dead souls in translation

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Dead Souls in TranslationAuthor(s): Carl R. ProfferReviewed work(s):Source: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Winter, 1964), pp. 420-433Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/304423 .

Accessed: 12/01/2013 09:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:46:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatseel

http://www.jstor.org/stable/304423?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Dead Souls in Translation

By Carl R. Proffer Reed College

Periodically for more than a century Dead Souls has been muti- lated by translators. This lamentable fate began in 1854 with the first English version, published in London under the title, Home Life in Russia. In the foreword it was explained that the manuscript was written in English and had been submitted to the editor by a Russian noble who, for his own protection, could not be named. The editor says his "task has been confined to altering such verbal errors as might be expected, when we bear in mind that the Author has written in a language which is not his own... " The lot of Dead Souls in France was little better. In his translation (1859) Ernest Charribre called the chapters "songs" and affixed chapter titles such as Le fou et le sage dans les steppes. The fragments of Part Two were added, andthe work was "completed" with a French translation of a continuation of Dead Souls written by a Ukrainian named Va[[enko-Zaxarienko.2 Atruly Gogolian fate! Dead Souls survived all this, as well as bad translations by Isabel Hapgood and Stephen Graham. These are not commonly used now, because there are four modern translations available in paperback editions-those by B. G. Guerney, A. R. MacAndrew, David Magarshack, and Helen Mich- ailoff. 3 Constance Garnett's translation is still available in the Modern Library series, and because of her reputation it deserves some comment. 4

Stylistically the Guerney translation is the best. More than the others it conveys (sometimes sacrificing accuracy) the variety, spice, and spirit of the original. But this translation has a very serious defect which should be pointed out to teachers: the text differs radically from Gogol' 's definitive text. In his first edition (1942) Guerney, providing no documentation, notes oniy that he consulted three different texts. In the revised 1948 edition the translator says "all available texts have been consulted. " He continues: "Here, for the first time in English, the real tale ['Tale of Captain Kopejkin']is presented as based upon the author's first, suppressed version, with all due consideration given to the version usually

420 SEEJ, Vol. VIII, No. 4 (1964)



Dead Souls in Translation 421

Englished. Also, in addition to many passages, some of them quite long, hitherto scamped in translation or not translated at all, the reader will find an entire chapter (the tenth, in this translation) which has never, to the best of the translator's knowledge, appeared in English before." (xiii. ) It is no wonder that these passages had never appeared in English. The fact is that the passages to which he refers are unfinished manuscript variants. Guerney interpolated these fragments into Gogol' 's final text wherever they would fit. And when they did not fit very neatly (as in the case of the so-called chapter ten), he took upon himself the task of deleting part of Gogol' 's own text.

In his translation Guerney incorporates these passages which do not belong to the definitive Russian text: (1) from "As everybody knows, a feminine opinion" to "He became alluring" (184); (2) from "Say what you will, but balls are a fine thing" to "I love pleasant, harmless sociability" (186-187); (3) the last paragraph of chapter nine (228); (4) the whole of chapter ten (228-238). The texts used by Guerney in these four cases are variants. They may be found in Gogol' 's Complete Collected Works, VI, 603, 628, 629-640.s Guerney deleted a long passage from chapter nine of the definitive Russian text-from Prelde vsego otneslis' k Koroboc2ke to the end of the chapter (195-196). This passage should, but does not, appear in Guerney, 228.

What is the quality of the variant texts which Guerney has interpolated ? It is impossible to know how they are presented in the editions Guerney used, because he does not specify them. But in the edition of Gogol' 's complete works already cited the Russian text of Guerney's "chapter ten" contains fifty-four words inserted in square or diagonal brackets by the editors--indicating either that these words were struck out by Gogol' or that they represent the editors' conjectures about words which are partially or totally inde- cipherable. Guerney's translation of the passage containing Oici- kov's mediation on balls (186-187) is also based on an incomplete text. For example: "XoJIo~ Ji M, Heypoxami, MJI KaCO

MIHO0 cayqamI, OT IKOTOpbIX*' a I'KaI cobepembc BMeCTe, no3adyaemb o0o BceM" (603). The editor's footnote reads: V rukopisi fraza ne zakon'ena, Nevertheless Guerney translates the sentence: "It may be freezing, and the crops may have been poor or there may be something else for you to fret about, but when people come together they forget ... " (186, ital. mine). In the same passage Guerney translates: "FydepHaTOpcrKmN rnoBap, . iymaio <1 HP30.)>"(603) as "the Governor's chef is famous" (186).

There is no evidence that Gogol', who lived for ten years after the first publication of Dead Souls, planned to use these particular passages in subsequent editions. Guerney comments cryptically about the censorship. But there is nothing the censors would fear in Diiikov's reflections on balls or in feminine opinions of men.



