JoLIE 4/2011
BECKETT’S BILINGUALISM, SELF-TRANSLATION AND THE
TRANSLATION OF HIS TEXTS INTO THE CROATIAN
LANGUAGE
Mirna Sindičić Sabljo
University of Zadar, Croatia
Abstract
Samuel Beckett was a bilingual writer and a self-translator. He began writing in English,
switched to French and then returned to English. The switch to French corresponds with a
significant change in his style of writing. Given that Beckett revised his works while
translating them into another language, there are numerous versions of his writings. His
translations represent new and parallel texts. Beckett’s critics generally consider his selftranslations as texts which extend and amplify the original, as a kind of creative critical
commentary of the original text.
Thirty texts written by Samuel Beckett were translated into the Croatian language
from 1958 to 2010. Most of the translations were made soon after the success of Waiting
for Godot Parisian premiere (1953), after the Nobel Prize attribution and after Beckett’s
death. Seven texts were translated from the second (self-translated) version instead of the
one first written. These translations were not followed by translators’ notes that justify the
choice of a certain version, showing that the translator in question was aware of Beckett’s
bilingual poetics and that both versions were consulted during the translation process.
Beckett’s Old monolingual translations should be reconsidered and revised in the light of
Beckett’s bilingualism. Translators should clearly state which version of the text (English
or French) is being translated and they should consult the other version in order to clarify
unclear parts of the text, as well as solve the problems of interpretation. Both versions could
be translated separately, if they differ significantly.
Key words: Samuel Beckett; Bilingualism; Self-translation; Translation.
1 Introduction
Beckett is the single writer in the world who had written his entire work in two
languages, English and French.1 He is not the only bilingual writer in the world,
1
Samuel Beckett was not bilingual by birth. He became fluent in French through education
(he studied French and Italian language and literature at Trinity College in Dublin), long visits to
France and finally, by living in another culture (from 1937 till his death in 1989, Beckett lived in
Paris).
164
Mirna SINDIČIĆ SABLJO
but he is one of the few who wrote in two languages at the same time.2 Beckett’s
bilingualism was entirely voluntary, considering the fact that he was not
persecuted, for political, economic or religious reasons, as many exiled artists have
been. His need for French can be seen as driven partly by aesthetic and partly by
psychological needs (Beer 1994:214).
Samuel Beckett, Irish born in Dublin, began writing in English during the
1930’s, but after the Second World War, he decided to write exclusively in French.
In conversations with Juliet Charles, he explained that French ”allowed him to
escape the habits inherent in the use of native language“ (Charles 1986:27), while
saying that in French it was easier to write without a style (Gessner 1957:32). The
switch to the French language represents a significant turning point in Beckett’s
writing. Writing in French gave Beckett control over his style and allowed him to
create texts that were quite different from the work he had previously written in
English. His style in French was bare, uncomplicated, basic and simple. In 1956,
Beckett returned to English as an original language of creation, with the writing of
his first radio play, All That Fall. From that point on, Beckett will self-translate all
of his texts or write versions in two languages at the same time. The 1950’s were
the beginning of Samuel Beckett’s bilingual creation.3 During his literary career,
Samuel Beckett wrote more than fifty texts. Approximately half of Beckett’s texts
were originally written in English, and half in the French language. All of the texts
written after the novel Murphy (1938) have been translated either to English or
French by Samuel Beckett himself.
Beckett’s work exists in multiple versions because he revised his texts as
he translated them, so that each self-translation became a textual transformation of
the first version. The translation became a new and parallel text, a continuation of
the work on the text. While translating, Beckett often changed the new version and
showed that, it is impossible to repeat exactly the same thing in the process of
translation.
Samuel Beckett not only translated his own texts, but he also worked
closely with the other translators of his texts. He helped them and supervised their
work.4 Beckett also supervised the translation of his texts to Italian and German.
The situation with his texts becomes even more complicated if we consider the fact
2
Among writers who have chosen to write in the French language are Arthur Adamov,
Eugène Ionesco, Andreï Makine, Julian Green, Mohammed Dib, Assia Djebar, Hector Biancotti,
Nancy Houston, Edouardo Manet, Shan Sa, François Cheng, Vassilis Alexakis, Boris Schreiber, etc.
3
Critics differentiates between: a) Monolingualism Polyglot (at the beginning of his career;
Beckett writes in English and translates poems written by Rimbaud, Apollinaire, Éluard, Breton and
Joyce), b) Bilingualism Anglophone (until Watt), c) Bilingualism Francophone (during the 1940’s and
1950’s) and d) Bilingualisme Mixed (from All that fall and From an Abandoned Work until his death)
(Montini 2009).
4
Samuel Beckett collaborated with Alfred Péron on the translation of Murphy, with
Ludovic and Agnès Janvier on the translation of Watt and From an Abandoned Work and with Robert
Pinget on the translation of Embers and All That Fall into French language. Beckett also collaborated
with Patrick Bowles on the translation of Molloy in English language.
Beckett’s bilingualism, self-translation and the translation of his texts …
165
that Beckett, working as a theatrical director, changed his own texts, so that even
within a single language there are multiple versions of the texts.5
Those facts make the process of translating his texts to other languages, beside
English and French, rather complicated. The translator is confronted with a
problem of choice. Which version of Beckett’s texts should one translate? Do the
original and self-translated texts have equal status?
During the last three decades, the interest for Beckett’s bilingualism and
the translations of his texts into different languages has been raised in Beckett’s
studies. This is not surprising considering the significance of the translation of
Beckett’s texts for any culture. So far, a critical or comparative analysis of the
translations of Samuel Beckett’s text into Croatian has never been done. This paper
examines all of his translations published in Croatian between 1958 and 2010, but
the aim of the paper is not to analyze each translation and determine its quality, but
to determine the position of Croatian translators toward Beckett’s bilingualism and
self-translations. The main aim of the research was to establish which version of
each text was chosen to be translated, original/first or self-translated version.
2 Beckett’s bilingualism and self-translation
Self-translation (or auto-translation) usually differs from other forms of translation.
