# Max Havelaar, Chapter 12

Max Havelaar · Multatuli · The Novel

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/havelaar/hoofdstuk-12. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/havelaar/hoofdstuk-12.json. Audio: https://audio.1732studios.com/havelaar/<line id>.m4a.


TWAALFDE HOOFDSTUK  
TWELFTH CHAPTER
> Ordinal twaalfde: 'Twaalfde Hoofdstuk' = 'Twelfth Chapter'. Ordinals add -de/-ste to the cardinal (twaalf → twaalfde); hoofdstuk is a compound, hoofd + stuk ('head-piece').

--Beste Max, zei Tine, ons dessert is zoo schraal. Zou je niet ... je weet wel ...  
"Dearest Max," said Tine, "our dessert is so meagre. Couldn't you ... you know ..."
> Possessive 'ons' with a het-word: Ons (not onze) is used because dessert is a het-word; the form onze appears with de-words and plurals. 'Schraal' means meagre, scant.

Madame Geoffrin?  
Madame Geoffrin?

--Nog wat vertellen, in plaats van gebak?  
"Tell us something more, instead of pastry?"

Wat drommel, ik ben heesch.  
What the devil, I'm hoarse.
> Wat drommel / heesch: 'Wat drommel' is a mild oath ('what the deuce'), drommel a euphemism for the devil. 'Heesch' (modern hees) means hoarse — Max begs off from more storytelling.

De beurt is aan Verbrugge.  
It's Verbrugge's turn.

--Ja, m'nheer Verbrugge!  
"Yes, Mr. Verbrugge!"

Lost u Max wat af, verzocht mevrouw Havelaar.  
"Do relieve Max a little," Madame Havelaar requested.
> Separable 'aflossen' + polite imperative u: 'Lost … af' is the separable aflossen ('to relieve, take over from'), prefix af to the end. Using u as the imperative subject makes it a polite request ('do relieve Max').

Verbrugge bedacht zich even, en begon:  
Verbrugge thought for a moment, and began:
> Reflexive 'zich bedenken': 'Bedacht zich' is the reflexive zich bedenken ('to reflect, consider for a moment'), distinct from non-reflexive bedenken ('to devise'). Even ('briefly') and begon (strong past of beginnen) follow.

--Er was eens een man, die een kalkoen stal ...  
"There was once a man who stole a turkey ..."
> Existential er + relative die: 'Er was eens een man' is the classic fairy-tale opener ('there once was a man'); die introduces the relative clause, verb-final in stal (strong past of stelen, 'to steal').

--O, deugniet, riep Havelaar, dat heb je van Padang!  
"Oh, you rascal," cried Havelaar, "you got that from Padang!"
> Pronominal 'van' + V2: Fronting the object dat keeps the verb heb second ('that you got from Padang'). Van Padang marks the source. Padang is the chief port of West Sumatra.

En hoe is 't verder?  
And how does it go on?

--'t Is uit.  
"It's finished."

Wie kent het slot van die historie?  
Who knows the end of that tale?
> Interrogative 'wie' + far demonstrative: Wie ('who') is the subject question word, verb kent second. 'Die historie' uses the far demonstrative die with the de-word historie ('that tale').

--Wèl, ik! Ik heb hem opgegeten, samen met ...iemand.  
"Why, I do! I ate it up, together with ... someone."
> Present perfect + separable opeten: 'heb … opgegeten' is the present perfect of separable opeten ('to eat up'); the participle keeps the prefix op- before ge-. Hem refers to the turkey (a de-word).

Weet je waarom ik te Padang, gesuspendeerd was?  
Do you know why I was suspended at Padang?
> Indirect question + zijn-passive: 'waarom … gesuspendeerd was' is an embedded question, verb-final, holding a state passive ('was suspended'). The loanword gesuspendeerd takes a regular -d participle.

--Men zei dat er een deficit was in uw kas te Natal, hernam Verbrugge.  
"They said there was a deficit in your treasury at Natal," Verbrugge resumed.
> Impersonal men + existential er: Men ('they / people') reports the rumour; the dat-clause uses existential er ('that there was a deficit') and runs verb-final. 'Uw kas' uses the formal/archaic possessive uw ('your').

--Dit was niet geheel onwaar, doch waar was 't ook niet.  
"This was not altogether untrue, yet neither was it true."
> Inversion after fronted adverbial: Because the clause opens with the predicate-complement 'waar' (true), the finite verb 'was' must come second, pushing the subject ''t' (het) after it. This verb-second discipline holds even when something other than the subject is fronted.
> doch = 'yet, but': 'Doch' is a literary, somewhat archaic adversative conjunction equivalent to 'maar' (but / yet). It recurs throughout this passage and signals an elevated, 19th-century register.

Ik was te Natal door allerlei oorzaken heel slordig geweest in myn geldelyke verantwoording, waarop inderdaad veel aanmerkingen te maken waren.  
At Natal, for all manner of reasons, I had been quite careless in keeping my financial accounts, on which a good many objections could indeed be raised.
> Pluperfect with zijn: 'was ... geweest' is the pluperfect of 'zijn' — the imperfect 'was' plus the past participle 'geweest' — placing this carelessness in the past behind the narrative past. The participle sits at the clause end.
> Period spelling: y for ij: 1860 prose writes 'myn' for 'mijn' and 'geldelyke' for 'geldelijke', using y wherever modern Dutch has ij. Reading these as ij restores the familiar words.
> Pronominal adverb 'waarop': Dutch cannot say 'op welke' for a thing; instead the preposition fuses with 'waar' to give 'waarop' (= 'on which'). Here it opens a relative clause referring back to the accounts.

Maar dit viel in die dagen zoo dikwyls voor! De omstandigheden in de Noord van Sumatra waren kort na 't innemen van Baroes, Tapoes en Singkel zóó verward, alles was zóó onrustig, dat men het een jong mensch, die liever te-paard zat dan dat hy geld telde of kasboeken byhield, niet kwalyk nemen kon dat alles niet zoo ordelyk en geregeld ging als men zou kunnen vorderen van een amsterdamschen boekhouder die niet anders te doen heeft.  
But this happened so often in those days! The conditions in the north of Sumatra were, shortly after the taking of Baros, Tapus and Singkel, so confused, everything was so unsettled, that one could not hold it against a young man — who would sooner sit on horseback than count money or keep ledgers — that things did not run as neatly and methodically as one might demand of an Amsterdam bookkeeper who has nothing else to do.
> Separable verb 'voorvallen': 'Voorvallen' (to happen, occur) splits in a main clause: the stem 'viel' takes verb-second position and the prefix 'voor' drops to the clause end. Read 'viel ... voor' as a single verb 'occurred'.
> Relative 'die' for a de-word: The relative pronoun 'die' refers back to 'een jong mensch' and opens a verb-final subordinate clause ('zat ... telde'). 'die' is the form used for common-gender (de-word) antecedents.
> Conditional 'zou kunnen': 'zou kunnen vorderen' is the conditional 'zou' plus a stacked infinitive — 'one would be able to demand'. The two infinitives pile up at the end of the clause in the typical Dutch verb cluster.

De Battahlanden waren in roering, en je weet, Verbrugge, hoe altyd alles wat in de Battahs gebeurt, terugwerkt op 't Natalsche.  
The Battak lands were in turmoil, and you know, Verbrugge, how everything that happens among the Battaks always reacts upon the Natal district.
> Separable 'terugwerken' in a verb-final clause: 'hoe' opens a subordinate clause, so the finite verb 'terugwerkt' goes to the end — and because the clause is verb-final, the separable verb 'terugwerken' (to react upon) stays joined rather than splitting.

Ik sliep 's nachts geheel gekleed om spoedig by-dehand te zyn, wat dan ook dikwyls noodig was.  
At night I slept fully dressed, so as to be ready at hand quickly, which was indeed often necessary.
> Simple past (imperfect) 'sliep': 'sliep' is the strong imperfect of 'slapen' (to sleep), formed by a vowel change rather than a -te ending. The narrative leans on this imperfect tense for sustained past description.
> Frozen genitive in time expressions: ''s nachts' (= des nachts, 'at night') preserves an old genitive of time. The same pattern gives ''s avonds', ''s morgens'. The apostrophe-s is a worn-down 'des'.
> Purpose clause: om ... te: 'om ... te zyn' frames a purpose: 'in order to be quickly at hand'. The infinitive 'zyn' (= zijn) closes the clause after its 'te'.

Daarby heeft het gevaar--eenigen tyd voor myn komst was er een komplot ontdekt, om myn voorganger te vermoorden en opstand te maken--het gevaar heeft iets aantrekkelyks, vooral wanneer men slechts twee-en-twintig jaren oud is. Dit aantrekkelyke maakt dan iemand wel eens ongeschikt voor bureauwerk of voor de styve nauwkeurigheid die noodig is tot goed beheer van geldzaken.  
Besides, there was the danger — some time before my arrival a plot had been uncovered to murder my predecessor and raise a revolt — danger has something attractive about it, especially when one is only two-and-twenty years old. And that attraction can sometimes make a man unfit for desk-work, or for the stiff exactitude required for the sound management of money matters.
> Pluperfect passive: 'was ... ontdekt' is a state/perfect passive: the imperfect of 'zijn' plus the participle 'ontdekt' (uncovered). The dummy 'er' fills the subject slot before the real subject 'een komplot'.
> Coordinated purpose infinitives: A single 'om' governs two parallel purpose-infinitives joined by 'en': 'te vermoorden' and '(te) maken'. Each infinitive carries its own 'te' and sits at the end of its segment.
> Impersonal 'men': 'men' is the indefinite pronoun 'one' — a generalizing subject Multatuli uses constantly here. Note the older counting form 'twee-en-twintig' (two-and-twenty) with the units before the tens.

Bovendien, ik had allerlei gekheden in 't hoofd ...  
Moreover, I had all sorts of foolish notions in my head ...
> Idiom: foolish notions in the head: 'gekheden in 't hoofd hebben' = to have foolish or wild ideas in one's head. 'gekheid' (from 'gek', mad/foolish) here in the plural; ''t hoofd' = het hoofd, the head.

--Traoessa? riep mevrouw Havelaar een bediende toe.  
"Traoessa?" Madame Havelaar called to a servant.
> Separable verb 'toeroepen': 'toeroepen' (to call out to) splits: 'riep' stands second, the prefix 'toe' lands at the end. The indirect object 'een bediende' (a servant) sits in between — 'called to a servant'.

--Wàt hoeft niet?  
"What's not needed?"
> 'hoeven' + niet = need not: 'hoeven' means 'to need', and almost always appears negated: 'het hoeft niet' = 'it isn't needed'. The grave accent on 'Wàt' marks emphatic stress, a typographic habit of Multatuli's.

--Ik had gezegd nog iets gereed te maken in de keuken ... een omelet of zoo-iets.  
"I had said to get something more ready in the kitchen ... an omelette or something of the sort."
> Pluperfect 'had gezegd': 'had gezegd' is the pluperfect of 'zeggen'. It governs a 'te'-infinitive complement 'gereed te maken' (to get ready) — the separable verb 'gereedmaken' splits around its 'te'.

--Ah!  
"Ah!"

En dat hoeft niet meer nu ik van myn gekheden begin? je bent ondeugend, Tine! 't Is my wel, maar die heeren hebben ook een stem.  
And now it's no longer needed, just as I'm beginning on my foolish notions? You're being naughty, Tine! It's all the same to me, but these gentlemen have a vote too.
> Subordinating 'nu' sends the verb to the end: Here 'nu' works as a causal conjunction ('now that'), opening a subordinate clause whose verb 'begin' moves to the end. As a plain adverb 'nu' would instead trigger verb-second.
> Idiomatic dative 'my': ''t is my wel' = 'it's all the same to me / fine by me'. 'my' (= mij) is an old-style dative object; the construction survives as a fixed idiom of indifference.
> ondeugend; Tine = Everdine: 'ondeugend' = naughty, mischievous (literally 'not-virtuous'). 'Tine' is Havelaar's affectionate name for his wife, modelled on Multatuli's own wife Everdine ('Tine') van Wijnbergen.

Verbrugge, wat kies je, je aandeel in de omelet of de historie?  
Verbrugge, what do you choose, your share of the omelette or the story?
> Inversion drops the -t: Normally 'jij kiest', but when the subject 'je' follows the verb after a fronted question-word, the second-person -t ending is dropped: 'kies je'. This loss of -t under inversion is a fixed rule of the present tense.

--Dat is een moeielyke pozitie voor een beleefd mensch zei Verbrugge.  
"That is a difficult position for a polite man," said Verbrugge.
> Period spelling of common words: 'moeielyke' = moeilijke (difficult) and 'pozitie' = positie (position), both showing 1860 conventions: -ey- for -ei- with y, and z where modern Dutch writes s in some loanwords.

