1. The style, O Alexander, of Herodotus, as being simple, free, and easily suiting itself to its subject, has deceived many; but more, a persuasion of his dispositions being equally sincere. For it is not only (as Plato says) an extreme injustice, to make a show of being just when one is not so; but it is also the highest malignity, to pretend to simplicity and mildness and be in the mean time really most malicious. Now since he principally exerts his malice against the Boeotians and Corinthians, though without sparing any other, I think myself obliged to defend our ancestors and the truth against this part of his writings, since those who would detect all his other lies and fictions would have need of many books. But, as Sophocles has it, the face of persuasion is prevalent, especially when delivered in good language, and such as has power to conceal both the other absurdities and the ill-nature of the writer. King Philip told the Greeks who revolted from him to Titus Quinctius, that they had got a more polished, but a longer-lasting yoke. So the malice of Herodotus is indeed more polite and delicate than that of Theopompus, yet it pinches closer, and makes a more severe impression, — not unlike to those winds which, blowing secretly through narrow chinks, are sharper than those that are more diffused. Now it seems to me very convenient to delineate, as it were, in a rough draught, those signs and marks that distinguish a malicious narration from a candid and unbiassed one, applying afterwards every point we shall examine to such as appertain to them.
1. τοῦ Ἡροδότου … πολλοὺς μέν, ὦ Ἀλέξανδρε, καὶ ἡ λέξις ὡς ἀφελὴς καὶ δίχα πόνου καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἐπιτρέχουσα τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐξηπάτηκε· πλείονες δὲ τοῦτο πρὸς τὸ ἦθος αὐτοῦ πεπόνθασιν. οὐ γὰρ μόνον, ὥς φησιν ὁ Πλάτων, τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀδικίας μὴ ὄντα δοκεῖν εἶναι δίκαιον· ἀλλὰ καὶ κακοηθείας ἄκρας ἔργον εὐκολίαν μιμούμενον καὶ ἁπλότητα δυσφώρατον εἶναι. … μάλιστα πρός τε Βοιωτοὺς καὶ Κορινθίους κέχρηται μηδὲ τῶν ἄλλων τινὸς ἀπεσχημένος, οἶμαι προσήκειν ἡμῖν … ἀμυνομένοις ὑπὲρ τῶν προγόνων ἅμα καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, κατʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τῆς γραφῆς τὸ μέρος ἐπεὶ τὰ γʼ ἄλλα ψεύσματα καὶ πλάσματα βουλομένοις ἐπεξιέναι πολλῶν ἂν βιβλίων δεήσειεν. ἀλλὰ δεινὸν τὸ τᾶς Πειθοῦς πρόσωπον ὥς φησιν ὁ Σοφοκλῆς, μάλιστα δʼ ὅταν ἐν λόγῳ χάριν ἔχοντι καὶ δύναμιν τοσαύτην ἐγγένηται τὰς τʼ ἄλλας ἀτοπίας καὶ τὸ ἦθος ἀποκρύπτειν τοῦ συγγραφέως. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Φίλιππος ἔλεγε πρὸς τοὺς ἀφισταμένους Ἕλληνας αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Τίτῳ προστιθεμένους, ὅτι λειότερον μὲν μακρότερον δὲ κλοιὸν μεταλαμβάνουσιν· ἡ δʼ Ἡροδότου κακοήθεια λειοτέρα μέν ἐστιν ἀμέλει καὶ μαλακωτέρα τῆς Θεοπόμπου, καθάπτεται δὲ καὶ λυπεῖ μᾶλλον, ὥσπερ οἱ κρύφα διὰ στενοῦ παραπνέοντες ἄνεμοι τῶν διακεχυμένων. δοκεῖ δέ μοι βέλτιον εἶναι τύπῳ τινὶ λαβόντας ὅσα κοινῇ μὴ καθαρᾶς μηδʼ εὐμενοῦς ἐστιν ἀλλὰ κακοήθους οἷον ἴχνη καὶ γνωρίσματα διηγήσεως, εἰς ταῦτα τῶν ἐξεταζομένων ἕκαστον, ἂν ἐναρμόττῃ, τίθεσθαι.
2. First then, whoever in relating a story shall use the most odious terms when gentler expressions might do as well, is not to be esteemed impartial, but an enjoyer of his own fancy, in putting the worst construction on things; as if any one, instead of saying Nicias is too much given to superstition, should call him fanatic, or should accuse Cleon of presumption and madness rather than of inconsiderateness in speech.
2. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ὁ τοῖς δυσχερεστάτοις ὀνόμασι καὶ ῥήμασιν, ἐπιεικεστέρων παρόντων, ἐν τῷ λέγειν τὰ πεπραγμένα χρώμενος ʽὥσπερ εἰ θειασμῷ προσκείμενον ἄγαν ἐξὸν εἰπεῖν τὸν Νικίαν ὁ δὲ θεόληπτον προσείποι, ἢ θρασύτητα καὶ μανίαν Κλέωνος μᾶλλον ἢ κουφολογίανʼ οὐκ εὐμενής ἐστιν, ἀλλʼ οἷον ἀπολαύων τῷ σοφῶς διηγεῖσθαι τοῦ πράγματος.
3. Secondly, when a writer, catching hold of a fault which has no reference to his story, shall draw it into the relation of such affairs as need it not, extending his narrative with circumlocutions, only that he may insert a man’s misfortune, offence, or discommendable action, it is manifest that he delights in speaking evil. Therefore Thucydides would not clearly relate the faults of Cleon, which were very numerous; and as for Hyperbolus the orator, having touched at him in a word and called him an ill man, he let him go. Philistus also passed over all those outrages committed by Dionysius on the barbarians which had no connection with the Grecian affairs. For the excursions and digressions of history are principally allowed for fables and antiquities, and sometimes also for encomiums. But he who makes reproaches and detractions an addition to his discourse seems to incur the tragedian’s curse on the “collector of men’s calamities.”
3. δεύτερον, ὅτῳ κακὸν πρόσεστιν ἄλλως τῇ δʼ ἱστορίᾳ μὴ προσῆκον, ὁ δὲ συγγραφεὺς ἐπιδράττεται τούτου καὶ παρεμβάλλει τοῖς πράγμασιν οὐδὲν δεομένοις, ἀλλὰ τὴν διήγησιν ἐπεξάγων καὶ κυκλούμενος, ὅπως ἐμπεριλάβῃ ἀτύχημά τινος ἢ πρᾶξιν ἄτοπον καὶ οὐ χρηστήν, δῆλός ἐστιν ἡδόμενος τῷ κακολογεῖν. ὅθεν ὁ Θουκυδίδης οὐδὲ τῶν Κλέωνος ἁμαρτημάτων ἀφθόνων ὄντων ἐποιήσατο σαφῆ τὴν· διήγησιν· Ὑπερβόλου τε τοῦ δημαγωγοῦ θιγὼν ἑνὶ ῥήματι καὶ μοχθηρὸν ἄνθρωπον προσειπὼν ἀφῆκε Φίλιστος δὲ καὶ Διονυσίου τῶν πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους ἀδικιῶν ὅσαι μὴ συνεπλέκοντο τοῖς Ἑλληνικοῖς πράγμασιν, ἁπάσας παρέλιπεν. αἱ γὰρ ἐκβολαὶ καὶ παρατροπαὶ τῆς ἱστορίας μάλιστα τοῖς μύθοις δίδονται καὶ ταῖς ἀρχαιολογίαις, ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἐπαίνους· ὁ δὲ παρενθήκην λόγου τὸ βλασφημεῖν καὶ ψέγειν ποιούμενος ἔοικεν εἰς τὴν τραγικὴν ἐμπίπτειν κατάραν θνητῶν ἐκλέγων τὰς συμφοράς.
4. Now the opposite to this is known to every one, as the omitting to relate some good and laudable action, which, though it may seem not to be reprehensible, yet is then done maliciously when the omission happens in a place that is pertinent to the history. For to praise unwillingly is so far from being more civil than to dispraise willingly, that it is perhaps rather more uncivil.