It could even be said that the self-translator is not a translator at all, because his
texts are as original and authentic as those which preceded them. A self-translation
differs from a usual one, because it is more of a double writing process than a twostage reading/writing activity. The distinction between original and self-translation
therefore disappears; giving place to a more flexible terminology in which both
texts are referred to as ‘variants’ or ‘versions’ of equal status (Fitch 1988:132-133).
The production of a self-translation is a complementary literary text which does not
simply echo the original (Attar 2005:139).
Samuel Beckett is in a league of his own, even among self-translators, for
having written twin works in two languages over the years (Grutman 1998). The
self-translation in most cases doesn’t respect the original. The second version
changes the meaning of the situation and phrases. For example, if we compare Fin
de partie and Endgame, it becomes obvious that the translation is in fact rewriting
done while translating. The differences are small but evident: nuances in sense or
the register, different idiomatic expressions. All these changes make the sense of
the work more precise or profound.
A difference has to be made between the texts originally conceived to be
written in two languages (simultaneous self-translation) and texts translated years
after the original version was written (delayed self-translation). There is a very
5
The “corrected texts” of his plays, with incorporated revisions and the notebooks in which
the rationale of these revisions was worked out, were published in the edition The Theatrical
Notebooks of Samuel Beckett in 1986 (Eds. S. Beckett, J. Knowlson, D. McMillan, New York: Grove
Press). More on the subject in Gontarski 1995.
166
Mirna SINDIČIĆ SABLJO
close correspondence between the French and English versions in the cases when
the translation was made immediately upon completion of the original. But when it
comes to two versions with a considerable time-lag between them, the versions are
quite different. For example, English and French versions of the novels of the
Trilogy (Molloy, Malone Dies, Unnamable) differ slightly, because the translation
was made soon after the completion of the original. However, the French and
English version of the novels Murphy and Watt, which were translated into French
more than twenty years after the English version was written, differ significantly.
The difference between Mercier et Camier and Mercier and Camier or Ping and
Bing is even more significant.6 The text of Ping, a translation of the French text
Bing, represent a continuous development in which the English version constitute
at further stage in the same development following directly from the final draft of
the French version. Ping is a text that cannot be classified under either of the
recognized categories of translation (Finch 1989).
Are Beckett’s translations an original or a copy, a substitute for the
original, or a continuation and amplification of the original? Is a self-translated text
a variation of the original? Does a self-translated text produce a double originality?
All of these questions are being considered by the Beckettian criticism and also
have to be considered by his translators.
The issue of Beckett’s bilingualism and self-translation was mostly ignored
till the 1980’s. Still, one of the first to address the issue and to examine the textual
variants in Beckett’s self-translation was Ruby Cohn. In her essay “Samuel Beckett
Self-Translator” (1961), Cohn analyses the translations of Murphy, the novels of
the Trilogy, Waiting for Godot and Endgame and she was among the first to warn
that significant differences exist between the French and English texts. The
appearance of the collection of essays Beckett Translating/Translating Beckett
(1987) brings this question to the fore of Beckett studies. Recently, a significant
number of studies have taken in consideration the bilingual dimension of Beckett’s
work.7
Those who have addressed the question of Beckett’s bilingualism have
focused on his self-translations, in an attempt to determine the status of the second
versions of his work. The issue in these studies is whether or not a translation is
secondary to the original work, and whether it is worthy of standing on its own.
6
Mercier et Camier was written in 1946 and published in 1970. Beckett was translating the
text into English language between 1970 and 1974. Beckett omits a lot of material from the French
version, so Mercier and Camier has 12% less than the original. The translation is closer to the style of
Murphy and Watt (translated into French at the same time) than to Mercier et Camier (Connor 1989).
7
Fitch, B. (1988). Beckett and Babel: An Investigation into the Status of the Bilingual
Work. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; Edwards, M. (1998). Beckett ou le don des langues.
Paris: Éditions Espaces; Collinge, L. (2000). Beckett traduit Beckett: de Malone meurt à Malone
Dies, l’imaginaire en traduction. Genève: Droz; Oustinoff, M. (2001). Bilinguisme d’écriture et autotraduction, Julien Green, Samuel Beckett, Vladimir Nabokov. Paris: L’Harmattan; Sardin, P. (2002).
Samuel Beckett auto-traducteur ou « l’art de l’empêchement », Arras: Artois Presses Universitaires;
Montini, C. (2007). La bataille du soliloque, Genèse de la poétique bilingue de Samuel Beckett
(1929-1946). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Beckett’s bilingualism, self-translation and the translation of his texts …
167
The conclusions about Beckett’s bilingual work are quite different, since it is
impossible to know whether the changes are due to authorial intention or the
demands of the language. Lance St. John Butler claims that the divergence between
original works and Beckett’s own translations results from “the radical
incommensurability of languages” and the impossibility of translation rather than
authorial intention. He develops the argument that Beckett did not intentionally
change the second versions of his work to make them clearer or rethink his earlier
ideas, but made changes simply because of the external imperatives of language,
culture and self-consistency. Butler claims that the nature of language, in this case,
the English and French languages, makes “definitive” translations impossible
(Butler 1994:115).
Still, most of the Beckett critics generally consider Beckett’s selftranslations as texts which extend or amplify the original. Many critics argue that
Beckett’s translations are parallel texts in a second language. Many seemingly
irreconcilable contradictions between original and secondary Beckettian texts
corroborate that position. Harry Cockerham, one of the first to address the problem
of Beckett’s bilingualism, suggests that his translations become “distinct works of
art, fresh treatments of the original subject with their own qualities and
characteristics” (1975:144). The later researches tend to support Cockerham’s
conclusions.
In his essay published in the book Beckett Translating/Translating Beckett,
Raymond Federman addresses the crucial question of “whether the translation of a
text is merely a substitute for the original, or if in fact it becomes a continuation, an
amplification of the original”. Federman uses Beckett’s example to dispel the
notion of translation as a subversive, derivative, corrupting act to one that
“reassures, reasserts the knowledge already present in the original text” (1987:1214).
