Histories (The History) [Paperback]

By an costly combination of circumstances, I wound up recently linking three different translations in reading through Herodotus. Here's a comparative review of each, which I'm posting for each work.

1. Translation by G.C. Macaulay and revised throughout by Donald Lateiner; published by Barnes and Noble Classics in 2004, but the Macaulay translation is from around 1890.

I started with this one, attracted by the extensive introduction by Donald Lateiner. That intro was solid and revealed much that I hadn't been aware of. But the translation, even after Lateiner's revisions, is awkward and stilted. Many of the pronoun references are confusing, making it difficult to follow the narrative thread.

Here's about half of a single sentence: "Now Miltiades son of Kimon had thus taken possession of Lemnos:--After the Pelasgians had been cast out of Attica by the Athenians, whether justly or unjustly,--for about this I cannot tell except the things reported, which are these:--Hecataios on the one hand, the son of Hegesander, said in his history that it was done unjustly: for he said that when the Athenians saw the land which extends below Hymettos, which they had themselves given them to dwell in, as payment for the wall built round the Acropolis in former times, when the Athenians, I say, saw that the land was made good by cultivation, which before was bad or worthless, they were seized with jealousy and with longing to possess the land, and so drove them out, not alleging any other pretext: ..."

The footnotes are generally helpful, although many only state the obvious. They are all integrated with the text, making it unnecessary to keep paging to the back. The text is followed by some interesting additions: A "Repertory" of English translations, a list of comments and works "inspired" by Herodotus, further "comments and questions", an extensive bibliography, and two good Indices with that of proper names separate from the general index.

Maps: There are eight, all of which appear to be from the original Macaulay publication. In any case, they do not appear to be based on the most recent cartography. The first, more extensive maps are helpful, but, to my mind, the others are crudely drawn and lack important detail. Still, I'd give this edition a good rating for maps, since it turns out that eight is a comparatively generous serving.

2. Translation by Aubrey de Selincourt in 1954; revised by John Marincola in 1972, 1996, and 2003; published by Penguin Classics.

Disappointed by the Macaulay/Lateiner translation, I picked this one up on the basis of the strong reputation of Penguin Classics. It has another good introduction, followed by a limited bibliography. The translation itself is much easier to digest.

Here's how it renders the same passage as above: "The events which led to Miltiades' capture of Lemnos were as follows. The Athenians had forced certain Pelasgians to leave Attica. Whether or not they were justified in doing this is not clear; all I can offer are the two contradictory accounts, that of the Athenians themselves, on the one side, and of Hecataeus the son of Hegesander on the other. Hecataeus in his History maintains that the Athenians were in the wrong. According to him, they had given the Pelasgians in payment for building the wall round the Acropolis a tract of land, of poor quality and in bad condition, at the foot of Mt Hymettus; the Pelasgians had improved the land, and when the Athenians saw it changed out of recognition and in first-rate order, they grudged the gift and longed to take it back, until without further justification they forcibly ejected the occupants."

The footnotes, which are more extensive and informative than Lateiner's, are unfortunately all gathered as endnotes, necessitating frequent paging back and forth. There's a brief Glossary, which is far from adequate. A decent Index closes the edition.

Maps: There are only four, gathered together at the front. None of the battle sites are represented. The maps are well-drawn, but sacrifice detail for clarity. This was this edition's weakest aspect. It also lacks the many extras provided by Lateiner.

3. Translation by David Grene; published by the University of Chicago Press, 1987

A friend who owns a used book store provided this in time for the last 2 books of The History. There's a long Introduction, with a deeper focus than the others. Grene says this about his translation: "The English in which Herodotus comes before us should be direct, powerful, and clear but also, I think, a little odd." I found this to be a worthy approach and one which Grene achieves in practice, with little loss of clarity.

Here's that same passage: "Now this is the story of how Miltiades took Lemnos. The Pelasgians had been driven out of Attica by the Athenians--whether justly or otherwise I cannot say, only that Hecataeus, son of Hegisander, mentions it in his account and says that it was unjustly; for, he says, the Athenians had given the Pelasgians a piece of land to live in, under Hymettus, in payment for the wall that was at one time drawn around the Acropolis; and when the Athenians saw this place, which had before been very poor and worthless, now well tilled, they were seized with envy and longing to possess it and drove the Pelasgians out, urging no other pretext against them."

