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. The footnotes indicate those passages

which will be found in the Appendix, where they are

identified by author, reference, and the page number

of this study where they are discussed. The sixteenth-century works which are cited are quoted without change, except for the changing of the elongated-s^. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from primary sources which were examined by means of the University Microfilms Short-Title Catalogue project.

l^Bayard Quincy Morgan, "Reviews of Recent Translations," Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature, No. 12, 1963, p. 83. ^Morgan, p. 83. xi

I wish to thank three members of the Bowling Green

State University faculty, Professors Edgar Daniels,

Robert Meyers, and Richard Hebein, for their help and patience. They made many valuable suggestions in the course of the preparation of this study of Tudor translations. I

CHAPTER I

TRANSLATION IN SIXTEENTH CENTURY ENGLAND 2

The sixteenth century in England was a time of great

change. The country changed from a somewhat isolated, small

island kingdom to an European power. One reason for the in­

creased influence outside her own borders, of course, was

the relative stability of the local political situation pro­ vided by the Tudor monarchy, especially that of Elizabeth I, who ruled for most of the second half of the century. As England gained in world stature, her people gained new ideas and greater exposure to different cultures. As a result of increased contact with other countries, that body of ideas which has traditionally been labeled "Renaissance thought" obtained a wide-spread hearing among Elizabethans.

Humanism, rediscovered from classical literature, had been the basis for unprecedented cultural and intellectual advances in the Italian city-states. Why could not such ad­ vances, particularly in the intellectual sphere, be made in the island kingdom? The English were in a very fortunate position because they could benefit from the work of the Italian thinkers, but would not have to repeat their mis­ takes. They needed only to take what was best from the new thinking, which stressed the uniqueness of man's humanness.

^A brief summary of complex social, cultural and intel­ lectual movements must make use of generazliations and over­ simplifications. In the case of the sixteenth century, the perspective provided by 500 years helps see the outline of the transition from a medieval feudal society to a commercially oriented, intellectually vibrant society. 3

Man was no longer an anonymous person who subordinated his

individualism to a social unit. Medieval man was concerned

only with properly fulfilling his role within society,

keeping his place in the great chain of being, receiving 2 little or no individual recognition. But man realized he

had a dignity of his own, not merely as a society, recog­

nition of the individual began. The men responsible for the

design and decoration of a church, for example, began to be 3 identified and acknowledged. The seeds for humanistic

thought in England were planted by Colet, Erasmus, and More

at Oxford. It is not surprising that the introduction of

the new views should originate within the university

The church buildings of the Middle Ages are almost perfect illustrations of the way in which the individual (artist and artisan) subordinated his own concerns to the total result of the finished church. Although the cathe­ drals themselves display individuality, little is known about the persons responsible for the churches. Who, for example, did the sculpture on Chartres cathedral? or Amiens? or Troyes? "There was in art something impersonal and pro­ found, and one might say that such and such a symbolic grouping was the common choice. Surely it was not indi­ vidual choice but the corporate Christian consciousness." (Emile Mâle, The Gothic Image : Religious Art in France of the Thirteenth Century, trans. Dora Nussey, New York: Harper and Row, 1958, p.4.) The Second Council of Nicaea (787) decreed: "The composition of religious imagery is not left to the initiative of artists, but is formed upon principles laid down by the Catholic Church and by religious tradition." (Quoted in Mâle, p. 392.) For a further discussion of the subordination of the individual to a tradition in the middle ages, see Male and also Henry Adams, Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres. 3 This is not to say that some individuals and their accomplishments were not known, but that such knowledge is the exception. 4 community, because it was only among the learned that there was enough familiarity with the classical foundation of humanism. While it is true the educated men of the early

Tudor age exercised much influence, yet it would take more than the proselytizing of a small group of univeristy people to give humanism its currency. The middle class merchant and artisan would come to have much to say about the spread 4 of the new philosophy.

Although travel to the Continent increased, primarily for business reasons, it was "through the medium of in­ numerable translations [that] those Renaissance ideas which were at first so slow in reaching England, at last became widely disseminated. But it was mainly through trans­ lations, of course, that a knowledge of the culture and learning of other nations reached the great body of intel- 5 ligent citizens." The volume of translation can be easily seen when it is recalled that approximately 850 translations 6 were published between 1475 and 1560 and that another 1052 7 were published between 1560 and 1603. Although the number

See Louis B. Wright, Middle-Class Culture in Elizabethan England (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1965), pp. 655-660. 5 Wright, p. 339. 6 H. S. Bennett, English Books and Readers: 1475-1557 (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1952), Appendix II. 7 Julia Gracia Ebel, "Studies in Elizabethan Translation," (Diss: Columbia University, 1964), p. 39. 5

of translations fluctuated from year to year (for example,

eight were published in 1564, twenty-seven in 1588, forty-four

in 1590), it seems they represented about twenty per cent of

the total book production in England during the second half 8 of the sixteenth century. These translations included works from the classical languages of Latin and Greek and

also works from the European vernaculars. Ebel has listed 338

8 Ebel, pp. 22-42. Ebel uses figures for five-year intervals to arrive at a figure which never exceeds 25%; the average of her figures is closer to the 20% figure I have used. Also, in her computations, she excludes alamanacs, Bibles, and proclamations. "In practice I have been reduced to counting the number of translations in the STC (using the chronological STC in the British Museum). If we assume that translations perished at approximately the same rate as original works—an assumption which would seem reasonable— then the figures set out below may be accepted as giving a more or less accurate idea of the role played by transla­ tions in over-all book production.

Year % of STC translations in over-all STC titles (excluding Bibles, almanacs, proclamations,etc.)

1560 21

1565 21

1570 15

1575 24

1580 12 1585 15

1590 18

1595 13

1603 19"

(p. 42). 6 translations from Latin for the years 1560-1603; in addition there were from 295 from French, 104 from Italian, 43 from 9 Dutch, and 2 from Portuguese. Not all of the translations, of course, were of significant literary and philosophical works—or even insignificant literary and philosophical works. As might be expected in a time of religious ferment, theological works comprised the largest single category of 10 translations. "Continental news-items constituted the second largest body of translations."^^ During the reign of the Tudors, translation had a range and scope which made it an influential activity in acquainting the English people with Continental thought. Although, as Ebel demonstrates, much (possibly most) of the translating activity is not concerned with belletristic works, translation of history, literature, philosophy, and theology did provide the medium for the dissemination of new ideas and techniquest which 12 provided a stimulus for native English accomplishments.

9 Ebel, p. 39. These figures are intended to illustrate the variety of languages which were translated. Also, the translations from Latin were not all from antiquity, as Latin was the language of learning and the learned until the acceptance of the vernaculars, beginning with Dante. 10 Ebel, p. 43. 11 Ebel, p. 45. 12 One thinks of the debt that Spenser owed to Artisto and Tasso for the plan and structure of The Faerie Queene; or, the debt of the later sonneteers to the translations of Wyatt and Surrey. 7

However, the value of a translation is lost if it does

not reach an audience of sufficient size. From the time

Caxton first established his press in 1475 to about 1550,

"very special reasons were required to persuade a printer to 13 print more than 600-700 copies of any ordinary work." This

figure is based on a Stationers’ Company directive of 1588 which established that

no book is to be printed in numbers exceeding 1250 or 1500 in one impression except nonpareille and brevier, and four impressions a year of the Grammar and four of the Accidence severally in quarto and octavo, and also all Prymers and Catechisms, and that every one of these and of all books in non-pareille and brevier do not exceed 2500 or 3000 copies at the most, except statutes and proclamations.1*4 15

While this may not seem like a large number in absolute terms, the number of copies increases when the demands of readers were such as to warrant another edition. In the latter part of the century, North's Plutarch went through six printings (1579-1603); Calvin's Institution of Christian

Religion, ten editions (1561-1611); and Hellowes' trans­ lation of Guevara's Familiar Epistles, four editions 15 (1574-1584). Using a compromise figure of 1000 copies,

"^Bennett, p. 228. 14 E. Arber, A transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London: l554:::T640 , vol. II, p. 43, as quoted in Bennett, p. 228. 15Ebel, p. 55. 8

which is between Bennett's 700 and the Stationers’ Company

1250 copies for an edition, there would appear to have been

4000 copies of Guevara's Familiar Epistles in circulation in 16 that short space of ten years. If Trevelyan's estimate

"that the population of England and Wales at the end of the 17 Queen's [Elizabeth's] reign had passed four millions,"

then one out of every thousand people owned a copy of

Guevera's work, a fairly high proportion considering liter­

acy was not the norm. A further indication of the potential

reading public is gained from examination of the printing

history of the Bible in English. Between 1535 and 1600, no

fewer than 114 editions of the complete Scripture were 18 19 printed. This means, conservatively, a total of 114,000

copies of the Bible were available to the reading public.

Quite obviously, the aristocracy and clergy did not

provide such substantial numbers of readers. Although

Wright offers a definition of the Elizabethan "middle class"

16 Thus, there may have been 10,000 copies of Calvin's Institution of Christian Religion and 6,000 of North's Plutarch available. 17 G. M. Trevelyan, Illustrated English Social History, Volume II: The Age of Shakespeare and the 'Stuart Period (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1951), 3. 18 Based on items 2063-2182 in the STC, with omissions for 1599 editions noted as probably printed abroad after 1617. The count includes both the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible. 19 See the Stationers' Company directive above. Note that certain religious works were permitted to be printed in double editions. 9

which is so vague as to be useless, he is able to demon­

strate the rise of literacy in the greater portion of the

English population. He concludes "It is safe to say that

few middle-class parents allowed their children to grow up 21 in complete ignorance of school learning." Even if a

child were limited to the local petty school, "he received

the rudiments of education, acquiring there the ability to 22 read and write as well as cipher." Education, then as 23 now, was viewed as first step to improvement. Parents

looked after their children's education so that the child­

ren's place in the world would be better than the parents'.

In addition to providing for social success, an educated

2 0Wright (p. 2) defines the Elizabethan social classes as follows:

Elizabethan society may be roughly separated into three major divisions. The highest class consisted of the titled nobility, the landed gentry, and the more important members of the learned professions. The lowest class was composed of unskilled laborers, an illiterate peasantry, and those small artisans whose trades were meager. Between these extremes was a great class of merchants, tradesfolk, and skilled craftsmen, a social group whose thoughts and interests centered in business profits. They made up the middle class, the bourgeoisie, the average men.

At other times, Wright includes the higher level servants who had the rudiments of literacy and apprentices as members of the "great class" between the extremes. ^Wright, p. 44. 22 Wright, p. 44. 23 For example, Cardinal Wolsey was the son of a butcher, but he progressed in the social order because of his learning and talents. See the Dictionary of National Biography, XXI, 796. 10 populace was required by an expanding mercantilism; appren­ tices and journeymen who could read, write, and keep ac­ counts were in demand. A further indication of the avail­ ability and emphasis on education is the number of endowed schools established or expanded during the sixteenth cen- 24 tury. Endowments were soon provided by both individuals 25 and trade guilds. One of the effects of the increased availability of the basics of reading and writing in the vernacular language was to increase the potential market for books, especially as the number of successful merchants who had money to spend grew. Thus, the figures for the number of books in circulation are not so surprising as they might first appear to be. Who were the people who tried to supply the demand for translations and what motivated them to their undertaking? 26 As a group the translators have little in common. After the middle of the century, they were preponderantly members of the Inns of Court, though many of them, especially 27 of controversial tracts, remained anonymous. Generally

24 See Wright, pp. 50-62. 25 Two examples will help illustrate the point. Colet made the Mercers' Company governors of St. Paul's School as early as 1509. The Merchant Taylors' School, which numbered Edmund Spenser among its alumni, was established with the support of the guild in 1561 with Richard Mulcaster as headmaster. 26 Bennett, p. 159. 27 Bennett, p. 159. 11 speaking, the men who translated were men of education, both religious and lay. For example, Sir Thomas Hoby attended

Cambridge and was, according to Ascham, "many ways well furnished with learning, and very expert in knowledge of 2 8 divers tongues." He traveled much on the Continent and shortly before his death was appointed Ambassador to France.

Robert Copland, who translated several works in the first part of the century, was a printer. He was in service to 29 Caxton and later to de Worde. His own independent print­ ings number only twelve, but his translations are numerous.

Thomas Paynell was an Austin friar educated at Merton Abbey 30 and St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford. In addition, there was 31 George Baker who was a surgeon. As a result of their varied backgrounds, the trans­ lators' products varied greatly in quality. In addition, there was no class or group of professional translators, just as there was no group of professional literary people.

Such activities were a secondary interest undertaken at the request of a patron or from a felt need on the part of the translator.

2 8 Quoted in DNB, IX, 949. 29 DNB, IV, 1097f. 30 DNB, XV, 572f. 31 DNB, I, 927. 12

The prefaces and dedications of their translations are

a principal source of information about their aims, which

were as varied as their backgrounds. Generally, the pur­

poses for which translations were made fall into four broad

categories:

1. Intrinsic value of the work.

2. Religious value of the work.

3. Utilitarian value of the work.

4. Patriotic value of the work.

These categories are not mutually exclusive; a translator

might find a certain inherent value in a religious work, or

a religious work might take on some patriotic value in the

translator's mind.

Thomas Wilson, for example, seems to have been motivat­

ed by both the intrinsic and utilitarian values of logic when he translated The rule of Reason, conteinyng the Arte

of Logique, set forth in Englishe (1551):

For, considering the forwardnesse of this age, wherein the very multitude are prompte & ripe in al Sciences that have by any mans diligence bene sett forth unto them: ... I thought that Logique among all other beyng an Arte as apte for the English wittes, & as profitable for there knowledge as any the other Sciences are, myght with as good grace be sette forth in ThenglishegJJsic] , as the other Artes, heretofore haue bene.

Thus, as Wilson points out, there is a value in the logic as

32 r-v London: R. Grafton, [sig. Aiii ]. 13 an art in itself and it is also profitable for the English people to be familiar with that art. In his translation of

The three Orations of Demonsthenes (1570), Wilson invokes

Sir John Cheke to support his view of the usefulness of the orator:

Moreouer, he [Cheke] was moued greatly to like Demonsthenes aboue all others, for that he sawe him so familarly applying himselfe to the sense and vnderstanding of the common people, that he sticked not to say, that none euer was more fitte to make an English man tell his tale praise worthily in any open hearing, either in Parliament or in ^glpit, or otherwise, than this onely Orator was.

Practically any work can have a utilitarian value. For example, not only religious works, but also history has as its purpose the teaching of wisdom and morality. Certainly these are useful virtues. Thus, many translations were made so that the common man, the less learned man would have access to the lessons of history. In the preface to his translation of The Foreste or Collection of histories, no lesse profitable, then pleasant and necessarie, dooen out of

33 r-v London: Henrie Denham, 1570, sig. *i . The full title of the work has some additional significance because of the indication of the patriotic motives in addition to motives of intrinsic value: The three Orations of Demosthenes chiefe Orator among the Grecians, in fauour of tHe Olynthians, a people in Thracia, now called Romania: with those his Tower Orations titled expressly & by name against Philip of Macedonia: most nedefull to be redde in these daungerous dayes, of all them that loue their Countries libertie, and desire to take warning for their better auayle, by example of others. Englished out of the Greeke by Thomas Wylson Doctor of the ciuill lawes. 14

Frenche into English, Thomas Fortescue says that "To profite neuerthelesse generally, was my desire, but chiefly the 34 lesse learned, with this present Forest." The profit which Fortescue wants to provide is that of good and bad examples of behavior, of morality. The examples would make the reader a better person. Of course, the idea that history is profitable because of the examples it provides dates from ancient civilizations. The moral dimension of history is set forth in the prefaces of many of the classical historians.

The religious motive for undertaking translation is evident. Although he remained conservative in matters of doctrine, Henry VIII did begin making the English Church the

Church of England. Many of Henry's advisors were less conservative; Cromwell, for example, arranged to bring foreign Protestant theologians to the English universities.

When reform of abuses finally became revolution of doctrine, the Protestants looked for guidance to the Continental re­ formers, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Pietro Martire Vermigli (Peter Martyr) and translated their works into English. The ties between Continental religious thought and England continued throughout the century. As England progressed under the Tudors, the people were also caught up in the spirit of nationalism, and many trans­ lators viewed their translation as acts of patriotism com­ parable to those deeds done by the great adventurers of the

34 v London: John Kyngston, 1571, [sig. Aiir ]. 15

day. A part of the patriotic impulse of the Tudor trans­

lators was to fill a cultural gap they perceived to exist

between England and the Continent. Andrew Mansuell, in his

preface to Cato Construed (1584), indicates that it was "the

Translations of this Booke into diuers languages, which

occasioned me (for that our Englishe youth should not want

those aides, whiche foraine countries haue, for the easier

obtainyng of the Latin tongue) to cause this booke also to 35 be made Englishe." Hoby, too, sees that translation,

especially his translation of The Book of the Courtier, will

help close the cultural and learning gap in England. Men in

Italy, Spain, and France had already recognized the value of

The Courtier. Further, they "bend themselves with an honest

strife of matching others to turne into their mother tongue,

not onely the wittie writings of other languages, but also 36 of the philosophers, and all Sciences." Through his efforts, however, he hopes that the English will learn the best of the Continental thought, that they

alone of the world may not be still counted barbarous in our tongue, as in time out of mind we have bene in our maners. And so shall we perchaunce in time become as famous in England, as the learned men^f other nations have bene and presently are.

