KNIGHT LETTER the lewis carroll society of north america
SPRING 2019 VOLUME III ISSUE 2 NUMBER 102 d de e
The Knight Letter is the official magazine of the Lewis Carroll Society of North America, a literary society whose purpose is to encourage study and appreciation of the life, work, times, and influence of Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson), and is in affiliation with the Fales Library, New York University. It is published twice a year and is distributed free to all members. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the Editor in Chief at [email protected]. submissions Submissions for The Rectory Umbrella and Mischmasch should be sent to [email protected]. Submissions and suggestions for Serendipidity and Sic, Sic, Sic should be sent to [email protected]. Submissions and suggestions for All Must Have Prizes should be sent to [email protected]. Submissions and suggestions for From Our Far-Flung Correspondents should be sent to farfl[email protected]. © 2019 The Lewis Carroll Society of North America ISSN 0193-886X Chris Morgan, Editor in Chief Cindy Watter, Editor, Of Books and Things Mark Burstein, Editor, From Our Far-Flung Correspondents Foxxe Editorial Services, Copyeditor Mark Burstein, Production Editor Sarah Adams-Kiddy, Proofreader Andrew H. Ogus, Designer the lewis carroll society of north america President: Linda Cassady, [email protected] Vice-President: Amy Plummer, [email protected] Secretary: Sandra Lee Parker, [email protected] www.LewisCarroll.org Annual membership dues are U.S. $35 (regular), $50 (international), and $100 (sustaining). Subscriptions, correspondence, and inquiries should be addressed to: Sandra Lee Parker, LCSNA Secretary PO Box 197 Annandale, Virginia 22003 Additional contributors to this issue: Mary DeYoung
On the cover: from Sempé’s De L’Autre Coté du Miroir. See p. 39. d de e CONTENTS d de e
The Rectory Umbrella Carrollian Notes g g Live from San Diego: The Aurora Gorey-Alice! 1 Alice by Heart 47 chris morgan patt griffin
The Alice Books and Twentieth-Century The Tell-Tile Hearth 48 Declarations of Children’s Rights 11 mark burstein edna runnels ranck The Wayne in Maine 50 Not a Fan Parker Fan 16 jann gilmore dmitry yermolovich
Is the American Voting System Of Books and Things Ready for a Change? 26 g francine f. abeles The Fabulous Journeys of Alice and Pinocchio 51 Two Sculptors in Conversation 28 stephanie lovett bridgette mongeon & karen mortillaro Lewis Carroll: The Worlds of His Alices 52 Mischmasch cindy watter g witzend 53 Leaves from the Deanery Garden— Serendipity 32 Seeking It with Thimbles: Fine Press Ravings from the Writing Desk 35 and Artist’s Books 54 linda cassady From Our Far-flung All Must Have Prizes 37 Correspondents matt crandall g
Arcane Illustrators: Sempé 39 Art & Illustration—Articles & Academia— mark burstein Books—Comics and Graphic Novels—Events, Exhibits, & Places—Internet &Technology— What Is It but a (Lucid) Dream? 41 Movies & Television—Music—Performing Arts —Things 55 chris morgan
A Modest Proposal 43 mark burstein
Alice in Advertising-Land 45 dayna nuhn d de e
d de e
n this issue, our Spring meeting speakers at San en, who is also a sculptor, asked her about the daunt- Diego State University discuss Lewis Carroll’s in- ing task of creating massive sculptures using the an- Ifluence on their art and writings, and on the work cient lost wax process. of such famous people as writer/composer Shel Sil- We review a new book by LCSNA founding mem- verstein. We were also treated to an exhibit of Edward ber Edward Guiliano: Lewis Carroll: The Worlds of His Gorey’s copies of Carroll’s books, part of his 26,000+ Alices. It reexamines Carroll’s life and the Alice books volume collection housed at the University’s library. in light of recent research. He examines Carroll’s vi- We took a short walk to see a recently restored Car- sual imagination through his photographs and book roll-themed mural on the campus that had been hid- illustrations. den under layers of paint for decades. Stephanie Lovett reviews The Fabulous Journeys of We feature articles here about the possible Carrol- Alice and Pinocchio, showing some surprising con- lian connections to modern voting, children’s rights, nections between the two famous characters. She ig-Pay atin-Lay, and dream research. And there’s a notes that “both books broke new ground with their comprehensive critique of a well-known book of criti- subversive representation of inquisitive children who cism of Russian translations of the Alice books. were very far from being models of virtue.” We contin- We present a new column here, “Alice in Adver- ue our exploration of early recordings of songs about tising,” by collector Dayna Nuhn. Alice and her crew Alice and her adventures. have been favorites of advertisers for well over a cen- Lastly, we’re pleased to present the first “Ravings tury. Dayna reveals what is likely the earliest advertise- from the Writing Desk” column from our new presi- ment to feature Alice, from 1897. dent, Linda Cassady. We look forward to many more! Karen Mortillaro interviews Bridgette Mongeon about Bridgette’s monumental sculpture of the mad chris morgan tea-party, which she created for a park in Texas. Kar- d e Not a Fan Parker Fan
dmitry yermolovich d e
his is a critique of a 1994 book by Dr. Fan I have studied the full list of Dr. Parker’s publications Parker. who reviewed eleven Russian versions (not a very long one) and found that her name is not Tof Wonderland. Though probably a belated associated with any prior publications relating to ei- response (Dr. Parker died in 2004), I believe it is still ther Lewis Carroll or translation studies. relevant because the book is sometimes referred to, First, a clarification. The work I will analyze here rather unquestioningly, by authors who have appar- is referred to as a “book” and has the form of one, ently not consulted the actual source. numbering 89 pages and being almost half an inch Here is an indicative example from the Russian thick. Considering, however, that it is printed in version of Wikipedia (in translation): large-type wide-spaced text on extra-thick paper, in- terspaced with numerous drawings by John Tenniel, Dr. F. Parker, the author of the book Lewis and contains an appendix with excerpts from trans- Carroll in Russia, maintained that Shcherba- lations, it is more appropriate to classify it as a pam- kov’s translation was one of the best.1 phlet or even as a long article. Dr. Parker’s own text The