english literary translation

Recent Studies in the English Renaissance

ELR bibliographic essays are intended to combine a topical review of research with a reasonablycomplete bibliography. Scholarship is organized by authors or titles of anonymous works. Itemsincluded represent combined entries listed in the annual bibliographies published by PMLA,YWES, and MHRA from 1971 through, in the present instance, 2008 with additional itemsthrough 2009.The format used here is a modified version of that used in Recent Studies in EnglishRenaissance Drama, ed. Terence P. Logan and Denzel S. Smith, 4 vols. (University of NebraskaPress, 1973–78).

The ELR series in edited by Elizabeth H. Hageman, Professor of English–Emerita, Universityof New Hampshire.

RECENT STUDIES IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION,c. 1590�c. 1660: PART 2: TRANSLATIONS FROM

VERNACULAR LANGUAGES

robert cummings

This essay follows on from my “Recent Studies in English Translation,c. 1590–c. 1660, Part 1: General Studies and Translations from Greek andLatin,” ELR 39 (2009), 197–227, which includes sections on “General Studies”(I) and “Studies of Translation from Greek and Latin” (II). It should be usedin conjunction both with Part 1 and with my earlier “Recent Studies inEnglish Translation, c. 1520–c.1590,” ELR 37 (2007), 274–316. Throughoutthese essays, issues of influence, loose imitation, and adaptation are coveredonly exceptionally, and biblical translation (including Psalm translation) isexcluded. “Recent” is generally understood as dating after 1980. A few itemsomitted from the 2007 essay are introduced here among studies of particularauthors or topics. Items already given in Part 1 are cited in full on their firstoccurrence in this part of the essay.

III. Studies of Translation from Modern Vernaculars

A. General. Warren Boutcher, “Vernacular Humanism in the SixteenthCentury,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, ed. Jill Kraye(1996), 189–202, emphasizes the availability of vernacular translations of clas-sical texts as well as the uses of modern vernacular literature. Boutcher’s “ ‘AFrench Dexterity, & an Italian Confidence’: New Documents on John Florio,

586

© 2009 English Literary Renaissance Inc. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Learned Strangers and Protestant Humanist Study of Modern Languages inRenaissance England from c. 1547 to c. 1625,” Reformation 2 (1997) 39–109,recreates out of small documentary details the cultural milieu of the Protes-tant intellectual immigrant community in London, especially as it gatheredaround the Earl of Essex. Boutcher’s “Humanism and Literature” (III, C, 5,below) is also relevant. Andrew Hiscock, “John Florio,” in The Encyclopediaof Literary Translation into English, ed. Olive Classe (2000), 453–56, outlinesFlorio’s career as lexicographer and translator of Montaigne.

Items listed in II,A and II, D, 2, of Part 1 (see headnote to the present essay)often treat indiscriminately Latin and vernacular works. For example, QuentinSkinner, Visions of Politics, 3 vols (2002),Vol. II, 395–96, sets Richard Knolles’1606 version of Jean Bodin’s Six Bookes of a Common-weale (translated “out ofthe French and Latine copies”) in the context of mainly Latin anti-republicanwriting. The Latin social and political theorists treated in Markku Peltonen,Classical Humanism and Republicanism in English Political Thought, 1570–1640(1995), work alongside the vernacular writers on social manners and courtlybehavior. Among the vernacular treatises treated by Peltonen are FuriòCeriol’s El concejo translated through an Italian intermediary by ThomasBlundeville (1570); Guazzo’s La Civil conversatione translated through a Frenchintermediary by George Pettie (1581) and enlarged from the Italian byBartholomew Yong (1586); Ducci’s Arte Aulica translated from Italian byEdward Blount (1607); Sansovino’s Propositioni translated from Italianby Robert Hitchcock (1590); a succession of versions, starting with RobertJohnson’s in 1601, of Botero’s Relazioni; Du Refuge’s Traité de la Courtranslated by John Reynolds (1622); and Lucinge’s De la Naissance, Durée, etCheute des Estats translated by John Finet (1606). Along with manuals strictlyrelated to duelling such as I.G.’s 1594 Grassi and the anonymous 1595Vincentio Sauiolo his Practise translated from Muzio, Peltonen’s The Duel inEarly Modern England: Civility, Politeness, and Honour (2003) treats translatedmanuals of courtesy and civility beginning with Sir Edward Hoby’s 1561Castiglione and continuing with Robert Peterson’s 1576 Della Casa, JohnKeper’s 1598 Romei, Edward Grimestone’s 1632 Farat, William Style’s 1640Gracián Dantisco, and George North’s 1575 Philibert de Vienne. There is auseful bibliography of courtesy literature in Anna Bryson, From Courtesy toCivility: Changing Codes of Conduct in Early Modern England (1998), whichtreats the difficult vocabulary of “civility” and the prestige of Continentalmanners that made translation attractive.

J. H. M. Salmon, “Stoicism and Roman Example: Seneca and Tacitus inJacobean England,” JHI 50 (1989), 199–225, treats William Jones (translator ofGuicciardini), Thomas James (translator of Du Vair), and Samuel Lennard(translator of Charron), as part of a network of translators supported by thepatronage first of Essex and then of Prince Henry. Andrew Shifflett, Stoicism,

587Robert Cummings

© 2009 English Literary Renaissance Inc.

Politics, and History in the Age of Milton:War and Peace Reconciled (1998), 1–35,adduces Andrew Court’s 1622 Buckler against Adversitie (translated from DuVair) to insist on the politically active character of Stoicism. Gilles D. Mon-sarrat, Light from the Porch: Stoicism and English Renaissance Literature (1984),60–69, describing the Stoic revival as transmitted through French sources,notes some confusing details of translation in Thomas James’s 1598 version ofDu Vair’s The Moral Philosophie of the Stoicks and in Samson Lennard’s 1608translation of Charron’s Of Wisdom.

Andrew Hadfield’s anthology Amazons, Savages, and Machiavels: Travel andColonial Writing in English, 1550–1630 (2001) includes selections from RichardEden’s translation of Peter Martyr, M.M.S’s of Las Casas, John Pory’s of LeoAfricanus, and a translation of Diego de Pantoia on China from Purchas HisPilgrimes. Hadfield’s Literature,Travel, and Colonial Writing in the English Renais-sance, 1545–1625 (1998), 69–133, treats Edward Grimestone’s much-adaptedversions of Pierre D’Avity and Joseph Acosta (related to specifically Englishconcerns). James P. Helfers, “The explorer or the pilgrim? Modern criticalopinion and the editorial methods of Richard Hakluyt and Samuel Purchas,”SP 94 (1997), 160–86, surveys the contexts (practical for Hakluyt, “aesthetic”for Purchas) for the collecting and translating of travel material. AnthonyPayne, “ ‘Strange, remote, and farre distant countreys’: The Travel Books ofRichard Hakluyt,” in Journeys through the Market:Travel,Travellers and the BookTrade, ed. Robin Myers (1999), 1–38, analyzes the travel books available toRichard Halkuyt and his network of translators, as well as the commercialinterests that supported his enterprise. William H. Sherman, “Bringing theWorld to England: The Politics of Translation in the Age of Hakluyt,”Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 14 (2004), 199–207, explores Hakluyt’scontext in a culture of translation from classical and Continental sources. His“Stirrings and Searchings (1500–1720),” in The Cambridge Companion to TravelWriting, ed. Peter Hulme and Tim Youngs (2002), 17–36, is a lucid overviewof the field. Linda McJannet, “ ‘History Written by the Enemy’:The Recep-tion of Eastern Sources About the Ottomans on the Continent and inEngland,” ELR 36 (2006), 396–429, examines the transmission of texts origi-nally in Greek, Arabic, and Turkish, mainly through Latin or vernacularintermediary translations.

John N. King and Mark Rankin, “Print, Patronage, and the Reception ofContinental Reform: 1521–1603,” YES 38 (2008), 49–67, is a statistical surveyof the English publication (mainly in translation from Latin, but also fromvernaculars) of Continental reformist literature. See also items by Tedeschi andOverell, III, D, 1, below.

B. Dutch and German. Nigel Smith, Perfection Proclaimed: Language andLiterature in English Radical Religion, 1640–1660 (1989), 107–43, surveys the

588 English Literary Renaissance


motives behind the translations of German mystical writing by John Everard(including an unprinted Theologia Germanica and a version of SebastianFranck’s Forbidden Fruit) and Giles Randall (including another version of theTheologia Germanica, 1646). Smith notes that, despite working through Latinintermediaries, they effected “a modification of the affective and expressivecapacity of the English language” in the direction of German.Writing on therevival of Familist literature in the 1640s, Smith (144–84) distinguishesNiclaes’ prose in translation from the superficially similar rhetoric of mid-century English sectarians, treated at length in his account (185–225) of thedissemination of Behmenist doctrine. The activity of Niclaes’ chief earlytranslator Christopher Vitell (working in the 1570s) is described in Christo-pher W. Marsh, The Family of Love in English Society, 1550–1630 (1994).

Catherine Greenbury and Mary Percy, ed. Jos Blom and Frans Blom (2006),includes Catherine Greenbury’s version of François van den Broecke’s DutchA Short Relation, of the Life of S. Elizabeth (St Omer 1628).

Michael Haldane, “The Translation of the Unseen Self: Fortunatus,Mercury and the Wishing Hat, Part I,” Folklore 117 (2006), 171–89, analyzesthe themes of invisibility and secrecy as they surface in the German Fortunatusand its English versions. Haldane’s “ The Date of Thomas Combe’s Fortunatusand its Relation to Thomas Dekker’s Old Fortunatus,” MLR 101 (2006),313–24, identifies the translator of The right Pleasant and variable TragicallHistorie of Fortunatus (1640) as Thomas Combe (following the 1676 title–pagein reading T.C. for the 1640 title-page’s T.G.), argues for his dependence onDekker’s play, and dates the translation to 1610–1615. Haldane’s “The MoralVoice in T.C.’s Fortunatus,” Neophil 91 (2007), 319–32, reassigns the attributionto Thomas Churchyard and assumes a date before 1604 for the translation;Haldane also argues that the version is compromised by its clumsy attempt atmoralization.

Michael Bath, “Anglo-Dutch Relations in the Field of the Emblem,” inEmblems in Glasgow: A Collection of Essays Drawing on the Stirling MaxwellCollection in Glasgow University Library, ed. Alison Adams (1992), 25–46,describes the versions of Jacob Cats by Joshua Sylvester and ThomasHeywood, and of Vaenius by Richard Verstegan. Karel Porteman introduces afacsimile edition of Otto van Veen’s polyglot 1608 Amorum Emblemata (1996).

