«передача идейного мира сказки джона рональда руэла толкина «хоббит» при англо-русском переводе»
жүктеу/скачать 131.33 Kb.
|
- Бұл бет үшін навигация:
- The list of the used literature
- My own translation of chapter 16 “A Thief at Night” Глава 16 Вор в ночи
| Приложение 4
Пример исследовательской работы учащегося Тырон Александра Игоревна «ПЕРЕДАЧА ИДЕЙНОГО МИРА СКАЗКИ ДЖОНА РОНАЛЬДА РУЭЛА ТОЛКИНА «ХОББИТ» ПРИ АНГЛО-РУССКОМ ПЕРЕВОДЕ» Contents Introduction Main body Chapter 1 Objectives of translation and its equivalence Chapter 2 The bibliographic analysis Chapter 3 The ideological world of the text Chapter 4 The comparative analysis Conclusion My own translation Introduction "... I pored over the school certificate and suddenly put it aside and wrote, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." on a clean sheet of paper. This was the beginning of one of the most well known literary works - D.R.R.Tolkien's tale "The Hobbit", the most fascinating, surprising and magic fairy tale in the world. After the first edition in 1936 in America the book started to be issued in huge circulations immediately, it was declared the best children's book; numerous translations into different languages have been issued. The first translation into Russian was published in the USSR in 1978. The story about the hobbit has caused the Soviet educated youth’s interest to Tolkien's works. In the USSR editions published in Europe appeared first and later on there were home-made translations. Mainly around them societies, called "толкинисты" or "толканутые", have appeared. However, very soon alongside with the creation and discussion of the translations "толкинутые" have taken a great interest in producing their own creative “variations on the themes”, parodying, and role-playing. "Хоббитские игрища" (costumed role-plays in the field camps) have appeared in the eightieth. Nowadays "толкинутые" are alive too, and they continue to fight on wooden swords, to write stories "by Tolkien". However, as well as twenty years ago, there is not enough "that magic, barely perceptible beauty", inherent Professor's works (so "толкинисты"call their idol) in all that. Moreover, roughness and even cruelty have appeared, especially in the role-plays. People reading a book or watching a film (based on the same translation), pay attention first of all to the action, battle scenes, struggle, instead of the beauty and magic of the world created by Tolkien. It may be the people's fault, may be - the world's in which we live. But a share of fault, even if it is small, should be undertaken by those people who have shown us the Tolkien's creation - the translators. It is impossible to transfer that the author wanted to tell without losses in the translation - the word-per-word translation would be necessary for this purpose, but it would not show such important details as harmony or beauty of the sounds. In any case, the translated text would lose something in comparison with the original, but would get something too. It is possible to judge about whether the creation has been changed positively by the readers` reaction and by the way the creation is perceived. A lot of foreign books appear in Russia, of course in translations. However, because of the mistakes and discrepancies in them the author's texts can be understood wrongly and cause a reaction that the author did not expect at all. For example, толкинисты even put forward such a slogan: "The Professor is lying, everything happened in a different way!" They find such ideas in the Tolkien's creations at which the author have never hinted. Therefore, the question of translation is very important today. It is significant personally for me too. I read D.R.R.Tolkien's "The Hobbit" when I was 12. I did not reflect on it then, but now, taking the book in my hands, I ask myself: "Am I reading the real " The Hobbit"?". Having overlooked the text of the original, I understood that the book in Russian translation is a very detailed retelling more than the exact translation. "Translation is a huge responsibility", - I have understood. The translator, figuratively speaking, talks by the lips of the author in the other language. So there should be rules for the translator to follow not to deform the sense and the style of a creation, to make the work of a translator imperceptible, to make the reader taking the book in his hands see the author's creation in front of him, just in the other language, and to make his relation to the author after the perusal fair. What rules? What determines them? These questions have also encouraged me to do this research. The aim of my work is to find out the qualities that a translation should have to transfer the author’s idea successfully. In order to do that I had to achieve the following objectives:
I intend to do it using the comparative analysis of the translations of "The Hobbit". "The Hobbit" was republished in Russia in five issues: 1. N.Rahmanova. 1976. Publishing house "Children's literature". 2. V.Matorina. 1990. Publishing house "Amur". 3. Z.Bobyr. 1994. Publishing house "Book world". 4. S.Stepanov, M.Kamenkovich. 1995. Publishing house "Terra-alphabet". 5. K.Korolev. 2000. Publishing house "AST". The first of them is the most well known, the last is the most contemporary. In the research work, I shall discover conditions of equivalence of translation and compare the 16th chapters in N.Rahmanova's and K.Korolev's translations being guided by these conditions. I have chosen the chapter "A Thief in the Night" because it lets us judge the characters of such heroes as Thorin, Bard, Gandalf, the Elvenking and, the most important, Bilbo. In this chapter he brings an extremely valuable stone, " the Heart of the Mountain; and… also the heart of Thorin", to the camp of the enemies and gives it to the elves. Why did he do that? It is difficult to answer this question immediately. Which of the two translations explains the action of the main character better, which is closer to the author’s opinion; - it will become clear after their analysis and comparison. Translators were working with the same text and met identical difficulties, but they overcame them in their own ways. Using the bibliographic analysis, I shall make conclusions about who of the translators has solved the problem of translation more successfully in what issues.
