SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Shakespeare in translation: Using linguistic
and contextual translation to teach Hamlet
Elizabeth Kelley St. Mary’s College of Maryland Abstract: Many English students find the rich works of Shakespeare to be inaccessible and irrelevant to their experiences as 21st century students. This project attempted to increase students’ understanding of and perceived relevance in Hamlet by having students film their own linguistic and contextual translations of various scenes from the play. There was significant increase in understanding and perceived relevance demonstrated by 66 students whose translation projects were used for this study. Using linguistic and contextual translation alongside performance increased these students’ understandings of Hamlet and helped them find relevance in the text. Introduction
For the last century, teachers across America have lamented the way Shakespeare is sometimes taught in school (Brown, 2008; Burnett & Foster, 1993; Haughey, 2012; Kleypas, 2004). Although many other methods of teaching Shakespeare are employed by teachers (Almansouri, Balian, & Sawdy, 2009; Baines, 1997; Bowman, Pieters, Hembree, & Mellender, 2002; Brown, 2008; Bucolo, 2007), too often Shakespeare’s plays are merely read and discussed in the classroom which leaves many students bored, disengaged, and distanced from the text and its themes (Bottoms, 1994; Burnett & Foster, 1993; Haughey, 2012; Spangler, 2009; Tabers-­‐Kwak & Kufman, 2002). Many high school students have difficulty understanding the meanings and motivations in Elizabethan literary texts and do not see these texts as having any relevance to their own lives. This project will attempt to address some of the deficiencies in the way Shakespeare is taught in public high schools. My personal introduction to methods of analysis of Shakespeare’s plays was through dramatic performance in a theatre camp over the summers when I was in high school. In addition to performing, our directors read through the entire play with us and discussed significant scenes every morning during the camp. I performed in The Taming of the Shrew, Romeo and Juliet, and The Winter’s Tale. Even when I did not play major roles in these productions, I felt that I understood the plot and characters of the play on which I was working and, more importantly, understood some of the significant themes in the play and how they applied to modern society. I think my understanding of the plays increased primarily because of my participation in the production. For instance, while working on The Winter’s Tale, I came to more fully realize the negative impact of jealousy in relationships through Leonte’s words and actions, as well as the value of the defense of the innocent through playing Paulina and seeing how her persistence in defending Hermione and Perdita significantly contribute to the positive results at the end of the play. Rising Tide Volume 8
SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION My own experience also leads me to support interaction with Shakespeare through performance or art rather than only on the page. Until my junior year of college, I did not read entire Shakespeare plays without watching film adaptions, performing, or knowing the plot prior to reading. When I had attempted to read Shakespeare in high school and in my first years of college, I felt unable to follow the characters’ development or the plot without some visual representation of the play. I often watched or listened to a professional performance while reading along, which seemed to increase my understanding. I found it much more difficult to comprehend significant plot points, character relationships, and themes by reading the plays without these scaffolds. I felt that I better understood the plays for which we performed or critically compared film adaptions than the plays I only read and discussed in class. Confusion and disconnection with Shakespeare’s plays is not only a problem for me. Tabers-­‐Kwak and Kufman (2002) similarly suggest that the primary reasons students do not engage with Shakespeare’s plays is they either find the text too difficult to read or they do not see the relevance of the play to their own lives. Spangler (2009) reports that students are often quizzed on minute details of the play. Although the questions on quizzes I took as a student were not as trivial as those Spangler details and the quizzes were not the end goal, my own experience of being quizzed on the plays we read in college felt similar. Some students can get the impression that they are not able to understand Shakespeare without direct help from the teacher, contributing to a banking model of learning (Spangler, 2009; Friere, 1968/1970). There has been a practice of teaching Shakespeare by showing film adaptions or having students perform Shakespeare’s plays in part or in whole. Both of these practices seem to lead to a stronger understanding of Shakespeare’s plays (Almansouri et. al, 2009; Baines, 1997; Bucolo, 2007; Burnett & Foster, 2003; Cabat, 2009; Franek, 1996; Kleypas, 2004; Quattrocki, 1976; Shamburg & Craighead, 2009). Some teachers have also had students translate scenes from or the entirety of a Shakespeare play into either modern language or a modern context to help students establish personal relevance (Bucolo, 2007; Franek, 1996; Kleypas, 2004; Morrison, 2002; Slate, 1966). There are non-­‐academic adaptions of this kind, particularly in the form of films which tend to be targeted at young adults such as “10 Things I hate about you” (Lazar & Junger, 1999) or “She’s the man” (Donner, Rosenberg, Lucchesi, & Fickman, 2006). There has also been a rise in the popularity of video-­‐blogs (vlogs), usually through Youtube.com, created as fictional accounts of the characters from books or plays (Bollinger, Bollinger, Grace, & Jacobs, 2014a; Rorick & Su, 2012-­‐2013). Although several teachers have described the process of having students translate Shakespeare into modern language and contexts (Bucolo, 2007; Franek, 1996; Kleypas, 2004; Morrison, 2002; Tabers-­‐Kwak & Kaufman, 2002), little research has been done to indicate whether this practice increases students’ comprehension and perceived relevance of these or similar texts. The purpose of this study is to examine whether this combined translation of specific scenes from Hamlet and interpretation through filmed performance contributes significantly to students’ understanding and perceived relevance of the play. This study was implemented in March of 2015 in four different periods of a 12th grade AP Literature class at Leonardtown High School in southern Maryland. This research will be relevant to other secondary English and Language Arts teachers who are teaching Shakespeare in their classrooms. The research will provide Rising Tide Volume 8
2 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION useful information regarding students’ engagement with and enjoyment of a Shakespeare play. It will also provide data regarding whether this method of teaching Shakespeare plays significantly increases students’ understanding of the Shakespearean text they are studying. The research may also be relevant to theatre teachers in using similar exercises to make Shakespeare’s plays more relevant and understandable to high school theatre students. Research Questions
1. Does student translation and interpretation of Hamlet increase students’ understanding of the play’s events, themes, character relationships, and character motives? 2. Does student translation and interpretation of Hamlet increase students’ perceived relevance of the play’s events, themes, character relationships, and character motives? I use “translation” to mean the process of re-­‐wording a text into modern-­‐day English while retaining as much of the meaning of the original text as possible. “Interpretation” in this study is the performance of the translated text; the terms “interpretation” and “performance” may be used interchangeably for the purposes of this study. I use “understanding” to mean the extent to which students comprehend the plot, character motivations, and themes present in the text. I use the term “perceived relevance” to mean the extent to which students view the themes and universal truths in the text as being applicable to their own lives. I use the term “culture” to mean the social norms and contexts specific to a particular time and place. In the next section, I will outline existing research and articles on the subject of teaching Shakespeare in secondary classrooms, translation of culture and/or language, and how I intend to apply that research; next, I will describe my intervention and the data I will collect. Literature review/theoretical framework
Research has been conducted over the past century to determine how to address the issues educators face in teaching Shakespeare to students and how to teach these texts most effectively. Many articles propose or report performance-­‐based or student translations as effective methods to teach Shakespeare’s plays to secondary students. This section will address why teaching of Shakespeare’s plays in secondary schools is still an issue, why using student-­‐created film is a valid approach to teaching Shakespeare, and why student translations are likely to be helpful in teaching Shakespeare. Is there a need to address instruction methods for teaching Shakespeare?
