Contexts, Subtexts, and Pretexts


Чтобы посмотреть этот PDF файл с форматированием и разметкой, скачайте его и откройте на своем компьютере.
cn=ITCA,


\r\f \r\r\n\n\t\b\r
\n\r\f\r
\r
\r\r \r\r\r \r\r\t\r
\r\r\f\t\r\r\f\t\t\r\f
\r\r\r \r\r­  \r\r \r \t\t \r
\t\r \r\f\r   \f€€\t­
€\r\n \r 
\f  \n
\n\t\r\f \r\r\n \r\r\t \r\r
 \r\r\r\f\t\r\r‚\nƒ\r
 \r\r\t\r\r\f„\t\r
\r\r\r\r \r\f\f ƒ€\t \r\r‚
€\r  \n\r \r €\r
 \r\r\r\r\r\n \r\r\t\r


\r
\f \n\t
\b\n\t\r
\b\n\n
\r
\r\n\n
\n 
\r
\n
\r 
 \n
­€‚ 
\rƒ\n
„…‚\r†
\t\n\r
­‡\n\n
\r
\n‡
ˆ‰ 
‚Š
\t\n \rŠ\r
‚\f\n
\r‹\n
Œ…Ž  ‘
\r’

\r\r’\n

“\r
\r”‘

\f\n
ˆ\n\rˆ\n
\r
”
”\n\r\r\r
†
\rŠ 

\t \r
\f\n\n
\r’
”‘‘\t
\r‚
\f” …‘
\r\f 

Š• ’
”\n\r

\r\f \r\r\n\n\t\b\r
\f\t\t
\r
…†\r\r\f
‡\r \r\r\t\f
ˆ



\r  \t\r
\f \n\t\b\t\b\b 
\tŠ \r\f \r\r\n\n\t\b\r‰\r
\f\r
\t‡\r \r\r\f
‹ŒŒŽ
‘’“’­”•–—˜™’ 
„ \r \r\t\r \r
–š \r\r\t\r­­\b\r›\r “š \r\r\t\r­­
\fš„\r
•‘—™\b™——

“‘––
œ–™ƒ‘“‘’œ”­­““

“‘–‘‘œ••ž™
‹ŒŸŽ’”™’‘“”““œ•”™
¡˜ €\t\t 
‹ŒŸŽ’”™’‘“”“™”••ž
\n 
–—˜™™š‚€’€
‘ ‰‰‰ ›\n‰
‰••\n€
‚\n\t€œ€ž€Ÿ¡¢——£œ™˜—˜
œ¦\n
‚ œ€ž€Ÿ—§¨™©œ\n\n
ª«
™©™™¬˜¨™©œ
\t\t\r\r\t \r\r\r\r¢\r
ˆ\r£\r „\r\r¤
\t\r\r\f¥\r 
¦ŽŒ‹
TM
Table of contents
Acknowledgments

vii
Notes on contributors

Introductio
n: Cultures of translation

Brian James Baer
 .

Contexts
Shiing contexts: e boundaries of Milan Kundera’s Central Europe

Charles Sabato
Nation and translatio
n: Literary translation and the shaping
of modern Ukrainian culture

Vitaly Chernetsk
Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation

David L. Cooper
Romania as Europe’s translato
: Translation in Constantin Noica’s
national imaginatio

Sean Cotter
Translating India, constructing self: Konstantin Bal’mont’s India
as image and ideal in Fin-de-siècle Russia

Susmita Sundara
e water of lif
e: Resuscitating Russian avant-garde
authors in Croatian and Serbian translations

Sibelan Forrester
Translation trouble: Translating sexual identity into Slovenian

Suzana Tratni
 .

Subtexts

Susanna Witt
Translation theory and cold war politics: Roman Jakobson
and Vladimir Nabokov in s America

Brian James Baer

Yasha Klots
Squandered opportunities: On the uniformity of literary
translations in postwar Hungar

László Scholz
Meaningful absences: Byron in Bulgarian

Vitana Kostadinov
 .


Vlad Struko
“No text is an island
”: Translating
Hamlet
in twenty-rst-century Russia

Aleksei Semenenk
Russian dystopia in exile: Translating Zamiatin and Voinovich

Natalia Olshanskay

Allen J. Kuharsk
e other polysystem: e impact of translation on language
norms and conventions in Latvia

Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisberg
Translation as condition and theme in Milan Kundera’s novels

Jan Rube
Index

323
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my colleagues and Ph.D. students at the Institute for Applied
Linguistics at Kent State University for their feedback. I owe a special debt of thanks to
Judy Wakabayashi for her insightful editorial comments, and to Claudia Angelelli,
whose unfailing support and constant good humor helped make this volume a reality.
David L. Cooper’s article, “Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian
nation” rst appeared in
Russian Review
66(2), 2007, pp. 185–203. A slightly revised
version of the article is printed in this volume with the kind permission of Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Notes on contributors
Brian James Baer
is Professor of Russian Language, Literature, and Translation Studies
at Kent State University in the Institute for Applied Linguistics. He is the co-editor of
Volume XII in the ATA Scholarly Monograph Series,
Beyond the Ivory Tower: Re-
inking Translation Pedagogy
and the author of
Other Russias: Homosexuality and the
Crisis of Post-Soviet Identity
(Palgrave, 2009). He is also the founding editor of the
journal
Translation and Interpreting Studies
(TIS) and the general editor of the Kent
State Scholarly Monograph Series in Translation Studies.
Notes on contributors

Jan Rubeš
is a professeur at l’Université Libre de Bruxelles, where he is the director of
the Center for Czech Studies. He is the author or several books on Prague and has
translated various Czech authors into French.
Charles Sabatos
received his Ph.D. in Comparative Literature at the University of
Michigan. He currently teaches in the English language and literature department at
Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey. His main elds of research include modern
Czech, Slovak, Turkish, and American literary and cultural history. His translation of
Ever Green is...
by Pavel Vilikovsky was published by Northwestern University Press.
László Scholz
is Professor of Hispanic Studies at Oberlin College, Ohio, and at Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest. His main research interests include modern Latin Amer
ican ction, short story analysis, and the theory and practice of literary translation. His
academic publications include monographs, literary histories, textbooks, and numer
ous essays and readers. He is one of the most sought aer literary translators and edi-
tors of Spanish and Latin American literature into Hungarian with a long list of works
Ljubljana as a writer, translator, and publicist. She has published ve short stories
collections
Pod nilo (Bellow Zero), Na svojem dvorišu (In One’s Own Backyard),
Vzporednice (Parallels), esa nisem nikoli razumela na vlaku (ings I’ve Never Under
stood on the Train)
and
Dva svetova (Two Worlds)
, two novels
Ime mi je Damjan
(My Name is Damjan)
and
Tretji svet (ird World)
, a play and two non-ction books.
In 2007 she was rewarded the national Prešeren’s Fund Prize for the best book-length
work of ction in Slovenian. Her books and short stories have been translated into
more than een languages. Suzana Tratnik has translated several books of British and
American ction, non-ction and drama.
Andrejs Veisbergs
, Dr. Habil. Philol. is a Professor at the University of Latvia. His
many research publications since 1985 are mainly devoted to idioms, borrowing,
Introduction
Cultures of translation
Brian James Baer
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA
e exploration of alternative, non-Western translation traditions – largely Asian but
recently African, as well – has become increasingly visible in recent years as a reaction
to hegemonic Western models of translation and the general eurocentrism of contem-
porary Translation Studies (Hung and Wakabayashi 2005, Hermans 2006, Cheung
2006, Kothari and Wakabayashi 2009, and Inggs and Meintjes 2009). And while schol-
ars like Hung and Wakabayashi are careful not to posit an essential “Asian” identity,
they nevertheless use “the West” – oen interchangeably with “Western Europe” and
even “Europe” – as though it were an unproblematic and unied identity. As the Balkan
historian Maria Todorova cautioned: “While ‘East’ has become less common recently,
this has not aected the casual usage of ‘West’” (1997: 10). And so, while studies of
alternative, non-Western traditions are crucial to the eort to “enlarge translation” and
to instill more reective practice, if we fail to problematize the “West” as an identity, we
run the risk of reconstituting the long-standing dichotomy of East-West along a post-
modern divide. Within that construct the cultures of the “East” are imagined as resist-
ing xed, restrictive identities in favor of a liberating uidity that cannot be contained
Brian James Baer
intervention in the scholarly mapping of translation in the tradition of Maria Tymoc-
zko’s
Translation in a Postcolonial Context
(1999), Anthony Pym’s
Negotiating the Fron-
tier: Translators and Interculture in Hispanic History
(2000), and Edwin Gentzler’s
Translation and Identity in the Americas
(2008), especially Chapter Two, “Multicultur
alism in the United States.” ese works do not simply challenge the hegemony of
Western models but also challenge any simple notion of Western identity itself by ex-
posing the cultural otherness within the West. e examination of the role of transla-
tion in the cultural development of Eastern Europe and Russia has much to contribute
Introduction

propose introducing the concept of Eurasia, although none of these new “mappings” is
any more stable than the others. As Christopher Lord, the editor of the collection
Central Europe: Core of Periphery?,
notes: “e shuttle of the loom of history which
was dropped in 1939 (if not in 1914) cannot just be picked up again, and the idea of a
European core that existed a hundred years ago may just be a myth. Central Europe
may not exist” (2000: 9).
However unstable the notion of Eastern Europe may be, it is inseparably linked in
the Western imagination with the element of time, “where the movement from past to
future was not merely motion but evolution from simple to complex, backward to de
veloped, primitive to cultivated. e element of time with its developmental aspect has
been an important, and nowadays the most important, characteristic of contemporary
perception of East and West” (Todorova 1997: 12). It is important to remember, how
ever, that this developmental model is of fairly recent origin, a product, according to
Wol, of the Western Enlightenment. Before that, Europe was conceived largely in
terms of North-South, not East-West, and, as Todorova points out, “Only aer the fall
of Constantinople in 1453 and the eclipse of the Orthodox Church, but especially with
the unique economic takeo of Western Europe, was East internalized also by the Or
thodox world as the less privileged of the opposition pair” (1997: 11).
Brian James Baer
cultural context in which to discuss the phenomenon of translation in Eastern Europe
and Russia. First, the construction of Eastern Europe from within a Western develop-
mental model produced the region as “backward,” a phenomenon described succinct-
ly by Norman Davies in the article “West-Best, East-Beast” (1997). is perceived
backwardness relegated the region to an imitative relationship with its more developed
neighbors to the West. Jean-Jacques Rousseau made this point in
e Social Contract
Introduction

of Foreign Books into Russian, which placed ads for translators in newspapers and
paid translators for their work.
e central role played by translated literature in Russia and throughout much of
Eastern Europe would seem to conrm Itamar Even-Zohar’s contention that transla-
tion plays a more central, modeling role in a culture’s literary polysystem “(a) when a
literature is (young), in the process of being established; (b) when a literature is either
(peripheral) (within a large group of correlated literatures) or (weak), or both; and (c)
when there are turning points, crises, or literary vacuums in a literature” (2004: 200–
201). While Even-Zohar’s generous use of quotation marks suggests a keen awareness
of the relative nature of these terms, he nevertheless avoids any discussion of the im-
plications of his proposed model, which is essentially a developmental one with a long
tradition – Rousseau, too, talks of “young” and “mature” cultures. Moreover, Even-
Zohar refrains from naming the cultural yardstick by which other literatures are as-
sessed as young, weak or lacking. For at least the past few centuries, that yardstick has
been the hegemonic Western paradigm of literature as secular narrative ction written
in the vernacular. And so, while Russia had a rich tradition of sacred writings when

For more on Levý and Popovi, see Beylard-Ozero, Králová, and Moser-Mercer 1998.
Brian James Baer
It should also be noted that the developmental model, which constructs Russia and
Eastern Europe as under-developed, aects the translation of Russian and Eastern
European literature in the West. Publishers and readers at some level seek and nd
conrmation of this model in translations that present these cultures as “quaint” or
“exotic.” As Rachel May asserts, Russian works were chosen less for their literary or
aesthetic merit, and more for the local color they oered (2000: 1205). (For more on
this, see Scholz in the present volume.) During the communist era, political consider
ations played an enormous role in selection and translation processes, and the litera
ture that was translated into Western languages was overwhelmingly that of dissident
writers. is has led some authors, most famously perhaps the Czech writer Milan
Kundera, to attempt to escape the connes of an Eastern European cultural identity, to
become “universal.” Today, Kundera writes exclusively in French and, moreover, has
refused to allow his French works to be translated “back” into his native Czech (for
more on Kundera, see Sabatos and Rubeš in this volume).
Translation and empire
A second unifying factor in the region has been the historic organization of Eastern
Introduction

newly-independent Bosnia-Herzogovina. While the title of the volume –
Album

hearkened back to a “gentler” time when literature was not the exclusive province of a
professional few and every educated amateur was expected to have a verse at hand to
write in a friend’s album, the editor’s pen name – Radko e Killer – reminded one of
the brutal realities of the more recent past. e volume contained translations into
Serbian, Croatian and the new national language of Bosnian, which to the untrained
eye was utterly indistinguishable from the other two languages. Although previously

For more on this tension, see Suleiman 1997.
Brian James Baer
Roumanians felt they were oppressed by Greeks and Greeks by Turks” (1993: vii).
On
the other hand, this multilingualism, fostered in part by the cosmopolitan nature of
empire, allowed many established writers in the region to engage in translation, which
in turn lent prestige and cultural “legitimacy” to those translated texts. Moreover, this
multilingualism did not only aect the fact of translation, it also aected the general
approach taken to the translation of foreign works. For example, Em Etkind argues
that because the Russian nineteenth century elite knew French and German, and so
were able to read the source text, there was an expectation that translations would func
tion as independent works of art, not as mere conveyors of source text content (Etkind
1968: 14). At the same time, multilingualism made possible a kind of “double
readership.”
at is, readers could and did compare the source and target texts, which
made visible the translator’s decisions and highlighted the (Russian) “dierence” – or,
in Venuti’s terms, the remainder – in the target text. Under conditions of censorship,
this fact became central to the construction of translation as a site of resistance for
many readers, whose ability to decode oppositional content allowed them to best the

When scholars dene Eastern Europe by its experience of colonial oppression, they neces-
sarily repress Eastern Europe’s own history of colonial oppression (i.e., the Commonwealth of
Poland and Lithuania).

I am adapting the term “double readership” from the term “double spectatorship” intro-
duced by Tessa Dwyer and Ioana Uricaru to describe the way lm viewers watched censored
foreign lms in communist Romania. Multilingual viewers were able to compare and contrast
the censored subtitles and the original dialogue (2009: 46).
Introduction

has intensied debates about the preservation and protection of traditional national
identity. (For more on this, see Lomele and Veisbergs in this volume.)
Translation under communism
Brian James Baer
Introduction

translating feminist texts several years ago, I learned about the importance of sensitiv-
ity to the local context as well as to the level of local debates. Literally translated, most
of these texts provoke in Czech audiences – both male and female – responses ranging
from jokes to aggression, but rarely anything positive” (1994: 281).
In section two, “Subtexts,” contributors uncover and analyze the various ways in
which politics has mediated the theory and practice of translation in Eastern Europe
and Russia. is section opens with an essay by Susanna Witt on the politics of transla-
Brian James Baer
one hand, increasingly typical of a globalized world where the Internet provides easy
access to translated texts (oen without any indication that these texts are transla
tions); this no doubt aects the norms of International English (as a great number of
these translations are into English). On the other hand, Lomele and Veisbergs’ work
shows how particularly intense is the pace and extent of such language change in “mi
nor” cultures, such as those in the Baltic region of Northern Europe. Translated Lan
guage is not a secondary, marginal phenomenon, the authors point out, it is
the
lan
Introduction

Because of that resistance, translation played a very ambivalent role in the coordinated
eorts of communist regimes in Eastern Europe to construct Roma culture in tradi-
tional nationalist terms by standardizing the language and xing the nomadic Roma
Brian James Baer
Fonseca, Isabel. 1995.
Bury Me Standing: e Gypsies and eir Journey.
New York: Vintage.
Introduction

Szegedy-Maszák, Mihály. 2001.
Literary Canons: National and International.
Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Todorova, Maria. 1997.
Imagining the Balkans
. New York: Oxford University Press.
Toury, Gideon. 1995.
Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond
. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Tymoczko, Maria. 1999.
Translation in a Postcolonial Context.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
–—. 2007.
Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Venuti, Lawrence. 2005. “Local Contingencies: Translation and National Identities.” In
Nation,
Language, and the Ethics of Translation,
edited by Sandra Bermann and Michael Wood,
 
Contexts
Shiing contexts
e boundaries of Milan Kundera’s Central Europe
Charles Sabatos
Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
Milan Kundera’s 1984 essay “e Tragedy of Central Europe” attempted to
redraw the Cold War boundaries of Europe, arguing that the “small nations”
of Central Europe were historically western, but had been “kidnapped” into an
alien eastern culture. Originally written in French as “A Kidnapped West,” the
Charles Sabatos
the Russian domination of “small nations” like Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary,
which had been “kidnapped” from the traditions of Western culture. is piece (which
Kundera wrote in French at a time when he was still writing his ction in Czech)
helped to establish him as a leading voice for the entire region by challenging the West-
ern reader’s assumptions about the immutable division of Europe into East and West.
At the same time, by promoting a transnational Central European culture across po-
litical borders, Kundera liberated his work from the narrow national context of Czech
ction and the equally restrictive context of “East European” writing in exile.
Drawing on a nostalgia for the relative tolerance of Austro-Hungarian culture re-
pressed during the Nazi and Communist periods, Kundera helped to create a new
image for the region even before the revolutions of 1989. Eorts to critique the East-
West division of Europe, and to break down Western indierence to the fate of Eastern
Europe, date back to the earliest years of the Cold War, most notably in Czesaw
Miosz’s 1951
e Captive Mind.
However, the use of the term “Central Europe” to
imply that part of Europe’s Western culture had been lost to Communist rule only
became widely accepted aer Kundera’s 1984 essay. As Kundera argues in “e Trag-
edy of Central Europe,” the “essential tragedy” of “Russia’s satellite countries” is that
“these countries have vanished from the map of the West” (1984a: 103). Although the
boundaries of his Central Europe are roughly those of the former Austro-Hungarian
Empire, he insists that “Central Europe is not a state: it’s a culture or a fate. Its borders
are imaginary and must be drawn and redrawn with each new historical situation”
(1984a: 106). He describes this fate as the “great
common situations
that reassemble
peoples, regroup them in ever new ways along the imaginary and ever-changing
boundaries that mark a realm inhabited by the same memories, the same problems
and conicts, the same common tradition” (1984a: 107). While Czech culture is clear
Shiing contexts

Charles Sabatos
spring 1984, the English translation of the essay by Edmund White (the only one of
Kundera’s translators to be a noted novelist in his own right) appeared in two journals
with two dierent titles (both based on the original French.) It appeared in
Granta
under the title “A Kidnapped West” and in the
New York Review of Books
under the
title “e Tragedy of Central Europe,” by which the piece became more commonly
known. e dierences from the French to the English are substantial enough for the
latter to be considered a revised version, and there is also a signicant variation be-
tween the two English versions. ese changes suggest that Kundera actively adapted
his most inuential essay for the Anglophone cultural context, much as he did in the
Shiing contexts

vagueness of the new borders it proposes. e Balkan historian Maria Todorova has
described Kundera’s essay as “melodramatic and, at times, outright racist but [its] sin-
cere emotional appeal, alongside its excessive reductionism, explains the attention that
it received.” She calls it “remarkable. . . that there was no mention of the Balkans what-
soever; the only opposition was Russia” (145). By taking away the familiar if conning
context of “Eastern Europe,” Kundera had moved the borders of European culture
without clearly specifying where the new boundaries were to be drawn.
One of Kundera’s key arguments in “e Tragedy of Central Europe” is that
Russians were historically seen by Central Europeans as “barbaric,” supporting his ar
gument that the latter are actually Western. In the French original, he quotes Czesaw
Miosz as calling Russians “barbarians,” but in the English version he soens this state-
ment by shortening the paragraph (the bold highlighting, added for emphasis below,
shows the lines cut from the original):
Czeslav [sic] Milosz en parle dans son livre
Une autre Europe

All translations from the French version are those of the present author.
Charles Sabatos
Central European intellectual who found exile in France, (see Cotter in the present
volume) is one of his few direct references to Romania; the English translation re-
moves this footnote and replaces it with a more general observation on Russian cul-
ture’s relationship to Western Europe.
Kundera’s treatment of Bulgaria (more closely tied to the “East” through its Ortho-
Shiing contexts

sentence, he once again refers only to “Les Polonais, les Tchèques, les Hongrois”; the
Slovaks were seemingly added specically for the English version (1983b: 10). Later, he
explains the shiing fortunes of these national histories by contrasting the height of
Czech culture in the fourteenth century when “Charles University in Prague had al-
Charles Sabatos
“Central Europeans” are those (the Czechs, the Poles, and the Hungarians) who most
actively resisted Russian domination.
Kundera not only removes or changes footnotes, but also adds ones to the English
Shiing contexts

(1983b: 39). In “e Tragedy of Central Europe,” Kundera has a similar list represent-
ing interwar Central European literature: “With the work of Ka\ra and Hašek, Prague
created the great counterpart in the novel to the work of the Viennese Musil and Broch.
. . And in Poland the great trinity of Gombrowicz, Schulz and Witkiewicz anticipated
the European modernism of the 1950s, notably the so-called theatre of the absurd”
(1984a: 105–6). In this instance, Kundera does not explicitly add himself as the heir to
this tradition (but it is notable that ve of the seven writers are identical to those in
Lainé’s list). In the English version of “e Tragedy of Central Europe,” the reference to
Pascal Lainé has disappeared. It is replaced by a far more general observation: “With
this great circle of Central European writers, with Ka\ra, Hašek, Broch, and Musil, a
Charles Sabatos

Incidentally, the essay’s translator Edmund White was a graduate of the University of
Michigan.
Shiing contexts

In and out of context: e impossibility of tracing borders
Charles Sabatos
text and its national or linguistic context. Like Kundera himself, it is neither Czech nor
Shiing contexts

Works cited
Bhabha, Homi. 1995.
e Location of Culture.
London: Routledge.
Havel, Václav. 1986.
Living in Truth.
London: Faber and Faber.
Huntington, Samuel. 1996.
e Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order.
New
York: Touchstone.
Kundera, Milan. 1983a. “Ett kidnappat västerland, eller Centraleuropas tragedi.”
Ord a Bild,
4:
–—. 1983b. “Un occident kidnappé ou la tragédie de l’Europe Centrale,”
Le Débat,
–—. 1984a. “A Kidnapped West or Culture Bows Out.”
Granta
–—. 1984b. “e Tragedy of Central Europe,”
New York Review of Books
(26 April) 33–38.
–—. 1984c.
e Unbearable Lightness of Being.
Trans. Michael Heim. New York: Harper & Row.
–—. 1984d. “Un Occident kidnappé oder Die Tragödie Zentraleuropas,”
Kommune,
–—. 1985. “Únos Západu,”
150.000 Slov
–—. 1988.
e Art of the Novel
. Trans. Linda Asher. New York: Harper & Row.
–—. 1991.
ert.
Brno: Atlantis.
–—. 2007.
e Curtain.
Trans. Linda Asher. New York: Harper Collins.
Lainé, Pascal. 1982.
Si j’ose dire: Entretiens avec Jérôme Garcin.
Paris: Mercure.
Misurella, Fred. 1993.
Understanding Milan Kundera: Public Events, Private A\rairs.
Columbia,
S.C.: University of South Carolina Press.
Neumann, Iver. 2004.
Uses of the Other: e “East” in European Identity Formation.
Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Sabatos, Charles. 2008. “Criticism and Destiny: Kundera and Havel on the Legacy of 1968.”
Europe
-Asia Studies
Todorova, Maria. 1997.
Imagining the Balkans.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1998.
e Scandals of Translation.
New York: Routledge.
Woods, Michelle. 2006.
Paths in the Fog: Translating Milan Kundera.
Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Nation and translation
Literary translation and the shaping
of modern Ukrainian culture

e move of these questions to the forefront of scholarly attention is associated with the
inuential collection
Translation, History and Culture
Union and Eastern Europe have so far received relatively limited attention (although
we are fortunate to have Maurice Friedberg’s 1997 monograph,
Literary Translation in
Russia: A Cultural History
). is relative lack of attention is all the more surprising
since in the national cultures of Eastern Europe, as in many other vernacular literary
traditions, the role of translation is hard to overestimate. My focus in the present essay
will be on Ukraine, an East European nation that, despite its considerable size and
population, is still in many respects a cultural
terra incognita
for most Westerners.
It has been argued that even among its fellow Slavic and East European nations
Ukraine stands out due to the extent to which literary translation has played a pivotal
role in shaping its modern national identity. Although vernacular translation stood at
the root of many national literary traditions, the case of Ukraine, as the Ukrainian
scholar and translator Maksym Strikha argues in his tellingly titled recent monograph
Ukraïns’kyi khudozhnii pereklad: Mizh literaturoiu i natsiietvorenniam
(Ukrainian Lit-

In the main text of the article, the commonly used English transliterations of Ukrainian and
Russian authors’ names are provided; however, in the bibliography, the Library of Congress
transliteration is used so that readers may consult library database records.
Nation and translation

and Kwame Anthony Appiah to the numerous recent monograph and collections, fo-
cuses on translations into English and other Western languages.
However, when one


See Schwartz 1964, and Kenan 2002, esp. 164–66.

Quoted in Venuti 2005: 194.

Quoted in Venuti 2005: 198.
Nation and translation

making the texts transparently accessible, their foreignness minimized and made in-
visible. ese two key gures of Catalan literary translation thus epitomize the experi-
mental and the smoothing-down approaches to their project, and their choices stem
from the specic historical, political, and social contexts they were facing. As we shall
see shortly, in the case of Ukraine some of the choices made in the service of develop-
ing and enriching the national cultural identity were no less diverse, indeed to the
point of mutual contradiction.
Nation and translation

they also reinforced the stereotype of Ukrainian as a “crude,” comedic language.
ese translations, like Ievhen Hrebinka’s translation of Pushkin’s narrative poem
Poltava
published in 1836, would be viewed quite negatively by many representatives
of later generations of Ukrainian translators and critics, but there have also been at
tempts to reclaim them, and Strikha appears to be in solidarity with these eorts,
arguing that to appreciate these travestied translations one needs to bear in mind

Quoted in Venuti 2005: 187.
In Shevchenko’s œuvre, translations proper occupy a relatively small part (into
this category we might include his verse renditions of several Psalms and other pas-
sages from the Bible, as well as fragments of the Medieval Russian epic
e Tale of Igor’s
Campaign
). However, translation projects occupied a central role in the work of

Quoted in Strikha 2006: 10. All translations from the Ukrainian are mine unless noted
otherwise (VC).

