Теория языка | Филологический аспект №4 (48) Апрель 2019
УДК 8.81
Дата публикации 30.04.2019
Влияние исторических и культурных контекстов на выбор переводчика
Кусаинова Гульжан Маратовна
магистр гуманитарных наук, преподаватель кафедры Переводческого дела, Международных отношений и бизнес журналистики, университет КазГЮУ им. М.С.Нарикбаева, Казахстан, г.Нур-Султан, kussainova2706@gmail.com
Габдуллина Зарина Еслямбековна
магистр гуманитарных наук, преподаватель кафедры Английского языка и методики преподавания, КГУ имени Ш.Уалиханова, Казахстан, г.Кокшетау, gabdullina_zarina92@mail.ru
Аннотация: Основной идеей данной статьи является выявление мотивов и целей, которые ведут переводчика к выбору того или иного текста. В статье проанализированы переводы «Гамлета» (Шекспир) переводчиками разных столетий и с разными историческими и культурными условиями - А.Сумарокова, Н.Полевого и Б.Пастернака. Статья раскрывает влияние историко-культурных условий на выбор переводчиков при переводе произведения Шекспира на русский язык. Сравнение охватило три столетия, в ходе которого выявлено, что выбор переводчиков напрямую зависел от их культуры, истории и условий жизни, в которых они находились. Кроме того, статья затрагивает взгляды теоретиков А.Лефевра и С.Басснет на важность и влияние русской культуры на перевод.
Ключевые слова: перевод, Шекспир, Гамлет, русская литература, культурный контекст, историко-культурные условия, переводчик
MA in Translation Studies, lecturer in the Department of Translation Studies, International Relations and Business Journalism, M.S. Narikbayev KAZGUU University, Kazakhstan, Nur-Sultan
MA in Translation Studies, lecturer in the Department of the English language and Methods of Teaching, Sh.Ualikhanov Kokshetau State University, Kazakhstan, Kokshetau
It is generally known that the science of translation as a part of linguistics closely links to literature and literary studies, but not many know about the impact and relationship of historical and cultural studies on translation. Theorists Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere [2; p.123] examined the role of cultural studies in translation using the term ‘cultural turn’, which includes the study of the text in the network of source and target cultural signs. Also, they suggested the level of the complexity of translation combined with practice and questioned how translation texts are selected and who makes these selections, a translator, a patron, an editor or someone else [2; p.123]. The answer to the question is that quite often historical and cultural settings influenced and continue to influence a translator’s choice. There is no particular language or culture that can affect a translator’s selection; it may happen with any translator of any language, history and culture. It is evident in the case of Russia when some historical and cultural events affected Russian translators’choices. The development of translation and literature in Russia links to the Emperor Peter the Great and his reforms in the eighteenth century. Literature of that epoch in Russia had significant changes, such as Western Cultural orientation provided by Peter the Great’s Reforms led to the uprise of Europeanised literature [3]. These changes of the eighteenth century contributed to the development of translation in two subsequent eras. During these three centuries, writers-translators produced different works, but one of the outstanding examples from the eighteenth century in Westernization of Russia through literature is Shakespeare’s poetry. Historical and cultural settings in three different centuries in Russia affected Sumarokov’s, Polevoy’s and Pasternak’s choices to translate ‘Hamlet’ written by Shakespeare and all these cases are discussed in this article.
