University of Virginia Library

Vathek in English and French
by
Kenneth W. Graham

In 1929 a red herring was drawn across the path of Vathek scholarship by Herbert P. Grimsditch.[1] This herring, although not so red or noisome as an earlier one which stated that the French version of Vathek is a retranslation of the English version,[2] presented questions which still trouble English-speaking admirers of Beckford's tale. Grimsditch's herring was a new translation of Vathek, justified in an introduction which stated that the translation of Vathek published in 1786 by Samuel Henley is frequently inaccurate and does not reflect the revisions instigated by Beckford in successive editions in the French language. Grimsditch offered in its place a new and accurate translation of the last-revised French-language edition published in London in 1815.

Without considering the merits of Grimsditch's translation, which is competent although not without its own inaccuracies,[3] I would like to call attention to the dangerous assumption upon which the translation is based, the assumption that the Henley version of Vathek is a translation and may be judged according to its correspondence to the French-language edition it is alleged to translate. Such an assumption could lead to "new and more accurate" translations springing into existence every fifty to one hundred years depending upon the shifting

vagaries of the French and English languages, the inspiration of potential translators and the market for new translations. The assumption that the English Vathek is a translation would relegate it to a low position in English letters since scholars are naturally unwilling to study a work not in its original form.

Grimsditch was accurate in his observation that the English version of Vathek frequently does not supply a faithful rendering of the French text. The versions of Vathek in English and French do differ and the differences are significant. A review of the processes of translation and revision which led to the existence of two differing versions of Vathek will demonstrate, however, that these differences are quite in accord with Beckford's wishes. The main purposes of this paper are to assert the authority of the English version, to demonstrate significant differences between the two final authorized versions and to reach conclusions regarding the substantive relationship between Vathek in English and Vathek in French. This study of the two versions may convince some readers that the English Vathek has considerably more merit than it has been accorded.

The assumption that the English version of Vathek published in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is a translation is only half right and Grimsditch's contention that the English version of Vathek should reflect the last-revised French-language edition of 1815 is totally wrong; both positions ignore the history of publication of the English version. Doubts about the authority of the Henley version result in part from the well-known story that the impecunious Henley published his translation in 1786 without Beckford's knowledge and counter to Beckford's express direction to postpone publication for at least a year.[4] It appears to be less well-known that Beckford collaborated in the preparation of the English version. The record of the correspondence between Beckford and Henley reflects clearly a procedure whereby Henley sent completed sections of his translation to

Beckford for correction. A letter to Henley of 26 February 1785 indicates Beckford's delight on receiving the first part of Henley's translation: "Your translation has all the spirit of the Caliphs & their daemons. I long for the continuation, & hope you will gratify my impatience."[5] Beckford's next letter of 21 March 1785 shows his enthusiasm to be undiminished even after a month's deliberation:

Beckford's next letter finds him correcting Henley's translation according to his promise: "I shall sit down immediately to revise Vathec, and much approve yr idea of prefacing the tale with some explanation of its costume" [9 April 1785].[7] The remaining record of correspondence shows the nature of the collaboration: Beckford's letters give advice on the text but freely supply information to Henley on matters of "costume"; Henley's replies concern themselves with details of Arabian history and culture but offer advice on the text of the tale. Two of Henley's recorded suggestions were incorporated into the text of the English Vathek: the substitution of palampores for chintzes and the alteration of the punishment that overtakes Carathis. Three significant facts are revealed from the correspondence between Beckford and Henley and its relationship to the authoritative 1816 edition of the English text: the English version prepared by Henley had Beckford's enthusiastic approval; Beckford collaborated in its preparation; neither Beckford nor Henley felt constrained to make the English version a faithful representation of the French.