--En ook ik zou liever niet kiezen, voegde Duclari er by, want het is hier te doen om een uitspraak tusschen m'nheer en mevrouw, en: entre l'écorce et le bois, il ne faut pas mettre le doigt.  
"And I too would rather not choose," Duclari added, "for what is at stake here is a verdict between the master and the mistress, and: entre l'écorce et le bois, il ne faut pas mettre le doigt."
> Separable 'erbij voegen' (to add): 'erbij voegen' = to add (a remark). It splits across the clause: the verb 'voegde' second, then the pronominal adverb 'er', then the prefix 'by' (= bij) — 'Duclari added'.
> Coordinating 'want' keeps normal order: 'want' (for, because) is a coordinating conjunction: unlike 'omdat', it does NOT push the verb to the end. The clause keeps main-clause order 'het is hier te doen om...'.

--Ik zal u helpen, heeren, de omelet is ...  
"I shall help you, gentlemen, the omelette is ..."
> Future with 'zullen': 'zal ... helpen' is the explicit future: present of 'zullen' plus the infinitive 'helpen' at the end. 'u' is the polite/formal 'you' object.

--Mevrouw, zei de zeer beleefde Duclari, de omelet zal toch wel zooveel waard zyn als ...  
"Madame," said the very courteous Duclari, "the omelette will surely be worth at least as much as ..."
> Future of probability with 'zullen': 'zal ... wel ... zyn' uses 'zullen' not for the future but to express likelihood — 'will surely be'. The modal particle 'wel' reinforces the speaker's confident guess.

--Als de historie? Zeker als ze wat waard was!  
"As the story? Certainly, if it were worth anything!"
> Imperfect subjunctive feel of 'was': 'als ze wat waard was' uses the imperfect 'was' in a conditional 'if it were worth anything', the standard Dutch way to mark a hypothetical with the simple past form.

Doch er is een bezwaar ...  
But there is an obstacle ...
> Existential 'er is': 'er is' = 'there is' — the word 'er' serves as a presentative placeholder before an indefinite subject, exactly like English 'there'.
> doch; bezwaar: 'doch' again = 'but/yet' (literary). 'bezwaar' = an objection, obstacle, or scruple — here the comic 'obstacle' to serving the omelette.

--Ik wed dat er nog geen suiker in huis is, riep Verbrugge.  
"I'll wager there's no sugar in the house yet," cried Verbrugge.
> geen + verb-final 'dat'-clause: 'geen' negates the indefinite noun 'suiker' (no sugar), where 'niet' could not. The conjunction 'dat' sends the verb 'is' to the clause end.

Och, laat toch by my halen wat ge noodig hebt! --Suiker is er ... van mevrouw Slotering.  
Oh, do send to me for whatever you need! — Sugar there is ... from Madame Slotering.
> Causative 'laten' + imperative: 'laat ... halen' is causative 'laten' ('have/let something be fetched') in the imperative. The softening particle 'toch' makes it a warm invitation rather than a command.
> Archaic pronoun 'ge': 'ge' (with object 'u' and possessive 'uw') is the literary/formal second person of 1860, alternating here with familiar 'je'. The relative 'wat' ('what/whatever') has no antecedent and closes verb-final: 'hebt'.
> Fronting + 'er' for emphasis: Topicalizing 'Suiker' to the front forces inversion ('is er'), and 'er' resumes the existential sense — 'sugar, there is'. A vivid spoken-Dutch word order.

Neen, daaraan hapert het niet.  
No, that is not where it falters.
> Pronominal adverb 'daaraan': 'daaraan' = 'at/on that' — 'daar' replacing a thing plus the preposition 'aan', fronted for emphasis. 'haperen' = to falter or be stuck; 'het hapert' = 'the snag lies'.

Als de omelet overigens goed was, zou dat geen bezwaar zyn, maar ...  
If the omelette were otherwise good, that would be no obstacle, but ...
> Conditional 'zou' with an 'als'-clause: A hypothetical: the 'als'-clause uses the imperfect 'was', and the main clause answers with conditional 'zou ... zyn' — 'if it were good, that would be no obstacle'.

--Hoe dan, mevrouw, is ze in 't vuur gevallen?  
"How so, Madame, has it fallen into the fire?"
> Present perfect with 'zijn': 'is ... gevallen' is the perfect of 'vallen' (to fall). Verbs of motion/change take 'zijn', not 'hebben', as the auxiliary; the participle 'gevallen' closes the clause.

--Ik wou dat het waar was!  
"I wish it had!"
> Wish with imperfect 'wou' + 'was': 'Ik wou dat ... was' = 'I wish it were' — the past form 'wou' (= wilde) plus the imperfect 'was' express an unreal wish, the Dutch counterfactual built on past tenses.

Neen, ze kan niet in 't vuur vallen Ze is ...  
No, it cannot fall into the fire. It is ...

--Maar, Tine, riep Havelaar, wat is ze dan toch?  
"But, Tine," cried Havelaar, "what on earth is it, then?"
> Modal particles 'dan toch': The stacked particles 'dan toch' carry no literal meaning but load the question with exasperation — 'what on earth is it, then?'. Such flavoring particles are central to natural Dutch.

--Ze is imponderabel, Max, als je vrouwen te Arles ... wezen moesten!  
"It is imponderable, Max, as if your women at Arles ... had to be there!"
> Modal 'moesten' sends the infinitive to the end: The modal 'moesten' (had to) governs the bare infinitive 'wezen' (= zijn), which lands at the very end of the clause — the standard modal-plus-infinitive bracket.

Ik heb geen omelet ... ik heb niets meer!  
I have no omelette ... I have nothing left!
> Negative word 'niets': 'niets meer' = 'nothing left/no longer anything'. Dutch allows only one negation per clause, so 'niets' alone carries the whole negative — no extra 'niet' or 'geen'.

--Dan in 's hemelsnaam de historie! zuchtte Duclari met koddige wanhoop.  
"Then, in heaven's name, the story!" sighed Duclari with comic despair.
> Frozen genitive 's-: 'in 's hemelsnaam' (= des hemels naam, 'in heaven's name') fossilizes the old genitive 'des' as a clitic ''s'. Such genitive remnants survive only in set phrases by 1860.

--Maar koffi hebben we, riep Tine.  
"But coffee we have," cried Tine.
> Object fronting forces inversion: Fronting the object 'koffi' (coffee) for emphasis pushes the verb 'hebben' to second position and the subject 'we' after it — verb-second in action: 'but coffee we have'.
> Period spelling: koffi: 'koffi' is the 1860 spelling of modern 'koffie' (coffee). The word and the commodity sit at the heart of the novel, whose subtitle names the 'coffee auctions' of the Dutch Trading Company.

--Goed!  
"Good!"

Koffidrinken in de voorgalery, en laat ons mevrouw Slotering met de meisjes daarby roepen, zei Havelaar, waarop 't kleine gezelschap naar buiten toog.  
"Coffee in the front gallery, and let us call Madame Slotering and the girls to join us," said Havelaar, whereupon the little company moved outside.
> Hortative 'laat ons': 'laat ons ... roepen' = 'let us call' — the imperative of 'laten' forming a first-person-plural exhortation, with the infinitive 'roepen' at the end.
> Relative 'waarop' + strong past 'toog': 'waarop' here means 'whereupon'. 'toog' is the strong imperfect of 'tijgen' (to go/move), an archaic verb; the clause is verb-final, so 'toog' closes it.

--Ik gis dat ze bedanken zal, Max! je weet dat ze ook liever niet met ons eet, en ik kan haar geen ongelyk geven.  
"I suspect she will decline, Max! you know that she too would rather not eat with us, and I cannot blame her."
> Comparative-of-preference 'liever': 'liever' is the comparative of 'graag' (gladly) and expresses preference — 'would rather'. The 'dat'-clause is verb-final, so 'eet' sits at the end.
> geen with a fixed idiom: 'iemand geen ongelyk geven' = 'cannot blame someone / must grant they are right'. 'geen' negates the noun 'ongelyk' (= ongelijk, wrong); the idiom litotically means 'I quite agree with her'.

--Ze zal gehoord hebben dat ik histories vertel, zei Havelaar, en dat heeft haar afgeschrikt.  
"She will have heard that I tell stories," said Havelaar, "and that has frightened her off."
> Future perfect of inference: 'zal gehoord hebben' = 'will have heard' — 'zullen' over a perfect infinitive ('gehoord hebben'), used to infer about the past ('she must have heard'). The verbs cluster at the end.
> Perfect of separable 'afschrikken': 'heeft ... afgeschrikt' is the perfect of separable 'afschrikken' (to deter, frighten off). The participle of a separable verb inserts 'ge-' after the prefix: af-ge-schrikt.

--Wel neen, Max, dat zou haar niet deren: ze verstaat geen hollandsch.  
"Why no, Max, that would not trouble her: she understands no Dutch."
> Conditional 'zou' as counterfactual: 'zou ... deren' = 'would (not) trouble her'. The conditional softens to a dismissal — 'that wouldn't bother her'. 'deren' (to harm, trouble) is a slightly elevated verb.
> verstaan = to understand a language: 'verstaan' here means 'to understand (a language)', not modern 'to hear'. Mevrouw Slotering, of Indies background, speaks no Dutch — a quiet reminder of the linguistic divide in the colony.

Neen, ze heeft my gezegd dat ze haar eigen huishouding wil blyven voeren, en dit begryp ik heel goed.  
No, she has told me that she wishes to keep running her own household, and this I understand very well.
> Modal 'wil' + stacked infinitives: 'wil blyven voeren' stacks three verbs at the clause end: modal 'wil' (wants), then 'blyven' (to keep), then 'voeren' (to run/conduct) — 'wishes to keep running'. The 'dat'-clause holds them all final.
> Fronted 'dit' triggers inversion: The demonstrative 'dit' (this, neuter near) is fronted as object, so the verb 'begryp' comes second and the subject 'ik' follows. 'dit' points to a het-word / a whole idea.

Weet je nog hoe je myn naam vertaald hebt?  
Do you still remember how you translated my name?
> Perfect in a verb-final clause: 'hoe' opens an indirect question, so the perfect 'vertaald hebt' (have translated) sits at the end with auxiliary after participle — the typical subordinate-clause cluster.

--E.H.V.W: eigen haard veel waard.  
"E.H.V.W: one's own hearth is worth much."

--Daarom!  
"Just so!"

Ze heeft groot gelyk.  
She is quite right.
> Idiom: groot gelijk hebben: 'groot gelyk hebben' = 'to be entirely right' (literally 'to have great right'). 'gelyk' = gelijk; the idiom is a warm endorsement.

Bovendien, ze komt me wat menschenschuw voor.  
Besides, she strikes me as rather shy of people.
> Separable 'voorkomen' (to seem): 'voorkomen' here = 'to seem/strike one as'; it splits with 'komt' second and 'voor' at the end, framing 'me' (to me) and the predicate. Note the reflexive-dative feel: 'she seems to me'.
> Compound: menschenschuw: A right-headed compound 'menschen-schuw' = 'shy of people, people-averse' (mensch + schuw). Dutch freely glues nouns and adjectives this way; 'mensch' is the period spelling of 'mens'.

Verbeeld je dat zy alle vreemden die 't erf betreden, laat wegjagen door de oppassers ...  
Imagine, she has the attendants drive off all strangers who set foot on the grounds ...
> Causative 'laten' (have done by): 'laat wegjagen' is causative 'laten' plus the bare infinitive 'wegjagen' — 'has (them) driven off'. The agent is marked with 'door' (by): 'by the attendants'. This is the causative substitute for a passive.
> Relative 'die' for the plural: 'die' relativizes the plural 'alle vreemden' (all strangers); all plurals are de-words, so 'die' is the form. The clause is verb-final: 'betreden' closes it.

--Ik verzoek om de historie of de omelet, zei Duclari.  
"I ask for the story or the omelette," said Duclari.

--Ik ook! riep Verbrugge.  
"So do I!" cried Verbrugge.

Uitvluchten worden niet aangenomen.  
Evasions will not be accepted.
> Worden-passive: 'worden ... aangenomen' is the process passive: 'worden' plus the participle of separable 'aannemen' (to accept) — 'evasions are not accepted'. 'worden' marks an action undergone, not a state.

We hebben aanspraak op een volledig maal, en daarom eisch ik de geschiedenis van den kalkoen.  
We have a claim to a full meal, and so I demand the history of the turkey.
> Case remnant 'den': 'van den kalkoen' uses the old masculine accusative/dative article 'den' for 'de kalkoen' (the turkey). By 1860 'den' survives chiefly after prepositions and for masculine nouns in formal prose.

