Nineteenth century quasi-equivalents

[Natasha Randall]

Dear All,

Thank you for 19th C suggestions - most helpful.

Olga: And many thanks to you for opening up a delightful discussion  
of Dostoyevsky's language! Not to worry, I haven't the slightest  
intention of dousing Dostoyevsky in formal and outmoded 19-century  
Victorian English. I'm merely making a personal adjustment since I'm  
probably too prone to modernist tricks of language in my own writing  
(and hence translation). I was at my most comfortable when  
translating Zamyatin's WE a few years ago! I guess that's not such a  
bad thing in the face of the Underground Man's tendency for neologism  
and contorting turns of phrase.... however, I was hoping to pull  
myself back a bit. A correction of sorts. From a wilder and more  
flexible use of language to something a bit mindful perhaps.

I thought it might be useful to startle myself with how words have  
changed in their emphasis and timbre by selectively reading around  
the 19th century. This investigation into English books is merely to  
get a blast of inspiration from my own language really. I haven't  
read Dickens et al. for years - so thought it would be refreshing.  
Moby Dick is just the ticket too - a brilliant suggestion. But I  
hasten to add that while Dostoyevky was a great fan of Dickens (and  
Dickens himself a great master of the colloquial), I wouldn't dream  
of Dickensifying Dostoyevsky...

I'm also hoping that the Bodleian in Oxford (my nearest library) will  
have some useful Russian reference books from the 19th century. Maybe  
something where Russian and English collide, even. Just to remind  
myself of the history of even the simplest of words like 'zloi'...   
How was the word used in 19th century Russian? Indeed, how were its  
English counterparts used in 19th century English? Certainly the word  
'mean' in English has changed dramatically in its meaning over the  
years, for example - particularly in American English.

To me, translation occurs between language but also over time. That's  
to say, you might even translate a 19th century British novel into a  
21st century British novel - there would be plenty to convert. Of  
course, Dostoyevksy's language in 'Notes' is far from conventional  
for its era but nonetheless, it has a context and I don't feel right  
in just siphoning it right into 21st century English with nary a  
thought for its own field of reference. Like you, I am interested in  
the space between 'Notes from Underground' and its contemporaries.  
What it is and what it is not. I loved what you wrote about distance  
between literary and colloquial languages in Russian in contrast to  
other languages. It's crucial.

Now, well, I don't want to overstate how much research I'll be doing.  
I just wanted to read some books to chasten myself before I start.  
I've just re-read Avvakum, which struck me (instinctively not  
academically) as a good thing to do... as well as approaching the  
SEELANGS list - I'm v grateful for your terrific input, it's much  
appreciated indeed.

Yours,
Natasha Randall







On Apr 25, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Olga Meerson wrote:

> ALL of these suggestions return Dostoevsky back into the cradle of  
> the (eventually) Victorian English. Some have already escaped the  
> trap, in their own, existent translations. Why ignore them? (E.g.,  
> Pevear and Volokhonsky). As to why Jane Eyre may not do as a model,  
> there is a wonderful piece of research by Svetlana Grenier-- 
> Dostoevsky was indeed very much influenced by its own translation  
> into Russian, Irinarkh Vvedenskij's--a translation deeply and  
> notorious different from the original, although very much in its  
> spirit. But then, the stylistic and semantic departures from THAT  
> translation in Dost. (specifically, in Besy, acc. to Grenier's  
> brilliant analysis) were all marked. Translating is not a matter of  
> "steeping" oneself in the period only. Equally important is one's  
> ability to step out of things typical of the period. A good example  
> is both the beauty and the problem of Constance Garnett: she was  
> naturally "steeped" in the period but she never realized how  
> different, !
>  li!
> nguistically, each Russian novelist was from his own period.
>
>  Dostoevsky's Russian is markedly different from your standard 19th  
> c. Russian. Why make it similar to your typical 19th c. English?  
> Besides, if that is philosophically acceptable for a translator,  
> why not be content with Garnett's translations?
>
> The reason I like the P-V translation of Z iz P so much is because  
> they are fully aware of the immense degree to which this crazy and  
> proto-Existentialist monologue of a crazy man whom his own author  
> calls "that paradoxalist", differs from anything typically 19th C.,  
> in Russian itself. It is full of awkwardness, neologisms, seemingly  
> clumsy locutions that, in the end, mean what they mean literally,  
> not idiomatically -- like Freudian slips-- etc., etc. Yes, the  
> standard he violates is 19th C. Russian, because he himself was  
> indeed naturally steeped in it, but the degree to which he has  
> violated it leaves no stone unturned.
> Another problem is that Dostoevsky's "modernity" comes from the  
> fact that he borrows s much from the colloquial, and the  
> distribution between Russian colloquial and literary languages is  
> somewhat different from that of the English, of the same period or  
> the preceding ones, even. By that I mean that Russian colloquial  
> has been, more or less, similar as it was for Krylov. I do not mean  
> slang, etc. All these have developed vigorously, as we all know.  
> What I mean is its immense opposition to the literary language. The  
> only exception to this rule of the contrast between the two  
> languages may be... Pushkin. Dostoevsky's writing is certainly  
> stylistically irreverent. I doubt it would qualify for Standard  
> Literary Russian, in his day, let alone in ours.
> Yes, he vigorously read English novels but, unlike Tolstoy, in  
> French or Russian translations, all stylistically marked  
> themselves. The Russian of Dostoevsky's contemporaries (let alone  
> the contemporaries of Jane Eyre!) looked archaic and pompous  
> compared to him--thanks, partly, to his own parodies thereof, and  
> partly to Pushkin's (already parodied by him in, say, the epigraphs  
> to Captain's Daughter). But that is the literary Russian of the  
> period. The colloquial sounds similar to today's. And indeed, what  
> steeping can convey an expression like "na vysshej noge"? Well,  
> perhaps if you know well how to translate the Russian idiom "na  
> ravnoj noge", into the English of Dostoevsky's contemporaries (not  
> Jane Austen, who preceded Pushkin!), this may help--to know what  
> idiom to distort. But in order for the English reader today to  
> recognize this grotesque distortion, the original idiom in English  
> has to be recognizable by him or her, not by Dostoevsky's English  
> or American counterpa!
>  rt!
> s in his days.
>
> Take it all (almost) back: things as scandalous and beautiful, as  
> baroque in their switch between the high and the low styles and  
> subject matters, and as poignant politically and philosophically,  
> as Moby Dick will definitely help.
> o.m.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---
>  Use your web browser to search the archives, control your  
> subscription
>   options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface  
> at:
>                     http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------