Russian verb in this statement (утверждал—“he is just about 6,300 words long, which is equal to 21 maintained”) is notably used in the masculine form, standard pages. indicating that the authors of the text believe Fan Her stated purpose of study can be found in a Parker to be a man. Obviously, they have never held short Introduction: her book in their hands, since it contains an “About This first critical study of the Russian transla- the Author” section in which the pronoun “she” is tions of Alice has been prompted by the need used explicitly to describe her. to clarify a subject that has long been in a state of confusion.3 some background facts & preliminaries She does not explain, however, what precise “sub- It is always helpful to form a general picture of a ject” is believed to be “in a state of confusion.” We are scholar’s research. Fan Parker’s life and work were told, instead, that Carroll’s book was seen “by Russian summarized by her son Stephen in 2006: translators as . . . a way for each to display his or her individual credentials and talents as a translator. . . . Fan Parker (Fania) was born in Riga, Lat- [They] did not exemplify any particular theories of via, lived in Moscow, and came to the USA translation.”4 through Ellis Island as the traditional immi- This last assertion can easily be refuted at least grant. She received her BA and MA at NYU, in the case of one translator who described her con- and her PhD in Slavic Studies at Columbia ceptual approach to translating the Alice books in an University in 1945. . . . She founded, devel- article twice as long as Dr. Parker’s pamphlet.5 Pub- oped, and chaired the Russian Department lished as part of a literary yearbook in 100,000 copies, at Brooklyn College, which is part of the City the article was read by a vast audience and had an University of New York. She was there for impact on all subsequent Russian translations of Car- nearly 4 decades teaching an array of courses roll’s works, different as they were. in Russian language, culture, and 19th and Dr. Parker does not mention whether there is a 20th century Russian literature. . . . She was translation theory she herself adheres to or expects the author or co-author of five books, . . . the to see “exemplified.” The Introduction ends with the last being Lewis Carroll in Russian: Translations categorical remark that “. . . in the course of events, of Alice in Wonderland, 1879–1989, published the translations reflected the vulgarization and im- in 1994. . . .2 poverishment of the mighty Russian language.”6
16 I will come back to this contention. Dr. Parker goes on to say: A summary of some well-known facts about Won- In a similarly humorous vein, we find the derland (in addition to which, among other things, Dr. transformed image of the three little sisters— Parker expresses regret that “the nymphet quality of Sasha, Pasha, and Dasha—living in a dense Alice Liddell” was lost in Tenniel’s drawings) is fol- forest under a key, or perhaps a waterfall, lowed by eleven chapters, each a short review of one depending on the meaning one assigns to the Russian version of Carroll’s book. The pamphlet has Russian kliuch.”14 no concluding summary. Whatever findings the au- thor comes to are given in individual reviews. One would need to have a peculiar sense of humor to smile at the idea of someone “living under a key,” review of the first version an irrational vision of a huge key literally forming a The first (anonymous) Russian version of Wonderland shelter for the sisters. Carroll’s fantasy never degrades turned Alice into Sonja.7 As we now know, it was cre- into incoherent absurdity. The Russian word for “key” ated by Yekaterina Boratynskaya, a niece of biologist may also mean “a spring” or “a river source,” but nev- Kliment Timiryazev.8 er “a waterfall” in this infelicitous word combination. Dr. Parker has many nice words to say about it. She praises it, for instance, for the rendition of the reviews of three early famous phrase “Curiouser and curiouser,” “because twentieth-century translations it takes advantage of the full sentence.”9 Let us take In 1908-09, three Russian versions of Wonderland were the Sonja book from the shelf and look at what there published by Matilda Granstrem, Aleksandra Rozh- is to applaud: destvenskaya, and Poliksena Solovyova.15 None of the three does credit to the original, but I cannot help „Чуднѣе и распречуднѣе”, закричала Соня! pointing to Dr. Parker’s glaring misconceptions as she Отъ удивленія она даже путалась въ словахъ, discusses them. и выражалась какъ-то не по-русски.10 One incongruence is that she calls the first of the Dr. Parker does not explain what she means by “tak- three authors “Mr. Granstrem”—which is ironic, con- ing advantage of the full sentence” or how that con- sidering that, as has been mentioned, Parker herself is tributes to a good translation. Even more puzzling is referred to as a male professor in the Russian Wikipedia. her claim that this rendition is “the best to be found Further on, Dr. Parker finds the following fault in any later translations.”11 with Rozhdestvenskaya’s translation: Well, no. It is a poor translation if only because it “She softens Carroll’s sharp adjective and doesn’t reproduce what we find in the original: a sur- nouns (e.g., ‘screamed,’ ‘idiot,’ ‘off with her prised little girl’s natural slip of the tongue. Sonja’s head’).”16 remark sounds weird, but in a very different way: it’s a labored and stilted mannerism invented by a strug- This is simply not true. The “sharp” words receive full- gling translator. fledged equivalents in Rozhdestvenskaya’s transla- Dr. Parker also commends the first translator for tion: screamed—крикнула, взвизгнула; idiot—идиот; her “ingenuity in the tail/tale pun.”12 Let us look at off with her head!—отрубить ей голову! In some in- that, too: stances, even more emotional words are used than „Ахъ, грустная и длинная повѣсть моей жизни”, вздохнула мышь, глядя на Соню. „Длинная-то, длинная”, подумала Соня, оглядываясь на мышиный хвостъ, „но почему грустная, любопытно знать,” продолжала она про себя.13 For non-speakers of Russian, the above lines do not contain any attempt at reproducing the pun or at cre- ating a humorous effect. Both tale and tail are given their direct dictionary equivalents, which differ in form and in grammatical gender and cannot com- bine with the same forms of adjectives (long and sad). So the assumption that Sonja might ever mistake one for the other is inherently false.
