Universidad De Murcia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSIDAD DE MURCIA FACULTAD DE LETRAS DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOGÍA INGLESA TESIS DOCTORAL TÍTULO DE LA TESIS: ESTUDIO CONTRASTIVO DE LA ESTRUCTURA Y DEL LÉXICO EN HAMLET DE SHAKESPEARE VERSUS GAMLET DE SUMAROKOV: UNA APROXIMACIÓN A LA LITERATURA DESDE LA PERSPECTIVA BASADA EN CORPUS DOCTORANDA: Lcda. Irina Keshabyan Ivanova DIRECTOR: Dr. Pascual Cantos Gómez Junio 2010 UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA FACULTY OF ARTS ENGLISH DEPARTMENT DOCTORAL THESIS A CONTRASTIVE STRUCTURAL AND LEXICAL STUDY OF SHAKESPEARE’S HAMLET AND SUMAROKOV’S GAMLET: A CORPUS-BASED APPROACH TO LITERATURE PhD STUDENT: Irina Keshabyan Ivanova SUPERVISOR: Dr Pascual Cantos Gómez June 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks go to my supervisor Dr Pascual Cantos Gómez for his guidance, assistance, comments and suggestions, and for managing the progress of the present dissertation through numerous trying changes and stages. Thanks also go to Marina Vitalievna Bokarius and María Dolores Borgoñós Martínez for their help in tracking down the texts of Sumarokov’s Gamlet (1787) and Shakespeare’s Hamlet (1685) and other bibliographic information. I would also like to thank my school teachers, university professors and colleagues who were the source of the invaluable knowledge needed to carry out this investigation. I am grateful to my parents from whom I have inherited such great interest in academic study. I would like to thank my friend María Victoria Gómez Gómez for her disinterested assistance. Without her emotional support, I would not have been able to get through the difficult times during the stages of this demanding task. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my husband for his help and understanding as he patiently and graciously allowed countless evenings, weekends, and even holidays to become occasions for my continuous research. INTRODUCTION The subject of the present PhD dissertation is the study of the structural and lexical distinctiveness of two specific texts (SH1 and SG2) of the same sub-genre -the revenge tragedy- written by two authors who come from different countries as well as different historical, socio-political, cultural and language contexts. For each author, we shall analyse one text sample within the broader genre of drama -The Fourth Folio Edition of The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark (1685) by Shakespeare, and the eighteenth- century Russian text, entitled Gamlet (1787) [1748]3, by Sumarokov. It is essential to point out that, in fact, we shall analyse the twentieth-century translation (Hamlet) of the eighteenth-century Russian text (Gamlet), rendered into English by Richard Fortune (1970). To achieve this we shall employ a set of lexical characteristics from English. Although historical investigation belongs to a different domain and is not one of the goals of the present dissertation, the study of the sources Sumarokov used whilst writing his Gamlet is of particular importance when it comes to understanding the reasons behind choosing The Fourth Folio Edition of Shakespeare’s Hamlet (1685) for analysis. For example, Levitt (1994: 322) proposes that one of the sources of Sumarokov’s Gamlet [1748] might have been The Fourth Folio Edition of Shakespeare’s Hamlet (1685), in English. This suggestion is based on the recent discovery that Sumarokov borrowed this edition from the library of the Academy of Sciences right at the time when he was writing his own Gamlet (Levitt 1994: 322). Although Sumarokov knew no English and there were few English-speaking people in Russia at the time (see Alekseev 1944: 77-137), Levitt (1994: 322-23) suggests that he might have asked someone to interpret the English version of Shakespeare’s Hamlet for him because there is evidence that, in connection with diverse projects he was working on, Sumarokov had also borrowed other books from the Academy library in languages that he did not know or knew well (Dutch, Latin and Greek). In fact, this is the reason 1 SH stands for The Fourth Folio of The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark (1685) by Shakespeare. 2 SG stands for the English translation (Hamlet) of Sumarokov’s Gamlet (1787). 3 The year of publication of the edition used by the author is given in round brackets whilst the year of the first appearance of the work cited is given in square brackets; for example, Gamlet (1787) [1748]. For ease of reference, the same order will be kept throughout the dissertation where necessary. for choosing this particular version of Shakespeare’s Hamlet (1685) for the present investigation. For ease of reference, The Fourth Folio Edition of Shakespeare’s Hamlet (1685) will be referred to as Hamlet or SH. The Russian text will be referred to as SG-R, whilst the English translation will be referred to as Gamlet or SG. In the latter case, SG-R stands for Sumarokov’s Gamlet (1787) in Russian and SG also stands for Sumarokov’s Gamlet, although it actually represents the