![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla (1406–1457) wrote his Annotationes Novi Testamenti in Rome and Naples in the 1440s and 1450s. According to Valla’s own writings, the aim of this work was to cleanse the Latin Bible of textual corruptions and to clarify obscurities and inaccuracies. He questioned the common belief that the Latin Bible was written by Jerome. This article compares Valla’s reflections on his own project with those of two other fifteenth-century humanists who engaged in biblical scholarship: Giannozzo Manetti (1396–1459) and Aurelio Lippi Brandolini (1454?–1497). Compared to them, Valla’s aim was modest: Manetti and Brandolini never questioned Jerome’s authorship, and yet they competed directly with the Church Father by providing an alternative to the Latin Bible. On the other hand, Valla’s aim may be considered more ambitious, because he directly challenged the Latin Bible as the standard translation of his time.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 ‘Quid igitur? Sum ne ego eius architectus? Utinam essem vel structor! (…) Equidem ipse nihil operis novi condo, sed velut huius urbis templi sarcta tecta prestare pro me virili conatus sum, quod nisi prestetur templum ipsum perpluat necesse est, nec in eo res divina fieri commode possit.’ Lorenzo Valla, Praefatio. Latin text quoted from Celenza, “Valla’s Radical Philology,” 385. Translation: ibid., 382. For Valla’s Praefatio and its editions, see below, footnote 8.
2 I use ‘Latin Bible’ rather than ‘Vulgate’ to refer to the Latin version that was in common use in the fifteenth century, since ‘Vulgate’ is anachronistic for this period. For the use of the term vulgata, see Linde, How to Correct, 13–23.
3 For Jerome’s revision of the Latin New Testament, see Kamesar, “Jerome,” especially 659–60. According to Jerome’s own comments, he did not make a new Latin translation, but only revised the existing one, as Valla was well aware. See below, footnote 17.
4 The text that was published by Erasmus is included in the edition of Valla’s collected works: Lorenzo Valla, Opera omnia, vol. 1, 803–95. An earlier redaction was published in 1970: Valla, Collatio Novi Testamenti. In the pages that follow, I refer only to Valla’s later redaction of the Annotationes, i.e. the text in the Opera omnia. The differences between the two redactions do not extend to Valla’s approach to Jerome and the status of the Latin Bible.
5 E.g. ‘The annotations certainly illuminate the exciting beginnings of the philological side of New Testament criticism, and in so doing, they may help shed light on the important, and not wholly well studied, fifteenth-century backdrop to the sixteenth-century religious tumult.’ Celenza, “Renaissance Humanism,” 50. Jerry Bentley described Valla’s biblical scholarship as part of a ‘paradigm shift’ in the history of biblical philology. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ, 6–7.
6 For the view that Valla was a transgressive scholar whose notes had theological relevance, see Morisi, “Due redazioni”; Trinkaus, In Our Image, 571–8; Chomarat, “Les Annotations de Valla.” For the opposing view – that Valla’s notes are strictly grammatical in nature – see Garofalo, “Gli umanisti,” 352–3; Monfasani, “Criticism of Biblical Humanists,” 21–30. See also Monfasani, “The Theology,” 1–23.
7 Linde, How to Correct, compared authors on biblical scholarship from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries. Valla is discussed on pages 71–3; 96–101; 179–83; 209–11; and 225–31. Trinkaus compared a selection of Valla’s notes with Manetti’s translation of the New Testament: Trinkaus, In Our Image, 571–8. For a comparison of Valla and other fifteenth-century authors, see also den Haan, “Valla on Biblical Scholarship.”
8 Valla’s Praefatio is edited in Morisi, “Due redazioni,” 376–9; Valla, Collatio Novi Testamenti, 3–7; Celenza, “Lorenzo Valla,” 166–8; and, with an English translation, in Celenza, “Valla’s Radical Philology,” 380–5.
9 The Latin text is available in Morisi, “Due redazioni,” 379–81; Valla, Collatio Novi Testamenti, 7–10; and, with an English translation, in Celenza, “Valla’s Radical Philology,” 385–9.
10 Celenza, “Valla’s Radical Philology,” 388.
11 For the Latin text, see Valla, Antidotum primum. On the long-standing conflict between Poggio and Valla, see the introduction to this edition, 25–39. Valla would later write more Antidota against Poggio, but these are not relevant to the scope of this article.