For more on these bans and their consequences, see Savchenko 1970, Miller 2003, and
Chapters I and II of Shevelov 1989.
Nation and translation

Kulish launched what Strikha terms the “baroque” approach to translation, which em-
phasizes experimentation with vocabulary and style over smooth readability (2006: 91).
is approach, however, was not in tune with the prevailing tastes of its era, and in the
posthumous edition of other Shakespeare’s plays translated by Kulish serialized in

Nation and translation

translators now turned to scholarly texts in the humanities, social, and natural sci-
ences, and in the liberal conditions of Austrian rule in Galicia, book editions of trans-
lations, by the early 1900s, ranged from Shakespeare and Dante to Marx and Engels, to
Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Chekhov, and to Hugo, Zola, and Maupassant (Strikha 95).
e bibliography of translations by Ivan Franko alone, Western Ukraine’s leading liter
ary gure of that era, runs to dozens of pages. Additionally, theater companies began
staging Ukrainian-language translations of foreign plays, such as Gogol’s
Government
Inspector
, Rostand’s
Cyrano de Bergerac
, the plays of Hauptmann, and Ukrainian-lan-
guage versions of such operas as Verdi’s
Traviata
, Mascagni’s
Cavalleria rusticana

Quoted in Strikha 123.
during the reoccupation of a portion of Galicia in 1916, the ban on education and pub
lications in Ukrainian was not reintroduced, and the Russian authorities even brought
in Ukrainian textbooks published in Russia before the war – while the ban on them re
mained in force on the territory of the Russian Empire (see Shevelov 1989: 21, 56–58).

Nation and translation

13.

Quoted in Strikha 199.
from the French, most notably of Maupassant and Anatole France, two authors who
also exercised considerable inuence on Pidmohyl’nyi’s own writing. Other notable
achievements singled out by Strikha include the translations of Hesiod and Aristo-
Nation and translation

Nation and translation

only its future but also its past, and to reinvigorate those language and style tradi
tions within Ukrainian literature that did attempt to develop but did not succeed in
Nation and translation

dedicate signicant amounts of energy to translation activities. Both in their choice
of texts and in their approach to translation they have continued the work of their
Works cited
Aheieva, Vira. 2006.
Poetyka paradoksa: Intelektual’na proza Viktora Petrova-Domontovycha
Kyiv: Fakt, 2006.
Andrukhovych, Iurii. 2006.
Den’ smerti pani Den’: Amerykans’ka poeziia 1950–60-kh rokiv u
perekladakh Iuriia Andrukhovycha
. Kharkiv: Folio.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2004. “ick Translation.” In
e Translation Studies Reader
, 2nd ed.,
edited by Lawrence Venuti, 389–401. New York: Routledge
Nation and translation

Toury, Gideon. 1995.
Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond
. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Tymoczko, Maria. 1999.
Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in English
Translation
. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Venuti, Lawrence. 2005. “Local Contingencies: Translation and National Identities.” In
Nation,
Language, and the Ethics of Translation
, edited by Sandra Bermann and Michael Wood,
Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator
and the protean Russian nation
David L. Cooper
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
e obsessive concern in Russian literary criticism with the national qualities
of Russian literature in the second third of the nineteenth century has been
traced in Russian literary historiography back into the 1820s and the debates
over romanticism and
narodnost’
(national originality)
But the subject was
broached publicly in the 1810s in debates that concerned translations as original
and markedly Russian works of literature. While translation came to be seen as
inimical to
narodnost’

For a summary of the polemics see Mordovchenko (1959: 148–52). For the repercussions
of this polemics in the 1820s and beyond see Tynianov (1969: 36–45).
David L. Cooper

For summaries of the debates see Egunov (2001: 157) and Burgi (1954: 107–17).
Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation

August Wilhelm Schlegel observed that “other nations have adopted a totally conven-

As Berman shows, however, for the Jena romantics this opening to the Other was limited,
as they sought primarily reections of their own concerns and idealist visions in the “universal

David L. Cooper
e formation of Zhukovskii’s practice

For the translation activities of Andrei Turgenev and Zhukovskii at the time see Veselovskii


Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation

in the appropriative act of taking another’s words without marking them as belong
ing to another there is an eacement of the Other reminiscent of the French classicist
deformations.

Vinitskii’s reading of Turgenev’s translation is followed by an equally nuanced reading of

For an analysis see Toporov (1981: 207–86).
David L. Cooper
I draw upon the work of the Czech translation scholar Jií Levý, specically his book
Czech Translation eories
, but similar discussions are easily found elsewhere, such as
in Maurice Friedberg’s cultural history of literary translation in Russia (Friedberg
Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation

(71–73). Romantic translators in some sense tried to do away with any resistance in the

Levý outlines certain tendencies that are characteristic of the classicist and romantic his-
torical period and abstracts these into two coherent modes that can be used for analysis. But
actual practices in these periods varied and any of the dening characteristics of the romantic or
classicist mode could easily be found in the other historical period. In what follows, then, I refer

Levý quotes the aphorism with the following lead-in, “Zhukovskii expresses the opinion of
the entire epoch [of classicism] with his aphorism” (1957: 71).
David L. Cooper

Levin’s chapter on Zhukovskii as a translator was instrumental in enabling me to formulate
an alternative framework for understanding Zhukovskii’s ideas as a translator. But Levin himself
works hard to read Zhukovskii as a romantic translator whose apparent classicist trappings are

Levý notes the “inuence of romantic ideology on the fundamental classicist theses” in this
period in Czech literature, but does not analyze the nature and specics of this hybridization
(1957: 95). One should be careful not to reify the “classical” and “romantic” categories too dog-
matically in any case in such an analysis, for exceptions to Levý’s generalizations are not hard to
nd. For example, August Wilhelm Schlegel insisted on the necessity of translating Shakespeare’s
Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation

ballad. Nikolai Gnedich responded to Katenin’s implied polemics with a spirited de-
14.


We should note here the dierence from Novalis’s evaluation of A. W. Schlegel’s translation.
In Berman’s analysis, Novalis’s judgment is not based on any comparison with the original or
any nationalist pride, but the simple fact that Schlegel’s Shakepeare
a translation, a self-con-
David L. Cooper
of Psalm 143 (144 in the English bible).
e goal of this competition, however, was


Contemporary verse studies would agree with Trediakovskii that there is no inherent se-
Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation


We should note what a strange attempt at the Russianization of a German ballad Zhuk-
David L. Cooper

Note that Trediakovskii no longer believes that high verse genres can accept multiple verse
forms, as he argued in the 1744 debate.
Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation

Tilemakhida
was given a new relevance. Uvarov draws heavily on Trediakovskii in or
der to highlight the lack of resistance in the Russian language to the forms of Greek

Uvarov makes use here of a mythological picture of Russian youth in opposition to French
age that would become prominent in Slavophile writings.
21.

Zhukovskii rst read the novel in the fall of 1816, that is, in the midst of the debates on the
David L. Cooper
taken as evidence of his conversion to a more romantic conception of translation,
though Maurice Friedberg skeptically refers to Zhukovskii’s “alleged conversion to the

Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation

Russian in its essence (Cooper 2004: ch. 3). In its extreme form, the resistance to
hybridization led to prominent judgments that rejected all of Russian literary and
cultural development, and especially the culture of the eighteenth century. Exam

For Polevoi on Zhukovskii’s lack of
narodnost’
see Veselovskii (1999: 27–28).
David L. Cooper
hardly be read within the “classicist” scheme. He seems, rather, to be attempting to
24.

New, perhaps, only in the Russian context. Friedrich Schlegel had suggested that “in order
to translate perfectly the ancient into the modern, the translator would have to have such mas-
tery of the latter as to be able to make everything modern; but at the same time he would have
to understand antiquity so well that he would be able not just to imitate it but, if necessary, to
re-create it” (Berman 1992:
107). And Novalis’s evaluation of A. W. Schlegel’s Shakespeare in-
volves a similar judgment concerning the potentiating function of translation.
Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation

strange: in Europe they did not appreciate it; at fault in part is lack of a translation that
would artistically transmit the supreme work of antiquity; in part lack of a language
rich and full to such a degree that all the innumerable and elusive beauties of Homer
himself and of the Hellenic language in general would be reected; in part, nally, lack
of a nation itself gied to such a degree with the purity of virginal taste necessary in
order to feel Homer” (1978: 6:204). e Russians had known at least since the time of
Trediakovskii and Lomonosov that the Russian language was equal to the Hellenic one,
and Zhukovskii had now provided a more-than-adequate translation – or at least half
25.

For Zhukovskii’s expectations see Veselovskii (1999: 349, 351, 354).
David L. Cooper
sees the mission of the Russian nation to be the renement and perfection of the ideas
and creations of other nations.
Gogol also further develops the paradoxical aspects of the nature of Zhukovskii’s
translations. In the article on the
Odyssey
, Gogol had emphasized the translation as a
window to the original author and his milieu. Now he adds the opposite side to that
coin as well: Zhukovskii in his translations gives us at the same time a clear picture of

Here, too, this new mission for the Russian nation reects ideas developed by the German
romantics (Berman 1992:
11–12 and passim). Such observations in no way contradict the origi-
nality of Gogol’s formulation and contribution. e German idea of the protean nation had been
available to Russian writers and critics for a long time before Gogol found a way to convinc-
ingly argue that it was characteristic of the Russian nation, and thus to give the idea to the Rus-
sians as one of their own.
Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation

27.

I do not suggest here that Gogol was reading Somov in the 1840s, but rather that Somov

David L. Cooper
nationality (
natsional’nost’
) and understood them in their own way. Even with
Shakespeare his Italians, for example, remain almost entirely Englishmen. Push-
29.

In fact, Dostoevskii here contradicts what Pushkin himself said in another note on
Romeo
and Juliet
Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation


See, for example, the recent volume edited by Loredo and Perteghella.
David L. Cooper
protean nation takes the role that translation denitely played in the formation of a
recognizably Russian national literature and elevates it to the status of the cultural mis-
sion of the Russian nation. At the same time, it is abundantly clear that the opening to
the Other that constitutes true translation is not at all necessary to Dostoevskii’s ver
Vasilii Zhukovskii as translator and the protean Russian nation

Tynianov, Iurii N. 1969. “Arkhaisty i Pushkin.” In
Pushkin i ego sovremenniki,
23–121. Moscow:
Nauka.
Romania as Europe’s translator
Translation in Constantin Noica’s
national imagination
Sean Cotter
University of Texas at Dallas, USA
Constantin Noica’s philosophy is prominent in multiple domains in Romania,
Sean Cotter
country constantly faces the practical need for translation in order to be understood
abroad and to digest major cultural texts at home. Examining practices and rhetorics of
translation, therefore, places our attention on the central ambivalences of the minor
national imagination, the desire for both national particularity and international recog
nition, the pragmatic engagement with major cultures from a position of political
weakness, the combination of superiority and inferiority Paul Cernat has called “the
periphery complex” (2007). e study of translation demonstrates the extent to which
a minor national imagination is, by necessity, an international imagination.
Nowhere are the paradoxes of an international imagination more apparent than in
the work of the Romanian philosopher of language and culture, Constantin Noica
(1909–1987). is claim would seem strange to most of his readers as Noica is known
for his insistence on the particular utility of the Romanian language to the philosophy
of being, his over-riding concern with the fate of Romania, his devotion to Romania’s

All translations are my own.
Romania as Europe’s translator

and remained in the country from 1944 to 1958. Noica makes only rare references to
Sean Cotter
in this sense, is not a Noican. In 1972, according to Monica Lovinescu, Noica tells a
group of Romanians in Paris:
Romania as Europe’s translator

his interactions with this family, Noica learns English very well, and he pursues a series
of translations from English literature, including Cecil Day Lewis’s autobiography,
Charles Dickens’
Bleak House
, and H. G. Wells’
e Invisible Man.
With the occupation
Sean Cotter
“aici în Occident sunte\bi în exactitate, dar nu sunte\bi in adev\tr” p\treau provoc\tri
gratuite care, dat\t ind urgen\ba ac\biunii, erau inoperante fa\b\t de realitate.]
(Stolojan 2006: 132)
Stolojan, who would become president of the League for the Protection of Human
Rights in Romania, found it dicult to persuade her old friend to take up Western
ideas about Romania. Noica pitches his arguments too abstractly, impractically; he
seemingly out of touch with the diaspora in Paris. He does not address specic condi-
tions or policies, rather he criticizes the West in broad, moralistic terms and speaks of
the possibilities of Romania, even under Ceau\nescu. He seems unwilling to engage the
Romania as Europe’s translator

Scholars who have recognized the importance of translation to Noica tend not to
Sean Cotter

Translations. For scientic prose, literary criticism, and prose, they are enough.

e lack of culture that translations have brought to us, avoiding languages and
the study of other cultures...

I myself have translated and fought, against others, for translations. But as exer
cises in themselves and in the language, not to satisfy higher cultural needs.

Forced
to learn other languages, as we were, we beneted and brought benet to
our culture.

[Traducerile. Pentru proz\t \ntiin\bic\t, critic\t \ni proz\t sînt suciente. Pentru poezie
\ni lozoe, nu.

Incultura pe care au adus-o la noi traducerile, scutind de limbi \ni de investiga\bia
altor culturi...

Am tradus eu însumi \ni militat, contra altora, pentru traduceri. Dar pentru exerci\biu
în sine \ni pentru limb\t, nu pentru satisfacerea nevoilor culturale mai înalte.

Sili\ni
s\t înv\t\b\tm alte limbi, cum eram, am fost în cî\ntig \ni am adus un cî\ntig culturii
noastre.] (Noica 1991: 257)
Neither of these passages presents translations themselves in a favorable light; in fact,
they work to encourage the young man’s “minor crisis” while frustrating its resolution.
Rather, the practice of translation benets those Romanians who translate, because it
functions as a form of research into other cultures and as a language practice. As he
tells his P\tltini\n student, Gabriel Liiceanu, who is struggling with a translation from
Heidegger, “hermeneutica începe o dat\t cu actul traducerii” (hermeneutics begins at
the same time as the act of translation): the act of translation, that is, not reading a
translation (Liiceanu 1998: 69). us, if translation has a benet, it benets the transla-
tor alone. Its eects on the translation’s audience are either dubious or, at best, outside
the philosopher’s consideration.
Romania as Europe’s translator

Sean Cotter
In fact, the reliance on translations is a reason to criticize the reader, as Noica does
with the young man who wants to study philosophy. By positioning Europe as the
audience of Romania’s translations, Noica is not oering to help Europe. On the con-
Romania as Europe’s translator

Noica simply repeats the same Romanian word for both “bastard” and “idiot,” ignoring
the second English meaning of illegitimate:

Cl\tte\nte-ma! Cl\tte\nte-ma! Tâmpitule!

Cine-i tâmpit? întreb\t maiorul, xând cu ochi umezi adunarea – T\tcere. Ni-
meni, se pare, nu spusese maiorului c-a e un tâmpit. (Noica 1938: 103).

Rinse me! Rinse me! You idiot!

Who’s an idiot? asked the Major, xing the group with watery eyes – Silence. No
one, it seemed, had told the Major he was an idiot.]
ere are very few moments in which one might suspect that Noica does not under
stand the original, especially since his preface to this translation species the involve-
ment of his wife, a native speaker. It seems instead that he engaged more seriously with
other aspects of the text in translation. While Lewis’s book uses puns to important ef-
fect, Noica’s book does not. is dierence points toward the perspective Noica takes
in his translation.
Noica is interested by the central argument of Lewis’s book: the War created a new
kind of world, and at the same time, a new kind of person, exemplied by Lewis and
his generation. Lewis’s book is a rst-person account of his early ying years, begin-
ning with his under-age entry into the Royal Air Force at 17, continuing through his
wartime stations at the front and in the defense London, and ending with the two years
he spent in China, aer the war, as a ying instructor. e book excels in presenting
the intellectual and emotional life of a young pilot in a young profession. Descriptions
of his duties as a pilot are interspersed with political and sociological reection. e
most powerful sequences are of two kinds: those describing the experience of ight,
Sean Cotter
Romania as Europe’s translator

call them people?) that are clearly less worthy than them. While Lewis’s phrase might
suggest a certain condescension on the pilot’s part, a double meaning that gently
ironizes his attitude, Noica’s choice is clear. He removes any self-awareness in Lewis’s
voice, leaving him to baldly call those on the ground “inferior.” As the translation con-
Sean Cotter
Romania as Europe’s translator

Sean Cotter
Romania as Europe’s translator

Works cited
Cernat, Paul (2007),
Avangarda româneasc\t \bi complexul periferiei
(Bucharest: Cartea
Româneasc\t).
Dur, Ion (1994),
Noica – între dandysm \bi mitul \bcolii
(Editura Eminescu).
Lewis, Cecil Day (2006),
Sagittarius Rising
(St. Paul, MN: MBI Publishing).
Liiceanu, Gabriel (1998),
Jurnalul de la P\ttini\b
(Bucharest, Romania: Humanitas).
Noica, Constantin (1991),
Jurnal de idei
(Bucharest: Humanitas).
–— (1995),
Modelul Cantemir în cultura noastr\t
(Bucharest: Editura Athena).
Noica, Constantin, trans. (1938),
In zodia s\tget\ttorului
by Cecil Day Lewis (Bucharest: Funda\bia
pentru literatur\t \ni art\t “Regele Carol II”).
Stolojan, Sanda (2006),
Sub semnul dep\trt\trii: coresponden\na Constantin Noica – Sanda Stolojan
(Bucharest: Humanitas).
T\tnase, Stelian (2003),
Anatomia Mistic\trii
(Bucharest: Humanitas).
Verdery, Katherine (1991),
National Ideology under Socialism: Identity and Cultural Politics in
Ceau\bescu’s Romania
Translating India, constructing self
Konstantin Bal’mont’s India as image
and ideal in Fin-de-siècle Russia
Susmita Sundaram
Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, USA
is article explores the translation activity of the Russian Silver Age symbolist
Susmita Sundaram
Translating India, constructing self

unable to provide a harmonious and upliing experience for the viewers. Elsewhere
Susmita Sundaram
Allen Poe and Walt Whitman, and some works of the Czech writer Iaroslav Vrkhlitskii,
to name but a few.
Bal’mont’s translations go well beyond the borders of European lit
erature. He was the rst to translate into Russian the medieval Georgian epic of Shota
Rustaveli,
e Knight in the Panther’s Skin,
as well as the Mayan epic
Popol Vuh,
long
before anything comparable existed in English, in addition to Bulgarian, Serbian and
Translating India, constructing self


much more interesting and worthy of translation than the Greeks and the Ro-
mans.” (Bongard-Levin 14)
Notably, Bal’mont made the choice to stand apart from his Eurocentric milieu and
redene for himself and for Russia the canon to be translated. e current study looks
at Bal’mont’s translations of Indian texts – specically, of
Sakuntala –
in order to assess

e Sabashnikovs’ publishing house was established in 1891 and functioned until 1930,
when it was renamed. e most famous of their series are:
Pamiatniki mirovoi literatury, Zapisi
proshlogo
, and others. As Andreeva-Bal’mont notes, “e series
Pamiatniki mirovoi literatury
was conceived as a collection of the best works of world literature in their best Russian transla-
tions and included sections such as “Writers from Antiquity,” “Creations of the East,” “Books of

Susmita Sundaram
see,” the writer expresses concern at the Europeans who do not value the harmonious
in the human soul and, therefore, show theater-goers creations characterized by
bezo
bráznost’
(ugly chaos) and
bezóbraznost’
(facelessness). Unable to present anything
new, theaters recycled “
krovavo-zhalkoe star’e
” (
pitiful
old stu\r
) at the center of which
lay problems that had long been resolved and were thus of no relevance to the contem-
porary viewing public.
One outcome of this dissatisfaction with contemporary theater was the large num-
ber of original plays written by the Russian Symbolists. In what Michael Green denes

Even though Bal’mont does not explicate the model of this type of theater in a separate es-
say, his numerous references allow the critic to extrapolate one.

Bal’mont gave several speeches in theaters prior to the performance of the plays he trans-
lated.
Translating India, constructing self



He is most likely referring to the
Upanishads


Susmita Sundaram
Voice of Silence
(which Bal’mont wrongly characterizes as a typical work of Indian
Wisdom, although Blavatsky did borrow heavily from the
Upanishads
). Bal’mont re-
Translating India, constructing self

Wouldst thou the young year’s blossoms and the fruits of its decline,
And all by which the soul is charmed, enraptured, feasted, fed?
Wouldst thou the earth and heaven itself in one sole name combine?
I name thee, O
Sakuntala
! and all at once is said. (apar 242)
Schlegel noted in
Sakuntala
’s structure, a “striking resemblance to our romantic dra-
ma” (quoted in apar 223). Alexander von Humboldt wrote that as a contemporary
of Virgil and Horace, Kalidasa’s “[T]enderness in the expression of feeling; and rich-

Karamzin used the German translation of Georg Forster. e four Acts translated by
Karamzin were republished in 1802 and 1818.
Susmita Sundaram
Translating India, constructing self


(Putiata 1). e Russian translator’s choice of
Sakuntala
was motivated by the fact
that it had received praise and acceptance from notable European writers and phi


A.W.Ryder.
Kalidasa
Translation of
Sakuntala
and Other Works.
London: 1912. (Bongard-
Levin 569)
Susmita Sundaram
Bal’mont wrote to Sabashnikov that he considered Kalidasa’s masterpiece exceptional:
“I am re-reading Kalidasa’s
Sakuntala
, and if I had always liked it previously, now, aer
a closer encounter with India, I am fascinated by it. I will be truly delighted to
render it into Russian” (Bongard-Levin 552).
Valerii Briusov placed Kalidasa alongside

Laurence Senelick mistakenly attributes Briusov’s awareness of
Kalidasa
to the play
Vas-
antasena
Translating India, constructing self

most accurate conclusion, and would have placed Kalidasa in rst place as the

Scriabin is one among Bal’mont’s pantheon of “Indian” artists; others include William
Blake, Shelley St. Teresa and Aksakov
Susmita Sundaram
of
Sakuntala
for its premiere. Tairov, who had distanced himself from the “trite realism”
of Stanislavsky’s Moscow Art eater, wrote that, “tradition, which jealously guarded
the approaches to every other classical work, did not lie in wait for us in this one; and
Translating India, constructing self

Bal’mont’s translations of
Sakuntala
and Kalidasa’s other two dramas when pub
lished in 1916 were accompanied by an Introductory essay by the well-known Russian
Orientalist Sergei Ol’denburg, whose name was specically suggested by the poet to
Sabashnikov. Ol’denburg, who was the permanent secretary of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, was also the author of popular articles on Asia and had translated several clas
sical works from both western and eastern literature. e French Indologist Sylvain
Leví knew Ol’denburg as did many leading Russian writers, among whom were Gor’kii,
Korolenko, Belyi and Blok. Bal’mont was clearly relieved and greatly encouraged when
Ol’denburg agreed to provide the introduction to his volume of Kalidasa’s translations.
e academic rightly noted Bal’mont’s great service to the Russian reading public
in doing these translations. Unlike Briusov, who had by this time fallen out with
Bal’mont and was critical of Bal’mont’s translations, Ol’denburg took a more compre-
Susmita Sundaram
sophistication as he lives in a “rened world” (
utonchennyi mir)
of subtle correspon-
Translating India, constructing self


he was also a champion of the concept of world culture and
Weltliteratur
in the

Susmita Sundaram
–—. 1908. “
Taina odinochestva i smerti: O tvorchestve Meterlinka
.” In
Belye Zarnitsy
Mysli i
vpechatleniia
Translating India, constructing self

Rudnitsky, Konstantin. 1988.
Russian and Soviet eatre: Traditions and the Avant-garde
, edited
by Lesley Milne, trans. Roxane Permar. London: ames and Hudson.
“Sakuntala, indiiskaia drama deistviia 1,2,3,4.”
Syn Otechestva
Shelley, Percy. 2002.
Shelley’s Poetry and Prose.
Edited and selected by D. Reiman, and N. Fraist-
New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.
e water of life
Resuscitating Russian avant-garde authors
in Croatian and Serbian translations
Sibelan Forrester
Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, USA
is article examines the practice and signicance of several Croatian and

anks to David J. Birnbaum, Wayles Browne, and Marina Rojavin for comments and sug-
gestions, to Josip Uarevi for generous help obtaining materials and a constant scholarly ex-
Sibelan Forrester
Church Slavic. Aer the First World War, the new state of Yugoslavia (especially the
traditionally Orthodox regions of Serbia and Montenegro) welcomed many Russian
émigrés and refugees aer the 1917 revolution, and the capital, Belgrade, became a
regional center of Russian émigré life and culture. Aer the Second World War, exist-
ing historical and linguistic connections were bolstered by the lively intellectual and
political discourse, both spontaneous and cultivated, among fellow socialist countries.
Moreover, each phase of Russian inuence continued into later historical periods:
Danilo Kiš gratefully mentions the broadly-educated and capable Russian émigrés,
former White Army ocers, who taught at his high school in Montenegro rather than
leaving the new socialist Yugoslavia aer WWII.
Despite Tito’s famous break with
Stalin in 1948, Russian was not summarily dropped from school curricula; teachers
and textbooks remained in place. Yugoslavs who attended provincial secondary
schools that oered only one modern foreign language were especially likely to arrive
at university with Russian. (Knowledge of Russian among students from the Yugoslav
provinces forms an interesting parallel with the Russian futurists, whose provincial
origins, were noted by Vladimir Markov (Markov 1968: 14.) e way students applied
to universities in Yugoslavia strongly encouraged any who enrolled to study literature
to continue working in language(s) they already knew, and so language education
policy in any one decade had long-lasting consequences.
Many Yugoslavs saw their country as a cultural mediator, perhaps by analogy to its

See note 19.

Students in then-Yugoslavia, like many in Europe, applied, were admitted, and matriculat-
ed directly into the department of study, so the only way to begin studying a new language as
part of one’s major subject was to enroll in a program such as comparative literature – as, indeed,
did two of the translators examined here.

Dubravka Ugreši,
Fording the Stream of Consciousness,
trans. Michael Henry Heim (Evan-
ston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1993).
e water of life

from English:
all genres

15 (~0.6)

11 (~0.7)
from French:
all genres

11 (~0.44)

14 (~0.9)
from German:
all genres

15 (~0.6)

11 (~0.7)
from Italian:
all genres

77 (~4.8)

23 (~.92)

11 (~.94)
from Russian:
all genres

58 (~3.6)

32 (~1.25)

7 (~0.44)

Data taken from Dragojevi and Cacan (1988), whose format makes it easy to break the
data down by year. Books listed include both anthologies and works by individual authors.
While information on translations published at the time in Serbia or Bosnia/Hercegovina, not
to mention Slovenia or Macedonia, might show dierent patterns – the strong showing of Italian

Data for translations from English include authors from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. Data for translations from German include authors from Austria and
Germany (not Switzerland; this may lead to some underreporting).
Sibelan Forrester
ese gures suggest several trends: a signicant increase in translation from English,
a less signicant decrease in translation from French and German, as Italian holds

As Boris Pasternak famously comments in “   ­,” aer his death Majak-
ovskij began to be cultivated forcibly, like potatoes under Catherine the Great, a second death
and one for which he was not culpable [my paraphrase – SF].
e water of life



Sever also contributed translations of Majakovskij to several earlier publications.
Sibelan Forrester
‹˜,/™›‡ƒ­, ‡ƒ‡ “žƒ‹!”” acquires a plural addressee in Sever’s “Ušla si ti,/oštra ko ‘evo
vam!’”), but distortion of language norms creates a parallel feeling of “‚‹™ƒ  .”
Estrangement begins with use of the work’s preliminary title, rather than the one fa-
miliar to every reader of Majakovskij; this (like many elements of the book) hews to
e water of life

in then-Yugoslavia. Sever chooses an “overplayed” ocial writer, Majakovskij, though
the relationship originated in the less suspicious period of his high-school language
study and student visits abroad, and he concentrates on Majakovskij’s early, non-Soviet
poems, working to redeem the poet from misuse by Soviet ideologues. Resuscitation
means not just the generally Frankensteinian practice of translation, reviving authors
who were buried by repression and censorship but also attention to writers like Majak
ovskij who were deadened by ocial approval.
Trinaesti apostol,
published in 1982, was
still available for sale in Zagreb book shops ve years later, when rampant ination had
made it extremely inexpensive: readers in Croatia were not lining up or trading favors
to get hold of this edition, as readers in the USSR did even for censored Soviet editions
of Mandelstam or Bulgakov printed in the 1980s. Nevertheless, Sever’s selection and

Works by Kiš such as
Garden, Ashes
Bašta, pepeo
, 1965) have strong autobiographical ele-
ments, while the best known in the west for many years,
A Tomb for Boris Davidovich
Grobnica
za Borisa Davidovica,
1976], presents tragic (but also, oen, darkly comic) stories of the victims
of communism in Europe, most of them Jews.

