Masaryk University in Brno Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies

V´aclav Renˇc,life, translations of Shakespeare and the translatological heritage of Otokar Fischer

(B.A. Thesis)

KateˇrinaKotaˇckov´a Supervisor: Mgr. Pavel Dr´abek, Ph.D.

Brno, April 2006 I hereby declare that I have worked on this B.A. Thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

28th April 2006 in Brno: Contents

1 Introduction 5

2 Life and work of V´aclav Renˇc 7 2.1 Life (18th November 1911 – 30th April 1973) ...... 7 2.2 Work and attitudes ...... 10 2.2.1 1930s–40s ...... 10 2.2.2 1950s–70s ...... 12

3 Renˇc’sapproach towards translating dramatic texts 14 3.1 Introduction ...... 14 3.2 Philosophy and beliefs ...... 14 3.2.1 Relation to other Czech translations of Shakespeare ...... 14 3.2.2 Renˇc’sunderstanding of Shakespeare ...... 16 3.2.3 Renˇc’stheory of translation ...... 17

4 The influence of Otokar Fischer on V´aclav Renˇc 22 4.1 Renˇcas Fischer’s follower ...... 22 4.2 Two translations of Macbeth ...... 27 4.2.1 Inspiration and imitation ...... 27 4.2.2 Updating Shakespeare’s and Fischer’s language ...... 31 4.2.3 Comprehensibility and explaining ...... 33 4.2.4 Theatricality and theatrical speech ...... 36 4.3 Conclusion ...... 38

5 Afterword 40

6 Bibliography 41

7 Czech resum´e 44 Acknowledgements

I would especially like to thank Dr Pavel Dr´abek for his valuable advice and introduc- tion to the contexts of Czech translation studies. As not much thorough research into the life of V´aclav Renˇchas been done, or any profound study of his work, especially translations, has been written, I had to investigate a lot of various sources, including Renˇc’sfamily’s and his colleagues’ personal testimony, which provided me with valuable information. At this point I would like to express my deep gratitude to those who knew V´aclav Renˇcin person and helped me to better understand Renˇc’scharacter, life and work. I am greatly indebted to Dr Jaroslav Nov´ak, Renˇc’sson-in-law, Professor ZdenˇekStˇr´ıbrn´yfrom Charles University, who was Renˇc’s aide and collaborator, Dr SvˇetozarV´ıtek,his former employer at the Moravsk´edivadlo in Olomouc, and other people willing to help me find out more about V´aclav Renˇc.This contributed to my focusing on the thorough processing of all the gained details that could explain the attitudes, intentions and beliefs of a poet, playwright and, last but not least, a man with a strong Christian faith, whose character and work influenced a lot of people who had met him throughout his turbulent life. Much important information has been derived from Renˇc’spersonal notes, essays and correspondence that have been well-preserved in the inheritance. This B.A. Thesis is a part of the Kaprad´ıProject (http://www.phil.muni.cz/kapradi), financed from the grants given by GAAV CRˇ (Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic), “Elektronick´aknihovna pˇreklad˚uanglick´ych dramat” (Electronic Li- brary of Czech Translations of English Drama, no. B9164305) and “Elektronick´aknihovna novˇejˇs´ıch pˇreklad˚uanglick´ych dramat” (Electronic Library of Recent Czech Translations of English Drama, no. B901640501). 1 Introduction

In this work I want to focus on the extraordinary figure of V´aclav Renˇc(1911–1973), the Czech poet, dramatist and translator of the twentieth century, who in spite of being significantly harmed by the political forces of his time, affecting both his work and his personal life, contributed to the state of Czech literature and translating and created some of the best Czech translations of Shakespeare’s plays. My research is divided into three main areas, his life, his own work and the translations he made from other languages, and finally his translation methods and their analysis. Renˇc’sdescription of the outer and more often the inner world of man found its way of presenting itself in his poetry first. Gradually the world of drama started to occupy his mind and gave way to expressing his inner beliefs and attitudes to the questions of one’s moral principles and faith. I will devote part of the second chapter of the thesis to the poet’s work and application of his world view to the art of poetry and drama in two different periods of his life. The third chapter deals with the artist’s attitude to translating, especially of Shake- speare’s plays, and his opinion of the translating of his time compared to some of the translators of the previous century. The second part of this chapter deals with some the- oretical views Renˇcwas influenced by – primarily by his lecturer and inspiration Otokar Fischer. It is shown how Fischer’s views find their reflexion in Renˇc’sthoughts and prac- tical translating. Finally I will proceed to analyze some aspects and prevailing tendencies of Renˇc’s translating from English, particularly of Shakespeare’s work, and I will present these on examples from Renˇc’stranslation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth compared to the translation of the same play by Otokar Fischer. Due to the limited space of the thesis the analysis will not provide a general picture of Renˇc’swhole translation work. However, the examples presented here will try to demonstrate important aspects of his translating practice, which granted V´aclav Renˇcthe title of an exceptional poet and a translator with a fine feeling for the language. In the course of my research into Renˇc’slife and work as well as his translating and theoretical thoughts, I have drawn my thesis upon several sources. These included field research, Renˇc’scorrespondence, notes, essays and articles for theatre programmes and newspapers, personal communication with members of Renˇc’sfamily and with his col-

5 leagues, and the literature about Renˇc’slife and work, which I will include at the end of my thesis in the bibliography.

6 2 Life and work of V´aclav Renˇc

2.1 Life (18th November 1911 – 30th April 1973)

V´aclav Renˇcwas born in Vodochody in the Roudnice region in Northern Bohemia on the 18th of November 1911. Though, because of a mistake that occurred in his certificate of baptism, claiming the date of birth to be 28th of November, all his documents remained based on the incorrect date for his whole life. His father worked as a bricklayer following his father’s footsteps. When he returned from the First World World where he had fought as a member of the Russian legionnaire troops, the family moved to Prague. Renˇc’sfather became a messenger at court due to his enfeebled health caused by the war, and his mother worked as a knitter. In the twenties Renˇc’sonly sister Vˇerawas born. Young V´aclav started to go to primary school in Prague, and then also went to grammar school. He graduated from the school in 1930. During the summer holidays he studied Latin, which enabled him to enter the Faculty of Arts at Charles University and enrol in philosophical and linguistic courses. V´aclav, like his father, belonged to the Czechoslovak Church, though during his student years he converted to Catholicism, which strongly influenced his later work. In his university years he met people like Josef Kostohryz, Frantiˇsek Lazeck´yand other writers, whom he joined in the association publishing the magazine R´adˇ . From 1927 he also contributed to the Studentsk´yˇcasopis under one of his many pen- names Jarka St´ıt.ˇ In 1933 Renˇcpublished his first collection of poems Jitˇren´ı and two years later another one called Stud´anky, both of which were well received by the literary critic and Renˇc’sprofessor F. X. Salda.ˇ In the years 1933–36 he became a promotional editor of the Booksellers and Publishers Union of the Czechoslovak Republic and together with FrantiˇsekHalas he was publishing the magazine Rozhledy. In 1936 he graduated from Charles University with the degree of Doctor of Philosophy after presenting a dissertation Bergsonovo pojet´ıintelektu a ˇzivotn´ıhov´yvoje [Bergson’s conception of the intellect and life evolution] (Rotrekl, 1991: 114) In the same year he married Alena Sedl´akov´a,who came from a family with a high social status. For V´aclav Renˇc,coming from much lower social conditions, it meant to try hard throughout his whole life to adapt to the more respected family background. Fortunately, his wife’s family accepted him on the basis of his received education in the time when the degree of a doctor meant a higher status in the society. In the year

7 following his wedding Renˇcpublished another collection of poems Sedmihradsk´azem and he also became an editor of the publishing house Novina, where he worked from 1937 to 1942. Then he became a professional writer and only partly continued contributing to the magazine R´adˇ together with FrantiˇsekLazeck´y(from 1940 to 1944). In 1937 Renˇc’s son Ivan and in 1943 his daughter Zuzana were born in Prague. The family moved to Fryˇst´aknear Zl´ınwhere they stayed until 1945. By the end of the Second World War he had already written another two collections of poems (Vinn´ylis, 1938, and Trojzpˇevy, 1940) and several plays (for example C´ısaˇr˚uvmim, 1944), along with translations from French, German and Polish. After the war the family moved to Olomouc where Renˇcwas offered a job of a dra- maturge and stage director in the Olomouc theatre and two and half years later they moved again. This time it was Brno where Renˇcaccepted the offer to work in the Na- tional Theatre as a lecturer and later a stage director. The dream job ended for Renˇcin 1948 when he was dismissed from work and left without a permanent job, probably for ideological reasons. In May 1951 Renˇcwas arrested by the Secret Police, and in 1952 he was sentenced to death at first, which was later changed to a 25-year imprisonment. It was a sham trial, named Zelen´ainternacion´ala [Green Internationale] by the state court, during which Renˇcwas accused and sentenced on fabricated evidence. He was accused of things he had nothing to do with but, according to his own words (reproduced by his son-in-law, Jaroslav Nov´ak),was not accused of any possible real illegal activity he was involved in. This was the irony of the time of sham trials, when the invented accusations did not correspond to the true deeds of suspected people. V´aclav Renˇc,for example, had connections abroad in the West and had the opportunity to emigrate, which he never used. However, the Secret Police was obviously not aware of this fact. Unlike some of the other convicts Renˇcsuffered from the mental compulsion rather than the physical one. He was made to confess being guilty under the threat of the members of his family’s suffering the consequences. Meanwhile, Renˇc’spregnant wife and his two children were subjected to persecution, being expelled to the borderland and Renˇc’swife alone being forced to do menial work to sustain the family. In 1960, after years of being transported from one prison to another, Renˇcwas promised to be released after the general amnesty. Josef Hoˇsekrecalls the situation he was a witness to at the time of his own imprison- ment. According to his words, on his departure, Renˇcwas asked by the interrogators if

8 he believed in God. When he said he did, it meant for them that he had not been re- educated yet and Renˇcwas sent back to prison for another two years when he was finally released after another amnesty. Josef Hoˇsekmet V´aclav Renˇcin the Valdice prison and was deeply impressed by his character and poetic soul. In the final years of his impris- onment in Valdice Renˇcwas allowed to keep a notebook for his “legal” literary activity where he wrote poems as well as translations of, for example, Verlaine’s poetry which he found in the library of the Pankr´acprison in Prague. Before this permission, the only way to make and preserve poetry for Renˇcwas to write it on pieces of paper and hide them in the wall, which was often found out about and punished by solitary confinement for weeks or months. Another way was to teach other prisoners the individual verses by heart so that they could spread them to other prisons and outside after they had been released. This is how the poem Popelka Nazaretsk´a originated and actually was whole created and preserved in the memories of the prisoners. Renˇc’scell-mate Josef Hoˇsekalso recalls the time when a white envelope full of notes with Renˇc’spoems of invocations of the Loreta litanies was circulating in secret around the prison. When Father Zvˇeˇrinaread the poems from the envelope, he said: ‘One day when I preach about Virgin Mary, it will be enough to analyze these poems.’ Renˇc’spoem Praˇzsk´alegenda was also circulating in secret. (Renˇc,1994: 7–13) In 1962 Renˇcwas finally freed “on probation” and with the duty to pay off the “unset- tled costs for the duration of his sentence” for the next several years. (Renˇc,2000: 616) He returned home mentally and physically weakened. He started to work as a sweeper in a factory until the director of the Olomouc Theatre of Oldˇrich Stibor, SvˇetozarV´ıtek, offered him a position of a dramatic adviser. Renˇcwas recommended to him by Jiˇr´ıTrnka, a graphic artist, who knew him well from the years before imprisonment. According to V´ıtek’swords, “Renˇccontributed significantly to the artistic improvement of a lot of the operetta house production by adapting old operetta texts for new usage”. In spite of the disapproval of the Communist Party V´ıtekmanaged to keep Renˇcin this position, which helped him make his way to other theatres and stages where his plays and translations started to be officially accepted and performed. At the time of the first achievements of becoming known to other “theatre-lovers” Renˇcleft the Olomouc theatre and started cooperating with theatres in Brno, Praha, Hradec Kr´alov´e,Zl´ın(formerly Gottwaldov), Cesk´eBudˇejovice,ˇ Cheb, Jihlava and other towns. He collaborated with Professor Zdenˇek

9 Stˇr´ıbrn´y,the head of the English Department at the Faculty of Arts of Charles Univer- sity in Prague. Renˇcused to send Stˇr´ıbrn´yhis translations, mainly of Shakespeare or Coleridge, to be reviewed and commented by him. Then he would consider his comments and adjust the work accordingly. According to the memory of Jaroslav Nov´ak,Renˇc’s son-in-law, Renˇcalso wrote and adjusted his work according to the recommendations and advice of Vojtˇech Gaja from Olomouc, who helped him with the translations from Danish, for instance. When translating from the languages he did not know very well, Renˇcused the so called “rough translation” and gave it to the appropriate linguists for consideration. In the years between 1962 and 1970 V´aclav Renˇcworked tirelessly and with a great vigour. Both Jaroslav Nov´akand ZdenˇekStˇr´ıbrn´yremember him as a man, who came from prison however much enfeebled, with an immense amount of energy for work, working twelve hours a day and able to translate one play in three weeks. However the time of success did not last long, when in 1970 Renˇc’sname got on the list of banned authors and he could not have his work published neither performed on the stage since then. He turned to the writer Vil´emZ´avada to put in a good word for him in the “higher circles” to be able to publish again but without any greater success. Not long after the publishing ban, on 30th of April 1973, V´aclav Renˇcdied of cancer, believed to be the result of the long years spent in the disastrous conditions of prison. In 1990 V´aclav Renˇc was rehabilitated which only his wife and his children lived to see.

