Another question frequently raised by translators was
that of fidelity to the words of the original versus fidelity
to the spirit. Even those translators who professed the
greatest reverence for the original frequently indulged in
practices that would be frowned upon by modern purists
and scholars; for example, Douglas silently incorporates
in his text, at points where he thinks his readers may re-
quire it, explanatory material taken from BADIUS’s prose
paraphrase of the poem. Likewise a modern translator
would not adopt the cavalier attitude to cuts and omis-
sions displayed by Sir John HARINGTONin his preface to
his English Orlando furioso (1591), where he admits that
he has left out “matters impertinent to us” and “tediouse
flatteries of persons that we never heard of.”
The status of translation in this period accords with
the humanistic and patriotic high-mindedness of most
translators. The desire to be useful to one’s fellow-citizens
and to improve their cultural environment runs strongly
through their accounts of their motives; underpinning
this was the theory that it was beneficial to copy a good
model (see CRITICISM, LITERARY). As Harington observed, it
was preferable “to be called rather one of the not worst
translators then one of the meaner makers.” Certainly in
the hands of Jacques AMYOTin France or Philemon HOL-
LANDin England the translator’s profession attained a lit-
erary dignity that it has seldom, if ever, attained since.
translations of classical authors The earlier Renais-
sance was preoccupied with the need to make Greek liter-
ature accessible to a Latined audience, and the first
translations reflected this need. They also reflected the in-
tellectual priorities of the first humanists; prose precedes
verse, and philosophy and history precede other types of
prose. Leonardo BRUNItranslated Aristotle’s Economics
(1419/20), Ethics (before 1416), and Politics (1437), and
by 1480 most of the major Aristotelian works had been
made available in Latin from the Greek. Translations of
PLATObegan in 1414, Bruni again leading the way with the
Apology, and reached a climax with FICINO’s comprehen-
sive rendering, completed in 1477. The Greek historians
attracted attention as well as the more historical public
speeches of Demosthenes. The chief works here were
Lorenzo VALLA’s incomplete version of Herodotus (1457)
and his complete translation of Thucydides (1452). By
1460 all the important Greek historians were available and
the indefatigable Bruni had translated On the Crown, the
Olynthiacs, and On the False Embassy, among other public
speeches in the Demosthenic corpus. Poetry and purely
literary texts were less commonly translated. Homer’s Iliad
was translated into Latin prose as far as book 16 by Valla
(1442–44). Some of Lucian’s Dialogues were translated by
Bruni and many more by ERASMUS, who also translated
Hecuba and Iphigenia by Euripides (1506).
As the ideas of the Renaissance began to spread they
were diffused to an audience which has no access to the
classical languages. The prestige of the classics made more
people eager to make contact with ancient literature and
the increased affluence of the mercantile classes created a
market for vernacular translations to satisfy a public who
had neither time nor inclination to submit themselves to
the long apprenticeship of learning Latin and Greek. A
common feature of vernacular translations is the ex-
pressed desire of the translators to benefit their audience
either in practical ways or by increasing the general level
of cultivation in society. The number of vernacular trans-
lations in the period before 1620 was huge, and the qual-
ity inevitably varied.
Classical works for translation into the vernacular
were selected on different criteria from those used by
scholars turning Greek into Latin for the benefit of the
learned community. Although improvement of the reader
was a prime (expressed) aim, entertainment and relax-
ation were also important. Fidelity to the original was not
high on the list of priorities; rather, the aim was to make
the ancient author “live” again in the translator’s native
tongue. Some highly successful translations were not even
taken from the original text but from an intervening trans-
lation, as was the case with Plutarch’s Lives (1579) trans-
lated by Thomas NORTHfrom the French version (1559) of
Jacques AMYOT.translations of contemporary authors The perceived
inferiority of the VERNACULARamong many Renaissance
savants dampened the impulse to translate original works
in these tongues into other vernaculars. Proficiency in Eu-
ropean tongues other than one’s own only gradually
gained ground as an educational accomplishment, and
then it was ambassadors, merchants, and other travelers,
rather than scholars, who were responsible for vernacular
to vernacular translations. The automatic respect ac-
corded to ancient Latin and Greek authors (see TRANSLA-
TIONS OF CLASSICAL AUTHORS) recommended them to the
translators’ attention, while a contemporary writer, how-
ever esteemed in his own country, might be suspect on re-
ligious, political, or moral grounds.
The international organization of the BOOK TRADEen-
abled books, especially in Latin, to circulate easily
throughout Europe, and popular and controversial con-
temporary texts like Erasmus’s Encomium Moriae (see
PRAISE OF FOLLY, THE), More’s UTOPIA, and Calvin’s INSTI-
TUTESwere quickly translated. Sometimes a vernacular
work was translated into Latin to increase its readership,
as in the case of Sebastian BRANT’s Das Narrenschyff
(1494); Jakob Locher made a free Latin translation (Stul-
tifera Navis, 1497), which was again freely interpreted by
Alexander Barclay in his Ship of Fools (1509). By such
processes Renaissance translations sometimes came to
bear little resemblance to their purported originals.
Vernacular to vernacular translations were a product
both of the international book trade and of fashions inttrraannssllaattiioonnss ooff ccoonntteemmppoorraarryy aauutthhoorrss 4 46699