Summary

Herodotus The History of Herodotus — Preface (1890)

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.
Source: Wikisource

Herodotus The History of Herodotus — Preface (1890)

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.
Source: Wikisource

Herodotus The History of Herodotus — Preface (1890)

Other particular obligations are acknowledged in the notes.
—————
NOTES TO PREFACE
↑ See the remarks of P.-L. Courier (on Larcher's version) in the preface to his specimens of a new translation of Herodotus (OEuvres compl�tes de P.-L. Courier, Bruxelles, 1828) .↑ 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.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature