| ||
III
Besides prodding Cave to move more quickly with his own Crousaz books, the publication of Curll's Commentary also affected the text of both of Cave's works. Curll's Commentary is, in fact, a translation and abridgement by Forman of the first epistle of Crousaz, with Pope's lines substituted for the Du Resnel text, essentially vitiating Forman's attack on the verse translation since the reader has few examples of it. The "Remarks" on his translation of the Commentary are in footnotes to the text. These notes, largely favorable to Pope, attack both Du Resnel's translation and Crousaz's commentary based on it.
The influence on Johnson's activities by Curll's publication of a translation of the Commentaire's first epistle can best be shown by looking at Johnson's Commentary first. Although Johnson may have read over the Commentaire in anticipation of translating it, he could not have begun serious work on the first epistle of his Commentary before the publication of Forman's translation on 21 November 1738 since he clearly used it to make his own. Johnson's translation is superior to Forman's and includes the whole text; nevertheless there are a number of verbal parallels, several too close to be dismissed as coincidence. Johnson, for example, translated "à la gayeté" (60) as "Mirth and Gaiety" (27) and Forman as "Gaiety and Mirth" (24). The
Curll's edition of the Commentary served Johnson not only while he translated the first epistle; it also suggested the tone and form his footnotes should take. Curll's remarks in the Preface—"Impartiality and Justice obliges us to ask Mr De Crousaz, as he had two French Translations of Mr Pope's Essay on Man in his Hands, why he did not take the Prose to comment upon rather than the Verse, since he did not understand English?"—provide the point of attack for both Forman and Johnson.[38] Both translators make numerous complaints about how Du Resnel's French verse translation has distorted Pope's meaning and hence Crousaz's commentary, and in six instances Johnson has a footnote at or near the same point in the text, even though he does not always agree with Forman. On "just Balance" Forman's footnote suggests, "This is the Translator's Way of rendering equal Eye, which he likewise has too in the next Line; or sa juste Balance is a Flight of his own" (31). Johnson says, "These two Lines that give Occasion to these Questions, are entirely inserted by the Translator" (34). Forman's "These six lines are not in the Translation; how they came to be passed over, the Translator knows best" (33) is condensed by Johnson to "In this Place six whole Lines are omitted" (36).[39] To a quotation of lines 99-108 of Pope, which Forman has substituted for those of Du Resnel, Forman adds a footnote: "To these ten Lines, the Translator, tho' counted one of the French First Rates, has hobbled out their Meaning within the Compass of twenty four of his own; but he has left their Spirit behind him" (33). Johnson, of course, includes Du Resnel's verses with a translation, so he takes a slightly different approach, in part answering Forman:
But he has, indeed, us'd the Word a few Lines after,
Yet simple Nature to his Hope has given, &c.
to which, perhaps, all that Mr Crousaz has written may be apply'd with Propriety. (37-38)
Forman substitutes Pope's verses for those of Du Resnel throughout his translation of the first epistle of the Commentary. Johnson, however, follows Crousaz in reproducing Du Resnel's poem in its entirety, although adding his own line-for-line translation. But when Crousaz repeats a line or lines of Du Resnel's poem in his text for analysis, Johnson substitutes the lines of Pope. He also cites Pope's verse in the footnotes. This helps Johnson reinforce his point about the difference in quality between Pope's and Du Resnel's verses.
| ||