12 For Poggio’s attacks on Valla’s Annotationes, see Valla, Opera omnia, vol. 1, 199–200 and 210.
13 By the time of Charlemagne, it was generally believed that Jerome had translated the entire Bible. Linde, How to Correct, 58. For attitudes to Jerome in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, see ibid., 49–77, and also Rice, Saint Jerome, which focuses more on the sixteenth century and the Reformation.
14 Linde, How to Correct, 58.
15 Valla’s praised Jerome in book IV of his Elegantie (Valla, Opera omnia, vol. 1, 119). For Valla and Jerome, see also Lardet, “La figure de Jérôme.”
16 For Valla’s view on the earlier translator, see also Linde, How to Correct, 96–101.
17 ‘At – inquies – Hieronymus utrunque Testamentum postea transtulit. (…) Quanquam Novum ipse non transtulit, sed aliquoties repurgavit, non tam in verbis quam in sententiis.’ Valla, Antidotum primum, 112.
18 Valla, Annotationes, at Matthew 11 (Opera omnia, vol. I, 813A).
19 E.g. Annotationes, at Matthew 28 (Opera omnia, vol. 1, 823A); Luke 16 (837A); Acts 15 (851B); Romans 12 (859B); 1 Corinthians 2 (862B).
20 Jerome, Praefatio in quatuor evangelia.
21 ‘Quod sicubi fortassis a translatione Hieronymi dissentio, velim omnes existiment, aut non sic ab eo traductum fuisse sed tempora depravatum, aut certe translationem primam ab eo ita relictam, siquidem non omnia se ille ait emendasse sed que intellectum maxime depravarent; et alioquin non esse nefas eandem mihi tribui libertatem in unum se, qua ipse in ceteros omnes, sicut ostendi, usus est.’ Celenza, “Valla’s Radical Philology,” 389. For a similar comment in the later version of the preface, see ibid., 385. Valla made the same point in the Antidotum primum, 112.
22 Linde, How to Correct, 81–4.
23 Ibid., 87–95.
24 Ibid., 84–5.
25 Ibid., 95–6.
26 See above, footnote 17.
27 Valla commented on the value of Bible translation in the preface to his translation of Thucydides: MS Vatican City, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Vat.lat.1801, fol. 1r.
28 ‘Itaque, ne multus sim, siquid emendo non Scripturam Sacram emendo, sed illius interpretationem, neque in eam contumeliosus sum, sed pius potius, nec aliud facio nisi quid melius quam prior interpres transfero, ut mea translatio si uera fuerit sit appellanda Sancta Scriptura, non illius. Et si proprie Scriptura Sancta sit ea que sancti ipsi uel Hebraice vel Grece scripserunt, nam Latinum nihil tale est.” Valla, Antidotum primum, 112. For Valla’ s doubts about the authenticity of parts of the biblical source texts, see Linde, “Lorenzo Valla,” 35–63.
29 ‘Bibliam credo transtulit hic barbarus furiosus, et non in uerbulis quibusdam more grammaticorum tanquam in scopo haesit, et omnes interpretes accusans.’ Poggio Bracciolini, Opera omnia, vol. I, 210.
30 ‘ … si intra quadringentos omnino annos ita turbidi a fonte fluebant rivi, verisimile est post mille annos – tot enim fere ab Hieronymo ad hoc evum sunt – hunc rivum nunquam repurgatum sordes aliqua in parte ac limum contraxisse … ’ Celenza, “Valla’s Radical Philology,” 384–5. Translation: ibid., 382.
31 Ibid., 389. Valla, Antidotum primum, 118. For the image of the leaking roof, see above, footnote 1.
32 Linde, How to Correct, 116–7.
33 Ibid., 118–22.
34 Ibid., 151–53.
35 On Bessarion, see, e.g. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion; Ghisalberti, “Bessarion”; Märtl et al., ‘Inter graecos latinissimus’; Mariev, Bessarion’s Treasure.
36 Bessarion wrote two versions of this treatise, one in Greek and one in Latin. For the Greek text, see Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion, vol. III, 70–87. The Latin version is Bessarion, “In illud.”