Brian T. Fitch similarly holds that Samuel Beckett’s bilingual production is
perhaps the quintessential example of the parallel text, and that the evidence
offered by Beckett’s self-translated texts confirms the inevitable inadequacies of
any translated text. Beckett`s examples are often enlightening in their departure
from the original text and they show that even the things that might traditionally be
considered as a loss or inadequacy in translation can also be a gain. Fitch further
suggests that Beckett’s translations are a kind of creative critical commentary of
the original text. He concludes that the second version cannot be considered a mere
duplication of the first, and that the process and product of self-translation are not
the same as the process and product of any other form of translation. Consequently,
neither version can be appropriately substituted for the other by the critic: each has
to be studied in its own right, together with the precise relationship existing
between the two (Fitch 1987).
Readings inspired by Poststructuralist theories discredit the goal of
retrieving an original, definitive text, which assumes that the ideal text exists
outside reading. An example of the poststructuralist reading of Beckett’s work is
Steve Connor’s book Samuel Beckett: Repetition, Theory and Text (2007), based
168
Mirna SINDIČIĆ SABLJO
on the theories of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze. Connor shows the centrality
of repetition in Beckett’s work. He sees translations as repetition that depends upon
or summons up the integrity of the original text. Steve Connor claims that, with
Beckett as both originator and translator, the two versions of his text have an equal
claim to be ‘definitive’.
Each becomes merely a version of the other, and is apprehensible at itself
only by virtue of its difference from its partner, which in turn has identity
only in its difference from the other text. This also necessarily abolishes the
precedence of original over copy, since the English text is not only a
‘mutilation’ of the original, but also, in some senses, an improvement upon
it, so that the French might be considered as in some respects as an inferior,
derived version of the English. As with the text in the Trilogy discussed
earlier, translation is a ‘supplement’ or sequel to the original text which,
while appearing to guarantee the integrity of that original, actually subverts
that integrity by opening up areas of absence or ‘lack’ in it. (Connor
2007:124-126)
Most of the approaches leave intact the notion of the original text as a discrete,
inalienable unit that is the defining feature of Western translation models. Shread
suggest that self-translation challenges the dominant definition by inviting our
understanding of translation to move beyond a binary framework, which does not
allow for multiplicity, towards a notion of co-authorship. One of the distinctive
characteristics of self-translation is its ability to take liberties that would be
unacceptable to anyone but the “author” of the work. These so-called “infidelities”
are allowed so long as they are carefully delimited by the authorizations of selftranslators (Shread 2009:51-69).
Bilingualism is one of the fundamental aspects of the Beckett’s poetics.8 It
functioned as a medium for artistic self-renewal and was driven by both aesthetic
and personal need (Beer 1994:210). The intertextual dialogue between the original
and the translation, or between two parallel texts, is at the heart of his poetics of
bilingualism. Therefore, it is essential to read Beckett bilingually. Beckettian critics
even claims that the text of a Beckett’s work is to be found neither in the French
nor the English version, “but that it hangs in there, so to speak, between the two, in
a space which no available geometry allows us to represent, but which the white
space that runs down the middle of every book, the double margin separating recto
and verso, the space that bookmakers tellingly call the ’gutter‘, allows us, I believe,
to imagine” (Lyndon 1997:7). Neither of the versions is better than the other. The
double linguistic identity of each text is of course not visible in a single text, “and
can therefore be discussed in some larger, and extra-textual, framework that
examines the author or the oeuvre as a whole” (Beer 1994:217). Does it mean that
Beckett’s work demand a bilingual reader? Or bilingual critic? And finally, a
bilingual translator?
8
His bilingual poetics includes the fact that his texts written in English are full of
Gallicism, and those written in French language of Anglicism.
Beckett’s bilingualism, self-translation and the translation of his texts …
169
After all these facts are considered, the question how to translate Beckett’s
bilingual work remains open. Chiara Montini (2006, 2007) has already addressed
the question while writing about the translations of Beckett’s texts into the Italian
language. She claims that the Beckett’s bilingualism leaves a lot of space for the
translators into a third language and that they have to be aware of the existence of
both texts and consult them while working.
A lot of questions could be addressed. Is it necessary for the translator to
know both English and French? Should both versions be used during the translation
process? Is it possible to translate starting from two texts at the same time and
could one translation be made of two texts? Should only the first version be
translated and second used to clear the difficulties? Or should the version that is
closer to receptive culture be chosen for translation? And what to do in cases where
the versions differ greatly, like in the case of Mercier et Camier and Mercier and
Camier? Could two separate translations be made, one from English and the other
from the French text? Only one thing is clear, that future translators shouldn’t
ignore Beckett’s bilingual poetics.
3 Translations of Samuel Beckett’s texts in Croatia
The translations of Samuel Beckett’s texts are an important part of his reception in
Croatia, which started immediately after the success of his Parisian premiere of
Waiting of Godot (1953). Croatian newspapers wrote about the play in 19549 but it
was not until 1958 that a first extensive article, followed by a translation of the
fragment of Waiting for Godot, was published10 Beckett was a well-known author
in Croatia even before he won the Nobel Prize and became internationally famous
and esteemed author. At the end of 1950’s and at the beginning of the next decade,
Beckett’s plays were performed in theatres and on radio.11 The first performances
were followed by the publication of the plays All That Fall12, Endgame13,
Embers14, Krapp’s Last Tape15 and Waiting for Godot16. First Croatian translations
9
Fotez M. (1954, July 6th). Pariška kazališta pred kraj sezone. Vjesnik.
Beckett, S. (1958). U očekivanju Godota (fragment). 15 dana, 10, p. 11. The name of the
translator is not listed.
11
Endgame was performed in Dramatic Theatre Gavella (Zagreb) in 1958. Happy Days and
Waiting for Godot in 1966 in Croatian National Theatre (Zagreb). Embers, Krapp’s Last Tape and All
That Fall were performed in the program of Radio Zagreb.
12
Beckett, S. (1958). Sve koji padaju. Republika, 7-8, 15-21. Text is translated from
English. The translation into French (Tous ceux qui tombent) was made by Robert Pinget in 1957, not
by Samuel Beckett.