4. καὶ μὴν τὸ γʼ ἀντίστροφον τούτῳ παντὶ δῆλον ὡς καλοῦ τινος κἀγαθοῦ παράλειψίς; ἐστιν, ἀνυπεύθυνον δοκοῦν πρᾶγμα εἶναι, γιγνόμενον δὲ κακοήθως, ἄνπερ ἐμπίπτῃ τὸ παραλειφθὲν εἰς τόπον προσήκοντα τῇ ἱστορίᾳ· τὸ γὰρ ἀπροθύμως ἐπαινεῖν τοῦ ψέγοντα χαίρειν οὐκ ἐπιεικέστερον, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τῷ μὴ ἐπιεικέστερον ἴσως καὶ χεῖρον.
5. The fourth sign of a partial disposition in writing of history I take to be this: When a matter is related in two or more several manners, and the historian shall embrace the worst. Sophisters indeed are permitted, for the obtaining either of profit or reputation, to undertake the defence of the worst cause; for they neither create any firm belief of the matter, nor yet do they deny that they are often pleased in maintaining paradoxes and making incredible things appear probable. But an historian is then just, when he asserts such things as he knows to be true, and of those that are uncertain reports rather the better than the worse. Nay, there are many writers who wholly omit the worse. Thus Ephorus writes of Themistocles, that he was acquainted with the treason of Pausanias and his negotiations with the King’s lieutenants, but that he neither consented to it, nor hearkened to Pausanias’s proffers of making him partaker of his hopes; and Thucydides left the whole matter out of his story, as judging it to be false.
5. τέταρτον τοίνυν τίθεμαι σημεῖον οὐκ εὐμενοῦς ἐν ἱστορίᾳ τρόπου τὸ δυεῖν ἢ πλειόνων περὶ ταὐτοῦ λόγων ὄντων τῷ χείρονι προστίθεσθαι. τοῖς γὰρ σοφισταῖς ἐφεῖται πρὸς ἐργασίαν ἢ δόξαν ἔστιν ὅτε τῶν λόγων κοσμεῖν τὸν ἥττονα παραλαμβάνοντας· οὐ γὰρ ἐμποιοῦσι πίστιν ἰσχυρὰν περὶ τοῦ πράγματος οὐδʼ ἀρνοῦνται πολλάκις εἰς τὸ παρὰ δοξον ἐπιχειρεῖν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀπίστων· ὁ δʼ ἱστορίαν γράφων ἃ μὲν οἶδεν ἀληθῆ λέγειν δίκαιός ἐστι, τῶν δʼ ἀδήλων τὰ βελτίονα δοκεῖν ἀληθῶς λέγεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ χείρονα. πολλοὶ δʼ ὅλως τὰ χείρονα παραλείπουσιν ὥσπερ ἀμέλει περὶ Θεμιστοκλέους Ἔφορος μὲν εἰπὼν, ὅτι τὴν Παυσανίου προδοσίαν ἔγνω καὶ τὰ πρασσόμενα πρὸς τοὺς βασιλέως στρατηγούς, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐπείσθη φησὶν οὐδὲ προσεδέξατο κοινουμένου καὶ παρακαλοῦντος αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὰς αὐτὰς ἐλπίδας· Θουκυδίδης δὲ καὶ τὸ παράπαν τὸν λόγον τοῦτον ὡς κατεγνωκὼς παρῆκεν.
6. Moreover, in things confessed to have been done, but for doing which the cause and intention is unknown, he who casts his conjectures on the worst side is partial and malicious. Thus do the comedians. who affirm the Peloponnesian war to have been kindled by Pericles for the love of Aspasia or the sake of Phidias, and not through any desire of honor, or ambition of pulling down the Peloponnesian pride and giving place in nothing to the Lacedaemonians. For those who suppose a bad cause for laudable works and commendable actions, endeavoring by calumnies to insinuate sinister suspicions of the actor when they cannot openly discommend the act, — as they that impute the killing of Alexander the tyrant by Theba not to any magnanimity or hatred of vice, but to a certain feminine jealousy and passion, and those that say Cato slew himself for fear Caesar should put him to a more shameful death, — such as these are manifestly in the highest degree envious and malicious.
6. ἔτι τοίνυν ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμολογουμένων πεπρᾶχθαι, τὴν δʼ αἰτίαν ἀφʼ ἧς πέπρακται καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν ἐχόντων ἄδηλον, ὁ πρὸς τὸ χεῖρον εἰκάζων δυσμενής ἐστι καὶ κακοήθης· ὥσπερ οἱ κωμικοὶ τὸν πόλεμον ὑπὸ τοῦ Περικλέους ἐκκεκαῦσθαι διʼ Ἀσπασίαν ἢ διὰ Φειδίαν ἀποφαίνοντες, οὐ φιλοτιμίᾳ τινὶ καὶ φιλονεικίᾳ μᾶλλον στορέσαι τὸ φρόνημα Πελοποννησίων καὶ μηδενὸς ὑφεῖσθαι Λακεδαιμονίων ἐθελήσαντος. εἰ μὲν γάρ τις εὐδοκιμοῦσιν ἔργοις καὶ πράγμασιν ἐπαινουμένοις αἰτίαν φαύλην ὑποτίθησι καὶ κατάγεται ταῖς διαβολαῖς εἰς ὑποψίας ἀτόπους περὶ τῆς ἐν ἀφανεῖ προαιρέσεως τοῦ πράξαντος, αὐτὸ τὸ πεπραγμένον ἐμφανῶς οὐ δυνάμενος ψέγειν (ὥσπερ οἱ τὸν ὑπὸ Θήβης Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ τυράννου φόνον οὐ μεγαλονοίας οὐδὲ μισοπονηρίας, ζήλου δέ τινος ἔργον καὶ πάθους γυναικείου τνθέμενοι καὶ Κάτωνα λέγοντες ἑαυτὸν ἀνελεῖν δείσαντα τὸν μετʼ αἰκίας θάνατον ὑπὸ Καίσαρος), εὔδηλον ὅτι φθόνου καὶ κακοηθείας ὑπερβολὴν οὐ λέλοιπε.
7. An historical narration is also more or less guilty of malice, according as it relates the manner of the action; as if one should be said to have performed an exploit rather by money than valor, as some affirm of Philip; or else easily and without any labor, as it is said of Alexander; or else not by prudence, but by Fortune, as the enemies of Timotheus painted cities falling into his nets as he lay sleeping. For they undoubtedly diminish the greatness and beauty of the actions, who deny the performers of them to have done them generously, industriously, virtuously, and by themselves.
7. δέχεται δὲ καὶ παρὰ τὸν τρόπον τοῦ ἔργου διήγησις ἱστορικὴ κακοήθειαν, ἂν χρήμασι φάσκῃ μὴ διʼ ἀρετῆς κατειργάσθαι τὴν πρᾶξιν, ὡς Φίλιππον ἔνιοι φάσκουσιν ἂν σὺν οὐδενὶ πόνῳ καὶ ῥᾳδίως, ὡς Ἀλέξανδρον ἂν μὴ φρονίμως ἀλλʼ εὐτυχῶς, ὡς Τιμόθεον οἱ ἐχθροί, γράφοντες ἐν πίναξιν εἰς κύρτον τινὰ τὰς πόλεις αὐτάς, ἐκείνου καθεύδοντος, ὑποδυομένας. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τῶν πράξεων ἐλαττοῦσι τὸ μέγεθος καὶ τὸ κάλλος οἱ τὸ γενναίως καὶ φιλοπόνως καὶ κατʼ ἀρετὴν καὶ διʼ αὑτῶν ἀφαιροῦντες.
8. Moreover, those who will directly speak ill of any one incur the reproach of moroseness, rashness, and madness, unless they keep within measure. But they who send forth calumnies obliquely, as if they were shooting arrows out of corners, and then stepping back think to conceal themselves by saying they do not believe what they most earnestly desire to have believed, whilst they disclaim all malice, condemn themselves also of farther disingenuity.
