Comparison between Diachronic Translations of Anna Karenina - Essay Example

Comparison between Diachronic Translations of Anna Karenina Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Preface 3 Introduction 4 Translations of Anna Karenina in Different Ages 5 Connotations of “Synchronic” and “Diachronic” 6 7 Trends in Garnett’s, Edmonds’ and Volokhonsky and Peaver’s Versions 7 Dealings with Translation related Problems in the Versions 8 Influence of Theoretical Conventions on the Translations 9 Socio-cultural Convention: Anglicization and Domestication 10 Variations in Semantic Equivalence in Three Versions 12 Translations of Idioms, Metaphor and Proverbs 13 Translation of Metaphorical Expressions 14 Translation of Idioms 16 Translation of Humor and Puns 17 Conclusion 19 References 20 Preface The translation of the novel “Anna Karenina” by Leo Tolstoy poses a great challenge for the translators. A number of translated versions of the novel exist in English. These translations have been influenced both synchronically and diachronically. The diachronic translations are inevitably influenced by the cultures, conventions and theoretical trends of the translators’ eras. The diachronic translations of the “Anna Karenina” are found to be influenced two major periods: the age of Russian Craze and Post-Second World War Period. The socio-cultural plethora of these two periods is reflected greatly in the translations of Constance Garnett (1901), Rosemary Edmonds (1954) and Larissa Volokhonsky & Richard Peaver. (2000) But the theoretical trends are often influenced by the translators’ personal stances. Whereas Rosemary Edmund’s approach appears to be a fairly reader-oriented approach, Constance Garnett and Larissa Volokhonsky & Richard Peaver have showed an author oriented approach to the Source Text to different extents. Comparison between Diachronic Translations of Anna Karenina Introduction In English, there are a number of translated versions of the novel, Anna Karenina. These versions often differ from each other in various fashions i.e. how they cope with the issues like equivalence to the original text and the perception of the target readers. Indeed the translation of the source text, Anna Karenina poses a great challenge for the translators not only because the Russian language possesses a set of alien patterns of expressions, but also because it deals with the author’s philosophical and psychological exploration expressed in the unique socio-cultural linguistic traits of the Russian language that is, at the same time, intertwined with the author’s writing style (Nabokov, 1981). Therefore, the challenge is whether the translated version conveys the true intention and philosophical connotations of the author of the source text even after being domesticated in the target language. However, as far as the true intention of the author of the source text and the perception of the readers of the target language are taken into concern, a set of complexities grow. These complexities originate not only from the novelty of the culture that the author deals in his novel also from the fact that the language is a socially embedded phenomenon possessing some unique patterns and structures of expressions that are closely intertwined with the socio-cultural features of a particular geographical area. Hence, the socio-cultural issues that are embedded within the patterns of expression of the languages often tend to differentiate any two synchronic or diachronic translations of the same source text. The purpose of this paper is to compare three diachronic translations of this novel carried out at different times and analyze various trends in these translations that reflect and signify both the social and cultural vogue of the translators’ ages. This comparative analysis focuses on how the translators attempted to domesticate the Russian cultural aspects upheld in the original text. Also of interest is to determine which translational aspects of the story are best captured by each version. The three versions are by Constance Garnett (1901), Rosemary Edmonds (1954) and Larissa Volokhonsky & Richard Peaver (2000). For the convenience of the research, some other versions also have been referenced in this paper. Translations of Anna Karenina in Different Ages The first translation of the novel “Anna Karenina” appeared in response to the “awakening of the Anglo-Saxon people to Russian literature” (Davie, 1990: 276). This period lasted up to the year 1920. (Hedger, 2006: 151) It is characterized with the growing awareness of the Russian Language and literature in Great Britain and America. During this period, a set of translations appeared in this period. Among these translations, the remarkable ones are the translations of Nathan Dole, Constance Garnett, Leo Wiener, Rochelle Townsend’s translation and Louise and Maude’s translation. Though Nathan Dole was the first to publish the translated version of the novel “Anna Karenina” in English, it was severely criticized for not maintaining the equivalence to the original text (Hedger, 2006. However, the translations that followed Dole’s were found to be in constant effort to adhere to the