For the first time, he was about to sit up all night in the heart of this silent neighborhood, for the sight of such social splendor had so enthralled him that he felt deceptively energetic (translated by A. J. Krailsheimer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 29).
The translations by Marriage, Crawford, and Krailsheimer were first published in 1901, 1951, and 1991, respectively. A number of slight but significant differences reveal divergent philosophies of translation over the course of one century. Most interesting, I think, is that while all three translators retain the word “splendor” (a key Balzacian term; see Splendeurs et misères des courtisanes [A Harlot High and Low] ) , Marriage alone respects a crucial detail of the original when she writes “splendor of the world.” Crawford and Krailsheimer speak instead of “the splendors of society” and “social splendor,” which are slightly but significantly inaccurate. Certainly, Eugène is dazzled by the wealth and refinement of the society he encounters at the home of the Vicomtesse, but what he has beheld there, and is in thrall to, is the splendor of a world (les splendeurs du monde) . By the time Crawford and Krailsheimer set about translating Père Goriot, Balzac’s name had become synonymous with the representation of social scenes and social struggles.
Their translations seem to want to push this vision of Balzac, as though they sought to bring out the authentically Balzacian in general (the preoccupation with the social) rather than the particularity of Rastignac’s experience. Yet it is important to realize that from Rastignac’s point of view the newly discovered home of Madame de Beauséant is a whole world, distinct in every respect from other worlds (such as that represented by the Maison Vauquer), sufficient unto itself, containing everything.
There are other interesting differences among the three versions. The “quarter” in which Ellen Marriage’s Eugène lives remains a “quarter” in Crawford but with Krailsheimer in 1991 it has become a “neighborhood,” the word “quarter” apparently being by then a bit archaic or too foreign. (Yet we know little of the neighbors except that they are anything but neighborly : They are represented here by the lodging-house of the shadowy Buneaud.) Marriage breaks into two sentences what is only one in French; further, she alters the punctuation of the original, making a semicolon do a good deal of conceptual labor (something Balzac rarely does, shunning even commas). In this, she is perhaps guilty of prettifying what was not so pretty; in common with almost all translators of Balzac, she has taken some license with punctuation, and has broken up sentences and paragraphs into more manageable bites. She might also be judged harshly for the rather refined (if accurate) “factitious” for Balzac’s rather plain “false” (fausse) to describe the energy that animates Eugène after the ball.
Marriage has a fine knowledge of things and of the words for them, which is vital for a translator of Balzac, whose books are filled with objects. She knows what a “tester” is (p. 138); she knows that Goriot possesses a “posset dish” (p. 26); she knows that Anastasie has a “mantuamaker” (p. 256). She uses expressions current in her time that seem now quaint or outmoded. She has an ear for dialogue. In Goriot, the speech of each character differs from the others according to sometimes minute degrees of social distinction. It is often through their language, through their use or misuse of grammar and choice of words, that the characters reveal themselves. Madame Vauquer‘s speech, for example, is at once direct, vulgar, and pretentious. Readers will appreciate the niceness of Marriage’s renderings (“‘My angel,’ said she to her dear friend, ‘you will make nothing of that man yonder”’ [p. 29).
It is perhaps worth mentioning that English translations of Goriot up to the middle of the twentieth century came with few or no notes. In 1901 Ellen Marriage saw the need for only a single footnote—on p. 105 (p. 113), to explain the reference to the initials T.F., for Travaux forces (hard labor) branded onto the convict’s skin. The Crawford translation of 1951 has no notes at all. With the passage of time, which has rendered some of the allusions and references obscure or obsolete, and with the increasing role of scholars and teachers in the preparation and translation of English editions, notes and prefatory materials have proliferated. The reader might wish to remember that generations of Anglophones have read Père Goriot without interventions from translator or editor. He or she might wish also to bear in mind the following word of caution from the pen of one of the most erudite of all Balzac scholars, the literary historian Pierre-Georges Castex: “Be wary of the erudition that swirls around texts, which can help approach them, but ... which does not get at what is essential, for what is essential is in the work and one must look there in order to discover it” (cited in Ambrière, “Hommage à Pierre-Georges Castex,” p. 9). The wonder of Père Goriot is in the work, in its details (“it is the author’s firm belief that details alone shall constitute henceforth the merit of works improperly called novels,” as Balzac writes in his preface to Scenes de la vie privée [Scenes of Private Life, 1830]),—for example, the character Goriot, the former vermicelli manufacturer and expert in flour, sniffing his bread before tasting it or, in the same vein, Madame Vauquer’s vexed glance at students who consume too much bread. These details succeed not only on account of their astuteness and plausibility, which contribute to the effect of realism in this carefully observed novel. They succeed also because they allude, without clamor or insistence, to the highly Balzacian theme of the necessities of life, of the daily bread that society refuses to the hungry, of the bread that some earn, some steal, some swindle, etc.
