Vloga prevajalca v razsvetljenstvu in prevodno vzpostavljanje književnih zvrsti : doktorska disertacija /
Doktorska disertacija, katere osišče je historično obdobje razsvetljenstva, je raziskala vlogo prevajalca in prevoda pri vzpostavitvi literarnih žanrov, v tem primeru slovenskega posvetnega gledališča, ki se je rodilo 28. decembra 1789 z Županovo Micko. Za prvo predstavo v slovenščini je Anton Tomaž...
Shranjeno v:
| Glavni avtor: | |
|---|---|
| Drugi avtorji: | |
| Format: | Thesis Knjiga |
| Jezik: | Slovenian |
| Izdano: |
Ljubljana :
[U. Šrimpf],
2018.
|
| Teme: | |
| Oznake: |
Označite
Brez oznak, prvi označite!
|
| Izvleček: | Doktorska disertacija, katere osišče je historično obdobje razsvetljenstva, je raziskala vlogo prevajalca in prevoda pri vzpostavitvi literarnih žanrov, v tem primeru slovenskega posvetnega gledališča, ki se je rodilo 28. decembra 1789 z Županovo Micko. Za prvo predstavo v slovenščini je Anton Tomaž Linhart, najpomembnejši slovenski razsvetljenski mislec, izbral prevod iz nemščine. Le leto zatem je izdal še Ta Veseli dan ali Matiček se ženi, prevod iz francoščine. Čeravno je bil slednji uprizorjen šele leta 1848, predstavljata prevoda v slovenskem slovstvu dolgo nedosežena literarna spomenika. Micka je prevedena po Die Feldmühle, danes skoraj neznanega dunajskega publicista in dramatika Josepha Richterja (1749%1813), Matiček po francoski La Folle Journée, ou Le Mariage de Figaro Pierra Augustina Carona de Beaumarchaisa (1732%1799), slavnega francoskega dramatika, diplomata in podjetnika. Raziskava se je orientirala po dveh začetnih kriterijih, izhajajočih iz samega Linharta: na več nivojih izpričano razsvetljenstvo in dejstvo, da je v paratekstu (Genette 1997) na naslovnicah označil svoj prvi literarni proizvod kot %prenarejen% in drugi kot %obdelan%, s čimer je jasno vzpostavil njuno sekundarnost. Od te določitve, da je Linhart v prvi vrsti prevajalec, ki je živel v turbulentni dobi razsvetljenstva, se je fokus premaknil na usodo njegovih prevodov, k Linhartovi kanonizaciji, v kateri se razkriva prekerno in ambivalentno mesto prevoda v začetnih letih oblikovanja avtonomiziranega literarnega sistema (Juvan 1994b) in v slovstvu nasploh. Tema dvema ravnema je bila nato pridana še digitalno podprta primerjalna analiza izvirnikov in prevodov. Prvi del disertacije predstavlja široka razgrnitev razsvetljensko-prevodnih idej, ozadij in vplivov v prilagojenih okvirih konstelacijskega raziskovanja (Mulsow 2005, Stamm 2005). Prek preučitve razvoja filozofskih idej, literarnih in prevodnih poetik, vloge jezika in pogledov na prevod, ter osebne korespondence in biblio-biografskih podatkov se je pokazalo, kako se je Linhartovo dojemanje razsvetljenskih idej in idealov praktično realiziralo. Po eni strani se je Linhart vedno bolj jasno razvijal v razsvetljenskega misleca: zapustil je stiški samostan, študiral je na Dunaju pri Josephu von Sonnenfelsu, ob vrnitvi v Ljubljano postal član Akademije delovnih mož, objavljal nemške pesmi in pisal nemško dramatiko, nato služboval kot marljiv, najprej nižji, potem najvišji uradnik v regionalni vladi (razsvetljenske) absolutistične monarhije in po preokretu k slovenščini postal ob Zoisu vodilno ime slovenskega preroda, pri čemer je nemščina ostala integralen del Linhartovega znanstvenega ukvarjanja na področju zgodovine. Po drugi je pod vplivom Sonnenfelsovih pogledov na prevod in jezikovne poetike Zoisa razvijal lastno, z razsvetljenstvom in s kranjskimi kulturno-političnimi razmerami motivirano prevodno poetiko. Izkazalo se je, da njegovo literarno delo oscilira med obema skrajnostnima % na enem kraju podrejeno službi dunajski vladi in deželnim stanovom, ter na drugem zaznamovano s prizadevanji proti germanizaciji in za boljši gmotni in intelektualni položaj ljudstva %, kar lahko opišemo s Kantovo razliko med privatno in javno rabo uma. Drugi odsek disertacije je posvečen Linhartovi kanonizaciji, ki se je začela s prvo gledališko recenzijo v zgodovini slovenske publicistike in teatrologije, zgolj dan po premieri Micke, in traja še danes. Izkazalo se je, da je Linhartova pot v nacionalni kanon slovenske literature preizkusni kamen za razumevanje vloge prevajalca in prevoda pri vzpostavljanju literarnih žanrov. Mesto prevoda v kanonu, še zlasti ko gre za rojstna leta literature, spremlja, kljub občasnim bolj objektivnim ali celo kritičnim mnenjem (Pirjevec 1957, Šalamun-Biedrzycka 1991) vseskozi bolj ali manj navzoč element (obrambnega) mehanizma tajbe po vzorcu: %Že, ampak (vseeno ne) %% (Močnik 2006). Že mogoče, da je Linhart, prevajal, a vendar: bodisi ni samo prevajal bodisi gre za prevod, ki je več kot samo prevod. Temu se pridružita še dve komponenti: ideologija izvirnosti in ideološka instrumentalizacija. Po prvi se je Linhartu pripisovalo kar največ izvirnosti % vse tja do sodbe, da je Veseli dan povsem nova, izvirna komedija (Gspan 1956), po drugi je njegova umeščenost v razsvetljenstvo in leta francoske revolucije ponujala zlasti po drugi svetovni