"Equivalence of the objects means their equality in any attitude; equality of the objects in every attitude is not possible. Anything of universe is a unique thing; two things, each of them would be the same as another, do not exist". This is the definition of equivalence. "Equality in any attitude..." In what attitude? – that is the main question of translation. The original cannot be reproduced in the other language without losses. It is proved not only by a definition of equivalence, but also by a lot of objective factors. Firstly, the words designating this or that phenomenon or subject, mentioned in the initial text can not exist in the translational language. Secondly, because of the different mentalities of two countries and even their geographical position it is sometimes impossible to transfer feelings and sensations that are being described by the author in the original. For example, it is rather difficult for inhabitants of Russia or Canada to understand the charm of a shadow of a vineyard and refreshing moisture of the spring, sung by the Georgian poet. Thirdly, there is such a phenomenon as a word-play. More often, it is based on a similar pronunciation or a similar origin of the words. As an example, it is possible to quote a fragment from M.Gorkij's story “The Owner": “На подоконнике у нее стоял бальзамин в цвету. Однажды она хвастливо спросила: - Хорош светок? - Ничего. Только надо говорить "цветок". Она отрицательно качнула головою. - Нет, это не подходит: цветок - на ситце, а светок, светик - это от Бога, от солнышка. Одно - цвет, другое - свет. Я знаю, как говорить.” The dialogue like that is extremely difficult to transfer because in the translational language there hardly is the same lexical pair – words with similar pronunciation "цвет" (from which the word "цветок" is formed) and "свет" ("светок"). In that case, the translator finds a similar pair of words in the translational language and changes the whole episode along with the subject of the narration, or simply omits it. Both decisions could hardly be named the decision for the benefit of equivalence. However, there is no third, optimal decision. There is also such obstacle to translation as associations, specific for definite ethnic groups. For example, the usual love address to a woman in Uzbekistan is “Oh, my parrot!” It is ridiculous to translate it into Russian literally, because in Russia and some other European cultures the parrot is associated with its dependence and garrulity, but not with the beauty of its plumage as at Uzbeks. There are still more many difficult situations for the translator to meet and solve. But, finally, a question rising before him when he stops at the difficult point is whether to translate close to the text or to create an analogy in the translational language? In one of his letters A.K.Tolstoj has opened a principle by which he was guided translating "The Corinthian bride" written by I.V.Gethe: "...Without a minute of hesitation, I distract from word-per-word translation if it can give other impression in Russian, than in German. I do not think that it is necessary to translate words and even sometimes the impression, it is necessary to transfer the sense, as the main thing. It is necessary to create the same atmosphere for the reader of the translation, in which the reader of the original is and the translation should act upon the same nerves ". The writer and the translator P.A.Vjazemsky, who reflected on the problems of translation a lot, wrote that "breaking the author’s expressions, the symmetry of his words" seemed to him "unnatural change of his (the author's) idea ". Much later, V.V. Nabokov, who had been brought up in the bilingual atmosphere and therefore new and felt Russian and English languages equally well, wrote the biographical novel "Другие берега". Having translated it into English, he realized that he wrote quite another work, and called it "Speak, Memory". But totally surprising was the fact, that when he retranslated "Speak, Memory" back into Russian, it turned out to be the third novel, quite different from both previous. However, these sayings are only personal opinions of the translators. What is more correct from the point of view of equivalence: an exact translation or an artistic interpretation of the original in the translational language? It is necessary to describe conditions of recognition of the translation text the translation from the target language not from the personal point of view, but theoretically proved, to answer this question. The bibliographic analysis In this part of the research, I am going to find out the conditions of equivalence of translation, basing on L.K.Latyshev's and A.L.Semenov's opinion, that is to make the bibliographic analysis of their book Translation: the theory, practice and the technique of teaching “. As a result of comparison of various translations and their analysis it is possible to find out two extreme measures: super translation and scanty translation (ideal translation by virtue of reasons named before remains, unfortunately, inaccessible top which it is necessary to try to attain). There are also the texts representing