In regard to the text of the version, Berger (l.c. p. 417) sums up as follows: ‘We cannot affirm that it was translated entire by one single person, or by the same group of translators. . . . As for the NT, it appears to have come entirely from one pen, and that the pen of a man who knew the Provencal language perfectly, and who had the Provencal Testament under his eye or in his memory. Many readings of the Latin which the translator adopts are those which were current at the beginning of the 13th cent. in Languedoc. Sometimes the Italian text is not a translation of the Latin text, but of the Provencal or Vaud version.’
4. The name of one translator, Cavalea, has been already mentioned, but probably all he did was to revise an older text resembling those of southern France. Another name connected with the old Italian version as a translator is that of John of Tavelli, born in 1386, and afterwards bishop of Ferrara, who is said to have translated the version printed at Venice. An old Life of him ascribes a translation to him, but is indefinite as to the extent of the supposed translation ; and the statement as to the Venice edition is disproved by the fact that the printed version is contained in 14th cent. MSS, while John of Tavelli was then too young to have done the work ascribed to him. The early versions have also been assigned to James of Voragine, Passavanti, and others. Pas- savanti is himself excluded by the way in which he speaks of the versions which existed in his time, and the mention of his and other names is probably due to the wish to assign the version to persons well known in connexion with the forma- tion of early Italian prose. :
5. Of course, in connexion with the Reformation movement, several translations came into exist- ence. The earliest is associated with the name of A. Brucioli, one of those who championed Floren- tine liberty, and suffered for so doing. His trans-
lation was begun in 1528, and the NT was first
408 CONTINENTAL VERSIONS
published by Giunti at: Venice in 1630. ‘This was G
ollowed by the Psalms in 1531, and the whole Bible in 1532. This complete translation (and also translations of the separate books) was fre- quently reprinted. On his title-page Brucioli claims that the version was made from the Hebrew and the Greek. He probably knew Hebrew ; but Simon has proved that no great knowledge of Hebrew is shown, and the author very probably relied on Pagninus’ Latin version for the OT, and that of Erasmus for the NT. His commentaries betray Protestant ideas, and his work was condemned and put on Paul Iv.’s Index of 1559, and after this it practically ceased to be reprinted. In 1538 a Dominican of some repute, named Marmochino, issued a translation which was in reality only a redaction of Brucioli’s work, bringing it more into conformity with the Vulgate. The 16th cent. produced many other translations of separate books, with and without commentaries, but none are of any special interest.
6. The most important translation, which is still the official Bible of Italian Protestants, circulated by the British and Foreign Bible Society, is that ot J. Diodati, who was born at Lucca in 1576, and died in 1649. Diodati was a very good scholar, and when only twenty-one was appointed by Beza professor of Hebrew at Geneva. His work is described as remarkable from the point of view of literature and of scientific accuracy. As a rule he keeps close to the Vulgate, except in the Psalter, where the Vulgate follows the LXX. An edi- tion of the whole Bible was published at Geneva in 1607. The NT was published separately at Geneva in 1608 and at Amsterdam in 1665. An edition with commentaries appeared in 1641. A carefully revised edition was published by the London Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in 1854.
7. Of Catholic translations there were fewer in this country than elsewhere. The prohibition, by Pope Pius Iv. in 1564, of the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue was not removed till 1757, when Benedict XIV. gave a qualified permission, and so for two centuries the Catholics had no need of a translation. The only one which need be men- tioned is that of Martini, archbishop of Florence,
ublished in 1776 at Turin, and circulated by the ritish and Foreign Bible Society in editions of the NT (1813) and of the OT (1821).
8. In conclusion, it is necessary to speak briefly of the earliest editions of the Italian Bible. One of these was printed by Wendelin at Venice in August 1471, and bears on its title-page as the name of the translator NicolodiMalherbi. Berger says of it that ‘the text in general differs much from that of the MSS’; but it is really not a new translation, but the old version with afew changes, chiefly dialectical, from the Tuscan of the MSS to Venetian. Of the frequent later editions of Malherbi’s translation, one—that of 1490—is noteworthy if, as Carini says, the designs for its ornamentation were the work of Bellini and Bot- ticelli. Another edition, which followed immedi- ately in October of the same year, is that published by Jenson, the text of which was based partly on that of the MSS, partly, as in the NT and Psalter, on that of Malherbi’s edition, The explanation of this is that the printing was begun simultaneously at different points. Berger says of it (l.c. p. 364) that it is ‘faithful to the MSS, and those as a rule the best’ ; but the value of the edition is enormously depreciated by the fact of its being in large measure a reproduction of Malherbi’s work. It had become a bibliographical rarity, for it was not in great demand, and was reprinted with a valuable introduction by Negroni in 1882-1887 in ten volumes,