English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

but rarely demonstrated with detailed evidence. While editing Smollett's serialized novel Sir Launcelot Greaves, I became well acquainted with the general contents of the periodical in which that novel originally appeared, Smollett's British Magazine; or, Monthly Repository for Gentlemen and Ludies (176M7). There are a number of intriguing anonymous articles in it, of which the lead article may serve as an example. In the opening number of the magazine, published in January 1760, appears part one of a three-part oriental tale, "The History of Omrah, the Son of Abulfaid." This anonymous serial, continued in February and March, contains close stylistic parallels to Sir Launcelot Greaves and Smollett's other prose writing, yet the one piece of external evidence for its authorshipa 1798 edition of Goldsmith's Essays and Criticism-attributes it to Goldsmith. For most of this century Smollett and Goldsmith scholars have argued back and forth concerning the authorship of "Omrah" and other anonymous pieces in the British Magazine. Ironically, two of the foremost Goldsmith editors, first Ronald S. Crane and later Arthur Friedman, maintained that many of the periodical's articles are stylistically not Goldsmith's and so kept them out of the Goldsmith canon. More recently, on the other hand, the Smollettian James G. Basker claimed that they are Goldsmith's (Basker based his claim solely on the external evidence) and stated his intent to publish an "edition" of the Goldsmith pieces now supposedly reTHE QUESTION OF ATTRIBUTION 2 99 covered from the British M ~ g a z i n e . ~ Richard C . Taylor, a Goldsmith scholar, has recognized Basker's claim for Goldsmith's authorship of the British Magazine pieces, but he has evinced uneasiness about their contents; he observes that "the newly attributed tales, although they frequently display the rough quaintness and patriarchal morality exhibited in [Goldsmith's] other fiction, are at times shockingly vulgar and distinctly uncharacteristic."' Taylor has put his finger on one of several easily perceived stylistic traits in "Omrah" and the other pieces. Some of the physical descriptions in them are indeed "shockingly vulgar" if perceived as Goldsmith's; however, when compared with Smollett's grotesque descriptions, they are not at all unusual. Thus, readers familiar with the harshly physical worlds of Roderick Random and Humphry Clinker would not be surprised by the repulsive details of the following scene from "Omrah": At length, in a dark comer of the cottage, [Omrah] discovered an old hag, lying extended on a mat, and groaning with all the agony of distemper. He approached this miserable object, notwithstanding an almost intolerable stench that annoyed his nostrils; but she was incapable of conveying the least verbal information. There was hardly any vestige of her nose remaining: her teeth, her palate, and her throat, were half consumed with putrefying sores. What he could not learn from her tongue, he guessed from her condition. Dread and abhorrence winged his flight from this infectious scene.' An accurate depiction of disease symptoms (Smollen was trained in medicine) is but one aspect of a discernible Smollettian style. Robert Adams Day, in his superb edition of The History and Adventures of an Atom, wrote of "Smollett's familiar linguistic exuberance" and pointed out that 'We style of the Atom is thick with Smollettisms," words and phrases that recur with regularity throughout Smollett's writing? But one does not need to be an editor immersed in Smollett's writing to notice the repetition; even casual readers will be struck with Smollett's preference for certain stock language, such as "given to understand," "was fain to," "notwithstanding," or "transported." Groups or clusters of such expressions, coupled with the concrete physical details typical of Smollett's descriptions of characters, provide strong internal evidence for Smollett's authorship. My study of "Omrah" and other prose pieces from the British Magazine will rely not only on external facts of Smollett's role in the periodical, but also on this type of stylistic evidence. Despite the 1798 attribution of the British Magazine pieces to Goldsmith, I anticipate making, without much difficulty, a convincing argument for Smollett. Identifying the Candide translator, however, is another matter. Voltaire's Candide was originally published in 1759 and was quickly followed by two English translations in the same year. The translation traditionally 2 James G. Basket, Tobiar Smollett: Critic mdlourmlist (Newark: University of Delaware Press. 1988). pp. 195. 313n58. 3 Richard C. Taylor. Goldsmith ar Jourmlist (Rutherfad: Pairleigh Dickinson University Press. 1993). p. 90. 4 British Magazine 1 (January 1760). 6. 5 Tobias Smollen. The History ond Adventures of on Atom, ed. Robert Adams Day (Athens: University Press of Georgia. 1989). pp. xv. Ivi. 100 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION ascribed to Smollett appeared in 1762. Entitled Candid: or, The Optimist, it was part of volume 23 of the thirty-six-volume translation of the Works of M. De Voltaire published in London from 1761 through 1769 and edited by Smollett and Thomas Francklin. For well over two hundred years many readers have simply assumed that Smollett translated this Candide: the 1937, 1944, 1955, and 1967 Everyman editions, and 1977 Franklin Library edition are based on the "Smollett" translation. Yet, clear documentary evidence for Smollett's presence as actual translator is lacking. The 1762 title-page reads "The Works of M. de Voltaire. Translated from the French. With Notes, Historical and Critical. By T. Smollett, M.D. T. Francklin, M.A. and Others." It is known that Smollett edited the prose works in the collection, contributing the notes, for he admitted as much in the Mav 1763 letter when he claimed a "small oart of the Translation of Voltaire's'works, including all the notes historical'and critical to be found in that T~anslation."~ But whether a "small part of the Translation" meant Candide is not clear. In his doctoral dissertation Chau Le-Thanh demonstrated that the translator of the 1762 Candid worked from both a 1761 French text and a "pony," one of the 1759 English translations. Le-Thanh examined the three texts closely and concluded that the translator, who was clearly at ease with the French language, used the pony as a means of producing his own version as rapidly as possible. The translator practised what Le-Thanh called "translation through revision: a readiness to borrow words, phrases, even paragraphs from an earlier version, but generally with an open eye for errors and departures from the original."' In his study Le-Thanh demonstrated that the editor-Smollett-wrote the notes for all the prose volumes, but he was unable to prove whether Smollett also translated Candide. The problem is a difficult one. I propose to employ the stylistic data gathered from the British Magazine study in an examination of the Candide translation. Even if the translation is Smollett's, however, it is probable that many of his habitual "Smollettisms" will be suppressed; certainly they should not be present in the parts of the translation based directly on the pony. But given the lack of any other evidence in favour of or against Smollett, I believe a stylistic analysis is the best way to tackle the problem. University of New Orleans 6 Lettern, p. 113. One of the notes to Candid demonsvates Smollett's eye for medical accuracy and supports his authorship of the quotation from "Omrah" discussed above. In part 1, chap. 4 of Candid, Pangloss is described as cured of venereal disease "with only the loss of one eye and an ear." Critical of Voltaire's ignorance in this medical matter. Smollett corrects the description in a footnote: "The author seems to be but indifferently acquainted with the effects of Ulis distemper, athenvise he would have mentioned his nose and his palate, among the particulars of his loss. rather than the ear, which is seldom, if ever affected in this disorder." Candid: or, The Oplimist (London. 1762). p. IS. 7 Chau Le-Thmh. 'Tobias Smallett and Tk Work ofMr. de Volroire, London, 1761-1769." PhD dissertation. University of Chicago. 1967, p. 212.

"Some Pieces in the British Magazine" and "A Small Part of the Translation of Voltaire's Works": Smollett Attributions