--Die heb ik je reeds gegeven, zei Havelaar. Ik had het beest gestolen van den generaal Vandamme, en heb 't opgegeten ... met iemand.  
"That I have already given you," said Havelaar. "I had stolen the bird from General Vandamme, and ate it up ... with someone."
> Demonstrative 'die' fronted: 'Die' (that one) stands in for 'de geschiedenis' and is fronted as object, forcing inversion 'heb ik'. The perfect 'heb ... gegeven' brackets the middle field 'je reeds'.
> Pluperfect 'had gestolen': 'had gestolen' is the pluperfect of strong 'stelen' (steal), its participle 'gestolen' showing the strong -en ending and vowel change. 'van den generaal' again preserves 'den'.

--Voor die "iemand" ten-hemel voer, zei Tine schalk.  
"Before that 'someone' ascended to heaven," said Tine archly.
> Subordinator 'voor' + strong past 'voer': 'voor' = 'before' opens a time clause, sending the verb to the end. 'voer' is the strong imperfect of 'varen' (here 'to fare/journey'), in the idiom 'ten hemel varen' = ascend to heaven.
> schalk = archly, roguishly: 'schalk(s)' is an old adverb/adjective meaning sly, roguish, mischievous — Tine speaks 'archly'. The word belongs to literary register and has nearly vanished from modern Dutch.

--Neen, dat is tricheeren: riep Duclari. We moeten weten waarom ge dien kalkoen ... weggenomen hebt.  
"No, that's cheating," cried Duclari. "We must know why you ... made off with that turkey."
> Case remnant 'dien' + verb-final perfect: 'dien kalkoen' is the demonstrative 'die' in old masculine accusative 'dien'. 'waarom' subordinates, so the perfect 'weggenomen hebt' (of separable 'wegnemen') closes the clause.
> Gallicism: tricheeren: 'tricheeren' (from French 'tricher', to cheat) shows how French loanwords seasoned the speech of colonial officers. The -eeren ending is the regular Dutch adaptation of French -er verbs.

--Wèl, omdat ik gebrek leed, en dat was de schuld van den generaal Vandamme die me gesuspendeerd had.  
"Why, because I was in want, and that was the fault of General Vandamme, who had suspended me."
> Causal 'omdat' is verb-final: 'omdat' (because) is a subordinating conjunction, so its verb 'leed' goes to the end. 'leed' is the strong imperfect of 'lijden' (to suffer); 'gebrek lijden' = 'to be in want'.
> Relative clause with pluperfect: The relative 'die' refers to General Vandamme; the clause is verb-final with pluperfect 'gesuspendeerd had'. The loanverb 'suspendeeren' takes a regular -d participle with no ge- prefix on the stressed loan stem... in fact 'ge-' is added: gesuspendeerd.

--Als ik er niet meer van te weten kryg, breng ik een volgenden keer zelf een omelet mee, klaagde Verbrugge.  
"If I learn no more of it than that, I'll bring an omelette myself next time," complained Verbrugge.
> Conditional 'als' + pronominal 'er ... van': 'als' opens a verb-final condition. The split pronominal adverb 'er ... van' (= 'of it') brackets the negation 'niet meer' — 'if I get to know no more of it'.
> Adverbial accusative 'een volgenden keer': 'een volgenden keer' (next time) carries the old masculine accusative -en on the article-adjective in a time adverbial, a frozen case ending typical of 1860 prose.

--Geloof me, er stak niets meer achter dan dàt.  
"Believe me, there was nothing more behind it than just that."
> Separable 'achter steken' + single negation: 'er steekt niets achter' = 'there's nothing behind it' (a fixed idiom for hidden motive). 'niets' carries the lone negation; 'er ... achter' frames it; 'dan' = 'than/but'.

Hy had zeer véél kalkoenen, en ik had niets.  
He had a great many turkeys, and I had nothing.
> Imperfect 'had' (weak): 'had' is the imperfect of 'hebben'. The plural 'kalkoenen' takes -en, the default plural; the contrast 'véél ... niets' is pointed up by Multatuli's accent on 'véél'.

Men dreef die dieren voorby myn deur ... ik nam er een, en zei tot den man die zich verbeeldde er op te passen: "zeg den generaal dat ik, Max Havelaar, dezen kalkoen neem omdat ik eten wil."  
They were driving the creatures past my door ... I took one, and said to the man who fancied he was guarding them: "tell the general that I, Max Havelaar, am taking this turkey because I want to eat."
> Reflexive 'zich verbeelden': 'zich verbeelden' = 'to imagine/fancy'; the 3rd-person reflexive 'zich' is obligatory. 'die ... verbeeldde' is a verb-final relative clause governing 'er op te passen' (to guard it).
> Imperative 'zeg' + case forms: 'zeg' is the bare-stem imperative ('tell'). 'den generaal' (dative) and 'dezen kalkoen' (accusative 'deze') both show old masculine case endings. The 'omdat'-clause closes verb-final with the modal 'wil'.
> voorbij = past, by: 'voorby' (= voorbij) = 'past, by'. 'Men dreef die dieren voorby' = 'they were driving the creatures past' — 'men' as an agentless 'they/one', 'dreef' the strong imperfect of 'drijven' (to drive).

--En dan dat epigram?  
"And then that epigram?"

--Heeft Verbrugge je daarvan gesproken?  
"Has Verbrugge spoken to you about that?"

--Ja.  
"Yes."

--Dat had niets met den kalkoen uittestaan.  
"That had nothing to do with the turkey."
> te-infinitive written joined: uittestaan: 'uittestaan' is the 1860 habit of writing 'uit te staan' as one word; the 'te' is buried inside the separable verb 'uitstaan' (here 'iets uit te staan hebben met' = to have to do with). Read it as 'uit te staan'.

Ik maakte dat ding omdat hy zooveel ambtenaren suspendeerde. Er waren er op Padang zeker zeven of acht die hy met meer of min rechtvaardigheid in hun ambten geschorst had, en velen onder hen verdienden 't veel minder dan ik.  
I composed that thing because he suspended so many officials. At Padang there were certainly seven or eight whom he had removed from their posts with more or less justice, and many among them deserved it far less than I did.
> Causal clause with weak imperfect: 'omdat' is verb-final; 'suspendeerde' is the weak imperfect of the loanverb 'suspendeeren', adding the dental -de ending. 'ambtenaren' (officials) is the irregular plural of 'ambtenaar'.
> Double 'er': existential + quantitative: The two 'er's do different jobs: the first is the existential 'there were', the second is the quantitative 'er' standing for 'of them' (seven or eight of them). The relative clause is verb-final.

De adsistent-resident van Padang zelf was gesuspendeerd, en wel om een reden die, naar ik geloof, een geheel andere was dan de in het besluit opgegevene.  
The assistant resident of Padang himself had been suspended, and indeed for a reason which, I believe, was wholly other than the one stated in the decree.
> State passive with 'zijn': 'was gesuspendeerd' presents the result-state ('had been/was suspended') with 'zijn' rather than 'worden'. The participle 'gesuspendeerd' closes the clause.
> Participle as noun: 'de opgegevene': 'de ... opgegevene' nominalizes the past participle of separable 'opgeven' ('the one stated'), here qualified by 'in het besluit' (in the decree). The -e marks an attributive/substantive participle.

Ik wil u dat wel vertellen, schoon ik niet verzekeren kan dat ik alles juist weet, en alleen òverzeg wat men in de chinesche kerk te Padang voor waar hield, en wat dan ook--vooral met het oog op de bekende eigenschappen van den generaal--waar kan geweest zyn.  
I am willing to tell you it, though I cannot vouch that I know everything exactly, and only repeat what was held to be true in the Chinese church at Padang, and what — especially in view of the general's known character — may well have been true.
> Concessive 'schoon' (= hoewel): 'schoon' here is the archaic concessive conjunction 'though/although' (= hoewel), sending its verb to the end: 'verzekeren kan'. It is a literary form, distinct from the adjective 'schoon' (beautiful).
> Modal 'kan' + perfect infinitive: 'kan geweest zyn' = 'may have been' — modal 'kunnen' over the perfect infinitive 'geweest zyn'. The verb cluster (kan + geweest + zyn) gathers at the clause end.

Hy had, moet ge weten, zyn vrouw getrouwd om een weddingschap te winnen, en daarmee een anker wyn.  
He had, you must know, married his wife to win a wager, and a cask of wine along with it.
> Pluperfect + purpose 'om ... te': 'had ... getrouwd' is the pluperfect of 'trouwen' (to marry), and 'om ... te winnen' gives the cynical purpose ('to win a wager'). 'zyn vrouw' = zijn vrouw, the possessive with period y.
> anker = a measure of wine: An 'anker' was an old cask measure of roughly 38–45 litres; 'een anker wyn' is 'a cask of wine'. The detail underscores that the general married on a bet, wine thrown in.

Hy ging dus dikwyls 's avends uit, om ... overal rondteloopen.  
So he often went out in the evenings, to ... roam about everywhere.
> Separable 'uitgaan' + joined 'rondteloopen': 'ging ... uit' splits the separable 'uitgaan'. The purpose phrase 'om ... rondteloopen' writes 'rond te loopen' joined as one word (1860 style) — 'in order to roam about'.
> 's avends = in the evenings: ''s avends' is the period spelling of ''s avonds' (in the evening), again a frozen genitive of time with ''s' from 'des'. The 'e' for 'o' reflects an older vowel rendering.

De surnumerair Valkenaar moet eens in een straatje naby 't meisjesweeshuis zyn inkognito zóó stipt geëerbiedigd hebben, dat hy hem een pak slaag heeft gegeven even als een gewonen straatschender.  
The supernumerary Valkenaar is said once, in a little street near the girls' orphanage, to have respected his incognito so very strictly that the general gave him a thrashing, just like any common ruffian off the street.
> Modal 'moet' of hearsay + result clause: 'moet ... hebben' here means 'is said to have' (evidential modal), governing the perfect 'geëerbiedigd ... hebben'. The 'dat'-clause of result is verb-final with perfect 'heeft gegeven'.
> Idioms: a thrashing; a street-rowdy: 'een pak slaag geven' = 'to give a thrashing/beating'. 'straatschender' (street + schender, from 'schenden', to violate) = a hooligan or ruffian. The general beats a clerk like a common brawler.

Niet ver van daar woonde Miss X.  
Not far from there lived Miss X.
> Fronted adverbial + inversion: The place-adverbial 'Niet ver van daar' opens the clause, so the verb 'woonde' (imperfect of 'wonen') stands second and the subject 'Miss X' follows — verb-second after fronting.

Er liep een gerucht dat die Miss 't leven zou gegeven hebben aan een kindje, dat ... verdwenen was.  
A rumour ran that this Miss had given life to a child, which ... had vanished.
> Existential 'er' + conditional of report: 'Er liep een gerucht' = 'a rumour ran/circulated' with presentative 'er'. The 'dat'-clause uses 'zou ... gegeven hebben' (would have given), the conditional-perfect for unverified report.
> Diminutive 'kindje' + pluperfect: 'kindje' is the diminutive of 'kind' (child) with -je, always neuter, so the relative is 'dat'. 'verdwenen was' is the pluperfect of 'verdwijnen' (to vanish), formed with 'zijn'.

De adsistent-resident was als hoofd der politie verplicht, en ook inderdaad van plan, zich met die zaak te bemoeien, en schynt van dit voornemen iets gezegd te hebben op een whistparty by den generaal.  
The assistant resident, as head of the police, was bound — and indeed of a mind — to look into the matter, and seems to have said something of this intention at a whist party at the general's.
> Reflexive 'zich bemoeien met': 'zich bemoeien met' = 'to concern oneself / interfere with'; the reflexive 'zich' is required. 'verplicht ... te bemoeien' shows the adjective 'verplicht' governing a 'te'-infinitive.
> 'schijnen' + perfect te-infinitive: 'schynt ... te hebben' (= schijnt, 'seems to have') governs a 'te'-infinitive in the perfect: 'gezegd te hebben'. 'schijnen' is one of the verbs that take 'te' before its infinitive.