Peter the Great’s reform on Westernization in the eighteenth century was the most influential on the appearance of a Russian adaptation of Shakespearian ‘Hamlet’. It follows that Modern Russian literature usually dates from Peter II or Peter the Great’s reforms, as mentioned before, were oriented on Europeanisation of Russian culture, ideology, mode of life and literature [10; p.59]. This change also known as ‘Window on Europe’ [6; p.104] encouraged one of the writers-translators of that period, Alexander Sumarokov, to focus on western poetry, and one of his choices was the poetry of English writer William Shakespeare, whose name had already been popular in Europe [15]. However, in Russia Sumarokov was the first writer of that time who mentioned Shakespeare’s name in 1748 in his work ‘Epistle on poetry’. Nevertheless, Sumarokov’s perception of the English writer was not quite positive, and in one of his footnote-comments, he claimed that Shakespeare was not educated enough. Besides, he considered that Shakespeare being an English writer and tragedian was not perfect and had some vicious qualities as great ones [14]. Despite this, that year Sumarokov, based on a French translation by Pierre Antoine de La Place in 1745, produced the first translation of Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ in Russia. The main reason to translate it was the countrywide ‘fashion’ of Europeanization. This ‘trend’ started in the early 1700s when Peter II decreed that everyone should adopt western dresses and manner, otherwise, he threatened to punish and fine for non-compliance of rules [10]. Such political demands usually were directed to a high and middle class of society. Sumarokov as a translator was also forced to follow all the rules and principles that had been established before him. In that direction, he tried to introduce a new form in Russian literature of the eighteenth century thereby introducing Shakespeare into Russian culture, literature, performance and production. We could suppose that he intended to give Shakespeare´s ‘Hamlet’a new subject matter in a new work, in different conditions.
The surrounding, worldview of people and the time where the translator survived in, influenced not only his object of translation also the translation itself was affected. Comparing Sumarokov’s translation with the English version, which is original, it has the variety of differences, including length and content. The evident difference is the length of the tragedy, Sumarokov’s adaptation is much shorter than original and last monologues in the play were summarised. Generally, almost all monologues in Russian version are shorter or the meaning was abridged. It is remarkable that Sumarokov, in the translation of Hamlet, left only ten characters when Shakespeare’s version has more than 25 heroes. For example, he deleted one of the main heroes such as, Laertes, son of Polonius and removed other less significant heroes. It means that Russian translator almost changed Shakespearean tragedy. All these changes led to the complete transformation of the whole content and meaning. There are different possible reasons for Sumarokov’s version of the translation. Probably the content of the play could conflict with views and norms of target society, and the translator summarised it in order to conceal some superfluous details. On the other hand, Sumarokov’s level of English is still a disputable question; probably his knowledge in English was not enough to produce a real translation of Hamlet. Jill [9] claims that the translator created his tragedy based on Shakespearian ‘Hamlet’, using Shakespearean’s characters, their actions, roles and motives. Possibly, it was the reason for Sumarokov not to mention Shakespeare’s name in his publication because he almost made his version, not authentic translation. Hence, the question arose, where the alterations have been made in Russian or French translation. As Russian version of ‘Hamlet’ appeared not from the original, the answer for some changes by Sumarokov might be hiding in French adaptation by La Place. Analysing French version with original, it gives an answer for Sumarokov’s style because some changes found in Russian adaptation were adopted from La Places translation. French translator altered much, probably because of his view of translation. For him, the translator was a compleat copyist who knows when and how to remediate deficiencies of his model [1; p.8]. La Place was confident in making changes where he considered appropriate; he could delete some unnecessary words, in his view, sentences even chapters. Probably, La Place’s confidence depended on the status of his country and language, as Herder [7] states, the French were sublime of their national taste and even translators tried to adapt everything to their style and taste, instead of adapting themselves to another culture. Russia also was delighted with French taste, culture, art and literature; and later at the end of the eighteenth century the interest of new Empress Catherine the Great in western literature became one of the departures of Russian literature to Shakespearean world [20].
