HTN Conference 2022 History and Translation: Multidisciplinary Perspectives

25-28 May 2022, Tallinn University

Campaigning against "nationalistic

translator-wreckers" in Ukraine in 1934-35
as an evidence of the turn to Stalinist
National Bolshevism

Oleksandr Kalnychenko
Mykola Lukash Translation Studies Department,
V. N. Karazin National University of Kharkiv, Ukraine
[….] the Russians have been the first modern
people to practice the political direction of
culture consciously, and to attack at every point
the culture of any people whom they wish to
dominate.

Thomas Stearns Eliot, Notes Towards the

Definition of Culture (London: Faber and Faber
Ltd., 1948), p. 93.
Following in the steps of Christopher Rundle’s view of
translation as an organic part of the history of political
regimes in Europe, we assume that the history of
translation in the USSR will give us an insight into the
nature of the Communist’s political government. “In its
interaction with other cultures, a system of power betrays its own fears and
insecurities, and these are clearly manifested in its policies towards
translation”.

Daniele Monticelli: Totalitarian translation conceived of as a general

mechanism of cultural erasure (meaning 1) Censorship and destruction
of books; 2) Repression of living authors) and overscription (which fills
in the blanks generated by erasure with: 1)Translations from Russian; 2)
Reconfiguration of the past).
In a broad historical perspective, the interaction of cultures is
always dialogical… The fact that the dialogue of cultures is
accompanied by the growing hostility of the recipient towards
the one who dominates him, and an acute struggle for spiritual
independence, is an important typological feature.

Iuriĭ Lotman, ‘Problema vizantiĭskogo vliianiia na russkuiu kul′turu v tipologicheskom osveshchenii’

[The Issue of the Byzantine Empire’s Impact on Russian Culture in the Typological Interpretation], in
Izbrannye stat'i v trekh tomakh. TOM I. Stat'i po semiotike i tipologii kul'tury [Selected articles in three
volumes. VOLUME I. Articles on the semiotics and typology of culture] (Tallinn: Alexandra, 1992), p.
122.

“Retranslations of literature have proved to be useful data for a number of research

questions in Translation Studies: with the source text and the target language being
constant, the variable of time allows one to study issues such as the changing
translation norms and strategies, the standardization of language, or the effects of the
political or cultural context” (Kaisa Koskinen & Outi Paloposki. Retranslation/ In Handbook of Translation Studies, Volume 1 /
Yve Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer (eds.). – Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins, 2010. – P. 294.)
 Hryhorii Kochur: the period of
1917 – 1932 saw
“ great enthusiasm and an upsurge in
translation activities” when the hundreds of
translations from dozens of languages – both
living and dead ones – were being brought
out;
 the publication of multivolume collected works of
translated authors (e.g., Anatole France, Guy de
Maupassant, Jack London, Émile Zola, Mykola
Hohol and others)
 a boost “in the development of translation
theory” (Derzhavyn, Zerov, Filippovych,
Burghardt, Maifet, Finkel, Kulyk, ).
“[I]n March 1930, Moscow started a
campaign against nationalist
deviations in Ukraine. Soon the XII
CP (b) U Congress resolved that,
although there may still be some
problem with Russian chauvinism,
in Ukraine the main enemy was and
remained the Ukrainian bourgeois
nationalism. Ukraine was embarked
upon a tragic period of total
Russification, where going over to
Russian meant a demonstration of
political loyalty to the regime”.
 The period of 1932 - mid-
1950s witnessed
 “a decline in translation activities, with
numerous retranslations and relay
translations usually made from Russian
as the intermediate language”;
translation into Ukrainian was
characterized by the efforts to purify it
from European elements, unknown in
the Russian language, and to
incorporate the bulk of specifically
Russian words and structures
FEATURES OF THE PERIOD
 all agents in the translation process
(translators, censors, publishers,
commissioners, editors, stylistic editors,
critics, translation scholars, and (inner)
reviewers) turn into one pool which has
strictly defined goals
 Stalin’s regime attempted to openly regulate
literary expression, including not only textual
choices, but even translation strategies
 a campaign against “the nationalistic
wrecking” in translation
The party’s attention to the nationalistic “wrecking” in the translation of belles-
lettres was averted in the article “The Neglected Field of Literature: Conference of
Fiction Translators: Kharkiv, November 17” signed by the cryptonym A. Khm-kyi
in the issue of the Literaturna Hazeta of December 10. The author of the article
claimed that “undeniable are the facts of obvious wrecking, of fascist-nationalist
attacks of the class enemy, and so are a number of ideological flops” Забута
ділянка літератури: нарада перекладачів художньої літератури. Літературна
газета. 1933. 10 грудня
Then the article quoted certain speeches, in
particular, of the head of the translation sector of
the publishing house "LiM" ("Literature and
Art"), comrade Ya. Olesich. Olesich admitted the
facts of translations by such persons as Efremov,
Ivchenko and Zagul (repressed by that time) and
that “the main work used to be ordered to the
people to be removed from the list of translators”
and promised that "the publishing house will
collaborate only with those translators who are
fully committed to the work of the party”.
Another orator (Manenko) concluded his speech
with the words that "[A] translator can provide a
good translation, only when he or she corresponds
to the appropriate ideological and artistic level".
As a guide for practices of translating from Russian in the most literal, word-for-
word way served the article “Nationalistic distortions in Ukrainian translations of

