Translator's Note to Doski Sud'by

Translator's Note to Doski Sud'by

Russian Literature LXIII (2008) I www.elsevier.com/locate/ruslit TRANSLATOR’S NOTE TO DOSKI SUD’BY AOIFE GALLAGHER Abstract The translator’s note p...

209KB Sizes 0 Downloads 20 Views

Russian Literature LXIII (2008) I www.elsevier.com/locate/ruslit

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE TO DOSKI SUD’BY

AOIFE GALLAGHER

Abstract The translator’s note presents an overview of the new English translation of Doski Sud’by, beginning with a summary of the translation’s aims and objectives. The translator outlines the approach taken when faced with the difficulties presented by the fragmentary character, discursive complexity and generic hybridity of the source text. These are discussed in the various contexts in which they were encountered under three headings, “Source and Target Language Issues”, “Poetic Elements” and “Overlapping Modes of Discourse”. The note concludes with a summary of the approach adopted, together with thoughts on reading the translation. Keywords: Khlebnikov; Doski Sud’by; Tables of Fate; Translation

At first glance, the text of Doski Sud’by appears to present little more than a modicum of difficulty for the translator into English. As Andrea Hacker writes, it is a work of mathematical poetry; the great substance and material of the text are the equations which, because they are written in the universal language of glyphs and signs, need no translation. 1 The features which usually bewilder, dishearten and dismay translators of Chlebnikov and other avant-garde poets – wordplay, neology, surreal imagery, complex formal patterning – are not prominent in this text of Chlebnikov’s, particularly in comparison with their

0304-3479/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ruslit.2008.02.004

58

Aoife Gallagher

proliferation in his other works from the same period such as, for example, Zangezi. In addition to this, much of the verbal text is written in what Hacker calls “repetitive, explanatory ‘quasi-scientific’ prose”,2 which is not difficult to translate, as in this example from the third fragment: ȼ ɭɪɚɜɧɟɧɢɹɯ ɩɪɨɫɬɪɚɧɫɬɜɚ ɦɟɧɹɟɬɫɹ ɢ ɛɟɫɤɨɧɟɱɧɨ ɪɚɫɬɟɬ ɩɨɞɫɬɟɩɟɧɧɨɟ ɤɨɥɢɱɟɫɬɜɨ; ɧɚɩɪɨɬɢɜ ɩɨɤɚɡɚɬɟɥɶ ɫɬɟɩɟɧɢ ɧɟ ɦɨɠɟɬ ɛɵɬɶ ɛɨɥɟɟ ɬɪɟɯ, ɬɚɤ ɤɚɤ ɩɪɨɫɬɪɚɧɫɬɜɨ ɬɪɟɯ ɢɡɦɟɪɟɧɢɣ. ɇɚɩɪɢɦɟɪ, ɨɛɴɟɦ ɲɚɪɚ ɢɡɦɟɪɹɟɬɫɹ Ȗ3, ɬɪɟɬɶɟɣ ɫɬɟɩɟɧɶɸ ɞɥɢɧɵ ɩɨɥɭɨɫɢ ɲɚɪɚ. (In equations of space the static quantity changes and grows endlessly; contrariwise the exponent cannot be more than three, since space is three-dimensional. For example, the volume of a sphere measures Ȗ3, the length of the semiaxis of a sphere to the power of three.)

However, a closer look at the text quickly reveals the issues it presents to the translator. While it is true that the text is written in a less overtly “poetic” genre than other works by the author, it is mostly poetry nonetheless, albeit in an embryonic and prototypical form (see below). As regards linguistic experimentation and formal patterning, these lie dormant throughout the text and permeate it thoroughly. In fact, the entire status of the text is at question at all times given the existence of multiple drafts, the similar fragments and the consequent indeterminacy as to the “final” version, order of composition and intended progress through the material. In addition to this, the complete absence of a fictive “I” and the hybrid genre in which it is composed all combine to eclipse the typical issues faced by translators of modernist works. I.

Translation Objectives and Approach

In 1987, Paul Schmidt published the only currently existing rendering of Doski Sud’by in English. 3 For a three-volume collection of Chlebnikov’s works, he translated the first fragment of seven. Fundamentally different starting points have led to divergent approaches in our translations. Schmidt worked with the edition of the work compiled by Markov in which the writing, apart from the poetry at the beginning which is absent from the translation, is rendered as seamless prose. 4 However, the source text used for this edition replicates all the elements in these writings that have been omitted in other editions (line

Translator’s Note to ‘Doski Sud’by’

59

breaks, deleted passages, coloured text, font size, graphics and so on). 5 Also, Schmidt rendered an excerpt from Doski Sud’by as part of a collection of Chlebnikov’s texts in English translation, whereas this is a page-facing translation of the entire work which forms part of an entirely new edition of Doski Sud’by which also includes an introduction and annotations. The peculiarities of the source text, together with the role the translation is to play in this edition, have necessitated taking a more literal approach than Schmidt. Critical discussions of Doski Sud’by highlight the work’s generic hybridity and discursive complexity. In translating it, I sought to retain these various features in English, without glossing over them. In order to respect the line length and breaks, mathematical symbols and moments of incoherence in English translation, I have adopted a “foreignising” approach. However, this attempt at linguistic and formal mimesis continually created issues of what Philip Lewis terms “abusive fidelity”, 6 whereby my English renderings, in an effort to create effects analogous with Chlebnikov’s Russian could have the effect of over-exaggerating certain features, resulting in caricature. As a general rule, I sought to temper lexical and linguistic fidelity with my own response and attitude to the text as primarily a reader and admirer of Chlebnikov. I also drew on my native idiom of Hiberno-English when seeking to replicate the more informal moments in the writing, and, in particular, Chlebnikov’s challenging word order. II.