C. French1. Corneille. Elizabeth Woodrough, “Corneille et la Grande-Bretagne:L’Intérêt que suscite l’oeuvre de Pierre Corneille outre-Manche au XVIIesiècle,” in Pierre Corneille, ed. Alain Niderst (1985), 73–82, demonstrates thevigor of Corneille’s reputation outside France, from Joseph Rutter’s 1638 LeCid through William Popple’s in 1691; she remarks the contemporary neglect,despite the boost she gave to couplet drama, of Katherine Philips’ version of

589Robert Cummings


Pompée and also of her unfinished Horace. A. Blanc, “Les Traductions anglaisesde Corneille,” in France et Grande–Bretagne de la chute de Charles Ier à celle deJacques II (1649–1688), ed. C. N. Smith and E.T. Dubois (1990), 177–96, surveystranslations from Rutter to Popple, notes Lower’s tendency to Gallicism, and(while demurring at the interpolated songs in Pompey) commends Philips’mastery of Corneille’s metrical pacing. Derek Hughes, English Drama, 1660–1700 (1996), associates the popularity of Corneille after 1660, and Pompey inparticular, with the themes of rebellion and restoration.

Paula Loscocco’s facsmile version of Katherine Philips’ Printed Publications,1651–1664 (2007) includes the 1663 Pompey; her facsimile of The 1667 Poems(2007) includes Pompey, Horace, and Philips’ translations of one Italian songand four French poems. The Collected Works of Katherine Philips,The MatchlessOrinda,Vol. III: The Translations, ed. Germaine Greer and R. Little (1993), givesedited texts for Philips’s translations from Pompey and Horace and the shorterpoems. RWO (http://www.wwp.brown.edu/index.html) offers texts withintroductions, for Pompey by Joyce Green MacDonald, for Horace by AndreaSununu. Elizabeth H. Hageman and Andrea Sununu, “New Manuscript Textsof Katherine Philips, the ‘Matchless Orinda’,” EMS 4 (1993), 174–216, givedetails of a manuscript version of Pompey, more literal and less elegant thanthe printed version.

Elizabeth H. Hageman, “Recent Studies in Women Writers of the EnglishSeventeenth century, 1604–1674 (1945–1986),” ELR 18 (1988), 138–67; rpt.and updated with “Recent Studies in Women Writers of the English Seven-teenth Century, 1604–1674 (1987-April 1990),” in Women in the Renaissance:Selections from English Literary Renaissance, ed. Kirby Farrell, Elizabeth H.Hageman, and Arthur F. Kinney (1990), 269–309, describes or lists work onKatherine Philips’ translations by Catherine Mambretti, Nancy Cotton, andMaureen E. Mulvihill: see especially III, Z in the first essay, and the supple-mentary III, K. Hageman, “Katherine Philips: The Matchless Orinda,” inWomen Writers of the Renaissance and Reformation, ed. Katharina M.Wilson andFrank J. Warnke (1987), 566–608, describes Philips’ concern over the com-petition between her Pompey and Pompey the Great by Waller and his col-laborators. See also Hageman’s “Katherine Philips,” DLB 131 (1993), 202–14.Michel Adam,“Katherine Philips, traductrice du théâtre de Pierre Corneille,”Revue d’Histoire Litteraire de la France 85 (1985), 841–51, questions Philips’choice of plays and demurs at her use of rhyme. Paulina Kewes, “FrenchLiterature: Drama,” in The Oxford History of Literary Translation in English,Vol.III, ed. Stuart Gillespie and David Hopkins (2005), 217–27, commends Philips’management of the couplet. Shifflett, Stoicism (III, A), 75–106, reads Philips’Pompey as vindicating Cornelia’s “republican ideals and the Stoic modes ofpreserving those ideals”; see also his “ ‘How Many Virtues Must I Hate’:Katherine Philips and the Politics of Clemency,” SP 94 (1997), 103–35. Hero



Chalmers, Royalist Women Writers, 1650–1689 (2004), 86–104, reads the politicsof Philips’ Pompey as informed by a generous even-handedness, and thesmoothness of the verse as asserting authorial independence of her original.Joyce Green MacDonald, Women and Race in Early Modern Texts (2002),124–43, finds in Philips’ representation of Cornelia (defined against therepresentation of Cleopatra) an analogue of her own ideas about her positionas a writer. R. S. Willmott, “Corneille’s Horace Englished: Translations of theHeroic Dilemma,” Seventeenth-Century French Studies 9 (1987), 233–46, offersan extended comparison of the translations by Philips and Cotton of a crucialspeech in Horace.

2. Du Bartas. The Divine Weeks and Works of Guillaume de Saluste, Sieur duBartas, ed. Susan Snyder (1979), with a full introduction, is the standardedition of Josuah Sylvester’s translation. Stanley Wells, “Shakespeare’s FirstSerious Critic Revealed,” TLS January 26, 2003, reports an “incomplete anddamaged” manuscript translation from Du Bartas’ La Semaine attached toWilliam Scott’s “[The Model] of Poesy or the Art of Poesy drawn into a shortor summary discourse” (now British Library Add. MS 81083).

Yvonne Bellinger, “Du Bartas auteur européen,” in Horizons européens de lalittérature française au XVIIe siècle, ed. Wolfgang Leiner and Roger Duchêne(1988), 15–25, outlines the fortunes of Du Bartas in Britain and on theContinent.Yvonne Bellenger and Jean-Claude Ternaux, Bibliographie des écriv-ains français: Du Bartas (1998), supply an annotated bibliography chartingstudies of Du Bartas’ reception. Anne Lake Prescott, “Du Bartas and Renais-sance Britain:An Update,” in Oeuvres et Critiques 29.2 (2004), 27–38, pleads forDu Bartas’ promotion from the status of Protestant éminence grise and com-mends John Lepage’s discovery of Du Bartas’ intervention in the proceduresof English metaphysical poetry. She cites Lepage’s “Eagles and Doves inDonne and Du Bartas: The Canonization,” N&Q 30 (1983), 427–28, whichdescribes Donne’s reworking of a conceit in the Divine Weeks, and his“Sylvester’s Du Bartas and the Metaphysical Androgyny of Opposites,” ELH51 (1984), 621–44, which argues for Sylvester’s taste for antithesis and paradoxas “metaphysical.” Henri Durel, “Du Bartas, Jacques I et Francis Bacon,”Cahiers de l’Europe Classique et Néo-Latine, série A, 39.3 (1987), 75–110,contrasts James’s enthusiasm for Du Bartas with his coolness toward Bacon’sAdvancement. Frances Malpezzi, “Josuah Sylvester,” DLB 121 (1992), 246–54,presses the “crucial” importance of Sylvester’s rendering of L’Uranie; in her“Du Bartas’ L’Uranie, The Devotional Poet’s Handbook,” Allegorica 8 (1983),185–98, Malpazzi proposes L’Uranie as central to the sensibility of a wholegeneration. James Doelman, King James I and the Religious Culture of England(2000), 17–27, puts Du Bartas at the center of James’s literary culture. ArchieBurnett,“Sylvester’s Du Bartas, Marvell and Pope,” N&Q 227 (1982), 418–19,

591Robert Cummings


identifies a striking borrowing from Sylvester in Marvell’s Horatian Ode andothers in Pope.

3. Garnier. The CollectedWorks of Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, ed.Margaret P. Hannay, Noel J. Kinnamon, and Michael G. Brennan (1998),Vol. I,includes an old-spelling edition of the 1592 text of Pembroke’s Antonius witha full commentary, qualifying the consensus that the translation is slavishlyliteral and relating its Stoic elements to her translation of Mornay. Mary SidneyHerbert, ed. GaryWaller (1996), prints a facsimile Antonius along with Mornay’sDiscourse from the 1592 volume. Diane Purkiss, Three Tragedies by RenaissanceWomen (1998), includes a old-spelling edition of the 1595 Tragedie of Antonie.Modernised versions of the 1595 text are also given in Renaissance Drama byWomen, Texts and Documents, ed. S. P. Cerasano and Marion Wynne-Davies(1996), and Renaissance Drama, ed. Arthur F. Kinney, 2nd ed. (2008).

Josephine A. Roberts, “Recent Studies in Women Writers of TudorEngland: Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke,” ELR 14 (1984), 426–39; rpt.and updated in Women in the Renaissance (III, C, 1), 245–58 (her II, B), and265–69 (her II, B), describes or lists earlier work on Pembroke’s Antonie byNancy Cotton and Elaine V. Beilin. Mary Ellen Lamb, Gender and Authorshipin the Sidney Circle (1990), 115–41, takes all Pembroke’s secular translationstogether as “arts of dying,” stressing in Antonie the desexualization of Cleo-patra and the promotion of a “heroics of constancy.” Danielle Clarke, “ThePolitics of Translation and Gender in the Countess of Pembroke’s Antonie,”T&L 6 (1997), 149–66, insists on the politically urgent “utility” of Pembroke’schoice of a text “which represents relationships between gender, sexuality, andpolitics reflecting critiques of Elizabethan government in the 1590s.” VictorSkretkowicz,“Mary Sidney Herbert’s Antonius, English Philhellenism, and theProtestant Cause,” WoWr 6.1 (1999), 7–25, understands Pembroke’s tragedy,along with her translation of Du Plessis-Mornay’s Discourse, as pleas for theHuguenot cause. Anne Russell’s “The Politics of Print and The Tragedy ofAntonie,” RORD 42 (2003), 92–100, contextualizes the publication of thetranslation in 1592, remarking that the play’s political agenda is attuned tocurrent anxieties. Richard Hillman,“De-Centring the Countess’ Circle: MarySidney Herbert and Cleopatra,” Ren&R 28 (2004), 61–79, argues the improb-ability of Cleopatra’s history being the vehicle for any contemporary politicalpoint. Anne Lake Prescott, “Mary Sidney’s Antonius and the Ambiguities ofFrench History,” YES 38 (2008), 216–33, teases out the ironies that come fromthe play’s production during the French civil and religious wars, and theirreshaping at the hands of an English translator little more than a decade later.Prescott’s “Mary Sidney’s French Sophocles: The Countess of PembrokeReads Robert Garnier,” in Representing France and the French in Early ModernEnglish Drama, ed. Jean Christophe Mayer (2008), 68–92, argues that the



paratexts of the 1585 edition of Garnier that Pembroke used gave her accessto his Greek antecedents.

Lukas Erne, Beyond the ‘Spanish Tragedy’:A Study of the Works of Thomas Kyd(2001), includes a chapter on Kyd’s relatively free version of Cornelia, takingit as written to emulate Pembroke’s Antonie and arguing that Kyd’s SpanishTragedy and Cornelia exercise a mutual influence on each other.

4. La Perrière, De Montenay, Estienne. The English Emblem Tradition, 2 vols, ed.Peter M. Daly, Leslie T. Duer, and Mary V. Silcox (1993), Vol. II, includes afacsimile of the Glasgow copy, putatively of a 1593 first edition, of ThomasCombe’s Theater (translated from La Perrière’s Theâtre), along with P. S.’sHeroicall Devises translated from Paradin and Simeoni. There is a HuntingtonLibrary facsimile of the 1614 edition of Combe’s Theater, ed. John Doebler(1983); and see Doebler’s “Thomas Combe’s The Theater of Fine Devices: ARenaissance English Emblem Book,” Early Drama, Art, and Music Review 12.2(1990), 34–44. Peter M. Daly, “The Case for the 1593 Edition of ThomasCombe’s Theater of Fine Devices,” JWCI (1986), 255–57, argues the case for apre-1614 printing of Combe’s translation; the argument is supported by R.S.Luborsky,“Further Evidence for the 1593 Edition of Combe’s Emblems:TheTitle Page of Greene’s Arbasto,” Emblematica 8 (1994), 179–80. Mary V. Silcox,“The Translation of La Perrière’s Le Théâtre des bons engins into Combe’s TheTheater of Fine Devices,” Emblematica 2 (1987), 61–94, offers a biography ofCombe, noting that his free and moralizing adaptation is less courtly than hisoriginal. Alison Saunders, “The Theatre des bons engins through English Eyes(La Perrière, Combe and Whitney),” Revue de Litterature Comparée 64 (1990),653–73, contrasts Combe’s simplifications and Whitney’s elaborations of LaPerrière.