Kiš,
Bašta, pepeo
, 1965: 224–25, esp: “Odmah [....] poeo sam da padam vrtoglavo u dubi-
nu, i to nije bio san. U meni je treperio neki velianstveni, sveobuhvatni ritam, a rei su mi
izlazile na usta kao medijumu koji progovara na hebrejskom. [...] Izbezumljen od straha, sedeo
sam još neko vreme zgren na sanduku, zatim saopštih svojoj majci glasom slomljenim od
uzbuŸenja: ‘Napisao sam jednu pesmu’” [At once [...] I began to fall headlong into the depths,
and it was not a dream. Some grandiose, all-encompassing rhythm began to tremble in me, and
words came to my lips as if to a medium who begins to speak in Hebrew. [...] Mad with fear, I sat
for a while longer cringing on the trunk, then I informed my mother in a voice broken from
excitement, “I’ve written a poem” (225).


Sibelan Forrester
Kiš’s attitude towards Russia and the USSR was complex. It emerges strongly in
Grobnica za Borisa Davidovia
[A Tomb for Boris Davidovi
, whose title story depicts

In English see Danilo Kiš,
A Tomb for Boris Davidovich,
trans Duška Miki-Mitchell
(New York: Penguin, 1980).


See “Iz ‘poeme kraja,’ in Kiš,
  
, 240–43, especially 242–3.
e water of life


Zaverenike: vrste, daljine...
«ƒ¬ˆ™®‡ˆ: ˆ™‚‹˜, ƒ...
Nisu nas rastrojili – samo su nas smutili.
ž ™ƒ‚‹™ – ™ƒ‚‹™­.
Po estarima zemljine širine
¡ ‹™¦®†ƒ„ ›„ ˜Œ ‰™‹
Nas su, kao siroie, raz-putili.
¤ƒ‚‚ˆƒ  ƒ‚ ‡ƒ‡ ‚™‹.
Koji je ve – koji – zar kraj marta?!
¯‹™˜© ¦,  ¦ ‡‹™˜© – „ƒ™‹?!
Razbili su nas – kao špil karata!
¤ƒ›†  ƒ‚ – ‡ƒ‡ ‡¦ ‡ƒ™‹!

(24. mart 1925)
To B. Pasternak
Dis-stance: vyorsts, miles...
Dis—stance: vyorsts, miles...
[ey] dis-placed us, sup-planted,
[ey] dis—placed us, sup—planted,
14.

Kiš 1992: 244.
Sibelan Forrester
e poem’s regularity requires enough gymnastics from Kiš to provoke numerous dif
ferences between original and translation. He is careful to keep punctuation, ellipsis
points, dashes and hyphens, as well as the broken line in the third stanza. One great
formal dierence, however, is immediately visible, a missing line in the second stanza.
Where the Russian gives four verbs over two lines, “™ƒ‚‡, ™ƒ‚ƒ­,” [unglued,
unsoldered] and “™ƒ›ˆ, ™ƒ‚­ˆ” [separated, having crucied], the single line in
Serbian has only “razlepili, razlemili” [unglued, unsoldered], leaving out the other two
verbs. e Russian “™ƒ›ˆ” could suggest that the poets divorced aer being married
(and were not just siblings, as the recurring reference to orphanhood implies), while

ough Kiš’s writing oen dwells on Jewish characters and his Jewish (father’s) family’s fate,
in his last testament he asked to be buried in the Orthodox rite of his mother’s family. See
http://www.kis.org.yu/biograja.ht&#xh19t;t1;�p:/;&#x/w-1;w-1;w73;&#x.k-4;&#xi3s.;&#xo12r;g-3;&#x.yu/;଒i;&#xog-5;&#xra91;j-3; .h1; t-5;&#xm000;m, consulted 10-28-2008.

Kirshova 2001: 309.
e water of life

rhyme with the following line’s “ko orlove,” but adding the preposition “Uz” and mak-
17.

Ibid.

Kiš wrote, “U gimnaziji sam nastavio da pišem pesme i da prevodim maŸarske, ruske i
francuske pesnike, u prvom redu radi stilske i jezike vebe; spremao sam se za pesnika i

From
e Review of Contemporary Fiction,
Spring 1994, 14.1, cited from http://www.cen-
terforbookculture.org/interviews/interview_kis.htm l, consulted 4-7-2008. See note 2.

Sibelan Forrester

See Vrkljan,
e Silk, the Shears,

Brodsky, “Footnote to a Poem.”


Ibid

e water of life


isolation, its necessity and the pain caused by taking steps to ensure it, was a sore point
25.

Ibid

e exception is the four-line stanza VIII, lines 161–65, where the second and fourth lines
rhyme on “drug” and “Zvuk.”
27.

Hawkesworth comments on Vrkljan’s suggestion, later in
Marina,
that “the consciousness
is a kaleidoscope of associations with events and people” (226).

Sibelan Forrester
own childhood.
28.


Vrkljan 1999: 84–87, 93–94.
e water of life



is “Harms Case” is apparently not related to the Yugoslav movie of the same title that
came out in 1987.

Sibelan Forrester
approach (with reference to traditional narration)? Or has everyday life, perhaps (I
don’t dare say this out loud), begun to resemble that in Harms’s stories?”
e epistolary genre suits this game of doling out information, presuming its new-
ness for both editor and reader, while hinting at an amusingly unlikely “absurd” plot in
which ostage violence is obliquely mentioned. ough we see only one side of the
correspondence, readers can feel that they are seeing the “real” author in communica-

“Pitam se da li mladi imitiraju Harmsa zato što je pogodan za imitiranje (kratka pria po
strukturi bliska vicu) ili su prisvoili njegov destruktivan (u odnosu na tradicionalno pripove-
danje) stav? ” (215)
32.

e water of life


known as original writers, their other work claries the role of the translation, why
they chose or warmed to
this
author, and how their choice of author and original work


Ciepiela commented (in a personal communication) that the introduction is one of her
favorite publications precisely because of the complex messages enabled by the timing of its ap-
pearance. e print run was only 500 copies; this could be due to many possible causes: provin-
cial publishing realities, the time’s economic diculties, distraction by politics, or a continuing

Sibelan Forrester
My second post-Yugoslav example is one less of translation than of citation:
Dubravka Ugreši continues to mention Russian writers in her essays and creative
prose, presumably in her own translation, though she no longer foregrounds that as-
pect of her writing. As one example, her 1996 book
Muzej bezuvjetne predaje
[e
Museum of Unconditional Surrender] deploys Viktor Shklovskij, a Russian Formalist
scholar, writer and scenographer who spent time in Berlin in the early 1920s, as a
somewhat mysterious source of materials.
‘I have no desire to be witty. I have no desire to construct a plot. I am going to
write about things and thoughts. To compile quotations,’ wrote a temporary exile
a long time ago. His name was Viktor Shklovsky. (9)
Ugreši supplies only the merest modicum of information on Shklovskij (“a temporary
35.

e same book includes quotations from Croatian Yugoslav author Miroslav Krlea.

See the rst part of “House Spirits,” in Ugreši,
ank You for Not Reading
, trans. Celia
Hawkesworth with the assistance of Damien Searles (Champaign, IL: Dalkey Archive Press,
2003), 173-77, on Yugoslav book culture in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
e water of life


through the military powers of the Warsaw Pact, though it can show its muscle by ma
nipulating natural gas supplies. At home, the Russian government pays much more
attention to journalism than to other verbal genres. While there are many superb poets
writing in Russian today, there is no longer a poetry underground like the one Sever’s
book evokes. If anything, it is only too easy for any Russian to “publish” his or her own
poetry on sites like www.stihi.ru. e Russian poet is no longer a culture hero, but a

Sibelan Forrester
Markovi, Milena. 2001. “¸†¬™ƒº·ƒ ™ˆƒ °ƒ ƒ ¯‰ƒ: ¡‚† ƒ ›ƒ¶ƒ, ›†™,
ƒ ‹¬·.” In
  —†ƒ. ˜€    …III-XXIII €Œ „
 „ ƒ , 1987–1996,
301–05. Beograd: Udruenje knjievnih prevodilaca
Srbije.
Ugreši, Dubravka. 1996, 1999.
e Museum of Unconditional Surrender,
trans. Celia Hawkes-
worth. New York: New Directions.
Vrkljan, Irena. 1986.
Marina, ili o biograji
. Zagreb: Zora.
–—. 1999.
e Silk, the Shears,
trans. Sibelan Forrester, and
Marina, or about Biography,
trans.
Celia Hawkesworth. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP.
Translation trouble
Translating sexual identity into Slovenian
Suzana Tratnik
Ljubljana, Slovenia
is chapter explores the cultural context of post-communist Slovenia for
the translation of Western lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgendered (LGBT) and
queer literature and theory. Situating this period within the history of queer

Suzana Tratnik
Cultural context
Slovenia is a small country in the Balkan region. e ancestors fo the Slovenians, the
South Slavs, populated the area in the sixth century. e rst Slovenian state, Kneevina
Karantanija (Carinthia Principality), was established in the seventh century and lasted
until 745 when it became a part of the Franconian country. At the same time the Slavs
were becoming Christianized, they were losing their independence. In the fourteenth
century Slovenia became a part of the Habsburg Monarchy and later on a part of the
Austro-Hungarian empire (1867–1918). e rst two Slovenian books,
Abecednik
(Spelling-book) and
Katekizem
Translation trouble


words like
gay
into ‘gej,’ and
punk
into ‘pank,’ especially when it is not easy to nd a
Slovenian equivalent due to the absence of corresponding cultural circumstances.
Translations in the eld of sex/gender and homosexuality became popular in the
1980s with the emergence of feminist, gay, lesbian and other movements. Before that,
homosexuality was treated mostly in works on psychiatry and psychology where it was
mentioned as a psychological disorder. e rst Slovenian translation of a book-length
work on homosexuality was of a Dutch study on homosexuality,
Orientation towards
the Same Sex,
by Dutch essayist Van Oertringen, published in Slovenian in 1937. e
anonymous translator, who signed the translation with only his initials, S.K., trans-
formed the neutral Dutch title into
Protinaravna ud
(Unnatural Disposition), which
clearly presented homosexuality in a negative light. In the foreword S.K. even compli-
mented the Nazi regime, explaining that this kind of sexual abuse was widespread
among Slovenians and other Europeans, “with the exception of Germany, which had
been successfully purged of such anomalies by Adolf Hitler when he rose to power”
(Kuhar 2003: 23). However, this translation was quite unknown in Slovenia in later
decades (due, perhaps, to its pro-Nazi views), as was the earlier samizdat publication
Homoseksualnost
(Homosexuality), published in 1926, which was a short essay by the
Slovenian writer Ivan Podlesnik who wrote under the pseudonym Vindex. Podlesnik’s
pioneering work, which draws mainly on the ideas of the German author Magnus
Hirschfeld, was written in support of homosexuality (Kuhar, 2003: 23).
Many works on homosexuality were rediscovered in the 1990s when the consoli-
dation of modern feminist, gender and gay/lesbian ideas took place within the Slove-
nian activist movement and in academia. Among such newly valued discoveries is the
novel
Deki
(Boys) by the Slovenian writer France Novšak (1916–1991), which was

Suzana Tratnik
An organized gay and lesbian rights movement began in Slovenia only in 1984
when the rst Magnus gay cultural festival took place in the Slovenian capital of Lju-
bljana. At that time so-called “alternative culture” (that is, alternative to the prevailing
socialist ideology in Yugoslavia) was very visible, but mostly in Slovenia. It consisted
largely of the peace movement, punk music and culture, and the feminist movement.
e rst women’s group Lilit was established in 1985, and the lesbian group Lesbian
Lilit (LL), in 1987. All of the groups mentioned were organized around NGOs and
were generally recognized “new social movements.” e gay and lesbian movement
was surely the newest one as before the 1980s there were no groups or even known
social gay circles as in West European capitals, such as London, Berlin, and Paris.
Homosexual culture and its very existence were silenced in Yugoslavia. Male ho-
mosexuality was criminalized in the Republic of Slovenia until 1977, while lesbianism
was invisible and understood as less dangerous due to the prevailing patriarchal con-
ception of sexuality. e rst media representations in the 1970s appeared in writings
on psychiatry and crime and followed the “ve general principles underpinning the
media construction of homosexuality [in Slovenia]: stereotyping, medicalization, sex-
ualization, secrecy and normalization” (Kuhar, 2003: 7).
Due to the suppression of gay culture, which was understood as a phenomenon of a
rotten Western capitalist world which encouraged negative individualism, was prone to
decadence, and opposed to the workers’ ideology and the spirit of collectivism, there was
Translation trouble


more than sixty books and is widely recognized in Slovenia. Of the 82 total number of
Lambda titles, 54 are translations: 20 from English, 15 from French, 5 from Spanish, 3
from German, 2 from Italian, and single translations from Dutch, Czech, Macedonian,
Serbian, Japanese, Polish and Finnish. ere is also a collection of modern European

Use the original English word without translating it but explaining it, including –
in the text itself or in the paratextual material – an explanation of its cultural
context and history.
e translator may use the original English words that appear to have no equivalent in
her/his own language, such as
queer, queer theory, gaydar, sex/ gender dichotomy, pass-
ing as a woman or as a man, butch – femme relationships, drag queen or king, gender
fuck
. eir meanings can be explained in notes, although this is not a preferred strat-
egy in the translation of ction. When translating the novel
e Trumpet
by British
author Jackie Kay, I had another problem in addition to gender terminology: there
were numerous specic words used within jazz culture, such as
false ngers, scating,
musician and his cats.
I couldn’t nd them in any of the English-Slovenian dictionaries
and not even in monolingual English dictionaries. When I talked to other translators
and Slovenian musicians, they explained that they use the original terms and haven’t
got a clue about how to translate such terms into Slovenian.
Judith Butler’s
Gender Trouble
represents real translation trouble for many Slavic
languages. e sex/gender dichotomy was not recognized in the Slovenian language
before the advent of feminist and gender studies. ere is only one term for sex –
spol
Another term, which may be translated as gender, is
rod
, but
rod
usually designates
gender specically in grammar. (Like most Slavic languages, Slovenian nouns are di-
vided into masculine, feminine and neuter gender.) e translation of the sex/gender
dichotomy therefore requires a mixture of literal translation and explanation. Sex is
translated/explained as
biološki spol
(biological sex) and gender as
drubeni spol
(social
sex). When translating Butler’s book I tried to explain all these distinctions in an aer
word in order to help readers to understand the text’s central argument and to avoid
any possible confusion of sex with gender.
Translators may also choose to use the original words but with the Slovenian spell-
ing.
Gay
has been spelled as
for a long time in the Slovenian language. In fact, it

Suzana Tratnik
became popular at the end of the 1980’s as a term used within the context of the gay
movement, which started in 1984. e only terms available previously, such as
homosexual,
with its legal and medical connotations, or the derogatory
peder
(roughly
equivalent to ‘faggot’), were no longer adequate within the new context of an open gay
culture (see Kuhar 2003).
Other examples of English words used with Slovenian spell-
ings are
drag – dreg, butch – bu, femme – fem, dyke – dajk, punk –
pank, jazz – dez
blues – bluz.
is is called
poslovenjenj
e or
slovenization
of foreign words. But some
people still prefer to use original English words, without slovenization, such as
gay
instead of
, and
drag
instead of
dreg

Translation trouble


may be best illustrated by the statement: “Oh, I just didn’t realize there
could be
a word
for butch
” But Slovenian translations can also inuence “the original texts” by encour

Suzana Tratnik
Jess’s speech and internal monologues in dierent situations. Again, I had to decide
Translation trouble


which is only descriptive in Slovenian lesbian culture: “e lesbian that doesn’ like be-
ing touched.” at is why I translated the novel’s title as
Nedotakljive
(e Untouch-
ables), as it may also refer to lesbian survivors in very dicult and hateful social cir
cumstances. Judith Butler’s book
Gender Trouble
is today included in the curriculum
of many courses at Slovenian universities and is said to be one of the most important

Suzana Tratnik
–—. 2004.
Lezbina zgodba – literarna konstrukcija seksualnosti
. Ljubljana: ŠKUC Lambda.
 
Subtexts

Mark Tarlovskii
e purpose of this article is to contribute to the establishment of literary translation

Takim obrazom, avtor perevoda – ne skromnyi vintik v mashine, on – sama mashina
(Tarlovskii 1940: 263). All translations in this article are the author’s if not otherwise indicated.

Susanna Witt
As a point of departure, introducing some of the themes involved in such a task, I
will relate an episode from the career of Arsenii Tarkovskii, poet and translator (and



Totalitarianism and translation

On one hand, translation is not treated in cultural, linguistic and sociological studies deal-

Although the content and limits of the term “totalitarian” have been debated for a long

e collection,
Pered snegom
Before the Snow
), was about to be printed in 1946, but publi-
cation was halted by an austere turn in cultural politics of that year, and Tarkovskii had to con-
tinue to translate, mainly from the literatures of Caucasus and Central Asia. is is the experi-
ence alluded to in his poem “e Translator” (Perevodchik): “Akh, vostochnye perevody, /Kak
bolit ot vas golova.” (Oh, you Oriental translations,/what ache you cause my head) (Tarkovskii
1991–1993, vol. I: 92–93).

Describing the emergence of this “party-state model (voice) of language,” Michael Gorham
somewhat distances himself from the term “monologic” but he does not elaborate on this reser
vation (2003: 178).

Susanna Witt

e expression,
stalinskaia kniga
, is found in Mandelshtam’s “Stansy” from 1937 (1990,
vol.1: 316–17) and discussed in Cavanagh (1996: 128).

Bakhtin’s understanding of an utterance is extremely broad: “from the single-word rejoin-
der to a large novel” (Bakhtin 1986: 61–82).

Translation slightly changed for greater accuracy.

us a translation is never monologic but includes “[e]choes of the change of
speech subjects and their dialogical interrelations” (Bakhtin 1986: 93). e translation
emerges as a model for the utterance as such, because:

In some cases authors of the original works themselves provided translators with these in-
terlinear trots (see discussion below).

e main censorship body in the USSR was Glavlit (the Main Administration for Matters
Concerning Literature and Publishing Houses); for an interesting internal account of its work
from 1933, see Clark and Dobrenko 2007: 261–263. An important (and understudied) role in

For an illuminating example of Politburo (another censorship body) co-authorship in the
production of a play, see Clark and Dobrenko 2007: 270–272.
Susanna Witt
these institutions were oen interacting. It has been noted that, for example, in some
13.

See also Even-Zohar’s denition, implying an “either-or” situation: “Culture planning is
conceived of as a deliberate act of intervention, either by power-holders or by ‘free agents,’ into
an extant or a crystallizing repertoire. (2002: 45).

is aspect is alluded to and aptly expressed in Pushkin’s 1830 dictum that “translators
are the post-horses of enlightenment.”
Aer the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917, ocial attitudes toward translation
were initially positive in accordance with the internationalist pathos of the time. Trans-
lations should give the masses access to the cultural heritage of all nations and contrib-
ute to a sense of solidarity with workers and peasants of other countries. Signicant
here is the huge translation enterprise Vsemirnaia literatura (World Literature),
launched in 1918 and associated with the names of Anatolii Lunacharskii (the People’s
Commissar of Enlightenment) and Maksim Gor’kii, which in a three-year period in-
Susanna Witt
noteworthy, for example, that although dominating ocial attitudes from the end of
the 1930s largely denounced “literal translation” (
bukvalizm
) and promoted free trans-
lation (in the brand of “realist translation”), this applied unconditionally only to trans-
lations
into
Russian; for translations from Russian into minority languages “literalism”
was in fact encouraged (Friedberg 1997: 184).
Literary translation by the 1930s was already part of a greater planning activity,
14.



Great Law,” was published on 15 June 1936 as a kind of sequel to the publication of the

For an example of translations as an element of the “economy of the gi” in the practice of
Boris Pasternak, see Witt forthcoming.

For cases of manipulation witnessed by the author himself, see »ovtis 1995: 57–59; 122–123.
Susanna Witt

Listen: in the night the villains come creeping,

ey come creeping along the gully, bringing with them, these

Monsters, revolvers and bombs, bacilli of cholera...


Tried in the ame of battle.

ese enemies of our life, these enemies of millions –

e Trostkyite bands of spies crept to ward us,

e Bukharinists, sly snakes of the swamps,
17.

For an overview of the traditional forms of Kazakh folklore and how it was appropriated by


is is the version reproduced in Shostakovich 1979; another source maintains that
Dzhambul from the very beginning “put on a mask of absolute ignorance of Russian language

e embittered rabble of nationalists. (Dzhabaev 1937a)


My dear Kalinin, so loved by the people!

Kaganovich
sent me a
tulpar
On the
tulpar
Dzhambul came galloping to Moscow

And sang a song in the radiant Kremlin.

May my song y forth over the land,

I receive this gi from my sunny homeland,

I press the Order of Lenin to my breast,

A sacred gi of my beloved country.

About Stalin’s word, which does not sink in the ocean,

About Stalin’s sunny, wise law,


e dreams and hopes of the peoples of the land,



It is essential that it was
Pravda

Lazar’ Kaganovich was People’s Commissar of Transportation.

tulpar
is a legendary winged horse. (is note accompanied the original publication.)

Stalin’s law (
stalinskii zakon
) refers to the constitution of 1936 mentioned above, to which
several of Dzhambul’s works are devoted, e.g., “e Twelh of December” (“Live long, Constitu-
tion, a realized dream /you are the happiest law on Earth”) (Dzhabaev 1937b) and “Law of
Happiness” (Dzhabaev 1938b).
Susanna Witt
Translators and “intuitive translation”
24.

I am grateful to Erbol Kurmanbaev for translations from this Kazakh edition and informa-
tion on its content.
25.



several sources was a gure totally of his own invention (Zhovtis 1995: 13–14; Brusi-
lovskii 2007).
27.

Evgenii Brusilovskii, a Russian composer living from the 1930s in Alma-Ata, was presum-
ably Shostakovich’s source of information on Dzhambul; parts of his memoirs have been pub-
lished, e.g., in the Kazakhstan newspaper
Svoboda slova
(appearing in Russian).
28.


Susanna Witt
29.



reected in the Bureau’s 1940 resolution entitled “On the Regulation of Literary Trans-
lations from the Languages of the Peoples of the USSR.” Stating the principal impor

e Russian Archive for Literature and Art (RGALI), fond 631, op. 6, ed. khr. 475, list 58–59.

Susanna Witt

For an account of the 1940
dekada
of Kirgiz art and literature, see Lipkin 1997: 467–469. On
the role of the
dekady
in “the economy of the gi,” see Brooks 2000: 96.


Genuine translation from existing source texts in principle provided pragmatic
possibilities similar to the ones discussed here. In conclusion, we will examine a case
of culture planning “from below,” displaying how one such translator, Boris Pasternak,
Menschenopfer mußten bluten,

Nachts erscholl des Jammers Qual;

Meerab ossen Feuergluten,

Morgens war es ein Kanal.
32.

e ocial position was not wholly consistent in practice: simultaneously with Pasternak’s
“free” translations from Shakespeare, the translations of Mikhail Lozinskii, which tended to-
wards “literalism,” reached canonical status. On the existence of
two
parallel canonical transla-
tions of
Hamlet
in Russia, both in the 19th and 20th century, see Semenenko 2007: 100–102.

is observation was made by Christopher Barnes (1989: 284).
Susanna Witt

Unsre Hütte, unser Hain;


Soll man untertänig sein.


[Chelovecheskie zhertvy


On bezbozhnik, inzhener tvoi,

I kakuiu silu vzial!

Stali n
uzhny do zarezu

Dom emu i nasha vys’.

On bez serdtsa, iz zheleza,



[Are human sacrices

Justied by a canal?

He is an atheist, your engineer,

And what power he has gained!

He desperately needed

Our house and heights.

He is without heart, made from iron

One word from him and you would lay down in your con.
e translation strategy applied by Pasternak should be viewed against the background
34.

