sign in sign up
<<
Home , Minos Volanakis, Translation

UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI

Trans-Staging:

Greek in the Whirlwind of Politics and

by

Peny Fylaktaki

Thesis submitted to the School of English Department of Translation and Cultural Studies For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Volume A

2008 Table of Contents

Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Translation and the of Drama...... 5 1.2 Translation Theory Behind the Curtain…………………………………………..9 1.3 Theatre translation in Greece: the case study of Waiting for Godot…………....13 1.4 Structure of the Doctoral Thesis………………………………………………...19

Chapter Two: Theatre Translation in Greece 2.1 Embedding Drama Translation in the Socio-historical Background…………….21 2.2 The Forces of the Greek Theatre Market………………………………………...27 2.3 Facts and Figures………………………………………………………………....35 2.4 Interviews: Inside Information on Drama Translation…………………………...45

Chapter Three: Godot under the microscope – a case study 3.1 Highlighting the Peculiarities of Godot’s text…………………………………...52 3.1.1 Highlighting Dramatic Substance…………………………………………....53 3.1.2 The Other Side of the Coin: Beckett as Director…………………………….56 3.1.3 Dangerous Ground…………………………………………………………...58 3.2 The ‘Woolly’ of Performability………………………………………...62 3.2.1 Patrice Pavis………………………………………………………………….63 3.2.2. Susan Bassnett……………………………………………………………….65

Chapter Four: Godot x 8 4.1 From theory to practice…………………………………………………………..70 4.1.1 Variety of Registers…………………………………………………………..74 4.1.2 Elements of Humour………………………………………………………….78 4.1.3 …………………………………………………………………….80 4.1.4 Names………………………………………………………………………....84

2 4.1.5 Sound in Godot…………………………………………………………….. 88 4.2 Godot’s Structure……………………………………………………………… 100 4.3 ………………………………………………………………………. 107 4.4 Bilingualism…………………………………………………………………… 111 4.5 Performance…………………………………………………………………… 116 4.6 Lucky’s ...... 117

Chapter Five: The Final Countdown 5.1 The Idiosyncratic Nature of Theatre Language…………………………………127 5.2 Social Encounters of the Third Kind……………………………………………128 5.3 Translation: a never-ending process…………………………………………….134 5.4 Future Perspectives……………………………………………………………...136

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………..141

Appendices Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………150 Appendix B………………………………………………………………………….158 Appendix C………………………………………………………………………….172

3 Acknowledgements Many people have contributed to the completion of the present thesis in different ways. I would like to take here the opportunity and thank those who have guided, encouraged and supported me throughout its making. I am grateful to my supervising committee who shared with me their time and wisdom. First of all, I would like to thank Prof. Savvas Patsalidis for decisively contributing in my work, not only as an academic with his profound knowledge of the , but above all as a man of the theatre with his deep understanding of the workings of drama against social discourse. His immersion into the world of contemporary Greek theatre has been for me an invaluable source of information as well as inspiration. To Assistant Professor Nikos Kontos I owe my gratitude for being the first one who believed in me and prompted me to get involved into a practical approach that eventually evolved into my Appendix C, which is definitely a part the present thesis can boast about. My deepest gratitude and thanks to Professor Karin Lagopoulou for helping me overcome my fear of and clearing the foggiest parts of theory for me so that they could best serve the purposes of the present thesis. To all three I owe nothing less but this thesis itself and my more enlighteted self. A big part of my thesis would not have been possible without the obsessive perseverance of Dafni Moustaklidou for tracing, discovering, verifying and double- checking all data and entries through a labyrinth of old archives, endless phonecalls to living sources and harassment of all the people she knew for retrieving the correct information. Dafni, without your maniac data hunting, this thesis would be incomplete. Special thanks to Eleni Poimenidou, Evgenia Samara, Bella Spiropoulou, Dimitris Piatas, Alexandra Papathanasopoulou, Kostis Kapelonis, Stelios Tzolopoulos, Kostis Kapelonis and Alexandros Lagopoulos for kindly taking an active part in this research with the information they provided. Thanks also to Chryssoula Papiopoulou, Tassos Paschalis, Artemis Moustaklidou, Efi Kapetanaki and Olga Lazaridi for always helping me out every time I stormed into their office in a state of panic. My final thanks I reserve for my family. I wish to thank my parents and sister for their endless love and support in times of crisis, and above all Dimitris for whom I could finish yet another thesis and to whom I dedicate the present one.

4 Chapter One: Introduction

Translating is staging a in another language Hans Sahl, 1965

1.1 Translation and the Language of Drama

Numerous attempts have been made to define translation since the 1950s, when the area of firmly asserted its ground as an autonomous field of research rather than a shadowy branch of Applied . Still the term seems to evade definition. Hans Sahl used the metaphor of staging a performance to provide a vivid description of the translation process, because of the complexity and multiplicity of factors operating in both cases in a simultaneous, yet supplementary fashion. In theatre, elements of the dramatic text1 converse with aspects of performance and are filtered through a process initiated by the director, further developed by the set designer and music composer and –literally– incorporated by the actors who present the final product in front of the audience of their times. Likewise in translation, a certain source text2 is filtered through the translator’s language skills and knowledge of the cultural idiosyncrasies of the two to provide a translation product that addresses the reading audience of the target culture. What Sahl may have unwittingly done is evoke questions on the issue of drama translation. If translating is like staging a play, what happens when translating a play to be staged?3 Does the number of factors and the degree of complexity involved in these two similar processes double when they cooperate in the translation of a play?

1 For the purposes of the present thesis, a definition of the dramatic text is necessary. By dramatic text, it is meant the written text which reads as script. This is different from the performance text which is presented to the audience as the combined result of verbal language, body action, prosodic features, and stage elements (set design, props, lights, costumes and acting style). Their actual difference, as it will be pointed out later, is that elements of performance are implicit in the former, while in the latter they are realised in their stage representation. 2 I shall henceforth refer to it as ST. 3 The present thesis focuses solely on which have been staged. There is a long, on-going controversy between translating for the page and translating for the stage, which is beyond the scope of the present survey. Among contemporary theoreticians, Phyllis Zatlin disagrees with Wechsler’s view that “the translator is a performer without a stage” (1998:7) and advocates that theatre translation should be intended precisely for performance: “if a play translation is nothing but ink on a page it is not theatre (performance text); if it is published and read it may be considered as drama (dramatic text). She goes on to quote Marion Peter Holt, the foremost translator of Spanish in the United

5 Although it may sound daunting at first, the answer is yes. Dimitris Maronitis observes that “if translation in its literal sense (mere transposition of a foreign text which is meant to be presented on stage) transfers a text from one language to another […] this primary transfer is doubled and at the same time modified (it is actually re- translated) when the translated text is led to its stage performance” (2005: 73A45).4 Drama translation involves the linguistic competency and bi-cultural awareness required in all other translation along with knowledge of the economy of dramatic dialogue and its function on stage. We will take the translator’s linguistic competence for granted in the present thesis, but a clarification of the term ‘culture’ is necessary. For the purposes of the present thesis, culture is understood not in the narrow sense of high learning or intellectual advancement, but as “firstly a totality of knowledge, proficiency and perception; secondly, its immediate connection with behaviour (or action) and events, and thirdly, its dependence on norms, whether those of social behaviour or those accepted in language usage” (Snell Hornby, Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach 40). Cultural awareness is essential in translation as certain translation problems are not inherent in the ST itself; they depend on the position this text assumes in the source and target culture respectively5 and its degree of reception by a target audience who have assimilated the culture in question “with the constellation of knowledge, judgment and perception they have developed from it” (Snell-Hornby 42). In the case of drama translation, the translator should also be familiar with the theatre politics of the target culture, the position of dramatic literature in the literary system, the percentage of foreign plays as against the indigenous dramatic production, the prevailing performance codes and the types of

States, who confessed to her as part of their personal that “performability has been the prime aim of every play he has translated, with publication perhaps coming after performance” (Theatrical Translation and , 2005, p.vii). However, recent research has shown that the page/stage debate reflects different distribution circuits rather than different ideological practices. Such practices focus on placing translating at an inferior status than that of theatrical which results in comissionsing the translator with the literary text and then hiring a ‘real’ to provide an adaptation. For more see Eva Espasa (2000:49-62). 4 My translation, as are all subsequent translations, unless stated otherwise. “Απολίτιστα Μονοτονικά, Σκηνική Μετάφραση”, To Vema, January 23 2005, 73 Α45. 5 For instance, Death of a Salesman, which is a landmark play in the history of American theatre, has been staged seven times in Greece, whereas an equally classical play The Glass Menagerie seems to be holding a more outstanding place in the target culture, as it has reached the Greek stage twenty-two times (See Appendix B). As discussed in Chapter Two, the number of a play’s productions affects the number of its translations in diverse ways.

6 drama6 most favourably received by the target audience. All these specificities unique to the social behaviour in the source and target culture respectively, along with comprehension of the current norms governing both language and theatre practice, constitute what can be termed the drama translator’s cultural awareness. In addition, the drama translator should be familiar with the fundamental peculiarities of dramatic language. Theatre presents a highly condensed slice of life. In approximately two hours the plot unfolds towards a solution presenting a climactic point in the characters’ life. For this to happen, a chain of events needs to be triggered, which relate to one another in a cause-and-effect relationship. This brings us to the conclusion that theatre means action. Even in the earlier wordy plays of the Restoration or Elizabethan , a piece of language is never spoken on stage merely for the sake of being heard. It always prompts action -either on the part of the speaker or of the hearer. In other , language in theatre is verbal action. As such, it is mainly characterised by the vocative function7 which focuses on the effect language has on the interlocutors. As a result, the drama translator needs to take into consideration not only what is said or how it is said but also the consequent effect a piece of language has in the temporal or situational within which it is used. This effect is accomplished on stage not only by the content of the language used but also -if not primarily- by the particular mode of delivery.8 This leads to yet another peculiarity of drama language: what can be termed as its “artificial spontaneity” (my term). The dramatic dialogue is a hybrid of real life discourse and : while it bears the naturalness of here-and-now conversation, it has

6 Unless otherwise stated, the terms drama and theatre will be used alternatively to denote the complete process of presenting a play on stage. Because there are cases of written plays which have never been staged (e.g. closet dramas) or performances which never had a written form (e.g. musicals or the pantomime), Jean Alter’s definition of theatre is quoted for the purposes of the present thesis: “Theatre is defined by its fundamental text/ performance duality. Since both forms are necessary, a written text will qualify as theatre only when it is staged and a performance when it has a written version” (248) (1976: 247-51). 7 According to Peter Newmark, A Textbook of Translation (1988), there are five language functions: the expressive, the informative, the vocative, the aesthetic and the meta-lingual function. Newmark’s classification is based on ’s earlier functional communication model, whereby there are three types of dialogue that can be defined as ‘personal,’ ‘situational,’ and ‘conversational.’ According to Jakobson, the emotive, the conative, and the referential function are the most essential in the personal dialogue; the conative and the referential are more dominant in the situational dialogue while the third type, the conversational dialogue, involves the specific semantic structure of the dialogue. These three types of dialogue are hardly distinguished in everyday conversation, but are visible in dramatic communication, where “these action-reaction patterns can easily be established and where more than a polylogue the dialogue takes the form of duologue.” (1959: 232-9). 8 Regarding the power of delivery, , the renowned director and drama teacher of modern Greece, once said that during an improvisation with his theatre group, they had come up with forty-one different ways of saying “Tomorrow night”.

7 been carefully phrased and molded in advance. On top of this, it is spoken, and therefore the dialogue’s oral nature is of primary importance; this shoulders the translator with the extra responsibility of producing an utterance immediately understood by an audience which does not have the convenience of turning to the previous page like the readership of written discourse. Manfred Pfister emphasises the irreversibility of the performance of a dramatic text and the inability on the part of the audience to stop the process for reasons of clarification: “One consequence of the collective reception of dramatic texts is that the individual receiver is unable to vary the tempo of the reception process, nor can he usually interrupt it at will or have sections repeated if he has failed to understand the text” (The Theory and Analysis of Drama 36). Because of this restriction, he argues, “the clarity and comprehensibility with which the information is transmitted becomes an important focus of dramaturgical attention” (Pfister 37). The same applies to the language of the translated dramatic text; Ortrun Zuber succinctly observes that “a play is dependent on the immediacy of the impact on the audience” (The Languages of Theatre 92). Last but not least, the acoustics of the translated text should create a feeling of familiarity to the audience of the target culture and bring to mind associations similar to the ones that stemmed from the sound patterns of the ST. An example of the resulting outcome when the translator fails to do so is provided by Peter Fawcett; he quotes the comic writer Paul Jennings who pointed out that “Hamlet’s anguished cry of ‘mother, mother’ sounds like the bleating of a lamenting sheep when translated into French, while the scary Hamlet, I am thy father’s ghost sounds harmless in : Omlet, ek is de papa spook” (Translation and Language, Linguistic Theories Explained 94). Because the acoustics of the text play such a significant role in the perception of the final translation outcome by the audience, Rick Hite advises theatrical translators to become actors and listen to their work so that they may perceive “the problems of translating from written to spoken text and become more sensitive to the vocal idiosyncrasies of both languages, their inherent , patterns and stress” (304). Apart from the peculiarities of drama language as verbal action and oral expression, theatre is unique among literary genres in encompassing a lot of non- verbal semiotic systems. Theatre is performance and as such, it combines speech with

8 gesture, proxemics,9 kinesics, and perception of –what constitutes the so- called theatre semiotics which, to the translator’s frustration, is more often than not culturally bound. Therefore, translation has to be applied to both verbal and non- verbal elements. The way in which the translator undertakes to transform the dramatic ST into the dramatic target text10 entails a series of procedures, which have been thoroughly explored, since the translation discourse began borrowing the tools of semiotic research.

1.2 Translation Theory Behind the Curtain

The most important contribution of semiotics was to restore the balance in the field of translation studies that had been for years dominated by the notion of the superiority of the ST. Ever since the early stages of translation practice, translators were tortured by the idea of “faithfulness” to the of the original literary work and the fear of “betrayal” of a sacred text that had to remain unaltered over the translation process. Dryden’s “metaphrase”,11 Tytler’s advocating the “same force and effect”12 and Schleiermacher’s German “hermeneutic tradition”13 may be distant in time, but their impact has been so great that it has haunted the sleep of many translators, as late as in the twentieth century. Eugene A. Nida’s “formal versus dynamic correspondence” or Peter Newmark’s “communicative versus semantic” translation are actually an echo of the struggle for superiority between the author’s text and the translation product in the target language.14 Joseph Che Suh summarises the prevailing trend in in his paper “Compounding Issues on the Translation of Drama/Theatre Texts”:

9 This term describes the relationship between the human body and the surrounding environment of the stage. 10 I shall henceforth refer to it as TT. 11 i.e. for word translation, as one of the three principles, the other two being “sense for sense translation” and “”. See Bassnett Translation Studies 1991b. 12 He uses the standard 18th century comparison of “the translator-painter having the duty of making the portrait resemble the original; yet, he licensed the translator not to use the same colours”. See Steiner, 1975. 13 By producing consciously archaic translations that aimed at a minority and made translation an elitist scholarly activity, he proposed the creation of a separate sub-language, which would allow the original to “shine through.”’ See Bassnett, Translation Studies 1991. 14 I shall henceforth refer to it as TL.

9 Before the mid-1970s translation criticism mainly centred on measuring a given translation against an idealised and often subjective notion of equivalence. It was essentially normative and evaluative, proceeding from the assumption that the target text (TT) should reproduce the (ST), and deviations from the original were inexcusable. It was thus frequently reductionist and selective” (51). With a shift, in the second half of the 20th century, from the translation as product to the translation as process, the idea of faithfulness was strongly questioned: faithful to whom: the author, the target audience or -in the case of drama translation- to a previous successful staging of the play?15 As a result, translation criticism was re-defined and refined disregarding any ghosts of the past. Along with the linguistically-oriented scholars who continued to evaluate the textual transfer from SL to TL based on the superiority of the ST, other critics started studying the acceptance of the translated text as a product in the target culture: “attempts are therefore made to set translations and their reception within the literary system of the receiving culture and enquiries are made into the status of the translations in that culture. The focus is thus no longer on mere textual transfer, but on cultural mediation and interchange” (Che Suh 51-52). Andre Lefevere and Susan Bassnett argue that “faithfulness does not enter into translation in the guise of ‘equivalence’ between words or texts but, if at all, in the guise of an attempt to make the target text function in the target culture the way the source text functioned in the source culture” (Translation, History and Culture 38). Since other factors, such as the text’s function, now come into play, the idea of “textual ”16 has been abandoned and the idea of the translated text as a product of and for a specific socio-cultural context has been revived. The ‘interdisciplinariness’ which characterises scientific research in the last part of the century has, thus, brought semiotics into the field of drama translation as a

15 For instance, Noises Off by Michael Frayn (entitled Το Σώσε in Greek) became a huge box-office success when first staged in 1983 with the translation text produced by three of the performance’s protagonists. For this reason, all future productions of the play until 2005 preserved the same translation, and only in 2007 did Mimi Denisi, an actress and translator herself, stage it in her own theatre under a different translation which, among others, changed the play’s title into Σαρδέλες με Σαρδάμ (See Appendix C). The criteria for producing a new translation are thoroughly discussed in Chapter Two. 16 The term was used by Patrice Pavis in Problémes de sémiologie théâtrale (1976), where he states that the text no longer holds a superior position but is placed on equal terms as one among the many components of a performance.

10 more balanced theoretical input for an investigation of the interrelationship between different, yet complementary, sign systems (the dramatic text, the proposed mise-en- scene and the reception by the target culture audience) and the belief that all these systems are components of equal value in the process of translating a theatre text. Keir Elam asserts the repercussions of semiotics in all domains by stating that: “of all recent developments in what used to be confidently called the humanities no event has registered a more radical and widespread impact than the growth of semiotics. There scarcely remains a discipline which has not been opened during the past fifteen years to approaches adopted from the general theory of signs” (The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama, 1). In other words, semiotics has helped drama translation to shed light on all extra-textual elements of performance -the sound patterns in the deliverance of an utterance, the rhythm of speech, the kinetic elements in staging, the set and costume design, the drama practice, theatre politics and market forces of the source and target culture- which were either underestimated or altogether overlooked until recently, and evaluate them accordingly as determining factors of the final outcome along with the text proper. For the purposes of the thesis, reference is made only to those semiotic theories of drama whose principles and findings influenced the approaches to drama translation. The earliest works in this direction stemmed from the Prague School of Semiotics, whose impact on many fields of semiotic research can still be seen today. In 1931, in his “Aesthetics of the Art of Drama”, Otamar Zich stressed that theatre is structured on the interdependence of heterogeneous systems, all of which equally contribute in the making of theatre as a performable total (Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions 21-23). His emphasis on the equal value of all components comprising theatre practise deprived the written text of its axiomatic dominance over other elements; thus it had an impact on the translation of the dramatic text as well, since it turned the obsession with “faithfulness” to the ST into a total consideration of all theatre elements as part and parcel of the final product. In his article “Art as Semiotic Fact” (1934), Jan Mukarovský suggested that a work of art should be considered as a sign composed of “a perceivable signifier, created by the artist, a signification (aesthetic object) registered in the collective consciousness and a relationship with that which is signified, a relationship which refers to the total context of social phenomena” (Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions 6). By placing a work of art into the collective consciousness of the

11 public, Mukařovský introduced a semiotics of performance in which “the performance text becomes a macro-sign whose meaning is constituted by its total effect” (Nikoralea, “A Communicative Model for Theatre Translation” 183). This approach affected the semiotics of theatre in emphasizing “the subordination of all constituents to a unified whole and the importance of the audience as the maker of meanings of this whole (macro-sign)” (Nikolarea 186). In terms of translation, Mukařovský’s view points out the significance of the target culture as creator and interpreter of meaning; the drama translator is, consequently, asked to infiltrate his/her work through the social and theatrical norms and conventions of the target audience.17 In the same direction, Jindřich Honzl considered the of theatrical signs and wrote an article called “Dynamics of Sign in the Theatre” where he viewed the theatrical performance as a dynamic structure of elements whose hierarchy changes in a complex way with the audience as the ultimate reader of theatrical signs (Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions 86-88). In her Lire le théâtre, the semiotician Anne Ubersfeld also argues that the dramatic and the performance text are inseparable and emphasizes the interrelation and dialectic relationship between the two. She recognizes that a semiotics of theatre must consider all aspects of dramatic discourse as parts of a signifying whole, and concentrates on the dramatic text to study the relationships between its two complementary parts: “dialogue” meaning the language of the written text and “didascalia” meaning its production on stage (43-52). Apart from the scholars mentioned above, many other theatre semioticians attempted to give a comprehensive and systematic approach to theatre discourse that would do justice to all its constituent elements and the different mechanisms with which they are linked to each other. As pointed out earlier, to consider them in detail is beyond the scope of the present survey. What is important is to grasp that semiotics shed light on two fundamental aspects of theatre, which in turn affected theatre translation: the inseparability of the written text and the performance and the recognition of theatre language as the meeting ground of linguistic and extra-linguistic elements. As a result of these studies, theatre texts began to be considered as kaleidoscopes; the implications for the drama translator were that s/he had to take

17 According to Appendix C, the time span from 1924 to 1940 witnesses a greater number of melodramas, historical dramas and of classic for the stage in proportion to the years until today.

12 equally into account all the diverse parameters from inside and outside the written page and produce a unified whole.

1.3 Theatre translation in Greece: the case study of Waiting for Godot

Due to the great number and variety of elements interwoven, it is thus particularly interesting to investigate those linguistic and extra-linguistic factors– namely, the socio-historical parameters and the marketing aspects– which have affected the practice of drama translation in contemporary Greece. The time span examined in the present thesis involves the seventy-five-year period from 1930 to 2005; this focus of research is based on criteria of periodization and language. First of all, in 1932 the National Theatre of Greece was established as the country’s first, officially recognized and state-funded theatre institution. Before that, efforts had been made for the creation of a theatre establishment that would function as the main representative of Greek theatre activity and as a landmark of contemporary theatre policy. In 1901 Konstantinos Christomanos set up the theatre company “Nea Skini” which lacked a permanent venue and ran for four years in various cities around Greece as well as in the Greek communities of , Smyrna, and Rumania on a repertoire of plays including works by Ibsen, Tolstoy, Turgenyev, Schnietzler, Shakespeare and Goldoni. Due to financial hardships, “Nea Skini” closes down in 1905 and the need for a state theatre poses as more pressing than ever. The Royal Theatre is set up to fulfill such a role, yet it also closes down a few years later in 1908 among strong political debates and economic conflicts. Over the following years the main agents of Greek theatre production are privately owned theatre troupes that tour around the country, such as the ones by Marika Kotopouli, Kyveli Andrianou and Spyros Melas in 1925. Their productions are mostly re-stagings of the plays “Nea Skini” had included in its repertoire. However, the data of these performances which appear in the newspapers of the time are often inadequate and non-filed: the names of most contributors to a production, including that of the translator, are missing and information on the play mainly focuses on the star actor of the production for advertising purposes.18 The same holds

18 All collected data of the period 1924-1932 features in Appendix C.

13 true for the reviews of the time which comment on the leading actors’ performances and the audience’s response. The year 1932 witnesses the foundation of the National Theatre of Greece; it is therefore from this point onward that dramatic production is systematically recorded, filed and dated, and research data can be collected, cross- referenced and verified. Taking into account the language criterion, the part of the survey focusing on a comparative analysis of translated dramatic texts is narrowed down to the time period from 1960 to 2007 for two main reasons: a) the influx of a large number of plays from English speaking countries onto the Greek stage took place in the 1960s: while from the 1940s to the 1950s there has been an increase of only 30 per cent in the number of plays staged in Greece, the 1960s saw a rise of over 80 per cent (Appendix B, 1). Until then, Greek theatre had been for decades under the influence of French and Italian drama both in terms of language as well as in terms of acting techniques and drama codes: according to statistical data provided by the Department of Theatre Studies at the University of Patras regarding the years between the two World Wars, Athenian staged 284 performances none of which involved a play from the English speaking world, while French and Italian plays as well as works by Ibsen and Strindberg dominate the theatre production of the times19; b) the Language Conflict, which divided Greece for over a hundred years, was practically settled in the 1960s and officially resolved in 1974.20 Due to the lack of homogeneity in the structure and content of the itself, any comparative study of earlier translations would have to include a thorough investigation into the evolution of Greek from the archaizing language form called ‘Katharevousa’ to Demotiki, which is beyond the scope of the present research. Based on the criteria stated above, the first stage of my research was to establish a catalogue, as exhaustive as possible, of the translated English-language dramatic texts which were staged in Greece during the period mentioned. Their source texts were plays from every country of the English-speaking world, namely England, the , Ireland, Wales, Canada, Australia, Scotland and South Africa. For the purposes of this study, however, a mere collection of isolated translations was not enough. In order to establish whether and how translation practice mirrors the linguistic, social and dramatic situation of the times and, at the

19 For further information see http://www.infologic.gr/demo/university/parast/. 20 The issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 2.

14 same time, shapes and is shaped by the language of theatre as well as the stage reality over the period given, a case study was needed. Waiting for Godot by the Irish playwright qualifies for this position for a number of reasons. First of all, according to the survey conducted for the purposes of the present thesis, Godot turns out to be the most frequently translated play given the number of its productions since its premiere in 1963. It has been staged twenty three times by professional theatre groups21 and appears in ten different translations (see Appendix B). The large number of Godot translations allowed tracing the interaction between the ST and the target theatre language throughout the evolution of the Greek language from the 1960s up to the present. By looking at the different translations in the course of these years, an attempt was also made to discover the existence or not of a certain translation approach/methodology adopted by Greek drama translators so that drama translation practice in Greece could be placed in the realm of recent theoretical developments. From a socio-cultural perspective, the large number of the play’s translations helped to explore the way in which social politics are reflected in the creation of a new translated text each time. Secondly, the equally large number of productions provided fertile ground for an investigation into the reasons for the play’s popularity, an investigation involving various social circumstances such as the theatre policy that determines which foreign plays may be translated for the Greek audience taking into account the indigenous trends of the Greek theatre market every time. In addition, the variety of translators, ranging from professional drama translators to actors and directors (see Appendix B), offers information about the impact of the translator’s status on the final outcome. The large sample of translated texts for Godot which facilitates analysis, while of great significance, did not by itself determine its selection as a case study for the present research. Beckett’s “badly-written play” –as he often called it– qualifies for an investigation into what happens when an unconventional language style is translated into the normative patterns of the TL; for Beckett, starting with Godot, gradually emancipated his writing from syntactic rules and created what became known as the “Beckettian” tongue. This kind of liberation applied to both his original and his translations; as Helen Astbury aptly observes, “from the late 50s onwards, his translations into and original compositions in both of his languages

21 The present research focuses on performances by professional groups at national theatres and private playhouses. Amateur stagings are not included as being beyond the scope of the thesis.

15 begin to do, literally, what they please with . His writing in both languages tends to take on a whole range of styles, pushing both French and English to their limits (452).” It is in this case that one can observe to what extent the drama translator can exploit the potential of the TL (Greek, in this case) to express a new writing form or chooses to assimilate the novelty of the ST into the normative framework in which the TL already operates. Furthermore, Beckett’s text demonstrates the bond between words and actions, between dramatic form and content, which is a critical point in the present thesis. Beckett declared that shape, the form, is the content; Aspasia Velissariou underlines that “what Beckett is above all conscious of is the dialectical relationship between the object to be expressed (theme, subject matter) and the mode of expression (form of language, style). Regarding the latter as constitutive of the former, he foregrounds the comic absurdity of their dissociation into two non-interacting elements, whilst maintaining the dialectic through the overall theatrical form” (“Language in Waiting for Godot” 1). Beckett, therefore, explores the semiotic interaction between words and things, only to prove that words are unable to express anything other than themselves.22 As theatre critic Kostas Georgousopoulos maintains, “Beckett approaches the world of things through names and [preserves] the contact either with the identification of name and thing or by magically recalling the thing in the horizon of consciousness by calling its name.”23 In Godot, therefore, language is actually stage action, and consequently, the play constitutes the ideal case to study whether a different translation can build up a different rhythm of kinesis on stage, which may result in a different performance altogether. Waiting for Godot is a text surrounded by the aura of a legend, both mysterious and challenging. It is probably unique in that the play’s ST –a text written originally in the playwright’s mother tongue- does not exist; Beckett imposed the discipline of a foreign language upon himself and produced the first version of Godot in French. The uniqueness of the achievement also lies in the fact that it was Beckett again who undertook the arduous task of translation into his native tongue. As Robinson observes, his decision was not dictated by external factors; “it seems to

22 Language and meaning were for Beckett merely a way of continuing our existence and were not to be taken very seriously. When asked about the contradiction which must exist if one continues to write under the conviction that language cannot convey a meaning, Beckett replied, "Que voulez-vous, Monsieur? C’est les mots; on n’a rien d’autre." [What do you want? They are words, we have nothing else]. For more see Michael Robinson, The Long Sonata of the Dead. 23 To Vema, November 12, 1993

16 have been both voluntary and a necessity: voluntary because the decision was made without impersonal pressure, a necessity because it was urged by one of the frequent impasses at which his art arrives” (The Long Sonata of the Dead, 73). The Irish playwright gave different answers when asked about his of language. He told Shenker that writing in French was a different and more exciting experience than writing in English, while Niklaus Gessner received the answer that it was easier to avoid “writing with style” in French. This was an ambiguous response which could as well mean that by adopting the Beckett was able to free himself from his own stylistic motifs and start afresh. His most-quoted answer is that he was afraid of the English language because he could not avoid the temptation of its lyricism. All these answers reveal that Beckett considered French as a means of dismantling language down to the essential elements of his vision.24 Robinson offers an additional perspective. He argues that “as a language, English is more prone than most to diversions of meaning: its power of suggestion far exceeds the more explicit French. Moreover, in the writer’s native tongue assimilated, concealed meanings are more difficult to discern than in the rational process of using a learnt language” (The Long Sonata of the Dead 74). The use of French, therefore, helps Beckett maintain the tension on which his writing depends and the control over his work, which is said to be the reason why he turned to writing drama. While the existence of two source texts seems confusing at first sight, a closer look reveals unexpected benefits. First of all, the English text of Waiting for Godot is a special case which brings together the two ends of the spectrum, whose interaction lies at the heart of translation practice: the translator and the playwright. Beckett’s of lexical and structural elements, cultural allusions and patterns of rhythm set the example of how he tackled the tricky parts of translation from French into English. The English text, therefore, can function as a point of reference for any future translator of Godot, not in the prescriptive sense, but as a consulting answering the question any translator would like to ask his playwright were he to have the opportunity: “how would you have done this?” Secondly, the original French text underwent a non-stop correction process throughout the rehearsal period before its premiere in Teatre de Babylone on 5 January 1953, since Beckett, who was a novice in the theatre world, followed the instructions of director Roger Blin, the

24 For more on Beckett’s choice of French for his first endeavor at drama writing see Beckett’s Letters.

17 man who actually made Beckett’s dream come true on a Parisian stage. The French version of the play was published earlier by Editions de Minuit in 1952, yet Beckett incorporated all these corrections in the English translation of the play he produced himself, thus presenting a translated dramatic text revised according to its stage realisation. The final version of the play was published by Faber & Faber in 1965,25 after corrections for sixteen years, which makes it a published text based on performance texts rather than vice versa. Waiting for Godot, thus, offers itself as a translation case which encompasses the semiotics of the page already tested against the semiotics of the stage. It is not a text whose stage potential should be envisioned; it has already been realised and inscribed in language. The present thesis is a work situated in contemporariness; more specifically, it is situated within the second half of the twentieth century and attempts to inform and investigate the course of drama translation in Greece interwoven into the linguistic, social and theatrical changes of the period given. Since various systems are involved in this research, a socio-semiotic approach presents itself as a suitable theoretical background for an analysis of many different sign systems on a horizontal axis. On a first level, these systems involve the linguistic norms and dramatic codes interacting in theatre translation. The language on the page transforms into oral speech which is staged and embodied through the performers’ acting and movement under the guidance of a director, whose mise-en-scene can be regarded as an intermediary translation. Professor Maronitis aptly remarks that “the initial written translation of a dramatic text produces in this case two further translations: one by the director and another by the actor”26 thus summarizing the multiple sign systems drama translation incorporates. From such a theoretical framework, the present research develops into a critical praxis with the use of a particular play as a case study. Waiting for Godot is pertinent to the aims of this thesis as exactly that: a paradigm whose large number of translations throughout the time period investigated (1930-2005) allows for an exploration into the various forces at work in the practice of Greek drama translation, both in terms of linguistic changes due to the constant evolution of language and in terms of the theatre policies and social parameters which have determined the translation outcome in every theatre production of the play under diverse socio-

25 This is the version which the present thesis uses as the English ST. 26 To Vema Sunday, January 23 2005, 73 Α45.

18 historical conditions every time. Such an analysis of the translated play texts from a social studies perspective, as well as the total evaluation of the data collected for the purposes of the present research and featuring in Appendix C, leads to certain conclusions about the impact linguistic and extra-linguistic factors have on the methodology, the process and the product of theatre translation in Greece as well as on the effect of translated dramatic texts on the development of both language and theatre norms in the target culture.

1.4 Structure of the Doctoral Thesis

The present thesis is structured as follows: • Chapter One: The first chapter presents the idiosyncrasies inherent in drama language, introduces the extra-linguistic elements at play in theatre translation and sets the criteria which underlie the research of the present thesis towards a case study of the Greek translations of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. • Chapter Two: It embeds drama translation into the linguistic, socio-political and historical background of translation policy in Greece, explores the factors determining Greek translation for the stage and presents an analysis of the forces governing the Greek theatre market based on statistical data and interviews conducted for the purposes of the present thesis. • Chapter Three: Chapter Three highlights the peculiarities of Godot’s text with reference to its dramatic substance, its problematics and the impact of its stage potential on both the language of the source text(s) and its translation outcome. It goes on to record the translation methodology followed on the basis of the “co-operative” principle of translation and premises of theatre semiotics. • Chapter Four: Chapter Four presents a comparative analysis of Godot’s translation texts appearing on the Greek stage to date in terms of language, socio-cultural background and theatre politics. • Chapter Five: This chapter includes conclusive remarks on the policy of drama translation in Greece within the past 75 years and places Greek theatre

19 translation into a globalisation perspective permeating contemporary cultural studies. • Appendix A: It features statistical data on the translation of theatre plays in Greece drawn from the 2001-2006 book production as recorded by the National Book Centre of Greece; it also presents a data table on the teaching of foreign languages in Greece as well as a timeline with the most significant dates in the history of Modern Greek theatre. • Appendix B: It presents diagrams and tables which summarize and evaluate the research data of the present thesis analytically recorded in Appendix C. • Appendix C: It presents a reference list of all English-speaking plays which have been staged in Greece from 1924 to 2007 featuring the play’s original title, name of the playwright, translated Greek title, name of translator, venue of performance, theatre group which staged it and date of production. It is this collection of data retrieved from various sources, referenced throughout the present thesis and analytically commented in Chapter 2 which has formed the basis for the present thesis.

20 Chapter Two: Theatre Translation in Greece

The greatest temptation for a translator is to bypass a translation difficulty and simply walk around it –which might be painless for the audience but painful for the play itself- rather than deal with it face to face.

Thrasimvoulos Stavrou, Greek translator

2.1 Embedding Drama Translation in the Socio-historical Background

Since the very beginning of Modern Greek theatre history, and especially after the National Theatre of Greece was founded (1932)27 and the repertoire started including foreign plays, there has been an ongoing debate about the practice of translating for the stage. The theatre critic and theatre historian Giannis Sideris, whose study on the Modern Greek stage is the most valid testimony of the period, argues in his article “Shakespeare in Greece: Enlightened and Sterile Translators”: “translation should be considered as part of Literature rather than Theatre History, yet bearing the unique feature of Stage Performance which utterly defines it and elevates it to a function quite distinct from other translation processes.” His comments may seem outmoded nowadays that translation is not only a separate field of research but also possesses subcategories of its own; yet, they point out the unique characteristic of stage realisation which distinguishes drama translation from other translation genres. Sideris goes on to point out an interesting aspect regarding the usefulness of translated texts, namely that they decisively contribute to the enrichment and advancement of the TL itself: We should consider translations as Greek texts […] and the work of our most distinguished translators as a Greek activity

27 For further details on Modern Greek theatre history see Appendix C.

21 which may advance our poetic theatre language, or may on the contrary, harm it and impede its future progress; we shall pay tribute to the former and condemn the latter, without forgetting the talents of those who aid the performance at the time of its staging.28 In modern scientific terms, his viewpoint is actually a TL-oriented translation approach, yet what is important is the reason why he proposes it. He does not favour a mere assimilation of the ST into the linguistic norms and conventions of the TL, but views the ST as assuming the position of a role model which the TL may follow in order to enhance its literature. This is only natural at times when the target culture is at a lower level than the source culture and uses the latter as a resource of ideas, literary forms and stylistic modes. Such was the case of Hebrew in 1978, when Itamar Even-Zohar, a cultural theorist at Tel Aviv University, coined the term “polysystem” to describe the interaction between literary systems in a given culture and the position that translated literature may take within it.29 Similarly, Gyorgy Rado, in his paper on “Shakespeare: Teacher of Hungarian Poets” traces the history of Shakespeare translations in his mother tongue to conclude that Hungarian poets learnt from Shakespeare’s language and borrowed poetic structures such as the sonnet or the ballad which Hungarian was lacking at the time and whose needs could not be satisfied by the native epic . Rado admits that “what first looked improbable proves to be true. Shakespeare’s English contributed to the formation of a fine poetic mode in the Hungarian language. The great English dramatist teaches Hungarian poets style, ways of expression and individual art.”30 In the late nineteenth century, Greek literature was facing a similar problem. The native literary production was still struggling to overcome the 400-year period of stagnation due to the Turkish Occupation, during which only a handful of Greek plays

28 Theatrika Tetradia, 21. 29 In his model, translated literature is one of these systems, which are hierarchically ordered as “primary” and “secondary.” Translated literature can assume a primary position in which are too young or at a turning point (face ‘vacuums’), and thus translation is viewed as a means of enrichment and revival of the target literature. In this case translation behaves like an original text and introduces a new style. At the other end of the spectrum, translated literature can assume a secondary position in strong systems with well-developed literary traditions. In this case, translators attempt to find ready-made models for translation that conform to pre-established aesthetic norms in the target culture at the expense of the text’s ‘original’ form. See Even-Zohar, Itamar. “Polysystem Studies” Poetics Today, 11, no. 1, 1990, 23-24. 30 Gyorgy Rado, Meta, vol.16, no 4, 1971, p.6.

22 had been written31. As early as in 1779 there is evidence of an overwhelming number of translations of foreign plays, either printed or in manuscript form, as out of 65 new theatre plays printed, only ten are original Greek plays, while there are more than 25 manuscript translations. In the 19th century, translations gain even more in quantity and also acquire an activist perspective as they are used in the struggle against the Turkish occupation; such is the example of Moliere’s “The Miser” in Konstantinos Oikonommides’ translation-adaptation and Goethe’s “Iphigenia in Taurus”. After the liberation of Greece, this pro-translation trend continued: the Greek intellectuals turned to the Western World in order to be informed about the new trends of the European stage and thus translation was at the time viewed as a form of schooling for future playwrights. Sideris seems to believe that any translation attempt, even a failed one, may function as a point of reference and thus a source of information so badly needed by the literature of the era. When discussing the translations of Hamlet by Iakovos Polylas (1889), which could not be staged easily due to their obscure, ornate diction, Sideris still discovers a blessing in disguise in a translated text deemed useless: Everyone used Vikelas’ smooth translation; Polylas’ work was neither of any use then nor later. Yet, since something good is always hidden in the actions of great men, a huge gain came out of this: the 13- verse line which he invented. And we all know how much this line structure later helped Gryparis to work on Ancient Tragedy; this verse form came to cover an apparent need.32 Probably the most intriguing statement about the purposes of translation at the time comes from Dimitrios Vikelas, a Greek intellectual who delved into translating Shakespeare in 1876. He aimed at “the twofold goal of translating, as faithfully as

31 Erotokritos and Erofili, written in the seventeenth century by Vitzentzos Kornaros, are the most well- known plays of the period. It should be pointed out that they were produced in Crete, which was not under Turkish Occupation, along with the Ionian islands. Other Greek dramas of the period are Achilleas by Athanasios Christopoulos, Aspasia and Polyxeni by Iakovos Rizos Neroulos, Iphigenia and Thiestis by Petros Katsaitis as well as Timoleon by Ioannis Zampelios, a tragedy rebelling against Turkish tyranny which was published in 1818. The dramas of N. Pikkolos and G. Lassanis that were staged in Odyssos are a clear reference to democracy and are also associated with the contemporary demand for national liberation. A new genre of the period is the satirical drama, best represented by G. N. Soutsos’ one-act plays. All performances of late 18th and early 19th century were amateur stagings that took place in school grounds and street alleys. For more information see Ν. Ι. Λάσκαρης, Ιστορία του Νεοελληνικού Θεάτρου [History of Modern Greek Theatre], τ.2, Αθήνα, 1939. 32 Καλοσγούρος, Κριτικαί Παρατηρήσεις περί Μεταφράσεως του Αμλέτου Ι. Πολυλά 17.