2.2 Work and attitudes

2.2.1 1930s–40s

In the first two decades of Renˇc’sliterary production, the public was introduced mainly to his poetry, theatre plays, children’s literature and translations from different languages. Renˇcalso contributed to various magazines, he became involved in, with his poems, articles and essays. The 1930s were already marked by Renˇc’sconversion to Catholicism and his new strong views of the world around, which of course found its reflection especially in his poetry. His first collection of poems Jitˇren´ı was published in 1933 and already revealed Renˇcas a “spiritualistic poet”, who is only interested in “the phenomenal reality as long as it reflects the action that is divine”, as the literary critic F. X. Saldaˇ expressed himself about Renˇcafter reviewing his first fruit (Rotrekl, 1991: 118). V´aclav Renˇc,Josef Kostohryz, FrantiˇsekLazeck´yand other poets of their generation formed a Czech poetry

10 wave that was a follow-up to the earlier work of Bˇrezina,Deml and Durych. Renˇc’searly poems were also much influenced by R. M. Rilke and his way of explaining the contrast between the spirit and the substance by using art as a means to express his perception of the world. The whole Czech poetry of the thirties actually updated Rilke’s poetic heritage with the poets like, besides V´aclav Renˇc,Vladim´ırHolan and Jan Zahradn´ıˇcek. The central line of Renˇc’sfollowing collections of poems published in the thirties, Stud´anky (1935), Sedmihradsk´azem (1937), Vinn´ylis (1938) and Trojzpˇevy (1940), is the effort to approach the supernatural world order and include all the created reality with its relations in it. From this point of view all the creation heads towards the absolute – from the dark to the light. The baroque characteristic contrast between the spirit and the substance, the light and the dark together with the sensuality replaced by a delight in creation, into which the poet’s spiritual experience sublimates, are the main characteristics of Renˇc’s poetry of the time period preceding the main turning point of his life, which came after the Second World War. During the war Renˇcconcentrated mainly on his own dramatic works like Marnotratn´y syn (1942), C´ısaˇr˚uvmim (1944), Barbora Celsk´a (1944) or Komedie z kornoutu (1944), all of which were well received by both the reviewers and the public. Renˇc’splays often had a form of metaphysical-spiritual parables, trying to reveal the deceptiveness of the world of the senses, which prevent us from seeing the real purpose of life. Renˇcused the individual characters to present God’s intentions with the mankind on them, and the qualities and the weaknesses people are influenced by, when they make life decisions. The characters’ development and psychological conflicts are not so much the main focus here as their symbolizing the spiritual world of forces that influence human lives. After the war Renˇcalso wrote several fairy tales in verses for children, like Pern´ıkov´a chaloupka (1944) or MedvˇedFuˇna (1949), puppet plays and stage and radio dramatiza- tions. They probably arose as a reaction to the consequences of the war, trying to fulfil the children’s needs to indulge in a world of fantasy, fairy tales and adventure. Texts for animated cartoons and puppet films were created in Renˇc’scooperation with the designer Jiˇr´ıTrnka. Renˇcalso continued in translating works from German (R. M. Rilke, R. Schickele, F. Schiller), French (J. Green, J. Maritain, M. Maeterlinck, G. Duhamel), Italian, Polish and English until he got arrested by the Secret Police and imprisoned in 1951, which meant,

11 apart from the mental and physical suffering, the impossibility of hardly any literary work for at least ten years of his total imprisonment.

2.2.2 1950s–70s

During the years in prison Renˇchad only scarce chances to write, except the last years when he was allowed to keep a notebook for writing his own poetry. Before that the only way to create poems and preserve them was to memorize them as has already been mentioned in this work. Popelka Nazaretsk´a, Svˇetlemodˇen´a and Praˇzsk´alegenda were created in this way and carried out of prison in the memories of former prisoners or on scraps of paper. Popelka Nazaretsk´a is a story of Virgin Mary and her wandering through her life as well as lives of the people she guards and comforts. It is recalled by Renˇc’s family and friends that in the hardest times of his life, Renˇcwould use the poetry to express his faith in Virgin Mary to be his and other people’s deliverer. The book was published long after the poet’s return from prison, in 1969. Loret´ansk´esvˇetlo is another, a more lyrical hymn to Virgin Mary, inspired by the liturgical hymns and Loretta litanies, which was published in 1979 as a revised version of the first one from 1970, with a new title of Svˇetlemodˇen´a. Praˇzsk´alegenda was written in the Leopoldov prison in 1957 as a reaction to an event in Prague’s Old Town Square, when a Marian column was torn down by a group of young demonstrators led by Franta Sauer, called Oskar in Renˇc’s poem. The whole poem is written as Oskar’s biography with the main focus on the hard heart of an angry young man being changed by the goodness of Virgin Mary, whose statue he had destroyed and who wants to forgive those who seek her forgiveness. The poem is written in nineteen parts with the eighteenth being the strongest one, written as a dialogue between dying Oskar and Virgin Mary, who is offering her mercy and a new life to him. Praˇzsk´alegenda was only published posthumously in 1974. In the years after Renˇc’sreturn from prison, the poet concentrated mostly on trans- lating and partly also on poetry and children’s plays. At the beginning of the 1960s he worked for the Olomouc theatre, where he prepared texts for older operetta performances or so called folk musical comedies. He wrote a libretto based on the play written by Jan Neruda S pravdou ven. He also had his own plays performed on stage, as for example Tom Sawyer od ˇrekyMississippi in 1964, a children’s play which enjoyed a great success, as the memories of his then employer SvˇetozarV´ıtekconfirm.

12 As has already been mentioned, nothing could stop V´aclav Renˇcfrom working with a great vigour, especially on translating plays and poetry, when he started to live a new life after his return from prison. Renˇctranslated mainly plays by William Shakespeare but also poetry, for example Draˇc´ıkˇr´ıdlo stesku [Dragon’s wing of nostalgia], published in 1965 as an anthology of lyrical work by S. T. Coleridge. Renˇc’stranslations of Shakespeare’s plays and their performances were well received by both the public and the reviewers. He translated the plays mainly at the request of concrete theatres. He gained favourable response in 1963 with the opening night of Jak se v´aml´ıb´ı [As You Like It] and Makbeth, in 1964 with Troilus a Kressida, in 1965 with P˚ujˇckaza opl´atku [Measure for Measure], in 1966 with Dva veronˇst´ıˇslechtici [Two gentlemen of Verona], in 1967 with Kr´alRichard Druh´y [The Tragedy of King Richard II], Antonius a Kleopatra and Hamlet, in 1968 with Bouˇre [The Tempest], Apr´ılov´akomedie aneb Cokoli chcete [Twelfth-Night; or What You Will] and Konec vˇsenaprav´ı [All’s Well That Ends Well], in 1969 with Sen svatoj´ansk´enoci [A Midsummer-Night’s Dream] and in 1971 with Jak ochoˇcitdivoˇsku [The Taming of the Shrew], adapted in 1972 as a musical play for the Cheb Theatre, called Zkrocen´ıdivoˇsky. Renˇc’sonly translation that has come out in print was P˚ujˇckaza opl´atku, published by Odeon as a part of collected translations of Shakespeare’s work Komedie III in 1967, edited by ZdenˇekStˇr´ıbrn´y,who also wrote a commentary to Renˇc’stranslation. Other plays like Jak se v´aml´ıb´ı, Makbeth, Troilus a Kressida, Dva veronˇst´ıp´ani, Kr´alJan, Kr´al Richard Druh´y, Veˇcertˇr´ıkr´alov´y and Sen svatoj´ansk´enoci were published by the Dilia publishing house in typescript. Other, unpublished translations or adaptations of plays have been preserved in the heritage, administered by Renˇc’sson-in-law, Jaroslav Nov´ak. In spite of a long time break between his last collection of poems before the impris- onment, Trojzpˇevy (1940, republished in 1948) and the first one after his release, Setk´an´ı s Minotaurem (1969), Renˇc’swork did not lose its continuity, including the poet’s deep Christian faith and a subtle sense for the word. Renˇc’spoems are now influenced by his tragic experience and memories of prison, like, apart from Setk´an´ıs Minotaurem, also his collections of poems Hoˇrez n´avratu (1969) or Skˇrivan´ıvˇeˇz (1970) show, and they refer to the real world more that ever before. Renˇc’slast collections of poems from the years after his imprisonment are considered to be the peak of his work, freed of his previous use of clich´esand exaggerated pathos. Cesk´eˇzalmyˇ (1989) and M´ajov´e´uvahy. Mari´ansk´e meditace (1996) were published posthumously.

13 3 Renˇc’sapproach towards translating dramatic texts

3.1 Introduction

For the following study, most of the facts and thoughts, regarding Renˇc’stheoretical and practical translating, have been drawn from the sources of the private heritage provided by Renˇc’sfamily. That includes Renˇc’sletters, notes, articles and interviews, which have been studied in order to create a picture of his theorizing and translating. Renˇchimself did not intend to form and express a theory of translation. However his thoughts and opinion are used in order to show his own convictions and beliefs as well as his contemporaries’ opinion that he respected and tried to apply to his translation work. The sources that I have cited from are stated at the end of the thesis in the bibliography. In the last part, focusing on Renˇc’stranslation practice, I chose his translation of Shakespeare’s tragedy Macbeth to be analysed. For this purpose a comparison between the translation by V´aclav Renˇcand the one by Otokar Fischer will be drawn so as to show the similarities and the differences between two pieces of work created within a fifty-year interval. The analysis should follow the previous study of Fischer’s influence on Renˇc’s translation work, which could find its reflexions in the practical part later on.

3.2 Philosophy and beliefs

3.2.1 Relation to other Czech translations of Shakespeare

Several factors and events contributed to V´aclav Renˇc’sinterest in drama and partial transition from poetry to this literary genre. In his notes he himself talks about the time of his childhood when he, apart from writing simple verses out of which great poetry later developed, has gone to see several plays by Shakespeare at the National Theatre in Prague and this way has soon become attracted to the world of the theatre. He remembers that the versions at that time have been usually translated by Bohumil Stˇep´anek,whichˇ he did not bear in mind at that age, of course. Though, fascination by theatre, plays and Shakespeare prevailed until later when, around the years 1938 and 1939, he starts to feel that lyrical poetry has no longer been sufficient for what he feels is necessary to express about the serious events that have arisen. He wrote several own plays, which were very well received during the war, and began to be interested in translating foreign poetry

14 and drama, too. His biggest immersion into translating plays, especially those written by Shakespeare, however, came only after his return from prison in 1962. Soon after that, various theatres became interested and asked Renˇcto translate plays to be performed on their stages. From this period of time we also have the widest range of Renˇc’snotes of his philosophy and his theory of translating dramatic works. Renˇcwas a “modern” translator of his age, the 1960s. He tried not to look back but rather forward to the present or to the near future. He served the theatrical scene of his time and tried to fulfil the requests for modern translations and adaptations of old theatrical pieces. Renˇcloved life of the young and supported the longing of young people for new ways and forms and the artistic and theatrical expressing of new ideas. He did not fear to take a play by Shakespeare and dress it in a completely new “coat”. In the spirit of modernisation and approach to the young generation, some of his adaptations, radio or musical ones, are created. Along the same lines, the musical translation of Taming of the Shrew is written as an adaptation and is justified by Renˇcas the version not much changed in the wording, though supplemented by some topical allusions or wordplay, which would show that “z romantick´ehoa ‘nevˇerohodn´eho’pˇr´ıbˇehu [se] st´av´ajak´asihra mlad´ych” [from a romantic and ‘unlikely’ story becomes the play of the young]. For Renˇc, the modernisation of translation also means the pursuit of clarity to his contemporaries. Milan Lukeˇsexplains this fact in his study Mezi karnevalem a snem with saying that “jazyk mus´ız˚ustatˇziv´ya pˇrirozen´y”[the language must stay live and natural] (Lukeˇs, 2004: 349) to be able to appeal to the audience of today. Renˇcwas trying to understand the thinking of people of the sixties, who were twenty or thirty years younger than he was. Therefore he was often considered to be their contemporary, as Josef Heyduk mentions in his introduction to the interview with V´aclav Renˇc:

V posledn´ıch pˇetiletech se setk´avaj´ıˇcten´aˇria n´avˇstˇevn´ıcidivadel tak ˇcasto se jm´enemV´aclava Renˇce,ˇzeho mnoz´ı povaˇzuj´ı za jednoho z v´yznaˇcn´ych mlad´ych b´asn´ık˚u,tak svˇeˇz´ıa souˇcasn´yje jeho jazyk, dikce, postˇreh(Heyduk, Lidov´ademokracie, 1967) [Within the past five years readers and theatre visitors have encountered the name of V´aclav Renˇcso often that many of them consider him as one of the significant young poets, so refreshing and present his language, diction and observation is].