13
Beckett, S. (1959). Svršetak igre. Zagreb: Dramska biblioteka Zagrebačkog dramskog
kazališta. The same year, a fragment of the same play, translated by Mislav Bertoša, was published in
magazine Istarski borac, 1-2, 25-28).
14
Beckett, S. (1960). Ugarci. Književnik, 17, 572-583. English version of the text was
translated by Josip Torbarina, esteemed translator of Shakespeare’s plays. Embers was translated into
French by Robert Pinget (Cendres).
15
Beckett, S. (1964). Posljednja vrpca. Razlog, 9-10, 881-888.
10
170
Mirna SINDIČIĆ SABLJO
of Samuel Beckett’s work appeared quite early: his plays Endgame and All That
Fall were translated in 1958, only one year after they were first published.17
Embers was translated in 1960, Happy days in 1965 and Krapp’s last tape in
1964.18 The first translations of Beckett’s texts in Croatia were made in the time of
an extensive translation of the modernist writers from the Western world. It was the
period that followed the radical rupture with the models of the Social realism.
Croatian literature turned toward the Western European literatures in the search for
models of writing. But Samuel Beckett didn’t attract the attention of the Croatian
literary and theatrical criticism as a leading figure of the Modernist fiction but
rather as a playwright associated with the so-called Theatre of the Absurd.19 Most
of the papers and essays written on Beckett in Croatia focus on that particular
aspect of his career. In Anthologies, Beckett is always presented side by side with
Eugène Ionesco and Arthur Adamov.20 Even today, Croatian readers associate
Beckett’s name with his plays and the Theatre of the Absurd, while the other
aspects of his work remain in shadow. Most of his so far translated texts are plays.
The first translation of one of his novels (Malone Dies) was published in 1969,
after the he received the Nobel Prize. Until then, Croatian readers could read
Beckett’s novels only in translated fragments.21 The translation of Malone Dies
remained the only translation of one of the Beckett’s novel into Croatian language
until 21st Century when Molloy and Murphy were translated.22 Samuel Beckett’s
texts that still wait to be translated in the years to come are mostly novels and short
prose: Watt, Mercier and Camier, Unnamable, How It Is and More Pricks than
Kicks.
The end of 1950’s and the first half of 1960’s were the first phase of
Beckett’s translations into Croatian language. The next phase started after the
16
Beckett, S. (1966). U očekivanju Godota. Zagreb: Biblioteka Scena, HNK.
Endgame (Fin de partie) was published by Éditions de Minuit in Paris in 1957. All that
fall was published by Grove Press in 1957.
18
Embers, a one-act radio play, was written in 1957, first produced on BBC in 1959 and
published in Evergreen Review in November-December 1959 and in Krapp's last tape and other
dramatic pieces (Grove 1960). Happy Days, a play in two acts, was written in English in 1960 and
first published by Grove Press in 1961. Krapp's last tape was written in 1958, first production was in
London in 1958, published in Evergreen review (summer 1958) and then in Krapp's last tape and
Embers (Faber, 1959) and Krapp's last tape and other dramatic pieces (Grove, 1960).
19
The label ”Theatre of the Absurd“ was introduced by the English critic Martin Esslin in
his homonymous book.
20
Šoljan, A. (Ed.). (1962). 100 najvećih djela svjetske književnosti. Zagreb; Sabljak, T.
(Ed.). (1976). Nova drama. Split: Čakavski sabor; D. Štambak (Ed.). (1998). Odabrana francuska
proza. Zagreb: MH. ; Batušić, N. (Ed.). (2005). Teatrološka čitanka. Zagreb: Slovom.
21
Beckett, S. (1959). Malone umire. Literatura, 12-13, 1073-1079; Beckett, S. (1965). Onaj
koji se ne može imenovati (fragment). Telegram, 10.
22
Beckett, S. (2001). Molloy. Zagreb: Školska knjiga; Beckett, S. (2010). Murphy. Zagreb:
SysPrint.
17
Beckett’s bilingualism, self-translation and the translation of his texts …
171
award of the Nobel Prize in 1969. A group of six texts was translated and published
during that year.23
During the following two decades, 1970’s and 1980’s, the interest for
Beckett’s work seems to decrease, which is connected with the decrease of interest
for the Theatre of the Absurd in general. Only important translation made in that
period was the translation of the short stories published under the title Texts for
Nothing.24 Texts form Texts for Nothing were published on the occasion of the
author’s 70th birthday, first in literary magazines and then in a book.25
The general interest in postmodernism and post-structuralism increased the
interest for Samuel Beckett’s work as well. The renewed interest for Beckett was
also linked to the commemoration of his death in 1989 and the celebration of his
100th birthday in 2006. Those occasions were marked with the translation of a
significant number of Beckett’s texts that had not yet been translated, written at the
beginning or the end of his career. The literary magazine Quorum, in four
successive numbers, published nine translated texts.26 The beginning of the 21st
Century in Beckett’s Croatian reception was marked by the translation of his
poems, thanks to Dragutin Dumančić. Dumančić translated most of the poems
Beckett had written in French and published them first in literary magazines and
then in books.27 Beckett’s poetry has been marginalised inside the Beckett Canon
for decades and it is interesting that the Croatian readers have a better opportunity
to discover Beckett as poet than Beckett as prose writer.
Croatian translations of Beckett’s work were mostly published in
periodicals and literary magazines whose main aim is to promote new trends in
world literature. Some of the translations have been published subsequently in a
book format. Half of the published books contain translations of Beckett’s plays
(Waiting for Godot, Endgame, Happy Days) and are aimed for high-school
readers.28
Translations of Samuel Beckett’s plays were made for performances and
were published later on.29 The question of how much published versions of
23
Beckett, S. (1969, March 28th). Izgnanik. Telegram, 14-15.; Beckett, S. (1969). Cascado.
Mogućnosti, 8-9, 1006-1011.; Beckett, S. (1969). Za umiranje. 15 dana, 7-8, 58-61; Beckett, S.
(1969). Malone umire. Zagreb: Zora.
24
Texts for Nothing, thirteen short prose pieces, written mostly in 1951, were first published
as Nouvelles et textes pour rien (Minuit, 1955).