23 possible, the English text and at the same time giving a Greek form to my translation so that I can contribute to the spreading of Shakespeare and the enrichment of the new Greek stage.”33 While recognising the weaknesses of Vikelas’ translations, Sideris admits that he truly fulfilled his goal; the translator turned into an educator for the future generation of poets and playwrights: He truly contributed to the development of the Greek stage; the modernist Lekatsas together with all those who felt the need to talk in a simpler manner –the 80s generation– turned to him […] His flowing verse became the basis for I. Polemis’ one-act dramas. His verse line and sense of language led Souris and Koromilas to the “Peasant girl’s Lover”; this is their understanding of the 15syllable verse, for the prototype of Solomos and the idyllic moments of “Hasis” are too distant in time for them to remember. This simplification of our national verse had already been accomplished by Angelos Vlahos (“Wedding because of Rain”), yet it was Vikelas’s work that renewed public interest in it and handed it down to the younger generation.34 Upon a closer look, Vikelas’ statement also reveals that in his translation he will equally consider all elements of performance. His aim is actually fourfold: while pledging loyalty to the dramatic ST, he equally wishes to invigorate the Greek writing form, educate the Greek audience as far as classic European masterpieces are concerned and enrich not only the Greek language but the Greek stage practice as well. Sideris very clearly describes the way in which translated texts were used as a means of invigorating performance elements and acting norms while creating a new theatre culture: The Merchant of Venice translated by Alexandros Pallis came at a crucial moment, when he was an assistant of Fotos Politis in the ‘Professional School’ mentioned earlier, and helped him in his struggle against and in favour of poetic language on stage. For us, Shakespeare is not only an educator, the pride of our actors and

33 Θεατρικά Τετράδια, 23. 34 Κωνσταντίνος Δημαράς, Ιστορία Νέου Ελληνικού Θεάτρου [History of Modern Greek Theatre] 365.

24 spectators; his viewpoint, as revealed by Politis, makes him the supporter and founder of our new theatre culture [my emphasis].35 Thus, the translation of foreign plays becomes a means of creating a new Greek theatre language and practice which will meet the needs of the era drawing from the achievements of the Western culture. With reference to the Shakespearean translations by Kleon Kartheos and Vassilis Rotas, Sideris clearly argues that “starting from Shakespeare, the new Greek theatre language will be invigorated and assume a more concrete form. This will give rise to a new form of Shakespeare plays, when circumstances allow this to happen” while he affirms that “the struggle of translators with the ST depended on the status of the Greek culture at each given point in time.”36 The central position of translation in the formation of the TL becomes even more evident in the case of Greece because of a certain peculiarity embedded in the very history of the Greek language itself. Since the sixteenth century the Greek language had been suffering the consequences of a ‘civil war’ between the intelligentsia who wished to retain a more pronounced relationship to ancient Greek by using ‘katharevousa’, and those who opted for a simplified form, as spoken in daily life.37 The performance of ’ in a mixed-hybrid language directed by K. Christomanos was a landmark in the history of the short-lived Royal Theatre, for it caused riots regarding the language conflict. Student groups led by G. Mistriotis, a supporter of katharevousa, tried to stop the staging of the performance, which led to police intervention that resulted in the death of one demonstrator while many others were injured. This fact alone shows evidently that the language debate was not exhausted among scholars and academics but had turned into an issue of socio-political concern and consequences. This conflict was officially resolved in 1974, when ‘Demotiki’ –the simplified version– was included in the amendments of the new Constitution, after the withdrawal of Article 107 of the 1911 Constitution, while the Ministry of Education adopted the “ of Modern Greek” by Manolis Triantafyllides in 1976.

35 Θεατρικά Τετράδια 25 36 Θεατρικά Τετράδια 28 37 The Language Conflict (Το Γλωσσικό Ζήτημα). Anna Fragkoudaki observes that the consequences in Greek social and political life were disastrous, as a huge gap was created between the educated classes and ordinary people, even leading to political prosecutions. The supporters of Demotiki posed as progressive rebels while those of katharevousa as torchbearers of the country’s religious and national ideals inherited from antiquity. Greek society was split in half for 143 years. Φραγκουδάκη Άννα, Η Γλώσσα και το Έθνος, Εκδόσεις Αλεξάνδρεια, Αθήνα 2001,78.

25 At a period when the language conflict was mounting to a climax (1920-1930), Sideris describes the way in which translated theatre texts turned into valuable weapons for the supporters of Demotiki. It was then that Alexandros Pallis, an avid supporter of the newly born simplified version of Greek, translated Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice mentioned above. With the help of performers who shared his linguistic viewpoint, he brought Demotiki on the theatre stage, and therefore ‘legitimized’ it and validated its status as the language of the nation’s cultural activities: “the mouth of the educated actor who fights for our language –such actors were Marika Kotopouli, Eleni Papadaki, Emilios Veakis- truly highlights the prose and poetic parts of Pallis’ translation, which the spectator welcomes in his heart with great eagerness.”38 Sideris even vindicates Pallis for the glaring exaggerations of Demotiki in his Shakespearean translation on grounds that the end justifies the means; he argues that “his exaggerations can be justified because deep down one can discern a rightful cause –mainly, at the time, the vindication of Demotiki through its own potential; such little words characterise it, as Pallis most probably believed.”39 Following in the same line of thought but serving the opposite goal, Damiralis, a distinguished translator who opted for the preservation of ancient linguistic patterns, presents a translation of King Lear where Demotiki is only spoken by the Fool and the mad Lear. The reason is that he wishes to use translation as a means of propagating his views on the language conflict, namely that Demotiki is a vulgar language form. Throughout that period, drama translation bristled with strong political and social commentary and turned into a means of exerting influence on public opinion as to which language type should prevail (Sideris, Theatrika Tetradia 26). The effect of theatre language on the public as well as the pronounced relationship between the dramatic text and the final staged outcome were the main reasons why, in later years, there was great concern about the dubious quality of the translations available at the time: “Bad translations have become an open wound for our Literature. […] The situation deteriorates in Theatre where the whole dramatic mechanism is identified with the Language [of the play].”40 Sideris’ concerns turn into a barrage of accusations:

38 Θεατρικά Τετράδια 25 39 Θεατρικά Τετράδια 26 40 Θέατρο 6

26 Thus, foreign works –especially plays– reach the Greek audience as a second or even a third translation. […] Translations are often tailored to meet the specific needs of playhouses and theatre groups and are subject to cuts, shortenings, all kinds of alterations and changes. How can the Greek ‘translator’ verify the quality and faithfulness of the translation upon which he will base his own, when he does not know the language of the prototype? How can he possibly check whether the initial translation was faithful or free, whether it is an adaptation or a paraphrase, or whether it has been changed to serve special needs and purposes?41 Several points should be noted here. First of all, there seems to be a common practice of translating a dramatic ST from a language the translator knew, which was not, however, necessarily the source language of the text. As a result, the very issue of faithfulness is altogether ridiculed. Secondly, the metaphor of “an open wound” reveals the extent and frequency of such activity42, which discloses a massive disregard on the part of translators for the integrity of their work. The reasons for this should be sought in the third point emphasised: the needs of playhouses and theatre groups; in other words, the forces of the theatre market.

2.2 The Forces of the Greek Theatre Market

Like many fields of human activity, theatre, too, is governed by the laws of production. Such a remark does not diminish its artistic and ideological aspect; on the contrary, it fits the missing pieces in the puzzle of a country’s theatre practice. In order to draw a picture of drama translation in contemporary Greece, it is useful to the basic axes on which theatre production operates in Greece. For the period 1960-2005 examined here, the selection of plays to be staged in Greece has been influenced by a) the position of dramatic literature in the native production, b) the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon language and culture, and c) the politics of the Greek theatre.

41 Θέατρο 6. 42 With reference to the renowned Greek actress Kyveli, Efi Vafeiadi comments on the translation policy of the early 20th century: “There was always the fear of ‘empty seats’. For this reason, theatre groups had to work non-stop, having two, sometimes even three, opening nights every week. Box office successes of the French and Italian boulevard were translated overnight and staged after only a few rehearsals [my translation].” Figures of the Greek 20th Century.

27 According to research data, Greece is listed among the European countries with the highest percentage of literary translations: translations across literary genres mount to 44% of the total book production (Appendix A, Table 1.3), despite the fact that translation costs are undertaken by the publishing houses and do not influence significantly the book retail price. Although the number of translated novels has remained steady over recent years, translated theatre plays have marked a steady increase over the past six years: 44 titles (7% of the total translated literary production) have been translated in 2004 as against only 27 titles (3.9%) in 2001, while only within a year (2003 - 2004) a rise of 8 titles (20.8%) has been observed (Appendix A, Diagram 1.7). It should be pointed out here that according to the National Book Centre of Greece 2006 research data, the majority of translated plays include re-translations of classic repertoire such as Shakespeare, Mauriveaux,

Chekhov, Ibsen, Oscar Wilde, Tennessee Williams, etc. 43 Particular emphasis has been given to the plays of the Anglo-Saxon culture. This is no wonder, since out of the total number of source languages to be translated into Greek, English language seems to maintain a dominant place and in 2006 outnumbers all other source languages reaching an impressive 53.2% (Appendix A, Table 1.4). French comes second with 12.3%, while other major languages, namely Italian, German and Spanish, follow at much lower rates. According to statistical data of the major Greek publishing houses in the 2002 London Fair,44 British translated literature alone (fiction, poetry and drama) constituted 35% of the published literary production in Greece.45 As a result, English plays hold the first place among source texts for drama translation in Greece, followed by American (Appendix A, Table 1.8). There are numerous reasons to justify such a trend. Foreign language teaching in public education started in Greece almost 180 years ago. French was initially introduced in schools in 1824 following a special parliamentary amendment (Σχέδιον

43 While the plays translated are mainly English and American, the term includes plays produced in any part of the English speaking world, namely Britain, Ireland, the U.S.A., Canada, Australia and New Zealand as well as South Africa for playwrights who produced their work in the English language. 44 To Vema, 7 April 2002. 45 A considerable increase in the total number of translated book titles entering the Greek market was also reported in a statistical study carried out by the journal “Ιχνευτής” [Ichneftis] according to which one third of the total number of book titles published in 1996 (1,846 out of 5,274) were translations of foreign works from all literary genres. The survey thus concluded that the number of translators has greatly increased compared to the number of Greek . Δασκαλόπουλος, Δημήτρης. «Μεταφράσεις και μεταφραστές.» Τα Νέα 04 October 1997, sec. PO4

28 περί της κοινής παιδείας του Έθνους [Plan on the education of the Nation]) according to which Greek secondary education ought to include the teaching of and French. Such evident preference towards the French language was the direct effect of the Enlightenment Era as well as of the social, economic and political status of in 19th century Europe. In 1833 the was initiated in the public education while in 1886 English was incorporated in the curriculum. The defeat of Germany after the end of the Second World War and the evolution of the USA into a world power over the following decades helped the English language establish its dominant presence in the language learning scene. In his article in March 1945, Kostas Ouranis comments: “We love England. It is the only foreign nation we love, though we have never been close to it, except from the two World Wars, and despite the fact that we have never been, until now, under its spiritual influence, as was the case of France or Germany. Today the Greek stage is contantly informed of theatre events in London.” (Angloelliniki Epitheorisi, 5). According to the 1998 data of the Hellenic Institute of Foreign Language Teaching, Greece occupied the first position in foreign language learning in Europe, with 1,000,000 students, aged 6-18 years old, learning English, French, German, Italian and other world languages; of them, 870,000 were learning English. Furthermore, the Pan-Hellenic Association of Foreign Language School Owners cites a 2002 report by the Greek Ministry of Education according to which all public and private secondary schools -including evening schools and technical colleges- teach the English language to a total number of 683,339 students, which is approximately three times the number of students learning the second-listed French language (Appendix A, Table 2). As a result, at the level of tertiary or post-graduate education, a great number of people have pursued theatre studies in Great Britain or the U.S.A. because of their familiarity with the language; consequently, most university lecturers in theatre nowadays hold a doctoral degree from English-speaking countries, which in turn results in them adopting and promoting the English-speaking theatre production in their teachings. Still, familiarity with the language is not the only reason why there has been a turn to the Anglophone countries and to English texts. Along with the dramatic production proper, the English-speaking culture went as far as to develop and promote schools and methods on nearly all theatre professions (playwriting, acting, directing, light and set design, to name but a few) while at the same time it codified and summarized practical knowledge and skills in numerous publications,

29 thus making theatre knowledge accessible to the wider public and earning their confidence both regarding theatre technique, and respectively drawing attention to and promoting the status of its own dramatic production. What is more, globalisation through TV and the provides up-to-date information about the socio-political and cultural reality of the Anglo-Saxon world, while we are closer than ever to the Anglo-Saxon mentality and lifestyle through the film and advertising industry. This means that in most cases the Greek target audience is not only aware of but has already adopted the cultural framework of an English-speaking play before listening to its linguistic content. This facilitates greatly the task of the translator, since it implies that he needs to put less effort into bridging any cultural gaps between source and target language, and in all probability guarantees the play’s success, since it originates from the Anglo-Saxon culture which is nowadays the most popular among the countries of the Western world. Consequently, the increased knowledge of the English language on the part of the audience and their equally increased awareness of the Anglo-Saxon source culture along with an ingenious advertising policy have become valid criteria for the selection of English as the SL to be translated for the Greek stage. The third and probably most decisive factor which influences theatre production remains: theatre politics. These can be divided in two areas of research, namely theatre micro-politics and theatre macro-politics. The former are shaped by the on-going interaction between theatre people –producers, actors, directors, to name but a few– and audience reception. It is the kind of give-and-take which builds the theatre norms and conventions of a country’s dramatic canon and affects the language of theatre, both in the case of original plays and translated texts. With reference to the ‘belles infidèles’ translations of seventeenth and eighteenth century France, Peter Fawcett rightly points out that “they were also based on a form of sociolinguistics: the people for whom these translations were made belonged to a social class which (in theory at least) ordered its life according to of honnêteté (decency) and bienséance (decorum). Translations were supposed to conform to the same concepts” (Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories Explained 117). Thus, in all probability the socio-cultural norms of every era seem to determine what reaches the stage and filter the translator’s choices –if they are his/her choices at all –through a form of socio-political censorship, whether direct or indirect, conscious or not. Greek theatre politics have often practised this kind of authority by dropping abusive

30 language in translation, or avoiding plays which handled taboo subjects, i.e. incest or homosexuality46. On a greater scale, this leads us to the field of macro-politics, which focuses on the impact a country’s political regime and ideological position may have on the translation process. A characteristic example is the case of Giorgio Strehler, the renowned Italian director after the Second World War and the main representative of the Teatro Piccolo, who did not translate and stage Beckett until the early eighties after the cultural environment in had changed and Beckett had been awarded the Nobel Prize, which made the entire Western tradition turn to Godot as a Christian message of hope (Cascetta, Beckett Performed in Italy 153). In particular, politics and ideology attended Teatro Piccolo’s birth in 1945, as it was sustained by the political and economic backing of the Socialist Party which in the post-war years promised a break with the past and a revitalization of the Italian culture. However, as Peter Byrne comments, the later scandals and illegalities of the Craxi government would create problems to Strehler and Grazzi, founders of the theatre, as “they were both steeped in the great texts of the past and respectful of the artist's autonomy. It would be impossible for them to conform to the cruder sort of socialist realism proposed by some of their backers” (Peter Brook's Sober Magic in Milan and the Dower of Giorgio Strehler 3). For this reason, Strehler directed only one of Beckett's plays as late as in 1982, for “the Left at the time didn't consider the Irishman a cheerleader for progress, his concern being more for the human being who might or might not progress” (4). As a result, in his 1982 directing of Beckett’s Happy Days, Strehler stood up for the play by stating that Winnie’s incessant talking represents a positive outlook on life and our incessant striving to keep on living, while friendly Italian critics such as Franco Cordelli maintained that “without textual chopping and changing, Strehler, by extra-verbal means, gave a ‘revolutionary’ interpretation of the play” (4); all this, so that Teatro Piccolo could conform to the leftist progressive spirit of the times, since the Left party was the theatre’s financial supporter. A detail in this whole issue of Beckett’s staging in Italy, which however reveals the degree of censorship exercised, is Brecht’s intervention. Byrne presents the essence of the story in a nutshell:

46 The issue of censorship will be discussed in greater detail later with reference to Beckett’s Waiting for Godot as a case study.

31 Brecht, the great proponent of engagé theatre after WWII, found Samuel Beckett's work nihilistic and devoid of political message. He even considered, to Beckett's horror, rewriting Waiting for Godot as an upbeat leftist tract. Strehler, who was close to Brecht, but on the other side of Cold War Europe, without the East German State paying his bills, solved his dilemma temporarily by leaving Beckett alone till well after Brecht's death in 1956 (5). Thus, it becomes evident that the very staging of a play –and, in turn, its translation- depends on a very subtle balance between socio-political forces of all kinds. Yet, who or what is it that exercises this kind of censorship in the first place? In order to delve deeper into this question, it is crucial to turn to the argument Susan Bassnett raises to denounce performability. She shrewdly observes that performability stemmed from the efforts of interlingual translators to free themselves from the servile relationship both to the playwright and the performance text, and to exercise greater liberties with the written text. In her opinion, it was in the naturalist theatre that the role of the playwright increased tremendously, and as a direct result, the idea of fidelity was imposed on all participants in a performance; the conventions of post- naturalist drama “demanded a high degree of fidelity to the written text on the part of both director and performers” (Translating for the Theatre: The Case Against Performability 104). Thus, “if performers were bound on a vertical master-servant relationship to the written text, so also should translators be” (105). In the nineteenth century, the director emerges as the key figure in the theatre process, “yet another link in the chain separating the writing process from the performance” (105). Therefore, it is the domineering presence of the playwright and/or the director as agents of censorship which made translators resort to the concept of performability as an outlet to greater freedom. Bassnett’s approach reveals yet another factor which shapes the translation process: the element of authority. The person who ultimately decides on what is performable is the person with greater authority in the theatre company, whether this is interpreted as economic power or high status in the theatrical hierarchy of the times. Espasa comments, “Bassnett hits the nail on the head regarding the connection between the status and performability which exists in the well-known tandem playwright/unknown translator: the more visibility is granted to a well-known playwright, the more invisible the figure of the translator remains” (Performability in

32 Translation 58). The issue of authority does not limit itself to the figure of the playwright, but is often associated with the status of the director, of the stage designer, of the theatre producer or even of the popularity of actor(s) starring in the performance. The power relations and authority these professionals exert on the staging of the play inevitably affect and ultimately shape the translation product. What are the criteria which establish such authority? Bassnett argues that it is the financial benefits involved in theatre policies, which are often hidden under the guise of certain theoretical premises, as in the case of performability. She maintains that performability has been exploited by English translators, directors and impresarios as an excuse for linguistic strategies that are in fact conditioned by the financial policies of the theatre. Hence, it seems that drama translation cannot help but be influenced by the fact that theatre policies operate according to the laws of the market. A comprehensive analysis of theatre translation politics should investigate the role of what Joseph Che Suh calls the “Translation Initiator”, a concept which refers to “any individual or group that constitutes the driving force behind the act of translation and whose identity and express wishes could exert a fundamental influence on the translation operation”(“Compounding Issues on the Translation of Drama/Theatre Texts” 55-56); in other words, the notion of the Translation Initiator represents the agents of a country’s theatre policy who, in the majority of cases, are people other than the translators. For reasons of clarification, I would like to refer here to the effect that the Translation Initiator has by drawing examples from the contemporary British theatre policy. Susan Bassnett has charged that the translators’ work is undervalued in theatre, as they are commissioned to produce the so-called “literal translations” and then “the text is handed over to a well-known playwright with an established reputation so that larger audiences will be attracted into the theatre” (Translation Studies 1991 101). Far from being given credit as the cultural mediator between foreign works and his/her target audience, the translator is thus reduced to a pen- pusher who clears the ground for the real expert –the playwright– to undertake the creative part of the work. As Eva Espasa puts it, “performability is here used as a pretext so that the status of translation is considered inferior to that of theatrical writing” (57). Aaltonen also points out the common practice of a stage director ordering a translation which is tailor-made for a particular mise en scène; in other cases, theatre translations are worked upon, revised and fine-tuned to suit the needs of

33 a particular stage team or theatre company or they are often adjusted to the acting styles of individual performers who are already popular with the audience for their characteristic acting persona (1993:31). In all these cases, the concept of ‘performability’ is used to justify significant alterations in the TT (cuts and additions) and to excuse arbitrary decisions which change the paralinguistic elements of the text (pitch, intonation, delivery) based on what the translation initiator(s) consider to be ‘a well-spoken’ text. It therefore becomes evident from the above examples that, more often than not, the important decisions in drama translation are not taken by the translator himself but by the translation initiator as one of the social factors that influence the final outcome. Che Suh suggests that in order to study in detail a country’s theatre policy towards drama translation, one should first study the position and role of the translation initiator in the entire process, the motivations underlying his/her decisions, his/her perception of the expectations of the target audience and the effect these decisions eventually have on the drama translator (56). A study of the Greek theatre market of the 20th century (see Appendix C) verifies the fact that theatre translation in Greece has also operated under the influence of “translation initiators,” a role undertaken by theatre people –producers, directors and actors– who favoured particular foreign plays or even particular translators for “special needs and purposes” as mentioned above. The motivation for the translation of a particular play could be ideological; in 1926, the great actress Marika Kotopouli initiated a new phase in the history of Shakespeare translations when she urged Kleon Kartheos to translate Macbeth, because she knew that Kartheos would produce a translation according to the prosodic and linguistic patterns of Demotiki, which she wished to spread in theatre practice. Sideris describes the extent of her influence as translator initiator by acknowledging that “along with her other services, Marika Kotopouli also presented the Greek stage with a new translator meeting the expectations of the times, so that translations and performances of Shakespeare will proliferate in our Theatre on new foundations.”47 Moreover, theatre practice has shown that the translation initiator(s) have often based their decisions on financial grounds. Striving for a box-office success, the performers opted for plays that belonged to genres favourite among Greek theatregoers, such as the realistic

47 Θεατρικά Τετράδια 27

34 drama and the farce, or which suited their own acting styles.48 As a result, knowing which actors would perform a play inevitably affected drama translators as an actor’s established popularity in a particular acting and deliverance style shaped translation decisions: Rotas49 is reported to have translated all of Claudius’ tirades as if he knew how the great Greek actor Emilios Veakis would pronounce them (Sideris, Theatrika Tetradia 28). Evidence for this multiplicity and fluidity of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors that affect the final outcome of theatre translation and therefore render the role of the translator “secondary” in the process of a play’s stage realisation can be found in the recent history of contemporary Greek theatre. Lack of full data, and particularly of the translator’s name, has been a permanent obstacle the present thesis encountered even in cases of established and widely-acclaimed institutions: it is worth pointing out, for instance, that the official playbill of A Rose without a Thorn by Gifford Bax on the main stage of the National Theatre of Greece in 1963 features the indication ‘X’ under the name of the translator (Appendix C). This inferiority rendered to the status of the translator is also depicted in Dimitris Maronitis’ observation that “unlike the source text […] the translated text is somehow considered to be fluid […]. Maybe this can explain the provocative indifference of journalists and theatre reviewers towards the translation and translator of works staged in our theatre halls: usually just a single-phrase comment (often complimentary) or no comment at all.” (Α45) Taking into account that this comment appeared in an article on stage translation featuring in the newspaper To Vema in January 2005, it can be concluded that the task of drama translator continues to be a foggy concept and thus underestimated to our very days.

2.3. Facts and Figures

In order to investigate the contemporary norms and conventions of theatre translation in Greece, I have attempted to establish a catalogue of all English-language plays staged in Greece since the 1930s (Appendix C). The statistical research took

48 Appendix C bristles with such examples drawn with contemporary Greek theatre data. For instance, Vassilis Tsivilikas has been translating farce and comedy plays he is starring in while Stamatis Fasoulis has translated social dramas or comedies he was either acting in or directing, to name but a few. 49 Renowned drama translator, who undertook to translate the total of Shakespeare’s plays; his translations are still being performed on the Greek stage.

35 place in the period between 2003-2007. The catalogue lists the play’s original title, the translation of the title, the translator’s name, the theatre group undertaking the production, the theatre venue where it was staged, and the year of production. Data were collected from: • the Archives of the National Theatre of Greece, • the Archives of the National Theatre of Northern Greece, • the Archives and press clippings of the Greek Theatre Museum, • material from playbills filed in the library of the Theatre Department of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, • material from playbills filed in the library of the Department of Theatre Studies of the University of , • data collected from the archive of the Department of Theatre Studies at the University of Patras, • data collected from individual theatre companies (Θέατρο Τέχνης-Κάρολος Κουν, Θέατρο Διαδρομή, Επί Κολωνώ Θέατρο, Θέατρο Τόπος Αλλού), • the Archives of the Regional Theatre of Ioannina, • the Archives of the Regional Theatre of Thessaly, • the Archives of the Regional Theater of Volos, • press material on the Internet For reasons discussed earlier in this chapter (2.1) as well as in Section 1.3 of Chapter One concerning language development in Greece, the time span examined in the present thesis is between 1960 and 2005. Nevertheless, an examination of the complete catalogue data will be presented below, as it allows us to investigate the theatre policies and market forces prevailing in contemporary Greece as factors determining the selection of foreign plays, the choice of translators as well as the audience’s needs and expectations. The year 1932 is considered as the survey’s starting point since it is marked by the foundation of the National Theatre of Greece as the first state theatre venue and the country’s official theatre institution. Within the past 75 years, the importation of foreign plays onto the Greek stage presents an average increase of 70% per decade (Appendix B, Diagram 1, Table 1). An exception to this trend can be observed in the period 1970-1979, when the number of translated plays declines by a mere 10% (84 plays in the 1960s as against 72 in 1970s). This is not irrelevant to the historical and

36 political circumstances of that period, as the dictatorial regime of the Colonels’ Junta governed the country from 1967 to 1974. As a rule, totalitarian regimes aim at isolating a country from all foreign voices of protest in the social, political and artistic realm and at reinforcing the patriotic ideal by encouraging the presentation of indigenous artistic production that conforms to their dictates. According to the data presented in Appendix C, the staging of plays with political overtones such as All My Sons and The Caretaker in 1964 and 1965 respectively shows that theatre struggled to maintain its role as an awakening voice, yet the general fall observed in the number of translated plays as well as the fact that 66% of them (55 in 83 plays) fall into the genre of comedy or psychological drama are evidence that the selection of foreign plays was censored during the dictatorship period. According to the Military Reports issued by the Ministry of Defence of the Dictatorial Regime, a long list was compiled right after the coupe d’etat including all “communist or pro-communist plays, books and journals staged or published in Greece after 1950”, which were censored and banned from circulation all over Greece (Aggeliki Sotiri, Rizospastis 10). Brecht’s performances at Theatro Technis were interrupted, the issue on Brecht of the journal Theatro was withdrawn from the market and its cover was marked with the stamp of censorship.50 In his interview in the television programme Reportage Without Borders, Mimis Kougioumtzis, actor, director and founding member of Theatro Technis, recalls that “censorship was very heavy back then. We would try to stage experimental theatre such as Beckett, Ionesco and Pinter, but all plays were censored and marked with the stamp, or some silly phrases which bothered them would be omitted in the translation”.51 Still, the decline in the number of translated plays is small compared to the constant rise observed in all other decades from 1932 to date (Appendix B, Table 1), which together with the comparatively limited Greek dramatic production renders translated dramatic literature a significant factor shaping Greek theatre trends. Among the English-speaking playwrights reaching the Greek stage, nearly 49% are American. An interpretation of this large percentage can be sought in the general historical framework after World War II, the perception of the American people as liberators and the desicive role of the American financial aid in the

50 To Vema, October 18, 1998 , p.: S06. 51 http://www.rwf.gr/interviews_senaria-new.php?id=196&interview=1&interview_id=794 as recovered on December 24, 2007

37 reconstruction of the Greek state; Giannis Sideris writes about Mourning Becomes Electra staged by Katerina theatre group in 1945: “It is our duty to love O’Neil because he is a citizen oof the great American Republic that has releaved one third of the planet from the beast of fascism” (O Kallitexnis 10). The British appear in the second place with almost 40%; what is worth pointing out here is that although there was a bloom in the number of British plays translated for the Greek stage in the years between the two world wars, most British playwrights of the time are forgotten today, since very few enjoyed a longer course in the Greek theatre than the occasional staging of one of their works (Areti Vasileiou, The Repertoire of Athenian Theatre Groups during the Mid-war years 84). Irish dramatic literature also seems to be a favourite among the Greek audience since plays by 22 Irish playwrights (almost 7%) have been staged (Appendix B, Diagram 4, Table 4). An interesting point should be made here: although Irish plays score high in the preference of Greek audience, a distinction should be drawn regarding the perception of Irish dramaturgy in the Greek theatre. Terms such as “Irish theatre” and “Irish playwright” merely refer to the place of origin and do not bear any associations related to Ireland’s political and religious turmoil viewed from a sociological perspective. Thus, works by Oscar Wilde or Bernard Shaw did not appear on the Greek stage because of their “Irishness” which could help draw a parallel to Greek contemporary reality, but as dramatic works on their own merit (Kyriaki Petrakou, Theatrologika Miscellanea 71-133). A probable exception is the staging of Sean O’Casey’s Juno and the Peacock by the Experimental Theatre in 1949, which discusses the tragic consequences of a religious civil war and could thus be compared to the Greek civil war of the times. Even in this case, however, reviewers ignored its social dimension and focused on its moral overtones: “the play’s lyricism highlights its ethographical elements”(Aim. X., Kathimerini, 9). The nationalities occupying the three highest places in the hierarchy of the plays’ country of origin reappear in almost the same order in the results concerning the popularity of foreign playwrights; consequently, Tennessee Williams appears to be the most frequently staged writer with 103 productions of his plays while Samuel Beckett follows with 68 and Harold Pinter with 61 (Appendix B, Diagram 2, Table 2). This observation is also reflected in Diagram 5 featuring the most popular plays, since The Glass Menagerie appears to be the most popular play from 1930 to 2005 with 21

38 productions, while Waiting for Godot has been staged 15 times while Endgame and A Streetcar Named Desire follow with 11 productions each (Appendix B). While one would expect the number of translations to increase directly with the plays’ popularity, this is not the case: Waiting for Godot has the largest number of staged translations (9 translations in 15 productions of the play), while The Glass Menagerie has been translated 9 times in 21 stagings (Appendix B, Diagram 6). The five productions of The Zoo Story were based on a single translation (Appendix B, Table 5), while The Dumb Waiter had a different translation text for every one of its three stagings (Appendix B, Table 7). Research data of the present thesis featuring in Appendix C has thus led to a classification of theatre translations into three broad categories according to the ratio of the play’s productions to the number of its translations. As a result, three different groups have emerged: a) plays whose translations are fewer than half of the play’s productions (38% of the thesis sample), b) plays whose number of translations is equal or greater than half of the play’s productions (53% of the thesis sample) and c) plays which have been translated as many times as they have been staged (9% of the thesis sample) (Appendix B, Diagram 7). All three groups raise questions about the reasons underlying both the existence of multiple translations for a single play and the existence of multiple productions based on a single translation –or a very small number thereof– over an extended time period. Judging from these statistical data it can be concluded that the general trend in Greek translation practice seems to favour new translations for new productions of a theatre play. The first argument in favour of a new translation for a theatre play is embedded in the very nature of language. Language is a dynamic, ever-evolving system based on constant transformation, renewal and adaptation to the socio- linguistic standards of the historical era it operates in. David Connolly, scholar and translator who has translated Odysseus Elytis and Kiki Dimoula among other contemporary Greek poets into English and published articles on the problematics of drama translation, observes that theatre translations grow old because the language, the target audience, the play’s interpretations and views on translation also change.52 In this respect, the different translations53 of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (by Kaiti Kassimati in 1965 and Jenny Karezi-Stamatis Fasoulis in 1982), of Little Foxes (by Stathis Spiliotopoulos in 1961 and Errikos Belies in 1997), of Mrs. Warren’s

52 Ta Nea, October 4, 1997, p. PO4. 53 All examples cited are only indicative, based on the catalogue of plays featuring in Appendix C.

39 Profession (by Aris Alexandrou in 1947, Stathis Spiliotopoulos in 1966 and Eva Georgousopoulou in 2005) as well as of The Duchess of Malfi (by Tassos Roussos in 1987 and by Christina Babou-Pagkoureli ten years later) can be justified by the mere time distance between the different productions, within which not only linguistic codes but also dramatic conventions have changed, and theatrical exchange had to keep abreast of developments both in the dramatic dialogue as well as in the language of the target culture reflected on stage. However, the language’s finite character cannot account for e.g. the insistence on Pavlos Matesis’ translation for every production of The Alchemist from 1972 to 1997 or for the use of Kostis Skalioras’ translation text for the staging of Endgame from 1969 to 2000 while two different translations of the play appeared in 2004 and 2005 by Eleni Varika and Maya Lymberopoulou respectively. Such cases, which can not be explained by the law of language evolution, suggest that the need for the preservation of the same translation text or, on the contrary, for a re-translation stems from other factors as well, the most important of which is the translator’s identity. There are cases where the translator’s name functions as a pole of attraction and a guarantor of quality for a given production. Prominent figures in the world of art and letters who have been distinguished for their translation work often function as a guarantee for the performance standards and are used for advertising purposes. Such is the case of prose writer and playwright Pavlos Matesis, scholar and translator Marios Ploritis and writer, translator and lyric composer , to name but a few. It is no coincidence that their translations reappear in the catalogue data of Appendix C throughout an extended period of time and in a considerable number of productions of the same play: Marios Ploritis’ translation of The Glass Menagerie has been staged seven times while Nikos Gatsos’ translation of Tennessee Williams This Property is Condemned has endured the test of time by being staged in 1955, 1960, 1980 and 1993. As mentioned above, the translator’s identity might again be the reason which encourages the opposite activity, namely the production of a new translation text. In 76% of the cases examined for the purposes of the present thesis, a new translation is produced (or ordered) by the director of the new production who wishes to incorporate his/her directing vision in the dramatic text and/or the actor who wishes to effect the necessary changes in order to “tailor” the play’s diction to their own acting style and therefore increase the box-office gains. Research data of Appendix C shows

40 that in contemporary Greek theatre practice the role of the translator initiator discussed earlier in this chapter is of utmost significance for the production of a new translation text: in 1978, the same year that Marios Ploritis’ translation of The Glass Menagerie was staged in Komotini by the Theatre of Thrace, Michalis Kakogiannis directed his own translation of the play in the National Theatre of Greece; apparently, the regional theatre of Thrace needed the prestige of a renowned translator’s name such as Ploritis, while Kakogiannis, aware that it was his own name functioning as the lure of the performance, wished to create a translation text that would align with his directing vision. In the same line of thought, two more translations of the play appeared in 1994 by Minos Volanakis and Elli Vozikiadou who directed the play in Kakia Analiti theatre and Thymeli theatre respectively, while in 1997 director Dimitris Mavrikios suggested a new staging of the play and produced yet one more translation text. The Complete Works of has been staged three times in 1996, 1999 and 2004 by director Konstantinos Arvanitakis who was also the translator of all three play texts; seven years after Yiorgos Depastas’ translation of Old Times was presented in Kefallinias theatre, actor and director Stamatis Fasoulis re-translated the play for the needs of his own production in Dimitris Horn theatre; Dimitris Katalifos and Panos Papadopoulos, actor and director respectively in the 2003 production of Krapp’s Last Tape, presented a new translation of the play to replace Kostas Stamatiou’s text used in stagings from 1962 to 1998; the renowned leading actress Katina Paxinou produced the first translation of Eugene O’ Neill’s Desire under the Elms in 1931, to be succeeded only in 1947 by Vassilis Nikolopoulos’ translation of the play for the production he directed at Technis theatre. There are even cases such as Closer, which was staged by two different theatre companies in successive theatre periods of the same year with a different translation each time (1998-1999) (Appendix B, Table 8). A similar case can be observed in the series of six translation texts for A Streetcar Named Desire, culminating in the production of two translation texts within the same year (1988), one by actress Nonika Galinea for the performance she was starring in at Ilissia theatre and one by Koula Antoniadou for the production of Katerina Helmi’s theatre group. Another example is the Artistic Organisation “Fasma” which staged Mamet’s Oleanna in 1994 based on Pavlos Matesis’ translation and used the same translation text they were familiar with when they re-staged the play in 2005, overlooking the 2004 translation by Dimitris

41 Tarloou which he had written for the production of Oleanna at Poreia theatre under his own direction guidance. The examples mentioned above are only representative, yet not exhaustive of the role theatre people undertake in the process of drama translation, despite the fact that, in an overview of translation agents in Greece, it is professional translators who occupy the top three positions (Appendix B, Diagram 3). Such an observation does not mean in any way to underestimate or diminish the value of the translation work produced by non-professional translators, namely actors and directors. On the contrary, outstanding translation texts have been produced by the latter, as Eleni Varopoulou reminds us in her article on the occasion of director Minos Volanakis’ death: “The director as ‘translator’: this is the image visiting me every time I think of Volanakis. Not only because he was a great translator. Unique in ‘reading’ the plays and becoming, through his translations, an existential intermediary of the poetic message. Unique in creating a tool of self- reflection out of the language of translation.”54 In these words, Varopoulou gives a definition of the ideal drama translator as the explorer of the play’s key concepts which he then transforms into theatre tools to endow the dramatic text with the new aura of its stage realisation – in her sense, the translator and the director almost perform the same task: “In the case of Volanakis, the director-translator is the artist who translates the play on stage by giving it a sense of plasticity. He endows the play with a certain form and gives shape to all things human in it. By releasing the imprisoned text, by taking it out of the pages where it is held captive, the director eventually discovers which elements of the text need to be ‘trans(laid)ed.’”55 The familiarisation of the translation initiator with the dramatic codes, though, can not entirely justify why so many theatre people undertake to translate the dramatic text of their own productions. The deeper reason lies in the field of economics. As the amount from state subsidies and sponsorships decreases and financial resources become increasingly more difficult to find, theatre producers are forced to make the

54 To Vema, November 21, 1999, p. Z12. 55 To Vema, November 21, 1999, p. Z12

42 productions cost-effective by reducing expenses. Such expenses include the translator’s fee or the legal share which the theatre company is obliged to pay to the Translator’s Society for existing translations.56 When asked57 why the Commedia Art Group undertook a new translation of Beckett’s Waiting for Godot in 1999 while eight previous ones existed, actor Dimitris Piatas admitted that “it was a way to express ourselves through Godot’s text and also save money.” In the case of drama translation creative needs and financial considerations seem to merge. A similar line of thought is hidden behind the use of theatre translations published in book form, which makes them more accessible to theatre groups that wish to stage a performance; such was the case of theatre group Klafsigelos which used Kassimati’s translation of 1965 for their production of The Glass Menagerie in 1999 although two more recent translations also existed by actors Jenny Karezi and Stamatis Fasoulis and by translator Marlena Georgiades; the latter were not easy to obtain or required the payment of the fee set by law. Last but not least, a careful look into the plays’ reviews stands proof to the crucial role played by the money factor: there are renowned contemporary translators in Greece -whose names are not mentioned for the purposes of the present thesis- who also work as theatre critics and deliberately publish very bad reviews for productions which opted for somebody else’s translators rather than their own, as this has lost them large sums of money especially in the case of translations of ancient Greek plays. A similar aspect of theatre economics which should not be underestimated in the process of theatre translation relates to the creation of small ‘circles of friends’ among theatre professionals forming a kind of ‘clique’ whose members operate on a ‘favour-exchange’ basis. . Most theatre companies work with a very small number of collaborators/translators on a mutual agreement that the artistic director will promote a particular translator and vice versa; such an example of connections is the case of Giorgos Depastas and the company Theatro tou Notou, Panagiotis Mentis and Empros theatre. These observations are not meant to bear any positive or negative overtone; they merely outline an existing theatre practice. A closer look at the statistical data in Appendix C reveals yet another aspect in the field of economics which influences translation choices in the theatre, namely the

56 This is also verified by a statistical breakdown of Appendix C data which shows that 68% of the new translations are produced by low-budget theatre groups that cannot afford the charge of a translation fee. 57 Interview with Dimitris Piatas in Apo Mixanis Theatre on Monday October 4, 2004.

