P.B. Shelley’s Poem Ozymandias in Russian Translations

The article presents a comparative analysis of Russian translations of P.B.Shelley’s poem Ozymandias (1817), carried out by Ch. Vetrinsky, A.P. Barykova, K.D. Balmont, N. Minsky, V.Ya. Bryusov in 1890 – 1916. These translations fully reflect the peculiarities of the social and political, cultural and literary life in Russia of the late 19th – early 20th Centuries, namely weakening of the political system, growing of interest to the culture of Ancient Egypt, and strengthening of Neoromanticism in opposition to Naturalism in literature. In the process of the analysis, we used H. Smith’s sonnet Ozymandias, P.B. Shelley’s sonnet Ozymandias and its five Russian translations. The methods of historical poetics of A.N. Veselovsky, V.M. Zhirmunsky and provisions of the linguistic theory of translation of A.V. Fedorov were used. The article will be interesting for those studying literature, languages, philology.


Introduction
Ozymandias is a Greek form of a throne name of Ramesses II the Great, the Pharaoh of the XIXth dynasty, one of the greatest rulers of the ancient world, who ruled Egypt for 30-70-years; this is according to various sources from about 1279-1213 BC. Ramesses II is known to have ordered to carve a proud inscription in memory of his greatness and victories on the pedestal of the colossus in Luxor. When visiting Egypt in the Ist Century BC, the historian Diodorus Siculus found the obelisk of Ozymandias collapsed and half covered with sand, although the inscription was still discernible: "King of Kings am I, Ozymandias. If anyone would know how great I am and where I lie, let him surpass one of my works" (Diodorus, 1814: 370); Diodorus gave this inscription in the 47th chapter of the first book of his "Library of History", describing the geography, culture and history of Ancient Egypt (The Poems of Shelley, 1817Shelley, -1819Shelley, , 2000. Centuries passed, and the epoch of Napoleon Bonaparte in Europe died. In 1817, two young men, Percy Bysshe Shelley and Horace Smith, impressed by the news of finding of the statue fragment with the name of Pharaoh Ramesses II in Egypt or by watching the bust of "young Memnon" (a part of the Colossus in the "King of Kings" funeral temple complex, described by Diodorus Siculus as "the grave of Ozymandias") in the British Museum, arranged a creative contest, having written two sonnets with the same name Ozymandias from 26-28 December 1817. Shelley's sonnet was published in the newspaper The Examiner on 11 January, and the sonnet of Smith on 01 February 1818 (The Poems of Shelley, 1817Shelley, -1819Shelley, , 2000. The poems were extremely relevant, as the French Revolution had paradoxical consequences in England: the struggle against Napoleon was, on the one hand, the struggle for the commercial and industrial interests of England, and on the other hand, against the principles of the French Civil Code (the Code of Napoleon), which were gradually established throughout Europe under the influence of France. The English love of freedom, originally directed against Napoleonic despotism, was eventually used to restore the old order, resulting in the loss of rights and freedoms that had become entrenched in the past decades. Turning to the millennial past, Percy Bysshe Shelley and his friend Horace Smith sought for showing the impotence of tyrants and despots attempts to resist the course of history.
During the research, we studied the works of contemporary researchers, who analysed P.B. Shelley's creative work in various aspects.
Semiotics of Shelley's sonnet form and its perception in Russia was illustrated through the sonnet To Wordsworth. The sonnet To Wordsworth (1816) is Shelley's early work, famous as a reproach in betrayal of the revolutionary ideals. Nevertheless, Shelley's skill in sonnets creation, his emotionality and erudition are vividly seen in it. While comparing the sonnet To Wordsworth with traditional models of the English sonnets in the late 18thearly 19th Centuries (Petrarchan and Shakespearean), Shelley causticity of an exposer was estimated. While explaining how Shakespeare's practices, known to each Englishman (sonnet 116 about everlasting true Love), were reflected in Shelley's sonnet, it was shown that writing of the sonnet To Wordsworth became for Shelley a fight with himself, with his ideals, doubts, poetic examples of his national culture. The comment to Shelley's experimental sonnet served as a bright example to the fact that the semiotics of a form can be "foreign culture", and knowledge of poetic, symbolic systems and foreign languages is necessary for successful cultural communication of Russia and West, for adequate mutual understanding (Khaltrin-Khalturina, 2008).