8. ἔστι τοίνυν τοῖς ἀπʼ εὐθείας οὓς βούλονται κακῶς λέγουσι δυσκολίαν ἐπικαλεῖν καὶ θρασύτητα καὶ μανίαν, ἐὰν μὴ μετριάζωσιν· οἱ δὲ πλαγίως οἷον ἐξ ἀφανοῦς βέλεσι χρώμενοι ταῖς διαβολαῖς, εἶτα περιιόντες ὀπίσω καὶ ἀναδυόμενοι, τῷ φάσκειν ἀπιστεῖν ἃ πάνυ πιστεύεσθαι θέλουσιν ἀρνούμενοι κακοήθειαν, ἀνελευθερίαν τῇ κακοηθείᾳ προσοφλισκάνουσιν.
9. Next to these are they who with their reproaches intermix some praises, as did Aristoxenus, who, having termed Socrates unlearned, ignorant, and libidinous, added, Yet was he free from injustice. For, as they who flatter artificially and craftily sometimes mingle light reprehensions with their many and great praises, joining this liberty of speech as a sauce to their flattery; so malice, that it may gain belief to its accusations, adds also praise.
9. ἐγγὺς δὲ τούτων εἰσὶν οἱ τοῖς ψόγοις ἐπαίνους τινὰς παρατιθέντες, ὡς ἐπὶ, Σωκράτους Ἀρι στύξενος, ἀπαίδευτον καὶ ἀμαθῆ καὶ ἀκόλαστον εἰπών, ἐπήνεγκεν ἀδικία δʼ οὐ προσῆν ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ σύν τινι τέχνῃ καὶ δεινότητι κολακεύοντες ἔστιν ὅτε πολλοῖς καὶ μακροῖς ἐπαίνοις ψόγους παραμιγνύουσιν ἐλαφρούς, οἷον ἥδυσμα τῇ κολακείᾳ τὴν παρρησίαν ἐμβάλλοντες, οὕτω τὸ κακόηθες εἰς πίστιν ὧν ψέγει προαποτίθεται τὸν ἔπαινον.
10. We might here also reckon up more notes; but these are sufficient to let us understand the nature and manners of Herodotus.
10. ἦν δὲ καὶ πλείονας καταριθμεῖσθαι τῶν χαρακτήρων· ἀρκοῦσι δʼ οὗτοι κατανόησιν τάνθρὼπου τῆς προαιρέσεως καὶ τοῦ τρόπου παρασχεῖν.
11. First therefore, — beginning, as the proverb is, with Vesta, — whereas all the Grecians affirm Io, daughter to Inachus, to have been worshipped with divine honor by the barbarians, and by her glory to have left her name to many seas and principal passages, and to have given a source and original to most noble and royal families; this famous author says of her, that she gave herself to certain Phoenician merchants, having been not unwillingly deflowered by a mariner, and fearing lest she should be found by her friends to be with child. And he belies the Phoenicians as having delivered these things of her, and says that the Persian stories testify of her being carried away by the Phoenicians with other women. Presently after, he gives sentence on the bravest and greatest exploits of Greece, saying that the Trojan war was foolishly undertaken for an ill woman. For it is manifest, says he, that had they not been willing they had never been ravished. Let us then say, that the Gods also acted foolishly, in inflicting their indignation on the Spartans for abusing the daughters of Scedasus the Leuctrian, and in punishing Ajax for the violation of Cassandra. For it is manifest, if we believe Herodotus, that if they had not been willing they had never been defiled. And yet he himself said that Aristomenes was taken alive by the Spartans; and the same afterwards happened to Philopoemen, commander of the Achaeans; and the Carthaginians took Regulus, the consul of the Romans; than whom there are not easily to be found more valiant and warlike men. Nor is it to be wondered, since even leopards and tigers are taken alive by men. But Herodotus blames the poor women that have been abused by violence, and patronizes their ravishers.
11. πρῶτα δὴ πάντων ὥσπερ ἀφʼ ἑστίας ἀρξάμενος Ἰοῦς τῆς Ἰνάχου θυγατρός, ἣν πάντες Ἕλληνες ἐκτεθειῶσθαι νομίζουσι ταῖς τιμαῖς ὑπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων καὶ καταλιπεῖν ὄνομα πολλαῖς μὲν θαλάτταις, πορθμῶν δὲ τοῖς μεγίστοις ἀφʼ αὑτῆς διὰ τὴν δόξαν, ἀρχὴν δὲ καὶ πηγὴν τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων καὶ βασιλικωτάτων γενῶν παρασχεῖν· ταύτην ὁ γενναῖος ἐπιδοῦναί φησιν ἑαυτὴν Φοίνιξι φορτηγοῖς, ὑπὸ τοῦ ναυκλήρου διαφθαρεῖσαν ἑκουσίως καὶ φοβουμένην μὴ κύουσα φανερὰ γένηται. καὶ καταψεύδεται Φοινίκων ὡς ταῦτα περὶ αὐτῆς λεγόντων. Περσῶν δὲ τοὺς λογίους μαρτυρεῖν φήσας, ὅτι τὴν Ἰοῦν μετʼ ἄλλων γυναικῶν οἱ Φοίνικες ἀφαρπάσειαν, εὐθὺς ἀποφαίνεται γνώμην τὸ κάλλιστον ἔργον καὶ μέγιστον τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀβελτερίᾳ τὸν Τρωικὸν πόλεμον γενέσθαι διὰ γυναῖκα φαύλην. δῆλον γάρ φησὶν ὅτι, εἰ μὴ αὐταὶ ἐβούλοντο, οὐκ ἂν ἡρπάζοντο. καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς τοίνυν ἀβέλτερα ποιεῖν λέγωμεν, ὑπὲρ τῶν Λεύκτρου θυγατέρων βιασθεισῶν μηνίοντας Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ κολάζοντας Αἴαντα διὰ τὴν Κασάνδρας ὕβριν· δῆλα γὰρ δὴ καθʼ Ἡρόδοτον, ὅτι, εἰ μὴ αὐταὶ ἐβούλοντο, οὐκ ἂν ὑβρίζοντο. καίτοι καὶ Ἀριστομένη φησὶν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων ζῶντα συναρπασθῆναι, καὶ Φιλοποίμην ὕστερον ὁ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν στρατηγὸς ταὐτὸ τοῦτʼ ἔπαθε, καὶ Ῥηγοῦλον ἐχειρώσαντο Καρχηδόνιοι τὸν Ῥωμαίων ὕπατον· ὧν ἔργον εὑρεῖν μαχιμωτέρους καὶ πολεμικωτέρους ἄνδρας. ἀλλὰ θαυμάζειν οὐκ ἄξιον, ὅπου καὶ παρδάλεις ζώσας καὶ τίγρεις συναρπάζουσιν ἄνθρωποι Ἡρόδοτος δὲ κατηγορεῖ τῶν βιασθεισῶν γυναικῶν, ἀπολογούμενος ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁρπασάντων.
12. Nay, he is so favorable to the barbarians, that, acquitting Busiris of those human sacrifices and that slaughter of his guests for which he is accused, and attributing by his testimony to the Egyptians much religion and justice, he endeavors to cast that abominable wickedness and those impious murders on the Grecians. For in his Second Book he says, that Menelaus, having received Helen from Proteus and having been honored by him with many presents, showed himself a most unjust and wicked man; for wanting a fair wind to set sail, he found out an impious device, and having taken two of the inhabitants’ boys, consulted their entrails; for which villany being hated and persecuted, he fled with his ships directly into Libya. From what Egyptian this story proceeds, I know not. For, on the contrary, many honors are even at this day given by the Egyptians both to Helen and Menelaus.
