Читать книгу The Herodotus Encyclopedia - Группа авторов - Страница 1003

AURÉLIEN PULICE

Université Bordeaux–Montaigne

We inherited Herodotus’ Histories as a whole divided into nine books named after the nine Muses. This division has been much‐discussed by modern scholars but is generally recognized as post‐Herodotean, dating to Hellenistic Alexandria (Hemmerdinger 1951; Cagnazzi 1975). Irigoin (1997, 128) has interestingly suggested an earlier date, attributing Herodotus’ (and THUCYDIDES’) book divisions to the Attic librarians of the fourth century BCE. Baldwin’s (1984) defense of an original nine‐book division on Herodotus’ part remains isolated. On the use of Herodotus’ book divisions in ancient quotations and on the general issue of book division in ancient times, see Higbie (2010).

No other division is attested in our sources. It is first explicitly mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (2.37.6) who attributes it to Herodotus himself. So do LUCIAN (Hist. conscr. 42; Her. 1) and later sources. PLUTARCH, in his De Herodoti malignitate, also relies on the nine‐book division (see Higbie 2010, 13–14). This division does appear to be ancient, which explains why our sources take it as genuine. A third‐century CE papyrus (P.Amb. 2.12) has preserved pieces of ARISTARCHUS’ commentary on Herodotus (1.194 and 215): Ἀριστάρχου Ἡροδότου α ὑπόμνημα (“Aristarchus’ commentary to Herodotus’ Book 1”) is written as a conclusive title at the end of our fragment. It proves that the Histories were already divided into books by the time of Aristarchus, and that his Book 1 was the same as ours. It seems likely then that his Herodotus was divided into nine books as well. Whether this division should be attributed to Aristarchus or not is a debatable issue.

In the margins of Thucydides’ History (4.135.2), a scholion dating back to the fifth or sixth century CE (Luzzatto 1993) discusses some ancient theories about Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ book divisions. The scholiast argues that anonymous (and quite ill‐advised) critics used to explain the former’s book division by referring to the nine letters comprised between the first two letters of his name (i.e., between η and ρ). Though he clearly denigrates such an explanation, the scholiast does not explicitly question the authenticity of the book division. About Thucydides, however, he declares that the historian never divided his work into books.

The use of the names of the Muses as subtitles has been diversely interpreted. For Baldwin (1984) it is an argument in favor of a Herodotean origin. For Cagnazzi (1975) and Irigoin (1997), who both follow Legrand (1932, 225–27), it betrays a later origin.

There are several reasons to have doubts about an authorial division of the Histories into nine books. First of all, Herodotus never makes any CROSS‐REFERENCE to his Histories by using a book division (a book number or the name of a Muse). He never speaks about his work’s sections in terms of bibloi. The word he always uses is LOGOS, and it has long been demonstrated that a Herodotean logos does not coincide with a book (Cagnazzi 1975). Οne example: at 6.39, Herodotus refers forward to 6.103 by writing ἐγὼ ἐν ἄλλῳ λόγῳ σημανέω (“I will explain in another logos”).

Historically speaking, book divisions are not early (Higbie 2010, 28–29) and were developed (but not invented) by the Alexandrians in their editing of classical texts. Material reasons can explain this phenomenon. The normal size of a papyrus scroll tripled after the foundation of the Great Library in order to reduce their number. One Alexandrian roll came to enclose three Attic ones (Hemmerdinger 1948, 113–15; 1951, 84). In Herodotus’ case, logoi were gathered in groups of three in order to make a single book (Hemmerdinger 1951; Cagnazzi 1975).

An attempt to recover Herodotus’ individual logoi was made by Cagnazzi (1975), who identifies 28 logoi in Herodotus’ Histories: 1: 1.1–94; 2: 1.95–140; 3: 1.141–216; 4: 2.1–34; 5: 2.35–98; 6: 2.99–182; 7: 3.1–38; 8: 3.39–60; 9: 3.61–160; 10: 4.1–81; 11: 4.82–144; 12: 4.145–205; 13: 5.1–27; 14: 5.28–65.4; 15: 5.65.5–96; 16: 5.97–126; 17: 6.1–42; 18: 6.43–93; 19: 6.94–140; 20: 7.1–55; 21: 7.56–137; 22: 7.138–239; 23: 8.1–39; 24: 8.40–96; 25: 8.97–144; 26: 9.1–89; 27: 9.90–113; 28: 9.114–22. Each logos has a formal and a thematic unity (on Book 5 which is exceptionally made of four logoi see Cagnazzi 1975, 388). For those who consider book division as a late and secondary division, these logoi represent the historian’s true division of his work. Approaching the Histories through a logos‐based division makes clearer an evolution in Herodotus’ project: a shift from a geographical work (i.e., the Periodos gēs) to an historical one (i.e., the PERSICA). On other more debated consequences of a logos‐based division for our understanding of Herodotus’ work, see Cagnazzi (1975, 401–21) who concludes that the Histories are incomplete. Higbie (2010, 6 n. 9), however, has expressed reservations about these 28 logoi.

SEE ALSO: Editions; Manuscripts; Papyri; Ring Composition; Scholarship on Herodotus, ancient Greece and Rome; Scholia