17 those found in the original. For example, “shouted [In Solovyova’s translation,] Pat turns to the Queen” is translated as «гаркнула Королева» “Pet,” the Cheshire Cat to “Chesterskii” Cat, (“roared, or barked, the Queen”). and so forth. Misunderstanding the English Fan Parker’s praises are as unfounded as her criti- construction, “I must have been changed cism. She asserts, for example, that Rozhdestvenska- several times,”she renders it as “it seems that I ya’s “versification . . . is good overall” and that the suc- was changed [by others] several times.”18 cess of her translation “rests in her adept use of the Russian language.”17 The renderings of “Father Wil- This criticism is based on mistakes. To begin with, liam” and the lullaby are singled out in this context. the rendition of Pat as Пэт is a perfectly legitimate Well, let me quote two stanzas from Rozhdestven- re-spelling, in which the letter э stands for the English skaya’s version of “Father William”: a, just as it does in the rendering of Carroll as Кэрролл and of thousands of other names. Ты старик уж, отец,—снова сын завёл речь,— Now, “Chesterskii” (Честерский) means “coming И ты толст, слишком толст уж теперь, from Chester” and, considering that Chester is the Так зачем же, скажи, кувыркаешься ты, county town of Cheshire, the choice of the adjective И спиной отворяешь ты дверь? . . . is hardly a mistake. Ты уж стар, ты уж сед, слабы зубы твои. – Finally, the phrase “I must have been changed sev- Сын сказал.—Тебе кашу есть! eral times” means exactly what Dr. Parker describes as Как же гýся всего—объясни это мне— a “misunderstanding”: a change effected by others, as Мог с костями и клювом ты съесть? opposed to “I must have changed [myself].” Inciden- [Back translation: tally, translator Aleksandr Shcherbakov understood it in the same way and translated it as «меня несколько “You are an old man, father,” the son started раз превращали»19 (in back translation: “they have speaking again, several times turned me into someone else”), but that “And you are fat, too fat now already, goes altogether unnoticed by Dr. Parker, who, as we So say why, indeed, you roll over your head will see later, is very enthusiastic about Shcherbakov’s And with your back you open the door?” . . . work. An inconsistent approach, to say the least. “You are old already, you are white-haired already, and weak are your teeth,” reviews of d’aktil’s and olenich- The son said, “porridge
18 Now this sounds exceedingly strange. A participle rhythmically expressionless is the stammer- combines the meanings and functions of two words, a ing line «Ты, однако, весь день ходишь на relative pronoun and a verb, so it inevitably makes the голове», where the [rhythmic] stress singles phrase less, not more, “wordy” than a relative clause. out the preposition for no reason!26 But even it weren’t true, only one participle phrase in the whole of D’Aktil’s translation, as my own search has In discussing Olenich-Gnenenko’s verse, the inter- shown, corresponds to a which clause, and here it is: nationally renowned philologist Etkind (who was the author of over 550 academic papers) uses such terms She found herself in a long, low hall, which and phrases as “shapeless,” “unpleasantly imprecise,” was lit up by a row of lamps hanging from the “a lifeless copy,” “even a sophisticated adult reader roof.—Алиса очутилась в длинном низком зале, won’t understand anything here,” and so on. His sum- освещённом рядом свисающих с потолка ламп. mary is as follows: This 12-word 69-character sentence is even more con- A translator of poetry has no right not to see cise and succinct than the 21-word 75-character Eng- the wood for the trees [or he] will stumble lish original. As for being “fitting” in regard to the around and lose track. . . . This is what hap- original, this sentence is an exemplary translation: it pened with poems from Alice in Wonderland: is accurate and written in impeccable Russian. by translating them [in this way] after Samuil But perhaps the reviewer just worded her idea Marshak, Aleksandr Olenich-Gnenenko took poorly while meaning to say the opposite, that is, that a decided step backward.27 D’Aktil often substitutes a pronoun-plus-verb phrase for a participle? That is not true either. While not In my opinion, no review of Russian poetic transla- giving up which-clauses altogether, the translator uses tions from Carroll can be valid if the reviewer is not them very economically, and rightly so, because their familiar with Dr. Etkind’s analysis. frequent repetition is bad style in Russian. Two other findings of the reviewer, that “the review of demurova’s Mock Turtle soup is praised for being a ‘fashionable’ translation soup of fine ingredients”22 and that “the translation As Dr. Parker comes to her next object of review, the ends with Alisa relating her dream to her sister in translation by Nina Demurova, she blasts it right away italicized block letters,”23 cannot be taken seriously as “a classic demonstration of the vulgarization and as “faults.” But that is all she has to say before sum- impoverishment of the Russian language during the marizing that “D’Aktil’s translation is not among the decades of Soviet rule,” a version “plebeian in tone best.”24 Not convincing, I am afraid. and nuance, the choice of words and idioms taken That said, I am not trying to give any assessment solely from poor Soviet stock.”28 of my own, favorable or unfavorable, of the D’Aktil It would be naïve to expect Dr. Parker to explain version. The point I am making is that Dr. Parker’s what exactly she means by “the vulgarization and im- critical arguments against it appear to be partial, un- poverishment” of the language during Soviet rule. Of tenable, and sometimes even untrue. course, no serious expert would uphold such a sweep- The translation by Aleksandr Olenich-Gnenenko ing statement about the Russian language, because (1940) is said to “follow the original as far as the Rus- twentieth-century Russian authors, including four sian language permits, perhaps too tenaciously at Nobel Prize winners, revealed a language no less rich times.”25 The translator is praised for his good com- than that of any earlier period. mand of English, but his success with puns is charac- But here is