Source and Target Language Issues

II.1. Denotation and Connotation Throughout Doski Sud’by, Chlebnikov uses terms which are similar in denotation but which have slightly divergent connotations, for example, the words he uses for the fall of states and empires (“gibel’”, “razgrom”, “razrušenie” and “padenie”) and for their conquering (“zavoevanie”, “vzjatie” and “pokorenie”). All of these words need to be translated consistently, and differently, however, this can lead to caricaturing Chlebnikov’s choice of different vocabulary if the translator merely chooses the most lexically close equivalent in English. A sense of why he uses particular words with references to particular events is necessary in order to find acceptable translations. It appears that different words are chosen with reference to particular events in history, and their different resonances lend emotional and attitudinal colouring to the various events. “Vzjatie”, for example, is a gentler word than “razrušenie”. The latter word is often used in reference to Rome, whereas the former is used with reference to Tamerlane’s taking of India. There is also the question of how conceptions of “sud’ba” (“fate” or “destiny”) are articulated in English. A translation for this key term will have

60

Aoife Gallagher

to be then used consistently. However, Chlebnikov also uses other terms such as “rok” and “žrebij”, and even the collocation “rok sud’by”. Because of the rich and multiple connotations that attach to “fate” in English as opposed to “destiny”, in particular, its pre-Christian associations, this translation has been chosen for “sud’ba”. II.2. Transliteration A primary aim of this bilingual edition of Doski Sud’by is to provide sufficiently comprehensive paratextual commentary to enable readers to decipher this complex and difficult text. The translation theorist Maria Tymoczko notes that a translated text can risk “losing balance”, with the “information load” becoming “too great for comfortable assimilation by the receiving audience”.7 While a translator has recourse to paratextual commentary, making cultural content explicit can compromise “the literary status of a text per se” and diminish its rhetorical impact. 8 However, if explanation is left out altogether, the material will be “opaque or unintelligible to international readers”.9 In order to avoid overburdening an already challenged audience, a process of “domestication” promised to be most productive for Doski Sud’by with regards to Chlebnikov’s transliterations of various place-names and names of historical figures. Many of these are unorthodox and having identified the actual places and people to whom he refers when annotating the text, common spellings of these were used in the translation (for example, Tsong-kha-pa instead of Dzonkava (“Dzonkava”) and La Hogue instead of Lakhug (“Lachug”), both taken from the second fragment). As against this, at times it was considered necessary to transliterate references and Russian words literally where semantics were at issue and to add these to a translator’s glossary of terms. It was important to transliterate the name “Car’grad” as Tsargrad for example as, time and again in Doski Sud’by, Chlebnikov cites the etymology of the word “tsar”. The name also fits in with his conception of the interconnectedness of Constantinople, Rome and Moscow. Another key term for which there is no English equivalent is “sutki”. The word is used most notably in Chlebnikov’s various analyses of the times of the planets. Often, in other contexts, it is translated as “day”, which is undoubtedly a satisfactory alternative to the unwieldy, if accurate, “twentyfour hour period”. However, because Chlebnikov himself uses “day” in different contexts in Doski Sud’by, and the length of time denoted by “sutki” is longer than that denoted by “day”, giving a different mathematical value which then has implications for Chlebnikov’s equations and calculations, fidelity to the meaning of this word is essential. Another Russian word which has been transliterated and glossed is “izba” as this word recurs throughout the text, often used by Chlebnikov when conceptualising his project in terms of

Translator’s Note to ‘Doski Sud’by’

61

construction, making references to the “beams” (“brevna”) of twos and threes which he uses to build his izba of theory. Its repetition will be more keenly felt by the reader if left in Russian, as well as its specifically Russian referent more easily evoked. III.

