¹ It has often been observed that the first five words of Herodotus' proem resemble a title, with both author's name and the title of the work: see, e.g., Myres, J. L., Herodotus Father of History (Oxford, 1953), p. 67Google Scholar, who arranges the entire proem into a title-page. For recent endorsement of ‘Herodotus the Halicarnassian’, see Gould, J., Herodotus (New York, 1989), p. 14, and cf. p. 17.Google Scholar

² Kassel, R., Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica (Berlin and New York, 1976), p. 164Google Scholar, critical note ad loc.; cf. Jacoby, F., ‘Herodotos’, RE Supp. ii (1913), cols. 207–9Google Scholar = Griechische Historiker (Stuttgart, 1956), pp. 7–9.Google Scholar

³ See Hubbard, M. E. in Russell, D. A. & Winterbottom, M. (edd.), Ancient Literary Criticism (Oxford, 1972), p. 148 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁴ Kennedy, G. A., ‘Aristotle on the Period’, HSCP 63 (1958), 285Google Scholar: cf. Jacoby, op. cit., col. 207 = p. 8, who argued that the quotation was Aristotle's and was meant to direct an auditor of his. lecture to the style of the most famous practitioner of ⋯ρχα⋯α λ⋯ξις; see as well Russell & Winterbottom, op. cit., p. 148 n. 1.

⁵ Translation from Russell & Winterbottom, op. cit., p. 148.

⁶ See, e.g., Driscoll, D. J., ‘Aristotle's Period Reconsidered’, American Philological Association 1990 Abstracts (Atlanta, 1990), 211.Google Scholar

⁷ Note Aristotle's comparison between the reader eager to reach the end of a sentence and runners who do not get winded when the end (τ⋯ π⋯ρας, Rh. 1409a) is in sight, as well as what he has to say regarding the ‘neatly-ended’ period: λ⋯γω δ⋯ περ⋯οδον λ⋯ξιν ἔχουσαν ⋯ρχ⋯ν κα⋯ τελευτ⋯ν αὐτ⋯ν καθ᾿ αὑτ⋯ν κα⋯ μ⋯γεθος εὐσ⋯νοπτον (Rh. 1409a). For an analysis of Aristotle's structural understanding of Herodotus' proem, see Kennedy, op. cit., p. 285, and cf. Adamik, T., ‘Aristotle's Theory of the Period’, Philologus 128 (1984), 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Erbse, H., ‘Der erste Satz im Werke Herodots’, in Erbse, H. (ed.), Festschrift Bruno Snell (Munich, 1956), pp. 210–11.Google Scholar

⁹ Most modern commentators who separate the opening sentence into kola divide after the ἤδε: see Pohlenz, M., ‘Thukydidesstudien’, NGG (1920), 58Google Scholar, Erbse, op. cit., pp. 211–12, Krischer, T., ‘Herodots Prooimion’, Hermes 93 (1965), 159Google Scholar, Hommel, H., ‘Herodots Einleitungssatz: ein Schlüssel zur Analyse des Gesamtwerks?’, in Kurz, G., Müller, D. and Nicolai, W. (edd.), Gnomosyne: Festschrift Walter Marg (Munich, 1981), p. 277.Google Scholar

Herodotus deploys the demonstrative ὅδε/ἤδε/τ⋯δε following an anarthrous substantive as a clause boundary elsewhere in his history: cf. 2.41.4, 56.1, 58, 76.1; 3.12.4, 137.2, 153.1; 7.5.3. See Henry, J. E., ‘The Omission of the Article with Substantives after οὖτος, ⋯δε, ⋯κεῖνος in Prose’, TAPA 29 (1898), 57–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰ W. Rhys, Roberts' translation of τ⋯ς καμπ⋯ς τ⋯ς περ⋯ τ⋯ τ⋯λος, Demetrius, de Elocutione § 17 (Cambridge, 1902, repr. New York, 1979), p. 77.Google Scholar

¹¹ Denniston, J. D., Greek Prose Style (Oxford, 1952), p. 7.Google Scholar

¹² See Cope, E. M. & Sandys, J. E., The Rhetoric of Aristotle, iii (Cambridge, 1877, repr. Salem, New Hampshire, 1988), p. 93Google Scholar ad loc, Jacoby, op. cit., col. 206 = p. 7, Hinman, W. S., Literary Quotation and Allusion in the Rhetoric, Poetics and Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle (Diss. Columbia, 1935), pp. 37–8.Google Scholar

¹³ Hinman, op. cit., p. 171, notes that wherever it is possible to check Aristotle is accurate in the quotation of prose passages twenty-four per cent of the time.

