There are two translations of The Little Prince into Latin, one by Auguste Haury and one by Franz Schlosser. I'm trying to get a sense of the relative merits of their Latin.
Here's the dedication of The Little Prince in English:
TO LEON WERTH
I ask the indulgence of the children who may read this book for dedicating it to a grown-up. I have a serious reason: he is the best friend I have in the world. I have another reason: this grown-up understands everything, even books about children. I have a third reason: he lives in France where he is hungry and cold. He needs cheering up. If all these reasons are not enough, I will dedicate the book to the child from whom this grown-up grew. All grown-ups were once children—although few of them remember it. And so I correct my dedication:
TO LEON WERTH WHEN HE WAS A LITTLE BOY
In the original French:
A LÉON WERTH
Je demande pardon aux enfants d'avoir dédié ce livre à une grande personne. J'ai une excuse sérieuse: cette grande personne est le meilleur ami que j'ai au monde. J'ai une autre excuse: cette grande personne peut tout comprendre, même les livres pour enfants. J'ai une troisième excuse: cette grande personne habite la France où elle a faim et froid. Elle a besoin d'être consolée. Si toutes ces excuses ne suffisent pas, je veux bien dédier ce livre à l'enfant qu'a été autrefois cette grande personne. Toutes les grandes personnes ont d'abord été des enfants. (Mais peux d'entre elles s'en souviennent.) Je corrige donc ma dédicace:
A LÉON WERTH QUAND IL ÉTAIT PETIT GARÇON
Here is Haury's translation into Latin (in the book he calls Regulus). I assume, since he was French, that he was translating from the French:
ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH S.
Pueros oro ut mihi ignoscant quod librum hunc ad adultum hominem inscripserim. Hanc probabilem excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo mihi unus omnium amicissimus est. Secundam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo eo ingenio est ut omnia intellegat, etiam ea quæ puerorum causa scripta sunt. Jam vero tertiam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo in Gallia habitat, ubi et esurit et alget. Itaque consolatione magnopere eget. Quod si omnes hæ excusationes non satis valebunt, morem eis geram et librum hunc ad puerum illum inscribam ex quo ad hanc ætatem adolevit. Omnes enim qui adoleverunt puerili primum ætate fuerunt (sed pauci recordantur). Quæ igitur inscripsi sic corrigo:
ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH PUERITIÆ MEMORI MEMOR S.
And here's Schlosser's version (from Principulus). I believe German is his first language, but I know he also teaches French and English, so I'm not sure what language he was working from:
Rogo mihi ignoscatis, pueruli puellæque, quod hunc librum ad hominem adultum inscripsi. Hoc autem excusatione deprecor: Homo adultus ille mihi omnium gratissimus et amicissimus est. Alteram excusationem habeo: adultus ille homo omnia intellegit, et libros intellegit liberorum causa scriptos. Tertiam excusationem habeo: Homo adultus ille in Francogallia habitat, ubi friget fameque urgetur. Quam ob rem puto eum consolandum esse. Nisi quidem hæ omnes excusationes sufficient, hunc libellum puero dedicabo, qui olim fuit homo ille adultus. Omnes enim homines adulti primum pueri fuerunt. (Cujus rei pauci autem memores sunt.) Qua de causa, quæ dedicavi, ita corrigo:
LEONI WERTH PUERO
Is one of these better Latin than the other? If so, which one? Why? What are some particularly felicitous or infelicitous choices in each?
Three things occur to me that suggest Haury's is the better translation, but I'm not confident that my analysis of any of them is correct:
Haury uses alget where Schlosser uses friget to translate "he is cold." I believe that "alget" is used of feeling cold, and friget is used impersonally to say that it is cold. Now, Schlosser could be using friget to mean "it is cold," in which case it's a question not of the quality of the Latin but of the accuracy of the translation.
Haury uses sic to indicate the correction he's about to make, where Schlosser uses ita. My understanding is that sic points to what follows it, where ita points to what precedes it.
Schlosser writes "Adultus ille homo omnia intellegit, et libros intellegit liberorum causa scriptos." The repetition of intellegit seems particularly unLatinate to me.
However, those are all small things, and obviously there's a lot more going on in each one.
Note that I'm asking less about the quality of the translation than the quality of the Latinity.
What are people's thoughts?