Abstract
One aspect of John Milton’s
Keywords: Paradise LostMiltonAdamEvefamily
Introduction
J. Milton’s epic poem
Problem Statement
Already by the beginning of the XX century, a lot of works had been devoted to Milton – so many that every 20-30 years there were published bibliographic reference books (in 1930 –
Since the end of the XVIII century,
Research Questions
In our analysis, we will try to answer three questions:
In which compositional patterns of Paradise Lost are family values manifested?
How are these values distinguished within the plot development in the original version and in the three selected Russian translations of the poem?
Is it possible, based on J. Milton’s “family” axiology, to talk about the strategies of each translator?
Purpose of the Study
This article does not aim at evaluating numerous approaches to
Research Methods
For our analysis, we used the method of comparative text analysis. The original text of
After their identification in the English version, fragments related to family values are correlated with the versions of their translation in 1827 (in the reprint of 1843 the translator is not specified, but most probably it is F. Zagorsky), 1895 (translator A. Shulgovskaya) and 1976 (translator A. Steinberg). The comparison is connected with the text categories of the theme and tonality. Text categories in the Russian stylistic tradition are understood within the concept of “mandatory text properties” of Prof. Matveeva (2017) as related to the components of the communicative act, the theme reflecting the subject / object of the narration, and the tonality (emotionality) denoting the attitude of the author to what is depicted and the energy of the text in general (Itskovich, 2018). The method of text analysis through its categories inevitably relies on M. Bakhtin’s idea of text dialogism.
In total, there were analyzed 2246 original lines of the chosen fragments and their variants of translation in three Russian versions of the poem, two of them written in prose (translations of 1827 and 1895) and one in verse (1976). Within the compositional and textual analysis, elements of the field and context methods were also used.
Findings
Compositional distribution of the axiologically marked fragments
Many researchers have pointed out that the central character of
Obviously, the “family” axiology can appear only in those parts and fragments of the text where Adam and Eve are present on the scene and interact (totally 2246 of 10565 lines, which do not include the episodes of the “silent” or almost silent presence of Adam near the narrating archangel). The family is a human phenomenon (Cornes, 2019; Welburn, 2019), and it would be difficult to speak about its manifestation in the pictures of heavenly battles or the hellish torments of Satan and his “horrid crew”. Therefore, Adam and Eve are on the scene during approximately 20 % of the whole text, whereas Satan is present about nearly 60.
This circumstance, however, does not make them background figures. According to the degree of manifestation of “family” values, the identified fragments listed above are also not homogeneous. Book IV contains the eulogy of marital love (750–770), where Milton contrasts sacred bonds to adulterous lust “driven among the bestial herds” (IV, 753–754). According to Milton, the charities of “father, son, and brother” are primary; those hypocrites who condemn the pure love as impure are said to be “our destroyer, foe to God and Man” (IV, 749). Love within the family is the source of reproduction: “Our Maker bids increase” (see also: Su Fang Ng, 2007; Bare, 2018). In terms of the field theory of J. Trier, we define this fragment as the core of the axiological field “family”.
The core, which contains the analyzed meanings in the purest form, is traditionally opposed to the periphery – usually more extensive, including a larger number of units that have the same meanings, but manifested more implicitly. If we apply this logic to the fragments, then we should recognize peripheral (in the expression of “family” axiological meanings) Adam and Eve’s love conversations in Paradise, as well as their assurances of mutual fidelity after the Fall (Lindley, 2018). An introduction to one of the editions of the poem says, “Richard Steele reported a tea party where he overheard some women whisper that Milton made our first parents say "some of the tenderest things ever heard"” (Tillyard, 1935, p. 35).
For the following comparative analysis, there was taken a sample core fragment (the author’s appeal to wedded love, IV, 750–762) denoting “family” axiology. The corresponding Russian fragment was found in 1827, 1895, and 1976 translations.
The Russian translators’ interpretation of the sample fragment
Here is the well-known Milton’s monologue, which glorifies conjugal love. In the text of the poem, it is placed after Eve, who has not yet tasted the forbidden fruit, ascends with Adam to their bed:
Hail, wedded Love, mysterious law, true source
Of human offspring, sole propriety
In Paradise of all things common else!
By thee adulterous lust was driven from men
Among the bestial herds to range; by thee,
Founded in reason, loyal, just, and pure,
Relations dear, and all the charities
Of father, son, and brother, first were known.