As regards the situation on the Czech theatrical scene, especially Shakespeare’s plays translated into Czech, on the one hand Renˇcacknowledges and appreciates the older

15 translations of Shakespeare by Josef V´aclav Sl´adekor Bohumil Stˇep´anek,butˇ on the other hand he feels that Shakespeare is necessary to be translated into modern Czech, understandable to his contemporaries. He also feels that it is important to accept Sl´adek’s “pˇreb´asnˇen´ıjako d´ılo,kter´eje z´aroveˇnslohovˇehistorick´ymdokumentem, obdivovat se jeho invenˇcnostia d˚uslednosti”[poetical rewriting as a work of art, which is a documentary of a style and history at the same time, to appreciate his inventiveness and consistency] and this ‘literary’ opinion of his shifts to Stˇep´anek’s‘theatrical’ˇ opinion. From Renˇc’s point of view E. A. Saudek has later been inspired by these translators because it has been “prvn´ıuvˇedomˇel´ypokus o synt´ezub´asnicky slohov´eˇclenit´ejednoty s poˇzadavkem divadelnosti” [the first conscious attempt to synthesize the lyrically stylistic, differentiated unity with the request for theatricality]. As Renˇcnotices, apart from the ever growing effort for a theatrical precision, the more Saudek has penetrated into the literary aspects of Shakespeare’s texts, the more he can feel the transition to the baroque sounding of his verses and tries to be faithful to this characteristic in his own translations. Though, this baroque tuning of translation did not live to be performed on stage. In the 1960s Renˇctogether with other Czech dramatists and stage directors expresses the need for new theatrical translations appropriate to the understanding and acceptance of the new generation of people who hate to see and mistrust anything given and unchangeable.

3.2.2 Renˇc’sunderstanding of Shakespeare

William Shakespeare and the fascination by his figure and his work is the main source of all the effort V´aclav Renˇcputs into translating his plays. Despite a number of suspicious and critical views of the authenticity of Shakespeare’s plays, created by many “vˇed´atory” [would-be scientists] and “pˇremoudˇrel´y[mi]ˇsˇtoural[y]” [clever-clever fault-finders] as he calls them, V´aclav Renˇclooks up to the whole work generally granted an authorship by Shakespeare and never tries to solve the dilemma of ‘who had actually written the plays’. He justifies the originality of Shakespeare by saying that as Shakespeare has primarily been a dramatist, his critics of the past and especially of today cannot be dramatists at all. For if they were, they would feel the same as true dramatists do, who “na hony vyc´ıt´ı, ˇzedech, ˇzivotn´ıtep v Shakespearov´ych textech, nevych´az´ız ˇzilnikoho jin´eho,neˇzkdo mˇel v sobˇechuˇt, ˇcich a hmat, krev i rytmus, instinkt i zkuˇsenostdivadeln´ıhopraktika” [can feel within miles that the breath and the vital heartbeat of Shakespeare’s scripts come

16 out of the veins of no one else than the one who abounds with a sense of taste, smell and touch, the blood and the rhythm, the instinct and the experience of a drama practitioner]. Renˇcprefers to view Shakespeare’s work as a “microcosm” with the penetrability of the present and the past. When he talks about this Renaissance dramatist, actor and director, he calls him “n´aˇssouˇcasn´ık”[our contemporary]. For Renˇc,Shakespeare represents an artist whose work is “nadˇcasov´e”[timeless], “nadˇz´anrov´e”[supergenre], “nadkonvenˇcn´ı” [superconventional], for Shakespeare never used “pure genres” or worked under conven- tions. The problems of Shakespeare’s times go beyond their borders and appear as the problems, whether social or personal, of our – (and always) the present time. According to Renˇc,Shakespeare reflects the reality through the means of the theatre, giving it the image of a mirror reflecting the real life. This reality represented by the theatre can never evaporate with the time. Renˇccan see the secret of Shakespeare in his love for the truth, for “skuteˇcnou skuteˇcnost”[the real reality] around him that endures up to the present. He even understands the Elizabethan dramatist as “prorok revoluc´ı,prorok humanistick´ehosvˇeta”[the prophet of revolutions, the prophet of the humanistic world] as his work also penetrates into our time through the new kind of media – the film. Renˇc calls Shakespeare the greatest living screenwriter – therefore “our contemporary”. Throughout Renˇc’sstudies of Shakespeare and work on the translations of his plays, he becomes aware of the lack of stage directions in the texts and finds an explanation for that in the energy the plays are filled with. As Renˇcnotices in his effort to understand Shakespeare and his dramatical intentions, the text includes so much action, gestures, and rhythm that the playwright has not felt the need to explain the action outside the dialogues. This is what the translator should bear in mind and try to maintain the same energy in the text as well as the overall monumental peace that spreads over the whole piece of work.

3.2.3 Renˇc’stheory of translation

Influenced by his predecessors in the study of translating and by the situation of the Czech theatre in the 1960s, V´aclav Renˇccomes to the conclusion that one of the main rules that are necessary to obey while translating a text from one language into another is to create a work that preserves and is faithful to the meaning as much as possible. The translator is allowed to change the wording of the text. The idea of the faithfulness to the text of the

17 original is no longer as topical in Renˇc’stime as it was preferred mostly in the nineteenth century by the translators like Josef V´aclav Sl´adek.For Sl´adek,being a faithful translator meant to fully transmit the literary and poetical wording of the original to the translated text. He was faithful to the details and complicated expressions in an effort to enable the receiver of the text to understand what the author of the original had meant. However, Renˇcrather identifies with Bohumil Stˇep´anek’swayˇ he has approached this problem and has tried to give a true picture of the spirit, the atmosphere and the rhythm, being faithful to the whole rather than details. As Milan Lukeˇsputs it in his Shakespearean study Mezi karnevalem a snem, explaining the different conception of translating by Sl´adek,who “nadˇradilodpovˇednostv˚uˇcipˇredloze– tj. hledisko vˇernosti”[gave precedence to respon- sibility for the original – i.e. perspective of faithfulness], compared to that of Stˇep´anek,ˇ who “nadˇradilodpovˇednostv˚uˇcic´ılipˇrekladatelsk´epr´ace– tj. hledisko srozumitelnosti” [gave precedence to responsibility for the aim of the translator’s work – i.e. perspective of comprehensibility] (Lukeˇs,2004: 342). In his notes to the translation of Troilus and Cressida, Renˇcmentions that the play is so much placed on the edge between two literary styles and in addition to that it includes so many wordplays and allusions which, being preserved in the translation in the same sounding as in the original, could hinder the audience from full understanding the meaning of the whole piece. Therefore Renˇcdecides to paraphrase rather than translate many of the puns, and to develop different puns out of the Czech lexicon range in order to “oˇciˇsˇtovat a h´ajitsrozumitelnost do krajn´ım´ıry, jakou pˇripouˇst´ıv´yznamov´apˇresnost pˇrekladu”[purify and uphold the comprehensibility to the utmost degree that is allowed by the semantic fidelity of the translation]. Comprehensibility would always be the main focus at the expense of changing the poetical and syntactic wording or even missing out some parts expressed in the English original. Renˇcwould rather present the audiences with the life and institutions which they are well acquainted with and which are more common in their natural surroundings so that they can get more easily oriented or even deduce the situation according to their knowledge. However, according to Renˇc,the simplification of the original is not possible in the sense of “stroh´eobnaˇzenosti,aˇt myˇslenkov´enebo dˇejov´e” [stark bareness, whether of thought or of action]. Renˇconce again explains his idea of rephrasing the original in the sense of comprehensibility. Rather than simplification and offering the audience a simple version with explanations ‘between the lines’, he simplifies

18 the syntactic and structural-versicular aspects in pursuit of maintaining the metaphoric aspect of the play. As has already been mentioned, the theatre and theatre performances were the main targets of Renˇc’sefforts in the 1960s. Regarding his translation work, it had been moulded in many different ways just to suit the needs of the theatre. Renˇcwas not an individualist; he collaborated with stage directors as well as the actors (working as a stage director at times too) in a way that he respected their parts in a theatrical performance and adjusted his translation to their roles. His creed was to “vych´azetco nejv´ıc ze srdce a z ´ust herce” [proceed from the heart and the mouth of the actor as much as possible], which he also believed was the intent of Shakespeare’s dramatic work in its origin, and to proceed from the theatricality of the texts as their primary function. The relationship between a translator and an actor and its importance for the translator’s work is further explained by Renˇchimself in his letters to theatres he worked with and his notes for different forums and interviews: “slova dramatick´ehob´asn´ıka se rozˇz´ıvaj´ıdo pln´ehov´yznamu (sdˇeln´eho, myˇslenkov´eho,citov´eho)a do pln´e,´uˇcinn´ekr´asyteprve skrze herce[; v] orchestru hereck´ych projev˚una jeviˇsti”[the words of a dramatic poet only start to live up to their full meaning (informative, ideal and emotional) and to their full effectual beauty through the actor; in the orchestra of actors’ performances on the stage]. Another aspect of translating, justified not only by V´aclav Renˇcbut also by his teacher, the translator Otokar Fischer, or by the doyen of the Czech translation stud- ies, Jiˇr´ıLev´y,is the emphasis on translation perceived as an interpretation. In his Umˇen´ı pˇrekladu Lev´yhighlights the fact necessary for a good translation: “Dobr´ypˇrekladatel mus´ıb´ytpˇredevˇs´ımdobr´yˇcten´aˇr”[a good translator must be first and foremost a good reader] (Lev´y,1963: 25), and further stresses the importance of translator’s (as reader’s) “pochopen´ıskuteˇcnost´ıv d´ıle”[perception of reality in a work] (Lev´y,1963: 27), lead- ing to the appropriate interpretation. Renˇcis also aware of the necessity of a translator undertaking the role of an interpreter of the original, trying to understand the author’s intentions and the background of his work, the individual characters and their roles in the play. According to Renˇc,a translator must be “prvn´ıma ‘nejzkuˇsenˇejˇs´ım’,tj. ne- jpronikavˇejˇs´ımˇcten´aˇrem(. . . ) a z´aroveˇnprvn´ımvykladaˇcem”[the first and ‘the most experienced’, i.e. the most penetrating reader (. . . ) and the first interpreter as well] of the original and it is therefore his responsibility to pass the writer’s thoughts and ideas to