35 v London: f. Andrewe Maunsell, sig. Ai . 36 Thomas Hoby, trans., The Book of the Courtier, by Baldassare Castiglione (New York-: E.-F. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1948) , pp. 4-5. 37 Hoby, p. 5. 16

George Baker, in 1576, expresses essentially the same thought in the preface to his translation of Gesner's The

Newe Iewell of Health:

For what kinde of science or knowledge euer was inuented by man, which is not nowe in the Italian or French: And what more prerogatiue haue they than we English men (of the which many learned men haue made sufficient proofe within these fewe yeres, fully to furnish & satisfie our Nation with many goodly works.) For our English is as meete & and necess^gy for us, as is the Greeke for the Grecians.

Finally, Thomas North dedicates his translation from Amyot's

French of Plutarch's Lives to the Queen: "Yet I hope the common sorte of your subjects, shall not onely profit themselues hereby, but also be animated to the better 39 seruice of your maiestie." The translators felt obliged to do something for their countrymen, something of lasting value. Therefore, those with the learning to do so undertook to make available the works they consididered to be signif­ icant. Significance, however, was defined in many ways—from reports of news events to philosophy. The "tradition of translating for the benefit of the commonwealth had started with the first English printers, for so destitute was England of original works worth publishing that for many years after

38 . r London: Henrie Denham, sig. Xin . 39 The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (London: T. Vautroullier, T579), sig. Ai . 17

the beginning of printing, Caxton and his immediate success­

ors were forced to feed their presses with translations of 40 foreign books." Translation, then, was a significant activity during

the sixteenth century for many reasons. Ultimately, the

motivation may be traced to a desire that the English not be

left out of contemporary thought which peoples on the Contin­ ent possessed. As an activity, translation was not limited

only to weighty works of philosophy, theology, or history,

but encompassed guides to other countries for merchants, medical treatises, and conduct books. No single group,

either by profession or training, held a monopoly on providing

foreign works in English; however, the translator generally

was a man of learning. As a result of social pressures and

changes, the reading audience in sixteenth-century England was sufficiently large to support a substantial book trade

and, as a part of that trade, to support a demand for trans­

lations, a demand that enabled the printers to devote

approximately twenty per cent of their total output to

translations.

Wright, p. 340. Wright seems to be using hyperbole here, but it is true that many of the first works printed in England were translations. Caxton served as his own trans­ lator in many cases, most notably in that of the Golden Legend. In addition, though, Caxton also printed works by native English writers, e.g., Chaucer. 1%

CHAPTER II

TRANSLATION THEORY 19

Throughout the centuries grave doubts have been raised over the feasibility of translations of literary works. Again and again it has been maintained that it is not possible for anyone to combine in another language the thoughts, the emotions, the style, and the form of an epic, a lyric poem, a poetic drama, or even a prose novel. Yet the fact remains that the art of translation has been practiced everywhere in the world.

—Horst Frenz "The Art of Translation" in Comparative Literature : Method and Perspective

The apparent impossiblity of translating a literary

work stated by Frenz can be applied to almost any trans­

lation. Theodore Savory, in discussing literary translation,

lists twelve mutually contradictory instructions which would-be translators have received:^"

^The Art of Translation, p. 49. Savory's work is considered ‘'the-best book on the subject in English" by Bayard Quincy Morgan. ("Bibliography," On Translation, ed. Reuben Brower.) Savory's work is used as the basis for the discussion of translation theory for two reasons. First, he clearly and concisely summarizes the many differing approaches. Secondly, he finds the needs of the audience as central to what choices a translator makes in a particular case. Other discussions of translation theory are, in actuality, concerned more with the practice and craft of translation, i.e., what should be done in particular cases. Eugene A. Nida's Toward a Science of Translating with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964) focuses on the solutions to the practical problems which confront a trans­ lator. The Craft and Context of Translation (ed. William Arrowsmith and Roger Shattuck [Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1961]) is a collection of papers which represent 20

1. A translation must give the words of the original.

2. A translation must give the ideas of the original.

3. A translation should read like an original work.

4. A translation should read like a translation.

5. A translation should reflect the style of the original.

6. A translation should possess the style of the translator.

7. A translation should read like a contemporary of the original.

8. A translation should read like a contemporary of the translator.

9. A translation may add to or omit from the original.

10. A translation may never add to or omit from the original.

11. A translation of verse should be in prose.

12. A translation of verse should be in verse.

Obviously, these principles are bewildering, when looked at in their entirety. In one sense, they are all subdivisions of the first two principles which present the usual distinct-

"serious shop-talk of practising craftsmen." The result is, again, rooted in practice: what should a translator do. An earlier study, Flora Ross Amos' Early Theories of Translation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1920} covers translation from the Middle Ages to Pope. However, the work is a synthesis of what early translators say about what they did. Studies or discussions of the practice of translation have a major short-coming. The authors approach their discussions with certain assumptions and definitions already formulated, but they do not show the process by which they arrived at the assumptions. Savory does discuss the process and it is that which makes him most useful for the current discussion. 21 ion between a literal translation and a free translation.

The difficulty with classifying translations as literal or free is that the labels are vague and are defined by the person examining the translation. What is very literal to one person may seem very free to another. Why is it that there are no clearly defined standards for classifying translations into even two general categories?

To say a translation is literal implies a faithfulness to the original that a free translation lacks or ignores.

Yet, how many translators will claim to be unfaithful to the original? Few, if any. Each translator, regardless of his final result, believes that he is transmitting a work faithfully from one culture to another. However, the translator is constantly confronted with problems which threaten the faithfulness that he wants to preserve. Selecting what he thinks is the most effective alternative may take the trans­ lator away from faithfulness—at least in the opinion of someone else. Rolfe Humphries, for example, has said that, in handling epic catalogues, he "will, at least, suggest a catalogue, but [be] apt to abridge it . . . [and] occasionally . . . will substitute the general for the specific, 'mountain' for Othrys, 'wine' for Lageos, modernize the name of a town, writing Yerevan for Artaxata at the end of Juvenal's second 22 satire."2 Humphries is not setting out to be "unfaithful" to his classical texts, but he is trying to effectively (as he would define it) present an ancient Roman author to a twentieth century audience. The danger, of course, is that the modern audience will receive mostly Humphries—and that

Ovid, Virgil, Juvenal, et al., will be slighted. In this example, the translator seems to be following Savory's principle that a translation should read like the work of a contemporary of the translator. Although Humphries follows that principle, one could object that he is taking too many liberties with the text.

The most important tool available to a translator when confronted with a choice is context, and it cannot be disregarded.

What does a translator do when he comes across an expression in the original language that would mean the opposite if it were translated directly? For example, the phrase used of the repentant Publican in the Bible is "he beat his breast."

In one Central African language that phrase means "to

2 "Latin and English Verse—Some Practical Considerations" in On Translation, ed. Reuben Brower (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 64. On Translation, a collection of sixteen essays by prominent contemporary translators, focuses on the judgments a translator must make. The essays provide literally hundreds of examples of the way in which the translator's technical judgment is exercised. Because of the many and diverse examples it provides, On Translation is used to illustrate the problems of translation. 23 congratulate oneself." Here, surely, even the most diehard literalist would agree that the phrase must be changed to a native one which is comparable. Otherwise the entire idea of repentance would be lost. Thus, such a change, while violating the principle of literalness (in a word for word sense) certainly does not violate the idea of the original.

The context has established what must be done, that a change must be made.

Or, what does a translator do when confronted with a linguistic feature which either does not exist or exists in a very different way in the second language? For example,

Greek verbs have three voices (active, middle, and passive) whereas English verbs have only two (active and passive).

The middle voice provides information not available in so succinct a form in English. The translator must decide how best to convey the additional information to preserve stand­ ard English syntax. In addition, Greek is a synthetic language and English is not. Thus, the literal-versus-free distinction becomes even more obscure because more words are present in English than in the original Greek. To illustrate with a basic example, the Greek might say, • which means "I make myself houses." First, it has taken four words in English to translate two (but only six syllables to

3 Eugene A. Nida, "Principles of Translation As Exemplified By Bible Translating," On Translation, ed. Reuben Brower (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), pp. 11-12. 24

translate six syllables, though the quality of the syllables

differs). In addition, the English phrase is awkward because

it attempts to convey all of the information present in the 4 Greek. What is to be done with "I make myself houses"?

The context (limited though it is in this case) would seem

to justify changing "make" to "build," giving "I build

myself houses," a statement which is still awkward. To

eliminate "myself" certainly would make the statement read

better, but then it sounds like a contractor's answer to a

question about what he does: "I build houses." And the

omission loses the idea that I am building the houses for

myself. One might consider using the above prepositional

phrase as part of the translation: "I build houses for

myself." However, the problem of length rears its head

again. Even in attempting a fairly direct prose sentence,

the difficulties of translation become readily apparent.

When the impossibility of translation is mentioned, the

first difficulty that comes to mind is not one of those mentioned above (length or lack of similar linguistic

4 Theodore C. Burgess and Robert J. Bonner, Elementary Greek: An Introduction to the Study of Attic Greek (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1907), pp. 21-22. The Greek middle voice, "through lack of means to translate it fully into English, is often hardly to be distinguished from the active. Its force may best be brought out by the use of an active verb of apparently different meaning: -tt* ¿nJ , I. put a stop to, Trxtrol t I. cease; /}, 1^ loose, > 1. ransom; , I persuade, > I obey; I take, rttgiz t I. choose." 25

structures). Rather, it is the problem of equivalent

vocabulary. Each language is the product of a specific

environment. The vocabulary of any language reflects the

important concerns of the people using it. Thus, Eskimo languages have several words to distinguish various kinds of

snow because snow is an important element in Eskimo life. On the other hand, some African languages have only one word

to designate anything made out of metal—whether it be a 5 needle or an airplane. Greek has four words for which

English has one: The English word "love" is used to trans­

late How, then, does the translator convey the distinctions which the Greeks were able to make explicit through their vocabulary? Does he resort to such expressions as "to be friendly with," or "to appreciate the value of"? If such phrases are used with consistency, what is the effect on the modern audience?

Will they feel that the extensive use of such wordy locutions is awkward, and may not even be English? Savory indicates that many of the problems the trans- g lator faces are decided by the audience he wishes to reach.

He sees four kinds of readers of translations:

^Nida, p. 26. g Savory, p. 57f. 26

1. The reader who knows nothing of the original language. 2. The student "who is learning the language of the original, and does so in part by reading its litera­ ture with the help of a translation."

3. The reader who knew the language at one time, but has now forgotten it.

4. The scholar who knows the language.

Based on these four categories, then, are four types of translation, one to satisfy each type of reader. There is 7 the free translation, read "without pain of thought," for the reader ignorant of the original. There is the literal translation for the student. Thirdly, the translation which reads like a translation is for the reader who has forgotten the language, but wants to be reminded of the original.

Lastly, the scholar may read any of the other three or a g translation laden with footnotes. The principle of audience analysis apparently has been only recently applied to trans- 9 lation theory. However, in the introductions to many modern translations, Savory's theory of the importance of the potential audience in shaping the work receives confirma­ tion. Lattimore, for example, aimed his translation of

Greek Lyrics at "students (in the widest sense) of litera-

7 Savory, p. 58. 8 Savory, p. 58. g Morgan (p. 293) comments that "new is his [Savory's] principle of reader analysis as affecting the kind of tr. desired." 27

ture who do not know Greek or know only a little. Advanced

scholars and experts will read these offerings only for fun, 10 or out of curiosity, or pure kindness, or, perhaps, malice."

Huse considered the potential readership of his translation

of The Divine Comedy as one that wants "a version as similar to the original as possible." W. H. D. Rouse, unlike to

Lattimore, does not anticipate the scholar's reading his

version of The Odyssey as a curiosity. In addition to

attempting to provide a means for those who do not know

Greek to become acquainted with "the best story ever written,"

Rouse has "to think also of scholars, although the book is not addressed to them in the first place." Wilkinson,

translating a selection of the Letters of Cicero, sees his

work "intended for readers who are not conversant with the 13 classics." The principle of selection from among the

letters Wilkinson employed was "to avoid what would require

too much explanation and yet to give a representative impres­

sion of Cicero's career and character, of life in his day,

10 Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. iv. 11 New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1954, pp. xiii-xiv. ■1‘■ 7'¿Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1937, p. vii. 13 New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1966, p. 10. First published in 1948. 28

14 . . . and of the changing political scene." This principle coincides with the general view of a readership which is ignorant of Latin. For modern translators, then, Savory is apparently correct in saying that the audience has a direct effect on the kind of translation which is done. It is interesting to note that some of the statements about the reader given above were made before Savory applied the principle of reader-analysis to translations, indicating that translators were using the principle without its having been articulated. There was an awareness of the needs of various kinds of people who would read translations and the translator attempted to single out the group which seemed to need his work the most.

In the sixteenth century, too, the principle of reader-analysis was at work. An examination of remarks directed to the "gentle reader" by various translators of that time finds one group or another singled out to benefit most from the translator's efforts. Richard Hopkins, a Catholic, translated Of Prayer and Meditation by Luis de Granada to counter the influence of Protestant works on "the common 15 peoples myndes." On the other hand, Miles Coverdale

14 Wilkinson, p. 10. 15 Richard Hopkins, Of Prayer and Meditation (Paris: T. Brumeau, 1582), sig. avi . 29

translated a treatise by Calvin because, as Calvin was

"moved with the desyre to profyte as wel the rude and unlerned

as the lettered and professors of knowledge," so, too,

Coverdale was "moved also with the desyre to profyte my

naturall countremen."Coverdale, then, has both the

learned and common people in mind as his audience, as much

as does Rouse. John Dolman translated from Cicero Those

fyue Questions, which Marke Tullye Cicero, disputed in his

Manor of Tusculanum for a slightly different group, "a meane

sort of men" who are neither "the raskall multitude" nor 17 "learned sages." Wilson translated The rule of Reason, as

he tells the King in the dedication,

[after] considering the forwardenesse of this age, wherein the very multitude are prompte & ripe in al Sciences that haue by any mans diligence bene sett forth vnto them: weighyng also that capacitie of my country men the Englishnacio is so pregnaunt and quicke to achiue any kynde, or Arte, of knowledge, whereunto wit maie attain, that they are not inferiour to any other: And farther godering that diuerse learned me of other coutreis haue heretofore for the furtheraunce of knowlege, not suffred any of the Sciences liberal to be hidden in the Greke, or Latine tongue, but haue with most earnest trauaile madeg euery of them familiar to their vulgare people.

Thus, he wants to make learning which is available to the

1 6 A ... treatyse concernynge [sic] the Sacrament (N.p., 154§?T, sig. Aiir. 17 v London: Thomas Marshe, 1561, sig. *iv . 18 x?’""* Wilson, sig. Aiii . Also, see above, p. 12. 30

common people of other countries available to the English

commoner, who is no less able to understand the concepts of

logic than his Continental counterpart. As is becoming

evident, sixteenth-century translators seem to have the

"rude," "vulgar" or "unlearned" person in mind. However,

such a reader was probably, "at best, a vague rhetorical 19 mask fitted by tradition." Although the unlearned reader was the traditional audience for the translator, other

groups were also aimed at. Coverdale's inclusion of the

more learned reader as a part of his audience was not unusual.

Thomas Phaer, for example, translated the Aeneid for "the 20 nobilitie, gentelmen and Ladies, that studie not Latine."

Abraham Fleming found another potential audience: "English 21 youthe, desirous to learne." Thus, it seems that Savory's

statement that reader analysis plays an important role in

shaping a translation has validity for the sixteenth

century. To a great extent, early translators were aware

that there were different kinds of readers who could be

appealed to. Although most translators were trying to

■^Ebel, p. 53. 20 The seuen first bookes of the Egeidos (London: J. Kyngston for R. Jugge, 1558) , sigl r*v . 21 Quoted in H. B. Lathrop, Translations from the Classics into English from Caxton to Chapman (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1933), p. 114. 31

provide the "vulgar" reader, that nameless and faceless

reader who seems to be the object of most translators of all

ages, with the learning he had missed, they were aware that

even the nobility could profit from a translation. Whether

the translators were aware that the "unlearned" reader of

the preface was there as a convention matters not so much as

the fact that the translation was not complete unless some

statement identifying an audience were included as a part of

the prefatory material.

To reach the common reader, the sixteenth-century

translator used a plain style and was most concerned with conveying the mind of the author. One of the more complete statements of how a translator worked is provided by John 22 Stockwood. First, his concern is to make things easier for his readership. Any of the changes he makes from his

Latin original are for that purpose: he has added marginal notes to lay "open vnto thy consideration the summe and principall contents" of the important points; he has changed the citations of the Prophets to follow versions which were

22 The following is a summary of A Fruitfull Commentarie vpon the twelue Small Prophets, Briefe, Plaine, and Easie, Going Over The Same Verse By Verse, And Shewing euery where the Method, point of doctrine, and figures of Rhetoricke, to the no small profit of all godly and well disposed Readers, with very necessarie fore-notes for the vnderstanding both of these and also all other the Prophets [By Lambertus Danaeus] , ( [London!-: Iohn Legate (Printer to Vniversitie of Cambridge) , 1594) , sig. 1[4v-l[5r V. 32

then extant in English; he has changed words so that the

text will be more "profitable vnto the greater number," whether that change be from Hebrew words to Latin or words within quotations; he has endeavored to mark and explain the various figures of rhetoric that the original author used in order that the readers of the translation may more easily understand. Although he does not specifically mention a class or type of reader, Stockwood does indicate that some of the changes he has made will enable even the simple, mean, or ignorant reader to profit from the work. Secondly, he includes a protestation, albeit a weak one, concerning his lack of qualifications for the job: "so farre as my small skill and little learning would seure me." This is a conventional statement which had to be included in any statement to the reader. If every translator of the sixteenth century who made a similar statement actually believed it, there would probably have been two translations made during the entire century. Yet this is not to deny that there were some translators who lacked enough knowledge to do a satisfactory translation. But even accomplished translators felt it necessary to include a statement of their unworthiness for what they were about to undertake.