Beckford's involvement in the preparation of the English version precludes it from being treated as an ordinary translation. Not only did Beckford collaborate in the preparation of the original English version, but later, when he had the time and inclination, he revised thoroughly the text and notes of the English version for the second edition of 1816. The extent of that revision is revealed in a recent

publication of Vathek edited by Dr. Roger Lonsdale for Oxford University Press which lists by rough count a total of 518 substantive variants between the first and second editions.[8] If, as Grimsditch has noted, there are discrepancies between the text of Vathek in French and English, they exist because Beckford allowed them to exist. To reject the English Vathek as a bad translation is to accept the dubious position that the English Vathek purports to be a translation, a position that Beckford by his actions seems to have rejected. Indeed, why should Beckford wish to make the English version a faithful translation of the French? Believing himself to be in control of the final English version, he would wish to ensure only that the English text is imbued with the "spirit" (and that is Beckford's word) of Vathek. The English Vathek is, in fact, little less than an independent version of the tale.

The history of publication of Vathek in French demonstrates a similarly independent development of the text. Vathek in French underwent three noteworthy revisions in its first three editions: Lausanne 1787, Paris 1787, and Londres 1815. Of the first revision, owing to the disappearance of Beckford's French manuscript, very little can be known. It seems that, upon being informed of Henley's unauthorized publication of Vathek in English, Beckford placed the French manuscript in the hands of David Levade,[9] a professor of theology in Lausanne, with instructions to correct any faulty French and to rush it into print. Beckford, although proud of his fluency in French, appears to have had no illusions about the purity of his usage. That Levade's revisions were minor is borne out by the existence of an early, and very literal translation of the manuscript done into English in 1782 by Beckford's tutor, Dr. John Lettice. This fragmentary translation bears a remarkably close resemblance in diction and word-order to the French text published by Levade.[10] The inadequacy of

Levade's revision of the manuscript is demonstrated further by the remarkable impurity of the French and by the fact that a heavily-corrected version was published in Paris at the end of July 1787. The improved French of the Paris edition is believed to be the result of the attentions of François Verdeil, Beckford's personal physician, and Louis-Sebastian Mercier, a playwright, critic and journalist, the author of Tableau de Paris. The Paris edition formed the basis of the succeeding and most authoritative French version published twenty-eight years later. This edition, Londres 1815, was the first French-language edition to be published under Beckford's entire supervision; its relatively few revisions are, for this reason, of particular importance.

For the sake of clarity and by way of summation, I will insert here a brief description of the first five editions of Vathek.

a. In English

• An Arabian Tale. From an Unpublished Manuscript with Notes Critical and Explanatory. London: Printed for J. Johnson, in St. Paul's Church-yard, and Entered at the Stationer's Hall. MDCCLXXXVI.

  This is the unauthorized publication edited by Samuel Henley. A re-issue of this edition with a cancel-title leaf appeared in 1809.

• Vathek. Translated from the Original French, Third Edition, Revised and Corrected. London: Printed for W. Clarke, New Bond Street. MDCCCXVI.

  This is the true second edition. A second issue of this edition which includes a number of revisions supplies the text used in my comparisons. A third issue, with the title page altered to include the names of the booksellers, Taylor and Hessey, is without textual significance.

b. In French

• Vathek. A Lausanne, chez Isaac Hignou & Compe. M. DCC. LXXXVII.

  This edition was edited by David Levade.

• Vathek, Conte Arabe. A Paris, Chez Poinçot, Libraire, rue de la Harpe, près Saint-Côme, No. 135. 1787.

  This edition was edited by Louis-Sebastian Mercier and François Verdeil.

• Vathek. A Londres; Chez Clarke, New Bond Street. 1815.

  This edition supplies the text used in my comparisons.