Lines 1–6 are Barnes’ translation. Pasternak’s
Faust




Cf. Nikolai Aseev’s poem “Of Stalin’s forging...,” published in
Pravda
on 23 February1934.
Pravda
editorial of 20 September 1936 was headed “Pilots of Stalin’s forging.” Suleiman Stal’skii
(or rather his translator Eendi Kapiev) elaborated on his own name in a similar vein in a poem
celebrating 1 May 1935 (also published in
Pravda
): “Stal’-Suleiman is endlessly happy [...]”. Oc-
casionally, Pasternak himself could crack a joke in the same genre. In 1954, sending his cousin
Ol’ga Freidenberg a copy of the journal
Znamia
with the publication of ten poems from
Doctor
Zhivago
, Pasternak comments on them: “I send you for fun: some interesting pages where there
is no trace of laziness (
leni
) and steel (
stali
)” (Pasternak 1981: 320). e expression alludes to
Susanna Witt
and editing of translations assume particular signicance in the Stalin era of “textual


Fleishman, Lazar. 1990.
Boris Pasternak.
e Poet and His Politics
. Cambridge, Mass. and Lon-
don: Harvard UP.
Fleishman, Lazar’. 2005.
Boris Pasternak i literaturnoe dvizhenie 1930-kh godov

Jones, Derek (ed). 2001.
Censorship. A World Encyclopedia
. London/Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.
Kemp-Welch, A. 1991.
Stalin and the Literary Intelligentsia, 1928–39
. London: Macmillan.
Kendirbaeva, Gulnar. 1994. “Folklore and Folklorism in Kazakhstan.”
Asian Folklore Studies
Kratkaia literaturnaia
ntsiklopediia
Susanna Witt
Smith, Michael G. 1998.
Language and Power in the Creation of the USSR,1917–1953
. Berlin/
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Snitkovskii, Viktor. 1997. “Vsadnik na belom kone.”
Forum. Literaturno-kriticheskii zhurnal
31.
Available online: http://www.vestnik.com/forum/koi8/forum31snitkovs.ht&#xh19t;t1;�p:/;&#x/w-1;w-1;w73;&#x.v8e;&#xs5t-;ni-;k.c;&#xo12m;&#x/f9o;r-;um;&#x/k9o;i8;&#x/f9o;r-;um;1sn;&#xi12t;&#x-6k9;&#xo16v;&#xs.h1; t-5;&#xm000;m (accessed
22 August 2008).
Tarkovskii, Arsenii. 1991–1993.
Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh
, edited by T. Ozerskaia-Tark-
ovskaia. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura.
Tarlovskii, Mark. 1940. “Khudozhestvennyi perevod i ego portfel’.”
Druzhba narodov
Toper, Pavel. 2000.
Perevod v sisteme sravnitel’nogo literaturovedeniia
. Moscow: Nasledie.
Toury, Gideon. 2005. “Enhancing Cultural Changes by Means of Fictitious Translations.” In
Translation and Cultural Change: Studies in History, Norms and Image-projection
, edited by
Eva Hung, 3–17. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tymoczko, Maria and Gentzler, Edwin (eds). 2002.
Translation and Power
. Amherst/Boston:
Translation theory and cold war politics
Roman Jakobson and Vladimir
Nabokov in 1950s America
Brian James Baer
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA

Brian James Baer
joint translation project of the medieval Russian tale,
Slovo o polku Igoreve
[Lay of Ig-
or’s Campaign]
Although far less acrimonious and public than the quarrel between Nabokov and
Edmund Wilson that took place in the 1960s in the wake of the publication of Nabok
ov’s controversial translation of
Eugene Onegin
– unlike Nabokov and White, Nabokov

e term was in fact coined by James Holmes in the 1970s. See Holmes 1972.
Translation theory and cold war politics



Brian James Baer
College and then at Cornell University. His most well-known translations into English
– other than the translation of his own ction – are those that were originally under
taken as study aids for his students:
Eugene Onegin
and
e Song of Igor’s Campaign
Translation theory and cold war politics


given language word for word and one can only smile at the unfortunate translator
who, instead of rendering the idiom
‘s grekhom popolam’
[with sin by halves] with
the semantic equivalent
‘tant bien que mal’
[just barely] gave us
‘de moitié avec le
peché’
or ‘halves in sin.’ (Jakobson 1948: 31, translation mine)
Here Jakobson makes the point that when translating collocations and xed expres-
sions, the unit of translation must not be the individual word but the entire phrase.
However, in the second part of his essay “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation,”
Jakobson acknowledges some major “impediments” to translatability. e rst con-
cerns connotational meanings that may accrue to grammatical categories: “...in jest, in
dreams, in magic, briey, in what one would call everyday verbal mythology and in
Brian James Baer
as the subtle harmonies of Pushkin’s verse – in order to convey a range of denotative,
connotative and expressive meanings through a combination of explicitation and foot-
notes.
He argues, that “literal translation” is in fact tautological, “since anything but
that is not truly a translation but an imitation, an adaptation or parody” (Nabokov
2000: 77). Having declared “the impossibility of translating
in verse,” Nabokov
then posits the “translator’s ignorance” of language, literature, and culture as the great-
est threat to an accurate translation of the work.
In the foreward to his translation of
Eugene Onegin,
Nabokov oers his own tri-
partite model of translation approaches, which he described as paraphrastic, lexical
(or constructional), and literal. e rst approach produces “a free version of the orig-
inal, with omissions and additions prompted by the exigencies of form, the conven-
tions attributed to the consumer, and the translator’s ignorance” (Nabokov 1990: vii),
and so he rejects it. e second approach respects the basic meaning of source text
lexicon and syntax, but can be done by a machine “under the direction of an intelligent
bilinguist” (viii). e third approach, which he declares to be the only true translation,
renders, “as closely as the associative an syntactical capacities of another language al-
lows, the exact contextual meaning of the original” (vii).
Somewhat paradoxically, Jakobson, the scholar, advocates “creative” solutions to
translation problems, while Nabokov, the writer, demands “sacrice” on the part of the
translator. In his introduction to the translation, he writes: “In transposing
Eugene
Onegin
from Pushkin’s Russian into my English I have
sacriced

By “literal translation” Nabokov appears to be referring here to what he will later call “lexical”.
Translation theory and cold war politics


was not the only one practiced by Nabokov over the length of his career. In his theo-

Brian James Baer
Majakovsky, who did not speak French, caught the translator’s intervention: “Wait a
minute,’ said Majakovksy, ‘marie, marie, what is that?’ I translated it for him literally.
‘Oh, so they’re dierent words; that’s good’” (Jakobson 1997: 35). It appears that Jako-
bson practiced creative transposition from his earliest years as a translator.
Jakobson’s views on translation were no doubt inuenced by the radical artistic

For more on Jakobson’s translation of “Nichego ne ponimaiut”, see Jakobson 1992: 126 and
Katsis 1996.

e Russian Formalists coined the expression
slovo kak takovoe
or ‘the word as such’ to
Translation theory and cold war politics

which is only partially understandable to the average educated Russian, Jakobson adds
to the poem another level of “estrangement,” a quality considered by the Russian for
malists to be a fundamental feature of any literary work and certainly a central theme
of this poem.
While Jakobson and Nabokov had much in common – they were both polyglots
who saw themselves as translators, professors and writers – an interest in the Russian
avant-garde was not one of them. Once while a guest at Jakobson’s house in Cam-
bridge, Nabokov was forced to listen to his host recite a poem by Velimir Khlebnikov,
whose avant-garde experiments with language and versication Jakobson greatly ad-
mired. Aer the recitation, Nabokov exclaimed quite audibly: “Eto uzhasno” (at’s
Brian James Baer
One might also point to the literary or stylistic eects contained in Nabokov’s
early translations. Consider, for example, his rst major translation project, Lewis Car
rol’s
Alice in Wonderland,
in which he aected a “wholesale transformation of charac-
ters and contexts, substituting Russian names and backgrounds for English ones”
(Connelly 1995: 19). Moreover, by changing the name of the heroine to Anya, he pro-
duced a rather Nabokovian eect in the title of the work:
Ania v strane chudes.
One
hears an echo of the name
Ania
in the word
strane
, so that the heroine, Anya, appears
to be literally trapped – and somewhat distorted – in the Russian word for land. As
Julian Connelly notes, Nabokov’s solutions to the translation of verse parody and pun-
Translation theory and cold war politics

read the poem as a parody, which brings a certain visibility to the translator. Moreover,
several scholars and commentators have remarked that in Nabokov’s translations, his
idiosyncratic footnotes and “recondite English and eccentric syntax” in fact “drew atten
tion to the translator instead of conveying the sense and spirit of the original” (Meyers
2003: 437). Robert Conquest declared the translation to be “too much a transposition into
Nabokovese, rather than a translation into English” (quoted in Meyers 2003: 437). As Jef
frey Meyers notes, “for most critics, the eccentricity and arrogance of the commentary
complemented the failings of the translator” (2003: 437–8).
To the extent that Nabokov’s “humble” scholarly approach was subverted in count-
less ways both in his translations themselves and in the accompanying paratextual
material by his penchant for word play and verbal experimentation, it is indeed tempt-
ing to read them alongside his “original” work. To read across the divide of ction and

An exploration of the theme of “mimicry”, for instance, which runs throughout all of
Nabokov’s writings from his ctional works to his scholarly essays on translation, literary criti-
cism, and even butteries, would be one way to trace common thematic concerns.

Brian James Baer
La Chanson de Roland.
Jakobson would continue to debate skeptics of the text’s au-
thenticity into the 1960s.
Nabokov became involved with the
Slovo
only in the late 1940s. At this time he
was working at Cornell and translated the poem into English for use in his classes. is
experience prompted him to write a lengthy review of the Jakobson-Szeel edition,
which included an English translation by Samuel Cross, which Nabokov considered
stilted, and to prepare his own line-by-line translation of the text (Boyd 1991: 136). He
approached Jakobson directly in 1949 while looking for a journal in which to publish
his review. Jakobson suggested a journal and then proposed to include Nabokov’s
translation of the
Slovo
in a volume for a series of Russian classics for students that
Translation theory and cold war politics


the poem, and every time he demonstrated, writing the words upon a blackboard,

Brian James Baer
In the foreward to his translation of the
Slovo
, which was published in 1960, Nabokov
gave voice to a scathing denunciation of previous scholars who could not see the medi
eval tale rst and foremost as a work of art: “Its political and patriotic slant pertaining to
a given historical moment is, naturally, of small importance in the light of its timeless
beauty, and although I have provided the reader with all necessary notes, I am not inter
ested in considering
e Song
as a corollary of history or a birch-stump speech” (6). e
true value of the
Song,
he argues is as a piece of literature. It is, he wrote, “a harmonious,

Stephen Rudy has documented two incidents in which Jakobson was questioned in connec-
tion with the McCarthy hearings. Apparently the suspicion of communist sympathies related to
the chair in Czechoslovak Studies he occupied at Columbia University, which was supposedly
funded by the communist government of Czechoslovakia. See Rudy 1999.
Translation theory and cold war politics


authenticity. In any case, by reconstructing the specic contexts that informed and
Brian James Baer
–—. 1981. “e Art of Translation.” In
Lectures on Russian Literature,
edited by F. Bowers, 315–
321. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
–—. 1990.
Eugene Onegin. A Novel in Verse.
Volume I: Introduction and Translation. 2nd Princ-

My special thanks to the late Lev Losev for some exclusive information and general support,
Tomas Venclova for his consultations on Brodsky’s translations from Polish, Dina Odnopozova
for her help with Spanish and Italian. I am indebted to the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript
Library of Yale University for a research grant that enabled me to use the archival materials.
Yasha Klots

“´ ¦‚‹ƒ   ‚‡ƒ¦‹” [My lips won’t tell] in:
Zaria nad kuboi.
1962. Moscow: Khudoz-
hestvennaia literatura. 140–141. Published in the quantity of 10,000 copies.

Koster
. 1962. À11. e poem was heavily edited and signicantly abridged.

See also Arsenii Tarkovskii’s famous poem “¡™ˆ¨‡” [A Translator] (1960): “°­ ¨¬
­ ¦¨‰ ¬˜ / ¡™ƒ ›ƒ ¨¦ ‚ˆƒ?” [Why did I trade my best years / For other people’s
words?]


this mission would require them also to translate heaps of “ideologically friendly” pro-

Translations from Stoppard [“¤› ‡™ƒ £  Á¿ ‚‹™  „™‹ˆ˜”] and Behan [“Áˆ™­
 ˆ™ˆ‡”] were published in the journal
Inostrannaia literatura
[Foreign Literature], respec-
tively, in 1990 (4), 83–135, and in 1995 (2), 161–198.

Translation from Milligan remains unpublished. See Brodsky’s Archive at the Russian Na-
Yasha Klots
riddles and folk legends, aphorisms by Stanisaw Jerzy Lec from the Polish,
and songs
(e.g., the German war tune
Lili Marleen
and
Yellow Submarine
by e Beatles). e
historical periods of the authors that Brodsky either introduced or rediscovered for the
Russian reader also range greatly: from antiquity (sections of Euripides’s
Medea
) and
the English Renaissance (John Donne and Andrew Marvell), to his own time. In addi-
tion, aer his emigration to the U.S., Brodsky edited other translators’ work, such as
Russian renditions of Cavafy, originally made by Gennady Shmakov, a remarkable
translator of the Leningrad school (who, incidentally, used to supply Brodsky with
interlinear translations from various languages while both still lived in Leningrad).
Furthermore, as he was gradually establishing himself in the English language, Brod-

Unpublished; RNL, 1333, File 376.

Zvezda.
1995 (12). 75–77. In 1994, this partial translation of Euripides’s
Medea
was com-
missioned to Brodsky by Yuri Lubimov, the director of the “Taganka” eater, who wanted to

First published in the literary supplement of
Russkaia mysl
À7 (November 11, 1988,
À3750). In one of his interviews Brodsky explains that not long before Shmakov’s death in 1988
he oered him the opportunity to publish his translations from Cavafy and, while preparing the
publication, reworked some of them (Brodskii 2005: 630). Brodsky edited 19 translations from
Cavafy by Shmakov and, before then, made one on his own, “Darius.”

On Brodsky’s translation of Nabokov’s poem “Demon,” see Kulle 1999.

See, for example, Brodsky’s annihilating review of a book of English translations from
Velimir Khlebnikov by Paul Schmidt (
e King of Time: Selected Writings of the Russian Futuri-
. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1985) in
e New Republic
, 705.3 (January 20, 1986), 32–35,
and subsequent polemics in
e New Republic
, 712.3 (March 10, 1986), 2. Brodsky’s review con-
tains his own translation of Khlebnikov’s poem “A Zoo.” See also Brodsky’s earlier, much more
favorable review of a book of English translations from Anna Akhmatova (
Poems of Anna
Akhmatova
. Selected, translated and introduced by Stanley Kunitz with Max Hayward. Boston:
Little Brown, 1973) in
e New York Review of Books
20 (August 9, 1973), 9–11.


A few pages below, Rada Alloi recalls Brodsky’s reading both the original and his transla-
tions from GaczyÃski to a group of friends: “ª‹Œ Áƒ¨ ‚‡¬ †˜  „ › ™ˆ˜Œ,
§‚º ‹™†ˆƒ ‹  ƒ‚ ˆ˜‚¦‰ˆƒ‹¿  ¿‚‡© ‹‡‚‹” [GaczyÃski’s’s poems were among
the rst ones; Iosif demanded that we listen to the Polish original as well] (79). Although the
Yasha Klots
[In the few cases when I deviated from the text (especially in “Enchanted Dro-


constructed. As Brodsky admitted, the most important lesson he learned from Donne
was the intricate stanzaic organization of a poem (not so much because Brodsky was
indierent to this aspect of versication, but merely because there had been no such
13.


Yasha Klots
Æ.  £‡ƒ­, ±. ¹„¿ £‡ƒ­, •. ²„ , µ. Æ‹‡ 
[[...] We professional writers and literary critics who have signed below ask that
14.

Brodsky’s archive at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University: GEN
MSS 613, Box 3, Folder 92 (hereaer – Beinecke, Box No., Folder No.).

‚‚‹‹ ˆ ‹„, ¨‹ ‹¦ ­£   ™ƒ†‹ƒ‹,   ‚‹, ƒ ™ˆ¨‡ ™ƒ†‹ƒ‹,  
  ‚‹.
‚­‰
: Æ‹  ƒ„    ­‹ ... (Varshavskii 1998: 279–280)
Attorney

Yasha Klots
Brodsky’s translation in the anthology
¡‰ žƒ 

Lev Losev, Brodsky’s friend and biographer, also indicates that it was in Norenskaia that

See, for example, Losev 1990.


during that period that his work as a translator reached its highest intensity. In the so-
called “creative report,”

Beinecke, GEM MSS MISC, Grp. 3090, File F-1.

Four of which were rst published in
Literaturnaia Gruziia
1989 (1), 96–99; the other has
recently been published in Brodskii 2010: 293.

Archival materials indicate that the project of publishing the anthology was accepted as
early as November 1966. Incidentally, the introduction and commentary to the volume were
commissioned to Viktor Zhirmunskii, who patronized Brodsky in academic publishing. In June,

RNL, 1333, File 446.
Yasha Klots

On Brodsky’s translations from Italian, see, for example: Niero 2003 and 2005; Niero e
Pescatori 2008. On Brodsky’s translations from Milosz see, for example: Grudzi
Ã
ska-Gross
2007, Fast 2000.

Available online at: www.radio.cz/ru/statj&#xw-12;&#xw-12;&#xw73.;&#xradi;&#xo29.; z/r;&#x-10u;&#x/s5t;&#x-6a1; t10;&#xj-3a;&#x/933;ba/93380. (Accessed 5 June 2009).
24.


Umberto Saba. Evgenii Solonovich, who was commissioned to compile a collection of
nilov’s name in 1972), it remains unpublished: although Kulle claimed that this translation could

Solonovich did not approve of the liberties Brodsky had taken in his translations from Saba;

Published in Brodsky 1973.
27.

“To Please a Shadow.” See Brodsky’s other essay, “‘September 1, 1939’ by W.H. Auden,” in:
Brodsky 1986: 304–356.
Yasha Klots
Perhaps, the most immediate example of Brodsky’s tribute to Auden is his “ª‹Œ
 ƒ ‚„™‹¿ ±.ª. Ə‹ƒ” [Verses on the Death of T.S. Eliot], written in Norenskaia on
January 12, 1965 (“…  ¦„™ ˆ ­ ˆƒ™, ˆ  ƒ¨ƒ ¬ƒ...”) [He died at start of year, in
January...]. In the Russian literary tradition, verses “on the death of a poet” are, in
general, a symbolic means of establishing a line of literary inheritance (e. g., Lermon
tov’s “On the Death of a Poet,” dedicated to Pushkin). In Brodsky’s case, however, the
tradition is somewhat widened insofar as his “Verses on the Death of T.S. Eliot” com

Time that is intolerant

Of the brave and the innocent,

And indierent in a week

To a beautiful physique,

Worships language and forgives

Everyone by whom it lives;

Pardons cowardice, conceit,


(Ellman and O’Clair 1988: 742)
From these lines Brodsky concluded that since language is greater than time, because
only the lesser can worship the greater (“Time [...] worships language”), language is
28.



its roots in neo-Humboldtian philosophies of language, e.g., Sapir and Whorf’s Hy
pothesis of Linguistic Relativity. But perhaps ever since Auden’s “In Memory of W.B.
Yeats,” Brodsky, with equal zeal, cultivated the idea that all natural languages derive
from the same absolute, primary source, which, being the ultimate
Ur-
language, re
mains utterly inaccessible through the grammatical means of any given language spo
ken by humankind. In its extreme, this idea applies to the very notion of translatabil
ity, of which in a somewhat similar vein Walter Benjamin spoke in his famous essay

Yasha Klots
•™„­ – Œ™ƒ†™‚‹ ‚‹£,

ˆ™ƒ¬ ˆ›ˆ˜‰  ˜Œ ‚™£

 ›ˆƒ® ‹

‹ƒ ™›ˆ˜Œ ‡™ƒ‚‹, –

¨‹‹ ­›˜‡  ˆ‚Œ, ‡„  

‚¦®, ™ , ›ƒ¨ƒ‹ ,

Œ ¬™Œ ™®ƒ­ „

‡ƒ‡ ™„ ‡ƒ„ ‚ˆ„. (Brodskii 2010: 43–44)
[Time, the hunter/plainti of bravery, / an enemy of loy hearts, / that yawns at / the
rosy bodily beauties // reveres language and everyone by whom / it exists, is prolonged
and embodied, / remitting their sins / as its own successors.]
Works cited
Alloi, Rada. 2008.
Veselyi sputnik. Vospominaniia ob Iosife Brodskom
Ã
ska-Gross, Irena. 2007.
Mi©osz i Brodski: pole magnetyczne
; wst
Ë
p Tomas Venclova.
Krak
ó
w: Znak.
Ivanov, V.V. 1988. “O Dzhone Donne i Iosife Brodskom.”
Inostrannaia Literatura


Kulle, Viktor. 1992. Introduction. In Brodskii, Iosif. 1992.
Bog sokhraniaet vse
. Moskva: “Mif”.
–—. 1995. “‘Tam, gde oni konchili, ty nachinaeshÌ’ (o perevodakh Iosifa Brodskogo).”
Russian
Literature
XXXVII: 267–288.
–—. 1999. “‘Demon’ Nabokova i ‘Nebozhitel’” Brodskogo.”
Staroe literaturnoe obozrenie
Squandered opportunities
On the uniformity of literary
translations in postwar Hungary
László Scholz
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
is chapter opens with a brief historical overview of the reasons behind
the striking uniformity of literary translations from Spanish into Hungarian

Special thanks to Karen Wilfred who helped in the translation of this article.
László Scholz
for its publication, since it represented a politically important sector – the so-called
ird World.
ere are many reasons for this phenomenon, but I will examine only three; these
Squandered opportunities


order to make the original author disappear and to elevate the translations to the status
of autonomous texts within the sphere of Hungarian literature (Józan: 422–426). is
attitude evidently led to a marked literarization of translations, placing the emphasis
on the act of creation rather than transformation. e individual volumes of transla-
László Scholz
Squandered opportunities

To add one more contributing factor, there was the phenomenon of literarization,
and not only in literature. In fact, literary art in postwar Hungary was attributed a status

László Scholz
example, in 1963 the publishing house Európa initiated a series called A Világirodalom
Remekei [Master Works of World Literature], which included no fewer than 200 titles
published within ten years and in an unbelievable number of print-runs. (ere were
some novels published in circulations of up to two hundred thousand; more than a
hundred thousand copies were sold of
El perseguidor
, an anthology of the Spanish
American novella.) Needless to say, the literature belonged primarily to the grandpar
ents’ generation (the one exception was Ernest Hemingway, the most popular author
among foreign writers) and consisted of a subtle mix of bourgeois, humanist, and so-
cialist authors (Bart 2000: 90–92). With time other projects developed, and modern
collections were successfully planned that, although with signicantly reduced circu-
lations, gradually changed Hungarians’ outlook on world literature. For example, be-
ginning in 1976 the number of Anglophone authors translated into Hungarian ex-
Squandered opportunities


or
La vuelta de Chencho

László Scholz
always lead to translation, however, given that the aforementioned criterion of clarity
sometimes canceled it out, or at least neutralized it; according to one of the editors,
Squandered opportunities


who represent the avant-garde (Felisberto Hernández, Macedonio Fernández, Pablo
Palacio), nor are there any representatives of a noticeably conservative ideology.

László Scholz
Finally, some textual examples show how the principles described above were put
into practice. e most common linguistic-stylistic taboo in Hungarian literature of
the postwar period was the use of obscenities, vulgarities, and indecent slang. Such
language was ignored or, in the majority of cases, substituted with more decent or eu-
phemistic phrases according to the clichés of “good writing,” evidence of the general
tendency toward literarization and of the monolithic imposition of an ocial taste.
In one of the rst Latin American novels translated into Hungarian, Fallas’s
Mamita
yunai
, one encounters very colloquial language peppered with local slang.
Such words as “jodido” [fucking], “pendejada” [crap], and “carajos” [bastard] appear
quite frequently; in the Hungarian translation, however, there is no evidence of their
literal meaning or their stylistic register. On the contrary, the text is raised to a level of
decency with surprising creativity. To replace “carajo,” equivalents such as
“semmirekellÍ” [good-for-nothing], “nyavalyás”[potty], “az angyalát” [by Jove], and “a
kutya mindenit” [damn] were employed (13, 17, 21, 97, 98). e literarization is dou-
bly in error when the word “calajo” is used to mimic the speech of a Chinese character,
and the translator simply puts (21) “fene egye meg” [damn it]:

(1)

Ayel templano pasó la gente pa lentlo. Esto ta mu lalgo, calajo. ÏUf! ÏMu lalgo!
[Yestelday the folks depalted eally. is’s vely long, bastald. Uf! Vely long!]

Jó kolán indultak a többiek. Nagyon messze van, a fene egye meg, nagyon

(2)


Kál, hogy nincs pénze, pedig anélkül rosszul áll a szénája. [It is a pity he has
not got any money, without it he is badly o.]
is stylistic treatment continues in a similar manner even with less “potent” words:

(3)



(4)

Ya viene el pago, pa que dejés de estarte masturbando. [is is the punishment
that you should stop masturbating.]


(5)

Porque la muerte es innitamente un acto de amor. [Because death is an act of
innite lovemaking]

Mert a halál olyan, mint a szerelem. [Because death is like love.]
Squandered opportunities


e same applies to a description in the opening of the novel:

(6)

Su mujer, junto a la camita, volvió el rostro hacia él con una expresión aguda,
inteligente de pesar. [His wife, right by the tiny bed, turned her face towards
him with a keen, understanding expression of grief.]


(7)

El aludido era un joven militar de carrera. [e person referred to was a young
career army ocer.]

A megszólított ludovikás volt. [e person he addressed was a graduate from
Ludovika (which was the most important military academy of prewar
Hungary, so aer the war it was associated with reactionary political forces)]
Neither does one see any attempt to stray from the canonical norms on a syntactic level;
the “irregularities” are almost always corrected. In
Mamita yunai
, there is an Anglo
phone
negrito
whose speech includes a smattering of Spanish phrases, such as “Yo tiene”
[I has] or “Yo estar,” [I to be], “pasiano” [paseando: visiting], “jabla,” [habla: speak],
“joye,” [oye: listen], which are translated into Hungarian in their standard verb forms.

(8)

Yo tiene la mía y tiene trabajo en Panamá; sólo pasiano pa poquitos días in
imón. Yo estar anoche in el mitin y joya jabla cuestión Talamanca. ÐY usté
caminar Talamanca? [I has mine and I has job in Panama; only visitin fo few

Nekem már megvan az igazolványom és munkám is van Panamában; csak
néhány napot Limónban töltöttem. Ma éjjel gyÑlésen voltam és Talamancáról
hallottam beszélni. Ön Talamancába megy. [I already got my pass, and I also
got a job in Panama; I only spent a few days in Limón. Tonight I attended a

László Scholz
very dangerous here], “Yo quiere ir momentito” [I wants to leave for one minute] as
“Egy pillanatra lemegyek,” [I leave for a minute] and “Indio pobre no tene medicina”
[Poor Indian hav no medication] as “A szegény indiánoknak nincsen orvosságuk”
[e poor Indians have no medication].
Squandered opportunities


Kígyóöl« ének. Latin-Amerika irodalmi és politikai antológiája.
1973. Budapest: Kozmosz.
Lajos, Horváth (ed). 1978.
Ösvény a hegyoldalban. Kubai Antológia.
Budapest: KISZ Pest megyei
Bizottság.
Larsen, Neil. 1992. “e ‘Boom’ Novel and the Cold War in Latin America.”
Modern Fiction
Studies
Revueltas, José. 1948.
Köröznek a keselyªk
. Trans. Emil Hartai. Budapest: Szikra.
Rodríguez, Félix Pita. 1978.
Harci dal három ütemben. Mai kubai elbeszél«k.
Budapest: Európa.
Scholz, László. 2005.
A spanyol-amerikai irodalom története
[A History of Spanish-American
Literature]
Budapest: Gondolat
–—. 2004. “Variaciones canónicas.”
Cuadernos hispanoamericanos
Meaningful absences
Byron in Bulgarian
Vitana Kostadinova
University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
is chapter builds on the presence of Byron in Bulgaria in order to examine
his absence with regard to the literary and historical contexts of the recipient
culture. Part one focuses on Byron’s non-appearance in the period of the
Bulgarian Revival; part two elaborates on
e Giaour, A Fragment of a Turkish
Tale
and its non-existant Bulgarian translation; part three discusses the Socialist
oblivion of
Manfred
, once the most popular Byronic poem in Bulgaria. is
chapter suggests that the absence of translations in a given culture can speak as
loudly as the translations themselves.
Introduction
Binary oppositions come in handy when, in an attempt to bring order to the chaos of
literary ideas, critics label and categorize. In the process they may show a marked pref
erence for imagination and feelings, or else for experience and understanding; they
may accentuate the lyric ow and marginalize satire, or
vice versa
; they may juxtapose
Vitana Kostadinova
relationship to Byron in order to isolate three examples of his absence and to examine
them within the literary and historical contexts of the recipient culture.
Horizons of expectations
In the Bulgarian Revival period, cultural, social and historical processes were subordi-
nated to the aspiration to break free from the Ottoman Empire.
is, of course, re-
ected the priorities of a national literature, but it also aected the appropriation of
foreign texts. us, the Bulgarian reception of Byron is not just a literary phenomenon.

e National Revival period in Bulgaria is chronologically delayed in comparison with the
European Renaissance. Most researchers would agree that the year 1762 marks its beginning
and 1878 (when the Bulgarian state was restored) – its end.
Meaningful absences


popular in the nineteenth century and the few Bulgarian readers of English-language
texts were graduates of the American Robert College in Constantinople. is said, it is
essential to bear in mind the specicity of translation practices in that period – the
original was certainly not the only acceptable source for those who rendered texts in
other languages; they would oen use translations into other languages and even
modications of the original work. e adaptations of Franklin’s
Poor
Richard’s
Alma
and of Defoe’s
Robinson Crusoe
, which reached their readers via French and Greek
and German, are pertinent examples of English-language texts popular among Bul
garians: in other words, English-language authors were not excluded from the Bulgar
ian Revival. Byron’s poems, of course, had become immediately available in French, as
well as in German and in Russian, but they did not begin to appear in Bulgarian until
the 1880s.
In the context of Ottoman domination, when the priority was an independent
Vitana Kostadinova
Swords of various descriptions and manufacture, rie-guns and pistols, carbines
and daggers, were within reach on every side of the room. His books were placed
over them on shelves, and were not quite so accessible. I aerwards thought, when
I came to know more of the man and the country, that this arrangement was a type
of his opinion concerning it. He was not one of those who thought the Greeks

Meaningful absences

Otherness and identity
e Bulgarian state was restored in 1878 and synchronization with European cultural


Vitana Kostadinova

For a comprehensive discussion of the inuence of Byron’s
Eastern Tales
on Pushkin’s
Southern Tales
, see Viktor Maksimovich Zhirmunskij (1924): Ò™„¦ ‚‡©, •.´. ¸ƒ©™  
¡¦‰‡ : §› ‚‹™ ™„ƒ ‹¨‚‡© ¢„˜,   ¬™ƒ: ²‡ƒ„­, 1924.

e Greek reception of
e Giaour
seems to stand out with a translation of the poem into
Greek in 1857.