Peter Connor is Associate Professor of French and Comparative Literature at Barnard College, Columbia University. He is the author of Georges Bataille and the Mysticism of Sin (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000). He has translated Bataille’s The Tears of Eros (City Lights Press, 1989), as well as many works in the area of contemporary French philosophy, including The Inoperative Community, by Jean-Luc Nancy (University of Minnesota Press, 1991).
NOTES
1 These numbers are from A. G. Canfield, “Les Personnages reparaissants dans la Comédie humaine,” cited in Pierre-Georges Castex, ed., Le Père Goriot (Paris: Editions Gamier, 1960), p. vi.
2 “One drank liberally under [Balzac’s] roof, but this pleasure easily took on with him a romantic and literary form. Each bottle he brought up from his cellar had a story. This one had been around the world three times; this one dated from a fabulously distant epoch; this rum came from a cask that had bobbed for a hundred years on the seas” (André Billy, Balzac [Paris: Club des Editeurs, 1959], p. 78; translation by Peter Connor).
3 The judgments of Sainte-Beuve, Zola, and Proust are collected in the Norton Critical Edition of Père Goriot, edited by Peter Brooks and translated by Burton Raffel (London and New York: W. W. Norton, 1998).
4 The reference is to the title character of Balzac’s Ferragus, part 1 of Histoire des Treize, edited by Pierre-Georges Castex (Paris: Éditions Garnier, 1966), p. 139. Shakespeare’s King Lear is often invoked as a source, especially since Balzac placed later editions of Père Goriot under the epigraph “All is true,” the subtitle of Henry VIII. The role of the missing third daughter (Cordelia) would be played by Victorine Taillefer or (see Bellos, Honoré de Balzac: Old Goriot [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], pp. 34-35) by Rastignac himself.
5 Collins adds in a note: “This sentence has unfortunately proved prophetic. Cheap translations of Le Père Goriot and La Recherche de L Absolu were published soon after the present article appeared in print, with extracts from the opinions here expressed on Balzac’s writings appended by way of advertisement. Critical remonstrance in relation to such productions as these would be remonstrance thrown away. It will be enough to say here, by way of warning to the reader, that the experiment of rendering the French of Balzac into its fair English equivalent still remains to be tried” (My Miscellanies, in The Works of Wilkie Collins, vol. 20 [New York: P. F. Collier, 1899]).
Père Goriot
TO THE GREAT AND ILLUSTRIOUS
GEOFFROY SAINT-HILA
IRE,a
A TOKEN OF ADMIRATION
FOR HIS WORKS AND GENIUS.