422 Slavic and East European Journal

Apparently Guerney's additions are simply passages which he liked. In one case he took only half of one paragraph from Gogol' 's variant. The text is twenty-five lines long; I cite only a few lines from the middle of the passage: "Hro obpasy H IAyxy MbIcJIae noeP- - naJi OH oJIbLme 13 18 CTOJIeTHI, HO Odpa3 BbIpaxeHH1 H\1 1

Hp3d.>HeCCOJIbIO K 19 CTOIeTMIO; BbIXOPIJIO IOInypI, KIOTOpoe rydepHCKIHM, OCObeHHO 3aMyCHHM, OMeHb HpaBvJIOCB. [HpHVTOM] HagOBHO cIa3aTb, HTO HM 3aHOCMHBOCTI, HM HacMelIJIIBOCTM He ObIIO COBceM B peuax Tr.I4MVoOBa, OHM bIJIH COBepmeHHO e306oAHLI M He MorIM [HM~aK] HOCCOpHTB. I3BeCTHO, HTO

MyXTMHHe npzgaeT ojibmue BOpOCTH O~oPMTeJIbHbIV OT3bIB AaM HaCMeT IKpacoTbI. 3TO BO3BOPIoT B TaCKoe CBeTJIOe HaCTpoeHMI AYyx ..." (602-603.) Guerneydoes not use all of this, but just from Izvestno c'to mu''ine to the end of the passage (184). If he believed Gogol' intended to use this variant, he should have used the entire passage himself. And he should have documented the deviation from the accepted text.

The intercalation of the extra chapter alters the structure of the novel. As it was, Gogol' expressed concern about the structural weaknesses in the second half of Dead Souls: "HIKTO He 3aM8eT4JI jgaxe, HTO nOCJIeiAHH IHOJIOBHa IKHMFPI oTpadoTaHa MeHbLue nepBoI., TO B HeI BeJIIKIIe IupoInyCKI, ITO rJIaBHbIe M4 BaXHbIle odCTOTeJICTBa C)IaTMbI 14 comcpawgeHbI, HeBaXI)HbIe H

OOIOMHbIe pacIipOcTpaHeHbI, HTO He CTOJIMKO BLICTynaeT BHyTpeHHHI JZyX BCerO COMHHeHHM, CKIOJIbKIO MeqeTCq{ B FJIa3a riecTpoTa qacTeI H JIOCKyCTHOCTL ero."(VIII, 288.) Also, the inclusion of "chapterten" unjustifiably expands the role of KoroboZka and Sobakevic. In terms of characterization, it is repetitious; it is a peripheral episode which is too lengthy. Gogol' used instead a passage in which he succinctly describes the reactions of Sobakevii, Koroboika, Manilov, and Sel- ifan to the inquiries of the town officials (195-196). Guerney deletes this concise summary, replacing it with the long chapter which, in any case, Gogol' had not completed. Perhaps another reason that Gogol' did not use this chapter is that it provides motivation for the death of the prosecutor. He feels mortally wounded by Sobakevi"'s verbal attack on his character. He wonders if SobakeviE is correct, if his life has been worthless and meaningless. Were the author anyone except Gogol', motivation might be a reason for including the chapter. Butwhat is humorous, and at the same time frightening, about the death of the prosecutor is the utter lack of motivation; it is a meaningless absurdity in a world of absurdities. Thus, in the definitive text, the prosecutor dies ni s togo, ni s drugogo; it is a senseless death. Among Gogol' 's manuscripts is this note on Dead Souls: "Ia YcToTa

6eCCMJIbHaI np a3AHOCTL

M3HM CMeHHIOTCH MyTHOIO, HM4erO He rOBopaWeio cMepTB0I. IOKax DTO cTpa-llHoe C06bIT4e coBepmaeTca deccMBIcJIeHHO."(692, ital. mine.)

Another instance of Mr. Guerney's unconscionable textual juggling is inthe "Tale of Captain Kopejkin." It is well known that the version




of the " Tale" sent to the censors was forbidden and that Gogol' wrote a completely new version which was passed. This new version appeared in the first and second editions of Dead Souls. However, in all modern editions the original "Tale" is restored-using the manuscript originally submitted for censorship. This does not satisfy Mr. Guerney. He uses the original version of the "Tale" first; then he grafts onto this a few pages from an even earlier manuscript of the "Tale. " The interpolation from this earlier version appears in Guerney's translation from page 249 ("he had collected") to page 251 ("a new scheme" ).6 There is no justification for adulterating the final version of the "Tale" with an early draft.

In Gogol' 's Complete Collected Works there are some six hun- dred pages of variant texts of Dead Souls. Among these are many highly amusing passages which Gogol' did not incorporate in his final text. We have no right to select those which please us and tack them on here and there, particularly if this entails deletion of part of the definitive text. It is a pity that Mr. Guerney ruined a fine translation by taking such liberties, only the most flagrant of which I have noted here.

There are three reasons why students should be advised not to use Andrew MacAndrew's translation of Dead Souls: (1) It is not a complete translation; many words, phrases, and whole sentences are omitted. (2) It contains numerous mistranslations. (3) It contains many poor translations. Though these faults mar the entire translation, the examples given below are taken almost exclusively from chapters seven through ten.

