.png)
UDC 81`42
DOI 10.20339/PhS.6-25.035
Pisareva Tatyana Ya.,
PhD student of the Modern Russian Literature Department
Gorky Literary Institute
e-mail: tp.exe@yandex.ru
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7885-6642
When studying the translations of M. Zenkevich, published in the period 1934–1969, examples of adding or changing the meanings of the original works were recorded. This feature of translation activity was noted by the pre-revolutionary modernists E. Etkind, explaining that it was impossible for them to express themselves in their own work. In the 1980s, L. Losev introduced the concept of an Aesopian device for literary translation, which serves as a means of expressing the thoughts of the author-translator himself. S. Witt, developing the ideas of L. Losev, in her arguments, used the phrase “Aesop’s translation” to denote such a technique and suggested that the compensatory function of literary translations requires an approach to their texts as independent literary works, and to the translators as original authors. In her research, Witt identified examples of Aesopian techniques in the translations of M. Lozinsky and G. Shengeli. The paper examines the problems of M. Zenkevich’s use of Aesopian techniques in poetic translations, provides and comments on individual examples. It is suggested that the poet and translator strive to use a ‘secret language’ in order to go beyond the official culture and identify with like-minded people
Keywords: Mikhail Zenkevich, Aesop’s language, Aesop’s device, Aesop’s translation, secret language
References
Aristov V.V. «Voron» kak proshchanie s druz’iami // NG Exlibris Nezavisimaia gazeta. 2020. No. 153 (7917). S. 13.
Blok A.A. Izbrannye sochineniia. Moscow: Khudozh. lit., 1988. S. 535–545.
Zenkevich M.A. Skazochnaia era: Stikhotvoreniia. Povest’. Belletristicheskie memuary. Moscow: Shkola-Press, 1994. S. 6.
Losev L. Ezopov iazyk v russkoi literature (sovremennyi period). Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2024. 256 s.
Mandel’shtam O. Potoki khaltury // Izvestiia. 1929. 7 aprelia. No. 80 (3818). S. 3.
Narbut V.I., Zenkevich M.A. Stat’i. Retsenzii. Pis’ma. Moscow: IMLI RAN, 2008. S. 302.
Pesni pervoi frantsuzskoi revoliutsii. Moscow-Leningrad: Academia, 1934. S. 621.
Poety Ameriki. XX vek. Antologiia. Moscow: Goslitizdat, 1939. S. 76.
Russkie pisateli. 1800–1917. Moscow: Bol’shaia Rossiiskaia entsiklopediia: Fianit, 1992. S. 338.
Uporiadochim perevodcheskoe delo. Na sobranii sektsii perevodchikov FOSP // Literaturnaia gazeta. 1930. 3 marta. No. 9. S. 2.
Shen’e A.M. Sochineniia. 1819. Moscow: Nauka, 1995. S. 469.
Etkind E. Zapiski nezagovorshchika. London: Overseas Publications Interchange, 1977.
Collected Poems of Edwin Arlington Robinson. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937. P. 189.
Oeuvres complètes d’André Chénier. Paris: Foulon et Cie, 1819. P. 269–270.
Witt S. Translating inferno: Mikhail Lozinskii, Dante and the Soviet myth of the translator // Translation under Communism. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. P. 111–140.
Witt S. Translation and intertextuality in the Soviet-Russian context: The case of Georgy Shengeli’s “Don Juan” // The Slavic and East European Journal. 2016. Vol. 60. No. 1. Р. 22.