43 issue of marketing/advertising. This becomes evident in the translation of the play’s title which often seems to free itself from all linguistic restrictions and abides by the laws of the marketplace in order to lure audiences into theatre halls. This is most common when the translator is the director or actor of the play: such are the cases of A Bedful of Strangers which was translated as Πυροτεχνήματα στο τσεπάκι μου by actor and director Vassilis Tsivilikas, and Bedroom Farce which was translated as Μια νύχτα άνω κάτω by director Kostis Tsonos (1979), as Όλα σε μια νύχτα by director and actor Yiorgos Kimoulis (2003), whereas in 1991 director Michalis Papamichalis opted for a more of the play and entitled it Η φάρσα της κρεβατοκάμαρας. Likewise, the performance’s marketing potential seems to be the reason underlying many title translations: indicatively it is worth mentioning the translation of Blood Relations by director Tina Stefanopoulou as Λίζυ Μπόρντεν πήρες το τσεκούρι, the Greek title Τρεις φορές Γυναίκα devised by the directing team of Alexandros Rigas and Dimitris Apostolou for the play Plaza Suite58 and the title Το σώσε in translation of Michael Frayn’s Noises Off by the group of starring actors Xenia Kalogeropoulou, Anna Panagiotopoulou and Stamatis Fasoulis. Drama translator Errikos Belies and actor and director Kostas Spyropoulos cooperated in 2003 on the translation of A Night in the Theatre and gave it the fashionable name www.hamlet.com.edu.gr in order to emphasise its contemporariness, while the translation of Ray Cooney’s comedy Out of Order provides a clear example of the trends followed by theatre initiators versus drama translators: the play was literally translated as Εκτός ελέγχου (1992) by translator Anna Varvaressou, while it was given the more marketable titles Ό,τι πείτε υπουργέ μου (1997) by Vassilis Tsivilikas and Όλοι σεξ στο Σάσσεξ (2003) by actor and director Vladimiros Kyriakides. Such observations are not meant to be prescriptive or favour one trend over another; they simply provide empirical evidence of the fact that theatre people take seriously into account the play’s promotion policy and marketability, which has a strong impact on all aspects of the performance starting with the translation of the play’s title. In the same frame of mind, the target audience’s degree of familiarity with the cultural elements embedded in the play’s title appears to be an influential factor of its translation. For this reason, as Appendix C reveals, actor and director Dimitris Myrat

58 It is worth pointing out here that the play Plaza Suite has been staged three times in Greece, under a different translated title every time: Διαμέρισμα στο ξενοδοχείο Πλάζα (1968), Σουίτα 719 (1989) and Τρεις Φορές Γυναίκα (2005). See Appendix C.

44 chose to translate the play and Evelyn as Ερωτική τραγωδία in 1950, Darling Mr. London turned into Σιγά μην εκτεθούμε in 1999 while a target-oriented approach was also favoured in the cases of Don’t lose the Place (Κάθε Δευτέρα Τετάρτη και Παρασκευή δεχόμεθα, 2001) The Patrick Pearse Motel (Μοτέλ Επτά Αστέρων, 1998) and On the Ledge (Σάλτο Μορτάλε, 1998); likewise, Elsie and Norm’s… Macbeth became Μάκβεθ με… παντόφλες and Jane took on the Greek title Η νύφη μου από το Λίβερπουλ, both of which allude to titles of well-known Greek of 1950s. In the course of the years, the Greek audience grew more familiar to the sound and writing form of the English language, which explains why linguistic elements were retained in the phonetic and even the spelling form of the titles: such are the cases of Μόλυ Σουήνυ (1996), Shopping and Fucking (1997), Anorexia nervosa (2000), Hitchcock Blonde (2003), Φράνκι και Τζόνι (2001) Αντίο Τσάρλυ (1992),) Μαντάμ Μελβίλ (2001) and Μάρισολ (2002), to name but a few. In order to better incorporate the play into the target language and culture and make it more attractive to the target audience, additional information is also provided in the title along with the translation proper, in an imaginative and commercial manner: Harvey (Χάρβεϋ - Εγώ και το κουνέλι, 2003), Inherit the Wind (Η Δίκη των Πιθήκων - Κληρονομήσατε τον Άνεμο, 1955), Napoleon (Ναπολέων-Ο Άνθρωπος του Πεπρωμένου, 1932), QED (QED ή Τι απέδειξε ο κύριος Φέυνμαν), The Crucible (Δοκιμασία-Οι Μάγισσες του Σάλεμ). In addition to the above, a thorough investigation of the factors that lead to a given translation cannot but take into account the so-called ‘arbitrary’ factor, namely those non-categorised or non-identified parameters which may border on all of the criteria analysed above, or may include none of them and focus solely on the translator’s or the translation initiator’s personal initiative to acquaint the target audience with a particular play through translation. Judging from an analysis of the research data presented in Appendix B and C of the present thesis, translation decisions which concern the initial need for a new translation and the assignment of the text to the translator or the translation initiator appear to be most of the time socially and economically rather than linguistically bound, with the factor of ‘social connections’ playing an important role. This conclusion is further confirmed by translators and translation initiators who offer their own interpretation of how translating for the stage operates in the interviews conducted for the purposes of the present thesis.

45 2.4 Interviews: Inside Information on Drama Translation

Interviews are considered to be a primary source of information drawn from hands-on experience of translating for the stage; thus, among the initial objectives of the present research was to include interviews from the people involved in the ten different translations of Waiting for Godot which constitutes the case-study of the thesis. The investigation came up with very interesting results both in terms of the translators’ profile as well as of the parameters that determine the production of a new translation or the survival of an older one. Based on the database collected, ten agents (people and groups) have undertaken to translate Waiting for Godot from 1965 until 2005 (Appendix C). Since the translator’s identity is a determining extra-linguistic factor that shapes the final translation outcome, a short presentation of each translation agent features below. Manthos Krispis was a translator, playwright and theatre reviewer. Many of his plays, such as The Huts have been successfully staged in Athenian theatres. He has translated the Anthology by F. Kafka, The Green Light by Lloyd C. Douglas and The Heart of Darkness by J. Conrad’s. He has also written many essays on K. P. Kavafy. Eleni Varikas is a professor of political theory and gender studies at the Université Paris VIII. She has also taught courses at Suzanne Tessier of Universite Libre in Brussels, at the University of Lauzanne, the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, UCLA, Ann Arbor, Portland State (USA), and Unicamp (Brazil). She has extensively published on the history of feminism, gender politics, and the theory of experience and subjectivity in social and political analysis. She has translated Beckett’s Endgame (Dorikos Editions 1969) and Literature and Evil by George Bataille. Alexandra Papathanasopoulou was a Greek literary translator, who has translated works by great such as , Jane Austin, Jean-Jacque Rousseau and Samuel Beckett, among others. On account of her early death at the age of 55 in 2003 symposiums and public discussions have been held where her

46 translations were widely praised and referred to as a yardstick of accuracy and musicality. 59 Dimitris Dimitriades is a prose writer and playwright. His first play The Prize of Mutiny has been staged by Patrice Chereau in 1968 at the Theatre de la Commune d’ Aubervilliers in Paris, while his monologue Oblivion has been staged in 1998 at Petit-Odeon, Paris, by J.-C. Bally, in 2001 at the Theatre de Bobigny by Α. Dimitriadis and in 2002 at Attis theatre by Theodoros Terzopoulos. His fiction work I Die as a Country has been staged in Theatre du Rond-Point in Paris and in Teatro di Limonaia in . He has received the National Greek Prize in 2002 and has translated works by J. Genet, M. Blanchot, G. Bataille, Nerval, Balzac, W. Gombrowicz, B., M. Koltes, T. Williams, Moliere, Shakespeare, M. Duras, Courteline, and S. Beckett. Minos Volanakis has been a renowned Greek theatre director and theatre theoretician. He has been Artistic Director at the National Theatre of Northern Greece and has directed works by Brecht, Pirandello, , Ibsen and Straus, among others. He was the first to stage Beckett’s works in Greece. The theatre company Commedia was founded in 1986 and focuses on the re- staging of classic drama works and adaptations for the theatre. Among their productions are works by Samuel Beckett, Roberto Cossa, Neil Simon and Moliere among others. Bald Theatre was founded in 1984 by the drama professors and the students of the English Department at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Its productions include both professional and non-professional members (actors, directors, stage designers), while the group has adopted an experimental and avant-garde theatre perpsective. Of them only three (Alexandra Papathanasopoulou, Manthos Krispis and Dimitris Dimitrades) have been professional translators; five of them (Nikos Daskalopoulos, Minos Volanakis60, the Bald Theatre, Commedia group, and Odysseas

59 Theodoros Georgiou comments on her translation of Rousseau’s Confessions: “It’s an exceptional translation which constitutes a real feat. The Greek text penetrates the surface of words and brings the agony of writing to light.” To Vema, 08/03/1998 , p.: S08, Article Code: B12471S083. On her translation of Waiting for Godot Myrto Athanasopoulou writes: “The play needs no recommendations, yet do pay attention to the excellent translation by Alexandra Papathanasopoulou, where words find their perfect balance. Maybe this time, Godot will come after all…”, 26/6/2008, http://www.lifo.gr/content/x6/1271. 60 It would be interesting to point out here that Volanakis is the only person who has been involved in the stagings of Godot at different points in time: in the 1965 performance as director of the play on

47 Nikakis) fall into the category of the translation initiator as they are also involved in the performance of the play as directors, actors or both; Eleni Varika has translated the play as a one-time venture, while the identity of P. Papadopoulos remains unknown. This sample provides an insight into the translators’ identity: half of the agents translating Godot are theatre professionals, which raises questions as to the effect this may have on the translation proper. A large part of the investigation did not meet with the desirable results. The fact that Minos Volanakis is deceased deprived me of the opportunity to converse with a versatile theatre person who was also a director and could possibly comment on how he endowed the language of his translation with a sense of its stage realisation. P.Papadopoulos who translated the play for the performance at the French Institute of Ioannina in 1982 could not be traced despite on-site research.61 Nikos Daskalopoulos translated the play for the first performance of Waiting for Godot staged in Greece at Club Amikal of Thessaloniki in 1963, which he also directed; his translation was saved at the library of the French Institute of Thessaloniki whose archives were, however, completely destroyed in the fire of 1967, and current employees of the Institute regarded such information to be irretrievable.62 The “Bald Theatre” group of the School of English at the Aristotle University in Thessaloniki used a translation for their 1991 performance which was heavily based –though with certain differences to be commented upon in Chapter 4- on Eleni Varika’s translation of 1980. Eleni Varika, who is currently a professor of Political at Université de Paris VIII was contacted and an appointment was scheduled; however, personal problems forced her to cancel the appointment and when later contacted by phone and e-mail, she did not respond. The investigation into the identity of Odysseas Nikakis took on an unexpected turn: as the name would not come up in any search, the Society

Manthos Krispis’ translation, while in the 1980 performance he directed the play himself, probably transcribing his directing experience on the translation text; no other theatre persons (actors, directors etc.) have re-appeared in the stagings of Godot. 61 Assuming “P” to be the initial letter of “Pantelis”, since Pantelis Papadopoulos has served as director of the Regional Theatre of Ioannina for a series of years, I contacted him but he denied ever translating the play and referred me to a certain Petros Papadopoulos, who was impossible to trace. 62 During another research I was conducting at the time irrelevant to the present thesis I coincidentally came across the curriculum vitae of Eleni Poimenidou who is a resident of Ioannina and had taken part in the 1965 performance in Thessaloniki during her student years. Unfortunately, she no longer had the text in her possession but was more than willing to help, and provided me with a telephone number of Nikos Daskalopoulos in Athens who had presumably pursued a career in . Unfortunately no call was ever answered, and the address corresponding to this number bore the sign of a psychology practice office that had been closed for 10 years, according to on-site information.

48 of Greek Writers was contacted. Upon listening to our request an employee -who asked for her name to be kept secret- disclosed in confidence that this is a cover name used as a disguise for a very famous living actor who does not wish for his identity to be revealed and published for the purposes of the present thesis. Although this is fully respected, such a revelation raised even further questions regarding the impact of the translator’s identity on the final translation outcome and the economic or socio- political grounds lying beneath. Alexandra Papathanasopoulou and Dimitris Piatas were successfully contacted and interviewed, the former through a telephone conversation on November 20th, 2002 and the latter in person on March 4th, 2003. It was fortunate for the purposes of the present thesis that the two persons who were interviewed are representatives of the two major categories of translation agents: the former is a professional translator whereas the latter is a renowned actor. They did not wish for the conversation to be taped and handwritten notes were kept during the interviews. The questionnaire on which the interviews were based tackled linguistic issues such as equivalence towards two source texts, language patterns, speech rhythm and musicality, as well as issues of performance, translation practice and theatre politics. Following are the questions together with their individual responses to them:

1) Why did you decide to translate Waiting for Godot? Was it an assignment or a personal venture stemming from your own initiative? Piatas: We wanted to express ourselves through Godot’s text and also save money.63 Papathanasopoulou: I was always addicted to Beckett, but after working on his novels, I made sure that they would propose to me the translation of one of his plays. Their motive for undertaking the translation appears to differ: the Commedia group decided to stage it and undertook their own translation as a means of saving performance expenses, while Ypsilon publishers assigned Papathanasopoulou with the translation of Godot in 1994, after she had successfully translated Beckett’s trilogy Malone, Malone Dies and The Unamable in 1993. Economic reasons and publishing

63 My translation, as all subsequent translations, of the interview replies.

49 policy in the form of securing an equal translation standard for Beckett’s works are, therefore, suggested here as reasons for the production of a new translation.

2) Which of the two texts did you use as the primary source text? Why? Piatas: We translated from the English and the French text together. Sometimes we preferred one over the other depending on which would trigger more familiar associations and would be better understood by a Greek. Papathanasopoulou: Both texts, choosing at times, so as to retain a good sense of humour that would be shared by the Greek audience. The two interviewees seem to have tackled the play adopting a common target culture oriented approach: they drew from both French and English source texts aiming at the audience’s instant comprehensibility and response to the play in terms of theatre’s verbal nature, discussed in Chapter 1.

3) How did you handle the repetition motifs that abound in Beckett’s text? Piatas: It was a tricky business; you have to be as faithful as possible. His repetitions are points of return in the play where you start afresh, they reinforce the comedy of the whole thing, people laugh instantly when they hear the same line spoken again. Papathanasopoulou: I think you must show reverence to the elements repeated, both the visible and the invisible ones. A famous quote is that it is a play where nothing happens, twice. Not respecting the element of repetition means that you are not respecting the very essence of the play. Both stressed the fact that repetition motifs are among Godot’s greatest challenges, still, their motives seem to differ slightly. Piatas implies that the Commedia group focused more on the performance potential of the translation and the effect it would have on the audience, while Papathanasopoulou revealed a text-oriented translation approach.

4) How did you tackle the issue of Beckett’s musicality? Piatas: We tried to keep the rhyming of the words as much as possible in Greek without changing their meaning, and also certain phrases of social exchange which have a characteristic ring to them, such as when you offer

50 someone something over dinner, which was the thing with the carrot, for example. Papathanasopoulou: The repetition motifs we just talked about are the points zero for the play’s musicality; from then on the tempo either speeds up or slows down to zero, and then starts all over again. In terms of rhythm and musicality, Papathanasopoulou returned to the question of the repetition motifs, showing that she considered them to be the keys of the play’s musical score. Piatas described how the Commedia group worked focusing on the alliteration of words and the speech patterns of particular structures, always bearing in mind the impact it would have on the audience.

5) Which problems did you face regarding the use of slang? Piatas: Contemporary audiences are so used to vulgar language on TV that they are no longer shocked when listening to abusive language on stage and, anyway, Beckett does not use abusive language for its own sake. Papathanasopoulou: Beckett resorts to slang only to test the boundaries of language, it is a linguistic game, and nothing else, so it does not cause offence to anyone. Neither of them pondered much upon the issue of slang, in the sense that they did not regard it as a taboo element of the text that should be censored. It should be pointed here that both these people operate within the same socio-political system of 20th century Greek society. Once again, Piatas based his argument on audience feedback as his main criterion for translation choices; Papathanasopoulou, on the other hand, appears to be interested in the playwright’s intentions.

6) Did you work with the director/actors on the text of the play during or after the completion of your translation work in order to effect any possible changes that were deemed necessary for the of speech on stage? Piatas: Yes, we worked together. The first translation draft was tested on stage, the translation group attended the rehearsals and recorded whatever changes we -the actors- made and they deemed necessary.

51 Papathanasopoulou: My translation appeared on stage by the theatre group Lambioni in Thessaloniki64 after it had been published, they read it, contacted me to tell me that it suited their needs best compared to all other translations in the market. They invited me to the rehearsals but I couldn’t make it, I just granted them my permission. Piatas describes a coordinated translation procedure followed from early on whereby the course of the rehearsals constantly informs the written script. Papathanasopoulou briefly stated in the interview that her translation was chosen from its already printed version. The fact that since then her translation reached the stage again after her death65 together with information featuring in a newspaper article by Manolis Pimplis raise questions about the workings of theatre and publishing policy.66

7) According to research data Waiting for Godot is the most-frequently translated play of the Greek stage since 1930. In your opinion, why has it been so often translated? Piatas: It is a play which will always be new and at the same time a classic. Papathanasopoulou: Because it is deeply rooted in language, it functions as a yardstick, a challenge for anyone working with language to test himself against it. Judging from their answers, they both justified the number of times the play has been translated on the grounds of its dramatic significance and language value.

8) Which do you think are the criteria that differentiate theatre translation from all other translation genres? Piatas: You have to be an actor or a person working with actors in order to know how what you say on stage comes down to people. Papathanasopoulou: You always need to have in mind that your text will be spoken and heard rather than written and read.

64 See Appendix C. 65 She died in November 2003, while her translation of Waiting for Godot was staged by the Theatre Organization of Cyprus in January 2007. 66 Manolis Pimplis writes: “Among her most outstanding works are her translations of Beckett, as well as “Confessions” by Jean Jacque Rousseau, which she translated in 1997. This translation earned her a nomination for the National Translation Award, which she never received because her editor neglected to send a copy to the National Library.[…] Last year she was again among the favourites to win the prize for her translation of Jane Austin. Not even then did she get the five million of the prize.” ΤΑ ΝΕΑ , 22/11/2003 , p.: P33 Article code: A17798P3

52 Both translation agents focused on the theatre’s verbal nature, with Piatas overplaying the importance of performability. Moreover, with reference to the mode of deliverance of a theatre text, Papathanasopoulou implies that both ends of the sender-recipient spectrum are equally significant in the translation game.

9) What are your views on theatre translation in contemporary Greece? Piatas: I believe that things are done in a haphazard way. Still, some great translations have been born out of this, most of them by people in the theatre business, who were also intellectuals. Papathanasopoulou: It is a long story. And many people take part in this game. It is a long way from the moment you translate a play until you see it staged. The elusive and generalised character of their answers revealed the complicated situation existing in the area of theatre translation today together with a sense of disappointment for the lack of a systematic approach towards drama translation. The majority of translations for the theatre seem to have been born out of personal initiative rather than a consistent translation policy and methodology. Piatas’ comment about the identity of the translator expresses a covert wish for translation professionals who could couple linguistic knowledge with experience of the theatre world.

Based on the analysis of the research data and the interviews, it is suggested that socio-economic parameters stemming from contemporary theatre policy tend to determine the production or not of a new translation. What is more, these parameters also determine the translator’s identity, which in turn shapes the methodology, criteria and objectives of the translation process which leads to the final outcome.

53 Chapter Three: Godot under the microscope – a case study

“I suddenly see this evening, with panic, that no final text of Play is possible till I have had a certain number of rehearsals. These will begin here, I hope, next month, and your publication should not be delayed. But please regard my corrected proofs as not final”.

From a letter by Samuel Beckett to Charles Monteith of Faber and Faber, 23 November 1963

3.1 Highlighting the Peculiarities of Godot’s text

When delivering the first Annenberg Lecture at the University of Reading's Beckett Archive in May 1993, Billie Whitelaw, the Winnie of Happy Days, observed of Not I: “I very much had the feeling that it was a work in progress.” This observation pretty much summarises the way in which Beckett wrote, translated and directed his texts: through an on-going process of revising, which “can be considered as symptomatic of a very particular artistic impulse that views a text as fluid and incomplete, as necessary failure; a linguistic construct that perpetually seeks its most complete form of enunciation” (Batty, “Beckett, Translation, Mise en Scene and Authorship” 63). Beckett seems to have made his life motto what is actually the cornerstone of translation practice: continuous revision. In fact, when asked once if he saw anything new in his plays when he returned to them he replied: “Yes. Mistakes.” (Quoted by Clancy Signal in Mc Millan and Fehsenfeld 1988:182). His case is examined here before moving on to the Greek translations of Waiting for Godot in particular, for three main reasons. First of all, Beckett revised his texts, not in order to improve the linguistic structures as such, but in order to emphasise the thematic needs of the play’s dramatic substance, i.e., the dramatic economy of the text which would highlight the play’s ideas in the best possible way. Secondly, it is crucial to investigate how his close contact with the directors who staged his plays and his practical experience as director himself informed his attitude

54 to his writings as permanently ‘under construction’ and shifted his focus from what is said to how it is meant to be performed. This brings us to the third point: if Beckett’s texts have been so meticulously revised according to his theatrical experience as to incorporate elements of their actual stagings, to what extent is a translator to diverge from a text which has already been tested against the reality of the stage?

3.1.1 Highlighting Dramatic Substance

Beckett may be notorious for not allowing other directors to take any liberties while directing his plays, yet he is equally notorious for insisting on re-writing his texts, when he felt that they veered towards a loose collection of lines and dialogues rather than constituting a tight, . This became evident from the first rehearsals of the French production of Waiting for Godot directed by Roger Blin: “in his acceptance of Blin’s cuts, Beckett was recognising not only the dramatic potentials of this one text (and how they needed to be released from stifling inadequacies of the written text), but also accepting a new authorial position in relation to that text that was to inform his developing dramatic language” (Batty 65). Learning from Blin, Beckett strove in his re-workings of his plays not to simply improve by adding or omitting the linguistic elements of the texts, but to do so in order to stress the thematic currents and dramatic motivation available to actors and directors (Connor 1989: 28). Knowlson gives us the example of a two page cut in Act One of Waiting for Godot in which Pozzo was trying to explain that he can’t be sure if Lucky will actually carry out his orders or not. This part was cut because in this way Lucky’s speech comes right after his dance and thus dramatic tension is intensified (The Theatrical Notebooks of Samuel Beckett-‘Waiting for Godot’ 38). When Beckett directed the performance at Schiller-Theater in Berlin in 1975, he also removed a five-line conversation following Pozzo’s “The Net. He thinks he’s entangled in a net” (Knowlson 130-131), his purpose again being to discard any piece of language which would serve as a stylistic device rather than provide fertile ground for its theatrical enunciation. His re-workings did not only concern dramatic dialogue but stage directions as well as a means of emphasising the themes of the play in terms of their performance potential. On March 9, 1964 –less than one month before the scheduled opening of

55 Play in London (7 April 1964) and while the published version of the play was about to appear in Britain– Beckett wrote to British director George Devine: “The last rehearsals with Serreau [Beckett was at that time working in Paris with the French director Jean-Marie Serreau on staging the French text, Comédie] have led us to a view of the da capo which I think you should know about. […] We now think it would be dramatically more effective to have it express a slight weakening, both of question and of response, by means of less and perhaps slower light and correspondingly less volume and speed of voice.”67 At first sight, the urgency permeating Beckett’s letter does not seem to match the content – changing the light sounds like a minor detail. However, it is in such details that Beckett’s symmetrical world of sound and image is hidden, and therefore such changes become “thematically potent” especially if we consider that light often functions as a character on the Beckettian stage (Gontarski, “Revising Himself: Performance as Text in Samuel Beckett’s Theatre” 5). This “correcting” process, as he liked to call it, extended to the translations of his plays. In the case of Godot, Beckett’s English translation, which he started in the early summer of 1953, was literally “mediated.” First of all, he already had the experience of working with Elmar Tophoven, who in 1952 had undertaken the translation of Godot into German on his own student initiative using the Minuit 1952 French edition as the basic text (Dukes, “Englishing Godot” 522). Secondly, it was the French production of Godot by Roger Blin in January 1953 which influenced Beckett’s subsequent English translation of the play; it is not a coincidence that the subtitle for Godot ‘a tragi-comedy in two acts’ was a deliberate addition by Beckett for his translation of the first English editions stemming from the basic simplicity and balance between comedy and tragedy established in Blin’s original production (Calder, “The Author as Practical Playwright and Director” 82). Finally, Beckett had attended the Berlin premiere of Wir warten auf Godot in September 1953 before he started re-working on the first version in English that he had completed during the summer. Testimony to his revising the work can be found in a typewritten letter to Loly Rosset addressed from Paris, but written in Ussy on 20 November 1953, in which Beckett says, “I am glad you have decided to bring out Godot in Spring. […] I am beginning now to revise my translation and hope you will have the definitive text

67 The letter is published in facsimile in New Theatre Magazine: Samuel Beckett Issue, XI 1971, 16-17.

56 next month.” (Dukes 522). Taking the whole picture into consideration, Beckett’s final translation of Godot in English was produced under the combined influence of the French prototype, Beckett’s meticulous supervision of Tophoven’s German translation, Blin’s French production, and the 1953 Berlin performance of the play. There are also various examples of the changes Beckett brought to elements of humour, musicality and rhythm in his careful redrafting of Tophoven’s German translation, when in 1975 he reconsidered the play as director for actual production at Berlin Schiller-Theater. By then, Beckett had the experience of his own translation of the play into English and of Blin’s cuts. Ruby Cohn gives a brief overview of the changes Beckett incorporated in his text, which is worth quoting in full:

“Beckett’s main changes in the text were cuts. He pared away much of Pozzo’s Act 1 business with pipe and whip, as well as his conversation about Lucky’s burdens, dancing, and rebellion. The puzzling ‘knook’ disappears, as well as the music-hall joke about the weak and sound lungs. In Act 2, when all four characters lie on the ground, Didi and Gogo lose a few lines, and when they prop Pozzo up, they no longer discuss evening and friendship. In contrast, Beckett made one remarkable addition to the dialogue. When Didi in Act 2 asks the Boy whether Mr Godot’s beard is fair or black, the German question becomes: ‘Blonde or . . . he hesitates black . . . he hesitates or red?’ Thus Mr Godot is pointedly related to Gogo’s smutty story about the Englishman in the brothel, juxtaposing—as so often in Godot—the physical and metaphysical, the vulgar and ethereal […]” (Beckett’s German Godot from Journal of Modern Literature, Volume 22, Number 1)

Apart from the corrections described above, Beckett further revised Tophoven’s text by rewriting the name-calling sequence for humour and euphony,68 and turning several of Tophoven’s variant phrases into exact repetitions. The result was that the German translation was “a tighter, much reduced and more refined

68 The short exchange between Vladimir and Estragon after the latter’s “That’s the idea, let’s abuse each other” will be discussed in greater detail later with reference to humour and abusive language.

57 dramatic study of waiting” (Batty 66), which means that Beckett succeeded in highlighting dramatically the fundamental themes of the play. Many intellectuals, writers and scholars have been fervent supporters of this line of thought, namely that a work of art is never finished; yet the case of Beckett is different. What perplexes the task of his future translators is that he not only held this view in theory, but actually put it into practice.69 The plays we have in our hands today are mostly the transcriptions of his stage experience, the written record of a direct theatrical process. If it was left entirely up to Beckett, there would be no “final” version of his plays today, for even when a text was established for publication, soon afterwards Beckett would come up with a revised “performance text” as a result of his direction. It was pressure from the publishing world and the demands of the market that made it possible for us today to have ‘final’ published plays to refer to.

3.1.2 The Other Side of the Coin: Beckett as Director

This fastidiousness with both linguistic elements and stage directions is evidence of what Beckett gradually realised: that text is performance and the form is the content. The reason why Beckett’s status as director is discussed in greater detail is that by being on such intimate terms with the text to be dramatised, Beckett facilitated an “effective flowback where what the artist learns as director returns to inform his work as writer/translator” (Batty 68). It is therefore critical to investigate the perspective which shaped his directing viewpoint and consequently formulated his translation approach towards his plays. Over the years, Beckett developed a commitment to the idea of text as performance. This in practice meant that he could not decide on the finality of a play unless he had first rehearsed its function on stage. 70 I’m convinced, however, that I

69 His actors, too, recall his firm belief in constant revisions based on the demands of the stage in different socio-cultural settings. Herbert Blau recalls the differences in the performance of Waiting for Godot in San Quentin and the United States to conclude that “Beckett taught us before theory that paratextuality is built into the language, and, as with the gospels derided by Didi and Gogo, no text is sacred”( Lois Oppenheim Directing Beckett 73). 70 His long-time cameraman and technical assistant, Jim Lewis comments on his commitment to performance, sometimes becoming too overwhelming even for Beckett himself: “If you want to compare this production [of Was Wo] with the others for television, there's one major difference. And

58 am not doing injustice to Beckett’s original theatrical genius71 if I point out that there must be yet another factor which cultivated his dramatic sense to the extent that he valued the performance realisation of a text more than its literary nature. What was the decisive factor which shaped the development of such performance perspective in Beckett, especially since it is Beckett himself who is reported to have said: “I have no understanding of the theatre, I know nothing about it, I never go, it’s appalling”? Perhaps it should be pointed out that Beckett’s absolute statements, such as the above, should not be taken at face value, since it is part of his obscure and laconic persona that gave rise to infinite interpretations and insights into his works; what is of interest here is that Beckett really was not at all familiar with the codes of drama writing. At the time of writing Godot (1948), he admitted his lack of theatre experience, immersed as he was in the conventions of fiction: “messy”, and “not well thought out,” he has said of Waiting for Godot. Roger Blin observes: “Beckett knew nothing about the theatre. His play is a wonderful piece of theatre, but all his instructions, silences, pauses, and so on […] actually address to readers. One silence has to be relative to others. You can’t say in advance how long they should be—that one is half a second, that one eight seconds, seven and a half seconds” (Mc Carthy, “Emptying the Theatre: On Directing the Plays of Samuel Beckett” 43-44). In conclusion, Blin argues that “the director has to determine the pace of the play from the rhythm and, from this pace, incorporate the silences to make them as meaningful as possible or sometimes ignore them or sometimes move them a bit” (Mc Carthy 44). Serving what I dare call an apprenticeship next to Roger Blin, Beckett evolved from playwright to director. He realised that the principal problems in theatre are problems of performance, not of interpretation, and that it is the actor’s body and mental experience on stage which composes the forms of life and thought, not the other way round. In this way, he approached the direction of his plays –and his subsequent translations– in search of balance between speech and gesture. As his theatrical experience grew and he started having more confidence in himself as that is his concept was not set. He changed and changed and changed. . . . I've never experienced that with him before. You know how concrete he is, how precise he is. Other times we could usually follow through on that with minor, minor changes; but this time there were several basic changes and he still wasn't sure”. Martha Fehsenfeld, “Beckett's Reshaping of What Where for Television,” Modern Drama, XXIX 1986, 236. 71 With reference to Godot: “Its popularity is a smack in the face for all those who say that to be a skillful playwright one must first be a ‘man of the theatre’. As far as I know, Mr Beckett may never have been backstage in his life until Godot was first performed. Yet, this first play shows consummate stagecraft.” Vivian Mercier from Cathleen Culotta Andonian, Critical Response to Samuel Beckett.

59 director, Beckett treated a play (both the text and stage activities) as if it were a musical score and attempted to bring out the melody and rhythm of the text, by defining the pace of acting and speaking as if conducting a ballet (Libera, Directing Beckett). In order to avoid any misunderstanding here, I should refer to Walter Asmus, Beckett’s assistant director in Godot and many other productions, who clarifies that the use of terms such as choreography, ballet and musical score does not mean that Beckett wanted his actors to move like ballet dancers; it simply indicates that there was an exact design in the blocking that had a meaning (McCarthy 48). In order to make his point, he describes a typical piece of direction in his rehearsal diary: “Beckett walks on the stage, his eyes fixed on the ground, and shows the movement as he speaks Estragon’s lines […] Always a step then the line. Beckett calls this step-by- step approach a physical theme [my emphasis] (Oppenheim Directing Beckett). If Beckett as director paid such great attention to symmetry and exactness in the interaction between language and movement, it is only natural that he transferred them onto the page, when he revised his written work after the staging of his plays. As a result, the translator should bear in mind that in Beckett’s symmetrical universe the delicate balance between verbal and visual images, even the number of dots in a phrase, are not merely linguistic word-games but functional units on stage which are so constructed as to give particular meaning to the actor’s speech and movement. Pauses marking a falling silence are distinctively different from pauses that mark a change of or topic. It is not like the case of realistic theatre where a different translation may create a temporary misunderstanding on the part of the audience; in Beckett a different translation will most likely result in a different performance, because of the playwright’s constant revisions against the workings of the stage.

3.1.3 Dangerous Ground

Danger lurks, though, in Beckett’s case. On the one hand, the constant revision process he undertook throughout his career as playwright and translator stands as a paradigm for the pursuit of the best theatrical enunciation of a written text. What is more, it reflects his lifelong belief in the necessity of change as a natural part of evolution. On the other hand, however, there are numerous cases of Beckett exercising his authorship or even resorting to legal action in order to ban productions

60 which diverged from his intentions; the very existence and activity of the Beckett Estate, which defends Beckett’s personal vision, stands proof for this. Because Beckett’s written texts contain the patterns and frameworks for their performance texts, it has been argued that “to work against these is an act of either ignorance or arrogance, let alone disrespect which rarely anyway holds any currency in the theatrical contract” (Batty 71). The implications of this paradox for the translator are obvious: if certain productions were banned because the director’s vision was different from the playwright’s, to what extent is the translator allowed to take liberties with a text whose very performance potential has been realised and returned to the page by the playwright himself? Could this “revision process’ actually be the drama translator’s golden cage? In order to answer these questions, let us return to Beckett. It is true that in his very first letter to Alan Schneider, his American director and close friend, Beckett states that he is not averse to a director’s “changing an odd word here and there or making an odd cut,” but also would like to have “the opportunity of protesting or approving.” 72 In his article “I Can't Go On, Alan. I'll Go On” (January 31, 1999) Robert Brustein presents a letter from Beckett to his American publisher, when he had just completed Krapp's Last Tape: “I'd hate it to be made a balls of at the outset and that's why I question its being let out to small groups beyond our control [sic] before we get it done more or less right and set a standard of fidelity at least.” Apart from pointing out Beckett’s true desire for ‘fidelity,’ Brustein also chronicles several cases of the playwright’s active protest against certain productions: he attempted to stop the tour of Andre Gregory’s troupe presenting Endgame in the States (“My work is not holy writ but this production sounds truly revolting & damaging to the play”); he refused to grant permission for an all-female Endgame; he raved over “a scandalous of Godot at the Young Vic;” he even refused Ingmar Bergman permission to film Waiting for Godot because he didn't want the play to be “Bergmanised.” There were also severe objections when in 1984 the director Joanne Akalaitis set a production of Endgame in an abandoned subway station;73 as a result, a codicil was

72 It is true that within a few years, he was replying to Schneider's questions with the now legendary phrase “Do it the way you like, Alan, do it any way you like,” but this does not mean that Beckett granted such freedom to all his collaborators. Schneider paid to the Irish playwright in a way that few others did. 73 Beckett protested that his play had been “musicalized”, objected to the casting of two black actors as Hamm and Nagg and wrote in a program that “any production of Endgame which ignores my stage directions is completely unacceptable to me”.

61 put in Beckett’s will insisting on control of future productions. Brustein concludes that the playwright still haunts contemporary productions of his plays: “Recently, a theater in Washington was threatened with court action by the Beckett Estate after reports that members of its black cast had introduced some hip-hop interpolations into a production of Waiting for Godot. Only through the intercession of Beckett's nephew Edward was the production permitted to proceed.” All this might be true, but a small piece of information is missing. It may well have been for reasons of fidelity that Beckett initially undertook to direct his own plays, yet it was from that time onwards that he started revising himself in the way discussed above. After this point, he re-wrote and reinvented himself as an artist, redirected his creative vision and looked carefully into his own texts to discover the performance possibilities they were hiding. Gontarski is absolutely right when he claims that “at fifty-two years of age, having had two major plays staged in two languages and having completed his first radio play, Samuel Beckett discovered theatre” (Revising Himself: Performance as Text in Samuel Beckett's Theatre).74 From then on, Beckett’s entire work revolves around the issue of the text’s theatricalisation and constantly returns to his earlier original writings and translations to effect changes in terms of the play’s performance potential. During his nineteen- year directing career, from 1967 to 1986, Beckett staged (or videotaped) over twenty productions of his plays in three languages: English, French, and German. Gontarski remarks that “each time he came to reread a script to prepare its staging, he usually found it wordy, encumbered, and incompletely conceived for the stage, and so he set about ‘correcting it’, exploiting fully the potential for further development that directing afforded. He never stopped this process of self-redefinition and self- exploration, which actually followed the course of his life. Walter Asmus observes that when Beckett directed the San Quentin Drama Workshop production of Godot in 1984, the entire atmosphere of the play was different –the second act alone, for example, was some fourteen minutes longer than in the Berlin production– because

74 Gontarski observes that Krapp's Last Tape seems to have been the watershed”, as Beckett realised that the creation of a dramatic text was not a process that could be divorced from performance, and that mounting a production brought to light recesses previously hidden, even from the author himself. In his letter to Rosset (April 1, 1958), Beckett expressed the clarity of his pre-production vision of Krapp: "I see the whole thing so clearly (apart [sic] from the changes of Krapp's white face as he listens) and realise now that this does not mean I have stated it clearly, though God knows I tried.” For more on a detailed account of Beckett’s change of viewpoint and ponderous look into his correspondence with publishers, producers and directors see Knowlson, James, The Theatrical Notebooks of Samuel Beckett. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1994.

62 Beckett himself had changed: he was seventy-eight then, i.e. ten years older, and his own rhythm of life was entirely different (Lois Oppenheim Directing Beckett).75 The challenge for Beckett’s translator, therefore, does not lie in the realm of fidelity to the writer’s original spirit but in his lifelong struggle to provide a written text that would not let its literary value overshadow its performance dynamics. He allowed how a text speaks to inform what it speaks and shaped the written text on the basis of the dramatic event rather than the other way round (Batty 68). Through a process which he called a “continuous organic growth” (Calder 10), Beckett tried to establish a rhythm of performance which would highlight the thematic axes of the play. Statements such as “all my plays should be played light and fast. I don’t want to dwell upon their seriousness […] my plays shouldn’t be ponderous” are not the writer’s whims, but practical observations of a theatre professional.76 His close collaboration with the world of the theatre informed him of the way actors lend their voice and body to inhabit a text and transmute it into stage action. His three-fold quality as playwright, director and translator placed Beckett “as author in-between written text and performance text, facilitating a filtering of the impulses of the one into the fabric of the other and tailoring according to the specific circumstances of each theatricalisation” (Batty 68). What never changed is Beckett’s vision of the aesthetic shape of his work, his painstaking efforts to create a form which is the meaning. This is the reason why he constantly revised his plays. This is also the reason why in June 1997, Peter Hall stated: “Beckett never stopped tinkering with the play, so we now have the benefit of all his later thoughts– tiny cuts and additions made for various productions. There is nothing remaining that is unclear, nothing pretentious, nothing finally baffling. If our production has any obscurities in it, it is our fault, not the text’s” (Beckett: A Study of His Plays 64). And, above all, this is the thread which unites Beckett’s practice with the future translator of his plays. Apart from the theatrical perspective, however, which Beckett fervently supported, the cultural parameter should not be ignored. Let us not forget that drama translation is one of the “re-writings” or rather “re-stagings” of human activity and like all re-writings, it is never innocent. Yet, it’s not the kind of “guilt” that the

75 When comparing Beckett’s own revision process with the attitude he holds towards other directors, it can be concluded that for Beckett, revision meant enhancing the performance potential of the text by tampering with its dramatic language and dialogue, not by applying directing interventions that alter the building blocks of the play, such as the gender of the cast or the place of dramatic action. 76 Alan Schneider, ‘Any Way You Like, Alan’, Theatre Quarterly, XIX. p.31

63 translator should apologise for. On the contrary, it has been proven that re-writing is the only way in which a piece can live, like a virus which has to mutate and adapt to a new environment in order to survive. And, maybe this is what can guarantee the eternal value of a dramatic text; its ability to be ephemeral. As Vitez puts it, the greatest part of the pleasure of theatre is what is inscribed in people’s memories; when one sees a performance of Le Misanthrope, one can compare it with another performance one remembers, and this offers pleasure. He goes on to claim that the same is true for translation; translation must of necessity be redone.77 In this light, the different drama translations in the present thesis will be considered, not in terms of how “close” they are to the original, but in terms of what purposes they serve by being different and to what extent their translators were equally concerned with Beckett about the problematics of their staging. In other words, the different drama translations will be discussed in terms of their performability within particular socio- cultural norms.