Thirdly, Stockwood closes with a further conventional state­ ment: how much trouble he has had in doing the translation.

He has, he tells us, endured much pain from rising early, 33

sitting long, and going late to bed in order to finish his work. There is, of course, no doubt that translation, especially good translation, is difficult. Many of the

Elizabethan translators never fail to remind us of the fact,

Stockwood among them. Although Stockwood's remarks include the accepted conventions for an address to the reader, still he presents in more detail than most the changes that he has made, changes which were motivated by a desire that the reader gain as much as possible from the translated work.

This is a clear example of Savory's principle at work.

Dolman is also aware of the difficulties of translating, of changing ideas from one language to another. He is concerned with the twin problems of style and diction. How can they be reproduced in the new language?

It is not possible for any man, to expresse the writinges of Tullie, in Englishe so eloquently: as he hath uttered the same in Latine. Then, for mine owne translation: forasmuche as it must of necessity be either more simple then, the stile of Tullie, or els more foolishe, and ful of croked termes (for Tullies meane none can attain) I had rather to be partener of the favour, due to simplicity, and plainenes then, with foolyshe and farre fet wordes, to make my translation seeme more darke to the unlearned, & more foolishe to the wise. By which my playnenes, withoute counterfaite eloquence, if I haue thereby escaped, the just reproofe, that they desrve, whiche thinke to cloke their ignorance, with inkehorne terms.

Most of the translators of the time agreed with Dolman that the use of inkhorn terms was not the solution to their pro-

23 Dolman, [r si■ g. A,•i v r-v.J. 34

blems. Since many of them were trying to reach an audience

which was not well schooled in the original language, they

attempted to keep the language of their translations simple

and understandable.

A more important problem for the sixteenth-century translator was how literal should his translation be. As

with their modern counterparts, Tudor translators adpoted

differing solutions. The two extremes were presented in the

early years of Elizabeth's reign by Robert Fills and Thomas

Drant. Because of the almost religious nature of the orig­

inal, Fills is reluctant to make any substantial changes in

the phrasing or word choices. He is willing to make use of non-English, in this case French, words and even syntax to preserve the literalness of his translation. As he says, he would "rather be to curiously faithfull" than take a chance 24 at misinterpreting the Laws of Geneva. In translating Horace's satires, Drant uses a free method by which the satires end up more Drant than Horace.

I have interfarced (to remoue his obscuritie and sometymes to better his matter) much of myne owne devysinge. I have peeced his reason, eekede, and mended his similitudes, mollyfied his hardnes, prolonged his cortall kynd of speeche, changed, & muche altered his words, but not his sentence: or at least (I dare say) not his purpose.

^The Lawes and Statutes of Geneua, as well concerning ecclesiastical PiscTpline, as ciuill regiment (London: Rouland Hall, 1562) , sig. *iii^ 25 A Mtedicinable Morall, that is, the two Bookes of Horace his Satyres (London: Thomas Marshe, 1565), sig. aiii -avi . 35

One wonders how much of the original Horace was left after

Drant finished his surgery. As a statement of practice,

Drant goes further than any of the other translators of his

time. Most of the translators did not publicly acknowledge

having tampered so with their originals, even if some did so

in practice. The statements by Fills and Drant seem to mark the

extremes of what translators did in practice: Fills desir­

ing to be literal even if the result were not quite English,

Drant wanting to transform Horace into what Drant thought he should be. To generalize about most Tudor translators (a

dangerous practice when considering a group as diverse as

they were), their standard practice was to attempt to be

faithful to the sense of the original. That, of course, as

shown above, is difficult to determine. However, a translator can be faithful to the sense of a work in another language

and at the same time make it comprehensible to his own culture and time. When that is done, the new work takes on an air of originality. Especially if the translator wants to reach the reader who has little knowledge of the original culture and time, he must "naturalise his translation."

Whibley has said of the Tudor translators that "they have turned their authors of Greece and Rome not merely into a new language, but into the feelings of another age and clime.

2 6 Cambridge History of English Literature, p. 3. 36

The sixteenth century translators, then, were faced with problems faced by translators at all times: What words are best to convey the author's ideas and emotions to the particular audience? How many liberties may be taken with the text to help the reader understand? Who will read the translation? The Tudor translators answered these questions in ways similar to translators of other times. They were extremely conscious of the unlearned readership they thought would comprise most of their audience. Thus, they attempted to clarify allusions and to keep the language plain. Such a concern was expressed—in practice, often little attention was paid to clarity. One reason has to do with the develop­ ing state of the English language. To say that some trans­ lators apparently did not care whether they were clear or that they ignored easy understanding for the reader may be an unfair judgment rendered from a twentieth-century point of view. In the sixteenth century the language was not set either in vocabulary or sentence structure. In spite of mistakes, translations continued to appear in the bookstalls.

Above all, it must be remembered that the sixteenth-century translators were attempting to bring something of value from another culture into their own society. CHAPTER III

THE TWO LIVYS 38

Before turning to an analysis of the two sixteenth-century translations of Livy, it is necessary to show that the translators (and their translations) fit into the main-stream of their time. Chapter One showed the extent to which translation activity occurred. In addition, it showed the general characteristics of the translators: their backgrounds, professions, interests. According to that description, Sir Antony Cope and Philemon Holland were typical of sixteenth-century translators.

In addition, it is important to recognize the multiple and complex relationships which exist in a comparison of two translations. First, each translation is related to the original text. The original text theoretically imposes some limits on a translator. While a translation in a sense is a new creation, accuracy and faithfulness suggest that it bear some resemblance to the original. For any comparison to have value, each element of the comparison needs to be examined to see what happens to the structure of the episodes and the differing linguistic structures in each language. A second relationship is that between the two translations themselves. Here the basis of comparison is the structure of each work, the ways in which different syntactical patterns are presented, and word choices each translator made. Lastly, the most important relationship which exists is that between the reader and the translation. 39

After the various techniques, of each translation have been

identified, the question to be asked is "what do they do?"

In many ways, Sir Antony Cope and Philemon Holland, the sixteenth-century translators of Livy’s Ab urbe condita, were typical of their era, although one lived early in the century and the other lived into the next. Cope, the son of the cofferer to Henry VII, was a member of Oriel College, Oxford, but never completed a degree.'*’ He travelled to the

Continent, spending time in Germany, France, and Italy visiting various universities. According to Wood, Cope

"became an accomplished gentleman" and wrote several pieces abroad. Although not a prominent man of affairs, he was active in political life. He served as chamberlain to

Catherine Parr and, after being knighted in 1547 by Edward VI, he was sheriff of Oxfordshire and Berkshire. As was typical of the time, Cope was not primarily an author, although the

Dictionary of National Biography lists him as an author.

His known bibliography is short—a book of meditations on 2 twenty of the Psalms and his translation of Livy; Wood's comment seems to indicate more than two items, but there is no record of them.

1 DNB, IV, 1090f. 2 STC 5717. 40

Holland was a well-educated man, studying under Whitgift

at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he eventually graduated 3 with an M.A. in 1574. He graduated about 1595 with a

degree in medicine, apparently from a Scottish or foreign

university. However, Holland's medical practice was not very lucrative, because he suffered from much poverty,

especially in his later years. At the age of 76 he was

appointed headmaster of the Coventry free school, but he had

to resign after ten months because of age. Fuller called

Holland "the translator general in his age" and commented that "those books alone of his turning into English will 4 make a country gentleman a competent library for historians."

That "library for historians" was translated mostly in the

first decade of the seventeenth century: Livy's Romane 5 6 History (1600), Pliny's Naturall Historie (1601), Plutarch's 7 8 Morals (1603), Suetonius' Historie of Twelve Caesars (1606), 9 Ammianus Marcellinus' Roman Historie (1609H, and, later, 10 Xenophon's Cyrupaedia (1621).

3 DNB, IX, 1045f. 4 Thomas Fuller, The Worthies of England, ed. John Freeman (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1952), p. 587. 5STC 16613. 6 STC 20029. 7 STC 20063. 8 STC 23422. 9 STC 17311. 10 STC 26068 (not published until 1632). 41

The two Tudor translators were not a part of a

professional literary class and they attended one of the two

English universities. Their interest in politics, education

and medicine parallels the interest of many of the other

translators in the sixteenth century.

Cope and Holland shared an interest in history with most of their countrymen. From bare chronological outlines

to elaborate narratives, histories found a ready audience in

sixteenth-century England because they were believed to have

an inherent value.

Historye . . . reformeth and reconcyleth her hand allé thoos men whiche thurgh the infyrmyte of oure mortal nature hath ledde the mooste parte of theyr lyf in ocyostyte and myspendeth theyr tyme... 1

Thus did Caxton state the efficacy of history in 1482, an idea familiar to ancient historians and which continued well past the sixteenth century. Probably the most exaggerated claim for history was made by Barnabe Rich, who wrote in his

Allarme to England (1578) that the Irish are in such a sad 12 state because they lack histories to read.

11 W. J. B. Crotch, ed., The Prologues and Epilogues of William Caxton, Early English-Text Society,“Ordinary Series, 176, p. 64. 12 See Wright, pp. 299-300. 42

The value of history was not restricted by geography or

culture. For example, Higden's Polychronicon, a

fourteenth-century attempt at a general history of the

world, was printed as late as 1527 by Treveris—in spite of

the fact it "gave a view of the historical, geographic and 13 scientific knowledge of the age in which it was written."

The most famous of Elizabethan histories is probably

Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Irelande

(1578). The Chronicles ran to over three thousand pages and was a costly book, but most of the chronicles were printed

in inexpensive small pocket editions so that people would 14 have access to the lessons of history.

Despite the great interest in history, it was not until

the latter half of the century, apparently, there was any demand for the history of Greece and Rome in translation.

The classical historians, for the most part, had been available in their original language since early in the century. Whereas Alexander Barclay translated Sallust's Jugurtha in 1520 and Thomas Paynell translated Constantius Felicius' The Conspiracie of Lucius Catiline in 1541, names like North and Grimeston do not appear until well into the reign of Elizabeth.

13 Bennett, pp. 124-25. 14 Wright, p. 315. 43

It is for the educative value of the deeds of Hannibal

and Scipio that Cope translated Livy. In 1544 when Cope made his translation Henry VIII had been abandoned by

Charles V in one of their many wars with France. At the time Henry had captured Boulogne, Charles concluded the peace of Crepy. Cope's concern is that the King and gentlemen of the court profit from the example of two contrasting men: one good and upright (thus victorious), the other crafty and treacherous (thus ultimately defeated).

From the Roman experience, then, "men also may learne bothe to dooe displeasure to theyr ennemies, and to auoyde the crafty and daungerous baites, which shall be layde for 15 theim."

Holland, too, translated Livy because of the exempla his history provided. Unlike Cope, Holland is concerned only with the positive virtues which will be developed as a result of reading about the Romans.

A desire I had to performe in some sort, that which is profitable to the most, namely, an english Historie of that C. W. which of all others . . . affourdeth most plenteous examples

15 The Historie of Two The Moste Noble Capitaines of the world, AHniball and Scipio, of theyr dyuers battailes and victories, excedyng profitable to reade, gathered and translated into Englishe (London: Thomas Berthelet, 1544), sig. aiiir. 44

of devout zeale in their kind, of wisdome, pollicie, iustice, valour, and all vertues whatsoever.

Using Livy's history to illustrate virtuous action was an understandable choice, because he shared the belief that 17 "history is a medium for moral instruction." In addition to the preface to his history where he states his view of history's moral dimension, Livy made many comments on the events he narrated. For example, he comments, "Let them mock now admirers of old [ways]: truly, if there be a state of wise men as learned men conceive rather than know, I believe there would not be either leaders more eminent or more moderate in desire of power or a multitude of better 18 character." Livy continued to explain that the behavior being praised is incredible to his time because of the diminished authority even of parents over children. Clearly,

Livy is using a past event as a model of right conduct which

16 The Romane Historié Written by T. Livius of Padva (London: Adam Islip, Ï6ÜÜ), sig. [Aiii-Aiv ]. 17 P. G. Walsh, Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1963), p. 39. 18 Titi Livi, Ab urbe condita, Oxford Classical Texts (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1968), XXVI.xxii.14. For Latin text, see Appendix. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. Generally, I have attempted very literal translations so that the comparisons with Cope's and Holland's versions will more clearly show their techniques. 45 should be imitated. And it was this aspect of his history that Holland and Cope found congenial for their own purposes.

Although Cope and Holland used the educative value of historiography as their primary justification for translating

Livy, they also had other reasons. Cope mentioned contributing 19 to the pleasure of the King and noble men of the realm; 20 Holland translated Livy for his "rare and passing eloquence."

In addition, using the authority Quintilian, Holland found

Livy to be the epitome of an historian: delivering the whole truth, having due regard for important circumstances, including no fabulous tales, not being one-sided.

In order to understand Holland's admiration of Livy as a historian, it is necessary to understand the tradition of classical historiography. Among the Greeks there are three 22 discernible approaches to history. First, there is the rhetorical approach which is a result of Isocrates. The hallmark of this approach is the application of rhetorical techniques to the "facts" of history and the presentation of history in a formal literary manner. The historian is

19 r Cope, sig. aiii . 20 r Holland, [sig. Av ]. 21 v Holland, [sig. Av ]. 22 The following summary of classical historiography is based on the essays "The Greek Historians" (by G. T. Griffith) and "The Roman Historians" (by A. H. McDonald) in Fifty years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship, ed. Maurice Platnauer (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968). 46

expected to clearly identify the time and place of events,

and to provide superficial discussion of plans and their

results. In addition, the character of significant

personages is to be illuminated by speeches composed for the

purpose.

Closely related to the use of rhetorical techniques is

the use of dramatic techniques. Here, the principles of tragedy are applied to history. The reader is to become a

spectator; the aim is to evoke pity and fear in the reader.

Many episodes in history readily lend themselves to such an

approach because they are inherently tragic. For example,

battles can be easily presented using dramatic conventions.

Dramatic history is distinguished from rhetorical history

primarily by the lack of even superficial discussion of

causes and results.

Both kinds of history can be used by the same writer.

Particular episodes might be developed in a dramatic way, while larger movements might be developed in a rehtorical way. A particular battle, for example, could be developed dramatically, evoking pity and fear; the larger war of which the battle is a part could be developed rhetorically. A lack of historical material is not a deterrent to the writing of history, because, using whatever evidence might be available, the historian could create "'verisimilitude' in the eyes of 47

23 his readers." Standard descriptions of battles and

meetings combined with speeches composed for the particular

situation achieve the proper effect.

The third, and not often used, approach, which may be

called the analytic, is what today would be called

scientific history. The outstanding practitioner among the

Greeks of such a method was Thucydides. He attempted to

check the veracity of the reports he received and he visited

the scenes of battles to accurately report what happened.

However, most other historians were not as concerned about

accuracy. An interest in accuracy does not mean that

rhetorical or dramatic techniques were not used by analytic

historians; they were, but not for the purpose of distortion.

If the choice were between historical accuracy and a good

story, accuracy would be chosen.

These three traditions of Greek historiography influenced

Roman historians primarily because Cicero endorsed all three approaches, by accepting the canons of Isocrates, by referring

to the dramatic form as a standard form for historiography, and by insisting on the excision of fabulous stories. However, additional influences were also at work.

The earliest Roman histories were the senatorial histories which were composed in Greek and were based on the

23 McDonald, p. 458. 48

Armales, records in a yearly arrangement kept by the

Pontifex Maximus. Although Fabius Pictor, the first identifiable Roman historian, and his successors composed their material freely, it was not until the Gracchan period that the "'Isocratean' technique of literary elaboration 24 reached Rome." The result of the Annalists' application of the technique to their material is some distortion of the events to suit their political purposes. Because of the form and authority of the Annalistic histories, and the

Roman reverence for tradition, the histories were unquestionably accepted by later historians such as Livy.

Another development in the Roman tradition of historical writing is the establishment of the historical monograph as a literary genre. Until Coelius Antipater, a historian followed the chronological development of the Annales and presented the whole history of Rome. Coelius Antipater's work on the Second Punic War was the first Roman work devoted to a limited period. The combination of literary elaboration and a history of limited scope provided another means for the continuation of dramatic and rhetorical historiography. Even more important to the perpetuation of literary history is biography. The life of a person provides a

24 McDonald, p. 471. 49

convenient conventional arrangement of topics suitable for rhetorical development: birth, youth, achievements, 25 character. The potential for composition and elaboration

is evident. Many of the developments in Roman historiography, then,

enabled the Romans to build on the two common Greek traditions,

rhetoric and drama, in composing history. It is in these

traditions that Livy worked. In one sense, his contribution

is the addition of a finer literary style to the Annales, but he also encourages his reader to use the examples of the past as a guide for the future. When Holland praises Livy's accuracy, he is praising his literary ability. Livy is able to keep the reader's interest, to vary his set pieces so they seem different.

Livy makes use of the native Roman tradition of annalistic history as the outline of his work. Each of the consular years is introduced by Annalistic material which catalogues elections and military assignments. The influence of the rhetoricians is to be found in the many speeches which he composed. However, the most noticeable of the earlier traditions in Livy is that of dramatic

25 The epitome of such compositions was reached with medieval hagiography. An entire saint's life was regularly composed with no more historical evidence than a name or a vague allusion to a miraculous happening. 50

history. Often Livy structured his episodes to follow the 26 dicta of Aristotle for tragedy. In addition, despite the

breadth of his history, Livy also incorporates many of the

characteristics of the historical monograph when presenting

extended events such as the Second Punic War.

