This essay will discuss the role of translation during the Elizabethan era and what it tells us about the history of translation and will assess the importance of this specific historical period.

In order to focus on a specific historical period, we need to be aware, as translators and scholars, of why we do it. We should value the importance of the existence of a historical theoretical framework for Translation Studies and be able to understand and appreciate its potential contribution to the evolution of the field. Translation history has been in the centre of interest of many scholars after the various interdisciplinary turns in TS. However, Translation research has been modernised and different approaches have been suggested on how we should perceive and analyse translation history. Translation history research could be divided in three categories, based on which aspect of the field the scholars focus on; translation archaeology, which examines who translates and what, when and where, historical criticism on whether translators of a specific historical period contribute on the progress and explanation which interprets under which circumstances these translations occurred and how they contributed to change. The last one is a combination of all the practical levels but it of paramount importance to escape these distinctions and ‘’jump’’ from one level to another when it is necessary in our research (Pym, 2010: 5-7). Pym says that the problem with researchers, besides the fact that they should extend their historical knowledge and adopt a clear methodology, which of course will not happen overnight, is that they focus on the meta translation level rather than the actual work of the translators in every era. Following Pym’s approach that translators and personas should be set in the centre of the research and not theories (2010:10-11), I will adopt an explanatory-focused approach when discussing about Elizabethan era translation.

Elizabethan era (1558-1603) is the period during the reign of Elizabeth I in England. Elizabethan translators translate works of the classical antiquity, enriching the English vocabulary and focus on a middle-class readership, which was uneducated in classical languages. It is an interesting period because as we can see from the various prefaces of their work, their work is encompassed by a moral purpose which is to ‘’let in light’’, to educate the masses and culturally enrich English society. Besides, the selection of the texts is not of a coincidence. It has strong didactic value in terms of how a citizen should behave in society. This includes the loyalty to a highest authority and the involvement in public life. It is crucial part to see how translation practices were influence by that. Translators had to face a serious challenge; they were trying to link the classical past with the present but they were targeting an audience that had no idea whatsoever of the societies in which the original texts were produced. The language barrier is another serious problem they had to overcome. English language did not have the means to express the source cultures. It is impressive to observe how translators used this weakness and made it power. They expanded their own language by means of loan words or even used the existing lexicon, creating equivalent words or concept through ‘’naturalisation’’. An example is North’s Plutarch translation of Parallel Lives which is full of creative cultural equivalents. North translates the roman concept of ‘’gladiatorial combats’’ as ‘’cruell fights’’, having in mind that his readership is not familiar with this tradition and at the same time he expresses his disapproval. Education is in the centre of 16^th century England and translation through ‘’filtering’’ of the classical text will play a major role in the achievement of this objective (Delisle, Woodsworth, 1995:201-204).

Studying the various historical eras, we will notice that translation production is never separated by the authoritarian power and the Elizabethan era is not an exception. Translators and instruments of authority have a dynamic relation which tells us a lot about the history of translation. Translation in this case was a tool for intellectual reconstruction and reorganisations of the educational system under Henry VIII and Edward VI, which demanded a new generation of scholars. Tudor propaganda was a part of all this reconstruction and was fuelled by nationalism. Translators were a crucial part of this propaganda that served the Crown and this can be seen in the ‘’patriotic character’’ of their translations’’. They have a special role amongst scholars as they shape the cultural and national identity through their work. As we have already seen, their main achievement is that they serve their skills to render the Greek and Latin culture into their contemporary reality with a unique way. They managed to make these complicated texts available to all. The problem of linguistic inadequacy is frequently addressed by translators such as by John Dolman in the preface of his Cicero’s Tusculan translation where he apologises for the ‘’poor’’ language. Translators often are being criticised by the conservative elite for demining the ancient masterpieces by trying to make them more explicit. Dolman in the same preface defends translation saying that the classical languages were once vernacular and that the detractors are afraid ‘’the prophaning of the secretes of Philosophie’’. Translators, in Pym’s terms help in evolution of society, enlightening simple people and making knowledge a possibility for everyone (Ebel,1969:593-597).