Due to the comparison of the peculiarities in the interpretation of the poet subject in Leaves of Grass by W. Whitman and A Defence of Poetry by P.B.Shelley and the parallels built between separate fragments of the English romantic's treatise and Whitman's ideas expressed in his poems provisions of Whitman's poetic theory were cleared and specified (Nikitina, 2010).
The relevance of Shelley's invocations of patriotism to our understanding of the relationship between his poetry and his politics was argued. Often overlooked in Shelley's writings, patriotism is an essential concept to both Shelley's radical politics and his sociopolitical aesthetic in that, as a negation of self-love, it at once motivates the reformer and occasions community. Shelley's radical patriotism derives in part from the cosmopolitics of the 1790s English radicalism, and it shares with Paine's radicalism an orientation towards the future, an as-yet-imagined, unwritten future of England. Employed in the "popular songs", but explored in a diverse body of writings that includes political pamphlets and On Love, Shelley's patriotism is a proof, whatever the circumstance, that we love something besides ourselves. As such, it bears a close relation to the origin and function of poetry as theorised in A Defence of Poetry (Borushko, 2006).
Literary features of the English romantic's lyrical drama Prometheus Unbound were studied. On the one hand, the poet's views on the problem of changes in space life and history of mankind were analysed (Kazakova, 2010), on the other hand, it was concluded that both antique interpretations of the image of Prometheusheroic, going back to Aeschylus's tragedy, and denying heroism, presented by Hesiodus,found reflection in Shelley's work (Mikhaylenko, 2013).
The comprehension of the traditions of prophetical poetry in P.B. Shelley's creative work in comparison with W. Blake's, one can conclude that the poets understood the essence of poetic prophecy differently: if Blake's mystical visions corresponded to the Bible prophecies in their spirit, for Shelley, who called himself an atheist, communication between the poet and prophet had a metaphysical character (Mikhaylenko, 2014).
While studying modern Russian interpretations of Shelley's poem To... ("One word is too often profaned..."), belonging to representatives of socalled "boiler generation", poets-dissidents, the influence of the translation strategy on the character, conception and semantic accents of the translation was established, the signs of the individual translation style were revealed, the translation good and bad points were noted (Matviyenko, 2016).
The functional semantic analysis of occasional collocations as a characteristic of the author's style in P.B. Shelley's poetry helped to reveal several types of occasional units, creating originality of the poet's lyrics: the author's metaphors, intended pleonasms, epithets, combinations of words, comprising opposite semes and, at the same time, incorporating general semes, on the basis of what the occasional value is created (Korshunova, 2017).
Communicative and pragmatic specifics of colour naming in poetic texts of P.B. Shelley were studied and the domination of the components, defining a work form, its symbolical value was found in units of colouring (Velichko, 2017).
While analysing B. Hewitt's study of Goethe's influence on two British poets -Byron and Shelley, it was stated that Goethe, Byron and Shelley-all sought to push beyond tragedy's reading of human existence, and especially its "understanding of the final limitedness of human potential", towards an "epic" conception of human possibility, which encourages "activity", "disavows" tragic "limitedness", and provokes "political activity" in particular. Hewitt sees this process as the beginning, ambiguously, in Faust, I, then gaining greater momentum in Byron's Manfred, Cain and Don Juan, Shelley's Prometheus Unbound and the second part of Faust (Rawes, 2015). Hewitt argues, it was "German controversies about pantheism and atheism" and other "disputes and theoretical debates about poetry's relationship to other discourses, especially philosophy and theology" that so caught the attention of Byron and Shelley, who both developed "a sense that Faust I was vitally important, containing within it the seeds of a new way of representing, and, perhaps, affecting the course of human history with poetry" (Hewitt, 2017: 120).
Shelley's understanding of love as something sublime in close relation to the spirit of love or the soul of love, making the soul strengthen its power of good, enabling a man to live a philosophical life with sacred beauty, like it is poem "Epipsychidion", is considered to be different from that mentioned by ordinary people. Emily and "I" are combined into an eternal One, and the divine love is shown with the help of mythological narrative, which is like moist, fertile earth or lubricant that tends to make a literary work moving and touching enough, full of charming power (Cao, 2017).