Far be it that I should write thee sin or blame,
Or think thee unbefitting holiest place,
Perpetual fountain of domestic sweets,
Whose bed is undefiled and chaste pronounced,
Present, or past, as saints and patriarchs used. (IV, 750–762)
And here is the same fragment in the Russian translation of 1827 (word for word translated here back into English according to its reprint of 1843):
I bless you, conjugal love, the true source of life! By you, a shameless voluptuary was expelled from the society of people and forced to wander between animals, only you light, strengthen the union of blood, and you are the first to lodge tenderness in the hearts of parents, children and brothers. O inexhaustible source of family happiness! Woe to him who portrays you with the paints of vice or shame, and honors the unworthy to proceed in the most consecrated sanctuary: your bed is unclad. And the patriarchs of the past centuries, and the pious men of our times, fed on your clean waters (Milton, 1843, Part I, p. 172–173).
Although the general meaning is understood and rendered by the translator, numerous transformations seem to distort the value meanings of the analyzed fragment. The thematic plan of the Russian version is expanded by the addition of a “shameless voluptuary” (‘adulterous lust’ is, in terms of modern philosophy, the sexual desire of someone else, of the “other”, but it is hardly a person); the translator’s metonymy changes the whole meaning of the sentence. Another inaccuracy is the correlation of the “present” and “past” with “saints and patriarchs”: time indexes refer here to the previous line.
More accurate is another prose translation of 1895 (by A. Shulgovskaya), again translated here back into English:
Praise to you, conjugal Love, the mysterious law of nature, the true source of life, the only property in Paradise, where all other benefits were the common property of all! You have driven a man from a blind lust, decent only to dumb cattle. Through you, for the first time, consecrated, purified, and fastened precious bonds of blood and holy words – father, son, brother – were known. The very thought, o wedded marriage, is away from me to see in you a sin or shame, or consider you unworthy to penetrate the purest refuge! You are the eternal source of family joys, immaculate and holy is your bed, was and will be: saints and patriarchs were upon it” (Milton, 1895, p. 87–88).
Here, no longer “a voluptuary”, but “a blind lust” belongs to the cattle, “present or past” are also referred to correctly, the metaphor “saints and patriarchs” lying upon the bed of the wedded love is preserved. The only translator’s transformation is the addition “o wedded marriage”, so that the reader should not forget whom the narrator refers to.
Translated in 1976 in verse, the fragment is interpreted like this (a back translation into English presented below):
Praise to you, o marriage love,
A true source of human kind,
Law covered in mystery! You in paradise
Where everyone shares everything together,
Are the only property. You,
From the lust inherent only in cattle
Senseless, delivered Man.
You, relying on the mind, approved
The sacred legality of blood ties,
And the purity and righteousness of kinship,
And you first joined us
To the ideas of father, son, and brother.
I won’t even think of you
Sinful and contrite, in the sacred Garden
Penetrate the unworthy! O spring
Of inexhaustible family delight!
Your bed is pure through the ages
And it will be pure in the future; that is why
The saints rested upon it
And the patriarchs. (Milton, 1976, p. 126–127)
Though it hardly sounds Milton-like in the back translation, the main ideas are still conveyed correctly, though certain phrases are rendered by Arkady Steinberg with intentionally greater pathos than there is in the original. “Mysterious law” turns into “a law covered in mystery,” “hail, wedded Love” becomes a separate line: “Praise to you, o marital love!” Generally insignificantly, the category of tonality is extending; the only thematic deviation of the translation from the original is the specification of the “sacred Garden” (Milton has just a “holiest place”).
Conclusion
Milton sounds unexpectedly loud in modern philosophical and cultural discourse. Ignorance and knowledge, good and evil, loss and gain, male and female – all these are just some of the axiological oppositions in
The positive features of the family, which constitute Milton’s “family” axiology, are reproduction and increase, most intimate tenderness to each other, infinite trust, staying together in joy and in sorrow (according to the plot of the poem – in Paradise and on Earth). According to special dictionaries, the family is defined as “an intimate domestic group made up of people related to one another by bonds of blood, sexual mating, or legal ties” (Scott, 2014, p. 238), i. e. Adam and Eve definitely constitute a family. With the eaten forbidden fruit Eve seduces Adam; the sin of one imposes blame on the other, even if he himself has not sinned (Adam cannot but eat it, as they are a family and are not able to exist without each other). Thus, the family is also a responsibility, and it is still Eve who is to be accused: “more loth, though first to offend” (X, 109–110).
At first glance, the values reflected in a particular work of literature should be preserved when this work is being translated into another language. A value is somewhat related rather to tonality (assessment, emotion), and not to some background details which can be changed or reduced. However, not all the Russian translations allow us to identify the axiological microsystem of the English original text. In the 1827 translation, the substitution of “lust” for “voluptuary” destroys the figure of contrast (antithesis); thus, the translation becomes unclear, since there appears a question who was sent to the cattle. The 1895 translation, “weighing” less heavy, reflects the translator’s strategy of “accuracy”, with only a few additions to make the English text of the 17th century more understandable to the Russian reader. Finally, the translation of 1976, most widely read today, is perceived even more easily due to the poetic form, although it is extended by about 20 %. This is partly due to the translator’s attempts to specify the content, and partly because Russian text is generally longer than its English version.