why the academic calls Demurova’s terized as limited (p. 30). translation “plebeian”: As for his poems, they are seen as “fairly success- This is embodied in her persistent use of “ty,” ful approximations of the originals” (Ibid., p. 31). It the second person singular form of “you,” a is obvious that Dr. Parker was not familiar with Efim predominant form of address among Soviets, Etkind’s brilliant and crushing analysis of Olenich- which creates a particularly harsh ambiance Gnenenko’s versifications, which stated: diminishing Alice’s stature as a person.29 Olenich-Gnenenko failed the task he had I feel really embarrassed at having to explain some set himself: he did copy the form of the “bal- elementary facts about Russian grammar and usage lad” [“Father William”], but his translation to demonstrate the falsehood of this assertion. But if lacks the naturalness of an unfettered and we have to go over the basics, so be it. clever joke and is devoid of the original’s Like all European languages except modern energetic, free intonation. The construction English, Russian has two distinct forms of the sec- «То полезно ль...?» is ugly and false. And how ond person pronoun: singular (ты) and plural (вы).
19 The former is used to address a good friend, a family translation of the book, I have used the pronoun вы member, a child, or an animal (we do talk to pets and in that context.30) beasts, don’t we?). The latter is reserved for conversa- But, on the other hand, Alice’s interlocutors are tions with individuals, especially older ones, beyond aware of her young age (“Consider, my dear, she is only the circle of family and friends. a child,” says the King in Chapter 8; “Tut-tut, child,” In pre-1917 Russia, the singular form was also the says the Duchess in Chapter 9). It easily explains De- accepted way of addressing any member of the “low- murova’s choice of ты, the predominant way of ad- er” classes (a servant, a waiter, a coachman, or a peas- dressing children in Russian, instead of вы. There is ant), regardless of their age. When the monarchy col- nothing “plebeian,” “vulgar,” or “Soviet” in that. lapsed, this disparaging usage was finally abandoned. Dr. Parker’s reference to Stuart Collingwood’s Whatever may be said about Soviet rule in Russia, it words that “Mr. Dodgson possessed an intense natu- is undeniable that in official Soviet etiquette all citi- ral appreciation of the beautiful,”31 cited in support zens were to be addressed with the respectful plural of her criticism of Demurova, is completely off the pronoun вы. point. Carroll’s sense of the beautiful did not pre- And if the word “Soviets” as used by Dr. Parker vent many of his characters from speaking to Alice stands for “Soviet people,” it should be understood in a very uncivil way. The Gryphon rudely calls her a that there were different kinds of people who would “simpleton,” and the Mock Turtle, “very dull”; flowers use one or the other pronoun depending on whom tell her things like “I never saw anybody that looked they talked to and in what situation. stupider,” and so on and so forth. The tone of such It is also wrong to allege that the pronoun ты “di- remarks agrees quite well with the Russian familiar minishes Alice’s stature as a person.” Let us recall that form of address. Alice is a seven-year-old girl. In Russia, small children So much for the pronouns. What else does Dr. have always been addressed with the familiar form, Parker find fault with? “Demurova,” she says, “is im- whether before, during or after the Soviet period. pervious to the child’s [i.e., Alice’s] charms.”32 As no And what “stature” is Dr. Parker talking about? Alice’s further explanation is given, there exists no reason- perceived status changes depending on the situation able academic way to react to this assessment. she finds herself in or the way she is treated by her Some more specific criticism follows, however: interlocutors. For “kick” [in “I think I can kick a little”], When the White Rabbit takes Alice for his house- Demurova employs “liagat’” which is a verb maid in Chapter 4, it is altogether natural that, in pertaining only to four-legged animals, such Demurova’s translation, he addresses her as ты, ex- as a horse who throws his hind legs wildly. actly as masters would treat their servants in the nine- teenth century. One can find plenty of examples of Although Demurova’s Alice used a different verb— this usage in the writings of Dr. Parker’s favorite Rus- лягнуть (lyagnut’), not liagat’, as Dr. Parker says—it sian author, Vsevolod Garshin (1855–1888; Parker’s indeed means “to kick, “ and, like the English word, doctoral thesis was about his works). can be said of an animal (such as a horse). But, also But in Chapter 4, where Alice imagines herself like “kick,” it can easily describe the foot movement being talked to by her nurse (that is, a servant), it is of a human being. Examples of that are common in the polite plural forms that we find in Demurova’s Russian classic literature. (Dostoyevsky, for example, translation: used the same word in the same sense as Demurova in his short story “The Double”). “Miss Alice! Come here directly, One more piece of Parker’s criticism of Demurova: and get ready for your walk!”— When the Caterpillar says “What do you mean «Мисс Алиса! Идите скорее сюда! Пора на by that? . . . Explain yourself!” Demurova прогулку, а вы ещё не одеты!» phrases the question with the verb “vydumat’” which implies falsehood on the part of Alisa, This Russian wording is even politer than the original a child of great honesty and integrity.33 (directly is rendered as “quickly, “ and the command “get ready” is replaced by a mild complaint “you are The falsehood that I can see here lies in the an- not dressed yet”). Alice’s “stature” as a member of the alyst’s understanding of words and logic. In the upper class, if that’s what concerns anybody, is never translation, the Caterpillar’s question («Что это compromised. ты выдумываешь?»—in back translation, “What That said, there are situations in the book where are you fantasizing about?”) implies not so much the choice of the pronoun is open to discussion, as an accusation of “falsehood” as disbelief and skep- when the King questions Alice at the trial. (In my own ticism.