The overly polemical and didactic style of Shelley's youthfully rebellious Queen Mab is considered to be an obstacle to its appreciation. Moreover, it is insufficiently recognised that Shelley's approach in it has a solid literary and philosophical foundation. His fierce "diatribes" against the existing order of things -the endemic and infamous alliance of state, religion and commerce -neither implode the aesthetics of the poem, nor are simply rough-hewn, adolescent invectives against custom and privilege. The composition draws strength from earlier precedents, most notably Lucretius's "De Rerum Natura" which markedly influenced the Enlightenment. In the main body of his work, masked by the benign fairy, Queen Mab, Shelley steers a course modulating from castigation to mockery, counterbalancing diatribes with encomia -presented as reverse reflections of each other. Similar to a caricaturist, Shelley decodes and belittles the icons of state power which form a closed circuit of depravity, sealed off from public scrutiny or reform. Although compromised by vengefulness which the later Shelley disowns, the diatribes of Queen Mab clear a path towards a better world, pointing to the resonance and vitality of Shelley's brave intervention (Weinberg, 2017).
It was argued that Shelley's Alastor represents a critical engagement with the sublime, what occurs under the sign of Shelley's obvious attraction to the sublime as an operative aesthetic and imaginative model. The poem critiques and warns of sublime aesthetic education and the habits of mind it compels. The most deleterious aspect of the sublime, and the source of Shelley's unease with it in Alastor, is its close relationship with ideology; and this proximity is the target of Shelley's critique, for what Alastor warns of is the role of the sublime in the onset of ideology role, what is explored through an engagement with a range of theories of the sublime, from E. Burke's to S. Ziek's (Borushko, 2017).
Shelley's public mourning the death of living W. Wordsworth in his poetry was studied. His renunciation of a narrow concept of selfhood not only informs, but germinates, his psychological and political principles, and in the process shapes his response to Wordsworth not as an "egotistical" poet, but as one who paradoxically and enviably escapes mutability by being ontologically identified with forms of nonlife. Shelley brilliantly and correctly attributes this position to Wordsworth's poetic thought through his poetic thinking in works such as Peter Bell the Third, and Shelley also finds such an alignment incomprehensible. His construction of Wordsworth is a sceptical dialectician's disavowal of mute or dull inclusion. Shelley's treatment of Wordsworth is connected to Shelley's performative speech acts of inversion: life -death, heaven -hell, blessing -a curse. Shelley abjures Wordsworth for excessive love for otherwise inanimate things and awakening slumberous "thought in a sense" (Lindstrom, 2017: 44). Hazlitt, Keats, Lamb, and others, were quick to note the egotistical drive that informed Wordsworth's Peter Bell, but in Peter Bell the Third Shelley claimed that Wordsworth went far beyond that. He insisted that Wordsworth had unintentionally satirised himself with devastating accuracy in the manner of Thomas Moore's satire on political apostasy The Fudge Family in Paris. Shelley's reading of the poem casts a fresh light on the importance of Peter Bellfor an appreciation of the complexity of Wordsworth's development as a poet at the time of writing Lyrical Ballads, a complexity that relates both to the controversial style of Peter Bell, and to the ambivalent relationships within the poem between the poet, narrator, protagonist, and reader (Williams, 2017).
In this article, we deal with the issue of translation perception of English romantic poetry in Russia. The comparative literary studies used to consider the issue were written by M.P. Alekseyev and Yu.D. Levin (Levin and Fedorov, 1960). In the process of the analysis, we took into account the views of the Russian literature scholars − K.I. Chukovsky and, E.G. Etkind about K.D. Balmont's translations (Chukovsky, 1968;Etkind, 1963). Interesting facts about Shelley's Ozymandias have represented in the works of the researchers of P.B. Shelley's creative works Ch. Vetrinsky and V.Ya. Bryusov (Vetrinskiy, 1892;Bryusov, 1994). Thus, this research began with the introduction section , which sets up a rationale for the study; following this, materials and methods part outlining the specificity of translations comparing, preservation of semantic capacity of the original and its national colouring are outlined. In the final sections, the results are discussed on the specific translations of Shelley's works.

