(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
REFERENCES
1 Baldwin, Barry. 1984. “Herodotus and Tacitus. Two Notes on Ancient Book Titles.” QUCC 45: 31–34.
2 Cagnazzi, Silvana. 1975. “Tavola dei 28 logoi di Erodoto.” Hermes 103.4: 385–423.
3 Hemmerdinger, Bertrand. 1948. “La division en livres de l’œuvre de Thucydide.” REG 61: 104–17.
4 Hemmerdinger, Bertrand. 1951. “Origines de la tradition manuscrite de quelques auteurs grecs.” SIFC 25: 83–88.
5 Higbie, Carolyn. 2010. “Divide and Edit: A Brief History of Book Divisions.” HSCP 105: 1–31.
6 Irigoin, Jean. 1997. “Titres, sous‐titres et sommaires dans les œuvres des historiens grecs du Ier siècle av. J.‐C. au Ve s. ap. J.‐C.” In Titres et articulations du texte dans les œuvres antiques. Actes du Colloque international de Chantilly, 13–15 décembre 1994, edited by Jean‐Claude Fredouille, Simone Deléani, et al., 127–34. Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes.
7 Legrand, Philippe‐Ernest. 1932. Hérodote. Histoires. Introduction. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
8 Luzzatto, Maria Jagoda. 1993. “Itinerari di codici antichi: un’edizione di Tucidide tra il II ed il X secolo.” MD 30: 167–203.
BORDERS, see BOUNDARIES
BOREAS (Βορέης, ὁ)
CHRISTOPHER BARON
University of Notre Dame
Herodotus uses boreas (Βορέης) to mean “the north wind” or the direction “north.” On one occasion, Boreas appears as a deity, the god of the north wind (7.189). Herodotus reports the story (legetai logos) that an ORACLE instructed the Athenians to call upon their son‐in‐law as an ally. They offered PRAYER and SACRIFICE to Boreas, who according to MYTH had taken OREITHYIA, daughter of the legendary Athenian king ERECHTHEUS, for his wife (Acusilaus BNJ 2 F30). Subsequently a storm ravaged the Persian fleet while at anchor off the coast of Magnesia (480 BCE). Herodotus records that he cannot say whether the storm was a result of the Athenians’ request, but the Athenians claim that it was, and that Boreas assisted them both on this occasion and earlier at ATHOS (in 492: 6.44). Herodotus also notes that the Athenians dedicated a sanctuary to Boreas along the ILISSUS RIVER in ATHENS. The scene of a winged Boreas abducting Oreithyia appears quite frequently on Athenian vases beginning around 480.
SEE ALSO: Causation; Gods and the Divine; Magnesia in Greece; Religion, Herodotus’ views on; Weather; Winds
FURTHER READING
1 Kaempf‐Dimitriadou, Sophia. 1986. “Boreas.” In LIMC III.1, 133–42.
2 Parker, Robert. 1996. Athenian Religion: A History, 156–57, 187. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
3 Vannicelli, Pietro, and Aldo Corcella, eds. 2017. Erodoto. Le Storie, libro VII: Serse e Leonida, 535–37. Milan: Mondadori.
BORYSTHENES
