FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37  
38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   >>   >|  
lgarise" (in the wholly laudable sense of that too often degraded word) the body of English literature. Only, such a book would not have been what I was thinking of. To bring out the full contrast-complement of these two strangely coincident masterpieces, both must be read in the originals. Paradoxically, one might even say that a French translation of Johnson, with the original of Voltaire, would show it better than the converse presentment. _Candide_ is so intensely French--it is even to such an extent an embodiment of one side of Frenchness--that you cannot receive its virtues except through the original tongue. I am personally fond of translating; I have had some practice in it; and some good wits have not disapproved some of my efforts. But, unless I knew that in case of refusal I should be ranked as a Conscientious Objector, I would not attempt _Candide_. The French would ring in my ears too reproachfully. P. 396, last line.--Shift comma from after to before "even." P. 399, l. 10.--_For_ "Rousseau" _read_ "his author." P. 424, _note_, first line.--Delete quotes before "The." P. 453, l. 15.--_For_ "Courray" _read_ "Cou_v_ray." P. 468, l. 17.--_For_ "France has" _read_ "France had." P. 477.--In the original preface I apologised--not in the idle hope of conciliating one kind of critic, but out of respect for a very different class--for slips due to the loss of my own library, and to the difficulty (a difficulty which has now increased owing to circumstances of no public interest, in respect of the present volume) of consulting others in regard to small matters of fact. I have very gratefully to acknowledge that I found the latter class very much larger than the former. Such a note as that at Vol. I. p. xiii, will show that I have not spared trouble to ensure accuracy. The charge of _in_accuracy can always be made by anybody who cares to take "the other authority." This has been done in reference to the dates of Prevost's books. But I may perhaps say, without _outrecuidance_, that there is an _Art de negliger les dates_ as well as one _de les verifier_. For the purposes of such a history as this it is very rarely of the slightest importance, whether a book was published in the year one or the year three: though the importance of course increases when units pass into decades, and becomes grave where decades pass into half-centuries. Unless you can collate actual first editions in every case (and sometimes ev
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37  
38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

original

 

French

 
importance
 
decades
 
Candide
 

accuracy

 

respect

 

France

 

difficulty

 

spared


trouble

 

ensure

 

English

 

charge

 

larger

 
public
 

interest

 
present
 

circumstances

 
literature

increased

 

volume

 
consulting
 

gratefully

 

acknowledge

 

authority

 

matters

 

regard

 

laudable

 

wholly


lgarise

 
increases
 

editions

 

actual

 

collate

 

centuries

 

Unless

 

published

 

outrecuidance

 

library


reference

 

Prevost

 

history

 

rarely

 

slightest

 

purposes

 
verifier
 
degraded
 
negliger
 

disapproved