In general, I have followed the practice of putting my English translation in the main body of the text with the original in the footnotes. I have occasionally deviated from this principle for two reasons. In some cases, I have thought it necessary to cite the original language in the main body of the text in order to highlight a particular word or phrase which is peculiar to the original language. In these cases, I have supplied an English translation in parentheses. In certain other cases, I have left quotes in the original language when I believe their meaning is self-evident, particularly for very short sentences or individual words. All translations are my own unless stated otherwise.
In matters of transcription, I have generally followed the original language and spelling. This means that in quotations from languages such as French, there is a much sparser use of accents than one is accustomed to today. For example, in the seventeenth century, “vérité” is generally written “verité,” while “Hébreux” is often written “Hebreux” (as at p. 110, n. 67). In Latin, in order to preserve consistency, I have removed all accents (hence “genealogice” rather than “genealogicé”) and ligatures (hence “Aegyptiorum” rather than “Ægyptiorum”). This is not the case for the French, where ligatures (as in “Œuvres”) are necessary for spelling French words in a French context. For the transcription of Chinese, I have used common early modern spellings, Bonjour’s in particular, rather than modern, more conventional practices of romanization. Hence, I have written tien rather than tian and xamti rather than shangdi. In all matters of doubt and in other related issues, I have tried to follow the Chicago Manual of Style as closely as possible.
Given the choice, I have tended to give names in their native rather than Latinized form: hence Baronio rather than Baronius, Huet instead of Huetius, Le Clerc instead of Clericus, Bianchini instead of Blanchinus, and, of course, Bonjour instead of Bonjourius. The only exceptions are those names for which the Latinized form has become the generally accepted version: hence Vossius rather than Vos, Grotius rather than de Groot, and Perizonius rather than Voorbroek. There may be some cases in which scholars might disagree with what I consider a commonly accepted form, such as my preference for Georg Horn over Georgius Hornius. Unfortunately, complete consistency is impossible in this matter and I have aimed for the balance I find most appropriate and readable.
In matters of biblical chronology, I have often referred to the Septuagint chronology on the one hand, and the Masoretic chronology on the other. The former relates to the longer chronology of the Bible currently found in the Greek Septuagint. The latter is intended to include not only the contemporary Masoretic or Hebrew Bible, but also the Latin Vulgate and the King James Bible. In this sense, “Masoretic” is used as a catch-all term for the shorter biblical chronology. I have refrained from using the term “Hebrew chronology” because it was one of the central contentions of the “supporters” of the Septuagint that the original Hebrew text contained the longer Septuagint chronology. I have also refrained, in certain cases, from using the term “Vulgate chronology,” since Protestant chronologists who favoured the Masoretic chronology did not consider the Vulgate authoritative.
In matters of pagan mythology, I have named pagan gods and heroes in both Latin and Greek style depending on the author and context in question.