Not translated are the following:'gdJa IaBJIa MBaHOBHua He cylr- eCTByeT 3aTpy HeHMIy/" (140; MacAndrew, 159);7 "Boodme CMAeJI, KaK PFOBOpHTC~I, Ha CBoeM MecTe M AOJIXTHOCTL CBOIO nOCTMrHyJI B COBepmIeHCTBe" (14 9;168-169); "RI o06erqamJa cede HOC" (159; 179); "Ta-c, MoxeTe Boo6pa3Tb cede, caKoBo ero noJIo)KeHMie TyT, C OAHOI CTOpOHbI, TaK CIa3aTb, CeMra Sapby3, a c ApyroI-TO eMy HOAHOCIT Bce OAHO M TO xe JIimoo: '3aBTpa' "(203; 228). There are frequent cases where

single words or phrases are not translated: i tret'ego etaz'a (141; MacAndrew, 159); bojko (135, line 30; 153); povelitel'no (142; 160); izdali (150; 169); eto stolica (163; 184); dama s belynm perom (164; 185); tak stranno (166; 187); daleko.. . u samogo vyxoda (162; 183); "eleznye skobki (176; 198); sudyr' moj (199, line 15; 223); moz'ete voobrazit' (201, line 3; 225); von, govorjat (201; 225); za s'est'ju stenami (206; 231).

Gratuitous abridgment of Gogol' 's text results in such shoddy translations as the following: "cceMb JIeT coxpaHaBm1MMc B TOM xe rnoJIoxeHM M Ha TOM e MecTe" (161) - "that he had kept stored away for seven years" (182);"roBopi4JhM Te rOTopbie bZJIIMI no3aJaopHee" (151)-"they shouted" (170); "geJIaJ sBecLMa AJIxMH- HbIe BbIfIACKIH HO IeJbnIM JMCTaM, HO B MeM COCTOMJIM 3TM BbIlIM- CKIM M ICaKoro poga OHM BIJIMA3 TO HMICOMY He bIJIO I13BeCTHO"




(157)- "taking lengthy notes, although no one ever discovered what theywereabout" (177); "FIomaIJ BApyr B XO)? A ~bJIA pacKynJTeHi HapacxBaT" (160)- "there was suddenly a great demand" (180);

"TOJICTOleIKM, BBIfyI?JIbI apby3"(176)-""a fat watermelon" (197). Scastlivoe ix pereselenie (151) becomes simply "their resettlement" (170); izvestnyj Ivan Antonovic (148) becomes simply "Ivan Antono- vich" (167). Frequently Mr. MacAndrew abridges (or alters) Gogol''s series or catalogues, particularly those which contain proper names. For example:

M nFImmeT cyA: fpenpoBOAM?T Te6~ F3 I?apeBonoimamcKa B TIOPBLM Taxoro-TO ropoaa, a TOT cya IIimeT OnISITb: npenHpOBO1Tb Tesr B3 KaxoM-HM6BY BecberoHcK, M TBI nepee3xaem b ce6e z3 TIOMBI B TIOPLM1y A roBopAImb, ocMaTpMBasa HOBoe o6MTaJIMiue: "HeT, BOT

BecBeroHciaH TIOPLMa y eT noMIome: TTa XOTL 4 B B aICI, Tax eCTL MeCTO, 0 a m ou~MecTBa 6oabmue! "-"AbaKyM orpoB!" (138- 139, ital. mine.)

And then the court decides that your case and your person are to be transferred to some other town and some other jail. So you move to your new quarters, and you say: 'Oh, no! The jail I've just come from is much cleaner and there's enough space there to play a game of skittles. And there's more so- cial life too.. .

"And you, Akim Fyrov... " (156-157.)

"Lay 3TO COBeplmeIHHO nomIaa JIOXB, He CTOuWaHS HAMa- CorO BHMMaHAMS!

" M BCJieA 3a TeM cetc xe Mac OTfnpaB-

HTCH MCKaT TpeTbero cMepTHoro, qTOOBI, paccKa3aBIMA eMy, noceie BMecTe C HMM BOCKCJIaIMHyT C dJIaropoAHbIM HerOAOBaH4IeM: "IKacas nomuaasi xIo!" I To Henpe- MeHHO o~oBleT Becb ropon, MI Bce cMepTHICe CCoJIbtO MX HM eCTB, HarOBOpSITCSI HenpeneHHO IAOCbITa z IOTOM HTpA3HaIOT,

TO TO He CTOT BHmNaHI M He OCTOMHO,

qTOMI O HeM rOBOpAHTb. (173.)

"Why, but it's an obvious lie-one shouldn't pay any attention to it!" And so, the lie is certain to go all over town, and every mortal will have his fill of discussing it before he agrees it's unworthy of his attention. (194. )

Mr. MacAndrew abbreviates even short catalogues. Thus pered trojnymi podsvec'nikami, cvetami, konfektami i butylkami (174) becomes simply "among the three-branched candlesticks and the bottles" (195). Other passages which have undergone such distortion are: p. 162, lines 8-13; p. 167, line 1; p. 170, lines 10-21; p. 73, lines 22-24.




