project report Hamlet
Transcription
project report Hamlet
Hamlet The thoughts and enigmatic soliloquies House 3.2.1. HIB, 1st semester. 2011. By Group 8. Brian Højberg Jensen, Freja Astrid Petersen, Edith Fabritius Tvede and Kamilla Leider Otte. Supervised by Ebbe Klitgaard Dimensions Text & Sign, History & Culture 7.1.1. Table of contents: An analysis of Hamlet from a historical point of view 7.1.1.1. 1. Abstract Hamlet and Gesta Danorum 2. Summary 7.1.1.2. 3. Problem Definition Hamlet and Gesta Danorum 4. Method 7.1.1.3. 4.1.1. Method in History and 7.1.1.4. Method in Text and shining through Hamlet Terms 7.1.1.5. 5. An introduction to Hamlet 5.1.1. English Renaissance and the Elizabethan world sign 4.1.3. Ophelia, and the tragic ending Culture 4.1.2. Dissimilarities between “What piece of work is a man” A short summary of 7.1.1.6. The tragical history of Hamlet - 7.1.2. Prince of Denmark for later “To be or not to Be” Discussion of the Play 8. Text & Sign reference. 8.1.1. 6. Choice of Danish translations 8.1.2. 6.1.1. Choice of text: Q1, Q2 The language of Shakespeare and Folio 8.1.3. 7. History and Culture 1 “To be or not to be” 2 8.1.4. “What piece of work is a man” 8.1.5. 1. Abstract This project is about putting the play Hamlet Comparison into a historical context. This study examines 9. Discussion the use of metaphors in Shakespeare’s 10. Conclusion Hamlet. Among theory and method used in 11. List of references this project, are the tools of micro-strategies within the field of translation, and the origin of the play, Gesta Danorum, that has been compared to the conflicts of the play to establish original Shakespearean elements. The play is analyzed in view of the cultural environment in which it was written. The main conclusion is that in the Danish translations some metaphors have gained a new meaning, and that the language of and the play itself are saturated with views from the culture of the time in which it is written. 3 4 det politiske miljø hvori Shakespeare befandt sig. For at koble tekst og tegn dimensionen 2. Summary sammen med historie og kultur dimensionen, Dette projekt handler om at sætte har vi set på metaforer hvori Shakespeare Shakespeares skuespil Hamlet ind i en refererer til idéer man havde i den engelske historisk kontekst, samt at studere hvilke renæssance under dronning Elizabeth d. 1.’s metaforer Shakespeare brugte. Blandt de regeringstid. metoder vi i tekst og tegn delen har brugt, er værktøjer inden for mikro-strategier som igen er inden for oversættelsesteori. Disse værktøjer har vi brugt til at se hvordan Shakespeares metaforer er blevet oversat, samt om meningen er blevet ændret under oversættelserne af Johannes V. Jensen og V. Østerberg, da de levede i en anden tid. Under historiedelen har vi først kigget på Shakespeare’s hovedinspiration, den danske myte om Amled, og sammenlignet denne med stykket. Derudover, for at forstå det billedsprog som bliver brugt, har vi kigget på 5 6 4. Method 3. Problem definition 4.1.1 Method in History and Culture In this project, we will investigate how the In History and Culture, we try to establish time of Shakespeare influenced the written how Hamlet fitted into the time in which it language. We will do this by analyzing the was written. We do this by establishing the two soliloquies “To be or not to be” and world view, and explain the historical events “What piece of work is a man”. We will leading up to and taking place in the time of analyze the metaphors in these soliloquies, as Shakespeare. We compare Hamlet to Gesta well as the translations of these soliloquies by Danorum, the original source of the story, and Johannes V. Jensen and V. Østerberg. identify the elements introduced by Furthermore we will investigate whether these Shakespeare. As Gesta Danorum is the oldest metaphors have any significance to the source to the story, we will analyse what Elizabethan era. elements in the story originate from there, and We will also discuss how the metaphors thereby see which elements have been added maintain their original meaning in the Danish by Shakespeare himself. The elements of translations. Shakesperean origin will then be analyzed from a historical point of view.Then we will analyze both Hamlet (with emphasis on the variations from Gesta Danorum), and the two 7 8 soliloquies also chosen for the analysis in the correspond to Shakespeare’s writing. Text & Sign dimension. 4.1.3 Terms 4.1.2 Method in Text and Sign Dynamic equivalence: When the target text We chose to focus on figure of speech in have the same meaning as described in the order to make the analysis. source text, but with different stylistic means, We have found the metaphors in the Arden such as changing the figure of speech, word Hamlet, and thereafter we found the similar order, different word etc. (Schjoldager et al. metaphors in the two Danish translations, then Understanding Translation, 2008:90) we explained what these metaphors mean, we did this both with the Arden and with the Modulation: When the meaning in the source Danish versions to see if a change in meaning text changes in the target text, but only a occurred, then we compared the Arden minor change. (Schjoldager et al. metaphors to the Johannes V Jensen, and to Understanding Translation, 2008:90) the Østerberg version to see the effect from two different point of view. Repetition: When parts or the entire formal Afterwards we analysed which translation features of the source text, are repeated and strategies have been used in the two Danish translated in the target text. (Schjoldager et al. translations and we explained how this Understanding Translation, 2008:90) 9 10 Substitution: a word from the source text is 5. An introduction to Hamlet replaced with a more or less equivalent word 5.1.1 A short summary of Hamlet for later in the target text. (Schjoldager et al. reference Understanding Translation, 2008:90) Source-text oriented: Is when the focus is on Entering the play, it has been two months the form and content of the text that is being since Hamlet’s father, The king of Denmark translated. (Schjoldager et al. Understanding has died. Hamlet’s uncle, Claudius, has been Translation, 2008: 71-72) crowned king. Hamlet’s mother, Queen Gertrude, has just recently married Claudius, Target text oriented: is when the focus is on a marriage that is deemed both the effect of the audience’s understanding of inappropriately hasty and incestuous by the new text. (Schjoldager et al. Hamlet. Understanding Translation, 2008: 71-72) The ghost of Hamlet’s father walks the Earth, and upon talking to it, Hamlet learns that his father was murdered, by none other than Claudius. Hamlet swears off his old life, and feigns madness to plot his revenge. However, the time he buys himself is not used for planning, but for a mix of reflection and passive-aggressive behavior, till he, at last, 11 12 kills Claudius, and shortly after dies himself. Stationer’s Office in 1603. The Norwegian Prince Fortinbras, son of the The second, Quarto 2 (Q2), was published in Norwegian king who in the beginning of the 1604 with the same title as Q1 (Thompson, play is mentioned having recently lost the Taylor The Arden Shakespeare, Hamlet 2006: crown to the Danes, is on war path against 76). Denmark throughout the play. He arrives A third, Folio, a tribute to Shakespeare, was (with his army) just when Hamlet dies, and printed in 1623, seven years after becomes King of Denmark. Shakespeare’s death. It misses about 230 lines compared with the Q2, and has variations in 6.1.1 Choice of text: Q1, Q2 and Folio the dialogue (Arden: 82). The Folio had the title Mr William Shakespeare's Comedies, We have chosen to work from Arden’s edition Histories, & Tragedies. Published according of Hamlet. The Arden edition is based on the to the True Original Copies. Q2 text. We have chosen to use Q2 as our source for Hamlet was written by William Shakespeare this project. The reason that our choice landed (1564-1616), and originally registered in two on the Q2, is that Q2 is nearly 79% longer rounds; Quarto 1 (Q1) and Quarto 2 (Q2). The than Q1. At the same time scholars generally earliest was Q1 and is called “The