Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.87 AVERAGE
3.87 AVERAGE
informative
slow-paced
This review is of the translation by Robin Waterfield.
The Robin Waterfield edition is the first I read, so I have a particular fondness for it; every translation of Waterfield's I've read has been excellent. (That fondness does not extend to Herodotus himself, who sucks.) Bonus points for all the sexy, sexy notes and for preserving the almost conversational style of writing Herodotus employed.
Herodotus, as translated by Waterfield, declares that he wrote his histories (or inquiries, or researches, or what have you):
The Robin Waterfield edition is the first I read, so I have a particular fondness for it; every translation of Waterfield's I've read has been excellent. (That fondness does not extend to Herodotus himself, who sucks.) Bonus points for all the sexy, sexy notes and for preserving the almost conversational style of writing Herodotus employed.
Herodotus, as translated by Waterfield, declares that he wrote his histories (or inquiries, or researches, or what have you):
[...] to prevent the traces of human events from being erased by time.In that, at least, he has certainly succeeded.
This review is of the translation by Aubrey de Sélincourt.
Aubrey de Sélincourt's translation of Arrian's Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἀνάβασις | Anabasis Alexandri is one of the best, and his translation of Ἰστορίαι almost makes me hate Herodotus a bit less.
Well.
Almost.
Justin Marozzi, reviewing a different translation of the same text, mentions that, in terms of translations of Herodotus, there have been:
As the old cherished translations of great works—the Rosemary Edmonds War and Peace, the E.V. Rieu Homer, the Dorothy Sayers Divine Comedy, and so on—begin to feel almost imperceptibly dated around the edges. If they’re particularly beloved, the editors might attempt a facelift, bringing in some scholar to write a new Introduction and revise the old translation, maybe providing new notes. But such things are delaying actions only; generally speaking, every age tends to demand its own translations of the canon. — Steve Donoghue(I would like to note, for the record, that Rieu's translation of the Iliad is a monstrosity and I despise it.)
Aubrey de Sélincourt's translation of Arrian's Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἀνάβασις | Anabasis Alexandri is one of the best, and his translation of Ἰστορίαι almost makes me hate Herodotus a bit less.
Well.
Almost.
Justin Marozzi, reviewing a different translation of the same text, mentions that, in terms of translations of Herodotus, there have been:
[...] none more elegant than those of Aubrey de Sélincourt, whose delightful translation readers have loved and admired since it appeared in 1954.I can't say I disagree.
This review is of the translation by George Rawlinson.
This edition translates the word ἱστορία as "researches" instead of "inquiries"—neither is precisely correct—in the preamble, which is interesting. That of Herodotus is the first recorded usage of the word ἱστορία, from which we get Latin historia and thereby history.
The first line of the preamble reads thusly:
This edition translates the word ἱστορία as "researches" instead of "inquiries"—neither is precisely correct—in the preamble, which is interesting. That of Herodotus is the first recorded usage of the word ἱστορία, from which we get Latin historia and thereby history.
The first line of the preamble reads thusly:
Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε,
Herodotus / Halikarnassós / histories, inquiries, researches / demonstration, publication / here, this isHerodotus then goes on to distinguish between a Ἕλλην (Greek) and a βάρβαρος (non-Greek; lit. "babbler"), which neatly establishes the kind of bias inherent in the Ancient Greek language. Thomas translates Ἕλλησι as "Greeks" but βαρβάροισι as "barbarians," a decision which bothered me.
I love how all the primary sources we have for this period of history were written by some guys who just made shit up. Herodotus? Father of lies. Livy? Openly biased. Polybius? A taste for the embellished. Historians as a whole should go back to just bullshitting things within living memory. It's so amusing. Incredibly frustrating from an historiographic perspective, yes. Very funny, also yes.
Robin Waterfield's translation of Herodotus is excellent. Complete with appreciable notes and copious commentary by Carolyn Dewald, the translation is very faithful to the meaning of the original Ancient Greek, although sacrificing some of the syntax (as is to be expected). One complaint many have had is the way Waterfield includes more sentence/paragraph breaks than in the original (Herodotus was a rather prolix orator), often turning a single long elaborate sentence into a handful of shorter ones, but, without the strict syntax of the original Greek, this is probably the best option for studying the text.
Comparatively, Waterfield's translation is more technically accurate than most other translations, including the Landmark Herodotus (which I'd recommend for the supplementary material it contains, primarily essays and a large serving of maps; the footnotes are lacking, but the translation is relatively readable, despite many linguistic inaccuracies) and [b:Pamela Mensch's translation|25323053|Histories|Herodotus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1428523322l/25323053._SY75_.jpg|488198] (which is more accurate than the Landmark, and very literal; the translation itself is quite dull, but the notes, which are clearly geared towards high school-level students, are frequent). Enoch Powell's translation is painstakingly literal, but the furthest thing from readable, adopting an affectatious archaic idiolect (of the "thou art" variety); similarly, the [b:Loeb|26790827|Herodotus I, Books I-II (Loeb Classical Library)|Herodotus|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|9720139] edition, translated by A.D. Godley, is essentially useless unless you're comparing it against the original Greek, in which case it's fine.
Robin Waterfield's translation of Herodotus is excellent. Complete with appreciable notes and copious commentary by Carolyn Dewald, the translation is very faithful to the meaning of the original Ancient Greek, although sacrificing some of the syntax (as is to be expected). One complaint many have had is the way Waterfield includes more sentence/paragraph breaks than in the original (Herodotus was a rather prolix orator), often turning a single long elaborate sentence into a handful of shorter ones, but, without the strict syntax of the original Greek, this is probably the best option for studying the text.
Comparatively, Waterfield's translation is more technically accurate than most other translations, including the Landmark Herodotus (which I'd recommend for the supplementary material it contains, primarily essays and a large serving of maps; the footnotes are lacking, but the translation is relatively readable, despite many linguistic inaccuracies) and [b:Pamela Mensch's translation|25323053|Histories|Herodotus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1428523322l/25323053._SY75_.jpg|488198] (which is more accurate than the Landmark, and very literal; the translation itself is quite dull, but the notes, which are clearly geared towards high school-level students, are frequent). Enoch Powell's translation is painstakingly literal, but the furthest thing from readable, adopting an affectatious archaic idiolect (of the "thou art" variety); similarly, the [b:Loeb|26790827|Herodotus I, Books I-II (Loeb Classical Library)|Herodotus|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|9720139] edition, translated by A.D. Godley, is essentially useless unless you're comparing it against the original Greek, in which case it's fine.
The Landmark Herodotus is sexyyy. Andrea L. Purvis's translation is pretty solid. I was impressed with the quality of the translation, but it still isn't comparable to Robin Waterfield's translation. Ambiguous statements are footnoted, and the diction is clear and precise. This edition's value comes primarily from the notes (what can I say, I love a good footnote) and the map inserts providing geographic context—there are over 120 maps included in this edition, and every mentioned place name or other location is annotated and referenced on its corresponding map. The 21 appendices are also fascinating, and provide much-needed context concerning the background surrounding Herodotus's travelogue. The introduction—written by Dr. Rosalind Thomas, author of Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece—is great. Overall this is a very accessible and comprehensive edition.
adventurous
challenging
slow-paced
An interesting read and very well translated in my opinion, but it was just too much for me. After the first 3 books I think I had a fairly good idea of the time, and frankly a lot of it was utter rubbish (through no fault of Herodutus, he was merely repeating stories that he was told), so I didnt feel like I gained much from the final books.
challenging
informative
lighthearted
slow-paced
adventurous
slow-paced