El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha. Translated by Tobias Smollett

Smollett’s translation of Don Quixote first appeared in 1755 and remained the most prominent English translation of Cervantes’s novel until the turn of the nineteenth century. What occurred with and to the translation from that moment until the present day is a curious and an intriguing story in itself, one that makes the translation all the more enigmatic. For more than two centuries, Smollett’s translation was not reprinted, yet the translator’s reputation and capabilities were enshrouded in mystery. Smollett was quickly denounced by several of his contemporaries for a series of wrongdoings, everything from copying to false authorship, and for purportedly knowing little or no Spanish. What has come to the surface over time, however, overshadowing the accusations themselves, are the personal agendas, obvious biases and conspiracy theories of jealous competitors and rival scholars.

The introduction to the translation develops the controversy surrounding the translation’s authenticity in tandem with the restoration of Smollett’s reputation. Battestin, both the author of the introduction and co-editor, then delves into the heart of the matter by discussing Smollett the man and translator. The fundamental reason that the co-editor cites for the longstanding and questionable characterization of Smollett’s work can be traced back to his knowledge of Spanish. As Battestin proceeds to divulge information surrounding the writer, he also initiates a trial-like narrative which gradually leads to Smollett’s acquittal after some twelve pages of details, claiming that his translation is the most readable English version (xxxvi) and also asserting that Smollett only needed a true command of English to reproduce in his own language Cervantes’s masterpiece (xxxv). Battestin’s introduction also provides a detailed explanation of the translation’s inception and fruition as plagued by delays, burdened by financial hardships, and hindered by Smollett’s concurrent projects.

Once Battestin has laid out the pertinent facts before the reader, he slowly recounts the long and sometimes arduous task Smollett undertook as translator of one of the most dynamic, complex, and linguistically challenging texts to date. It was known, for example, that Smollett worked on other projects (at least one other translation, a novel, and a play) while he translated Don Quixote. According to Battestin most of the translation was complete before March of 1750 but was not announced as such until 1754. In the four-year lapse, Smollett apparently took a break from the translating process, possibly to focus his energies on more immediate lucrative endeavors. Smollett, seemingly in dire straights economically, was even given an advance earlier, which he too quickly and foolishly depleted. Smollett’s perpetual financial predicament was not eased but rather further complicated by the written records that indicated advanced partial payment by customers in exchange for the first copies of the translation upon publication. Miraculously, and probably because of insufficient revenue flow, he put the ultimate touches on the work. In late February 1755, it was finally ready for his English-reading public, thus initiating and heralding its reign as the most popular translation for the next forty-odd years.

The collective critical opinion of Smollett’s work gradually shifted, however, resulting in the poor reputation of the work’s credibility and its subsequent abandonment for some 200 years. Battestin provides various examples of critics’ comments, judgments, and skeptical remarks regarding Smollett and his text. Like these scholars, Battestin does some of his own gear-shifting in order to debunk again all unfounded theories and to redeem the unfairly assessed translation. He cites Carlos Fuentes, for example, who is widely credited for revisiting and reevaluating the text and for calling it (like Francisco Rodríguez Marín) the best translation in existence. This opinion is further reinforced by the translation’s prelude, which consists of Smollett’s short biography of Cervantes, which proves to be both well-written and analytical—it only offers summary of the Spaniard’s life, but also manages to question the very history it presents. As such, this brief biography is both historical and probing in nature.

The translation itself, as some have previously yet indirectly stated, is relatively faithful to the original, but could have benefited from a more thorough editing job by Battestin and Brack. For example, the explanations Battestin provides of particular, untranslatable Spanish words are at times incomplete. One case is the footnote for the word “Micomicon” (207): The editors quickly and correctly point out the word’s association with “monkey,” yet they leave aside the equally important clarification of the embedded notion of “cómico,” underlining the dual comical nature of the word. Moreover, the lack of expounding footnotes in both quantity and quality unfortunately affects the novel’s reaching its full potential. There are cultural references, linguistic delights, and historical allusions that are simply glossed over, which often decontextualize the events, characters, and storylines of the original. Another problematic editorial decision was to maintain the language and spelling of the original publication, which highlights the vocabulary and style of the eighteenth century. Words such as “stile”, “batchelor,” and “thine” are not even part of the anachronically archaic language employed by Don Quixote. Rather, they are products of Smollett’s own linguistic repertoire, which makes the translation more inaccessible and obstructive for readers with little familiarity with the lexicon of the eighteenth century. Had the editors decided to modernize certain words, the text would have flowed better. Overall, the translation, in my opinion, is adequate for readers with no deep, critical interest in the novel and would allow them to walk away with a superficial understanding of Don Quixote. But for a serious student or scholar, the translation’s lack of a good editorial material will leave many questions unanswered and, worse, critical passages completely unperceived.

In Smollett’s defense, however, he did his job as best he probably could. Working with a text as multifaceted as Don Quixote is no easy undertaking, even for the most experienced literary scholar, the most articulate Spanish speaker, or someone with both to their credit. In the end, the translation, while seemingly having emerged reborn like a Phoenix from the ashes, now ironically finds itself in a new critical quagmire due to circumstances truly beyond its control.