Lingual-Stylistic Peculiarities of G. Byron's "The Prisoner of Chillon" and "Sonnet on Chillon", and Their Reproduction in the Translations by P. Hrabovs'kyi, V. Mysyk, M. Kabaliuk and V. Zhukovs'kyi

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH OF UKRAINE

THE IVAN FRANKO NATIONAL UNIVERITY IN L`VIV

The Hryhoriy Kochur Department

of Translation Studies

and Contrastive Linguistics

Lingual-Stylistic Peculiarities of G. Byron`s “The Prisoner of Chillon” and “Sonnet on Chillon”, and Their Reproduction in the Translations by P. Hrabovs`kyi, V. Mysyk, M. Kabaliuk, and V. Zhukovs`kyi

Done by:

_____________

a fourth-year student

of the group Inp-42

Supervised by:

______________

L`VIV 2008

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1. THE NOTION OF AUTHOR`S AND TRANSLATOR`S STYLE AND THEIR INTERRELATION IN THE TARGET TEXT

1.1 Style as a literary notion and its reproduction in translation

1.2 Stylistic peculiarities of G. Byron's poem “The Prisoner of Chillon” as a literary work

1.3 Translation methods and translation styles of V. Zhukovs`kyi, P. Hrabovs`kyi, and M. Kabaliuk as translators of G. Byron's poem “The Prisoner of Chillon”

1.4 Translation methods and translation styles of P. Hrabovs`kyi, V. Mysyk and D. Pavlychko as translators of G. Byron's “Sonnet on Chillon”.

Chapter 2. THE REPRODUCTION OF STYLE-CREATING MEANS OF DIFFERENT LEVELS IN THE TRANSLATIONS OF “THE PRISONER OF CHILLON” AND “SONNET ON CHILLON”

2.1 The peculiarities of graphical expression as the style-forming means and their rendering

2.2 Alliteration, assonance, consonance and onomatopoeia as phonetic style-creating means

2.3 Morphological style-creating means and their reproduction

2.4 Lexical means in poetic style-creating and their transference

2.5 Syntax as a style-creating means and its rendering

2.6 Lingual-stylistic peculiarities of the prosodic means and their rendering

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION

The words of M. Arnold, a prominent English poet and essayist, who claims that it is time for Byron to take up the place he deserves [2: 160], may be as well applied to the Ukrainian translators and literary scholars: it is time to introduce the heritage of the famous English poet to the Ukrainian reader in its full scope. The first steps in this direction were accomplished by M. Kostomarov, who translated 6 poems by G. Byron into Ukrainian in the year 1841. Since that time G. Byron's works aroused interest of such translators as P. Kulish, I. Franko, Lesya Ukrainka, P. Hrabovs`kui, V. Samiylenko, V. Mysyk, D. Zahul, Ju. Korets`kyi, D. Palamarchuk and M. Kabaliuk. According to L. Herasymchuk, up till the year 1985 into Ukrainian there have been translated and published about 100 printer's sheets of G. Byron`s works [7: 159], such poems as “Mazeppa” and “Cain” being among them. Among the more recent publications of G. Byron`s works one may name the collection “George Gordon Byron. Works” [27]. Some of the poems included into the book were translated into Ukrainian by Valeriya Bohuslavs`ka, the translator of the majority of the works presented, for the first time.

I. Franko once named Byron and Shakespeare “the two giants who generally started literature” [qtd. in: 6: 157]. Despite the fact that Byronism as a trend was not very popular in Ukrainian original poetic works, Ukrainian poets were familiar with G. Byron`s works; at first, via the Russian translations by V. Zhukovs`kyi, M. Lermontov and F. Tiutchev, and later - in Ukrainian translations, of which the most prominent were those done by I. Franko [6: 155-156]. It is not uncommon for a translator to generally study the creativity and personality of the author whom he translates, thus among the G. Byron`s researchers one may name I. Franko, Ju. Korets`kyi and M. Kabaliuk [11]. A great contribution to the research of G. Byron and Ukrainian Byroniana was made by such representatives of Literature Studies as K. Shakhova, L. Herasymchuk [6], I. Lozyns`kyi [16], O. Tsishchyk [20], D. Kuzyk [14], [15], M. Novykova and M. Tiutiunnyk [17] as well as R. Zorivchak [10] and O. Dzera [8]. Their studies encompassed a variety of aspects, beginning from the study of the great poet's both personality and biography in the correspondence with their influence on his works, or history of G. Byron`s translations and their contrast and comparison, to the study of the main themes and topics broached in poet's creativity, and his style.

This paper researches the lingual-stylistic peculiarities of the formal aspect of style reproduction: the way the author's style is created via the combination of different artistic means at all levels of language; and its reproduction by rendering or compensation of the latter. The aim of the research is to study the possible methods and procedures which may be applied for the reproduction of specific formal means and the influence of each separate translator's decision in this respect on the style of the translation generally. Poetic works by G. Byron are the object of the research; and lingual-stylistic peculiarities of G. Byron`s “The Prisoner of Chillon” and “Sonnet on Chillon”, and their reproduction in the translations by P. Hrabovs`kyi, V. Mysyk, M. Kabaliuk, and V. Zhukovs`kyi are its subject.

This work rests on the following assumptions:

1. Style of a literary work is a combination of content-defining (style-creating factors: imagery, themes, problems touched upon in the text, genre norms) and form-defining (style-creating means: lingual expressive means with their lexical and syntactic structures and acoustic peculiarities) elements, which are interrelated and influence each other;

2. Translators cannot but express their interpretation, views and beliefs in their translation, thus their personality influences translation choices, and correspondently, the style of the translation;

3. Translator's style can be considered a “style within the style” with the variations and small differences within the author's style;

4. To achieve such a result, translator has to reproduce both, the content-defining and the form-defining elements in their interconnection, paying attention not only to the general mood of the work and the problems discussed by the author, but also to the formal lingual means of their expression, diverse and numeral they may be, as it is the latter that shape the style the way the tiniest pieces of mosaic shape the picture.

