“Time, we are told, brings round its revenges, and the books burned by the common hangman in one age come to be honoured in the next.” Henry Vizetelly
]Zola’s magnificent 20-volume Rougon-Macquart series examines the history of two branches of a family founded by matriarch Adelaide Fouques–the last of the line of a wealthy landowning family whose “name died out a few years before the Revolution.” First Adelaide shocks her neighbours in the rural town of Plassans by marrying a peasant named Rougon. Their son, Pierre begins the Rougon line, but when, after the death of her husband, Adelaide shacks up with a drunken poacher, she later produces two illegitimate children: Antoine and Ursule Macquart. The Rougons claw their way up into French society while the Macquarts remain the poorer side of the family. While there’s the occasional character with just a tinge of derangement, mostly these are a motley bunch: “a pack of unbridled, insatiate appetites amidst a blaze of gold and blood” which include scoundrels, adulterers, drunks, swindlers, a religious maniac turned arsonist and of course, one of the most infamous prostitutes of her time: Nana. If you’ve read the novels–the complete series or just a few of the more famous titles, then you know exactly what I’m talking about. Zola’s intent was to trace the hereditary influences of alcoholism and insanity through the two branches of the family set against the backdrop of the Second Empire of Napoleon III (1852-1870) in the years from the coup d’etat (1851) which overthrew the Republic to the aftermath of the Franco Prussian war of 1870-71.
Henry Vizetelly’s publishing house released translated versions of Zola’s novels and met a witchhunt led by The National Vigilant Association--a group of people I know I couldn’t stand just from the name of this whacko group. Henry Vizetelly was dragged into court, convicted twice of “obscene libel,” and went to prison for 3 months. Henry’s son Ernest reworked the translations and these are considered “bowdlerized.” Given the subject matter of Zola’s novels, it only makes sense that the more salacious bits disappeared thanks to censorship. Many of the Rougon-Macquart novels have been freshly translated but oddly Money was not until 2014 by Oxford World Classics and Valerie Minogue. This is the first new translation in over a hundred years and the first unabridged translation in English. Unbelievable really. And here’s a quote from Ernest Vizetelly which appears in the Translator’s Note in the new version of Money. How fitting that a new translation should give credit where it’s due: to the Vizetellys for having the courage to try and defy small-minded petty hypocrisy and censorship. The characters in Zola’s novels are flawed human beings, but who among us cannot recognize human nature here? The message, according to the censors, is people may act like this, but let’s not read about it…
Nobody can regret these changes more than I do myself, but before reviewers proceed to censure me… If they desire to have verbatim translations of M. Zola’s works, let them help to establish literary freedom. (Ernest Vizetelly)
So let’s see what those 19th century prudes didn’t want us to read:
Here’s a clip from the new translation of Money from Valerie Minogue:
‘Terrible things happened yesterday,” the Princess went on, “a crime, in fact, that nothing can repair.”
And in her ice-cold manner she related an awful happening. For the last three days, Victor had got himself placed in the infirmary, claiming to have unbearable pains in his head. The doctor had certainly suspected that this might be merely the pretence of an idler, but the child really had suffered from frequent attacks of neuralgia. Now that afternoon, Alice de Beauvilliers was at the Foundation without her mother; she had gone to help the sister on duty with the quarterly inventory of the medicine cupboard. This cupboard was in the room that separated the two dormitories, the girls’ dormitory from the boys’, in which, at that time, Victor was the only occupant; and the sister, who had gone out for a few minutes, had been very surprised on her return not to find Alice; indeed, after waiting a few minutes, she had started to look for her. Her astonishment had increased on observing that the door of the boys’ dormitory had been locked on the inside. What could be happening? She had had to go right round by the corridor, and had stood gaping in terror at the spectacle that presented itself: the young girl lay half-strangled, a towel tied over her face to stifle her screams, her skirts pulled up roughly, displaying the pitiful nakedness of an anaemic virgin, raped and defiled with appalling brutality. On the floor lay an empty purse. Victor had disappeared. The scene could be reconstructed: Alice, perhaps answering a call, going in to give a cup of milk to that fifteen-year-old boy, already as hairy as a man, and then the monster’s sudden hunger for that frail flesh, that overlong neck, and the leap of the nightshirted male, the girl, suffocating, thrown on to the bed like a rag, raped and robbed, and then a hasty pulling on of clothes, and flight. But so many points remained obscure, so many baffling and insoluble questions! How was it no one heard anything, no sound of a struggle, no cry? How could such frightful things have happened so quickly, in barely ten minutes? and above all, how had Victor been able to escape, to vanish, as it were, leaving no trace?
