V.S. Solovyov as a Translator of Dante (on Two Translations from “Vita Nuova”)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines two poetic translations of Dante Alighieri’s “Vita Nuova” by V.S. Solovyov. At the present time, Solovyov’s specific experiments of translation are merely considered in the field of literary studies, although a general assessment of them has been given in the past by scholars such as A.F. Losev, Z.G. Mints, T.F. Teperik, A.A. Asoyan and others. The logic underlying the selection of the translated materials might indicate a special attitude of Solovyov in choosing names and works, which are significant for the understanding and realization of the poetry tasks. The author of this article demonstrates that such was the name of Dante Alighieri, which embodied a special myth concerning the spiritual transformation of man through one’s love for a woman. This myth was in harmony with the concept of art, as the latter is reflected in many works of the philosopher. The author also proves that Solovyov, who knew Italian language quite well, translates Dante's sonnets rather freely: in this way, he is able to keep the ideological content of the original text while also offering a different Russian translation. The specific character of Solovyov’s translations is here considered in comparison with the three other translations of the same sonnets made by the professional linguists and translators: M.I. Liverovskaya, A.M. Efros, and I.N. Golenischev-Kutuzov. The author maintains that the distinctive “Italian” canon of the sonnet genre is preserved in Solovyov's translation: this fact would demonstrate the philosopher’s adherence to the European poetic tradition. The article finally analyzes V. Solovyov’s translations from the point of view of their connection with his corpus of lyrical poems. In conclusion, the author sums up the basic principles of V.S. Solovyov’s translation work and clarifies the nature of the dialogical connection between his poetic heritage and Dante’s lyrics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".