l'étendue du voyage d'Hérodote en Égypte (Paris 1910) 204–6Google Scholar, Legrand, P. E., Hérodote, Livre ii² (Paris 1963) 22Google Scholar, Powell, J. E., CQ xxix (1935) 78Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Plato's story of Solon at Sais (Ti. 21e ff.) may help us to envisage how it might have been done.

¹⁷ Cf. Fehling, D., Herodotus and his ‘sources’: citation, invention and narrative art (Leeds 1989) 77–86Google Scholar (= Die Quellenangaben bei Herodot (Berlin-New York 1971) 59–66).

¹⁸ See further below, p. 00.

¹⁹ A decade would surely suffice to rule out spontaneous Egyptian recollection of so trivial an incident, and whatever travels Hecataeus undertook in all probability belong to the period before the Ionian Revolt.

²⁰ This evidently seems to some a rather bold assumption. But it would have been absurd for Herodotus to neglect what he could learn from fellow-countrymen whose daily business required some acquaintance with Egyptian manners and customs; he was himself ignorant of the language, and even on the most generous estimate can hardly be supposed to have spent more than a year in Egypt. Unum pro multis: he rightly pays tribute to the superiority of the Egyptian calendar over the Greek (ii 4), yet his calculation of the number of days in 70 years (i 32.2–3) shows that he did not understand how the Greek calendar worked, and I do not see how he could have even begun to follow an argument demonstrating the superior merits of the Egyptian system. The commercial interests of Naucratis needed a proper grasp of the native method of reckoning the date. Of course, Herodotus could have absorbed much relevant information from old Egyptian hands in Samos or Athens.

²¹ See the very valuable discussion by Kaiser, W., ‘Zu den Quellen der ägyptischen Geschichte Herodots’, Zsch. f. ägypt. Spr. u. Alt. xciv (1967) 93–116Google Scholar; he well speaks (105) of ‘eine fast unglaubliche Häufung eindeutig unzutreffender oder doch zumindest höchst eigenartiger Angaben’.

²² Marincola's, J. interesting essay, ‘Herodotean narrative and the narrator's presence’, Arethusa xx (1987) 121–37Google Scholar, well emphasizes the importance for Herodotus of surpassing previous Greek accounts of Egypt, among which that of Hecataeus might be supposed to be the best known.

²³ See Pritchard, J. B. (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament³ (Princeton 1969) 8Google Scholar.

²⁴ For details see Lloyd on 143.3 παῖδα πατρός.

²⁵ As a material for sculpture wood was more highly regarded in Egypt (where of course it was comparatively scarce) than in Greece, where it had been reduced to a very modest rôle by the end of the archaic period. See further Meiggs, R., Trees and timber in the ancient Mediterranean world (Oxford 1982) 300–01Google Scholar. To Herodotus' audience ξυλίνους will have seemed to imply a rather primitive technique.

²⁶ Cf. 142.1 ἐv ταύτησι (γενεῆσιν) ἀρχιερέας καί βασιλέας ἑκατέρους τοσούτους γενομένους. Herodotus' list of 341 rulers before the dodecarchy allegedly derives from Memphite tradition; with c. 143 we move not only south to Thebes but also forward in time, and the total of 345 high-pricsts corresponds to that difference. The extremely neat match between the two lineages should have struck an unprejudiced enquirer as too good to be true; the figure for the high-priests must derive from the other; see further n. 54.

²⁷ See, e.g., Lloyd's dicussion (ad loc).

²⁸ It has been put to me that this last phrase takes for granted an anachronistic sophistication in methods of enquiry. But in practical matters (buying a cow, assessing the relative merits of spring and autumn ploughing, assigning blame in questions of disputed responsibility) every cann peasant surely recognizes that it is futile to seek information in terms which suggest the desired answer, and I find it difficult to believe that in Herodotus' day the relevance of this principle to questions of less practical moment would have seemed novel. Of course, it takes some sophistication to recognize that apparently straightforward questions in fact point an informant in a particular direction; but this is not what seems to be involved here.