How did the two translators propose to use Livy's techniques to achieve their own purposes? Cope does not provide any statement about his methods of translation, possibly because his intended audience would have had both

access to the original and the ability to have read it.

Translating for a limited audience, already familiar with the Emperor's treachery against Henry, Cope believed it unnecessary to explain his sources or his methods.

Holland, on the other hand, has much to say about his methods. He is aware of the problems facing a translator.

The primary aim of Holland’s approach to translation is, he emphasizes, clarity. At times, he says, he found it necessary to "use some old words," not to be obscure or archaic, but 27 because they seemed the best choices. He might not be as concise as Livy, but he was "loth . . . to be obscure and

26 See p. 58ff. 27 r Holland, [sig. Aiv ]. 51

2 8 darke." To explain Roman customs and history, he included

much marginalia. In addition, he appended "A Chronologie To

The Historie of T. Livius," a treatise of the topography of

Rome (by Bartholmew Marlianus), and a dual index to the work

(one section is actually a glossary)—all to help the reader

over the hurdle of a different time and place. Following

the conventions of the day, Holland stated he had "framed my pen, not to any affected phrase, but to a meane and popular stile." Finally, Holland, conventionally, tried to

forestall criticism:

Find fault and spare not; but withal, read the original better before ye give sentence.^

His concern that the reader have a thorough understanding of ancient Rome was not unusual, but the efforts he took to accomplish that end certainly were.

Each translator had a particular audience in mind.

Cope's audience was limited to the Court: the King and nobles of England. This is a group which would have had a comparatively good education and would have been able to read Livy in the original. As a result, Cope can translate

^Holland, [sig. Aivr] .

Holland, [sig. Aivr]. ■^Holland, [sig. Aivr] . 52

for his limited purpose of showing how guileless men ultimately

triumph. Holland's intended audience is much more general;

he wants to provide an example which will be "profitable to

the most." The implications of a general audience are

understood by Holland and he chooses his methods to

accommodate the audience.

The material selected to be translated is a direct consequence of the avowed purpose of each translation. Cope prepared his translation during a war with France and after

Charles' treachery toward Henry. The very title Cope gave to his work, The Historie of Two the Most Noble Capitaines of the world, Anniball and Scipio, of theyr dyuers battailes and victories, indicates that his major focus will be the activities of Hannibal and Scipio Africanus, events chronicled in Livy's third decade. Rather than simply beginning with

Livy's introduction of Hannibal and translating to the account of his defeat at the end of the Second Punic War,

Cope eliminates material because the Latin history contains much that is irrelevant to his purpose. For example, Livy catalogues the consular elections at the beginning of each year, the omens which had been observed during the past year, discussions of the Senate which decided who was to fight where, activities of Roman armies in Sicily and other areas not involving Hannibal or Scipio directly. All material of this kind is omitted by Cope. In addition, he 53 merely summarizes details Livy included of the battles and the booty which the armies gained in victory. The focus of his translation is the character of the two generals in action: the deceitful cunning of the Carthaginian and the righteousness of the Roman. Cope did well to use Livy as the basis for the contrast, since "Africanus . . . undoubtedly 31 T4. • approaches nearest to Livy's ideal Roman .... it is 32 Scipio's moral attributes which are emphasized." Livy's

Hannibal, although at times very human, is consistently 33 cruel and guileful. Thus, the Livian characters provide

Cope with a pair of successful generals who have different standards of morality, characters who allow Cope to achieve his purpose. Holland's principle of selection is much simpler: he translates all of Livy extant, "these 35 bookes, so few as 34 they be." Holland saw that Livy's history could acquaint the English people "with religious devotion after his manner,

^Walsh, p. 93. S^walsh, p. 99. 33 See Walsh, p. 104, for a discussion of Hannibal's humanness; see Livi, XXI.lvii; XXIV.xlv, for examples of guile and cruelty. 34 Holland, "To the Reader." 54 with wisdome, pollicie, vertue, valour, loyaltie." Although

Holland tried to introduce scholarship in textual matters, he was an unabashed admirer of Livy as a writer and as an 36 historian. Livy writes "with such varietie, as that he never iterateth one thing twice; but at every change of new affaires, returneth alwaies fresh and gay, furnished with 37 new devises, inventions, and phrases." The test of a history is truth; there are no fabulous tales; each side is presented accurately. "Therein," Holland says, Livy "hath 38 the pricke and price above all others." And what is the basis for such an extravagant judgment? Livy "neither forbeareth ... to reprove (as occasion is offered) the

Romans . . . nor doubteth to praise the good parts & the 39 valiant exploits of their mortall enemies." Holland, then, sets out uncritically to translate every word of Livy.

A passage describing the Roman victory at New Carthage provides an example of the translators’ differing principles

35 Holland, "To the Most High and Mightie Monarch, Elizabeth." 36 See Walsh, p. 138ff., for the modern view of Livy as an historian. 37 "To the Reader." 38 "To the Reader." 39 "To the Reader." 55

40 of selection. Cope, m a hurry to move on, summarizes the many details of the captured spoils. For him, the narrative is important only so far as it helps to illuminate the temperament and skill of Scipio Africanus.

Holland's translation is twice as long as Cope's because

Holland translates the entire catalogue of spoils which Livy presented. In addition to the number of ships and machines of war captured, Livy included a count of the golden bowls and the weight of silver added to the Roman treasury. For

Holland, the material was significant because Livy had chosen to include it. However, for Cope such a detailed listing was a nuisance hindering the progress of the central narrative—the actions and attitudes of Scipio. He therefore merely summarizes the war materials and gold and silver, but he does include the details of Scipio's disposition of prisoners. Throughout his translation, Cope follows a similar selective process, choosing only what material will help develop the character of the two generals and omitting or summarizing the rest. Holland translates everything he can, including the Breviaries of Florus and sundry appended material.

4%ope, sig. XivV; Holland, sig. Gggvv; Livi, XXVI. xlvi.10-xlvii.10. See Appendix for texts. 56

How does the reader respond to the results of the

translator's selectivity? One overall effect is that Cope's

translation has essentially a single story-line, making it

seem more coherent. Because Livy was writing an universal

history of Rome, he often has several narratives which

overlap each other. Holland, by keeping that structure, has

multiple narratives, too. Thus, the events in Italy for a

given year must be recorded, then those in Spain, then

Sicily, then Asia Minor. However, Livy, in his history, has

been able to minimize confusion by means of two techniques

which Holland also uses. First, each year is introduced by

a report of the elections and senatorial actions derived

from the Annales. This material, as mentioned above, was

important to Roman historians because of the tradition

which the Annales represented. In this way, because of the

inclusion of military assignments, the reader knows which

actions are to be covered. Secondly, there are clear

transitions between the various threads of the action. For

example, "while these events were happening in Spain,

so-and-so was doing---- in Sicily," is a common transitional

structure. The effect of Cope's summarizing catalogues and omitting the lists of senate assignments, elections, and prodigies is to quicken the pace of the narrative. The effect of the paragraph describing the results of the battle 57 of New Carthage is a good example. The town had been captured; now the reader wants to know what happened and

Cope provides that information: the Romans began collecting the spoils which were great in quantity, ten thousand prisoners were taken, those who were citizens were released to live in the town, the craftsmen captured were to work for

Rome and would be freed if they gave good service, and, finally, the young men were made to serve on Roman galleys. This is the information the reader expects—and needs to know for the episode to be complete. Cope, even in the summary, is able to also continue to develop Scipio's character. The disposition of the citizens of the town and the promise to allow the craftsmen freedom in return for their labors on behalf of Rome shows a generous and humane

Scipio. These actions appear to develop naturally from his character and not as part of a strategy to gain or enhance a reputation for mercy.

Holland's (and Livy's) detailed catalogue of the spoils also provides a satisfactory conclusion to the Battle of New Carthage. However, the reader's progress is slowed by specification of the number and size of catapaults, the measures of grain, the amounts of gold and silver, etc. The effect is an aura of authenticity. Such detail comes as a result of investigation, not casual narration. For an history, such detail is appropriate and expected. The 58

incidents which help to illuminate Scipio's character are also included, and their effect is essentially the same as in Cope. Even though Holland reports them in a fuller manner, no substantial addition to the information given by

Cope is made. Thus, the principle of selection used by each translator produces differing effects, even though there is no change in the substance of the passage. Both approaches satisfy the reader, but in different ways. Cope concludes an episode and lets the reader move on; Holland concludes the episode, but makes the reader linger for all the details.

To see the differences between sixteenth-century translators, it is first necessary to examine the structure of Livy's history and compare Cope's and Holland's versions to it. Livy often constructs the episodes of his narrative with a beginning, middle, and end, according to Aristotle's 41 dicta for tragedy. For example, shortly after Hannibal has defeated the Romans for the first time, a wounded

Publius Cornelius Scipio (the elder) has to make camp because of the pain from his wound. Livy structures Hannibal's response according to his usual pattern:

41Walsh, p. 178. 59

When Hannibal had encamped not far from that place, having been elated as much by the victory of his cavalry, to such a degree [he was] troubled by scarcity [of food] which, having advanced through the fields of the enemy, nowhere having prepared supplies, was increased day by day, to the village of Clastidium, where the Romans had gathered a great quantity, he sent [some soldiers]. There while they prepared force, hope of betrayal was made; not to be sure for a great price, four hundred gold pieces, Dasio the Brundisian the commander of the garrison having been corrupted surrendered Clastidium to Hannibal. This was a storehouse for the Phoenicians having remained at the Trebia. Upon the captives the fort having been betrayed, so that reputation might be gained, nothing cruel was [done]. 2

Livy introduces the incident by setting the scene (Hannibal has made camp), showing Hannibal's contrasting emotional states (happy at the recent victory; anxious at the lack of supplies), telling the initial solution (the sending of soldiers). Then, Livy expands on the solution: the

Carthaginians were preparing to assault Clastidium, but did not have to because the village was betrayed by its garrison commander. Finally, the results are given: Hannibal gained food for his troops, and, to establish a favorable reputation, showed mercy to the captives. The episode is presented in periodic sentences where the thought is suspended by inserting subordinate elements in the main clause and by reserving the main verb until the end, a common practice among Roman

42 Livi, XXI.xlviii.8-9. See Appendix for text. 60 authors of the first century B.C. The first sentence above is typical of Livy. Beginning with the temporal clause,

Livy then inserts the two participial phrases explaining

Hannibal's elation and anxiety, an ablative absolute explaining that supplies had not been prepared beforehand, and then the main verb excipiebat. The rest of the sentence is another thought, but proceeds in the same manner: the place to which, the adverbial clause, and, then, the main verb mittit.

Livy is able to reserve the main verb until the end of the sentence because of the inflectional character of Latin.

Reproducing such a structure in English is difficult.

English requires that many periodic sentences be restructured into more independent clauses than appear in

Latin. But any translation of the compressed Latin sentence structure also will use many subordinate clauses, which is "a mark of maturity in style."43 The following examples which illustrate how Cope and Holland surmounted the problems posed by Livy's periodic sentences also demonstrate their ability to manipulate subordinate elements in English.

Cope does not translate this episode, choosing to end the Carthaginians' first encounter in Italy before Scipio's wound forced him to encamp. Holland, of course, does include

43 Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2nd ed. (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.} 1957) , p. 295. 61

44 it, but with many syntactical changes. In the first

sentence, Holland makes the temporal clause into a main

clause and the participial phrases become relative clauses of comparison. The main clause of excipiebat is made a relative clause. Holland has separated Hannibal's sending of troops from Livy's sentence, making it an independent thought, but he keeps the quo clause in the same place.

However, as a part of Hannibal's "going" to Clastidium,

Holland adds Livy's next sentence, which describes the preparation for an assault and the betrayal of the town.

The sentence telling that the Carthaginians had gained the town Holland also makes part of his sentence. His punctuation to separate clauses shows that he is conscious of Livy's periodic structure and is attempting to clarify the structure for his audience. Holland keeps Livy's basic pattern, but makes some subtle modifications on it. For example, he combines all of the information into a single sentence. Within that segment of the episode, he shifts some points of emphasis. Livy had indicated that the garrison commander was bribed with a small price: nec sane magno pretio. The use of the intensive particle sane and the inclusion of the specific amount as an appositive show

44 v Holland, sig. Oo . See Appendix for text. Holland's apparent mistranslation of Dasio the Brundisian is due to a textual problem. (See the Oxford Livy.) 62

that, indeed, the amount was small. Holland translates the

nec . . . magno pretio as a part of the hope of treason;

then he introduces the fact of betrayal by "in consideration

only of 400 peeces of gold." The repetition of the idea in

two clauses gives it an emphasis which a statement and an

appositive do not have. Further, Holland uses the idea as a

transition from the hope for a betrayal to the fact of betrayal. English syntax, however, does not allow him to

suspend the main idea until the very end of the sentence; he has to adapt Livy's periodic structure by using dependent clauses and prepositional phrases between what are essentially two main clauses: "he went to Clastidium" and "Clastidium was betrayed unto Anniball."

Livy's report of the victory of Scipio Africanus at New

Carthage follows the same structural pattern but in more 45 detail. The siege is introduced by Scipio's secret decision to attack the city, his plans to have the fleet appear on the seaward side as his troops appear on the landward, and his encampment in front of the city. After describing the geography of the area, Livy reports the speech which Scipio made to his troops explaining his plan.

Then, in a typical Livian manner, interest shifts to the Carthaginian preparations within the city. The middle of

45 Livi, XXVI.xlii.2-xlvii.10. 63

the episode is the battle itself, which Livy reports by

shifting his point of view between the Romans and the

Carthaginians. The drama of the situation is increased by

the report of the Tarracon fishermen that the waters were

receding because of the tide and wind. As Scipio is leading

his men across the pond, Livy shifts to the landward side,

thus adding suspense to the narrative. The success of

Scipio's entry to the city as a result of the tide is

finally presented, followed by the complete capture of the city. The conclusion of the episode is a catalogue of the

spoils. Livy's periodic structure is particularly well

suited to the drama of a battle because the suspension of the thought increases the suspense of the action. For example, when Livy shifts from Scipio's crossing the receded water to setting the scene on the other side of town, he is able to increase the suspense even further through his periodic sentences. However, he adds variety by having shorter sentences during the actual battle, quickening the pace of the narrative.

Cope, in translating the battle of New Carthage, follows the basic structure of Livy; he keeps the beginning, the middle, and the end, but shortens or summarizes some of the details. For example, whereas Livy concludes with a catalogue which enumerates the free men captured, artisans sent to Rome, types of war machines, the ships, the quantity of gold 64

46 and silver, and the amount of wheat and barley, Cope only specifies the number of warships, free men and artisans.

The rest of Livy's catalogue he merely summarizes: "The praye whereof was greate, as well of golde and syluer as of ordinaunce, artyllary, corne, shyppes, iron, laten and many 47 other thinges mete for the apparel of shippes." Within the description of the battle itself, Cope skips over details.

Unnoticed, Scipio had entered the rear of the town and approached the wall on the land side where the fighting was taking place. After surprising the town's defenders who abandoned their position in panic, Cope's version reads that 48 . . . "tha anon wer the gates broken down." Livy's version is more explicit: "And the gates began to be promptly broken down on the inside and on the outside; and soon, the gates by cutting having been weakened and divided, so that the 49 passage was not impeded, the armed men made an attack."

Cope translates the idea and not the details. Most often he is not concerned with the subtleties of Livy's syntax or episodic structure; rather, he translates the mass of an idea, ignoring the details.

46 Livi, XXVI.xlvii.1-10. See above, p. 55.

47 r • . v, Cope, [sig. Xiv ]. 48 r Cope, [sig. Xiv ]. 49 Livi, XXVI.xlvi.6. . . . porta mtus forisque pariter refringi coepta; et mox caedendo confectis ac distractis ne iter impediretur foribus armati impetum fecerunt. 65

On the other hand, Holland follows Livy’s structure precisely, as would be expected of one who was translating the entire work. The beginning, middle, and end of the battle of New Carthage correspond to Livy's. Any variances which Holland makes occur within the general episode. Where

Cope condenses the material, Holland expands on his original.

For example, Mago had manned the walls with soldiers, "who 50 let flye arrowes, Iavelines, darts, and all kind of shot."

Livy, however, uses the word telorurn, which is often used for darts, spears, and javelins, but more usually in the 51 general sense of weapons used for fighting at a distance.

Throughout the narration of the battle, Holland expands

Livy's version. Most of the expansions help to clarify the meaning of the Latin. There are also changes in the sentence structure. Using the same example, Holland casts the action of the men into a subordinate clause; but Livy states the idea as a main clause introduced by et and with an indicative verb, suppeditabat.

Another example of Livy's periodic sentences occurs when Scipio learns of the ebbing of the tide from the 52 ... fishermen. Livy begins the sentence with the intensive ipse (referring to Scipio), but the thought does not conclude

50 r Holland, [sig. Gggiv ]. 51 Livi, XXVI.xlv.1. S^Livi, XXVI.xlv.7. 66 until the final word, duxit. Thus, the main idea is that

Scipio led five hundred men across the now-shallow swamp to the walls of New Carthage. That idea is not completed until the very end of the sentence. Between the ipse and duxit,

Livy imparts the source of the information (the fishermen) and their experience with the pool (wading through it when their boats became grounded) by means of various participial phrases and subordinate clauses. Because of the synthetic nature of Latin, Livy is able to suspend the thought longer than in English.