Tragicall agree that Q2 is based on Shakespeare’s foul Historie of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke”. It papers (his uncorrected manuscript). This is was first registered, as custom was, at the 13 14 probably why it is generally acknowledged as the same reasons. However, Hamlet is the official version, that Shakespearean remarkably similar to the legend of Amled in scholars have worked with throughout the Gesta Danorum. Furthermore, Hamlet, years. Hamnet and Amled are all variations over the same name, and in 1585, 18 years before Q1 7. History and Culture of Shakespeare’s Hamlet (and 7 years before Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy was first 7.1.1 An analysis of Hamlet from a registered), Shakespeare christened his son historical point of view “Hamnet”. This signals to us that Shakespeare has known the legend of Amled long before Several sources have been mentioned as the writing his play. Indeed, as the following inspiration for Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The section will prove, he must have known the primary among these are the play The Spanish legend from Gesta Danorum quite well. Tragedy by Thomas Kyd, and the Danish legend of Amled, written down in the late 7.1.1.1 Hamlet and Gesta Danorum 12th century by Saxo Grammaticus in the In Hamlet, the old king has fought the King of third book of Gesta Danorum - The history of Norway, and vanquished his foe. In Gesta Denmark. Danorum, the earl Ørvindel vanquishes the The ghost is the only common nominator for Norwegian King Koller. The Spanish Tragedy and Hamlet, and the two In Hamlet, the old king marries Gertrude, and men who became ghosts were not killed for 15 16 with her, fathers the son Hamlet. In Gesta In Hamlet, Hamlet feigns madness, and tells Danorum, Earl Ørvindel marries Gerud, and his friend Horatio (Thompson, Taylor Arden with her, fathers the son Amled. Both the Hamlet 2006: 225). In Gesta Danorum, names of the women and the sons are very Amled feigns madness, and does not in the similar. text tell his foster brother. But since the foster In Hamlet, Claudius kills his brother, the brother acts accordingly to the truth (Zeeberg king, and takes the Crown and the Queen Saxos Danmarks Historie 2000: 130), it can Gertrude for his own. In Gesta Danorum, safely be assumed that he knows the madness Fenge kills his brother Ørvindel, the earl, and is pretense, and their conversation must have takes the earldom and Gerud for his own. In taken place outside what is written. Both both cases, the marriage between the brother- young men do this to avoid arousing the murderer and his sister-in-law is categorized danger of their uncle’s suspicion. as incestuous, but since both are written by In Hamlet, Claudius ships Hamlet off to men influenced by The old Testament, this is England to have him killed. His two hardly surprising. Whether the marriage henchmen, Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern between Fenge and Gerud was considered follow Hamlet on his way, carrying a letter incestuous at the time in history when it took asking the king of England to kill Hamlet. place, is therefore not something we can Hamlet steals the letter, and replaces it with a deduce out of the writings of Saxo letter of his own, asking the king of England Grammaticus. to kill Claudius’ henchmen. However, before 17 18 their arrival, they are attacked by pirates. has a confrontation with his mother. One in Hamlet leaves Guildenstern and Rosenkrantz which it seems probably that Shakespeare is to die, returning to Denmark, unscathed. In more than a little inspired by Gesta Danorum. Gesta Danorum, Fenge ships Amled off to The dialogue in Sc 4, act III (Thompson, England, escorted by two of Fenge’s hirdmen. Taylor Arden Hamlet 2006: 333-354) and Amled steals the piece of wood with a Book 3, paragraph 14 (Zeeberg Saxos message for the king of England inscribed, Danmarks Historie 2000: 133) both include carried by the hirdmen. The message asks the an accusation of her virtue, a reminder of the king of England to kill Amled. He scrapes aspect of incest in the marriage to the uncle, a away the message and replaces it with a memory of the father and the whole request of having the two hirdmen killed and conversation resulting in converting the to give Amled his daughter for wife. He mother to a more honourable life without the returns to Denmark, unscathed. uncle. In Hamlet, Hamlet kills Polonius who hides in In Hamlet, Hamlet’s sword is switched with Gertrude’s room. Polonius is there to spy on the blade of Laertes that carries poison. In them. In Gesta Danorum, Amled kills a spy Gesta Danorum, Amled switches his blade hiding in his mother’s room. The difference in with that of his uncle, while the uncle sleeps. this situation is that Queen Gertrude is present Both situations results in the death of the during the murder, the Lady Gerud is not. adversary. In both Hamlet and Gesta Danorum, the son In both Hamlet and Gesta Danorum, 19 20 Hamlet/Amled postpones his revenge. Amled Shakespeare’s Hamlet is, as Monty Python so argues that a man as brutal as Fenge, one who eloquently put it, something completely is capable of killing his own brother, is not different. someone you can attack without thinking it through very carefully first, as it is hard to In Hamlet, Ophelia, Hamlet’s love interest in predict what a man like that will do. The fact Denmark, is brutally cast aside for the plot to that he goes under ground when he has killed revenge his father. She is a candidate for his uncle to await learning about the public marriage with Hamlet, and thereby in the opinion on the death of Fenge, lends further position of crown princess of Denmark. She testimony to this trait of cautiousness in enjoys Hamlet’s attentions and nourishes Amled. Hamlet, on the other hand, does not loving feelings towards him, while her argue for his delay. reputation and virtue is guarded by her father, Polonius. Polonius is Claudius’ councillor. In Gesta Danorum, there is a girl in Denmark with whom Hamlet has a short-lived fling. 7.1.1.2 Dissimilarities between Hamlet and Gesta Danorum She is a piece in Fenge’s chess game, sent out to seduce Amled. Old childhood friend of Amled, she does not betray him, even though As explained, there is a considerable amount of similarities between Gesta Danorum and they do lay together, before they part ways. He is married to the princess of England, by Hamlet. In a few significant ways however, 21 22 own initiative. In Hamlet, Hamlet dies from a poisoned Shakespeare has put time and effort into wound just after killing Claudius. In Gesta adding these elements, and logically speaking, Danorum, Amled lives to become earl after he must have done so with a purpose. This of his father. This does not mean that he does course does not exclude potential purpose not meet a violent end, but not one in any way with other elements in the play. Never the connected to the story we are dealing with less, let us investigate the added elements. here. The fair Ophelia In Hamlet, Claudius murders his brother in secret, and the ghost of Hamlet’s father tells Ophelia is not a person of action. She is Hamlet that he was murdered. Fenge does innocence incarnate. She is the only character nothing to hide the murder of his brother, but in the play without ulterior motives. She tries to incriminate him to lend justice to the never speaks ill of anyone. She obeys her murder. father Polonius blindly, when he asks her to spurn Hamlet’s advances, in spite of her own The elements added by Shakespeare was thus: feelings. And rather than acting outward in the importance of the character Ophelia, the her grief when Polonius is murdered, she ghost and giving the play a tragical end. turns it inward. She turns to madness, and kills herself - at least according to the gravediggers digging her grave, although they 7.1.1.3 Ophelia and the tragic ending were not present at the time of her death. One 23 24 must presume this at least, since they, in that thoroughly unsympathetic character, but he instance, hopefully would have attempted to does take extremely good care of the dog save her. entrusted in