The contents of the two introductory sections sum up certain ideas which have occurred to me as I have been working over this material. The sections are intended to suggest rather than to solve the problems which English translation from the Greek presents. A discussion of the introduction of the literature of one nation into that of another by means of translation is not new; but a discussion of such translations as forming a continuous thread of influence is perhaps slightly different from any hitherto set forth. A series of studies of translations into English from various literatures might add something to our present understanding of literary influences. If this book furnishes the basis for some such study of the interrelations between Greek and English literatures, the labor spent upon it will not have been expended in vain.
I am especially indebted to Professors Ashley H. Thorndike and William Peterfield Trent of Columbia University, to whom I owe much for their thoughtful advice and assistance. Their continual interest did much to make a lonely task a pleasant one.
DELAWARE COLLEGE NEWARK, DELAWARE February 28, 1918
The Growth of Greek Translation. The solid line is original and reprinted translations; the dashed line is original translations only.
The history of English translation from the Greek is almost coincident with the history of English printing. In 1477 William Caxton set up his press in London and from that press in 1484 he issued his own translation of Aesop's _Fables_. The real beginning of serious translation, as is very evident from the chart accompanying this section, was made in the decade 1530-1540. From that time until the time of the Civil War and the Protectorate there was a steady output of translations, not many as compared with our day, but a proportion consistent with the size of the reading public of the time.
In the one hundred and thirty years between 1520 and 1650, one hundred and seventy-nine translations were published. Of these one hundred and fourteen were new translations and sixty-five were reprintings. That two- thirds of the total number are new translations is not surprising; for with the awakening of interest in Greek which took place during these years, men could not turn to translations made in former years. For this reason they had to satisfy the demand for knowledge of Greek literature in the English language by producing their own translations and reprinting these as the demand required. That the reprints amounted to one-half of the production of original translations is interesting as showing that the demand for translations was not equalled by a supply of new ones and that translations must have been popular. Printers have never been inclined to be sentimental in regard to publishing books and any over-enthusiasm a translator may have in regard to his author is sure to be checked by the monetary standards of the publisher. For this reason I would suggest that the publishers during the latter part of the sixteenth and the first part of the seventeenth century evidently found Greek translations a paying proposition; if they had not, they would not have ventured to place so many translations before a very limited reading public. All this seems to add one more evidence to the already established dictum that the Renaissance readers in England were much interested in Greek literature.