Poetic Elements

III.1. Line Breaks In view of the fact that “Chlebnikov often writes short lines even on large sized paper” 10 and considering the paper scarcity of the time one has to wonder at this wanton insistence on line breaks, it is clear they were crucial to the work. They lend it the graphic appearance of a poem, add rhythm and emphasis, all pointing to the poetic-aesthetic nature of the writings. Once sensitised to this poetic impetus, it becomes impossible to envisage “prosifying” the text in any way and, despite the challenge of doing so, the line breaks are treated as absolute in translation, as in the following passage from the second fragment: Ɇɨɠɧɨ ɜ ɟɞɢɧɢɰɚɯ ɝɨɞɚ ɩɪɨɫɥɟɞɢɬɶ Ɇɨɣ ɡɚɤɨɧ ɧɚ ɩɨɥɨɬɧɟ ɫɬɨɥɟɬɢɣ. Ʉ 2250-ɨɦɭ ɝɨɞɭ ɞɨ Ɋ. ɏɪ. ɨɬɧɨɫɹɬɫɹ ɝɥɢɧɹɧɵɟ ɞɨɫɤɢ ɡɚɤɨɧɨɜ ɏɚɦɦɭɪɚɛɢ. ɗɬɨ ɩɪɟɤɪɚɫɧɵɣ ɞɪɟɜɧɢɣ ɰɚɪɶ, ɫɜɨɟ ɭɱɟɧɢɟ ɨ ɱɢɫɥɚɯ ɜɵɪɭɛɚɜɲɢɣ ɜ 6-ɤɪɵɥɵɯ ɥɶɜɚɯ, ɫɬɨɹɜɲɢɯ ɭ ɩɨɪɨɝɚ ɞɜɨɪɰɨɜ. Ʉ 622-ɨɦɭ ɝɨɞɭ ɩɨ Ɋ. ɏɪ. ɨɬɧɨɫɹɬɫɹ ɜɞɨɯɧɨɜɟɧɧɵɟ ɪɟɱɢ ɢ ɡɚɤɨɧɵ, ɩɪɨɱɬɟɧɧɵɟ ɜ ɡɜɟɡɞɧɨɦ ɧɟɛɟ, ɩɚɫɬɭɯɚ Ɇɚɝɨɦɟɬɚ. Ⱦɪɟɜɧɢɣ ɰɚɪɶ ɩɪɨɫɧɭɥɫɹ ɜ ɨɞɟɹɥɟ ɷɬɨɝɨ ɩɚɫɬɭɯɚ, ɭɞɢɜɢɜɲɢɫɶ ɞɨɥɝɨɦɭ ɫɧɭ, ɧɨ ɭɜɢɞɟɜ ɧɚɞ ɫɨɛɨɣ ɬɨɬ ɠɟ ɡɜɟɡɞɧɵɣ ɲɚɬɟɪ, ɥɢɲɟɧɧɵɣ ɥɠɢ ɥɸɞɟɣ. Ɉɧ ɩɪɨɫɧɭɥɫɹ ɜ ɩɨɝɨɧɳɢɤɟ ɜɟɪɛɥɸɞɨɜ ɢ ɤɚɡɧɚɱɟɟ ɨɜɟɰ. In the units of a year one can trace My law on the canvas of centuries. To the year 2250 BC belong the earthenware law tables of Hammurabi. This is an excellent ancient tsar, his teaching about numbers he carved out on the 6-winged lions which stood at the palace thresholds. To the year 622 BC belong the inspired speeches and laws, read in the starry sky, of the shepherd Mahomet. The ancient tsar awoke in the blanket of this shepherd,

62

Aoife Gallagher surprised at the long sleep, but seeing above him the same starry tent, devoid of people’s falsehood. He awoke in the camel driver and tender of sheep.

III.2. Word Order While the topicalisation typical of many of the long sentences in Doski Sud’by can be explained in terms of Chlebnikov’s cultivation of a rhetorical, academic idiom, another way of perceiving the constructions which contain the subject at the beginning of the sentence is in terms of spoken discourse, wherein the important information is included at the beginning of the sentence, for example, in the first fragment: Ɉɬɤɪɵɜ ɡɧɚɱɟɧɢɟ ɱɟɬɚ ɢ ɧɟɱɟɬɚ ɜɨ ɜɪɟɦɟɧɢ, ɹ ɨɳɭɬɢɥ ɬɚɤɨɟ ɱɭɜɫɬɜɨ, ɱɬɨ ɜ ɪɭɤɚɯ ɭ ɦɟɧɹ ɦɵɲɟɥɨɜɤɚ, ɜ ɤɨɬɨɪɨɣ ɢɫɩɭɝɚɧɧɵɦ ɡɜɟɪɶɤɨɦ ɞɪɨɠɢɬ ɞɪɟɜɧɢɣ ɪɨɤ. ɉɨɯɨɠɢɟ ɧɚ ɞɟɪɟɜɨ ɭɪɚɜɧɟɧɢɹ ɜɪɟɦɟɧɢ, ɩɪɨɫɬɵɟ ɤɚɤ ɫɬɜɨɥ ɜ ɨɫɧɨɜɚɧɢɢ, ɢ ɝɢɛɤɢɟ ɢ ɠɢɜɭɳɢɟ ɫɥɨɠɧɨɣ ɠɢɡɧɶɸ ɜɟɬɜɹɦɢ ɫɜɨɢɯ ɫɬɟɩɟɧɟɣ, ɝɞɟ ɫɨɫɪɟɞɨɬɨɱɟɧ ɦɨɡɝ ɢ ɠɢɜɚɹ ɞɭɲɚ ɭɪɚɜɧɟɧɢɣ, ɤɚɡɚɥɢɫɶ ɩɟɪɟɜɟɪɧɭɬɵɦɢ ɭɪɚɜɧɟɧɢɹɦɢ ɩɪɨɫɬɪɚɧɫɬɜɚ, ɝɞɟ ɝɪɨɦɚɞɧɨɟ ɱɢɫɥɨ ɨɫɧɨɜɚɧɢɹ ɭɜɟɧɱɚɧɨ ɢɥɢ ɟɞɢɧɢɰɟɣ, ɞɜɨɣɤɨɣ, ɢɥɢ ɬɪɨɣɤɨɣ, ɧɨ ɧɟ ɞɚɥɟɟ. Discovering the significance of even and odd in time, I had the feeling that in my hands I held a mousetrap, in which ancient fate trembles like a frightened little animal. Like a tree are the equations of time, simple as a tree trunk at the base, and pliant and living as complex life in the branches of powers, where the brain and living soul of the equations are concentrated, they seemed the reverse of equations of space, where the huge number of the base is crowned by either a one, a two or a three, but nothing more.

