FOOD FOR THE
N.R.F.
665
"How would I say this if the notion occurred to me for the first
time in my own tongue?" Not finding words but turning phrases-–
hence being sure of what the foreigner thinks and what the native
says: two minds with twin thoughts. In moments of fatigue or inat–
tention the performer resumes his more comfortable single mind, and
error ensues. From the ignorance which turned
gateaux sees
into "dry
buns" to the awkwardness of Scott-Moncrieff when he nods over
Proust's dialogue, the difficulty to be met is that of the schiwphrenic:
what does this mean? What am I saying? Where is reality in these
multitudinous appearances--French, English, adjective, verb, cliche,
idiom, plural, inversion, image, illusion, assonance, repetition, brevity,
and downright nonsense itself? Translation is not spinning a thread,
it is putting a ballet on paper. Sufficient reason-but no excuse–
for the inevitable blunder.
The primary danger, illustrated by
sentimental,
is the lure of
the homonym.
Controler
does not mean "control";
demander
does
not mean "demand";
un enfant sage
is not a wise child nor a
con–
current
someone who agrees with you. The fact that
diete
does not
mean "diet" is annoyingly exemplified by the spoiling of one of
Vauvenargues' epigrams in a letter from Matisse to Gertrude Stein.
AI;
given in
The Flowers of Friendship,
it reads: "Solitude is to the
spirit what diet is to the body." The proper word is of course
"fasting." Equally of course, "dieting" sometimes does mean fasting
in English and
diete
sometimes does mean "regimen" in French. The
lesson is plain: the translator can take nothing for granted. He must
be steadily suspicious, inquisitive, a double man vigilant and hostile
in self-examination.
Paradoxically, the more at home in each language one feels, the
greater the chances of growing blind to gross errors-as I can illus–
trate from one of mine. It consisted in putting down the English word
"dais" for the French
dais.
Now when thinking in English, no other
preposition is possible with this noun than "upon"-it
is
a platform;
whereas when thinking in French, sense requires
sous,
i.e., under the
canopy. The two languages have each carried off a piece of the
ceremonial structure. But in the shuttling state of mind of the trans–
lator the difference established by usage disappears in a kind of simul–
taneous perception which renders the blunder invisible. This cross–
eyed condition no doubt accounts also for such a slip as one finds