Alison Adams, Webs of Allusion: French Protestant Emblem Books of theSixteenth Century (2003), 102–07, includes an account of J.H.’s translation ofGeorgette de Montenay in the 1619 polyglot edition of Georgette de Mon-tenay’s Emblemata.

Alan R. Young, “The Translation of Authority: Henri Estienne’s L’Art defaire les devises and Thomas Blount’s The Art of Making Devises,” in Aspects ofRenaissance and Baroque Symbol Theory, ed. Peter M. Daly and John Manning(1999), 201–28, traces Blount’s appropriation of “authority” for his translationby way of his thorough anglicization of his source in the service of his royalistpolitics. Douglas W. Hayes, “Thomas Blount,” DLB 236 (2001), 47–58,describes Blount’s career as philologist, antiquary, and political commentator.

5. Montaigne. Warren Boutcher, “Humanism and Literature in Late TudorEngland: Translation, the Continental Book, and the Case of Montaigne’sEssais,” in Reassessing Tudor Humanism, ed. Jonathan Woolfson (2002), 243–68,

593Robert Cummings


describes the breakdown of the hegemony of Latin that allowed (typically inMontaigne) the undiscriminating exploitation of the epic Vergil and theromantic Ariosto; the Italian Guicciardini and the Roman Tacitus; the LatinSeneca and (noting the pervasive use for serious purposes of classical textsin vernacular translation) Amyot’s French version of Plutarch. Boutcher’s“Montaigne’s Legacy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Montaigne, ed. UllrichLanger (2005), 27–52, further considers the place of literary composition inthe culture of the English aristocracy and how Montaigne’s essayistic writingplayed to its preferences. Christopher Johnson,“Florio’s ‘Conversion’ of Mon-taigne, Sidney, and Six Patronesses,” CahiersE 64 (2003), 9–18, argues that thePetrarchan distortions and “hybrid excesses” of Florio’s courtly style betraythe spirit of Montaigne for his patronesses’ sake. Joshua Philips, “ ‘Th’ Inter-traffique of the Minde’: Publishing John Florio’s Translation of the Essais,”MontS 11 (1999), 209–32, foregrounds the anxieties about printing, patronage,class, and gender behind Florio’s translation and views Florio’s reformation ofthe Essais as a kind of fiction to which his stylistic excesses are appropriate.Tom Conley, “Institutionalizing Translation: On Florio’s Montaigne,” inDemarcating the Disciplines: Philosophy, Literature, Art, ed. Samuel Weber (1986),45–58, argues that Florio’s indifference to the protocols of natural English andof language difference forces his readers into comparing the translated textwith the original. Roger Pooley’s English Prose of the Seventeenth Century,1590–1700 (1992), 174–79, remarks the varying degree of Florio’s engagementwith his original.

Margaret Tudeau-Clayton, “Scenes of Translation in Jonson and Shakes-peare: Poetaster, Hamlet, and A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” T&L 11 (2002),1–23, takes Florio’s habit of doubling to be an analogue of the necessarydoubleness of translation, which itself always repeats an original text. MarcelTetel, “Idéologie et traductions de Girolamo Naselli à John Florio,” MontS 7(1995), 169–82, treats Florio’s passion for accumulations of words and lexicalinnovation as a reflex of his lexicographical activity. Quentin Skinner inVisions (III, A),Vol. III, 87–141, notes how paradiastole (“rhetorical redescrip-tion”) is made available for English political writing by Montaigne’s habitualrecourse to it. Massimiliano Morini, Tudor Translation in Theory and Practice(2006), 83–89, writes on bravura effects in Florio’s Montaigne, the stylistic(and sometimes more than stylistic) transformations achieved by multiplica-tion of details, turning cool report (exemplified by the essay on cannibals)into something “heart-felt” or partisan.

6. Mornay. Pembroke’s Collected Works (III, C, 3) gives an annotated text of ADiscourse of Life and Death based on the 1592 edition; the headnote (208–28)treats Mornay’s own debts to Seneca and others and Pembroke’s attention tothe rhetorical detail of Mornay’s French: comparison demonstrates that she



had read Aggas’ 1576 version critically. The appropriation of Pembroke’stranslation by Lownes in 1607 printing of Mornay’s Six Excellent Treatises istreated at 310–15.Waller (III, C, 3) presents a facsimile edition of Pembroke’stranslation of the Discourse. Lamb (III, C, 3) stresses the secular character ofPembroke’s translation and its ungendered (or even male) cast. For recentwork on Pembroke’s translation, notably Diane Bornstein’s edition, seeRoberts in Farrell, Hageman, and Kinney (III, C, 1), 245–58, 265–69.

James Finn Cotter, “The Inshape of Inscape,” VP 42 (2004), 195–200,pursuing Hopkins’ debt to Sidney and Golding in the use of the word“inshape” (to translate idée) in their 1587 version of Trew Religion, remarkstheir typically innovative recourse to compound forms in the translation. G.D. Monsarrat, “Samuel Daniel, Seneca, and Mornay,” N&Q 227 (1982), 420–22, shows that Daniel’s Letter Written to a Worthy Countess (possibly Pembroke)quotes Seneca’s De Providentia from a fresh version of Mornay’s Frenchtranslation and not from the available English translations of Mornay inEdward Aggas’ Defence of Death (1576) or in the anonymous Six ExcellentTreatises (1607).

7. Rabelais. Anne Lake Prescott, Imagining Rabelais (1998), animates the hin-terland of Rabelais’ reception in England in networks of allusions to him.Thisis ground earlier prepared: Prescott’s “The Stuart Masque and Pantagruel’sDreams,” ELH 51 (1984), 407–30, describes the penetration of Jonson’s andlater masques by a collection of grotesque pseudo-Rabelaisian prints; her“Reshaping Gargantua,” in L’Europe de la Renaissance. Cultures et civilisations.Mélanges offerts à Marie-Thérèse Jones-Davies, ed. Jean-Claude Margolin andMarie-Madeleine Martinet (1989), 477–91, describes how Gargantua was“reshaped” as a conventional giant in successive English allusions to him, andher “Intertextual Topology: English Writers and Pantagruel’s Hell,” ELR 23(1993), 244–66, examines “a small cluster of allusions” (in writers from JohnEliot to King James, and including Shakespeare) to Epistemon’s vision of Hell(Pantagruel, ch.30).Alex L. Gordon,“Rabelais en anglais: bonheurs et malheursde la traduction,” in Margolin and Martinet, 463–76, describes how threetranslators (Urquhart and two moderns) approach characteristic difficulties.

Emmy E. Kraaijveld, “Les Premiers Traducteurs de Gargantua: Urquhartlecteur de Fischart,” Etudes Rabelaisiennes R 25 (1991), 125–30, complicatesRabelais’ well-known debt to Cotgrave’s Dictionary by pointing to Urquhart’staking over the amplifications of Rabelais from Joann Fischart’s 1573Geschichtklitterung. Nicholas McDowell, “Urquhart’s Rabelais: Translation,Patronage, and Cultural Politics,” ELR 35 (2005), 273–303, reconstructs thepersonal and political context of Urquhart’s translation, situating the appealof the translation with a literary elite typified in the anti-Presbyterian butrepublican John Hall of Durham.

595Robert Cummings


R. J. Craik, Sir Thomas Urquhart (1993), 115–210, sets Urquhart’s translationof Rabelais within a full account of his literary career; while attentive toUrquhart’s departures from his original, Craik pleads his essential fidelity to it.Some materials specific to issues of translation are developed in Craik’s “ThePioneer Translators of Rabelais: Sir Thomas Urquhart and Pierre Motteux,”Translation Review 51–52 (1996), 31–42, focused on challenging lexical items,and treating Urquhart’s adaptations of entries in Cotgrave’s Dictionary. Devel-opments of this material with variant emphases are found in Craik’s “TheTriumph of Exuberance over Inhibition: Sir Thomas Urquhart’s Translationof Rabelais,” Lamar Journal of the Humanities 22 (1996), 41–64, and in his “SirThomas Urquhart’s Translation of Rabelais,” SSL 31 (1999), 151–68. PaulColeman,“ ‘The Taylor’s Stitch’: Sir Thomas Urquhart’s Translation of Rabe-lais,” CQ 32 (2003), 299–309, understanding “the Taylor’s stitch” as a “visiblepiece of alteration,” probes the “Anglophone background noise” of Urquhart’stranslation by way of an elaborate reading of the opening of Gargantua,chapter 5. Michael Spiller, “Pioneers of Prose,” in Literature of the North, ed.David Hewitt and Michael Spiller (1993), 26–41, ties Urquhart’s translation ofRabelais to his other literary interests. David Reid,“Prose after Knox,” in TheHistory of Scottish Literature, Vol. I, ed. R. D. S. Jack (1987), 183–98, notesUrquhart’s exceptional quality as a stylist, even in a Scottish context estrangedfrom English norms.

8. Religious Prose. Pudentiana Deacon, ed. Frans Blom and Jos Blom (2002),gives Deacon’s version of Delicious Entertainments of the Soule, a collection oftranscripts of conversations with François de Sales.William C. Marceau, C. S.B., “Recusant Translation of Saint Francis de Sales,” Downside Review 114(1996), 221–33, surveys the fortunes (with a full bibliography) of John Yakes-ley’s translation of the Introduction to a Devout Life and Thomas Carre’s of theTreatise of the Love of God. N. W. Bawcutt, “A Crisis of Laudian Censorship:Nicholas and John Okes and the Publication of Sales’s An Introduction to aDevout Life in 1637,” Library 1 (2000), 403–38, treats in detail the case ofYakesley’s usually Protestantized version of de Sales’s Introduction, published in1637 with the purged passages restored, and called in for its “Popish andunsound passages.” A. F. Allison, “The ‘Mysticism’ of Manchester al Mondo:Some Catholic Borrowings in a Seventeenth-Century Anglican Work ofDevotion,” in Studies in Seventeenth-Century English Literature, History, andBibliography, ed. G.A. M. Janssens and F. G.A. M.Aarts (1984), 1–11, traces theinfluence of De Sales’s Traité de l’amour de Dieu on the Earl of Manchester’sEnglish Contemplatio mortis, et immortalitatis. Dorothy L. Latz, The Building ofDivine Love as Translated by Dame Agnes More (1992), edits from manuscriptMore’s translation of the Augustinian Jeanne de Cambry’s mystical treatise.Erica Veevers, Images of Love and Religion: Queen Henrietta Maria and Court



Entertainments (1989), treats the blend of Salesian piety with Platonic romanceprevailing in the 1630s. Reid Barbour, English Epicures and Stoics: AncientLegacies in Early Stuart Culture (1998), 101–05, with a focus on its anti-Epicurean sections, takes Sir Thomas Hawkins’ translations (from 1626 to1638) of the successive parts of Caussin’s La Cour Sainte as a challengingmodel for the court of Charles I and Henrietta–Maria.