vojne interpretativne možnosti z novimi poudarki. Preučitev recepcije je pokazala, da se je ambivalenten odnos do prevoda prenesel tudi na samo oblikovanje knjig in razporeditev besedil, saj na platnicah ponatisov navedbo sekundarne narave besedil zamenja Linhartovo 'avtorstvo', kar smo skušali interpretirati s prevodoslovnim pojmom psevdoizvirnika. Tretji del raziskave postavi kategorije za preučitev Linhartovih prevodnih izdelkov na večplastni, digitalno podprti, primerjalni analizi. Razčlenitev izvirnikov s prevodoma je potekala na dveh ravneh: zunajbesedilni in znotrajbesedilni, pri čemer slednja razpade še naprej na makrostrukturno in mikrostrukturno raven (Kocijančič Pokorn 2009). Raziskovalni poudarki so bili trije: identifikacija prevajalske strategije (Chesterman 2016), razsvetljenskih idej in (ne)izvirnosti. Izkazalo se je, da je prevodna strategija pri obeh prevodih % kljub večjim posegom pri Matičku in dejstvu, da je bila Linhartu prav pri prevajanju slednjega skoraj brez izjeme pripisana izvirnost % presenetljivo podobna. Razlik ne gre pripisati spremenjeni prevodni strategiji, ki bi stremela k večji izvirnosti, temveč teži izvirnikov: na enem polu neznana veseloigra Podeželski mlin, na drugem slovita in zapletena komedija Figarova svatba. Glavne Linhartove strategije so (kreativni) izpust, zamenjava in kompenzacija. Pri prevajanju je se odločil za prizemljen pogovorni jezik, ki dramsko dogajanje premočrtno jasni in strun ne uglašuje previsoko, zato da je razumljiv (in koristen) vsem. Tako se na koncu izkaže, da mestoma sicer sijajen prevod predočuje nekatere razsvetljenske ideje: demokratičnost, enakopravnost, samospozn(ava)nje subjekta, prepoznavanje tuzemske sreče in pomen izobrazbe, toda ob tem izvirnikoma odvzema obete nasilja, predrznost, iskrivost in kompleksnost karakterjev (zlasti ženskih) in ponekod celo zabrisuje razlike med višjimi in nižjim slojem, kar mu uspe zlasti s prenosom kritike razmer na vmesni, uradniško-juridični sloj. This dissertation focuses on the Enlightenment era and investigates the role of the translator and translation in the establishment of Slovene secular theatre. This literary genre was launched in Slovene on December 28th, 1789 with the play Županova Micka (Micka, the Mayor%s Daughter). This first-play ever staged in Slovene was a translation from German by Anton Tomaž Linhart, the most prominent Slovene Enlightenment thinker. Soon afterward, in 1790, a second publication followed, Ta Veseli dan ali Matiček se ženi (The Merry Day, or Matiček Gets Married), a translation from French. Although the second play was staged only in 1848, the two translations stand as a long unchallenged landmark in Slovene literary history. Whereas Micka is a translation of Die Feldmühle (The Country Mill) by Joseph Richter (1749%1813), an almost forgotten Viennese publicist, playwright, and writer, Matiček is a translation from the French La Folle Journée, ou Le Mariage de Figaro (The Mad Day, or The Marriage of Figaro) by the famous French playwright and polymath Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais (1732%1799). The research was conducted in line with two initial criteria, starting from Linhart himself: his Enlightenment ideas, attested at several levels, and the fact that in the paratexts (Genette 1997) on the covers he designated his first literary product as being %remade% (prenarejen) and the second one as %reworked% (obdelan), thus clearly establishing their secondary status. From this definition of Linhart primarily as a translator, who lived in the turbulent era of the Enlightenment, the focus turns to the fate of his translations and to the canonization of Linhart, which reveals the precarious and ambivalent position of translations in the first years of the formation of an autonomous literary system (Juvan 1994b) and in literary history in general. These two levels are then supplemented by a digitally-supported comparative analysis of the originals and the translations. The first section of the dissertation presents a broad view of the Enlightenment and translation ideas, backgrounds, and influences, using an adapted framework derived from constellation research (Mulsow 2005; Stamm 2005). Through an investigation of the development of philosophical ideas, literary and translation poetics, the role of language and views on translation, and personal correspondence and bibliographical/biographical data, the research shows how Linhart%s perception of the Enlightenment era with its ideas and ideals was realized practically. On the one hand, he clearly developed as an Enlightenment thinker: he left the Stična monastery, he studied in Vienna with Joseph von Sonnenfels, and, after returning to Ljubljana, he became a member of the Academia Operosorum Labacensium, he published German poems and wrote German plays, and he worked as a diligent state official%low-ranking at first, but reaching the highest position in the regional government of the (enlightened) absolutistic