3.2 The ‘Woolly’ Concept of Performability

This elusive –as it turned out– concept of performability, or playability, has had a significant impact on the views of many translation theoreticians78 and has fundamentally shaped recent approaches to drama translation. Performability is considered in the present survey: • as the most critical point in any discourse on theatre translation since the 1980s, which established the reality of the stage as a fundamental factor shaping the translator’s task, • as the theoretical umbrella framework within which to carry out a comparative analysis of Godot’s different translations on the Greek stage,

77 See Patrice Pavis, 1992, “Theatre at the Crossroads of culture”, 43 78 In her historical overview of theatre semiotics, Nikolarea concludes that all approaches to the study of theatre –though diverging at points– agree that “the dramatic text (the written text or literature proper) is only an optional system among other interrelated systems that comprise the spectacle, and see it as radically conditioned by its performability.” See Nikolarea Ekaterini, 1999. “A Communicative Model for Theatre Translation.” From Kievan Prayers to Avantgarde: Papers in . Eds. Piotr Fast and Wacław Osadnik. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Energeia. 183- 202.

64 • as defined by Patrice Pavis and Susan Bassnett, two figures who embodied the sociosemiotic approach to the translation of theatre texts.

3.2.1 Patrice Pavis

Patrice Pavis belongs to the more interactive and contextual wave of critics who examine theatre from the point of view of performance, the sociosemiotic dimension, theatre structures, and audience reception. In Theatre at the Crossroads of Culture, Patrice Pavis addresses four problems peculiar to translation for the stage: the intersection of situations of enunciation; the series of concretizations of a theatre text; the conditions of theatre translation reception; and the mise en scène of a translation (136-147). In this way, he dissects the translator’s task in order to clarify the forces that govern each and every part of the translation process. He views drama translation as consisting of multiple sign systems, all working simultaneously within both the source and target culture: “the translated text forms part of both source and target text and culture, assuming that the transfer simultaneously involves the source text’s semantic, rhythmic, aural, connotative and other dimensions, necessarily adapted to target language and culture” (137). In the process, the ST undergoes successive transformations from the original dramatic text to the final performance text. In order to explain these changes, Pavis discusses a series of concretizations: To -the original text, T -the text of the written translation, T1 -the virtual situation in which the translator makes choices from among the potential and possible indications in the text-to-be-translated, T2 –the dramaturgical analysis as a phase of the translation process, T3 –testing the text on the stage and T4 –the recipient concretisation (139- 142). Such successive concretisations bring to mind Ubersfeld’s “mediated text” emerging as the translator moves from the ST to the TT. As a result of the above process, Pavis concludes that “translation is simultaneously a dramaturgical analysis, a mise en scène and a message to the audience, each unaware of the others” (142). He immerses this three-fold activity into the body of culture as the surrounding environment which will ultimately accept or reject, yet in any case shape the enunciation, and therefore the meaning, of an utterance (142). Pavis asserts that any reception of a theatre translation is conditioned solely by the hermeneutic competence of the future audience, as well as the future

65 audience’s competence in the rhythmic, psychological or aural spheres. He thus stresses the importance of a target-oriented translation which the target theatre audience can understand –thus fulfilling their expectations– and which also makes clear most of the translator’s choices (143). It becomes evident from the above that Pavis takes a performance-oriented perspective towards the issue of theatre translation. He so strongly stresses the significance of the social body of culture and the clarity of theatrical enunciation as fundamental conditions for the reception of theatre translation that stage performance seems to take precedence over the linguistic text. From the traditionally-held dominance of the written language we are now driven to the opposite extreme. In the article entitled “Translation and its mise en scène”, Pavis argues “that an entire deictic system is the link between the translation already inserted in a concrete mise en scène and the theatrical situation of enunciation. Once they are thus linked, then the dramatic text is comprehensible only in the context of its enunciation”(144). Such an observation brings forth the issue of a text’s performability realised by the use of deictics. To clarify their function, Pavis gives the following example: “One might for example translate: ‘I want you to put the hat on the table’ by ‘Put it there’ accompanied by a look or gesture, thus reducing the to its deictic elements” (144). Hence, for Pavis, a translated text realises its full potential only when it is staged, and the notion of performability lies in the economy of the dramatic ST and the economy of its translation which allows the actor to supplement the text by means of gesture, mime, posture as well as aural elements such as intonation and pitch. Such economy attaches the linguistic utterance to gestural and situational enunciation and ensures the exchange between word and gesture, the union of word- presentation and thing- presentation, or what Pavis calls the language-body (144, 152). How does this practically affect the work of the drama translator? A positive development is that theatre translation is considered from a universal point of view. However, the notion of the “language body” presents the translator with new challenges. It is not the text itself that has to be transferred, ‘translated’ from one system into the other; the entire language-body as an orchestration of gesture, vocal rhythm and text, peculiar to a culture and language, has to be trans-coded by means of the text’s deictic elements (152). By viewing the entire deictic system as an encoded gestural patterning in the written text, Pavis gives pre-eminence to the idea of

66 performability as a kind of mise en scène embedded in the translated text. As a result, the drama translator has to embark on a quest in order to discover and highlight in his/her translation those deictic elements which will assist the play’s “correct” theatrical enunciation79 in the target culture. Apart from stepping into the director’s territory, this is a prescriptive view which points to a single, right translation, dictated by the doctrine of the text’s performability. While setting out to overthrow the hegemony of the written text, Pavis seems to have substituted it with another: the hegemony of the performance text.

3.2.2. Susan Bassnett

Despite this inherent complexity at the heart of the notion of performability, Susan Bassnett was also an avid supporter of it when she started researching into the peculiarities of drama translation. In the early 1980s, she argued that theatre has been one of the most neglected areas in translation studies, mainly because “translators often imply that the methodology used in the translation process is the same as that used to approach prose texts” (Translation Studies 120). Because drama is a complex system where the written text and its performance elements constitute the two inseparable parts of a unified whole, the translator should, according to Bassnett, take into consideration two additional criteria compared to the translator of prose or poetry: the performability or playability of the translation and the function of the translated text. By performability, Bassnett means the “distinguishable structural features that make a theatre text performable, beyond the stage directions themselves” (122). She consequently postulates that if performability is seen as a prerequisite for the theatre translator, then the translator must determine which structures are performable and translate them into the TL, despite major linguistic and stylistic changes which may occur (122). Paralinguistic systems, such as pitch, intonation,

79 Things become even more complicated for the theatre translator if we consider for a moment that the deictic elements are immersed in the culture that produces them. How is the translator to transfer pitch and gesture which is so culturally specific? Pavis seems to blur his perspective at this point with the generalisation that “gesture is not limited to a social function (a social gestus)” but rather “a universal gestus […] a universal encounter among actors of different cultures” (154). For more see “Problems of Translation for Stage: Intercultural and Post-Modern Theatre” The Play Out of Context: Transferring Plays from Culture to Culture. Trans. Loren Kruger, Eds. Hanna Scolnicov and Peter Holland. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989, 25-44.

67 speed of delivery, accent, etc. as well as the gestural text that determines the actor’s movements while speaking that text constitute the so called “coded gestural patterning” contained in a theatrical text, which the drama translator should discover in the ST and incorporate in his/her translation; otherwise “he is running serious risks” (132). Nevertheless, Bassnett’s course of research has revealed that she is a scholar who continually likes to test her approaches against the reality of translation practice. In her 1985 article “Ways through the Labyrinth: Strategies and Methods for Translating Theatre Texts”, she ponders over the wide spectrum covered by the term “performability”: 1) meaning ‘speakability’ or ‘breathability’, when it refers to an attempt to create fluent speech rhythms and produce a text that TL actors can speak without too much difficulty; 2) in terms of the mise en scène, meaning the cultural adaptation of the ST into the target culture by replacing or omitting altogether culturally bound parts of the original; and 3) in terms of audience reception, meaning the tension between foreignisation and domestication of theatre norms. (Espasa, Performability in Translation 50-51). Because of its vague and undefinable nature, Bassnett eventually dismisses performability as a “very vexed term” which resulted in “many translators latch[ing] on to [it] as a justification for their various linguistic strategies” (Bassnett 90 and 101-102). Gone, too, is her early position of the theatre translator considering the undertextual rhythms and gestural language encoded in the written text (101-102); this is now rejected as “a loose and woolly concept” (98). Afraid that the multiplicity of dimensions and features to be taken into consideration in theatre translation could veer the drama translator away from the world of the text and make him/her get lost in a maze of ideological, political or artistic considerations eventually degrading his own work, she suggested the return of the translator to the properties of the text and the linguistic expression itself. It is worth quoting in full the explanation she provides for her drastic change of viewpoint: “[Pavis's] interlingual translator is still left with the task of transforming unrealized text A into unrealized text B and the assumption here is that the task at hand is somehow of a lower status than that of a person who effects the transposition of written text into performance. […] It seems to me that the time has come to set aside ‘performability’ as a criterion for translating too, and to focus more closely on the linguistic structures of the text itself. For, after all, it is

68 only within the written that the performable can be encoded and there are infinite performance decodings possible in any playtext. The written text, troué80 though it may be, is the raw material on which the translator has to work and it is with the written text, rather that with a hypothetical performance, that the translator must begin” (101-102).”81 To reinforce her premise, in her article “Translating for the Theatre: The Case Against Performability” (1991a), Bassnett argues that the acceptance of an encoded spatial or gestural dimension of the language of a theatre text actually renders the translator’s task “superhuman” (100), as it becomes his/her responsibility to decode the gestic text during the translation process while sitting at a desk and imagining the performance; Bassnett remarks that this situation does not make any sense at all (100) 82 and in her later works rejects it altogether: “It seems to me a term that has no credibility, because it is resistant to any form of definition” (Bassnett, “Still Trapped in the Labyrinth: Further Reflections on Translation and Theatre” 95). Instead, she proposes the “co-operative principle” which takes the translator out of the isolation of the page and onto the collective work of the stage, as another part in the chain of the translation process: “This is the strategy that produces probably the best results. It involves the collaboration of two people on the making of the TL text - either a SL and a TL native speaker, or someone with knowledge of the SL who works together with the director and/or actors who are to present the work. The translator becomes someone

80 This is a term borrowed from theatre semiotician Anne Ubersfeld; in her Lire le théâtre (1978b), Ubersfeld focused on two important points: first the indissoluble link between written text and performance in any notion of theatre and secondly, that the written text is incomplete ("troué") in itself. For more see Anne Ubersfeld, Lire le theatre. Paris: Éditions sociales, 1978b. 81 Pavis also expressed his reservations at a later stage by stating that “any theatrical semiotics which presupposes that the dramatic text has an innate theatricality, a matrix for production or even a score, which must be extracted at all costs and expressed on the stage, thus implying that the dramatic text exists only when it is produced, seems to be begging the question. Those who hold that position would contend that every play has only one good mise en scène already present in the text ”. Theatre at the Crossroads of Culture London: Routledge, 1992, 26. 82 Despite the force of Bassnett’s argument, I will agree with Nikolarea who argues that “no matter how incredible Bassnett finds this situation, there is enough evidence that translators do exactly that: sit at a desk and imagine specific actors performing their translation/version in a very specific theatre. One example of this situation is W. B. Yeats, who, while working on his version of ' King Oedipus, took into consideration the actors and the physical reality of the Abbey Theatre” (Nikolarea 1994a 122-34). As it will be pointed out in Chapter 3 with reference to Vassilis Rotas and Kleon Kartheos, and will be proven by the study of Godot’s translations, theatre translators very often visualise particular actors performing their translation in particular social and theatrical circumstances.

69 who produces a basic scenario that is then worked on by the company. The translator is involved simultaneously in both the written and the oral versions of the text.” (102)

The advantage of this method is that performability is not an extra element added a posteriori, but is taken into account throughout the translation process, since the written and the oral text are worked through simultaneously (Espasa 57). This method also reveals that there is not only a linguistic but a public dimension in a theatre text as well, depending on variables such as the time period and prevailing acting conventions, the concept of theatre and its position in the target culture, the playing space and the role of the spectators (Bassnett 91). In this light, performability is not a concept inhabiting the social realm alone but touches upon the core of the translation task. All the parameters mentioned above continually change and determine not only the translator’s relationship to his/her contemporary audience but also his very understanding of the theatre text in question. According to translation theoretician Holmes, understanding means disclosing the meaning of the text at two levels: ‘the serial plane’ and the ‘structural plane’, the former dealing with micro units such as sounds, words or sentences, whereas the latter concerning the tone and ideology of the text –in short, it refers to what Holmes calls the ‘map’ of the source text. Both levels are related to each other since an initial analysis of the serial plane will definitely affect the mapping of the source text. When it comes to understanding a dramatic text and setting priorities Holmes argues that translators resort to ‘derivational rules’, which determine ‘the way in which translators abstract their map of the source text from the text.’ This abstraction works at three levels: “the linguistic artifact”, “the literary artifact”, and “the socio-cultural artifact” (Holmes 1978:74). In this way, Holmes integrates the socio-cultural parameter as a component of equal importance in the very heart of understanding the object of the translation process. It turns out that performability has been at the heart of a serious controversy in drama translation studies. Whether it solved or further complicated translation problems is not an issue here. What is important is that it brought to light the nature of stage practice as a pivotal factor in drama translation. Elements such as the sound and rhythm patterns unique in every language, the movement of the actors on stage and their posture which endows the deliverance of an utterance with different

70 meaning, the feeling of action on stage which the translator should have and his knowledge of the economy of dramatic dialogue which calls for strict discipline –not to the language as words but primarily to its function– were all thoroughly investigated as translation problems, because of the umbrella concept of performability containing them all. Moreover, performability led to a different methodology applied in translating for the stage. Ever since it came to the surface, it validated the collaboration of drama translators with theatre people –such as the director and actors– as the ideal method for the translation of theatre texts. Indeed, it made translation practitioners leave the isolation of their desk and brought the element of performance well into the territory of the theatre translator.

71

Chapter Four: Godot x 8

“Why people have to complicate a thing so simple I can’t make out”.

Samuel Beckett on Waiting for Godot83

4.1 From theory to practice

Until this point in the present thesis, the factors determining the translation of a theatre play have been outlined starting from the linguistic elements of the dramatic text and their interaction with the semiotics of the stage and moving on to the role of culture as formulator of theatre policies and the translator’s status. Following my firm belief that research should work both at a theoretical and practical level, the present chapter focuses on a comparative analysis of Godot’s translations in Greek staged from 1930 to 2007. The aim is to look into the translation approaches applied under different socio-cultural and historical conditions and the effect linguistic and extra- linguistic factors had on the particular translation outcome every time. Such an investigation has been made possible through an analysis of the translation process in terms of the text’s performability (discussed in Chapter 3) which provides the theatre translator: “with a method not only of identifying the signs and situating them within the sign systems of the play but also of explaining the interdependence of sub-systems and their role in theatre communication. Such a multileveled and multilayered reading of the drama text […] enables the drama translator to take into consideration the greatest number possible of all the elements to be transferred to the target text and target audience/culture” (Che Suh, “Compounding Issues on the Translation of Drama/Theatre Texts” 2002).

83 Normand Berlin, “Traffic of our Stage: Why Waiting for Godot?” The Massachusetts Review, Amherst, Autumn 1999.

72 Before investigating how such factors have operated in the case of the Greek translations of Waiting for Godot, the issue of the Beckettian language should be commented upon from a translator’s point of view. This is not done for the sake of adding any new information to an already extensive bibliography on the subject by numerous theoreticians and theatre critics; it is included, because it needs to be clarified that in Waiting for Godot the translator’s task bears an additional difficulty, since language does not function merely as a means of verbal exchange which the playwright uses to express the theme of the play, but language is one of the themes of the play and contains its stage realisation.84 First and foremost, Beckett presents language no longer as a vehicle for direct communication, but as a “grammatical, syntactic and – especially - inter-textual force to make the reader/spectator aware of how much we depend on language and of how much we need to be wary of the codifications it imposes upon us” (Michael Worton, Waiting for Godot and Endgame: Theatre as Text 46). Beckett recognized the inherent weakness of words to correspond to anything other than their own reflection and wanted to use language merely to prove its inability to express anything at all. When commenting on the language of the playwright, Ronald Hayman observes, “There is no communication because there are no vehicles of communication” (Samuel Beckett, Contemporary Playwrights Series 10). In a Western tradition which built its fundamental premises on the all-mighty word, Beckett employs “language games of cancellation or qualification (‘Our Saviour/ Our what?’), which seems to stem from a deep-seated scepticism about the medium of language itself” (John Fletcher & John Spurling Beckett: A Study of his Plays 60). Since meaning in our society is legitimised because of the social bond between language and language games, Beckett employs such language games to undermine the very existence of meaning. What is more, the crisis of meaning is depicted in the inconsistency between speech and action on stage: the piece of dialogue repeated throughout the play between Estragon and Vladimir ‘Well? Shall we go?/Yes, let’s go. They do not move’ reveals that the action on stage contradicts the literal meaning of the words. It is this observation which led Michael Robinson to conclude that “the theatre allows Beckett

84 The same is true of other theatre plays as well, such as Rockaby and Not I by Beckett, Old Times and The Caretaker by Harold Pinter or Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf by Edward Albee. However, these do not qualify for a case study as the number of translations they feature range from two to four, which does not constitute a sufficient statistical sample for research (see Appendix B, Diagram 6).

73 a double freedom; the opportunity to explore the blank spaces between the words and the ability to provide visual evidence of the untrustworthiness of language” (The Long Sonata of the Dead: A Study of Samuel Beckett 27). Aspasia Velissariou takes this point a step further: by reflecting on Pozzo’s argument about Lucky’s freedom85, she claims that Beckett “shatters the illusion that causality is a straightforward and ‘objective’ mental process and demonstrates the contrary, namely that rational discourse effectively distorts reality because it claims to reflect it”(27); in other words, the playwright projects his search for meaning and identity in terms of a language whose power originates from its own inefficiency and self-questioning. What are the implications of all these for the drama translator? Namely, that s/he has to follow in the same steps with the source text by using language not as a means of communication but as the challenge of communication itself, otherwise a great part of the play’s intentions is lost. More specifically, the diversity of language styles described above engages the translator into accommodating an equivalent diversity of styles and registers in Greek. Also, allusions need to be translated in such a way as to help Greek spectators make the same associations with the audience of the original play - fortunately in this case, both source and target audiences operate into the same Judeo-Christian narrative. The impasse of language to provide an adequate base for exchange and expression should be clearly reflected in the translation, which means the translator should produce such language games that would not exhaust themselves on the superficial level of a witty repartee but create a similar sense of lack of communication in Greek while at the same time retaining the naturalness of the target language. Taking the above into account, an analysis of the Greek translations of Godot is set to follow. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Waiting for Godot features ten different translations in Greek, eight of which were found and studied for the purposes of the present thesis with the exception of the translations by N. Daskalopoulos and P. Papadopoulos. A comparative commentary on the existing translations focuses on the following linguistic and extra-linguistic points: • elements of humour • censorship and authority • names

85 ‘Why he doesn’t make himself comfortable? Let’s try and get it clear. Has he not the right to? Certainly he has. It follows that he doesn’t want to. There’s reasoning for you’. Waiting for Godot p. 31

74 • sound patterns and speech rhythm • structure • inter- and intra-textual allusions and cultural references • elements of performance • historical and socio-cultural conditions This dissecting of the text does not mean that the play –and in turn, its translation- is not treated as an organic whole in the present thesis; on the contrary, the key constituents of the source dramatic text are singled out for the purpose of studying their significance separately and then investigating how they interact with one another in order to deliver the translated play to the target audience. The importance underlying this categorising of theatre into its constituent elements is pointed out by Nikolarea: The implications of this systematic analysis and codification of the sign systems are of great importance for the language in which a theatre text is written, for it indicates that language as such is only one sign in the network of auditive and visual signs that unfold in time and space […] [and] that any written theatre text contains within it a set of extralinguistic systems (i.e., pitch, intonation, accent, etc.) as well as an undertext (or gestural text) which are determined by the movements an actor makes while speaking that text (“A Communicative Model for Theatre Translation” 191). The analysis of the Greek translations of Godot is structured in three stages: 1) Each one of the aforementioned points is discussed against a theoretical background in terms of its importance in the translation process and the translation outcome. 2) Examples are provided as they appear in the English and French source texts86 (abbreviated as EnST and FrST respectively) followed by a comparative table which features their Greek translation versions, each marked with the translator’s name. 3) The table is followed by a commentary on the translation approaches adopted and conclusions emerging in each case regarding the extent to which these parameters have actually affected the translated text and its interaction with the theatre audience of its time.

86 The English and French source texts used are Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, London, Faber and Faber, 1955 and Samuel Beckett, En Attendant Godot, Paris, Les Editions de Minuit, 1957 respectively.

75 4.1.1 Variety of Registers

In Godot, language is a mosaic of different styles and registers: as Andrew K. Kennedy puts it, the characters’ speech is “a mixture of the formal and the colloquial; the minimally simple and the rhetorical, with a sprinkling of Irishisms and the literary or biblical . The collision of levels and styles is controlled, good-humored and darkly humorous (tragicomic) from the opening scene on” (Six dramatists in search of a language, studies in dramatic language 25). Indeed, the play opens with a formal language structure ‘Nothing to be done’ and traces of the two leading characters’ formal education also shine through their reference to works of literature - for instance, Estragon’s reference to Shelley’s poem To the Moon “Art though pale for weariness/Of climbing heaven and gazing on the earth…?.” Colloquialisms are spread throughout the play (‘Don’t tell me!’, ‘Oh I say’, ‘Will you stop it, you! Pest!’), phrases such as ‘Get up till I embrace you’ are a typical touch of the Dublin dialect, while there are frequent allusions to the , which is a matter separately discussed later in this chapter. 1)EnST: Nothing to be done. 2)EnST: Swelling visibly. FrST: Rien a faire. FrST: Il enfle.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Manthos Krispis Τίποτα δε γίνεται. Manthos Krispis Πρήσκεται.

Eleni Varika Δε γίνεται τίποτα. Eleni Varika Πρήζεται.

Minos Volanakis Τίποτα δε βγαίνει. Minos Volanakis Πρήσκεται. A. Papathanassopoulou Δε γίνεται τίποτα. A. Papathanassopoulou Πρήζεται. Odysseas Nikakis Τίποτα δε γίνεται. Odysseas Nikakis Έχει πρηστεί. Dimitris Dimitriades Δε γίνεται τίποτα. Dimitris Dimitriades Πρήζεται. Commedia Δε γίνεται τίποτα. Commedia Πρήζεται. Bald Theatre Τίποτα δε γίνεται. Bald Theatre Εμφανώς πρήζεται.

3)EnST: Oh pardon! 4)EnST: Happy days! FrST: Oh pardon! FrST: A la bonne notre !

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Manthos Krispis Ω, παρντόν! Manthos Krispis Υγιαίνετε. Eleni Varika Α, με συγχωρείς! Eleni Varika Στην υγειά σας. Minos Volanakis Ω, συγνώμην! Minos Volanakis Υγιαίνετε. A. Papathanassopoulou Ω, συγνώμη! A. Papathanassopoulou Εις υγείαν!

Odysseas Nikakis Με συγχωρείς. Odysseas Nikakis Στην υγειά μας. Dimitris Dimitriades Ω, συγνώμη. Dimitris Dimitriades Στην υγειά σας. Commedia Α! Με συγχωρείς! Commedia Εις υγείαν! Bald Theatre Α, με συγχωρείς! Bald Theatre Ευτυχισμένες μέρες.

76 5)EnST: But how am I to sit down now, without affectation, now that I have risen? Without appearing to – how shall I say- without appearing to falter. FrST: Avoir l’air de –comment dire- de fléchir?

Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Manthos Krispis Χωρίς να δίνω εντύπωση ανθρώπου που παρασύρεται. Eleni Varika Κι έπειτα, θα φανεί ότι παρασύρθηκα. Minos Volanakis Θα με πάρετε για άνθρωπο αναποφάσιστο. Τι να κάνω για να μην φανεί σαν –πώς να το πω- A. Papathanassopoulou σαν υπαναχώρηση. Πως όμως να ξανακαθίσω, αφού σηκώθηκα για να Odysseas Nikakis φύγω; Θα φαινόταν επιτηδευμένο.

Πως θα καθήσω πάλι με φυσικότητα τώρα που Dimitris Dimitriades σηκώθηκα χωρίς να φανεί ότι παρασύρθηκα; Αλλά πώς να καθήσω και πάλι με φυσικότητα, Commedia τώρα που σηκώθηκα, χωρίς να φανεί πως παρασύρθηκα; Bald Theatre Χωρίς να δίνω την εντύπωση ότι διστάζω.

6)EnST: Positively bad? FrST : Franchement mauvais ?

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Απορριπτέος; Eleni Varika Για πέταμα; Minos Volanakis Μεταξεταστέος; A. Papathanassopoulou Καλό; Καλούτσικο; Έτσι κι έτσι; Κακό; Απαράδεκτο; Odysseas Nikakis Καλός, καλούτσικος, μέτριος, έτσι κι έτσι, κακός, απαράδεκτος; Dimitris Dimitriades Καλόν; Μέτριο; Υποφερτό; Τυχαίο; Ειλικρινά κακόν; Commedia Καλός; Μέτριος; Έτσι κι έτσι; Συνηθισμένος; Ειλικρινά κακός; Bald Theatre Χείριστος;

The examples cited above are indicative of the formal register playfully incorporated in the text. The translator’s goal to retain the formal addressing in the translation is achieved either by tampering with order (‘Τίποτα δε γίνεται’, ‘Εμφανώς πρήζεται’), or by resorting to old-fashioned expressions of social decorum employed in formal occasions, (‘Ω, παρντόν!’, ‘Υγιαίνετε’, ‘Εις υγείαν!’) or by borrowing linguistic stereotypes of specific language fields, such as the grading system (‘Μεταξεταστέος’). The Bald Theatre even moves on to a meta-theatrical comment in its translation of ‘Happy days’ by alluding to Beckett’s well-known play, in the form of a retrospective translator’s comment. Implied meta-theatrical reference

77 is also made by Nikakis in example 6, where his translation of Pozzo’s words echoes a comment on acting itself.87 7)EnST: Get up till I embrace you. FrST : Lève – toi que je t’embrasse.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Να σε φιλήσω. Eleni Varika Σήκω να σε φιλήσω.

Minos Volanakis Σήκω να σε φιλήσω.

A. Papathanassopoulou Σήκω να σε φιλήσω. Odysseas Nikakis Έλα να σ’ αγκαλιάσω. Dimitris Dimitriades Σήκω να σ’ αγκαλιάσω. Commedia Σήκω να σε φιλήσω. Bald Theatre Σήκω να σ’ αγκαλιάσω.

8)EnST: Looks at his last gasp to me. FrST: Pour moi, il est en train de crever.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Δε μου φαίνεται να ‘χει Manthos Krispis πολλά ψωμιά. Eleni Varika Θαρρώ πως πάει να τα τεζάρει.

Minos Volanakis Σώθηκαν τα ψωμιά του. Εγώ λέω πως όπου να ναι τα A. Papathanassopoulou τινάζει. Odysseas Nikakis Εγώ λέω πως ξεψυχάει. Κατά τη γνώμη μου είναι Dimitris Dimitriades έτοιμος να τα τινάξει. Commedia Θαρρώ πως πάει να τα τινάξει. Μου φαίνεται στα τελευταία Bald Theatre του.

9)EnST : That’s all a pack of lies. FrST: Tout ça c’est des mensonges.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Μας γέμισε αλογόμυγες. Eleni Varika Μας τάραξε στο μούσι.

Minos Volanakis Μας γέμισε ψευτιές.

A. Papathanassopoulou Ψέμματα! Odysseas Nikakis Μας είπε ένα κάρο ψέματα. Dimitris Dimitriades Όλα αυτά είναι ψέματα. Commedia Ψέματα! Bald Theatre Μας φλόμωσες στο ψέμα.

87 According to Appendix C, meta-theatrical comments in translation appear to be quite popular since 1990s, which becomes evident from the translation of the plays’ title as in the case of Outcry (1993) which was translated as Μαγεία: ένα σκηνικό παιχνίδι and Quartet which as staged in 2004 as Κουαρτέτο πίσω από την Αυλαία.

78 10)EnST: Will you stop it, you! Pest! FrST: Veux tu te taire, toi, a la fin! Quel cholera, quand meme!

Greek Translation Translator’s Name

Δεν το βουλώνεις εσύ Manthos Krispis ρε τσιμπούρι!

Δεν το βουλώνεις εσύ Eleni Varika ρε τσιμπούρι! Δεν το βουλώνεις εσύ Minos Volanakis ρε χολέρα! Δεν το βουλώνεις εσύ ρε A. Papathanassopoulou γουρούνι!

Δεν το βουλώνεις εσύ Odysseas Nikakis ρε πανούκλα! Δεν το βουλώνεις εσύ Dimitris Dimitriades ρε πανούκλα!

Δεν το βουλώνεις εσύ Commedia ρε σκουλήκι!

Δεν το βουλώνεις εσύ Bald Theatre ρε τσιμπούρι!

11)EnST: No, that’s not exactly either. FrST: Non, ce n’est pas tout a fait sa.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Τα, ούτε αυτό είναι ακριβώς. Eleni Varika Ούτε, δεν είναι ακριβώς αυτό. Minos Volanakis Όχι, ούτε αυτό είναι η κυριολεξία. A. Papathanassopoulou Όχι, δεν είναι ακριβώς αυτό. Odysseas Nikakis Όχι, όχι, ούτε αυτό είναι αρκετά σαφές. Dimitris Dimitriades Όχι, δεν είναι εντελώς αυτό. Commedia Όχι, δεν είναι ακριβώς αυτό. Bald Theatre Όχι, ούτε αυτό είναι ακριβώς.

While the Dublin colour of ‘Get up till I embrace you’ in example 7 is reduced to a mere colloquialism in translation, a more consistent effort is observed in the other examples to render the every-day, language into Greek. Translations vary according to the translator’s style and the prevailing slang at a particular point in time, since slang is an ephemeral form of language and the translators’ choice is determined by the dominant colloquial expressions which sound natural to the target audience of a given era (examples 8-11). In some cases, translators opted for a literal, more diachronic translation (‘Εγώ λέω πως ξεψυχάει’. ‘Μας γέμισε ψευτιές.’ ‘Όλα αυτά είναι ψέματα.’

79 ‘Ψέματα!’), while in example 11 Volanakis and Nikakis’ translations depict Beckett’s belief in the incompetence of language to mean what it says.

4.1.2 Elements of Humour

Despite the play’s reputation as ‘dark and gloomy’, Beckett emphasises all too often in his text the farcical and comic element of human nature and pays tribute to the long tradition of vaudeville and popular entertainment, be it the circus, the music hall or the big screen. Martin Esslin argues that humour in Godot is used in order to make the audience realise the tragic absurdity of the human condition and refers to the play’s universe as “a world of broad slapstick comedy: each character has his highly stylised mode of movement, circumscribed by the convention he has created for his own comic personality—[…] a brilliant image for the concept of existential choice facing all of us. The same is true of the dialogue” (“Godot, the authorized version” 36). Thus, laughter in Beckett is derived from two sources: from comic devices belonging to the category of physical comedy and from the dialogue itself, since pratfall often works within language. Ramona Cormier and Janis L. Pallister characterise Waiting for Godot as “a linguistic comedy coming from , misunderstandings, scatalogical word play and from ceremonial and ritualistic uses of language” (“En attendant Godot: Tragedy or Comedy?” 97). In short, what this means for the translator is that in Godot humour is provided by the rhythm of sequences, the juxtaposition of unexpected elements and the rapid speed of their presentation, not only by the subject of discussion: it is the how of language, not the what which causes laughter and surprise88. 12) EnST: What can I have done with that briar? FrST: Mais qu’ai je donc fait ma bruvere? He’s a scream. He’s lost his dudeen.[…] Il est marrant! Il a perdu sa bouffarde! Ι’ve lost my Kapp and Peterson! He’ll be the death of me!

88 Vivian Mercier (Beckett/Beckett) illustrates this point with specific examples from the dramatic text: “The serious issue of repentance is undercut by the comic evasiveness of not going into details. The best-selling book of the Judeo-Christian tradition is trivialised to some pretty coloured maps. The central figure in becomes a vaudeville double take: ‘Our Saviour’. . . ‘Our what?’[…] Pozzo’s inflated speech which portends, in the beginning, to be the definitive speech we have come to the theatre to hear: after leading his audience to a climax of expectation he cannot sustain the illusion and gloomily concludes—‘That’s how it is on this bitch of an earth’.

80 Translator’s Name Greek Translation Μα τι το ‘κανα λοιπόν το τσιμπούκι μου; Manthos Krispis Απόλαυση είναι! Έχασε το φυσερό του! […] Έχασα το τσιμπούκι μου! Πάει αυτός! Μα τι στο καλό την έκανα την πίπα μου; Eleni Varika Πλάκα έχει αυτός! Έχασε το χοντροτσίμπουκό του! […] Έχασα την πίπα μου! Πάει, την ψώνισε. Μα τι την έκανα την τριανταφυλλένια μου, λοιπόν; Minos Volanakis Απόλαυση είναι! Έχασε το φυσερό του! […] Έχασα την πιπούλα μου, την τσιμπούκα μου, την μπουμπούκα μου. Αυτοκτονώ. Μα που το έβαλα το τσιμπούκι μου; A. Papathanassopoulou Πλάκα έχει! Έχασε το πιπάκι του! […] Έχασα το Ντάνχιλ μου! Δεν μπορώ άλλο θα σκάσω! Μα τι την έκανα την πίπα μου; Odysseas Nikakis Πλάκα έχει αυτός! Έχασε την πιπούλα του. […] Έχασα την πίπα μου. Αυτός θα με πεθάνει. Μα τι την έχω κάνει την τουφίτσα μου; Dimitris Dimitriades Αστείος είναι! Έχασε την καπνοσακούλα του! […] Με κάνει και σκάω απ’ τα γέλια! Μα τι στο καλό έκανα την πίπα μου; Commedia Πλάκα έχει αυτός! Έχασε το τσιμπούκι του.[…] Έχασα την πανάκριβη πίπα μου. Θα σκάσω από τα γέλια. Μα τι την έκανα την πίπα μου την ξύλινη; Bald Theatre Απόλαυση είναι. Έχασε την πίπα του την πήλινη. […] Έχασα το τσιμπούκι μου! Πάει αυτός!

In the case outlined above, humour is produced by Pozzo’s effort to theatricalise his search for his pipe and turn it into a theatre or music hall act by adopting the pompous rhythm of dramatic exchanges heard on stage. In all cases, the near-repetition motif of the first two lines is successfully maintained, with the Bald Theatre even producing a rhyming result. Yet, Pozzo’s attempt for a highly dramatic expression (‘I’ve lost my Kapp and Peterson’) has led to varying translation approaches: Volanakis invented a kind of rhyming mourning to emphasise the fact that Pozzo is acting at the moment, while Papathanasopoulou resorted to adaptation by replacing the cigarette brand name of Kapp and Peterson with Dunhill in order to modernise the text and adjust it to her audience’s reality. Commedia added a phrase showing the quality of the pipe’s value in order to stress Pozzo’s role-playing, while in the other translations the phrase is merely reduced to sense and the task of rendering Pozzo’s dramaticality is left to the actors’ performance.

81 4.1.3 Censorship

As mentioned in Chapter 3, Beckett tried to exercise as much control as possible over both the publishing of his plays and their staging. An example of his intentions is his reference to the use of crude language or slang found in Godot; in 1953 he writes: “Frankly I cannot see how an integral performance would be possible in Dublin, even in a theatre such as yours, because of certain crudities in language, if for no better reason. These remain in the English version and I would not consent to their being changed or removed” (Gerry Dukes, “Englishing Godot” 526)89. Although he conformed to Lord Chamberlain’s demand to change the line delivered after Pozzo’s arrival in the first act from ‘I once knew a family called Gozzo. The mother had the clap’ to ‘I once knew a family called Gozzo. The mother had warts’ for the West End production, he refused to do the same for the word ‘ballocksed’ which Lord Chamberlain also insisted on being altered; Beckett simply “substituted it with the word ‘banjaxed’ –a high cart Hiberno-Englishism with precisely the same meaning”, Dukes reports (ibid.: 527). It would therefore be interesting to see how Greek translators tackled the issue of crude language under different socio-historical conditions and theatre policies.

13) EnST: What about hanging ourselves? FrST: Si on se pendait? Hmm! It’d give us an erection. Ce serait un moyen de bander An erection? On bande? With all that follows. Avec tout ce qui s’ ensuit.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Δε κρεμιόμαστε, λέω εγώ. Ο Βλαδίμηρος ψιθυρίζει κάτι στο αυτί του Εστραγκόν. Ο Εστραγκόν Manthos Krispis τον ακούει με μεγάλο ενδιαφέρον. Πω, πω. Με όλα τα επακόλουθα Τι λες, κρεμιόμαστε; Αυτό θα μας ανύψωνε. Eleni Varika Ανυψωνόμαστε; Μ’ όλα του τα επακόλουθα. Δεν κρεμιόμαστε λέω γω. Θα μας ανυψώσει. Minos Volanakis Θα μας- Φέρνει στύση. Σηκώνεται. Σηκώνεται!

89 This is an extract from Beckett’s letter to Alan Simpson on 17 November 1953.

82 Με όλα τα επακόλουθα. Δεν κρεμιόμαστε; Μμμ, να σου πω…Θα μας σηκωνότανε κιόλας. A. Papathanassopoulou Τι; Σηκώνεται; Αμέ. Και με όλα τα επακόλουθα. Τι θα λεγες να κρεμαστούμε; Μμμ! Αυτό θα μας προκαλούσε και στύση. Odysseas Nikakis Στύση, ε! Με όλα τα συμπαρομαρτούντα. Δεν κρεμιόμαστε; Θα ήταν ένας τρόπος να μας σηκωθεί. Dimitris Dimitriades (κουνιστός) Σηκώνεται; Με ό,τι ήθελε προκύψει. Τι λες, κρεμιόμαστε; Θα ήταν ένας τρόπος να μας σηκωθεί. Commedia Να μας σηκωθεί; Και μ’ όλα τα επακόλουθα. Στύση, στάζει, μανδραγόρες. Τι λες κρεμιόμαστε; Θα μας έδινε μια ανάταση. Bald Theatre Μια ανάταση; Με όλα τα επακόλουθα.

14) EnST: Help me off with this bloody thing. FrST: Aide-moi à enlever cette saloperie.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Βοήθα με να βγάλω αυτό το κερατένιο. Eleni Varika Βοήθα με να βγάλω αυτό το άτιμο. Minos Volanakis Βοήθα με να βγάλω αυτό το σίχαμα. A. Papathanassopoulou Βοήθα με να βγάλω αυτό το ρημάδι. Odysseas Nikakis Βοήθα με να βγάλω αυτό το σκατόπραμα. Dimitris Dimitriades Βοήθα με να βγάλω αυτή την αηδία. Commedia Βοήθα με καλύτερα να βγάλω αυτή τη μαλακία. Bald Theatre Βοήθα με να βγάλω αυτό το κωλόπραμα.

15) EnST: People are bloody ignorant apes. FrST : Les gens sont des cons.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Ο κόσμος είναι για τα πανηγύρια. Eleni Varika Ο κόσμος είναι γεμάτος ηλιθίους. Minos Volanakis Ο κόσμος θυμάται ό,τι θέλει. A. Papathanassopoulou Ο κόσμος είναι μαλάκας. Odysseas Nikakis Ο κόσμος είναι μαλάκας. Dimitris Dimitriades Οι άνθρωποι είναι μαλάκες. Commedia Ο κόσμος είναι μαλάκες. Bald Theatre Ο κόσμος έχει πλήρη άγνοια.

83 16) EnST: I get used to the muck as I go along. FrST: Je me fais au goût au fur et a mesure.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Manthos Krispis Να, σιγά, σιγά τα συνηθίζω όλα.

Eleni Varika Όσο πάει και συνηθίζω.

Minos Volanakis Να, σιγά, σιγά τα συνηθίζω όλα.

A. Papathanassopoulou Σιγά σιγά συνηθίζω τα πάντα.

Odysseas Nikakis Σιγά σιγά μπορώ να εξοικειωθώ και με τα σκατά.

Dimitris Dimitriades Νοστιμεύω όλο και πιο πολύ. Commedia Όσο πάει και συνηθίζω. Bald Theatre Σιγά σιγά αρχίζω να συνηθίζω τη βρωμιά.