Frances Teague, “Princess Elizabeth’s Hand in The Glass of the Sinful Soul,”EMS 9 (2000) 33–48, reads the Bodleian MS of the work, with its mitigationsof Maguerite de Navarre’s eroticism and the careful embroidery of itsbinding, as a suitable token for suitors of a marriageable princess.

Micheline White, “The Dedication and Prayers from Anne Gawdy Jenkin-son’s Translation of Guillaume Du Vair’s Meditations vpon The Lamentations ofIeremy [with text],” ELR 37 (2007), 34–46, identifies Jenkinson’s 1609 Medi-tations on Lamentations and on the Song of Hezekiah as translations from DuVair, and includes an account of Anne Jenkinson and her family, and reflectson the liberation of Du Vair’s text from its French and Catholic origins.

Recusant Translators: Elizabeth Cary and Alexia Grey, ed. Frances E. Dolan(2000), brings together Alexia Grey’s Rule of Saint Benedict (1632) and Eliza-beth Cary’s The Reply of the most illustrious Cardinall of Perron (1630) to IsaacCasaubon’s vindication of the Anglican Church. On Cary’s Perron, see KarenL. Nelson, “ ‘To informe thee aright’: Translating Du Perron for EnglishReligious Debates,” in The Literary Career and Legacy of Elizabeth Cary,1613–1680, ed. Heather Wolfe (2007), 147–64, which sees the translation asresponding to English anxieties about the increasing influence of RomanCatholics in centers of power. Heather Wolfe’s Elizabeth Cary, Lady Falkland:Life and Letters (2001) includes material relevant to the apologetic intentionsof the Reply and to its reception.

Smith, Perfection Proclaimed (III, B), 136–43, sets Giles Randall’s translationof the mystical third part of the Capuchin Benet Canfield’s Rule of Perfectionas A Bright Star (1646) in the context of Neoplatonic religious radicalism.

Brian G. Armstrong’s Bibliographia Molinaei: An Alphabetical, Chronological,and Descriptive Bibliography of the Works of Pierre Du Moulin (1568–1658) (1997)is a guide to the complicated history of translation from Du Moulin’scontroversial and other work in French and Latin.

9. Prose Fiction. Jane Collins has edited Susanne DuVerger’s 1639 version ofJean-Pierre Camus’ collection of stories, Admirable Events, along with a version(of uncertain authorship) of his Certain Moral Relations (1996). The “EpistleDedicatory” of Admirable Events, to the ladies of Henrietta Maria’s court, is alsoavailable in RWO (http://www.wwp.brown.edu/index.html). Erin Henriksenand Desma Polydorou, in Fiction of Unknown or Questionable Attribution (2004),present what is only possibly Susanne Du Verger’s version of Diotrophe.

597Robert Cummings


Daniel A. Gajda has prepared A Critical Edition of “The Comical History ofFrancion”1655 (2005) with a modernized text; the commentary marks theanonymous translator’s assimilation of Charles Sorel’s original to a Royalistand Anglican context. Annabel Patterson, Censorship and Interpretation (1984),185–90, locates the popularity for English readers of French romances(notably Scudéry’s) in the closet intrigues that supplied a role for women“both in political life and in the new literature” and in their making availablethe ready transfer of remote actions to the fraught condition of a dispossessedEnglish aristocracy. Following E. Kuehn, “France into England, 1652: TheCotterell Translation of La Calprenède’s Cassandre,” RomN 18 (1977), 105–14,Patterson cites the case of La Calprenède’s Cassandre to make the point.Margaret Anne Doody, The True Story of the Novel (1997), 252–73, situates anaccount of the translation of French romance in a chapter on the ideologicaland cultural conflicts surrounding the early novel. Jennifer Birkett, “FrenchLiterature: Prose Fiction: Courtly and Popular romance,” in Gillespie andHopkins (III, C, 1), 339–48, points to English Royalist concerns in thetranslations of Madeleine de Scudéry by Henry Cogan and Francis Gifford,doubly masked by their exotic settings and their foreign origins.

Lukas Erne, “ ‘Throughly ransackt’: Elizabethan Novella Collections andHenry Wotton’s 1578 Courtlie Controversie of Cupids Cautels,” CahiersE 4(2003), 1–8, situates Wotton’s translation of Jacques Yver’s collection in thehistory of the short story and as a source for other writers from Lyly toShakespeare.

10. Miscellaneous Prose. Randall Martin, “Anne Dowriche’s The FrenchHistory, Christopher Marlowe, and Machiavellian Agency,” SEL 39 (1999),69–87, makes a case for Dowriche’s intelligent use of a range of translatedFrench histories, which he usefully surveys.

Howard Weinbrot, Menippean Satire Reconsidered: From Antiquity to the Eigh-teenth Century (2005), considers T.W.’s A Pleasant Satyre (1595) as an adjust-ment of the Satyre Menippée to an English Protestant readership, stylisticallyhomogenized, and turned from a satire on aberrant sects into an assault onCatholicism; see the account in Eugene Kirk, Menippean Satire: An AnnotatedCatalogue of Texts and Criticism (1980), item 355.

Anne Lake Prescott, “Pierre de la Primaudaye’s French Academy: GrowingEncyclopaedic,” in The Renaissance Computer: Knowledge Technology in the FirstAge of Print, ed. Neil Rhodes and Jonathan Sawday (2000), 157–69, is con-cerned with the changing shape and scale of Académie, and of its Englishreception in the translations by Thomas Bowes, Richard Dolman, and WilliamPhillip (1586–1618).

Karl Josef Höltgen, “An unknown Manuscript Translation by John Thorpeof du Cerceau’s Perspective,” in England and the Continental Renaissance: Essays



in Honour of J. B.Trapp, ed. Edward Chaney and Peter Mack (1990), 215–28,draws attention to two manuscript copies of a translation of Jacques Androuetdu Cerceau’s Leçons de persepective positive, written c.1603 and revised later inthe century.

Philippe-Joseph Salazar, “ ‘The author writes like a Briton’: La Réceptionde Balzac en Angleterre,” Littératures Classiques 33 (1998), 247–62, surveysEnglish translations of Guy de Balzac’s letters and treatises from WilliamTyrwhit and Robert Codrington in 1634 into the early eighteenth century:the burden of the title quotation (from Basil Kennet) is political and notstylistic.

Gilles Banderier, “William Whiteway, traducteur de l’Histoire universelled’Agrippa d’Aubigné,” FSB 98 (2006), 16–19, describes what survives ofWhiteway’s version of d’Aubigné’s Universal History in a Bodleian MS of1629.

G. A. J Rogers, “Descartes and the English,” in The Light of Nature, ed. J. D.North and J. J. Roche (1985), 281–302, notes the conventional Englishskepticism in the face of Descartes, evident already in the anonymous 1649 ADiscourse of a Method.

11. Miscellaneous Verse. Susie Speakman Sutch and Anne Lake Prescott,“Translation as Transformation: Olivier de la Marche’s Le Chevalier délibéré andIts Hapsburg and Elizabethan Permutations,” CLS 25 (1988), 281–317, tracksthe “deformation” of a La Marche’s poem into Bateman’s Travayled Pylgrime(1569) and, through Acuña’s Spanish version, Lewkenor’s Resolved Gentleman(1594). There are accounts of both those works by Marco Nievergelt in theEEBO Introductions series. In the Spenser Encyclopaedia, ed. A. C. Hamilton(2000), 122–23, s.v.“Burgundy,” Prescott presses the affinity of Spenser’s FaerieQueene and La Marche’s “urbane and nostalgic” combination of allegoricalquest with dynastic homage.

William Roberts, “Saint-Amant: Plaque tournante de l’Europe au XVIIesiècle,” in Horizons européens de la littérature française au XVIIe siècle: L’Europe:Lieu d’échanges culturels? La Circulation des oeuvres et des jugements au XVIIesiècle, ed.W. Leiner and R. Duchêne (1988), 71–79, surveys English translatorsof Saint-Amant (Sir Edward Sherburne,Thomas Stanley, Sir Edward Fairfax),which he finds typically aristocratic and escapist in tone; the essay is attentiveto matters of form.

Hugh Richmond, Puritans and Libertines: Anglo-French Literary Relations inthe Reformation (1981), 340–71, concludes with the impact of AgrippaD’Aubigné’s Tragiques on Shakespeare and of Théophile de Viau on Marvell.

Jason Lawrence,“Who the Devil taught thee so much Italian?”: Italian LanguageLearning and Literary Imitation in Early Modern England (2006), 62–91, describesSamuel Daniel’s debts to the Italianizing French poets (Desportes, Du Bellay,

599Robert Cummings


Ronsard) and his versions of Italian poets contaminated by intermediateFrench translations.

D. Italian1. General. Soko Tomita, A Bibliographical Catalogue of Italian Books Printed inEngland, 1558–1603 (2009), describes the 291 Italian books (451 editions)published in England during the reign of Elizabeth I, with a commentary onthe professional and cultural milieux that produced them. Michael Wyatt, TheItalian Encounter with Tudor England: A Cultural Politics of Translation (2005),treats “Italians in and on early modern England,” centering on Florio as alexicographer and language teacher, the transmission of liberated Italianmanners along with the language, and a liberal view of the possibilities ofliterature (as exemplified in Florio’s use of Aretino, Machiavelli, and Bruno).Wyatt includes (185–99, 262–64) an outline of Wolfe’s career as a printer ofItalian books. Wolfe’s career is treated more amply in Sonia Massai, “JohnWolfe and the Impact of Exemplary Go-Betweens on Early Modern PrintCulture,” in Renaissance Go-Betweens: Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe,ed. Andreas Höfele and Werner von Koppenfels (2005), 104–20. Italian immi-grant culture and its importance are described in John Tedeschi, “I contributiculturali dei riformatori protestanti italiani nel tardo Rinascimento,” Italica 64(1987), 19–61, updated from “The Cultural Contributions of Italian ProtestantReformers in the Late Renaissance,” Schifanoia 1 (1986), 127–51. AnneOverell, Italian Reform and English Reformations, c.1535–c.1585 (2008), investi-gates the activity and influence of Italian reformers such as Vermigli andOchino in early Elizabethan England.