To maintain this has been difficult in English given the strictures of English word order. However, my own native idiom is Hiberno-English, in which topicalisation features prominently. I have thus drawn on this when replicating

Translator’s Note to ‘Doski Sud’by’

63

Chlebnikov’s word order, for example, when translating this passage from the second fragment: ə ɜɟɞɭ ɫɱɟɬɨɜɨɞɧɵɟ ɤɧɢɝɢ ɉɨɛɟɞ ɢ ɩɨɛɨɢɳ. Ƚɪɨɡɧɟɣ ɦɨɪɫɤɢɯ ɤɪɟɩɨɫɬɟɣ ɍɪɚɜɧɟɧɢɹ ɦɨɢ[.] ɑɟɫɬɶ ɧɚɪɨɞɨɜ ɹ ɫɬɟɪɟɝɭ Ʌɭɱɲɟ ɩɥɚɜɭɱɢɯ ɝɪɨɦɚɞ. ȼɨɬ ɭɪɚɜɧɟɧɢɟ ɫɥɚɜɵ ɦɨɪɫɤɨɣ Ɉɫɬɪɨɜɚ ɫɟɜɟɪɚ n

X = 3 9 2n  3 6 ˜ 2 3 2 n  2 3  2  K Ʉ ɷɬɨ ɞɟɧɶ [ɫɦɨɬɪɢɬɟ ɹ ɫɬɚɜɥɸ n] ɢ ɩɨɤɨɪɧɵɟ ɜɨɥɟ ɦɨɟɣ ɨɫɬɪɨɸ ɱɟɪɧɨɸ ɝɪɭɞɶɸ ɉɥɵɜɭɬ ɩɚɪɭɫɚ ɡɚ ɧɚɞɩɢɫɶɸ “Deus afflavit” Ɇɟɞɢɧɚ – ɋɢɞɨɧɢɹ ɯɨɞɢɬ ɩɨ ɩɚɥɭɛɟ, Ɂɨɥɨɬɨ ɜ ɛɟɥɨɦ, ɩɟɪɶɹ ɩɚɜɥɢɧɚ, Ȼɢɬɜɚ ɦɨɪɫɤɚɹ I keep ledgers of victories and slaughters. More imposing than naval fortresses Are my equations[.] The honour of peoples I guard Better than floating hulks. Here is the equation of naval glory of the island of the North n

X = 3 9 2n  3 6 ˜ 2 3 2 n  2 3  2  K Ʉ is the day [look, I am using an n] and obedient to my will by the sharp black breast The sails float behind the inscription “Deus afflavit” Medina-Sidonia walks the deck, Gold on white, the feathers of the peacock, the naval battle.