37 For a description of the debate on the textual problem at John 21:22, see Monfasani, George of Trebizond, 90–102. We know that Valla was influenced by Bessarion’s treatise because he referred to the same textual problem in the Annotationes. Valla, Opera omnia, vol. 1, 846B. He wrote elsewhere that Bessarion had pointed the passage out to him. Ibid., 340.
38 Bessarion, “In illud,” 628B–629D.
39 ‘Interpres vero, quicunque is quidem fuerit, nec tanta Spiritus gratia, quanta Joannes illustratus fuisse existimandus est (…)’ Ibid., 625B.
40 ‘Ita tamen probata ab omnibus ejus translatio fuit, ut antiqua, vel, ut verius dicam, tot antiquis interpretationibus oblitteratis, Hieronymiana duntaxat traductione catholica utatur Ecclesia.’ Ibid., 627D-628A.
41 ‘Videndum itaque primo, quomodo se habeat in Graeca atque originali lingua, haec, de qua quarimus, Evangelii auctoritas, et an sermo Latinus Graeco consentiat; quod si dissentiat, an id facile potuerit dormitantium librariorum vitio fieri, et an in aliis quoque simile aliquid fieri potuerit factumve sit absque sancti doctoris peritissimique interpretis Hieronymi culpa aut reprehensione.’ Ibid., 630C.
42 ‘(…) adeo discrepabant, ut pene quot codices, tot exemplaria reperirem, usque adeo etiam millesimo fere post interpretationem Hieronymi anno, codices sacrae Scripturae mendosi atque corrupti erant, et ita inter se in plerisque discrepantes, ut quae Hieronymus ad Damasum scripserat, eadem Nicolaus, post tot annorum circula, scribat ad Petrum, tot scilicet exemplaria esse quot codices.’ Ibid., 629B. Cf. Valla’s words in footnote 30.
43 ‘Adde huc multa transferri obscure, non interpretis vitio, sed interpretationis lege atque necessitate, utique illius que non ad sensum sit sed ad verbum, qualis hec ipsa est (…).’ Celenza, “Valla’s Radical Philology”, 389. Translation: ibid., 387. Valla made a similar comment in the later version of the preface. Ibid., 385.
44 See, e.g. Gualdo Rosa, “Le traduzioni”; Cortesi, “La tecnica del tradurre”; Pade, “Greek into Humanist Latin”; Pade, ““Conquering Greece””.
45 On Bruni’s translation theory and practice, see Harth, “Leonardo Brunis Selbstverständnis,” and Hankins, “Translation Practice.”
46 For the Latin text of the preface, see Bruni, Sulla perfetta traduzione, 254–61. This volume also contains the prefaces to Bruni’s other translations.
47 Bruni, Sulla perfetta traduzione. An English translation of parts of De interpretatione recta is available in Griffiths et al., The Humanism, 217–29. It is possible that Valla knew Bruni’s De interpretatione recta, but this is not certain. Pade, “Valla’s Thucydides,” 287.
48 For a comparison of Valla’s Praefatio with Bruni’s translation theory, see also Celenza, “Lorenzo Valla,” 158–9.
49 E.g. Bruni, De interpretatione recta, 34: ‘Itaque non recte transtulit, cum aliud pro alio posuerit nec vim servaverit greci verbi.’ Bruni, Sulla perfetta traduzione, 108. Bruni did not object to ‘ad verbum’ translation in principle. His De interpretatione recta can even be understood as a defense of ‘ad verbum’ translation as opposed to a free translation method. Bruni, Sulla perfetta traduzione, 51–53.
50 Valla, Annotationes, at 2 Corinthians 6 (Valla, Opera omnia, vol. 1, 872A), 1 Thessalonians 1 (880B).
51 Bruni, Sulla perfetta traduzione, 102–22.
52 Celenza, “Valla’s Radical Philology”, 385.
53 Bruni, Sulla perfetta traduzione, 76–82.
54 For Valla’s views on translation, see, e.g. Regoliosi, ““Mercatura Optimarum Artium”; Pade, “Valla’s Thucydides.”
55 Jerome, Liber de optimo genere interpretandi, 13.
56 Den Haan, Giannozzo Manetti’s New Testament, 131–34. Manetti also wrote about this question at length. For his position, see below.