Doch zie, den volgenden dag ontvangt hy den last zich naar zekere Afdeeling te begeven, welker gezagvoerende kontroleur wegens ware of veronderstelde oneerlykheid geschorst was in zyn beheer, om in loco zekere zaken te onderzoeken en daarvan "te dienen van bericht." Wèl was de adsistent-resident verwonderd dat hem iets werd opgedragen dat zyn Afdeeling in 't geheel niet aanging, doch daar hy strikt genomen deze opdracht kon beschouwen als een vereerende onderscheiding, en dewyl hy met den generaal op zeer vriendschappelyken voet stond zoodat hy geen oorzaak had aan een valstrik te denken, berustte hy in deze zending, en begaf zich naar ik wil vergeten hebben waarheen, om te doen wat hem bevolen was.  
But see, the very next day he receives the order to betake himself to a certain district, whose governing controller had been suspended from his administration on account of real or supposed dishonesty, in order to investigate certain affairs in loco and "to render a report" thereon. The assistant resident was indeed astonished that something should be laid upon him that did not concern his district at all; yet since, strictly taken, he could regard this commission as an honourable distinction, and since he stood on very friendly terms with the general, so that he had no cause to suspect a trap, he acquiesced in this mission, and set off — I will choose to have forgotten where — to do what he had been ordered.
> Historic present + reflexive 'zich begeven': Multatuli switches to the vivid historic present ('ontvangt hy' — 'he receives'). 'zich begeven naar' = 'to betake oneself to', a reflexive of motion governing 'te begeven'.
> Formal relative 'welker': 'welker' is the heavy, archaic genitive relative ('whose') used for formal period prose — here 'whose governing controller'. 'gezagvoerende' is a present participle ('exercising authority') used attributively.
> Archaic causal 'dewyl': 'dewyl' (= dewijl) is an obsolete causal conjunction 'since/because', sending its verb to the end ('stond'). It belongs to solemn 19th-century register, alongside 'doch' and 'schoon'.

Na eenigen tyd keert hy terug, en biedt een verslag aan dat niet ongunstig luidde voor dien kontroleur.  
After some time he returns, and presents a report that did not sound unfavourable for that controller.
> Two separable verbs in the historic present: 'keert ... terug' (terugkeren, to return) and 'biedt ... aan' (aanbieden, to present) both split, prefixes 'terug' and 'aan' dropping to the end — and both stay in the vivid present tense.

Doch ziet, er was gedurende dien tyd op Padang, door 't publiek--dat is: door niemand en iedereen--ontdekt dat die ambtenaar slechts gesuspendeerd was om een gelegenheid te scheppen den adsistent-resident van de plaats te verwyderen, ten-einde zyn voorgenomen onderzoek naar de verdwyning van dat kind te voorkomen, of althans te verschuiven tot een tydstip dat die zaak moeielyker zou optehelderen zyn.  
But see, during that time it had been discovered at Padang, by the public — that is: by no one and everyone — that the official had been suspended only to create an occasion for removing the assistant resident from the place, so as to forestall his intended inquiry into the disappearance of that child, or at least to put it off to a moment when the matter would be harder to clear up.
> Impersonal passive with 'er': 'er was ... ontdekt' is an impersonal pluperfect passive ('it had been discovered') with placeholder 'er'. The embedded 'dat'-clause holds its own state-passive 'gesuspendeerd was'.
> Purpose 'om ... te' with coordinated infinitives: A single 'om' frames two purpose-infinitives ('te voorkomen' / 'te verschuiven', to forestall / to postpone) joined by 'of'. 'voorkomen' here, with stress on the prefix (vóórkomen), means 'to prevent'; stress on the stem (voorkómen) instead means 'to occur'.
> Paradox: 'by no one and everyone': 'door 't publiek--dat is: door niemand en iedereen' is Multatuli's wry gloss on public opinion: gossip that belongs to no single person yet is known to all. 'niemand' and 'iedereen' are the universal/negative indefinite pronouns.

Ik herhaal nu dat ik niet weet of dit waar was, doch naar de kennis die ikzelf later van den generaal Vandamme opdeed, komt deze lezing van 't geval my geloofbaar voor. Op Padang was er niemand die hem niet--wat het peil aangaat, waartoe zyn zedelykheid was afgedaald--tot zoo-iets in-staat keurde.  
I repeat now that I do not know whether this was true; yet from the knowledge I myself later gained of General Vandamme, this reading of the affair seems credible to me. At Padang there was no one who did not judge him — given the depth to which his morality had sunk — capable of such a thing.
> Separable 'voorkomen' (to seem) again: 'komt ... voor' = 'seems' splits with 'voor' at the end; 'my' (to me) is the experiencer and 'geloofbaar' the predicate — 'this reading seems credible to me'. 'deze lezing' uses near-demonstrative 'deze' for a de-word.
> Double-edged negation 'niemand ... niet': 'er was niemand die hem niet ... in staat keurde' = 'there was no one who did not consider him capable' — the two negatives sit in separate clauses (main and relative), so it is litotes, not forbidden double negation.
> Pronominal-adverb relative 'waartoe': 'waartoe' (= 'to which') fuses 'waar' + 'tot', relativizing 'het peil' (the level) — 'the depth to which his morality had sunk'. The clause is verb-final with pluperfect 'was afgedaald'.

De meesten kenden hem slechts één goede hoedanigheid toe, die van onverschrokkenheid in 't gevaar, en indien ik, die hem in gevaar gezien heb, van meening ware dat hy après tout een dapper man was, zou dit alleen my bewegen u deze geschiedenis niet te vertellen. 't Is waar, hy had op Sumatra veel laten "sabreeren" doch wie sommige gebeurtenissen van naby gezien had voelde neiging om wat aftedingen op zyn dapperheid, en, hoe vreemd het schyne, ik geloof dat hy zyn krygsmansroem grootendeels te danken had aan de zucht tot tegenstelling, die ons allen min of meer bezielt.  
Most people granted him but one good quality, that of fearlessness in danger; and if I, who have seen him in danger, were of the opinion that he was, après tout, a brave man, that alone would move me not to tell you this history. It is true, he had had much "sabring" done on Sumatra; yet whoever had seen certain events from close up felt inclined to deduct something from his bravery, and, however strange it may seem, I believe he owed his soldierly renown in great part to that craving for contrast which more or less animates us all.
> Subjunctive 'ware': 'ware' is the rare past subjunctive of 'zijn' ('were'), used after conditional 'indien' (a formal 'if') for a counterfactual: 'if I were of the opinion'. It is a marker of high literary register.
> Causative 'laten' (pluperfect): 'had ... laten sabreeren' = 'had had much sabring done' — causative 'laten' in the pluperfect, with the bare infinitive 'sabreeren' (to cut down with sabres). Note: with 'laten', the perfect uses the infinitive, not a participle.
> Relative 'die' + object 'ons allen': 'die' relativizes 'de zucht tot tegenstelling' (the craving for contrast); the verb-final 'bezielt' (animates) takes the object 'ons allen' (us all). 'allen' carries the old plural -en in apposition.
> Compound + French aside: 'krygsmansroem' (= krijgsmansroem) is a triple compound 'warrior-man-fame', i.e. military glory. The French 'après tout' ('after all') again flavors the officers' cultivated speech.

Men zegt gaarne: 't is waar dat Peter of Paul dit, dit of dit is, maar ... dàt is hy, dàt moet men hem laten!  
One gladly says: it is true that Peter or Paul is this, this or that, but ... that he is, that one must grant him!
> Idiom 'dat moet men hem laten': 'dat moet men hem laten' = 'that one must grant/allow him', a fixed concessive idiom with causative-flavored 'laten'. The fronted, accented 'dàt' triggers inversion ('moet men') for emphasis.

En nooit kan men zoo zeker zyn geprezen te worden, dan wanneer men een zeer in 't oog vallend gebrek heeft.  
And one can never be so sure of being praised as when one has some very conspicuous defect.
> Negative 'nooit' fronted + passive infinitive: Fronting 'nooit' (never) forces inversion 'kan men' and supplies the clause's single negation. 'geprezen te worden' is a passive 'te'-infinitive ('to be praised') depending on 'zeker zijn'.
> Comparative 'zoo ... dan' + verb-final 'wanneer': 'zoo zeker ... dan wanneer' compares ('so sure ... as when'); 'wanneer' subordinates, sending 'heeft' to the end. Period prose often pairs 'zoo ... dan' where modern Dutch would use 'zo ... als'.

Jy, Verbrugge, bent alle dagen dronken ...  
You, Verbrugge, are drunk every day ...
> Emphatic pronoun 'jy': 'jy' (= jij) is the stressed form of the familiar 'you', set off here for emphasis. It takes the present 'bent' (of 'zijn'); 'alle dagen' = 'every day' as a bare adverbial of time.

--Ik? vroeg Verbrugge die een voorbeeld was van matigheid.  
"I?" asked Verbrugge, who was a model of temperance.
> Non-restrictive relative 'die': 'die ... was' is a non-restrictive relative clause adding information about Verbrugge ('who was a model of temperance'); it is verb-final, so 'was' closes it. The aside undercuts Havelaar's teasing accusation.

--Ja, ik maak je nu dronken, alle dagen! je vergeet je zóó ver, dat Duclari 's avends in de galery over je struikelt.  
"Yes, I am making you drunk now, every day! you forget yourself so far that Duclari trips over you in the gallery of an evening."
> Reflexive 'zich vergeten': 'zich vergeten' = 'to forget oneself, lose self-control'; in the second person the reflexive is 'je': 'je vergeet je'. The matching subject and object 'je' are easy to miss.
> Result 'dat'-clause is verb-final: 'dat' opens a result clause, sending 'struikelt' (stumbles) to the end. 'over je struikelen' = 'to trip over you'; ''s avends' = in the evening (frozen genitive of time).

Dit zal hy onaangenaam vinden, maar terstond zal hy zich herinneren iets goeds in je gezien te hebben dat hem toch vroeger niet in 't oog viel.  
He will find this disagreeable, but at once he will recall having seen something good in you that had never caught his eye before.
> Reflexive 'zich herinneren' + perfect te-infinitive: 'zich herinneren' = 'to recall', reflexive; it governs a perfect 'te'-infinitive 'gezien te hebben' ('to have seen'). Fronting 'terstond' (at once) triggers inversion 'zal hy'.
> Partitive genitive 'iets goeds': After 'iets' (something) an adjective takes a partitive -s: 'iets goeds' = 'something good'. This frozen genitive -s survives in 'iets/niets/veel/wat + adjective-s'.

En als ik dan kom, en ik vind je zoo erg ... horizontaal, dan zal hy my de hand op den arm leggen, en uitroepen--"och, geloof toch dat hy overigens zoo'n beste brave knappe jongen is!"  
And when I then come in, and find you so badly ... horizontal, he will lay his hand on my arm and exclaim — "oh, do believe that he is otherwise such a fine, decent, capable young fellow!"
> Future 'zal' over coordinated infinitives: 'zal ... leggen ... en uitroepen' — 'zullen' governs two infinitives ('leggen', 'uitroepen') joined by 'en'. 'den arm' keeps the old masculine accusative 'den'.
> Stacked attributive adjectives: Three attributive adjectives 'beste brave knappe' all take -e before the de-word 'jongen', the regular attributive ending. 'knap' here means 'capable/clever' more than 'handsome'.

--Dat zeg ik tòch van Verbrugge, riep Duclari, al is hy vertikaal.  
"That I say of Verbrugge anyway," cried Duclari, "even when he's vertical."
> Concessive 'al' + inversion: 'al + verb-first' = 'even though', a concessive without a conjunction: 'al is hy vertikaal' = 'even when he is vertical'. The verb 'is' jumps to the front, the mark of this construction.

--Niet met dat vuur en die overtuiging!  
"Not with that fire and that conviction!"

Herinner je eens hoe dikwyls men hoort zeggen: "o, als die man op zyn zaken wilde passen, dàt zou iemand wezen! Maar ... en dan volgt het betoog hoe hy niet op zyn zaken past en dus niemand is.  
Recall just how often one hears it said: "oh, if that man would only mind his affairs, that would be somebody! But ..." — and then follows the argument as to how he does not mind his affairs and so is nobody.
> Reflexive imperative + bare infinitive 'zeggen': 'Herinner je' is the reflexive imperative of 'zich herinneren' ('recall!'). 'men hoort zeggen' uses 'horen' (a perception verb) with a bare infinitive 'zeggen' — no 'te' — '(one) hears it said'.
> Conditional 'als' + modal 'wilde': 'als ... wilde passen' is a counterfactual: 'als' opens a verb-final clause and the imperfect modal 'wilde' ('would/wanted to') governs 'passen'. 'op zyn zaken passen' = 'to mind one's affairs'.

Ik geloof hiervan de reden te weten.  
I believe I know the reason for this.

Ook van de dooden verneemt men altyd goede hoedanigheden waarvan we vroeger niets bemerkten.  
Of the dead too one always hears of good qualities that we had never noticed before.
> Fronted PP forces inversion: The prepositional phrase 'Ook van de dooden' (of the dead too) opens the clause, so the verb 'verneemt' stands second and the subject 'men' follows. 'de dooden' (the dead) is a plural-as-noun with -en.
> Pronominal-adverb relative 'waarvan': 'waarvan' (= 'of which') relativizes 'goede hoedanigheden'; the clause is verb-final with 'bemerkten' (perceived). 'niets' supplies the single negation.

