Subject
Bely, Nabokov and translation (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Jenefer Coates <j.coates@texterity.demon.co.uk>
Priscilla Meyer forwarded me a query from Eric Naiman entitled
If Bad Translations Did Not Exist, Would VN Have Had to Invent Them?
and I sent him the following response.
Dear Eric
I have been forwarded your query, and wonder whether the following is of
any interest.
Since I wrote an article on English translations of this book, I ought to
know where the words Nabokov queries occur but I don't. However, the
following may offer a partial solution to the mystery: different versions
of the "original" exist.
The first edition of Peterburg was published in 1916, digressive and more
explicit. It was first published in installments in the periodical Sirin,
the complete edition consisting of a bound version of those separate
printings. Because of the political situation Bugaev published under the
pseudonym Bely, and where official censorship had not imposed restraints,
the editors had. A few years later, fleeing for a couple of years to
Germany, Bely published a second version, in Berlin in 1922, now free from
censorship but still under great pressure and disillusioned with events in
Russia.This second edition bore considerable cuts and rewrites, its
elisions increasing the ambiguity already cultivated in the earlier
version, and incidentally making it a more 'modern' text. It is probable
that this is the version Nabokov read.
The translations:
Cournos, who had possessed a copy of the first edition of 1916 since
publication, based his 1958 translation on that version (that it took so
long to appear in English is itself a point of interest) but he, lacking
understanding or sympathy with Bely's aesthetic aims, chopped and
paraphrased in a patronising manner, flattening or suppressing the
"strange" effects that must have so enraptured Nabokov.
Maguire and Malmstad, on the other hand, as good post-Nabokov scholars,
based their 1978 translation on the 1922 version, which is is more elusive
because less explicit, but aimed at elegant scholarly fidelity with
generous notes, while trying to communicate something of the sophisticated
literary texture. It is a nice example of the benificent effects of
Nabokov's influence as a teacher as well as writer.
I dont know if close comparisons between the Russian "originals" have been
made. A comparison between translations is difficult precisely because of
this discrepancy. Penguin recently (1995) published a new translation by
David MacDuff , based on the longer, more digressive 1916 version. But by
aiming at "literalism", it tends to underplay literary complexity.
EXCERPT
FROM ESSAY on BELY by JENEFER COATES
PUBLISHED IN
THE ENCLYCLOPEDIA OF LITERARY TRANSLATION
ed O Classe
publ Fitzroy and Dearborn, 1998
The existence of several editions of this work raises vexing questions of
intention and authority for the translator. Originally completing it in
1913, Belyi published Petersburg first in installments in the periodical
Sirin, then in book form under the same imprint in 1916. In preparing a
shortened version for translation into German in 1919 he may have been
prompted to publish a revised Russian version. Therefore in 1921 he left
Russia for Berlin where, under constraints of time, he made further cuts
and revisions to publish a second Russian version in 1922 which is a
tighter, more elliptical text, less digressive and more aesthetic. Its
resulting inconsistencies are variously interpreted as deliberate
obfuscation, editorial oversight or careless rewriting, but this was the
only edition published without censorship or editorial interference. Later
Soviet editions contain further revisions and cuts that are assumed to have
been made by censors. In 1981, however, the longest original 1916 edition
was reissued by the Moscow Academy of Sciences, ed. L. Dolgopolov.
It is thus difficult to speak of a single original of Petersburg: Bely was
author of both the first full-length 1916 version and also of the shortened
1922 edition. Each of the three currently available translations into
English is based on a different edition.
I hope this information helps, if it doesnt cause despair.
Jenny Coates
_____________________________________
Jenefer Coates
TEXTERITY
23 Woodland Rise
LONDON N10 3UP
tel: 0181 883 0258
fax: 0181 883 2800
email: j.coates@texterity.demon.co.uk
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Jenefer Coates
TEXTERITY
23 Woodland Rise
LONDON N10 3UP
tel: 0181 883 0258
fax: 0181 883 2800
email: j.coates@texterity.demon.co.uk
_____________________________________
Priscilla Meyer forwarded me a query from Eric Naiman entitled
If Bad Translations Did Not Exist, Would VN Have Had to Invent Them?
and I sent him the following response.