Mistranslations are numerous:"BO3BeCTH ee B IIepi Co3zaHHe" (134)- "make a work of art out of them" (151); "noMeImHua Kopo- bouqia" (136)- "mother Korobochka" (153); c"HJIM, K ar y Hac BBI-

paxaIoTcs,, cpacHBoi nJIoomanH" (141)-"or, if you wish, charming- square" (159); " gae, I~eJIKHyB naJIbtuaMH" (151) - "and then, snapping his fingers" (171); CHO HecpaBHeHHO 3saMeaTeJIBHee" (157) - "but even more striking" (178); "Ho Bem~lb JIa oMeHL

CBImeHHaai" (158)-" was essential" (178); "no BLrpabeHHIO ropoIn- cKoro cBeTa" (158)-"asitwas called in the town" (179); "cTaixaH Hexopomo BegeT cebe" (159)- "this glass seems to be misbehav- ing" (179); "MapCOBCIroe H BoeHHoe" (165)-"impressive and war- like" (186); "HenpHSITHOCTL"(1 76)- "deterioration" (197); "CleeKH DTOrO ap y3a" (176)- "the doors of this contraption" (197);"Bcee AaMaM coBepmeIHHo He IIOHpaBHJIOCb TaKoe obxo3reHHe HIntxC- OBa" (170)- "by no means did all the ladies approve of Chichikov's behavior" (191).

Frequently mistranslations are accompanied by other abridgment and distortion: "canorm C pe3HIMHl BbTJlIaziaaMH BCex IBeTOB, KcaIcHMm doio TopryeT ropon Topxot, iarozapH xaJIaTHbIM nosyxzeHbHM pyCCKOM HaTypl" (135) - "boots which were of the kind with multicolored decorations (which sell very well, owing to the Russian predilection for casual wear)" (152);8 "MaCTO bIJIM

BbICTaBIeHBI TOJIbKO HaaJIbHbIe CJIOBa HMeHH H OTeCTB, M IOTOM

sBe TOMrCH" (136)-"whenever possible he had just used the initials" (153); "BMAHeIOT no BceI jIOmanH IKCYM HaMaBaJIeHHaIX B nHpaM- M~y, mca s~pa,MeoB, rpoBH IoaHO BbIrJIRZAIBaeT Becb xie6 -

HLI apceHaJ" (139)--"all over the square sacks are piled in pyra- mids; there's no end to the grain" (157); "3x KatoM AJIHHHLIZ, BO BCIO CTPOKy pa3sexaacsq! " (136)--'"What an odd one! " (153); "To, MTO MOIJIO FpSH3HO, TaI~ H OCTaBaJIOCb Ip I3HIMn, He pIIpHHHMaa

npIjBJeraTea3mHOM HapyCHOCTH" (141) - "anything that was dirty simply stayed that way" (159).

In addition to outright errors, there are other poor translations, unskilful translations which do nothing more than convey the general idea expressed by Gogol'. They are dull and spiritless. For example, pljunes* (175) becomes "in the end you get tired of the whole business" (196). Drugoe zapoe~' (198) becomes "You'd talk differ- ently" (222). Gogol' 's italicized drugoe-tret'e (158) is " something private" in one case, simply "anything" (17 9) in another. "Y Moero -caniMTaHa KoneMKHHa Becb accMrHaLHMOHMI aHrc, IOHIMaeTe,

COCTOHT H3 CaxiHMX-HMHyAM AecaHTI CmHIOX" (200) is "mind you, this Captain Kopeikin has on him perhaps ten five-ruble notes at best" (224-225).

I can think of no surer way of ruining Gogol' for those who are reading him for the first time than to recommend such a clumsy, careless, uninspired translation as this.9

In some respects Constance Garnett's translation of Dead Souls stands the test of time rather well. The most unsatisfying thing about




it is that Gogol"s style becomes indistinguishable from that of Tur- genev, Tolstoj, Dostoevskij, or Cexov. And, although her transla- tionis superior to MacAndrew's, it does suffer from some of the same shortcomings. For example, some single words and phrases are omitted: posle moej smerti (130; Garnett, 183),10 odni dlinnye (220; 38), bez konca (220; 39), kak prizrak (221;40), v eto vremja (222; 42), kak citatel' videl (222; 42), sovsem (54, last line; 78), neza- metno (56, line 6; 80). Such omissions naturally result in distortion. As modifiers disappear "HectcoJbtco I3 ymIJIzI erPo" (56) becomes simply "He was.astonished" (81); "sHaJIa noiTIr

Beex" (56)- "knewthem all" (81); "BeJ4coAymLH'o BBIHoczIJa" (222)--"rescued" (42); "rinpexaBmeMI AaevaM" (179) - "the lady's" (251); "'ecTeJio- BeMHOI cTapoCTM" (127)-"old age" (180); and "He0oJabmoe ynoB- OJIbCTBI4e" (38) is simply "pleasure" (55). Gogol''s "cAae cam no anILeMiMeIicTep, Kaa BOAIITCH,

noAmy-IMIBaJTI" (173)is contracted to "even the police master bantered" (243); and "Tchitchikov soon perceived a human figure wrangling with the peasant" (160) is the translation of

"I/4IMCB copo 3aMeT4JIa a Kyo-TO M'Irypy, ico- TopaI HaaJIa BAjoPMTb MyczxmcoM,npHexaBUIMM HaaTeaere

"(114). But in only one instance have I discovered the deletion of an entire sentence("PepoMi Ham LbIJa CaJIBHO paccepxeH" [217]). Ingeneral she is much more scrupulous than MacAndrew.

