DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.73802#0058
TRANSLATOR'S PREFATORY NOTE
In such a work as Gentili's De Jure Belli the content is of more importance than the
form. It has therefore seemed best to give as literal a translation as is consistent with
decent English. The writer's meaning is usually clear, but there are obscure passages,
some of which may be due to corruption of the text. In such cases the translator has pre-
ferred to attempt a literal rendering, rather than resort to the expedients of the Italian
Fiorini, who either omits such passages bodily or gives a loose paraphrase, often one which
cannot be made to correspond with the original Latin.
The punctuation of Gentili is very different from that which is in use to-day and
sometimes makes his meaning less obvious than it otherwise might have been, but it has
not seemed best to try to modernize his text in that regard. An honest attempt has been
made to verify his marginal references, but without complete success, although many
additions and corrections have been made. The method of citation in his day was so loose
that the identification of some of the passages would call for more expenditure of time than
could reasonably be demanded of any editor or translator. An extreme instance is 'Euripides,
Iphigenia, Hecuba, Andromache, Medea, Electra, Bacchae, Supplices.'
Hardly less hopeless, unless a proper name or some other accidental circumstance
gives a clue, are such citations as 'Tacitus, Annals I', or 'Cicero, Cluent.', especially since
Gentili does not always quote exactly and sometimes gives so loose a paraphrase that no
catchword can be found. His citations are sometimes wrong and sometimes have been
misinterpreted by later editors. On page 104 of the Text, for example, he cites 'Ovid,
Fasti V'. To this, 8 was added as the line number, but the correct reference is Fasti IV,
922 and 925; just how the changes came about it is difficult to imagine. Again, 'Rom.' is
expanded as Pontanus Romanus, when it actually refers to the Biblical Epistle to the
Romans. The Roman grammarian Charisius is twice referred to in the usual way, but in a
third citation he masquerades as 'Sosip.'; his full name was Flavius Sosipater Charisius.
Running down such citations is time-consuming and sometimes impossible.
Professor Joseph H. Drake, of the University of Michigan, read all the galley-proofs
and gave me valuable help on legal matters and legal terminology; Judge John Marshall
Gest, of the Orphans' Court of Philadelphia, spent a great deal of time and labour on
the references to legal writers, and verified or corrected a large number of them; Dr.
Josiah H. Penniman, Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, helped me with some
obscure Biblical citations. None of these gentlemen, however, is in any way responsible
for any errors in the translation or in the notes.
JOHN C. ROLFE.
Philadelphia, Pa.
May, 1931.
52^
In such a work as Gentili's De Jure Belli the content is of more importance than the
form. It has therefore seemed best to give as literal a translation as is consistent with
decent English. The writer's meaning is usually clear, but there are obscure passages,
some of which may be due to corruption of the text. In such cases the translator has pre-
ferred to attempt a literal rendering, rather than resort to the expedients of the Italian
Fiorini, who either omits such passages bodily or gives a loose paraphrase, often one which
cannot be made to correspond with the original Latin.
The punctuation of Gentili is very different from that which is in use to-day and
sometimes makes his meaning less obvious than it otherwise might have been, but it has
not seemed best to try to modernize his text in that regard. An honest attempt has been
made to verify his marginal references, but without complete success, although many
additions and corrections have been made. The method of citation in his day was so loose
that the identification of some of the passages would call for more expenditure of time than
could reasonably be demanded of any editor or translator. An extreme instance is 'Euripides,
Iphigenia, Hecuba, Andromache, Medea, Electra, Bacchae, Supplices.'
Hardly less hopeless, unless a proper name or some other accidental circumstance
gives a clue, are such citations as 'Tacitus, Annals I', or 'Cicero, Cluent.', especially since
Gentili does not always quote exactly and sometimes gives so loose a paraphrase that no
catchword can be found. His citations are sometimes wrong and sometimes have been
misinterpreted by later editors. On page 104 of the Text, for example, he cites 'Ovid,
Fasti V'. To this, 8 was added as the line number, but the correct reference is Fasti IV,
922 and 925; just how the changes came about it is difficult to imagine. Again, 'Rom.' is
expanded as Pontanus Romanus, when it actually refers to the Biblical Epistle to the
Romans. The Roman grammarian Charisius is twice referred to in the usual way, but in a
third citation he masquerades as 'Sosip.'; his full name was Flavius Sosipater Charisius.
Running down such citations is time-consuming and sometimes impossible.
Professor Joseph H. Drake, of the University of Michigan, read all the galley-proofs
and gave me valuable help on legal matters and legal terminology; Judge John Marshall
Gest, of the Orphans' Court of Philadelphia, spent a great deal of time and labour on
the references to legal writers, and verified or corrected a large number of them; Dr.
Josiah H. Penniman, Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, helped me with some
obscure Biblical citations. None of these gentlemen, however, is in any way responsible
for any errors in the translation or in the notes.
JOHN C. ROLFE.
Philadelphia, Pa.
May, 1931.
52^