19 the readers or the audience who would follow his translation. As an interpreter, a trans- lator is responsible for the way the play will be understood also and most importantly by a stage director and actors and is therefore accountable for the way they would decide to approach their roles in the performance. In addition to that, Renˇcsays that in case of translating a dramatic piece more aspects of possible misunderstanding are put at stake due to the utter lack of stage directions that could help the actors and stage directors imagine the situation, emotions and gestures of the characters of the play. Therefore a translator has to rely just on the dramatic text of the dialogues (or monologues), which determines the interpretation. A translation based on different interpretations could thus seriously influence the meaning of the whole play. However, Renˇcdoes not intend to provide an actor with a version that he himself regards the best possible without the actor’s experience which is necessary for an interpretation of the work. Renˇcfounds his theory on the fact that a playwright (as Shakespeare was) should be an actor in the first place; he should have the actor’s experience as well as “zkuˇsenostdivadla” [the theatre experience] to be able to place the words in the actor’s mouth and speak through him. Renˇcmentions Shakespeare being primarily an actor. According to him it means that “slova se mu nerodila na pap´ıˇre,ale v ´ustech” [his words were not born on paper but in his mouth]. The theatrical shape of words was the first and foremost aspect of the language that was necessary to respect for the dramatist and it is the first and foremost aspect for the translator, too. To achieve the theatricality of language, a fruitful collaboration with stage directors and dramatic advisers is essential for Renˇc.In the 1960s he notices their calls for providing new translations of Shakespeare for reasons not quite clear to Renˇc,though anticipated as “nov´ygeneraˇcn´ı pocit, jehoˇznejv´yraznˇejˇs´ım spoleˇcn´ymznakem je nechuˇt a pˇr´ımo ned˚uvˇerak ˇcemukoliv dan´emu apriori nebo ‘napevno’” [a new generation feeling with the most conspicuous common characteristic of repulsion and even distrust to anything given a priori or for good]. He can see that their need to look for the defects and imperfec- tions has been based in the feeling close to scepticism, which has also produced the new generation’s analysis of old translations and their demerits “pod mikroskopem otazn´ık˚u” [under the microscope of question marks]. Other aspects interfering in the approach to Shakespeare’s texts and plays in Renˇc’stime were quite a good awareness of different methods of the stage-management abroad, in England for example, and the ambition to

20 update the Czech theatre to their quality level. Then there were still the local “pˇreˇz´ıvaj´ıc´ı snahy po politick´emdivadle” [ongoing endeavour for the political theatre] in the sense of reacting to everyday events and with the aim to be original, even shocking for the public. In all these aspects Renˇccan see contemporary translators of Shakespeare put into roles of “interpret˚una zak´azku”[interpreters upon order]. In his notes V´aclav Renˇcmentions his collaboration with the stage director of the 1960s, Milan P´asek,whose opinion he respected and whose changes in the text he mostly accepted. Their teamwork was put into practice in the following way: P´asek’sideal interpretation and dramaturgic plan was known to Renˇcbefore he started translating the play. Though, as the first step Renˇc chose to provide the stage director with a complex literal translation of the play (Troilus and Cressida for example), which would then be adjusted by the stage director with the help of minor deletions as well as more serious semantic changes. In his notes to the translation of Troilus and Cressida, V´aclav Renˇcdeclares that P´asek’schanges would be added to the final version of Renˇc’stranslation as adopted by the translator himself and also considered as the definite version for every subsequent mise-en-scene.

21 4 The influence of Otokar Fischer on V´aclav Renˇc

4.1 Renˇcas Fischer’s follower

V´aclav Renˇc’stranslation work is mainly grounded on the theoretical and practical work of his university lecturer and life inspiration, Otokar Fischer, whose thoughts he often quotes in his articles as well as puts into practice in his translation work. Otokar Fischer was a literary historian, a theatrical reviewer and a theoretician, a translator from Ger- man, French, English and Flemish, a poet and a dramaturg, who was interested in the problems of Czech-studies and comparatistics and the stylistic and psychological analysis of a literary work. As regards translation studies, his focus was mainly on creating a mod- ern Czech translation. The theatre was his lifelong interest; he worked as a dramaturg at the National Theatre in Prague, where he became a stage director in 1937. Before achiev- ing this post he worked as a lecturer and a professor at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University in Prague, where V´aclav Renˇcfirst met him as a student and became one of his admirers. One of Fischer’s principal thoughts which Renˇcwas inspired by and which he para- phrases in his records is the characterization of the ideal of poetic translation:

pˇrekladatelby mˇelsplynout s d´ılema s jeho autorem tak, aby v´ysledekjeho in- terpertace se jevil, jako by autor d´ılonapsal, kdyby ˇzildnes a jeho mateˇrˇstinou byla dneˇsn´ıˇceˇstina.Jen t´ımlze dos´ahnoutmaxima vnitˇrn´ıshody mezi p˚uvod- n´ımd´ılema jeho ˇcesk´ympˇrevodem a vzbudit nezbytn´ydojem, ˇzejde o d´ılo v jeho svˇeˇz´ıp˚uvodn´ıpodobˇe,bez tˇeˇzkop´adn´ych ˇsv˚unebo zase lehkov´aˇzn´ych pˇreskok˚umezi origin´alema pˇrekladem.(Renˇc,1971) [a translator should merge with the work and its author in such a way that the result of his interpretation would sound the same as if the author himself wrote his work today and his mother tongue was today’s Czech. This is the only way in which the maximum of the inner unity between the original and its Czech translation can be achieved and the essential impression can be evoked that the concern is for the work in its fresh original shape, without any ponderous joints or carefree jumps between the original and the translation.]

As Fischer himself puts it, contemplating the translation of poetry, saying: “mus´ım se vmyslit do situace, ˇzeby b´asn´ıkmˇelv´yhody i nev´yhody materi´alum´eho,tj. ˇzeby byl psal ˇcesky, ˇzeby byl tvoˇrilz ducha ˇceˇstiny” [I must put myself into the situation as if the poet had the advantages and disadvantages of my material, i.e. as if he wrote in Czech and created out of the spirit of the language] (Fischer, 1982: 10). To Fischer’s philosophy

22 Renˇcadds his view of the necessity of such a poet-translator being able to “ztotoˇznit[se] (. . . ) se ‘sv´ym’b´asn´ıkem jen tehdy, kdyˇzto je aspoˇnv nˇekter´emohledu opravdu ‘jeho’ b´asn´ık.(. . . ) Budˇ ˇzesi jsou bytostn´ymtypem bl´ızc´ı,nebo ˇzeby pˇrekladatelpr´avˇenˇek´ym takov´ymjako ‘jeho’ autor b´ytchtˇel(. . . )” [to identify (. . . ) himself with ‘his’ poet only in case he is really ‘his’ poet, at least in some respect. (. . . ) Either they have something in common in their essential being or that the translator would like to be someone just like ‘his’ author (. . . )] (Heyduk, 1967: 3). The following comparison gives a survey of some of the expressions from Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet which are translated by different translators using alternative equivalents from the Czech lexicon, either trying to be faithful to the original or updating the language to serve the better comprehension of their contemporaries. In a closer study Renˇccan be seen as a translator least dependent on the mere sounding of the original expression, which does not have to mean that he deviates from the meaning of the text.

Shakespeare Renˇc Sl´adek Hodek Saudek

and nickname jen berete pˇrezd´ıv´ate co P´anB˚uh zpotvoˇrujete God’s creatures nadarmo jm´ena boˇz´ımtvor˚um stvoˇril,pro to jm´enaboˇz´ıch boˇz´ıch tvor˚u vy m´ateihned tvor˚u vˇselijak´ym sprost´yv´yraz brouˇckov´an´ıma kocourkov´an´ım

Hamlet, suspected of going mad, is awaited by Ophelia, who was asked to talk to Hamlet and find out what his state really was. When they meet, he ridicules his feelings to Ophelia by criticizing her looks and behaviour. He mentions her “paintings”, meaning the make-up, that women like her use to make them look better than they do. Apart from the make-up, Hamlet is irritated by the way women “jig, [. . . ] amble, and [. . . ] lisp, and nickname God’s creatures and make [their] wantonness [their] ignorance” (2.1.152– 154), which is translated by Renˇcas follows: “Hops´ate,nakrucujete se, ˇsiˇsl´ate,jen berete nadarmo jm´enaboˇz´ıch tvor˚uvˇselijak´ymbrouˇckov´an´ıma kocourkov´an´ım,a jako byste o sv´emkoketov´an´ıani nevˇedˇely.” [You jig, you twirl, you lisp, you only take the names of God’s creatures in vain by calling one a little beetle and a kitty as if you did not even know about your flirting]. In his understanding Renˇcadded to Shakespeare’s expression “nickname God’s creatures” his own explanation of women’s calling men endearing names associated with God’s adorable creatures. In Czech calling somebody a “little beetle”

23 [brouˇcek]or a “kitty” [kocourek] in a certain situation may be connected with flirting. Sl´adek’stranslation, faithful to the original, renders Shakespeare’s version into Czech as “pˇrezd´ıv´ateboˇz´ımtvor˚um”[you nickname God’s creatures] and yet another translation, by Hodek, offers quite a different version in meaning: “co P´anB˚uhstvoˇril,pro to vy m´ate ihned sprost´yv´yraz”[what is created by Lord God, you immediately call with the use of a curse expression], whereas Saudek would translate the same part as: “zpotvoˇrujetejm´ena boˇz´ıch tvor˚u”[you miscreate the names of God’s creatures], returning to the meaning of the original without including his opinion or explanation for it. The four above mentioned translations are presented to give a picture of the various possibilities Shakespeare’s expression “[to] nickname God’s creatures” can be understood by different translators of different periods of time. Renˇcseems to have extended the meaning to a further dimension than the other translators, applying his own idea of what he thinks the playwright might have meant. Renˇctries to add to the text his own under- standing of the situation and Hamlet’s intention to attack Ophelia with strong words, and obviously also has in mind his and Fischer’s strong belief that a translator should merge with the work and its author in such a way that the result of his interpretation would sound the same as if the author himself wrote his work today and his mother tongue was today’s Czech (Renˇc,1971). In many other cases Renˇcsimilarly decides to use the range of expressions Czech has to offer and hereby draw the translation closer to Czech audience. In the mentioned example he understands that the expression “to nickname somebody” does not have to be translated exactly and faithfully to the wording of the original and therefore does not have to be rendered into Czech with one corresponding equivalent. Renˇctries to see the situation from more perspectives than which suggests itself, and in his translations he implies among others his own perception of the atmosphere, the situation and the characters involved. Sl´adek’seffort to literally translate Shakespeare, trying to be faithful to the exact meaning and form of the original, was subjected to severe assault by Fischer and his new translation school, who criticised Sl´adek’santiquated language and theatrical aesthetics (Stˇr´ıbrn´y,2005: 315) as well as his translations being primarily academic not theatrical (Lev´y,1957: 582). Fischer holds an opinion that “[b]´ytivˇern´ympˇrekladatelem,to ne- jenom nevyˇzadujepˇrekladudoslovn´eho,n´ybrˇznaopak: vyluˇcujejej. B´ytvˇerenduchu a ne liteˇre,celku a ne vˇzdydetailu, rytmu a ne floskul´ım,n´aladˇei atmosf´eˇrea ne kaˇzd´emu

24 nenapodobiteln´emu v´yrazu;(. . . )” [to be a faithful translator does not only require a literal translation but on the contrary: it excludes it. To be faithful to the spirit and not the word, to the whole and not always to the detail; to the rhythm, not the rhetoric, to the ambience and the atmosphere, not to every inimitable expression] (Fischer, 1947: 106). Renˇcagrees with his view, although he himself appreciates Sl´adek’stranslation strategy as creative and most significant unlike Fischer, who “shled´aval[. . . ] Sl´adk˚uvpˇr´ımoob- jevitelsk´yˇcinnedost shakespearovsk´ympr´avˇez hlediska vnitˇrn´ıautentiˇcnostia stylov´e pˇrimˇeˇrenosti”[found Sl´adek’salmost path-breaking deed not enough shakespearean from the inner-authenticity and stylistic-adequacy point of view] (Renˇc,1968). When Fischer himself tries to define a good translation, he uses a metaphor from the fine art, explaining that translating is not the same “jako kdyˇzse v gal´eriikop´ırujestar´y mistr” [as when the old masters are copied in the galleries], neither as “odlitek” [a casting] nor “napodoben´ı”[an imitation]. According to Fischer, translating a lyrical or a dramatic work means “pˇren´aˇsetje do jin´ehomateri´alu;do materi´alu,kter´ysi zˇc´astidiktuje sv´e vlastn´ınov´epodm´ınky, a zd˚uvodˇnujetud´ıˇzi nutn´eodchylky od pˇredlohy” [to transmit it into another material; into material which partially dictates its own new conditions and therefore justifies the necessary deviations from the original as well] (Fischer, 1982: 9). Renˇc’stranslations seem to comply with such requirements for a good translation, which is supported with the examples of dramatic language translated into the Czech of the second half of the twentieth century. Apart from being modern and lacking the possible archaic sounding, the language encompasses “the necessary deviations from the original”, which arise during the transfer from one language into another, with the effort to allow the language to sound as if the play was originally written in Czech. This and the desire to create a translation as a new work of art are Fischer’s as well as Renˇc’saims when translating from any foreign language: “p˚uvodn´ıb´aseˇnje nutno znovu vytvoˇritz ducha nov´ehojazyka. (. . . ) Zato m´apˇrekladumˇeleck´ehod´ılaplatnost a opr´avnˇenosttehdy, je-li umˇeleck´ymd´ılems´am.”[an original poem is necessary to create again from the spirit of a new language. (. . . ) Whereas the translation of a work of art is valid and justified only if it is a work of art itself.] (Fischer, 1982: 7). Unlike Fischer, Renˇcdoes not criticize the ‘older’ translators, including Sl´adek,or Vrchlick´y,and sometimes he even looks for inspiration in their work. Despite his looking into older translations for inspiration and adopting some of the ideas other translators

