Translations:CP 03098/10/en: Difference between revisions

From Corr-Proust Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
<ref name="n1"> Lionel Hauser had written in pencil, at the top of this letter, the date "15(?) May 1916", just as in his reply, on 17 May 1916, he indicates that he had "received your letter of the 13th inst., and the one of 15(?)." (CP 03099; Kolb, XV, no. 35). If, on the 17th, Hauser had judged that Proust's letter must have dated from Monday 15 May (and not Tuesday 16), it was because, in all likelihood, it must have been deposited at his bank Monday 16 (not through the post, which would have allowed Hauser to look at the postmark, but delivered by Céleste Albaret), and on Tuesday 16 he had been taking tactful steps to try to get Proust a lower interest rate, as he explains in his reply of 17 May. But could this letter, which follows on from that of Saturday 13 May, date from Sunday 14 or Monday 15? As Proust explains in it he had just received some documents from the Rothschild Brothers bank (see note 4 below), documents that he had not yet received Saturday 13 May at the time of his previous letter to Hauser (CP 03097; Kolb, XV, no. 33), the present letter must therefore date from [Monday 15 May 1916]. [PK, FL]</ref>
<ref name="n1"> Lionel Hauser had written in pencil, at the top of this letter, the date "15(?) May 1916", just as in his reply, on 17 May 1916, he indicates that he had "received your letter of the 13th inst., and the one of 15(?)." (CP 03099; Kolb, XV, no. 35). If, on the 17th, Hauser had judged that Proust's letter must have dated from Monday 15 May (and not Tuesday 16), it was because, in all likelihood, it must have been deposited at his bank Monday 16 (not through the post, which would have allowed Hauser to look at the postmark, but delivered by Céleste Albaret), and on Tuesday 16 he had been taking tactful steps to try to get Proust a lower interest rate, as he explains in his reply of 17 May. But could this letter, which follows on from that of Saturday 13 May, date from Sunday 14 or Monday 15? As Proust explains in it he had just received some documents from the Rothschild Brothers bank (see note 4 below), documents that he had not yet received Saturday 13 May at the time of his previous letter to Hauser (CP 03097; Kolb, XV, no. 33), the present letter must therefore date from [Monday 15 May 1916]. [PK, FL] </ref>

Revision as of 08:47, 7 January 2023

Information about message (contribute)
This message has no documentation. If you know where or how this message is used, you can help other translators by adding documentation to this message.
Message definition (CP 03098)
<ref name="n1"> Lionel Hauser a écrit au crayon, en tête de cette lettre, la date « 15 (?) mai 1916 », de même que dans sa réponse, le 17 mai 1916, il indique avoir « reçu ta lettre du 13 C[ou]r[an]t, et celle du 15 (?). » (CP 03099 ; Kolb, XV, n° 35.) Si, le 17, Hauser juge que la lettre de Proust doit dater du lundi 15 mai (et non du mardi 16), c'est qu'elle devait, selon toute vraisemblance, avoir déjà été déposée à sa banque le mardi 16 (non par la poste, ce qui aurait permis à Hauser de voir le cachet postal, mais portée par Céleste Albaret), et qu'il s'était employé le mardi 16 à des démarches délicates pour tâcher d'obtenir à Proust un taux d'intérêt moins élevé, ce dont il rend compte dans sa réponse du 17 mai. Mais cette lettre, qui suit celle du samedi 13 mai, date-t-elle du dimanche 14 ou du lundi 15 ? Comme Proust y indique qu'il vient de recevoir des documents de la banque Rothschild Frères (voir note 4 ci-dessous), documents qu'il n'avait pas encore reçus le samedi 13 mai lors de sa précédente lettre à Hauser (CP 03097 ; Kolb, XV, n° 33), la présente lettre doit donc dater du [lundi 15 mai 1916]. [PK, FL] </ref>

[1]

  1. Lionel Hauser had written in pencil, at the top of this letter, the date "15(?) May 1916", just as in his reply, on 17 May 1916, he indicates that he had "received your letter of the 13th inst., and the one of 15(?)." (CP 03099; Kolb, XV, no. 35). If, on the 17th, Hauser had judged that Proust's letter must have dated from Monday 15 May (and not Tuesday 16), it was because, in all likelihood, it must have been deposited at his bank Monday 16 (not through the post, which would have allowed Hauser to look at the postmark, but delivered by Céleste Albaret), and on Tuesday 16 he had been taking tactful steps to try to get Proust a lower interest rate, as he explains in his reply of 17 May. But could this letter, which follows on from that of Saturday 13 May, date from Sunday 14 or Monday 15? As Proust explains in it he had just received some documents from the Rothschild Brothers bank (see note 4 below), documents that he had not yet received Saturday 13 May at the time of his previous letter to Hauser (CP 03097; Kolb, XV, no. 33), the present letter must therefore date from [Monday 15 May 1916]. [PK, FL]