Talk:Argenis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
[edit] A few notes concerning Barclay's "Argenis" :
James I ordered an English translation in 1622, and died 25th March 1625. On 2nd Oct.1623, an English translation by Ben Jonson was entered at Stationers' Hall, but it was never published and the MS unknown. Since Charles II also ordered an English translation in 1629, the 1625 English edition printed by G[eorge] P[urslowe] (or Pye?) for Henry Seile was apparently not on sale by 1629. It's date may be spurious. The book was, in the common parlance of cheap journalism, "political dynamite". Barclay completed the Latin version in July 1621, and 'died' the following month. According to his friend Ralph Thorie, in a published tribute (STC 24034, In obitum J.Barclaii elegia, London), assisted by poison."The facts as to the removal of his monument and inscription from St.Onofrio have been perhaps permanently obscured by partisan dispute". The authority to the publisher to print and sell the so-called first edition is dated 21st July 1621, and was signed by Barclay at Rome. The Royal authority is dated 31st August 1621. Barclay died from 'stone' between these dates, on 12th August, at Rome. The Argenis is described as 'the most important novel written in Latin', and as a 'roman a clef' had great influence on literature. But there is considerable evidence that Barclay wrote it in English; the 1621 Latin edition being an inferior translation. This would make the 1625 English edition not merely the first English edition, but the first edition of all. Nothing is known of the 'Kingesmill Long', stated on the title to be the translator. These anomalies were discussed as early as 1910 by William Smedley in "The Mystery of Francis Bacon"; a man who,although biased (believing that Bacon wrote Argenis)was an excellent scholar and possessor of the finest Barclay collection, including an original manuscript,ever assembled. Barclay seems to have been an honest man, lacking any guile, and was deeply resented by the Jesuits, Cardinal Bellarmine, and the Pope. Colcestrian 20:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kingsmill Long
William Smedley clearly hadn't done his homework if he thought that "Nothing is known of the 'Kingesmill Long, stated on the title to be the translator". Descended from the Long family of Wiltshire, he was born c1588 in Stratton on the Fosse, Somerset, son of William Long of Beckington. His maternal grandfather was Sir John Kingsmill of Sidmanton. He was educated at St Alban Hall, Oxford and matriculated 2 March 1603-4 aged 15. (Alumni Oxoniensis: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500-1714: Joseph Foster - 1891 Page 936 ). He was a student of Lincolns Inn 1608 and was later called to the bar. (The Records of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn: The Black Books, 1898 - Page 188). Long lived at Avebury (Abstracts of Inquisitiones Post Mortem Returned Into the Court of Chancery in the Reign of Charles 1st) and dedicated his translation of Argenis to "the truly noble William Dunch of Avebury, 1636." Brograve 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kingsmill Long
But does any source, other than the highly suspect preface to the 1625 and later English editions, make it certain that these are the same people? In determining which was the first edition of this important work, the 1621 Latin or the '1625' English, there is a dilemma. Either Barclay wrote Argenis in English, and, it being more than his life was worth to publish it in English/in England (and he died mysteriously immediately after the Latin publication anyway), so it was hidden for a few years, or a man unknown as a translator yet of such consummate skill that the 'translation' is better than the excellent Latin 'original'. And then disappears, never translating anything else. The Royal request for a translation was inexplicable, since this English edition was already available. Ben Jonson was unequal to the task, and the fire which destroyed this and other of his translations almost certainly was a myth. As a Scotsman and an excellent Latin scholar, Barclay was well able to protect himself by printing his work in Latin verse on the continent. But it does seem more likely that he first wrote it out in English prose, and the two texts support this.I've learnt to be wary of 16th and 17th imprints -names, places, and dates. Colcestrian 01:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree - a dilemma, one on which I can't shed any light, I'm afraid. Brograve 06:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