in one moment the first extreme measure, and in another - the second. So, let`s consider super translation and scanty translation. Super translation is a kind of translation with additional processing, adaptation to the features of the addressee. Scanty translation could be named a "draft" translation, a word-per-word translation. There is no stylistic conformity to the original in it and (or) its contents is transferred incompletely. It is obvious, that the translator renounces principles of the equivalence running into these extreme measures,. To formulate them, we will consider super translation and scanty translation again. In super translation the translator resorts to the method of retelling; he changes events, names, and even facts if he cannot translate them (for example, replaces the German "LPG" with the Russian "колхоз"); adapts the text for the reader by changing its style. The translation text does not reproduce all more or less essential characteristics of the original any more; it is not its semantic -structural analogue. Therefore, the first condition of equivalence in translation is semantic-structural similarity of the translation and the original. In this occasion, J.I.Retsker's opinion is widely known: «The translation should transfer not only what is expressed by the original, but also the way it is expressed ». But what to do if careful observation of the first condition of the equivalence makes the text difficult to understand or causes inadequate reaction to it? Аlongside with the questions «What is the text about? », «What is told in the text?» and «How is it told?» the translator should ask him/herself the question: «What for, for the sake of what is something told in the text?». In other words, what feelings should the reader experience, what should the text encourage him to do (not in the translator’s opinion, certainly, but in the author’s)? «The main thing is to transfer the impression», - said A.K.Tolstoj, in other words it is necessary to try to attain communicative - functional equivalence of translation and the original (that is to ensure their identical influence on the addressees). A communicative - functional equivalence is the second condition of the equivalence of translation. However, one would think, the first and the second conditions contradict each other. The first demands an exact, almost a literal translation, the second – an adapted transposition, a retelling. What should the translator do? The matter is that all difficult situations of translation are unique. And the translators are unique too. Because of this, the translator makes a choice for the benefit of the first or the second, depending on what seems to him more important in each case. A choice of the version most corresponding to both principles is the main task of the translator. Thus, the third principle of equivalence in translation is transforming the text moderately, choosing the version corresponding to both principles. It is necessary to notice, that only observation of all the three conditions lets the translational text be called an equivalent translation. However, in some cases the communicative - functional equivalence is unessential (for example, in the technical literature). The ideological world of the text It is not difficult to see if the principle of semantics-structural similarity is observed in the translation. But it is more difficult with the second principle of equivalence. When we want to understand if the translator has transferred the author’s idea accurately and if the translation has the same emotional effect on the reader as the original does, it is necessary to understand the ideological world of the original and to analyse how it is presented in the translation. The concept of «the ideological world» includes the following aspects: the topic, the problem, the idea, the pathos of the text, the author's ideal and the author's estimations of the characters. The topic is the list of basic questions the author is reflecting on. The topic of the 16th chapter of "The Hobbit" is Bilbo's action, his runaway to the elves' camp and giving the Arkenstone to them. The problem put by the author in his book and in the chapter «The Thief in the Night» in particular, is changing of the characters` inner world because of the external events. In the chapter which I have chosen, the problem can be defined as the conflict between self-interest, desire for wealth and internal necessity to sacrifice the treasure for justice and peace. The idea is the basic sense of the text. In “The Hobbit” it is complexity of the person, displaying unexpected (sometimes even for the character him/herself) personality traits in critical circumstances. The act of the small hobbit personifies of the author’s ideal: renunciation of wealth and power, remaining you in any situation, however difficult, helping the fellow-creatures, both the friend and the enemy. «Among the blessed hobbits the most blessed is the one who, having had an authority, an absolute authority, refused it»- says Jacob Krotov. Pathos is the passion that penetrates the story. Pathos of "The Hobbit", certainly, has the heroic character, most