The First Translations of Machiavelli's: From the Sixteenth to the first Half of the Nineteenth Century

  • 58 210 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up

The First Translations of Machiavelli's: From the Sixteenth to the first Half of the Nineteenth Century

The First Translations of Machiavelli’s Prince 133 Internationale Forschungen zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Lite

3,386 939 2MB

Pages 330 Page size 384 x 605.76 pts Year 2010

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Recommend Papers

File loading please wait...
Citation preview

The First Translations of Machiavelli’s Prince

133

Internationale Forschungen zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft

In Verbindung mit Norbert Bachleitner (Universität Wien), Dietrich Briesemeister (Friedrich Schiller-Universität Jena), Francis Claudon (Université Paris XII), Joachim Knape (Universität Tübingen), Klaus Ley (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz), John A. McCarthy (Vanderbilt University), Alfred Noe (Universität Wien), Manfred Pfister (Freie Universität Berlin), Sven H. Rossel (Universität Wien)

herausgegeben von

Alberto Martino (Universität Wien)

Redaktion: Paul Ferstl und Rudolf Pölzer Anschrift der Redaktion: Institut für Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft, Berggasse 11/5, A-1090 Wien

The First Translations of Machiavelli’s Prince From the Sixteenth to the first Half of the Nineteenth Century

Edited by

Roberto De Pol

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2010

Cover design: Pier Post Le papier sur lequel le présent ouvrage est imprimé remplit les prescriptions de “ISO 9706:1994, Information et documentation - Papier pour documents Prescriptions pour la permanence”. The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. Die Reihe „Internationale Forschungen zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft“ wird ab dem Jahr 2005 gemeinsam von Editions Rodopi, Amsterdam – New York und dem Weidler Buchverlag, Berlin herausgegeben. Die Veröffentlichungen in deutscher Sprache erscheinen im Weidler Buchverlag, alle anderen bei Editions Rodopi. From 2005 onward, the series „Internationale Forschungen zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft“ will appear as a joint publication by Editions Rodopi, Amsterdam – New York and Weidler Buchverlag, Berlin. The German editions will be published by Weidler Buchverlag, all other publications by Editions Rodopi. ISBN: 978-90-420-2962-0 E-Book ISBN: 978-90-420-2963-7 © Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2010 Printed in The Netherlands

To Alberto Martino, who encouraged this research project

Table of Contents Jacob Soll Introduction: Translating The Prince by Many Hands

9

Roberto De Pol Translation and Circulation: Introduction to a research project

15

Nella Bianchi Bensimon La première traduction française

25

Caterina Mordeglia The first Latin translation

59

Alessandra Petrina A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

83

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen La primera traducción española

117

Francesca Terrenato The first Dutch translation

171

Serena Spazzarini The first German translation

207

Paolo Marelli The first translation in Scandinavia

247

Arap El Ma’ani The first Arabic translation

279

Appendix

305

Chronological Summary

307

Distribution of Manuscripts and Printings

309

Comparison of Selected Passages

311

The Introduction to the first Arabic translation

319

Index

321

Jacob Soll

Introduction: Translating The Prince by Many Hands The 1741 edition of the English translation of Frederick II’s 1740 AntiMachiavel, is entitled The Anti-Machiavel or, an Examination of Machiavel’s Prince with Notes Historical and Political. Published by Mr. De Voltaire. Translated from the French (London: T. Woodward, 1741). According to this title page, apparently by T. Woodward, this is an English translation of the text and a commentary on Machiavelli’s The Prince, originally published by Voltaire in French. However, the title page is somewhat confusing, for it is not clear what the primary text is: The Prince or the commentaries on it? While the publisher names Machiavelli as an author, the translator and editor (Amelot) and the author of the commentaries (Frederick II) are not. It is only in the “advertissement” that the publisher addresses the complex nature of this translation: It may not be improper to acquaint the Reader, that the following Translation of Machiavel’s PRINCE is newly made from the Original; and that the Quotations from Tacitus and other authors are translated into English, to make this book of more general Use. There are already two English Translations of the PRINCE; the one by Dacres, though not unfaithful, is literal and antiquated; the other, but an unknown Hand, is more intelligible and Spirited, but much less correct than the former; it has too much the Nature of a Paraphrase, and departs from that Simplicity of Style which Machiavel keeps up through the whole Book, and which we have endeavored to imitate. There is a Translation of this Piece in French by Mr. Amelot de La Houssaye, which has several Beauties; but they are rather his own than the Author’s; and we did not think ourselves allowed to abridge and curtail Machiavel so much as that Gentleman has done. As for the ANTI-MACHIAVEL, the Author, who is said to be a person of the highest Rank, has but little regard for his Stile: Nevertheless, we have followed it as much as we could; and have not presumed to take any Freedoms but such as we thought absolutely necessary.

I have included this entire text to illustrate the complexity of translating The Prince. In some cases, The Prince was translated from original Tuscan, in others from Latin, and in other cases from French. In this case, the English publisher is translating a new version of the original Italian text, discarding the French, translation of Amelot de La Houssaye of 1683. At the same time, he keeps Amelot’s notes and his maxims from Tacitus, as well as Frederick II and Voltaire’s Anti-Machiavel commentary, and has them translated from French. The original editor, Voltaire, used Amelot’s translation and notes as a vehicle for Frederick II’s anti-Machiavellian commentary. Thus the layers of

10

Jacob Soll

intellectual sediment are deep in the process of appropriating, translating and editing. While many early modern books, classical and contemporary, went through a relatively straightforward process of translation, The Prince (1513) did not. Translating Machiavelli’s text was often a complicated affair for a book considered both scandalous and potent. In the sixteenth century, an age of religious strife and continuing political instability, Machiavelli’s work would prove fundamental in the initial formulation of reason of state theory and a method, or techné of statecraft based on historical knowledge and prudence. It would be translated, represented and reinterpreted in numerous new contexts. Thus the history of The Prince is a history of constant cultural translation. Remarkably, until this edition conceived of and edited by Roberto De Pol, no book has ever attempted to examine this phenomenon in a European context. Here, therefore, we have a series of studies in national contexts, each one seeking to understand how and in what form The Prince entered into respective national markets. What we learn from De Pol’s collective, pan-European enterprise is that translating The Prince was a complex affair, often entailing several linguistic steps. Today, The Prince is a central text of the Western, and indeed world political tradition. Teachers regularly assign it; historians study it; and journalists and politicians regularly refer to it. In many ways, while there are regular re-editions of The Prince, the book has found relative peace. No longer banned and outlawed, it is accepted as a stable text with several basic meanings which students and general readers alike should be able to grasp on their own, or through the commentaries of modern editors. And yet, instability characterized the early modern process of translating and publishing The Prince, for Machiavelli’s founding work of secular political science was problematic. While the text is clearly the founding work of secular pragmatic political science, it has never been clear as to whether the book was a defense of princely reason of state, or a republican attack on it. For early modern interpreters, this problem of meaning was crucial, and thus created a perennial problem of interpretation that gives the book the quality of a religious text whose secrets remain to be unlocked by a perfect hermeneutics. For those who publish or translate the book, there is a basic act of decontextualization not present to the same extent in works intended for public circulation. Machiavelli wrote the The Prince in Tuscan Italian, giving the impression that he did not intend for the book to be read outside the circle of his friends. Even more, in a world of widespread humanist printing, Machiavelli never had his manuscript published. Thus, when The Prince was

Translating The Prince by Many Hands

11

first published posthumously in Rome, by A. Blado in 1532, it was already a text altered from its initial form and status, as were subsequent Italian editions.1 The anthropologist, Edward Evans-Pritchard and the historian Peter Burke have used the term “cultural translation” to explain the process by which every reproduction and reading of a work is a new reinterpretation of original authorial intention.2 Because Machiavelli evidently did not design his text for circulation, publishers, editors and now readers were appropriating the text further from its context than a book meant for public consumption. Few in Europe could read Tuscan as Latin was still the language of the Republic of Letters and international communication. While the sixteenth century saw the emergence of high culture in the vernacular (Castiglione’s Il Cortigiano also appeared in Tuscan in 1508), this meant that in each country, an Italian translator would have to be found.3 In some cases, a scholar would translate The Prince into Latin so that it could go back out again, into another vernacular. If the initial interest in Machiavelli came from his revolutionary reading of ethics and politics, The Prince did not become a popular book until the Reformations and the Wars of Religion, when instability, religious strife and war called for a new statecraft based on Machiavelli’s new theory of purely pragmatic political prudence. This meant that a demand grew for Machiavelli, but at the same time, the Church, violently splintered by Protestantism, also looked to repress works it deemed dangerous with the Index of Prohibited Books in 1557. By banning The Prince in 1559 and recognizing its subversive, secularizing potential, the Church in effect made the clandestine manuscript into a an internationally recognized book, and a desirable one. As a secret manuscript by a partially outlawed author, filled with radical assumptions about politics, from the beginning, Machiavelli’s work had a clandestine quality. As Alessandra Petrina compellingly shows, The Prince began as a manuscript and first circulated in Elizabethan England as a manuscript, where it was widely known. Travelers in Italy, such as the Frenchman Jacques de Vintimille, not only came into contact with versions of the Italian manuscript in the first half of the sixteenth century, as Nella 1

2

3

See William Connell's critical translation of The Prince (London: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005), which includes a number of early title pages and introductions from different editions. On the concept of cultural translation and the circle of Edward Evans-Pritchard see Peter Burke and R. Po-chia Hsia, eds., Cultural Translation in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 2007), p. 8. Peter Burke, The Fortunes of the Courtier (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 55-80.

12

Jacob Soll

Bianchi Bensimon illustrates, he also made the first French translation of The Prince in 1546, in manuscript form. The original form of The Prince influenced its subsequent translation. This was due to both form and content. María Begoña Arbulu Barturen makes the important point that even in seventeenth century Spain, an important number of manuscript versions of The Prince still circulated. As Sydney Anglo has noted, the early reception of The Prince began as one of early hostility, but as the work came to be admired by statesmen and church prelates alike, the work slowly became “covertly approved”.4 By the 1560s international translations of The Prince were widespread. The first reason for this was Sylvester Telius’s Latin translation of 1560 published by Pietro Perna in Basel, which enjoyed a large circulation and served as a basis for new vernacular translations, becaming one of the main vehicles of diffusion of Machiavelli’s political doctrines in northern Europe.5 Another effect of the slow transition of scholarly language from Latin into vernacular languages was the translation of vernacular texts back into Latin.6 Even more than Latin translation, a central element in the dissemination of The Prince is the predominance of French translators in providing base editions for translation. The two principal translations are those by Gaspard d’Auvergne (1571) and, as I showed in my book, Publishing The Prince, that by Abraham-Nicolas Amelot de La Houssaye of 1683, which is also the base translation for the Anti-Machiavel.7 Indeed, as Francesca Terrenato shows, both Dutch translations at the beginning and the end of the seventeenth century were made from these respective editions, with Amelot de La Houssaye making the most important translation that would serve as a basis for English, Dutch, German and Scandinavian secondary translations. This collection of studies reveals for the first time the extent to which Amelot’s Prince became that of Europe. The influence of the French translations might also have to do with the sheer number of editions of French translations. At least thirty-five editions of three French translations of The Prince appeared between 1553 and 1664. The doctor, Guillaume Cappel, is credited with the first published French

4 5 6

7

Sydney Anglo, Machiavelli: The First Century (London, 2005), pp. 143-145. See Petrina, pp. 83-115 in this book. Charles B. Schmitt, ‘John Case and Machiavelli’, in Essays Presented to Myron P. Gilmore, ed. by Sergio Bertelli and Gloria Ramakus (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1978), pp. 231-240; Peter Burke, “Translations into Latin in Early Modern Europe”, in Burke and Po-chia Hsia, pp. 65-80 (p. 78). Jacob Soll, Publishing The Prince: History, Reading, and the Birth of Political Criticism (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2005; 2nd edition, 2008).

Translating The Prince by Many Hands

13

translation of The Prince (Paris: Charles Estienne, 1553), a classic work of humanism, unselfconsciously advertised in the preface as book that any gentleman in search of virtue and balanced living would want. This rare edition was followed by popular translations by Gaspard d’Auvergne (Poitiers: E. de Marnef, 1553), and Jacques Gohory (Paris: R. Le Mangnier, 1571).8 Gaspard d’Auvergne’s translation became the standard edition, published with Machiavelli’s Discourses: Discours de l’estat de paix et de guerre de messire Nicolas Macchiavelli… sur la première décade de TiteLive, traduict d’italien en Françoys, plus un livre du mesme auteur intitulé: le Prince (Paris: H. de Marnef et G. Cavellat, 1571). With several variations, this compilation was published at least thirty times until 1637. By the mid-century, however, only one edition of The Prince was printed in 1664, when the sieur de Briencour published the first new French translation of The Prince since 1640, which was never re-edited. It was Amelot de La Houssaye who revived the French Prince with his translation of 1683 (Amsterdam: Chez Henry Wetstein), which was re-edited five times before 1695, and then used, as we have seen, as the basis for the AntiMachiavel, in which it was re-edited another twenty two times between 1740 and 1960, making it, along with Amelot’s translation of Gracián’s Oraculo, L’Homme de cour, one of the most successful translations of all time.9 Van Nyevelt was part of a shadowy world of publicists and translators, who fed public political quarrels through their translations, which often served as vehicles for their prefaces, which they used for their own political messages. Arap El Ma’ani shows how, for complex reasons, the first Arabic translation of The Prince (circa 1824-28) happened in Turkish administered Egypt, under the title, Al-Amir fi Eilm al-Tarickh wa al-Siyasah wa al-Tadbir (The Prince: The science of History, Politics and Governance). The translator, the Coptic erudite and friend of Napoleon, Antwan Zakhur Raffael Rahib, worked from the original Italian text. The Egyptian Viceroy, Mohammad Ali, commissioned the text in his quest for a manual for imperial administration. A second major element revealed by De Pol’s collection is the importance of the world of the translator. In her erudite study, Francesca Terrenato poses the question of the motives of translators in the Dutch context, and brings to the fore this still partially unknown world of secondary authorship. Translating a book as powerful as The Prince was a major statement and act.

8

9

Cappel’s version does not appear to have been reedited. I have not established whether Cappel’s version definitively pre-dated that by d’Auvergne. See my bibliography of Amelot’s translations of The Prince, pp. 172-173.

14

Jacob Soll

The first Dutch translation of 1615 by Adam van Zuylen van Nyevelt, was made from the French translation of Gaspard d’Auvergne during the bloody conflict between Prince Maurice of Nassau and Van Oldenbarnevelt for the control of the republic. Van Nyevelt was part of a shadowy world of publicists and translators, who fed public political quarrels through their translations, which often served as vehicles for their prefaces, which they used for their own political messages. Across Europe, the translator emerges as a partially obscured element of the Republic of Letters. Paolo Marelli shows how both Latin and Amelot’s French versions of The Prince were the basis for Scandinavian versions, in particular, the version from the AntiMachiavel. Through careful collation, Serena Spazzarini shows that Christian Albrecht von Lenz made his 1692 German translation of The Prince from Amelot de La Houssaye, but reformulated it as a text to be dedicated to a woman, in this case, Princesse Hedwige von Württemberg-Mömpelgart, associating reason of state with female power. In each case, the motives around the translation of The Prince show a social and political world of scholarship on the margins of the Republic of Letters often ignored by intellectual historians. Finally, this study opens the door to what ought to be a basic part of intellectual and reception history. As Peter Burke has shown, to study the history of ideas, scholars must not only study discourse, the forms of texts, but also the social and intellectual process of publication, which in many fundamental cases of central books such as The Prince or The Courtier, involved translation and all the mediation that implies. De Pol’s collection is the beginning of what I hope will be a wider movement to bring out the deeper historical context of the “divulgazione” as he calls it, of Italian, of canonical books whose meaning and stability we sometimes take too much for granted.

Roberto De Pol

Translation and Circulation: Introduction to a research project1 When we study the spread of an author’s “thought”, we occasionally run the risk of forgetting that all thought, especially if it is systematic, needs to be expressed in words and that these “words”, despite the fact that they are usually chosen with care (in particular when the thought is being written down) are not without semantic multivalence or indeed ambiguity; such phenomena are all the more serious when the spread of the written text on the one hand and the death of the author on the other prevent author and reader from entering into a “dialogue” that would allow monitoring, verification and explanation. Of course, an author’s thought can circulate even when it is not written down; there can be summaries, paraphrases and criticisms which transmit or at times distort its semantic core as part of a comment on it or refutation of it. But the indispensable pre-requisite for a work’s reception and the basis for a truly critical and thus profitable debate between author and reader remains the existence of a written text. The situation is, however, further complicated when the written text that conveys the author’s “thought” — which is sometimes indeed a literary text (and thus by definition polysemic and redundant) — is passed from one national culture or, if you like, from one language, to another. I am deliberately using the term “words” because I am keen to emphasise the fact that what I am referring to here is language not so much as a communicative code in the overall sense but specifically as certain key words or lexemes that embody the author’s thought. And yet, often these very “words” resist exhaustive and univocal translation. In the case of thought that is profoundly innovative — indeed revolutionary — and not “linear”, such as that of Machiavelli, words like “virtù”, “armi”, “stato” can either prove to be virtually untranslatable or can easily be distorted in the transposition from one language to another; unless, that is, as Jacques Fournel has demonstrated in relation to the word “stato” in the French translations, the translator pays particular attention to the context in which the word appears. But the linguistic context is not always sufficient: certainly in some cases (and perhaps even in all cases), translation is not merely a question of

1

Translated by Ian Harvey.

16

Roberto De Pol

“comprehension”, of decodification and recodification. There must first be a process of interpretation or even exegesis of the source text; and this process reflects the cultural and ideological climate in which the translator finds himself working. To take an example from The Prince: referring to Agathocles from Sicily in Chapter VIII, Machiavelli concludes that Non si può chiamare ancora virtù, ammazzare li suoi cittadini, tradire li amici, essere senza fede, senza pietà, senza religione; liquali modi possono fare acquistare Imperio, ma non gloria. (Testina, p. 19) (One cannot call it virtue to kill one’s citizens, betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without mercy and without religion. By such means one can acquire power but not glory)

Let us look at the three terms “without faith, without mercy and without religion”: the Latin translators appear to have no problems in rendering them literally (“nulla fide, nulla pietate, nulla religione”: Tegli 1560 and Conring 1660) since they understand the Italian words as still corresponding univocally to the Latin words. However, Amelot in 1683 already translates them differently (“sans foi, sans Religion, sans humanité”). The fact is that each of these three terms deserves careful scrutiny, but for the sake of brevity we shall focus on the word “faith”, in the sense of “keeping faith with” an agreement or one’s word.2 The Italian word fede and the French foi can however express a spiritual meaning (belief in God) as well as a more social, interpersonal meaning (loyalty, reliability).3 Tegli, Conring and Amelot have no need to interpret Machiavelli; they translate fides in the Latin sense of “faithfulness”. The French translators can leave it up to the reader to decide what meaning to assign to the word foi: whether human, spiritual or both. The problem arises when translating the word fede into a Germanic language, where the two meanings (human and religious) are expressed by two distinct words: here the translator has to decide on the meaning, or rather he must interpret Machiavelli’s thought. The first Dutch translator (van Nyeveld 2

3

This is, for example, clear in chapter XVIII: “Therefore a wise lord cannot, nor ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him, and when the reasons that caused him to pledge it exist no longer.” The Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca (1st edition, 1612) lists the following meanings for the word fede: theological truth (fides), religion (fides), oath, fidelity, faithfulness (fides), belief (fides). Although “having faith in God” is nowadays rendered in French as “croire en Dieu”, “avoir confiance en Dieu”, the first edition of the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française (1694, p. 485) gives these two basic meanings: here too the first meaning presented is theological virtue which “se prende aussi pour l’Objet de la Foy, pour les dogmes […] pour la Religion mesme”. The second meaning is “assurance de garder sa parole”.

Translation and Circulation

17

1615) translates it as gheloff, which means belief in the religious sense; this was also the choice made by the first German translator (Lenz 1692: Glauben), although there is no reason to suppose the least influence; the second Dutch translator (Ghys 1705), although starting from a French text (and thus from the word foi, which is as ambiguous as the Italian word) opted for trouwe, which is “only” interpersonal loyalty.4 Likewise the anonymous German translator in 1714 (“ohne Treue”). We need to ask ourselves why these choices were made: for example, if “religione” (French religion, Dutch Gotsdienst, German Religion) is understood as the set of dogmas, precepts and rituals that constitute a given religious creed, in this passage saying that the prince is “without religion” amounts only to saying that he does not practise his religion — which is still acceptable, both in the age of controversies and wars of confession, and, even more so, in the early Age of Enlightenment. However, the statement that Agathocles himself had no religious faith and was an atheist has a very different impact and might indeed refer to any sovereign. So, although this passage in Machiavelli does not exactly lay down a precept (it only evaluates the conduct of the historical figure of Agathocles), and although he probably does mean “fede” here in the religious sense, when translating the expression “senza fede”, some translators are faced with a dilemma and, since Machiavelli is open to accusations of atheism, their choice of which meaning to give this word is no longer purely philological; it becomes ideologically determined. Presumably the person who translates “fede” correctly in its sense of human loyalty is not so much offering a correct translation but rather engaging in a kind of self-defence or, if you like, self-censorship designed to refute any accusation of atheism aimed at Machiavelli, and by extension also at the translator and the publisher. Obviously, translations change as the cultural context changes. Ever since 1741, the more modern German versions and also those available today translate “senza fede” more accurately as “ohne Treue und Glauben”, giving the Machiavellian expression a global meaning which was perhaps extraneous to it: a prince like Agathocles did not keep faith with agreements and did not even believe in God, but this translation is only possible when such a statement no longer gives cause for scandal and above all no longer challenges the censors. In the German context this is guaranteed by the fact that the 1741 translation of The Prince (chronologically speaking the third,

4

Nowadays geloof has the meaning of “belief, faith, trust”, while treuw (faithful, loyal) appears only as an adjective or in the abstract form getrouwheid.

18

Roberto De Pol

and in fact the most successful), appeared inside the Anti-Machiavel by Frederick the Great of Prussia, the philosopher-king. The same reluctance to translate the word “fede” in the religious sense, and this time in a passage which is clearly preceptive in character (in Chapter XVIII), still marks Tegli, Testina, Conring, the two Spanish translations, the 1705 Dutch translation and the first two German translations (1692 and 1714).5 The translation thus plays a double role in the process of text reception: firstly as a culturally determined interpretation, and secondly as a recodification in another linguistic code. If we move on now to take an inventory of the translations of The Prince in other European or peri-European6 languages, we may note that there are two chronologically distinct groups: I would like to term these “early” and “late”. In the “earlier” period, from the second half of the sixteenth to the first half of the nineteenth century, we have translations into French (1546, 1553, 1571, 1683 and subsequent editions up to 1694), Spanish (c. 1590-1680), English (1590, 1640, 1675 and 1762) German (1692, 1714, 1741), Dutch (1615 and 1705), Swedish (1757) and Arabic (1824). Zedler’s Grosses Vollständiges Universal-Lexicon, the most important encyclopaedic dictionary in German language in the seventeenth century quotes under the word “Machiavellus” some of the principal translations of The Prince in European languages and attests a Turkish translation that should have been ordered by Sultan Murad IV7 (who ruled from 1623 to 1640). As a matter of fact, one can find in the Top Kapi Archives a letter to the Sultan, illustrating methods and forms of government. The author of this letter, Koçi Bey, was probably an Albanian converted to Islam, and his letter seems to be a reconstruction — but it is definitely not a translation — of Machiavelli’s treatise.8 In the “later” period, between the second half of the nineteenth and the second half of the twentieth century, we find translations into Polish (1868), Russian (1869), Portuguese (1911), Turkish (1911), the second published Arabic translation (1912) and the Romanian (1920) translation.

5 6

7 8

See Comparison of Selected Passages in Appendix. I am referring to languages belonging to cultures that historically do not form part of Europe (such as the Turkish and Arabic cultures) but which have still played a role in its history. Vol. XIX, 1739, column 78. I am indepted to Mrs. Rosa Galli Pellegrini (University of Genua) for the information about this Turkish manuscript.

Translation and Circulation

19

I should make it clear that when I use the word “translation” I am referring to the phenomenon of a text, originally written in a language that is little known or not very widespread, or in an obscure style, being made accessible by means of recodification in another language or reformulation in a clearer style. When I talk about a text “circulating”, I mean rather that it is distributed in many copies, which in modern times is essentially a question of printing. Applying this distinction to the translations of The Prince, it is evident that only those translations that were actually printed and thus potentially accessible to the literate were “circulating”. So it often turns out that not the first, but only the second or even the third “translations” can be said to have been “circulated”. We need to ask ourselves why it happened that in some countries translations of The Prince were written and printed, in others written, but never printed, while in yet others it was sufficient to have first the Latin version and later the French, so that those who read Machiavelli first-hand remained, in some cases right up to the middle of the twentieth century, the intellectual and social elites who spoke these languages. Evidently, it would be too simplistic to address this question of the translation and spread of Machiavelli’s thought merely in terms of traditional censorship. Probably in some countries there were insufficient readers capable of reading only in the vernacular, so that vernacular versions did not even need to be banned; they were simply superfluous and their publication economically unviable. An in-depth, comparative approach to this problem requires the energy and competence of more than a single researcher. In order to address the problem concretely and gradually, I have therefore organised a study group which concentrates on the first translations, even when these were not published, thus privileging “translation” over “circulation”. From a chronological, cultural and probably also from a translation studies point of view, the gap between the “early” and “late” group was too wide to allow all the first translations of The Prince to be studied together. Accordingly I have decided to deal first only with the “early” translations, taking the end of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods as the dividing line. This may be an arbitrary terminus ante quem but I still think it is considered justifiable given the political and cultural consequences of events such as the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. Even the first Arabic translation, made in 1824 by order of Mohammad Ali but never published, can be seen as a delayed result of the French expedition to Egypt and thus notionally belongs to this “early” group.

20

Roberto De Pol

Considering the European translations of The Prince: one of the more immediately obvious phenomena is the persistence of Latin translations. They were written and printed outside Italy and continued to be available for almost two centuries. The first version was by Silvestro Tegli (1560) and was reprinted eleven times. This was followed by Caspar Langenhert’s version (1699), while Conring’s translation (1660) was reprinted in 1686 and 1730. Aimed both at the foreign and the Italian markets, these Latin translations were clearly not designed to popularise Machiavelli; if anything they confirmed on the one hand the intention to bring the treatise back into the sphere of academic knowledge and official culture, and on the other the goal of “circulating” it on an elevated and international level. This is because for a number of reasons the international circulation of thought was for a long time based on the Latin language. The result was that either Latin was chosen as the communicative code from the very first draft or else a text that had originally been written in another language (in the “vernacular”) was soon translated into Latin so that it could enjoy international circultation, as indeed happened in the case of The Prince — as well as with other works. Leibniz’ Monadology, written and printed originally in French (1714), was translated and printed into German in 1720, but was also retranslated into Latin a year later for inclusion in the Acta eruditorum. This Latin translation was published as a book again in 1728. Latin began to lose its long-standing predominance only gradually and due to a combination of factors which it would take too long to expound theoretically. In 1774, the German poet Klopstock proposed polemically (in his Deutsche Gelehrtenrepublik) that those who insisted on publishing a book in Latin rather than in the vernacular should be banned from German territory. I would like to put forward the following thesis: if we assume that the movement away from the ascendancy of Latin towards the widespread use of the vernacular occurred at different times in the various European cultures, but also at different speeds and in different ways inside each individual culture, with the result that some texts continued to be read only in Latin while other types of text (such as novels) were already circulating in the vernacular, this phenomenon must be understood everywhere as a symptom of an important cultural transition because it is linked to the growing literacy of the new social classes. In the Middle Ages being able to both read and write also meant (and for a long time only meant) being able to read and write in Latin. In the modern era, on the other hand, we find (to a varying extent and at varying times across the various European cultures) social classes that only know how to read in the vernacular.

Translation and Circulation

21

Thus, going back over the history of the translations of The Prince in the European languages also means — independently of the substantive question of the reception of Machiavelli — becoming aware of the problems that accompany and condition the process whereby knowledge spreads from the elites to the rest of society. If we think of a hypothetical spectrum within the group of “early” translations in Europe, France and Spain represent the two extremes: the first French translation (Jacques de Vintimille, 1546) is in effect the first vernacular version in Europe. It remained in manuscript form, but only a few years later we find large numbers of French translations in book form and thus accessible to all readers: the versions by Gaspard d’Auvergne and Guillaume Cappel in 1553, and the reworking by Jacques Gohory in 1571 constitute attempts to spread Machiavelli’s work which culminated in the seventeenth century with the European-wide success of Amelot (1683, and subsequent editions up to 1694). The first translation in Spain can be dated to between the end of the sexteenth and the early seventeenth century, but it too was still in manuscript form. There was a second vernacular version around 1680, but we have to wait until as late as 1821 to have a printed translation in Spanish.9 In other words, in terms of “popularisation”, the entire Iberian peninsular shifts the first to the second, i.e. late, period. In the early group we find various other countries that occupy intermediary positions between France and Spain: The Netherlands, where both the vernacular versions, separated by little more than a century (1615 and 1705), were “circulated” by means of printing; Great Britain, where at the end of the sixteenth century we have as many as four attempts at translations of The Prince, which remained in manuscript form; however, the first printed translation was published as early as 1640 (Edward Dacres), while there were further (new) translations in 1675 (Henry Nevile) and in 1762 (Ellis Farneworth); Germany, where only in 1692 do we encounter the first vernacular version, which was perhaps deliberately kept in manuscript form; later, in 1714, there is a printed translation, albeit anonymous and with misleading editorial notes; a second printed translation, the one that was to be most widely distributed, was to appear in several editions from 1741 onwards, but inside Frederick the Great’s Anti-Machiavel, and thus we can say that

9

See M. Begoña Arbulu Barturen, ‘La primera traducción española publicada de «Il Principe» de Maquiavelo’, La receptión de Maquiavelo y Beccaria en ámbito iberoamericano. Edición de M. Begoña Arbulu Barturen, S. Bagno (Padova: Unipress 2006), pp. 45-90.

22

Roberto De Pol

Machiavelli’s treatise was translated and popularised in Germany only together with its antidote. Sweden, where the first vernacular version was also a popularisation, but came relatively late (1757) in comparison to other European countries. I would at this point like to thank Alberto Martino, who has encouraged me to embark on this research project and has also held out the prospect of possible publication in the book series for which he is responsible. The first results of this research were presented, in shortened and in some cases draft form, at a conference held in Genoa on 30 September 2008, organised by Enzo Baldini, Serena Spazzarini and myself. Individual scholars who have studied the various European translations were given the opportunity to present the results of their studies and to compare them critically not only with those of other speakers but also with papers by scholars from other disciplines — in particular from political science. Each contribution included in this book reflects not only the actual papers given at the conference but also the subsequent debates, and can thus be called the outcome of an interdisciplinary and dialogic approach. During the second stage I hope to be able to deal with the “later” group, that is, the first translations of The Prince completed and published from the second half of the nineteenth century up to the present day. The hope is, finally, that a third stage will follow which will concentrate on the first printed translations or at least those that enjoyed the widest distribution.

Bibliography Primary Sources Amelot 1683 = LE PRINCE DE NICOLAS MACHIAVEL, SECRETAIRE & CITOIEN DE FLORENCE. Traduit & Commenté par A. N. AMELOT, Sieur de la Houssaie. A AMSTERDAM, Chez HENRI WETSTEIN. 1683. Anti-Machiavel 1741 = ANTI-MACHIAVEL Oder Prüfung der Regeln Nic. Machiavells Von der Regierungskunst eines Fürsten Mit historischen und politischen Anmerckungen Aus dem Französischen übersetzet. Göttingen, verlegts die Königliche Universitets-Buchhandlung 1741 Conring 1660 = NICOLAI MACHIAVELLI PRINCEPS Aliaqve Nonnvlla ex Italico Latine nunc demum partim versa, partim infinitis locis sensus melioris castigata, CVRANTE HERMANNO CONRINGIO.

Translation and Circulation

23

HELMESTADII Tipis atque impensis HENINGI MULLERI Academiæ Iuliæ Typographi MDCLX. Ghys 1705 = De PRINS VAN N: MACHIAVEL, Met de Aenteekeningen VAN DEN HEER AMELOT DE LA HOUSSAIE, NEVENS Eenige andere Werken van den zelven Autheur, Alles in ‘t Nederduyts gebragt DOOR DANIEL GHYS. IN ‘S GRAVENHAGE; By ENGELBREGT BOUCQUET Boekverkoper in de Halstraat, in de Waerheyt, 1705. Lenz 1692 = Der Fürst des Nicola Machiavell burgers u. Secretarii zu Florenz in welscher Sprach beschribn, und ins deütsch übersetzt, von Christian Alb. von Lenz Herz. Wirt. Oelsn. CamerJunker 1692 Nieveld 1615 = Nicolai Machiavelle PRINCE. Ofte onderrichtinge hoe hem een Vorst in zijn regeringe draghen ende aenstellen sal. Overgheset door A.N. Ghedruckt Anno 1615. Testina = TUTTE LE OPERE DI NICOLO MACHIAVELLI CITTADINO ET SECRETARIO FIORENTINO, DIVISE IN V: PARTI, ET DI NUOVO CON SOMMA ACCVRATEZZA RISTAMPATE AL SANTISSIMO ET BEATISSIMO PADRE SIGNORE NOSTRO CLEMENTE VII. PONT. MASS. M.D.L. Tegli 1560 = NICOLAI MACHIAVELLI REIP. FLORENTINÆ A Secretis, ad Laurentium Medicem de Principe Libellus […] nunc primum ex Italico in Latinum sermonem uersus per Syluestrum Telium Fulginatem. BASILEÆ APUD PETRUM PERNAM M. D. LX. Zedler = Großes Vollständiges UNIVERSAL LEXICON Aller Wissenschaften und Künste, welche bishero durch menschlichen Verstand und Witz erfunden und verbessert worden, XIX (Halle und Leipzig: Johann Heinrich Zedler, 1739)

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

La première traduction française Abstract: In 1546, Jacques de Vintimille gave to Lord Anne de Montmorency, Great Constable of France since 1538, his first translation in French of Niccolò Machiavelli's Prince. This translation has probably never circulated since the only copy consisted in a unique manuscript kept at the Condé Museum in Chantilly. This work, particularly interesting because of the absence of notes or moralizing intents of any kind from the translator and in which close attention is given to the problem of language, is an evidence of the early interest in Machiavelli's Prince in France, where three other translations were published in the sole second half of the sixteenth century.

Au retour de son voyage initiatique en Italie — sans doute au cours des premières années de la décennie 1530 — le jeune Jacques de Vintimille (ou Vintemille) rapportait peut-être dans ses bagages un exemplaire du Prince qu’il allait, le premier, traduire en français. Ce jeune homme «partie eschollier et partie soldat», dont le cœur était «addonné aux lettres et aux armes», allait fréquenter l’Université de Pavie, visiter la côte génoise à la recherche des lieux qui avaient appartenu à sa famille paternelle, mais aussi connaître les «villes ou on faisoit la guerre».1 L’allusion est trop vague pour savoir à quels événements Vintimille fait ici allusion.2 A cette époque, en effet, l’Italie était le champ de bataille où les puissances impériale et française s’affrontaient et son sort était en train de se dessiner. Le 22 février 1530, Charles Quint avait reçu à Bologne la couronne de fer des anciens rois lombards ainsi que la couronne impériale. Le 8 août de cette même année, Florence capitulait, les Médicis rentraient dans la ville, et s’éteignait ainsi le dernier foyer de résistance à l’empereur. Les changements radicaux que la guerre entraînait dans la péninsule commençaient à modifier les paramètres politiques et sociaux qui avaient marqué la période précédente. Le spectacle qui s’offrait alors à un jeune étranger devait rendre les écrits de Machiavel d’une brûlante actualité. Il n’est donc pas surprenant de le voir s’aventurer, quelques dix ans plus tard, dans les traductions du Prince et de l’Art de la guerre pour les offrir au connétable Anne de Montmorency.

1

2

Jacques de Vintimille, Discours de l’estoc et généalogie des comtes de Vintimille, Paléologues et Lascaris (Lyon: Imprimerie d’Aimé Vingtrinier, 1873), p. 41. On pourrait cependant imaginer ici une allusion aux événements de 1536, lorsque François Ier, afin d’obtenir pour son fils l’investiture du duché de Milan, avait pris possession de la Bresse, de la Savoie et du Piémont.

26

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

Parmi les traducteurs français de Machiavel au XVIe siècle, Jacques de Vintimille est, avec Jacques Gohory, celui sur lequel nous avons le plus de renseignements. Ludovic de Vauzelles, descendant de ce Georges de Vauzelles qui accueillit notre traducteur alors qu’il n’était encore qu’un enfant, décida au XIXe siècle de rassembler les divers documents connus sur ce personnage apparenté à sa famille. Il publia alors deux opuscules: l’un rédigé par ses soins d’après quelques documents inédits, l’autre suivant un récit autobiographique laissé par Vintimille lui-même et dédié à son ami Maclou Popon, conseiller au Parlement de Bourgogne. Ludovic de Vauzelles situe la date de composition de cet écrit vers 1576. L’original a disparu et de Vauzelles affirme avoir établi le texte d’après deux copies manuscrites: l’une est conservée à la Bibliothèque Nationale, (Départ. des Mss., Fonds latins, n° 12905); l’autre, (perdue?), aurait appartenu à M. de Laplanche, propriétaire du château de ce nom dans la Nièvre.3 Les origines des Vintimille remonteraient au Xe siècle car cette famille descendrait d’une des branches des anciens marquis d’Ivrée. Le père de Vintimille, Alexandre, victime des conflits qui opposaient les Adorno et les Fregoso, fut contraint d’abandonner sa maison et les domaines qu’il possédait le long de la côte ligure entre Nice et Gênes. Il se réfugia alors sur l’île de Rhodes, où résidaient quatre de ses frères, chevaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, et où il épousa la princesse Senasti, de la lignée des Paléologues.4 De leur mariage naquirent deux fils et une fille: Marc, Jacques et Perretine.

3

4

Ludovic de Vauzelles publia d’abord la Vie de Jacques de Vintimille Conseiller au Parlement de Bourgogne, littérateur et savant du XVIe siècle d’après des documents inédits (Orléans, H. Herluison: Libraire-Editeur, 1865). Ensuite il fit éditer le Discours de l’estoc et généalogie des comtes de Vintimille, Paléologues et Lascaris. Selon Ludovic de Vauzelles, au XVIe siècle Philibert de la Mare, conseiller au Parlement de Dijon, aurait aussi écrit une vie de Vintimille jamais imprimée et aujourd’hui perdue. Pour reconstituer la biographie de notre traducteur nous avons utilisé les deux éditions dues à Ludovic de Vauzelles auxquelles nous renvoyons. Nous signalons cependant les limites de ces ouvrages dont le caractère apologétique escamote peut-être les aspects moins flatteurs de la vie de Vintimille comme, par exemple, son expérience de lettré courtisan. Quelques renseignements sur ce traducteur se trouvent également dans la Nouvelle biographie générale, sous la direction de Hoefer (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1866), tome 46. Voir aussi, ad vocem, Biographie universelle, ancienne et moderne, rédigée par une Société de gens de lettres et de savants (Paris: L.G. Michaud, 1827), tome 49. Il faut tout de même indiquer pour cette dernière référence bon nombre d’erreurs surtout au sujet de l’attribution du récit biographique de Jacques de Vintimille. Après la chute de l’empire grec, en 1453, et l’avènement des Ottomans au trône de Constantinople, Mahomet II, pour assurer sa conquête, voulut anéantir tous les descendants de la famille Paléologue-Dracosès, derniers empereurs d’Orient. Constantin et Jean Lascaris, célèbres savants, furent les seuls hommes à échapper au massacre. Les femmes se réfugièrent

La première traduction française

27

Lorsqu’en 1522 Soliman II attaque Rhodes, Alexandre de Vintimille est grièvement blessé. En mourant, il recommande sa femme et ses enfants à son ami Georges de Vauzelles.5 Né dans l’île de Lango vers 1512, Jacques avait alors moins de dix ans. Après avoir erré à la suite des chevaliers de Malte, il est recueilli par Georges de Vauzelles. Celui-ci le conduisit avec lui à Lyon où le jeune garçon reçut une éducation conforme à sa naissance et put mener une existence honorable.6

5

6

dans les îles et provinces voisines, et s’y établirent sous la protection des chrétiens. L’épouse d’Alexandre était une de ces dernières. Ludovic de Vauzelles affirme avoir recueilli ce témoignage dans un poème manuscrit de Jacques de Vintimille: De bello Rhodio, conservé à l’époque dans la Bibliothèque impériale, feuillet 57. Ce poème, jamais imprimé, a pour sujet la guerre de Rhodes, il est divisé en trois livres et contient plus de deux mille vers. Vintimille l’a commencé vers l’âge de quatorze ans, en 1526 environ; il l’aurait terminé en 1527 le dédiant au frère de son bienfaiteur, Jean de Vauzelles, prieur de Montrottier. Il y raconte les exploits d’Alexandre de Vintimille et de Georges de Vauzelles, la trahison du chancelier Amaral, la mort glorieuse de son père Alexandre, le désespoir de Madame de Vintimille et de ses enfants, l’entrée des janissaires dans la maison paternelle, l’embarquement des Chevaliers. Dans un autre manuscrit de Vintimille, Ludovic de Vauzelles aurait trouvé le récit du départ de Rhodes de la mère et des frères et sœurs de Jacques, qui prirent place dans le vaisseau de l’Isle-Adam. Lorsqu’il écrivit le De bello Rhodio Vintimille y ajouta quelques vers adressés à sa mère «Te quacumque ferat, vitae discrimine salvam, / Vel mare, vel tellus, nostra vel arva ferant, / Tu tamen hac mecum semper tellure manebis, / Te mea, te servant carmina, corque meum ». («Débarassée enfin du fardeau de la vie, quel que soit le lieu qui te possède, ou la mer, ou la terre, ou notre pays, va, tu seras toujours avec moi sur la terre que j’habite; va, mes vers et mon cœur conservent ton souvenir »). Sa mère, ainsi que son frère Marc et sa sœur Perretine suivront les Chevaliers dans l’île de Malte lorsque Charles Quint la leur eut concédée en 1528. Madame de Vintimille mourra en 1533, alors que sa fille Perretine avait déjà épousé un gentilhomme de Rhodes. Marc, frère aîné de Jacques, après avoir rempli les fonctions de grand-vicomte près de l’Ordre de Malte, allait revenir à Cunio, dans la maison paternelle et y épouser Thomasine de Galeani, issue d’une noble famille génoise. L. de Vauzelles, p. 41. La famille de Vauzelles était à l’époque représentée à Lyon par les deux frères Georges et Jean. L’aîné, Georges, était un homme cultivé, qui fut échevin de Lyon en 1524 et avocat général au Parlement de Dombes de 1535 à 1559. Le frère puîné, Jean, avait pour sa part embrassé l’état ecclésiastique; il avait été nommé par la sœur de François Ier, Marguerite de Navarre, Maître des Requêtes et était en même temps Aumônier du roi. On lui doit plusieurs livres ascétiques, une histoire de la vie de Jésus et, ce qui est important pour nous puisque cela témoigne du milieu italianisant dans lequel fut éduqué Vintimille, Jean de Vauzelles fut le premier traducteur de la Genèse de l’Arétin: La Genèse de M. Pierre Aretin avec la vision de Noe, en laquelle il veit les mystères du Vieil et Nouveau Testament… nouvellement traduict du thuscan en françois, par Jean de Vauzelles, Lyon, 1542. Jean de Vauzelles entretint à ce propos une intéressante correspondance avec l’Arétin. Elle est en grande partie reproduite dans les pages qu’Emile Picot consacre au traducteur dans son ouvrage: Les français italianisants au XVIe siècle (Paris: Champion, 1906-1907), vol. I, pp. 117-159.

28

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

Par la suite, Georges envoya son jeune protégé étudier à Paris et à Toulouse. C’est en 1532, vers l’âge de vingt ans, que le garçon partit pour l’Italie à la suite des armées françaises. Pendant son séjour italien il suivit à Pavie les leçons de droit du célèbre Alciat.7 Revenu de ses voyages, profitant du crédit dont jouissait le frère de son protecteur Jean de Vauzelles, il se fit présenter à la Cour de François Ier. C’est là que commence son activité de traducteur sans que l’on sache exactement sur quels ouvrages il ait travaillé. En revanche nous savons que Henry II le chargea de traduire en français la Cyropédie de Xénophon.8 Mis à part ce que nous connaissons de ses débuts dans le domaine des lettres, nous n’avons pas de renseignements précis sur les activités de Vintimille. D’après une allusion contenue dans la Dédicace de la traduction de l’Histoire d’Hérodien, qu’il offrit également à Anne de Montmorency, nous pouvons supposer qu’il pratiqua pour une assez longue période le métier des armes. Après avoir tissé les louanges de l’Histoire, magistra vitæ, Vintimille ajoute en effet: «ayant dérobé ce peu de loisir à la guerre, et pour ne laisser enrouiller ma plume entre les armes, je vous ay mis au net la vie des successeurs de Marc Aurèle […]».9 Si nous ne savons donc pas combien de temps Vintimille exerça le métier des armes, nous savons en revanche qu’il obtint, vers 1550, une charge au Parlement de Bourgogne.10 Ce fut donc à partir de ce moment qu’il put jouir

7

8

9

10

C’est peut-être après sa rencontre avec André Alciat, éminent jurisconsulte italien — dont l’ouvrage le plus connu le Emblematum Liber fut publié en 1531 —, que le jeune Vintimille conçu le projet de traduire les Pandectes Florentines dont il parle dans son récit autobiographique. Cf. Picot, note 10. Auparavant le jeune Jacques, sans fortune et sans beaucoup de relations, s’était consacré aux activités les plus diverses, étudiant les lettres, les lois, les langues, mais aussi la musique, les mathématiques, l’architecture et la poésie, il s’adonnait «[…] à faire devises et pourtraicts de tableaux, tapisseries, verreries et ornements de maisons et jardins des roys et de princes, avec des inventions belles et rares, pour satisfaire à leurs desseings. En ceste incertitude j’ay demeuré long temps, non par faulte de courage, mais par deffault de moyens ». J. de Vintimille, Discours de l’estoc, p. 42. Histoire d’Hérodian, excellent historiographe, traitant de la vie des successeurs de Marc Aurèle à l’empire de Romme (Paris: F. Morel, 1580), p. 4. Un office de conseiller-clerc était devenu vacant au Parlement de Bourgogne, par l’élévation d’Antoine de Saint-Anthost aux fonctions de premier président du Parlement de Rouen; Vintimille en fut pourvu le 6 mars 1549, et fut reçu le 10 mai 1550. Le décès d’un de ses collègues, Jean Tisserand, lui permit d’échanger cet office, le 5 octobre 1551, contre un office de conseiller-laïc. Claude Patarin, ami de la famille de Vauzelles, était à l’époque à la tête du Parlement de Bourgogne. En 1554 y fut reçu également l’ami de jeunesse de Vintimille, Maclou Popon. Peu de temps après son arrivée à Dijon, Vintimille avait épousé Jeanne Gros, dame d’Agey et d’Escoüelle, veuve de Zacharie Chappelain, greffier civil et des présentations en la Cour du Parlement.

La première traduction française

29

d’une relative sécurité et noua nombre de relations importantes.11 En sa qualité de parlementaire, il semble avoir toujours cherché à conserver, au sein des conflits religieux et politiques qui déchirèrent la France dans la deuxième moitié du XVIe siècle, une attitude modérée.12 Lorsqu’en 1562 le chancelier de l’Hospital publia l’édit qui devait promouvoir la tolérance en accordant aux protestants, entre autres droits, celui de s’assembler pour l’exercice de leur culte, mais seulement en dehors des villes, Vintimille, ami et admirateur du chancelier — qu’il louera à mots couverts dans son Carmen saturnalium, un poème en latin dédié à son ami Popon —, essaya de faire approuver par le Parlement de Bourgogne des mesures analogues. Mais la majorité du Parlement ne partageait pas ses idées. Gaspard de Tavannes, lieutenantgénéral pour le roi dans la province, après avoir expulsé de Dijon 1500 calvinistes qui s’étaient réunis en armes dans un même quartier, avait fait arrêter comme suspects, puis bannir par la justice de la ville, plusieurs conseillers du Parlement, dont Vintimille lui-même. Ayant ensuite refusé de prêter le serment contenant une explicite profession de foi conformément aux articles promulgués en Sorbonne en 1543, Vintimille dut probablement quitter la France. C’est alors que l’homme de lettres refait surface en écrivant le Carmen Saturnalium.13 11

12

13

«Depuis je me suis rendu plus familier à feu monsieur le connestable et à messieurs ses enfants, par le moyen de Madame Magdelene de Savoie leur mère, qui m’advoit pour parent, et à plusieurs autres seigneurs; à messieurs les chancelliers Olivier, Bertrand et de l’Hospital et autres gens doctes, desquels j’estois aymé et respecté, et par leur faveur j’ay executé des belles et honorables charges et commissions pour le service du roy, comme vous sçavez». J. de Vintimille, Discours de l’estoc, p. 43. Dans un sonnet que Vintimille dédie à Jean Tixier, sécrétaire du roi, et qui parut à la suite du Carmen Saturnalium publié en 1564, Vintimille semble revendiquer un exil presque volontaire qu’il aurait choisit en réponse aux conflits qui ravageaient son pays d’adoption: «S’il advient (de bon heur) que dans la Charité / Tu te trouve, mon livre, en la maison prospère / De Tixier mon amy, salue moy le père, / Salue moy le fils en toute humilité. / S’il s’enquière de mon fait, dis luy la vérité / (Que le crime d’ingrat à tort ne m’impropère / Que j’ay des estrangiers mieux aimé le repaire / Quand le peuple françois était tant irrité. / Dis luy tout hardiment que j’ay quitté la France / De bon cœur, quand j’y vei toute cruelle outrance / Regner plus qu’en Sithie (austère région) / Quand j’y vei mars sanglant au milieu des campagnes / Adonner au vent ses sanglantes enseignes, / Pour empescher le cour de la Religion ». J. de Vintimille, A Jean Texier Secrétaire du Roy, dans: Platon, Théagès, ou de la Sapience, dialogue de Platon, mis en vers françois par Pierre Tréhédan, suivi de Ad Macutum Pomponium Jacobi Vintimilli Rhodii Carmen Saturnalium (Lyon: Charlesn Pesnot, 1564). Le poème comprend environs deux cents vers, il parut à Lyon en 1564 accompagné d’une traduction en vers français de Pierre Tréhédan, angevin, d’une traduction du Théagès, ou De la Sapience de Platon, et d’une épître en vers français adressée à Vintimille. De son côté, celui-ci avait rédigé, à la suite du Carmen Saturnalium, une épigramme qui sert de préambule à la traduction française du poème.

30

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

En mars 1563 un nouvel édit autorisa le retour des conseillers du Parlement de Bourgogne qui avaient été bannis. Vintimille revint donc à Dijon. Ici, à la mort de sa femme, en 1570, sans renoncer à ses fonctions de chancelier, il embrassa le sacerdoce. Il donnait ainsi un témoignage de l’orthodoxie de sa foi. Il put alors jouir de bénéfices ecclésiastiques, car il devint archidiacre de Notre-Dame de Beaune, chanoine de Saint-Lazare d’Autun et doyen de Saint-Vincent de Châlon-sur-Saône, tout en conservant ses fonctions de chancelier. Vers la fin de sa vie, il reprendra son activité dans le domaine littéraire. A l’occasion de la victoire de Lépante contre les Turcs, Vintimille composa, en 1571, un poème latin, paru en 1572, qu’il dédia au Sénat et au peuple de Venise: De victoria navali Christianorum adversus Turcos.14 A peu près au même moment, il écrivit, à la prière, dit-il, de Maclou Popon, l’histoire généalogique de sa famille (Discours des hommes illustres de la race des comtes de Vintimille, Paléologues et Lascaris) qu’il offre, on l’a dit, à ce même personnage. Quelques années plus tard, à la demande de Philibert Bugnyon, avocat en la sénéchaussée, siège présidial de Lyon et parlement de Dombes, Vintimille traduisit du grec en français l’oraison ou apologie de Lysias sur le meurtre d’Erastothène. L’Apologie et défense de Lysias, parue à Lyon en 1576, était précédée, suivant l’usage, de vers latins et français adressés à l’auteur par divers poètes de l’époque (Jean de Chevigny, Gabriel Chappuys — lui-même traducteur italianisant —, Antoine Armand) et accompagnée d’un commentaire du même juriste Philibert Bugnyon.15 En mars 1577 mourait Maclou Popon. Vintimille participa à la commémoration de son ami en écrivant plusieurs pièces en vers latins pour un recueil dédié à sa mémoire, imprimé à Paris en 1580: Macuti Pomponii, senatoris divisionensis, monumentum a Musis burgundicis erectum et consecratum.16 Lui-même mourut en 1582, âgé d’environ soixante-dix ans. Il laissait tous ses biens à sa fille unique, Jeanne, mariée depuis plusieurs années à Melchior 14

15

16

Ce poème, écrit d’abord en latin, sera traduit en français par Pierre Trédéhan et par luimême offert a Philibert Bugnyon et sera ainsi publié à Lyon par Bernard Rigaud en 1572. J. de Vintimille, Congratulation poétique sur la victoire obtenue par les chrestiens le 7 octobre l’an mil cinq cens septante un avec l’exhortation à tous les princes et potentats de la Chestienté de reprendre les armes et poursuivre la totale ruine et destruction des Machométans. Traduicte des vers héroïques de M. maistre Jacques des comtes de Vintimille. Lysias, Excellente Apologie et défense de Lysias sur le meurtre d’Erastosthène surpris en adultère traduicte de grec en françois par Jacques des comtes de Vintimille et commentée par Philibert Bugnyon (Lyon, 1576). Jacques de Vintimille, Macutii Pomponii, senaroris Divisionensis, monumentum a musis burgundicis erectum et consecratum (Paris: Morellus, 1580).

La première traduction française

31

Bernard, seigneur de Montessus, gouverneur de la citadelle de Châlon. Vintimille fut inhumé auprès de sa femme en la Chapelle des Gros, dans l’église Saint-Michel à Dijon. L’église existe encore, mais la chapelle et la pierre tumulaire ont disparu. Jacques de Vintimille a donc joui d’une vie longue et bien remplie, passée au service de la France et des belles lettres. Bien que son profil littéraire reste vague, néanmoins il a laissé le témoignage de sa connaissance du latin, du grec, du droit, de la pensée politique, ainsi que de sa capacité à s’essayer à la poésie. Mais, lorsqu’il adressait humblement au connétable ses traductions Le Prince et l’Art de la guerre de Nicolas Machiavel il n’était encore qu’un homme jeune, inexpérimenté et dépourvu d’un solide réseau de relations et d’une culture approfondie.17 A la fin de la dédicace de l’exemplaire manuscrit du Prince figure en effet la date du 3 juin 1546. Cependant, comme le rappelle lui-même dans cette même dédicace, la présentation définitive de son travail au connétable avait 17

Qu’il nous soit permis d’ouvrir à ce propos une brève parenthèse. Nous sommes tentés de mettre en relation cette traduction perdue et la question de l’attribution des Instructions sur le faict de guerre (Paris: impr. De Vascosan, 1548). Cet ouvrage fut publié, anonyme, en 1548, c’est à dire deux ans après la sortie de la traduction de l’Arte della guerra par le parlementaire de Provence Jean Charrier en 1546 (L’Art de la guerre composée par Nicolas Machiavel secretaire et citoien de Florence, Paris, chez Jean Barbe, 1546) et il connaîtra plus tard un succès considérable. Les Instructions sont très redevables à l’ouvrage de Machiavel dont il paraissent être une sorte de reprise réactualisée et, parfois très, trop, fidèle. Suivant l’hypothèse de Lefranc, reprise par Procacci, la rédaction des Instructions remonterait à 1538 environ, à savoir bien avant la diffusion de la traduction de Jean Charrier. L’ouvrage français se serait donc inspiré directement de la lecture du texte italien, mais on pourrait imaginer le mettre en relation avec le travail de Jacques de Vintimille. Cette hypothèse est bien hasardeuse, mais non sans fondement. En effet, la date de composition supposée des Instructions (1538), mais aussi sa date de publication (1548), les multiples références aux événements des quarante années de guerre menées en Italie et ailleurs, et, surtout, l’appel placé à la fin du texte et dans lequel l’auteur anonyme se recommande à ce même Anne de Montmorency auquel Vintimille avait offert ses traductions, ces indices confortent l’idée d’un lien quelconque entre l’auteur anonyme des Instructions et l’ouvrage perdu de notre traducteur, lequel était presque certainement terminé et présenté au connétable avant 1546. Nous ne pouvons malheureusement rien prouver. Nous sommes seulement autorisée à rendre compte de ces curieuses coïncidences. Quoi qu’il en soit, elles peuvent éventuellement ouvrir des nouvelles pistes concernant l’attribution des Instructions et leur rapport avec le dialogue machiavelien, et elles nous offrent aussi l’opportunité d’insister sur l’antériorité de l’initiative de Jacques de Vintimille. La question de l’attribution de cet ouvrage a été étudiée par Giuliano Procacci, Machiavelli nella cultura europea dell’età moderna, pp. 184-206. Giuliano Procacci, ´La fortuna dell’Arte della guerra di Machiavelli in Francia´, Rivista storica italiana, 1955, pp. 493-494. M. Tetel, ´De l’auteur des Instructions sur le faict de guerre´, in Culture et pouvoir du temps de la Renaissance (ParisGenève, 1978), pp. 274-275.

32

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

été retardée. Après qu’il eut, comme il l’affirme, effectué la traduction en «l’espace de huict jours», le livre fut «sur le champ doublé par un meschant escripvain». À cause des nombreuses erreurs du premier copiste, Vintimille décidait alors «de le faire rescripre un peu plus nectement» pour le soumettre ainsi corrigé à son illustre destinataire. Les difficultés de ce parcours autorisent ainsi à anticiper quelque peu la date effective de la conclusion de la traduction du Prince par rapport à celle indiquée à la fin de la dédicace. Malgré le soin scrupuleux que Vintimille semble avoir apporté à ses deux traductions de Machiavel, importants témoignages d’une diffusion précoce de la pensée de l’auteur florentin en France, elles avaient été oubliées et l’étaient encore au XIXe siècle.18 Alors que la traduction du Prince peut être divulguée aujourd’hui, l’Art de la guerre, à supposer que les vicissitudes du temps l’aient préservée, n’a pas encore pu être localisée.19

1. Un prestigieux dédicataire A Monseigneur le conestable, Jacques de Vintemille, Humble Salut Monseigneur, combien que j’aye par cy devant prins grand plaisir à lire le traicté du Prince de Nicolas Macchiavel, homme de grande lecture, et qui en tous ses livres n’a prins aultre subject, que de vouloir reigler les gouvernemens des grandz hommes, et que je desirasse grandement qu’il fust entendu par les françoys, toutesfoys je n’avois point la hardiesse de le traduyre en lengue françoyse, estant retenu par deux causes principales. L’une que l’autheur est moult brief, concis, non bien composé, ny élégant dans ses escriptz, et me sembloit, que son dire fidèlement traduict, n’auroit aucune grâce envers les françoys qui aiment une copieuse et Asiactique forme de parler. L’autre, que je me doubtoys grandement d’estre re-

18

19

Ludovic de Vauzelles (p. 58) rappelle qu’elles n’avaient jamais été imprimées et il en déplore la disparition. «Dans le même temps où il s’occupait de la Cyropédie et de l’Histoire d’Hérodien, Vintimille traduisait de l’italien en français deux ouvrages de Machiavel: Le Prince et l’Art de la guerre. Il offrit encore au connétable ces deux traductions, qui peutêtre n’ont jamais été imprimées, qui dans tous les cas ne se trouvent plus aujourd’hui, et dont nous aurions jugé inutile de parler, si Vintimille lui-même, dans le précis succinct qu’il a laissé de sa vie, n’en faisait mention». «En mesme temps je traduisis l’histoire grecque d’Herodian des empereurs de Rome, et le Prince et la Guerre de Machiavelli, Italien, que je donnay à monsieur de Monmorancy, pour lors connestable de France; et pour monstrer que je n’avois mal profité à l’estude des loix, je fis imprimer les Digestes à Paris, corrigez sur les Pandectes florentines, et y adioustay mille bons passages que j’avois recueillys en Italie plus de dix ans devant que le duc de Florence donnast les vrayes Pandectes à l’impression». J. de Vintimille, Discours de l’estoc, p. 42. Ces traductions ne sont mentionnées ni dans la Nouvelle biographie générale, ni dans la Biographie universelle citées auparavant.

La première traduction française

33

pris, si je qui suys estrangier, sorty des plus loingtaines parties de Grèce entreprenoys sur deux ou troys divers lengaiges, en traduisant ce livre, comme d’entendre bien l’italien, et le françoys parmy le latin, qui sont tous differens de mon naturel. Ces deux causes ont eu par quelquez espace de temps telle efficace en mon esprit, que je me deliberoys de ne m’entremesler jamais d’aucune traduction sachant que c’est une choses moult difficile et exposée à mille répréhensions, mesme au temps d’aujourd’huy, où il y a des gens d’un goust si délicat et purgé, qu’ilz ont en horreur, et ne veulent recepvoir aucune parole rude ou malsonante aux aureilles. Toutesfoys Monsieur de Rambouillet,20 à qui je suys dez long temps grandement obligé, me commanda un jour de m’exposer à vostre jugement en ceste traduction, et me pressa tant de ce faire, qu’en l’espace de huict jours le livre fut traduict, et sur le champ doublé par un meschant escripvain, et tout mal en ordre vous fut présenté à mon tresgrand regret. Depuys ayant eu quelques respiration d’autres affaires, en revoyant mon brouillart me délibéray de le faire rescripre un peu plus nectement que vous ne l’avyez eu, et purger en partie les faultes de l’escripvain qui l’avoit plus gasté que rescript. Ce que j’ay faict ces derniers jours, et me suys enhardy de le vous présenter, non pas pour vous donner aucun enseignement de vivre par l’instruction de ce livre, sachant bien que vostre vie tant estimée n’a besoing d’aucun precepteur, ains seulement affin que le livre soit approuvé par vostre jugement, et que soubtz vostre authorité les aultres s’en puissent servir, en la forme que vous avez faict,21 en accompaignant la doctrine dicelluy avec une saincteté de vie, et infinies vertuz qui vous font aujourdhuy resplendir au conspect de tout le monde. A ceste cause, Monseigneur, je vous supply prendre ce petit mien labeur en gré, et excuser la durté du lengaige, causée pour avoir voulu trop fidèlement traduyre le sens de l’autheur, affin que non seulement des enseignemens, mais aussy des manières de parler vous cognoissiez quel homme c’estoit que Nicolas Macchiavel: De Paris ce III jour de juing MDXLVI.

Jacques de Vintimille présentait ainsi sa traduction du Prince à son destinataire, le connétable Anne de Montmorency. Dans ce texte il se montre avant tout soucieux de justifier d’éventuelles maladresses dans le maniement de la langue française. Le français n’était pas, comme il le rappelle, sa langue maternelle, qui était vraisemblablement le grec. Ce faisant Jacques de Vintimille rend compte, non seulement de ses difficultés personnelles, mais aussi des débats sur la langue qui agitaient les milieux littéraires de l’époque. 20

21

Il s’agit probablement de Jacques d’Angennes, seigneur de Rambouillet qui fut capitaine des gardes du corps sous François Ier, Henri II, François II et Charles IX, lieutenant général de leurs armées, et gouverneur de Metz. En 1557 il fut chargé de conduire à Paris un corps de troupes pour réprimer une sédition d’étudiants d’université. Il se distingua, la même année, au siège de Saint-Quentin. En 1561 il reçut la mission délicate d’aller en Allemagne proposer aux princes protestants une ligue fédérative pour s’opposer aux résolutions qui allaient être prises au Concile de Trente. Jacques d’Angennes mourut l’année suivante (Biographie universelle, ancienne et moderne, t. II, p. 168). Nous ne connaissons pas les liens entre Jacques d’Angennes et Anne de Montmorency ni leurs relations avec notre traducteur. Sans doute la fréquentation de la Cour avait rapproché les deux seigneurs et amené Jacques de Rambouillet, qui connaissait l’intérêt du connétable pour les affaires d’état et d’Italie, à suggérer à son protégé d’offrir la traduction du Prince à ce puissant personnage. Vintimille espérait-il que Anne de Montmorency aurait fait imprimer cette traduction?

34

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

On s’interrogeait sur la capacité de la langue vernaculaire à véhiculer la culture, sur les manières d’épurer et d’ennoblir cette langue, et dans cette même perspective, sur la valeur des traductions. C’est justement en 1540, peu d’années auparavant, qu’Etienne Dolet avait publié la Manière de bien traduire d’une langue en aultre. Au XVIe siècle s’intensifie en effet l’intérêt pour les ouvrages étrangers et par conséquence pour l’exercice de la traduction. On reconnaît à chaque langue sa grâce et son génie propres, et on considère que le traducteur se doit de les restituer tout en restant fidèle à l’original.22 Il faut interpréter néanmoins ces remarques de Vintimille avant tout comme une captatio benevolentiæ et non pas comme une réserve sur l’exercice de la traduction comme le prouvent ses propres travaux. Son destinataire lui-même, homme d’action mais aussi homme de lettres, conservait dans sa bibliothèque bon nombre d’ouvrages traduits. À la fin de sa dédicace, Vintimille renouvelle sa crainte de se voir reprocher la «dureté du langaige», le manque d’harmonie et d’élégance de son français. Il s’en excuse une fois de plus prétextant en outre la rudesse du style de Machiavel, à laquelle il avait aussi déjà fait allusion, regrettant que l’auteur florentin soit: «moult brief, concis, non bien composé, ny élégant dans ses escriptz». Ces remarques éclairent le sens des procédés récurrents d’amplification, explicitation et redoublement que Jacques de Vintimille utilise dans sa traduction. Mais c’est bien là la seule critique qu’il formule à l’égard de Machiavel, car par ailleurs il ne cache pas son admiration pour l’œuvre de ce dernier. En ce sens l’approche de Vintimille se singularise par rapport à celle des deux autres traducteurs du Prince, Gaspard d’Auvergne et Guillaume Cappel, dont les travaux furent publiés en 1553, respectivement à Poitiers et à Paris.23 En effet dans leurs dédicaces ces derniers s’expliquent sur les raisons

22

23

Il fallait pouvoir concilier le respect du texte et la réussite de la traduction et pour cela, affirme Etienne Dolet, auteur du premier traité sur la traduction en langue française, «[…] il ne faut pas asservir jusque à là que l’on rende mot pour mot […]». Etienne Dolet, La Manière de bien traduire d’une langue à une autre (Lyon, 1540), 3° point. Bien sûr les suggestions d’Etienne Dolet laissaient une bien grande liberté au «translateur» auquel il recommandait de parvenir à «une liaison et assemblement des dictions avec telle doulceur, que non seulement l’âme s’en contente, mais aussi les oreilles en sont toutes ravies, et ne se faschent jamais d’une telle harmonie de langage». (5° point). Le Prince de Nicolas Machiavelli secrétaire et citoien de Florence traduit de l’Italien en François, par Gaspard d’Auvergne (Poitiers: de l’Imprimerie d’Enguilbert le Marnef, 1553). Le Prince de Nicolas Machiavelle secretaire et citoyen de Florence, traduit de l’Italien en François par Guillaume Cappel (Paris: chez Charles Estienne Imprimeur du Roy, 1553). Nous remercions M. Rech de nous avoir communiqué la Dédicace de cette traduction dont l’édition originale est conservée à la Médiathèque François Mitterand de Poitiers [DM25, Fonds Anciens].

La première traduction française

35

qui motivent leur admiration pour Machiavel. Guillaume Cappel voit dans le Prince un écrit précieux pour les préceptes qu’il contient destinés à améliorer l’efficacité de la politique qu’il considère, suivant une perspective aristotélicienne, comme «le sommet de la philosophie». Plus subtil, Gaspard d’Auvergne perçoit pour le premier dans la pensée de Machiavel la rupture entre politique et morale traditionnelle, mais s’il reconnaît la nécessité pour le prince de déroger aux normes de la morale en vertu des exigences de la politique, il ne va pas jusqu’à dégager celui-ci des entraves de la religion. Le prince est — affirme-t-il — le lieutenant de Dieu sur terre. En tant que tel «il est parfois loisible a noz monarques extravaguer selon les affaires, hors les bornes de la vertu, pour se faire raison de ce meschant et corrompu monde qui leur est subiet, et le faisant, leur puissance ne laisse point pourtant d’estre approuvée de Dieu». Pour sa part Vintimille ne cherche pas à justifier l’originalité subversive de la pensée de l’auteur florentin. En vrai «technicien» de la traduction il se montre préoccupé seulement par des questions d’ordre linguistique et stylistique. Il laisse ainsi à peine transparaître son admiration pour Machiavel «homme de grande lecture», qui a mit son savoir au service des «gouvernemens des grandz hommes». Or, responsable du destin obscur auquel ont été vouées les traductions du Prince et, surtout, de l’Art de la guerre fut sans doute leur illustre dédicataire, Anne de Montmorency. Le don, par lequel Vintimille inaugurait sa carrière de traducteur, est cependant aisément compréhensible: le connétable était un puissant mécène, auquel le jeune homme pouvait se recommander en raison des liens de parenté qui l’unissaient à la femme de ce dernier, Madeleine de Savoie.24 Vintimille était aussi familier des enfants de ce couple prestigieux, François et Henri. C’est en outre à la demande de Jean de Rambouillet, à la maison duquel Vintimille était attaché, que, on l’a vu, celui-ci avait entrepris la traduction du Prince à l’intention de Montmorency. Nous avons fait allusion aux liens qui unissaient Jacques à la famille des Montmorency et aux avantages que pouvait offrir la protection d’un si puissant personnage; mais pourquoi choisir de lui présenter justement les traductions des œuvres de Machiavel? Anne de Montmorency avait pris part personnellement aux guerres d’Italie: les questions de théorie politique soulevées par Machiavel avaient donc pour lui l’indéniable attrait de 24

Madeleine de Savoie était la fille de René, Bâtard de Savoie, fils naturel du duc de Savoie Philippe II et comte de Villars, grand-maître de France, gouverneur et amiral de Provence. Sa mère était Anne Lascaris, comtesse de Tende et descendante des empereurs d’Orient et donc apparentée à la mère de Jacques de Vintimille. Celle-ci, séparée de sa famille depuis son plus jeune âge, avait été “nourrie et instruite” auprès de Louise de Savoie, mère de François Ier.

36

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

l’expérience vécue sans compter que, en tant que connétable, il était certainement intéressé par les questions militaires chères à l’auteur italien.25 Un exemplaire d’une autre traduction d’un des ouvrages du secrétaire florentin enrichissait d’ailleurs sa bibliothèque depuis 1544: il s’agit d’un volume du Premier livre des Discours de l’estat de paix et de guerre, traduit par Jacques Gohory et offert par celui-lui au connétable.26 Ajoutons à ces considérations, le fait que le père d’Anne, Guillaume de Montmorency, avait lui aussi été en première ligne au début des guerres d’Italie lorsqu’il avait combattu aux côtés de Charles VIII et de Louis XII. Les événements qui inspirent la réflexion de Machiavel faisaient donc partie de la mémoire familiale. 25

26

Pour la biographie et la carrière d’Anne de Montmorency nous renvoyons, entre autres, à: Brigitte Bedos Rezack, Anne de Montmorency. Seigneur de la Renaissance (Paris: Publisud, 1990); Albert Willocx, Anne de Montmorency, connétable de France (Paris: La pensée universelle, 1995). Le premier livre des Discours de l’estat de paix et de guerre, de messire Nicolas Macchiavegli, secrétaire et citoyen florentin, sur la première decade de Tite Live, traduict de l’italien en françoy, de l’imprimerie de Denis Janot, imprimeur du roy en langue française et libraire juré de l’université de Paris, 1544. Selon Enea Balmas, Jacques Gohory offrait aussi probablement au connétable une traduction manuscrite du premier livre de l’histoire de TiteLive, dans l’espoir de devenir le futur historien de ce prestigieux mécène. L’année suivante, en changeant de registre, Gohory publiait chez Vincent Sertenas la version italienne de L’Histoire de la terre neuve du Peru en l’Inde Occidentale qui est la principale mine d’or du monde descouverte et conquise et nommée nouvelle Castille, qu’il dédiait également à Anne de Montmorency. Enea Balmas, ´Jacques Gohory, traduttore di Machiavelli´, in Studi Machiavelliani, Università degli Studi di Padova, Facoltà di Economia e Commercio (Verona, 1972), pp. 10-12. Nous n’avons trouvé aucune trace de cette dernière traduction dans la bibliothèque du Château. En revanche l’exemplaire de la traduction des Discorsi, dont la reliure en veau porte les marques des livres de François Ier (l’écu royal, les F couronnés, des fleurs de lys alternant avec les F sans couronne) et qui fut remis au connétable par Gohory lui-même, se trouve toujours dans la bibliothèque du Musée Condé (VII E 2). Cet exemplaire contient le privilège accordé par François Ier à Denys Janot daté du 12 avril 1543, une dédicace à Gabriel Le Veneur, évêque d’Evreux, une pièce de onze vers adressée par «le seigneur Des Essars Nicolas de Herberay, au traducteur des Discours de Nicolas Macchiavegli». Soigneusement écrite en regard du titre, une dédicace autographe fait allusion à la disgrâce du connétable. Voici le texte: «A monseigneur le connestable: / Ces jours, de vous teindrent un brief propos / Vertu la juste et l’injuste fortune. / «Ha, dict vertu, n’aura jamays repos, / Contre les miens ta vielle ire et rancune.» / -«Quoi, respond l’autre, en moy n’a faulte aucune, / Mais j’ay voulu en ma double inconstance / Faire esprouver sa grand force et constance, / Comme l’or fin au feu l’on sçayt cognoistre. / Or à ce coup le pourra dire France / Humble en moy haulte, et haulte en moy senestre.» / Vostre très humble serviteur: Jaques Gohory ». Il importe donc de signaler ici que l’autographe de Gohory qui apparaît dans l’exemplaire de Mélanges de 1570, contenant des odes, des «canzoni » et des sonnets mis en musique et ayant appartenu à Marguerite de Savoie, n’est pas, comme l’a cru Enea Balmas (p. 26), le seul qui nous soit parvenu de ce personnage.

La première traduction française

37

Homme d’état, de guerre et de culture, né à Chantilly en 1493, proche du pouvoir pendant quarante ans, à l’exception de trois périodes de disgrâce (1536-1537, 1540-1547 et 1559-1560), au cours de sa vie Montmorency servit cinq monarques français: Louis XII, François Ier, Henri II, François II, Charles IX. Personnage important de la Cour de France, au moment de sa mort, en 1567, il avait participé aux événements marquants de l’histoire et de la politique de l’époque et côtoyé leurs protagonistes. Ce personnage avait été présent sur le devant de la scène des guerres d’Italie pendant presque trois décennies. La réflexion de Machiavel ne pouvait que trouver un accueil favorable chez ce soldat qui, pendant de longues années, fut confronté aux problèmes militaires et politiques d’un monde en train de changer. Sa prestigieuse carrière militaire avait débuté et s’était affirmée en Italie, pendant près de vingt-sept ans. C’est dans le cadre des conflits de la Péninsule qu’Anne de Montmorency avait pu parfaire ses qualités d’homme de guerre et de diplomate. Au service de Louis XII, et surtout de François Ier, dont il avait été l’ami d’enfance, il se distingua en Italie. Dès l’âge de dixsept ans il fut dans l’armée que Louis XII conduisait contre Venise. La bataille de Ravenne, en 1512, fut sa première expérience militaire importante et il se fit remarquer aux côtés de Bayard et de Gaston de Foix. Après la mort de ce dernier et la défaite de Novare, Anne de Montmorency rentra en France en 1513. Il retourna en Italie avec François Ier en 1515, cette fois en tant que lieutenant dans la même compagnie de cent hommes d’armes dont il avait fait partie en 1510. Il fut en première ligne à la bataille de Marignan, lorsque la victoire vint couronner cette première campagne d’Italie menée par François Ier. Lors de la prise de Milan, en octobre 1515, le maréchal de France, Odet de Foix, seigneur de Lautrec, obtint pour Montmorency la compagnie d’hommes d’armes du baron de Béarn qui venait de décéder: le futur connétable n’avait que vingt-trois ans. Lorsqu’en 1516 Montmorency, alors simple seigneur de la Rochepot, rentra en France, il fut nommé capitaine de la Bastille de Saint-Denis en récompense de ses services dans la Péninsule. En 1521, après l’avoir nommé maréchal de France, François Ier le chargeait de lever 10 000 Suisses et de les conduire dans le Milanais pour porter secours à Lautrec. Il fut le protagoniste de la prise de Novare et participa vaillamment à la bataille de La Bicoque. Le 29 avril 1522 la défaite de l’armée française, faisait définitivement perdre à François Ier le Milanais. Le 6 août 1522, Anne reçut l’office de maréchal de France, et devint «collaborateur et coadjuteur» du connétable de Bourbon; peu de temps après, il fut fait chevalier de l’Ordre de Saint-Michel. L’année suivante, afin de préparer une nouvelle expédition en Italie, il fut chargé d’aller recruter des mercenaires suisses. La diète de Lucerne lui en accorda 6000, plus un

38

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

contingent de Grisons et de Valaisons. Le 9 septembre il rejoignit les forces du Bonnivet, ensemble ils établirent leurs quartiers d’hiver à Abbiate-Grasso. Contraints à la retraite par les impériaux, Bonnivet et Montmorency rentrèrent en France, blessés et malades. En 1524 ce dernier participa aux campagnes de Provence et d’Italie contre l’armée impériale. Lors du désastre de Pavie, en 1525 lorsque François Ier fut fait prisonnier, Anne de Montmorency le suivit à Madrid en captivité. Libéré, il se rendit en Espagne pour négocier la délivrance du roi de France et c’est encore lui qui, en 1530, fut chargé des négociations, dont Francesco Guicciardini nous a laissé un récit circonstancié (Storia d’Italia, II, 3), pour libérer les fils du roi. A partir du nouveau conflit ouvert par François Ier en 1528, Anne de Montmorency se consacrera surtout à la diplomatie, il se contenta alors d’organiser les campagnes sans y prendre part, laissant ainsi nommer Lautrec lieutenant général de la troisième campagne d’Italie décidée par François Ier. Entre la signature du traité de Cambrai, le 21 juin 1529, et 1536, Montmorency parvint à maintenir en paix son pays pendant sept ans, mais il ne put persuader son roi de ne pas revendiquer le duché de Milan à la mort de François Sforza. Son hostilité à la reprise de la guerre contre Charles Quint le fit tomber en disgrâce. Cependant, en juillet 1536, le souverain le rappela et le nomma «lieutenant général du roi tant en deçà que en delà des monts». Montmorency détient à nouveau les pleins pouvoirs pour diriger les opérations militaires. Le 16 novembre 1537 la trêve de Monçon marque la suprématie des Français au Piémont. En récompense de sa vaillance le 10 février 1538, Anne reçut en grande pompe l’épée de connétable et, avec elle, la direction incontestée de toutes les armées royales. Cette reconnaissance fut le dernier moment de gloire qu’il aura sous François Ier. Tombé à nouveau en disgrâce entre 1542 et 1547, il ne retrouvera son prestige qu’au moment de l’avènement d’Henri II. En 1551 il fut nommé duc et, en 1557, désormais très âgé, il participa tout de même à la bataille de Saint Quentin et fut l’un des artisans de la paix de Cateau-Cambrésis. Or, si le connétable fut un homme de guerre rompu aux délicates affaires de la gestion du pouvoir, il fut également un prestigieux mécène. Fort de son immense richesse, Anne de Montmorency est en effet tout autant connu pour son intérêt pour les arts et l’architecture. Grand bâtisseur à l’écoute des innovations de l’époque, comme en témoignent encore aujourd’hui les châteaux de Chantilly, d’Ecouen, de Fère-en-Tardenois, de Gandelu et d’Offémont, collectionneur passionné d’objets rares et précieux, recueillis aux quatre coins de l’Europe — armes, médailles, faïences, tableaux, tapis, tapisseries, dont il ne nous reste qu’une petite partie —, le connétable n’a pas ignoré la renaissance des lettres. Émule de François Ier, il commanda des

La première traduction française

39

traductions et participa au développement de l’Humanisme français. La liste des ouvrages qui lui furent dédiés est longue. Rappelons seulement, outre naturellement les travaux de Vintimille, la première traduction française des Discours de Cicéron que Montmorency commanda à Etienne le Blanc, greffier à la Chambres des Comptes;27 la version française de la Guerre de Catilina de Salluste publiée par Louis Meigret en 1547; Jean de Luxembourg lui adressa sa traduction du Phédon, Michel de Haches celle des livres VI et XVI des Histoires de Polybe, Jean de Mainières, baron d’Oppède, les Triomphes de Pétrarque. Véritable bibliophile, il réunissait dans sa bibliothèque des ouvrages très divers, superbement reliés, manuscrits ou imprimés, qui semblent avoir attiré leur propriétaire tant par la qualité esthétique de leurs illustrations ou de leur reliure, que par l’intérêt du texte lui-même. Voilà donc le destinataire de la traduction d’une œuvre dont on ne pouvait peut-être pas prévoir, à l’époque, l’énorme retentissement. Vintimille, on l’a dit, cède aux exhortations de Monsieur de Rambouillet qui, dit-il s’adressant au connétable, «commanda un jour de m’exposer à votre jugement en ceste traduction». Il y a là indéniablement la volonté de plaire à deux personnalités haut placées à une époque où, rappelons-le, le jeune Vintimille ne bénéficiait pas d’une situation stable. Ainsi, dicté par l’intérêt que Montmorency ne pouvait que porter à l’œuvre de Machiavel, ne serait-ce que pour avoir luimême participé aux événements qui ont inspiré la réflexion de l’auteur florentin, le choix de notre traducteur fut particulièrement approprié et heureux. Cette intuition se situe en effet à une date relativement proche de celle de la publication de l’ouvrage lui-même, mais surtout à une époque où la pensée et les écrits de Machiavel restaient encore relativement peu répandus en France et n’étaient pas encore confrontés au problème de l’antimachiavélisme dont l’œuvre du huguenot français Innocent Gentillet, Discours sur les Moyens de bien gouverner et maintenir en bonne paix un Royaume ou autre Principauté. Contre Nicolas Machiavel Florentin — publiée pour la première fois à Genève en 1576 —, constitua une pierre de touche.28 S’agissant d’un ouvrage centré sur la réflexion sur le pouvoir, le

27

28

Une étude de cette traduction et de son auteur a été publiée par Léopold-Victor Delisle Traductions d’auteurs grecs et latins offertes à François Ier et à Anne de Montmorency par Etienne Le Blanc et Antoine Macault (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1900), pp. 1-17. Sur la fortune de Machiavel en Europe, Giuliano Procacci, Machiavelli nella cultura europea dell’età moderna (Bari: Laterza, 1995). Sur la fortune française de l’œuvre de Machiavel en France au XVIe voir en particulier pp. 171-212. Sur l’anti-machiavelisme pp. 83-121 et pp. 132-133. Anna Maria Battista, Politica e morale nella Francia dell’età moderna (Genova: Name, 1998), pp. 27-137.

40

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

Prince devait par ailleurs tout naturellement éveiller la curiosité d’un puissant ministre, qui était aussi un fervent défenseur de l’autorité royale et avait fait preuve d’un conservatisme adopté en raison d’une adhésion fondamentale au principe surnaturel du pouvoir souverain. Non seulement son vécu et sa position politique donc, mais aussi sa charge de connétable, de grand officier responsable des affaires militaires, chef des armées en l’absence du roi, faisaient d’Anne de Montmorency le destinataire idéal de deux des ouvrages majeurs de l’auteur florentin. Cependant le don de Vintimille n’eut vraisemblablement pas le résultat escompté. Le traducteur avait sans doute espéré que le connétable financerait l’impression de ses traductions. Les attentes de Vintimille furent déçues. Le traducteur (dépité par l’accueil réservé à ses travaux?) se détourna définitivement de la culture italienne. La sfortuna de ces traductions semble témoigner d’un manque d’intérêt de la part de Montmorency. Il ne faut cependant pas oublier que le connétable parlait couramment l’italien et était donc en mesure de lire les originaux qu’il conservait vraisemblablement dans sa bibliothèque. Est-ce là la cause de l’oubli et de la perte? Faut-il penser que Montmorency ne fut pas séduit par les réflexions machiavelliennes et qu’il ne favorisa donc pas la diffusion des traductions offertes par Vintimille ? Ou bien faut-il supposer, mais c’est peu probable, que la traduction de Vintimille souffrit de l’interdit qui frappa les œuvres de Machiavel mises à l’Index dès 1559, ainsi que de l’anti-machiavélisme qui s’en suivra? Difficile de répondre… il nous suffit pour l’heure d’avoir pu retrouver et divulguer ce précieux témoignage de la fortuna française de Machiavel.

2. La traduction de Jacques de Vintimille La traduction manuscrite du Prince par Jacques de Vintimille est conservée dans la bibliothèque du Château de Chantilly où elle se trouve depuis vraisemblablement 1546.29 Etrange histoire que celle de ce manuscrit, dont

29

Description du manuscrit: Ms. 315. Petit in-f° (0,290 sur 0,195), reliure originale, comp. à la Grolier, avec la devise: AplanoV; tr. dor. -Papier, XVe siècle, 78 ff. chiffrés, précédés de 2 ff. non chiffrés, 25 lignes à la page. «Reliure en maroquin olive mosaïqué de noir, aux plats décorés d’entrelacs, avec au centre une pièce en maroquin citron décorée de fleurons dorés. Dans les compartiments dessinés par des entrelacs se trouve répété quatre fois le mot aplanos en majuscules grecques sur le plat supérieur et en majuscules latines sur le plat inférieur». Catalogue de l’exposition, Livres du connétable. La bibliothèque d’Anne de Montmorency, 18 septembre — 16 décembre 1991, Musée National de la Renaissance, p. 44.

La première traduction française

41

au XIXe siècle Ludovic de Vauzelles déplorait déjà la disparition.30 Il a été oublié pendant des siècles, il est sorti des étagères du Château en vertu de sa riche reliure et de son appartenance à un puissant mécène, et enfin il a été seulement brièvement mentionné par Giuliano Procacci dans son travail sur la fortune européenne de Machiavel.31 Dans la dédicace que Vintimille adresse à Anne de Montmorency, avant même de faire preuve d’une humilité conventionnelle, le traducteur déclare l’intérêt que l’œuvre de Machiavel a suscité chez lui; il dit avoir «prins grand plaisir à lire le traicté» et souhaite donc qu’il puisse être connu en France. Vintimille revendique sa fidélité au texte source, même s’il avoue craindre que son français ne puisse satisfaire aux attentes des érudits de l’époque, qui aiment, dit-il, une «copieuse et Asiactique forme de parler». Vintimille redoute en effet, on l’a vu, qu’on ne lui reproche son statut linguistique flou, où aussi bien l’italien que le français «sont tous différents de mon naturel», qui était le grec.32 Or cette crainte était aggravée par la difficulté de traduire

30 31

32

Nous adressons ici un remerciement tout particulier au conservateur de la bibliothèque du Musée Condé, Mme Emanuelle Toulet, ainsi qu’à toute son équipe pour leur gentillesse et leur collaboration. Pour le texte italien nous faisons toujours référence à l’édition de Giorgio Inglese, De Principatibus (Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, 1994). L. de Vauzelles, p. 58. Ce manuscrit est sorti de la bibliothèque du Château de Chantilly en 1967 lors de l’exposition «Anne de Montmorency», en 1973, «François I et l’art renouvelé au XVIe siècle», en 1991 enfin, «Livres du connétable. La bibliothèque d’Anne de Montmorency». Une même crainte habitait Jacques de Vintimille lorsqu’il adressait au connétable sa traduction d’Hérodien «cest homme greq» qu’il avait, dit-il joliment, «habillé à la mode de France». Il s’engage alors, «si je vois qu’il vous soyt agréable d’ouir parler un greq en françois par la bouche d’un autre greq», à traduire d’autres importants auteurs de la Grèce Antique. Jacques de Vintimille, Dédicace, Histoire d’Hérodian, excellent historiographe, traitant de la vie des successeurs de Marc Aurèle à l’empire de Romme, p. 4. Par ailleurs, bien des années plus tard, le juriste Philibert Buygnon rendra à Vintimille un bel hommage pour sa connaissance de «ceste langue estrangère» qu’il maîtrisait parfaitement. Excellente apologie et défense de Lysias […], f. A3. Dans l’ Advertissement et remontrances aux censeurs de la langue françoise (ajouté à l’Histoire d’Hérodien très tardivement à savoir à l’édition de 1580) Vintimille désormais âgé et sûr de lui, prend parti avec véhémence en faveur des traductions. Puisque ses traductions du grec furent bien reçues, mais qu’elles essuyèrent également quelques critiques, dans ses Advertissements Vintimille s’insurgeait: «Autres m’ont voulut blasmer de n’avoir usé en mes traductions tant de l’Hérodian que de la Cyropédie, des phrases modernes, élégances et figures affectées et obscures, dont les nouveaux escrivains ont commencé d’orner leurs escrits, me rejettant comme estranger et antiquaire. De m’appeler estranger, il ne me font pas tant d’injure, qu’il font de tort aux Roys qui m’ont receu et enté en France, il y a plus de cinquante ans et honoré d’estats et charges souveraines et loüables. Des autres objects je ne tient compte, et ne demanderay jamais le pardon que demandoit Albin, puisque jusques à présent on a trouvé peu ou rien à redire en mes traductions. Si je n’ay suivy leur façon de parler, je ne pense avoir failly: d’autant que

42

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

un texte dont l’expression lui paraissait sèche et inélégante.33 Ainsi ses déclarations rendent compte de l’appréhension naturelle du «translateur», mais aussi du débat sur la langue et sur les traductions qui agitait les milieux culturels de l’époque.34 C’est pourquoi son travail semble souvent osciller entre le respect du texte de départ et une presque réécriture de passages entiers qui n’est cependant que fort rarement dictée par la volonté de commenter implicitement le texte.35 En effet il est sans doute sincère lorsqu’il s’excuse auprès de son dédicataire pour la «dureté du langaige», dont il assume la responsabilité puisqu’il a «voulu fidèlement traduire le sens de

33

34

35

d’aucun d’eux usent de termes, phrases, épithètes et orthographes si estranges, qu’ils font comme une fricassée de mots de divers pays, et gastent et corrompent la grâce et naïfveté de la langue françoise. En quoy je ne suis pas d’accord avec euxl, comme l’on verra un jour par un Traicté à part, si j’ay loisir». Ces déclarations prouvent à quel point Vintimille restait sensible aux problèmes inhérents à la langue en raison, tout d’abord, de son statut d’ «estrangier». La langue de Machiavel, par sa spécificité constitutive, pose à un traducteur français le problème de son interprétation et, surtout, de sa restitution. Sur la langue de la politique de Machiavel voir: Carlo Dionisotti, ´Machiavelli e la lingua fiorentina ´, in Machiavellerie. Storia e fortuna di Machiavelli (Torino: Einaudi, 1980), pp. 267-363. Maurizio Viroli, From Politics to Reason of State. The Acquisition and Transformation of the Language of Politics 1250-1600 (Cambridge: University Press, 1992). Claudio Vivanti, ´Machiavelli e l’informazione diplomatica nel primo Cinquecento´, Jean-Claude Zancarini, ´Gli umori del corpo politico: popolo e plebe nelle opere di Machiavelli’ et Jean-Louis Fournel, ´Gli scritti cancellereschi inediti di Machiavelli durante il primo quinquennio a Palazzo Vecchio’, in La lingua e le lingue di Machiavelli, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi (Firenze: Olschki, 2001). Il y a de nombreuses études sur la langue des traducteurs français au XVIe siècle et sur l’influence que ces mêmes traductions eurent sur le vocabulaire et sur la phrase française. Nous renvoyons, entre autres, à: Charles Bruneau, «La phrase des traducteurs du XVIe siècle», in Mélanges Chamard (Paris, 1951), pp. 275-284; Raymond Lebegue, «La langue des traducteurs français au XVIe siècle », in Festgabe Gamillscheg (Tübingen, 1952); Jacques Chocheyras, ´Le redoublement des termes dans la prose française du XVIe siècle: une explication possible´, Revue de Linguistique Romane, 33 (1969), pp. 79-88. En 1539 l’ordonnance de Villers Cotterêts avait promu définitivement la langue vulgaire au rang de langue officielle au détriment du latin et des autres parlers du territoire F. Brunot, Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900, tome II, Le seizième siècle (Paris, 1906). Cet acte politique sera suivi de textes qui proposent un discours en faveur de la langue française comme langue de la culture tels que, en 1549, Deffence et illustration de la langue françoise de Joachim Du Bellay, et dix ans plus tard par l’Art poétique français de Jacques Peletier. Joachim Du Bellay, Deffence et illustration de la langue françoyse, éd. H. Chamard (Paris: STFM, 1970). Jacques Peletier, Art poétique français, éd. F. Goyet, in Traités de poétique et de rhétorique de la Renaissance (Paris: Livre de Poche, 1990). C’est d’ailleurs en raison de cette même souci de fidélité au sens du texte italien, que, si son manuscrit avait été édité et divulgué, Vintimille serait peut-être resté en marge de la «querelle», qui allait bientôt se déclencher autour de Machiavel et de sa pensée, entre ses défenseurs et ses détracteurs.