12. οὕτω δὲ φιλοβάρβαρός ἐστιν, ὥστε Βούσιριν ἀπολύσας τῆς λεγομένης ἀνθρωποθυσίας καὶ ξενοκτονίας, καὶ πᾶσιν Αἰγυπτίοις ὁσιότητα πολλὴν καὶ δικαιοσύνην μαρτυρήσας ἐφʼ Ἕλληνας ἀναστρέφει τὸ μύσος τοῦτο καὶ τὴν μιαιφονίαν. ἐν γὰρ τῇ δευτέρᾳ βίβλῳ Μενέλαόν φησι παρὰ Πρωτέως ἀπολαβόντα τὴν Ἑλένην καὶ τιμηθέντα δωρεαῖς μεγάλαις ἀδικώτατον ἀνθρώπων γενέσθαι καὶ κάκιστον· ὑπὸ γὰρ ἀπλοίας συνεχόμενον ἐπιτεχνήσασθαι πρᾶγμα οὐχ ὅσιον, καὶ λαβόντα δύο παιδία ἀνδρῶν ἐπιχωρίων ἔντομά σφεα ποιῆσαι μισηθέντα δʼ ἐπὶ τούτῳ καὶ διωκόμενον οἴχεσθαι φεύγοντα νηυσὶν ἐπὶ Λιβύης. τοῦτον δὲ τὸν λόγον οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅστις Αἰγυπτίων εἴρηκεν· ἀλλὰ τἀναντία πολλαὶ μὲν Ἑλένης πολλαὶ δὲ Μενελάου τιμαὶ διαφυλάττονται παρʼ αὐτοῖς.
13. The same Herodotus, that he may still be like himself, says that the Persians learned the defiling of the male sex from the Greeks. And yet how could the Greeks have taught this impurity to the Persians, amongst whom, as is confessed by almost all, boys had been castrated before ever they arrived in the Grecian seas? He writes also, that the Greeks were instructed by the Egyptians in their pomps, solemn festivals, and worship of the twelve Gods; that Melampus also learned of the Egyptians the name of Dionysus (or Bacchus) and taught it the other Greeks; that the mysteries likewise and rites of Ceres were brought out of Egypt by the daughters of Danaus; and that the Egyptians were wont to beat themselves and make great lamentation, but yet he himself would not tell the names of their Deities, but concealed them in silence. As to Hercules and Bacchus, whom the Egyptians named Gods, and the Greeks very aged men, he nowhere feels such scruples and hesitation; although he places also the Egyptian Hercules amongst the Gods of the second rank, and Bacchus amongst those of the third, as having had some beginning of their being and not being eternal, and yet he pronounces those to be Gods; but to the Greek Bacchus and Hercules, as having been mortal and being now demi gods, he thinks we ought to perform anniversary solemnities, but not to sacrifice to them as to Gods. The same also he said of Pan, overthrowing the most venerable and purest sacrifices of the Greeks by the proud vanities and mythologies of the Egyptians.
13. ὁ δὲ συγγραφεὺς ἐπιμένων Πέρσας, μὲν φησι παισὶ μίσγεσθαι παρʼ Ἑλλήνων μαθόντας καίτοι πῶς Ἕλλησι Πέρσαι διδασκάλια ταύτης ὀφείλουσι τῆς ἀκολασίας, παρʼ οἷς ὀλίγου δεῖν ὑπὸ πάντων ὁμολογεῖται παῖδας ἐκτετμῆσθαι, πρὶν Ἑλληνικὴν ἰδεῖν θάλασσαν; Ἕλληνας δὲ μαθεῖν παρʼ Αἰγυπτίων πομπὰς καὶ πανηγύρεις, καὶ τούτους τοὺς δώδεκα θεοὺς σέβεσθαι Διονύσου δὲ καὶ τοὔνομα παρʼ Αἰγυπτίων Μελάμποδα μαθεῖν καὶ διδάξαι τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας· μυστήρια δὲ καὶ τὰς περὶ Δήμητρα τελετὰς ὑπὸ τῶν Δαναοῦ θυγατέρων ἐξ Αἰγύπτου κομισθῆναι καὶ τύπτεσθαι μὲν Αἰγυπτίους φησὶ καὶ πενθεῖν, τίνας δʼ οὐ βούλεσθαι αὐτὸς ὀνομάζειν, ἀλλʼ εὐστόμως κεῖσθαι περὶ τῶν θείων Ἡρακλέα δὲ καὶ Διόνυσον, οὗ μὲν Αἰγύπτιοι, ἀποφαίνων ὄντας θεούς, οὗ δʼ Ἕλληνες, ἀνθρώπους καταγεγηρακότας, οὐδαμοῦ ταύτην προύθετο τὴν εὐλάβειαν· καίτοι καὶ τὸν Αίγύπτιον Ἡρακλέα τῶν δευτέρων θεῶν γενέσθαι λέγει καὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τῶν τρίτων, ὡς ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκότας γενέσεως καὶ οὐκ ὄντας ἀιδίους· ἀλλʼ ὅμως ἐκείνους μὲν ἀποφαίνει θεούς, τούτοις δʼ ὡς φθιτοῖς καὶ ἥρωσιν ἐναγίζειν οἴεται δεῖν ἀλλὰ μὴ θύειν ὡς θεοῖς. ταὐτὰ καὶ περὶ Πανὸς εἴρηκε, ταῖς Αἰγυπτίων ἀλαζονείαις καὶ μυθολογίαις τὰ σεμνότατα καὶ ἁγνότατα τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ἱερῶν ἀνατρέπων.
14. Nor is this impious enough; but moreover, deriving the pedigree of Hercules from Perseus, he says that Perseus was an Assyrian, as the Persians affirm. “But the leaders,” says he, “of the Dorians may appear to be descended in a right line from the Egyptians, reckoning their ancestors from before Danae and Acrisius.” Here he has wholly passed by Epaphus, Io, Iasus, and Argus, being ambitious not only to make the other Herculeses Egyptians and Phoenicians, but to carry this also, whom himself affirms to have been the third, out of Greece to the barbarians. But of the ancient learned writers, neither Homer, nor Hesiod, or Archilochus, nor Pisander, nor Stesichorus, nor Alcman, nor Pindar, makes any mention of the Egyptian or the Phoenician Hercules, but all acknowledge this our own Boeotian and Argive Hercules.
14. καὶ οὐ τοῦτο δεινόν· ἀλλʼ ἀναγαγὼν εἰς Περσέα τὸ Ἡρακλέους γένος Περσέα μὲν Ἀσσύριον γεγονέναι λέγει κατὰ τὸν Περσῶν λόγον· οἱ δὲ Δωριέων φησὶν ἡγεμόνες φαίνοιντʼ ἂν Αἰγύπτιοι ἰθαγενέες ἐόντες, καταλέγοντι τοὺς ἄνω ἀπὸ Δανάης τῆς Ἀκρισίου πατέρας. τὸν γὰρ Ἔπαφον καὶ τὴν Ἰὼ καὶ τὸν Ἴασον καὶ τὸν Ἄργον ὅλως ἀφῆκε, φιλοτιμούμενος μὴ μόνον ἄλλους Ἡρακλεῖς Αἰγυπτίους καὶ Φοίνικας ἀποφαίνειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτον, ὃν αὐτὸς τρίτον γεγονέναι φησίν, εἰς βαρβάρους ἀποξενῶσαι τῆς Ἑλλάδος. καίτοι τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ λογίων ἀνδρῶν οὐχ Ὅμηρος οὐχ Ἡσίοδος οὐκ Ἀρχίλοχος οὐ Πείσανδρος οὐ Στησίχορος οὐκ Ἀλκμὰν οὐ Πίνδαρος Αἰγυπτίου ἔσχον λόγον Ἡρακλέους ἢ Φοίνικος, ἀλλʼ ἕνα τοῦτον ἴσασι πάντες Ἡρακλέα τὸν Βοιώτιον ὁμοῦ καὶ Ἀργεῖον.