57 For Manetti’s life and works, see Foà, “Manetti, Giannozzo”; David Marsh, Giannozzo Manetti.
58 For Manetti’s translation of the Psalter, see Dröge, Giannozzo Manetti, 37–64; and Botley, Latin Translation, 99–104. For the New Testament, see den Haan, Giannozzo Manetti’s New Testament.
59 Den Haan, Giannozzo Manetti’s New Testament, 48–58.
60 Manetti hinted that he would write more elsewhere in his biography of Nicholas V and in his preface to the Psalter. Manetti, De vita ac gestis, 66–7; Botley, Latin Translation, 180.
61 Botley edited the preface to the Psalter, with information on the manuscripts. Botley, Latin Translation, 178–81.
62 ‘Cum enim uere ac solide utriusque et prisce et moderne (ut ita dixerim) theologie fundamenta in cunctis ueteris ac noui testamenti codicibus tantum modo omnium doctorum hominum consensus iaciantur, atque ambo illa a ueris hebreorum ac grecorum fontibus in latinam linguam traducta ab ipsis a quibus ea suscepimus quotidie carpi lacerarique acciperem, pro uirili mea ulterius equo animo ferre ac tolerare non potui.’ Botley, Latin Translation, 179. Translation: den Haan, Giannozzo Manetti’s New Testament, 151.
63 For the Latin text, see Manetti, Apologeticus; and, with an English translation, Manetti, A Translator’s Defense. For a discussion of the Apologeticus, see Trinkaus, In Our Image, 584–601; Botley, Latin Translation, 99–114; den Haan, Giannozzo Manetti’s New Testament, 123–39.
64 Apologeticus I, 3; Manetti, A Translator’s Defense, 2.
65 On Manetti’s debates with Jews, see da Bisticci, Le Vite, vol. 1, 486 and vol. 2, 524–5.
66 For Manetti’s Hebrew manuscripts, see Cassuto, I manoscritti and Pasternak, “Giannozzo Manetti’s Handwritten Notes.”
67 Fioravanti, “L’apologetica anti-giudaica.” On Manetti’s Adversus Iudaeos et Gentes in particular, see Trinkaus, In Our Image, 722–733; Baldassarri, “Giannozzo Manetti”; and Manetti, Against the Jews.
68 Fioravanti, “L’apologetica anti-giudaica,” 7.
69 Linde, How to Correct, 63; 156–57.
70 Manetti, A Translator’s Defense, 88–106.
71 Ibid., 92; 100–102.
72 Ibid., 92.
73 For a comparison of how Manetti and Valla legitimized their biblical projects, see also den Haan, Giannozzo Manetti’s New Testament, 140–52.
74 For Jerome’s comment, see above, footnote 20.
75 Manetti, A Translator’s Defense, 88–106.
76 Apologeticus, books III and IV (Manetti, A Translator’s Defense, 108–223). The collation of different versions is sometimes confused with an analysis of textual corruptions: Manetti, Apologeticus, XXV; Wilson, From Byzantium to Italy, 82.
77 Apologeticus II, 56–88 (Manetti, A Translator’s Defense, 88–106). In Adversus Iudaeos, book V, Manetti wrote that Jerome’s translation had supplanted the many Latin translations that existed in his day. MS Vatican City, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Urb.lat.154, fol. 86r.
78 The similarities were pointed out by Alfonso de Petris: Manetti, Apologeticus, 111–3. For Manetti’s description of the requirements for a good translation and translator, see Apologeticus V, 23–33 (Manetti, A Translator’s Defense, 234–240). For Bruni’s, see Sulla perfetta traduzione, 76–82.
79 Manetti, Apologeticus V, 44–7 (Manetti, A Translator’s Defense, 246–62).
80 Manetti, Apologeticus V, 82–3 (Manetti, A Translator’s Defense 264–66).
81 On Brandolini, see Trinkaus, In Our Image, 297–321; Rotondò, “Brandolini, Aurelio Lippo” In Dizionario biografico degli italiani, edited by Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 26–28. Vol. 14. Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1972; O’Malley, Praise and Blame, 44–51 and 113–6; D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism, 99–100; 146–47.