20 And, speaking logically, Alice’s honesty and integ- writer and translator Kornei Chukovsky, despite the rity have nothing to do with what the Caterpillar may generally favorable tone of his review (Chukovsky think of her. These are the Caterpillar’s words, not 1968).37 But any analysis must be fair, consistent, Alice’s. As Carroll puts it, Alice “had never been so method-based, and unprejudiced. None of that ap- much contradicted in all her life before.” pears to be the case with Dr. Parker’s pamphlet. Demurova is also under attack for using the word ругать instead of бранить (both mean “scold”). two more translations dismissed, Yes, we know that nineteenth-century lexicographer two extolled Vladimir Dal wrote that the former “is more vulgar Dr. Parker criticizes two more “Soviet” versions of and rude” than the latter.34 But that is a didactic exag- Wonderland. She describes the translation by popular geration: ругать just may describe the use of strong children’s writer Boris Zakhoder as “a strange amal- language, but not necessarily at all. In any case, there gam of an English Alisa, improper Russian forms, and is nothing rude about the word itself, especially in the translator’s intrusions.”38 Etymologist Vladimir the reflexive combination ругать себя (rugat’ sebya), Orel’s work is dismissed as “a thoroughly forgettable which means simply “to scold, blame, or reprimand translation” full of “miscomprehensions and devia- oneself.” Ample evidence of that can be found in clas- tions from the original” as well as “contemporary So- sic Russian literature, such as Gogol’s or Dostoyevsky’s viet jargon.”39 works, and in the Russian versions of other English Even though there are reasons to give those classics by distinguished translators, such as Imman- translations a low rating indeed, Dr. Parker’s argu- uel and Samuil Marshak in their translation of Jane ments are scarce, inadequate, and sometimes entirely Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. wrong. For example, she criticizes the use by Zakhod- The following lines by Dr. Parker sound simply er of the interjection «Ой!» (which she translates as preposterous to a Russian speaker: Oy!, but which more often corresponds to Ouch!, Oh!, or Ooh!), believing that “in Russian, as in English, [it] Demurova gives “[ona] rugala sebia tak bes- is more appropriate for an elderly person”40—again, a poshchadno” (she swore at herself so unmer- gross misconception about Russian word usage. Peo- cifully), crediting Alisa inappropriately with a ple of all ages use this interjection. number of regularly employed swear words Orel is condemned for alleged “frequent use [(!) Emphasis added.—D. Ye.].35 of abusive epithets from Russian common speech” Dr. Parker is openly “doctoring” the truth: that the (Ibid., p. 48). Not one such “abusive epithet” is cited, translator credits Alice with “a number of swear however, and no explanation is given of how they dif- words” is a glaring invention. The reviewer lays it on fer from Carroll’s own “abusive” epithets, such as “stu- thick in a clear effort to justify her devastating verdict: pid,” “idiot,” and the like. One “Soviet” translation, however, surprisingly Demurova’s unrelenting use of a vulgar style earned Dr. Parker’s appreciation as “the best of the remains constant throughout, demonstrating Anglicized [i.e., non-Russified, D. Ye.] versions of Al- unerringly that Soviet modes of expression ice”—that by electrical engineer Aleksandr Shcherba- are wholly inappropriate for Carroll’s cultured kov, which was published in 1977 shortly after Zak- English and England. Bit by bit, her translation hoder’s version and the revised edition of Demurova’s of the Alice text exemplifies the general Soviet text. Because Mr. Shcherbakov’s supporters grasped butchery of the mighty Russian language.36 at this flattering characteristic in an effort to put his With this, I believe, we have come to a point when it work on a pedestal, Dr. Parker’s arguments deserve can be said with enough confidence that many (if not closer scrutiny. most) of Dr. Parker’s assessments do not, regrettably, The reviewer begins by praising Shcherbakov’s demonstrate a good grasp of the Russian language. text for being “free from Soviet jargon and sole- It may be attributable to her extended loss of con- cism.”42 As no examples or clarifications are given, tact with a genuine Russian-speaking environment. this contention cannot be discussed seriously. Then At the time she wrote her pamphlet, nearly eight de- she passes on to character names: cades had passed since her emigration to the United States. Another reason could be the superficial na- Shcherbakov keeps Carroll’s nomenclature ture of Dr. Parker’s research—if her writing deserves with only a few variants, such as Dodo into that name. Still more examples of that superficiality “Dodo-Kakikh-Uzhe-Bol’she-Net” (Dodo-of- will be given below. the-sort-which-are-no-more), accenting the One can find a number of faults with Nina De- extinction of the large bird, and Caterpillar murova’s translation, as did the renowned children’s into “Cherepakha-Shelkopriad” (silk-spinning
21 caterpillar), of greater stature than a mere Fitting? Definitely not. Why replace well-known worm.43 species of marine wildlife (whiting and porpoise) with something that few readers have seen or heard The reader may remember Dr. Parker’s displeasure about? Dr. Parker does not explain that, so let me with Solovyova’s “Chester Cat” (in place of Cheshire fill the gap: In an effort to make a pun out of линь Cat) and alleged misspelling of the name Pat. Against (“tench”), the translator reinterprets the obsolete ad- that background, the academic is surprisingly indul- jective предлинный (“very long”) in a rather abstruse gent toward a whole phrase of Shcherbakov’s own in- way as пред-линный “coming before a tench.” vention attached to a very short original name. We This pun sounds even more artificial, far-fetched, are told that it accents the extinction of the bird, but and labored in Russian than in the literal translation why accent it at all? There is nothing to indicate that into English you have just read. It is miles apart from Lewis Carroll ever meant or would welcome such an what it is intended to be an equivalent of—light and accent—he simply made a character out of a familiar witty play on common words: purpose and porpoise, sight for the Liddell sisters: a