Because of the 17th century language of the play, many students find it difficult to engage with the texts (Almansouri, Balian, & Sawdy, 2009; Tabers-­‐Kwak & Kaufman, 2002). The archaic English and syntax of Elizabethan English makes this particular canon difficult for students to read and understand which, in turn, means that these texts are very difficult for students to analyze. Student analysis of Shakespearean texts is not only beneficial for Rising Tide Volume 8
3 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION literary study but is required in the Maryland College and Career Ready standards for high school students (Maryland State Department of Education, Reading Literature 9-­‐12, 2014). Many students also regard Shakespeare’s plays with disinterest (Baines, 1997). Students also see these texts as irrelevant to their own lives and find themselves unable to relate to the story or characters (Baines, 2002). Morrison (2002) taught Romeo and Juliet to a class of primarily African-­‐American students who found an all-­‐White cast, which is typically how Shakespeare film adaptions are cast, was unrelatable to their experience. Tabers-­‐Kwak (2002) argues that too many teachers teach Shakespeare as only a literary necessity, not as though it is enjoyable and valuable, thus making students feel as though the plays are being unpleasantly forced upon them like medicine. Clearly, there is a need to make the teaching of Shakespeare’s works more engaging and enjoyable for students. Studies read in preparation for this project indicate that some teachers have tried to engage students through the aesthetics of the language of Shakespeare and the interesting nature of the plots. Spangler (2009) laments the practice of quizzing students on minute details and focusing too much on giving students knowledge of Shakespeare rather than helping them to enjoy Shakespeare. Burnett and Foster (1993) similarly claim that teaching the universal themes, rich language, and cultural heritage are not sufficient for engaging students in studying Shakespeare; these methods, Burnett and Foster claim, do not necessitate that students connect with the play and enable students to rely on the teacher’s expertise. This method of focusing on themes and language to teach Shakespeare, because students are unengaged, leads the students to rely on the teacher’s source of knowledge in order to learn Shakespeare’s play. Spangler (2009) makes the argument that this is reflective of the banking model Paulo Friere (1968/1970) discusses in The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The banking model strips power from the students and makes the teacher the ultimate source of knowledge rather than leading students to construct their own knowledge through engagement with the text (Friere, 1968/1970). There have been various approaches to address this problem, one of the most prominent of which is using student-­‐created film adaptions (Bucolo, 2007; Franek, 1996; Morrison, 2002; Shamburg & Craighead, 2009). Why Use Student Performance or Student-Created Film?
The use of performance and student-­‐created film to teach Shakespeare has been shown to be effective through multiple studies and teacher reports. Burnett and Foster (1993) argued that having students take on the persona of Shakespeare’s characters through performance helps them to engage and connect with the play’s characters, thus increasing their understanding of the play. Quattrocki (1976) reported that having students perform Shakespeare’s plays had overwhelmingly positive results in his classes; one student claimed that performing Shakespeare helped him to understand what he had been told about how well Shakespeare’s plays portray human nature and universal themes. Baines (1997) argued that using multiple media such as drawing, writing, and performance leads students to understand Shakespeare more clearly because they are able to view the plays from various lenses rather than being forced to simply read the text. Bucolo (2007) had students perform Shakespeare’s plays who afterward reported that felt a connection with the messages in Shakespeare’s plays because of their performance. Almansouri and colleagues (2009) taught Romeo and Juliet to international students in New York and had Rising Tide Volume 8
4 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION the students read, watch film adaptions of, and act out the play. Students reported that, although they initially found the language of the play difficult, they came to comprehend the language of the play more easily after acting out scenes from the play. The use of film and music in conjunction with Shakespeare’s plays has also been show to increase students’ self-­‐expression and their mastery of language. Shamburg & Craigshead (2009) completed two studies. In the first, students chose a film scene or a song they felt corresponded with the themes in an assigned scene of Romeo and Juliet. Students then filmed themselves acting out the scene in the style of the film clip or song they chose. For instance, one group used Talladega Nights and outfitted themselves as feuding race car drivers (Capulets and Montagues). In the second study, students from McKinley High School in Washington, D.C. made audio-­‐recordings of scenes from Macbeth using the original language. They had to indicate entrances, exits, and actions entirely through sound. Shamburg and Craigshead report that students at a magnet school learned easily through this method, while students from another school had to have the activity guided by a teacher. Still, the involvement of students in actively considering the role of language in relation to visual and audio information is support for student-­‐made films of Shakespeare. Digital media is also a natural way to teach Shakespeare to students and is closer to the Elizabethan experience of Shakespeare’s plays. I use the term “digital media” here to mean media that can be accessed electronically and consumed without the use of text as a necessity. Spangler (2009) claims Shakespeare’s plays should be shown rather than read because this method is how Shakespeare’s plays were originally accessed. Shamburg and Craigshead (2009) claim that using digital media to teach Shakespeare is natural. They reference Thomas Pettitt in saying that, as digital media removes us from the necessity of printed text, we are as far removed from the printing press as those in Shakespeare’s day were. They quote Pettitt’s claim that creativity before and after the popularity of the printing press is very similar because of the fluid use of others’ works and because of the collaborative nature of projects. Examination of the plays through media, including film, also helps students to see the human condition reflected in Shakespeare’s plays, which in turn helps to make the plays relevant to them. Baines (1997) claims that that the use of various media to examine Shakespeare’s plays leads students to study the human condition through several lenses. Bollinger et. al (2014a) adapted Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing into a Youtube vlog about high school students and their relationships; this shows their ability to recognize similarities of their conditions and the conditions of the characters in the original play. Morrison’s (2002) class made film adaptions of Romeo and Juliet in which they connected racial, gender, and other differences to the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets. Quattrocki (1976) claims that once students can evaluate the play and make sense of the events and themes, students can “see analogies [of these themes and events] in our own society” (p. 31). Student-­‐created film also contributes to technology and image literacy, which are important skills in the 21st century. Cabat (2009) says that, with the rise in availability and affordability of video-­‐recording devices and the ease with which we can share videos and images, digital media is becoming as easy to create and manipulate as the written word. As an English teacher, Cabat is not proposing that we rid the English classroom of books; rather, he opts for incorporating film into the English classroom. Shamburg and Rising Tide Volume 8
5 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Craigshead (2009) claim that today’s digital world is a participatory culture, meaning that individuals take part in the creation of digital media rather than viewing/hearing it passively. This, in turn, enables students to more fully participate in literary study. Additionally, adapting Shakespeare’s plays to film forces students to analyze the purpose and motive of the lines and actions in the play. Cabat (2009) had students make video trailers and making video “telegrams” (limited length messages from character to character). In both of these exercises, students went beyond noting differences and began to analyze why Shakespeare might have set up the scenes as he did and how the message the films portrayed might be interpreted differently. Why Use Context and Language Translation?