Elizabethan translators were translating for the entire nation, raising it to higher cultural level and at the same time raising translation into an art. As Mathiessen suggests ‘’the study of Elizabethan translation is a study of how Renaissance came to England’’ (1931:3). As he says, they used their imagination and created a new sensation of the original text. It was not ‘’a word-for-word but a culturally appropriated translation’’ which perfectly embraced the values needed for the shape of national identity. Elizabethan translators’ legacy, definitely triggered Shakespeare’s imagination (Coriolanus) and their work, especially North’s, is important because he is aware of the diachronic impact of his work that goes beyond time and history and ‘’brought heroes of antiquity to life again in the likeliness of English knights’’ (1931:54-69). The study of translated literary work of this period can be so indicative about how translation is significant if not essential for interpreting historical changes. This means that we do not study translation history only to prove that translation is important or interesting but because translation is the path to understand history as it makes history and it is a part of it. Tudor came to England because of education. Education came because of translated work.

Another translator, Geoffrey Fenton is a brilliant example of how Elizabethan translators handled the original text. His famous translations of Certaine Tragicall Discourses and Golden Epistles respect the original author and at the same time reflect the main values of Elizabethan society; didacticism, anti-catholicism and misogynistic ideas like disapproval of female education. His work epitomises the strive of translators to change the status quo and question the puritans’ view that translation corrupts the true faith and brings Italianism in England (Fellheimer,1941:209). Translators like Fenton brought a new approach in translation methodology, which can be seen more as rewritings, appropriations of the original. For instance his translation of Storia d’Italia is appropriated in order to be consistent with the Elizabethan audience. It is interesting to observe how he manipulates Guicciardini’s references for English kings in order to undermine their wisdom in different situations and deleting elements that would be unacceptable for his audience and would be consistent with the nationalistic ideology of his time. A indicative reference is the phrase ‘’re di quella isola’’ which means ‘’a King of that island’’ that is translated as ‘’a King of that Nation’’, showing that England is not just a geographical territory but a nation that will be remembered. He also legitimises every act of violence and war like the decision of Henry VIII to kill a prisoner, duke of Suffolk brother, for revenge as a potential threat the Crown which clearly inspired the opening scene of Shakespeare’s Henry V (Zaharia,2016:60-67). This suggests that there is a dialogue of texts on a diachronic level which is an interesting approach for translation history research.

Translated literature is not the only armour of patriotism and propaganda. 

Translation of travel texts is another way of legitimating the maritime expansion of England and serve Elizabethan agenda by praising the Protestant England and criticising Catholic Spain. Richard Hakluyt with his Voyages was clearly motivated by the religious conflict and based on that he ‘’predicts’’ the future values of England. The climate of division and religious conflict is reflected on all these didactic writings of the 16^th century. However, Hakluyt’s work, stands out because despite the patriotic glory and the necessity of expansion for the sake of God and England, it suggests, even if it is not openly stated, that England might be equally wrong with Spain from a moral perspective (Boruchoff,2009:811-822). Through Hakluyt’s work we can understand how translation can serve as a tool of perpetuating a specific ideology and how translation practices are dictated by the historical background.

Scholars were not the only ones that used their work in order to construct an ideology around Elizabeth I but she also used it to preserve her own image and perpetuate her glory. Elizabeth could manipulate the art of speech very well. It is interesting to discuss about her translation of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy that takes another significance when examined within its wider historical context. The question is why she chose to translate again at this time of her life and why she chose this specific text. The naive approach that suggests that she wanted to entertain her people completely ignores the historical circumstances. Elizabeth always was constructing her image through speeches and this translation reinforces this construction. This translation is carried out in the wake of a serious religious conflict. Protestants were putting pressure on her to fully support Henry IV and get involved in another civil war against Catholics. She needs a new image which does not depend on her natural beauty but on her intellectual superiority. The reason she chooses this work is because it has to do with the theme of peace and mutual love and on how true faith conquers at the end. Religion is also a safe theme for a woman. On this way she uses her translation as a paradigm to resist against the pressure for militarist involvement in the war (Benkert,2001).

