Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page266

criticalestablishmentinShakespeareStudiesstillfindsitdifficulttoputdownthe

anglophoneblinkersandregardanytranslationasoneofthe‘alternative

Shakespeares’(Delabastita2003).

Texts,mediationandlanguages

Translatorsusuallyprefertostartfromthecurrentcriticaleditionsof

Shakespeare’stextsratherthanfromtheoriginalquartosandfolios.Thismeans

thatmanytranslationssomewhatbelatedlyreflecttrendsinEnglishtextediting.

Forexample,editionspreparedundertheinfluenceoftheNewCriticismhave

beeninstrumentalinmakingtranslatorsmoreawareofcertainsubtletiesof

Shakespeare’sverbaltextures,includingwordplay,ambiguity,imageryandthe

like.TheInternetnowbringsawealthofdifferenteditions,versionsand

hyperlinkedcommentariestothetranslator’scomputerscreen,expandingeven

furtherthemassiveBibliothecaShakespeareanea.Onfurtherreflection,this

situationpromptscertainfundamentalquestionsabouttheidentityandstability

ofthesourcetextsinsofarastheevergrowingbodyofeditorialandcritical

traditionsinterposesitselfwillynillybetweentheelusiveElizabethan

Shakespeareandhistranslator.

Veryoften,itturnsoutthattranslatorshavenotonlyusedEnglisheditionsofthe

original,butalsointermediatetranslationsintheirownorevenanotherlanguage.

SeveraltranslatorsofShakespearehaveactuallybeenknowntopossesslittleor

noEnglish.Farfrombeingararecuriosity,incertainsituations,including

eighteenthandnineteenthcenturyEurope,indirecttranslation(seeRELAY)of

Shakespearewastheruleratherthantheexception.Inthedaysofthe

neoclassicalhegemony,ShakespearewasimportedintoEuropelargelyvia

France.Forexample,thelateeighteenthcenturyneoclassicalversionsbyJean

FrançoisDucis(seeGolder1992)werefurthertranslatedintoDutch,Italian,

Polish,Portuguese,Russian,SpanishandTurkish,andeventuallyreached

severalcolonialterritories.Francehowevergraduallylostitsgriponthe

receptionofShakespeareinEurope,asoppositiontotheneoclassical

dominationbecamestronger.WithGermanyhavingemergedasthechampion

ofanticlassicism,translatorsincreasinglyturnedtoGermanintermediate

translationsofamore‘faithful’kind.ThetranslationsbyChristophM.Wieland

(1762–6),JohannJoachimEschenburg(1775–82),andAugustWilhelm

Schlegel(1767–1845)andLudwigTieck(1797–1833)begantoinfluence

translatorselsewhereinEuropeeitherdirectly,intermsofservingasabasisfor

furthertranslations,orindirectlyasageneralblueprintforaviableapproachto

thetaskoftranslatingShakespeare.Inthisway,internationalnetworksof

relationsconnectingthevarioussocallednationalShakespeareantraditionsin

Europe(andbeyond)clearlyreflecttheshiftingpowerrelationsamongits

culturalcommunities.Thebinarymodelpositingadirectspirituallinkbetween

sourcetextandtargettextisaparticularlyunhelpfulabstractionwithawriter

likeShakespeare.

Thetiesbetweenculturalorpoliticalentitiesandthedominantnationallanguage

spokenwithinthemaretooeasilytakenforgranted:Frenchisnottheonly

languagespokeninFranceforinstance,norhasitsusebeenrestrictedtothat

area.ThisinsightpointstoyetanotheraspectofShakespeare’s

cosmopolitanismbydrawingattentiontotheculturalrealityof

MULTILINGUALISMaswellasto‘nontranslation’asameansofdealing

withthelanguagebarrier.ThestatusofEnglish,FrenchandGermanasalingua

francaincertainareasandatcertaintimeshasindeedstronglydeterminedthe

internationalspreadofShakespeare’sworks,leadingtobilingualismand

biculturalismintheatricalorliterarylifeandsobringingaboutacomplex

interplaybetweendifferenttranslationtraditions.Inthenineteenthcentury,the

sameaudiencesmaywellhavebeenabletovariouslyenjoyShakespearein

English(visitingtroupes),inFrench(e.g.Ducis,Berlioz),inItalian(operas

includingbutnotrestrictedtoVerdi)and/orinthelocallanguage.