Although outright errors in translation occur even less frequently than omissions, they do exist. For example: v dolznostnom sloge (202) is translated "in the language suitable" (14) instead of "in the official style" (that used in bureaucratic dolznosti); posle vypuska (180) is "after graduation, " not "after a holiday" (252); prim ernyj suprug (219) is not a "faithful husband" (38), but an "exemplary" one. Other such errors are: "cambrii 3IycaBBii MCOHL" (217)- "a sly brute" (35); "?CO JICOJIbHbIH 3BOH" (220) -"a jingle of bells" (39); "saCHI InpyAA'

(222) - "shining pond" (41); "cca cve-To cyxze z OOBItKHOBeHHbIe" (171) - "brief and ordinary" (240); "cecTpe ee

TIp c~caizm MaTepzIIy" (180)--"I sent my sister a piece of material" (253); ~xBaTIaJa... B BopoTa

TaI CIJIHO XOT

OBI M 1M MYXY-IHe" (177) - "beat on the gate as though she were beating a man" (248).

There are many other renderings to which one might object. ' Bold" would be better than "insolent marvels " (39) for derzkie diva prirody (220); "breathing of the horses" (40) is an inadequate translation of sap los"adej (221), as is "by the roadside" (188) for posredi dorogi (134). "Because we have worried Pavel Ivanovitch" (53) is an in- exact translation of potomu to my nadoeli Pavlu

Ivanovicu (37), and "heartfelt effusions" (used by Magarshack and Guerney) is a more precise rendering of k serdecvnym izlijanijam (36) than Garnett's "to pour out his heart" (52). "So much trash" (Guerney, 36) is more accurate than "utterly worthless" (Garnett, 52) for sovers'ennaja drjan' (36).

Gogol' 's boot-loving lieutenant is from Ryazan in chapter six (Garnett, 185), but from Kazan in the next chapter (215). Other minor




annoyances in the translation are the spelling of the hero's name (Tchitchikov) and the fact that it is divided into two "volumes," the second beginning with chapter ten, at which point the pagination begins anew. The fragments of Part Two of Dead Souls are separated as "book two" of "volume two. "

There is, however, a more important defect: she uses not the original version of the " Tale of Captain Kopejkin, " but the one which Gogol' was forced to write in order to placate the dull-witted censors. Gogol' 's letters of early 1842 reveal how bitterly he resented this alteration. He submitted only because he felt that the "Tale" was "essential, not for the connection of events, but in order to distract the reader for a moment, to replace one impression with another" (XII, 55). If for no other reason, the Garnett translation should be set aside because of the text used for the "Tale. "

Helen Michailoff uses the proper text of "Kopejkin," while providing the censored version in an appendix. Apart from this important consideration it is difficult to choose between the Garnett and Mi- chailoff translations. My feeling is that the more recent translation is usually more accurate (in terms of both literalness and style), but it would be possible to quote many examples on either side. The Magarshack translation is superior to both-in spite of the fact that Helen Michailoff's renderings are sometimes more idiomatic and lively than his. While there are few outright errors in the Michailoff version, omissions, such as those noted in the following example, are rather frequent:

TaKc MIBaeT Ha JIzLax IqIHOBHIIICOB BO Bpe~M OCMOTpa npHexaBmUIM HaaJabHMIXOM BBepeHHbIX ynpaBiaeHMIo AXMecT nocae Toro, CKaK y e nIepBbIM cTpax npomea, OH yBIA- eJIS, TTO MHOPOe eMy HpaBMTCe, M MTO OH CaM M3BOJIMJ HaiKcOHey nIOIIyTHTL, To-ecTb npOI43HeCTM C npMHETHOIo yc- Mem~oM HecKOJabKO COB. CMeIOTCeI BABoe B OTBeT HE 3TO ObCTynIMBHIe ero lpzIaJIxeHHie q

MHOBHMKM;CMeIOTC. OT j AyIM Te, ICOTOpbIe OT Hero noaajiee IM OTopbIe. BnpoqeM, HecICOJIbtO nJIoxo ycJImaI npo IO3HeceHHIe v CJIOBa, M HaIKOHeL CTOmIUMII aaajie o y ABepem, y caMorP Bbxona, KaKom-HHMyab. rioJTHimLezCKMM, OTpony He CMesB- mHiC H BO BCIO Z3HL CBOIO0 1 TOJL KO MTO TnoKaa aBH1I4I nepeA TeM HapoAy KIyJIaIK, M TOT, HO HHM3MeHHbIM 3aiKO- HaM OTpaeHMII, BpaaeT Ha Jaie coe CBOM KaKylo- TO yabrIdy, XOTH{ Ta yaIIa boazee noxoxa Ha TO, cKax bI KTO-HMAy A cobdpaIacH qMXHyTL nocae ipenioro Tabacy. (162, ital. mine. )

So it is with the faces of government officials when their of- fices are inspected by a higher functionary: after their first fright has subsided, and they perceive that he is pleased with




many things, that he is even gracious enough to joke, that is, to say a few words with an agreeable smile, those who crowd close to him laugh in response twice as hard as the occasion calls for, those who stand farther off and have not caught much of what he has said are laughing wholeheartedly too; even the policeman who is standing at the door, at the very exit, and who has never laughed in all his born days, even he, in ac- cordance with the unalterable law [zakonam]of reflection, is displaying on his face some sort of smile, which looks as though he [kto-nibud'] were about to sneeze after a pinch of strong snuff. (183. )

