Histories
A far more important question, than this difference of twenty years or so in the date of
Xanthus, is that of the genuineness of the
Four Books of Lydian History
(
Λυδιακὰ βιβλία δ́, Suid.), which the ancients
possessed, as well as an epitome of them by a certain Menippus (
D. L.
6.101,
[Μένιππος] ὁ γράψας τὰ περὶ Λυδῶν καὶ
Ξάνθον ἐπιτεμόμενος), and of which some considerable fragments have come down
to us. The genuineness of the work was questioned by some of the ancient grammarians
themselves. The most important testimony on this subject is in the passage above cited from
Athenaeus, who quotes a statement as made " by Xanthus the Lydian, or by the author of the
Histories ascribed to him, namely Dionysius Scytobrachion, as Artemon of
Cassandreia says (
ἐν τῷ περὶ συναγωγῆς [ἀναγωγῆς]
βιβλίων), not knowing that Ephorus the historian mentions him, &c" It will
be at once seen that the reply of Athenaeus to the statement of Artemon only proves, what no
one doubts, the existence and time of Xanthus, not the genuineness of the work ascribed to
him. An argument in support of the genuineness of the work has been drawn by the exalted
terms of praise in which Dionysius of Halicarnassus speaks of Xanthus (
l.c.
ἱστορίας παλαιᾶς εἰ καί τις ἄλλος ἔμπειρος
ὢν,
τῆς δὲ πατρίου καὶ βεβαιωτὴς ἂν οὐδενὸς
ὑποδεέστερος νομισθείς). But here we have no reference to the genuineness of
the work, the tacit assumption of which by such a writer as Dionysius can hardly be set up
as a strong argument in reply to the positive critical judgment of Artemon; especially as
instances might be quoted (see Müller,
loc. inf : cit.) in which
Dionysius has made similar references to other works, which more ancient writers have
pronounced to be spurious; and moreover there is a passage in which Dionysius himself makes
a passing allusion to the doubts respecting the genuineness of certain ancient writers, in a
matter which seems to imply that he did not care to enter minutely into such questions; and
it is very probable, when we consider the nature of the fragments which have come down to us
under the name of Xanthus, as well as the character of the historical work of Dionysius
himself, that the admiration of the latter for the former was rather excited by his richness
in mythical stories, than caused by any sound critical estimate of his value as a
trustworthy historian. Among modern scholars, Creuzer, in his edition of the fragments of
Xanthus, has maintained the genuineness of the work, while Welcker has constructed an
elaborate argument against it (Seebod's
Archiv. 1830. pp. 70, foll.), a
summary of which is given by C. Müller (
loc. inf. cit.) who
accepts the conclusion of Welcker. It is certain that much of the matter in the extant
fragments is spurious; and the probability appears to be that the work from which they are
taken is the production of an Alexandrian grammarian, founded upon the genuine work of
Xanthus. C. Müller has pointed out those passages which, in his opinion, are most
probably portions of the original work. They are of great value.