17) EnST: I once knew a family called Gozzo. The mother had the clap. FrST: J’a connu une familier Gozzo. La mère brodait au tambour.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Κάποτε είχα γνωρίσει μια οικογένια Γκότζο. Η μητέρα ήταν γεμάτη Manthos Krispis κρεατοελιές. Eleni Varika Η μητέρα κεντούσε σε τελάρο. Minos Volanakis Η μητέρα έπλεκε αλλά διέθετε και αφροδίσια νοσήματα. A. Papathanassopoulou Ήξερα κάποτε μια οικογένεια Γκότζο. Η μάνα είχε βλενόρροια. Odysseas Nikakis Η μάνα είχε μουνόψειρες. Dimitris Dimitriades Η μητέρα κεντούσε γκομπλέν. Commedia Η μάνα είχε βλεννόροια. Bald Theatre Η μάνα είχε σύφιλη.

18) EnST : A trifle effeminate FrST : un peu effémine

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Λεπτοκαμωμένος. Eleni Varika Λίγο γυναικωτός. Minos Volanakis Λίγο θηλυπρεπής. A. Papathanassopoulou Κομμάτι γυναικωτός.

Odysseas Nikakis Ψιλοπουστάκος.

Dimitris Dimitriades Λίγο θηλυπρεπής. Commedia Λίγο θηλυπρεπής. Bald Theatre Ελαφρώς θηλυπρεπής.

84 19) EnST: Then we’d be ballocksed. FrST: Alors nous serions baises.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Θα γινόμαστε ρεζίλι. Eleni Varika Θα μας τη φέρει. Minos Volanakis Μας γάμησε! A. Papathanassopoulou Και τότε τη γαμήσαμε.

Odysseas Nikakis Και μετά, την πουτσίσαμε.

Dimitris Dimitriades Τότε γαμηθήκαμε. Commedia Και τότε τη γαμήσαμε. Bald Theatre Και τότε τη γαμήσαμε.

In example 13, the reference to the sexual image of an erected phallus is altogether omitted in Krispis’ and Varika’s translations. This is no coincidence. Krispis’ translation was staged by a state theatre, the National Theatre of Northern Greece, during the pre-dictatorship era and as a result obeyed the political conditions of its time, which prohibited the use of abusive language. Varika’s translation appeared on the stage of Peiramatiki Skene tis Technis during its first years of operation in the early 80s, and thus adhered to the conservative policy rules of the newly-founded theatre then which wished to attract members from all social strata as its audience. The other translations not only use colloquialisms that allude to the image of erection, but even employ the word itself (‘στύση’) in an outspoken manner. An interesting point to be made is that the Bald Τheatre translation resorted to the of the word ‘ανάταση’ in an attempt to touch upon the erotic and spiritual element simultaneously. A comparative view into examples 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 gives a clear picture of every translator’s approach and the possible influences which shaped their translation outcome. Krispis’ and Varika’s translations once again smooth out the language extremities and provide a less offensive alternative. Volanakis and Dimitriades follow along in this line of thought, yet in the case of ‘bullocksed’ they remained faithful to the crudity of the phrase and translated it with an equivalent slang expression in Greek. Papathanasopoulou tries to maintain a balance by resorting to outright abusive language in some cases (‘Ο κόσμος είναι μαλάκας’) and providing a gentler alternative in others (‘Κομμάτι γυναικωτός’). Nikakis and the Commedia group, which staged their translations in large commercial theatres with well known

85 actors and wished to endow the play with an aura of popularity and make a box-office success, do not hesitate to use abusive language as a means of folk entertainment and thus increase the audience’s sense of familiarity and identification with the world of the play – Nikakis is actually the only one who does not hesitate to translate accurately the case of ‘muck’ in example 16 and avoids finding a smoother expression with reference to the sexual disease in example 17. In fact, example 17 stands out as a case in which the play’s bilingual character seems to provide an outlet to the translators who wished to avoid mentioning clearly a sexually-transmitted disease. Thus, Varika and Dimitriades chose Beckett’s French text as their source text, for it employs a totally different image, whereas Volanakis, Papathanasopoulou, the Commedia group and Bald Theatre applied the scientific name of the disease, thus smoothening the sense of abuse through a more formal register. Krispis is the only one who resorted to paraphrasing in order to operate outside the territory of slang expressions. As an overall observation it can be argued that slang expressions and crudities of language tend to disappear in earlier translations while they tend to be stressed more emphatically as we move towards the present. Apart from the time parameter, socio-cultural and policy conventions seem to have determined the translation decision in every case.

4.1.4 Names

June Schlueter and Enoch Brater argue that proper names always maintain a pretence of individuality in drama, yet more often than not they function as allusions, analogies, similes, metaphors, metonymies or synecdoches (“Who is Godot? A Semiotic Approach to Beckett's Play” 113-114). Marvin Carlson gives a clear picture of their significance in the dramatic text by explaining that “in the highly concentrated narrative world of the drama, the names given to characters potentially provide a powerful communicative device for the dramatist, seeking to orient his audience as quickly as possible in his fictive world. Thus from the very beginnings of drama we may see working a variety of onomastic codes, differing from era to era, but always an important part of the general semiotic

86 system of theatre.” (“Semiotica Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies” 291) What Carlson brings forward is that audiences read and decipher these codes so as to confirm the standardised relationships between the members of the same dramatic structure. Names often provide the audience with information about the identity of a character bearing a particular name, his behaviour, his place in the network of relationships and the total dramatic structure as well as the “inter-textual relations between the drama in which he appears and other dramas of the same or of contrasting genres” (ibid.: 283). Such cases are the abstraction, generic and morality names of medieval plays, the national, regional and ethnic names of historical dramas pointing to family lines and the stock names of commedia dell’ arte (ibid.: 285-289). What the translator needs to bear in mind is that the associations of names vary not only between the source and target culture but also within the same society at different points in time, so a great deal of attention should be paid to the transference of onomastic codes. In the case of Waiting for Godot names alone could form a doctoral thesis in its own right, as there is extended literature and commentary on their probable origins and implications with every researcher providing a different explanation and interpretation of the deeper meaning and allusions behind the names Vladimir, Estragon, Pozzo, Lucky and, above all, Godot. In spite of it all, Beckett refused to provide any clear explanation for his character’s names throughout his life and repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction and annoyance at critics’ and journalists’ insistence to elicit some piece of information from him. What follows is a selection of the most popular interpretations of the characters’ names, not for the sake of theoretical presumptions but in order to investigate if and to what extent such allegations might have influenced the translation of names in the Greek text. • Godot: The identity of Godot has been the perpetual question crossing the boundaries of time and following the play to the present days. This is the character which provoked a great number of speculations and theories, most of them originating from Beckett himself. One of the most oft-quoted answers is Beckett’s response “If I knew, I would have said so in the play” while he once told Roger Blin that the name Godot derived from the French slang words for ‘boot’- ‘godillot’, ‘godasse’ -something Blin regards as “only a bit of Irish humour” (Casebook on Waiting for Godot 26). Another popular view is that

87 Beckett was rejecting the advances of a prostitute on the rue Godot de Mauroy only to have the prostitute ask if he was saving himself for Godot (S.E.Gontarksi, Editing Beckett 197). The actor Jack MacGowran reports a paradox: on the one hand he recalls how emphatic Beckett was in denying the most popular association of Godot with God by saying, “because Godot begins with g-o-d, people have got the idea that he’s referring to God. […] that is not the point at all, it doesn’t mean God at all. The whole play is about waiting”; on the other hand he remembers Beckett insisting that his American actors pronounce the word as “God oh”, with the stress on the first syllable, which shows that he actually wished to retain this allusion (“MacGowran on Beckett” Theatre Quarterly 16). Una Chaudhuri seems to be closer to the truth when she shrewdly observes that “critics have generally preferred to characterise Godot’s non-arrival as an effect of Beckett’s authorial power rather than of the impotence and ignorance he himself insists on” (Approaches to Teaching Beckett's Waiting for Godot, 101). Her view is reinforced by the words of the English publisher John Calder who summarises Beckett’s position on the play thus: “He wanted any number of stories circulated; the more there are, the better he likes it” (June Schlueter and Enoch Brater, “Who is Godot? A Semiotic Approach to Beckett's Play” 102). In all Greek translations, the name Godot retained its original pronunciation (‘Γκοντό’) and underwent no modification, above all because it has become a symbol in itself bringing along its own connotations. • Vladimir, Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky: Vladimir and Estragon’s nicknames – Didi and Gogo- are said to derive from the English ‘go’ and the French verb ‘dire’ respectively in order to summarise the polarity between the two characters, the former more philosophical and the latter more physical in his needs, as Ruby Cohn argues in Philosophical Fragments in the Works of Samuel Beckett (87). Martin Esslin reveals that in an earlier version of the play Estragon was called Levi and had Jewish origins (“Waiting for Godot: Western and Korean” 203). Finally, Andrew Kennedy investigates the associations the characters’ names bring along and contends that “the name of Lucky is supremely well-chosen for the unfortunate thinker/artist, while Estragon, Vladimir, Pozzo and Lucky (French, Russian, Italian and English

88 names respectively) make up something like a European cross-section” (Samuel Beckett 35). How is this amount of information to help the translator of Godot in the case of the play’s names? It is true that translation trends regarding proper names vary across the centuries. In the translating proper names was an active practice on the premises that “if a translator wants his target language text to be accepted and understood by its readers, he must behave in accordance with what is expected and meaningful in the target culture” (Veronica Albin, “What’s in a name: Juliet’s Question Revisited” 111). In the 19th and early 20th century translators still favoured the assimilation of proper names into the target culture naming code; however, current translation practices favour the preservation of proper names in the source language within the wider framework of global communication and oppose the fashionable trend to translate proper names in order to ‘naturalise’ them (Nico Wiersema, “Globalization and Translation” 44-46). 20) EnST/ FrST: Vladimir, Estragon, Pozzo, Lucky Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Manthos Krispis Βλαδίμηρος, Εστραγκόν, Πότζο, Λάκυ

Eleni Varika Βλαντιμίρ, Εστραγκόν, Πότζο, Λάκυ

Minos Volanakis Βλαντιμίρ, Εστραγκόν, Πότζο, Λάκυ

A. Papathanassopoulou Βλαντιμίρ, Εστραγκόν, Πότζο, Λάκυ

Odysseas Nikakis Βλαντιμίρ, Εστραγκόν, Πότζο, Λάκυ

Dimitris Dimitriades Βλαντιμίρ, Εστραγκόν, Πότζο, Λάκυ

Commedia Βλαντιμίρ, Εστραγκόν, Πότζο, Λάκυ

Bald Theatre Βλαντιμίρ, Εστραγκόν, Πότζο, Λάκυ 21) EnST: Mister Albert? FrST: Monsieur Albert?

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Ο κύριος Αλμπέρ; Eleni Varika Ο κύριος Αλμπέρ; Minos Volanakis Ο κύριος Αλμπέρ; A. Papathanassopoulou Ο κύριος Αλμπέρ;

Odysseas Nikakis Ο κύριος Άλμπερτ;

Dimitris Dimitriades Ο κύριος Αλμπέρ; Commedia Ο κύριος Αλμπέρ; Bald Theatre Ο κύριος Αλμπέρ;

89 Apart from the case of Krispis, who assimilated Vladimir into the target language reality by providing the ‘Greekalised’ version of the name (‘Βλαδίμηρος’), all other translators retained the names in their original form as they appear in both source texts –the French and the English one. An interesting point to be made and discussed later in this chapter with regard to bilingualism is that in the case of Albert all translators, apart from Nikakis, opted for the French pronunciation of the name – even though throughout their translation it becomes evident that they rely heavily on the English source text. Still, such a of the names’ translation does not suffice; it is worth turning to H. Porter Abbott who after devoting a whole chapter to the probable origins and cultural allusions of the names in Beckett’s plays concludes that “the primary consideration may be the sheer musical sounds of the names—how they ring together. If meaning is involved, it is often forthright, vigorous and pungent. Krapp, Lucky”. (“The Transformations of Godot” 143). Which brings us to our next point in discussion: the patterns of sound in the play.

4.1.5 Sound in Godot

In drama, which is meant to be spoken and heard rather than written and read, the aspect of sound becomes a matter of primary importance. By sound we mean all elements whose combination produces the musicality of a dramatic text: rhythm90, rhyme91, speech patterns and cadences, silences as well as language structures based on sound associations such as onomatopoeia92, alliteration and assonance. Early Greek writings on drama translation highlight the significance of sound; in a discussion about the translation of Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, Sideris quotes a statement by translator Nikolaos Poriotis: “I always try to transfer in our language not only the words of the foreign text in the sense of their meaning but also their sound harmony using the same or similar rhythm” (Φωτισμένοι και Στείροι Μεταφραστές

90 For the purposes of the present thesis, rhythm is defined as “the perceived regularity of prominent units in speech, i.e. stressed vs. unstressed as in English, or long vs. short syllables as in Latin.” (Crystal, The Penguin of Language 290) 91 is defined as “a correspondence of syllables, especially at the ends of lines in verse.” (Crystal, The Penguin Dictionary of Language 290) 92 Otherwise called ‘sound symbolism’; it indicates “direct associations between the form and meaning of language, which can take place when phonetic sounds reflect sounds in the outside world, as in cuckoo, murmur, and splash.” (Crystal, The Penguin Dictionary of Language 313)

90 110-111). Wittgenstein was also among the first to emphasise the effect of sound; in his letter to Ficker in 1914 commenting on the poems of Trakl, whom he was supporting at the time, he says: “in fact, I don't understand them, but their tone fascinates me. It is the tone of ” (Wittgenstein's Ladder 10). It is precisely because of this momentous significance of sound why Beckett relies on it so much in his attempt to deconstruct form and create a new language, and therefore a new way of communication. The sense of music in his plays has been celebrated by numerous critics and theoreticians. “Whether read aloud or silently, Beckett’s careful words resemble elements of a musical score, coordinated by and for the ear, to sound and resound” underlines Mary Bryden (Samuel Beckett and Music 2). She goes on to claim that Beckett’s insistence of tonal and temporal details does not mean that he restricted in any way the perception of the utterance’s meaning (ibid.:44); this point is reinforced by Ruby Cohn who comments on Godot’s musical repetitions only to conclude that “Beckett never sacrifices meaning to sound, but as in his complex fiction he often intensifies meaning through sound” (Back to Beckett 133). In the same frame of mind, Anne C. Murch93 echoes Pavis’ verbalisation of the stage (see Chapter 3) when she states that “the semiotic aspect of the dialogue as sound against its semantic dimension” finds its perfect realisation in Beckett’s plays (Quoting form Godot: trends in contemporary French Theatre), while Hugh Kenner advises against the use of Beckett’s printed text as a reading matter and suggests that we look at it as “the score for a performance [where] like music, Beckett’s language is shaped into phrases, orchestrated, cunningly repeated” (A Reader’s Guide to Samuel Beckett 39). Another aspect of sound thoroughly analysed in Beckett is silence. In his plays, the presence and absence of sound are equally important and add to the communication with the audience. Colin Duckworth points out the significance of silences as “an undercurrent of every dramatic situation, becoming a pattern of gaps almost visible to the audience” (Angels of Darkness 31) whereas Ian Hamilton describes Vladimir and Estragon’s dialogues as “a mere masquerade of silence, for their replies form a succession rather than a sequence; each character’s thought follows to a large extent its own set pattern and inner rhythm […] while they utter words that are pregnant with silence” (The Critical Response to Samuel Beckett 239-

93 See www.english.fsu.edu/jobs/num09/Num09Murch.htm

91 240). Hamilton also brings into focus what he calls Beckett’s ‘anti-language’, i.e. the tension between what is uttered and what is not, which in his opinion best delivers the writer’s message to the audience (236). All the above shed light on the impact of sound in translation, summarised by Antonia Rodriguez-Gago: “Great stylists and great poets are almost impossible to translate. For Beckett, who belongs to both categories, the translator’s major challenge is to recreate a style of poetic intensity and linguistic economy that approximates his and to find an accurate rhythm, pace and sound for his voices.[…] Since no two languages are equivalent in anything except the most simple terms, the task of the translator consists mainly of finding, in his/her own language, an equivalent system of relationships between meanings, linguistic structures, rhythms and sound patterns to reproduce in the translated text the sense and effects of the original work as accurately as he/she can” (Beckett Studies 437). Apart from investigating how critics and theoreticians received Beckett’s management of sound, it would be even more interesting to look into the playwright’s own comments on his work –let us not forget that he was the first translator of Godot from French to English and thus the first to cope with problems of such nature. His most-quoted remarks to Andre Bernold ‘J ai toujours ecrit pour une voix’ [I’ve always written for a voice] (L’Amitie de Beckett 107) and to Alan Schneider “My work is a matter of fundamental sounds (no joke intended) […] scatology and eschatology are identical, since both are concerned with the final issue of things. If people want to have headaches among the overtones, let them. And provide their own aspirin”94 reflect his near-obsession with the sound of language. His focus on sound is also described by Martin Esslin: “once, after the Football World Cup, Beckett told me: ‘Have you seen those Brazilians, their play is sheer music’” (Who’s Afraid of Samuel Beckett 182) and runs through Beckett’s famous German letter of

94 Letter of 29 Dec. 1957, quoted in Ruby Cohn (ed.), Disjecta (London: John Calder, 1983), 109. Beckett also wrote to Jean Reavey in August 1962: “I never write a word without saying it out loud […] Drama is following music.” Beckett in the Theatre The Author as practical Playwright and Director Volume 1: From Waiting for Godot to Krapp’s Last Tape, Dougald McMillan and Martha Fehsenfeld John Calder (eds.), London Riverrun Press-New York, 1988, p.16.

92 1937 with its yearning, “to feel a whisper of that final music or that silence that underlies All” (Beckett’s Godot in Berlin: New Coordinates of the Void 65). Apart from sound, another aspect of Beckett’s musicality is rhythm. In terms of Godot’s stage performance, comprehending the sense of rhythm inherent in the text sheds new light on the interpretation of the play. Gerry Mc Carthy goes as far as to say that “if the actor and director can preserve their creative alliance in the pursuit of the textual rhythm, then the Beckett play suddenly becomes extraordinarily negotiable (“Emptying the theatre: On Directing the Plays of Samuel Beckett” 89). When staging his plays, Beckett himself took extreme care in transmuting the rhythm of the text into a rhythmical pattern of movements which should constitute the performers’ acting code. Walter Asmus, Beckett’s associate director for the Schiller Warten auf Godot production, describes in great detail the steps Beckett followed in his efforts to match the form/meaning problem with regard to the dialogue and movements on stage: “Approaching a play (both the text and stage activities) as if it were a musical score. Perceiving everything in formal categories. Establishing how many times a given theme, word or gesture reoccurs. Insuring that all types of repetitions are like echoes, —that is, seeing to it that they are performed in exactly the same or a very similar manner. Bringing out the melody and rhythm of the text […] the pace of the acting and speaking. (allegro, presto)” (Antoni Libera, Directing Beckett 134).95 For the actors who had the experience of working with Beckett as director, his particularity with sound and rhythm was common knowledge. David Warrilow recalls the rehearsals of Ohio Improptu, where ‘the issue was tone and tempo, because

95 The majority of such observations are based on the rehearsal diary Asmus kept on Beckett’s work with the German company in order to achieve the carefully structured performance set forth in the Regiebuch, as well as on two notebooks Beckett had prepared for his 1978 Schiller Theater production of Spiel (Play). Gontarski comments that “Beckett's notebooks not only comprise a motif index to his plays, they constitute as well a remarkably detailed external record of the artist's internal processes and struggles. They document Beckett's continued aesthetic and stylistic development” (Editing Beckett 201). A further source of study was offered by Beckett's English-language publishers Faber and Faber and Grove Press in the series entitled The Theatrical Notebooks of Samuel Beckett, which contains the theatrical notebooks Beckett kept for a particular work, published in facsimile, transcription, translation (where necessary), and annotations along with the revised texts. These revised texts form “something like a post-modern performance text, with an emphasis on process and transformation, which traces and documents Beckett's post-publication creative process […] not a definitive or uncorrupted or static text, the telos of the creative process, but rather a processive text” (ibid.: 202), which sheds new light on the play’s reading and performance potential.

93 the way the author hears that piece is somewhat different from the way it lies in [his] being” and highlights the importance of ‘tuning-in’ with the music of the text: “If I get it right, if I sing it ‘on key’, ‘in tune’, it’s going to vibrate properly for somebody else” (Jonathan Kalb, Beckett in Performance 224). In her autobiography, Billy Whitelaw observes that “working on Play was not unlike conducting music or having a music lesson […] where I had to understand the rhythmic import of such requests as: ‘Will you make those three dots, two dots’” (Billie Whitelaw…Who He 77-78), which required concentrated practice, while Aideen O’Kelly says of Happy days that “the whole play is like a musical score” (Ben-Zvi, Women in Beckett 40). In light of the above, what exactly is the translator’s task in terms of sound? The challenge lies in the fact that sound is connected with meaning thus creating and at the same time being created by its lexical representation. Duff points out how intricately interwoven sound and meaning are by asserting that “it should never be assumed that no meaning is conveyed through the sound of a language” (The Third Language 95), while Korzeniowska illustrates this point with reference to nursery : “the choice of words, with their own specific melody which simply flows when uttered, is the reason why they are still loved today. In fact not many people, young or old, dwell much on the actual meaning of the rhyme” (Explorations in Polish-English Mistranslation Problems 72). Nursery rhymes, nonsense poetry, folk songs are all evidence of an aspect of language we often overlook, namely that the sound of the words and the effect it evokes defines their quality and helps us create an image, so that we can “as the recipients, associate with certain words and the melody those words can create” (ibid.:76). Taking this into account, the difficulty for a drama translator boils down to the fact “in the process of translation the original sound is lost. Therefore, the associations evoked by the sound are lost as well” (Joanna Janecka, The Power of Sound 55). This problem together with Crystal’s observation that “languages vary greatly in their basic rhythmic types” (The Penguin Dictionary of Language 290) implies that the translator has to find a way to reproduce the sound patterns of the original in such a way as to evoke the same string of associations in the minds of the target audience. Since every language has its own, unique sounds “which are uttered in certain combinations to express the feelings and emotions of the writer/poet” (Korzeniowska, Explorations in Polish-English Mistranslation Problems 81), the translator has to make use of the rhyme and rhythm of the target language in order to produce new sounds which in turn will create a new set of associations, yet

94 similar to the original one. What the translator therefore needs to have is a good sense of the so-called semantic or discourse prosody96 (quoted by Mohammed Albakry Translation Journal and the Author 2004) so that the correlation of sounds in the two languages will create a similar impression. In this perspective, it becomes evident that if the sound is not successfully reproduced, the target text may end up being incongruous with the writer’s intentions or difficult to communicate to the target audience: “once the music goes the meaning goes as well,” Alan Duff maintains (The Third Language 95). In order to avoid this, the translator should be capable of “listening in wise entropy […] and possess the ability both to hear the conversations on the page and to read speech,” as Professor Ruy Vasconcelos de Carvalho from the Department of Social Studies and Communication in the University of Fortaleza, Brazil comments. 97 As recently as in 2004, de Carvalho reinstated the issue of sound, this time defining it as the tone of a language and relating it to syntax as the visual representation of tone in terms of the written word.98 De Carvalho’s conviction that tone, in other words the sound patterns of a language, is constructed and expressed by the echoes the American poet George Opeen who argued that “if someone wants to move to a new experience, syntax is needed, a new syntax. A new syntax is a new cadence of uncovering, a new cadence of logic, a new cadence of music, a new structure of space” (Selected Letters 97). It remains to be seen to what extent Greek translators handled Beckett’s pursuit for a new order of things through sound.

96 Semantic or discourse prosody is defined as “the position of a lexical item through its repeated association with other items in the language (Baker, p.24) or “a feature which extends over more than one unit in a linear string” (Stubbs, p.65). 97 Since tonal sensibility changes from one language to the other, de Carvalho creates the profile of the translator as one having a fine sense of balance: “It is a matter of an equilibrium that few translators know how to apprehend in its minimal equivalence, in its complex subtlety—which demands that he be not only an intellectual but also—and above all—an artisan, a practical man, who knows how to listen to everything from the radio to conversations in the elevator, by way of political , sports reporting and impassioned harangues”. For more see Translation Journal and the Author 2004 URL:http://accurapid.com/journal/29tone.htm Last updated on: 06/18/2004 15:14:36. 98 Here Carvalho seems to be drawing on ’s assertion that “words rather than sentences are the primary element of the translator” (“The Task of the Translator” 260).

95 22) EnST: ap-palled FrST: epouvante

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Τρομάρα…με τρομάζει Eleni Varika Τρομαγμένος Minos Volanakis Μια φρίκη…μια φρικίαση

A. Papathanassopoulou έν-τρομος

Odysseas Nikakis Φρίκη

Dimitris Dimitriades έν-τρομος

Commedia ΤΡΟ-ΜΑ-ΓΜΕ-ΝΟΣ

Bald Theatre Απέχθεια.

23) EnST: Stop! FrST: Arret!

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Σι!

Eleni Varika Στάσου!

Minos Volanakis Σί! A. Papathanassopoulou Αλτ!

Odysseas Nikakis Στοπ!

Dimitris Dimitriades Στάσου! Commedia Στάσου! Bald Theatre Στοπ!

24) EnST: Calm yourself Calm…calm…The English say cawm. . FrST: Du calme. Calme…calme…Les Anglais dissent . caaam. Ce sont des gens caam

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Έλα τώρα. Έλα τώρα…Έλα…Όλοι οι άνθρωποι λένε έλα, έλα… Eleni Varika Ήσυχα Minos Volanakis Έλα τώρα. Έλα τώρα…Έλα…Όλοι οι άνθρωποι λένε έλα, έλα… A. Papathanassopoulou Κάλμα…κάλμα…Οι Εγγλέζοι λένε κάααμ. Odysseas Nikakis Έλα τώρα, ησύχασε! –Ήσυχα, ήσυχα…Οι Εγγλέζοι λένε κάαλμ Κάλμα.-Κάλμα…Κάλμα… Οι Άγγλοι λένε κάααμ. Είναι Dimitris Dimitriades άνθρωποι κάααμς. Commedia Κάλμα, Κάλμα. Κάλμα (ηδονικά) Οι Άγγλοι λένε κάαμ! Bald Theatre Ηρέμησε, ηρέμησε. Όλοι οι Γάλλοι λένε ηγέμησε.

96

25) EnST : It’s the rope. FrST: C’est la corde It’s the rubbing. A force de frotter It’s inevitable. Qu’est-ce que tu veux It’s the knot. C’est le neud It’s the chafing C’est fatal

Translator’s Name Greek Translation -Είναι από το σκοινί. -Απ’ το γδάρσιμο. Manthos Krispis -Αναπόφευκτο. -Απ’ τον κόμπο. -Τρίψε τρίψε. -Είναι απ’ το σκοινί. -Είναι απ’ το γδάρσιμο. Eleni Varika –Δέρμα είναι αυτό, τι να σου κάνει. -Είναι και ο κόμπος. -Αναπόφευκτο. -Απ’το σκοινί. -Το δάρσιμο. Minos Volanakis -Αναπόφευκτο. -Απ’ τον κόμπο. -Τρίψε- τρίψε. -Απ’ το σκοινί. -Απ’ το τρίψιμο. A. Papathanassopoulou -Τι περιμένεις; -Απ’ τον κόμπο. -Απ’ το γδάρσιμο. -Είναι από το σκοινί. -Είναι από το τρίψιμο. Odysseas Nikakis -Αναπόφευκτο! -Είν’ από τον κόμπο. -Απ’ το γδάρσιμο. -Το σκοινί. -Απ’ το πολύ τρίψιμο. Dimitris Dimitriades -Αυτά είναι. -Η θηλειά. -Μοιραίο είναι. -Είναι από το σκοινί. -Από το γδάρσιμο. -Δέρμα είναι αυτό. Commedia -Τι να σου κάνει! -Είναι κι ο κόμπος. -Είναι μοιραίο. -Είναι το σκοινί. -Είναι το τρίψιμο. Bald Theatre -Είναι αναπόφευκτο. -Είναι ο κόμπος. -Είναι το τρίψιμο.

97 26) EnST: makes my heart go pit-a-pat. FrST: fair batter mon coer.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Κάνει την καρδιά μου να πάει τικ-ι-τάκα, τικ-ι-τάκα Eleni Varika Φέρνει ταχυπαλμία. Minos Volanakis Κάνει την καρδιά μου να πάει τικ-ι-τάκα, τικ-ι-τάκα A. Papathanassopoulou Μου φέρνει χτυποκάρδι. Odysseas Nikakis Μου φέρνει ταχυκαρδία Dimitris Dimitriades Μου φέρνει ταχυκαρδία Commedia Αυτό μου προκαλεί ταχυπαλμία Bald Theatre Κάνει την καρδιά μου να πάει τικ-ι-τάκα, τίκ-ι-τάκα

27) EnST: I took a knook. FrST: J’ai pris un knouk.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Πήρα στη δούλεψή μου έναν κνούκο. Eleni Varika Πήρα στη δούλεψή μου έναν κνούκο. Minos Volanakis Γι’ αυτό προσέλαβα έναν κνούκο. A. Papathanassopoulou Γι’ αυτό λοιπόν πήρα και γω ένα νούκο. Odysseas Nikakis Γι’ αυτό κι εγώ πήρα ένα κνόδαλο. Dimitris Dimitriades Πήρα λοιπόν ένα νούχο. Commedia Τότε λοιπόν πήρα ένα νουχ.

Bald Theatre Ένα κνουκ.

28) EnST: Oh tray bong, tray tray tray bong FrST: Oh très bon, très très très bon.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Ώου, βέρυ γκουντ, βέρυ γκουντ. Eleni Varika (ξενική προφορά) Πολύ καλός! Πάρρα πολλύ καλλός! Minos Volanakis Ώου, βέρυ γκουντ, βέρυ γκουντ. A. Papathanassopoulou Ώ, βέρυ γκουντ, βέρυ βέρυ γκουντ. Odysseas Nikakis Ώου, βέρυ γκουντ, βέρυ βέρυ γκουντ. Dimitris Dimitriades ω, πολύ καλόν, πολύ πολύ πολύ καλόν. Commedia (με ξενική προφορά) Πολύ καλλός! Πάρρα πολύ καλός! Bald Theatre ω tres bon, tres, tres, tres bon

98 29) EnST: No, I was never in the Macon country. I’ve puked my puke of a life away here, I tell you! Here in the Cackon country!99 FrST: Mais non, je n’ai jamais été dans le Vaucluse ! J’ai coule toute ma chaude-pisse d’existence ici, je te dis ! Ici ! Dans la Merdecluse !

Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Στο Βωκλίζ εγώ; Ποτέ! Σου λέω: σ’ όλη μου τη ζωή Manthos Krispis σερνόμουνα εδώ, σ’ αυτό εδώ το κοπροτόπι. Εγώ στο Βωκλίζ; Ποτέ, σου λέω. Εδώ την πέρασα όλη Eleni Varika μου τη ζωή. Εδώ. Στο Σκατοκλύζ. Εγώ στο Βωκλίζ; Ποτέ, σου λέω. Εδώ την πέρασα όλη Minos Volanakis μου τη ζωή. Εδώ. Στο Σκατοκλύζ. Όχι, δεν έχω πάει ποτέ στη Βωκλούζη! Όλο το ξέρασμα A. Papathanassopoulou που λέγεται ζωή μου το έβγαλα εδώ! Στη Χαβούζη! Ποτέ! Δεν πήγα ποτέ στο Μέισον! Όλο το ξερατό που Odysseas Nikakis ήταν η ζωή μου, στο είπα, το έχω ξεράσει εδώ, στο Σκατέισον. Τι είναι αυτά που λες, ποτέ δεν ήμουν στην Βωκλύζ! Dimitris Dimitriades Πέρασα όλη την ουραίμια τη ζωή μου εδώ, σου λέω! Εδώ! Άκου την Βωκλύζ! Όχι, ποτέ δεν ήμουν στην Βωκλύζ. Εδώ πέρασα όλη τη Commedia ξεφτίλα τη ζωή μου. Εδώ. Στο Σκατοκλύζ. Όχι, δεν ήμουν ποτέ στο Βωκλίζ. Ξέρασα όλη μου την Bald Theatre εμετική ζωή εδώ, σου λέω. Στο Σκατίζ-Κουραδίζ.

30) EnST: Bye bye bye bye FrST: Do do do do do

Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Manthos Krispis Λα Λα Λα Λα Eleni Varika Λα Λα Λα Λα Minos Volanakis Νάνι νάνι νάνι νάνι να A. Papathanassopoulou Νάνι νάνι νάνι νάνι να Odysseas Nikakis Λα Λα Λα Λα Dimitris Dimitriades Ντο ντο ντο

Commedia Νάνι νάνι νάνι

Bald Theatre Bye bye bye bye

99 The Cackon country: an imaginary land of idleness appearing in the folk songs which formed the source of the popular work Carmina Burana. As Judith Lynn Sebesta describes in Carmina Burana, it is a name derived from the Old French word cockaigne, which means ‘land of cakes’, while she goes on to elaborate that “Cucany remained in the poetic imagination down through the seventeenth century as the country where houses were built of cake, roast geese wandered through the streets, larks fell already cooked and buttered from the sky, and rivers and fountains ran with wine”.

99 31) EnST: FrST: [Echange d’injures] Ceremonious ape! Punctilious pig! … Moron! … Moron! Vermin! Abortion! Morpion! Sewer rat! Curate! Cretin! Crrritic! Translator’s Name Greek Translation Γονόκοκκε, σπειροχαίτη! Αγύριστο κεφάλι![…] Σβαρνιάρη![…] Βλαμένε! Σκουληκόσπερμα! Manthos Krispis Έκτρωμα! Σκορπιέ! Πόντικα! Κρυφομούμια! Ξόανο! Κριτικέ! Έλα να βριστούμε! Eleni Varika Ανταλλαγή ύβρεων. Γονόκοκκε, σπειροχαίτη! Έχουν και τα γουρούνια πρωτόκολλο! […] Έκτρωμα! […] Μαιμουδόκολε! Σκουληκόσπερμα! Minos Volanakis Ξόανο! Σκορπιέ! Τυφλοπόντικα! Κρυφομούμια! Κρετίνε! Κριτικέ! Πανηλίθιε! Κουτορνίθιε! Σίχαμα! Έκτρωμα! A. Papathanassopoulou Λιμοκοντόρε! Νεωκόρε! Απόβρασμα της κοινωνίας! Κριτικέ λογοτεχνίας! Γονόκοκκε, σπειροχαίτη! Πεισματάρικο μουλάρι! […] Ηλίθιε! […] ηλίθιε! […] Odysseas Nikakis Βρωμιάρη! Έκτρωμα! Σίχαμα! Μίξα! Απόβρασμα!

100 Κουράδα! Κριτικέ! Κοπρίτη! Dimitris Dimitriades Τομάρι! Ανταλλαγή ύβρεων. Γονόκοκκε, σπειροχαίτη! […] Άθλιε! […] Βλαμένε! Παράσιτο! Έκτρωμα! Commedia Μούμια! Αρουραίε! Παπάρα! Κρετίνε! Τεχνοκριτικέ! Γονόκοκκε, σπειροχαίτη! Τελετουργικέ πίθηκε! Τυπολατρικό γουρούνι! […] Βλαμένε! […] Βλαμένε! Παράσιτο! Bald Theatre Εξάμβλωμα! Σκορπιέ! Αρουραίε! Διάκονε! Κρετίνε! Κριτικέ!100

First and foremost, a comparative analysis of the different translation versions with regard to the text’s sound effect underscores the fact that tonal sensibility changes from one language to the other. In this light, translators seem to favour the following approaches: • Reproducing the sound of the original in an attempt to relate the words’ verbal overtone with their conceptual content and re-create similar associations in the minds of the target audience (‘Σι!’, ‘έν-τρο-μος’, ‘τικ-ι-τάκα’, ‘λα λα’). • Reducing translation to sense by allowing the word’s semantic meaning to shine through without the implications its sound brings along (‘Στάσου’, ‘έλα έλα’, ‘ταχυπαλμία’). • Omitting the sound utterance and summarising its semantic meaning (‘ησύχασε’). • Adjusting and assimilating the text into the conventions of the target language and culture, especially in cases where there is reference to a third language and

100 “The terms which Beckett supplied in the text of the first English editions in the abuse game were determined by the repetition of sounds and cadences and by the meanings of the paired couplets. This exchange of insults culminates in a normally neutral occupation which has been transformed into a term of abuse.” (Dougald McMillan and Martha Fehsenfeld, Beckett in the Theatre: The Author as practical Playwright and Director, 76)

101 culture and the element of foreignness has to be emphasised (‘Όλοι οι Γάλλοι λένε ηγέμησε’ ‘Ώου, βέρυ γκουντ, βέρυ βέρυ γκουντ’, ‘(με ξενική προφορά) Πολύ καλλός! Πάρρα πολύ καλός!’) • Retaining the rhyming effect of the verbal exchange and the rhythm of the utterance in terms of the alternation between stressed vs. unstressed syllables (examples 25, 29, 31). • Preserving the exotic element of the source text by transferring its sound effect verbatim without any interference on part of the translator even at the expense of comprehensibility/clarity of expression (‘ντο ντο ντο’, ‘bye bye bye’). The case of ‘I took a knook’ is worth mentioning here, since it is an utterance purely used on account of its sound impact, which nevertheless fails to be transposed into the Greek language as all translations merely preserve Beckett’s sound , yet without being able to reproduce an equivalent rhyming effect of the phrase as a whole.

4.2 Godot’s Structure

“In my beginning is my end. . . . In my end is my beginning.” —T S Eliot, Four Quartets

Apart from Beckett’s attention to sound, Asmus also describes how the playwright persisted in tampering with the form of the text, striving for an identity between form and meaning that would ultimately prevent their being differentiated one from the other: “The way it is written or said is the meaning. There is no meaning beyond that”, Asmus reports Beckett to have said in Lois Oppenheim, Directing Beckett (112). In 1961 Beckett wrote as follows: What I am saying does not mean that there will hence forth be no form in art. It only means that there will be a new form, and that this form will be of such a type that it admits the chaos, and does not try to say that the chaos is really something else. The form and the chaos remain separate. The latter is not reduced to the former. That is why the form itself becomes a preoccupation, because it exists as a problem separate from the material it accommodates. To find a form that accommodates

102 the mess, that is the task of the artist” (John Pilling, The Cambridge Companion to Beckett 89). Hence, his quest for an art form “that is capable of accommodating the formless. The only form that can do so is one in which the form itself is at issue”, David H. Hesla concludes (The shape of chaos: an interpretation of the work of Samuel Beckett 226), while Michael Worton elaborates that Beckett wished to break free from the artificial dialogue and the formalistic demands previous playwrights felt obliged to meet and “attempted to solve the problem of the art-form relation by preserving the dialectic between the two” (Waiting for Godot and Endgame: Theatre as Text 74). This is the reason why when watching or reading one of Beckett’s texts, we have more a sense of architecture, of building blocks forming a mathematical construction, than of writing (Gontarski, Stanley, “Staging Himself, or Beckett’s Late Style in the Theatre” 87-97) In his struggle to re-unite form with content Beckett resorted to symmetry and repetition. Symmetrical and regularly recurring patterns constitute the foundation on which the entire play is structured. The reason for this choice is best expressed by Hugh Kenner and is related to the workings of the human mind: “Nothing satisfies the mind like balance; nothing has so convincing a look of being substantial. The mind recoils from the random. That ‘honesty is the best policy’ seems a self-evident truth chiefly because the words are of metrical equivalence: honesty, policy. Proverbs work like that; sentences, even, work like that, and it is only by a difficult effort of attention, or else by the custom of the Civil , that a sentence with no balance can be constructed. […] And Laurel and Hardy would have been an utterly unconvincing couple were it not for the virtual identity of their hats, two shiny black bowlers” (A Reader’s Guide to Samuel Beckett 33-35). Still, it is not mechanical repetition of words or phrases that Beckett had been working on. He created a sense of balance which dictates the movement of the play, a movement, as Beckett himself stressed in a discussion with Charles Marowitz, “which relies heavily on asymmetry, or repetition-with-a-difference” (John Fletcher and John Spurling, Beckett: A Study of his Plays 65). In other words, action and repartee move the play forward, and the silences which punctuate them function as stop signals; “if this is done the play’s characteristic rhythm comes forcibly across, and reveals not only the wit, but also the sheer entertainment that resides in a work

103 unjustly thought of as gloomy and boring” (ibid.: 64) . In terms of the play’s staging, such an instruction becomes crucial, for if it is not followed, the entire atmosphere of the play changes and in turn its perception by the target audience. Let us then take a closer look at the symmetrical structures which build the rhythmical pattern of Godot. It may sound too exaggerated an observation but symmetry starts from the very construction of the characters’ names: Ruby Cohn observes: “Pozzo and Lucky contain two syllables and five letters each; Estragon and Vladimir contain three syllables and eight letters each, but they address one another only by nicknames, Gogo and Didi, childish four-leter words composed of repeated monosyllables”, which implies that the characters’ names are so carefully built as to betray their pairing (Back to Beckett 130). Symmetry continuous at the level of utterances: ‘Hope deferred maketh the something sick’ which offers pleasure to the ear by its shape rather than its meaning, and the careful balancing of opposites: ‘Do not despair: one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume: one of the thieves was damned.’101 Cohn underlines Beckett’s obsession with symmetry in text and performance in her account of the German Godot:

“The two thieves are Didi and Gogo; the two thieves are Pozzo and Lucky; the two thieves are Godot’s goatherd and his offstage shepherd brother. And Beckett shaped the play to reflect that fearful symmetry—in text and performance. There are two acts, one repeating the other. There are two couples, one contrasting with the other. Within the acts, within the couples, symmetries and oppositions recur”.102

Another kind of symmetry in the play is its circularity, which stems from “the classic exchange of cross-talk routines found in music halls and the clownish motifs of the circus, where even the round song and the lullaby take place in well-drilled

101 “That sentence has a wonderful shape. It is the shape that matters.” Beckett to Harold Hobson, ‘Samuel Beckett-Dramatist of the Year,’ International Theatre Annual, 1956, 1, p.153 102 It may be worth pointing out the theoreticians’ meticulousness in discovering Beckett’s proportionate symmetries: “Less marked than hat and shoes are Beckett’s food pairs. In Act 1 turnip and carrot have the same phallic form, and in German the same designation—weisse Rübe and gelbe Rübe. In Act 2 the black radish (called ‘unpink’ in the notebook) is small and round, like the absent pink radish. In Act 1 Pozzo eats a chicken leg, and Gogo gnaws at the bone, but each man belches with pleasure” (Cohn, Back to Beckett 128).