Cope typically translates the idea of Scipio’s rear 53 „ attack, but places the details m his own order. He introduces the episode with the time of day, something Livy does not mention until his following sentence. Then Cope has the fishermen actually having been fishing, which is only implied in Livy by his identification of Scipio's informants as fishermen. Further, he has the Tarraconians point out the strong north wind which helped lower the water level even more. And Cope omits any mention at this point of Scipio's leading any men across. In addition to changing the order of presentation, he also tries to establish logical relationships to make the narrative fit together better. Where Livy has the report that the tide had receded

53 Cope, sig. Xiiiv-[Xivr]. 67

and the swamp could be crossed by means of fords. Cope has

the tide and wind cause "a lower vale." Although he concentrates

on the ideas of the original, Cope makes changes in structure

to make the ideas and their relationships clearer to his

audience.

The reader of Cope’s translation is introduced to the

episode by the time, mid-day. Because the battle was being

described above, the main clause ("It drew then towarde the

middel of the day") leads to anticipation that something

significant is about to happen. Otherwise why is the flow

of the battle narrative interrupted by a main clause telling

the time? The main clause is followed by a dependent temporal

clause which is also interrupted after the subject by two

appositive clauses. The effect of the interruptions is a building of suspense, an impatience to find out whether or not the expectation of a significant turn of events will be

fulfilled. The reader's expectation is partially confirmed by the verb of the temporal clause ("certified") and its object ("Scipio"). At this point in the sentence, the reader still is anticipating something of significance.

What he finds is that the tide had gone out. However, the usefulness of that information to Scipio (and to the reader) is in doubt. It is not until he finds out that the tide has been helped by the wind that the reader finally has his expectation confirmed: "so that men might well wade ouer to 68

the walles of the citie." Now the reader knows that Scipio has an advantage in the battle and he expects that Scipio will use the advantage to finally win. The remaining phrases of the sentence simply confirm what is already known: the water is no deeper than a man's waist and in some places not above the knees. The reader has anticipated that this first sentence of an episode in a battle would convey something significant and it has.

The next sentence in the episode begins with what is grammatically the direct object, a technique which also creates suspense because the subject and verb are needed to grasp the thought being conveyed. Further, Cope speaks of the ebbing of the water in the lagoon as "this strange fortune of that vnseen lowe ebbe of the water." Why is it a

"strange fortune," as Cope describes it? That word "strange" is bothersome because the phenomonon apparently was well-known to the fishermen. Cope chooses the word "strange" because of the rest of the main clause: "Scipio tourned to a myracle."

The sense of wonderment occasioned by "strange fortune" is explained by "myracle." Scipio uses a natural phenomenon to enhance the reputation he has established as being favored by the gods. Cope's use of the word "strange" coupled with

"myracle" emphasizes the point that Scipio makes to his men:

It was the pleasure of the gods which withdrew the water. 69

Later, during their surprise attack, the Roman forces

were able to break down the main gate and let in the rest of

their army. Cope reports "Tha anon wer the gates broken

down." In this report, the action is simply reported as a

detail of the battle. The matter-of-fact tone which Cope

uses leads the reader to attach little or no significance to

the act. Holland's report invests the action with greater

significance:

The gate from within forth and without, began to be broken downe: and anone, after continuall running and beating against it, the leaves thereof perforce flew apeeces, because there might bee nothing to impeach or let them in their entrance. 4

In addition to providing additional details about the opening of the gate, Holland's report makes the action appear important

The importance is achieved partially through the length of the report—Holland uses forty words where Cope uses seven.

Significance is also achieved by the comment Holland appends to the action itself. There was nothing, he says, which would deter the Romans from invading the town. The details of the action coupled with the explanation of what it was to illustrate make the reader aware that the opening of the main gate was significant. The reader already knows that the Romans had successfully entered the town from the rear,

54 v Holland, [sig. Gggiv ]. 70

so it is not that the opening of the gate is important for

the capture of the town. Rather, it is important for what

it tells of the determination of the Romans. Thus, the same

small incident is presented in two ways. In Cope’s translation

the incident is almost passed over; in Holland's translation

it assumes an importance even Livy did not explicitly give

it. Holland follows Livy's sequence and attempts to keep 55 the periodic structure as much as he can. He begins the

sentence with "himself" and holds the main idea in abeyance

until the end: "Thither to that place he brought all his

souldiers to the assault." To achieve the periodic structure,

Holland makes use of parentheses; thus, fishermen of Tarracon

is separated from the material of their report by the

experience of the fishermen placed within parentheses:

[Scipio was advised by] fishermen of Taracon (who sometimes with light boates used to rowe, and otherwhiles when their vessels touched the ground, to wade all over the lake upon firm ground) that men might easily pass ....

In this way Holland is able to closely approximate Livy's structure and, at the same time, keep the progression of

events clear.

The same dramatic structure is used by Livy in episodes within episodes. For example, after Scipio had defeated

55 Holland, [sig. Gggivv]. 71

Hasdrubal in Spain, he ordered that the captured Africans be 5 6 sold. That statement serves as an introduction to an

episode which demonstrates Scipio's compassion. In the

process of selling the captives, the quaestor learned there

was a comely youth of royal lineage and sent him to Scipio.

Scipio learned he was Massiva, nephew of Masinissa, and that

he had secretly gone into battle against his uncle's orders. To increase the drama, Livy has Scipio turn to his own

duties and then has him return to Massiva. After Scipio

ascertained the boy would like to return to his uncle, he

presented him with gifts, including a horse, and ordered

that the boy be escorted from the camp. Livy also uses his

periodic structure to good advantage: Scipio's questioning

is contained in a cum-temporal clause; the boy's answer is

introduced by the main clause ait [he said] and the rest of

the information is given in a series of clauses of indirect discourse, relative clauses, and participial phrases.

Cope maintains the structure of the episode, but does not attempt to keep Livy's periods. Massiva's answers to

Scipio's questions about his origin and why he was in camp are reported in a series of independent clauses. Thus, Livy has, as part of one thought, "Having been left an orphan by his father, he was raised in the house of his maternal

56 Livi, XXVII.xix.8-12. 72

57 grandfather Gala, king of the Numidians." Cope breaks the period into short independent clauses: "His father (he

sayd) was deade. Wherfore his mother sent him to her father

Saia [sic] kinge of Numidia, and frome that time he had been 58 brought up with his vncle Masinissa." In order to have the independent clauses, Cope has to re-structure the thought.

Thus, someone had to send Massiva to his grandfather, and

Cope makes the apparently logical choice of the boy's mother.

To keep the idea that the boy lived with his maternal grandfather, Cope chooses to shift the emphasis of the word auum from the boy to the mother; thus, auum becomes "her father" instead of the boy's "grandfather." Cope, however, misunderstands to which person eductum [esse] refers. The

Latin is clear because the mention of Masinissa is as object of the preposition cum after the verb traiecisse, "to cross over," an idea Cope makes part of the following sentence.

Another modification Cope makes is to specify the boy's age: a "yonge chylde of xv. yeres olde." Probably the age is a result of Livy's puerum adultum and the fact that both the quaestor and Scipio thought it unusual to find one of his age in camp.

57 Livi, XVII.xix.9 . . . [ait] orbum a patre relictum apud maternum auum Galam, regem Numidiarum. . . 58 i? Cope, [sig. Ziv ] . "Saia" is apparently a misprint rather than a mistranslation because "Galam" is in all the manuscripts. 73

Holland, too, is unable to sustain Livy's periodic structure in his translation of this episode. Therefore, he uses independent clauses to convey the many ideas in Livy's complex periodic structure. Holland transforms the indirect discourse of Massiva's reply to direct discourse:

"I am (saith he) a Numidian borne, (and with that his eies stood full of water) and in my countrie they call me Masiva. Being left an orphane and fatherlesse, I was brought up with my grandfather by the mother side, Gala the king of the Numidiains. "~>y

A further change made in translation is the addition of the parenthetical "and with that his eies stood full of water."

The phrase adds to the dramatic nature of the scene while, at the same time, it reinforces the youth of the boy, making him seem even younger than Cope's fifteen. Later, when the boy is asked if he would like to return to his uncle, Livy 60 reports "tears having poured out because of joy," an idea

Holland repeats: "the teares gushing out of his eyes for joy." The result of Holland's changes is that the scene becomes much more emotional. Again the two translators produce versions of the same incident which have different effects on the reader. In

Cope's version, the reader sees a fifteen-year-old boy who

59 27 Holland, [sig. Iiiiv ]. 60 Livi, XVII.xix.12. . . . effusis gaudio lacrimis . . 74

has been captured. Questioned by Scipio, he tells his story

in a straight-forward manner. The boy is asked if he desires

to return to his uncle. "Wepynge for ioye [Massiva answered]

that he wolde be verye glad, if his chaunce were so good."

Then he is released with gifts. The incident is told in an

unadorned manner. The only dramatic possibility which Cope

uses is having the youth weep at the thought he might be

allowed to return home. Cope's inclusion of the incident is

to reinforce the reader's understanding of Scipio's

character. Because his focus is Scipio and not Massiva,

there is no need for Cope to exploit the dramatic potential

of the incident. He has stated his general purpose (to show

how the crafty Hannibal was defeated by Scipio) so it is

unnecessary to point out that the various incidents

illustrate that theme. Thus, the needs of the intended

audience, coupled with his limited purpose, determine what

Cope does with an episode. Holland, on the other hand, building on Livy, does

exploit the dramatic possibilities. He adds an aura of

immediacy by having Massiva reply in direct discourse where

Cope used indirect discourse. To give added emphasis to the

boy's youth, he has Massiva's eyes fill with tears as he begins to answer Scipio's questions as well as with tears of

joy at the possibility of being released. Suspense is built up in the reader by having Scipio interrupt the questioning 75 to fulfill other official duties. Although the interruption is only two clauses, it is enough to heighten the reader’s curiosity about what will be the fate of the young boy. In

Holland’s version, the reader is more aware of the drama of the situation than he is in Cope's straight-forward presentation.

A close examination of the beginning of the decisive battle, in Africa, between Hannibal and Scipio is appropriate to a comparison of the two translations and will show in detail how each translator solved the problems which confronted, , h, i• m. 61

The first sentence of the passage shows how Cope and

Holland handle Livy's temporal clauses. Livy has structured his sentence so that it is introduced by a cum-temporal clause: "When the general was speaking with the

Carthaginians, [and] the leaders of their nations among their people, mostly through interpreters among the mixed foreigners, . . . ." Cope ignores the leaders of the foreigners and indicates that Hannibal had finished speaking: "By that tyme this noble capitayn had finyshed his wordes." The idea of cum introducing a temporal clause is certainly preserved, but Cope's translation reads as if the introductory words were eo tempore, "at that time."

G^Cope, sig.Lliiir-v; Holland, sig.Tttivr_v; Livi, XXX. XXXiii.l2ff. See Appendix for texts. 76

Holland has translated the temporal clause as only Hannibal's

action, following the manuscript tradition: "When as the

Generali was most busie thus in exhorting the Carthaginians

and the capitains of the straungers, amongst, the souldiours

of their owne nations, . . . Thus, it is that Hannibal

is exhorting both the Carthaginians and the leaders of his

foreign troops.

While Cope ignores the entire problem of the foreign

troops in Hannibal's army, Holland does indicate that they,

too, were exhorted. However, he has the interpreters

"intermingled for the same purpose" with the foreign troops.

The two prepositional phrases per interpretes inter immixtos

alienigenis mean that the exhortations to battle were

delivered through interpreters who were in the midst of the

intermingled foreigners and not the interpreters who were mixed in among the foreign troops, as Holland indicates.

Further, Holland adds additional material to the original

sentence when he says that the exhorting was done "for the most part by meanes of interpreters, intermingled for the same purpose." Livy provides no indication that most of the exhorting was done through the interpreters nor that that was their purpose.

The main clause of the sentence describes the initiation of the battle by the Romans. "Trumpets and horns sounded from the Romans, and such a great clamor arose that 77

the elephants turned on their own Moors and Numidians,

especially on the left wing." Cope rephrases the sentence

to make the Romans the subject: "The Romaynes blew vp theyr

trumpettes and homes, . . . ." In addition, he renders

cecinerunt as "blew up." The horns and trumpets make "so

terrible a noyse and clamour," which is one of the few

instances of duplication occurring in Cope. Also, Cope

provides a parenthetical explanation for the elephants'

action, "beinge furyouse." "Verterterentur" is a passive

form, but "uerto" is sometimes used a deponent (passive in

form, active in meaning) verb. The English equivalent is

best rendered by the active voice, which is the approach of

both Cope and Holland. The addition of the parenthetical

"beinge furyouse" by Cope seems to derive from the natural

effect that the sudden noise had on the elephants. Holland

has made a change in the sentence structure of the original

by separating the one sentence into two, with the break

occurring after the Romans sounded their trumpets. Livy's use of subordinate elements is difficult to sustain in

English and was probably especially difficult for Holland

since he often added words to the original. Here, for

example, he duplicates the action of the Romans: "the trumpets sounded, and the homes blew from the Romane

hoast." Livy had used only cecinerunt to govern both the tubae and cornua, but Holland uses a separate verb for each 78

kind of instrument, "sounded" and "blew." Further, Holland

identifies the noise as having been made by the Romane

hoast" where Livy only has ab Romanis. A more difficult problem is the translation of "in suos, sinistrum maxime

cornu, uerterentur, Mauros ac Numidas" into reasonable

English. The sense is clear, but Livy's grammar is not.

Sinistrum makes cornu either nominative or accusative—and neither case fits well. Cope makes in suos "vpon theyr companye" and attaches Mauros ac Numidas to the phrase sinistrum maxime cornu. The resulting translation reads very well and carries the idea of the original. Holland makes Mauros ac Numidas the object of the preposition and expands suos into its own prepositional phrase, "of their owne side." Instead of leaving sinistrum maxime cornu

"specially vppon the lefte wynge" as Cope does, Holland translates the phrase as "especially in the left point of the battaile," which takes a liberty with cornu, the regular military term for "wing."

The above analysis has focused on the difficulties involved in converting one syntax into another. Besides converting Latin syntax to English syntax, the translator is also faced with the problem of vocabulary. It is not so much a problem of non-equivalency as it is which English word to choose: Latin words are less definite in themselves than English words. The definiteness or precision of Latin 79

is achieved through context, through the combination of words. The passage showing Scipio's treatment of Massiva provides a good example. Massiva says he is orbus, an adjective meaning "bereft of parents or children; parentless, 62 fatherless, childless." Clearly, there is a great difference in meaning between "parentless" and "childless." Because of the words surrounding orbus, Livy makes clear which meaning is intended: "orbum a patre relictum." If the earlier mention of Massiva's age were not enough, then the ablative of agent or separation (a patre) certainly shows that

"fatherless" or "orphan" is the intended meaning. Telum is another word which lacks definiteness. It means a weapon which is thrown or used at a distance. Thus, it is used where English would specify a spear or javelin or even arrow. In some contexts, too, telum is used to signify a sword or dagger, hardly weapons used at a distance. In actuality, telum conveys only the idea of an offensive weapon of some sort and it is used in juxtaposition to arma which refers to defensive weapons or weapons used for very close fighting.

How, then, do Cope and Holland overcome the lack of specificity in Latin vocabulary? A typical example is the description of Hannibal's march through the marshes of the

62 Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1969) . 80

Arno after his first winter in Italy. The Carthaginian

general chose the shorter but more difficult route to 63 Arretium. Livy concentrates on the Gauls who were with

Hannibal:

The Gauls were able to neither sustain themselves having been fallen nor to stand up from the whirlpools, and neither they sustained their bodies with their spirits nor their spirits with hope, some unwillingly dragging their limbs having been tired, others, where once for all they lay, [their] spirits having been overcome by weariness, dying among the baggage animals lying far and wide.

Cope breaks the long sentence with its many dependent

elements into several independent clauses. But more than

that, he makes some felicitous word choices in his translation.

Animus he renders as "heart." Livy uses a pair of words,

corpus and animus, to show the Gauls' complete frustration

in their struggle. Animus is the soul, the rational faculty

of man as opposed to corpus, the physical body of man. Cope chose to translate it by "heart" in the sense of the center of feeling and understanding, a meaning of the word from Old

English. Cope preserves Livy's opposition in "nother coulde their hartes comfort their bodies, nor hope comforte their

63 Livi, XXII.il.Iff. 64 Livi, XXII.ii.6. See Appendix for text. 81

65 hartes." Further, Cope preserves the chiasmus of Livy's

phrase, but he chooses not to preserve the zeugma; thus, he

repeats "comfort," which is also an interesting choice.

Livy has sustineo, meaning "to sustain, support, hold up."

The context of the struggle simply to stand up in the marshy

land makes Cope's choice of "comfort" an appropriate one.

The Gauls' flagging spirits were not able "to hold up"

(Livy) their spirits or "to console or cheer" (Cope) their

spirits.

The same sentence also illustrates Holland's approach to word choices. To stay, for the moment, with negue aut corpora animis aut animps spe sustinebant, Holland renders the clause: "neither could any of them comfort his corps 66 with courage, nor help his heart with hope of better."

Animus receives two translations, "courage" and "heart."

Besides not preserving Livy's rhetorical figure, such a double translation seems unjustified by the context. First, animus is deliberately used in a figure of chiasmus, an indication that Livy intends the same meaning in both instances. Second, only a few lines earlier, Livy, and, thus, Holland, made unfavorable comment on the courage of the Gauls. Although it is true that animus was sometimes

^Cope, [sig. Eivv].