original text and this effort was first initiated by Constance Garnett. He was one but not the only representative of the zeal of the translation in the period of Russian Craze. Indeed the years between 1920 and 1945 does not have any remarkable translation of the text. But after the Second World War interest in Russian literature was rekindled due to its existentialistic trend. Also the interest grew due to the rise of cold war. During the post war period, the trend of the pre- war translators to adhere to the original text was significantly challenged by the postwar translators like Rosemary Edmonds (1954) and Larissa Volokhonsky & Richard Peaver (2000). But various trends are found in the attempts of these translators to domesticate the foreignness of Russian culture in the original text of “Anna Karenina” (Davie, 1990. This trend of domestication was geared up in order to cope with the choice of the English readers. Connotations of “Synchronic” and “Diachronic” For the sake of convenience of the research, the time between the first publication of Dole’s translation in 1886 and the publication of modern translation have been divided into several periods. They are the age of Russian Craze in the West, the period between the age of Russian Craze and the Second World War, and the period after the Second World War. The rationale for such division of period is that the translation of the original text of Ana Karenina had been characterized differently by the socio-cultural zeal of these periods. Indeed both the Russian Craze and the Second World War had significant influence on the translation of Russian texts into English. The structure of the synchronic and diachronic divisions of the texts is shown in the following diagram: (Source: Based on the Synchronic and Diachronic Linguistic model of France, 2000) Trends in Garnett’s, Edmonds’ and Volokhonsky and Peaver’s Versions Diachronic translations are strictly bound by the different social attitudes existing at the time of the translation (Landers, 1991: 16). Any such translation must reflect social phenomena and be created out of the conventional language use. The original Garnett version of Anna Karenina is written in Elizabethan English with such expression as “thy” (your), “thee” (you) and “ere” (before). It also reflects older sentence construction conventions with longer sentences enjoined by countless conjunctions (Classe, 2001: 2). The Volokhonsky version of the book applies shorter and more conventional sentences that are more attractive to conventional readers. This is characterized by the use of more generalized paraphrasing as opposed to the original closer word for word translation mostly employed by the former translator (Classe, 2001, p 2). The bridge between the two versions is the Edmonds version, which exhibits a little bit of both approaches. In this way it reflects the changing times and conventions during the time of its writing, compared to the Garnett times (Wechsler, 2000, p 81). Cultural expression also affects the three translations. The Garnett’s version has a more reserved expression that tends to play down some of the adverse effects of Anna’s infidelity to her husband. The writer shows more sympathy for the main character and tends to gloss over her faults and character flaws that eventually lead to her death. Such modesty in expression is not unique to this particular 19th century version. Other novels written at around the same time such as Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte and Pride and Prejudice by her sister Emily also display a similar modesty in expression (Wechsler, 2000: 83). Volokhonsky and Peaver, on the other hand, live in a different era in which discussion of sexuality and women’s rights is the order of the day. They have no qualms about describing in minute detail every whim, desire and guilt pang of Anna. This version of the novel neither justifies nor condemns Anna but gives it straight as it is leaving the readers to make their own judgments. The gung ho approach towards sensitive sentimental and social matters gives the novel a freshness and impact that lack in the other two versions (Classe, 2001: 4). Dealings with Translation related Problems in the Versions In the comparative analysis of the three versions of this text, a number of translation related problems have to be considered. While translating a text from the source language to the target language a translator generally face several problems that are related to the translation of the issues such as ambiguity, humor, poetic expression, idiom, metaphors etc. As these issues are directly related to the socio-cultural aspects of the source language, the translators often find themselves in a dilemma regarding the translation of these socio-cultural linguistic phenomena. On one hand he is committed to adhere to the source text and on the other hand he has to care for the perception for the target readers. If the translator keeps the original words same –as they are in the source text- assuming that they convey the best of the authors’ intention in their original forms, the fluency becomes grossly hampered. But if he –being unable to replace them