the works of Lenin”by Naum Kahanovych (1903- 38)

 “The first edition of Ukrainian translation of
Lenin’s works edited by Skrypnyk has been
distorted and perverted by the nationalists.
Nationalistic translators supported by Skrypnyk*
pursued the course of action aimed at the
separation of the Ukrainian language [from
Russian], at its artificial limitation, the course
followed by the language of German and Polish
fascists. The sense of Lenin’s works has been
falsified” (Kahanovych 1934:11)**.
 * Mykola Skrypnyk was a Ukrainian Bolshevik organizer who led the cultural
Ukrainization effort in Soviet Ukraine
 **Каганович Н. Націоналістичні перекручення в українських перекладах творів В. І. Леніна : (до питання про
синонімію) / Н. Каганович // Мовознавство. – 1934. – № 3/4.
Similar charges were brought then against most of the
translators into Ukrainian in a slew of articles which
labeled them as “nationalistic” or “counter-revolutionary
wreckers” and counted among the enemies of the Party,
the working class, and the working masses of Soviet
Ukraine. It was a large-scale, top-down campaign.
Not only translations of works by Vladimir Ulyanov-
Lenin, but also translations of ideologically marked texts
of modern Russian literature, primarily the works of
Maxim Gorky and Mikhail Sholokhov, were accused of
“nationalistic wrecking”
А. Shevchenko in his article “On the publishing of Lenin's
works in Ukrainian”
 The counterrevolutionary wreckers “working” on the theoretical
front not only introduced surreptitiously the national-Trotskyist
propaganda in their counter-revolutionary works, but also
distorted Marxism-Leninism on a counter-revolutionary purpose
in their translations of the classics of Marxism-Leninism into the
Ukrainian language. Having infiltrated the editorial board of the
Ukrainian edition of Lenin's works, headed by Skrypnyk, the
nationalist wreckers deliberately falsified the content of these
works in their translations, pursuing the course for the isolation
of the Ukrainian language from the languages of the fraternal
peoples of the USSR, orientating it towards the language of
German and Polish fascists. The maiming of the Ukrainian
language was one of the vehicles of counter-revolutionary work
aimed at tearing Ukraine away from the Soviet Union and thus
turning it into a colony of international imperialism Шевченко А. Про видання
творів Леніна українською мовою. Під марксистсько-ленінським прапором. 1935. № 5. С. 137–139.
 Andriy Paniv (1899 – 1937)
In the summer of 1934, a conference of translators and editors of
the translations of Gorky’s works was held at the Central
Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine

 Nationalistic wreckers and counter-revolutionaries that

intensified their hostile activities, especially on the cultural front,
and, in particular, in the publishing houses, did not intend to
give access of the broad masses of working people to the
works of their favourite writer A.M. Gorky in the Ukrainian
language. On the contrary, they spread various nationalistic lies
about his attitude to the Ukrainian language and should they
have anything published yielding to the pressure of the Soviet
reading public, then it was either an undermining falsification
after the nationalistic recipes, "as-far-as-possible-
 from-the-original" recipes or a downright pot-boiler.
 Andriy Paniv (1899 –
1937)
 In the then translation of the novel Mother … at any
cost, the words similar to Russian words were
omitted, whereas the words spoiling both the rhythm
and style of the language, like “smak do yizhi” (‘taste
for food’) and suchlike, were coined. That…
impoverished the Ukrainian language, because after
these recipes such words as "krasyvyi", "horoshyi",
"horod", "staryk", "dvoyuridnyi brat", "zhalko",
"pohozhe"," mohuchyi" were to be avoided. And all
that only because these words sound similar in
Russian and Ukrainian, and even though they enter
all the dictionaries, and are used in the live language
of the broad Ukrainian working masses” Панів А. Твори О.М.
Горького українською мовою. Літературна газета. 1934. 12 серпня. С.1.
“How Pylypenko Distorted
Sholokhov” signed by Ievhen
Kasianenko
Касяненко Є. Як Пилипенко
перекручував Шолохова.
Літературна газета.
1934. 20 серпня. С.1.
 Kasianenko, Yevhen (1934) “Yak Pylypenko perekruchuvav
Sholokhova” [How Pylypenko Distorted Sholokhov],
Literaturna Hazeta [Literary Newspaper], August 20: 2.

[T]he wreckers were caught red-handed as substituting the words

of common roots with the Russian language by fictitious words, for
example, ‘merezha’ instead of ‘sitka’*, ‘zyasovuvaty’ instead of
‘poyasniuvaty, rozyasniuvaty, vyyasniuvaty**.’ After the party
delivered them a blow on the language front, they immediately
made a U-turn and began replacing a lot of common Ukrainian
words, if their roots were not common with the roots of Russian
words, by Russisizms. Causing dissatisfaction with the readers,
who encounter such far-fetched Russisizms, the wreckers
disseminate rumours that the party forces them to do this, thus
drawing the line towards Russification of the Ukrainian language
*Both words mean “a fishing net”: “merezha” – ‘large mesh net”; “sitka” – “fine mesh net”, but “merezha”has no
Russian word with a similar root while “sitka” has a corresponding Russian word “setka.”
**“Zyasovuvaty" (“to clear up, find out”) has the second meaning “poyasniuvaty” (“to elucidate, to
explicate”);“poyasniuvaty” has a corresponding Russian word “obyasniat’” with the same root “yasn.”
 Іevhen Kasianenko

 «Pervaded by such distortions, The

Virgin Soil Upturned was obviously to
have become the directive pattern on
the part of the class enemy on how to
destroy the translated Ukrainian
Soviet literature in the future, under
the new conditions of an increased
class vigilance»

 Serhii Pylypenko (1891-1934)

The abrupt termination of the campaign

In 1935, critical materials with the accusations

against translators-wreckers ceased to appear.
Henceforth, the repressed translators were
transformed into Orwellian “non-persons”: they
were no longer criticized and not even mentioned,
their names were forbidden to be referred to, and
the books translated by them were withdrawn
from the trading network and libraries.
Conclusions: Such publications which
incriminated translators not inaccuracy of
translation, but wrecking and counter-
revolutionary activity, triggered mass
retranslation and revision including texts from
Western languages. Together with the
encouragement of translating from Russian as
a relay language, came the censorship policy of
revising and rewriting formerly published
translations to make them as close as possible
to the Russian language lexical and
grammatical patterns.
 mid-1930s - mid- 1950s

