The History of Herodotus, volume 1 | Page 4

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 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
[1] See the remarks of P.-L. Courier (on Larcher's version) in the preface to his
specimens of a new translation of Herodotus (/Œuvres complètes 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,