with similar socio-cultural linguistic phenomena of the target language- follows a roundabout way to translate these issues, his fidelity to the source text may be violated. Indeed this dilemma of translating these issues has significantly influenced these aforementioned translated versions of the novel, Anna Karenina. Such translation-related problems affect translation of works in general and the three texts are no exception. It is therefore important to consider how each of the three translators handles this problem and how that affects their works (Bell, 1994: 5). Influence of Theoretical Conventions on the Translations The task of a translator is to connect the source text with the culture and customs of the target readers. But this task of connecting the source text with the target readers is often influenced by the translator’s perception of the cultures and his stance to the equivalence variables of cultural issues. According to Venuti (2000) the equivalence variables include the translator’s techniques of presenting the cultural issues of the source language in the target language. From the first translation of the text, “Anna Karenina” the influences of the socio-cultural conventions of the translators’ ages are significantly visible in their translations. But various theoretical approaches to translations began to influence the translation of “Anna Karenina” from the period of Constance Garnet. Scholars like Venuti, Cohen and Hedger trace the theoretical convention of translation of Constance Garnet’s period as a trend to “move the readers to the author” (Hedger, 2005: 10). The trend was first advocated by Schleiermacher (1813) and his lecture “Uber die verschiedenen Methoden des Ubersetzens”. This trend of translation significantly emphasizes for retaining the peculiarities of the source text. In this regard Hedger (2005: 10) says, “If during the first period translation was seen as a means to appropriate texts, Romantics rather saw it as a way to enrich the readers by enabling them to appreciate the difference of other cultures”. (Hedger, 2005: 10) Garnet’s version shows clear evidences of the influences of this trend of translation. His primary effort was to retain the peculiarities and cultural angularities of the source text, as in this regard, Gifford comments, “She would accept the angularities in Tolstoy and not shrink from his repetitions…” (Gifford 1978: 22) However, when Edmond’s translation of “Anna Karenina” first appeared, the theoretical conventions of translation of her age were a bit problematic. There were debates on both sides whether the translation should be source text oriented or readers target oriented. But the prevailing trend was to transmit information from one language to. Though Edmond was much influenced with this view of translation, she was primarily concerned with the readers’ perception. Edmond belongs to the class of translators who write for “a reader in the train or on a holiday beach”. (Cohen 1960, 33; 44 in Hedger, 2006: 94) The essential feature of the theory of translation that prevails during Volokhonsky and Peaver’s age was to focus on “a combined interdisciplinary effort to understand the process of life between languages” (Hedger, 2005: 11). Though these translators were much influenced by the prevailing theory of translation of their ages, they followed different ways to translate the cultural issues. Socio-cultural Convention: Anglicization and Domestication While translating the culture-specific words the translators are found to be concerned with the foreignness of these words and the perception of the target readers. Often the translators show different attitudes to translate them. Some attempted to domesticate them according to the prevailing trend of translation in their ages. Garnet chose to adhere to the source text to the extent which permitted him to use the foreign words that the readers of his age could easily perceive them. But unlike Volokhonsky and Peaver’s the rigid adherence to the foreignness of Tolstoy’s culture specific words, Edmond showed a tendency to domesticate the Russian cultural expressions. Both of Garnet and Volokhonsky-Peaver endeavored to keep the foreignness of Russian cultural expressions as much as possible, the task was much more difficult for Garnet than Volokhonsky and Peaver’s. Most of the translations of “Ana Karenina” in Garnet’s era appeared in response to the rising Russian Craze in England. Though interest in Russian literature grew during the age of Russian craze in the west, the common perception of the English readers about Russia and her culture was not favorable to Garnet. The readers of Garnet’s era perceived the Russian as corrupt and uncivilized. In this regard, R.G. Burton said, “Russians being an Asiatic nation in many of their characteristics, it is not surprising that the administration of the country is corrupt to the core” (Burton, 1895: 140). Therefore, Garnet was forced to anglicize and domesticate the culture specific expression in the source text. On the other hand, Volokhonsky and Peaver’s tendency to keep the foreignness of Russian Cultural expressions was deliberate and for that type of readers