A skopos-based analysis of Breytenbach’s Titus Andronicus by Benjamin Stephen Green Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree MPhil in Translation Studies Supervisor: Prof. Anna Elizabeth Feinauer Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Department of Afrikaans and Dutch March 2012 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this thesis/dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. March 2012 Copyright © 2012 University of Stellenbosch All rights reserved Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract Breyten Breytenbach's Afrikaans translation of William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus is a little known member of the corpus of Afrikaans Shakespeare plays. Published without annotations in South Africa in 1970 and performed in Cape Town in the same year, it has never been performed again and the text has attracted no academic review or led to any subsequent editions. However, situated in 1970 in the heyday of the Apartheid regime, the play's production broke attendance records in Cape Town and was accompanied by substantial public controversy. In this thesis, the author analyses Breytenbach's translation in order to determine whether the translator had an ideological agenda in performing the translation. The analysis is based on a preliminary discussion of culture and ideology in translation, and then uses the Skopostheorie methodology of Hans J. Vermeer (as developed by Christiane Nord) to assess the translation situation and the target text. The target text has been analysed on both a socio-political and microstructural level. The summary outcome of the analysis is that the translator may possibly have tried to promote an anti-Apartheid ideology by translating the play. The outcome is based on several contextual factors such as the socio-political situation in South Africa in which the translated play was published and performed, the translator's stated opposition to the Apartheid system, the choice of Titus Andronicus for translation and production, and to a lesser extent the level of public controversy that accompanied the target text's production in the theatre. Opsomming Breyten Breytenbach se Afrikaanse vertaling van William Shakespeare se Titus Andronicus is 'n min bekende eksemplaar van die versameling Shakespeare toneelstukke in Afrikaans. Dit is sonder enige annotasies in 1970 in Suid-Afrika uitgegee, en is dieselfde jaar in Kaapstad opgevoer. Sedertdien is dit nooit weer opgevoer nie, en die teks het geen akademiese kritiek ontlok nie. Die teks is ook nooit weer herdruk nie. Maar in 1970, tydens die toppunt van die Apartheidregime, het hierdie toneelstuk se opvoering bywoningsrekords oortref en dit is deur aansienlike openbare omstredenheid gekenmerk. In dié tesis ontleed die skrywer Breytenbach se vertaling om te bepaal of die vertaler 'n ideologiese agenda in die vertaling van die toneelstuk gehad het. Die ontleding word op 'n voorlopige bespreking van kultuur en ideologie in die vertaalproses gegrond, en maak dan gebruik van die Skopostheorie van Hans J. Vermeer (soos verwerk deur Christiane Nord) om die omstandighede ten tyde van die vertaalproses sowel as die doelteks self te ontleed. Die doelteks is op sowel sosiaalpolitiese as mikrostrukturele vlak ontleed. Die samevattende uitkoms van die ontleding is dat die vertaler moontlik 'n anti-Apartheid ideologie probeer bevorder het deur hierdie toneelstuk te vertaal. Hierdie uitkoms is gegrond op verskeie samehangende faktore, soos die sosiaalpolitiese omstandighede in Suid-Afrika waarin die toneelstuk uitgegee en opgevoer is, die vertaler se vermelde teenkanting teen die Apartheidstelsel, die keuse van Titus Andronicus vir vertaling en opvoering, en tot 'n mindere mate die vlak van openbare omstredenheid wat gepaard gegaan het met die doelteks se opvoering in die teater. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Acknowledgements Thanks to: My parents, without whose financial support this research would not have been possible (and to my mother for the proofreading of the text, and my family generally). Paul Regenass, archivist at Artscape (Cape Town), for his friendly and enthusiastic assistance, which proved invaluable in researching a theatre production that took place 41 years ago. