Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
I've been reading the histories of Herodotus lately, trying to achieve some fluency reading prose, and I have many questions for you! I will start by this last one that has puzzled me:
The discourse turns indirect suddenly after τὸν μὲν δὴ ποιέειν ταῦτα, and it continues thus through the remaining of the chapter, without any verb of saying governing it. How do you explain that?
Even though there’s no verb to introduce indirect speech, unlike in e.g. the first chapter where we have a similar stretch, the acc.&inf. marks a shift into oratio obliqua. Here we have to wait till the beginning of para.87 before hitting ενταυθα λεγεται υπο Λυδων, but I reckon the whole account has to be understood as the Lydian version. We revert to direct speech within the dialogue between Cyrus and Croesus in 87, ὁ δε ειπε. There doesn’t seem much rhyme or reason to the points at which the shifts occur, but the acc.&inf. implies that Herodotus is not necessarily endorsing the tale. But of course it is characteristically Herodotean in its morality and humanity. If only killers today recognized their victims as human beings like themselves! (The moral of the Iliad too?)
Herodotus’ account grafts Solon and Cyrus’ change of heart on to the simpler and presumably more traditional account given by Bacchylides.