Don Quixote | Page 5

dismissed in a few words. George Kelly's,
which appeared in 1769, "printed for the Translator," was an impudent
imposture, being nothing more than Motteux's version with a few of the
words, here and there, artfully transposed; Charles Wilmot's (1774) was
only an abridgment like Florian's, but not so skilfully executed; and the
version published by Miss Smirke in 1818, to accompany her brother's
plates, was merely a patchwork production made out of former
translations. On the latest, Mr. A. J. Duffield's, it would be in every
sense of the word impertinent in me to offer an opinion here. I had not
even seen it when the present undertaking was proposed to me, and
since then I may say vidi tantum, having for obvious reasons resisted
the temptation which Mr. Duffield's reputation and comely volumes
hold out to every lover of Cervantes.
From the foregoing history of our translations of "Don Quixote," it will
be seen that there are a good many people who, provided they get the
mere narrative with its full complement of facts, incidents, and
adventures served up to them in a form that amuses them, care very
little whether that form is the one in which Cervantes originally shaped
his ideas. On the other hand, it is clear that there are many who desire
to have not merely the story he tells, but the story as he tells it, so far at
least as differences of idiom and circumstances permit, and who will

give a preference to the conscientious translator, even though he may
have acquitted himself somewhat awkwardly.
But after all there is no real antagonism between the two classes; there
is no reason why what pleases the one should not please the other, or
why a translator who makes it his aim to treat "Don Quixote" with the
respect due to a great classic, should not be as acceptable even to the
careless reader as the one who treats it as a famous old jest-book. It is
not a question of caviare to the general, or, if it is, the fault rests with
him who makes so. The method by which Cervantes won the ear of the
Spanish people ought, mutatis mutandis, to be equally effective with
the great majority of English readers. At any rate, even if there are
readers to whom it is a matter of indifference, fidelity to the method is
as much a part of the translator's duty as fidelity to the matter. If he can
please all parties, so much the better; but his first duty is to those who
look to him for as faithful a representation of his author as it is in his
power to give them, faithful to the letter so long as fidelity is
practicable, faithful to the spirit so far as he can make it.
My purpose here is not to dogmatise on the rules of translation, but to
indicate those I have followed, or at least tried to the best of my ability
to follow, in the present instance. One which, it seems to me, cannot be
too rigidly followed in translating "Don Quixote," is to avoid
everything that savours of affectation. The book itself is, indeed, in one
sense a protest against it, and no man abhorred it more than Cervantes.
For this reason, I think, any temptation to use antiquated or obsolete
language should be resisted. It is after all an affectation, and one for
which there is no warrant or excuse. Spanish has probably undergone
less change since the seventeenth century than any language in Europe,
and by far the greater and certainly the best part of "Don Quixote"
differs but little in language from the colloquial Spanish of the present
day. Except in the tales and Don Quixote's speeches, the translator who
uses the simplest and plainest everyday language will almost always be
the one who approaches nearest to the original.
Seeing that the story of "Don Quixote" and all its characters and
incidents have now been for more than two centuries and a half familiar

as household words in English mouths, it seems to me that the old
familiar names and phrases should not be changed without good reason.
Of course a translator who holds that "Don Quixote" should receive the
treatment a great classic deserves, will feel himself bound by the
injunction laid upon the Morisco in Chap. IX not to omit or add
anything.
II: ABOUT CERVANTES AND DON QUIXOTE
Four generations had laughed over "Don Quixote" before it occurred to
anyone to ask, who and what manner of man was this Miguel de
Cervantes Saavedra whose name is on the title-page; and it was too late
for a satisfactory answer to the question when it was proposed to add a
life of the author to the London