The Bollinger et. al (2014a) adaption of Much Ado About Nothing is culturally and linguistically translated to fit the experience of 21st century New Zealand high school students. Rorick and Su’s (2012-­‐2013) adaption of Pride and Prejudice, while of a more recent text, still translates both language and context to match the experiences of 21st century Americans. Since both of these translations were made recreationally, it follows that the creators of these vlogs found relevance for their lives and for the experiences of those in their cultures in the texts. Franek (1996) made a culturally translated film adaption of The Taming of the Shrew for a group project in high school, even though cultural translation was not part of the project. Morrison’s (2002) 9th grade class translated Romeo and Juliet in order to explore non-traditional casting of roles in their own
mini-film productions. One group explored ethnicity and gender, making Escalus an African-­‐
American female. This group intentionally did not divide the Montagues and the Capulets by race in order to indicate that race was not the sole reason for hatred and prejudice. Another group filmed their scene twice, once casting Juliet as White and Romeo as Black and once with Juliet as Black and Romeo as White. They wanted their audience to ponder the racial and gender factors which go into our perceptions of relationships – whether it was more socially acceptable for “a white [sic] girl to date a black [sic] guy” (p. 50). This group wanted to indicate to the audience that death and hatred are tragic regardless of race. The third group made brightly colored paper mâché masks, which the actors wore throughout the production in order to hide the skin tone of the actors from the audience. The color of the mask indicated the character’s allegiance to one of the two houses. At the end of the play, key characters exchanged masks to signify their reconciliation. Students in this group explained that the masks could represent any differences between people. They thought the masks would allow audiences to generalize about differences more clearly. Furthermore, translation from one artistic form into another can be of literary value. Slate (1966) refers to one kind of translation that he calls re-­‐ordering, the purpose of which is to assist the reader in understanding the translated statement first and then, in returning to the original text, more clearly understand the original meaning. Slate also clarifies that the original meaning transcends the translated meaning, but the process of translating can be of assistance in fully comprehending the original text. This concept of translation from poetry to prose can be applied to Shakespeare’s plays and extended to translation from prose to prose, as long as the purpose of the translation is the same. The purpose of translating the plays in my study would be to help students understand Hamlet and other Elizabethan texts more fully, not to over-­‐simplify or paraphrase the text for the sake of translation. Rising Tide Volume 8
6 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Student performance and translations of Shakespeare have been used to address the problems of students finding the plays difficult to understand and relate to. Students who perform Shakespeare in the aforementioned studies find the play they have studied to be more comprehendible and they are better able to connect with the text. Translation, either linguistic or contextual, has made the play more relevant to the students who have translated. In this project, I will implement both linguistic and contextual translation of Hamlet, coupled with student-­‐created film performance of these translations, to determine whether this increases students’ understanding and perceived relevance of Hamlet and other Elizabethan texts. Methods
Intervention
To address the problems of low student understanding and perceived relevance of Shakespearean texts, I had my students interact with Hamlet in three different capacities. After reading Act I on their own and prior to discussing the text, students were given an affective survey (see Appendix A) to determine how well they felt they understood Shakespeare, how relevant they felt Shakespeare was to their lives, and how much they had been exposed to or studied Shakespeare’s plays in the past. They were also given a short piece from Act I, scene ii of Hamlet and asked to translate the text into 21st century English (see Appendix C). Students had read Act I prior to this translation of Act I, scene ii. This exercise was not graded; it was intended to establish a baseline of the students’ individual capabilities of translating linguistically and contextually prior to the intervention. As usual in this class culture, the class discussed Hamlet as they read and were shown professional and traditional film adaptions of key scenes to help them visualize the play. In addition to discussing the play in class, students self-­‐selected into small groups and chose a scene from Hamlet to translate and interpret. Students were informed before self-­‐
selecting groups that although they would be given time to work on their translations and films in class, they would most likely need to have additional meetings outside of class to complete their project. One student chose to work on his own rather than in a group. Students selected any scene from Hamlet (or part of a scene, if the full scene was deemed too long for the project, as was the case with some selected scenes). Students were given one week, while class discussions of Hamlet were being conducted, to draft a linguistic and contextual translation of their assigned scene. Students were given time in class to work on their translations. At the beginning of this process, I showed the students a scene from Bollinger and colleagues’ Nothing Much To Do as an example, since this vlog series is a linguistic and contextual translation of a Shakespeare play (Bollinger, Bollinger, Grace, & Jacobs, 2014b). Students were able to read a transcription of the scene’s dialogue side-­‐by-­‐
side with the text from Act III, scene i of Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing (see Appendix E), then view the video in class. My mentor teacher and I reviewed the students’ translations before students were permitted to proceed to filming. Students also wrote a justification for their group’s translations. If adjustments needed to be made because of misunderstanding, lack of effort, or inappropriate content, my mentor and myself had the students in that group adjust and re-­‐submit the translations before filming. After these translated scripts had been approved, students had two weeks to film and edit their scene in or outside of class. Students sent the films to myself and my mentor teacher electronically. Students were also required to write a reflection on the process of Rising Tide Volume 8
7 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION translating and filming their scenes (see Appendix B). Students were then be given the same survey and translation exercise (see Appendix C) they were given before the intervention in order to measure changes in their perceptions and abilities; the translation was be of a passage from Act III, scene iii which was not discussed in class or a scene chosen by any of the students for their translation projects. The population of this study was four periods of 12th grade Advanced Placement (AP) Literature at Leonardtown High School in Leonardtown, MD. In all four classes combined, there were 97 students. Some of these students had read two to three Shakespeare plays for school, but most had not been exposed extensively to Shakespeare. Of students who completed the pre-­‐test, eight students reported some form of exposure to Hamlet prior to reading it for class. Four of these eight students had read or seen the entire play. One of these students reported that her parents read the plays to her when she was young. Another said she had read the entirety of Hamlet 2-­‐3 years prior to this unit, while another said she read parts of the play for a theatre class at the Globe in London and read the rest of the play on her own. The fourth student watched a film adaption, but did not specify which adaption. The other four of these eight students had seen or been exposed to only parts of the play. One student reported that he was an aide for another 12th grade English class and had heard much of the play discussed. Another said that he had seen an episode of “Southpark” which imitated the final scene of the play. One student reported that, although she had not read any of the play, she had read a novel that was based on the life of the character Ophelia. The final student in this group said that she had watched and/or read parts of the play for theatre. Methodological approach
I used mixed methods in this study. I observed students’ translations, both in process and as the final products, and determined their level of understanding as I saw it. These data will be analyzed using qualitative methods. I also gave students surveys before and after teaching them to see whether their own perceptions of whether the methods were helpful for establishing relevance and understanding changed significantly. Part of this survey was a Likert-­‐like scale; I analyzed answers to these questions using the quantitative method of T-­‐tests. 66 students’ responses were used for this portion of the data analysis. I analyzed the question which asked students about their self-­‐perceived understanding of and relevance in Hamlet using qualitative methods; all 73 post-­‐tests were analyzed regardless of whether the student had completed the pre-­‐test or read Act I on schedule. This is because missing the pre-­‐test or reading Act I behind schedule should not have been a significant factor in the students’ perception of the intervention itself. I analyzed the translations of passages from Hamlet on the pre-­‐ and post-­‐tests using quantitative methods. I created a checklist of significant concepts or ideas in each passage. For this part of the data analysis, 36 students’ responses were analyzed; this was 53.7% of the students who completed both the pre-­‐ and post-­‐tests. This smaller sample size was only applied to the translation portion of the pre-­‐ and post-­‐tests; the larger sample sizes were used for other data analyses. Nine students from each of the four class periods were selected randomly, excluding students who were not present for either the pre-­‐ or the post-­‐