Thus the history of the first five editions of Vathek in English and French records five significant revisions and the varying influences of

five editors: the English text was prepared and revised first by Henley and Beckford in collaboration and then by Beckford alone; the French text passed through the hands of Levade for the first edition, Verdeil and Mercier for the second, and, so far as we know, Beckford alone for the third edition. The third edition of the French text published in 1815 and the second edition of the English published in 1816 are of particular significance because of the special attention Beckford paid to them: the costly format (heavy leading and good quality paper) and careful revision (although more extensive in the English than in the French) suggest that Beckford intended them to be authoritative editions, brought out during a period of leisure after the hurried and unsatisfactory publication of earlier editions. The facts that the two editions were proximate in time and published by the same house, that of William Clarke of New Bond Street, indicate the possibility that the revisions of the editions may have proceeded simultaneously and the certainty that Beckford had the opportunity of bringing the two texts into correspondence had he so wished.

In Vathek, then, we have a literary rarity: a work published in two languages, with both versions bearing the authority of the author's own revisions. Like Grimsditch, many commentators have noted that there are significant differences between the two texts, even in their final, authoritative forms. It is a valid critical enquiry to examine these differences and to determine the nature of the relationship between the texts of Vathek published in 1815 and 1816. Thoroughly done, however, such a comparison would require about fifty pages to record the collation notes without commentary. My remarks in the succeeding pages are based on a selection of readings which are distinctly divergent and which form part of a larger pattern of significant divergency. The thesis which these pages will attempt to demonstrate is that a reader, familiar only with Vathek in French, will derive a significantly different sense of the work from that of a reader familiar only with the English version. A study of divergencies reveals three broad areas in which the French differs from the English: in the use of irony, in characterization and in tonal structure.

In the appendix to this paper I have listed thirty-eight sets of readings which demonstrate significant substantive differences between the French and English versions of Vathek in the areas I am examining. The selected readings are presented in a note form consisting of five elements:

• (a) page and line reference to the French-language version, Londres 1815;

---

159




• (b) the reading from that edition;
• (c) square bracket;
• (d) page and line reference to the English-language version, London 1816;
• (e) the reading from that edition.

Example:

• (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
• 38:23 en foule ] 46:12 crowd, and occasioned no little noise References made to any reading in the subsequent discussion will be to the page and line of the Londres edition.

Irony

In either language one of Vathek's most attractive characteristics is its irony, but a comparison of the texts demonstrates that the English-language version includes ironies and more trenchant expressions of irony not found in the French version. These ironies may highlight a single statement, transform the implications of an episode, or comment upon the narrative structure.

The text of Vathek sparkles with statements of broad or subtle irony. It is not difficult to demonstrate that the English text contains a slightly more generous scattering than the French. Two instances of a negative construction cleverly creating ironic understatement are provided by 26:10 and 70:18. In each case the negative construction and, hence, the irony are missing from the French. The example of 70:18, in which Vathek shows only too clearly an understanding of the forbidden science of astrology, demonstrates the attack on conventional values which proceeds in both versions of the tale, but seems more pointed in the English text. In two instances the English version alone presses this attack through the use of a particular technique, the ironic transformation of a cliché. In 42:12 the translation of "jeunesse" as "the rising generation" conveys a particularly wry irony in view of the direction in which Vathek intends to send the fifty aspiring young athletes. Similarly the use in the English version of the cliché, "for the advancement of science" (60:15), besides reflecting on Carathis' rather outré collection of magical materials intended for purely selfish purposes, also brings into question conventionally cherished notions about the values of scientific studies. The cliché is not used in the French version. A final example of the use of irony to attack conventional values occurs in the onslaught of the bees upon the Caliph and Nouronihar in punishment for the depredations they inflicted on the santons. The idea of the creatures of nature in concert to accomplish God's holy work is expressed in both versions, but only

in the English version are the bees described in terms associated with the zealous assemblies of a nonconformist chapel (173:14).

