The Meaning of Recognition (50 page)

Some purists would say you can’t. They would say that Flaubert’s prose style is the essence of his art, and too near perfection to survive being translated. But we have to ask
ourselves what we mean by the word ‘style’. Undoubtedly there is a rhythm and a cadence to Flaubert’s prose that only a fluent reader of French can appreciate, although the fluent
reader of French had better
be
French. We are always better judges of tone in our first language than in a second or third. To turn things around for a moment, late nineteenth-century
French critics were under the impression that Edgar Allan Poe was not only a spellbinding tale-teller but also a great master of English prose, and in the twentieth century it was widely assumed in
the French literary world that the leading stylist of the English literary world was Charles Morgan, a dim bulb now long extinguished. If we are learning a foreign language, we tend to admire
writers in it who are easy to read. One of the early bonuses attached to learning Russian, for example, is that all the standard European fairy tales were transcribed by great writers. So within a
few weeks you are reading Tolstoy, whose name is on the title page of
The Three Bears
. It isn’t all that long a step to reading
Anna Karenina
, because Tolstoy’s
sentences are never very tricky at however high the level of exposition. The temptation is to call Tolstoy a stylist. But in Russian, Turgenev was the stylist. Turgenev was the one who cared about
repeating a word too soon. Tolstoy hardly cared at all.

It can safely be assumed that Flaubert’s prose makes music. More important, however, is that it would be impressive even if it didn’t. This is where the second, and richer, meaning
of the word ‘style’ comes in. You need only rudimentary French to spot that Flaubert never wastes a word. Every word is to the point, especially in the descriptive passages. In his
landscapes, trees are sometimes trees and leaves leaves, but when it matters he can give everything a specific name. Within four walls, he gives every object a pinpoint particularity. If he is
looking at things through Emma’s eyes, he adds his analytical power to her naïve hunger. Emma’s wishes might have been blurred by her addiction to sentimental novels, but her
creator, never sentimental for a second, keeps her perceptions sharp. Early in the story, there is a ball at a grand house: an episode that awakes in Emma a dangerous taste for the high life. In a
few paragraphs, using Emma’s vision as a camera, Flaubert captures the sumptuous glamour with a photographic scope that makes us think of those lavish get-togethers in
War and Peace
,
in Proust or in
The Leopard
. Dickens could lay out a scene like that, too, but would spend thousands of words on it.

Minting his every phrase afresh, Flaubert avoided clichés like poison. ‘Avoid like poison’ is a cliché, and one that Flaubert would either not have used if he had been
composing in English, or else flagged with italics to prove that he knew it came ready-made. Martin Amis’s War Against Cliché is nothing beside Flaubert’s, who waged his with
nuclear weapons. (He died waging it: his last book,
Bouvard et Pécuchet
, was about no other subject.) It follows that any translator must be unusually alert to what is alive or dead
about his own use of language, or else he will do an injury to Flaubert’s style far more serious than merely failing to reproduce its pulse and lilt. When Flaubert seems to be saying that
Charles’s off-putting first wife is long in the tooth, the translator had better be careful about calling her long in the tooth, which in English means old: Flaubert is just saying that her
teeth are long. The translator needs to keep an eye on his own prose. Unfortunately the evidence continues to accumulate that we are now past the time when more than a few jobbing writers knew how
to do this. In the second-last stage of our language’s decay, it was enough to write correctly in order to gain a reputation for writing well. Now we are in the last stage, when almost nobody
knows what it means to write correctly. Among ordinary pens for hire, it is no longer common to write without solecisms; even those who can are likely to bolt phrases together with no real
attention to their derivation; and in too many cases the language is utterly emptied of the history that brought it into being. This is a very depleted gene-pool in which to go fishing for a
translator of any foreign writer at all, let alone Flaubert. One can only salute the boldness of a publishing house still willing to give it a try. For safety’s sake, however, it might be
wise not to let the salute progress far above the shoulder until we have made sure that what we are acknowledging is a real contribution.