^Holland, [sig. Ooviv]. 82 used to indicate courage, the more usual connotations are of the mind, soul, will, and feelings. For it to be applied to a particular emotion, the context makes clear that it is to be applied specifically. Holland also uses a double translation of sustineo. In the first case, he follows Cope by using "comfort." However, in the second case, where he adds a verb omitted by Livy, he uses "help." Here the denotations of the Latin and English seem at variance, since

"help" means "to aid or assist" and sustineo means "to bear up or endure." However, it is by means of hope that the

Gauls were unable to hold up their spirits. "Help" connotes the same idea.

The next part of Livy's sentence receives more emphatic treatment from Holland:

Some of them hardly haled their heavie hammes, and drew with much adoe their lazie legs and lagging limmes after them: others, whose hearts were done for tedious toile and travaile, when they were once downe, lay dying amongst the jades and other beastes, which also were couched along every where.

The most obvious characteristic of this sentence is the alliteration. Where Livy uses nineteen words and Cope twenty-five, Holland uses fifty-one, almost three times as many as the original. Livy wants to convey the weariness of the soldiers, but he lets his words, his report carry the burden. Alii fessa aegre trahentes membra is a distance 83 from "some of them hardly haled their heavie hammes . . . after them." Even Cope's "some drewe their weary membres with peyne after theyme" cannot be compared to Holland's version. In addition to the alliteration, Holland duplicates (in the first section, triplicates) the idea in

Livy. Livy's participial phrase is simple and direct, depending on aegre and fessa to emphasize the difficulties of the Gauls. The others of the Gauls Livy focuses on were those "whose hearts were done for tedious toile and travaile," which is a clear translation for uictis taedio animis. Here the duplication of "toile and travaile" fits the context of the passage and helps to emphasize the difficulty the soldiers faced. Holland has changed the grammatical structure to fit his purposes better. In Livy, taedio is a noun used to indicate the means by which the Gauls' spirits were overcome. In Holland, taedium (tediousness) becomes an adjective modifying the duplicated "toile and travaile," an idea only implicit in Livy. Another example which illustrates the approach of Cope and Holland to translation problems associated with vocabulary is the catalogue of spoils at New 67 Carthage. An example of Holland's use of duplication occurs when

Scipio "dismissed those who were citizens of New Carthage."

67 See Appendix for texts. See also above, p. 55. 84

Holland finds in this phrase that Scipio "dismissed and let

goe free" the "naturall citizens of Carthage." Here the duplicated idea is not expressed in synonyms, as in the case of "stout and sturdie" or "saccage and pillage," but in words which express separate ideas, especially when used in a conqueror-conquered situation. "Dismissed" carries the

idea of "sending away" which does not necessarily mean "going free." One can "dismiss" prisoners and still keep them in the imprisoned state. In other words, "dismiss" may only mean that Scipio was finished with them for the present time. The idea of being "free," which Holland duplicates as a part of the verb structure of his sentence, is implied in the second half of Livy's sentence: "and restored to them the city and everything which the war had left." Certainly the restoration of the city to its people carries with it the idea that the people will be "free," an idea which

Holland makes explicit. Holland also adds to his original text: Scipio not only restored the city, but also the goods of the citizens, "which the first furie and rage of war had left untouched." In addition to the duplicated "furie and rage," Holland is more precise, but possibly less accurate as a translator, in attributing the destruction of some property to the plundering by the victors. Livy has said the restored property was that which "the war had left." Clearly, there cannot be plundering of a city 85 without damage, but Livy chose to describe the situation in generic terms, war, rather than in the specific terms which

Holland uses. Implicit in Holland's more precise description is the idea that property was destroyed only by the plundering by the victors. Livy, however, makes it clear that the destruction occurred as a result of all the war, both the offensive efforts of the victors and the defensive efforts of those who held the city. Cope seems to come closer to Livy, although he is not as precise as

Holland. He renders the sentence as follows: "Whereof as many as were citizens, Scipio let go at libertie and suffered to dwel styl in the towne, and to enioy as moche of their goodes as was not before spoyled." There are some subtle changes which Cope makes in his translation. First, he does directly express the idea that the citizens were free by saying that Scipio let citizens "go at libertie."

However, he does not specify or dwell on the fact Scipio restored the town to the people. Rather, he conveys that idea through "suffered to dwel styl in the towne."

"Suffered" connotes the idea of "tolerated" or "allowed" whereas "restored" connotes "gave back" and includes the idea of restitution or making amends for a deed. Thus,

Cope, who had as his purpose the portrayal of Scipio's character, seems to subvert his purpose because he makes it appear that the return of the citizens was tolerated or 86 allowed by Scipio. Livy, through his use of restituit, and

Holland, through his use of "restored," show Scipio's act to be one of generosity, to be a positive act rather than a passive one of tolerance.

Holland often uses picturesque words or expressions.

Holland interjects some typical English vocabulary when he 68 , translates iumenta as "jades and other beastes." Again, the idea of iumentum is duplicated because it can apply to mules, cattle, and asses as well as horses. "Jade" is a term applied only to horses, generally of an inferior type.

The emphasis in the Latin word is placed on the work the animal did, which is clear from the second meaning of the word: "a carriage, vehicle." The English word emphasizes more of the quality of the animal rather than its work.

Thus, Holland's more definite word makes it necessary to add

"and other beastes." Another example occurs shortly before the battle of

Cannae. Hannibal was running short of supplies and his Spanish allies were about to desert. Pondering the possibility of fleeing with his cavalry, he knew he would be 69 leaving "his, [sic] Infanterie behind him at sixe and seven."

^Holland, [sig. Ooviv] . 69 »27 Holland, sig. Rrn . 87

According to Livy, it was said Hannibal considered fleeing 70 with his cavalry, "all the infantry having been left behind."

There is no mention in Livy of the soldiers being "at sixe and seven," though, of course, they would be. Again, when

Paulus and Varro were quarreling, "Varro againe hit him 71 home, and twit him with the example of Fabius." Although

Livy does not use such expressions, they do capture the apparent mood of the consuls in their wrangling over tactics.

Or, on another occasion, "the Romanes therefore being driven to their shifts, as well as they might in so sodain and fearefull a case, had an eye to this, not to make head all 72 together one way." In Spain, Hasdrubal bribed the Spanish troops fighting with Romans to abandon their cause. Among the reasons for the agreement was, "to strike it dead sure, 73 they stood in no feare of the Romanes." At Nola, Marcellus 74 made use of "lackies, launders, & other camp-followers."

70 Livi, XXII.xliii.4. . . . ipse etiam mterdum Hannibal de fuga in Galliam dicitur agitasse ita ut relicto peditatu omni cum equitibus se proriperet. 71 v Holland, sig. Rrii ; Livi, XXII.xliv.6. Varro speciosum timidis ac segnibus ducibus exemplum obiceret . . . 7 2 Holland, [sig. DddvV]; Livi, XXVI.v.7. Romani ut in re trepida, ne ad unam concurrendo partem aliquid indefensi relinquerent, ita inter sese partiti sunt. ^Holland, [sig. CCCvr] ; Livi, XXV.xxxiii. 5. Simul ne metus quidem ab Romanis erat . . . 74 v Holland, sig. Ttii ; Livi, XXIII.xvi.8. . . . calones lixasque . . . 88

The effect of such word choices is to make Livy into a sixteenth-century Englishman. It helps to bridge the differing ages and customs, which is one of the purposes of translation.

Cope, too, uses picturesque words and phrases. Centennius 75 "entered the thickest prease of his enemies." In one of the battles around Nola, Marcellus, although he had won a victory, could not follow the fleeing Carthaginians, "wherfore 7 6 he caused his menne to recule." Before a battle with

Marcellus, Hannibal exhorted his soldiers, chiding them that now, having superior numbers, they "suffer a fewe to stycke 77 in [their] handes." A person from Arpi, who had originally betrayed the city to the Carthaginians, wanted to betray it again—to the Romans. The Romans distrusted him, believing 78 "he shuld be ordered as an vntrewe felowe." Cope does not make the clever word choices Holland does. One of the restraints on him, possibly, was the unsettled and tentative state of vocabulary and the unsettled state of syntax in the earlier sixteenth century.

75 r Cope, sig. Riii ; Livi, XXV.xix.16. . . . obiectans se hostium telis cecidit. 7 & DCope, sig. Pr; Livi, XXIV.xvii.5. . . . signum receptui dedit. . . . 7 7 Cope, [sig. NivV]; Livi, XXIII.xlv.9. Qui pauci plures uincere solti estis, nunc paucis plures uix restatis. 78^ • „-.r Cope, sig. Pu ; Livi, XXIV.xlv.3. . infidus socius, uanus hostis. 89

One of the more unfamiliar areas of Roman life was that

of military operations and terminology. An example of the

problem was cited above with telum, but that is only one

example. Not only the equipment, but also the kinds of

soldiers, especially in the infantry, were foreign to the

English. The battle in Africa between the Romans under

Scipio and the Carthaginians under Hannibal shows how each

translator attempts to solve the problem of strange military 79 terms. Livy identifies Hannibal with the label imperator, 8 0 which Cope translates as "capitayn" and Holland as 81 "Generali." Cope, of course, is using the term m the

Middle English sense of "a chief" or "leader," especially a military leader. Holland's identification, "general," is a logical choice, because imperator means the "chief leader" of an army or people. A more interesting problem occurs with the word uels, or its plural uelites, which is a light-armed soldier who is used as a skirmisher outside of 8 2 the line of battle. Cope translates the word as "lyght armed souliers," but Holland both describes the soldiers and

79 Livi, XXX.xxxm. 12. 80 . , . . .r Cope, sig. Llm . 81 r Holland, [sig. Tttiv ]. 82 See Lewis and Short. 90

83 appropriates the Latin term: "light armed Velites." Two

lines later, he merely uses the term "Velites." Apparently

unable to find an English equivalent to suit him, he chooses

to use the Latin word rather than a descriptive translation as Cope had done. Cornu, too, is a word which depends on the context for its meaning. It can mean the horn of an animal, the tusk of an elephant, a trumpet, or the wing of an army. As part of the same battle, Livy uses cornu in two places not widely separated with two different meanings. 84 First, "trumpets and horns sounded from the Romans."

Secondly, Hannibal's elephants turned on their own men,

"especially on the left wing." The context makes obvious the intended meaning and does not present any major difficulty to either Cope or Holland. Cope restructures the sentence, in the first instance, to make the Romans the 85 subject: "The Romaynes blew vp theyr trumpettes and homes."

Holland duplicates the action of the horns and trumpets, but he keeps the sentence pattern, "the trumpets sounded, and

83 It is interesting to note that the word velites is included in the OED and is noted as entering the language in 1600, the year of the publication of Holland's Livy. How­ ever, it is not designated as a foreign word, although the definition is of the Latin word. 84 Livi, XXX.xxxiii.12. . . . tubae cornuaque ab Romanis cecinerunt, . . . sinistrum maxime cornu, uerterentur. 85 . , . . .r Cope, sig. Llm . 91

86 the homes blew from the Romane hoast." In the second use of cornu, Cope translates the phrase as "specially vppon the lefte wynge." Holland, however, mistranslates sinistrum cornu as "the left point of the battaile," although the sense of the phrase is understandable. When used in military contexts, cornu is the wing of an army.

Another word which has several meanings, including a specifically military one, is acies. Although it literally means a sharp edge or a point of a sword or dagger, acies can also mean keenness of sight or sharpness of mind. In its military sense, it means the front line of an army or the battle formation. Livy says that Masinissa led a charge which added to the confusion and "he stripped the line [of 87 battle] from that part of the cavalry as an aid." Again, since the word appears in the context of a battle, there is no doubt that the military sense of the word is intended.

Cope equates acies with cornu here: "... wherefore he 88 also inuaded the same wing with his horsemen." Holland 89 makes the acies into a "battalion of footmen," because he

86 k Holland, sig. Tttiv . 87 Livi, XXX.xxxiii.13. Addidit facile Masinissa perculsis terroram nudauitque ab ea parte aciem equestri auxilio. 88 r Cope, sig. Llm . 89 r* Holland, sig. Tttiv 92

has made the rest of the sentence more lively and colorful.

In his version, Masinissa, "riding upon them with a hote

charge, laid naked the battailon of footmen on that side, 90 and cleane without the aid of their Cavallerie." Apparently

Holland believed that Livy was not dramatic enough in reporting

the decisive battle of the Second Punic War.

The Roman administrative system made few distinctions

between military and civil authority. The structure of the

Republic, with its system of two men elected annually to wield governmental power, bore little relationship to the

Tudor concept of an hereditary monarchy. Thus it is that

Cope and Holland regularly translate consul as "consul," because there is no English equivalent for the position.

Some of the lesser positions posed the same kind of problem.

For the office of praetor, Cope either uses the term "pretor" 91 or omits the title entirely. There is no definite pattern to the inclusion or exclusion of the title, but he uses it more often with the less prominent or less readily identifiable Romans, probably to indicate that they had some standing in the city. Most often, though, Cope ignores the title, simply using the proper name of the Roman. Such is also his practice with the office of quaestor. Since the focus of

90 Holland shifts the thought from the infantry as help for the cavalry to the cavalry being an aid to the infantry. 91E.g., sig. Niiir; sig. Riiir; sig. Rivr. 93

his work is the "two the most noble capitaines," Cope can

omit lesser titles without destroying the narrative for his

purpose. Holland, because he is translating the entire work

of Livy, cannot ignore the titles. The lists which mark the

beginning of each consular year need to be translated—and

it is in these lists that the titles appear most often in

Livy. Generally, when translating a list of officials for a

given year, Holland uses Anglicized forms of the Latin

titles. Thus, elections were held for "pretour," and "that 92 year was AEdile Curule . . . one P. Cornelius Scipio." On

the other hand, Holland does make use of an English title in 93 many of the lists where Livy has none: "L. Deputie."

Although he does not use it every time someone is given

charge of a province, he does insert the title often enough

that it can be considered a characteristic of his translation vocabulary.

Rome had its senate and England its parliament. The bodies can be seen as analogous. Yet neither Cope nor

92 r Holland, sig. Aaa iii . 93 Examples of the title in yearly lists occur on sig. Aaa iiivand sig. Ddd ivr which are translations of Livi XXV.iii.6 and XXVI.ii.5. In both of the examples, even earlier in the passages, Livy does not use a Roman title for the idea which Holland translates as "Lord Deputy." Livy does use the word imperium, a word which could easily lead to the assumption that a person given charge of a province might also have a title. This is a further instance of Holland's attempt to reach his audience. 94

Holland consistently uses the analogy. At one point, 94 according to Cope, Sempronius "called a senate or courte."

The addition of "or courte" is made so that an English audience would better understand the group. Cope probably chose "court" because the context indicated that the senate was convened to listen to the Consul, not to legislate; thus, it was functioning as the Court in the sense of a gathering of the king and his ministers and advisers.

Carthaginians, Capuans, Nolans, and other people each had a senatus. Leosius, leader of the Capuans, was forced to call 95 "a generall counsayle." On other occasions, Cope translates 96 senatus as simply "senate" or as "Senate [sic] or parlyament." 98 Holland, on most occasions, translates senatus as "senate," 99 but for comitia, the Roman assembly, he uses "Parlement."

Here, Holland's Roman assembly is an English Parliament:

"the Parlement was holden, with much contention & debate betweene the Nobles and the Commons." When special groups of elder leaders are formed to act as ambassadors or envoys,

94Cope, [sig. Mivr]; Livi, XXIII.xxv.2. QC E.g., sig. Siiv; Livi. XXVI.xiii.l. Livy had to transfer the structure of non-Roman government into Roman terms. 96E.g., sig. Kkv; Livi, XXX.xix.4.

97 , . ■ r, E.g., [sig. Jiv ]. 98 r r E.g., sig. Sssiv (Livi, XXX.xix.4.); sig. Eeeiii (Livi, XXVI.xiii.l.). 99 r E.g., sig. Qqv (Livi, XXII.xxiv.1.). 95

100 these become, on occasion, a "privie counsell of state."

Often Holland translates patres or patres conscripti as "LL. 101 , . [Lords] of the Counsel," using an English term of respect to indicate the exalted position of the group. Throughout their translations, Cope and Holland try to convert as much of the Roman governmental apparatus as they can into terms which would be readily understood by their Tudor audiences.

In the same way, religious concepts are handled. Most of the religious references in Livy occur in the lists of elections or festivals preceding each consular year or in speeches. As he does with government bodies, Livy translates non-Roman religious terminology into Roman terminology.

Except for practices at Rome, religion is only a peripheral concern. Cope, because he does not translate the annalistic material, has few religious references. One of them appears when a supporter of Hannibal taunts an adversary after an 102 early Carthaginian success and invokes "the immortall goddis."

An incident translated by both sixteenth-century translators illustrates the Anglicization of religious references. When Lucius Postumius is killed in Gaul, his head was made into a

10°E.g., SssiiiV (Livi, XXX.xix.5.).

101E.g., [sig. Ttvir] (Livi, XXIII.xxv.2.). j 0 2 E.g., sig. Liii (Livi, XXIII.xii.7.). 96

103 sacred vessel to be used by "the priestes and bishoppes."

Although seeming incongruous at first, Cope's choice of

"bishops" to translate antistitibus does work because a bishop is the chief priest in a given territory. Holland

translates sacerdoti and antistitibus as "the high Priest, 104 . . and other prelates." Although he does not make antistitibus particularly Christian, he uses the Christian concept of

"prelates" for sacerdoti, thus elevating the religious rank of the Latin word. Elsewhere, Holland translates aeditui as 105 "churchwardens and sextaines." The duties of the aeditui and sextons are similar because both are responsible of the keeping of a religious ediface, but it seems incongruous to speak of a "churchwarden," with all the connotations of an organized Christian society which adhere to "church."