In the episode recounting Vathek's sacrifice of the innocents, the English version presents additional irony by communicating an awareness of the discrepancy between appearance and reality. The entries of 38:8 and 38:15 offer the ironic contrast between the appearance of the scene to the spectators and its significance to Vathek. In 39:14 and 41:18 the irony affects our vision first of the children and then of Vathek. Thus, in the English version of the episode, the irony touches all the actors: it castigates Vathek and the Giaour for their wickedness, and the children, parents and onlookers for their gullibility. The effect of the additional irony is to mitigate the horrors of the scene by directing the reader's attention away from the repugnance of the act and toward the frailties of the actors.

The final example that I will include under the heading of irony concerns a statement made early in the tale which seems innocent enough but which reflects ironically on the outcome. The presentation in the English version of 2:2 of Vathek's enjoyment of company is in contrast with his normal treatment of his subjects. This simple irony encompasses a latent and sombre irony that is fulfilled in the Hall of Eblis where affability is no longer possible and companions no longer agreeable. Because it includes this reference to Vathek's enjoyment of agreeable companionship, the English version makes the poetic justice of Vathek's fate in the Hall of Eblis more apparent.

Characterization

The ironic attack on particular characters and groups proceeds more strongly in the English version. The conduct of the 140 resolute rescuers is even more abortive in the English version which has them spilling not most but all of the water they carried so laboriously up the innumerable stairs of the tower (55:12). The populace are also treated more rudely in the English version. There aré three instances of their less attractive qualities being included in the English but suppressed in the French: 24:21 presents their fickleness, 32:10 their absurd appearance, and 38:23 their noise. The discomfiture of Bababalouk during and after the swing incident is expressed with a witty irony absent from the French version of 98:17 and 99:4. The English version also expresses more humorously the absurdly weak basis for Morakanabad's consolation in 61:3, in addition to reflecting upon the singular unattractiveness of the Caliph and his mother. In the English version of 21:3, the addition of a phrase, "instead of confining

herself to sobbing and tears", underlines ironically a fact about Carathis' character that has a far-reaching significance: she lacks maternal qualities and is more an homme d'affaires than is her son. These instances of the use in the English version of an additional humour and irony in the presentation of character accentuate a significant variance and confirm the conclusion that a reader's reception of the two versions will differ.

It is in the presentation of the character of Vathek that the two versions differ most critically. An examination of passages omitted from the French version reveals a pattern of suppression which must affect the reader's judgment of the central character. As a result of these suppressions, two aspects of Vathek's character, his merit and his absurdity, lack the same emphasis that they receive in the English version. In 3:15 the French version fails to mention Vathek's generosity to the curiosity of others, even when his own cannot be satisfied. In 70:1 the additional phrase, "in the sight of all his people" imparts to the reader of the English version an increased sense of Vathek's magnificence. By grasping a torch to keep off the wild animals, Vathek sets the example for his retinue in the English reading of 76:18. In the French version he follows merely the leadership of others. On two occasions, 4:24 and 35:21, the French version suppresses references to Vathek's insatiable curiosity, his most Faustian characteristic and the sine qua non of his damnation.

If the English version communicates a more intense impression of Vathek's heroic qualities, it places also more emphasis on the antiheroic. Vathek's consternation at being bested in eating by the Indian and his concern at the results should the Indian's appetite extend to his wives are offered only in the English versions of 25:19 and 26:16. When Carathis is preparing in the tower an offering to the infernal powers, the English version conveys Vathek's indifference to the mystery of the proceedings, an indifference instigated by the importunity of his empty stomach (50:9 and 52:4). His preferring the meals of the infernal powers to their messages is expressed in the English reading of 57:8 and foreshadows his acceptance of Fakreddin's invitation in direct contravention of the instructions in the parchment. Finally, the caution of the French version in recounting the more extreme aspects of Vathek's character is exemplified by the suppression of three anti-heroic similes: "like a sack of dates" (79:4), "like a mole" (144:20), and "like a carp" (159:3). To accentuate the two views of Vathek as hero and as anti-hero is surely to render more fascinating one of the most bizarre protagonists in eighteenth- and

nineteenth-century literature. To lessen the contrast between the two contradictory aspects of Vathek's character is to diminish the brilliance of the characterization.