²⁹ According to Henige, D., Oral historiography (London-New York-Lagos 1982) 100Google Scholar ‘It is very rare (only about .02% incidence) that succession to an office follows directly from father to son (or uncle to nephew) more than eight consecutive times’. In calculating the period of time implied by the Memphite king-list (142.1–2) Herodotus assumes the equivalence of a reign and a generation, though the sequence of Cheops, Chephren and Mycerinus (124–9) should have alerted him to the possibility of succession by a brother or nephew, also to be borne in mind here. ‘The tendency to assume reflexively that a ruler is the son of his predecessor is nearly universal’ (Henige, , The chronology of oral tradition (Oxford, 1974) 70Google Scholar). On the propensity to interpret lists of successive office-holders as linear genealogies see Thomas, R., Oral tradition and written record in classical Athens (Cambridge 1989) 191–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ See in particular Borchardt, L., ‘Ein Stammbaum memphitischer Priester’, Sitzungsb. d. preuss. Akad. Wiss. xxiv (1932), 618–22Google Scholar; Die Mittel zur zeitlichen Festlegung von Punkten der ägyptischen Geschichte und ihre Anwendung (Cairo, 1935) 96–112, Plate 2. A limestone plaque in low relief represents four rows of figures uniformly depicted in distinctive priestly dress and originally 60 in all; beside each figure is a brief hieroglyphic record of his name and title, and a specific statement that he was the son of his predecessor. (It is generally supposed that these figures were intended to represent memorial statues of those depicted.) The composer of this record, which covers a period from Dynasty 11 to Dynasty 22 (i.e. from c. 2200 to c. 850), apparently anticipated some scepticism, and in (at least) 27 cases has given the name of the reigning pharaoh; where the document can be checked (and the family's distinguished connexions allow some control from other sources) it appears on the whole reliable, while the relatively lowly offices held by some of those named further inspire confidence. This product of well-justified family pride requires very little gloss for its gist to be intelligible, though the uniform depiction could easily leave the impression that all those represented had held the same office. At least equally impressive, though one generation shorter, is the genealogy of the nomarch of Meir, from the early second millennium, published by Blackman, A. M., Rock tombs of Meir iii (London 1915) 16–20Google Scholar; see also Borchardt, Mittel zur zeitl.Festlegung 112–4. See further Bull, L., The idea of history in the ancient Near East ed. Dentan, R. C. (New Haven—London 1955) 9–11Google Scholar, Brunner, H., Lexikon der Ägyptologie i (Wiesbaden, 1975) 13–8Google Scholar, s.v. Abstammung, Redford, D. B., Pharaonic king-lists, annals and daybooks (Mississauga 1986) 63Google Scholar f.

³¹ See Aristid. Or. xxxvi 46 ff. More recent discussions have not superseded Sayce's, A. H. excellent essay ‘The season and extent of the travels of Herodotos in Egypt’, JPh xiv (1885) 257–86Google Scholar.

³² op. cit. 262–3. It is incidentally interesting that Herodotus seems unaware that θῆβαι bears no relation to the city's native name; contrast Pl. Phdr. 274 d τὴν μεγάλην πόλιν τοῦ ἄνω τόπου ἥν οἱ ἕλληνες Αἰγυπτίας θήβας καλοῦσι.

³³ Cf. Il. ix 381–4 οὐδ’ ὅσ’ ἐς Ὀρχομενὸν ποτινίσεται, οὐδ’ ὅσα θήβας / Αἱγυπτίας, ὅθι πλεῖστα δόμοις ἐν κτήματα κεῖται, / αἴ θ’ ἑκατόμπυλοί εἱσι, διηκόσιοι δ’ ἀν’ ἑκάστας / ἁνέρες ἐξοιχνεῦσι σὺν ἵπποισιν καὶ ὄχεσφιν (cf. Od. iv 126–7). In particular, we might have expected some discussion of ἑκατόμπυλοι. Lloyd's attempt to explain Herodotus' very sketchy treatment of Thebes (n. on c 29) fails to take account of the expectations raised by the Homeric references.