104 smoothness and of timing” (John Fletcher & John Spurling Eyre, Beckett A Study of his Plays 63-64). An example is provided by Aspasia Velissariou who remarks that the second-act song of Vladimir is “capable of infinite expansion (or rather, regression); circular in structure, repetitious in , the song is a symbol of the play itself, a closed plot from which there is no exit.” Reich characterises the conversations between Vladimir and Estragon as “a litany-like structure, with constant verbal repetition and recurrence of phases and motifs” (Barbara Reich Gluck, Beckett and Joyce 29), while in the dialogue about the dead voices “even silences are evenly distributed” (Andrew Kennedy, Six dramatists in search of a language, studies in dramatic language 128). Recent translation approaches stress out the importance of structure, which has been downplayed in previous years. Abdolmehdi Riazi, in his paper “The Invisible in Translation: The Role of Text Structure”, strongly argues the translator’s familiarity with the source and target languages as well as the subject matter does not suffice for a good translation; due to the findings in the field of text analysis, the role of text structure in translation has become crucial (3-4). This together with the fact that in Godot “the structure of the play seems to be its main message” (Martin Esslin “Waiting for Godot-Western and Korean” 205) leave the translator with no room for variations regarding the play’s precision and economy, otherwise the message of the play is jeopardized as well. Godot’s translator has to take into account the element of repetition as both theme and technique, along with the symmetries and musical transitions that govern the units of dialogue. 32) EnST: Let’s go. FrST: Allons-nous-en. We can’t. On ne peut pas. Why not? Pour quoi? We’re waiting for Godot. On attend Godot. Ah! Translator’s Name Greek Translation Άντε πάμε. -Δε μπορούμε. Manthos Krispis -Γιατί; -Περιμένουμε το Γκοντό. -Α, ναι. -Πάμε να φύγουμε. -Δε μπορούμε. Eleni Varika -Γιατί; -Περιμένουμε το Γκοντό. -Α, ναι. -Πάμε. Minos Volanakis -Δε μπορούμε. -Γιατί; -Περιμένουμε το Γκοντό

105 .-Αχ! -Πάμε. -Δε μπορούμε. A. Papathanassopoulou -Γιατί; -Περιμένουμε το Γκοντό. -Α. -Φεύγουμε. -Δε μπορούμε. Odysseas Nikakis -Γιατί; -Περιμένουμε το Γκοντό. -Ωχ! -Πάμε. -Δε μπορούμε. Dimitris Dimitriades -Γιατί; -Περιμένουμε το Γκοντό. -Αλήθεια. -Φεύγουμε. –Δε μπορούμε. Commedia -Γιατί; -Περιμένουμε το Γκοντό. -Α, ναι. -Ας πηγαίνουμε. -Δεν μπορούμε. Bald Theatre -Γιατί όχι; -Περιμένουμε το Γκοντό. -Α. It becomes evident that all eight translations have managed to handle the motif of stressed vs. unstressed syllables successfully in a cadence which constitutes the fundamental repetitive pattern of the entire play. Yet, the text analysis of the present thesis has shown that only Papathanosopoulou’s and Volanakis’ translations preserve the identical chunk of dialogue throughout the play without effecting any change whatsoever –no matter how minimum- by addition of an extra exclamation phrase or speech segment, as the other translations do.

33) EnST: I’m going mad. / He’s going mad. FrST: Je deviens fou… / Il devient fou…

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Θα τρελαθώ…Θα του στρίψει… Eleni Varika Θα τρελαθώ…Θα του στρίψει…

Minos Volanakis Θα τρελαθώ…Θα τρελαθεί….

A. Papathanassopoulou Θα τρελαθώ…Θα τρελαθεί…. Odysseas Nikakis Αρχίζω να τρελαίνομαι….Αρχίζει να τρελαίνεται… Dimitris Dimitriades Μου ‘ρχεται τρέλα…Του ‘ρχεται τρέλα…

Commedia Θα τρελαθώ…Θα τρελαθεί…. Bald Theatre Θα τρελαθώ…Θα του στρίψει…

106 This is a typical instance of Beckett’s attention to detail which runs through the play’s structure. Although a slight deviation from the exact repetition of the same verb phrase shifting from the first to the third person singular brings upon no change to the meaning of the sentence, yet it deprives it from its rhythmical impact and acoustic power.

34) EnST: A dog came in the kitchen FrST: Un chien vint dans l’office And stole a crust of bread Et prit une andouillette. Then cook up with a ladle A lors a coups de louche And beat him till he was dead Le chef le mit en miettes.

Then all the dogs came running Les autres cnien ce voyant And dug the dog a tomb Vite vite i’ensevelirent And wrote upon the tombstone Au pied d’une croix en bois blanc For the eyes of dogs to come Où le passant pouvait lires :

A dog came in the kitchen…

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Στην κουζίνα το σκυλί, μπήκε για να φάει ψωμί, κι έφαγε το κεφάλι του. Βλέποντας το χάλι του, τώρα τ’ άλλα τα σκυλιά πού να κλέψουνε Manthos Krispis ψωμιά. Του στήσανε ωστόσο ένα μεγάλο μνήμα μην την πάθει σκυλί άλλο. Στην κουζίνα το σκυλί… Σκυλάκι στραβοκάνικο βούτηξε ένα λουκάνικο Μα ο μάγειρας το πιάνει, του κόβει το κεφάλι Eleni Varika Τα’ άλλα σκυλιά το μάθανε, ευθύς το σαβανώσανε Άσπρα χαλίκια στρώσανε στο μνήμα του και γράψανε Σκυλάκι στραβοκάνικο…. Μπήκε σκύλος στην κουζίνα, άρπαξε κιμά απ’ την πείνα Πήρε ο μάγειρας μπαλτά κι έφτιαξε σκύλο κιμά Κλάψαν συγγενείς και φίλοι

Σκύλοι, σκύλες κι άλλοι σκύλοι Minos Volanakis Τονε θάψαν κι άλλοι σκύλοι Κι άλλος σκύλος μην την πάθει, η ταφόπετρά του γράφει Μπήκε σκύλος… Μπήκε ο σκύλος στα κλεφτά Κι έφαγε τα κοψίδια A. Papathanassopoulou Κι ο μάγειρας με τον μπαλτά Του σπασε τα παΐδια Οι άλλοι σκύλοι τρέξανε

107 Τον πήραν και τον θάψαν Και για να βάλουνε μυαλό Στο μνήμα του εγράψαν: Μπήκε ο σκύλος… Odysseas Nikakis (τραγούδι με το φυτίλι και το καντήλι) Σκύλος μπήκε στην κουζίνα κι άρπαξε ένα βραστό μα ο μάγειρας τον είδε και τον έκανε παστό. Dimitris Dimitriades Τρέξαν τότε οι άλλοι σκύλοι και τον ρίξαν σ ’ένα μνήμα Έβαλαν κι ένα σταυρό όπου γράψαν ένα ποίημα: Σκύλος μπήκε… Μπαίνει σκύλος στην κουζίνα και αρπάζει συκωτάκια Ο μάγειρας τον βούτηξε τον κάνει κομματάκια Commedia οι άλλοι σκύλοι τρέξανε γρήγορα τον μαζέψανε τον θάψανε τον κλάψανε σταυρό λευκό του βάλανε που έγραφε στο κέντρο του: Μπαίνει σκύλος… Στην κουζίνα το σκυλί, μπήκε για να φάει ψωμί, κι έφαγε το κεφάλι του. Βλέποντας το χάλι του, τώρα τ’ άλλα τα σκυλιά πού να κλέψουνε Bald Theatre ψωμιά. Του στήσανε ωστόσο ένα μεγάλο μνήμα μην την πάθει σκυλί άλλο. Στην κουζίνα το σκυλί…

Vladimir’s mechanical delivery of the marching rhythms of the round in the beginning of the second act establishes the ‘tune’ for the whole series. The lullaby, the ‘nightmare march’ immediately following it, as Vladimir and Estragon try to walk off the effect of the bad dream and the ‘reconciliation waltz’ when Vladimir and Estragon reunite in a circle after a brief separation are all to be sung in the same martial rhythm: “the machine-like rhythm and tune for round, lullaby, march and waltz constitute thus a four part motif suggesting the unrelieved tedium and repetitions underlying even ostensibly different activities” (The Theatrical Notebooks of Samuel Beckett 131-132). The range of the translators’ creative imagination is quite striking in all eight versions cited above, as every translator remained faithful to the rhyming effect and song tempo of the text without straying away from its semantic content -actually, the “bread” of the original changed into a variety of meats in five out of eight translations, but still translators operated in the semantic area of food. Nikakis’ case is an exception since he adopted a totally target-oriented approach by substituting Beckett’s round with a familiar Greek folk tune which bears no relation to

108 the subject mater of the dog-song; however, this, too, is of a similar circular nature and adheres to the same repetitive modes as the ones of the source text. 4.3 Allusions

Such particularity with sound and structure makes Godot a universe of textual play, which can also be seen at the level of allusions. Beckett defies the trustworthiness of any text and creates a labyrinth of allusions and cultural references merely to bring the reader to a maze of cross-references where he loses any sense of security as one reference leads to another. This is not because Beckett aimed at creating an elitist text or wished to be patronising towards his readers and spectators; on the contrary, he struggled to alert them about the use of clichés and well-known statements and make them realise that there is nothing to trust, that it is all a matter of a linguistic game, of the play’s textuality. Worton hits the nail on the head when he argues that: “By alluding to and rewriting clichés, Beckett is underlining the fact that many statements have become part of common parlance precisely because they say something that is relevant to our individual and communal lives. We are thus propelled into a re-evaluation of why these affirmations have become essential parts of modern thought. In other words, Beckett alerts us to the power of the past and asks that we re-read and reconsider it” (Waiting for Godot and Endgame: Theatre as Text 121). From this patchwork of contemporary thought and literature scattered everywhere in the pages of Godot’s text, biblical allusions seem to hold the first place. According to Alice and Kenneth Hamilton, Beckett wanted to stress out the textual nature of the Bible and does not use “Christian mythology just because he knows it but, more particularly, because he is certain it is not true; […] both the denotative and symbolic functions of language are exposed as unstable modes of communication” (128). In other words, if the readers cannot trust the Bible, for it is just one more text among many, there is no text they should trust.

109

35) EnST: So you tell me. FrST: C’est toi qui le dis.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Manthos Krispis Συ είπας

Eleni Varika Εσύ το’ πες.

Minos Volanakis Συ είπας.

A. Papathanassopoulou Εσύ το είπες.

Odysseas Nikakis Εσύ το πες.

Dimitris Dimitriades Εσύ το είπες

Commedia Εσύ το πες

Bald Theatre Συ είπας

36) EnST: Our Saviour. FrST : Le Sauveur.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Τον Σωτήρα μας…Τον Κύριο ημών. Eleni Varika Τον Σωτήρα. Τον Σωτήρα. Minos Volanakis Τον Σωτήρα μας…Τον Κύριο ημών. A. Papathanassopoulou Τον Σωτήρα. Odysseas Nikakis Τον Σωτήρα μας…Τον Σωτήρα Dimitris Dimitriades Τον Σωτήρα…Τον Σωτήρα. Commedia Τον Σωτήρα…Τον Σωτήρα. Bald Theatre Τον Σωτήρα μας…Τον Κύριο ημών.

37) EnST: the wind in the reeds FrST: Pah! Le vent dans les roseaux. Bald Theatre Ο αέρας στα καλάμια. Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Manthos Krispis Ο αέρας στον καλαμιώνα. Eleni Varika Ο αέρας στα καλάμια. Minos Volanakis Ο άνεμος στις καλαμιές. A. Papathanassopoulou Ο αέρας στα καλάμια. Odysseas Nikakis Ο αέρας στα καλάμια. Dimitris Dimitriades Μπα! Ο άνεμος μες στις καλαμιές.

Commedia Μπα! Ήταν ο αέρας στα καλάμια.

110

38) EnST: I mind the goats, sir. FrST: Je garde les chèvres, monsieur.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Φυλάω τα τραγιά, κύριε. Eleni Varika Φυλάω τα κατσίκια. Minos Volanakis Φυλάω τα γίδια. A. Papathanassopoulou Βόσκω τα γίδια, κύριε. Odysseas Nikakis Βόσκω τα γίδια, κύριε. Dimitris Dimitriades Φυλάω τις κατσίκες, κύριε. Commedia Φυλάω τα κατσίκια, κύριε.

Bald Theatre Επιτηρώ τα ερίφια.

39) EnST: Pale for weariness. FrST: Je regarde la blafarde.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Manthos Krispis Κοιτάζω την ωχράν Εκάτην. Eleni Varika Ατενίζω την ωχράν Εκάτην. Minos Volanakis Κοιτάζω την χλωμήν Εκάτην A. Papathanassopoulou Πάνιασε η έρμη από την εξάντληση. Odysseas Nikakis Σκαρφαλώνει στον ουρανό για να βλέπει κάτι σκατόφατσες σαν και μας. Dimitris Dimitriades Κάνω ότι και συ, κοιτάζω την κατάχλωμη. Commedia Ατενίζω τη χλωμή σελήνη. Από την κούραση ωχρή –που Bald Theatre σκαρφαλώνει στα ουράνια και μας κοιτάζει από ψηλά. 40)EnST: Memomia praeteritorum bonorum. FrST: Memomia praeteritorum bonorum.

CommediaTranslator’s Name Memomia praeteritorumGreek Translation bonorum. ManthosBald Theatre Krispis Memomia praeteritorum bonorum. Eleni Varika Memomia praeteritorum bonorum. Minos Volanakis Μνημοσύνη μητέρα των μουσών A. Papathanassopoulou Memomia praeteritorum bonorum.

Odysseas Nikakis Memomia praeteritorum bonorum.

Dimitris Dimitriades Memomia praeteritorum bonorum.

111

41) EnST: Is it by any chance the place named as the Board? FrST: Ne serait-on pas au lieudit la Planche?

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Μήπως κατά σύμπτωση είναι μια Manthos Krispis τοποθεσία που την λένε Σανίδα; Μήπως κατά σύμπτωση είναι μια Eleni Varika τοποθεσία που την λένε Σανίδα; Μήπως τυχόν είναι μια τοποθεσία που Minos Volanakis την λένε Τα Χώματα; Μήπως είμαστε στο μέρος που το λένε A. Papathanassopoulou Σανίδι; Μήπως κατά τύχη είμαστε σ’ ένα μέρος Odysseas Nikakis γνωστό ως Σκηνή; Dimitris Dimitriades Μήπως στο τοπωνύμιο Σαvίδι; Μήπως κατά τύχη βρισκόμαστε σ’ ένα Commedia μέρος που το λένε Σανίδι; Μήπως κατά σύμπτωση είναι μια Bald Theatre τοποθεσία που την λένε Σανίδα;

Example 35 is indicative of the biblical overtone dominating the play, for although the phrase in question is a colloquial one, three translators opted for an expression clearly associated with Christ’s response to Pontius Pilot during his interrogation (‘Συ είπας’). Repetition of the word ‘Saviour’ in example 36 points to its biblical origin but at the same time cancels its primordial value, since it is used as a piece of language which requires further clarification and elaboration as if the word itself would not suffice to draw a clear association; finally, in example 38 the translation of ‘goats’ as ‘ερίφια’ serves the hidden implication of the source text and refers to the Christian image of separating the good from the evil during the Second Coming. Apart from allusions to the Christian narrative, inter-textual references appear very often in the play: the association of the phrase ‘pale for weariness’ with Shelley’s well-known poem and of ‘the wind in the reeds’ with the famous novel ‘The Wind in the Willows’ is not easily made, yet all eight translations assume a lyrical style that reminds the audience of the phrase’s literary origin, despite the fact that it does not allow them to associate it directly with a particular work of literature. Similar is the case of the Latin quote, which Volanakis translates into Greek, maintaining in his translation the sense of grandeur and epic aura found in its Latin counterpart. At this point it is worth looking closer into case 41, where four translators allow their work to

112 accommodate the meta-theatrical comment of the source text with reference to the actual stage (‘Σανίδι’, ‘Σκηνή’). Finally, the following example is provided in order to investigate how the semantic shift of two translations (Varika’s and the Bald theatre’s) into the exact opposite meaning compared to the source text does not alter the text’s intention: on the contrary it intensifies the comment coming straight afterwards in the text about people being ‘bloody ignorant apes.’ 42) EnST: Because he wouldn’t save them. FrST: Parce qu’il n’a pas voulu les sauver.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation

Manthos Krispis Γιατί δεν θέλησε να τους σώσει.

Eleni Varika Γιατί θέλησε να τους σώσει.

Minos Volanakis Γιατί δεν ήθελε να τους σώσει.

A. Papathanassopoulou Γιατί δεν τους έσωσε.

Odysseas Nikakis Επειδή δεν τους έσωσε.

Dimitris Dimitriades Γιατί δεν θέλησε να τους σώσει.

Commedia Γιατί δεν θέλησε να τους σώσει.

Bald Theatre Γιατί θα τους έσωζε.

4.4 Bilingualism

As mentioned earlier in Chapter 2, translators seem to have drawn from both French and English source texts aiming at the audience’s instant comprehensibility and response to the play in terms of theatre’s verbal nature; at the same time they opt for the source text which best suits their interpretation of Beckett’s play and their elements of performance. Following are representative examples of the translators’ choices:

43) FrST: A l’ école sans Pieu ? Sais pas si elle était sans ou avec.

113 Tu dois confondre avec la Roquette.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation -Καλά δε μάθατε στο σχολείο το λόγο του Θεού; Manthos Krispis -Ξέρω γω ποιανού λόγο μάθαμε στο σχολείο. -Μα το επέβαλε ο κανονισμός. -Καλά στο σχολείο δεν σας μάθαιναν το λόγο του Θεού; Eleni Varika -Ξέρω κι εγώ τι μας μαθαίνουν. -Για το σχολείο σου λέω, όχι για την ψειρού. -Δεν μάθατε στο σχολείο το λόγο του Θεού; Minos Volanakis -Τώρα ποιανού λόγο μάθαμε. A. Papathanassopoulou - Odysseas Nikakis - Dimitris Dimitriades - -Καλά στο σχολείο δεν κάνατε θρησκευτικά; Commedia - Ξέρω γω; Bald Theatre -

This text piece only appears in the French Godot. The Greek translations which used it incorporated it into the translation proper by placing it in the respective part of the play, thus expanding the target dramatic text and stressing the difference between Vladimir and Estragon concerning their educational background.

45) EnST: How’s the carrot? /It’s a carrot. FrST: Elle est bonne, ta crotte ? Elle est sucrée.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Πως είναι το καρότο σου; Σαν καρότο. Eleni Varika Είναι καλό το καρότο σου; Είναι γλυκό. Minos Volanakis Πως είναι το καρότο σου; Σαν καρότο. A. Papathanassopoulou Πως είναι το καρότο σου; Σαν καρότο. Odysseas Nikakis Καλό το καρότο; Σαν καρότο.

Dimitris Dimitriades Είναι καλό το καρότο σου; Γλυκό είναι.

Commedia Είναι καλό το καρότο σου; Γλυκό.

Bald Theatre Πως είναι το καρότο σου; Σαν καρότο.

114 The English version of the exchange toys more clearly with the idea of language as a meaningless, self-cancelling power whose arbitrariness ends up explaining itself in a vicious circle.

46) EnST: How old is he? 47) EnST: I’m bringing him to the fair. Eleven. FrST: au marche de Saint-Sauveur. FrST: …Demandez-lui.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Translator’s Name Greek Translation Στο πανηγύρι του Άη Manthos Krispis Έντεκα. Manthos Krispis Σώστη. Eleni Varika Ρωτήστε τον. Στο πανηγύρι του Άη Eleni Varika Minos Volanakis Έντεκα. Σώστη. Στο πανηγύρι του Άη Minos Volanakis Αλεξάνδρα Σώστη. Έντεκα. Παπαθανασοπούλου A. Papathanassopoulou Στο παζάρι. Τον πηγαίνω στο Odysseas Nikakis Odysseas Nikakis Ε, ρώτα τον πανηγύρι. Στην αγορά του Dimitris Dimitriades Ρωτήστε τον. Dimitris Dimitriades Αγίου Σωτήρος. Commedia Ρωτήστε τον. Commedia Στο παζάρι. Bald Theatre Έντεκα. Bald Theatre Στο πανηγύρι.

48) EnST: The Scapegoat’s Agony. The Hard Stool. FrST: La mort du lampiste. Le cancer des vieillards.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Η αγωνία του εξιλαστήριου θύματος. Manthos Krispis Ο χορός στο ταψί. Ο θάνατος του φουκαρά. Eleni Varika Ο καρκίνος των πούρων. Η αγωνία του σφαχτού. Minos Volanakis Ο χορός στο ταψί. Το ψυχοβγάλσιμο. A. Papathanassopoulou Η επώδυνος κένωσις Η αγωνία του ετοιμοθάνατου. Odysseas Nikakis Το δύσκολο χέσιμο. Ο θάνατος του ηλεκτρολόγου. Dimitris Dimitriades Ο καρκίνος των ηλικιωμένων. Ο θάνατος του φουκαρά. Commedia Ο καρκίνος των ραμολιμέντων. Η αγωνία του εξιλαστήριου θύματος. Bald Theatre Ο χορός της δυσκοιλιότητας.

115 49)EnST: Picking grapes from a man FrST: Pourtant nous avons été ensemble dans le called…[snaps his fingers]…can’t think of Vaucluse, j’en mettrais ma main au feu. the name of the man, at a place Nous avons faits les Vendanges, tiens, chez called…[snaps his fingers]…can’t think of nomme Bonnely, a Roussillon the name of the place, do you remember ?

The English version of the text stresses more evidently the idea of repetition and creates yet one more time a game of internal rhythm and recurring pace in the translations it was used.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Μαζεύαμε σταφύλια για κάποιον…να δεν…α ναι…για κάποιον Manthos Krispis Μποννελύ στο Ρουσιγιόν. Μαζεύαμε σταφύλια για κάποιον…να δεις πως τον λέγανε…Το Eleni Varika βρήκα… για κάποιον Μποννελύ στο Ρουσιγιόν. Τρυγούσαμε σταφύλια για κάποιον –να δεις- για κάποιον, ναι, στο Minos Volanakis Ρουσιγιόν. Μαζεύαμε σταφύλια σε κάποιον που τον λέγανε…δεν μπορώ να A. Papathanassopoulou θυμηθώ πως τον λέγανε…σ’ ένα χωριό που λεγότανε…δεν θυμάμαι πως λεγότανε…Δεν θυμάσαι; Μαζεύαμε τα σταφύλια κάποιου που τον λέγανε…δεν μπορώ να Odysseas Nikakis θυμηθώ το όνομά του, σ’ ένα μέρος που το λέγανε…δεν βρίσκω το όνομα του μέρους, εσύ δεν το θυμάσαι; Μαζεύαμε σταφύλια, μάλιστα, σε κάποιον που τον έλεγαν Μποννελύ, Dimitris Dimitriades στο Ρουσιγιόν. Μαζεύαμε σταφύλια για κάποιον που τον λέγανε…δεν μπορώ να Commedia θυμηθώ πως τον λέγανε…σ’ ένα μέρος που λεγότανε…δεν θυμάμαι πως λεγότανε…Δεν θυμάσαι; Μαζεύαμε σταφύλια για κάποιον που λεγόταν…δεν μπορώ να θυμηθώ Bald Theatre το όνομά του, σ’ ένα μέρος που λεγόταν…δεν μπορώ να θυμηθώ το όνομά του, θυμάσαι;

50) EnST: Que voulez-vous ? FrST : Qu’est – ceque tu veux ? I beg your pardon ? Je sais, je sais. Que voulez-vous ? Ah ! que voulez-vous. Exactly. Κε βου λε βου; ManthosTranslator’s Krispis Name Πως είπατεGreek; Translation Κε βου λε βου.

116 Α, κε βου λε βου. Μάλιστα. Eleni Varika Αυτά έχει η ζωή. Καλά, το ξέρω. Κε βου λε βου; Πως είπατε; Minos Volanakis Κε βου λε βου. Α, κε βου λε βου. Ακριβώς. A. Papathanassopoulou Τι τα θες. Que voulez-vous ? Πως είπατε; Odysseas Nikakis Que voulez-vous ? Α, Que voulez-vous Ακριβώς. Dimitris Dimitriades Τι τα θες; Ξέρω, ξέρω. Both the French Commedia C’est la vie! Παρακαλώ; C’est la vie! Α! C’est la vie. Σωστά. and the English text Bald Theatre Κε βου λε βου; Πως είπατε; Κε βου λε βου. Α, κε βου λε βου. Μάλιστα. draw on colloquial conversational motifs which allow the dialogue to continue in a non-sensical, automatic mode. The insertion of a French cliché into the English text (borrowing) underlines language’s lack of meaning, as it bares the phrase from any semantic content and renders it a series of sounds to be used without any specific communicative purpose. Most Greek translators retained Beckett’s use of the French commonplace, with the Commedia Group even replacing it with another, more recent one.

51) EnST : Adam. FrST : Catulle.

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Κάτουλος Eleni Varika Κάτουλος Minos Volanakis Κάτουλος A. Papathanassopoulou Κάτουλος

Odysseas Nikakis Αδάμ

Dimitris Dimitriades Αδάμ Commedia Αδάμ Bald Theatre Αδάμ

At this point the translator’s choice was determined by the kind of allusions s/he would like to include in the Greek text: biblical or literary ones.

117

52) EnST : Do you remember the day I threw myself into the Phone ? FrST: Tu te rappelles le jour ou’ je me suis jeté dans la Durance?

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Θυμάσαι που είχα πέσει στο ποτάμι;

Eleni Varika Θυμάσαι που είχα πέσει στο ποτάμι;

Minos Volanakis Θυμάσαι τη μέρα που ρίχτηκα στο ποτάμι να πνιγώ; A. Papathanassopoulou Θυμάσαι τότε που έπεσα στο Ροδανό; Odysseas Nikakis Θυμάσαι τότε που έπεσα στο ποτάμι; Dimitris Dimitriades Θυμάσαι τη μέρα που ρίχτηκα στο Ροδανό; Commedia Θυμάσαι τη μέρα που έπεσα στο ποτάμι; Bald Theatre Θυμάσαι τη μέρα που έπεσα να πνιγώ στο Ρήνο;

What is interesting to observe here is that, apart from Papathanasopoulou and Dimitriades who placed the text against a French background, the other translations follow neither the English nor the French place names; on the contrary they resort to generalisation in order to reinforce the play’s universal reference. Judging from the examples cited above, it becomes clear that Greek translators followed in Beckett’s footsteps when opting for the translation of words and expressions that appear only in either the English or the French version of the play: it is for the sake of rhythm and immediacy of information as well as on account of every translator’s focus on Beckett’s multiple purposes at a certain point in the text which determined the final outcome.

4.5 Performance

As mentioned earlier in Chapter 3, distinguished members of the Prague School of Semiotics such as Jiří Veltruský, Peter Bogatyrëv and Jindřich Honzl considered the polysemy of theatrical signs. Jiří Veltruský wrote, in “Man and Object in Theatre” that “in theatre a lifeless object can be perceived as a performing subject and a live human being may appear as an element completely without will” based on

118 the premise that “the relationship between the animated and the lifeless in reality is a stable one, whereas theatre has the potential to destabilise this relationship, creating a ‘dialectic antinomy’ between the human body and the object on stage” (A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure and Style 87). Likewise, in his “Semiotics in the Folk Theater” Bogatyrëv gives two examples of the flexibility of signs in theatre: an ermine cape as a sign of royalty and authority on stage regardless of the actual material it is made of, and a man eating a loaf of bread, which does not have any sign value as an object by itself, but as an image presents a picture of starvation. In this way, Bogatyrëv points out the signifying power of the stage which attributes a certain value to theatrical signs, quite distinct from their normal function in a social context (Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions 33-49). In the same line of thought Tadeusz Kowzan, a Polish semiotician, commented on the deliberately specific value of signs on stage: “the spectacle transforms natural signs into artificial ones (a flash of lighting), so it can ‘artificialise’ signs. Even if they are only reflexes in life, they become voluntary signs in the theatre. Even if they have no communicative function in life, they necessarily acquire it on stage" (“The Sign in the Theatre: An Introduction to the Semiology of the Art of the Spectacle” 60). The flexibility and mobility of theatre signs becomes pertinent to the translator’s task in terms of language, since a particular phrase may be endowed with specific sign value and in terms of stage directions: just like no word is purposelessly uttered on stage, no human body or inanimate object is there without having a mission to perform. In the case of Godot, all eight translators handled the stage directions with extreme care following a word-for word translation, in all probability bearing in mind the visual aspect of the performance and the fact that every playwright extracts particular elements from the social context and places them on stage to invest them with a particular sign value which will be interpreted by the target audience.

4.6 Lucky’s speech

Lucky’s ‘think-piece’ is examined separately in the present thesis because it constitutes the epitomy of Beckett’s meta-lingual game with structure, rhythm and allusions in a monologue which breaks down any sense of unity and coherence and destroys the of ‘absolute’ which Western thought has been founded upon.

119 It is this cultivated, yet deeply rooted conviction in the existence of reasoning and cohesion instilled in people’s way of thinking which makes audiences vainly search for some logical argument within Lucky’s incoherence, although there seem to be no connections made; the only connections appear not on the conceptual level but rather on the level of humour and language structure, as if the entire monologue were a game of bricks which are randomly put one next to the other in order to stress the artificiality of the construction itself and bring about laughter by its unexpected combinations. Regarding its origins, Edith Kern argues that Lucky’s speech “ is patterned after a medieval French sermon joyeux, a burlesque sermon of the kind preached in churches during carnivalesque celebration [that] often travesties sacred texts by speaking of food, drink and sex as if they were discussing theology or vice versa” (Beckett's Modernity and Medieval Affinities 62). Indeed, the burlesque element is evidently here as Lucky turns traditional patterns of reasoned discourse and theological debate into farce and mingles the sacred with the profane, intellectual register with underlying slang. In terms of its performance, Lucky’s speech, the center piece of Beckett’s theme of reading and recitation, is physical action itself; as Worton points out, “Pozzo’s first instruction, ‘Think, pig !’ results in a dance since Lucky cannot remember what think means, and so think here means ‘language’, and its manifestation is a ritualised recitation” (Michael Worton, Waiting for Godot and Endgame: Theatre as Text 91); he goes on to cite Camus who in The Myth of Sisyphus defines the absurd as the sense of being caught between the arbitrary irrationality of the world and the rage for order in the mind. It is this rage for order and logical sequence that underlies Lucky’s speech, which is formed as a lecture following Beckett’s firm belief that there is no original meaning inscribed, for meaning is expressed through language and language is not the product of ‘lived’ thought. The result is the production of a disjointed speech triggered by asyndetic associations, which yet have an extremely fixed position in the dramatic text and cannot change places or be omitted, for the structure underlying them actually forms a very precise rhythmical pattern. This rhythmical pattern is vital for the audience’s seduction into the world of the play, for “as the audience loses the thread of a gradually more disrupted sequence, it ceases to try to understand and it is the rhythm which carries it away: …the air the earth

120 the sea the earth abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold on sea on land and in the air I resume for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis the facts are there but time will tell. . . .” Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, 36). It is at this point that the greater demands are made upon the translator: to incorporate linguistic chaos into a definite, pre-determined structure which has to be preserved, otherwise the music, associations and humour of the text would be lost. Despite its apparent haphazardness, the speech is carefully structured around recurrent phrases and words, for example the phrase ‘for reasons unknown’ which appears more often than any other and functions as a catch-phrase which condenses Lucky’s message to the audience, namely the lack of any reasoning. G. C. Barnard emphasizes the consequences that this carefully constructed speech has on the performance requirements by citing Walter Asmus’ reply as to why he speaks Lucky’s monologue much slower and more sensibly than most other actors: “Because Lucky wants to express himself clearly. That’s his desperate attempt, now that he is obliged to talk: to clear something up. And when one wants to put a thing especially clearly, one invariably ends up rambling without end. So he’s always trying to reorganise, concentrate on the next point. His aphorisms overwhelm him; he’s overrun by them. A lot of people said at the time, “Great, you needn’t be afraid if you ‘go up’. Just say anything, then.” But I thought, there’s no period or comma in the sentence—it’s written without punctuation—so if you say one syllable differently, one small word, leave out an ‘and’, it’s like a nuclear explosion. That’s the problem with this sentence: you can’t peel off the tiniest piece or the whole awesome structure collapses” (Samuel Beckett: A New Approach 132).

121 And there is more to it than attention to the elements of performance. As Aspassia Velissariou points out, “Lucky’s think exposes the limits imposed by all prior objectivist thinking; it is a thoroughly post-modern language game that moves at the limit of what has been thought, a speech of liberation set against the metaphysical tyranny of limitations on thought imposed by limitations on language” (“Language in Waiting for Godot” 46). Jeffrey Nealon extends this argument further by advocating that “Lucky’s think is not unreasonable; it is, to coin a word, transreasonable: it does not simply offer us the other side of the dialectic of reason, but moves at and beyond the margins of the dialectic, beyond the limitations that have been placed on language” (Samuel Beckett and the Postmodern: Language Games, Play, and Waiting for Godot 109-110). Based on the above, the translator has to expose and transgresses these limits in Greek as well, mixing bits of grammatical sense and trans-grammatical nonsense in order to efface the borderline and invigorate language beyond its own limitations and into a new, inventive, creative thought. As Klaus Herm who acted as Lucky in Beckett’s Berlin production comments: “in Waiting for Godot, the best example of this dissension and movement at the movements of a language game is the speech that is perhaps the key to the entire play: Lucky’s ‘think’, which can be seen as a transgression and disruption of the limits of the ultimate metagame - Western metaphysics” (Jonathan Kalb, Beckett in Performance 137). Such a language process can be observed in the case of Lucky’s repetitive patterns, which can be divided in two categories: a) words or phrases that re-appear in the exact same form at various points throughout the monologue thus creating a resounding motif, and b) words or phrases which are repeated altered and worn out by overuse or present a circular development.

α) EnST: But time will tell FrST: hors du temps de l’étendue

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Ο χρόνος μόνον θα διευκρινίσει…ο χρόνος θ’ αποκαλύψει Eleni Varika Θα δείξει ο χρόνος…ο χρόνος μόνο θα διευκρινίσει Minos Volanakis Που θα μάθουμε με χρόνους και καιρούς A. Papathanassopoulou Αλλά ο χρόνος θα δείξει Αλλά θα ξεκαθαρίσει ο χρόνος…αλλά θα τους ξεκαθαρίσει ο Odysseas Nikakis χρόνος Dimitris Dimitriades Αλλά έχουμε το χρόνο Commedia Έχουμε το χρόνο Bald Theatre Ο χρόνος μόνον θα διευκρινίσει…ο χρόνος θ’ αποκαλύψει

122

EnST: the skull….the stones FrST: la tête…les pierres

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis Η κεφαλή… οι λίθοι Eleni Varika Η κεφαλή…οι βράχοι Minos Volanakis Η κρανιακή κοιλότης/το κρανίον…οι βράχοι A. Papathanassopoulou Το κεφάλι…οι πέτρες Odysseas Nikakis Το κρανίο…οι πέτρες Dimitris Dimitriades Το κεφάλι…οι πέτρες Commedia Η κεφαλή…οι πέτρες Bald Theatre Το κρανίο…οι λίθοι

In the case of ‘time’, four out of eight translators have remained consistent with the repetition of the exact same phrase so as to create the echoing motif of the original, while the other four repeated with certain modifications in an attempt to elaborate on the meaning and create an emphatic impression, even a threatening one, as in the case of Nikakis. In the translation of ‘skull’, certain translations bear an elevated, formal register such as the one used in medical jargon (‘η κεφαλή’, το κρανίο’, ‘η κρανιακή κοιλότης’) in order to present man as a biological composition of parts, while ‘stones’ has acquired a Biblical overtone in its translation as ‘λίθοι’. b) EnST: in Feckham Peckham Fullham Clapham FrST: en Seine Seine-et-Oise Seine-et-Marne Marne–et-Oise

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Manthos Krispis εις Μαρν-ε-Ουάζ το Σεν Μαρν το Φούλαμ και το Κλάπαμ Eleni Varika Εις το Μαρν-ε-Ουάζ το Σεν Μαρν Εις Φούλαμ και Κλάπαμ και άλλα προάστια τα άλλα παράκτια τα Minos Volanakis άλλα τεράστια A. Papathanassopoulou Στο Φέκαμ Πέκαμ Φούλαμ Κλάπαμ Odysseas Nikakis Στο Φέκαμ-Πέκαμ-Φούλαμ Κλάπαμ Στον Σηκουάνα, Σηκουάνα-και-Ουάζ, Σηκουάνα-και-Μαρν, Dimitris Dimitriades Μαρν-και-Ουάζ Στον Σηκουάνα, Σηκουάνα-και-Ουάζη, Σηκουάνα-και-Μάρνη, Commedia Μάρνη-και-Ουάζη Bald Theatre εις Μαρν-ε-Ουάζ το Σεν Μαρν το Φούλαμ και το Κλάπαμ

FrST: de recherches inachevées inachevées Etabli tabli tabi Ce qui suit qui suit qui suit

ManthosTranslator’s Krispis Name Καθιερώθη…θιερώθηGreek…θιερώθη Translation

123 Επακόλουθον…κόλουθον…κόλουθον Ημιτελών ημιτελών ημιτελών ερευνών Eleni Varika Καθιερώθη ρώθη ρώθη Επακόλουθον κόλουθον κόλοθον Σφάλματος άλματος σφάλμα-σφάλμα-άλμα Minos Volanakis Που καταξιούν, καταξιούν, ταξιούν, αξιούν, ξιούν, ξιούν Συμπεράσματα περάσματα άσματα Ημιτελείς ημιτελείς εργασίες A. Papathanassopoulou Καταδείχτηκε δείχτηκε δείχτηκε Το ακόλουθο κόλουθο κόλουθο Των ημιτελών ημιτελών ημιτελών Odysseas Nikakis Έχει καθιερωθεί, ρωθεί, ρωθεί Ως επακόλουθον, κόλουθον, κόλουθον Τις ημιτελείς τις ημιτελείς έρευνες Dimitris Dimitriades Έχει καταδειχθεί, δειχθεί, δειχθεί Αυτό που έπεται έπεται έπεται Των ημιτελών ημιτελών ημιτελών Commedia Έχει καθιερωθεί, ρωθεί, ρωθεί Ως επακόλουθον, κόλουθον, κόλουθον Bald Theatre Καθιερώθη…θιερώθη…θιερώθη

In the first example, the circular development of the place name becomes evident in translation through , with translators opting either for the English or the French original –with the exception of Krispis and the Bald theatre that incorporated parts of both source texts in their translations; what is worth noticing is that the Commedia group attempted a ‘Greekalisation’ of the sound of the place-name by adding the suffix ‘-η’, while Volanakis resorted to expansion and addition and created a rhyming couplet which gives the sense of circular movement through alliteration. In the second example, the degeneration of speech in the original is reflected in the translations with a repetition-with-a-difference, which produces fragments of the initial word. At this point, it would be interesting to elaborate again on Volanakis, who not only provides fragments of the initial word, but makes sure that these fragments constitute autonomous words on their own right; as a result, the initial word may be decomposing and dying, yet every time new meanings and concepts are born from its decay, only to be cancelled by the word that follows in a never-ending game of the search for meaning. On the level of allusions, the greatest challenge for the translator lies in the mixture of real and invented proper names, for it is mainly from this rich punning that Beckett derives humour in Lucky’s speech. In particular, the linguistic origins of Essy-in-Possy are said to be the “English pronunciations of ‘esse’ and ‘posse’— ‘being’ and ‘being able’” (June Schlueter & Enoch Brater, “Who is Godot? A

124 Semiotic Approach to Beckett's Play” 60-61), while Berne-en-Bresse in the French text is a town which does not in fact exist but, according to Harry Cockerham, “recalls Bourg-en-Bresse, a centre not of learning but of gastronomy, so Beckett’s replacement of Bourg by the Swiss Berne is probably to be explained by the association with the verb ‘berner’: to hoodwink or hoax” (Bilingual Playwright 56). Similar resonances are traced in the names of most ‘scholars’ Lucky mentions. Puncher and Wattman in the English text stand as Anglicanised versions of the French Poincon et Wattman, which helps to explain the ‘public works’ they are involved in, since ‘wattman’ in French means tram-driver, and Poincon echoes the identical noun meaning ticket punch. Cockerham provides a second layer of interpretation and argues that “they are vaguely reminiscent of actual authorities such as James Watt or the French mathematician Louis Poinsot” (56). Beckett’s art of puns and allusions reaches a new climax in the case of Testew and Cunard (Testu et Conard in the French text) which are associated with slang expressions meaning ‘stubborn and stupid’ or may refer to the pair testicle/testicule and vagina (‘con’ in slang). Vivian Mercier’s thorough investigation comes up with yet a wider range of suggestions by associating these names with real people, prominent in the world of learning: “Testu, author of an Histoire universelle des titres de toutes les nations (1779-81) or Jean-Leo Testut, author of a standard medical textbook, Précis d’anatomie descriptive, which has appeared in many editions since 1926 and Conard, the eminently respectable Paris publishing house responsible for standard editions of numerous French authors” (Beckett/Beckett 83). Similar is the case of Fartov and Belcher in both French and English texts which draw clear associations with the activities they imply (to fart and to belch). Finally, Steinweg et Petermann (Steinweg and Peterman in the English text) are slightly more obscure because of the additional German element they include: they incorporate a humorous allusion to the English underworld slang ‘peterman’ which means ‘cracksman’ and the French ‘piter’ meaning ‘to fart’ but at the same time exploit the of the German language by presenting these two authorities as dense as stone, since ‘stein’ and ‘Peter’ mean ‘stone’ in German and Greek respectively; according to Cockerham, this would also account for the fact that in the remainder of Lucky’s speech stones are mentioned seven times (Bilingual Playwright 59).

