xactly written as it may carry any name of translation, nor such
liberty therein used as that he would notoriously differ from the
poet's own order."[358] Richard Knolles, whose translation of Bodin's
_Six Books of a Commonweal_ was published in 1606, employed both the
French and the Latin versions of the treatise, and describes himself as
on this account "seeking therein the true sense and meaning of the
author, rather than precisely following the strict rules of a nice
translator, in observing the very words of the author."[359] The
translators of this later time, however, seldom put into words theories
so scholarly as those formulated earlier in the period, when, even
though the demand for accuracy might sometimes be exaggerated, it was
nevertheless the result of thoughtful discrimination. There was some
reason why a man like Gabriel Harvey, living towards the end of
Elizabeth's reign, should look back with regret to the time when
England produced men like Cheke and his contemporaries.[360]

One must frequently remind oneself, however, that the absence of
expressed theory need not involve the absence of standards. Among
translators as among original writers a fondness for analyzing and
describing processes did not necessarily accompany literary skill. Much
more activity of mind and respect for originals may have existed among
verse translators than is evident from their scanty comment. The most
famous prose translators have little to say about their methods.
Golding, who produced so much both in verse and prose, and who usually
wrote prefaces to his translations, scarcely ever discusses
technicalities. Now and then, however, he lets fall an incidental remark
which suggests very definite ideals. In translating Caesar, for example,
though at first he planned merely to complete Brend's translation, he
ended by taking the whole work into his own hands, because, as he says,
"I was desirous to have the body of the whole story compacted uniform
and of one style throughout,"[361] a comment worthy of a much more
modern critic. Philemon Holland, again, contributes almost nothing to
theory, though his vigorous defense of his art and his appreciation of
the stylistic qualities of his originals bear witness to true scholarly
enthusiasm. On the whole, however, though the distinctive contribution
of the period is the plea of the renaissance scholars that a reasonable
faithfulness should be displayed, the comment of the mass of trans