272 HEIDEL. 



tion and predominant interest historical. This statement would be 

 paradoxical, were it not for our knowledge of Hecataeus and Herodo- 

 tus: even where the predominant interest is apparently geographical, 

 the geographical account falls within the historical scheme. In 

 describing countries which furnished no historical clues the statvs quo 

 of course alone was given. 



\Yhen one tries to form a conception of Anaximander's book, one 

 thinks inevitably of Hecataeus, liis successor, who can hardly have 

 remained uninfluenced by his example. As we have before remarked, 

 the traditional titles applied to the work of Hecataeus are numerous; 

 tvi'O, however, are clearly inclusive of the rest, (a) Histories (or Geneal- 

 ogies) and (b) To^ir of the Earth. In later times these were regarded 

 as separate treatises, but it is far from certain that they were origi- 

 nally and to the mind of their author distinct. Two facts point 

 rather to the conclusion that they were conceived as a unity. First, 

 we know of only one introduction, in which the author gave his 

 name, and that was prefatory to the Genealogies. Secondly, the Tour 

 of the Earth, being evidently without express mention of its author, 

 was mistakenly assigned to Nesiotes, and therefore the claims of 

 Hecataeus were for a time disputed. The statement sometimes 

 made '^'^ that the Tour of the Earth was composed before the Histories, 

 is wholly without foundation. Logically the Tour of the Earth, 

 having regard primarily for the status quo in its author's time, follows 

 the Genealogies, which treated of the past. If we assume that Heca- 

 taeus composed his treatise as a single work, which was subsequently 

 divided for convenience, the facts known aljout it are most readily 

 explained. ^^^ To be sure, we are thus led to postulate in the sLxth 

 century an historico-geographical treatise in size comparable perhaps 

 to the Histories of Herodotus. To some tliis may seem incredible: 

 perhaps they shall have to revise their preconceived notions regarding 

 what was possible in sixth century Miletus. 



If we ask where in such a treatise, as we suppose Anaximander's 



77 Jacoby, col. 2741-2. 



77a That the TeveaXoylai. and the TjJs TrepioSos were not really distinct but 

 merely separated, either arbitrarily or for practical purposes, is indeed not 

 susceptible of strict proof, but is both in itself probable and suggested by 

 analog^'. Strabo 7.3,9 C 302 quotes from the (geograpliical) fourth book of 

 Ephorus \fr. 76 Miiller] the statement that Phineus was borne by the Harpies 



r\aKTOct>a.'y(jiv eh yaiav, aTrrjvais oIkL' exovroiv 

 as derived from Hesiod's r^s irepMos, a passage wliich Rzach [//•. 541, follow- 

 ing Schoemann, Diss, de comp. Theogoniae Hesiod. p. 20, is certain!}' right in 

 assigning to the Hesiodic Catalogue. In the same waj- it is quite impossible 

 to dissociate Anaximander's r^s ireplobos from his "E.poit>\oyla. 