125

Translator’s Name Greek Translation Της Εσσύ-ιν-Πόσσυ Των Πουανσόν και Βάτμαν Manthos Krispis Των Τεστύ και Κονάρ Των Ποπώφ και Μπελσέ Των Στάινβεγκ και Πέτερμαν Της Βέρνης –εν-Βρέσση Των Πουενσόν και Βάτμαν Eleni Varika Των Τεστύ και Κονάρ Των Φαρτώφ και Μπελσέ Των Στάινβεγκ και Πέτερμαν Των Οντοσών και Ενδυνάμειων έργων Του Γουάτμαν και Ποιοσναν Minos Volanakis Του Αρχίδαμου Τεστύ και Μαλαχία Κονάρ Παρά την πρόοδον εις τα συστήματα διατροφής και αφοδεύσεως Των Στάινβεγκ και Πέτερμαν Της Βέρνης εν Βρέσση Των Ζουμπά και Βάτμαν Των Αρχιντί και Μουνάρ A. Papathanassopoulou Παρόλα τα άλματα που σημειώθηκαν εις τον τομέα της διατροφής και της αποπατήσεως Των Στόουνμαν και Πέτραβεγκ Εν Σαχλόμ της Σκάντεν Των Φουκώ και Λακάν Odysseas Nikakis Των Έκο και Μέκο Των Φρικάρ και Βροντώφ Των Ανόημαν και Βλάκεμπεργκ Της Βέρνης εν Βρέσση Των Πουενσόν και Βατμάν Dimitris Dimitriades Των Ορχιντί και Μαλακάρ Των Φάρτοφ και Μπέλχερ Των Στάινβεγκ και Πέτερμαν Της Βέρνης εν Βρέσση Των Πουενσόν και Βατμάν Commedia Των Ορκιντί και Μουνιέ Των Κλανώφ και Ξέρνερ Των Στάινβεγκ και Πέτερμαν Της Εσσύ-ιν-Πόσσυ Των Πουανσόν και Βάτμαν Bald Theatre Των Τεστύ και Κονάρ Των Πορδώφ και Μπελσέ Των Στάινβεγκ και Πέτερμαν

A study of the above table leads to certain conclusions and at the same time raises questions as to the translation choices undertaken by the Greek translators. Manthos Krispis and Eleni Varika adopted a translation approach based on the transliteration of names, thus retaining their sound effect, which however fails to create any associations in the target language. It wouldn’t be far-fetched to claim that socio-political restrictions in Krispis’ case would not allow for slang to creep in the text even under the guise of allusions, while the change of ‘Fartov’ into ‘Popov’

126 seems to have taken place for reasons of euphony rather than as a reference to the renowned Russian politician. Likewise, Varika obliterated any association to slang expressions, because her translation followed the policy orders of the newly-founded Peiramatiki Skene which wished to attract all-family members to its repertoire and therefore adopted a conservative outlook on language. Volanakis, on the other hand, delved deep into Beckett’s disjoined language and transferred the underlying meaning in Greek by recreating the allusions so as to make them recognisable by the Greek audience: through addition and coinage he delivered the concept of ‘Essy’ and ‘Possy’ as ‘being’ and being able to’, he created a mixture of military titles and slang in the case of ‘Testew and Cunard’ and elaborated on the images of ‘Fartov and Belcher’ by providing a phrase that employs a high-tone register in order to talk about every day bodily functions such as fart and belch. After him, other translators imitated his mixture of nonsensical language units with real words in order to invent a new ; Nikakis and Papathanasopoulou changed the underlying semantic implication of a name, yet retaining its form and its sound associations regarding the person’s rank or country of origin (‘Ζουμπά και Βάτμαν’, ‘Έκο και Μέκο’, ‘Ανόημαν και Βλάκεμπεργκ’, ‘Φρικάρ και Βροντώφ’). Dimitriades veered away from his strict transliteration policy regarding names only in the case of ‘Testew and Cunard’ (‘Ορχιντί και Μαλακάρ’), but other than that he did not transfer any of the original’s wordplay into the target language. The Commedia Group moved a step further and tampered with the text’s allusions also in the case of Fartov and Belcher (‘Κλανώφ και Ξέρνερ’), whereas the Bald theatre abandoned their transliteration strategy only in the case of ‘Fartov’ to provide a playful equivalent (‘Πορδώφ’). An analysis of Lucky’s think-piece would not be complete without a final observation which sheds insightful light on the entire drama translation process by highlighting the importance of the ‘arbitrary’ factor (see Chapter 2, p.23). Lucky’s monologue includes a reference to “the death of Bishop Berkeley” (English source text) or “la mort de ” (French source text). All translators, apart from Volanakis, opted for the former or the latter original, which is often the case with Godot’s bilingualism, as mentioned above. Volanakis, however, translated this part as “since the days of the philosopher Emmanuel Kant” [my translation], which defies both source texts. Moreover, Eleni Varika includes an entire sequence in her translation which exists neither in the English nor in the French source text and is

127 produced by the translator in a Beckettian style; in this case, the translator has taken the liberty to interfere with the source play-text by adding a dialogue sequence of her own.103 Last but not least, the performance text of Godot translated by Odysseas Nikakis includes handwritten notes at the point of “Testew and Cunard” which write “Μουνιγιάκ-Μπουρδώ, Πορδόφσκυ-Χούφτερμαν, Βαριεμάρ”: these represent some of the attempts the director and actors made during rehearsals to provide the most successful translation for Beckett’s slang wordplay, taking into account the performance rhythm this time. These three examples present evidence for the fact that in an investigation of theatre translation the arbitrary factor should not be downplayed either in the form of the translator’s decision to take liberties with the source text on his own initiative based on his idiosyncratic interpretation of the play or in the form of the changes actors and directors affect on the translation text, which result in the performance text often being very different from the original. After all, both translation (i.e. language) and theatre are living and breathing entities, constantly undergoing changes, since they follow the pace of life itself.

103 After the lines “Yes yes, let your friend go, he stinks so. [Silence.]” (Waiting for Godot 80), Varika has added the following exchange: ΕΣΤΡΑΓΚΟΝ: Τίποτα δεν θυμάμαι. Εσύ μου το’πες. ΒΛΑΝΤΙΜΙΡ:Έχεις δίκιο. (Στον Πότζο): Ο φίλος μου φοβάται. ΕΣΤΡΑΓΚΟΝ: Δεν υπάρχει λόγος να φοβάται. ΒΛΑΝΤΙΜΙΡ Α, να σου πω εκείνοι οι άνθρωποι που είδες, πώς εξαφανίστηκαν; ΕΣΤΡΑΓΚΟΝ: Δεν ξέρω. ΒΛΑΝΤΙΜΙΡ Ίσως να’ναι κάπου κρυμμένοι και να μας κατασκοπεύουν. ΕΣΤΡΑΓΚΟΝ: Αυτό είναι. ΒΛΑΝΤΙΜΙΡ Ή μπορεί απλώς να σταμάτησαν κάπου. ΕΣΤΡΑΓΚΟΝ: Βέβαια. ΒΛΑΝΤΙΜΙΡ Για να ξαποστάσουν. ΕΣΤΡΑΓΚΟΝ: Για να ξεκουραστούν. ΒΛΑΝΤΙΜΙΡ Ίσως και να γύρισαν πίσω. ΕΣΤΡΑΓΚΟΝ: Βέβαια. ΒΛΑΝΤΙΜΙΡ Θα’ ταν όραμα. ΕΣΤΡΑΓΚΟΝ: Ψευδαίσθηση. ΒΛΑΝΤΙΜΙΡ Αντικατοπτρισμός. ΕΣΤΡΑΓΚΟΝ: Ψευδαίσθηση. ΠΟΤΖΟ:Τι περιμένει;

128 Chapter Five: The Final Countdown

“A work is finished, not when it is completed, but when he who labours at it from within can just as well finish it from without.”

Maurice Blanchot, L'Espace littéraire, 1955

5.1 The Idiosyncratic Nature of Theatre Language

As discussed in the beginning of the present thesis, drama and translation have many things in common, since the staging of a play in its SL is itself considered a form of translation104: the written code of the page is decoded by the actors’ body and is re-encoded into a combination of image and sound to be presented to an audience. As Jean Alter argues, in the dramatic text the representational function is carried out with literary codes (the written language), while in the play as performance with codes of behaviour (staging techniques) (A Sociosemiotic Theory of Theatre 247). In theatre, therefore, a code –a sign of systems– is translated into another. Alter observes that while all performing arts operate in this dual framework, it is only in theatre that the audience actually sees both faces of this duality. In a concert, the audience does not read the score but only hears the music played by the musicians who have assimilated the ‘textual code’ and present the finished product to the spectators. Likewise in a ballet, we do not watch the dance exercises or the timed, step by step parts of the choreography; all we see is the final result of the dancers’ efforts as a completed, performable product. It is only in theatre that “articulation is viewed as a confrontation, with literary and dramatic codes105 vying for first place,

104 It should be pointed out that the present thesis views the staging of the play as a form of ‘translation’ in terms of the interrelation of the systems involved rather than the dominance of the written text in the hierarchy of these systems, which is a problematic perception, as it stems from the idea of the pre- eminence of the written text, which presupposes that there should be “a kind of semantic equivalence between the linguistic sign system and the system of performance signs into which the written text is ‘translated’ and leads to the assumption that there is a single right way of reading, and hence performing, the text” (Ubersfeld 1978b, 15-16). 105 i.e. dramatic and performance codes respectively, according to the used in the present thesis. An interesting point concerning the terminology in the field of drama translation is raised by

129 while in music and ballet one face is clearly subordinate to the other” (Alter 250). Such a realisation leads to questions regarding the extent to which the translator should take the text’s performance potential seriously into account. To be sure, the elements of performance are there in any dramatic text, but if they do not determine what will be ultimately staged, why should the translator bother with them in the first place? Why not produce a purely literary text, which will then be adjusted to the needs of the company by the director and actors themselves? While the latter is actually part of contemporary practice, as discussed in Chapter Two, it is primarily dictated by theatre politics rather than a necessity stemming from the nature of the translator’s work. Turning to our question, the code of the written text does fundamentally determine what will be coded in the performance. Words need to contain a particular style and intonation, which will contribute to character interpretation; the actors need to move on stage with a particular motive inscribed in the dramatic text –it is this motive which will determine their body language (kinesics) and interaction with other characters; last but not least, the play (with its linguistic and extra-linguistic aspects) needs to be infiltrated into the cultural and theatrical reality of its time in order to be accepted by the target audience. Therefore, the translator has to process and integrate in the dramatic TT the fundamental elements of performance which relate to speech deliverance, stage proxemics and, above all, to the cultural/dramatic forces of influence.

5.2 Social Encounters of the Third Kind

Culture and society, thus, shape the outcome of drama translation, the former in its anthropological definition provided in Chapter One and the latter as a concept more restricted in place and time concerning the specific agents of a cultural community that shape its norms and are in turn shaped by them. The role of culture in theatre translation has been treated in the present thesis in Bassnett’s terms who maintains that “a theatre text is not universal in nature; on the contrary, it is deeply

Joseph Che Suh who remarks that “this proliferation of terminology suggests that scholars and researchers in the area of drama translation have been working (and probably continue to do so) in isolation. Research in this area could experience significant strides forward if researchers carried out investigations or analyses with prior knowledge of others’ works. That way they would be able to decide based on sufficient justification whether or not to coin new words to describe translation phenomena which are probably not unique to their own individual experiences’ ”. See “Compounding Issues on the Translation of Drama/Theatre Texts,”Meta, Vol.47, No 1, 2002, 53.

130 embedded in the culture that produces it” (“Translating for the Theatre: The Case Against Performability” 107). She characterises the notion of universality as “old- fashioned” and firmly states that “the written text ceases to appear as the quintessential yet incomplete component of theatre, and may be perceived rather as an entity in its own right that has a particular function at a given point in the development of culturally individualistic theatres” (110). Aaltonen works in the same frame of mind. With regard to the power of culture as a shaping force, Aaltonen states in her research on the manipulation of otherness in translated drama that “the translator makes conscious or unconscious choices, which are not accidental by nature, but imposed on her/him by the system to which the completed translation will belong as an element” (“Rewriting the Exotic” 26-33). She further asserts that the survival of the drama translator depends on how willingly s/he follows the conventions of the system –if the cultural system is one that assimilates and appropriates foreign elements– or how tolerantly the system views different translational choices and whether it is open enough to accept varying degrees of exoticism in the translation of theatre texts: “in translation, foreign drama is transplanted into a new environment, and the receiving theatrical system sets the terms on which this is done” (26-27). It is the spatio-temporal element of culture, therefore, into which both the source and target texts are immersed that accounts for their inherent differences; it is culture which shapes the theatrical codes of the source and target stage; and it is culture again which determines the ultimate reception of the theatre translation by a multi-faceted target public, depending on whether the text meets the expectations of an audience who have assimilated specific norms and conventions. Yet, why should we be so concerned about the mechanisms that determine the translations which reach the stage? Does it have any practical value other than an academic one to investigate the language of drama translations? The answer lies in the cultural element of drama language, and in turn drama translation, that renders it a decisive factor in the course of a nation’s linguistic and social development. Vassilis Rotas outlines the situation in Greece in the 1960s, when inter-culturalism veered towards cultural dominion and connects inextricably the language spoken on stage with the nation’s freedom: “The heaviest blow our language has suffered is the linguistic distortion imposed upon our people which has made them

131 incapable of thinking as free men […] This has become apparent in all cultural products and above all in the theatre.[…] And why this happened, one may ask. Because the theatre has made all sorts of compromise in order to attract audiences: it has adopted people’s colloquialisms in an attempt to keep its customers; it has been staging pornography and trivialities which advertising keeps in the spotlight; and does not dare to touch upon the burning issues of our country, but only puts on some ancient tragedy or Shakespeare’s play every now and then merely to remind us of its presence. It lacks courage, because the basic presupposition is missing: freedom. The freedom of dramatic speech mirrors the freedom of the people: their freedom to think, judge, control, express themselves. And this freedom is nowhere else more fully expressed than in theatre” (“Theatre and Language: Above all the Freedom of Speech” 24-25) In a few lines, Rotas provides us with a complete picture of his contemporary reality and plants stage language well into the socio-political arena: he highlights the commercial relationship between theatre professionals and theatre audiences, he points out the promotion mechanisms which help a drama work maintain its popularity, and reviles against his contemporary theatre people because they dare not address the puzzling issues of their times. The situation he describes is not far from our days and boils down to a complete absence of spiritual freedom –both now and then. In other words, drama language – both in plays of indigenous production and in translations - reflects and at the same time influences the cultural standards of a nation and its ability to assert its cultural identity. The importance of the language heard on stage can also be seen in another viewpoint, namely the one supporting that “for those to whom the original language texts are inaccessible, any author’s reputation and the assessment of his/her literary achievement lies, to some extent, in the hands of translators” (Batty, “Beckett, Translation, Mise en Scene and Authorship” 2). Translators, therefore, function as a cultural bridge and infiltrating means which help the target audience communicate with the source culture and evaluate it through the language of drama translation. In fact, contemporary translation theoreticians point out that translated texts can culturally enrich the target audience through exoticism: because of globalisation, they

132 claim that future translations need to be as foreignising as possible and retain exotic elements of the source culture within the limits of reasonable acceptability. As a result, exoticism in translation paradoxically reduces foreignness and brings cultures closer in a state of learning and exchange. Nico Wiersema specifically argues: “The foreignising trend contributes to learning and understanding foreign cultures. Context explains culture, and adopting (not necessarily adapting) a selection of words enriches the target text, makes it more exotic and thus more interesting for those who want to learn more about the culture in question. Eventually, these new words may find their way into the target . We translators will then have contributed to enriching our own language with loan words” (“Globalization and Translation” 2). In support of his argument, he maintains that “because of the current trend of globalisation, the translator no longer has the absolute need to always find a translation of a term in the target language if this would make the target-language text lose credibility” and believes that it is now acceptable up to a certain degree to use source-language terms in the target-language text (‘excessive translation’) in order to make the target audience more familiar with the source culture (2). Since the translator, therefore, undertakes the role of a cultural intermediary, it becomes evident that a study of the language heard on stage is of utmost importance for both the linguistic and socio-cultural learning of the target audience. Based on the above, the present thesis has been investigating the extent to which theoretical premises on translation coupled with cultural/theatre policy apply in the case of Greek theatre translation. Greek theoreticians and practitioners share Bassnett’s views about translation as a product of a particular culture and provide examples drawn from Greek theatre reality. In particular, journalist and translator Dimitris Daskalopoulos argues that “the translations published some 70 or 50 years ago stand evidence of the particular linguistic, cognitive and ideological orientation certain translators had at a given point in time; if these people were assigned with the task of translating the same plays today, they would provide totally different translation versions.”106 In the same frame of mind, journalist Ioanna Kleftogianni in her article “The Rockiness of Translation” stresses the significance of the historical and socio-political parameter by pointing out that “some translations simply ‘bury’ the

106 “Translations and Translators”, Ta Nea, 04/10/1997, p.: P04

133 original and call for a new translation that can keep up with the times”(Eleftherotypia 2002). On investigating the causes and motives behind drama translation, the research of the present thesis has shown that the criterion of language in the sense of linguistic evolution and substitution of outmoded patterns with new ones is not the fundamental parameter that determines the content of a new translation or the decision for a re-translation; rather, the key factors are the different socio-cultural conditions, changes in theatre policy, the economically-bound decisions of the translation initiator and the ‘connections’ among theatre people from all walks of theatre professions –be it actors, directors, playwrights, translators, theatre reviewers or drama theoreticians (see Chapter 2). These factors play a crucial role in all stages of the translation process: they affect the extent to which the translation text will border on translation or adaptation of the source text; they indicate the theatre venue which will stage the translation outcome; they determine the advertising and marketing policy adopted for the promotion of the play in the target culture, which also involves the decision whether the translator will take credit for it or the translation initiator’s name will be the ace in the theatre company’s sleeve (see Appendix B and C). Last but not least, they shape the time span that a given translation will last: this is actually determined by the status of the translator and his established reputation in the field rather than the value of the translated text per se, as certain translations have endured the test of time, although from some point onwards they no longer met the linguistic needs of their audiences, merely because their language was a record of a renowned translator’s , which functioned as a pole of attraction for the target audience, thus contributing to box office success (as in the case of Pavlos Matesis). Apart from theatre and cultural policies, have Greece’s socio-political conditions shaped the translation outcome every time? The findings featuring in Appendix B and C verify such an assumption. According to Appendix B, during the years of the German Occupation (1940-1944) the smaller increase in the number of English–speaking plays is observed.107 Appendix C reveals that over the Nazi Occupation years (1940-1944), Greek theatre appears to have turned to situation comedies, farces, romantic plays or family dramas in order to avoid any relation with the harsh reality of war surrounding it. Sample titles of the period in question are The

107 The History of Modern Greek Theatre by Laskaris chronicles the performances of those years and points out that German-speaking plays and shows (cabaret performances or musicals) outnumber those belonging to the countries of the Allied forces, namely English and American ones (120-123).

134 Skin Game (1940), a story about two rival families and the disastrous results of the feud between them, What Every Woman Knows (1940), Petticoat Influence (1940), An Ideal Husband (1940), all of which are comedies based on the concept of extra- marital affairs, The Baroness and the Butler (1943) and Strange Interlude (1942), which are romantic plays on the problem of unfullifilled love, as well as The Doctor’s Dilemma (1941) and Our Little Town (1943) which tackle psychological issues and existential questions. Such choice of repertoire would be justified for a country going through a period of peace, but hardly touches upon the everyday problems of a nation suffering from starvation and freedom deprivation. It is more than evident that the theatre professionals of the period –in both state and privately owned theatre halls- were trying to provide theatre audiences with an escape from the reality they experienced and at the same time avoid punishment from the Nazi administration. Even among historical dramas, the only one featuring during this period is Ceasar and Cleopatra (1941-1942), in all likelihood because it focuses on the love story rather than on the war issue. It is not until the end of 1943, when the end of the war looms near, that Sherwood's play The Road to was staged, which is a comedy concerning Hannibal’s botched invasion of Rome and highlights the stupidity of war. In 1944, when the resistance of the Greek people was strongly felt and the German invaders started withdrawing their occupation forces from the country, God’s Little Acre (1944) reaches the stage of Karolos Koun theatre to depict a popular uprising in the southern United States by millworkers laid off from work and trying to gain control of the factory equipment which their jobs and their lives depend on. The Occupation years are, therefore, a revealing period which shows the impact of socio- cultural forces on theatre production and helps us consider stage language as the index of the nation’s socio-cultural and political status. In the years after World War II, the impact of politics on theatre is also evident, as the civil conflict between Left and Right political parties culminates into a climax. John Priestley’s An Inspector Calls which was first staged in 1948 by Karolos Koun, to become a box-office success for all theatre companies which staged it in the following years (see Appendix C), served as a battleground between opposing political movements. In that same year, M. Karagatsis attacks the play in his article “Here Comes Stupidity!”: “John Priestley used to be a good writer and normal man. Now he turned into a communist -and naturally into a horrible playwright” (Kritiki 100-101), while Spyros Xatzaras remarks of the period: “When

135 the Inspector is staged, hysterical right wing supporters raise a barrage of accusations against it and characterize it as communist propaganda” (Kallitexniki Epitheorisi 50). It is also not accidental that right after the war, two plays appear almost simultaneously on the Greek stage: “Burn the Dead” by Rice and “All My Sons” by Miller (see Appendix C); their presence is well adjusted into the Greek socio-political reality which has suffered a recent war experience and focuses on the issues discussed in these two plays, namely the exploitation of war by people in power against the heroism of ordinary men. What is more, in Greece translations have been used as weapons for the national uprise against the Turks. Working in the years of the revolution against Turkish occupation, Polylas comments on his translation work: “I think of myself as offering to my fellow countrymen the translation of Shakespeare’s great works in an attempt to wake them up and help them ponder upon the usefulness of these works to our present situation; if my fellow countrymen are moved by the beauty of this reviving idea, they may give me credit for bringing them in contact with such valuable treasure and then they may forgive my translation mistakes, until another translator appears with a better one”(Sideris, “Shakespeare in Greece: Enlightened and Sterile Translators” 21). What is more, it is no coincidence that the only fall in the number of English-speaking plays is noted during the dictatorship years (Appendix B) when particular drama genres, such as comedy and farce, and a censored type of language were allowed to reach the stage: the translation versions of Waiting for Godot which belong to that era include changes of register or altogether omissions and paraphrases in cases of taboo language or political allusions against the ruling regime. Judging from the above, it becomes evident that in the case of drama translation in Greece, culture, politics and economics, not linguistics, rule.

5.3 Translation: a never-ending process

Polylas’ aforementioned remarks point to yet another aspect of the translation process which has become apparent during the research of the present thesis: its on- going nature which literally defies any sense of fixity. Beckett’s work has been an

136 ideal study case, for his experience as playwright, translator and director of his plays impressed upon him that such a thing as a fully stabilised text does not exist: “productions vary according to the exigencies of theatres and casts, directors lapse into error and actors forget their lines. A stabilised or definitive text is not of this planet” (Dukes, Beckett Studies 529). In this statement, Beckett summarises the number of cultural factors that take part in the process of staging a play and rules out the possibility of a ‘definitive text’ thus setting an example for his future translators. He kept on ‘correcting’ his plays testing them against their stage realisation; as Antonia Rodriguez-Gago observes, “all cuts and structural changes suggested by Beckett were intended, I believe, to ‘clarify’ the meaning of the text when heard in the theatre, given that the spectators cannot turn the pages to solve problems of interpretation that may arise. […] Beckett acted on his belief that audiences are unable to concentrate on something for more than an hour” (Beckett Studies 440). Taking into account the verbal nature of theatre and the best possible way for communicating with his audience, Beckett saw the process of staging as an act of textual revision, as an open-ended, continuous act of creation, the “definitive text,” de facto, mercurial, becoming elusive, a perpetually deferred entity” (Cohn, Beckett’s German Godot from Journal of Modern Literature, Volume 22, Number 1). In this way, Beckett’s writing, translating and directing “give rise to questions about the relationship of theatrical performance to its published record and so about the nature, the quality, the validity of the theatrical experience itself” (Notebooks, Volume IV xiii). His ever- correcting activity upon his “reading text” well after it has been published and staged forces us to re-evaluate the centrality of performance in Modernist drama, since the result was a proliferation of published and produced texts as different versions of the same written record. The disregard Beckett showed for the sanctity of his published plays led Gontarski to the statement that “Beckett in the theatre has himself destabilised Beckett on the page” (“Editing Beckett” 198). And it is true. Beckett overcame the problem of textual authority or validity, when he became immersed in the collaborative nature of the theatrical enterprise itself. In a letter to Polish critic Marek Kedzierski on November 15 1981, he admitted, “The cuts and simplifications are the result of my work on the play as director and function of the players at my disposal. To another director they may not seem desirable” (Gontarski, “Editing Beckett” 205). Beckett’s directing work helped him see the need to give breathing space to future directors, that is, future readers. In

137 this way, he paved the way for his future translators, too, to reconcile the traditional demands for a single text closest to the author's final textual intention and the post- modern notion of the multiplicity of texts, particularly in the theatre. Beckett’s multiple revised texts, both in his translations as well as within a single language, circulated along with the ‘final’ versions publishing houses made available to the public. In light of the present thesis, this renders translation not a literary equivalent of the source text, but essentially a new and to the original, adapted each time to the needs of a certain performance. Greek translation appears to follow in this frame of mind. In his article108 Daskalopoulos mentions the names of several well-known Greek translators such as Patrikios, Mendrakos and Vlavianos and assumes that they do not think their translations to be final and irreplaceable; “some time later, someone else will revisit these texts and face their challenge under the light of the general conditions which will prevail then” he argues, and goes on to add that “it is repetition which gives a unique sense of magic to the translation venture and adventure.” In a translation conference on the future of theatre translation in Greece held at Chityrio theatre in 2005, translator, actor and director Vassilis Papavassiliou underscores that “translation and performance constitute the multiple dimensions of the world, thanks to which we can forever renew our quest for meaning, thus refuelling the hermeneutics of our culture”(Kathimerini 2005). The study case of Waiting for Godot carried out for the purposes of the present thesis verifies the above remarks and shows that theatre translation in Greece actually echoes Beckett’s practice of offering a series of translated performing texts. The survey presented in Appendix C shows that in 1981 alone three different translations of Godot were staged, while from 1991 to 2000, i.e. a time period less than ten years, six different translations were presented to the target audience. In all these different translation versions produced, Greek translators incorporated additions, omissions, allusions to contemporary reality and changes which came along during the rehearsals, always taking into account their target audience. Translation is, indeed, an ever-lasting activity adapted to the temporary life of a theatre performance.

5.4 Future Perspectives

108 “Translations and Translators”, Ta Nea, 04/10/1997, p.: P04

138

The conclusions drawn above regarding the significance of theatre translation, its cultural role and its ever-changing nature depending on the socio-political context of the target audience give rise to certain concerns about the future of translation, especially in relation to the position of lesser-spoken languages and cultures, such as Greek, in today’s global village. Wiersema may have hailed the advent of globalisation as a means of facilitating the task of the translator by the way of foreignisation and as a process that allows cultures to collaborate and interact with flexibility, yet not all contemporary translationologists share his view. In his paper “Globalising Translation: What Hope for the Translator?” in 2005, Nigerian translation researcher Salawu Adewuni speculates upon the effect of globalisation on translation and characterises the former as a ‘death trap’ for the latter. He specifically argues that “at the beginning, when there was no global village, translation had an unconditional mission to remove the languages and cultural barriers among people and transfer the culture and language of the source-text to the culture and language of the target-text; by narrowing the understanding of people to just the language, norms and principles of the global village, globalisation makes other cultures and languages irrelevant and gradually disengages the translator” (4). Although his fears about the disappearance of the translation profession and the lurking danger of a cultural revolution may seem exaggerated at first, his observations about the economic and cultural policies operating behind the dominion of English as the of the global village echo a reality all too familiar to the Greek audience: “translation units have gradually disappeared in some international establishments partly because of the funding problems but mostly because of the monolingual tendency of workshops, seminars, and conferences; most presentations are now done in English; it has become the language of conferences, workshops, presentations, postal, and publishers; it has gone ‘glocal’” (5). The facts and figures provided in Chapter 2 of the present thesis about the number of children learning English and its incorporation into the national curriculum stand proof to Adewuni’s claim that English has been using the advancement of and its establishment as the language of business in order to gradually penetrate all other layers of culture as well, starting from children (5). This belief is also shared by David Nelson, a translation theoretician, who maintains that “parents are not left out in the plot to undermine some languages by encouraging their children to familiarise themselves with the norms set by the modern times as a

139 means to get a job” (“Last word looms for half the world’s languages” 1). The two opposing viewpoints expressed by Wiersema and Adewuni respectively are summarised in Mohammed Moussalli’s words, researcher of cultural studies and translation: “Critics of globalisation argue that this cultural invasion will lead to the disintegration of identity and the spirit of culture. In opposition, its cheerleaders consider the decline of cultural distinctions as a substantial sign of enhanced communication, a measure of integration of societies, and a scope toward unification of civilisations”(“Impact of globalization” 8). Proving the validity and truth of one or the other side is not an issue here; after all, the mere establishment of the Endangered Language Fund shows that the situation can be at least characterised as disconcerting. What is crucial is to look into the roots of this emerging problem as translation researchers, to shed any notions on the superiority of one language over the other in terms of linguistics and to set the act of translation well into the realm of socio-political studies, as a perfect mirror of the workings of a country’s cultural policy. Aaltonen aptly uses the metaphor of the iceberg in order to show the value orientations or filters which underlie a culture’s visible behaviour and controls people’s perception of the world. (“Research of theatre translation: the challenge of an iceberg” 5). Instead of pondering upon any imminent threat the Finnish language lay be facing, she provides hard evidence of the social policies that pull the strings behind the kind of theatre plays translated in Finland. First of all, she makes a very shrewd observation about the publishing strategy of her homeland in theatre texts, namely that the greater part of both domestic and foreign drama in Finland only exists as play-scripts, which makes their accessibility heavily restricted, and recalls: “Commercial literary publishers have not been interested in publishing drama in printed form since the 1920s, when cheap paperback booklets made both Finnish and foreign drama available both for the theatres and for those interested in reading it.[…] The few contemporary translations, which get published are an exception rather than a rule in Finland: forty- three full-length Irish plays had been registered for copyright in translation by the theatre unions, but only six had been published in printed form by literary publishers. […] The situation differs in England and Germany, where the number of

140 drama translations printed in book form is considerable. The literary and the theatrical systems in these countries may overlap, and a printed version may come out at the same time as the production as a tie-in” (7-8). Greek reality can provide the researcher with similar examples: the closing-down of the publishing houses Dodoni and Aigokeros which specialised in drama publications, as well as the recent Greek theatre policy of incorporating the play text in the programme of the performance as an attempt to rekindle the audience’s interest in the play text prove just that. Although a play-script is meant to be staged, not read, still an increase of the circulation of the dramatic text and the audience’s easy accessibility to it are vital for a robust indigenous and translated theatre production. In order to show that theatre texts follow the conventions of the stage, Aaltonen moves on to a theatre policy mentioned in Chapter 2 of the present thesis with reference to English theatres: namely, the fact that as soon as the text leaves the hands of the translator, Finnish theatres employ a dramaturge to prepare the text for the stage according to the target theatrical conventions, a task sometimes undertaken by a stage-director who may rewrite parts of the play in the rehearsals. The fact that such policy is adopted by both the Finnish and the Greek stage –as seen in Chapter 2- i.e. two cultures which rank low in the global village in terms of their language power, shows that lesser-spoken languages and their respective cultures adopt the policies of dominant cultures, such as English, and culturally import not only the latter’s play- texts but also their translation strategies. Last but not least, another point should be made that firmly links indissolubly translation with the socio-cultural parameter, both on a national and international level. As Maronitis observes with reference to the intra-linguistic translation in Greece over the 20th century, the acceptance or rejection of the antiquated or modern type of language in the Language Conflict was controlled each time by the political regime which would opt for the Greek society’s dependence on or detachment from Greek antiquity. Greek intellectuals veered towards what would be most beneficial to Greek citizens at a given point in time in order to help contemporary Greek society confront the challenges of modern times.109 On the international level, figures show

109 “Ενδογλωσσικά (2).” Απολίτιστα Μονοτονικά, Νέες Εποχές, Το Βήμα, Κυριακή 29 Οκτωβρίου 2006, Β55.

141 that translation in Greece gives priority to those cultures whose social discourse and theatre aesthetics seem to be compatible with that of the Greek target audience rather than those who have a different perspective of the world (i.e. Asian or Chinese cultures). Proof for this is the fact that the five most popular source cultures of foreign theatre texts translated in Greek are American, English, Irish, Scottish, Canadian, i.e. all members of the wider Anglo-Saxon civilisation (Appendix B). As Aaltonen comments,“the choice of translated theatre texts is related to perceived difference and similarity; different theatrical and dramatic conventions may promote or hinder admission of texts from certain cultures” (9). The compatibility between source and target culture affects not only the choice of the dramatic texts, but also the translation process and methodologies employed. If the similarities are more than the differences, and the constant influence of globalisation, translators are more likely to be very faithful to the source text; on the contrary, if there are substantial cultural differences, the foreign text may be used as raw material translators may draw upon in order to address an important issue in the target society. In that case, various adjustments can be made (omissions, additions, replacements, mixed language, acculturation, foreignisation or even parody) depending on whether the target social context wishes to highlight the foreign elements of the source text or to eliminate them in order to familiarise the target society with the source culture. What is more, a culture’s status in the international scene seems to be a valid criterion for the translation of its drama texts in the Greek language: the fact that the translated English speaking plays outnumber the French, German, and Italian dramatic production translated in Greece is part and parcel of the overall socio- political alliance of Greece with the American hegemony in the second half of the 20th century. Drawing a parallel with Finland, where Aaltonen remarks that “commercial factors are likely to have laid Finnish cultural imports open to the dominance of the United States and Great Britain throughout the years of independence” (9), it becomes evident that Greece, likewise, considers “the symbolic value of some cultures as a source of prestigious cultural capital linked with a variety of other factors, ranging from the country’s political past and preferences to general trade relations and the knowledge of foreign languages” (9). It all boils down to the

142 way the target language and culture perceives cultural hierarchies in global terms and choosing where they wish to belong.110 The choice of foreign texts to be staged by the theatres of a target society as well as the methods applied in the translation process are all deeply embedded in the social and political conditions the target culture experiences in a certain historical era. Translation is actually a definition of one’s own culture through the communication with the rest of the world. In this light, it seems that for Greece translation is a means of fighting for its position in the international arena – if not for its survival - by incorporating foreign elements in its literary canon. Fearing otherness is not an answer; in the new globalisation era, whose dawn we have just witnessed, a successful formula would be the parallel domestication of foreign elements along with the strengthening of the Greek indigenous dramatic production. Only in this way can balance be redressed through a translation approach which will respect the target culture elements and at the same time keep itself open to the international cultural and linguistic developments.

110 According to Appendix B, Table 3, Marios Ploritis, Errikos Belies and Pavlos Matesis hold the first three positions as most popular translators of English-speaking plays. Although they have been working in all three languages English, French and German, they have chosen English to be their main operating language for almost two thirds of their translation work (information retrieved from the database of the National Book Institute of Greece, kwww.ekebi.gr). Translators of the younger generation –M. Denisi, E. Akrita, V. Vafeas- appearing later in the Table have targeted their translations only to the English language.

143

Bibliography

Primary Works

Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. London: Faber & Faber, 1955 ______. En attendant Godot. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1952

English Secondary Works

Aaltonen, Sirkku. “Rewriting the Exotic: The Manipulation of Otherness in Translated Drama.” In Proceeding of Translation - the Vital Link XIII FIT World Congress. Ed. Catriona Picken. London: The Chameleon Press Ltd., 1993. ______. Time-sharing on Stage: Drama Translation and Society. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2000. Adewuni, Salawu. “Globalizing Translation” What Hope for the Translator?” Lecture “The Challenge of an Iceberg” for the application of Docentship, University of Tampere, 2002. Albakry, Mohammed. “Linguistic and Cultural Issues in Literary Translation.” Translation Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 2004. Albin, Veronica. “What’s in a name: Juliet’s Question Revisited.” Translation Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, October 2003, 111. Alter, Jean. “Coding Dramatic Efficiency in Plays: From Text to Stage.” Proceedings of the 1st Congress of the Semiotic Society of America held in Atlanta, September 24-25, 1976, 247-51. Astbury, Helen. Translating Literature. Woodbridge, UK and Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer, 1997. Bassnett-McGuire, Susan. Comparative Literature. A Critical Introduction. Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell, 1993. ______. “Still Trapped in the Labyrinth: Further Reflections on Translation and Theatre.” In Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation.

144 Eds. Susan Bassnet, Andre Lefevere. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1998, 90-108. ______. “The Translator in the Theatre.” Theatre Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 40, 1981, 37-48. ______. “Translating for the Theatre: The Case Against Performability.” TTR (Traduction, Terminologie, Reduction), Vol. IV, No. 1, 1991a, 99-111. ______. Translation Studies. rev. ed. London and New York: Routledge, 1991b (1st ed. 1980). ______. “Ways Through the Labyrinth: Strategies and Methods for Translating Theatre Texts.” In The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. Ed. Th Hermans. London: CROOM HELM, 1985, 87-102. Bassnett, Susan, André Lefevere, eds. Translation, History and Culture. London & New York: Routledge, 1992, 38. Batty, Mark. “Beckett, Translation, Mise en Scene and Authorship.” In Moving Target: Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation. Ed. Carole-Anne Upton. Manchester: St. Press, 2000, 63. Benjamin, Walter, ed. “The task of the translator.” In Selected Writings. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1996, 260. Ben-Zvi, Linda, ed. Women in Beckett, Performance and Critical Perspectives. Illinois: Illinois UP, 1990, 40. Berlin, Normand. “Traffic of our stage: Why Waiting for Godot?” The Massachusetts Review, Amherst, Autumn, 1999. Bernold, Andre. L’Amitie de Beckett. Paris: Hermann, 1992, 107. Blanchot, Maurice, The Space of Literature. Trans. Ann Smock. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1982, 54. Bogatyrëv, Peter. “Semiotics in the Folk Theatre.” In Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Eds. L. Metejka, I. R. Titunik. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1976b, 33-49. Bryden, Mary. Samuel Beckett and Music. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1998, 2-4. Byrne, Peter. “A Review of Two Plays: Peter Brook's Sober Magic In Milan And The Dower Of Giorgio Strehler.” Swans, 26 February 26, 2007, 3-4. Carlson, Marvin. Theatre Semiotics: Signs of Life. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990, 291.