Tonal Structure

In a few instances the French version places a slightly greater stress on the horrible or gruesome. In the English version of 57:16 the parchment of the infernal powers expresses gratitude for the lives sacrificed to them; in the French version their gratitude is for the blood. Similarly, only in the French version does Carathis, in preparing her sacrificial pyre, kindle a torch which burns human fat (52:1). In the account of Carathis' deadly little suppers, the French version dwells at greater length and intensity on the tableau of the invited ladies compelled by ceremony to remain seated while vipers and scorpions are allowed to bite and sting at their leisure (62:12). These three examples of an increased sense of horror in the French version would not be worth signalizing were it not that they exemplify a broader difference between the two versions in what might be called the tonal structure of the work.

There is in Vathek a tonal turning point at the appearance and admonitions of the shepherd-genius. This scene is a prelude to Vathek's arrival at Istakhar and marks Vathek's last chance to avoid the punishment his crimes have merited. Before this turning point, Vathek's adventures are recounted in a tone of careless humour and light irony. After this episode the tone of the work becomes suddenly oppressive with uncertainty, fear, and, finally, terror. It is on the violence of the tonal contrast between the two parts of Vathek that the effectiveness of Beckford's much-derided moral is dependent. The terror-filled halls of the fallen angel, Eblis, throw into a new perspective the earlier frivolousness of the characters who find themselves there. In the light of the punishment, the nature of the crime becomes more apparent. Consequently, the tonal structure of the work demands the accentuation of the humour and magnificence of the early part of the tale and the terror of the latter part. The English version does both.

Examples of additional irony and humour, as well as the increased sense of the magnificence and absurdity of Vathek all to be found in the English version, have already been demonstrated and discussed. Each example cited was drawn from incidents which take place before the tonal turning point of the tale. After that turning point the addition of a few words and phrases to the English version results in a more vivid account of the agony and isolation of those condemned

to rage aimlessly and endlessly during an eternity of torment. In 187:23 the English version alone shows the damned grinding their teeth, raging, foaming, frantic. In 205:19 when damnation overtakes "the two princes, who were friends", the English version has them gnashing their teeth, experiencing a hatred that is mutual and unchangeable. The cries that they emit in their agony are stifled in the French version, but in the English their screams cannot be smothered (205:23). The striving after intensity in the portrayal of the damned is marked by the use of two comparisons not to be found in the French version: "more frantic than the wildest maniac" (187:23) and "as if alone on a desert where no foot had trodden" (188:1). Thus, in the last part of the tale, the sense of terror is particularly enhanced in the English version.

The French version, in increasing horror and diminishing humour in the first part of Vathek, represents a structurally weaker tale in which the lesson at the end appears to be an afterthought intended to salve the moral indignation of more orthodox critics. In the English version, the crimes and characters of Vathek and Carathis are taken less seriously in the first part. Humour and irony abound in the descriptions of characters and events. But after the turning point, the aura of terror is unmitigated and the nature of the damnation is described more poignantly in the English version than in the French. The final two paragraphs are no longer a moral tag attached artificially to the end of a tale, but an integral part of the story of Vathek and his mother, a reminder that evil acts redound upon the perpetrators.

The version of Vathek initiated by Henley has not escaped the opprobrium which has been directed at Henley by successive biographers of Beckford for his betrayal of Beckford's trust. Even Professor Parreaux, in his thorough and commendable study, William Beckford Auteur de "Vathek", in comparing the early states of Vathek, has not been able to avoid making injudicious criticisms of the Henley text for failing to render accurately the readings in the Lausanne edition. It is hoped that the evidence presented in this paper will at least correct the assumption that the English version attempts but fails to be a literal translation, and perhaps lead to a kinder appraisal of Henley's work, uninfluenced by assessments of his character.