However, the choice of familiar if not exactly eguavalent terms undoubtedly made it easier for Holland's Elizabethan audience to understand Livy.

On one occasion, Livy relates that the Romans celebrated a great festival of games and sacrifices, including "praeterea

7 A Q Cope, sig. Miiv; Livi, XXIII.xxiv.12. Purgato inde capite ut mos iis est, caluam auro caelauere, idque sacrum uas iis erat quo sollemnibus libarent poculumque idem sacerdoti esset ac templi antistitibus. (Other than invocations in speeches, this is the only incident which uses religious terminology translated by both men.) 104Holland, [sig. Ttvv]. 105 r Sig. Sssiv (Livi, XXX.xvii.6.). 97

bubus Ioui trecentis, multis aliis diuis bubus albis atque 106 ceteris hostiis.11 The gods besides Jupiter who are to be

offered sacrifices become "saints" in Holland's translation.

According to him, there will be three hundred oxen sacrificed

to Jupiter "and of white oxen and other sacrifices, unto 107 many other saints." Holland finds it necessary to convert the Roman pantheon into a Christian structure of a Supreme

Being and saints. Holland, at other times, allows the other Roman gods a place (as he does immediately following the above incident), but he most often tries to keep one figure 108 in a supreme position. Later he translates diuinis rebus as "Church matters touching religion," which certainly makes the idea clear. Again, Holland specifically includes the concept of a "Church" as an organization and he carefully distinguishes between the various segments of Church activities by the phrase "touching relgion." Holland wants his audience to clearly understand that the matters are those of religious practice and not, as he has translated before, leadership selection.

Some further examples from Holland will help to make clear how he uses the religious terminology in his translation

106Livi, XXII.x.6. 107 ...... v Holland, sig. Ppm . 108Livi, XXII.xi.l. 98 to give, if not an outright Christian tone, at least one which is not completely foreign, to his version of Livy.

Early in the war, Hiero, the king of Syracuse, sent ambassadors and supplies to Rome; among the items was a statue of the goddess Victory which Hiero sent as an omen. "And for that blessed Saint, they appointed & dedicated even the 109 capitoll." Holland, rather than acknowledge a pantheistic concept, converts a pagan goddess into a "saint."

In a major battle in which Hasdrubal was killed, the people of Rome were awaiting news of the outcome. Holland indicates that "the dames of the cittie, because other helpe they could yeeld none, betooke themselves to their beads and devotions.While the Romans certainly would not recognize the actions of the women, a sixteenth-century Englishman would. In translating one of the many chronicles which Livy includes as a preface to each year, Holland sometimes makes use of a curious blend of Christian and pagan terminology:

And in that yeare, there dyed certaine publick Priests, to wit, L. Cornelius Lentulus the Arch-prelate or high Priest: and C. Papyrius Masso, the sonne of Caius, a Bishop. Also P. Funus Philus an Augur, and C. Papyrius Masso

lO^Holland, [sig. Qqvir.] Livi, XX.xxxvii.12. Victoriam omenque accipere sedemque ei se diuae dare Capitolium. ^^^Holland, sig. Lll iiir. Livi, XXVII.1.5. . . . matronae quia nihil in ipsis opis erat preces obtestationesque uersae per omnia delubra uagae suppliciis uotisque fatigare déos. 99

the sonne of Lucius, a Decemvir, deputed for holy mysteries’; In place of Lentulus and of Papyrius, were M. Cornelius Cethagus, and Cn. Servilius Cepio substituted high-priest and bishop. For Augur, there was created L. Quintus Flaminius: and L. Cornelius Lentulus was chosen Decemvir^oyer sacred ceremonies and divine service.

The examples show how sixteenth-century translators (in this case, Holland, particularly) converted Roman and pagan religious customs and terminology to Christian. That such practice was not unique to Cope and Holland is suggested by the Oxford English Dictionary, which includes as one of the meanings of "bishop" in a transferred sense "any chief ..112 priest, e.g. a pontifex maximus, Mohammedan caliph, etc."

Such a transfer of meaning is not surprising in light of the assimilation which characterized the Anglican Church during the reign of Elizabeth. Thus, Holland, in showing Roman religious practice as an analogue of Christian practice, was simply following the common practice of his day.

111 r Holland, sig. Aaa iii . Livi, XXV.ii.l. Aliquot publici sacerdotes mortui eo anno sunt, L. Cornelius Lentulus pontifex maximus et C. Papirius C. filius Masso pontifex et P. Furius Philus augur et C. Papirius L. filius Masso decemuir sacrorum. In Lentuli locum M. Cornelius Cethagus, in Papiri Cn. Seruilius Caepio pontifeces suffecti sunt; augur creatus L. Quinctius Flaminius, decimuir sacrorum L. Cornelius Lentulus. 112 The date given for such an usage is 1647. That date, though, would seem suspect in light of the examples from Cope and Holland. 100

Vocabulary, more than structure, determines

reader-response to a translation. The reader will tolerate

an awkwardly constructed sentence because he is reading a

translation. But the words, the concepts must seem familiar

for the reader to respond favorably. Vocabulary can provide

that familiarity.

Cope and Holland make ancient Rome seem familiar to

their audiences by means of their vocabulary choices. They

search among English customs, religion, military terminology, and governmental structures to find appropriate analogues

for unfamiliar Roman customs and structures. Churchwardens, women saying their beads, and a parliament may not be recognized by Livy, but the concepts and actions would be immediately recognized by a sixteenth-century Englishman.

Thus, the Tudor reader would have no difficulty understanding the general outline of the history of Rome. He would feel at home among Scipio and Hannibal. In that sense, Cope and

Holland were able to create a favorable response in their readers.

In summary, both translators shared an interest in history because of its ability to show their contemporaries right conduct. However, though both began with the same work, their translations differ because of their approach to

Livy's history of Rome. Cope translated by mass; he was concerned with what Livy reported in general. He often 101

eliminates details and changes the order of details within episodes. What remains is Livy in summary. He takes from

Livy what will serve his purpose and ignores the rest.

Holland, on the other hand, translates all of the details of Livy and attempts to reproduce his sentence patterns as much as he can. Any changes he makes are generally by way of additions. He will duplicate many ideas so that the reader may easily comprehend.

Both translators convert alien practices and terms to sixteenth-century English. Thus, the Roman Senate often seems like Parliament and the Roman religion seems like

Christianity. ¡oQ

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS 103

Translation, in any age, presents difficult problems:

How many liberties may be taken with the original text?

What is the best way to transfer a foreign linguistic structure

into the new language? What words will best convey the emotions and customs of the original to its new audience?

"Faithfulness" is often used as a standard for the evaluation of a translation. However, "faithfulness" is an unsatisfactory criterion because its definition depends on the person using it. What this means is that ultimately the test of a translation is the response of the reader who is evaluating it. Translators have been conscious of this fact in an operational way for centuries, although it has only recently been identified as a principle.

The justification for any translation has always included a statement which indicated how the new translation would meet the needs of its intended audience. Thus, if a translator identified people not acquainted with the original language as his audience, then he approached his task in a particular way. Generally, this audience would respond most positively to a translation which did not read like a translation. In other words, the reader does not want to be reminded constantly, by means of awkward but literal sentence patterns or an almost foreign vocabulary, that he is reading a translation. The reader wants sentence patterns and vocabulary which are familiar to him. If the customs of the 104 original culture differ significantly from those of the new culture, the reader wants them presented in a way he can clearly understand. The translator, then, must find appropriate analogies to make foreign customs comprehensible to his audience.

On the other hand, the reader who knows the original language may want a translation which reads like a translation.

The allusion or sentence pattern to which the reader who is ignorant of the original language would object is acceptable to this audience because its needs and desires are different.

Familiarity with the original language makes customs and allusions understandable without the use of analogies or footnotes. What might be considered unusual sentence patterns or foreign vocabulary is not a deterrent to understanding for this reader.

What the translator does is determined by the audience he identifies as his readers. It is the intended reader who determines whether the translator will be faithful to the idea of the original or whether he will also be faithful to the words. Sixteenth-century translators, too, approached their task based on the perceived needs of their intended readers.

Most of the Tudor translators used what they identified as a plain style because most of their translations were attempts to improve the learning of what Dolman called "a meane sort of men." 105

Cope and Holland, the Tudor translators of Livy, also

approached their task conscious of their intended audiences.

Cope's audience was the Court of Henry VIII. Because of the

deceit of the Emperor toward Henry (by concluding a separate

peace with the French after encouraging Henry to join him in

a war against France), Cope is motivated to translate an

example from history which shows that treacherous men, like

the Emperor, are ultimately defeated. This purpose and his

intended audience determine what happens in the translation.

How do the purpose and audience determine what the

translator does? First, Cope can make certain assumptions

about his audience. For example, they are comparatively well-educated and probably familiar with Livy's history.

Certainly they were familiar with the Latin language and its

linguistic differences from English. Secondly, the Court was familiar with the treachery of the Emperor. Third, the

specific objective Cope was trying to reach could be more

successfully achieved by limiting his material to the narration of the conflict between Hannibal and Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War. Here were two personages who, in the traditional view, confirm Cope's contention: Hannibal the cunning Carthaginian is finally defeated by the upright Scipio. The parallel between ancient and contemporary history would be evident to a knowledgeable audience. A further development from his purpose is Cope's choice of 106

Livy's history for translation. Although Cope might have used other historians or other personages, he found Livy's view of the moral dimension of history compatible with his own. In addition, Livy's history was readily accessible to

Cope. Also, because of his limited purpose and the background of his audience, Cope can concentrate on the ideas of Livy.

This is what he does in his selection of material to include.

Catalogues, detailed lists, and episodes not directly involving

Hannibal and Scipio can be ignored because they do not further Cope's purpose. Holland's purpose and audience, too, determine what he does. He sees in Rome the greatest commonwealth ever. As a result, the Romans and their history have much to teach the

English: wisdom, policy, virtue, loyalty. Their history is filled with examples the Elizabethans can, and should, imitate. Thus, he translates all of Livy. For the example of the Romans to benefit the English, it must be accessible to the widest number. Holland, by seeing his audience in such terms, finds it necessary to use what he calls a plain style. In addition to a plain style, he included many explanations of Roman customs, both as a part of his translation itself and as marginalia. Another result of his desire not to be "obscure and darke" is illustrated by that phrase itself: Holland duplicates many, many ideas. So extensive is the practice that it is probably the outstanding 107

feature of his translation style, a feature which derives

from his purpose and his audience. Cope and Holland do not translate in the same manner

(or even in ways which can be considered similar), but they

do begin with the same question: What will best fulfill the

needs of the intended audience? The answer to that question

determines the choices each translator makes—and it accounts

for the differences, in technique and in effect on the

reader, between the translations. Cope translates Livy's third decade as a self-contained

narrative about two principal figures. For Livy's history

of the Second Punic War to assume that shape, Cope must

eliminate much material in order to achieve his goal of

presenting a contrast between two men with different moral

standards. A result of Cope's selectivity is a more coherent

narrative. He has only a single plot with which to concern

himself. Another effect of his selectivity is that the narrative is at a faster pace than either Livy's or Holland's.

When Cope comes to something in Livy which might impede the progress of his narrative, he chooses to omit it. Omens, military assignments, senatorial debates, catalogues of men or material can all be passed over in silence without detracting from the purpose of the translation.

Since he has a single, limited purpose, Cope needs to be concerned only with the satisfactory accomplishment of 108

his comparison. He does not have to be concerned especially

with the subtleties of language (either Latin or English). Rather, he needs only concentrate on the proper selection of

episodes and the general idea which forms those episodes.

Cope's purpose does not depend on imitating Livy's style or

eloquence, which are secondary matters. As a result Cope's

translation often seems not to be a translation—at least

not a translation of Livy. Instead of a translation it could easily be Cope's version of those parts of the Second

Punic War which involved Hannibal and Scipio.

Holland's purpose, on the other hand, makes his selection process easy, but the actual translating difficult. Because he is translating Livy for his eloquence in addition to his exempla, Holland cannot simply translate the mass of an idea or episode. He must try to convert Livy's Latin eloquence into English eloquence, and, at the same time, convert Roman customs into an understandable form for his Elizabethan audience. The audience, then, determines the approach the translator will take in solving the problems which are an integral part of translation. In addition, the audience has an active role itself when the translation is completed. The audience responds to the final work on the basis of whether the translation satisfies its needs or expectations. 109

Cope's reader responds to a single narrative which is presented to illustrate what is the ultimate fate of treacherous men. Being centered at Court, his reader would be familiar with the current treachery of the Emperor against

Henry. The reader does not need to be constantly reminded through editorial commentary of the point of the comparison.

Holland's reader, on the other hand, is faced with a gigantic mass of material which provides illustrations of many kinds of conduct and many worthy qualities. Thus, he needs to be reminded of the lessons he is to learn. The opening of the gate at New Carthage discussed in Chapter Three shows the way in which Holland uses the exempla of history for the reader's benefit. The reader responds to the example of Roman determination by saying to himself,

"yes, a single-minded purpose is a good quality; it can accomplish a lot." That is the way Holland wants his reader to respond. Cope's routine report of the same incident leads the reader to accept the opening of the gate as a logical consequence of what is happening in the battle.

Cope's reader, because he is reading a narrative about

Hannibal and Scipio, does not mind that the dramatic possibilities are often not exploited. For example, Scipio's treatment of the young Massiva is again routinely reported without embellishment. The reader leaves the episode with a positive feeling for Scipio because of his generosity in 110 dealing with the boy. That is the reason Cope has included the episode—and he achieves his purpose. Holland does manipulate incidents to make use of their dramatic potential.

In the episode with Massiva, Holland has the boy in tears twice—once from fear and once from joy. The tears, especially of fear, call attention to the boy's youth, but they also serve to focus the reader's attention on Massiva rather than Scipio, as Livy and Cope do. In other words, when Scipio gives the boy his freedom, the reader responds with relief that the young boy is safe. It is only on consideration that he sees the generous nature of Scipio at work. Another technique Holland uses to shift points of emphasis from those of both Cope and Livy is that of duplicating ideas. Repetition is a means of adding emphasis. Holland, as shown earlier, repeats many ideas; sometimes he uses synonyms and sometimes he uses words which add meaning to each other. Such a practice calls attention to the ideas or actions being described. As a result, the reader is faced with an intensity which sees everything as significant. Cope takes the opposite approach. He seldom duplicates ideas. Rather, he chooses a very matter-of-fact manner which almost allows the reader to draw his own conclusions or choose his own emphatic incidents. Ill

The response of a reader toward a translation is mostly determined by linguistic structures and vocabulary. Both translators frame their translations according to conventional syntax patterns appropriate to their own time. The reader feels comfortable in his activity because of the familiarity of structures. For Cope and Holland to achieve that feeling requires, as shown above, definite modification of Latin syntactical patterns sometimes resulting in a change of emphasis or the ordering of details as found in Livy. For the casual reader, the changes a translator must make are relatively unimportant, even though they may be misleading.

The changes only become important when deciding whether the audience of the new work is actually receiving a reasonable facsimile of the original. If a translator chooses to make his work read like a contemporary work and not as a translation, then some changes must be accepted by the reader. The syntactic changes Cope makes derive from his general approach which is simply to translate the mass of an idea or episode. On occasion, he makes changes to clairfy relationships or the sequence of events, but that practice, too, follows from translating the mass of an idea. The syntactic changes Holland makes are generally less radical than those of Cope. Holland attempts to follow the periodic structure of Livy’s sentences, but not so slavishly that the reader is faced with confusion. Often the modifications in 112

Holland’s translation are by way of explaining a foreign

custom or concept. He often adds an appositive phrase or a

sentence of explanation which is not in Livy. Such changes

are to help his Elizabethan audience understand Roman

concepts and habits. Holland recognizes that only if the

reader understands what is being reported will he be able to

profit from the examples before him. One of the best ways to insure understanding is to put

a concept into language with which the audience can identify.

In the case of translation, that means the translator must

find analogous native concepts or practices which will serve as equivalents for concepts and practices in the source culture. Both translators of Livy attempt to make Roman culture understandable through their vocabulary. Thus, in

Cope, does senatus become a "court" or "general counsel," does uels become "light armed soldier," do sacerdos and antistes become "priests" and "bishops." In Holland, iumenta becomes "jades and other beasts," patres conscripti become

"Lords of the Council," the Roman gods become "saints," and

Roman matrons say their "beads." The effect on the reader, in both cases, is a familiarity which does not hinder his progress. Certainly, a Roman matron saying her beads is anachronistic, as is having the gods as saints. Yet, the reader only becomes conscious of the anachronisms upon reflection—after the activity of reading is completed. 113

There are several reasons for this. First, accommodation 1 and assimilation of foreign cultures has a long tradition.

The sixteenth-century reader would not find the practice unusual. Secondly, as participant (through the activity of reading), the reader becomes engrossed with the flow of events and ideas. As long as the vocabulary does not intrude on the progress of the narrative by calling attention to itself, the reader will continue his progress through the narrative. Vocabulary generally only intrudes on the reader's consciousness when it is unfamiliar. Thirdly, the use of familiar sixteenth-century vocabulary to describe ancient Rome seems natural in both translations. It is not inserted to call attention to itself.

Using "faithfulness to the original" as a standard, one must conclude that Holland's translation is superior to

Cope's. However, judging it only in relation to Livy's history, Holland's translation is only relatively faithful.