The present work concentrates mainly on that second part of style reproduction and researches what formal elements create the style at different levels, ways of their rendering and their overall influence on the style reproduction.

The aim of this paper is to contrast the style of the poem and the styles of its translations, finding the convergent and divergent features in their building elements and defining their impact at the correspondent level as well as generally at the level of a poem. Special attention is dedicated to the graphical level and prosody, which are discussed separately from the other levels of language, as well as to the study of compensation by the means of other levels.

In the course of research different methods were used, quantitative, comparative, contrastive and oppositional being among them.

As the material for the research, it was decided to take poem “The Prisoner of Chillon” and “Sonnet on Chillon” by G. Byron in the translations by V. Zhukovs`kyi, P. Hrabovs`kyi, M. Kabaliuk, (“The Prisoner of Chillon”) and P. Hrabovs`kyi, V. Mysyk, and D. Pavlychko as the variety of artistic means at all the language levels provides a rich base for the study. Moreover, the Ukrainian translations of “The Prisoner of Chillon” and “Sonnet on Chillon” are a good example of diachronic multiplicity, which is the usual case for the Ukrainian translated literature. Each of the translations discussed above met the requirements of its time, having its purposes and the means of their achievement. The evolution of translators` aims and their methods may serve as a basis for the study of methods evolution in Translation Studies in general.

The introduction focuses upon the theoretical premises of the research, its topic and objectives.

The first chapter covers the study of theoretical problems discussed in the research, outlines the stylistic peculiarities of the G. Byron`s works studied, and describes the translation methods of V. Zhukovs`kyi, P. Hrabovs`kyi, V. Mysyk, D. Pavlychko and M. Kabaliuk as their translators.

The second chapter discusses the peculiarities of the style-creating means reproduction of G. Byron`s “The Prisoner of Chillon” and “Sonnet on Chillon” at all the language levels.

The results of the research are summarised in the conclusions.

Chapter 1. THE NOTION OF AUTHOR`S AND TRANSLATOR`S STYLE AND THEIR INTERRELATION IN THE TARGET TEXT

1.1 Style as a literary notion and its reproduction in translation

The notion of style in general and of the style of the particular author is rather vague and ambiguous. A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles lists in this entry 28 definitions divided into three main groups: I) stylus, pin, stalk; II) writing; manner of writing (hence also of speaking); III) Manner, fashion [36:1205-1206]. As this paper studies lingual-stylistic peculiarities, that are those which are connected with language, we will focus on the semems of the second group. It includes 7 points, one of them being obsolete and two more not related to the belles-lettres. The remaining four are the following:

Style, sb. <…> 13. The manner of expression characteristic of a particular writer (hence of an orator), or of a literary group or period; a writer`s mode of expression considered in regard to clearness, effectiveness, beauty and the like. <…>

14. In generalized sense: Those features of literary composition which belong to form and expression rather than to the substance of the thought or method expressed. <…>

15. A manner of discourse, or tone of speaking, adopted in addressing others or in ordinary conversation.

16. A form of words, phrase, or formula, by which a particular idea or thought is expressed. [36:1206]

The Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language in 11 volumes is far less detailed and provides four semems, the first two relevant to the Literature Studies:

Style. 1. The combination of the features characteristic of the art in definite time and of definite trend or distinctive of individual manner of artist as to his idea and artistic form. <…>

2. The combination of methods in linguistic means usage, characteristic of particular writer, or literary work, trend, genre, etc. // The combination of peculiar features in discourse organisation, manner of linguistic expression. // The discourse organisation as to the syntactic norms and rules of word usage [35].

The Literature Studies Dictionary gives rather similar definition of the style, as well as The Comprehensive Dictionary of the Modern Ukrainian Language [33], but it also emphasizes the notion of author's style:

Author`s style - is a combination of the particular features of author`s creativity, which make his works different from the works of other authors [34:642].

As we can see, the definitions are rather broad and ambiguous, NED speaks of clearness, effectiveness and beauty of writer's mode, while the Ukrainian dictionaries say nothing of the kind, but concentrate on the usage of expressive means, discourse organization and grammatical rules. V. Vinogradov explains this ambiguity in understanding of the notion of style by the fact that different researchers choose different principles as a basis for definition [4]. Indeed, V. Alekseev views style as “something original and similar to nothing” and believes it to be close to aesthetic taste, though, not quite the same thing; and dwells on the deviation from norm as a necessary characteristic of artistic style [1]. A very interesting approach is presented by O. Sokolov and V. Fashchenko, who differentiate style-creating factors (writer`s imagery, themes, problems touched upon in the text, and genre norms) and style-creating means (form elements of the artistic text: composition, lingual expressive means with their lexical and syntactic structures and acoustic peculiarities) [34: 642]. Since the reproduction of the former was studied by O. Tsishchyk in the article “Contrastive Analysis of the Translations of G. Byron`s Poem “The Prisoner of Chillon” (“Зіставний аналіз перекладів поеми Дж. Байрона “The Prisoner of Chillon”) [20], where he contrasted the poem and the Sonnet on Chillon with their translations by P. Hrabovs`kyi, D. Pavlychko, M. Kabaliuk and V. Zhukovs`kyi as to the reproduction of content and idea of G. Byron`s creation, it is the latter which will be discussed in this paper. We believe that the study of the form elements is better to be conducted according to the levels of language; and their reproduction should be studied at all the levels, graphical and prosodic including. Moreover, not only the reproduction of usually characteristic features should be studied, but also of those which are highly unusual for the author, and thus violate his usual style of writing.