145 Cascetta, Annamaria. “Beckett Performed in Italy.” In Samuel Beckett: Endlessness in the Year 2000. Eds. Moorjani, Angela, Carola Veit. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 2002, 153. Che Suh, Joseph. “Compounding Issues on the Translation of Drama/Theatre Texts.” Meta, Vol. 47, No1, 2002, 51-56. Cockerham, Harry. “Bilingual Playwright.” In Beckett the Shape Changer: A Symposium. Ed. Katherine Worth. London/Boston: Routledge, 1975, 56. Cohn, Ruby. Back to Beckett. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973, 128-30. ______. Samuel Beckett: Waiting for Godot: A Casebook. London: Macmillan, 1987, 26. Connolly, David, E. Bacopoulou-Halls. “Greek Tradition.” In of Translation Studies. Ed. Mona Baker. London: Routledge, 1998, 433. Cormier, Ramona, Janis L. Pallister. “En attendant Godot: Tragedy or Comedy?” In Critical Responses in Arts and Letters: The Critical Response to Samuel Beckett. Ed. Cathleen Culotta Andonian. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998, 97. Crystal, David, ed. The Penguin Dictionary of Language. London: Penguin Books, 1999. Duckworth, Colin. Angels of Darkness. Dramatic Effect in Samuel Beckett with Special Reference to Eugène Ionescu. London: Allen and Unwin, 1972. Duff, Alan. The Third Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981. Dukes, Gerry. “Englishing Godot.” In Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd’hui. Eds. Antony Uhlmann, Sjef Houppermans, Bruno Clement. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1953b, 526-29. DuPlessis, Rachel Blau, ed. The Selected Letters of George Oppen. Durham: Duke University Press, 1990, 97. Elam, Keir. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London and New York: Methuen, 1980, 1-5. Espasa, Eva. “Performability in Translation: Speakability? Playability? Or just Saleability? ”In Moving Target: Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation. Ed. Carole-Anne Upton. Manchester: St. Jerome Press, 2000, 49-62. Esslin, Martin. “Final Tribute: Who’s Afraid of Samuel Beckett?” Paper delivered at the Mid-America Theatre Conference, Omaha, 1989, 173-82.

146 ______. “Godot, the Authorized Version.” Journal of Beckett Studies, Winter 1976. ______. Samuel Beckett. A Collection of Critical Essays. Twentieth Century Views. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1965. ______. “Waiting for Godot - Western and Korean.” Asian Theatre Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, Autumn 1989, 202-7. Even-Zohar, Itamar. “Polysystem Studies.” Poetics Today, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1990, 23- 24. Fast, Piotr, Wacław Osadnik, eds. “A Communicative Model for Theatre Translation.” In Kievan Prayers to Avantgarde: Papers in Comparative Literature.Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Energeia, 1999, 183-202. Fawcett, Peter. Translation and Language. Linguistic Theories Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1999, 94, 304. Fletcher, John, John Spurling. Beckett: A Study of his Plays. London: Eyre Methuen 1978, 60-67. Gluck, Barbara Reich. Beckett and Joyce: Friendship and Fiction. Bucknell: Bucknell University Press, 1979, 29. Gontarski, Stanley, ed. “Blin on Beckett.” In On Beckett: Essays and Criticism. New York: Grove Press Inc., 1986, 233. ______. “Editing Beckett.” Twentieth Century Literature, 41, No.2, Summer 1995, 190-207. ______. “Staging Himself or Beckett’s Late Style in the Theatre.” In Crossroads and Borderlines/L’oeuvre Carrefour/L’oeuvre limite. Eds. Marius Buning, et al. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997, 87-97. Hamilton, Ian. “Beckett is Awarded the Nobel Prize: Godot Arrives.” In Critical Responses in Arts and Letters: The Critical Response to Samuel Beckett. Ed. Cathleen Culotta Andonian. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998, 239- 40. Hayman, Roland. Samuel Beckett: Contemporary Playwrights Series. London: Heinemann, 1974, 10. Hesla, David H. The shape of chaos: an interpretation of the work of Samuel Beckett. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973, 226.

147 Honzl, Jindřich. “Dynamics of Sign in the Theatre.” In Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Eds. L. Metejka, I. R. Titunik. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1976a, 74-93. Hu, Yongfang. “The Sociosemiotic Approach and Translation of Fiction.” Translation Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, October 2000. Jakobson, Roman. “On linguistic aspects of translation.” In On Translation. Ed. Reuben A. Brower. MA: Harvard University Press, 1959, 232-39. Kalb, Jonathan. Beckett in Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 224. Kennedy, Andrew. Six dramatists in search of a language, studies in dramatic language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976, 134. Kennedy, Andrew. Samuel Beckett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 35. Kenner, Hugh. A Reader’s Guide to Samuel Beckett. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973, 35. Kern, Edith. “Black Humor: The Pockets of Lemuel Gulliver and Samuel Beckett.” In Samuel Beckett Now: Critical Approaches to his Novels, Poetry and Plays. Ed. Melvin J. Friedman. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970, 62. Knowlson, James. Damned to Fame: The Life of Samuel Beckett. London: Bloomsbury, 1996. Kowzan, Tadeusz. “Le signe au théâtre: introduction à la sémiologie de l'art du spectacle.” Diogène, Vol. LXI, 1968a, 59-90. McCarthy, Gerry. “Emptying the Theatre: On Directing the Plays of Samuel Beckett.” In Directing Beckett. Ed. Lois Oppenheim. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994, 250. MacGowran, Jack. “MacGowran on Beckett.” Interview with Richard Toscan. Theatre Quarterly, July-Sept 1973, 16. McMillan, Dougald, Knowlson, James, eds. The Theatrical Notebooks of Samuel Beckett. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1994. McMillan, Dougald, Fehsenfeld, Martha. “The Author as Practical Playwright and Director.” In From Waiting for Godot to Krapp’s Last Tape. Ed. John Calder. Vol.1. London: Riverrun Press, 1988. Mercier, Vivian. Beckett/Beckett. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

148 Moussalli, M., “Impact of globalization.” Daily Star, August 25, 2003. Mukařovský, Jan. “The Art as a Semiological Fact.” In Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Eds L Matejka, I R Titunik. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1976, 3-9. Murch, Anne C. “Quoting from Godot: Trends in Contemporary French Theatre.” In The Beckett Studies Reader. Ed. S. E. Gontarski. Gainsville: University Press of Florida, 1993, 186. Nealon, Jeffrey. “Samuel Beckett and the Post-modern: Language Games, Play and Waiting for Godot.” In Waiting for Godot and Endgame. Ed. Steven Connor. London: Macmillan, 1992, 109-10. Nelson, D. “Last word looms for half the world’s languages.” One World, February 21, 2002. Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall, 1988. Nikolarea, Ekaterini. “A Communicative Model for Theatre Translation: Versions of Oedipus the King in English.” Diss. University of Alberta, 1994a. ______. “A Communicative Model for Theatre Translation.” In Kievan Prayers to Avantgarde: Papers in Comparative Literature. Eds. Piotr Fast, Wacław Osadnik. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Energeia. 1999, 183-202. Pavis, Patrice. “Languages of the Stage: Essays in the Semiology of the Theatre.” Theatre Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, October 1983, 422-23. ______. “Problems of Translation for Stage: Intercultural and Post-Modern Theatre.” Trans. Loren Kruger. In The Play Out of Context: Transferring Plays from Culture to Culture. Eds. Hanna Scolnicov, Peter Holland. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989, 25-44. ______. Problèmes de sémiologie théâtrale. Québec : Les Presses de l’Université du Québec, 1976. ______. Theatre at the Crossroads of Culture. Transl. Loren Kruger. London: Routledge, 1992. Perloff, Marjorie. Wittgenstein's Ladder. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996, 10. Pfister, Manfred. The Theory and Analysis of Drama. Trans. John Halliday. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 36. Pilling, John, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Beckett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

149 Rado, Gyorgy, “Shakespeare: Teacher of Hungarian Poets.” Meta, Vol.16, No 4, 1971, 6. Riazi, Abdolmehdi. “The Invisible in Translation: The Role of Text Structure.” Paper delivered at the First International Conference on Language, Literature, and Translation in the Third Millennium, Bahrain University, 16-18 March, 2002. Robinson, Michael. The Long Sonata of the Dead: A Study of Samuel Beckett. London and New York: Grove Press, 1970. Rodriguez-Gago, Antonia. “Translating and Adapting Company for the Screen.” In The Beckett Studies Reader. Ed. S. E. Gontarski. Gainsville: University Press of Florida, 1993, 440. Schlueter, June, Enoch Brater, eds. “Who is Godot? A Semiotic Approach to Beckett's Play.” In Approaches to Teaching Beckett's Waiting for Godot. London: Lance St John Butler, 1991, 60-63. Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1988. Steiner, George. : Aspects of Language and Translation. rev.ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1993. ______. Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Stubbs, Jean, Pedro P. Afrocuba, eds. An Anthology of Cuban Writing on Race: Politics and Culture. Havana: Ocean Press, 1994. Ubersfeld, Anne. Lire le théâtre. Paris: Éditions Sociales, 1978b. Vasconcelos de Carvalho, Ruy. “A Little Conversation about Tone and Translation.” Trans Tom Moore. Translation Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 2004. Velissariou, Aspasia. “Language in Waiting for Godot.” Journal of Beckett Studies. Tallahassee, 1982, 45-47. Veltruský, Jiří.. “Man and Object in the Theatre.” In A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure and Style. Ed. Paul L. Garvin. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1964, 83-91. Wechsler, R. Performing Without a Stage. The Art of Literary Translation. New Haven, CT: Catbird Press, 1998, 7. Whitelaw, Billy. Billie Whitelaw…Who He? London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1995, 78.

150 Wiersema, Nico. “Globalization and Translation: A discussion of the effect of globalization on today’s translation.” Translation Journal, Vol.8, No. 1, January 2004, 2. Worton, Michael. “Waiting for Godot and Endgame: Theatre as Text.” In The Cambridge Companion to Beckett. Ed. John Pilling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 67-87. Zatlin, Phyllis. Theatrical Translation and : A Practitioner’s View. Clevedontta: Multilingual Matters, 2005, vii. Zuber, Ortrun. The Languages of Theatre. Problems in the Translation and Transposition of Drama. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press, 1980, 92.

Greek Secondary Works

Βασιλείου, Αρετή. Το δραματολόγιο των αθηναικών θιάσων πρόζας κατά τον Μεσοπόλεμο, (ανέκδοτη διατριβή), Πανεπιστήμιο Κρήτης, Τομέας Θεατρολογίας, Ρέθυμνο 2002.

Βαφειάδη, Έφη. «Κυβέλη: Φαινόμενο ηθοποιού σε δεκάδες διαφορετικούς ρόλους.» Αφιέρωμα: Ο Ελληνικός 20ος Αιώνας-Πρόσωπα, Τα Νέα, Κυριακή 20 Σεπτεμβρίου 1999. Γεωργίου, Θόδωρος. «Ζαν Ζακ Ρουσσό, ο άνθρωπος πειραματόζωο: Η εξορία της γραφής.» Το Βήμα, Κυριακή 8 Μαρτίου 1998, S08. Δασκαλόπουλος, Δημήτρης. «Μεταφράσεις και Μεταφραστές.» Τα Νέα, Κυριακή 4 Οκτωβρίου 1997, P04. Δημαράς, Κ. Θ. Ιστορία της Ελλάδας του 20ού αιώνα: Οι απαρχές, τ. Α2. Αθήνα: Βιβλιόραμα, 1999, 352-87. ______. Ιστορία της Νεοελληνικής Λογοτεχνίας, τ. 1, Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Γνώση, 1948, 48-54. ______. «Λαλιά και γραπτός λόγος.» Δώδεκα διαλέξεις. Σειρά Β΄. Aθήνα: Oργανισμός Eθνικού Θεάτρου [Βιβλιοθήκη Eθνικού Θεάτρου, αρ. 2], 1962, 90-103. Καραγάτσης, Μανώλης. Κριτική Θεάτρου, 1946-1960. Εστία, Αθήνα, 1999, 100-101.

151 Καλοσγούρος Γ. Κριτικαί παρατηρήσεις περί της μεταφράσεως του Αμλέτου παρά του Ι.Πολυλά. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Ίκαρος, 1891, 17. Κλεφτογιάννη, Ιωάννα. «Οι συμπληγάδες της μετάφρασης.» Ελευθεροτυπία, Κυριακή 5 Ιουνίου 2002. Λάσκαρης, Νικόλας. Ιστορία του Νεοελληνικού Θεάτρου. τ.2, Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Βασιλείου, 1939. Μαρωνίτης, Δημήτρης. «Σκηνική Μετάφραση.» Απολίτιστα Μονοτονικά, Νέες Εποχές, Το Βήμα, Κυριακή 30 Ιανουαρίου 2005, Α45 73. ______. «Ενδογλωσσικά (2).» Απολίτιστα Μονοτονικά, Νέες Εποχές, Το Βήμα, Κυριακή 29 Οκτωβρίου 2006, Β55. Ουράνης, Κώστας. «Τι αισθανόμαστε για την Αγγλία.» Αγγλοελληνική Επιθεώρηση. τ.1, τόμΑ, Μάρτιος 1945, 5. Πετράκου, Κυριακή. «Η πρόσληψη του Oscar Wilde στο Ελληνικό Θέατρο.» Θεατρολογικά Miscellanea. εκδ. Δίαυλος, 2004. Παπαγιαννίδου, Μαίρη. «Ποιήματα και αιτήματα.» Το Βήμα, Κυριακή 18 Οκτωβρίου 1998, S06. Πλωρίτης, Μάριος. «Υπόθεσις Διαζυγίου», Ελευθερία, 9/8/1950. Ρώτας, Βασίλης. «Θέατρο και Γλώσσα: Πάνω απ’ όλα η ελευθερία του Λόγου.» Θέατρο, τ.8, 1983, 24-25. Σελλά, Όλγα. «Το θέατρο, η μετάφραση και οι αναγνώσεις της.» Πολιτισμός, Καθημερινή, Τετάρτη 19 Ιανουαρίου 2005. Σιδέρης, Γιάννης. Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνικού Θεάτρου. τ. Β1. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη, 1999. ______. «Ο Σαίξπηρ στην Ελλάδα: Φωτισμένοι και Στείροι Μεταφραστές.» Θεατρικά Τετράδια, τ. 6, Θεσσαλονίκη: Πειραματική Σκηνή της Τέχνης, 1984, 21. ______. «Το Πένθος ταιριάζει στην Ηλέκτρα.» Ο Καλλιτέχνης, 4/3/1945. Σωτήρη, Αγγελική. «Περί λογοκρισίας.» Ριζοσπάστης, Κυριακή 21 Απρίλη 2002, 10. Χατζάρας, Σπύρος. «Η ζωή του Καρόλου Κουν-Αφηγήσεις στο Σπύρο Χατζάρα.» Καλλιτεχνική Επιθεώρηση, περίοδος Β, τεύχ.2.47-53. Χ., Αιμ. «Η Ήρα και το Παγώνι», Καθημερινή, 22/12/1948.

152 Electronic Resources

Ελληνική Βιβλιοπαραγωγή 2006. Εθνικό Κέντρο Βιβλίου. Μάιος 2007. Βιβλιονέτ Α.Ε. 8 Νοεμβρίου 2007. http://www.biblionet.gr/stats/biblioparagogi%202006.pdf.

Περιμένοντας το Γκοντό. Μυρτώ Αθανασοπούλου. Lifoland. Ιούνιος 2008. http://www.lifo.gr/content/x6/1271.

Drama texts database. www.doollee.com

Television Broadcasts

Τα Δικά μας 60’s – Μέρος 1ο: Μια Χώρα που Θέλει να Ζήσει, Ρεπορτάζ Χωρίς Σύνορα 2007. Τηλεοπτική Παραγωγή:ΕΤ1. 19 Απριλίου 2007.

References for Appendix C

(Ανυπόγραφο). 20 χρόνια θεάτρου Βεργή, χ.ε., α.α.ε. ______. Αναμνηστικό λεύκωμα για τα δεκαπεντάχρονα της Κατερίνας, χ.ε., 1952. ______. Ημέρα Ηθοποιού αφιερωμένη στη Μαρίκα Κοτοπούλη, Σωματείον Ελλήνων Ηθοποιών, Δευτέρα 1 Οκτωβρίου 1956, Θέατρον Ηρώδου Αττικού, Αθήνα. ______. «Αφιέρωμα Μαρίκα Κοτοπούλη.» Νέα Εστία, τόμ.56, 1954, 1397-1427. ______. «Αφιέρωμα Κατίνα Παξινού.» Χρονικό ’73, τεύχ.2/3, 1972, 192-93. ______. «Αφιέρωμα Θέατρο Αμερικάνικο.» Θεατρικά Τετράδια, τεύχ 12, 1986, 3- 22. ______. «Αφιέρωμα Κάρολος Κουν.» Θεατρικά Γεγονότα και Ζητήματα, τεύχ 2/3, 1990, 5-23. ______. «Αφιέρωμα Tennessee Williams (1911-1983): 11+1 κείμενα είκοσι χρόνια μετά το χαμό του, μικρή κατάθεση μνήμης.» Ομπρέλλα, τεύχ.63, Δεκέμβριος 2003-Φεβρουάριος 2004, 17-68. Αγγελομάτης, Χρήστος. «Ήταν Όλοι τους Παιδιά μου.» Αθηναϊκή, 26/8/1957. Αθηναίος, Περσεύς. «Με τα Δόντια.» Ανεξαρτησία, 21/11/1954. ______. «Ιερή Φλόγα», Ανεξαρτησία, 21/11/1954.

153 Αναπληρωτής. «Το Επάγγελμα της κας Ουώρρεν.» Έθνος, 18/1/1967. Ανδρέου, Ν. «Η Βεντάλια της λαίδης Γουίντερμηρ» Επιθεώρηση Τέχνης. τόμ. ΙΖ. 1963, 114. Αρτεμάκης, Στέλιος Ι., «Ο Σκοτωμός της αδερφής Τζωρτζ» Καθημερινή, 28/10/1966. Αυγέρης, Μάρκος. «Φόνος στην Εκκλησιά.» Καθημερινή, 19/2/1967. ______. «Εμείς και ο Χρόνος» Ριζοσπάστης, 24/10/1946. ______. «Γυάλινος Κόσμος» Ριζοσπάστης, 21/11/1946. ______. «Για ένα κομμάτι γης», Ρίζος της Δευτέρας, 5/1/1947. ______. «Πόθοι κάτω από τις λεύκες», Ριζοσπάστης, 4/3/1947. Βαρίκας, Βάσος. Κριτική θεάτρου. Αθήνα, εκδόσεις Παπαζήση, 1972. Γιαννάτος, Σπύρος. «Μια γυναίκα χωρίς σημασία», Ελευθερία, 27/2/1954. ______. «Πικ-νικ». Ελευθερία, 20/6/1956. Διαμαντόπουλος, Αλέξης. «Ο Τίγρης», Μεσημβρινή, 19/11/1966. ______. «Ο Γυρισμός του Πίντερ», Μεσημβρινή, 27/3/1967. Δόξας, Άγγελος. «Φίλησε και Πες το», Εμπρός, 6/7/1950. ______. «Το δάσος», Εμπρός, 18/10/1950. Δρομάζος, Στάθης. «Εκλογή Συζύγου», Αυγή, 11/2/1966. Θρύλος, Άλκης. Το Ελληνικό Θέατρο (1945-1948), τόμ. Δ, Ακαδημία Αθηνών, Ίδρυμα Κώστα και Ελένης Ουράνη, Αθήναι, 1978. ______. Το Ελληνικό Θέατρο (1949-1951), τόμ. Ε, Ακαδημία Αθηνών, Ίδρυμα Κώστα και Ελένης Ουράνη, Αθήναι, 1979. ______. Το Ελληνικό Θέατρο (1952-1955), τόμ. ΣΤ, Ακαδημία Αθηνών, Ίδρυμα Κώστα και Ελένης Ουράνη, Αθήναι, 1979. ______. Το Ελληνικό Θέατρο (1956-1958), τόμ. Ζ, Ακαδημία Αθηνών, Ίδρυμα Κώστα και Ελένης Ουράνη, Αθήναι, 1979. ______. Το Ελληνικό Θέατρο (1959-1961), τόμ. Η, Ακαδημία Αθηνών, Ίδρυμα Κώστα και Ελένης Ουράνη, Αθήναι, 1980. ______. Το Ελληνικό Θέατρο (1962-1963), τόμ. Θ, Ακαδημία Αθηνών, Ίδρυμα Κώστα και Ελένης Ουράνη, Αθήναι, 1980. ______. Το Ελληνικό Θέατρο (1964-1966), τόμ. Ι, Ακαδημία Αθηνών, Ίδρυμα Κώστα και Ελένης Ουράνη, Αθήναι, 1981. ______. Το Ελληνικό Θέατρο (1967-1969), τόμ. ΙΑ, Ακαδημία Αθηνών, Ίδρυμα Κώστα και Ελένης Ουράνη, Αθήναι, 1981. Καλκάνη, Ειρήνη. «Τριαντάφυλλο στο Στήθος», Απογευματινή, 13/10/1956.

154 ______. «Το παιχνίδι της μοναξιάς», Απογευματινή, 21/10/1958. Κουκουλάς, Λέων. «Ο Ανδροκλής και το λιοντάρι», Αθηναική, 21/12/1956. ______. «Η Λαίδη Εξοφλεί», Αθηναική, 6/3/1958. ______. «Καλοκαίρι και Καταχνιά», Αθηναική, 19/4/1958. Κουνενάκη, Πέγκυ. «Αφιέρωμα Παξινού-Μινωτής.» Καθημερινή, Επτά Ημέρες, 17/12/2000 ______. «Αφιέρωμα Μαρίκα Κοτοπούλη.» Καθημερινή, Επτά Ημέρες, 19/1/2003. Αγγέλου, Χρήστος. «Φθινοπωρινή Παλίρροια.» Εστία, 10/6/1949. Νάζος, Γ. «Ζωή με τον πατέρα», Ακρόπολις, 5/12/1947. Οικονομίδης, Κώστας. «Το πορτρέτο του Ντόριαν Γκρέυ», Έθνος 20/7/1946. _____. «Πυγμαλίων», Έθνος, 21/1/1948. _____. «Ο κύκλος», Έθνος, 5/2/1949. _____. «Άννα Λουκάστα», Έθνος, 26/1/1950. _____. «Η Ντόροθυ θέλει γιο», Έθνος, 9/6/1951. _____. «Το αλέτρι και τα άστρα», Έθνος, 17/12/1955. _____. «Η έκτη εντολή», Έθνος, 12/6/1957. _____. «Ψηλά από τη γέφυρα», Έθνος, 14/10/1957. _____. «Άσκησις πέντε δακτύλων», Έθνος, 21/12/1960. _____. «Ένα σταφύλι στον ήλιο», Έθνος, 6/5/1961. Παράσχος, Κλέων. «Έβδομος Ουρανός», Καθημερινή, 14/1/1958. _____. «Γεύση από μέλι», Καθημερινή, 11/6/1961 _____. «Το θαύμα της Ανν Σάλλιβαν», Καθημερινή, 8/10/1961. Πλωρίτης, Μάριος. «Γυάλινος κόσμος», Ελευθερία, 22/11/1946 _____. «Μίστερ Ρόμπερτς», Ελευθερία, 17/10/1950. _____. «Λεωφορείον ο Πόθος», Ελευθερία, 24/2/1965. _____. «Ένα δέντρο μεγαλώνει στο Μπρούκλιν», Ελευθερία, 7/2/1963. _____. «Η εξομολόγηση του Ο Νηλ.» Ελευθερία, 19/3/1965. _____. «Η βεντάλια της λαίδης Γουιντερμηρ» Ελευθερία, 11/12/1962 _____. «Δύο νέα θεατρικά έργα» Ελευθερία, 30/10/1962 Ρώμας, Διονύσιος. «Φθινοπωρινή παλίρροια», Οι Καιροί, 11/6/1949. Σκολούδης, Μανώλης. «Πορεία προς τη Ρώμη», Γράμματα, 6, τόμ.Ζ, Ιούνιος 1945, 249. _____. «Μάρτυς κατηγορίας», Η Ώρα, 4/9/1956. _____. «Το ημερολόγιο της Άννας Φρανκ», Η Ώρα, 8/10/1956.

155 _____. «Θέατρο», Καινούργια Εποχή, 1960, 212. Σπαθής, Δημήτρης. Επιθεώρηση Τέχνης, τόμ ΚΔ, 1966. Τερζάκης, Άγγελος. «Στον ίσκιο του Εθνικού», Νέα Εστία, τόμ.50. Αθήνα, 1951, 1165-70. ______. «Καινούργια έργα που παίχθηκαν», Το Βήμα, 7/4/1960.

156

APPENDIX A

157

1. BOOK PRODUCTION 2001-2006

The following diagrams and tables on book production 2001-2006 present the data on which conclusions are drawn in Chapter 2, 2.2 The Forces of the Greek Theatre Market as to the percentage of translated dramatic literature against the indigenous production and the translations’ source language. The source of all statistical information is BIBLIONET Ltd., the data bank of the National Book Centre of Greece (EKEBI). All information provided at www.biblionet.gr was last updated on 17/04/2007 unless stated otherwise. According to EKEBI’s regulations, any latest publication of statistical data substitutes any previous one. The degree of data reliability depends on the extent to which publishing houses have responded to EKEBI’s request for systematic and accurate collection of relevant data.

TOTAL NUMBER OF BOOK TITLES ON THE MARKET (Including new titles and re-publications)

1.2 COURSE OF THE BOOK PRODUCTION 2001-2006

158

1.3 TRANSLATED BOOKS AGAINST THE TOTAL BOOK PRODUCTION

Translation has reached 44% of the total book production. Compared to 2005, the rate of translated titles has increased by 13.6% reaching a 44% of the total book production. Such increase is owed to the dynamic quality of translated books in the entire range of thematic categories as well as to the increase of translations from Ancient Greek and to the significant number of translations from Greek to other languages.

Percentage of translated titles

159

Number of translated titles In 2006, 4,000 translated books have been published. Their number has risen from 2,887 titles in 2001 to 3,565 in 2005 and 4,949 in 2006.

1.4 THE LANGUAGES OF TRANSLATION

English holds the first place with 53,2%, with French coming second at 12,3% and German with 5,3% in the third place. The points worth mentioning in 2006 is the rise of the number of translations from German, Italian, Spanish and French as well as the increase of translations from Ancient Greek.

From Modern Greek to other languages 4.4% Other 11.1%

Ancient Greek 4.3% Spanish 4.3% Italian 5% German 5.3%

French 12.3%

English 53.2

1.5 RATE OF TRANSLATIONS PER SOURCE LANGUAGE

Language 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 English 1.255 1.385 1.633 1.666 1.801 2.156 French 389 403 427 408 424 497 German 128 160 176 162 180 214 Italian 74 108 97 170 128 202 Spanish 63 72 121 61 95 175 Russian 16 17 28 29 24 29

160 Norwegian 1 2 3 5 5 14 Other Scandinavian 7 14 5 9 4 12 languages Balkan Languages 17 10 8 11 9 11 Turkish 7 14 5 6 10 10 Portuguese 8 2 5 5 6 8 Dutch 3 1 8 3 5 5 1 1 3 1 1 5 Japanese 1 3 1 6 1 0 Other languages 17 10 11 24 20 15 Ancient Greek 89 79 79 89 63 174

Modern Greek (to other 137 158 182 317 285 180 languages) Latin 4 3 4 7 10 1 Non-definable language 660 438 355 468 494 340 Total 2.877 2.880 3.151 3.447 3.565 4.049

1.6 TRANSLATED LITERATURE IN THE TOTAL OF LITERARY PRODUCTION

The percentage of translated titles in literature is greater than in the total book production (47,9% against 44% respectively); as a result, Greece holds one of the first places in Europe as the country with the greater number of translated literary titles.

TRANSLATIONS OF THEATRE WORKS

The number of translated foreign plays has increased by 31.7% in 2006 compared to 2005. The majority of translated plays involves re-translations of classic and ‘modern-classic’ works such as those by Tschehov, Strindberg, Oscar Wilde, Racine, Lorca, Ibsen, Beckett, Albee, Dario Fo and others; translations of modern theatre plays are more limited in number. Theatre translations usually – but not as a rule - follow the pace of the plays’ stage performances.

161

THEATRE PLAYS AND THEIR SOURCE LANGUAGES OVER THE TIME PERIOD 1998-2002

2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 English 8 9 7 8 7 American 6 5 5 3 4 French 8 3 6 4 8 German 3 2 7 1 1 Spanish 0 2 1 2 1 Italian 0 1 1 1 2 Russian 1 0 1 1 2 Other 1 2 1 1 7 languages Modern 22 19 22 26 37 Greek TOTAL 49 43 51 47 69

Source: BIBLIONET Ltd. updated 16/12/2003

162

2. FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING AT SCHOOLS

ENGLISH FRENCH GERMAN

Public Schools Morning High 319003 225813 88817 Schools Evening High 9477 Schools Morning General 211054 21175 3392 Lyceum Evening General 5558 183 Lyceum Morning 92271 12116 1430 Technical Schools Evening 7851 629 14 Technical Schools Private Schools Morning High 19054 11248 6934 Schools Evening High 232 Schools Morning General 15189 3842 1737 Lyceum Evening General 394 Lyceum

163 Morning 2865 2920 22 Technical Schools Evening 391 Technical Schools TOTAL 683,339 277,923 102,348

Source: “Enimerosi” journal of the Pan-Hellenic Union of Owners of Foreign Language Institutes.

THE POSTER OF THE 1965 GODOT PERFORMANCE AT THE NATIONAL THEATRE OF NORTHERN GREECE

164

APPENDIX B

165

English-speaking Theatre Plays in Greek Translation staged during 1930-2005

400 359

350

300 243 250

200 122 150 84 72 100 36 47 Translated Theatre Plays Theatre Translated 15 50

0 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 2000- 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2005

Decades

Diagram 1

166

Table 1: English-speaking Translated Plays / Decade

Diagram 2 1930-1939 15

1940-1949 36 1950-1959 47

1960-1969 84

1970-1979 72

1980-1989 122

1990-1999 243

2000-2005 359

167 Popularity of English Speaking Playwrights

Alan Ayckbourn 13 Sam Shepard 15 David Mamet 22 22 John Boyton Priestley Oscar Wilde 29 32 Edward Albee 33

Playwrights Arthur Miller 39 Neil Simon 44 Eugene O' Neill 57 Bernard Shaw 61 Harold Pinter 85 Samuel Beckett 104 Tennessee Williams 0 20406080100120

Number of Performances

Diagram 2

168 Table 2: Popularity of English-speaking Playwrights

Number of their Plays' Playwrights Productions on the Greek stage

Alan Ayckbourn 13 Sam Shepard 15 David Mamet 22 John Boyton Priestley 22 Oscar Wilde 29

Edward Albee 32 Arthur Miller 33 Neil Simon 39 Eugene O' Neill 44 Bernard Shaw 57

Harold Pinter 61

Samuel Beckett 85 Tennessee Williams 104

169 Translators of English speaking Theatre Plays

Marios Plotiris 112 Errikos Bellies, Pavlos Matesis 54 35 Christina Babou-Pagkoureli 31 Stathis Spiliotopoulos 29 Marlena Geordiades 28 Minos Volanakis 27 Nikos Gkatsos 21

Stamatis Fasoulis 18 16 Translators Kostas Stamatiou 15 Louis Danos 14 Giorgos Theodosiades, Alexis Solomos, Despo Diamantidou 13

Manthos Krispis, Zanna Armaou, Achilleas Psaltopoulos 12 11 Kaiti Kassimati-Myrivili, Nonika Galinea, Platon Mousseos 10 Elena Akrita 0 20406080100120 Kontstantinos Arvanitakis Annita Dekavalla, Katerina Aggelaki-Rouk Number of Staged Translations

Diagram 3

170 Table 3 - English-speaking Translated Plays /Translator

Marios Plotiris 112 Errikos Bellies, Pavlos Matesis 54 Christina Babou-Pagkoureli 35 Stathis Spiliotopoulos 31 Marlena Geordiades 29 Minos Volanakis 28 Nikos Gkatsos 27 Stamatis Fasoulis 21 Kostas Stamatiou 18 Louis Danos 16 Giorgos Theodosiades, Alexis Solomos, Despo Diamantidou 15 Manthos Krispis, Zanna Armaou, Achilleas Psaltopoulos 14 Kaiti Kassimati-Myrivili, Nonika Galinea, Platon Mousseos 13 Elena Akrita 12 Kontstantinos Arvanitakis 11 Annita Dekavalla, Katerina Aggelaki-Rouk 10 Mimi Ntenisi, Maya Lymperopoulou, Mitsi Kougioumtsoglou 8 Tasos Mpantis, Dimitris Tarlow, G. Sevastikoglou, Kostoula Mitropoulou, Thodoris Petropoulos, Katina Paxinou, Vassilis Tsivilikas 7 Athina Paraponiari, Tzeni Mastoraki, Kostis Skalioras 6 Thomas Moschopoulos, Eva Georgousopoulou, Giorgos Depastas 5 Lefteris Giovanides, Grigoris Valtinos, Antonis Galeos, Achilleas Kyrou, Athanasia Karagiannopoulou 4 Marilena Panagiotopoulou, Stratis Paschalis, Roula Pateraki, Dimitris Komnimos, Giorgos Kiourtsides, Vassilis Vafeas 3

171 Country of Origin of English-speaking Theatre Plays

Australian 48,78% South-African Welsh Canadian Scottish Irish British American

0,30% 40,24% 1,22% 0,30% 6,71% 1,52% 0,91%

Diagram 4

172 Table 4 English-speaking Playwrights / Country of Origin

USA 160

Great Britain 132

Ireland 22

Scotland 5

Canada 4

Wales 3

Australia 1

South-Africa 1

173

Productions of Translated English-speaking Theatre Plays

25 23 22

20

13 ays 15

10

10 7 Productions of Pl

6 5 4 5 3

0 1 Translated Theatre Plays

Diagram 5

Υπόμνημα

Waiting for Godot 23 The Glass Menagerie 22 Endgame, A Streetcar Named Desire 13 Suddenly Last Summer, Look Back in Anger 10 A Long Day’s Journey Into Night, Desire Under the Elms, The Caretaker, The Death of a Salesman, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, A Hatful of Rain 7 Krapp’s Last Tape, Old Times, The Lover, The Rose Tattoo, True West, A View 6 from the Bridge A Delicate Balance, All of my Sons, Anna Kristie, Barefoot in the Park, Betrayal, Happy Days, Hello from Bertha, Summer and Smoke, The Birthday Party, The 5 Secretary Bird, This Property is Condemned, Zoo Story An Ideal Husband, Camino Real, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Collection, Dangerous Corner, Mourning Becomes Electra, Mrs. Warren’s Profession, Private Lives, Pygmalion, Rockaby, Sweet Bird of Youth, The Alchemist, The Crucible, The 4 Matchmaker, The Rainmaker, Two for the Seesaw

A Slight Ache, Act Without Words, An Inspector Calls, Arms and the Man, Beyond the Horizon, Black Comedy, Deep Blue Sea, Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Denise Calls Up, Equus, Everything in the Garden, Fat Men in Skirts, First Love, Harold and Maude, Homecoming, Lady Windermere’s Fan, Little Foxes, Man and Superman, Noises Off, Not I 3 Oleanna, Orpheus Descending, Our Little Town, Sleuth, Strange Interlude, That Time, The Dining Room, The Dumb Waiter, The Heiress, The Hostage, The Odd Couple, The Strawberry Blonde

174

Number of Translations per Theatre Play

10

10 9

9 8 8

7 6 6 5

5 4

4 3 Number of Translations 3 2

2 1

1

0 1 Translated Theatre Plays

Diagram 6

Υπόμνημα

Waiting for Godot 10 The Glass Menagerie 9 Suddenly Last Summer 8 A Streetcar Named Desire 6 Endgame 5

Desire Under the Elms, The Rose Tatoo, 4 Happy Days A Slight Ache, Krapp’s Last Tape, Look Back in Anger, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Death of a Salesman, Old Times, The Lover, True West, Betrayal, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Mourning Becomes Electra, Mrs. Warren’s Profession, Rockaby, 3 Sweet Bird of Youth, A View from the Bridge, Beyond the Horizon, Everything in the Garden, Our Little Town, Strange Interlude, The Dumb Waiter, An Inspector Calls, A Hatful of Rain A Delicate Balance, The Caretaker, A Long Day’s Journey into Night, All of my Sons, Anna Kristie, Summer and Smoke, The Birthday Party, The Secretary Bird, This Property is Condemned, An Ideal Husband, Camino Real, Collection, Dangerous Corner, Private Lives, Pygmalion, The Crucible, The Rainmaker, Two for the 2 Seesaw, Arms and the Man, Black Comedy, First Love, Homecoming, Lady Windermere’s Fan, Little Foxes, Man and Superman, Not I, Oleanna, Orpheus Descending, Sleuth, The Dining Room, The Odd Couple, The Strawberry Blonde

Barefoot in the Park, Hello from Bertha, Zoo Story, The Alchemist, The Matchmaker, Deep Blue Sea, Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Denise Calls Up, Equus, Fat Men in Skirts, Harold and Maude, Noises Off, That Time, The Heiress, The 1 Hostage

175

Number of Translations /Number of Productions of Translated Plays

Number of translations = the play’s productions 9%

Number of translations < 1/2 of the play’s productions 37%

Number of translations ≥ 1/2 of the play’s productions 54%

Diagram 7

Table 5 Number of translations < ½ of the play’s productions

Plays No. of productions /no. of staged translations

The Glass Menagerie 22 / 9 Endgame 13 / 5 Look Back in Anger 10 / 3 A Hatful of Rain 7 / 3 Noises Off 3 / 1 Harold and Maude 3 / 1 Fat Men in Skirts 3 / 1 Denise Calls Up 3 / 1 Complete Works of William Shakespeare 3 / 1 Deep Blue Sea 3 / 1 Long Day’s Journey into Night 7 / 2 The Caretaker 7 / 2 Death of a Salesman 7 / 3 Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? 7 / 3 A Delicate Balance 5 / 2 All of my Sons 5 / 2 Barefoot in the Park 5 / 1 Hello from Bertha 5 / 1 Summer and Smoke 5 / 2 The Birthday Party 5 / 2 The Secretary Bird 5 / 2 This Property is Condemned 5 / 2 The Zoo Story 5 / 1 The Alchemist 4 / 1 The Matchmaker 3 / 1 That Time 3 / 1 The Heiress 3 / 1 The Hostage 3 / 1

176

Table 6 Number of translations ≥ ½ of the play’s productions

Plays No. of productions /no. of staged translations

Waiting for Godot 23 / 11 A Streetcar Named Desire 13 / 6 Suddenly Last Summer 10 / 8 Desire Under the Elms 7 / 4 Krapp’s Last Tape 6 / 3 True West 6 / 3 An Ideal Husband 4 / 2 Camino Real 4 / 2 Dangerous Corner 4 / 2 Private Lives 4 / 2 Pygmalion 4 / 2 The Crucible 4 / 2 The Rainmaker 4 / 2 Two for the Seesaw 4 / 2 Old Times 6 / 3 The Lover 6 / 3 The Strawberry Blonde 3 / 2 An Inspector Calls 4 / 3 Mourning Becomes Electra 4 / 3 Mrs. Warren’s Profession 4 / 3 Rockaby 4 / 3 Sweet Bird of Youth 4 / 3 Cat on a Hot Tin Roof 4 / 3 The Rose Tattoo 6 / 4 Betrayal 5 / 3 Happy Days 5 / 4 A View from the Bridge 6/3 Arms and the Man 3 / 2 The Black Comedy 3 / 2 First Love 3 / 2 Homecoming 3 / 2 Mrs. Windermere’s Fan 3 / 2 Little Foxes 3 / 2 Man and Superman 3 / 2 Not I 3 / 2 Oleanna 3 / 2 Orpheus Descending 3 / 2 Sleuth 3 / 2 The Dining Room 3 / 2 The Odd Couple 3 / 2 Anna Kristie 3 / 2

177

Table 7 Number of translations = the play’s productions

Plays No. of productions /no. of staged translations

A Slight Ache 3/3 Our Little Town 3/3 The Dumb Waiter 3/3 Strange Interlude 3/3 Beyond the Horizon 3/3 Everything in the Garden 3/3 Closer 2/2

178