anaximander's book. 251 



his other writing, when considered in relation to the sentence as a 

 whole, would seem to imply that Eratosthenes had knowledge of a 

 treatise attributed to i\naximander, which, however, was not so or 

 otherwise sufficiently authenticated.'^^ If this exegesis be sound, 

 and I believe it is, we discover in the very text which, superficially 

 viewed, seems to discredit the bibliography of Suidas, a confirmation 

 of our thesis that the geographical treatise of iVnaximander was 

 entered in the Alexandrian catalogues. We may, however, infer 

 from the statement of Eratosthenes that in his time, at least, it was 

 noted as subject to question. ^'^ 



We must now inquire how much weight we should assign to the 

 doubt of Eratosthenes regarding the genuineness of the work attrib- 

 uted to Anaximander. At first sight it would appear that he was as 

 competent a judge in such matters as one could readily find; for one 

 recalls that he was alike eminent as a geographer and as a student 

 of chronology, the former interest seeming to qualify him in a special 

 way to speak with authority on matters connected with the history of 

 geography and in particular with geographical literature, the latter 

 bespeaking for him uncommon credit in regard to the moot questions 

 concerning 'inventions.' But upon closer examination one discovers 

 that these pretensions vanish in thin air. Eratosthenes was, indeed, a 

 geographer and a chronologist of deservedly high repute; but in both 

 fields it was not the antiquarian details, but the scientific principles 

 involved, that chiefly engaged his attention and owed to his efl^orts a 

 noteworthy contribution. It might well happen, in consequence, 

 that he should err in judgment in regard to matters which lay outside 

 his proper field of study and less invited his interest. We should not 

 be surprised, therefore, if others more directly interested and in such 

 matters more competent should prove to have abandoned his doubts 

 regarding the geographical treatise of Anaximander. That such was 

 in fact the case we shall now try to show with such degree of certainty 



36 Per contra, the existence of a map drawn by Hecataeus is not denied, 

 though it likewise is not affirmed. The geographical treatise of Anaximander 

 and the map of Hecataevis are on the same footing, except in so far as the 

 authenticitv of the treatise of Hecataeus, as confirmed by his other writing, 

 suggests a want of such authentication for the treatise of his predecessor. It 

 is sometimes said that the remark about Hellanicus imphes that Hecataeus 

 made a chart; but that remark, as was pointed out above (n. 26), is by no 

 means unambiguous. 



37 One may apply to Eratosthenes what Jacoby (col. 2673) lias said of 

 CaUimachus in regard to the geographical treatise of Hecataeus, to wit, that 

 it is not probable that he had gone carefully into the question of the authenti- 

 city of the document. There being for some reason occasion for doubt or 

 question, it was prudent not to affirm it. 