test or students who were absent on the day when instruction was given to read Act I prior to the pre-­‐test. These students were excluded from selection because either their data were incomplete or because their results might be biased in favor of significant Rising Tide Volume 8
8 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION improvement due to the fact that they were less likely to have read Act I prior to the pre-­‐
test. Another student intern at Saint Mary’s College of Maryland analyzed these pre-­‐ and post-­‐test translations for me in order to prevent any biases I have from scoring the data in favor of significant improvement. This intern was given a checklist of concepts I identified as significant in each scene (see Appendix D) and instructed to check off any concepts he saw reflected in the translations. He was then to report each student’s scores to me using the students’ codes and the number of concepts of which they demonstrated understanding in their translations. This other intern was not informed which translation was the pre-­‐test and which was the post-­‐test. Student names and dates were also hidden from this other intern in order to ensure blind scoring. Data collection
Table 1 (below) shows the various data sources I used to address my research questions. The majority of these data sources provided me with qualitative data. I coded the qualitative data and identified themes. I scored the quantitative data I collected from the affective surveys. Another intern scored the pre-­‐ and post-­‐test translations and submitted these to me as quantitative data. I used T-­‐tests to determine whether there was a significant difference in the scores. Table 1: Research questions and data sources Research Question Pre-­‐Post Pre-­‐Post Intervention intervention Hamlet Questionnaire passage Translation Does student Students’ pre-­‐ and Students’ pre-­‐ and translation and post-­‐intervention post-­‐translations of performance of Hamlet answers will be the two passages from increase students’ compared to check for Hamlet will be understanding of the affective change compared for play’s events, themes, significant differences character in percentages of key relationships, and concepts understood character motives? and translated from the passage. Does student Students’ post-­‐
translation and intervention answers performance of Hamlet will be examined to increase students’ check for self-­‐reported perceived relevance of affective change the play’s events, themes, character relationships, and character motives? Rising Tide Volume 8
Scripted Linguistic/ Contextual Translation Student groups’ scripted translations and justifications will be compared to questionnaire responses to check for perceived relevance 9 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Data analysis
The students’ translations and performances provided me with qualitative data. I conducted a preliminary exploratory analysis in order to determine how best to code the data for each of these resources. After coding the data, I identified themes and trends in the data from which I drew conclusions. The pre-­‐ and post-­‐intervention questionnaires provided me with quantitative data. I analyzed these data using inferential statistics. Once collected, I scored these data. I determined scores for individual questions, difference scores for individual students, and summed scores for parts of the intervention that address the same variable (for instance, all of the questions pertaining to the students’ understanding of the play without the inclusion of 1performance). I completed T-­‐tests to determine whether there was a significant difference between the pre-­‐ and post-­‐intervention scores, meaning that p<.05. Validity concerns
I used multiple perspectives to analyze the data I collected. I did this using the students’ answers from the pre-­‐ and post-­‐ intervention questionnaires in conjunction with analysis of the students’ work from my mentor teacher as well, of course, as analyzing the data myself. My findings were shared with my mentor teacher and the education professors at Saint Mary’s College to ensure that I did not allow any biases regarding what I thought the results of this study might be or toward any student to sway my findings and reports. My mentor teacher and myself deemed the two passages from Hamlet used for the pre-­‐ and post-­‐translations to be of equivalent difficulty. I had another student intern from St. Mary’s College of Maryland score my students’ pre-­‐ and post-­‐translations, given a scoring list of key concepts from the passage to check for, as described above. This was done in an attempt to eliminate any biases I may have had regarding improvements in the students’ skills. Findings and interpretations
Does student translation and interpretation increase students’ understanding of the
play’s events, character relationships, and character motives?
There were 66 students who completed both the pre-­‐test and the post-­‐test. This excludes students who were absent the day the first reading was assigned for homework, since it is likely they did not read the first act prior to completing the pre-­‐test whereas other students had read this part of the play. These students completed a Likert-­‐like self-­‐
assessment (see Appendix A) in their abilities to understand the plot, themes, character’s roles and relationships, and dialogue when reading a Shakespeare play. This assessment was completed before the intervention was implemented or instruction on Hamlet had occurred. Prior to the intervention, the average scores for these elements of the play were 3.1, 2.6, 3.1, and 2.3, respectively, out of a possible 5; that is to say, students on average scored themselves as having a neutral or slightly below neutral understanding of these elements of Shakespeare’s plays. These same 66 students’ average self-­‐reported scores on these questions after the intervention were 3.7, 3.3, 3.8, and 3.2, respectively. This increase was statistically significant (p<.001). Rising Tide Volume 8
10 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Table 2: Student scores: Understanding when reading play Mean SD Pre-­‐test Post-­‐test p 2.79 .771 -­‐-­‐ 3.5 .776 5.2098E-­‐11 In addition to the Likert-­‐like scale described above, students completed a Likert-­‐like scale (see Appendices A, E) addressing the same elements of their understanding of plot, themes, character roles and relationships, and dialogue when watching or participating in a stage or film adaption of a Shakespeare play. Only 31 students reported having encountered all four of these elements in performance on the pre-­‐test. These 31 students scored an average of 4.1, 3.7, 4.2, and 3.6, respectively, out of possible five. That is to say, students who had encountered all four of these elements in performance prior to the intervention scored themselves as having a slightly above neutral to fairly strong understanding of these elements after watching or participating in a performance. On the post-­‐test after the intervention, these same students’ self-­‐reported scores to the same questions were 4.5, 4.2, 4.6, and 4.3 out of a possible five. Students self-­‐reported a fairly strong understanding of all four elements after the intervention. After completing a one-­‐
tailed, pair t-­‐test, it became clear that this increase was statistically significant (p<.008). This indicated that there was a very low probability (less than 0.8%) that this increase was due to chance alone. Of all 66 students who completed this part of the post-­‐test and were not excluded from the data set for reasons listed in the previous paragraph, between 88.3% and 95.5% of students scored themselves with a 4 or a 5 on a 1-­‐5 scale for these questions. Table 3: Student scores: Understanding when watching/performing in play Mean SD Pre-­‐test Post-­‐test p 3.92 .835 -­‐-­‐ 4.4 .66 .0079 Rising Tide Volume 8
11 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION 45
42
39
40
Percentage
35
32
31
30
25
24
25
23
21
20
15
10
5
0
10
7
0
1
2
Plot
0
3
1
Themes
0
2
1
0
Roles & relationships
Dialogue
Item
Scored 1
Scored 2
Scored 3
Scored 4
Scored 5
Figure 1.Affective scores on post-test performance items.
36 students’ pre-­‐ and post-­‐test translations were randomly selected for analysis. Nine students were selected from each class period. Students who did not complete both the pre-­‐ and the post-­‐test were excluded from this selection, as were students who were absent the day before the pre-­‐test, for reasons discussed in the above paragraph. Another intern, who was blind to the order of the tests and the identity of the students, scored students’ translations against a checklist of key concepts from the passage (see Appendix D). The number of concepts students expressed in their translations was divided by the number of concepts on the checklist corresponding to that passage, producing a percentage of concepts expressed by the student. On the pre-­‐test translation, these 36 students averaged 10.3 out of 33 concepts, or 31.2%. After the intervention, these same students averaged 16.6 out of 36 concepts, or 46.2%. This increase was statistically significant (p<.001), meaning that there was a less than 0.1% chance that this increase was coincidental. Table 4: Student scores: Pre-­‐/post-­‐test translation Mean Mean SD p score percentage Pre-­‐test 10.31/33 31.23% .153 -­‐-­‐ Post-­‐test 16.64/36 46.22% .112 1.3334E-­‐06 Based on these results, it follows that student translation and interpretation of Hamlet may increase student understanding of the afore-­‐mentioned elements of the play. Rising Tide Volume 8
12 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION It is logical to infer that, while perhaps not the only factor, the translation and interpretation elements contributed to the significantly increased levels of understanding. Does student translation and interpretation of Hamlet increase students’ perceived
relevance of the play’s events, character relationships, and character motives?