³⁴ ‘Auffallend ist, dass Herodot von dem Amonstempel in Karnak Nichts zu sagen weiss, als dass sein Inneres gross sei’ (Wiedemann ad loc.)

³⁵ Contrast his description of the temples at Sais (169, 170, 175, 176), Bubastis (137–8; the unusually detailed description of the temple's layout is explained by its situation, ἐὸν δ’ ἐν μέσῃ τῇ πόλι τὸ ἰρὸν κατορᾶται πάντοθεν περιιόντι. ἅτε γὰρ τῆς πόλιος ἐκκεχωσμένης ὑψοῦ, τοῦ δ’ ἰροῦ οὐ κεκινημένου ὠς ἀρχῆθεν ἐποιήθη, ἔσοπτόν ἐστι), Buto (155) and Memphis (99, 101, 110, 112, 121, 136, 141, 153176), of the pyramids (124–34), and of Lake Moeris and the Labyrinth (148–9): an extremely perplexing section; see further Armayor, O. K., Herodotus' autopsy of the Fayoum: Lake Moeris and the Labyrinth of Egypt (Amsterdam 1985Google Scholar)). See further Berlage, J., ‘De Herodoto artificiorum aestimatore’, Mnemosyne N.S. xliii (1915) 170–83Google Scholar.

³⁶ The story presents other difficulties; it ignores the considerable differences in the practices of the three oracles concerned, and offers a very un-Egyptian rationalization of a legend related by Pindar, probably in the Paean to Dodonaean Zeus (fr. 58, from sch. on S.Tr. 172): (πελειάδας) γεγονέναι … δύο, καὶ τὴν μὲν εἱς λιβύην ἀφικέσθαι θήβηθεν εἱς τὸ τοῦ ᾌμμωνος χρηστήριον, τὴν <δὲ εἱς το> περὶ τὴν Δωδώνην. See also Fehling, op. cit. (n. 17) 65–70 (Quellenangaben 50–4).

³⁷ Indisputably to be included in any such list would be his account of the skeletons of winged snakes to be seen near Buto (ii 75; see further Fehling, op. cit. (n. 17) 24–7 (Quellenangaben 20–23); we have another curious sight-seeing trip involving bones at iii 12, where we are expected to believe that skeletons identifiable as Persian and Egyptian had been left until Herodotus' day undisturbed on the battlefields of Papremis and Pdusium. Armayor's comprehensive indictment of Herodotus' account of Lake Moeris and the Labyrinth (op. cit. n. 35) is also very disturbing. (The editor of JHS suggests that Arph. Birds 1130 καὶ γὰρ ἐμέτρησ’ αὔτ’ ἐγώ might be taken as evidence of contemporary scepticism about Herodotus' claims to autopsy.)

³⁸ Fehling (loc. cit. n. 17) deserves the credit for pioneering this approach to the passage, though the first (so far as I know) to venture in this direction in print was J. W. Swain who, in reviewing Pearson's, L.Early Ionian historians (Oxford 1939Google Scholar), offhandedly and quite groundlessly attributed this suggestion (with approval) to Pearson (CPh xxxvi (1941) 90). Since Fehling the case has been reopened by Erbse, Hartmut (Ausgewählte Schriften zur klassischen Philologie (Berlin-New York 1979) 183–5Google Scholar), who emphasizes the weaknesses of the traditional views and takes Herodotus' account to be a rather speculative reconstruction in which the genuinely Hecatacan elements were a reference to his pedigree, perhaps in the Genealogies, and a mention of Thebes in the Periegesis; the 345 statues reflect Herodotus' own visit to Thebes, and Hecataeus' reactions are guesswork.

³⁹ M. Miller, Klio xlvi (1965) 109.