Materials and Methods
As the material for the analysis, the sonnets with the same name Ozymandias by P.B. Shelley and H. Smith were selected together with their translations, carried out in the late XIX-early XX centuries by Ch. Vetrinsky, A.P. Barykova, K.D. Balmont, N.M. Minsky, and V.Ya. Bryusov, literary-critical articles, comprehending them. The methods of historical poetics used, approved in the fundamental research of A.N. Veselovsky, V.M. Zhirmunsky, allowed to comprehend the motives and images and to consider the features of originality. The provisions of the linguistic theory of translation of A.V. Fedorov were taken into account (Fedorov, 2002). We used comparativehistorical, comparative-typological, and juxtaposing methods of analysing poetic texts.
In the last decades, scholarly works on the subject close to the problem studied were published. In the 1980s, the French school of the philosophical translation provided the formation of a particular special area of the literary translation study. Based on Benjamin's hermeneutics, referring to Steiner, the French historian and theorist of translation Antoine Berman presented a translation as disclosure towards another that means a particular paradox. He speaks both about renunciation of the native language ( that is, target language) and about fidelity to it, that is, about the expansion of borders of the native language and its enrichment at the expense of foreign language. In this regard, undoubted interest causes a theoretical controversy of modern French linguists-translators Henri Meschonnic and Jean-René Ladmiral in the article Poetics… / Theorems of Translation (Meschonnic and Ladmiral, 2011), in which two powerful concepts and translation theories face. On the one hand, Meschonnic's new poetics, constructed on the theory of rhythm and creative subjectivity, on the other hand, Ladmiral's language philosophy, understood as knowledge, obliging to meet the requirements of the author's methodology, critical self-checking, realised by argumentative rationalisation.
All materials of Russian scientists can be divided into two large, broad groups: these are works on problems of the literary translation theory and history and researches in the field of comparative literary criticism, international literary and historical and cultural relations. Our research, relying on A.V. Fedorov's linguistic translation theory, observations over the language and style of works of art, is historical and literary as it is designed to introduce translated works into the context of the history of Russian literature.
The linguistic approach to the studying of the translation offered by A.V. Fedorov touches its very basis -the language, out of which any translation functions -its social and political importance, its cultural and informative role, its art value, and others are impracticable. At the same time linguistic studying of the translation, i.e. its studying in connection of two languages, allows building work specifically, operating with the objective language facts. Any researches and discussions on how the content of the original was reflected when translating, how the images of the literary work were recreated or reembodied, will be pointless if they are not based on the analysis of the language expressive means used when translating.
According to A.V. Fedorov's technique, while comparing the translations, the following aspects are subject to the consideration:  lexical colouring of a word and a possibility of its transfer;  a figurative word meaning in various phrases;  transfer of a stylistic role of word-play;  use of morphological means of a language;  syntactic links and nature of a syntactic construction for a poetry rhythm;  phonetic and graphics mean, a rhyme and a meter in poetry.
However, all facts from the area of the literary translation, in particular, the translator's attitude to the content of the original, with his interpretation, and sometimes distortion, which is expressed in omissions, insertions, some semantic changes, etc. cannot be explained using linguistics. Similar cases are caused by the ideology and aesthetics of the translator or the whole literary direction, that is, factors which do not have any relation to linguistics. At the same time, however, the analysis of such important questions of the literary translation as questions of the author's language skill and transfer of his individual style, demand a robust linguistic basis-only in relation to the literary norm of both languages considered the degree of the traditional or innovative character of the style of the original, and the degree of stylistic proximity to it in the translation can be defined and estimated. So, a linguistic approach to studying, being not sufficient for the solution of all problems of the translation (in particular, literary), is, undoubtedly, necessary in their exhaustive research. Therefore, according to A.V. Fedorov, while comparing the translations, preservation of semantic capacity of the original, its national colouring, features connected with the time of its creation and individuality of the original in the translation are considered (Fedorov, 2002).
The sonnet of Shelley, unlike the Smith's, is built up much more difficult as it contains double irony, relying on playing up the meanings of two key verbs -survive and mock: …its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.

