Конфликт историка и переводчика: два произведения Бальзака в русских переводах (1899, 1900, 1995, 2017)

Abstract

What is the correct approach when translating a literary work that dates back two hundred years? Should the translator try to bring the writer closer to the reader, i. e. simplify the text, omitting difficult-to-understand historical realities? Or should they, on the contrary, try to bring the reader closer to the writer by preserving historical realities and trying to explain them in footnotes as much as possible? Each of these options has its followers, and each has a right to exist. Moreover, sometimes both these points of view coexist in one translator’s personality: the linguist in them wants to make the text understandable without explanation, while the historian insists on preserving proper names and realities that are unclear to the modern reader. This paper attempts to resolve this conflict using the examples of old and new translations of two works by Balzac. The first one is “The Physiology of Marriage” (1829), first translated (with omissions) by V.L. Rantsov in 1900, and then by V.A. Milchina (her translation was published for the first time in 1995, and then, with corrections, in 2017). The second work, which Balzac conceived as a continuation of the one mentioned, is “The Minor Troubles of Married Life” (1846). It was first translated by E.G. Beketova in 1899, and then by V.A. Milchina in the same edition in 2017. The translations of Rantsov and Beketova were made according to the rules of their time, when the omission, for example, of proper names, which for some reason were difficult for the translator (the owner of the shadow theater Seraphin or the dancer Fanny Elsler), was considered a completely legal thing and not in the least reprehensible. Indeed, without these names, the text becomes smoother and easier to understand. This temptation is not unknown to modern translators either, but the author of this paper is convinced that it must be fought, especially when translating Balzac. However, this rule also has exceptions, and these are mentioned in the paper.