La première traduction française

43

l’autheur», non seulement les «enseignements», mais également les «manières de parler» qui elles aussi — rappelle-t-il — participent à la signification profonde du discours de l’auteur florentin et offrent donc la possibilité de connaître «quel homme c’estoit que Nicolas Macchiavel». Notre traducteur est cependant tout autant sincère au début de ce même texte lorsqu’il critique l’inélégance de la langue de Machiavel. Ces mots, qui achèvent la dédicace, prouveraient alors que Vintimille a eu la même intuition que Jacques Gohory aura plusieurs décennies plus tard quand il soutiendra que la langue de Machiavel a été conçue pour exprimer des concepts nouveaux. Ce dernier aurait puisé dans le patrimoine linguistique ancien, les mots pour exprimer une nouvelle approche de l’histoire et de la politique. Mais au début de la dédicace Vintimille suggère en revanche que ses choix linguistiques sont destinés à agrémenter la prose du traité puisqu’il juge que la langue de Machiavel traduite trop fidèlement «n’auroit auncune grâce envers les françois». Voilà deux prises de position en parfaite idiosyncrasie. C’est pourquoi, sans doute, le traducteur n’a pas toujours su, voulu ou pu, rendre la polysémie, le ton ou le rythme de la prose du texte source. Vintimille reste cependant fondamentalement fidèle au sens du traité italien, il s’abstient de tout commentaire et se garde, pour l’essentiel, de manipuler le contenu; mais une lecture en regard prouve qu’il n’a pas toujours réussi à rendre ce que la langue de Machiavel a d’original et de novateur. Craignant les détracteurs, partagé entre son intelligente intuition et le jugement des lecteurs savants, entre la fascination que la langue de Machiavel exerçait sur lui, pour sa correspondance avec l’idée qu’elle transmet, et la peur des critiques, voire de l’incompréhension de ses contemporains, prisonnier peut-être aussi d’une certaine forme de rhétorique, il s’en est malheureusement souvent éloigné et n’a presque jamais rendu, en français, le caractère essentiel et précis propre au traité italien. Ainsi, pour suppléer à ce qu’il dénonce comme un défaut de Machiavel, Vintimille a très souvent dilaté le texte, par des procédés d’amplification récurrents. Parmi ceux-ci l’ajout, et surtout le redoublement des termes, des adjectifs, des substantifs et des verbes.36 Il s’agit pour la plupart de couples réversibles, les

36

Cette pratique qui consiste à faire correspondre à un terme de l’original deux mots dans le texte traduit était courante dans les traductions, mais aussi dans la prose française du XVIe siècle. Elle a été très étudiée: nous renvoyons, entre autres, à P.M. Smith, ´Le redoublement des termes et les emprunts linguistiques dans la traduction en France au XVIe siècle: Henri Estienne et François de Belleforest´, Revue de Linguistique Romane, 47 (1983), pp. 37-58. Claude Buridant, ´Les binômes synonymiques: esquisse d’une histoire des couples de synonymes du Moyen Âge au XVIIe siècle´, Bulletin du Centre d’Analyse du discours, 4 (1980), pp. 5-79.

44

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

deux termes étant néanmoins parfois nécessaires pour traduire un seul mot italien particulièrement efficace et évocateur. Souvent le résultat est une simple iteratio synonymica où le deuxième élément n’apporte pas d’information supplémentaire. En voici quelques séries d’exemples: 1) Ajout et/ou redoublement d’adjectifs: «braves chevaux, belles armes, aornements exquis et convenables», «cavagli, arme e drappi d’oro» (Dédicace à Laurent de Médicis le Jeune); «il convient qu’il soit plus aimé, plus chéry et bien voulu des siens», «è ragionevole che naturalmente sia benvoluto dalli sua» (II, 5); «l’on ne peut tenir facilité aucune à assaillir ung prince qui ayt sa ville bien forte et bien remparée», «nè si può tenere facilità assaltando uno [principe] che abbia la sua terra gagliarda» (X, 6); «qu’il fut beaucoup plus pitoyable et humain», «si vedrà quello essere stato molto più piatoso» (XVII, 3); «Il ne reste qu’à discourir des qualittez de Maximinus, qui fut à la vérité homme tres belliqueux, puyssant et roide de sa personne, «Restaci a narrare le qualità di Maximino. Costui fu uomo bellicosissimo» (XIX, 57). 2) Redoublement et/ou multiplication des substantifs: «Mais les estaz qui se gouvernent par un seul prince qui a seulement ses serfz et esclaves», «Quelli stati che si governano per uno principe e per servi» (IV, 3); «veu qu’il [le peuple] ne désire aultre chose, qu’estre maintenu en sa liberté ancienne sans concussion ou foullement», «non domandando lui se non di non essere oppresso» (IX, 14); «laissent naistre les séditions et disastres dont les occisions, ravissementz, pilleries et larcins proviennent», «lasciono seguire e disordini, di che ne nasca uccisioni e rapine»; «Car si l’on regarde de bien près aux affaires mondaines l’on trouvera […] quelques vices si nécessaires qu’en les suyvant il mectroit aiseement paix, seureté, bon heur, et tranquillité en son estat»; «perchè se si considera bene il tutto, si troverrà […] qualcuna altra che parrà vizio, e seguendola ne nasce la sicurtà et il bene essere suo». (XVI, 12); «Car d’une part admirent ses grandz faictz et appertises de guerre», «da l’una parte admirano questa sua actione» (XVII, 18); «Parquoy vous debvez sçavoir qu’il y a deux sortes de combattre l’une par loix et raisons, l’autre par force et occisions», «Dovete adunque sapere come e’ sono dua generazioni di combattere: l’uno, con legge; l’altro, con la forza» (XVIII, 2). 3) Redoublement des verbes: «Les armes auxiliaires […] sont quand tu requiers secours à ung seigneur puissant, affin qu’avec ses gens de guerre il te veigne ayder et défendre», «Le arme auxiliarie […] sono quando si chiama

La première traduction française

45

uno potente che con le sua arme ti venga a difendere», (XII, 1); «et qui ont sçeut par finesses offusquer et abuser les esprits des hommes», «che hanno saputo con l’astuzia aggirare e cervelli delli uomini» (XVIII, 1); «et soubdaine mutation, laisse tousjours quelque feu couvé et non amorty pour en allumer et édifier un autre», «perchè sempre una mutazione lascia lo adentellato per la edificazione dell’altra» (II, 6); «Et je la compare à un grand fleuve ruyneux, lequel parfoys va paisible, parfoys se courrousse et desborde, et ce faisant inonde les plaine», «Et assimiglio quella a uno di questi fiumi rovinosi che quando si adirano allagano e piani». (XXV, 5). 4) Parfois Vintimille a introduit de longues explicitations, de périphrases, de gloses, des amplifications considérables. Le texte traduit peut devenir un texte réécrit, c’est-à-dire que le rôle du traducteur se double d’une liberté d’auteur qui, tout en respectant fondamentalement le sens, modifie la forme. La tendance la plus affirmée est certainement celle destinée à expliciter des passages. Ce procédé peut être neutre, utilisé seulement pour faciliter la compréhension du lecteur français de l’époque, mais parfois il relève d’une lecture personnelle et aussi d’une forme de censure pour les passages où les prises de position de Machiavel auraient pu paraître choquantes à un public du XVIe siècle. Voici quelques-uns parmi les nombreux exemples: «Car à la vérité, chicheté est un petit vice, et qui ne luy donne ne luy oste l’estat», «[…] perchè questo [essere misero] è uno di quelli vizii che lo fanno regnare» (XVI,11); «Sur ceste matière l’on faict communément une question, à sçavoir si pour se maintenir en estat il vault mieulx estre aymé, que craint et redoubté des subjects, ou s’il vault mieulx se faire craindre que se faire aymer», «Nasce da questo una disputa, s’egli è meglio essere amato che temuto o e converso», (XVII, 8); «Car générallement les hommes jugent plus selon l’apparence de dehors, que selon les œuvres intérieures, et chascun peult veoir ce que ung prince semble au visaige, et ce qu’il monstre par les mines, mais chascun ne peult pas sentir et toucher au doigt ce qu’il est dedans le cueur […]», «E li uomini in universali iudicano più alli occhi che alle mani; perchè tocca a vedere ad ognuno, a sentire a pochi: ognuno vede quello che tu pari, pochi sentono quello che tu se’ […]» (XVIII, 17); «Et à ceste cause ilz nourissoient es villes à eulx subjectes telles diversitez d’humeurs et par ce moyen estant les citoyens de celle cité devenuz foibles, pour l’obstacle l’un de l’aultre, ilz ne se revoltoient point et demouroyent plus facilement en l’obeyssance de leurs seigneurs»; «[…] e per questo nutrivano in qualche terra loro subdita le differenzie, per possederle più facilmente» (XX, 10); «Toutefois il convient quoy qu’il face, et quoy qu’il dye, qu’il n’oublie pas à tenir ferme la majesté de sa dignité sans laquelle il ne se pourra jamais bien

46

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

gouverner, et se monstrer grand en tout temps, en tout lieu, et en tous les accidentz qui luy puyssent survenir»; «[…] tenendo sempre ferma nondimanco la maestà della dignità sua» (XXIII, 28). Plus rarement ce procédé d’amplification recèle un jugement moral, ou une prise de position personnelle du traducteur, et ce n’est pas un hasard si ces modifications deviennent bien plus importantes entre les chapitres XVII et XXI du traité, là où la pensée de Machiavel se fait plus subversive. Vintimille marque ainsi sa préférence pour un comportement princier empreint de noblesse et de force plutôt que de ruse: «Car le lyon ne se peut défendre des lacz et filetz, pource qu’il procède noblement et se fye sur sa force et le renard aussy ne se peult défendre contre la force des loups», «perchè el lione non si difende da’ lacci, la volpe non si difende da’ lupi» (XVIII, 7). Plus loin, alors que Machiavel justifie un prince qui manquerait à la parole donnée car il voit là une réponse naturelle à la mauvaise foi constitutive de l’âme humaine, Vintimille nuance considérablement cette prise de position cherchant ainsi à l’insérer dans une morale plus traditionnelle: «Mais à cause qu’ilz sont tous meschans et que s’ilz y veoient leur prouffict ilz ne fauldroient à rompre la foy de leur costé, pareillement ung prince ne la doibt garder envers eulx avec son gros dommaige et interest, et se doibt monstrer meschant envers les mechans», «E se li uomini fussino tutti buoni, questo precepto non sare’ buono: ma perchè sono tristi e non la observerebbero a te, tu etiam non l’hai ad observare a loro» (XVIII, 9). Alors que Machiavel s’intéresse avant tout à la «verità effettuale della cosa», à savoir au résultat concret produit par un comportement ou une attitude, indépendamment des sentiments ou de la morale qui en sont à l’origine, Vintimille reste enfermé dans une éthique bien plus conventionnelle. Voilà pourquoi il suggère dans sa traduction que la supériorité morale du prince doit être réelle et bien visible. C’est le sens d’une longue glose qui clôt le chapitre XXI: «Et à cause que toute cité est communément divisée en mestiers et confrairies et compagnies de paroisse, il se doibt quelques foix assembler avec eulx et se monstrer humain et magnificque et débonnaire. Toutefois il convient quoy qu’il face, et quoy qu’il dye, qu’il n’oublie pas à tenir ferme la majesté de sa dignité, sans laquelle il ne se pourra jamais bien gouverner, et se monstrer grand en tout temps, en tout lieu, et en tous les accidentz qui luy puyssent survenir», «e perché ogni città è divisa in arte o tribù, tenere conto di quelle università, raunarsi con loro qualche volta, dare di sé exemplo di umanità e di munificenzia, tenendo sempre ferma nondimanco la maestà della dignità sua» (XXI, 28).

La première traduction française

47

Au crédit du traducteur, il faut reconnaître que Vintimille a tenté de rendre les mots-clefs du Prince par des équivalents français systématiques, cédant le moins souvent possible à la tentation de les remplacer par des synonymes. Le mot stato est ainsi presque toujours rendu par estat. Dans les quelques cas où Vintimille a recours à une traduction autre, c’est le terme de seigneurie qui revient le plus souvent (VIII, 27; XX, 2; XX, 25), seigneur (IX, 26), principauté (XVIII, 17). La traduction du mot stato par empire (XIX, 46) s’explique par le fait que Machiavel évoque la prise de pouvoir de l’empereur Sévère. Nous avons relevé deux occurrences de la traduction de stato par gouvernement (IV,5; XX, 22), sans doute préféré pour éviter la répétition. Pour traduire le mot principato Vintimille choisit principauté. Il y a à cette règle peu d’exceptions: dans quelques endroits le traducteur a remplacé principauté par prince (VIII, 2 «si ascende al principato», «l’on devient prince»; IX, 4 «viene al principato», «qui devient prince»; XI, 3; XIII, 24), parfois le mot principato est rendu par empire et, inversement, le mot imperio devient principauté (VII, 42 et XIX, 43). Lorsqu’il s’agit d’exemples tirés de l’histoire de la Rome antique le terme italien principato est remplacé par une périphrase (XVI, 13; XIX, 68); cinq fois principato est traduit par principat (III, 1; VI, 4; VII, 43; XIX, 65; XXIV, 4). En ce qui concerne d’autres termes importants de la réflexion machiavellienne on constate fort peu de fluctuations: principe>prince, ordini>ordres, fortuna>fortune, virtù>vertu. Le mot arme en revanche oscille entre armes, gens de guerre, hommes de guerre, souldarz. D’autres initiatives macroscopiques du traducteur concernent des passages se référant à la France et aux rois de France. Les modifications apportées par Vintimille sont alors destinées à flatter l’orgueil de ces derniers. Il intervient de manière discrète pour nuancer le jugement très critique que Machiavel porte sur l’action de Louis XII en Italie. A cette occasion, il semble vouloir atténuer la gravité des erreurs que l’auteur florentin reproche au roi français, par des touches rapides et, il faut le dire, peu convaincantes:37 «Lesquelles cinq faultes pouvoient durant sa vie ne luy redonder à dommaige, pour la grande puissance et réputation qu’il avoit, s’il n’y eust adjouxté la sixiesme qui fut quand il se rua sur les Vénitiens pour les priver de leur estat». (III, 43), «Le roy [Louis XII] doncques passa en Italie par l’ayde des Vénitiens et avec le consentement du pape Alexandre, et ne fust pas si tost à Milan qu’il donna secours au pape, pour faire guerre contre les seigneurs de la Romaigne. Laquelle fut incontinent occupée par le pape, sans qu’âme l’empescha de la tenir pour la crainte que ung chacun avoit du 37

Nous transcrivons en italique les ajouts ou les changements dus à la plume de Vintimille.

48

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

roy» (VII, 15). Vintimille se montre en revanche plus persuasif lorsque il s’agit, par exemple de grandir l’action de Charles VIII et, là où Machiavel avait trouvé l’expression célèbre et efficace: «onde che a Carlo re di Francia fu lecito pigliare la Italia col gesso […]», Vintimille traduit au prix d’un contre-sens: «Au moyen dequoy, il fut loysible à Charles roy de France de prendre toute l’Italie et la saccager entièrement» (XII, 9). Il trahissait ainsi la réalité historique, mais ne laissait pas passer une occasion d’exagérer la puissance guerrière du monarque français. D’autres interventions laissent paraître une volonté d’actualisation afin de rendre peut-être plus familier le texte aux lecteurs contemporains. Parfois cette démarche s’exprime tout simplement par l’ajout d’une phrase. Par exemple, au chapitre III, paragraphes 48-49, Machiavel rapporte son échange avec le cardinal de Rouen au cours duquel il avait répondu au prélat, qui accusait les Italiens de ne rien entendre à la guerre, que les Français, eux, n’entendaient rien aux affaires de l’Etat puisqu’ils avaient laissé croître, contre leur propre intérêt, la puissance de l’Eglise: «E per experienza si è visto che la grandezza in Italia di quella [de l’Eglise] e di Spagna è stata causata da Francia, e la ruina sua è suta causata da loro». Vintimille traduit librement: «Car l’on a veu par expérience que les Françoys ont esté cause que l’Eglise et le roy d’Hespaigne sont devenuz si grandz en Italie, et par iceulx mesmes ilz ont été chassez bien peu après». Dans la traduction le choix d’introduire le passé composé «sont devenuz» insiste sur la continuité d’une situation et sur ses conséquences plus que jamais actuelles vers le milieu du XVIe siècle. Ailleurs c’est en revanche la suppression d’un adjectif qui produit un effet d’actualisation. Ainsi, à deux reprises, Vintimille choisit de ne pas traduire l’adjectif «freschi» que Machiavel emploie pour introduire un exemple puisé dans l’histoire récente (VII, 43: «e più freschi esempi», disparaît dans la traduction; XVIII, 12, «Io non voglio delli exempli freschi tacerne uno», devient: «Surquoy je ne veult admener que ung seul exemple»). Dans les deux cas, l’omission de l’adjectif néglige un aspect important de la pensée de Machiavel, qui repose sur une forme de connaissance où le présent et le passé sont complémentaires, mais par la même occasion les exemples cités, qui ne sont plus qualifiés de «freschi», récents, peuvent plus vraisemblablement être reçus par un lecteur chronologiquement éloigné de la rédaction du texte source. Dans un autre passage, le traducteur cherche à situer plus précisément la réflexion machiavélienne et la rend par conséquent plus actuelle. Au chapitre XIX paragraphes 20-24, le Parlement français est évoqué comme une institution idéale pour préserver la liberté et la sécurité du

La première traduction française

49

roi.38 Là où Machiavel, plongé dans la réalité politique de la Florence de son époque, parle de «l’ambizione de’ potenti e la insolenzia loro», Vintimille choisit «l’ambition et l’insolence des nobles», et pour rendre «l’odio dello universale contro i grandi», il utilise, pour traduire l’italien «universale» deux substantifs immédiatement compréhensibles pour un lecteur français de son époque: «le peuple et les moins puissans». Une opération analogue transforme les florentines «arte o tribù» en des bien plus françaises «mestiers et confrairies et compagnies de paroisse». Plus loin, au chapitre XXI paragraphe 6, c’est la modification des temps verbaux qui opère l’actualisation. Machiavel rappelle les conquêtes qui valurent sa renommée à Ferdinand d’Aragon. Il s’agit d’événements dont certains sont relativement proches du moment présumé de la rédaction et, en toute logique, l’auteur utilise le passé simple, pour évoquer les épisodes les plus anciens, et le passé composé pour les épisodes récents: «Assaltò, sotto questo medesimo mantello, l’Affrica. Fece l’impresa d’Italia. Ha ultimamente assaltato la Francia».39 Vintimille rend ainsi tous ces événements à leur passé désormais lointain: «Si se couvrit de rechief de ce mesme manteau de vouloir augmenter la réligion, et assaillit l’Affricque, depuys feit son entreprinse d’Italie en prenant le royaume de Naples, à la parfin donna l’assault au royaume de France». Par ailleurs, dans un registre moins emblématique, il convient de souligner le talent de Vintimille à rendre en français les quelques dictons ou adages, ainsi que les quelques vers qu’on trouve dans le De Principatibus. Par exemple: «[…] chi fonda sul popolo fonda sul fango», (IX, 20) est rendu par «Qui en peuple se fye / Sur la boue édifie»; ou encore «E di quello che non è tuo o de’ subditi tuoi si può essere più largo donatore […]», (XVII, 17), «Et comme l’on dict en commung proverbe, du cuyr daultruy large courroye, la despense des biens daultruy donne plus de réputation au prince […]». Par ailleurs, en bon latiniste, Vintimille traduit de fort belle manière les vers de Virgile que Machiavel cite au chapitre XVII, paragraphe 6: «Mon nouveau Règne, et affaires urgens/ Ce que tu vois m’ont contraincte entreprendre/ Et

38

39

Giuliano Procacci (Machiavelli nella cultura europea, pp. 177-183) remarque qu’il s’agit là de l’un des passages du De Principatibus qui eurent en France le plus de retentissement en raison de la polémique qu’au cours de tout le XVIe siècle opposa les partisans d’une fonction politique du Parlement et ceux qui défendaient l’idée d’un Parlement uniquement voué à l’administration de la justice. Il s’agit des éphémères conquêtes d’Oran (1509), de Bougie (1510), de Tripoli (1511); du partage du royaume de Naples avec les Français stipulée par le traité de Grenade (novembre 1500) et pour finir de l’attaque du duché de Guyenne (mai 1512) après laquelle les Espagnols s’emparent de la Navarre (septembre-décembre 1512).

50

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

par ma terre en armes tenir gens/ Pour mon passaige et entrée défendre».40 Même considération pour les vers de Pétrarque qui achèvent le traité et qui acquièrent chez le traducteur, fin lettré, une belle facture poétique: «Contre fureur la vertu s’armera/ Et leur combat long temps ne durera,/ Car la valeur des effortz anciens/ N’est anchor morte es cueurs italiens».41 Par ailleurs, si les ajouts, les redoublements des adjectifs, substantifs, verbes ainsi que l’amplification des phrases destinée à corriger la concision du texte source ou à en expliciter le sens, sont des phénomènes fréquents, rarement ces procédés modifient le sens du texte italien ou révèlent la volonté du traducteur d’introduire un commentaire plus ou moins implicite. Contrairement par exemple au texte de Gaspard d’Auvergne qui comportait, en marge de certains passages, des annotations blâmant l’audace de Machiavel et sans doute destinées à désamorcer les réactions d’un lecteur du XVIe siècle,42 Vintimille s’abstient de toute note moralisante, bien que, naturellement, sa subjectivité pointe au détour d’une phrase ou dans un simple choix stylistique. Les titres, les citations et les quelques mots latins apparaissant dans le texte ont tous été traduits par Vintimille. Ce procédé ne nous surprend pas chez un lettré qui était aussi un remarquable latiniste, mais il est probable qu’il se soit borné à traduire en français les parties qui, dans les plus anciennes éditions italiennes avaient déjà été rendues en «volgare». C’est le cas en effet de l’édition de Blado et de Giunta. Cette remarque soulève la délicate question de savoir quel était l’exemplaire utilisé par le traducteur. On le sait, le De Principatibus ne fut pas imprimé du vivant de Machiavel, aucun exemplaire autographe n’a été retrouvé et il n’y a aucune preuve de l’existence d’une copie d’après un manuscrit dû à l’auteur.43 Le traité fut publié pour la première fois à Rome en 1532, par Antonio Blado d’après vraisemblablement un ou plusieurs exemplaires manuscrits. Une autre édition vit le jour à Florence quatre mois plus tard chez Bernardo Giunta. Aucune 40

41

42

43

«Res dura et regni novitas ma talia cogunt / Moliri, et late fines custode tueri». Enéide (I, 563). «Virtù contro a furore / Prenderà l’armi, e fia el combatter corto, che l’antico valore / Nelli italici cor non è ancor morto». Francesco Petrarca, Italia mia, Canzoniere, CXXVIII, pp. 9396. Voir à ce propos les exemples cités par Renata Pianori, ´Le Prince de Gaspard d’Auvergne´, in Studi Machiavelliani (Verona: Palazzo Giuliani, 1972), pp. 89-90. Sur l’histoire de la composition et des premières éditions du De Principatibus, nous renvoyons à: Giorgio Inglese, ´De Principtibus mixtis. Per una discussione sulla «diacronia» del De Principatibus´, La Cultura, XX (1982), pp. 276-301; Giorgio Inglese, ´Il De Principatibus ´, in Letteratura italiana, Le Opere, vol. I, Dalle Origini al Cinquecento, a cura di Alberto Asor Rosa (Torino: Einaudi, 1992), pp. 889-941.

La première traduction française

51

édition ne dérive directement de l’original et chacune présente des ajouts, des variantes, des corrections et des erreurs venant des éditions précédentes ou des manuscrits.44 Si nous signalons en note les écarts entre la traduction et le texte-source que nous avons utilisé, nous ne pouvons pas affirmer à ce stade de notre étude, si d’éventuels manques, ou ajouts, sont intentionnels ou bien étaient déjà présents dans la version italienne dont Vintimille s’est servi. Proto-traducteur du Prince, Vintimille n’a pas pu participer à la diffusion des ouvrages de Machiavel en France en raison du destin malheureux de son manuscrit. Néanmoins, même au-delà des éventuelles lacunes ou erreurs qu’un lecteur moderne peut relever dans son travail, nous devons lui reconnaître d’indéniables mérites: l’intuition visionnaire du rôle fondateur que le Prince allait jouer dans l’histoire de la pensée politique, et une position relativement objective à l’égard de l’original, à savoir une forme d’honnêteté intellectuelle qui est la première qualité d’un bon traducteur.

44

Il y a eu cependant à ce sujet de nombreuses contributions et des tentatives de reconstruction d’une généalogie des documents. A. E. Quaglio a, le premier, fait le point sur cette délicate question. Voir: A. E. Quaglio, ´Per il testo del De Principatibus di Niccolò Machiavelli´, Lettere Italiane, XIX, 2 (aprile-giugno 1967).

52

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

3. Les traductions françaises du Prince au XVIe siècle: Guillaume Cappel, Gaspard d’Auvergne, Jacques Gohory. Si Vintimille a été le premier, bien que méconnu, traducteur français du Prince de Machiavel, il n’a pas été le seul au XVIe siècle.45 En 1553 paraissaient, on l’a vu, les traductions de Guillaume Cappel et de Gaspard d’Auvergne. En 1571, bien que le nom et l’œuvre de Machiavel eussent été inclus, depuis 1559 et de nouveau en 1564 après la fin du Concile de Trente, dans l’Index librorum prohibitorum parmi les auteurs interdits, Jacques Gohory publiait sa version française du Prince.46 Un an après le massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy, dont on tiendra pour responsable Catherine de Médicis, qui ne cachait pas son admiration pour Machiavel, cette dernière édition n’aurait peut-être jamais vu le jour. Au sujet de ces autres traducteurs du Prince, des hommes cultivés, contemporains de Vintimille, nous n’avons que peu de renseignements; ceux-ci nous suffisent cependant pour affirmer qu’il ne semble avoir existé aucun lien entre ces adeptes de l’auteur florentin et Vintimille. On ne connaît presque rien de Guillaume Cappel, ce médecin-lettréhumaniste dont on ignore même la date de naissance et qui a survécu à l’oubli grâce à sa traduction du Prince. Dans son étude sur Etienne Jodelle, Enea Balmas situe Guillaume Cappel dans l’entourage du poète et le met en rapport avec les partisans de la Réforme en raison de deux pièces liminaires de Jodelle qui accompagnent la traduction du Prince. Il s’agit de quelques 45

46

Pour un profil biographique et culturel des autres traducteurs du Prince de Machiavel au XVIe siècle, nous renvoyons à: Anna Maria Battista, Politica e morale nella Francia dell’età moderna, cap. I, ´La penetrazione di Machiavelli in Francia´, pp. 7-27. Balmas, ´Jacques Gohory, traduttore del Machiavelli´, pp. 1-52. Dante Bovo, ´Il Principe di Guillaume Cappel´, in: Studi Machiavelliani, pp. 53-80. Pianori, pp. 81-102. Ces études prouvent que leurs auteurs respectifs ne connaissaient pas les traductions de Jacques de Vintimille. L’existence du manuscrit de Vintimille a uniquement été mentionnée par Giuliano Procacci dans son ouvrage sur la fortune européenne de Machiavel. Cependant l’historien ne va pas au-delà d’un brève commentaire de la dédicace et de la constatation que peu de temps après la première édition italienne du De Principatibus, à Rome chez Blado en 1532, l’échos avait retentit jusqu’à la cour de François Ier. Par ailleur Procacci rappelle que notre manuscrit avait été brièvement signalé par W.H. Bowen, ´Sixteenth century French traslations of Machiavelli´, in Italica, 1950, pp. 313-320, voir p. 315. Et par M. Dal Corso, ´Montaigne e il Principe di Machiavelli; i primi contatti´, in Montaigne e l’Italia, Atti del Congresso internazionale di Studi, Milano Lecco, 26-30 ottobre 1988 (Genève-Moncalieri 1991), pp. 149 et 152. Le Prince de Nicolas Machiavel secretaire et citoien florentin, traduit de l’Italien en François avec la vie de l’auteur mesme, par Iaq. Gohory Parisien, à Paris, chez Robert le Magnier, avec privilège du Roy, 1571. [B.N.F., E*2835].

La première traduction française

53

vers latins et d’un sonnet en français adressés au traducteur. Ils se trouvent en appendice de l’ouvrage avec deux autres poèmes offerts à Guillaume Cappel par M.-A. Muret et Rémy Belleau.47 Les vers de Muret et de Belleau sont traditionnellement élogieux, alors que le sonnet français de Jodelle contient une allusion polémique aux lettrés qui s’intéressent à des sujets légers comme les histoires fantastiques, les romans de chevalerie et les poètes, par opposition à un ouvrage sérieux comme le Prince que le travail de Cappel a contribué à faire connaître en France.48 Sa traduction de l’ouvrage de Machiavel est accompagnée d’une Préface très enthousiaste, dédiée à «Monseigneur Bertrand Garde des Sceaux de France» son ami et protecteur, très proche de la favorite d’Henri II, Diane de Poitiers. Nous avons déjà souligné les limites idéologiques dont Cappel et d’Auvergne font preuve dans leurs dédicaces. Nous précisons ici que ces traducteurs n’expriment cependant aucune réserve à l’égard de Machiavel et de sa doctrine. Cappel affirme que le traité du secrétaire florentin est un chefd’œuvre de sagesse dont il vante avec enthousiasme les valeurs politiques et sociales qu’il véhicule. Au Prince de Machiavel revient le mérite, selon le traducteur, d’être le fruit d’une analyse rationnelle des effets et des causes d’un événement donné. La traduction du Prince de Gaspard d’Auvergne, fut publiée à Poitiers le 12 avril de cette même année 1553.49 Dans sa dédicace à Lord James Hamilton «Duc de Chastellerault, contes d’Araines, Tuteur unique de la

47

48

49

Guillaume Cappel n’était pas lui-même protestant, mais les recherches des frères Haag (La France protestante, 2° ed., t. III, col. 720-739) prouvent que Cappel appartenait à une famille qui en comptait beaucoup. Enea Balmas, Un poeta del Rinascimento francese, pp. 125-128. Voici le texte du sonnet: «Combien de fois se devroient repentir / Ceux qui fondant un discours sur les nües, / De motz fardéz, de fables inconnues / Taschent nos yeux par songes allentir. / Mais combien nous qui faisons retentir / Les fictions de deux cimes cornües, / D’une fureur antique retenües, / Lors que l’on voit un tel Prince sortir? / Prince qui brave à nos Francois commande / De mespriser de noz resveurs la bande / Pour moissonner en un plus brave object. / Prince qu’ainsi Capel ameine en France / Que l’on dira, veu la riche abondance / Capel lui estre un fidele subject». Les «pièces liminaires » qui accompagnent la traduction de Cappel sont signées de Jean Dorat, en grec, de Marc-Antoine Muret, en français, c’est là que ce dernier loue amplement le traducteur pour son travail. Nous connaissons peu de choses sur la vie et les relations de Gaspard d’Auvergne. Renata Pianori rappelle qu’il fut un humaniste lié à Ronsard, qui lui consacre quelques vers dans les Amours, et trois poèmes dans son Bocage de 1550 (il s’agit de la V, VI et l’VIII, supprimées dans l’édition de 1578). Comme Guillaume Cappel, Gaspard d’Auvergne était poète et ami de poètes. Sa traduction aussi est précédée par des «pièces liminaires » qui lui adressent Dorat, Maludanus et Marc-Antoine Muret. Renata Pianori, ´Le Prince di Gaspar d’Auvergne’, pp. 84-85.

54

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

royne d’Ecosse, Gouverneur, et seconde personne dudit royaume», le traducteur se préoccupe de désamorcer les thèses les plus subversives de Machiavel en conciliant l’éthique catholique avec les exigences de la politique du prince.50 C’est peut-être grâce à cette interprétation ainsi qu’aux interventions des censeurs français dès la première édition du travail de d’Auvergne,51 que cette traduction connut une plus grande fortune que celle de Cappel.52 Cependant quels que soient la valeur ou les défauts de ces

50

51

52

James Hamilton, comte d'Arran (env. 1516–1575) fut régent d'Écosse au XVIe siècle. Il était en 1543, à la mort du roi Jacques V d'Écosse, le plus proche héritier de la couronne après Marie Stuart encore mineure, et reçut la régence du royaume. Il était initialement protestant et membre du parti pro-anglais, et fut impliqué en 1543 dans les négociations du mariage de Marie Stuart avec le prince Édouard (le futur of Édouard VI d'Angleterre). Il devint cependant catholique peu de temps après et rejoignit le parti pro-français, consentant au mariage de la reine avec le dauphin français, le futur François II. Dès 1548, Marie Stuart, âgée de 6 ans, partait vivre à la Cour de France où elle reçu son éducation. James Hamilton eut en récompense, le titre français de duc de Châtellerault, avec une pension de 12 000 livres. C’est en 1558 qu’aura lieu le mariage entre Marie et le dauphin François II. A la mort ce dernier, en décembre 1560, elle quitta la France en avril 1561. (En 1554, d'Arran laissa la régence à Marie de Guise, sœur des Guise et mère de Marie Stuart). En 1559 James Hamilton changea d'allégeance, rejoignant la faction protestant, Lords of the Congregation, pour s'opposer à la régence de Marie de Guise, perdant à cette occasion son duché français. Quand François II mourut, il tenta sans succès d'arranger le mariage de son fils James à la jeune veuve Marie. Il balança entre Marie et les Lords of the Congregation, au gré de ses intérêts, mais après les noces de la reine avec Lord Darnley en 1565, il se retira dans ses terres françaises. Il revint en 1569 en Écosse et fut emprisonné jusqu'à ce qu'il reconnaisse, en 1573, le fils de la reine Marie, Jacques, comme l'héritier du trône d'Écosse. (Dictionnaire Universel d’histoire et de geographie, Bouillet M.). Ce personnage dont le traducteur est «son treshumble advocat » était à l’époque où d’Auvergne lui dédié sa traduction proche de la cour de France et officiellement éloigné des milieux protestants. Il mourut en France, en 1575. Les censeurs, les «dépputez à visiter les livres», intervinrent avec des annotations en marge: au chapitre III, où Machiavel conseille de supprimer les descendants du prince d’un état nouvellement conquis; au chapitre XIII en stigmatisant l’exemple de Jéron de Syracuse qui, ne pouvant plus se fier à ses mercenaires, les fit massacrer; enfin au chapitre XVIII lorsque l’auteur florentin reconnaît au prince le droit de ne pas observer la foi si son pouvoir pouvait être en danger. La traduction de d’Auvergne a été de nouveau éditée en 1571 par Marnef et Cavellat avec les Discours de Jacques Gohory, la même année où ce dernier publiait sa propre traduction du Prince chez Robert Le Magnier. Entre 1571 et 1606 les Discours et le Prince de d’Auvergne eurent au moins 11 rééditions, et entre 1614 et 1646 les deux ouvrages furent publiés encore 10 fois avec en plus l’Arte de la guerre de Jehan Charrier. A. Gerber, Niccolò Machiavelli. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen seiner Werke im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Torino: Bottega d’ Erasmo, 1962, ristampa anastatica dell’edizione in tre volumi di F.A. Perthes, Gotha, 1912-1913), II, pp. 39-40. Une succinte analyse comparative de la traduction de Gaspard d’Auvernge est amorcé par R. Pianori, ´Le Prince de Gaspard d’Auvergne´, pp. 90-91. Pour une lecture comparative des dédicaces de Cappel, d’Auvergne

La première traduction française

55

traductions, la formation ou le parcours de leurs auteurs, puisque la traduction de Vintimille n’était pas éditée, ce sont bien Guillaume Cappel et Gaspard d’Auvergne qui, les premiers, ont mis le Prince à la portée des lecteurs français. Mais, en France, le mieux connu des traducteurs du De Principatibus au XVIe siècle est sans doute Jacques Gohory né le 20 janvier 1519, fils de Pierre Gohory et de Catherine Rivière, veuve du comte de Thorigny, descendant d’une famille aisée probablement d’origine italienne, laquelle comptait plusieurs hommes de loi gravitant autour du Parlement de Paris. Il a sans doute suivi aussi des études de droit puisque, selon son propre témoignage, il aurait été avocat au Parlement. C’est en 1544 qu’il va soudainement faire parler de lui lorsqu’il traduit et publie le premier livre des Discours de Machiavel dont il offre un exemplaire à Anne de Montmorency, sans doute au même moment où Vintimille travaillé, ou avait terminé de travailler, à ses propres traductions de Machiavel. Ce n’est qu’en 1571 que voit le jour la traduction du Prince offerte à l’«Illustre Seigneur don Jan Francisque Carafe duc d’Avian et comte de Mariglian». Alors que Gohory avait traduit le premier livre des Discours en 1544 (qui sera d’ailleurs la seule version française à être imprimée pendant plus d’un siècle), il publiait son Prince bien longtemps après Guillaume Cappel et Gaspard d’Auvergne. Il reproche à ses prédécesseurs d’avoir si mal traduit l’ouvrage de Machiavel qu’il se voit contraint de reprendre le travail: «[…] lequel livre j’ay esté contraint de repasser et quasi retraduire entièrement pour la discrépance des deux traducteurs précédens en maintz lieux tant entre eux qu’avecques l’auteur mesme».53 Cette citation se trouve dans la brève biographie de Machiavel que Gohory rédige presque un siècle après la naissance de l’auteur florentin et que E. Balmas publie dans son étude pour la première fois.54 Gohory a en effet ajouté à la fin de sa traduction une biographie élogieuse et particulièrement intéressante puisque elle paraît à une date où l’hostilité envers Machiavel se fait plus âpre. Cette

53

54

et Gohory, voir aussi Anna Maria Battista, Politica e morale nella Francia dell’età moderna, cap. I ´La penetrazione di Machiavelli in Francia', pp. 7-27. Jacques Gohory, ´La vie de Nicolas Machiavel secretaire et citoyen de Florence, composée par Jaques Gohory´, in E. Balmas, ´Jacques Gohory, traduttore del Machiavelli´, pp. 59-63 (p. 63). Nous soulignons. Jacques Gohory, ´La vie de Nicolas Machiavel secretaire et citoyen de Florence, composée par Jaques Gohory´, pp. 43-45.

56

Nella Bianchi Bensimon

biographie contient une étrange interprétation du Prince, un éloge de son auteur et surtout une assez étonnante prise de position pro-impériale.55 Le Prince a été imprimé dans le même volume que la traduction des Discours revue et corrigée que Gohory dédie au «Magnifique Seigneur J. Francisque des Affaydi, Conte de Ghistelle, Marquis de Soresine».56 Enea Balmas, qui a tiré de l’oubli ce personnage, n’analyse pas les traductions de Jacques Gohory. Il a en effet voulu avant tout replacer dans le cadre de sa biographie l’intérêt de ce savant pour Machiavel. Balmas qualifie le traducteur d’homme «enciclopedico», dont la curiosité s’exerce dans les domaines les plus divers — de la politique à l’histoire, de la culture de la vigne et du tabac à l’ «ars combinatoria» jusqu’aux romans de chevalerie. D’après E. Balmas, Machiavel aurait séduit le traducteur par ce que son ouvrage a de moins rationnel et de plus proche d’une vision d’un monde soumis à d’étranges correspondances.57 Si Gohory et Vintimille ont en commun une sincère admiration pour l’œuvre de Machiavel, rien d’autre ne semble les rapprocher, ni leur profil biographique ni leurs intérêts respectifs. Un seul fil les unit: avoir dédié certains de leurs travaux au même moment et au même noble personnage: Anne de Montmorency. Par ailleurs, une lecture comparative des deux versions françaises du De Principatibus témoigne de leur étrangeté respective. Le destin a rapproché ces deux personnages presque certainement inconnus l’un l’autre, à l’enseigne d’une même intuition sur ce qu’avait de troublant et de novateur la pensée de Machiavel, dont ils ont été parmi les premiers messagers au-delà des Alpes. 55

56

57

Il [Machiavel] a fait un livre du Prince, adroissé (comme dessus est dit) au Magnifique Laurens filz de Pierre de Medicis: auquel il descrit singulièrement toutes les parties requises au Seigneur tendant à Monarchie y voulant secrettement représenter l’Empereur Charles quint lors régnant comme il en donne témoignage en un passage. […] Surquoy je conclu que ce personnage si excellent en esperit et doctrin, que depuis longz siècles la terre n’a porté son pareil, nous sert de bel exemple de l’ignorance, avarice, et ingratitude de plusieurs princes, lesquelz perdent et consument leurs finances en pompes, bobans et délices, sans honorer ne recompenser la vertu des élégantes plumes, dont ilz ne servent par aventure après le decez des auteurs comme le jouët et passetemps quand les autres esbatz leur défaillent. Jacques Gohory, ´La vie de Nicolas Machiavel secretaire et citoyen de Florence, composée par Jaques Gohory´, p. 45. En 1573 Gohory coordonne la grande édition de l’Histoire de Tite-Live publiée par le libraire parisien Jean Charron. A partir de 1573 il sera chargé de poursuivre l’œuvre interrompue de Paolo Emilio sur l’histoire de la couronne de France. Il s’attellera à cette tâche jusqu’à la mort. La continuation de l’histoire de Paolo nous est parvenue manuscrite et incomplète. Enea Balmas, ´Jacques Gohory, traduttore del Machiavelli´ p. 37. Enea Balmas, ´Jacques Gohory, traduttore del Machiavelli´, p. 39.

La première traduction française

57

Par rapport aux autres traducteurs de Machiavel au XVIe siècle, Vintimille est donc en marge. Ses liens avec l’Italie plongent leurs racines dans ses origines familiales et, bien que, dans sa famille d’adoption, Jean de Vauzelles ait été le premier traducteur français de la Genèse de l’Arétin, on ne lui connaît aucune relation avec les milieux italianisants français, ni avec les poètes de la Pléiade dont faisaient partie aussi bien Guillaume Cappel que Gaspard d’Auvergne et Jacques Gohory.

Caterina Mordeglia

The first Latin translation1 Abstract: Although Agostino Nifo produced a Latin reworking of Il Principe before Machiavelli’s treatise saw print, the first proper Latin translation was not completed until 1560. Commissioned by the publisher Pietro Perna, it was carried out by the Reformed Umbrian exile Silvestro Tegli and published in Basle as a work of politico-religious Reformist propaganda. The translation was essentially faithful to the original, except for the omission of some passages whose content was too compromising and a stylistic reworking marked by the use of rhetorical amplificatio, as was typical of literary prose in the sixteenth century. With its 14 republications and re-printings in the space of 60 years, it helped spread Machiavelli’s text throughout Europe, and its fame was only surpassed by Hermann Conring’s Latin translation published in 1660, which however largely recast the original for ideological reasons.

Before looking more closely at the first Latin version of Machiavelli’s Il Principe, I think it is best to start with some background. Machiavelli’s celebrated political treatise, which since its first appearance has enjoyed a level of diffusion and fame (for good or ill) that even surpasses Dante’s Divine Comedy, was given a Latin version even before it was printed. But that is precisely what it was: a version, and not a translation in the strict sense of the word. As we know,2 in March 1523 in Naples the philosopher Agostino Nifo, famous primarily for his commentaries on Aristotle,3 published an essay in Latin entitled De regnandi peritia, an example of the genre of specula principis which was very common during the Renaissance humanist period. These so-called “mirrors for princes” were treatises offering instruction about good governance to those in government and in general to the powerful. De regnandi peritia contained not only references to ancient sources on the theories of good government, from Aristotle’s Ethica Nicomachea to Cicero’s De officiis, and to political literature from the end of the fifteenth century, but also the translation of a large number of excerpta from

1 2

3

Translated by Ian Harvey. A comprehensive bibliography on the subject has been compiled by Paola Cosentino, ‘Un plagio del Principe: il De regnandi peritia di Agostino Nifo’, Semestrale di Studi (e Testi) italiani, 1 (1998), pp. 139-160, which undertakes an overall re-examination of the literary, historical and cultural value of the work, and to which I refer the reader for a succinct but exhaustive examination of the question. On the life and work of Nifo (Sessa Aurunca, ca. 1473-1538, 1545 or 1546), cf. again the bibliographical references given in Cosentino, pp. 141-142, notes 12 and 13.

60

Caterina Mordeglia

Machiavelli’s work. Since, however, Il Principe had not yet been published — it was to be published posthumously nine years later by Blado — Nifo must have consulted it between 1519 and 1522 in the original manuscript, probably at the Giunti publisher’s, which at the time both he and Machiavelli frequented, and where, in 1525, Machiavelli’s Art of War was to be published. In Nifo’s reworking Machiavelli’s text is subjected to an Aristotelian revision which completely played down its innovative thrust. As summed up by Giuliano Procacci in his fundamental 1965 study on the success of Machiavelli, more than an “apologia e manifesto in favore del «principe nuovo»”, the essay in fact becomes “un trattato sulle varie forme di governo, con particolare riferimento a quella tirannica”.4 The fact that he drew liberally from a text that had yet to be officially published (at the same time as making several cuts and adjustments) led critics to talk of plagiarism. My aim here, however, is not to discuss the literary operation carried out by Nifo, or to investigate whether this accusation is true or not. In Nifo’s defence it should be pointed out that the modern concept of literary property was unknown in the classical and medieval age and, even less so, in the Renaissance; it is a principle which clashes sharply with the then very widespread practice of imitating literary auctoritates.5 It is important rather to emphasise that the need to spread Machiavelli’s celebrated work in Latin — the language which, for at least a century more, would be the prime language chosen for scientific-political treatises and certain literary genres — was felt by the intellectual circles of the time immediately after its composition, even when their aim was to confute it. Nevertheless, some forty years had to pass before it was possible to read a full Latin translation of Il Principe, and this came about largely thanks to the particular historical-cultural milieu that had its focal point in sixteenthcentury Reformation Basle. In this period the Swiss city became a cultural centre of primary importance — especially at the time, between 1514 and 1529, when Erasmus of Rotterdam was staying there, and subsequently in the period between the 1550s and the 1580s — as well as a centre of religious freedom. Indeed, even 4

5

Giuliano Procacci, Studi sulla fortuna di Machiavelli (Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per l’età moderna e contemporanea, 1965), p. 11. In this sense we agree with the correct observations made by Paul Larivaille and PernetBeau Simone, Une réécriture du Prince de Machiavel, le De regnandi Peritia de Agostino Nifo, Edition Bilingue (Paris: Université de Paris-Nanterre X, Centre de Recherches de Langue et Littérature Italiennes, 1987), p. V, in the Preface to the edition of Nifo’s text.

The first Latin translation

61

more so than Geneva, Calvin’s place of residence, it attracted large numbers of Reformed exiles not only from Italy, but generally from all over Europe.6 The town’s book and publishing industry definitely played a major role in this development. With its rich heritage of manuscripts that were essentially the property of the ecclesiastical community (in particular, the Dominicans and Carthusians), from 1460 onwards it developed and became (even more so than the University) the main reason for the growth and consolidation of the local humanistic movement during the sixteenth century. Initially, most published texts tended to be connected to the sources of Christianity — in other words, the Holy Scriptures, the work of the Fathers of the Church and, in particular, the writings of Luther. In the age of the Reformation Basle became the hub from which Luther’s writings were distributed across western Europe. Progressively, however (starting roughly from 1530), literary and historiographical works of the Italian Renaissance were added. In this way publishing houses became meeting points for numerous ‘free thinkers’ from various parts of Europe — Italy, France, Germany, Poland, to mention only a few. Some were exiles and political refugees, and printers often encountered the hostility of local authorities, who saw them as champions of “subversive” new religious and cultural ideals.7 Such was the fate, for example, of Pietro Perna, one of the outstanding figures in the Basle book trade in the post-Reformation period. After moving from Lucca as a refugee in 1542, between 1560 and 1570 he became a point of reference for Italian emigrants, as well as one of the most politically engaged Basle printers and, for this reason as well as on account of his uncomfortable friends, one of the most suspicious in the eyes of the city authorities. He published over 200 volumes, all important works which helped shape the direction of culture and the religious struggle in Europe. Two strands stood out, which were closely interconnected in terms of their avant-garde potential: religious and medico-scientific, in particular alchemical and 6

7

Cf. Delio Cantimori, Eretici italiani del Cinquecento e altri scritti, ed. by Adriano Prosperi, Biblioteca di cultura storica, 193 (Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1992), pp. 100-101. Hans R. Guggisberg, Basel in the Sixteenth Century. Aspects of the City Republic before, during, and after the Reformation (St. Louis, Missouri: Center for Reformation Research, 1982), in particular pp. 3-53 passim. On Basle as a centre for the circulation of texts of Italian Humanism and the Renaissance, cf. also Peter Bietenholz, Der italienische Humanismus und die Blütezeit des Buchdrucks in Basel. Die Basler Drucke italienischer Autoren von 1530 bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft, 1 (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1959), especially pp. 78-79 with regard to Machiavelli’s work.

62

Caterina Mordeglia

naturalistic subjects (it was no accident that one of Perna’s consultants was the celebrated naturalist Theodor Zwingler). One need only cite the Dialogi quatuor by Sebastian Castellio (a scholar from Savoy who had formerly worked with Calvin in Geneva and later became a professor of Greek at the University of Basle), Paolo Giovio’s Opera omnia, and the works of Raimondo Lullo and Paracelso. The famous printer also had a particular interest in historians of the late-ancient and medieval period (Zosimo, Isidoro di Siviglia, Paolo Diacono, Gregorio di Tours and Ottone di Frisinga), as well as in the great thinkers and essay writers of the Renaissance, including of course Niccolò Machiavelli.8 For Italian refugees in Basle at that time the writings of the celebrated Florentine writer (and in particular Il Principe, with its strong libertarian and anticlerical thrust) embodied precisely the yearning for political and religious liberty they aspired to and which they thought they could achieve in the Reformed Swiss city. This was especially true of the group of Luccan exiles Perna belonged to, men who had been involved in the revolutionary movement in their home city led by Francesco Burlamacchi; Lucca was the only place in Italy where the reform of the Church had also been translated into political reform on the model of the type of republic envisaged by Savonarola for Florence.9 Only after this background has been explained can one fully understand Pietro Perna’s decision in 1560 to publish a translation of Il Principe into Latin, a language that would make the work accessible to the whole cosmopolitan world of intellectuals and political exiles that inhabited Basle at the time. This publishing initiative assumes even greater significance if we take into account that in 1559 Machiavelli’s essay had been banned in Rome. Perna could not have been unaware of this fact, especially given his dealings with Celio Secondo Curione, jurist and professor of eloquence at the University of Basle, as well as one of the leaders of local Protestantism at

8

9

Cf. Werner Kaegi, ‘Machiavelli in Basel’, Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde, 39 (1940), pp. 5-52 (also in Kaegi, Meditazioni storiche, Ital. trans. by Delio Cantimori [Bari: Laterza, 1960], pp.155-215), pp. 13-25 and Antonio Rotondò, Studi e ricerche di storia ereticale italiana del Cinquecento, I (Torino: Edizioni Giappichelli, 1974), pp. 273394, where the reader can also find further bibliographical information, focus particularly on ‘Pietro Perna and cultural and religious life in Basle between 1570 and 1580’. Cf. Frederic C. Church, The Italian Reformers, 1534-1564 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), I, p. 128, in the Italian translation I riformatori italiani, by Delio Cantimori, 2 vols (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1935); and Kaegi, pp. 5-12.

The first Latin translation

63

that time, who might very well have met Perna during his stay in Lucca between 1541 and 1542.10 Very probably Perna entrusted the task of translating Il Principe to Silvestro Tegli towards the end of 1559. Tegli was one of the numerous members of Perna’s cultural ‘coterie’, and he must have known him very well, as is reflected in the fact that he supervised and influenced Tegli’s work plans. We have little — and then only fragmentary — information about the life and activities of this Italian intellectual. He declared his Umbrian origin (to be precise, he came from Foligno) in the frontispiece to his translation, which, as it is still without a critical edition and a translation into a modern language, at the moment can only be read in the book published in the sixteenth century by Perna (and subsequent re-printings):11 Nicolai Machiavelli Reip. Florentinae a secretis, ad Laurentium Medicem de Principe libellus: nostro quidem seculo apprime utilis et necessarius, non modo ad principatum adipiscendum, sed et regendum et conservandum. Nunc primum ex Italico in Latinum sermonem versus per Sylvestrum Telium Fulginatem.

After leaving his home town, Tegli is next to be found in Oxford in 1549, visiting the Reformed theologian Pietro Martire Vermigli (who held the chair in Theology there from 1547), then in Zurich, where his presence is attested by his contacts with Vermigli, who moved there in 1556,12 and, again, in Geneva in 1558. Here, on the day of 18 May, the Italian community gathered in the presence of Calvin to sign the confession of faith drawn up by Calvin which was supposed to put an end to the dispute over the concept of the trinity, the reason behind the ideological conflict between the orthodox

10

11

12

Kaegi, pp. 8-9. On the life-story of Curione, cf. Albano Biondi, ‘Celio Secondo Curione’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. XXXI (Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1985), pp. 443-449. On Curione in Lucca and Basle, see, respectively, Church, I, pp. 12134, and Cantimori, pp. 103-16. The transcription of the passage from Tegli normalises some letters and some combinations of consonants as well simplifying the palaeographic abbreviations of Caroline origin typical of sixteenth-century texts (y = i, ji/ij = ii, & = et, u = v/u, nq = mq, etc.). The punctuation has also been modernised at points where problems of comprehension arose. I have adopted these modifications in all the passages in Latin. Cf. George H. Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), p. 636, n. 39, quoted in Marvin W. Anderson, ‘Vista Tigurina: Peter Martyr and European Reform (1556-1562)’, The Harvard Theological Review, 83 (1990), pp. 181-206, p. 197. Anderson mistakenly says that Tegli wrote his translation of Machiavelli’s Il Principe in Zurich.

64

Caterina Mordeglia

Reformers and the Italian ‘heretics’.13 Tegli was one of seven Italians who refused to sign the document and who preferred to withdraw to Basle rather than renounce his convictions.14 There he immediately came into contact with the Italian Reformist cultural circle, which included many people from Lucca. He himself gives a vivid description of his dealings with them in the prefatory letter to his Latin translation of Il Principe addressed to the Polish nobleman Abraham Zbaski, which replaced the original preface in which Niccolò Machiavelli dedicated his treatise to Lorenzo de’ Medici. The text that follows is presented in its entirety for the first time. Since otherwise documentation regarding Tegli is very scant, this represents an opportunity to get to know more closely not only the man and his friends but also his only known work. Sylvester Telius generosissimo ac splendidissimo viro Abrahamo Sbaski equiti Polono S. P. D. Vide quantum audaciae mihi suppeditet singularis quaedam ingenii tui morumque facilitas, humanissime Abrahame, qui, cum semel atque iterum obiter te viderim, tamen non verear hunc qualemcumque laborem nostrum, rudem adhuc, vixque e prima scheda repurgatum, ad te mittere. Sed unde tibi (inquies) illius singularis ingenii mei morumque facilitatis cognitio, cum vix me (ut fateris) videris? Id paucis accipe, nam paucis expediam. Nicolaus Liena iurisconsultus, patritius Lucensis, quem post tuum Geneva discessum, sua qua est humanitate, domesticum convictorem habui, multa narrare de te honorate ac candide solebat: nec dubitabat vir ille, omnibus in rebus (ut nosti) integer et gravis, te in omni sermone, si quando incideret occasio, humanum, liberalem, officiosum ac vere Christianum appellare. Hoc idem et Paulus Arnulfinus, vir bonus, nec non Nicolaus Gallus e Sardinia, modestus ac laudatus iuvenis, cunctique Lucenses, qui te noverant, omnes uno ore affirmabant ac testabantur. Ego autem ob ea, quae de te praedicabantur a tam laudatis viris, ita ad te amandum permovebar, ut, quoad possem et liceret, cogitatione saltem numquam a te discederem dolebamque numquam antea mihi contigisse, ut prius tua familiaritate et consuetudine frui licuisset, quam Geneva in Italiam discederes. Itaque multa ab illis summa cum laude de te narrata, multa etiam in tuae familiae dignitatem dicta, memoriae mandabam, fiebamque quotidie eorum recordatione tui studiosior. Hinc igitur […]i prima tui cognitio, hinc ingenii tui morumque facilitatis gravissimum testimonium. Veni deinde Basileam eum post annum, quo vehementer coeperam tui desiderio teneri et,

13

14

It should be pointed out that the Italian exiles, immersed as they were in humanistic culture and therefore inclined to focus on the moral content of the Scriptures and the rationalistic criticism of theological dogmas, both Catholic and Protestant, soon met with condemnation by Calvin and the Calvinists. On Italian heretics’ criticism of Calvinism, cf. Cantimori, pp. 152-162. Cf. Giorgio Spini, ‘Di Nicola Gallo e di alcune infiltrazioni in Sardegna della riforma protestante’, Rinascimento, 2 (1951), pp. 145-171, pp. 145-146, and, more in general, Kaegi, pp. 7-8 and Cantimori, p. 217.

The first Latin translation

65

quem tantis laudibus efferunt (et quidem merito) probi omnes ac doctissimi quique, Caelium tuum et item nostrum conveni, qui quidem ea, qua est in bonos omnes animi propensione et charitate, amicissime me excepit et, quae ad consolandum Christiana visa sunt ei officia, ea omnia et gravitate illa sua et eloquentia, in me humanissime praestitit. Gravissimis enim iniuriis fueramus eo tempore affecti ab ingratissimo simul ac impurissimo sychofanta, quem spurium terra nuper tamquam putrem ac pestilentem cibum evomuit: capitalium rerum iudicium inter facinorosos aluit: postremis his temporibus praestantium virorum sacra quaedam societas passa est eversorem. Consolatio igitur illius doctissimi viri ita iucunda eo tempore mihi fuit, ut non modo omneis [sic!] absterserit huius nocentissimi hominis (cuius nomini nunc, ut ad se redeat, parcimus) iniuriarum molestias, sed effecerit mollem etiam et iucundam illarum perferendarum rationem. Verum illud omnium primum cumulavit me omnibus laetitiis, quod non semel atque iterum, sed quam saepissime, quam maxime de te tuaque Christiana pietate, ingenii amoenitate, morum suavitate et integritate vitae praedicantem audivi. Cuius praestantissimi viri testimonium ita illum diuturni mei desiderii igniculum imo pectore fotum auxit et excitavit, ut non potuerit his temporibus hoc qualiscumque laboris testimonio non erumpi. Perspectissimum te itaque mihi vides, humanissime Abrahame, idque ita, ut mihi tecum fuerit agendum, non ut solet qui novis amicitiis cupiat illigari, sed qui sane in veteri optimi cuiusque necessitudine fuerit confirmatus: voluique potius desiderari verecundiam meam, quae natura ipsa mihi (ut sciunt qui me norunt) tributa est, quam meam a me diligentiam requiri, quod eam minus contulissem ad coniunctionem amoris erga te mei. Adductus sum itaque officio, fide, veteri inter amicos consuetudine, ut hoc (quicquid illud sit) laboris ad hanc animi mei declarationem suscipiendum putarim. Reliquum est igitur, humanissime Abrahame, ut, quem tui et studiosissimum et amantissimum esse sentis, eundem et tua benevolentia et studio inter tuos retinere ac conservare velis. Ceterum non sum nescius, cuius criminis nomine suspectum compluribus autorem hunc esse clamitent et quam causam afferant, cur ab eius lectione fortasse iudicent hominum animos esse avertendos: verum illud in primis propositum esse debuerat, ut ubique illius summi principis gloriam praedicaremus, in unum illum spectaremus, finem studioroum hunc nobis proponeremus. Conditi sunt homines, ut, Dei opera contemplantes et admirantes, artificem summum omnium laudent, honorent, venerentur et pura mente colant. Quo posito fundamento, nihil iam sit, ex quo non aliquid ad nos utilitatis redire possit. Nec multum laborandum, siquid authorem hunc, aut alios Martiales, Ovidios, Lucanos et id [sic!] generis homines profanos videmus, aut pronuntiasse aut quod minus virum bonum decebat scripsisse, modo veluti pratum omnigenis floribus refertum nacti, selectissimum quemque eorum, apis industriae in morem delibantes purissimi mellis favos, haud veneni, ad honestum usum fingere possimus. Fuit olim, et ad finem usque mundi numquam non erit, quin oÓ filosàfwn paÙdeV patri©rcai mŸllousin eÒnai p©ntwn aÓretik÷n, nihilominus Iustinum, Clementem et alios complures scimus in eorum scriptis versatos et ita exercitatos, ut huius generic toêV aÓretikoêV suo ipsorum gladio et doctrina iugularint, quod non fecissent si ab eorum lectione animum evertissent. Cognitio enim mali non est malum sed appetitio ipsaque actio. Occasio (inquiunt) fuisset adempta et posteris mentem inficiendi opinionum pravitate et piis viris tantum in refellendis eorum erroribus laboris insumendi: quasi animi labes aut a profanis avocatione aut temporis diuturnitate aut ullis nisi Dei Optimi Maximi manibus elui possit. Numquam non errat animus aeger, dicebat Ennius: nec oculus conturbatus ad munus suum exequendum est aptus, etiamsi clarissima sint mundi lumina. Malus enim, numquam non malus, ut etiam quae honestissima sint, turpissima reddat, tantum abest, ut ex avocatione a malo refingatur bonus. Adsit in exemplum e profundis Manibus iterum Simon (iam nosset quid miseriarum apud inferos sentiant proditores): num putabimus eum propterea umquam

66

Caterina Mordeglia

posse conquiescere, etiamsi filium Dei numquam videat nec agnoscat (uti re vera nec vidit nec cognovit umquam ex animi pietate), quominus aliquem virum bonum per simulationem pietatis nefarie sit proditurus? Fallitur plane qui hoc credat. Mala mens, malus animus, etiamsi furca arceatur, usque tamen recurrit et ad ingenium redit. Tollendus est itaque mentis error et nihil non bonum, nihil non sanctum deprehendemus. Tolle auri sacram famem, numquam execrandarum rerum aurum dicetur causa. Oculo enim pravo (ut dictum est) vitiatoque mala sunt etiam quae optima. Ex animi namque affectione non ex rei subiectae natura pravum quid aut rectum iudicari debet. Vale et, qua es animi, sinceritate et in religione constanti fide fruere. Basileae, XIII Calend. Aprilis, MDLX

What is evident from Tegli’s words is his close relationship with the two Luccans Nicola Liena and Paolo Arnolfini, and the Sardinian Nicola Gallo. Nicola Liena was a famous lawyer who between 1536 and 1537 — in other words, before he left for Basle as an exile, where he stayed with Tegli — was given the task of compiling an inventory of the records of the Public Archive and the Secret Archive of the Republic in Lucca,15 while Paolo Arnolfini was a leading member of the family that gave accommodation to Celio Secondo Curione in his role as preceptor.16 Nicola Gallo is remembered above all for a famous trial held in Geneva in July 1558, at which, together with Valentino Gentili, he was accused of antitrinitarianism by a French informer, a certain Guyottin.17 However compelling it may appear, for the moment there is no proof for the hypothesis that identifies this man with the “ingratissimus simul ac impurissimus sychofanta” mentioned by Tegli in the letter as responsible for a capital action against respectable men and of serious offences against him. No mere brief mention but rather a full eulogy is dedicated by Tegli to Curione, whom we have already mentioned as one of Pietro Perna’s friends. The celebrated humanist, by then a point of reference for all Italian Protestants in Basle who at the time were fleeing their homeland, gave Tegli accommodation during his stay in Basle and must have been a close friend, judging by the fact that among the volumes in the library he left to Pietro Perna we also find the manuscript of his Dialogi IV annotated by himself and, presumably, also other writings by him.18 Curione probably also gave Tegli the idea of dedicating his Latin translation of Il Principe to the Pole Abraham Zbaski. He felt great 15

16 17 18

Cf. Salvatore Bongi, Inventario del Regio Archivio di Stato in Lucca, 4 vols (Lucca: Giusti, 1872-1888), I, Sez. Archivi pubblici e Tarpea. Cf. Church, p. 121. Cf. Cantimori, pp. 226-31, and Spini, pp. 145-7, for bibliographical information about Gallo. Cf. Rotondò, pp. 314-315.

The first Latin translation

67

admiration and friendship towards Zbaski, very probably one of the young Polish nobles who attended his university lectures in Basle. A significant demonstration of this can be found not only in Tegli’s own words but also in a letter from Curione’s correspondence — to be precise the first in Book II — where he enquires of the young Zbaski, dubbed nobilissimus adolescens (sic!), whom he should ask to deliver to the dedicatee what was to become his main work, that is, De amplitudine beati regni Dei. Dialogi sive libri duo.19 In this epistle, after a long preamble in which he expresses his concern and asks for news of the friend he has not heard from for a long time, Curione writes:20 Venio nunc ad quoddam meum consilium tibi explicandum. Scripsi De amplitudine regni dei opus varium, ex divinorum oraculum penetralibus erutum, solidae consolationis ac doctrinae plenum. Dialogis duobus summa gravitate res agitur […]. Hoc opus cui dicare cogitem nosti: sed prius velim audire consilium tuum et si probes per quem sit offerendum: per te ne an per alium, per te mihi conciliatum […]. Est aliud opus in manibus, quod tibi, ubi de statu tuo certior factus fuero, dicabitur.

This text was published in 1550 — among other things, this date allows us to establish the terminus ante quem for the writing of the letter — and was subsequently sent to Sigismund II August, King of Poland from 1548 to 1572, where it enjoyed wide distribution. In this letter Curione promised to dedicate another work to Zbaski that he was writing at the time: very probably this was his commentary on Juvenal’s Satires, which was to be published the following year and was in fact addressed to him, in line with Curione’s custom in the last years of his life to dedicate his editions of classical texts to his Polish pupils.21 The information we have about this figure is rather fragmentary. Abraham III Zbaski — not to be confused with the more famous Abraham I Zbaski, who died in 1442, head of the Hussites of Great Poland, and who was also magnate and judge in the city Poznan — was born in 1531 in Zbaszyn', a small town in west Poland, situated in the province of Wielkopolskie from which the noble house took its name. In 1551 we find him, as we have

19

20

21

On the content of this work and the trial against Curione that followed Vergerio’s accusations, cf. Cantimori, pp. 188-225. Curio Coelius Secundus, Selectarum Epistolarum Libri duo. Eiusdem Orationum (inter quas et Agrippae contra Monarchiam, et Mecoenatis pro Monarchia, adversariae orationes, [...], ex Dione latinitate donatae, continentur), Liber unus. Varia eruditione ac rerum cognitione referta omnia, magnaque parte nunc primum in lucem edita [...] (Basileae: Per Ioannem Oporinum, 1553), II, pp. 78-81 (pp. 80-81). Cf. Cantimori, p. 263, n. 12.

68

Caterina Mordeglia

already said, studying under Curione in Basle, and then, after having probably also stayed a short time in Geneva, as we can infer from Tegli’s own words (dolebamque numquam antea mihi contigisse, ut prius tua familiaritate et consuetudine frui licuisset, quam Geneva in Italiam discederes), in 1553 in Italy, from where he kept up contact with the circles of Reformed exiles in Basle and Geneva.22 He was to die at a rather early age in 1578. Independent of the biographical details of the figure in question, Silvestro Tegli’s dedication of his Latin translation of Il Principe to a Polish noble, similarly to the dedications of numerous other works by Curione, reemphasises the close connection and the frequent cultural and politicoreligious exchanges which the Italian exiles living in Switzerland had with the leading members of the Reformed Polish church. One need only remember here the numerous journeys to Poland undertaken by outstanding figures in the Italian Reformist movement such as Lelio Sozzini, Giorgio Biandrata and Giovanni Alciati.23 Curione’s request to Zbaski to evaluate the possibility of delivering De amplitudine beati regni Dei to Sigismund II August in person would however suggest that the young Pole had dealings with, or at least knew, the ‘enlightened’ sovereign, the principal champion of religious reform in Poland as well as the driving-force behind the intense cultural renaissance that marked his reign. The hypothesis is thus plausible (although at the moment it cannot be demonstrated on the basis of certain evidence) that Tegli’s dedication to Zbaski might have had the indirect purpose of making this work known to this enlightened sovereign, who was also a great lover of literature and died leaving behind him a richly-stocked library. The figure of the prince envisaged by Machiavelli, as a symbol of political and religious freedom, might well inspire Sigismund, provided it was first, as it were, “cleansed” of those elements of unscrupulousness which Tegli certainly was aware of and which led to its being banned and condemned by certain clerical and political circles. The whole of the second part of the prefatory letter was an attempt to justify reading Machiavelli’s treatise and, hence, to validate the literary operation that Perna and Tegli were undertaking. Tegli was well aware of the accusation levelled against Machiavelli (Ceterum non sum nescius, cuius criminis nomine suspectum compluribus 22

23

Henryk Barycz, ‘Voyageurs et étudiants polonais à Genéve à l’époque de Calvin et de Théodore de Béze (1550-1650)’, in Échanges entre la Pologne et la Suisse du XIVe au XIXe Siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1964), pp. 79-81, quoted in Anderson, p. 197. Cf. Cantimori, pp. 145 ff. and 218 ff.

The first Latin translation

69

autorem hunc esse clamitent et quam causam afferant, cur ab eius lectione fortasse iudicent hominum animos esse avertendos) and hence of the accusation that could be brought against his own work. He justifies himself in advance, however, with an animated recusatio, claiming that the human spirit is capable of distinguishing between good and evil and thus implicitly exhorting the reader to ‘cleanse’ the treatise of all those elements that might appear negative to the honest and the religious. Tegli maintained that his purpose was to praise unreservedly the figure of the prince outlined by Machiavelli; only after clearing his mind of human illwill, however, would the reader be able to recognise the figure’s strong points and merits. He did this in a bombastic style, full of the formulas of rhetoric and courtesy that were typical of sixteenth-century prose, especially epistolary prose, and deploying a range of classical references. These are evident in particular in the second part of the letter, where Tegli’s description of his friendships and everyday life gives way to moral-philosophical reflections and an implicit peroratio of the project itself, with a consequent heightening of tone. Thus, not only do we have references to classical and late ancient, as well as pagan and Christian, authors, but also both Latin and Greek quotations and iuncturae. The expression (with its proverbial tone) Animus aeger semper errat is, for example, an explicit reference to a tragic fragment by Ennius (no. 360. ed. Ribbeck), which Tegli changed into Numquam non errat animus aeger, in one of his typical stylemes (numquam non instead of semper) that we find quite often both in the prefatory letter and in the actual translation of Il Principe, and, more in general, in line with a typical practice among the erudite during the Renaissance and humanist age to quote their models almost always from memory, which often resulted in inaccuracy. The source of the iunctura by Virgil, Aen. 3, 57: Auri sacra fames, is kept a secret, since repeated references to it in the medieval age had already made it famous.24 Similarly left implicit is the provenance of the Greek quotation oÓ filosàfwn paÙdeV patri©rcai mŸllousin eÒnai p©ntwn aÓretik÷n, which is a recasting of the corresponding Tertullian Latin expression patriarchae haereticorum philosophi (adv. Hermogénem 8 and De anima 3). Tegli must have read the classical and patristic texts very assiduously, as is suggested by his close friendship with Curione (who, as we have seen, dedicated the last part of his life to publishing classical authors) and, above

24

Cf. Petr. Alf. Arabs 161; Petr. Pict. carm. 12, 111 and 123; Nigell. mirac. 485, Laur. 335.

70

Caterina Mordeglia

all, by the intention to compile a Greek-Latin dictionary he expressed in a letter to the spiritual heir of Erasmus of Rotterdam, Bonifacio Amerbach (this letter has come down to us in the ms. Basle, Universitätsbibliothek C.VI. 35, no. 457). We can infer the date (1568) from Amerbach’s hand-written annotation at the foot of the page “Misi Hopperi Dictionarium latinumgraecum inter non ligatos ord. 29, XI aprilis 1568”; in it we read: Eccellente Signor mio osservandissimo, vi prego (quando non vi sia di scomodo) mandarmi per il presente latore un quinterno di quel libro del quale il signor Betti vi ha parlato, cioè greco et latino, ridotto in forma di dittionario, et che io haveva in animo di fare et che perciò ne volevate parlare col signor Oporino. Quello mi perdoni si uso presuntione con la Signoria Vostra, alla cui buona gratia mi offero et raccomando. Di Vostra Signoria amorevole Silvestro Telio.25

The second part of the prefatory letter contains not only references to classical texts but also to the Bible. The figure of Simon the traitor was very probably Simon Magus, who appears in the Acts of the Apostles (8, 9-25) and who Dante introduced into Canto XIX of the Inferno (vv. 1-6). In this context, however, it is no accident that he makes reference to this figure, of all the possible figures in the Old and New Testament. Indeed the patristic tradition — whose ranks also include St Justin, mentioned by Tegli in the letter as an example of a man of scholarship and wisdom who defeated heresy26 — considered Simon the first heretic, the founder of the Gnostic doctrine (this hypothesis has as yet to be demonstrated historically), as well as the initiator of the trade in holy objects that took its name from him: simony. And this was one of the main reasons for the heated conflict between Catholics and Lutherans in the sixteenth century. Tegli was apparently using the figure of Simon Magus, together with other anti-heretic patristic quotations, to implicitly pre-empt the accusation of heresy levelled against the figure of Machiavelli and his writings — an accusation which, as we recall, led to the banning of Il Principe in 1559, in other words one year before the publication of the Latin translation — and, as a consequence, his own work. The stylistic approach of the prefatory letter is also to be found in the translation of Il Principe itself. The author remains faithful to the original, except, as we shall see, in a few passages which he omits or deliberately modifies; however, he prefers to construct more complex sentences, following a tendency to lexical and syntactical amplificatio which (while

25 26

The text of the letter is reproduced in Rotondò, p. 317. Cf. Iustin. apol. I 26.

The first Latin translation

71

typical of the time) clashes not only with the icastic incisiveness of Machiavelli’s style but also with the intrinsic concision of the Latin language. This tendency, common to other translations of Il Principe made in or around this period,27 can be found in numerous passages, of which we will give only a small sample; it is clear from the very beginning of the work, where we read:28 I1 O: Tutti gli stati, tutti e dominii che hanno avuto et hanno imperio sopra gli uomini, sono stati e sono o repubbliche o principati T: Quaecumque fuit umquam, aut est imperandi ratio, qua homines hominibus dominari consuevere, ea, aut res publica aut principatus appellatur.

Expressive redundancy often manifests itself in the rendering of a term with a hendiadys or a periphrastic verbal form that tones down the peremptoriness of the original, as is clear from the following examples: III 1 O: Ma nel principato nuovo consistono le difficultà: E prima, — se non è tutto nuovo, ma come membro: che si può chiamare tutto insieme quasi mixto, — le variazioni sue nascono in prima da una naturale difficultà, quale è in tutti li principati nuovi … T: Sed in eo qui recens accessit principatu, difficultates continentur, tum maxime, si veluti pars adiuncta (ut sic in universum mixtum dici possit), non penitus est novus. Eius vicissitudines et mutationes ex ea primum difficultate nasci videntur III 3 O: ... perché sempre, ancora che uno sia fortissimo in sulli exerciti, ha bisogno del favore de’ provinciali ad entrare in una provincia T: Qaumvis enim in copiis munitissimus sit quis et praepotens, provinciam tamen ut aliquam subeat, ope indiget provincialium et favore III 12 O: ... come ha fatto il Turco di Grecia T: Quemadmodum Turca ipse in Graecia faciundum censuit.

The text is made less incisive by the repeated replacement of impersonal forms by personal forms, where the recurrent expression “come è detto” is always translated as ut dixi and the impersonal passive verbs often render

27 28

Cf. the remarks on style made passim in other contributions in this miscellany. In this and in all the passages quoted, the original is marked with the letter “O” and the Latin translation with the letter “T”. Machiavelli’s original follows the text contained in Niccolò Machiavelli, De principatibus, ed. by Giorgio Inglese, Fonti per la storia dell’Italia medievale. Antiquitates 1 (Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, 1994).

72

Caterina Mordeglia

explicit the subject princeps, a term used generically also to translate the terms “marchese” (marquis) and “duca” (duke). The search for rhetorical ornatus is evident in the use of archaisms (quum instead of cum, forms ending in –undus instead of –endus), variationes, diptotes and anaphora, as the following examples demonstrate: III 13 O: […] standovi […] / […] non vi stando […] T: Praesens […] / […] se absente […] III 18 O: […] si vendicano delle leggieri offese, delle gravi non possono T: Nam leviores ulciscunt iniurias, graviores ulcisci nequeunt III 40 O: qui è lo errore et il biasimo T: hic vitium, hic error inest

At times the original is not translated ad verbum, but by using corresponding proverbial Latin expressions, as in the following case: IX 20 O: […] chi fonda in sul populo fonda in sul fango T: […] qui populari innititur aura, domum in luto extruit.

Apart from these slight modifications, by and large dictated by the stylistic taste of the time, there are others (albeit few in number) which correspond to criteria that have to do with ideology and content. One need only look at one significant example from Chapter XVIII, one of the most fundamental in Machiavelli’s treatise, as it contains a discussion of the theme of the prince’s loyalty (Quomodo fides a principibus sit servanda). Here Tegli omits the long sentence from § 1 completely, nondimanco si vede per experienza nelli nostri tempi quelli principi avere fatto gran cose, che della fede hanno tenuto poco conto e che hanno saputo con l’astuzia aggirare e cervelli delli uomini: et alla fine hanno superato quelli che si sono fondati in sulla realtà,

which, alluding to Louis XII, describes how unscrupulous rulers of the time were more successful than those who adhered to the principle of loyalty. Also in § 12-13 Tegli initially reworks rather than translates the first sentences, according to the technique of rhetorical amplificatio we have already illustrated; this is clear in the following comparison:

The first Latin translation

73

O: [12] Io non voglio delli exempli freschi tacerne uno. Alexandro VI non fece mai altro, non pensò mai ad altro che a ingannare uomini, e sempre trovò subietto da poterlo fare: e non fu mai uomo che avessi maggiore efficacia in asseverare, e con maggiori iuramenti affermassi una cosa, che la observassi meno; nondimeno sempre gli succederono gl’inganni ad votum, perché conosceva bene questa parte del mondo. [13] A uno principe adunque non è necessario avere in fatto tutte le soprascritte qualità, ma è bene necessario parere di averle; T.: [12] Nolim Alexandri Sexti Pont. Max. recens exemplum silentio praeteritum. Is nihil quam mortalium impostorem egit, nihil quam ad omnem militiam et fraudem (quo hominum genus falleret) mentem suam exercuit. Atqui reperit subiectam quam tractaret materiam. In asseverando autem qui magis fuerit efficax, aut qui speciosus iuraris iusiurandum, vicissimque qui minus praestiterit, nemo umquam fuit: nihilo secius doli numquam non commode ei cesserunt. Hanc enim fallendi artem, moresque hominum probe callebat. [13] Proinde non est quod princeps eas omnes superius descriptas virtutes ostentet: sunt enim adversus tales dissimulandae saepenumero callidaeque tegendae;

but then he completely leaves out the long passage that follows, in which Machiavelli argues, with a scientific and categorical rationality that borders on unscrupulousness, that the new prince is obliged to act against the human virtues: anzi ardirò di dire questo: che, avendole e observandole sempre, sono dannose, e, parendo di averle, sono utili; come parere piatoso, fedele, umano, intero, relligioso, et essere: ma stare in modo edificato con lo animo che, bisognando non essere, tu possa e sappia diventare il contrario. [14] Et hassi ad intendere questo, che uno principe e maxime uno principe nuovo non può observare tutte quelle cose per le quali gli uomini sono tenuti buoni, sendo spesso necessitato, per mantenere lo stato, operare contro alla fede, contro alla carità, contro alla umanità, contro alla religione.

Bearing in mind the prefatory letter, one might think that in this case Tegli was keen to omit a morally fraught passage. However, it is difficult to understand why other places in the text that were equally problematic for the morality of the time were not given the same treatment. We have no certain information about the Italian edition which Tegli used for his translation. Possible aid comes from two interpretative misunderstandings we find in Tegli’s translation which were the same as those found in some Italian editions. The first, at the beginning of Chapter XVI, is his mistaken reading of “temuto” for “tenuto”, which results in an inversion of the meaning of the sentence. This was already present in the editio princeps of Machiavelli’s

74

Caterina Mordeglia

work printed posthumously by Antonio Blado in 153229 and repeated in all editions up until 1600: O: [1] Cominciandomi adunque alle prime soprascripte qualità, dico come sarebbe bene essere tenuto liberale. [2] Nondimanco la liberalità, usata in modo che tu sia tenuto, ti offende … T: Initium itaque mihi sumens ab iis, quae inter iam dicta primum locum sunt sortita, non negarim fore optimum, ut princeps habeatur liberalis: nihilominus ita liberalitate, uti ut metuaris, sane obest.

The second is at the beginning of § 9 of Chapter XXI: the normalisation of the name Bernabò Visconti to Bernardo (Bernardus in Latin) is something which, among the editions previous to Tegli’s, we also find in Blado: O: Giova ancora assai ad uno principe dare di sé exempli rari circa a’ governi di dentro, — simili a quegli che si narrano di messer Bernabò da Milano, — […] T: Plurimum item refert, principem rara de se exempla in urbana administratione praebere et quae proxime iis accedat quae Bernardi Mediolanensis fuisse dicuntur.

This detail suggests that Tegli may have followed this text or at least one based on it and, at any rate, an Italian text. The only available translation of Il Principe before 1560 was Guillaume Cappel’s French version, published in Paris in 1553 by Estienne,30 and it is difficult to believe that among the Italian exiles in Basle this would have replaced, in terms of popularity and diffusion, the Italian version that had been circulating for much longer. Tegli’s translation enjoyed great fame and became one of the vehicles of transmission of Machiavelli’s political doctrine across the whole of Europe, especially northern Europe. Together with Amelot’s French translation, re29

30

Il Principe di Niccolò Machiavelli. Facsimile dell’edizione originale impressa in Roma da Antonio Blado nel 1532, ed. by Luigi Firpo, introd. by Federico Chabod (Torino: G. Einaudi, 1961). The French translation by Jacques de Vintimille, which came out in 1546, was written essentially for private use and not intended for public distribution. Cf. the paper of N. B. Bensimon, pp. 25-57 in this volume. Of fundamental importance on the handwritten tradition and the translations of Il Principe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is Adolf Gerber, Niccolò Machiavelli. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen seiner Werke im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Mit 147 Faksimiles und zahlreichen Auszügen. Eine kritisch-bibliographische Untersuchung, 3 vols (Gotha: Perthes, 1912-1913), reprinted and edited by Luigi Firpo (Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1962). This work, together with Machiavelli’s The Prince. An Elizabethan Translation, edited with an introduction and notes from a manuscript in the collection of Mr. Jules Furthman, ed. by Harding Craig (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1944), pp. XVI-XVII, is also relevant to the question of the reprintings and re-publications of Tegli’s translation.

The first Latin translation

75

printed three times by the end of the seventeenth century,31 it became the reference text for other translations into national languages, and, in some cases (Scandinavia is a case in point)32 was one of the reasons why translation of the treatise into national languages was delayed for such a long time, given that it was already available in a form universally accessible to the cultural world of the time. Although in the sixteenth century there was a copy in London in the large personal library (comprising more than 4000 books and 700 manuscripts) belonging to the mathematician, magician and astrologist John Dee,33 perhaps as a result of his repeated trips to Europe34 and his close contact with Albert Laski, grandson of the famous Polish Reformer Jan Laski, who between 1583 and 1589 gave him lodgings in Poland, very few other copies of the original 1560 version could have been in circulation. Proof of this is the fact that until today, according to my research, very few libraries keep copies of it; the ones that do include the Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin, the Universitätsbibliothek in Greifswald, the Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt in Halle, and the British Library in London.35 Responsible for spreading the work widely were more probably its numerous re-printings and editions. In all there were at least 11 in the space of more than 80 years, which also testifies to the text’s long-lasting success. The first was printed by Perna in 1570 and seems to have been a straightforward re-printing of the original translation. Tegli must definitely have still been alive that year, given that the Calvinist French philosopher Pierre de la Ramée, in his oration Basle, ad senatum populumque Basilienem,

31

32 33

34

35

Le prince de Nicolas Machiavel, secretaire & citoien de Florence, traduit et commenté par Nicolas-Abraham Amelot, Sieur de la Houssaie, Amsterdam: chez Henri Wetstein 1683. The three reprintings came out in 1684, 1686 and 1694. Cf. the article by P. Marelli, pp. 247-278 in this book. Cf. John Dee’s Library Catalogue, ed. by Julian Roberts and Andrew G. Watson (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1990), no. 756. Basle may very well have been one of the various cultural centres in Europe visited by this versatile English intellectual, devotee of astrology, astronomy, alchemy, mathematics and occultism. Already by the end of the 1550s, Basle, with the publication of works of Marsilio Ficino, Plato, the Corpus Hermeticum and, among others, the printing works owned by Pietro Perna, had become one of the most important European centres for the spread of such sciences (cf. Bietenholz, pp. 115-158 passim and Rotondò, p. 343). The British Museum is where I inspected the microfilm of the five hundred or so translations of Tegli I consulted for the purpose of writing this article.

76

Caterina Mordeglia

written between 1570 and 1571, refers to him in the present, saying expressly:36 Francisco Betho et Sylvestro Teglio vix Italia duos Italos candidiores et verae pietatis amantiores apposuerit. Bethus patriam patrio sermone christianismi sacris initiat. Teglius Machiavelli Principem latine loquentem fecit, maioraque nominis sui monimenta quotidie molitur.

It was, however, the 1580 edition that really marked the beginning of the circulation and popularity of the translation. Tegli must have died only shortly before this, as can be deduced from documents that refer to him as dead. The first is an act of censorship dated 1574, relative to the debate about Pietro Perna’s publication of Castellione’s De predestinatione, where we read that Tegli died in the suburb of St. Johann, and his widow, in order to pay back a debt incurred by her husband, had to part with his library, which included the treatise by the Savoyard humanist.37 The other is a letter from Giovanni Bernardino Bonifacio (who was such a close friend of Tegli that he supervised his work plans) to Basilio Amerbach which says:38 Audio enim decessisse Silvestrum Telium uxorem suam, honestissimam feminam, in Daciam ad Blandratam iam ivisse.

This letter, kept in ms. G.II.31, no. 221 in Basle’s Universitätsbibliothek and dated simply 24 March, can be traced with sufficient certainty to the year 1574. What also makes it interesting, however, is the reference to Giorgio Biandatra (or Blandrata), “uno dei più accorti del gruppo eretico italiano”,39 an antitrinitarian doctor, with whom Tegli (in Geneva in May 1558) had been convoked (together with Alciati) to the consistory of the Italian Church in the presence of Calvin. 36

37

38

39

Cited in Kaegi, p. 28, n. 68. Kaegi gives 1571 as the date of composition of the oration, whereas the modern edition Petrus Ramus, Basilea. Eine Rede an die Stadt Basel aus dem Jahre 1570. Lateinisch und Deutsch. Übersetzt und eingeleitet von Hans Fleig (Basel: Basilisk-Verlag, 1944) puts it a year earlier. On Francesco Betti, a reformed Roman noble living in exile in Basle and a friend of Curione (this is the probable reason for his contacts with Tegli), cf. Cantimori, pp. 287-291. On the ties between Betti and Tegli, cf. also supra, p. 69. Cf. Kaegi, p. 28. The text of the document given by Kaegi is full of gaps and not very clear, perhaps partly because of errors of transcription. For this reason I shall not give the full quotation. Quoted by Rotondò, p. 315, n. 117. On the confidential relationship between Bonifacio and Tegli, cf. p. 316. Cantimori, p. 213 and ff.

The first Latin translation

77

The fact that Tegli’s widow later took refuge with Biandatra is an indication of the two men’s close relationship over the next few years. After wandering around Poland, Italy and Switzerland, in 1562 Biandatra settled in Gyulafehérvár (Alba Julia) in Transylvania, which is where he received Tegli’s widow.40 But what especially deserves to be remembered about him is his work as a doctor at the court of the Queen of Poland, Bona Sforza, wife of Sigismund II August, between 1540 and 1544, during one of his first stays in Poland. This detail would reinforce the weak indirect link between Tegli, his translation and the Polish king which we hypothesised earlier in relation to the dedication. In 1580, then, only a few years after Tegli’s death, Perna gave the task of revising the Latin edition of Il Principe to Nicola Stupano, a young doctor and professor of philosophy at the University of Basle who was later, in 1578, to become its vice-chancellor, and who was also one of Celio Secondo Curione’s pupils.41 For more than ten years Stupano had been working at Perna’s printing house, mostly on Latin translations of Italian and French works of history, natural history and medicine from the late fifteenth century, and very probably had in mind to publish the complete works of Machiavelli; and judging by his preface to the new Latin translation of Il Principe, where he says expressly “[…] Nicolai Machiavelli scripta, quae sunt partim politica, partim historica, partim denique de ratione bellum gerendi”, he must have known Machiavelli very well. However, with civil society — but even more so the Church — now taking a much harsher view of Machiavelli than twenty years earlier, Perna decided to postpone publication, which he had probably intended to undertake personally,42 and limited himself to re-publishing the previous Latin version of Il Principe, with some modifications from the previous edition and with the addition of other writings for and against absolutist forms of government. These innovations are highlighted in the heading on the frontispiece, which reads:

40 41

42

On Biandatra’s European travels and activities, cf. Cantimori, pp. 213-225 and 313-322. For biographical information about this figure, his alternating, stormy relations with Pietro Perna and the complicated affair surrounding the re-publication of the Latin translation of Il Principe that I refer to here and subsequently, cf. Kaegi, in particular pp. 5-6, 26-36. Hoever, the following decade did see the publication in Basle in Latin or German of I discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, L’arte della guerra and perhaps also the Istorie fiorentine, all apparently by Perna (cf. Kaegi, p. 28, n. 70).

78

Caterina Mordeglia

Nicolai Machiavelli Princeps, ex Sylvestri Telii Fulginatis traductione diligenter emendata. Adiecta sunt eiusdem argumenti aliorum quorundam contra Machiavellum scripta de potestate et officio Principum et contra tyrannos. Basileae, ex Officina Petri Pernae, MDXXC.

The aim of these added texts was to temper the disruptive and subversive power of Machiavelli’s political thought and for this reason antiMachiavellian writings were chosen: an anonymous fragment Ex cuiusdam scripto de magistratu, the orations Pro monarchia and Contra monarchia held before Augustus respectively by Mecenate and Agrippa in the LIIth book of the Historia Romana by Cassius Dio (given here in the Latin translation by Celio Secondo Curione), and a small work entitled Vindiciae contra tyrannos. Their inspiration becomes clear if we look at the ending of the first:43 Paulus item scripsit: ‘Omnes potestates, quaecumque sunt, a Deo esse ordinatas’. Et Christus respondit Pilato: ‘Non haberes potestatem adversus me ullam, nisi tibi datum esset desuper’. His testimoniis et rationibus conficitur, deum esse veram ac propriam causam magistratuum.

In this way printer and translator tried jointly to steer clear of the city’s politico-cultural problems, using greater prudence than had been shown in the 1560 edition. Nonetheless, problems cropped up because of Stupano’s ingenuous and impulsive thoughtlessness. For the new edition of 1580 he decided to replace Tegli’s dedicatory epistle to Abraham Zbaski (which was not to appear again in any of the later editions of his Latin translation of Il Principe) with a prefatory dedication to Jakob Christoph Blarer, Bishop of Basle after 1575, motivated primarily by personal and family interests. When Perna saw the esteem and courtesy that Stupano showed towards those whose intrepid determination to reaffirm in Basle not only the Catholic religion but also the power of the episcopal principality had brought them into harsh conflict with the city over a period of some years (which even had to be regulated by a federal arbiter), he first tried unsuccessfully to persuade the young physician to leave out the dedicatory letter; then, given the latter’s insistence, he decided to publish the new Latin edition as it had originally been planned;44 and finally, he went on to reprint a second version of it, partially corrected by Stupano in the preface in response to pressure from Theodor Zwinger and Basilius Amerbach (respectively, incumbent and future 43 44

Quoted in Kaegi, p. 30, n. 72. This first version was probably distributed against Perna’s will. Perna subsequently took out a case against Stupano for damages, and the affair culminated in a violent physical altercation between the two in 1581, in which the printer came off worse.

The first Latin translation

79

vice-chancellor of the University of Basle), who had been alerted by Perna himself. However, the scandal provoked by this edition, which in December 1580 was to lead to Stupano being suspended from his university position for three years, was to induce Perna to print a third edition, replacing the offending dedicatory letter with a simple introduction (Typographus candido lectore), as had in fact been his intention in the first of the three 1580 versions, and without indicating the name of his printing works next to the year and place of publication. Despite these barely masked expedients, however, Perna added to the anti-Machiavellian texts Paolo Giovio’s eulogy to Machiavelli in two other versions, as well as two epitaphs. Moreover, after the recent massacres perpetrated by the Huguenots, he did not hold back from extolling the figure of Machiavelli and his thought between the lines in his preface, which concludes thus:45 Interrogo igitur vos, lectores, qui [sic!] nam melius doceat, Machiavellus ne, qui principatum acquirere et in pace retinere, nullius aut paucorum exitio, docet, an isti, qui, quod ipsi regnare non possunt neque sciunt, per tot iam annos, tot miriadas animarum et corporum, altercando et feriendo, Orco dimiserunt, urbes et provincias pervastarunt neque vastationi finem imposuerunt?

These words can be seen as putting the seal on the vigorous defence of and admiration for Machiavelli shown by Pietro Perna over a period of more than twenty years. Two years later the elderly Luccan printer died, probably struck down by the plague that swept the city of Basle, and with his death the destiny of Tegli’s translation soon shifted away from Basle for good. Except for the 1589 edition, which gives no date or place of publication but which according to information in the British Museum catalogue was also printed in Basle, the 1595 and 1599 editions were printed in Hanover by Guglielmo Antonio, while the 1599 edition was printed at Montbéliard by Jacques Foillet.46 These four editions have the same content as the 1580 edition, while the one published in 1600 at Ursel also added Judicium de Nicolai Machiavelli et Ioannis Bodini quibusdam scriptis by the Jesuit Antonio Possevino.

45 46

Quoted in Kaegi, pp. 45-6, n. 104. The year before Foillet himself had published the Latin translation of the Discorsi sull’arte della guerra, very probably edited by Niccolò Stupano, who, after the recent affair of the publication of his Latin version of Il Principe del 1580, preferred to remain anonymous (cf. Kaegi, pp. 47-48).

80

Caterina Mordeglia

In this form Tegli’s translation was to be published a further four times, twice in Frankfurt (in 1608 and 1622) and twice more in Lyon (in 1643 and 1648). In conclusion, as emerges clearly between the lines of this rapid review of the numerous versions of Tegli’s Latin Il Principe published over a period of more than eighty years, the success of the work is not based on maintaining its original spirit. Over these 11 editions — 14 if we also count the two re-printings in 1580 and 1599 — the changes in the times and the waning of the Reformist political and cultural fervour that had seen its genesis progressively depleted the work of its enthusiastic celebration of Machiavelli’s political thought and transmuted it rather into a text against Machiavelli. It is no accident therefore that Hermann Conring’s 1660 Latin translation of Il Principe, which was probably more famous than Tegli’s, bears the title Princeps aliaque nonnulla ex Italico Latine nunc demum partim versa, partim infinitis locis sensus melioris ergo castigata, curante Hermanno Conringio, where, without entering into the specific content of the text, the participle castigata seems to me to be particularly significant.

