INTRODUCTION.

WHOEVER has employed his time on a long and laborious work, is anxious to prove to others, as well as to himself, the utility of what he has performed; since the imputation and the consciousness of having misapplied such efforts, are almost equally unpleasing If authority be allowed an adequate justification, the translator from classic writers ha little occasion to argue in his own defence, the practice of the ablest men in the mos enlightened countries being undeniably on his side. Of Italian and French literatur translations from the classics form no small or unimportant part; and if in our ow language, accurate versions of many ancient authors be still wanting, the deficiency owing, I conceive, to some other cause, rather than to any disapprobation of such work in those by whom they might have been performed. Perhaps the literary rank assigne in this country to translators, is not elevated enough to gratify the ambition of th learned; perhaps the curiosity of the public has not yet been turned sufficiently th way, to make the reward in general proportionate to the labour. Whatever be t cause that more has not been done, translations of eminent merit have appeared amo us in a sufficient number, to prove decisively the opinion held of them by some of o most accurate and judicious scholars. In translating the Ancient Poets, our countrym have, indeed, very honourably exerted their talents, and their success has proved th our language is fully calculated for the transfusion of the highest classical beautie while the French, among whom the demand for translations has urged them to be p formed at any rate, have been obliged to content themselves with prosaic versions of t noblest poems of antiquity. The honour thus acquired, ought to have encouraged us proceed in laying open the remaining stores of ancient literature. But it is an humb task to follow the steps of a prose writer, than to emulate the flights and harmony o poet.

There appears to be only one important objection, that can be made to works of t nature, which is founded on a fear that they may encourage indolence, and introd the superficial ostentation of a knowledge neither sound nor accurate, to the prejudice real learning. That vanity may be furnished, by translations, with the means of I tending to acquisitions which she has not made, cannot perhaps be denied, and s effects may certainly be traced in many writings of our continental neighbours; but t literature will thereby be injured, is not equally capable of proof. The foundation learning is usually laid, if laid at all, and the taste for it imbibed, if it can be commi cated, before the student has the liberty of considering whether it is easier to read ancients in their own languages or in modern versions; and till we hear that some ]. sons have studied Greek, because there were books in that language of which they cc, not find translations, we may rest satisfied, that few, if any, will neglect such studies the mere prospect of that assistance. But an abuse, if it did exist, ought not to precl the use; and whoever recollects how much our favourite Shakspeare enlarged the t

424420

ures of his active mind, by information deduced from these secondary sources, will coness, at least, that an excellent, as well as an impertinent or idle use may be made of ranslated Classics.

In this country, where successful industry produces elevation of rank, and gives access › polished society, there will always be many persons, who with enlightened and diserning minds, and a considerable disposition to literature, are debarred from the perusal f ancient authors by the want of a suitable education. Many by birth entitled to every dvantage, are early called away from learning to scenes of active occupation. Some uch I have seen, and highly value, who, not ashamed of a deficiency occasioned by unavoidable circumstances, or by honest, useful, and honourable occupations, are desirous to form, if possible, complete collections of approved and elegant translations. But whether he desire of such aid be thus general, or directed only to particular authors, whether it be entertained by men or women, it is liberal in its kind, and ought by all means to be ratified.

Nor is it only to unlearned persons that translations may be of service to those also vho are employed in the study of the ancient languages, they are often highly useful. In bscure and perplexed passages, they who publish notes, not unfrequently consult their ase, by passing over in silence what they are not able to explain; and even they by -hom the Latin versions annexed to Greek authors were formed, will be found on many ccasions, by rendering word for word, to have left the sense as dark as they found it in ne original; but a translator into vernacular language, is a commentator, who is bound, possible, to explain every thing: his version, in order to be approved, must have the r and manner of an original, and he has no more license to be obscure than if it really ere so. Being confined to this attention throughout, he usually examines and compares ith greater diligence than any other commentator: he is compelled at least to underand himself, which is one good step towards being intelligible to others, and, where he ids this wholly impracticable, is driven ingenuously to confess it. If this reasoning be ›t fallacious, it must happen, that, in good versions, illustrations will often be found, hich could not be obtained from any editions of the original: this at least I have found experience, in rendering Herodotus, that, after consulting all the commentators, I have quently been obliged to have recourse to new considerations, before I could make my nslation entirely clear and satisfactory to myself.

If the practice of translating be fully approved, there can be no doubt concerning the im of Herodotus to an early distinction of this kind. His matter is no less curious n diversified, and his history, as far as his own knowledge and diligent researches ild make it, entitled to attention and belief. When he approaches to his own times, re is little reason to suspect him of error or inaccuracy; and, whatever we may think some particulars respecting the Persian invasion, he is in that matter as moderate as of his countrymen; and, in a case so very extraordinary, the deposition of such a ness must deserve particular consideration.

