ENGLISH-LANGUAGE RECEPTION OF N. V. GOGOL’S COMEDY “THE GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR” IN THE TRANSLATION INTERPRETATION BY K. GARNETT
DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2020-5-192-205
Introduction. The choice of approach to the analysis of literary translation in this article is explained by the fact that interpretation in translation involves co-creation of the translator and the author of the original work, so that a new understanding of it can arise. Aim and objectives. The aim of the article is to identify the differences between the author’s interpretation of the comedy “The Government Inspector” and its translation interpretation by K. Garnett. It will allow us to see the semantic transformations of the work as it penetrates into the English-speaking culture. Material and methods. The material of the research is the comedy “The Government Inspector” by N. V. Gogol and its translation into English, made by the British translator K. Garnett in 1926. The methodology of this research is based on a comparative method, as well as a method for studying translation through the concept of “translation interpretation”. Results and discussion. The translator does not put the name “Silent scene” in a separate title and writes it in small italics merged with the previous text. This reduces its significance for English readers. In addition, K. Garnett in the translation of the play removes the division into scenes, which supports the classical symmetry and correctness of architectonics, while demonstrating the subordination of being to the divine plan. This suggests that in the understanding of the translator there were no initially harmonious laws of human existence. As for anthroponomy, all the names and surnames of the characters are conveyed by K. Garnett using transliteration. This means that for the English-speaking reader, their “speaking” meaning is lost. At the same time, this method of translation may also have a deeper meaning. In the original work, the characters are united by their involvement in vice, the symbolic embodiment of which they are. They are also connected by a common expectation of punishment for their actions and, undoubtedly, by belonging to the same people, since this issue was important for Gogol. It embodies the influence of the romanticism traditions on him. In comedy, the unity of the people demonstrates, in particular, the common national character of the dramatic personae. The presence and nature of the vice in each individual case is expressed, among other things, by the name of the character. But since this semantics is lost due to transliteration in translation, the connecting thread becomes less obvious to English-speaking reader. The loss of the original semantics of belonging of heroes to a common nation is facilitated by the translation of phraseological phrases, proverbs and sayings found in the original text. In the translation by K. Garnett, the idiomatic speech of the characters, indicating their folk character, was largely reduced. A similar feature is the frequent replacement of colloquial expressions of heroes with lexemes of the literary language. Therefore, the characters’ speech becomes more neutral and loses its expressiveness. Due to the prevailing number of such transformations, the characters of the dramatic personae in the translation of the comedy can hardly be called folk. Regarding the translation of Russian realities, it should be noted that K. Garnett replaced many of them with English ones. And although we cannot say that this applies to all realities, but they are the absolute majority, which cannot but affect readers reception. Among other things, K. Garnett adds a Gendarme to the list of actors, which does not correspond to Gogol’s conception. The Gendarme in the comedy acts as a “herald of the Last judgment” and his figure shows “transpersonal power”, which is why he is not on the stage of the theater. However, the appearance of the Gendarme in the list of actors in the translation text completely deprives him of the opportunity to embody the hand of God. Together with the “Silent scene” leveling this deprives comedy its significance and true meaning, which Gogol sought to express. Conclusion. The emergence of such a version of the comedy translation can be attributed to the fact that K. Garnett worked at the beginning of the modernist era, “the root characteristic of the literature of which is, in particular, the belief in the isolation, alienation and ultimate absurdity of each individual existence and the entire macrocosm of reality”. This largely contributes to the formalistic approach to poetics, which in this case is chosen by the translator. This is expressed in the fact that K. Garnett reproduces the text without taking into account the influence of the author’s biography and views. It cannot also be said that the cultural and historical context of the original and Gogol’s reception of literary traditions were sufficiently taken into account. Transformations in translation have led to the fact that characters are perceived as part of a faceless crowd, each member of which is not connected by anything, and not as people drawing inspiration from their unity. The characters are still together waiting for the Government Inspector, but the meaning of his appearance loses its sacred meaning of God’s punishment. In this interpretation, the existence of comedy characters appears absurd and even tragic to some extent, since there is no positive or negative dynamics. Thus, although the original author’s meaning was not recreated by K. Garnett in the translation of “The Government Inspector” into English, it can be stated that a new one that conveys a sense of hopelessness at the turn of the XIX−XX centuries has emerged.
Keywords: N. V. Gogol, C. Garnett, reception, translation, interpretation
References:
1. Bogatyreva E. D. Khudozhestvennyy perevod kak interpretatsiya (na materiale frantsuzskikh perevodov poemy A.S. Pushkina “Mednyy vsadnik”). Dis. kand. filol. nauk [Artistic translation as an interpretation (based on the French translations of Pushkin’s poem “The Bronze Horseman”). Diss. cand. philol. sci.]. Moscow, 2007. 277 p. (in Russian).
2. Literaturnyy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ [Literary encyclopedia]. Moscow, Sovetskaya entsiklopediya Publ., 1987. 750 p. (in Russian).
3. Bakhtinskiy sbornik. Vyp. 5 [Bakhtin collection. Issue 5]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury Publ., 2004. 632 p. (in Russian).
4. Bakhtin M.M. Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Aesthetics of verbal creativity]. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1979. 424 p. (in Russian).
5. Mann Yu. V. Gogol’. Trudy i dni: 1809–1845 [Gogol. Works and days: 1809–1845]. Moscow, Aspekt Press Publ., 2004. 813 p. (in Russian).
6. Gogol’ N. V. Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy i pisem: v 23 t. T. 4 [Complete works and letters: in 23 volumes. Vol. 4]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2003. 910 p. (in Russian).