Westernization continued in nineteenth century Russian literature and the focus on Shakespeare’s works became more popular. On the translation of Shakespeare in early nineteenth century, Catherine the Great, following Peter the Great’s Western Orientation, had a significant influence. She admired Shakespeare’s works, which had read in German. Being an Empress of Russian Empire, Catherine the Great wrote the plays based on Shakespeareans, which are classified as ‘imitations of Shakespeare’. She even encouraged the writers and translators with awards and acting as a patron in that time, and she was not content to be it. Andre Lefevere[11] studied the issue of patronage. He defines the patrons and initiators as ‘the powers’ which assist or hinder others to write, read or rewrite the literature. Patronage has three components, which are an ideological element, economic and status involved [12]. Analysing these elements, it shows that Catherine the Great almost was as a ‘patron’ for translators and writers of that period, because in case of economic component she awarded and supported outstanding writers. With ideological component, we cannot tell that she constrained on the selection of development of form and content; but her influence was through her status, which is the third component. It was a question of acceptance of patronage and acceptance of her style of life, it was not a direct patronage.
Translations of Shakespeare in 1800s mostly were from French and German. It follows that the ‘fashion’ on French probably still existed or there was no alternative. However, translations from English gradually were gaining the popularity. As in eighteenth century, nineteenth century Russian literature did not have professional translators, so called translators were writers, who did translations [24]. The number of translators, who could work from English, was limited and one of those writers-translators, who rendered Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ from English into Russian in 1887 was N.A. Polevoy[9].
Different reasons can explain his choice to translate Shakespeare, which were as political as personal, based on the culture and society in that period. To the moment, when Polevoy started work on Shakespeare’s poetry, a significant part of people was acquainted with the name ‘Shakespeare’ [9]. His popularity and the vogue of his works motivated Polevoy to translate his poetry. As Makaryk [16] states, the pinnacle of Shakespeare’s tragedies fame came with the beginning of a period of Anglomania and the development of Russian theatres in the middle of the nineteenth century. Translated Shakespeare’s tragedies attracted more audience and readers. Theatres produced Shakespearean plays and drew a big crowd. Moreover, journals and magazines, describing Shakespeare’s life and art were best-sellers. For example, Polevoys encyclopaedic journal Moscow Telegraph, being published in a period from 1825 to 1934 [17]. The positive reaction of society to Shakespeare became an impulse particularly for Polevoy to translate him. Another reason for Polevoy was something between political and personal that through translation of ‘Hamlet’, he tried to influence his reader [9]. Ordinary people from different society classes or different occupations could not openly express or share their ideas and thoughts. Analysing the translation of ‘Hamlet’ by Polevoy, it has the same situation as Sumarokov in the 18th century, who shortened and deleted some monologues. However, Polevoy’s version has more characters than Sumarokov’s he has about 20 personages. Polevoy also omitted some speeches and sentences because they required more explanation. He tried to maintain more plain meaning for his audience, avoiding complex and philosophical scenario. Otherwise, the translator followed the Shakespearean style and it was still recognisable ‘Hamlet’. Through the translation of the tragedy and Hamlets sufferings, Polevoy aimed to express the life of his contemporaries. The difficulty of life and sufferings of people depended directly on the political events happening in that period. It was the years after Decembrist revolution when the despotic rules overrode [17]. Russian intelligentsia was estranged. To some extent, for Polevoy, the translation was like self-expression; he created his image of Hamlet and showed his personal existence. His personal emotional stress and concern of his country were expressed in terms of the translation. Some lines in ‘Hamlet’, where Shakespeare clearly states another country such as Denmark, Polevoy changed it to his motherland. For example, in the scene fifth of the first act in the original version, the officer Marcellus says – ‘Something is rotten in the State of Denmark’ [8]. However, the translation sounds differently [Марцелло: -Я бѣдствія отечества предвижу!] [19] which can be translated as ‘I foresee the disasters of my motherland’.Polevoy avoided the use of Denmark, and he could not entirely change it and write Russia, but his attitude to Russia he demonstrated precisely with one word ‘otechestvo’ ‘motherland’ with deep meaning, as he could do through the poetry. For the translation of the word ‘otechestvo’ the word ‘motherland’ was chosen, not ‘homeland’ or ‘fatherland’ because Russian people conceive it as a ‘land is their Mother’ that is why it is better to say ‘motherland’.