25 have come to, Renˇcstrives to make new translations with the use of modern language. Therefore he is definitely against using, or adopting, any archaic expressions, which the previous translators have used, trying to be faithful to the original as much as possible. Renˇcknows that the modern Czech has more alternatives and he uses it to draw the orig- inal nearer to the understanding of today’s audience. In Shakespeare’s play Antonius and Cleopatra, for example, Charmian, Cleopatra’s lady at court, enthusiastically welcomes a servant, Alexas, asking him to bring a soothsayer to foretell her future. In Sl´adek’strans- lation, who adjusted the speech to the exact meaning of Shakespeare’s wording “[l]ord Alexas, sweet Alexas, most any thing Alexas, almost most absolute Alexas” (1.2.1–2), she adoringly and almost pathetically calls Alexas “[p]ane Alexe, mil´yAlexe, nevyrov- nateln´yAlexe, pravzore vˇsech Alex˚u”[lord Alexas, dear/sweet Alexas, nonpareil Alexas, the archetype of all Alexases]. Renˇcadds a sense of flirtatiousness and more evident manipulativeness in his translation of Charmian’s exclamation admiring Alexas, “[p]ane Alexo, znejmilejˇs´ıAlexo, nejtentoˇckovatˇejˇs´ıAlexo, abych tak ˇrekla,nej- nej- nej- alexo- vatˇejˇs´ıAlexo” [lord Alexas, the sweetest Alexas, the one-and-all-and-everything Alexas, or to say the least, the most, most, most alexative Alexas], as if she had no more words to make Alexas help her, though a big desire to know her future from the man Alexas is about to bring. Once again, Renˇc’scontemporaries could learn more about the situation and the emotions ‘behind the words’ as he tries to preserve the meaning of the speech, which he understands from Shakespeare’s original, rather than its form, and uses a more appropriate language. In an interview for the Lidov´ademokracie newspaper, Renˇcdeclares his fundamental interest in the translation of Macbeth by Otokar Fischer and also expresses his admiration for and inspiration he finds in Fischer’s “z´asadafunkˇcn´ıhopˇrekladu(vzhledem k ˇcemu, pro koho), kter´yje kusem tvorby” [principle of functional translation (depending on what, for whom), which is a part of creation] (Heyduk, 1967: 3). V´aclav Renˇc,just like his precursor Otokar Fischer, feels it is necessary to decide for the aim of his work, for the purpose he creates for, which Fischer supports, saying, “bylo by pov´aˇzliv´ea pˇreceˇnuj´ıc´ı cht´ıtpˇrekl´adatpro nesmrtelnost. Spokojme se t´ım,abychom pˇrekl´adalipro souˇcasnost” [it would be alarming and overestimated to want to translate for eternity. Let us be satisfied with the fact we can translate for the present] (Fischer, 1982: 11). As I have already mentioned, Renˇcwas an author and a translator of the ‘modern times’. When

26 he was translating, he primarily thought about the way to address his contemporaries, especially young people. His selection of words and expressions would be appropriate to the understanding of modern Czech people.

4.2 Two translations of Macbeth

4.2.1 Inspiration and imitation

The greatest example of Fischer’s influence on V´aclav Renˇccan be found in his transla- tion of Shakespeare’s play Macbeth, which is marked by his teacher’s inspiration. Renˇc declares on several occasions that when translating he does not hesitate to look for inspi- ration in older translations of a literary work and when he finds a well-translated verse or expression, he adopts and uses it in his own translation rather than creates a worse equivalent. He expresses this opinion of his in the programme to the performance of his translation of Troilus and Cressida: “A kdekoli (. . . ) jsem naˇseltakov´epˇrekladatelsk´e ˇreˇsen´ı,kter´eje moˇznopovaˇzovat za zdar bl´ızk´ydefinitivnosti, vˇedomˇejsem takov´yde- tail pˇrejal. Pokl´ad´amto za poctivˇejˇs´ısluˇzbupˇrekl´adan´emu d´ılu,neˇzse ´upornˇesnaˇzito odliˇsen´ıst˚ujco st˚uj”[And wherever (. . . ) I found such a solution for a translation which could be considered to be a success close to definiteness, I adopted this detail deliberately. I regard it as a more honest favour to the translated work than trying hard to distinguish it at all costs]. His translation of Macbeth inspired by Fischer’s translation proves Renˇc’s theory on adopting parts of older versions in his own work. At the very beginning of Macbeth a translator translating the witches’ conjurations has to keep the same rhythm and effectual rhyming of the original that witchcraft is often marked by in literature. In order not to spoil the magical atmosphere and according to his own conviction, Renˇcadopts the same expressions, especially the rhymes, that Fischer has invented, rather than substituting them with new translations with a lesser effect:

27 Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

First Witch. Where the place? Prv´a. Kde se sejdem? Prvn´ı. Kde se sejdem?

Sec. Witch. Upon the heath. Druh´a. Na pl´ani. Druh´a. Na pl´ani.

Third Witch. There to meet Tˇret´ı. S Makbethem slavit Tˇret´ı. To bude s Makbethem with Macbeth. setk´an´ı. setk´an´ı. (. . . ) (. . . ) (. . . )

All. Fair is foul, and foul is fair:/ Vˇsechny. Hnus je kr´asa, Vˇsechny. Jen hnus je kr´asa Hover through the fog and filthy kr´asahnus;/ slizkou mhou, hej a kr´asahnus./ Tedˇ tmou a air. (1.1.1–13) hola, v let a klus! mhou se dejme v klus.

In an effort to maintain the same rhythm of the original and to choose the best possible translation, Renˇcuses much of Fischer’s version. However, one must admit that in this very place only Fischer does not adjust the rhythm to his own feeling and in the last verse of the witches’ incantation in unison he preserves the same irregular rhythm, breaking the regular iambic metre, as Shakespeare has probably intended: “Hover through the fog and filthy air.” (1.1.13) – “slizkou mhou, hej hola, v let a klus!”. Similarly, Renˇc’stranslation of the witches’ charming in almost all the following scenes where they appear is more or less influenced by Fischer, together with a lot of other verses, especially the rhymes. The refrain of the three witches’ conjuration over the potion they are preparing, preceding Macbeth’s entering their cavern, is repeated three times in the same reading in Renˇc’sand Fischer’s translations, both conspicuously resembling each other. Renˇcprobably admires the briefness and the dynamics of Fischer’s translation so much that he himself abandons the idea of trying to find a better solution.

Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

All. Double, double toil and Vˇsechny. P´aro,paˇrse, pr´ace, Vˇsechny. P´aro,paˇrse, d´ılo, trouble;/ Fire burn and daˇrse./ Ohni, hoˇra kotli, vaˇrse. daˇrse,/ ohni, hoˇra kotli, vaˇrse! cauldron bubble. (4.1.10–11)

In this scene, the whole passage in Renˇc’stranslation differs from that in Fischer’s translation only in several cases when Renˇcfinds a better rhyme or rhythmical collocation, which gives the speech a more dynamic cadence when pronounced on the stage. Despite the high quality of Fischer’s translation that Renˇcadmires, he, in my opinion, presents even a more immaculate work with the choice of rhymes and rhythm Czech has to offer. Renˇc’suse of mostly rhymes also contributes to the overall more impressive poetical

28 result of his translation of the “witches scenes” (e.g. moˇc´alu – pomalu, krk – brk, Aˇsanta – parchanta) in contrast to Fischer’s using assonances in some places (e.g. moˇc´alu – ˇzahadlu, ps´ı – jeˇstˇerˇc´ı, ret – tedˇ), which may break the regular rhythm of the rhyming verses. On the other hand, both Fischer and Renˇcstrive hard to use mostly monosyllabic or two-syllable words to keep the dynamics similar to that of Shakespeare. However, this technique can cause problems when translating from English into Czech, as the latter lacks the number of such expressions compared to English. One must admit that from this point of view both translators more or less succeed in being faithful to the original, both in meaning and form.

Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

Sec. Witch. Fillet of a fenny Druh´a. Ledv´ıhada z moˇc´alu,/ Druh´a. Ledv´ıhada z moˇc´alu/ snake,/ In the cauldron boil ˇsˇt´ava v ˇst´ıˇr´ım ˇzahadlu,/ oko ˇskvaˇra vaˇrse pomalu,/ mloˇc´ı and bake;/ Eye of newt, and mloˇc´ı,ˇzab´ı prst,/ k tomu oko, ˇzab´ıprst,/ shnilou netop´yˇr´ı toe of frog,/ Wool of bat, and netop´yra srst,/ jazyk zmije, srst,/ tlamu ps´ıa vran´ıkrk,/ tongue of dog,/ Adder’s fork, jazyk ps´ı,/ sov´ıbrk, hn´at zmij´ıjazyk, sov´ıbrk/ svaˇrmev and blind-worm’s sting,/ jeˇstˇerˇc´ı/ v ˇcarodˇejnoukaˇsi svaˇr ˇcarodˇejnoukaˇsi/aˇt puch pekel Lizzard’s leg, and howlet’s se,/ syˇcjak peklo, pec a ˇskvaˇr se tu vzn´aˇs´ı. wing,/ for a charm of powerful se. trouble,/ Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

All. Double, double toil and Vˇsechny. P´aro,paˇrse, pr´ace, Vˇsechny. P´aro,paˇrse, d´ılo, trouble;/ Fire burn and daˇrse./ Ohni, hoˇra kotli, vaˇr daˇrse,/ ohni, hoˇra kotli, vaˇrse! cauldron bubble. se.

Third Witch. Scale of Tˇret´ı. Z mumie mok a z draka Tˇret´ı. Draˇc´ıhˇreben, vlˇc´ı zub,/ dragon, tooth of wolf,/ chlup,/ z kozla ˇzluˇca vlˇc´ı zub,/ z mrtvoly mok a krys´ı trup,/ Witches’ mummy, maw and ze ˇzraloka bachor, chˇrt´an,/ bl´ın, chˇrt´ana bachor ˇzraloˇc´ı,/ gulf / Of the ravin’d salt-sea jenˇzv noci vykop´an,/ j´atraz pomoˇcen´e klokoˇc´ı,/ j´atraz ˇzida shark,/ Root of hemlock digg’d ˇzida pohana,/ vˇetevtisu, pohana,/ vˇetevtisu, trhan´a/ pˇri i’ the dark,/ Liver of trhan´a/ pˇrizatmˇen´ı mˇes´ıce;/ zatmˇen´ı mˇes´ıce./ A tedˇ do t´e blaspheming Jew,/ Gall of aby zhoustla smˇesice,/ Tatar˚uv smˇesice/ Turk˚uvnos, pysk goat, and slips of yew/ Sliver’d tam hod´ım ret,/ z Turka nos a Aˇsanta/ a tedˇ mal´ıkz in the moon’s eclipse,/ Nose of mal´ık tedˇ/ dˇecka, jeˇz,sotva je parchanta,/ co ho bˇehna opil´a/ Turk, and Tartar’s lips,/ Finger povila,/ bˇehnana hn˚uj hodila./ na hnojiˇstˇe hodila./ K tomu of birth-strangled babe/ Tak´etygˇr´ıkaldoun vaˇrse/ a to tygˇr´ıkaldoun pˇridej / a tedˇ v Ditch-deliver’d by a drab,/ vˇsechno v hrnci ˇskvaˇrse. kotli kaˇsi hl´ıdej. Make the gruel thick and slab:/ Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,/ For the ingredients of our cauldron.

All. Double, double toil and Vˇsechny. P´aro,paˇrse, pr´ace, Vˇsechny. P´aro,paˇrse, d´ılo, trouble;/ Fire burn and daˇrse./ Ohni, hoˇra kotli, vaˇr daˇrse,/ ohni, hoˇra kotli, vaˇrse! cauldron bubble. (4.1.12–36) se.