picture of the bird by whiting and blacking (yes, it replaces both those puns). John Savory they saw at the Oxford University muse- Dr. Parker is certainly partial when she praises um. And if the reader looks up the word dodo in any Shcherbakov for his “special ingenuity” in choos- dictionary, the words “extinct bird” will pop up imme- ing the equivalent for the “beat time/Time won’t stand diately, so the addition is totally unnecessary. beating” pun—провести время, where провести car- Dr. Parker has mixed together two characters, ries the double meaning “to spend” and “to cheat” strangely calling Shcherbakov’s Caterpillar Cherepak- (Parker 1994, p. 40). Boris Zakhoder used exactly the ha-Shelkopriad (“Turtle-Silkworm”): in reality, it is just same solution, but nowhere in her review does Parker Шелкопряд (Silkworm). Here too, the reviewer is con- make any mention of that or any of his other puns cerned with “stature,” claiming that a silkworm is “of (some of them not bad at all), let alone compliment greater stature” than a mere worm. his “ingenuity.” Well, it is not. But even if it were, the original On the other hand, she never mentions the re- character is not a worm, but a large blue caterpillar. peated occurrence in the speech of Shcherbakov’s And, evidently having learned that silkworms are nev- Alice of the same interjection for which she criticiz- er large nor blue, Shcherbakov changes the epithets es Zakhoder («Ой, простите, пожалуйста!», «Ой! Я to fat and grey, thus significantly distorting the origi- опять её обидела»). nal image. But that goes unnoticed by Dr. Parker. Let us look at another of Shcherbakov’s solu- Next, Shcherbakov’s handling of puns is dis- tions that Dr. Parker finds “deft”: his translation of cussed. Dr. Parker finds “special ingenuity” in his the chapter title “A Mad Tea-Party” as «Чаепитие со version of the tale/tail pun—a play on the word сдвигом», “which evokes the Russian custom of hav- канцонетта (“canzonetta”) and the phrase конца нету ing tea with something (sugar, jam) or with someone, (konca netu, “no end”). and by using the instrumental form of ‘sdvig’ (‘so In my opinion, this is a poor pun for several rea- sdvigom,’ displacement) the connotation is drinking sons: First, the pair are difficult to confuse because of with those who are somehow displaced or ‘off,‘ that different stress patterns; second, canzonetta is a rare is, the mad ones.”45 musical term not even found in general Russian dic- This passage again raises questions about Dr. Park- tionaries, so a child reader is unlikely to understand er’s grasp of the Russian language. She has detected a it, let alone find the pun funny. But, most important- nonexistent analogy between Shcherbakov’s чаепитие ly, it is in no way related to the idea of a tail, so the со сдвигом (literally, “drinking tea with a shift”) and ex- tail-shaped poem makes no sense anymore. pressions like чай с сахаром (с вареньем), “tea with sug- As another example of Shcherbakov’s “ingenu- ar or jam.” What is overlooked here is the translator’s ity,” Dr. Parker cites his translation of the Lobster attempt to play on the fact that the Hatter, the Hare, Quadrille song: and the Dormouse move (i.e., shift) around the table. As for the figurative meaning of the phrase со Shcherbakov’s choice of fish, “sig” (a variety сдвигом, “crazy,” it is a colloquialism that took shape of salmon) and “lin’” (a huge freshwater precisely in the late Soviet period so much abhorred fish), is fitting and unusual.44 by Dr. Parker. The phrase is not common in educated Unusual? Yes. Сиг (sig “cisco”) and линь (lin’ “tench”) speech (it returns just three hits in that sense in the are not among the most common fish caught or National Russian Corpus46), and is at odds with Lewis served as food in Russia or England. The words are so Carroll’s style and lexical texture. rare that Dr. Parker has not even provided their exact When pondering over Dr. Parker’s partiality to- English equivalents. ward Shcherbakov’s text, I came to the conclusion
22 that it stems from his ample use of the plural pronoun “I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury,” said cun- вы—something that Parker appears to consider as the ning old Fury: “I’ll try the whole cause hallmark of a good translation. That partiality is so and condemn you to death.”49 strong that even when Shcherbakov’s Alice inconsis- Наши законы—ваша вина.50 tently switches over to the informal pronoun ты, Dr. Будешь немедля ты казнена. Parker goes to great lengths to justify the departure: [Back translation: Our laws, your (polite form) At the end of the second chapter, as the guilt. You will be (familiar form) executed im- Mouse swims away from Alisa, infuriated by mediately.] her affectionate remarks about cats and dogs, Alisa pleads an informal form for the Mouse’s I must also comment on Dr. Parker’s remarks that return. It is precisely how Alisa would address “Shcherbakov is equally ingenious with his rendition the Mouse had she been in a wakeful state. of verse”51 and that he “maintains Carroll’s refine- By his translation, Shcherbakov unobtrusively ment” in language.52 My analysis shows that the op- introduces a psychological twist in Alisa’s posite is true. consciousness, as if for the moment she was Most poems in the Alice books—whatever their leaving the world of dreams, the Mouse be- original style or meter—have been rendered by coming what she is, a mere little mouse. Af- Shcherbakov in the trochaic rhythm, which is asso- terwards, both Alisa and the Mouse revert to ciated in Russian culture with merry folk songs and the formal mode of address.47 dances. The translator seems indifferent to the style For the sake of clarity, let me quote the relevant lines of the verse he renders. He even turns the Jabber- directly: wocky poem, which is styled as a grim medieval hero epic and should be recited in a slow, solemn rhythm, . . . Алиса тихо и жалобно сказала: into a chastushka—a genre of a jocular (often ob- — Мышка, милая! Вернись, пожалуйста. scene) peasant song: Я больше не слова не скажу ни о кошках, ни о собаках, раз ты их не любишь.48 Розгрень. Юрзкие хомейки Просвертели весь травас. With Alice trying to appease a large angry animal Айяяют брыскунчейки (who, may I remind the reader, seems the size of a Под скорячий рычисжас.53 walrus or a hippopotamus to the diminished girl), her sudden rollback from the polite form вы, coupled