Self-Translation as Self-Exegesis: Vladimir Nabokov`s translation of

Self-Translation as Self-Exegesis: Vladimir Nabokov's
translation of Lolita
Zhanna YABLOKOVA
Borough of Manhattan Community College
City University of New York
Abstract/Résumé
Dix ans après la parution de Lolita en anglais, Vladimir Nabokov a traduit son roman
d’anglais en russe. À ce moment-là, un certain nombre de ses autres romans avaient été
traduits en plusieurs langues. Quelqu’un d’autre avait fait la plupart de ces traductions
sous la surveillance de Nabokov. Mais Lolita signifiait son propre retour en Russie en
tant qu’artiste, de sorte que Nabokov voulait traduire son œuvre lui-même. Au cours de la
traduction du roman, il apporta de nombreux changements et mises au point au texte
original. Cet article considère que ces modifications sont des révisions définitives. Il
analyse de prèscertaines des plus importantes révisions apportées par Nabokov à la
version anglaise originale et examine les raisons possibles de ces changements ainsi que
leurs effets.
Keywords/Mots-clés
Literary translation, self-translation, Nabokov, Lolita, twentieth-century Russian
literature
I. Introduction
Many literary translation theorists point out that the theory and practice of selftranslation has not been sufficiently studied. Montini, for example, states that
“[b]ecause self-translation cannot be defined as ‘ordinary’ translation, it is still
somewhat neglected in Translation Studies and theories” (306). Nevertheless, literature
on translation contains a large number of essays that address a variety of views, often
contradictory, on literary self-translation. Steiner, for example refers to it as “selfcorrection” (283) and Paschalis as “self-observation” (30). Paschalis then notes, “My
experiences in self-translation make me think of it as a practice that encourages selfreflexivity and fuels creative experimentation” (30). He then further explains his
position:
I want to propose a view of translation that allows for secret spaces of self-writing,
from two different perspectives, beginning with a general mapping of (auth)
205
biographical aspects of literary translation, tracing marks of subjectivity that witness
the personalization of the text of translation. This is followed by a further
exploration of manifestations of creativity in translation and links to autobiography
through self-translation, this nebulous juncture of creative writing and literary
translating; in the process I imply ways in which identity and subjectivity are
‘translated’ through acts of writing, and consider the clandestine self-translations
which impel creativity in both original and translation, and produce literary spaces
in between. (20)
Paschalis also suggests that “[l]iterary translation operates in the shadow of the
source text” (20). For him it is “writing minus the self” (20). He implies that a translator
is bound to faithful interpretation of the source text and, therefore, expected to be
natural in his or her rendition of the text and to avoid incorporating his or her self into a
translated text. In this case we may also say that self-translation is writing plus the self.
In other words, the writer who is also the translator has the authority to deviate from the
source text since the author’s his or her self and the author’s self is one.
Most theorists seem to agree that the main difference between literary translation and
literary self-translation is the amount of authority the writer exercises in the process of
translating his or her own work. Renowned eighteen century dramatist Goldoni, who
wrote in Italian and French and translated a number of his own works from one
language to the other, noted: “I nevertheless had an advantage in this regard over others:
a mere translator would not have dared, even in the face of difficulty, to sidestep the
literal sense; bit I, as the author of my own work, was able to change words, the better
to conform to the taste and customs of my nation” (qtd. in Montini 306). Shread
emphasizes that “One of the distinctive characteristics of self-translation is its daring
and ability to take liberties that would be unacceptable to anyone but the ‘author’ of the
work” (59). Werner agrees with her by saying that “the author-translator will feel
justified in introducing changes into the text where an ‘ordinary’ translator might
hesitate to do so” (qtd. in Montini 306).
Some critics also point out that self-translation sometimes results in producing a
variant of the source text. A native Greek who now writes in Swedish comments about
his experience as self-translator, “I soon realized that that I was unable to translate my
own words. The only thing I could do was to rewrite my books. They became different
206 Self-Translation as Self-Exegesis: Vladimir Nabokov's translation of Lolita