Bibliography Anderson, Marvin W., ‘Vista Tigurina: Peter Martyr and European Reform (1556-1562)’, The Harvard Theological Review, 83 (1990), pp. 181-206 Barycz, Henryk, ‘Voyageurs et étudiants polonais à Genéve à l’époque de Calvin et de Théodore de Béze (1550-1650), in Échanges entre la Pologne et la Suisse du XIVe au XIXe Siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1964), pp. 79-81 Bietenholz, Peter, Der italienische Humanismus und die Blütezeit des Buchdrucks in Basel. Die Basler Drucke italienischer Autoren von 1530 bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft, 1 (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1959) Biondi, Albano, ‘Celio Secondo Curione’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. XXXI (Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1985), pp. 443-49 Bongi, Salvatore, Inventario del Regio Archivio di Stato in Lucca, 4 voll. (Lucca: Giusti, 1872-1888) Church, Frederic C., The Italian Reformers, 1534-1564 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), Ital. trans. by Delio Cantimori (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1935)

The first Latin translation

81

Cantimori, Delio, Eretici italiani del Cinquecento e altri scritti, ed. Adriano Prosperi, Biblioteca di cultura storica, 193 (Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1992) Cosentino, Paola, ‘Un plagio del Principe: il De regnandi peritia di Agostino Nifo’, Semestrale di Studi (e Testi) italiani, 1 (1998), pp. 139-160 Curio, Coelius Secundus, Selectarum Epistolarum Libri duo. Eiusdem Orationum (inter quas et Agrippae contra Monarchiam, et Mecoenatis pro Monarchia, adversariae orationes, [...], ex Dione latinitate donatae, continentur), Liber unus. Varia eruditione ac rerum cognitione referta omnia, magnaque parte nunc primùm in lucem edita [...] (Basileae: Per Ioannem Oporinum, 1553), 2 vols. Gerber, Adolf, Niccolò Machiavelli. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen seiner Werke im 16 und 17. Jahrhundert. Mit 147 Faksimiles und zahlreichen Auszügen. Eine kritisch-bibliographische Untersuchung, 3 vols (Gotha: Perthes, 1912-1913), anastatic restoration by Luigi Firpo (Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1962) Guggisberg, Hans R., Basel in the Sixteenth Century. Aspects of the City Republic before, during and after the Reformation (St. Louis, Missouri: Center for Reformation Research, 1982) Il Principe di Niccolò Machiavelli. Facsimile dell’edizione originale impressa in Roma da Antonio Blado nel 1532, with an introduction by Federico Chabod, ed. by Luigi Firpo (Torino: G. Einaudi, 1961) John Dee’s Library Catalogue, ed. by Roberts Julian and Andrew G. Watson (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1990) Kaegi, Werner, ‘Machiavelli in Basel’, Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde, 39 (1940), pp. 5-52 (also in Id., Meditazioni storiche, Ital. trans. by Dario Cantimori [Bari: Laterza, 1960], pp. 155-215) Larivaille, Paul and Pernet-Beau, Simone, Une réécriture du Prince de Machiavel, le De regnandi Peritia de Agostino Nifo, Edition Bilingue (Paris: Université de Paris-Nanterre X, Centre de Recherches de Langue et Littérature Italiennes, 1987) Le prince de Nicolas Machiavel, secretaire & citoien de Florence, traduit et commenté par Nicolas-Abraham Amelot, Sieur de la Houssaie (Amsterdam, chez Henri Wetstein 1683) Machiavelli, Niccolò, De principatibus, ed. by Giorgio Inglese, Fonti per la storia dell’Italia medievale. Antiquitates 1 (Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, 1994) Machiavelli’s The Prince. An Elizabethan Translation, edited with an introduction and notes from a manuscript in the collection of Mr. Jules

82

Caterina Mordeglia

Furthman, ed. by Harding Craig (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1944) Procacci, Giuliano, Studi sulla fortuna di Machiavelli (Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per l’età moderna e contemporanea, 1965) Ramus, Petrus, Basilea. Eine Rede an die Stadt Basel aus dem Jahre 1570. Lateinisch und Deutsch. Übersetzt und eingeleitet von Hans Fleig (Basel: Basilisk-Verlag, 1944) Rotondò, Antonio, Studi e ricerche di storia ereticale italiana del Cinquecento, I (Torino: Edizioni Giappichelli, 1974) Spini, Giorgio, ‘Di Nicola Gallo e di alcune infiltrazioni in Sardegna della riforma protestante’, Rinascimento, 2 (1951), pp. 145-171 Williams, George Huntstone, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962)

Alessandra Petrina

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court Abstract: This essay analyses the four extant sixteenth-century English translations of Machiavelli’s Principe, three of them anonymous, one written by a Scottish intellectual, court official and spy, William Fowler. It reconstructs the history of the various manuscripts and their characteristics, as well as providing a short biography of Fowler and the cultural background against which he operated. In the second part of the essay a comparison between the different translations is offered, drawing on a series of choice examples.

In the last decades of the sixteenth century, partly as an effect of the diffusion and enforcement of the Roman Index librorum prohibitorum, published in 1557 under the papacy of Paul IV,1 the spectre of Niccolò Machiavelli haunted Europe, frightening and all-pervasive, and became the pretext on many sides to accuse the opposite faction of craft, duplicity, political cunning, even atheism. At the same time, the terrified fascination exercised by a figure that had gone well beyond actual biographical data prompted a closer study of the Florentine writer’s works, and encouraged translations in Latin as well as in various vernaculars. A European country that could consider itself still free of the taint of Machiavellian doctrine was entitled to congratulations on its good fortune. This seems to be the tenor of the following lines: Reliquiae euocatae ab inferis Machiauelli, postquam diu adoratae fuerunt in Italia, translatae sunt tandem in Galliam, & alias nobis propinquas nationes [...] Adhuc illum in vernaculum sermonem translatum populus non didicit, adhuc eius virus non sensit. Malè profecto egit qui Anglicè Ouidium de Arte amatoria transtulit; peius, qui Albertum de feminarum secretis; at pessime de nostra republica merebitur, si quis venenum istius viperae in ora imperitae multitudinis insperserit.2 1

2

Index auctorum et librorum qui tanquam haeretici, aut suspecti, aut perniciosi, ab officio S. Ro. Inquisitionis reprobantur, et in universa Christiana republica interdicuntur (Roma: Antonio Blado, 1557). John Case’s treatise was published for the first time in Oxford in 1588. I am quoting from the second edition (Sphaera Ciuitatis; Hoc est; Reipublicae recte ac pie secundum leges administrandae ratio (Francofurdi: Apud Ioan. Wechelum, 1589), p. 2). On Case’s attacks against Machiavelli, see Charles B. Schmitt, ‘John Case and Machiavelli’, in Essays Presented to Myron P. Gilmore, ed. by Sergio Bertelli and Gloria Ramakus (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1978), pp. 231-240; and J.W. Binns, Intellectual Culture in Elizabethan and Jacobean England. The Latin Writings of the Age (Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1990), p. 543. As Schmitt observes, Case’s criticism of Machiavelli is not confined to the Sphaera Ciuitatis: “we also

84

Alessandra Petrina

This passage occurs in Sphaera Ciuitatis, a treatise on statecraft and politics written by John Case, Aristotelian scholar and physician, and fellow of St John’s College, Oxford. Case’s attack was based on quite a detailed knowledge of Machiavelli’s works, and especially of his Principe, to which he refers in detail in the course of this and other works; as has been observed, an analysis of his allusions to the Principe demonstrates that he was not using the Italian original, but Sylvester Telius’s Latin translation, published for the first time by Pietro Perna in Basel, in 1560, and quickly recognised as one of the main vehicles of diffusion of Machiavelli’s political doctrines in northern Europe.3 The existence of a number of French translations also seems to be acknowledged in the passage quoted above; but Case appears to believe that, as long as there was no translation in English, the people could still be spared the corruption prompted by the Principe, and by the other political works written by the Florentine. It should in fact be noted that other, non-political works by the same author had already been translated, and enjoyed a relatively uncontroversial diffusion in England: it is the case, in particular, of the Arte della Guerra, translated by Peter Whitehorne and published in 1560, with a dedication to Queen Elizabeth4 — a publication that shows, as has been noted, that Machiavelli’s fame as a writer of military strategy was certainly well-established in sixteenth-century Europe.5 Case’s sentiments are echoed, a few years later, by another English writer who shows his profound aversion to Machiavelli by expressing his thankfulness at the fact that his works (especially the Principe) were not well known in England. In this case the writer is Simon Patericke, who in 1602 translated in English Innocent Gentillet’s Anti-Machiavel. In the Dedication (to Francis Hastings and Edward Bacon), after bewailing the popularity of Machiavelli’s doctrine in France and Italy, the translator writes:

3

4

5

find references to him in the Lapis philosophicus, where he is conventionally lumped with the ‘atheists’, and in the Thesaurus oeconomicae, where the Florentine is attacked for his views on domestic affairs” (Schmitt, p. 234). Schmitt, p. 235. The Latin edition is Nicolai Machiavelli reip. florentinae a secretis, ad Laurentium Medicem de Principe libellus: nostro quidem seculo apprimé vtilis & necessarius, non modò ad principatum adipiscendum, sed & regendum & conseruandum: Nunc primum ex Italico in Latinum sermonem uersus per Syluestrum Telium Fulginatem (Basileae: apud Petrum Pernam, 1560). The Arte of Warre written first in Italian by Nicholas Machiavell and set forthe in Englishe by Peter Whitehorne student at Graies Inne (London: I. Kingston, 1560). On this point see Sydney Anglo, Machiavelli, The First Century. Studies in Enthusiasm, Hostility, and Irrelevance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp.30-41. Another work by Machiavelli, the Istorie Florentine, was translated by Thomas Bedingfield and published in 1595.

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

85

But O how happy are yee, both because you have so gratious a Queene, & also for that the infectious Machiavelian doctrine, hath not breathed nor penetrated the intrails of most happy England.6

In this case Patericke’s belief that the pernicious Machiavellian doctrines have not yet penetrated England is expressed much more forcefully, and is, perhaps for this very reason, more open to doubt. John Case might have been in good faith when he believed that an English translation of the Principe did not yet exist; Patericke must have known that, if not in English, Machiavelli’s most controversial work circulated in England in Latin, in French, and even in Italian. Together with Basel and Geneva, London had indeed become one of the main centres of diffusion of Machiavelli’s works after the censorship imposed in Catholic countries by the Papal index, and a particular enterprising London printer, John Wolfe, had taken advantage of the situation created by Catholic censorship in order to print both Machiavelli’s and Pietro Aretino’s works in the original, producing in the early 1580s surreptitious editions of both — that is, editions that were not clandestine or technically illegal, but made without the approval of the Stationers’ Company, and bearing incorrect information on the frontispiece; in the case of the Principe, published together with the Discorsi sopra la Prima Deca di Tito Livio, the book was purported to have been printed in Palermo.7 At the same time, a number of French translations had been published and were freely circulating, together with Telius’s Latin version. Patericke’s protestation, therefore, sounds like a self-promoting move, the attempt to whet the readers’ curiosity and draw them to acquire a book, such as Gentillet’s AntiMachiavel, that could offer them at least a second-hand contact with a writer

6

7

‘The Epistle Dedicatorie’, A Discourse Vpon the meanes of wel governing and maintaining in good peace, a kingdome, or other principalitie. Divided into three parts, namely, namely, The Counsell, the Religion, and the Policie, which a Prince ought to hold and follow. Against Nicholas Machiavell the Florentine. Translated into English by Simon Patericke (London: Printed by Adam Islip, 1602). The Epistle is dated “kalends Augusti. Anno 1577”, but this may be explained by the fact that it is a translation of the dedication in the Latin edition (published in 1577). Il prencipe di Nicolo Machiavelli. Al Magnifico Lorenzo di Piero de Medici. Con alcune altre operette, i titoli delle quali trouerai nella seguente facciata (Palermo: Appresso gli heredi d’Antoniello degli Antonielli, 1584) (STC 17167). I Discorsi di Nicolo Machiavelli, sopra la prima Deca di Tito Livio. Con due Tauole, l’una de capitoli, & l’altra delle cose principali: & con le stesse parole di Tito Liuio a luoghi loro, ridotte nella volgar Lingua. Nouellamente emmendati, & con somma cura ristampati (Palermo: Appresso gli heredi d’Antoniello degli Antonielli, 1584) (STC 17519).

86

Alessandra Petrina

so vituperated that he had even made his appearance on the English stage as a figure of the Vice.8 What both Case and Patericke may not have known is that English translations of the Principe and of the Discorsi were already circulating in the British Isles, probably by the time Case wrote his Sphaera Ciuitatis, and certainly by the time Patericke translated Gentillet into English; and though their circulation, limited to manuscript copies, may have been semiclandestine, it was in some cases so important that (as shall be discussed more in detail below) there is proof that at least one of these translations was still read well into the seventeenth century, a few years before the first printed translation actually appeared, in 1640.9 In this article I will discuss the various sixteenth-century translations, and offer a comparison of selected passages. Very little is known of these translations, and though scholars have been aware of their existence at least since the early years of the twentieth century, and in one case since the early nineteenth, they have generally escaped the attention of literary critics, who have believed for a long time that the first actual contact English readers had with the Principe was through Edward Dacres’ seventeenth-century translation, and who even hypothesised a theatrical “Machiavel”, the object of scorn on the part of pamphlet-writers, playwrights, and general readers and spectators, totally different from the actual Italian writer. There are four distinct translations, surviving in eight manuscripts, and the sequence can be ordered as follows: Translation A: 1. London, British Library, MS Harley 6795.vi, ff.103r-159v; 2. Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Eng. 1014 (formerly Jules Furthman’s); 3. London, British Library, MS Harley 967; 4. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 792.iii, ff.1r-40r. Translation B: 1. London, British Library, MS Harley 364.xx, ff.46r-109v; 2. London, British Library, MS Harley 2292.

8

9

Among the most famous instances is certainly Christopher Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta, whose Prologue is spoken by “Machevill”. Nicholas Machiavel’s Prince. Also, The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca. And the meanes Duke Valentine us'd to put to death Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto of Fermo, Paul, and the Duke of Gravina. Translated out of Italian into English by E[dward] D[acres] (London: R. Bishop for W. Hils, 1640).

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

87

Translation C: 1. Oxford, Queen’s College Library, MS 251. Translation D: 1. Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, MS Hawthornden 2064, ff. 144r-187v.

It should be noted immediately that this list may be misleading: while translations A and B are related to each other (which means that in the case of the first six manuscripts the sequence is roughly chronological), translations C and D are unrelated to the first two and to each other, so there is no attempt to set these two in any chronological relation in the sequence.

1. Translation A As can be seen from the list of manuscripts above, translation A is the best attested. The first scholar to note the existence of at least some of the manuscripts was John Wesley Horrocks, who in a 1908 D.Litt. dissertation described three of them, that is, the two manuscripts in the British Library (then British Museum) and the one in the Bodleian Library.10 However, his discoveries excited no response for a long time. In 1934 there was a revival of interest in the question of Machiavelli translations when another manuscript, now Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Eng. 1014, was put up for sale by Maggs Brothers, antiquarians and booksellers. On that occasion the scholar Cesare Foligno, writing for the Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana, expressed the hope that the Italian government would be interested in acquiring such a precious document of early modern European interest in Machiavelli’s work;11 but in spite of Foligno’s patriotic appeal and of Benito Mussolini’s avowed interest in the Florentine writer, the necessary financial resources could not be found, and the manuscript was bought by Jules Furthman, a Los Angeles collector, and eventually became the property of Harvard University. While it was still in Furthman’s hands, however, the scholar and literary critic Hardin Craig was given the opportunity of analysing it and of preparing a critical edition,

10

11

John Wesley Horrocks, Machiavelli in Tudor Political Opinion and Discussion, D.Litt. dissertation (University of London, 1908), pp. 202-203. Cesare Foligno, ‘A Note in the «Cronaca» section’, Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana, 104 (1934) pp. 177-178.

88

Alessandra Petrina

which was published in 1944.12 In the meantime an Italian scholar, Napoleone Orsini, had announced his own, rather belated discovery of five manuscripts containing translations of the Principe: the three containing translation A and now in Oxford and London libraries, and the two containing translation B, of which more below. His first announcement was made on the Journal of the Warburg Institute in 1937,13 and he then developed his work in a series of articles and essays.14 In his edition, Craig could therefore draw on Orsini’s work, and inserted in the notes to the text a series of comparisons with the versions present in Harley 6795, Harley 967, Ashmole 792, and Harley 364, as well as with Telius’s Latin version and with Giuseppe Lisio’s critical edition of the Italian original.15 Translation A is therefore not only the best attested, but also the one that has been submitted to the most careful critical analysis. The existence of four manuscripts, besides, gives us some clue as to its composition. The most important concerns Harley 967, a quarto collection of contemporary texts in a rather difficult Elizabethan hand, in which the Machiavelli translation precedes a short text, written in the same hand as the Principe translation, and described in the Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts as “a short Conference between a Lawyer and a Gentleman, concerning a Book published upon the executing Sanders & other Popish traytors for Treason against Queen Elizabeth” (ff. 60v-62r).16 This text is given a rather surprising title, “The entrance into the adoration of Moloch”, but as Orsini has demonstrated, it is in fact a rough and much underlined partial transcript of Leicester’s Commonwealth, a pamphlet attacking Robert Dudley, first Earl of Leicester, written in 1583 and printed, probably in Rouen, in 1584; though 12

13

14

15 16

Machiavelli’s The Prince: An Elizabethan Translation. Edited with an Introduction and Notes from a Manuscript in the Collection of Mr Jules Furthman, ed. by Hardin Craig (Chapel Hill: University of Carolina Press, 1944). Napoleone Orsini, ‘Elizabethan Manuscript Translations of Machiavelli’s Prince’, Journal of the Warburg Institute, 1 (1937), pp. 166-69. In his ‘The Charlecote Manuscript of Machiavelli’s Prince’, John H. Whitfield observes that in his discovery Orsini “had been helped by J.E. Neale” (Discourses on Machiavelli (Cambridge: Heffer, 1969), p.208). There was at this stage no mention of Horrocks’s contribution. Studii sul Rinascimento Italiano in Inghilterra con alcuni testi inglesi inediti (Firenze: Sansoni, 1937); ‘Nuove ricerche intorno al machiavellismo nel Rinascimento inglese I: Machiavellismo e polemiche politiche nel manoscritto harleiano 967’, Rinascita, 1 (1938), pp. 92101; ‘Nuove ricerche sul machiavellismo nel Rinascimento inglese II: Appunti inediti dalle «Storie» del Machiavelli e del Guicciardini’, Rinascita, 6 (1939), pp. 299-304. Il Principe di Niccolò Machiavelli, ed. by Giuseppe Lisio (Firenze: Sansoni, 1899). A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts, in the British Museum. With Indexes of Persons, Places and Matters. In 4 Volumes (London: Printed by Command of his Majesty King George III, 1808), vol. 1, p. 485.

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

89

the English authorities attempted to stop the circulation of the pamphlet, a number of manuscript copies circulated in England after 1584.17 Leicester’s Commonwealth makes a number of references to Machiavelli, sometimes quite explicitly, as in the following passage: he [Leicester] remembereth too well the success of the Lord Stanley, who helped King Henry VII to the crown, of the Duke of Buckingham, who did the same for Richard III, of the Earl of Warwick, who set up King Edward IV, and of the three Percies, who advanced on the scepter King Henry IV. All which noblemen upon occasions that after fell out were rewarded with death by the selfsame princes whom they had preferred. And that not without reason, as Seignior Machiavel my Lord’s counsellor affirmeth. For that such princes afterward can never give sufficient satisfaction to such friends for so great a benefit received. And consequently, lest upon discontentment they may chance do as much for others against them as they have done for them against others, the surest way is to recompense them with such a reward as they shall never after be able to complain of.18

As the editor of the modern edition notes, this passage refers to chapter III of the Principe;19 and what is interesting in this passage is that the writer, though rather sarcastically calling Machiavelli ‘my Lord’s counsellor’, is also perfectly serious in using his doctrine to explain the conduct of the king’s counsellors he mentions. Elsewhere in the pamphlet Machiavelli’s method is openly employed in using examples from the past in order to draw from them a general maxim that can be applied to the present. The Florentine writer is also mentioned in another passage, where he is cited as an authority: “For it is a settled rule of Machivel which the Dudleys do observe, that where you have once done a great injury, there must you never forgive”.20 These allusions help explain why a translation of the Principe and an abridgement of Leicester’s Commonwealth might share the same codex, especially if we consider the limited circulation in England of the pamphlet in its printed form.21 It might be added that Philip Sidney’s Defence of the Earl of

17

18 19 20 21

Napoleone Orsini, ‘Nuove ricerche intorno al machiavellismo nel Rinascimento inglese I: Machiavellismo e polemiche politiche’, pp. 166-169. See also Craig, p. xxii. For a scholarly edition of the pamphlet, see Leicester’s Commonwealth. The Copy of a Letter Written by a Master of Art of Cambridge (1584) and Related Documents, ed. by Dwight C. Peck (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1985). Leicester’s Commonwealth, pp. 131-132. Peck, p. 212. Leicester’s Commonwealth, p. 193. Dwight C. Peck used nine printed copies and 58 manuscripts “related to the text” to prepare his edition, but in his notes to the text he also mentions ‘a handful’ of other copies which he could not access (pp. 224-225). He did not seem aware of the existence of Harley 967, or of the connection of this version with one of the Principe translations. On the relation between

90

Alessandra Petrina

Leicester, a short text written in 1584-85 as a reaction to Leicester’s Commonwealth (though never published in Sidney’s lifetime), uses allusion to Machiavelli which express the same attitude: Who has a father by whose death the Son enherits, but such a nameles historien mai sai his son poisend him. Where mai two talk together but such a spirit of revelation mai surmize thei spake of treason. What neede more or why so much? As though I douted that any woold build beleef uppon such a durty seat, onely when he to borrow a little of his inkhorn. When he plais the Statist wringing veri unlukkili some of Machiavels axiomes to serve his purpos then indeed then he tryumphes.22

The presence in the same manuscript of a translation from the Principe and an excerpt from Leicester’s Commonwealth also helps us in determining the possible date of the manuscript, as it provides a terminus a quo, 1584 (the year of the publication of the pamphlet). Another manuscript of translation A, Harley 6795, includes instead a number of other interesting texts: a fairly short passage titled “Notes out of Guiccyardin” (ff.14-15);23 “A translation of Lypsius De Magistr.”, that is, Justus Lipsius’s De Magistratibus (ff.19r-21r), written in a very neat and clear hand but incomplete, since it includes only the first four chapters; a section titled “Socrates Apologie translated” (ff. 69r95r), on which one can find the date 1631 (on f. 70r we read “Socrates his Apologie translated about the 30th of no:ber 1631)”; and “An extract out of Marsilius [Ficinus], concerning the Rise of Rome” (ff.96r-101r). There are also a number of loose leaves and miscellaneous notes. In this case, though the texts presented together with the Principe are not as topical as Leicester’s Commonwealth, it is easy to see that Machiavelli, set in this philosophicaljuridical company, is treated as an authoritative political text, a source of wisdom and possibly of quotations carrying the same weight as Marsilius Ficinus, Justus Lipsius or possibly Plato (if the text alluded to is indeed his Apology). Other interesting clues are offered by the (actually scarce) commentary material appended to the translation of Machiavelli. In this sense Houghton Library, MS Eng. 1014 (the so-called Furthman manuscript) is unique in that it offers a long comment at the end of the translation. On f. 50v, a blank page

22

23

the two texts, see Catherine Minshull, ‘Marlowe’s «Sound Machevill»’, Renaissance Drama, 13 (1982), pp. 35-53 (pp. 51-52). The Defence of the Earl of Leicester, in The Complete Works of Philip Sidney. The Defence of Poesie, Political Discourses, Correspondence, Translations, ed. by Albert Feuillerat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923), pp. 63-64. This section is discussed in Napoleone Orsini, ‘Nuove ricerche sul machiavellismo nel Rinascimento inglese II: Appunti inediti’, pp. 299-304.

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

91

at the end of the manuscript, a different but roughly contemporary hand has written: This booke not only discovers the knowledge of much euill, but also the shortest and most effectuall waies to perpetrate the same. Here is shewed that we should not with a rude heate or naturall instinct or by other example but artificially as it were only for a further end follow ether vertue or vice, making noe difference but by the profit we may receiue when we haue occasion to vse them. the Author teacheth what men doe and not what they ought to doe. this Machivele expresseth of himselfe in the 5th of his Fflorentine history where he thus writeth SS in declaring things hapned in this bad world, we shall not set downe the vertue of any Captaine the Courage of any Souldier or the loue of any Citicen towards his Country yet you shall see what cunning aid all (?) princes and great men haue vsed to mayntayne the reputation they did not deserve which will perchance prooue no lesse worthy to be knowen then those of antient tyme and albeite the actions of our moderne princes are not to be admired for their vertue and greatnes yet for other qualities they are with noe lesse admiration considered seeing so many noble mynds were by so few and corrupt kept vnder and in awe.24

If, as may be supposed, this is a comment offered by an Elizabethan reader of the translation, it throws an interesting light on Tudor attitudes towards the Principe. The first line contains an allusion to popular responses to the Florentine writer: “much euill” is obviously a pun on his name, and recalls a number of variations we find in sixteenth century English and Scottish writers, ranging from Thomas Nashe’s “Nicalao Maleuolo, great Muster maister of hell”25 to “Michell Wylie” used as an allusion to the Scottish politician William Maitland of Lethington.26 But afterwards the commentary appears to offer an interpretation of the Principe as a realistic analysis of the behaviour of rulers, and at the same time shows the anonymous writer’s acquaintance with Machiavelli’s Istorie Fiorentine, a less controversial work which was going to be published in an English translation in 159527 — the

24

25

26

27

The transcription is taken from Craig, p. 177. The editor tentatively interprets ‘ss’ as sequentiae. Émile Gasquet mistakenly attributes these lines to the last page of the Queen’s College manuscript (translation C). See his Le courant machiavelien dans la pensée et la littérature anglaises du XVIe siècle (Paris: Didier, 1974), p. 433. Pierce Penilesse his Supplication to the Divell. The edition used for all quotations from Nashe’s works is The Works of Thomas Nashe, ed. by Ronald B. McKerrow and F.P. Wilson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1958); this quotation is to be found in vol. 1, p. 183. Memorials of Transactions in Scotland A.D. MDLXIX – A.D. MDLXXIII. By Richard Bannatyne, Secretary to John Knox, ed. by Robert Pitcairn (Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 1836), p. 52. See also Horrocks, p. 123. The Florentine historie [...] translated into English, by T[homas] B[edingfield] esquire (London: Printed by Thomas Creede, for William Ponsonby, 1595).

92

Alessandra Petrina

second work of the Florentine writer to be thus acknowledged in England, after Peter Whitehorne’s Arte of Warre (1560). Apart from the lines quoted above, the Furthman manuscript presents no other comments or marginalia to Machiavelli’s text. Other notes appended to the other manuscripts containing translation A are less revealing. Harley 967 presents, on f.1r, a short introduction to the text: “N.M. politia nefaria. To know to abhorr this Politique! maie read Th’ideal ground of his impieties; But not to practise his damned policies! for that, to Auern, doth down the brod waie lead”. These lines can be construed as an explicit warning to the reader, and find a precise echo on f.1v: “The Prince of Nicholas Machiauel citizen, and secretarie of Florence, dedicated to the noble Prince Laurence, sonn of Peter de Medicis. Whoe telle, and teacheth, what kinges doe in states, But dreames not, Hell is for such potentates. CSM. Translated out of Italien into English”. It is interesting to note here how the writer dissociates Machiavelli’s analysis from any actual responsibility in the wicked ways of rulers: it is as if the writer was unconscious of the weight his words might be carrying. It is therefore the translator’s job to warn readers of the implicit danger: in a way the book becomes a possibly deadly weapon (in the same way as Machiavelli’s very name could evoke conflagrations on the Elizabethan stage): what is recommended, however, is not ignorance of the text itself (something both John Case and Simon Patericke would have applauded) but a cautious study. There is nothing else in the manuscripts in the way of marginalia or comments, which may seem strange given such a hotly debated and controversial text. The respect with which Machiavelli’s text is treated suggests that, once the reader got past the bogey-man of tradition and approached the Florentine writer in all seriousness, works such as the Principe would prompt careful study rather than heated debate. This impression is supported also by the evidence we may draw from the extant copies of the Principe in languages other than English which have survived in English libraries or bear evidence of English ownership. It is the case, for instance, of the Italian edition surreptitiously printed by John Wolfe in London: in a number of copies we can see much underlining, while occasionally a word may be glossed with an Italian synonym or an English translation; but generally speaking marginalia or other additional material do not contain any more articulate responses to Machiavelli. As concerns translation A, besides, we have some evidence as to its circulation well into the seventeenth century: in a collection of notebooks mostly compiled by Sir William Drake, an erudite and book collector living in Buckinghamshire

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

93

between 1626 and the middle of the century,28 we find this undated note: “Mr Pots told me that his brother Sadler had Machivels Princeps exactly translated”.29 The note seems to be a reminder to acquire a copy of this translation, since in some of the following volumes there are extracts from an English version of the Principe throughout notebooks 33 and 38, and in volume 30, as noted by Stuart Clark, “over a hundred leaves are devoted to extracts from Machiavelli’s principal works and from some commentaries, including Gentillet’s denunciation”.30 These extracts are demonstrably from translation A, possibly in a version near to the Furthman manuscript. Once again another familiar text shows up in close proximity to Machiavelli’s: next to the passages from the Principe Drake inserted also an extract titled “Leisters Commonwealth” and beginning “Men with a different religion from the State wherein they liue may be said to deale against the sayd state in two sortes”.31 It seems that the association between the Principe and the anonymous pamphlet written against Robert Dudley was not confined to MS Harley 967. As for the identity of the translator, various hypotheses have been made. Announcing in the Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana the imminent sale of what would become the Furthman manuscript, Cesare Foligno suggested a possible identification with Thomas Bedingfield, the translator of Machiavelli’s Istorie Fiorentine. The suggestion was probably prompted by the catalogue of the sale issued by Maggs Brothers, in which Bedingfield was mentioned for his publication of Cardanus Comforte (1573) by command of the Earl of Oxford, with whose family this manuscript appeared to be connected.32 The tenuousness of the link prevented the hypothesis from becoming tenable; but the same weakness persists in the case of other

28

29 30

31 32

A brief sketch of Drake’s life and cultural interests can be found in Kevin Sharpe, ‘Introduction: Rewriting Sir Robert Cotton’, in Sir Robert Cotton as Collector. Essays on an Early Stuart Courtier and his Legacy, ed. by C.J. Wright (London: The British Library, 1997), pp.1-39 (p. 31). London, University College Library, MS Ogden 7/7, f. 2r. Stuart Clark, ‘Wisdom Literature of the Seventeenth Century: A Guide to the Contents of the «Bacon-Tottel» Commonplace Books. Part I’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, 6 (1976), pp. 291-305 (p. 300). Beside demonstrating the identity of the compiler of the note-books, Clark offers a description of their contents in this article and in the one that followed, ‘Wisdom Literature of the Seventeenth Century: A Guide to the Contents of the «Bacon-Tottel» Commonplace Books. Part II’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, 7 (1977), pp. 46-73. MS Ogden 7/38, f. 3r. On this point see Jeannette Fellheimer, The Englishman’s Conception of the Italian in the Age of Shakespeare, MA dissertation (University of London, 1935), p. 234.

94

Alessandra Petrina

hypotheses, such as the one advanced by Napoleone Orsini, who suggested the name of Petruccio Ubaldini, an Italian refugee who worked in London as a calligrapher and writer and had worked for John Wolfe, translating a pamphlet printed in 1583, The Execution of Justice in England, attributed to William Cecil and connected with Leicester’s Commonwealth.33 In his edition of the Furthman manuscript, Hardin Craig rejected both hypotheses and proposed instead a much more suggestive name, that of the playwright Thomas Kyd.34 In this case the hypothesis was based on a supposed similarity between the hand of the manuscript and that of a document describing a challenge at a tournament (London, British Library, Lansdowne MS 99, n. 98) and already identified as written by Kyd. Implicitly, the scribe was also identified with the translator without further proof. It is easy to see that none of these hypotheses is watertight, and no name can be safely given to the translator of version A. Another clue may be offered by MS Harley 967: the lines on f.1r, quoted above, are signed FL or JL; if the latter was the case,35 the writer might be identified with John Levett or Leuytt, who translated Machiavelli’s Discorsi in a version extant in London, British Library, MS Additional 41162, though the hands of the two manuscripts are decidedly different.36

2. Translation B There is much less to be said as concerns this version. Translation B is attested by two manuscripts, and early analysis has shown that, while in both manuscripts the first twenty-five chapters are the result of an independent translation, the last chapter, including the Petrarch quotation that concludes the Principe, and the dedicatory letter to Lorenzo de’ Medici coincide with translation A. As for the relation of the two manuscripts with each other, Harley 2292 is a fair copy that seems to derive more or less directly from Harley 364. In both, besides, the title is followed by a motto, which in Harley 364 reads “wellcome to me in measure and in meane / to much is naught. yet 33

34 35 36

Napoleone Orsini, Studii sul Rinascimento Italiano in Inghilterra con alcuni testi inglesi inediti, pp. 8-9. In this book Orsini mentions also the Furthman manuscript, which he however did not see. Craig, pp. xxviii-xxix. The hypothesis is supported by Fellheimer, p. 234. On the manuscript translation of the Discorsi, see Orsini, Studii sul Rinascimento Italiano in Inghilterra, pp. 29-33.

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

95

doe not leaue me cleane. A:P:K:” (f.108r). The motto appears to be in the same tenor as the ones observed in translation A, inviting the readers to peruse and understand the text but not to act upon its principles. Furthermore, both manuscripts lack a table of contents, and in the case of what may be considered the earlier manuscript, Harley 364, the watermark evidence suggests that the paper was produced in the 1550s.37 Given its closeness to translation A, this has received much less attention, and is also less well attested; but it should be noted that the later of the two manuscripts, Harley 2292, is an extremely clear and beautiful copy, with red rulings and wide spacing between paragraphs. There are no marginalia, apart from a little note in the same scribe’s hand, inserting “Virg:5:Aenead” next to the Virgilian quotation in chapter XVII (f. 62r): a clear indication that this copy was meant to be read comfortably and by a reader who could give just appreciation to Machiavelli’s text. Once more, therefore, what little evidence we have suggests an approach very far from the self-righteous horror with which Machiavelli was described on the Elizabethan stage.

3. Translation C This is probably the most mysterious among the various early English translations of Machiavelli’s Principe, and quite possibly the best in terms of style and readability. Completely independent of A and B, this translation survives in only one manuscript, Oxford, Queen’s College, MS 251, a small and anonymous quarto including 96 leaves of text, plus a number of blank pages and an incomplete index of names and topics, marked as f. 97. There is no frontispiece, no title or table of contents, and no dedicatory letter to Lorenzo de’ Medici, though this may be due to the fact that the first four pages have been cut away. The chapter division is clearly marked, with chapter numbers neatly inscribed in the left margin; there is also a clear paragraph division. These characteristics, together with the fact that the manuscript is written only on the recto of each page, and that there is a wide margin on the left, make this a very readable book, easy not only to peruse but also to scan: for this purpose the reader is helped not only by the index, but also by the fact that every time a geographical or historical name is written, it is clearly spaced out and very easy to identify on the page. The lack of a frontispiece, on the other hand, has made this manuscript very 37

Orsini, Studii sul Rinascimento Italiano in Inghilterra con alcuni testi inglesi inediti, p. 18.

96

Alessandra Petrina

difficult to identify, and in fact in the nineteenth-century catalogue of Oxford manuscripts it was described as Codex chartaceus, in 4to, ff. 97, sec. XVII. An essay on the different forms of government, and on the duties of princes, illustrated from the lives and characters of the Roman emperors down to Maximinus; in twenty-six chapters. Beg. “All formes of Government, are properly comprised, under one of these twooe: kingedoms or common wealthes”.38

There seems to have been no realization in this case that this was the essay on different forms of government; but it is possible that the manuscript was made so anonymous in order to escape detection, and in fact it is part of a group of theological treatises, collections of sermons and other religious writings that formed part of a donation by Thomas Barlow, the seventeenthcentury Bishop of Lincoln and bibliophile who had become fellow of Queen’s College in 1633.39 It may be noted that among Barlow’s books, as noted in his catalogue, there was Machiavelli’s Discorsi, possibly in the English translation by Edward Dacres, and a copy of the Florentine History.40 The manuscript is written in a very clear late sixteenth-century hand, with no marginal annotations; only very occasionally is a word underlined. One peculiarity is the fact that chapter XXIV appears in two slightly divergent versions, one following the other, the second in what appears to be a different, less formed hand, with new leaves being inserted for the purpose. Besides, as the book progresses the hand responsible for most of the manuscript (including the first version of chapter XXIV) becomes more hurried; the last chapter is incomplete (the last 150 words of the Italian original are missing, including the Petrarch quotation). Between the last chapter and the (also unfinished) index there are forty-one blank pages, among whom there are traces that a further four leaves have been cut. There is no clue as to the identity of the translator, the scribe, or even the owner of the manuscript previous to Thomas Barlow, apart from a very tiny and puzzling indication. On the spine the word ‘Dee’ is barely readable under a stain or erasure, and under it, in another hand, there appears the number 19, which corresponds to the old library numeration, “q.19”, which can be read on the first leaf. This suggests an association with John Dee, the sixteenth 38

39

40

Henry O. Coxe, Catalogus Codicum Mss. qui in Collegiis Aulisque Oxoniensibus Hodie Adservantur (Oxonii: E Typographeo Academico, 1852), p. 59. John Spurr, ‘Barlow, Thomas (1608/9–1691)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) [http: //www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1439, accessed 14 April 2008]. For this information I would like to thank Helen Powell, former librarian at Queen’s College, Oxford.

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

97

century erudite, magician and bibliophile, whose library, in the catalogue patiently reconstructed by Julian Roberts and Andrew Watson, included the Principe in the 1560 Basel edition (Sylvester Telius’s Latin translation) and the English translation of the Arte della Guerra, published in the same year.41 On the other hand, there is no possibility of an indisputable attribution as concerns the hand who wrote “Dee” on the spine, while the main hand of the manuscript is definitely not Dee’s. It is possible that Dee commissioned either the translation or a copy of it; this is yet another puzzle in a most mysterious manuscript.

4. Translation D In this case, the name of the translator is well known, as is his literary career. William Fowler, probably born in 1560 in Edinburgh, received an international education, studying at the universities of St Andrews, Paris and Padova, and early distinguished himself at the court of James VI of Scotland as a translator from the Italian. In 1587 he published his translation of Petrarch’s Trionfi, and his poetry shows the influence both of the Italian writer and of English sonneteers such as Philip Sidney.42 This interest in European poetry is consistent with the poetical program initiated by the young James VI, who in the early 1580s called at his court a number of poets such as John Stewart of Baldynneis, Alexander Montgomerie and Thomas Hudson, and himself translated from the French, as in the case of his version of Guillaume Du Bartas’ La Seconde Semaine, as well as collaborating with other poets (once he had become James I of England) in the versification of the Psalms. Fowler was, however, a rather singular addition to the coterie of courtier-poets, since he was not of aristocratic origins, but rather found employment at the court as a sort of civil servant; besides, in the years immediately preceding the onset of literary activity at the Scottish court he had been employed by the English government, and more specifically by Sir Francis Walsingham, as a spy, especially in the household of the French ambassador, Michel de Castelnau, Seigneur de Mauvissière. His spying activities do not seem to have been very successful, and in 1584 he went back 41

42

Julian Roberts and Andrew G. Watson, eds, John Dee's Library Catalogue (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1990). The two books are numbered 756 and 1688 in the catalogue. Most of Fowler’s works, including his translations, have been published in The Works of William Fowler, Secretary to Queen Anne, Wife of James VI, ed. by Henry W. Meikle, Scottish Text Society (Edinburgh and London: Blackwood, 1914, 1936, 1940).

98

Alessandra Petrina

to Edinburgh. In 1589 he was sent to Denmark as a participant to the negotiations concerning King James’s marriage with Princess Anne, and once the marriage took place, in 1589, he found permanent employment with the royal family as Secretary to the Queen — a post he maintained until his death in 1612.43 Unlike his translation of Petrarch, Fowler’s version of the Principe was not published in his lifetime, but survives in manuscript form, in a collection of papers belonging to him and to his nephew, the poet William Drummond of Hawthornden. It is on this version that Henry Meikle based his edition, and in this case the scholar finds a situation diametrically opposite to what happened with the previous translations: while the translator is far from anonymous, and instead has a well-known political and literary personality, the manuscript shows every sign of being a very rough draft, incomplete and mutilated, extremely hard to read, and with no attention shown to layout: it is very difficult to gather the translator’s intention or his attitude towards Machiavelli’s text. The Fowler papers have been preserved in a very haphazard collection, and the nineteenth-century antiquarian David Laing who sorted out the collection and attempted to divide Hawthornden’s manuscripts from Fowler’s did not improve matters.44 The Machiavelli translation lacks a section from the middle of chapter IV to the beginning of chapter 10, and the last three paragraphs of chapter XXVI; however, unlike what can be observed in the case of translation C, it can be easily surmised that these omissions are not due to the translator’s will, but to a simple loss of leaves. While the text of the translation is contained in volume XII of the Hawthornden collection,45 the leaf containing the translation of the dedicatory letter to Lorenzo de’ Medici is in the following volume,46 and has on the verso Fowler’s own dedication to the Laird of Buccleuch. This is the only clue we have to the circumstances in which the translation was 43

44

45 46

The most recent biography of William Fowler can be found in Sarah M. Dunnigan, ‘William Fowler’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 20, ed. by H.C.G. Matthew and B. Harrison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 598-599. See also the more dated but less biased biography written by Henry W. Meikle in his edition of Fowler’s works; and Alessandra Petrina, ‘The Travels of Ideology: Niccolò Machiavelli at the Court of James VI’, Modern Language Review, 102 (2007), pp. 947-959. Laing himself described his work in ‘A Brief Account into the Hawthornden Manuscripts in the Possession of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland; with Extracts, Containing Several Unpublished Letters and Poems of William Drummond of Hawthornden’, Archaeologia Scotica: or Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 4 (1831), pp. 57-116; pp. 225-270. Now Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, MS Hawthornden 2064, ff. 144r-187v. Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, MS Hawthornden 2065, f. 147r.

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

99

undertaken: Fowler had accompanied Buccleuch on his travels to Europe, and especially to Italy, in the early 1590s. There is proof that both enrolled at the University of Padova in 1592,47 and that Fowler was in contact with Giovan Battista Ciotti, a librarian operating in Venice who was also a friend of Sarpi and Bruno,48 but there is no proof to connect with any certainty the Machiavelli translation with Fowler’s Italian sojourn; besides, the state of the translation authorises the hypothesis that the translation remained a project, and was never actually delivered to Buccleuch or to any other prospective reader. All that can be said from the tenor of the drafted dedication is that Fowler seemed more interested in the linguistic ability required of the translator than in the political content of the text: To the la[i]rd of bucluge. Right hon.ll sir if to any for respect regard of wisdome bloode valor sight reno[w]ne or worthines this worke might be dedicated we as obleshed in dewtye [...] yow ar he to quhome the honour of the first and I he to quhome the obligation in the second suld [...] respects and therfor sir it sal lat it stand with your [...] and bontefull curtesie to receave these my travells translated and writtin at sondrye interupted houers, and at your leiseur censure and examine theme quha being mair perfyte and pro[m]pter in the italien tonge then I be sal make my self graced by your correctioun.49

Fowler’s avowed interest in Buccleuch’s correction, and his acknowledgement of his interlocutor’s superior knowledge of Italian, may be simply instances of the usual compliments a writer would bestow on a dedicatee, but it also underlines the translator’s predominantly linguistic interest — an interest also shown in the dedication to Petrarch’s Trionfi.50 It should be noted that both linguistic and political issues are the explicit concern of Machiavelli’s translators whenever their purposes are set out in full: this is evident, for instance, if we analyse the prefaces of the early French translations.51 In Sydney Anglo’s words, translators are among the keenest of

47

48

49

50 51

See the University register for the year 1592 (Matricolazione Università Legista, Padova, Archivio Antico, n. 30, vol. 1, p. 142). In his De Natione Anglica et Scota Iuristarum Universitatis Patavinae (Patavii: Excudebant Fratres Gallina, 1892), p. 172, Io. Aloysius Andrich transcribes the contents of the page, though with a number of misprints. As shown by a receipt for some books signed by Ciotti and preserved among Fowler’s papers; see Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, MS Hawthornden 2065, f. 84r. Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, MS Hawthornden 2065, f. 147v. See also Meikle’s transcription in The Works of William Fowler, vol. 3, p. clv. The Works of William Fowler, vol. 1, p. 16. See, for instance, the preface to Le Prince de Nicolas Machiavelle secretaire et citoien de Florence. Traduit d’Italien en Françoys Par Guillaume Cappel (Paris: Chez Charles Estienne Imprimeur du Roy, 1553), pp. IIIv, IIIIv.

100

Alessandra Petrina

Machiavelli’s readers,52 and it is no wonder that they should consider, together with the controversial contents of the Principe, also the extraordinary stylistic beauty, conciseness and precision of the original. In the following section a comparison between the various English versions, shall supply, in the absence of external evidence, some clues as to the different attitudes of the various translators.

5. A comparison between the various translations Machiavelli’s text presents a curious challenge for translators. The smooth flow of its sentences, which make it a syntactical heaven even for non-native readers, contrasts with the semantic ambiguity of a number of key-words, which require translators to re-consider their political vocabulary; words such as the ever-present virtù encompass a wide range of meanings and connotations. Preliminary observations on this point were made by Napoleone Orsini, who noted that terms such as policy and practice, used ‘to denote both the practical art of politics and the theory or doctrine of that art’, became in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century ‘the technical terms of Machiavellianism in England’.53 Orsini, however, though using a number of instances from Elizabethan political literature in order to support his theory, did not take his analysis to the point of comparing the vocabulary of ‘Machiavellian’ theorists with that of any of the known translations of the Principe or the Discorsi. The present analysis constitutes a step in this direction, but at the same time highlights the difficulties inherent in the task. The various English and Scottish translators meet the challenge of Machiavelli’s vocabulary by adopting widely different attitudes, sometimes attempting a closely literal translation, sometimes using strings of synonyms or paraphrases in the attempt to make their meaning clearer (the latter being a characteristic especially noticeable in Fowler’s translation); and the comparison between them is made more difficult by the fact that, while all of them seem to have used one version of the Italian original, in some cases we also detect the influence of Telius’s Latin version, or of one of the early French translations. In the case of translation A, for instance, Hardin Craig, in his edition of the Furthman manuscript, detected the influence of the Latin 52

53

‘Machiavelli’s Keenest Readers: The Early Translators’ is the title of chapter 7 of Anglo’s Machiavelli — The First Century (p. 183). Napoleone Orsini, ‘«Policy»: Or the Language of Elizabethan Machiavellianism’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 9 (1946), pp. 122-134 (p. 122).

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

101

version,54 while Fowler’s version solicited a critical discussion centring upon the probability of its dependence from d’Auvergne’s French translation.55 What I have chosen to do here is to present a number of significant passages, highlighting for each translator the choice of words and relating the various translations with the Italian original and, where necessary or useful, with the Latin or French translations.56 Obviously, the ‘Italian original’ is an equally difficult text to identify: the version that would most easily circulate in England in the late sixteenth century was John Wolfe’s edition; even if its circulation in Scotland would have been more problematic, Fowler might have had easy access to it through his English contacts. There are instances in which Wolfe diverges from the established text. In his comparative analysis of translations A and B, Orsini noted a passage in chapter XII, presented in the Blado edition as “non traevano la notte nelle terre; quegli dalla terra non traevano alle tende; non facevano intorno al campo né steccato né fossa; non campeggiavano el verno” (p. 243), which in Wolfe is incomplete: “non traehueno de notte alle tende, non faceuano intorno al campo ne steccato, ne fossa, non campeggiauano il verno” (p. 24); this passage appears in the complete form in translation A (“they never gaue assaulte by night to anie Cittie beseiged, nor they of the Cittie att that tyme might offer to come owte againste the Enimies tentes. They entrenched not their campe with dyches nor fortified it with anie rampyre, nor never keapte the fyeldes in the winter seison”, p. 57), while translation B presents the incomplete version, though trying to adjust it so as to make it meaningful (“They shott not one against another by night, 54 55

56

Craig, pp. xvi, xxvi-xxvii. A number of interesting observations on the relation between d’Auvergne’s translation and Fowler’s can be found in Meikle’s edition (volume 3, pp. 46-48). See also R.D.S. Jack, ‘William Fowler and Italian Literature’, Modern Language Review, 65 (1970), pp. 481-492. For the Italian original, the edition used is Niccolò Machiavelli. De Principatibus, ed. by Giorgio Inglese (Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, 1994); I give both chapter and page number in brackets. For translation A, I have used Craig’s edition; for translation B, the version in British Library, MS Harley 2292 as transcribed by Adriana Micco in her Il Principe di Machiavelli in una traduzione rinascimentale inglese (B.L. MS Harley 2292), Laurea dissertation (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, 1992-93); for translation C I have used my own transcription from Oxford, Queen’s College MS 251; translation D is quoted from Meikle’s edition of William Fowler’s works (volume 2, pp. 71-164). The Latin version is Sylvester Telius’s translation, publishes in Basel in 1560 and noted above. For the French versions, the following editions have been used: Guillaume Cappel’s translation, noted above; Le Prince de Nicholas Macchiauelli secretaire & citoien de Florence traduit d’Italien en Francois. Laus supra regna. Auec Priuilege du Roy [translated by Gaspard d’Auvergne] (Poitiers: De limprimerie d’Enguilbert de Marnef, 1553). Page or folio numbers are given in brackets after each quotation.

102

Alessandra Petrina

they made about the campe neither ditch nor rampire, they kept not campe in the winter”, f. 51r, p. 57).57 Of course, it might be argued that translator A was working with Wolfe’s edition, and used Telius to make sense of a particularly corrupt passage, while B preferred to modify the first clause so as to harmonise its meaning with the whole sentence. Translator C also seems to be using a whole text, though in this case there seems to be less reason to suppose a use of the Latin version (“Thay abstaine on bothe sydes to shante artillery into the Citty, owt of the Campe; or from the Cytty, into the Campe; in the night tyme. Besides they may then make Rampier nor trenche abowte the Campe: nor lye in the feelde in winter”, ff. 38r-39r). As for William Fowler, he also appears to be using an incomplete original, though he finds it necessary to pad an obviously corrupt text with explanatory additions: “In the night they Invaded nather tounes nor trenches of there ennemyeis nor gaue to thame allarmes; nather they that wer asseaged did sortye out to assalye the assegers pallions, nather was there forts environed nor compassed with barriers, tranches, nor fousseis, nather yet in the wintar seasoun did they pitch a camp” (f. 161r, p. 101). Given that at least two of the translators appear to be using different text (the Italian and Latin for translator A, the Italian and Gaspard d’Auvergne’s French version for translator D, as shall be seen more in detail below), it is difficult, even with the help of these comparisons, to establish with any certainty the Italian original they were consulting. In the discussion that follows, each chosen passage will shed light on the different approaches to Machiavelli’s Principe, focusing in turn on various features of the text; the choice of passages is perforce limited by the severely incomplete state of William Fowler’s translation. The opening sentence of the Principe is a good starting point, since it presents a number of key-terms in Machiavelli’s initial distinction between the monarchical and the republican forms of government: Tutti gli stati, tutti e dominii che hanno avuto et hanno imperio sopra gli uomini, sono stati e sono o republiche o principati. (chapter I, p. 183) A Whatsoever state of government either hath ben, or nowe is emongst men, the same maybe called either populer where all or many beare the swaye, or princely, where one alone hath the soveraignty. (p. 3) B All the estates and seigniories that haue had rule ouer men, haue beene either commonwealthes or monarchies. (f. 4v, p .9)

57

See Orsini, Studii sul Rinascimento Italiano in Inghilterra con alcuni testi inglesi inediti, p. 13.

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

103

C All formes of Government, are properly comprised, under one of these twooe: kingedoms or common wealthes. (f. 1r) D Quhat sumeuer government or estate that hes or hes had commandiment ouer men hes bene and ar ather Commoun welths or monarcheis. (f. 144r, p. 71)

Evidently the first obstacle the translator meets is stati, which maintains in English the ambiguity it has in Italian, and must be clarified by the writer with the near-synonym dominii. The English word estate allows a focus on the political meaning of the term, but translator B chooses in any case to accompany to it the word seigniories which anticipates Machiavelli’s own principati; evidently here the problem is of referring, on the side of the Italian writer, to small city-states governed by a Prince or signore; on the part of the translators, to allude to the monarchies that were a traditional feature of the government of both England and Scotland while at the same time maintaining their distance from the Italian original. Translator A provides a rather awkward version, feeling compelled to provide an explanation for almost all the terms introduced in this sentence: unlike the other translations, in fact (and unlike either the Latin or the French versions), here there is no proper noun to use for republiche and principati, and the rather weak adjectives need further clarification. Therefore republiche become a ‘popular’ form of government, while all the other translators choose the very appropriate commonwealth; as for principati, the princely of translator A becomes a much more connoted monarchies or kingedoms in all other translations; it may be added, however, that this choice will prove problematic once Machiavelli starts discussing the conduct and actions of a principe, a word which can only with difficulty be rendered with king. Here the distance between the Italian and the Anglo/Scottish political situation is evident. As for syntax, A and D choose to follow Machiavelli’s use of parallel verb forms in the present and the past, while C boldly ignores the original in favour of a less elegant but clearer structure. One of the most obvious difficulties the translator encounters is Machiavelli’s close involvement with the local realities of Italian politics. His examples are either taken from classical antiquity (Rome, Greece, more rarely the rulers of the Old Testament) or from contemporary northern Italy; and in the latter case, there is always the risk for the non-Italian reader to become lost in the petty complications of tiny city-states. In these instances, the difference between the translator who wishes to give the exact import of the original and the translator who is more interested in ensuring the full understanding of the reader is evident, as in the following case:

104

Alessandra Petrina

Acquistata adunque el Re la Lombardia, subito si riguadagnò quella reputazione che gli aveva tolta Carlo: Genova cedé; Fiorentini gli diventarono amici; marchese di Mantova, duca di Ferrara, Bentivogli, Madonna di Furlì, signore di Faenza, di Rimini, di Pesero, di Camerino, di Piombino, Lucchesi, Pisani, Sanesi, ognuno se gli fece incontro per essere suo amico. (chapter III, p. 192) A Ffor the kinge himself havinge gotten Lumberdie, he presentlie recovered that estimation and honour which Charles had pulled from him before. Genua yelded, the Florentines became his frendes the States of Mantua and Ferrara, Bentiuoly maddam of Furly, the Lorde of Facuza, of Pezaro, of Rimino, of Camerino, of Piombino, the Lucaenes, the Pisanes, the Senesians, all these enterteigned him and desyred his amitye. (pp. 11-12) B The Kinge then, haueinge passed Lumbardy, had recouered in short space the honor that Kinge Charles might haue taken from him. Genoa then yeilded itself, the Fflorentines became his freindes, the Marquesse of Mantua, the Duke of Fferrara, the Bonognians, the Ladie of Forum Iulij, the Lordes Fforenze of Pesare, of Rimin, of Camerin, of Plombin, the Laquies Pisanes Sienoijs, euerie one of them came to him to bee at his commaundement. (ff. 12r-v, p. 17) C Upon the winninge ther of: all the smales estates of Italy associated them selues with him. (f. 5r) D For he having subdewed Lumbardie, he with the same recovered this whole reputation that kings Charles before had lossed, and forcing Genua to rander maid the florentins to become his frends, so yat the Marqis of mantwa, the duk of ferrar, the bentiuolles off bullongne, the contesse off furelye, the Lords off faense, of pesare, off arimin, off camerin, of plombin, these of luca, of Siena and of pisa, euerye ane and all off these former suddenlye sought his favour and freindship. (f. 153v, p. 82)

What is immediately fascinating here is obviously the choice of translator C not to get muddled in an interminable and, to an English reader, mostly meaningless list of minute potentates. Once again, Machiavelli’s stylistic choice is abandoned: we miss the accumulatio effect of all the princes one by one succumbing to the necessity of paying homage to the winner, first single spies (the Marquis of Mantua, the Duke of Ferrara, and so on) then in battalions (the rulers of a number of Italian cities grouped together), but the short sentence that substitutes Machiavelli’s paragraph is incisive and neat, and makes perfect sense to the reader. Once again this rather drastic choice underlines the eminently practical nature of translation C, and highlights its direct relationship with its intended reader; it may be noted that, unlike what happens in this case, examples taken from classical history are never abridged; the same is true of Italian examples that have a local value but make excellent narrative, as in the case of the excursus on Oliverotto da Fermo and his assassination of his maternal uncle Giovanni Fogliani in chapter VIII (ff. 22r-23r).

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

105

The other translations, on the other hand, painstakingly engage with the list of Italian potentates, and the different results highlight in some case the different source used. Translation A ignores the titles of the lords of Mantua and Ferrara, thus possibly showing its dependence on the Latin translation (which has at this point “Mantuanus, & Ferrariensis principes”, p.14), though the use of Piombino rather than Traiani portus appears to demonstrate that the translator could also make use of an Italian version. As for the misreading Facuza for Faenza, it could simply be the copyist’s mistake, a mistake repeated in Harley 6795 (Harley 967 instead has Fauiza). Translation B fares better with the names and is more accurate in the transcription, making use of the Latin Forum Iulij for the Italian Furlì, and rendering very elegantly Machiavelli’s accumulatio; as for translation D, it shows the influence of a French translation, very probably Gaspard d’Auvergne’s, in its use of the specific term contesse for the lady of Forlì, a term echoing d’Auvergne’s comtesse; the whole passage, in fact, mirrors the French, even in the chosen spelling: Or ayant doncq subiugué la Lombardie, il recouura en vn instant toute la reputation que le Roy Charles y auoit au parauant perdue. Gennes se rendit incontinent, les Florentins deuindrent ses amis, ensemble le marquis de Mantoüe, le duc de Ferrare, les Bentiuoles de Boulongne, la comtesse de Furli, le seigneur de Faenze, de Pesare, de Armin, de Camerin, de Plombin, les Lucois, les Sienois, & ceux de Pise. Vn chacun d’eux se vint offrir à luy pour pratiquer sa beneuolence & amitié.

It should be noted that d’Auvergne’s translation enjoyed a special relationship with Scotland, since the translator had dedicated it to the “tres haut, tres illustre et puissant prince Iames d’Ammilton, duc de Chastelleraut”, that is, James Hamilton, earl of Arran; governor of Scotland in 1542 and Duke of Châtelherault in 1548 (the same Duchy where d’Auvergne worked as a lawyer), he was also the son of the James Hamilton who is believed to be the model of Ariosto’s Alcabrun in Orlando Furioso X.85. Incidentally, he was believed to be fluent in Italian.58 To the same Earl of Arran David Lindsay dedicated Ane Dialogue betuix Experience and ane Courteour off the Miserabyll Estait of the Warld.59 This makes it very possible for this translation to have been the one that most easily circulated in Scotland by the late sixteenth century. On the other hand, William Drummond of 58

59

R.D.S. Jack, ‘Petrarch in English and Scottish Renaissance Literature’, Modern Language Review, 71 (1976), pp. 801-811 (p. 801). Written probably in 1553, it is also known as The Monarche. James Hamilton is explicitly praised in the Prologue. See The Works of Sir David Lindsay of the Mount, ed. by Douglas Hamer, Scottish Text Society (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1931-36), vol. I, pp. 198-386.

106

Alessandra Petrina

Hawthornden, Fowler’s nephew, who probably inherited most of his uncle’s library as well as his manuscripts, possessed Jacques Gohory’s translation of the Principe,60 a version that closely follows Cappel’s, but that does not seem to have influenced Fowler’s work.61 In his edition of Fowler’s translation, Henry Meikle notices other points of closeness with d’Auvergne’s version, and convincingly demonstrates that Fowler was using both this and an Italian original, showing a consistent attitude throughout, adding material to the original when it is also added in the French version or omitting whatever d’Auvergne decided to omit.62 The former of the two choices is particularly evident in Fowler’s treatment of the following passage, which is also interesting for its use of some politically charged words: Debbe pertanto uno principe non si curare della infamia del crudele per tenere e’ subditi sua uniti et in fede. (chapter XVII, p. 259) A Let therefore a prince esteeme yt lighte to be accompted cruell soe as he maye haue his subiectes in fayth by feare. (p. 71) B A Prince then ought not to feare to bee called cruell, thereby to hold his subiectes in unitie and obedience. (f. 62v, p. 71) C Therfore a prince oght not reguard the Infami of beinge accompted Cruell: in howldinge his subiectes in vniti, and loyaltye. (f. 50r) D A prence therfore suld panse litill to be noted with the Infame of crueltie sua that by that meane he maintane his subiects in vnion, faith, and obedience.

Unlike what happened with the word principati used in the opening sentence of Machiavelli’s work, the word principe is generally maintained as it is in the various English versions; the same happens with subditi, which remains subjects throughout. On the other hand “non si curare della infamia” becomes the much weaker “esteeme yt lighte” in A, which also reduces Machiavelli’s “uniti et in fede” to the single “in fayth”: once more, we can detect here the influence of Sylvester Telius’s translation, which renders this sentence as

60

61

62

Le Prince de Nicolas Machiavel secretaire et citoyen florentin. Dedié au magnifique Laurens fils de Pierre de Medicis. Traduit d'Italien en François auec la vie de l'auteur mesme, par Iaq. Gohory Parisien (Paris: Robert le Mangnier, 1571). For the books and manuscripts owned by William Drummond of Hawthornden, see Robert H. MacDonald, The Library of Drummond of Hawthornden (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1971). Meikle, vol. 3, pp. 46-47.

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

107

“Parui itaque ducat princeps saeuitiae nomen, quo concordes suos in fide retineat” (pp.104-105), a construction almost exactly mirrored in A. B, on the other hand, appears much closer to the Italian original, as does C. Fowler, as noted above, chooses to add the notion of ‘obedience’ as a characteristic of the subjects, and in this addition follows d’Auvergne (and in fact, all three French versions): Parquoy le prince ne se donnera pas grand souci de se voir tenir pour tel, mais que par ce moyen il entretienne son peuple en fidelle vnion & obeissance. (d’Auvergne) Vn Prince donc ne se doit point soucier de la renommée de la cruauté pour tenir tous ses subiectz en vnion & obeissance. (Cappel) Le Prince donc ne se doibt point soucier de la renommée de la cruauté pour tenir tous ses sujetz en vnion & obeissance. (Gohory)

It should be added that, in the case of Fowler, the impulse to add extra material to the original version in the attempt to make it clearer is not only due to his use of d’Auvergne’s text as an intermediary, but reflects his habitual practice as a translator, as abundantly shown in his version of Petrarch’s Trionfi. The famous passage evoking the twin images of the lion and the fox is revealing: Sendo dunque necessitato uno principe sapere bene usare la bestia, debbe di quelle pigliare la volpe et il lione: perché el lione non si difende da’ lacci, la volpe non si difende da’ lupi. (chapter XVIII, p. 264) A Ffor asmuch therefore as it behoves a prince to counterfeyte the condicions of brute beastes, they shoulde aboue all other indeavour bothe to imitate the nature of the Lyon and the Foxe. For the Lyons take noe regarde of the trappes and snares of the hunters, and the foxe is to weake to defende himself from the Woolfe. (p. 75) B Seeinge then that a Prince ought to use the nature of a beast, hee ought to choose the ffox and lyon, for the lyon cannot defend himself from nettes nor the ffox from woolues. (f. 66r, p. 75) C Seeinge therfore yt is necessary a Prince to know and vse the nature of the Brute Beastes, hee oght amungest them to choose owte that of the Foxe, and of the Lyon. for that the Lyon defendeth not him selfe from trapps; nor the Fox from Woulues. (f. 54r) D and therfore whils as a prence is necessecitat to play the beast, he suld applye his humeur to the complexions baith off the tod and lyon. Becaus the lyon cannot keip him self fra the netts, girns, and cords that ar to Intrap him, and the fox ouer feble to withstand the teith off the wolf. (f. 169r, p. 122)

108

Alessandra Petrina

Once again B and C show themselves as the most concise and elegant renditions of the original, maintaining the brevity of the last two clauses; both choose to ignore Machiavelli’s repetition of the word defende and let the ellipsis lend more force to their conclusion. Translation A, on the other hand, elaborates on the first sentence, and uses synonyms in the attempt to clarify the meaning and water down the concise metaphor of the lion and the fox, transforming it into a lengthy similitude. In this it does not follow the neat Latin phrase (“cum itaque principem magni referat belluinum ingenium scite induere, ei tum vulpis, tum leonis mores assumendi erunt. Nam leo sibi a laqueis non cauet, lupos vero, vulpecula reformidat”, p. 111), but seems rather to be influenced by the stylistic choice of translators such as Gaspard d’Auvergne: Estant doncq vn prince contraint sçavoir bien contrefaire la beste, il doit de tous les animaux choisir la complexion du Renard, & du Lion: parautant que le Lion ne se peut donner garde des cordes et filets, & le Renard est trop foible pour se defendre des Loups.

Guillaume Cappel, on the other hand, prefers Machiavelli’s brevity: “Puis donc qu’vn Prince doit bien vser de nature bestiale, il en doit choisir le regnard & le lyon, car le lyon ne se peut defendre des retz, le regnard des loups.” Having presented the two most important French translations, it is easy to detect Fowler’s dependence on the former: the Scottish writer, in fact, offers a further elaboration, by transforming Machiavelli’s lacci, duplicated by d’Auvergne’s cordes et filets, into “netts, girns, and cords that ar to Intrap him” — which makes the whole image extremely complex, but gives back some of the sense of entrapment d’Auvergne’s phrase had lost. Another interesting feature of Fowler’s version is his treatment of the word volpe: while in the second sentence we find the expected fox (a word also used by all the English translators), in the first he prefers tod, a Scottish word that we find in the works of a number of contemporary poets, in contexts alluding to the fox’s wiles and craftiness. The choice of tod is striking, while the writer’s wavering between one word and the other rather weakens the whole passage: given the state of the manuscript, which represents what may be assumed to be only a preliminary draft, we may conclude that at this stage Fowler was merely trying out various possible translations, while establishing a stylistic tenor that would set the text half-way through between his original Scots and English. The last example chosen for my analysis is taken from the last chapter, and it is the beginning of Machiavelli’s exhortation to the Medicis:

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

109

Né ci si vede al presente in quale lei possa più sperare che nella illustre Casa vostra... (chapter XXVI, p. 308) A Neither att this tyme dothe the Contrie see any better guyde or aucthor of her redemption then the famous house of the Medices... (p. 116) B Neither at this tyme doth the countrie see anie better author of her redemption then the famous howse of Medices ... (f. 100r, p.111) C And whome can shee, or doth shee, more affectionately behowld, and wishe, Awthor of her redemption: then the Illustrious family of the Medices... (f. 93r) D Bot at this present italye espyes nane other in quhase wisdome, manhoode, and government it might repose vpon for her delyverie mair then vpon your illustre hous of medices... (f. 187r, p. 162)

We should note at once that translations A and B coincide at this point, as they do for the whole of chapter XXVI; it is also easy to see that all translations choose to follow a different path from any of the French versions taken into consideration here: Et ne cognoist pour ceste heure de qui elle doyne plus esperer, que de vostre tresillustre, & noble maison... (d’Auvergne) Or n’a elle point esperance qu’autre maison sinon que la vostre... (Cappel) Or n’a elle point esperance qu’autre maison sinon que la vostre... (Gohory)

Rather, one could detect at this point the influence of Telius: “Nec hoc quidem tempore quempiam circunspicit, quem huius redemptionis ducem, authoremque constitui posse speret, quam illustrem tuam Mediceorum familiam...” (p. 170). It is easy to see what was the translators’ dilemma in this instance: in the last chapter Machiavelli is finally focusing on his intended reader, and the political treatise, which in spite of its very pointed references to local Italian politics could be read (and indeed was and has been read) as a general treatise, becomes an appeal to the Medici, a call to arms for the unity and independence of Italy. Rhetorically, it is a very subtle move, a sudden switch of tone which has all the portentous weight of a prophecy, accompanied as it is by biblical references. A certain deflation is inevitable, should the translator decide to write out explicitly the allusion to the Medici. On the other hand, if, as in the case of the French versions quoted above, the direct address is maintained, the risk is to alienate the reader who is forced to view the whole treatise in the perspective of foreign, local politics. The three

110

Alessandra Petrina

English translators choose to maintain a distant tone, referring to “the house of the Medici” in the third person; translator C, though adopting the phrase “awthor of her redemption” which is identical to A and B (and which suggests the interesting possibility of interrelations between these translations), also inserts the image of the country affectionately beholding, or wishing, its presumptive saviours, in a phrase which even in the detached tone of a third-person narration evokes a dramatic intensity lacking in the other versions; in all cases the word author seems to be directly derived for the Latin. Besides, C also employs the phrase “the Illustrious family of the Medices”, strikingly similar to the Latin “illustrem tuam Mediceorum familiam”. On the other hand, Fowler follows Telius in the choice of addressing directly “your illustre hous of medices”, showing once more his predilection for the accumulation of meaningful details. Less correct that either translation A or B, less focused than translation C, Fowler’s is meaningful in that it shows the translator at work, searching for (but never discarding) different expressive possibilities, showing us the work in progress of a writer engaged with the crystalline ambiguity of Machiavelli’s text, often choosing to sacrifice stylistic clarity and brevity in order to unravel its semantic complexity. All translations, setting aside the marginal comments, seem focussed on linguistic rather than political issues, and confirm the impression that the sixteenth-century reaction to the Principe, when it was not motivated by blind ideological controversy, found it necessary to take into account, behind the potentially explosive contents, the almost classical austerity of the style, the purity of the language which had made Bernardo di Giunta, one of the earliest publishers, refer to it as already a classic.63 The early English and Scottish translators, with their fascination for linguistic and stylistic matters, justified John Florio’s choice of inserting, in the 1611 edition of his Italian dictionary, Queen Anna’s New World of Words, in his list of “Authors and Books that haue been read of purpose for the collecting of this Dictionarie”

63

Sergio Bertelli and Piero Innocenti, Bibliografia Machiavelliana (Verona: Edizioni Valdonega, 1979), pp. xxxv-xxxvi. See Il principe di Niccolo Machiauelli al magnifico Lorenzo di Piero de Medici. La uita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca a Zanobi Buondelmonti, & à Luigi Alemanni, composta per il medesimo. Il modo che tenne il duca Valentino per ammazare Vitellozo, Oliuerotto da Fermo, il .S. Pagolo, & il Duca di Grauina discritta per il medesimo. I ritratti delle cose della Francia, & della Alamagna, per il medesimo nuouamente aggiunti (Firenze: Bernardo di Giunta, 1532).

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

111

not only Tasso, Bembo or Dante, but also “Tutte l’ópere di Nicolo Macchiauelli”.64

Bibliography Primary Sources The Arte of Warre written first in Italian by Nicholas Machiavell and set forthe in Englishe by Peter Whitehorne student at Graies Inne (London: I. Kingston, 1560) I Discorsi di Nicolo Machiavelli, sopra la prima Deca di Tito Livio. Con due Tauole, l’una de capitoli, & l’altra delle cose principali: & con le stesse parole di Tito Liuio a luoghi loro, ridotte nella volgar Lingua. Nouellamente emmendati, & con somma cura ristampati (Palermo: Appresso gli heredi d’Antoniello degli Antonielli, 1584) A Discourse Vpon the meanes of wel governing and maintaining in good peace, a kingdome, or other principalitie. Divided into three parts, namely, The Counsell, the Religion, and the Policie, which a Prince ought to hold and follow. Against Nicholas Machiavell the Florentine. Translated into English by Simon Patericke (London: Printed by Adam Islip, 1602) The Florentine historie [...] translated into English, by T[homas] B[edingfield] esquire (London: Printed by Thomas Creede, for William Ponsonby, 1595). Index auctorum et librorum qui tanquam haeretici, aut suspecti, aut perniciosi, ab officio S. Ro. Inquisitionis reprobantur, et in universa Christiana republica interdicuntur (Roma: Antonio Blado, 1557) John Florio. Queen Anna’s New World of Words. 1611. A Scolar Press Facsimile (Menston: The Scolar Press, 1968) Leicester’s Commonwealth. The Copy of a Letter Written by a Master of Art of Cambridge (1584) and Related Documents, ed. by Dwight C. Peck (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1985) Machiavelli’s The Prince: An Elizabethan Translation. Edited with an Introduction and Notes from a Manuscript in the Collection of Mr Jules 64

John Florio. Queen Anna’s New World of Words. 1611. A Scolar Press Facsimile (Menston: The Scolar Press, 1968). It should be noted that the first edition of Worlde of Wordes, published in 1598, presented a much shorter list of authors that did not include Machiavelli; see D. J. O’Connor, ‘John Florio’s Contribution to Italian-English Lexicography’, Italica, 49 (1972), pp. 49-67 (pp. 50-54).

112

Alessandra Petrina

Furthman, ed. by Hardin Craig (Chapel Hill: University of Carolina Press, 1944) Memorials of Transactions in Scotland A.D. MDLXIX – A.D. MDLXXIII. By Richard Bannatyne, Secretary to John Knox, ed. by Robert Pitcairn (Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 1836) Niccolò Machiavelli. De Principatibus, ed. by Giorgio Inglese (Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, 1994) Nicolai Machiavelli reip. florentinae a secretis, ad Laurentium Medicem de Principe libellus: nostro quidem seculo apprimé vtilis & necessarius, non modò ad principatum adipiscendum, sed & regendum & conseruandum: Nunc primum ex Italico in Latinum sermonem uersus per Syluestrum Telium Fulginatem (Basileae: apud Petrum Pernam, 1560) Nicholas Machiavel’s Prince. Also, The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca. And the meanes Duke Valentine us'd to put to death Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto of Fermo, Paul, and the Duke of Gravina. Translated out of Italian into English by E[dward] D[acres] (London: R. Bishop for W. Hils, 1640) Il prencipe di Nicolo Machiavelli. Al Magnifico Lorenzo di Piero de Medici. Con alcune altre operette, i titoli delle quali trouerai nella seguente facciata (Palermo: Appresso gli heredi d’Antoniello degli Antonielli, 1584) Le Prince de Nicholas Macchiauelli secretaire & citoien de Florence traduit d’Italien en Francois. Laus supra regna. Auec Priuilege du Roy [translated by Gaspard d’Auvergne] (Poitiers: De limprimerie d’Enguilbert de Marnef, 1553). Le Prince de Nicolas Machiavelle secretaire et citoien de Florence. Traduit d’Italien en Françoys Par Guillaume Cappel (Paris: Chez Charles Estienne Imprimeur du Roy, 1553) Le Prince de Nicolas Machiavel secretaire et citoyen florentin. Dedié au magnifique Laurens fils de Pierre de Medicis. Traduit d'Italien en François auec la vie de l'auteur mesme, par Iaq. Gohory Parisien (Paris: Robert le Mangnier, 1571) Il principe di Niccolo Machiauelli al magnifico Lorenzo di Piero de Medici. La uita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca a Zanobi Buondelmonti, & à Luigi Alemanni, composta per il medesimo. Il modo che tenne il duca Valentino per ammazare Vitellozo, Oliuerotto da Fermo, il .S. Pagolo, & il Duca di Grauina discritta per il medesimo. I ritratti delle cose della Francia, & della Alamagna, per il medesimo nuouamente aggiunti (Firenze: Bernardo di Giunta, 1532)

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

113

Il Principe di Niccolò Machiavelli, ed. by Giuseppe Lisio (Firenze: Sansoni, 1899) The Works of Sir David Lindsay of the Mount, ed. by Douglas Hamer, Scottish Text Society (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1931-36) The Works of Thomas Nashe, ed. by Ronald B. McKerrow and F.P. Wilson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1958) The Works of William Fowler, Secretary to Queen Anne, Wife of James VI, ed. by Henry W. Meikle, Scottish Text Society (Edinburgh and London: Blackwood, 1914, 1936, 1940). Case, John, Sphaera Ciuitatis; Hoc est; Reipublicae recte ac pie secundum leges administrandae ratio (Francofurdi: Apud Ioan. Wechelum, 1589).

Critical literature A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts, in the British Museum. With Indexes of Persons, Places and Matters. In 4 Volumes (London: Printed by Command of his Majesty King George III, 1808) John Dee’s Library Catalogue, ed. by Julian Roberts and Andrew G. Watson (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1990) Andrich, Io. Aloysius, De Natione Anglica et Scota Iuristarum Universitatis Patavinae (Patavii: Excudebant Fratres Gallina, 1892) Anglo, Sydney, Machiavelli. The First Century. Studies in Enthusiasm, Hostility, and Irrelevance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) Bertelli, Sergio, and Piero Innocenti, Bibliografia Machiavelliana (Verona: Edizioni Valdonega, 1979) Binns, J.W., Intellectual Culture in Elizabethan and Jacobean England. The Latin Writings of the Age (Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1990) Clark, Stuart, ‘Wisdom Literature of the Seventeenth Century: A Guide to the Contents of the «Bacon-Tottel» Commonplace Books. Part I’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, 6 (1976), pp. 291-305 ——., ‘Wisdom Literature of the Seventeenth Century: A Guide to the Contents of the «Bacon-Tottel» Commonplace Books. Part II’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, 7 (1977), pp. 46-73 Coxe, Henry O., Catalogus Codicum Mss. qui in Collegiis Aulisque Oxoniensibus Hodie Adservantur (Oxonii: E Typographeo Academico, 1852) Dunnigan, Sarah M., ‘William Fowler’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 20, ed. by H.C.G. Matthew and B. Harrison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 598-599

114

Alessandra Petrina

Fellheimer, Jeannette, The Englishman’s Conception of the Italian in the Age of Shakespeare, M.A. dissertation (University of London, 1935) Foligno, Cesare, ‘A Note in the «Cronaca» section’, Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana, 104 (1934) 177-178 Gasquet, Émile, Le courant machiavelien dans la pensée et la littérature anglaises du XVIe siècle (Paris: Didier, 1974) Horrocks, John Wesley, Machiavelli in Tudor Political Opinion and Discussion, D. Litt. dissertation (University of London, 1908) Jack, R.D.S., ‘William Fowler and Italian Literature’, Modern Language Review, 65 (1970), pp. 481-492 ——., ‘Petrarch in English and Scottish Renaissance Literature’, Modern Language Review, 71 (1976), pp. 801-811 Laing, David, ‘A Brief Account into the Hawthornden Manuscripts in the Possession of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland; with Extracts, Containing Several Unpublished Letters and Poems of William Drummond of Hawthornden’, Archaeologia Scotica: or Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 4 (1831), pp. 57-116; pp. 225-270 MacDonald, Robert H., The Library of Drummond of Hawthornden (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1971) Micco, Adriana, Il Principe di Machiavelli in una traduzione rinascimentale inglese (B.L. MS Harley 2292), Laurea dissertation (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, 1992-93) Minshull, Catherine, ‘Marlowe’s «Sound Machevill»’, Renaissance Drama, 13 (1982), pp. 35-53 O’Connor, D.J., ‘John Florio’s Contribution to Italian-English Lexicography’, Italica, 49 (1972), pp. 49-67 Orsini, Napoleone, ‘Elizabethan Manuscript Translations of Machiavelli’s Prince’, Journal of the Warburg Institute, 1 (1937), pp. 166-169 ——., Studii sul Rinascimento Italiano in Inghilterra con alcuni testi inglesi inediti (Firenze: Sansoni, 1937). ——., ‘Nuove ricerche intorno al machiavellismo nel Rinascimento inglese I: Machiavellismo e polemiche politiche nel manoscritto harleiano 967’, Rinascita, 1 (1938), pp. 92-101 ——., ‘Nuove ricerche sul machiavellismo nel Rinascimento inglese II: Appunti inediti dalle «Storie» del Machiavelli e del Guicciardini’, Rinascita, 6 (1939), pp. 299-304 ——., ‘«Policy»: Or the Language of Elizabethan Machiavellianism’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 9 (1946), pp. 122-134 Petrina, Alessandra, ‘The Travels of Ideology: Niccolò Machiavelli at the Court of James VI’, Modern Language Review, 102 (2007), pp. 947-959

A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court

115

Schmitt, Charles B., ‘John Case and Machiavelli’, in Essays Presented to Myron P. Gilmore, ed. by Sergio Bertelli and Gloria Ramakus (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1978), pp. 231-240 Sharpe, Kevin, ‘Introduction: Rewriting Sir Robert Cotton’, in Sir Robert Cotton as Collector. Essays on an Early Stuart Courtier and his Legacy, ed. by C.J. Wright (London: The British Library, 1997), pp. 1-39 Spurr, John, ‘Barlow, Thomas (1608/9–1691)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1439, accessed 14 April 2008] Whitfield, John H., Discourses on Machiavelli (Cambridge: Heffer, 1969)

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

La primera traducción española Abstract: The goal of this paper is to present a descriptive analysis of the first Spanish translation of Il Principe of Machiavelli, which has been preserved handwritten. This manuscript belongs to the seventeenth century and it’s anonymous. We have established different levels of analysis: the intertextual level, which includes the study of the reception of Machiavelli in the Spanish Golden Age and the impact his ideas had in the historical and ideological context of that period, as well as the characteristics of translation of that time; the extratextual level (the source text, the translator, the potential reader) and the paratextual level (the title and the translator’s notes written in the margins); the macro-level, in which the overall structure of the source text is compared with structure of the target; and the micro-level, which allows to identify the different types of translator’s interventions (additions, deletions, modifications and errors).

1. Introducción: metodología de análisis y presentación del manuscrito El objetivo de este estudio es el análisis descriptivo de la primera traducción española de Il principe, la cual se ha conservado manuscrita y pertenece al siglo XVII. Seguiremos, en líneas generales, el esquema para la descripción de traducciones propuesto por Lambert y Van Gorp,1 por lo que hemos establecido cuatro niveles de análisis: en primer lugar, trataremos el nivel intertextual, que comprende la revisión de la presencia de las obras de Maquiavelo en la España de los Siglos de Oro y el impacto que tuvieron sus ideas en el contexto histórico e ideológico del momento, así como el estudio de las características de la práctica traductora en este periodo; en segundo lugar, llevaremos a cabo la descripción y análisis de los elementos extratextuales (el original, el traductor y el posible receptor) y paratextuales2 (en esta traducción, el título, las notas al margen y los pasajes subrayados); en tercer lugar, nos centraremos en el análisis macroestructural, con el fin de comparar la estructura general de la obra original con la de la traducción; por último, presentaremos el análisis de la microestructura, donde se identificarán

1

2

José Lambert y Hendrik van Gorp, ‘On Describing Translations’, The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translations, ed. de Theo Hermans (London-Sydney: Croom Helm Ltd., 1985), pp. 42-53 (pp. 52-53). Seguimos la terminología de Gerard Genette, Palimpsestos: la literatura en segundo grado, trad. de Celia Fernández Prieto (Madrid: Taurus, 1989).

118

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

los diferentes tipos de intervenciones del traductor (adiciones, supresiones, modificaciones y errores). Las traducciones manuscritas de Il principe son tres, fueron realizadas durante el siglo XVII y se encuentran en la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid: la primera de ellas y objeto de la presente investigación está catalogada como manuscrito nº 10843 perteneciente al siglo XVII.4 El catálogo de la biblioteca la describe del siguiente modo: I. NICCOLO MACCHIAVELLI. El principe: Quantas son las espeçies de los principados y de que modo se adquieren. Capítulo 1.º Todos los estados [...] (f. 1) [...] aun no está muerto en los corazones italianos. Fin. (f. 91). — II. NICCOLO MACCHIAVELLI. Observaciones ex Nicolao Machia ex libro 1.º Historiarum: Variar Principe o Gouierno una respublica no por fuerça [...] (f. 92) [...] y sin amigos te arruinas. Finis (f. 97) s. XVII. 97 fols., 210 X 150 Enc.: Pasta española, s. XIX 220 X155. Tejuelo: EL PRINCIPE. Olim: E. 173. Traducción castellana con algunas tachaduras, correcciones y notas marginales.

El manuscrito no ofrece ni el nombre del traductor ni una fecha concreta. En líneas generales, se trata de una traducción bastante fiel al original, tanto en la forma como en el contenido, y resultan de gran interés las notas al margen con variantes u observaciones, las variantes dentro del mismo texto y las tachaduras y subrayados que presenta, lo que hace pensar en una traducción

3

4

Inventario General de Manuscritos de la Biblioteca Nacional, 13 vols. (Madrid: Ministerio de Educación Nacional, Dirección General de Archivos y Bibliotecas, Servicio de Publicaciones, 1957), III, p. 298. Las otras dos traducciones manuscritas son el manuscrito nº 902, fechado en Roma en 1680 (catalogado en Inventario, III, pp. 247-248), y el manuscrito nº 1017, que parece de finales del siglo XVII, proveniente de la primitiva biblioteca de Felipe V (catalogado en Inventario, III, pp. 19-20). Las primeras traducciones publicadas en lengua española datan, sin embargo, del siglo XIX y son las siguientes: 1821, El principe. Traducido del toscano al español. Madrid, Imprenta de D. Leon Amarita —traducción realizada por Alberto Lista—, con dos posible reimpresiones —París, Imprenta de J. Smith, 1824 y París, Imprenta de Pillet Ainé, 1838—; 1842, La política de Maquiavelo, ó sea El principe. Traducido del orijinal italiano por B. Barcelona, Imprenta de Tomas Gorchs —el autor, cuya inicial sería “B”, nos es, de momento, desconocido—; 1854, El Príncipe, Precedido de la biografía del autor y seguido del AntiMaquiavelo o examen del Príncipe por Federico el Grande Rey de Prusia. Prefacio Voltaire. Madrid: Imprenta José Trujillo; 1872, “El príncipe” por Nicolás Maquiavelo en Escritos, Madrid, Biblioteca social, histórica y filosófica, III; 1893, El príncipe, por Nicolás Maquiavelo, traducido por Antonio Zozaya. Madrid, Dirección y Administración, Imp. de José Rodríguez; y 1895, “El príncipe”, Obras políticas de Nicolás Maquiavelo, traducidas por D. Luis Navarro, Biblioteca clásica, Madrid, CXCI, CXCII. Véase Patricio Rigobon, ‘Le traduzioni spagnole de Il Principe di Niccolò Machiavelli. Appunti per una storia’, Annali di Ca' Foscari, XXV-2 (1986), pp. 143-162.

La primera traducción española

119

privada, no destinada a la imprenta, con una finalidad de tipo funcional, como afirma Puigdomènech: para uso del mismo traductor o de alguien muy cercano a él, alguien de suficiente confianza como para aceptar las tachaduras, variantes y comentarios marginales que van encontrándose a lo largo de todo el manuscrito. 5

Hemos de añadir que en este manuscrito la traducción de Il principe comprende solo desde la página 1 hasta la 91; las páginas restantes, desde la 92 hasta la 97, son un breve resumen del Libro 1º de las Storie Fiorentine.

2. Análisis intertextual 2.1. Contexto histórico e ideológico Para poder contextualizar la traducción objeto de estudio, debemos atender a una serie de factores que conforman el marco histórico e ideológico en el que ésta nace: en primer lugar, analizaremos brevemente la publicación de las obras de Maquiavelo, su fortuna y primer impacto en España, teniendo en cuenta las relaciones entre el poder político y el poder eclesiástico durante los siglos XVI y XVII; en segundo lugar, haremos un breve repaso del maquiavelismo y del antimaquiavelismo en la España de este periodo.

2.1.1. Maquiavelo en la España de los Siglos de Oro: una prohibición tardía Como ya sabemos, la mayoría de los escritos de Maquiavelo fueron publicados póstumamente. La reacción de la Iglesia de Roma ante su obra no fue en un principio negativa, sino que demostró una cierta indiferencia inicial y, en algunos casos, a la muerte del autor, cierto interés por proteger sus obras. A partir del año 1534, sin embargo, algunas figuras como el cardenal inglés Pole, el obispo portugués Jerónimo Osorio y el teólogo sienés Politi, pusieron voz a las primeras manifestaciones en contra de Maquiavelo, que se verían después refrendadas por la prohibición del autor en el Index Librorum 5

Helena Puigdomènech, Maquiavelo en España. Presencia de sus obras en los siglos XVI y XVII (Madrid: Fundación Universitaria Española, 1988), p. 117.

120

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

Prohibitorum (1559), prohibición que, curiosamente, como veremos más adelante, no produjo ningún efecto en España. Para poder entender cómo fueron acogidas en España las obras y las ideas de Maquiavelo creemos necesario ofrecer una visión general de las relaciones entre el poder político y el poder religioso a lo largo de estos dos siglos, periodo que vio en el trono español a cinco monarcas de la casa de Habsburgo: Carlos V, Felipe II, Felipe III, Felipe IV y Carlos II. La política de conquista emprendida por los Reyes Católicos a finales del siglo XV tuvo como resultado la consecución de la unificación peninsular. Esta unificación no fue solo política sino también religiosa, ya que para los monarcas solo la unidad del reino en una fe común podía garantizar la unidad política. Como afirma García Marín,6 p. 106, durante los dos siglos siguientes, no se detectan entre los ejes del poder — monarquía, aristocracia e Iglesia — elementos de acción conjunta encaminados a crear una política concertada de actuación, sino más bien una pugna en favor de los propios intereses. Tampoco se puede hablar de una separación entre Estado e Iglesia, sino de un proceso de “politización” de la segunda7 que emerge a partir del siglo XVI. Según García Marín, p. 109: No es ninguna novedad admitir que la aparición del Santo Oficio, precisamente como tribunal de la Corona, en gran medida al margen de la Santa Sede, constituye un factor de primer orden, para entender y valorar aquel proceso de «estatalización» de la Iglesia que entonces se opera en España.

El reinado de Carlos V (1500-1558) se extendió desde 1517 hasta 1556 y su objetivo fue reconstruir un imperio universal cristiano en el que la defensa de la unidad religiosa se identificara con la defensa de la unidad del Estado. España se convierte así en el motor del catolicismo imperial, apoyada incondicionalmente por la Inquisición,8 que actuó contra judaizantes, moriscos, erasmistas, alumbrados y otros grupos afines al protestantismo. Hay que matizar, sin embargo, que fue un claro instrumento de poder político: funcionó como tribunal eclesiástico, pero en manos del Estado. Este funcionamiento dependió en España de la personalidad del monarca reinante 6

7

8

José María García Marín, ‘Inquisición y poder absoluto (siglos XVI-XVII)’, Revista de la Inquisición, 1 (Madrid: Editorial Universidad Complutense, 1991), pp. 105-119. Véase José Antonio Maravall, Estado moderno y mentalidad social, 2 vols. (Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 1972), I, p. 216 y ss. La Inquisición presentó en España unas características propias, diferentes a las de la ya existente en Europa desde el siglo XIII: nació como reacción a la clase de conversos y judaizantes presentes en la península, que eran vistos como un peligro para la unidad nacional y religiosa por la que tanto se había luchado.

La primera traducción española

121

y de la del inquisidor general: fueron ellos quienes controlaron el grado de influencia ejercida desde Roma.9 Felipe II (1527-1598) subió al trono en 1556 y su reinado transformó la abierta España renacentista en la semi-cerrada España de la Contrarreforma a través de un mayor control y censura por parte de la monarquía, que se ejercía mediante la Inquisición, la cual se convirtió en un magnífico instrumento para extender el control sobre las posesiones españolas y, al mismo tiempo, mantenerlas a salvo de la herejía. En las tres últimas décadas del siglo se experimentó, además, un periodo de intensa actividad religiosa y fuerte conciencia social, en parte, en respuesta al programa del Concilio de Trento. Esta situación supuso, en palabras de Elliott,10 p. 244: [...] un repliegue de España sobre sí misma ante las ideas llegadas del extranjero. Desde el punto de vista religioso, formaba parte de la comunidad internacional de la contrarreforma europea, pero esta comunidad solo abarcaba medio continente. Europa estaba ahora dividida y cada parte había levantado sus barreras frente a las creencias religiosas de la otra. En este conflicto internacional de finales del siglo XVI, la posición dominadora de España y su vulnerabilidad potencial la hicieron extraordinariamente sensible a los peligros de la subversión religiosa y respondió con un excepcional espíritu de selección ante los productos de las culturas extranjeras, sometiéndolos a un minucioso examen antes de permitir su entrada en el país.

En el año 1598 muere Felipe II y su hijo, Felipe III (1578-1621), toma las riendas del Imperio para conducirlo hasta el siglo XVII a través de un reinado caracterizado por un creciente debilitamiento — que comportó importantes reformas institucionales para solucionar los problemas de corrupción e ineficacia que padecía la administración —, pero en el que el poder de la Inquisición se mostró plenamente consolidado. Felipe IV (1605-1665) hereda el trono a la muerte del padre. Durante su reinado, los asuntos de estado estuvieron en manos de validos y se acentuó el proceso de decadencia de la monarquía española, que afrontó una seria recesión económica. La Iglesia siguió mediatizada por el Estado y la Inquisición se mantuvo al servicio de éste, como quedó demostrado cuando se impidió la persecución de los conversos portugueses porque su capital era necesario para la arruinada España.

9

10

Algunos estudiosos consideran la Inquisición española como una fase del desarrollo social y religioso de España, y su actuación como un fenómeno relacionado con factores históricos mucho más amplios y complejos que la simple cuestión religiosa. Véase Francisco Martín Hernández, España cristiana (Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1982) y Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (Yale: Yale University Press, 1999). John H. Elliott, La España imperial, 1469-1716, 2ª ed. (Barcelona: Vicens-Vives, 1972).

122

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

Su hijo, Carlos II (1661-1700), subió al trono en 1675, al alcanzar la mayoría de edad. Debido a su escasa salud, se descuidó su preparación y tanto el periodo de regencia de su madre como su reinado estuvieron, de nuevo, en manos de validos. La crisis económica persistió, así como los problemas de la política exterior. Sin embargo, la Inquisición gozó de un periodo de poder e independencia notables respecto al Estado, hasta que el rey restableció el control de la monarquía sobre esta institución. En este contexto, en el que la presencia de la Inquisición se hizo notar de manera intensa, la prohibición de Maquiavelo en España fue, sin embargo, bastante tardía. La prohibición del Index, como ya hemos dicho, no tuvo ningún eco en este país pues Maquiavelo no aparece en el Índice español de 1559 del inquisidor Valdés. Las causas que se han señalado son varias: por un lado, la prisa con la que se realizó dicho índice; por otro, la independencia de la Inquisición española y de este inquisidor en concreto respecto a la Iglesia de Roma; también la mayor preocupación en este periodo por autores de corte reformista frente a otras ideologías; por último, el hecho de que el emperador Carlos V apreciara las obras de Maquiavelo y hubiera autorizado la publicación de la traducción de los Discorsi sopra la prima decada di Tito Livio.11 Para Puigdomènech, p. 51, sería ésta la causa más convincente, pues la carrera de Valdés dependía de la protección del monarca: A Valdés, que debía el éxito de su carrera a la marcada predilección de Carlos V primero y de Felipe II después, no podía interesarle demasiado prohibir a un autor al que uno y otro, pocos años antes, habían distinguido con su aprecio. Y a cuya traducción en castellano habían concedido un privilegio por diez años que aún estaba vigente.

Por lo tanto, la actitud oficial española frente a Maquiavelo en estos primeros años fue favorable y el hecho de que empezara a ser traducido pone de manifiesto el interés por este autor incluso después de su prohibición en Italia. Esta actitud diferente que se observa en España permitió la libre circulación de sus obras por la Península durante más de dos décadas, hasta que en 1583 el Índice del cardenal Quiroga prohibió por primera vez en nuestro país todas las obras de Maquiavelo. Como afirma Puigdomènech, p. 56:

11

En 1552 se publicó por primera vez en España la traducción de los Discorsi: la publicación fue aprobada por Carlos V —lo que implicaba también la aprobación de las autoridades civiles y eclesiásticas—, que consideraba la obra muy útil para cualquier príncipe; el traductor, Ottevanti, pudo dedicarla al príncipe Felipe. En 1555 se autorizó una segunda edición de la misma traducción también dedicada al príncipe.