As part of their post-­‐test, students were asked to respond to an open-­‐ended question about the role of the translation/interpretation project in increasing their understanding and perceived relevance (see Appendix C). Within the group of 73 students who completed the post-­‐test, 56 students (76.71%) freely mentioned the translation/interpretation as having an influence on their understanding and/or perceived relevance of the text. Seven of these students (9.59%) mentioned increased relevance or relatability explicitly. Three of these seven students reference the process of translation as being helpful to them in creating relevance, while another student said that translating the context of the scene specifically was key to creating relevance. Two other students mentioned that acting or adopting the role of the character increases the relevance of the play for them. Another student, although she did not explicitly say what created the relevance for her, said, “I was able to understand it through translating it and by making it into a modern scene. I realized how the plot line is similar to things that happen in our lives, though our lives are less dramatic.” However, some students’ responses were not as supportive of the intervention’s helpfulness. One student reported that it was only somewhat helpful and one student reported that it helped her “a little”. Another student reported that the intervention was helpful only in assisting her to understand the scene her group translated. Four other students (5.48%) reported that the intervention was helpful in helping them understand the play but not in establishing relevance. Rising Tide Volume 8
13 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Table 5: Perceived relevance increase n Percentage Yes (ambiguous) 56 76.71 Yes (explicit) 7 9.59 Somewhat 3 4.11 No 4 5.48 Representative quotation “…my participation in the group’s translation helped me understand the complex dialog and the overall meaning of the play itself. By having to really think about, and rewrite in my own words the words of Shakespeare, I know [sic] have a better understanding, and appreciation.” “…Shakespeare is awesome and he is still relevant today, you realize that by translation of his plays. We all encounter similar situations and dilemmas, just in different settings and significance level [sic].” “My participation in the video project helped me understand the importance of that scene; it however did not help to further my understanding of the play as a whole…” “…As for the relevance, I understand the plot has been redone over and over making the plot timeless but I don’t really appreciate it anymore [sic] than I did when we started.” 9.59% of the population reported that this intervention was of limited or no help in establishing the relevance of the play. It may be assumed that the 76.71% of the class who did not specifically mention relevance found the intervention to be either neutral or beneficial, but not detrimental. Of the 23 groups in the four periods, six groups failed to adequately translate their self-­‐selected scene into a modern context. Four of these groups did not adapt their scene to fit a modern context, but two of these groups did not convincingly follow through on their proposed modernization. Members of one group reported difficulty with maintaining their idea of having the final scene of Hamlet be performed by children on a playground. Most of this was reported to have been because of scheduling restrictions and lack of access to a playground when they had time to film in class. The other group had proposed to make a scene from Hamlet into a soap opera, but the filmed version of their translation did not communicate this concept. The other 17 groups convincingly portrayed modernized adaptions of some kind. Rising Tide Volume 8
14 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Discussion of results
There is evidence which strongly suggests that the intervention increased students’ understanding of Hamlet. This is in tandem with the literature reviewed above, in that the performance of the intervention was likely to increase understanding (Almansouri et. al, 2009; Bucolo, 2007; Burnett & Foster, 193; Quattrocki, 1976; Spangler, 2009). The translation’s helpfulness in establishing understanding of the translated text and other similar text is also supported by the literature (Franek, 1996; Slate, 1966). There is also evidence suggesting that the intervention increased students’ perceived relevance of the play, but this evidence is not as strong. The connection would be stronger if a greater percentage of students had explicitly written about relevance in their responses. In some responses, it is unclear whether the student meant that understanding and relevance were increased or only understanding. Conclusion
Any secondary English teacher is familiar with the glazed eyes and repeated “Why do we have to read this?” any time Shakespeare is introduced in the classroom. Far too many students, because of the way Shakespeare’s plays are sometimes taught, regard Shakespeare with a mixture of inadequacy and disinterest. From this study, we can say that it is possible that the process of having students linguistically and contextually translate a portion of the play, then interpret this translation, may help students understand and find relevance in the text. Limitations
It is difficult to say for sure whether the intervention or some other part of the instructional unit was the main factor in increasing students’ understanding and perceived relevance of the play . Out of the 73 students whose responses to the open-­‐ended question on the post-­‐test were recorded, one student reported that other aspects of the unit were more helpful to her in increasing understanding. Other students may have been accidentally primed to think the translation project was the main factor that helped them understand. It was not possible to ethically have a control group, as I would have had to teach them in a way I felt was inadequate. It is therefore a possibility that any other part of the instructional unit, or only some facets of the intervention, increased the students’ understanding. The short length of this instructional unit and intervention may also have had an unintended effect on the data. Because the entire unit was only about four weeks long, including two snow days and a day set aside for mock AP exams, students only had about two weeks to translate, edit, and film interpretation. Some of the students reported feeling stressed by the project due to having to meet outside of class to film and the approaching deadlines. Additionally, I did not adequately scaffold students’ understanding of how to use the video editing software, which may have contributed to stress. Students may have reported different scores if they had not felt as stressed by the process. The wording for the first set of affective questions was slightly different on the post-­‐
test than on the pre-­‐test. This was meant to clarify the question for students and I explained the change in question to some of the classes, but in retrospect this changed wording may have affected students’ responses. Rising Tide Volume 8
15 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION It is also not entirely clear whether students have an equally increased understanding of the entirety of Hamlet from this process or if students’ increased understanding of the scene they translated exceeds their increased understanding of the play as a whole. Some students, as mentioned above, reported that they understood their own scene better from this process but did not feel their understanding of the play increased. Although the statistical analyses of the pre-­‐ and post-­‐intervention translations indicate a significant increase in students’ understanding of the passage, it is possible that their understanding of their own scenes may have been more greatly increased. Implications
Regardless of whether the entire intervention was the cause of these increases, it certainly does not seem to have been detrimental and was an engaging and enjoyable project for the students. Although I intend to continue refining this project, it is very likely that I will use this intervention with my students in the future. I would be sure to give students more time to work on the editing and filming of their projects, as well as giving better scaffolding regarding video editing software. Future research in this area would be beneficial to better understand exactly what helps students understand Shakespeare’s plays better. Translation tests could be given intermittently during the intervention to track students’ understanding and perceived relevance of the play during the unit. This could help to determine which facet(s) of the intervention are most responsible for the increases seen in this project. The unit could be taught to several classes with the non-­‐intervention instruction taught in different orders for each class so that one could also account for the effectiveness of other instructional tools and activities. Additionally, research could be done to determine whether this increase in understanding and perceived relevance applies to other Elizabethan literature. For example, would the students in this study better understand and find more relevance in Macbeth because of this intervention, or do the increases apply only to their understanding of Hamlet? Multiple Shakespeare plays could be taught in one year, or student data could be collected over two consecutive years to determine the extent of the effects of this intervention. There is evidence to strongly suggest that having students complete linguistic and contextual translations and interpretations of a Shakespeare play increases their understanding and perceived relevance of the play in question. Both data and student reports indicate that the intervention was a likely reason for these increases. Teachers and students of secondary English would benefit from utilizing student translation and interpretation to help students connect with Shakespeare’s plays. Rising Tide Volume 8