According to bibliographical accounts, it is the rst translation of a poem by Byron into
Bulgarian, but the actual text was never located.
Meaningful absences


710), “Sophia’s plain” (Canto II, 14, line 715), “Roumelie” (Canto II, 16, line 775), and
the Danube (Canto I, 14, line 457; Canto II, 16, line 777), and this geographical outline
Vitana Kostadinova
introductory celebration of Greece and Greek heroes from a British point of view, the
narration is taken over by a Muslim voice, and when that voice refers to the hero with
the emotionally charged “I know thee not, I loathe thy race” (line 191), Bulgarians are
likely to conclude that the speaker is expressing militant Islamic attitudes. Possibly
because of the centuries-long opposition of the religions of the conquered and the
Meaningful absences


Vitana Kostadinova
and, for readers in the Balkans, demands emotional investment. e hero is described
as “pale” (line 194), with “sallow front” (line 194), associated with the “ghastly white-
ness” of the tomb (line 239), and is later recognized by his “pallid brow” (line 611),
whereas his adversary is called “black Hassan” (line 439). It is a shock to discover that
the Giaour’s appearance resembles his enemy’s in the scene in which he kills Hassan:
“And o’er him bends that foe with brow / As dark as this that bled below” (lines 673–
674). e protagonist has become a reection of the antagonist and the symbolic par


Had she been false to more than one.

Faithless to him, he gave the blow;

But true to me, I laid him low:

Howe’er deserved her doom might be,

Her treachery was truth to me...

(lines 1062–1067)
us, the characteristics of the two are intermingled; as Meyer suggests, the Self “be-
comes the Other” in the course of the poem and identity is transformed (Meyer 1991:
678). And to the extent that “a change of identity presupposed a crisis of identity”
(Greeneld 1992: 13), this concerned readers identifying with the hero as much as the
hero himself.
Disturbingly, the role of the recognizable Other in the tale falls to Leila – the inte-
Meaningful absences


of the Woman as Other, is that the “Scorpion girt by re” is a “she” (lines 423, 428). No
comments link women to the dreaded creatures, but the fragment comes immediately
Vitana Kostadinova
Meaningful absences

over-ideologized. Even though Christian readers in the Balkans may perceive the he-
ro’s becoming the Ottoman Other as a threat to their own identity, this does not mean
that the East is in the habit of snubbing its romanticized images.
Works cited
Abrams, M. H. 1973.
Natural Supernaturalism
. NY and London: Norton.
Bordo, Susan. 2003. “e Cartesian Masculinization of ought and the Seventeenth-Century
Flight from the Feminine.” In
From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology,
edited by
L. Cahoone, 354–369. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Bradbury, Malcolm. 1971.
e Social Context of Modern English Literature
. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Byron, George. 1973–1980.
Byron’s Letters and Journals
, edited by Leslie A. Marchand. Vol. 1–12.
London: John Murray.
–—. 2000.
e Major Poetical Works
, edited by Jerome McGann. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–—.
e Bride of Abydos

Vitana Kostadinova
Marx, Karl. 1964.
Early Writings
. New York: McGraw Hill.
McGann, Jerome. 1985.
e Romantic Ideology
. Chicago and London: e University of Chicago
Press.
Meyer, Eric. 1991. “‘I Know ee not, I Loathe y Race’: Romantic Orientalism in the Eye of
the Other.”
 
Translated by
Goblin
Global challenge and local response
Vlad Strukov
Translated by Goblin

instantaneously became available on video; the demand for foreign productions, both
high quality lms and semi-pornographic products – was extraordinary. Unfortunate-
ly, no data on the number of video recorders and foreign lms that circulated on the

Vlad Strukov
demonstrating his work on the Internet and eventually managed to turn his professional
identity into a recognizable brand, slicing o a share of the lm market and moving on
to Russian television. A signicant measure of the popularity of Goblin’s work is the
constant circulation of his jokes and adages in everyday discourse and the celebration of
his witticisms on the Internet and in other forms of mass media. For example, Viktor
Kotov, a Goblin acionado, maintains a website listing all of Goblin’s statements ar
ranged by theme, propagating Goblin as an unocial cultural authority gure (Kotov).
Goblin is the cognomen of Dmitrii Iur’evich Puchkov (born in 1961 in Kirovograd,
Ukraine), who – prior to his career as a translator of foreign lms – worked as a police
Translated by Goblin

euphemism for the Russian obscenity
pizdets
: the word is a derivative of
pizda
, liter
ally means ‘cunt,’ and is used as a descriptive term or as an exclamation referring to
various emotional states, including admiration and shock. e latter name – meaning
‘divine spark’ – is a Russian idiomatic expression used to describe a person’s talent as
an extension of God’s immanent powers. e studios’ names reveal the nature of his
creations; the rst group includes translations of foreign lms into Russian, gener
ously spiced up with both common and newly-coined profanities –
28 Days Later
Alien
Alien: Resurrection
e Big Lebowski
Blade
Evil Dead
and many others. e
second group consists of creative renditions of major international and Hollywood
productions that include producing new scripts for and renaming well-known lms
Star Wars
renamed
Star Wars: Storm in a Glass
e Matrix
renamed
Schmatrix,
which is a reference to a low register word [
shmatok
] meaning ‘a piece’; and
e Lord
of the Rings

“¯¨‚‹ˆ  ™ˆÓ  ˜Œ º™ƒ›  ¨ˆ ˜ ­˜ ™ƒ›™ƒƒ ‚ ‚ƒ„¬  ƒ¨ƒƒ.
 ‹¬ƒ Œ‹‚¿ ‚ƒ‹¿ ™ˆ ‡ƒ‡ ‚¦‹, ‹ ‚‹¿ ‹ƒ‡, ‡ƒ‡ ‹¬ ›ƒ‚¦ˆƒ‹ Œ™‰©
º¿„.” [e sheer quantity of phrases le untranslated and obvious ubs always annoyed me.
Even then I wanted to make proper translations, that is to say, of a quality a good lm deserves.]

“¡‚ ‚ˆ‹‚‡© ‚™‚‹ ˆ‚Ó, ¨‹ ‰ ‚ «ƒƒƒ, ‡ƒ›ƒ‚¿ ‚‡¨‹¿   ‹™‚ ˜„

Vlad Strukov
Puchkov achieved the deconstructive function of
chernukha
by excavating the ‘forgot-
ten’ areas of the Russian language. In his translations Goblin enthusiastically engaged

“• „„ ™ˆ  ¬­, ƒ ‹ƒ‡ £©‚‡  ˆ  ˜ ¬ˆ™­‹  ™„ƒ¿ ˜„
™¦‚‚‡„ ­›˜‡„. ±ƒ‡„,  ƒ ‡ƒ‡„ ¬ˆ™‹ ˆ‚­ ‚‹™ƒ ƒ. ²    ƒ ‹ƒ‡„,  ƒ ‡‹™„ ¬ˆ™­‹
ˆ˜¦‚‡ ‡ ººƒ‡ƒ, ˆ ›     ¬  ¬­­   ˆˆ‰. [In my translations, the
lm baddies, as well as the police and the army speak proper Russian. ey speak that Russian
Translated by Goblin


profanities. At rst they shocked Russian audiences, but later, when the novelty wore
o, they began to amuse them. Always conscious of the desires of his audiences, Goblin
immediately armed himself with a new creative tool: by consciously altering the mean-
ing to exaggerate vulgar expressions, he now strove to use translation as a form of
popular entertainment. From the consumer’s point of view, a DVD with a Western lm
in Goblin’s translation carried added value and was worth more money than a copy
with a standard translation. Puchkov began to manipulate the viewers’ expectations
and infer meaning and excitement by distorting the original production, resulting in
the creation of a postmodern pastiche/parody. For example, viewers would start watch-
ing Goblin’s translation of
e Lord of the Rings,
expecting his usual rendition, rich in
emotional insights and vulgarities, but would soon be carried away by a dierent sort

Vlad Strukov
an extract from a song by Zemra, Russia’s leading female rock singer. e electrifying
melody of the song and passionate lyrics that allude to searching for a lost soul mate,
Translated by Goblin


Quentin Tarantino’s 1994
Pulp Fiction
. By altering the soundtrack, Goblin achieves a
humorous eect; furthermore, he undermines the conventions of the original lm by
shiing the emphasis from the search story towards a crime drama and a spy narrative,
the genre aliations that Goblin adhered to from the very beginning of his creation by
calling it
e Posse and the Rings
. In other words, Goblin perceives translation as a tool
to convey some meaning from the original production as well as an eective narrative

Vlad Strukov
that, in spite of Goblin signicantly altering the content of the original lm, his work
is still perceived as translation (
‘perevod’
) in both the popular imagination and in pro-
fessional spheres, where
‘perevod’
stands for the creation of a new system of meanings
that uses and abuses the previously known cultural context, and the construction of
this new meaning occurs in the sphere of language, be it the Russian language, or the
language of lm production.
As part of his complex encoding strategy, Puchkov modies the speech of his
characters, forcing them to speak with regional accents on the subject of classical Rus-
sian literature, geography, physics and the like, a move that was aimed at reaching out
to younger – possibly, high school student – audiences. Puchkov mixes modes, regis-
Translated by Goblin



Vlad Strukov
in a collective rather that private ownership of cultural capital. Such a divide originated
Translated by Goblin


While questioning authenticity and authority gures, Goblin uses his creations to

“ˆ „™ ˆ‚ ‡ƒ‡ †˜¨ : ˆ™¦‹ ˆ‚ ‹Œ ¨‡¦,  ƒ‚‹™ ˆ› ´ƒ‡ ƒ¿‚ˆ,
¨‹-‹ ¦ ˆƒ‚ Œ ›‚¿   ˆ ?” [e world is just the same: people steal little by little, every-
where now there are MacDonald’s, how come you do not have one here?]

Vlad Strukov
private self of emotion and intellect is displaced by an exteriorized identity that is more
concerned with verbal spectacle and audible display than with psychological, moral or
“No text is an island”
Translating
Hamlet
in twenty-rst-century Russia
Aleksei Semenenko
Stockholm University, Sweden
is chapter discusses recent
Hamlet
translations in Russia in the context of the
history of translation theory and canonicity. e introduction provides a short
description of the history of
Hamlet
translations in Russia, while the main part
focuses on the analysis of the translations that have appeared in the period from
1999 to 2008. As the article demonstrates, the Russian
Hamlets
of the twenty-
rst century are closely linked to previous canons of
Hamlet
and depend not
really on the source text but on the complex intertextual (and intersemiotic)


Aleksei Semenenko
e dual canon
e history of
Hamlet
in Russia is bound up with the question of literary canon forma-
tion.
e canonization of an original text is similar to the canonization of a transla-
tion, with one crucial dierence: the status of a canonical translation
seems
to be expli-
cable through its relation to the original text. A canonical translation diers from a
“normal” one also with respect to its status, since it is supposed to represent the na-
tional counterpart of a world-renowned text.
e whole history of translation, and especially the history of
Hamlet
transla
tion, proves that diverse interpretations of a play and the competition between these
interpretations makes possible the canonization of one (or several) translations.
Even outside Shakespeare
translation there are countless cases where a translated
work in competition with other versions of the same original becomes a classic of a
national literature. us, any attempt to translate a canonical text is always an at
tempt to recreate its exceptional position in the target system, as I will attempt to
demonstrate here.
One of the peculiarities of the Russian
Hamlet

Literary canon is dened here as a model of a text which can be used as a pattern for the
creation of other texts. See Semenenko 2007: 29–50.
“No text is an island”


K.R. [Grand Duke Konstantin Romanov] – 1899), and theater-oriented (Zaguljaev –
1861, Maklakov – 1880, Meskovskij – 1889, Gnedi – 1891, Rossov – 1907). Continu-
ous attempts to overturn the canon represented by Polevoj in the theater and Kroneberg
in literature merely served to underscore the canonical status of these translations. Of
course, Kroneberg
’s
Hamlet
had been performed in the theater as well, and Polevoj
’s
Hamlet

See, for example, Holland 1999: 334–5, Stríbrný 2000: 96–139, Makaryk & Price 2006.

Aleksei Semenenko

‘Kacap’ is a derogative term for a Russian person in the Ukrainian language.
“No text is an island”


Finally, one should mention Kirill Serebrennikov’s 2006 lm
Izobraaja ertvu
[Playing the Victim]. e plot of this (black) comedy is formally based on the struc
ture of
Hamlet
: the protagonist is constantly blathering on about the meaning of life
(or the absence thereof), his uncle marries his mother, he sees the ghost of his de
parted father, etc. e fact that the Hamlet-like hero has a job playing the victim in
police murder recreations and that he nally poisons the whole family is an ironic


Aleksei Semenenko
popularity as an original version. It has passed almost unnoticed in Russia, and it has
little hope of receiving any attention in the future.
2001-Poplavskij
Vitalij Poplavskij’s
Hamlet
was printed in 2001 in 1,000 copies. e preface to the
translation emphasized the translation’s conformity to modern linguistic and scenic
conventions, obviously in an attempt to prepare the reader for the translator’s style.
Indeed, from the very rst pages it seems that Poplavskij
’s use of modern vocabulary
and colloquialisms is redundant; such words as
triller
[thriller],
konstruktivnyj dialog
[constructive dialogue],
teorema
[theorem],
pohmel´nyj sindrom
[alcohol withdrawal
syndrome],
skafandr
[space suit],
bzik
“No text is an island”


2001-Koršunova
e same year Poplavskij
’s translation appeared, 500 copies of Nadeda Koršunova
’s
translation were published in Ivanovo. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to ob-
tain the book now, and I have managed to nd only two references to this text. e
marginality of this translation can be explained in part by its genre: the title of the
translation reads,
Hamlet. A Translation of W. Shakespeare
’s Play

Aleksei Semenenko
e structure of the play, in Žernov’s opinion, is also very dierent from the tradi-
tional perceptions. First of all, Žernov maintains that Shakespeare’s play originally in-
cluded an undocumented pantomime which was no less important for the action. is
intermission, in which Horatio watches Ophelia drown (if he does not directly kill
her), is “reconstructed” by Žernov
. Second, the chronological course of the play is cut
into six days corresponding to the six days of Creation (the tragedy ends on Friday,
which is the day of Christ’s crucixion). Finally, the play is divided into three acts in-
stead of the conventional ve – Žernov ignores the fact that in Shakespeare
’s time this
division did not exist at all – in order to correspond to another logic, that of
the
golden
mean
. Moreover, the play’s space is also divided into three: the outdoor scenes, scenes
in the state room, and scenes in other rooms. In conformity with Žernov’s calculations
of words and characters in the text, the three acts of the play (and three types of scene)
correspond to each other following the rule of the golden mean. e function of this
division is in fact to conrm Žernov’s hypothesis of the missing pantomime in the

Koroleva:




[Queen:

Alas, your answers are amiss.


Well, yes, because the poison is dripping from your questions.]

(Come, come, you answer with an idle tongue.

Go, go, you question with a wicked tongue.)
In the rst edition of the translation these lines were much more provocative:

Koroleva:

Vy govorite, tono pustomelja.


Vy govorite, tono iz bordelja.

It was used in the 2002 theater production and infuriated the critics: see Dina Goder in
Eenedel´nyj urnal
1.11.2002; Aleksandr Sokoljanskij in
Vremja novostej
28.10.2002 and
NatalÔja Kaminskaja in
Kul´tura
“No text is an island”


[Queen:

You speak as a blabbermouth.


You speak as if you are from the brothel.]
Here we observe the same approach as in Poplavskij
’s translation, which is to oer an
ingenious version of some well-known passages. e most illustrative example is the
rendition of the “to be” soliloquy, where an attempt to be original and to escape the
“all-seeing eye” of the previous canon has turned the translation into a sort of the-
matic variation. Žernov even “corrected” the most canonical line of the tragedy, “To be
or not to be.” In the Russian tradition, very few translators have attempted to change
the canon of “BytÔÔili/ilÔ ne bytÔ – vot v em/takov vopros” (Sokolovskij
, Kanšin,
Meskovskij
, and Averkiev), and they all failed in their attempts. Žernov’s variant is
“Tak bytÔili ne bytÔ?.. Nu i vopros! [So, to be or not to be? What a question!]” e
translator argues that it is rhythmically more adequate.
In other instances Žernov resorts to the text of his main rival, Pasternak. For
example:
Žernov: Polzuee zlodejstvo, a po-datski – zmeju podkolodnuju
[e crawling
evil, or, in Danish, “a serpent in the grass”];

Most reviews are collected at the theater chronicle website at http://www.smotr.

Aleksei Semenenko
parts, in the role of the Prince of Denmark, but on the other hand, almost every re-
viewer mentioned Nikolaj Volkov’s outstanding performance as Claudius. e unso-
phisticated scenography and amateurish directing were criticized as well, but most

“e sledded
Polacks
” (1.1) turned into a person’s name,
Pollak
. No justication is

One of the stumbling stones of
Hamlet
translation, the words “Lady, shall I lie in
your lap?” (3.2) are translated as “Ledi, mogu ja leÔ v vašej
rasseline
?” [May I lie
“No text is an island”


next attempt to preserve two meanings of the word
maid
makes the phrase sound
somewhat strange: “Eto blestjašaja myslÔ – leatÔ me nog
devstvennoj prislugi

“KolÔ ne pocho sovsem korolÔ naš na komedÔ, / Žto  v nej, moj bog, ne smog,
Aleksei Semenenko
2008-Cvetkov


A vy dumali, ja imel v vidu gluposti?

Ofelija.

U menja v mysljach dyra, milord.


¾ta myslÔ umestna medu deviÔich nog.

Ofelija.

Kakaja, milord?


Da tak, toe dyra v mysljach.

“No text is an island”

[Do you think I meant some nonsense?

I have a hole in my thoughts, my lord.


Which one, my lord?

Nothing, my thoughts are also about the hole.]

(Do you think I meant country matters?

I think nothing, my lord.


What is, my lord?

No thing.)
e example of the “to be” soliloquy is quite emblematic for the literalist tendency of
the translation. When the soliloquy was rst published on December 17, 2007, one of
the users commented on the unpronouncability of the fourth and h lines: “Ili proti-
stat´
morjam trevog / I
past´
, protivo
stav
? Skona
t´sja
spat´

Aleksei Semenenko
implicit: to write one’s name in the history of
Hamlet
. In
that sense, Pasternak
and
Lozinskij
are chosen as the main antagonists, and their texts serve as a “ducial point”
for the new translator.
In addition to that, all Russian
Hamlets
“No text is an island”


Works cited
Achtman, T.
Ofelija, Gertruda, Danija i drugie...
(Istorija princa Gamleta, raskazannaja Tatjanoj
Achtman s ‘enskoj poloviny’).
Russian dystopia in exile
Translating Zamiatin and Voinovich
Natalia Olshanskaya
Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, USA
is chapter describes how two Russian dystopian novels, Evgenii Zamiatin’s
We
(1921) and Vladimir Voinovich’s
Moscow 2042
(1987) reached their readers
through translations. e analysis centers on similarities and dierences in the
presentation of the dystopian world in modern and post-modern discourses
and their translations into English. e author argues that dystopia, a genre well
established in the Western literary tradition, encounters many more diculties

For a detailed study of the suppression of intellectual dissent by the Soviet regime during the
Natalia Olshanskaya

Clarence Brown, one of the most recent translators of
, argues that it was evidently the

Zamiatin had to make a public statement that the Russian text of
had been published
Russian dystopia in exile




In his comments on the language of another famous Russian dystopia Andrei Platonov’s
e Foundation Pit
, Joseph Brodskii calls Zamiatin “a stylistic epicure” (Brodskii 1997: 551).
Natalia Olshanskaya

(1)

Vot odin – stoial na stupeniakh nalitogo solntsem Kuba. Beloe... I dazhe

(2)

at
one
stood on the steps of the Cube which was lled with sunlight. A
white, no not even white but already colorless, glass face, lips of glass (Zil-
boorg 1924: 44).

(3)

ere: one unit was standing on the steps of the sunswollen Cube. A white
face (well, not actually white, but colourless by now), a glassy face, with glassy
lips (Guerney 1970: 75).

(4)

Now a single one – was standing on the steps of the sun-washed Cube. A
white... but not actually, not a white, but rather colorless now – a glass face,
glass lips (Cioran 1987: 30).

(5)

ere was one... standing on the steps of the Cube, the sunlight pouring down
on him. His face was white, or no, not white, it was no color at all, his glass
face, glass lips (Brown 1993: 45–6).
e two earliest versions, those of Zilboorg and Guerney, are highly readable. Both

As Mona Baker states in her denition of “initial form” in translation, “adherence to norms
Russian dystopia in exile


the rst half of the twentieth century in translating from Russian into English: his
technique is clearly “domesticating,” and while he is less attentive to the writer’s style,
he extremely accurate in the reproduction of the literal meaning of the words. As an
example of this accuracy, it seems appropriate to mention here that Zilboorg is the
only translator who throughout the novel gives the correct equivalent for the Russian
color
purpurnyi
(bright red), translated by others as “purple.” is seemingly minor
detail is contextually important in several parts of the narrative, since it creates a series
of complex images. For example, in the ninth chapter, or Record Nine, as it is called in
the novel, “the red blood-colored ower-like lips of women” are further associated
with the bright red (not the “purple!”) ribbon which chains the hands of the victim
and implies the idea of blood to be spilt at the end of the festivities. Several similar
semantic losses are caused by the misrepresentation of this color in most English-
language versions of
Cioran tries to match the rhythmic irregularity of the original by preserving most

Lawrence Venutti describes “foreignizing” as development of a translation discourse which
in its deviation from dominant linguistic norms “brings the awareness that the translation is
only a translation, imprinted with domestic intelligibilities and interests, and therefore not to be
confused with the foreign text” (Venuti 1998: 86).

e review of
, “Freedom and Happiness,” rst appeared in
e Tribune
No. 471
(January 4, 1946: 15–16), reprinted in Orwell 1970: 95–99.
Natalia Olshanskaya
the inuence of translations on literary interactions in general and on the development
of literary genres in particular. As Mikhail Bakhtin wrote in
e Dialogic Imagination
“It could even be said that European novel prose is born and shaped in the process of a
free (that is, reformulating) translation of other works” (Bakhtin 1981: 378).
Moscow 2042
: Postmodern dystopia in translation
A very dierent example of translation and reception of dystopia is presented by the
postmodern novel
Moscow 2042
Moskva 2042
) by Vladimir Voinovich. As any other
post-modern text with its irony, self-referentiality, and intertextuality, it has posed a
much more challenging task for translators and especially for readers in the receiving
cultures.
Vladimir Voinovich’s novel
Moscow 2042
invites the reader on a nightmarish jour

A lack of interest in the development of plot on the part of dystopian authors has been
Russian dystopia in exile




Natalia Olshanskaya
his satirical portrayal of two dierent groups of Russian immigrants – one extremely

e stylistic possibilities of language traditionally stand in the foreground of many
dystopian novels, both classical and more recent (Bolton 1984; Evans 1971; Evans
1987; Lose 1984). In Orwell’s novel, lexicographers of Ingsoc, in their eort to muti-
late history, replace the traditional language Oldspeak with Newspeak; in Anthony
Burgess’s dystopia
A Clockwork Orange
, numerous neologisms borrowed from Russian
are introduced to stress the moral and social debasement revealed, in part, in the deg-
radation of the language. In this respect, the linguistic situation in Voinovich’s
Moscowrep
is similar to that of other dystopian worlds. e narrator, a native speaker

Linda Hutcheon describes this “double-codedness” as an essential element of postmodern
texts (Hutcheon 1988: 49). See also: Allen 2000: 188–208.
Russian dystopia in exile


of Russian who, like Voinivich himself, has spent some time in immigration in


Natalia Olshanskaya
cultures, such as dystopia, has much more diculty in reaching the hearts and minds
of English-speaking readers in its postmodern than in its classical form.
Conclusion
e comparison of the history of the translation of Zamiatin’s
and Voinovich’s
Moscow
2042
and their transposition into a new cultural context helps us to under
stand how literary exchange occurs via translation. It serves as proof of the innovative
inuence of translation on a given literary tradition, and shows one of the numerous
ways a literary canon is developed and kept alive. It also reminds us that translation, as
Russian dystopia in exile


Brown, Edward James. 1976.
Brave New World, 1984 and We. An Essay on Anti-Utopia
. Ann
Arbor: Michigan Univ. Press.
Evans, Robert O. 1971. “Nadsat: e Argot and Its Implications in Anthony Burgess’ A Clock-
work Orange.”
Journal of Modern Literature
–—. 1987. “e
Noveau Roman
, Russian Dystopias, and Anthony Burgess.” In
British Novelists
Since 1900,
edited by J. I.
Biles, 253–266. New York: AMS Press.
Fenwick, Gillian. 1998.
George Orwell. A Bibliography.
New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press.
Ginsburg, Mirra (ed). 1970.
Evgenii Ivanovich Zamiatin. Soviet Heretic.
Chicago: Chicago Univ.
Press.
Ginsburg, Mirra. 1972. “Introduction.” In
Yevgeny Zamiatin. We,
v-xx. New York: Avon Books.
Glenny, Michael. 1970. “Introduction.” In
Yevgeny Zamiatin We,
9–22. London: Jonathan Cape
Ltd.
Hashak, Paul G. 1994
. Utopian / Dystopian Literature. A Bibliography of Literary Criticism.
Natalia Olshanskaya
Zamiatin, Yevgeny. 1970.
. Trans. Bernard Guilbert Guerney. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd.
–—. 1972
. We.
Trans. by Mirra Ginsburg. New York; Avon Books. 1972.
Zamyatin, Evgeny. 1987. “We.” In
Russian Literature of the Twentieth Century. An Anthology

Allen J. Kuharski
and playwright Jan Kochanowski (1530–1584).
Zadara’s surprising theatrical resusci-
tation of both Kochanowski and Racine on the early twenty-rst century stage stirs
deep currents in contemporary Polish, European, and global culture, and involves is-

Fedra
. By Jean Baptiste Racine. Trans. Tadeusz Boy-ÕeleÃski. Dir. Micha Zadara. Stary
Teatr, Kraków. Premiere: 1 April 2006;
Odprawa poslów greckich
. By Jan Kochanowski. Dir.
Micha Zadara. Stary Teatr, Kraków. Premiere: 13 January 2007; and
Igenia. Nowa tragedia
(wed©ug Racine’a)
. Text by Pawe Demirski and Micha Zadara (based on Jean Baptiste Racine).
Stary Teatr, Kraków. Premiere: 27 June 2008.

oppression, the defensive postures of nationalism, as well as the temptations of as-
similation into a larger globalized cultural landscape. Understood in these terms,
Zadara’s project is relevant outside of Poland, particularly among the countries of the
former Warsaw Pact. It is also relevant outside the European context, insofar as Poland’s
concerns for sustaining a distinct, dynamic, and visible contemporary culture within a
rapidly globalizing world are shared by any number of countries, particularly those
speaking languages other than English and associated historically with the so-called
“second” and “third” worlds.
With his trilogy, Zadara seeks to speak both as a Pole and as a European. By exten-
sion he seeks to place Poles in dialog on an equal footing with their fellow Europeans
Europeans.
His artistic agenda on this score is intrinsically social and political,

On this score, Zadara’s work can be seen as building on the arguments made by the émigré
Polish playwright and novelist Witold Gombrowicz (1904–1969) in the 1950s in the rst volume
of his highly inuential
Diary
. Writing in Argentina at the height of Stalinist rule in Poland,
Gombrowicz argued for a new national self-denition for Poles and a critical re-examination of
their mutual relationships with Europe and the world in the aermath of World War II and the
collapse of the Polish Second Republic.

