Imagery in Translation. may be considered as an heuristic process of sorting out pro bilities

may be considered as an heuristic process of sorting out pro bilities. Unlike the average reader's semiosis, the translate sorting of substitutes is complicated by a great number of e; considerations such as the difference between the source target languages, potential readers' expectations, cultural inc(patibility, personal preferences, and the like. Yet, primarily, translator's semiosis is bound by the necessity of reconstn ing the source system of imagery as a whole and not as a ch of independent substitutes, which means that the resulting tersemiotic complex must be a piece of literary art accordinj the criteria of the target language, literature and reader.

The translator may play different games with such an tersemiotic complex. Sometimes he appears a keen rival to author, carried away by the idea of creating a text in the tai language equal in its imaginative power to the source text, tho] different in linguistic, literary and cultural qualities. A brilli example of such a type was the Russian poet and translator \ ily Zhukovsky (1783-1852) whose views on translation w those of poetic rivalry. According to the Princeton Encyclo dia of Poetry and Poetics, "it would be difficult to draw a 1 between his original and translated works as he often used latter for his most intimate personal outpourings, frequer improving on the original"⁵. Such rivalry took place in the 1 tory of many European literatures and contributed to the de\ opment of interliterary communication. The main principle such translation is the reconstruction of the source systerr imagery as observed by the translator rather than its precise tails in the target language. This way is creative as well as n leading and applicable only to situations where the target lite ture (and culture at large) has not yet assimilated the basic i tures of the source one. There is an everlasting discussion how to classify such a principle of translating, imitation

" Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, edited by Alex Pr inger. Princeton University Press, 1990.

Практикум по художественному переводу_____

tation. Anyway, it comes up to the reader's expectations if it irs in due time when moods and concepts of the reading pub- i ready to perceive new literary ideas and refreshing imagery it known in their national literature. A familiar example, prob-less brilliant than the Zhukovsky phenomenon, yet altogether le, is Ivan Bunin's Russian translation of Longfellow's Song awatha (1896). The Russian words that Bunin found for the and wild imagery half borrowed from Indian myths by Long-v and half altogether romantic fell upon the abundant soil of an neo-romanticism with its taste for exotic myths, names /ays and accorded with the main tendency of Russian Silver iterature.

Another role, no less popular among translators of litera-is that of ardent scholar and cultural purist. The role re-s strict and scrupulous reconstruction of the subtlest de-of the source text in the target language. One of the first ogists of the integrity of the literary form and its content in rocess of poetic translation was Pavel Katenin whose role; development of Russian literature and in critical review-f ranslation was great in the early nineteenth century⁶. The me of the scholar translator was Valery Bryusov whose main iple in translating poetry was to make the reader feel the dis-in time and between the translated text and himself and thus roduce a higher cultural level into the process of poetic com-cation. Bryusov, who mostly translated Ancient Greek, Latin ther authors remote in time, set certain standards for the qual-' translation that later would help to form the recognised na-I school of poetic translation in 2№ century Russia. One of lost important standards was Bryusov's requirement of the method of poetic translation⁷, which he saw as the right

⁶П. А. Катенин. Размышления и разборы. - М.: Искусство, 1981, -189.

⁷ В. Брюсов. Фиалки в тигеле / Перевод - средство взаимного сения народов. - М.: Прогресс, 1987.

Дата добавления: 2014-11-16