They say, how deeply the sculptor understood the passions
That could survive the deceitful language, The hand that served them, and the heart -their spring. (Minsky, 1907),

Say their creator knew the depths of passions and thoughts (That stand a number of centuries in a pile of decay),
The hand of those who moved, the mind of those who guided. (Bryusov, 1994 (Levin and Fedorov, 1960: 303), "he neglects the author's style, while translating Shelley, Edgar Poe, and Baudelaire with the same Balmont's language, ... and destroys all of them in the most precise sense of the word" (Levin and Fedorov, 1960: 351), and the poet's own work, specifically, the poems Assarhaddon, Ramesses, Egyptian Slave. Later, the well-known Soviet translators V.V. Levik and B.N. Leytin also addressed the interpretation of Ozymandias.
Ch. Vetrinsky is a pseudonym of a historian of Russian literature and public thought − publicist and journalist, playwright and critic V.E. Cheshikhin − who not only translated the poem "Ozymandias" but also wrote a detailed literary and critical essay on Shelley's works, which was published in the journal "Kolosya" in 1892 (Vetrinsky, 1892). Bearing in mind that it was possible to "make up a correct concept" about Shelley's poetry only by being "a witness to his daily life", since "his words and actions best illustrate his works" (Vetrinsky, 1892: 239). Indeed, this Russian critic elaborated on the biography of the poet. He attempted to analyse his most significant works by supplementing his material with prosaic translations of fragments of the poems The Spirit of Delight (1834) 1998: 196). Dared to translate all of Shelley's works, Balmont considered the English predecessor to be close to him, admired him (this idea is imprinted in Balmont's original poem "To Shelley":

My best brother, my bright genius,
With you I've merged into one.

Between us is a chain of tortures, Of similar heavenly delusions
Always a radiant link. (Balmont, 1980

And then Ramesses stood in front of me.
The same did Nabokov, but two decades later. It was Ozymandias by Shelley, followed by Ramesses of Bryusov and The Grave in the Rock of I.A. Bunin, who gave birth to Nabokov's traveller, excited by the slow verb (Etkind, 1963: 67). The hero will be forgotten, the mausoleum will decay, And in the common ashes will merge Wisdom, and love, and knowledge, and rights,

