(1.) Persica·, probably in two books. This work, which was written before those on Greek history, gave (probably in bk. i.) an account of the Assyrians and the Medes, and (in bk. ii.) a history of the Persian empire. (2. ) Phoronis, Argolic traditions from Phoroneus, “father of mortal men,” the contemporary of Ogyges, down probably to the return of the Heraclidae. It consisted chiefly of genealogies, with short notices of events interspersed. It was probably in two books; and the works quoted as Boeotica and Argolica are probably only portions of it. (3.) Bcucalionia, tracing Thessalian traditions in a similar manner from Deucalion, who corresponds to Phoroneus as the first man. It was in two books; and the Thessalica is probably only another name for it or the title of a part of it. Asoρis was apparently an appendix giving the genealogy of the Aeacid race from Zeus and Aegina, daughter of Asopus, down to Miltiades. (4.) Atlantis, in two books, briefly enumerating the descendants of Atlas in general, but dwelling at much greater length on the offspring of Electra, and introducing in this part an account of Trojan history. Hence the work is often cited under the name of Troica. The works quoted as ιrepl ’ Apκ∙αδiαs and πepl Λυδiαs are probably merely parts. (5.) Atthis, called by Thucydides (i. 97) ή ’ Aττ<κ¾ συγγραφή, giving in four books the history of the country from Ogyges or Cecrops down at least to the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides says that he enumerated the events between 480 and 431 b.c. very briefly, and with little regard to chronological sequence. These four works on Greek history (2-5) were probably published in one single work, and were divided by later grammarians into separate sections and books. (6.) Lesbiaca or Aeolica, a σύνταγμα eπιχωριov in two books at least. (7.) ’ leρeιaι τηs"Hpas, a list of the priestesses of the Argive Hera, incorporating a synopsis both of what had been scattered through his other works and of history that had not come within the scope of these works. We may presume that a list of priestesses was preserved in the temple with a slight account of contemporary events, particularly those relating to festivals and religious matters, and that Hellanicus made this the basis of his work. Reference to this line of priestesses was ono of the commonest methods of dating, and is used by Thucydides in important cases (ii. 2; iv. 133). This is probably the same work that is often referred to under the name of Histories. It was in three books; the first came down to the apotheosis of Heracles and the voyage of Theseus to Crete, and the second probably to the Persian Wars. (8.) Cameonicae, a list of the victors in the Camean games of Apollo from their foundation, 01. 26; along with the conquerors in the poetical and musical contests, it probably contained notices of literary events. (9.) 'Qapβaρικa νόμιμα, quoted also with the titles ∙πep ∖ iθvωv, &c. As the history of the barbarian races was too little known to be arranged as Hellanicus had arranged the Greek history, the plan in this work was to enumerate the towns, and to describe the country, manners of the people, &c., like a geographer. The Aegyptiaca and the Iter ad Templum Ammonis, which were parts of this work, are counted by Müller spurious insertions on Orphic theology by an Egyptian writer; while ∆tδs πoλυτυχia is merely a part of this spurious insertion. Preller (Be Hellan. Lcsb. Histor.) considers this whole work to be spurious.

As an historian Hellanicus is greatly in advance of preceding logographers. He was not content to repeat the traditions that had gained general acceptation through the poets, but he tried to give the traditions as they were locally current, and he availed himself of the few national or priestly registers that presented something like contemporary registration. Thus, in the first place, he gave in many points accounts quite different from the usual beliefs e.g., he recorded the local belief in the Troad that Troy had not been totally destroyed by the Greeks but had continued to exist to his own time; and in the Atthis, touching on Spartan affairs, he made no reference to Lycurgus, but attributed the Spartan constitution to Eurysthenes and Procles. Now it is certain that the Spartan state registers could not have made any mention of Lycurgus on account of the plan on which they were framed (Müller, Hist. Bor., i. p. 132). Secondly, Hellanicus laid the foundations of a scientific chronology, though his materials were insufficient and he often had recourse to the usual rough reckoning by generations. On account of his deviations from common tradition, Hellanicus is often called an untrustworthy writer by the ancients themselves; but probably few authors would have been more useful to a scientific student if his works had been preserved. Dionysius (Judic. de Thucyd. ) censures him for arranging his history, not according to the natural connexion of events, but according to the locality or the nation he was describing; and undoubtedly he never, like his contemporary Herodotus, rose to the conception of a single current of events wider than the local distinction of race. His style, like that of the older logographers, was dry and bald; and there seems little foundation for the statement of Suidas that he wrote poetry, though perhaps some parts of the Aeolica were in verse.