⁴⁰ For far too long it has been loosely assumed that lengthy genealogies, tracing descent from a god through a continuous series of forebears, were normal in Greek aristocratic families at this time. Rosalind Thomas' valuable study (op. cit. (n. 29) 155–95) emphasizes the close connexion between the (very few) full, continuous genealogies known to us from this period and the work of the genealogists, Hecataeus and his successors, Hellanicus and Pherecydes; these proto-historians appear to have organized confused family traditions and the names of vaguely remembered forebears into a smooth linear sequence suiting the family's image of itself. Left to itself Greek family tradition would preserve the memory of a heroic ancestor (and his descent from a god) but tended to fade out after the fourth generation back, leaving a great gap in the sequence; this ‘telescoping’ effect is highly characteristic of orally transmitted genealogies where no special measures are taken to ensure accurate preservation.

⁴¹ On anecdotes dealing with confrontations between the representatives of different cultures see Fehling, op. cit. (n. 17) 193–4 (Quellenangaben 139–40). We have another good example in the confrontation between Darius and the priest of Hephaestus at ii 110; see below, pp. 00–0.

⁴² Cf. Wehrli, F., Hauptrichtungen des griech. Denkens (Zürich-Stuttgart 1964) 39Google Scholar f., 54–7. This episode looks like a forerunner of such edifying conversations as those recorded by Aristeas, ad Philocraten and in the Questions of King Milanda,where a great foreign king puts hard questions to a sage (or sages) of the author's own race and creed, and is at length convinced of his interlocutor's superior wisdom. Was this already a familiar genre in Herodotus' time? If his audience anticipated that Solon's discourse would bring Croesus to his senses, the unexpected postponement of the king's enlightenment would have underlined the point that his whole scale of values is incommensurate with Solon's, and the latter's message, for the moment, beyond his understanding.

⁴³ Cf. Meyer, E., Forschungen zur alten Geschichte (Halle 1892) i 193Google Scholar: ‘Noch deutlicher als in den directen Angaben Herodots spricht sich darin der Eindruck aus, welchen das Bekanntwerden mit dem Alter der ägyptischen Geschichte auf die Griechen gemacht hat’.

⁴⁴ Cf. ii 77. i αὐτῶν δὲ δὴ Αἱγυπτίων οἵ μὲν περὶ τὴν σπειρομένην Αἴγυπτον οἱκέουσι, μνήμην ἀνθρώπων πάντων ἐπασκέοντες μάλιστα λογιώτατοί εἱσι μακρῷ τῶν ἐγώ ἐς διάπειραν ἁπικόμην (Herodotus expresses himself in a terminology more appropriate to oral tradition, but plainly what he has in mind are written records; see Lloyd ad loc); 145.3.

⁴⁵ Perhaps at the beginning of the Genealogies ? Cf. F IC.

⁴⁶ Admittedly Agathemerus describes Hecataeus as ἀνήρ πολυπλανής (T 12), but he need not have had in mind anything beyond this chapter; Thebes was far enough from Miletus to justify the epithet. Despite Jacoby (2688–90) I cannot see anything in the surviving fragments which necessarily indicates first-hand observation.

⁴⁷ Cf. Lloyd, A. B., Herodotus, Book ii: introduction (Leiden 1975) 49–60Google Scholar, Fairweather, J., Ancient Society v (1974) 268Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Thus geometry is alleged to come from Egypt (ii 109.3) and Solon is said to have based his law on ἀργία (an ἄμωμος νόμος) on Amasis' legislation (177.2). Herodotus saw pervasive Egyptian influence in Greek religious practices (49–54, 58, 171); but the curious misapprehension which led him to suppose that the Greeks owed to Egypt the names of many of their gods (50.1; 52) must have predisposed him to look for other borrowings in this sphere.

