Protestant Exiles from France/Volume 2 - Book Third - Chapter 12 - Section XV
Motteux.
The Motteux family were refugees from Rouen. We find, under date 15th April 1693 (List xv.), the naturalisation of John Motteux, with his children, John Anthony, Timothy, Peter, Judith, Catherine, and Martha Mary. Although naturalised at so late a date, they came over in 1685, and some of them sooner. It is difficult to identify- the household from the entries in the French registers. But assuming the above-named Peter to be the litterateur, the year of whose birth was 1660, we can identify Timothy, Judith, and Catherine as his brother and sisters. On 11th April 1686 we meet with Judith Le Nud, wife of Jean Motteux (she probably was the mother of the children naturalized in 1693, but had died between 1686 and 1693). On that 11th April Timothée Benoist (named after Timothée Motteux) was baptized in Threadneedle Street Church, being the son of Jean Benoist and Catherine Motteux. As early as 9th August 1682 Timothée Motteux was witness to the baptism of Timothée Prevost, along with Judith Motteux, wife of James Torquet. (In 1702, January 11th, Jean Motteux and Susanne, his wife, present a daughter for baptism, Jean Anthoine Motteux being a witness; Madame Susanne may have been the second wife of the refugee father). The litterateur is (as I have said) probably the “Peter” of the Naturalization Grant, although the cyclopaedias call him “Peter-Anthony Motteux.”
Pierre Motteux (born 1660), though not one of those whose piety or morality did honour to his religious profession, was a credit to Huguenot education and example, in the qualities of industry, energy, perseverance, and vivacity. Many men approve of Bible religion who yet fail to comply with its demands. So Sir James Mackintosh, anticipating his readers’ surprise at the constancy of many Protestants in spite of the perverting tuition and temptations of King James II., thus expresses himself: “So much constancy in religious opinion may seem singular among courtiers and soldiers; but the inconsistency of men’s actions with their opinions is more often due to infirmity than to insincerity, and the members of the Protestant party were restrained from deserting it by principles of honour.” Peter Motteux died unhappily on his fifty-eighth birthday, 18th February 1718, and was buried in the Church of St. Mary Axe, London. He had been found dead in a house in the Butcher-Row, near St. Clement’s Church. “His Majesty was pleased to promise his pardon and a reward of £50 to any person concerned in the murder of Mr Peter Motteux, except the person by whom the murder was committed, who should discover the rest of the persons who committed the said murder, so as they, or any of them, were [shall be ?] convicted thereof.” But on April 26th, at the Old Baily, “five persons were tried for the murder of Mr Peter Motteux, and were acquitted.” (Historical Register for the year 1718.)
As to this talented man, the Imperial Dictionary of Biography says: “A Huguenot, he migrated to London after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, became the prosperous owner of a large East India warehouse in Leadenhall Street, and, from his knowledge of languages, received an appointment in connection with the foreign department of the post-office. Sir Walter Scott (Works of Dryden) adds, that he was also a bookseller. Motteux amused himself with literature, edited the Gentleman’s Journal, wrote some twenty plays in English (many of them well received), and a good deal of English poetry, and took a place among the London wits of the time. Dryden dedicates his fourteenth Epistle, To my friend Mr Motteux on his tragedy called Beauty in Distress, published in 1698, and apostrophizes him thus:
But whence art thou inspir’d, and thou alone,To nourish in an idiom not thine own?”
[Motteux’s Gentleman’s Journal was a monthly publication, which continued during three years, 1692, 1693, and 1694.]
Tytler (Lord Woodhouselee), in his Essay on Translation, decides that Motteux “has no great abilities as an original writer,” but “has, upon the whole, a very high degree of merit as a translator.” It must be remembered that it was Tytler’s opinion that “the art of translation is of more dignity and importance than has been generally imagined. Excellence in this art is neither an easy attainment, nor what lies at all within the reach of ordinary abilities. It not only demands those acquired endowments which are the fruit of much labour and study, but requires a larger portion of native talents and of genuine taste than arc necessary for excelling in many departments of original composition.” (Preface to Third Edition, Edin. 1813.)
*⁎* Tytler mentions as “one of the most perfect specimens of the art of translation” the English version of Rabelais, combining the able workmanship of Sir Thomas Urquhart, Mr Motteux, and Mr Ozell. Urquhart translated the first three books, these Motteux republished, translating the remaining three books, and annotating the whole; lastly, Ozell re-edited Motteux. The translation of Don Quixote by Motteux receives great commendation from Tytler, who proves that it is a very just and easy translation of the original Spanish, so much so, that Motteux can never have seen a French version to translate from. Tytler prefers Motteux’s translation to Smollett’s. “To contend with Motteux, Smollett found it necessary to assume the armour of Jarvis [an English translator of Cervantes]. Jarvis had purposely avoided the smallest coincidence of expression with Motteux, whom, with equal presumption and injustice, he accuses of having taken his version wholly from the French. . . . . In the adoption of corresponding idioms, Motteux had been eminently fortunate, and had in general pre-occupied the appropriate phrases, so that a succeeding translator, who proceeded on the rule of invariably rejecting his phraseology must have, in general, altered for the worse;” this rule through the whole of their undertaking, was followed by Jarvis, and by his copyist and improver, Smollet. Lockhart published an English edition of Don Quixote, and prefixed to it an Essay on Cervantes; it was Motteux’s translation that our great critic then selected for republication. Lockhart’s opinion was, in our day, held and expressed by Prescott.