II. The Translations

I have no intention in the following paragraphs of discussing the ideals or the criteria of a good translation; for the making of an English version of a Greek original presents problems little different from those of translation from any language into English. At this time I merely wish to call attention to the various kinds of Greek literature which have been popular at different times during the last four hundred and thirty years. The extant literature of Greece lends itself in many respects better than other literatures to a genre classification. I have taken for my guidance the tabular survey at the close of Professor Jebb's excellent Primer of Greek Literature and in grouping my authors have used his headings and classifications. Of the divisions which he presents in his table thirteen are to be found in this bibliography. Many of these headings, such as Philosophy, Drama, History, Fable, Oratory, Geography, Biography, are self-explanatory. Under the remaining divisions I have classed the following authors: Bucolic Poetry contains only the work of Theocritus, Bion and Moschus; Poetry contains all the other work in verse except the epic; Romance embraces the work of Longus, Heliodorus, and Apollonius Rhodius; Epic contains the [pg xxv] works of Homer and Hesiod; Belles Lettres, the work of Theophrastus, Longinus, and Lucian; Learning and Science, the work of Hippocrates, and others of similar nature.

Date New Reprints Total for ten years Total for preceding fifty years Total for preceding hundred years

1481-1490 1 0 1

1491-1500 0 1 1 2 2

1501-1510 0 0 0

1511-1520 0 0 0

1521-1530 4 0 4

1531-1540 8 5 13

1541-1550 6 3 9 26

1551-1560 5 4 9

1561-1570 12 2 14

1571-1580 11 6 17

1581-1590 8 5 13

1591-1600 14 6 20 73 99

1601-1610 7 7 14

1611-1620 10 9 19

1621-1630 9 3 12

1631-1640 13 13 26

1641-1650 7 2 9 80

1651-1660 12 5 17

1661-1670 9 6 15

1671-1680 11 10 21

1681-1690 18 12 30

1691-1700 16 15 31 114 194

1701-1710 17 19 36

1711-1720 26 15 41

1721-1730 14 19 33

1731-1740 11 18 29

1741-1750 23 19 42 181

1751-1760 23 19 42

1761-1770 14 22 36

1771-1780 29 24 53

1781-1790 17 22 39

1791-1800 25 14 39 209 390

1801-1810 28 49 77

1811-1820 18 44 62

1821-1830 55 32 87

1831-1840 40 22 62

1841-1850 59 19 78 366

1851-1860 41 16 57

1861-1870 94 26 120

1871-1880 101 55 156

1881-1890 154 88 242

1891-1900 142 98 240 815 1181

1901-1910 114 93 207

1911-1917 63 28 91 298 298

Total 1289 875 2164 2164 2165

(For 1591-1600, the totals are for six years only.)

With this classification I have made a chronological survey of the translations and summed up my results at the century and half-century marks. These results are embodied in the following table in which the translations have been listed in order of importance from a numerical point of view. Underneath each heading I have placed the number of that type which were printed during the preceding fifty years. Where two or more classes are equal I have placed them within the same rectangle to emphasize such equality. At the bottom of each column I have indicated, where necessary, the classes which are non-existent for each fifty years.

1550 1600 1650 1700 1750

Phil. 16 Phil. 20 Hist. Fable 11 Phil. 34 Phil. 44

Hist. 2 Geog. 2 Learn. 2 Orat. 9 Phil. 10 Epic 10 Fable 26 Epic 31

Orat. 1 Fable 1 Rom. 8 Poetry 7 Epic 13 Fable 27

Fable 7 B. L. 5 Rom. 5 Hist. 11 Hist. 15 B. L. 15

Hist. 6 Orat. 4 Biog. 9 Poetry 14

Poetry 5 Biog. 3 B. L. 6 Drama 12

Epic 4 Drama 4 Drama 2 Poetry 5 Biog. 7

Biog. 3 Learn. 1 Bucol. 4 Orat. 6

Geog. 1 Learn 1 Bucol. 1 B. L. 1 Learn. 3 Rom. 3 Bucol. 5

Drama 2 Rom. 4

Learn. 1

No Epic Poetry Drama Biog Bucol. B. L. Rom. No Geog. Bucol. No Orat. Geog. No Geog.

1800 1850 1900 1916

Phil. 48 Drama 115 Drama 244 Drama 92

Poetry 45 Hist. 59 Phil. 152 Phil. 84

Epic 37 Epic 52 Epic 141 Epic 34

Drama 22 Poetry 51 Hist. 90 Fable 21

Fable 16 Phil. 48 Biog. 60 Hist. 20

Bucol. 14 Bucol. 27 Poetry 39 Biog. 16

Orat. 12 B. L. 12 Orat. 13 B. L. 13 Fable 33 Poetry 13

Biog. 10 Rom. 8 Orat. 32 B. L. 9

Hist. 7 Biog. 7 Bucol. 22 Bucol. 7

Rom. 6 Fable 6 B. L. 19 Orat. 4 Rom. 4

Geog. 2 Geog. 2 Geog. 7 Rom. 7 Learn. 2

Learn. 1 Learn. 1

No Learn. No Geog.