who intended to accept the Russian cultural expression as its uniqueness and individuality. Hence, he spelled the pronunciations of the Russian words –in English- such as Kamilavka, Pirozhki, Shchi, Kasha, Kalatch, Muzhik, Kvass, Zemstvo, etc. But in contrast, Garnet and Edmond, more or less, domesticated the words in their versions. A list of words that are translated by these Garnet, Edmonds and Peaver are given below: Tolstoy Garnett Edmonds Pevear Камилавка [a special round velvet hat worn by Orthodox priests] Ecclesiastical cap Sacerdotal headgear Kamilavka (with a footnote explanation) Пирожки [pasties] Pies Patties Pirozhki Щи [cabbage soup] Cabbage soup Cabbage-soup Shchi Каша [a thick gruel] Porridge Kasha Kasha Калач [a white yeast bread] Roll Roll Kalatch (with a footnote) Шуба [fur-coat] Cloak Coat Coat Уха [fish ,soup] Soup Soup Fish soup Закуска [hors doeuvre] Appetiser Appetizer Hors doeuvre Мужик [male peasant] Peasant Peasant Muzhik Квас [Russian drink] Home-brew Home-brew Kvass Барыня [mistress] Gentlewoman Mistress Lady Земство [elective provincial council for purposes of local administration] District council Zemstvo (with a footnote explanation) Zemstvo (with a footnote explanation) (Source: Hedger, 2006: 108) Variations in Semantic Equivalence in Three Versions Semantically speaking, there is always the danger of semantic gain or loss in any translation. Some words are said to be untranslatable. This is due to the fact that languages are formed based on the environment of the speakers. Certain environments cannot be transferable from one context to another in language. This is mainly due to the fact that the words for certain thing or phenomena do not exist in other languages where the phenomena do not exist (Holquist & Emerson, 1981: 75). The Volokonsky- Peaver version is hailed the most complete translation of the novel in terms of carrying over detailed and expressive meaning. They are scrupulous and vivid in their translation and do not leave anything to chance. Their expressions are quite intense in relaying meaning even though this sometimes leads them to breaking a few grammatical rules. The Edmonds version is much more subdued in this sense and tends to stick closely to the rigidities of English lexical combinations and syntactical laws (Edmonds, 1954: 9). For example the two authors describe Stiva as “drawing a deep breath into the broad box of his chest” (Volokhonsky & Peaver, 2000: 8). This is expression is much richer in meaning than the equivalent used by Edmonds: “drawing a deep breath into his powerful lungs” (Edmonds, 1954: 9). While “broad box of his chest” may not fit too snugly into the English language most readers and speakers are used to, it gives depth to the meaning that Tolstoy intended. Volokhonsky and Peaver obviously had the advantage of hindsight when writing their version of the story. They were, therefore, motivated to improve on any areas in which they felt that previous writers had not done justice to the novel. This explains why they abandoned some of the Anglo equivalents of their predecessors and came up with new forms of expressions that they felt captured the work of Tolstoy in a more accurate manner (Edmonds, 1954: 9). The danger faced by a 50-year-old translation such as that of Edmonds is that over time it tends to lose its connection with the source work. This is because the translator tends to concentrate on creating a language so detached from the original, and so close to the target language conventions that they end up with a new novel all together. So the two writers try their best to avoid this mistake and instead get out a product as close to the source as is practically possible (Orwin, 1993: 11). Translations of Idioms, Metaphor and Proverbs While translating a source text, a translator obviously faces the problems that are related to the translation of idioms and metaphorical expression. In such cases the main challenge for the translator is to keep equivalence level intact. Generally translations of idioms and metaphors do not support any explanation or roundabout expression. Hence the translator has to choose an equivalent in the target language. But such replacement often results into absurdity and ethnocentrism, if the equivalent is culturally different (Barman, 2000). Indeed the complexity of translating idioms and metaphors lies in the fact that they are the unique socio-cultural possessions of a language (Mason, 1990: 16). Garnett, Edmond and, Volokhonsky and Peaver attempted to cope with this challenge of translating idiomatic and metaphorical expressions in the original text differently (Zuntz, 1953: 55). Translation of Metaphorical Expressions The idioms and metaphors of a language define its unique cultural heritage. All languages in the world not only have enough of these metaphors but also keep developing more as time goes by. Though they beautify a language and give it its flavor, these expressions can prove to be a real nightmare for translators, especially budding ones without the requisite experience. The professionals already know that attempts to translate word for word such expressions often result in meaning and message