CmdrQuixote

The first English translation of Don Quixote was by Thomas Shelton, who published the first part in 1612, and the second in 1620. Shelton's version was the only one known to the English-speaking world for more than a century, and it remained the standard one until the appearance of the translation by Jarvis in 1742. Jarvis's translation was the first attempt to render the original Spanish into English in a manner approaching fidelity, and it has been the basis of most subsequent translations. The version by Smollett, published in 1755, was popular in its day, but it is merely a rehandling of Jarvis's work. Other translations followed, but none of them added anything of importance to the English reader's knowledge of the Spanish text until the appearance of the version by Ormsby in 1885, which is the most accurate and readable in English.

Shelton's translation was the first, and it appeared within a few years of the publication of the original. It is a very free rendering, and abounds in errors and omissions, but it has the merit of being written in good, simple English, and of preserving much of the spirit of the work. It was evidently the production of a man who knew Spanish well, and who had a genuine admiration for Cervantes and his work. The version is dedicated to George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and it is probable that Shelton had an eye to the patronage of that powerful favourite in embarking on the venture. Buckingham had been in Spain in 1623, and again in 1629, and had no doubt heard much of Don Quixote there; indeed, it is possible that the idea of translating it may have occurred to Shelton during the Duke's first visit. Be that as it may, the dedication is in the fulsome style affected at the time, and is dated from the Strand, May 1, 1612, which shows that the translation was made quickly.

The book was published in two parts, the first in 1612, and the second in 1620, and both are now extremely rare. The title-page of the first part runs thus:—“The History of the Valorous and Witty Knight-Errant Don Quixote of La Mancha. Written in Spanish by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. Now translated into English by C. Shelton, Gent. At London. Printed by W. Stansby for Thomas Walkley, and are to be sold at his Shop at the signe of the Blacke spread Eagle in Fleetstreet, 1612.” It is dedicated “To the most Noble, and his singular good Lord, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter, &c.” The second part has a similar title-page, with the addition, “Being the Second Part of his First Adventures,” and is dedicated to George, Earl of Bath.

The translation is throughout in the past tense, and in many places the sense is perverted or lost sight of altogether. The names are generally English ones, and the numerous proverbs are rendered or replaced by English ones. Thus, for the Spanish _mas vale maña que fuerza_, Shelton has, “Better wit than strength;” _el que a buen árbol se arrima buena sombra le cubre_, “He that is a friend to a stock of virtue shall be shaded with the good thereof;” and _no hay mal que por bien no venga_, “There is no ill but some good may come of it.” In the second part he has improved upon his original in the matter of names, Don Fernando being substituted for Don Fernando de la Blanzarena, and Don Luis for Don Luis de Requejo.

The book was well received, and went through several editions in Shelton's lifetime. In the dedication of the second part the translator tells us that the first had run through three editions, and that it had been “very well received, and generally allowed to be most excellently translated.” It is evident, however, that the public demand was not equal to Shelton's expectations, for in his dedicatory epistle to the second part he says, “Though I have not been so fortunate as to have my first labours for your Honour rewarded with that gain I looked for, yet have I thought good to continue the history.”

It is clear, too, that Shelton was not a man to let his work go to the public without due attention to it, and in the preface to the second part he tells us that in the interval between the two translations he had compared his version with the original, and “amended some faults escaped in the first impression.” He also took the opportunity to add some passages omitted in his first hasty translation, and to alter others which he thought he had rendered inaccurately.

The book was popular, and went through the hands of the stationers almost as quickly as it could be printed; but it is evident, too, that it did not pay, for in the preface to the second part Shelton says, “Though I have spent no small time and pains in this second part, yet have I received so small thanks for the first, that I should have been very loath to have undertaken it, but that my former promise to the reader moved me.”

It is a curious illustration of the change in the public taste that while the first part was read with eagerness, the second did not appear to find much favour, and Shelton felt it necessary to apologise for putting it forth. The reason, no doubt, was that the public, finding that Don Quixote did not really set out again on his adventures, were disappointed, and, the novelty being worn off, cared less for the humours of Sancho Panza than they had expected.

The two parts were reprinted together in 1654, and again in 1677, and in this latter year a third edition, “corrected and amended,” appeared, with a portrait of the author and a map of La Mancha. This was the edition in vogue when the version of Jarvis appeared, and it is possible that some of the later readings of Shelton may have been due to him.

The version of Jarvis, which appeared in two volumes in 1742, is a very different performance from Shelton's. It is a close and literal translation, and the language, though sometimes uncouth, has a certain dignity, and is free from the vulgarisms and solecisms of the earlier version. Jarvis was evidently a Spanish scholar, and his version, in spite of its stiffness, is a very readable one. It is, in fact, the first attempt to give the English reader some notion of the style of Cervantes, and for this reason, if for no other, it is entitled to our respect.