The Mock Turtle’s song, which parodies a romantic with a diminutive (мышка, “little mouse”), is a highly lyrical song by James Sayles of the style performed in questionable “twist” and looks more like an illogical nineteenth-century musical salons, is also rendered mistake on the translator’s part. by Shcherbakov in the same rollicking rhythm sug- But all right, let us believe for a moment that gestive of a loud peasant woman singing, waving her the wording reflects a psychological subtlety. We will scarf and tapping out a chastushka: then have to classify it as a needless departure from Суп горячий и густой, the original. Carroll’s Alice never questions the real- Весь от жира золотой! ity of what is happening to her; she does not leave Мы всегда готовы уп- her dream until she wakes up in the end of the book. Уплетать подобный суп!54 Moreover, Wonderland was not only Alice’s dream, it was a dream Lewis Carroll himself cherished and [Back translation: wanted to remain in. As he wrote in the concluding Soup, hot and thick, poem of TTLG, All golden with fat! Ever drifting down the stream — We’re ever ready to guz- Lingering in the golden gleam — Guzzle up such soup!] Life, what is it but a dream? But the vernacular is not the only register of speech So the presumed “twist of consciousness,” if it was ac- in which Shcherbakov plunges his Alice (should I call tually meant by the translator, goes decidedly against it “plebeian,” to use Dr. Parker’s term?). He easily falls Lewis Carroll’s concept and intent. into bureaucratese as well. Consider the way he trans- Incidentally, there are more cases of erratic use lates a clear and simple sentence: of formal/familiar modes of address by the translator. In Shcherbakov’s rendition of the Mouse’s tale, Fury And she kept on puzzling about it while the is as inconsistent as Alisa when talking to the Mouse: Mouse was speaking, so that her idea of the
23 tale was something like this . . . (Wonderland, ♦ Two different types of works—books “Russified” Chapter 3) in accordance with now obsolete traditions of literary adaptation, and translations proper— Но Мышь изогнула дрожащий хвостик, сжала should be studied and reviewed in accordance его лапками и исполнила нижеследующие with different principles, and not mixed up стихи, которые в памяти Алисы были together. теперь неразрывно связаны с движениями ♦ Dr. Parker was obviously not guided by any 55 мышиного хвоста. theory of, or any authority in, literary translation. ♦ Dr. Parker used no set of uniform criteria in com- [Back translation: But the Mouse curved its paring each version of Wonderland either with trembling little tail, grasped it with its paws, the original or with other versions. Her paper is and recited the poem following hereinafter, a conglomerate of widely selective, fragmentary, which in Alice’s memory was now inextri- and arbitrary comments. cably associated with the movements of the Mouse’s tail.] ♦ Proper review criteria should have included, among others: translation correctness and ac- Apart from extensive arbitrary additions, the transla- curacy; fidelity to the original concept, imagery, tor has not stopped short of using two bureaucratic and style; global handling of humor, puns, and clichés: нижеследующие, “following hereinafter,” and parodies; literary and poetic merits from the неразрывно связаны, “inextricably associated.” The perspective of the target language. crowning infelicity here is the word память (“mem- ♦ Dr. Parker’s paper abounds in sweeping and ory”) for “idea,” as if the Mouse’s tale was something unsuitably emotional judgements that are not Alice already knew but now began to link, for some substantiated by any examples or arguments. strange reason, with the movements of its tail. In sum- Most of the reviewer’s opinions, whether favor- mary, the sentence is a poorly styled mistranslation. able or unfavorable, are biased, and many of the Such is the degree of “refinement” and “fidelity points made are not true to fact. to the English text” (quotations from Dr. Parker’s re- ♦ Many of Dr. Parker’s statements reveal her pro- view) that one finds in Shcherbakov’s phenomenally found misconceptions about Russian grammar, inferior translation. Dr. Parker’s assessment of it style, and word usage, probably due to her pro- as “the best of the Anglicized versions of Alice” just longed loss of contact with the living language. doesn’t hold water. I believe that I have familiarized the reader suf- The pamphlet cannot be deemed a serious or trust- ficiently with Dr. Parker’s “method” that there is no worthy study. Dr. Parker’s criticism, whether eulogis- need to discuss her review of Vladimir Nabokov’s Anya tic or disparaging, rests on bias, misconception, bro- in Wonderland. Her opinion of his work is enthusias- ken logic, and lack of expertise. tic, but does that opinion deserve to be taken into ac- After resolving a long-standing misapprehension, count any more than her other reviews? I believe not. it is with great relief that I conclude: Dr. Parker’s work Like Boratynskaya, Granstrem, and Frenkel can be safely excluded from the circle of respectable (D’Aktil), Vladimir Nabokov produced a strongly academic sources in translation studies and discarded Russified version of Wonderland in a genre that from responsible consideration. contemporary philology cannot view as transla- tion proper. But in the niche of Russianized adap- references tations, this early work of one of the world’s most Chukovsky, K. (1968). Чуковский, К.И. famous authors is a unique phenomenon that «Победителей не судят…» [“Success is never merits attentive and competent academic analysis blamed…”] // Literaturnaja Rossija. No. 38, in a separate study. Sept. 20, 1968. Dal’, V. (1882). Даль, В. И. Толковый словарь живаго conclusions великорускаго языка Владимiра Даля. 2-е изд. My study of the paper “Lewis Carroll in Russia” by Dr. Т. 4 (P–Ѵ) [Explanatory dictionary of the living Fan Parker has led me to the following conclusions. Great Russian language. 2nd ed., Vol. 4]. S.- ♦ In her pamphlet, Dr. Parker tried to give credible Petersburg, Moscow: M.O. Volf. ratings to 11 Russian versions of Wonderland, but Demurova, N. M. (1970). Golos i skripka. K failed to do so, due to the lack of method, objec- perevodu èkscentričeskih skazok L’juisa Kèr- tivity, consistency, and sufficient competence in rolla [A voice and a violin. On the translation her analysis.