English translation of the Russian text, entitled Hamlet (1970). However, one should bear in mind that in the present dissertation Sumarokov’s Gamlet in Russian (or SG-R) and SG -in other words, the English translation of the Russian text- are used indistinctively, although the general parameters of structural and lexical variation are analysed between SH and SG and not between SH and SG-R. Thus, we shall be dealing with the English translation of one of Sumarokov’s dramas -Gamlet written and first printed in 1748- which coincides with the task of introducing a new form (in the form of the revenge tragedy) into eighteenth-century Russian literature as well as introducing Shakespeare into Russian culture, literature, production and performance. However, we might suggest that Sumarokov’s intention was to give Shakespeare’s Hamlet new content in a new work, and in new conditions. In accordance with the objectives of this study and the theoretical framework, we shall examine two different texts -in fact, three if we take into account the Russian text used for reference- in quantitative and qualitative terms by means of applying corpus-based approaches to literature. Therefore, any literary comment or literary conclusion will not be considered in the present dissertation. We shall compare, analyse and interpret the structural and thematic patterns found per act, intra-play and inter-plays, in five chapters. The discussion of the results obtained in the previously mentioned chapters as well as the conclusions and final remarks related to the limitations and future research will be included in Chapter 6. In Chapter 1, we shall give a short historical background on the texts and authors upon which we have based our research. The following points will be dealt with in this chapter: 1. The most notable attempts to introduce Shakespeare into Russian culture, literature and performance through translation and adaptation at the time of Sumarokov (1730s-1780s). 2 2. The reception of Sumarokov and his Gamlet through print, production and performance, and the different critical attitudes to his literary work in general and especially to his tragedy Gamlet in the period between 1748 and 1980. 3. Different critical insights into Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Sumarokov’s Gamlet generated by various forms of historical, philosophical and language-based approaches that are available at present. 4. The reasons behind choosing corpus-based approaches to literature used to investigate the questions posed in the present dissertation. Chapter 1 will be structured according to the following headings: 1.1. Introduction 1.2. Diverse Sources of Introducing Shakespeare into Russian Culture, Literature and Performance (1730s-1780s) 1.3. A Succinct Summary on the Reception of Sumarokov and his Gamlet (1748- 1980) 1.4. The Critics Debate: Different Approaches to Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Sumarokov’s Gamlet 1.4.1. The Critics Debate: Historical Approaches to Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Sumarokov’s Gamlet 1.4.2. Formal Approaches 1.4.3. The Critics Debate: Philosophical Approaches to Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Sumarokov’s Gamlet 1.4.3. a. Theological Approaches 1.4.3. b. Criticism and Social Realism 1.4.4. Language-based Approaches 1.4.4. a. Genre and Style 1.4.4. b. Language Structures 1.5. Conclusions In Chapter 2, we shall focus on the methodology used for the structural and lexical analysis of the two contrasting plays: Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Sumarokov’s Gamlet. We shall offer an introduction to the use of corpus-based approaches to literature which provide an accessible and systematic way of analysing the questions posed in our 3 contrastive study of the two plays. Moreover, we shall describe how, step by step, we adapt and apply quantitative approaches to the investigation based on the structural and lexical characterisation of the two texts under examination. Chapter 2 will be arranged according to the following headings: 2.1. Area of Research 2.2. Aims 2.3. Research Questions 2.4. General Preliminary Considerations 2.5. Procedure 2.5.1. Variables: Patterns of the Presence and Interventions of All Main and Other4 Characters Intra-play (in Hamlet and Gamlet, Separately) and Inter-plays (between Hamlet and Gamlet) 2.5.2. Procedure of the Quantitative Analysis: Patterns of the Presence and Interventions of All Main and Other Characters Intra-play (in Hamlet and Gamlet, Separately) and Inter-plays (between Hamlet and Gamlet) 2.5.3. Variables: Patterns of the Interactions of the Main and Other Characters Intra-play (in Hamlet and Gamlet, Separately) and Inter- plays (between Hamlet and Gamlet) 2.5.4. Procedure of the Quantitative Analysis: Patterns of the Interactions of the Main and Other Characters Intra-play (in Hamlet and Gamlet, Separately) and Inter-plays (between Hamlet and Gamlet) 2.5.5. Variables: Patterns of the Content Words Intra-play (in Hamlet and Gamlet, Separately) and Inter-plays (between Hamlet and Gamlet) 2.5.6.