The Collected Works of Herodotus E-Book

• Herausgeber: PergamonMedia
• Kategorie: Gesellschafts- und Liebesromane
• Serie: Highlights of World Literature
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Seitenzahl: 1743

Beschreibung

This comprehensive eBook presents the complete works or all the significant works - the Œuvre - of this famous and brilliant writer in one ebook - easy-to-read and easy-to-navigate: • The History of Herodotus • An Account of Egypt

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS

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.

PREFACE

NOTES TO PREFACE

THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS

BOOK I. THE FIRST BOOK OF THE HISTORIES, CALLED CLIO

NOTES TO BOOK I

BOOK II. THE SECOND BOOK OF THE HISTORIES, CALLED EUTERPE

NOTES TO BOOK II

BOOK III. THE THIRD BOOK OF THE HISTORIES, CALLED THALEIA

NOTES TO BOOK III

BOOK IV. THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE HISTORIES, CALLED MELPOMENE

NOTES TO BOOK IV.

THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS

IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. II.

Contents

PREPARER'S NOTE

THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS

BOOK V. THE FIFTH BOOK OF THE HISTORIES, CALLED TERPSICHORE

NOTES TO BOOK V

BOOK VI. THE SIXTH BOOK OF THE HISTORIES, CALLED ERATO

NOTES TO BOOK VI.

BOOK VII. THE SEVENTH BOOK OF THE HISTORIES, CALLED POLYMNIA

NOTES TO BOOK VII

BOOK VIII. THE EIGHTH BOOK OF THE HISTORIES, CALLED URANIA

NOTES TO BOOK VIII

BOOK IX. THE NINTH BOOK OF THE HISTORIES, CALLED CALLIOPE

NOTES TO BOOK IX

AN ACCOUNT OF EGYPT

NOTE

AN ACCOUNT OF EGYPT

BY HERODOTUS

BEING THE SECOND BOOK OF HIS HISTORIES CALLED EUTERPE

THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS

By Herodotus

Translated into English by G. C. Macaulay

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.

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." 331

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 332 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 333 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 Krüger, Bähr, 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

331 [ See the remarks of P.-L. Courier (on Larcher's version) in the preface to his specimens of a new translation of Herodotus (OEuvres complètes de P.-L. Courier, Bruxelles, 1828).]

332 [ 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}.]

333 [ 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 that1neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the works2great 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,3and 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 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 for this.

3. In the next generation after this, they say, Alexander the son of Priam, having heard of these things, desired to get a wife for himself by violence4from Hellas, being fully assured that he would not be compelled to give any satisfaction for this wrong, inasmuch as the Hellenes gave none for theirs. So he carried off Helen, and the Hellenes resolved to send messengers first and to demand her back with satisfaction for the rape; and when they put forth this demand, the others alleged to them the rape of Medea, saying that the Hellenes were now desiring satisfaction to be given to them by others, though they had given none themselves nor had surrendered the person when demand was made.

4. Up to this point, they say, nothing more happened than the carrying away of women on both sides; but after this the Hellenes were very greatly to blame; for they set the first example of war, making an expedition into Asia before the Barbarians made any into Europe. Now they say that in their judgment, though it is an act of wrong to carry away women by force, it is a folly to set one's heart on taking vengeance for their rape, and the wise course is to pay no regard when they have been carried away; for it is evident that they would never be carried away if they were not themselves willing to go. And the Persians say that they, namely the people of Asia, when their women were carried away by force, had made it a matter of no account, but the Hellenes on account of a woman of Lacedemon gathered together a great armament, and then came to Asia and destroyed the dominion of Priam; and that from this time forward they had always considered the Hellenic race to be their enemy: for Asia and the Barbarian races which dwell there the Persians claim as belonging to them; but Europe and the Hellenic race they consider to be parted off from them.

5. The Persians for their part say that things happened thus; and they conclude that the beginning of their quarrel with the Hellenes was on account of the taking of Ilion: but as regards Io the Phenicians do not agree with the Persians in telling the tale thus; for they deny that they carried her off to Egypt by violent means, and they say on the other hand that when they were in Argos she was intimate with the master of their ship, and perceiving that she was with child, she was ashamed to confess it to her parents, and therefore sailed away with the Phenicians of her own will, for fear of being found out. These are the tales told by the Persians and the Phenicians severally: and concerning these things I am not going to say that they happened thus or thus,401but when I have pointed to the man who first within my own knowledge began to commit wrong against the Hellenes, I shall go forward further with the story, giving an account of the cities of men, small as well as great: for those which in old times were great have for the most part become small, while those that were in my own time great used in former times to be small: so then, since I know that human prosperity never continues steadfast, I shall make mention of both indifferently.

6. Croesus was Lydian by race, the son of Alyattes and ruler of the nations which dwell on this side of the river Halys; which river, flowing from the South between the Syrians5and the Paphlagonians, runs out towards the North Wind into that Sea which is called the Euxine. This Croesus, first of all the Barbarians of whom we have knowledge, subdued certain of the Hellenes and forced them to pay tribute, while others he gained over and made them his friends. Those whom he subdued were the Ionians, the Aiolians, and the Dorians who dwell in Asia; and those whom he made his friends were the Lacedemonians. But before the reign of Croesus all the Hellenes were free; for the expedition of the Kimmerians, which came upon Ionia before the time of Croesus, was not a conquest of the cities but a plundering incursion only.6

7. Now the supremacy which had belonged to the Heracleidai came to the family of Croesus, called Mermnadai, in the following manner:—Candaules, whom the Hellenes call Myrsilos, was ruler of Sardis and a descendant of Alcaios, son of Heracles: for Agron, the son of Ninos, the son of Belos, the son of Alcaios, was the first of the Heracleidai who became king of Sardis, and Candaules the son of Myrsos was the last; but those who were kings over this land before Agrond, were descendants of Lydos the son of Atys, whence this whole nation was called Lydian, having been before called Meonian. From these the Heracleidai, descended from Heracles and the slave-girl of Iardanos, obtained the government, being charged with it by reason of an oracle; and they reigned for two-and-twenty generations of men, five hundred and five years, handing on the power from father to son, till the time of Clandaules the son of Myrsos.