25
In Republika, 1975, 7-8, 866-878. and 15 dana, 1976, 4-5, 28-29.
26
Neuspjeli pokušaji (Fizzles), Prva ljubav (First Love), Film (Film), Eh, Joe (Eh Joe), Ne
ja (Not I), Iz napuštenog djela (From an Abandoned Work), Ohajska improvizacija (Ohio
Impromptu), Nacht und traüma (Nacht und traüma) and Dante i jastog (Dante and the Lobster).
27
Beckett, S. (1999). Stihoklepstvo. Nova Istra, 1, 170-177; Beckett, S. (2000). Poezija
/Stihoklepstvo. Tvrđa, 1-2, 139-146; Beckett, S. (2001). Stihoklepstvo. Zagreb: Ceres; Beckett, S.
(2001). Pjesme. Zagreb: Ceres, Zagreb.
28
Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot has become a part of school curriculum. Following
editions are mostly intended for high-school reading audience: Beckett, S. (1981). Drame. Zagreb:
Nakladni zavod MH; Beckett, S. (1997). U očekivanju Godota. Zagreb: SysPrint; Beckett, S. (2001).
U očekivanju Godota. Zagreb: Mozaik knjiga; Beckett, S. (2005). U očekivanju Godota. Varaždin:
Katatrina Zrinska.
29
Waiting for Godot, Endgame, Krapp’s Last Tape, Embers, All That Fall and Happy Days.
172
Mirna SINDIČIĆ SABLJO
translations differ from those used in performance remains open. Another opened
question is whether the translator, in this case Alka Škiljan, had translated the texts
with performance in mind or was her aim was to make a literary translation (see
Bassnett 2002:123-135).
So far, only half of the texts Samuel Beckett wrote have been translated
into the Croatian language. Fifteen texts were translated from English, and ten from
French. None of the texts were translated twice.30 It is rather surprising that the
canonical texts, Waiting for Godot for instance, have only been translated once,
almost five decades ago. Škiljan’s translation of Waiting for Godot has been used
in all performances of that play during the second half of the 20th century. The
plays intended for performance have to be translated more often than other literary
genres, as often as once every decade because its language has to be contemporary
and up-to-date. The majority of Beckett’s Croatian translators were well-known
translator, but they rarely translated more than one text.31
4 Croatian translators and Beckett’s bilingualism
The question to which national literature Beckett’s work belongs has caused a
certain amount of confusion in Croatian literary criticism. In essays and papers
written on Beckett in Croatia, he is sometimes called an Irish writer, sometimes
English, sometimes French of the Irish origins and sometimes French of the
English origins.32 His works were discussed in two chapters of History of World
Literature, the one on French and the one on English literature.33 The chapter on
English literature doesn’t discuss only the texts written in English, but also his
plays originally conceived in French language.34
Croatian literary criticism did not ignore Beckett’s bilingualism. In 1959
Novak Simić mentioned that Beckett wrote his texts in two languages35. Nevenka
Košutić (1960), Branko Vuletić (1969) and Mirjana Dobrović (1969) also briefly
discussed Beckett’s bilingualism.36 But the Croatian translators have sometimes
ignored the fact and did not pay attention to which version of the text they chose
for translation. Seven of the Beckett’s texts were not translated to Croatian
language from their original/first version, but from the translation made by Beckett
himself.
30
Exceptions are Malone dies and Endgame (translated once in fragment and once in
complete version) and The Expelled.
31
Among them were Josip Torbarina, Ante Stamać, Zvonimir Mrkonjić, Svevlad and Ivan
Slamnig.
32
Grün, H. (1954: 259-260); Mađarević, V. (1958: 62); Sabljak, T. (1960: 55).
33
Čale, F., et al. (1977). Povijest svjetske književnosti u osam knjiga. Zagreb: Mladost.
34
Kogoj Kapetanić, B., & Vidan, I. Eds. (1976). Povijest svjetske knjiženosti, vol. 6.
Zagreb: Mladost.
35
Simić, N. (1959: 1069).
36
Košutić, N. (1960: 467); Vuletić, B. (1969: 34-37); Dobrović, M. (1969: 58).
Beckett’s bilingualism, self-translation and the translation of his texts …
173
In 1969, Svevlad and Ivan Slamnig have translated Malone dies. The first
page of the editions quotes that the novel was translated from the English version,
published by Penguin Books (London 1962)37 even though the novel was originally
written in French.38 The edition does not contain any translators’ note or
introduction explaining why the English text was chosen. The translator Svevlad
and Ivan Slamnig have done translations from French and the reason for choosing
Malone dies instead of Malone meurt remains unclear.39
Croatian translation of Samuel Beckett’s radio play Cascando was also
published in 1969. Cascando, written in French and subtitled “Invention
radiophonique pour musique et voix”, was published and performed in 1963.
Beckett translated the text in English during the same year.40 The Croatian
translation was made from the English version, not regarding the fact that the
French version was the first one. It was published in the issue of the Mogućnosti
literary magazine dedicated to the modern English literature.41
The short story First Love was written in French in 1946 as Premier
amour. Beckett withdraws it and it was unpublished until 1970 and not translated
until 1973. It appeared in English in a separate volume (Calder & Boyars 1973)
and then in First Love and Other Shorts (Grove 1974). Premier amour was
published by Minuit in 1970, after Beckett received the Nobel Prize. Croatian
translator Boris Vidović chose First Love for translation and not Premier amour.
His translation is preceded by a short introductory note in which he states that First
Love was first published in French, which reveals that he was aware of the fact that
he was translating a self-translated text, but he did not explain his reasons for
choosing the English version.42
The Croatian translation of Fizzles was published in the literary magazine
Quorum in 1990. Fizzles is a group of eight short prose texts written in French and
published as Foirades between 1970 and 1973. The first trade edition was Pour
finir encore et autres foirades (Minuit 1976). Five of the eight texts were translated
in English for a special edition of Fizzles/Foirades (Petersburg Press 1975).
