Skip to content
Call Us Today! 212-533-4646 | MON-FRI 12PM - 4PM (EST)
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
Search for:
About Us
Publications
FAQ
Annual Report 2023
Annual Report 2022
Annual Report 2021
Initiatives
Advocate
Educate
Cultivate
Care
News
Newsletters
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Join UNWLA
Become a Member
Volunteer With Us
Donate to UNWLA
Members Portal
Calendar
Shop to Support Ukraine
Search for:
Print
Print Page
Download
Download Page
Download Right Page
Open
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40
new translations (with the exception of “The Painter") have been published. Highly professional new transla tion, particularly of the narrative poem “Haydamaks”, have been done by V. Rich but economic circumstances are delaying their appearance in print in Ukraine which is now in confronting a very deep economic crisis and hyperinflation. The Kyyiv based publishing house Dni- pro, which used to produce many English translations of Ukrainian literature is currently publishing no transla tions whatsoever. English in the world today is a truly universal language and anglophone Shevchenkiana is of utmost importance for Ukraine as a nation which is trying to find its place in the world. The English speak ing world would certainly be more interested in Shev chenko if translations of his poetry were being pub lished by prestigious and esteemed publishing houses in the West, such as Penguin Books, or if it were possi ble to find such translations in Western libraries. There are other problems associated with literary criticism in the field. The most serious flaw of Ukrainian literary criticism in the past consisted in the efforts of some researchers to split unprofessionally the artistic entity of verse into two aspects — the artistic and the so-called “ideological” — which should be inseparable. Under the totalitarian regime, some translators were accused, usually by rivals, of so called “ideological shifts”, but very little attention was paid to the artistry of the translations. The official critics routinely ignored the fact that a poet is a creative personality whom nature endowed with the ability to think in images and to embody these associations in poetic speech. Thus very often, bad and poor translations became popular as the artistic ones were banned. Unfortunately, the specialists in Ukrainian studies in English speaking countries, most of them of Ukrain ian descent, pay very little attention to English language translations of Ukrainian literature. C. A. Manning, Tar- navska, L. Rudnytzky and M. Skrypnyk are the only ones among them who have analyzed some translations from the linguistic point of view. No one else has ever analyzed the translations in this way or used them as material for contrastive studies. In Ukraine, on the other hand, under extremely unfavorable conditions, H. Mayfet, M. Kotsiubynska, H. Kochur, O. Zhmonir and others have contributed much to improving the quality of the translations with their critical reviews. Views which completly reject translation cannot be tolerated. To be sure, translations are always connected with losses and heavy sacrifices and no translation is equal to the original. But during the 126 years of its development, English language Shevchenkiana has been enriched by a number of highly artistic and faithful translations which should not be ignored. Shevchenko, without them, would remain hopelessly estranged from those who don’t know Ukrainian, his works relegated only for “domestic consumption”. In his interesting monograph “The Poet As Mythmaker. A Study of Sym bolic Meaning in Taras Shevchenko”, Professor G. Hra- bovych presents all the quotations from Shevchenko’s works in the original script and wording. He also gives his own, semantically correct but unpoetical interlinear translations which produce an inadequate impression upon non-Ukrainian readers. For many years, research in Shevchenkiana was a relatively untapped field. Initiated by J.A. Stevens in 1876, Shevchenko studies in English were only of informative value until the 1970s. Fortunately, the infor mation was generally accurate. W.R. Morlill, P. Mer chant, P.P. Selver, A. J. Hunter, E.L. Voynich, L.P. Ras- torguev, C.A. Manning, C. H. Andrusyshen, W.K. Mat thews and others made significant contributions in their articles and commentaries to translations. A new stage of English language Shevchenko Stu dies was connected to the arrival of many Ukarainian intellectuals to Anglophone countries after World War II. Under extremly difficult conditions and, as a rule, not knowing the English language, these intellectuals worked hard to develop Ukrainian research institutes, to organ ize conferences, symposia, etc. In 1961, a Taras Shev chenko symposium was held in the United States under the auspices of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States. The papers read at the symposium were edited by V. Miakovskiy and Y. She- velov and were published in the Hague in 1962. They were devoted to various aspects of Shevchenko’s life and creative work. An article by Shevelov, “The Year 1860 in Shevchenko’s Works”, is probably the most interesting. In it, the researchers consider the end of 1859 as a turning point in Shevchenko’s style of writing and his world outlook. In 1980, the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS) published an English language anthology of crit ical works devoted to Shevchenko with an introduction by B. Rubchak. A monograph by G.S. Lutskiy, “Between Gogol and Shevchenko. Polarity in Literary Ukraine, 1798-1847” (Munich: Fink, 1971), is another valuable contribution to Anglophone Shevchenkiana. The author characterizes Shevchenko as a staunch Ukrainian patriot and con trasts him with Gogol, a son of Ukrainian parents who grew up in Ukraine under the influence of Ukrainian folklore and the Ukrainian literature of his time but has become completely integrated into Russian culture. V. Swoboda (London University) is the author of some profound articles on Shevchenko, particularly on his relationship with the great Russian literary critic V. Belinsky. According to the British scholar, Belinsky was barely acquainted with Shevchenko and was positively and consistently hostile to all attempts at literary writing in the Ukrainian language. Swoboda and R. Martin refuted a claim existing in Soviet literary scholarship that the Russian critic might have been the author of a
Page load link
Go to Top
1 
2-3 
4-5 
6-7 
8-9 
10-11 
12-13 
14-15 
16-17 
18-19 
20-21 
22-23 
24-25 
26-27 
28-29 
30-31 
32-33 
34-35 
36-37 
38-39 
40 
