Λυδοὶ δὲ νόμοισι μὲν παραπλησίοισι χρέωνται καὶ Ἕλληνές (a)> , χωρὶς ἢ ὅτι τὰ θήλεα τέκνα καταπορνεύουσι, πρῶτοι δὲ ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν νόμισμα χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου κοψάμενοι ἐχρήσαντο, πρῶτοι δὲ καὶ κάπηλοι ἐγένοντο. [2] φασὶ δὲ αὐτοὶ Λυδοὶ καὶ τὰς παιγνίας τὰς νῦν σφίσι τε καὶ Ἕλλησι κατεστεώσας ἑωυτῶν ἐξεύρημα γενέσθαι: ἅμα δὲ ταύτας τε ἐξευρεθῆναι παρὰ σφίσι λέγουσι καὶ Τυρσηνίην ἀποικίσαι, ὧδε περὶ αὐτῶν λέγοντες. [3] ἐπὶ Ἄτυος τοῦ Μάνεω βασιλέος σιτοδείην ἰσχυρὴν ἀνὰ τὴν Λυδίην πᾶσαν γενέσθαι, καὶ τοὺς Λυδοὺς τέως μὲν διάγειν λιπαρέοντας, μετὰ δὲ ὡς οὐ παύεσθαι, ἄκεα δίζησθαι, ἄλλον δὲ ἄλλο ἐπιμηχανᾶσθαι αὐτῶν. ἐξευρεθῆναι δὴ ὦν τότε καὶ τῶν κύβων καὶ τῶν ἀστραγάλων καὶ τῆς σφαίρης καὶ τῶν ἀλλέων πασέων παιγνιέων τὰ εἴδεα, πλὴν πεσσῶν τούτων γὰρ ὦν τὴν ἐξεύρεσιν οὐκ οἰκηιοῦνται Λυδοί. [4] ποιέειν δὲ ὧδε πρὸς τὸν λιμὸν ἐξευρόντας, τὴν μὲν ἑτέρην τῶν ἡμερέων παίζειν πᾶσαν, ἵνα δὴ μὴ ζητέοιεν σιτία, τὴν δὲ ἑτέρην σιτέεσθαι παυομένους τῶν παιγνιέων. τοιούτῳ τρόπῳ > διάγειν (b) > ἐπ᾽ ἔτεα δυῶν δέοντα εἴκοσι. [5] ἐπείτε δὲ οὐκ ἀνιέναι τὸ κακὸν ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι ἐπὶ μᾶλλον βιάζεσθαι οὕτω δὴ τὸν βασιλέα αὐτῶν δύο μοίρας διελόντα Λυδῶν πάντων κληρῶσαι τὴν μὲν ἐπὶ μόνῃ τὴν δὲ ἐπὶ ἐξόδῳ ἐκ τῆς χώρης, καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν τῇ μένειν αὐτοῦ λαγχανούσῃ τῶν μοιρέων ἑωυτὸν τὸν βασιλέα προστάσσειν, ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ ἀπαλλασσομένῃ τὸν ἑωυτοῦ παῖδα, τῷ οὔνομα εἶναι Τυρσηνόν. [6] λαχόντας δὲ αὐτῶν τοὺς ἑτέρους ἐξιέναι ἐκ τῆς χώρης καταβῆναι ἐς Σμύρνην καὶ μηχανήσασθαι πλοῖα, ἐς τὰ ἐσθεμένους τὰ πάντα ὅσα σφι ἦν χρηστὰ ἐπίπλοα, > ἀποπλέειν (b) > κατὰ βίου τε καὶ γῆς ζήτησιν, ἐς ὃ ἔθνεα πολλὰ παραμειψαμένους ἀπικέσθαι ἐς Ὀμβρικούς, ἔνθα σφέας ἐνιδρύσασθαι πόλιας καὶ οἰκέειν τὸ μέχρι τοῦδε. [7] ἀντὶ δὲ Λυδῶν μετονομασθῆναι αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τοῦ βασιλέος τοῦ παιδός, ὅς σφεας ἀνήγαγε, > ἐπὶ τούτου τὴν ἐπωνυμίην ποιευμένους ὀνομασθῆναι Τυρσηνούς. (c)
Λυδοὶ μὲν δὴ ὑπὸ Πέρσῃσι ἐδεδούλωντο.
(a)
Λυδοὶ δὲ νόμοισι μὲν παραπλησίοισι χρέωνται καὶ Ἕλληνές
It has surprised me the order of the words. Why is the subject splitted, being Ἕλληνές at the end of the sentence? I was expecting either that Ἕλληνές should be an accussative, in order to be the object of παραπλησίοισι, or either that the subject should be not splitted.
(b)
τοιούτῳ τρόπῳ διάγειν
Why is this infinitive in the present instead of in the aorist? Since this infinitive is in an indirect speach that talks about actions in the past, I was expecting an aorist infinitive. Indeed, all the other infinitives that are in this indirect speech are in the past.
I’ve found a similar situation here:
ἀποπλέειν κατὰ βίου τε καὶ γῆς ζήτησιν
So I wonder if, when infinitive is in the present inside an indirect speech that talks about something in the past, it works like an imperfect in a direct speech. Here, for example, if the verb were in a direct speech, I’d expect an inchoative imperfect. And in the previous example, I’d also expect an imperfect if it were in a direct speech, in this case to achieve a durative aspect. Are you agree with this? Is the infinitive present used inside indirect past speech to achieve the aspects of an imperfect?
(c)
Λυδοὶ μὲν δὴ ὑπὸ Πέρσῃσι ἐδεδούλωντο
At this point in the book (chapter 94), Herodotus ends the first section of the first book, which he has dedicated enterely to the lidians, until they were conquered by the persians. I think that here is a good example of how the pluperfect can be used to make a recapitulation. Are you agree with this?