7. Garbovskiy N. K. Teoriya perevoda: uchebnik i praktikum dlya akademicheskogo bakalavriata [Translation theory: textbook and workshop for academic Bachelor’s programme]. Moscow, Yurait Publ., 2017. 413 p. (in Russian).
8. Feklin M. B. “Pustye gody” perevodchitsy Konstans Garnett [“Empty years” of the translator Constance Garnett]. Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury, 2009, no. 3 (25), pp. 227–234 (in Russian).
9. Tove A. Konstantsiya Garnett – perevodchik i propagandist russkoy literatury [Constance Garnett – a translator and a propagandist of Russian literature]. Russkaya literatura. Istoriko-literaturnyi zhurnal, 1958, no. 4, pp. 193–199 (in Russian).
10. Garnett C. Encyclopædia Britannica. URL: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Constance-Garnett (accessed 25 February 2020).
11. May R. The translator in the text: On reading Russian literature in English. Evanston, 1994. Pp. 32–33.
12. Krasavchenko T. N. Teoriya i praktika perevoda: russkaya klassika v Velikobritanii i SSHA v proshlom i nastoyashchem [Translation theory and practice: Russian classics in the UK and the US, past and present]. Sotsial’nye i gumanitarnye nauki. Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya literatura, 2019, no. 2, pp. 41–55. (in Russian).
13. Nabokov V. Nikolay Gogol’ [Nikolay Gogol]. Novyy mir, 1987, no. 4, pp. 174–227 (in Russian).
14. Chukovskii K. I. Khorosho i plokho. O perevodakh russkikh pisateley na angliyskiy yazyk [Good and bad. About translations of Russian writers into English]. Literaturnaya Rossiya, 1964, no. 3, pp. 18–19 (in Russian).
15. Sykes A. A. The Inspector-General (or “Revisor”): A Russian Comedy. London, Walter Scott Ltd., 1892. 185 p.
16. Kormilitsyn A. A. Komediya N. V. Gogolya “Revizor” v Anglii XX veka: problemy interpretatsii. Dis. kand. filol. nauk [N. V. Gogol’s Comedy “The Inspector-General” in England of the XX century: problems of interpretation. Diss. cand. philol. sci.]. Saratov, 2000. 183 p. (in Russian).
17. Yanushkevich A. S. Istoriya russkoy literatury pervoy treti XIX veka: uchebnoye posobiye [History of Russian literature of the first third of the XIX century: textbook]. Moscow, Flinta Publ., 2013. 748 p. (in Russian).
18. Lebedeva O. B. Poetika russkoy vysokoy komedii XVIII – pervoy treti XIX vekov [Poetics of Russian high Comedy of the XVIIIfirst third of the XIX centuries]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury Publ., 2014. 472 p. (in Russian).
19. Slovar’ Akademii Rossiyskoy, po azbuchnomu poryadku raspolozhennyy. Chst’ 3 [Dictionary of the Russian Academy of Sciences, alphabetically arranged. Part 3]. Saint Petersburg, Imperatorskaya Akademiya nauk Publ., 1814. 1444 p. (in Russian).
20. Dal’ V. I. Tolkovyy slovar’ zhivago velikoruskago yazyka. Chast’ 2 [Explanatory dictionary of the living great Russian language. Part 2]. Moscow, Tipografiya Lazarevskogo instituta vostochnykh yazykov (A. Mamontov) Publ., 1865. 1351 p. (in Russian).
21. Bol’shoy tolkovyy slovar’ russkogo yazyka [Big Dictionary of the Russian language]. Author, project manager, editor-in-chief S. A. Kuznetsov; RAS, Institute for Linguistic Research. Saint Petersburg, Norint Publ., 2000. 1535 p. (in Russian).
22. Pisarchik L. Yu. R. Dekart i klassitsizm [Descartes and classicism]. Vestnik OGU – OSU Bulletin, 2005, no. 1, pp. 41–57 (in Russian).
23. Gogol’ N. V. Sobraniye sochineniy: v 7 t. T. 4 [Collected works: in 7 volumes. Vol. 4]. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya literatura Publ., 1985. 423 p. (in Russian).
24. Gogol’ N. V. Sobraniye sochineniy: v 7 t. T. 6 [Collected works: in 7 volumes. Vol. 6]. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1986. 543 p. (in Russian).
25. Bezlepkin N. I. N. V. Gogol’ kak filosof [Gogol as a philosopher]. Vestnik SPBGU. Filosofiya i konfliktologiya – Vestnik of Saint-Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 2015, no. 3, pp. 15–25 (in Russian).
26. Munkuyeva R. B., Serebryakova Yu. A. Ponyatiye natsional’nogo kharaktera [Concept of national character]. Vestnik BGU – BSU Bulletin, 2018, no. 3, pp. 32−37 (in Russian).
27. Budanova I. B., Zhilyakova E. M. A. N. Ostrovskii – perevodchik ital’yanskikh dramaturgov [A. N. Ostrovsky-translator of Italian dramatists]. Tomsk, Tomsk university Publ., 2018. 234 p. (in Russian).
28. Gogol N. The Government Inspector & Other Works. Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2014. 552 p.
29. Khudozhestvennye oriyentiry zarubezhnoy literatury XX veka [Artistic reference points of XX century foreign literature]. Moscow, IMLI RAN Publ., 2002. 568 p. (in Russian).
30. Lefevre C. Gogol and Anglo-Russian Literary Relations during the Crimean War. Source. American Slavic and East European Review, 1949, vol. 8, no. 2. Pp. 106−125.
( 500.92 kB ) 
( 492.77 kB )
Issue: 5, 2020
Series of issue: Issue 5
Rubric: TOPICAL ISSUES OF LITERARY TRANSLATION
Pages: 192 — 205
Downloads: 640