на ту же тему
Jul. 29th, 2001 03:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avvaИ вот ещё, это мы обсуждали в очередной раз набоковский подстрочник Онегина. Сам Набоков по этому поводу написал, увы, немало глупостей; проблема в том, что слишком часто фанаты (включая, собственно, набоковедов-исследователей) бездумно повторяют их вслед за ним. Таким образом родился миф о том, что Онегина перевести на английский стихами и онегинской строфой невозможно в принципе, что все существующие метрические переводы - ужасная гадость и искажают всё, что только возможно, в глубоком смысле оригинала, и что подстрочник Набокова (потрясающе, волшебно точный с лексической точки зрения, но корявый, дикий, безобразный с точки зрения английского языка и английской поэзии - сам Набоков эти его качества не просто признавал, но гордился ими) является единственно возможным, идеально точным и верным духу оригинала переводом Онегина на английский язык.
Чёрт, хорошо же я всё-таки тогда написал. Сейчас перечитал - понравилось. Опять-таки, готов подписаться:
What a pity, then, that no brave soul has volunteered to produce the
exact, literal, ugly, and unreadable podstrochnik (literal translation)
of Shakespeare in Russian, akin to Nabokov's podstrochnik of Pushkin!
Surely, this is what we've been missing all along, choked by the
unbearably rhyming sonnets as rendered by Marshak, or unbearably
metrical and flowing Hamlet as rendered by Lozinsky or Pasternak!
All educated Russians will flock to that ugly literal edition of
Shakespeare at once and will start comparing it to the treacherous
and dishonest previous translations with many a happy chuckle. We'll
even sacrifice the treacherous (and fortunately scarce) non-literal
translations of Shakespeare by Nabokov.
What Pushkin actually wrote is a novel in verse, in Russian. The only
way to know what he wrote is to read it, in Russian. To believe that
any translation, "literal" or otherwise, could reproduce the work
in a very different language really faithfully, is silly and naive. To
dismiss poetic translations for being unable to do that is to attack a
strawman. To claim that a literal translation faithfully reproduces
a work of poetry (as opposed to a housing contract) is to betray
astonishing naiveness.
Чёрт, хорошо же я всё-таки тогда написал. Сейчас перечитал - понравилось. Опять-таки, готов подписаться:
What a pity, then, that no brave soul has volunteered to produce the
exact, literal, ugly, and unreadable podstrochnik (literal translation)
of Shakespeare in Russian, akin to Nabokov's podstrochnik of Pushkin!
Surely, this is what we've been missing all along, choked by the
unbearably rhyming sonnets as rendered by Marshak, or unbearably
metrical and flowing Hamlet as rendered by Lozinsky or Pasternak!
All educated Russians will flock to that ugly literal edition of
Shakespeare at once and will start comparing it to the treacherous
and dishonest previous translations with many a happy chuckle. We'll
even sacrifice the treacherous (and fortunately scarce) non-literal
translations of Shakespeare by Nabokov.
What Pushkin actually wrote is a novel in verse, in Russian. The only
way to know what he wrote is to read it, in Russian. To believe that
any translation, "literal" or otherwise, could reproduce the work
in a very different language really faithfully, is silly and naive. To
dismiss poetic translations for being unable to do that is to attack a
strawman. To claim that a literal translation faithfully reproduces
a work of poetry (as opposed to a housing contract) is to betray
astonishing naiveness.
