Leskov Into English

LESKOV INTO ENGLISH ON TRANSLATING СОБОРЯНЕ (CHURCH FOLKS) by Jack F. Matlock, Jr. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013 © 2013 Jack F. Matlock, Jr. All rights reserved LESKOV INTO ENGLISH: ON TRANSLATING СОБОРЯНЕ (CHURCH FOLKS) by Jack F. Matlock, Jr. ABSTRACT After discussing variant approaches to translation and the characteristics of Nikolai Leskov’s prose, the study analyses the language in excerpts selected from Leskov’s novel-length chronicle, Соборяне. The samples illustrate the range of Leskov’s prose, including straight exposition, archaic language, colloquial language, and the skaz or frame story. Existing translations of these passages in English, French and German are analyzed and suggestions made for translations into English that capture as much as possible of the feel and nuance of the Russian original. The study concludes with a discussion of what is lost in the translation of language in the idiosyncratic style of a writer like Leskov. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ………………………………………………………………………... 1 Chapter I: Approaches to Translation …………………………………………... 10 Chapter II: Structure, Style and Language ………………………………………. 19 Chapter III: Translating Leskov ………………………………………………….. 36 Chapter IV: Descriptive Prose …………………………………………………... 47 Introducing the Characters ………………………………………… 48 The Russian Text ………………………………………….. 48 Analysis and Comment …………………………………… 55 Suggested Translation ……………………………………. 75 Nature Description ………………………………………………… 84 The Russian Text …………………………………………. 85 Analysis and Comment …………………………………… 92 Suggested Translation …………………………………….. 101 Chapter V: Archaic Language: Tuberozov’s Diary ……………………………. 111 Problems with the Consistory ……………………………………... 113 The Russian Text ………………………………………….. 114 Analysis and Comment …………………………………… 116 Suggested Translation …………………………………….. 122 Searching for an Orphan …………………………………………... 125 The Russian Text ………………………………………….. 126 Analysis and Comment ……………………………………. 130 Suggested Translation …………………………………….. 132 Boryarinya Plodomasova ………………………………………….. 137 The Russian Text . ………………………………………… 138 Analysis and Comment …………………………………… 147 Suggested Translation …………………………………….. 150 The Tale of the Surrogate ………………………………………… 160 The Russian Text …………………………………………. 161 Analysis and Comment …………………………………… 163 Suggested Translation ……………………………………... 167 i Chapter VI: Colloquial Language ……………………………………………… 171 Deacon Achilla: The Walking Sticks ……………………………… 173 The Russian Text …………………………………………. 173 Analysis and Comment …………………………………… 186 Suggested Translation …………………………………….. 200 Barnaby Prepotensky ……………………………………………. 216 The Russian Text …………………………………………. 217 Analysis and Comment …………………………………… 226 Suggested Translation ……………………………………... 236 Termosesov ………………………………………………………. 250 The Russian Text …………………………………………. 251 Analysis and Comment …………………………………… 261 Suggested Translation …………………………………….. 276 Achilla Writes from Petersburg ………………………………….. 290 The Russian Text …………………………………………. 291 Analysis and Comment …………………………………… 298 Suggested Translation …………………………………….. 303 Chapter VII: The Skaz: A Dwarf’s Tale ………………………………………… 313 The Russian Text …………………………………………. 315 Analysis and Comment …………………………………… 322 Suggested Translation …………………………………….. 329 Chapter VIII: How Much Is Lost? ……………………………………………….. 339 Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………… 347 ii 1 INTRODUCTION One should translate only poems he cares very much for; poems he has been living with, more often than not, for many years. He translates partly out of dissatisfaction with the versions he has seen—not out of the certainty that he can do better, but out of a feeling he can at least do them differently…. (John Frederick Nims)1 Leskov was not a poet, and Соборяне is not poetry. But Leskov’s prose shares with poetry many of the characteristics that make the latter notoriously difficult to translate. And, in fact, Leskov for long was poorly served by his English-language translators. Except for the stories in the volume edited, and for the most part translated, by Professor William B. Edgerton (Satirical Stories of Nikolai Leskov, Pegasus, New York, 1969) most English translations of Leskov failed even to approximate Leskov’s intricate, inventive, idiosyncratic style. It was not until 2010, when this study had been completed, that an acceptable English translation of Leskov’s Соборяне was published.2 Indeed, Leskov presents the translator with a much more difficult task than do the other great Russian prose writers of the nineteenth century. As Dmitrij Tschižewski remarked, “Er vermag … seine Sprache auf verschiedenen Wegen so zu bereichern wie keiner seiner Zeitgenossen.”3 Richness of language is Leskov’s salient trait; it is the 1 John Frederick Nims, Sappho to Valéry: Poems in Translation. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1971), p. 301. 2 Nikolay Leskov, The Cathedral Clergy: A Chronicle, translated, with an introduction by Margaret Winchell. Bloomington, Indiana: Slavica, 2010. 3 Dmitrij Tschižewski, Russische Literaturgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1967), vol. 2, p. 103. 2 basis of his claim to literary greatness; it has defied most of his translators. This, more than any other single factor, explains Leskov’s neglect in the English-speaking world. Some perceptive critics have doubted that Leskov’s most characteristic language can be translated at all. D. S. Mirsky, for example, observed: Leskov’s most striking originality lies in his Russian. His contemporaries wrote in a level and even style, avoiding anything too striking or questionable. Leskov avidly absorbed every unexpected and picturesque idiom. All the various forms of professional and class language, every variety of slang, were welcome to his pages. But his special favorites were the comic effects of colloquial Church Slavonic and the puns of “popular etymology.” These effects are of course untranslatable.”4 But Mirsky’s discouraging judgment seems too categorical. Certainly no translator can capture all the rich nuance and overtone of Leskov’s language. Much of it, however, can be reproduced. One need only examine Edgerton’s translation of “The Steel Flea,” or Hugh McLean’s rendition of “Night Owls” to be convinced that malapropisms and the puns of folk etymology can indeed be conveyed in English.5 This study, therefore, proceeds from the assumption that Leskov’s language is in fact translatable to a significant degree. The questions posed are how and to what degree. These questions cannot be answered in the abstract, but only from a detailed examination of concrete texts. These texts have been chosen from Leskov’s most important longer work of fiction, Соборяне, and have been selected so as to provide examples of the most characteristic traits of Leskov’s style and language. The passages will be studied to determine (1) what Leskov’s words convey to the Russian reader; (2) how other translators have rendered them; and (3) how they might be translated into English, 4 D. S. Mirsky, A History of Russian Literature, edited and abridged by Francis J. Whitfield (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949), p. 315. 5 Edgerton, op. cit., pp. 25-56 and 242-327. 3 recognizing that no translation can be considered final or definitive. This procedure should permit us to make informed judgments regarding how much of Leskov can be conveyed in English and to what degree of success. Соборяне has been selected for this study for a number of reasons. First, it is the most artistically significant of Leskov’s longer works of fiction. Many consider it his masterpiece, and even those who feel that Leskov’s shorter works are sufficient to place him among the great artists concede that Соборяне is a fine and perhaps great work of art.6 Second, it contains representative samples of almost every stylistic device and linguistic peculiarity on which Leskov’s reputation rests. One can, therefore, base a study of Leskov’s language and style on this work without serious lacunae. Third, while one could also base a study of the translatability of Leskov’s language on various shorter works, there is an advantage to dealing with excerpts from a single work. One of the problems facing the translator is reconciling rapid shifts of language and technique with the requirement for some sort of artistic unity in a given work. This problem can be perceived in its full dimension only in the context of a longer work containing disparate stylistic devices. Finally, and perhaps decisively, there is a personal reason. I have, in Nims’ words, “lived with” Соборяне for many years, have found it a constant source both of delight and of insight into important aspects of Russian character and society. I was long distressed by the lack of a decent English translation of this classic. After all, the English- speaking reader can grasp the sweep and vitality of Tolstoy’s major novels, can be stirred by Dostoevsky’s psychological insights, and can enter the fin de siècle world of 6 See, for example, Hugh McLean’s comments in his Nikolai Leskov, the Man and His Art (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977), pp. 191-192. 4 Chekhov’s Russia, yet, for the reader without Russian, Leskov remained for well over a century hidden under the bushel of translation. Even though Margaret Winchell’s 2010 version is a vast improvement over its predecessor, Leskov’s language is so idiosyncratic that a close study of how previous translators dealt with

Load more