monarchy. After he switched to writing in Slovene, along with Sigmund Zois he became the leading name of the Slovene national rebirth, even though German remained an integral part of Linhart%s scholarly work as an influential historian. On the other hand, under the influence of Sonnenfels%s views on translation and Zois%s linguistic poetics, he developed his own translation poetics, motivated by the Enlightenment and the Carniolan cultural and political situation. It turned out that his literary work oscillates between two extremes%on the one hand, service to the Viennese government and the territorial estates (Landstände), and on the other hand efforts against Germanization and for the improvement of the economic and intellectual position of the local people%which may be described with the help of Kant%s distinction between the private and public use of reason. The second section of the dissertation is dedicated to the canonization of Linhart, which began with the first theatrical review in the history of Slovene press and theatre studies, only one day after the opening night of Micka, and is still taking place today. As it turned out, Linhart%s journey into the Slovene national canon is a touchstone for understanding the role of the translator and translation in the formation of literary genres. The position of translations in canonized literature%especially concerning the first formative years of literature, despite occasional more objective or even critical opinions (Pirjevec 1957; Šalamun-Biedrzycka 1991)%is usually accompanied by a more or less explicit element of the (defense) mechanism known as denial, which functions according to the following pattern: %yes, but (not really) %% (Močnik 2006). Yes, it may be true that Linhart translated, but: he either did not just translate, or his translation is more than just a translation. Two additional components are added to this: the ideology of originality and ideological instrumentalization. Along the lines of the first, Linhart%s translation has been attributed as much originality as possible%all the way to the judgement that his translation of Matiček is a completely new, original comedy (Gspan 1956). The second meant that his crucial position in the Enlightenment and the years of the French Revolution offered new interpretative possibilities, especially after the Second World War. The research on the reception of Linhart%s work showed that ambivalence towards translation was%and still is%reflected even in the design of the books: the covers of the reprints gradually replaced the statement of the secondary nature of Linhart%s translations with his %authorship.% Here, a concept from translation studies, %pseudo-original,% is offered as a possible interpretation. The third section of the research, based on the findings of the previous two, develops specific categories for examining Linhart%s translations through a multilayered digitally supported comparative analysis. The breakdown of the originals and their translations took place on two levels, extratextual and intertextual, the latter being further divided into the macrostructural and microstructural levels (Kocijančič Pokorn 2009). Three aspects of research were emphasized: the identification of a translation strategy (Chesterman 2016), Enlightenment ideas, and (non)originality. Despite many changes in Matiček and the almost unanimous canonical verdict of originality while translating from Beaumarchais, the analysis revealed that the translation strategy in Micka and Matiček was quite similar. The resulting differences can be attributed to the different complexity of the originals, rather than to a different strategy that would strive towards originality: on the one hand, the unknown comical theatre piece Die Feldmühle, and on the other hand the famous and complex comedy The Marriage of Figaro. Linhart%s main strategies are (creative) omission, replacement, and compensation. Linhart chose to use down-to-earth, colloquial speech, which keeps the theatrical events clear, and he opted against complex artistic language, so that everyone could understand (and benefit from) it. The analysis also showed that Linhart's sometimes quite brilliant translation brings some Enlightenment ideas to the fore (i.e., equality, democratic ideas, subjective self-recognition, the recognition of earthly happiness, and the importance of education) but at the same time it disarms the originals of hints of violence, arrogance, eloquence, and complexity of some characters (especially women) and sometimes even blurs the difference between the upper and lower class. The translator achieves this with the relocation of social critique from the attack of the privileged aristocracy to the criticism of the intermediate, bureaucratic-judiciary class. |
|---|---|
| Opis knjige/članka: | Mentorica Nike Kocijančič Pokorn. |
| Fizični opis: | 456 str. : ilustr., tabele ; 30 cm. |
| Bibliografija: | Bibliografija: str. 409-455. Povzetek ; Summary. |