Results 1 – 16 of 16 Under the Yoke. (Pod Igoto) by Vazov, Ivan and a great selection of related books , art and collectibles available now at Pod igoto: roman. Front Cover. Ivan Vazov. Bălgarski Pisatel, Pod igoto · Ivan Minchov Vazov Snippet view – Title, Pod igoto. Biblioteka za Učenika. Author, Ivan Minchov Vazov. Publisher, B” lgarski Pisatel, Length, pages. Export Citation, BiBTeX EndNote.
|Published (Last):||1 June 2017|
|PDF File Size:||19.16 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.88 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. German Translations of “Pod igoto”. Introduction Jacques Igan in his Des Tours de Babel describes interlinear versions of sacred texts as the ideal of most translations 1. It is a quotation of Walter Benjamin, whose translation of Baudelaire’s poetry was quite a tremendous effort. It made him think about the “task” of a translator: Derrida pictures Benjamin’s views as naive, as a search for a metalevel, of objective meaning common to all languages.
However, Benjamin himself sees this “transcendental” aim of translation as a vain effort. The ideal he brings forth is for his own work more a warning than a goal. Only pov texts, which aim to create a relation between the God, the universal meaning, and the reader, require such a translator. But what constitutes the quality of “sacredness” of a text? How it is achieved? While the translator aims for a common, if not an objective, universal meaning, the very value of the book should be there to motivate him to translate it.
But he doesn’t draw the language merely from the text itself: Thus, how can the sacredness of a text itself be translated? Pod igoto as a “sacred text” When searching for a “sacred text” within the corpus of Bulgarian literature, one easily comes to Vazov’s epic Pod igoto.
Released init is among the first novels written in Bulgarian at all. The place, story and characters are fictional, although certainly inspired by, and partly linked to real ones.
Many analyses serve us rather as examples of glorification or repulsion than answers to the main question. Later critics focus on the glory itself. Inna Peleva interprets the book’s status as an effect igotk the text’s ideal “proportion of innovations as habits” employed by Vazov 2, while the whole should have served as an ideological attempt to stress the relation between the April Uprising and the Liberation War.
Peter Petrov thinks the idea of igoto was especially interesting to a Bulgarian reader, because it showed the inner igogo of his “national soul”: Their popularity is hard to measure. Some facts may give us a hind: Dimitrov’s translation was sold poorly. The translation itself had its flaws, which I’ll recount below, but at the end of the World War it also wasn’t the best time! Sells of the later Topolov’s translation is hard to track. It was a long-term project, enjoying support of a wide array of tools of the centralized publishing of East Germany.
The book, considered a masterpiece and an exemplary case of Bulgarian prose, was chosen to introduce the national culture to their socialist German brothers 6.
However, the book’s fame outside Bulgaria still by no chance can match the fame in its homeland.
In the following text I’ll compare the translations of some chapters, which I consider crucial for the whole book’s sense. It will give us a better overview about the author’s target audience — and the discrepancies between his and his translators’ motives.
It’s a kind of a political center of the town. Here, the newspapers are read and the world politics are discussed. The debates here are fully public: It’s also a place where spies collect intelligence and intrigues are set to motion. While it is a political center, it isn’t the center of the power as well.
Follow the Author
Vazov sees the struggles for power — be pos financial, military or religious — as mostly private, intimate dealings between people in a close relation: The arguments were based more on the status of the discussing persons than information which are opd scarce or realistic political goals which are all agreed to be naive. The both translations focus very much on reproducing a vivid picture of the debate.
Dimitrov uses short sentences representing ovan stances on the matter, followed by frenetic acceptance. However, German language doesn’t seem to allow such constructions, plus the number of metaphors makes the debate unclear to a foreigner. Dimitrov thus adds subjects and further descriptive adverbs to the sentence where they’d be clear and unnecessary for a Bulgarian reader.
Editor’s graphical design also doesn’t help much: Man tat, als ob nicht das kleine Podgoritza, sondern als ob Wien genommen sei. Lass sie sich schlagen, es ivxn dich vvazov an, das ist ihre Sache On the other hand, he is also aware of the fact that the High German he uses, its syntax and words, aren’t very suitable lgoto it; he tries to support the hypothetized non-verbal communication by additional exclamation marks and by better preserving the graphical structure: Das Staunen wuchs so sehr, dass es schien, als sei nicht Podgoriza, sondern Wien eingenommen worden.
