Textual Criticism of Ostrovsky’s Translations from Latin. Part 1: Terence’s Hecyra and the French Intermediary Translation

A. Markov
{"title":"Textual Criticism of Ostrovsky’s Translations from Latin. Part 1: Terence’s Hecyra and the French Intermediary Translation","authors":"A. Markov","doi":"10.22455/2686-7494-2021-3-4-146-163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ostrovsky’s translations of the works of Plautus, Terence, and Seneca, preserved in incomplete drafts, attend to the textual criticism related both to the principles of the work and to its aims. The example of the translation of Terence’s Hecyra in comparison with the earlier translation of Plautus’ Asinaria proves the evolution of Ostrovsky’s translation principles. While Plautus was translated without recourse to an intermediary translation, Terence was translated from the popular bilingual edition, and the translator turned to a French translation in difficult cases. The article explains how Ostrovsky worked further with passages translated from the French or with reference to the French text, in which cases, on the contrary, he translated from the Latin without reference to the French translation, and this course of initial work determined the order of further editing of the rough translation. The self-editing went in the direction of both greater accuracy and expressiveness, which in the case of using an intermediary translation proved to be a clearly contradictory task. Reconstructing the history of the text in light of the identified source of the translation allows us to clarify a number of manuscript readings, to identify the pencil edits as belonging highly likely to Ostrovsky himself, contrary to the opinion of the first publisher of the translation, and to raise the issue of the stage intention of the translation.","PeriodicalId":359000,"journal":{"name":"Two centuries of the Russian classics","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Two centuries of the Russian classics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22455/2686-7494-2021-3-4-146-163","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Ostrovsky’s translations of the works of Plautus, Terence, and Seneca, preserved in incomplete drafts, attend to the textual criticism related both to the principles of the work and to its aims. The example of the translation of Terence’s Hecyra in comparison with the earlier translation of Plautus’ Asinaria proves the evolution of Ostrovsky’s translation principles. While Plautus was translated without recourse to an intermediary translation, Terence was translated from the popular bilingual edition, and the translator turned to a French translation in difficult cases. The article explains how Ostrovsky worked further with passages translated from the French or with reference to the French text, in which cases, on the contrary, he translated from the Latin without reference to the French translation, and this course of initial work determined the order of further editing of the rough translation. The self-editing went in the direction of both greater accuracy and expressiveness, which in the case of using an intermediary translation proved to be a clearly contradictory task. Reconstructing the history of the text in light of the identified source of the translation allows us to clarify a number of manuscript readings, to identify the pencil edits as belonging highly likely to Ostrovsky himself, contrary to the opinion of the first publisher of the translation, and to raise the issue of the stage intention of the translation.
奥斯特洛夫斯基拉丁文译作的文本批判。第一部分:特伦斯的《海西拉》与法语中介翻译
奥斯特洛夫斯基翻译了普劳图斯、特伦斯和塞内卡的作品,保存在不完整的草稿中,关注与作品原则和目的相关的文本批评。以特伦斯的《海基拉》翻译为例,与普劳图斯的《亚细亚》的早期翻译作比较,证明了奥斯特洛夫斯基翻译原则的演变。《普劳图斯》的翻译没有求助于中介翻译,《特伦斯》是从流行的双语版翻译过来的,在困难的情况下,译者会求助于法语翻译。这篇文章解释了奥斯特洛夫斯基是如何进一步从法语翻译段落或参考法语文本的,在这种情况下,相反,他从拉丁语翻译而不参考法语翻译,这一初步工作的过程决定了进一步编辑粗略翻译的顺序。自我编辑的方向是提高准确性和表达性,在使用中介翻译的情况下,这被证明是一个明显矛盾的任务。根据已确定的翻译来源重建文本的历史,使我们能够澄清一些手稿阅读,确定铅笔编辑极有可能属于奥斯特洛夫斯基本人,与翻译的第一个出版商的意见相反,并提出翻译的阶段意图问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信