In the example presented above the rhyming expressions at the end of each line are marked by italics in order to see the similarities and differences between the original

29 and the two translations. Whereas Fischer’s attempt is to keep to the original structure, especially the connection between the last two lines (and rhymes) of the speech and the chorus, Renˇcseems to proceed with creating new unusual rhymes in each pair of verses that follows. Some of the expressions that carry an important meaning appear in the chorus of Shakespeare’s version, such as “for a charm of powerful trouble,/ Like a hell-broth boil and bubble” (4.1.18–19) or “Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,/ For the ingredients of our cauldron” (4.1.33–34), the essential rhyming expressions of which repeat as an echo in the chorus “Double, double toil and trouble;/ Fire burn and cauldron bubble” (4.1.20– 21; 4.1.35–36). Fischer preserves a similar structure to that of Shakespeare in the same verses, connecting the lines “v ˇcarodˇejnoukaˇsi svaˇrse,/ syˇcjak peklo, pec a ˇskvaˇrse” [into enchanting puree boil down,/ hiss as a hell, roast and fry] (4.1.18–19) and “Tak´etygˇr´ı kaldoun vaˇr se/ a to vˇsechno v hrnci ˇskvaˇrse” [Also a tiger’s chaudron boil/ and all that in a pot fry] (4.1.34–35) with the chorus “P´aro,paˇrse, pr´ace, daˇrse./ Ohni, hoˇra kotli, vaˇrse” [Steam steam, work flourish/ Fire burn and cauldron boil] (4.1.20–21; 4.1.36–37). He manages to do so by repeating the same or rhyming similar expressions, especially in the form of the Czech reflexive verbs svaˇrse [malt], ˇskvaˇrse [fry], vaˇrse [boil] and daˇrse [prosper]. Renˇc,on the other hand, uses a variety of expressions, though some of them with more than one syllable, making the speech slightly less dynamic, though more poetical: “svaˇrmev ˇcarodˇejnou kaˇsi/ aˇt puch pekel se tu vzn´aˇs´ı” [let’s boil down into enchanting puree/ let the infernal stench hang in the air] (4.1.18–19); “K tomu tygˇr´ı kaldoun pˇridej / a tedˇ v kotli kaˇsi hl´ıdej ” [To that a tiger’s chaudron add/ and now the puree in the cauldron watch] (4.1.34–35). Although he deviates from the intended effect of the original form, he makes a translation richer from the lexical and poetical point of view, though maybe with a lesser mystical effect of the whole passage, created by the dynamic repetition and monosyllabic words in Fischer’s version. The numerous deviations from Fischer’s translation that Renˇcdecides for are con- nected with the language itself, which he feels has to be updated, as well as the rhythm, speech melody and dynamics that the audience of the 1960s would accept as being more natural.

30 4.2.2 Updating Shakespeare’s and Fischer’s language

Although Fischer was ahead of his time in the way he approached translating and made a revolution in this area with his theory of translation, and although Renˇctook a lot of inspiration from his work, a lot of work had still to be done as the language had changed in the course of fifty years between Fischer’s and Renˇc’stranslation of Macbeth. In Renˇc’stime, the audiences were presented mostly with new translations by Saudek or Renˇc’scontemporaries. Yet, some ‘older’ translations like those by Fischer (especially his Makbeth) were awarded a high value and appreciated long after Fischer’s death as a breaking point in the history of Czech translation. Renˇcwas aware of this fact but in spite of his admiration of Fischer’s work, when using his translation of Makbeth to create a new one for his contemporaries, he had to modernize the form as well as update the lexical choice of the text. By the 1960s, when Renˇc’stranslation of Makbeth was created, the inversions of Czech sentence structures had no longer been used as much as in the 19th and the first decades of the 20th centuries. In poetry some of the inverted syntactical structures would be acceptable even in the second half of the 20th century, as some exceptions would be allowed to serve the rhythm of the whole. However, most of those structures commonly used fifty years before could be felt as unnatural by Renˇc’scontemporaries, as for example the expected word order of adjective – noun, e.g. v ˇcerstv´emlesku [in newest gloss] (Renˇc) inverted to the structure of noun – adjective v lesku zcela ˇcerstv´em [in gloss quite newest], or inversions vraˇzdasvatokr´adeˇzn´a [murder sacrilegious], rukama (. . . ) katansk´yma [hands (. . . ) murdering] (Fischer).

Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

This diamond he greets your Ten d´emant/ tv´echoti pos´ıl´a, A tento d´emant pos´ıl´atv´e wife withal,/ By the name of zva pˇrevl´ıdnou/ji hostitelkou. choti/ co vzorn´ehostitelce. most kind hostess; (2.1.15–16)

As they had seen me with these jak s tˇemarukama by Jak kdyby byli vidˇelim´eruce. hangman’s hands. (2.2.29) katansk´yma/mne vidˇeli.

Most sacrilegious murder hath Rozbila vraˇzdasvatokr´adeˇzn´a/ Do chr´amu P´anˇevloupala se broke ope/ The Lord’s anointed chr´amposvˇecen´yP´anu vraˇzda,/ta nejrouhavˇejˇs´ı temple (2.3.73–74)

Which would be worn now in To chci/ tedˇ v lesku zcela Chtˇelbych j´ıtedˇ uˇz´ıt/a v their newest gloss (1.7.34) ˇcerstv´emnosit ˇcerstv´emlesku vychutnat

31 However even more complicated inversions appear in Fischer’s translation, as for ex- ample zva pˇrevl´ıdnou/ji hostitelkou [calling the most kind her hostess], where the pronoun ji [her] is expected after the verb zva [calling], or jak s tˇemarukama by katansk´yma/mne vidˇeli [as with those hands if murdering they saw me], where by [if] is expected to connect jak [as] with mne vidˇeli [they saw me] and the already mentioned adjective katansk´yma [murdering] is expected before the noun rukama [hands]. The last mentioned example could be perceived by Renˇc’saudience as much less comprehensible than the structures commonly used by modern translators. Renˇcis careful not to use many inversions he may feel tempted to when reading Fischer’s translation of Macbeth or the original play, where Shakespeare also tends to use inversions in some places, e.g. This diamond he greets your wife withal. The following illustration, comparing translations of three translators of different pe- riods of time, gives us the picture of the way a language changes in the course of time. The use of the word zdoba [ornament] would be quite common in the last two decades of the 19th century (Sl´adek’stranslation) as well as the first two decades of the 20th century (Fischer’s translation), which means that the formal structure of the word does not change within at least forty years. However, fifty years between Fischer’s and Renˇc’s translations replace the expression zdoba with another, more modern ozdoba. Renˇcup- dates this word to sl´ava [glory], to serve the more common collocation sl´avaˇzivota [the glory of life], excluding the more archaic collocation zdoba ˇzivota [the ornament of life]. Similarly, Renˇccompletely avoids the archaic word ˇcivy [nerves, senses], employed by both Sl´adekand Fischer, though no longer used in Renˇc’stime, and eliminates the words in the sentence, preserving a similar meaning. However, none of the mentioned translators was probably aware of the exact meaning of the word nerves in the Elizabethan English, being in fact muscles. Only Renˇcavoids the possible ambiguity caused by inaccurate translation by omitting the expression and substituting it with the pronoun j´a [I] – “a j´a/ se nezachvˇeju”[and I will not tremble], which makes his translation being the closest to the meaning of the original. In the third example Fischer uses an older form of the word kl´ıt or prokl´ıt (used by Renˇcin the 1st person singular prokleju)– klnout (used by Fischer in the 1st person, singular klnu), which would probably not be quite understood by the audience half a century later.

32 Shakespeare Sl´adek’stranslation Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

Wouldst thou have A chtˇelbys m´ıtito,/ co Pˇrejeˇssi m´ıtto,/ v Chceˇsm´ıt,v ˇcemvid´ıˇs that/ Which thou v´aˇz´ıˇsjako zdobu ˇzivota ˇcemvid´ıˇs zdobu ˇzivota sl´avuˇzivota esteem’st the ornament of life (1.7.41–42)

and my firm nerves/ a pevn´e ˇcivy m´e/se pevn´e ˇcivy m´e/se a j´a/se nezachvˇeju Shall never tremble nezachvˇej´ı neotˇresou (3.4.102–103)

deny me this,/ And an To odepˇrtea vˇeˇcn´a Odm´ıtnˇeteji/ a na kdyˇzodepˇrete,/j´ana eternal curse fall on kletba v´am! vˇekyv´am klnu. vˇekyv´as prokleju. you! (4.1.104–105)

Renˇcis aware of the long interval between his and Fischer’s translation, which affects the language, and carefully investigates the language in order to update the expressions both of the original and of Fischer’s and his predecessors’ translations, which could sound archaic to his audience. He tries to update not only the individual words and expressions, but sometimes he does not hesitate to shorten, lengthen or completely restructure the text so as to bring the meaning of the speech closer to his audience.

4.2.3 Comprehensibility and explaining

In an effort to bring the play closer to the audience of the 1960s, Renˇcdoes not shun changing the wording of the original or rephrase the verses. He prefers the speech to sound as natural as possible and in order to achieve this he would restructure the text without actually changing the meaning of the original text. Compared to those by Fischer, Renˇc’stranslations often include less complicated and more poetical structures, which the spectator does not get lost in and which flow from the actors’ mouths more easily. For example, Renˇcsimply swaps two clauses, translated by Fischer as “zl´esny se derou k sp´anku,/jenˇzzastˇrenrouˇskou” and eliminates the number of words “k sp´anku,/jenˇz zastˇrenrouˇskou” [to the dream,/ which is covered by a veil] to “za oponu sp´anku”[behind the curtain of the sleep] to avoid the clumsiness that offers itself when translating the original text.

Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

Now o’er the one half-world/ Tedˇ v p˚ulisvˇetamrtva/ je Jedna p˚ulka svˇeta/je tedˇ jak Nature seems dead, and wicked pˇr´ıroda; zl´esny se derou k mrtva, za oponu sp´anku/zl´e dreams abuse/ The curtain’d sp´anku,/jenˇzzastˇrenrouˇskou. sny se kradou. sleep; (2.1.49–51)

33 Similar examples of Renˇc’ssuccess of finding a better solution of a translation from the poetical and syntactical point of view are presented below. He substitutes Fischer’s solution of translating “ravell’d sleave of care” as “zdrhnutou tk´aˇnstrast´ı”[a frilly tissue of sorrow] with a more poetical and better pronounceable “klubko strast´ı” [a knot of sorrow]. In the other example Renˇcagain avoids translating a word robe (translated by Fischer by the rather archaic word h´av) and again changes the structure of the two last clauses. His translation flows better than Fischer’s, having applied a different form of imperative clause from that used by Fischer.

Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

the innocent sleep,/ Sleep that sp´aneknevinn´y,/jenˇz Sp´aneknevinn´y,/jenˇzklubko knits up the ravell’d sleave of zdrhnutou tk´aˇnstrast´ırozpl´et´a; strast´ıjemnˇerozpl´et´a; care (2.2.37–38)

Well, may you see things well Aˇt se tam dobˇrezdaˇr´ıvˇse.Budˇ Budˇ zdr´av.K´eˇzprojde vˇsechno done there: adieu!/ Lest our zdr´av!/H˚uˇrnesluˇsz´anovn´ıneˇz se zdarem,/ aˇt nen´ıv nov´em old robes sit easier than our star´yh´av! h˚uˇrneˇzve star´em. new! (2.4.37–38)

In spite of Renˇc’seffort to translate the text as naturally as possible, one must admit that in some places he unintentionally manages to translate Shakespeare’s verses more poetically than they actually sound. By this he often achieves adding one or two more meanings to the original one, which Renˇcalso uses to explain the situation or the atmo- sphere better. In the following example, the colour in Shakespeare’s expression “a heart so white” is translated by Fischer as “bˇelosti”[whiteness] and by Renˇcas “zsinal´e”[pallid/ livid], the latter carrying at least two possible meanings, which Renˇcmight have wanted to employ in this verse. One explanation of the expression “srdce zsinal´e”[pallid/ livid heart] can be that Lady Macbeth sees her husband’s heart as white as a sheet, being too innocent to be able to commit a murder, the attitude of which she despises. Another view of Renˇc’stranslation can also imply the possible lividness or cowardliness of Macbeth, being too afraid to complete the committed crime.

Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

My hands are of your colour, M´amruce barvy tv´e,m´esrdce M´amruce jako ty – a bylo by mi but I shame/ To wear a heart vˇsak/tv´ebˇelostise ˇst´ıt´ı. hanba,/ m´ıtsrdce zsinal´e,jak ty so white. (2.2.65–66) m´aˇs.