 1) Translations from Russian occupy the

dominant position in Ukrainian literary
polysystem;
 2) they serve as a model for the generation of
new ‘original” Ukrainian works in accordance
with a canon of Socialist realism – “Soviet
literature written in the Ukrainian language”.
The vocabularies of the republished
translations (revisions or retranslations) were
purged of “archaisms”, which harked back to
national history, and “alien” elements (e.g.,
vocabulary of Polish origin was dubbed
“fascist”). The prohibited words and other
elements were replaced by “internationalist”
ones – Russian-derived modern vocabulary
and grammar constructions borrowed from
Russian. Translations were to play the
dominant part in this process.
Stepan Kovhaniuk (1902—1982)

Since that time on, “a heavy all-

binding seal of literalism,”
became mandatory for all
translations from Russian.
Ковганюк С. Переклад художньої російської прозина українську мову/ Степан Ковганюк// Питання перекладу: з
матеріалів республіканської наради перекладачів (лютий 1956 року)
An outburst of political repressions against
Ukrainian literati, scholars and academicians began
in the late 1920s and reached its peak in 1937.
 From among Ukrainian men of letters active
in the 1920s-1930s, about 500 were
“repressed”, some 150 perished. It became
typical in the late 1930s that the names of
translators recently subjected to repression
would simply disappear from their newly-
published translations, as well as from many
reprinted editions. This beheading of the
nation was accompanied, throughout the
1930s and on, by advancing Russification in
all spheres.

“Ґедзь”, 1929,
tr. by Maria Lysychenk
Артур сидів у книгозбірні духовної
семінарії в Пізі, проглядаючи купу
писаних зібрань. … Отець ректор,
каноник Монтанелі, урвавши на мить
своє писання, поглянув з любов’ю на
чорняву голову, схилену над паперами.
Голос Монтанелі був низький, але
гучний і соковитий … Це був голос
природженого промовця, багатий на
відтінки. Коли він звертався до Артура, в
тоні його завжди бриніла ніжність.
Монтанелі провадив далі свою працю.
Сонний хрущ гудів лінькувато за вікном, а
з вулиці лунав тягучий меланхолійний
вигук продавця овочів: «fragola! fragola!»
“Овод” (Ovod), 1958, Russian tr. by
“Овід” , 1935, Nataliia Volzhyna
tr. by Maria Riabova
Артур сидів у бібліотеці духовної семінарії Артур сидел в библиотеке духовной
в Пізі і переглядав купу рукописних семинарии в Пизе и пересматривал кучу
проповідей. … Отець ректор, канонік рукописных проповедей. ... Отец ректор,
Монтанеллі, відірвався на хвилину од каноник Монтанелли, перестал писать и с
писання і з любов’ю поглянув на схилену над любовью взглянул на чёрную голову,
паперами чорняву голову. склонившуюся над листами бумаги.
.
Голос у Монтанеллі був тихий, але дуже Голос у Монтанелли был тихий, но очень
глибокий і гучний … Це був голос глубокий и звучный ... Это был голос
природженого оратора, багатий на відтінки. прирожденного оратора, гибкий, богатый
Коли канонік говорив з Артуром, тон у оттенками. Когда каноник говорил с
нього був завжди ласкавий. Артуром, тон у него был всегда ласковый.
Монтанеллі знов узявся до роботи. За Монтанелли продолжал прерванную
вікном ліниво гудів сонний хрущ, по вулиці работу. Где-то за окном однотонно
лунав протяжний сумовитий крик жужжал майский жук…
продавця фруктів: «Суниці! Суниці!»
Джек Лондон, «Залізна п’ята» (Iron 1959, the translator’s name not “Back translation” of the 1959
Heel), 1933, edited by Barska and indicated, from Russian translation into Russian
Molodykh
Ернест викликав попів на герць. Ернест кидав виклик присутнім Эрнест бросал вызов присутствующим
служителям церкви. служителям церкви.
Вони тлумачили голод і моровицю, як Вони проголошували голод і чуму божою Они провозглашали голод и чуму божьим
кару божу. карою. наказанием.

