Translations:CP 03988/76/en: Difference between revisions

From Corr-Proust Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
I have only just received your letter<ref name="n2" /> and I am much obliged. I see that mine was the result of an error. I thought you were the director, or editor-in-chief and so I thought you could have an article written. But never, even when I thought it to be true, did it enter my mind to ask you to exert your influence over M. de Pierrefeu<ref name="n3" />, in one way or another. I have too much respect for freedom of thought, and if you had the power to do so, I would have been sorry had you used it. Simply put, my concern was that you commissioned the article from someone hostile rather than favourable, especially after the misunderstandings in the press arising from an illness that prevented me from receiving journalists, my editors received them badly, which upset them, and the absurd idea that the money politics complicated everything. Naturally, I haven’t corrected anything that concerns my age, my financial situation, or political opinions, etc. Alas, you are no longer the literary critic of the Débats, nor its director. But your sympathy is more precious to me than the articles you would have written about me in the first case, or in the second case, to have had written about me. To put all this to rest, if you were to get the chance to speak to M. de Pierrefeu, you could tell him that the last chapter of my novel, having been written before the first<ref name="n4" />, and all the writing having been done and dusted, he won’t have to wait for my death to see À la Recherche du Temps Perdu finished<ref name="n5" />(I recognise that this loathsome title may betray the strict structure of the book). This story is so rigid<ref name="n6" /> that M. Francis Jammes, having urged me to remove from Du Côté de chez Swann a scene that shocked him<ref name="n7" />, I was on the verge of giving in to his request, this scene being in fact irrelevant to the first volume. But I realised that if I removed it, the third and fourth volumes would be destroyed since it’s the recollection of this scene which, in inspiring the jealousy of the narrator, (he who says “I” and who is not necessarily me)<ref name="n8" /> brought on what one would call in the the theatre, “peripeteia”<ref name="n9" />. I refuse, then, Les Débats not having dealt with la Vie Heureuse<ref name="n10" />, any rectification. I will send you my article on Flaubert<ref name="n11" /> once it’s published, not so that you can talk about it, since you don’t have the kind of situation in Les Débats that I thought you had, but so, in case you’re kind enough to read it, you see that I pay more attention to matters of grammar than what is suggested. Besides, what artist has not been told that he could not draw? What musician has not been told that he could not harmonise?
I have only just received your letter<ref name="n2" /> and I am much obliged. I see that mine was the result of an error. I thought you were the director, or editor-in-chief and so I thought you could have an article written. But never, even when I thought it to be true, did it enter my mind to ask you to exert your influence over M. de Pierrefeu<ref name="n3" />, in one way or another. I have too much respect for freedom of thought, and if you had the power to do so, I would have been sorry had you used it. Simply put, my concern was that you commissioned the article from someone hostile rather than favourable, especially after the misunderstandings in the press arising from an illness that prevented me from receiving journalists, my editors received them badly, which upset them, and the absurd idea that the money politics complicated everything. Naturally, I haven’t corrected anything that concerns my age, my financial situation, or political opinions, etc. Alas, you are no longer the literary critic of the Débats, nor its director. But your sympathy is more precious to me than the articles you would have written about me in the first case, or in the second case, to have had written about me. To put all this to rest, if you were to get the chance to speak to M. de Pierrefeu, you could tell him that the last chapter of my novel, having been written before the first<ref name="n4" />, and all the writing having been done and dusted, he won’t have to wait for my death to see À la Recherche du Temps Perdu finished<ref name="n5" /> (I recognise that this loathsome title may betray the strict structure of the book). This story is so rigid<ref name="n6" /> that M. Francis Jammes, having urged me to remove from Du Côté de chez Swann a scene that shocked him<ref name="n7" />, I was on the verge of giving in to his request, this scene being in fact irrelevant to the first volume. But I realised that if I removed it, the third and fourth volumes would be destroyed since it’s the recollection of this scene which, in inspiring the jealousy of the narrator, (he who says “I” and who is not necessarily me)<ref name="n8" /> brought on what one would call in the the theatre, “peripeteia”<ref name="n9" />. I refuse, then, Les Débats not having dealt with la Vie Heureuse<ref name="n10" />, any rectification. I will send you my article on Flaubert<ref name="n11" /> once it’s published, not so that you can talk about it, since you don’t have the kind of situation in Les Débats that I thought you had, but so, in case you’re kind enough to read it, you see that I pay more attention to matters of grammar than what is suggested. Besides, what artist has not been told that he could not draw? What musician has not been told that he could not harmonise?

