University of Virginia Library

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.