64

Aoife Gallagher

III.3. Poetry in ‘Doski Sud’by’ Chlebnikov as modernist poet is still very much present in Doski Sud’by. One of the most striking passages at the heart of the work is the poem ‘Trata i trud i trenie’ in the second fragment: Ɍɪɚɬɚ ɢ ɬɪɭɞ ɢ ɬɪɟɧɢɟ, Ɍɟɤɢɬɟ ɢɡ ɨɡɟɪɚ ɬɪɢ! Ⱦɟɥɨ ɢ ɞɚɪ – ɢɡ ɨɡɟɪɚ ɞɜɚ! Ɍɪɚɜɚ ɦɟɲɚɟɬ ɯɨɞɢɬɶ ɧɨɝɚɦ, Ɉɬɪɚɜɚ ɝɚɫɢɬ ɞɭɲɭ ɢ ɫɬɵɧɟɬ ɤɪɨɜɶ. Ɍɭɩɨɦɭ ɧɨɠɭ ɬɪɭɞɧɨ ɪɟɡɚɬɶ. Ɍɭɩɢɤ ɷɬɨ ɩɭɬɶ ɫ ɨɬɪɢɰɚɬɟɥɶɧɵɦ ɦɧɨɠɢɬɟɥɟɦ. Ʌɸɛɨ ɢɞɬɢ ɩɨ ɞɨɪɨɝɟ ɜɟɫɟɥɨɦɭ Ɍɪɭɞɧɨ ɢ ɬɹɠɤɨ ɬɪɨɩɨɸ ɬɚɳɢɬɶɫɹ. Ɍɭɲɚ, ɥɢɲɟɧɧɚɹ ɞɭɯɚ Ɍɪɭɩ ɧɟɩɨɞɜɢɠɧɵɣ ɥɢɲɟɧɧɵɣ ɞɜɢɠɟɧɢɹ, Ɍɪɭɧɚ – ɞɨɦɨɜɢɧɚ ɞɥɹ ɦɟɪɬɜɵɯ, Ƚɞɟ ɧɟɥɶɡɹ ɲɟɜɟɥɶɧɭɬɶɫɹ. ȼɫɟ ɜɵ ɬɟɱɟɬɟ ɢɡ ɬɪɨɣɤɢ. Ⱥ ɞɟɥɨ, ɞɨɛɪɨ ɢɡ ɨɡɟɪɚ ɞɜɚ. Ⱦɟɜɚ ɢ ɞɭɯ ɤɪɵɥɚɦɢ ɲɭɦɢɬɟ ɨɬɬɭɞɚ ɠɟ. Ⱦɜɚ – ɞɜɢɠɟɬ, ɬɪɟɬɫɹ ɬɪɢ “Ɍɪɚɜɵ ɭɠɢ” ɤɪɢɱɚɬ ɧɚ ȼɨɥɝɟ Ɂɚɞɟɪɠɢɜɚɹ ɤɨɲɤɭ.

This poem marks the culmination of the repetitions of three and two throughout the text; in it, Chlebnikov “elaborates the formula which governs man’s fate”. 11 It is here that the two sounds “t” and “d” are separated out from their linguistic contexts and elaborated on to express Chlebnikov’s theory that the numbers, and therefore the sounds which herald them have semantic significance. This represents the apogee of his theory on the semantics of individual sounds, as here the thesis that the numbers two and three are the primary forces that determine destiny is revealed by the kinds of words that share their initial letters. Unfortunately, the translator is faced with casting doubt on this theory because, although equivalents can be sought and relatively easily found for words like “trata”, “trud” and “trenie”, the initial letters of the words which express the glyphs in English begin with different sounds, but the same letter, “t” as seen in this literal translation: Waste [trata] and toil [trud] and tension [trenie], Flow [tekite] from the lake of three [tri]! Deed [delo] and donation [dar] – from the lake of two [dva]!

Translator’s Note to ‘Doski Sud’by’

65

Any translation is going to undermine these theories because the very existence of the vagaries of different languages and schemata of representing and denoting the world ask uncomfortable questions of Chlebnikov’s theses and views on language and truth. Thus the translator comes to undermine Chlebnikov’s thesis, simply by translating his words. III.4. Formulaic Repetition Repetition of phrasing, arguments, information and imagery features heavily in Doski Sud’by, giving the work the hue of oral or epic poetry. Due to the English stylistic demand of “elegant variation”, it can be tempting to gloss over these repetitions and to modify the phrasing to suit the dominant tone of the passages in which they are located, thereby making the text lexically diverse and readable. However, given that these repetitions can be seen to perform important functions in the work, creating aural and thematic associations, bolstering the validity of Chlebnikov’s central claim and contributing to the incantatory nature of the work, consistent translation of often-used words, similar ideas, phrasing and trains has been attempted as the following example from the sixth fragment demonstrates: ɢ ɜɟɧɟɰ ɪɚɜɟɧɫɬɜɚ ɝɨɪɚ ɪɚɜɟɧɫɬɜɚ ɩɪɨɜɨɞɢɬ ɡɧɚɤ ɪɚɜɟɧɫɬɜɚ ɦɟɠɞɭ ɰɚɪɹɦɢ ɢ ɩɪɨɬɢɜɨɰɚɪɹɦɢ ɞɪɭɡɶɹɦɢ ɪɚɜɟɧɫɬɜɚ ɢ ɜɪɚɝɚɦɢ ɪɚɜɟɧɫɬɜɚ ɟɫɬɟɫɬɜɟɧɧɨɣ ɫɦɟɪɬɶɸ ɢ ɤɚɡɧɶɸ. ɂɬɚɤ ɜɪɟɦɹ ɟɫɬɶ ɜɟɥɢɤɢɣ ɢɫɬɨɱɧɢɤ ɪɚɜɟɧɫɬɜɚ. Ɉɧɨ ɞɚɟɬ ɨɞɢɧ ɢ ɬɨɬ ɠɟ ɡɚɤɨɧ ɩɨɞɨɛɧɵɯ ɬɨɱɟɤ ɪɚɫɫɬɪɟɥɨɜ ɰɚɪɟɣ – ɫɚɦɵɯ ɦɨɝɭɳɟɫɬɜɟɧɧɵɯ ɝɨɫɭɞɚɪɫɬɜ, ɢ ɬɢɯɨɣ ɫɦɟɪɬɢ ɜ ɫɜɨɟɣ ɩɨɫɬɟɥɢ ɨɬɰɨɜ ɭɱɟɧɢɹ ɨ ɪɚɜɟɧɫɬɜɟ. and the crown of equality the mountain of equality carries the mark of equality amongst tsars and anti-tsars friends of equality and enemies of equality natural death and execution. So time is a great source of equality. It grants one and the same law of like points for the shootings of tsars – the mightiest states, and the quiet death in their beds of the fathers of teachings on equality.