Gogol' 's synonymy is cancelled out as udalec naputaet, napletet, izlomaet, vyvorotit prirodu (207) is abridged to "audacious pen driver who distorts and twists nature" (234). Scarcely a page is un- marred by such deletions. On page 77 of her text she omits: es'c'e, vsegda, ves'ma, oxotnik guljat', nikak, vsjakimi, ocen', daze, and zdorovye (70); then too "passion" and "children" are not accurate renderings of strastihka and rebjatiki. On page 78 she omits: vse-taki, *erst', daze, o predmetax vysokix, stoit, opjat', vnov', svecej, while

translatinggovoriil as "rebuke" and replacing

vytolkat' with "to perform this task." Other omissions are: visev- ~im po stene, obyknovenno, vdrug, znaet, odnako Z(103;Michailoff, 117); protiv gostinicy, bolee, da'e(Michailoff, 3); vygljadyvajuCimi, vsegda, kak samovar (Michailoff, 5); kak blin, daze, bog ix znaet, prosto (Michailoff, 6); voobs'c'e my kak-to ne sozdalis'dlja pred- stavitel'nyx zasedanij (198; Michailoff, 222).

Two kinds of omissions tend to destroy important stylistic man- nerisms: (1) deletion of words such as ves'ma, oc'en', vsegda, sovsem, vovse, nepremenno, besprestanno which Gogol' uses with unusual frequency to lend the narrative a hyperbolic quality; (2) deletion of dale. To varying extents all the translators are guilty of this. Checking sixty pages scattered through the Michailoff version I found that daze is ignored more than twenty times. Di*evskij saw the frequent use of this word as a peculiarity of the "view from below" in Sinel', but daz'e is used freely in Dead Souls as well. With feigned naivet6, Gogol' often employs da'e "illogically" or in connection with puns. The translator erases both of these effects in the following passage:

IHoMTMe icTep BaJacsa doJIee B CoMJIOCO~Mo MV MITaJI BeCLMa npaJeXHO., ale

NOu HOuaM, IOHPOBI <<HoM i>> m(<<I{JIIO K TainHCTBaM HaTypb I 3iKKapTCray3eHa, M3 KOTOpbIX D eiaii BeCLMa AJIIHHH Ie BbTlICKIn eQ IIO eJblV JITICTaM... Ipoine ToCe ~bIJI, boJiee InJII MeHee, JImoAIn nIpocBelleHHbre: IKTO MITarJI KapaM3I9Ha, KcTo <<MocIKoBcKvIe BeioMocT,~?> IKTO gace co4ceM HIMero He MITaJI. (156-157.)




The Postmaster was inclined toward philosophy and read Young's Night Thoughts and Eckhartshausen's The Key to the Mysteries of Nature, copying lengthy passages from both... The others were also more or less enlightened people: some read Karam- zin, some Moskovskie Vedomosti, and some did not read anything at all. (177. )

Among the omissions noted here, the last is perhaps the most dam- aging. Gogol' 's dax'e leads us to believe that the following item will be the climax of this series; then this logical expectation (of something above either the Moscow News or Karamzin) is frustrated as the sentence explodes into sovsem nil'ego.

I have found only one bad translation which seems to be the result of misconstruing the Russian: blagodarja xalatnym pobu?,den'jam russkoj natury is "thanks to the Russian partiality for casual wear" (151) which is not what is meant-see note eight. In many other cases the choice of translation can be questioned; often unnecessary abridgment is involved: "B HeXCHIX pa3roBopax,

upoHcxoAIUIX B yeaIIHeH4HH" (157)--"in tender moments" (177); "BCqIKOM 'yJI" (158)--"a duel" (179); "npi4beraTb IC cpaHLy3cICoMy" (159)- "to use the French" (179); c3T4H bdr 3HaeT IKaIKMe cJyxM' (197)- "these extraordinary rumors" (221); "pa3HbI K JIaiCehciKi

' TCya IeT

(9)- "his personal effects" (6); "CTpyMJIa I nOTOKII cJIe3bfI" (11)- "are shedding tears" (10); "oqeHL OTaJIeHHo"(100)- -"somewhat from afar" (112); "Ho 1Mx bIJiIO

BecLMa HeMHO: qOMTMevcTep oJUMH

TOJICO" (197)- "but they were not many. In fact, the Post-

master was the only one" (221). Certainly the connotations of "second-rate gentlemen" (3) do not apply to gospodin srednej ruki.

Less important deviations from the Russian are the fragmentation of many periods into short sentences, the use of the past tense instead of the praesens historicum (a shortcoming shared, especially in the " Tale," by all the translators except Guerney), and the chang- ing of the narrative "we" or impersonal constructions:to "I" (Neiz- vestno, kak on eto delal... --"I don't know how he did it").