The reproduction of author's style in the translations to other languages is a very interesting problem, the one which has been frequently discussed by numerous scholars: I. Kashkin, K. Chukovskiy, A. Parshyn. For instance, A. Parshyn states that style and manner of writing of the translation should be the same as in the original, and strongly supports the “stylistic assimilation” (that is, when the style of the original and translation is similar if not the same) as opposed to “stylistic creolisation” (so-called transfusions) [19]. R. Zorivchak defines the “ideal style of translation” as “the best possible representation of author's idiostyle, the result of finding of the best means to express sense, and to render functions of all components of the original in the target language” [qtd. in: 19].

It is a well known fact, that each translator, as each reader in fact, views the source text in a different way. Furthermore, translator's personality influences not only the process of reading and interpreting of the original text, but also the process of actually writing the translation. As K. Chukovskiy properly notes, each translator introduces into translated work a part of his own personality [21]. Thus, the notion of translator's style and the vision of translator as author's rival appear. The notion of a translator as a figure not dependent on the author can be seen in the views of the school of Manipulation, or descriptivists. J. Holmes and A. Lefevere believed, that translation products were to be traced back to the sociohistorical conditions of their emergence in the (mainly literary) "systems", "йtats de sociйtй", "fields" or "spaces" making up the host environments; their main idea was that the "sociocultural inscription" of translation can be described and accounted for [23]. Neither deep structure level, nor abstract core of meaning were important, and their translation method presupposed domestication, thus leaving the author`s style out of the scope of translator`s interest.

The Soviet school of translation, as well as the Ukrainian one later, considers that for the most adequate rendering of the original the more translator is able to reproduce the author's style, the better. For instance, P. Antokol`skiy, M. Auezov, and M. Ryl`s`kyi believe that translator has a right for manifestation in his work of his personality, and of his own style, correspondently. Their position is based on the fact, that any creativity is individual, and translator cannot exclude his personality from the process of translation [qtd. in: 1]. The school of deconstruction goes even further in this respect: translator himself chooses which implications of the original he wants to make explicit, what possibilities presented by the original he will take and develop, and what he decides to ignore. Another approach is close to the hermeneutic project by L. Kolomiets` [13], when lingual, literal and socio-cultural levels, and author's style, correspondently should remain as intact as possible. This approach is characteristic of H. Kochur`s school of translation, the main rule of which is to render and preserve as much as possible. There exists also the third view on this problem. G. Gachehciladze attempts at combining two previous approaches and states that translation should equally combine the author`s style and the translator`s style, thus being a kind of hybrid [5].

In this paper we agree with the position of V. Alekseev: translator's style has a right for existence, but only within the author's style, which should be prior to translator [1]. This idea is supported by the existence of numerous translations, which proved the possibility of adequate transference of the author's style, translations of “The Prisoner of Chillon” and Sonnet on Chillon among them. Therefore we can assume the existence of some generalized conclusions and norms of style rendering, which can be singled out for the better understanding of the process and then used to help translators in their work. In this paper we will try to find such helpful scenarios at each level discussed.

Nevertheless, there are no ready-made rules how to render author's style, and each artistic text demands special approach with its unique variation of methods used. It has been noticed that the more translator likes the works of the author he is to translate, and the more his worldview resembles that of the author's one, the less problems translator is likely to encounter and the better rendering of style he is likely to perform. We recognize the impossibility of full rendering of author's style in a translated work; however, we believe that this aim is worth at least trying to achieve.

1.2 Stylistic peculiarities of G. Byron's poem “The Prisoner of Chillon” as a literary work

In order to render style-creating means, it is necessary to define which of the variety of formal means the author uses to create his style. It is natural, that some formal means author may use frequently, while others he may never address at all. Thus, those formal means which are frequently used by author and are characteristic of his works constitute style-creating means of the given author; and their rendering is transference of the author's style. However, it is necessary to remember, that style deals not only with the constant repetition of some elements while avoiding others; its other part is represented by violations, not only by violations of the source language norms by the author, but also by his violations of his own established style: usage of uncharacteristic, usually avoided means; and avoidance of means which were frequently used before. These should not be overlooked.

Before we start discussion of the poem in question, it is desirable to outline some general features characteristic of G. Byron's style. Though G. Byron recognised the authority of the Enlighters and used in his creativity the poetic achievements of Classicism and Sentimentalism, he is a representative of the Romanticism, developing the stylistic innovations of W. Wordsworth [12: 9-11]. In literature, Romanticism generally found recurrent themes in the evocation or criticism of the past, the cult of "sensibility" with its emphasis on women and children, the heroic isolation of the artist or narrator, and respect for a new, wilder, untrammeled and "pure" nature. These features can be easily traced not only in G. Byron`s poems of London and Swiss period, but also in his personal creation: the special type of Byronian hero.

Je. Klimenko mentions: “Byron's poetic language and his views on style was developing throughout all his creative life” [12: 11], and names the use of alliteration, shortened form of words, grammatical archaisms, exotic words, colloquial lexis, emphatic “do”, metaphors, personifications, simile, fixed phrases and idioms, puns, enumerations, climax, synonymic chains, and parallel constructions as principal for his creative method. Though being widely used by G. Byron in general, obviously not all of these play an important role as style-creating elements in “The Prisoner of Chillon” and “Sonnet on Chillon”; and are more widely employed in poet's earlier or later works.

