Part 3 (1/2)
I made it not forto be praysed, Bot at the lewed men were aysed.[115]
Consequently he eschews the difficult verse forms then coming into fas.h.i.+on, ”ryme cowee,” ”straungere,” or ”enterlace.” He does not write for the ”disours,” ”seggers,” and ”harpours” of his own day, who tell the old stories badly.
Non tham says as thai tham wrought, & in ther sayng it semes noght.[116]
A confusion of p.r.o.nouns makes it difficult to understand what he considers the fault of contemporary renderings. Possibly it is that affectation of an obsolete style to which Caxton refers in the preface to the _Eneydos_. In any case, he himself rejects ”straunge Inglis” for ”simple speche.”
Unlike Robert of Brunne, Andrew of Wyntoun, writing at the beginning of the next century, delights in the ornamental style which has added a charm to ancient story.
Quharfore of sic antiquiteis Thei that set haly thare delite Gestis or storyis for to write, Flurist fairly thare purpose With quaynt and curiouse circ.u.mstance, For to raise hertis in plesance, And the heraris till excite Be wit or will to do thare delite.[117]
The ”antiquiteis” which he has in mind are obviously the tales of Troy.
Guido delle Colonne, Homer, and Virgil, he continues, all
Fairly formyt there tretyss, And curiously dyt.i.t there storyis.[118]
Some writers, however, did not adopt the elevated style which such subject matter deserves.
Sum usit bot in plane maner Of air done dedis thar mater To writ, as did Dares of Frigy, That wrait of Troy all the story, Bot in till plane and opin style, But curiouse wordis or subtile.[119]
Andrew does not attempt to discuss the application of his theory to English style, but he has perhaps suggested the reason why the question of style counted for so much in connection with this pseudo-historical material. In the introduction to Barbour's _Bruce_, though the point at issue is not translation, there is a similar idea. According to Barbour, a true story has a special claim to an attractive rendering.
Storyss to rede ar delitabill, Supposs that thai be nocht bot fabill; Than suld storyss that suthfast wer, And thai war said in gud maner, Have doubill plesance in heryng.
The fyrst plesance is the carpyng, And the tothir the suthfastness, That schawys the thing rycht as it wes.[120]
Lydgate, Wyntoun's contemporary, apparently shared his views. In translating Boccaccio's _Falls of Princes_ he dispenses with stylistic ornament.
Of freshe colours I toke no maner hede.
But my processe playnly for to lede: As me semed it was to me most mete To set apart Rethorykes swete.[121]
But when it came to the Troy story, his matter demanded a different treatment. He calls upon Mars
To do socour my stile to directe, And of my penne the tracys to correcte, Whyche bareyn is of aureate licour, But in thi grace I fynde som favour For to conveye it wyth thyn influence.[122]
He also asks aid of Calliope.
Now of thy grace be helpyng unto me, And of thy golde dewe lat the lycour wete My dulled breast, that with thyn hony swete Sugrest tongis of rethoricyens, And maistresse art to musicyens.[123]
Like Wyntoun, Lydgate pays tribute to his predecessors, the clerks who have kept in memory the great deeds of the past
... thorough diligent labour, And enlumyned with many corious flour Of rethorik, to make us comprehend The trouthe of al.[124]
Of Guido in particular he writes that he
... had in writyng pa.s.synge excellence.
For he enlumyneth by craft & cadence This n.o.ble story with many fresch colour Of rethorik, & many riche flour Of eloquence to make it sownde bet He in the story hath ymped in and set, That in good feyth I trowe he hath no pere.[125]
None of these men point out the relations.h.i.+p between the style of the original and the style to be employed in the English rendering. Caxton, the last writer to be considered in this connection, remarks in his preface to _The Recuyell of the Histories of Troy_ on the ”fair language of the French, which was in prose so well and compendiously set and written,” and in the prologue to the _Eneydos_ tells how he was attracted by the ”fair and honest terms and words in French,” and how, after writing a leaf or two, he noted that his English was characterized by ”fair and strange terms.” While it may be that both Caxton and Lydgate were trying to reproduce in English the peculiar quality of their originals, it is more probable that they beautified their own versions as best they could, without feeling it inc.u.mbent upon them to make their rhetorical devices correspond with those of their predecessors. Elsewhere Caxton expresses concern only for his own language, as it is to be judged by English readers without regard for the qualities of the French. In most cases he characterizes his renderings of romance as ”simple and rude”; in the preface to _Charles the Great_ he says that he uses ”no gay terms, nor subtle, nor new eloquence”; and in the preface to _Blanchardyn and Eglantine_ he declares that he does not know ”the art of rhetoric nor of such gay terms as now be said in these days and used,” and that his only desire is to be understood by his readers. The prologue to the _Eneydos_, however, tells a different story. According to this he has been blamed for expressing himself in ”over curious terms which could not be understood of the common people” and requested to use ”old and homely terms.” But Caxton objects to the latter as being also unintelligible.