Theuseofaforeignlinguafrancaalongside,orasasubstitutefor,thelocal

vernacularisveryoftenenforcedbyapoliticallystrongerand/orculturallymore

prestigiousgroupratherthanbeingtheoutcomeofafreechoice.Thiscolonial

patternlargelyaccountsfortheimmenseworldwidesuccessofuntranslated

Shakespeare,amajorexportproductespeciallyinBritain’s(former)colonies

anddependencies,wheretheseemingstabilityofthesacrosanctoriginalscould

beusedtoserveWesternideologyand

Page267

avertthedangerofShakespeare‘goingnative’(seePOSTCOLONIAL

APPROACHES).However,astheBritishEmpirefellapartandgavewayto

thepressuresofpostcolonialnationalismsarisingworldwide,the‘authentic’

BritishShakespeareformerlytaughtundertheimperialflagwasincreasingly

rejectedandthelocalculturesbegantoappropriateandrecyclehimfortheir

ownpurposes.Thishappenedeitherinthelocalvernacularorinahybridized

English,inwhatsomecriticshavetermedacannibalizingformoftranslation(e.g.

WelcomeMsomiwithhisZuluMacbeth).Comparableprocessesof

decentralizationhaveoccurredintheWesternspheretoo,withtranslators

strategicallypromotingsuppressedlanguagesorlanguagevarietiesasanew

Shakespeareanidiom(e.g.Catalan,Basque,andjoual inQuebec)inabidto

claimgreaterculturallegitimacyforthem.Thus,twoMacbethscameoutin

Scotsin1992.

FromGlobetoglobe

ItisacommonplaceofdramatichistorythatShakespeare’sworkpresentsa

blendofGrecoRomanandpopularvernacularelements.Thisunderlies

Shakespeare’sambivalentrelationshiptolaterneoclassicalpoetics,manyof

whoseprincipleshefloutedtothepointofexasperatingitssupporters:witness

hisjuxtapositionofhightragedywithbroadfarceandofprosewithverse,his

ignoranceofsocialdecorum,hisdisrespectfortheunitiesofplace,timeand

action,thebloodshed,ghostsandspectaculareffectsonstage,theindecencies,

wordplay,undisciplinedimageryandverbalobscurity,andsoon.This

incompatibilitywithneoclassicalpoeticshardlymatteredinthefirststageof

Shakespeare’sreceptioninEurope.DuringShakespeare’slifetimeandthenext

fewdecades,theEnglishstrollingplayersbroughtsimplifiedstageversionsof

ShakespearetotheContinent,firstinEnglishwithstrongdependenceonbody

languageandspectacularstageactionandlaterfollowedbytranslations.

Shakespeare’snamegraduallybegantoemergeincanonizedEuropeanculture,

notleastviamentionsintranslatedEnglishmagazinesandnovelsandthrough

Voltaire’swidelyinfluentialcriticism(forinstanceinhisLettresphilosophiques,

1734).ThisincipientinterestinShakespeare’sworkledtotheearliestpublished

translations,includingthosebyPierreAntoinedeLaPlaceinFranceandC.W.

vonBorck’sGermanversionofJuliusCaesarin1741,andwasfurther

encouragedbythem.However,growingfamiliaritywithShakespeare’swork–

forinstanceviathemoresourceorientedproseversionsofalltheplaysby

PierreLeTourneur(1776–83)–alsobroughthometheextentofits

unacceptabilitybyneoclassicalstandards,barringthewaytotheprestigious

theatres,exceptinstronglyadaptedversions,andleadingtofiercecontroversy

betweendetractorsanddefendersofShakespeare,whoposthumouslybecame

thestandardbeareroftheanticlassicalcampaign.Manyeighteenthand

nineteenthcenturycriticsandtranslatorsusedhisworksasatestinggroundfor

literaryandtheatricalexperimentation,oftenaligningShakespearewithother

innovatorytrendsorgenresofEnglishprovenance,includingnondramaticones

suchastheGothicnovel,Ossianicpoetryorthehistoricalnovel.Similarly,many

Europeanartistsinnondramaticandevennonliterarygenresappealedtothe

authorityoftheShakespeareanmodelandadapteditfortheirownpurposes.

Clearly,whatwasbeingchallengedinShakespeare’snamewasnotjusta

particularconceptofthetragedy,buttheentiregenresystem,indeedthewhole

culturalandpoliticalparadigmofneoclassicismwhichthetragedyepitomizedas

itsmostrespectablegenre.ButthesocalledrealShakespearethatthe(pre)

romanticstriedorpretendedtoresurrectremainedaboveallawriterof

anthologypiecesandclosetdramas:thefreeneoclassicallyinspiredrewritingsof

theeighteenthcenturycontinuedtodominatethestageuntilwellintothe

nineteenthcentury.

TheoppositionbetweenShakespeareanandFrenchneoclassicalpoeticswas

clearlyaveryeffectiveforce.Amongotherthings,ithelpsusunderstandwhy

thereceptionofShakespeareremainedlargelyrestrictedtosomeofhis

tragediesforalongtime,entailingthepartialexclusionofthecomedies,the

historiesandevenmorethenondramaticworks.TranslationsoftheSonnets,

forinstance,systematicallyappearedmuchlaterandoftenhavetobeascribed

toaninterestintheirpresumedautobiographicalcontent.Evenso,oneshould

resistthetemptationtoreducetheoppositionbetweenShakespeare