TWO VERSIONS OF LIVY: A STUDY OF TUDOR TRANSLATIONS David M. Cratty A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 1975 // © 1975 DAVID MICHAEL CRATTY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED |U TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE .............................................. iii CHAPTER I Translation in Sixteenth-Century England ........ 1 II Translation Theory ................................ 18 Ill The Two Livys ..................................... 37 IV Conclusions ...................................... 102 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................... 115 APPENDIX 121 /tH- PREFACE IVq. Although well over one hundred studies concerned with sixteenth-century translators and translations have been made, the volume is misleading. Most devote only a few paragraphs to translation itself. For example, many books which appear to be full-length studies of translation in the sixteenth century are, in fact, anthologies of selections of representative translations. Many other studies are actually catalogues or bibliographies of sixteenth-century 2 translations. The translators themselves have not fared 3 any better Most often studies of translators focus on either their sources (which intermediary texts did they use) 4 or their influence on the native English tradition. The ^E.g., A. F. Clements, Tudor Translations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940) and James Winny, Elizabethan Prose Translation (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1960). 2 E.g., Mary A. Scott, Elizabethan Translations from the Italian (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), R. U. Pane, English Translations from the Spanish: 1484-1943 (Rutgers: Rutgers University Press, 1944), F. M. K. Foster, English Translations from the Greek (New York: Columbia University Press, 1918) and F. Seymour Smith, The Classics in Translation (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1930). 3 There is, for example, no full length study of Philemon Holland or his translations. F. 0. Matthiessen devotes a chapter to Holland in his Translation: An Elizabethan Art (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931). Charles Whibley has prepared a good study as an introduction to the Tudor Translations edition of Holland’s Suetonius♦ 4 E.g., George Coffin Taylor, Shakespeare's Debt to Montaigne (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 192577 Ralph L. Nash, "On the Indebtedness of Fairfax's Tasso to Carew," Italica, XXXIV (1957), 14-19 and H. C. Fay, "Chapman's Materials for His Translation of Homer," Review of English Studies, II New Series (1951), 121-28. V two most valuable studies of sixteenth-century translation 5 are F. 0. Mathiessen's Translation: An Elizabethan Art and H. B. Lathrop's Translations from the Classics into English g from Caxton to Chapman: 1477-1620. Matthiessen studies five of the principal Elizabethan prose translators (Hoby, North, Golding, Florio, and Holland), but only broadly considers the accomplishments of each. Lathrop traces the history of translation of the Classics. It is a compre­ hensive survey of one area of sixteenth-century translation, but suffers from the limitations of the type. The present study examines the two Tudor translations of Livy’s Ab urbe condita, one made in 1544 by Sir Antony Cope, and the other made in 1600 by Philemon Holland. The study shows how two translators solve the problems which confront any translator. Cope and Holland, although using the same text, produce versions which are essentially different. Why do two people who are fluent in Latin translate the same text differently? Theodore Savory proposes that translations must serve 7 the needs and purposes of different kinds of readers. It is the translator's intended audience that determines how a particular problem will be resolved. The needs of a person ^Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931. ^Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1933. 7 Theodore Savory, The Art of Translation (Philadelphia: Dufour Editions, 1960), p. 577. VI who knows nothing of the original language differ from those of the scholar who does know the language, for example. A free translation which reads lika a present-day work may be most satisfactory for the first reader. Allusions and customs will probably be cast in terms easily understood by him. On the other hand, a much more literal translation may be directed at the scholar. This reader will want the original allusions and customs preserved; further, he may want to be reminded of the original. In the one case faithfulness may be defined as faithfulness to the spirit of the original work; in the other, it may be defined as faithfulness to the words and the style of the original. Closely related to the needs of the intended audience is the purpose of the translator. Why is he translating a particular work? Does he want to present the content, the ideas of the original to his audience? Or, does he want to present the eloquence and style of the original? Each of these purposes imposes certain restrictions on what the translator can do. Because languages, and the cultures which produce languages, are not the same, the translator probably will not be able to keep both the content and the style intact. The purpose and the audience of translation, then, determine the form and the style of a translation. Before considering the two translations which are the focus of this study, it is necessary to establish the Vil general outlines of translation activity in Tudor England. The primary questions which need to be answered are what was being translated and why, who were the people making translations, who comprised the general audience for translations, and how extensive was translation activity? The section on translation theory then examines the problems which a translator confronts and the alternatives available to resolve those problems. Most importantly, however, the awareness which both modern and Tudor translators have of their intended audiences is shown. Savory’s observation that the audience determines what a translator does with his text is confirmed by the comments which translators make in the prefaces to translations. The third part of the study describes what Cope and Holland do with Livy’s text. However, to understand how they resolve the problems posed by Latin syntax and foreign customs, it is necessary to understand Livy's style and methods. Further, there are several complex relationships of which the reader must be aware. First, there is the re­ lationship between each of the translations and the original text. Second, because each translation begins with the same text, there is a relationship between the translations. Third, there is the relationship between each translation and its audience. viii The structure of the discussion of the two translations has been dictated by these multiple relationships. The basic principle of organization is that of the general problems a translator encounters. Under the general problem, Livy's own practice is established first. Then, each translation is examined to see how each translator chose to resolve the problems presented by the Latin text. Finally, the two English versions are compared to each other. The comparison is descriptive in nature showing that what the translator does is appropriate for his purpose and his audience. A further consideration is the effect which the differing approaches to translation practiced by Cope and Holland have on the audience. By considering the needs of the audience, the translator's purpose, and, finally, the varying effects which these cause in the audience response to the translation in addition to what a translator does, one can avoid the major pitfall of studying translations in any age. The critic's preconceived idea of what a translation should be hinders his study of a translation because if a translation deviates from that preconception it is rejected. At some point, the basis of most criticism of translations can be reduced to a single criterion—faithfulness to the original. To illustrate the way in which this works, consider D. S. Carne-Ross' evaluation of the Fitts and Fitzgerald IX translation of a choric ode from Oedipus Rex. He recognizes that their version is "very free, of course, but the liberties it takes are the kind of liberties one must take in dealing with passionate, high-wrought poetry in which a great poet is straining language to make it carry an enormous burden g of suggestion." Fitts and Fitzgerald, according to Carne-Ross, have been faithful to the spirit and the linguistic power of Sophocles. When viewing the Grene translation of the same ode, Carne-Ross finds it "nearly meaningless" precisely because Grene has brought over the 9 many adjectives of the original. Thus, the Carne-Ross standard for good translation centers on faithfulness to the spirit of the original author. Yet, the Grene trans­ lation may better meet the needs of certain readers, those, for example, who are ignorant of Greek and want to experience the original language and structure as much as possible. The criterion of faithfulness can be used differently, as Bayard Quincy Morgan does in assessing Kaufmann's translation of Faust. Morgan observes that Goethe presents problems for the translator because "the happy combinations of sound, sight and sense in German . cannot be g D. S. Carne-Ross, "Translation and Transposition," The Craft and Context of Translation, ed. William Arrowsmith and Roger Shattuck (Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1961), p. 11. g Carne-Ross, pp. 11-12. X duplicated."10 But Kaufman has made a good translation "because he can approximate Goethe's language."H Morgan, then, approves of Kaufmann's translation for the very reason Carne-Ross disapproves of Grene's translation. Shifting the criterion for translations away from the equivocation of faithfulness to appropriateness for the audience allows for a variety of translations of the same work to meet the needs of a variety of audiences. This study is an attempt to show how the audience can be used in the study of translations. So that the reader's progress through the argument of this study will not be impeded, extended quotations from Livy and his translators have been collected in the Appendix.