Still, in recommending greater freedom against the grammarians,
Denham was advocating a classical translation method that reemerged
in England decades before he published his version of Virgil (Amos
1920). Thomas Phaer, whose translations of the
many (no doubt) will say,
In a 1628 version of Virgil’s eclogues that imposed a courtly aesthetic on the Latin text, “W.L., Gent.” felt compelled to justify his departures with a similar apology:
{47} Some Readers I make no doubt they wil meet with in these dainty mouth’d times, that will taxe them, for not comming resolved word for word, and line for line with the Author […] I used the freedome of a Translator, not tying myselfe to the tyranny of a Grammatical construction, but breaking the shell into many peeces, was only carefull to preserve the Kernell safe and whole, from the violence of a wrong, or wrested Interpretation.
As early as 1616, Barten Holyday, who became chaplain to Charles I
and was created doctor of divinity at the king’s order, introduced his
translation of Persius by announcing that “I haue not herein bound my
selfe with a ferularie superstition to the letter: but with the ancient
libertie of a Translator, haue vsed a moderate paraphrase, where the
obscuritie did more require it” (Holyday 1635:A5r–A5v; DNB). Holyday
articulated the opposition to the grammarians that Denham would
later join, and with a similarly Latinate tag, calling close translation “a
ferularie superstition,” belief propagated with the rod (
In 1620, Sir Thomas Wroth, a member of the Somerset gentry who
affected the literary pursuits of a courtly amateur (he called his
epigrams
Giue not vp your casting verdict rashly, though you find mee sometimes wandring (which I purposely do) out of the visible bounds, but deliberately take notice that I stray not from the scope and intent of the Author, iustified by the best Commentaries: and so I leaue you to reade, to vnderstand, and to encrease.