Lawrence, Who the Devil (III, C, 11), describes how programs of languagelearning involved with the attempt to familiarize English readers with Italianliterary culture impinge on English literary imitation of Italian models. Itemslisted for Boutcher (III, A; III, C, 5), particularly as they bear on Florio as alexicographer, are relevant here. Manfred Pfister, “Inglese Italianato–ItalianoAnglizzato: John Florio,” in Höfele and Koppenfels, Renaissance Go-Betweens,32–54, writes on Florio as a cultural mediator and facilitator of “enter-knowing.” Florio’s opening up of England to Italian cultural realities is thesubject also of William E. Engel’s “Knowledge that Counted: Italian Phrase-Books and Dictionaries in Elizabethan England,” Annali d’Italianistica 14(1996), 507–22. David O. Frantz’s “Negotiating Florio’s A Worlde of Wordes,”Dictionaries 18 (1997), 1–32, assesses England’s complex engagement withmultiple worlds (notably the marketplace). Franz’s “Florio’s Use of Contem-porary Italian Literature in A Worlde of Wordes,” Dictionaries 1 (1979), 47–56,indicates the range of reading (some of it on the Papal Index) that went intoFlorio’s 1598 dictionary. Carmine G. Di Biase,“Introduction:The Example ofthe Early Modern Lexicographer,” in his edited collection Travel and Transla-



tion in the Early Modern Period (2006), 9–30, offers Florio as exemplifyingthe anxieties of exile, travel, and translation and notes the development of hislinguistic purism in the course of his dictionary writing.

Bryson’s From Courtesy to Civility and both Classical Humanism and TheDuel by Peltonen (III, A) are relevant to the importation of Italian literary aswell as ideological norms. Louise George Clubb, Italian Drama in Shakespeare’sTime (1989), tracks common responses to a common textual heritage in theexperimental drama of Italy and England. Three collections of essays editedby Michele Marrapodi concern Anglo-Italian cultural relations generally andinclude essays that touch more particularly on issues of translation: The ItalianWorld of English Renaissance Drama: Cultural Exchange and Intertextuality, withA. J. Hoenselaars (1998), on the English re-imagination of Italy, half-fascinatedand half-repelled; Shakespeare, Italy, and Intertextuality (2005), which exploresShakespeare’s exploitation of the early modern “textual heritage” and of “thecirculation of on non-literary discourses”; and Italian Culture in the Drama ofShakespeare and his Contemporaries: Rewriting, Remaking, Refashioning (2007).More immediately relevant contributions are cited below. Ronald D.S. Jack,Scottish Literature’s Debt to Italy (1986), briefly repeats the arguments for theItalian penetration of Scottish literary culture set out in his own 1972 TheItalian influence on Scottish literature.

2. Ariosto. David Bevington, “Cultural Exchange: Gascoigne and Ariosto atGrays Inn,” in The Italian World, ed. Marrapodi (III, D, I), 25–40, argues thatthe first Inns of Court audience of Gascoigne’s Supposes was comfortable withthe novelties of Italianate comedy. Jill Phillips Ingram, “Gascoigne’s Supposes:Englishing Italian ‘Error’ and Adversarial Reading Practices,” in Italian Culture,ed. Marrapodi (III, D, 1), 83–85, pressing the conceits built around notions of“supposing” in the Prologue, argues that Gascoigne encourages his audienceinto engagement with the play’s undeclared significances.

3. Castiglione, Della Casa, Nenna, Nannini. Peter Burke’s The Fortunes of theCourtier (1995) is the fullest treatment of Castiglione’s reception, setting SirThomas Hoby’s translation in the context of Castiglione’s European recep-tion, giving extended attention to the translation of key terms, and describingknown or surmised readerships. Burke,“The Courtier Abroad: Or, the Uses ofItaly”; rpt. from Die Renaissance im Blick der Nationen Europas, ed. GeorgKaffmann (1991), 1–14, in The Book of the Courtier, ed. Daniel Javitch (2002),388–400, emphasizes ways in which Italian culture was assimilated to indig-enous cultures and probes the associations of Hoby’s vocabulary. CarmelaNocera Avila, “Translation as Enrichment of Language in Sixteenth CenturyEngland: The Courtyer (1561) by Sir Thomas Hoby,” in Language History andLinguistic Modelling, ed. Raymond Hickey and Stanislaw Puppel (1997), 543–

601Robert Cummings


59, concerns principally Hoby’s management of register. Nocera Avila’s “TheFormation of New Words in Hoby’s Translation of The Courtier (1661),” inHistorical English Word-Formation, ed. R. Bacchielli (1994), is concerned withthe “Englishness” of Hoby’s coinages. Lucy Gent, Picture and Poetry, 1560–1620:Relations between Literature and the Visual Arts in the English Renaissance (1981),15–16, deals with Hoby’s difficulties with Castiglione’s technical vocabularyfor painting.

John R.Woodhouse, “The Tradition of Della Casa’s Galateo in English,” inThe Crisis of Courtesy: Studies in the Conduct-Book in Britain, 1600–1900 (1994),11–26, draws attention to Walter Darrell’s 1578 theft of Robert Peterson’s1576 translation and its “garbled and truncated paraphrase” in Thomas Gains-ford’s 1616 Cabinet of Riches.

John Huntington,“ ‘This Ticklist Title’: Chapman, Nennio, and the Critiqueof Nobility,” ELR 26 (1996), 291–312, argues that William Jones’s 1595version of Nenna’s Treatise of Nobility was attractive in the mid-1590s, and toChapman in particular, as an assault on courtly notions of “nobility” and“virtue.” Louis Adrian Montrose, “Spenser and the Elizabethan PoliticalImaginary,” ELH 69 (2002), 907–46, notes Spenser’s endorsement, not just byway of his complimentary verses in Jones’s translation, of Nenna’s promotionof an aristocracy of talent.

Jan Simko, “Who Was the Translator W. T.?” N&Q 226 (1981) 520–21,confirms the identification of Nannini’s translator W.T. with William Tra-heron. His “Two Versions of the 1601 English Translation of Nannini’s CivillConsiderations and on an Unnoticed Posthumous Portrait of Queen ElizabethI,” N&Q 228 (1983), 417–20, describes a “rare case of Elizabethan (self-)censorship” in variant versions of W.T.’s translation; W.T. works from theoriginal Italian as well as an advertised intermediary French version.

4. Guarini. Elizabeth Story Donno’s Three Renaissance Pastorals:Tasso, Guarini,Daniel (1993), with a wide-ranging introduction on the English reception ofItalian culture, collects Henry Reynolds’ 1628 version of Tasso’s Aminta, the1602 version of Guarini’s Pastor Fido (by Tailboys Dymoke, as Donno argues),and Samuel Daniel’s Italianate Queenes Arcadia (1606). Christine Sukic,“Samuel Daniel et les traductions anglaises du Pastor Fido au XVIIe siècle enAngleterre: du voyage d’Italie à la naturalization,” Etudes Epistémè 4 (2003),18–29, starting out from Daniel’s sonnet on Dymocke’s Pastor Fido, demon-strates the assimilation of Italian pastoral to the requirements of Englishmanners. Line Cottegnies, “La traduction anglaise du Pastor Fido de Guarinipar Richard Fanshawe (1647): Quelques reflections sur la naturalization,”Etudes Epistémè 4 (2003), 30–49, notes the politicization of the drama’s importin the paratextual material, the spiritualizing of its erotic interest, and theinflation of its rhetoric. Raphael Lyne, “English Guarini: Recognition and



Reception,” YES 36 (2006), 90–102, describes the shortcomings of attemptsby Dymoke and the Latin translator of the Pastor Fido to accommodateGuarini’s effects of improbability. Robert Thomas Fallon, “Sir RichardFanshawe,” DLB 126 (1993), 109–15, emphasizes the political relevance ofFanshawe’s translation of the Pastor Fido. Jason Lawrence, “Re-make /Re-model: Marston’s The Malcontent and Guarinian Tragicomedy,” in ItalianCulture, ed. Marrapodi (III, D, I), 155–66, argues that Marston’s play, inadvance of Fletcher’s Faithful Shepherdess, exploits the possibilities for tragi-comedy opened up by the Pastor Fido.

Frank Fabry, “Richard Crashaw and the Art of Allusion: Pastoral in ‘AHymn to . . . Sainte Teresa’,” ELR 16 (1986), 373–82, argues for Crashaw’sHymn as consciously parodic of erotic madrigals, in particular Guarini’s Tirsimorir volea. David Greer, “Sir Robert Ayton’s Translation of a Poem byGuarini,” N&Q 253 (2008), 225–27, draws attention to Ayton’s translationof the same lyric, already translated in Nicholas Yonge’s Musica Transalpina(1588).

5. Machiavelli. Sydney Anglo, Machiavelli,The First Century: Studies in Enthu-siasm, Hostility, and Irrelevance (2005), offers the fullest treatment of Machia-velli’s early European reception, but its focus restricts its interest in Englishtranslations. Whitehorne’s 1562 Arte of Warre is generously treated, and thereare extensive accounts of the impact on English readers of the distortions andsimplifications of Machiavelli’s ideas in Jacques Gohory’s French translationand Innocent Gentillet’s Contre-Machiavel. Giulano Procacci, Machiavelli nellacultura europea dell’età moderna (1995), 213–54, treating Machiavelli’s role inopening up constitutional options, puts his English reception in a Europeancontext.Victoria Kahn, Machiavellian Rhetoric: From the Counter-Reformation toMilton (1994), 124–31, notes how Machiavelli’s translators are often uncom-fortable with their author, with Dacres particularly anxious to rebut Machia-velli’s recommendations on the use of force in the Discourses (1636) and of“ambidexterity” in the Prince (1640). Peltonen, (III, A), 302–06, writes onDacres’ distrust of the Discorsi (translated 1636), for its demotion of religion toan instrument of policy and its advocacy of dishonesty. Jack, Scottish Literature’sDebt (III, D, 1), 10–11, remarks Fowler’s self-censorship or respect for his kingin his unpublished translation of the Prince. Robert Hariman, “ComposingModernity in Machiavelli’s Prince,” JHI 50 (1989), 3–29, highlights the diffi-culties of Machiavelli’s rhetoric, contrasting them with those of Dacres’ 1640version. Skinner, Visions (III, A), Vol. III, 47–56, observes that terms such asMachiavelli’s virtù and repubblica acquire their meanings from their situation“within an extensive network of beliefs, the filiations of which must be fullytraced if the place of any one element within the structure is to be properlyunderstood.”

603Robert Cummings


In “Machiavelli and Belfagor in Seventeenth-Century English Drama,” inMachiavelli: Figure-Reputation, ed. J. Leerssen and M. Spiering (1996), 111–30,and in “The Politics of Prose and Drama:The Case of Machiavelli’s Belfagor,”in Marrapodi and Hoenselaars, The Italian World (III, D, 1), 106–21, A. J.Hoenslaars explores the metamorphoses of Machiavelli’s novella, arguing thatElizabethan and Jacobean dramatists constructed their image of Machiavellifrom the portrait of the mischievous and cynical devil in the novella.

6. Marino. D. R. M Wilkinson, “ ‘Sospetto d’Herode’: A Neglected CrashawPoem,” in Janssens and Aarts, Studies (II, D, 1), 233–44, writes on rhetoric inCrashaw’s version of the Sospetto, “more an interpretation than a translation.”A. O’Connor, “Marino in English: Crashaw’s Sospetto d’Herode,” in The Senseof Marino: Literature, Fine Arts and Music of the Italian Baroque, ed. F. Guardiani(1994), 267–87, demonstrates Crashaw’s refusal of what is typically manneristin Marino.