Панотці балакали безперестанку про Священики говорили без упину про Священники говорили без устали о
робітничу клясу. робітничий клас. рабочем классе.

Я не знаюся на тонкощах релігійних Я не маю досвіду у тонкощах У меня нет опыта в тонкостях философских
суперечок. філософських суперечок. споров.

Ви ніби службу правите перед вівтарем Ви, мабуть, молитеся фактам. Вы, наверное, молитесь фактам.
фактів.
Кров капає навіть зі сволоків вашої стелі. Кров капає з вашого даху. Кровь капает с вашей крыши.
COMPARE
Vasylko (1929) Khutorian (1948)
 Мали самі но довгі  У них були тільки
чуби, що всякий козак довгі чуби, за які міг
при зброї міг їх наскубати їх усякий
насмикати. Вже як козак, що носив
кінчали науку, послав зброю. Вже як
Бульба їм з табуна випускали їх,
свого пару молодих Бульба послав їм з
огирів. табуна свого пару
молодих жеребців.
 From the late 1930s, "free" (“creative”,
“realistic”) translation was exclusively the case
of translations from Western literatures, while in
the translations from Russian into Ukrainian, as
well as into other national languages, the
strategy of literalism was imposed.
In the 1930s, the Soviet canon of classical
Russian literature was formed, and the canon of
foreign classics began to take shape, to which
only the texts “useful” for Soviet outlook were
allowed, and the rest of Western authors were
considered either unnecessary or harmful.
Translation played the most active role in these
 The opposition to this
translation policy
 brought about the birth of the
theory of translation from
closely related languages
developed by Maksym
Rylsky and the theory of the
impact of word-to-word
translation on the literary
language elaborated by
Oleksa Kundzich
Translation activities of Lukash who actively used
the lexical and stylistic cornucopia of his native
tongue, despite an avalanche of politically motivated
and mostly unfair criticism for having "archaized"
the language of translated texts and making it
"folkloric-sound," and those translators who were
returning from GULAG camps, such as Hryhorii
Kochur, Borys Ten, Vasyl Mysyk, Dmytro
Palamarchuk, together with a partial reappearance of
the works and names of the “executed generation”
of translators (first and foremost of the
“Neoclassical” translators), changed the disastrous
setup in the Ukrainian translation field. 
Instead of conclusion
“The Communist Party authorities have chosen the strategy of elaborate censorship of
the cultural reserves of indigenous peoples as one of their principal belligerent
campaigns, purposefully increasing the pace and scope of Russification of the
Ukrainian and other non-Russian nationalities of the Soviet Union. Among the biggest
reserves for each culture is an access to the world cultural heritage through a kind of
competition, or co-creativity, with the geniuses from other nationalities, which leads to
expansion of the mother tongue abilities. Therefore, the choice of texts for translation,
the translators’ lexical and stylistic technologies as well as their living conditions
became the focus of close attention of the Soviet literary and non-literary secret service
bodies. The Communists’ fighting with the Ukrainian translation school was an
important part of the broader strategy of provincializing the Ukrainian literature and
weakening the Ukrainian language until it reaches the level of otioseness” .
Ivan Dziuba, a famous Ukrainian literary critic and dissident, the author of the work
"Internationalism or Russification?" (1968), dealing with the analysis of the Soviet
national and cultural policy in Ukraine and arguing that during Stalin’s rule
the CPSU had moved to the positions of Russian chauvinism
THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND
ATTENTION!
TÄNAN TEID TÄHELEPANU
EEST!
ДЯКУЮ ЗА УВАГУ!