Denham sought to distinguish his translation from burlesque versions
of the Aeneid that were fashionable on the Continent, Paul Scarron’s
Virile Travesti (1648–1649) and Giovanni Battista Lalli’s Eneide Travestita (1633) (Scarron 1988:10). He, like other translators associated with the
exiled Caroline court, was following another French fashion in
translation, although one linked closer to a monarchy whose absolutist
experiment proved effective: D’Ablancourt’s version of the Annals was
dedicated to the powerful royal minister Cardinal Richelieu. Denham’s
translation of Virgil in fact reflects the strong resemblance between
English and French translation methods during the period. But the
deep nationalism of this method works to conceal its origins in another
national culture—a contradiction that occurs in Denham’s case because
the method answers so specifically to an English problem: the need for
{51}
a “new” cultural practice that will enable the defeated royalist segment
of the Caroline aristocracy to regain its hegemonic status in English
culture. In his commendatory verses “To Sir Richard Fanshawe upon
his Translation of Pastor Fido” (1648), Denham calls free translation “a
new and nobler way” (Steiner 1975:63). Given the political significance
of this method, it is important for Denham to translate a text in a genre
that treats nobility, the epic, and refuse the French burlesques that
debased Virgil’s aristocratic theme by treating social inferiors in the
epic manner.
Denham’s intention to enlist translation in a royalist cultural politics
at home is visible both in his selection of the foreign text and in the
discursive strategies he adopted in his version. The choice to translate
Virgil’s Aeneid in early modern England could easily evoke Geoffrey of
Monmouth’s legend that Brute, the grandson of Aeneas, founded
Britain and became the first in a succession of British monarchs.
Although this like the Arthurian legends was losing credibility among
historians and antiquarians, the matter of Troy continued to be the
cultural support of a strong nationalism, and it was repeatedly revised
from different and often conflicting ideological standpoints in a wide
range of texts—from William Camden’s Britannia (1586) to Jonson’s
Speeches at Prince Henry’s Barriers (1609) to Thomas Heywood’s Life of Merlin (1641).[3] The early Stuart kings were often given a Trojan
genealogy. Anthony Munday’s contribution to the royal progress
through London, The Triumphs of Re-united Britannia (1605), referred to
James I as “our second Brute”; Heywood described his narrative as “a
Chronographicall History of all the Kings and memorable passages of
this kingdom, from Brute to the Reigne of our Royall Soveraigne King
Charles” (Parsons 1929:403, 407). In the political debates during the
Interregnum, a Trojan genealogy could be used to justify both
representative government and absolute monarchy. In 1655, the
parliamentarian polemicist William Prynne interpreted the
significance of the legend as “1. A Warre to shake off Slavery, and
recover publick Liberty. 2. A kinde of Generall Parliamentary Councell
summoned by Brute”; whereas in a legal commentary published in
1663 Edward Waterhouse argued that Brute “by his consent to reward
the valour and fidelity of his Companions” instituted laws “both
touching his Royal Prerogative, and their civil Security in life, member,
goods and Lawes” (Jones 1944:401, 403).
Denham’s own appropriation of the Brute legend in Coopers Hill
swells with patriotic fervor, but it also possesses the awareness that
the Trojan genealogy is a legend, increasingly under attack yet able
{52}
to function in cultural political struggles, and even, somewhat
contradictorily, true. In a passage that reflects on the vista of
London and environs, Denham writes that “The Gods great Mother,” Cybele,
… cannot boastAmongst that numerous, and Celestiall hoast,More Hero’s than can Windsor, nor doth FamesImmortall booke record more noble names.Not to look back so far, to whom this IleOwes the first Glory of so brave a pile,Whether to Caesar, Albanact, or Brute,The Brittish Arthur, or the Danish Knute,(Though this of old no lesse contest did move,Than when for Homers birth seven Cities strove)[…]But whosoere it was, Nature design’dFirst a brave place, and then as brave a minde.(Denham 1969:67)