34 Going back to the “witches’ scenes”, another interesting solution of a translation of a rather ambiguous speech can be noticed. One of the witches plans a revenge to punish a husband of a mean woman and finishes her speech by enouncing her idea to get on his boat in an image of a rat and do something to him. It is not very clear from the original what her action as a rat would actually be. Though, Renˇcchooses to translate the verb do in the line “I’ll do, I’ll do, and I’ll do” by the Czech verb hryzat [gnaw], implying by this the only and the most irritating thing a rat can do to a man. Fischer solves the magical repetition in this line by the mere repeating the word myˇs [mouse], implying no other action the witch was going to take in the mouse’s (rat’s) image than approaching the man. I would more agree with this solution if a translator strives for the fidelity to the original, which does not exactly imply what the action behind the verb do is.

Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

But in a sieve I’ll thither sail,/ J´ase mu v cestu pˇripletu,/ Popluju za n´ımv ˇreˇsetu,/ And like a rat without a tail,/ popluju za n´ımv ˇreˇsetu/jak zmˇen´ımse v bezocasou myˇs,/ I’ll do, I’ll do, and I’ll do. myˇs,jak myˇs,jak bez ocasu hup! za n´ımna lod,ˇ bl´ıˇza bl´ıˇz/ (1.3.8–10) myˇs. a hryz a hryz a hryz!

Other examples of Renˇc’sadjusting the translation to his own perception of the original can be seen in his giving the word guilt a deeper meaning. When Lady Macbeth calls the servants, who she has arranged to seem to be guilty, d´abliˇ [devils] in Renˇc’stranslation instead of vinn´ıci [culprits], which was Fischer’s solution, Renˇcthereby shifts the idea of being guilty further, giving the guilty servants a kind of ultimate image of guiltiness. Renˇcoften tries to explain a particular scene better by adding a different meaning he feels iss offering itself in the situation depicted, sometimes though overpoeticizing the actual text, like in the following example. The phrase “recompense (. . . ) is slow/ To overtake thee” is translated by Fischer as “odmˇenatˇe(. . . ) uˇznedol´etne”[recompense will not reach you any more] or by Renˇcas “odmˇena(. . . ) za tebou kulh´a”[recompense limps behind you], using a more expressive word kulhat [to limp] as a way of explaining the inability of Duncan rewarding Macbeth enough for his merits.

35 Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

I’ll gild the faces of the grooms tv´aˇrsluh˚uzbarv´ımkrv´ıtou jak j´asluh˚umcel´etv´aˇrepomaˇzu,/ withal;/ For it must seem their v´ınem,/by vinn´ıky se zd´ali. aˇt jsou jak d´abliˇ . guilt. (2.2.57–58)

Thou art so far before/ That Tys pˇredhoniln´astak,/ ˇze Tys pˇredhoniln´astak,/ ˇze swiftest wing of recompense is odmˇenatˇe,sebe rychlejˇs´ı,/uˇz odmˇena,i kdyby kˇr´ıdlamˇela,/ slow/ To overtake thee; nedol´etne. za tebou kulh´a. (1.4.16–18)

4.2.4 Theatricality and theatrical speech

The quality of Renˇc’stranslations most appreciated by the public as well as the reviewers was the skill to create a translation which would be possible to use for the purpose of theatre performances mainly. Alois Bejbl´ık,preparing an anthology of Czech translations of Shakespeare’s plays in the 1960s, chose the translations by V´aclav Renˇcfor this pur- pose, appreciating especially Renˇc’s“styl (. . . ) mluvn´ı,pracuj´ıc´ıs respektem k hereck´ym moˇznostemartikulace” [fluent style, working with a respect to articulation within actor’s abilities]. Oˇlga Kovaˇciˇcov´adistinguishes two types of drama translation: “the text of a play” and “the text of a performance” (Hrala, 2005: 159). Kovaˇciˇcov´aperceives “the text of the performance” as having “charakter intersemiotick´ehoprekladu textu dr´amy” [the trait of the intersemiotic translation of the drama text]. Such a translation has, according to her theory, two stages: 1. “medzijazykov´ypreklad” [interlanguage translation] – from one language into another, and 2. “intersemiotick´ypreklad” [intersemiotic translation] – from “the language” of the text into “the language” of the theatre (Hrala, 2005: 162). This view suggests the necessity of adjusting a translation of a theatre play to the theatre stage, the actors, the perception of the audience, which can be achieved through cooperation of the translator with the stage director and possibly the actors. V´aclav Renˇchad the gift for translating as well as directing some of the plays he himself translated. He seems to fully understand the call for “the intersemiotic translation” and his work in this area meets the requirements of the theatre. Translating Macbeth, he adjusts the text to the theatrical speech, cutting long sentences into short clauses, using a lot of exclamatory sentences and direct questions in a similar way to Otokar Fischer. In the study of Fischer’s translating, Ren´eWellek points out the way Fischer “zkracuje, zhuˇsˇtuje, rozb´ıj´ıvˇetn´e vztahy, uchyluje se k zvolac´ımvˇet´am,k ot´azk´am(. . . )” [shortens, condenses, breaks up

36 sentence structures, tends to use exclamatory sentences, questions (. . . )] (Wellek, 1933: 92). In the following examples Renˇc’sshifting the theatrical translation even further than Fischer can be seen. Renˇcrecognizes the lack of stage directions in Shakespeare’s plays and the need for the action being expressed through the actual speech. He therefore uses a lot of rhetorical, direct questions and describes the vivid happenings by short and expressive exclamations. Whereas Fischer uses two or three longer sentences to describe Macbeth’s terror seeing the instrument he is about to use as a murderous weapon, Renˇc divides the same into six brief sentences in order to express the shock, hesitation and determination with the help of a few words, granting the whole speech a more dynamic atmosphere.

Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

Is this a dagger which I see Je d´yka to,/ co vid´ımpˇred Ach, co to vid´ım?D´yku!Jilcem before me,/ The handle toward sebou, s t´ımj´ılcem,jenˇz/se ke mnˇe,/tak pr´avˇedo ruky. my hand? Come, let me clutch tiskne v moji dlaˇn?Pojd,ˇ sevˇru Pojd,ˇ vezmu si tˇe!/Ne, uhnula. thee:/ I have thee not, and yet tˇe./J´ajsem tˇenechyt, posud A pˇrectˇevid´ımd´al! I see thee still. (2.1.33–35) vˇsaktˇezˇr´ım.

Similarly, Renˇcshortens Lady Macbeth’s speeches, leaving out some of the words he considers unnecessary to translate literally, and express the meaning in a more concise text. In the text below, the construction “and shallt be/ What thou art promis’d” is completely omitted in Renˇc’sversion and is expressed by simple “a budeˇsv´ıc”[and you shall be more], whereas Fischer remains faithful to the original version with translating “a budeˇst´ım,co sl´ıbeno” [and you shall be what you are promised]. In the following excerpt Fischer even prolongs the original wording of Lady Macbeth’s exclamation, whereas Renˇcagain reduces the number of words in order to give the actor more space and freedom to express the emotions of the character.

Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

Glamis thou art, and Cawdor; Jsi Glamis, Cawdor jsi a budeˇs Jsi Glamis, Cawdor jsi; a budeˇs and shallt be/ What thou art t´ım,co sl´ıbeno. v´ıc! promis’d. (1.5.16–17)

Come, you spirits/ That tend Pˇrijdte,ˇ duchov´e,/vy, kteˇr´ı Pˇrijdteˇ duchov´e/smrt´ıc´ıch on mortal thoughts! unsex me smrtonosn´ych myˇslenek/jste myˇslenek!Aˇt nejsem ˇzena! here (1.5.41–42) pr˚uvodci, a ˇzenstv´ızbavte mne:

The last presented examples show the importance of the use and understanding of

37 stage directions, which are in Shakespeare’s play scarce even so, in order not to change the meaning of the scene or speech. I take the liberty of claiming Fischer’s translation of “Look to the lady” twice as “[Hle,] co je s lady?” [[Lo,] what is wrong with the lady?] as being inaccurate, especially comparing the utterance with the following stage direction “Lady Macbeth is carried out.” The stage direction suggests clearly what Macduff and later on Banquo required the staff to do with Lady Macbeth. Renˇctranslates “Look to the lady”, in other words – look after the lady or take care of her – correctly as “Odvedteˇ pan´ı!”[Take the lady away!], in other words – be at her service, look after her. The stage direction is completely omitted by Fischer in the next example. He does not specify what Macbeth is referring to when saying: “Toˇt smutn´ypohled” [This is a sorry sight], by which he is rather insinuating that it is Donalbain (talked about before) that is a sorry sight at. Renˇcpreserves the stage direction in the right place, saying that Macbeth first looked at his hands covered with blood and then expressed his feeling about the sight at them.

Shakespeare Fischer’s translation Renˇc’stranslation

Lady Macbeth. Help me Lady Makbethov´a. Och, Lady Makbethov´a. Och, hence, ho! pomoc! pomoc! Macduff. Look to the lady. Makduff. Hle, co je s lady? Makduff. Odvedteˇ pan´ı! (. . . ) (. . . ) (. . . ) Banquo. Look to the lady. Banquo. Co je to s lady? Banquo. Odvedteˇ pan´ı! (Lady Macbeth is carried out.) (Odvedou lady Makbethovou.) (Odv´adˇej´ıLady Makbethovou.) (2.3.125–132)

Macbeth. Who lies i’ the Makbeth. Kdo leˇz´ıv s´ıni Makbeth. Pst! Kdo leˇz´ıvedle? second chamber? vedle? Lady Makbethov´a. Lady Macbeth. Donalbain. Lady Makbethov´a. Donalbain. Macbeth. (Looking on his Donalbain. Makbeth (si hled´ına ruce). hands.) This is a sorry sight. Makbeth. Toˇt smutn´ypohled. Truchliv´ypohled. (2.2.21–22)

4.3 Conclusion

V´aclav Renˇctranslation of Macbeth is influenced by Otokar Fischer, whom he admired as a translator and a theoretician and whose translation of Macbeth Renˇclooked up to to draw inspiration from. Despite a lot of similarities adopted by Renˇcfrom Fischer’s version, and even some verses adopted from Fischer in full sounding, Renˇccreated a unique translation, which could be used for theatrical purposes and address Renˇc’saudience better than a half-century older translation by Otokar Fischer.

38 After having analysed two of Renˇc’stranslations of Shakespeare’s plays – Hamlet and Richard II. – Alois Bejbl´ık,in his letter suggesting V´aclav Renˇcto translate Shakespeare’s plays for the prepared publication, criticises Renˇc’s“pˇr´ıliˇsn[ou]uhlazenost (pravidelnost) verˇsov[ou]” [excessive suavity (regularity) of the verses] and excessive founding his trans- lation work on works by ‘older’ translators. Despite his criticism Bejbl´ıkconsiders Renˇc’s work the best to suit the needs of modern theatre. Bejbl´ıkappreciates especially Renˇc’s “slovn´ı,rytmick[ou] i vˇetnˇeskladebn[ou] vˇernostorigin´alu(. . . ) [a] nen´asiln´yzp˚usobvy- jadˇrov´an´ıco do slovosledu i volby slov” [lexical, rhythmical and syntactical fidelity to the original (. . . ) [as well as] the natural way of phrasing as regards the word order and the choice of expressions]. Last but not least, it is particularly Renˇc’stheatricality – his skill of making a the- atrical translation – and complying both requirements for such a translation: the inter- language translation and the intersemiotic translation (Hrala, 2005: 162), which makes his translations some of the best ones to serve the purposes of the theatre.

39 5 Afterword

V´aclav Renˇcis one of the most remarkable figures of the Czech literary scene as well as the translation field. In spite of the severe hardships that life brought him, the times of acceptance and rejection of his work, and the difficulties caused by the political regime, Renˇcremained faithful to his role of a fair-minded man, to his mission of a poet, a playwright, a translator, a director and primarily a man, whose faith, love for people and work could not be disturbed by the turbulent atmosphere in the country. In this work I intended to draw a picture of a man, whose life and work influenced his and the following generations, although most of which has not been sufficiently recon- structed and presented to the public in the last few decades. Renˇcbecame well-known particularly for his own poetry and his translations of Shakespeare’s plays, which were very popular and appreciated for their natural as well as theatrical sounding in the 1960s. Unfortunately, with the last performance, probably ordered by the ‘high circles’ of the Communist Party, the plays disappeared from the public life and were deposited in the theatre archives and after Renˇc’sdeath were well-preserved in his family heritage. Sadly, except for one play – P˚ujˇckaza opl´atku [Measure for Measure] – no other of his transla- tions of Shakespeare have ever been published in book form.