Now the Vizetelly version:
“A terrible thing happened yesterday,” continued the Princess–” a crime which nothing can repair.”
And thereupon, in her frigid way, she began to relate a frightful story. There days previously, it seemed, Victor had obtained admission into the infirmary by complaining of insupportable headaches. The doctor of the Institute had suspected this to be the feigned illness of an idler, but in point of fact the lad was prey to frequent neuralgic attacks. Now on the afternoon in question it appeared that Alice de Beauvilliers had come to the Institute without her mother, in order to help the sister on duty with the quarterly inventory of the medicine closet. Victor happened to be alone in the adjoining infirmary, and the sister, having been obliged to absent herself for a short time, was amazed on her return to find Alice missing. She had begun to search for her, and at last, to her horror and amazement, had found her lying in the infirmary most severely injured–in fact more dead than alive. Beside her, significantly enough lay her empty purse. She had been attacked by Victor, and, brief as had been the sister’s absence, the young miscreant had already contrived to flee. The astonishing part of the affair was that no sound of struggle, no cry for help, had been heard by anyone. In less than ten minutes the crime had been planned and perpetrated, and its author had taken to flight. How could Victor have thus managed to escape, vanish, as it were, without leaving any trace behind him?
The first translated passage (from Oxford World’s Classics: Valerie Minogue) makes it perfectly clear that Alice de Beauvilliers has been brutally raped. Here’s the revolting image of hairy Victor against ” the pitiful nakedness of an anaemic virgin, raped and defiled with appalling brutality. Defective Victor, Saccard’s bastard son feels a “sudden hunger for that frail flesh, that overlong neck, and the leap of the nightshirted male, the girl, suffocating, thrown on to the bed like a rag, raped and robbed, and then a hasty pulling on of clothes.” She’s even gagged to muffle her screams. This is an important incident in the novel for Saccard raped Victor’s mother in a violent coupling on the stairs, so the repetition of rape across two generations emphasizes Zola’s examination of hereditary behaviour. Plus then there’s the victim herself–Alice de Beauvilliers. Alice and her mother, impoverished aristocrats, the last of an “ancient race,” have invested all they own with Saccard with the goal that they will finally be able to secure a dowry for Alice. The great irony here is that Saccard is ruined; there will be no dowry; there will be no marriage; and instead of a wedding, Alice is violently raped by Victor who seems to have inherited all of his father’s animal appetites but without inheriting his brain and social skills. Alice’s rape will scar the poor woman for life; if there was any hope of a bridegroom before, now those hopes are dashed forever,. So much for the de Beauvilliers line or …. will Alice bear a bastard child?
The Vizetelly translation makes it sound as though Alice were pushed over during the course of a mugging and that Victor stole the contents of her purse and not her virginity–which sad to say, isn’t much coveted by the males of her class, but after all Alice and her mother have been dreaming of the “long-awaited” bridegroom, scrimping and saving twenty thousand francs for Alice’s dowry–even as Alice ages and her prospects wither. But this goal of a bridegroom for Alice, no matter, how slim the possibility, has kept Alice and her mother directed in sustained hope. Saccard comes along and scoops up their nestegg along with the proceeds from the sale of Les Aublets. Alice de Beauvilliers and her mother are but another couple of victims of Saccard’s speculations, but the rape of Alice, while vile, violent and guaranteed to shatter the poor timid girl is also symbolic. There is no bridegroom; there never will be any bridegroom and Alice, the last of a long line of aristocrats will die unmarried, utterly ruined and without hope. Saccard loots them of their money and their hope, and his bastard son, Victor delivers the coup de grace, and through the rape, robs them of their pride. Not that their pride could ever feed them, but at least it give the two women some sort of purpose in life. Saccard’s sins come home to roost, but who pays the price? And after all this is typically what happens with this family; they’re simply bad news.