As from a slate board unnecessary words
Will be erased by an unknown hand (Russian Biographical Dictionary, 2001), This poem clearly resemble the theme of Ozymandias and reflect the spiritual closeness of English and Russian poets. Although according to the tasks and religious-philosophical system he developed, N. Minsky did not at all strive to follow the traditions, he was primarily concerned with meonism of lyric poetry, that is, a bizarre mixture of scientific thinking and poetic fantasy, coming from that charm, dear to the human soul, of everything non-existent and incomprehensible. According to the concept of N. Minsky, only the extraterrestrial truth, nothingness, meon (after the Greek "nonexistent", Plato's term) could be a true sacred thing, since every category of our mind, and also all moral categories, like conscience, the instinct of self-sacrifice, faith, have their oppositions in the notion of their non-existence. Considering that only the idea of absolute non-existence, being the basis of everything that exists, can become the source of true, unselfish religion; N. Minsky, in his original and translated texts, offered some kind of fusion of survivors of Narodnik ideas and motives of conscientiousness, caused by them, self-sacrifice in the name of people with Nietzsche's ideas and bizarre Eastern mysticism.
Shelley's sonnet is well orchestrated; the English original is full of multiple shifts, rustling sounds [s, z, ∫, ʒ, θ, ð, t∫, dʒ] and cross rhymes that give the rhythmic movement peculiar originality and create a gliding impression, resembling a continuous rustle of sand. We should note, only Ch.Vetrinsky did accurately reconstruct the pattern of the original (abab acdc edef ef), while Barykova abandoned the sonnet form and, retaining the author's shifts, used paired rhymes (aabb ccdd ee), which broke the poem into brief rhythmic periods, what, in its turn, affected the intonation. Only in the final of her interpretation that skillfully conveyed the expressive intonation through rhythmic repetition, reinforced by inline pauses, the pair rhyme began alternating with the covered one (fgg fhh), tonally completing the narrative. Balmont's scheme is simpler than the original one, but it is much closer to the classical form of an English sonnet, associated primarily with the name of Shakespeare -abab cdcd efef gg; Bryusov repeats in many respects Balmont's scheme, corresponding to the classical canons, however, the last verse of the third stanza moves to the fourth -abab cdcd efe fgg. N. Minsky did not always keep internal pauses and shifts, that slow down the movement of the verse, having partially lost the smoothness, solemnity and majesty of the tone of the work; the rhythmic pattern of his interpretation is also differentabba ccdd efe fgg.
The original sonnet of fourteen verses is encased by Shelley with an original compositional frame, a kind of introduction, creating the construction of a "story in a story":

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said… (The Poems of Shelley: 1817Shelley: -1819Shelley: , 2000.
Russian translators were mostly true to this method of Shelley:

From the traveler I heard
The Story… (Vetrinsky, 1890),

I met a traveler, he came from distant countries
And told me… (Shelley, 1998),

Towards me a traveler came from the ancient land
And uttered… (Minsky, 1907), I met a traveler who arrived from ancient countries. …he said... (Bryusov, 1994), However, Barykova, trying to make the picture reconstructed more monumental, immediately begins the narrative with the depiction of the statue, omitting the introductory verses.
A truly sad sight is the remains of a former colossus in the desert: …Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies.
(The Poems of Shelley: 1817Shelley: -1819Shelley: , 2000. In the translation of Ch.Vetrinsky, one pays attention to a steppe instead of a desert, which does not agree with the real place of the action:  (Minsky, 1907), Bryusov: In the desert… two stone legs

Stand, beside them a fraction that preserved
The features of the face, lies, buried in the sands. (Bryusov, 1994), Balmont:

… far away, where the eternity is guarding
The desert silence, among the sands deep The fraction of the statue disintegrated lies. (Shelley, 1998), But Balmont omits the mentioning of the legs and the statue fraction, having facial features. Barykova extends the description of the Colossus, adding to the characterisation of the desert an epithet boundless, and the image of a dilapidated high pedestal: A huge monument, a shrine of old times,

Stands in sand waves of a boundless desert:
Two stone legs, a high pedestal Dilapidated; and near, turned to dust, A legless idol with a broken head. (Barykova, 1897).
Description of the fallen Colossus in Shelley's poem acquires its colour due to the lexemes frown, wrinkled, sneer, cold and command: …frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command.
Striving to represent the expression of the statue's face more accurately, Barykova widened the fragment to a full stanza: In cold, contemptuous features,

In a malicious and arrogant grin on his lips
The passions, living in the cruel heart, are frozen, The triumph of unbreakable power is shining. (Barykova, 1897).
In Balmont's translation, the power of passions of the face is shown through hidden comparison with all-devouring fire: Through the features half erased there goes a haughty flame, Desire to make the whole world serve him. (Shelley, 1998).
In their most conservative interpretations, in terms of emotional expressiveness, N.Minsky and Bryusov omit the mentioning of the look, and make the image of the former ruler not so negative by softening certain characteristics: Hardly compressed mouth, a grin of proud power. (Minsky, 1907),

The brow and the fold of the lips arrogantly curved
Say their creator knew the depths of passions and thoughts. (Bryusov, 1994).