De oorzaak zal wel zyn dat ze niemand in den weg staan.  
The cause will surely be that they stand in no one's way.
> Idiom 'in den weg staan' + case remnant: 'iemand in den weg staan' = 'to stand in someone's way'; 'den weg' preserves the old masculine accusative 'den'. The 'dat'-clause is verb-final, so 'staan' closes it.

Alle menschen zyn min of meer mededingers. We zouden gaarne èlk ander geheel en in alles onder ons plaatsen.  
All people are more or less rivals. We would gladly set every other person wholly and in all things beneath us.
> Conditional 'zouden' + 'gaarne': 'zouden ... plaatsen' is the conditional ('we would set'); 'gaarne' is the literary equivalent of 'graag' (gladly). The infinitive 'plaatsen' sits at the end after the long object phrase.

Dit echter te uiten, verbiedt de goede toon en zelfs het eigenbelang, want zeer spoedig zou niemand ons gelooven ook al beweerden wy iets waars.  
To utter this, however, is forbidden by good manners, and even by self-interest, for very soon no one would believe us, even if we asserted something true.
> Fronted infinitive clause as object: The whole infinitive phrase 'Dit ... te uiten' (to utter this) is fronted as the object, so the verb 'verbiedt' comes second and the real subject 'de goede toon' follows — verb-second over a heavy fronted constituent.
> Concessive 'ook al' + subjunctive-feel imperfect: 'ook al + imperfect' = 'even if', here 'ook al beweerden wy' ('even if we asserted'). 'iets waars' shows the partitive -s after 'iets' ('something true').

Er moet dus een omweg gezocht worden, en ziet hier hoe we dit doen.  
A roundabout way must therefore be sought, and here is how we do it.
> Modal passive with 'er': 'moet ... gezocht worden' is a modal worden-passive ('must be sought'): modal 'moeten' + participle 'gezocht' + passive 'worden'. The dummy 'er' opens the clause before the indefinite subject.
> Archaic plural imperative 'ziet': 'ziet' is the older -t plural/polite imperative ('see, behold'), addressing the listeners formally. Modern Dutch would use the bare stem 'zie'; the -t form belongs to solemn, oratorical register.

Als gy, Duclari, zegt: "de luitenant Slobkous is een goed soldaat, waarachtig hy is een goed soldaat, ik kan je niet genoeg zeggen welk een goed soldaat de luitenant Slobkous is ... maar een theoretikus is hy niet ... Heb je niet zoo gezegd, Duclari?  
When you, Duclari, say: "Lieutenant Gaiters is a good soldier, truly he is a good soldier, I cannot tell you enough what a good soldier Lieutenant Gaiters is ... but a theorist he is not ..." — Haven't you said something like that, Duclari?
> Exclamative 'welk een': 'welk een' = 'what a' in an exclamation; the embedded clause is verb-final, so 'is' closes it. 'welk' agrees with the het-word-flavored phrase but the whole 'een goed soldaat' is the predicate.

--Ik heb nooit een luitenant Slobkous gekend of gezien?  
"I have never known or seen any Lieutenant Gaiters?"
> Perfect with coordinated participles + 'nooit': 'heb nooit ... gekend of gezien' — one auxiliary 'heb' carries two participles ('gekend', 'gezien') joined by 'of'. 'nooit' is the single negation; both participles close the clause.

--Goed, schep er dan een, en zeg dat van hem.  
"Good, then invent one, and say that of him."
> Imperatives + quantitative 'er ... een': 'schep' and 'zeg' are bare-stem imperatives ('invent', 'say'). 'er ... een' is the quantitative 'er' meaning 'one of them' — 'invent one'. 'dat van hem' = 'that about him'.

--Wèl, ik schep hem, en zeg het.  
"Why, I invent him, and say it."

--Weet je wat ge nu gezegd hebt?  
"Do you know what you have just said?"
> Embedded perfect in indirect question: 'wat ge nu gezegd hebt' is an indirect question, verb-final, with the perfect 'gezegd hebt'. Note the register-shift mid-sentence from familiar 'je' (in 'Weet je') to formal 'ge' (in the quoted clause).

Je hebt gezegd dat jy, Duclari, à cheval bent op de theorie.  
You have said that you, Duclari, are à cheval upon theory.

Ik ben geen haar beter.  
I am not a hair better.
> Idiom 'geen haar beter': 'geen haar beter' = 'not a hair better, no better at all'. 'geen' negates the noun 'haar' (hair) in this fixed comparative idiom; 'beter' is the comparative of 'goed'.

Geloof me, we doen onrecht zoo boos te worden op iemand die heel slecht is, want de goeden onder ons zyn 't slechte zoo na!  
Believe me, we do wrong to grow so angry at someone who is utterly bad, for the good among us stand so near the bad!
> 'te'-infinitive + verb-final relative: 'onrecht doen ... te worden' uses a 'te'-infinitive complement ('we do wrong to grow angry'). The relative 'die ... is' is verb-final. 'worden' here is inchoative 'to become/grow' (angry), not the passive auxiliary.

Laat eens de volmaaktheid nul heeten, en honderd graden voor slecht gelden, hoe verkeerd doen we dan--wy, die dobberen tusschen acht-en negen-en-negentig!--haro te roepen over iemand die op honderd-en-één staat!  
Let perfection be called nought, and let a hundred degrees stand for bad — how wrongly, then, do we act, we who bob about between eight-and-ninety and nine-and-ninety, in crying haro upon someone who stands at a hundred-and-one!
> Causative imperative 'laat ... heeten': 'Laat ... heeten' is causative 'laten' in the imperative with the bare infinitive 'heeten' (to be called): 'let perfection be called nought'. 'heeten' is the period spelling of modern 'heten'.
> Exclamative 'hoe' + inversion: 'hoe verkeerd' (how wrongly) fronts an exclamative degree-phrase, forcing inversion 'doen we'. The interrupting clause 'wy, die dobberen tusschen...' is a verb-final relative aside.

En nog geloof ik dat velen dien honderdsten graad slechts niet bereiken uit gemis aan goede eigenschappen, aan moed by-voorbeeld om geheel te zyn wat men is.  
And still I believe that many fail to reach that hundredth degree only for want of good qualities, of courage, for instance, to be wholly what one is.
> Case remnant 'dien' + verb-final order: 'dien honderdsten graad' carries the old masculine accusative -en twice (demonstrative 'die' → 'dien'; ordinal 'honderdste' → 'honderdsten'). The 'dat'-clause is verb-final: 'bereiken' (reach) closes it.
> Purpose 'om ... te' as complement: 'om ... te zyn' = 'to be' frames the content of the courage: 'courage ... to be wholly what one is'. The infinitive 'zyn' closes the 'om'-clause, with 'wat men is' a verb-final free relative.

--Op hoeveel graden sta ik, Max?  
"At how many degrees do I stand, Max?"

--Ik heb een loep noodig voor de onderdeelen, Tine.  
"I need a magnifying glass for the fractions, Tine."
> loep; onderdeelen: 'een loep' = a magnifying glass; 'de onderdeelen' (= onderdelen) = the parts/fractions. Havelaar gallantly jokes he'd need a magnifier to read the tiny imperfections in Tine's score.

--Ik reklameer, riep Verbrugge--neen, mevrouw, niet tegen uwe nabyheid aan de nul!--neen, maar er zyn ambtenaren gesuspendeerd, er is een kind zoek, een generaal in staat van beschuldiging ... ik vraag: la pièce!  
"I protest," cried Verbrugge — "no, Madame, not against your nearness to nought! — no, but officials have been suspended, a child is missing, a general stands accused ... I ask: la pièce!"
> Possessive 'uwe' + period spelling: 'uwe' is the inflected formal possessive 'your' (from 'uw'), with the older -e ending before a de-word. 'nabyheid' = nabijheid (nearness/proximity), again y for ij.
> Existential 'er' stacked: A run of presentative 'er' clauses ('er zyn ... gesuspendeerd', 'er is een kind zoek') piles up the grievances. 'zoek zijn' = 'to be missing/lost'.

--Tine, zorg toch dat er een volgenden keer wat in huis is!  
"Tine, do see to it that next time there's something in the house!"
> Imperative 'zorg' + 'dat'-clause: 'zorg' is the bare-stem imperative ('see to it'), softened by 'toch'. The 'dat'-clause is verb-final ('is'); 'er ... wat' is existential 'er' with vague 'wat' (something) — 'that there's something in the house'.

Neen, Verbrugge, je krygt la pièce niet, voor ik nog een beetje heb rondgereden op myn stokpaardje over de tegenstellingen.  
No, Verbrugge, you shan't have la pièce until I've ridden my hobby-horse around the matter of contrasts a little longer.
> Subordinator 'voor' + perfect of separable verb: 'voor' (before) sends the verb cluster to the end: 'heb rondgereden' (perfect of separable 'rondrijden', to ride about). 'op zijn stokpaardje rijden' = 'to ride one's hobby-horse', i.e. dwell on a pet topic.
> Negation 'niet' after the object: 'niet' negates the verb 'krygt' (= krijgt, get) and lands after the definite object 'la pièce'. With a definite object 'niet' (not 'geen') does the negating — 'you don't get la pièce'.

Ik zei dat elk mensch in zyn medemensch een soort van konkurrent ziet.  
I was saying that every man sees in his fellow man a kind of competitor.
> Verb-final 'dat'-clause + middle field: 'dat ... ziet' is verb-final; between subject and verb the middle field orders the adverbials ('in zyn medemensch ... een soort van konkurrent'). 'medemensch' is a compound 'fellow-human'.

Men mag niet altyd laken--wat in 't oog vallen zou!--daarom verheffen wy gaarne een goede eigenschap bovenmate, om de kwade hoedanigheid aan welker openbaring ons eigenlyk alleen gelegen is, te doen in het oog vallen, zonder den schyn op ons te laden van partydigheid.  
One may not always be finding fault--how that would catch the eye!--and so we gladly exalt some good quality beyond measure, in order to throw into relief the bad quality whose exposure is really our only aim, without laying ourselves open to the appearance of partiality.
> Causative-purpose: om ... te doen ... vallen: 'om ... te doen ... vallen' chains 'doen' (causative 'make') with the bare infinitive 'vallen' inside an 'om ... te' purpose clause — 'in order to make (the bad quality) catch the eye'. 'in het oog vallen' = to be conspicuous.
> Formal genitive relative 'welker': 'aan welker openbaring' = 'on whose exposure', the heavy genitive relative 'welker' agreeing with feminine 'kwade hoedanigheid'. 'ons is gelegen aan' = 'we are concerned with', an impersonal idiom.

Als iemand zich by my beklaagt omdat ik gezegd heb: "zyn dochter is zeer schoon, maar hy is een dief" dan antwoord ik: "hoe kan je dáárover zoo boos wezen! Ik heb immers gezegd dat je dochter een lief meisjen is!" Zieje, dat wint dubbel!  
When someone complains to me because I have said, "his daughter is very beautiful, but he is a thief," I answer, "how can you be so angry about that! Why, I said your daughter is a charming girl!" You see, that wins twice over!
> Reflexive 'zich beklagen': 'zich beklagen (over/by)' = 'to complain'; the reflexive 'zich' agrees with the subject 'iemand'. 'als' opens the verb-final condition, so 'beklaagt' closes it.
> Diminutive 'meisjen': 'meisjen' is the period spelling of 'meisje' (girl) — itself a diminutive (always neuter) so the adjective is 'lief' without -e after the indefinite 'een' + neuter noun. The final -n is an archaic written flourish.

Wy beiden zyn kruieniers, ik neem hem zyn klanten af, die geen rozynen willen koopen by een dief, en te-gelyker-tyd zegt men van my dat ik een goed mensch ben, omdat ik de dochter prys van een konkurrent.  
We are both grocers; I draw off his customers, who will not buy raisins from a thief, and at the same time people say of me that I am a good fellow, because I praise a competitor's daughter.
> Relative 'die' + modal 'willen': 'die ... willen koopen' is a verb-final relative clause (its antecedent 'zyn klanten', the customers); modal 'willen' sends 'koopen' to the end. 'geen rozynen' = 'no raisins', 'geen' negating the indefinite plural.
> kruidenier = grocer: 'kruieniers' (= kruideniers) are grocers/shopkeepers — literally 'spice-men' (kruid, spice). The petty-commerce metaphor deflates Havelaar's grand cynical thesis into a shopkeeper's rivalry.

--Neen, zóó erg is 't niet, zei Duclari, dàt is wat sterk!  
--No, it is not quite so bad as that, said Duclari, that is rather strong!

--Dit komt u nu zoo voor, omdat ik de vergelyking wat kort en brusk gemaakt heb.  
--It strikes you so just now because I have made the comparison a little too short and abrupt.
> Separable 'voorkomen' (to seem), formal 'u': 'komt ... voor' = 'seems' (separable), with the formal dative 'u' as experiencer — 'it strikes you'. The fronted 'Dit' triggers inversion 'komt u'.