his care, showing us, the To deliberately harm a creature such as audience, that there is hope for this character - Ophelia tells us much of a character, and a reason to follow him, light at the end of the neither Polonius nor Hamlet can be tunnel. Screen writing (and play writing for commended for their harsh behaviour in that matter) theory from the 21st century is of handling her. Her death is the termination of course not something Shakespeare has been something beautiful, and the time when influenced by, but Save the Cat does touch Hamlet’s fate as a tragedy is sealed. some fundamental points in engaging the audience in a character. One rarely wishes to The tragic ending follow a main character that one finds entirely Hamlet is our main character, defined by the unsympathetic. This does, as we see in the As fact that he is the character whose plot line we good as it Gets example not exclude follow. Screen writer Blake Snyder’s book on following anti-heroes, but no such cat or dog scriptwriting Save the Cat explains that our as it was in the example, exist in Hamlet. No main character, in this case Hamlet, must light at the end of the tunnel. have at least one mitigating trait. He brings up As an audience, we lose faith in a happy the example of Jack Nicholson’s character ending when Ophelia dies, because she is the Melvin in As good as it Gets. Melvin is a promise of the future, of the next generation. 25 26 The blame for her demise, lies with Hamlet. regents, Prince Fortinbras and King James I, With whom we then in turn, lose faith. The came from another country. effect of not having any faith in a main character, is that the situation, the problem or plot, will have to be resolved in another way 7.1.1.4 English Renaissance and the Elizabethan world shining through Hamlet than through the main character. Thereby, with the necessity of making the main "Let not the royal bed of Denmark be//a character fail his mission, the story in couch for luxury and damned incest" question becomes a tragedy. Told from another perspective, Hamlet could be a quite (Thompson, Taylor Arden Hamlet 2006: 217). The marriage between Claudius and Gertrude happy story. is seen as an abomination, and the ghost of Hamlet dies, and with him, the royal bloodline of his family. A new force takes up Hamlet’s father argues for revenging his murder as well as saving his queen. With ruling. Hamlet is static and passive, regards to the matter of the incestuous Fortinbras full of initiative and courage. marriage between Hamlet’s mother and uncle, Interestingly enough, the exact same events in modern times, marrying one’s sister-in-law are taking place while Hamlet is written. would never be considered incest. Indeed by Elizabeth Tudor I of England dies in 1604, and James I is crowned king, as the first king present day Danish law, marriage is only prohibited between individuals in a straight in the regime of the Stuarts. Both new line of blood-related relatives, making a 27 28 marriage between an uncle and a niece legal, not blessed with more than one daughter, whilst marriage between a grandfather and a gave fuel to the talk that God was displeased granddaughter illegal. However, in the with this unholy union. It was on this ground Elizabethan Age, there were other concerns that Henry sought divorce, referring to the than genetics. Before marrying Anne Boleyn, book of Leviticus in the old testament: “Thou mother of Elizabeth I, King Henry VIII was shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy married to Catherine of Aragon, a Spanish brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.” princess. Their marriage was not blessed with (The holy Bible: 110). Though the divorce more children than the one daughter, who was not granted, probably due to pressure on later on ended up as the infamous Queen, the pope put by Catherine’s nephew, the Holy “Bloody” Mary. One daughter after 16 years Roman Emperor Charles V (Somerset of marriage was not considered successful, Elizabeth I 1991: 1), this has, for catholics, and in the spring of 1527, Henry asked the been a valid argument, and empowers the pope for divorce (Somerset, Anne Elizabeth I problem with the marriage between Fenge 1991: 3), wishing to marry his mistress Anne and Gerud in Gesta Danorum. One could then Boleyn. Before Catherine of Aragon married argue that the marriage in that instance should Henry VIII, she was married to Henry’s older not have been, but one could also argue that it brother, Arthur. Marrying his brother's widow was tried out, and the fact that it was not to preserve the alliance between the countries blessed with surviving sons, showed God’s made sense, but the fact that the marriage was displeasure. Emphasizing the Book of 29 30 Leviticus, chapter 18, could serve as a Though both defending weaker fathers, legitimization of Elizabeth I’s birthright - a Fortinbras is dedicated to his honour, right questioned by the catholics who did not committing his act of revenge honourably, acknowledge the divorce from Catherine of while Hamlet forgoes all dignity by acting as Aragon and considered Elizabeth I a bastard, a madman, hurting the innocent. Fortinbras is born out of an illegitimate marriage. the victor in Hamlet. The only victor, one might add. The formula for failure seems here Hamlet as a character is non-decisive, passivity and stagnation, while the formula bordering to passive. Things happen to him, for success is initiative and decisiveness. as opposed to because of him, in spite of the Since this is one of the instances where fact that he charged himself with avenging his Hamlet differs visibly from Gesta Danorum, father’s murder. He spends most of his time it is important to understand why and what it contemplating the right way of action. While could mean. Hamlet himself is passive, he admirers the The world in England had in the years before Norwegian Prince Fortinbras, and compares moved from something inflexible and his own indecisiveness to Fortinbras’ vigour unmoving to something more dynamic - (Thompson, Taylor Arden Hamlet 2006: 370- transgressed from Catholicism to 371), reaching the conclusion that that a man Protestantism. On first sight, it seems more who does nothing but sleep or feed is no more likely that this would be referred to, than the than a beast, condemning himself. transition from Elizabeth I to James I that was 31 32 to come in 1604. Elizabeth was widely in a ballad, as was called for. (Rowse, A.L. popular among the people (Somerset Shakespeare the Elizabethan 1977: 85). His Elizabeth I 1991: 65), even long before bond to Southampton was strong, expressed crushing the Spanish Armada in 1588. in many of his sonnets in earlier life (Rowse However, it seems more likely that it was a Shakespeare the Elizabethan 1977: 24), and comment on Elizabeth I. William his life sentence might have given cause to Shakespeare had for many years had a patron bitterness and the fall of a fictional stagnant in the Earl of Southampton. Unfortunately for prince. Southampton, he was in league with Robert The Chain of Being described by Tillyard in Devereaux, Earl of Essex, who was a The Elizabethan Age, is the divine order of favourite of Queen Elizabeth till his failed and God. A hierachy in which every individual of rebellious military campaign in Ireland in every single race and element is sorted. One 1599. Treason was not tolerated by Elizabeth can however climb the chain of being, move I, and in 1601, Essex and Southampton were from the place in which you were born, fight both locked in the tower (Shakespeare the your way up. Certainly something Elizabethan, p. 81). Essex was beheaded, and Shakespeare had done himself, from the days Southampton was, after many appeals from in Stratford-upon-Avon where his father was his mother, sent back to the tower where he deep in debt, selling off family estate (Rowse lived till the death of Elizabeth I. When she Shakespeare the Elizabethan 1977: 10), to his died, Shakespeare did not lament her passing own adulthood where he had become a fairly 33 34 wealthy man. In this light, it can be seen as a are told how much he has changed since defense both for Southampton’s