Herodotus – Histories

Original: κατεστραμμένων δὲ τούτων καὶ προσεπικτωμένου Κροίσου Λυδοῖσι , ἀπικνέονται ἐς Σάρδις ἀκμαζούσας πλούτῳ ἄλλοι τε οἱ πάντες ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλάδος σοφισταί , οἳ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ἐτύγχανον ἐόντες , ὡς ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἀπικνέοιτο , καὶ δὴ καὶ Σόλων ἀνὴρ Ἀθηναῖος , ὃς Ἀθηναίοισι νόμους κελεύσασι ποιήσας ἀπεδήμησε ἔτεα δέκα κατά θεωρίης πρόφασιν ἐκπλώσας , ἵνα δὴ μή τινα τῶν νόμων ἀναγκασθῇ , λῦσαι τῶν ἔθετο .

Translation: The Delphians say that it is the work of Theodorus the Samian , and I think so too .

Note

The sentence employs a standard construction for reporting indirect speech or opinion: the verb 'φασι' (they say) takes an accusative and infinitive clause ('μιν... εἶναι') as its object. The pronoun 'μιν' (him/it) refers to a previously mentioned subject, likely a statue or monument, and serves as the subject of the infinitive 'εἶναι' (to be). The phrase 'Δελφοι' functions as the subject of the main verb, indicating the collective body of Delphians or the official Delphic priesthood, rather than the location itself. The attribution 'Θεοδώρου τοῦ Σαμίου' uses the genitive case with the definite article to specify the artist, a common epigraphic formula for identifying craftsmen by name and origin. The second clause, 'καὶ ἐγὼ δοκῶ' (and I think), features an asyndetic-like brevity in the author's voice (Herodotus) agreeing with the reported opinion. The use of 'δοκῶ' here implies personal agreement or validation of the claim rather than mere speculation, effectively bridging the gap between popular report and the historian's own judgment. The sentence structure moves from a general report to a specific attribution, concluding with a personal endorsement.

Original: αὐτοὶ γὰρ οὐκ οἷοί τε ἦσαν αὐτὸ ποιῆσαι Ἀθηναῖοι ·

Translation: For it does not appear to me to be a chance occurrence .

Note

The sentence employs the particle combination οὐ γάρ to introduce a negation with explanatory force, a common feature in Herodotean narrative where the author provides reasoning for a preceding statement. The verb φανέεται (middle/passive indicative) governs an accusative subject (μοι) and an infinitive complement (εἶναι), creating a structure where the speaker's perception is the focus. The adjective συντυχόν (from συντυγχάνω, 'to happen by chance') is used substantively, meaning 'a chance event' or 'something that happened by luck.' The use of the neuter singular article τὸ with the participle emphasizes the abstract nature of the event being discussed. This construction reflects the Greek tendency to express personal judgment through the dative of the person affected (μοι) rather than a direct subjective statement.

Original: ὁρκίοισι γὰρ μεγάλοισι κατείχοντο δέκα ἔτεα χρήσεσθαι νόμοισι τοὺς ἄν σφι Σόλων θῆται .

Translation: He sent four silver jars , which stand in the treasury of the Corinthians , and he dedicated two sprinkling vessels , one gold and one silver ; on the golden one is inscribed that it is an offering of the Lacedaemonians , though they are speaking falsely .

Note

The sentence employs a clear chiastic structure in the enumeration of the sprinkling vessels ('one gold and one silver' / χρυσεόν τε καὶ ἀργύρεον) to emphasize the contrast between the two materials. The syntax shifts from a straightforward narrative of sending and dedicating objects to a complex relative clause construction. The participle 'φαμένων' (saying) with the infinitive 'εἶναι' (to be) creates an indirect statement reporting the false inscription. The final participial phrase 'οὐκ ὀρθῶς λέγοντες' (speaking not correctly/false) functions as an adverbial modifier of manner, but here it serves a critical literary function: it acts as an authorial intrusion where the historian explicitly corrects the claim made by the inscription, revealing the deception of the Lacedaemonians. This creates a dramatic tension between the official record (the inscription) and the historical truth asserted by the narrator.

Original: αὐτῶν δὴ ὦν τούτων καὶ τῆς θεωρίης ἐκδημήσας ὁ Σόλων εἵνεκεν ἐς Αἴγυπτον ἀπίκετο παρὰ Ἄμασιν καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐς Σάρδις παρὰ Κροῖσον .

Translation: For this too belongs to Croesus , but one of the Delphians inscribed it on behalf of the Lacedaemonians , wishing to be gracious ; as for the name , knowing it , I shall not mention it .

