The Present State of Germany. Samuel Pufendorf

Reiches, ed. Denzer, 1994]) the variations of the second. However, in all such instances, I have directly compared Salomon’s text with Gundling’s editio posthuma as well.

      The Monzambano, as Pufendorf’s work came to be called, was translated into French⁴ and German soon after its appearance. One of these early German translations has been reissued recently in a bilingual edition by Notker Hammerstein, in volume 16 of the series Bibliothek der Geschichte und Politik (Reinhart Koselleck, general editor).⁵ The editio posthuma received an early eighteenth-century German translation by Petronius Adlemansthal (i.e., Peter Dahlmann), which is notable mainly for its accompanying life of Pufendorf (“Vita, fama, et fata literaria Pufendorfiana”) and its detailed account of the fierce polemic generated by Pufendorf’s work (“Historie von dem wunderlichen Lärmen und Tumult welcher in der gelehrten Welt dieses Buchs wegen entstanden”).⁶ The nineteenth century saw two more German translations, by Harry Breßlau (1870) and by Heinrich Dove (1877), the latter also using the editio posthuma as its base text.⁷ More recently, Horst Denzer has provided another parallel edition with a new German translation and the most significant e.p. variants. This appeared first in 1976 (with Reclam) and was reissued in 1994 as volume 4 of Insel Verlag’s Bibliothek des Deutschen Staatsdenkens (Hans Maier and Michael Stolleis, general editors).⁸ It remains the most accessible edition and translation of Pufendorf’s Monzambano and has done much to redirect attention to the work.

      As noted, although Bohun’s 1690/1696 text did not include them, I have added Pufendorf’s important preface to the first (1667) edition, wherein he (as Monzambano/Samuel) dedicates the work to his brother (Laelius/Esaias), and the second preface to the editio posthuma (1706), even though it may be by someone else. The latter includes a short assessment of the work by Françzeray (1610–83), official French historiographer (after 1648) and secretary of the Académie Française (1675),⁹ who had been approached for his opinion by the Paris printer to whom Esaias Pufendorf first brought the manuscript to be published. Like the other editio posthuma insertions, these pieces appear here in English for the first time.

      In addition, there are other, minor, changes to Bohun’s text (made in the interest of readability), though the translation and punctuation remain substantially intact. In all cases, corrections, clarifications, and alternative renditions are clearly noted, appearing in the text between special symbols, and in the footnotes at the bottom of each page. The following markers are used:

{…}	= e.p. (editio posthuma) deletion
[…]	= e.p. insertion
|[…]|	= e.p. variant
SMALL CAPS	= Gothic script (in Latin original)
[…]+	= language added by Bohun (pleonasm, periphrasis, elaboration)
//…\\	= longer additions by Bohun, originally in brackets or parentheses
[…]	= editor’s corrections, clarifications, alternative renditions
/	= editorial divider (used in footnotes)

      Editorial footnotes are of two kinds. Lettered notes deal with textual matters; numbered notes clarify content. Some notes also contain editorial explanations, placed there to avoid having two notes at the same spot in the text. Bohun’s shoulder (margin) notes (six in all), which were originally indicated in the text by single asterisks, have been moved to the footnote area and the asterisks replaced by lowercase Roman numerals in parentheses (e.g., ⁽ⁱ⁾). The shoulder headings are Bohun’s; however, all paragraph divisions, except for numbered sections, are mine (often following previous editions and translations). I have also expanded abbreviations, standardized internal numerations, added numbers (i.e., §1) to the first section of each chapter (to match the remaining sections), and corrected obvious typographical errors. Page breaks in Bohun’s text have been indicated by the use of angle brackets. For example, page 112 begins after <112>.

      In-text editorial emendations have been tailored to the diction, structure, and flow of Bohun’s text. However, some of Bohun’s run-on sentences have been subdivided, typically by substituting periods in place of colons or semicolons and then capitalizing the next word in the text. Shorter clarifications or corrections to Bohun’s archaic and sometimes confusing translation have been placed in the text (within brackets); longer ones, in effect alternative renditions, appear in the footnotes (preceded by “Rather:”). These new translations, like the two prefaces and the e.p. insertions, do not attempt to imitate Bohun’s style or terminology but aim at accuracy, clarity, and usability by contemporary readers.

      In general, Bohun’s translation is loose, his choice of terminology insufficiently consistent and attentive to philosophical and political nuance, and his understanding of Pufendorf and the German context in which Monzambano first appeared quite limited. His royalist inclinations are evident throughout, not only in the selection of terms (“princes,” “kingdom,” “rabble,” etc., for “estates,” “empire,” “common people,” etc.) but also in the occasional tendency to complete, color, or emend—according to his own views.¹⁰ The translation is hasty, often lazily stacking subordinate clauses in the same order as the Latin (where the practice is less unwieldy), occasionally omitting phrases or clauses, and sometimes translating the same term differently in the same paragraph. Moreover, careless rendition of crucial prepositions or conjunctions sometimes obscures the logic of the original. On the other hand, Bohun often gets it right, and he can be quite sharp in capturing the meaning of the Latin. His intention was to further an English audience’s general acquaintance with the Germany that had recently (1688) assisted William III in acquiring the English throne, and whose affairs would involve England in continental wars for at least another decade. This simply did not require the precision of a work within the German natural law and public law contexts.

      Therefore, as with all translations, caution must be exercised when resting an interpretation or argument on specific language, and the Latin original should be consulted.¹¹ Also, when quoting from the current reprint, it seems advisable either to use Bohun’s original wording as is or else to quote the emended or alternative translation provided in the text or footnotes. Of course, either policy should be clearly noted.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

      My initial debts are to the special collections units of the research libraries that have generously supplied microfilms or expertise. These include the University of Chicago Library, the New York Public Library, Vanderbilt University Library, Kungliga Biblioteket (Stockholm), the British Library, and the Herzog August Bibliothek (Wolfenbüttel). I first encountered Adlemansthal in the old reading room of the British Library and then revisited it and other texts years later in the library’s new facility. Two recent summers in Wolfenbüttel gave me direct access to many of the early histories of natural law and to works by Pufendorf’s critics. Both experiences were wonderfully stimulating and productive, and I am grateful to the staff of each institution for their professional help and gracious accommodation.

      Knud Haakonssen has been an invaluable editor, advisor, and friend. My deepest thanks to him for inviting me to participate in this series and for his flexible and responsive assistance throughout, especially at the final stages. Indeed, I have learned much just by watching him help me. Åsa Söderman graciously volunteered her research assistance in Stockholm and obtained a number of microfilms there on my behalf. For this too I am very grateful.

      More locally, it is a pleasure to acknowledge the substantial contribution of my own institution, Western Kentucky University, which has long supported me with release time and research funds. Despite its primary commitment to classroom teaching, the university has consistently facilitated and recognized my scholarly work, and I am deeply in its debt for its essential assistance.

      I want also to express my sincere appreciation to Fiammetta Palladini. Though she had no specific connection with this project, her important work on Pufendorf as both editor and scholar has been of immeasurable help to me over the years. Moreover, her personal advice, encouragement, and conversation have greatly enhanced the sociability of the enterprise.

      Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank my family for putting up with my many absences, in both body and mind, while working on