“The Prisoner of Chillon” may be called a typical poem of G. Byron due to its themes and images [25]; and its style-creating means are usual for the Swiss period of poet's creativity. While G. Byron himself views this poem as “a fable”, The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes places it within the category of romantic verse-tales, such as “The Giaour”, and “The Bride of Abydos” [24]. It must be noted, though, that “The Prisoner of Chillon” appeared later in 1816, after the haste string of similar verse-tales, and marked the renewal of poet's interest of the genre. Thus, it has some differences from other G. Byron's works of the same type. O. Tsishchyk properly calls this poem a “psychological study” [20: 82]. Alongside with the strong suggestion of poet's verse, it addresses the readers` feelings directly; and hence its “sincerity of emotions and simplicity of utterance” [24], therefore a need for alliteration and onomatopoeia arises to lull the reader into the tender flow of the poem with its dark, damp atmosphere of the cellar, roaming foam of Rhone, yearning and grief of a living soul; and slow, but steady establishment of the feeling of oppression, as all the hope dissolves. Rhyme, inner rhyme including, serves generally the same aim. The previous verse-tales written by G. Byron were full of passion, tragedy and heroics at times boarding on pathos. Some of this still may be true for the “Sonnet on Chillon”; hence 5 exclamatory marks for 14 lines of the verse, while there are only 9 of them altogether for the much longer “The Prisoner of Chillon”. As the poet speaks of human spirit, tender processes taking place in human mind, and such deep incarnate notions like freedom, faith, love and so on, he not infrequently addresses abstract notions. Once more, this is better expressed in “Sonnet on Chillon”, but the poem itself also contains many examples: Spirit, Mind, Liberty, Freedom, Persecution, Sin, Paradise. The capitalisation of the first letter in all these cases adds emphasis to such personification. For the similar purpose address to inanimate objects is used: Sweet bird! Chillon! Nature is not only the background for the mood of protagonist, but also a source for numerous metaphors and simile in nearly all poet's works, sometimes nearly assuming the role of character itself. Its description takes a large part of the poem, especially sections ten and thirteen, and should be paid proper attention as the images G. Byron derives from nature and the means he uses in its description are of great importance for the mood and style of the whole poem. In such excerpts G. Byron tends to use parallel constructions, as well as synonymic chains, and enumeration. The two latter together with climax are poet's frequent tool for expressing tension and strong emotions.

Although G. Byron often uses mythology and exotic flavour of foreign countries in his poems, “The Prisoner of Chillon” recounts the story of decay of previously strong and proud human soul in order to reveal horrid nature and inadmissibility of imprisonment of one human being by other. However, some Biblical motifs are present in the poem: this is “faith” about which protagonist speaks in the first section, and the image of the bird as presumably the soul of dead brother from the Heaven. Nevertheless, G. Byron's “faith” is not entirely religious; it has more to do with belief in liberty and fight for it. Moreover, it has to do with the fact that Bonivar, prototype of the protagonist, was well-schooled in theology, and G. Byron was aware of the fact, as he indicates it in his foreword to the poem. Nonetheless, this is the point, in which the three translations studied here are different, and offer distinct views of this theme: V. Zhukovs`kyi draws readers` attention to the religious aspect; P. Hrabovs`kyi focuses on fighting for liberty, and M. Kabaliuk manages to combine the two.

The style of the “Sonnet on Chillon” differs as it is more of an irrepressible call for liberty, not in the context of fate or belief of separate person, but as universal all-human right for freedom. Hence more sophisticated language and richness of particularly bright and livid metaphors, exclamations, and high spirited, full of pathos lines.

Thus, “The Prisoner of Chillon” is a sample of G. Byron`s late Romanic verse-tale with a strong lyrical aspect and devoided of “exotocism” of poet`s other similar works. The similarities and differences of the style of this poem as opposed to G. Byron`s general style have to be taken into consideration in the process of translation.

1.3 Translation methods and translation styles of V. Zhukovs`kyi, P. Hrabovs`kyi, and M. Kabaliuk as translators of G. Byron's poem “The Prisoner of Chillon”

A. Pushkin called V. Zhukovs`kyi a “genius of translation” [9]; and it is not a mere coincidence that “The Prisoner of Chillon” is not only known and published in Russia almost exclusively in his translation, even though new translations appear, but is truly believed to be unsurpassed [20: 83]. A possible reason of such a success may be the fact that V. Zhukovs`kyi translated only those poetic works which were close to his worldview in their ideological and aesthetical values [9], and therefore resonated with his own poetic world. V. Zhukovs`kyi is known for his transfusions and transformations of the source texts; he himself admitted to introducing changes within the translated works and never aimed at accuracy or full equivalence of translation. His main purpose was to introduce motifs and ideas of G. Byron's poem to Russian literature, and not to preserve the poet's style. That is the cause of some liberties taken with the text: omission of the “Sonnet on Chillon”, lengthening the poem by introduction of his own lines, restructuring images, and so on. Nevertheless, the aesthetic value of the translation cannot be diminished and its successful findings cannot be denied, despite the changes.

V. Zhukovs`kyi interpreted “The Prisoner of Chillon” as melancholic, tragic and sorrowful story of a person; he did not render the image of a fighter because he was not a fighter himself [9]. But the spiritual closeness to the “lyrical” aspect of G. Byron`s poetry gave him the opportunity to render this aspect of the poem if not flawlessly, than not far from that. Nevertheless, despite the closeness of translator's and author's styles, they are not the same. Nor is it the compromised “style within the style”, as when the choice is to be made, V. Zhukovs`kyi eliminates and changes not only style-creating means, but style-creating factors as well.