Note

The sentence exhibits a distinct rhetorical shift from historical narrative to authorial self-reference. The initial clause (ἔστι... Κροίσου) establishes a factual claim regarding the ownership or origin of an inscription, utilizing the copula ἔστι with a predicate nominative. The conjunction γάρ provides the causal explanation for the preceding context. The narrative then shifts with the adversative δέ to introduce a specific agent, τις (an indefinite pronoun), who performed the action of inscribing (ἐπέγραψε) for the Lacedaemonians. The participle βουλόμενος with the infinitive χαρίζεσθαι (wishing to be gracious) indicates the motive behind the action, a common feature in Herodotean character motivation. A significant syntactic and stylistic feature occurs in the final clause: the author employs a first-person future verb (ἐπιμνήσομαι) to explicitly withhold a name (τὸ ὄνομα). The participle ἐπιστάμενος (knowing) is in the present tense, emphasizing the speaker's current knowledge, which contrasts with the future decision to remain silent. This structure creates a moment of suspense or deliberate omission, a technique often used by ancient historians to signal a boundary of acceptable disclosure or to maintain the dignity of the subject by avoiding a potentially offensive or trivial name.

Original: ἀπικόμενος δὲ ἐξεινίζετο ἐν τοῖσι βασιληίοισι ὑπὸ τοῦ Κροίσου ·

Translation: But the boy , through whose hand the water flows , is a Lacedaemonian ; however , neither of the sprinklers is one .

Note

This sentence illustrates a clear contrastive structure using the particles μέν... δέ (here expanded as μέν... μέντοι) to juxtapose two ideas: the origin of the boy and the origin of the ritual vessels. The relative clause δι' οὗ τὸ ὕδωρ ρέει (through whom the water flows) describes the boy's function as a pourer. The verb ρέει is present indicative, indicating a habitual or characteristic action rather than a single event. The phrase περιρραντηρίων (sprinklers/ablution vessels) refers to specific ritual implements used in Greek purification rites. The syntax employs a nominal predicate (Λακεδαιμονίων) without a copula in the relative clause context, while the main clause uses the copula ἐστίν. The use of οὐδέτερον (neither) emphasizes that while the boy is Spartan, the vessels themselves are not, suggesting a distinction between the person performing the rite and the objects used. The sentence structure is balanced, with the first clause establishing the boy's identity and the second clause negating the identity of the vessels.

Original: μετὰ δὲ ἡμέρῃ τρίτῃ ἢ τετάρτῃ κελεύσαντος Κροίσου τὸν Σόλωνα θεράποντες περιῆγον κατὰ τοὺς θησαυρούς , καὶ ἐπεδείκνυσαν πάντα ἐόντα μεγάλα τε καὶ ὄλβια .

Translation: Cyrus also sent many other non-inscribed votive offerings along with these things , and silver libation bowls that were circular , and indeed a golden image of a woman , three cubits tall ; they say that this is the likeness of the bread-maker of Cyrus of Delphi .

Note

The sentence employs asyndeton (the omission of conjunctions) in the initial clause 'ἄλλα τε ἀναθήματα' to create a rapid listing of items, though the particle τε adds a connective nuance. The enumeration of gifts is structured with polysyndeton (repetition of 'καί') in the second half ('καὶ χεύματα... καὶ δὴ καὶ γυναικός...'), which slows the rhythm to emphasize the specific and unusual nature of the final item. The phrase 'οὐκ ἐπίσημα' (not inscribed/insignificant) contrasts with the precious materials mentioned later, highlighting that the value lies in the offering itself rather than the dedication's text. The term 'χεύματα' specifically refers to liquid libations, here shaped as circular bowls, a common form for pouring offerings. The adjective 'τριπήχυς' (three cubits tall) provides a precise, monumental scale for the statue. The genitive construction 'τῆς ἄρτοκόπου τῆς Κροίσου' (of the bread-maker of Croesus) is a metonymic reference; while literally 'bread-maker,' it likely refers to a specific priestess or a figure associated with the cult at Delphi, or perhaps a nickname given to the statue's original form before its identification. The use of 'λέγουσι' (they say) introduces a layer of reported speech or local tradition, distancing the author from a definitive claim about the statue's identity, a common Herodotean technique to present multiple perspectives or local lore.

Original: θεησάμενον δέ μιν τὰ πάντα καὶ σκεψάμενον ὥς οἱ κατὰ καιρὸν ἦν , εἴρετο ὁ Κροῖσος τάδε .

Translation: Furthermore , Croesus dedicated , along with his wife 's offerings from her neck , also the girdles .