66

Aoife Gallagher

III.5. Extended metaphors Chlebnikov’s use of complex metaphors strengthens the text’s poetic dimension. As a result, the explanatory and metaphoric, often quasi-scientific passages demand special attention while translating: they need to be distinguished as strongly as they are in the original, from the exact prose of the passages where Chlebnikov adopts and successfully maintains a more scientific voice. The close proximity of such different stylistic registers forces both reader and translator to “grapple with the resulting tension of fictional and non-fictional text”. 12 A major complex of metaphors relates to trees, and in keeping with Chlebnikov’s conception of the organic nature of number, it is crucial to accurately translate the terms which carry these connotations. Thus the verb “rasti”, for example, which at times would naturally be translated into English as “increase”, must be translated as “grow” in keeping with the naturalistic connotations being drawn upon in Chlebnikov’s use of the phrasing. Readability had to take second place to the central aim of conveying something of the strangeness of the genre, information presented and the frequent shifts in tone and register in order to do justice to the text. The following passage from the third fragment may serve as an illustration: Ʉɚɤ ɫɬɪɨɢɬɫɹ ɝɨɞ? Ƚɨɞ ɧɚɩɨɦɢɧɚɟɬ ɛɚɲɧɸ ɋɸɦɛɟɤɢ, ɯɪɚɦɵ ɢ ɨɛɴɟɦɵ ɜɨɫɬɨɤɚ, ɝɞɟ ɜ ɜɵɫɨɬɭ ɭɯɨɞɹɬ ɤɨɪɨɛɤɚ ɧɚɞ ɤɨɪɨɛɤɨɣ ɩɪɹɦɨɭɝɨɥɶɧɵɟ ɫɥɚɛɟɸɳɢɟ ɧɚɞɫɬɪɨɣɤɢ, ɤɨɧɱɚɹɫɶ ɢɝɥɨɣ ɫɨ ɡɦɟɟɦ Ɂɢɥɚɧɬɨɦ ɢɥɢ ɱɟɦ ɧɢɛɭɞɶ. Ƚɨɞ ɫɨɫɬɨɢɬ ɢɡ ɪɹɞɚ ɧɢɫɯɨɞɹɳɢɯ ɫɬɟɩɟɧɟɣ ɬɪɨɟɤ, ɧɚɱɢɧɚɹ ɫ ɩɹɬɨɣ. ȿɝɨ ɯɪɚɦ ɤɨɧɱɚɟɬɫɹ ɟɞɢɧɢɰɟɣ. ɂɦɟɧɧɨ 365 = 35 + 34 + 33 + 32 + 31 + 30 + 1. ɇɚ ɷɬɨɣ ɢɝɪɟ ɧɢɫɯɨɞɹɳɢɯ ɪɹɞɨɜ ɩɨɫɬɪɨɟɧɵ ɢ ɜɪɟɦɟɧɚ ɫɜɟɬɢɥ ɜɧɟɲɧɟɝɨ ɩɨɹɫɚ ɫɨɥɧɟɱɧɨɝɨ ɦɢɪɚ, ɬɨ ɟɫɬɶ ɨɧɢ ɜɟɬɤɢ ɬɨɝɨ ɠɟ ɞɟɪɟɜɚ, ɨɬɤɭɞɚ ɪɚɫɬɟɬ ɝɨɞ ɢɡ ɤɨɪɧɹ ɫɭɬoɤ, ɩɟɪɟɫɬɚɜɚɹ ɛɵɬɶ ɫɭɬɤɚɦɢ. Ɉɧ ɪɚɫɬɟɬ ɭɬɪɚɢɜɚɹɫɶ, ɤɨɥɶɰɚɦɢ, ɩɨɜɬɨɪɧɵɦ ɜɡɥɟɬɨɦ ɧɚ ɫɥɟɞɭɸɳɭɸ ɫɬɟɩɟɧɶ How is a year constructed? The year recalls the tower of Siumbeka, the temples and hulks of the east, where box on top of box mounts to a high point right-angled weakening superstructures, culminating in a needle with a Zilanth or something. The year consists of a series of descending

Translator’s Note to ‘Doski Sud’by’

67

powers of threes, starting with five. Its temple ends in a one. Namely 365 = 35 + 34 + 33 + 32 + 31 + 30 + 1. In this game of descending series, the times of the heavenly bodies of the outer belt of the solar system are also built, for they are branches of the same tree, out of which the year will grow from the root of days and nights, ceasing to be days and nights. It will grow trebling, in rings, in a recurring take-off to the next power

IV.