24 of Lewis Carroll’s eccentric tales] // Masterstvo 17 Parker, 1994, pp. 20–21 perevoda. Vol. 7. Moscow: Sovetskij pisatel’. Pp. 18 Ibid., p. 23 150–185. 19 Kèrroll, 1977, p. 68 Demurova, N. M. (1978). O perevode skazok Kèr- 20 Parker, 1994, p. 25 rolla [On the translation of Carroll’s tales] // 21 Ibid., p. 27 Kèrroll, L. Priključenija Alisy v Strane Čudes. 22 Ibid., p. 27 Skvoz’ zerkalo i čto tam uvidela Alisa, ili Alisa v 23 Ibid., p. 28 Zazerkal’e. Moscow: Nauka. Pp. 315–336. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., p. 29 Etkind, Efim. (1963). Poesija i perevod [Poetry and 26 Etkind, 1963, p. 348 translation]. Moscow: Sovetskij pisatel. 27 Ibid., p. 351 Fet, Victor (2016). “Around Sonja: On the First Rus- 28 Ibid., p. 32 sian Translation” // Knight Letter. Vol. 2, Issue 29 Ibid. 27, No. 97. Pp. 25–34. 30 Kèrroll, 2018, p. 88 Kèrroll, L. (1977). Кэрролл Л. Приключения 31 Parker, 1994, p. 33 Алисы в Стране Чудес. Зазеркалье (про то, что 32 Ibid. увидела там Алиса) / Перевод А. Щербакова 33 Ibid., p. 35 [Prikljuchenija Alisy v Strane Čudes. Zazerkalje 34 Dal’, 1882, p. 108 (pro to, čto uvidela tam Alisa) / Translated by 35 Parker, 1994, p. 35 A. Shcherbakov]. Moscow: Hudožestvennaja 36 Ibid. literatura. 37 Notably, Dr. Parker was familiar with Kornei Chukovsky’s review, but grossly misrepresented it as if it were Kèrroll, L. (2018). Кэрролл Л. Все шедевры exclusively critical (Parker, 1994, pp. 84). / Перевод, предисл., комм. и илл. Д.И. 38 Parker, 1994, p. 38 Ермоловича [Carroll, L. All Masterpieces / Trans- 39 Ibid., pp. 47–48 lation, foreword, notes, and illustrations by D. I. 40 Ibid., p. 37 Yermolovich]. Moscow: Auditoria. 41 Ibid., p. 46 Ozhegov, S. I. (2012). Ожегов С.И. Толковый 42 Ibid., p. 39 словарь русского языка [Ojegov, S. I., Explanatory 43 Ibid., p. 40 Dictionary of the Russian Language]. Universe and 44 Parker 1994, p. 45 Education Publishing House Ltd., under license 45 Ibid., p. 42 to Oxford University Press. 46 http://ruscorpora.ru—accessed on February 12, 2019. Parker, Fan (1994). “Lewis Carroll in Russia: Transla- 47 Parker 1994, p. 42 tions of Alice in Wonderland 1879–1989” (N. p.) 48 Kèrroll 1977, p. 46 49 Sonja v carstve diva (1879) [Sonja in the kingdom of AAIW, Chapter 3 50 wonder]. Moscow: Mamontov. Ibid, p. 55 51 Parker 1994, p. 44 52 Endnotes Ibid, p. 45 53 Kèrroll 1977, p. 178 1 https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Алиса_в_Стране_чудес— accessed on February 12, 2019. 54 Ibid., p. 133 2 https://slavic.drupal.ku.edu/sites/slavic.drupal.ku.edu/ 55 Kèrroll 1977, p. 54 files/docs/parker-openingremarks.pdf 3 Parker, 1994, p. 3 4 Ibid, pp. 3 - 4 5 Demurova, 1970; 1978 6 Parker, 1994, p. 3 7 Sonja, 1879 8 Fet, 2016 9 Ibid., p. 10 10 Sonja,1879, p. 15 11 Parker, 1994, p. 10 12 Ibid., p. 13 13 Sonja, 1879, pp. 33–34 14 Parker 1994, p. 12 15 Her name is spelled as Solov’eva by Parker (1994). 16 Parker, 1994, p. 20
25