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Table of contents Chapter 1 – Introduction 1 Chapter 2 – Source text and author 8 2.1 Introduction 8 2.2 Titus Andronicus – the play and its context of origin 9 2.2.1 Social context of Titus Andronicus 9 2.2.2 Shakespeare – a profile of the playwright and his work 19 2.3 Analysis of the source text 22 2.3.1 Analysis of the text 22 2.3.1.1 Shakespeare and the Renaissance 25 2.3.1.2 Monarchy in Elizabethan England 27 2.3.1.3 Some notes on Shakespeare's textual technique 29 2.3.1.4 Summary 31 2.3.2 Issues of “race” and discrimination in Titus Andronicus 31 2.3.2.1 Postcolonial explanation 35 2.3.2.2 Economic explanation 37 2.3.2.3 Summary 39 2.3.3 Graphic violence in Titus Andronicus 39 2.3.4 Character assessments 43 2.3.4.1 Aaron 43 2.3.4.2 The baby 45 Chapter 3 – Target text and translator 48 3.1 South Africa in 1970 – sketching the target text's social context 48 3.1.1 Apartheid, racism and literature in 1970 South Africa 48 3.1.1.1 Legislation 50 3.1.1.2 Racialisation of society 54 3.1.1.3 Enforcement and resistance 57 3.1.1.4 Censorship 60 3.1.1.5 Religion 63 3.1.1.6 Summary 64 3.1.2 Nationalism and the Afrikaans language 66 3.2 Breytenbach the man – a profile of the translator 68 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 3.3 Summary 75 Chapter 4 – Culture, ideology and translation 76 4.1 Chicken soup 76 4.2 Culture – towards a basic definition 82 4.3 Language and culture 87 4.4 Ideology – going beyond culture 91 4.4.1 Ideology defined 91 4.4.2 Culture vs Ideology 93 4.4.3 Culture, ideology and religion 99 4.5 Culture and ideology in the process of translation 100 4.5.1 Skopostheorie, culture and equivalence 101 4.5.1.1 Formal correspondence 105 4.5.1.2 Skopos theory 108 4.5.2 Culture and ideology in translation 117 4.5.3 Domestication and foreignisation 122 4.6 Culture and nature – a brief discussion of “race” 127 Chapter 5 – Methodology of analysis 132 5.1 The butterfly sum – a metaphor for the translator's skopos 132 5.2 Translating for theatre 142 5.3 Translating Shakespeare 146 Chapter 6 – Macrostructural analysis of the target text 148 6.1 Introduction 148 6.2 The text – macrostructural review 149 6.2.1 Choice of translator 153 6.2.2 Choice of play 156 6.3 Audience reaction and state censorship 164 6.3.1 Censorship in 1970 South Africa 164 6.3.2 Theatre performance and audience reaction 172 Chapter 7 – Analysis of selected extracts (microstructural review) 184 7.1 Introduction 184 7.2 Pragmatic translation problems 185 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za 7.2.1 The “black baby” situation – “miscegenation” 187 7.2.2 Translation of “Moor” 194 7.2.3 Aaron's references to “race” 196 7.2.4 References to Aaron 205 7.3 Intercultural translation problems: domestication and foreignisation 209 7.4 Interlingual translation problems: cases of formal (dis)correspondence 216 7.5 Text-specific translation problems 224 7.5.1 Stage directions 225 7.5.2 Translating poetry 231 7.5.2.1 Rhyme 235 7.5.2.2 Puns/Wordplay 238 7.5.2.3 Metre 244 7.5.3 Anecdotes 245 7.6 Conclusion 247 Chapter 8 – Conclusions 248 8.1 Culture and ideology in translation 248 8.2 Ideology in the target text 249 8.3 The final bell 260 9. References 261 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Chapter 1 – Introduction In a certain sense, the act of translation is like a boxing match. Two authors (insofar as the translator is, in fact, an author in their own right) are placed in the cordoned ring of the shared intercultural space, and they then contest the various issues that are relevant to the conversion of the source text into the target text. These issues may be political, cultural, ideological, or merely concerned with the meanings of words and how to translate culturally specific concepts or archaic phrases. It is not a smooth, mutual process. It can rarely, if ever, be that. Translation is seldom a harmonious interplay between two languages. Sometimes the contest is very violent; some translators are more aggressive than others in trying to subjugate the source text's influence, while some source text authors may be extremely hard to subjugate at all. Not everyone has the same style of boxing, and the rules may vary, depending on the situation in which the fight is taking place, so that the referee is more a submissive pawn of that situation than an objective mediator.1 The judges, namely the target readership of the translation, will pronounce their verdict of the fight afterwards, from the safe comfort of their (arm)chairs, and then convene for coffee or drinks. Now, however telling or apt this allegory may seem, though, there is one critical aspect in which it is invalid. As we know, boxing matches are designed to be between boxers of more or less equal physical development.