Article Review: "Localizing Disembodied Voice in Sandys's Englished 'Narcissus and Echo' "

Gina Blooms' article does a close analysis of George Sandys' 1632 translation of the myth of "Narcissus and Echo" with a focus on the portrayal of the character, Echo, and the implications of 'moralizing' effect that Sandys sought to convey to this Early Modern audience. In her article, she outlines for us the Early Modern view of Ovid's metamorphoses, the deliberate choices that Sandys' made as he was translating the myth, and finally his 

She begins with a discussion of Early Modern views towards Ovid's Metamorphoses, and Sandys struggle to find an appropriate place for pagan mythology in a Christian world that sought to find philosophical and moral truth in the literature that was studied during the time period. She notes the during this search for morality, these myths were translated and altered to make them fit for their Early Modern audience. 

She then demonstrates this moralizing process in Sandy's translation of the myth of "Narcissus and Echo," taking careful note of how his translation makes a deliberate effort to give Echo a sense of vocal agency that is not present in the original Latin of Ovid. One particular instance that stands out is the translation of Echo's response to Narcissus's words, " 'ecquis adest?' (is anyone here? [III. 380])" (Bloom 131). She points out that a previously adequate translation of Echo's response could have been: " 'adest' ('here'), but Sandys deliberately translates Narcissus' words as " 'Is any nigh?' " (131), thus allowing Echo to respond with the words, "I." Rather than going for a direct translation, he opts to utilize the aural possibilities that are offered by the English language. In doing so, he grants Echo a sense of agency over the use of her voice. 

While this definitely conveys a greater sense of agency for the female Echo, her autonomy is also undermined she is depicted immorally. This is apparent in Sandy's commentary on the myth. Through his commentary, Sandys maintains that Echo's voice is not an original voice; she is merely a "sound," not a "figure" (146). And even he acknowledges her voice, it is only as part of a tradition of "loquacious and lascivious women" (148). As Bloom notes, Sandys "needed to normalize, in order to dismiss, Echo's unintentional but effective vocality" (149).  

Bloom's article clearly demonstrates the need for close examination of the texts that were utilized in the Early Modern Era. As people of the time period realized, women most definitely had voices and a sense of agency, even if their voices were characterized as immoral. Why else would such a translation cause such anxiety amongst those who read it?

Bloom, Gina. "Localizing Disembodied Voice in Sandys's 'Narcissus and Echo.' " Ovid and the Renaissance. Ed. Goran Stanivukovi. Toronto: U Toronto Press, 2001: 129-154.