brightly shown in the 16th chapter, in a narration about the Bilbo’s feat. As it is no mean feat to refuse your share of the profit for the benefit of the enemy in order to prevent bloodshed risking to be called a traitor. The author's estimation of heroes is ambiguous. Tolkien describes them so realistically that it seems they are coming to life. It is not possible to characterize them, almost the real creatures, as exactly "good" or "bad". All of them are different: lazy, proud, sometimes petty, sometimes brave, resourceful … These surprisingly alive creatures fill the fantastic Tolkien's world with their magic presence. The comparative analysis The first and the easiest to discover difference between the two translations is the approach to translation of the names. «Languages and names are inseparable from my stories. The last were and remain an attempt to create the world in which my linguistic predilections would receive the right of existence. First there were names, the legends came later» - said J.R.R.Tolkien. This shows how important the names were for him, a professional linguist, the professor of the English language and literature in Oxford. The phonetic and graphic form of a word (its sounding and spelling) has the great value for Tolkien. In his childhood, he created magically sounding words, and made the special language of them. However, the majority of proper nouns in his works is based on a root of a real word and should have the certain semantic meaning. Such names as Bilbo, Bombur, Fili, Kili, Dain, Bard, Roäc, Train and Gandalf, obviously, should be transliterated. J.R.R.Tolkien has applied his skill to invent magic words in creation of these names. Their sounding lets us to know clearly: Bombur is a fattish simpleton; Fili and Kili are fast, bright and, probably, young; Gandalf is the magician, who knows everything and maintains his dignity. Roäk is a raven; it is possible to guess on his "croaking" name, without reading about him at all. In both of the translations - N.Rahmanova's (later on it is called translation 1), and K.Korolev's (translation 2) - these names are transliterated with only small differences: "Трейн" (1) - "Траин" (2), "Роак" (1) - "Роэк" (2), "Бэрд" (1) - "Бард" (2) and "Дэйн" (1) - "Даин" (2). However, these differences can be considered insignificant because the translation has been based on one principle in both cases. The place names «Iron Hills» and «the Mountain» have not caused difficulties. They have been translated into Russian literally as «Железные Холмы» (1) («Железное Взгорье» - (2)) and "Гора". The matter with the translation of such proper nouns as Baggins, Oakenshield and Arkenston is more difficult. In his «Manual of translation proper nouns of «The Lord of the Rings»» Tolkien has told that « to the names which are not "senseless", made as English and contain out-of-date or dialect roots, it is necessary to find equivalents in the language of the translation, keeping initial sense and having if it is possible archaic or unusual sounding». That means to make translation by a method of tracing. Only one translator - K.Korolev - has performed this task. D.R.R.Tolkien wrote about translation of the word "Baggins" in the following way: «The translation should contain a root with the meaning "bag"». K.Korolev has created a surprisingly exact version - "Торбинс", reflecting essence of hobbit's nature, thrifty, loving cosiness and order. His decision to translate the word "Arkenstone" as "Завет-камень" is also interesting. Maybe this name has lost its mysterious sounding, but it has definitely received sense. One more proper noun, translated by K.Korolev by the method of tracing is "Oakenshild" (at K.Korolev - «Дубовый Щит»). The translator has made this word even more similar to a nickname, than it was in the English variant. However, these changes are positive: «Дубовый Щит» is closely related to Bombur's description of Thorin: «yet he was ever a dwarf with a stiff neck». To sum up, K.Korolev`s position concerning translation proper nouns is more favorable. Deeper approach to translation and desire to transfer everything, what the author wanted to say is felt in it. Otherwise, the translator has considered all the three conditions of the equivalence in this case. Having considered translation of names, we can start analysing the ideological world of story in both translations, particularly the author's characteristics of the characters and his relation to them. One of the rather precisely painted images in 16th chapter is the image of Roäk. Roäk is an old and wise raven. He has flied to Torin's camp to notify him of the approach of the help, a huge group of dwarves led by Torin`s cousin Dain. However, they cannot come to the Mountain, passing the elves' camp. «Боюсь, им не подойти к Горе незамеченными <…> Как бы не завязался бой в долине», - says Roäk in the first translation. In these words there is sort of uncertainty which is not expressed in the original («But they cannot reach the Mountain unmarked <…> and I fear lest there be battle in the valley»). An exact literal translation has played a nasty trick on the translator in this case. In K.Korolev's text, this phrase sounds like this: «Но незамеченными им не пробраться <…> Придется сражаться». In the second version, it is clear that a raven is wise and resolute and sees a state of things as it is. The character of Roäk in this (2) translation reflects his character in the original. However, this is achieved by a method of retelling, i.e. the translator breaks the principle of semantic-structural similarity. Now we should consider the image of Bombur in both translations. Bombur is a very bright character. He likes to have a meal, to sleep and grumble on the others a little. However, he grumbles only in K.Korolev's translation: «Я думаю! А мне тут торчать до полуночи! <...