W.A.L. Stull, “Sacred Sonnets in Three Styles,” SP 79 (1982), 78–99, usesDrummond’s translations of two sonnets by Marino to exhibit features of themiddle style:“Drummond’s translation [of Felice notte] is a Marinist’s textbookpiece.”

7. Petrarch. Thomas Roche, Petrarch in English (2006), includes samples oftranslations of the Trionfi by the Countess of Pembroke, Elizabeth I, and AnnaHume; he includes seventeenth-century adaptations (rather than translations)of the Rime.

Pembroke’s Collected Works (III, C, 3), Vol. I, provides the standard textof her translation of the Triumph of Death; outlines the English fortunes ofPetrarch’s Trionfi; and considers Pembroke’s motives in translating it, her useof a range of editions, her closeness to Petrarch and her distance fromMorley’s earlier version. See also Gavin Alexander, “The Triumph of Death: ACritical Edition in Modern Spelling of the Countess of Pembroke’s Transla-tion of Petrarch’s Trionfo della Morte,” SiJ 17.1 (1999), 2–18 (and http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres/sidneiana/triumph2.htm). Roberts, in Farrell,Hageman, and Kinney (III, C, 1), 245–58, 265–69, describes or lists earlierwork on Pembroke’s Triumph of Death by Robert Googan, Gary Waller, andJoan Rees.

Lamb, Gender and Authorship (III, C, 3), finds “disturbing” Pembroke’sacceptance of Petrarch’s perspective. Jonathan Goldberg, Desiring WomenWriting: English Renaissance Examples (1997), 114–31; rpt. from “The Countessof Pembroke’s Literal Translation,” in Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture,ed. Margreta de Grazia, Maureen Quilligan, and Peter Stallybrass (1996),321–36, contests the view of translation as secondary and feminine and relatesPembroke’s drastically “literal” Triumph of Death to a struggle to position



herself against her brother. Ilona Bell, Elizabethan Women and the Poetry ofCourtship (1998), 101–08, focuses on perceived mistranslations in the Triumphof Death to open up the possibility of Pembroke’s entering a correctivedialogue with Petrarch. Louise Schleiner, Tudor and Stuart Women Writers(1994), 52–81, deplores Pembroke’s attempts to replicate Petrarchan syntax.

Thomas P. Roche, Jr. presents a facsimile edition of Anna Hume’s TheTriumphs (2006), with an appendix of related texts including Elizabeth I’sTriumph of Eternitie and Pembroke’s Triumph of Death. Sarah Dunnigan,“Daughterly Desires: Representing and Re-imagining the Feminine in AnnaHume’s Triumphs,” in Women and the Feminine in Medieval and Early ModernScottish Writing, ed. Sarah M. Dunnigan, C. Marie Harker, and Evelyn S.Newlyn (2004), 120–35, represents Hume as “loyal to Petrarch,” but anxiousto probe the “Petrarchan feminine,” unexplored in her Italian original. Dun-nigan’s “Scottish Women Writers c.1560–c.1650,” in History of ScottishWoman’sWriting, ed. Douglas Gifford and Dorothy Macmillan (1997), 15–43 (esp.34–37), sets Hume’s tight version of the Trionfi in the context of her ownlife and work, and contrasts it with William Fowler’s diffuse earlier version:Jack, Scottish Literature’s Debt (III, D, 1), 9–10, describes Fowler’s version as“fatuously” embellished.

Lawrence, Who the Devil (III, C, 11), 32–36, takes the translations fromPetrarch by both Princess Elizabeth and Elizabeth “Bess” Carey (daughter ofLady Hunsdon) as mere pedagogical exercises, comparing both unfavourablywith Pembroke’s; Robert Tofte is cast as influential, for Daniel in particular,in reviving the possibilities of the Italian sonnet tradition (69–71). Robert C.Melzi, “A Contribution to the History of Petrarchism in England: RobertTofte and The Blazon of Jealousy,” Rivista di Studi Italiani 15 (1997), 1–32,promotes Tofte’s Blazon of Jealousy as a vehicle not only of translations froma range of Petrarch’s work, but of Italian culture more generally.

Christopher Martin, “Retrieving Jonson’s Petrarch,” SQ 45 (1994), 89–92,reports Jonson’s ownership of the Folger Library copy of the 1581 Basleedition of Petrarch’s Opera Omnia.

8. Tasso. Godfrey of Bulloigne:A Critical Edition of Edward Fairfax’s Translation ofTasso’s Gerusalemme liberata, together with Fairfax’s Original Poems, ed. KathleenM. Lea and T. M. Gang (1981), includes an introduction outlining Tasso’sreputation in England, Fairfax’s reputation, Fairfax’s debts to English poetsand debts to him of succeeding ones, and his language, style, and versification.Richard Carew’s 1594 Godfrey of Bulloigne is edited with an introduction byWerner von Koppenfels (1980).

Patricia Thomson,“Carew’s Tasso,” Neophil 65 (1981), 144–47, describes themetaphrastic and metrically faithful character of Richard Carew’s version ofthe Gerusalemme and notes Fairfax’s debts to it. Massimiliano Morini, Tudor

605Robert Cummings


Translation (III, C, 5), 118–35, contrasts the (enthusiastically described) literalismof Carew and Fairfax’s too easy enhancements of his original. D.N.C.Wood,“Tasso in England” in Spenser Encyclopedia (III, C, 12), 679–80, focuses on thetranslations by Carew and Fairfax, one influenced by Spenser’s linguisticexperimentalism, the other by his fluency. Colin Burrow, Epic Romance: Homerto Milton (1993), 168–80, argues that Fairfax’s erotic, moral, and sentimentalbiases lead him away from literalism into a more Spenserian version of Tasso.

Lawrence, Who the Devil (III, C, 12), 46–54, treats Drummond as exemplaryin his acquisition of Italian from bilingual handbooks or from reading texts inparallel (in the case of Tasso’s Gerusalemme, in Latin, French, and English, aswell as Italian). Richard Hatchwell,“A Francis Davison / William DrummondConundrum,” Bod. Lib. Record 16 (1996), 364–67, reports on the marginalia ina copy of a 1593 Goffredo that passed through the hands of both Davison andDrummond.

Glyn Pursglove’s edition of Henry Reynolds:Tasso’s ‘Aminta’ and Other Poems(1991) includes a bio-bibliographical introduction and commentary. Donno’sThree Renaissance Pastorals (III, D, 4) includes Henry Reynolds’s 1628 versionof Aminta. Jason Lawrence, “ ‘The Whole Complection of Arcadia Chang’d’:Samuel Daniel and Italian Lyrical Drama,” MARDE 11 (1999), 143–71 (andsee his Who the Devil [III, C, 12], 91–106), focused on Aminta, contributes tothe larger treatment of Daniel’s naturalization of Italian literary forms and hisnegotiations with an eclectic range of Italian pastoral drama, some mediatedby neo-Latin versions. Lynn Sermin Meskill, “ ‘Aminta, Thou art translated!’:Deux versions anglaises de l’Aminta du Tasse,” Etudes Epistémè 6 (2004), 72–92,contrasts Fraunce’s “Englishing” of Tasso’s text (alliterating hexameters andinterpolated compliments) with Reynolds’ more respectful account of it.William Barker, “Abraham Fraunce,” in DLB 236 (2001), 140–56, describesFraunce’s conflation in The Countesse of Pembrokes Yvychurch, of versions ofTasso’s Aminta and Watson’s Amyntas.

9. Religious Prose. Massimo Sturiale, I Sermons di Anne Cooke: Versione “rifor-mata” delle Prediche di Bernardino Ochino (2003), the fullest account of AnneCooke, deftly contextualized, is focused on how Cooke made the Sermons herown, notably in an intensified vocabulary of obligations; it is summarized andsupplemented in his “Lady Anne Cooke Bacon: Elizabethan Translatress ofOchino Prediche: Challenging Gender Boundaries,” in Rites of Passage: Ratio-nal, Irrational, Natural, Supernatural, Local, Global, ed. Carmela Nocera, GemmaPersico, and Rosario Portale (2003), 217–32. Elaine V. Beilin, Redeeming Eve:Women Writers of the English Renaissance (1987), 55–61, describes how AnneCooke Bacon’s versions of Ochino and of Jewel’s Apologie are presented asworks of Protestant feminine piety. See also the item by King and Rankin inIII, A, and those by Tedeschi and Overell in III, D, 1.



Catherine Greenbury and Mary Percy, ed. Jos Blom and Frans Blom (2006),includes Mary Percy’s An Abridgment of Christian Perfection (1612), a trans-lation through a French version of Isabella Bellingzaga’s mystical Brevecompendio.

10. Prose Fiction. Peter Stallybrass,“Dismemberments and Re-Memberments:Rewriting the Decameron, 4.1, in the English Renaissance,” Studi sul Boccaccio20 (1991), 299–324, traces the fortunes of the story of Ghismunda, whosedismemberment supplies an analogue to the use by the 1620 translator of thecomplete Decameron (probably Florio), of an expurgated Italian version alongwith a fuller French translation, and whose dishonor supplies an analogue ofthe writer’s entering the marketplace. Guyda Armstrong,“Paratexts and TheirFunctions in Seventeenth-Century English Decamerons,” MLR 102 (2007),40–57, argues that the framework for the interpretation of the 1620 translation(and of its reprintings) is constituted by its apparatus of rubrics, dedications,and illustrations. Boccaccio in English from 1494–1620, ed. Guyda Armstrong,forthcoming as Vol.1 of the New Tudor Translations, includes material translatedfrom Boccaccio between the printing of Lydgate’s Fall of Princes and Florio’sDecameron.

Jason Lawrence, “ ‘The story is extant and writ in very choice Italian’:Shakespeare’s Dramatizations of Cinthio,” in Shakespeare, Italy, and Interextual-ity, ed. Marrapodi (III, D, 1), 91–106, diagnoses the complicated cross-contaminations of original and English versions of Cinthio’s novelle thatinform the reading behind Measure for Measure and Othello. Antonio Ziosi,“Seneca tragico nel rinascimento euopeo: tiranni, vendetta, tombe e fantasmitra novella e tragedia,” Matteo Bandello: Studi di letteratura rinascimentale, 2(2007), 91–154, argues that Shakespeare and Webster contaminate their nov-elistic sources with material from Seneca.