—De Balzac
Balzac’s Second Preface to Père Goriot
Since its reprint in book form, which, according to bookstore logic, constitutes a second edition, Père Goriot has become the object of imperial censorship by His Majesty The Newspaper, that nineteenth-century autocrat who lords over kings, who counsels them, makes them or breaks them; and who, from time to time, is bound to keep watch over morality since he did away with the religion of the State. The author was fully aware that it was Père Goriot’s destiny to suffer during his literary life just as he suffered in his real life. Poor man! His daughters did not even want to acknowledge him because he had lost his fortune ; and the broadsheets also disowned him under the pretext that he was immoral. How could an author not try to rid himself of the San Benitob in which the holy or cursed inquisition of journalism cloaks him while throwing the word “immorality” in his face? If the scenes created by the author were false, the critics would have blamed him for them, saying that he had slandered modem society; if the critics hold these scenes to be true, then it is not the author’s work that is immoral. Père Goriot has not been sufficiently understood—even though the author took the trouble to explain how this man was revolting against the social laws, through ignorance and feeling, just as Vautrin revolts through his unknown power and by the instinct of his character. The author had a good laugh upon seeing some persons who, compelled to understand what they were criticizing, claimed that Père Goriot had decent sensibilities—Goriot, that Illinois of flour, that Huron of grain markets.c Why didn’t they reproach him for not knowing Voltaire or Rousseau, for not being aware of the salon manners or the French language? Père Goriot is like the murderer’s dog who licks the hand of his master when it drips with blood; he doesn’t question, he doesn’t judge, he loves. Père Goriot would wax, as he tells us, Rastignac’s boots in order to get closer to his daughter. He wants to go and hold up the bank when his daughter needs money, and yet would he not be angry with his sons-in-law if they didn’t make his daughters happy? He loves Rastignac because his daughter loves him. Let each of us look around, and be frank with himself, how many Goriots in skirts would we see? Now, Père Goriot’s feelings imply maternity. But these explanations are almost superfluous. Those who decry this work would justify it admirably if they had done it themselves! Moreover, the author is not deliberately moral or immoral, to use the false terms that have been employed. The general plan that links together his works—and that one of his friends, M. Félix Davin,d has recently described—obliges him to depict everything: Père Goriot and Marana (Les Marana), Bartholoméo di Piombo (La Vendetta) and the widow Crochard (Une double famille) , the Marquis de Léganès (El Verdugo) and Cambremer ( Un drame au bord de la mer), Ferragus (Histoire des Treize) and M. de Fontaine (Le Bal de Sceaux), and finally to grasp paternity in all the folds of his heart, to paint it in its entirety, just as he tries to represent human feelings, social crises, good and evil, the whole hotchpotch of civilization.
If some papers assailed the author, others have defended him; living in solitude, preoccupied with his works, he has not been able to thank the persons to whom he is all the more indebted since they are comrades who were entitled, by the rights of talent and longstanding friendship, to berate him, but he thanks them collectively for their useful help.
People in love with morals, who took seriously the author’s promise in a previous preface that he would portray a completely virtuous woman, will learn perhaps with satisfaction that the tableau is in the varnishing stage at this moment, that the frame is being bronzed, and lastly that, without metaphor, this difficult work, entitled Le Lys dans la vallée will soon appear in one of our serials.
Meudon, May 1, 1835.
CHAPTER 1
A Middle-Class Lodging-House
Mme. Vauquer (née de Conflans) is an elderly person, who for the past forty years has kept a lodging-house in the Rue Neuve-Sainte-Geneviève, e in the district that lies between the Latin Quarter and the Faubourg SaintMarcel. Her house (known in the neighborhood as the Maison Vauquer) receives men and women, old and young, and no word has ever been breathed against her respectable establishment ; but, at the same time, it must be said that as a matter of fact no young woman has been under her roof for thirty years, and that if a young man stays there for any length of time it is a sure sign that his allowance must be of the slenderest. In 1819, however, the time when this drama opens, there was an almost penniless young girl among Mme. Vauquer’s boarders.
That word drama has been somewhat discredited of late; it has been overworked and twisted to strange uses in these days of dolorous literature; but it must do service again here, not because this story is dramatic in the restricted sense of the word, but because some tears may perhaps be shed intra et extra muros before it is over.
