matters which he had to record, and used historical criticism, in rejecting what appeared to him fabulous, or endeavouring to lind out the historical truth which formed the groundwork of a mythical tradition (Paus. iii. 25. j 5 ; Arrian, A?iah. ii. 16) ; still he is nevertheless very dependent on Homer and other early poets, whereby he is led to mix up fables with truth ; but wherever he gives the results of his own observations, he is a correct and trust- worthy guide. Eratosthenes (op. Strab. i. p. 7) seems to deny that Hecataeus made geographical maps ; but if we compare the statement of Agathe- merus (i. 1) with Herodotus (v. 49), it is clear, on the one hand, that Hecataeus corrected and im- proved the map of the earth drawn up by Anaxi- niander, and it is probable, on the other, that the map which Aristagoras carried to Sparta for the purpose of persuading Cleoraenes to engage in a war against Persia was either the work of Heca- taeus, or had been drawn up according to his views of the physical structure of the earth. Callimachus (ap. Athen. ii. p. 70, comp. ix. p. 410), whose opinion seems to be followed by Arrian (Anah. v. 6), regarded the Uepi-nyrjo'is ttjs 'Aat'as, ascribed to Hecataeus, and belonging to the second part of his geographical work, as spurious, and assigned it to a vr)aiWTrjs (an islander). It is not impossible that he may have found in the library of Alexandria a periegesis of Asia ascribed to the celebrated Heca- taeus, but which was in reality a forgery, and had nothing in common with the genuine work but the name of the author ; for such forged title-pages were not uncommon in the time of the Ptolemies, and literary impostors made a lucrative traffic of them. (Hippocrat. vol. xv. pp. 105, 109, ed. Kiihn.) At any rate, even if we admit that Cal- limachus reall}' found a spurious periegesis, it does not follow that the genuine work did not exist. The second work of Hecataeus, the Histories or Genealogies, was a prose account, in the form of genealogies, of the poetical fables and traditions of the Greeks. From the fragments which are quoted from it, we see that it must have consisted of at least four sections. The first contained the tradi- tions about Deucalion and his descendants ; the second, the stories of Heracles and the Heracleidae ; the third, apparently the Peloponnesian traditions ; and the fourth, those of Asia Minor. The value of this, as well as his other, work cannot be dimi- nished in our eyes by the fact of Herodotus contro- verting several of his opinions (vi. 137, comp. i. ] 46, 202, ii. 3, 15, 21,23, 143, iv. 8, 36) ; but, on the contrary, it is evident that Herodotus looked upon him as a rival, whom it was worth while endea- vouring to refute and excel, and that he actually did excel him, does not require to be proved in this place. Herodotus knew the works of Hecataeus well, and undoubtedly availed himself of them ; but the charge of Porphyrius (up. Euseb. Praep. Evang. x. p. 466), that Herodotus literally tran- ficribed whole passages from Hecataeus is wholly without foundation. (Comp. Hermog. De Form. Orat. ii. 12 ; Dionys. Jud. de Thucyd. 5 ; Diod. i. 37 ; Strab. i. p. fs ; Suidas.) Respecting the style of Hecataeus, Strabo says, that though prose, it approached very nearly to poetry, and Hermo- genes {I. c.) praises it for its simplicity, purity, clearness, and sweetness, and adds that the lan- guage was the pure and unmixed Ionic dialect. The fragments of the Genealogies are collected in Creuzer's Ilistor. Graec. Antiquissimorum Frag-
menta, Heidelberg, 1806, 8vo. p. 1—86 ; and the fragments of both the Periegesis and the Genea- logies by R. H. Klausen, Hecataei Milesii Frag- menta, Beriin, 1831, 8vo., and by C. and Th. Miiller, Fragm. Hist. Graec, Paris, 1841, p. 1 — 31. Each of these collections is preceded by a disserta- tion on the life and writings of Hecataeus. (Comp. Dahlmann, Herodot. p. 1 1 2, &c. ; Ukert, Unter- suchungen uber die Geographie des Hecataeus u. Da- maste.% Weimar, 1814.) [L. S.]
2. Of Abdera has often been confounded in
ancient as well as in modern times with Hecataeus
of Miletus. He was a contemporary of Alexander
the Great and Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, and ap-
pears to have accompanied the former on his Asiatic
expedition as far as Syria. He was a pupil of the
Sceptic Pyrrho, and is himself called a philosopher,
critic, and grammarian. (Suid. s. v. 'E/caTaTos ;
Joseph, c. Apion. i. 22 ; Diod, i. 47 ; Diog. Laert.
ix. 61 ; Plut. Sympos. p. 666, e.) From the
manner in which he is spoken of by Eusebius
{Praep. Evang. ix. p. 239), we must infer that he
was a man of great reputation on account of his
extensive knowledge as well as on account of his
practical wisdom (irepl rcis 7rpa|eis iKavdraros).
In the reign of the first Ptolemy he travelled up
the Nile as far as Thebes. He was the author of
several works, of which, however, only a small
number of fragments have come down to us. 1. A
History of Egypt. (Diod. i. 47 ; Phot. Bill. Cod.
244, where he is confounded with Hecataeus of
Miletus.) Whether the work on the philosophy of
the Egyptians, attributed to him by Diogenes La-
ertius (i. Prooeni, $ 10), was a distinct work, or
only a portion of the History of Egypt, is uncer-
tain. (Comp. Plut. De Is. et Os. p. 354, d.) This
work on Egypt is one of the causes of the confusion
of our Hecataeus with the Milesian, who in his
Periegesis had likewise written on Egypt. 2. A
work on the Hyperboreans. (Schol. ad Apollon.
Mod. ii. 675 ; Diod. ii. 47 ; Aelian, H.A.xi. 1 ;
Steph. Byz. s. vv. 'EAf|oia, Kapa/jiGvKai.) 3. A
History of the Jews, of which the book on Abraham
mentioned by Josephus (Ant. Jud. i. 7), was pro-
bably only a portion. This work is frequently re-
ferred to by the ancients (Joseph, c. Apion. i. 22 ;
Euseb. Praep. Evang. ix. p. 408, xiii. p. 680 ; Clem.
Alex. Strom, v. p. 603, and others) ; but it was
declared spurious even by Origen (c. Cels. i. 15),
and modern critics are divided in their opinions.
Suidas attributes to our Hecataeus works on Homer
and Hesiod, but makes no mention of the historical
works which we have enumerated. The fragments
of Hecataeus of Abdera have been collected by P.
Zom, Hecataei Abdeiitae Fragmenta., Altona, 1730,
8vo. (Comp. Creuzer, Hist. Graec'. Antiquiss.
Fragm. p. 28, &c. ; Vossius, De Hist. Graec. p.
86, &c., ed. Westermann.) [L. S.]
3. Of Teos, an historian, who is mentioned only by Strabo (xiv. p. 644), and is considered by Ukert (Ibid. p. 12) to be no other than Hecataeus of Abdera. [L. S.]
4. Of Eretria, is mentioned by Plutarch (Alex. 26) among the historians of Alexander the Great, but is otherwise altogether unknown. Schweighaüser (ad Athen. ii. p. 70) conjectures that he is the islander to whom Callimachus attributed the περιήγησις τῆς Ἀσιας; but Creuzer (l. c. p. 85) believes, with far greater probability, that the epithet ὁ Ἐρετριεὺς in Plutarch is a mistake, and that this Hecataeus is no other than Hecataeus of Abdera,