Allen J. Kuharski
e paradox of Kochanowski and classical tragedy in Polish theater

Welsh also argues that even with its limited modern production history, Kochanowski’s
play is unique among similar European plays of its time in still being performed at all. On this
score, Welsh refers to a revival of the play in Kraków in 1935 and version of the play broadcast
on Polish television in the 1970s, but without any specic information on either production.


Kochanowski’s play was originally commissioned and performed on the occasion


Allen J. Kuharski

For Mickiewicz, the key text is his sixteenth lecture on Slavic literature given in Paris at the
Collège de France on 4 April 1843 (available in an English translation by Daniel Gerould in
TDR: e Drama Review


embodied in the Romantic and Neo-romantic repertory has become unmoored in the
years since the end of communist rule and the country’s experience of democracy and
voluntary entry into NATO and the European Union. In contrast, there has been a rise
in the post-communist era of a more secular and rational version of the Polish dra-
matic tradition. In that context, Zadara’s theatrical reanimation of Kochanowski’s hu-
manist tragedy nds its appropriate place among those parts of post-communist Polish
theater under the inuence of post-Brechtian German theater, of playwright Witold
Gombrowicz (1904–1969), or of the Marxist Humanist critic Jan Kott (1914–2001),
who re-imagined the signicance of classical drama for the modern theater in
Shake
speare Our Contemporary
or
e Eating of the Gods
e cultural politics of translation
In the case of Poland’s canon of Romantic and Neo-romantic plays, the working as-
sumption both within Poland and beyond has been that of the
untranslatability
of texts

Kochanowski’s play was published in a scholarly English translation in iambic pentamenter
by the American polonist George R. Noyes in 1928, with the title
Dismissal of the Grecian
Envoys
in the collection
Poems of Jan Kochanowski
(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1928).

Allen J. Kuharski
came with the publication of his cycle of poems
Laments
Treny
, 1580) in a translation


before university was German and Austrian. Polish was the language of his family life
and of summer holidays spent in Poland. When he began his university studies in the
United States, he was a highly-educated and well-traveled young Pole who was com-

Zadara collaborated on the translation in 2006 with the Polish-American student Joseph
Borkowski.

Kupiec Miko©aja Reja
, by Mikoaj Rej. Dir. Micha Zadara. Stary Teatr, Kraków. Premiere: 8
May 2009;
Ksi¬dz Marek
, by Juliusz Sowacki Dir. Micha Zadara. Stary Teatr, Kraków. Premiere:
10 November 2005.

Marta PiwiÃska, WstËp,
Ksi¬dz Marek
, by Juliusz Sowacki, ed. Marta PiwiÃska (Wrocaw:
Biblioteka Narodowa, 1991): CXVIII-CXXVII.

Allen J. Kuharski

Na gor¬co
Some Like It Hot
], adapted and translated from the lm by Billy Wilder by
Micha Zadara. Dir. Micha Zadara. Teatr Wspóczesny, Szczecin. Premiere: 7 October 2006;
and
C©opcy z Placu Broni
, by Ferenc Molnár. Adapt. Micha Zadara. Dir, Micha Zadara. Teatr
May/Teatr Narodowy, Warsaw. Premiere: 9 June 2007. In his Polish translation and stage adap-


Index
Kartoteka
, 1961)
than from theatrical neglect (
Dismissing the Greek Envoys
Father Marek
e theater of Micha Zadara marks the third stage in a new self-denition in
Polish theater that began in the 1980s, anticipating in the last years of communist rule
the cultural issues that would arise following the fall of the Berlin Wall. e foundation
of this movement is the ongoing work of the director Krystian Lupa (b. 1943), who
moved away from both Polish drama and the historic innovations of earlier Polish di
rectorial
auteurs,
such as Tadeusz Kantor (1915–1990) and Jerzy Grotowski (1933–1999).
Lupa nevertheless demonstrated the signicance of a contemporary Polish theatrical
lens in his treatment of Austrian writers (Musil, Bloch, Bernhard), as well as of other
modern European classics such as Nietzsche or Bulgakov. e subsequent work of the
Polish directors Grzegorz Jarzyna (b. 1968) and Krzysztof Warlikowski (b. 1962) also
began to look to the West, but in a dierent way, by moving away from Polish play
wrights while developing a contemporary theatrical style that was akin to new work in
Paris, Berlin, or Vienna. Zadara has spoken of the emergence of a new cultural zone
characterized by the increasing hybridization of Polish and German/Austrian inu
ences. e ongoing work of Lupa or Warlikowski can be seen as part of this process. If
there is a common denominator in the work of Lupa, Warlikowski, and Zadara, it is
their shared interest in philosophy. Zadara’s “Polish question” is ultimately ontological
or phenomenological in nature, not a revival of Mickiewicz’s messianic Romantic na
tionalism. Zadara’s contribution to this line of work has been to bring a European di
rectorial lens to the most intimately Polish material. With his interest in Racine, how
ever, he has staked out entirely new territory for contemporary Polish theater.
Zadara’s tragic trilogy
Zadara’s Kraków trilogy began in 2006, raising questions of how and why to stage a
neo-classical drama such as Racine’s
Phèdre
in the twenty-rst century. While there is
a modest history of performing Racine in Poland (primarily
Phèdre
), there is no record
of a previous production of
Iphigènie
. On this score, a Polish theatrical production of
Racine’s text is no less a rarity than one of Rej or Kochanowski, and similarly comes
with no coherent theatrical provenance (while
Iphigènie
was Racine’s most popular
play in his own time, it is rarely performed today in France). In this context, it is
Racine that carries the burden of apparent unperformability.
e neo-classicism of Kochanowski and Racine that has inspired Zadara and
Demirski, like the ancient Greek playwrights that in turn inuenced Kochanowski and
Racine, is characterized by a new and distilled expressivity of language (but which was

Wesele
. By StanisØaw WyspiaÃski. Dir. Micha Zadara. Teatr Stu, Kraków. Premiere: 3 Feb-
ruary 2006; and
Kartoteka
. By Tadeusz Tadeusz Ró×ewicz. Dir. Micha Zadara. Teatr Wspóczesny,
Wrocaw. Premiere: 8 December 2006.

Allen J. Kuharski

Micha Zadara and Pawe Demirski, interview with Agnieszka Fryz-WiËcek, “Bogowie sØ
okrutni mimo tego, ×e ich nie ma,” interview included with press materials for
Igenia. Nowa
tragedia (wed©ug Racine’a)
, trans. Allen Kuharski, Stary Teatr, Kraków, 27 June 2008.


form, we must shi the position from which we observe the world. On the periph-
eries, in the alleys, in the dumpsters of the dominant vision of the world, which
is sustained (as sarcastically conrmed by some contemporary cultural critics) by
13.

Pawe Demirski and Micha Zadara, “Przedmowa do sztuki,” program essay for
Igenia.
Nowa tragedia (wed©ug Racine’a)
, trans. Allen Kuharski, Stary Teatr, Kraków, 27 June 2008.
14.

Zadara apparently dismissed the possibility of using the only other published Polish trans-
lation of the text, by Artur MiËdzyrzecki (published in Waraw in 1978 by PaÃstwowy Instytut
Wydawniczy).

Allen J. Kuharski
only to Great Britain in its military commitment in Iraq. e production ended with a
tour de force

e other such institution is Teatr Narodowy (National eatre) in the historic Teatr Wiel-
ki in Warsaw, which was not operational for extended periods aer World War II, rst due to the
destruction of the facility during the German occupation and later as the result of a re in the
1980s that gutted the building. Beyond its greater institutional continuity, the Stary Teatr in
repertory, artistic prestige, and scale of operations has historically functioned
de facto
as a na
tional theater. It was ocially designated as such during a reorganization of state-supported
theaters in the 1990s. As reected in the types of productions that Zadara has directed there, the
Stary Teatr’s commitment to the staging of the Polish classical repertory in recent years has
consistently surpassed that of the Teatr Narodowy in Warsaw.



Allen J. Kuharski

Demirski and Zadara, “Przedmowa do sztuki,” program essay for
Igenia.


at play in Poland over the centuries than of any characteristics of the play per se. On one
level, Zadara’s various contemporary political interventions in his trilogy readily date
the work. On another level, by challenging and leveling the theatrical playing eld be
tween Poland and its new cultural trading partners in Europe, the trilogy remains a
signicant cultural gambit. Zadara’s reanimation of neo-classical tragedy simultane
ously through Kochanowski and Racine moves contemporary Polish and European
theater into unchartered waters. In embracing and asserting a Polish voice (both his
torical and contemporary) in the polyglot context of the contemporary European
Union, as well as standing apart from English as the new
lingua franca
of the E.U. and
of globalization, Zadara’s broad project of theatrical translation creates a two-way road
(or in regard to English, a
bypass
). Zadara’s cosmopolitan contemporary directorial lens
provides an alternative theatrical
lingua franca
for the ultimate translation and trans
mission of the Polish texts he stages to foreign audiences. While his productions are
enhanced by an outstanding literary translation of their texts for supertitles and even
publication, they are not dependent upon them to reach their international audience.
In practice, such productions performed successfully abroad transmit the text to non-
Polish audiences and can provide the hitherto missing goad for the commission of seri
ous new translations in the neglected eld of Polish verse drama (for example, commis
17.

In the case of a performance of Zadara and Demirski’s
Igenia. Nowa tragedia (wed©ug
Racine’a)
for a French audience, the supertitles would of course be of Racine’s original text.

Allen J. Kuharski
an original play entitled
Tykocin
. Commissioned as part of a year of ocial Polish-Israeli
cultural exchanges, the play is a treatment of contemporary Polish-Jewish relations
and each group’s respective relationship to the history of the Holocaust. It was written
by Demirski and Zadara in Polish, and rst performed in Hebrew by actors from the
Habbima National eater of Israel at Teatr Wspó
czesny in Wrocaw, Poland, in
November, 2008. us the world premiere of a new Polish play took place in Hebrew
in front of a Polish audience with supertitles in English and Polish. A parallel produc-
tion created by an Israeli director with Polish actors from Wrocaw entitled
Bat Yam
e other polysystem
e impact of translation on language
norms and conventions in Latvia
Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia
is article examines how shis in the socio-political context in Latvia have
aected the norms and conventions of both translation language and original

Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
e other polysystem


e law designates the use of Latvian in public life, while its private use and use in
private organizations is regulated only to the extent that it aects the legitimate inter

Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
Political change in the early 1990s, aer the country had regained independence
and was opened up to outside/Western inuences – a period referred to in Latvia as
the Awakening – led to a cultural reorientation under the massive inuence of English,
reected in, among other things, an enormous number of borrowings to ll linguistic
lacunae. ese changes were not merely supercial, however. ey inuenced deeper
linguistic structures and phenomena, including conventions of language use.
Translation, globalization and language

209 books translated;

140 Russian: 9

English

(proportion 15: 1)

519 books translated;

40 Russian:

243 English

(proportion 1: 6)

679 books translated;

68 Russian:

359 English

(proportion 1: 6)

844 books translated;

89 Russian:

481 English

(proportion 1: 5.5)
Translations of ction from other languages today are below the level of Russian. Eng-
lish translations on average constitute two thirds of the total. It is interesting to note
e other polysystem


delity to the source text, such a proportion cannot but have a huge impact on the
Latvian language.
As English began to replace Russian as the main contact and intermediary lan-
guage, it not only exerted direct linguistic inuence in the form of loans but also
brought about certain readjustments in the linguistic conventions of Latvian. e pri-
mary agent of this change seems to have been English, which is textually a much more
pliable and creative language, and where nonce-use has a prominent function as part
and parcel of the conventions of language use.
Openness and democracy also encouraged a general change in Latvian norms and
conventions in the form of a more colloquial style in the general language used by most
media and a freer use of substandard lexis in printed media, which was formerly taboo.
It would be impossible to say whether this is a transfer of English conventions, thus a
contact-induced change (omason, 2007: 41), or just the result of what could be called

Publications in 2008 include:

Fiction – 727 titles (Latvian ction – 321 titles)

Children’s and adolescents’ books – 244 titles

Scientic literature – 385 titles

Popular science books – 167 titles

Textbooks – 434 titles

Books on religion – 87 titles

Encyclopaedias – 19

Dictionaries – 39

Tourist guides – 51

‘Book type calendars’– 15 titles
e number of books per capita has been uctuating from 2 to 2.3 over the last few
years. is corresponds to the level in 1936 when, during the rst period of Latvian
Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
independence, 2.1 books per capita were published in Latvia. 10.6 publications per
capita, a peak in the number of books per capita, was observed in 1991 – the year
Latvia’s independence was restored.
e other polysystem


Preliminary norms

As indicated by Guntis Berelis (2007), Stephen King’s novel
Misery
was translated into Lat-
vian under the inuence of a very bad Russian translation – in fact, many parts of the Latvian
text have been translated directly from the Russian. For example, the protagonist, Sheldon, at
one point hears an utterance: “I am your fan number-one.” However, in the Latvian translation

Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
and compose only a very small percent of translations, they are tolerated to a certain
degree. is is a dangerous thing as they might introduce substantial distortions to the
originals and transfer into Latvian the eects of a politically-imposed censorship exer
it is rendered by a nonsensical “brunn hunn orrrrnnnn” (reminiscent of the Latvian word for
‘brown’) that is also found in the Russian translation (“¯™¨ ˆ˜© ¦Œ„¦¦¦¦ ©™   ”). Fur
ther on, an utterance by the same voice “red everrrrrythinggg” becomes in the Latvian transla-
tion “visss sssÛÛÛÛrrrtssssss” (everything is red), evidently from the Russian (“‡™™™ƒ‚  ˆ‚
‡™™™ƒ‚ ” [red, everything is red]). Moreover, numerous passages of the English text have
been lost in the Latvian translation, and notably, these are the same omissions made in the
Russian version.
e other polysystem


Pavel Štoll from the Charles University’s Baltic Studies Department (Prague) main
tains: “ey [Latvians] draw on an exceptionally rich tradition of folklore. ... is tradi
tion has to a great extent inuenced not only the character of Latvian modern art, but

Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
Latvian word formation. e translator’s intuitive adherence to the norm and her rec-
ognition of the latest shis in Latvian culture has contributed to the popularity of Saul
Bellow’s writing in Latvia.
Other translated texts
Translations of ction constitute only a very small part of all translated texts (perhaps
less than one percent), and Latvia has a huge translation market for a small country.
e legislation establishing Latvian as the ocial language requires that all information
concerning consumers must be made be available in Latvian. is aects not only out
e other polysystem

operate on the basis of this dichotomy. However, the pervasiveness of translation in the
modern, globalized world – and especially in “minor” cultures like Latvia – puts the
Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
many deviations (mainly on the lexical and semantic level) that its transcript would
have all the elements of an interference-saturated translation.
Interference in the broader sense is not limited to formal features alone. ere
may be serious or not so serious interference on the semantic, pragmatic or associative
level, as well, which is very dicult to trace in corpora. Moreover, there is an abun-
dance of interlingual texts demonstrating frequent code-switching, depending on the
topic, situation, and participants. So in order to nd “clean,” untainted samples of
speech/text, one would have to nd a monolingual who is in touch only with other
monolinguals of the same language and is cut o from any means of modern commu-
e other polysystem


forbidden fruit, and so exerted an immense impact on the “information-starved”
masses in Latvia. Growth of globalization in the last 20 years further enhanced the
status of English. As mentioned above, translations constitute approximately 70% of
the texts that an average speaker consumes in Latvia today. Translation language, then,
does not represent some strange alternative idiom. It is
the
idiom.
erefore, while a contrastive study of broad corpora of translational language
versus non-translational language certainly can produce some data on the peculiari-
Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
and keeps cleaning
its
ears). A more traditional way of expressing it in Latvian – “[..]
vairs no manis
, un bez mitas
ausis” (“[..]
avoids me
, and keeps cleaning
ears”
– without a possessive pronoun; the use of the pronoun “its” happens due to the inu-
ence of English.
Some Russian inuence is also observed, mainly in the use of Russian words, like
the particles
and
“Un tad man ienÛk prÛtÛ tÛda pavisam dumja doma –
ja nu tie
nemaz nav putni?” (Bankovskis, 2006: 10) (And then a stupid thought enters my mind
but
what if they are not birds?) Although
e other polysystem

kleptokr®tija
(cleptocracy),
monitors
(monitor),
koron®rs
(coronary),
narat¯vs
(narra-
tive),
inici²t
(initiate),
koeksist²t
(coexist),
komitolo³ija
(commitology). us, the re-
cent inux is not all that extraordinary. However, it is the frequency of several hundred
of these vogue words that is usually remarked upon and oen deplored, e.g.,
konsens(u)
(consensus),
interfeiss
(interface),
parametrs
Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
these words with their traditional meanings. Apart from new meanings, a broadening
of meaning can be noted in many cases, such as
produkts
(product) and
p®rdot
(to
sell). For example, if
p®rdot
was normally used for things, it is now also used for ideas,
the party line, yourself, which occasionally creates problems as the old meaning of sell
e other polysystem

Conversion
Conversion is when a word is assigned to a new class without any corresponding



optimiz²t
aktiviz²t
(activate)



aktiv²t
digitaliz²t
(digitize)



digitiz²t
minimaliz²t



minimiz²t
koment®rs
(comment)



koments
implant®ts
(implant)



implants
Perhaps the principle of economy is also at work here as some English compounds are
Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
Negative attributes
Another category of words that appears to be under the inuence of English is that of
negative attributes formed on the basis of nouns in the genitive case (instead of the
more typically Latvian negative adjective-based attributes). ese include both bor
rowings and native words (presumably loan translations):
nedz¯vnieku
(non-animal),
nedz¯v¯bas
(non-life),
nepiena
(non-milk),
e other polysystem


words, e.g.,
smogs
(smog),
or motelis
(motel). Today, however, nonce blending is rife
and aects even native words:
sliktenis [slikts liktenis]
(bad fate);
µe±ineklis [·e±ins pi-
emineklis]
(Lenin monument);
c°kmens [c°ka betmens]
(pig Batman), a media image
of an environmental polluter;
Putinoets [Putins Pinoets]

Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
enormously expanded the “occasional,” “contextual” (Veisbergs 1997) or “instantial”
(Naisione 2001) use of idioms, both in translated and native texts. Phraseology is no
more a stock of hackneyed phrases but a great source for innovation.
Conclusions
In a globalized world a growing proportion of information originates outside any giv-
en country. Approximately 70% percent of texts that an average Latvian consumes are
translations, and so translated language will inevitably aect Latvian. A shi in norms
and conventions – mostly toward aligning Latvian with English – can be observed.
is is already the third major shi within the last two centuries – rst toward Ger

an activation of linguistic potentialities of the language under the inuence of
another language/culture (Veisbergs 2007), or


a general standardization/homogenization of languages with a consequent loss of
cultural uniqueness (Munat 2004: 115)?
Perhaps the answer lies in the question. Does such activization bring with it an expan-
e other polysystem

Berelis, Guntis. 2007. “Guntis Berelis vÙrtÙ StÜvena Kinga romÛna ‘Mizerija’ tulkojumu.”
Literat°ras m²nešraksts
Karogs
Boguta, Grzegorz. 2000. “Policy Review of the Latvian Book Sector.” Electronic Publishing,
Books and Archives Project. Cultural Policy and Action Department DG IV: Education,
Culture Youth and Sport, Environment Council of Europe, F-67075 STRASBOURG Cedex,
Available online: http://www.osi.hu/cpd/governmentslovebooks/latvia01.html#contents
(Accessed 12 November 2010).
Chesterman, Andrew. 1997.
Memes of Translation. e Spread of Ideas in Translation eory.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Chesterman Andrew. 1999. “Translation Typology”. In
e Second Riga Symposium on Prag-
matic Aspects of Translation,
edited by Andrejs Veisbergs and Ieva Zauberga, 49–62. Riga:
University of Latvia Press.
Even-Zohar I. 1978. “e Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem.” In
Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Study,
edited by J. Holmes, J. Lam-
bert, and R. van den Broeck, 117–127. Leuven: ACCO.
Hartmann, R.R.K. and James Gregory. 2001.
Dictionary of Lexicography.
London/New York:
Routledge.
Hartmann, R.R.K. 1994. “e Use of Parallel Text Corpora in the Generation of Translation
Equivalents for Bilingual Lexicography.” In
EURALEX ‘94 Proceedings,
edited by Willy
Gunta Lomele and Andrejs Veisbergs
Munat, J. 2004. “A Case Study in Cross-cultural Translation: TINTIN in English and Italian.” In
Contrastive and Applied Linguistics 12,
edited by A. Veisbergs, 101–120. Riga: SVTN.
Naciscione, Anita. 2001.
Phraseological Units in Discourse
. Riga: LAC.
Translation as condition and theme
in Milan Kundera’s novels
Jan Rubeš
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
In this chapter the author explores the problematic relationship of the Czech
novelist Milan Kundera to the translation of his work. On the one hand,
translation oers authors who write in languages of limited diusion entrée onto
the world stage. On the other hand, translation entails the author’s loss of control
over his work. e author traces the emergence of what may be a ctitious
translator, conjecturing that this translator was in fact Kundera himself. e
chapter raises important questions about the translator’s agency, the nature of
literature in translation, and the very idea of a national literature.
In 1975, seven years aer the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, Milan Kundera
le his country for France. is was at a time when Gustav Husak’s government made
Jan Rubeš
In France, the situation of a number of very well-known intellectuals who had
joined the communist party aer World War II was similar. eir aspirations appeared
increasingly at odds with the conservative elements of the Central Committee (Maurice

Pospišil, for example. His wife was sentenced to een years. Both were later amnestied.
Translation as condition and theme in Milan Kundera’s novels

quasi-monopoly over French translation of Czech literature was conrmed in the
1960s when France saw an increased interest in Czech literature. Aymonin translated
books and plays by the philosopher Karel Kosik, the novelist Jii Sotola, and the play-
wright Vaclav Havel. It would seem that none of these young authors knew anything
about his political past and the denunciation campaign of 1951. By the 1960s, Aymonin
had established a reputation as an important cultural gure and was well known in
Prague intellectual and political circles. A notorious womanizer, he enjoyed the social
atmosphere of Prague in the mid-sixties, as described by Kundera in
Laughable Loves.
And so, it was only natural that he was asked to translate
e Joke.
Since his arrival in France in 1975, Kundera has progressively modied his own
image, although he has never admitted it. His intention was undoubtedly sincere:

All translations from the French are mine unless otherwise indicated.

Aragon remained a member of the French communist party until his death.

Jan Rubeš
person I really thought about was François Kérel, who had to translate my manuscript.
As I formed my sentences, I heard as an echo their future French version. Closely fol-
lowing his translation, I didn’t see any dierence from the original, and I accepted to
have the novel translated (in Portugal, Brazil, Greece, Sweden, Iceland, and Norwegian)
from the French version, with which I identied myself” (1985: 89).
In the revised versions, Kundera insisted that the following note be included: “e
French translation has the same authentic value as the Czech original.” From that mo
ment on, many things began to change in Kundera’s style. Essentially, he no longer
addressed his books to Czech readers, but to French readers or to speakers of other
foreign languages. In his stories, the intimacy of the individual’s private life is con
stantly assaulted by social or political situations: destiny crushed by History; small per
sonal events versus global, historical events; actors and victims; how to survive. When
the subject came up of the novel having been inspired by Czech reality, Kundera had to
explain certain situations, such as the political context of the Prague Spring of 1968, the
history of February 1948, when the communist party seized power, the period of “nor
malization” and its personalities, like Gustav Husak or the pop singer Karel Gott.
In addressing his books to the French reader, Kundera was constantly confronted
with the diculty of expressing the exact meaning of certain words and concepts that
he had used in Czech but were altered in the French translation. is constant move-
Translation as condition and theme in Milan Kundera’s novels


e same problem, in a very dierent context, preoccupied another Czech writer.
In 1920 Karel Žapek, who would later become a very successful author and an impor

Jan Rubeš
and the aim of his writing have changed. e topics are dierent: Slowness (La len-
teur), Identity (L’identité), and Ignorance (L’ignorance). And the storyline is reduced,
Index
A-BA-BA-HA-LA-MAHA
(publishing house)

Abrams, M. H.

219
Aeschylus

49, 294

Afghanistan war
(2001-present)

289
Aigi, Gennadij

Akhmatova, Anna

151, 190
11, 194
“Akkerman Steppe”
(“Stepy
akerma\fskie
(Mickiewicz)

Album
(Radko e Killer)

(TV show)

Alice in Wonderland
(Carroll)

36, 180
Aliens
(Cameron)

238
Andrukhovych, Yuri

33, 51
Anti-Bimmer
(Goblin)

243–5
Antigone
(Sophocles)

Aeneid
(Virgil)

Andreeva-Bal’mont, E.A.

101
1,
107, 109
anti-Semitism

12, 124
Apollinaire, Guillaume

Appiah, Kwame Anthony

34–5
Aragon, Louis

318–19, 322
Arguedas, J.M.

Aristophanes

e Art of the Novel
(Kundera)

27, 29, 320–1
Ashvaghosha

100, 107
Asturias, Miguel Êngel

211–12
Auden, W.H.