The translation is dedicated to the Duke of Argyle, and in the dedicatory epistle the translator tells his Grace that, having long admired Don Quixote in the original, he was induced, “by the importunity of some curious and judicious friends,” to attempt a version of it. He had, he says, been engaged in the work some time, “when, to his great surprise and no small concern, he found a translation of it in the hands of some booksellers, who had already published two editions.” This was a severe blow, and he would have abandoned his undertaking had he not reflected that Shelton's version was so free that his own might still have a chance. He determined, therefore, to proceed, “and, if possible, so to conduct his performance, as that the similarity should consist only in the sense.”

The book is dedicated to the memory of <NAME>, Earl of Oxford, and in the preface the translator tells us that he has aimed at giving an exact copy of the Spanish both in the spirit and letter, “without any regard to the niceties of our language, or the more delicate ears of the fair sex;” and he entreats his readers to remember that “the roughness, if there appear any such, is not in the author, but the translator.”

The version of Smollett appeared in 1755, and was at once popular. It is, in fact, a very readable Don Quixote, and, but for the later and more accurate translations, would still hold its ground with the general reader. It is easy and familiar, and, as Ticknor justly observes, has more of the manner of a paraphrase than of a version. It is evident that Smollett did not consider himself bound to follow his original closely, and in many places he has departed widely from it. His language is often elegant, and his descriptions are well managed; but his Don Quixote is not the Don Quixote of Cervantes. He has omitted much, and that which he has omitted includes some of the best passages in the original. His Sancho, too, wants the simplicity of the genuine article.

Smollett tells us in his preface that he had before him the versions of Shelton and Jarvis, and that he made use of them when he thought Jarvis had fallen wide of his author, or been expresly inaccurate. He seems, in short, to have regarded Shelton's version as the standard one, and to have taken it for his guide in many places where it most widely differs from the Spanish. He had also the French version of <NAME>, which was then the most popular one in Europe, and no doubt influenced him considerably.

The version of <NAME>, published in two volumes in 1818, is a very inferior performance. It is a mere patchwork, the work of a man who had no critical faculty, and was incapable of grasping the spirit of the original. The greater part is taken from Smollett, but other translations are drawn upon where they suited his purpose better, and some passages are literally translated from the Spanish. The book is illustrated with plates by <NAME>, and is now of some rarity.

The latest translation, by <NAME>, appeared in 1848. It is a close and generally accurate rendering, but the language is modern and often mean, and the book is disfigured throughout with notes, which are for the most part either obvious or inaccurate.

Such is a brief history of the various translations of Don Quixote into English. It only remains to say a few words with regard to the present version.

My aim has been to give as literal a rendering of the Spanish as could be expressed in English, without sacrificing clearness and continuity, and without the use of such an amount of foreign and obsolete words as would render the book difficult to the general reader. I have also thought it desirable, where the sense was not likely to be imperilled, and might indeed be improved by the change, to adopt English equivalents for Spanish idioms, and thus bring Don Quixote as near an English reader as was consistent with fidelity. Thus I have thought it better to speak of “the king's attorney” than “the public prosecutor,” and of “the parish beadle” than “the alcade's officer;” and I have generally used the word “knight” for “caballero,” which, except in the sense of a member of the chivalry of old, is a purely Spanish word.

I have also thought it best, where the Spanish idiom differs widely from our own, to turn the sentences into such form as seems most English, especially where the change makes the meaning clearer. Thus, for example, Don Quixote says, in the original, “God keep me from lies, Sancho, I never saw her,” and Sancho, “By the same token, she is the handsomest woman—” and so on. This idiomatic use of the subjunctive mood it has not been thought desirable to retain, and I have therefore rendered the passages in question, “God forbid I should lie in the matter, Sancho; I never saw her,” and “To be sure, she is the prettiest lass—” and so forth.

In names of persons and places I have thought it best to follow the older translators, and have therefore given Rocinante to Don Quixote's steed, and Dapple to Sancho Panza's ass. The names of the characters generally are such as the readers of English Don Quixote have been familiar with for more than two centuries, and any attempt to improve upon them would have been merely pedantic.

I have added notes wherever I thought they would be of real assistance to the reader, and have endeavoured to make them brief and to the point. They have been chiefly compiled from the excellent notes to the Spanish text by <NAME>, and I have to return my best thanks to <NAME>, <NAME>, for allowing me the use of them.

The present version has been gone through with great care, and I believe will be found tolerably correct as a representation of the Spanish; but, of course, I do not pretend to have preserved all the niceties of the original, and I may have committed some errors of detail here and there, for which I must trust to the indulgence of my readers.

<NAME>.