(B. L. are Belles Lettres, Learn. is Learning and Science, Biog. is Biography, Orat. is Oratory, Bucol. is Bucolic Poetry, Phil. is Philosophy, Geog. is Geography, Poetry is Elegiac, Iambic, Lyric Poetry, Hist. is History, Romance is Prose Romances.)

To a large extent the table speaks for itself, for the interests and preferences of each generation are made self-evident; nevertheless it may be worth while to sum up a few of the outstanding facts. The Elizabethans translated anything which appealed to them and in many cases added to or at least embellished the translation as they saw fit. Some of their translations were made from the French, as Caxton's version of Aesop or North's version of Plutarch. One has but to compare Marlowe and Chapman's Hero and Leander with Musaeus to realize how little is Musaeus and how much is Marlowe and Chapman. The Elizabethan translators, moreover, were indiscriminate in their tastes, largely because their stock of Greek learning was small and consequently they had no perspective from which to judge the comparative merits of the works which they translated. “It was all Greek to them” and therefore proper to be translated. They enjoyed and believed Artemidorus' Dreams as much as they did any of the works of Aristotle. Finally I wish to point out the high place [pg xxvii] Romance holds in the fifty years before 1600. This adds to the credibility of the theory of the influence of the Greek Romance upon Elizabethan prose fiction. All things considered, the translations of the Elizabethans are thoroughly in accord with the temper of the times as exhibited in their literature.

It is interesting to note that in the one hundred and fifty years immediately following the Civil War Philosophy is the chief interest. The neo-classicists, theoretically at least, went back to the classics for their authority. Indeed Aristotle's Poetics was considered absolute in all its dicta. Fable and Epic with varying success contend for second place in their interest. The moralized fable was naturally popular with a generation which loved the didactic; and the epic, as they often acknowledged, was a model for their own poetry. The rise of Poetry, such as Pindar's Odes, Anacreon's Odes, and Tyrtaeus' Elegies, is to my mind an evidence of the change in opinion and attitude toward literature which was gradually increasing during the latter half of the eighteenth century and which finally came to the foreground in the first part of the next century. Pindar's Odes were placed directly in opposition to those of Cowley's and the lyrics of Sappho were certainly not in accord with the ideas of the neo-classicists. Whether these translations were wholly correct or not, is aside from the point. Men were becoming more interested in the lyrical side of Greek literature, and this interest exhibited a taste foreign to sententious didacticism; for none of that is to be found in the Elegiac, Iambic, or Lyric Poetry of the Greeks. Once again, then, the kind of translation which the generations enjoyed was coincident with the prevailing literary taste, and the rise of Poetry toward the close of these one hundred and fifty years is at least evidence of a change in public interest.

[pg xxviii]

Perhaps catholicity of taste is the best phrase which may be used to characterize the nineteenth century. Nothing shows this better than the table of translations. The Drama, Epic, History, Oratory, Philosophy, Biography, Poetry and the more minor divisions were all translated with an abundance which shows a steady demand on the part of the reading public. The Drama now assumed its place as one of the important elements of Greek literature and possibly because it was a new found treasure, for the texts of the dramatists were not edited until the middle of the eighteenth century, was a little overemphasized. However, as was pointed out in the latter part of the previous section, the aim of Bohn's Classical Library was the aim of the reading public, i.e., a complete survey of Greek literature in English. The nineteenth century, moreover, in addition to translating practically all Greek literature, insisted upon a certain amount of literalness in the translation. It was to be the endeavor of the translator to present his author to the public without any change or adaptation on his part in bridging the gap between the two languages. Just what the word literal meant and of how much consequence it was during the century can be readily ascertained by reading Matthew Arnold's lectures On Translating Homer and Newman's Reply.

Whether the twentieth century will carry on the width of interest of the nineteenth is hard to say. Until the war broke out the present century bid fair to equal its predecessor. With the coming of the war, however, translation from the Greek has been forced into the background and how long it will remain there, is, at this time, a matter of conjecture.

If this table has done no more, it has at least furnished an interesting thermometer of public taste through the centuries that are past. In all generations where the public [pg xxix] has had the opportunity of choosing what it would have from Greek literature, the choice has been along lines very similar in taste to the prevailing literary interest. What lies in the future is hard to say, for practically everything of importance has been translated. Probably we shall see repeated what we are witnessing to-day: the retranslation of Greek literature for each succeeding generation into terms of its own conception. Bohn's Classical Library is now in the process of being replaced by the Loeb Classical Library and I dare say sixty years hence some other “library” will replace this one. Greek literature is no longer a hidden pearl, and, although the interest in the language may vary with the generations, the people of England and America have evidently found in it a worth which they desire to keep. If they had not, the following list of translations would never have been possible.

[pg 001]