Serbien wird lebendig und stellt ein Heer auf! Wenn sie sich gegenseitig abschlachten oder hauen, so ist das ihre Sache! The translators do it better when leaving them merely transliterated, as e.
German Translations of “Pod igoto” | Ivan Šimko –
Vazov employs generally very fine linguistic markers, whose lack in the other language is supplemented by additional clarifications — either integrated to the text, or via foot- or endnotes, to clarify the most specific terms.
The connotation which links these differences to the story, however, is hardly readable from German. This particular chapter is a big challenge for a translator. It’s merely illustrative and doesn’t add much to the story. The English translation of 7, whose author was generally inspired by Dimitrov’s version, but also very fond of Ivanhoe, omits it totally — the presence of geopolitical considerations at the heart of a revolutionary town somewhat mitigates the romantic appeal of the fight for liberty.
I don’t think this was a good decision: This trope has its historical parallel in the April Uprising: The setting is different though: The tactics resemble that of haiduks, mountain robbers of the legend. The bodies of policemen are hidden under the snow, all efforts are done to make it look like an accident.
On the one hand, the group agrees this murder is personal, seemingly lacking any ideological context. The goal isn’t to terrorize the police, they target the lives of only two particular perpetrators. It is initiated as a blood revenge by Stojko’s son, while conspirators ritually seal an oath in front of an icon. They don’t want to stir more violence — it is his enemies who accuse Ognjanov for it, what leads to the mobilization of bashibozuks and the police retribution concluding the first part.
On the other hand, it is Ognjanov, who makes the link in his thoughts between the murder and liberation: Dimitrov is generally simplifying the chapter’s text.
He changes the name of the chapter to simple “Vergeltung”. Interjections and names are weirdly changed: The whole part sounds more objective, normative, describing the enemy as the impersonal “tyranny”: So musste sich Ognianoff sagen: So lautet das grausamste, aber heiligste Prinzip, das dem Kampfe gegen die Tyrannei zu Grunde gelegt werden muss. Gnade dem Unbarmherzigen bezeigen ist ebenso unsinnig, wie solche von ihm erwarten” Topolov, who tries more to preserve the graphical structure of the text, puts the whole part to simple quotation marks, to distinguish it from spoken words.
Unlike Dimitrov, he adds further words in first person “unser Kampf gegen die Tyrannen” to make it more personal — both the rebels-Bulgarians and the tyrants-Turks. On the other hand, he adds a whole new sentence on the beginning “Das ist grausam Ognjanow sann vor sich hin: Es ist besser, dass er ein wildes Tier wird Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn.
Das ist das grausamste, aber heilige Prinzip, auf dem unser Kampf gegen die Tyrannen beruhen muss It is also igoyo main weakness of Dimitrov’s translation — there is actually nothing “unsinnig” in the story. Even the heroes in the end become aware of the possibility that the massacres can turn attention of the foreign public.
On the other hand, there were people — Bulgarians by birth but not by their loyalty — which not only lacked the heroism of Ognjanov and Rada, but because of their baseness acted directly against them. They weren’t “unsinnig”, they were rather egoistic and thus vazo to the national cause.
This ethical interpretation of loyalty is a very strong moment in the book’s narrative. To care for the endangered, oppressed nation is a virtue, a sign of honesty, courage, and love. The conformism and even cooperation with the oppressor is better for business, for personal security, it grants significant personal advantages; these are the “base” values.
This view, pictured very naive by the context, only stresses the idea that the Ottoman society as such was based on these “base” values. Vazov shows robstvo as not the typical trait of a Bulgarian soul like Petrov interprets himbut rather as the bad cultural influence of the sultanate. Ognjanov’s self-justification has also other aspects. He had already killed two Turks in the beginning of the book. In chapter 33 he was leading an armed group of Bulgarians, attacking the representatives of Ottoman authority in service.
It illustrates a case, how a personal blood feud could turn into a social rebellion 8. Bulgarians use the violence for the first time as a group, as a sworn druzhina, which is a term of special meaning in the haiduk-mythology.
Here Topolov perhaps knows better of German-translated haiduk poetry, which employs “Schar” for it regularly — the Socialist writer stresses the links between various images of popular rebellions more consequently.
It also shows, how stereotypal and primordialistic are the national traits in the text. Ognjanov remains to be a hero against his own will, “forced” to commit violence by external events. He is torn by the love for Rada and for Bulgaria, and nearly kills one of his most loyal comrades because of it. He murders the Pehlivan because of compassion with the worried father.