The translation of Books 41–5 is based on John Briscoe’s 1986 Teubner edition. There is only one manuscript for these books. It was written in the fifth century, but there were already mistakes in the text. Furthermore, the manuscript suffered further, physical damage before the first printed edition appeared in 1531. The first editor, Simon Grynaeus, and many others have done their best to make sense of the text where there is a gap (known as a lacuna), where it is clearly spurious, or where the script is hard to read. Briscoe elected to produce a conservative text, reproducing readings of the manuscript (known as V) even where he believed them corrupt, rather than emending it speculatively. For the purpose of preparing a coherent translation, I tried to use the simplest conjecture possible and to give some context in the explanatory notes when difficulties in the text are consequential for our understanding of what Livy wrote. For the longer gaps in the manuscript I have supplied some content from other sources to maintain the flow of the narrative. I occasionally consulted the facsimile edition of V, but the reader should be aware that I was working as a translator, not an editor, and that simplicity, rather than editorial expertise, dictated my choices. In some cases, I have followed Briscoe in simply marking a lacuna with the conventional punctuation <…>. In a very few places, where Briscoe has marked the text as spurious with an obelus (†), I have also followed him and not attempted a translation. The Appendix is based on the apparatus in Briscoe’s edition, and readers interested in greater detail should consult it.
The translation of the Periochae is based on Paul Jal’s 1984 Budé and follows it almost without exception, including the occasional conjecture he supplies for his translation.
Every translation exists on a continuum between the literal and the free; this one errs in both directions at different points. My highest priority was to reproduce in English Livy’s gift for narrative because I regard his ability to captivate his reader as the most distinctive attribute of his style. Livy’s writing is characterized above all by variety; pace, diction, tone are all attuned to the shifts in subject matter. The far more plodding quality of the Periochae, which were compiled by an unknown epitomator (who gives no sign of being a master of Latin prose!), may be the easiest way to gain some sense of the contrasting vibrancy of Livy’s Latin in Books 41–5.
These five books have not received the scholarly attention they deserve. In particular, they lack a modern commentary. I consulted the Weissenborn–Müller long-authoritative but now outdated edition, but often found that other translations were more helpful interpretations of Livy’s meaning. In many ways the present translation is in a conversation with the corresponding volumes of the Loeb, translated by Evan Sage and A. C. Schlesinger, and the Revd Canon Roberts’ Everyman edition. The Loeb has the advantage of showing which text is being translated; the Everyman is a model of lucid, elegant English. As a translator I miss the scholar’s luxury of the footnote; it is impossible to document my debt to these works.
The translation of the Periochae is primarily intended to allow more access to the full scope of Livy’s conception of the Romans’ history. The explanatory notes are minimal; truly appropriate annotation would require a full scholarly commentary. (And with the exception of these notes, the ancillary material is intended primarily for use with the translation of Books 41–5.)
It is a pleasure to acknowledge all the people who have helped me. This translation would neither have been undertaken nor completed without the efforts and support of Eve Adler, David Levene, Bill Nelson, Peggy Nelson, and Tony Woodman. I owe special thanks to David and Tony for their constant willingness to respond to the multifarious queries of a novice translator. Michael Crawford, Noel Lenski, Stephen Oakley, and Robert Parker read portions at various stages. The translation is the better for their input, though doubtless still not free from error. Josh Drake did the initial work on the maps, Elizabeth Stratford put exceptional care into the preparation of the manuscript for publication. The generosity of Judy DeLottie of the University of Connecticut Library was above and beyond the call of duty. Institutional support came from the Faculty Professional Development Fund of Middlebury College and from Fondation Hardt. There is no way to thank sufficiently the three dedicated readers who pored over every word, often more than once: Justin Bennett, John Briscoe, and Christopher Pelling. Last and most, I thank Judith Luna for providing everything one could want or need from an editor.