Among French translators of the 15th and 16th centuries, Dante's work seems to have generated limited Interest, in contrast to the works of his compatriots Boccaccio, Petrach, and Ariosto, all of whomwere frequently translated and widely read by the French. From evidence provided by the earliest extant manuscripts, the Commedia was not rendered into French until the early part of the 16th century, some two hundred years after its composition. Of the four translations that have come down to us from the 16th century, two are partial (the anonymous Turin manuscript of the Inferno, ca. 1500, and Franpois Bergaigne's translation of the Paradise, done ca. 1524), and the other two are complete (the anonymous Vienna manuscript, ca. 1550, and the first printed translation, done by Balthazar Grangier in 1596). None of the early translations has received close critical consideration. Study of them has consisted primarily in sporadic citation of Isolated passages, usually for the purpose of demonstrating their inferiority to the original text or to the efforts of later translators. The French translations of the Commedia have also been called upon by literary historians to document the career of Dante's influence outside Italy. In this instance, it is the mere fact of the existence of the translations, and only that fact, that is significant; the particular technical and aesthetic qualities of the translations are of little consequence in influence studies. If, indeed, the question of quality in the translations is raised at all, it is generally dealt with in a cursory fashion: three or four sentences serve to evaluate the work of each translator.
It is the object of this study to examine the earliest complete French translation of the Commedia, which is the Vienna manuscript, in view of determining its technical quality and intrinsic artistic merit. This is done from a broad perspective that Is both theoretical and historical. Before the text is discussed, it is necessary to consider some of the mechanical and philosophical concerns of translators throughout the history of the art in the West, in order to arrive at terms useful for evaluation. This is followed by consideration of the intellectual, literary, and linguis tic context in which translation was practiced during the 16th century in France, inasmuch as translations amount to phenomena of specific times and places. Finally, the translation itself is evaluated. This is done with occasional reference to the other three early translations, and in light of the earlier chapters of the study. In this way, the conclusions reached about the translation are set within the literary and linguistic context of 16th-century France.