, like
Tyndale, the differences and correspondences between the two languages.
His _Doctrinal of Princes_ was translated "to the intent only that I
would assay if our English tongue might receive the quick and proper
sentences pronounced by the Greeks."[346] The experiment had interesting
results. "And in this experience," he continues, "I have found (if I be
not much deceived) that the form of speaking, called in Greek and also
in English _Phrasis_, much nearer approacheth to that which at this day
we use, than the order of the Latin tongue. I mean in the sentences and
not in the words."

A peculiarly good exponent of the new vitality which was taking
possession of the theory of translation is Nicholas Udall, whose
opinions have been already cited in this chapter. The versatility of
intellect evinced by the list of his varied interests, dramatic,
academic, religious, showed itself also in his views regarding
translation. In the various prefaces and dedications which he
contributed to the translation of Erasmus's _Paraphrase_ he touches on
problems of all sorts--stipends for translators, the augmentation of the
English vocabulary, sentence structure in translation, the style of
Erasmus, the individual quality in the style of every writer--but all
these questions he treats lightly and undogmatically. Translation,
according to Udall, should not conform to iron rules. He is not
disturbed by the diversity of methods exhibited in the _Paraphrase_.
"Though every translator," he writes, "follow his own vein in turning
the Latin into English, yet doth none willingly swerve or dissent from
the mind and sense of his author, albeit some go more near to the words
of the author, and some use the liberty of translating at large, not so
precisely binding themselves to the strait interpretation of every word
and syllable."[347] In his own share of the translation Udall inclines
rather to the free than to the literal method. He has not been able
"fully to discharge the office of a good translator,"[348] partly
because of the ornate quality of Erasmus's style, partly because he
wishes to be understood by the unlearned. He does not feel so scrupulous
as he would if he were translating the text of Scripture, though even in
the latter connection he is guilty of the heretical opinion that "if the
translators were not altogether so precise as they are, but had some
more regard to expressing of the sense, I think in my judgment they
should do