Mladen Kožul, a Croatian translator, translated them from English. The
introductory notes reveal the fact that the translators and the editorial board were
aware that the text was first written in French.43
37
Beckett, S. (1969). Malone umire. Zagreb: Zora, Zagreb.
Malone meurt was published by Minuit in 1951. That was the second of Samuel
Beckett’s novel written in French, a part of a so-called Trilogy. Beckett’s translation of Malone
meurt, Malone Dies, was published by Grove Press in 1956. A Penguin issue of 20,000 copies (1962)
was sold out by 1964. (Ackerely, Gontarski 2004: 341).
39
Svevlad Slamnig has translated Marcel Proust’s Combray in 1997 (Zageb: SysPrint) and
Jean Racine’s Phedre in 2000 (Zagreb: SysPrint).
40
Beckett’s translation, under the same title, appeared in Evergreen Review in May-June
1963. It was broadcasted on BBC in 1964.
41
Issue published the translated texts written by Laurence Durrell, William Golding, W.H.
Auden, Harold Pinter, John Arden, etc.
42
Beckett, S. (1990). Prva ljubav. Quorum, VI, 4, 45.
43
Beckett, S. (1990). Neuspjeli pokušaji. Quorum, VI, 4, 34.
38
174
Mirna SINDIČIĆ SABLJO
And finally, Lessness was also translated from English even though it was
first written in French. Lessness is a short prose text, published in 1969 in French
and translated in English during the same year.44 Ante Stamać translated and
published the English version of the text, together with the Introduction written by
Martin Esslin.45
All of the mentioned translations have in common the fact that the second,
English version, the self-translated text, was chosen to be translated instead of the
French version that proceeded. None of the translators justified his choice. It is
hard to believe that they were unaware of the bilingual versions, especially since
the introductory notes to translations published in Quorum clearly state that the
French version was written first and that the translators Ivan Slamnig and Ante
Stamać were scholars familiar with Beckett’s work. The conclusion that could be
drawn is that the English text was chosen simply because that language was more
accessible to the translators in question.
The opposite cases are the translations made from French version, although
written in English first. The number of these translations is significantly smaller.
Alka Škiljan’s translation of Happy Days was made for the 1966 performance at
the Croatian National Theatre in Zagreb and was not published until 1981. The
original title printed in the 1981 edition shows that Škiljan translated Oh les beaux
jours and not Happy Days.46 Alka Škiljan had already translated Beckett’s plays
written in French (Waiting for Godot and Endgame), and she simply continued
translating from French ignoring the fact that in this case French was not the
original production’s language. A considerable part of her other translations were
made from French so the choice of Oh les beaux jours is not surprising.47 Vlasta
Gotovac, the translator of Krapp’s Last Tape, also chose a French text.48 Krapp’s
Last Tape, a one-act play was written in 1958 and translated by Samuel Beckett
and Pierre Leyris as La Dernière bande. The translated title, Posljednja vrpca (Last
Tape), proves the fidelity to the French version.
None of the translators in question explained the reasons that led them to
choose a certain version of Beckett’s text. Translations into Croatian made during
the 1950’s and 1960’s, and especially those published in periodicals, sometimes do
not even mention the original title of the work. They are rarely accompanied by
introductions or notes. From the 1990’s on translators and publishers are more
44
Sans was published by Quinzaine littéraire on November 1st 1969 and two weeks later by
Minuit. Text was added to Têtes mortes (Minuit, 1972). Lessness was published in the New Statesman
on May 1st 1970.
45
Lessness was performed for the BBC in 1971 and Martin Esslin, the producer on BBC,
wrote an Introduction to it. Esslin, M. (2000). Uvod u Bezninu. Forum, 4-6, 406-415.
46
Happy Days, a play in two acts, was written in 1960 and published by Grove Press in the
following year. First productions were in 1961 at the Cherry Lane Theatre in New York and Royal
Court Theatre in London. Beckett translated the play in 1963 for the first Paris production at the
Odéon-Théâtre. Oh les beaux jours was published by Minuit in 1963.
47
Alka Škiljan translated the texts written by André Malraux, Beaumarchais, Prosper
Mérimée, Albert Camus, Pierre Bourdieu, Saint-Simon, etc.
48
Vlasta Gotovac translated texts written in French by Jean Anouilh, Fernando Arrabal,
René de Obaldia, Michel Butor etc.
Beckett’s bilingualism, self-translation and the translation of his texts …
175
attentive in that regard. The translations are usually followed by short introductory
notes which mention the existence of both versions of Beckett’s texts.49 None of
the translators explained why the self-translated text was chosen instead of the first
version. Secondly, none of the translators mentioned whether the second version
(English and French) was consulted during the translation process.
5 Conclusions
Samuel Beckett’s texts whose English and French versions differ greatly (Watt,
Mercier and Camier, Ping, Company etc.) still have not been translated into
Croatian. Those texts differ greatly and it would be also justifiable to translate
French and English version separately. They remain an open challenge to Croatian
translators, who have to be aware of the fact that Beckett was a bilingual writer and
that different versions of his texts exist, sometimes even within a single language.
Translators should be familiar with Beckett’s poetics of bilingualism and repetition
and be able at least to read the other (self-translated) version of the text. They
should consult it in order to clarify unclear parts of the text and solve the problems
of interpretation. A second self-translated version could be of great help to them. It
is legitimate to choose either of the versions for the translation but the choice
should be justified in a note and the readers should be warned about what text is
translated and how much the English and French versions of particular text differ.
All of the variants of Beckett’s texts should be available to readers simply because
they all form an inseparable part of Beckett’s Canon. Translator could choose a
version that is closer to the receptive culture or that is more suitable. For instance,
when Samuel Beckett translated En attendant Godot into Waiting for Godot in
1953 and 1954, his main goal was to prepare the best possible script for
performance in English. Precisely for that reason Waiting for Godot is more
explicit in technical terms and it has more specific stage directions. Beckett tried,
and succeeded, in making the English Godot more stage-worthy and came to prefer
English for the performance text (Graver 2004:70-78). So should Waiting for
Godot be chosen for translation (if it is intended for performance) instead of En
attendant Godot?