Grene has both footnotes and endnotes, the latter being longer and applicable to whole sections. There is a good Index that also attempts to provide explanatory material. That was a good idea, but it's applied somewhat randomly and was thus more frustrating than helpful.

Maps: There are 4 maps at the end and an additional 4 within the text. Of the 3 editions, this is the only one to include a map of Xerxes' route, but it has a major error. It also has the best map of Ionia.

I'd recommend Grene on the strength of his translation. But Lateiner has the best additional material. None of the three has sufficient maps for anyone who, like I, gets hung up on the many unfamiliar place names in Herodotus. You'll need a companion book for a better understanding of the geography; I haven't found an ideal solution, but both Wars of the Ancient Greeks by Victor Davis Hanson and The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece were helpful.

I have always thought of Herodotus as boring, full of digressions and hot air. He is, however, the First Historian, and therefore needs to be digested by any educated person. I first tried the Rawlinson translation,The Histories (Everyman's Library (Paper)) managed to struggle through it, but found it turgid and indeed boring. I then looked at Walter Blanco's translation in the Norton Critical Edition.Herodotus: The Histories : New Translation, Selections, Backgrounds, Commentaries (Norton Critical Editions) Blanco's version is easier to read than Rawlinson's, but is full of modern American casualisms which seemed incongruous. Blanco's version is also incomplete, and if I were going to read Herodotus, I wanted to read his entire story, just not selections. Some of Blanco's omissions are significant, including most of Book IX, which contains most of the incidents that link the history of Herodotus to that of Thucydides.The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War

I then read David Grene's translation. I still found the early sections on the history of Egypt and Persia and all the digressions about the Scythians and Libyans tedious, but Grene's language is easy to follow and appropriate to the subject, and as I continued reading the narrative began to flow and became quite enjoyable. (I haven't read the MacaulayThe Histories (Barnes & Noble Classics) or SelincourtThe Histories (Penguin Classics) translations.)

R.G. Collingwood in "The Idea of History" The Idea of History: With Lectures 1926-1928rates Herodotus, with all his faults, as superior to Thucydides. This surprised me, as I had always heard Thucydides held up as the epitome a true historian should be. But Collingwood has a point. With all his digressions, myths, and tall tales, Herodotus does his best to evaluate his sources and then tries to tell us as best he can what actually happened, without taking sides and without pointing morals. Thucydides wants to teach and has a definite moral point of view, which no doubt influenced his selection and presentation of the facts.

Herodotus should be read and digested by every educated person, and David Grene's translation makes that easier to do.

Yes, Grene's translation contains anachronistic modernisms, as M.J. Lucero points out. These will bother some readers, but need not interfere with the pleasure that this immensely informative and entertaining book will bring to others. The History is not only filled with wonderful stories that will astound, appall, and delight you, it offers a panorama of the cultures and values of the sixth and fifth century eastern Mediterranean (chiefly Greece, Egypt, and Persia). In addition to accounts of historic individuals and events, there is a wealth of detail about such topics as art, weaving, food, sex, money, marriage and funerary customs, sacrifice, cannibalism, international diplomacy, perceptions of time, and Herodotus's earnest if often off-the-mark descriptions of natural history and geography (which Grene helpfully clarifies in footnotes and endnotes). Oracles and dreams play such a frequent role in political events that it's evident how much more integrated these people were into their view of the cosmos than would be the case later, after the sense of individual autonomy that was just taking hold in Herodotus's time became more universal. Even so, these players are brought alive with vivid personalities that encompass all the human traits, from love and lust to anger, pride, compassion, grief, greed, and madness -- the scope ranges from epic to intimate. Grene has also successfully retained some of the flavor of Herodotus's Ionian Greek, with its occasional eccentric locutions and phrase repetitions, adding to the book's charm. Altogether, a rewarding read.