Another important aspect of the translation history that is often neglected by historians is the contribution of translators to the social, political and cultural networks that shaped the early English culture of print. Translators, as we have seen often omitted or added elements from the source texts. There were various factors involved in the process before a book is published and reach its audience and translators played a crucial role mainly through patronage. High-class families often sponsored translators that enjoyed royal privileges. An example among many others is Thomas Rogers’ Imitation of Christ (1580) which was translated at the request of Henry Denham. Translator was not just an intermediate but active agent within the social, economic and intellectual elements of this network and contributed in the shaping of the reading trends as well as in life circle of printed translation in Early Modern Europe (Belle,Hosington,2016:12-17).

A secret power of translation during these times is that it served as a ‘’window’’ of freedom for women’ intellectual expression, only religious translations, was the only area that women could produce any literary activity without being criticised for seeking male attention. This is because translation was anyway considered a passive and inferior activity. So they had to come up with creative solutions to overcome the dual obstacle; as women they were considered a priori intellectually inferior and they participated in an already underappreciated activity and were allowed just to copy the male work. Despite all these problems female expression found its way in prefaces of authors such as in the translation of the Spanish romance A Mirrour of Pricely deeds and Knighthood by Margaret Tyler (1578) where she stresses the problems and restrictions that female authors had to overcome in the 16^th century. Religion was a safe territory for women which they often ‘’covered’’ themselves behind a highly respected man. Male patronage was a common strategy for female authors such as Tyler and Mary Herbert to gain power and manage to publish their work (Kronitiris,2014:17-22). The role of translation in women’ expression and intellectual progression through this indirect literary production shows two things about this period; the first one is a general assessment of how translation could be used as a safe mean of expression for suppressed members of society such as women, or as a vehicle for social change and the second one is the result of this freedom, which is the fact that it gave power to people that otherwise would have remained invisible in the course of history.

Even powerful women such as Elizabeth herself used the alibi of a man in the preface of her translation of the religious poem The Mirror of a Sinful Soul’’, a translation of the poem Le Miroir de l'âme pécheresse;

If thou doest rede thys whole

worke, beholde rather the matter

and excuse the speeche, consydering

it is the worke of a woman wiche

hath in her neyther science or know-

ledge, but a desyre that eche one

might se what they gifte of god doth

when it pleaseth hym to justifie the

harte of a man.

(Ames,1897)

16^th century translation is a peculiar period in the history of translation. The influence of humanism and the perception of translation activity based on a modern conversion of classical ideas about translation is crucial. Leonardo Bruni, following Cicero’s views, claimed that despite the fact that everything must be preserved from the source text, but in order to preserve the qualities and magic of it you have to transform it and use all the rhetorical means of the target language. Italian Humanism which demanded stylistic freedom and rhetorical approach on translation soon was filtered and influenced English scholars but these changes were not obvious not until 17^th century. 16^th century was the period when the seeds of change were planted. A new perception of translation and an initial theoretical background is created. Something new is about to come but translators are still influenced by the medieval paradigm. It is very important to observe the Elizabethan translation if we want to understand any other development of translation in England. This period belongs both to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and equal proportion of new and old ideas can be identified in all translators that follow the ‘’16^th century attitude’’ (Morini,2017:7-11). Transitional periods like this can be indicative of how changes in translation practice take place and under which historical circumstances. Translators did not blindly follow classical ideas but used creativity. As Rowse said, they were ‘’the voyagers of the age’’. ‘’They struck out across the seas of classical and contemporary literature like their fellows across the Atlantic into the Pacific and Indian Oceans bringing some much strange treasure-love’’, embedding freshness and creativity in Medieval English, enriching it with foreign elements and setting the foundations for English Renaissance (1940:258). Antiquity was somehow ‘’reinvented’’ rather than ‘’discovered’’ by them. It was these new perspectives that opened by their work that prepared the ground for Renaissance and Baroque Europe (Steiner,1975:246-247). The opinion that Tudor authors were travelling between their past and the future is reinforced by the fact that they had a tendency to link the heroic characters with contemporary situations. Warren Boutcher’s interpretation of Christopher Watson’s translation of Polybius (1568) reflects the controversy of Reformation, reading the past within a contemporary context. As we can see from the various types of translated texts, translation cannot be separated from historical and literary studies (Mitsi,2013:630-631).