La primera traducción española

123

En efecto, el nombre de Maquiavelo aparece varias veces en este Índice como si se temiera que la prohibición no quedara bastante clara, o que de no hacerlo en todos los lugares donde de una manera u otra pudiera citarse al secretario florentino o su obra, alguien pudiera pensar que no estaba del todo prohibido.

El índice del cardenal Quiroga era de gran extensión y fue elaborado de manera muy atenta. Comprendía dos volúmenes: el primero estaba dedicado a libros prohibidos y el segundo, a los que debían ser expurgados. Su organización interna clasificaba las obras incluidas según las lenguas en las que éstas estuvieran escritas: en latín, en romance (castellano), en portugués, en italiano, en francés, en flamenco y en tudesco. Maquiavelo estaba incluido en los Libros que se prohiben en Latín, bajo la letra N, Niccolai Macchiavelli, o.o. (opera omnia); en los Libros que se prohiben en Romance, bajo la letra D, Discursos de Machiavelo; y en los Libros que se prohiben en Italiano, bajo la letra M, Macchiavello, todas sus obras y bajo la letra D, Nicolao Machiavello Fiorentino, todas sus obras.12 Sobre la eficacia de dicha prohibición, Puigdomènech, p. 58 y ss., afirma que fue solo relativa: en primer lugar, porque el índice sufrió varias prórrogas a los plazos de presentación de los libros prohibidos o de los que debían ser expurgados; y, en segundo lugar, porque en 1594 se iniciaron ya los preparativos para la elaboración de un nuevo índice. Por lo tanto, a pesar de que la prohibición de sus obras fuera neta y afectara incluso a los intentos de expurgación de las mismas llevados a cabo especialmente por el Duque de Sessa, no debió de ser del todo efectiva ya que hay un buen número de obras del autor y de sus plagiadores — algunos también prohibidos — que sobrevivieron a la misma. De todos modos, a partir de este momento, Maquiavelo también aparecerá como autor prohibido en los índices posteriores: en el del inquisidor Sandoval y Rojas de 1612, en el del inquisidor Zapata de 1632 y en los siguientes. Sin embargo, las cartas de la Inquisición sobre las obras requisadas prueban que, pese a la prohibición, existían obras de Maquiavelo en diferentes bibliotecas privadas españolas por lo menos hasta mediados del siglo XVII, hecho que se demuestra en el tercer capítulo de la obra de Puigdomènech, pp. 135-188, titulado “La presencia de Maquiavelo en las bibliotecas españolas de los siglos XVI y XVII”. El examen de dichas bibliotecas parte del estudio de los inventarios de los bienes de personajes de la época, de los documentos donde constan las subastas de bienes, de los catálogos de algunas de estas bibliotecas y también de los inventarios de

12

Véase Franz Heinrich Reusch, Die Indices librorum prohibitorum des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1970), p. 422, 434 y 443, cito a través de Puigdomènech, p. 56.

124

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

obras prohibidas recogidas por los distintos tribunales de la Inquisición y que se encuentran en el Archivo Histórico Nacional. Se pasa revista, de este modo, a las bibliotecas más importantes de los miembros de la realeza — Carlos V, Felipe II y el Duque de Calabria —, así como a las de un buen número de eclesiásticos, nobles, intelectuales y artistas. La conclusión es que la presencia de las obras de Maquiavelo en dichas bibliotecas indica que los españoles de estos dos siglos leyeron al autor florentino. Si tenemos en cuenta, sin embargo, las primeras traducciones españolas de sus obras, el número es muy reducido: desde la publicación en Italia de las primeras obras del autor — La Mandragola en 1518 y el Arte della guerra en 1521 — hasta la primera traducción española editada de Il principe, que se publicó en Madrid en 1821 y fue realizada por Alberto Lista,13 pasan más de trescientos años, que nos ofrecen únicamente dos traducciones editadas y algunas traducciones manuscritas, todas ellas realizadas entre los siglos XVI y XVII. Las traducciones publicadas son las siguientes: en primer lugar, una de 1536 (Alcalá de Henares) del Arte della guerra, que realmente se publicó como un tratado original de Diego de Salazar con el título Tratado de re militari, en el que el “autor” añadía algunas nociones de estrategia sobre las fortificaciones y el uso de la artillería; después, tenemos las dos traducciones ya mencionadas de los Discorsi, la de 1552, realizada por Giovanni Lorenzo Ottevanti, y su reimpresión de 1555. Las traducciones manuscritas se encuentran en la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid y aparecen catalogadas como pertenecientes al siglo XVII. Son tres: el manuscrito nº 1084, anónimo y objeto del presente estudio; el manuscrito nº 902, incluido en un volumen inédito fechado en Roma en 1680, en el que aparecen además las traducciones de otras obras del autor (Vita di Castruccio Castracani, Relazione del modo osservato dal Duca Valentino per uccidere Vitelozzo Vitelli ed altri, Rittrato delle cose di Francia, Rittrato delle cose di Allemagna y los Discorsi) realizadas por Don Juan Vélez de León a petición de Carlos II; y el manuscrito nº 1017, que parece de finales del siglo XVII, perteneciente a la primitiva biblioteca de Felipe V y donde se presenta una paráfrasis reducida de algunas obras de Maquiavelo, entre ellas, Il principe. Por tanto, como indica Rigobón, p. 143, la fortuna de Maquiavelo en España no parece sujeta, al menos en los primeros siglos, a una propagación editorial de las traducciones de sus obras. Respecto a la causa de este

13

Véase María Begoña Arbulu Barturen, ‘La primera traducción española publicada de «Il principe» de Maquiavelo’, en Maquiavelo y Beccaria en ámbito iberoamericano, ed. de M. Begoña Arbulu Barturen y Sandra Bagno (Padova: Unipress, 2006), pp. 45-90.

La primera traducción española

125

reducido número de traducciones en un periodo de tiempo tan largo, descartamos como tal la inclusión de Maquiavelo en los índices de libros prohibidos: en primer lugar, porque esta censura no impidió, como hemos visto, que circularan su obras en versión original o, incluso, en las versiones de sus imitadores y plagiarios; en segundo lugar, porque tampoco impidió que circularan sus ideas, que se propagaron por España como lo hicieron en otros países donde el autor no estuvo censurado como, por ejemplo, Francia o Inglaterra; por último, la prohibición española fue bastante tardía ya que llega veinticuatro años más tarde que la de Roma, dando así un margen de más de sesenta años, desde la publicación de las obras de Maquiavelo en Italia, en los que el autor podría haber sido traducido como estaba ocurriendo en otros países europeos. Bertini,14 p. 21, Bertelli e Innocenti,15 p. LXVIII, y Puigdomènech, pp. 193-194, defienden la idea de que las traducciones no fueron necesarias pues los lectores españoles instruidos de los siglos XVI y XVII conocían la lengua italiana. Las razones que apoyan esta teoría son de índole diferente. Por un lado, el italiano era la lengua de una parte importante de las posesiones imperiales y era una lengua cercana desde un punto de vista lingüístico, es decir, fácil de entender para un español. Por otro lado, España e Italia estaban estrechamente ligadas, tanto cultural como económicamente, ya que había un importante flujo en ambas direcciones que favoreció, sin duda, la difusión de las obras de Maquiavelo en lengua italiana: España se había convertido en un importante mercado para comerciantes y editores italianos, mientras que Italia era destino frecuente de eclesiásticos, diplomáticos, militares, artistas, intelectuales y hombres de ciencia españoles. Sin embargo, Rigobón, pp. 145-146, parece contrario a esta hipótesis por tres razones diferentes: la intención de Ottevanti al traducir los Discorsi, como se lee en la dedicatoria — “para que mejor se pueda entender” —; la petición de Carlos II para que Vélez de León tradujera las obras de Maquiavelo, pues el monarca no conocía la lengua italiana; y las traducciones en lengua francesa: ¿indicarían éstas que la clase culta francesa no conocía el italiano? Creemos que las dos primeras razones no tienen una validez absoluta: por un lado, como veremos en § 2.2., la finalidad didascálica era general en las traducciones de este periodo y no sorprende que Ottevanti la mencionara en la dedicatoria, pues era una costumbre habitual de los traductores; por otro lado, el hecho de que Carlos II no conociera el italiano

14

15

Giovanni Maria Bertini, ‘La fortuna di Machiavelli in Spagna’, Quaderni ibero-americani (Torino, 1946), pp. 21-22, 25-26. Sergio Bertelli e Piero Innocenti, Bibliografia machiavelliana (Verona: Valdonega, 1979).

126

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

constituye un caso particular — ya hemos señalado que los problemas de salud dificultaron su preparación — que no se extiende a la clase de intelectuales españoles de aquel periodo. La argumentación sobre las traducciones francesas, sin embargo, nos parece incuestionable y Rigobon la completa preguntándose si es posible que en Francia tuvieran una mayor acogida, por tradición, las obras de corte político y esto favoreciera su traducción, o si tal vez en España la recepción “atenta” de Maquiavelo fuera exclusivamente elitaria.

2.1.2. Maquiavelismo y antimaquiavelismo en la España del XVI y XVII16 Como afirma Maravall,17 p. 44, en el segundo cuarto del siglo XVI, se advierte tanto en Europa como en España una creciente preocupación moral en la política, originada probablemente por las persecuciones que la Reforma había provocado. Esta preocupación moral se manifiesta en España en intelectuales como Luis Vives, Alfonso de Valdés o Antonio de Guevara. La consecuencia será un intento de “vigorizar” la influencia del pensamiento de Santo Tomás. Sin embargo, este moralismo imperante en España en época renacentista era, paradójicamente, compatible con recomendaciones que en la actualidad consideraríamos alejadas de la moral. Según Maravall, p. 45 y ss., esta contradicción pudo enmascarar, en los primeros años, la dudosa moralidad de algunas de las recomendaciones hechas por Maquiavelo, permitiendo que sus obras no fueran prohibidas inicialmente y que sus ideas circularan por España con total libertad durante algunas décadas. Esta difusión del maquiavelismo estuvo motivada, además, por el interés de los autores españoles por unas teorías que manifestaban una visión realista de las cosas y se centraban en la experiencia personal, de acuerdo con la corriente de realismo y empirismo propias del Renacimiento.18 16

17

18

Incluimos en este apartado la síntesis de algunas de las ideas que ya expusimos en María Begoña Arbulu Barturen, ‘Recepción y fortuna de «Il principe» de Maquiavelo en España’, en Maquiavelo y Beccaria en ámbito iberoamericano, pp. 3-43 (§ 3.2., pp. 28-35). José Antonio Maravall, ‘Maquiavelo y maquiavelismo en España’, en Estudios de historia del pensamiento español, 4 vols. (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 1999), III, pp. 39-72. Este artículo se publicó por prima vez en Atti del Convegno Internazionale celebrado con motivo del V Centenario de Maquiavelo (1969) (Firenze: Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, 1972). La influencia de Maquiavelo y, especialmente, de Il principe se pone de manifiesto en los títulos de algunos libros de aquella época: El espejo del Príncipe Christiano de Francisco de Menzón en 1554, Institución de un Rey Christiano de Felipe de la Torre en 1555, De regis

La primera traducción española

127

Podemos decir que la reflexión política de Maquiavelo fue el punto de partida del pensamiento político español. Tras un primer momento de aceptación de la doctrina maquiavelista, se dio un periodo caracterizado por la condena y por una crítica exacerbada que se desarrolló a partir de la prohibición de la obra en 1583, coincidiendo con el final del periodo de la “primera Contrarreforma”, al que siguió una etapa en la que prevalece una crítica más moderada, dándose lo que Macek,19 p. 226, ha llamado “machiavellismo inmascherato” y que se prolonga durante el siglo XVII. Esta actitud antimaquiavelista, según afirma Mirete,20 p. 140, surgió a finales del reinado de Felipe II. La ruptura de la unidad cristiana tradicional como resultado de la Reforma había permitido la implantación de los Estados nacionales renacentistas y éstos se convirtieron en reinos estables y cohesionados, capaces de prescindir de la tutela de un poder espiritual único: de este modo, se reforzaba el absolutismo político de los príncipes frente al poder y la función de la Iglesia Católica. Ésta reaccionó a través de la Contrarreforma, que defendía la idea de un poder político que provenía directamente de Dios. El antimaquiavelismo español centró sus críticas en varios aspectos de la teoría maquiavelista. Especialmente atacó la idea de la razón de Estado, entendida como un pragmatismo a favor del poder en el que el príncipe, anteponiendo sus propios intereses a los de sus súbditos, rompía el equilibrio del Estado. Fueron especialmente críticos en este punto autores como los jesuitas Pedro de Ribadeneyra (1527-1611) y el Padre Mariana (1536-1623), Francisco de Quevedo (1580-1645), Diego de Saavedra Fajardo (1584-1648) y Baltasar Gracián (1601-1656). Otra de las críticas fue dirigida a la concepción maquiavelista de la religión como instrumentum regni, que suponía además una emancipación de la política respecto a aquélla. Por otro lado, se ataca también la idea de fortuna, pues implicaba que la vida del hombre dependía del destino y no de la intervención divina. Hubo además otras acusaciones de carácter menor relativas a la falta de originalidad del pensamiento de Maquiavelo, a una supuesta ignorancia del autor — que habría leído mal a los clásicos — o a su falta de practicidad y sentido histórico.

19 20

regisque institutione de Sebastián Foz Morcillo también en 1555, El Consejo y Consejeros del Príncipe de Fadrique Furio Ceriol en 1559, Tratado del Consejo y Consejeros del Príncipe de Bartolomé Felipe en 1584, El perfecto regidor de Juan de Castilla y Aguajo en 1586, etc. Josef Macek, Machiavelli e il machiavellismo (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1980). José Luis Mirete, ‘Maquiavelo y la «recepción de su teoría del estado en España» (siglos XVI y XVII)’, Anales de derecho, 19 (Universidad de Murcia, 2001), pp. 139-144.

128

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

Concluimos este apartado con la idea final propuesta por Maravall, pp. 66-67, en la que deja a un lado los términos “maquiavelismo” y “antimaquiavelismo” e identifica tres tendencias en la influencia de este autor en la España de los Siglos de Oro: la primera se corresponde con una crítica militante desde posiciones tradicionales; la segunda, sin embargo, supone una aceptación encubierta de sus ideas; y la tercera se refiere a un intento de conciliación entre el pensamiento de Maquiavelo y la moral cristiana, que buscaba una política que protegiera al Estado pero dentro de los principios morales de la religión cristiana.

2.2. La traducción en la España de los Siglos de Oro La intención didascálica que animó la labor medieval de la Escuela de Traductores de Toledo y que se expresa en el prólogo del Lapidario21 — “trasladar de aráuigo en lenguaie castellano porque los omnes lo entendiessen meior et se sopiessen dél más aprouechar” — se extiende en España también durante el siglo XV y gran parte del XVI.22 El siglo XV español había terminado con una serie de eventos que tuvieron importantes consecuencias durante los siglos siguientes: unos, de carácter histórico-político, como fueron la toma de Granada y el descubrimiento de América, ambos en 1492 y que, junto con la anexión del reino de Navarra en el año 1512, completaron el proceso de unificación peninsular; estos sucesos se combinaron con otros de orden cultural y lingüístico, como la llegada de la imprenta en 1472, la publicación de la 21

22

Citamos a través de Lapesa, Historia de la lengua española, 9ª ed. (Madrid: Gredos, 1984), p. 246. Esta intención no solo se manifestó en la labor de los traductores de Toledo, sino también en las llamadas traducciones cotidianas: en la Península Ibérica la traducción se extendió durante la Edad Media a “ámbitos mucho más amplios que los puramente librescos, ámbitos casi todos de carácter pragmático [...] presente casi a diario en la escuela, en la iglesia, en la corte, en las notarías y escribanías, en los monasterios, juzgados, rutas de peregrinación, puertos, chancillerías, relaciones internacionales y transfronterizas [...]”, como afirma Julio César Santoyo en ‘Traducciones cotidianas en la Edad Media: una parcela olvidada’, en Historia de la Traducción: quince apuntes (León: Ediciones Universidad de León, 1999), pp. 934 (p. 11). El motivo fue que ni las clases altas ni el pueblo llano eran capaces de entender el latín y se hacía necesaria la versión en romance de los textos considerados importantes. Sirva de ejemplo la concordia, citada por Santoyo, ‘Traducciones cotidianas’, p. 15, y firmada entre el monasterio de Sahagún y el de San Pedro de las Dueñas, que el rey Alfonso X el Sabio mandó traducir en 1252 para que las monjas de los conventos en conflicto pudieran comprender el contenido del acuerdo: “[...] e porque las duennas e tod omne las pudiesse entender mandelas tornar en romanz [...]”.

La primera traducción española

129

Gramática castellana de Antonio de Nebrija en 1492 — primera gramática de una lengua vulgar —, la culminación de un segundo momento de fijación de la lengua castellana — que ya era lengua de uso en la literatura y en la traducción —, así como la naciente expansión de la misma por el Nuevo Continente a través de la conquista y colonización de América. Todo ello favoreció la afirmación de la identidad nacional — tanto política y territorial como lingüística — y, desde un punto de vista cultural, la llegada del Humanismo. La historiografía clásica ha distinguido los dos Siglos de Oro españoles, el XVI y el XVII, con las denominaciones de Renacimiento23 y Barroco, teniendo en cuenta una serie de factores de orden histórico, político, económico, social y cultural.24 En este caso, nos centraremos especialmente en la práctica traductora del Renacimiento y de la primera mitad del siglo XVII, para abarcar con gran margen el periodo en el que nuestro traductor pudo haberse formado. Según Hurtado Albir,25 pp. 107, podemos decir que el Renacimiento será testigo de la primera gran revolución en el mundo de la traducción: la invención de la imprenta, la aparición de una nueva clase de lectores, el nacimiento de las lenguas nacionales y la función de la traducción como vehículo de la cultura clásica favorecerán el aumento y la variedad de los textos traducidos. La traducción en este siglo se ve influida, además, por la constante preocupación renacentista por la reflexión lingüística y estética: el afán por el estudio y comprensión de los clásicos, así como su imitación son propios de este periodo. Como señala Ruiz Casanova, p. 148 y ss., España comparte además con el resto de Europa algunas tendencias como el retorno a los autores clásicos, el afianzamiento progresivo de las lenguas vernáculas y la influencia de las literaturas extranjeras, especialmente la italiana. Al mismo tiempo, se mantienen algunas de las características del siglo anterior: por un lado, la traducción sigue vinculada a los intereses culturales de la 23

24

25

No olvidemos que para algunos estudiosos el Renacimiento español comienza en 1492. Sobre la polivalencia del término “Siglo de Oro”, véase Julio César Santoyo, ‘Aspectos de la reflexión traductora en el Siglo de Oro español’, Historia de la Traducción: quince apuntes, pp. 71-83. “La oposición Renacimiento/Barroco es presentada, desde esta perspectiva, como elemento distintivo de la expresión artística del siglo XVI frente a la del siglo XVII o también como la compleja composición evolutiva de las formas del arte, desde una armonía e imitación iniciales hacia un desarrollo personalizado, nacional o de mayor severidad filosófica después”, en José Francisco Ruiz Casanova, Aproximación a una historia de la traducción en España (Madrid: Cátedra, 2000), p. 243. Amparo Hurtado Albir, Traducción y traductología: introducción a la traductología (Madrid: Cátedra, 2001).

130

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

corte, donde reyes, nobles y eclesiásticos imponen sus gustos; por otro, siguiendo el ideal pedagógico humanista, la traducción desempeña una importante función de enlace cultural entre la lengua y la literatura, función que se llevará a cabo a través de las universidades. Pero España presenta también algunas particularidades. En primer lugar, podemos citar la difusión de la lengua española en América, que no supuso solo una expansión de la misma y un aumento ingente del número de hablantes, sino también la aparición de una serie de exigencias derivadas de la Conquista: el contacto entre los conquistadores y las poblaciones indígenas, así como el proceso de evangelización requerían la mediación de intérpretes, lo que favoreció un desarrollo importantísimo de la interpretación en este periodo.26 En segundo lugar, el humanismo español sufrió un severo control por parte del poder eclesiástico: la bula que el Papa Sixto IV promulgó en el año 1478 y que autorizaba a los Reyes Católicos la reimplantación de la Inquisición en España, trajo consigo la censura, las prohibiciones y la persecución. Por último, hemos de añadir que, como en el resto de Europa, se practicaron dos clases de traducción: por una parte, la traducción de los clásicos y, por otra, la que se realizaba a partir de las lenguas vernáculas, especialmente desde las lenguas romances; dentro de esta última modalidad, en España destaca la traducción intrapeninsular, que se manifiesta en diferentes vertientes: la que traduce del castellano al catalán, con Diego de San Pedro como figura más sobresaliente; la que traduce del catalán al castellano, representada por Ausiàs March; y la que traduce del portugués al castellano, que se distingue en la gran labor de Luis de Camões. Sin embargo, a pesar de que durante este siglo y el siguiente la traducción en España gozó, al igual que la literatura, de un momento de gran apogeo, no contamos con un corpus importante de reflexión teórica sobre esta actividad: disponemos simplemente de una serie de opiniones dispersas en prólogos, prefacios, dedicatorias o cartas, pero que, curiosamente, coinciden en muchos puntos. Además, son independientes de cualquier tradición teórica o crítica previa y nacen como resultado de la propia experiencia del traductor, que a medida que ejerce esta actividad, va señalando las dificultades que debe afrontar y el método que considera más adecuado para ello. Como afirma Santoyo, ‘Aspectos de la reflexión traductora’, pp. 74-75:

26

Véase Santoyo, ‘Aspectos de la reflexión traductora’, p. 72; Lore Terracini, ‘Lingua e potere nella conquista spagnola’, Dimensioni e problemi della ricerca storica, 2 (1992), pp. 221229; Leonel Antonio de la Cuesta, ‘Intérpretes y traductores en la Conquista del nuevo mundo’, Livius, I (1992), pp. 25-34; y José Luis Suárez Roca, Lingüística misionera española (Oviedo: Pentalfa, 1992).

La primera traducción española

131

[...] aunque dispersos y de limitado alcance, estos escritos permiten vislumbrar ya por primera vez, si no una teoría explícita y orgánica, sí al menos la mentalidad prevalente en los traductores y críticos del Siglo de Oro, el conjunto de ideas entonces compartidas sobre el fenómeno de la traducción y sobre cada uno de los problemas prácticos y teóricos más arduos de la disciplina: la posibilidad de la traducción poética, la conveniencia o no de traducir el verso en verso, la dificultad inherente a toda versión, aun en las lenguas que, como el italiano y el español, guardan considerable semejanza; el piélago de malas traducciones y sus causas, las reglas elementales de la transferencia lingüística; el dominio de la lengua, tema y cultura que ha de poseer el traductor; el problema tan solo atisbado de las intraducibilidades; el largo debate entre literalidad y paráfrasis; la traducción, arte mimético o creativo; el lamento por la pérdida de la forma expresiva primera; la inevitable merma cualitativa [...]

A sus palabras, hemos de añadir las de Terracini,27 p. 943: [...] la reflexión española sobre la traducción desde la primera mitad del siglo XVI está intrínsecamente vinculada con la reflexión sobre la misma lengua, en todas sus facetas renacentistas y sobre todo en la valoración de su plena dignidad frente a las lenguas hermanas e incluso a las clásicas, tanto con los matices de la alabanza y la defensa, que se mueven a menudo en un plano nacionalista, como con la conciencia de una peculiaridad.

Veamos a continuación cuáles son algunos de los puntos de reflexión más relevantes manifestados por los traductores del XVI y primera mitad del XVII, que son los que pudieron influir en el método de nuestro traductor.28 Por lo que se refiere al siglo XVI, empezaremos centrándonos en dos puntos que se alejan de las cuestiones técnicas de la traducción: el primero, de carácter fundamental, se refiere a la finalidad de la traducción; y el segundo, a la consideración que ésta recibía por parte del mundo intelectual. Respecto al primero, como hemos dicho al principio de este apartado, la intención didascálica que motivó esencialmente la actividad traductora del siglo XV se mantendrá en los Siglos de Oro y ésta se puede apreciar en los testimonios de nuestros traductores. A principios de siglo, en 1510, Francisco de Madrid traduce De remediis de Petrarca y ensalza “la claridad de nuestro 27

28

Lore Terracini, ‘Unas calas en el concepto de traducción en el siglo de oro español’, en Actas del III Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española, ed. de A. Alonso González, L. Castro Ramos, B. Gutiérrez Rodilla y J.A. Pascual Rodríguez (Madrid: Ed. Arco Libros, 1996), I, pp. 939-954. No es nuestra intención incluir en este apartado todos los traductores y líneas de traducción de la época; para ello remitimos a la obra de Ruiz Casanova y a la bibliografía que en ella se cita. Nuestro propósito es presentar las características generales de la traducción y de la reflexión traductora en este periodo a través de los testimonios de los mismos traductores, basándonos en los textos más representativos. La mayoría de estos textos se recogen en la antología de Julio César Santoyo, Teoría y crítica de la traducción. Antología (Bellaterra: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, 1987), de manera que, junto al nombre de los traductores, indicaremos la página de la antología donde aparecen las citas que se presentan.

132

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

romance” frente a la dificultad del latín,29 con lo que pretendía acercar el contenido de la obra a un lector que no pudiera entender bien la lengua latina. En una traducción del Milione de Marco Polo de 1529 leemos: “[...] hacer que no carezca nuestra gente de los siguientes provechos [...].”30 Juan Luis Vives, p. 55, en el capítulo “Versiones o Interpretaciones” de El arte de hablar (1532) escribe: “Las interpretaciones no solamente convienen, sino que son de primera necesidad, así para todas las disciplinas y las artes todas, sino para todas las circunstancias de la vida, siempre que sean fieles”. Encontramos igualmente esta intención en las dedicatorias que introducen la traducción española, publicada en 1534, de Il Cortigiano de Baltasar di Castiglione realizada por Juan Boscán (c. 1490-1542)31 y que están dirigidas a doña Jerónima Palova de Almogávar: una es del mismo traductor y la otra pertenece a Garcilaso de la Vega. En el texto de Boscán, p. 5, leemos: Demás de parecerme la invinción buena y el artificio y la dotrina, parecióme la materia de que trata no solamente provechosa y de mucho gusto, pero necesaria por ser de cosa que traemos siempre entre las manos. Todo esto me puso gana que los hombres de nuestra nación participasen de tan buen libro y que no dejasen de entendelle por falta de entender la lengua, y por eso quisiera traducille luego.

Y en el texto de Garcilaso, p. 9: [...] que pareciéndome este libro bien hasta aquí por muchas causas, la principal por donde agora me lo parece es porque le habés aprobado, de tal manera que podemos decir que le habés hecho, pues por vuestra causa le alcanzamos a tener en lengua que le entendemos.

La encontramos también en testimonios posteriores, como en la traducción del Orlando furioso realizada por Jerónimo de Urrea en 1550, donde el traductor señala que muchas personas aficionadas a la obra no la apreciaban en su totalidad por no tener un conocimiento completo de la lengua toscana y, por ese motivo, le “pareció tomar trabajo de le traducir y poner en romance castellano.”32 Del mismo modo se expresa Pedro Simón Abril (1530-1595), p. 69, que en el “Prólogo del intérprete al lector” de su traducción de la Ética de Aristóteles (c. 1580) presentaba “las cosas de aquellos sabios antiguos, escritas y vertidas de tal manera en lenguaje de todos, que se dejen entender”;

29

30 31

32

Peter Russel, Traducciones y traductores en la Península Ibérica (1400-1550) (Bellaterra: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, 1985), p. 51. Cito a través de Terracini, p. 945. Baltasar di Castiglione, El Cortesano, trad. de Juan Boscán, estudio preliminar de M. Menéndez y Pelayo (Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1942). Cito a través de Terracini, p. 945.

La primera traducción española

133

y más adelante, pp. 69-70, añadía: “[...] declararles al pueblo las doctrinas dellos en lengua que se entendiese [...] redundará al pueblo gran provecho”. Constatamos, por tanto, que la intención o la finalidad de la traducción era la de acercar una obra desconocida al lector. Podemos interpretar esta intención didascálica como típica de una traducción centrada en la materia, que Terracini, pp. 943-945, llama centrífuga, es decir, una traducción que revela una finalidad divulgativa y comunicativa en beneficio del lector. Por lo que se refiere al segundo punto que hemos mencionado, los traductores parecen reconocer que no existía especial aprecio por esta disciplina, como afirma Santoyo, ‘Aspectos de la reflexión traductora’, pp. 76-77. Este hecho dependía, por una parte, de la baja consideración en la que se tenía esta tarea. Valga como ejemplo el de Boscán, p. 5, que en la dedicatoria de su traducción de Il Cortigiano escribe: [...] una opinión que siempre tuve de parecerme vanidad baxa y de hombres de pocas letras andar romanzando libros, que aun para hacerse bien, vale poco, cuánto más haciéndose tan mal, que ya no hay cosa más lexos de lo que se traduce que lo que es traducido.

Por otra, se debía a los pobres resultados que producía. Ruiz Casanova, p. 151, se refiere al recelo de Valdés ante las traducciones: Amenazadas las obras por traducciones literales hasta la ilegibilidad, deturpadas en ocasiones sus páginas debido a la mala calidad de las copias o al frecuente uso de la traducción fragmentaria, todos aquellos que podían leer y leían en latín desconfían de las versiones [...]

La escasa valoración que se concedía a la labor del traductor provocaba en éste un constante temor a la crítica; por ello, muchos de los textos prologales a las traducciones constituían una forma de pedir comprensión al lector o pedir disculpas por las posibles imperfecciones o errores del trabajo que se presentaba. Esta preocupación general en los traductores de este siglo se aprecia, por ejemplo, en el texto de Boscán, p. 6: Y aun con todo esto he miedo que según los términos de estas lenguas italiana y española y las costumbres de entrambas naciones son diferentes, no haya de quedar todavía algo que parezca menos bien en nuestro romance. Pero el sujeto del libro es tal, y su proceso tan bueno, que quien le leyere será muy delicado si entre tantas y tan buenas cosas no perdonare algunas pequeñas, compensando las unas con las otras.

También en el prólogo de Simón Abril, p. 70, dedicado al lector: [...] leen más los libros por tener que murmurar que por aprovecharse dellos, y antes ven un lunar para reprender, que las buenas aposturas para hablar, haciendo el oficio de las parteras que sin parir ellas nada, escudriñan partos ajenos. [...] no se enfade si algunos vocablos ley-

134

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

ere nuevos en nuestra lengua [...]. También si algunos lugares hallare que no tengan la cadencia de la oración tan dulce como él la quisiera (lo cual yo he procurado cuanto posible me ha sido de hacer), entienda [...]. Finalmente, por la común humanidad, ruego, y con buen derecho pido, que si algo hobiere no tan limado, se acuerden que es hombre el que lo ha vertido, y que no puede estar siempre tan en centinela, que no diese alguna cabezada.

Y, asimismo, en las palabras del Inca Garcilaso de la Vega (1539-1616) cuando en el proemio a su traducción de 1586 de los Diálogos de amor de León Hebreo, pide comprensión al “discreto” lector:33 “[...] hasta que tenga hijos semejantes y haya sabido lo que cuesta el criarlos, y ponerlos en este estado, no desdeñe mis pocas fuerzas ni menosprecie mi trabajo”. La misma idea aparece en estas palabras de fray Luis de León, p. 67, que pertenecen a la “Dedicatoria” a Don Pedro Portocarrero de sus Poemas (c. 1580), aunque contraste la indiferencia que parece mostrar al final: De lo que yo compuse juzgará cada uno a su voluntad: de lo que es traducido, el que quisiere ser juez pruebe primero qué cosa es traducir poesías elegantes de una lengua extraña a la suya sin añadir ni quitar sentencia, y con guardar cuanto es posible las figuras del original y su donaire, y hacer que hablen en castellano, y no como extranjeras y advenedizas, sino como nacidas en él. No digo que lo he hecho yo, ni soy arrogante, mas helo pretendido hacer, y así lo confieso. Y el que dijere que no lo he alcanzado, haga prueba de sí, y entonces podrá ser que estime mi trabajo más [...]. Mas esto caiga como cayere, que yo no curo mucho de ello [...]

Centrándonos ya en cuestiones técnicas, la primera que aparece en la mayoría de los textos y aquélla sobre la que los traductores parecen estar de acuerdo es la dificultad que entraña la tarea de la traducción. Esta dificultad está relacionada estrechamente con la diferencia existente entre las lenguas: la conciencia generalizada en este siglo sobre la peculiaridad de las lenguas tenía ya sus antecedentes en Quintiliano o San Jerónimo, y en el siglo XV en Bruni o en los españoles Alfonso de Cartagena y Alfonso de Madrigal el Tostado. En el XVI, Vives, p. 54, escribía en el citado capítulo de El arte de hablar: Intentar su experiencia es arduo empeño de un hombre que no supiera bien cuánta diversidad hay en las lenguas, pues no existe ninguna tan copiosa y varia que tenga exacta correspondencia con las figuras y los giros aun de la más desvalida y pobre.

33

Cito a través de Santoyo, ‘Aspectos de la reflexión traductora’, p. 82.

La primera traducción española

135

Juan de Valdés, por su parte, sostenía en el Diálogo de la lengua castellana (c. 1535-1536),34 p. 226: Y aun porque cada lengua tiene sus vocablos propios y sus propias maneras de dezir, ay tanta dificultad en el traduzir bien de una lengua en otra; lo qual yo no atribuigo a falta de la lengua en que se traduze, sino a la abundancia de aquella de que se traduze; y assí unas cosas se dizen en una lengua bien, que en otra no se pueden dezir assí bien; y en la mesma otra ay cosas que se digan mejor que en otra ninguna.

Igualmente, fray Luis de León, p. 65, en el “Prefacio” a la traducción del Cantar de los cantares (1561) señalaba: “Como á la verdad, cada lengua y cada gente tenga sus propiedades de hablar adonde la costumbre usada y recibida hace que sea primor y gentileza lo que en otra lengua y en otras gentes parecería muy tosco [...]”. Y Simón Abril, p. 70, en el prólogo a la traducción citada más arriba afirmaba: Cuánto trabajo sea verter de una lengua en otra, y especialmente abriendo camino de nuevo y vistiendo cosas que hasta hoy en nuestra lengua no han sido vistas ni entendidas, cualquier justo y prudente lector puede conocerlo. [...] es muy diferente verter ajenas sentencias que decir de suyo, porque en el decir de suyo cada uno puede cortar las palabras a la medida y talle de las sentencias; pero en el verter sentencias ajenas de una lengua en otra, no pueden venir siempre tan a medida como el intérprete quiere las palabras.

Otra de las cuestiones importantes que aparecen en algunos de estos prólogos se refiere a la distinción entre traducir y romanzar, como sostiene Terracini, pp. 940-942. Boscán, p. 5, en la mencionada dedicatoria de El Cortesano, afirma: “[...] traducir este libro no es propiamente romanzalle, sino mudalle de una lengua vulgar en otra quizá tan buena [...]”; y Garcilaso, p. 9: “[...] él a esto no lo llama romanzar, ni yo tampoco [...]”. Por lo tanto, Boscán no está romanzando, sino traduciendo, lo cual implica que los autores reconocen a la propia lengua vernácula — en este caso, la lengua castellana — una dignidad y una capacidad equivalentes a las de las lenguas clásicas. Asistimos, pues, a una evolución que va desde una traducción que se realizaba tradicionalmente de una lengua de prestigio — como el griego o el latín — a una lengua vulgar, hasta una traducción entre lenguas vulgares; siguiendo la terminología que Terracini toma de Folena,35 se pasa de una “traducción vertical” a una traducción “horizontal”. 34

35

Juan de Valdés, Diálogo de la lengua castellana, ed. de Cristina Barbolani, 8ª ed. (Madrid: Cátedra, 2006). Véase Folena, Gianfranco, ‘«Volgarizzare» e «Tradurre»: Idea e terminologia della traduzione dal Medio Evo italiano e romanzo all’Umanesimo Europeo’, en La Traduzione. Saggi e Studi, ed. de G. Petronio (Trieste: Lint, 1973), pp. 57-120 (pp. 65-66).

136

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

Esta cuestión se relaciona con otra de gran importancia y es que lo realmente novedoso en el Renacimiento era una traducción en beneficio de la lengua: las lenguas vulgares se ennoblecen y dignifican a través de la traducción y demuestran así su capacidad. Es lo que Terracini, p. 946, considera una traducción centrípeta:36 Al lado de este afán centrífugo y divulgativo, está la gran novedad del Renacimiento: la posición centrípeta, que no piensa por lo que atañe a la traducción tan solo en el beneficio del lector sino en el beneficio de la lengua, que con ella se enriquece, en el sentido de que la traducción resulta uno de los recursos que la lengua vulgar posee para elevarse hasta la universalidad del modelo clásico.

Ésta era una idea que ya se había puesto de manifiesto en las palabras de Vives, p. 55: Muy útil fuera a las lenguas, si los traductores diestros tuvieran tal osadía, de conceder de cuando en cuando derecho de ciudadanía a tal o cual tropo o figura peregrina, mientras no anduviera demasiado lejos de sus usos y costumbres. Y aun también algunas veces sería conveniente, a imitación de la lengua primera, de la lengua madre, formar hábilmente algunas palabras por enriquecer la lengua posterior, su hija como quien dice, cosa que hizo Gaza, griego natural, que se granjeó el reconocimiento de los latinos.

Igualmente, Garcilaso, p. 10, aprecia tanto la traducción de Il Cortigiano llevada a cabo por su amigo Boscán que la considera beneficiosa para la lengua castellana: [...] y también tengo por muy principal el beneficio que se hace a la lengua castellana en poner en ella cosas que merezcan ser leídas; porque yo no sé qué desventura ha sido siempre la nuestra, que apenas ha nadie escrito en nuestra lengua, sino lo que se pudiera muy bien escusar [...]

Y Juan de Valdés advierte, como indica Ruiz Casanova, pp. 150-151, la necesidad de las lenguas vulgares de cimentar “su prestigio como vehículo de transmisión de la cultura, en modelos de corrección o autoridades”, cuando en el Diálogo de la lengua castellana, p.123, al comparar la lengua castellana con la italiana, se refería a la primera de este modo:

36

Ruiz Casanova, p. 181, utiliza los términos de traducción inmediata para la traducción que atañe al lector y traducción mediata para la que atañe a la lengua meta.

La primera traducción española

137

[...] pero también la tengo por más vulgar, porque veo que la toscana sta ilustrada y enriquecida por un Bocacio y un Petrarca, los quales, siendo buenos letrados, no solamente se preciaron de scrivir buenas cosas, pero procuraron escrivirlas con estilo muy propio y muy elegante; y, como sabéis, la lengua castellana nunca ha tenido quien escriva en ella con tanto cuidado y miramiento quanto sería menester para que hombre, quiriendo o dar cuenta de lo que scrive diferente de los otros, o reformar los abusos que ay oy en ella, se pudiesse aprovechar de su autoridad.

Asimismo se encuentra esta idea en las palabras de otros traductores, como Simón Abril, p. 69, que en el prólogo ya citado afirmaba: “la entendiesen los nuestros en su vulgar lengua, la cual yo no hallo por dónde sea menos capaz de recebir en sí las sciencias que en aquel tiempo fué la de los romanos”; o fray Luis de León, p. 67, que en la “Dedicatoria” a Don Pedro Portocarrero escribía sobre el trabajo de traducir: [...] mi trabajo. Al cual yo me incliné sólo por mostrar que nuestra lengua recibe bien todo lo que se le encomienda, y que no es dura ni pobre, como algunos dicen, sino de cera y abundante para los que se la saben tratar.

Por último, centraremos nuestra atención en el punto quizá más interesante: la cuestión metodológica, que está indiscutiblemente ligada al problema de la fidelidad a la obra original. En primer lugar, proponemos las palabras de Juan Luis Vives, p. 54: Versión es la traducción de las palabras de una lengua a otra, conservando el sentido. En algunas de estas versiones se atiende no más que al sentido; en otras, la sola frase y la dicción [...]. El tercer género es cuando la sustancia y las palabras mantienen su equilibrio y equivalencia, es decir, cuando las palabras añaden fuerza y gracia al sentido y ello cada una de por sí o unidas o en todo el cuerpo de la composición.

Su lectura parece indicar que el autor distingue tres modos de traducir: uno que atiende más al sentido, otro que se centra más en la forma y un tercer modo que busca el equilibrio entre ambos aspectos. Estas palabras han hecho, sin embargo, que algunos estudiosos37 hayan interpretado que Vives se refería más bien a tres tipos de texto y no a tres tipos de traducción, lo que nos permitiría considerar a Vives como partidario de un traductor que se debe adecuar al texto: no se defiende la traducción literal ni la traducción libre, sino que en cada momento el traductor elige el método que considera oportuno.

37

Véase Eugenio Coseriu, ‘Vives y el problema de la traducción’, en Traducción y novedad en la ciencia del lenguaje (Madrid: Gredos, 1977), pp. 86-102.

138

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

También Boscán, p. 6, presenta sus criterios de traducción en el prólogo a El Cortesano, donde se observa que el traductor no se atiene a una literalidad absoluta, sino que, cuando lo considera necesario, opta por una traducción más libre con el fin de respetar la lengua meta: “Yo no terné fin en la traducción deste libro a ser tan estrecho que me apriete a sacalle palabra por palabra, antes, si alguna cosa en él se ofreciere, que en su lengua parezca bien y en la nuestra mal, no dexaré de mudarla o de callarla”. Juan de Valdés, pp. 246-247, por su parte, trata la cuestión del método especialmente a través de un pasaje en el que explica por qué considera la lengua castellana como la más difícil a la que se puede traducir un texto: Porque, siendo assí que la mayor parte de la gracia y gentileza de la lengua castellana consiste en hablar por metáforas, atándose el que traduze a no poner más de lo que halla escrito en la lengua de que traduze, tiene grandíssima dificultad en dar al castellano la gracia y lustre que, escriviendo de su cabeça, le daría. Porque si uno traduce aquello de Terencio IDNE ESTIS AUCTORES MIHI? no quiriendo apartarse de la letra avrá de dezir “¿Desto me sois autores?”, y assí no se entenderá lo que el poeta quiso dezir; pero si escriviendo de su cabeça querrá decir aquella mesma sentencia dirá: “¿Esto me aconsejáis a mí?” y es lo mesmo que sintió el poeta, aunque se dize por otras palabras. Y de la mesma manera, si otro querrá poner en romance aquello mesmo de Terencio OH FACTUM BENE, BEASTI ME, dize “¡O cómo sta hecho bien! asme hecho bien aventurado”, no hablará el propio castellano, ni esprimirá tan bien lo que el poeta quiso dezir, como si, no curando de mirar a la palabra, sino al sentido, dize: “Sta lo mejor del mundo, hasme dado la vida”.

Para Ruiz Casanova, pp. 152-153, estas palabras no implican que Valdés defendiera como única posibilidad la traducción libre, sino que, comparando estas dos formas de traducir la frase de Terencio — una literal y otra libre —, [...] plantea el proceso por el que el traductor ha de elegir la mejor forma de expresar la misma idea en su lengua; es más, establece que en dicho proceso el traductor ha de investirse de la calidad de autor para enunciar la sentencia cual si “escribiendo de su cabeça” — esto es, como si de obra original se tratara. [...] nuestro humanista dice que el traductor ha de realizar el esfuerzo imaginativo que es dar forma verbal propia a una idea ajena, tomando ésta — al menos desde un plano teórico — como propia. Ningún otro tratadista, traductor o escritor del humanismo español planteará algo semejante al establecer comparación entre lenguas [...]

Fray Luis de León, pp. 65-66, en el prefacio de la traducción del Cantar de los cantares, explica también la metodología que ha seguido: Lo que yo hago en esto son dos cosas: la una es volver en nuestra lengua, palabra por palabra, el texto de este libro; en la segunda declaro con brevedad, no cada palabra por sí, sino los pasos donde se ofrece alguna obscuridad en la letra, á fin que quede claro su sentido entero, y después de él su declaración. Acerca de lo primero procuré conformarme cuanto pude con el original hebreo, cotejando conjuntamente todas las traducciones griegas y latinas que de él hay, que son muchas; y pretendí que respondiese esta interpretación con el

La primera traducción española

139

original, no solo en las sentencias y palabras, sino aun en el corriente y en el aire de ellas, imitando sus figuras y sus modos de hablar y manera cuanto es posible á nuestra lengua [...]. Bien es verdad que, trasladando el texto, no pudimos tan puntualmente ir con el original, y la cualidad de la sentencia y la propiedad de nuestra lengua nos forzó á que añadiésemos alguna palabrilla, que sin ella quedaría oscurísimo el sentido; pero estas son pocas.

Y Simón Abril, p. 70, expone igualmente en el prólogo de su traducción de la Ética lo que significa para él traducir: Porque el que vierte ha de transformar en sí el ánimo y sentencia del autor que vierte, y decirla en la lengua en que lo vierte como de suyo, sin que quede rastro de la lengua peregrina en que fué primero escrito, lo cual, cuán dificultoso sea de hacer, la tanta variedad de traslaciones que hay lo muestran claramente.

Adentrándonos ya en el siglo XVII, hemos de recordar las palabras de Ruiz Casanova38 relativas al hecho de que el cambio de siglo supuso una evolución hacia una concepción más personalizada, más nacional y de mayor severidad filosófica en las artes. La traducción en la España del siglo XVII estará marcada por los intereses de los clasicistas y preceptistas, así como por la exigencia de mantener el ideal imitativo. La tendencia es la de una traducción vertical, es decir, desde el griego y el latín; y solo en un segundo plano se practica la traducción horizontal desde otras lenguas romances, especialmente, el italiano, el catalán y el portugués. En este siglo la traducción se ha convertido, para este estudioso, p. 252, en una “actividad filológica y literaria de primer orden, y en sus resultados pueden apreciarse las ideas estéticas y las corrientes poéticas que dominaron el siglo”. Se parte también de una finalidad didascálica, presente en el prólogo de Francisco López Cuesta, pp. 78-79, a su traducción de las Epístolas de San Jerónimo de 1613: “Pues porque no todos entienden la lengua Latina [...] para que así gocen todos [...] de manera que lo entiendan todos”. Y las preocupaciones de los traductores, al menos hasta la mitad del siglo, son las mismas que hemos señalado para el siglo anterior. Por una parte, se reconoce el descrédito que sufre esta actividad, como demuestran las palabras de José Antonio González de Salas (1633), p. 80, en sus Observaciones a la Tragedia de las Troianas: “Disculpe el haberme detenido en esta parte algo mas cuidadosamente, El procurar desmentir así el descredito, que en los Nuestros hoi tienen las Traducciones, pues vemos que solo se ocupan de ellas los incapaces [...]”. Por otra, se advierte al lector de la dificultad de la traducción, dificultad atribuida principalmente a la diferencia existente entre las lenguas.

38

Véase n. 24.

140

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

Por ejemplo, Juan de Jáuregui, p. 77, afirmaba en la dedicatoria de la traducción de Aminta a don Fernando Enríquez de Ribera (1607): Yo quisiera en mi traslación no haberla tratado mal [la obra original], por no ofender a su autor [...]: mas no sé si me lo consiente, la gran dificultad del interpretar, trabajo del que salen casi todos desgraciadamente [...] como es coloquio pastoril, consiente muchas frases vulgares y modos de decir humildes, y éstos en italiano suelen ser tan diferentes de los nuestros, que parece cosa imposible trasferirlos a nuestro idioma [...]

Esta dificultad exigía al traductor un conocimiento adecuado de las dos lenguas que entraban en juego en el proceso de la traducción. Las palabras de Gregorio Morillo, pp. 73-74, que preceden a la traducción de La Tebaida de Estacio (c. 1603) lo ponen de manifiesto: “[...] haría cosa ridícula y desabrida el que se atreviese á traducir una lengua en otra, si de entrambas no supiese bien la propiedad de las voces y la elegancia de las frases [...]”. El método propuesto será también similar al del siglo anterior. Se parte de la idea de que la lengua española, como reconoce Morillo, p. 74, sin ser “corta ni falta de conceptos”, se halla en cierta desventaja a la hora de traducir las lenguas clásicas, lo que exige el uso de la paráfrasis; por este motivo se tiende a rechazar la traducción palabra por palabra, como hacen el mismo Morillo, p. 73, y José Pellicer de Ossau y Tovar (1639), p. 83, que reconoce haberse servido de la paráfrasis para su traducción de las obras de Tertuliano. Se defiende, por tanto, la necesidad de mantener un equilibrio entre la fidelidad al sentido del original y la adecuación a la lengua terminal, lo cual se observa en las palabras de Pedro Manero, p. 85, pertenecientes a la ‘Prefación a la Apología y a todas las obras de Tertuliano’ de 1644: Con esta regla se ha de medir nuestra versión: en la qual ponderé palabras, no las conté: recogí el grano del valor de la sentencia, y no cuidé de la paja ó despojo de las sílabas, añadiendo en lo conciso los suplementos forzosos; en lo suspenso la trabazón de las cláusulas; en lo simbólico el circunloquio para aclarecer el sentido [...]

Por lo que se deduce de estos testimonios, la actividad traductora en este periodo puede definirse con las siguientes palabras de Santoyo, ‘Aspectos de la reflexión traductora’, p. 81: “Traducir es, sobre todo, verter a un nuevo molde lingüístico toda una cultura (o “costumbres”, como se las denomina en este siglo), con las dificultades que tal paso implica”. Esta actividad requería en el traductor el cumplimiento de una serie de condiciones que le permitieran traducir de manera adecuada, es decir, mantenerse fiel al original y, al mismo tiempo, elaborar un buen texto en la lengua meta. Estas condiciones han sido expuestas por Santoyo, ‘Aspectos de la reflexión traductora’, pp. 78-79: en primer lugar, el traductor debía poseer un

La primera traducción española

141

conocimiento exhaustivo de la lengua extranjera, la lengua de partida; en segundo lugar, era una exigencia el conocimiento perfecto de la propia lengua, la lengua meta, que debía ir acompañado de un profundo respeto por la misma;39 era igualmente preciso que el traductor dominara la materia sobre la cual versaba el texto que había de traducir; una buena traducción le obligaba, en la medida de lo posible, a recrear en la lengua meta la idiosincrasia expresiva y estilística del original; por último, Santoyo se refiere a un “sexto sentido” o “aptitud congénita” para la tarea de traducir que algunos autores de la época llamaron “genio” o “sagacidad”.

3. Análisis de los elementos extratextuales y del paratexto 3.1. Los elementos extratextuales: el original, el traductor y el posible receptor La cuestión del original en el que se basa esta traducción está ligada al problema de la datación de la misma. Las hipótesis de los estudiosos son dos. La primera, propuesta por Gerber,40 III, p. 118, considera el manuscrito perteneciente al siglo XVII, si se tiene en cuenta el tipo de letra utilizado, e identifica como original la Testina. Las ediciones Testinas — ediciones de las obras completas de Maquivelo — son, según este estudioso, II, p. 92, un total de cinco y se basaron, II, pp. 30-31, por lo que se refiere a Il principe, en una edición de 1535, sin lugar y sin nombre del editor, que a su vez dependía de la edición de Giunta de 1532; para Bertelli e Innocenti, p. LXIII, el original fue la edición “Palermo, 1584” impresa en Londres por el editor Wolfe. Estas ediciones Testinas fueron impresas entre 1609 y 1650, aunque aparecieron con fecha de 1550: una vez prohibido Maquiavelo, muchos editores siguieron publicando sus obras, pero poniéndoles una fecha anterior a la prohibición para evitar así posibles sanciones.41 Por lo demás, no presentan diferencias de

39

40

41

El mismo Valdés, p. 226, había afirmado, al hablar de la dificultad de la traducción: “Por esto es grande temeridad de los que se ponen á traducir de una lengua a otra sin ser muy diestros en la una y en la otra”. Adolf Gerber, Niccolò Machiavelli. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen seiner Werke im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1962). Muchas de las ediciones italianas que empezaron a circular en Inglaterra durante los años ochenta del siglo XVI no se imprimieron en Italia, sino en Inglaterra con falsos pies de imprenta, a cargo de John Wolf. Véase Felix Raab, The English Face of Machiavelli. A

142

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

contenido entre sí, sino algunas relativas a los frontispicios, la decoración y cualquier error tipográfico. La segunda hipótesis pertenece a Puigdomènech, p. 117-118, que adelanta la fecha del manuscrito a finales del XVI — fecha propuesta también por Bertelli e Innocenti, p. LXVI — o principios del XVII, rechaza la Testina como fuente por ser de fecha posterior y propone como original una edición veneciana de 1535 o la segunda edición florentina de Giunta. Sin embargo, no aporta pruebas en las que basar esta hipótesis: sus palabras parecen implicar una valoración del manuscrito, pero nada se dice de un posible cotejo de la traducción con la Testina o con los originales propuestos. Si tenemos en cuenta, sin embargo, una serie de pasajes de nuestro manuscrito, observamos que éste parece seguir precisamente la Testina,42 alejándose no solo de la edición de Blado (1532), sino también de la de Giunta (1532), de la edición de 1535 y de la edición de Palermo (1584). El primer pasaje se encuentra en el capítulo XVI, donde se trata de la liberalidad y de la parsimonia:43 Blado, 1532: [...] non di manco la liberalità usata in modo che tù sia temuto ti offende [...] Testina: Nondimanco la liberalità vsata in modo, che tu non sia temuto, ti offende [...] Trad. española: No obstante la liberalidad vsada de suerte que tu no seas temido te ofende [...] (52d)

El segundo pasaje pertenece al capítulo XVIII en el que se discute sobre cómo deben los príncipes mantener su palabra: Blado, 1532: [...] essendo spesso necessitato per mantener’ lo stato, operar’ contro à la fede, contro à la charità, contro à l’ humanità, contro à la religione. Testina: [...] essendo spesso neceßitato per mantenere lo Stato, operare contro alla humanità, contro alla charità, contro alla Religione. Trad. española: [...] siendo muchas veçes necessitado por conseruar el estado a hobrar contra la humanidad, contra la caridad, contra la relijion. (59d)

42

43

chanching interpretation 1500-1700 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965), p. 52. Agradezco a Roberto De Pol, profesor de la Universidad de Génova y editor del presente volumen, el haberme señalado estos pasajes de la Testina que he podido cotejar con la traducción española. Comparamos la edición de Blado (1532), la Testina y la traducción española. Señalamos entre paréntesis el número del folio del manuscrito y la pagina izquierda (i) o derecha (d) del folio.

La primera traducción española

143

El último ejemplo aparece en el capítulo XXVI con el que termina la obra: Blado, 1532: [...] et che la fusse più schiaua, che gli Hebrei, più serua che i Persi, più disp[er]sa che gli Atheniensi[...] Testina: [...] & che la fusse più schiaua che gli Hebrei più serua che i Persi, piu dispersa che gli Atheniensi [...] Trad. española: [...] y que ella fuese mas esclaua que los hebreos más sujeta que los persas, más diuidida que los Atenienses [...] (88i)

Si aceptamos la Testina como posible fuente de nuestro manuscrito, nos vemos obligados a retrasar la fecha propuesta por Puigdomènech. Un estudio paleográfico y filológico del manuscrito español nos permite suponer que éste podría pertenecer tanto a los últimos años del siglo XVI como a la primera mitad del XVII, con lo que la hipótesis de la Testina como original sería viable. Desde el punto de vista paleográfico, el texto está escrito en “letra itálica” o “bastarda”, un tipo de letra cursiva de origen italiano, bastante legible, que se utilizó durante los siglos XVI y XVII para los libros manuscritos y para las cartas y documentos privados. Algunas de las grafías presentes en el texto como la “ç”, la falta de separación entre palabras (“quequalquieralos”, “sonpornopoder”, etc.), la puntuación casi inexistente y algunas abreviaturas nos permiten situarlo antes de finales del siglo XVII, sobre todo, si lo comparamos con el manuscrito nº 902 fechado en 1680. Desde el punto de vista filológico, los Siglos de Oro comprenden un extenso periodo que va desde 1492 (descubrimiento de América y Gramática de Nebrija) hasta 1726 (dinastía borbónica y Real Academia de la Lengua Española), en el que una serie de cambios lingüísticos transforman el español medieval en el español moderno. No hay, sin embargo, una cronología igual para cada uno de estos cambios, por lo que la filología distingue tres “subperiodos” relacionados con eventos políticos y culturales: 1º 1492-1556; 2º 1556-1648; 3º 1648-1726. El análisis de los fenómenos lingüísticos del manuscrito lo sitúan en el segundo subperiodo (1556-1648), con una posible tendencia hacia la primera mitad del siglo XVII, ya que muchas de las variantes presentes son las que después se convertirán en las soluciones modernas. Respecto al traductor, desconocemos su identidad, por lo tanto, no tenemos información alguna sobre su fecha de nacimiento, procedencia, formación u ocupación. Sin embargo, el análisis de la traducción nos ha revelado algunos aspectos interesantes que coinciden con las condiciones que debía cumplir un buen traductor de aquella época y que hemos indicado en § 2.2. Como veremos en el análisis de la microestructura, se trata de una buena traducción y esto nos permite emitir algunos juicios. El primero es que el

144

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

traductor tenía una gran competencia lingüística, tanto en la lengua castellana — por lo que pensamos que probablemente era su lengua materna — como en la italiana, ya que comprende bien el original y lo traduce a un correcto castellano, que al mismo tiempo se mantiene fiel al estilo del autor original. El segundo es que era un buen conocedor del tema que trataba pues no aparecen errores de interpretación, sino que se muestra capaz de trasladar a la perfección los pasajes fundamentales del pensamiento de Maquiavelo y elaborar con corrección el discurso; igualmente parece encontrarse cómodo cuando debe traducir los pasajes en los que se incluyen referencias históricas, políticas, filosóficas, etc., que en ningún caso malinterpreta. Por otro lado, se dedicara o no a la traducción, muestra una buena competencia traductora resolviendo los problemas de traducción que se le presentan. Podemos concluir, por tanto, que nos hallamos frente a un hombre con una buena formación intelectual y una adecuada competencia traductora. A esto debemos añadir un detalle y es que la fuerte presencia de casos de leísmo — utilización de los pronombres le, les de complemento indirecto en lugar de lo, los y la, las de complemento directo — en la traducción podría situar sus orígenes en Castilla la Vieja y León, especialmente, o en Alcalá y Madrid, lugares donde este fenómeno tuvo una presencia muy generalizada durante los siglos XVI y XVII y se dio en autores como Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Tirso de Molina, Quevedo, Calderón de la Barca o Santa Teresa, entre otros. Por último, tampoco podemos decir nada cierto sobre el destinatario de la traducción y de la finalidad de la misma. Compartimos la idea de Puigdomènech, p. 121, de que tuvo que tener una finalidad instrumental y que o bien fue realizada por puro placer del traductor o bien estuvo destinada a alguna persona interesada en la obra o en el autor (un tratadista político o alguien relacionado con la política quizá) y que no fuera capaz de comprender la lengua italiana, algo que, como ya hemos dicho, era poco habitual en el mundo intelectual español de los Siglos de Oro. En este segundo caso, la persona tuvo que ser bastante cercana o de confianza porque la traducción presenta un gran número de variantes — ya sea en notas o dentro del texto —, tachaduras, subrayados y comentarios al margen.44

44

Rosa Rius Gatel y Montserrat Casas Nadal en ‘De una traducción temprana e inédita de El Principe (MS 1084, BNM)’ en Maquiavelo y España: maquiavelismo y antimaquiavelismo en la cultura española de los siglos XVI y XVII, ed. de Juan Manuel Forte y Pablo López Álvarez (Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva, 2008), pp. 181-202, han analizado, siguiendo a Puigdomènech, pp. 113-117, la posibilidad de que esta traducción estuviera vinculada al proyecto del duque de Sessa y Soma, que tenía como objetivo la publicación de las obras de Maquiavelo en lengua castellana, aunque “debidamente expurgadas”, y donde se proponían como traductores a don Marco Antonio de Aldana y al doctor Cardona, obispo de Vic. Las

La primera traducción española

145

3.2. El paratexto: el título, las notas al margen y los pasajes subrayados La traducción castellana del título de este manuscrito nº 1080 es literal — “El príncipe” —, a diferencia de lo que ocurre con las otras dos traducciones manuscritas: en la traducción de Vélez de León (Roma, 1680), manuscrito nº 908, el título castellano es “Diuersos Tratados, Políticos pertenecientes à los Gobiernos Monárquico, Aristocratico, y Democratico, Utiles à Principes, Consejeros, Senadores, y Generales de Exercitos”, mientras que el manuscrito nº 1017 de finales del siglo XVII se titula “El Principe y el estado de las cosas de Francia y Alemania, y el modo que tuvo el Duque Valentin para matar en Sinigalla los señores de Caffa Urssina, — a Vida de Castruçio Castracani de Luca”. Otro aspecto del paratexto de esta traducción, y que resulta de gran interés, es el conjunto de notas al margen del traductor, que son de dos tipos: algunas de ellas contienen comentarios o reflexiones del propio traductor referidas a las ideas de Maquiavelo o a los asuntos que se están tratando en ese pasaje, mientras que las más numerosas proponen variantes de traducción.45 Veamos algunos de los ejemplos que pertenecen al primer tipo.46 En el capítulo II, cuando Maquiavelo afirma que los estados hereditarios presentan menos dificultades para ser conservados, el traductor añade una valoración personal (NC1): “Dificultosso precepto por los diuerssos accidentes que el tiempo trae consigo.” (II, 2i).

45

46

dos peticiones de autorización del Duque al consejo de la Inquisición, realizadas en 1584 y 1585, no tuvieron respuesta, pero esto no sigifica que las traducciones no se realizaran. Sin embargo, los elementos de que se dispone no permiten, según afirman Rius y Casas, “plantear seriamente la hipótesis de que dicho manuscrito corresponda a una de tales traducciones”. Los ejemplos se citan como sigue: la O se refiere al original (ed. de Chabod) y se indica en números romanos el capítulo y en números arábigos la página; T se refiere a la traducción, los números romanos indican el capítulo, los números arábigos se refieren al folio del manuscrito y las letras “i” y “d” indican, respectivamente, página izquierda o derecha del folio. Los ejemplos están clasificados del siguiente modo: notas con comentario (NC1, NC2...), notas con variante (NV1, NV2...), adición (A1, A2...), supresión (S1, S2...), modificación (M1, M2...), error (E1, E2...) y variantes dentro del texto (V1, V2...). Dado que nuestro objetivo no es una edición crítica del manuscrito sino su análisis desde el punto de vista de la traducción, hemos modernizado el texto en algunos aspectos con el fin de facilitar su lectura y comprensión: hemos actualizado los acentos, los signos de puntuación y la división de palabras, mientras que las grafías correspondientes al vocalismo y consonantismo se han mantenido tal y como aparecen en el manuscrito.

146

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

En el capítulo III Maquiavelo propone las colonias como una solución mejor que el empleo de gente armada, que resulta más caro y dañino para todo el estado. En este pasaje hay también una nota al margen (NC2): “Gran ejemplo Cataluña.” (III, 6d). Cuando en el capítulo IV se trata del principado nuevo, que se adquiere con armas propias y virtud, se llega a un pasaje en el que el autor habla de la naturaleza voluble de los pueblos, a los que es fácil convencer pero difícil mantener en esa convicción. En este caso el traductor anota (NC3): “Racón para Portugal.” (VI, 19d). Ya en el capítulo XV, cuando Maquiavelo explica que quiere tratar la realidad efectiva de las cosas y afirma que muchos se han imaginado repúblicas y principados que nunca han existido, el traductor añade en nota (NC4): “Puede ser que aluda a la eutopía de Tomás Moro y según la opinión de algunos a la Ciropedia.” (XV, 51i). En el capítulo XX, cuando se explica que los venecianos favorecían las pugnas entre güelfos y gibelinos porque mientras luchaban entre sí, no eran un peligro para Venecia, leemos al margen la opinión del traductor (NC5): “Otra racón ai más onda.” (XX, 72d). Otra nota interesante se encuentra en el capítulo XXI cuando se discute sobre si el príncipe debe mantenerse neutral o no cuando son otros los que disputan: Maquiavelo es contrario a la neutralidad y afirma que el príncipe será más estimado si es verdadero amigo y verdadero enemigo. La valoración de traductor aparece también en nota y subrayada (NC6): “Gran racón destado se saca de aquí: la neutralidad pierde al amigo y no gana al enemigo.” (XXI, 77i). Estos comentarios nos aportan una doble información sobre el traductor: por una parte, se trataba de un hombre de buena formación intelectual, conocedor de los aspectos históricos que trata Maquiavelo y de quienes habían interpretado o analizado sus obras — como se aprecia en NC4 —, así como informado sobre las cuestiones políticas de su propio momento histórico — como indican NC2 y NC3 —; en segundo lugar, nos encontramos con un traductor implicado en el contenido de la obra, que interviene con observaciones y opiniones propias, como se aprecia en NC1, NC5 y NC6. El segundo tipo de notas al margen es muy extenso y propone variantes de traducción. Veremos solo algunos de los ejemplos más interesantes, que hemos agrupado en diferentes categorías. En primer lugar, se distingue un grupo de variantes que proponen simplemente un sinónimo para la traducción que aparece en el texto:

La primera traducción española

147

NV1 O: [...] bastò la prima volta uno duca Ludovico che rumoreggiassi [...] (III, 7) T: [...] bastó la primera vez un duque Ludouico que hiçiesse ruido (III, 4i) / NV: estruendo NV2 O: Non di manco, e la prima e la seconda volta le fu tolto. (III, 7) T: Con todo eso se le quitó el estado la primera y la segunda vez. (III, 4i) / NV: No obstante NV3 O: [...] beneficare con grazia o offendere con respetto [...] (VII, 39) T: [...] benefiçiar con graçia u ofender con respeto [...] (VII, 28i) / NV: ynjuriar NV4 O: [...] se tale principe è di ordinaria industria [...] (II, 4) T: [...] si el tal prínçipe es de ordinaria yndustria [...] (II, 2i) / NV: mediana

El grupo más numeroso propone un sinónimo o construcciones equivalentes que parecen mejorar la primera traducción y pueden presentar tanto la adición como la supresión de elementos. Se añaden elementos en NV5, donde el pronombre “ella” tiene una valor anafórico y se refiere a Francia, o en NV6, donde parece que el traductor trata de embellecer la frase; hay supresión, sin embargo, en NV7: NV5 O: [...] et andare ad urtarli tutti e dua non arebbono avuto animo. (III, 16) T: [...] y para empujarle entrambos no hubieran tenido animo. (III, 11i) / NV: echarle della NV6 O: Di queste quattro cose, alla morte di Alessandro ne aveva condotte tre; [...] (VII, 36) T: Destas quatro cosas auía conseguido tres quando murió Alexandro [...] (VII, 26i) / NV: le sobreuino la muerte NV7 O: [...] e facessi tutte quelle cose che per uno prudente e virtuoso uomo si doveva fare per mettere le barbe sua in quelli stati [...] (VII, 31) T: [...] y se içieran todas las cosas que un prudente y valeroso hombre deue haçer para echarlas sus raíçes [...] (VII, 22i) / NV: arraigarsse

Proponemos como último grupo aquellas variantes que implican una clara modificación de la traducción que forma parte del cuerpo del texto. El primer caso ofrece realmente tres traducciones: una primera traducción literal que después está tachada (citamos entre paréntesis); una segunda, escrita entre líneas dentro del cuerpo del texto y que es la variante correcta (citamos entre corchetes); y una tercera en nota al margen que es incorrecta:

148

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

NV8 O: E’ principati sono o ereditarii, de’ queli el sangue del loro signore ne sia suto a lungo tempo principe, o e’ sono nuovi. (I, 3) T: Los principados son ereditarios (de los quales la sangre de sus señores a sido prínçipe largo tiempo) o son modernos / [en los quales la sangre de sus señores a dominado largo tiempo] (I, 1d) / NV: en la cual la sangre de sus señores a dominado largo tiempo.

El caso siguiente propone una variante — subrayada, además — que reorganiza la sintaxis de la frase, pasando de un orden de elementos psicológico, que reproduce fielmente la sintaxis del original, a un orden lógico, que, sin embargo, aporta un sentido diferente al del original: NV9 O: E tanto più questa esperienza periculosa, quanto la non si può fare se non una volta. (IX, 51) T: Y tanto más peligrosa es esta esperiençia quanto no se puede açer más que una vez. (IX, 35d) / NV: La más peligrosa esperiençia es la que no se puede açer más que una vez.

La última nota que citamos muestra, frente a la primera traducción que seguía fielmente el original, una reordenación sintáctica de la subordinada adversativa: NV10 O: Perché non ci è altro modo a guardarsi dalle adulazioni, se non che li uomini intendino che non ti offendino a dirti el vero; ma, quando ciascuno può dirti il vero, ti manca la reverenzia. (XXIII, 119) T: Porque no ai otro modo para guardarse delas adulaçiones sino que los hombres entiendan que no te offenden en deçirte la berdad, pero quando cualquiera puede deçirte la berdad, te falta la reuerençia. (XXIII, 80i) / NV: esponerse a que cualquiera pueda decir la verdad en su parecer es abenturar el respeto.

Por lo que se refiere al subrayado de algunos pasajes, distinguimos dos tipos: por un lado, se subrayan frases cortas o palabras que tienen en nota al margen una variante de traducción y creemos que su objetivo es simplemente llamar la atención del lector sobre la existencia de dicha variante; en otros casos, sin embargo, el subrayado sirve para remarcar algunos de los pasajes en los que Maquiavelo da al príncipe consejos difíciles de entender desde un punto de vista ético y nos parecen interesantes ya que demuestran que el traductor los ha interpretado correctamente y los identifica como importantes. El primer ejemplo lo encontramos en el capítulo III cuando Maquiavelo habla del principado mixto y de las ofensas que el príncipe se verá obligado a cometer contra sus súbditos, un pasaje de singular dureza (citamos en cursiva el texto subrayado):

La primera traducción española

149

T: [...] para lo qual se ha de notar que los hombres se deuen o alagar o matarlos porque de las ofensas lijeras se vengan, de las graues no pueden: de suerte que la ofenssa que se haçe al hombre deue ser tal que no tema la vengança. (III, 6i)

Además de la variante subrayada del ejemplo NV9, hay otros dos pasajes subrayados: se encuentran en el capítulo XV, en el que Maquiavelo trata las cosas por las que los príncipes pueden ser alabados o criticados. En ambos pasajes los consejos que se dan al príncipe son polémicos. En el primero se le recomienda que aprenda la maldad y la use cuando sea necesaria: T: De donde le es neçessario a un prínçipe queriéndose conservar aprender ser no bueno y vsarlo y no vsarlo según la necessidad. (XV, 51d)

En el segundo se le aconseja que incurra sin miramientos en los vicios necesarios para poder salvar el estado: T: Y tampoco no se le cuide de incurrir en la ynfamia de aquellos viçios sin los quales podrá difícilmente saluar su estado. (XV, 52i)

4. Análisis macroestructural El análisis de la macroestructura nos permitirá comparar la estructura general de la obra original con la de la traducción manuscrita. Hemos tomado como referentes para el original el facsímil de la edición original impresa en Roma por Blado en 1532 y la edición de Chabod de 1927.47 Como sabemos, la obra original constaba de una carta dedicada a Lorenzo de Medici, “Nicolaus Maclavellus ad Magnificum Laurentium Medicem”, y de 26 capítulos con el título en latín. El manuscrito nº 1080, sin embargo, no contiene la carta dedicada a Lorenzo de Medici y comienza directamente en el folio 1 con el primer capítulo. Los 26 capítulos aparecen en su totalidad, están completos y con el título traducido al castellano.48 No hay división en párrafos, sino simplemente en capítulos, y la puntuación es escasa.

47

48

Niccolò Machiavelli, Il principe. Facsimile dell’edizione originale impressa in Roma da Antonio Blado nel 1532. Introduzione di Federico Chabod. (Torino: Unione TipograficoEditrice Torinese, 1960); Niccolò Machiavelli, Il principe, Introduzione e note di Federico Chabod, Collezione di Classici Italiani (Torino: Unione Tipografico-Editrice, 1927), XXXV. Tampoco está traducida la carta en el manuscrito nº 1017, ni la traducción de los capítulos es completa, sino que en algunos pasajes el traductor presenta más bien una paráfrasis.

150

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

5. Análisis microestructural En este apartado analizaremos la microestructura y, para ello, tendremos en cuenta las intervenciones del traductor en el texto meta a través de adiciones, modificaciones, supresiones y errores. Concluiremos nuestro análisis dedicando también un espacio a otras cuestiones interesantes que hemos identificado dentro de la microestructura de esta traducción.

5.1. Adiciones Los casos de adición encontrados afectan en general al plano morfológico y, en algún caso, al sintáctico. No se trata, por tanto, de la adición de frases enteras, de cierta longitud, que pudieran alterar, completar o explicar el sentido del original; más bien observamos la adición de algunos sustantivos y sintagmas nominales que precisan un poco mejor el pasaje donde aparecen o lo contextualizan con información de tipo cultural. Aportan información cultural los dos ejemplos siguientes, aunque era ya conocida por el lector, pues se había mencionado antes. Es como si el traductor tratara de recordar al lector lo ya referido: A1 O: Per queste ragioni Luigi XII di Francia occupò subito Milano [...] (III, 6) T: Por esta racón Luis 12 Rey de Francia ocupó en un punto a Milan [...] (III, 3d) A2 O: [...] per essere già Franzesi spogliati dal Regno dalli Spagnoli [...] (VII, 37) T: …por estar ya los franceses despojados del Reino de Nápoles por los españoles [...] (VII, 26d)

Los ejemplos siguientes, sin embargo, parecen orientados a precisar un poco mejor las palabras de Maquiavelo con el fin de facilitar la comprensión de los pasajes en los que aparecen: A3 O: [...] lui non ha a durare fatica alcuna a guadagnarli [...] (III, 10) T: [...] él no trabaja en ganarlos la voluntad [...] (III, 7i) A4. O: [...] e, quando bene si corrompessino, se ne può sperare poco utile [...] (IV, 19) T: [...] y quando vien se sobornase corrompiesse su fidelidad, se puede esperar poco útil [...] (IV, 13d)

La primera traducción española

151

A5 O: [...] ma, se non è virtuoso, ti rovina per lo ordinario. (XII, 60) T: [...] pero si no es el capitan valeroso, de ordinario te destruye. (XII, 41d) A6 O: [...] acciò che, quando si muta la fortuna, lo truovi parato a resiterle. (XIV, 75) T: [...] para que quando se mudare la fortuna le alle dispuesto para resitir su golpe. (XIV, 51i) A7 O: [...] li è necesario essere tanto prudente, che sappia fuggire l’infamia di quelle che li torrebbano lo stato [...] (XV, 77) T: [...] le es necessario ser tan prudente que sepa huir la infamia de aquellos viçios que le quitarían el estado [...] (XV, 52i) A8 O: In questo caso, potria bene essere, ma durerebbe poco [...] (XXIII, 121) T: [...] en tal caso podrá ser vien gouernado, mas duraría poco [...] (XXIII, 81d)

Lo mismo ocurre en los ejemplos que siguen. En A9 la adición comprende una oración subordinada de relativo; en A10, una sustantiva de complemento directo; los dos últimos ejemplos, presentan la adición de marcadores del discurso que no se encuentran en el original: en A11, un estructurador de la información del tipo “ordenador”, mientras que en A12 tenemos un conector de tipo “consecutivo”.49 A9 O: [...] mossi da invidia [...] (III, 10) T: [...] mouidos de una enuidia que enjendraron [...] (III, 7i) A10 O: Non si debbe, adunque, lasciare passare questa occasione, acciò che l’Italia, dopo tanto tempo,vegga uno suo redentore. (XXVI, 133) T: No se deue pues pasar esta ocasión, para que la Italia vea después de tantos tiempos que se descubre un redentor suio. (XXVI, 91i) A11 O: Di che è testimone il Taro; di poi Alessandria, Capua, Genova, Vailà, Bologna, mestri. (XXVI, 131) T: [...] de lo qual es testimonio lo primero el Taro, después Alexandria, Capua, Genova, Vaila, Bolonia, Mestri. (XXVI, 89d-90i)

49

Seguimos la clasificación y terminología de M. Antonia Martín Zorraquino y José Pórtoles, ‘Los marcadores del discurso’, en Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, ed. de Ignacio Bosque y Violeta Demonte, 3 vols. (Madrid: Espasa, 1999), III, pp. 4051-4213.

152

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

A12 O: [...] e, quando era in campagna con li amici, spesso si fermava e ragionava con quelli. Se li inimici fussino in su quel colle, e noi ci trovasimo qui col nostro esercito, chi di noi arebbe vantaggio? (XIV, 74) T: [...] y quando estaba en el campo son sus amigos muchas veçes se paraba y raconaba desta suerte con ellos, si los enemigos estubiesen sobre aquel collado y nosotros nos alláramos aquí con nuestro exérçito, ¿quién de nosotros tendría ventaja? (XIV, 50i)

5.2. Modificaciones Hemos encontrado algunos ejemplos de modificaciones que conciernen a la forma, pero que no cambian el sentido del original. En algunos casos, la modificación afecta a estructuras oracionales que, siendo impersonales, se traducen como personales, como es el caso de M1; o a la inversa, como M2 o M3, ejemplo en el que el uso de la forma no personal de gerundio elimina el sujeto de segunda persona que aparece en el original, perdiéndose así la sensación de inmediatez y espontaneidad que transmite el diálogo directo que Maquiavelo establece con el lector: M1 O: Nelle colonie non si spende molto [...] (III, 9) T: En las colonias no gasta mucho el príncipe [...] (III, 5d) M2 O: Tutta la monarchia del Turco è governata da uno signore, li altri sono sua servi; [...] (IV, 18) T: Toda la monarquía del Turco se gouierna por un señor, todos los demás son sieruos suios [...] (IV, 13i) M3 O: Ora, si voi considerrete di qual natura di governi era quello di Dario [...] (IV, 20) T: Considerando pues la naturaleça del gouierno del reino de Dario [...] (IV, 14d)

Otras veces la modificación consiste en sustituir un elemento por otro que simplifica el original, como M4; que lo estructura algo mejor, como M5; o que puede hacerlo más natural en español, como M6: M4 O: [...] donde pareva ragionevole che tutto quello stato si ribellassi; non dimeno, e’ successori di Alessandro se lo mantennono, e non ebbono a tenerlo altra difficultà, che [...] (IV, 18) T: [...] de donde pareçía conforme a raçón que todo aquel estado se reuelasse con todo esso sus suçessores se le conseruaron sin tener para mantenerle otra dificultad más que [...] (IV, 12i)

La primera traducción española

153

M5 O: [...] nel primo caso, debbe essere parco; nell’altro, non debbe lascare indietro alcuna parte de liberalità. (XVI, 80) T: [...] en el primer caso, deue ser parco; en el segundo, no deue oluidar parte alguna de liberalidad. (XVI, 54i) M6 O: [...] in Roma, ancora che mezzo vivo, stette sicuro; [...] (VIII, 33) T: [...] en Roma, aunque medio muerto, estubo seguro [...] (VIII, 27i)

Encontramos algunos casos en los que la modificación tiene como objetivo una simplificación de la sintaxis original, como sucede en M7, donde la subordinada de relativo viene sustituida por un participio con función de adjetivo, o en M8; en otros casos se observa una reordenación de la sintaxis de la frase, como ocurre en M9, donde la subordinada de relativo del original viene sustituida por una coordinada copulativa: M7 O: [...] dall’altro paurosi di non errare, per timore che non intervenissi a loro come a quelli che sono stati spogliati. (III, 9) T: [...] y por otra, medrosos de no herrar porque a ellos no les acontezca lo mismo que a los despojados. (III, 6i) M8 O: Nel primo caso capitano sempre male, e non conducano cosa alcuna; ma, quando dependono da loro proprii e possano forzare, allora è che rare volte periclitano. (VI, 27) T: En el primer casso siempre se pierden sin conduçir cossa alguna, pero quando dependen de sí propios y pueden forçar entonçes raras veçes peligran. (VI, 19d) M9 O: Perché questa è una regola generale che non falla mai: che uno principe [...] (XXIII; 121) T: Porque esta no engaña nunca, y es regla general que un prínçipe [...] (XXIII, 81d)

En otros pasajes las modificaciones alteran el estilo de Maquiavelo: en M10, por ejemplo, se modifica el esquema sintáctico repetitivo del original; en M11 y M12, sin embargo, observamos una mayor complicación sintáctica: M10 O: [...] che la troppa confidenzia non lo facci incauto e la troppa diffidenzia non lo renda intollerabile. (XVII, 82) T: [...] que las mucha confiança no le haga incauto y la desconfiança demasiada no le vuelua insufriule. (XVII, 55i)

154

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

M11 O: Nasce da questo una disputa: s’elli è meglio essere amato che temuto, o e converso. (XVII, 82) T: Nace de aquí una questión: si es mejor ser amado que temido o temido que amado. (XVII, 55i) M12 O: E dall’altro canto, il principe, per mantenerlo buono, debba pensare al ministro [...]; acciò che vegga che non può stare senza lui, e che li assai onori non li faccino desiderare più ricchezze, li assai carichi li faccino temere le mutazioni. (XXII, 118) T: Y, por otra parte, el prínçipe para conseruarle bueno deue cuidar del ministro [...] para que las muchas honras, las muchas riqueças que le conçede sean caussa que no desee otras ni riquezas; y los muchos cargos le acen temer las mudanzas, conociendo que no pueden governarse sin él. (XXII, 79d)

5.3. Supresiones Los numerosos casos de supresión encontrados — de los que solo proponemos algunos —, obedecen generalmente a un descuido del traductor y no a una voluntad de omitir o censurar algún pasaje del original. En algunos casos se trata simplemente de la supresión de una palabra o de un sintagma nominal que ha olvidado traducir; el resultado puede no cambiar el sentido del original, como ocurre en S1 o en S5 — ejemplo donde suponemos que el traductor evitó la repetición del verbo —, pero en los otros casos el sentido queda incompleto: S1 O: Noi abbiamo in Italia, in exemplis, el duca di Ferrara, il quale non ha retto alli assalti de’ Viniziani nello 84, né a quelli di papa Julio nel 10, per altre cagioni che per essere antiquato in quello dominio. (II, 4) T: El exemplo que tenemos en Italia es el duque de Ferrara el qual no se defendió de los asaltos de los veneçianos ni del papa Julio por otra causa, que por ser antiguo en aquel dominio. (II, 2d) S2 O: Ma nelle repubbliche è maggior vita, maggiore odio, più desiderio di vendetta [...] (V, 24) T: Pero en las repúblicas ay maior odio, más deseo de uenganza [...] (V, 16d) S3 O: La ferocità del quale spettaculo fece quelli populi in uno tempo rimanere satisfatti e stupiti. (VII, 35) T: La feroçidad deste espectáculo dejó a un tiempo satisfechos aquellos pueblos. (VII, 25d)

La primera traducción española

155

S4 O: Perché li uomini offendono o per paura o per odio. Quelli che lui aveva [...] (VII, 40) T: Porque los hombres o por miedo o por odio. Los que él auía [...] (VII, 28i) S5 O: Preterea, del populo inimico uno principe non si può mai assicurare, per esser troppi; de’ grandi, si può assicurare, per esser pochi. (IX, 47) T: Juntasse también que del pueblo enemigo nunca se puede el prínçipe asegurar por ser muchos, de los grandes puede por ser pocos. (IX, 33d)

En otros ejemplos, sin embargo, la supresión afecta a frases enteras y puede tratarse de meras distracciones del traductor o de omisiones voluntarias encaminadas a simplificar el texto, como podría ser el caso de S8, S11 — frase referida a Fernando el Católico donde el sentido de la parte omitida por nuestro traductor está expresado en la frase siguiente traducida fielmente — o S12. S7 O: Perché, standovi, si veggono nacere e’ disordini, e presto vi puo remediare; non vi stando, s’intendono quando sono grandi, e non vi è piú remedio. Non è, oltre a questo [...] (III, 8). T: Porque viuiendo en él se uen nacer los dehórdenes y se les puede aplicar presto el remedio: fuera desto [...] (III, 5i) S8 O: Aveva Alessandro sesto, nel voler far grande el duca suo figliuolo, assai difficultà presenti e future. Prima, non vedeva de poterlo fare signore di alcuno stato che non fussi stato di Chiesia; e, volgendosi a tòrre quello della Chiesia, sapeva che il duca di Milano e Viniziani non gnene consentirebbano; [...] (VII, 31) T: Tenía Alexandro quarto muchas dificultades presentes y futuras en querer açer grande al duque su ijo. Lo primero no allaua camino de poderle açer señor de algún estado que no fuesse de la yglesia y sabía que el duque de Milán y los venecianos no lo consentirían [...] (VII, 22d) S9 O: E se alcuno replicassi: molti [...] liberalissimi; ti rispondo: o el principe spende [...] (XVI, 80) T: Y si alguno replicasse: muchos [...] liberalíssimos; o el Prínçipe gasta [...] (XVI, 53d-54i) S10 O: La qual cosa le fu da Fabio Massimo in senato rimproverata, e chiamato da lui corruttore della romana milicia. (XVII, 85) T: Lo qual le fue reprendido de Fauio Máximo en el senado destruidor de la miliçia romana. (XVII, 57i) S11 O: Alcuno principe de’ presenti tempi, quale non è bene nominare, non predica mai altro che pace e fede, e dell’una e dell’altra è inimicissimo; e l’una e l’altra, quando e’ l’avessi osservata, li arebbe piú volte tolto o la reputazione o lo stato. (XVIII, 90)

156

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

T: Algun Príncipe destos tiempos, que no es bien nombrarle, nunca publica otra cossa si no es paz y fe y quando hubiesse guardado una y otra le habrían quitado muchas veçes el estado y la reputación. (XVIII, 60i) S12 O: Le cose soprascritte, osservate prudentemente, fanno parere uno principe nuovo antico, e lo rendono subito più sicuro e più fermo nello stato, che si vi fussi antiquato dentro. Perché uno principe nuovo [...] (XXIV, 121-122) T: Las cosas dichas observadas prudentemente haçen pareçer a un prínçipe moderno, antiguo y le dejan luego más seguro, más firme en el estado. Porque un prínçipe nuebo [...] (XXIV, 82i) S13 O: [...] la variazione delli ordini. E queste sono di quelle cose che, di nuovo ordinate, dánno reputazione e grandeza a uno principe nuovo. Non si deba, adunque, lasciare passare questa occasione [...] (XXVI, 132-133) T: [...] la bariación de los hórdenes. No se deue pues pasar esta ocasión [...] (XXVI, 91i)

Queremos terminar este apartado incluyendo un caso de supresión en el plano de la sintaxis que se refiere a la conjunción coordinada adversativa “ma” con la que Maquiavelo comienza algunos capítulos marcando así el contraste de lo que tratará a continuación frente a lo expuesto en el capítulo anterior. En nuestra traducción esta conjunción viene eliminada en los capítulos III y VIII, mientras que en el IX se traduce como “pero”.

5.4. Errores Hemos encontrado un buen número de errores, pero en general son resultado de un descuido del traductor más que de una mala comprensión del original o de la falta de competencia traductora. Así, nos encontramos casos como el de E1, en el que falta la marca de plural; E2, donde no ha terminado de escribir la palabra; o la repetición que aparece en E3: E1 O: Rispondo come e’ principati, de quali si ha memoria, si truovano governati in dua modi diversi: [...] (IV, 18) T: Respondo que los principados de los quales ai memoria sean gouernado[s] de dos modos diuerssos: [...] (IV, 12d) E2 O: [...] in modo che insieme con loro si periclita. (VI, 27) T: [...] de suer [...] que en ellos juntamente peligra. (VI, 19d)

La primera traducción española

157

E3 O: Perché simile principe non può fondarse sopra a quello che vede ne’ tempi quieti, quando e’ cittadini hanno bisogno dello stato [...] (IX, 50) T: Porque semejante prínçipe no puede fundarse sobre lo que be en los tiempos quietos, quando quando los ciudadanos tienen necessidad del estado [...] (IX, 35d)

Otros errores solo son comprensibles si se interpretan como una posible confusión en la lectura del original, pero creemos que por distracción y no por falta de conocimiento de la lengua italiana: E4 O: [...] come fe’ Pisa dopo cento anni che ella era posta in servitú da’ fiorentini [...] (V, 23) T: [...] como hiço Pisa después de tantos años que auía estado sujeta a los florentinos [...] (V, 16d) E5 O: Aveva Alessandro sesto, nel voler far grande el duca suo figliuolo assai difficultà presenti e future. (VII, 31) T: Tenía Alexandro quarto muchas dificultades presentes y futuras en querer açer grande al duque su ijo. (VII, 22d) E6 O: [...] lo impedivano dua cose: l’una, l’arme sua che non li parevano fideli, l’altra, la voluntad di Francia: [...] (VII, 32) T: [...] le impedía dos cossas: la una sus armas que no le parecían fáçiles, la otra la voluntad de Françia [...] (VII, 23d) E7 O: Costui, nato d’uno figulo, tenne sempre, per li gradi della sua età, vita scellerata; [...] (VIII, 41) T: Éste, nacido de un ollero, viuió siempre mal por los grados de su fortuna [...] (VIII, 29i)

Hay, sin embargo, algunos errores que sí denotan una mala comprensión del original, aunque son pocos: E8 O: [...] questi per coniunzione e obbligo, quello per potenzia, avendo coniunto seco el regno di Francia. (VII, 40) T: [...] estos por parentesco y obligaçión, al qual por poder, teniendo junto consigo el reino de Francia. (VII, 28i) E9 O: E, benché da’ Cartaginesi fussi dua volte rotto et demum assediato, non solum possé defendere la sua cità, ma [...] (VIII, 42) T: [...] y aunque los cartajineses le dieron dos rotas y últimamente le sitiaron, no solamente no pudo defender su çiudad, pero [...] (VIII, 29i)

158

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

E10 O: Quelli che si obbligano, e non sieno rapaci, si debbono onorare et amare [...] (IX, 48) T: Los que se obligan y no son crueles, rapaçes deuen honrar y amar: [...] (IX, 34i) E11 O: Il che comincerà a farlo odioso con sudditi, e poco stimare da nessuno, diventando povero [...] (XVI, 78) T: Lo qual empieça ha hacerle odiosso con los súbditos y poco estimado de qualquiera estado pobre [...] (XVI, 52d)

Por último, queremos señalar otro error de traducción que probablemente deriva de la falta de conocimiento del contexto cultural en el que la frase tuvo su origen. Veamos el ejemplo: E12 O: Onde che a Carlo re di Fracia fu licito pigliare la Italia col gesso [...] (XII, 59) T: De donde naçió que a Carlos Rei de Françia le fue lícito cojer a Italia como pudo [...] (XII, 41d)

Esta expresión que utiliza Maquiavelo ha sido atribuida a Alejandro VI, con la cual se habría referido a la facilidad con la que Carlos VIII ocupó Italia en el año 1494: “con el yeso” en la mano para señalar los lugares donde se iban a alojar.50 Probablemente, nuestro traductor no tenía noticia de esta anécdota y tradujo de manera imprecisa con “como pudo”.

5.5. Otras cuestiones En este apartado queremos tratar otras cuestiones que caracterizan la microestructura de esta traducción. La primera de ellas es la ingente cantidad de variantes que aparecen dentro del texto. Estas variantes afectan tanto a sustantivos, adjetivos y verbos como a locuciones adverbiales, y pueden aparecer seguidas al primer término que se propone, en yuxtaposición — separadas por una coma — o en coordinación disyuntiva — mediante la conjunción “o” —. En algunos casos la variante no mejora la primera traducción ni la empeora, como ocurre en los ejemplos V2, V5, V6, V7, V12, etc.; en otros casos, sin embargo, la variante resulta más apropiada, como es el caso de V8 o V13; mientras que otras veces la variante es menos adecuada, como ocurre en V14. En primer lugar, veamos algunos ejemplos referidos a sustantivos:

50

Véase Machiavelli, Il principe, ed. de Chabod, p. 59, n. 2.

