Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSverediuk, Anna
dc.contributor.authorDzera, Oksana
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-12T06:19:09Z
dc.date.available2026-06-12T06:19:09Z
dc.date.issued2025-12-30
dc.identifier.issn2083-8530
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/58470
dc.description.abstractThe article provides insight into the Ukrainian Shakespeare Studies criticism by presenting an overview of the approach to Shakespeare utilised by Ukrainian scholar, critic, editor, and practising translator Maria Hablevych (1950–2025). In her critical reading of Shakespeare, Hablevych uses two approaches to the text: reader-response theory and the psychoanalytical approach. The scholar perceives the complexity of the authorial self of Shakespeare, mirrored in his works, which is then reflected in her Commentaries (1998). These perspectives find their further application in the two translation projects of the Sonnets (1998 by Dmytro Pavlychko, 2011 by Natalia Butuk), in which Hablevych was involved as a critic and an editor. Both Ukrainian translations reveal different degrees of compliance with the editor’s view on Shakespeare and his Sonnets. Regarding translation as a social practice, we treat Hablevych as a multifaceted agent, namely one with a complex role in both fields of literary studies and of Translation Studies. We seek to illustrate Hablevych’s understanding and interpretation of the authorial self of the Sonnets against the postulates of reader-response theory (Iser, Ingarden, Jauss), Freud’s psychoanalysis as well as Lacan’s post-structuralist theses. We further look at their application in the Ukrainian versions of Sonnets, whose interpretation and translation were slightly (Pavlyvhko) or more distinctively (Butuk) influenced by Hablevych.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesMulticultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance;46en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectUkrainian Shakespeare Studiesen
dc.subjectMaria Hablevychen
dc.subjectreader-response theoryen
dc.subjecttranslation studiesen
dc.subjectShakespeare in translationen
dc.subjectShakespeare’s Sonnetsen
dc.titleThe Quest for Selfhood: Shakespeare’s Sonnets Interpreted by Maria Hablevychen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number49-67
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationSverediuk, Anna - Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraineen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationDzera, Oksana - Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraineen
dc.identifier.eissn2300-7605
dc.referencesBarthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Readings in the Theory of Religion: Map, Text, Body, Ed. Scott S. Elliott and Matthew Waggoner. New York: Routledge, 2016. 141–145.en
dc.referencesEagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Anniversary ed. Malden: Blackwell Publisher, 2008.en
dc.referencesFoucault, Michel. “Shcho take Avtor?” [“What Is an Author?”]. Word. Symbol. Discourse: An Anthology of Critical and Literary Thought of the 20th Century. Ed. Mariia Zubrytska. Trans. Mariia Zubrytska. Lviv: Litopys, 1996. 442–455. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesFreud, Sigmund. “Poet i fantazuvannia” [“Creative Writers and the Activity of Day-Dreaming”]. Word. Symbol. Discourse: An Anthology of Critical and Literary Thought of the 20th Century. Ed. Mariia Zubrytska. Trans. Ivan Herasym. Lviv: Litopys, 1996. 83–90. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesFreud, Sigmund. Vstup do psykhoanalizu: Lektsii zi vstupu do psykhoanalizu z novymy vysnovkamy [Introduction to Psychoanalysis: Lectures from Introduction to Psychoanalysis with the New Findings]. Trans. Petro Taraschuk. Kyiv: Osnovy, 1998. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesHablevych, Maria. “Klasyka vdoma. Shakespeare. Komentari do Sonneta 10” [“Classics at Home. Shakespeare. Commentaries on Sonnet 10”]. ClassicsHome.org. ua, http://classicshome.org.ua/shakespeare-komentari-do-soneta-10/. Accessed2 February 2024.en
dc.referencesHablevych, Maria. “Klasyka vdoma. Shakespeare. Komentari do Sonneta 62” [“Classics at Home. Shakespeare. Commentaries on Sonnet 62”]. ClassicsHome.org.ua, http://classicshome.org.ua/shakespeare-komentari-do-soneta-62/ Accessed2 February 2024.en
dc.referencesHablevych, Maria. “Komentari” [“Commentaries”]. Viliam Shekspir. Sonety. Trans. Dmytro Pavlychko. Lviv: Litopys, 1998. 206–351. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesHablevych, Maria. Svitlo Shekspirovoho khramu: Statti, pereklady [The Light of Shakespeare’s Temple: Articles, Translations]. Drohobych: KOLO, 2016. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesHablevych, Mariia. Svitlo i sutin Shekspirovoho khramu: Statti, pereklady [The Light and Darkness of Shakespeare’s Temple: Articles, Translations]. Lviv: Terra Incognita, 2019. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesHusserl, Edmund. The Idea of Phenomenology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1964.en
dc.referencesIngarden, Roman. O dziele literackim [The Literary Work of Art]. Trans. M. Turowicz. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1988.en
dc.referencesIngarden, Roman. “Pro piznavannia literaturnoho tvoru (frahmenty)” [“The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art (Excerpts)”]. Word. Symbol. Discourse: An Anthology of Critical and Literary Thought of the 20th Century. Ed. Mariia Zubrytska. Trans. Natalka Rymska. Lviv: Litopys, 1996. 137–163. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesIser, Wolfgang. “Protses chytannia yak fenomenolohichne nablyzhennia” [“The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach”]. Word. Symbol. Discourse: An Anthology of Critical and Literary Thought of the 20th Century. Ed. Mariia Zubrytska. Trans. Mariia Zubrytska. Lviv: Litopys, 1996. 261–276. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesIser, Wolfgang. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.en
dc.referencesJauss, Hans Robert. “Estetychnyi dosvid i literaturna hermenevtyka (frahmenty)” [“Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutic (Excerpts)”]. Word. Symbol. Discourse: An Anthology of Critical and Literary Thought of the 20th Century. Ed. Mariia Zubrytska. Trans. Yurii Prokhasko. Lviv: Litopys, 1996. 278–307. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesLacan, Jacques. “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience.” Reading French Psychoanalysis. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014. 97–104. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315787374-6en
dc.referencesLanovyk, Mariana. Teoriia vidnosnosti khudozhnoho perekladu: literaturoznavchi proektsii [The Theory of Literary Translation Relevance: Through the Lenses of Literary Studies]. Ternopil: Red.-Vydavn. viddil TNPU, 2006. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesNovikova, Maryna. “Mifosvit Makbeta: volodari ta vidmy”. Mify ta misiia, avtors’kyi zbirnyk statei [“The Mythical World of Macbeth: Rulers and Witches”. The Myths and the Mission: The Collection of Original Articles]. Kyiv: Dukh i Litera, 2005. 296–300. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesSchleiermacher, Friedrich. Schleiermacher: Hermeneutics and Criticism: And Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814945en
dc.referencesShakespeare, William. Shakespeares Sonnets [Shekspirovi sonety] [Shakespeare’s Sonnets]. Ed. Mariia Hablevych. Trans. Nadiia Butuk. Drohobych: KOLO, 2011. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesShakespeare, William. Sonety [Sonnets]. Trans. Dmytro Pavlychko. Preface Dmytro Pavlychko. Preface to the Commentaries and Commentaries by Mariia Hablevych. Lviv: Litopys, 1998. [In Ukrainian].en
dc.referencesde Vries, Ad. Dictionary of Symbols and Imagery. Amsterdam and London: North Holland Publishing Company, 1984.en
dc.contributor.authorEmailSverediuk, Anna - anna.sveredyuk@lnu.edu.ua
dc.contributor.authorEmailDzera, Oksana - oksana.dzera@lnu.edu.ua
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/2083-8530.31.05
dc.relation.volume31


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0