82 On this work, see Trinkaus, In Our Image, 601–613.
83 The full title of the preface is Lippi Brandolini in sacram Ebreorum historiam ad reuerendissimum patrem et dominum Franciscum Picolomineum Cardinalem Senensem prefatio, in qua huius operis scribendi causas commemorat seque aduersus eius rei criminatores defendit. For the Latin text with a short introduction, see Rummel, “In Defense.”
84 Rummel, “In Defense,” 102–4.
85 Rummel, “In Defense,” 90.
86 ‘Primum ego misteria in sentenciis et rebus ipsis non in uerbis singulis contineri dico, uerba enim et sententiarum gratia inuenta sunt, et per se significare nihil possunt.’ Rummel, “In Defense,” 99.
87 My translation. ‘(…) rem neque mihi inutilem neque aliis iniocundam me facturum putaui, si ea quae erant ab antiquissimis illis Iudeis auctoribus plebeia quadam simplicitate et inconcinna uerborum copia ante conscripta, et a nostris postea ita ut erant uulgi gratia necessario translata, ego in unum quasi corpus collecta et breuius et ornatius explicarem.’ Rummel, “In Defense,” 92.
88 See above, footnote 52.
89 E.g. Petrarch, De otio religioso, 103. Jerome commented on this point in his Letter 29. For Jerome’s position on the rusticitas of the Bible, see, e.g. Meershoek, Le latin biblique, 4–14.
90 E.g. ‘Cur igitur bibliam transtulit sine ullo uerborum lepore ornatuque Jeronimus?’ Rummel, “In Defense,” 105.
91 ‘Cur igitur bibliam transtulit sine ullo uerborum lepore ornatuque Jeronimus? Nempe quia sic apud Hebreos scriptam reperiebat. Quum autem eo tempore permulti uerum ipsum omni ex parte oppugnarent eaque de causa frequentes aduersus religionem nostram secte unoquoque bibliam suo arbitratu interpretante insurgerent, necesse fuit cum ut aliena confutari, tum ut nostra confirmari possent, ita latine sonare bibliam, ut Grece ebraiceque sonabat, uerbaque nostra singula singulis illorum uerbis suo ordine respondere, adeo ut in ea interpretatione Jeronimus, qui ad unguem omnia cupiebat exprimere, ipsius etiam grammatices leges ac fines egredi non dubitaret, sed quod tunc instantibus aduersariis dubiisque rebus nostris necessario faciendum fuit, nunc sublatis illis statuque confirmato seruandum non est. Causa enim sublata effectus quoque ipse e uestigio tollitur.’ Rummel, “In Defense,” 105.
92 Rummel, “In Defense,” 93.
93 As was pointed out by De Petris: “Le teorie umanistiche,” 22, footnote 29.
94 On how Valla’s reading method challenged the scholastic method of exegesis, see, e.g. Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla, 292–98.
95 “ … qualis hec ipsa est, que indocti grece lingue cum intelligere non possunt, in exponendo falsa multa et impropria ac longe a vero abhorrentia effundunt, et de caprina, ut dicitur, lana inter se pertinaciter sepe contendunt.” Celenza, “Valla’s Radical Philology,” 389.
96 E.g. at Mark 14 (Valla, Opera omnia, vol. 1, 829A); Romans 16 (861A); 1 Cor 15 (868B); 2 Corinthians 1 (870A); 2 Cor 3 (871A); 2 Cor 7 (872B).
97 E.g. at John 21 (ibid., 846B); 1 Corinthians 9 (865B).
98 Rummel, “In Defense,” 102.
99 ‘Quibus haec placet editio, quam ego nec damno nec muto, his sua manet editio. Siquidem ea nostra castigatione non laeditur, sed redditur illustrior, purior, emendatior. Illa legatur in scholis, canatur in templis, citetur in contionibus; nullus obstat. Illud ausim polliceri, quisquis hanc nostram domi legerit, suam rectius intellecturus est.’ Erasmus, Ausgewählte Werke, 168.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Annet den Haan
Dr. Annet den Haan is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Textual, Historical and Systematic Studies of Judaism and Christianity at Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. She specializes in humanist biblical criticism and translation, focusing on fifteenth-century Italy. She is the author of Giannozzo Manetti's New Testament: Translation Theory and Practice in Fifteenth-Century Italy (Leiden: Brill, 2016).