La primera traducción española

159

V1 O: [...] et acquistonsi, o con le armi d’altri o con le proprie, o per fortuna o per virtú. (I, 4) T: [...] y conquistanse o con las armas de otros o con las propias o por fortuna o por valor, virtud. (II, 2i) V2 O: [...] e, se si considerranno le azioni et ordini loro particulari, parranno non discrepanti da quelli di Moisè, che ebbe sí gran precettore. (VI, 26) T: [...] y si se consideran las acciones y sus órdenes particulares, no parecerán diferentes de las de Moisés, bien que él tubo tan gran maestro o preceptor. (VI, 18i) V3 T: [...] tengono sempre nelle cànove pubbliche da bere e da mangiare [...] (X, 52) O: [...] y tienen siempre en las alhóndigas o bodegas públicas de comen y de veuer [...] (X, 36d) V4 O: [...] e quando sia tenerlo con le leggi che non passi el segno. (XII, 61) T: [...] y cuando lo fuesse tenerle con las leies sin que pase la raia señal. (XII, 42i)

Otros ejemplos afectan a los verbos: V5 O: Io lascerò in dietro el ragionare delle republiche [...] (II, 4) T: No quiero raçonar o discurrir de las repúblicas [...] (II, 2i) V6 O: [...] come ne’ nostri tempi intervenne a fra’ Girolamo Savonarola [...] (VI, 28) T: [...] como en nuestros tiempos aconteçió suçedió a frai Gerónimo Sabonarola [...] (VI, 20i) V7 O: E’ Viniziani, mossi, come io credo, dalle ragioni soprascritte, nutrivano le sétte guelfe e ghibelline [...] (XX, 106) T: Los veneçianos mouidos, según creo, de las racones dichas alimentauan fomentauan las facçiones guelfas y gilbellinas [...] (XX, 72d) V8 O: E, poiché la materia lo ricerca, non voglio lasciare indietro ricordare a’ principi, che [...] (XX, 108) T: Y pues la materia lo pide, no quiero poner en olvido omitir el recordar a un príncipe que [...] (XX, 73d)

160

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

Encontramos varios casos de variantes para adjetivos: V9 O: [...] e per il mezzo loro poteva facilmente assicurarsi di chi ci restava grande. (III, 14) T: [...] y por medio de ellos podía fácilmente asegurarse de quien le restaua poderoso o grande. (III, 9d) V10 O: Non si può ancora chiamare virtú ammazzare li sua, tradire li amici, essere senza fede [...] (VIII, 42) T: No se puede tampoco llamar valor matar sus ciudadanos, ser traidor entregar los amigos, no tener fe [...] (VIII, 29d) V11 O: [...] ma da’ grandi, inimici, non solo debbe temere di essere abbandonato, ma etiam che loro li venghino contro; [...] (IX, 47) T: [...] pero de los grandes enemigos no solo deue temersse el ser abandonado, desamparado sino también que se acometan; [...] (IX, 33d) V12 O: [...] perché l’amore è tenuto da uno vinculo di obbligo, il quale, per essere li uomini tristi [...] (XVII, 83) T: [...] porque el amor se conserua con una atadura de obligaçión, la qual por ser los hombres malos, vellacos [...] (XVII, 55d)

Y también para algunas locuciones adverbiales: V13 O: [...] come è detto, per potere con quelli tenere el papa in freno; [...] (VII, 36) T: [...] por poder con ello, como e dicho, tener al papa en freno a raia [...] (VII, 26i) V14 O: [...] debbe l’occupatore di esso discorrere tutte quelle offese che li è necessario fare, e tutte farle a un tratto [...] (VIII, 45) T: [...] deue el ocupador de él discurrir y obrar todas las crueldades de una vez en un ynstante [...] (VIII, 32i) V15 O: An arces et multa alia quae cotidie a principibus fiunt utilia an inutilia sint. (Título capítulo XX, 104) T: Si las fortaleças y otras muchas cosas que haçen muchas veçes a menudo los príncipes sean útiles o nocivas. (Título capítulo XX, 71i)

En segundo lugar queremos examinar la traducción de los conceptos de “virtud” y fortuna”, cuya conjunción permite, según Maquiavelo, la correcta actuación del príncipe. Hemos observado una total fidelidad en la traducción del término it. “fortuna”, que viene traducido con su correspondiente esp. “fortuna”, mientras que para el término it. “virtù”, el traductor se ha movido

La primera traducción española

161

entre una traducción literal con el correspondiente etimológico esp. “virtud” y una traducción que interpreta quizá mejor el concepto maquiavelista con el término esp. “valor”, que encontramos en varios pasajes.51 En tercer lugar, tomaremos en consideración los latinismos y las citas en latín presentes en la obra original, dejando aparte la traducción de los títulos de los capítulos, que es siempre correcta. Respecto a los latinismos, observamos en los siguientes ejemplos una traducción adecuada: O: personaliter (VI, 25); T: personalmente (VI, 17d) O: etiam (VI, 29); T: aun (VI, 20d) O: et demum (VIII, 42); T: últimamente (VIII, 29i) O: preterea (IX, 47); T: también (IX, 33d) O: quodammodo (XIX, 98); T: en cierta manera (XIX, 66d) O: et praesertim (XX, 107); T: especialmente (XX, 73i) O: funditus (XX, 109); T: de los fundamentos (XX, 74d)

Veamos ahora las citas. La primera aparece en el capítulo VI cuando se habla de la gran virtud de Hierón de Siracusa y Maquiavelo cita esta frase del historiador Justino. Vemos que la traducción es correcta: O: [...] quod nihil illi deerat ad regnadum praeter regnum. (VI, 29) T: [...] que no le faltaua para reinar más que el reino. (VI, 20d)

La segunda pertenece a Tácito y parece citada de memoria por Maquiavelo. Se encuentra en el capítulo XIII en el pasaje conclusivo donde se insiste en que ningún principado está al seguro si no tiene ejército. La frase está traducida en todo su sentido: O: [...] quod nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile, quam fama potentiae non sua vi nixa. (XIII, 71-72) T: [...] que ninguna cossa es tan poco firme e inestable como la fama del poder no fundada en las fuerças propias. (XIII, 48i)

Deja, sin embargo, sin traducir, aunque aparecen subrayados, los versos que Virgilio pone en boca de Dido en La Eneida y que Maquiavelo cita en el capítulo XVII al afirmar que, de todos los príncipes, es el nuevo al que le resulta imposible evitar la fama de cruel porque el estado está lleno de peligros (O): Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt / Moliri, et late fines custode tueri (XVII, 82). La última cita latina está tomada de Tito Livio y aparece en el capítulo XXI cuando Maquiavelo trata la conveniencia o no de la neutralidad del 51

Véase V1 y V10.

162

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

príncipe en conflictos ajenos. Observamos que la traducción de la parte final no es correcta: la traducción apropiada no sería “premiado del vencedor” (o “por el vencedor” en español actual), sino “premio/trofeo del vencedor”: O: “Quod autem isti dicunt non interponendi vos bello, nihil magis alienum rebus vestris est; sine gratia, sine dignitate, praemium victoris eritis”. (XXI, 114) T: Quanto a la parte que diçe es mui bueno y vtilíssimo a buestro estado el no entremeteros en nuestra guerra nada os es más contrario, pues no os entremetiendo ynterviniendo sin agradeçimiento y sin reputaçión alguna quedaréis premiado del vençedor. (XXI, 77i)

Están también traducidos los versos de la Canción a Italia de Petrarca con los que Maquiavelo cierra su obra. La traducción es literal pero presenta un error: la confusión entre “fauor” y “furor”, que ya había señalado Gerber, III, p. 118. O: Virtù contro a furore / Prenderà l’arme; e fia el combatter corto: / Ché l’antico valore / Nelli italici cor non è ancor morto. (XXVI, 133) T: La virtud contra el fauor, / tomará las armas y será el combate / breue que el antiguo valor / aún no está muerto en los cora- / zones italianos. (XXVI, 91d)

Queremos retomar aquí una cuestión a la que ya aludimos al hablar del traductor y es la presencia constante de casos de leísmo, que podría, como ya dijimos, situar los orígenes del traductor en Castilla la Vieja y León, sobre todo, o en Alcalá y Madrid. Estos casos suelen tener un referente masculino singular de persona o masculino singular no persona inanimado. Presentamos algunos ejemplos: T: Matarle (XII, 43d); referente “el Conde de Carmagnola” T: Le tenía (XIX, 68i); referente “un centurión de Antonio Caracalla” T: Mantenerle (III, 5i); referente “el estado” T. Le diuidió (III, 10i); referente “el reino de Nápoles”

Hemos de señalar, además, una clara preferencia por el uso del conector “de suerte que”, que es de tipo “consecutivo”, para traducir los conectores consecutivos del original “in modo che”, “talmente che” “sì che”, “tanto che”, “di qualità che”, “altrimenti”, etc. Concluimos este apartado proponiendo la traducción de algunos de los pasajes fundamentales del pensamiento de Maquiavelo, que ponen de manifiesto que, dejando aparte algunos descuidos, el traductor ha realizado una atenta labor. En el capítulo III, cuando se tratan los principados mixtos, Maquiavelo menciona las “medicinas fuertes”, que era una expresión muy usada en la prosa política de aquel periodo, y la traducción es literal:

La primera traducción española

163

O: [...] e por non potere tu usare contro di loro medicine forti, sendo loto obbligato; [...] (III, 6) T: [...] y por no poder usar contra ellos mediçinas fuertes, por estarles obligado [...] (III, 3d)

Unas páginas más adelante se relaciona la cuestión de esta “medicina” con la capacidad necesaria al príncipe de prever los problemas; también en este caso el traductor ha comprendido la idea y la ha traducido correctamente: O: [...] perché, prevedendosi discosto, facilmente vi si può rimediare, ma, aspettando che ti si appressino la medicina non è a tempo, perché la malattia è diventata incurabile. (III, 11) T: [...] porque, mirándolos de lejos, fácilmente se pueden remediar, pero aguardando a que se acerquen no llega la medicina a tiempo porque la enfemedad se iço yncurable [...] (III, 3d)

En el mismo capítulo, hablando de la buena actuación de los romanos, se critica la idea de gozar del beneficio del tiempo, idea extendida en la época de Maquiavelo. También en este caso el traductor ha comprendido el texto y lo ha traducido de modo impecable: O: Né piacque mai loro quello [...] di godere el benefizio del tempo [...] perché el tempo si caccia inanzi ogni cosa, e può condurre seco bene come male, e male come bene. (III, 12) T: No les agradó nunca [...] goçar los beneficios del tiempo [...] porque el tiempo se muda ante todas cosas y puede traer consigo bienes como males, males como vienes. (III, 8d)

En el capítulo VI, al tratar el principado nuevo, se considera necesaria la conjunción entre virtud y fortuna ya que, aunque un príncipe posea la virtud, le será necesaria la ocasión que proporciona la fortuna para poder poner en acto su virtud; y sin la virtud, la ocasión se perderá. Es otro pasaje traducido con éxito: O: [...] non si vede che quelli avessino altro dalla fortuna che la occasione [...] e sanza quella occasione la virtù dello animo loro si sarebbe spenta, e sanza quella virtù la occasione sarebbe venuta invano. (VI, 26) T: [...] no se uerá que ellos hubiessen de la fortuna más que la ocassión [...] y sin la ocassión la virtud de su ánimo se apagaría y sin la virtud la ocassión saldría bana. (VI, 18i)

Se traduce de modo correcto también el siguiente pasaje del capítulo XV, considerado de gran importancia pues confirma que Maquiavelo no pretendía proponer al príncipe una serie de virtudes morales ideales, sino los medios efectivos que le permitieran conquistar y mantener el Estado, aunque éstos no siempre respetaran la ética y la moral comúnmente aceptadas:

164

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

O: [...] mi è parso più conveniente andare drieto alla verità effettuale della cosa che alla immaginazione di essa. (XV, 76) T: [...] me ha pareçido más conveniente yr tras la uerdad efectiua de la cossa que seguir la su imajinaçión. (XV, 51i)

En el capítulo XVII, Maquiavelo trata la cuestión de si es mejor para el príncipe ser amado o temido y el traductor vuelve a interpretar correctamente el texto original: O: Respondesi, che si vorrebbe essere l’uno e l’altro; ma, perché elli difficile accozzarli insieme, è molto più sicuro essere temuto che amato, quando si abbia a mancare dell’uno de’ dua. (XVII, 83) T: Respóndesse que ser vno y otro, mas porque es dificultosso que estén juntos es mucho más seguro el ser temido que amado quando se aia de faltar del uno de los dos. (XVII, 55i)

Otro pasaje que ha sido traducido de manera adecuada es el que discute sobre la necesidad del príncipe de mantener su palabra: O: Non può per tanto uno signore preudente, né debbe, osservare la fede, quando tale osservazione li torni contro, e che sono spente le cagioni che la fecciono promettere. (XVIII, 87) T: No puede pues vn señor prudente, ni deue guardar la fe quando la obseruaçión le es contraria y que no subsisten las causas que le içieron prometer. (XVIII, 58d)

Se traduce también correctamente el pasaje en el que Maquiavelo resume el buen proceder del príncipe nuevo en el capítulo en el que explica por qué los príncipes italianos perdieron sus estados: O: E cosí arà duplicata gloria, di avere dato principio a uno principato nuovo, et ornatolo e corroboratolo di buone legge, di buone arme, di buoni amici e di buoni esempli; come quello ha duplicata vergogna, che, nato principe, lo ha per sua poca prudenzia perduto. (XXIV, 122) T: Y así tendrá doblada gloria por auer dado prinçipio a un principado nuebo y adornándole y fortaleçiéndole de buenas leies, de buenas armas, de buenos amigos y de buenos exemplos; como aquel tendrá doblada berguença que naçió prínçipe y por su poca prudençia lo perdió. (XXIV, 82i)

El último ejemplo que queremos presentar se refiere al dramático pasaje del capítulo final en el que Maquiavelo pide la intervención de la casa de Lorenzo de Medici para salvar a Italia de su complicada situación. El pasaje viene resuelto con éxito por parte del traductor: O: Ne osso esprimere con quale amore e’ fussi ricevuto [...]; con che sete di vendetta, con che ostinata fede, con che pietà, con che lacrime. Quali porte se li serrerebbano? Quali populi li negherebbano la obedienzia? Quale invidia se li opporrebbe? Quale Italiano li negherebbe l’ossequio? (XXVI, 133)

La primera traducción española

165

T: Ni puedo explicar con qué amor serà reçibido [...], con quánta sed de vengança, con qué obstinada fe, con qué piedad, con qué lágrimas. ¿Qué puertas se le cerrarán? ¿Qué pueblos le negarán la obediençia? ¿Qué enuidia se le opondrá? ¿Qué ytaliano le negará la reverençia? (XXVI, 91i)

6. Conclusiones A lo largo del análisis de este manuscrito que contiene la primera traducción de Il principe, hemos llegado a una serie de conclusiones que se refieren al original sobre el que ésta se basa, al traductor y su competencia traductora, a la finalidad de esta traducción y su posible receptor, así como a la traducción entendida como proceso y como resultado.52 Respecto al original, creemos que después del cotejo de los pasajes señalados en § 3.1. y del análisis paleográfico y filológico del manuscrito, podemos presentar como hipótesis la posibilidad de que la fuente de nuestra traducción fuera la Testina y que, por tanto, el manuscrito perteneciera al siglo XVII. Aunque no conocemos el nombre del traductor, su trabajo nos ha permitido establecer algunas características importantes de su persona y de su labor intelectual, y afirmar que cumple las ya mencionadas cualidades del buen traductor de los Siglos de Oro. En primer lugar, es un buen conocedor tanto de la lengua original como de la lengua meta: no hay prácticamente errores de comprensión y los de expresión obedecen a pequeñas distracciones; podemos apreciar, además, su interés por la lengua de llegada a través de la gran cantidad de variantes que hallamos en el texto, que son un claro indicador de su preocupación por proponer una traducción adecuada, lo más fiel posible al original y lo más acertada posible en la lengua meta. Este gran número de variantes viene a demostrar también, en parte, la confianza del traductor en la capacidad de su propia lengua — el castellano de aquel periodo — para la traducción, cuestión que podemos relacionar con la idea de traducción centrípeta, que hemos visto en § 2.2., es decir, la traducción como recurso de la lengua vulgar para elevarse hasta la universalidad del modelo clásico. Presenta, igualmente, nuestro traductor un buen conocimiento de la lengua latina, como lo demuestra la correcta traducción de los pasajes que en el original aparecían en esta lengua. En segundo lugar, se trata de un traductor que parece dominar la materia sobre la que traduce, pues es capaz 52

Para la traducción como proceso y como resultado, véase Valentín García Yebra, Teoría y práctica de la traducción, 2 vols., 2º ed. (Madrid: Gredos, 1997), I, p. 31 y ss.

166

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

de comentar en las notas al margen otros episodios históricos y relacionarlos con las palabras del autor; es, además, un traductor interesado en la materia que tiene entre manos, como lo demuestran los comentarios en nota; parece involucrarse en el contenido de la obra, opina cuando lo considera necesario y subraya los pasajes que le parecen significativos. En tercer lugar, es un traductor que se mantiene fiel al original, tanto desde un punto de vista estilístico como en lo que se refiere a los contenidos. Todo lo dicho hasta ahora sobre el traductor y su labor nos permite afirmar que poseía una buena competencia traductora. Volviendo a la cuestión de la finalidad de esta traducción, parece lógico pensar en una traducción privada de tipo funcional, dado su aspecto casi de “borrador”, con tachaduras, notas y pasajes subrayados, quizá para uso del mismo traductor o para alguien de su confianza que no conociera la lengua italiana pero que estuviera interesado en la obra de Maquiavelo. En el caso de esta segunda hipótesis, podemos retomar aquí la cuestión de la finalidad didascálica de la traducción en este periodo: probablemente, esta traducción sirvió para acercar las ideas del autor a alguien que no las podía entender en la lengua italiana. Por lo tanto, presenta una finalidad de tipo divulgativo en beneficio del lector y centrada en la materia, propia de lo que hemos llamado una traducción centrífuga. Si nos centramos en la traducción, podemos extraer diferentes conclusiones, ya se entienda ésta como proceso o como resultado. Entendida la traducción como proceso, observamos que el traductor se ha servido de una serie de estrategias que le han permitido trasladar los contenidos del original de la manera más fiel posible. Respecto a las intervenciones del traductor, las adiciones y modificaciones localizadas van generalmente encaminadas a aclarar o facilitar la comprensión del original y son, además, intervenciones mínimas; las supresiones obedecen a pequeños descuidos del traductor y no a una voluntad de omitir o censurar algún pasaje del original; y los errores son pocos y también resultado de distracciones o despistes del traductor y no de una mala comprensión o de una mala traducción. Por último, hemos de recordar la gran cantidad de variantes que ofrece este manuscrito, la mayoría de las cuales mejora la primera traducción dada, especialmente las que van en nota al margen, que probablemente fueron añadidas en una segunda lectura y son el resultado de una mayor reflexión. Estas variantes manifiestan un claro interés del traductor por su labor y son señal de una clara reflexión sobre la lengua y los recursos lingüísticos. Si tenemos en cuenta la traducción como resultado, podemos afirmar que nos hallamos frente a una traducción fiel al original, tanto en estilo del autor como en el contenido de la obra. El estilo de Maquiavelo se ve fuertemente

La primera traducción española

167

mediatizado por su proceder discursivo, de carácter dilemático, tanto en el análisis como en la reflexión, lo que le lleva a proponer generalmente dos soluciones extremas y antitéticas a través de construcciones disyuntivas, concluyendo su análisis con proposiciones causales y construcciones de carácter conclusivo, sintaxis que viene respetada y trasladada con gran fidelidad en nuestra traducción. Se respetan también, en general, los constantes cambios en el uso de los pronombres — paso de tercera a segunda persona, del singular al plural, etc. —, recreando en el texto meta la misma sensación de espontaneidad del original, que se refuerza también por la traducción de los frecuentes anacolutos y rupturas del periodo. Como ya hemos dicho, solo a veces se pierde parte de la espontaneidad de la obra original cuando algunas formas de segunda persona utilizadas por el autor para establecer el diálogo con el lector vienen sustituidas por formas impersonales. Se han traducido correctamente también los aforismos y máximas que se alternan con momentos de finísima ironía, así como las imágenes que apelan a los sentidos. Respecto al contenido de la obra original, remitimos a los ejemplos presentados en la parte final de § 5.5., que se refieren a algunos de los pasajes más significativos y cuya traducción demuestra cómo el traductor ha comprendido el contenido y lo ha traducido de manera escrupulosa. Por otro lado, a pesar de que esta traducción fue realizada cuando Maquiavelo ya había sido prohibido en España, no se ha localizado ningún caso de censura o manipulación de sus ideas, ni ningún intento de enmascarar o suavizar sus palabras, ni siquiera las de aquellos pasajes más duros.

Bibliografía Arbulu Barturen, María Begoña, ‘Recepción y fortuna de «Il principe» de Maquiavelo en España’, en Maquiavelo y Beccaria en ámbito iberoamericano, ed. de M. Begoña Arbulu Barturen y Sandra Bagno (Padova: Unipress, 2006), pp. 3-43 Bertelli, Sergio e Piero Innocenti, Bibliografia machiavelliana (Verona: Valdonega, 1979) Bertini, Giovanni Maria, ‘La fortuna di Machiavelli in Spagna’, Quaderni ibero-americani, 2 (1946-47), pp. 21-22, 25-26 Castiglione, Baltasar di, El Cortesano, trad. de Juan Boscán, estudio preliminar de M. Menéndez y Pelayo (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1942)

168

María Begoña Arbulu Barturen

Elliott, John H., La España imperial, 1469-1716, 2ª ed. (Barcelona: VicensVives, 1972) García Marín, José María, ‘Inquisición y poder absoluto (siglos XVI-XVII)’, Revista de la Inquisición, 1 (1991), pp. 105-119 Genette, Gerard, Palimpsestos: la literatura en segundo grado, trad. de Celia Fernández Prieto (Madrid: Taurus, 1989) Gerber, Adolf, Niccolò Machiavelli. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen seiner Werke im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, 3 vols. (Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1962) Hurtado Albir, Amparo, Traducción y traductología: introducción a la traductología (Madrid: Cátedra, 2001) Inventario General de Manuscritos de la Biblioteca Nacional, 13 vols. (Madrid: Ministerio de Educación Nacional, Dirección General de Archivos y Bibliotecas, Servicio de Publicaciones, 1957), III Lambert, José y Hendrik van Gorp, ‘On Describing Translations’, en The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translations, ed. de Theo Hermans (London-Sydney: Croom Helm Ltd., 1985), pp. 42-53 Lapesa, Rafael, Historia de la lengua española, 9ª ed. (Madrid: Gredos, 1984) Macek, Josef, Machiavelli e il machiavellismo (Firenze: La nuova Italia, 1980) Machiavelli, Niccolò, Il principe, Introduzione e note di Federico Chabod, Colezione di Classici Italiani (Torino: Unione Tipografico-Editrice, 1927), XXXV ——., Il principe. Facsimile dell’edizione originale impressa in Roma da Antonio Blado nel 1532. Introduzione di Federico Chabod. (Torino: Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese, 1960) Maravall, José Antonio, ‘Maquiavelo y maquiavelismo en España’, en Estudios de historia del pensamiento español, 4 vols. (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 1999), III, pp. 39-72 Martín Zorraquino, M. Antonia y José Pórtoles, ‘Los marcadores del discurso’, en Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, ed. de Ignacio Bosque y Violeta Demonte, 3 vols. (Madrid: Espasa, 1999), III, pp. 40514213 Mirete, José Luis, ‘Maquiavelo y la «recepción de su teoría del estado en España» (siglos XVI y XVII)’, Anales de derecho, 19 (2001), pp. 139-144 Puigdomènech, Helena, Maquiavelo en España. Presencia de sus obras en los siglos XVI y XVII (Madrid: Fundación Universitaria Española, 1988)

La primera traducción española

169

Rigobon, Patrizio, ‘Le traduzioni spagnole de Il Principe di Niccolò Machiavelli. Appunti per una storia’, Annali di Ca' Foscari, XXV-2 (1986), pp. 143-162 Rius Gatel, Rosa y Montserrat Casas Nadal, ‘De una traducción temprana e inédita de El Principe (MS 1084, BNM)’ en Maquiavelo y España: maquiavelismo y antimaquiavelismo en la cultura española de los siglos XVI y XVII, ed. de Juan Manuel Forte y Pablo López Álvarez (Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva, 2008), pp. 181-202 Ruiz Casanova, José Francisco, Aproximación a una historia de la traducción en España (Madrid: Cátedra, 2000) Russel, Peter, Traducciones y traductores en la Península Ibérica (14001550) (Bellaterra: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, 1985) Santoyo, Julio César, Teoría y crítica de la traducción. Antología (Bellaterra: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, 1987) ——., ‘Aspectos de la reflexión traductora en el Siglo de Oro español’, en Historia de la Traducción: quince apuntes (León: Ediciones Universidad de León, 1999), pp. 71-83 ——., ‘Traducciones cotidianas en la Edad Media: una parcela olvidada’, en Historia de la Traducción: quince apuntes, pp. 9-34 Terracini, Lore, ‘Unas calas en el concepto de traducción en el Siglo de Oro español’, en Actas del III Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española, ed. de A. Alonso González, L. Castro Ramos, B. Gutiérrez Rodilla y J.A. Pascual Rodríguez (Madrid: Arco Libros, 1996), I, pp. 939-954 Valdés, Juan de, Diálogo de la lengua castellana, ed. de Cristina Barbolani, 8ª ed. (Madrid: Cátedra, 2006)

Francesca Terrenato

The first Dutch translation Abstract: The present paper focuses on the first Dutch translation of the Prince, printed in 1615. In the introduction, it provides some information on the historical and political situation in the Low Countries at the time, in order to evaluate the impact of this translation. The activity of the translator, Adam van Nyevelt, and that of the printer, Nicolaes Biestkens, are then set against the background of Machiavelli’s reception and Dutch political writings in general. The discussion of the Dutch text, which follows, articulates in a double comparison with the French text that was its source and the original. Common features in the two versions and original aspects of the Dutch version emerge from textual analysis based on excerpts; the Dutch translator’s choices are interpreted in the light of his specific cultural context.

1. Introduction The Dutch culture of the Renaissance found its nourishment in numerous translations. Not only the great classical works were translated but also contemporary Italian works, starting from around 1550, were adapted into Dutch.1 These works had an exemplary function for their content as well as for their style and vocabulary at a time in which Dutch was actively promoted as a scholarly and literary language, in the frame of the emancipation process through which the Northern provinces of the Low Countries became independent from Spain and developed into the Republic of the United Provinces. This is the context in which the first Dutch translation of Machiavelli’s Prince appeared. It went to press in 1615, but it had probably been accomplished twenty years before. It has to be noted that it also represents the first translation into a Germanic language to access the librarian market. Its appearance in the Low Countries at a time of political unrest such as the first half of the seventeenth century was, can be of great significance in evaluating the impact that the ideas contained in this early modern mirrorfor-princes could have in a country which was struggling to create its independent political identity. But we always have to be cautious in taking 1

Two significant examples of this intense activity are the translation of Boccaccio’s Decameron, by the engraver and scholar Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert (published in 1564) and the translation of Vasari’s Lives of Italian Artists, which appeared in 1603-4 as a chapter in the Book of Painting (Schilder-boeck) by Karel van Mander, painter and writer of Flemish origin, working in Haarlem.

172

Francesca Terrenato

translation as historical evidence. In a recent study on the translation of political theory in early modern Europe Baldwin states that: “One aspect of the past that is often inaccessible is the motives of the translators, some of whom were anonymous and often obscure.”2 General or specific interest, curiosity, profit or relevance to a particular political situation can all be counted among the motives for translating a book of political theory. It is difficult for us to assess which of them played a role, especially when the translator does not directly address his readers. Furthermore, although this does not seem to be the case, a misjudgement on the translator’s part about the demand for a specific book might also be a consideration. “Despite this,” writes Baldwin, “it is permissible to assume that a translated text was felt to be appropriate or interesting for its new political culture.”3 This statement is certainly applicable to this Dutch version of the Prince. The relevance of this translation to the political state of affairs in the Low Countries in the years between 1595 (when it was probably completed) and 1615 (when it was printed) can be better evaluated if we briefly summarize the Dutch history of the period. While fighting the Eighty Years’ War (15681648) against Spain, the northern provinces of the Low Countries developed an autonomous form of government, relying on their local tradition. The provinces met in the States-General assembly which was the most powerful institution; among these, the rich province of Holland played a preeminent role. The title of raadpensionaris (literally council pensioner, or provincial lawyer) of the province of Holland gained an absolute political predominance in the 1580s, thanks to Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, the most powerful man in his time, who was about to come to a clash with the stadhouder (literally town-keeper, or lieutenant), namely prince Maurits van Oranje, successor of Willem, known as the Silent, or father of the fatherland, the man who had first led the rebellion. The role of stadhouder was a very ambiguous one: originally, this was the title given by the Habsburg emperor, later by the King of Spain, to his representatives in the Low Countries. It is with Willem van Oranje that the stadhouder abandoned his role of vassal of a foreign monarch to become a military leader under the direction of the States-General. Some of the prerogatives of the stadhouder are undeniably reminiscent of monarchic power: although not by law, the title is in fact transmitted from father to son or next male descendant inside the Oranje-Nassau family; he is in command of the national army and fleet; he has the right to appoint 2

3

Geoffrey P. Baldwin, ‘The Translation of Political Theory in Early Modern Europe’, in Cultural Translation in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Peter Burke and R. Po-chia Hsia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 101-124 (p. 105). Baldwin, pp. 101-124 (p. 105).

The first Dutch translation

173

municipal authorities. Despite his great power and influence he is considered a servant of the States-General. These ambiguities were destined to arouse political contrasts which would lead to serious internal strife in the active and rich Republic of the Seven Provinces. Starting with the bloody resolution of the contrast between prince Maurits and Van Oldenbarnevelt, who ended up beheaded for high treason in 1619, the stadhouder was going to develop into a more and more autarchic figure. Maurits, supported by the orthodox Calvinist faction, would exert a radical influence on the strong local administration, supporting severe Calvinist preachers in their appointment to important political posts. The translation was completed earlier than this developments: these were the years in which the young Maurits was mainly occupied in military actions and was to become that capacious general able to defeat the Spanish army in many occasions. Twenty years later, the publication of this translation falls on exactly in a period in which internal strife in the Republic had reached its peak. Remonstrants, supporters of a less inflexible interpretation of the Calvinist doctrine and, up to a certain degree, favourable to religious liberty, became the political faction of influential political and intellectual figures, such as Van Oldenbarnevelt, opposing theocracy and religious intolerance. Contra-remonstrants, orthodox Calvinists eager to broaden the range of their political action, gave their support to Maurits, who was not the least interested in matters of predestination, but might take advantage of a wide popular support in his attempt to prevail on the powerful Van Oldenbarnevelt. With the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618 the Remonstrants were defeated. Maurits, who was going to die in 1625, suffered a loss of prestige due to his role in the condemnation of the old raadpensionaris. Conflicts between the States-General and the princely stadhouders were a constant feature of Dutch politics in the seventeenth century, when there was an alternation between stadhouder and non-stadhouder times.4

4

For insight into the history of the Dutch Republic see: Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806 (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1995), particularly pp. 233-472.

174

Francesca Terrenato

2. The book and its author The book was first printed in 1615, without mention of the place or name of the printer. It opens with a translation of the Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, followed by the Prince. Its full title reads: De discoursen van Nicolaes Machiavel Florentyn over de tien eerste boecken van Titus Livius leerende hoemen alle raetslaghen, ende daden, inde republijcken, of gemeine landts regerieringhen, nae t' exempel van de oude Romeinen, wel ofte qualijck sal aenlegghen ende volbringhen: hier is by gevoecht des selven autheursboeck, vanden Prince, hoe hem een vorst in syn regieringhe draghen, aenstellen sal / beijde uit den Italiaenschen in onse Nederduytsche tale overgeset door A.van Nievelt, 1615. (The Discourses of Nicolaes Machiavel Florentine on the Ten First [sic!] Books of Titus Livius, where it is taught how to conceive and take, by the use of with honest and dishonest means, all decisions and actions in republics, or common governments in a country; in addition a book by the same author on the Prince, and on how a monarch shall behave and fake in his government; both translated from Italian into our Netherlandish idiom by A. van Nievelt, 1615.)

The Discourses-Prince combination was a recurring one in previous French translations of Machiavelli’s works. The first Discourses by Jacques Gohory – Prince by Gaspard D’Auvergne edition appeared in France in 1571 and was reprinted at least eleven times before 1606.5 The Dutch translator, Adam van Zuylen van Nyevelt (also spelled Nievelt or Nieveld), used one of these editions as his source. Van Nyevelt’s translation is the first Dutch version of a work by Machiavelli, and was reprinted twice (the first, dating from 1625, without mention of the name of the publisher, the 1652-3 reprint in Leiden by Thomas Fonteyn).6 Daniel Ghys’ translations of a wide range of Machiavellian political and historical works, which appeared starting from 1703, comprised a new translation of the Prince with the annotations by

5

6

A. Gerber, Niccolò Machiavelli. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen seiner Werke im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Con un profilo dell’autore a cura di L. Firpo (Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1962), p. 45 and ff. Later in the century another work by Machiavelli appeared in Dutch: the novella Belfagor, added as a supplement to the Spiegel der quade vrouwen (The Mirror of Bad Women), by P.B. Minnebroeder (Amsterdam: by Broer and Jan Appelder, 1668). For information on Machiavelli’s editions in the Low Countries see Gerber, pp. 113-115. The German scholar had no knowledge of the 1625 reprint of Nyevelt’s translation. In relation to Belfagor Gerber thinks the novella was translated from an original source (Gerber, p. 116). The three editions of Van Nyevelt’s translation are also mentioned in S. Bertelli and P. Innocenti, Bibliografia machiavelliana (Verona: Edizioni Valdonega, 1979); for the first see pp. 92-93, for the second pp. 95-96, for the third pp. 106-107.

The first Dutch translation

175

Amelot de la Houssaie.7 The flourishing Dutch editorial activity and the freedom enjoyed by the presses in the seventeenth-century Low Countries also made possible the publication of various non-Dutch editions such as the Latin Prince version by Silvestro Tegli printed in Leiden in 1643,8 the French Prince version by Amelot de la Houssaie printed in Amsterdam in 1683,9 the French Discourses translation by Tétard printed in Amsterdam in 1691,10 a Latin Prince version by Caspar Langenhert printed in Amsterdam in 1699.11 In the growing scholarly debate around Machiavelli’s presence in Dutch culture Nyevelt’s translation is sometimes mentioned, although only one scholar, Van Heck, deals specifically with this translation and its context.12 From his article some very useful information can be gathered about the personality of the translator: Adam van Nyevelt, stemming from a noble family from Utrecht, was a military man with a passion for classical historiography. Born in 1557 or 1558, and dead around the end of the century, Van Nyevelt was an infantry captain who fought on the side of the Northern Provinces in the long and often uncertain conflict known as Eighty Years’ War, which would end with the acknowledgement of the independence of the Northern Low Countries from the Spanish kingdom of Philip II. Van Nyevelt acted bravely in the Battle of Hardenberg, in 1580, in which the rebellious Dutch were defeated by the Spanish troops with the help of “malcontents”, armed groups of local peasants fighting against the protestant cause. He was imprisoned and released a few months later. He then became army commander in Schoonhoven and fought in 1596 for the defence of Hulst. His death followed closely a second period of imprisonment after that battle. Van Nyevelt took part in the hardest phase of the conflict between Low Countries and Spain, when the consolidation of a religious and political identity, together with the unprecedented development of art and commerce,

7

8

9 10

11

12

De prins van N. Machiavel, met aenteekeningen van den heer Amelot de la Houssaie [...]; alles in 't Nederduytsch gebragt door Daniel Ghys ('s Gravenhage: by Engelbrecht Boucquet, 1705). Princeps; ex Sylv. Telii traductione emend.; acc. Ant. Possevini judicium de Nic. Machiavelli et Joann. Bodini scriptis (Lugduni Batavorum, 1643). Le prince, trad. et commenté par A.N. Amelot (Amsterdam: chez Henry Wetstein, 1683). Discours politiques de Machiavel, sur la I. décade de Tite Live. Traduction nouvelle (Amsterdam: chez Henri Desbordes, 1691). Nicolai Machiavelli Princeps, interprete Casp. Langenhert, qui sua ei commentaria adjecit (Amstelaedami: apud Janssonio-Waesbergios-Janssoons van Waesberge, 1699). Paul van Heck, ‘La prima traduzione in olandese dei Discorsi e del Principe’, in Niccolò Machiavelli politico, storico, letterato, ed. by Jean-Jacques Marchand (Atti del Convegno di Losanna 27-30 settembre 1995), (Roma: Salerno, 1996), pp. 411-424.

176

Francesca Terrenato

laid the foundations of the so-called Golden Age of the Low Countries in the seventeenth century. Before entering the army Van Nyevelt was for some time a student at the University of Leiden. In 1576, the year in which he applied, Leiden University had just been founded and was the first protestant university in the Low Countries: the States-General meant it as the institution in charge of the education of the new leaders in the war against Spain. We do not know which faculty Van Nyevelt applied for, but the three translations in his own hand come down to us provide an insight in the works upon which his cultural, political and military education relied. In 1592, while he was still alive, his Cyropaedia13 by Xenophon came out in Amsterdam. Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, translated by him together with some other lives of illustrious men from classical sources, based on translations, were posthumously published, in 160314 (a reprint came out in 1644). The texts by Xenophon and Plutarch were available to him thanks to their French translations.15 Van Nyevelt’s translation of the Discourses and the Prince outlines his consistent interest in the theoretical and practical aspects of power. Reflection upon the nature and essence of political power was embodied in individual examples, such as Xenophon, Plutarch and Machiavelli offered in their writings, although the three works do not share the same vision. Plutarch engaged in a nostalgic evocation of the exemplary virtues of past rulers and leaders, set as exemplary models for the politics of his times. Xenophon’s Cyropaedia is a highly idealized portrait of the good and just monarch. Through his honesty the leader conquers his people’s trust; with liberality and magnanimity he unites the best among his people around his cause. To most readers this attitude might seem exactly the opposite of what Machiavelli presented as a key

13

14

15

Cyropædia Xenophontis. Dat is, Het leven ende de onder-wijsinghe van Cyrvs dies naems de eerste, coninck van Persien / overgheset in Nederduytsche spraecke, door Ad.V.Z.V.N. (t'Amstelredam: by Barendt Adriaensz, 1592). T'Leven der doorluchtige Griecken ende Romeynen, tegen elck-anderen vergeleken / door Plutarchus van Cheronea; Uut de Griecksche sprake overgeset door M. Iaques Amyot, mitsgaders het leven van Hannibal, Scipio den Africaen, uyt het Latijn verfranscht by Carolus Clusius; Voorder Het leven van Epaminondas, Philippus van Macedonien, Dionysius den ouden, (tyran van Sicilien), Augustus Cesar, [...], beschreven door Aemilius Probus; Met een cort begrijp op elcx leven: [...], tesamen van nieus tot gemeen nut verduyscht, door A.V.Z.V.N. (Tot Leyden: by Ian Paedts Iacobsz. ende Ian Bouwensz., 1603). La Cyropedie [...] de la vie & institucion de Cyrus Roy des Perses / Traduite de Grec par Jacques des Combes de Vintemille Rhodien (1555) (De Vintimille also was an early translator of Machiavelli’s Prince, although his translation remained unprinted) and Les vies des hommes illustres grecs et romains comparées l'une avec l'autre / par Plutarque de Chaeronee, translated from Greek by Jaques Amyot (1559).

The first Dutch translation

177

to success for his prince.16 But in the light of the two previous translations, we might think that Machiavelli’s Prince represented for its Dutch translator a useful repertory of examples (good and bad), based upon recent history. Its reading as an apology of unfaithfulness and opportunism was not probably shared by Van Nyevelt, who translated it in combination with the Discourses. Due to the precedence of this text on the Prince, in the Dutch as in many other French editions, Machiavelli’s controversial speculum principis is set in a different interpretative context. Past and present history are educational tools. Van Nyevelt’s aim was clearly to provide examples to be followed or rejected in the newborn Republic which was, in fact, a confederation of states with a rather undefined political profile. In this uncertain phase, when it was still unclear what form of government really suited the Dutch society, at the time a mosaic of largely independent provinces, classical and contemporary historiography and political philosophy could inspire highly needed models and views. Van Nyevelt met this demand, and placed himself in the very influential tradition of vulgarization of didactic texts in his country. In Protestant culture the use of translations into the mother tongue to spread new ideas was firmly rooted. Also other members of the Van Nyevelt family contributed this way to the education of the Dutch people. Van Nyevelt’s father, Willem van Zuylen van Nyevelt, was a friend and collaborator of Willem van Oranje, the prince who led the rebellious provinces until 1584. He translated at least three works, among which the Tabula Praedestinationis of the Calvinist teologist Théodore Bèze17 and the anti-Catholic pamphlet Bureau du Concile de Trente by Innocent Gentillet.18 In the previous generation another Van Nyevelt, Adam’s grandfather, is considered to be the author of the Dutch version of the Psalms that was used for decades in the Protestant cult. A solid Protestant faith and dedication to the struggle for independence were a common feature of the Van Nyevelt family.

16

17

18

See also Leopardi, who underlines this contrast in his Operette morali: G. Leopardi, Tutte le opere, ed. by W. Binni (Firenze: Sansoni, 1969), 2 vols., I, pp. 189-192. Th. Bèze, Een cort begrijp der gantsche Christelijcke religie in de bygevoechde tafel voor oogen ghestelt [...] / eerst in Latijn gheschreven, ende nu in Nederduytsche sprake overgheset door W. V. N. (Leyden: by Jan Paedts Jacobsz, 1597). I. Gentillet, Examen ende proeve des Conciliums van Trenten,[...] Verdeylt in vijf boecken/ Eerst in Fran. bescheven. ende nu in Nederduytsche taele overgheset. by W. V. N. (Delft: by Bruyn Harmansz. Schinckel, 1589); Gentillet was also author of the Anti-Machiavel (Geneva, 1576).

178

Francesca Terrenato

3. Political writings and Machiavelli’s reception in the Low Countries In a wider perspective Van Nyevelt’s translations of Xenophon, Plutarch and Machiavelli are among the Dutch contributions to the long and controversial debate, going on all over Europe, on the nature and quality of leaders and forms of government. Among the Dutch authors (although they both wrote in Latin), mostly focusing on the moral aspects of the exertion of political power, we cannot avoid mentioning Erasmus and his Institutio principis Christiani,19 still totally centred on the Christian virtues of the prince, and Justus Lipsius,20 author of the essay Politicorum sive civilis doctrinae libri sex (1589), also known as Politica.21 A brief analysis of the passages where Machiavelli is explicitly or implicitly present in Lipsius’ work can help us draw the outline of Machiavelli’s contradictory reception in the Low Countries from the end of the sixteenth century to the end of the seventeenth century. Lipsius’ Politica is an apology of centralised monarchy which appeared in the Dutch Republic, but proved to be much more influential in the countries ruled by an absolute monarchy in the seventeenth century than in the rebellious provinces. It contains guidelines for a prince as well as a cento (collection of quotations) of ancient authors on the subject of reason of state. Lipsius mentions Machiavelli explicitly, but with a negative connotation, in contrast with the blatant influence exerted by Machiavelli’s political writings on his essay, especially on his notion of ‘mixed’ prudence, that is to say, the possibility of contaminating, if needed, loyalty with minor forms of deceit. In fact Lipsius’ judgement has more to do with Machiavellism than with the Italian author himself. As Waszink remarks: It is the strong reaction provoked by the (perceived) moral implications of Il Principe which constitutes the background to the Politica, not the discussion of liberty, the Discourses in any of their aspects, or the issue whether the republic or the monarchy should be preferred as a form of government. 22

19

20 21

22

Institutio principis Christiani saluberrimis referta præceptis, per Erasmum Roterodamum, cum alijs nonnullis eodem pertinentibus, quorum catalogum in proxima reperies pagella (Basileae: apvd Io. Frobenivm, 1516). Flemish academic working for some time at the University of Leiden. The first edition appeared in Leiden, by C. Plantijn. The work is available in a recent annotated edition with English translation: Justus Lipsius Politica. Edition, translation, introduction by J. Waszink (proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam: Amsterdam 2002). Waszink (Introduction to Justus Lipsius Politica), p. 74.

The first Dutch translation

179

Lipsius defends a conventional vision of a prince’s moral virtues, and in doing so he condemns Machiavelli (there are signs of a growing criticism, for some positive considerations about him that were present in the first edition of the Politica were later removed). But it is important to assess the influence of the Italian author on some basic aspects of Lipsius’ work: following Machiavelli’s model Lipsius discards the mirror-for-princes tradition; prudence and reason of state overweigh traditional virtues; princely deceit is analysed and justified in the light of political realism; finally, great importance is attached to the army as an element of princely power. We may then summarize Lipsius’ attitude (and a more general attitude, probably shared by Van Nyevelt as well) towards Machiavelli with this statement by Waszink: “The Politica […] contains an attempt to make the realism of Machiavelli a useful and accepted instrument for the good.”23 Procacci in his study on Machiavelli’s reception24 dedicates a chapter to the Low Countries and underlines the presence of a favourable political, cultural and editorial environment in which Machiavelli’s works could find their way to the public. Procacci first focuses on the republican reading which found a worthy representative in Spinoza; then he emphasises the modern vision of Machiavelli as a writer provided by Amelot de la Houssaie (his French version first appeared in Amsterdam). Moreover he mentions the successful editorial enterprise which brought to the market through the Amsterdam presses of Henry Desbordes the new French versions of Machiavellian works by François Tétard.25 Furthermore, what Procacci acknowledges to be the first modern biographic portrait (although still lacking a lot of information) of the Florentine secretary, contained in the Historical and Critical Dictionary by Pierre Bayle, also appeared in its first edition in the Low Countries.26 Despite the undeniable openness of the Dutch printers and readers to Machiavelli, elsewhere condemned, the reception of this controversial author in the Low Countries is many-faceted as the possible readings of his works are. Following Procacci’s statement about Machiavelli’s reception in Europe in the second half of the sixteenth century,

23 24

25

26

Waszink, p. 76. G. Procacci, Storia della fortuna del Machiavelli (Bari: Laterza, 1965), pp. 289-300. Also inserted in a later study, under the title: Machiavelli nella cultura europea dell’età moderna (Roma: Laterza, 1995). Doctor and scholar, stemming from a French Calvinist family which found asylum in the Low Countries. His translations of the Discourses, the Florentine Histories, the Art of War, and finally the Prince came out in Amsterdam in 1691-1696. P. Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, par monsieur Bayle (A Rotterdam: chez Reinier Leers, 1697).

180

Francesca Terrenato

we can place this phenomenon in a larger perspective. “Between the two extremes of condemnation and consensus there is a whole range of intermediate approaches”, reminds the Italian scholar, underlining in particular how the accusation of Machiavellism became a commonplace in the violent debates about religion in all the European countries involved in the Reformation-Contra reformation struggle. “The Huguenots accused the Jesuits, the ligueurs and the Papists of Machiavellism, and these in turn retorted the charge on the Calvinists, but both became allied in denouncing the Machiavellism and atheism of the politiques.”27 Machiavelli was well-known and appreciated for his wit, but not universally, or at least not openly, praised in the Low Countries. In a letter from 1632 P. C. Hooft, one of the most influential and prolific writers of his time, tells a friend that with the Historie Fiorentine he finally completed his collection of writings by the geheimschrijver (secret writer), Machiavelli, whom he defines a lidsaert (old fox).28 It is clear that Hooft was aware of the widely spread prejudice against the author of the Prince. It is especially thanks to Haitsma Mulier and Van Gelderen that we gain more insight in the complex attitude of Dutch political and philosophical thinkers with respect to Machiavellian doctrines. Van Gelderen focuses on the development of Dutch political thought in the second half of the sixteenth century to analyze its relationship with the ‘Machiavellian moment’, which Pocock identifies as the basis of an Atlantic republican tradition.29 Departing from Lipsius’ Politica Van Gelderen follows the thread of the Neostoic and republican thought on politics which characterises the first period of the Dutch revolt. Key aspects in this train of thought are the defence of liberty and the defence of privileges, which form the contract between the lord and his subjects. To some extent Neostoicism, as represented in Lipsius’ Politica, and republicanism overlap. Dutch republican thought developed independently, relying on its own traditions, the idea of the sovereignty of the StatesGeneral, and the consequent subordination of the prince and military commander to this parliamentary institution. If some aspects are thus

27 28

29

Procacci, Machiavelli nella cultura europea, p. 138. Translation is mine. See P.C. Hooft, De briefwisseling van P.C. Hooft, 3 vols., ed. by H. W. van Tricht and others (Culemborg: Tjeenk Willink/Noorduijn, 1976-1979), II, p. 274. About Hooft’s interest in Italian contemporary political literature (he also translated excerpts of T. Boccalini’s Ragguagli di Parnaso) see E.H. Kossmann, Politieke theorie en geschiedenis (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1987), p. 215. M. van Gelderen, ‘The Machiavellian moment and the Dutch Revolt: the rise of Neostoicism and Dutch Republicanism’, in Machiavelli and Republicanism, ed. by G. Bock, Q. Skinner, M. Viroli (Cambridge: University Press, 1990), pp. 205-223.

The first Dutch translation

181

consistent with conceptions of liberty and self-government that have arisen in the political debate in the Florentine Republic, the Dutch views on politics show distinct features. Freedom of religion and expression was crucial in the new-born Republic; this preoccupation was alien to the Florentine plea for liberty. In his study on the Dutch views on Machiavelli in the seventeenth and eighteenth century,30 Haitsma Mulier concentrates on Machiavelli’s influence on Dutch republicanism, but does not ignore the presence of an opposite reading. The Low Countries were not immune from the commonplace according to which his Prince was a mirror-for-tyrants. The Spanish king Philip II and the Duke of Alba, who was his plenipotentiary in the Low Countries when the revolt started, were accused of being ‘Machiavelliques’ in Dutch pamphlets (it is ironic that also the opposite party accused prince William of Orange of Machiavellism). When the Spanish threat ended, it was Louis XIV of France who was accused of Machiavellism by the Dutch, fearing his expansionist politics. Learned men, convinced Calvinists as well as moderates, gave way to the demonization of the author of the Prince in their writings. Van Heck offers two prominent examples:31 negative statements on Machiavelli are contained in the inaugural lecture the scholar and poet Daniel Heinsius gave as a Professor of Politics at Leiden University in 1612 (printed in 1614 under the title De politica Sapientia, About Political Wisdom). Heinsius denies Machiavelli’s originality (he totally relied on Aristotle) and condemns him for not respecting either law or religion, and for unveiling the arcana regni (mysteries of the kingdom) without any scruples. The arguments Heinsius produces do not prove his direct knowledge of the author whom he was criticising; they seem to be based upon the generally unfavourable press Machiavelli received among the orthodox Calvinists. Nevertheless, there is some evidence of the presence of many Machiavellian editions in the Leiden professor’s library among which a 1572 French Discourses-Prince edition like the one Van Nyevelt had worked on.32 A second example is Barlaeus’ Dissertatio de bono principe33 (Disserta30

31

32 33

E. Haitsma Mulier, ‘A controversial republican: Dutch views on Machiavelli in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, in Machiavelli and Republicanism, ed. by G. Bock, Q. Skinner, M. Viroli (Cambridge: University Press, 1990), pp. 247-263. P. van Heck, ‘Cymbalum Politicorum, Consultor Dolosus. Two Dutch Academics on Machiavelli’, in On the Edge of Truth and Honesty, ed. by T. van Houdt and others, Intersections – Yearbook for Early Modern Studies 2 (2002), (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2002), pp. 46-63. See Van Heck, Cymbalum politicorum, pp. 46-63, note 23 (p. 54). Dissertatio de bono principe adversus Nic. Machiavelli Florentini scriptoris suasorias, quas libris suis de Principe, Republica, aliisque insparsit (Amsterdami: ex typographia Guilielmi Blaeu, 1634).

182

Francesca Terrenato

tion on the Good Prince). In this inaugural lecture Barlaeus, philosophy professor at the Athenaeum Illustre in Amsterdam, reproaches Machiavelli for having taught cunning and shrewdness, under the veil of prudence, to forge evil princes who exclusively follow the path of utilitas. Barlaeus, who gives evidence of having read the Prince and the Discourses, is also acquainted with the arguments in defence of Machiavelli and aims at dismantling them. He counters the interpretatio obliqua of the Prince as a denouncement of monarchs’ immorality: in his opinion Machiavelli actually wanted to educate princes. He also discusses Lipsius’ idea of political prudence, strongly influenced by the Machiavellian, and rejects any possible form of mixture between prudence and deceit34 which the authorative scholar in his Politica had considered acceptable. Despite the persistence of this view, Haitsma Mulier finds evidence of an increasingly positive inclination towards Machiavelli, starting from the second half of the seventeenth century. In his opinion, this is blatant in the comparison between the foreword to Van Nyevelt’s translation and that to Daniel Ghys’ translation (a five-volume edition comprising other historical and political works by Machiavelli): In 1615 it was still necessary to excuse oneself for a translation by saying that Machiavelli was more experienced in matters of state than Plato and Aristotle. […] In 1704 the edition of the Discorsi alone was accompanied by an explanation in which all accusations against the author were attributed to prejudices fomented by the Catholic clergy.35

Machiavelli gained ground especially as a republican when some Dutch political thinkers began to contrive the idea of ancient republic or the Venetian republic as a model for the government of the Low Countries. Grotius’ reflections about the mixed form of government he judged advisable for his country, as the ancient history of the Batavians demonstrated,36 undoubtedly paved the way for this development. But Machiavelli’s influence became much more explicit with the beginning of a real debate on the future government in the rebellious provinces, datable around 1660. Then the Discorsi obviously became the seminal text for republican thinkers such as the De la Court brothers, authors of the Politike Discoursen37 (Political 34 35 36

37

See Van Heck Cymbalum politicorum, pp. 46-63 (pp. 61-62). Haitsma Mulier, pp. 247-263 (p. 251). See Hugo Grotius, Tractaet vande Oudtheyt vande Batavische nu Hollandsche Republique (In ’s Graven-Haghe: by Hillebrant Jacobsz, 1610). Johan de La Court, Politike discoursen handelende in ses onderscheide boeken, van steeden, landen, oorlogen, kerken, regeeringen, en zeeden, / beschreven door D. C. (t'Amsterdam: by I. Ciprianus vandr. Gracht, 1662). The book is often attributed to Johan’s brother Pieter.

The first Dutch translation

183

Discourses), where the Prince is also widely quoted. Furthermore, Machiavelli has certainly left a deep mark on Spinoza’s Tractatus politicus38 (Political Treatise). A copy of Machiavelli’s Opere from 1550 (the so-called Testina) and another work by him, probably the Prince translated into Latin by Silvestro Tegli, printed in Basel from 1560 on (and also reprinted in the Low Countries), are known to have been among the books Spinoza left after his death.39 Gallicet Calvetti, in her analysis of Spinoza’s meditations on Machiavelli’s texts,40 identifies in the idea of a political discourse based on reality and experience a vision shared by both authors. Spinoza’s reading of Machiavelli re-shapes the author of the Prince and the Discourses into a supporter of democracy, the best form of government according to the philosopher. The Prince is then interpreted as a mirror-for-people, which could unveil the risks of letting one man channel all power into his own hands. The kind of republicanism represented by the De la Court and Spinoza in the Low Countries appears as a rather isolated and transitory phenomenon, as Haitsma Mulier states. It supports nevertheless the idea that, just as our edition confirms, in the Low Countries the Prince was also read in the light of the Discourses as an argument against monarchy, or at least against tyrannical, unjust monarchy; this did not mean that the opposite reading, that of the Prince as a mirror-for-tyrants, faded away. It survived for a long time, although probably its followers were not as attentive and creative readers as Spinoza had been.

4. The printer of the Dutch Prince A certain degree of circumspection is evident in the prefatory sonnet of uncertain authorship and the printer’s preface that open the book. The printer’s name is absent, but has recently been identified as Nicolaes Biestkens (1570-1624).41 Both texts underline the usefulness of works dealing with the less edifying aspects of government, in order to refrain from

38

39

40

41

The treatise, left unfinished for the death of the author, was anonymously published in Opera posthuma, quorum series post præfationem exhibetur / B.d.S. [Benedictus de Spinoza] (1677). See A. J. Servaas van Rooijen, Inventaire del livres formant la bibliothèque de B. Spinoza (Den Haag: Tengeler, 1899). C. Gallicet Calvetti, Spinoza lettore del Machiavelli, Scienze Filosofiche 11 (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1972). See Van Heck, La prima traduzione, pp. 411-424 (pp. 418-419).

184

Francesca Terrenato

them or to be able to neutralize them.42 It is a common feature of Machiavelli’s editions in that time: they often contain remarks which anticipate possible criticism about the author’s unscrupulousness. There are almost no original traits in Biestkens’ preface: it is a rather literal translation of the preface to the Latin edition of the Discourses by Johannes Nicolaus Stupanus (1588), followed by an extended quote from Lipsius’ Politica. Contained here is the frequently quoted judgement by Lipsius on Machiavelli. The original Latin text reads: Nisi quod unius tamen Machiavelli ingenium non contemno, acre, subtile, igneum: et qui utinam Principem sum recta duxisset ad templum illud Virtutis et Honoris! Sed nimis saepe deflexit, et dum commode illas semitas intente sequitur, aberravit a regia hac via. (With the exception that there is one genius which I do not despise, that of Machiavelli, sharp, subtle and fiery as it is; and if he only had directed his Prince on the straight path towards that great Temple of Virtue and Honour! But all too often he strays from that road, and while he intently follows the footpaths of advantage, he wanders from this royal road).43

Worthy of attention is also the frontispiece of this first Dutch edition44 (which we might consider intended for the Discourses as well as for the Prince): surrounded by medallions depicting scenes of good government and misgovernment, two main figures flank the title. On the left, an aged man, dressed in a turban and a tunic, holding a book and reading from it: he could be an ancient ruler. On the right, a man in a precious armour (a prince or military leader), who apparently asks his older master for advice, lifting his forefinger and looking at him. A large book, bearing the title of wet boek (Law Book), towers on the two figures. An interesting figure to look closer at is Biestkens,45 the printer who published Van Nyevelt’s translation twenty years after its completion. His activity in Amsterdam covered the period 1590-1622. He came from a family of printers: with him, the third generation of Biestkens engaged in this

42

43 44 45

They are both discussed in Van Heck, La prima traduzione, pp. 411-424 (pp. 415-419); the original text of the sonnet can be read in Gerber, p. 113. Justus Lipsius Politica, p. 409. Reproduced in Gerber, p. 145. For information on his life and printing activity, see E.W. Moes and C. P. Burger, De Amsterdamsche boekdrukkers en utigevers in de zestiende eeuw, repr. by P.C. van der Krogt, 4 vols. (Utrecht: HES Publishers, 1988), III, pp. 286-297; about the printing activity of the Biestkens family see P. Valkema Blauw, ‘Nicolaes Biestkens van Diest, in duplo, 1558-83’, in Theatrum orbis librorum, Liber amicorum presented to Nico Israel on the occasion of his 70th birthday, ed. by T. Croiset and others (Utrecht: HES Publishers, 1989), pp. 310-331; on his life and literary works see N. Biestkens, De drie delen van de klucht van Claas Kloet, with an introduction by G. R. W. Dibbets (Zutphen: N. V. W. J. Thieme & Cie, [1969]).

The first Dutch translation

185

activity. Very well-known and spread all over the Low Countries were the Bible and the Gospels’ edition made by his grandfather in the 1560’s, often reprinted in later years and used in the Mennonite circles for their focus on basic concepts in the Baptist predication in their diffused registers. The young Biestkens continued the family’s tradition, but combined their longestablished printing activity (consisting mainly of often controversial confessional and political texts) with that of writing: under his name a number of poems and a three-act farce46 appeared. Biestkens’ poems mostly consist of jaar-liederen (year-songs), poems with a religious background written on the occasion of the new year, usually composed and published as part of the activity of rhetorical chambers. It is interesting that scattered references to princes (referred to as “worldly princes” as opposed to the heavenly prince, God) and their task on earth are to be found in the printer’s poems. In his 1608 jaar-lied, Biestkens encourages princes to leave aside war and turn to peace. In 1618 he warns them against the risks of a sinful life. In 1619 he exhorts them to open their heart to the light of God.47 As an author and official printer, Biestkens had been an important member of the Nederduytsche Academie (Netherlandish Academy) since its foundation in 1617. The organization promoted an intense theatrical activity in Amsterdam and counted among its founders the best playwrights of the time (P.C. Hooft and G. A. Bredero), but was also open to amateurs and offered mother-tongue courses for the education of common people. The orthodox Calvinist preachers, a faction that was particularly powerful in those days, did not sympathize with the group of open-minded intellectuals who ran the Academy. Coster’s tragedy Iphigenia (written and printed in 1617 and performed in 1621), with its strong anti-theocracy argument, prompted a reaction from the city’s authorities which damaged the author’s career. The tragedy was printed by Biestkens, as most of the plays produced by members of the Academie. Two other books printed by Biestkens deserve to be mentioned in connection with the attribution of the Prince edition to his workshop: the 1604 edition of Paulus Jovius’ Historiae, translated into Dutch48 and the 1617 edition of a numismatic and historical work dealing

46

47 48

De klucht van Claas Kloet (The Farce of Claas Kloet) (t’Amsterdam: voor Jan Marcusz, 1619). For a modern edition of Biestkens’ works: N. Biestkens, De drie delen van de klucht van Claas Kloet, with an introduction by G. R. W. Dibbets (Zutphen: N. V. W. J. Thieme & Cie, [1969]). Biestkens, pp. 139, 142, 143. De historien van Paulus Jovius, translated by Jacques Heyns and Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert (Amsterdam, 1604). In this case Biestkens acted as a printer for another publisher, Zacharias Heyns.

186

Francesca Terrenato

with ancient rulers, Georg Chanler’s Nieuwe keysers chronica (New emperor’s chronicle).49 In the light of this evidence the involvement in the printing of the Machiavellian works finds a fitting context in Biestkens’ activity. The attribution of the first edition of Van Nyevelt’s Prince to Biestkens’ workshop is a thought-provoking point. It places this book within the frame of a publishing activity that led Biestkens to a clash with authorities, who suited and sentenced him to a fee for his publication of Remonstrant texts, among which the text of the speech held by Simon Episcopius, Remonstrant leader, on the occasion of the 1617-1618 Synod in Dordrecht. After that Synod, where the orthodox faction prevailed, in the free and hospitable Low Countries religious tolerance was threatened for a while. Therefore, the choice of publishing Machiavelli’s Discourses and Prince proves to be very significant, for it might aim at reducing the growing autarchy of stadhouder Maurits by warning the general public against the risks of tyranny, or at holding a mirror in front of Maurits himself by warning him against the often violent and unhappy ending of so many strong and aggressive leaders in history and in contemporary Europe. And this explains why Biestkens chose not to put his name into a publication that would certainly meet success (as shown by the two seventeenth-century reprints), but might as well provoke reactions from the establishment. This same motivation cannot be ascribed to Van Nyevelt, who was writing at a time when political debate had not reached these extremes yet. We unfortunately do not have information about how Biestkens acquired the manuscript. He certainly realized it was a controversial book, but he thought it ought to be read by his contemporaries.

5. Van Nyevelt’s translation and its source The translation of both the Discourses and the Prince appears very close to its source text, identified by Gerber in a French edition containing the Discourses in Jacques Gohory’s translation and the Prince in Gaspard D’Auvergne’s translation, (prior to the 1613-1614 one, which also contained The Art of War and marginal annotations by the printer).50 D’Auvergne’s translation of the Prince, printed in Poitiers, first appeared in 1553; in that

49

50

Georg Chanler, Nieuwe keysers chronica, translated by Jacobus Westfrisius (Amsterdam, 1617). See Gerber, p. 45.

The first Dutch translation

187

same year also the one by Guillaume Cappel was printed in Paris;51 in 1573 followed the one by Gohory.52 Among the three D’Auvergne’s translation was long acknowledged to be the best and was reprinted all through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Pianori in her study on this translation53 presents the few facts known about its author, a lawyer with literary interests and friends living in the Duchy of Châtelleraut. His Prince is his only known work. That he must have been a poet we infer from the verses Ronsard dedicated to him, quoted by Pianori.54 Information about his intentions as a translator of the Prince is contained in the dedicatory epistle: its dedicatee was James Hamilton, Earl of Arran, governor of Scotland in 1542 and later Duke of Châtelherault, the Duchy where D’Auvergne lived. The epistle is worth discussing because of the orientation it gives to the reader. It conveys a rather modern view on Machiavelli, focusing on the practical aspects of the text and anticipating possible criticism by underlining its adhesion to reality. D’Auvergne tries to conciliate between Machiavelli’s vision and the Christian ethics by stating that monarchs may surpass the boundaries of virtue, with God’s approval, in order to deal with an evil and corrupted world. The moralistic prefatory text and the presence of some censors’ marginal annotations (in Latin)55 made possible the spreading of this edition at the time of the Contra reformation, and after Machiavelli’s inclusion in the Index librorum prohibitorum. In Pianori’s opinion the translation, based according to Gerber on a 1535 edition stemming from the Giuntina (1532), is quite close to the original. She also produces textual evidence of the correspondence between errors in the source and in the translated text, which corroborate Gerber’s identification. It is probably in this translation that the Prince circulated also in the British isles, as Petrina states.56 According to Petrina, author of a study on Machiavelli in the British Isles, “d’Auvergne’s greatest contribution to the diffusion of Machiavelli in Europe is his realization, so clearly expressed in his dedication, that the Principe was a 51 52

53

54 55

56

See Gerber, pp. 30-33. See Gerber, p. 39. Both Gerber and Bertelli and Innocenti report the accusation of plagiarism advanced by Gohory in its dedicatory epistle to Giovan Francesco Affaitati in this edition. According to Gohory, Cappel’s and D’Auvergne’s translations of the Prince were based on his work, which was unprinted at the time of their editions. For more details see Bertelli and Innocenti, pp. LXVII-LXX. R. Pianori, ‘«Le Prince» di Gaspard d’Auvergne’, in Studi Machiavelliani, ed. Gino Barbieri (Verona: Palazzo Giuliani, 1972), pp. 83–101. Pianori, pp. 85-87. See Pianori, pp. 89-90. It is not surprising that they were ignored by a Protestant translator such as Van Nyevelt was. See A. Petrina, pp. 83-115 in the present collection.

188

Francesca Terrenato

manual of practical politics.”57 Moreover the book was presented to Hamilton, often engaged in military expeditions, as a manual of war. The attitude of the French translator who “makes Machiavelli useful rather than controversial on points of principle”58 is plausible also in connection with Van Nyevelt. Unfortunately Van Nyevelt’s translation does not contain a dedicatory epistle, which may give information on the author’s intentions, on his reading of the Machiavellian works, and on his intended readers. It is impossible, due to the lack of manuscripts and information, to ascertain whether Van Nyevelt actually aimed at proposing the text as a pattern of behaviour for a high-rank personality, as in D’Auvergne’s case. Considering the fact that he engaged in the translation of both the Discourses and the Prince, and the period in which he worked at it, we might think he aimed at a larger group comprising learned men (who could read Machiavelli also in Italian, Latin or French), political authorities and military leaders. In other words, all who were at the time fighting and working for the independence of the Low Countries. According to Van Heck, who confirms Gerber’s statement without giving much textual evidence, it is clear that the Dutch translator worked on the French version without going back to the Italian original, or to the Latin versions. This contrasts with the assertion contained in the title page, which presents both works as “translated from Italian into our Netherlandish idiom”. The majority of Italian contemporary works, with some noticeable exceptions, reached the Dutch public through French intermediaries. Van Heck quotes as a proof of Van Nyevelt’s dependence on the French version the Gallicised Italian toponyms corresponding to D’Auvergne’s.59 It has to be noted, though, that the Dutch author also shows a certain degree of independence when he mentions Italian personalities, for instance. His effort to find a corresponding native name such as Albrecht for Alberico60 or Bernaert for Bernabò (chapter XXI, p. 148) and his sometimes Latinising versions, like Sforzia for Sforza (chapter VII, p. 40), are not enough to hint at a different original version in his hands: too many names are simply

57

58 59 60

See A. Petrina, Machiavelli in the British Isles: Two Early Modern Translations of the Prince (London: Ashgate, forthcoming), p. 15. I wish to thank the author for letting me read the first chapter of her study before its publication. Petrina, Machiavelli, pp. 16-17. Van Heck, La prima traduzione, p. 24. N. Machiavelli, Il Principe, ed. by G. Inglese (Torino: Einaudi, 1995), p. 87. Further quotations from this edition will be followed by (chapter and) page number between parenthesis in the running text.

The first Dutch translation

189

transcribed in their French version.61 The comparison between the texts offers many more examples confirming that Van Nyevelt was working on D’Auvergne’s version; some of them even show shifts in content or misinterpretations, common to the French and Dutch translation, with regard to the original, thus leaving no doubt that the Dutch translator totally relied on the French edition. I will now move to my analysis of Van Nyevelt’s text, considering the Italian original and the French version,62 and trying to find out original aspects in the Dutch translation, to be read in the light of the specific historical and political culture of the Low Countries. In order to do so, I will concentrate on the style, vocabulary, and solutions adopted by the translator, as well as on additions and omissions.

6. Common features Van Nyevelt’s text clearly shows a Latinising phrasing, largely due to the influence of the French source, but resulting into a sort of flow between clauses that is not uncommon in the Dutch cultivated prose of the time, largely modelled on classical examples: absolute constructions, concessive clauses, many coordinate clauses in a row. The translator sometimes tries to re-organize the syntax of the source in order to follow the more common paratactic structure of everyday Dutch. The virgula is frequently used in place of the comma and the period of the French and Italian text, but it is often Van Nyevelt’s own choice to use it to separate clauses in longer sentences.

61

62

See Valentinoys for Valentino and Coulonoysen for Colonnesi (chapter VII, p. 41), for instance. The versions of the Prince used in the present paper are contained in: Discovrs de l'estat de paix et de gverre de N. Macchiavel citoyen et secretaire de Florence (A Paris: Chez Tovssainet Qvinet, 1635), pp. 1-100 (French version by Gaspard D’Auvergne); De discoursen van Nicolaes Machiavel Florentyn over de tien eerste boecken van Titus Livius [...] hier is by gevoecht des selven autheursboeck, vanden Prince [...]/ beijde uit den Italiaenschen in onse Nederduytsche tale overgeset door A.van Nievelt (1615), 1-125 (Dutch version by Adam van Nyevelt). In case of very short excerpts the Italian text and these editions are referred to as ‘It.’ (Italian version), ‘Fr.’ (French version) and ‘D.’ (Dutch version) and followed by page number. The English translations of the quotes are taken from: N. Machiavelli, The Prince, translated by W. K. Marriott (London: Dent, 1908). The e-text of this edition was downloaded on January, 25th, 2009 from the site: manybooks.net.

190

Francesca Terrenato

Van Nyevelt’s text shares with D’Auvergne’s version stylistic features that diverge from the Italian original, such as: 1) Frequent use of hendiadys, which results in a quasi synonymic duplication of one term. See for instance: It. assalti (chapter II, p. 9) (assaults), Fr. assauts & guerres (p. 6), D. overvallinghen ende oorloghen (p. 6) (assaults and wars); It. ambizione (chapter IV, p. 25) (ambition), Fr. cupiditez & ambitions (p. 16), D. begheerlijckheden / ende eergiericheden (p. 19) (desires and ambitions). In some cases, the Dutch translator enhances this stylistic feature autonomously: It. contenti (chapter XIX, p. 120) (contented), Fr. assez contens (p. 67) (sufficiently contented), D. vreedsaem ende ghepaeyt ghenoech (p. 85) (contented and sufficiently satisfied). 2) Use of amplification with a decorative or explicative function. See the following examples: It. ambizione (ambition) (chapter III, p. 21), Fr. insatiable cupidité (p. 13), D. onversadelijcke begheerlicheyt (p. 15) (insatiable cupidity); It. per li spessi principati (chapter IV, p. 28) (being thick with principalities), Fr. pour le grand nombre des petits Seigneurs (p. 17), D. om het groot ghetal der cleyne Heeren (p. 22) (because of the large number of small lords). 3) Introduction of an ironic, sympathetic or dramatic note that is absent in Machiavelli’s text. The French translator aimed at producing a lively narrative. See, for instance: It. una mattina (chapter VII, p. 47) (one morning), Fr. un beau matin (p. 29), D. op een schone morgenstont (p. 35) (one fine morning); It. costui (chapter VIII, p. 55) (he), Fr. ce Galand (p. 33), D. dese Voghel (p. 39) (this fine specimen). 4) Transformation of extant metaphors or introduction of new ones, in order to adjust the text to the literary taste and cultural context of a new public. See, for instance: It. “che se gli erano gittati in grembo” (chapter III, p. 21) (“who had thrown themselves into his lap”, p. 16), Fr. “s’estoient iettez comme le lieu de sureté sous l’ombre de ses ailes” (p. 13), D. “die hen als in een versekerde plaetse begeven hadden / onder de schaduwe van syn vleugelen” (p. 18) (who had thrown themselves in search of shelter under the shadow of his wings); It. abbassargli (chapter III, p. 22) (“to humble them”, p. 17), Fr. “qu’il abbassait un peu les cornes” (p. 14), D. “de hoornen een weynich af-ghestooten” (p. 15) (to shorten their horns a bit). The famous lion-fox metaphor is somehow enhanced in the French and Dutch text. D’Auvergne, followed by Van Nyevelt, throws a distinctively theatrical light

The first Dutch translation

191

on Machiavelli’s considerations. In chapter XVIII “sapere bene usare la bestia e lo uomo” (p. 115) (“know how to avail himself of the beast and the man”, p. 45) is rendered in the French translation as “sçauoir bien jouër le roole de la beste, & de l’homme ensemble” (p. 64) and accordingly in the Dutch translation as “wel weten te speelen het Rolleken van het Beest ende van de Mensche te ghelijck” (p. 80) (know well how to play the role of the beast and of the man at a time). In the same chapter Machiavelli’s admonition that “Those who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are about” (p. 45) (“Coloro che stano semplicemente in sul lione, non se ne intendono”, p. 116) is rendered in French as “ceux qui n’usent simplement que du Lyon, n’entendent pas bien le jeu de leur personage” (p. 65) and in Dutch as “maer die die slechtelicken niet als den Leeuwe ghebruycken/ en verstaen het spel van haer Personnagie niet wel” (p. 80) (Those who rely solely on the lion do not understand well the role of their character). In chapter XIX Machiavelli praises Severus because “he knew well how to counterfeit the fox and the lion” (p. 49) (“seppe bene usare la persona del lione e della golpe”, p. 130). The more neutral “usare” (to use) corresponds to the French jouer and the Dutch spelen (play): “il sceut finement jouër le personage du renard, & du Lyon” (p. 72) “looflijck hy de personagie wiste te speelen van de Vos/ ende van de Leeuwe” (p. 90) (he knew how to play skilfully the role of the fox and that of the lion). Both in the French and the Dutch culture up to the present day, thanks to the extraordinary and longlasting success of the bunch of medieval rhymed tales focusing on the character of Renart-Reynaerde the Fox,63 and his tricks at the court of the Lion king, the nature of the fox and that of the lion are connected to these literary/farcical characters. This might be a possible explanation for the recurring use of words such as “role”, “character”, and “play”. Additions to the text could be particularly meaningful in the context of an original reworking on Van Nyevelt’s side, but this is not the case. Additions in the Dutch text are consistent with the French source. Comparison shows that in the frequent periphrases explicating the sometimes laconic phrasing in Machiavelli the Dutch version closely follows the French, and this also occurs with additions in places where no explication would be needed. Here I mention the most evident example, showing D’Auvergne’s liberty with the translation of Machiavelli, and Van Nyevelt’s dependence on the French 63

Among the many editions and studies devoted to this subject see: J.R. Simpson, Animal body, Literary Corpus: the Old French «Roman de Renart » (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1996) and Reynard the Fox and other mediaeval Netherlands secular literature, ed. by Eric Colledge (Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff, 1967).

192

Francesca Terrenato

source. In chapter VI, when dealing with the difficulties new leaders have to face in order to enforce still unfamiliar rules, Machiavelli briefly compares religion and politics to demonstrate how a promoter of innovative ideas can achieve a durable success only with military support. According to Machiavelli, this explains why Moses reached his goal, while Gerolamo Savonarola did not. Machiavelli comments: Di qui nacque che tutti e’ profeti armati vinsono, ed e’ disarmati ruinorno. Perché oltre alle cose dette, la natura de’ populi è varia; ed è facile a persuadere loro una cosa, ma è difficile fermargli in quella persuasione (p. 36) (Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed. Besides the reasons mentioned, the nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion, p. 22).

Alongside with the amplification often adopted by the French translator, here we have an outspoken content manipulation. In D’Auvergne’s translation the first statement gives way to a digression strongly marked, in my opinion, with a religious and political nuance, as also testified by the use of nouvelle doctrine (new doctrine) corresponding to the Italian cosa (‘thing’ in the sentence “persuadere loro una cosa”). Et qu’ainsi soit, il appert par la saincte histoire de la Bible, tous les Prophetes qui ont eu puissance de contraindre, estre venus au dessus de leurs reformations. Et les autres qui n’estoient garnis que de la simple parole & predication, auoient esté martyrisèz et bannis: parce qu’outre ce que i’ai desia dit, la nature du peuple est variable, et fort facile à se persuader du commencement quelque nouuelle doctrine. Mais il est extremement mal aisé de l’y arrester & contenir à perpetuité. (p. 23)

The Dutch text adopts the addition word by word. This evidence reinforces (if needed) the idea of the direct contact between the French and the Dutch translation. Ende dat het alsoo zy/door de Bybelsche Historien blijckt, dat alle de Propheten die macht ghehadt hebben om te dwinghen/ Meesters gheworden zijn van henluyder reformeeringhen. Ende de anderen die niet voorsien en waren als met het slechte woordt/ende predicatie/zijn ghemartiliseert/ende ghebannen gheworden/om dat boven het ghene dat ic alreede geseydt hebbe/de natuere des volcx veranderlijck is./en seer licht om hen te laten beraden int begin van eenighe nieuwe leeringhe. Maer het is boven maten qualijck daer by te houden/ende in eeuwicheydt daer aen te hechten. (p. 28)

In English the addition proper (italicized here above in the French and Dutch text) sounds as follows: “from the Biblical histories it is evident that all the Prophets who have had the power of constraining became masters of their own reformations. The others, who were equipped but with their words, and

The first Dutch translation

193

predication, were persecuted and exiled.” This addition can be explained in the light of the translator’s specific interest for the complex development of Reformed doctrines in Europe. Is has to be noted that the Italian original does not mention concepts like predication, doctrine, reform or faith. This appears to be consistent with what we know about Van Nyevelt and his commitment to the Protestant cause in the Low Countries. He took active part in a war which combined political independence with religious freedom. I am unfortunately unable to demonstrate that this is the case for D’Auvergne as well. Too little is known about this humanist. Interest on his part in the Calvinist struggle in France is plausible, although this does not imply that he was of Protestant faith. In both countries the diffusion of Calvinism is accompanied by violent actions and conflicts in arms. It is, significantly, the only passage in which both translations differ so markedly from the original. Other additions are of a lesser length, and do not have any ideological meaning. To render the laconic Machiavellian sentence starting with “non capessi in Alba” (p. 34) (“he should not remain in Alba”, p. 21) in chapter VI, for instance, D’Auvergne produces a small narrative: “fust dejetté hors de la ville d’Albe, & miserablement exposé aux bestes sauvages” (He was thrown out of the city of Alba, and miserably exposed to the wild animals, p. 22). The Dutch text reads “wech geworpen worden van Alva ende ellendelyck de wilde beesten voor gestelt worden” (p. 26), which follows consistently D’Auvergne’s addition except for a slight divergence in the name of the city, which is rendered as Alva.64 Misinterpretations and errors are largely common to both versions. Some of them, as Pianori has shown, derive from the Italian edition (the Giuntina) D’Auvergne was working on, such as the erroneous transcriptions verità (truth) for varietà (variety) in the dedicatory epistle (p. 5) and temuto (feared) for tenuto (held, considered) in chapter XVI (p. 104).65 In some other cases an erroneous rendering on the French translator’s part, which then also affected the Dutch version, is detectable. An example at a syntactic level can be found in chapter VII, where Machiavelli uses an architectural metaphor to explain why it was so difficult for Cesare Borgia to keep the territories he had acquired by fortune: “[…] chi non fa e fondamenti prima, gli potrebbe con una grande virtù farli poi, ancora che si faccino con disagio dello architettore e periculo dello edifizio.” (p. 40) (“he who has not first laid his foundations may be able with great ability to lay them afterwards, but they will be laid

64

65

A “Spanish” variant of the name, that rang a bell for all the Dutch, who had experienced the hardness of the Duke of Alva, lieutenant of the Spanish king Philip II. For further examples see Pianori, pp. 91-93.

194

Francesca Terrenato

with trouble to the architect and danger to the building”, p. 23).The French version adopts the metaphor but does not render the first clause as a negative, creating an inconsistency in the sentence: “encores qu’on ait ietté ses fondements auant la suite de l’edifice (although you have laid your foundations before continuing the building), il se pourroit faire que par une soigneuse industrie on les asseoiroit après, combien que ce ne sçauroit estre sans extreme peine de l’ouvrier et apparent danger du bastiment” (p. 26). The same inconsistency marks the Dutch rendering: “hoe wel men zijn grondt al gheleydt heft voor het vervolch des ghetimmers/soude het moghen geschieden datmen die door een sonderlingh vernuft daer nae leyde/hoewel het niet soude connen zijn sonder de uyterste moeyten ende Werckmeesters/ ende blijckelick perikel des ghetimmers” (p. 31). The oversimplification of the French rendering of architettore (architect) as ouvrier (worker), also affects the Dutch version, which translates it as werckmeester. A misinterpretation probably due to an insufficient knowledge of Italian is apparent in chapter VIII, in the passage devoted to the cruelty and disloyalty of Oliverotto firmano (Oliverotto Euffreducci): “lui a uno tratto si rizzò” (p. 59) (“he rose at once”, p. 28), writes Machiavelli. D’Auvergne clearly misinterprets the verb and writes “il se mist sur l’instant à sous-rire” (p. 35) (he began sniggering at once), followed by Van Nyevelt who renders as: “begost hy ter selver tijt te schamper-lacchen” (p. 42). A similar case can be observed in chapter XIV, towards the end, where the prince is given the advice to take advantage of peaceful periods to read and learn from the deeds of the great leaders of the past. These examples “may be available to him in adversity” (p. 40): “farne capitale per potersene valere nelle avversità” (p. 101), reads the original, where “far capitale” is to be interpreted as “to treasure”. The Italian idiom is rendered too literally in French as: “mettre […] ces exercices au rang des premiers & plus capitaux affaires” (p. 57) (place these exercises among the first and more capital occupations) and consequently in Dutch as: “stellen dese oeffeninghe […] onder de eerste/ en ghewichtichste saken” (p. 70). A last peculiar case is that of Santi Bentivogli in chapter XIX, who, Machiavelli reports, was believed to be the son of a smith (fabbro, p. 124). D’Auvergne renders erroneously with menuisier (carpenter, p. 69) and Van Nyevelt goes even further with his backer (baker, p. 88).

The first Dutch translation

195

7. Original features of the Dutch Prince If the additions to and most of the divergences from the original in the Dutch version can all be attributed to the French source, this is not true of the omissions. They seldom occur, and can be explained as a result of the author’s negligence, or of some mistakes made in the process of composition of the text. Also the page numbering of the book is sometimes inconsistent. In chapter III referring to the means of maintaining the acquired territories when they share language and habits with the conquering principate, Machiavelli states that the prince has to take two measures: “l’uno che el sangue del loro principe antico si spenga; l’altro, di non alterare né loro legge né loro dazi; talmente che in brevissimo tempo diventa con loro principato antiquo tutto uno corpo.” (p. 13) (“the one, that the family of their former lord is extinguished; the other that neither their laws nor their taxes are altered, so that in a very short time they will become entirely one body with the old principality”, p. 14). The French translation follows the original: L’une de abolir entierement le sang & la memoire de leur precedent Seigneur. L’autre de n’immuer leur premieres loix & impositions de tailles afin que par ce moyen le nouueau pays soit en peu de temps rendu un mesme corps avec l’ancien. (pp. 8-9)

The Dutch translation clearly misses the second measure due to a mistake, so that the first proposition (beginning with “the one”) is not followed by its logic conclusion (beginning with “the other”): “Het eene heel ende al te vernielen het bloet ende de gedachtenis van henluyder voorgaende Heere” (p. 9). A similar case is to be found in the first lines of chapter VI where the omission of the original “nè alla virtù di quelli che tu imiti aggiugnere” (p. 33) (“attain to the power of those they imitate”, p. 21) occurs in the Dutch translation only (p. 25). Some mistakes occur only in the Dutch version, even though they are not frequent and may be attributed to negligence or lack of attention. In chapter III the Dutch text reads vrient (friend) (p. 11) instead of enemy (Fr. enemy, p. 11; It. nimico, p. 15). This mistake, probably occurred in the process of composition, might be due to the close resemblance between vrient (friend) and vyant (enemy) in the Dutch spelling of those days. In chapter VII, in handling the deeds of the French king in Italy (p. 42), the Dutch text adds an erroneous date, absent in the original as well as in the French version: aengaende 1528 (during 1528) (p. 32). The related events took in fact place in 1502. In chapter XI, where Pope Alexander VI is mentioned (p. 74), the Dutch text reads Alexander de sevende (p. 53) (A. the seventh) and further on when Machiavelli asserts that Alexander VI was the first pope who had

196

Francesca Terrenato

enough power to contrast the Venetians (“ruinare e Viniziani”, p. 74) (ruin the Venetians, p. 32) the French text follows the original with the usual amplification: “abaisser la reputation des Venitiens” (p. 43) (hurt the reputation of the Venetians), whereas the Dutch gives the opposite interpretation (“vermeerderen de grootachtinghe der Venetianen”, p. 53) (increase the reputation of the Venetians). A notable characteristic of the Dutch text is the presence of printed marginal annotations (very common in Dutch learned works of the time), lacking in Machiavelli’s original and in D’Auvergne’s first editions, one of which was its source.66 The authorship of the printed marginal annotations present in this text cannot be ascertained with sufficient certainty. Let us therefore assume that they are in the translators’ hand, although they might have been inserted by the printer. The identity of their author is in fact of no importance here. Their significance lies in the text-reader relation they establish, indicating which were thought to be the highlights, or controversial passages, in the text. Through these notes, varying in length and content, the author tries to orient his intended readers, to focus their attention on aspects worth underlining because of their educative or moralizing potential. Here is thus an original feature of the Dutch Prince that I regard as a very meaningful contribution to our understanding of how this work was received in the Low Countries. The annotations reveal a great diversity in distribution, form and content. They do not appear in every chapter and are especially frequent in chapters III, XII, XIII and XIV. It can be of some interest here to sum up the subjects of these chapters. Chapter III concerns mixed principalities; chapter XII deals with the different kinds of soldiery, including mercenaries; chapter XIII is also about auxiliaries, mixed, and one’s own soldiery; and, finally, chapter XIV tells what a prince’s requirements are as far as the art of war is concerned. These subjects are clearly of a special interest for a Dutch reader of the late sixteenth-early seventeenth century, living in a country that refused to belong to a foreign kingdom and at war with Spain. The rebellious provinces frequently used mercenaries and were seeking allies, but also 66

The French text Van Nyevelt was working on had no marginal annotations, with the exception of the three inserted in the French version by censors (see Pianori, pp. 89-90). The 1613-1614 edition cured by Chappellain, on the contrary, contains a large number of “maximes politiques” (political maxims), that is to say marginal annotations. This edition of the Prince shows a regular distribution of annotations among the chapters. The short texts (normally one or two on each page) are very congruous with each other. They tend to summarize the content of the passage they border, encapsulating it in a sentence that very often begins with “Un Prince” or “Princes”, followed by a condensation of the advice given in Machiavelli’s text. More than 150 in number, these French annotations constitute a sort of abridged speculum principis (according to Machiavelli’s idea of prince).

The first Dutch translation

197

registered some victories thanks to the courage of their native soldiers and under the guidance of the stadhouder, prince and general of the Dutch army and fleet. If we attribute these annotations to Van Nyevelt, which I think plausible, we can get a first general idea of what he wanted his readers to notice, to learn, to reflect upon. And of the aspects of the text his readers were most likely to find interesting. The corpus of marginal annotations, as said before, lacks uniformity. They usually trace a brief synopsis of the historical content of the running text, with exemplary function. In few cases, they express a general moralizing statement. Here are some examples of “historical” annotations from the aforementioned chapters: “Lodewijck de 12. Coninck van Vrankrijk wort door syn eighen stercten weder van het Hartochdom van Milanen berooft” (chapter III, p. 8) (Louis XII King of France looses again the Duchy of Milan at his own soldiers’ hand); “Venetianen dooden haer Velt-Heer Carmagnole” (chapter XII, p. 60) (Venetians kill their Captain Carmagnola); “De Paus Iulius roept de Spaengiaerden te hulpe die gheslaghen worden” (chapter XIII, p. 62) (Pope Julius asks the Spaniards for help, who are then defeated); “Philopemenes is een krijchservaren man gheweest” (chapter XIV, p. 69) (Philopemenes was experienced in military things). Among the cases of moralizing or didactic statements we can quote: “De gelegentheyt destijts moet men ghebruicken als hy comt” (chapter III, p. 14:) (You have to grab a favourable chance when time comes); “Een vorst des crijchs onervaren comt in verachtinge” (chapter XIV, p. 68) (A prince inexperienced in arms is despised); “Vorsten en krijchsoverstens behooren historien te lessen” (chapter XIV, p. 69) (Princes and army leaders should read history). It has to be noticed that it is only in chapter XIV, the one dealing with princes’ military education and inclination, that the annotations are mainly devoted to advising a prince (vorst). Military experience and historical knowledge were clearly the most important qualities for a prince (as well as for a general or army officer), in Van Nyevelt’s opinion. This comes as no surprise if we think of Van Nyevelt’s own education and career and of the qualities of the stadhouder, the young prince Maurits, who was successfully fighting against the Spaniards in those years. There is another clear example of Van Nyevelt’s autonomous judgement with regard to his French source. In chapter XVII (p. 109 in the Italian edition) we find a quotation from Virgil’s Aeneid, book I, lines 563-564. These lines are quoted in Latin in the edition D’Auvergne was working on.

198

Francesca Terrenato

Res dura & regni novitas me talia cogunt Moliri, & late fines custode tueri (p. 62) (my cruel fate, and doubts attending an unsettled state, Force me to guard my coast from foreign foes).67

To the Latin text D’Auvergne adds a French poetic version, a quatrain in which the original meaning is forced in order to achieve a better result: L’adversité, & mon regne frais né Font qu’ainsi pres à mon fait ie regarde, Et que ie tiens puissante et seure garde Autour des fins de ce peuple estonné. (p. 62) (Adversity, and my newly born kingdom Constrain me to watch closely my things And to guard with force and certainty The borders of this upset people.)

Other Latin texts (chapter titles) and quotations (Livy, Tacitus) in the Machiavellian manuscript are vulgarized in the Giuntina whereon D’Auvergne’s version was based; therefore they are translated and directly inserted in the running text. The other quotation recognisable as such in the Italian source, namely the lines from Petrarca’s Canzone all’Italia (Song for Italy; p. 175 in the Italian edition) that conclude Machiavelli’s Prince, is also transcribed in the original and then translated by D’Auvergne. Van Nyevelt’s choice is very significant in this regard: he bases his own Dutch version of the Vergilian lines on the Latin without taking the French version into account, thus producing a much more literal translation: dwinghen, De teghenspoet en nieuwheyt van mijn Rijck my Op mijn hoede te zijn, te passen op mijn dinghen. (p. 76) (Adversity and my newly born kingdom Oblige me to be watchful and to look after my things)

These lines may well be attributed to Van Nyevelt because they differ from the Dutch translation circulating at that time, the one by Cornelis van Ghistele dating back to 1556.68 It is also to be noticed that the same does not apply to Petrarca’s lines. Here Van Nyevelt does not dare give his own 67

68

This English translation is taken from: Virgil, The Aeneid, translated by John Dryden, ed. by J. Morwood (London: Wordsworth, 1997), p. 25. Deerste sesse boecken van Aeneas ghenaemt Aeneidos: beschreven in Latijn door Vergilius Maro/Nu eerste in onser duytscher talen door Cornelis van Ghistele retorijckelijck over gheset (Tantwerpen: by die wed. van Jacob van Liesveldt, 1556).

The first Dutch translation

199

translation and follows, albeit not literally, the free French translation offered by D’Auvergne. He obviously did not master Italian as he did Latin. As for the other aforementioned vulgarized titles and classical quotations nothing has to be noted: they were translated from Italian into French and subsequently into Dutch. There are certainly some original aspects in Van Nyevelt’s translation at a more general level. A number of translational options in his Dutch version deserve a closer look. First of all, we should deal with the category of political and institutional terms and entities. The Dutch text shows a high degree of autonomy in this regard, demonstrating the commitment of the author to his public, who could really understand Machiavelli’s political thought just by taking as a reference the contemporary establishment of the Low Countries. A first notable fact, though not immediately connected to the effort of re-contextualizing political concepts, is the absence of the word republiek, or of its variant republijck, despite its consolidated if not widespread use in those days. In the French version republique, on the contrary, is always corresponding to the Italian republica. Van Nyevelt’s solution is worth discussing: in his Prince the most common translation for republica is ghemene regheering, which we could literally translate as “common”, or “popular government”, if we analyze other contexts in which the adjective ghemeen and its derivations appear.69 But in the same title of the book we read, dealing with the subject of the Discourses which precede the Prince, that this first work by Machiavelli handles the different forms of government among which republijcken, of gemeine landts regerieringhen70 (republics or common governments of the country). The text in the frontispiece is not of Van Nyevelt’s making (as also testified by the different spelling of words such as gemein, regieringh), but throughout the book republijck often recurs in the context of ancient Roman institutions. The choice not to use this word in the Prince cannot be accidental, neither can be ascribed to the purist attitude shared by many literati back in those days. It is true that, starting with the half of the sixteenth century, the majority of writers who promoted the use of the Dutch mother tongue were engaged in a crusade against the use of foreign words, especially Gallicisms; Van Nyevelt, though, does not avoid them (see in this context gouverneur, governor, and lieutenant) and does not seem to share his contemporaries’ preoccupation with the purity of Dutch. A plausible hypothesis to explain the absence of 69

70

For instance D. ghemeente to translate It. populo (people). Only in two cases the plural It. republiche is translated as D. ghemeene heerlijckheden (p. 67), or vrye regheeringen (p. 71) respectively “common lordships” and “free governments”). See Gerber, p. 145.

200

Francesca Terrenato

republijck or republiek (which was even present in the official denomination of the country, Republiek der Seven Verenigde Provincien) in the Dutch Prince, is that Van Nyevelt did not want his readers to get confused, due to an erroneous overlapping with what republica meant in Machiavelli’s text. In Machiavelli’s Prince, the term republica indicates a form of government alternative to the princely or monarchic authority. But in the Low Countries’ political context, monarchic and oligarchic trends co-existed inside the borders of the country, which nevertheless defined itself a “republic”. It is only later, in the course of the seventeenth century, that republicanism and the strife for a wider participation in the state’s administration would flourish, though briefly and only in a partial form; we cannot speak of a republican government prior to the brief experiment of the Batavian Republic imposed by the French revolutionary army in 1795. In the period in which Van Nyevelt worked on his translation, the Dutch idea of republic (mostly modelled on the hypothetic government of Batavian forefathers or on the Venetian example) was very distant from that of democracy: this is why, in translating the Prince, Van Nyevelt opted for “common government”. In order to gain a better insight into the complex political situation of the late sixteenth-early seventeenth century Low Countries and in the related translational choices, some basic data are required. Alongside with the formation of the Union of Utrecht in 1579 (the political confederation of the rebellious Northern provinces), a new distribution of powers was established for this state which did not recognize the absolute power of the Spanish king any more. The organ responsible for the executive power was the Raad van State, State Council, but as a matter of fact executive power was in the hands of the Staten-Generaal, the assembly of the provincial States that gathered the representatives of the elite (tycoons of commerce and nobility) coming from towns and provinces, the so-called regenten (regents). In the provincial delegations the raadpensionaris, or provincial lawyer, played a major role. The stadhouder, a prince of the Orange-Nassau family, did not wield monarchic power in principle, but was the commander of the army and fleet, and had a great influence on domestic and international politics. We can assume that through his translation Van Nyevelt was mainly interested in offering both positive and negative examples with regard to foreign politics, army organization, relationships between authorities and population. The idea that history, ancient but also contemporary, could contribute to the comprehension of present matters and determine political choices was widely accepted. In the Low Countries, as in Protestant countries in general, the need to reshape the translated work in order to make it fit the vocabulary and experience patterns of the public, as Luther had done with his

The first Dutch translation

201

translation of the Bible, was strongly felt. There are several examples of words and syntagma that confirm Van Nyevelt’s effort to appeal to ‘local’ experience shared by his intended readers. This is especially true for terms defining institutions, political and military positions. Among those we may mention: D. regenten ende raedt van de stadt (chapter V, p. 23), Fr. officiers & conseil de ville (p. 19), It. stato di pochi (p. 29) (oligarchy); D. Camer van provincialen raedt (chapter VII, p. 34), Fr. chambre de parlement, It. iudicio civile (p. 46) (civil court); D. Raedt (chapter VIII, p. 40), Fr. senat, It. senato (p. 56) (senate); D. pensionarius (chapter VII, p. 34), Fr. advocat, It. avvocato (p. 46) (lawyer); D. stadthouder generael van de heyrkracht (chapter XIII, p. 65), Fr. lieutenant general de l’armée (p. 53), It. capo delli eserciti (p. 73) (general). In this context it is also worth noting that when Machiavelli uses the syntagm autorità assoluta (absolute authority) as opposed to the civic authority in chapter IX the French text translates tyrannie (tyranny) and the Dutch follows this ‘overrendering’ consequently (p. 49). A little but meaningful divergence from the French text concerns the Italian word colonia (chapter III, p. 14) (colony), which is simply rendered in French with colonie, whereas Van Nyevelt produces a hendiadys meant to explain a term that had not entered the Dutch political vocabulary yet: Colonias ofte Bewooninghen (p. 10) (colonies or settlements). The textual evidence for colonie in Dutch, according to the authorative Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal71 is posterior to the first edition of the Prince. The appearance of the word in this book might be among the first occurrences in the history of Dutch language. Other evidences of re-contextualization of this work in the Low Countries are related to the local landscape, not less peculiar than the political order of the time. In his famous similitude between a flooding river and the effect of Fortune on human life, at the beginning of chapter XXV, Machiavelli mentions ripari (barriers) and argini (banks) (p. 163) three times. These could serve as a barrier to the unpredictable violence of nature, as of fortune. In two out of three cases the French text translates force levees (solid banks) and puissants remparts (powerful ramparts) (p. 91), with the usual amplification. The Dutch text here contains a clear reference to the successful system contrived by the Dutch to prevent the seas and rivers from flooding the country: it translates Dycken (dykes) and Wallen (banks or ramparts) (p. 113).

