This has been a long approach to the question of Surrey's version
of the Second and the Fourth Books of the Æneid. The question
has been complicated because it happened to be a classic author,
Vergil. But for a long sustained effort in translation Vergil was
the inevitable choice for author and the Æneid for subject. This
is shown by the fact that during the first half of the century trans-
lations of the Æneid appear in almost all the vernaculars. In 1529
was published the French version in rimed couplets by Octavien
de Saint-Gelais; in 1553 the Gawin Douglas version in Lowland
Scotch; and in 1539-1544 the Italian rendition of the first six books,
done by a group of men. As there is little probability of imitation
between the French, Italian, and the Scotch, it is evident that we
are dealing with a phenomenon not limited to a single country or
to a single author. There was during the first half of the century
a desire diffused throughout Europe to reproduce classic authors
in the vernacular, and this desire surely is due to humanism.

The relation of Surrey's translation to those of the members of
the group requires a detailed analysis. Yet, even in the stating of
the problem, the inherent difficulties in the way of a satisfactory
solution become manifest. We have no data. Of necessity hypoth-
esis piles upon hypothesis, until the result is as complicated and as
fragile as a spider's web! On June 21, 1557, Tottel issued Surrey's
translation of the Second and Fourth Books of the Æneid,--but
by 1557 Surrey had been dead already ten years. Therefore the
date of the Tottel publication is of no value in deciding the date of
composition. Nor is it definite for textual criticism, since there is
little probability that Tottel had a better text for the Æneid than
he had for the poems. Moreover, for the Fourth Book there are
two other issues, that of the Hargrave MS. 205, and that of the
John Day impression ¹ and the text as given by the manuscript

-534-