Overlapping Modes of Discourse

Hacker identifies three “modes of discourse” in Doski Sud’by: “verbal text (prose and poetry), mathematical text (formulas and other numerical data), and illustrations (graphics and tables)”.13 As a translator, the first mode is what one has to deal with as for the most part, the numbers and mathematical formulae require minimal translation (the work is often of transliteration) and the tables and graphics are simply reproduced as they appear in the Russian text. However, as Andrea Hacker points out, these modes of discourse tend to overlap, leaving the translator with, for example, issues of intrusion into graphic modes. 14 Constant awareness of all three modes is necessary in order to translate something of this overlap, in particular the boundaries between what is verbal, mathematical and graphical and where one mode is supplanted by another. IV.1. Mathematical and Verbal Text As Hacker claims, in this work of mathematical poetry, the equations motivate the poetry, while the verbal text has an illustrating function for the all-important information contained in the equations. The equations express the important information of Doski Sud’by and they play an aesthetic role by their complexity and poeticity. The bulk of the surrounding verbal text is merely explanatory, intentionally and necessarily plain and flat, further highlighting the richness of the information contained in the equations. 15 Although the numeric information does not require translation, a sensitivity to its role in the text is essential. Reading the number sequences themselves helped develop a greater sense of the enormous weight attached to the numbers two and three in this work, as well as the alliterative role they play.16 The visual impact of these repeated and central numbers is, of course, considerable. However, this is lessened by Chlebnikov’s use of words, instead of glyphs and thus the translator must read the text aloud, including the numbers and equations, in order to

68

Aoife Gallagher

grasp the nature of the overlap between verbal and mathematical text. In so doing, rhythm and repetitions are identified and the incantatory effect of the whole text (verbal and mathematical) is revealed sufficiently to be then replicated in English as, for example, in the second fragment: Ɏɭ-ɫɢ, ɩɪɨɪɨɤ ɤɢɬɚɣɰɟɜ, ɪɨɞɢɥɫɹ ɜ 2852-ɨɦ ɝɨɞɭ ɞɨ Ɋ. ɏ. ɢɥɢ ɡɚ 220 – 213 ɞɨ ɂɢɫɭɫɚ, ɩɪɨɪɨɤɚ ɡɚɩɚɞɚ. Ɉɛɟ ɩɨɥɨɫɵ ɛɵɬɚ, ɡɚɩɚɞɚ ɢ ɜɨɫɬɨɤɚ, ɪɚɡɞɟɥɟɧɵ 20-ɨɸ ɫɬɟɩɟɧɶɸ ɞɜɭɯ. Ɉɛɟ ɩɪɢɩɨɞɧɹɬɵɟ ɡɚɧɚɜɟɫɵ ɧɚɞ ɧɚɲɢɦ ə, ɜ ɜɟɱɧɨɦ ɨɫɜɟɳɟɧɢɢ ɧɚɡɵɜɚɟɦɨɝɨ ɛɨɝɨɦ, ɩɨɞɧɹɥɢɫɶ ɩɨ ɩɪɢɤɚɡɚɧɢɸ ɷɬɨɣ ɫɬɟɩɟɧɢ. Ⱦɪɹɯɥɵɣ Ɋɢɦ, ɜɥɚɞɵɤɚ ɡɚɩɚɞɚ, ɢ ɫɜɨɟɝɨ ɪɨɞɚ “ɞɟɪɟɜɨ ɧɚ ɫɨɩɤɟ” ɪɚɡɜɟɜɚɸɳɟɟɫɹ ɫɜɹɳɟɧɧɨɟ ɡɧɚɦɹ ɡɚɩɚɞɚ, ɩɚɥ ɜɩɟɪɜɵɟ 22 X 312, ɤɨɝɞɚ ɟɝɨ ɜɡɹɥ ɩɪɟɞɜɨɞɢɬɟɥɶ ɜɨɥɧɵ ɜɨɫɬɨɤɚ, ɨɬɟɰ ɟɳɟ ɧɟ ɫɭɳɟɫɬɜɨɜɚɜɲɟɣ ȼɢɡɚɧɬɢɢ, Ʉɨɧɫɬɚɧɬɢɧ ȼɟɥɢɤɢɣ, ɛɵɜɲɢɣ ɤɨɩɶɟɦ ɡɚɩɚɞɚ ɜ ɪɭɤɟ ɜɨɫɬɨɤɚ, ɬɨ ɟɫɬɶ ɱɟɪɟɡ 223 ɞɧɟɣ ɢ 211 ɩɨɫɥɟ ɪɨɠɞɟɧɢɹ ɜ 22670 ɝɨɞɭ ɩɟɪɜɨɱɟɥɨɜɟɤɚ ɤɢɬɚɣɰɟɜ ɉɚɧɶɝɭ. Fu-si, prophet of the Chinese, was born in 2852 BC. or 220 – 213 before Jesus, prophet of the west. Both regions of everyday life, west and east, are divided by the 20th power of two. Both raised curtains over our I, in the eternal illumination called god, are lifted by order of this power. Decrepit Rome, master of the west, and in a sense “tree on the hill” fluttering sacred banner of the west, first fell on 22 X 312, when it was taken by the marshall of the wave of the east, the father of the as yet non-existent Byzantium, Constantine the Great, the former spear of the west in the hand of the east, that is 223 days and 211 after the birth in the year 22670 of the primordial being of the Chinese, Pangu.