We moeten ons dat: "hy is een dief" eenigszins omzwachteld voorstellen.  
We must imagine that "he is a thief" somewhat softened and wrapped about.
> Reflexive 'zich voorstellen' (to imagine): 'zich voorstellen' = 'to imagine/picture'; the reflexive 'ons' agrees with 'we'. Modal 'moeten' sends the separable infinitive 'voorstellen' to the end. 'omzwachteld' (bandaged, wrapped about) is a past participle used adjectivally.

De strekking der gelykenis blyft waar. Wanneer we genoodzaakt zyn iemand zekere eigenschappen toe te kennen die aanspraak geven op achting, eerbied of ontzag, dan doet het ons genoegen naast die eigenschappen iets te ontdekken, dat ons van den verschuldigden cyns voor een gedeelte of geheel ontslaat.  
The drift of the parable holds true. When we are obliged to grant someone certain qualities that lay claim to esteem, respect, or awe, then it pleases us to discover, alongside those qualities, something that relieves us in part or in whole of the tribute we owe.
> Genitive remnant 'der': 'der gelykenis' = 'of the parable' uses the old feminine/genitive article 'der' (= van de gelijkenis). By 1860 'der' survives mainly in formal possessive constructions.
> te-infinitive + verb-final relative: 'doet het ons genoegen ... te ontdekken' takes a 'te'-infinitive; the relative 'dat ... ontslaat' is verb-final. 'den verschuldigden cyns' (= cijns, tribute/tax) shows masculine accusative 'den' and the attributive -en on 'verschuldigden'.

"Voor zulk een dichter zou men 't hoofd buigen, maar ... hy slaat zyn vrouw!" Ziet ge, dan gebruiken wy gaarne de blauwe plekken van die vrouw als voorwendsel om ons hoofd overeind te houden, en in 't eind doet het ons zelfs pleizier dat hy 't mensch slaat, wat toch anders heel leelyk is.  
"Before such a poet one would bow the head, but ... he beats his wife!" You see, then we are glad to use the bruises on that woman as a pretext for keeping our own head upright, and in the end it even gives us pleasure that he beats the creature, which is otherwise a very ugly thing.
> Fronted 'dan' + inversion: After the fronted 'dan' (then) the verb 'gebruiken' comes second and the subject 'wy' follows. 'als voorwendsel' = 'as a pretext'; 'om ... te houden' adds a purpose clause.
> blauwe plekken; neuter 'het mensch': 'blauwe plekken' = bruises (literally 'blue spots'). Note ''t mensch' (het mens) — when 'mens' is neuter it is pejorative, here 'the creature/woman', a contemptuous tone.

Zoodra wy erkennen moeten dat iemand hoedanigheden bezit die hem de eer van een voetstuk waardig maken, zoodra we zyn aanspraken daarop niet langer kùnnen loochenen zonder doortegaan voor onkundig, gevoelloos, of nayverig ... dan zeggen we ten-laatste: "goed, zet hem er op!" Maar reeds onder dat opzetten, en als hyzelf nog meent dat we verrukt staan over zyn uitstekendheid, hebben we reeds den strik gelegd in den lazzo die dienen moet om hem by de eerste gunstige gelegenheid naar-beneden te halen.  
As soon as we are forced to acknowledge that someone possesses qualities making him worthy of the honor of a pedestal, as soon as we can no longer deny his claim to it without passing for ignorant, unfeeling, or envious ... then at last we say, "very well, set him up there!" But even while we are hoisting him up, and while he himself still imagines we stand enraptured by his excellence, we have already tied the knot in the lasso that is to serve, at the first favorable opportunity, for hauling him down again.
> Subordinator 'zoodra' + verb-final cluster: 'zoodra' (as soon as) sends the verbs to the end: 'erkennen moeten' (must acknowledge). The embedded 'dat'-clause is itself verb-final ('bezit'). Stacked subordination is typical of Multatuli's long periods.
> te-infinitive written joined: doortegaan: 'doortegaan' is 1860's joined spelling of 'door te gaan' (the 'te' tucked into separable 'doorgaan'). 'doorgaan voor' = 'to pass for'; read it as 'door te gaan voor onkundig'.

Hoe meer mutatie onder de inhabers der voetstukken, hoe grooter de kans voor anderen om óók eens aan de beurt te komen, en dit is zóó waar dat wy uit gewoonte en tot oefening--even als een jager die op kraaien schiet, welke hy toch liggen laat--ook die standbeelden gaarne neerhalen, welker piedestal nooit door ons kan bestegen worden.  
The more turnover there is among the occupants of the pedestals, the greater the chance for others to come up for their turn as well; and this is so true that, out of habit and for practice--just like a hunter who shoots at crows he leaves lying where they fall--we gladly pull down even those statues whose pedestal we ourselves can never hope to mount.
> Correlative 'hoe ... hoe ...': 'hoe meer ..., hoe grooter ...' is the comparative correlative ('the more ..., the greater ...'). Both limbs use comparative forms ('meer', 'grooter') with no verb in this elliptical proverb-like frame.
> Formal relative 'welker' + modal passive: 'welker piedestal' = 'whose pedestal' (formal genitive relative). 'kan ... bestegen worden' is a modal worden-passive ('can be mounted'); 'nooit' supplies the single negation, 'door ons' the agent.

Kappelman die zich voedt met zuurkool en scharrebier, zoekt verheffing in de klacht: "Alexander wàs niet groot ... hy was onmatig" zonder dat er voor Kappelman de minste kans bestaat ooit met Alexander te konkurreeren in wereldverovering.  
Kappelman, who feeds on sauerkraut and small beer, seeks his own elevation in the complaint, "Alexander was not great ... he was intemperate," though there is not the slightest chance that Kappelman will ever rival Alexander in the conquest of the world.
> Reflexive 'zich voeden': 'zich voeden met' = 'to feed (oneself) on'; the reflexive 'zich' is required. 'die ... voedt' is a verb-final relative clause describing the comic figure Kappelman.
> Predicative adjective stays uninflected: As a predicate after 'zijn', 'groot' (great) takes no -e: 'Alexander was groot'. The accent on 'wàs' marks the contrastive stress of the envious sneer.

Hoe dit zy, ik ben zeker dat velen nooit op 't denkbeeld zouden gekomen zyn, den generaal Vandamme voor zoo dapper te houden, als zyn dapperheid niet had kunnen dienen tot voertuig van 't altyd daarby gevoegde: "maar ... zyn zedelykheid!" En tevens, dat deze onzedelykheid niet zoo hoog zou opgenomen zyn door de velen die zelf niet zoo onaantastbaar waren op dit stuk, wanneer men ze niet had noodig gehad tot het opwegen tegen zyn roem van dapperheid, die sommigen belette te slapen.  
Be that as it may, I am certain that many would never have hit upon the idea of holding General Vandamme so brave a man, had his bravery not been able to serve as a vehicle for the rider always tacked on beside it: "but ... his morals!" And, equally, that this immorality would not have been taken so gravely by the many who were themselves none too unimpeachable on that score, had they not had need of it to balance against his fame for courage, which kept some of them from sleeping.
> Subjunctive 'zy' in a fixed phrase: 'Hoe dit zy' = 'be that as it may' preserves the present subjunctive 'zy' (= zij, of zijn). The concessive subjunctive survives only in such frozen literary formulae.
> Counterfactual pluperfect + double infinitive: 'had kunnen dienen' is a pluperfect with the 'Ersatzinfinitiv': modal 'kunnen' appears as an infinitive (not participle) beside 'dienen' — 'had been able to serve'. The 'als'-clause is verb-final and counterfactual.
> Conditional passive 'zou ... opgenomen zyn': 'zou ... opgenomen zyn' is a conditional state-passive ('would (not) have been taken so gravely') built on separable 'opnemen'. 'iets hoog opnemen' = 'to take something seriously/gravely'.

Één eigenschap bezat hy werkelyk in hooge mate: wilskracht.  
One quality he did truly possess in high degree: will.
> Object fronting + inversion: Fronting the object 'Één eigenschap' (one quality) for emphasis forces inversion: verb 'bezat' (imperfect of 'bezitten', to possess) second, subject 'hy' after. The accent 'Één' stresses 'one (single)'.

Wat hy zich voornam, moest geschieden, en geschiedde ook gewoonlyk.  
What he set himself to do had to be done, and usually was done.
> Reflexive 'zich voornemen' + free relative: 'Wat hy zich voornam' is a free relative ('what he resolved'), verb-final, with reflexive 'zich voornemen' (to resolve, set oneself). The main clause then runs 'moest geschieden' (had to happen), 'geschiedde' being the imperfect of the formal verb 'geschieden' (to come to pass).

Doch--zie je wel dat ik weer terstond de tegenstelling by-de-hand heb?--doch in de keuze der middelen was hy dan ook wat ... vry, en, zooals van der Palm--naar ik geloof, ten-onrechte--van Napoléon zeide: "hinderpalen der zedelykheid stonden hem nooit in den weg!" Nu, dan is 't zeker gemakkelyker zyn doel te bereiken, dan wanneer men zich door zoo-iets wèl gebonden acht.  
And yet--you see how I have the contrast at hand again at once?--and yet in his choice of means he was also a little ... free, and, as van der Palm said of Napoleon--wrongly, I believe--"the barriers of morality never stood in his way!" Now, in that case it is certainly easier to reach one's goal than when one holds oneself genuinely bound by such things.
> Frozen dative den weg: The masculine accusative/dative ending -en survives in fixed phrases: 'in den weg staan' (to stand in someone's way). In modern Dutch this is simply 'in de weg'.
> Genitive plural der: Period prose forms the possessive with the inflected genitive 'der' rather than modern 'van': 'der middelen' = 'of the means'. Today this would be 'in de keuze van de middelen'.
> Period spelling: by, gemakkelyk, zyn: Multatuli's 1860 page writes y where modern Dutch writes ij: 'by' (bij), 'myn' (mijn), 'zyn' (zijn), 'gemakkelyk' (gemakkelijk). Train your eye to read y as ij throughout.
> Reflexive zich acht: 'zich gebonden achten' uses the 3rd-person reflexive zich (here 3rd-person 'zich' with impersonal 'men') — literally 'to consider oneself bound'. The reflexive pronoun is the object of the verb.
> doch = 'and yet': An archaic, literary adversative conjunction meaning 'but / yet'. It signals a contrast more solemnly than modern 'maar' and is a hallmark of 1860 written register.

De adsistent-resident van Padang, dan had een bericht uitgebracht, dat gunstig luidde voor dien gesuspendeerden kontroleur, wiens suspensie hierdoor een tint van onrechtvaardigheid bekwam.  
The assistant-resident of Padang, then, had brought in a report that read favorably for that suspended controller, whose suspension thereby took on a tinge of injustice.
> Relative wiens + accusative dien: 'wiens' is the genitive relative pronoun ('whose'), and 'dien' is the old masculine accusative of 'die'. Together they mark heavy, formal period syntax around a de-word.
> Simple past bekwam: 'bekwam' is the strong simple past of 'bekomen' (here, to take on / acquire). Strong verbs change the stem vowel rather than adding -te/-de, and the narrative past carries the storytelling.
> kontroleur (controller): A 'controller' was a junior colonial administrator overseeing a district under an assistant-resident — Havelaar's own former rank. The word is glossed as 'controller', not a financial auditor.

De Padangsche praatjes duurden voort: men sprak nog altyd over 't verdwenen kind. De adsistent-resident voelde zich op-nieuw geroepen die zaak optevatten, maar voor hy iets tot helderheid had kunnen brengen, ontving hy een besluit waarby hy door den Gouverneur van Sumatra's Westkust werd gesuspendeerd "wegens oneerlykheid in ambtsbetrekking." Het heette dat hy uit vriendschap of medelyden de zaak van dien kontroleur, tegen beter weten aan, in een valsch daglicht had gesteld.  
The Padang gossip ran on: people still kept talking about the vanished child. The assistant-resident felt himself called once more to take up the matter, but before he could bring anything to light he received a decree by which the Governor of Sumatra's West Coast suspended him "on the ground of dishonesty in office." It was put about that, out of friendship or pity, he had set the controller's case in a false light, against his own better knowledge.
> Separable verb + reflexive: 'optevatten' (op-te-vatten) is the separable verb 'opvatten' (to take up) with te wedged between prefix and stem — the 1860 page joins it as one word. 'zich geroepen voelen' adds the reflexive zich.
> Process passive with worden: 'werd gesuspendeerd' is the worden-passive in the past: the subject (hy) undergoes the action, and the agent is named with 'door den Gouverneur' ('by the Governor', with old dative den).
> Pluperfect + modal cluster, verb-final: The subordinate clause opened by 'voor' (before) drives the verbs to the end and stacks them: 'had kunnen brengen' = pluperfect of 'hebben' + the modal 'kunnen' + infinitive 'brengen'.
> Impersonal het heette: 'Het heette dat...' uses dummy het: 'it was put about / rumoured that...'. The het points at no real subject and simply launches the reported claim.
> Idiom: tegen beter weten aan: A fixed idiom meaning 'against one's better judgement / knowing full well otherwise'. Multatuli uses it to brand the false report as deliberate, not mistaken.