15. Now of the seven sages, whom he calls Sophisters, he affirms Thales to have been a barbarian, descended of the Phoenicians. Speaking ill also of the Gods under the person of Solon, he has these words: “Thou, O Croesus, askest me concerning human affairs, who know that every one of the Deities is envious and tumultuous.” Thus attributing to Solon what himself thinks of the Gods, he joins malice to blasphemy. Having made use also of Pittacus in some trivial matters, not worth the mentioning, he has passed over the greatest and gallantest action that was ever done by him. For when the Athenians and Mitylenaeans were at war about Sigaeum, Phrynon, the Athenian general, challenging whoever would come forth to a single combat, Pittacus advanced to meet him, and catching him in a net, slew that stout and giant-like man; for which when the Mitylenaeans offered him great presents, darting his javelin as far as he could out of his hand, he desired only so much ground as he should reach with that throw; and the place is to this day called Pittacium. Now what does Herodotus, when he comes to this? Instead of Pittacus’s valiant act, he tells us the fight of Alcaeus the poet, who throwing away his arms ran out of the battle; by thus not writing of honorable deeds and not passing over such as are dishonorable, he gives his testimony to those who say, that from one and the same malice proceed both envy and a rejoicing at other men’s harms.
15. καὶ μὴν τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν, οὓς αὐτὸς σοφιστὰς προσεῖπε, τὸν μὲν Θάλητα Φοίνικα τῷ γένει τὸ ἀνέκαθεν ἀποφαίνεται βάρβαρον· τοῖς δὲ θεοῖς λοιδορούμενος ἐν τῷ Σόλωνος προσωπείῳ ταῦτʼ εἴρηκεν ὦ Κροῖσε, ἐπιστάμενόν με τὸ θεῖον πᾶν ἐὸν φθονερόν τε καὶ ταραχῶδες ἐπειρωτᾷς ἀνθρωπηίων πέρι πραγμάτων· ἃ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐφρόνει περὶ τῶν θεῶν τῷ Σόλωνι προστριβόμενος κακοήθειαν τῇ βλασφημίᾳ προστίθησι. Πιττακῷ τοίνυν εἰς μικρὰ καὶ οὐκ ἄξια λόγου χρησάμενος, ὃ μέγιστόν ἐστι τῶν πεπραγμένων τἀνδρὶ καὶ κάλλιστον, ἐν ταῖς πράξεσι γενόμενος παρῆκε. πολεμούντων γὰρ Ἀθηναίων καὶ Μυτιληναίων περὶ Σιγείου καὶ Φρύνωνος τοῦ στρατηγοῦ τῶν Ἀθηναίων προκαλεσαμένου τὸν βουλόμενον εἰς μονομαχίαν, ἀπήντησεν ὁ Πιττακὸς καὶ δικτύῳ περιβαλὼν τὸν ἄνδρα ῥωμαλέον ὄντα καὶ μέγαν ἀπέκτεινε· τῶν δὲ Μυτιληναίων δωρεὰς αὐτῷ μεγάλας διδόντων, ἀκοντίσας τὸ δόρυ τοῦτο μόνον τὸ χωρίον ἠξίωσεν ὅσον ἐπέσχεν ἡ αἰχμὴ καὶ καλεῖται μέχρι νῦν Πιττάκειον. τί οὖν ὁ Ἡρὸδοτος, κατὰ τὸν τόπον γενόμενος τοῦτον; ἀντὶ τῆς Πιττακοῦ ἀριστείας τὴν Ἀλκαίου διηγήσατο τοῦ ποιητοῦ φυγὴν ἐκ τῆς μάχης, τὰ ὅπλα ῥίψαντος τῷ τὰ μὲν χρηστὰ μὴ γράψαι τὰ δʼ αἰσχρὰ μὴ παραλιπεῖν μαρτυρήσας τοῖς ἀπὸ μιᾶς· κακίας καὶ τὸν φθόνον φύεσθαι καὶ τὴν ἐπιχαιρεκακίαν λέγουσι.
16. After this, he accuses of treason the Alcmaeonidae, who showed themselves generous men, and delivered their country from tyranny. He says, that they received Pisistratus after his banishment and got him called home, on condition he should marry the daughter of Megacles; but the damsel saying to her mother, Do you see, mother, how I am not known by Pisistratus according to nature? the Alcmaeonidae were so offended at this villany, that they expelled the tyrant.
16. μετὰ ταῦτα τοὺς Ἀλκμεωνίδας, ἄνδρας γενομένους καὶ τὴν πατρίδα τῆς τυραννίδος ἐλευθερώσαντας, εἰς αἰτίαν ἐμβαλὼν προδοσίας δέξασθαί φησι τὸν Πεισίστρατον ἐκ τῆς φυγῆς καὶ συγκαταγαγεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ γάμῳ τῆς Μεγακλέους θυγατρός· τὴν δὲ παῖδα πρὸς τὴν μητέρα φράσαι τὴν ἑαυτῆς ὅτι ὦ μαμμίδιον, ὁρᾷς; οὐ μίγνυταί μοι κατὰ νόμον Πεισίστρατος. ἐπὶ τούτῳ δὲ τοὺς Ἀλκμεωνίδας τῷ παρανομήματι σχετλιάσαντας ἐξελάσαι τὸν τύραννον.
17. Now that the Lacedaemonians might have no less share of his malice than the Athenians, behold how he bespatters Othryadas, the man most admired and honored by them. “He only,” says Herodotus, “remaining alive of the three hundred, and ashamed to return to Sparta, his companions being lost, slew himself on the spot at Thyreae.” For having before said the victory was doubtful on both sides, he here, by making Othryadas ashamed, witnesses that the Lacedaemonians were vanquished. For it was shameful for him to survive, if conquered; but glorious, if conqueror.
17. ἵνα τοίνυν μηδʼ οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἔλαττον ἔχωσι τῆς κακοηθείας, τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς μάλιστα θαυμαζόμενον καὶ τιμώμενον ὅρα πῶς διαλελύμανται, τὸν Ὀθρυάδαν· τὸν δὲ ἕνα φησὶ τὸν περιλειφθέντα τῶν τριηκοσίων αἰσχυνό μενον ἀπονοστέειν ἐς Σπάρτην, τῶν συλλοχιτέων διεφθαρμένων, αὐτοῦ μιν ἐν τῇσι Θυρέῃσι καταχρήσασθαι ἑωυτόν. ἄνω μὲν γὰρ ἀμφοτέροις ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸ νίκημά φησιν, ἐνταῦθα δὲ τῇ αἰσχύνῃ τοῦ Ὀθρυάδου ἧτταν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων κατεμαρτύρησεν ἡττηθέντα μὲν γὰρ ζῆν αἰσχρὸν ἦν, περιγενέσθαι δὲ νικῶντα κάλλιστον.
18. I pass by now, that having represented Croesus as foolish, vain-glorious, and ridiculous in all things, he makes him, when a prisoner, to have taught and instructed Cyrus, who seems to have excelled all other kings in prudence, virtue, and magnanimity. Having testified of the same Croesus nothing else that was commendable, but his honoring the Gods with many and great oblations, he shows that very act of his to have been the most impious of all. For he says, that he and his brother Pantoleon contended for the kingdom while their father was yet alive; and that Croesus, having obtained the crown, caused a companion and familiar friend of Pantoleon’s to be torn in pieces in a fulling-mill, and sent presents to the Gods from his estate. Of Deïoces also, the Median, who by virtue and justice obtained the government, he says that he got it not by real but pretended justice.
18. ἐῶ τοίνυν ὅτι τὸν Κροῖσον ἀμαθῆ καὶ ἀλαζόνα καὶ γελοῖον φήσας ἐν πᾶσιν, ὑπὸ τούτου φησίν, αἰχμαλώτου γενομένου, καὶ παιδαγωγεῖσθαι καὶ νουθετεῖσθαι τὸν Κῦρον, ὃς φρονήσει καὶ ἀρετῇ καὶ μεγαλονοίᾳ πολὺ πάντων δοκεῖ πεπρωτευκέναι τῶν βασιλέων· τῷ δὲ Κροίσῳ μηδὲν ἄλλο καλὸν ἢ τὸ τιμῆσαι τοὺς θεοὺς ἀναθήμασι πολλοῖς καὶ μεγάλοις μαρτυρήσας, αὐτὸ τοῦτο πάντων ἀσεβέστατον ἀποδείκνυσιν ἔργον. ἀδελφὸν γὰρ αὐτῷ Πανταλέοντα περὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτῷ διαφέρεσθαι, ζῶντος ἔτι τοῦ πατρός· τὸν οὖν Κροῖσον, ὡς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν κατέστη, τῶν ἑταίρων καὶ φίλων τοῦ Πανταλέοντος ἕνα τῶν γνωρίμων ἐπὶ γνάφου διαφθεῖραι καταξαινόμενον, ἐκ δὲ τῶν χρημάτων αὐτοῦ ποιησάμενον ἀναθήματα τοῖς θεοῖς ἀποστεῖλαι. Δηιόκην δὲ τὸν Μῆδον ἀρετῇ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ κτησάμενον τὴν ἡγεμονίαν οὐ φύσει γενέσθαι φησὶ τοιοῦτον, ἐρασθέντα δὲ τυραννίδος ἐπιθέσθαι προσποιήματι δικαιοσύνης.
