The first Latin translation of the Antiquities (Books I.-XI.) was that of Lapus (or Lappus) Biragus, published at Treviso in 1480, three-quarters of a century before the first edition of the Greek text appeared. It possesses a special interest because it was based on two MSS., not as yet identified with any now’ extant, which were placed at the translator’s disposal by Pope Paul II. Ritschl argued that one of these must have belonged to the better class of MSS. now represented by A and B, since the translation contains most of the additions to the text of the editio princeps that are found in one or both of the older MSS. Lapus’ translation was reprinted, ‘with corrections,’ but also with a multitude of fresh typographical errors, at Paris in 1529, and again, as revised by Glareanus, at Basle in 1532. A fresh translation of Books I.-X. by Gelenius, based on the text of the princeps, appeared at Basle in 1549; for Book XI. he merely reprinted Lapus’ translation. Sylburg (1586) revised the translation of Gelenius and added his own version of Book XI. Aemilius Portus brought out a new translation (Lausanne, 1588); and this translation was adopted in the editions of Hudson and Reiske, and, with numerous corrections, in that of Kiessling-Prou.
An Italian translation by Francesco Venturi appeared at Venice in 1545, one year before the editio princeps. The translator names as his sources a Greek copy, very difficult to read, and a Latin translation [Lapus] full of errors. Apparently no serious use was made of the manuscript; it may well have proved to be generally inferior to Lapus’ reading. In any case, Venturi’s translation, with the exception of a few minor changes which were probably due to conjecture, presupposes the same Greek text as that of Lapus. Another Italian translation was published by M. Mastrofini, Rome, 1812-13.
A French version by G. F. le Jay (Paris, 1722) was loudly acclaimed by the admirers of the translator as representing perfection itself; but the two men who next translated the Antiquities, Bellanger and Spelman, showed that it was a servile translation of Portus’ Latin version, errors and all. The following year Bellanger brought out, anonymously, his own translation, based on Hudson’s text and the good readings of B contained in Hudson’s notes. It is a smooth, fluent translation, but often rather free and at times little more than a paraphrase. It was reprinted later under Bellanger’s own name.
In German there have been translations by J. L. Benzler (1752; reprinted 1771-72) and by G. J. Schaller and A. H. Christian (Stuttgart, 1827-50). Benzler’s version was quite free, that of Schaller (Books I.-IV.) accurate and scholarly; the part translated by Christian has not been seen by the present translator.
The only English version to appear hitherto is that of Edward Spelman, which was published with notes and dissertations at London in 1758. It is a good and, for the most part, fairly close translation of Hudson’s text (Books I.-XI.) as improved by the good readings of the Urbinas and occasional conjectural emendations. See further on p xlv.
The Greek text here presented is based on the edition of Jacoby, but departs rather frequently from his text. All significant departures are indicated in the critical notes, but not, as a rule, minor details of orthography, elision and crasis, or correc tions of obvious typographical errors that appear in his edition. Jacoby -was fairly consistent in following out the principles “which he had established with greater or less probability in two preliminary studies of Dionysian usage. But in the case of some phrases and combinations of vowels for “which he could not show that elision or crasis is normally to be expected, he vacillated in his attitude toward the MSS., sometimes following them in permitting hiatus and at other times emending; the present edition follows the MSS. (or some MS.) in all such cases. The MSS. are likewise followed in their spelling of the various forms of adjectives such as χαλκοΰς and χρνσοΰς, which appear in the contracted and the uncontracted forms with about equal frequency; Jacoby occasionally emended an uncontracted form. He adopted the late spellings έπαύσθην and ηλάσθην wherever they have the authority of any MS., and occasionally elsewhere; in the present text the Attic forms έπανθην and ήλάθην are everywhere restored.
The present editor has permitted himself the liberty of spelling a few Latin proper names in the Greek text in the manner that many an editor would have liked to spell them, but as only a few of the earlier editors ventured to do in actual practice, and then only in the case of part of the names. It is hard to believe that Dionysius would have written such forms, for example, as Φαίστυλος for Φανστυλος (compare his correct form Φαυστίνος), Λωρεντόν (in Book I.) for Λαύρεντον (the form found in Book V.; cf. Λαυρεντϊνοί and Λαυρέντιο), or Λαΰνα for Λαουϊνία in such a context as i. 59, 3 (and if he wrote the correct form here, he must have used it elsewhere).
The critical apparatus lists only the more important variants and emendations; many simple emendations made by the early editors and adopted in subsequent editions are passed over in silence. No fresh collations of the MSS. have been available; but here and there an obvious error in Jacoby’s report has been corrected or a suspicious entry queried.
The present translation is based on that of Spelman. His rendering of numerous passages, more especially in the speeches, is so spirited and so idiomatic, and often requires so few changes to make it seem thoroughly modern in tone, that it seemed desirable to use what was best of it in preparing this version for the Loeb Classical Library. If Spelman had been at his best more uniformly, a mild revision, to bring his translation into accord with the present Greek text, would have been all that was required. But the quality of his English is very uneven. He constructs a good many long, cumbersome sentences, in imitation of the Greek, shows an excessive fondness for the absolute use of the participle, and at times uses a vocabulary that seems more Latin than English. Where he thus departs from a good English style, and wherever his rendering is not sufficiently close to the Greek for the present purpose, changes have been freely made, some of them very drastic. No attempt has been made to preserve the antique flavour that characterizes Spelman’s rendering, as a whole, inasmuch as the passages which he has rendered most successfully from other points of view are usually the most modern in diction. He did not translate the fragments; they appear here in English for the first time. The notes with which Spelman accompanied his version were scholarly and useful in their day, but have not the same interest now; accordingly, an entirely new set of notes has been prepared for this edition.
For the convenience of the reader parallel passages from Livy have been indicated in the notes, beginning with i. 64.