Ik heb de stukken die deze zaak betreffen, niet gelezen, maar ik weet dat de adsistent-resident niet in de minste betrekking met dien kontroleur stond, hetgeen reeds hieruit blykt dat men juist hem had gekozen om die zaak te onderzoeken.  
I have not read the papers concerning this affair, but I know that the assistant-resident stood in no sort of relation whatever to that controller, which already appears from the very fact that he was the one chosen to investigate the matter.
> Relative die for a plural: 'die' is the relative pronoun for de-words and all plurals ('de stukken die...' = 'the papers that...'), and the clause it opens sends its verb 'betreffen' to the end.
> Sentence relative hetgeen + pronominal adverb: 'hetgeen' ('which') is a formal relative referring back to a whole clause; 'hieruit' ('from this') fuses 'uit' with a pronoun into a pronominal adverb pointing forward to the dat-clause.
> Old accusative dien: 'dien' is the masculine accusative form of the demonstrative 'die', required here after the preposition 'met' in period grammar; modern Dutch levels this to 'die'.

Ik weet voorts dat hy een achtenswaardig persoon was, en dat ook de Regeering hem hiervoor hield, hetgeen blykt uit het vernietigen der suspensie, nadat de zaak elders dan op Sumatra's Westkust onderzocht was.  
I know further that he was an honorable person, and that the Government held him to be so, which appears from the annulment of the suspension once the affair had been investigated somewhere other than on Sumatra's West Coast.
> Nominalized infinitive + genitive der: 'het vernietigen' is an infinitive used as a neuter noun ('the annulling'), governed by the genitive 'der suspensie' ('of the suspension') — a compact, formal period construction.
> State passive in a temporal clause: 'nadat' (after) opens a verb-final clause, and 'onderzocht was' is the zijn-passive describing the completed state — 'once the affair had been investigated'.
> achtenswaardig (estimable): A compound adjective from 'achten' (to esteem) + '-waardig' (worthy of), meaning 'worthy of respect / honourable'. The -waardig suffix mirrors English '-worthy'.

Ook die kontroleur is later geheel in zyn eer hersteld geworden.  
That controller, too, was afterward fully restored to his honor.
> Perfect passive: is ... geworden: The completed worden-passive uses 'zijn' + participle + 'geworden': 'is hersteld geworden' = 'was restored'. The extra 'geworden' marks it as the perfect of the process passive.

Het was hun suspensie die my 't puntdicht ingaf, dat ik op de ontbyttafel van den generaal liet neerleggen door iemand die toen by hem, vroeger by my in dienst was.  
It was their suspension that suggested to me the epigram which I had laid on the general's breakfast table by someone who was then in his service, and earlier in mine.
> Causative laten: 'liet neerleggen' is causative laten + bare infinitive: 'had laid down' — i.e. caused someone to lay it down. laten lets you order or allow an action done by another.
> Old dative den generaal: After 'van', the masculine noun keeps the old dative ending: 'van den generaal'. Modern Dutch reduces this to 'van de generaal'.
> puntdicht (epigram): A 'puntdicht' is literally a 'point-poem' — a short, sharp satirical verse with a stinging final 'point', i.e. an epigram. Havelaar's barb against the general follows.

Het wandlend schorsbesluit dat schorsend ons regeert, Jan Schors-al, Gouverneur, de weerwolf onzer dagen, Had zyn geweten zelf met vreugd gesuspendeerd... Als 't niet voor langen tyd finaal reeds ware ontslagen.  
The walking edict of suspension that suspending rules us all, Jan Suspend-the-lot, our Governor, the werewolf of our days, Would gladly have suspended his own conscience with a will... Had it not long since, and for good, been finally dismissed away.
> Present participle as adjective/adverb: 'wandlend' (walking) and 'schorsend' (suspending) are present participles in -end, naming actions in progress — one modifies the noun, the other the verb 'regeert'.
> Subjunctive ware + counterfactual: 'ware' is the archaic past subjunctive of 'zijn' ('were'), here in a counterfactual: 'had it not already been dismissed'. The subjunctive survives only in solemn or literary register.
> Genitive onzer: 'onzer' is the old genitive of 'wij/ons' — 'of our (days)'. This inflected possessive pronoun is purely literary by 1860 and unknown in everyday modern Dutch.

--Neem me niet kwalyk, m'nheer Havelaar, ik vind dat zoo-iets niet te pas kwam, zei Duclari.  
--Forgive me, Mr. Havelaar, I find that sort of thing was hardly fitting, said Duclari.
> Idiom: neem me niet kwalijk: A set polite formula, 'don't take it ill of me' = 'forgive me / excuse me'. 'kwalijk nemen' literally means 'to take badly'.
> dat-clause, verb-final: The subordinating conjunction 'dat' opens a complement clause whose finite verb 'kwam' moves to the end: 'I find that such a thing was hardly fitting'.

--Ik ook ... maar ik moest toch iets doen!  
--So do I ... but I had to do something!
> Modal moest + bare infinitive: 'moest' (past of moeten, 'had to') is a modal sending its main verb to the clause end as a bare infinitive: 'moest ... doen' = 'had to do'. Modals never take te.

Verbeeld je dat ik geen geld had, niets ontving, en van-dag tot-dag vreesde te sterven van honger, wat dan ook naby genoeg geweest is. Ik had weinig of geen betrekkingen op Padang, en bovendien, ik had den generaal geschreven dat hy verantwoordelyk was indien ik omkwam van ellende, en dat ik van niemand hulp zou aannemen.  
Imagine that I had no money, received nothing, and feared from day to day to starve to death, which indeed came near enough to happening. I had few connections or none at all in Padang, and besides, I had written to the general that he would be answerable if I perished of want, and that I would accept help from no one.
> Reflexive imperative verbeeld je: 'Verbeeld je' is the imperative of reflexive 'zich verbeelden' (to imagine), with the 2nd-person reflexive 'je' — 'imagine!'. The command is formed from the bare stem.
> geen vs niets: 'geen' negates the indefinite noun 'geld' ('no money'), while 'niets' ('nothing') is itself the negative object of 'ontving'. Dutch uses geen before nouns and niets/niet elsewhere.
> Conditional zou + separable aannemen: 'zou aannemen' is the conditional (zou + infinitive) of the separable verb 'aannemen' (to accept). In the verb-final clause the prefix stays attached to the infinitive at the end.
> van dag tot dag: A fixed adverbial phrase, 'from day to day'. The 1860 page hyphenates such set expressions ('van-dag tot-dag', 'naby genoeg') to flag them as single units.

In de binnenlanden waren er die, vernemende hoe 't met my gesteld was, my uitnoodigden ten hunnent te komen, maar de generaal verbood dat men my daarheen een pas zou geven.  
In the interior there were those who, hearing how matters stood with me, invited me to come and stay with them, but the general forbade that anyone should give me a pass to go there.
> Existential er: 'waren er die...' = 'there were those who...': the little word er props up an existential statement before an indefinite subject, much like English dummy 'there'.
> Present participle vernemende: 'vernemende' (-ende) is a present participle introducing a reduced clause — 'hearing how matters stood with me'. This participial phrasing is markedly literary.
> Indefinite men + dat-clause: 'men' is the impersonal 'one/anyone', subject of the verb-final dat-clause; 'verbood' (forbade) governs it. The conditional 'zou geven' renders the prohibited hypothetical act.
> ten hunnent ('at their place'): An archaic frozen phrase meaning 'to/at their home'. It preserves an old dative-genitive pattern (te + possessive) and is purely literary by Multatuli's day.

Naar Java vertrekken mocht ik ook niet.  
Nor was I allowed to leave for Java.
> Fronting + V2 inversion: The non-finite phrase 'Naar Java vertrekken' is fronted for emphasis, forcing the finite modal 'mocht' into second position before the subject 'ik' — classic Dutch verb-second word order.

Overal elders had ik me kunnen redden, en misschien ook dáár als men niet zoo bevreesd ware geweest voor den machtigen generaal.  
Everywhere else I could have saved myself, and perhaps there too, had people not been so afraid of the powerful general.
> Conditional perfect with modal: 'had ik me kunnen redden' is a counterfactual perfect: 'I could have saved myself'. With a modal, the perfect of 'hebben' takes a double infinitive ('kunnen redden') rather than a participle.
> Subjunctive ware geweest: 'ware geweest' is the archaic pluperfect subjunctive of 'zijn' in a counterfactual als-clause — 'had people not been so afraid'. The plain subjunctive marks elevated period prose.

Het scheen zyn plan te zyn my te laten verhongeren.  
It seemed to be his plan to let me starve.
> Stacked te + bare infinitive: Two infinitive constructions nest here: 'scheen ... te zyn' (te-infinitive after schijnen) and inside it 'te laten verhongeren', where causative laten governs the bare infinitive 'verhongeren'.
> Impersonal het scheen: 'Het scheen' = 'it seemed', dummy het launching the appearance/seeming construction with no concrete referent.

Dat heeft negen maanden geduurd!  
That lasted nine months!
> Present perfect heeft ... geduurd: 'heeft geduurd' is the present perfect: present of 'hebben' plus the participle at the very end. Dutch favours the perfect for completed past events in conversation.

--En hoe hebt ge u zoolang in 't leven gehouden?  
--And how did you keep yourself alive so long?
> Literary pronoun ge / u: 'ge' (you, subject) with reflexive 'u' is the formal, literary 'you' of 1860 — 'how did you keep yourself alive'. Modern speech uses je/jij or u; ge survives in writing and in the south.
> Perfect + reflexive zich houden: The reflexive 'zich in 't leven houden' (to keep oneself alive) appears in the perfect: 'hebt ge u ... gehouden'. The reflexive object 'u' sits in the middle, the participle at the end.

Of had de generaal véél kalkoenen!  
Or did the general have a great many turkeys!

--O ja!  
--Oh yes!

Maar dit hielp me niet ... zoo-iets doet men maar ééns, niet waar?  
But that did not help me ... a thing like that you do only once, do you not?
> Object-fronting and impersonal men: The object 'zoo-iets' is fronted (V2 then puts 'doet' before subject 'men'). 'men' is the impersonal 'one' — 'a thing like that you do only once'.
> Tag question: niet waar?: 'niet waar?' (literally 'not true?') is the all-purpose tag, like English 'isn't it? / don't you?'. It seeks agreement at the end of a statement.

Wat ik gedurende dien tyd uitrichtte?  
What did I get up to during that time?
> Embedded question, verb-final + separable: An echoed indirect question: 'wat' fronts and the verb 'uitrichtte' moves to the end. 'uitrichten' is separable ('uit' + 'richten'), but in this verb-final clause it stays whole at the end.
> Old accusative dien tyd: 'dien' is the masculine accusative of demonstrative 'die', governed by 'gedurende' (during). Modern Dutch writes 'die tijd'.

Och ... ik maakte verzen, schreef komedies ... en zoo al voort.  
Oh ... I made verses, wrote comedies ... and so forth.
> Simple past, weak vs strong: 'maakte' is a weak past (stem + -te); 'schreef' is a strong past (vowel change schrijven > schreef). The two patterns sit side by side in the narrative past.
> en zo voort ('and so forth'): A set phrase meaning 'and so on / et cetera', the source of the abbreviation 'enz.'. The 1860 spelling 'en zoo al voort' is an expanded variant.

--En was daarvoor op Padang ryst te-koop?  
--And was there rice to be bought in Padang for that?
> Pronominal adverb daarvoor: 'daarvoor' fuses 'voor' + a pronoun ('for that') — Dutch cannot say 'voor dat' for a thing, so the preposition joins daar-/er-/waar- instead. Here it points back to the verses.
> ryst (rice): Period spelling for 'rijst' (rice). 'Was there rice to be had?' makes the colonial-staple food the measure of whether his verses could buy a meal.

--Neen, maar die heb ik er ook niet voor gevraagd.  
--No, but I did not ask for it with those, either.
> Split pronominal adverb er ... voor: The pronominal adverb 'ervoor' splits around other words: 'er ... voor' = 'for it'. Splitting the er- part from the preposition is normal and very common in Dutch.

Ik zeg liever niet hoe ik geleefd heb.  
I would rather not say how I lived.
> Comparative liever + perfect in indirect question: 'liever' ('rather') is the comparative of the adverb 'graag'. The indirect question 'hoe ik geleefd heb' is verb-final, ending in the perfect participle 'geleefd' + 'heb'.