Revision as of 05:17, 27 September 2021

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 03988)
Je reçois à l'instant votre lettre<ref name="n2" /> et je vous en remercie mille fois. La mienne était je le vois le résultat d'une erreur. Je vous croyais directeur des Débats, ou rédacteur en chef et je pensais qu'ainsi vous pouviez faire faire un article. Mais jamais, même quand je le croyais, il n'était entré dans ma pensée de vous demander d'influencer M. de Pierrefeu<ref name="n3" /> dans un sens ou dans un autre. J'ai trop pour cela le respect de la pensée, et eussiez-vous le pouvoir de le faire, que j'eusse été chagriné que vous en usiez. Mon regret avait été simplement que vous n'eussiez pas demandé l'article à quelqu'un de favorable plutôt qu'hostile, surtout après les malentendus de presse nés du fait que ma maladie en m' empêchant de recevoir les journalistes, mes éditeurs en les recevant mal, les ont froissés, et que l'idée absurde que c'était un prix « politique » a tout compliqué. Je n'ai naturellement rien rectifié ni en ce qui concerne mon âge, ou ma situation de fortune, ou mes opinions politiques etc. Hélas vous n'êtes plus critique littéraire des Débats, et vous n'en êtes pas non plus directeur. Mais votre sympathie m'est plus précieuse que les articles que vous auriez pu dans le premier cas faire, dans le second cas faire faire sur moi. Pour en finir avec tout cela, si vous avez quelquefois l'occasion de causer avec M. de Pierrefeu, vous pourrez lui dire que le dernier chapitre de mon œuvre ayant été écrit avant le premier<ref name="n4" />, et tout l'ouvrage étant fait et terminé, il n'a pas besoin d'attendre ma mort comme il dit pour voir finir à la Recherche du Temps Perdu<ref name="n5" /> (titre détestable qui je le reconnais trompe sur la composition serrée de l'œuvre). Cette composition est si inflexible<ref name="n6" /> que M. Francis Jammes m'ayant adjuré d'ôter de « Du Côté de chez Swann » un épisode qui le choquait<ref name="n7" />, j'ai été sur le point de lui donner satisfaction, cet épisode étant en effet inutile dans le premier volume. Mais je me suis rendu compte que si je l'enlevais, le troisième et quatrième volumes étaient détruits puisque c'est le ressouvenir de cet épisode qui en excitant la jalousie du narrateur (celui qui dit je et qui n'est pas toujours moi<ref name="n8" />) amenait ce qu'on appelait au théâtre la péripétie<ref name="n9" />. Je renonce donc, les Débats n'ayant pas parlé de la Vie Heureuse<ref name="n10" />, à toute rectification. Je vous enverrai quand il paraîtra mon article sur Flaubert<ref name="n11" />, non pour que vous fassiez parler de lui, puisque vous n'avez pas aux Débats le genre de situation que je croyais, mais afin, si vous avez la bonté de le parcourir, de vous montrer que je fais plus attention aux questions de grammaire qu'on ne dit. Du reste de quel peintre n'a-t-on pas dit qu'il ne savait pas dessiner, de quel musicien qu'il ne savait pas l'harmonie.

I have only just received your letter[1] and I am much obliged. I see that mine was the result of an error. I thought you were the director, or editor-in-chief and so I thought you could have an article written. But never, even when I thought it to be true, did it enter my mind to ask you to exert your influence over M. de Pierrefeu[2], in one way or another. I have too much respect for freedom of thought, and if you had the power to do so, I would have been sorry had you used it. Simply put, my concern was that you commissioned the article from someone hostile rather than favourable, especially after the misunderstandings in the press arising from an illness that prevented me from receiving journalists, my editors received them badly, which upset them, and the absurd idea that the money politics complicated everything. Naturally, I haven’t corrected anything that concerns my age, my financial situation, or political opinions, etc. Alas, you are no longer the literary critic of the Débats, nor its director. But your sympathy is more precious to me than the articles you would have written about me in the first case, or in the second case, to have had written about me. To put all this to rest, if you were to get the chance to speak to M. de Pierrefeu, you could tell him that the last chapter of my novel, having been written before the first[3], and all the writing having been done and dusted, he won’t have to wait for my death to see À la Recherche du Temps Perdu finished[4] (I recognise that this loathsome title may betray the strict structure of the book). This story is so rigid[5] that M. Francis Jammes, having urged me to remove from Du Côté de chez Swann a scene that shocked him[6], I was on the verge of giving in to his request, this scene being in fact irrelevant to the first volume. But I realised that if I removed it, the third and fourth volumes would be destroyed since it’s the recollection of this scene which, in inspiring the jealousy of the narrator, (he who says “I” and who is not necessarily me)[7] brought on what one would call in the the theatre, “peripeteia”[8]. I refuse, then, Les Débats not having dealt with la Vie Heureuse[9], any rectification. I will send you my article on Flaubert[10] once it’s published, not so that you can talk about it, since you don’t have the kind of situation in Les Débats that I thought you had, but so, in case you’re kind enough to read it, you see that I pay more attention to matters of grammar than what is suggested. Besides, what artist has not been told that he could not draw? What musician has not been told that he could not harmonise?

  1. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named n2
  2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named n3
  3. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named n4
  4. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named n5
  5. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named n6
  6. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named n7
  7. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named n8
  8. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named n9
  9. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named n10
  10. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named n11