Messy handwriting reveals mystery translator: Queen Elizabeth I
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: Messy handwriting reveals mystery translator: Queen Elizabeth I
#2Interesting. I wasn't aware Elizabeth I was such an avid translator. Now I'm interested in her work - though I suppose it would be in the contemporary diction, which will make it somewhat less readable than a modern translation. Still, as Philo points out, she's a better Latinist than most today.
Re: Messy handwriting reveals mystery translator: Queen Elizabeth I
#3I don't quite follow this. The translation is written neatly, but has some emendments in Elizabeth's hand. So the conclusion is that Elizabeth translated it, had her translation recorded by a scribe (she dictated it? Or wrote it somewhere that does not survive?) and then made corrections when reading it back. It sounds plausible but hardly conclusive - couldn't it be someone else's translation she was working on?
It's also unfortunate that the article doesn't seem to give a relevant image. There's a neatly written page from the Tacitus under discussion, and a separate sample of the queen's handwriting, but I can't see an example of her making an editor's note in the Tacitus book, as the article claims.
Re: Messy handwriting reveals mystery translator: Queen Elizabeth I
#4I don't quite follow this. The translation is written neatly, but has some emendments in Elizabeth's hand. So the conclusion is that Elizabeth translated it, had her translation recorded by a scribe (she dictated it? Or wrote it somewhere that does not survive?) and then made corrections when reading it back. It sounds plausible but hardly conclusive - couldn't it be someone else's translation she was working on? It'…
The neatly written prose is an example of Elizabeth's idiosyncratic hand. Standards were a little different (far higher) back then.
I really hesitate to do this, as I hate linking or even acknowledging them, but the Mail are often good and heavy with pictures. As they prove to be in this case:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7735885/Quee...
Re: Messy handwriting reveals mystery translator: Queen Elizabeth I
#5[deleted]
Re: Messy handwriting reveals mystery translator: Queen Elizabeth I
#6Interesting. I wasn't aware Elizabeth I was such an avid translator. Now I'm interested in her work - though I suppose it would be in the contemporary diction, which will make it somewhat less readable than a modern translation. Still, as Philo points out, she's a better Latinist than most today.
Her translation of Boethius’s De Consolatione Philosophiae is not unrenowned.
Re: Messy handwriting reveals mystery translator: Queen Elizabeth I
#7I don't quite follow this. The translation is written neatly, but has some emendments in Elizabeth's hand. So the conclusion is that Elizabeth translated it, had her translation recorded by a scribe (she dictated it? Or wrote it somewhere that does not survive?) and then made corrections when reading it back. It sounds plausible but hardly conclusive - couldn't it be someone else's translation she was working on? It'…
The neatly written prose is an example of Elizabeth's idiosyncratic hand. Standards were a little different (far higher) back then. I really hesitate to do this, as I hate linking or even acknowledging them, but the Mail are often good and heavy with pictures. As they prove to be in this case: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7735885/Quee...
Standards really have changed if that's true. What should I make of this, then?
> While the translation itself is copied in the elegant hand of a scribe, the corrections and additions are in “an extremely distinctive, disjointed hand”.
Is the whole Tacitus page to be considered part of the "corrections and additions"? The Daily Mail article shows an example of a correction, inserting the word "Calme" which is clearly written sloppily even to modern eyes. But it also implies the whole page was written by her, picking out one example of a "hastily formed letter 'd'".
Re: Messy handwriting reveals mystery translator: Queen Elizabeth I
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
The neatly written prose is an example of Elizabeth's idiosyncratic hand. Standards were a little different (far higher) back then. I really hesitate to do this, as I hate linking or even acknowledging them, but the Mail are often good and heavy with pictures. As they prove to be in this case: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7735885/Quee...
Standards really have changed if that's true. What should I make of this, then? > While the translation itself is copied in the elegant hand of a scribe, the corrections and additions are in “an extremely distinctive, disjointed hand”. Is the whole Tacitus page to be considered part of the "corrections and additions"? The Daily Mail article shows an example of a correction, inserting the word "Calme" which is clearly…
No, it implies the whole page was translated by her, but the main body of the text was transcribed by a scribe.
Re: Messy handwriting reveals mystery translator: Queen Elizabeth I
#9I don't quite follow this. The translation is written neatly, but has some emendments in Elizabeth's hand. So the conclusion is that Elizabeth translated it, had her translation recorded by a scribe (she dictated it? Or wrote it somewhere that does not survive?) and then made corrections when reading it back. It sounds plausible but hardly conclusive - couldn't it be someone else's translation she was working on? It'…
It could have been someone else's but accounts seem to concur that Elizabeth would have been exceptionally able to provide her own translation. There's consistent evidence (as far as I can tell) that she was very bright. I'm not aware of the sources for these claims including the one that she was fluent in French, Spanish, Italian, Latin, German and Greek.
Re: Messy handwriting reveals mystery translator: Queen Elizabeth I
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The neatly written prose is an example of Elizabeth's idiosyncratic hand. Standards were a little different (far higher) back then. I really hesitate to do this, as I hate linking or even acknowledging them, but the Mail are often good and heavy with pictures. As they prove to be in this case: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7735885/Quee...
Standards really have changed if that's true. What should I make of this, then? > While the translation itself is copied in the elegant hand of a scribe, the corrections and additions are in “an extremely distinctive, disjointed hand”. Is the whole Tacitus page to be considered part of the "corrections and additions"? The Daily Mail article shows an example of a correction, inserting the word "Calme" which is clearly…
I think Grauniad are using clumsy wording as "in the elegant hand of a scribe" can just as easily imply that was her Sunday best script in the style of a scribe, which degrades as she hurries. Which is how I took it. Auntie Beeb brings a tad more precision with:
"But the clinching argument was the handwriting. The translation was copied by one of her secretaries but it is covered in corrections and additions which match the queen's highly distinctive, indeed rather messy, hand."
So I was entirely wrong, and the Mail appear to be making stuff up, which is to be expected. :)
Three sources, three differing results. lol. Dr Philo needs his own blog.