being distorted completely. Garnett has this description of Anna when she first meets Vronsky on the train. “She deliberately shrouded the light in her eyes” (Garnett, 1901: 81) Edmonds take on the same phrase is: “She deliberately extinguished the light in her eyes” (Edmonds, 1954: 87) In the following examples of translation, Garnett’s use of “shroud” is more fluent than the word “extinguish” in Edmonds’ version, as in English, the later one is more related to the word “fire”. But these examples do not necessarily mean Garnett’s version is more fluent than Edmonds’ because these translators convert the idioms and metaphors according to the fashion of their ages. Such seemingly miniature differences in metaphor usually build up as the book progresses to create a major difference in the conveyed meanings. And there are more of them. “Plump and pampered” is the manner in which Edmonds describes Stiva’s body in the first chapter while Volokhonsky et al have it as a “full, well-tended body.” Even in this instance Edmonds is a class ahead of the latter because she is describing a living human body while the latter is more suited to describing a plant in some pot (Hedger, 2006). Care needs to be taken in this sense to ensure that the most accurate meaning is conveyed, and one that people can identify with easily. Translating idiomatic expressions sometimes has this inherent danger in it, of straying totally from the original meaning (Kenyon, 1912: 302). However, the translation by all three writers in Part II of the book, that describes the guilt felt by Vronsky and Anna after they commit adultery, leaves a lot to be desired (Orwin, 1993: 16). The guilty-feeling is represented in a metaphor as the body of a victim who has just been murdered. Vronsky feels like he is the person who has just murdered someone and looks at Anna as if she is the body of victim. His guilt is thus juxtaposed with that of someone who has just killed and now beholds the body contemplating what can best be done with it. The translations at this point go as follows. “Pale, his lower jaw trembling…He felt what a murderer must feel when he looks at the body he has deprived of life. This body deprived of life was their love, the first period of their love. Despite all the murderers horror before the murdered body, he had to cut this body…...” (Volokhonsky & Peaver, 2000: 85-86) Pale, with trembling lower jaw….He felt what a murderer must feel when he looks at the body he has robbed of life. The body he had robbed of life was their love, the first stage of their love. In spite of the murderers horror before the body of his victim, that body…….” (Edmonds, 1954: 87-88) Pale, lower jaw trembling….He had the sensation of a murderer must feel when he looks at the body he has deprived life. The body in question was their love, at its early nascent stage. In spite of the horror a murderer must feel when he beholds the body of his victim, the body…... (Garnett, 1901: 81) In these metaphorical descriptions of Vronsky’s feeling of guilt, the three translators differ from each other on several points such how they interpret the original descriptions and how they contextualize the descriptions in the target language. Whereas Garnett and, Volokhonsky and Peaver choose the word “deprive” that is closer to Tolstoy’s expression, Edmond chooses to use the word, “rob”. Also as in the original text the word “murder” and its derivatives are repeated for a number of times, Volokhonsky and Peaver use of “murder” appears to be “literalism” in the sentence “Despite all the murderers horror before the murdered body, he had to…” (Volokhonsky & Peaver, 2000: 85-86) But due to the weirdness of such repetition in English, Edmond and Garnett attempt to rephrase differently. Translation of Idioms It is remarkable that while translating the idioms of the source texts all the translators follow almost the same way of rephrasing. Edmonds endeavors to the replace the idiom with an equivalent, if it is available in English. In Russian the word “душа” or “soul” play a significant role in the formation of idiom. Some idioms including the word “soul” such as “кривил душой” (slanted his soul or telling a lie), за душой (behind his soul or destitution) etc appear in the original text of “Anna Karenina”. But the common trend of all the translators for translating these idioms is to paraphrase them with similar lexically significant and equivalent words. Also the translation of the Russian idiom, “махнуть рукой на” that “means ‘to abandon hope for’, ‘to lose one’s belief in” (Hedger, 2006: 150) is done in the same paraphrasing style, as it follows: “Serpuhovskoy had long given up all hope of Vronsky’s career…” (Garnett, 1901: 618) “Serpukhovskoy had long washed his hands of Vronsky’s career…” (Edmonds, 1954: 575) “Serpukhovskoy had long since given up on Vronskys career…” (Volokhonsky & Pevear, 2000: 546) Translation of Humor and Puns Whereas Volokhonsky and Peaver’s version appears to be the author oriented, Edmonds’ version was reader-oriented. Indeed Edmonds’ attempt was to take the author to the readers. In an opposite manner, Volokhonsky and Peaver endeavored to take readers to the author. Often