> Ну что за невезение!» (in N.Rahmanova's translation: «Еще бы. Но мне еще стоять до двенадцати ночи»). The word "grumbled", used by the author about Bombur, allows making a conclusion that K.Korolev has transferred the impression from the character more successfully, although using retelling. And, at last, Bilbo. To identify the character of the main hero in both translations, we shall consider a scene of his conversation with Bard and the Elvenking. It begins with Bilbo explaining the state of things. «Знаете, право, создалось совершенно невыносимое положение», - he says in N.Rahmanova's translation. «Вы, конечно, знаете, что дела обстоят неважно», - he says in K.Korolev`s translation. In the first case the impression, that Bilbo is speaking insincerely; that he is a hypocrite is created. In the original the hobbit does not complain of «intolerable position», because he has already overcome a lot of difficulties, he is a strong person. In the second translation, the character of the main hero is transferred better in this aspect. In addition, the words «вернулся восвояси», «загвоздка», «хорошо, что я сохранил эту бумажку» transform the hobbit’s monologue into real speech. Bilbo speaks about Thorin’s avarice, he says: «he is quite ready to sit on a heap of gold and starve, as long as you sit here». Bard answers: «Well, let him! Such a fool deserves to starve». The hobbit answers: «Совершенно верно!» (1); «Может быть» (2). The phrase «Совершенно верно» (the translation of «Quite so») sounds as if Bilbo betrays Thorin. But the dwarf is his friend, he could not say so! Thus, the character of the main hero is transferred more successfully in the second translation in which an accent is made on the observation of the principle of communicative - functional equivalence. However, that position of the translator can cause, strangely enough, inexact transference of the author's idea. In a fragment where Bilbo explains what for he has given Arkenstone to the enemies, each author's word is important. We can’t help observing the first condition of equivalence. N.Rahmanova appears in more advantageous position, than K.Korolev here. The most important question sounds in the first translation like this: «Почему ты отдаешь его, как свой? ». In the second translation, it is missed at all. However, this question is very important, because the answer to it is the explanation of Bilbo's action. In K.Korolev's translation, the hobbit says just: «Ну, это долгая история! Понимаете.… В общем, пускай камень будет залогом». After that, it is told: «Король эльфов с уважением поглядел на хоббита». Why did he look at Bilbo with respect? It looks as if Bilbo had simply stolen a stone. In N.Rahmanova's version, the small hero says: «Но я… понимаете, я готов не требовать своей доли» ("I am willing to let it stand against all my claim» in the original). It becomes clear, that Bilbo’s action is worth respecting. He does not simply give the enemies the most valuable stone from all the treasure, which he would share with the dwarves, to prevent battle. He is also ready not to demand his share, not to demand the reward for what he has done on a way full of risky adventures and sometimes the danger of death. Reading N.Rahmanova's translation you understand it. The aspiration to translate closer to the author's text makes N.Rahmanova's translation an equivalent of the original in the greater degree, than K.Korolev's translation, not only in the above mentioned case. When Bilbo says to the Elvenking and Bard: «Now I will make you an offer!», they answer: «Let us hear it!». «You may see it!» - says the hobbit. In the first translation, this dialogue sounds like this: - Послушаем! – отозвались король и Бэрд. - Вернее, посмотрим! – поправил хоббит. In the second translation it is transformed into: - Предлагай, - согласились Бард с королем. - Вот, взгляните! It is obvious, that in the first variant the translation is more exact. Besides, it transfers what the author wanted to show, singularity of the situation, surprise that produces stronger astonishment. However, sometimes practically literal method of translation has negative influence on the result. For example, Bombur replies to Bilbo’s offer to be on duty for him: «You are a good fellow, Mr. Baggins, and I will take your offer kindly». N.Rahmanova has translated this reply like this: «Ты хороший товарищ, Бильбо Бэггинс, с радостью соглашаюсь». It is difficult to attribute this phrase to Bombur, especially the