initiatives, as before the beginning for the play, there are well as those of Fortinbras. The action of some shady circumstances surrounding him. acting in the moment, as opposed to being His courtship of Ophelia is considered stagnant. This is of course a bit unfair, somewhat dubious by Polonius, who even because the role of a prince is partly to before Hamlet presents himself as mad, asks maintain order, and to be, in some respects, her to be careful and to keep her distance till stagnant. Hamlet makes a more serious offer The original Greek writers of tragedy set up (Thompson, Taylor Arden Hamlet 2006: 197). the stage with certain conventions for the Something that seems to indicate that Hamlet main character of the play (McEvoy, Sean is not completely to be trusted. As a variation Shakespeare the Basics 2000: 183) that were from Gesta Danorum, it could of course also still used in renaissance. The protagonist was, be a reference to Anne Boleyn’s famous first of all, a man. He was a noble man with a reluctance in accepting Henry VIII’s good education and a sense of honour, and his advances. It was speculated that her refusal of morals in the right place. The play would then becoming his mistress, had helped her win the depict how the crimes committed against him crown (Somerset Elizabeth I 1991: 3). would cause his fall. This corresponds in part to the character of Hamlet. He is a prince, and 7.1.1.5 “What piece of work is a man” a crime does indeed cause his fall. Though we This soliloquy is set in act 2, scene 2, and 35 36 Hamlet is talking with Rosenkrantz and tool which ables man to reach God. But Guildenstern. They are trying to convince Hamlet is not able to reach God, because his Hamlet that they are only there to visit him, reasoning is clouded by doubt, the conflict of but by his cunning they reveal that they were the world weighing heavily on his mind. sent for by Claudius to make him state his Although Hamlet starts off with describing motives. Indeed he does somewhat reveal the the glory of God's creation and the wonder of reason for his odd behaviour. He describes mankind, he ends each part of the descriptions how he has drastically laid off all his usual with how this glorified world no longer seems habits, and reveals this to be because of a to hold any meaning for him. He uses a ruined world view. negative metaphor of a barren wasteland to Hamlet describes the old Ptolemaic world describe the emptiness in his world. The view, with the flat earth and the domed sky. contrast between these changes is stark. The stars are described euphemistically as Where his world was before filled with a joy golden fire, which corresponds with the ideas and celebration for life, it has now all been of fire being the most noble element, and gold lost to the gravity of his situation. By the being the most precious metal. They are knowledge of his father's murder and his task carefully placed in the highest reaches of before him he has lost all meaning in life and God’s creation, referencing again to the strict the sense of boyish wonder he held before. It order in which everything was placed. He is here that the outside world becomes describes man’s natural ability for reason, the apparent. The challenging new ideas 37 38 postulated, are taking their toll by seeping This is mentioned in the beginning of the into, and ruining the old comforting picture. play, Act 1, when both the King and Queen Hamlet’s struggles and his confusion reflect regretfully comments on his state of grief, and the state of the political stage of the time Hamlet himself defends it. “Good Hamlet, Shakespeare wrote the play, since the original cast thy nighted colour off//And let thine eye Amled, did not carry any doubt. The new look like a friend on Denmark” (Thompson, ideas are riveting but at the same time the Taylor Arden Hamlet 2006: 170-171). But comfort of the old ways are lost. how would suicide be considered in the Elizabethan age? 7.1.1.6 “To be or not to Be” England in the 16th century was, as “To be or not to Be” is uttered by Hamlet, previously mentioned, heavily influenced by halfway through the play, act 3, sc. 1. He Christian thinking. The transition to describes the many ways in which life sets up Protestantism had not magically swept away challenges and hardships, and argues for all dogmatic thoughts. Even Elizabeth I, a ending it. Not from immediate pain, but by great reformer of the church, had problems pure logic. Because the pain can be made to adjusting to her own priests taking wives, disappear with just a single stab of one’s though her own church had made it possible. knife. The only thing in the way, is the fear of Committing suicide excluded you from God’s what comes after. mercy. Hamlet compares his choices, but he That Hamlet is melancholic, is not new to us. 39 40 cannot make a choice because his knowledge universe itself is up for doubt. of the afterlife is sparse (“For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come” (Thompson, Taylor Arden Hamlet 2006: 285)). It is plausible that it is the quality of his afterlife he is doubting, and not contemplating atheism. Even René Descartes who, in his six meditations from 1641, did his very best to doubt everything, was not able to remove God from the equation. God was a matter of fact. Ending your own life, would send you to hell. It was a normal view that when the body had died, the soul lived on, removed from its earthly shell. Shakespeare’s metaphor, “when we have shuffled of this mortal coil” illustrates this. As mentioned however, the Renaissance was a time of change, with world views shifting. To question death, seems logical in a time where the centre of the 41 42 new ideas of leadership can be mentioned, as 7.1.2 Discussion can of course The Reformation by Martin Hamlet is pugnant with wheels in motion, a Luther, beginning in 1517. Montaigne’s view world changing, and a search to make of humanity, introducing a much more meaning of it all. pessimistic view of man’s nature. (Spencer, In England, the old ideals and dogmas of Theodore Shakespeare and the Nature of Man Catholicism are being replaced with the new 1961: 39, 44). That Hamlet is reflective in this protestant ideals and world view. The days of degree is therefore perhaps not so surprising. the Tudors are over, and the Stuarts about to He is the breaking up and questioning of the take their place. old ideas. Hamlet was written in a time where the world All characters apart from Fortinbras belong to was changing. New ground was being broken the old world of our story, and all of them all over Europe, both in religion and science. perish with the arrival of the new. Not Among other influences, the Copernican because of the new, but because they are revolution in the 16th century, was in the 17th corrupted. Gertrude from the poisoned wine, a expanded and supported by both Keppler and fine imagery, as wine can also be a symbol of Galileo, moving to the heliocentric world lust and passion, a cup of which she was perspective, thoroughly challenged the accused of having drunk too greedily from. Christian view on man’s position in the Polonius in hiding, as he operated in secret. world. Machiavelli’s Il Principe with radical Claudius by poison, as he killed his brother. 43 44 Laertes rashly and Hamlet violently as they 8. Text & Sign lived. Ophelia by something that swept her In this section we will make an analysis of away, as everything else in life had done. “To be or not be be” and Johannes V. Jensen’s “Er der er andet liv”, as well as Østerberg’s “Et spørgsmål om at være eller ikke”, we will also make an analysis of “What piece of work is a man” and Johannes V. Jensen’s “Hvilket Underværk er et Menneske” as well as Østerberg’s “Hvilket Mesterværk er ikke Mennesket!” 8. 