71

Check the entry ‘kolonie’ on the site gtb.inl.nl, created by the Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie.

202

Francesca Terrenato

Another aspect deserving attention is the autonomy of the Dutch translator when it comes to abstract words, often connected to human nature and feelings. The French version does not show any significant divergences from Machiavelli’s text in the translation of concepts such as virtue, fortune, friendship, piety, timidity. The ambiguity peculiar to these terms in the original Prince can be preserved by using the corresponding word in French, with the exception of ignavia (p. 160) (sloth), which is translated as nonchalance et lascheté (p. 89) in French, and versumenis ende versaechtheyt (negligence and laxity) (p. 111) in Dutch. Van Nyevelt cannot rely upon a range of consistent correspondences, and, in order to give a translation as accurate as possible, he has to interpret the text, trying to grab semantic nuances. It is apparent, for example, that he opted for different renderings of the noun vertu (virtue) and the adjective vertueux (virtuous) in the French text, which occur just as frequently as virtù and virtuoso do in the Italian original. These words have such a high degree of polysemy in this text that it seems logic to diversify their Dutch translation according to the context. The most common rendering in Van Nyevelt is dapperheyt (adjective: dapper), nowadays a slightly obsolete word, which appears in the works of major seventeenth century Dutch authors such as P. C. Hooft and J. van den Vondel with the meaning of courage, steadfastness, resoluteness. Less frequent solutions are vromicheyt (adjective: vroom) and deucht. Although they also might serve as synonyms with dapperheyt, both may be interpreted in a sense that is closer to a moral, religious quality: the will to follow ethic rules and the ability to discern good from evil. The alternation of dapperheyt, vromcheyt and deucht in the Dutch text is not simply consistent with the stylistic device of variation, but is a result of the effort to render the nuance emerging from the context in which they are located. Deucht is for Van Nyevelt the virtue of the popes mentioned by Machiavelli in chapter XI (p. 73) and of emperor Marcus Aurelius in chapter XIX (p. 128). Vromicheyt or deucht is the virtue of the eccellentissimi (most excellent), Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus in chapter VI (p. 33). In all these cases D’Auvergne simply translates vertu, without any further interpretation. A similar preoccupation is evident in chapter VII: the Italian fortuna (fortune) (pp. 38 and 40) is alternatively rendered in Dutch as avontuur (p. 30) (case, occasion) or gheluck (p. 29), and elsewhere voorspoedigheid (p. 119) (good fortune, favourable occasion). To sum up, although at a first glance the Dutch version of the Prince does not appear to be a very original work, being so close to D’Auvergne’s version, it definitely has some interesting features. These are of a particular relevance in the context of the evolution of the Dutch language, of the

The first Dutch translation

203

enlargement of cultural boundaries, of the creation of an ideological and political identity in the late sixteenth-early seventeenth century Low Countries. The elements underlined in the present paper do not exhaust the complex issues brought about by this first Dutch translation of the Prince, but are useful as indications for possible future developments in this field of research. If integrated with comparisons to other versions, philological analysis will certainly bring to light other elements for the reconstruction of the history of the European dissemination of this text. Moreover, as we have seen, the choice of words in a translation is not only meant to respond to linguistic and semantic requirements, but is connected to the historical, political, cultural context in which the different versions of this text are introduced. The Dutch Prince thus invites us to abandon a purely neutral and objective point of view to gain a wide-range perspective.

Bibliography Primary Sources Biestkens, N., De drie delen van de klucht van Claas Kloet, with an introduction by G. R. W. Dibbets (Zutphen: N. V. W. J. Thieme & Cie, [1969]) Cyropædia Xenophontis. Dat is, Het leven ende de onder-wijsinghe van Cyrvs dies naems de eerste, coninck van Persien / overgheset in Nederduytsche spraecke, door Ad.V.Z.V.N (t'Amstelredam: by Barendt Adriaensz, 1592) Deerste sesse boecken van Aeneas ghenaemt Aeneidos: beschreven in Latijn door Vergilius Maro/Nu eerste in onser duytscher talen door Cornelis van Ghistele retorijckelijck over gheset (Tantwerpen: by die weduwe van Jacob van Liesveldt, 1556) Discovrs de l'estat de paix et de gverre de N. Macchiavel citoyen et secretaire de Florence (A Paris: Chez Tovssainet Qvinet, 1635) Discours politiques de Machiavel, sur la I. décade de Tite Live. Traduction nouvelle (Amsterdam: chez Henri Desbordes, 1691) De discoursen van Nicolaes Machiavel Florentyn over de tien eerste boecken van Titus Livius [...] hier is by gevoecht des selven autheursboeck, vanden Prince [...]/ beijde uit den Italiaenschen in onse Nederduytsche tale overgeset door A.van Nievelt (1615) Dissertatio de bono principe adversus Nic. Machiavelli Florentini scriptoris suasorias, quas libris suis de Principe, Republica, aliisque insparsit (Amsterdami: ex typographia Guilielmi Blaeu, 1634)

204

Francesca Terrenato

Grotius, H., Tractaet vande Oudtheyt vande Batavische nu Hollandsche Republique (In ’s Graven-Haghe: by Hillebrant Jacobsz, 1610) Hooft, P.C., De briefwisseling van P.C. Hooft, 3 vols., ed. by H. W. van Tricht and others (Culemborg: Tjeenk Willink/Noorduijn, 1976-1979) La Court, J. de, Politike discoursen handelende in ses onderscheide boeken, van steeden, landen, oorlogen, kerken, regeeringen, en zeeden, beschreven door D. C. (t'Amsterdam: by I. Ciprianus vandr. Gracht, 1662). Leopardi, G., Tutte le opere, ed. by W. Binni, 2 vols. (Firenze: Sansoni, 1969) Justus Lipsius Politica, edition, translation, introduction by J. Waszink (proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam: Amsterdam 2002) T'Leven der doorluchtige Griecken ende Romeynen, tegen elck-anderen vergeleken / door Plutarchus van Cheronea; Uut de Griecksche sprake overgeset door M. Iaques Amyot, mitsgaders het leven van Hannibal, Scipio den Africaen, uyt het Latijn verfranscht by Carolus Clusius; Voorder Het leven van Epaminondas, Philippus van Macedonien, Dionysius den ouden, (tyran van Sicilien), Augustus Cesar, [...], beschreven door Aemilius Probus; Met een cort begrijp op elcx leven: [...], tesamen van nieus tot gemeen nut verduyscht, door A.V.Z.V.N. (Tot Leyden: by Ian Paedts Iacobsz. ende Ian Bouwensz., 1603) Machiavelli, N., Opere, ed. by M. Bonfantini (Milano: Ricciardi, 1963) ——., The Prince, trans. by W.K. Marriott (London: Dent, 1908) ——., De Principatibus, ed. by G. Inglese (Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, 1994) ——., Il Principe, ed. by G. Inglese (Torino: Einaudi, 1995) Nicolai Machiavelli Princeps, interprete Casp. Langenhert, qui sua ei commentaria adjecit (Amstelaedami: apud Janssonio-WaesbergiosJanssoons van Waesberge, 1699) Le prince, trad. et commenté par A.N. Amelot (Amsterdam: chez Henry Wetstein, 1683) Princeps; ex Sylv. Telii traductione emend.; acc. Ant. Possevini judicium de Nic. Machiavelli et Joann. Bodini scriptis (Lugduni Batavorum, 1643) Le Prince de Nicholas Macchiauelli secretaire & citoien de Florence traduit d’Italien en Francois. Laus supra regna. Auec Priuilege du Roy [trans. by Gaspard d’Auvergne] (Poitiers: De limprimerie d’Enguilbert de Marnef, 1553) Le Prince de Nicolas Machiavelle secretaire et citoien de Florence. Traduit d’Italien en Françoys Par Guillaume Cappel (Paris: Chez Charles Estienne Imprimeur du Roy, 1553)

The first Dutch translation

205

Le Prince de Nicolas Machiavel secretaire et citoyen florentin. Dedié au magnifique Laurens fils de Pierre de Medicis. Traduit d'Italien en François auec la vie de l'auteur mesme, par Iaq. Gohory Parisien (Paris: Robert le Mangnier, 1571) Il principe di Niccolo Machiauelli al magnifico Lorenzo di Piero de Medici. La uita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca a Zanobi Buondelmonti, & à Luigi Alemanni, composta per il medesimo. Il modo che tenne il duca Valentino per ammazare Vitellozo, Oliuerotto da Fermo, il .S. Pagolo, & il Duca di Grauina discritta per il medesimo. I ritratti delle cose della Francia, & della Alamagna, per il medesimo nuouamente aggiunti (Firenze: Bernardo di Giunta, 1532) De prins van N. Machiavel, met aenteekeningen van den heer Amelot de la Houssaie [..]; alles in 't Nederduytsch gebragt door Daniel Ghys ('s Gravenhage: by Engelbrecht Boucquet, 1705) Opera posthuma, quorum series post præfationem exhibetur / B.d.S. [Benedictus de Spinoza] (1677) Reynard the Fox and other mediaeval Netherlands secular literature, ed. by Eric Colledge (Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff, 1967) Virgil, The Aeneid, translated by John Dryden, ed. by J. Morwood (London: Wordsworth Editions, 1997).

Critical literature Baldwin, G. P., ‘The Translation of Political Theory in Early Modern Europe’, in Cultural Translation in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Peter Burke and R. Po-chia Hsia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 101-124 Bertelli, S., and P. Innocenti, Bibliografia Machiavelliana (Verona: Edizioni Valdonega, 1979) Gallicet Calvetti, C., Spinoza lettore del Machiavelli, Scienze Filosofiche 11 (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1972) Van Gelderen, M., ‘The Machiavellian moment and the Dutch Revolt: the rise of Neostoicism and Dutch Republicanism’, in Machiavelli and Republicanism, ed. by G. Bock, Q. Skinner, M. Viroli (Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 205-223 Gerber, A., Niccolò Machiavelli. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen seiner Werke im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Con un profilo dell’autore a cura di L. Firpo (Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1962) Geurts, P., Overzicht van Nederlandsche Politieke Geschriften tot in de eerste helft der 17de eeuw (Maastricht: Van Aelst, 1942)

206

Francesca Terrenato

Haitsma Mulier, E., Het Nederlandse gezicht van Machiavelli. Twee en een halve eeuw interpretatie 1550-1800 (Hilversum: Verloren, 1989) ——., ‘A controversial republican: Dutch views on Machiavelli in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, in Machiavelli and Republicanism, ed. by G. Bock, Q. Skinner, M. Viroli (Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 247-263 Van Heck, P., ‘La prima traduzione in olandese dei Discorsi e del Principe’, in Niccolò Machiavelli politico, storico, letterato, ed. by Jean-Jacques Marchand (Atti del Convegno di Losanna 27-30 settembre 1995: Roma, 1996), pp. 411-424 ——., ‘Cymbalum Politicorum, Consultor Dolosus. Two Dutch Academics on Machiavelli’, in On the Edge of Truth and Honesty, ed. by T. van Houdt and others, (Intersections – Yearbook for Early Modern Studies 2 2002) (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2002), pp. 46-63. Israel, J., The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806 (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1995) Kossmann, E.H., Politieke theorie en geschiedenis (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1987) Moes, E.W. and C. P. Burger, De Amsterdamsche boekdrukkers en uitgevers in de zestiende eeuw, repr. by P.C. van der Krogt, 4 vols. (Utrecht: HES Publishers, 1988) Petrina, A., Machiavelli in the British Isles: Two Early Modern Translations of the Prince (London: Ashgate, forthcoming) Procacci, G., Storia della fortuna del Machiavelli (Bari: Laterza, 1965) ——., Machiavelli nella cultura europea dell’età moderna (Roma: Laterza, 1995) Servaas van Rooijen, A. J., Inventaire des livres formant la bibliothèque de B. Spinoza (Den Haag: Tengeler, 1899) Simpson, J.R., Animal body, Literary Corpus: the Old French «Roman de Renart» (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1996) Valkema Blauw, P., ‘Nicolaes Biestkens van Diest, in duplo, 1558-83’, in Theatrum orbis librorum, Liber amicorum presented to Nico Israel on the occasion of his 70th birthday, ed. by T. Croiset and others (Utrecht: HES Publishers, 1989), pp. 310-331

Serena Spazzarini

The first German translation Abstract: The present essay focuses on the first German translation of Il Principe, dated 1692 and handwritten by Albrecht von Lenz at the Silesian Court at the time of the Württemberg-Oels family. First, it gives the limited biographical information available on the translator and tries to highlight the reasons for Lenz’s dedication of the treatise to Princess Hedwig, Duke Sylvius Friedrich’s sister in law. It goes on to make a comparative analysis of the editions and translations that were most widespread and well-known at the time, in order to determine which text Lenz started from.

1. Biographical information on the first translator of Il Principe in German: Christian Albrecht von Lenz We do not have much information about the life of Albrecht von Lenz at our disposal, as the only writers referring to him are Johannes Sinapius (16571725), in his volume II dedicated to the “Silesian oddities” and published posthumously,1 and Johann Heinrich Zedler (1706-1751) in volume XVII of his omnicomprehensive Universal Lexikon.2 From what both report, Lenz descended from an old noble family of Swabian origin and had lived in Oels (Silesia) between the end of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the following century. At the time Oels was under the sovereignty of the Württemberg family, who only after the wedding, celebrated on the first May 1647, between Sylvius Nimrod (1622-1664)3 and the duchess Elisabeth Marie von

1

2

3

Des Schlesischen Adels Anderer Theil, Oder Fortsetzung Schlesischer Curiositäten, Darinnen Die Gräflichen, Freiherrlichen und Adelichen Geschlechter, So wohl Schlesischer Extraction, Als auch Die aus andern Königreichen und Ländern in Schlesien kommen, Und entweder darinnen noch floriren, oder bereits ausgangen, In völligem Abrisse dargestellet werden, Nebst einer nöthigen Vorrede und Register ausgefertiget von Johanne Sinapio (Leipzig und Breßlau: Michael Rohrlach, 1728). Großes Vollständiges UNIVERSAL LEXICON Aller Wissenschaften und Künste, welche bishero durch menschlichen Verstand und Witz erfunden und verbessert worden [...] (Halle und Leipzig: Johann Heinrich Zedler, 1738), XVII, column 139. Silvius Nimrod, duke von Württemberg-Oels (born on 2.5.1622 in Weiltingen — died on 26.4.1664 in Briese, near Oels): son of the duke Julius Friedrich von WürttembergWeitlingen and Anna Sabina, born duchess von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg. He was buried in the Schloßkirche of Oels.

208

Serena Spazzarini

Münsterberg-Oels (1625-1686)4 — at that time heiress to the Principality of Oels —, could rule the region until 1792. Sylvius Nimrod left four children still under age, one of whom — Carl Ferdinand (1650-1668) — died young. In accordance with the division ordered by the mother on 22 August 1673, the dukedom was split in three parts and Oels went to the eldest of the children, Sylvius Friedrich (1651-1697): it was under the new duke von Württemberg-Oels, that Lenz held the office of Kammerjunker. The dukedom, however, underwent again changes in 1697, when Sylvius Friedrich died heirless and the Oelsian residence was left to the living eldest brother, i.e. Christian Ulrich (1652-1704).5 It was only from 1702 that Lenz became Kammerjunker and Hof-Rath of the new Silesian duke, to whom two years later he dedicated a funeral oration.6 By the same Lenz were published: a dissertation entitled Axiomata Politica Principum e Politicorum Principe Tacito deprompta — printed in Tübingen in 1687 — two genealogical works, worthy of attention as they register the relationship of the Oelsian family with the emperor,7 and some short writings in Latin. Other panegyrics and genealogical writings remained unpublished,8 as did the translation of Il Principe written in 1692 with the title Der Fürst des Nicola Machiavell burgers u. Secretarii zu Florenz in welscher Sprach beschribn, und ins deütsch übersetzt von Christian Alb. von Lenz Herz. Wirt. Oelsn. CamerJunker.9

4

5

6

7

8

9

Elisabeth Marie, duchess von Württemberg-Oels (born on 11.5.1625 in Oels — died on 17.3.1686 in Oels). Daughter of the duke Carl Friedrich von Münsterberg-Oels and Anna Sophia, born duchess von Sachsen-Altenburg. She was buried in the Schloßkirche of Oels. From the division of the estates that occurred in 1673, Christian Ulrich received initially the fief of Bernstadt, where he lived first with Anna Elisabeth von Anhalt-Bernburg (16471680), married on 13th March of the same year, then with Sibylla Maria von SachsenMerseburg (1667-1693), married in 1683 and, finally with Sophie Wilhelmine von Ostfriesland (1659-1698), married in 1695. He had lived from 1698 in the residence of Oels and in 1700 he married Sophie von Mecklenburg-Güstrow (1662-1738). His government was characterized by a great architectural renewal. Panegyricus aeternaturae Gloriae Sereniss. Christiano Vlricho Duci in Silesia Olsnensi consecratus ipso sepulturae die 18. Iun. 1704. Der Herzogin Eleonore Charlotte zu Wurtemberg und Oels nahe Verwandniß mit Kayserl. und Königl. Majestät, 1692 und 1694; Erb-Prinzens Leopold Eberhards nahe Verwandniß [...]. Hochfürstlich Würtemberg-Oelsnisch-Genealogischer Cedern-Garten, d. i. […] Geschlechts-Register hoher Ahnen und Ur-Ahnen bis ins zehnde Glied […] im Jahr […] 1700; Hochfürstlich Würtemberg-Mönsterberg- und Oelsnischer geschlechts-Kalender an [1700]. The only copy available is in the Sächsische Landesbibliothek - Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden, with the pressmark Mscr. Dresd. k 19.

The first German translation

209

2. Foreword to Il Principe by Lenz An Ihr. Hochf. Durchl. Durchl.Prinzessin HEDWIG Herzogin zu Wirtenberg, Teck u. Châtillon, Grävin zu Mompelg. u. Collig., Herrin zu Heidenheim, meine Gnäd. Fürst. und Prinzessin. Es ist der bücherschreiber gewohnheit, die ihre bücher iemand zuschreiben wollen, einen Patron zu erwehlen, welchem solches werk angenehm seyn möchte. Mich betreffend hab ich nicht ursach mich zu bedenken darüber, wem ich diesen des Machiavels Fürsten solte dediciren. Denn als ich mir nur vorgenommen die übersetzung ins deutsche, hat mir der titul selbst die gelegenheit an die hand gegeben, solichs Ihr. Hochf. Durchl. zu widmen alß einer Richterin, die vollkommen geschickt, die wahre Politic von der falschen zu unterscheiden, und die da weiß die goldwage zu halten zwischen der Religion und heutigen tags gewöhnlichen Staats Raison, hoffe also, ich werde keiner frechheit angeklagt werden, wenn ich do. Durchl. Namen mir zur Padronenz erwehlt, — Es ist sich ia zu verwundern, das Machiavel von so vielen getadelt wird, ich will aber umb ihn zu defendiren, nicht meine geringe wort, sondern die wohlausgesonnene meinung des vortrefflichen französischen Cavaliers, und gut gefastes urtheil heißen, des H. Amelots von Houssaie, da er spricht, wer Machiavellum tadelt, hat ihn entweder nicht verstanden, oder gar nicht gelesen. Man halte von Machiavello was man wolle, so hof[f] ich meine zeit mit der übersetzung wohl angelegt zu haben, weilen ich glaube, Ihr. Durchl. werden sichs genädigst gefallen lassen, wann bei den Abergläubischen Heiden davor gehalten worten [sic], das armer leut opfer, so aus wenig holz, brod, und weihrauch bestanden, ihren göttern angenehm gewesen, hab ich der versicherten Hofnung, Ihr. Hochf. Durchl. werden dieses geringe opfer unterthänigster unterwerfung mit Gnäd. Augen anblicken und annehmen. Euer Hochf. Durchl. Meiner gen. Fürstin und Prinzessin (To Your Princely Highness Princess HEDWIG Duchess zu Wirtenberg, Teck u. Châtillon, Countess zu Mompelg. u. Collig, Lady zu Heidenheim, my Lady Princess. It is the custom of writers who wish to dedicate their book to someone to choose a patron who may find their work pleasing. As for myself I have no cause for any concern as to the choice of the person to whom to dedicate Machiavelli’s Prince. For when I set about translating this into German, the very title gave me the occasion to dedicate it to your Highness, as to a judge who is perfectly able to distinguish true politics from false, and who knows how to keep a balance between religion and today’s reason of state, so I hope that I shall not be accused of impertinence if I choose your Highness’s name for a patron. It is astonishing that Machiavelli is vituperated by so many; however, to defend him, I shall not use my slight words but the welldevised opinion of the excellent French knight and the well-expressed judgement of Herr Amelot von Houssaie, who says that he who reprimands Machiavelli has either not understood him or in fact even read him. Whatever one may think of Machiavelli, I hope I have spent my time well with the translation, because, I think, Your Highness will gracefully accept it; just as among superstitious heathens it was thought that the sacrifices of poor people, made up of scant wood, bread and incense, would please their gods, I have the sure hope your royal highness will look benevolently upon and accept this small offering of devoted submission. Your princely highness, My Princess.)

210

Serena Spazzarini

As it appears from this introductory dedication, Lenz addressed his translation of Il Principe to Princess Hedwig, a woman who, had it not been for her origins, would not have a significant weight in the court of Oels. The fact is that she was the daughter of Georg II von Württemberg-Mömpelgart and Anna von Coligny countess of Châtillon and spent part of her life in exile and later as the prisoner of madness; convinced she was the fiancée of Karl XII of Sweden, she addressed to him passionate love letters that were never delivered thanks to the shrewdness of her loyal servants. Hedwig, finally, took refuge in Oels and was welcomed by her sister Eleonore Charlotte von Württemberg-Mömpelgart (1656-1743), at that time already wife of the duke Sylvius Friedrich. Since, at the time she had already been declared mad, his decision to dedicate this provocative political text to her would seem peculiar. Lenz’s purpose in dedicating his Principe to a woman who is able to distinguish true politics and find the balance between religion and reason of state — precisely that reason of state asserted, justified and made concrete by Machiavelli’s words — masks a choice motivated, actually, by other reasons. Considering that the court where Lenz lived and worked represented the environment in which his work had to be welcomed and read, it can be assumed that personal political reasons and interests may have led Lenz to such a univocal dedication: all his work was deeply connected to the life of the court and his remaining literary production never freed itself from this political-social context. Outlining this context, then, helps to understand both the translator’s intention and the value of the text. After a neurosis that since 1690 had risked prejudicing his political work, the duke Sylvius Friedrich, especially in the last years of his government, was deeply influenced by his wife Eleonore Charlotte and by her family, which had moved from Mömpelgard to Oels.10 The unreliability of Sylvius Friedrich marked the years in which Lenz lived in the Oelsian court. During this time the duke was reproached by the emperor for the excesses shown toward his subjects and in 1692 — the precise year of composition of Der Fürst — was obliged to sell parts of the Moravian estates of Sternberg in order to reduce the debts he had run up. Far-off were the times when the duke was present at the meetings of “Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft” with the motto “Tugend und Tapferkeit” and with the symbol of “Großer Lorbeerbaum” and the years when he had tried to improve the cultural level of his subjects with 10

Martin Feist, ‘Sylvius Friedrich, Herzog von Oels’, Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte und Altertum Schlesiens, 37 (1903), pp. 63-98 (pp. 96-97). In the biography written by Harald Schuhkraft this situation is confirmed, cf. Sönke Lorenz, Dieter Mertens, Volker Press (Hrsg.), Das Haus Württemberg. Ein biographisches Lexikon (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1997), p. 207.

The first German translation

211

innovative school reforms or with the opening of the court library to a wider circle of readers and scholars. By then his wife had become an ever more significant influence in the life of the court and in political matters: if he had not been stopped by the decisive intervention of the emperor, in 1695 Sylvius Friedrich would have given his wife rule and government responsibility. With the dedication to Hedwig, Lenz tried to win over her sister, Eleonore Charlotte, and court events seemed to support the choice of the addressee. By interpreting Il Principe as a treatise written for rulers, therefore for a chosen few, Lenz does not feel the need to defend it openly from its detractors, as would be necessary if his translation was destined to a general public; he therefore limits himself to making “die wohlausgesonnene meinung des vortrefflichen französischen Cavaliers” his own, that is the text of Amelot de la Houssaie who, in the preface to his translation of Il Principe written in 1683, had said: Car de tous ceux, qui le censurent, vous trouverés, que les uns avoüent, qu’ils ne l’ont jamais lû: & que les autres qui disent l’avoir lû, ne l’ont jamais entendu, comme il y paroît bien par le sens litéral, qu’ils donnent à divers passages, que les Poliques savent bien interpreter autrement.11

It is not to be excluded, however, that Lenz’s translation had been truly conceived for a woman: it was addressed to an ideal reader who, beside being unable to read the work in Italian, was unable to read fluently any Latin or French translation available also in Germany. Maybe Sylvius Friedrich himself cannot be considered the ideal reader to whom the text was addressed either, as during the Kavaliersreise undertaken with the brothers Carl Ferdinand and Christian Ulrich between April 1664 and March 1669, he had attended for three years the Collegium Illustre of Tübingen where, probably, he had mastered a polyglot culture that would make it possible to read a text not written in German.12 Lenz’s translation remained unpublished as, since its genesis, it had been conceived as a homage to one or few high-ranking figures and, as such, the translator did not wish to make it available to a wider circle of readers. Considering that scholars could read the text in Latin or French, it can be assumed that at that time the circulation, scribal or in print, of this translation could be unnecessary or even dangerous. In connection with this, subjects

11

12

LE PRINCE DE NICOLAS MACHIAVEL, SECRETAIRE & CITOIEN DE FLORENCE. Traduit & Commenté par A. N. AMELOT, Sieur de la Houssaie. A AMSTERDAM, Chez HENRI WETSTEIN. 1683, Préface, p. [1]. Feist, p. 71.

212

Serena Spazzarini

were commonly believed not to be able “die wahre Politic von der falschen zu unterscheiden”, as in the fiction of the dedication Princess Hedwig or the real reader of Lenz should have been: on the other hand, the rulers would not have looked favourably upon the fact that they could read a text where Machiavelli [...], sezionando l’uomo politico, [ne metteva] a nudo i segreti, le viscere, le parti che fino ad allora erano state considerate sporche, ripugnanti, proibite. (Machiavelli [...], by dissecting the politician, laid bare his secrets, his guts and the parts that until then had been considered dirty, repugnant, forbidden).13

Although Zedler in his article lists Lenz’s minor works, he does not mention the translation of the Florentine text:14 this omission entitles us to suppose that this German version of Il Principe had remained unknown outside the Oelsian Court. The manuscript remained unknown until the twentieth century, when Ludwig Schmidt in the Katalog der Handschriften der Sächsischen Landesbibliothek of Dresden in 1923 noted the existence of this which proves to be, chronologically, the first version of Il Principe in German.15 After this first record, it was necessary to wait until 1994, in other words over seventy years, to get a new mention of this work by Alberto Martino.16

3. A comparative analysis of the versions In order to assess the translation, it is necessary to discover from which text (Italian, French or Latin) Lenz started. Before the internal analysis, i.e. starting from Lenz’s translation and from a possible comparison with Italian editions and other translations by then available, I carried out a research at the “Oelser Schloßbibliothek”, where the manuscript was kept. As this library in 1885 was combined with Dresden library, at that time “Königliche Öffentliche Bibliothek”, the research on the manuscript and on its possible

13

14 15

16

Piero Melograni, preface to the modern Italian version of Machiavelli’s work: Niccolò Machiavelli, Il Principe (Milano: Rizzoli Editore, 2003), p. 12. Zedler, column 139. Ludwig Schmidt, Katalog der Handschriften der Sächsischen Landesbibliothek (vormals Kgl. Öff. Bibliothek) zu Dresden. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1923), IV, p. 97. Alberto Martino, Die italienische Literatur im deutschen Sprachraum. Ergänzungen und Berichtigungen zu Frank-Rutger Hausmanns Bibliographie (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994), p. 155.

The first German translation

213

models could not but be carried out among the shelves of the present “Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek”. Luckily, the manuscript managed to avoid history’s ups and downs, the dreadful destructions due to two world wars and the inevitable disappearance of books caused by historical events. It was more difficult, instead, to recover the original text: from a careful perusal of the first three catalogues from the now defunct Oelsian Library, it emerged that in 1699, i.e. the year when Lenz personally drew up catalogue no. 758 — “Innomine Sacro Sancte Trinitatis Catalogus Bibliothecae Serenissimi ac Celsissimi, Christiani Ulrici Duc. Wirtemb. Tek. in Siles. Oels [...] collectus et conscrictus à Christiano Alb. de Lenz [...] M DC LXXXXIX” — the library had a copy of the Latin translation published by Conring in 1660. The latter is recorded in part II (“Libra Historica et Politica”), in the books section “in forma quarta num. XXI”,17 together with another work with which, probably, it shared only physical closeness and with which it had been bound, Laurus Actorum publicorum Europa (1658) by Johannes Pastorius. This work, however, appeared also in previous catalogues, i.e. no. 75618 and no. 757,19 still in the same part and section in which it was catalogued for the first time with Princeps by Conring. Although many works about politics or concerning political science are mentioned, in these catalogues unfortunately there is no sign of other editions or translations of Il Principe; the unequivocal dating of catalogue no. 758 (1699) testifies that the Latin Princeps had arrived at the library between 1678 and 1699, but it does not guarantee that this had been already present when Lenz wrote his translation, i.e. before 1692, the year mentioned on the manuscript. In order to establish the edition, or the editions, that our translator had at his disposal, I will have to proceed in an inductive way, by comparing the German translation with editions and translations in the various languages at that time more widespread and more well-known.20 17

18

19

20

The recording of the titles in detail, as appears in the catalogue, is: “Laurus Actorum public. Europa. It. Nicol. Machiav. Princeps 1660 Helmss. | Idem Conring de Bibl. Augusta”. The first catalogue of the library, no. 756, does not give an actual title on the title page and, as can be seen from the list of works taken by Dresden library from the Oelsian library as the “Katalog der Oelser Bibliothek 17. Jahr.”, it brings together the books acquired during the seventeenth century. “Catalogus librorum in illustri Bibliotheca aulae Olsnensis consignatus a M. Joh. Christ. Hertzogen Dresd. [Misnico] t. t. Scholae Olsnensis rectore et bibliothecario ducali 1678”. Blado = Il Principe di Niccolò Machiavelli. Facsimile dell’edizione originale impressa in Roma da Antonio Blado nel 1532. Con una introduzione di Federico Chabod. A cura di Luigi Firpo. Torino 1961; Testina = TUTTE LE OPERE DI NICOLO MACHIAVELLI CITTADINO ET SECRETARIO FIORENTINO, DIVISE IN V PARTI, ET DI NUOVO

214

Serena Spazzarini

3.1 Significant passages in comparison a) From chapter VI, “De principatibus novis qui armis propriis et virtute acquiruntur”. Blado (p. 8v)

Propheti

la natura de populi è uaria

Testina (p. 12)

Profeti

la natura de’ populi é varia

Tegli (pp. 31-32)

quos praediximus

populorum etiam ingenium est varium & inconstans

Conring (p. 22)

quod omnes Prophetae

quia populi ingenium est varium & inconstans

Amelot 1683 (pp. les Princes, que j’ai nommés 45-46) = Amelot 1684 (p. 49)

l’esprit des peuples est changeant

Amelot 1686 (p. les Princes, que j’ai nommez 42)

l’esprit des peuples est changeant

Lenz (f. 17)

sind die gemüther veränderlich

die fürsten, die ich genannt

des

Pöbels

From this passage of chapter VI, it can very probably be assumed that here Lenz used Amelot’s version, to be precise, one of the editions of 1683, 1684 CON SOMMA ACCURATEZZA RISTAMPATE AL SANTISSIMO ET BEATISSIMO PADRE SIGNORE NOSTRO CLEMENTE VII. PONT. MASS. M. D. L.; Tegli = NICOLAI MACHIAVELLI REIP. FLORENTINAE A SE cretis, ad Laurentium Medicem de Principe li bellus: nostro quidam seculo apprimè utilis & necessarius, non modò ad principatum adipiscendum, sed & regendum & conseruandum: Nunc primum ex Italico in Latinum sermonem uersus per Syluestrum Telium Fulginatem. Basileae apud Petrum Pernam. MDLX; Conring = NICOLAI MACHIAVELLI PRINCEPS ALIQUE NONNULLA ex Italico Latine nunc demum part tim versa, partim infinitis locis sensus me lioris ergo castigata, curante HERMANNO CONRINGIO. HELMESTADII. Typis atque impensis HENNINGI MULLERI, Accademia Iuliae Typographi 1660; Amelot 1683 = LE PRINCE DE NICOLAS MACHIAVEL, SECRETAIRE & CITOIEN DE FLORENCE. Traduit & Commenté par A. N. Amelot, Sieur de la Houissaie. A AMSTERDAM, Chez HENRI WETSTEIN. 1683; Amelot 1684 = LE PRINCE DE NICHOLAS MACHIAVEL, CITOIEN & SECRETAIRE DE FLORENCE Traduit & Commenté par A. N. AMELOT, Sieur de la Houssaie A AMSTERDAM, chez HENRI WETSTEIN. 1684; Amelot 1686 = LE PRINCE DE MACHIAVEL. Troisième Edition. Revüe, corrige & augmentée par le Traducteur. A AMSTERDAM, chez HENRI WETSTEIN, 1694.

The first German translation

215

or 1686. He translates literally a noun and an adjective as they appear in the aforementioned versions in French. In the Italian editions and in the Latin versions, the noun in question, performing the role of agent and grammatical subject of the clause in the first position, is “i profeti”. As can be read in Blado and Testina, “Di quì nacque, che tutti li Propheti [...]” and, finally, in Conring “Hinc factum est, quod omnes Prophetae [...]”. The term is particularly significant as it is proposed, in the three texts here mentioned, as a variation on the previous term “principi” and, as such, in the present chapter it appears only in this passage. In Tegli, who leaves the subject out, by referring to what was previously mentioned, i.e. to the “principes”,21 it is said “Hinc factum est, quod praediximus [...]”. Amelot, unlike all these texts, employs “Princes”, both in the first and in subsequent editions and the clause is “De là vient, que tous les Princes [...]”. This sentence proves to be particularly significant because the term is used in one of the key-moments of the chapter, i.e. when it presages the fatal end of Gerolamo Savonarola. He, unlike the “profeti armati” — here Mosè, Ciro, Teseo and Romolo —, ruined himself together with all the reforms he had carried out because, as soon as the faithfulness of his supporters was broken, he did not manage to maintain his prestige with the use of force. Lenz’s version, which translates “daher kam, das all die fürsten [...]” is proof that the source used in this passage was Amelot and that he means, like Amelot, to avoid suggesting a religious implication of this principle, that is to be interpreted in an essentially political sense. Although Amelot and Lenz diverge from the original text by Machiavelli, who employs the expression “profeti armati”, both translators however catch the judgement of the Florentine Secretary about the Dominican who died at the stake: as Mario Martelli comments in his critical edition of Il Principe, il giudizio, apparentemente vario, che Machiavelli dette nel corso della sua vita [a proposito del Savonarola] è sempre da considerare un giudizio squisitamente politico, ripetutamente dato sulla sua esperienza di “principe civile” impegnato nella fondazione di uno stato che assicurasse la legalità di una “vita civile” (The judgement, seemingly varied, that Machiavelli passed during his life [on Savonarola] is always to be considered as an exquisitely political opinion, repeatedly given on his experience as a “civil prince” involved in the foundation of a state which assured the legality of a “civil life”).22

21 22

Tegli, p. 28. Niccolò Machiavelli, Il Principe, a cura di Mario Martelli. Corredo filologico a cura di Nicoletta Marcelli (Roma: Salerno Editrice, 2006), p. 120.

216

Serena Spazzarini

As further proof that Amelot was the model here followed, we can mention the use of the relative clause: in the German text it completes, exactly in the same way as in the French, the partial sense of the clause. As Amelot writes “les Princes, que j’ai nommés” in 1683 and 1684 and “les Princes, que j’ai nommez” in 1686, Lenz organizes the clause according to the same syntactic structure with “die fürsten, die ich genannt”. Another indication that leads us to assume Amelot as the starting text here used by Lenz is represented by the translation of the adjective referring to the people. Whereas in Blado and Testina it is said “la natura de’ populi é varia”,23 in Tegli and Conring we find an expansion in the use of the adjectives through the conjunction “e”: in the first we find “populorum etiam ingenium est varium & inconstans” and in the second “quia populi ingenium est varium & inconstans”. Although in all four definitions the dominant characteristic proves to be variety, in Tegli and Conring this feature is connected with inconstancy: first of all, both specify the way in which people’s nature can be defined “varied”, clarify the topos of classical origin shared by Machiavelli24 and, so, they anticipate the explanation supplied by the author immediately after. Lenz, by writing “sind die gemüther des Pöbels veränderlich”, remains faithful to Amelot’s versions which say “l’esprit des peuples est changeant”, where the attribute, in connection with the subject, denotes and connotes it in the same way. Both adjectives, moreover, derive from verbs that, in their original meanings, are perfectly equivalent.

23

24

We keep the form used by Testina, without considering the alternation of “u” or the apocopated verbal forms used by Blado (“la natura de populi è uaria”). Similar definitions are noticed in Livio, Ovidio and Cicerone. Cf. Mario Martelli, p. 119.

The first German translation

217

b) From chapter VIII, “De his qui per scelera ad principatum pervenere”. Blado (p. 12r)

esser’ senza fede, senza pietà senza religióne

ma no gloria

Testina (p. 19)

essere senza fede, senza pietà, senza religione

ma non gloria

Tegli (p. 51)

nulla fide, nulla pietate, nulla religione at gloriam non item teneri

Conring (p. 34)

nulla fide, nulla pietate, nulla religione fuisse

at gloriam non item

Amelot 1683 (pp. d’être sans foi, sans Religion, sans mais non une vraie gloire 68-69) = Amelot humanité 1684 (pp. 73-74)

Amelot 1686 (p. d’être sans foi, sans religion, sans 64) humanité

mais non une vraie gloire

Lenz (f. 26)

aber nicht zum wahren Ehre u. Ruhm

ohne glauben, ohne Religion seÿn, ohne leütseligkeit halten können

In chapter VIII, in the paragraph concluding the narration of the conquest and maintenance of the Syracusan Princedom by the tyrant Agatocle between 317 and 289 b. C., we can find a particularly significant passage for the coherence of the verbal context between Amelot’s version and Lenz’s translation. Here are two groups of lexemes that show an identity of choice in both versions: in the first it is the faithful order succession of three consecutive abstract nouns and in the second of the addition of a qualification to another noun. Concerning the first point, we ascertain the same succession of the three consecutive nouns in Blado, Testina, Tegli and Conring. In the first, we find “Nó si può chiamare ancor’ uirtù amazare li suoi Cittadini, tradir’ gli amici, esser’ senza fede, senza pietà senza religióne” and, in the same way, we read in Testina — “Non si può chiamare ancora virtù, ammazzare li suoi cittadini, tradire li amici, essere senza fede, senza pietà, senza religione” —, in Tegli — “Caeterum virtutis nomine hauquaquan cohonestandum videtur, suis

218

Serena Spazzarini

civibus mortem attulisse, amicorum proditorem egisse: nulla fide, nulla pietate, nulla religione teneri” — and in Conring where, though with slight verbal changes, the noun group remains unaltered — “Caeterum virtutis nomine haud quaquam est cohonestandum, suis civibus mortem attulisse, amicorum proditorem egisse: nulla fide, nulla pietate, nulla religione fuisse”. In the three versions of Amelot — of 1683, 1684 and 1686 — and in Lenz’s, on the contrary, we find a different order of the nouns, with the German text once again corresponding to the French one. In the first two versions — of 1683 and 1684 —, that unlike the version of 1686 used capital letters for the nouns “Citoiens” and “Amis”, we can read “Véritablement, on ne peut pas dire, que ce soit vertu de tuer ses Citoiens, des trahir ses Amis, d’être sans foi, sans Religion, sans humanité”, similarly in Lenz we find “Man kann gewiß nicht sagen, dass ein Tugend [sey] sein bürger ermorden u. freunde verachten, ohne glauben, ohne Religion seÿn, ohne leütseligkeit [...]”. A not negligible indication that here Lenz translated directly from Amelot is given by the choice of the noun “leütseligkeit”: as Grimm attests, in former times the term meant “wohlgefälligkeit, anmut” and later took gradually the meaning of “freundlichkeit gegen die menschen” and, therefore, Lenz maintains exactly the same meaning found in Amelot.25 Concerning the second linguistic indication, we also notice a discrepancy that unites, on the one hand, Blado, Testina, Tegli and Conring and, on the other hand, Amelot and Lenz. Unlike the Italian and Latin versions, in Amelot we find the addition of an adjective to describe that glory which cannot be reached without the practice of virtue. In all three French editions, with the same orthographic differences mentioned before, it says “moiens, qui peuvent bien faire aquérir un Empire, mais non une vraie gloire”. There is no sign of the adjective “vraie” in the other versions compared here. The clause in Blado sounds like “li quali modi posson’ far’ acquistar’ Imperio, ma no gloria”; in Testina “liquali modi possono fare acquistare Imperio, ma non gloria”; in Tegli “Imperia Hae rationes parare quidem possunt, at gloriam non item” and likewise in Conring, where it says “Imperia sane, hae rationes parare quidem possunt, at gloriam non item”. Lenz, who had already remained faithful to the succession of the three nouns before mentioned, borrows directly from Amelot and writes “mittel die zudem zu Erbauung eines Reichs, aber nicht zum wahren Ehre und Ruhm halten können”. Our translator, though including the noun “Ehre”, keeps therefore Amelot’s choice, both in adding a qualification and in the denotative meaning of the

25

Jacob Grimm, Wilhelm Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, bearbeitet von Dr. Moriz Heyne (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1885), VI, p. 851.

The first German translation

219

same. The addition of “Ehre”, which does not appear in any of the texts considered as possible models for translation, cannot however represent a difference in the comparison with Amelot’s text: it rather meets the typically baroque taste for amplification or the attempt to perfect the translation of a foreign noun. c) From chapter VIII, “De his qui per scelera ad principatum pervenere”. Blado (p. 13r)

l’ingiurie

accioche assaporandosi meno, offendin’ meno

Testina (p. 21)

l’ingiurie

accioche assaporandosi meno, offendino meno

Tegli (p. 56)

iniuriae

quominus gustatu perceptae minus etiam feriant

Conring (p. 37)

injuriae

quo minus gustentur minusque offendant

Amelot 1683 (p. 74) le mal = Amelot 1684 (pp. 79-80) = Amelot 1686 (p. 69)

afin que ceux, à qui on le fait, n’aient pas le tems de le savourer

Lenz (f. 28-29)

dass die denen mans thut, nicht Zeit haben solches zu versuchen

das böse

Toward the conclusion of chapter VIII we find another significant passage. Again we notice similar translation solutions and structural analogies between Lenz’s manuscript and Amelot’s versions, which differ from the choices of Blado, Testina, Tegli and Conring. The first difference highlighted by the comparison in this passage is a different choice of the subject and its form. In Blado, in Testina, in Tegli and in Conring we notice the use of the same passive subject, that is a feminine subject in the plural. In the first and in the second it says “Perche l’ingiurie si debbono fare tutte insieme”,26 in Tegli “Quandoquidem iniuriae simul omnes & semel sunt effundendae” and in Conring “Igitur injuriae simul omnes & semel sunt effundendae”. In Amelot, on the contrary, the passive subject 26

“perche l’ingiurie si debbon’ far’ tutte insieme” (Blado).

220

Serena Spazzarini

radically changes: it is not “insults” that are to be committed but “evil” in a broad and all-inclusive sense, with the result that the moral meaning is here amplified. In Amelot, we can read “Ainsi, le mal se doit faire tout à la foit [...]”. An identical solution is adopted by Lenz, who shares with Amelot’s versions a more Manichean vision sounding like “Soll also das böse auf einmahl geschehen zu dem End”. Moreover, in the same passage, Blado, Testina, Tegli and Conring continue with an implicit final clause in which, in all four versions, the sense of a progression is maintained in connection with a sensory process. If in Blado and Testina it says “accioche assaporandosi meno, offendino meno”,27 and in Tegli “quo minus gustatu perceptae minus etiam feriant”, in Conring we find “quo minus gustentur minusque offendant”. Amelot, on the contrary, beside the use of an explicit final clause where there is a subject, eludes the logical process of gradualness of the action in time, to describe directly the effects: “afin que ceux, à qui ont le fait, n’aient pas le tems de le savourer”. Lenz builds the clause according to Amelot’s logic and, like him, uses both the final subordinate clause and the same temporal adverbial periphrasis: “dass die denen mans thut, nicht Zeit haben solches zu versuchen”. d) From chapter XV, “De his rebus quibus homines et praesertim principes laudantur aut vituperantur”. Blado (p. 20v)

cóuien’ che rovini

Onde è necessario

secódo la necessità

Testina (p. 35)

conuien che rouini

Onde è necessario

Secondo la neceßità

Tegli (pp. 97-98)

periclitari necesse est

Necessarium est

pro rei necessitate

Conring (p. 62)

periclitari necesse est

Necessarium est

pro rei necessitate

Amelot 1683 (pp.125- il faut qu[e] [...] Il est donc nécessité absolüe 126) = Amelot 1684 périsse tôt ou tard (p.138) = Amelot 1686 (p.119) Lenz (f. 47)

27

de selon le besoin des ses Afaires

bald oder langsam ist also höchstnöhtig verdirbt

“accioche assaporandosi meno, offendin’ meno” (Blado).

nach erforderung der sachen

The first German translation

221

In the short chapter XV we find a passage in which Lenz’s translation sometimes agrees with Blado and Testina, sometimes with Amelot’s version. The differences converge in three points: the first is a lexical segment composed of a verb in the finite mood and of an adverbial time phrase, the second a superlative and, finally, the third a modal adverbial phrase. In the first case, neither in the Italian editions nor in the Latin translations do we have any adverbial time phrase together with the verb in the finite mood. In Blado and Testina we read “Perche vn uomo che voglia fare in tutte le parti, profeßione di buono, conuien che rouini fra tanti, che non sono buoni”,28 in Tegli “Qui enim se virum bonum omnibus partibus profiteri studet, eum certe inter tot non bonos periclitari necesse est” and in Conring “Qui sane se virum omnibus partibus bonum praestare studet, eum inter tot non bonos periclitari necesse est”. We find, on the contrary, a variation in Amelot where, thanks to the inclusion of an adverbial time phrase, the verbal context is enriched, as can be seen “Et par conséquent, il faut qu’un homme, qui veut faire profession d’être tout-â-fait bon, parmi tant d’autres, qui ne le sont pas, périsse tôt ou tard”. Lenz, who translates with “U. folgt, dass ein mensch der sich bemüht ganz from zu seÿn, unter so vielen andern die es nicht sind, bald oder langsam verdirbt”, therefore draws in part from Blado and Testina, in part from Amelot. From the first two, who stray from the Latin and French versions due to the denotative and connotative meaning of the verb, the German translator draws the appropriate choice of the semantic field of the verb; from Amelot, however, he borrows the adverbial addition. As the adverbial phrase used by Lenz, compared to the French translation, strengthens the connotative meaning of the verb and emphasizes the implicit process evoked by the verb “rovinare”, it can be assumed that at this point the German translator made use of at least one of the editions by Blado or Testina and that, surely, comparing it with Amelot’s, he came up with a compromise reading. In the second case, it is an impersonal verbal locution that in the French and German texts, unlike the other versions, is strengthened. Both Italian editions and the Latin versions opt for a simple impersonal form, i.e. only one adjective positive degree, that is “onde é necessario” in the first and in the second, “necessarium est” in the last two. Amelot, on the contrary, uses a noun coming from the same lexical field as the adjective “necessario” / ”necessarium” and puts it near to an attribute positive degree — “il est donc de necessité absolüe” — which has, however, a superlative value. Similarly,

28

“Perche un’ huomo che uoglia far’ in tutte le parti profession’ di buono cóuien’ che rovini infra táti che nó son’ buoni” (Blado).

222

Serena Spazzarini

in Lenz we find an adjective that, though with a predicative function, maintains an equivalent superlative value with the expression “ist also höchstnöthig”. In the third meaningful connection, only the Italian editions express the adverb of manner by means of a noun group with preposition (“Onde é necesario ad vn Principe, volendosi mantenere, imparare à potere essere non buono, & usarlo & non vsarlo secondo la neceßità”):29 in the Latin and French versions, on the contrary, we notice the addition of a genitive. In this way we find an expansion in Tegli (“Necessarium est itaque principi, ut perceptum habeat — si se salvum velit — qua ratione possit esse non bonus, idque pro rei necessitate in suum convertat vel non convertat usum”) and in Conring (“Necessarium est itaque Principi, si se salvum velit: ut sciat qua ratione possit esse non bonus; idque pro rei necessitate in suum usum convertat vel non convertat”). Amelot, however, though he also defines the action more in detail through a genitive, specifies further the context: the French translator gives reasons that should lead the Prince not to be good and to pursue first of all his own interest (“Il est donc de necessité absolüe, que le Prince, qui veut se maintenir, aprenne à pouvoir n’être pas bon, pour en faire usage selon le besoin des ses Afaires”). Lenz, who here employs the same case used in Latin versions, writes “ist also höchstnöthig, dass der fürst so sich erhalten will, lerne böß zu sein und sich dessen zu bedienen nach erforderung der sachen”: at a syntactical level, therefore, our translator like Tegli, Conring and, in this case, also Blado and Testina, uses a paratactic construct, unlike Amelot, who prefers an hypotactic construction.

29

“Onde è necessario à un’ Principe uolendosi mátenere, imparare à potere esser nó buono, & usarlo & nó usarlo, secódo la necessità” (Blado).

The first German translation

223

e) From chapter XVI, “De liberalitate et parsimonia”. Blado (p. 21r)

[...] non dimanco la liberalità, usata in modo che tù sia temuto ti offende

Testina (p. 38)

Nondimanco la liberalità vsata in modo, che tu non sia temuto, ti offende

Tegli (pp. 99-100)

[...] nihilominus ita liberalitate uti ut metuaris, sane obest

Conring (p. 63)

At vero ita liberalem esse, ut tu non metuaris, sane obest

Amelot 1683 (p. 129) [...] mais que si tu éxerces ta libéralité de façon que tu sois craint, tu = Amelot 1684 (p. t’en trouves mal 141) = Amelot 1686 (p. 122)

Lenz (f. 48)

[...] das es gut ist vor freigebig gehalten zu werden, wann man aber es so braucht, das man sich in forcht dadurch setzt, ists übel

In the incipit of chapter XVI we find a controversial passage, where the Machiavellian message is basically reworked by many editions and versions which followed one another until the end of the seventeenth century. The editions and versions here analyzed — Italian, Latin and French — also start, in reality, from a wrong reading of the Machiavellian text, spoilt by a misprint: the original “tenuto” (i.e. “considered such”, and here “obliged to be munificent”), is transformed, as early as 1532 in Blado, into “temuto” (“feared”). As a consequence, the term is kept in most subsequent versions, some of which try to give meaning to the sentence by adding a “non” (“not”). As Gerber points out, although the Venetian versions of Pasini & Bindoni had corrected it with “tenuto”, few editions throughout the century were based on the original versions or on the emended editions.30 These must have been close to the following formulation: 30

According to Gerber, the versions 1537: [Venezia: Pasini e Bindoni]; 1538: Vinegia; 1539: In Vinegia MDXXXVIIII; 1553: Gaspar d'Auvergne [first translation into French in print (Poitiers)]; 1555: Il prencipe […] In Venetia, per Comin de Trino […] MDXLI [!]; [1635]: Il prencipe […] In Vinegia MDXXXVIII [Ginanni?] rightly report the term “tenuto”. A.

224

Serena Spazzarini

Cominciandomi adunque alle prime soprascritte qualità, dico come sarebbe bene essere tenuto liberale; nondimanco la liberalità, usata in modo che tu sia tenuto, ti offende, perché, se ella si usa virtuosamente e come ella si debbe usare, la non fia conosciuta, e non ti cascherà l’infamia del suo contrario [...]

Here are two different interpretations of the meaning of the texts which our translator could work from: in Testina and Conring it is stated that the liberality used by the Prince in order not to be feared, i.e. as a substitute of goodness, is bad; the reading in Blado, Tegli and Amelot contrasts the last two texts, as they show how the use of liberality is detrimental if it is used in order to be feared. The German text, which retrieves the reading with “temuto” is based on one of the last few mentioned. f) From chapter XVIII, “Quomodo fides a principibus sit servanda”. It is in one of the key-chapters of Machiavelli’s text, the chapter about the Prince’s loyalty, that we find another significant passage proving that Lenz mainly followed Amelot’s version. The passage in question is found in the first part of the chapter, in the point in which Machiavelli, drawing inspiration from Cicero’s De officiis (I, 13 41),31 starts to explain in detail how a Prince should exploit man’s skill in imitating the behaviour of the beasts: this practice can prove favourable for a prince wanting to overcome the difficulties he can run into and which human nature cannot cope with. Being able to use both natures basically represents the key to success a Prince must resort to and that can assure him lasting power.

31

Gerber, Niccolò Machiavelli. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen seiner Werke im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Torino: Bottega d’ Erasmo, 1962), pp. 31-34. As explained by Martelli, whereas Cicero talks about the two ways in which law can be broken, i.e. resorting to force, symbolized by the lion, or resorting to fraud, peculiar to the fox, i.e. two qualities peculiar to beasts and alien to human nature, Machiavelli puts together the Ciceronian passages causing an inconsistency of which he was probably not aware and that had as result the present passage (cf. M. Martelli, p. 236), which represents one of the most significant passages of the treatise. Here the Florentine Secretary reveals how a real Prince has to be able to cope with the various conditionings of real life managing to take advantage of an opportunity through beastlike behaviour that, contrary to what Cicero writes, man can find in himself.

The first German translation

225

Blado (p. 23v)

Essendo adunque un’ Principe necessitato saper’ ben’ usar’ la bestia, debbe di quelle pigliar’ la Volpe, & il Leone

Testina (p. 40)

Essendo adunque vn Principe neceßitato saper bene vsare la bestia, debbe di quella pigliare la Volpe & il Lione

Tegli (p. 111)

Cum itaque principem magni referat belluinum ingenium scite inducere, ei tumvulpis, tum leonis mores assumendi erunt

Conring (p. 70)

Cum itaque magni referat Principem belluinum ingenium scite induere, ei tum vulpis tum leonis mores assumendi erunt

Amelot 1683 (pp. Or le Prince aiant besoin de savoir bien contrefaire la bête, il doit revétir 145-146) = Amelot le Renard & le Lion, 1684 (pp. 160-161) = Amelot 1686 (p. 138)

Lenz (f. 54)

Und wenn der fürst den thieren will nachahmen, er sich den Löwen u. fuchs vorstellen.

The first passage is related to Amelot’s version: unlike the other editions and versions, Lenz keeps the original verbal meaning of the French text. If Lenz writes “Und wenn der fürst den thieren will nachahmen, er sich den Löwen u. fuchs vorstellen”, meaning that the Prince must behave like animals do, disguising therefore his own nature and, precisely as if he wished to change skin or appearance and wear different clothes, take the features of a lion or a fox and appear like one of them, similarly Amelot writes “Or le Prince aiant besoin de savoir bien contrefaire la bête, il doit revétir le Renard & le Lion”. In the Italian editions, on the contrary, we notice a generalization of the verbal meaning with “Essendo adunque vn Principe neceßitato saper bene vsare la bestia, debbe di quella pigliare la Volpe & il Lione”.32 Only in the Latin translations, nevertheless, do we find a better defined how the Prince must emulate the characteristics of a foreign nature, i.e. the feral wits and behaviour: in Tegli it says “Cum itaque principem magni referat belluinum 32

“Essendo adunque un’ Principe necessitato saper’ ben’ usar’ la bestia, debbe di quelle pigliar’ la Volpe, & il Leone” (Blado).

226

Serena Spazzarini

ingenium scire inducere, ei tumvulpis, tum leonis mores assumendi erunt” and in Conring, with a variation in the order, “Cum itaque magni referat Principem belluinum ingenium scite induere, ei tum vulpis tum leonis mores assumendi erunt”. Blado

Bisogna adunque esser’ Volpe à conoscer’ i lacci, & Leone à sbigottir’ e Lupi.

Testina

Bisogna adunque essere Volpe à conoscere i lacci, & Lione à sbigottire i Lupi.

Tegli

Quo itaque laquei sentiantur, vulpeculam agere oportet: lupi vero quo deterreantur, leoninum ingenium est subeundum

Conring

Ut itaque laquei caveantur, vulpeculam agere oportet; lupi vero ut terreantur, leonem.

Amelot 1683 (p. Il faut donc être Renard, pour connoitre les filets; & Lion, pour faire 145) = Amelot peur aux Loups. 1684 (p. 160) = Amelot 1686 (p. 139)

Lenz

man also ein fuchs seyn, die Verstrickungen zu erkennen, u. ein Löw den wölfen forcht einzujagen.

In the following clause, again, we can see an analogy between the versions of Lenz and Amelot: both use a verbal polyrematic instead of a predicate. Since the complex lexeme used in the French and German texts keeps the same meaning, and considering that the translator could have easily translated with only one verb, the choice reveals the absolute faithfulness of Lenz, who resorts to the same verbal modality used in the French text. If Amelot writes “Il faut donc être Renard, pour connoitre les filets; & Lion, pour faire peur aux Loups”, a similar syntactic rhythm is found in Lenz with “ man also ein fuchs seyn, die Verstrickungen zu erkennen, u. ein Löw den wölfen forcht einzujagen”. Beside modifying the verbal intensity typifying the lion’s behaviour, in Blado, Testina, Tegli and Conring the whole concept is expressed by using just one verb: in the first and in the second we read

The first German translation

227

“Bisogna adunque essere Volpe à conoscere i lacci, & Lione à sbigottire i Lupi”,33 in the third “Quo itaque laquei sentiantur, vulpeculam agere oportet: lupi vero quo deterreantur, leoninum ingenium est subeundum” and, finally, in Conring we find “Ut itaque laquei caveantur, vulpeculam agere oportet; lupi vero ut terreantur, leonem”. Blado

Coloro che stanno semplicemente insul’ Leone, non sene intendono. Non può per tanto un’ signor’ prudente, ne debbe osseruar’ la fede, quando tal’ osseruantia gli torni contrò & che sono spente la cagioni che la fecen’ promettere

Testina

Coloro che stanno simplicemente in s’ul Lione, non se ne intendono, Non può per tanto vn Signore prudente, ne debbe osseruare la fede, quando tale osseruantia gli torni contro, & che sono spente le cagioni che la feceno promettere

Tegli

Qui igitur leonis vestigijs simpliciter insistunt, ij sane rem ipsam non tenent. Princeps propterea qui sapientia sit præditus, debet ea promissa vitare, quæ suis commodis contraria fore videt

Conring

Qui sane simpliciter leonis vestigijs insistunt, ij rem non tenent. Principes propterea qui sapientia est præditus, debet ea promissa vitare, quæ suis commodis fore videt

Amelot 1683 (p. 145); Amelot 1684 (p. 160); Amelot 1686 (p. 139)

Ceux-là ne l'entendent pas, qui ne contrefont que le Lion, Et par conséquent un Prince prudent ne doit point tenir sa parole, quand cela lui tourne à dommage, & que les ocasions, qui la lui ont fait engager, ne sont plus (1683 e 1686) Ceux-là ne l'entendent pas, qui ne contrefont que le Lion. Et par conséquent un Prince prudent ne doit point tenir sa parole, quand cela lui tourne à dommage, & que les ocasions, qui la lui ont fait engager, ne sont plus (1684)

Lenz

33

Diese verstehens nicht, so nur dem löwen allein nacharten, muß also folgender weiß ein fürst sein parole nicht halten, wann es ihm zum schaden gereicht, und die gelegenheit nicht mehr da, die ihn zum versprechen gebracht

“Bisogna adunque esser’ Volpe à conoscer’ i lacci, & Leone à sbigottir’ e Lupi” (Blado).

228

Serena Spazzarini

This passage again distinguishes Amelot and Lenz’s versions from the others owing to the proleptic function in which both set the initial statement: both French and German text bring forward the judgment that, placed in the opening, takes on more importance. If in Amelot, the sentence sounds like “Ceux-là ne l'entendent pas, qui ne contrefont que le Lion”, in Lenz we notice the same syntactic order, as we find “Diese verstehens nicht, so nur dem löwen allein nacharten”. In both Italian editions and in the Latin versions, the order followed is different: keeping faithful to a cause-effect relationship, they dilute the tone of the statement at the expense of the emblematic charge that the clause carries; in becoming a beast, a Prince has not to limit himself to being a lion and renounce the qualities peculiar to the fox, but he must be both, depending on circumstances. A prince therefore must find the right balance in leadership resorting to smartness or strength. Though keeping the message intact, the assertive tone of the statement weakens considerably when, for example, we read in Blado and Testina “Coloro che stanno simplicemente in s’ul Lione, non se ne intendono”,34 or “Qui igitur leonis vestigijs simpliciter insistunt, ij sane rem ipsam non tenent” in Tegli and Conring “Qui sane simpliciter leonis vestigijs insistunt, ij rem non tenent”. Unlike Amelot and Lenz, who construct the sentence so that the concept is in the foreground, in the latter texts the syntactic order dilutes the weight of the statement. As for Lenz, this passage confirms further that here he mainly referred to Amelot’s version, both as concerns the similarity of the syntactic order of the clauses, and the accurate choice of the terms that, only in the case of one verbal predicate, is closer to the choice made by Blado and Testina. By beginning from the German text and examining the syntactic order of the passage — including necessarily the sentence that in Amelot started as “Ceux-là ne l’entend pas” and in Lenz as “Diese verstehens nicht” — we can see that in the French and in the German version there is a single, long sentence, whereas Blado, Testina, Tegli and Conring separate the sentences by using a full stop. From a more detailed examination of the different readings of this passage, we can confirm that Lenz keeps unaltered both the syntactic order and the sequence of contents of Amelot. If in the latter it says “Ceux-là ne l'entendent pas, qui ne contrefont que le Lion, Et par conséquent un Prince prudent ne doit point tenir sa parole, quand cela lui tourne à dommage, & que les ocasions, qui la lui ont fait engager, ne sont plus”, similarly we find in Lenz “Diese verstehens nicht, so nur dem löwen allein nacharten, muß also folgender weiß ein fürst sein parole nicht halten, wann es 34

“Coloro che stanno semplicemente insul’ Leone, non sene intendono” (Blado).

The first German translation

229

ihm zum schaden gereicht, und die gelegenheit nicht mehr da, die ihn zum versprechen gebracht”. Very different is the order in Blado and Testina — “Coloro che stanno semplicemente insul’ Leone, non sene intendono. Non può per tanto un’ signor’ prudente, ne debbe osseruar’ la fede, quando tal’ osseruantia gli torni contrò & che sono spente la cagioni che la fecen’ promettere” in the first and “Coloro che stanno simplicemente in s’ul Lione, non se ne intendono, Non può per tanto vn Signore prudente, ne debbe osseruare la fede, quando tale osseruantia gli torni contro, & che sono spente le cagioni che la feceno promettere” in the second — or in Tegli and Conring — “Qui igitur leonis vestigijs simpliciter insistunt, ij sane rem ipsam non tenent. Princeps propterea qui sapientia sit præditus, debet ea promissa vitare, quæ suis commodis contraria fore videt” in Tegli and “Qui sane simpliciter leonis vestigijs insistunt, ij rem non tenent. Principes propterea qui sapientia est præditus, debet ea promissa vitare, quæ suis commodis fore videtur” in Conring. As is evident here, both Latin versions are to be discarded as a starting text, as they omit a clause which is, on the contrary, particularly significant for the German translation. It is precisely in this clause that Lenz uses a verbal predicate as synonym and alternative to the verbal polyrematic present in the first part of the period: whereas Amelot replaces the expression with a pronoun, Blado and Testina make it explicit with a verbal predicate. Blado

& se gli uomini fussen’ tutti buoni questo precetto non saria buono

Testina

Et se gli huomini fusseno tutti buoni, questo precetto non saria buono

Tegli

Atque, homines si probi fuissent omnes, præceptum hoc plane fuisset inutile

Conring

Atqui homines si probi essent omnes, præceptum hoc plane esset inutile

Amelot 1683 (p. Céte Maxime ne vaudroit rien, si tous les hommes étoient bons 146) = Amelot 1684 (p. 160) = Amelot 1686 (p. 139)

Lenz

Diese regul galt nichts, wann alle menschen brav wären

230

Serena Spazzarini

As in the previous passage, we notice a proleptic inversion in Amelot and Lenz aiming at emphasizing the contents of the statement based on the conditional construction: in the first we read “Céte Maxime ne vaudroit rien, si tous les hommes étoient bons” and in the second, with equivalent syntax, we find “Diese regul galt nichts, wann alle menschen brav wären”. Much more straightforward and with a consequently more moderate effect is, on the contrary, the order in Blado and Testina — “Et se gli huomini fusseno tutti buoni, questo precetto non saria buono”35 —, Tegli — “Atque homines si probi fuissent omnes, præceptum hoc plane fuisset inutile” — and Conring — “Atqui homines si probi essent omnes, præceptum hoc plane esset inutile”. g) From chapter XVIII, “Quomodo fides a principibus sit servanda”. Blado (p. 24r)

contro à la fede, contro à la charità, contro à l’humanità, contro à la religione

Testina (p. 41)

contro alla humanità, contro alla charità, contro alla Religione

Tegli (p. 113)

[this passage is completely missing]

Conring (p. 71)

contra humanitatem, contra caritatem, contra religionem

Amelot anno 1683 (p. violer la Foi, & d’agir contre la Charité, l’Humanité, & la Religion 148); Amelot 1684 (p. (1683 and 1686) 142); Amelot 1686 (p. 162) violer la foi, & d’agir contre la charité, l’humanité, & la Religion (1684)

Lenz (f. 55)

wider die Lieb, Religion und Leütseligkeit zu handeln

This second passage, again taken from chapter XVIII, leaves doubts there are no significant points of contact between the other versions and the German version to be noticed. In Lenz’s translation we find both a significant omission of a term already emphasized in the chapter heading, and a

35

“& se gli uomini fussen’ tutti buoni questo precetto non saria buono” (Blado).

The first German translation

231

particular order of the nominal group in which the term is included. Lenz chooses to avoid the term “fede”, unlike Blado and Amelot in whose versions the term appears as first choice. We cannot exclude a priori that Lenz decided autonomously to omit this word deliberately. In this case, indipendently of whether the term “fede” is present or not, there are no analogies in the order of the words between his version and the others. Editions and versions show a clear dependence — Amelot depends on Blado, Conring on Testina, whereas in Tegli the passage is completely missing — and all show an order which does not find any correspondence in Lenz’s. Although the German translator keeps the original meaning of the Latin “caritas” and therefore translates it as “Lieb”, he reverses the word order and thus radically changes the syntactic order of his version. Though considering that the translators usually prove faithful in maintaining the exact order of the noun groups, an intentional decision to modify this order is not to be excluded. As we cannot establish, from the examination of this passage, which version Lenz used, we can assume that he had a further version, unknown to us, at his disposal. h) From chapter XIX, “De contemptu et odio fugiendo”. Blado (p. 25v)

le cose di carico metter’ sopra d’altri, & le cose di gratia à se medesimi

Testina (p. 44)

le cose di carico, fare sumministrare ad altri, & quelle di gratie à lor medesimi

Tegli (p. 121)

alijs procuranda decernat, quæ inuidia parere possint: sibi vero quæ grata sint reservet

Conring (p. 76)

quæ invidiam parere possint per alios curare jubeat, sibi vero quæ grata sunt reservet

Amelot 1683 (pp. 159-160)

se réserver la distribution de toutes les graces, & laisser à leurs Oficiers la disposition des peines. Et de toutes les choses, qui sont sujétes à l'envie

Amelot 1684 (p. 176) = Amelot 1686 (p. 153)

à se réserver la distribution de toutes les graces, & à laisser aux Magistrats la disposition des peines, & de toutes les choses, qui sont sujétes à l'envie

Lenz (f. 59)

die austheilung der gnaden vor sich zu behalten, u. den beamten die waffen überlassen u. alle sachen so neid verursachen

232

Serena Spazzarini

In the chapter dedicated to providing useful rules which enable the Prince to avoid people’s contempt and hate and that, at the same time, assure him consensus and avoid the risk of conspiracies, there is a passage in which Lenz’s translation solutions stray from the models analyzed so far. It is the passage that the Florentine Secretary derives directly from Ierone by Xenophon.36 Exactly at the point in which Machiavelli introduces the example of the Kingdom of France — example in which the king, thanks to an organization based on institutions that, like the parliament, mediate the tensions of different social groups rival by nature, manages to assure liberty and safety both for himself and for his kingdom — we find substantial differences among the various readings. In the Italian editions and in the Latin versions the Prince is recommended to demand the unpopular measures to others and reserve for himself the most agreeable ones, i.e. those that contribute to making him popular: in these texts, therefore, it is not specified to which institution or to which officials the presumably disagreeable measures are to be given, but we find a generic definition with the indefinite “altri”. Much more circumstantial is Amelot’s passage: here the Prince is advised, first of all, to reserve to himself the distribution of all “graces”, i.e. the agreeable things and leave the “Oficiers” (“officers”, in the translation of 1683) or the “Magistrats” (“magistrates”, in the versions of 1684 and 1694) the decisions on punishment and everything that can drive people to envy. Lenz, who asserts how opportune it is to hand over the “waffen” (“weapons”) to the “beamten” (“officers”), reveals his direct influence from the first of Amelot’s translations (1683), and partly, opts for a completely alternative and personal choice of words. The German text, however, keeps and translates literally Amelot’s expression “se réserver la distribution de toutes les graces” — “die austheilung der gnaden vor sich zu behalten” —, a significant choice as, among the readings analyzed, it is introduced only in the latter.

36

Cf. M. Martelli, pp. 251-252.

The first German translation

233

i) From chapter XIX, “De contemptu et odio fugiendo” Blado (p. 26r)

perche non potendo i Principi si debbon’ ingegnar’ con ogni mancar’ di non esser’ odiati, da industria fuggir’ l’odio di quelle qualcuno uniuersitati che sono più potenti

Testina (p. 44)

perche, non potendo i Principi si debbono ingegnare con ogni mancare di non essere odiati da industria fuggire l’odio di quelle qualcuno università che sono più potenti

Tegli (pp. 123- Nam cum principes vitare non in id omnium maxime incumberent, vt 124) possent, quin in aliquorum odium ejus multitudinis offensionem incurrerent declinarent, quae esset potentiorum

Conring (p. 78)

quia cum Principes vitare non in id omnium maxime incumbendum possent, quin in aliquorum odium fuit, ut ejus multitudinis offensionem incurrerent declinarent, quae erat potentior

Amelot 1683 (pp. Car les Princes ne pouvant jamais il faut, à quelque prix que ce soit, qu’ils évitent la haine du parti qui est 162-163) = manquer d’être haïs de quelq’un le plus fort Amelot 1684 (p. 179)

Amelot 1686 (p. car comme les Princes ne il faut à quelque prix que ce soit, 156) manquent jamais d’être haïs de qu’ils évitent la haine du parti, qui est quelq’un le plus fort

Lenz (f. 60)

dann wann die fürsten nicht gar ist vonnöthen den haß der stärksten allezeit den haß meiden können saithe zu meiden, es koste was es wolle

In chapter XIX we find three significant analogies that make Lenz’s version close to Amelot’s (in the various editions), differentiating it from the Italian editions and the Latin translations, that resort to different solutions. The first analogy is found in the causal subordinate clause, placed in the foreground, and precisely in the specification of the temporal extension in which the action takes place. As in Amelot, Lenz strengthens the verbal negation by using a time adverb, whereas in Blado, Testina, Tegli and Conring, this integration is completely missing. In all three editions of

234

Serena Spazzarini

Amelot’s version we find the adverb “jamais”, whereas in Lenz we find “nicht gar allezeit”. The use of a different verbal modality that distinguishes Amelot’s versions, moreover, enables us to define the hypothesis of the model: both in the 1683 and in the 1684 editions we find a more assertive degree of the clause “car les Princes ne pouvant jamais manquer d’être haïs de quelq’un”, compared to the 1686 edition where it says “car comme les Princes ne manquent jamais d’être haïs de quelq’un”. As in the German text it says “dann wann die fürsten nicht gar allezeit den haß meiden können”, we can establish that Lenz here drew on one of the first Amelot editions. Although the identical modality is also found in Blado and Testina (“perche, non potendo i Principi mancare di non essere odiati da qualcuno”),37 in Tegli (“Nam cum principes vitare non possent, quin in aliquorum odium incurrerent”) and in Conring (“quia cum Principes vitare non possent, quin in aliquorum odium incurrerent”), the lack of the time adverb leads us to believe that these versions had not represented the model for this solution. The second feature that Lenz’s version has in common with the French one and that, once more, distinguishes it from Blado, Testina, Tegli and Conring is found in the conclusion of the same sentence. In this case there are three points of contact, of which the first is a polyrematic, the second a noun and the last an attribute. Amelot’s solution is particularly interesting — both in the 1683 edition and in the following versions of 1684 and 1686 — to lay emphasis on the action: in the verbal locution in the third person, it follows a verbal polyrematic i.e. “il faut, à quelque prix que ce soit”. Lenz also uses an idiomatic verbal expression, of which he keeps the connotative meaning, i.e. “es koste was es wolle”. In both cases, therefore, the expression reveals a direct connection as, by setting in the same lexical field (“prix”, “kosten”) and keeping the same meaning, it shows that the translator wished to remain faithful to the model. Although in Blado and Testina we notice the use of a polyrematic (“con ogni industria”) phrase, this has characteristics — it is nominal, it falls within a different lexical field and, suggesting a different execution procedure, it is distinguished from the connotative meaning proposed in the French and German texts — that lead us to state that the Latin versions are not, even at this point, the starting texts of our translator. Similarly, in Tegli and in Conring, though by using an adverb of manner (“maxime”), the meaning is made more generic and ambiguous: if in Amelot and Lenz the expression leads us to imagine a daring behaviour, maybe bordering on the illegal, which Princes have to adopt in an attempt to avoid 37

“perche non potendo i Principi mancar’ di non esser’ odiati, da qualcuno” (Blado).

The first German translation

235

hate from the most powerful party, in the Latin versions and in the Italian editions, the connotative meaning appears more blurred and vague. From the latter, it is not possible to deduce any precise moral value, or establish the mode recommended to avoid surrendering to the hate Princes are unavoidably exposed to. The second significant point is represented by a noun placed in the conclusion of the passage analyzed: the term is a further element through which Lenz adheres to Amelot’s version, both because he avoids repeating the term mentioned in the first part of the clause, and because he keeps the connotative and denotative meaning. In the Italian editions we find the term “vniuersità” both in the first part —“si debbon’ prima sforzare di non esser’ odiati dall’uniuersità” in Blado and “si debbono prima sforzare di non essere odiati dall’vniuersità” in Testina —, and in the conclusion — “fuggir’ l’odio di quelle uniuersitati” in the first and “fuggire l’odio di quelle vniuersità” in the second —, whereas in the Latin translations, to “[...] multitudinem sibi insensam facerent” there follows “ut ejus multitudinis offensionem declinarent”. Amelot and Lenz, on the contrary, avoid this phrase and, opting for a greater lexical wealth, replace a generic definition with a more circumstantial indication of the genitive case: if in Amelot, in the first part of the period we find the noun “multitude” (“ils doivent tâcher de ne l’être pas de la multitude”), in the second the genitive case is defined by using the noun “parti”. Lenz chooses a similar solution by using “allen” in the first part and “saithe” in the second. In both Amelot and Lenz, therefore, a greater lexical variety makes the reading more agreeable and contributes to making the text more accurate and precise in definitions. The last point of contact that helps to corroborate the assumption that Amelot’s version is the model from which Lenz starts, is the attribute connected with the last noun taken into consideration, i.e. the respective qualification for “vniuersità”, “multitudinis”, “parti” or “saithe”. Whereas the other translators use an adjective in the comparative degree (“piú potenti” in the Italian editions, “potentiorum” and “potentior” in the Latin versions) recalling qualities connected to the political sphere or that, however, are connected to the power sphere, Amelot and Lenz make use of a more generic attribution (“le plus fort” and “der stärksten”), maintaining, besides, the same denotative and connotative value.

236

Serena Spazzarini

l) From chapter XXVI, “Exhortatio ad capessendam Italiam in literatemque a barbaris vindicandam“. Blado 35v)

(pp.

34r- più schiava, che gli Hebrei, più serua che i Persi, più dispersa che gli Ateniesi, senza capo, senza ordine, battuta, spogliata, lacera, corsa, & hauessi sopportato d’ogni rouine

Testina (pp. 60- più schiaua che gli Hebrei più serua che i Persi, più dispersa che gli 61) Atheniesi, senza capo, senza ordine, battuta, spogliata, lacera, corsa, & hauesse sopportato d’ogni sorte ruine

Tegli (p. 169)

duriori seruitio teneri quam Hebræi, asperiori seruitute premi quam Persae, longius, latiusque dispergi, quam Athenienses, nullo duce, nullo ordine, flagris cæsa, bonis dispoliata, in parteis discissa, vndique excursa, atque omne calamitatum genus perpessa.

Conring (pp. 105- atque magis mancipio teneri quam Hebræos, asperiori servitute premi 106) quam Persas, longius latiusque dispergi quam Athenienses, sine ullo capite, sine ordine, flagris cæsam, bonis spoliatam, in parteis scissam, undique excussam, atque omne calamitatum genus perpessam

Amelot 1683 (pp. 220-221) = Amelot 1684 (p. 245)

qu’elle fût aujourd’hui si misèrable, qu’elle fût plus esclave que le Juifs; plus maltraitée que les Perses; plus dispersée, que les Aténiens; qu’elle fût sans Chef, & sans Loix, mépriséee, déchirée, pillée, & asservie par les Etrangers

Amelot 1686 (p. fût aujourd’hui si misèrable, qu’elle fût plus maltraitée, que les Perses, 211) plus dispersée, que les Aténiens; qu’elle fût sans chef, & sans loix, mépriséee, déchirée, pillée, & asservie par les Etrangers

Lenz (f. 81)

so elend als die Kinder Israel in [h]öhern Sclaverei, übler tracktiert als die Perser, mehr zerstreut als die Athenienser, ohne haupt, ohne gesetz, verächt, zerrissen, beraubt, und dem frembden unterworfen

From the comparison of the different readings of this passage, some clues come out confirming once more how Lenz’s translation is closer to the French version and not to the Italian editions and Latin translations. The German text maintains the same order of the attributive participles keeping their respective connotative and denotative meanings, as they are found in Amelot: “méprisée” becomes “verächt”, “déchirée” is translated as

The first German translation

237

“zerrissen”, “pillée” as “beraubt” and, finally, “asservie par les Etrangeres” — though modifying the agent into the singular — maintains the same value of the expression as “dem fremden unterworfen”. Very different are, on the contrary, both the order and the meaning of the same elements in the Italian and Latin texts: in Blado and Testina we read “battuta, spogliata, lacera, corsa, & hauesse sopportato d’ogni sorte ruine”,38 in Tegli “flagris cæsa, bonis dispoliata, in parteis discissa, vndique excursa, atque omne calamitatum genus perpessa” and in Conring “sine ullo capite, sine ordine, flagris cæsam, bonis spoliatam, in parteis scissam, undique excussam, atque omne calamitatum genus perpessam”. In the last four readings we can therefore verify three substantial variations in the comparison with the German version: first of all, in these texts we find a variation in the order — “spogliata” and “bonis dispoliata/dispoliatam”, i.e. “beraubt”, anticipates “lacera”, “in parteis discissa/scissam”, here for “zerrissen” — second, we notice a variation and an adjectival widening — “battuta” and “corsa” together with “flagris caesa/caesam”, “vndique excursa” and “undique excussam” cannot correspond to or summarize the German “verächt” — and, finally, a replacement of the last participle that modifies the conclusive context of that same period. Unlike the French and German text, the Latin translations and Italian versions completely lack the reference to the subjection of Italy to foreigners and the conclusion of the sentence proves brief: Amelot and Lenz, on the contrary, by stressing the subjection of Italy to foreign rule, make the tone of the passage more critical toward whoever was called to govern the fortunes of Italy. Finally, the passage allows us once more to limit the textual origin to the 1683 and 1684 versions and to exclude the 1686 version: unlike the first two editions, in the 1686 version Amelot omits the comparison with the slavery suffered by Jews, rather preferring to synthesize the simile with a general attribution as “si misèrable”.

38

“battuta, spogliata, lacera, corsa, & hauessi sopportato d’ogni rouine” (Blado).

238

Serena Spazzarini

3.2 Onomastic comparisons Capitolo VII

Capitolo XII

Capitolo XXI

Blado

Sforza (p. 9r)

Alberigo da Como Misser’ Bernardo da Milano (p. 30r) Romagnuolo (p. 18r)

Testina

Sforza (p. 13)

Alberigo da Como Messer Bernardo da Milano (p. 52) Romagnuolo (p. 28)

Tegli

Sfortiam (p. 35)

Albericus Comensis è Bernardi Mediolanensis (p. 98) Flaminia (p. 61)

Conring

Sfortiam (p. 24)

Albericus Comensis e Bernardo mediolanensi (p. 91) Flaminia (p. 53)

Amelot

Sforce (1683, p. Albéric da Conio Barnabé de Milan (1683, p. 190; 1684, 51; 1684, p. 55; (1683, p. 106; 1684, p. 209) Barnabé, seigneur de Milan 1686, p. 47) p. 114, 1686, p. 99) (1686, p. 181)

Lenz

Sforza (f. 19)

Albericen von Conio Barnaba von Mailand (f. 70) (f. 39)

From the onomasticons chosen by Lenz it can be deduced that he, very probably, consulted more sources and that he however maintained a certain dependence from Amelot’s version. The solution adopted by our translator for the first surname here mentioned, i.e. that of Francesco Sforza, the one who “per li debiti mezzi e con una gran virtù, di privato diventò duca di Milano”, maintains the Italian form (“Sforza”): this choice can be the sign of a direct derivation from the Italian text by Blado or Testina, though it cannot be excluded that the knowledge of the inflection peculiar to French and Latin (“Sfortiam” in Testina and in Conring, “Sforce” in Amelot) or, very probably, of the Italian political events, led him to reject the final syllabic alteration of these languages. A very peculiar case, on the contrary, is constituted by other two onomasticons examined: in both we notice a peculiar choice of consonants

The first German translation

239

which brings Lenz’s version closer to Amelot’s. In the first, concerning “Alberigo da Conio, romagnolo”, Lenz surely drew on the French text where, unlike the others, we read “Conio” and not “Como” — as in Blado and Testina — or the Latin equivalent “Comensis” — as in Tegli and Conring. The choice of “Como” reveals, moreover, an incorrect interpretation of the Italian edition and the Latin version which Amelot and Lenz do not share: the condottiere Alberigo da Conio, actually called Alberico da Barbiano, belonged to the Counts da Barbiano, a patrician family of Romagna, who, beside boasting Carolingian descent, owned feudal estates in Conio, and in Lugo. Alberico, whom Machiavelli identifies thanks to one of the Italian family dominions had learnt in Italy the science of warfare in the “white company” of mercenaries of the Englishman John Hawkwood, also called “Giovanni Acuto”. He was the very first to start off a free company composed only of Italians and set an example of haute école to other condottieri (Jacopo Dal Verme, Facino Cane and mentioned by Machiavelli in the passage from Il Principe here analysed, also Braccio da Montone and Muzio Attendolo, father of Francesco Sforza), but in fact, he had nothing remarkable to do with Como so there was no reason why his name should be connected to the Lombard town. A similar misinterpretation is found in Blado’s edition and consequently in Tegli, Testina and Conring, and a similar consistency of Amelot and Lenz, compared to the original thought of the Florentine Secretary, appears when Machiavelli writes (in chapter XXI) about Bernabò da Milano, i.e. Bernabò Visconti Lord of Milan from 1354 to 1385. The name of this famous figure, whose singular behaviour inspired many Trecento story-tellers,39 in Testina and in the Latin translations erroneously becomes “Bernardo”, whereas the French and German versions remain more faithful to the original. Lenz’s choice derives directly from the French version in which the “-e-” of the first syllable is changed to “-a-”: as in Amelot we find “Barnabé” or “Barnabè”, in the same way in Lenz we find “Barnaba”.

39

Among these Franco Sacchetti (1332-1400) in his Trecentonovelle (1392).

240

Serena Spazzarini

4. Conclusions 4.1. A Hypothesis on the original text used by Albrecht von Lenz. In the light of the results obtained from the comparative analysis between Lenz’s translation and the other editions or versions that most probably circulated at the time of the writing of the German text, we can now assume that, in all likelihood, Lenz made use of Amelot’s version. We note a marked subjection to the French translation, both morphologically and syntactically. Now let us gather all constituents of the sentence (nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs and idioms) so far detected, which recur similarly only in the French and German versions: they are the clues that our translator borrowed his text from the “most popular and successful” French translation available at his time.40. There are six passages in which we find a perfect relationship between a noun used in the French translation and its adoption in the German translation: • princes / fürsten, to translate “profeti”, • humanité / leütseligkeit, to render “pietà” • mal / böse, to translate “ingiurie”, • Conio / Conio, instead of “Como”, • Oficiers (1683) / beamten, instead of “altri” • parti / saithe, to render “università” / “universitati”;

three passages in which the adjective in the clause takes the same denotative and connotative value, or is used in the same degree in which it is used in the French version: • changeant / veränderlich, while the original text is “varia”, • (de necessitè) absolüe / höchstnöhtig, whereas in the original text we find just “necessario”, • le plus fort / der stärksten to render “più potenti”;

one passage in which in both texts the use of the same adverbial time phrase is recorded: “n’aient pas le tems” / “nicht Zeit haben”, whereas in the original text we find “[l’offendano] meno”. 40

The solutions in French here reported are common to the three Amelot translations (1683, 1684 and 1686), except for those peculiar to one or the other version specified in brackets.

The first German translation

241

Among these constituents of speech, moreover, can be numbered four additions — here in italic print — exclusively typical of the French versions and the German translation: • vraie gloire / wahren [...] Ruhm, whereas in the original the reading is “gloria”, • il faut qu[e] [...] périsse tôt ou tard / bald oder langsam verdirbt, whereas in the original we find “che rovini”, • ne manquent jamais d’être haïs de quelq’un / nicht gar allezeit den haß meiden können, while the original text is “non potendo mancare”, • asservie par les Etrangers / dem fremden unterworfen, whereas in the original the reading is “corsa”.

Considering, moreover, the use of the verbal idioms, there are two passages in which two of them can be found, both used in place of a simple verbal predicate and equivalent in the French and German texts: • pour faire peur aux loups / den wölfen forcht einzujagen, for “sbigottire i lupi” • à quelque prix que ce soit / es koste was es wolle, instead of “con ogni industria”.

Unlike the Italian editions and the Latin versions, there is one verb which defines the action more clearly: “contrefaire” / “nachahmen”, instead of “usare”. Also syntactically, Lenz agrees mainly with Amelot’s choices: we have found six passages describing how, on various levels, the German translator borrowes from the French text. First of all, he uses subordinates equivalent to the French ones, either they are of the same nature — as is the case of the first — or both explicit, unlike the implicit subordinates used in the Italian editions or in the Latin translations — as is the case of the second —: • les princes, que j’ai nommez / die fürsten, die ich genannt, while the original text was “i profeti” • afin que ceux, à qui ont le fait / dass die denen mans thut;

The German translator, moreover, maintains the same sequence of substantives or attributive participles: • d’être sans foi, sans Religion, sans humanité / ohne glauben, ohne Religion seÿn, ohne leütseligkeit, while the original sounded like “essere sanza fede, sanza pietà, sanza religione”, • sans Chef, & sans Loix, mépriséee, déchirée, pillée, & asservie par les Etrangers / ohne haupt, ohne gesetz, verächt, zerrissen, beraubt, und dem frembden unterworfen, whereas the original text was “sanza capo, sanza ordine, battuta, spogliata, lacera, corsa”;

242

Serena Spazzarini

or sometimes he prefers, just like Amelot, to use sentences in a proleptic function in order to emphasize some judgments that, set out in a different way in the texts here compared, prove less incisive: • Ceux-là ne l'entendent pas, qui ne contrefont que le Lion / Diese verstehens nicht, so nur dem löwen allein nacharten, whereas in the original text we find “coloro che stanno semplicemente in sul lione non se ne intendano” • Céte Maxime ne vaudroit rien, si tous les hommes étoient bons / Diese regul galt nichts, wann alle menschen brav wären, instead of the original that goes like “e se li òmini fussino tutti buoni, questo precetto non sarebbe buono”;

or to construct a long period without dividing it into different sentences: Ceux-là ne l'entendent pas, qui ne contrefont que le Lion, Et par conséquent un Prince prudent ne doit point tenir sa parole, quand cela lui tourne à dommage, & que les ocasions, qui la lui ont fait engager, ne sont plus / Diese verstehens nicht, so nur dem löwen allein nacharten, muß also folgender weiß ein fürst sein parole nicht halten, wann es ihm zum schaden gereicht, und die gelegenheit nicht mehr da, die ihn zum versprechen gebracht /

whereas in the original text the sentence is: coloro che stanno semplicemente in sul lione non se ne intendano. Non può pertanto uno signore prudente né debbe osservare la fede, quando tale osservantia li torni contro e che sono spente le cagioni che la feciono promettere;

and he finally translates literally an expression as it is found in the French: se réserver la distribution de toutes les graces / die austheilung der gnaden vor sich zu behalten, where in the original text we find simply “debbono [...] fare subministrare [...] le cose [...] di gratia a loro medesimi”.

Among these similarities, one allows us to identify with the first translation by Amelot (1683) the text preferred by Lenz: a noun that the German translator could borrow only from the French text (“Oficiers” / “beamten”) proves that the only version that can be assumed as the starting text is the 1683 version. Two other passages exclude the 1686 translation: the first concerns a verbal modality adopted, in a passage in chapter XIX, by the French translation only in the 1686 version; the second concerns the omission of the reference to the slavery of the Jews in chapter XXVI. Though Amelot resorts to these choices only in the 1686 version, the solution is not exclusive to Amelot’s text, because it is shared both by the Italian editions and the Latin versions. The second case, moreover, proves to be a very crucial point as the omission typifies the 1686 version and Lenz who, on the contrary,

The first German translation

243

inserts the reference to the slavery of the Jews, agrees with the choices shared both by the 1683 and 1684 versions, the Italian editions and the Latin versions: • ne pouvant [...] manquer (Amelot 1683 e 1684) / ne manquent (Amelot 1686) / meiden können (Lenz); • plus esclave que le Juifs (Amelot 1683 e 1684) / fût aujourd’hui si misèrable (Amelot 1686) / so elend als die Kinder Israel (Lenz).

Yet another passage increases the suspicion that Lenz did not have only Amelot’s version at his disposal. As we have found in the analytical section, in chapter XVIII the translator shares a significant choice with Testina’s edition and Conring’s version. As they do, he also omits to mention faith, a reference placed indeed at the start of the sentence and within the nominal sequence just in the other versions here compared. This is therefore a passage in which the translator deliberately modified the texts consulted by opting for an alternative syntactical order: contro alla humanità, contro alla charità, contro alla Religione (Testina) / contra humanitatem, contra caritatem, contra religionem (Conring) / wider die Lieb, Religion und Leütseligkeit (Lenz).

There are, moreover, other elements which confirm that the German translator consulted at least an Italian edition or a Latin version, though these are less significant than the previous ones: in the first passage we find the same syntactical order used both in the Italian editions and in the Latin translations; in the second case, as in Blado and Testina, he enriches the verbal context by using a verbal predicate that in French is condensed in a pronoun, whereas all Latin versions omit it completely: Onde è necessario à un’ Principe uolendosi mántenere, imparare à potere esser nón buono, & usarlo & nón usarlo, secóndo la necessità (Blado) Onde è necessario ad vm Principe, volendosi mantenere, imparare à potere essere non buono, & vsarlo & non vsarlo secondo la neceßità (Testina) Necessarium est itaque principi, ut perceptum habeat (si se salvum velit) qua ratione possit esse non bonus, idque pro rei necessitate in suum convertat vel non convertat usum (Tegli) Necessarium est itaque Principi, si se salvum velit: ut sciat qua ratione possit esse non bonus; idque pro rei necessitate in suum usum convertat vel non convertat (Conring) ist also höchstnöhtig, dass der fürst so sich erhalten will, lerne böß zu sein und sich dessen zu bedienen nach erforderung der sachen (Lenz) Non può per tanto un’ signor’ prudente, ne debbe osseruar’ la fede, quando tal’ osseruantia gli torni contrò & che sono spente la cagioni che la fecen’ promettere (Blado) Non può per tanto vn Signore prudente, ne debbe osseruare la fede, quando tale osseruantia gli torni contro, & che sono spente le cagioni che la feceno promettere (Testina)

244

Serena Spazzarini

muß also folgender weiß ein fürst sein parole nicht halten, wann es ihm zum schaden gereicht, und die gelegenheit nicht mehr da, die ihn zum versprechen gebracht (Lenz).

Among these choices that differ from the French translation, therefore, the only certain common denominator between the Italian editions and the Latin versions proves to be Testina, whose version, we know, also served as a model for Conring. Since the latter was only discovered in Oels Library in 1699, and shares few translation choices with the German version, we cannot be sure that Lenz also had this text at his disposal.