It would be useful to revise and reconsider the old monolingual translations
in the light of Beckett’s bilingualism. Bilingual (French/English), or even trilingual
(French/English/Croatian) editions of Beckett’s work would be useful for readers,
literary critics, scholars and translators alike. They would facilitate the access to
Samuel Beckett’s bilingual world.
49
A good exemple are the translations published in the literary magazine Quorum during
the 1990 and 1991.
176
Mirna SINDIČIĆ SABLJO
References
Ackerely, C.J., & Gontarski, S.E. (2004). The Grove Companion to Samuel Beckett. New
York: Grove Press.
Attar, S. (2005). Translating the exiled self: Reflections on translation and censorship.
Intercultural Communication Studies, XIV(4), 131-148.
Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation studies. London & New York: Routledge.
Beer, A. (1994). Beckett’s bilingualism. In J. Pilling (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to
Beckett (pp. 210-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, L. (1994). Two darks: A solution to the problem of Beckett’s bilingualism. Samuel
Beckett Today/Aujourd’hui: An Annual Bilingual Review/Revue Annuelle Bilingue, 3, 115135.
Charles J. (1986). Rencontre avec Samuel Beckett. Paris: Edition Fata Morgana.
Cockerham, H. (1975). Bilingual Playwright. In K. Worth (Ed.), Beckett the Shape Changer
(pp. 139-159). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Cohn, R. (1961). Samuel Beckett: Self-Translator, PMLA, 76(5), 613-621.
Connor, S. (1989). Traduttore, traditore: Samuel Beckett’s translation of Mercier et Camier.
Journal of Beckett Studies, 11-12, 27-46.
Connor, S. (2007). Repetition and self-translation: Mercier et Camier, First Love, The Lost
Ones. In S. Connor (Ed.), Samuel Beckett: Repetition, Theory and Text (pp. 99-127).
Aurora: The Davies Group Publishers.
Dobrović, M. (1969). Samuel Beckett. 15 dana, 7-8, 58.
Federman, R. (1987). The writer as self-translator. In A.W. Friedman, C. Rossman, & D.
Sherzer (Eds.), Beckett Translating/Translating Beckett (pp. 7-16). University Park:
Pennsylvania State UP.
Fitch, B.T. (1987). The Relationship between Compagnie and Company: one work, two
texts, two fictive universes. In A. W. Friedman, C. Rossman & D. Sherzer (Eds.), Beckett
Translating/Translating Beckett (pp. 25-35). University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Fitch, B.T. (1988). Beckett and Babel. An investigation into the status of the bilingual work.
Toronto, Buffalo & London: University of Toronto Press.
Fitch, B.T. (1989). The status of the second version of the Beckettian text: the evidence of
Bing/Ping Manuscript. Journal of Beckett Studies, 11-12, 19-26.
Fotez M. (1954, July 6th). Pariška kazališta pred kraj sezone. Vjesnik.
Beckett’s bilingualism, self-translation and the translation of his texts …
177
Friedman, A.W., Rossman, C. & Sherzer, D. (Eds.) (1987). Beckett translating/Translating
Beckett. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Gessner, N. (1957). Die Unzuläglichkeit der Sprache: eine Untersuchung uber Formzufall
und Beziehungslosigkeit bei Samuel Beckett. Zurich: Junius Verlag.
Gontarski, S.E. (1995). Editing Beckett. Twentieth Century Literature, 41(2), 190-207.
Graver, L. (2004). Godot in French and English. In L. Graver (Ed.), Beckett: Waiting for
Godot (pp. 70-78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grün, H. (1954). Iz moderne dramaturgije (Godeau i Godot). Republika, 2-3, 259-260.
Grutman, R. (1998). Auto-translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies (pp. 17-21). New York: Routledge.
Košutić, N. (1960). Uz prijevod Beckettova romana “Molloy”. Zadarska revija, 6, 466470.
Lyndon, M. (1997). Stretching the imagination: Samuel Beckett and the frontier of writing.
The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, 30(1/2), 1-15.
Mađarević, V. (1958). Beckettov “Svršetak igre”. Teatar, 6, 62.
McGuire, J. (1990). Beckett, the translator, and the metapoem. World Literature Today,
64(2), 258-263.
Montini, C. (2006). Traduire le bilinguisme: l’exemple de Beckett. Littérature 1(141), 101114.
Montini, C. (2007). Le sujet traducteur face à l’oeuvre bilingue de Samuel Beckett: Quelle
stratégie?
Dolentiana,
1.
Retrieved
May
17,
2010,
from
http://www.fti.uab.cat/doletiana/English/Doletiana1-e/Doletiana1e.html.
Montini, C. (2009). Bilingualisme et autotraduction: le decentrement dans l’œuvre de
Samuel Beckett. In-Traduçôes: Rivista do Programa de Pós-Gradauçâos em Estudos de
Traduçâo da Universidade Federal de Santa Caterina, 1. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from
http://www.pget.ufsc.br/in-traducoes/_edicao-1.php.
Perloff, M. (1987). Une voix pas la mienne: French/English Beckett and French/English
Reader. In A.W. Friedman, C. Rossman & D. Sherzer (Eds.), Beckett
Translating/Translating Beckett (pp. 36-48). University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Sabljak, T. (1960). O romanu Samuela Becketta. Republika, 2-3, 55.
Shread, C. (2009). Redefining translation through self-translation: the case of Nancy
Huston. In J. Day (Ed.), Translation in French and Francophone Literature and Film,
178
Mirna SINDIČIĆ SABLJO
French Literature Series, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 51-69. Amsterdam & New York: Editions
Rodopi.
Simić, N. (1959). Svijet Samuela Becketta. Literatura, 12-13, 1065-1072.
Vuletić, B. (1969). Čekajući Godota. Književna smotra, 1, 34-37.
Annex
A list of Croatian Translations of Samuel Beckett
Beckett, S. (1958). Sve koji padaju (All that fall). (Mignon Mihaljević, Trans.). Republika,
7-8, 15-21.
Beckett, S. (1958). U očekivanju Godota (Waiting for Godot, fragment). 15 dana, 10, 11.
