# FR: Les cheveux étaient une des beautés de la marquise, qui suffisaient



## Thomas Tompion

I'm sure you'll be able to help me with this bit of Théophile Gautier, which has puzzled me.

Les cheveux étaient une des beautés de la marquise, qui suffisaient à toutes les coiffures sans avoir recours aux postiches et artifices de perruque, et pour cette cause se laissait volontiers approcher des dames et des cavaliers à l'heure où ses femmes l'ajustaient.

The meaning is clear enough - something like:

Her hair was a point of beauty for the Marquise, and full enough to provide amply for all styles of coiffure without needing any bolster from wigs or other artifices, and for this reason she was happy to allow distinguished visitors of either sex while her women were tittivating it.

My question concerns the switch of subject between the two branches of the double-sentence. In the first part the subject is les cheveux and the main verb (étaient) is appropriately in the plural form; in the second part the main verb (laissait) switches to the singular and the Marquise has clearly become the subject, without being specifically mentioned. Is it normal for the elle to be assumed like this? or do you think this a printing or editing error?


----------



## Austin Pal

There is obviously a printing error, it should be _"qui suffis*ait*"..._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Austin Pal said:


> There is obviously a printing error, it should be _"qui suffis*ait*"..._


 
Now that hadn't occurred to me: surely the subject is plural (les cheveux)?


----------



## Austin Pal

No, the _"qui"_ stands for _"la Marquise"_ : _"La Marquise suffit à ses coiffures et se laisse approcher..."_ - otherwise the whole sentence is not correct...


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Austin Pal said:


> No, the _"qui"_ stands for _"la Marquise"_ : _"La Marquise suffit à ses coiffures et se laisse approcher..."_ - otherwise the whole sentence is not correct...


I'm intrigued.  Whatever then does la marquise suffisait à toutes les coiffures sans avoir recours aux postiches et artifices de perruque mean?

Incidentally, the text is identical in several different editions of the novel.


----------



## Austin Pal

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm intrigued. Whatever then does la marquise suffisait à toutes les coiffures sans avoir recours aux postiches et artifices de perruque mean?


 
Well, _"suffisait"_ would then stand for _"se prêter à" _: _"La marquise se prêtait à toutes les coiffures et se laissait..." _


----------



## floise

Hi,

From the 1798 Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française:
http://colet.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/d...eadword=&docyear=ALL&dicoid=ALL&articletype=1

SUFFIRE. v.  Pouvoir fournir, pouvoir subvenir, pouvoir satisfaire à quelque chose. Il se dit également Des choses et des personnes.* Quand il se dit Des choses, il signifie, qu'Elles sont de la qualité ou dans la quantité nécessaire; *et quand il se dit Des personnes, il signifie, qu'Elles ont les talens et les moyens nécessaires pour faire ce qu'elles se proposent, ou ce qu'on exige d'elles. 

**********************************

I believe, in light of the above definition, that the sentence does not have an error, but that it means, as Thomas Tompion originally interpreted, that the hair of this woman was full enough to allow for different hairstyles.

But normally the relative clause introductory pronoun refers to the nearer noun, so the 'qui' would normally refer back to 'la marquise', and not to the further noun, 'les cheveux'. 

The sentence has an odd structure, and I understand Thomas Tompion's confusion.

floise


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Floise, I'm most grateful for your post.  I take the point about the distance of the relative pronoun from the antecedent.  But what do you feel about the switch to the singular for the second part of the double sentence?


----------



## Austin Pal

Check this link out :

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zb...z&sig=V7Kwntcsdt7nr4vmdlMyyAr1jNw&output=html


----------



## floise

Thomas Tompion,

I find the structure most unusual! But interesting!

Gauthier wrote in the 19th century. Perhaps this type of syntax was acceptable then? 

floise


----------



## floise

Austin Pal,

Now I'm truly baffled. Which is the original?

floise


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Austin Pal said:


> Check this link out :
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Zb...z&sig=V7Kwntcsdt7nr4vmdlMyyAr1jNw&output=html


Thanks very much for that Austin Pal.  That does indeed make life much more simple, and gets over the problem of the unnatural distance of qui from the antecedent.  My initial worry was that suffisait à seemed to lend itself more to the hair than to the Marquise, but the conjugation muddle was a terrible hurdle.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

floise said:


> Austin Pal,
> 
> Now I'm truly baffled. Which is the original?
> 
> floise


 
The answer is that you'll find both in different editions of the work.  But I agree with Austin Pal that only the suffisait form works grammatically.  It must be a printer's or editor's error.  I think the printer could be forgiven, though a lot of them spot that sort of thing, sometimes causing errors which weren't present in the original text.  http://www.uni-weimar.de/sz/franzoesisch/ressources/byblos/g/gautier/fracasse.htm also gives the singular form, and several other versions give the plural one.


----------



## floise

Thomas Tompion,

Thank you and thanks to Austin Pal, too. 

Good detective work!

floise


----------