4. 2. Lenz’s translation skill By making use of both the French translation and Testina’s edition, Lenz therefore proved to be a skilful translator able to opt for the solution that he considered more adequate but also to propose personal variants. We can first of all find two levels of derivation of the text on the basis of which we can verify his translation skill: on the one hand the preference, borrowed from Amelot, for a lexical enrichment and a larger incisiveness of the narration and, on the other hand, the tendency to emphasize the political and institutional referentiality of the text. Concerning the first aspect, we find an evident dependence on the French translation on several levels: on the syntactical level, for an occasional proleptic order aiming at emphasizing certain judgments (cfr. the previous section) and on the semantic level for the choice of terms morally significant in the context (mal/böse), or of more circumstantial terms (parti/seithe). We should also highlight a completely personal inclusion of a term by Lenz (zum wahren Ehre u. Ruhm), a term which is not found in any other text here compared: this word, that probably answers the typical baroque need for amplification, helps to increase the lexical wealth of the passage. Concerning the second aspect, we may point out a significant alternation of the texts used as a model. There are, for example, two passages in which Lenz sticks exclusively to the political significance of Machiavelli’s message: in the first, like Amelot, he avoids the religious implication talking about Savonarola (use of princes/fürsten), in the second, like Testina, he ignores the principle according to which a prince can act, if obliged, against the “faith”. Also the function of the exclusive insertion of “waffen” in chapter XIX is therefore to make the text topical. In this passage Lenz probably adapts the piece to the political context in which he is writing and must circulate his translation: whereas in France there is the magistracy that, at least in theory, administers the law independently from the government,

The first German translation

245

Lenz, who lives in a small Silesian princedom ruled in an absolutist way, seems to know only the armed wing of that same government and, therefore, contextualizes Machiavelli’s precept of “fare sumministrare ad altri le cose di carico”, inserting the explicit term of “waffen” that here has the meaning of “milizie armate”.

Bibliography Primary Sources Amelot 1683 = LE PRINCE DE NICOLAS MACHIAVEL, SECRETAIRE & CITOIEN DE FLORENCE. Traduit & Commenté par A. N. Amelot, Sieur de la Houssaie. A AMSTERDAM, Chez HENRI WETSTEIN. 1683 Amelot 1684 = LE PRINCE DE NICHOLAS MACHIAVEL, CITOIEN & SECRETAIRE DE FLORENCE Traduit & Commenté par A. N. AMELOT, Sieur de la Houssaie A AMSTERDAM, chez HENRI WETSTEIN. 1684 Amelot 1686 = LE PRINCE DE MACHIAVEL. Troisième Edition. Revüe, corrige & augmentée par le Traducteur. A AMSTERDAM, chez HENRI WETSTEIN, 1694 Blado = Il Principe di Niccolò Machiavelli. Facsimile dell’edizione originale impressa in Roma da Antonio Blado nel 1532. Con una introduzione di Federico Chabod. A cura di Luigi Firpo. Torino 1961 Conring = NICOLAI MACHIAVELLI PRINCEPS ALIQUE NONNULLA ex Italico Latine nunc demum part tim versa, partim infinitis locis sensus me lioris ergo castigata, curante HERMANNO CONRINGIO. HELMESTADII. Typis atque impensis HENNINGI MULLERI, Accademia Iuliae Typographi 1660 Lenz = Der Fürst des Nicola Machiavell burgers u. Secretarii zu Florenz in welscher Sprach beschribn, und ins deütsch übersetzt, von Christian Alb. von Lenz Herz. Wirt. Oelsn. CamerJunker 1692 Machiavelli, Niccolò, Il Principe (Milano: Rizzoli Editore, 2003) ——., Il Principe, a cura di Mario Martelli. Corredo filologico a cura di Nicoletta Marcelli (Roma: Salerno Editrice, 2006) Tegli = NICOLAI MACHIAVELLI REIP. FLORENTINAE A SE cretis, ad Laurentium Medicem de Principe li bellus: nostro quidam seculo apprimè utilis & necessarius, non modò ad principatum adipiscendum, sed & regendum & conseruandum: Nunc primum ex Italico in Latinum sermonem

246

Serena Spazzarini

uersus per Syluestrum Telium Fulginatem. Basileae apud Petrum Pernam. MDLX Testina = TUTTE LE OPERE DI NICOLO MACHIAVELLI CITTADINO ET SECRETARIO FIORENTINO, DIVISE IN V PARTI, ET DI NUOVO CON SOMMA ACCURATEZZA RISTAMPATE AL SANTISSIMO ET BEATISSIMO PADRE SIGNORE NOSTRO CLEMENTE VII. PONT. MASS. M. D. L.

Critical Literature Feist, Martin, ‘Sylvius Friedrich, Herzog von Oels’, Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte und Altertum Schlesiens, 37 (1903), 63-98 Gerber, Adolf, Niccolò Machiavelli. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Übersetzungen seiner Werke im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Mit 147 Faksimiles und zahlreichen Auszügen. Eine kritisch-bibliographische Untersuchung, 3 vols (Gotha: Perthes, 1912-1913), reprinted and edited by Luigi Firpo (Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1962) Grimm, Jacob, and W. Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, bearbeitet von Dr. Moriz Heyne, VI (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1885) Martino, Alberto, Die italienische Literatur im deutschen Sprachraum. Ergänzungen und Berichtigungen zu Frank-Rutger Hausmanns Bibliographie (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994) Des Schlesischen Adels Anderer Theil, Oder Fortsetzung Schlesischer Curiositäten, Darinnen Die Gräflichen, Freiherrlichen und Adelichen Geschlechter, So wohl Schlesischer Extraction, Als auch Die aus andern Königreichen und Ländern in Schlesien kommen, Und entweder darinnen noch floriren, oder bereits ausgangen, In völligem Abrisse dargestellet werden, Nebst einer nöthigen Vorrede und Register ausgefertiget von Johanne Sinapio (Leipzig und Breßlau: Michael Rohrlach, 1728) Schmidt, Ludwig, Katalog der Handschriften der Sächsischen Landesbibliothek (vormals Kgl. Öff. Bibliothek) zu Dresden, IV (Leipzig: Teubner, 1923) Sönke, Lorenz, D. Mertens, and V. Press (Hrsg.), Das Haus Württemberg. Ein biographisches Lexikon (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1997) Großes Vollständiges UNIVERSAL LEXICON Aller Wissenschaften und Künste, welche bishero durch menschlichen Verstand und Witz erfunden und verbessert worden, XVII (Halle und Leipzig: Johann Heinrich Zedler, 1738)

Paolo Marelli

The first translation in Scandinavia Abstract: This paper examines the first translation of The Prince into a Nordic language, Carl von Klingenberg’s Machiavels Prins (1757), published together with the translation of The AntiMachiavel by Frederick II of Prussia. Klingenberg was a typical Enlightenment Voltairian intellectual of the Swedish “Age of Liberty”; he was cousin of the poetess Hedvig Charlotta Nordenflycht and member of the Tankebyggarorden — the first literary society in Sweden. The book was dedicated to the eleven-year-old Crown Prince Gustaf, the future king Gustavus III and nephew of Frederick II of Prussia. As Klingenberg himself declares, he translated The Prince above all from a French version (Amelot’s edition of 1686 or 1689), but it can be shown that he also used two German translations (one of them was the obscure Lebens- und RegierungsMaximen eines Fursten) and Dacres’ English version (1640).

The publication of The Prince by Machiavelli had immediate and widespread effect throughout Europe and it soon reached the distant Scandinavia, where the work was probably circulating from the first decades of the sixteenth century. Gustavus I Vasa (1523-1560) is sometimes compared generically to the strong-man figure depicted by Machiavelli, because of the Swedish king’s authoritarianism, his opportunism and his propensity to accumulate power in his hands. However there is neither evidence nor any indication that he read or even knew about the treatise. This can be said with even greater, but not absolute, certainty about his fierce rival, king Christian II of Denmark, and his successor Erik XIV of Sweden (1560-1568). The first rose to the throne of Denmark in 1513 and was considered to be a cruel and unscrupulous tyrant1 by many, and not only by the Swedish. What makes us suppose he knew Machiavelli’s work, or that he wanted to learn more about it, is that in 1520 he commissioned of Poul Helgesen, a humanist and a Carmelite, a historian and a defender of the Catholic Church, a translation of two books in Danish. Helgesen, who, incidentally, wasn’t on good terms with the sovereign, dropped one of the two works and devoted himself exclusively to the translation of Institutio Principis Christiani by Erasmus of Rotterdam. The book he refused havde stor umage, og ingen frugt, thi at hun mere lærte 1

In 1520 he ordered the slaughter of many Swedish aristocrats, while trying to overpower Sweden — the so-called Stockholms blodbad, the “Stockholm Bloodbath”. In Sweden he is also known as Kristian Tyrann, Christian the Tyrant. In 1523, while Gustavus Vasa was elected king of Sweden, on gaining independence from Denmark, Danish aristocrats deposed Christian II.

248

Paolo Marelli

at gore synd, end at bedre og aflægge den [...] og fordi var hun ikke værd at udsættes på dansk (was more damaging than useful, because it taught to commit sins rather than to correct and to renounce them [...] and therefore it wasn’t worthy of translation into Danish)2. Even though some scholars think the refused book is Luther’s writing An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christlichen Standes Besserung3, it is more probably The Prince. At that time Machiavelli’s work was circulating in Latin and original language versions, so a Nordic sovereign couldn’t really make much use of it, particularly if he wasn’t a highly-cultured man. Thanks to the Latin translation, there was no longer the need to translate Machiavelli’s treatise into a Scandinavian language version for an erudite circle. It is therefore probable that Erik XIV read a Latin version of it. The historian Ingvar Andersson4 upholds the theory according to which the king read The Prince, or knew of its content, maybe even without owning a copy of it. Andersson points out that the Swedish king put some of the precepts of Machiavelli’s treatise, and other of his works, into practice: the necessity of using one’s own troops and to be surrounded by trustworthy counsellors, to strengthen central power to the detriment of the feudal nobility, to follow an aggressive foreign policy, and to carry out the immediate and unscrupulous repression of any attempt at rebellion. The Prince was not to be translated in Scandinavia until more than two centuries later, partly because in the meantime it could be read in Latin — in the versions of Tegli, Conring and Langenhert5 — and later in French, but 2

3

4 5

From the preface of the Danish translation of Institutio Principis Christiani (dated January 24th 1522, the day in which the “Machiavellian” counsellor of the king, Didrik Slagheck, was executed). Cf. Vilhelm Andersen — Carl Petersen, Illustreret dansk litteraturhistorie, v. 1 (København: Gyldendal, 1924-1934), p. 262. Peter Holst, Dansk litteraturhistorie, v. 2 (København, Gyldendal, 2000), p. 48-52. It is nevertheless unlikely that Christian II requested a translation of Luther’s writing into Danish immediately after its publication (August 1520). He was a “Renaissance prince” and a patron of culture, so he was more interested in purely political questions and in anything that could fulfil his ambitions and increase his prestige, than in the religious issues raised by Luther – Lutheranism was proclaimed an established religion only in 1536 by Christian III. It is therefore more plausible that he commissioned the translation of two works that, though different in meaning and political purposes, had a common aim: to outline and suggest to rulers the qualities of the ideal prince – Erasmus’ work was intended for the educators of the future emperor Charles V. Furthermore it should be pointed out that the disagreement between the king of Denmark and Helgesen wasn’t only ideological and religious, but also and above all political and personal. The Carmelite monk opposed and was adverse to lay humanism. Ingvar Andersson, ‘Erik XIV och Machiavelli’, Scandia, IV (1931), pp. 1-29. Different specimens of these versions are kept in Swedish libraries.

The first translation in Scandinavia

249

also because at that time a work which established, among other things, the superiority of the Reason of State to moral values was unacceptable, at least formally. The first translation of The Prince into a Nordic language is by Carl von Klingenberg, together with the translation of The Anti-Machiavel by Frederick II of Prussia (Machiavels Prins, med Undersökningen deraf. Öfversatt ifrån hufvudspråken. Stockholm, Grefing 1757). Klingenberg’s work, however, remained an isolated fact for more than a century. Actually The Prince, as a separate work, was translated only in 1867 by Rudolf August Helfrid Afzelius (Nicolo Machiavellis Furste / öfversatt af Rudolf Afzelius, Stockholm, Norstedt, 1867);6 by that time the debate over Machiavelli had been settled, and the value of The Prince finally acknowledged. In the preface Afzelius points out that: “Härmed kan åtminstone i hufvudsaken den strid anses slutad, som nu i trehundra år kämpats om den store Florentinske tänkaren och statsmannen.”7 The explicit revaluation of The Prince in Scandinavia had already taken place during the Romantic Age, thanks to the Danish historian Caspar Peter Paludan-Müller (1805-1882), and particularly to his essay Undersögelse om Machiavelli som Skribent, isaer med Hensyn til Bogen om Fyrsten: Et Forsög i den höiere historiske Kritik (Odense, 1839). The first Danish translation of the whole work dates back to only 1876 (Fyrsten, oversat fra Italiensk af J.C. Barth; med en indledende Afhandling af Macaulay)8 — also important because in the volume it is preceded by a renowned essay of 1827 by the English historian Thomas Macauley, from whom, possibly, Paludan-Müller himself partly drew his inspiration. Therefore the first Scandinavian translation of The Prince was completed in Sweden around the middle of the eighteenth century, during the frihetstid (the “Age of Liberty”, 1721-72), a period full of political, social and cultural turmoil: these are the years of the making of a political conscience and of the spread of new political theories, of the development of rhetoric, of the 6

7

8

Preceded by his 1866 dissertation Niccolo Machiavelli. Monografi jemte prof af hans Il Principe. I svensk öfversättning med anmärkningar. Akademisk afhandling (Uppsala: tryckt i Westerås. Boktryckeri-aktiebolaget, 1866). “By this, at least about fundamental principles, after a three-hundred-year dispute, the controversy over the great Florentine thinker and statesman can be thought of as finished”. The following translation in Sweden was done in 1914 by the famous novelist Hjalmar Bergman, who added an important introductory essay (Fursten / Niccolò Machiavelli; översatt samt försedd med en inledning av Hjalmar Bergman, Stockholm: Bonnier, 1914). The very short study by Erik Sandell, Lille Machiavelli eller Betraktelse öfver Machiavelli's och Antimachiavelli's förståelse om Fursten (Stockholm, 1912) is almost contemporary. The first Norwegian translation dates back to 1898 (Fyrsten, oversat af Fr. Weisse, Det norske Aktieforlag).

250

Paolo Marelli

foundation of reviews and literary associations, as well as of scientific and cultural academies; these years marked a new openness to foreign cultures and the diffusion of Enlightenment ideas. The “Age of Liberty” is also a period full of political and cultural conflicts and uncertainty.9 Carl Klingenberg (1708-1757) was a typical Enlightenment Voltairian intellectual of the period. He was an academic, but he never had a prominent role — he was a secretary and a teacher of the Uppsala University, although he never managed to obtain a chair or the title of “professor”. He devoted himself to natural sciences, to politics, to philosophy and to the consequences the first two had on a religious and moral level. In only a few years he translated several scientific studies on medicine and economics, which he considered particularly useful for people’s welfare and happiness, from French and English. In 1754 he published two translations commissioned by Sundhetskommission (Board of Health), one, from French, on the vaccine for smallpox,10 and the other, from English, on alcoholism;11 whereas in 1756 he translated the work of an English mercantilist,12 which had a crucial influence on the development of Swedish economic thinking. In January of the following year, not long before his death, the translation of The Prince and of The Anti-Machiavel was published. Considering his interests, it isn’t surprising that Klingenberg chose to deal with a political treatise, considered immoral by many. The work, however, was again under consideration, though it had neither been explicitly nor universally re-evaluated at the time13. Much of the information we have about Klingenberg comes from his cousin, the poetess Hedvig Charlotta Nordenflycht, and from his activity in

9

10 11

12

13

As shown by the tormented political vicissitudes, the steady oppression of censorship and the coexistence of scientific personalities so different as Linné, Dalin and Swedenborg. Dalin, who was a poet and a officer like many of his contemporary men of letters, benefited from the favour of the establishment, but he was also temporarily kept away from the court because of some of his political positions. Charles Marie de La Condamine, Undersökning om koppors ympande. Stephen Hales, Doct. Stephan Hales Förmaning til bränwins-supare, jämte föreställning om nödwändigheten, at genom goda författningar afböja en inritande odygd, som är så fördärfwelig för inwånarenas lif och hälsa, och inför Gud fördömelig; med en widtberömd doctoris medici underrättelse, huru de skola skicka sig, som wilja afbryta en så olyckelig wana. Charles Davenant, Afhandling, angående sätt och utvägar, hvarigenom et folk kan winna uti handels-wågen, öfversatt ifrån engelskan. Voltaire and Rousseau were authors he held in high esteem: they were both interested in Machiavelli and his works, though with different points of view.

The first translation in Scandinavia

251

Tankebyggarorden (The Order of the Thought-Builders)14 — the first literary society in Sweden. The cousin, to whom he was deeply and sincerely attached, introduced him to the society, where he soon took a prominent position. The poetess addressed an epistle in verse to him, Till Criton, (“To Crito”),15 an elegy known also as Klagan över Critons död (“Lament on Crito’s Death), and in 1759 she edited a writing in his memory, Skuggor af en förlorad vän eller Samlade tankar öfver secreteraren vid Academien i Upsala herr Carl Klingenberg, som dog den 28 januarii 1757. (Remembrances of a lost friend or Collected thoughts in memory of the secretary of Uppsala University, Carl Klingenberg, who died on 28th January 1757).16 In the epistle the poetess draws on a typical theory of the Enlightenment philosophy, according to which culture and knowledge would be the best remedy for unhappiness and human misery. Klingenberg had been interested in this subject since 1741, when in Uppsala he defended his Discursus practico-moralis de Odio et Amore sui.17 Now Nordenflycht revises this subject after reading Rousseau and distances herself from the optimistic outlook of the receiver and her fictitious interlocutor. The epistle Till Criton was included in the second volume of Våra Försök (“Our Essays”), which contained the Tankebyggarorden members’ works. The society published three issues of Våra Försök (in 1753, 1754 and 1756) and two of Witterhetsarbeten (“Literary Works”: in 1759 and 1762). The Tankebyggarorden was founded on March 1753 by Carl Fredrik Eckleff: it was a public literary society, an alternative and a competitor to Vitterhetsakademien18 (“Academy of Literature”) which was the expression of the official court culture. This was founded some months later by Princess Lovisa Ulrika, wife of the King of Sweden Adolf Fredrik and sister of Frederick II of Prussia. The main aims of the society founded by Eckleff

14

15

16

17

18

Torkel Stålmarck, Tankebyggare 1753-62. Miljö- och genrestudier (Stockholm 1986); Torkel Stålmarck, Fru Nordenflycht och upplysningsidéerna, diss. Stockholm 1962, pp. 1718. Other information can be found in the autobiography of G. F. Gyllenborg, Mitt leverne. Crito, as everybody knows, is Socrates’ interlocutor in the renowned dialogue by Plato, in which he debates issues of moral duty towards the laws of the State, of justice and of virtue. The date of 17th July 1757, carried in a footnote to Klagan in the edition of Nordenflycht’s works (Skrifter), in Svenska klassiker of Svenska Akademien (Stockholm, p. 118), refers to the day of composition of the elegy. Henrik Schück – Karl Warburg, Illustrerad svensk litteraturhistoria, vol. 3 (Stockholm: Rabén och Sjögren, 1926-1949), pp. 432-433. The complete former name was Kongl. Swenska Witterhets Academien (Royal Swedish Academy of Literature).

252

Paolo Marelli

were to dignify Swedish language and literature and to spread Enlightenment ideas.19 Although the members’ identities were hidden under coded pseudonyms and anonymous acronyms, the names of the most prestigious people were known: it was, therefore, easy to link work and author together. The society consisted of well-known poets and amateurs, representatives of low nobility and the bourgeoisie, public servants and clerks, soldiers, shepherds’ sons, Freemasons, academicians, men and women and representatives of every political party — but most of them were the so-called “Hats”. Inside the order it’s easy to identify a restricted circle which revolved around Nordenflycht’s literary salon, and which in 1755 parted company from the rest of the members: it was made up not only of two of the most talented poets, the young Counts Gustaf Fredrik Gyllenborg and Gustav Philip Creutz, but also of Carl Torpadius, Axel Reuterholm, Axel Leijonhufvud and Klingenberg himself. Klingenberg’s career in the academic milieu of Uppsala was modest and the few promotions he achieved depended on his friendship with representatives of the “Hats”, particularly with Carl Gyllenborg,20 a party leader and poet Gustaf Fredrik’s uncle. In Tankebyggarorden, on the other hand, he was held in such high esteem and respect as to be considered a sort of mentor. Thanks to his extensive and modern culture he charmed above all the youngest members, and he was able to bring them into contact with the ideas of the age, particularly with the Enlightenment. In the society Klingenberg is recorded under the coded pseudonym Ob*****n and with the acronym StsM, which refers to his role and functions, but is unfortunately still not easy to define. M probably means mästare — master — of someone or something, represented by the genitive St.. This alone should be enough to

19

20

Their poetry follows the French Classicism model strictly, and it is often conventional, particularly in their conformity to literary genres and in their stylistic choices. Våra Försök and Witterhetsarbeten are collections of works set out according to an order of literary and stylistic value of the genres: encomiastic poetry, epic poems, didactic poetry, epistles in verse, philosophical and moral poems, odes, satires, pastoral poems, fables, epigrams, prose compositions, translations. The ideals of Classicism are reflected, on a stylistic level, in a linguistic levelling, which is evident since the 1756 issue of Våra Försök (and it is also clear in Klingenberg’s translation) where there is the omission on one hand of some “low” or dialect elements and on the other of archaisms and obsolete or unusual words and forms. In the same way the difficulties to make a career for himself can be ascribed to the hostility of opposing factions, though there isn’t evidence that he engaged in any political activity. Nevertheless it’s fair to remember that he met obstacles on his way that were difficult to overcome, such as Linné’s competition. He then dealt with the situation in the worst way, by attacking the famous botanist on a scientific level only.

The first translation in Scandinavia

253

confirm the information we have about the importance of his role and the respect with which he was treated. His role as cultural mediator is evident in the contribution he made to the publications of the order. He wrote a single composition of theoretical prose, Avhandling Om den rätta Smaken (“Treatise on Good Taste”), included in Våra Försök III of 1756. The essay is not outstanding for reasons of originality,21 but it has the merit of clearing up some of the society's principles (raising the quality of Swedish literature, the forming of consciences and the diffusion of knowledge of public interest), as well as introducing into Sweden modern aesthetic and literary theories. Moving on to the analysis of the volume containing the translation of The Prince, let’s see how the frontispiece appears:22 MACHIAVELS PRINS, (in large type size) | MED UNDERSÖKNINGEN DERAF. (in medium type size) | ÖFVERSATT IFRÅN HUFVUDSPRÅKEN. (in smaller type size) | [Illustration showing a little putto looking through a spyglass] | STOCKHOLM, | TRYCKT HOS LOR. LUDV. GREFING, | MDCCLVII. (Machiavelli’s Prince, | with its analysis. | Translated from chief languages. | Stockholm, | printed by Lor. Ludv. Grefing, | 1757).

Considering the title in the frontispiece, Machiavelli’s work seems to be in a leading position compared to its confutation, the opposite of how both works are presented in the Anti-Machiavel, both in the French version and in the German ones — e.g. Anti-Machiavel, ou essay de critique sur le Prince de Machiavel or Anti-Machiavell oder Prüfung von Machiavell’s Fürsten. Furthermore, the translator never uses the title “Anti-Machiavel” and he always refers to the work by Frederick II with undersökning (“analysis”), which is semantically a non-committal word, even more than Essai de critique and of Prüfung (or Versuch einer Kritik), but it is close to the titles of some previous editions of the work — Anti-Machiavel, ou Examen du Prince de Machiavel. Another noteworthy lexical choice is Prins, which is formally close to the Italian title and to the French translations, but it is far from the partial synonym furste, regularly used in all the other Scandinavian translations and in the following studies. Klingenberg uses almost exclusively Prins in the text, whereas furste is used rarely, as a synonym in purely lexical

21

22

The dependence of Klingenberg on Addison, Wolff and Gottsched has been sufficiently illustrated by T. Stålmarck, Tankebyggare 1753-62. Miljö- och genrestudier, pp. 42-44. The book is in octavo and has 256 pages. In all carried quotations from here on the characters ä and ö correspond in the original text to a and o with an above-written e.

254

Paolo Marelli

variation.23 In Swedish prins usually refers to a Crown Prince or a cadet member of a royal family, while furste means a sovereign, a monarch who rules and governs a country. It is true that in the sixteenth century the two words were easily interchangeable, maybe as a result of French influence, nevertheless the semantic difference was already clear at that time. Perhaps the fact that the book was, as we will see later on, dedicated to the Crown Prince, the future Gustavus III, could have affected the choice of prins not only in the title, but also throughout the text. In the frontispiece the author is careful to state that the text is “translated24 from the principal languages”, making it immediately clear that the translator made use of more than one version. The illustration showing the little putto with a spyglass is very similar to the one in Våra Försök, but a little more elegant, and it probably symbolizes the pursuit of knowledge and of intellectual clarity, in other words the Enlightenment. This similarity and the publisher’s choice somehow link the volume together with Tankebyggarorden, though the book is independent from the literary and publishing activity of the society. Klingenberg’s previous translations had, in fact, been printed by Salvius, whereas this latest one was printed by Grefing, the same publisher of Våra Försök and the volume in his memory, edited by Nordenflycht. On the back cover there is the authorization for publication (imprimatur) by the censor, N. von Oelreich. Although the year of publication fell in the middle of the so-called “Age of Liberty”, censorship was at that time feared and obstructed the freedom of press and expression. This volume, though including the translation of a “dangerous and immoral” work, didn’t run the risk of being censored, perhaps because it was dedicated to the eleven-yearold Crown Prince and had already undergone assessment by the staff of court educators. Besides, the translator’s cautious attitude, expressing himself in very critical terms towards The Prince in the dedication, helped make the book more acceptable. In the following page the author specifies the recipient of the volume, using all his titles:

23

24

The word principato (“principality”) is generally translated Herradöme (“seigniory”) and rarely Furstendöme, which is in use in contemporary Swedish. In German translations the words Prinz e Fürst are never mistaken, so the second one is regularly used in the meaning of “Prince” as subject of Machiavelli’s treatise. He uses the singular out of grammar reasons, but refers to both works.

The first translation in Scandinavia

255

HANS KONGL. HÖGHET, | PRINS | GUSTAF, (in large type size) | SVERIGES, GÖTHES OCH VENDES | KRON-PRINS OCH ARF-FURSTE, | NÅDIGSTE HERRE. (His Royal Highness, | Prince | Gustav, | Crown Prince | of Sweden, of Götland and of Wends, | Gracious Lord)

On the back there is the actual dedication to prince Gustaf, who Klingenberg addresses with the conventional phrase: DURCHLAUCHTIGSTE | CRONPRINS, | NÅDIGSTE HERRE (His Highness | Crown Prince, | Gracious Lord). After leaving a half page blank out of respect, Klingenberg praises the intellectual qualities of the young prince, professing his conviction that the prince would be able to read the works of two so different authors directly in the original language.25 He expresses the hope that he has been able to provide a worthy representation of the ideas of the noble author — Frederick II —, who so properly demonstrated that it isn’t possible to rule without virtue, reason, experience and prudence, and that a prince shall not be great without magnanimity, mercy and justice, and without the love of his subjects. The heir to the throne shall not take Cesare Borgia, Machiavelli’s prince, as his model, but the wise and virtuous Marcus Aurelius. If Machiavelli’s work reinforces the young prince’s repugnance of a false and violent political doctrine, its confutation will strengthen his correct knowledge of the matter.26 Finally there are some remarks on the qualities of a good prince and of a faithful subject.

25

26

Eders Kongl. Höghet täktes nådigt anse, at jag i underdånighet tilägnar Eders Kongl. Höghet denna öfversättning af tvänne vidt åtskilde Auctorer. | Min tanka, dervid, är ej, som skulle Eders Kongl. Höghet icke kunna, med nytta och uppbyggelse, läsa både den förra och sednare på deras egit språk. [...] With such words Klingenberg seems to ascribe to the young prince the ability to read Machiavelli's work directly in Italian, but actually he refers to the original French version of Anti-Machiavel containing Amelot's translation of The Prince. Min önskan vore, at förmätenheten, vid detta försök, må göra min äregirighet til en dygd, om jag, på modersmålet, kunnat nog värdigt uttrycka så store tankar, hvarmed den stora Autoren af undersökningen å daga lagt och bevist, at icke någon Statsklokhet kan ega bestånd utan dygd, icke dygd utan uplyst vett, icke uplyst vett utan förfarenhet, och den icke blifva nyttig utan aktsamhet i tankesätt, och således icke någon Prins stor utan ädelmod och fromhet, ja icke dess säkerhet fast utan undersåtares kärlek och dess egen försigtighet genom en laggrundad rättvisa. Han har derföre, till sitt mönster och eftersyn, icke valt den listiga och sielfsvåldiga Machiavels Prins, Cesar Borgia, utan den kloka och dygdiga Marcus Aurelius. | Som Machiavel kan föröka Eders Kongl. Höghets fasa för hårdhet och en falsk Stats-Konst, så kan, deremot, den store Författarens vederläggning befästa och stadga Eders Kongl. Höghets kundskap uti dess rätta ljus och strålar. | Jämförandet emellan dessa skrifter öfvertygar Eders Kongl. Höghet om de grundsanningar, som göra en Prins stor och lyckelig.

256

Paolo Marelli

Prince Gustaf (the future king Gustavus III) was born in 1746 and received an extensive and modern education for that time. He was interested in literature, art, history and theatre; he had a strong and contradictory personality, he was extremely active and animated by a keen interest for politics, which made him eager for honour and power. His reign was marked by contrasts between tolerance and authoritarianism, reforms and traditionalism.27 Certainly he was charmed and influenced, both politically and culturally, by the personality of his uncle Frederick II of Prussia; he was an enlightened sovereign, a reformer and a cultured man, who obtained great military and political achievements. The translation of The Prince was published during a very difficult time for the Swedish Royal family: the Parliament, particularly the “Hats” party held the actual power, and it pushed the country to war with the Prussia of Frederick II.28 The crisis between the Crown and Parliament reached its climax in June 1756, when, after a failed coup d’état organized by the Court party (hovpartiet), Parliament deprived the king of further powers and imposed new educators on the princes. The unwelcome Carl Fredrik Scheffer29 was appointed tutor (guvernör) of the young princes. He gathered many different teachers and court-knights. Some of these were chosen from among the members of Tankebyggarorden. Gustaf Fredrik Gyllenborg, nephew of a founder of the “Hats” party, and Axel Gabriel Leijonhufvud tutored prince Gustaf, while Gustaf Philip Creutz was assigned to the younger prince, Fredrik Adolf. In his autobiography Gyllenborg wrote that he was received warily, almost with contempt, because of his family’s political opinions, but at length he was able to rise in esteem, whereas Leijonhufvud, who was a stubborn, stern and pedantic soldier, was never appreciated. In order to interfere with the Royal family, The “Hats”, through Scheffer, established contact with members of the Tankebyggarorden, knowing that many of them were linked to the party and that the society was in competition with queen Lovisa Ulrika’s Vitterhetsakademien.30 The relations between the “Hats” and the Royal family weren’t as cold as one might think. Gyllenborg 27

28

29

30

Besides abrogating the Constitution of 1720, restoring the monarchic absolutism, and depriving the aristocrats of all their privileges, he abolished torture and the saleability of offices. He died by assassination in 1792. The Seven years’ war started in august 1756, when the king of Prussia preventively invaded Saxony. He was preceded in this role, until 1754, by Carl Gustaf Tessin — he was an esteemed, modern, cultured and trustful educator, though a prominent member of the “Hats” — and after him, by Anders Johan von Höpken. It stopped all activities after the attempted coup d’état of 1756 until 1773, a year after Gustavus III had come to power again.

The first translation in Scandinavia

257

wasn’t interested in politics, and once he got over the wariness he was met with at court, he was able to build a loyal relationship with the prince, which lasted until the end of his life.31 Signs of this loyalty to the Crown had been manifest since he joined the Tankebyggarorden: at that time he wrote the encomiastic poem Ode Till Skalde-Gudinnorne, an enthusiastic celebration of queen Lovisa Ulrika as patroness of culture, which opens the first volume of Våra Försök.32 The situation of the other young nobleman, Creutz, wasn’t different: if on the one hand he wasn’t close to Fredrik Adolf, on the other he was able to make friends with the young Crown Prince.33 Alex Reuterholm, another member of the order and previously an active supporter of the “Hats”, was among those who adhered to the “Court party” between 1753 and 1756. Nordenflycht, Klingenberg’s cousin, certainly wasn’t at odds with the Royal family,34 but she suffered Dalin’s poetical competition: he was a Court favourite and a dominant literary figure both in Vitterhetsakademien and in Sweden in general. The Tankebyggarorden is sometimes considered to be an association in contrast with the Royal academies: it was the expression of the opposition between the independent, bourgeois and Enlightenment culture of the cities and the official court culture. It’s true that “Thought-builders” were organized in an anonymous “democratic” society, where every member had the same rights, notwithstanding social origin, wealth and political orientation; that among them there was a prevalence of “Hats” and Freemasons; that prudent and formal encomiastic works, dedicated to the Royal family, only appeared in the first volume of 1873 — Våra Försök, as a request for initial legitimation; that Dalin often and harshly criticized Nordenflycht and the society’s publication.35 However these are only signs of a lively rivalry and mutual suspicion, rather than of hostility and contrast. On

31

32

33

34

35

To the prince he dedicated his famous satire Verlds-föraktaren, “The Misanthrope”. Johan Elers on the other hand, another member of Tankebyggarorden who was the same age as Gyllenborg, publicly supported Gustavus III’s politics. In the same volume the ode is followed by three poems dedicated to the king’s birthday (they are ascribed to Gyllenborg, to Nordenflycht and to a third unknown author). Underdåniga Tankar den 8de October 1753 is a sort of appendix to Våra Försök I, consisting of encomiastic poems dedicated to the queen, for the occasion of princess Sofia Albertina’s birth. Henrik Schück – Karl Warburg, Illustrerad svensk litteraturhistoria, vol. 3 (Stockholm: Rabén och Sjögren, 1926-1949), p. 475. Her father had obtained a title, and the poetess received several presents and privileges from the Court and the Parliament. Critics were justified by Nordenflycht’s weak poetical beginnings and by the presence in the society of amateur writers who were scarcely gifted.

258

Paolo Marelli

the one hand the so-called Nordenflycht’s salon was formed above all by noblemen known at court, who weren’t very interested in politics, and on the other the literary and philosophical orientations of the two organizations were very similar: perhaps at court there was a greater preference for French classicism, whereas among the members of the order there was a deeper interest in Enlightenment ideas and their later development, particularly in Klingenberg and Nordenflycht. They were so dependent on French Enlightenment culture that they accepted its ideas indiscriminately, without understanding the differences of thought between, for example, Voltaire and Rousseau,36 that is, between the rational and the sentimental tendencies. This vagueness leaves questions about the sincerity of Klingenberg’s statements in his dedication and about his idea of The Prince. He remains a contradictory figure, difficult to pin down. In any case, it wouldn't be so far from the truth if we were to believe that Klingenberg’s opinion about The Prince was in line with Voltaire’s thought37 and that, bearing in mind the formality of the context and the necessity to maintain a favourable position, either he didn’t appreciate Machiavelli's treatise, or he misunderstood it. As we neither know whether the translation was commissioned of Klingenberg by the prince or by Scheffer, nor what the political position of the translator was, many conjectures can be made about the purpose of the text and its political meaning. It could be either an act of loyalty to the Crown from the narrow circle of “Thought-Builders” — on Gyllenborg or Reuterholm’s initiative — and the hope that the future king could raise the country again, perhaps making good use of the treatise and, above all, of its confutation; or it could be considered as a concession to the curiosity of the young prince. Therefore it seems to be a first sign of distension and reconciliation between the two parties after the june-1756 crisis, through the mediation of Gyllenborg, a moderate who was trying to make himself appreciated at court. On the contrary the translation could be interpreted as a part of the educational project imposed by Scheffer, who would apply to a trustworthy person inside the Tankebyggarorden in order to give the Crown Prince — who could aspire to emulate his uncle's deeds — a kind of guided version of such a famous and dangerous treatise. The meaning of the translation will be more intelligible if we set aside for a moment the translator’s preface placed after the dedication, and proceed to the analysis of the text to observe the structure of the volume.

36 37

In truth at the time there wasn’t a full awareness of these differences, even in France. Rousseau only expressed his evident appreciation of The Prince in the Social Contract (1762).

The first translation in Scandinavia

259

The dedication to the Crown Prince is followed, as already mentioned, by the translator’s preface, where he touches on strictly linguistic problems, and after that we find Frederick II’s foreword to Anti-Machiavel, obviously translated into Swedish. The following page opens with the first chapter of both texts, placed side by side on two columns, the Prince on the left and the Anti-Machiavel on the right. This layout closely follows the structure of the first editions of Frederick II’s work. Klingenberg, however, removes from these pages not only Amelot’s renowned preface, which was one of the clearest and sharpest eulogies of the Prince up to that time, but also Amelot’s dedication to the Grand Duke of Tuscany and Machiavelli’s to Lorenzo de’ Medici.38 In this manner all passages quoted in the Anti-Machiavel which were considered dangerous, both of the Prince and its translations, have been “censored”: all the passages that praise the Italian treatise and its author, or that haven’t been refuted by Frederick II. The removal of the dedication to Lorenzo de’ Medici completely removes Machiavelli’s work from its context and undermines the comprehension of chapter XXVI, the exhortation to set Italy free from the Barbarians, as in both texts the name of the receiver of the treatise is missing. It seems that Klingenberg was less interested in The Prince and in its comprehension than in its refutation. Moreover, let us note that unlike the title on the frontispiece, the inner title (UNDERSÖKNING / AF / MACHIAVELS PRINS: “Analysis of The Prince by Machiavel.”) assigns a definite superiority to Frederick II’s work, though it is still mentioned vaguely and contains the explicit title of Machiavelli’s work. Frederick II’s foreword (ERINRAN VID UNDERSÖKNINGEN | AF | MACHIAVELS PRINS: “Introductory remark in the Analysis of Machiavelli’s The Prince”,39 which follows the digression on translation problems, therefore seems to be connected to the dedication to the Crown Prince, in carrying forward its line of reasoning and in going into certain subjects Klingenberg was interested in, thoroughly. For instance, Frederick II’s remarks about the political danger of Machiavelli’s work, particularly should it fall into the hands of an ambitious and inexperienced young man, and about the need to refute it point by point, as well as to disprove the arguments supporting The Prince.40 Thus Klingenberg indirectly hints that the 38

39

40

Amelot’s foreword and both dedications were present in the 1741 French version of AntiMachiavel and in the first German editions, but not in Regierungs-Kunst of 1745 (and following editions). The word erinran clearly refers to Vorerinnerung of the German translation and distances itself from avant-propos of the French original. It clearly refers to the more or less common reasonings supporting The Prince expressed by Dacres, Bacon, Conring and Amelot.

260

Paolo Marelli

treatise may be damaging for the heir to the throne, if it isn’t read in the correct way. In the light of all this, the dedication to the Crown Prince doesn’t appear to be either a mere formality or an act of due reverence towards the future king of Sweden, but rather seems to indicate that the book is actually intended primarily for the dedicatee. After all, nobody could be more interested in both works than prince Gustaf, because of the curiosity to learn more about a renowned political treatise which had always been a subject of discussion, and its equally famous confutation, written by the esteemed uncle Frederick II of Prussia when the king, just like himself, was Crown Prince. Considering this, we can suppose that the translation was commissioned by the prince himself. The young heir to the throne, who was gradually reaching an awareness of his role and ambitions, and whose personality was developing, irritated by the political situation and by the intrusiveness of his tutors, might have asked to read and study the Anti-Machiavel and The Prince. The request couldn’t be denied, and so the tutors let him have both texts in a Swedish translation, packaged for him specifically, perhaps to please young Gustaf and his parents too. The translation, therefore, perhaps following Gyllenborg’s advice, was assigned to Klingenberg, a dedicated Voltairian who was appreciated not only by the prince41 but also by Scheffer, as a trustworthy person linked to the “Hats”, by asking him to turn the young man to a wiser reading of Machiavelli’s work, which otherwise could have become dangerous, arousing in him a yearning for power and feelings of revenge.42 So Klingenberg, who hadn't yet been able to achieve the advancement he desired for his career, wasted no time in making himself a conspicuous presence at court, and agreed willingly to carry out such a prestigious task. Therefore Klingenberg’s work still seems to be an elitist handbook for sovereigns and would-be sovereigns. However, the simple fact that it is a translation into Swedish implies43 its popularizing purpose — notwithstand-

41

42

43

Former educators had instilled in him love for arts, literature and philosophy through several modern readings. In fact Gustavus III, as soon as he rose to the throne, regained power, inaugurating the socalled “Gustavian era” (1772-1792). After taking the leadership of the Court party, he allied with the “Hats” (defeated in 1765 by the “Caps”) and with them he regained control of Parliament in 1769; since 1772, after a coup d’état, not only political power had gone back in the hands of the king — though enlightened — but also the culture was again controlled by the court. Besides this it signifies that maybe the prince, differently to what Klingenberg says, wasn’t fully able to understand French.

The first translation in Scandinavia

261

ing its admittedly limited divulgence, consistent with the translator’s Enlightenment principles.44 Before analyzing the details of the translation, it might be a good idea to look at what Klingenberg has written in the above-mentioned preface — Underrättelse, “statement”. While in the title page both works are said to be “translated from the principal languages”, Klingenberg, speaking almost exclusively of The Prince, states that he mainly followed Amelot’s text, except for those notes that simply refer to Machiavelli’s other works and that aren’t quoted, but he doesn’t specify which other versions he used. He then says that he had difficulty, particularly in translating chapter X, where he had tried to remain faithful to the text's contents and to the authors’ styles. He refers thus to The Prince, for he had previously pointed out that he ought to have taken more liberties in translating from the source text into a form which would be more suitable for his time, but in doing so he would have strayed from the usually accepted customs of translation.45 In this way he hints that it isn’t just a matter of stylistic adjustment, but also a question of Machiavelli’s inadequacy in expressing ideas. He then says that he has reproduced the contents of The Prince faithfully, and that he has adapted the sixteenthcentury style to that of the eighteenth-century.46 As Klingenberg himself declares, he translated The Prince above all from the French version, basing himself, it may be added, on a couple of versions by Amelot, either as an independent work or within the Anti-Machiavel. 44

45

46

In the conclusion of Klingenberg’s preface to the translation there is a reference to this popularizing aim: he says that for stylistic reasons the Anti-Machiavel can be offered to the public in a more pleasant form than The Prince (see next footnote). Som Machiavel skrifvit denne och flere afhandlingar, den tiden skrifsättet icke ännu var så höfsadt, och han, på åtskillige ställen, brukat, dels en hård penna, dels svagt förestält de ämnen, han afhandlat, måste jag erinra, at, ehuru öfversättningen äskat någon större frihet, än jag tagit mig, har jag dock icke vågat öfverskrida de reglor, som, vid slike arbeten, böra i akt tagas, och hvilka icke tillåta en öfversättare at gå ifrån Auctorerne och betaga dem deras egit utseende. De obeqvämaste stycken, at rätt försvenska, finnas uti det X:de Capitlet och på några flera ställen, hvarvid jag, så mycket möjeligit varit, hållit mig vid Auctorens tanke- och skrifsätt. Det förra tillhör mig icke at lägga handen vid, och det sednare har jag, såsom öfversättare, lämpat mig efter. Jag har utslutit de, uti Amelots öfversättning, som jag mäst fölgt, bifogade anmärkningar, emedan de icke äro hufvudsakelige, utan allenast gifva vid handen de ställen i Historien och öfrige Machiavels arbeten, hvarigenom hans tankar, i vissa omständigheter, kunna förklaras. Hvad undersökningen angår, så är skrifsättet deruti helt och hållit olika med Machiavels, hvilket den store Författaren och vårt tidehvarvs smak skilt så vida ifrån den förre, at den samme med så mycket större nöje kunnat, på modersmålet, till allmänheten öfverlämnas. This reasoning is unconvincing, since he wasn’t translating from Italian.

262

Paolo Marelli

Judging by the layout and title of Frederick II’s work,47 it can be supposed that he had at his disposal one of the first French editions of Anti-Machiavel, containing Amelot’s version of 1683. Effectively, in several passages the Swedish translation seems to correspond closely to the French one, and even clearer and more significant similarities can be found in a greater number of cases in the 1686 and 1689 editions.48 Compare the following passages:49 Chap. III: Perche si ha anotar’ che li huomini si debbono, ò uezeggiare, o spegnere, perche si uendicano de le leggieri offese, de le graui, non possono: Si che l'offesa che si fa a lhuomo deue essere in modo che la non tema la uendetta. Amelot 1683: Où il est à remarquer, qu'il faut amadoüer les hommes, ou s'en défaire, parce qu'ils se vangent des ofenses legéres, & qu'ils se ne sauroient vanger des grandes. De sorte que l'ofense, qui se fait à l'homme, lui doit être faite d'une manière qu'il n'en puisse tirer vangeance. Amelot 1686: Où il est à remarquer, qu'il faut amadoüer les hommes, ou s'en défaire, parce que les ofenses legéres leur laissent le moien de se vanger, ce que ne font pas les grandes. Ainsi l'ofense doit être faite d'une manière, que l’ofensé n'en puisse tirer vangeance. Klingenberg: hvarvid är at märcka at man, antingen bör hantera menniskor med mildhet, eller utöda dem, ty små oförrätter betaga dem icke förmågan at hämnas; såsom de store; derföre bör en oförrätt vara sådan at han icke må kunna hämnas; Chap. VI: et far’ come li Arcieri prudenti à quali parendo il luoco doue disegnano ferire, troppo lontano, et conoscendo fino à quanto arriua la Virtù de loro arco pongon’ la mira assai più alto ch’il luoco destinato, Amelot 1683: faisant comme les bons tireur, qui trouvent, que le but est trop éloigné, & connoissent la vraie portée de leur Arc, visent beaucoup plus haut, que n’est le but, Amelot 1686: de même que les bons tireurs d’arc, qui se trouvent trop éloignez du but, visent beaucoup au dessus, AM/RK: [...] Wenn dieselben sehen, daß das Ziel zu weit ist, und wissen, wie weit ihr Bogen träget, so legen sie höher an, als das Ziel ist, 47

48

49

As already pointed out, the title Undersökningen af Machiavels Prins recalls AntiMachiavel, ou Examen du Prince de Machiavel. The Swedish edition is a sort of translationreproduction of the French original, which it follows closely, as already stated, in the layout and arrangement of both texts in two columns, but also in some typographic aspects: the use of italics for The Prince and of normal type for Anti-Machiavel, the inclusion of ornaments in certain positions and other graphic details. Furthermore the German versions of Anti-Machiavel, among which one was used by Klingenberg, judging by the title of Frederick II’s foreword — see footnote 40 —, depend on the 1686 edition. It can be assumed that Klingenberg got hold of a French edition — with Amelot’s version of The Prince of 1683 — and a German one of Anti-Machiavel, as well as Amelot’s translation of 1686 or 1689, which he might have used as main source. In quotations the abbreviation LRM refers to the 1714-German translation, entitled Lebensund Regierungs-Maximen eines Fürsten, while AM/RK refers to the German translations of The Prince in Anti-Machiavel with the title Regierungskunst eines Fürsten (since 1741 on). Where the date of Amelot’s edition isn’t indicated, 1686 is implied. The most significant parallels between the Swedish text and the other versions are highlighted in italic type. Italian quotations are from Il Principe, first printed edition, Antonio di Blado (Rome, 1532).

The first translation in Scandinavia

263

Klingenberg: icke annorlunda, än gode bågskyttar, som då de märka at de äro för vida skilde från målet, syfta öfver det samma, Chap. VIII: fece da suoi soldati uccidere tutti li Senatori, et li più ricchi del’ Popolo, li quali morti, occupò, et tenne il Principato, di quella Città senza alcuna controuersia ciuile. Amelot 1683: il fit tuer tous les Sénateurs, & les plus riches Citoiens, puis s’empara, sans peine, de la principauté de la ville. Amelot 1686: il fit tuer tous les sénateurs, & puis s’empara, sans peine, de la principauté de la ville. AM/RK: alle Rathsherren nebst den reichesten Bürgern von den Soldaten niedermachen; worauf er sich der Herrschaft der Stadt ohne Mühe bemächtigte. Klingenberg: lät han mörda Råds-Herrarna och bemägtigade sig sedan Herradömet. Chap. XVI: Il Re di Spagna presente se fusse tenuto liberale, non harebbe fatto, né uinto tante imprese, Tegli: Hispaniarum qui nunc regnum obtinet, si magnificentiae nomine commendari voluisset, nunquam tot res gerere, victorijsque potiri potuisset. LRM: Der heutige König von Spanien/ würde/ wenn er freygebig gewesen wäre/ so viele entreprisen und victorien nicht erhalten haben. Amelot 1683: Le Roi d’Espagne d’aujourdhui ne fut pas venu à bout de tant d’entreprises, s’il eut été liberal. Amelot 1686: Le Roi d’Espagne regnant au jour-d’hui ne fut pas venu à bout de tant d’entreprises, s’il eut été liberal. AM/RK: Der König von Spanien, Ferdinand, hätte alle seine Unternehmungen nicht ausführen können, wenn er freygebig gewesen wäre. Klingenberg: Den nu i Spanien regerande Konung Ferdinand, hade aldrig lyckats i sine värf och segrat, om han varit frikostig. Dacres: This present King of Spain could never have undertaken, nor gone through with so many exploits, had he been accounted liberal. Chap. XIX: insolente, et crudele, et rapace. Amelot 1683: d’humeur guerriére, & qui soit insolent, cruel, & voleur. Amelot 1686: d’humeur guerriére, & qui soit insolent, cruel, & enclin au pillage. AM/RK: kriegerischen, grausamen, hochmütigen und raubsüchtigen Klingenberg: en, som älskar krigsväsendet samt är öfvermodig, grym och benägen för inkräcktningar. Chap. XIX: com’ erano gli eserciti del’Imperio Romano. Et però, se allhora era necessario satisfar’ à soldati più che à popoli, Amelot 1683: comme l’étoient celles de l’Empire Romain, où il étoit plus nécessaire de contenter les soldats, que les peuples, Amelot 1686: comme l’étoient celles des Romains, à qui il importoit davantage de contenter les soldats, que les peuples, Klingenberg: som Romarnes, hvilka hade större nytta af at förnöja Soldaterne, än Folket; Chap. XXVI: Il rimanente douete far’ uoi. LRM: das übrige sollt ihr thun. Amelot 1683: C’est à vous de faire le reste Amelot 1686: C’est à nous de faire le reste AM/RK: Nun ist es an uns, das Uebrige zu thun. Klingenberg: Det hörer oss til at fullfölja det. Dacres: the rest is left for you to do.

264

Paolo Marelli

Klingenberg therefore uses Amelot’s French translation of 1686, or a later one, as a primary source, which he often follows closely even when it is incomplete and where Amelot has drawn away from the Italian text or has misinterpreted it, as can be noted if one compares the following passages: Chap. III: tanto che rispetto à questi minori potenti, è gli non ha adurare fatica alcuna aguadagnarli, perche subito tutti insieme uolentieri fanno massa con lo stato, che gli ui ha acquistato, Ha solamente apensare che non piglino troppe forze, et troppa auttorità, LRM: Daß er also nicht viel Mühe haben wird/ sie zu gewinnen/ denn die/ so nur von geringer Macht/ verknüpffen sich gar gerne mit den vorigen conquestirten Staat. Er muß nur bedacht seyn/ daß sie nicht zu mächtig und ansehnlich werden. Amelot: Tout ce dont il a à se garder, est, qu’ils ne deviennent trop forts, & qu’ils ne prennent trop d’autorité. AM/RK: Ein Fürst muß also nur dahin sehen, daß sie nicht zu mächtig werden Klingenberg: Alt det, han bör taga sig i akt före, är at deras styrcka och myndighet icke må tilväxa Dacres: so that for these of the weaker sort, he may easily gain them without any pains: for presently all of them together very willingly make one lump with that he hath gotten: He hath only to beware that these increase not their strengths, nor their authorities, Chap. VIII: Nondimanco la sua efferata crudeltà, et inhumanità con infinite scelerateze non consentono che sia intra li eccellentissimi huomini. Non si può adunque attribuire ala Fortuna, ò a la Virtù quello che senza l'una, et l'altra fu da lui conseguito. Amelot: quoique d’ailleurs il ne mérite pas de tenir rang parmi les grans hommes, vû ses cruautez horribles, & mille autres crimes. Klingenberg: ehuru han eljest icke förtjenar at räknas ibland store män, i anseende til dess faseliga grymheter och tusende andra laster. Chap. XVI: non dimanco la liberalità usata in modo che tù sia temuto, ti offende; perché se ella si usa virtuosamente e come la si debbe usare, la non fia conosciuta, e non ti cascherà l’infamia del suo contrario. Il Principe (MS. ed. by G. Inglese, 2005): Nondimanco la liberalità, usata in modo che tu sia tenuto, ti offende Tegli: nihilominus ita liberalitate vti vt metuaris, sane obest. Nam si ex virtute, vtque par esset benigne quis cui gratificatur, id obscurum iacebit, nec contrarii vitii infamia, ab eo decidet. LRM: Jedoch wenn man die Freygebigkeit allzu groß werden läst/ daß sich Niemand mehr fürchtet / thut sie mehr Schaden. Denn wenn man sich derselben/ als einer Tugend/ das ist mittelmäsig/ bedienet/ wird dich solche nicht bekant machen/ noch von dem übeln Ruff des Gegentheils befreyen können. Amelot: mais que si tu éxerces ta libéralité de façon, que tu sois craint, tu t’en trouves mal. Car si tu n’es libéral, que comme il le faut être, ta libéralité ne sera point connüe, & l’on t’acusera du vice contraire. AM/RK: wenn du aber deine Freygebigkeit so weit gehen lässest, daß man dich fürchtet, so kannst du dich dabey nicht wohl befinden. Denn, wenn du nur so freygebig bist, wie man es der Vernunft nach seyn muß, so wird deine Freygebigkeit nicht bekannt werden, und wird dich wohl gar des entgegen gesetzeten Lasters beschuldigen.

The first translation in Scandinavia

265

Klingenberg: men, om du blifver fruktad, har du en elak känning deraf; ty om du icke är gifmild, som sig bör, med val och mått, blifver din frikostighet obekant, och lärer man då tillägga dig en dygd, som är tvärt deremot. Dacres: neverthelesse, liberality used in such a manner, as to make thee be accounted so, wrongs thee: for in case it be used vertuously, and as it ought to be, it shall never come to be taken notice of, so as to free thee from the infamie of its contrary. Chap. XIX: intra i Regni ben’ ordinati, et gouernati à nostri tempi è quel’ di Francia, et in esso si trouano infinite costitutioni buone, donde ne depende la libertà, et sicurtà del’ Re, de le quali la prima è, il parlamento, et la sua auttorità, Amelot 1683: Des Roiaumes bien policés la France en est un, & de mille excellentes choses, qui s’y trouvent établies pour la Sureté du Roi, & la Liberté des Sujets, la meilleure est sans doute, l’autorité du Parlement. Amelot 1686: Entre les Roiaumes bien policés la France est le premier, & de mille excellentes choses, qui s’y trouvent établies pour la sureté du Roi, & la Liberté des sujets, la meilleure est sans doute, l’autorité du Parlement. Klingenberg: Ibland de bäst styrde Riken är Frankriket det förnämste och ibland många förträffelige inrättningar, som där skedt til Konungens säkerhet och undersåtarenas frihet, är utan tvifvel Parlamentets myndighet den bästa; Chap. XIX: tenendo sempre quello intorno dodeci milia fanti, et quindeci milia cavalli, Amelot: le premier, à-cause qu’il entretient toujours environ douze mille hommes d’Infanterie, & quinze mille de Cavalerie, AM/RK: [...] ohngefehr zwölf tausend Mann zu Fusse [...] Klingenberg: den förres för det han altid håller på benen inemot 12000 man til fot och 15000 til häst, Chap. XXVI: Specchiatevi nelli duelli, et ne i congressi de pochi, quanto li Italiani siano superiori con le forze, con la destreza, con l’ingegno, ma, come si uiene à li eserciti, non compariscono, et tutto procede dalla deboleza de capi, per che quelli che sanno, non son’ obediti, et à ciascuno par’ saper’, non cì essendo in fino à qui suto alcuno che si sia reuelato tanto, et per virtù, et per fortuna che gl’altri cedino. LRM: Man siehet aus denen duellen und andern Kämpfen weniger Personen/ wie viel die Italiäner an Geschicklichkeit/ Stärcke/ und Verstand vor andern haben/ da sie doch nichts thun/ wenn man die Arméen ansieht. Und dieses alles rühret von der foiblesse der Häupter her/ welchen die/ so den Krieg verstehen/ nicht gehorchen wollen/ und da ihn ein jeder verstehen will/ hat es noch niemand durch meriten so hoch gebracht/ daß ihm alle nachgeben wollen. Amelot: Têmoin les duels, & les autres combats particuliers, où l’on voit, que les Italiens sont les plus adroits, & les plus forts: aulieu qu’ils ne sont rien dans les Armées. Ce qui vient de la foiblesse des Chefs. Chefs, à qui ceux, qui savent leur Métier, ne veulent pas obéïr. Or chacun se flate de le savoir: & il ne s’est encore vû personne, à qui les autres aient voulu céder, quelque grand mérite qu’il eût. AM/RK: [...] Deswegen, weil sie so schwache Anführer haben, denen die, so ihr Handwerk verstehen, nicht folgen wollen. Jedermann aber bildet sich ein es zu verstehen, und noch niemand hat dem andern nachgeben wollen, wenn er gleich noch so große Verdienste vor sich gehabt. Klingenberg: Et bevis däraf äro de meningar och enskilte dustar, som visa Italienarnes stora behändighet och styrka, där de likväl i fält ingen ting uträtta; kvilket härrörer af hufvundmännens svaghet, under hvilkas lydna de, som förstå deras syssla, icke vilja stå; ty hvar och en smickrar sig at vara hemma i den samma, och man har icke funnit någon, huru förtjent han ock voro, som de andre velat lämna företrädet.

266

Paolo Marelli

Dacres: Consider in the single fights that have been, and duels, how much the Italians have excel'd in their strength, activity and address; but when they come to armies, they appear not, and all proceeds from the weakness of the Chieftaines; for they that understand the managing of these matters, are not obeyed; and every one presumes to understand; hitherto there having not been any one so highly raised either by fortune or vertue, as that others would submit unto him.

At times Klingenberg misinterprets Amelot’s French text, without noticing that the other versions in his possession report the correct translation:50 Chap. IX: con la uolunta di quelli Cittadini, che son’ proposti a' magistrati, Amelot: la volonté des citoiens, qui sont en charge AM/RK: Willen der Bürger, die in Aemtern stehen Klingenberg: sine invånares godtycko, hvilka om de äro betungade

In some passages, where Klingenberg translates freely and where Amelot had already drawn away from the letter of the Italian original, the semantic gap between the source text and the target text can broaden remarkably. Of the following examples it’s enough to point out that the concepts of virtue — Sw. dygd — and fortune — Sw. lycka51 — are missing from the Swedish translation. Chap. VI: et fù di tanta Virtù ancora in priuata Fortuna, che chi ne scriue, dice che niente gli mancaua à regnare eccetto il Regno. Amelot: Et les Ecrivains, qui ont parlé de lui, disent, que, dans sa fortune privée, il ne lui manquoit rien pour regner qu’un roiaume. Klingenberg: De, som teknat hans bedrifter, påstå at honom, såsom enskilt, icke fattades något annat til at föra Spiran, än et Rike. Chap. XXVI: Ne si uede al’presente che ella possa sperare altra che la Illustre casa uostra potersi fare capo di questa redenzione, sendo questa dalla sua uirtù et Fortuna tanto suta esaltata, et da Dio, et dalla Chiesa della quale tiene hora il Principato, favorita. LRM: Man siehet aber nicht auf wem sie ihre Hofnung besser stellen könne/ als auf euer hohes Mediceisches Hauß/ welches sich durch seine Tapferkeit und Glück (da ihm GOtt und die Kirche/ deren Stuhl es anitzo besetzet) zum Haupt dieser Erlösung machen könte. Amelot: Mais il n’y a personne maintenant, sur qui elle puisse faire plus de fond, que sur vôtre illustre Maison, qui tenant aujourdhui le Pontificat, & étant si visiblement favorisée de Dieu, peut, avec sa prudence & sa bonne fortune se faire chef de céte glorieuse entreprise. AM/RK: Es kann aber itzo auf niemand eine festere Hoffnung setzen, als auf Dero Haus. Dieses hat gegenwärtig den päbstlichen Stuhl besetzt, und ist von Gott so sichtbar begnadiget, daß es durch seine Klugheit, und durch sein Glücke das Haupt dieses ruhmwürdigen Unternehmens werden kann.

50

51

By this it can be supposed that Klingenberg didn’t use the Italian original to translate this passage, and many others as well. It should be considered that in Sweden in the eighteenth century — and particularly in Jacob Mörk’s novels — the word lycka meant “case, fatality, eventful occurrence”.

The first translation in Scandinavia

267

Klingenberg: Men nu förtiden är icke någon annan, som man kan hafva tilflykt til, än edart lysande hus; hvilket, emedan det nu innehafver den Påfveliga värdigheten, och ögonskenligen är gynnadt af himmelen, kan med försigtighet och framgång upresa sig til hufvudman för detta ärefulla värf. Dacres: Nor do we see at this present, that she can look for other, than your Illustrious Family, to become Cheiftain of this deliverance, which hath now by its own vertue and Fortune been so much exalted, and favored by God and the Church, whereof it now holds the Principality:

After Amelot's translation, Klingerberg mainly uses the German translation of The Prince contained in Anti-Machiavel, entitled Regierungskunst eines Fürsten (from 1741 on). This offered two advantages to the translator: first of all it was very faithful to its primary source,52 namely Amelot’s version of 1686; and furthermore the German language, for its similarity to Swedish, helped him to find particular lexical and, sometimes, syntactic solutions. As there are several possible examples, I will just quote the following passages: Chap. XV: et usarlo et non usarlo, secondo la necessità. LRM: und sich selbiger nach Erforderung der Sachen bedienen lernen Amelot: pour en faire usage selon le besoin de ses Afaires. AM/RK: damit er, wenn es seine Angelegenheiten erforderen, davon Gebrauch machen könne. Klingenberg: för at göra sig nytta deraf. Alt som omständigheterne det fordra: Chap. XV: sarebbe laudabilissima cosa LRM: es überaus löblich Amelot: ce seroit un trésor AM/RK: es würde ein rechtes Kleinod, ein rechter Schatz Klingenberg: det vore en klenod Dacres: it were exceedingly praise worthy Chap. XVIII: come parer’ pietoso, fedele, humano, religioso, intero, et essere, LRM: Du solt gnädig/ treu/ freundlich/ religieux und auffrichtig scheinen und seyn Amelot: Tu dois paroitre clément, fidéle, courtois, intégre & religieux, mais avec cela tu dois être si bien ton maitre, qu’au besoin tu saches & tu puisses faire tout le contraire. AM/RK: gnädig, treu, höflich, aufrichtig und gottesfürchtig zu seyn scheinen Klingenberg: Du bör ställa dig mild, trofast, höflig, upriktig och gudfruktig;53 Dacres: as to seem pittiful, faithful, mild, religious, and of integrity, Chap. XIX: poco conoscente de beneficij riceuuti da lui, haueua à tradimento cerco d’amazarlo, LRM: wie er vor die ihm erwiesene Wohlthaten undanckbar sey/ und ihn durch Verrätherey habe hinrichten wollen 52

53

Even though in some passages — particularly in certain lexical choices — the German translator refers to Lebens- und Regieruns-Maximen eines Fürsten (1714). As it is more difficult to determine the right correspondences of adjectives and abstract nouns between languages, Klingenberg often turns to German translations.

268

Paolo Marelli

Amelot: qui, disoit-il, avoit atenté à sa vie. AM/RK: der, wie er vorgab, ihm nach dem Leben gestanden wäre; Klingenberg: som han föregaf hafva stådt efter sit lif, Dacres: how little weighing the benefits received from him, he had sought to slay him by treason,

Despite all the similarities to the French and German versions of The Prince and Anti-Machiavel, a considerable number of passages are still discordant with these works. In most cases there is no correspondence with any version of The Prince that I know of, so I presume that these differences are Klingenberg’s free interpretations of the text. However, in several other cases there is a more or less evident harmony with the Italian original. This accord, unless it is by chance, can be explained by assuming that the Swedish translator made use of an Italian version of The Prince or of other translations, which reproduce the original more literally. Considering the linguistic skills of the Swedish translator, these can only be Latin editions — Tegli’s, Conring’s or Langenhert’s —, Dacres’s English translation (1640) and the other available German translation, titled Lebens- und Regierungs-Maximen eines Fursten.54 This German translation was printed in 1714, probably in Holland, by an anonymous author, whom De Pol identifies with Joachim Christopher Nemeitz (1689-1753).55 Because of its nature of opposition to official culture and for other reasons, this work received a limited distribution. However it can’t be ruled out that a copy found its way to Sweden and that Klingenberg was able to use it. Actually, Nemeitz stayed in Lund between 1708 and 1711, where he had finished his university studies and had given some lessons, after which he left Sweden, remaining however in touch with the Scandinavian country, as some of his works prove.56 Although nowadays Swedish libraries don’t keep any copies of Lebens- und Regierungs-Maximen, Klingenberg could have come across a copy, exploiting his connections inside Uppsala University and

54

55 56

Nicolai Machiavelli Lebens- und Regierungs-Maximen eines Fürsten (1714). Kritisch herausgegeben von Roberto De Pol (Berlin: Weidler, 2006). De Pol, Nicolai Machiavelli Lebens- und Regierungs-Maximen, pp. 198-221. See Mémoires concernant Monsieur le comte de Stenbock sénateur de Suéde et Généralissime des armées de S. M. de Suéde en Allemagne, Savoir les campagnes de 1712 & 1713 de ce General avec sa justification (in Nouveaux mémoires de Suéde, Köln, 1721). A new edition was published in Frankfurt in 1745, with the following addition in the title: Pour servir d’éclaircissement à 1’Histoire militaire de Charles XII, roi de Suéde. Avec quelques observations historiques & critiques sur les mémoires par Mr. N**** (Nemeitz was educator of Earl Stenbock’s children).

The first translation in Scandinavia

269

Tankebyggarorden.57 By comparing the passages reported below and others quoted further on, it can be maintained that Klingenberg consulted this German translation too: Chap. III: Et se alcun’altri allegasseno la fede che il Re haueua data al Papa, di far’ per lui quella impresa, per la resolutione del’ suo matrimonio, et per il Capello di Roano, Tegli: Si qui essent praeterea qui afferrent, Pontifici datam fidem a rege, de ea expeditione in eius gratiam facienda quo suum matrimonium, & Rotomagensis galerus statueretur. LRM: Wolte aber jemand des Königs dem Papst gegebene parole anführen/ daß er für ihm diese außführen wolle/ damit der Papst in seine gesuchte Vermählung [Mit der Hertzogin Anne von Bretagne: ...] willigen/ und dem Ertz-Bischoff von Rohan den Cardinals-Hut geben möchte/ Amelot: Et si d’autres m’aléguent, que Loüis avoit donné sa parole au Pape de faire céte entreprise en sa faveur, pour obtenir une dispense de mariage pour lui, & un chapeau pour l’Archevêque de Roüen, AM/RK: Wenn mir ein anderer die Einwendung machen will, Ludewig habe einmal dem Pabste sein Wort gegeben, die Sache zu seinem Vortheil auszuführen, damit er von ihm Dispensation in der Heyrath, [* Mit der Hertzogin Anna von Bretagne. ...] und vor den Erzbischof von Rouen den Cardinalshuth erlangen mochte, Klingenberg: Om andre deremot anföra det skälet at Ludvig hade gifvit Påfven sitt löfte at värkställa detta til hans fördel och dermed förmå honom at bifalla sitt giftermål med Hertiginnan Anna af Bretagne, samt göra Erke-Biskoppen af Rouan til Cardinal, Dacres: And if any others argue, that the King had given his word to the Pope, to do that exploit for him, for dissolving of his marriage, and for giving the Cardinals Cap to him of Roan; Chap. III: Ha perduto adunque il Re Luigi la Lombardia per non hauere osseruato alcun’ di quelli termini osseruati da altri che hanno preso prouincie, et uolutele tenere. Tegli: Amisit igitur Cisalpinam Galliam Ludouicus rex, quum ad ea praescripta non egerit, ad quae ceteri, qui sibi in adiungendis prouincijs, eisque retinendis egerunt. LRM: Es hat demnach Ludewig die Lombardie verlohren/ weil er alles dasjenige/ was andere so Provintzen eingenommen/ zu langwierigen Besitz derselben beobachtet/ verabsäumet. Amelot: Au reste, Loüis a perdu la Lombardie, pour n’avoir rien observé de tout ce qu’ont fait les autres, qui ont pris des Provinces, & voulu les garder, AM/RK: Kurz, Ludwig verlohr die Lombardey, weil er nicht das geringste von dem allen beobachtet, was andere gethan, welche Länder eingenommen und haben behalten wollen. Klingenberg: Imedlertid har Ludvig förlorat Lombardiet derigenom at han försummat alt det, som andre Segervinnare pläga göra, Dacres: King Lewis then lost Lombardy, for not having observ'd some of those termes which others us'd, who have possessed themselves of countries, and desir'd to keep them. Chap. III: Di che si caua una regola generale, quale non mai ò raro falla, LRM: Man kan hieraus einen allgemeinen Schluß machen/ welcher gar nicht/ oder doch selten fehl schläget: Amelot: D’où je tire une conclusion générale, presque infaillible, AM/RK: Hieraus ziehe ich einen allgemeinen und fast unfehlbaren Schluß:

57

Note that the order had a library, some of its members had studied in Lund and others used to work at the Royal Library and Archives.

270

Paolo Marelli

Klingenberg: hvaraf jag gör en allmän slutsats, som nästan aldrig slår felt, Dacres: From whence a general rule may be taken, which never, or very seldom fails, Chap. VI: Donde nasce che qualunque uolta quelli che sono nimici hanno occasion’ d’assaltare lo fanno partialmente, T: Hinc cortum habet, vt quoties aduersarijs inuadendi occasio sese offert, id factiose agunt: LRM: Dahero wenn seine Feinde Gelegenheit haben/ sich wider ihn zu empören/ thun sie es mit allen Eyfer. Amelot: D’où il arive, que toutes les fois que ceux, qui sont ennemis, ont ocasion de remuer, ils le sont chaudement: AM/RK: So ofte also die so Feinde sind, Gelegenheit haben sich zu regen, so thun sie es recht hitzig; Klingenberg: Hvaraf händer at, så ofta ovännerne hafva tilfälle at röra sig, sker det med ifver och hetta, Dacres: Whereupon it arises, that whensoever they that are adversaries, take the occasion to assayle, they do it factiously; Chap. VI: Et però conuiene essere ordinato in modo, che quando non credon’ più, si possa far’ lor’ creder’ per forza. Tegli: Propterea ita instructum esse oportet, vt vbi eorum fides concideris, hanc ipsam necessitatis illis exprimat visque extundat. LRM: Es müssen demnach die Sachen so veranstaltet seyn/ daß man sie zu glauben zwingen kan/ wenn sie nicht mehr wollen. Amelot: Il faut donc métre si bon ordre, que lors qu’ils ne croient plus, on leur puisse faire croire par force. AM/RK: Daher muß man so gute Anstalten machen, daß, wenn sie nicht mehr von selbst glauben, man ihnen den Glauben mit Gewalt beybringen könne. Klingenberg: Man bör derföre så laga, at om de icke vilja tro, de dertil blifva tvungne. Dacres: And therefore it behoves a man to be so provided, that when they beleeve no longer, he may be able to compel them thereto by force. Chap. VIII: ma parendoli cosa seruile lo stare con altri, Tegli: Verum cum illiberalis & seruilis animi esset existimaret, sub alieno imperio stipendia facere, LRM: Es schien ihm aber verächtlich/ und sclavisch neben andern zu dienen Amelot: Mais dautant qu’il lui sembloit lache de rester comme les autres AM/RK: niederträchtig zu seyn schien Klingenberg: men, som han ansåg för nedrigt at tjena under andra, Dacres: but thinking it but servile to depend upon another, Chap. X: Nel’ primo caso s’è discorso, et per l’auenire diremo quello che n’occorre. Tegli: Primum illud iam expendimus, plura, quae occurrent infra, dicturi: LRM: Wir reden anjetzo von dem erstern/ und was von den übrigen nöthig ist/ wollen wir nach diesen erwehnen. Amelot: Nous avons discouru du premier cas, & nous en dirons encore dans la suite ce qui viendra à point. AM/RK: Von dem ersten Falle haben wir schon gehandelt, und im folgenden werden wir das Gehörige noch davon beybringen. Klingenberg: Vi hafva redan sagt våra tankar om det förre och vilja än ytterligare framdeles derom utlåta oss.

The first translation in Scandinavia

271

Dacres: Touching the first case, we have treated already, and shall adde somwhat thereto as occasion shall require. Chap. XVI: Papa Iulio Secondo come si fù servito del’ nome di liberale per aggiogner’ al’ Papato non pensò poi amantenerselo, per poter’ far’ guerra al’ Re di Francia, Tegli: Iulius II. Pont. Max. postquam liberalitatis nomine ad pontificatum aucupandum satis superque cognosceret se fuisse perfunctum, illius conseruationis postea securus abijt Galliarum Regi bellum illaturus, LRM: Pabst Julius II. als er sich des Namens des Freygebigen bedienet/ um desto eher zur P[ä]bstlichen Würde zu gelangen/ war niemahls gesinnet/ sich selbigen zu erhalten/ damit er den König in Franckreich bekriegen könte; Amelot: Jules II. se servit du renom de libéral, pour parvenir au Pontificat, mais il ne se soucia plus de l’être, quand il fut Pape. AM/RK: Julius der andere gebrauchete sich des Ruhmes der Freygebigkeit, auf den päbstlichen Stuhl zu kommen; als er aber einmahl Pabst war, machete er sich nichts mehr daraus, ihn zu haben. Klingenberg: Julius II. sträfvade efter anseende af frikostighet i afsigt at komma til Påfvedömmet; men, sedan han blef Påfve bemödade sig icke, at, i sjelfva värket, vara det, på det han skulle kunna angripa Konungen i Frankriket med krig. Dacres: Pope Julius the second, however he serv'd himself of the name of Liberal, to get the Papacy, yet never intended he to continue it, to the end he might be able to make war against the King of France: Chap. XVII: che sapeuan’ meglio non errar’, che correger’ gli errori d’altri, Tegli: multos, inquit, esse homines, qui melius errata vitare, quam aliorum errata corrigere nossent. LRM: Viele Leute wüsten sich vor eignen Fehlern besser in acht zunehmen/ als sie an andern zu verbessern. Amelot: beaucoup de gens, qui savoient mieux ne pas faillir, que corriger les fautes d’autrui. AM/RK: Leute, die eher selbst nicht zu fehlen, als die Fehler andrer zu bestrafen und zu verbessern wüßten. Klingenberg: mycket folk, som kunde bättre akta sig sjelf för at fela, än rätta andras felacktigheter. Dacres: many men knew better how to keep themselves from faults, than to correct the faults of other men: Chap. XIX: Perche un’ Principe deue hauer’ due paure, una drento per conto de sudditi, l’altra di fuori per conto de potenti esterni. Tegli: Duplici enim metu teneri principem oportet: altero interiore et domestico, eorumque causa, quos suo moderatur imperio: altero exteriore et alieno, propter eos, qui potentes sunt, extraneos. LRM: denn ein Fürst hat sich auff zwey Seiten zufürchten/ in seinem Lande in Ansehung der Unterthanen/ und ausser demselben in Betrachtung frembden Puissancen. Amelot: Car un Prince a toujours deux craintes, l’une du côté de ses sujets, l’autre du côté des etrangers. AM/RK: Denn ein Fürst hat allezeit von zweyen Theilen etwas zu fürchten; auf einer Seite von seinen Unterthanen, auf der andern von Fremden. Klingenberg: Ty en Prins har tvänne ting at frukta före, et å sine undersåtares, och det andra å de främmande magters sida: Dacres: For a Prince ought to have two fears, the one from within, in regard of his subjects; the other from abroad, in regard of his mighty neighbors;

272

Paolo Marelli

Chap. XIX: talmente, che ueggendo il guadagno fermo da questa parte, et da l’altra veggendolo dubbio, et pieno di pericolo, conuien’ bene ò, che sia raro amico, ò che sia al tutto ostinato inimico del’ Principe ad osseruarti la fede. Tegli: Hic itaque quaesturum ratum, & certum cum videat, illic vero incertum, & periculis plenum, par est, vt, aut rarus sit amicus, aut quo tibi fidem seruet, peruicaci odio in principem sit affectus. LRM: Daß er also/ wenn er auff einer Seiten den Gewinst vor Augen siehet/ auff der andern nur in Zweifel und Gefahr stehet/ entweder der verschwornen gantz besonderer Freund/ oder des Fürsten unversöhnlicher Feind seyn muß/ wenn er nichts eröffnen sollte[.] Amelot: Si bien que voiant d’un côté une Fortune toute aquise, & de l’autre seulement du danger, il faut, ou que ce soit un ennemi irréconciliable du Prince, ou un ami tout extraordinaire, pour vouloir bien te garder le Secret. AM/RK: Siehet er also hier ein Glück das so gewiß ist, als hätte er es schon, dort aber nichts als Gefahr, so müste er ein ganz unversöhnlicher Feind des Fürsten, oder dein ganz ausserordentlicher Freund seyn, wenn er schwiege. Klingenberg: Och som han å ene sidan har en väns lycka för ögonen och å den andra allenast sin, så måste han antingen vara Prinsens oförsonlige ovän, eller hafva en särdeles vänskap för dig, om han vill dölja hemligheten. Dacres: so that seeing his gain certain of one side; and on the other, finding only doubt and danger, either he had need be a rare friend, or that he be an exceeding obstinate enemy to the Prince, if he keeps his word with thee. Chap. XIX: Ne poté esser’ questo ordine meglior’; ne più prudente, ne maggior’ cagion’ di sicurtà del’ Re, et del’ Regno. Di che si può trarre un’ altro notabile, che li Principi debbono le cose di carico metter’ sopra d’altri, et le cose di gratia à se medesimi. LRM: Diese Anstalt kan nicht klüger seyn/ so kan auch kein grösseres Mittel zu des Königs Sicherheit gefunden werden. Hiebey ist noch merckwürdig: daß die Fürsten alles was dem Volck beschwerlich als Strafen und so fort/ / durch ihre Ministres vollziehen lassen/ die Gnaden-Bezeugungen aber selbst verrichten müssen. Amelot: Ce qui aprend aux Princes à se réserver la distribution de toutes les graces, AM/RK: Hieraus können Fürsten lernen, daß sie die Austheilung der Gnade sich vorbehalten, Klingenberg: Prinsar böra häraf lära at förbehålla sig utdelningen af alle nåde betygelser och välgärningar, samt lemna Embetsmännen värckställigheten af straff och alt det, som har något obehageligit med sig. Dacres: It was not possible to take a better, nor wiser course then this; nor a surer way to secure the King, and the Kingdome. From whence we may draw another conclusion worthie of note, that Princes ought to cause others to take upon them the matters of blame and imputation; and upon themselves to take only those of grace and favour.

Klingenberg could have used another edition, the English translation by Dacres, which among other things had enjoyed a decidedly greater success than Nemeitz’s translation.58 It obviously can’t have drawn on Amelot’s translation, since it preceded it by about half a century (1640) and is more faithful to the Italian original even than Lebens- und Regierungs-Maximen.59 58 59

A copy is still kept in Stockholm Royal Library. Whereas Nemeitz, though basing himself mainly on an Italian text, sometimes follows the translation handed down by Amelot. See the following passages from chapter XIX: et per

The first translation in Scandinavia

273

But at the same time it also contains a series of discrepancies, which can be found in Klingenberg’s translation as well. In most cases, where the Swedish text draws away from Amelot’s and reproduces the Italian original more faithfully, Dacres and Nemeitz carry very nearly the same version. Comparing the following passages it can be noted that, differently to previous evidence, Klingenberg isn't always willing to adhere faithfully to Amelot’s defective version. Chap. IX: et harà sempre, ne tempi dubij, penuria di chi si possa fidare, LRM: und bey einer Zeit/ da man noch nicht weiß/ wie es auslaufen möchte/ wird er Niemand haben auf den er sich verlassen kan. Amelot: parce qu’il ne sait à qui se fier, AM/RK: denn er weis nicht, wem er trauen soll. Klingenberg: emedan han, i oroliga tider, ej kan veta til hvem han bör förtro sig, Dacres: and in doubtfull times he shall alwayes have greatest penury of whom he may trust; Chap. XIV: Et preponeua loro, andando, tutti i casi, che in uno esercito possono occorrere, [...] non poteua mai guidando li eserciti, nascer’ accidente alcuno, che egli non ui hauessi el remedio. [...] per poter’ queste fuggir’, quelle imitar’ et sopra tutto far’ come ha fatto per lo adrieto qualche huomo eccellente, che ha preso ad imitar’ se alcuno è stato inanzi à lui lodato, et glorioso et di quello ha tenuto sempre i gesti, et attioni appresso di se: [...] et quanto, ne la castità, affabilità, humanità, et liberalità. Scipion’ si conformassi con quelle cose che di Cyro sono da Xenophonte scritte. Questi simil’ modi deue osseruare un’ Principe sauio, ne mai ne tempi pacifici star’ ocioso, LRM: stellte er ihnen alle Fälle auf dem Wege vor/ welche sich bey einer Armée ereignen konten. [...] wenn er eine Armée führete/ nichts vorfallen können/ darwieder er nicht ein Mittel gewust hätte. [...] damit er diese Ursachen fliehen und jene nach ahmen könne. Er muß es vor allen dingen angreiffen/ wie in vorhergehenden Zeiten manche vortreffliche Männer/ welche wenn jemand vor ihnen berühmt gewesen/ dessen Thaten und Verrichtungen jederzeit bey sich getragen/ und ihm nach zuahmen gesuchet [...] in der Keuschheit/ Leutseeligkeit/ und Freygebigkeit gleich zu kommen gesuchet. Dieses muß ein Kluger Fürst beobachten/ und niemals bey der Friedens-Ruhe müßig seyn Amelot: Et leur proposant ainsi tous les cas, qui peuvent ariver à la Guerre, [...] il ne lui arivoit jamais rien, qu’il n’eût prévu. [...] mais surtout il doit faire ce qu’ont fait quelques excellens hommes, qui ont pris à tâche d’en imiter quelqu’autre, dont la vie avoit été glorieuse, [...] Voila comme un Prince sage doit gouverner, sans jamais se tenir oisif en tems de paix, AM/RK: Auf alle diese vorgelegte Fälle hörte er ihr Bedenken an [...] nichts vorkommen, das er nicht vorher gesehen hätte. [...] Vor allen Dingen aber muß er einigen vortrefflichen Leuten darinn gleich werden, daß er einem andern nachahme, der ein ruhmvolles Leben geführet; [...] Da sehet ihr, wie ein weiser Fürst regieren solle; ohne, daß er iemals zu Friedenszeiten müßig sey

uederli tanti inimici [...] di che io ne eccettuo el Turco, // LRM: weil sie sahe/ daß ihn die gantze Welt haßete [...] Nur nehme ich den Türckischen Kayser und Egyptischen Sultan aus. // Amelot: qu’ils le voioient haï de tout le Monde. [...] J’excepte le Grand-Seigneur & le Sultan d’Egipte // Dacres: and because they saw he had so many enemies, [...] wherein I except the Turk.

274

Paolo Marelli

Klingenberg: Derigenom at han, under resan, således framstälte alla händelser, som kunna tildraga sig i krig [...] så at han, då han var i fält, aldrig något timade, som han icke sedt förut och kunde afhjelpa. [...] på det at man må akta sig för de senare och söka de förre; men fram för alt bör han söka at efterfölja förträffelige mäns efterdömen, och altid komma ihog deras bedrifter, som gordt deras lefnad ärefull; [...] såsom kyskhet, vänlighet, mildhet och frikostighet. Se huru en klok Prins bör regera, utan at någonsin söka ro och stillhet i frid, Dacres: and thus on the way, propounded them all such accidents could befall in any army; [...] when ever he led any army no chance could happen, for which he had not a remedy. [...] wherby they may be able to avoyd these, and obtaine those; and above all, doe as formerly some excellent man hath done, who hath taken upon him to imitate, if any one that hath gone before him hath left his memory glorious; the course he took, and kept alwaies near unto him the remembrances of his actions and worthy deeds: [...] and how much Scipio did conforme himselfe in his chastity, affability, humanity, and liberality with those things, that are written by Xenophon of Cyrus. Such like wayes ought a wise Prince to take, nor ever be idle in quiet times,

However, on comparing Klingenberg’s translation with Dacres’s, it's possible to find some passages in the former which seem to derive from the English version only. Some of these are quoted below by way of example: Chap. VI: pare che l’una, ò l’altra di queste due cose mitighino in parte molte difficultà. LRM: so scheinet es/ daß eine dieser Eigenschafften viele Schwierigkeiten zum theil hebe/ Amelot: il semble, que l’un ou l’autre aide à surmonter beaucoup de dificultés. AM/RK: so scheinet es, als ob dieses oder jenes vieles dazu beytrage, allerley Schwierigkeiten zu überwinden. Klingenberg: så bidrager så den ene, som den andre til at öfvervinna månge svårigheter dervid. Dacres: mee thinks the one and other of these two things in part should mitigate many difficulties; Chap. X: Nel’ secondo caso non si può dir’ altro, saluo che confortar’ tal’ Principi à munir’, et fortificar’ la terra propria, et del’ paese non tener’ alcun’ conto, et qualunche harà ben’ fortificata la sua terra, et circa gli altri gouerni coi sudditi si sia maneggiato come disopra e detto, LRM: Bey dem andern Fall ist nichts zu erinnern/ ohne nur daß man dergleichen Fürsten dahin vermöge/ daß sie ihre Residentz-Stadt wohl besetzen und fortificiren/ um das übrige aber sich wenig bekümmer. So ferne nun ein Fürst seine Stadt wohl befestiget/ und sich in der Regierung nach obbesagter und folgender Art mit seinen Unterthanen gesetzet Amelot: Quant au second, il sufit d’avertir les Princes, de munir & fortifier la ville de leur résidence, sans se métre nullement en peine du reste. Car quand le Prince aura bien fortifié sa ville, & qu’il se sera ménagé envers ses autres sujets, comme je l’ai dit ci-dessus, AM/RK: Was den andern betrift, so ist es genug, den Fürsten zu rathen, daß sie nur ihre Residenzstadt befestigen, ohne sich um das übrige zu bekümmern. ... sich sonst mit seinen Unterthanen so gesetzet, wie ich oben... eingreifen; Klingenberg: Hvad det andra angår, finner jag nödigt at allenast råda sådana Prinsar at befästa deras hufvudstäder, utan at på något sätt bry sig om de öfrige; ty då en Prins befäst sin stad och skickar sig väl emot sine öfrige undersåtare, som redan sagt är, Dacres: In the second case, we cannot say other, save only to encourage such Princes to fortifie and guard their own Capital city, and of the countrey about, not to hold much account;

The first translation in Scandinavia

275

and whoever shall have well fortified that town, and touching other matters of governments shall have behaved himself towards his subjects, as hath been formerly said, Chap. XV: Et molti si sono imaginati Republiche et Principati che non si son’ mai uisti ne conosciuti esser’ in uero, LRM: (da viele sich Republiquen und Fürstenthümer/ welche Niemand zu Gesichte bekommen/ und von welchen man gewust hat/ daß sie erdichtet/ vorgestellet.) Amelot: Plusieurs se sont figuré des Républiques, & des Principautés, qui n’ont jamais été, & qui ne seront jamais. AM/RK: Viele Leute haben sich Republiken und Fürstenthümer vorgestellet, die niemahls in der Welt gewesen sind, auch nicht darein kommen werden. Klingenberg: Åtskillige hafva förestält sig Samhällen och Herradömen, som, hvarken synts, eller i sjelfva värket varit til: Dacres: And many Principalities and Republiques, have been in imagination, which neither have been seen nor knowne to be indeed: Chap. XXVI: il che lo farà la generatione de l’armi, et la uariatione de li ordini. Tegli: Id autem non armorum genere, sed priscorum ordinum commutatione fiet. LRM: Und hiezu darf man nur die Arth zu streiten verändern. Amelot: Et pour cela, il n’y auroit qu’à changer la maniére de combatre. AM/RK: Denn man dürfte nur die Art zu fechten verändern. Klingenberg: så at det icke kommer an på at byta om vapnen, utan sättet at strida; Dacres: which shall not be a new sort of armes, but change of orders.

Supposing that among all of Amelot’s discordant passages, the textual concordance between the Swedish translation on one hand, and the Italian version of The Prince, of Lebens- und Regierungs-Maximen and Dacres’s on the other, can be traced back to the last two, then just a limited number of passages, and scarcely meaningful ones at that, can be assumed to draw on an Italian or Latin source text. It is absolutely beyond doubt that Klingenberg knew Latin well, considering his academic education and his activity at Uppsala university, and there is also no doubt that he would have easily been able to get hold of a copy of Tegli’s, Conring’s or Langenhert’s translations. However Klingenberg clearly chose not to make use of them, firstly because he already had an adequate number of different versions to consult — too many texts could have loaded his work — and secondly because the translations of The Prince are often, for reasons strictly linguistic or stylistic, different from the Swedish language of that time. In other words, for lexical, syntactic and stylistic motives, he could more easily translate from a recent German version — or also from French and English versions60 — than from Latin and sixteenth century Italian.

60

It must be noted, however, that Dacres made several — and more congenial to the Swedish translator — amplifications of the source text.

276

Paolo Marelli

If we are to suppose that Klingenberg also used an Italian version of The Prince, we must first of all ascertain whether or not he knew Machiavelli’s language. Since he knew French and Latin very well, he could certainly have read an Italian text, but we don't have the necessary information to judge if he had sufficient linguistic skills to translate a work such as The Prince, starting from Machiavelli’s original. Indeed, there isn’t any evidence that he knew the Italian language, nor do any clear signs emerge of direct references to the Italian text from the analysis of his translation.61 Furthermore, Klingenberg rarely reports Italian toponyms and anthroponyms in their original form, and prefers to render them in their French form, even though in the German and Dacres versions the Italian forms are attested: Chap. VIII: Giouanni Fogliani [...] Pauolo Vitelli [...] Sinigaglia LRM: Johann Fogliani [...] Paulo Vitelli [...] Sinigaglia Amelot: Jean Fogliani [...] Paul Vitelli [...] Sinigaille AM/RK: Giovanni Fogliani (oder Frangioni) [...] Paolo Vitelli [...] Sinigaglia Klingenberg: Jean Fogliani [...] Paul Vitelli [...] Sinigalle Dacres: John Foliani [...] Paulo Vitelli [...] Sinigallia Chap. XIX: Messer Annibale Bentiuogli [...] Bologna, [...] Canneschi, [...] Giouanni T: Annibale Bentiuolo [...] Bononienses [...] Canneschis [...] Ioanne LRM: Herr Hannibal Bentivogli [...] Bologna [...] Canneschi, [...] Johannes Amelot: Hannibal Bentivole [...] Bologne, [...] Cannesques AM/RK: Hannibal Bentivoglio [...] Bologna [...] Canneschi Klingenberg: Hannibal Bentivoli [...] Boulogne [...] Canesquerne Dacres: Annibal Bentivolii [...] Bolonia, [...] Canneschi [...] John Chap. XXVI: Petrarca LRM: Petrarca Amelot: Petrarque AM/RK: Petrarcha Klingenberg: Petrarque Dacres: Petrarch

Finally, in examining the Swedish translation of Petrarch’s verses quoted in chapter XXVI, in which Klingenberg, like other translators, has been

61

Consider also the cultural distance between eighteenth-century Scandinavia and sixteenthcentury Italy. Klingenberg himself in his preface to the translation doesn’t speak in flattering terms of Machiavelli and his time: [...] den tiden skrifsättet icke ännu var så höfsadt, och han, på åtskillige ställen, brukat, dels en hård penna, dels svagt förestält de ämnen, han afhandlat [...]. If one considers the phrase “translated from the principal languages” on the title page, it may be deduced that at that time in Sweden, Italian wasn’t considered worthy of inclusion as one of them.

The first translation in Scandinavia

277

compelled to interpret rather freely for reasons of metre, one can see that not one word has direct reference to Italian alone62: Chap. XXVI: Virtù contro al’ furore / Prenderà l’arme, et fia il combatter’ corto, / Che l’anticho ualore / Nelli italici cuor’ non è ancor morto. Tegli: Virtus in barbaricum furorem, / Arma capiet, nec longum erit belli certamen / Nam antiqua uirtus / In Italicis animis nondum extincta iacet. LRM: d. i. / Es ruft Gerechtigkeit die Raserey zum streiten. / Wobey die letzte wird sehr harte Schläge leiden; / In dem der Heldenmuth noch itzo nicht gestorben / Der sonst Italien so großen Ruhm erworben. Amelot 1686: C’est-à-dire: / La Justice au combat défiera la Fureur, / et saura lui donner une si rude atteinte, / que l’on verra bientôt, que l’Ancienne Valeur / Du Cœur Italien n’est pas encore éteinte. AM/RK: Gerechtigkeit ruft itzt die tolle Welt zum Streit; / Doch zeigt der kurze Kampf, die alte Tapferkeit. / Sey in der Welschen Brust noch itzo nicht erstorben. / Die sonst Italien so großen Ruhm erworben. Klingenberg: Det är, / Mot Raseriets våld, skal Dygden rusta sig; / Den gamla tapperhet i fulla vapen lysa, / Och visa Välsklands kropp kan än et hjerta hysa, / Som hämnat oförrätt och varit stort i krig. Dacres: Vertue against fury shall advance the fight, / And it i' th' combate soon shall put to flight: / For th' old Roman valor is not dead, / Nor in th' Italians brests extinguished.