The true meaning of this significant incident is lost in the censored Vizetelly version. Once again–no Vizetelly bashing here, but which version would you rather read?
18 responses to “Money: Emile Zola (translation comparison with spoilers)”
That is quite some difference, you are right! I do love comparing translations, thank you for the post.
Welcome. I was surprised by the difference and the twisting of the passage’s meaning.
You may find it strange that there wasn’t a new translation before 2014 but if I’m not mistaken some Trollopes aren’t available at all in French.
Fascinating post, by the way. I need to find that passage in the French text.
Yes, you’re right, but it still doesn’t seem right does it?
I’ve found the paragraph in French. For what it’s worth, I think Minogue’s translation is excellent.
That’s good to know, thanks for checking
The new one is definitely the better read given your exposition shows us how the the sense it imparts is closer to the actual Zola than the older translation.
Yes there’s not much to argue about is there?
It seems to me that the V-trans is pretty good, when it isn’t censored. That is, if one could read the original, unpublished translation of V, it would probably be excellent. Unlike the much castigated Constance Garnett, whose translations seem stilted and wooden compared to the new ones I read of Russian novels, V seems to have been quite a sensitive worker.
No bashing indeed! Poor guy. Imagine, being indicted for obscenity when he didn’t even “write” the stuff!
BTW, “frail flesh,” is what you mean, I think.
Yes, I think that’s a good point. It reads well, and yes especially when you consider the Garnett translations. It’s curious though when you consider Zola’s subject matter–there was no chance of a compromise with the censors, and these Zola characters don’t exactly lead spotless lives.
Thanks for catching that BTW.
50 years (less?) before, Flaubert was tried for obscenity. Did Zola himself ever have similar legal troubles? I know people think the French are above all that, but not really, and it was a long time ago!
Great post Guy.
It really illustrates how certain translations can make fundamental differences to a work. I would conclude that the Vizetelly version is not just a translation, it must, at least in regards to the passage that you quoted, be classified as a retelling. Of course I read translated fiction, but I always worry about stuff like this.
I share your astonishment at the lack of English translations up until now.
I’m about to embark on Zoladdiction month at ClassicLit blog and I’ve been wondering about translations. I’ve read a number of hefty Russians over the years, and recently The Odyssey. Translations have played such an important role in each of these cases.
And, obviously, the same is true of Zola.
Thanks for the research you’ve put into this post. Have all the Rougon-Macquart books been newly translated by Minogue, or just Money?
Just Money. But Brian Nelson translated many of the titles, and I’d recommend his translations.
This is a bit shocking. i would never have thought that there would be such a difference in the translations, just due to the sensibilities of the time.
Very interesting, particularly the evidence that the Viztelly version is good except for being bowdlerised.
OUP are doing great work with these new Zola translations.
I just finished the first volume of Pelle the Conqueror in the 1989 translation. The editor says that the previous translation from 1913 was done along the same principles as the old Zolas – “(the word ‘stomach’ seemed to be particularly taboo).”
So it was not just Vizetelly working under these bizarre conditions.
i have been enjoying these comparison posts, which are very helpful. We are apparently living in a Zola-in-English Golden Age.
If I’d known how many new translations would appear, I probably would have delayed reading the series, so it’s probably a good thing I didn’t know.
Funny that, that ‘stomach’ should be taboo. When I was growing up, ‘stomach ‘flu’ was a much-used euphemism.