The expansions of incidents, the duplication of ideas, and the translation vocabulary violate a literal faithfulness to some degree. Concerning Cope's translation, there is no question that faithfulness was violated. Although faithfulness to the original text is important, more

1 Many examples of the process can be cited from medieval drama. For example, The Second Shepherds' Play portrays Middle Eastern shepherds as if they were English. 114 important is how effectively the translator achieves his purpose and meets the needs of his audience.

It seems that Cope and Holland begin with a similiar understanding of the concept that a purpose of translation is to make a foreign culture seem familiar. They both use familiar syntactical patterns and familiar vocabulary, but this is not to say that their translations are similiar. As has been shown, their differing principles of selection make the most obvious difference. But even when they translate the same episode, the reader responds in two different ways. The particular alternative a translator chooses can report an incident in a very dramatic manner. Yet, another translator, making a different choice, can evoke a different response.

It is the choices—and their effects—of Cope and Holland which have been described above.

The Tudor translators of Livy do meet the needs of their readers. In the process, however, Livy becomes a contemporary of the reader. He has been clothed in sixteenth-century costume. iK

BIBLIOGRAPHY 116

Adams, Henry. Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1937.

Amos, Flora Ross. Early Theories of Translation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1920.

Arrowsmith, William and Roger Shattuck, ed. The Craft and Context of Translation. Austin: The University oT Texas Press, 1961.

"Baker, George." DNB, I, 927.

Baker, George, trans. The Newe lewell of Health, by Conrad Gesner. London: Henrie Denham, 15T6.

Baugh, Albert C. A History of the English Language. 2nd ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957.

Bennett, H. S. English Books and Readers: 1475-1557. Cambridge: At the University Press, 1952.

Burgess, Theodore C., and Robert J. Bonner. Elementary Greek: An Introduction to the Study of Attic Greek. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1907.

Carne-Ross, D. S. "Translation and Transposition," The Craft and Context of Translation, ed. William Arrowsmith and Roger Shattuck. Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1961.

Clements, A. F. Tudor Translations. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1940.

"Cope, Antony." DNB, IV, 1090-91. Cope, Antony. The Historie of Two The Moste Noble Capitaines of the World, Annibal and Scipio. London: Thomas Berthelet, 1544.

"Copland, Robert." DNB, IV, 1097-98. Coverdale, Miles, trans. A . . . treatyse concernynge [sic] the Sacrament, by John Calvin. N.p.: 1549[?].

Crotch, W. J. B., ed. The Prologues and Epilogues of William Caxton. Early English Text Society, Ordinary Series, 176.

Dolman, John. Those fyue Questions, which Marke Tullye Cicero, disputed in his Manor of Tuscalanum. London: Thomas Marshe, 1561. 117

Drant, Thomas. A Medicinable Morall, that is, the two Bookes of Horace his Satyres. London: Thomas Marshe, 1565.

Ebel, Julia Gracia. "Studies in Elizabethan Translation." Diss.: Columbia University, 1964.

Fay, H. C. "Chapman's Materials for His Translation of Homer," Review of English Studies. II New Series (1951), 121-28.

Fills, Robert. The Lawes and Statutes of Geneua. London: Rouland Hall, 1562.

Fish, Stanley. "Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics," New Literary History, II (Autumn, 1970), 121-62.

Fortescue, Thomas. The Foreste or Collection of histories. London: John Kyngston, 13*7 T7

Foster, F. M. K. English Translations from the Greek. New York: Columbia University Press, 1918.

Frenz, Horst. "The Art of Translation," Comparative Literature: Method and Perspective. Ea. Newton P. Stallknecht and Horst Frenz. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1961.

Fuller, Thomas. The Worthies of England. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1952.

Griffith, G. T. "The Greek Historians," Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship, ed. Maurice Platnauer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968.

Hoby, Thomas, trans. The Book of the Courtier, by Baldassare Castiglione. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1948.

"Hoby, Thomas." DNB, IX, 949. "Holland, Philemon." DNB, IX, 1045-46.

Holland, Philemon. The Romane Historie Written by T. Livius of Padva. London: Adam Islip, 16Ö0.

Hopkins, Richard, trans. Of Prayer and Meditation, by Luis de Granada. Paris: T. Brumeau, 1587} 118

Humphries, Rolfe. "Latin and English Verse—Some Practical Considerations," On Translation, ed. Reuben Brower. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Huse, H. R., trans. The Divine Comedy. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonT Inc. , ±954.

Jones, Richard Foster. The Triumph of the English Language. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1953.

Lathrop, H. B. Translations from the Classics into English from Caxton to Chapman♦ Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1933.

Lattimore, Richmond, trans. Greek Lyrics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Lewis, Charlton T., and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 19"69T

Livi, Titi. Ab urbe condita. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1968.

McDonald, A. H. "The Roman Historians," Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship, ed. Maurice Platnauer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968.

Mâle, Emile. The Gothic Image : Religious Art in France of the Thirteenth Century, trans. Dora Nussey. New York: Harper and Row, 1958.

Matthiessen, Francis Otto. Translation: An Elizabethan Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931.

Maunsell, Andrew. Cato Construed. London: f. Andrewe Maunsell, 15841

Morgan, Bayard Quincy. "Bibliography," On Translation, ed. Reuben Brower. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.

. "Reviews of Recent Translations," Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature. No. 12, 19^3.

Nash, Ralph L. "On the Indebtedness of Fairfax's Tasso to Carew," Italica, XXXIV (1957) 14-19.

Nida, Eugene A. "Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating," On Translation, ed. Reuben Brower. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966. 119

_____ . Toward a Science of Translating with Special References to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964.

North, Thomas, trans. The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. London: T. VautroulTier, 1579.

"Paynell, Thomas." DNB, XV, 572-73.

Phaer, Thomas. The seuen first bookes of the Eneidos. London: J. Kyngston for R. Jugge, 1558.

Pollard, A. W. and G. R. Redgrave, compilers. A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, & Ireland And of English Books Printed Abroad: 1475-1640. London: The Bibliographical Society, 1969.

Rouse, W. H. D., trans. The Odyssey. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 193 /.

Rowse, A. L. The Elizabethan Renaissance: The Cultural Achievement. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1972.

Savory, Theodore. The Art of Translation. Philadelphia: Dufour Editions, 1960.

Scott, Mary Augusta. Elizabethan Translations from Italian. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.", 1916.

Smith, F. Seymour. The Classics in Translation. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1930.

Stockwood, John. A Fruitfull Commentarie vpon the twelue Small Prophets. [London]: Iohn Legate (Printer to Vniversitie of Cambridge), 1594.

Taylor, George Coffin. Shakespeare's Debt to Montaigne. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925.

Trevelyan, G. M. Illustrated English Social History, Volume II: The Age of Shakespeare and the Stuart Period. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1951.

Walsh, P. G. Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods. Cambridge: At the University Press, 1963.

Whibley, Charles. "Translation," Cambridge History of English Literature. Cambridge? At the University Press, 1967. 120

Wilkinson, L. P., trans. Letters of Cicero. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1966.

Wilson, Thomas. The rule of Reason, conteinyng the Arte of Logique, set forth in Englishe. London: R. Grafton, 1551.

_____ . The three Orations of Demosthenes. London: Henrie Denham, 1570.

"Wilson, Thomas." DNB, XXI, 796-814.

Winny, James. Elizabethan Prose Translation. Cambridge: At the University Press, 1960.

Wright, Louis B. Middle-Class Culture in Elizabethan England. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1965. 19)

APPENDIX 122

Page 44: Livi, XXVI.xxii.14

Eludant nunc antiqua mirantes: non equidem, si qua sit sapientium ciuitas quam docti fingunt magis quam norunt, aut principes grauiores temperantioresque a cupidine imperii aut multitudinem melius moratem censam fieri posse.

Page 55: Livi, XXVI.xlvi,10-xlvii.l0

. . . ad praedam uictores uersi, quae ingens omnis generis fuit. Liberorum capitum uirile secus ad decum milia capta; inde qui ciues Nouae Carthaginis erant dimisit urbemque et sua omnia quae reliqua eis bellum fecerat restituit. Opifices ad duo milia hominum erant; eos publicos fore populi Romani edixit, cum spe propinqua libertatis si ad ministeria belli enixe operam nauassent. Ceteram multitudinem incolarum iuuenum ac ualidorum seruorum in classem ad supplementum remigum dédit; et auxerat nauibus octo capitiuis classem. Extra hanc multitudinem Hispanorum obsides erant, quorum perinde ac si sociorum liberi essent cura habita. Captus et apparatus ingens belli; catapultae maximae formae centum uiginti, minores ducentae octoginta una ballistae maiores uiginti très, minores quinquaginta duae; scorpionum maiorum minorumque et armorum telorumque ingens numerus; signa militarla septuaginta quattuor. Et auri argenti relata ad imperatorem magna uis: paterae aureae fuerent ducentae septuaginta sex, librales ferme omnes pondo; argenti infecti signatique decern et octo milia et trecenta pondo; uasorum argenteorum magnus numerus; haec omnia C. Flaminio quaestori appensa adnumerataque sunt; tritici quadringenta milia modium, hordei ducenta septuaginta. Naues onerariae sexaginta très in portu expugnatae captaeque, quaedam cum suis oneribus, frumento, armis, aere praeterea ferroque et linteis et sparto et nauali alia materia ad classem aedificandam, ut minimum omnium inter tantas opes belli captas Carthago ipsa fuerit.

v Cope, sig. Xiv • Euery man wente to the spoile of the towne: the prayse whereof was greate, as well of golde and syluer as of ordinaunce, artyllary, corne, shyppes, iron, laten and many 123 other thinges mete for the apparel of shippes: the certayntie wherof I wyll not reherse, for that writars vary moch therein. There was also x.M. prysoners taken, whereof as many as were citizens, Scipio let go at libertie, and suffered to dwell styl in the towne, and to enioy as moche of their goodes as was not before spoyled. Amonge other prisoners there were two.M. of craftes men, which he caused to be bod men to worke fo the common profytte of the citie of Rome, puttyng them in comfort, that they should within shorte space be made all free, if they wolde labour and work earnestly about suche necessaryes, as they should haue nede of in the warre. A greate noumber of the rest, that were seruantes and lusty yonge men, he sent to be rowers in his shyppes and galeys in the places of suche as lacked. And he also encreased his nauy of eyght shyppes wel furnished.

v Holland, sig. Gggv .

And the Conquerours fell to saccage and pillage, which of all sorts rose to a mightie thing. Of free borne, such as were of male sexe, there were taken prisioners upon 10000. Then, so many of them as he found to be naturall citizens of Carthage, he dismissed and let goe free, and restored unto them not onely the citie, but also their owne goods, which the first furie and rage of warriors had left untouched. There were of Artisanes and handicraftsmen, some two thousand: those by an edict he pronounced to be bond, and adjudged them as confiscate, to serve the Commonweale of the people of Rome: yet with some hope, that shortly they might obtaine their freedome againe, in case they performed good service, and shewed themselves diligent in all ministeries and offices of warre. The rest of the multitude of inhabitants, such as were able and young lustie men, as also the stout and sturdie bondmen, he awarded them to the shippes, for to furnish up the number of gally-slaves and rowers, and with the eight shippes of warre, which hee tooke capitve in the haven, he encreased his owne Armade. Besides all this multitude, there were also the hostages of the Spaniards above written, of whome hee tooke as great care, and as good regard, as if they had been the children of Allies and associates. A mightie deale of warlike artillerie and ordinance was there found and seized on. Of Catapults of the greatest size 120, of a lesser sort 281. Balists some greater, some small; of them 33, of these 52. Of Scorpions and Cros-bowes to shoot quarrels as well great as small, and likewise of defensive armour, and offensive weapons, a huge deale, and a marvellous quantitie. Militarie ensignes 74. 124

Of gold and silver there was a mightie masse brought unto the Generali. Golden cups or bolls there were 27b, every one weighing almost one pound. Of silver tried, wrought, and coined 18300 pound weight: and much plate and vessell of silver. All this C. Flaminius the Treasurer, received either by weight or tall. Of wheat there was 40000 Modij, of barly 270000. Of barkes and shippes of burden, there were in the haven woon by force, and taken, 113. Some were fraught with corne, armour, brasse besides, and yron, saile-cloth, and hempe, or spart for cables and ropes, also with timber for shipwrights. Carthage the town it selfe, in so great store of wealth and warlicke provision, was the least of all other.

Page 59: Livi, XXI.xlviii.8-9.

Nec procul inde Hannibal cum consedisset, quantum uictoria equestri elatus, tantum anxius inopia quae per hostium agros euntem, nusquam praeparatis commeatibus, maior in dies excipiebat, ad Clastiduim uicum, quo magnum frumenti numerum congesserant Romani, mittit. Ibi cum uim pararent, spes facta proditionis: nec sane magno pretio, nummis aureis quadringentis, Dasio Brundisino praefecto praesidii corrupto traditur Hannibali Clastidium. Id horreum fui Poenis sedentibus ad Trebiam. In captiuos ex tradito praesidio, ut fama clementiae in principio rerum colligeretur, nihil saeuitum est.

Page 61: Holland, sig. Oov.

Anniball also lay not farre off in campe; who as so he was proud upon the late battaile of horsemen, so he was perplexed for want of victuals, which scarsitie encreased upon him everie day more and more, as he travailed through the enemies countrie, finding in no place provision aforehand. Whereupon, he went to Clastidium, a towne wherein the Romanes had bestowed and laid up great store of graine: where, as he prepared with violence to force the towne, there appeared some hope of treason, by corrupting of P. Brundisiun, the capitaine of the garrison there, and that with no great sum of money: for in consideration onely of 400 peeces of gold given unto him, Clastidium was betrayed unto Anniball: the verie storehouse and garner of corne that the Carthaginians 125 had, all the while they were in leaguer neere Trebia. Vpon those prisoners that were taken when the garrison and fort was betraied, he exercised no cruelty, because that in the beginning of his affaires, he would win himselfe a name and opinion of clemencie.

Page 75: Livi, XXX.xxxiii.12-16.

Cum maxime haec imperator apud Carthaginienses, duces suarum gentium inter populares, pleraque per interprètes inter immixtos alienigenis agerent, tubae cornuaque ab Romanis cecinerunt, tantusque clamor ortus ut elephanti in suos, sinistrum maxime cornu, uerterentur, Mauros ac Numidas. Addidit facile Masinissa perculsis terrorem nudauitque ab ea parte aciem equestri auxilio. Paucae tamen bestiarum intrepidae in hostem actae inter uelitum ordines cum multis suis uolneribus ingentem stragem edebant. Resilentes enim ad manipulos uelites cum uiam elephantis ne obtererentur fecissent, in ancipites ad ictum utrimque coniciebant hastas, nec pila ab antesignanis cessabant donee undique incidentibus telis exacti ex Romana acie hi quoque in suo dextro cornu ipsos Carthaginiensium équités in fugam uerterunt. Laelius, et turbatos uidit hostes, addidit perculsis terrorem.

r-v Cope, sig. Lliii

By that tyme this noble capitayn [Hannibal] had finyshed his wordes: the Romaynes blew vp theyr trumpettes and nornes, makynge so terrible a noyse and clamour, that a greate numbre of the elephantes, beinge furyouse, tourned backe vppon theyr companye, specially vppon the lefte wynge of the Moores and Numidians. Whiche perceyued well Massanissa, wherefore he also inuaded the same wing with his horsemen, putting theim to suche feare, that they fledde, leauynge that syde of the hoste bare of succour. Dyuers of the elephantes by force wer constrained to entre the myddle battaile, to whome anone the lyght armed souldiers gaue place, suffryng theim to entre among theim, where they were thrust in with speares & iauelyns, so that many were there slain. During this while, Lelius with his horsmen assailed the right wing of the horsme of Carthage, puttig the also to flight. 126

Holland, sig. Tttivr_v.

When as the Generali [Hannibal] was most busie thus in exhorting the Carthaginians and the captains of the straungers, amongst the souldiours of their owne nations, and that for the most part by means of interpreters, intermingled for the same purpose with them; the trumpets sounded, and the homes blew from the Romane hoast. And such a wonderful1 shout arose from thence, that the Elephants turned upon the Mores and Numidians of their owne side, especially in the left point of the battaile. Whome Masanissa seeing once affrighted hee soone redoubled their feare; and riding upon them with a hote charge, laid naked the batailon of footmen on that side, and cleane without the aid of their Cavallerie. Howbeit, some few of the Elephants driven without feare full upon the enemie, made foule worke among the rankes of the light armed Velites, and overthrew a number of them, not without many a wound and much hurt done to themselves. For the Velites leaping againe nimblie to the squadrons, after they had made way for the beasts, fearing they should bee troden underfoot by them, let flie their javelines at them from both sides, lying open as they did like butts to the shot on either hand. Neither lost they any time, who were in the vauntguard before the ensignes, nor gave over slinging their darts at them, untill they were driven by a voley of shot lighting upon them from all parts, cleane out of the Romane battaile: and then they turned head also upon the very horsemen of the Carthaginians in their owne right point, and forced them to run away. Laelius for his part, seeing the enemeies in disarray and sore troubled, charged upon them with his horses, & encreased their fright.

Page 80: Livi, XXII.ii.6.

Galli ñeque sustiñere se prolapsi ñeque adsurgere ex uoraginibus poterant, ñeque aut corpora animis aut ánimos spe sustinebant, alii fessa aegre trahentes membra, alii, ubi semel uictis taedio animis procubuissent, inter iumenta et ipsa iacentia passim morientes.