Discussions
It should be noted that the specific translations of Shelley's works, made in the late 19th -early 20th centuries, including the translations of Ozymandias, were not often the objects of attention of the Russian literary criticism at that period. The exception was, perhaps, only Balmont's translations, which received ambiguous estimates. Thus, in the article in Severny Vestnik and in the review in Artist, published in 1893, Balmont's translations were rated as great and talented works, which, however, did not completely reveal the richness of Shelley's poetry: "Mr. Balmont interprets, as he can, and his skill is, no doubt, remarkable… The author is just beginning to work in the field of literature and, judging by the beginning, we can hope that he will complete the work successfully; …in general it seems that an exact prosaic translation of such works is easier and more expedient than an inaccurate poetic translation" (New Books. Poetry, 1893: 52-53); "The translator is a passionate admirer of the English poet. Shelley's works coincide with the personal mood of the translator; this is not formal work, but labour, combined with high pleasure… Shelley is most difficult to translate. The most accurate translation in prose is not able to convey the tenderness and energy of poems, their poetics and deep content" (Balmont, 1893: 191-192). As we see, among various judgments, there were also some, that proposed, for greater accuracy of the English poetic originals rendering, to resort to prosaic translations into Russian, what, however, being justified in the first third of the 19th century, could hardly be relevant in the late 19th -early 20th centuries. K.I. Chukovsky's opinion about Balmont's translations was the most rigid; he considered the Russian translator complementing Shelley's verses with "the candy-box beauty of cheap romances", at the same time "gluing some trivial epithet to almost every word": "Balmontizing Shelley's poetry, Balmont gives the British poet his own sweeping gestures… thus appeared a new person, half-Shelley, and half-Balmont -I would say, something like Shelmont. This is often the case with poets: when translating, they overemphasize their selves and the more expressive the personality of the translator, the more they obscure the author from us. Precisely because Balmont has such an outstanding literary personality, he, having an excellent talent, is not able to reflect the individuality of another poet in his translations. And with his talent being somewhat dandified, Shelley turns also dandified with him" (Chukovsky, 1968: 104). The position of K.I. Chukovsky influenced greatly on the literary criticism judgments of the subsequent period (in particular, E.G. Etkind mentions that Balmont, true to the principle of "pleasant translation", "dilutes the concentrated thought of Shelley, explaining everything, which does not seem clear enough to him and decorating with epithets everything, which does not seem beautiful enough to him" (Etkind, 1963: insert page number), and the minimal attention to the translations of Balmont from Shelley in general. Only in 2007, the first thesis was defended at the Institute of Russian Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences, one of the chapters of which was devoted to the study of Balmont's translations from Shelley (Ivanova, 2007).
Based on Shelley's Ozymandias, it was proved that "timelessness can be achieved only by the poet's words, not by the ruler's will to dominate. The fallen titan Ozymandias becomes an occasion for Shelley's exercise of this most tenuous yet persisting form, poetry. Shelley's sonnet, a brief epitome of poetic thinking, has outlasted empires: it has witnessed the deaths of boastful tyrants, and the decline of the British dominion he so heartily scorned" (Mikics, 2010: 127-128).
In other words, following the thought of the critic L. Brisman, who remarked on "the way the timelessness of metaphor escapes the limits of experience" in Shelley (Brinsman, 1978: insert page number), "Shelley's poetic rendering of the legend of Ozymandias is even more memorable than the original story itself. It is also an emphatic political statement indicating the cruel and destructive nature of the empires of man and their outcomes. This beautiful sonnet outlasts the so-called mighty empires based on control and terror. These empires get eroded and destroyed, leading to the disintegration of civilisation and culture. However, neither time nor distance can obliterate the works of art, making the artist immortal" (Krishna, 2014: 154).
It was also shown how Shelley's use of form and vocabulary produce a poem that transcends its sources (Hebron, 2014).
The intrinsic and extrinsic elements in Shelley's poem Ozymandias were analysed by means of the formalist criticism approach, that is, making the interpretation and analysis of the work of literature itself, focusing on the words of the text rather than facts about the author's life or the historical milieu in which it was written (Bhakti, 2016). Imagery (visual and auditory) and figurative (symbol and irony) language, which makes Shelley's poem more beautiful and amazing to read, was described (Bhakti, 2016).