It goes without saying that had Klingenberg consulted the Italian text and referred to it for his translation, the correspondence with the original text would have been more numerous and evident. In conclusion, I think this paper will be useful to clarify some aspects of Swedish culture at the time of the so-called “Age of Liberty”: first of all I have ascertained the way a skilled translator worked, an Enlightenment polyglot erudite; secondly, new information has been found about the way some literary works circulated, and particularly those which were excluded by official academic or court culture; finally, I’ve outlined some aspects of the general attitude of Swedish intellectuals of the time towards The Prince. Regarding Klingenberg’s translation, it’s clear that he based himself on various parallel versions63 of The Prince, choosing as his main source a scarcely flawless version — though generally appreciated — but not the

62

63

While, on the contrary, in the translation of some verses from Aeneid quoted in chapter XVII, there is at least one direct reference to the Latin source text: cf. Virgil Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt / Moliri, et late fines custode tueri; Dacres My hard plight and new State force me to guard / My confines all about with watch and ward; AM/RK Mir dringt ein harter Fall, und selbst mein neues Reich, / Dies Unternehmen ab, und nöthigt mich zugleich / Mein weitgestrecktes Land vor Anfall zu beschützen; Klingenberg Det öde, som min lefnad tvingar, / Mig, til en sådan stränghet bringar, / At i min nya Stat, vid början af min magt, / Kring desse gränsor sitta vakt. As it was common in seventeenth and eighteenth century.

278

Paolo Marelli

Italian original, which in any case he wasn’t able to use. He often translates freely and the abundance of solutions he chooses to express the Swedish equivalences confirms his technical and linguistic skills. The fact that Klingenberg was able to make use of a work like Lebensund Regierungs-Maximen eines Fürsten which, published abroad and thwarted by official culture, had a limited distribution, is interesting evidence of the wide circulation of texts and ideas in Sweden during the Age of Liberty, not only among Enlightenment scholars, but also in the academic milieu. However, this doesn’t mean that a full reappraisal of Machiavelli’s works was being carried out. Klingenberg’s translation of The Prince, notwithstanding the author’s implied purposes, had a limited influence and was soon forgotten,64 maybe because of its secondary position in comparison with AntiMachiavel. In the “Age of Liberty” the time evidently wasn’t yet ripe for a translation of The Prince as an independent work, even though the interest in Machiavelli’s treatise was keen and many versions of it were circulating. Had it not happened that the Swedish Crown Prince and nephew of the author of Anti-Machiavel, fascinated by the latter in a difficult situation for both royal families, had requested a Swedish version of both works, Scandinavians would probably have been reading The Prince in a foreign language until more than a century later.

64

As proved by its poor availability in Scandinavian libraries and by the fact that generally Nordic encyclopedias don’t take it into consideration.

Arap El Ma’ani

The first Arabic translation Voi fate gran rumore in Italia del vostro Machiavelli. Lo feci tradurre […] per sapere che cosa mai vada egli dicendo, ma confesso che l’ho trovato al di sotto delle mie aspettative e della sua fama. In Italy you make a great fuss about your Machiavelli. I ordered for it to be translated […] to know what is it that he says, but I confess that it fell short of my expectations and was unworthy of its fame.1

It may seem illogical that the broad circulation of The Prince in Europe did not bring it fame in the Muslim countries situated around the Mediterranean — probably the result of strategies of closure and narrow-mindedness exercised by the Ottoman Emperor on all countries under its control for the long period of time between the twelfth and twentieth centuries2 — yet it took a long time for there to be a real translation of The Prince. The figure of a great sovereign was indispensable to give birth to this translation. Maria Nallino and others affirm that a first translation of The Prince was ordered by an extremely important personage in the Arabic-Egyptian historical context, Mohammad Ali, or according to the Turkish pronunciation, Mehemet Ali, who was born in Kavala, a small port in Macedonia, in 1770 and died in 1849. He was viceroy of Egypt from 1805 to 1849. In a note, Acerbi says: […] troverà alquanto strano che ne’ frequenti colloqui che il mio soggiorno in Alessandria e nel Cairo mi ha procurati col Bascià Mehemet Aly vicere d’Egitto, siasi parlato anche di libri e di letteratura; ma strabilierà forse per meraviglia all’intendere che il Bascià d’Egitto si è fatto fare a bella posta per sé una traduzione […] del Principe del Machiavelli, bramoso di

1

2

“On a beaucoup exagéré la valeur de son enseignement. J’aurais pu lui donner des leçons!”: Gilbert Sinoué, Le Dernier Pharaon (Paris: Pygmalion Gérard Watelet, 1997), p. 36. “[…] toute liberté de réflexion personnelle leur étant interdite [for Arabs] […] On ne leur enseigne pas davantage à rédiger des textes. Les enseignements concernent surtout les matières religieuses, à la rigueur juridico-religieuses. Mais ni philosophie, ni langues étrangères à l’exception du Turc et du Persan, ni histoire, ni géographie; les étudiants ne reçoivent par principe aucune ouverture sur l’univers extérieur au monde musulman. Les mathématiques sont limitées à des notions d’arithmétique, utiles pour le calcul des héritages et le partage des propriétés [...] L’astronomie est réduite à l’astrologie ou aux sciences divinatoires… bien qu’interdites en principe […]”: Guy Fargette, Méhémet Ali, le Fondateur de l’Egypte Moderne (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1996), p. 200.

280

Arap El Ma’ani

conoscere di che mai trattasi in un libro del quale aveva inteso parlare da qualche europeo con straordinaria ammirazione.3

This point is confirmed by Guy Fargette who talks about “un prêtre grec catholique, [qui] traduit Le Prince de Machiavel en arabe à la demande du Vice-Roi”.4 Acerbi emphasizes the fact that Mohammad Ali gave the order to translate The Prince: Ho altrove parlato dalla stamperia stabilita nel Cairo dall’attuale Bascià, e dei libri che sono ivi pubblicati [...] nel collegio di Bulac si fa ora una traduzione [...] del Principe di Machiavello per ordine del Bascià; cui fu detto questo un libro che contiene esimie massime di politica, e che insegna ai Sovrani despotici l’arte di governare.5

Leeden narrates that a French ambassador declared the importance of The Prince to Mohammad Ali who, curious to read it, ordered the translation. He was so curious that he ordered every page to be sent to him once translated. He tells us for the first time about Mohammad Ali’s reaction to The Prince, and to what extent he valued it. It is interesting to know that when Mohammad Ali reached the fifteenth page6 he interrupted the translation declaring the book useless: “Questo libro è del tutto inutile: sono tutte cose che già conosco”7 (This book is completely useless. These are all things that I already know). Acerbi describes an informal conversation with Mohammad Ali in Cairo in 1828, where Mohammad Ali felt free to express himself as follows: Voi fate gran romore in Italia del vostro Machiavelli. Lo feci tradurre […] per sapere che cosa mai vada egli dicendo; ma confesso che l’ho trovato al di sotto della aspettazione mia e della sua fama […] — Sono stato assai più preso da meraviglia alla lettura d’un opera scritta originalmente in arabo, ma pure anch’essa tradotta in turco; e quest’opera è quella della 3

4 5

6

7

Giuseppe Acerbi, in a letter dated 20th of December 1830: ‘Lettera del Signor Cons. Acerbi, console generale di S.M.I.R.A. in Egitto al Signor Cons. Giromi, Biblioteca della Bibl. Imp. di Brera in Milano, intorno ad alcuni codici arabi portati d’Egitto e trasmessi in dono alla Biblioteca suddetta ed alla Biblioteca Imperiale di Vienna’, Biblioteca Italiana, tomo LXI, Milano 1831, pp. 289-290. Guy Fargette, p. 206. Maria Nallino, ‘Intorno A Due Traduzioni Arabe del Principe Del Machiavelli’, Oriente Moderno, XI (1931), p. 604. Mehemet Ali said talking about The Prince “[…] in the first ten pages I discovered nothing great nor new […]. I waited. But the next ten were no better. The last ten were merely commonplace. I can learn nothing from Machiavelli”: John Lloyd Stephens, Victor Wolfgang Von Hagen, Incidents of Travel in Egypt, Arabia Petraea and the Holy Land (New York: Dover Publications, 1996), p. 23. M. Leeden, Il Principe dei neocons - un Machiavelli per il XXI secolo (Roma: Nuove Idee, 2004), p. 87.

The first Arabic translation

281

storia di Ebn- Khaldun. È uno scrittore molto più libero del vostro Machiavelli ed a mio avviso molto più utile. Voi dite che il Machiavelli è proibito in vari stati d’Europa; EbnKhaldun lo sarebbe assai più.8 (In Italy you make a great fuss about your Machiavelli. I ordered for it to be translated to know what is it that he says, but I confess that it fell short of my expectations and was unworthy of its fame. I was much more amazed when I read a work written originally in Arabic but was also translated in Turkish; This work is The Introduction of Ebn-Khaldun.9 He is a much more free writer than your Machiavelli and, to me, his work is more useful. You say that Machiavelli is forbidden in different countries in Europe; Ebn Khadun should have been even more severely forbidden).

As an adolescent, Mohammad Ali had been friends with a French merchant called Lion, a man experienced in the modern world, society, diplomacy and economy, and this friendship was considered to be of great importance. He talked to Mohammad Ali and the latter listened carefully for he was thirsty for knowledge. This was the beginning of his interest in politics. From a simple member in a three-hundred men contingent10 asked by the Ottoman empire to join the Turkish forces in their fight against the French troops under the command of Napoleon, Mohammad Ali became the viceroy of Egypt. He had always believed in his universal destiny and had to create all from nothing, that is why he considered Egypt as his own patrimony and was ready to defend it at any price.

8 9

10

Nallino, p. 605. The real name of Ibn Khaldoun (or Khaldoon) was: Waliy-Eddin Abou-Zeid AbdAlrahman, son of Mohammed and nicknamed Hadhrami or Aschbili. Born in Tunis in 732 H (1332 A.D.) died in 1406 A.D. Ibn Khaldoun is the author of the renowned book Mokaddamat Ibn Khaldoon (Introduction of Ibn Khaldoun) in 779 H (1378 A.D.) “Le corps débarque le 8 Mars 1801 à Aboukir. Le fils du Gouverneur avait souffert du mal de mer pendant la traversée et les premiers combats le découragent; cette expédition ne lui inspire rien qui vaille et il prend le parti de rentrer au pays. Méhémet Ali, qui l’avait sans doute vivement poussé à prendre cette décision, est nommé à ca place. Et très vite, après un fait d’armes contre les Français, il est promu Colonel, puis Général quelques mois plus tard”: Fargette, p. 25.

282

Arap El Ma’ani

Known for his shrewdness,11 prudence,12 aggressiveness and violence,13 on different occasions his behaviour was referred to as Machiavellian if not Machiavellic. He was associated with Machiavelli by his most famous guests and collaborators who saw him as contradictory. In certain circumstances he gave the impression of being very courteous charming and very elegant, In others, however, he was violent and inhuman, always ready to defend his interests at any cost. His policy14 reflected his personality, he resorted to false humility, flattery, cold bloodedness and insincere repentance15 when necessary. Furthermore he was known for playing double or triple games and frequent volte-faces, when least expected, so that the enemy of yesterday became the friend of today and might find himself once again tomorrow’s enemy. Very careful in his approach, Mohammad Ali knew well that in politics any mistake may put an end not only to power but also to life itself. S’il a l’esprit d’aventure, il n’a rien d’un aventurier. Ses décisions sont toujours mûrement réfléchies et discutée […] Il compense heureusement une instruction aussi faible par une mémoire prodigieuse et un instinct très sûr en ce qui concerne la connaissance des hommes et l’appréciation des situations politiques. Doué d’une intuition et d’une imagination exceptionnelles, il sera à même, grâce a ses vues prospectives, de concevoir les plus vastes desseins que son énergie et sa ténacité lui permettront de mettre à exécution. Son solide bon sens lui interdira toutefois d’aller trop loin et lui permettra d’esquisser de prudentes volte11

12

13

14

15

Mohammad Ali: “Je sais que parmi cinquante individus qui viennent m’offrir leurs services, quarante-neuf peuvent être comparés seulement à des pierres fausses. Sans les essayer, toutefois, je ne puis découvrir le seul diamant véritable qui peut se trouver parmi eux. Je commence par les acheter tous et, lorsque je découvre la pierre authentique, elle me dédommage cent fois de la perte que j’ai éprouvée par les autres”: Sinoué, p. 163. One day, he said to his son Ibrahim: “Prends garde! Ne place jamais les soldats égyptiens en première ligne; ils sont les premiers à se rendre. Ne les place pas non plus au dernier rang ; ils seront les premiers à battre en retraite: enferme-les entre nos officiers turcs!”: Sinoué, p. 168. “En mars 1811 à l’occasion de l’investiture de son fils Toussoun comme commandant de l’armée égyptienne, le Pacha invite les Mameluks à participer aux somptueuses fêtes qui se déroulent dans la citadelle du Caire. A l’issue de la cérémonie, alors qu’ils redescendent le long les rues étroites il sont fusillés à bout portant par des soldats embusqués […] Cinq cents mameluks ont été assassinés […] dont Mehmet Ali envoie les têtes au Sultan “à titre de compte-rendu”: Fargette, p. 42. “P. Hamont administrateur de l’école vétérinaire du Caire: Il est d’une force morale surprenante. Rien ne l’abat. Il est toujours au-dessus des événements, quelque malheureux que soient ces événements. Il est stoïcien. Un mal intense n’enlève pas sa gaieté ordinaire […]”: Sinoué, p. 27. “Mais je n’aime pas cette partie de ma vie! En quoi le monde profiterait-il du récit de cet interminable contexte de luttes, de misères, de ruses, de sang répandu auxquels je fus contraint inévitablement par les circonstances? Mon histoire ne commence qu’avec la période où libre de toute contrainte j’ai pu arracher cette terre au sommeil des âges”: Fargette, p. 43.

The first Arabic translation

283

face […] S’il a l’esprit d’aventure, il n’a rien d’un aventurier. Ses décisions sont toujours mûrement réfléchies et discutées […].16

Also: Les dons personnels de Méhémet Ali faisaient de lui une exception; […] son intelligence rapide e sa capacité a saisir le faits d’une situation historique lui permettaient d’éliminer impitoyablement les obstacles, aussi bien physiques que psychologiques, qui auraient pu bloquer l’action d’un esprit plus introspectif et moins audacieux.17

This subject will be examined closely, to understand, through the Arabic translation of The Prince, how the Arab-Islamic mentality manifests itself and how and to what extent it had influenced the world of politics. It is not important here whether Mohammad Ali was a true hero for having initiated processes of modernization, working for the good of his adoptive country, Egypt, and for the sake of its population, or whether the real motive behind this was his personal interest. Some see him the last pharaoh, “Dernier Pharaon”, some consider him the founder of modern Egypt and others call him an unjust “Zalem Bascia”.18 He was a tyrant and at the same time a liberator from Turkish oppression.19 The Egyptian population had long desired his death but had at the same time cried at his funeral. What matters here is the fact that it is thanks to Mohammad Ali and to his interest in the western culture, that the activity of translation started and was henceforth spread widely. It should be underlined that the construction of the Bulaq printing press was Mohammad Ali’s idea. This guaranteed European literature and culture acess to the Arab world after three centuries of closure.

16 17 18

19

Fargette, p. 25. Ibid., p. 28. “Champollion avait conservé une vue très négative de la gestion du Pacha […] Dans une lettre a Dacier au lendemain de son retour en France, il écrit: Méhémet Ali, cet excellent homme, n’a d’autre vue que de tirer le plus d’argent possible de la pauvre Egypte […] Horus –Typhon. Horus le bénéfique, le créature, le modernisateur de l’Egypte; Typhon le dieu assassin qui, se donnant pour objectif d’arracher la vallée du Nil aux ténèbres, soumettait son peuple a une règle inhumaine, à la corvée permanente, à l’érection d’une pyramide sans fin”: Fargette, p. 227. Mohammad Ali: “Ne me jugez pas par rapport à vous. Comparez-moi plutôt avec l’ignorance qui m’entoure. Vous ne pouvez appliquer les mêmes règlements en Egypte et en Angleterre; des siècles sont nécessaires pour atteindre le niveau que vous avez atteint en ce moment, et je n’ai à mon actif que quelques années seulement […] Je ne peux trouver que très peu de personnes qui sachent me comprendre et exécuter mes ordres. Je recherche toute personne qui pourrait me fournir des renseignements. Je suis quelquefois déçu par la conduite des autres; mais il m’arrive aussi d’être déçu par moi-même”: Sinoué, p. 29.

284

Arap El Ma’ani

Different sources disagree about the language into which the work was translated. Some researchers claim that the translation of The Prince was in Arabic, others say it was in Turkish.20 Michael Ledeen mentions an anecdote about a translation of the first fifteen pages of The Prince but he does not say anything about the target language. Brocchi, in July 1823, writes as follows: […] nel collegio di Bulac si fa ora una traduzione in Arabo del Principe di Machiavello […] cui fu detto essere questo un libro che contiene esimie massime di politica, e che insegna ai Sovrani despotici l’arte di governare. Il titolo italiano del libro fu volto in Arabo el Emir.21

Acerbi, in a letter written from Vienna on 20th December 1830, attests the existence of “[…] una traduzione in Turco del Principe del Machiavelli”22 while Guy Fargette writes: “un prêtre grec catholique, traduit le Prince de Machiavel en arabe”. Dan Diner in his article mentions a manuscript in the Arabic language of The Prince about which Rifaa at-Tahtawi23 would have had some knowledge. It seems that Acerbi stands alone, while others, including myself, agree to that the translation was into Arabic. Maria Nallino has personally inspected the Arabic translation of The Prince that dates back to the previous century. This gave me the confirmation of the existence of the manuscript I was looking for and about which language it was translated into. Moreover, Nallino, seems to have found the same conflicting information concerning the language as we did. She underlines the contradiction between Acerbi and Brocchi and tries to explain it by saying that in fact two translations were written. The first was into Arabic, and the second, whether written or oral, into Turkish.24

20

21 22 23

24

“La langue du travail est le Turc, mais les documents officiels sont traduits en Arabe”: Fargette, p. 55. Nallino, p. 604. Acerbi, pp. 289-290. Rifaa at-Tahatawi (1801-1873) was one of the most important intellectuals responsible for creating the modern Egyptian mentality, thanks to his stay in Paris and to his encounter with the French culture. A friend of Mohammad Ali and one of the students sent to Paris to have a good formation. Author of a famous book: Talhlis Al-Ibriz Fi Talhis Pariz (The Search for Pure Gold In Paris) where by gold he means culture and knowledge. This work was published in Cairo in 1834. Tahatawi spent the years from 1826 to 1831 as Shaikh (a religious authority that means teacher and religious leader) of a group of students. “[…] avesse preparato la traduzione araba […] e che Mohammad ‘Alì, il quale aveva come lingua il turco e intendeva assai poco l’arabo letterario, si fosse fatto tradurre il libro dall’arabo in turco, o verbalmente soltanto, o per iscritto”: Nallino, p. 605.

The first Arabic translation

285

Did Mohammad Ali know Arabic? If he did, as I imagine, this would justify the translation into Arabic. Mohammad Ali who had invested all of his forces and his ambitions in Egypt and had totally identified with this new country, must have been familiar with Arabic. At very least he must have had a minimum knowledge of the Egyptian dialect. My hypothesis finds support in the following words: “Mehmet Ali n’est pas homme à ignorer délibérément la culture de son pays d’adoption […]”.25 And more: Un des aspects les plus curieux de la personnalité de Mehmet Ali est son identification totale à sa nouvelle partie. Cet Albanais devint plus Egyptien que les Egyptiens, dès lors que ceuxci l’eurent choisi comme leader.26

Consider also that Mohammad Ali’s son, Ibrahim, spoke very good Arabic and considered himself as an Arab: “Ibrahim récuse la nationalité turque et se veut Arabe et Egyptien, par culture et par affinité”.27 Another fact to bear in mind is that Mohammad Ali, suspicious and mistrustful by nature, did not trust his interpreters: Si le turc prédomine, en revanche sa langue cède […] la place à l’arabe comme langue de l’administration et ne subsiste qu’au sein du gouvernement. Méhémet - Ali ne parle en effet pas l’arabe et affecte de ne pas le comprendre assez pour pouvoir se passer d’interprète. Nous avons du mal à croire que ce soit vrai. Il est probable que cette prétendue ignorance lui permet de mieux percer la pensée de ses interlocuteurs, et, qui sait, de jauger la probité de son propre traducteur.28

Who were the translators who surrounded Mohammad Ali?29 Or, to put it another way, who translated The Prince? I am confident that, although there were numerous other translators around Mohammad Ali,30 it was Don Raphael Antuan Zakhur31 who translated The Prince. His full name is Antoun Zakhur Rahib de Monachis (1759-1831), a Syrian priest of a Melkiti-Greek 25 26 27 28 29

30

31

Fargette, p. 89. Ibid., p. 28. Ibid., p. 141. Sinoué, p. 159. “Presumbly this activity by Zakhur and other Syrian translators was the first of its kind not only in Egypt, but anywhere in the Arab East. It marked the beginning of the Arab world’s direct contact with Western learning”: Matti Moosa, ‘The translation of Western Fiction’, in The Origins of Modern Arabic Fiction, 2nd Edition (Boudler & London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997), p. 96. Jamal Al-Din Al-Shayyal, ‘Kaifa wa Mata Arafat Masr Kitab Al-Amiir’, in Al-Katib AlMasri. Vol. 4, Nr. 13, October 1946, Dar Al-kitab Al-Masri, Cairo, pp. 107-116. Can be written in different ways: Raphael, Raffael, Rafael, Rafa’I; Antoun, Anton, Antoon, Antwan; Zahur, Zakhour, Zakur, Zakhur, Zaqour, Zakkur; Rahib, Aab, Don.

286

Arap El Ma’ani

sect. His family left Alebbo to Egypt at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Born in Cairo on March 7th, 1759, he engaged in his first religious studies and learnt Arabic thanks to some of the members of the group. At the age of fifteen he moved to Rome where he was able to finish his studies. After spending five years at Sant’Atanasio school, he spent another two years studying languages (above all, Italian) at the university. In 1781, the twenty two-year old Zakhur left Rome and returned to Saida, in Lebanon, the centre of the Bazilita religious order. He joined Al-Mukhallis (The Saviour) convent, where he worked on the translation of some religious books and other documents that where conserved in the convent’s library. He was assigned different tasks, and had numerous promotions: In 1781 he became Shammas (Deacon) and in 85 a Qissis (Priest). Once again in Rome, but this time as a religious messenger. During his sojourn he translated lots of documents from Arabic to Italian and vice versa. When the mission was completed, he returned to Egypt and stayed there until the arrival of the French expedition, which offered him the chance to fulfil his ambitions, and to realize his wider aspirations. The order of the foundation of The Egyptian Institute Al Majma’ Al Masri arrives on August 20th, 1798, or in the second of Rabi’ Al Tawwal 1213, according to the Islamic calendar. In line wth the expectations, as an Arab translator with a special salary, he became a member of the institute. Antwan Zakhur Raffael Rahib was nominated as a member of the commission of literature and fine Arts. He was the only oriental member to work together with the scientists of the French expedition. During the French occupation of Egypt (1798-1801) he became secretary and interpreter to the general administration for finance and the first translator to the Diwan for which he translated ordinances and letters. After Napoleon’s departure, the administration of the expedition was trusted to Kléber32 who gave orders to form a commission for collecting information about Egypt Lajnah li Jam’ Ma’lumat ‘An Masr. Zakhur took 32

Jean-Baptiste Kléber (9 March 1753 – 14 June 1800) was a French general during the French Revolutionary Wars. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica gives the following assessment of Kléber: “Kléber emerged as undoubtedly one of the greatest generals of the French revolutionary epoch. Though he distrusted his powers and declined the responsibility of supreme command, there is nothing in his career to show that he would have been unequal to it. As a second-in-command no general of his time excelled him. His conduct of affairs in Egypt at a time when the treasury was empty and the troops were discontented for want of pay, shows that his powers as an administrator were little - if at all - inferior to those he possessed as a general” (Encyclopedia Britannica, ad vocem). See also: Le Comte Pajal, Kléber, sa vie, sa correspondance (Paris 1877), p. 392; Georges Rigault, Le Général Abdallah Menon et la dernière phase de l’expédition d’Egypte (Paris 1802), pp. 125-126.

The first Arabic translation

287

part in the expedition as an interpreter for Arabic. He translated letters and decrees yet this did not prevent him from translating works of a scientific nature. In 1800 (1214 hijri) Don Raphael who was also a doctor33 translated a work written by Desgenettes, the chief doctor of the expedition, on Marad al Jadari, variola or smallpox.34 This was the first work translated from French and it was published by the French authorities. In 1801 the French expedition abandoned Egypt. Unlike many Syrians who accompanied the expedition to France, Father Raphael preferred to stay in Egypt for another two years working as secretary to Father Basilios Atallah, head of his religious order. After having occupied important positions in the fields of politics and science, Father Raphael was not satisfied with his new post. Egypt was now once again under the control of the Ottoman empire, and this meant the he had no opportunity to pursue his political or scientific activities. France was his destination. First, he wrote two letters to his old friend Napoleon, letters that appear to have received no replies, then he decided to go to France in 1803 to meet Napoleon in person. Sixteen days after their meeting (on 24th of September 1803) Napoleon entrusted Zakhur with teaching colloquial Arabic (and perhaps Coptic) at the Ecole Spéciale des Langues Orientales in Paris Madrasat al lughat al Sharqiyah. He also had to translate the Arabic manuscripts about Egyptian literature and history that were kept at the school’s library. Moreover, he wrote many books in the Arabic language. However, when Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo and exiled to Saint Helena, Zakhur lost the support and patronage of his friend and protector. He had to suffer the rage and the injustice of the new government which reduced his salary. Zakhur reacted to this humiliation by resigning from his post in April 1816. He later on decided to return to Egypt. It was in the same year that he came into contact with Mohammad Ali, who was paving the way for transferring western knowledge into Arabic and had therefore sent a group of students to learn the art of printing. Zakhur became one of the three Christian teachers at Bulaq School. On the 5th December 1820, the Italian voyager, Brocchi, visited Bulaq school and recounted that he had met the three teachers: Father Carlo Biloti from

33

34

His name figures in the registers of the school of medicine of Abu Z’abal in the years 1828,1829 and 1832: see Ch. Bachatly, ‘Un manuscrit autographe de Don Raphaël membre de l’Institut d’Egypte (1798)’, Bulletin de l’Institut d’Egypte, t. XIII, session 1930-1931, Le Caire, 1931, pp. 27-35. Sur la petite vérole régnante, adressée au Divan du Kaire, par le Cen Desegnettes, Premier médecin de l’Armée d’Orient. Au Kaire, de l’imprimerie Nationale, le 27 nivôse an VIII.

288

Arap El Ma’ani

Calabria, Father Scalioti from Piedmont35 and Father Raphael. On the 11th December, Brocchi visited Bulaq Printing Press and listed the first books that were being printed: An Italian–Arabic dictionary, Khamus itali-arabi or Egyptian-Italian, written by Raphael and printed in 1822. The second book was a translation from French into Arabic of a letter by Macquer: L’art de la teinture en soie: Kitab Fi Sibaghat Al Harir. For these reasons, Father Zakhur should be considered the first in the field of translation in the history of modern Egypt. He was the editor of the above-mentioned Italian-Arabic dictionary commissioned by Mohammad Ali. The latter manifested his genius through the study of everything concerning governmental, administrative and political systems. This explains why he was keen on establishing and maintaining relationships with all European diplomats and foreign visitors in Egypt. During his frequent meetings with them he used to ask about the political and the scientific situation in their countries, about their governmental systems and about the most important books issued. Around 1820 one of his visitors, whose name I have so far been unable to uncover, suggested that he read The Prince by Machiavelli, which he held in high esteem. He observed how the content of The Prince reflected the nature and the temperament of the viceroy. Around 1824-1825 (1239-1240 in the Islamic Calendar) Mohammad Ali assigned Zakhur the task of translating The Prince into Arabic. This was the first translation ever of The Prince in Arabic language. Matti Moosa provides a concrete indication about the existence and the place where the manuscript is kept: He [Zakhur] entered the service of Muhammad Ali as a translator. At Muhammad Ali’s order, he made an Arabic translation of Nicolo Machiavelli’s Prince now preserved as MS 435 in the Egyptian National Archives at Dar al-Kutub.36

Dalya Hamzah in her article37 refers to Jamal Al-Din Al-Shayyal38 who talks about Bascia’s main translator Zakhur, and about his translation of The

35

36 37

“Scalioti est un Piémontais au service du roi de Sardaigne, ami de la marquise Tranzo et favorisé par la reine Caroline… [il] fut envoyé par la reine, à l'insinuation de la marquise, pour l'assister de ses conseils, lui Mosca [colonel commandant]”: Mémoires et correspondance politique et militaire du roi Joseph, publiés, annotés et mis en ordre par A. Du Casse (Paris: Perrotin, 1854), t. III, p. 470. Matti Moosa, p. 96. Dalya Hamzah, ‘Nineteenth-Century Egypt as Dynastic Locus of University: The History of Muhammad ‘Ali by Khalil Ibn Ahmad al-Rajabi’ Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Vol. 27, No. 1, 2007, Duke University Press, pp. 62-82.

The first Arabic translation

289

Prince, declaring that it is conserved in the same place and under the same number. The manuscript, according to Moosa should be entitled as follows: AlAmir fi Eilm al-Tarickh wa al-Siyasah wa al-Tadbir (The Prince: on the Science of History, Politics and Governance). It is supposed to be conserved at Bulaq printing Press (founded in 1820). Regretably it is now in a state of complete abandon. The articles ‘Une Imprimerie à Grande Valeur Historique’ and ‘Un Musée Ou Un Garage?’39 describe it as “un refuge pour les rats et les insectes”. The manuscript arrived at Cairo National Library in 1876, after having been preserved at Al-Hussein Mosque. It was considered as Waqf, i.e. a donation for God as can be seen from a librarian’s note on the second page: Muhdar min Sayyidna Al-Hussein fi Mars 1876: Brought from Al-Hussein Mosque on March 1876 and added to number 223. I found the manuscript under the number indicated, but the title was different. The exact title is: ‘Eilm Al-Siyasah Wa Husn Al-Tadbir Fi Al-Ahkam, i.e. The Science of Politics and Good Government in Kingdoms. The manuscript measures 21.5 by 16 cm. It is made up of 82 sheets with two pages each, 162 pages of 20 lines. The first problem I encountered while examining the manuscript more closely was page numbering. There are three different systems. After a careful examination I identified the original numeration by the translator’s hand. It is on the right-hand side of the first page and on the left-hand side of the second, written and underlined by an oblique line. This means that the translator wrote and calculated in single pages. Some researchers have made the mistake of considering and counting every two pages as one. It is evident that Zakhur gave a number to each individuel page. This can be demonstrated by the fact that two pages completely different in content may be found opposite each other, for example, pages 143 and 148. The discontinuity of the text is marked by the non-correspondence between the last word of one page and the first word of the following page. For example, page 143 ends with the preposition Min and page 148 starts with the verb fayatamata’oona. The same can be said about page 155 and page 14. There is no way they can be 38

39

Jamal Al-Din Al-Shayyal, Tariikh al-Tarjamah wa al-harakah al-Thaqafiyyah Fi Asr Muhammad ‘Ali (The History of Translation and the Cultural Movement During The Age Of Muhammad Ali), (Cairo: Dar Al-Fikr Al-Arabi, 1951), p. 166. Mohamed Salmawy, ‘Un Musée ou un Garage?’, Al Ahram on line Semaine du 25 au 31 Juillet 2007, n. 672. I am indepted to Mr. Salmawy, editor of Al-Ahram newspaper, secretary general of the Arab Writers' Union and author of the two abovementioned articles, for indicating to me the whereabouts of the material.

290

Arap El Ma’ani

considered as one page; they are clearly two. The manuscript is not composed of 82 pages but of 162, of which 141 are the translation in Arabic language of The Prince, after counting the missing pages, i.e., five (143-145) and nine (35-44). Zakhur starts numbering the pages with the beginning of the translation. Before the translation begins there are another four pages which are not numbered. The first contains, right in the centre of the otherwise empty page, the stamp of Al-Kutub Khanah Al-Khidewiah Al-Misriyyah, The Khidewi Egyptian Library. In the second or opposite page we find the same stamp besides some writings presumably added by different librarians at different periods of time. At the top of the page in the centre we find the following sentence Wfiq lil lah t’ala, Here I think there is an error of spelling (the letters F and Q in Arabic are written in same way but the first has one point above the letter, while the second has two points) for the word should be Waqf, i.e., “A Gift For God The Almighty”. Below there is the following sentence: Muhdar Min Sayyidna Al-Hussein Fi Mars 1876: “Brought from Al-Hussein Mosque in March 1876”, shown as follows: Wa Udifa Fi Maio ‘An 223: “And was added on May to 223”. Below the stamp we read: Al-Mujallad Al-Rabi’ Min Musannafat Nicolaws Fi Al-Tawarikh Wa Fi ‘Ilm Husn Al-Tadbir Fi AlAhkam, i.e., “The Fourth Volume of the Classifications of Nicolas on the Histories, and on the Science of Good Administration of Governments”. There is also the word Tarikh, “History” and number 435 which is the section and the number under which I found the manuscript. Below and on the left of the same page are other numbers whose purpose I cannot identify. Most probably they are the different positions of the manuscript in various libraries or shelves. The third and the fourth pages contain Father Zakhur’s Introduction (to which I will be referring in due course). Maria Nallino, who had the manuscript in hand adopted another numeration. She placed pages 1-2 after pages 3-4. At all events, Nallino always talked about 82 pages. The manuscript is divided as follows: From page 1 to page 35; nine pages missing; from page 44 to page 143; five pages missing; from page 148 to page 155. With page 155 the translation of The Prince is interrupted. After that we immediately find page 14 (1-13 are missing) that belongs to another text entitled Muqaddimat fi haq al umam or Premesse intorno al diritto delle genti as translated by Nallino:“An Introduction on The Nation’s Rights”. From page 14 the text goes on to page 28, where in the centre of the last page we find the last two words of that chapter and below is the word Tamma, i.e., “finished”.

The first Arabic translation

291

The manuscript is further divided in 25 Rass/ fasl, i.e., chapters as shown below: Al Rass 1 page 4; Al Rass 2 page 4; Al Rass 3 page 6; Al Rass 4 page 20; Al Rass 5 page 25; Al Rass 6 page 27; Al Rass 7 page 33; Al Fasl 8 page 47; Al Fasl 9 page 54; Al Fasl 10 page 60; Al Fasl 11 page 64; Al Fasl 12 page 68; Al Rass 13 page 78; Al Rass 14 page 84; Al Rass 15 page 89; Al Rass 17 page 96; Al Rass 18 page 102; Al Rass 19 page 107; Al Rass 20 page 127; Al Rass 21 page 134; Al Rass 22 page 141; Al Rass 23 page 143; Al Rass 24 (the beginning of this chapter is missing, it extends onto pages 148, 149 and part of page 150); Al Rass 25 page 150.

Illustrating the Introduction is a sketch, done by the translator: a pyramidshaped drawing made up of commas and small circles. Each chapter is announced by a motif on both sides of the number and the title of the chapter creating a kind of a frame. The end of each chapter is marked by a one cm slash. Each page contains twenty lines. When a chapter finishes before the end of the page, the following chapter starts immediately beneath, except for page 3 and the last page. Some chapters are incomplete. Al Rass or chapter 7 extends for two pages and then it is interrupted from page 35 to page 44. After that, the chapter continues for another three pages to the end of it. Of Al Rass 23 there is only one paragraph. Of Al Rass 24 the beginning is missing, and then it continues for two pages and a half and finishes. Al Rass 25 goes on for six pages, is then interrupted and followed by page 14 of the other text. Moreover, the text undergoes another kind of division: It is divided into a number of Kurrases (or notebooks) as follows: Kurras 1 page 1; Kurras 2 page 16; Kurras 3 page 32; Kurras 4 page 48; Kurras 5 page 63; Kurras 6 page 80; Kurras 7 page 96; Kurras 8 page 112; Kurras 9 page 128; Supposedly he went on with Kurras 10 of which we do not have the beginning. As the other text starts from page 14, one can not tell that it follows the same division, i.e., in Kurrases. A copy of the Introduction to the manuscript40 is no doubt useful for it gives the reader an idea about the page form, the length of each line and about the calligraphy of the translator. Zakhur chose to write with Khat AlNaskh. It also shows the drawing on the top of the page and to which I referred to above. Here follows my English translation41 of the introduction:

40 41

See Introduction to the Arabic Translation in Appendix. All translations are mine.

292

Arap El Ma’ani

We start with the help of God, we give testimony that there exists no power nor capacity but his. Thanks to God according to whose will, events and news are transmitted, and up to his judgment and contemplation events occur all along the centuries. He revealed to some sons of Adam the line of conduct of others, so that they become less unknown for him who works hard. In this way they can decide what is the best for them, and what is the most suitable of what they come to know about through traditions, instructions and signs. In line with these traditions, the politicians and those in power follow what they consider to be more suitable for them. By doing this, they can excel in the science of behaviour and in organizations. So they can avoid mishaps, harms, catastrophes, traps of the wicked and falling out of favour. I thank him for what he has given me of capacity of research and exactness of valuation. He who asks the support of God the omnipotent, the merciful and the generous, his slave, Father Raphel Antoun Zakhur Rahib (monk), says: I received orders from him whose orders I am obliged to obey, His excellence the beneficent Haj Mohammad Ali. His are victory and pride, the honorable minister viceroy of Egypt, Unique among his fellow men and parents, God may make him live a long time and keep his honor and power. I was ordered to translate the book known as The Prince by Master Machiavelli on the science of politics and administration. So I translated it from Italian into Arabic for the benefit of those who are engaged in directive charges. This translation is almost exact, to be for him who consults it clear and explicit. I had to engage in the greatest of efforts of efforts and exercise diligence, and took every possible care because the book is old in its syntactic constructions and complex in its meanings, since it was written in 1600. I invoke the help of God at the beginning of the work, and I thank him at the end.

The first thing was to know from which language did Zakhur translate The Prince. Zakhur knew French, Italian and other languages. From his long experience in France and with the French one might be motivated to think that the text of origin is in French, but I could not ignore the fact that Zakhur knew Italian as well. The problem was resolved when I had the manuscript in hand. In his Introduction, Zakhur states clearly that he used an Italian text for the translation: Faqad naqaltuhu min al-arabiyyah ila al italiyyah, “So I translated it from Italian into Arabic”. The original text is Italian, but which edition did he adopt? In the manuscript and in all of the readings I examined, there was no indication of the edition used for the translation. A sentence in the line before the last in the Introduction draws attention to this. It says: Lianna Ta’flifahu kana fi Amm Alf Wa Sitmayah i.e., “because it (The Prince) was written in 1600”. Zakhur did not know the exact date of the composition. I presume he did not know about the existence of editions before 1600. This, if the hypothesis is correct, excludes all of the Italian editions before that year. Had he had an earlier edition he would have stated it clearly, because he was arguing that the text was very old and complex in its syntax and meanings, so he would have written the first or oldest date he ever had at his disposal. However, not being sure about which edition, I decided to make a comparison between Zakhur’s words and some Italian editions. Mi aim is (if

The first Arabic translation

293

possible) to identify the original text, to tell how precise Zakhur was in his translation and to what extent he was faithful to the original text. A further step would be to justify the translator’s choice of words and constructions, by making reference to the prevailing historical and religious context in Egypt at that period. The Italian edition of Blado 1532 will do as a basis and a reference for my analysis. The study will concern well-known phrases and sentences. Chap. XVI Blado (p. 21r)

Dico come sarebbe bene esser’ tenuto liberale, non dimanco la liberalità usata in modo che tù sia temuto ti offende… Un’ principe cosi fatto consumerà in simili opere tutte le sue facultà

Testina 36)

(p.

Dico come sarebbe bene esser tenuto liberale: Nondimanco la liberalità vsata in modo, che tu non sia temuto, ti offende […] vn Principe così fatto consumera in simili opere tutte le sue facoltà

Zakhur 92)

(p.

Fa Aqoolu kaifa an yakuna al mar’u Mahsooban sakhiyan haqiqatan , wa ma’ thalik fal sakha’u al musta’mal ala nahui annka la takuno multaziman bihi. Hatha yadurruk […] Al Amir dayman takun hathihi jablatuhu yasrifu fi a‘mal hathihi al sifah sifatuha amwallahu kulluh

Eng. trans.

I say how a man should be considered really generous. Generousity should be of a kind that you are not obliged to keep. This damages you […] a prince of this nature wastes all of his fortune in order to keep this quality.

This chapter is entitled On Generosity and Meanness. Liberality here is translated as generosity. Zakhur understands it as follows: It is good for a person to be considered extremely generous. Yet he should not feel obliged to be extremely generous because if one day he cannot keep this level of generosity anymore because of lack of means, this will do harm to his reputation, and he will find himself obliged to find money by any means (even through imposing taxes on the population) to maintain his reputation as generous, and this will arouse the rage of the population. In this way generosity becomes harmful. It is also harmful because a prince of this nature would waste his fortune to gain a reputation as a generous man. So he says: be generous in a moderate way, so that if you are moderately generous it will

294

Arap El Ma’ani

not be noticed, and if you stop being generous you will never be accused of meanness (for you have never been known as extremely generous). Chap. XVIII Blado 1532 (p. 24r)

essendo spesso necessitato per mantener’ lo stato, operar’ contro à la fede, contro à la charità, contro à l’ humanità, contro à la religione.

Testina 1636-46? (p. 41)

essendo spesso neceßitato per mantenere lo Stato, operare contro alla humanità, contro alla charità, contro alla Religione

Conring 1660 (p. 71)

quoniam saepisse cogitur agere contra humanitatem, contra caritatem, contra religionem

Amelot 1683 (p. 148)

parce que les besoins de son Etat l’obligent souvent de violer la Foi, & d’agir contre la charité, l’humanité, & la Religion

Zakhur (p. 105)

Itha kana yalzamuhu fi al ghalib li hifth al-hukm an yafa’la didd AlInsaniyyah, didd Al-Rahmah, wa didd al-diyanah

Eng.trans.

If he frequently needs, in order to keep power, to operate against humanity, against charity and against religion.

In this passage, Zakhur uses three terms: Insaniyyah (humanity), rahmah (charity) and diyanah (religion). We do not find the term Faith in the manuscript, a term used by Blado. In the following passage, Zakhur translates “faith” (fede) as honesty. He uses the term Al-Amanah (honesty) and distinguishes it from Diyanah (Religion). This means that he is aware of both concepts, and admits the possibility of being honest without being religious. This idea of separation between religion and honesty is in contrast with the received wisdom of the time, when Islam based all good qualities on religion and stated that there was no humanity, honesty or charity outside religion.

The first Arabic translation

295

Chap.VIII Blado (pp. 12r12v)

Non si può chiamare ancor’ virtù amazare li suoi cittadini, tradir’ gli amici, esser’ senza fede, senza pietà senza religione, li quali modi posson’ far’ acquistar’ Imperio, ma non gloria perche se si considerasse la virtù de Agathocle ne l’intrar’, et nel’uscir’ d’ e pericoli, et la grandeza del’animo suo nel’ supportar’, et superar’le cose adverse non si vede perche egli habbi ad esser’ tenuto inferiore a qual’si sia eccellentissimo Capitano.

Testina (p. 19)

Non si può chiamare ancora virtù, ammazzare li suoi cittadini, tradire li amici, essere senza fede, senza pietà, senza religione; li quali modi possono fare acquistare Imperio, ma non gloria. Perche se si considerasse la virtù di Agatocle nell’entrare & nell’vscire de’ pericoli, & la grandezza dell’animo suo nel sopportare & superare le cose avverse, non si vede perche egli habbi ad esser tenuto inferiore a qual si sia eccellentissimo Capitano.

Zakhur (p. 49)

wa la ymkin an yuda’ aydan fadlan katl abna’ baldateh, wa khiyanat alashab, wa an yahuna al-inssan khalian min al amanah, wa khuluwan min rahmah, wa khuluwan min diyanah, fa inna hathihi al-masalik qad ymkinuha an tukassiba saltanatan la majdan, li annahu itha u’tubira Agatoklas wa fadlihi fi dukhulihi wa khuroujihi mina al-akhtar, wa athamat qalbuh fi ihtimali al diddiyyat wa al fawaqu alayha, fa la yura limatha yaqtadi lahu an yakuna ma’dudan adna min ayyuha sariyun ‘ali al-qar.

Eng. trans.

It is not possible to call virtue murdering one’s own compatriots, betraying friends, and for a man to be deprived of honesty, and deprival of mercy, deprival of religion, for these methods may allow one to gain power but not glory, because if we consider Agatoklas and his virtue in getting in and out of dangers and the magnificence of his heart in supporting controversies and overcoming them, it can’t be seen why he should be considered inferior to any other honorable soldier.

296

Arap El Ma’ani

Chap. XVIII Blado (p. 23v)

Essendo adunque un’ Principe necessitato saper’ ben’ usar’ la bestia, debbe di quelle pigliar’ la Volpe, & il Leone

Testina (p. 40)

Essendo adunque vn Principe neceßitato saper bene vsare la bestia, debbe di quella pigliare la Volpe & il Lione

Zakhur (p. 103)

Wa ith Thaka Fa lamma kana Ahad al umara’ mudtaran li an ya’rifa gayidan an yumarisa al bahiim, yanbaghi lahu an yattakhitha min thaka al tha’laba wa al sab’

Eng. trans.

Taking this into consideration, since one of the princes is obliged to know very well how to be like an animal, he should choose among these the fox and the lion.

The translater uses the term mudtaran (obliged to) instead of necessitato (he needs to). He also uses an yumarisa (becoming or behaving like a beast) which seems more inhuman than usare la bestia (using the beast). Chap. XVIII Blado (p. 23v)

Bisogna adunque esser’ Volpe à conoscer’ i lacci, & Leone à sbigottir’ e Lupi.

Testina (p. 40)

Bisogna adunque essere Volpe à conoscere i lacci, & Lione à sbigottire i Lupi.

Zakhur 103)

Yahtaju an yakuna al amiru tha’laban li ma’rifati al fikhakh thumma wa saba’an li yurhiba al thiyab

Eng. trans.

(p.

The prince needs to be a fox to be able to recognize the traps, and a lion to frighten the wolves

The first Arabic translation

297

Coloro che stanno semplicemente insul’ Leone, non sene intendono. Non può per tanto un’ signor’ prudente, ne debbe osseruar’ la fede, quando tal’ osseruantia gli torni contrò & che sono spente la cagioni che la fecen’ promettere

Blado (p. 23v)

Testina 40)

(p.

Coloro che stanno simplicemente in s’ul Lione, non se ne intendono. Non può per tanto vn Signore prudente, ne debbe osseruare la fede, quando tale osseruantia gli torni contro, & che sono spente le cagioni che la feceno promettere

Zakhur 103)

(p.

Fa allathina fi sulukihim yatawaqafoona ala mujaradi ma’na tariqat al sab’ la yafhamoona thalika, wa lihatha fala yastatee’ sayidan ‘aqilan wa la yaltazim bihifthi al ‘ahd wa al amanah indama yakunu hifth hathihi al sifah sifatuhu yaoodu diddahu wa qad intafa’t al asbab allati ja’lathu yua’hid

Eng. trans.

Those who, in their behaviour, are limited to the way of the lion, do not understand that, so a wise man cannot and should not keep alliance and honesty when keeping these qualities turns out to be against him and when the motivations that made him enter into an alliance are burnt-out.

In this passage Zakhur tries to translate the Italian metaphor (sono spente le cagioni) literally from Italian and uses the word Intafa’at (turned off). This is a strange use in Arabic language for we do not say al asbab intafa’t (the reasons are turned off), but intahat or inqadat (came to end). Chap. XIX Blado (p. 25v)

le cose di carico metter’ sopra d’altri, & le cose di gratia à se medesimi

Testina (p. 44)

le cose di carico, fare sumministrare ad altri, & quelle di gratie à lor medesimi

Zakhur

Al umaur al mukhtassah bel wathayef yadaounaha lil akhariin li an udabberooha, wa amma tilka al muta’llikah bel Inaa’mat takhtassoonaha li thawatihim.

(p. 113)

Eng. trans.

Things that concern jobs they should leave for others to administrate, while things regarding benefits they should keep for them selves.

298

Arap El Ma’ani

In this passage Zakhur misunderstands the Italian word carico (which means things that can bring unpopularity or that can do harm to the prince’s reputation), as things regarding job, or career problems. The Arabic word wathayif means jobs. Chap. XIX Blado (p. 26r)

perche non potendo i Principi mancar’ di non esser’ odiati, da qualcuno si debbon’ prima sforzare di non esser odiati da l’università, & quando non poson’ conseguir’ questo si debbon’ ingegnar’ con ogni industria fuggir’ l’odio di quelle uniuersitati che sono più potenti

Testina (p. 44)

perche, non potendo i Principi mancare di non essere odiati da qualcuno si debbono prima sforzare di non essere odiati dall’vniversità: & quando non possono conseguire questo si debbono ingegnare con ogni industria fuggire l’odio di quelle università che sono più potenti

Zakhur (p. 115)

Li annahu in kana al umara’ la yaqdiroona an yanqusu ‘an an yakunu mabghoudiin min ba’d, faqad yaltazimouna awallan bian yasrifoo jahdahum fi an la takunu mabghoudiin min al aa’m, wa itha lam ymkinuhum tahsiil thalika fayaqtadi lahu an yatabaraa’ bisinaa’h fi al harab min baghdat tilka al - aa’mah min al ashaddu iqtidaran.

Eng. trans.

Because if princes cannot avoid being hated by someone, they should first spend every effort in order not to be hated by the public, and if they cannot obtain this, they should work with diligence to escape the hatred of that part of the public which is the strongest.

Here Raphael mistakes the word università for universalità. Machiavelli uses the word università, which means corporation or a group in power, Zakhur reads it or understands it as universality, meaning the public or the whole society. He commits an error when he says that inside universality there are different types of universality of which some are strong and others are weak. In this paragraph the literal translation sounds very strange in Arabic. Zakhur writes: Al Umara’ la yaqdiroona an yanqusou ‘an an, which is a literal translation for the Italian I principi non possono mancare. The structure non mancare: La yanqusu ‘an an does not exist in Arabic. An alterantive might be la yastatiouna an. Or la yastatiiouna an yatajanabou an. The same goes for faqad yaltazimoona which is grammatically wrong. An

The first Arabic translation

299

alternative could be: Yajib ‘alayim an yaltazimou, meaning they should make an effort or in Italian debbono impegnarsi. Chap. VII

Chap. XII

Chap. XXI

Blado

Francesco Sforza

Alberigo da Como

Bernardo

Testina

Francesco Sforza

Alberigo da Como

Bernardo

Conring

Franciscum Sfortiam

Albericus Comensis

Bernardo

Amelot 1686

François Sforce

Albèric da Conio

Barnabé

Zakhur

Fransis Sforza / Sforsa

Alberigo, wa Comos min bilad Romania (Alberigo, and Comos from the lands of Romania)

Bernaboh

Zakhur mistakenly thinks the name Alberigo da Como is two different names, which he separates by a comma and by wa (and). From these comparisons between the most famous Italian editions I was unable to determine the original text adopted by Don Raphael. It is neither Blado nor Testina. In chapter XVI Blado’s esser tenuto and Testina’s non sia temuto do not correspond to Raphael’s not obliged. In chapter XVIII Blado uses the term fede, which is absent in Raphael’s manuscript. Raphael uses Bernaboh while Testina and Blado use Bernardo. Even Amelot is to be excluded because in chapter XII he uses Conio while Raphael writes Comos. For Nallino, Zakhur’s translation is very literal. She also finds the text incomprehensible due to the use of some syntactic constructions that are untypical of Arabic such as the frequent use of the passive voice. This is why she presumes that the text must have appeared linguistically barbarian and poor, as well as obscure in content, to the correctors of Bulaq typography. I disagree with Nallino about the text being incomprehensible if not accompanied by the Italian text. It is true that Zakhur translates literally, as we saw in the previous examples. It is also true that he commits mistakes in the use of language: like the mistake he makes in chapter VIII when he says: Al Fawaq alayha, instead of Al Tafawwqu alyha. There are difficulties in

300

Arap El Ma’ani

handwriting like the misleading letters f, t, q and problems of the superimposition of two or three letters for reasons of space, and other difficulties that I will deal with later on, but the text still seems to me legible and comprehensible. In various other passages Zakhur proves to be an excellent translator. In chapter XIX, for example, it is interesting to see that the Arab translator was very careful with the use of negation. The sentence non poter mancare di non essere odiati means “to be loved”. In English it reads: not being able to avoid not to be hated, while it should be as Zakhur writes it not being able to avoid to be hated, because the negative is already expressed by the structure non potendo mancare. Zakhur understands the meaning and translates the sentence perfectly. This illustrates that he mastered the text. The same can be said about the afore-mentioned chapter XVI. The target language is literary Arabic. However, while reading I came across some words written as they are pronounced in Egyptian dialect, but there is no surprise in that for Zakhur was a specialist in colloquial Arabic (i.e. Egyptian dialect) rather than literary Arabic. Some examples on Egyptian dialect may be: Tukassib meaning may let gain or may enable to gain. Also, al-amiriyyah instead of al-imarah. The word qabayeh is written with both the hamzah and the two points. With the hamzah which is the correct version it is pronounced Qabai’h, while with the two points it is the dialectical pronunciation Qabayeh. The manuscript was never printed. Various reasons might have caused it to be banned. First of all censorship. Zakhur faced numerous obstacles and suffered from serious limitations in his activity because the Ottomans were very suspicious of Christians who worked in France or for the French. A second reason may simply be the fact that Mohammad Ali was not so enthusiastic about The Prince and preferred another work42 to it, namely the Arab version of The Prince, which is beyond the scope of this paper and which I will discuss in another forum. A third reason, as Nallino says, is the weakness of language used in the text. Nallino in fact was able to inspect the manuscript personally and described it but judged it unworthy of publishing. Furthermore, it seems that Mohammad Ali had taken this translation out of circulation.43 I suppose that the Bascia did not see any need for helping the population to understand the mechanisms of power, that is why he seques42 43

The aforementioned Mukaddimat Ibn Khaldoun (Introduction by Ibn Khaldun). “Le vice-Roi sera toujours le maître unique et suprême. Il reçoit les avis, les opinions, les suggestions, mais c’est lui qui ordonne, accepte ou refuse. Tout au long de son règne, il regardera l’Egypte comme sa propriété et ses cinq millions d’habitants comme ses créatures”: Sinoué, p. 158.

The first Arabic translation

301

tered it. I’m aware of the fact that such a behaviour may damage Mohammad Ali’s fame as the light of Orient, “Luce dell’Oriente”. It also gives rise to doubts about the sincerity of Mohammad Ali’s modernization attempts.44 This enlightenment movement was in fact limited to the elite. Rifaa at-Tahtawi dovette essere addolorato nell’apprendere che proprio Mohammad Alì, che lo aveva mandato a Parigi per istruirsi, avesse sequestrato il manoscritto e ne avesse vietato la pubblicazione.45

To consider both Mohammad Ali Bascia and Machiavelli on the same plane with regard to their political ideas and actions seemed very curious to me, for it demonstrates that both western and oriental worlds employ the same political strategies, with the only difference that while in the western world the policy was and continues to be declared and thus studied, in the Arab world it is disguised and concealed. This interest in political theory is valid only in certain circumstances, in others one does not give the least importance to theory and no strategy is adopted for hiding the brutality of a political practice: everything is done openly and one does not feel the need for a theoretical justification to make an action appear less illicit. In the Middle East, in a context which oppresses thought, the capacity of reflection and totally limits the use of reason, Zakhur was one of the few who succeeded in introducing new thoughts into the Arab Islamic world. Among the first was Averroës (1126-1198) in the field of philosophy. He fought hard against the superficial interpretation of Islamic thought that encouraged ignorance and was against rationality and science. He was accused of heresy and exiled after the burning of his books in public. Others were burned alive. The study and translation of western works paved the way for a mental awakening known as al-nahdah (or “cultural revival”) which started in the second half of the nineteenth century thanks to figures like Qasim Amin (1865-1908) a secularist who considered religion as inadequate to create government and civility; the brothers Taqla in the field of journalism; Ahmad Lutfi Al-Sayyed (1872-1963), brought up with European positivism having read Comte, Mill, Spenser, who saw individual freedom as a most precious right; Mohammad Abduh (1849-1905), who worked on the reformation of the educational system and believed in al-Islam as a religion of rationality; 44

45

“Méhémet Ali résiste à la tentation d’interdire le journal (Le journal de Smyrne – animé par Bousquet-Deschamps) car il tient à montrer à l’opinion publique égyptienne et européenne que la liberté de la presse existe dans son pays”: Fargette, p. 207. D. Diner, ‘Nazionalismi e Fondamentalismi. Islam: alle soglie della modernità’, Il Regno, 16, 2004: text is reported entirely from web site: http://www.conflittidimenticati.it/cd/a/17530 .html (consulted on 10.02.2009).

302

Arap El Ma’ani

Rifa’ah Al-Tahtawi, a contemporary of Zakhur; Shibly Shumayyel (18501917), who declared that in the Arab world three things were lacking: science, justice and freedom; Salama Musa (1887-1958), a supporter of Darwin; Taha Hussein (1889-1973) like Mohammad Abduh was in favour of a profound reformation of the educational system in Egypt and was accused of going against the Arabic-Islamic traditions. Zakhur deserves equal recognition for his faithful translation of The Prince even though it contradicted his beliefs as a religious man and with the morals of his culture. For this, Zakhur deserves respect and appreciation, and the translation (beyond any linguistic evaluation) deserves to be published — besides the fact it is the first translation ever into Arabic. Eighty-eight years would pass before the second Arabic translation (1912) came to light — that of Mohammad Lutfi Gum’ah.46

Bibliography Acerbi, Giuseppe, ‘Lettera del Signor Cons. Acerbi, console generale di S.M.I.R.A. in Egitto al Signor Cons. Giromi, Biblioteca della Bibl. Imp. di Brera in Milano, intorno ad alcuni codici arabi portati d’Egitto e trasmessi in dono alla Biblioteca suddetta ed alla Biblioteca Imperiale di Vienna’, Biblioteca Italiana, tomo LXI, Milano 1831, pp. 289-290 Bachatly, Ch., ‘Un manuscrit autographe de Don Raphael membre de l’Institut d’Egypte (1798)’, Bulletin de l’Institut d’Egypte, t. XIII, session 1930-1931, Le Caire, 1931, pp. 27-35 Diner, D., ‘Nazionalismi e Fondamentalismi. Islam: alle soglie della modernità’, Il Regno, 16, 2004: text is reported entirely from web site: http://www.conflittidimenticati.it/cd/a/17530.html (consulted on 10.02.2009) [Du Casse, A.]. Mémoires et correspondance politique et militaire du roi Joseph, publiés, annotés et mis en ordre par A. Du Casse (Paris: Perrotin, 1854) 46

Mohammad Lutfi Gum’ah is author of different literarian works, and different literary publications on the history of philosophy and sociology. His translation of The Prince is preceded by the biography of Machiavelli (pp. 3-20), and by comments on other authors’ (Gum’ah) works like Ricordi del Machiavelli (pp. 30-39) and L’ultima notte (pp. 40-50) which is a fantastic description of the death of the great Florentine author. Nallino (p. 614) comments: “Dal punto di vista linguistico e della forma la traduzione è superiore di gran lunga a quella di Raffael Zakhur”.

The first Arabic translation

303

Fargette, Guy, Méhémet Ali, le Fondateur de l’Egypte Moderne (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1996) Hamzah, Dalya ‘Nineteenth-Century Egypt as Dynastic Locus of Universality: The History of Muhammad ‘Ali by Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Rajabi’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, vol. 27, No. 1, 2007, Duke University Press Leeden, M., Il Principe dei neocons - un Machiavelli per il XXI secolo (Roma: Nuove Idee, 2004) Moosa, Matti, ‘The Origins of Modern Arabic Fiction’ in The translation of Western Fiction. 2nd Edition. A Three Continents Books (Boudler & London: Lynne Rienner Publishers 1997) Nallino, Maria, ‘Intorno A Due Traduzioni Arabe Del Principe Del Machiavelli’, Oriente Moderno, XI, Gennaio-Dicembre (1931), pp. 604-616 Pajal, Le Comte, Kléber, sa vie, sa correspondance (Paris 1877) Rigault, Georges, Le Général Abdallah Menon et la dernière phase de l’expédition d’Egypte (Paris: 1802) Salmawy, Mohamed, ‘Une Imprimerie à Grande Valeur Historique’, AlAhram on-line, Semaine du 18 au 24 juillet 2007, numéro 671: http:// hebdo.ahram.org.eg/arab/ahram/2007/7/25/opin1.htm. ——., ‘Un Musée ou un Garage’, Al-Ahram on-line, Semaine du 25 au 31 Juillet 2007, n. 672: http:// hebdo.ahram.org.eg/arab/ahram/2007/7/25/opin1.htm. Al-Shayyal, Jamal Al-Din, Tariikh al-Tarjamah wa al-harakah alThaqafiyyah Fi Asr Muhammad ‘Ali (Cairo: Dar Al-Fikr Al-Arabi, 1951) ——., ‘Kaifa wa Mata Arafat Masr Kitab Al-Amiir’, in Al-Katib Al-Masri, vol. 4. Nr.13, October 1946, Dar Al-kitab Al-Masri, Cairo, pp. 107-116 Sinoué, Gilbert, Le Dernier Pharaon, Paris, Pygmalion Gérard Watelet, 1997 Stephens, John Lloyd; Von Hagen, Victor Wolfgang, Incidents of Travel in Egypt, Arabia Petraea and the Holy Land (New York: Dover Publications, 1996)

Further readings Abbas, Raouf, ‘Transforming Egypt’, Al-Ahram weekly On-Line, 12-18 May 2005, Issue No. 742 Al-Adi, Sabri, ‘All Pasha’s Papers’, Al-Ahram Weekly, 12-18 May, 2005, Issue No. 742 Al Aqqad, Abbas Mahmoud, Mohammad Abduh. 2nd edition. s.d. Al Mu’assasah Al Mesriyyah Al Aamah Lil Ta’lif wa Al trajamah wa Al tiba’ah

304

Arap El Ma’ani

Antonius, George, The Arab Awakening (New York: Capricorn Books 1965) Campanini, Massimo, Storia del Medio Oriente 1798-2005 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2006) El-Gemeiy, Abdel-Moneim, ‘Educating Egypt’, Al-Ahram weekly On-Line, 27 October-2 November, Issue No. 766 Gran, Peter, ‘Tahtawi In Paris’, Al-Ahram weekly On-Line, 10-16 January 2002, Issue No. 568 Mahmoud, Hassan, ‘Awdah Ila Machiavelli Wa Amiruhu’ (Back to Machiavelli and His Prince), Al-Katib Al-Masri, Vol. 3, Nr. 11, August 1946, pp. 447-453 Minganti, Paolo, ‘Maria Nallino (1908-1974)’, Oriente Moderno, Anno LIV, Nr. 9-10 Settembre-Ottobre 1974, Roma Istituto Per L’Oriente, pp. 560563 Owen, Roger, Muhammad Ali: ‘A View From The New World’, Al-Ahram weekly On-Line, 7-13 July, 2005, Issue No. 750 Al Sulh, Imad, Ahmad Faris Al Shedyaq Atharuh wa A’sruh (Beirut: Dar al Nahar lil Nashr, 1980)

Appendix

Appendix

307

Chronological Summary Sixteenth century 1513 (july-december) Machiavelli writes down De principatibus 1523 Agostino Nifo, De Regnandi Peritia (a censored Latin translation of Il Principe) 1532 1st printings of Il Principe (in Rome by Antonio Blado and in Florence by Bernardo di Giunta) 1546 Jacques de Vintimille, 1st unpublished French translation of Principe 1553 Guillaume Cappel, 1st published French translation (Paris: Charles Estienne) 1553 Gaspard d'Auvergne, 2nd published French translation (Poitiers: E. de Marnef) 1559 Machiavelli included in the [Pauline] Index librorum prohibitorum 1560 Silvestro Tegli, 1st Latin translation (Basileæ: Petrus Perna) 1564 Machiavelli again in the [Tridentine] Index 1571 Jacques Gohory, French translation based on Cappel (Paris: R. Le Mangnier) 1576 Innocent Gentillet, Discours sur les moyens de bien gouverner [the 1st Anti-Machiavell] (Genève) from about 1590 to 1686: three unpublished Spanish translations of Principe and others works Machiavelli’s from about 1590 to 1600: unpublished Scottish and English translations Seventeenth century 1615 A. van Nievelt, 1st Dutch translation based on d’Auvergnes 1636-46 Tutte le opere [Testina D edition] 1640 E.D. [Edward Dacres], 1st published English translation (London: R. Bishop) 1660, 1686 and 1730 Hermann Conring, 2nd Latin translation (Helmestadii: H. Mullerus) 1675 Henry Nevile translates The work of the famous Nicholas Machiavel (London: printed for John Starkey) 1683, 1684, 1686, 1694 Nicolas Amelot de la Houssaie, 4th French translation (Amsterdam: H. Wetstein)

308

Appendix

1692 Albrecht von Lenz, Der Fürst, 1st unpublished German translation 1699 Caspar Langenheert, 3rd Latin translation (Amstelædami: Janssonio Wæsbergios) Eighteenth century 1705 Daniel Ghys, 2nd Dutch translation, based on Amelot (Den Haag: E. Boucquet) 1714 Anon., Lebens- und Regierungs-Maximen 1st published German translation (“Cölln, bey P. Marteau”) 1740 [Voltaire and Frederick of Prussia,] Anti-Machiavel ou Examen […] (la Haye: J. Van Duren) [including Principe in Amelot’s French translation of 1683] 1740 Anti-Machiavel ou Examen […] (Londres: G. Mayer) [including Principe in Amelot’s translation] 1740 Anti-Machiavel ou Essai de Critique […] (la Haye: J. Van Duren) [including Principe in Amelot’s translation] 1741 [W.B.A. von Steinwehr,] 1st German translation of Anti-Machiavel (Göttingen: Königl. Universitäts-Buchhandlung, but also Frankfurt-Leipzig) [including the 3rd German translation with the title “Regierungskunst eines Fürsten”] 1742 2nd edition of German Anti-Machiavel (Göttingen: Königl. Universitäts-Buchhandlung) 1745 3rd edition of German Anti-Machiavel (Frankfurt/M.) 1745 [von Steinwehr,] Nic. Machiavels von der Regierungskunst eines Fürsten (Frankfurt und Leipzig) [separate printing of the German translation from Anti-Machiavel 1745] 1756 4th edition of German Anti-Machiavel and 2nd edition of Regierungskunst eines Fürsten (Hannover und Leipzig: bey Johann Wilhelm Schmidt) 1757 Carl Klingenberg, 1st Swedish translation (Stockholm: Grefing) 1762 3rd edition of Regierungskunst eines Fürsten (Hannover und Leipzig: Schmidt) 1762 Ellis Farneworth, The Works of Nicholas Machiavel Newly translated (London: Th. Davies) 1766 4th edition of Regierungskunst eines Fürsten (Hamburg)

Appendix

Distribution of Manuscripts and Printings Latin 1546 1553 1560 1571 1590 1615 1640 1660 1675 1680 1683 1691 1692 1697 1699 1705 1714 1741 1757 1762 […] 1821 1824 […] 1912

French mn print

Ned.

Engl.

Ger.

Sw.

Span.

Arab.

print print mn

mn

print print print print mn print print mn print print print

mn = unpublished print = published print = published in the Low Countries

print print print print print mn print

309

Appendix

311

Comparison of Selected Passages a. Some Names MS

Chapter VII Francesco Sforza

Chapter XII Alberico da (di) Conio romagnuolo

Chapter XXI messer Barnabò da Milano

Blado

Francesco Sforza

Alberigo da Como Romagnuolo

Misser’ Bernardo da Milano

Vintimille

Françoys Sforce

Bernard de Milan

Auvergne

Francisque Sforze

Alberic de Conio romagnol Albert de Come Romagnolle

Tegli

Franciscum Sfortiam

Albericus Comensis è Flaminia

Bernardi Mediolanensis

Wolfe

Francesco Sforza

Alberigo da Como Romagnuolo

Bernardo da Milano

Fowler

[Chap. VII missing]

Albert erle of romainye

Bernard of Milan

English trans. A

Frauncis Sfortia

Bernardus of Millayne

English trans. B

Ffrancis Sforza

Albericus Comensis of the Province of Romagnia Alderic the Earle of Romagnia

English trans. C

Frances Sforza

Aberigo da Como of Romagna

Barnarde of Millane

Testina

Francesco Sforza

Alberigo da Como Romagnuolo

Messer Bernardo da Milano

Nyeveld

Fransoys Sforzia

Albrecht van Come Romagnolle

mijn Heer Bernaert van Milane

Dacres

Francis Sforza

Alberick of Como in Romania

Bernard of Milan

Conring

Franciscum Sfortiam

Albericus Comensis e Flaminia

Bernardo mediolanensi

Amelot

François Sforce

Albèric da Conio, Gentilhomme de la Romagne

Barnabé, seigneur de Milan

Bernard de Milan

Barnard of Millain

312

Appendix

1st Spanish trans.

Francisco Esforçia

Aberico de Como

Bernardo de Milán

2nd Spanish trans.

Francisco Esforcia

Alberico de Como

Bernardo de Milan

Lenz

Franc. Sforza

Albericen von Conio […] aus der Romania

Barnaba von Mailand

Ghys

Fransois Sforce

Alberik da Conio, Edelman van Romagne

Barnabe, Heere van Milaan

LRM

Franziskus Sforzia

Albericus da Conio aus Romagna

RK

Franziskus Sforzia

Klingenb.

Francisci Sforces (Franciscus Sforce) Fransis Sforza / Sforsa

ein Edelmann aus Romagna, Albericus da Conio Alberic af Conio

Barnaba dem Hertzoge von Mayland Herrn von Mailand Barnabas

Zakhur

Alberigo, wa Comos min bilad Romania (Alberigo, and Comos from the lands of Romania)

Bernard, Herren af Milan Bernaboh

Appendix

313

b. From Chapter XVI MS Blado Vintimille Auvergne Tegli Wolfe Fowler

English trans. A English trans. B English trans. C Nyeveld Testina Dacres Conring Amelot 1st Spanish trans. 2nd Spanish trans. Lenz Ghys LRM RK Klingenb. Zakhur

Nondimanco la liberalità, usata in modo che tu sia tenuto, ti offende non dimanco la liberalità usata in modo che tù sia temuto ti offende telle libéralité le plus souvent tourne à nuysance au prince, si pour user dicelle il se fait craindre ou malvouloir du peuple Si est ce que la liberalité exercée en maniere que lon s’en face craindre plus, qu’on ne doit, est fort dangereuse. nihilominus ita liberalitate uti, ut metuaris, sane obest non di manco la liberalità usata in modo, che tu sia temuto, ti offende Notwithstanding liberaletie exercesed efter sic a maner that therby a prence sal mak him to be feired mair then neideth is very dangerous and hurtfull vnto the notwithstandinge to be soe free in his liberalitie that his subiectes should haue cause to feare his lavishinge, is verie daungerous neuerthelesse thy liberallitie soe imployed as thou bee feared, thereby is hurtfull to thee neuerthelesse that liberaliti which is vsed in suche sorte, as that yt shall make thee to bee feared, will hurt thee de mildicheit ghepleecht op de wyse, dat men hem daer meer door doet vreezen alsmen behoort, seer gevaerlijch is Nondimanco la liberalità vsata in modo, che tu non sia temuto, ti offende neverthelesse, liberality used in such manner, as to make thee accounted so, wrongs thee At vero ita liberalem esse, ut tu non metuaris, sane obest mais si tu éxerces ta libéralité de façon que tu sois craint, tu t’en trouves mal No ostante la liberalidad usada usada de suerte que no seas temido no obstante la liberalidad usada de modo, que tu no seas temido, te ofende das es gut ist vor freigebig gehalten zu werden, wann man aber es so braucht, das man sich in forcht dadurch setzt, ists übel. maar zu gy uwe mildadigheid zoodanig oeffend, dat gy gevreest word, zoo zult gy u kwalyk daar by bevinden Jedoch wenn man die Freygebigkeit allzu groß werden läst/ daß sich Niemand mehr fürchtet/ thut sie mehr Schaden wenn du aber deine Freygebigkeit so weit gehen lässest, daß man dich fürchtet, so kannst du dich dabey nicht wohl befinden men, om du blifver fruktad, har du en elak känning deraf al sakha’u al musta’mal ala nahui annka la takuno multaziman bihi. Hatha yadurruk (Generousity should be of a kind that you are not obliged to keep. This damages you)

314

Appendix

c. From Chapter XVIII Blado Vintimille

Tegli Auvergne Wolfe Fowler

English trans. A English trans. B English trans. C Nyeveld Testina Dacres Conring Amelot 1st Spanish trans. 2nd Spanish trans. Lenz Ghys

LRM RK

Klingenb. Zakhur

essendo spesso necessitato per mantener’ lo stato, operar’ contro à la fede, contro à la charità, contro à l’ humanità, contro à la religione. souvent il est contrainct, pour la seureté et confirmation de son estat, faire quelques excès contre sa foy, contre la charité, contre l‘humanité et la religion [the whole sentence is missing] estant le plus souvent contraint pour defendre le sien, contrevenir a sa foy, a la charite, humanite, & religion essendo spesso necessitato, per mantener lo stato, operare contro la fede, contro alla carità, contro alla humanità, contro alla religione being forced for the mantenance off his estate and preased by necessetie to conterevin his aith, brek his promeis, violat chiaritie, worke aganst humanitie and religioun for he shalbe constrayned spyte of his harte to transgres the bondes of pyttie. faythe, honestie, courtesie and religion. for that hee shalbee oftentymes constrayned to maintaine his estates, to gouerne contarie to faith, charitie, humanitie, and religion. beinge often constrained for the maintenance of his estate; to goe against his othe: against charety: against humanety: and against religion zijnde meestende gedwonghen om het zyne te verdedighen te doen teghen zyn geloof/tegen de liefde/goedertierentheyt ende Godesdienst essendo spesso neceßitato per mantenere lo Stato, operare contro alla humanità, contro alla charità, contro alla Religione he being often forc’d, for the maintenance of his state, to do contrary of his faith, charity, humanity, and religion quoniam saepisse cogitur agere contra humanitatem, contra caritatem, contra religionem parce que les besoins de son Etat l’obligent souvent de violer la Foi, & d’agir contre la charité, l’humanité, & la Religión siendo muchas veçes necessitado por conseruar el estado a hobrar contra la humanidad, contra la caridad, contra la relijión siendo muchas vezes necesitado para mantener el estado a obrar contra la humanidad, contra la charidad, contra la Religión wider die Lieb, Religion und Leütseligkeit zu handeln dewyl de belangen van zynen Staat hem meenigmaal noodzaaken zyne trouwe te schenden, en tegens de liefde, beleeftheid, en Godtsdienst te handelen Indem er öffters zu Erhaltung seines Landes wieder die humanité, Liebe und religion zuhandeln gezwungen ist Denn seine Staatsangelegenheiten nötigen ihn, Treue und Glauben zu brechen, und der Liebe, der Menschlichkeit und Religion zuwider zu handeln emedan hans Stats behof ofta förbinda honom at bryta ord och afsked, samt handla emot godhet, menskelighet och Gudadyrkan Itha kana yalzamuhu fi al ghalib li hifth al-hukm n yafa’la didd AlInsaniyyah, didd Al-Rahmah, wa didd al-diyanah (If he frequently needs, in order to keep power, to operate against humanity, against charity and against religion)

Appendix

315

d. From Chapter XXVI Blado Vintimille Tegli Auvergne J. Wolfe Fowler English trans. A

English trans. B

English trans. C

Nyeveld Testina Dacres Conring Amelot 1683 and 1684 Amelot 1686 and 1694 1st Spanish trans. 2nd Spanish trans. Lenz Ghys LRM RK Klingenb. Zakhur

et che la fusse più schiaua, che gli Hebrei, più serua che i Persi, più disp[er]sa che gli Atheniesi Et quelle soit plus esclave que les Ebreux, plus serve que les Perses, plus dispersée et esgarée que les Athéniens atque duriori seruitio teneri quam Hebræi, asperiori seruitute premi quam Persæ, longius lautiusque dispergi, quam Athenienses & qu’elle fut plus captive que les Juifz: plus serve que les Perses, plus dissipée que les Atheniens. che la fusse piu schiaua, che gli Hebrei; piu serua che i Persi; piu dispersa che gli Atheniesi and to be vnder a greter servitud then the hebreus wer, mair subdeued then the persians, & mair dispersed then the atheniens And to be yoked in more thrall then the Hebrues, and in more tiranous slaverye then the Persians, to be dispersed and scatterred farther assonder then the Athenians and to bee yoaked in more thrall then the Hebrewes, in more tyrannous slaverie then the Persians, to be disperst and scattered further a-sunder, then the Athenians beinge in greater present misery of bondadge, then the Hebrues: and vnder harder seruitude, then the Persians: and more broken & dispersed, then the Athenians ende dat sy meer ghevangen waere als de Joden/ dienstbaerder als de Persen/ verstroyder als de Atheniensen & che la fusse più schiaua che gli Hebrei più serua che i Persi, più dispersa che gli Atheniesi and were in more slavery than the Hebrews were; more subject than the Persians; more scatterd than the Athenians atque magis mancipio teneri, quam Hebræos, asperiori servitute premi, quam Persas, latiusque dispergi, quam Athenienses qu’elle fût plus esclave que les Juifs, plus maltraitée que les Perses; plus dispersée que les Aténiens qu’elle fût plus maltraitée, que les Perses; plus dispersée, que les Aténiens y que ella fuese más esclava que los hebreos, más sujeta que los persas, más diuidida que los atenienses y que fuese más esclaba que los hebreos, más sierva que los Persas, más dispersa que los Athenienses daß die es sclavischer als die Juden / knechtischer als [die] Persier und zerstreuter als die Athenienser kwalyker gehandeld, dan de Persen, meer verstroyd, als die van Atheen daß die es sclavischer als die Juden/ knechtischer als Persier und zerstreueter als die Athenienser bedrängeter, als die Perser, zerstreuter als die Athenienser vore under så stor träldom, som Hebræerne, mer kufvadt än Perserne, och mer förströdt, än Athenienserne [missing in the manuscript]

316

Appendix

Legenda Amelot: Amelot de la Houssaye, 4th French translation (printed in Amsterdam 1683, 1684, 1686, 1694) Auvergne: Gaspard d’Auvergne,1st printed French translation (Poitiers 1553) Blado, Antonio: 1st printed Italian edition (Rome 1532) Conring, Hermann: 2nd Latin translation (printed: 1660, 1686 and 1730) Dacres, Edward: 1st printed English translation (London 1640) English tranls. A: anonymous English translation 1. London, British Library, MS Harley 6795.vi, ff. 103r-159v; 2. Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Eng.1014; 3. London, British Library, MS Harley 967; 4. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 792.iii, ff. 1r-40r. English tranls. B: anonymous English translation: 1. London, British Library, MS Harley 364.xx, ff. 46r-109v; 2. London, British Library, MS Harley 2292. English tranls. A: anonymous English translation: 1. Oxford, Queen’s College Library, MS 251. Fowler, William: 1st Scottish translation (unpublished, end of the sixteenth century) Ghys, Daniel: 2nd Dutch translation based on Amelot’s French 1686 trans. and published 1705 Lenz, Albrecht von: 1st unpublished German translation, 1692 LRM: Nicolai Machiavelli Lebens- und Regierungs-Maximen eines Fürsten: 1st, anonymus and probably in the Low Countries published German translation (1714) Klingenb.: 1st Scandinavian translation by Carl Klingenberg (1757) MS: critical edition of Giorgio Inglese basing on MSs: Niccolò Macchiavelli, De Principatibus. Testo critico a cura di Giorgio Inglese (Roma 1994) Nyeveld, A. van: 1st Dutch translation, based on Gaspard d’Auvergne’s French translation and printed 1615 RK: Nic. Machiavels Regierungskunst eines Fürsten: anonymous German translation inserted in Fredrick’s Anti-Machiavell (1741) 1st Spanish translation: anonymous and unpublished, end of the sixteenth century 2nd Spanish translation: anonymous, found in MS 1017 (Rome, 1680) Tegli, Silvestro: 1st Latin translation (Basel 1560) Testina: the first collected editions of Machiavelli's principal works were probably printed in Switzerland and are called “Testina” editions after the small bust portrait of the author that appears on their title-page. We refer here

Appendix

317

to the edition “D” printed between 1636 and 1646: see S. Bertelli, P. Innocenti, Bibliografia machiavelliana (Verona 1979), p. XLIV Vintimille, Jacques de: 1st unpublished French translation (1546) Wolfe: Italian edition printed in Britain by John Wolfe, probably 1584 Zakhur: 1st Arabic translation, written 1824 and unpublished.

Appendix

The Introduction to the first Arabic translation

319

Index

Index

Abduh M. 301, 302 Abrabanel J. see Léon Hebreo Abril P. S. 132, 133, 135, 137, 139 Acerbi G. 280, 284 Acuto G. see Hawkwood J. Addison J. 253 Afzelius R. 249 Agrippa M. V. 78 Alba, Duke of 181, 193 Alberico da Barbiano 188, 239 Alciati A. 28 Alciati G. 68, 76 Aldana M. A. de 144 Alexander VI 158, 195 Alfonso X 128 Al-Sayyed A. L. 397 Al-Tahatawi R. 284, 302 Amelot de la Houssaye A. 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 21, 74, 175, 179, 211, 215-22, 224-26, 228-44, 259, 264, 266, 267, 273, 275, 299 Amerbach B. 70, 76, 79 Amin Q. 301 Angennes J. de 33 Anne of Denmark 98 Anhalt-Bernburg A. E. von 208 Antonio G. 79 Aretino P. 27, 57, 85 Ariosto L. 105 Aristotle 59, 132, 181 Armand A. 30 Arnolfini P. 57 Atallah B. 287 Augustus 78 Aurelius M. 202, 255 Auvergne G. d’ 12-4, 21, 34, 35, 50, 52-7, 101, 102, 105-08, 174, 186-94, 196-99, 202 Averroës 301 Bacon E. 84, 259

323

Barlaeus C. 181, 182 Barlow Th. 96 Barnaba (da Milano) see Visconti Bayard 37 Bayle P. 179 Bedingfield Th. 93 Belleau R. 53 Bernabò (da Milano) see Visconti Bernardo see Visconti Betti F. 76 Bèze Th. 177 Biandrata G. 68 Biestkens N. 183-86 Biloti C. 287 Bischop S. see Episcopius S. Blado A. 11, 50, 60, 74, 101, 142, 149, 215-26, 228-31, 233-35, 237-39, 243, 262, 293, 294, 299 Blarer J. Chr. 78 Bonifacio G.B. 76 Bonnivet G. Goufier, seigneur de 38 Borgia C. 193, 255 Boscán J. 132, 133, 135, 136, 138 Bredero G.A. 185 Briencour sieur de 13 Brocchi G.B. 287, 288 Bruno G. 99 Buccleuch, Laird of 98, 99 Bugnyon Ph. 30 Burlamacchi F. 62 Calabria, Duke of 124 Calderón de la Barca P. 144 Calvin J. 61-4, 76 Camões L. de 130 Cane F. 239 Cappel G. 12, 13, 21, 34, 35, 52-5, 57, 74, 103, 106, 108, 187 Cardona Don J. de 144 Cartagena A. de 134 Case J. 83-6, 92

324

Index

Cassius Dio 78 Castellione S. 76 Castelnau M., seigneur de Mauvissière 97 Castiglione B. 11, 132 Cervantes M. de 144 Cesare Borgia see Borgia C. Chanler G. 186 Chappelain Z. 28 Chappuys G. 30 Charles II (Habsburg) 120, 122, 124, 125 Charles V (of France) 25, 27, 38 Charles V (Habsburg) 120, 122, 124, 248 Charles VIII 36, 38, 48 Charles IX 33, 37 Charles XII 210 Charrier J. 31, 54 Charron J. 56 Chevigny J. de 30 Christian II of Denmark 247, 248 Cicero 39, 59, 216, 224 Ciotti G. 99 Coligny A. von, countess of Châtillon 210 Comte A. 307 Conio A. da see Alberico da Barbiano Conring H. 16, 18, 20, 59, 80, 213, 215-22, 224, 226, 230, 231, 233, 234, 237-39, 243, 244, 248, 259, 268, 275 Corpus hermeticum 75 Coster S. 185 Creutz G. Ph. 252, 256, 257 Curione C. S. 62, 63, 66-9, 76-8 Cyrus 202 Dacres E. 21, 86, 96, 247, 259, 273-77

Dalin O. von 250, 257 Dal Verme J. 239 Dante Alighieri 59, 70, 111 Darnley H. Stuart, lord of 54 Darwin Ch. 302 Dee J. 74 de la Court J. 182, 183 de la Court P. 182 Desbordes H. 179 Desgenette R. 287 Dolet E. 34 Drake W. 93 Drummond of Hawthornden W. 98, 106 Dryden J. 198 Du Bartas G. 97 Du Bellay J. 42 Dudley R., Earl of Leicester 88, 89, 93 Eckleff C. F. 251 Elizabeth I 784 Ennius 69 Enríquez de Ribera F. 140 Episcopius S. 186 Erasmus of Rotterdam 60, 70, 178, 247, 248 Eratosthenes 30 Erik XIV of Sweden 247, 248 Farneworth E. 21 Ferdinand of Aragon 49 Ferdinand II (the Catholic) 155 Florio J. 111 Fogliani G. 105 Foilet J. 79 Fonteyn Th. 174 Fowler W. 83, 97-115 Francis I 25, 27, 28, 33, 36-8, 52 Francis II 33, 37, 54

Index

325

Frederick II of Prussia 9, 18, 21, 247, 249, 251, 253, 255, 256, 259, 260, 262, 266-68 Fredrik Adolf, King of Sweden 251, 257 Friesland S. W. von 208 Furthmann J. 86

Henry II 28, 33, 37 Herodian 20, 28, 32 Heyns J. 185 Hieron of Syracuse: 54, 169 Hooft P.C. 180, 185, 202 Hudson Th. 97 Hussein T. 302

Galeani Thomasine de 27 Gallo N. 66 Gaston de Foix 37 Gentili V. 66 Gentillet I 39, 84-6. 93, 177 Giovio P. 62, 79, 185 Giunta B. di 50, 110, 141, 142 Giuntina 187, 193, 198 Ghistele C. van 198 Ghys D. 17, 174, 182 Gohory J. 13, 21, 26, 36, 43, 52, 54-7, 106, 174, 186, 187 Gohory P. 56 González de Salas J. A. 139 Gottsched J. Chr. 253 Gracián B. 13, 127 Gregory of Tours 62 Grotius H. 182 Guevara A. de 126 Guicciardini F. 38 Gum’ah M. L. 302 Gustavus I Vasa 247 Gustavus III Vasa 247, 254, 256, 257, 259, 278 Guyottin 66 Gyllenborg G. F. 252, 256-59

Index librorum prohibitorum 11, 40, 52, 83, 85, 119, 122, 187 Isidore of Sevilla 62

Haches M. de 39 Hamilton J. 53, 54, 105, 106, 187, 188 Hastings F. 84 Hawkwood J. 239 Hegelsen P. 247 Heinsius D. 181

James I 97 James VI of Scotland 97, 98 Janot D. 36 Jáuregui J. de 140 Jeanne Gros, dame d’Agey et d’Escouelle 28 Jerome Saint 134, 139 Jodelle E. 52 Jovius P. see Giovio, P. Juvenal 67 Khaldun Ibn 281, 300 Kléber J.B. 286 Klingenberg C. von 247-78 Klopstock F.G. 20 Koçi Bey 18 Kyd Th. 94 Langenhert C. 20, 175, 248, 268, 275 Laplanche M. de 26 Lascaris A. 35 Lascaris C. 23 Lascaris J. 26 Laski A. 75 Laski J. 75 Lebens- und Regierungs-Maximen eines Fürsten 17, 18, 247, 262, 267, 268, 272, 275, 278 Leibniz G.W. 20

326

Index

Leicester’s Commonwealth 88-90, 94 Leijonhufvud A. 252, 256 Lenz Chr. A. von 14, 17, 207-46 Léon Hebreo 134 Léon L. 134, 135, 137, 138 Leopardi G. 177 Levett (Leuytt) J. 94 Liena N. 66 Lindsay D., Earl of Arran 105 Linné C. 250, 252 Lipsius J. 90, 178-80, 182, 184 Lista A. 118 Livy (Titus Livius) 36, 56, 161, 198, 216 Lodovisa Ulrika, Queen of Sweden 251, 256, 257 López Cuesta F. 139 Louis XII 36, 37, 47, 72, 197 Louis XIV 181 Louise de Savoie 35 Lullo R. 62 Luther M. 61, 200, 248 Luxembourg J. de 39 Lysias 30 Macauley Th. 249 Madeleine de Savoie 35 Madrid F. de 131 Madrigal A. de (el Tostado) 134 Maecenas 78 Mahomet II 26 Mainierès J. de 39 Maitland W. 91 Mander K. van 171 March A. 130 Mare Ph. de la 23 Marguerite de Navarre 27 Marguerite de Savoie 28 Mariana J. de 127 Marie de Guise 54 Marlowe Chr. 78

Marsilio Ficino 75, 90 Mary Stuart 54 Maurice of Orange 172, 181, 186, 197 Mecklenburg-Güstrow S. von 208 Medici 25, 109 Medici C. de 52 Medici, L. de 44, 64, 94, 95, 98, 110, 149, 164, 259 Medici P. 56, 94 Meigret L. 39 Mill J. St. 307 Minnebroeder P. B. 174 Mörk J. 266 Mohammad Ali 13, 19, 279-85, 287, 288, 300, 301 Montessus M. B., seigneur de 30, 31 Montgomerie A. 97 Montmorency A. de 25, 28, 31, 33, 35-41, 55, 56 Montmorency G. de 36 Montone B. da 239 Morillo G. 140 Moses 202 Münsterberg-Oels C. F., Duke von 208 Münsterberg-Oels E. M. von 207, 208 Murad IV 18 Muret M.-A. 53 Musa S. 302 Mussolini B. 87 Napoleon 13, 281, 286, 287 Nebrija A. de 129 Nemeitz J. Chr. 268, 272, 273 Nevile H. 21 Nieveld see Nyeveld Nifo A. 59, 60 Nordenflycht H. Ch. 250, 257 Nyeveld A. van 16, 17, 171-206

Index

Odet de Foix 37 Oelreich N. von 254 Oldenbarneveld J. van 14, 172, 173 Oliverotto da Fermo 105, 194 Orange, Oranje see Maurice, William I Osorio J. 119 Ottevanti G.L. 124, 125 Otto of Freising 62 Ovid 216 Palova de Almogávar J. 132 Paludan-Müller C. P. 249 Paracelsus 62 Pastorius J. 213 Patarin C. 28 Patericke S. 84-6, 92 Paul IV 83 Paulus Diaconus 62 Peletier J. 42 Pellicer de Ossau y Tovar J. 140 Perna P. 12, 59, 61-3, 66, 68, 75-9, 84 Petrarch F. 39, 50, 94, 96-9, 107, 131, 162, 198, 276 Philip II of Savoy 27 Philip II (Habsburg) 120, 121, 124, 127, 175, 181, 193 Philip III (Habsburg) 120, 121 Philip IV (Habsburg) 120, 121 Philip V 118, 124 Plato 29, 75, 90, 251 Plutarch 176, 178 Pole R. 119 Politi C. 119 Polo M. 132 Polybios 39 Popon M. 26, 28-30 Portocarrero Don P. 134, 137 Possevino A. 79

327

Quevedo F. de 127, 144 Quintilian 134 Quiroga C. de 122, 123 Ramée P. de la 75 Reuterholm A. 252, 257, 258 Reynard the Fox 191 Ribadeneyra P. de 127 Rigaud B. 30 Rivière C. 55 Rouen, Cardinal of 48 Rousseau J.-J. 250, 258 Saavedra Fajardo D. de 127 Sacchetti F. 239 Sachsen-Altenburg A. S., Duchess of 208 Sachsen-Merseburg S. M. von 208 Saint-Anthost A. de 28 Salazar D. de 124 Sallustius 39 Sandoval y Rojas B. de 123 San Pedro D. de 130 Sarpi P. 99 Savonarola G. 62 Scalioti V. 288 Scheffer C. F. 256, 258, 259 Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg A. S., Duchess of 207 Sessa, Duke of 123 Sforza B. 77 Sforza F. 38, 188, 238, 239 Sforza M. A. 188, 239 Shumayyel Sh. 302 Sidney Ph. 89, 90, 97 Sigismund II Augustus 67, 68, 77 Simon Magus 70 Sixtus IV 130 Slagheck D. 248 Soliman II 27 Sozzini L. 68

328

Index

Spencer H. 307 Spinoza B. 179, 183 St Justin 70 Statius 140 Stewart of Baldynneis J. 97 Stupanus N. 77-9, 184 Swedenborg E. 250 Tacitus P. C. 9, 161, 198 Taqla B. 301 Taqla S. 301 Tavannes G. 29 Tegli S. 12, 16, 18, 20, 59-82, 84, 85, 88, 97, 101, 102, 107, 109, 110, 175, 183, 215-19, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 228-31, 233, 234, 237, 268, 275 Teresa of Avila, Saint 144 Tertullian 69, 140 Tessin K. G. 256 Testina 18, 141-43, 165, 183, 215-22, 224, 226, 228-31, 233-35, 237-39, 243, 244, 299 Tétard F. 175 Theseus 202 Thomas Aquinas Saint 126 Tirso de Molina 144 Tisserand J. 28 Tixier J. 29 Torpadius C. 252 Tréhédan P. 29 Ubaldini P. 94 Urrea J. de 132 Valdés A. de 126 Valdés F. de 122 Valdés J. de 133, 135, 136, 138, 141 Vauzelles G. de 26, 27 Vauzelles J. 27, 28, 57 Vauzelles L. de 26, 27, 32, 41

Vega G. de la 132, 134 Vega L. de 144 Vélez de Léon Don J. 124, 125, 144, 145 Vermigli P. M. 63 Vintimille A. de 26, 27 Vintimille J. de 12, 21, 25-57, 74 Virgil 49, 161, 197, 277 Visconti B. 74, 188, 239, 299 Vives J. L. 126, 132, 136, 137 Volckertsz D. 171 Volckertszoon Coornhert D. 185 Voltaire 9, 250, 258 Vondel J. van den 202 Walsingham F. 97 Whitehorne P. 84, 92 William I of Orange 172, 177 Wolff Chr. 253 Wolfe J. 85, 92, 94, 101, 102, 141, 142 Woodward T. 9 Württemberg-Mömpelgart E. Ch. von 210, 211 Württemberg-Mömpelgart H. von 210, 211, 212 Württemberg-Mömpelgart G. von 210 Württemberg-Oels Chr. U. von 208, 211 Württemberg-Oels K. F. von 208, 211 Württemberg-Oels S. F., Duke of 208, 210, 211 Württemberg-Oels S. N., Duke of 207 Württemberg-Weitlingen J. F., Duke of 207 Xenophon 36, 33, 176, 178, 232

Index

Zakhur A. 13, 239-304 Zapata Cisneros A. de 123 Zbaski A. 64, 66-8, 78

Zedler J. H. 18, 207, 212 Zosimo 62 Zwinger Th. 62, 79

329