1.1 Choice of Danish translations The version of the play we have chosen to work with is Hamlet by Johannes V. Jensen, was translated in 1937 and Hamlet by V. Østerberg was translated around 1887#. We have chosen to use these Danish translations of Hamlet namely because of the difference in these translations. The main 45 46 difference is that Østerberg’s translation of In this analysis we will focus on Hamlet is source text oriented, which means Shakespeare’s use of language, in the that Østerberg tries to keep his translation as soliloquy “to be or not to be”, by looking at close to Shakespeare’s as possible, whereas the figures and tropes in the text. Furthermore Johannes V. Jensen’s version is target text we will compare Shakespeare’s Hamlet, to the oriented, which means that his focus is on the two Danish versions by Østerberg and effect for the target text readers. Therefore it Johannes V. Jensen that we have chosen, to is interesting to look at how these two see if and how the meaning changes. translators have translated the text, where Østerberg has translated accordingly to Shakespeare’s text, and Johannes have made The famous opening line of the soliloquy, “To the choice to translate more freely in order to be, or not to be – that is the question” make the effect more understandable for the (Thompson, Taylor, the Arden Shakespeare, audience. Because these translations are Hamlet 2006, 284) is an anti-thesis. The different. It means that there is a lot of contradiction lies in the question of existence, stylistic differences as opposed to or non-existence and by putting up against Shakespeare’s original text. each other, they contradict each other. In Johannes Jensen’s version, the antithesis has been translated: “Er der et andet Liv? Det 8.1.2 The language of Shakespeare er problemet” (Jensen, Johannes V., Hamlet, 1937: 99) Jensen’s version does not make use 8.1.3 “To be or not to be” 47 48 of Shakespeare’s antithesis; therefore this spørgsmål om at være eller ikke (Østerberg, translation does not correspond to the original Hamlet 1946: 68). This translation keeps the meaning of the source text. antithesis as it is known from the original Jensen has made a modulation (Schjoldager et play, and thereby corresponds to the original al. Understanding Translation, 2008: 91), meaning. because the translation, “er der et andet liv? Østerberg has made a repetition (Schjoldager det er problemet”, [is there another life? that et al. Understanding Translation, 2008: 90), is the problem] slightly changes the meaning because Østerberg has translated the phrase of the original phrase, “to be or not to be” and kept all formal features, preserving (Thompson, Taylor, the Arden Shakespeare, Shakespeare’s famous opening completely as Hamlet, 2006: 284). Thereby adding a new in the original version. The only stylistic effect and meaning to the sentence. As we change Østerberg has made, is the use of interpret the question “to be” a matter of another word order, by putting “that is the existence or non-existence, we do not believe question” in the beginning of the phrase as “et that Jensen’s sentence corresponds entirely spørgsmål” [a question] and putting the with the original phrase. Jensen could just as antithesis “to be or not to be” [at være eller well have kept the antithesis intact by ikke] in the end of his phrase. translating it, at være eller ikke at være? [to be or not to be]. The first metaphor that occurs is, “The slings In Østerberg’s version, it is translated: “Et and arrows of outrageous fortune” 49 50 (Thompson, Taylor, The Arden Shakespeare arrows is nowhere to be found. Jensen has Hamlet 2006: 284). This is a metaphor for translated this sentence rather freely, as he how misfortune is being shot or thrown does not use any of the given words (slings (which slings and arrows symbolizes) upon and arrows). The meaning remains the same Hamlet. because Jensen has translated the metaphor In Johannes V. Jensen’s version of Hamlet, with a contextualized meaning, as it is in the the metaphor is translated: “man bærer hvad play Hamlet. en ubarmhjertig Skæbne af Modgang byder” In Østerberg’s version of Hamlet, the (Jensen, Johannes V. Hamlet 1937:98). Here metaphor is translated: “Hadsk Modgangs the metaphor from the original Hamlet has Pileskud og Stenkast” (Østerberg, Hamlet disappeared, and has been substituted with a 1946: 68). This translation tries to maintain personification. The personification lies Shakespeare’s metaphor, by using the picture within the concept of destiny, and is gaining of arrows being shot, and stones being thrown the human capability of being merciless. compared to Shakespeare’s slings and arrows. Jensen has removed the metaphor, and he has Thereby Østerberg keeps the picture of translated the sentence with the meaning of misfortune being shot or thrown at Hamlet. the metaphor in the context. Østerberg keeps the formulation of the Jensen has deleted the metaphor, since he metaphor as close to Shakespeare’s as only keeps Shakespeare’s personification of possible. the destiny, and the metaphor of slings and Østerberg’s text hints at a high degree of 51 52 dynamic equivalence (Schjoldager et al. opposite as the original “The slings and Understanding Translation, 2008: 90), arrows of outrageous fortune” (Thompson, because Østerberg’s text keeps the original Taylor, The Arden Shakespeare Hamlet 2006: meaning, but with stylistics that differs 284). slightly from the original. In translating The reference to fortune can be linked to the “outrageous fortune” to “hadsk modgang”, Elizabethan world picture in a historical this translation of “outragoues” to “hadsk” context, as it was firmly believed that one’s [hatefull], could easily have been a direct one fortune was determined by the stars. Every to either “uhørt” or “skandaløst” [unheard or human beings as well as animals, were linked outrageous]. The meaning does not change in the chain of being where each individual significantly, because the word “hadsk” had their place, but the chain also worked as a [hatefull] gives the same thoughts as ladder were people could move up and down. “outrageous” leads to. Østerberg has also This was connected to the the wheel of made a repetition, as most of the formal fortune, which could gyrate and bring great features are kept in the target text (e.g. the fortune or misfortune onto a person in the metaphor and the outrageous fortune), and as chain. expressed in the play. Another stylistic change is the word order of Østerberg’s The next metaphor is, “Or to take arms metaphor “Hadsk Modgangs Pileskud og against a sea of troubles” (Thompson, Taylor, Stenkast” (Østerberg, Hamlet 1946: 68), the The Arden Shakespeare, Hamlet 2006: 285). 53 54 This metaphor describes the troubles that the same meaning. Hamlet has to face, as a sea or ocean which In Østerberg’s version, the metaphor is will flood him, if he does not take a stand and translated: “eller at fatte Vaabnet mod et Hav fight his troubles. af Plager” (Østerberg, Hamlet, 1946: 68). In Johannes V. Jensen’s version of Hamlet, Østerberg keeps Shakespeare’s meaning the metaphor is translated: “eller om man intact, but he uses another metaphor “et hav af rejser sig mod en Falanks af Genvordigheder“ plager” [a sea of plagues]. (Jensen, Johannes v., Hamlet 1937:98). Østerberg repeats (Scholdager et al. Jensen keeps the meaning of the metaphor Understanding Translation, 2008: 91) most of intact, but uses a different metaphor in his the formal features from the original translation. He calls the sea of trouble, “en metaphor, except the word Falanks af Genvordigheder” [a phalanx of “troubles”. Østerberg has changed “troubles” difficulties/troubles], thus changing the into “plagues”, and he describes the metaphor picture from the sea into an ancient with another metaphor, which is equivalent to greek/roman battle formation. This changes the original figure of speech. By choosing the figure of speech, but it does not interfere “plagues” as a synonym to the word with the meaning of the original text. Instead “trouble”, Østerberg might have intended for of “taking arms”, Jensen’s version says “eller a more dramatic effect, than the word om man rejser sig” [or if you rise against]. It “troubles” would have in Danish. is another way to formulate it, but it indicates 55 56 In the next sentence, we have discussed In Johannes V. Jensen’s version, it is whether it was a metonymy or a metaphor. A translated: “At dø, at sove – aldrig mer! – at metonymy is when a concept is not called by vide for altid, altid