20th century, Stalinism, Soviet Union all these ‘names’ are something that influenced on the appearance of the new version of ‘Hamlet’ by Boris Pasternak. His version of Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ published in 1940 is used to consider as one of the successful translations in the 20th century [4]. In history, this era is widely known as an epoch of ‘The Soviet Union’, which united 14 countries in the head of Russia [3]. Pasternak lived and worked in the era of socialist realism in literature or Stalin’s era, which dates from 1925 to 1953. This particular time under Stalin’s reign appears as one of the most memorable periods in the history of Soviet Russia. The active literature life of previous decades had been suppressed and replaced by the formation of the Writers Union in 1932. The organisation followed the general Soviet attitude that literature has a great importance to the life of the state and must be strictly controlled. Devious writers were under the risk of violent punishment. Many talented litterateurs of that epoch suffered from the regimes tightening of the cultural reins. For instance, Zamyatin was cast into exile or Pilnyak was forced to change his literary approach, Bulgakov’s works had not been published anymore [22; p.458]. Such attitude to writers of that era appalled other authors and publishers. For Pasternak, such pressure, fear of punishment and the alignment of Writers Union prompted him no longer risk producing his versions [5; p.459]; however, he started to work as a translator of English, German, French and Georgian literature [22; p.488]. That became one of his reasons to work with foreign literature, in that case with Shakespeare’s works.
Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ continued to be translated in the 20th century not only because of the fear of Stalinist’s reforms and change of their occupation from a writer to a translator. As Vladova [23] states, the primary factor in translation is time, and that is what accounts for the necessity of re-translations of already existing translations. However, in time this need in retranslations can be internal, that is, translation within one language. For example, translation from one phase of history to another, in this context it is the translation from Old Russian language into a contemporary one. For linguists of a new era, translations of eighteenth and nineteenth centuries seemed archaic and old-fangled, and the focus of twentieth-century translators was on creating of new contemporary translation of western literature [4]. Examining so-called ‘archaism’ in the translation of past centuries in comparison with the translation of socialistic realism, we can identify some distinct differences in style and language. One visible difference in language is writing system, whereas in all three centuries people in Russia used Cyrillic script with some Latin elements, reformed by Peter the Great and this writing in the new twentieth century had changes in letters, all Latin and Old Slavonic letters had been replaced [4]. It can be demonstrated with three versions of translation from different periods. The same word was chosen which means action, in Sumarokov’s and Polevoy’s versions it was presented as ‘дѣйствіе’ and ‘действие’ in Pasternak’s translation [18, 19]. One more example of Old Russian writing was mentioned in the examples from Polevoy’s translation of ‘motherland'. Such changes and re-translations are necessary to allow the contemporary reader to feel the atmosphere of the past by modern language. It is usually made because the lexis used in other historical settings cannot be experienced as deeply as it was for that, first reader.
In conclusion, having analysed the translation of Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ into Russian by different translators from three different centuries shows that translators’ selections often directly depend on the period they lived in and what was happening around them in that time. Much work was done by theorists Lefevere and Bassnett on the importance and influence of cultural turn on translation. They also questioned who selects the translation texts and how and with given examples and situations happened to translators, we may clarify that culture and history have a major influence. In some cases, the situations impacting the translator might be personal, political or professional. In the case of Sumarokov, the Emperor Peter the Great was as an initiator, who supported the development of Western literature and culture. Regarding his translation, it was not real tragedy of Shakespeare, the author made his changes because he did not know English, he was not a professional translator and the French version by La Place had already been shortened. Sumarokov’s changes were not personal or intentional, as it, another translator Polevoy made. His reasons were as political as personal; through the tragedy, he tried to show how the life was difficult. He wanted to protect his motherland and thereby changed Shakespearean Denmark to motherland. However, these two translators had more freedom than the translator of a contemporary world, Boris Pasternak. Under Stalin’s reign, he had to become a translator because now they could not express their ideas and in order to avoid punishment, he translated works of other litterateurs. It follows that the choice of this tragedy for all these three translators was not random. Their choices directly connect to the epoch when they lived or existed. Historical events and the dominance of supremacy dictated the conditions in which translators should work and, in some cases, survive. Non-acceptance had irremediable consequences. Probably, their personal motives dominated more and through a text they expressed themselves. Despite this, it is evident that different times impress differently on translation. Possibly, literary system, particularly translation, cannot exist apart from culture and history.