⁴⁹ τάδε γράφω, ὥς μοι δοκεῖ ἀληθέα εἶναι. σἰ γὰρ Ἑλλήνων λόγοι πολλοί τε καὶ γελοῖοι, ὡς ἐμοὶ φαίνονται, εἱσιν. It seems more likely that this disparaging reference to οἰ Ἑλλήνων λόγοι was meant to contrast the notions of people in general, the public at large, with what an intelligent man might accept, not to mark a distinction between Greek and foreign traditions; so Frankel, op. cit. (n. 12) 394 n. 9 (= Early Greek poetry 346 n. 9), who compares Ion of Chios, ap. Athen, xiii 604 ab, οὐδὲ τόδε σοι ἀρέσκει ἄρα … τὸ Σιμωνίδειον, κάρτα δοκέον τοῖς ̋Σλλησιν εὖ εἱρῆσθαι;

⁵⁰ On the first of these passages Asheri, David (Erodoto, Le storie: libro 1, Rome 1988Google Scholar) robustly observes ‘Le presunte “fonti” persiane e fenicie, citate da Erodoto in questi capitoli, sono … pura invenzione e convenzione letteraria’. I believe the same to hold for the Egyptian ‘sources’ cited in the other three; cf. Fehling, op. cit. (n. 17) 49–86 (Quellenangaben 38–66).

⁵¹ It has sometimes been suggested that in his treatment of Upper Egypt Herodotus intended merely to supplement a more detailed account by Hecatacus. But on this hypothesis Herodotus' much fuller account of Lower Egypt would seem to imply a corresponding neglect of this area on Hecataeus' part, which is surely absurd.

⁵² It is significant that his account of Egypt starts with this topic; the tale of Psammetichus' experiment strikes the keynote (ii 2), even if rather illogically.

⁵³ The inaccurate conversion of generations into years, which imparts a meretricious precision to this section, is surely Herodotus' own idea; for similar elaborate, and largely unnecessary, calculations cf. i 32, iii 95, iv 85, vii 187. ‘Es ist fast komisch, zu sehen, wie dieser fast immer, wenn er mit exakten Zahlen operiert, völlig in die Brüche gerät’. (Aly, W., Volksmärchen, Sage u. Novelle bei herodot u. seinen Zeitgenossen (Göttingen 1921) 74Google Scholar).

⁵⁴ Herodotus' use of this figure as the basis for further calculation prevents our treating it as simply a symbolic or typical number, used to promote verisimilitude but not to be taken literally (pace Lloyd, Historia xxxvii (1988) 41).

⁵⁵ To the modern egyptologist this lack of record of individual achievement may seem quite in order: ‘die für eine ägyptische Königsliste nicht weniger charakteristische Angabe, von all diesen Königen seien keine Taten zu berichten, denn gerade das Fehlen besonderer Einzelnachrichtcn hat nach allem, was wir wissen, für solche Listen als typisch zu gelten’ (Kaiser, op. cit. (n. 21) 100). But Herodotus might reasonably be expected to have found it strange.

⁵⁶ It is typical of the widespread tendency to treat ii as distinct from the rest of Herodotus' work that discussions of his principles and methods of historical enquiry generally ignore his uncritical acceptance of this very flimsy evidence, despite the importance of the inference based on it.

⁵⁷ See further Henige, Chronology 6–9.

⁵⁸ See further Lloyd, A. B., ‘Nationalist propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt’, Historia xxxi (1982) 33–55Google Scholar, esp. 37–40.

⁵⁹ I have discussed Herodotus' account of Sesostris in CQ xxxv (1985) 298–302; I find quite unconvincing the attempt by Obsomer, Claude, Les campagnes de Sésostris dans Hérodote (Brussels 1989Google Scholar), to interpret Herodotus' narrative of conquest in Asia Minor and Europe as based on a misunderstanding of information about the Nubian campaigns or Sesostris III.

⁶⁰ So Leigh Hunt, in his sonnet ‘The Nile’.

⁶¹ This story has taken on a new interest since 1972 with the discovery of the Susa statue of Darius; see appendix.

⁶² Tozzi, P., La rivolta ionica (Pisa 1978Google Scholar) provides detailed guidance through the quicksands of this area (on Hccataeus' role see pp. 139–141); for a brief account, throwing an interesting light on Herodotus' work in general, see Murray, O., CAH² iv (Cambridge 1988) 461–90Google Scholar, esp. 480–90.