Gent, Picture and Poetry (III, D, 3), suggests that Dallington’s 1592 translationof the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili is responsible for the transformation in lateElizabethan appreciation of the pictorial. Karl J. Höltgen,“Sir Robert Dalling-ton (1561–1637): Author, Traveler, and Pioneer of Taste,” HLQ 47 (1984),147–77, outlining Dallington’s career as an importer of easy attitudes toContinental culture, confirms and elaborates Gent’s point, pointing to hisdifficulties with the book’s technical vocabulary but also to the wide influ-ence of the Strife of Love in a Dream. L. E. Semler, “Robert Dallington’sHypnerotomachia and the Protestant Antiquity of Elizabethan England,” SP 103(2006), 208–42, engages with the detail of mistranslation of this difficulttext and ties its interest to militant Protestantism and the cause of Essex.Michael Leslie, “The Hypnerotomachia Poliphili and the Elizabethan LandscapeEntertainments,” Word & Image 14 (1998), 130–44, describes Dallington’spainful failure to domesticate the Hypneromachia as a consequence of his

607Robert Cummings


uncomfortable and unElizabethan over-identification with its motives.Donald A. Beecher, “The Tudor Translation of Colonna’s Hypnerotomachie,”CahiersE 15 (1979), 1–16 (with a French version in Quaderni d’Italianistica 1[1980], 182–99) gives a general account of Dallington’s book.

11. Miscellaneous other Prose. Margherita Giulietti,“Il Gelli in Inghilterra: Duedialoghi fiorentini nel rinascimento inglese,” Studi di Letteratura Francese 19(1992), 265–78, treats the involvement in Reformation politics of HenryIden’s 1557 translation of Gelli’s Circe and William Barker’s of his FearfullFansies of the Florentine Couper (1568). The Moral Philosophy of Doni by AntonFrancesco Doni, ed. Carmine Di Biase, Donald Beecher, John A. Butler (2003),is an edition, supplied with contextualising material for the various stages ofits migration from India to England, of Thomas North’s 1570 translation ofDoni’s collection of moral fables. Richard Dutton, “Volpone and Beast Fable:Early Modern Analogic Reading,” HLQ 67 (2004), 347–70, finds a thread ofhostility to the duplicity of the Cecils, father and son, in North’s dedicationof the collection to Leicester in 1570 and the book’s reprinting in 1601.Sergio Rossi, “Vincentio Saviolo his Practise (1595): A Problem of Authorship,”in England and the Continental Renaissance: Essays in Honour of J.B. Trapp, ed.Edward Chaney and Peter Mack (1990), 165–76, argues that Florio orches-trated the translation of this work, one part practical and probably originalwith with Saviolo, the other part theoretical and essentially a translation ofMuzio, and both together designed to promote the honor code in favor withEssex; see also Peltonen (III,A).Takau Shimada,“The Authorship and Date ofHarl. MS. 6249, ff. 106v-110,” BLJ 16 (1990), 187–91, identifies this fragmentas from Robert Johnson’s translation of Botero’s Relazoni (first printed 1601,and augmented in successive reprintings).

The English Emblem Tradition (III, C, 4), Vol. I, gives a facsimile text ofDaniel’s 1585 translation of Giovio’s Worthy Tracte; another is supplied in theScholars’ Facsimiles & Reprint series (1985). John Mulryan,“Translations andAdaptations of Vincenzo Cartari’s Imagini and Natale Conti’s Mythologiae:The Mythographic Tradition in the Renaissance,” CRCL 8 (1981), 272–83,describes Richard Linche’s 1599 abridgement of Cartari, derived from theunillustrated 1556 first edition. Karl Josef Höltgen,“Richard Haydocke:Trans-lator, Engraver, Physician,” Library 22 (1978), 15–32, is the fullest accountavailable of Haydocke and his Tracte. Rita Severi, “Translating Art: Lomazzoand Haydocke,” in English Diachronic Translation, ed. Giovanni Iamartino(1998), 167–74, in a brief but bibliographically useful survey, presses Shakes-peare’s knowledge of the Tracte (1598); see also her “Richard Haydocketraduttore di Giovan Paolo Lomazzo,” Quaderni di Lingue e Letterature 16(1991), 227–45. Gent (III, D, 3), deals passim with Haydocke’s difficulties withLomazzo’s technical vocabulary.



Mordechai Feingold, “A Friend of Hobbes and an Early Translator ofGalileo: Robert Payne of Oxford,” in North and Roche (III, C, 10), 265–80,draws attention to Payne’s unpublished translations of Galileo’s 1632 Dialogoand his Scienza mecanica (printed 1649).

12. Other Italian Verse. Glyn Pursglove, “Robert Tofte, Elizabethan Translatorof Boiardo,” The Renaissance in Ferrara and Its European Horizons, ed. J.Salmons and W. Moretti (1984), 111–22, in a mainly biographical essay,surveys Tofte’s engagement with Italian literature generally. Jack, ScottishLiterature’s Debt (III, D, 1), 4–9, describes Stewart of Baldynneis’ mediation ofAriosto’s Furioso through the French of Desportes and Jean Martin, and(13–21) also treats the accommodation of Italian lyric to native norms inAyton and Drummond. Lawrence, Who the Devil (III, C, 11), 69–86, arguesfor exclusively Italian debts followed by Tofte and Samuel Daniel (whereFrench mediation is usually assumed). J. D. McClure, “Drummond of Haw-thornden and Poetic Translation,” in The European Sun, ed. Graham Caieet al. (2001), 494–506, compares Drummond’s variant versions of sonnets byBembo and Tebaldeo (see also Lawrence, 37–38) and applies Dryden’s hier-archy (metaphrase, paraphrase, imitation) to Drummond’s translations of aselection of madrigals and sonnets by Marino and Tasso. Robert Cummings,“L’anglicizzazione del madrigale: il caso di William Drummond di Haw-thornden,” L’Asino d’oro, 4.7 (1993), 145–63, argues that Drummond turns toItalian madrigal verse as a model for deliberately unlyrical effects. JonathanNauman, “A New Poem Is New Evidence: Henry Vaughan and JamesHowell Reconsidered,” N&Q 237 (1992), 460–62, reports the identificationof Henry Vaughan as author of a manuscript translation of Sannazaro’sepigram on Venice. The Complete Works of Thomas Watson (1556–1592), ed.Dana F. Sutton, Vol. II (1997), includes an edited text with commentary ofThe First Sett of Italian Madrigals.

E. Spanish and Portuguese1. Alemán. J. R. Yamamoto-Wilson, “James Mabbe’s Achievement in HisTranslation of Guzmán de Alfarache,” T&L 8 (1999), 137–56, explains Mabbe’smoral motives in translating The Rogue (1622) by way of comparison with histranslation of Cristóbal de Fonseca’s mystical Contemplations (1629). IsabelVerdaguer, “Traducciónes inglesas del Guzman de Alfarache,” in De clásicos ytraducciones: versiones inglesas de clásicos españoles (s. XVI–XVII), ed. Julio CésarSantoyo and Isabel Verdaguer (1987), 115–28, describes Mabbe’s version,though influenced by French and Italian versions, as faithful in substance andstyle; she notes that the 1655 version is an abridgement not of the Spanishoriginal but of Mabbe’s translation.

609Robert Cummings


Hendrik van Gorp, “Translation and Literary Genre: The European Picar-esque Novel in the 17th and 18th Centuries,” in The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation, ed.Theo Hermans (1985), 136–48, with a bias toFrench translations, supplies a context for the English translations of Lazarillo,Alemán’s Guzmán, and Quevedo’s Buscón.

2. The Anonymous Amadis and other Romances. Alex Davis, Chivalry andRomance in Renaissance England (2003), 1–39, surveys the moral and culturalcontext for the reception of romance in England. Amadis de Gaule, translatedby Anthony Munday, ed. Helen Moore (2004), based on the 1618–1619printing, includes notice of Munday’s idiosyncracies of translation: hisde-Romanization and de-eroticization, his curtailing of formulaic battlescenes, his augmenting of rhetorical decoration and introduction of Englishdetail. Donna B. Hamilton, Anthony Munday and the Catholics, 1560–1633(2005), 73–113, presents Munday’s forty-year enterprise of translating Iberianromances, offering an alternative “Romanizing” view of the world, whosemotivation is analogous to other Catholic translations of the period; shesupplies (199–206) a chronological index of all Munday’s works. Hamilton’s“Anthony Munday’s Translations of Iberian Romances: Palmerin of England,Part 1 as Exemplar,” in Catholic Culture in Early Modern England, ed. RonaldCorthell et al. (2007), 281–303, excerpts from her Anthony Munday and theCatholics a case-study of the operation of Catholic loyalism. David Bergeronhas a lucid account of Munday’s translating career in ODNB (2004).

Louise Schleiner, “Margaret Tyler,Translator and Waiting Woman,” ELN 29(1992), 1–8, situates Tyler’s Mirrour in the Duchess of Norfolk’s household.Helen Hackett, Women and Romance Fiction in the English Renaissance (2000),57–62, qualifies the notion that there was a ready female audience for Tyler’stranslation. Deborah Uman and Belén Bistué, “Translation as CollaborativeAuthorship: Margaret Tyler’s The Mirrour of Princely Deedes and Knighthood,”CLS 44 (2007), 298–323, argues for Tyler’s simultaneous identification ofherself as both translator and author.

3. Camões. The standard edition of Fanshawe’s translation of the Lusiads isPeter Davidson, Poems and Translations of Sir Richard Fanshawe,Vol. II (1999); itincludes an essay by Roger Walker on the motives of Fanshawe’s translation:attachment to the old Anglo-Portuguese alliance and shared distress at thecollapse of feudal values. The same Roger M. Walker, “ ‘Sir Richard Fan-shawe’s Lusiad and Manuel de Faria e Sousa’s Lusíadas Comentadas: NewDocumentary Evidence’,” Portuguese Studies 10 (1994), 44–64, argues forFanshawe’s working through Faria’s Spanish prose version; in “A Rediscov-ered Seventeenth-Century Literary Friendship: Sir Richard Fanshawe andDom Francisco Manuel de Melo,” SCen 7 (1992), 15–26, Walker records a



letter from Melo fulsomely thanking Fanshawe for the sight of his translatedLusiads.

4. Celestina. Celestine: or,TheTragick-Comedie of Calisto and Melibea, ed. Guada-lupe Martínez Lacalle (1972), includes a full account of James Mabbe’s careerand translation methods. Celestina, ed. Dorothy Sherman Severin (1987), offersMabbe’s 1631 pseudonymous translation en face with a Spanish text for whichMabbe suppresses Fernando de Rojas’ only cryptically acknowledged author-ship. Celestina, 2 vols, ed. Miguel Marciales (1985),Vol. I, 258–62, focuses onthe whimsies of Mabbe’s version. Patrizia Botta and Elisabetta Vaccaro, “Unesemplare annotato della Celestina e la traduzione inglese di Mabbe,” CN 52(1992), 353–419, analyze the copy used by Mabbe for his revisions.