*

It might only look like one. Perhaps to mark the fact that one of the supreme achievements of French literature is being once again done into English, Oxford’s physically
handsome new translation of
Madame Bovary
by Margaret Mauldon bears on its cover James Tissot’s
Young Woman in a Boat
, dating from 1870. Tissot, after quitting France that
very year, spent the rest of his life being claimed by the English as one of their painters, so the invocation of his name can be counted as a nice cross-Channel touch. But
Madame Bovary
was first published in 1857. Considering that women’s fashions scarcely stayed frozen in those thirteen years, a pedant might have wished that a French painter of a slightly earlier period
could have been called in, but the young lady certainly has a sensual mouth, which can be said to fit. Already, though, it is hard to suppress a suspicion that in the matter of historical fidelity
things are out of kilter, and the suspicion intensifies once the book is opened. Professor Malcolm Bowie, who wrote the informative introduction, makes much ado in his back-of-the-jacket blurb
about Flaubert’s precision, which the professor assures us is matched by Mauldon’s brand-new and meticulously accurate translation of the actual work. Any reader wishing to believe this
is advised to start on page one. He had better not open the book accidentally at page 178, on which we find Emma’s lover Rodolphe justifying to himself his decision to ditch her. Rodolphe is
certainly supposed to be a creep, but surely he never spoke the French equivalent of late-twentieth-century American slang. ‘And anyway there’s all those problems, all that expense, as
well. Oh, no! No way! It would have been too stupid.’

*

Just to be certain that Rodolphe never spoke like a Hollywood agent, we can take a look at the same line in the original.
‘Et, d’ailleurs, les
embarras,
la depénse . . . Ah! non, non, mille fois non! Cela eût été trop
bête!
’ The perfectly ordinary, time-tested English idiom ‘No, no, a
thousand times no’ would have fitted exactly. The awful possibility arises that Mauldon has never paid much attention to English idioms like that. Instead, she thinks ‘No way’ is
perfectly ordinary. We can take it for granted that she knows the French language of Flaubert’s era inside out. (She has already translated, for the same series of Oxford World’s
Classics, works by Zola, Stendhal, Huysmans, Constant and Maupassant.) But she has a crucially weaker knowledge of how the English language of her own era has been corrupted. You might say that the
English language has always advanced through corruption, but ‘No way!’ is an idiom so closely tied to the present that it can hardly fail to weaken any attempt to summon up the past. In
Alan Russell’s translation
of
Madame Bovary
first published by Penguin in 1950, there is no ‘no way’. Probably the phrase did not yet exist, but almost certainly
Russell would not have used it even if it had. What he wrote was ‘No, no, by Heaven no!’ Not quite as good as ‘a thousand times no!’ perhaps, but certainly better than
‘No way!’: better because more neutral, in the sense of being less tied to the present time.

This is not to say that such glaring anachronisms are frequent in Mauldon’s translation. On page 23, when Charles Bovary is seeking Emma Rouault’s hand, Emma’s father thinks of
him as ‘a bit of a loser’, where Russell has ‘a bit of a wisp of a man’ – which, as well as being less of a jazzy put-down from the late twentieth century, happens to
be more accurate: a
gringalet
, according to my French–English dictionary, is a ‘little undersized fellow’. But apart from a few moments like that, Mauldon is safe from
being accused of outright barbarism. What she isn’t safe from is the question of whether her translation is really an improvement on Russell’s. Why try to improve on it, if all she can
offer is a prose that sounds – purportedly sounds – less dated? Isn’t a dated prose style what we want? Admittedly Russell translates ‘
nègre
’ as
‘nigger’. If only for justice, that one word was demanding to be changed; and Mauldon changes it, to ‘black man’. But I can’t find even one other word in
Russell’s translation that sounds dated in the wrong way. All the rest of it sounds dated in the right way, i.e. closer to Flaubert in time. It must also be said, alas, that most of it is
closer to Flaubert in possessing a sense of movement. Mauldon might say that accuracy precluded an easy stylistic flow, but if she said that, she would have to prove herself accurate. Despite the
heavy endorsement from Professor Bowie, her accuracy is not always beyond cavil.

