The Breach and the Observance Theatre Retranslation

The Breach and the Observance Theatre retranslation as a strategy of artistic differentiation, with special reference to retranslations of Shakespeare’s Hamlet (1777-2001) Schenden en volgen Theaterhervertaling als een strategie van artistieke onderscheiding, met speciale aandacht voor hervertalingen van Shakespeares Hamlet (1777-2001) met een samenvatting in het Nederlands The Breach and the Observance Theatre retranslation as a strategy of artistic differentiation, with special reference to retranslations of Shakespeare’s Hamlet (1777-2001) Schenden en volgen Theaterhervertaling als een strategie van artistieke onderscheiding, met speciale aandacht voor hervertalingen van Shakespeares Hamlet (1777-2001) met een samenvatting in het Nederlands Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof. dr. Willem Hendrik Gispen, ingevolge het besluit van het Col- lege van Promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen door Jan Willem Mathijssen Geboren op 4 september 1974 te Etten-Leur Promotoren: Prof. dr. A.B.M. Naaijkens Prof. dr. P.J. de Voogd Table of contents Acknowledgements 6 Introduction 8 Chapter1:Reasonsforretranslation 16 1.1 Previous theories on retranslation: ageing texts and perfect translation 17 1.2 Retranslation as a norm conflict 17 1.3 Agents in (re)translation: commissioner, audience and translator 19 1.4 Retranslation in the context of the theatre 21 Chapter2:Differingnormsintheatretranslation 2 2.1 Deducing norms from a translation 25 2.2 Theatre translation as a particular area of translation studies 25 Figure 1: Possible options of a theatre translator 26 Figure 2: Series of concretisations 33 2.3 The interplay between theatre maker and translator 32 2.4 The translator’s material: length and the possibilities of rewriting 37 2.5 The domestic and the foreign 43 2.6 The audience’s reaction to retranslation: debates as a sign of transgression 55 Chapter3:Casestudiesofdifferentiation:HamletretranslationsontheDutchstage 8 3.1 General remarks on the production of Hamlet translations between 1777 and 2001 59 Figure 3: Hamlet in Dutch translation 1777-1882 59 Figure 4: Hamlet in Dutch translation 1882-1982 60 Figure 5: Hamlet in Dutch translation 1982-2001 60 3.2 1786 - Retranslation of Ducis’s Hamlet by Zubli: propriety and patriotism 61 3.3 1882 - Burgersdijk’s translation: the problems of staging a direct translation 68 Figure 6: Comparison between Burgersdijk’s and Ducis’s Hamlet 71 3.4 1907 - Van Looy’s retranslation: director’s theatre and commissioned translation 77 Figure 7: Comparison between Van Looy’s and Burgersdijk’s Hamlet 79 3.5 1957 - Bert Voeten’s retranslation: passive retranslation as active differentiation 86 Figure 8: Comparison between Voeten’s and Van Looy’s Hamlet 88 3.6 1966 - Staging of Marowitz’s Hamlet: theatre makers as co-authors of the text 97 3.7 1983 - Claus and Decorte’s ‘tradaptations’: Belgian influence on the Dutch theatre 103 3.8 1986 - Komrij’s retranslation: retranslation as a strategy and a trend 109 Figure 9: Comparison between Komrij’s and Voeten’s Hamlet 111 3.9 1991 - Boonen’s retranslation: individuality as a reason for differentiation 118 Figure 10: Comparison between Boonen’s and Komrij’s Hamlet 121 3.10 1997 - Boermans’s rewriting of Voeten’s translation 125 Figure 11: Comparison between Albers’s and Boermans’s Hamlet 129 Figure 12: Comparison between Bindervoet and Henkes’s and Albers’s Hamlet 134 Conclusion 138 Figure 13: Choices in Hamlet retranslation 1777-2001 140 AppendixA:TranslationsofHamletinperformance 18 AppendixB:Hamletperformances 18 Selectbibliography 212 Index 226 Samenvatting 23 Curriculumvitae 238 6 Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The first time I saw Hamlet in the theatre (Dirk Tanghe, 1991), I was seventeen years old. I remember people smoking on stage, blue light, hats, loud music, and the girl I was with. I also remember eagerly awaiting ‘To be or not to be’ and mouthing it when it was spoken. Most of all, however, I remember how I was carried away, thinking that if all theatre was like this, I should see more of it. The secondHamlet I saw (Theu Boermans, 1997) made the same impression on the girl who accompanied me. She said that if all theatre were like this, she’d been missing so much. I hope I have infused some of this enthusiasm into the work of schol- arship you have before you; and invite theatre makers and translators to offer to upcoming generations the same magic that I have experienced. For the existence of this dissertation I am most indebted to two people. It would not have been written without the invitation of Dr. Nelly Stienstra and it would not have been finished without the support of Professor Peter de Voogd, who put me back on track and kept me there. Professor Ton Naaijkens has been a great support both by inspiring me and by giving me critical comments, a task which has also been executed with much diligence by Dr. Ton Hoenselaars. I also have enjoyed the generous support of Tanja Holzhey (University of Am- sterdam), Eva Mathijssen (actress/writer), Bart Dieho (Utrecht University), Rob Scholten (ATKA Amsterdam), Gerda Roest (Onafhankelijk Toneel), Ana and Aat Nederlof (actors), Don Duyns (director), Jan Joris Lamers (director), Carel Alphenaar (translator), Burt La- maker (La Kei Producties), Josta Obbink (Theatergasthuis), Yardeen Roos (director), Els van der Perre (Dietsche Belfort & Warande), Marianne van Kerkhoven (dramaturge), Erik Bind- ervoet and Robbert-Jan Henkes (translators), Gitte Brouwer (Mobile Arts/De Parade), Lies- beth Houtman (De Bezige Bij), Janine Brogt (dramaturge), Leonard Frank (director), Hugo Heinen (actor) and the staff of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (The Hague), of the Theater Instituut Nederland (Amsterdam) and of the Vlaams Theater Instituut (Brussels). I wish to thank Lesa Sawahata, Alana Gillespie, Luisa Bieri, but most of all Dr. Aleid Fokkema for their editorial input and their kind remarks on both form and content. They straightened me out when I was wobbly. If the fascination for what’s difficult has not completely dried out the sap of my veins, this is due to the unfledging support of Tessa Lavrijsen, of my friends (of whom Tirza Visser, Martijn Knol and Edwin van Houten deserve special mention, as they have helped shaping my ideas along the way) and of my loving parents Will van den Oever and Wim Mathijssen, to whom I dedicate this book. (photograph cover: Pierre Bokma and Hans Croiset as Hamlet and Claudius, in the Hamlet bij het Publiekstheater, directed by Gerardjan Rijnders, 1986. Photograph courtesy of Kees de Graaff) 8 Introduction “��itiable �Englishmen! T��eywillneverbeabletoreadtheirBardasclearlyaswecan�.” –FransKellendonk1 At the end of the nineteenth century the actor Louis Bouwmeester walks on stage, heaving and sighing profoundly. He is playing the Prince of Denmark, and in his grand style he seems to out-Hamlet Hamlet. He is in no way similar to Jacob Derwig, the twenty-first-century boy-next-door who watches CNN on television in the same play a century later. ‘Every age its own Hamlet,’ is a statement often heard in the theatre. This goes for any country: the English have produced performances of Hamlet that had very different angles on the play. And yet – in the Dutch version the very lines the actors speak are utterly different, although they are from the very same play. In fact, the selection of mirrors that the Dutch hold up to Shake- speare has a much wider range than English interpretations, for the Dutch have to perform the Bard in translation. Notably, in neither version the Dutch audience is surprised they can understand what happens on stage, even though they are watching a very old play. This is the achieve- ment of the translator who keeps the play’s language up to date. In fact, it is claimed that the development of the target language makes it necessary for a text to be translated again every fifty years.2 In the case of Hamlet, however, the number of retranslations in the last hundred and twenty years has greatly exceeded the predicted three versions. Especially in the last two decades of the twentieth century, the production of retranslations has been voluminous. Moreover, contrary to the translator’s alleged ‘invisibility’ (Venuti, 1995), the theatre translator has always been clearly present in the promotion and the reception of the play. This gives cause for the suspicion that in the theatre, retranslation stretches further than a merely practical update of language. According to Hamlet, some customs are more honoured “in the breach than in the observance” and apparently the same thought has struck those who cast available translations aside. This leads to questions like: What happens in the process of retranslation for the theatre? Who is behind the production of such a large quantity of new text? And why do people decide a retranslation should be made? Retranslation is a particularly interesting area in translation studies, since it offers insights into the function of translation. Previous theories on retranslation either interpret the phenomenon as a target culture’s progress towards a ‘perfect translation’ or as a target culture’s attempt to make a more accessible version of the first translation.3 Pym (1998), however, offers a plausible alternative with his distinction between passive and active retranslation. Pas- sive retranslation, according to Pym, occurs when the previous translation is outdated. Active retranslation is a symptom of conflicts between people or groups within the target culture. In his view, the target culture is not homogeneous but consists of different groups. These groups each have their own opinions about proper translation, which are expressed by ‘translational norms’ – or ‘poetics’. These norms, according to Lefevere (1992), are strongly influenced by the power that controls the text: in simpler terms, by the commissioner. “Iedere vertaling is een spiegel die het oorspronkelijke Engels van weer een iets andere kant weerkaatst.

Load more