Therefore, family values serve as the key to the aesthetic side of
Acknowledgments
The study was supported by the program 211 of the Government of the Russian Federation, agreement № 02.A03.21.0006; the study was performed with financial support of
References
- Al-Akhras, S., & Green, M. (2017). Satanic Whispers: Milton's Iblis and the “Great Sultan”. Literature Seventeenth Century, 32(1), 31-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268117X.2016.1252279
- Bare, A. L. (2018). Feminism Regained: Exposing the Objectification of Eve in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. English Studies, 99(2), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2017.1405324
- Conlan, J. P. (2017). “Vaulted with fire”: The Thermodynamics of Infernal Justice in Book 1 of Paradise Lost”. Explorations in Renaissance Culture, 43(2), 232-247. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526963-04302005
- Cornes, S. (2019). Milton’s Manuring: Paradise Lost, Husbandry, and the Possibilities of Waste. Milton Studies, 61(1), 65-85. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/miltonstudies.61.1.0065
- Dos Santos, A. J. R. (2016). “Farewel Happy Fields”: the Problem of Satan by the Confrontation between the Milton Poet and the Milton Christian. Cadernos de Letras da Uff, 26(53), 507-524.
- Gleyzon, F.-X. (2015). Paradise Lost as an Islamic Epic: Muhammad 'Anani’s translation (2002/2010). English Studies, 96(1), SI, 21-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2014.964561
- Itskovich, T. V. (2018). Proto-Textuality as the Constructive Principle for Religious Style. Vestnik Volgogradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Seriya 2-Yazykoznanie, 17(4), 153-162. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2018.1.1
- Lindley, D. (2018). Milton’s Socratic Rationalism: The Conversations of Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost. Ben Jonson Journal, 25(2), 289-294. https://doi.org/10.3366/bjj.2018.0229
- Martins, A. F., & Drumond, V. M. R. (2019). “So Were I Equalled In Renown”: Autobiographical Elements and the Epic Poet’s Career in Milton. Ilha Do Desterro-A Journal of English Language Literatures in English and Cultural Studies, 72(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2019v72n1p71
- Matveeva, T. (2017). Measuring the Energy of a Text. Quaestio Rossica, 5(3), 838–850. https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2017.3.253
- Milton, J. (1843). Poteryannyi Rai. Poema Ioanna Miltona: Novyi perevod s angliskago podlinnika [Paradise Lost. The epic by John Milton: a new translation from the English original]. 4th ed. (first edited in 1827). Moscow: In the typography of Aleksey Evreinov’s. (in Russian)
- Milton, J. (1895). Poteryannyi Rai. Vozvrashchennyi Rai [Paradise Lost & Paradise Regained]. Translated from English by A. Shulgovskaya. Saint-Petersburg: At A. F. Marx’s. (in Russian)
- Milton, J. (1976). Poteryannyi Rai [Paradise Lost]. Translated from English by Arkady Steinberg. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura. (in Russian)
- Milton, J. (2004). The English Poems. Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited.
- Potts, G. (2019). ‘Influence poetry once more’: Allen Tate and Milton’s ‘Lycidas’. Modernist Cultures, 14(2), 193-212. https://euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/mod.2019.0250
- Scott, J. (2014). A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Su Fang Ng. (2007). Execrable sons and second Adams: family politics inParadise Lost. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org
- Tillyard, E. M. W. (1935). Introduction. In Milton J., Paradise Lost, xi–l. New York: The Odyssey Press, Inc.
- Watkins, L. (2018). Misery, Love, and Company: Paradise Lost and the Origins of Consolation. Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 60(4), 397-422. https://doi.org/10.7560/TSLL60401
- Welburn, J. (2019). Divided Labors: Work, Nature, and the Utopian Impulse in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Studies in Philology, 116(3), 506-538. https://doi.org/10.1353/sip.2019.0020
- Welshans, M. (2018). “So hand in hand they passed”: Hand-Holding and Monist Marriage in Paradise Lost. Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies, 18(1), 66-97. https://doi.org/10.1353/jem.2018.0002
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
03 August 2020
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-085-3
Publisher
European Publisher
Volume
86
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-1623
Subjects
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, translation, interpretation
Cite this article as:
Bortnikov, V., & Bortnikova, A. (2020). Interpreting J. Milton’s “Family” Axiology Via Various Russian Translations Of Paradise Lost. In N. L. Amiryanovna (Ed.), Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects, vol 86. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 147-155). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.08.18