word «товарищ». K.Korolev uses more pertinent word «малый». But the method of retelling, frequently used in the second translation, cannot also be named certainly advantageous. Receding from the author’s words, K.Korolev comes to the variant of translation sometimes even contradicting the author’s words. It is possible to cite a scene when Bilbo hands Arkenston to Bard. «… not without a shudder, not without a glance of longing» - writes J.R.R.Tolkien. In the second translation, the sense of this episode is opposite. K.Korolev writes: «Бильбо без всякого сожаления вручил камень Барду». It is the roughest actual mistake entails wrong impression of the hero and false understanding of the whole scene. And now let's sum up everything aforesaid. So, in the first translation we have seen almost the literal reproduction of the author's text. It was advantageous in a number of situations, including the description of the Bilbo's feat. In the second translation the method of the detailed retelling was mainly used. It helped the translator to transfer the characters of heroes using their images and speech successfully. The first translation, however, despite its accuracy, does not transfer the sense of the proper names. The creative approach to the translation is not used there as often as in the other one. Because of this there is evident stylistic "roughness" which we do not see in the second translation. But K.Korolev's translation is not ideal too. Replacing improper phrases with more suitable ones, K.Korolev frequently deforms the sense of the author's text, replaces it on his own. It is possible to enumerate merits and demerits of two translations for a very long time, but it will be hardly possible to choose between them. The main reason of it is the professionalism of the both translators and, certainly, their individuality. One pays particular attention to the first condition of equivalence, the nother – to the second. Ideally equivalent translation is impossible, so it is unfair to consider one translation correct and the nother - not. Besides, the aim of the research was to study the problem of the translation. It is necessary not necessary to consider one of the translations as the ideal, but to analyse both of them and to come to the certain conclusions for this purpose. That has been made. Conclusion The problem of translation has appeared a long time ago, and people are engaged in solving it and will be engaged until there is a need for the translation. A lot of poets and writers like K.I.Chukovsky, A.K.Tolstoj, P.A.Vjazemsky, reflected on it and studied it. K.I.Chukovsky wrote the book «The High Art» devoted to this issue. All these people faced the difficulties of translation mainly in their creations when they were carrying out artistic translations of foreign authors' creations. I have done the same. In addition, I have made the comparison of the two already existing translations, have analysed them and have come to the certain conclusions. The problem of the translation is practical, applied problem. Therefore, it is wrong to study it using nothing but theory. That’s why I have used the comparative analysis of the translations in my work. Everything is studied in comparison. It is impossible to disagree with this truth. In my research, I have tried to describe the most important aspects of the translation, the conditions of the equivalence, to find out the most widespread difficulties in transferring the ideological world of the original. I have studied two versions of translation and compared them. I think I have carried out the objectives that I had aimed. However now, finishing the research, I understand how much it is still possible to write. Any brunch of knowledge is boundless. I’m glad that the books I used have inspired me at least to start reflecting on the most important aspects of the problem of translation. I have understood what qualities the translation should have. I have understood that the ideal translation of the artistic text is impossible, and have discovered different ways of trying to attain it. I have created my own version of translation of the 16th chapter of "The Hobbit" in which I have tried to use all the knowledge, which I had got, studying the problem. If somebody continued to work on this topic, it would be possible to make the comparative analysis of the full text of "The Hobbit" considering more than two translations; to find the most difficult issues, to analyse them and to create the text of the translation as close to the original as possible on the basis of this analysis. So it would be possible to consider the most difficult moments of translation and to find out the principles of equivalence for each situation. The list of the used literature