⁶³ Cf. Jacoby 2668–9 (on Hecataeus' biography): ‘Brauchbar sind nur die Angaben Herodots v 36, 125 (und Ephoros bei Diod. x 25.4?), die allerdings nicht auf H. selbst zurückgehen … sondern vermutlich auf mündliche Tradition über den Ionischen Aufstand …, denen wir aber ihrer inneren Wahrscheinlichkeit wegen den Glauben nicht versagen.’

⁶⁴ So Jacoby loc. cit. (n. 63) and on FGrH 1 T5, 6; Tozzi, , Athenaeum N.S.xli (1963) 320Google Scholar f, Brown, T. S., AJP lxxxvi (1965) 63Google Scholar n. 14, K.von Fritz, op. cit. (n. 5), Anm.–Bd. 33–5 n. 12. For the view (‘più arbitraria che conseguente’ (Tozzi)) that Hecataeus' own work was Herodotus' source here see, e.g., Bury, op. cit. (n. 12) 12, Evans, J. A. S., Historia xxv (1976) 33–4Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ ‘The wise adviser in Herodotus’, CPh xxxiv (1939) 24–35. Cf. Schwabl, H., Gymnasium lxxvi (1969) 267Google Scholar: ‘Mit Hekataios sind wir bei einer typischen Figur, die immer wiederkehrt: der Weise, der dem zum Handeln Drängenden einen Sachverhalt vor Augen führt und ihn damit (zumeist vergebens) vom Handeln abhalten will, überhaupt Einsicht gegenüber einer falschen Haltung und Bewertung vermittelt’; see also Fehling, op. cit. (n. 17) 209 (Quellenangaben 149).

⁶⁶ Lang, M. L., Herodotean narrative and discourse (Cambridge, Mass.–London 1984) 55Google Scholar; cf. Historia xvii (1968) 29–30.

⁶⁷ According to Ctesias (FGrH 688 F 13.21) Darius ordered the destruction of temples at Chalcedon on his return from the Scythian campaign.

⁶⁸ Rumours (even if completely groundless) of Cambyses' extraordinary acts of sacrilege in Egypt (iii 27–9, 37; 64.3) would have shaken their subjects' confidence that the Persians would respect their holy places.

⁶⁹ It is a nice illustration of Herodotus' lack of system that this is the first time he gives Hecataeus' father's name.

⁷⁰ Cf. Strab. xiv 1.6.

⁷¹ Macan surmised that it was Herodotus' purpose here to make Hecataeus look ridiculous.

⁷² See further de Sanctis, G., Problemi di storia antica (Bari 1932) 89Google Scholar (= RF N.S.ix (1931) 71).

⁷³ Cf. Lang, M. L., Historia xvii (1968) 33Google Scholar: ‘Since Aristagoras met his death in the fighting and so came to personal defeat, there had to be a warning which he disregarded so that he might seem to have invited disaster.’

⁷⁴ I feel little confidence in the role assigned to him by Ephorus in the subsequent settlement of Ionia (T 7); there is no call for surprise in Herodotus' failure to mention it.

⁷⁵ Cf. Waters, K. H., Herodotos on tyrants and despots (Historia Einzelschr. 15, Wiesbaden 1971) 35Google Scholar n. 101: ‘Herodotos was bound to represent his main characters as directly responsible for actual occurrences; this is the popular or unsophisticated way of speaking, much in use today, but it does not mean that Herodotos had no deeper understanding of causation. In the case of the Ionian revolt however, the failure to indicate any underlying motive is probably due to the fact that a revolt either against a tyrant or against foreign domination is thought to be self-explanatory, unlike a war of conquest; yet it still requires agents, for whom individual personal motives have to be provided.’

⁷⁶ For good analyses of Hecataeus' role in the narrative see Schwabl, op. cit. (n. 65) 268, Tozzi op. cit. (n. 62) 139.