.

et Herodotus, though mentioned always with respect, and dignified by courtesy with title of the Father of History, has been treated with some neglect by the English ati. While Thucydides and Xenophon have been naturalized among us, in correct elegant translations, this Historian, the first remaining link of that important chain, hitherto been represented only by Littlebury. The scarceness of that translation, vithstanding the inconvenience of its form, from wanting the usual subdivisions; the re absence of notes, so particularly necessary to this author; and other defects, which ight seem invidious here to mention, first pointed out the necessity of supplying the ic with another. From the nature of the notes subjoined to the present translation,

it will easily be perceived, that I have been more desirous to assist and to amuse the English reader, than to claim the credit of abstruse or uncommon learning.

It may, indeed, be said, by such as are more ready to throw out an acute than a candid observation, that in so doing, I have probably consulted my own strength, as much as the reader's convenience. This I shall neither acknowledge nor deny: but when it shall be seen how various the matter is, which, even for the above-mentioned purposes, I have been obliged to collect, the imputation perhaps will not be thought extremely formidable. For my own part, I shall be fully satisfied with what I have done, if it shall be pronounced, by those who are capable of deciding, that in many topics of inquiry, I have in general been happy enough to avoid misleading my readers.

From the notes to M. Larcher's celebrated French translation, which are very numerous, and intended evidently for the critical and the learned, rather than the common reader, I have extracted such as seemed most suited to my own design to these I have subjoined his name. For the rest, which have the signature T. annexed, I confess myself responsible: except in the case of a very few, the contribution of one or two friends, which for many reasons, I should have been glad to have had so numerous, as to have demanded separate signatures. The assistance, however, that I have received, I shall always thankfully acknowledge, and be rather proud to declare, than studious to conceal. I shall now conclude this address, by which, I hope the reader will be convinced, that I offer him a useful work, and one executed with the spirit of a man who wishes to serve the public, and to promote the cause of literature. The labour of almost three years is now submitted to his judgment; for which though I have not conscious dignity enough to dismiss it without any apprehension, I request no further indulgence than candour will readily bestow on a work of difficult execution; I have done my best, and must abide the consequences. Avocations, cares, and ill-health, I have had in common with others; but these are so inseparable from human life, that they ought perhaps to be supposed in every estimate of labour. It has been remarked, by critics of deserved eminence and popularity, that the perfections and beauties of a translation are usually, without reserve, referred to the merit of the original work; while all defects and imperfections are heaped upon the shoulders of the poor translator. To this common lot of my brethren, I also very willingly submit; nor can there perhaps be two authors more likely to justify such decisions than Herodotus and his Translator. Had I been aware how much of my time would be occupied by this undertaking, I should probably have shrunk from it now it is completed, whether I shall again venture upon that perilous ocean, where many a braver heart than mine has trembled, will depend perhaps upon the degree of approbation which the present adventure shall obtain from my impartial and judicious countrymen.

A

SKETCH OF THE LIFE

OF

HERODOTUS.

It may be observed of biography, that few things confessedly so useful have been so much perverted or so frequently abused. Perhaps it is neither unjust nor uncandid to add, that this has been in a peculiar manner the error of modern times. We have seen the lives of men remarkable neither for the splendour nor the extent of their accomplishments displayed in formidable volumes, and obtruded on the world with a confidence which private partiality could not justify, and which a reverence for the public might well have moderated: we have seen the minute occurrences of domestic life, I had almost said betrayed, and the little weaknesses of exalted and amiable minds ostentatiously enumerated, from the mistaken idea of satisfying a curiosity beneficial neither to science nor to virtue. In writing ancient lives, this fault indeed cannot be committed ; but even that species of biography has been much disfigured by the ambition of collecting every trifling hint that antiquity has left, and swelling out the rest by vague and often very arbitrary conjectures. For my own part, I should little suppose that I treated the English reader with becoming respect, if, in professing to give a Life of Herodotus, I did not immediately inform him that my materials were not only very dubious but very scanty : such however as they are, it would be no difficult task to imitate the example of many who have preceded me, and expand my observations into a serious volume. Were I to glean all that has been said of my Historian, from the different books which I have necessarily read; were I to obey the suggestions of fondness and the impulse of fancy, rather than those of my cooler judgment and my regard for the correctness of historic truth, I have a subject before me which might be protracted at pleasure. To me it seems acting a more consistent part, once for all to declare, that there is no regular account of Herodotus, either more ancient or more authentic than that of Suidas; and this is comprised in a very narrow compass. What all modern editors of his works have said of him rests chiefly on the relation of Suidas as a basis, and I might labour in vain to find a better guide. I wish therefore my readers to understand, that what I shall produce will be derived from the same authority, with a few additional remarks suggested by passages produced in the Bibliotheca Græca of Fabricius, or the Prolegomena of Wesseling.

It appears that the father of history was born at Halicarnassus, the metropolis of Caria. At what particular period may be collected from Aulus Gellius, book xv. chapter 23, who informs us that the three celebrated historians, Hellanicus, Herodotus, and Thucydides, flourished nearly at the same time. "At the commencement of the Peloponnesian war," says he, "Hellanicus was sixty-five years old, Herodotus fifty-three, and Thucydides

b