The cavilling starts early in Part One, Chapter One, where we get this sentence about Charles’s parents. ‘His wife had been wild about him at first; she had treated him with an
amorous servility that had turned him against her all the more.’ According to Flaubert, ‘
elle
l’avait aimé avec mille servilités qui l’avaient
détaché d’elle encore
davantage
’. Where did the ‘thousand’ go? Russell has the wife ‘lavishing on him . . . a thousand servilities’.
You could say that the word ‘lavishing’ is put in – but what Mauldon has left out might matter: the wife did a lot of specific things, not just one. And as so often happens with
translators, a deadly knack of weakening points by being untrue to the text is accompanied by an even deadlier knack of missing them altogether by being true to it. Later in the opening chapter
(during which Charles grows to manhood in only a few pages of hurtling compression) there is a quick summary of his dissipations at medical school, culminating in a clause in which he
‘learned how to make punch, and, at long last, discovered love’. Thus Mauldon – and indeed all Flaubert says is that he ‘
sut faire du punch et connut enfin
l’amour
’. But Flaubert doesn’t just mean discovering love, he means learning to make love. Flaubert is talking about sex. Russell does better by juicing the text: young
Charles ‘took lessons in making punch, and finally in making love’. So the older translation is more frank, and thus more true to a novel whose frankness about these things, in the
great gallery of nineteenth-century novels, puts Flaubert beside Tolstoy, and ahead of both Dickens and Henry James.

In Part One, Chapter Three, Flaubert pulls off a fatefully resonant effect when Emma drains her glass of curaçao while Charles watches. Flaubert’s micrometrically particular style is
watching her as well: ‘. . .
le bout de sa langue, passant entre ses dents fines, léchait à petits
coups le fond du verre
’. Mauldon’s version
(‘the tip of her tongue . . . delicately licked at the bottom of the glass’) misses the repetitive movement. Russell missed it too, but he might have deliberately dodged it, having
spotted the pornographic element in those multiple dartings. They are a forecast of that astonishing single-paragraph set-piece in Part Two, Chapter Nine, when we can tell what Rodolphe has just
done to Emma because the whole landscape has an orgasm. Ever the keen student, Mauldon is well aware that with Flaubert, the man who invented the
style indirect libre
(although he himself
never used the term), any description of anything can relate to the interior lives of the characters in the scene. She is aware of it, but all too often she doesn’t spot the way it works.

Even with the direct style, where emotions are stated up front, there is a lot that she can miss, especially when it depends on an apparently minor point of grammar and syntax. There is a
telling example at the end of Part One, Chapter Five, when Charles, after a night in bed with his beautiful wife, goes riding off to work, ‘his heart full of the night’s bliss’.
But once again, Mauldon might have done better to observe the difference between the singular and the plural. Flaubert has Charles’s heart ‘
plein des félicités de la
nuit
’. Emma has more to offer than an abstract noun. Sensibly and more sensitively, Russell goes with the numbers: ‘the joys of the night’. As with the thousand servilities,
the joys of the night are separable events. She did this, she did that: her husband remembers as he rides.

In Part One, Chapter Seven, Emma finally admits to herself that her marriage is boring her to metaphorical death. Real death is still the length of the book away, but here is a portent.
‘
Pourquoi, mon Dieu, me suis-je mariée?
’ Russell, perhaps redundantly but at least faithfully, doubles the invocation of the Deity into ‘O God, O God’.
Inexplicably, Mauldon switches it to the mundane. ‘Why in the world did I ever get married?’ This seemingly tiny emendation counts as a heavy loss when you consider Emma’s
habitually blasphemous relation to the Church. In her downhill phase she will use the House of God as a trysting place for adultery. If we count as a poem any length of writing that can’t be
quoted from
excep
t out of context, then
Madame Bovary
is a poem. We might monkey with its language, but we mustn’t monkey with its internal consistency.

Strangely enough, on the face of it, an amateur literary stylist is less likely to do that than a professional scholar. But really it is not so strange. From before World War I until well after
World War II, in the long heyday of the gentleman translators, the key practitioners were not always supported by a cheering squad from the academy, but they could write a confident prose of their
own, however daunting the foreign model. Among them they had most of the big languages covered, and almost all of them were casually at home with French – which, in an era when Greek and
Latin still dominated the syllabus, was more commonly acquired on vacation than in the schoolroom. C. K. Scott-Moncrieff’s Proust eventually needed upgrading as to accuracy, but Terence
Kilmartin, who wrote an elegant prose himself when moonlighting from his job as literary editor of the
Observer
, was properly respectful of the standard Scott-Moncrieff had set in matching
Proust’s flow; and in the final stages D. J. Enright, another part-timer, was properly respectful of Kilmartin. There is unlikely to be a further advance on the Proust that Kilmartin and
Enright gave us, although there will probably be no shortage of boondoggles like the recent group effort by which various translators took on a section each, thus to prove inadvertently that a
single voice was the only thing holding the original together. ‘Either you got the voice,’ said the great soprano Zinka Milanov, ‘or you don’t got the voice.’