<br><h3> Chapter One </h3> <b>QUEEN ELIZABETH'S TRANSLATION OF CICERO'S <i>PRO M. MARCELLO <p> ca. 1592</i></b> <p> <p> Unlike most of her other translations, Elizabeth's autograph text of six and a half folio pages containing her English version of Marcus Tullius Cicero's oration <i>Pro M. Marcello</i> gives no indication of its circumstances or date. This information may be lacking because the translation is clearly a draft with frequent heavy revisions. The manuscript is written throughout in the rapid, loosely formed italic hand of the queen's later years (mid-1580s and thereafter). The paper on which it is written bears the same watermark as the paper used by Elizabeth for her translations of Boethius, Horace, and Plutarch, which are explicitly dated between 1593 and 1598. The Bodleian Library has been the continuous preserve of Elizabeth's <i>Pro Marcello</i> translation, bound in a period binding together with an auditor's transcription of the Latin speech that she delivered extemporaneously at the end of a visit she made to Oxford University between September 22 and 28, 1592. We hypothesize that Elizabeth drafted her translation of <i>Pro Marcello</i> during her week at Oxford and left it behind as a memento of her royal visit. <p> In <i>The Schoolmaster</i>, Ascham recalled how he assigned Princess Elizabeth daily translations from Cicero, the master of classical eloquence. He claimed that the "diligent translating" of such works as Cicero's three speeches <i>Ad Caium Caesarum</i>-the group to which <i>Pro Marcello</i> belongs-would "work such a right choice of words, so straight a framing of sentences, such a true judgment, both to write skillfully and speak wittily, as wise men shall both praise and marvel at." In her Latin oration at Oxford in 1592, following speeches that praised her erudition, Elizabeth ascribed her professed lack of facility in Latin to her infrequent use of the language for thirty-six years (an approximating allusion, apparently, to the length of her reign). By translating a Ciceronian speech singled out by Ascham for its pedagogic value, she perhaps intended to recoup in this university setting some of the prowess in Latin that her tutor had cultivated and praised in her. <p> Cicero was not only a rhetorician but also a political actor and thinker. However central his works to humanist education, in a monarch's eyes they inconveniently celebrated the Roman republic. <i>De officiis</i>, his most influential treatise in Renaissance England, cited in Elizabeth's girlhood correspondence, contains a famous celebration of tyrannicide. As queen, she chose to translate a work that a strict republican could only have regarded as an unfortunate lapse on Cicero's part but a believer in virtuous monarchy would find profoundly congenial. <i>Pro Marcello</i> praises Julius Caesar as a godlike ruler who uniquely can restore peace and order to Rome after the horrors of civil war. This oration postdates the Senate's declaration of Caesar as a public enemy, the crossing of the Rubicon, and the defeat of Pompey and the republican cause at Pharsalia, which brought Caesar's triumphal entry into Rome (46 B.C.E.). The consul M. Claudius Marcellus had supported Pompey, both in battle and in self-exile at Mytilene. Cicero had aligned with the party of Pompey-that is, with the cause of republicanism-only to realize, gradually and painfully, that Julius Caesar would prevail. Accepting his offer of amnesty, Cicero sustained a life of philosophical retirement for four years. In 46, he broke his silence when the whole of the Senate petitioned Caesar to allow the impenitent Marcellus to return to Rome and be reinstated as a senator. Caesar's surprisingly favorable response prompted the <i>Pro Marcello</i>. <p> Though Marcellus was killed under obscure circumstances before he reached Rome, neither Elizabeth nor her contemporaries seem to have shared the suspicion of some at that time that Caesar was involved, or to have read the <i>Pro Marcello</i> with attendant irony. Elizabeth's identification with Cicero's magnanimous Julius Caesar shows clearly at various points in her translation. When Elizabeth has Cicero call Caesar "princely" by loosely translating "praeclarissimam" (most admirable), she applies her preferred term for herself in her public speeches. To translate Cicero's term "respublica," she uses several English locutions including "common good," "the state," and, most often, "commonwealth" or "commonweal." The latter two terms analogize the Roman and the monarchical Elizabethan state, which Elizabeth had described as a "commonwealth" consisting of an "absolute princess" and her obedient subjects. In one passage Elizabeth refers to "your [i.e., Caesar's] Commonweal." The possessive pronoun, not found in Cicero, intimates that Caesar both owns and belongs to the Roman "respublica"-a dual relation resembling Elizabeth's conception of herself as queen of the realm of England. <p> Caesar's clemency is the central theme of <i>Pro Marcello</i>. Cicero's oration marks an important development in theories of virtuous rule. Echoing Hellenistic praise of monarchs for virtues resembling Roman "clementia"-[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (equity, forbearance), [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (gentleness), and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (love of mankind)-Cicero exalts Julius Caesar as an ideal ruler who displays virtuous reason through clemency. Under the emperors this theme would become central to Roman political thought, most influentially in Seneca's <i>De clementia</i>. According to the <i>Pro Marcello</i>, clemency is nobler than military might and fully compatible