19. But I let pass the barbarian examples, since he has offered us plenty enough in the Grecian affairs. He says, that the Athenians and most other Ionians were so ashamed of that name that they wholly refused to be called Ionians; and that those who esteemed themselves the noblest among them, and who had set forth from the very Prytaneum of Athens, begat children on barbarian wives whose parents, husbands, and former children they had slain; that the women had therefore made a law among themselves, confirmed it by oath, and delivered it to be kept by their daughters, never to eat with their husbands, nor to call any of them by his name; and that the present Milesians are descended from these women. Having afterwards added that those are true Ionians who celebrate the feast called Apaturia; they all, says he, keep it except the Ephesians and Colophonians. In this manner does he deprive these two states of their nobility.
19. ἀλλʼ ἀφίημι τὰ τῶν βαρβάρων ἀφθονίαν γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς Ἑλληνικοῖς πεποίηκεν. Ἀθηναίους τοίνυν καὶ τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν ἄλλων Ἰώνων ἐπαισχύνεσθαι τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ, μὴ βουλομένους ἀλλὰ φεύγοντας Ἴωνας κεκλῆσθαι, τοὺς δὲ νομίζοντας αὐτῶν γενναιοτάτους εἶναι καὶ ὁρμηθέντας ἀπὸ τοῦ πρυτανηίου τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἐκ βαρβάρων παιδοποιήσασθαι γυναικῶν, πατέρας αὐτῶν καὶ ἄνδρας καὶ παῖδας φονεύσαντας· διὸ τὰς γυναῖκας νόμον θέσθαι καὶ ὅρκους ἐπελάσαι καὶ παραδοῦναι ταῖς θυγατράσι, μήποτε ὁμοσιτῆσαι τοῖς ἀνδράσι μηδʼ ὀνομαστὶ βοῆσαι τὸν αὑτῆς ἄνδρα, καὶ τοὺς νῦν ὄντας Μιλησίους ἐξ ἐκείνων γεγονέναι τῶν γυναικῶν ὑπειπὼν δὲ καθαρῶς Ἴωνας γεγονέναι τοὺς Ἀπατούρια ἄγοντας ἑορτὴν ἄγουσι δὲ πάντες φησὶ πλὴν Ἐφεσίων καὶ Κολοφωνίων. τούτους μὲν οὖν οὕτως ἐκκέκλεικε τῆς εὐγενείας.
20. He says moreover, that the Cumaeans and Mitylenaeans agreed with Cyrus to deliver up to him for a price Pactyas, who had revolted from him. I know not indeed, says he, for how much; since it is not certain what it was. Well done! — not to know what it was, and yet to cast such an infamy on a Grecian city, as if he had an assured knowledge! He says farther, that the Chians took Pactyas, who was brought to them out of the temple of Minerva Poliuchus (or Guardianess of the city), and delivered him up, having received the city Atarneus for their recompense. And yet Charon the Lampsacenian, a mote ancient writer, relating this matter concerning Pactyas, charges neither the Mitylenaeans nor the Chians with any such impious action. These are his very words: “Pactyas, hearing that the Persian army drew near, fled first to Mitylene, then to Chios, and there fell into the hands of Cyrus.”
20. Πακτύην δʼ ἀποστάντα Κύρου φησὶ Κυμαίους καὶ Μυτιληναίους ἐκδιδόναι παρασκευάζεσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπὶ μισθῷ ὅσῳ δή, οὐ γὰρ ἔχω γε εἰπεῖν ἀτρεκέως· ʽ εὖ τὸ μὴ διαβεβαιοῦσθαι πόσος ἦν ὁ μισθός, τηλικοῦτο δʼ Ἑλληνίδι πόλει προσβαλεῖν ὄνειδος, ὡς δὴ σαφῶς εἰδότα Χίους μέντοι τὸν Πακτύην κομισθέντα πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐξ ἱροῦ Ἀθηναίης πολιούχου ἐκδοῦναι, καὶ ταῦτα ποιῆσαι τοὺς Χίους τὸν Ἀταρνέα μισθὸν λαβόντας καίτοι Χάρων ὁ Λαμψακηνός ἀνὴρ πρεσβύτερος, ἐν τοῖς περὶ Πακτύην λόγοις γενόμενος, τοιοῦτον οὐδὲν οὔτε Μυτιληναίοις οὔτε Χίοις ἄγος προστέτριπται ταυτὶ δὲ κατὰ λέξιν γέγραφε Πακτύης δʼ ὡς ἐπύθετο προσελαύνοντα τὸν στρατὸν τὸν Περσικὸν ᾤχετο φεύγων ἄρτι μὲν εἰς Μυτιλήνην, ἔπειτα δʼ εἰς Χίον· καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐκράτησε Κῦρος.
21. Our author in his Third Book, relating the expedition of the Lacedaemonians against the tyrant Polycrates, affirms, that the Samians think and say that the Spartans, to recompense them for their former assistance against the Messenians, both brought back the Samians that were banished, and made war on the tyrant; but that the Lacedaemonians deny this, and say, they undertook this design not to help or deliver the Samians, but to punish them for having taken away a cup sent by them to Croesus, and besides, a breastplate sent them by Amasis. And yet we know that there was not at that time any city so desirous of honor, or such an enemy to tyrants, as Sparta. For what breastplate or cup was the cause of their driving the Cypselidae out of Corinth and Ambracia, Lygdamis out of Naxos, the children of Pisistratus out of Athens, Aeschines out of Sicyon, Symmachus out of Thasus, Aulis out of Phocis, and Aristogenes out of Miletus; and of their overturning the domineering powers of Thessaly, pulling down Aristomedes and Angelus by the help of King Leotychides? — which facts are elsewhere more largely described. Now, if Herodotus says true, they were in the highest degree guilty both of malice and folly, when, denying a most honorable and most just cause of their expedition, they confessed that in remembrance of a former injury, and too highly valuing an inconsiderable matter, they invaded a miserable and afflicted people.
