University of Virginia Library

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

French "on en prend ce qu'il faut pour se conserver en vigeur; & on n'a garde de se laisser séduire par des plaisirs qui émoussent l'attention & la vivacité de l'intelligence" (103) is translated by Forman as "We take what is necessary for preserving us in Health and Vigour; but we also take Care not to suffer ourselves to be seduced by Pleasures that take off the Attention, and blunt the Vivacity of the Understanding" (56-57) and by Johnson as "We take what is necessary to preserve Health and Vigour, but are not to give ourselves up to Pleasures that weaken the Attention, and dull the Understanding (61; italics added). Johnson is misled by taking a cue from Forman's translation of "alloit plus loin que la bêtise de cet animal" (55). Forman, confusing "bêtise" with "bête," writes "was more a Beast than that Animal" (20) and Johnson "was much more despicable than the Brutality of that Animal" (23).

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:

In another footnote Forman writes, "Mr Pope has nothing to do with these Words, they are one of the Translator's Flights, which the Critick is only exposing at the same time that he thinks he is demolishing Mr Pope" (36). Johnson says, "Mr Crousaz is so watchful against Impiety, that he lets Nonsense pass without Censure. . . . I take this Opportunity of observing, once for all, that he is not sufficiently candid in charging all the Errors of this miserable Version upon the original Author. . . . He had a Prose Translation in his Hand, which he might have compared with Du Resnel's . . ." (49). Then Forman writes, "Here we omit some of the Criticism, because it is upon a few Lines of the Translation that neither shew Mr Pope's Words not his Meaning" (48). Johnson, who reprints the lines in his text with a translation, also adds a footnote: "This Couplet is an Addition by the Translator" (53). Again, Forman writes, "The Translator's Vein is, no doubt, fertile enough sometimes; for it makes Mr Pope say many Things which he never thought of, tho' not in this Place, which is the first of Mr Pope's that has met with the Commentator's entire Approbation; notwithstanding the Beauty of the Original is quite lost in 23 Lines of French" (62). Johnson comments, "On this Passage where sixteen Lines are translated into thirty three, it is not necessary to make any other Remark than may be made in general on the whole Work, that it is extremely below the Original in Spirit, Propriety, and notwithstanding the Diffuseness of his Expression, in Perspicuity" (67).[40] Even such a Johnsonian-sounding note as "The address of one is the Exclamation of a Freeman, that of the other the Murmur of a Slave" (3) echoes Forman's "Notwithstanding all Mr Crousaz's Logick, this Argument smells more of the Slave than Mr Pope's Philosophy does of the Poet" (66). Forman even anticipates Johnson in discussing the significance of individual words: "The Translator takes vile to signify poor and wretched as to worldly Circumstances, and therefore places the Man in a Chaumiere (a Cottage); after which he gravely shews that a poor Man may sometimes have good Qualities; but, it seems, never such good ones as are enjoyed by the Rich" (69). A parallel case is Johnson's discussion of "End" or "Destinee."[41]

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.