udslukt Hjertets Ve” its name, but called something that is (Jensen, Johannes V. Hamlet, 1937: 99). associated with the concept. In this case “to Jensen keeps the meaning of Shakespeare’s sleep” could be a concept associated with original sentence, but does not keep the death. But “to sleep” could also be seen as a metaphor as it is expressed in the source text. metaphor or a symbol of death. Since there, in Instead of using “at sove” [to sleep] as it is this case, is a thin line between metonymy written in the original sentence “No more, and and metaphor, we have chosen to analyze the by a sleep to say we end the heartache” word “to sleep” as a symbol, because we (Thompson, Taylor, The Arden Shakespeare, think that, “to sleep” is stronger as a symbol Hamlet 2006: 285), Jensen uses “at vide” [to of death, than a concept associated with it. know]. This does not change the meaning, but The next metaphor is, “to die: to sleep – No Jensen could easily have kept the original more, and by a sleep to say we end the symbol. heartache” (Thompson, Taylor, the Arden Jensen has made a repetition (Schjoldager et Shakespeare, Hamlet 2006: 285). The al. Understanding Translation, 2008:90), metaphor in this sentence is using “to die” in because the target text has rendered some the beginning, but henceforth “sleep” as a important formal features from the source symbol for death. text, such as “to sleep” and the sentence “to 57 58 say we end the heartache”. There are some persistent use of the metaphor of sleep. differences in the translation such as the last part of the sentence “No more, and by a sleep The next metaphor is, “When we have to say we end the heartache” (Thompson, shuffled of this mortal coil” (Thompson, Taylor, The Arden Shakespeare, Hamlet Taylor, The Arden Shakespeare, Hamlet 2006: 285) where Shakespeare keeps using 2006: 285). The mortal coil represents life, “to sleep”, as opposed to Jensen’s “at vide” and by shuffling it off, this metaphor is [to know]. Jensen repeats the word “altid” representing mortal death. [for ever], instead of saying “to sleep” as In Johannes V. Jensen’s version of Hamlet, expressed in the source text. Jensen ends the the metaphor is translated: “når vi har strøget translation with “udslukt hjertets ve” [worn kødets lænker af os” (Jensen, Johannes V. out heartache], which corresponds well with Hamlet 1937: 99). Jensen has kept the source text. Shakespeare’s metaphor, but translated it with In Østerberg’s version of Hamlet, the an equivalent metaphor in Danish, called metaphor is translated: “at dø – at sove; og “kødets lænker” [shackles of the flesh]. haabe paa, at søvnen ender den hjerteve” Jensen repeats (Scholdager et al. (Østerberg, Hamlet 1946: 68). Using “sleep”, Understanding Translation, 2008: 91) most of Østerberg has kept Shakespeare’s symbol of the formal features in the target text. He has death, as well as repeating most of the formal not changed the meaning of the original features of Shakespeare’s original text by metaphor, as he has chosen an equivalent 59 60 metaphor. There are some stylistic changes, of a metaphor as used in the original. Since by rephrasing the metaphor of “mortail coil” Østerberg has translated with a to “kødets lænker” [shackles of the flesh]. personification, which is equivalent to the The word order in Jensen’s translation also original metaphor, it does not interfere with differs from Shakespeare’s play, but this is the effect, but it gives a better understanding again a minor stylistic change. for the receivers of the target text than In Østerberg’s version of Hamlet, the “dødelig skal” [mortal coil]. metaphor is translated: “Naar vi har smøget This can serve as an example of the Livets Virvar af” (Østerberg, Hamlet 1946: Elizabethan’s belief in two worlds: a material 68). “Livets virvar” [chaos of life] differs a and a spiritual. Therefore when the body (the bit from Shakespeare’s metaphor, “mortal mortal coil) dies in the material world, the coil”. The difference is that Østerberg uses a soul would carry on in the spiritual world. personification of life, by adding chaos to it. This is expressed completely in this whole But Østerberg maintains the meaning with sentence: “For in that sleep of death what another figurative speech. dreams may come//When we have shuffled of Østerberg has repeated (Scholdager et al. this mortal coil//Must give us pause: there’s Understanding Translation, 2008: 91) most of the respect//That makes calamity of so long the formal features in his text. The only life” (Thompson, Taylor, The Arden stylistic change is Østerberg’s use of a Shakespeare Hamlet 2006: 85) personification as a figure of speech, instead 61 62 The next metaphor, “the whips and scorns of in the target text. The only difference is that time” (Thompson, Taylor, The Arden Jensen does not use a metaphor of time, but a Shakespeare, Hamlet 2006: 285), is a metaphor of life. Jensen uses “tort” metaphor for the various pain a human being [indignity] and “svøber” [curse], but could encounters in a lifetime. have used the Danish idiom “tort og svie” In Johannes V. Jensen’s version of Hamlet, [indignity and pain], which would have been the metaphor is translated: “for hvem holdt easier to understand than “tort og svøber”. livets tort og svøber ud” (Jensen, Johannes v. In Østerberg’s version of Hamlet, the Hamlet, 1937: 99). In this translation, Jensen metaphor is translated: “Thi hvem gad bære replaces Shakespeare’s metaphor of time “the Tidens Snert og Haan” (Østerberg, Hamlet whips and scorns of time”, with the 1946: 68). Østerberg’s translation corresponds equivalent metaphor of life: “for hvem holdt well with the source text, because Østerberg livets tort og svøber ud”. The meaning does uses the same metaphor, with “snert” [whip not change, because Jensen refers to the pain lash], “haan” [scorn] and time. and suffering of life. In Østerberg’s version of Hamlet, he has Jensen has made a repetition, (Schjoldager et rendered the formal features of the source text al. Understanding Translation, 2008: 91) as into the target text. The only stylistic change the metaphor in Danish is equivalent to is the word order, where Shakespeare’s Shakespeare’s original, and most of the metaphor says “whips and scorns of time”; formal features from the source text are used and Østerberg has to translate it as follows 63 64 “tidens snert og haan” [whip lash and scorns Baal af rask Beslutning synker sammen og of time] because of Danish grammatic rules of Efterlader Grubleriets aske” (Jensen, word order. Johannes V., Hamlet 1937: 100). Jensen has made an equivalent metaphor. The metaphor The next metaphor is a personification, “And which is a bonfire of great decisions, leaves thus the Native hue of Resolution (Thompson, the ashes of Hamlet’s rumination. After Taylor, the Arden Shakespeare, Hamlet 2006: looking at Jensen’s metaphor, we have seen 287). This symbolizes the ideal of being that the meaning corresponds to the original resolute. Arden suggests that Hamlet, by metaphor, but the connotative meanings of the using the expression “native hue” target text metaphor are so different from personificates Resolution as the natural state what is constituted in the source text, (Arden’s Hamlet, p. 287). therefore Jensen has used a substitution The second line of the metaphor, “is sicklied (Schjoldager et al. Understanding o’er with the pale cast of thought” Translation, 2008: 91). Jensen uses the (Thompson, Taylor, The Arden Shakespeare, bonfire of resolution [et bål af Hamlet 2006: 287) where the pale cast of beslutning/handlekraft], instead of the native thoughts is tainting this ability to be resolute, hue, as well as the ashes of rumination and thus in consequence, the ability to act. [grubleriets aske], instead of the pale cast of In Johannes V. Jensen’s version the thought. Jensen’s metaphor corresponds to personification is translated as follows, “vort Shakespeare’s personification, because 65 66 Hamlet’s resolution goes up in flames and look at the second part of the metaphor, we leaves the ashes of rumination, just as see that Østerberg has made the same change Shakespeare’s personification, that says in the word order. Hamlet’s