Amore serious objection is that she, like Constance Garnett, uses an early version of the surviving chapters of Part Two. In the single Russian MS. there are five layers of corrections and improvements above the basic text. The version incorporating the last level of corrections is used in the most authoritative editions of Gogol' (see Pol. sob. soc'., VII). Often an earlier (lower) level of the text is included as rannjaja redakcija (Sob. soc'.v 6 tt., M., 1959). In her notes the translator says the early version is more complete- but there is a difference between completeness and length. This early version does contain some episodes which Gogol' deleted from thelaterone (in Sob. soc'., 1952-1953, V, 402-437, these episodes are given in the appendices), but we must accept Gogol' 's last word. It is not true, as the translator asserts, that the versions "differ




mostly in the wording of sentences, " that there is no reason for pre- ferring one to the other. There are significant alterations (see Slo- nimskij's notes in Gogol', Sob. so'., M., 1959, V, 562-563), and Gogol' 's attempts to be more concise - typical of his work on the first volume as well-are apparent everywhere.

Considering the demerits of the other translations, David Magar- shack's must be recommended. He uses the definitive text of both parts of Dead Souls. The translation has been made with obvious care; omissions, even of single words, are infrequent. The translations are accurate in substance, though not always in style. It appears that he consulted Constance Garnett's version (examining the two translations, the great number of parallels immediately becomes apparent), using the best of her renderings, replacing the words and phrases she had skipped over, and correcting the errors. The only outright error I have discovered is his translation of obitateli (243) as "Philistines" (255)-obviously he read obyvateli instead of obitateli. There are some other questionable translations and places where he takes unnecessary liberties: gustye brovi (219-220)- "beetling brows" (230), vooruzilis' vse (199)-"none of them was in favour" (209), pustynno-xoroso(ll3)--"beautiful" (122), pis'meco (145)- "letter" (154). Many readers will object to the use of Mr. Chichikov, Mrs. Korobochka, and the frequent substitution of " sir" or "my dear sir" for the Russian manner of address by means of first name and patronymic (154; Magarshack, 164).

In its chaste simplicity Pu'kin's style might be compared to the Doric column, Tolstoj's heavy grandeur to the Corinthian column- in this scheme Gogol' 's style is a kind of rococo sugar stick. And, like all translators except Guerney, Magarshack fails to reproduce this style. There is hardly a hint of Gogol"s polychromatic Russian with its lexical opulence, the skilfully individualized language of each character, the sudden and frequent shifts from exalted poetry to coarse prose, and the magnificently muddled grammar. The translation does not reflect this variety; too consistently the English is polite, cultivated, and colorless. Thus Oiiikov's Ex, brat, vres" ty da es'c'e i sil'no!" (146) becomes a weak, bloodless "Good Lord, my dear fellow, what nonsense you talk" (156) and dolgo es'ce u nego vertelsja na jazyke vsjakoj vzdor (152) becomes "he kepttalk- ing all sorts of nonsense" (162). Nozdrev's raucous Zato, brat Ci`ikov, kak pokutili my (65) becomes "but what a wonderful time he had... my dear Chichikov" (73) in one case and "what a glorious time we had" (76) in another; in the English Nozdrev's voice disap- pears-it might be a dainty society girl speaking. Other examples are: Delo jajca vyedennogo ne stoit (55) - "the whole thing isn't worth a farthing" (64), poceluj sovers'ilsja zvonko (180)--"they kissed so noisily"(189-190). (Compare Guerney, 208: "The kiss was consummated sonorously." )

Magarshack's translation of popol'zovat'sja nasvet klubni'ki ("enjoying a piece of cheesecake," p. 75)is preferable to Garnett's




"gathering roses while ye may," p. 95, but not as apt as Guerney's "crawling after the strawberries," p. 71. The following examples illustrate the ability of the various translators to handle passages which require some resourcefulness and creativity:

... nepremenno rasserditsja ne za 'ivot, a na smert'(179).

... who is quite certain to become terribly angry (Magarshack, 188).

* . . he is bound to be not slightly but mortally offended (Gar- nett, 251).

. . . who will inevitably become incensed not only to the extent of wishing to beat me within an inch of my life, but actually to death (Guerney, 207).

... he'll become furious (MacAndrew, 201).

... who will feel mortally insulted (Michailoff, 202).

"Vona! posla pisat' gubernija!" (164). "Look at them! The whole provincial administration in full

swing ! " (Magarshack, 174). "Well, they are all at it! " (Garnett, 230). "There she goes! The province is off on the light fantastic!"

(Guerney, 189). "There they go! " (MacAndrew, 185). "There they go! " (Michailoff, 185).

The shortcomings of Magarshack's translation (they are almost all of a stylistic nature) are outweighed by its merits."' He takes fewer liberties than any of the other translators; it is clear that his work was done carefully, conscientiously, and, on the whole, with accuracy. In addition, his introduction, an account of the history of the writing of Dead Souls, is useful. 12 He is the only one who translates the last version of Part Two; and too often students, frightened away by gloomy tales of Gogol' 's decline, do not pass judgment on this part of his work for themselves. It is this translation I would recommend to students.