A line-by-line analysis of Shelley's poem
Ozymandias was made (Lompa, 2016). There were found themes of power (of nature and politics) and pride (political and artistic), and the only symbol of political tyranny -the statue of Ozymandias (Lompa, 2016).
While studying the reception of Shelley in Russia perhaps, the clearest case of political (mis)use of Shelley by Marx and Engels was found; they saw in the poet a "revolutionary through and through" who, had he lived longer, "would consistently have stood with the vanguard of socialism" (Polonsky, 2008: 233). While referring to this information in The Reception of P.B. Shelley in Europe (The Reception of British and Irish Authors in Europe Series), which consists of eighteen chapters, written by a total of twentyfour scholars, and deals with the reception of the author in France, Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Germany, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Russia, Bulgaria and Greece, we can find information devoted to Shelley and music (Schmid and Rossington, 2008).
There was an attempt to explain how a translator's inappropriate linguistic choice may influence the target language reader's aesthetic reaction, on the basis of the sonnet Ozymandias by Shelley and its three Ukranian translations (Zasyekin, 2010). The outline of a theoretical framework for the analysis of the translation of literary texts viewed as a psycho-semiotic phenomenon and based on the evaluation of earlier attempts in this direction, and the results of a psycholinguistic empirical study of translations, is given. Central to this framework is the recent insight that the human cerebral hemisphere functional asymmetry somehow plays a role in structuring the fictional text by its author and in its processing by the interpreter (Zasyekin, 2010).
Also, Shelley's contribution to the early development of Russian Symbolism was analysed (Wells, 2013). Well's paper highlights some features of Shelley's Ozymandias, contains three Russian versions by Barykova, Minsky, Balmont and shows that "the English poet could be interpreted in different ways in order to support radically different aesthetic ideas, and to reflect both the views of the literary establishment and those of the emerging Symbolist movement" (Wells, 2013(Wells, : 1230. The three different translations of Shelley's Ozymandias reveal a considerable range of interpretive response -from the largely utilitarian treatment of Barykova, through the more nuanced approach of Minsky, which combines promotion of the political theme with a more sophisticated awareness of the multiple perspectives of Shelley's poem, to the appropriation of Shelley to the Symbolist world view championed by Balmont. In our research we went further in comparison, having added two more translations by Ch. Vetrinsky, V.E. Cheshikhin and V.Ya. Bryusov, having studied critical articles and having confirmed Shelley's role as a catalyst in expressing a range of radically different aesthetic views. So, such comparative studies can provide new exciting results in perspective.

Conclusion
Speaking about the interest of Russian translators of the late 19th -early 20th Centuries to Shelley's poem Ozymandias, we could explain a sudden burst of public attention to the text, which emerged long before its first Russian interpretation, by the events, actual for that epoch-political and social (weakening of the political system in Russia, the first Russian revolution and others ), cultural (the growing attention to the culture of Ancient Egypt -during the three decades from the 1890s to the 1920s, the Russian poets wrote about two hundred verses and poems on Egyptian themes (to compare: this is seven to eight times more than for the whole 19th Century before V.S. Solovyov), and literary (strengthening of Romanticism tendencies in Russian poetry, that is Neoromanticism, which appeared in contrast to Naturalism in literature). Though none of the Russian interpreters of Ozymandias escaped any losses each of them created a translation close to the original, preserving the characteristic shifts, slowing down the intonation, and even bringing it closer to epic one.