healthy judgment is tainted with 8.1.4 “What piece of work is a man” hesitation. In Østerberg’s version, the metaphor is translated: “og Handlekraftens sunde farve In this analysis we will focus on bleges Af Eftertankens skrantne blodløshed” Shakespeare’s use of figures and tropes, in the (Østerberg, Hamlet 1946: 69). In this soliloquy “What piece of work is a man”. We translation the personification has kept its will continue to compare Shakespeare’s meaning, as it is in the original Hamlet. Hamlet to the two modern Danish translations Østerberg repeats (Schjoldager et al. by Østerberg and Johannes V. Jensen. Understanding Translation, 2008: 90) most of the formal features as “handlekraftens sunde The first metaphor is: “moult no feather” (Thompson, Taylor the Arden Shakespeare, farve [native hue of resolution], and “bleges Hamlet, 2006:256). It is spoken by Hamlet to af eftertankens skrantne blodløshed” in the his two friends from the university. This is a target-text. The only stylistic change is the word order. As resolution [handlekraft] comes metaphor for not revealing his knowledge of the mission his friends have been sent on by before native hue [sunde farve], this is the the king and queen. Here the metaphor has the complete opposite as in the original. If we purpose of sparing his friends the explanation 67 68 of why they are actually in Denmark, and used a lot of “word play” in his work. This what the King and Queen have asked them to shows us that Jensen has made a target text do. oriented translation. In Johannes V. Jensen’s version, the metaphor Johannes V. Jensen has made a modulation changes into: “Er rottet sammen om” (Jensen, (Schjoldager et al. Understanding Johannes V, Hamlet, 1937: 82) [Ganging up Translation, 2008:90), as there is a slight on]. Here it is no longer a metaphor, but a change in the meaning of the sentence, common Danish expression. The meaning is compared to Shakespeare’s text. This change that Hamlet lets his schoolmates know that he of meaning have not “ruined” the overall knows what their plan is. The change from a meaning of the metaphor, but clarified what is metaphor to a common Danish expression going on. does not change the meaning. On the In Østerberg’s translation, the metaphor is contrary, it makes it quite clear what Hamlet translated to: “ikke fælde en Fjer” (Østerberg, is saying. It is said directly, with no figure of V, Hamlet, 1946:53) [Moult no feather or speech repeated from the source text. Shed no feather]. The word “moult” is At the same time, even if the common associated with animals losing their fur or expression makes it easier to understand the feathers, which means that Østerberg have situation, it has a significant meaning that kept the metaphor intact. This translation is a Jensen has chosen an expression as opposed repetition (Schjoldager et al. Understanding to a metaphor. Mostly because Shakespeare Translation, 2008:91), because the formal 69 70 features have been reproduced in the target Arden. That even if the earth is a beautiful text, with a minor change in the word order place, to Hamlet, it is only an empty gleam. due to the Danish grammar as the only Jensen has made a different metaphor for the exception. metaphor “sterile promontory”, which is “øde skær” [empty gleam]. This metaphor does not The second metaphor is: “that this goodly change the meaning, but the connotative frame the earth seems to me a sterile meaning of the metaphor in the target text promontory” (Thompson, Taylor The Arden differs much from the source text. Shakespeare, Hamlet, 2006: 256-257). Shakespeare uses the metaphor “sterile “Goodly frame” is a metaphor for the earth. promontory” which represents a sterile cliff. The metaphor has the purpose of enhancing Jensen uses “øde skær” [empty gleam] as a the image that the earth is the most beautiful metaphor for an empty deserted landscape. place throughout the universe. “Seems to me This is a substitution (Schjoldager et al. a sterile promontory” is a metaphor for how Understanding Translation, 2008:91). The Hamlet sees the world. denotative meaning remains the same. Jensen has translated the sentence as follows: Østerberg’s translation is: “at denne herlige “At Jorden, dette smukke tilholdssted, i mine Indretning, Jorden, synes mig en gold øjne er bleven som et øde skær”(Jensen, Klippeodde” (Østerberg, V, Hamlet, Johannes V, Hamlet, 1937: 82). In this 1946:54). The meaning is the same as the translation, the meaning is the same as in the Arden Hamlet, and Østerberg has, having 71 72 translated with an equivalent metaphor, also 2006: 257). “Majestical roof” is a metaphor managed keep the metaphor intact. The only for the heaven and “fretted with golden fire” stylistic difference from Østerberg’s is a metaphor for the stars in the sky. translation is the word “goodly frame” for Jensen has translated the metaphor to: “det “herlige indretning” [wonderful arrangement]. storartede telt over hovedet paa os, Himlen, The sterile promontory is a reference to earth det solide Firmament, denne majestætiske from the four elements. The earth was the Hvælving, indlagt med gyldne funker” most beautiful place throughout the world, as (Jensen, Johannes V, Hamlet, 1937: 82). it was in the center of attention. In the Jensen has substituted the word “canopy” Elizabethan world picture everything with “telt” [tent]. The word “fire” has been consisted of one or more, of the four substituted with the word “funker”, which elements, that were sorted. In this case, it is have the same meaning as “glød” [spark]. relevant to say that Earth was definitively Other than that, Jensen uses “Hvælving”, lower in the hierarchy than heaven. immediately after “Firmament”, since these words have the same meaning, Jensen could The next metaphor that we encounter is: “This have used “roof” as in the source text. The most excellent canopy the air, look you, this meaning in the metaphor is preserved, even brave o’erhanging firmament, this majestical though Jensen has substituted a word. Jensen roof fretted with golden fire” (Thompson, chose “funker” [spark/glow], to substitute the Taylor The Arden Shakespeare, Hamlet, word “fire”. This is an equivalent figurative 73 74 imagery of “fire”. them with the strongest element “fire”, the Østerberg has translated this metaphor into: result is a potent imagery when set in the ”denne pragtfulde Tronhimmel, Luften, ja Elizabethan age. Secondly we have the air, dette vakre, hvælvede Firmament, dette which simply refers to the air in the heaven. majestætiske Tag, indlagt med gylden Ild” (Østerberg, V, Hamlet, 1946:54). In this text, The fourth metaphor is: “A foul and pestilent Østerberg has kept the metaphors just as in congregation of vapours” (Thompson, Taylor, the Arden Hamlet. “Majestical roof” and The Arden Shakespeare, Hamlet, 2006:257). “golden fire” these are the exact same Hamlet is again starting with how something metaphors as in the source text, suggesting is beautiful (the third metaphor), and ends that Østerberg translation has used equivalent with the fact that he cannot see the beauty. metaphors. Because that he has so much adversity, he This metaphor is closely connected to the cannot see the beauty but only the stench. He Elizabethan world picture, since two of the has, as stated earlier, lost the quality of his four elements are represented in various ways. life. We have the word “fire”, which in this Jensen translated to: “Som en uren, context is referred to as the stars. “Fire”, here pestbefængt ansamling af Dunster” (Jensen, in the shape of stars, was the highest valued Johannes V, Hamlet, 1937: 82-83). Jensen element out of the four elements. Because translated this accordingly to the source text. stars determined people’s fate, combining The only minor difference is that Jensen has 75 76 used a conjunction “som” [as], and he has language. moved the conjunction “and”. We do not see In an addition to this analysis we can look at any change in the effect, by making the the sentence in a historical perspective. As the addition of “som” and the deletion of “and”. word “pestilent”, probably had a different and Østerberg’s translates to: “en ful, forpestet