INTERPRETING CHAUCER VIA BIBLICAL AND LITURGICAL TRADITIONS: CASE OF TRANSLATING «PRIORESS’S PROLOGUE» FROM «THE CANTERBURY TALES» IN TO MODERN ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31471/2304-7402-2022-17(65)-21-33Keywords:
interlingual and intralingual translation, biblical prototext, liturgical text, collage technique.Abstract
Comparing the ways of receiving Chaucer’s text by today’s English and Ukrainian readers by assessing the possibilities of rendering the poetic techniques applied in Prioress’s Prologue, the author of the paper presents translation gains, losses and challenges which translators face when they have to decode and present an author’s historical and cultural experience encoded in the text. The paper deploys the original texts of Prioress’s Prologue as well as its translations into New English (1795-2007) and Ukrainian (2019). The intertextual richness of the Chaucerean text and literary culture is viewed from the points of biblical intertextuality, liturgical hymnography and religious poetry. Chaucer’s collage technique hides great power of ideological and aesthetical contrast, and the change of historical and cultural experience destruct the expected emotional impact in today’s audiences. The statuses of the biblical and liturgical prototexts contain different value for contemporary readers in intracultural and intercultural dimensions. In the theoretical perspective, all the ‘modernizations’ of Chaucer’s text are fully-fledged translations and require appropriate in-depth translation solutions.
References
Boyd, B., 1987. Our Lady according to Geoffrey Chaucer: Translation and collage. Florilegium 9, pp. 147-154.
Broughton, L., “The Prioress’s Prologue and Tale”. Sources and analogues of The Canterbury Tales. Vol. 2. 2005. Cambridge; Rochester, NY: D.S. Brewer. Pp. 583-648.
Chaucer, G., Kenterberiyski opovidi: U 2 ch.Chastyna 2. 2019. Lviv: Astroliabiya.
Dummelow, J. R., ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible by various writers. 1978. New York: The Macmillan Co.
Ellis, S., Translated Chaucer. Chaucer at Large: The Poet in the Modern Imagination, 2000. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pp. 98-120.
Frick, D., Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation: Chapters in the History of the Controversies (1551–1632). 1989. Berkeley: University of California Publications in Modern Philology 123.
Larson, E., Telling New Tales: Modernizations of Chaucer in the Eighteenth Century, 2016. PhD thesis. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas.
Madeleva, Mary. Chaucer’s Nuns and other essays. 1965. Port Washing-ton, NY: Kennikat Press.
Seidman, N., Faithful Renderings: Jewish-Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation. 2006 (Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Shmiher, T., 2019. St. Petro Mohyla’s Catechism in Translation: A Term System via the Prism of Axiological Modelling and Cultural Matrix. In Adam Głaz, ed., Languages – Cultures – Worldviews: Focus on Translation. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Pp. 221-236.
Shvedova, M., Waldenfels von, R., Yaryhin, S. et al. GRAC: General Regionally Annotated Corpus of Ukrainian. Kyiv, Lviv, Jena, 2017-2020. Available at uacorpus.org.
Sydorenko, S., 2011. Rewriting Chaucer: Some Dimensions of Middle English – Modern English translation. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 10 (4), pp. 1462-1472.
Sydorenko, S., 2019. A victim of prudishness: Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale retold over the centuries”, Babel 65 (2), pp. 200-221.
Youngblood, R. F., gen. ed., Nelson’s new illustrated Bible dictionary. 1995. Nashville et al.
Великій сборник. 1990.Ужгород.
Жайворок В. Знаки української етнокультури. 2006.Київ.
Малий октоїх. 1938. Луцьк.
Молитвослов: Часослов – Октоїх – Тріодь – Мінея. 2015.Львів.
Чосер, Дж., 2019. Кентерберійські оповіді: у 2 ч. Ч. 2/ З середньоангл. пер. і прокомент. М. Стріха. Львів: Астролябія.