Note

The sentence employs asyndeton in the second clause where the conjunction 'καί' (and) connects two accusative objects ('ταῦτα' implied by 'τα' and 'τὰς ζώνας') to the verb 'ἀνέθηκε', emphasizing the accumulation of votive offerings. The phrase 'τῆς ἑωυτοῦ γυναικός' (of his own wife) uses the reflexive possessive adjective, a common feature in Herodotus to indicate possession relative to the subject, here emphasizing the personal nature of the sacrifice. The preposition 'ἀπό' with the genitive 'τῆς δειρῆς' (from the neck) specifies the origin of the jewelry, likely necklaces or collars, which were standard items of women's adornment. The structure 'πρὸς δὲ καὶ' functions as a transitional phrase, meaning 'furthermore' or 'in addition,' linking this action to a previous list of dedications. The use of the aorist indicative 'ἀνέθηκε' denotes a completed action in the narrative past. The word 'ζώνας' (girdles/belts) refers to a specific type of garment accessory often made of precious materials and offered to deities.

Original: " ξεῖνε Ἀθηναῖε , παρ’ ἡμέας γὰρ περὶ σέο λόγος ἀπῖκται πολλὸς καὶ σοφίης εἵνεκεν τῆς σῆς καὶ πλάνης , ὡς φιλοσοφέων γῆν πολλὴν θεωρίης εἵνεκεν ἐπελήλυθας ·

Translation: He sent these things to Delphi , but to Amphiaraus , having inquired of him about both his prowess and his suffering , he dedicated a golden shield , entirely alike , and a solid spear , entirely golden , the spear being entirely like the bronze lances .

Note

This sentence exhibits a clear chiastic structure in its second half, contrasting the dedication to Amphiaraus with the specific attributes of the objects. The phrase 'την τε αρετην και την παθην' (both his prowess and his suffering) highlights a common Greek thematic duality, often referring to a hero's active virtue and the tragic fate or endurance he must endure. The repetition of 'παν ομοιως' (entirely alike) and 'πανσαν' (all/every) emphasizes the completeness and uniformity of the offering. The participle 'πυθόμενος' (having inquired) provides the motivation for the dedication, suggesting a ritual consultation or seeking of favor. The final clause 'το ξυστὸν τῇσι λόγχῃσι ἐὼν ὁμοίως χρύσεον' serves as a descriptive appositive, clarifying that the golden spear was modeled after the standard bronze spears used by warriors, thus blending divine opulence with martial utility.

Original: νῦν ὦν ἐπειρέσθαι με ἵμερος ἐπῆλθέ σε εἴ τινα ἤδη πάντων εἶδες ὀλβιώτατον " .

Translation: These two things were still kept for me in Thebes , and [ they were kept ] in the temple of Ismenian Apollo of the Thebans .

Note

The sentence employs a distributive plural 'ἀμφότερα' (both/both things) modified by the neuter article 'τά' to refer to two specific objects or matters previously mentioned in the narrative. The adverb 'ἔτι' (still) combined with the imperfect tense of 'εἰμί' (ἦν) creates a durative aspect, emphasizing the continued state of the objects being preserved. The prepositional phrase 'εἰς ἐμέ' (for me/to me) functions as a dative of interest, indicating the beneficiary of the preservation. The syntax features a double 'ἐν' construction: first 'ἐν Θήβησι' (in Thebes) and then 'ἐν τῷ νηῷ' (in the temple), which is further specified by the genitive 'Θηβέων' (of the Thebans) modifying 'ναός' (temple). This is followed by the specific cult title 'Ἰσμήνιου Ἀπόλλωνος' (of Ismenian Apollo), a local epithet for Apollo associated with the spring of Castalia near Thebes. The sentence structure uses a paratactic coordination with 'καί' to link the general location with the specific sanctuary, a common Herodotean technique for layering geographical and religious details without complex subordination.

Original: ὃ μὲν ἐλπίζων εἶναι ἀνθρώπων ὀλβιώτατος ταῦτα ἐπειρώτα ·

Translation: To those who were about to lead these gifts of the Lydians to the sacred places , Croesus commanded ; he was inquiring whether he should march against the Persians , and whether he should add to himself some army of men friendly to him .

Note

The sentence exhibits a complex structure combining a main imperative clause with two embedded indirect questions (indirect interrogatives) introduced by the particle εἰ ('whether'). The main verb εἰνετέλλετο ('he commanded') takes a dual complement: a participle phrase (τοῖσι... μέλλουσι τῶν Λυδῶν ταῦτα τὰ δῶρα ἄγειν) functioning as the indirect object of the command, and the infinitive ἐπειρωτᾶν ('inquiring') which introduces the content of the inquiry. The syntax of the inquiry uses the optative mood (στρατεύηται, προσθέοιτο) in both clauses, a standard feature of indirect questions in Ancient Greek when the main verb is in a historical tense (imperfect here). The phrase ἀνδρῶν φίλον (genitive of description/quality) modifies στρατὸν, emphasizing the nature of the army as composed of 'friendly men' or 'allies.' The repetition of Κροῖσος in the main clause and the second indirect question clause serves to maintain clarity in a long, periodic sentence, a common stylistic feature in Herodotus to manage complex historical narratives.