In Venice last week, I read of the plans to
run a
festival in 2012 at the Globe Theatre in London of Shakespeare’s complete
works performed in thirty seven different languages. It’s a marvellous idea for
a festival, but I confess my initial reaction was thoroughly parochial – won’t
it just show what you lose when you don’t have Shakespeare’s own language? Won’t
it be, I thought, a linguistic example of Hamlet
without the Prince?
I used to admire Robert Frost’s definition
of poetry as ‘what gets lost in translation’. I’ve learned better. It would be truer
to say that literature is what survives in translation. As I stood in the Campo
San Giacometto, near the statue of Old Gobbo the crouching hunchback, and
thought of The Merchant of Venice and
of Othello, I realized how inadequate
Frost’s definition is. I remembered once finding myself in Berlin, watching a
production of Chekhov’s Three Sisters
performed in German, a language in which I can just about order a currywurst
without making an idiot of myself. Luckily it was a play I knew well, and the
production was breathtakingly good, so I could concentrate on the acting and on
the direction – in fact, on the play itself.
But how come I was able to know the play at
all? Through translation, obviously, since I can speak and read barely a word
of Russian. I’d first read the play, as I read all Chekhov, in the sixth form. Even
before that I’d seen The Seagull at
the Queen’s Theatre in London, with Vanessa Redgrave, Peggy Ashcroft and Peter
McEnery, when I was fourteen – my first experience of a West End play. Three
years later I’d seen Olivier’s production of Three Sisters at the National Theatre. These were defining
theatrical experiences for me, but without translation I would not have had
them.
Shakespeare himself, of course, depended
utterly on translation. Translation allowed him access to the Venetian stories
that gave him Desdemona and Iago, Shylock and Launcelot Gobbo – to the plots of
most of his plays, in fact. Writers are always crossing boundaries, borrowing
from each other, translating each other’s ideas. It’s what they do. And
actually it’s what we do as readers, too. You could push the idea even further
and suggest that all communication involves an act of translating: decoding
what someone else has said or written and trying to understand it in our own
terms.
I like the brisk approach the Director of
the Globe Theatre, Dominic Dromgoole, is taking to his new festival. As The Times reported,
Each company will get
at least two performances of a maximum length of 2 hours and 15 minutes. There
will be no surtitles because Dromgoole believes that they undermine the chance
to “slip free” of the text and consider the play in a fresh light.
To keep a Shakespeare play to 2 hours, you
have to cut the text. It cannot be treated too reverentially. It can of course be
cut even further, right to the bone: Tom Stoppard did this memorably with Dogg’s
Hamlet, where the play is reduced to 10 minutes and given a hilarious
reprise in an encore lasting 90 seconds. Shakespeare himself refers to the ‘two
hours’ traffic of our stage’ in the Prologue to Romeo and Juliet (to be performed at the Globe in Brazilian Portuguese) but it
would take you more than two hours just to read every word of that play.
Only one play of the whole Shakespeare
canon is to be performed in English: Henry
V. At first I thought this a too-obvious choice: could it really have been
chosen because it is all about England and Britishness, a patriotic pageant to be used
whenever national crisis requires a dramatic commentary on current events – Olivier’s
1944 film, for instance, or Kenneth
Branagh’s 1989 version? I’m sure the answer is more interesting that this.
Almost uniquely, Henry V is a play in which Shakespeare explores and dramatizes
issues of translation. These issues are political: at the start of the play,
the Archbishop of Canterbury explains to Henry that he has a just claim to the
throne of France because the French ‘unjustly glose’ [i.e. gloss] the Latin
statement In terram Salicam mulieres ne
succedant to mean that no woman can inherit the throne of France. At the
end of the play Henry forces the King of France to write in Latin and in French
a statement declaring that Henry is his ‘dear son-in-law and heir to the throne of
France’: Notre très-cher fils
Henri Roi d’Angleterre Héritier de France.
This power politics is offset, of course,
by two comic scenes. In the first, Katherine, daughter of the King of
France, is being instructed by her lady-in-waiting, Alice, in some basic
English vocabulary:
Katherine: Comment appellez-vous le pied et la robe?
Alice: Le foot, Madame; et le coun.
Katherine: Le foot et le coun; O Seigneur Dieu! Ils
sont mots de son mauvais, corruptible,
gros, et impudique, et non pour les dames d’honneur d’user.
It sounds almost like a snatch of dialogue
from Blackadder. Then, secondly,
after the Battle of Agincourt, when Katherine knows that she is the spoils of
war and Henry has come to claim her, it is the language barrier that has to be
overcome if political expedience is to be married to emotional reticence. I
have seen this scene played entirely for laughs, and I have seen it played with
a good deal of seriousness; but I know of no other play in which Shakespeare
uses questions of translation as a powerful but ambiguous dramatic and thematic
device. The play begins and ends with the unanswered question, ‘Do kings mean
what they say?’ and Henry himself admits he and Kate speak each other’s
language ‘most truly falsely’.
I should love to see some of the plays in
the Globe Festival, and with luck Henry V
will be one of them. And I think that in selecting this play, of all plays by
Shakespeare, to be performed in English the Festival organizers have after all made a
shrewd choice.
[illustration:
The Campo San Giacometto near the Rialto, Venice, as painted by Canaletto. The
statue of the crouching hunchback, Gobbo, is in the middle of the arcade on the far
side of the square. At present it is under wraps and under restoration.
An interesting blog, this. When I was at the Globe during a holiday visit it was very much brought home to me that in Shakespeare's day people went to hear his plays, they were the audience. Whereas in French one goes to see a play, as a spectator. We've come a long way from the bare boards of the the Shakespearean stage to the Roger Planchon 'mise en scène' where the actor is almost overwhelmed by the scenery. But this has been a recent problem in my teaching this week: do we start with the written word or the spoken one? The chicken or the egg? Narrative, after all, comes from the Latin to tell a story. Tell. Not write. 'Sing, goddess, of the wrath of Achilles'. By the time Vergil got started he was scratching away with a stylus. Hence style. It would be interesting, would it not, to know how much of Shakespeare's drama was written down from what the actors spoke, and how much was written for them to speak. What I've been teaching my students recently is that the audience cannot read Stoppard's stage directions for 'Arcadia', only the director has access to those. But how important they are! Then the 'spectator' comes into his or her own: through seeing and not reading. Semiology the French call it. The science of signs. We call it semiotics. All the audience has is the dialogue. But in Stoppard sight and sound are inseparable. In Shakespeare it's the sound and the fury. And a crooked figure to attest a million.
ReplyDelete