with justice. By forgiving Marcellus and other opponents including Cicero, Caesar has registered a godlike, Stoic triumph over his passions, gaining glory and turning foes into friends. <p> Elizabeth's education exposed her to humanist celebrations of clemency that were directly and indirectly indebted to Cicero's oration. Continental humanist mirrors for princes treated clemency as one of the good ruler's primary virtues. In his <i>Book Named the Governor</i> (1531), Thomas Elyot argued that a ruler must be merciful above all, for without mercy "all other virtues be drowned." Echoing Cicero's tribute to Caesar, "thou hath conquered thyself" ("te ipsum vicisti"), Elyot declared that Caesar in "prowess excelled all other captains" but "in mercy only he surmounted himself." Like many humanists, Elyot argued that "mercy and gentleness ... joineth the hearts of subjects to their prince" and that it was nobler and safer for a ruler to be loved than feared. <p> Elizabeth first known letter (1544) appeals to Queen Katherine Parr's "clemency," and, as queen, Elizabeth embraced the royal virtue of clemency as her own. At the beginning of her reign, she prayed for grace to govern with her subjects' love rather than with "the fear of severity or the sword." In 1558 she proclaimed her "mercifulness" to her subjects; in 1567 she described herself as a "gentle prince" who "pitied" rather than "blamed" erring subjects; and in 1570 she contrasted her "moderate reign" with her father's harsher rule. Twenty-four entries on royal "mercy" (misericordia) in her <i>Sententiae</i> (1563) present it as a God-ordained complement to justice. Elizabeth seems to have thought herself prone to clemency because women by nature were more "pitiful" than men. In translating <i>Pro Marcello</i>, however, she rejected the implication that pity was a female quality that male subjects might interpret as weakness. Instead she engaged with an all-male world where Cicero figures clemency as rational, manly strength. <p> In one of the speeches delivered before Elizabeth at Oxford in 1592, Henry Savile, master of Merton College, noted her "clemency, justice, and equity" ("clementiam, iustitiam, aequitatem"). Yet just as her <i>Sententiae</i> note difficulties in reconciling mercy with justice and pity with wisdom, so clemency did not always prove as compatible with justice or self-preservation for Elizabeth as Cicero declares and some humanists hoped. Cicero's speech may have appealed to her not only as a celebration of the clemency on which she prided herself as queen, but also as an idealization of tactics that she wished on occasion to adopt but felt she could not. <i>Pro Marcello</i> affirms that, among his many excellent qualities, Marcellus's illustrious ancestry merited Caesar's pardon. Elizabeth herself had a visceral aversion to shedding highborn blood. After the Ridolfi plot was detected in 1571, its central figure, Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, appealed to the queen's "gracious clemency." For several months she refused to authorize his execution for treason. When she finally bowed to parliamentary pressure, she mourned Norfolk's death. <p> Elizabeth likewise resisted taking the life of her inveterate enemy Mary, Queen of Scots. As early as the 1560s and 1570s, advocates of Mary's death acknowledged the obstacle of Elizabeth's merciful nature. In replying to the second parliamentary petition (1586) that Mary, convicted of treason, now be executed, Elizabeth invoked the humanist association of virtuous rule with clemency: she was no "tyrant," for she had "pardoned many traitors and rebels." Claiming to mingle "justice" with "temper" (temperance), she declined to proceed promptly to Mary's death. This "temper" resembles Elyot's treatment of "mercy" as a "temperance of the mind" as well as Cicero's claim that Caesar displays-in Elizabeth's rendering-"mercy" and "temper" instead of "wrath." Yet in Mary's case, Elizabeth had to balance the claims of mercy with those of justice and prudent self-preservation. Although Mary's son James entreated Elizabeth's "princely pity," she ultimately decided that Mary must die. In Caesar's pardoning of Marcellus and other republicans, Elizabeth perhaps recognized a nobler form of conduct than was available to her in her political circumstances. <p> Cicero's praise of Caesar's actions could have had special saliency for Elizabeth during her 1592 visit to Oxford. According to an eyewitness, the university debates, orations, and dramatic performances focused the queen's attention on historical and political questions. Two presentations bear directly on the putative attraction of <i>Pro Marcello</i>. On September 23, Henry Savile defended the thesis that "studies of military matters and of philosophy flourish together in a commonwealth." He approached his subject through the relation of military prowess to learning in general-that is, the traditional but still vital topic of arms and letters-arguing for a proper balance, so that learned men would temper the fierceness and pride of martial spirits. On September 25, the senior proctor, Thomas Savile, addressed the question "whether disagreement among the citizens is useful to a commonwealth." His oration "commend[ed] the Lord Treasurer [William Cecil, Lord Burghley], (who was present) in respect of his great care in the government of this Commonwealth. And after him the Lord Chamberlain [Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon, Elizabeth's first cousin]. And after him the Lord Admiral [Charles Howard, second Lord Howard of Effingham], his great worth and valiant service by sea. And lastly, fell into commendation of the Earl of Essex, his honorable, valiant