As P. Hrabovs`kyi admitted that the main thing he valued G. Byron`s poetry for was “the love of freedom” [qtd. in: 20: 82]. That is why he chose the other dominant idea of “The Prisoner of Chillon” for the leitmotif of his translation: he focused on the social protest [20: 83] and fighting for liberty. Like V. Zhukovs`kyi, P. Hrabovs`kyi was a poet himself, and his interpretation of G. Byron's poem proves to be similar to his poetic world and ideology. Thus, P. Hrabovs`kyi is spiritually close to G. Byron - “fighter for freedom”, and his translation resembles that part of G. Byron's style and personality which is passionate, ardent, and uncompromising. Although, P. Hrabovs`kyi developed the part of style-creating factors almost alternative to the one chosen by V. Zhukovs`kyi; in some formal features, that is, style-creating factors (prosody, for instance) he followed V. Zhukovs`kyi`s translation decisions. This may be the reason of some contradictions within his translation which are mentioned by O. Tsishchyk [20: 83], and the appearance of the thought that P. Hrabovs`kyi translated “The Prisoner of Chillon” from V. Zhukovs`kyi`s translation. However, this idea is wrongful. That he translated “Sonnet on Chillon” which was left out by V. Zhukovs`kyi, is but one proof; P. Hrabovs`kyi`s letters, in which he confided that friends helped him in his translations from English - another, but the very translation speaks for itself. In many cases P. Hrabovs`kyi`s version is closer to the original, or renders the nuances missed in V. Zhukovs`kyi`s translation. Moreover, P. Hrabovs`kyi does not follow the Russian translator, when he introduces changes to the poem; and the accent on the “fight for liberty” foreign to V. Zhukovs`kyi leave no doubt as to the whether P. Hrabovs`kyi used original in his translation. All of these differences will be further demonstrated in details in the course of the analysis of the translators` choices and methods used.

As to the translator's and author's style, P. Hrabovs`kyi does not fully correspond to the “style within the style” rule as well. In some excerpts it is translator's voice that speaks to the readers, not G. Byron's. The abundance of diminutive suffixes, ellipses, usage of pleonasms, and similar poetic means typical of the Ukrainian poetry, but not of the G. Byron's one, sometimes makes it hard to discern G. Byron behind the lines.

However, neither V. Zhukovs`kyi, nor P. Hrabovs`kyi intended to render the style of G. Byron. Their priority was the idea behind the text, and some ideological or aesthetic effect they wanted to achieve. This task they fulfilled; and their translations have served and continue to serve the purpose of dissemination of great poet's ideas and became an important inseparable part of respective literatures.

M. Kabaliuk went even further than two translators discussed above: he combined the views of the poem as a lyrical verse and as a manifest for freedom, and managed to recreate both of these ideas together, in their unity presented by G. Byron. He recognises the significance of G. Byron`s creativity and poet`s importance not only as a representative of a new epoch in literature, but also the founder of the new topics and new artistic froms [11: 128]. Translator`s research of G. Byron`s creativiy gave him the deep comprehension of poet`s ideas and artistic means of their implementation. Being a representative of the Ukrainian school of translation, M. Kabaliuk pays attention to both, form and meaning, as well as their interconnection. Not only his translation is faithful to the philosophic and poetic author's concept, but it is also accurate in the rendering of the formal features [20: 87].

Thus, all the translators done their work in accordance with their understanding of the poem, had their aim (to acquaint the reader with the story, or the main idea, or to represent G. Byron`s poetic might), and made their translation choices in relevance with that.

1.4 Translation methods of P. Hrabovs`kyi, V. Mysyk and D. Pavlychko as translators of G. Byron's “Sonnet on Chillon”

“Sonnet on Chillon” differs from “The Prisoner of Chillon” in style and mood. This difference is not striking, as both of the poetic works have the same author, but author`s voice sounds a bit differently in the poem and the sonnet. At first, one should take into account, that “Sonnet on Chillon” was written as an afterthought to the poem, when G. Byron got to know the tragic details of Bonivar`s fate, and grew to admire this man. The horror of Bonivar`s destiny, admiration which G. Byron felt towards him, and ardous protest against “barred windows” are primary for sonnet. The first lines of poet`s address to Liberty define the whole verse: it is a call to something innate and sacred in human Mind, praise to those, who wear chains as its mark, and condemnation to all, who dared an infringe on it. These style-creating factors define the style-creating means of the poem, and to translate them properly is a challenge not every translator can meet.

P. Hrabovs`kyi`s style was discussed in a previous section; however, as a translator of the “Sonnet on Chillon” P. Hrabovs`kyi is even closer spiritually to G. Byron, than P. Hrabovs`kyi - translator of “The Prisoner of Chillon”. The previously discussed drawbacks of P. Hrabovs`kyi`s style, such as overuse of diminutive suffixes, ellipses, an such, disappear, when the translator fiery and passionately speaks of Freedom, which was similar in his own poetic works. P. Hrabovs`kyi, though, eliminates the form of sonnet. Nevertheless, his “foresong”, for he did not call his rendering of “Sonnet on Chillon” a translation, is a fine example of usage of different translation methods, which will be discussed furtheron.

V. Mysyk, as other translators of the “Sonnet on Chillon”: P. Hrabovs`kyi and D. Pavlychko, was both, a poet and a translator. His translation preserves the form of sonnet, though introduced a different division to it. V. Mysyk`s has some examples of fine and successful translation findings, which will be discussed later at the corresponding level. Among the drawbacks of his translation one may name the irregular use of vocative case, which is used for the address to Liberty, but omitted in the first line and in addressing Chillon.

R. Zorivchak names the D. Pavlychko`s rendering of the sonnet a transfusion [10: 13], as D. Pavlychko, a poet himself, tends to omit images, and even whole lines of the source text, developing those, which he likes and which are close to him. True to say, his rendering includes some very bright translation findings (“найсяйливіша”, “натхненнолиці”, “священний вівтар”), sounds very natural in Ukrainian, and are very melodic. That is why we believe it is worth of studying and is a fine example of translation performed by a talented poet.

