CURIOUS MISTRANSLATIONS.
(Vol. vi., p. 321.)
I have found, in D'Israeli's Curiosities of Literature, two or three instances in which he mistranslates from the French. The first occurs in the following passage in the article headed "Inquisition:"
"Once all were Turks when they were not Romanists. Raymond, Count of Toulouse, was constrained to submit. The inhabitants were passed on the edge of the sword, without distinction of age or sex."
From the words which I have marked for Italics, it is clear that D'Israeli translated the passage from some French author; but not being aware of the idiomatic expression "passer au fil de l'épée," and that it means "to put to the sword," he translated the words in their literal sense, which in English is no sense at all.
The second example will be found in the article headed "Mysteries, Moralities," &c. D'Israeli quotes some extracts from the Mystery of St. Dennis, and concludes with the following on the subject of baptism:
"Sire, oyez que fait ce fol prestre:
Il prend de l'yaue en une escuelle,
Et gete aux gens sur le cervele,
Et dit que partants sont sauvés."
which he translates thus:
"Sir, hear what this mad priest does:
He takes water out of a ladle,
And, throwing it at people's heads,
He says that when they depart they are saved!"
The error of "out of" for "into" is unimportant; but not so where he renders "partants" by "when they depart." The word "partant," in the original, is an adverb, and means "thereupon," "forthwith." This D'Israeli has mistaken for "partant," the participle of "partir:" and hence the erroneous construction given to the passage.
A third sample occurs in the same article, where the author quotes from one of the dramas called Sotties, a passage in which are these lines:
"Tuer les gens pour leurs plaisirs,
Jouer le leur, l'autrui saisir."
These he translates as follows:
"Killing people for their pleasures,
Minding their own interests, and seizing on what belongs to another."
Here we have "jouer le leur," to gamble, rendered by "to mind their own interests;" a rather equivocal method, it must be confessed, of accomplishing that object.
These are among the very few instances in which D'Israeli, by quoting from the original authorities, enables us to form an opinion as to the correctness of his anecdotes; and when we consider that by far the greater proportion of these are drawn from French sources, there is reason to apprehend that they may not have always been given with sufficient fidelity. I am confirmed in this view by another quotation which D'Israeli seems to have misunderstood. He is speaking of the feudal custom of the French barons, according to which they were allowed to cohabit with the new bride during the first three nights after marriage. Upon this he remarks:
"Montesquieu is infinitely French when he could turn this shameful species of tyranny into a bon mot; for he boldly observes on this: 'C'était bien ces trois nuits là qu'il fallait choisir; car pour les autres on n'aurait pas donné beaucoup d'argent.' The legislator, in the wit, forgot the feelings of his heart."
I have never been able to conceive what meaning D'Israeli could have attached to this quotation from Montesquieu, so as to torture it into a bon mot. Not only is there nothing of the kind in the words he quotes, but there is not even an attempt at it. The writer merely suggests a reason for the preference given to the first three nights; and in doing so he expresses the sentiments of the barons, and not his own. And yet, it is upon this strange misapprehension of Montesquieu's meaning, that D'Israeli lays at the door of that illustrious man the imputation of being "infinitely French," and of forgetting, for the sake of a bon mot, the feelings of his heart!
Henry H. Breen.
St. Lucia.