The Mouse and the Flea – Burton and Payne

“The Mouse and the Flea”

Burton:

And (continued the fox) know thou, O wise and experienced crow with the clear-seeing eyes, that I tell thee this only to the intent that thou mayst reap the recompense of thy kindness to me, even as the mouse reaped the reward of her kindness to the flea; for see how he repaid her and requited her with the goodliest of requitals. Said the crow, “It lies with the benefactor to show benevolence or not to show it; nor is it incumbent on us to entreat kindly one who seeketh a connection that entaileth separation from kith and kin. If I show thee favour who art my foe by kind, I am the cause of cutting myself off from the world; and thou, O fox, art full of wiles and guiles.

Payne:

And know, O wise, clear-sighted and experienced crow (continued the fox), that I only tell thee this to the intent that thou mayst reap the recompense of thy goodness to me, even as the mouse reaped the reward of her kindness to the flea; for see how he repaid her and requited her with the goodliest of requitals.’ Quoth the crow, ‘It lies with the benefactor to show benevolence or not; nor is it incumbent on us to behave kindly to whoso seeks an impossible connection. If I show thee favour, who art by nature my enemy, I am the cause of my own destruction, and thou, O fox, art full of craft and cunning. Now those, whose characteristics these are, are not to be trusted upon oath, and he who is not to be trusted upon oath, there is no good faith in him. 

Both Burton and Payne’s translation of the story of the mouse and the flea illustrate the conflicting nature of trust. On one side of the story, the fox talks about the fact that trust is established under some assumption of good faith, but eventually earned to completion. The fox uses the story to show that although the mouse and the flea are two different creatures, that are natural adversaries, they get along because there is a mutual benefit. The crow, however, focuses on the fact that trust is not something that is earned or founded on any good faith, but rather is established through the nature of the interaction. Overall, Payne’s translation tends to be more concise than Burton’s more descriptive translation. However, furthermore, the main differences in the two translations of the story are the language and diction.

In Burton’s translation the crow’s merciful actions is described as “kindness.” In Payne’s translation the same actions are described as “goodness.” Kindness is synonymous with compassion, humanity, or sympathy, where as goodness is defined as honesty, virtue, and morality. In the first translation, the fox focuses on the crow’s treatment toward him, but in the second, he focuses on the crow’s moral nature independent of the treatment of the fox—the first is an appeal to sympathy; the other is an appeal to flattery.

In Burton’s translation, the crow describes the relationship between the fox and herself as “separated from kith and kin,” but in Payne’s translation describes the relationship as “impossible.” The phrase “kith and kin” originally referred to “countrymen,” in the 1300s. In the first translation, the crow does not trust the fox simply because the fox is not one of her own kind. However, the second translation emphasizes that the relatability is so far off that is impossible to have any kind of relationship, leaving a more serious impression of separation in the readers’ minds. Here, the small change in language introduces two sources of trust—one that involves a familial or geographic source, and one that involves emotional, intellectual, and cultural relatability.

In analyzing the devastating impact of wrongly trusting the fox, the crow describes herself in Burton’s translation as being “cut off from the world,” however; in Payne’s translation, she simply states that she leads herself to her own “destruction.” The first translation leads readers to believe that it is terrible enough to be cut off from the world. It gives readers understanding that death was the worst consequence of mistakes in the eyes of this society at the time the translation was written. However, in Payne’s translation, the word: “destruction,” does not necessarily give a connotation of death, but also quite possibly a ruined life on earth, or inner turmoil. Thereby also leading readers to understand that this translation possibly came from a more advanced society that considered the fulfillment of life on earth, as opposed to the black and white nature of life and death in less modern societies.

Although, both Payne and Burton’s translations of the story of the mouse and the flea are very similar, the linguistic differences, give the reader key insights into completely different mindsets and cultures. This truly shows the importance and intentionality of word choice and setting.