My own translation of chapter 16 “A Thief at Night” Глава 16 Вор в ночи Дни тянулись медленно и томительно. Большинство гномов собирали сокровище в кучу, приводили его в порядок. Тогда-то Торин и заговорил об Аркенстоне Трейна и умолял гномов искать его в каждом углу. "Потому что Аркенстон моего отца, - сказал он, - сам по себе стоит больше, чем река золота, а для меня он и вовсе бесценен. Из всего сокровища именно этот камень я предназначил себе и буду беспощаден к любому, кто найдёт его и сокроет." Бильбо услышал эти слова и испугался, боясь подумать о том, что произойдёт, если камень найдут - завёрнутый в старый узелок из лохмотьев, служивший Бильбо подушкой. Но всё-таки он никому ничего не сказал, потому что по мере того, как скука донимала всё сильнее, некий план начал складываться в его маленькой голове. Некоторое время всё шло без изменений, пока вороны не принесли вести о том, что Дэйн с более чем пятьюстами гномами спешит с Железных Холмов и уже находится в двух днях пути от Дола. "Но они не смогут достигнуть Горы незамеченными, - сказал Роак, - и я опасаюсь, как бы не было битвы в долине. Не назвал бы я разумным это решение. Несмотря на то, что они народ решительный, вряд ли они одолеют войско, осаждающее вас. И даже если бы им это удалось, что вам это даст? Вслед за ними придут зима и снег. Как вы собираетесь кормиться без поддержки и доброжелательности соседей? Сокровище может принести вам смерть, несмотря на то, что дракона больше нет!" Но Торин остался непоколебимым. "Зима и снег пощиплют и людей с эльфами, - сказал он, - и они поймут, что их пребывание здесь - бесполезная трата времени. Зачем же мучиться без толку? Мои друзья сзади и зима впереди, возможно, сделают их сговорчивее". Этой ночью Бильбо решился. Небо было чёрным и безлунным. Как только стемнело, он отошёл в угол внутренней комнаты караульной и вытащил из узелка верёвку и Аркенстон, закутанный в тряпицу. Он взобрался на верхнюю площадку стены. Только Бомбур был здесь: была его очередь караулить (гномы оставляли только одного часового). "Как холодно, - сказал Бомбур, - хотел бы я иметь здесь такой же огонь, как у них , в лагере!". "Внутри довольно тепло", - сказал Бильбо. "Ещё бы, но мне дежурить ещё до полуночи, - проворчал толстяк. - Жалкая обязанность. Не то чтоб я осмеливаюсь не соглашаться с Торином, да удлинится его борода, но он никогда не отличался гибкостью". "И всё же он не так твёрд, как мои ноги, - сказал Бильбо. - Я уже устал от бесконечных ступенек и каменных коридоров. Многое бы отдал сейчас, чтобы ощутить траву под ступнями". "А я бы многое отдал, чтоб промочить горло чем-нибудь покрепче и лечь в мягкую постель после сытного ужина!" "Этого я тебе, пока продолжается осада дать, не могу. Но я уже давно не дежурил и могу постоять на часах вместо тебя, если хочешь. Что-то сегодня не спится". "Ты славный малый, мистер Бэггинс. С благодарностью принимаю твоё предложение. Если увидишь что-нибудь примечательное, разбуди сперва меня, запомни! Я лягу во внутренней комнате, слева, недалеко". "Ступай уже! - сказал Бильбо. - Я разбужу тебя в полночь, а ты разбудишь следующего часового". Как только Бомбур ушёл, Бильбо надел кольцо, закрепил верёвку, соскользнул по стене вниз и скрылся. У него было в запасе около пяти часов. Бомбур будет спать (он мог спать в любое время, после приключения в лесу он всё старался снова погрузиться в те удивительные грёзы), а все остальные работали с Торином. Маловероятно, чтобы кто-то, даже Фили или Кили, пришёл на стену не в своё дежурство. Было очень темно, и, когда Бильбо прошёл недавно сделанную часть дороги и спустился в низину к реке, он перестал узнавать дорогу. Наконец он подошёл к излучине, где ему предстояло перейти реку, если он собирался попасть в лагерь, как желал. Русло было мелким, но довольно широким, и переправиться, да ещё и в темноте, было трудным для маленького хоббита. Он уже почти перебрался на другую сторону, как вдруг поскользнулся на круглом камешке и с плеском свалился в холодную воду. Едва только он выкарабкался на отмель, рожа и отплёвываясь, как во тьме появились яркие фонари эльфов, отыскивающих причину шума. "Это была не рыба!" - сказал один. "Это шпион. Спрячьте фонари! Они помогут ему больше, чем нам, если это то странное маленькое существо, их слуга". "Слуга, ещё чего!" - фыркнул Бильбо и в середине фразы громко чихнул. Эльфы тут же бросились на звук. "Светите сюда, - сказал он, - я здесь, если вы меня ищете!" Он снял кольцо и неожиданно появился из-за скалы. Они тотчас же схватили его, несмотря на изумление: "Кто ты? Гномовский хоббит? Что ты делаешь? Как ты пробрался так далеко мимо часовых?" - спрашивали они один за другим. "Я мистер Бильбо Бэггинс, - ответил он, - товарищ Торина, если вы желаете знать. Я хорошо знаю вашего короля в лицо, хотя он, вероятно, не знает, как выгляжу я. Но Бард должен помнить меня. Барда я как раз и хочу видеть". "Неужели! - сказали они, - и какое же у тебя к нему дело?" "Какое бы ни было, оно моё личное, мои дорогие эльфы. И если вы хотите вернуться в родные леса из этого холодного недоброго места, - говорил он, дрожа, - вы проведёте меня к огню, где я смогу обсохнуть, и потом вы позволите мне поговорить с вашими начальниками, как можно скорее. Я могу пробыть здесь только час или два". Вот как и случилось, что спустя каких-нибудь два часа после того, как он выбежал от Ворот, Бильбо сидел рядом с горячим костром перед шатром, где сидели, с любопытством оглядывая его, Король Эльфов и Бард. Хоббит, в эльфийских доспехах, наполовину закутанный шерстяным одеялом, был для них чем-то новеньким. "Вы, конечно же, знаете, - Бильбо говорил в своей лучшей