The Translation Process
THE TRANSLATION PROCESS
Relatively little documentary evidence has survived to allow us to form a picture of the typical working life of these companies of translators. A biographical sketch of John Boys—also “Bois,” a member of the Second Cambridge Company—has survived, which offers some illuminating details concerning his lifestyle over the period of the translation. The biography was written in a rather trenchant style by his contemporary Anthony Walker, who took a certain delicious pleasure in pointing out how Boys needed little encouragement to neglect his parish duties at Boxworth for the academic delights of Cambridge.
[Boys] went not from the university when he left Cambridge, only he made his way a little longer to the schools. For he used constantly to come and hear Mr Downes and Mr Lively (those two worthy professors of the Greek and Hebrew tongues)… When it pleased God to move King James to that excellent work, the translation of the Bible; when the translators were to be chosen for Cambridge, he was sent for thither by those therein employed, and was chosen one; some university men thereat repining… All the time he was about his own part, his commons were given him at St John's; where he abode all the week until Saturday night; then went home to discharge his cure, returning thence on Monday morning… Four years were spent in this first service; at the end whereof the whole work being finished, and three copies of the whole Bible sent from Cambridge, Oxford and Westminster, to London; a new choice was to be made of six in all, two out of every company, to review the whole work… For the dispatch of which business Mr Downes and Mr Boys were sent for up to London. Where meeting (though Mr Downes would not go till he was either fetched or threatened with a pursuivant) their fellow-labourers, they went daily to Stationers' Hall, and in three quarters of a year, finished their task. All which time they had from the Company of Stationers 30 s. per week duly paid them… Whilst they were employed in this last business he, and he only, took notes of their proceedings, which notes he kept till his dying day.
St. John's College, Cambridge, as seen from Fisher's Lane, 1815
Walker's comments suggest that the selection of translators involved the choice of a limited number of individuals from a larger group established by consultation. Walker implies that selection took place by interview at the places at which the companies were to meet regularly. This point is of no small interest, as it is well known that some who might have expected to be appointed to the companies of translators were, in fact, passed over. Two notable omissions from the final list of translators have attracted special attention: Hugh Broughton (1549–1612) and Andrew Willett (1567–1621) were both able Hebraists, and might have been expected to have been included among the king's translators. While the reasons for excluding Willett remain unclear, there is little difficulty in working out why Broughton was passed over. Noted for his violent temper and aggressive behavior toward his opponents, Broughton would have caused considerable difficulties within the committee structures envisaged for the translation process. Broughton took his exclusion badly. He had seven years to nurse his grudges before wreaking a savage revenge on his colleagues.
Walker's account of Boys's activities also casts light on the process of translation itself. Walker's account indicates that Boys spent only Sundays in his parish, devoting the remainder of the week attending to translation issues. The process, according to Walker, took four years in the case of the Second Cambridge Company, which was assigned the Apocrypha. Others took longer. The best way of making sense of the existing documentary evidence—which is disappointingly sparse—is to suggest that the companies, who began their work in 1604, finished their translation assignments at different points: some in 1608, some in 1609, and some at the last moment, in 1610. At this point, all the translations were assembled centrally at Stationers' Hall in London, when a further review took place. Each company contributed two representatives to this meeting; in the case of the Second Cambridge Company, as Walker's account makes clear, these were Boys and Downes.
In his narrative, Walker refers to six representatives gathering together at Stationers' Hall; another, apparently more reliable account of the same process makes reference to twelve delegates, two appointed by each company. This account is due to Samuel Ward, who was also a member of the Second Cambridge Company. Ward presented his account of the translation of the King James Bible at the Synod of Dort on November 20, 1618, a few years after its publication. In his version of the complex translation process, Ward stated that the general meeting of the editors at Stationers' Hall involved twelve individuals, two being drawn from each group of translators. It is difficult to know which account to accept. We know that Boys and Downes were present at the editorial meeting at Stationers' Hall, as well as John Harmer of the Second Oxford Company. It is far from clear how many others were present.
1890 Watercolor of Stationers' Hall by John Crowther (1876–1903)
Walker's narrative of Boys's life makes reference to his keeping notes of the proceedings at Stationers' Hall, which he kept until his dying day. What appears to be a corrected copy of those notes was discovered in the library of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and published in 1966. The Boys manuscript provides a hint that six may be the correct number for those present at the final editorial meeting. Boys apparently decided to record the views of individual contributors at certain points, and identified them by abbreviations or initials. The following initials or abbreviations are found: A.D.; B.; C; H.; D. H; Hutch.; D. Hutch. The last two may well be abbreviations for Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, who had died four years earlier, leaving some notes for the benefit of his cotranslators. The manuscript appears to suggest that the Stationers' Hall meeting interacted with these notes. This being the case, the number of initials points to six persons being present.
This neat conclusion must be treated with suspicion. We possess a copy of only part of Boys's manuscript, dealing with some New Testament writings. The Hebraists would have been more concerned with the Old Testament translations, which are not covered in the material at our disposal. Suggestive though the evidence from Boys's manuscript may well be, it is not sufficient to adjudicate finally in this matter.
An important contemporary witness to the events at Stationers' Hall is to be found in the Table Talk of John Selden.
The translation in King James' time took an excellent way. That part of the Bible was given to him who was most excellent in such a tongue (as the Apocrypha to Andrew Downes), and then they met together, and one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, etc. If they found any fault, they spoke up; if not, he read on.
There is an important point to be made here relating to the often-praised literary quality of the translation. Selden's account explicitly states that the draft translation was read out aloud to the assembled delegates, who were then free to suggest alterations. The King James Bible was designed to be read publicly in church, and there is no doubt that the translators gave careful consideration to ensuring that the translation could be understood by those to whom it was read, rather than just those who read it.
Yet a comparison of Boys's notes with the final published text of the King James Bible suggests that few of the changes proposed at the
Stationers' Hall meeting may actually have been incorporated into the final text. The notes reveal a lively and learned debate over the best way of representing Greek nouns and verbs. Boys himself suggested that Paul's command not to steal (Titus 2:10) should be rendered in terms of “not filchering”—an earthy piece of Elizabethan slang that did not find its way into the final version.
Having completed their recommendations for revision, the text was passed on to Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson, who were charged with adding the finishing touches. It is not clear whether their role was to review the overall text of the translation, or simply to comment on the specific changes proposed by the editorial committee that had met at Stationers' Hall. Then, in an apparently unscripted development, Richard Bancroft reviewed what had been hitherto regarded as the final version of the text. It would be one of his final acts; Bancroft died on November 2, 1610, and never lived to see the translation over which he had held so much sway. Smith complained loudly to anyone who would listen that Bancroft had introduced fourteen changes in the final text without any consultation. Yet we remain unclear as to what those alleged changes might have been.
Finally, Smith and Bilson composed the front matter to the work. This consisted of two items: the “Epistle Dedicatory” to James I (which is thought to have been written by Bilson) and the lengthy “Translators to the Reader”—an extended preface, setting out the basic principles used by the translators—penned by Smith. In view of the importance of this lengthy document, we shall explore the basic points it makes.