No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Some uncertainty has always surrounded the translation of Thucydides made by Laurentius Valla in 1452 at the desire of the Humanist Pope, Nicolas V., because its source was unknown. It is recognized that the translation is of unequal value, because, excellent Latinist as Valla was, he was less at home in Greek, and often fails, even when the Greek is not particularly difficult; but his text, whatever its origin and history, is a primary authority. In the Oxford text of Thucydides, edited by Principal Stuart Jones, I have counted sixteen places for which Valla is the only authority, and there are a few more which might perhaps well be added. The view both of the Principal and of Hude is that Valla's readings in these places were due to his own ingenuity.
page 11 note 1 V. 110, for instance.
page 11 note 2 See Valla's Preface.
page 12 note 1 See Widmann in Bursian, 1919, 178, pp. 228 to 235.
page 12 note 2 Cordewener, E. J. L. L. E.: ‘De Thucydidis Vaticani codicis quod ad libros septimum et octauum attinet praestantia cum Vallae Historia Belli Peloponnesiaci interpretatione collata. Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1897.’ Hude criticizes him in his Preface to Thuc., Vol. IIGoogle Scholar .
page 13 note 1 But his translation does not always support the new readings of the papyrus, even when they are good (for instance, the papyrus probably omitted ἔτι in line 691, VII. 72. 3, where Valla had ‘quod diceret plures adhuc sibi utiles superesse’), or where they are less good, πιβουλ, VII. 63. I, 1. 544.
Nor does Valla always follow the papyrus hen it agrees with B, a combination which Grenfell and Hunt regard as having very high authority. Thus he does not follow them in the good reading ντ[ινα]υπηγ[σαι VII. 62. 3; P. 1. 430; or in [κ Nαυπκτο]υ (VII. 57. 8 P.I. 175, doubtfully good).
But perhaps there is an exception in VII., 57. 11, where the MSS., except B, give Σικελιωτν τ πλον, but B gives Σικελν. Here Valla's rendering is ‘plerique Siculorum.’ The papyrus possibly had Σικελν.
page 14 note 1 Like the MS. of Herodotus, which Hude, Pref. to his text, p. vi, says was missing from the Vatican Library from 1870 till 1921.