The analysis of the dissimilarities between the French and English versions of Vathek has led me to offer a judgment in favour of the English version. My estimate of the contribution of the English variant readings to the structural effectiveness of the work may be debated—I hope it will be. The judgment may encourage scholars to

approach the English version with more confidence, however, knowing that an argument for its superiority over the French can be presented. What is certain is that the versions of Vathek in English and French differ to a remarkable extent. It is clear also that the revision of each version proceeded almost entirely independently and that Beckford made no attempt to transform his English version into a faithful translation of the French, in spite of opportunities to do so in his revisions of the 1816 edition. Since the English version of Vathek is a creative adaptation of the version in the original French manuscript, now lost, and since both versions underwent successive, independent revision, the differences between the two final forms of Vathek go beyond those of language. It has been shown that they extend into such essential areas as tone and characterization. A more detailed comparison would show that the differences affect other, less definable areas. A person reading Vathek in French will derive, therefore, a different sense of the work from a person reading it in English. A final conclusion must be that critical opinions based on the reading of one version are not necessarily applicable to the other, and one's reception of critical opinions must be altered in the light of this fact.

APPENDIX

Selected Parallel Readings from the Editions of Londres 1815 and London 1816

• 2:2 table. Sa] 2:2 table, he sought by his affability, to procure agreeable companions; and he succeeded the better as his
• 3:15 En un mot, Vathek, le plus curieux des hommes, n'avoit rien omis dans ce palais de ce qui pouvoit contenter la curiosité de ceux qui le visitoient.] 4:4 In a word, Vathek omitted nothing in this palace, that might gratify the curiosity of those who resorted to it, although he was not able to satisfy his own; for, of all men, he was the most curious.
• 4:24 qu'il savoit beaucoup; il voulùt enfin tout approfondir, même les sciences qui n'existent pas.] 5:17 as to acquire a great deal of knowledge, though not a sufficiency to satisfy himself; for he wished to know every thing; even sciences that did not exist.
• 21:3 Cependant la princesse Carathis ètoit dans la plus vive douleur. Elle se renfermoit tous les jours avec le visir Morakanabad] 23:24 In the mean time the Princess Carathis, whose affliction no words can describe, instead of confining herself to sobbing and tears, was closetted daily with the vizir Morakanabad
• 24:21 les habitans . . . couroient en foule pour voir passer Vathek et l'Indien. Ils ne se lassoient point de répéter] 28:9 the inhabitants . . . ran together in crowds to see the procession of Vathek and the Indian, whom they now blessed as much as they had before execrated, incessantly shouting

---

165




• 25:19 qu'ils étoient servis.] 29:10 The various dainties were no sooner served up than they vanished, to the great mortification of Vathek, who piqued himself on being the greatest eater alive; and, at this time in particular, was blessed with an excellent appetite.
• 26:10 Sa présence lui devenoit insupportable, et il pouvoit à peine cacher son humeur et son inquiétude] 30:10 who was now considerably declined in the Prince's esteem. Vathek, however, being unwilling to betray the chagrin he could hardly disguise
• 26:16 Va] 30:17 what would be the consequence should he get at my wives! —Go
• 32:10 et malgré le ridicule de cette scène, personne ne rit.] 38:1 notwithstanding that the loss of veils and turbans, together with torn habits, and dust blended with sweat, presented a most laughable spectacle, yet there was not one smile to be seen.
• 35:21 Le malheureux Calife promit tout.] 42:11 The unhappy Caliph, instigated by insatiable curiosity, lavished his promises in the utmost profusion.
• 38:8 Vathek l'examina avec une perfide avidité] 45:15 the Caliph scrutinized each, in his turn, with a malignant avidity that passed for attention
• 38:15 sa santé] 46:1 his health, on account of the favours he intended for them.
• 38:23 en foule;] 46:12 crowd, and occasioned no little noise.
• 39:14 Les pauvres enfans qui alloient être immolés rendoient la scene encore plus interessante. Pleins de sécurité, ils s'avançoient vers la plaine en ne cessant de folâtrer;] 47:6 The lovely innocents destined for the sacrifice, added not a little to the hilarity of the scene. They approached the plain full of sportiveness,
• 41:18 Pendant cet affreux dialogue] 49:18 During this exquisite dialogue
• 42:12 et encourager la jeunesse] 50:13 and the encouragement of the rising generation
• 50:9 ces régions exhaussées] 59:14 these unsubstantial regions
• 52:1 se dépouilla de ses vêtemens: elle battoit des mains et brandissoit un flambeau de graisse humaine;] 61:12 having stripped herself to her inmost garments, clapped her hands in an impulse of ecstacy;
• 52:4 mais Vathek exténué de faim] 61:15 but Vathek, extenuated with hunger and impatience
• 55:12 leurs seaux étoient presque vuides] 65:11 the water
• 57:8 que son fils n'avoit pas même apperçu. Finissez donc, glouton] 67:12 which had escaped the notice of her son. Totally occupied in gratifying an importunate appetite, he left her to peruse it without interruption; which having finished, she said to him, in an authoritative tone, "Put an end to your gluttony

