Elizabeth I's Translation of Tacitus: looking for help in Roman history?

I first read John-Mark Philo's article before Christmas and was fascinated by the prospect of new first hand work by Elizabeth I, especially as it's been more than a century since such a discovery has been made. Not being an expert on paleography, handwriting or the history of translation I will refer to Dr Philo on this and agree with his conclusion that this translation was the product of Elizabeth I. As such, and as Philo states at the end of his article, this raises interesting questions for historians of early modern England and the Elizabethan era. For example, why did Elizabeth choose to translate Tacitus' Annals, was it for personal or private use and what can her choice tell us about her views towards monarchy?

This is where I would like to offer my perspective as a historian of early modern England, to support my views I will be leaning on the recent work of John Guy, Elizabeth The Forgotten Years (Penguin, 2017). This book is not only a fascinating read but its focus on Elizabeth's reign after the Spanish Armada (1588) makes it of particular relevance to this translation. That is because of when Philo believes the translation, within his article he argues that the style and the paper used would suggest that Elizabeth's translation was made in the 1590s and most likely towards the end of decade, the final years of her reign. This is important as placing the translation within in the context of those turbulent years can illuminate Elizabeth's motivations.

It is worth pointing out, that my observations are simply that, observations - it could be the case that Elizabeth translated the Annals out of personal interest. It was well known how intelligent the queen was and such an academic exercise would be consistent with her character. However, I think that there could be an answer in the events that were happening during the 1590s. To understand that we need to briefly examine Tacitus' Annals; his history of the Roman Empire is focused on the period 14-68AD during the reigns of Tiberius and Nero. Some (including Charles I) have drawn the conlusion that Tacitus was anti-monarchical, on the contrary he supports the position of monarchy throughout, while criticising how Tiberius and Nero conducted themselves. What is interesting are the parallels which can be drawn between the period of Tacitus' Annals and Elizabeth's final years as queen.

Elizabeth I is often referred to (then and now) as 'Gloriana', this mythical portrayal of the queen as a semi-divine, unquestioned, absolute ruler has been perpetuated throughout the centuries by historians and popular culture. However, John Guy challenges its accuracy, and instead argues that throughout her reign Elizabeth I was engaged in a constant battle for supremacy. No more was this the case than in the 1590s, her position as a woman and the issue of succession meant that she was frequently undermined by her male advisers. Moreover, by the 1590s many of her trusted advisers had died and she was subjected to the political games of James I, Robert Cecil and the Earl of Essex. With her personal authority waning she came to rely on a smaller privy council and was reluctant to call parliaments, which combined with a poor economy and dissatisfaction over continued war with Spain severely damaged her reputation. Therefore, it is possible that Elizabeth was studying Tacitus for inspiration, the period of the Annals was following intense war and the end of rule by Senate. Could she have been trying not to make the same mistakes as Tiberius and Nero while upholding the authority of divine monarchy?

Tacitus' Annals' cataloguing of the end of the Senatorial aristocracy could mirror the Reformation and the religious conflict within England. In many ways the Elizabethan settlement (although it was not the final word on the matter of religion by any means) did settle the back and forth between Protestant and Catholic - England was to be a Protestant nation. For most of her reign Elizabeth had faced challenges from members of the Catholic aristocracy claiming her throne from the Duke of Norfolk to most famously Mary Queen of Scots. It is possible that the Annals provided Elizabeth with a relatable situation on which to provide guidance and perhaps foreshadow a warning, as it also contains reference to the growing influence of Christians. A similar situation was happening in England with the growth of Protestant 'puritans' the followers of Calvinism. History would prove this parallel foreshadowing accurate, just as the Christians eventually took over the Roman Empire, so too would the puritans can control in England, ending divine monarch through the execution of Charles I.

These are a few of my thoughts on the potential reasons why Elizabeth decided to produce a translation of Tacitus' Annals during the last years of her reign. I would be interested in hearing what other historians think and would like to thank Dr John-Mark Philo for his discovery.

- Guy, John. Elizabeth, The Forgotten Years, (London, Penguin books; 2017).

- Philo, John-Mark, 'Elizabeth I Translation of Tacitus: Lambeth Palace Library, MS 683', The Review of English Studies, (November, 2019).