199–202
Augustine of Hippo

Austria

25, 27, 30, 40, 43, 119
5,
128, 138, 140, 199, 285–7
Austro-Hungarian Empire

20,
87, 138, 140
authorial identity

57, 59, 61,
63, 75, 81, 92, 106, 122, 130–1,
133–4, 243–4

119–35
Aymonin, Marcel

318–19, 322
Azerbaijan

Bakhtin, Mikhail

152
Balkans

1, 3, 20, 23–4, 138, 223–4,
226–9, 231
Bal’mont, Konstantin

97–113
and Calderón

102–4, 108
and classical antiquity
texts

97, 100, 109–10
in Europe and Russia

104–7
and European culture

and European drama

101–4,
and the foreign

99–101
original play by

102
prolic nature of

on Shakespeare

103–4
and Shelley

99, 103, 108–9
See Sakuntala
eater of
Youth and Beauty
Baltic states

12, 30, 166, 296, 303
BaraÃczak, Stanisaw

284
barbarism

23, 112, 273
baroque translation

e Bartered Bride (

“battle of the ballads” (1816)

Baer, Brian James

188, 188

205, 211, 213
Bart, István

Barthes, Roland

288
Bauer, Ljudevit

121
Bavaria

Bazhan, Mykola

46

51

51
Being and Time
(Heidegger)

Belinskii, Vissarion

55, 69
Bellow, Saul

303
Benjamin, Walter

130, 201, 246
Berman, Antoine

13, 57, 57
3,
12,13, 63
15, 70, 72, 76
Bestuzhev, Aleksandr

Bhabha, Homi

20–1, 26
Bible

12, 37, 40–1, 225
Old Testament

12, 41, 225
New Testament

Bibliograia Indii
(Bibliography
of India)

Bidney, Martin

103
Bimmer
(Buslov)

243–5
Blake, William

99–100, 109
Blatnik, Andrej

7, 138
Blavatsky, Helena

103–4, 104
Bleak House
(Dickens)

Bloch, Eva

287, 321
Blok, Aleksandr

98, 102, 111, 155
Boccaccio, Giovanni

Bondar, Andrii

33, 51
borders

3, 11, 19–23, 26, 29–30,
47, 93, 100, 138, 153, 227, 244,
281, 285–6
Borges, Jorge Luis

205, 211
Boris Godunov
(Pushkin)

Bosnia-Herzogovina

6–7, 119
Bosniak

Bosnian language

7

Boyd, Brian

171, 177, 179, 182–3
Bradbury, Malcolm

28, 229
e Bride of Abydos
(Byron)

Briusov, Valerii

45, 101–2, 108–9,
Broch, Hermann

26–7, 287
Brodsky, Joseph

120, 128,
187–202
before emigration

and John Donne

northern exile of

193–6
translation debut

and W.H. Auden

199–202
Brooks, Jerey

157
e Brothers Karamazov
(Dostoevsky)

Brusilovskii, Evgenii

Budapest

24–5

Buddhism

103
Bulgaria

11, 22, 24–5, 100, 131,
173, 189, 194, 219–31, 301
Bulgarian Revival

219–21, 220
Bulgarian translation of Lord
Byron

219–31
and expectations

and
e Giaour

219, 224–9
and
Manfred

229–31
and “otherness”

Bürger, Gottfried August

55,
63–5, 67, 69, 72
Burgess, Anthony

272

243–5
Butler, Judith

137, 141, 145
Byron, Lord (George
Gordon)

11, 68, 219–31, 39
See e Bride of Abydos
e
Giaour
Manfred
Calderón de la Barca, Pedro

102–4, 108
Cameron, James

238
Cantos
(Pound)

Žapek, Karel

321
e Captive Mind
(Miosz)

Carlito’s Way
(De Palmo)

238
Carner, Josep

Cassandra (Greek
mythology)

280, 289, 292
Cassandra (character)
(von Rezzori)

Catalan language

35–7, 301
Catalonia

35–7, 301
Castilian Spanish and
French

Catherine the Great

4, 120
Cavalleria rusticana
(Mascagni)

Ceauåescu, Nicolae

79–82, 84,
censorship

8, 9, 11, 42, 120, 123,
138, 151
3, 153–4, 153
11,14,
165, 187–202, 208, 230, 235–8,
245–6, 265, 296, 302
and lm translation

and Hungary,
See
Hungarian
translation

2–3, 10, 19–30,
Central Europe: Core of Periph-
ery?
(Lord)

Cernat, Paul

Žernov, Andrej

255–8
Cervantes, Miguel de

27, 48, 73

Chekhov, Anton

43, 45
chernukha
lm period

239–240
Chernyshchevsky, Nikolai

5, 180
Chesterman, Andrew

300, 305
“e Child of Civilization”
(Brodsky)

China

35, 89, 93, 215
Chinese language

38, 195, 214,
301
“Chinesication” (
kitaizatsiia

Chukovskii, Kornei

5, 194–5
Cioran, Emil

23–4, 80, 82–3
Cioran, Samuel

267–9
“clash of civilizations”

classical/classicist translation

42,
48, 55, 59–66, 64
16, 69–70,
74–5, 161, 209
A Clockwork Orange
(Burgess)

272
Cold War

8, 11, 19–20, 22, 30, 81,
118, 171–85, 278
and translation theory

171–
See
Roman Jakobson;
Vladimir Nabokov
colonialism

2, 6–7, 8
3, 33–4,
38–9, 51, 79, 94, 296
e Comedy of Errors
(Shakespeare)

communism

6, 8–13, 20–1, 24,
30, 47, 79–83, 85, 88, 93, 123
8,
124, 133, 137, 139, 152, 184
6,
205, 209, 226, 235, 270–1, 273,
279, 282–3, 285, 287–8, 294,
296, 303, 317–20
in Czechoslovakia

in Romania

79–83, 85, 88, 93
Condee, Nancy

Conrad, Joseph

Contempt
Le Mépris
(Godard)

291
cosmopolitanism

6, 277–94
A Critique of Words
(Žapek)

321
Croatian language

7, 117–35, 138,
189, 198
Croatian translation

119–23, 140

119–35
publication statistics

See
Josip Sever; Dubravka
Ugreši; Irena Vrkljan
Cross Currents
(Central
European periodical)

Cuban authors

188, 190, 194, 198,
210, 213
cultural translation

1–13, 19–21,
26, 30, 74
e Curtain
(Kundera)

29–30

120, 122–4,
126–30, 133

Cyrano de Bergerac
(Rostand)

Cyrillic

7, 24, 150
Czech language

19–22, 29–30
See
Jií Levy
Czech Republic

2, 5–6, 10–12,
19–22, 24–30, 39, 47, 60, 62,
18, 83, 100, 119, 124, 141,
173, 175, 184
6, 189, 194, 198,
222, 266, 301, 317–22
nationalists

Russian domination of

See
Milan Kundera
Czech Translation eories
(Levy)

Czechoslovakia

20–1, 29–30, 119,
124, 184
6, 317–21
Daniel, Yulii

Dante (Dante Alighieri)

43,
47, 120
Davies, Norman

Dayton Agreement (1995)

de Chézy, A.L.

de la Motte Fouqué,
Friedrich

De Palmo, Brian

238
Decameron
(Boccaccio)

Deki
(Boys)
Novšak)

139
Delille, Jacques

Demirski, Pawe

277–8, 287–8,
288
12, 289
13, 291–4, 293
Descartes, René

Dibrova, Volodymyr

33, 51
Dickens, Charles

Discourse on the Old and New
Style in the Russian Language
(Shishkov)

Dismissing the Greek Envoys
(Kochanowski)

277–8, 281–3,
285, 290, 292, 294
Index


Dobytaia muzhestvom Urvasi
Urvasi Won by Valor
(Kalidasa)

107, 109
Dolinin, Alexander

Don Quixote
(Cervantes)

Donne, John

Dostoevsky, Fydor

43, 73–6, 267
“double readership”

8, 8
Dovlatov, Sergei

171
Drai-Khmara, Mykhailo

Druhe vidlunnia
(Second Echo)
(Kochur)

dubbings

236, 239, 245
Dur, Ion

Durdik, Josef

Dwyer, Tessa

dystopia

265–74
postmodern

270–4

See Moscow 2042
Dzhabaev, Dzhambul

11, 154,
Eastern Bloc

9, 19, 22, 25
Eastern European identity

2–6,
3, 9–11, 33–4, 79–94, 97–113
and cultural belatedness

as “culture of translation”

as dened by colonial
oppression

East-West mediator

79–94,
97–113
and “otherness”

Eco, Umberto

302
El Senor Presidente
(Asturias)

211–12
“Elegy Written in a Country
Church-Yard” (1751)
(Gray)

59, 69
Eliade, Mircea

Eminescu, Mihai

Ems Edict

40–2
Eneïda
(Kotliarevs’kyi)

Engels, Friedrich

Enlightenment

22–3, 155, 220

Etkind, Em

5, 8, 188, 190–5
Eugene Onegin
(Pushkin)

43,
45–6, 172, 174, 176–7, 180–1
Eurasia

3, 8, 105
Eurocentrism

1, 22, 26, 99, 101,
107, 111
Even-Zohar, Itamar

5, 154
13,
297
experimental translation

Fadeev, Aleksandr

e Farewell Waltz
(Kundera)

Father Marek
(Sowacki)

285–7,
293
Faust

48, 104, 165–7,
Feinberg, Leslie

141, 143–5
feminism

11, 139–41, 145
Fénelon, François

Ferdydurke
(Gombrowicz)

Fernandez, Pablo Armando

Finkel, Oleksandr

45

152, 156
Flaubert, Gustave

Forsiranje romana reke
(Fording
the Stream of Consciousness)
(Ugreši’)

France

182, 318
France, Anatole

Frank, Joseph

173, 178
French language

6, 8, 12, 19–30,
35, 38, 56, 59, 61, 65–8, 105–6,
119–20, 123, 141, 173–4, 177–8,
181, 206, 209, 221, 266, 269,
284, 293
17, 301, 310, 317–22

45–6, 49, 56–7,
66, 107, 127
Friedberg, Maurice

34, 52, 60,
68, 76, 151, 165, 169
Friendship of the Peoples
Druzhba narodov

161,
162
Fylypovych, Pavlo

GaczyÃski, Konstanty
Ildefons

190–2, 191
12, 194
Galicia, Ukraine

39–41, 43–4
Garcia Marquez, Gabriel

49,
205, 211
Garcia-Moreno, Laura

Gasparov, Mikhail

gay literature

51, 137–45
Gender Trouble
(Butler)

137,
141, 145
Gentzler, Edwin

2, 151
German language

8, 29, 39, 40,
56, 61–3, 65, 67–9, 71, 72
26,
73–4, 79, 87, 102, 105
6, 113,
119, 119
5, 120, 128, 133, 138–41,
173, 175, 189–90, 209, 221, 219,
254, 283–7, 297, 299, 301–2,
314, 320
German Romantics

56–7, 62
12,
26, 102
Germany

20, 22, 25, 30, 35, 38,
44, 56, 63, 73–4, 139–40, 151,
175, 229–30, 250, 271, 273,
282–8, 290, 295–7
See
Nazi Germany
Ghersini, Teodora

144
e Giaour

219, 224–9
e Gi
(Nabokov)

Ginsburg, Mirra

267–8, 267
e Global Fund for Women

145
globalization

7, 33–4, 51, 248,
277, 288, 293, 298–300, 307
Gnedich, Nikolai

63–6, 68
Goblin (Dmitrii Iur’evich
Puchkov)

9–11, 237–48, 252
“anti” and “pro”

243–5
as authority gure

245–8
chernukha
lm period

240
discordant creations of

240–3
and lm translation in
Russia

(im)proper translations
of

238–40
and
e Lord of the
Rings

241–5, 247
Godard, Jean-Luc

291, 294
e Godfather

49

48, 57
3, 58–9, 58
7, 61,
69, 72–4, 104–7, 113, 165–7, 169,
282, 293
Gogol, Nikolai

39, 43, 55, 57,
3,4, 70–4
Goldblatt, Harvey

180, 183
Gombrowicz, Witold

26, 51,
2, 283
e Good Soldier Švejk
(Hašek)

Gorbachev, Mikhail

Gordin, Yakov

188, 192
Gorky/Gor’kii, Maxim

9, 46,
109, 111, 155
ranta

22, 27–8

Gray, omas

59, 67, 69
Grayson, Jane

Greece, ancient

38, 49, 67, 70–2,
100–2, 113, 189, 287–8, 292,
294, 301
Greek drama and Polish
theater

11, 277–94
cultural politics of
translation

283–4
paradox of

280–3
See
Jan Kochanowski; Micha
Zadara
Greeks

7–8, 11, 38, 49, 56, 66–7,
71, 73, 82, 100–2, 105, 108,
189, 198, 221–2, 244
5, 225–6,
277–94
language of

66

and Russia

Green, Michael

102
Grobnica za Borisa Davidovia
(A Tomb for Boris Davidovi)
(Kiš)

124
Grotowski, Jerzy

287
Grudinina, Natalya

193–5
Guerney, Bernard Guilbert

267–
Gulag

44–7, 49
Gumilev, Nikolai

Habsburg Monarchy

26, 39,
41, 138

Hamlet
translations

51, 165,
165
32, 249–62
and the literary canon

250–1
during 1950–80s

252

1999–2008, 251–61
Russian phenomenon
of

249–52
See
Andrej Žernov; Vitalij
Poplavskij; Vitalij Rapoport
Haraszti, Miklós

207
Harms, Daniil

120, 122, 130–2
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows
(Rowling)

Harzem, omas

286
Hašek, Jaroslav

Hauptmann, Gerhart

43, 104
Havel, Václav

26, 83, 319
Hawkesworth, Celia

128, 129
27,
134
Heaney, Seamus

284
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm
Friedrich

81, 106, 113, 223–4
hegemony

1–2, 5, 11, 35–6, 142,
156, 235–48
Heidegger, Martin

81, 85–6
Heine, Heinrich

43, 161
Hemingway, Ernest

192, 210
Henderson the Rain King
(Bellow)

303
Hermans, eo

1, 152, 300
Hesiod

Himalayas

97, 99
Hirschfeld, Magnus

139
Hitler, Adolf

139
Hölderlin, Friedrich

Holland

Hollywood and translation

235–
48, 9–11, 235–48, 286, 312
See
Goblin
Holmes, James

2, 93
Holocaust

294
Homer

38, 43, 61, 66, 70–1, 105,
290–1
Homoseksualnost
(Homosexuality)
(Podlesnik)

139
Horace

38, 45, 105
Hosking, Georey

Hugo, Victor

43

Humboldt, Alexander von

Humboldt, Wilhelm von

3, 60
Hungarian Revolution

Hungary

11, 19–20, 206–16
See
Austro-Hungarian Empire
Hungarian translation of
Latin American literature

11,
and anthologies

212–13
and censorship

207–8
and classics

and Cuban authors

210
and linguistic taboos

214–15
and literarization

209, 212
14, 216
and peripheral
literatures

uniformity of style in

205–6,
216
Huntington, Samuel

Husak, Gustav

Huxley, Auldous

Ibsen, Henrik

102, 104, 108
identity
Asian

authorial

57, 59, 61, 63, 75, 81,
92, 106, 122, 130–1, 133–4,
243–4
Central European

19–23, 26–7
Eastern European

2, 6, 9–11,
European

national identity

4, 7–9, 13,
26–7, 32–5, 37–8, 49, 75, 93,
101, 235, 247, 278, 281–2,
296
and Otherness

223–9, 231
Russian

7, 10–11, 246
sexual

137, 141–3
translator

236, 238, 240–1
Ukrainian

33–4, 37
Western

1–2, 4
e Iliad
(Homer)

43, 61, 66
imitation

4, 56, 63, 66, 68–70,
100–1, 131, 161
28, 176, 181
5,
281, 288, 297–8, 313
Immortality
(Kundera)

321–2
imperialism

2, 6–9, 11, 20, 26,
33–5, 39–44, 79, 87, 98, 138,
140, 151, 155, 168, 220–1, 224,
226–7, 246, 314, 320
See
Austro-Hungarian
empire; Ottoman empire;
Russian empire
International English

India, and translation

10, 97–113
See
Konstantin Bal’mont
Indologists

106–7, 111
International Pen Conference
(Ljubljana) (2006)

International Renaissance
Foundation (Soros)

Internationalism or Russication?
(Dziuba)

Inventing Eastern Europe
(Wol)

Iphigènie
(1674) (Racine)

277,
287–8, 290–3
e Invisible Man
(Wells)

Ionescu, Eugen

Ionescu, Nae

82–3
Iraq war (2003–present)

289–92
Islam

26, 225–6, 229
Islamic extremism

Italian language

Ivanov, Georgii

155
Index


Jakobson, Roman

5, 11, 171–85,
184
6, 266

177–81
biographical
information

172–3
and McCarthyism

184
political subtext

181–5

174–7
Jena romantics

Jewish people

3, 12, 20, 25, 123
8,
124, 126
15, 139, 294, 296
e Joke
(1967) (Kundera)

21,
29, 317–19, 322
Ka\ra, Franz

19, 26–7
Kalidasa

97, 100, 102, 104–5,
107–12
See Dobytaia muzhestvom
Urvasi
Maliavika i
Agnimitra
Sakuntala
Kalinin, Mikhail

Kamernyi Teatr

97–8, 109–10
Kanikova, S. I.

2, 7–8
Kant, Immanuel

Kantor, Tadeusz

287
Karamzin, Nikolay

58, 65, 103,
Katan, Edmund

303
Katenin, Pavel

55, 62–5
Katranov, Nikola

224–5
Kazakhstan

26, 156–7, 161
Kennan, George

Kérel, Francois

Khlebnikov, Velimir

179, 190
“A Kidnapped West” (essay)
ranta
) (Kundera)

21–2,
Kim, Anatolii

Kiš, Danilo

20, 117–18, 123–7,
130, 133
Kiukhel’beker, Vil’gel’m

Knight in Panther’s Skin
Rustaveli)

46, 100
Kochanowski, Jan

277–94
See Dismissing the Greek
Envoys
Kochur, Hryhorii

Kogan, Feiga

12

Konrád, Gyoárgyi

Konwicki, Tadeusz

Korais, Adamantois

221
Kornilov, Vladimir

Koršunova, Nadeda

255
Kosik, Karel

Kostioukovitch, Elena

302
Kotliarevs’kyi, Ivan

Kott, Jan

283
Královédvorsky Manuscript

Kroneberg, Andrej

250–1, 258
Kryms’kyi, Ahatanhel

Kulish, Panteleimon

Kulle, Victor

Kundera, Milan

2–4, 6, 10, 12,
19–30, 317–322
and borders

19–22, 29–30
“Centro-Eurocentrism”
of

and Central Europe

10,
and “others”

personal dictionary of

320
publication history of
“Kidnapped”

21–2
small nations and
“culture”

translation as theme

See e Art of the Novel
e Curtain
e Joke
“A
Kidnapped West”;
Laugh-
able Loves
; “Un Occident
kidnappé”;
Testaments Betrayed
; “e
Tragedy of Central
Europe”;
e Unbearable
Lightness of Being

160–1, 160
26,
Lainé, Pascal

Last Action Hero
(McTiernan)

238
Latin American literature trans-
lation

11, 206–16
Latvia

295–314
national identity

296–7

296
Latvian translation

295–314
and globalization

298–300
historical background

295–7
and Latvian language

297–8
linguistic impact of

307–14
and “loans”

and norms

300–4, 310–14
phrase level and
grammar

307–8
and original writing

304–7
and texts

304
Laughable Loves
(Kundera)

22, 317, 319
e Lay of Igor’s Campaign,
See
Slovo o polku igoreve
Le Débat

320
Le éâtre Indien
(Lévi)

107
League for the Protection of
Human Rights (Romania)

Leihm, Antonin

Lenin, Vladimir

9, 158–9
Lenore
(1773) (Bürger)

55, 62,
67, 69
Lermontov, Mikhail

122, 176–7,
179, 200, 222, 222
Les aventures de Télémaque, ls
d’Ulysse
(1699) (Fénelon)

lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgen-
dered (LGBT)
cultural context of

138–40
Lesbian culture

142–4
and queer strategies

140–2
translation

137–45
translator as author

144
Levansky, Vladimir

150
Lévi, Sylvain

107, 111
Levi-Strauss, Claude

173
Levin, Iurii

61, 62
Levin, Phillis

143
Levy, Jii

5, 60, 61
10,11, 62,
13, 64
Lewis, Cecil Day

79, 82–3, 88–94
Lezbina zgodba
(Tratnik)

139
LGBT,
See
lesbian, bisexual, gay,
transgendered
Liiceanu, Gabriel

80, 86
“Literary Reveries” (1834)
(Belinskii)

Literary Translation in Rus-
sia: A Cultural History
(Friedberg)

e Life of Buddha
(Ashvaghosha)

100, 107
Life is a Dream
La vida es
sueno
) (Calderón)

103
Life is Elsewhere
(Kundera)

317

e Life and Work of the
Composer Foltyn
(Žapek)

321
Lithuania

3, 25–6, 65
18, 100,
135, 189, 192, 281, 301–3
“Liudmila” (Zhukovskii)

62–3,
Lolita
(Nabokov)

171, 173–4, 184
Lomonosov, Mikhailo

63–4, 71
Look at the Harlequins
(Nabokov)

Lord Byron,
See
Byron, Lord
e Lord of the Rings
(Tolkien)

241–5, 247
Losev, Lev

187, 188, 196
Lovinescu, Monica

82–3
Lowell, Robert

197
e Lower Depths
(Gor’kii)

Lozinskij, Michail

251, 258–9,
262
Lubiewo
(Witkowski )

Lukash, Mykola

34, 46, 48–9
Lupa, Krystian

287
Macedonia

1, 119, 135, 141
Madame Bovary
(Flaubert)

48

100, 102,
104, 108
Majakovskij, Vladimir

120,
6, 121–3, 132, 177–8
Maliavika i Agnimitra
Malavika and Agnimitra
(Kalidasa)

107, 109
Mama Cash Cultuurfonds

145
e Man without Qualities
(Musil)

26–7, 287
Mandelshtam, Osip

99, 120
Markov, Vladimir

99, 107, 118
Marx, Karl

43, 81
Marxism

9, 43, 81, 209, 230, 283
Masaryk, Tomáš

321

Maupassant, Guy

43, 46
“May” (Smith)

144
May, Rachel

Mayakovsky, Vladimir

173, 191
Mazon, André

McGann, Jerome

219
McTiernan, John

238
Meirkhol’hold, Vsevolod

“Memo to the One Above”
(Noica)

Merezhkovskii, D. S.

Mickiewicz, Adam

38–9, 42, 45,
282–4, 287
Mikhalev, Aleksei
Mikhailovich

Miosz, Czesaw

20, 23
A Minor Apocalypse
(Konwicki)

Misery
(King)

301
Mongols

Montenegro

Moscow Art eater

101, 110
Moscow 2042
(Voinovich)

265, 270–4
Mother
(Ogrky)

Mouston, Wendy

82–3
Mukaovsky, Vilem

173
Musia, Magdalena

286
Muslims

3, 7, 12, 223
3, 225–6
Muzej bezuvjetne predaje
(e
Museum of Unconditional
Surrender) (Ugreši)

134
Mysyk, Vasyl’

46, 49
Nabokov, Vladimir

5, 11, 29,
171–85, 190

177–81
and
Alice in Wonderland

biographical informa-
tion

172–3
and
Eugene Onegin

172, 174,
176–7, 180–1
political subtext

and
Slovo o polku igoreve

171–
2, 174–6, 179, 181–2

174–7
See e Gi
Lolita
narodnost’
(“nationality”)

55,
68–9, 72–4, 156, 156
national identity

4, 7–9, 13, 26–7,
32–5, 37–8, 49, 75, 93, 101, 235,
247, 278, 281–2, 296
Nazi Germany

20, 139, 151, 294,
295
Negotiating the Frontier: Transla
tors and Interculture in His
panic History
(2000) (Pym)

neoclassical/neoclassicist trans-
lation

41, 44, 59, 287
Neumann, Iver

Neruda, Pablo

206, 210–12
New Drama (Russian)

101–2
New York Review of Books

22,
28, 190

174

103–4,
229–30, 282, 282
5, 287
Noica, Constantin

10, 79–94
biography of

82–3
and Ceauåescu

79–82, 84, 94
and Cecil Day Lewis

79, 82–3,
88–94
early period of (1934–50)

Romania as “Europe’s
translator”

79–94
and Romanian ddlering

and spirituality

translations,
See Sagittarius
Rising
North Atlantic Treaty Organiza-
tion (NATO)

Novalis (Georg Philipp Friedrich
Freiherr von Hardenberg)

62,
15, 70
Novogodnee “žˆ¬ ”

128
Novšak, France

139
Noyes, George R.

283
Nule i ništice
Nulls and
Nothings
) (Harms)

130–1
Nyugat
magazine

Oblaka v shtanakh (“…†ƒ‡
ˆ ‰‹ƒ ƒŒ”) (A Cloud in
Trousers) (Majakovskij)

121,
177
Occident

3, 21–2, 28, 83–4, 227
“Un Occident kidnappé ou la
tragédie de l’Europe centrale,”
(Kundera)

21–2, 28
“Ode to Joy” (1785)
(Schiller)

Odyssey
(Homer)

43, 67, 70–72
Oertringen, Van

139
Ol’denburg, Sergei

“Ol’ga,” (Katenin)

On Racine
(Barthes)

288
“On Translations in General and
in Particular on Transla-
tions of Verse” (1810)
(Zhukovskii)

Opium Wars

Orest, Mykhailo

Oresteia
(Xenakis)

294
Index


Orient

113, 151, 157, 166, 172–3,
223–5, 227
Orientalism

43, 106, 111, 139,
163, 166
Orientation towards the Same
Sex
(Van Oertringen)

139
Ortiz, Fernando

211
Orwell, George

189, 189
6,
269–72, 291
Othello
(Shakespeare)

41, 103,
253
“Otherness”

56–9, 62
12, 76,
133, 223–9, 231
and Central Europe

and Hegel

and Russian nationalism

7, 57
and translation

and Turgenev

Ottoman Empire

3, 82, 87, 220–1,
224–7, 231
Pale Fire
(Nabokov)

Pan Tadeusz
(Mickiewicz)

Parry, William

221–2
Pasternak, Boris

51, 124–7, 151,
157
15, 165–7, 167
36, 251,
253–4, 257–8, 260–2
Penev, Boyan

221
Perepadia, Anatol’

Perevodchik (translator)

106–7

43, 49
Peškov, Igor

258–61

4–5, 154

Phanariots

Phèdre
(Racine)

287–9, 291–2
Philippi, Paul

Pick, Otto

Pidmohyl’nyi, Valeriian

Pijade, David S.