40 6 Bibliography

Although I did not cite all of them in my thesis, here I included all the notes and articles written by V´aclav Renˇcand two letters from Alois Bejbl´ıkwhich are preserved in the family heritage as well as the theatre programmes of the plays Renˇctranslated. Most of the articles and notes have never been published.

The English quotations from William Shakespeare’s plays used in the thesis are adopted from the publication The Complete Works (London: Magpie Books, 1993). All the Czech translations are used from the Kaprad´ıProject (http://www.phil.muni.cz/kapradi).

Bejbl´ık,Alois. N´avrhna vyd´an´ıpˇrekladusouboru Shakespearov´ychher. 1967. Bejbl´ık,Alois. Posudek o shakespearovsk´ychpˇrekladech Dr. V. Renˇce. Fischer, Otokar. Duˇseslovo svˇet. Praha: Ceskoslovensk´yspisovatel,ˇ 1965. Fischer, Otokar. O pˇrekl´ad´an´ıb´asnick´ychdˇel. Praha: Odeon, 1982. Hrala, Milan. Cesk´ypˇrekladIIˇ (1945–2004). Praha: Univerzita Karlova, Filozofick´a fakulta, 2005. Janouˇsek,Pavel. Slovn´ıkˇcesk´ychspisovatel˚uod roku 1945. Praha: Br´ana,1998. Lev´y,Jiˇr´ı. Umˇen´ıpˇrekladu. Praha: Ceskoslovensk´yspisovatel,ˇ 1963. Lev´y,Jiˇr´ı. Uvod´ do teorie pˇrekladu. Praha: St´atn´ıpedagogick´enakladatelstv´ı,1958. Lev´y,Jiˇr´ı. Cesk´eteorieˇ pˇrekladu. Praha: St´atn´ınakladatelstv´ıkr´asn´eliteratury, hudby a umˇen´ı,1957. Lukeˇs,Milan. Mezi karnevalem a snem. Praha: Divadeln´ı´ustav, 2004. Med, Jaroslav. Spisovatel´eve st´ınu. Praha: Zvon, 1995. Menclov´a,Vˇera. Slovn´ıkˇcesk´ychspisovatel˚u. Praha: Libri, 2000. Opel´ık,Jiˇr´ı. Lexikon ˇcesk´eliteratury. Praha: Academia, 2000. Renˇc,V´aclav. K pˇrekladuSnu svatoj´ansk´enoci. Heritage. 1971. Renˇc,V´aclav. Utoˇcen´ına´ pevnost jm´enemShakespeare. Heritage. 1967–68. Renˇc,V´aclav. Nˇekolikpozn´amekk pˇrekladuP˚ujˇckaza opl´atku. Heritage. Renˇc,V´aclav. Veˇcertˇr´ıkr´alov´y,nebo Apr´ılov´akomedie?. Heritage. 1968. Renˇc,V´aclav. Na okraj pˇrekladuTroila a Kressidy. Heritage. Renˇc,V´aclav. Ke komedi´aln´ımuv´ykladuShakespearovy Bouˇre. Heritage. 1969. Renˇc,V´aclav. Mil´ıpˇr´atel´eNeumannovci (to SKN theatre on the play “Jak se v´aml´ıb´ı”). Heritage.

41 Renˇc,V´aclav. Speech to the performance of “Sen sv. jansk´enoci” by Slov´ack´edivadlo in Fryˇst´ak.Heritage. 1964. Renˇc,V´aclav. A letter to the theatre in Cheb. Heritage. 1971. Renˇc,V´aclav. Notes for the lecture for students on translating Shakespeare. Heritage. Renˇc,V´aclav. Tvorba nevznik´aaˇzna pap´ıˇre. Praha: Lidov´aDemokracie, 1967. Renˇc,V´aclav. Podoben vˇetru. Praha: Zvon, 1994. Renˇc,V´aclav. S andˇelysi nelze pˇrip´ıjet. Svitavy: Trinitas, 2000. Rotrekl, Zdenˇek. Skryt´atv´aˇrˇcesk´eliteratury. Brno: Blok, 1991. Shakespeare, William. Makbeth. Translated by V´aclav Renˇc.Kaprad´ıProject. Shakespeare, William. Makbeth. Translated by Otokar Fischer. Praha: B. Koˇc´ı,1916. Shakespeare, William. Makbeth. Translated by Josef V´aclav Sl´adek.Kaprad´ıProject. Shakespeare, William. Antonius a Kleopatra. Translated by V´aclav Renˇc. Kaprad´ı Project. Shakespeare, William. Antonius a Kleopatra. Translated by Josef V´aclav Sl´adek.Kaprad´ı Project. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Translated by V´aclav Renˇc.Heritage. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Translated by Josef V´aclav Sl´adek.Kaprad´ıProjecti. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Translated by Bˇretislav Hodek. Kaprad´ıProject. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Translated by Erik Adolf Saudek. Kaprad´ıProject. Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works. London: Magpie Books, 1993. Shakespeare, William. Komedie III. Praha: Odeon, 1967. Stˇr´ıbrn´y,Zdenˇek. Proud ˇcasu. Praha: Karolinum, 2005. Vr´ana,Karel. Posl´an´ıa pokuˇsen´ıspisovatele. Svitavy: Trinitas, 2000. Wellek, Ren´e. Otokar Fischer. Kniha o jeho d´ıle. Praha: A. Srdce, 1933.

Theatre programmes: Shakespeare, William. Bouˇre. Praha: SKN, 1967–68. Shakespeare, William. Jak se v´aml´ıb´ı. Hradec Kr´alov´e:Divadlo V´ıtˇezn´eho´unora,1963. Shakespeare, William. P˚ujˇckaza opl´atku. Olomouc: Divadlo Oldˇricha Stibora, 1965. Shakespeare, William. Antonius a Kleopatra. Hradec Kr´alov´e:Divadlo V´ıtˇezn´eho´unora, 1967. Shakespeare, William. Sen svatoj´ansk´enoci. Hradec Kr´alov´e:Klicperovo divadlo, 1969.

42 Shakespeare, William. Hamlet d´ansk´yprinc. Jihlava: Hor´ack´edivadlo, 1967. Shakespeare, William. Apr´ılov´akomedie aneb cokoli chcete. Brno: Divadlo bratˇr´ıMrˇst´ık˚u, 1968. Shakespeare, William. Jak se v´aml´ıb´ı. Praha: SKN, 1966. Shakespeare, William. Jak se v´aml´ıb´ı. Gottwaldov (Zl´ın):Divadlo pracuj´ıc´ıch, 1963. Shakespeare, William. Zkrocen´ızl´eˇzeny. Cheb: Z´apadoˇcesk´edivadlo, 1972. Shakespeare, William. Bouˇre. Brno: Divadlo bratˇr´ıMrˇst´ık˚u,1971. Shakespeare, William. Veˇcertˇr´ıkr´alov´yaneb cokoli chcete. Praha: Divadlo Jiˇr´ıhoWolkra. Shakespeare, William. Sen svatoj´ansk´enoci. Cesk´eBudˇejovice:ˇ Jihoˇcesk´edivadlo, 1971.

43 7 Czech resum´e

V´aclav Renˇc(1911–1973) byl ˇcesk´ymkatolick´ymb´asn´ıkem, dramatikem a pˇrekladatelem. Vystudoval filozofii a filologii na FF UK v Praze, pˇriˇcemˇzse vˇenoval tak´epr´aciredakˇcn´ı. Jiˇzza studi´ıvydal nˇekolik sb´ırekb´asn´ı,z nichˇzprvn´ıvyˇslapod n´azvem Jitˇren´ıa byla kladnˇehodnocena i F. X. Saldou,ˇ kter´ynazval Renˇce“b´asn´ıkem spiritualistou”. Renˇcovo liter´arn´ıd´ılose od poˇc´atkuvyznaˇcujesilnou kˇresˇtanskou spiritualitou s ˇcast´ymisymbol- ick´ymiprotiklady ducha a hmoty, svˇetlaa tmy. T´ımto pojet´ımb´asnick´etvorby Renˇc navazoval na pojet´ıR. M. Rilka, jehoˇzb´asnick´ed´ılosilnˇeovlivnilo ˇceskou poezii 30. let. Od 40. let se jeho velk´ymz´ajmemstala dramatick´atvorba (Marnotratn´ysyn, 1942; C´ısaˇr˚uvmim, 1944). V roce 1945 se stal dramaturgem a reˇzis´eremˇcinohryv Olomouci a pozdˇejiv N´arodn´ımdivadle v Brnˇe. Po ´unoru1948 byl na pˇr´ıkaz komunistick´evl´ady propuˇstˇena posl´ezev roce 1951 zatˇcen.Renˇcbyl sv´ymduchovn´ımpˇresvˇedˇcen´ıma tvorbou totalitn´ımu reˇzimu nepohodln´ya na z´akladˇesmyˇslen´ehoobvinˇen´ıbyl ve vykonstruovan´em procesu odsouzen k 25 let˚umˇzal´aˇre. Ve vˇezen´ıtajnˇevznikla b´aseˇnPopelka Nazaretsk´a a Praˇzsk´alegenda, kter´evˇsakvyˇslyaˇzza pˇr´ıznivˇejˇs´ısituace v 60. letech a 70. letech. Renˇcbyl z vˇezen´ıpropuˇstˇenv roce 1962. Pot´epracoval v Olomouci v Divadle Oldˇricha Stibora jako dramaturg a zaˇcalse vˇenovat pˇredevˇs´ımpˇrekladatelsk´epr´aci.V pr˚ubˇehu 60. let do roku 1970 pˇreloˇzil14 Shakespearov´ych her, kter´ebyly uv´adˇeny napˇr. v divadlech v Praze, Brnˇe,Hradci Kr´alov´e, Cesk´ychˇ Budˇejovic´ıch, Chebu. Kromˇeangliˇctiny pˇrekl´adal tak´ez francouzˇstiny, nˇemˇciny, italˇstiny a polˇstiny. V roce 1970 se jeho jm´enoobjevilo na seznamu zak´azan´eliteratury, coˇzmu znemoˇznilodalˇs´ıpublikaci ˇcipracovn´ıuplatnˇen´ı. V´aclav Renˇczemˇrelv roce 1973. D´ılo V´aclava Renˇce obohatilo stav ˇcesk´e literatury a pˇrekladatelstv´ı 20. stolet´ı. Ve sv´emv´yzkumu jsem se zab´yvala pˇredevˇs´ım jeho pˇrekladatelskou ˇcinnost´ı, zejm´ena pˇrekladydivadeln´ıch her Williama Shakespeara. C´ılemm´epr´acebylo urˇcen´ıRenˇcova pˇr´ıstupuke stavu ˇcesk´ehopˇrekladatelstv´ıdivadeln´ıch her a k jejich uv´adˇen´ıv ˇcesk´ych di- vadlech. Ze svˇedectv´ıRenˇcov´ych spolupracovn´ık˚u,jeho rodiny a soukrom´ych pozn´amek ˇciˇcl´ank˚u,uveden´ych v divadeln´ıch programech, jsem se snaˇzilaurˇcitRenˇc˚uvpˇr´ıstup k pˇrekladatelsk´ymmetod´ama teori´ım. Snaˇzilajsem se srovnat pˇrekladatelsk´emetody a n´azoryV´aclava Renˇcea nˇekter´ych jeho pˇredch˚udc˚u,napˇr. J. V. Sl´adka a zejm´enapak Renˇcova uˇciteleOtokara Fischera, kter´ymˇelna Renˇcevelk´yvliv jiˇzod studijn´ıch let. Tato studie se d´alezab´yv´ateoretick´ymin´azoryOtokara Fischera na pˇrekl´ad´an´ı,jejich

44 uplatnˇen´ıv praxi, a zkoum´aodraz Fischerov´ych myˇslenekv teori´ıch a pˇrekladatelsk´em d´ıleV´aclava Renˇce. N´asledujesrovn´an´ıFischerova a Renˇcova pˇrekladuShakespearovy trag´edieMacbeth v kontextu ˇcesk´ehopˇrekladatelstv´ıkonce 19. a prvn´ıpoloviny 20. sto- let´ı. Z´avˇerpr´acetvoˇr´ıpraktick´yrozbor a porovn´an´ıobou pˇreklad˚ut´etohry z nˇekolika nejd˚uleˇzitˇejˇs´ıch aspekt˚udivadeln´ıhopˇrekladu: napodobov´an´ıpˇredchoz´ıch pˇrekladatel˚u, aktualizace jazyka, srozumitelnost a divadelnost.

45