16 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION References
Almansouri, O., Balian, A.S., & Sawdy, J. (2009). Student voices: How has performing Shakespeare helped you appreciate his work?. English Journal, 99(1), 35-­‐36. Baines, L. (1997). The Shakespeare frolic project: Massaging Shakespeare through multimedia. Clearing House, 7(4), 194. Bottoms, J. (1994). Playing with Shakespeare: Or “Where there’s a will there’s a way”. English in Education, 28(3), 25-­‐33. Bollinger, E.; Bollinger, S.; Grace, M.; & Jacobs, C. (25 March 2014 – 22 October 2014a). “The Story.” Watch Projects. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iakDRoQg-­‐sM&list=PLac7pO-­‐
bIzJHiCY5628F3BzEEq7Y5Ufpj Bollinger, E.; Bollinger, S.; Grace, M.; & Jacobs, C. [Nothing much to do]. (2014b, July 1). The limits of technology and the art of self-­‐representation in a modern world [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_cPvl0YmsM Bowman, C., Pieters, B., Hembree, S., & Mellender, T. (2002). Shakespeare, our contemporary: Using technology to teach the bard. English Journal, 9(1), 88-­‐93. Brown, J. (2008). Learning Shakespeare’s secret language: the limits of ‘performance studies’. New Theatre Quarterly, 24(3), 211-­‐221. Bucolo, J. (2007). The Bard in the bathroom: Literary analysis, filmmaking, and Shakespeare. English Journal, 96(6), 50-­‐55. Burnett, R.E., & Foster, E. (1993). ‘The role’s the thing’: The power of persona in Shakespeare. English Journal, 82(6), 69. Cabat, J.H. (2009). ‘The lash of film’: New paradigms of visuality in teaching Shakespeare. English Journal 99(1), 56-­‐57. Franek, M. (1996). Producing student films: Shakespeare on screen. English Journal, 85(3), 50-­‐54. Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum International. (Original work published 1968) Haughey, J. (2012). ‘What’s past is prologue’: ‘English Journal’ roots of a performance-­‐based approach to teaching Shakespeare. English Journal, 101(3), 60-­‐65. Kleypas, K.L. (2004). Instructional note: Engaging with Shakespeare through translation. Teaching English in the Two-­‐Year College, 32(2), 174-­‐177. Morrison, J.D. (2002). Using student-­‐generated film to create a culturally relevant community. English Journal, 92(1), 47-­‐52. O’Malley, S. (2000). Reading Shakespeare in the heterogeneous classroom. Radical Teacher, (58), 16-­‐20. Quattrocki, E. (1976). Classroom presentations of Shakespeare. Focus: Teaching English in Southeastern Ohio, v2 n3 (Entire Issue Spring 1976). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED128817.pdf Robinson, L. (1992). “This could have been me”: Composition and the implications of cultural perspective. In Berlin, J.A. & Vivion, M.J. (Eds.), Cultural Studies in the English Classroom (pp 231-­‐243).Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Rising Tide Volume 8
17 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Rorick, K.; & Su, B. (9 April 2012 – 27 March 2013). “The Lizzie Bennet diaries – The complete playlist.” Pemberly Digital. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_ePOdU-­‐b3xcDyyzeR5NjxeLEElsqYzn1 Shamburg, C, & Craighead, C. (2009). Shakespeare, our digital native. English Journal, 99(1), 74-­‐78. Slate, J.E. (1966, October 21). The translatable element in literature: Critical theory and classroom practice. Address at the Annual Conference on Composition and Literature in High School and College, University of Kansas, School of Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED033922.pdf Spangler, S. (2009). Speaking my mind: Stop reading Shakespeare!. English Journal, 99(1), 130-­‐132. Tabers-­‐Kwak, L., & Kaufman, T.U. (2002). Shakespearean through the lens of a new age. English Journal, 92(1), 69-­‐73. Rising Tide Volume 8
18 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Appendix A
PERIOD: _______________ GROUP NUMBER:___________________ Indicate how true the following items are for you by marking the appropriate box with an X or to indicate your feelings. There are no right answers, so please answer honestly. 1) When I read a Shakespeare play without watching or participating in a stage or film adaption, I feel that I clearly understand… …the plot Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 …the themes …the characters’ roles and relationships …the dialogue 2) After I watch or participate in a stage or film adaption of a Shakespeare play, I feel that I have a better understanding of… Strongly Strongly I have not Disagree Agree encountered 1 2 3 4 5 this in performance …the plot …the themes …the characters’ roles and relationships …the dialogue 3) Have you seen or read all or part of Hamlet before reading it for this class? If so, please specify. Rising Tide Volume 8
19 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION CLAUDIUS: But now, my cousin Hamlet and my son – HAMLET: [aside] A little more than kin and less than kind. CLAUDIUS: How is it that the clouds still hang on you? HAMLET: Not so, my lord; I am too much in the sun. GERTRUDE: Good Hamlet, cast thy nighted color off, And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark. Do not forever with thy vailéd lids Seek for thy noble father in the dust. Thou know’st ‘tis common; all that lives must die, Passing through nature to eternity. HAMLET: Ay, madam, it is common. GERTRUDE: If it be, Why seems it so particular with thee? HAMLET: “Seems,” madam? Nay, it is. I know not “seems.” ‘Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother, Nor customary suits of solemn black, Nor windy suspiration of forced breath, No, nor the fruitful river in the eye, Nor the dejected havior of the visage, Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief, That can denote me truly. These indeed “seem,” For they are actions that a man might play; But I have that within which passes show, These but the trappings and the suits of woe. Rising Tide Volume 8
20 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Appendix B
Hamlet film translation project: Individual reflection Due: Tuesday, 3/24 at beginning of class Length: 1 ½ -­‐ 2 pages (typed, standard font and size, double-­‐spaced) Reflect on the process of translating and filming your scene. Address the following questions: Why did your group choose to translate this scene? Describe the process of selecting a modern setting for this scene. What difficulties did you and your group encounter in this stage? What was difficult to translate to modern times? What came easily? If you modified your proposal to utilize a different modern setting than the one your group had originally planned to use, why did you change the setting? What was the easiest passage of your scene to translate into modern English? What was the hardest? Why did these passages seem to be easy or difficult to translate? What new or unnoticed meaning in the lines did you discover as you translated, either from your own observation or in your revisions? What tools or resources did you find helped you translate? Describe the process of filming and editing your selected scene. What problems or unexpected difficulties did you or your group have? What aspects of staging the scene had you not considered when writing the script (such as entrances/exits, stage directions and actions, where actors would be in the shot, etc.)? If we were to do this project again, is there anything you would do differently? Is there anything Ms. Kelley should consider changing about or adding to this project? Rising Tide Volume 8
21 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Appendix C
PERIOD: _______________ GROUP NUMBER:___________________ Indicate how true the following items are for you by marking the appropriate box with an X or to indicate your feelings. There are no right answers, so please answer honestly. 1) If I were to read an unfamiliar Shakespeare play without watching or participating in a stage or film adaption, I feel that I would clearly understand… …the plot Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 …the themes …the characters’ roles and relationships …the dialogue 2) After I watch or participate in a stage or film adaption of a Shakespeare play, I feel that I have a better understanding of… Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 …the plot …the themes …the characters’ roles and relationships …the dialogue 3) Do you feel that your participation in your group’s translation and/or in your film project helped you understand or find relevance in Shakespeare? Please explain your answer – why or why not? In what ways was it helpful? (You may write on the back of this survey or on a separate sheet of paper). Rising Tide Volume 8