A peculiar feature of the Ukrainian translations of the “Sonnet on Chillon” is that all the three translators are poets themselves, and very talented poets at that. Thus, it is not surprising that their translations bear not only the features normative for the time of translation, but also the significant signs of their personalities.

Chapter 2. THE REPRODUCTION OF STYLE-CREATING MEANS OF DIFFERENT LEVELS IN THE TRANSLATIONS OF “THE PRISONER OF CHILLON” AND “SONNET ON CHILLON”

2.1 The peculiarities of graphical expression as the style-forming means and their rendering

At this level we will study the visual organisation of lines, graphons, and punctuation.

The first problem to be discussed is the division of poem into parts and its reproduction, in other words, equlinearity. The following table presents the number of lines in each part of the original and its translations, and the general quantity of lines:

	Original	Zhukovs`kyi	Hrabovs`kyi	Kabaliuk
I	26	26	24	24
II	21	25	22	21
III	21	23	24	21
IV	23	20	28	23
V	15	14	16	16
VI	19	20	20	19
VII	38	46	44	39
VIII	67	78	70	67
IX	20	24	24	20
X	49	50	44	49
XI	18	17	18	20
XII	14	21	12	16
XIII	34	49	32	39
XIV	27	25	28	32
Total	392	438	406	406

As we can see, neither of the translators retained the same number of lines as in the original, adding 14 (P. Hrabovs`kyi and M. Kabaliuk) to 46 (V. Zhukovs`kyi) lines, which resulted in the decompression of images and thoughts.

As to the visual organisation of lines, G. Byron frequently introduces different shifts of the lines. One of the brightest examples is the peculiar visual form in the first and in the eighth part; in the former - at the very beginning, and in the latter - at the very end correspondently. In both cases he shortens two middle lines of the four by the half and thus creates some kind of a circle, which is emphasised by the rhyme and rhythm which is automatically changed. Let's look at the first example:

My hair is gray, but not with years,	Я сивий; хоч не вік, не страх,
Nor grew it white	Що сивину
In a single night,	За ніч одну
As men's have grown from sudden fears [32: 353, I, 1-4]*	Дає і в молодих роках, [29: 16, I, 1-4]

Взгляните на меня: я сед,	Не від лихих старечих днів
Но не от хилости и лет;	Я весь заслаб, я весь змарнів,
Не страх незапный в ночь одну	Не жахом ночі однії,
До срока дал мне седину. [26: 315, I, 1-4]	Що несподівано вража [27: 224, I, 1-4]

The repetition of this graphical stylistic means at the end of the eighth part sets another closed circle encompassing everything in between the first and the eighth part, and thus marks the end of the first nominal part of the poem, when any struggle becomes senseless, as all the loved ones are dead.

As we can see, the special structure and rhyming is rendered by M. Kabaliuk only, while their omission by V. Zhukovs`kyi and P. Hrabovs`kyi smoothes lines and eliminates the possibility to attract reader's attention to the parts emphasised by the author.

G. Byron tends to capitalising the abstract notions he wants to focus his readers` attention on:

Proud of Persecution's rage [32: 354, I, 20]

Of Sin delirious with its dread [32: 359, VIII, 20]

Eternal Spirit of the chainless Mind!

Brightest in dungeons, Liberty! thou art,

[32: 353, sonnet, 1-2]

And Freedom's fame finds wings on every wind [32: 353, sonnet, 8]

Among those, a special group of religious lexis can be singled out:

Oh, God! it is a fearful thing [32: 359, VIII, 13]

* - Here and furtheron the first figure stands for the index of book, the second denotes page, the third is for the number of part and the last - for the number of line.

For they appeal from tyrrany to God. [32: 353, sonnet, 14]

A visitant from Paradise;

For - Heaven forgive that thought; the while [32: 362, X, 34]

P. Hrabovs`kyi and D. Pavlychko did not reproduce this graphical emphasis at all, while other translators rendered it to different scale. For example, V. Zhukovs`kyi uses one word capitalised, while religious lexis is mostly omitted or not capitalised:

О боже! боже! страшно зреть [26: 325, VIII, 17]

Без Промысла, без благ и бед [26: 327, IX, 20]

V. Mysyk`s method in translation of sonnet is directly opposite: he does not capitalise the abstract notions like “ум”, but writes the word “Бог” with capital letter. Even more peculiar is the translation by M. Kabaliuk, when the translator starts with the reproduction of capitalising of all the correspondent words but then switches to writing religious lexis in small letters:

Та Переслідування лють [29: 16, I, 19]

За Бога й волю оддали [29: 16, I, 23]

О боже мій! Який то жах [29: 17, VIII, 13]

В огиднім ліжку смерть, де Гріх [29: 17, VIII, 19]

Лиш бог, душі остання твердь [29: 17, VIII, 66]

Тоді - хай бог мені простить! [29: 17, X, 35]

We believe that the method of translation of such graphons should be more consistent and apply to all the emphasized lexis in question.

G. Byron's use of graphons is not limited to the capitalizing of particular lexis, but also includes shortening of some verbs (bow`d, bann`d, barr`d, suffer`d, perish`d, finish`d, seal`d). Despite the frequency of such shortening, it is done for the sake of rhythm and not for the stylistic effect; therefore we will not study these cases in detail.

