2018年3月11日 星期日

English translations of Anna Karenina: 索引的學問不小:The Naive and the Sentimental Novelist By Orhan Pamuk (HUP 2010)《率性而多感的小說家:帕慕克哈佛文學講堂》(台灣麥田 2012)

Image result for craftsman 1901 october

Sep 5, 2014 - Do we really need another English translation of Anna Karenina? This is a bit like asking whether we need a new recording of Beethoven's Ninth.

*讀Thomas Mann 1939年為Random House版Anna Karenina 作序,
Leo Tolstoy 原作; Constance Garnett俄譯英; Thomas Mann 序; Philip Reisman 插圖
內容很不簡單,很有洞見。搞不清楚Mann 懂不懂得俄文:他說,托爾斯泰的俄文當藝術,精益求精,這點即使在大打折扣的英譯本,都還可以感受到:......


Translations into English[edit]

  • Anna Karénina, Translated by Nathan Haskell Dole (Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., New York, 1887; Walter Scott Publishing Company Ltd., London, 1889)

  • Anna Karenin, Translated by Constance Garnett. (1901) Still widely reprinted. Revised by Leonard J. Kent and Nina Berberova (New York: Random House, 1965). Revised version reprinted by Modern Library.

  • Anna Karenina, Translated by Louise and Aylmer Maude (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1918)
  • Anna Karenin, Translated by Rosemary Edmonds (Penguin Classics, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1954)
  • Anna Karenina, Translated by Joel Carmichael (Bantam Books, New York, 1960)
  • Anna Karenina, Translated by David Magarshack (A Signet Classic, New American Library, New York and Scarborough, Ontario, 1961)
  • Anna Karénina, Translated by Margaret Wettlin (Progress Publishers, 1978)
  • Anna Karenina, Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (Allen Lane/Penguin, London, 2000)
  • Anna Karenina, Translated by Kyril Zinovieff and Jenny Hughes (Oneworld Classics 2008) ISBN 978-1-84749-059-9
  • Anna Karenina, Translated by Rosamund Bartlett (Oxford University Press)[8]
  • Anna Karenina, Translated by Marian Schwartz (Yale University Press)[8]

Comparisons of translations[edit]

Writing in the year 2000, academic Zoja Pavlovskis-Petit compares the different translations of Anna Karenina on the market. Commenting on the revision of Constance Garnett's 1901 translation she says: "The revision (1965) ... by Kent & Berberova (the latter no mean stylist herself) succeeds in 'correcting errors ... tightening the prose, converting Briticisms, and casting light on areas Mrs Garnett did not explore'. Their edition shows an excellent understanding of the details of Tolstoy's world (for instance, the fact that the elaborate coiffure Kitty wears to the ball is not her own hair–a detail that eludes most other translators), and at the same time they use English imaginatively (Kitty's shoes 'delighted her feet' rather than 'seemed to make her feet lighter'–Maude; a paraphrase). ... the purist will be pleased to see Kent & Berberova give all the Russian names in full, as used by the author; any reader will be grateful for the footnotes that elucidate anything not immediately accessible to someone not well acquainted with imperial Russia. This emended Garnett should probably be a reader's first choice."
She further comments on the Maudes' translation: "the revised Garnett and the Magarshack versions do better justice to the original, but still, the World's Classics edition (1995) ... offers a very full List of Characters ... and good notes based on the Maudes'." 

