it led to the Incarnation and the redemption of mankind
by Christ. Such conceptions continued into the Renais-
sance and are found, for example, in works by PETRARCH,
BOCCACCIO, and CHAUCER.
Toward the beginning of the 16th century, however,
there was a renewed, classically inspired interest in
tragedy as drama. SENECAwhose closet dramas on Greek
models had colored the medieval literary view of tragedy,
was translated into Italian in 1497. His influence was a
dominant strand in Renaissance tragedy and in Eliza-
bethan England was responsible for the vogue of the re-
venge play. In Italy an improved Latin translation of
Aristotle’s Poetics was published in 1498 and the Greek
text in 1508. At the turn of the century appeared the AL-
DINE PRESSedition of the Greek tragedians, and ERASMUS’s
Latin translations of Euripides’ Hecuba and Iphigenia were
published in Paris in 1506. Giangiorgio TRISSINO’s Sophon-
isba (1515; performed 1562) is the earliest Renaissance
tragedy in purely classical style, a direct imitation of Greek
models. CINTHIO’s Orbecche (1541) established the
Senecan model (a five-act structure with horrendous car-
nage and appropriate moralizing). Other notable Italian
plays were Giovanni Rucellai’s Rosamunda (1525), ALA-
MANNI’s Antigone (1533), SPERONI’s Canace e Macereo
(1542), Pietro ARETINO’s Orazia (1546), GROTO’s Dalida
(1572), TASSO’s Torrismondo (1587), and Federico della
Va l l a ’s Reina di Scozia (1595). The pressure of classical im-
itation restricted the development of Italian tragedy; it
failed to achieve successes equal to the less purist (and
more popular) English examples and was soon displaced
by the taste for tragicomedy and opera.
Although there are no significant French tragedies be-
fore the era of Pierre Corneille and Jean Racine, some
16th-century works of note are: Lazare de Baïf’s transla-
tion of Sophocles’ Electra (1537), the Bordeaux-based Scot
George BUCHANAN’s Latin versions of Euripides (Medea
and Alcestis, written c. 1539) and his own Baptistes sive ca-
lumnia and Jephthes sive votum (written c. 1540 and 1542,
respectively), Marc-Antoine MURET’s Julius Caesar tragoe-
dia (1544), Jean Bochetel’s translation of Euripides’
Hecuba (1544), and the first original French tragedy,
Étienne JODELLE’s Cléopâtre captive (acted 1552).
In Spain Jerónimo Bermúdez (c. 1530–99), Cristob ́al
de Virués (c. 1550–1614), and Lupercio Leonardo de Ar-
gensola (1559–1613) wrote Senecan plays. Juan de la
CUEVAproduced four tragedies, but CERVANTES’ El cerco de
Numancia is the most distinguished example before Lope
de VEGAand the heyday of the Spanish theater. In England
publication of the historical chronicles of Edward Hall
(1548) and Raphael Holinshead (1577), Jasper Heywood’s
translations of Seneca (from 1559), and Thomas NORTH’s
version of Plutarch’s Lives (1579) all stimulated the mak-
ing of tragedies. The earliest was Gorboduc (1561), a
Senecan drama by Thomas Sackville and Thomas Norton,
which introduced blank verse to the English stage.
Thomas Preston’s clumsy and incoherent Cambises (1569)
was followed by the great tragedies of MARLOWE, KYD’s
Spanish Tragedy, and SHAKESPEARE’s masterpieces.
Further reading: Gordon Braden, Renaissance Tragedy
and the Senecan Tradition: Anger’s Privilege (New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985); Gillian Jondorf,
French Renaissance Tragedy: The Dramatic Word (Cam-
bridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Thomas
McAlindon, English Renaissance Tragedy (Vancouver,
Canada: University of British Columbia, 1986).translation The translation of texts was one of the char-
acteristic activities of the Renaissance, enabling a wider
range of people than ever before to profit from contact
with the literature of ancient Greece and Rome (see TRANS-
LATIONS OF CLASSICAL AUTHORS) and with the major works
written in other European tongues (see TRANSLATIONS OF
CONTEMPORARY AUTHORS). Similarly, the numerous ver-
nacular versions of the Bible (see BIBLE, TRANSLATIONS OF)
were both motive and product of the religious ferment of
the times.
The principles governing translation had been dis-
cussed in antiquity—by CICERO, HORACE, and St. Jerome,
among others—and the debate was continued by the early
humanists. Leonardo BRUNI, one of the busiest of the early
translators, expounded his theory of translation in intro-
ductions to his Latin versions of Greek masters, and in his
De interpretatione recta he castigated the medieval transla-
tors while attempting a formal justification of his own
method. Translators’ “apologies” became a standard fea-
ture of translations and often throw interesting light on
the contemporary status of the author translated as well as
on a whole range of linguistic and literary values. Gavin
DOUGLAS, for instance, wrote a 500-line prologue to his
Scots Eneados, in which he expresses some very charac-
teristic preoccupations: extreme reverence for his author
(“Virgillis volume maist excellent”), outrage at earlier
botched attempts at translation (in this case CAXTON’s
1490 Eneydos, taken from a French version), and diffi-
dence about his own ability and that of his native “Scottis”
tongue (“my rurall vulgar gros”) to do justice to the con-
ception and dignity of VIRGIL’s poem.
The point about the insufficiency of the VERNACULAR
as a vehicle for the thoughts of the great writers of antiq-
uity was one that vexed most early translators. In the long
run their efforts, even if they sometimes stretched the lan-
guage beyond its limits, had a beneficial effect of raising
the level of stylistic awareness and of testing the flexibility
of a vernacular in a variety of genres. Douglas regrets that
he had to resort on occasions to “Sum bastard Latyn,
French or Inglys oys [usage]/Quhar scant was Scottis—I
had nane other choys.” Such necessity became in many in-
stances a virtue, enlarging and enriching the vocabulary of
the vernaculars.44668 8 ttrraannssllaattiioonn