|
THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS - VOLUME 1
THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS - VOLUME 1 HERODOTUS Translated into English
by G. C. MACAULAY M.A.
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. I
{e Herodotou diathesis en apasin epieikes kai tois men agathois
sunedomene tois de kakois sunalgousa}.--Dion. Halic.
{monos 'Erodotos 'Omerikhotatos egeneto}.--Longinus.
PREPARER'S NOTE
This text was prepared from an edition dated 1890 published by
MacMillan and Co. London and New York.
Greek text has been transliterated and marked with brackets as in
the opening citation above.
PREFACE
If a new translation of Herodotus does not justify itself it will
hardly be justified in a preface; therefore the question whether it
was needed may be left here without discussion. The aim of the
translator has been above all things faithfulness--faithfulness to the
manner of expression and to the structure of sentences as well as to
the meaning of the Author. At the same time it is conceived that the
freedom and variety of Herodotus is not always best reproduced by such
severe consistency of rendering as is perhaps desirable in the case of
the Epic writers before and the philosophical writers after his time:
nor again must his simplicity of thought and occasional quaintness be
reproduced in the form of archaisms of language; and that not only
because the affectation of an archaic style would necessarily be
offensive to the reader but also because in language Herodotus is not
archaic. His style is the "best canon of the Ionic speech" marked
however not so much by primitive purity as by eclectic variety. At
the same time it is characterised largely by the poetic diction of the
Epic and Tragic writers; and while the translator is free to employ
all the resources of modern English so far as he has them at his
command he must carefully retain this poetical colouring and by all
means avoid the courtier phrase by which the style of Herodotus has
too often been made "more noble."[1]
As regards the text from which this translation has been made it is
based upon that of Stein's critical edition (Berlin 1869-1871) that
is to say the estimate there made of the comparative value of the
authorities has been on the whole accepted as a just one rather than
that which depreciates the value of the Medicean MS. and of the class
to which it belongs. On the other hand the conjectural emendations
proposed by Stein have very seldom been adopted and his text has been
departed from in a large number of other instances also which will
for the most part be found recorded in the notes.
As it seemed that even after Stein's re-collation of the Medicean MS.
there were doubts felt by some scholars[2] as to the true reading in
some places of this MS. which is very generally acknowledged to be
the most important I thought it right to examine it myself in all
those passages where questions about text arise which concern a
translator that is in nearly five hundred places altogether; and the
results when they are worth observing are recorded in the notes. At
the same time by the suggestion of Dr. Stein I re-collated a large
part of the third book in the MS. which is commonly referred to as F
(i.e. Florentinus) called by Stein C and I examined this MS. also in
a certain number of other places. It should be understood that
wherever in the notes I mention the reading of any particular MS. by
name I do so on my own authority.
The notes have been confined to a tolerably small compass. Their
purpose is first in cases where the text is doubtful to indicate
the reading adopted by the translator and any other which may seem to
have reasonable probability but without discussion of the
authorities; secondly where the rendering is not quite literal (and
in other cases where it seemed desirable) to quote the words of the
original or to give a more literal version; thirdly to add an
alternative version in cases where there seems to be a doubt as to the
true meaning; and lastly to give occasionally a short explanation or
a reference from one passage of the author to another.
For the orthography of proper names reference may be made to the note
prefixed to the index. No consistent system has been adopted and the
result will therefore be open to criticism in many details; but the
aim has been to avoid on the one hand the pedantry of seriously
altering the form of those names which are fairly established in the
English language of literature as distinguished from that of
scholarship and on the other hand the absurdity of looking to Latin
rather than to Greek for the orthography of the names which are not so
established. There is no intention to put forward any theory about
pronunciation.
The index of proper names will it is hoped be found more complete
and accurate than those hitherto published. The best with which I was
acquainted I found to have so many errors and omissions[3] that I was
compelled to do the work again from the beginning. In a collection of
more than ten thousand references there must in all probability be
mistakes but I trust they will be found to be few.