22 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION HAMLET: O, the recorders! Let me see one. [He takes a recorder and turns to Guildenstern.] To withdraw with you: why do you go about to recover the wind of me, as if you would drive me into a toil? GUILDENSTERN: O, my lord, if my duty be too bold, my love is too unmannerly. HAMLET: I do not well understand that. Will you play upon this pipe? GUILDENSTERN: My lord, I cannot. HAMLET: I pray you. GUILDENSTERN: Believe me, I cannot. HAMLET: I do beseech you. GUILDENSTERN: I know no touch of it, my lord. HAMLET: It is as easy as lying. Govern these ventages with your fingers and thumb, give it breath with your mouth, and it will discourse most eloquent music. Look you, these are the stops. GUILDENSTERN: But these cannot I command to any utt’rance of harmony. I have not the skill. HAMLET: Why, look you know, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me, you would seem to know my stops, you would pluck out the heart of my mystery, you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me. Rising Tide Volume 8
23 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Appendix D
Act I, scene ii checklist Line CLAUDIUS: But now, my cousin Hamlet and my son – HAMLET: [aside] A little more than kin and less than kind. CLAUDIUS: How is it that the clouds still hang on you? HAMLET: Not so, my lord; I am too much in the sun. Concept Claudius is Hamlet’s relative (uncle) and his (step-­‐)father Hamlet is not speaking to Claudius but to himself/the audience Hamlet and Claudius are related in several ways Hamlet sees his relationship with Claudius as unnatural Claudius wants to know why Hamlet is still upset Hamlet denies being upset Hamlet makes a pun on “sun” (son) – indicates displeasure with his new relationship with Claudius GERTRUDE: Good Hamlet, cast thy Gertrude tells Hamlet to stop wearing nighted color off, black Gertrude indicates that Hamlet should stop mourning And let thine eye look like a friend on Gertrude refers to Claudius as Denmark. “Denmark” Gertrude requests that Hamlet view Denmark as a friend Do not forever with thy vailéd lids / Gertrude says Hamlet’s eyes are Seek for thy noble father in the dust. lowered (in grief) Gertrude tells Hamlet to not always be searching for his dead father. Thou know’st ‘tis common; all that lives Gertrude says Hamlet knows it is must die, / universally true that all living things Passing through nature to eternity. die HAMLET: Ay, madam, it is common. Hamlet confirms that he knows death is universal Hamlet may be making a pun on the word “common” (to mean the opposite of noble) GERTRUDE: If it be, / Gertrude asks, if Hamlet knows death is Why seems it so particular with thee? universal for living things, why he appears to be particularly upset by it HAMLET: “Seems,” madam? Nay, it is. I Hamlet says he does not “appear” to be Rising Tide Volume 8
Check 24 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION know not “seems.” upset, he IS upset. Hamlet does not know what it is like to “appear” (pretend) to be upset. ‘Tis not alone my inky cloak, good It is not only Hamlet’s wearing a black mother, cloak (of mourning)… Nor customary suits of solemn black, It is not only Hamlet’s wearing black clothing, as is customary when mourning… No, nor the fruitful river in the eye, It is not only Hamlet’s crying… Nor the dejected havior of the visage, It is not only the depressed look on Hamlet’s face… Together with all forms, moods, shapes …along with all expressions of of grief, sadness/mourning… That can denote me truly. These indeed …that can truly show how upset “seem,” Hamlet is. These (afore mentioned) expressions of grief “appear” sad For they are actions that a man might Someone could pretend to be sad by play; showing the (afore mentioned) expressions of grief Hamlet may be implicitly accusing Gertrude and/or Claudius of not truly grieving for Old Hamlet’s death But I have that within which passes Hamlet contrasts himself with the show, hypothetical person who pretends to grieve Hamlet may be contrasting himself with Gertrude and/or Claudius, who both pretend to grieve Hamlet does not only look sad, he is truly sad internally These but the trappings and the suits of Hamlet says the afore mentioned signs woe. of grief are only demonstrations of grief. Hamlet says the afore mentioned signs of grief are not absolute proof of grief. Rising Tide Volume 8
25 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Act III, scene ii checklist Line Concept HAMLET: O, the recorders! Let me see Hamlet asks for a recorder one. (instrument) To withdraw with you: Hamlet asks someone (servant with Check? pipes? Guildenstern and Rosencrantz?) to go away why do you go about to recover the Hamlet asks wind of me, as if you would drive me Guildenstern/Rosencrantz why into a toil? he/they try to hunt him down Hamlet asks Guildenstern/Rosencrantz why he/they try to trap him GUILDENSTERN: O, my lord, if my duty Guildenstern says his duty (to the be too bold, my love is too king/queen) may be too bold (going unmannerly. too far) Guildenstern says he is only going too far because he loves Hamlet so much HAMLET: I do not well understand Hamlet does not understand what that. Will you play upon this pipe? Guildenstern means Hamlet does not agree with Guildenstern’s logic of love Hamlet asks Guildenstern to play a recorder GUILDENSTERN: My lord, I cannot. Guildenstern says he can’t play the recorder HAMLET: I pray you. Hamlet repeats his request a little more forcefully GUILDENSTERN: Believe me, I cannot. Rising Tide Volume 8
Guildenstern repeats that he cannot 26 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION play the recorder HAMLET: I do beseech you. Hamlet begs Guildenstern to play the recorder GUILDENSTERN: I know no touch of it, Guildenstern says he has never my lord. touched a recorder / he does not know how to play it HAMLET: It is as easy as lying. Hamlet says playing the recorder is very easy Hamlet accuses Guildenstern (and Rosencrantz?) of lying to him Govern these ventages with your Hamlet tells Guildenstern how to cover fingers and thumb, give it breath with the holes on the recorder and to your mouth, and it will discourse most breathe into it. eloquent music. Hamlet says that the recorder will make beautiful music Look you, these are the stops. Hamlet shows Guildenstern the holes on the recorder GUILDENSTERN: But these cannot I Guildenstern says he can’t control the command to any utt’rance of harmony. holes on the recorder to make any kind of music I have not the skill. Guildenstern says he doesn’t have the skill to play the recorder well HAMLET: Why, look you know, how Hamlet accuses Guildenstern (and unworthy a thing you make of me! Rosencrantz?) of not treating him as he deserves You would play upon me, Hamlet says Guildenstern (and Rosencrantz?) play him like a recorder you would seem to know my stops, Hamlet says Guildenstern (and Rosencrantz?) try to know what his Rising Tide Volume 8
27 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION “stops” are (what controls him) you would pluck out the heart of my Hamlet says Guildenstern (and mystery, Rosencrantz?) are trying to find out what is causing Hamlet’s behavior Hamlet implies that Guildenstern’s (and Rosencrantz’s?) actions would kill/destroy Hamlet’s cause you would sound me from my lowest Hamlet says Guildenstern (and note to the top of my compass; Rosencrantz?) are trying to get everything possible out of Hamlet and these is much music, excellent Hamlet says there is lots of beautiful voice, in this little organ, music in a small recorder yet cannot you make it speak. Hamlet points out that Guildenstern cannot make music from a small recorder Hamlet implies that if Guildenstern (and Rosencrantz?) cannot sound a recorder, they cannot make him speak ‘Sblood, do you think I am easier to be Hamlet swears/is angry Hamlet rhetorically asks if played on than a pipe? Guildenstern (and Rosencrantz?) think he is easier to manipulate than a recorder is Call me what instrument you will, Hamlet says Guildenstern (and Rosencrantz?) may compare him to any instrument they like… though you can fret me, you cannot Hamlet says although Guildenstern play upon me. (and Rosencrantz?) can know in theory how to manipulate him… Rising Tide Volume 8
28 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Hamlet says although Guildenstern (and Rosencrantz?) can annoy/worry Hamlet… …Hamlet says Guildenstern (and Rosencrantz?) cannot succeed in manipulating him. Rising Tide Volume 8
29 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION Appendix E
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING (Act 3
scene 1)
URSULA: But are you sure,
That Benedick loves Beatrice so
entirely?