139
Plato

38, 80–1
Plutarch

284
Podlesnik, Ivan

139
podstrochniki

149–50, 153, 161–2
Poe, Edgar Allen

Poland

19–20, 24, 27, 45, 224,
277–94
Polevoi, Boris

Polevoj, Nikolaj

250–1
Poliarnaia zvezda

Polish-Jewish

294
Polish language

37–8, 41, 43, 51,
100, 141, 181, 184, 187, 189–92,
194, 198, 277–94, 301
and cultural exceptional-
ism

283
“the Polish question”

11, 277–8,
286–7
Polish theater

277–94
and classical tragedy

280–3
and cultural politics of trans-
lations

283–5
and Kochanowski

277–94
and Zadara

277–94
See
Greek drama
Polish uprising (1863)

Poltava
(Pushkin)

39, 45
Poplavskij, Vitalij

254
Popol Vuh

97, 100
Popovi, Anton

Prague

19, 21, 24–7, 81, 124
Pravda
newspaper

152, 156,
159–61, 166, 167
e Prisoner of Chillon
(Byron)

“e Problem of Speech Genres”
(1953/54) (Bakhtin)

152–3,
152
Prometheus Bound
(Aeschylus)

Pym, Anthony

2

2, 7–8
Puchkov, Dmitry Iur’evich,
See
Goblin
Pushkin, Alexander Ser
geevich

38–40, 43, 45–6, 56,
65, 68, 72–5, 99, 113–14, 120,
155, 158
15, 175–7, 179–81, 183,
200, 222, 224, 224
4, 241
and Zhukovskii

56, 65, 68,
72–5
See Boris Godunov
Eugene
Onegin
Poltava
Putiata, Aleksei

Racine, Jean

277–9, 281, 284,
286–93
See Iphigènie
Phèdre
Radio Free Europe

Rapoport, Vitalij

253–4
Rej, Mikoaj

285–7
Remenyik, Zsigmond

Revolver
magazine

140
Rilke, Rainer Maria

46, 49, 51,
128–30
Roma (of Eastern Europe)

12–13
Romania

10, 24–5, 30, 79–94,
224
as Europe’s “translator”

10,
79–94
ddlering

and Paris diaspora

80–4, 93–4
and pre-communism

85,
88, 93
See
Constantin Noica;
Phanariots
On Romantic Poetry
(Somov)

72–3
Romanticism

4, 40, 55–7, 59–62,
65–70, 72, 72
26, 74–5, 80, 85,
102, 104–5, 122, 124, 139, 158,
211, 219–22, 227, 229, 231, 250,
281–3, 285, 287
Romeo and Juliet
(Shakespeare)

Rossini, Gioachino

Rostand, Edmond

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques

Rowling, J.K.

50
Rudnistky, Konstantin

101
Rudy, Stephen

184
Russia
as “barbaric”

23, 112, 273
as “culture of translation”

and identity

6, 7, 10–11, 223–9,
the “other” Europe

relationship to Western
Europe

and Slavic nations

Russian Academy of Sciences

4,
41, 111
Russian Empire

39–40, 43–4
Russian Federation

235–6
Russian Formalism

45, 178
4,
183

55–6, 66–7,
69, 71
Russian literature

55–7, 60–5,
68–9, 71–6, 117, 119–20, 133,
133
4, 179, 183, 200, 244
“battle of the ballads”

55

62

and the French

56–7
and
narodnost’

55, 68–9, 72–4
and romanticism

55, 60–2, 68
status of

119–20, 133
Russian nationalism

and the foreign

56–60, 64–5,
72, 75

55–6,
66–7, 69, 71
See
Vasilii Zhukovskii
Russian New Drama

101–2
Russian orientalists

106, 111
Russian Revolution (1905)

101
Russian Revolution (1917)

44,
101, 155
Russian Silver Age/n-de-
siècle

97–113
Russian Symbolists

97–102,
Russian translation
and the Cold War

11, 171–85
See
Roman Jakobson;
Vladimir Nabokov
and dystopia,
See
dystopia
and Russian nationalism
See
Russian nationalism

119–35
See
Danilo Kiš; Dubravka
Ugreši; Irena Vrkljan
Rustaveli, Shota

Ryl’s’kyi, Maksym

Sabashnikov, Mikhail

100, 101
1,
107–8, 111
Sagittarius Rising
(Lewis)

79,
82, 88–94
Sakuntala
(Kalidasa)

10, 97–113
and Bal’mont

107–13
in Europe and Russia

104–7
and European drama

101–4
and the foreign

99–101
and Perevodchik

plot of

and Russian theater

97–8
Sales, Joan

Salomé
(Wilde)

100, 110
Schäner, Christina

Schama, Simon

Schiller, Friedrich

58, 61, 69,
72–4, 282
Schlegel, August Wilhelm

57, 62,
15, 105–6
Schlegel, Friedrich

Schulz, Bruno

Selected Passages
(Gogol)

Serbia

7, 118–19, 133–4, 224
Serbian language

7, 42, 100,
117–35, 138, 141, 301
Serbo-Croatian language

7, 138,
189, 198
Serbs

138, 140, 184
Sergeev, Andrei

Sever, Josip

121–3, 132–3, 135
sexual identity and transla-
tion

137–45
queer strategies

140–2
translating Lesbian
culture

142–4
translator as author

144
Shakespeare, William

10–11, 36,
38, 40–3, 47–9, 51, 59, 62, 70,
72–4, 81, 102–4, 249–62, 282–3
See e Comedy of Errors
Hamlet
Othello
Romeo
and Juliet
Troilus and
Cressida
Shakhmatov, A.A.

173
Shelley, Percy Bysshe

45, 99, 103,
Shevchenko, Taras

37, 39–40
Shishkov, Alexander

Shostakovich, Dmitrii

Si j’ose dire
(If I Dare to Say)
(Lainé)

Silver Age/n-de-siècle
(Russian)

97–113
Simeoni, Daniel

Škuc, Društvo

140–1
ŠKUC-Lambda

140–1, 144–5
Skujenieks, Knuts

301
Skvorecky, Josef

319

Slavic nations

e Sleepwalkers
(Broch)

Slonim, Marc

Slovaks

24–5, 47, 222
Slovenia

7, 10, 25, 119
5, 137–45
Slovenia, and translation of
sexual identity

137–45
cultural context of

138–40
Lesbian culture

142–4
queer strategies

140–2
translator as author

144
Slovo o polku Igoreve
(e Lay
of Igor’s Campaign)

5, 171–2,
174–6, 179, 181–2, 255
Sowacki, Juliusz

283–6
Slutsky, Boris

“small” nations

2, 7, 19–21, 25–6,
28, 30, 79–80
Šmejkalová-Strickland, Jiina

10

Smith, Ali

144
e Social Contract
(Rousseau)

Socialist Realism

46, 119, 121,
152, 156, 165, 207, 318
Solzhenitsyn, Alexander

267–8,
Some Like It Hot
(Wilder)

286
Somlyó, György

Somov, Orest

e Song of Igor’s Campaign
See
Slovo o polku igoreve
Sophocles

43, 49
Soros, George

e Sorrows of Young Werther

Sotola, Jii

319

171–85
as culture planning

154–5, 157,
164–5, 167
and Hollywood

235–48
and “intuitive transla-
tion”

and
narodnost

and
podstrochniki

149–50,
153, 161–2
and politics

149–68, 187–202
projects and practices
of

154–9

163–7
and totalitarianism

149–54
and Western hegemony

235–
and World Literature

See
Dzhambul Dzhabaev
Spanish Golden Age

102–3
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty

1,
Stal’skii, Suleiman

156–7, 162,
167
Stalin, Joseph

6, 9, 12, 38,
44–6, 118, 120–2, 149–52, 155–9,
162
29, 163, 166–8, 166
34,35,
167
36, 267, 279
2, 296, 317
Stanislavsky, Konstantin

101, 110
Index

Stary Teatr in Kraków

277, 285,
288
12, 289
13, 290
Štoll, Pavel

303
Stolojan, Sanda

84, 94
Stone Butch Blues
(Fein-
berg)

141, 143–5
Strast
(Passion) (Pijade)

139
Strikha, Maksym

Struggle for Independence
(1917–1920) (Ukraine)

Sturm und Drang

Stus, Vasyl’

Sumarokov, Aleksandr

63–4
“Surveys” (Bestuzhev)

Svevo, Italo

Svidzins’kyi, Volodymyr

Svitlychnyi, Ivan

Swedish language

21, 29, 189, 301
Symbolists (Russian)

97–102,
Szeel, Marc

181

101
Tairov, Aleksandr

97–8, 100,
Tarantino, Quentin

242–3, 289
Tarkovskii, Arsenii

149–51, 157,
162
29, 188
Tarlovskii, Mark Arievich

161–3,
28, 162
Ten, Borys

46, 49
Teoriia i praktyka perekladu
(eory and practice of trans-
lation) (Finkel)

Testaments Betrayed
(Kundera)

eater of Youth and Beauty
Teatr
Iunosti i Krasoty

102–4, 109–10
ree Russian Poets: Pushkin,
Lermontov, Tyutchev
(Nabokov)

177, 179
Tilemakhida
(1766) (Trediak-
ovskii)

66–7, 66
19, 71
Tillberga, KarÜna

303

173
Todorova, Maria

1, 3, 23, 223, 227
Tolkien, J. R. R.

241
Tolstoy, Leo

43, 267, 272
Toporova, Zinaida

193
totalitarianism

149–54
Toury, Gideon

5, 35, 149, 154,
156–7, 160, 163, 298, 300–1, 303,
305, 314
“e Tragedy of Central Europe”
(Kundera)

22–3, 26–30
translation
and belatedness

and Bulgaria

219–31
and censorship

187–202
central role of

and the Cold War

171–85
creative aspect of

cultures of

1–13
and dystopia

265–74
and empire

Europe’s translator

79–94
and the foreign

of Greek drama in Po-
land

277–94
and Hollywood
blockbusters

235–48
and India

97–113
and Latvian language

295–314
and mediation

56, 65–6, 113,
153, 225
and post-war Hungary

of prose versus verse

and Russian dystopia

265–74
and Russian national-
ism

in Russian Silver Age/ n-de-
siècle

97–113
and sexual identity

137–45
and Shakespeare

249–62

149–68,
187–202
statistics on

styles

41–2, 44–5, 48
and totalitarianism

149–68
Ukranian

33–51
under communism

uses of

10–13
Translation and Identity in the
Americas
(2008) (Gentzler)

Translation in a Postcolonial
Context
Tymoczko)

Translation Studies Reader
(Venuti)

172
Translation and Terminology
Centre (TTC)

304
translator identity

236, 238,
240–1
Traviata
(Verdi)

Trediakovskii, Vasilii

63–4, 66,
67, 69, 71
Tri Rastsveta
ree Blossomings
(1907) (Bal’mont)

102
Trinaesti apostol
(e irteenth
Apostle) (Majakovskij)

121–2

Troilus and Cressida
(Shake-
speare)

41, 48
Trubar, Primo

138

105–6

99, 124
12,
190, 201
Turgenev, Andrei

55, 58–9, 77, 263
Tuwim, Julian

Tykocin
(Demirski and Za-
dara)

293–4
Tymoczko, Maria

2, 12
Ugreši, Dubravka

118, 122,
130–3
Ukrainian Literary Transla-
tion: Between Literature and
Nation-Making
(Strikha)

Ukrainian translation

33–51
“armative action empire”

and audience

35, 38–9, 42,
46, 50–1
and the Beat generation

and the Bible

37, 40–1
and colonialism

33–4, 38–9,
and Communist Party

47–8
and contexts

and the Diaspora

and Ems Edict

40–2
experimental translation

and foreign lms and TV

and the Futurists

Gulag

44–7, 49
and homosexuality

leading authors of

and literacy

and Modernists

43, 46, 51
and national identity

10, 33–5,
37, 48–9
Neoclassicists

44

50–1

37–44
schools of

41–2, 44–5, 48

44–9
Struggle for Independence

and Writer’s Union

47–8
See
Yuri Andrukhovych;
Andrii Bondar; Volodymyr
Dibrova; Oksana Zabuzhko

e Unbearable Lightness of
Being
(Kundera)

19–21, 29,
Undina
(Tchaikovsky)

67–9
Uricaru, Ioana

Uvarov, Sergei

66–7, 67
20, 71
Valuev Circular (1863)

40–1
Vargas Llosa, Mario

211–12

Venevitinov, Dmitrii

Venuti, Lawrence

4, 8, 22, 35–6,
38, 172, 205, 262, 269
7, 305,
314
Verdery, Katherine

81–2, 85
Verdi, Giuseppe

43, 46
Vestnik Evropy
(Zhukovskii)

Vigdorova, Frida

193
Vinitskii, Il’ia

58–9, 71, 75, 77
Virgil

37–8, 45, 66, 105, 284
Voinovich, Vladimir

265, 270–4
Volkov, Solomon

von Rezzori, Gregor

3, 6
Vostokov, Aleksandr

Vrkhlitskii, Iaroslav

Vrkljan, Irena

128–30
Vronenko, Mikhail

250
Vsesvit
Universe
(journal)

49–50
Vysotskii, Vladimir

245
Wakabayashi, Judy

Warsaw Pact

25, 119, 134–5,
279, 317
We
(1921) (Zamiatin)

265–70,
2,3, 274
Wells, H. G.

83, 209
“West-Best, East-Beast” (1997)
(Davies)

White, Edmund

Whitman, Walt

49, 100
Wilbur, Richard

197
Wilde, Oscar

100, 110, 139
Wilder, Billy

286
Wilson, Edmund

172, 182

144
Witkiewicz, Stanisaw Ig
nacy

Witkowski , Michal

Women and Lovers
(Katan)

303
Woods, Michelle

World War I

43, 88, 118, 138, 282
World War II

47, 79–80, 82, 118,
138, 140, 171, 207, 229, 279
2,
285–6, 290, 290
15, 294, 306,
WR: Misterije organizma
Mysteries of the Organism)
(Makavejev)

Written on the Body
(Winterson)

144
WyspiaÃski, StanisØaw

281–4,
282
5, 286–7
Xenakis, Iannis

294
Yugoslavia

3, 7, 10, 25, 30,
117–35, 138–40, 194, 286
and books of literary transla-
tion

cultural identity

homosexual culture

138–40
and post-war avant garde

119–35
and Russian language and
culture

and Slovenia,
See
Slovenia

See
Danilo Kiš; Josip Sever;
Dubravka Ugreši; Irena
Vrkljan
Zabolotskii, Nikolai

151
Zabuzhko, Oksana

Zadara, Micha

277–94, 286
biography of

284–5
and German theater

286–7
Zamiatin, Evgenii

265–71, 274
Zerov, Mykola

44–5
Zhovtis, Aleksandr

157, 160–1,
164
Zhukovskii, Vasilii

and classicisim

55, 59–66,
16, 69–70, 74–5

57–8
formation of translation
of

58–62
and Friendly Literary

55, 58
and Gogol

and the “Other”

56, 57
3,
58–9, 62, 76
and Pushkin

56, 65, 68, 72–5
reception of translations
of

62–70
and romanticism

55–7, 59–62,
10, 62
12,13, 65–70, 72,
26, 74–5
Zilboorg, Grigory

267–9
Zola, Gianfranco

Zorin Andrei L.

58, 58
5, 77





\r\f \n
\r\t
\b\f








\r

\f\r

\n\t

\b\b\r









\r
\f






\b

\r

\r

\b





\t \b\b ­




\f






€‚





\t\b\b ­

\r
 \r

\r



\r











€

ƒ\r

„

\t …\b\b ­

­\r \f\f€‚
\r
 \r

\f\r







‚





\n





 ‡ˆ\b\b ­

\r
‡
\r
ƒ\f\b
‰

€





Š







\b



\f

†  

\b\b
„\r
„…
\r
†‡
ˆ‡
\b\f
‹







† †

Œ\b\b

­\r \f\f‰‚
‡…
\r
\nŠ\t\f
‹
ƒ
\r
\b\f
Ž

‰\r

Š

ˆ

‘



\b







\b€

††

\tˆˆ\b\b
‡Œ
Œ‡Ž
…\n
‡
\b\f
“\r





\n



€

††

 \b\b
‡ˆ
„\r

‰\r

\b

“‚



\f



” ŒŒ†’ …††•

††

\t†\b\b
‡
 \r

ƒ\t



‚

\n\b

\t\t





††

 ‡\b\b
‡
‡
‡ƒ†
–\r





\n\t€

\r

“\b‚\r

\b



\bƒ‹

‹

\n\n

—\b

††

 …\b\b
‡
\r\rŽ
\fˆ\n
‘„\t\r‹’
ˆ
“\r‹”„•
\b\f
‰\b

˜





‰\b















\r\b







††

 ˆ \b\b
 
–ˆ

\b\f






††

\t…\b\b
\r
„…—
\r\r 

„\r‹Ž ”„
\b\f
™







\n\b





\f\r



€



“

š

††

†\b\b
Ž\t\r„
\r\b
\b\r



Š

\f\r







Š\r

††‡

†\b\b
…‡

–\f\n
\r
–
\t
\b\f
„





\n‚

˜\b

\r



\r



††‡

\b\b
……
‘‹
\b
Ž

“\r\r



\t



††‡

Œ\b\b ”\r ‰“ƒ\f‚•
…Œ
\r”„’
ƒ
 
\b\f
‰

„



‰‚‚

\n\b

“›



‚‚

††‡

 \b\b
…ˆ
ˆŽ 
\n–… ƒ
\r„\r

 \r
\b\f
„

“\r\b\t





\n\t



‚



š



††‡

 …\b\b
…
Œ
 –˜
\t‡
\b\f
‰\r



\r





††…

\tŒ\b\b
…
„\t\r









††…

†\b\b
„ \r
Ž™\f ƒ
\r„\r
\f
‹\r
\b\f
“€



“\r







\r

\r€

‚





‰

Š€

††

††…

Œ\b\b

­\r
 \f\fš‚
… 
”ˆ\r\r
ˆˆ›
‡
\b\f
\n





\fœ\r

\f\r

‚

††…

\t \b\b
…†
Œ\rœ
\n\n
\r„\t 
ž

\b\f
Ž

‰\r

Š







\b





\r‚‚

\r

\b\b

‚





\n

‰\r



\n\b



Š

ž



\r

\t\r



\r‚



†ƒ



††

††…

 \b\b
Œ
\r
†™
Ÿ\t

 \rŽ\r
\b\f
Ÿ\r

\b\b\r



‰





\r

\b\b

€

—¡

Š‚€

††Œ

\tŒ\b\b
\t\r
¡˜

\f
\r\tŽ
\b\f








\n\r



“\r\b

††Œ

\t†…\b\b

\r‚\b













\r

€





\f\f\f \n\r\t\b\r 
Œ…
ˆŽ 
\n–… ƒ
\r„\r
‹Š
\r “
\b\f
\r\r

\b\r







\n\b

††Œ

\tˆˆ\b\b
\r”Ž
 …
Ž









¢

\b‚



£

\t\b¤

††Œ

†ˆ\b\b
Œˆ
\rŽ
 †
\r

\b



‚



\b

‚





š‚

††Œ

 Œ\b\b
Œ
\r„\t 
\n\n
\b



\b\r







\r

††ˆ

ˆ\b\b
Œ
‹\r
…\b
\b\r





Š

\n\b

Ž



\b\r\r

††ˆ

Œ\b\b
Œ
ˆ‡
†‡
‰





‚







ƒ‚



††ˆ

 ŒŒ\b\b

­\r \f\f¢‚
Œ 
\t„
\r™\b




‰

‰







‚



‚ƒ\b¥\r

††ˆ

\t ˆ\b\b
\r\r
 \n–\b






¢

‚









\b

††ˆ

\t…Œ\b\b
ˆ
  ‡\r
‡\f\n\b




˜

“

‚‚

††

\t†\b\b
\r
 \n™ \n
Œ\r
\b\f
Š



Š

††ˆ

\t Œ\b\b
ˆ…
\r
„–…
\n\r



\r\b



‚

\n\b



\b€€ƒ\b\r

‚







\r\r



€

\f€







ž

††

Œ‡\b\b

­\r \f\f
ˆŒ
\r
ˆ\b
\b\r



\t



††

\t…\b\b
„\r\r

\f\t



\n\b¦

\f







\r\r

\r



‚\r

\b



‰

\r





˜



††

\t …\b\b
„‹“\r‹\r
 
\b

–\r







‰‚

\r\t





\b¥\r

††

Œ\b\b
‡\r
\r 
“ƒ§\fƒ‰¨

‰\r

\n\b

\n\b





\n\t

¤

††

\b\b
ˆ
\r
\nŠ
Ž

“\r



‰

\n\b

“\r

\b\r\r















\b

††

\tŒ…\b\b
ˆ 

†ž–
ƒ‰

‰



Ž







€

††

\t……\b\b
ˆ†
\r
„…‡\f\n
  ‡\r

„\r
\b\f
‰‚

‰



‰







\r

\r€

‚





‰

‰\b

†† 

††

\t†\b\b

­\r \f\f¤‚

ˆŽ 
\n–…
Ž

\t



Š\r¨





€

††

\t\b\b
‡
 \t\r
ˆ††
‡\t ¥‡
\b\f


˜\t

“



¤

††

\t\b\b
…
ŒŽ\r
™
Ÿ‚

\b\r



\n\b

\r

‰\r‚



‚

††

\t \b\b
\t\r\r
\f„\f

\f 
\r 
\n–
‡\r
\b\f
Ž

‰\r

Š



\n\b





‰‚‚

\r

\b\b

‚



Ž

\n

‰\r



\n\b



Š

ž



\r

\t\r



¡

‘€\r

‰

’Œ



†† 

††

ˆ\b\b
ˆ
\r
 \b




\b\r\t



\b\r



\r

††

 Œˆ\b\b

„\r 
 \n
—



ž



€€\b



€€\b





‹



\r



€

š



††

\t†\b\b
„‹\r
„ Š
\r‹‹
\b\f
\n\b





 

‰

‰



\b\b

††

…\b\b

\t„
\r™\b
\r





\n\b



„

€

††

\b\b
 

\r
‰





††

 …\b\b
†
\r„\t 
\n\n‡\n–
Ž\r 
\b\f
Š

\r



‚

\n\b

\n\r\b

\b\b\r\t

†††

\t Œ\b\b

\r\r 
—\n™
„
Ž™\f
„ \r
\b\f




‰

\r

\b\b

‚





‰

š

 ‡

†††

\b\b
‡
¥\r
–\f\n™…

\b\f
“\t\b



‰‚\b\r

†††

\t\b\b
‡‡\r”
¦\n\n
¥¥‡\r¥\r
\b\f
\b\b



\b\b



\r







\n\b

©



‚\b\r

\r

†††

 …Œ\b\b
Œ
 
 †




\t









€¥\r\t



ƒš‚



 

 …\b\b
ˆ
 \r
\b
‰‚\b







ª



††

\tˆ \b\b

„ \r
Ž™\f†
„\r
\b\f
”•





‰\r\b

\b\r\r



\r

†† 

††\b\b
„\r

 

\t

 \r

„\r
\b\f
š





\n\b

\f\r

\r

œ\r

\b

\r\r



\t\r



€

†† 

\tˆˆ\b\b

\r\rŽ
\f\f
\r„\r
 \f
ˆ\r
\b\f
\n\t



\r

\b\b

‚





\n

‰





„\r

 ‡

†††

\tŒ\b\b
\r
ˆ™\r


 

\t\t
\b\f
Ž

‰\r

Š

«

\n\b





‰‚‚

\r

\b\b

‚



\r

\n

‰\r



\n\b









\r

\t\r



–\r\t

„‰

‰

 ’



 ‡

†††

\t Œ\b\b
†
\r\tˆ
…






Ž

š‚‚



‚

ƒš‚\r

\t









 

\t‡\b\b

Œ
Œ›ƒ




\n\b





†

‰

Ÿ\r



š‚

 

ˆŒ\b\b
‡
\r
 
‚

\n\b



\r\tƒ\b‚\r



 

\t…\b\b
\rŽ”‹\r

‡““
 
 \r” \r\r
\b\f
ª





‰\t

\r

\b

‚





\n

‰\r







\n\b



\b‚€

 ˆ

\n





—¬®

Š\t¯





\b\t°

 ‡

\t†\b\b
Œ
„
\b


\b





 …

\t\b\b
ˆ
™\r\b




‰

\f



‹

Š







‰

 ‡†’  ‡

 ‡

\tŒ\b\b

\r
ˆ
„\r
\b\f
Ž

ª

“

š\t



 …

\tˆ\b\b
„ \r
Ž™\f
„\r
–\f\n§–
Ž
\b\f
‰\r

\n\b«

‰





\f\r

\r





\n

‰\r



\n\b«

‹









¤

 …

\tŒ\b\b
\r\r 
—
‚





Ž

\b











 …

\t \b\b
 
\t
ˆ\n‡\f\n
  ‡\r
\b\f
\f‚€ª

\f€

Š







\r

 ‡

††\b\b
†
\r”Ž
 …‹Š
\r “
‡\f
‡
\b\f




\n\r

‰‚‚\r

\r

\b\b

‚





‰



 ˆ

 …

ˆ\b\b
 

™\rˆ
\r

\t\t

\rŽ
\b\f
Ž

‰\r

Š«

\n\b





‰‚‚

\b

‚



 



\r\r



\b









\r

\t\r



š\t



‰

 ’

—

 ˆ

 …

\t\b\b
 \r
\b
‚

Š



















—





 Œ

ˆ†\b\b
 …
ˆŽ
\b
¢\t€

‰‚‚\r





¢

\b\b\r\t



\r





\b





‚

 …

Œ \b\b
\r\tˆ
… †
ˆˆ\r
\b\f
\r





\n\b



¢

ž¨

\b

‚



Ž

Š

\n

‰\r



“‚

 ˆ

 Œ

\t‡\b\b
 ˆ
Œ
Œ›ƒ
±









„\t

 Œ

ˆ\b\b
 
 \rŽ
‡…
Œ\r
Ž

€



Š



\r













‚\b\r



‚



‚\r



 ˆ

\t…Œ\b\b
 
\r\r
\n–
ŒŒ
\b\f




ž

 ˆ

\tŒ\b\b
\r„\r‹
™
ˆ
\b\f




\b\r

Š\r\b

Ž

\b\b



\b\r

\r

 ˆ

ˆŒ\b\b
Ž
žˆ
\r\r
‰‚\b\t

\r



Ÿ\r







‚











€

—







 ƒ—

ž‚

 ˆ

ˆ\b\b
‡\t \t
ˆ






 ˆ

 …‡\b\b
\rŽ





‚



€

—





‹



\r

€

„



„¡

 ˆ

\t\b\b

” •
„\r

„\r

‰\r\b







\n\b







 ˆ

\t…‡\b\b
„\r

„\r

‰\r\b







\n\b







²\f©¢š³\f\t

²§\f©¢š³

††

\t‡\b\b
\r\t„\r
 \n –
\t¨
 –ƒƒ…
\r\r
\b\f
Š

“\r









‹







 

ˆŒ\b\b
\rŒ

Ž

\r\r



‰

\n\b

 ˆ

 \b\b
\r\tˆ
…\n\n
\r„
\b\f
\r





\n\b



\n

‚



\t

\b

‚



\r

Š

\n

‰\r



 

 

\tˆ‡\b\b

\tŽ
„
“\r\b\t









€

²\f©¢š³\f\t

²§\f©¢š³

\r
\tŽ
„
“\r\b\t









€

 ˆ

\t  \b\b
 \r
…™ 
 \r” \r\r
\b\f
„



š\b

‚\b\r

\r



‚

\b

 

Œ\b\b
\r”Ž
 …Š
ˆœ‡\r
‡\f
‡
\b\f


«



\n\r\b

\r

\b\b

‚







‰

–

 

 

‡\b\b
„\r

Š







‰´\r



‚

 

ˆ\b\b

Приложенные файлы

  • pdf 14674287
    Размер файла: 2 MB Загрузок: 0

Добавить комментарий