Tine drukte hem de hand, zy wist het.  
Tine pressed his hand; she knew.
> Dative of possession: 'drukte hem de hand' = 'pressed his hand', literally 'pressed him the hand'. Dutch often marks the possessor of a body part with a dative pronoun (hem) plus the definite article.

--Ik heb een paar regels gelezen, die ge in die dagen zoudt geschreven hebben achter op een kwitantie, zei Verbrugge.  
--I have read a few lines that you are said to have written in those days on the back of a receipt, said Verbrugge.
> Reportative conditional zoudt ... hebben: 'zoudt geschreven hebben' (conditional + perfect infinitive) here conveys an unverified report — 'that you are said to have written'. zou(den) can soften a claim to mere hearsay.
> 2nd-person ge zoudt: 'zoudt' is the older 2nd-person singular of 'zullen/zou' that pairs with the pronoun 'ge'. The -t ending on the verb is the literary counterpart to modern 'je zou'.

--Ik weet wat je bedoelt.  
--I know which you mean.
> Free relative wat + informal je: 'wat' here is a headless relative ('what / which'), object of 'weet' in a verb-final clause: 'I know what you mean'. The familiar pronoun 'je' marks the easy tone between the men.

Die regels schetsen myn pozitie.  
Those lines sketch my situation.
> Demonstrative die + possessive myn: 'Die regels' ('those lines') uses far-demonstrative 'die' for a de-word plural; 'myn' is the period spelling of possessive 'mijn' (my).

Er bestond in die dagen een tydschrift, de Kopiist, waarop ik inteekenaar was.  
In those days there was a periodical, the Copyist, to which I was a subscriber.
> Existential er bestond: 'Er bestond...' = 'there existed...': er + an existential verb introduces a new, indefinite subject ('een tydschrift'), the standard way Dutch says 'there was'.
> Pronominal relative waarop: 'waarop' = 'on/to which' — a pronominal relative fusing 'waar' + 'op', used instead of 'op welke' for a thing. It refers back to the journal de Kopiist.

Het stond onder de bescherming van de Regeering--de redakteur was ambtenaar by de algemeene Sekretarie--en hierom werden de inteekeningsgelden in 's lands kas gestort.  
It was under the patronage of the Government--the editor was an official at the General Secretariat--and for this reason the subscription moneys were paid into the public treasury.
> Process passive werden ... gestort: 'werden ... gestort' is the worden-passive in the past plural — 'the subscription moneys were paid in'. The subject undergoes the depositing; no agent need be named.
> Genitive 's lands: "'s lands" is a contraction of 'des lands' — the old genitive 'of the country / the State'. This frozen 's + noun + s pattern ('s lands kas = the public treasury) survives in set phrases.
> Noun compound: 'inteekeningsgelden' glues 'inteekening' (subscription) + linking -s- + 'gelden' (moneys) into one right-headed compound — 'subscription-moneys'. Dutch builds such long words freely.

Men bood my een kwitantie van twintig gulden aan.  
I was offered a receipt for twenty guilders.
> Separable aanbieden, split: The separable verb 'aanbieden' (to offer) splits in this main clause: stem 'bood' takes second position and the prefix 'aan' is thrown to the very end — 'bood ... aan'.
> gulden (guilder): The guilder was the Dutch currency. 'twintig gulden' (twenty guilders) is the sum on the receipt that triggers Havelaar's French verse-protest.

Daar nu dit geld op de bureaux van den Gouverneur moest worden verhandeld, en dus de kwitantie, als zy onbetaald bleef, die bureaux te passeeren had om te worden teruggezonden naar Batavia, maakte ik van die gelegenheid gebruik om achter op dat stuk te protesteeren tegen myn armoede:  
Now since this money had to be handled at the Governor's offices, and the receipt therefore, if it went unpaid, had to pass through those offices in order to be sent back to Batavia, I made use of that opportunity to protest my poverty on the back of the document:
> Causal daar + modal passive: 'Daar' here is a causal subordinator ('since'), sending verbs to the end: 'moest worden verhandeld' = modal 'moeten' + worden-passive infinitive — 'had to be handled'.
> om ... te purpose clause: 'om ... te protesteeren' frames a purpose ('in order to protest'). The clause opens with 'om' and closes with te + the infinitive — the standard Dutch purpose construction.
> kwitantie (receipt): A 'kwitantie' is a formal receipt or acquittance for money owed. Its bureaucratic journey through the Governor's offices is what lets Havelaar smuggle his protest poem onto its back.

Vingt-florins... quel trésor!  
Twenty florins... what a treasure!

Adieu, littérature, Adieu, Copiste, adieu!  
Farewell, literature; farewell, Copyist, farewell!

Trop malheureux destin: Je meurs de faim, de froid, d'ennui et de chagrin, Vingt florins font pour moi deux mois de nourriture!  
Too wretched a fate: I die of hunger, of cold, of boredom and of grief — twenty florins would feed me for two months!

Si j'avais vingt florins je serais mieux chaussé, Mieux nourri, mieux logé, j'en ferais bonne chère...  
If I had twenty florins I'd be better shod, better fed, better lodged; I'd live well...

Il faut vivre avant tout, soit vie de misère: Le crime fait la honte, et non la pauvreté!  
One must live above all, even a life of misery: it is crime that brings shame, and not poverty!

Maar toen ik later te Batavia by de redaktie van den Kopiist myn twintig gulden kwam brengen, was ik niets schuldig.  
But when I came later to Batavia to bring my twenty guilders to the editorial office of the Copyist, I owed nothing.
> toen-clause, verb-final: 'toen' (when, in the past) opens a subordinate clause whose verbs cluster at the end: 'kwam brengen' = 'kwam' + bare infinitive 'brengen', the verb-of-motion + infinitive pattern.
> Negative niets + dative idiom: 'niets schuldig zijn' = 'to owe nothing'. 'niets' is the single negative word carrying the whole clause's negation — Dutch allows only one negative per clause.

Het schynt dat de generaal zelf dat geld voor my betaald heeft, om niet gedwongen te zyn die geillustreerde kwitantie terug te zenden naar Batavia.  
It seems the general himself paid that money for me, so as not to be compelled to send that illustrated receipt back to Batavia.
> Impersonal het schijnt: 'Het schynt dat...' = 'it seems that...': dummy het launches the seeming-construction, with the real content in the verb-final dat-clause ending '...betaald heeft'.
> Negated om ... te + separable: A purpose clause negated with niet: 'om niet gedwongen te zyn ... terug te zenden' = 'so as not to be compelled to send back'. 'terugzenden' is separable, splitting around te.

--Maar wat deed hy na 't ... na 't ... wegnemen van dien kalkoen? 't Was toch ... een diefstal!  
--But what did he do after the ... after the ... taking of that turkey? It was, after all ... a theft!
> Nominalized infinitive 't wegnemen: 'het wegnemen' turns the separable infinitive 'wegnemen' (to take away) into a neuter noun — 'the taking-away'. The article 't and following 'van' phrase make it act as a full noun.
> diefstal (theft): 'diefstal' bluntly names what the polite euphemism 'wegnemen van dien kalkoen' ('taking that turkey') circles around — theft. Duclari forces the harsh word out.

En na dat epigram?  
And after that epigram?
> epigram = puntdicht: Here Multatuli uses the learned loanword 'epigram' for the same satirical verse he earlier called a 'puntdicht' — both name the stinging short poem aimed at the general.

--Hy strafte me vreeselyk!  
--He punished me dreadfully!
> Weak simple past strafte: 'strafte' is the weak past of 'straffen' (to punish): stem + -te. Weak verbs form the past with a dental ending, never a vowel change.

Wanneer hy my voor die zaken had laten terechtstaan als schuldig aan oneerbiedigheid jegens den Gouverneur van Sumatra's Westkust, hetgeen in die dagen met een beetje goeden wil had kunnen worden uitgelegd als "pooging, tot ondermyning van 't nederlandsch gezag, en aanhitsing, tot opstand" of aan "diefstal op den publieken weg" zou hy getoond hebben een goedhartig mensch te zyn.  
Had he put me on trial for those matters as guilty of disrespect toward the Governor of Sumatra's West Coast--which in those days, with a little goodwill, might have been construed as an "attempt to undermine Dutch authority, and incitement to rebellion"--or for "theft on the public highway," he would have shown himself a kind-hearted man.
> Counterfactual: pluperfect + conditional perfect: The whole sentence is an unreal condition: 'Wanneer ... had laten terechtstaan' (if he had had me tried) is answered by 'zou hy getoond hebben' (he would have shown). Note causative laten with bare infinitive.
> Modal + passive infinitive stack: 'had kunnen worden uitgelegd' chains pluperfect 'hebben' + modal 'kunnen' + passive 'worden' + participle — 'could have been construed'. Such verb piles are typical of dense period prose.

Maar neen, hy strafte me beter ... akelig!  
But no, he punished me better than that ... horribly!
> Comparative beter, ironic: 'beter' is the irregular comparative of 'goed' (good > better). Havelaar wields it bitterly: the general punished him 'better' — meaning more cruelly — by doing nothing at all.

Aan den man die op de kalkoenen passen moest, liet hy gelasten voortaan een anderen weg te kiezen. En myn puntdicht ... ach, dàt is nog erger zeide niets, en deed niets!  
To the man who had to keep watch over the turkeys, he gave orders to choose a different path from then on. And my epigram ... ah, that is even worse — it said nothing, and did nothing!
> Fronted dative + causative laten: The dative phrase 'Aan den man...' is fronted (V2 keeps 'liet' second). 'liet ... gelasten' is causative laten + bare infinitive — 'had it ordered'. Note old dative 'den man'.
> Relative die + separable oppassen: Relative 'die' ('who') opens a verb-final clause; 'passen ... moest' is modal moeten over the separable verb 'oppassen' (to keep watch) — here 'op ... passen' = 'watch over'.

Ziet ge, dit was wreed!  
You see, this was cruel!
> Imperative ziet ge: 'Ziet ge' is an old imperative/appeal form ('you see / look here') pairing the verb with literary 'ge'. It functions as a discourse marker drawing the listener in.
> Demonstrative dit for a het-word/idea: 'dit' (near, neuter) points to the situation just described. Dutch uses dit/dat for het-words and abstractions, deze/die for de-words.

Hy gunde me niet het minste martelaars-air, ik werd niet belangwekkend door vervolging, en mocht niet ongelukkig wezen door verregaande geestigheid! O, Duclari ... o, Verbrugge ...'t was om eens-voor-al te walgen van puntdichten en kalkoenen!  
He would not grant me the least martyr's air; I was not made interesting by persecution, nor allowed to be unhappy through far-reaching wit! O, Duclari ... o, Verbrugge ... it was enough to make one sick once and for all of epigrams and turkeys!
> Weak past gunde + niet negation: 'gunde' is the weak past of 'gunnen' (to grant/begrudge): stem + -de after a voiced stem. 'niet het minste' = 'not the least', niet negating the whole verb phrase.
> Worden-passive werd ... door: 'werd ... door vervolging' is the worden-passive with the agent in 'door': 'I was not made interesting by persecution'. The subject undergoes the (non-)action.
> om ... te of result: 'om ... te walgen van' here expresses a result/sufficiency — 'enough to make one sick of'. The om-clause closes with te + infinitive even when it shades from purpose into consequence.
> martelaars-air (martyr's air): A wry compound: the 'air' or pose of a martyr. Havelaar's bitter complaint is that the general's silence denied him even the dignity of looking persecuted.

Zo weinig aanmoediging dooft de vlam van 't genie uit tot de laatste vonk ... inkluzief: ik heb 't nooit weer gedaan!  
So little encouragement snuffs out the flame of genius down to the last spark ... myself included: I have never done it again!
> Separable uitdoven, split: The separable verb 'uitdoven' (to snuff out) splits in this main clause: 'dooft ... uit', with the long object 'de vlam van 't genie' filling the middle field and 'uit' landing at the end.
> Perfect with negative nooit: 'heb ... nooit weer gedaan' is the present perfect ('have never done again'), with the single negative 'nooit' carrying the negation. Dutch tolerates only one negator per clause.

DERTIENDE HOOFDSTUK  
THIRTEENTH CHAPTER
> Ordinal + het-word hoofdstuk: 'dertiende' is the ordinal 'thirteenth' (cardinal dertien + -de). 'hoofdstuk' (chapter) is a neuter het-word, itself a compound of 'hoofd' (main) + 'stuk' (piece).
---

Source text: public domain (Multatuli / Eduard Douwes Dekker, d. 1887; Dutch 1860, Project Gutenberg #11024). English translation: original, © 1732 Studios (2026); rendered freshly from the public-domain Dutch, not derived from any prior English translation. Sentence-aligned by 1732 Studios.