Exploring Proust: Moncrieff’s Unrevised Translation of 'Remembrance of Things Past'

The choice between reading Remembrance of Things Past by Moncrieff without knowing about In Search of Lost Time, the edited translation that is closer to Proust's original, is a decision fraught with intriguing literary possibilities and considerations. While reading a translation that is closer to the original can bring a richer understanding, Moncrieff's work offers a unique perspective that may not be replicable in a revision.

Decision Point

The query of whether one might miss out on anything by choosing the Moncrieff translation is a significant one. It would be prudent to acquire both versions, read both, and then decide if the nuances of the revised translation have made your reading experience less fulfilling. Reading both can provide a comprehensive understanding and a comparison of how different translators capture the essence of Proust's work. As Proust's depth and artistic merit are paramount, even minor differences in translations could significantly impact the reading experience.

The Literary Merit of Moncrieff’s Translation

Reading Remembrance of Things Past in a language other than the original French does dilute some of the literary techniques for which Proust is renowned. The sheer complexity of Proust's prose cannot be fully appreciated in a translation that is not a direct replication of his original French. However, learning French to the extent that one can fully appreciate the work in its original language is an endeavor that may take a considerable amount of time. Moreover, reading Proust requires a different approach as the narrative is less plot-driven, focusing instead on detailed, evocative descriptions of his mundane experiences.

As a writer, Proust is exceptionally evocative of his time and place, but the lack of an engaging plot can sometimes make the reading experience less involving. Proust's work is a profound exploration of memory and the passage of time, which readers can relate to by feeling transported into a different era and comparing it to their own experiences. It can be argued that even if one reads the Moncrieff translation, they can still have a rich, meaningful experience, as the themes and literary techniques are timeless.

Proust's Influence on Modern Literature

Proust's works have had a profound influence on modern literature. He was the inspiration for several notable authors, including James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Thomas Wolfe, Henry Miller, and William Faulkner. His writing, filled with introspective and evocative descriptions, has inspired writers to delve deeply into their characters' internal worlds. It is noteworthy that Proust was the bane and inspiration for F. Scott Fitzgerald and the primary influence on Ernest Hemingway, who moved to Paris after World War I. The cultural backdrop of Paris in the 1920s, with Proust at its center, was later described by Hemingway as a 'movable feast' for artists of all types.

Moncrieff’s Contribution to Proust

Moncrieff's translation of Remembrance of Things Past is a personal journey for each reader. Having read only Moncrieff, I found the experience highly satisfying. The translation brings Proust's complex literary techniques to life, offering a nuanced and detailed portrayal of the author's thoughts and experiences. The idea of a 'translation' involves someone standing between the reader and the original work, interpreting and adapting Proust's words to make them accessible in a new language. However, as every reader interprets the text differently, each translation offers a unique perspective.

Moncrieff's translation, while not being the closest to the original, captures the essence of Proust's writing. It offers a perspective influenced by the translator's era and personal sensibilities. Constance Garnett, another translator of Russian literature, provides a parallel example, where translations from different eras can offer varying interpretations of the same work. While newer translations may bring new insights and nuances, they may also miss some of the charm and cultural context of the earlier translations.

Conclusion

Given the choice, I would not be overly concerned about missing out on anything by reading the Moncrieff translation. Acquiring the newer translation might add depth and understanding, but the satisfaction derived from the Moncrieff version is substantial. Both translations have their merits, and the decision ultimately depends on one's personal preference and priorities. If you decide to read the Moncrieff, I hope you find it as enriching an experience as I did.