The last problem to study at the graphical level is punctuation. One of the most characteristic features of G. Byron's punctuation is a frequent use of dashes - both within the line and at the end of it. Sometimes he uses dashes instead of commas in enumeration order to enlarge the pause and to strengthen their effect:

No child - no sire - no kin had I

No partner in my misery [32: 363, XII, 7-8]

There were no stars - no earth - no time -

No check - no change - no good, no crime - [32: 361, IX, 15-16]

All the translators used different methods to render it. For instance, V. Zhukovs`kyi resorts to decompression and addition of his own images:

С тюрьмой я жизнь сдружил мою:

В тюрьме я всю свою семью,

Все, что знавал, все, что любил,

Невозвратимо схоронил,

И в области веселой дня

Никто уж не жил для меня;

Без места на пиру земном,

Я был бы лишний гость на нем,

Как облако при ясном дне,

Потерянное в вышине

И в радостных его лучах

Ненужное на небесах... [26: 331, XII, 6-17]

P. Grabovs`kyi combines one dash per line to strengthen the caesura with the generalisation of nouns enumerated:

Ніде нікого - вимер рід,

Ні друга в горі - зник і слід... [27: 233, XII, 5-6]

M. Kabaliuk tries to compensate by adding one more line and repeating negative particles, that is, reproducing the effect on the lexical level:

Не мав я батька, ні дітей,

Ані близьких мені людей,

Ні спільника в біді моїй; [29: 18, XII, 7-9]

In other cases G. Byron uses dashes in antithesis, right in the middle of the line so as to strengthen the caesura:

But these were horrors - this was woe

Unmix'd with such - but sure and slow; [32: 359, VIII, 21-22]

I know not well - I never knew - [32: 361, IX, 2]

The author also applies other punctuation means, such as question marks, exclamatory marks, brackets and ellipsis to the stylistic purposes; nevertheless, they cannot be viewed separately from the rhetoric questions, exclamations, ellipses, and detachments, which they are part of. Therefore, their impact will be discussed in more details in the part dedicated to the syntactic level. Nevertheless, we believe that for the sake of comparison and contrast of the punctuation and thus - pauses and peculiarities of the “author`s voice” - the following table recording the most emphatic punctuation marks used will be beneficial:

“The Prisoner of Chillon”

	G. Byron	V. Zhukovs`kyi	P. Hrabovs`kyi	M. Kabaliuk
dashes	61	46	58	79
exclamatory marks	9	17	3	9
queston marks	3	9	7	6
ellipsis	0	37	55	14
brackets	1	0	3	1
colons	23	21	20	12

“Sonnet on Chillon”

	G. Byron	V. Mysyk	D. Pavlychko	P. Hrabovs`kyi
dashes	2	1	3	1
exclamatory marks	5	6	2	3
queston marks	0	0	0	0
ellipsis	0	0	0	1
brackets	0	0	0	0
colons	0	0	0	0

2.2 Alliteration, assonance, consonance and onomatopoeia as phonetic style-creating means

G. Byron's poetry is known for its emotional tension [12: 49]; and while he achieves it via the whole range of both style-creating factors, and means, this tension is always strongly emphasized on a phonetic level. The reproduction of rhyme, which is a strong means of suggestive influence, will be discussed later on in the part dedicated to the rendering of prosody, while in this part we will focus on alliteration, assonance, consonance and onomatopoeia.

Alliteration is very characteristic of all G. Byron's works; and “The Prisoner of Chillon” is not an exclusion. Of special interest is the way poet applies alliteration in collocations; the type of collocation is usually the combination of attribute and a noun, or two synonyms combined by “and”: livid light, full and free, wall and wave, fair face, sweetest song, etc. There are no less than 20 of such collocations in “The Prisoner of Chillon”; and most of them proved to be impossible to translate preserving alliteration. P. Hrabovs`kyi and M. Kabaliuk, for instance, rendered such collocations only once: гучний голос (P. Hrabovs`kyi), xолодні, хриплі (M. Kabaliuk) due to the difference in length of the Ukrainian and English words which does not allow for many synonyms in the same line; and in order to preserve the sense of the whole in general and separate lines in particular.

However, in G. Byron's works alliteration is rarely used on its own, as the author combines it with assonance and consonance:

With marks that will not wear away, [32: 355, II, 14]

'Twas still some solace, in the dearth [32: 355, III, 9]

Lake Leman lies by Chillon's walls [32: 357, VI, 1]

I saw, and could not hold his head [32: 358, VII, 20]

I might have spared my idle prayer - [32: 358, VII, 33]

An eye of most transparent light, [32: 359, VIII, 31]

I know not well - I never knew - [32: 361, IX, 2]

Thus G. Byron's lines acquire sharpness and speed by repetition of phonemes [s]; smooth flow of speech by repetition of [f], [w], [l] combined with vowels; resemblance of a sigh via [h]; or express obvious resentment in combination of [m], [a], [j].

In some cases it is close to paronomasia, as only one or two sounds in a word differ, as in the pairs might-my or eye-light in the previous examples.

Translators rarely manage to reproduce these effects, especially in correspondent lines. V. Zhukovs`kyi, for instance, did not render alliteration or paronomasia effect; however, he not infrequently changes it for assonance and in rare cases applies the repetition of two neighbouring vowel and consonant:

Не будет ввек истреблено [26: 315, II, 16]

Была услада нам в одном [26: 317, III, 9]

Шильон Леманом окружен [26: 319, VI, 1]

Он умер... я ж ему подать

Руки не мог в последний час, [26: 321, VII, 18]

Вотще я их в слезах молил [26: 321, VII, 37]

Как радуга, пленяя нас,

Прекрасно гаснет в небесах; [26: 323, VIII, 36-37]

Но что потом сбылось со мной [26: 323, IX, 1]

Though alliteration is important for the Slavonic poetic tradition, it allows reproduction by assonance or other phonetic effects; the loss of paronomasia, however, needs stronger compensation.