Will any one without the walls of Paris understand it? It is open to doubt. The only audience who could appreciate the results of close observation, the careful reproduction of minute detail and local color, are dwellers between the heights of Montrouge and Montmartre, in a vale of crumbling stucco watered by streams of black mud, a vale of sorrows which are real and of joys too often hollow; but this audience is so accustomed to terrible sensations, that only some unimaginable and well-nigh impossible woe could produce any lasting impression there. Now and again there are tragedies so awful and so grand by reason of the complication of virtues and vices that bring them about, that egotism and selfishness are forced to pause and are moved to pity; but the impression that they receive is like a luscious fruit, soon consumed. Civilization, like the car of Juggernaut, is scarcely stayed perceptibly in its progress by a heart less easy to break than the others that lie in its course; this also is broken, and Civilization continues on her course triumphant. And you, too, will do the like; you who with this book in your white hand will sink back among the cushions of your armchair, and say to yourself, “Perhaps this may amuse me.” You will read the story of Père Goriot’s secret woes, and, dining thereafter with an unspoiled appetite, will lay the blame of your insensibility upon the writer, and accuse him of exaggeration, of writing romances. Ah! once for all, this drama is neither a fiction nor a romance! All is truef—so true, that every one can discern the elements of the tragedy in his own house, perhaps in his own heart.
The lodging-house is Mme. Vauquer’s own property. It is still standing at the lower end of the Rue Neuve-Sainte-Genevieve, just where the road slopes so sharply down to the Rue de I’Arbalète, that wheeled traffic seldom passes that way, because it is so stony and steep. This position is sufficient to account for the silence prevalent in the streets shut in between the dome of the Panthéon and the dome of the Val-de-Grâce, two conspicuous public buildings which give a yellowish tone to the landscape and darken the whole district that lies beneath the shadow of their leaden-hued cupolas.
In that district the pavements are clean and dry, there is neither mud nor water in the gutters, grass grows in the chinks of the walls. The most heedless passer-by feels the depressing influences of a place where the sound of wheels creates a sensation ; there is a grim look about the houses, a suggestion of a jail about those high garden walls. A Parisian straying into a suburb apparently composed of lodging-houses and public institutions would see poverty and dulness, old age lying down to die, and joyous youth condemned to drudgery. It is the ugliest quarter of Paris, and, it may be added, the least known. But, before all things, the Rue Neuve-Sainte-Geneviève is like a bronze frame for a picture for which the mind cannot be too well prepared by the contemplation of sad hues and sober images. Even so, step by step the daylight decreases, and the cicerone’s droning voice grows hollower as the traveler descends into the Catacombs. The comparison holds good! Who shall say which is more ghastly, the sight of the bleached skulls or of dried-up human hearts?
The front of the lodging-house is at right angles to the road, and looks out upon a little gar
den, so that you see the side of the house in section, as it were, from the Rue Neuve-Sainte-Genevieve. Beneath the wall of the house front there lies a channel, a fathom wide, paved with cobble-stones, and beside it runs a graveled walk bordered by geraniums and oleanders and pomegranates set in great blue and white glazed earthenware pots. Access into the graveled walk is afforded by a door, above which the words MAISON VAUQUER may be read, and beneath, in rather smaller letters, “Lodgings for both sexes, etc. ”
During the day a glimpse into the garden is easily obtained through a wicket to which a bell is attached. On the opposite wall, at the further end of the graveled walk, a green marble arch was painted once upon a time by a local artist, and in this semblance of a shrine a statue representing Cupid is installed; a Parisian Cupid, so blistered and disfigured that he looks like a candidate for one of the adjacent hospitals,g and might suggest an allegory to lovers of symbolism. The half-obliterated inscription on the pedestal beneath determines the date of this work of art, for it bears witness to the widespread enthusiasm felt for Voltaire on his return to Paris in 1777:Ɨ “Whoe’er thou art, thy master see;
He is, or was, or ought to be. ”
At night the wicket gate is replaced by a solid door. The little garden is no wider than the front of the house; it is shut in between the wall of the street and the partition wall of the neighboring house. A mantle of ivy conceals the bricks and attracts the eyes of passers-by to an effect which is picturesque in Paris, for each of the walls is covered with trellised vines that yield a scanty dusty crop of fruit, and furnish besides a subject of conversation for Mme. Vauquer and her lodgers; every year the widow trembles for her vintage.