lt 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.

The index of proper names will, it is hoped, be found more complete
and accurate than those hitherto published. The best with which I was
acquainted I found to have so many errors and omissions 333 that I was
compelled to do the work again from the beginning. In a collection
of more than ten thousand references there must in all probability be
mistakes, but I trust they will be found to be few.

My acknowledgments of obligation are due first to Dr. Stein, both for
his critical work and also for his most excellent commentary, which I
have had always by me. After this I have made most use of the editions
of Krueger, Baehr, Abicht, and (in the first two books) Mr. Woods. As to
translations, I have had Rawlinson's before me while revising my own
work, and I have referred also occasionally to the translations of
Littlebury (perhaps the best English version as regards style, but full
of gross errors), Taylor, and Larcher. In the second book I have also
used the version of B. R. reprinted by Mr. Lang: of the first book of
this translation I have access only to a fragment written out some
years ago, when the British Museum was within my reach. Other particular
obligations are acknowledged in the notes.

----------

NOTES TO PREFACE

331 [ See the remarks of P.-L. Courier (on Larcher's version) in the
preface to his specimens of a new translation of Herodotus (OEuvres
completes de P.-L. Courier, Bruxelles, 1828).]

332 [ 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. 134 {to degomeno}. He is
wrong, for examine, in i. 189, where the MS. has {touto}, i. 196 {an
agesthai}, i. 199 {odon}, ii. 15 {te de}, ii. 95 {up auto}, ii. 103 {kai
prosotata}, ii. 124 {to addo} (without {dao}), ii. 181