P. Hrabovs`kyi tends to compensation through the means of consonance and repetition of the same words, as in the last two examples:

Отрути повік не звести [27: 225, II, 13]

Нас відхиляла від журби [27: 226, III, 14]

Навколо Леман обляга [27: 228, VI, 1]

Востаннє бачив я його [27: 229, VII, 21]

Так сумно іноді згаса

Веселки промінь чарівний... [27: 230, VIII, 26-27]

Не знаю добре і не знав [27: 231, IX, 2]

Здобудуть волі жертвою страждання

Країні рідній, - швидше б здобули! [27: 233, sonnet, 7-8]

Still, this repetition of the same words even combined with consonance is not enough for the proper reproduction of such a strong phonetic means as paronomasia, as its phonetic effect is weaker.

M. Kabaliuk applies similar approach; but he also uses the compensation on other levels: for instance, parallel constructions, as in the fourth example.

Не стерти вже цього тавра [29: 16, II, 14]

Ми мали втіху там одну [29: 16, III, 11]

Водою Леману Шільйон [29: 17, VI, 1]

Я лиш дививсь. Я марно гриз [29: 17, VII, 20]

Сміявсь над смертю - так цвіте

Веселка в небі - а, проте [29: 17, VIII, 28-29]

Не пам`ятаю - я не жив [29: 17, IX, 2]

In the lines dedicated to the nature, that combination of consonance, alliteration and occasional paronomasia often creates onomatopoeia:

Wash through the bars when winds were high [32: 357, VI, 14]

Its massy waters meet and flow [32: 357, VI, 3]

I heard the torrents leap and gush [32: 363, XIII, 6]

It is worth to mention, that all the translators noticed this peculiarity and used onomatopoeia when translating scenes of nature.

V. Zhukovs`kyi:

И шум над нашей головой

Струй, отшибаемых стеной.

Случалось - бурей до окна

Бывала взброшена волна,

И брызгов дождь нас окроплял;

Случалось - вихорь бушевал, [26: 319, VI, 11-16]

P. Hrabovs`kyi:

Та як там прірва б не ревла [27: 228, VI, 5]

Швиря, зриваючи, вали [27: 228, VI, 12]

Струмці вигукують, рвучи [27: 234, XIII, 9]

M. Kabaliuk:

Гірський щось шепотів йому,

Повз нього теплі води йшли [29: 18, XIII, 18-19]

There are two lines in “Sonnet on Chillon” where phonetic effects are very bright and therefore should be paid special attention to:

For there in thy habitation is the heart [32: 353, sonnet, 3]

And Freedom's fame finds wings on every wind. [32: 353, sonnet, 8]

Unfortunately, neither of translators managed to reproduce it, as the reproduction of phonetic effects in “Sonnet on Chillon” is even harder than in “The Prisoner of Chillon”. Its short form does not allow for the compensation by introducing consonance, or other phonetic means in further lines in the verse, as it was done by translators of the poem. Despite the fact that consonance, which is the most common way of compensation for G. Byron's sound effects, not infrequently lacks strength and power of poet's suggestion in translations, all the translators managed to represent the importance of phonetic counterpart in G. Byron's style.

2.3 Morphological style-creating means and their reproduction

The first problem we will study at this level is the reproduction of emphatic “do”, which is very characteristic for G. Byron's creativity. This means is used in “The Prisoner of Chillon” four times:

The being we so much did love [32: 358, VII, 36]

With links unfasten'd did remain [32: 363, XI, 6]

Which in my very face did smile [32: 364, XIII, 11]

And when I did descend again [32: 365, XIII, 29]

All the translators approached this problem in the same way, rendering this peculiarity via lexical means, although, with some variations. V. Zhukovs`kyi, for instance, heavily relies on decompression and addition of extra lines, and in two cases he omits the reproduction of this emphasis at all, choosing to develop G. Byron's images in his own way:

Холодный смех; и брат мой там

В сырой земле тюрьмы зарыт [26: 321, VII, 42-43]

Не знаю... но опять к стене

Уже прикован не был я [26: 329, XI, 8-9]

Прекрасен, свеж, но одинок

В пространстве был он голубом; [26: 333, XIII, 18-19]

Когда ж на дно тюрьмы моей

Опять сойти я должен был [26: 333, XIII, 40-41]

P. Hrabovs`kyi either combines lexical means with syntactic creating the effect of aposiopesis; or omits the emphasis altogether, when it is impossible:

Любимий... він... кладуть у млі [27: 229, VII, 41]

Вони мене не прикули [27: 233, XI, 5])

Там усміхався острівець [27: 234, XIII, 13]

Від світла швидше!.. Прежня мла [27: 234, XIII, 27]

It is worth to admit, that P. Hrabovs`kyi is the only translator of the three to keep within one line in reproduction of this emphasis, while M. Kabaliuk is the only one to render all cases of its usage:

Був любий брат і мужній друг. [29: 17, VII, 37]

Не знаю; але мій ланцюг

Не прикували до кільця. [29: 17, XI, 6-7]

Мов усміх посилав ясний

Привітно так мені [29: 18, XIII, 13]

Коли ж у морок я зійшов [29: 18, XIII, 33]

As we can see, it is possible to reproduce emphatic “do” on lexical level or combining lexis with syntactic means. In the last case, however, as it is clear from the P. Hrabovs`kyi`s translation, it is easy to overdo with emphasis; thus the two lines sound more tragically and desperate versus the stoic and calm sorrow of the G. Byron`s verse.

One more interesting problem to study is the rendering of number of abstract and non-abstract nouns:

Its massy waters meet and flow [32: 357, VI, 3]

Had follow'd there the deer and wolf [32: 357, V, 13]

A double dungeon wall and wave [32: 357, VI, 7]

I heard the torrents leap and gush [32: 365, XIII, 6]

And by it there were waters flowing [32: 365, XIII, 17]

With spiders I had friendship made [32: 366, XVI, 16]

Had seen the mice by moonlight play [32: 366, XVI, 18]