My acknowledgments of obligation are due first to Dr. Stein both for
his critical work and also for his most excellent commentary which I
have had always by me. After this I have made most use of the editions
of Kr?ger B?hr Abicht and (in the first two books) Mr. Woods. As to
translations I have had Rawlinson's before me while revising my own
work and I have referred also occasionally to the translations of
Littlebury (perhaps the best English version as regards style but
full of gross errors) Taylor and Larcher. In the second book I have
also used the version of B. R. reprinted by Mr. Lang: of the first
book of this translation I have access only to a fragment written out
some years ago when the British Museum was within my reach. Other
particular obligations are acknowledged in the notes.
----------
NOTES TO PREFACE
[1] See the remarks of P.-L. Courier (on Larcher's version) in the
preface to his specimens of a new translation of Herodotus
(/?uvres compl?tes de P.-L. Courier/ Bruxelles 1828).
[2] Mr. Woods for example in his edition of the first book
(published in 1873) gives a list of readings for the first and
second books in which he almost invariably prefers the authority
of Gronovius to that of Stein where their reports differ. In so
doing he is wrong in all cases (I think) except one namely i. 134
{to degomeno}. He is wrong for examine in i. 189 where the MS.
has {touto} i. 196 {an agesthai} i. 199 {odon} ii. 15 {te de}
ii. 95 {up auto} ii. 103 {kai prosotata} ii. 124 {to addo}
(without {dao}) ii. 181 {no}. Abicht also has made several
inaccurate statements e.g. i. 185 where the MS. has {es ton
Euphreten} and vii. 133 {Xerxes}.
[3] For example in the index of proper names attached to Stein's
annotated edition (Berlin 1882) to which I am under obligation
having checked my own by it I find that I have marked upwards of
two hundred mistakes or oversights: no doubt I have been saved by
it from at least as many.
THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS
BOOK I
THE FIRST BOOK OF THE HISTORIES CALLED CLIO
This is the Showing forth of the Inquiry of Herodotus of
Halicarnassos to the end that[1] neither the deeds of men may be
forgotten by lapse of time nor the works[2] great and marvellous
which have been produced some by Hellenes and some by Barbarians may
lose their renown; and especially that the causes may be remembered
for which these waged war with one another.
1. Those of the Persians who have knowledge of history declare that
the Phenicians first began the quarrel. These they say came from
that which is called the Erythraian Sea to this of ours; and having
settled in the land where they continue even now to dwell set
themselves forthwith to make long voyages by sea. And conveying
merchandise of Egypt and of Assyria they arrived at other places and
also at Argos; now Argos was at that time in all points the first of
the States within that land which is now called Hellas;--the
Phenicians arrived then at this land of Argos and began to dispose of
their ship's cargo: and on the fifth or sixth day after they had
arrived when their goods had been almost all sold there came down to
the sea a great company of women and among them the daughter of the
king; and her name as the Hellenes also agree was Io the daughter of
Inachos. These standing near to the stern of the ship were buying of
the wares such as pleased them most when of a sudden the Phenicians
passing the word from one to another made a rush upon them; and the
greater part of the women escaped by flight but Io and certain others
were carried off. So they put them on board their ship and forthwith
departed sailing away to Egypt. 2. In this manner the Persians report
that Io came to Egypt not agreeing therein with the Hellenes[3] and
this they say was the first beginning of wrongs. Then after this they
say certain Hellenes (but the name of the people they are not able to
report) put in to the city of Tyre in Phenicia and carried off the
king's daughter Europa;--these would doubtless be Cretans;--and so
they were quits for the former injury. After this however the
Hellenes they say were the authors of the second wrong; for they
sailed in to Aia of Colchis and to the river Phasis with a ship of
war and from thence after they had done the other business for which
they came they carried off the king's daughter Medea: and the king of
Colchis sent a herald to the land of Hellas and demanded satisfaction
for the rape[4] and to have his daughter back; but they answered that
as the Barbarians had given them no satisfaction for the rape of Io
the Argive so neither would they give satisfaction to the Barbarians
...
|