⁷⁷ Cf. Jacoby's tribute (2669): ‘Wir bewundern den klaren politischen Blick des Mannes, der auf Grund seines Wissens auch praktisch die Machtmittel der Staaten richtig abschätzte und erkannte, dass Ionien allein keine Basis zum Kampfe gegen Persien bot, dass die Freiheit der Griechen in Asien durchaus auf der Beherrschung des Ägäischen Meeres beruhe. Athen hat später den Beweis für die Richtigkeit dieser Überzeugung geliefert.’ Similarly Fränkel, Early Greek poetry 343 (= Dichtung u. Philosophie ² 391).

⁷⁸ Cf. Jacoby 2670: ‘Für uns ist das einzig sichere Zeitindizium, dass H. beim Ausbruch des Ionischen Aufstandes nicht nur αἱσθανόμενος τῆι ἡλικίαι, sondern ein gereifter und erfahrener Mann war.’

⁷⁹ This may seem an understatement; some recent literary studies leave the impression that their authors think it rather naive, or in poor taste, to express an interest in the reliability of the information which Herodotus offers.

⁸⁰ E.g. Solon's interview with Croesus (i 29–33) or the proceedings at the Persian court initiating Xerxes' campaign against Greece (vii 8–19).

⁸¹ See further Woodman, A. J., Rhetoric in classical historiography (London 1988) 207–12Google Scholar. For a convenient account of the reality behind the Potemkin legend see Crankshaw, E., The shadow of the Winter Palace (Harmondsworth 1978) 406–8Google Scholar.

⁸² Lloyd's discussion (ad loc.) well explains the problem; I am not satisfied with his solution.

⁸³ So Jacoby; but see Lloyd ad loc.

⁸⁴ See above, n. 6.

⁸⁵ This assumption is fundamental to Heidel's very acute discussion (op. cit. n. 9), which paradoxically credits Herodotus with a massive debt to a book he was too obtuse to understand. Still, though Heidel's general thesis has rightly won little support, he calls attention to several problems which deserve more thought than they normally get.

⁸⁶ Thus, when Aristagoras, seeking military support at Sparta (v 49.1) produces χάλκεον πίνακα ἐν τῷ γῆς ἁπάσης ττερίοδος ἐνετέτμητο καὶ θάλασσά τε πᾶσα καὶ πόταμοι πάντες, prompted by our commentaries we think of Hecataeus' improved version of Anaximander's map (T 12). Did Herodotus intend this association of ideas? If so, his reasons for not mentioning Hecataeus offer plenty of scope for speculation. (An appreciation of the value of maps in planning a campaign would be wholly to Aristagoras' credit, but what is here described would be too small-scale to be of any military use: but did Herodotus realise this?)

⁸⁷ Contrast Heraclitus' view (12 B 40 D—K (FGrH 1 T 21)) πολυμαθίη νόον ἔχειν οὐ διδάσκει. Ἡσίοδον γὰρ ἄν ἐδίδαξε καὶ πυθαγόρην αὖτίς τε καὶ Ξενοφάνεά τε κσὶ Ἑκαταῖον. However, the company in which he includes Hecataeus robs this animadversion of much of its force.

⁸⁸ First published in Journal Asiatique cclx (1972) 233–66. For a convenient brief account see Porada, E., Cambridge History of Iran ii (Cambridge 1985) 816–8Google Scholar, Plates 25, 26 (where references to more detailed discussions may be found). For a colour photo see Hinz, W., Darius u. die Perser (Baden-Baden 1976) Taf. 22Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ So Hinz, W., Arch.Mitt.Iran viii (1975) 115Google Scholar ff., esp. 120 f.; cf. Luschey, H., ZDMG Suppl. iv (1980) 369–73Google Scholar. I find very unconvincing the suggestion of Cook, J. M. (The Persian empire (London 1983) 100Google Scholar) that Xerxes removed the statue from Heliopolis as a sign of the royal disfavour.

⁹⁰ Cf. Obsomer, op. cit. (n. 59) 151–5.

⁹¹ It has often been noted that the reference to Darius' failure in Scythia betrays a Greek mind.

⁹² It has sometimes been suggested that Hecataeus came to Egypt at the time of Cambyses' invasion (cf. iii 139.1), and this may well be what Herodotus meant to imply.