Nicolas Round, “What makes Mabbe so good?” BHS (2001), 145–66,argues from manuscript and printed versions that Mabbe’s translation, “tar-geted on rightness, not accuracy,” is an antidote for critics hostile to fluency.Pedro Guardia,“The Spanish Bawd, Londres, 1631,” in De clásicos y traducciones(III, E, 1), 129–46, describes Mabbe’s puritanization of the Spanish. María LuzCelaya and Pedro Guardia Massó Celaya, “The Spanish Bawd: traducción ymitologización,” Livius 2 (1992), 139–48, describes Mabbe’s omission oradjustment of the religious references; J. G. Ardila, “Una traducción ‘política-mente correcta’: Celestina en la Inglaterra puritana,” Celestinesca: Boletín Infor-mativo Internacional 22.2 (1998), 33–48, also deals with Mabbe’s suppression ofoaths in his printed revision. Morini, Tudor Translation (III, C, 5), 71–77, detailsMabbe’s elimination of supposed blasphemies and his so-called “paganization”of the Spanish, but also his importation of “Rabelaisian effervescence.” JoséMaría Pérez Fernández, “El impacto de La Celestina en Inglaterra isabelina,”in “La Celestina,” V Centenario (1499–1999): Actas del congreso internacional, ed.Felipe B. Pedraza Jiménez et al. (2001), 445–55, treats the interest in realisticeffects that Rojas shares with late Elizabethan writers.

D.S. Severin, “Celestina’s Courtly Lyrics and James Mabbe’s English Trans-lation,” in Courtly Literature: Culture and Context, ed. K. Busby and E. Kooper(1990), 523–29, demonstrates Mabbe’s untypically sensitive restraint in thetranslation of Rojas’ lyrics.

5. Cervantes. A Facsimile Edition of the First English Translations of Miguel deCervantes Saavedra’s “El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha” (1605–1615), ed. Anthony G. Lo Ré (2002), presents Thomas Shelton’s Part I (1612),and (as he argues) Leonard Digges’s Part II (1620). His Essays on the Peripheryof the “Quijote” (1991) argues that Lodge instigated the translation of Part I(9–29) and (29–44) challenges Shelton’s claims on the authorship of Part II,advancing the claim for Digges; see also his “The Second Edition of ThomasShelton’s Don Quixote, Part I: A Reassessment of the Dating Problem,”

611Robert Cummings


Cervantes 11 (1991), 99–118. Sandra Forbes Gerhard, Don Quixote and theShelton Translation: A Stylistic Analysis (1982), treats in her central chapterShelton’s talent for the right emphasis, described in detailed accounts of“tumult scenes” in both original and translation; a final chapter comparesShelton’s achievements with those of later translators. Carmelo CunchillosJaime, “La primera traducción inglesa del Quijote de Thomas Shelton (1612–1620),” Cuadernos de Investigacion Filologica 9 (1983), 63–89, offers a forgivingaccount of Shelton’s version, and again in “Traducciónes del Quijote (1612–1800),” in De clásicos y traducciones (III, E, 1), 89–114. João Ferreira Duarte,“Uncrowning the Original: Carnivalised Translation,” Trans 4 (2000), 9–18,describes the strategies informing John Phillip’s 1687 “carnivalised” translationof Don Quijote (misdated in the abstract, though not the text, to 1657).

G. Ungerer, “Recovering Unrecorded Quixote Allusions in EphemeralEnglish Publications of the late 1650s,” Bod. Lib. Record 17 (2000), 65–69,supplements E. B. Knowles’s list of allusions in PQ (1941). In Cervantes inSeventeenth-century England: The Tapestry Turned (2009), Dale B.J. Randall andJackson Campbell Boswell supply an annotated catalogue of more than athousand allusions, chronologically arranged, with a contextualising introduc-tion. Lee Bliss, “ ‘Don Quixote’ in England:The Case for ‘The Knight of theBurning Pestle’,” Viator 18 (1987), 361–80, is partly an account of Cervantes’English reception, partly an argument for Cervantes’ “substantive, conceptualinspiration” of Beaumont. Davis, Chivalry and Romance (III, E, 2), 119–32,suggests that Beaumont and Cervantes have no more in common than theirpreoccupation with anti-romantic themes. Frances Luttikhuizen, “Traduc-ciónes inglesas de las Novelas Ejemplares,” in De clásicos y traducciones (III, E,1), 147–64, describes the stylistic features of Mabbe’s 1640 version of theExemplarie Novells and details his consultation of French and Italian versions.

6. Las Casas. E. Shaskan Bumas, “The Cannibal Butcher Shop: ProtestantUses of Las Casas’ Brevísima relación and the Case of the Apostle Eliot,” EAL35 (2000), 107–36, argues that the 1583 Spanish Colonie of M. M. S (confusedhere with the intermediate French translator Jacques de Miggrode) definesthe virtuous nascent English empire against the cruel Spanish empire at itsheight and argues that the 1656 version by James Phillips offers its dedicateeCromwell as a scourge of Spanish interests. Susan Castillo, Colonial Encountersin New World Writing: Performing America (2006), 147–56, takes Phillips’ versionwith Davenant’s Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru (1658) as manifestations of thesame anti-Spanish impulse.

7. Montemayor. Luis Chamosa, “Bartholomew Yong: la traducción inglesa delas Dianas (1598),” in De clásicos y traducciones (III, E, 1), 59–80, treats theamplifications, corrections, and yet generally faithful character of the



translations. Michael Haldane, “ ‘Doubling’ in Bartholomew Yong’s Diana,”T&L 14 (2005), 1–20, focuses on the suggestive rather than explanatory powerof Yong’s technique of duplication.

8. Quevedo. María Pilar Navarro,“Quevedo en lengua ingelesa,” in De clásicosy traducciones (III, E, 1), 165–88, offers a descriptive survey of early adaptations(the butts of the satire are changed) of the Sueños (by Richard Croshawe1640; Edward Messervy 1641; J.D. 1657).

Pilar Navarro Errasti, “Historia de la vida del Buscón de Francisco deQuevedo, Zaragoza, 1626 / The Life and Adventures of Buscon, London, 1657,”in Picaresca española en traducción inglesa (ss. XVI y XVII):Antología y estudios, ed.F. J. Sánchez Escribano (1998), 93–117, describes J.D.’s version. Errasti’s “J. D.,primer traductor inglés del Buscón. Reconstrucción de su biograf ía a partir delos prefacios de sus traducciones,” Miscelánea 8 (1987), 33–60, infers J. D.’sbiography from a range of liminary material.

9. St Teresa. Isabel Verdaguer, “Traducciónes inglesas del Libro de la Vida,” inClásicos y traducciones (III, E, 1), 81–88, surveys the translations by MichaelWalpole and Tobie Matthew of the autobiography so as to exhibit theirreflection of the political and religious circumstances of their composition.Kathleen T. Spinnenweber, “The 1611 English Translation of St. Teresa’sAutobiography: A Possible Carmelite-Jesuit Collaboration,” Skase Journal ofTranslation and Interpretation 1 (2007), 1–12, surmises the involvement ofSpanish Carmelite associates of Teresa in Michael Walpole’s translation.

10. Other Prose Writers. Elaine Cuvelier, Thomas Lodge, témoin de son temps,c. 1558–1625 (1984), 506–19, summarizes the English interest in Luis deGranada and deals with Lodge’s versions of the Flowers through Michael vanIsselt’s Latin; her focus is Lodge’s use of Luis as a model for his Prosopopeia(1596). Francisco Javier Sánchez Escribano,“La version inglesa de Experienciasde Amor y de Fortuna, de Francisco de Quintana (1651),” in De clásicos ytraducciones (III, E, 1), ed. Julio César Santoyo and Isabel Verdaguer (1987),189–204, describes the anonymous English version of Quintana’s pastoralromance. Kelly A. Quinn, “Sir Thomas North’s Marginalia in his Dial ofPrinces,” PBSA 94 (2000), 283–87, explores the negative relationship betweenMunday’s fourth edition (1619) of North’s Dial and North’s own copy of the1582 edition, marked up for a projected new edition. M. C. Buesa Gómez,“Gracián en Inglaterra: Traducciones del siglo XVII,” Boletín de la FundaciónFederico García Lorca 29–30 (2001), 275–85, focuses on Sir John Skeffington’samplifications in his version of El Héroe, otherwise (unlike Gervaise’s Frenchtranslation) closely based on Gracián’s original. María Antonia Garcés, “TheTranslator Translated: Inca Garcilaso and English Imperial Expansion,” in

613Robert Cummings


Travel and Translation in the Early Modern Period, ed. C. G. Di Biase (2006),203–25, treats the use of Inca Garcilaso in Purchas his Pilgrims (1625).

11. Spanish Verse. Arguments for analogies of manner, largely in relation toCrashaw, are advanced in R.V.Young,“Ineffable Speech: Carmelite Mysticismand Metaphysical Poetry,” Communio 17 (1990), 238–60, and in Young’sRichard Crashaw and the Spanish Golden Age (1982). Eduardo R. del Río,“Thomas Stanley’s Translations of Spanish Verse,” EIRC 25 (1999), 67–86,notes Stanley’s literalist preferences (illustrated here from Montalbán) andfocuses on the translation of Gongora’s Solitudes, aborted (along with Boscán’sLove’s Embassy) because, he claims, it offended his Protestant sensibilities.

Fanshawe’s Poems and Translations, Vol. I, ed. Davidson (III, C, 5), 45–49,includes Sonnets printed from MS and translated, like those printed in 1648(98–103), from Góngora and the brothers Argensola; on these see Eduardo R.Del Río, “The Context of Translation: Richard Fanshawe and Spanish Verse,”Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 17 (2004), 65–80. For earlier recourse toSpanish lyric, see J. L. Chamosa, “Spanish Poetry Translated into English:TheCase of England’s Helicon,” Actas del I congreso nacional de la Sociedad Españolade Estudios Renacentistas Ingleses (1990), 71–82.

IV. State of Criticism

Recent study of later Renaissance translations has been energetically culti-vated by historians of moral and political philosophy who allow translationsfrom Greek and Latin (modern as well as classical) as well as from modernvernaculars to participate in ethical, political, or religious discourses of theperiod, or even to direct them. Thus many studies surveyed here are indif-ferent to issues of authorship and literary intention and preoccupied withissues of cultural history. EEBO and foreign-language databases have facili-tated ready access to non-canonical material and encouraged the dissolutionof the boundaries between original and translated material. Despite that newbias, the history of translation continues to contribute to the stylistic historyof English literature, and the scholarly environment generally has becomefriendlier to the study of translation. The interest in the emergence intranslated literature of new genres or modes is well served in the nowfashionable reception histories prepared mainly by classicists. Spanish, Italian,and French scholars of English translation, though by no means motivatedexclusively by an interest in the narrowly understood reception of their ownwriters, have been from the outset sensitive to issues of stylistic transmissionand less impressed by the independent interest of the translations. Amongmodern authors, Florio’s Montaigne and Urquhart’s Rabelais have provokedsome of the liveliest stylistic treatments. The Countess of Pembroke as a



translator from French and Italian (as well as the Psalms) and KatherinePhilips as a translator from French have deservedly been the subject of recentserious study. Editions new or projected (notably of Hutchinson’s Lucretius,and the translations of Vergil by Harington, Fanshawe, and Denham) encour-age concern with the detail of how foreign-language texts are mediated inEnglish. As this compilation is completed, two volumes, Elizabeth I: Transla-tions, 1544–1589 and Elizabeth I: Translations, 1592–1598, ed. Janel Mueller andJoshua Scodel (2009), have just appeared: they collect and annotate all Eliza-beth’s work from and into Latin, French, and Italian.

university of glasgow

615Robert Cummings
