Deear Jansy,

I don't have access to my copy of EO as translated by VN into English, but I'm assuming that he had his reasons for translating as he did. But in Pushkin's original Russian, there is no ambiguity in the meaning. For whatever reason it appears that Nabokov chose an ambiguous translation - but that may very well be because Alexey only gave us a snippet -- a phrase. For a final clearing up a full quotation of both the Russian and English stanzas should be posted, which unfortunately I can not do.

Carolyn

From: Nabokv-L <nabokv-l@UTK.EDU>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Tue, March 26, 2013 7:06:17 PM
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] Ada's dissolved epigraph

Subject:
Re: [NABOKV-L] Ada's dissolved epigraph
From:
Jansy <jansy@aetern.us>
Date:
3/25/2013 12:14 PM
To:
Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>

Jansy Mello: Fascinating exchanges*.
There's one nagging question,though. If, as AS and SS affirm, there is no ambiguity (or little ambiguity) in Pushkin's sentence in Russian - but there are "often fruitful" ambiguities in VN's translation (following JK and SKB and, indirectly, CK) -  can we say that VN was following the strictures of the criteria he used in the translation of EO, or did he deviate from them in this instance?
 
.....................................................................................
*AS:(quoting Pushkin) ...":lyubov'yu shutit satana(with love jokes Satan)."
CK: I have to disagree with Alexey's usually excellent English
AS: ...here Carolyn, you disagree with Nabokov's incomparable and precise English - for it is his translation.
CK: Satan does not joke lovingly, as is would appear in Alexey's translation, but uses love to make fun of humans.
AS: This is exactly what Pushkin is saying.
Stan Kelly Bootle: Do we have have a common word-order reversal adding to the potential ambiguity? SVP (subject verb predicate) in many languages can be varied for emphasis. Here we have PVS to stress the adverbial predicate ... The object &/or nature of Satan’s humour/satire. A comma/pause plus italics may clarify:With love, jokes Satan.The preposition WITH remains ambiguous:Satan jokes ABOUT love? Or Satan jokes LOVINGLY? Is the Russian dative case-ending lyubov'yu equally ambiguous? Regardless of Nabokov’s ‘incomparably precise’ command of Russian & English, there remain inescapable (often fruitful!) NL ambiguities, especially with poetry & aphorisms.Finally: Is the ‘epigraph/epigram’ referring to a particular incident (resting on subsequent context), or a general accusation about the Devil’s indifference to human emotions?
 
[to SKB: 'Is the Russian dative case-ending lyubov'yu equally ambiguous?']  
Jerry Katsell: Certainly there are no lack of ambiguities in VV's work, often fruitful, as Stanley Kelly-Bootle states.One thing is certain though: lyubov'yu is grammatically feminine with a soft consonant ending and thus here in the instrumental, not dative case, -- perhaps adding to the adjectival emphasis of the word in first position in the phrase.
Sergei Soloviev [ to SKB]:  no, in Russian it is less ambiguous (ambiguous variant would require "s lyubov'yu...").
AS: lyubov'yu is instrumental case. No ambiguity in Russian, despite the reversed word order.
Ljuba Tarvi  lyubov'yu shutit satana. Here is this line in the four latest full-text translations of EO:
Tom Beck (2004): for Satan loves а fiendish joke! Stanley Mitchell (2008): That Satan plays оn gentlefolk. 
Henry Hoyt (2008): Тhе Evil Оnе plays jokes with love. D.M. Thomas (2011): For Satan always jokes with love.
Google Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal" Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options Visit AdaOnline View NSJ Ada Annotations Temporary L-Soft Search the archive

All private editorial communications are read by both co-editors.

Google Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal" Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options Visit AdaOnline View NSJ Ada Annotations Temporary L-Soft Search the archive

All private editorial communications are read by both co-editors.