Prevodna književnost u ciljnoj kulturi - uporedna analiza dva prevoda romana Maks Havelar

Abstract

Nizozemska kultura i književnost u prošlosti su nedovoljno bile zastupljene i poznate na ovim prostorima. Međutim, s osnivanjem prvih lektorata i grupa (Beograd, Zagreb, Ljubljana) promocija nizozemskog jezika, književnosti i kulture postaje sistematična i institucionalizovana. U ovom radu izloženi su rezultati komparativne i deskriptivne analize dva prevoda romana Maks Havelar, holandskog pisca Eduarda Dauvsa Dekera, koji je pisao pod pseudonimom Multatuli, na hrvatski odnosno srpski jezik. Ova dva prevoda nastala su u različitim kulturnim kontekstima. Prvi prevod pojavio se 1946. godine u tadašnjoj Jugoslaviji, dok je drugi objavljen 1996. godine u Srbiji. Cilj ovog rada je da se dva pomenuta prevoda, primenom modela Gideona Taurija, smeste u društveno-kulturni kontekst ciljne kulture i da se na osnovu analize tekstualnih i vantekstualnih podataka donesu zaključci o eventualnim razlikama u normama i konvencijama koje su bile karakteristične za period u kome su prevodi nastali.

The aim of this paper is to carry out a comparative descriptive analysis of two translations of Max Havelaar, a novel by the famous Dutch author Eduard Douwes Dekker alias Multatuli into Croatian and Serbian. The two translations belong to different periods and cultural and social contexts which means that the translators and their behavior were influenced by different norms. The analysis showed that one of the most obvious differences was in the directness of translation which was directly caused by cultural and social circumstances. This difference further led to other important discrepancies between the two translations. The ways the translators render the original text differ as well. They are both trying to preserve the couleur locale of the source text as much as possible which means that the translations have an active role in the target culture as they are trying to introduce the foreign culture to the local readership. Yet we can find more omissions, additions, generalisations and other discrepancies with the source text in the translation by Hergešić. Hergešić keeps the beauty of the target text at the forefront which is not surprising considering his vocation. On the other hand, given the ways the translators deal with the culture-bound elements in the source text we can conclude that the translator is more visible in the translation by Marija Rac, since her comments and explanations are given in the form of endnotes and are therefore visible in the text.