---

166




• 57:16 et sur-tout de ce sang Musulman que tu as répandu sur le bûcher] 67:23 and, still more by the lives, devoted on the pile
• 60:15 de choses précieuses pour les sciences] 71:8 materials for the advancement of science
• 61:3 et il se réjouissoit d'en être délivré. Il alla donc calmer] 71:22 and that the alternative, on the whole, would be in her favour. Consoled, therefore, with this reflection; he went, in good spirits, to soothe
• 62:12 Carathis faisoit semblant de ne pas s'en appercevoir, et personne n'osoit bouger. Lorsqu'elle voyoit que les convives alloient expirer, elle s'amusoit à panser quelques plaies avec une excellente thériaque] 73:8 and Carathis would have left her friends to die were it not that, to fill up the time, she now and then amused herself in curing their wounds, with an excellent anodyne
• 70:1 descendit la grande rampe de la tour.] 81:9 descended the great staircase of the tower in the sight of all his people.
• 70:18 Vathek salua la lune d'un air d'intelligence; et les docteurs de la loi furent scandalisés de cette idolâtrie] 82:6 Vathek, meanwhile, saluted the moon with an idolatrous air, that neither pleased Morakanabad, nor the doctors of the law
• 76:18 tout le monde s'arme de gros cierges, et le Calife lui-même en fait autant] 88:21 The Caliph, himself, seized a large one of wax: every person followed his example
• 79:4 le chargea sur ses épaules] 91:4 threw him upon her shoulder, like a sack of dates
• 98:17 et entendoit, à sa grande douleur, des éclats de rire de tous côtés] 111:16 was still doomed to hear, for his further consolation, the fresh outbursts of merriment his disaster occasioned
• 99:4 Son humeur s'exhala en soliloques remplis d'imprécations] 112:16 where he amused himself with soliloquies, interspersed with imprecations
• 144:20 avant que d'aller m'enfouir sous terre] 160:10 before I go to burrow under ground, like a mole.
• 159:3 il sauta hors de l'eau] 176:8 he flounced from the water like a carp
• 173:14 s'acharnèrent tellement à les piquer]192:7 assembled so zealously to do it with good effect
• 187:23 trait empoisonné;] 207:19 poisoned arrows; whilst others, grinding their teeth in rage, foamed along more frantic than the wildest maniac.
• 188:1 comme s'il eût été seul] 207:24 unheedful of the rest, as if alone on a desert where no foot had trodden
• 205:19 s'éloignèrent l'un de l'autre en frémissant] 226:11 shrunk back, gnashing their teeth with mutual and unchangeable hatred
• 205:23 cris étouffés] 226:16 screams that could not be smothered

Notes