Reading and Teaching Tolstoj in Translation: The Problem of Pity
David
Danaher
In an editor's note to the Maude translation of Tolstoj's
Resurrection, R. Gustafson comments that the concept of
&zhachek;alost&soft; is central to
Tolstoj's ethics, for empathetic compassion is the ground for moral
behavior
(490). In the same note, he calls into question the
felicitousness of translating
&zhachek;alost&soft; by
pity, suggesting that the Russian word is
perhaps better translated as compassion
or
feeling for
(490). This is not a suggestion
generally put into practice in translations of Tolstoj, nor do the
great majority of bilingual dictionaries indicate that the words might
not be exact translation equivalents.
How do the semantics of &zhachek;alost' and
pity differ, and how might these differences
influence readers of Tolstoj in translation? I propose to examine the
first question by analyzing the terms in light of selections from the
linguistic, psychological, and philosophical literature on emotions;
specific sources will include de Rivera, Kovecses, Solov&soft;ev,
Wierzbicka, and Zaliznjak as well as the results of linguistic surveys
on the semantics of &zhachek;alost' and
pity given to native speakers of English and
Russian. An answer to the second question will follow from the first
and from a systematic look at how the terms
&zhachek;alost&soft;, &zhachek;alet&soft;,
&zhachek;alkij, and others, when used to refer to people,
are translated in the Maude versions of The Death of Ivan
Il&soft;i&chachek; and Resurrection.
While both &zhachek;alost&soft; and
pity imply recognition of the misfortune of
another human being, they are associated with different cultural
evaluations of the status of and the evaluator's reaction to the
other's misfortune. With &zhachek;alost&soft;,
the other person is typically understood to be (potentially) the same
as the evaluator (in the sense of a tovari&shachek;&chachek; po
nes&chachek;ast&soft;ju
) and the emotion is generally a
positive one; with pity, the other person is
considered fundamentally different from the evaluator and the
resulting emotion is often negatively charged (akin to
contempt or scorn). Other
relevant differences in the meanings of the two concepts derive from
differences in semantic range, frequency of usage, their value or
relative position in the system of emotion concepts in each culture,
and each term's relation to other cultural concepts. It could also be
pointed out that &zhachek;alost&soft; is clearly
a key concept not only in Tolstoj's thought but in Russian culture in
general—&Shachek;melev calls
&zhachek;alost&soft; an osobenno
zna&chachek;imoe slovo
for Russians (86)—while the same
cannot be said about pity in modern American
culture. Given such distinct interpretants
(see
Andrews) for &zhachek;alost&soft;, on the one
hand, and pity on the other, the meaning of
Tolstoj's texts in English translation is considerably distorted. At
the very least, textual cohesion suffers because a whole range of
English terms need to be used to render the
&zhachek;al- words in various contexts; at its
worst, translations of &zhachek;al' terms which
rely on pity evoke emotional interpretants for
the American reader which seriously undermine the original
meaning.
This proposed paper has important implications for the teaching of
Tolstoj in English and is also intended as a strategic contribution to
the fields of linguistic semantics and cultural translation. It is
part of a larger comparative study, which I am currently undertaking,
of the semantics of English pity, Russian
&zhachek;alost&soft;, and Czech
lítost.
Andrews, E. 1990. Peirce's Emotional Interpretant: A Key to Bilingualism
de Rivera, J. 1977. A Structural Theory of the Emotions.
Kovecses, Z. 1990. Emotion Concepts.
&Shachek;melev, A. 1996. Leksi&chachek;eskij sostav russkogo jazyka kak otra&zhachek;enie 'russkoj dushi.
Solov&soft;ev, V. 1899. Opravdanie dobra.
Tolstoy, Leo. 1994. Resurrection.
Tolstoy, Leo. 1991. Tolstoy's Short Fiction.
Wierzbicka, A. 1992. Semantics, Culture, and Cognition.
Wierzbicka, A. 1972. Semantic Primitives.
Zaliznjak, A. 1992. Issledovanija po semantike predikatov vnutrennego
sostojanija.