On Edmonds's translation she states: "[it] has the advantage of solid scholarship ... Yet she lacks a true sensitivity for the language ... [leading] to [her] missing many a subtlety." 
On Carmichael's version she comments: "this is a–rather breezily–readable translation ... but there are errors and misunderstandings, as well as clumsiness." 
On Magarshack's translation she comments: "[it] offers natural, simple, and direct English prose that is appropriate to Tolstoy's Russian. There is occasional awkwardness ... and imprecision ... but Magarshack understands the text ... and even when unable to translate an idiom closely he renders its real meaning ... This is a good translation." 
On Wettlin's Soviet version she writes: "steady but uninspired, and sounds like English prose written by a Russian who knows the language but is not completely at home in it. The advantage is that Wettlin misses hardly any cultural detail."[9]
In In Quest Of Tolstoy (2008), Hughes McLean devotes a full chapter ("Which English Anna?") comparing different translations of Anna Karenina.[10] His conclusion, after comparing seven translations, is that "the PV [Pevear and Volokhonsky] translation, while perfectly adequate, is in my view not consistently or unequivocally superior to others in the market."[11] He states his recommendations in the last two pages of the survey: "None of the existing translations is actively bad ... One's choice ... must therefore be based on nuances, subtleties, and refinements."[12] He eliminates the Maudes for "disturbing errors" and "did not find either the Margashack or Carmichael ever superior to the others, and the lack of notes is a drawback." On Edmonds's version he states: "her version has no notes at all and all too frequently errs in the direction of making Tolstoy's 'robust awkwardness' conform to the translator's notion of good English style."[13]
McLean's recommendations are the Kent–Berberova revision of Garnett's translation and the Pevear and Volokhonsky version. "I consider the GKB [Garnett–Kent–Berberova] a very good version, even though it is based on an out-of-date Russian text. Kent and Berberova did a much more thorough and careful revision of Garnett's translation than Gibian did of the Maude one, and they have supplied fairly full notes, conveniently printed at the bottom of the page."[14] McLean takes Pevear and Volokhonsky to task for not using the best critical text (the "Zaidenshnur–Zhdanov text") and offering flawed notes without consulting C. J. Turner's A Karenina Companion(1993), although he calls their version "certainly a good translation."[14]
Reviewing the translations by Bartlett and Schwartz for The New York Times Book ReviewMasha Gessen noted that each new translation of Anna Karenina ended up highlighting an aspect of Tolstoy's "variable voice" in the novel, and thus, "The Tolstoy of Garnett... is a monocled British gentleman who is simply incapable of taking his characters as seriously as they take themselves. Pevear and Volokhonsky... created a reasonable, calm storyteller who communicated in conversational American English. Rosamund Bartlett... creates an updated ironic-Brit version of Tolstoy. Marian Schwartz... has produced what is probably the least smooth-talking and most contradictory Tolstoy yet." Gessen found Schwartz's translation to be formally closer to the original Russian, but often weighed down with details as a result; Bartlett's translation, like Pevear and Volokhonsky's, was rendered in more idiomatic English and more readable.[15]


The Naive and the Sentimental Novelist By Orhan Pamuk率性而多感的小說家:帕慕克哈佛文學講堂

三十歲那年,已讀遍法國重要小說的我首次來到巴黎,立刻趕往自己在書頁中邂逅的地點。我學巴爾札克的主人翁拉斯蒂涅,來到拉榭茲神父墓園(Père Lachaise)高處俯瞰巴黎,愕然發現景致竟是如此尋常。然而在我的小說處女作《貝氏父子》(Cevdet Bey and Sons)中,我還是創造了一個明顯以拉斯蒂涅為典範的主角人物。到了二十世紀,那些充當小說藝術舞台的歐洲主要城市湧入大批懷抱憧憬的非西方作家,這些人透過小說認識了這個世界,也想相信自己的所知所聞不啻是憑空想像。小說愛好者手持一本《唐吉訶德》遊歷西班牙,已是司空見慣的事。當然,諷刺的是塞萬提斯的主角自己也頭腦不清,混淆了騎士文學與現實。被困在小說與現實間的學者專家之中,最令人驚異的莫過於納博科夫,他曾說過所有小說都是童話,卻又試圖編纂《安娜卡列尼娜》註解版以披露小說背後的「真相」。雖然計畫始終未能完成,他仍作了研究,畫出安娜往返莫斯科與聖彼得堡所搭列車的車廂配置圖。他仔細地記錄女性專用車廂的簡單樸素、哪些是分配給較窮乘客的座位、暖爐的位置、窗戶的樣貌,以及莫斯科到聖彼得堡距離有幾英里──凡此種種托爾斯泰忽略未提的資訊。我認為類似的註解對於理解小說或安娜的想法並無太大幫助,但讀起來依然樂在其中,會覺得安娜的故事是真的,會更加相信她的存在,也會暫時忘卻失望與不足之感。





 The Naive and the Sentimental Novelist  By Orhan Pamuk (HUP 2010)《率性而多感的小說家:帕慕克哈佛文學講堂》(台灣麥田 2012)

美國哈佛大學出版社的Anna Karenina 分兩則:請讀者思考為何需要如此區分:
Anna Karenina  (Tolstoy), 《安娜卡列尼娜》(托爾斯泰), 61,75~76, 105, 178; knowledge of life and, 173; landscape of novel and, 8~10, 73; Nobokov's annotated edition, 125~126; object time in, 83; as a realist novel, 184; sensory experience in, 45~46. See also  Karenina, Anna (fictional character):

Karenina, Anna (fictional character): 《安娜卡列尼娜》(小說人物), 12, 47, 64,80, 81,178; gaze of, 178; knowledge from every day experience and, 22; landscape of novel and, 8~10, 73, 84`85; Nabokov's annotations and, 126;  reader's identification with, 45~46, 75; transformation of words into images and, 104~105. See also  Anna Karenina  (Tolstoy),