IV.2. Verbal Text and Graphics While it has not proved particularly challenging to replicate the verbal text contained in the tables and in the repeated graphic ‘Vzor na 1923 god’ (‘A Glance at the Year 1923’), there are some pages where text functions as graphic, such as, for example, words printed in large font with no other explanatory text. In such cases achieving adequate translation has proven difficult. In contrast to Russian, English demands the use of pronouns and articles but such additions detract from the stark visual and rhetorical impact of these

Translator’s Note to ‘Doski Sud’by’

69

pages and make assumptions about the determinacy of the text. Furthermore, the sound associations which Chlebnikov seeks to highlight cannot readily be replicated in English translation. Here are two examples: A page in the fourth fragment is adorned by only two words, “Mera” and “Tolp”. They are written in large font towards the top of the page. “Mera” is written first and “Tolp” is written below it. The difficulty here is that the translator runs the risk of over-interpreting. The genitive plural “Tolp” implies a connection between the two words on the page. But this is made explicit in English with “of”, and its graphic impact is diminished by the insertion of another, extraneous word in translation: “Measure of Multitudes”. The words in English are also longer, and do not both have the same amount of letters as they do in the Russian original. On a page in the sixth fragment, Chlebnikov has written “ɀ ɀȿɁɅ ɀɂɁɇɂ”, and again the letter and words are written one on top of the other with “ɀ” first, “ɀȿɁɅ” below and in smaller font and “ɀɂɁɇɂ” below that again. Here the difficulties lie in the fact that the letter “ɀ”, crucial for this page, has no single letter transliteration in English, apart from “Ī” or “ž”, neither of which are broadly understood by non-linguists and neither of which begin English words that could translate the Russian “žezl žizni”. Again the question of pronouns and articles threatens to diminish the stark rhetorical and graphic impact of the words on the page: “ZH STAFF” of “LIFE”. It is hoped that the inclusion of the page-facing Russian original will allow a non-Russian reader some degree of access to the graphic impact of the Russian. V.

Reading the Translation

Critics like Duganov often highlight the way in which Chlebnikov interweaves generic and discursive modes with the aim of forging a new genre and a new mode of discourse altogether. 17 As a translator, one is faced with attempting something similar in English, without being able to draw on a precedent in English language literature, making the adoption of the abovementioned “foreignising” methodology convenient. An awareness of the critical discourses with regard to Doski Sud’by has helped when seeking to gauge the success of renderings and in identifying the textual, literary and discursive features at play. However, important conflicts amongst critical readings, as well as unresolved questions pertaining to the text have necessitated that I forge both my own reading of it and a unique methodology for translating it. The centrepiece of the edition is, of course, the Russian manuscripts themselves and, because this is the first English rendering of the bulk of the text, the primary aim has been to attempt to replicate them as faithfully as possible. While the presence of the original alongside the translation is intend-

70

Aoife Gallagher

ed to encourage readers to look to the Russian, an understanding of how the text functions has informed attempts at retaining its poetic elements and overlapping modes of discourse in English translation. Together with the retention of the manuscripts’ fragmentary character, it is hoped this new rendering will provide a way of accessing the material which is free from the “abusive infidelities” of previous editions.

NOTES 1 2 3

4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Andrea Hacker, ‘Velimir Khlebnikov’s Doski Sud’by: Text, Discourse, Vision’ (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, 2002). Ibid., p. 21. Paul Schmidt, ‘Excerpt From The Tables of Destiny’, Collected Works of Velimir Khlebnikov. Vol. 1: Letters and Theoretical Writings, Ed. C. Douglas, Cambridge, Mass., 1987. Vɟlimir Chlɟbnikɨv, Sɨbrɚniɟ sɨþinɟnij, Ed. Vladimir Markov, München, 1968-1972. Cf. Babkov’s 2000 edition of the work: Vasilij Babkov, Velimir Chlebnikov. Doski Sud’by, Moskva, 2000. Philip E. Lewis, ‘The Measure of Translation Effects’, Difference in Translation, Ed. J. Graham, Ithaca, New York, 1985. Maria Tymoczko, ‘Post-colonial Writing and Literary Translation’, Post-colonial Translation: Theory and Practice, Eds. S. Bassnett & H. Trivedi. London and New York, 1999, p. 22. Ibid., p. 29. Ibid., p. 29. Hacker, ‘Velimir Khlebnikov’s Doski Sud’by: Text, Discourse, Vision’, p. 92. Ibid., p. 112. Ibid., p. 102. Ibid., p. 90. Ibid., p. 90. Ibid., p. 121. Ibid., p. 117. R.V. Dugɚnɨv, Vɟlimir Chlɟbnikɨv. Prirɨdɚ tvɨrþɟstvɚ, Moskva, 1990, pp. 298-300.