21. ἐν δὲ τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν βίβλων διηγούμενος τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων ἐπὶ Πολυκράτη τὸν τύραννον στρατείαν αὐτοὺς μὲν οἴεσθαί φησι καὶ λέγειν Σαμίους, ὡς χάριν ἐκτίνοντες αὐτοῖς τῆς ἐπὶ Μεσσηνίους βοηθείας στρατεύσειαν, τούς τε φεύγοντας κατάγοντες τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ τῷ τυράννῳ πολεμοῦντες· ἀρνεῖσθαι δὲ τὴν αἰτίαν ταύτην Λακεδαιμονίους καὶ λέγειν, ὡς οὐ βοηθοῦντες οὐδʼ ἐλευθεροῦντες, ἀλλὰ τιμωρούμενοι Σαμίους στρατεύσαιντο, κρατῆρά τινα πεμπόμενον Κροίσῳ παρʼ αὐτῶν καὶ θώρακα πάλιν παρʼ Ἀμάσιδος κομιζόμενον αὐτοῖς ἀφελομένους. καίτοι πόλιν ἐν τοῖς τότε χρόνοις οὔτε φιλότιμον οὕτως οὔτε μισοτύραννον ἴσμεν ὡς τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων γενομένην· ποίου γὰρ ἕνεκα θώρακος ἢ τίνος κρατῆρος ἑτέρου Κυψελίδας μὲν ἐξέβαλον ἐκ Κορίνθου καὶ Ἀμπρακίας ἐκ δὲ Νάξου Λύγδαμιν ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν δὲ τοὺς Πεισιστράτου παῖδας ἐκ δὲ Σικυῶνος Αἰσχίνην ἐκ Θάσου δὲ Σύμμαχον ἐκ δὲ Φωκέων Αὖλιν ἐκ Μιλήτου δʼ Ἀριστογένη, τὴν δʼ ἐν Θετταλοῖς δυναστείαν ἔπαυσαν, Ἀριστομήδη καὶ Ἄγγελον καταλύσαντες διὰ Λεωτυχίδου τοῦ βασιλέως; περὶ ὧν ἐν ἄλλοις ἀκριβέστερον γέγραπται· κατὰ δʼ Ἡρόδοτον οὔτε κακίας οὔτʼ ἀβελτερίας ὑπερβολὴν λελοίπασιν, εἰ τὴν καλλίστην καὶ δικαιοτάτην τῆς στρατείας ἀρνούμενοι πρόφασιν ὡμολόγουν διὰ μνησικακίαν καὶ μικρολογίαν ἐπιτίθεσθαι δυστυχοῦσιν ἀνθρώποις καὶ κακῶς πράττουσιν.
22. Now perhaps he gave the Lacedaemonians this stroke, as directly falling under his pen; but the city of Corinth, which was wholly out of the course of his story, he has dragged in — going out of his way (as they say) to seize upon it — and has bespattered it with a most filthy crime and most shameful calumny. “The Corinthians,” says he, “studiously forwarded this expedition of the Lacedaemonians to Samos, as having themselves also been formerly affronted by the Samians. The matter was this. Periander tyrant of Corinth sent three hundred boys, sons to the principal men of Corcyra, to King Alyattes, to be gelt. These, going ashore in the island of Samos, were by the Samians taught to sit as suppliants in the temple of Diana, where they preserved them, setting before them for their food sesame mixed with honey.” This our author calls an affront put by the Samians on the Corinthians, who therefore instigated the Lacedaemonians against them, to wit, because the Samians had saved three hundred children of the Greeks from being unmanned. By attributing this villany to the Corinthians, he makes the city more wicked than the tyrant. He indeed was revenging himself on those of Corcyra who had slain his son; but what had the Corinthians suffered, that they should punish the Samians for putting an obstacle to so great a cruelty and wickedness? — and this, after three generations, reviving the memory of an old quarrel for the sake of that tyranny, which they found so grievous and intolerable that they are still endlessly abolishing all the monuments and marks of it, though long since extinct. Such then was the injury done by the Samians to the Corinthians. Now what a kind of punishment was it the Corinthians would have inflicted on them? Had they been indeed angry with the Samians, they should not have incited the Lacedaemonians, but rather diverted them from their war against Polycrates, that the Samians might not by the tyrant’s overthrow recover liberty, and be feed from their slavery. But (what is most to be observed) why were the Corinthians so offended with the Samians, that desired indeed but were not able to save the Corcyraeans’ children, and yet were not displeased with the Cnidians, who both preserved them and restored them to their friends? Nor indeed have the Corcyraeans any great esteem for the Samians on this account; but of the Cnidians they preserve a grateful memory, having granted them several honors and privileges, and made decrees in their favor. For these, sailing to Samos, drove away Periander’s guards from the temple, and taking the children aboard their ships, carried them safe to Corcyra; as it is recorded by Antenor the Cretan, and by Dionysius the Chalcidian in his foundations. Now that the Spartans undertook not this war on any design of punishing the Samians, but to save them by delivering them from the tyrant, we have the testimony of the Samians themselves. For they affirm that there is in Samos a monument erected at the public charge, and honors there done to Archias a Spartan, who fell fighting valiantly in that quarrel; for which cause also his posterity still keep a familiar and friendly correspondence with the Samians, as Herodotus himself witnesses.
22. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ Λακεδαιμονίους μὲν ἁμωσγέπως ὑποπεσόντας αὐτοῦ τῷ γραφείῳ προσέχρωσε τὴν δὲ Κορινθίων πόλιν, ἐκτὸς δρόμου κατὰ τοῦτον οὖσαν τὸν τόπον, ὅμως προσπεριλαβὼν ὁδοῦ, φασί, πάρεργον ἀνέπλησεν αἰτίας δεινῆς καὶ μοχθηροτάτης διαβολῆς. συνεπελάβοντο γάρ φησὶ τοῦ στρατεύματος τοῦ ἐπὶ Σάμον ὥστε γενέσθαι καὶ Κορίνθιοι προθύμως, ὑβρίσματος εἰς αὐτοὺς ὑπὸ Σαμίων πρότερον ὑπάρξαντος. ἦν δὲ τοιοῦτο· Κερκυραίων παῖδας τριακοσίους τῶν πρώτων Περίανδρος ὁ Κορίνθου τύραννος; ἐπʼ ἐκτομῇ παρʼ Ἀλυάττην ἔπεμπε· τούτους ἀποβάντας εἰς τὴν νῆσον οἱ Σάμιοι διδάξαντες ἐν ἱερῷ Ἀρτέμιδος ἱκέτας καθίζεσθαι καὶ τρωκτὰ προτιθέντες αὐτοῖς ὁσημέραι σησάμου καὶ μέλιτος περιεποίησαν τοῦθʼ ὕβρισμα Σαμίων εἰς Κορινθίους ὁ συγγραφεὺς προσαγορεύει καὶ διὰ τοῦτό φησι συμπαροξῦναι Λακεδαιμονίους κατʼ αὐτῶν ἔτεσιν οὐκ ὀλίγοις ὕστερον, ἔγκλημα ποιησαμένους, ὅτι τριακοσίους παῖδας Ἑλλήνων ἐφύλαξαν ἄνδρας. ὁ δὲ τοῦτο Κορινθίοις προστριβόμενος τοὔνειδος ἀποφαίνει τοῦ τυράννου μοχθηροτέραν τὴν πόλιν· ἐκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ Κερκυραίους ἀνελόντας ἠμύνατο, Κορίνθιοι δὲ τί παθόντες ἐτιμωροῦντο Σαμίους ἐμποδὼν στάντας ὠμότητι καὶ παρανομίᾳ τοσαύτῃ, καὶ ταῦτα μετὰ τρεῖς γενεὰς ὀργὴν καὶ μνησικακίαν ἀναφέροντες ὑπὲρ τυραννίδος, ἧς καταλυθείσης πᾶν τε μνῆμα καὶ πᾶν ἴχνος ἐξαλείφοντες καὶ ἀφανίζοντες οὐκ ἐπαύοντο, χαλεπῆς καὶ βαρείας αὐτοῖς γενομένης; ἀλλὰ δὴ τὸ μὲν ὕβρισμα τοιοῦτον ἦν τὸ Σαμίων εἰς Κορινθίους· τὸ δὲ τιμώρημα ποῖόν τι τὸ Κορινθίων εἰς Σαμίους; εἰ γὰρ ὄντως ὠργίζοντο Σαμίοις, οὐ παροξύνειν, ἀποτρέπειν δὲ μᾶλλον αὐτοῖς ἦν προσῆκον Λακεδαιμονίους ἐπὶ Πολυκράτη στρατευομένους, ὅπως μὴ τοῦ τυράννου καταλυθέντος ἐλεύθεροι Σάμιοι γένοιντο καὶ παύσαιντο δουλεύοντες. ὃ δὲ μέγιστὸν ἐστι, τί δήποτε Κορίνθιοι Σαμίοις μὲν ὠργίζοντο βουληθεῖσι σῷσαι καὶ μὴ δυνηθεῖσι τοὺς Κερκυραίων παῖδας, Κνιδίοις δὲ τοῖς σῴσασι καὶ ἀποδοῦσιν οὐκ ἐνεκάλουν; καίτοι Κερκυραῖοι Σαμίων μὲν ἐπὶ τούτῳ λόγον οὐ πολὺν ἔχουσι, Κνιδίων δὲ μέμνηνται καὶ Κνιδίοις εἰσὶ τιμαὶ καὶ ἀτέλειαι καὶ ψηφίσματα παρʼ αὐτοῖς· οὗτοι γὰρ ἐπιπλεύσαντες ἐξήλασαν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοὺς Περιάνδρου φύλακας, αὐτοὶ δʼ ἀναλαβόντες τοὺς παῖδας εἰς Κέρκυραν διεκόμισαν, ὡς Ἀντήνωρ ἐν τοῖς Κρητικοῖς ἱστόρηκε καὶ Διονύσιος ὁ Χαλκιδεὺς ἐν ταῖς Κτίσεσιν. ὅτι δʼ οὐ τιμωρούμενοι Σαμίους ἀλλʼ ἐλευθεροῦντες ἀπὸ τοῦ τυράννου καὶ σῴζοντες ἐστράτευσαν οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, Σαμίοις αὐτοῖς ἔστι χρήσασθαι μάρτυσιν. Ἀρχίᾳ γὰρ ἀνδρὶ Σπαρτιάτῃ λαμπρῶς ἀγωνισαμένῳ τότε καὶ πεσόντι τάφον εἶναι δημοσίᾳ κατεσκευασμένον ἐν Σάμῳ καὶ τιμώμενον ὑπʼ αὐτῶν λέγουσι· διὸ καὶ τοὺς ἀπογόνους τἀνδρὸς ἀεὶ διατελεῖν Σαμίοις οἰκείως καὶ φιλανθρώπως προσφερομένους, ὡς αὐτὸς Ἡρόδοτος ταῦτα γοῦν ἀπομεμαρτύρηκεν.