Notes

1. Home Life in Russia. By a Russian Noble. Revised edition of Reve- lations in Russia. 2 vols. (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1854. )

2. Nicolas Gogol, Les Ames mortes, 2 vols. (Paris, 1859). "IIappiep

BCl-OJTb3OB aJICF JxJIF 3TO4 ueJ AOBOJIbHO He~enJIT npoaoJIxaeHweM ro-

roJIaeBKOPO poMaHa, H3aaHHnvIM B I{HeBe B 1857 r. HeKmHM BaiUeHKO- 3axapteHKo: nocIenHHme nOJITopacTa cTpaHM? BTOpOrO TOMa lappbepa tpeCTaBJIAstT

He qTO MHoe, Kax rpybyIo nozaUeJII{y .." B. FrnnHyc, pez., <<H.B.

ForoJ-MaTepHaJI I 1 HccreosBaHHsI>> (JI., 1936), I, 276.




3. Dead Souls, transl. B. G. Guerney, 4th ed. (New York: Rhinehart & Co., 194-8); Dead Souls,transl. A. R. MacAndrew (New York: Signet Classics, 1961); Dead Souls, transl. David Magarshack (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1961); and Dead Souls,transl. Helen Michailoff (New York: Washington Square Books, 1964). All citations are made from these editions. Page references are given in parentheses following each quotation.

4. Dead Souls, transl. C. Garnett (New York: Modern Library, n. d.). There is also a translation by George Reavey, available in a British edition.

5. H. ]B. Forora, <<IHoJHoe cobpanHe co4MHeHHII>> (M.: AH CCCP, 1937-1952). All page references to the Russian text are to Vol. VI of this edition, unless otherwise indicated. Vol. VI, which contains Part I of Dead Souls, was published in 1951, and Guerney could not have used it.

6. The variant given in VI, 519-530 corresponds to the text of the "Tale" in Guerney's translation-with the exception of several lines, the source of which I have been unable to determine.

7. The second reference is to the page on which the translation should appear in the MacAndrew version.

8. Compare the superior translation of Guerney: "boots with fancy appli- ques of variegated colors (such boots as the town of Torzhok carries on a brisk trade in, owing to the easy-going ways and ease-loving inclinations of the Russian's nature)" (153).

9. It would seem that this translator is more prolific than proficient. Among his other translations is a volume of Gogol' entitled The Diary of a Madman and Other Stories (New York: Signet Classics, 1961). One can open to any page and see immediately that these translations suffer from the same deficiencies. For example, in Zapiski sumassveds"ego he leaves out, "Hey- xez H DpaHsI?M? Aa, DTO caMaR He6JIaroEnpHAITCTByompaH aepmasa" (III, 211). In Nos he skips over"cM TO MHOro eCTI Ha CBeTe BCqIKMX MaV-

opOB, KOTOpmIe He IMeIOT ae M CIIOAHero B I fPMJIHOM COCTORHMM M TacKIaIOTCS 110 BCSKMM HerIpHCTOIMHB]M MeCTaM"(III, 64). Gogol"s long catalogue of heroes (an obvious imitation of Homer) in Taras Bul'ba (II, 126-127) is hardly recognizable in MacAndrew's version. On page 85 of this volume (his "translation" of ?inel') he leaves out single words or phrases in thirteen separate cases (mezdu kotorymi, daxe, sam, smutno, beglyj, ves'ma, isdc'a, uz'e, vidja, prosto, tem bolee, iz komnaty, bessmennye tIII, 159-160]), and entirely ignores one sentence ("Mepe3 lac nonaaJH yzHIH, COCTOSBIIm- H3 BHHerpeTa, XOJIOAHOM TeJIRTMHBI,

lnamiTeTa, KOHIAMTepcKHx nIMPOXKOB

m iaMnIaHCKoro"), not to mention the errors-such as translating"MToc1bI

KSIa- HMHyOA He B3AyMaJI yaIep)HMBaTn Xo3IMHH, OH BMDIIeJI nIOTHXOHIKyy as "In spite of everything his host could think up to keep him, he went quickly out.. ." This kind of translation is, to use Gogol' 's terms, v nekotorom rode, soveroennaja drjan'.

10. The second reference is to the page on which the translation should appear in Garnett. In all cases where citations are from pages after p. 178 of the Russian edition, the corresponding references to the Garnett translation are to "volume two" of the Modern Library edition.

11. I realize that, particularly with Gogol', one can argue that style is everything. A rather impractical solution might be using Guerney's ttransla- tion for the last chapter and chapters one through eight (where textual




adulterations are not so serious and basic), and Magarshack's for the other two chapters and Part Two.

12. He makes one error, twice stating that Part Two was begun in 1842; Gogol' began at least two years earlier. Helen Michailoff's Introduction is generally accurate but contains several questionable assertions. For example, it is not true that "the critics were unanimous in their attacks" on Revizor (the reviews of Vjazemskij in Sovremennik and V. Androsov in Moskovskij nabljudatel' were warmly favorable), and it is unfair to Gogol' and grossly misleading to describe Vybrannye mesta simply as "thirty-two highly moral- izing essays advocating submission to the authority of the Czar and the Church" (much of the book is devoted to literature and it contains invaluable comments on Dead Souls).

Rene Wellek's introduction to Guerney's translation is excellent, while those in the MacAndrew and Garnett translations are almost useless.



dead souls in translation

Documents