service in the Low Countries, in Portugal, and in France." Principal courtiers, wise counselors, brave soldiers can differ greatly in talents and outlook, yet all can serve the state: so Thomas Savile implied. <p> How martial arts and learning may combine to render a state vigorous; how disagreements of leading citizens may be made politically useful; how justice may be balanced by clemency-such questions would have converged for Elizabeth in 1592 in the person of her twenty-six-year-old favorite, Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. Between 1588 and 1591 the rivalry between her two youngest favorites, Sir Walter Raleigh and Essex, had grown to new heights of invective and near-violence. In 1589 Essex joined an expedition to Portugal, openly defying Elizabeth's restrictions on his political and military ambition. In 1591 he succeeded in obtaining from her the command of an English army sent to aid Henri IV, the beleaguered (and yet uncrowned) Protestant claimant to the French throne, in besieging Rouen. Fearing that his loyalties lay more with Henri IV and the Continental Protestant cause than with her and the English church and state, Elizabeth became sharply critical of Essex. Her blistering dispatches faulted his conduct and vented her anxieties about squandered money and lives. But even after the siege of Rouen failed, Elizabeth agreed to extend Essex's command from October 1591 to January 1592, at which point he was recalled to England. <p> Upon returning to court, Essex aimed at securing an appointment to the Privy Council to bolster his reputation as a military leader and a royal favorite. But further advancement proved neither quick nor easy. Elizabeth denied his request to be made chancellor of Oxford University, reportedly because of lingering resentment of his conduct in France and Archbishop Whitgift's disapproval of his well-known Puritan sympathies. Shrewdly, Essex muted his open support of Puritans, cultivated Whitgift, and ended his feud with Raleigh; in the course of 1592, his promotion to the Privy Council became increasingly likely. He displayed new political initiative, joining the call for a parliament in early 1593 and working for the election of a number of his friends and followers. Finally Elizabeth decided the time had come: on February 25, 1593, Essex was made a Privy Councillor. <p> In <i>Pro Marcello</i> the queen could identify herself, her qualities, and her rule with the celebrated figure of the magnanimous dictator, supreme in the art of war but above all in the arts of mercy and peace. Facing the uncertain outcome of events in France and the continuing specter of a Spanish invasion of England, Elizabeth could find topical aptness in Cicero's repeated assertions: Julius Caesar alone could unite his people through clement rule; the entire well-being of Rome depended on the wisdom of Caesar at its head. In turn, Essex's recent behavior, in France and at court, had affinities with the character and actions of the refractory Marcellus. In translating <i>Pro Marcello</i> at Oxford in late September 1592, as we speculate, Elizabeth applied her humanistic training to a thorny problem of practical statecraft. As she worked through Cicero's praise of Caesar, she had occasion to deliberate about the future of Essex. Judging from her eventual decision to appoint him to the Privy Council, the activity of translating encouraged her to align with what Cicero terms a godlike precedent: Caesar's pardoning of Marcellus and restoring of him as a citizen and senator of Rome. <p> * * * <p> Elizabeth's style in translating <i>Pro Marcello</i> is characteristic in its heavy use of cognates and in its frequently close modeling of phrasing on that of her Latin source. While awkwardness or obscurity results at some points, at other points she artfully reproduces Cicero's suspended syntax, as in her opening sequence "made beginning of what I would and what I meant, in wonted sort, to speak," rendering "attulit ... initium quae vellem quaeque sentirem meo pristino more dicendi." At times, Elizabeth paraphrases for expressive reasons. She concretizes some of Cicero's abstractions: "nimis iracundam" (too inclined to anger) becomes "too bloody," and "tantus in ullo furor" (so much madness in anyone) becomes "such a harebrain." She may expand a Ciceronian word or phrase to heighten her rhetoric: Cicero's claim that Marcellus's brother is endowed with "commemorabili" (memorable) virtues becomes the declaration that his virtues "deserve no dying praise." "Haec qui faciat" (who would do these things), referring to anyone who, like Caesar, would display clemency to defeated opponents, swells to "whoso can frame his will to grant to this," underscoring the volitional commitment that clemency entails. As more generally in her translations, Elizabeth employs a practice of Cicero himself and inserts doublets for rhetorical heightening. Elizabeth elaborates the phrasing "qui civile bellum tantum et tam luctuosum excitaverunt" (who roused a civil war so grave and so lamentable) to read: "the stirrers and raisers of such huge rebellion and woeful war." "Stirrers and raisers" is a first, contemptuous doublet of her own making. A second doublet is "huge rebellion and woeful war," evoking the specter of "rebellion" with an evident eye to what civil war would produce in monarchical England. <p> <i>(Continues...)</i> <p> <p> <!-- copyright notice --> <br></pre> <blockquote><hr noshade size='1'><font size='-2'> Excerpted from <b>ELIZABETH I</b> Copyright © 2009 by The University of Chicago. Excerpted by permission.<br> All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.<br>Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.