¹⁴ On the date and intentions of the imitator, see the introduction to Wilamowitz's, text, Vitae Homeri et Hesiodi, Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 137 (Bonn, 1916)Google Scholar. Note also that the Aristotelian commentaries to the Rhetorica preserve the transposition: Anonymi et Stephani in Artem Rhetoricam Commentaria, Commenlaria in Aristotelem Graeca, xxi 2, ed. Rabe, H. (Berlin, 1896), p. 194 and p. 318.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See, e.g., Greenberg, N. A., ‘Metathesis as an Instrument in the Criticism of Poetry’, TAPA 89 (1958), 262–70.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Homer, Iliad 1.1 (1415a), Odyssey 1.1 (1415a); Pindar, Ol. 1.1 (1364a); cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, de Compositione 98.

¹⁷ It is true that Aristotle has the present συναγ⋯ντων where Isocrates has the aorist συναγαγóντων. However, I am primarily concerned with word order, not differences in spelling; see below, n. 20.

On the evident celebrity of Herodotus 1.1 in particular see the correct quotations at Plutarch, Moralia 604f.3 (Pohlenz-Sieveking) and Aelius Aristides, Or. 28.69 (Keil ii). Also note below, n. 20, that Demetrius too quotes both Herodotus 1.1 and Isocrates, Panegyricus 1, and Dionysius Herodotus 1.1. To these favourite passages one can also add the opening of Plato's Respublica; cf. Denniston, op. cit., p. 7.

¹⁸ The Pinakes of Callimachus are notable in this regard, for they seem to have included first lines: cf. Callimachus F 436, F 443, F 444, and F 449 (Pfeiffer), and see Pfeiffer, R., A History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford, 1968), p. 129Google Scholar, Turner, E. G., Greek Papyri (Princeton, 1968), p. 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria, i (Oxford, 1972), p. 452Google Scholar. Although only testimonia survive for the Pinakes, see P. Oxy. 2455 (Pack² 453), P. Mil. Vogl. 44 (Pack² 398), and PSI 12 1286 (Pack² 428), all containing hypotheses to plays of Euripides which include first lines and which seem to be influenced by the tradition of indexing associated with Callimachus. See Luppe, W., ‘Der Anfang der “Busiris”-Hypothesis (P. Oxy. 3651)’, ZPE 80 (1990), 13–15Google Scholar. See also P. Flor. 3.371 (Pack² 2090) and the discussion of Lasserre, F., ‘Une notice bibliographique antique: P. Fior. III 371’, Aegyptus 37 (1957), 243–9.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See, e.g., P. Tebt. 3.901 (Pack² 384: opening of Euripides, Bacchae repeated three or four times), Mon. Epiphan. 2.611 (Pack² 557: a very late document, Iliad 1.1 repeated six times), and P. Ryl. 1.59 (Pack² 274: opening of Demosthenes, de Corona repeated six times; see Turner, E. G., ‘A Writing Exercise from Oxyrhynchus’, MH 13 [1956], 236–8Google Scholar, who considers the papyrus the practice of a ‘budding chancery scribe’).

²⁰ I have not excluded from consideration quotations where words have been omitted from the beginning or end of a first sentence; note also that I have included citations which contain differences in spelling, both morphological and dialectical, from the original texts. Demetrius, de Elocutione § 17 and 44 = Herodotus 1.1; § 44 = Thucydides 1.1; § 25 = Isocrates, Panegyricus 1; § 3 = Xenophon, Anabasis 1.1; §205 = Plato, Respublica 1.1; §§10, 20, and 245 = Demosthenes, Leptines 1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, de Compositione § 163 = Thucydides 1.1; § 182 = Isocrates, Areopagiticus 1; §209 = Plato, Respublica 1.1; § 119 = Demosthenes, de Corona 1. Both Demetrius and Dionysius introduce words into their quotations: Demetrius § 21 τ⋯ν Πειραι⋯ (Plato, Res. 1.1), Dionysius § 192 νομ⋯σῃ με (Demosthenes, Aristocrates 1). Dionysius also omits a word in his quotation of a first line (§ 43): ἔχθρας μηδεμι⋯ς, where ἔμ⋯ is missing after ἔχθρας (Demosthenes, Aristocrates 1).

²¹ See Cope & Sandys, op. tit., pp. 220–1.

²² I would like to thank Dr D. C. Innes for her help in revising this note.