Список литературы
1. Bailey, H.P., 1964. Hamlet in France from Voltaire to Laforgue. Genève: Librairie DROZ.
2. Bassnett, S., Lefevere, A., 1998. Constructing cultures: essays on literary translation. Oxford: Marston Book Services Ltd.
3. Brown, A., et al. 1982. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
4. Emerson, C., 2008. The Cambridge Introduction to Russian Literature. [e-book] Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://www.politicalavenue.com
5. Gibian, G. G., 1952. Shakespeare in Soviet Russia. The Russian Review, [e-journal] 11(1), pp. 24-34. Abstarct only. Available through: Cardiff University Library Website
6. Grunwald, C., 1956. Peter the Great. London: Adlard and son Ltd.
7. Herder, J.G., 1977. Transaltion of a culture. In: A.Lefevere. Translating literature: the german tradition from luther to rosenzweig. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
8. Hudson, H.N., ed., [no date]. The Windsor Shakespeare. Julius Caesar. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Edinburgh: T.C.andE.C.Jack. Shakespeare
9. Jill,W., 2015. Acculturating Shakespeare: the tactics of translating his works under Stalin in the light of recent theoretical advances in translation studies. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/28646/1/Jill%20Warren_Acculturating%20Shakespeare_July %202015.pdf
10. Lee, S.J., 1993. Peter the Great. London: Routledge
11. Lefevere, A., 1998. Translation practice(s) and the Circulation of Cultural Capital: Some Aeneids in English. In: S.Bassnett and A.Lefevere.Constructing cultures: essays on literary translation. Oxford: Marston Book Services Ltd.
12. Lefevere, A., 1985. Why waste our time on rewrites? In: T.Hermans, ed. The manipulation of literature. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
13. Levin, Y., 1994. English Literature in Eighteenth-Century Russia. The Modern Language Review, [e-journal] 89(4) pp. xxv-xxxix. Abstract only. Available through: Cardiff University Library Website
14. Levitt, M.C., 1994. Sumarokov’s Russianized “Hamlet”: texts and contexts. The Slavic and
East European Journal, 38(2), pp.319-341. Abstract only. Available through: Cardiff University Library Website
15. LeWinter, O. ed., 1970. Shakespeare in Europe. London: Cox&Wyman Ltd.
16. Makaryk, I.R., [no date]. Calibans All: Shakespeare at the Intersection of Colonialism. Available at:
18. Pasternak, B., 1940. Gamlet. PrincDatskiy. Available at:
19. Polevoy, N.A., 1887. Gamlet. PrincDatskiy. Saint-Petersburg: Suvorin’s publication. Availbale at:
20. Great and Shakespeare. Modern Language Association, [ejournal] 47(3), pp. 790-806. Abstact only. Available through: Cardiff University Library Website
21. Sumarokov, A., 1748. Gamlet. Tragediya. Available at:
22. Terras, V., 1996. The twentieth century: the era of socialism realism, 1925-53. In: C.A.Moser, ed.1999. The Cambridge history of Russian literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 458-519.
23. Vladova, I., 1993. Essential features and specific manifestations of historical distance in original texts and their translations. In: P.Zlateva, ed. Translation as Social Action. Russian and Bulgarian Perspectives. London: Routledge.
24. Жаткин, Д., Милотаева, O.С., 2015. К истории изучения эволюции русского поэтического перевода XIX века. Международный журнал прикладных и фундаментальных исследований. – 2015. – № 10 (часть 3) – С. 573-576