Dear Eric
I have been forwarded your query, and wonder whether the following is of
any interest.
Since I wrote an article on English translations of this book, I ought to
know where the words Nabokov queries occur but I don't. However, the
following may offer a partial solution to the mystery: different versions
of the "original" exist.
The first edition of Peterburg was published in 1916, digressive and more
explicit. It was first published in installments in the periodical Sirin,
the complete edition consisting of a bound version of those separate
printings. Because of the political situation Bugaev published under the
pseudonym Bely, and where official censorship had not imposed restraints,
the editors had. A few years later, fleeing for a couple of years to
Germany, Bely published a second version, in Berlin in 1922, now free from
censorship but still under great pressure and disillusioned with events in
Russia.This second edition bore considerable cuts and rewrites, its
elisions increasing the ambiguity already cultivated in the earlier
version, and incidentally making it a more 'modern' text. It is probable
that this is the version Nabokov read.
The translations:
Cournos, who had possessed a copy of the first edition of 1916 since
publication, based his 1958 translation on that version (that it took so
long to appear in English is itself a point of interest) but he, lacking
understanding or sympathy with Bely's aesthetic aims, chopped and
paraphrased in a patronising manner, flattening or suppressing the
"strange" effects that must have so enraptured Nabokov.
Maguire and Malmstad, on the other hand, as good post-Nabokov scholars,
based their 1978 translation on the 1922 version, which is is more elusive
because less explicit, but aimed at elegant scholarly fidelity with
generous notes, while trying to communicate something of the sophisticated
literary texture. It is a nice example of the benificent effects of
Nabokov's influence as a teacher as well as writer.
I dont know if close comparisons between the Russian "originals" have been
made. A comparison between translations is difficult precisely because of
this discrepancy. Penguin recently (1995) published a new translation by
David MacDuff , based on the longer, more digressive 1916 version. But by
aiming at "literalism", it tends to underplay literary complexity.
EXCERPT
FROM ESSAY on BELY by JENEFER COATES
PUBLISHED IN
THE ENCLYCLOPEDIA OF LITERARY TRANSLATION
ed O Classe
publ Fitzroy and Dearborn, 1998
The existence of several editions of this work raises vexing questions of
intention and authority for the translator. Originally completing it in
1913, Belyi published Petersburg first in installments in the periodical
Sirin, then in book form under the same imprint in 1916. In preparing a
shortened version for translation into German in 1919 he may have been
prompted to publish a revised Russian version. Therefore in 1921 he left
Russia for Berlin where, under constraints of time, he made further cuts
and revisions to publish a second Russian version in 1922 which is a
tighter, more elliptical text, less digressive and more aesthetic. Its
resulting inconsistencies are variously interpreted as deliberate
obfuscation, editorial oversight or careless rewriting, but this was the
only edition published without censorship or editorial interference. Later
Soviet editions contain further revisions and cuts that are assumed to have
been made by censors. In 1981, however, the longest original 1916 edition
was reissued by the Moscow Academy of Sciences, ed. L. Dolgopolov.
It is thus difficult to speak of a single original of Petersburg: Bely was
author of both the first full-length 1916 version and also of the shortened
1922 edition. Each of the three currently available translations into
English is based on a different edition.
I hope this information helps, if it doesnt cause despair.
Jenny Coates
_____________________________________
Jenefer Coates
TEXTERITY
23 Woodland Rise
LONDON N10 3UP
tel: 0181 883 0258
fax: 0181 883 2800
email: j.coates@texterity.demon.co.uk
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Jenefer Coates
TEXTERITY
23 Woodland Rise
LONDON N10 3UP
tel: 0181 883 0258
fax: 0181 883 2800
email: j.coates@texterity.demon.co.uk
_____________________________________