In his verses concerning the cathedral library at York, the eighth-century writer Alcuin alludes to the work of ‘Pompeius’ as among its literary treasures. The work was almost certainly a reference to the epitome produced by Justin.[1] Now, in the twenty-first century, Justin’s Epitome of Pompeius Trogus’ Philippic History has found a place in the Loeb Classical Library, again alongside other ‘historici veteres’ (to borrow Alcuin’s phrase). The appearance of the ‘Loeb Justin’ makes a useful, and long-overdue, addition to the series.
Trogus’ work is, of course, lost. Written during the Augustan age, Trogus’ Philippic History followed writers such as Diodorus Siculus, Nicolaus of Damascus, and others who produced long universal histories that covered the period from the ancient monarchies of the east to the Roman dominated Mediterranean of the time in which they wrote. Yet unlike the Greek writers Diodorus and Nicolaus, Trogus’ Latin work found epitomators in antiquity, and at some point, between the second and fourth century A.D., the obscure writer Justin produced an epitome or ‘anthology’ of choice passages from Trogus which he felt may give pleasure or moral instruction to his readers.
The two volumes under consideration provide a Latin text and English translation not only of the 44 books of Justin’s work, but also the so-called ‘Prologues’ of Pompeius Trogus’ Philippic History, which accompany the text of the epitome in classes π and τ of the manuscript tradition. The volumes under review are the product of a collaboration between John Yardley and Dexter Hoyos, with the former supplying the translation, and the latter the introduction and notes. The Latin text upon which the translation is based is Otto Seel’s revised Teubner edition ‘adjusted on an eclectic basis in light of recent scholarship’. Although the volume does not have an apparatus criticus, deviations from Seel’s text, or alternative readings, are offered in the notes which accompany the text and translation.
Appropriately for a work such as Justin’s Epitome, the introduction considers both the Epitome itself and the work upon which it is derived. The vexed question of the dating of the Epitome is left open, although a late-second or early third-century date is privileged over later dates. Beyond the question of dating, the introduction offers an informative and stimulating discussion on a range of issues, ranging from Justin’s authorial interventions, to the moralising agenda of Trogus’ work, and to Trogus’ attitude towards Rome. As such, the introduction addresses the sorts of questions a student (or scholar) with a historiographical or historical bent may have when approaching the text for the first time. Moreover, the approaches offered here show how a balance may be struck between analysing the text we have (Justin’s Epitome) as well as recovering something of the text we do not (the Philippic History).
The notes that accompany the translation are primarily of an historical nature, which is appropriate for a work ostensibly so focussed on kings and battles. Perhaps the most useful feature of the notes are the frequent cross-references to other sections of Justin’s Epitome, as well as to parallel accounts preserved in other ancient authors. Occasionally, the notes range beyond the ancient world, as when Hoyos draws the reader’s attention to Corneille’s 1651 tragedy Nicomède being based on the coup of Nicomedes II narrated by Justin at 34.4.1-5 (2.168 n. 9).
As would be expected from a veteran translator of Latin prose, Yardley’s translation is more than fit for purpose. Indeed, this is not the first time Yardley has tackled Justin, having previously produced a full translation of the work,[2] as well as translations of Books 11-12 and 13-15 for the Clarendon Ancient History Series, which have been reproduced in this edition.[3] Comparison of Yardley’s earlier attempt at translating the whole work with this edition perhaps reveals the translator’s slightly different priorities. At any rate, the present translation shows a tendency towards a slightly greater fidelity to the structure of the Latin. Happily, this has not been at the expense of the readability, characteristic of his earlier effort. For example, take this rendering of a passage from Book 2 (2.9.8-9):
Igitur Athenienses audito Darii adventu auxilium a Lacedaemoniis, socia tum civitate, petiverunt, quos ubi viderunt quadridui teneri religione, non exspectato auxilio instructis decem milibus civium et Plataeensibus auxiliaribus mille adversus sexcenta milia hostium in campis Marathoniis in proelium egrediuntur.
In 1994, Yardley translated it as:
When the Athenians heard that Darius was coming, they sought assistance from the Spartans, with whom, at that time, they had an alliance; but they could see that the latter would be delayed for four days by religious observances, so they did not wait for Spartan aid. Instead, they drew up 10,000 citizens and a thousand Plataean auxiliaries and marched into battle against 600,000 of the enemy on the plains of Marathon.
In the Loeb, Yardley translates:
So the Athenians on hearing of Darius’ approach sought help from the Spartans, then an allied state, but when they saw that they would be delayed four days by religious observances, they did not want to wait for help and marshalling then thousand citizens and a thousand Plataean auxiliaries went forth into battle against six hundred thousand of the enemy on the plains of Marathon.
My one criticism of these volumes—not the fault of the authors—is the quality of its typesetting. Although it may be unfair to hold any book to an unobtainable state of perfection, one expects more from Harvard University Press. Volume I in particular falls below the usually high standard of the series, with such typos as ‘shed son’ (for ‘sheds on’, I.77), ‘wass’ (for ‘was’, I.103), but Volume 2 is not immune from missing punctuation marks or intrusive dots (e.g. II.168). It is true that such errors are hardly going to lead a reader astray, but these infelicities do diminish the lustre of these volumes. If there is a saving grace, most—if not all—of these typographical infelicities are confined to the English translation, rather than the Latin text.
This criticism aside, Yardley and Hoyos have done anglophone readers a great service in the production of this Loeb volume. By presenting an accessible Latin text and English translation, Justin’s Epitome of Pompeius Trogus will doubtless find new readers—readers, I may add, beyond those scholars interested in the campaigns of Alexander the Great and the Diadochi. I suspect there is still much more to say about this fascinating text and its reception in the Middle Ages.
Notes
[1] Quidquid et Althelmus docuit, quid Beda magister,
Quae Victorinus scripsere Boetius atque,
Historici veteres, Pompeius, Plinius, ipse
Acer Aristoteles, rhetor quoque Tullius ingens.
[2] Reviewed in BMCR 1995.09.26
[3] Reviewed in BMCR 1999.05.12 and BMCR 2013.04.08.