HERO: So says the prince, and my new
troth’d lord.
URSULA: And did they bid you tell her of
it, madam?
HERO: They did entreat me to acquaint her
of it,
But I persuaded them, if they loved
Benedick,
To wish him wrestle with affection,
And never to let Beatrice know of it.
URSULA: Why did you so? Doth not the
gentleman
Deserve as full as fortunate a bed,
As ever Beatrice shall couch upon?
HERO: Oh God of love! I know he doth
deserve,
As much as may be yielded to a man:
But nature never framed a woman’s
heart
Of prouder stuff than that of Beatrice:
Disdain and scorn ride sparkling in her
eyes,
Misprising what they look on, and her
wit
Values itself so highly, that to her
All matter else seems weak: she cannot
love,
Nor take no shape nor project of
affection,
She is so self-endeared.
URSULA: Sure I think so,
And therefore certainly it were not good,
She knew his love, lest she’ll make sport
at it.
HERO: Why you speak truth, I never et saw
a man,
How wise, how noble, young how rarely
featured,
Rising Tide Volume 8
NOTHING MUCH TO DO
MEG: So, what were you saying about
Benedick?
URSULA: Benedick? You must have heard
wrong.
HERO: No, no. I assure you, I heard it from
Claud and Pedro. And they know him
better than anybody.
URSULA: I know, it’s…
MEG: Wait, what’s going on? I mean, I
know that he’s really upset and I think I
saw him crying the other day? It was
really weird.
HERO: Yeah, well, to be honest, I’m not
surprised. The poor guy locks himself in
his bedroom all the time, he hardly eats,
he doesn’t sleep… it’s really sad.
URSULA: And the poetry he’s been writing.
MEG: Poetry?
HERO: Well, but you can hardly blame him.
I mean, Benedick is in love with
Beatrice.
MEG: What?!
HERO: Yeah!
MEG: Wow! I… what… wow. That’s….
okay, two things: One, I’m not surprised
because Beatrice is really, really great—
HERO: Yeah she is, she’s great.
MEG: Two, what are you gonna do about it?
HERO: Okay, Pedro and Claud told me to
tell her. But I don’t think it’s a good
idea.
MEG: Why?
URSULA: But don’t you think he deserves
to be with her?
HERO: I definitely think he deserves to be
happy, and I think they’d be great
together. But Beatrice is too proud. And
even if she did like him, she’d never
admit it. I honestly think that she’s too
busy being in love with herself to have
an eye for anyone else. I mean, I’m
30 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION But she would spell him backward: if fairfaced,
She would swear the gentleman should
be her sister:
If black, why Nature drawing of an
antic,
Made a foul blot: if tall, a lance illheaded:
If low, an agate very vilely cut:
If speaking, why a vane blown with all
winds:
If silent, why a block moved with none:
So turns she every man the wrong side
out,
And never gives to truth and virtue, that
Which simpleness and merit purchaseth.
URSULA: Sure, sure, such carping is not
commendable.
HERO: No, not to be so odd, and from all
fashions,
As Beatrice is, cannot be commendable:
But who dare tell her so? If I should
speak,
She would mock me into air, oh she
would laugh me
Out of myself, press me to death with
wit:
Therefore let Benedick like covered fire,
Consume away in sighs, waste inwardly:
It were a better death, than die with
mocks,
Which is as bad as die with tickling.
URSULA: Yet tell her of it, hear what she
will say.
HERO: No rather I will go to Benedick,
And counsel him to fight against his
passion,
And truly I’ll devise some honest
slanders,
To stain my cousin with, one doth not
know
How much an ill word may empoison
liking.
URSULA: Oh do not do your cousin such a
wrong,
Rising Tide Volume 8
pretty sure she gave herself a card on
Valentine’s Day last year.
BEATRICE: Oh my God, that was a joke!
URSULA: Okay, no yeah, you’re right. If
she did know about his feelings, she’d
tease him mercilessly.
HERO: She would! She’d absolutely tear
him apart. I mean, I don’t think he’d be
able to handle it. I mean, she picks flaws
in every single decent guy out there. If
we see a hot guy, she’ll find something
wrong with him. If he’s pretty, he must
be gay; if he’s tall, he’s a gangly giraffe;
if he’s short, he’s a garden gnome!
URSULA: And if they talk too much she
hates it, which is hypocritical. And if
they don’t open up she hates it even
more.
MEG: But she is really amazing.
HERO: She is!
MEG: So the guy that she needs to be with
should be the same as her. Which I think
is Benedick.
HERO: Yeah, definitely! Benedick is
amazing! And I’m sure you guys will
agree with me on this: that he’s, without
a doubt, pretty much the hottest guy at
our school.
URSULA and MEG: Yes!
HERO: Of course, apart from Claudio.
URSULA: Oh, yeah.
MEG: And Robbie.
HERO: But anyway… Benedick adores her.
And he thinks that she’s so perfect… I
don’t know. We have to do something so
it’s less hard on him.
MEG: But what?
HERO: I don’t know, I suppose we could
tell him a whole lot of really
embarrassing things about her so he sees
some of her flaws,
URSULA: No!
MEG: You couldn’t do that to her.
HERO: Well I can’t tell her!
MEG: Well, I guess you’re going to have to
break Benedick’s heart.
31 SHAKESPEARE IN TRANSLATION She cannot be so much without true
judgement,
Having so excellent and swift a wit,
As she is prized to have, as to refuse
So rare a gentleman as Signor Benedick.
HERO: He is the only man of Italy,
Always excepted my dear Claudio.
URSULA: I pray you be not angry with me,
madam,
Speaking my fancy: Signor Benedick,
For shape, for bearing, argument and
valour,
Goes foremost in report throughout Italy.
HERO: Indeed he hath an excellent good
name.
URSULA: His excellence did earn it ere he
had it:
When are you married, madam?
HERO: Why every day tomorrow: come go
in,
I’ll show thee some attires, and have thy
counsel,
Which is best to funish me tomorrow.
URSULA: She’s limed I warrant you, we
have caught her, madam.
HERO: If it proves so, then loving goes by
haps,
Some Cupid kills with arrows, some
with traps.
HERO: It’s the only solution. It’s kinder
than letting him suffer through this
heartbreak or telling Beatrice and then
him just falling apart with all of her teasing.
URSULA: Exactly.
HERO: So I think I’m going to tell Claudio
to tell him that it’s never ever going to
happen.
MEG: Well, if it has to be done. I’m actually
quite thirsty.
HERO: Yeah, do you want to head into the
kitchen to get a drink, maybe?
MEG: Going… yes, into the kitchen.
HERO: Is that a bird?
MEG: It is a bird. That is definitely a bird.
With feathers.
HERO: And wings and stuff?
MEG: That drink sounded great. Now where
is my glass?
HERO: I think this is my glass… Is this…?
Do you guys recognize this as my glass?
MEG: I have a feeling it has an aura of
Hero-ness.
HERO: Aww, thank you!
Rising Tide Volume 8
32