23. In his Fifth Book, he says, that Clisthenes, one of the best and noblest men in Athens, persuaded the priestess Pythia to be a false prophetess, and always to exhort the Lacedaemonians to free Athens from the tyrants; calumniating this most excellent and just action by the imputation of so great a wickedness and imposture, and taking from Apollo the credit of that true and good prophecy, beseeming even Themis herself, who is also said to have joined with him. He says farther, that Isagoras prostituted his wife to Cleomenes, who came to her. Then, as his manner is, to gain credit by mixing some praises with his reproaches, he says: Isagoras the son of Tisander was of a noble family, but I cannot tell the original of it; his kinsmen, however, sacrifice to the Carian Jupiter. O this pleasant and cunning scoffer of a writer, who thus disgracefully sends Isagoras to the Carians, as it were to the ravens. As for Aristogiton, he puts him not forth at the back door, but thrusts him directly out of the gate into Phoenicia, saying that he had his original from the Gephyraeans, and that the Gephyraeans were not, as some think, Euboeans or Eretrians, but Phoenicians, as himself has learned by report. And since he cannot altogether take from the Lacedaemonians the glory of having delivered the Athenians from the tyrants, he endeavors to cloud and disgrace that most honorable act by as foul a passion. For he says, they presently repented of it, as not having done well, in that they had been induced by spurious and deceitful oracles to drive the tyrants, who were their allies and had promised to put Athens into their hands, out of their country, and had restored the city to an ungrateful people. He adds, that they were about to send for Hippias from Sigeum, and bring him back to Athens; but that they were opposed by the Corinthians, Sosicles telling them how much the city of Corinth had suffered under the tyranny of Cypselus and Periander. And yet there was no outrage of Periander’s more abominable and cruel than his sending the three hundred children to be emasculated, for the delivering and saving of whom from that contumely, the Corinthians, he says, were angry and bore a grudge against the Samians, as having put an affront upon them. With so much repugnance and contradiction is that malice of his discourse filled, which on every occasion insinuates itself into his narrations.
23. ἐν δὲ τῇ πέμπτῃ, τῶν ἀρίστων Ἀθήνησι καὶ πρώτων ἀνδρῶν Κλεισθένη μὲν ἀναπεῖσαί φησι τὴν Πυθίαν ψευδόμαντιν γενέσθαι, προφέρουσαν ἀεὶ Λακεδαιμονίοις ἐλευθεροῦν ἀπὸ τῶν τυράννων τὰς Ἀθήνας· καλλίστῳ μὲν ἔργῳ καὶ δικαιοτάτῳ προσάπτων ἀσεβήματος διαβολὴν τηλικούτου καὶ ῥᾳδιουργήματος, ἀφαιρούμενος δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ μαντείαν καλὴν καὶ ἀγαθὴν καὶ τῆς λεγομένης συμπροφητεύειν Θέμιδος ἀξίαν. Ἰσαγόραν δὲ τῆς γαμετῆς ὑφίεσθαι Κλεομένει φοιτῶντι παρʼ αὐτήν· ὡς δʼ εἰώθει, παραμιγνὺς πίστεως ἕνεκα τοῖς ψόγοις ἐπαίνους τινὰς Ἰσαγόρης δέ φησὶν ʽὁ Τισάνδρου οἰκίης μὲν ἦν δοκίμου, ἀτὰρ τὰ ἀνέκαθεν οὐκ ἔχω φράσαι θύουσι δʼ οἱ συγγενεῖς αὐτοῦ Διὶ Καρίῳ εὔρυθμὸς γε καὶ πολιτικὸς ὁ μυκτὴρ τοῦ συγγραφέως, εἰς Κᾶρας ὥσπερ εἰς κόρακας ἀποδιοπομπουμένου τὸν Ἰσαγόραν. Ἀριστογείτονα μέντοι οὐκέτι κύκλῳ καὶ κακῶς, ἀλλʼ ἄντικρυς διὰ πυλῶν εἰς Φοινίκην ἐξελαύνει Γεφυραῖον γεγονέναι λέγων ἀνέκαθεν· τοὺς δὲ Γεφυραίους οὐκ ἀπʼ Εὐβοίας οὐδʼ Ἐρετριεῖς, ὥσπερ οἴονταί τινες, ἀλλὰ Φοίνικας εἶναί φησιν, αὐτὸς οὕτω πεπυσμένος. ἀφελέσθαι τοίνυν Λακεδαιμονίους μὴ δυνάμενος τὴν Ἀθηναίων ἐλευθέρωσιν ἀπὸ τῶν τυράννων αἰσχίστῳ πάθει κάλλιστον ἔργον οἷὸς τʼ ἐστὶν ἀφανίζειν καὶ καταισχύνειν· ταχὺ γὰρ μετανοῆσαι φησιν αὐτούς, ὡς οὐ ποιήσαντας ὀρθῶς, ὅτι κιβδήλοισι μαντηίοισιν ἐπαρθέντες ἄνδρας ξείνους ὄντας αὐτοῖσι καὶ ὑποσχομένους ὑποχειρίας παρέξειν τὰς Ἀθήνας ἐξήλασαν ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος τοὺς τυράννους καὶ δήμῳ ἀχαρίστῳ παρέδωκαν τὴν πόλιν. εἶτα μεταπεμψαμένους Ἱππίαν ἀπὸ Σιγείου κατάγειν εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας· ἀντιστῆναι δὲ Κορινθίους αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀποτρέψαι, Σωκλέους διελθόντος, ὅσα Κύψελος καὶ Περίανδρος κακὰ τὴν Κορινθίων πόλιν εἰργάσαντο τυραννοῦντες. καίτοι Περιάνδρου σχετλιώτερον οὐδὲν οὐδʼ ὠμότερον ἔργον ἱστορεῖται τῆς ἐκπομπῆς τῶν τριακοσίων ἐκείνων, οὓς ἐξαρπάσασι καὶ διακωλύσασι παθεῖν ταῦτα Σαμίοις ὀργίζεσθαί φησι καὶ μνησικακεῖν Κορινθίους ὥσπερ ὑβρισθέντας. τοσαύτης· ἀναπίμπλησι ταραχῆς καὶ διαφωνίας τὸ κακόηθες αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον, ἐξ ἁπάσης τῇ διηγήσει προφάσεως ὑποδυόμενον.