translators face problems to find proper equivalents while translating humor and puns. The difficulty of translating humor and pun lies in the fact that conveyance of humor is closely related with the rhythm of words. While translating, the maintenance of such humorous rhythms words is almost impossible. As in most cases, Humor is “related to the beliefs and values, the practices and behaviors”, adherence to the lexicographical equivalence often cannot transmit the humor to the target readers (Hedger, 2006: 151). Particularly while translating the novel “Anna Karenina”, the translators have to face with Tolstoy’s word-play. When Oblonsky persuades Karenin to divorce Anna, the pun occurs due to the use of the Russian polysemy “развод” that means “‘divorce’ or ‘examination of the guards before posting them’” (Hedger, 2006: 152). Due to the difficulty of translation, Garnett chooses to omit some puns from his translation. For example, he omits the pun, “развод” from the translation of the following passage: “When the affair was over he would ask his wife and most intimate friends. He put this riddle into two or three different ways” (Garnett, 1901: 490) But Edmonds and, Volokhonsky and Peaver choose to convey the humor through English word-play: “What is the difference between me and a chemist? A chemist makes solutions and no one is any the better – but I arranged a solution which made three people happier” (Edmonds, 1954: 458.) “What’s the difference between me and the emperor? He makes alliances and no one benefits, I break alliances and three people benefit…” (Volokhonsky & Pevear, 2000: 432.) It appears that Volokhonsky and Peaver’s rephrasing of the pun, “развод” is more effective than Edmonds’. They employ the sense of contrast between the meanings of the Russian word and rephrase the passage in the same contrastive manner. The comparison between the Emperor and Oblonsky is more humorous than the comparison with a chemist in Edmonds’ version (Hedger, 2006: 152). While translating other puns in the novel, the translators prove their competency to different extents. Conclusion From the analysis of these translated versions of “Anna Karenina” by Garnett, Edmonds and, Volokhonsky and Peaver it is evident that these translations have significantly been influenced by several factors such as the attitudes of the translators to translation, their effort for equivalence and their care for the readers’ perception. Necessarily all these factors force them to adopt strategies to cope with the difficulties of translation in their own. While Edmonds’ version can be characterized as a target-language oriented translation, Volokhonsky and Peaver’s version appears to be source-text oriented. References Bell, R. T. (1994) Translation and Translating. Longman Group UK Ltd. p 5 Berman, A. (2000) Translation and the Trials of the Foreign/ In The Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, London and New York: Routledge: 284-297. Burton, R.G. (1885b) The Censorship Of The Press In Russia. Westminster Review, volume CXLIV: 134-140. Classe, O. (2001) Encyclopedia of Literary Translation into English. New York. Fitzroy Dearborn p 2-4 Cohen, J.M. (1962) English translators and translations, London: F.Mildner and Sons Davie, D. (1990) Mr Tolstoy, I presume? The Russian Novel Through Victorian Spectacles/ In Slavic Excursions. Manchester: Carcanet Press Limited, 271-280. Edmonds, R. Translator. (1954) Anna Karenin, by Leo Tolstoy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics. France, P. (2000) “Translation Studies and Translation Criticism”, The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 3-10 Garnett, C. (1901) Anna Karenin, London: Heinemann; edited, with an introduction, by Leonard J. Kent and Nina Berberova, (1965) New York: Random House. Gifford, H. (1978.) On translating Tolstoy: New essays on Tolstoy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 17-38 Hedger, M. B. (2006) Tension between Domestication and Foreignisation In English-language Translation Of Anna Karenina. Edinburg: University of Edinburgh Holquist, M., & Emerson C. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp 72-75. Kenyon F.G. (1912) Handbook To The Textual Criticism. London: Macmillan. p. 302 Landers, C. E. (1991) Literary Translation, A Practical Guide. London: Multilingual Matters. p 16 Mason, L. (1990) Three Translations of Anna Karenin, London: Oxford University Press. pp 15-141. Nabokov, V. (1981) Lectures on Russian Literature. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. pp 16-81. Orwin, D. T. (1993) Tolstoys Art and Thought, 1847-1880. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp 11-14. France, P. (2000) “Translation Studies and Translation Criticism”, The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 3-10 Venuti, Lawrence (2000b.) The translation studies reader. London: Routledge. Volokhonsky, L. and Peaver, R. (Translators) (2000) Anna Karenina, by Leo Tolstoy. London: Penguin. Wechsler, R. (2000) Performing Without a Stage – The Art of Literary Translation, New York: Routledge, p 81-83. Zuntz, G. (1953) The Text of the Epistles. London: Oxford University Press. pp 55-56. Read More