деловой манере, - что положение крайне тяжёлое. Лично я устал от всего этого предприятия. Я хотел бы быть сейчас на Западе, дома. Там народ благоразумнее. Но у меня свой интерес в этом деле - одна четырнадцатая доля, если быть точным, согласно письму, которое, я надеюсь, я захватил с собой..." Он вытащил из кармана своей старой курточки (которую до сих пор носил поверх кольчуги) мятое, много раз сложенное письмо Торина, то самое, которое лежало под часами на каминной полке в Мае! "Часть прибыли, обратите внимание, - продолжал он, - я сознаю это. Лично я готов, и ещё раз готов принять ваши требования со всем вниманием и вычел бы то, что полагается вам, из целого прежде, чем предъявлять права на собственную долю. Но вы не знаете Торина Оукеншильда так, как знаю его я. Уверяю вас, он лучше согласится сидеть на груде золота и голодать до тех пор, пока вы будете здесь. "Отлично. Ну и пусть! - сказал Бард. - Такой глупец заслуживает голодной смерти". "Согласен, - сказал Бильбо. - Я понимаю вашу точку зрения. Но зима уже наступает. Скоро выпадет снег, и снабжение станет трудным, я полагаю, даже для эльфов. Будут ещё и другие трудности. Вы не слышали о Дэйне и гномах с Железных Холмов?" "Слышали, довольно давно. Но какое отношение они имеют к нам?" - спросил король. "Я так и думал. Я вижу, у меня есть информация, которой нет у вас. Дэйн, должен вам сказать, сейчас менее чем в двух днях пути отсюда, и с ним по крайней мере пять сотен выносливых гномов - многие из них прошли ужасные войны гномов с гоблинами, о которых вы, без сомнения слышали. Когда они доберутся сюда, могут возникнуть серьёзные проблемы". "Зачем ты говоришь нам это? Ты предаёшь своих друзей или пытаешься запугать нас? " - мрачно спросил Бард. "Дорогой Бард! - пропищал Бильбо. - Не делай таких скороплительных выводов! Никогда не встречал такого подозрительного народа! Я только пытаюсь избежать проблем для всех заинтересованных сторон. Сейчас я сделаю вам предложение!!!" "Мы выслушаем его!" - сказали они. "Вы увидите его! - сказал Бильбо - Вот оно!" Он достал Аркенстон и отбросил в сторону лохмотья. Сам Король Эльфов, чьи глаза были созданы для того, чтобы видеть удивительное и прекрасное, отановился в изумлении. Даже Бард пристально рассматривал его, не говоря ни слова. Он был похож на шар, наполненный лунным светом и будто висел перед ними в сети, сотканной из сверкания морозных звёзд. "Это Аркенстон Трейна, - сказал Бильбо, - Сердце Горы, а также и сердце Торина. Он ценит его больше реки золота. Я отдаю его вам. Он поможет вам на переговорах". И Бильбо не без дрожи вручил удивительный камень Барду. Страстное желание, смешанное с восхищением, мелькнуло во взгляде хоббита. Бард держал камень в руке, неотрывно глядя на него. "Но почему ты отдаёшь его, как свой?" - с усилием выговорил он. "Хорошо, - сказал хоббит, замявшись, - Это не совсем так; но... я готов отдать его как свою долю. Может быть, я и взломщик - или как там они говорят (лично я себя никогда им не считал), но я честный. В любом случае, я должен возвращаться. Пусть гномы делают со мной, что хотят. Я надеюсь, он вам пригодится". Король Эльфов посмотрел на Бильбо с ещё большим удивлением. "Бильбо Бэггинс! - сказал он, - Ты заслуживаешь носить доспехи эльфийских принцев больше, чем те, на которых они пошиты. Но не думаю, что Торин Оукеншильд посмотрит на это так же. Я знаю о гномах гораздо больше, чем ты можешь себе представить. И я бы посоветовал тебе остаться у нас. Здесь ты трижды желанный гость." "Спасибо Вам, - сказал Бильбо с поклоном, - "Но я не думаю, что должен бросить своих друзей так, после всего, через что мы прошли вместе. К тому же я обещал разбудить старого Бомбура в полночь! Действительно, мне пора идти, и немедленно!" Никакие слова не могли остановить его. С ним послали провожатых. И, когда он уходил, Король Эльфов и Бард отдали ему честь. Когда они проходили через лагерь, какой-то старик, закутанный в тёмный плащ, поднялся со своего места у входа в палатку и направился к ним. "Хорошая работа, мистер Бэггинс!- сказал он, похлопав Бильбо по спине - Кто бы мог подумать, что Вы способны на такое!" Это был Гендальф. В первый раз за много дней Бильбо по-настоящему обрадовался. Но времени на вопросы, которые он тут же захотел задать, не было. "Всё в своё время! - сказал Гендальф. - Дело идёт к концу, если я не ошибаюсь. У тебя впереди неприятности, но не унывай. Ты справишься. Такие дела затеваются, что даже вороны не слышали. Доброй ночи!" Запутанно, но ободряюще. Бильбо заторопился. Когда его привели к безопасному броду и доставили сухим на другой берег, он попрощался с эльфами и осторожно пробрался к воротам. Огромная усталость навалилась на него. Но он успел до полуночи вскарабкаться вверх по веревке - она всё ещё висела там, где он её оставил. Он отвязал её, спрятал и уселся на стене. Ему не давал покоя вопрос: что же случится дальше? В полночь он разбудил Бомбура, а сам в свою очередь свернулся в уголке, не слушая благодарностей старого гнома (которых, он чувствовал, совсем не заслужил). Очень скоро он заснул, забыв до утра все свои заботы. Прозаично, но факт: ему снилась яичница с беконом. жүктеу/скачать 131.33 Kb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|