Bartholomew Yong, in his Diana, translated from the romances of Montemayor, Pérez, and Gil Polo, introduced a number of new words and metres to the English language. The number is small, and their lives were short; but the fact that these introductions have, by and large, passed unrecorded signifies just how little is known about this period of English literary history. He is a significant translator in a significant age of translation. Much can be learnt about the Elizabethan mind by a study of the manner in which late 16th-century writers treated their sources, but it is necessary to extend this study beyond the egreatf figures of North, Florio, and Golding. In the impression of Elizabethan translation created by the editors of the eTudor Translationsf series and Francis Otto Matthiessen, it is the dramatic quality of the translations, and of Elizabethan prose in general, that is emphasised: the eye for specific detail, the substitution of concrete images for abstractions, and the use of transitive verbs. The translators are naturalising their sources, and thus are seen as shaping the language of Shakespeare. This exaltation of Elizabethan prose through its association with drama, this praise of language for its cadences and colloquial vigour, meant that the poetry of the age was regarded by these critics as distinctly inferior. Matthiesen is unable to appreciate Goldingfs Ovid or Haringtonfs Ariosto; he believes in the barriers of metre, that it takes a poet to translate a poet, and that one would read Chapman only if one knew no Greek, whereas the reader with Greek would still prefer Northfs version to Plutarchfs original. Whatever one thinks of the Elizabethan style of translation – and to laud it in glowing terms is as futile as to attempt to depreciate it, for it represents one aspect, one vigorous usage, of language – translators such as North, Florio and Golding are the greatest exponents of that style. However, those translators who adopt a slightly different approach, who refuse the temptation of amplificatio in order to translate line-by-line – Marlowe, Carew, and Yong – are equally interesting, if not more so.
we had to select two words to describe Elizabethan translation – according,
that is, to the common perception of Elizabethan translation – then they would
be evigourf and eliberty.f Those
who glorify this age stress the fact that the Elizabethans were men of action,
in word as in deed. They sailed the
billowing seas in search of New Worlds, and they rode surging waves of prose,
with the decuman being the King James Bible. The two Tudor Translations Series
(1892-1909) and (1924-7) date from the Age of Empire; the dedication to Cecil
Rhodes makes this obvious. It was
perfectly natural for the imperialistic age to return to the time when
Consideration of the image thus created makes it easier to understand why Diana was not included in the series of Tudor Translations. Those who had not read Yong believed, on the basis of Bullenfs vituperations, that his translation lacked sinew and independence. Although it is an impressive achievement, presenting the result of many hours of arduous mental labour – the book contains nearly 500 folio pages and over 160 poems – it is a discourse on love, with little action and a great deal of song, and it is not what one has come to expect from the swaggering Elizabethans. The contemplative portrayal of love was criticised by some male readers (and, as we shall see, by some modern critics); romances were associated with idleness in men – and in women.
Form and Content, and Multiple Entries
With regard to Yongfs poetical
renderings, he is one of the Elizabethan translators to attempt to preserve
both the form and the content of the original. This does not mean that they do not
believe in the separation of res from
verba, a separation that explains the
lack of practical criticism. The two are bound together by decorum,
an essentially artificial and imposed system – although it is difficult to say
whether man imposed this system on language, or language on man. For example, Herrerafs poetic style
differed according to whether he was writing sonnets or odes; in the former, he
was restrained and studied, and in the latter his style was more prolix,
befitting a genre which was valued more highly and which had a classical
precedent. This was in keeping not
only with decorum but also with the restraints placed, and the liberties
allowed, by the generic forms that had been imposed on language. The ability of the sonnet to nip
diffuseness in the bud is often mentioned.
Like lyrical poetry in general, it invites line-by-line translation, a
mode of operation that we would associate with modern translators of the epic
but not with 16th-century translators of this genre, with the
 Although translators often like to accuse academics of a blinkered, old-fashioned approach towards translation, and although there is often some truth in the accusation, it must be confessed that translators have often done themselves no favours in their prefaces. The ones who justify their approach by attempting to scrape away the merits of all other approaches, or who demonstrate a lack of historical understanding when passing judgement on their predecessors, are particularly culpable.
 Translation, an Elizabethan art (New York: Octagon Books, 1965 ), pp.4-5.
 Joseph Jacobs (ed.), Daphnis and Chloe. The Elizabethan version from Amyotfs translation. By Angel Day (London: David Nutt, 1890), p.xxix. This appeared as Volume 2 in the eTudor Libraryf series. We would draw a distinction between Jacobean and Elizabethan prose; such a distinction did not exist for critics like Jacobs.
 In B.P. Reardon ed., Collected Ancient Greek Novels (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989) 170-284 (172).
 This conclusion is based on my own comparison of the texts. I am not aware of any critical work
having been done on
 Hence the
Puritan Thomas Powell, in his Tom of all
Trades (1631), complained: gIn stead of Song and Musicke, let them learne
Cookery and Laundrie. And in stead
of reading Sir Philip Sidneyfs
Nay, saies a third, the great high-treason of all, is to make Noble Sir Phillip Sidney acquainted, either with Diana, or else Heliodorus, as if the excellency of his minde had disdained that which first brought it to perfection (Iudiciall reading) ô no, were he on the earth, he would repine at their curiosity, and tell them, that his contemplatiue labour first brought him to actiue worthinesse.
 Terry (1993), p. 38.
 Marlowe: Lucans first booke, published posthumously in 1600; Carew: Godfrey of Boulloigne (1594), the first 5 Cantos of Tassofs epic.
 D.N.C. Wood, one of the few modern defenders of Carewfs version (and one of the few critics to have read it, which is often the same thing) sought to relate Carewfs theory to his practice in eElizabethan English and Richard Carewf in Neophilologus 61 (1977), pp. 304-315.
 The eTo the Readerf is written by the publisher, Christopher Hunt. He remarks: gcI haue caused the Italian to be Printed together with the English, for the delight and benefit of those Gentlemen, that loue that most liuely language. And thereby the learned Reader shall see to how strict a course the translator hath tyed himselfe in the whole work, vsurping as little liberty as any whatsoeuer, that euer wrote with any commendationsh (sig. 2v).
 (Amsterdam/New York: Da Capo Press Facsimile, 1969). In the prefatory poem, eI craue not courteous ayd of friendsf (÷4r); and eCarew of ancient Carru wasf (pp.103v -104v). The translations from Latin: eThis was the Titans haunt, but withf (pp. 57r -58v); eThere is a place within the wind-f (p. 121v, splitting the word ewindingf); and eThe riuer Camel wonders, thatf (p. 122 r). Carew also employs the traditional sixains, whether his aim be elegiac or his subject angling: eI wayt not at the Lawyers gatesf (pp. 106v -107v); eSeeke not, blind eyes, the liuing with the deadf (p.142r ); and eHe that at sea and land amidst his foesf (p. 145 v-r).
 Another translator to produce such a work was William Burton, who wrote the Description of Leicestershire (preface dated 1622).