Mikhail Lozinskii’s translation of Dante’s Divina commedia, produced during the years 1939–1945, has acquired legendary status in Russian culture and is still regarded as the canonical Russian version of the work.  This chapter provides a broad contextualization of the translation in order to pinpoint important factors contributing to its status in general and its significance for contemporary readerships in particular. Drawing on two cultural myths — the myth of the Soviet translator and the Dante myth in Russian culture, the chapter explores the relationship between translation and target culture specific to the conditions of Soviet communism, under which translation at times took on the function of substitute for original writing. 

This is an archival publication with an introductory article. The text published is a 1953 manuscirpt variant of Georgij Šengeli's translation of Byron's Don Juan, comprising the Dedication and First Canto (p. 366–445). The article (p. 342–365) contextualizes Georgij Šengeli's attempt to produce a pentameter translation of the work in 1953, having published  a translation in iambic hexameter in 1947. The controversies over Šengeli´s first translation are discussed againts the background of biographical archival material and samples from both translations as well as from the translation made by Tat´jana Gnedič, which was published in 1959 and became canonical. The manuscript is published togehter with the English original, Šengeli's 1947 text and Gnedič´s 1959 version.

This article presents an archival finding — the first parts of Byron’s Don Juan translated by Georgii Shengeli in 1953 in iambic pentameter instead of the hexameter he used for his 1947 edition of the work. The fragment is discussed against the background of the critical campaign that was launched against Shengeli in the early 1950s. It is compared with the published version  as well as with Tatiana Gnedich’s 1959 translation with particular  attention to disputed features.

In the Soviet Union, practices of indirect literary translation, particularly the use of interlinear intermediates, were institutionalized in the early 1930s through special terminology, specific administrative treatment within the literary apparatus, and educational efforts. It prospered until the end of the Soviet era. At the same time, such practices were intensely debated and criticized, rendering problems of indirect translation both visible and articulated in a unique way. Drawing on archival sources, this article presents an overview of such issues, taking into consideration the heretofore scant attention given the subject in Western as well as Russian scholarship. Conceptualizing the massive Soviet experience in the field, it aims at providing new perspectives on the phenomenon of indirect translation.

This article presents the career of the Russian poet-translator Mark Tarlovskii (1902–1952) through the prism of the trickster archetype as applied to Soviet culture by Mark Lipovetsky (2011). Drawing on both published and archival material, the article traces Tarlovskii’s navigations through “cynical culture” in the Soviet 1930s and 1940s. While these were arguably survival strategies on the part of the translator, they had as yet unrecognized implications for the field of literary translation and Soviet “nationalities culture” at the time. Furthermore, these navigations help to unearth a “southern subjectivity” whose significance for Russian culture of the epoch is still understudied.

This introduction problematizes the notion of context in relation to translation and provides a short overview of Russian translation history, situating the chapters of the book in a chronological and theoretical framework.

Настоящая статья посвящена русской истории перевода периода 1945–1953 гг. В позднем сталинизме становится акутальным ряд проблем, которые подспудно существовали в контексте советского перевода и раньше, но стали приобретать все более острый характер в ходе послевоенных идеологических кампаний. Новые культурно-политические ориентиры, связанные со ждановщиной, борьбой против «низкопоклонства перед Западом» и «космополитизма» ставили переводчиков, которые по самой своей профессии были вынуждены каждодневно иметь дело с «чужим», в особое положение.                                                                             

В переводческой корпорации это время отмечено особо резкими столкновениями, чем отчасти определялись те рамки, в которых тема перевода, несмотря на перемены общего культурного климата, будет обсуждаться в последующие десятилетия. Именно в этот период начинает формироваться концепт «советской школы художественного перевода», ставшей в последствии предметом официальной гордости и едва ли не символом советской культуры. Настоящая статья основана на архивных  и журнальных материалах и посвящена выявлению тех дискурсов, в терминах которых артикулировались те или иные позиции по отношению к художественному переводу в 1947–1954 гг., то есть с момента послевоенного восстановления Секции переводчиков ССП и вплоть до II Съезда советских писателей в 1954 г.

This volume represents the first large-scale effort to address topics of translation in Russian contexts across the disciplinary boundaries of Slavic Studies and Translation Studies, thus opening up new perspectives for both fields. Leading scholars from Eastern and Western Europe offer a comprehensive overview of Russian translation history examining a variety of domains, including literature, philosophy and religion. Divided into three parts, this book highlights Russian contributions to translation theory and demonstrates how theoretical perspectives developed within the field help conceptualize relevant problems in cultural context in pre-Soviet, Soviet, and post-Soviet Russia.

In the Soviet Union, practices of indirect literary translation, particularly the use of interlinear intermediates, were institutionalized in the early 1930s through special terminology, specific administrative treatment within the literary apparatus, and educational efforts. Such practices continued until the end of the Soviet era, but were intensely debated and criticized, rendering problems of indirect translation both visible and articulated in a unique way. Drawing on archival sources, this article presents an overview of such issues, taking into consideration the heretofore scant attention given the subject in both Western and Russian scholarship. Conceptualizing the massive Soviet experience in the field, it aims at providing new perspectives on the phenomenon of indirect translation.