Beckett, S. (1959). Malone umire (Malone dies). (M. Mihaljević, Trans.). Literatura, 12-13,
1073-1079.
Beckett, S. (1959). Svršetak igre (Endgame, fragment). (M. Bertoša, Trans.). Istarski borac,
1-2, 25-28.
Beckett, S. (1959). Svršetak igre (Endgame). (A. Škiljan, Trans.) Zagreb: Dramska
biblioteka Zagrebačkog dramskog kazališta.50
Beckett, S. (1960). Ugarci (Embers). (J. Torbarina, Trans.). Književnik, 17, 572-583.
Beckett, S. (1963, March 2nd). Izgnanik (L’Expulsé). Večernji list, 9.
Beckett, S. (1964). Posljednja vrpca (Krapp’s Last Tape). (V. Gotovac, Trans.). Razlog, 910, 881-888.
Beckett, S. (1965, October 22nd). Onaj koji se ne može imenovati (Unnamable, fragment).
(D. Kolibaš, Trans.). Telegram, 10.
Beckett, S. (1966). U očekivanju Godota (Waiting for Godot). (A. Škiljan, Trans.). Zagreb:
Biblioteka Scena HNK.51
Beckett, S. (1969, March 28th). Izgnanik (The Expelled). (M. Dobrović, Trans.). Telegram,
14-15.
50
The same translation was published subsequently in: Mogućnosti, 7-8, 1975; Nova drama
(1976). (T. Sabljak, Ed.). Split: Čalavski sabor; Drame (1981). Zagreb: Nakladni zavod MH.
51
The same translation was also published subsequently in: 100 najvećih djela svjetske
književnosti (1968). (A. Šoljan, Ed.), pp. 683-686. Zagreb: Stvarnost; Beckett, S. (1981). Drame.
Zagreb: Nakladni zavod MH.; Beckett, S. (1997). U očekivanju Godota. Zagreb: SysPrint. Beckett, S.
(2001). U očekivanju Godota. Zagreb: Mozaik knjiga; Teatrološka čitanka. (2005). (N. Batušić, Ed.),
pp. 567-584. Zagreb: Slovom; Beckett, S. (2005). U očekivanju Godota. Varaždin: Katatrina Zrinska.
Beckett’s bilingualism, self-translation and the translation of his texts …
179
Beckett, S. (1969). Cascado (Cascado). (M. Novak, Trans.). Mogućnosti, 8-9, 1006-1011.
Beckett, S. (1969). Za umiranje (The Calmative). (M. Dobrović, Trans.). 15 dana, 7-8, 5861.
Beckett, S. (1969). Malone umire (Malone dies). (S. & I. Slamnig, Trans.). Zagreb: Zora.
Beckett, S. (1976). Novele i tekstovi nizašto (Texts for Nothings). (M. Dobrović, Trans.).
Zagreb: Društvo hrvatskih prevodilaca.52
Beckett, S. (1980). Doći-Proći (Come and go). (M. Hribar-Ožegović, Trans.). Dubrovnik, 45, 81-82.
Beckett, S. (1982). Proust (Proust, fragment). Treći program hrvatskog radija, 55.
Beckett, S. (1990, February 22nd). Neporecivi negativ (Poems). (Z. Mrkonjić, Trans.). Oko,
9.
Beckett, S. (1990). Blagodat kiše. (Poems). (D. Dumančić, Trans.). Forum, 1-2, 60-67.
Beckett, S. (1990). Film (Film). (M. Živković, Trans.). Quorum, 2-3, 708-776.
Beckett, S. (1990). Neuspjeli pokušaji (Fizzles). (M. Kožul, Trans.). Quorum, 4, 34-44.
Beckett, S. (1990). Prva ljubav (First love). (B. Vidović, Trans.). Quorum, 4, 45-57.
Beckett, S. (1990). Eh, Joe (Eh Joe). (M. Živković, Trans.). Quorum, 4, 58-62.
Beckett, S. (1990). Ne ja (Not I). (J. Milošević, Trans.). Quorum, 4, 63-68.
Beckett, S. (1990). Iz napuštenog djela (From an abandoned work). (G. Suntešić, Trans.).
Quorum, 5-6, 407-412.
Beckett, S. (1990). Ohajska improvizacija (Ohio Impromptu). (M. Živković, Trans.).
Quorum, 5-6, 413-416.
Beckett, S. (1990). Nacht und traüma (Nacht und Traüme). (P. Kosty, Trans.). Quorum, 56, 417-418.
Beckett, S. (1991). Dante i jastog (Dante and the Lobster). (S. Veselica, Trans.). Quorum, 1,
234-241.
Beckett, S. (1998). Kraj igre (Endgame, fragment). (D. Štambak, Trans.). In D. Štambak
(Ed.), Odabrana francuska proza, 277-283. Zagreb: MH.
52
The same translation was previously published in the literary magazines: Republika,
1975, 7-8, 866-878 and 15 dana, 1976, 4-5, 28-29.
180
Mirna SINDIČIĆ SABLJO
Beckett, S. (2000). Beznina. (Lessness). (A. Stamać, Trans.). Forum, 4-6, 409-415.
Beckett, S. (2001). Stihoklepstvo (Mirlitonnades). (D. Dumančić, Trans.). Zagreb: Ceres.53
Beckett, S. (2001). Pjesme (Poems). Zagreb: Ceres.54
Beckett, S. (2001). Molloy (Molloy). (G. Popović, Trans.). Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
Beckett, S. (2006). Kazališni fragmenti I, II (Rough for Theatre I, II). Kazalište, 27-28, 3850.
Beckett, S. (2006). Alba (Alba). (T. Brlek, Trans.). 15 dana, 3, 4.
Beckett, S. (2006). Katastrofa (Catastrophe). (L. Čale-Feldman, Trans.). 15 dana, 3, 8.
Beckett, S. (2010). Murphy (Murphy). (I. Buljan, Trans.). Zagreb: SysPrint.
53
The same translation was previously published in the literary magazine: Nova Istra, 1999,
1, 170-177.
54
139-146.
The same translation was previously published in the literary magazine: Tvrđa, 2000, 1-2,