The contribution of translators was appreciated after many years. As we have already seen it was considered as an intellectually inferior activity, judging from what translators had to say about it; Thomas Wilson says: ‘’All cannot wear Velvet, or feede with the best’’. The main two attitudes towards translation were contradictory. The one reflects the old perception of translation where the translator ruins the original whereas the other reflects the new era. Translation is a hero who manages to save the source text and bring it home. Despite the fact that there was not a solid theoretical framework, translators seem to know what they do. A new school was born and Elizabethan translators introduced the concept of originality or ‘’ενάργεια’’ (enargeia), a very popular concept in Renessance rhetoric. It describes the imagination, the visualisation of a concept that the artists is expected to bring into life (Lindeman,1981:205-209). This concept is not easy to be interpreted using contemporary terms but it suggests the perception of translation starts to change from an effortless activity to a creative task that needs to fulfil certain standards beyond the fidelity to the original.

Translation was not considered a profession. It was carried out by scholars which usually were great and influential personalities. William Tyndale was one of them. He was the first that ever attempted to translate the entire New Testament and half of the Old Testament from the original Greek/Hebrew text into English. Tyndale is a leading figure in Protestant Reformation and received a death sentence for possessing an English unauthorised version of the Testament (Lebert:2017). The impact of his translation is massive upon the Authorised Version. Tyndale’s work is another milestone of the 16^th century since it influenced all the next translations of the Bible in English (Moore,2012:2-3).

We can conclude that we cannot understand translation outside its historical context or history without translation. Reflecting on Elizabethan era, we can see that despite the fact that we can make conclusions about how history can contribute to history of translation in general, we cannot over generalise these conclusions because every historical period has different qualities and we cannot compare and examine things that have no adequate similarities for the sake of a ‘’universal history of translation’’. Instead of that we should make historically informed observations after carefully examining the specific historical circumstances under which a translation is being produced (Rudley,2012:236-239).

Bibliography

1. Pym, A. (2010). Method in translation history. University of Michigan: Routledge.

2. Delisle, J. and Woodsworth, J. (1995). Translators through history. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.

3. Ebel, J. (1969). Translation and Cultural Nationalism in the Reign of Elizabeth. Journal of the History of Ideas, 30(4), pp.593-597.

4. Matthiessen, F. (1931). Translation, an Elizabethan art. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

5. Fellheimer, J. (1941). Geoffrey Fenton: A study in Elizabethan translation. Ph.D. Yale University.

6. Zaharia, O. (2016). Rewriting and Appropriating Francesco Guicciardini’s Storia D’Italia in Elizabethan England: Geoffrey Fenton’s Translation and Shakespeare’s Henry V. Messages, Sages and Ages, 3(1), pp.60-67.

7. Boruchoff, D. (2009). Piety, Patriotism, and Empire: Lessons for England, Spain, and the New World in the Works of Richard Hakluyt. Renaissance Quarterly, 62(3), pp.811-822.

8. Benkert, L. (2001). Translation as Image-Making: Elizabeth I's Translation of Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy. Early Modern Literary Studies, 6(3).

9. Belle, M. and Hosington, B. (2016). Translation, history and print: A model for the study of printed translations in early modern Britain. Translation Studies, 10(1), pp.12-17.

10. Kronitiris, T. (2014). Oppositional voices. 2nd ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp.17-22.

11. Marguerite d'Angoulême, Ames, P. and Élisabeth (1897). The Mirror of the sinful soul, a prose translation from the French of a poem by queen Margaret of Navarre, made in 1544 by the princess (afterwards queen) Elizabeth, then eleven years of age. Reproduced in fac-simile ... and edited, with an introduction and notes, by Percy W. Ames, London: Asher.

12. Morini, M. (2017). Tudor translation in theory and practice. 2nd ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

13. Steiner, G. (1975). After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Books Abroad, 49(4), pp.246-247.

14. Efterpi Mitsi (2013). Tudor Translation. (Book review). The Modern Language Review, 108(2), pp.630-631.