more literal effect on people in that period, Hob af Dunster” (Østerberg, V, Hamlet, since the illness from where it got the name, 1946:54). This has the exact same meaning as the plague, was a very common disease. the source text, and a metaphor equal to the While it is common to call people or perhaps original one. The only stylistic difference is an obstinate child a pest, the word has that the word “congregation” from the Arden probably had more visual associations to its which means [menighed]. This has been origin in those days. translated into “Hob” which can be translated as [multitude]. This does not change the 8.1.5 Comparison between Arden’s Hamlet meaning of the metaphor, since Østerberg has and the translations of Johannes V. Jensen and Johannes V. Østerberg. used words equal to those in the Arden. In both Danish translations, they use the same word: “dunster” [stench]. The meaning in the “How like an Angel” two Danish is completely the same. Østerberg “How like an Angel in apprehension; how has used the word “ful” [foul]. “Ful” can be like a god the beauty of the world; the said to be more equivalent to Shakespeare’s paragon of animals” (Thompson, Taylor, The 77 78 Arden Shakespeare, Hamlet, 2006: 257). humans resemble angels in what they do. Shakespeare is talking about great things that Furthermore, “i Tankens omfang Gud!”, also resemble the human being. He compares has a different meaning than the Arden angels and God to humans in various ways, Hamlet: “how like a God the beauty of the how the beauty of the world resembles God. world”. God represents the beauty of the How the divine traits are so outspoken in man world, which again resembles human beings, and how he is the supreme to animals in the as one of God’s creations. In Jensen’s text, we Chain of Being. understand the sentence as humans reach for Jensen has translated the comparison to: “I God by the extent of thought. bestræbelsen naar han englene, i Tankens ”Hvor verden er et vidunder” [How the world omfang Gud! Hvor Verden er et Vidunder! is a wonder]. In the Arden Hamlet, it states Ethvert dyr, hvor det er fuldendt” (Jensen, that the world is connected with that of God. Johannes V, Hamlet, 1937: 83). There is a In Jensen’s text, it is simply a statement that difference in meaning from the source text to the world is a wonder. the target text. “How like an Angel in With the last comparison: “Ethvert dyr, hvor apprehension”, how humans resemble angels er det fuldendt”. In the Arden we are under in comprehension, has in Jensen’s translation the impression that humans are so good that become [in his endeavour he reaches the they are a role model for animals. Whereas in angels]. Jensen gives the image of how Jensen’s translation, he merely states that human reaches the angels in endeavor, how every animal is a perfect being. 79 80 Johannes V. Jensen has made modulation is merely a statement. (Schjoldager et al. Understanding “Alt levendes Mønster”, here Østerberg is Translation, 2008:90). There is a slightly referring to humans as role models of all change in the meaning from Shakespeare’s living things. But the Arden Hamlet, refers to Hamlet, to Jensen’s translation, as stated this as humans being the role model only to above. animals. Østerberg’s translation is as follows: “i Virke Østerberg has in this comparison made a hvor lig en Engel! i Forstaaelse hvor lig en modulation (Schjoldager et al. Understanding Gud! Verdens pryd! Alt levendes Mønster” Translation, 2008:90). There is a different (Østerberg, V, Hamlet, 1946:54 ) meaning in the Danish translation, than that of the source text. Humans are still being “i Virke hvor lig en Engel!” How humans act compared to Gods and angels, but the way like angels. that they are being compared in Østerberg’s “I Forstaaelse hvor lig en Gud!” How humans translation, as opposed to the way it is resemble God in comprehension. described in the Arden Hamlet, slightly “Verdens pryd!” [World’s adornment]. This changes the meaning. means that the world is a beautiful place, as in Here we have a direct connection to the Johannes translation, we have the same Elizabethan world picture, since man was the situation. In the Arden Hamlet this is only creature able to question God’s power, connected with the view on God, and here it Angels were not able to question God’s 81 82 power, since by their intellect they are assured 9. Discussion of God’s omnipotence. This is an expression of the optimistic view of human nature, in that We will discuss if Jensen and Østerberg have Hamlet describes how man is able through his changed the meaning of Shakespeare’s reason to reach God. His virtues are painted in original play, and, if they have changed the a euphemistic light by comparing them to the meaning, how have they done so. At the same only beings that are above man, the angels time, we will discuss if this change has been and God. in favour for the target text readers, as the translators have made different choices in their way of translating the play. We will do this by looking at a few examples from the analysis where the meaning of Hamlet changes. Together with some where the meaning is kept intact. The first metaphor we will discuss is: “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” (Thompson, Taylor, The Arden Shakespeare, Hamlet 2006: 284). Jensen has translated it with a personification and a clarification of what the original metaphor means. “man 83 84 bærer hvad en ubarmhjertig Skæbne af plot against him, together with the king and Modgang byder” (Jensen, Johannes V. the queen. Østerberg has translated the Hamlet 1937: 98). Jensen’s translation helps metaphor with the exact same figurative the reader of the text to understand what is speech, “ikke fælde en fjer”(Østerberg, V, going on, since it has the clarification Hamlet,1946:53), as in the original Hamlet. attached to the figure of speech. This shows This might be confusing for present day target that Jensen’s work leans on target text text readers to understand; as such a figure of oriented translation strategy, and that Jensen speech is not common in modern Danish is concerned with the understanding of the language. target text readers. Østerberg has used the Jensen on the other hand has translated the same metaphor as in the original: “hadsk metaphor with another equivalent figure of modgangs pileskud og stenkast (Østerberg, speech, “er rottet sammen om” (Jensen, Hamlet 1887: 68). Østerberg’s translation Johannes V, Hamlet, 1937: 82). This is a seems to be source text oriented. This means common Danish expression, which makes it that he might have tried to translate it as close more understandable for the readers of the to the original as possible. text. Jensen might have chosen to use the The next metaphor we will discuss from common Danish expression “er rottet sammen Shakespeare’s Hamlet is: “moult no feather”. om”, to ensure that the understanding of the Hamlet says this, because he knows that text, might be as clear as possible. This means Guildenstern and Rosenkrantz have made a that Jensen changed some of the figurative 85 86 language. When making a target text oriented Hamlet, 1937: 82-82), the word has been translation of a literary text, it is sometimes a translated, according to Shakespeare’s choice necessity to change the meaning at some point of word. Østerberg’s translation “en ful, in the text, in order for the understanding to forpestet Hob af Dunster” (Østerberg, V, be present during the entire text. (Schjoldager, Hamlet, 1946:54), also have the same Anne, Understanding Translation, 2008: 255) meaning. In all three texts the words have the same “A foul and pestilent congregation of meaning, what differs in this matter, is the vapours” (Thompson, Taylor, The Arden effect of the audience. Although the word has Shakespeare, Hamlet, 2006:257), this the same meaning, in Jensen’s text the effect describes how thing look like to Hamlet, ever of the audience changes, since the antibiotics since he lost his life quality. What is had been invented at that time. One could interesting to look at in this discussion, is the argue that Jensen has used this word, simply word “pestilent”. As stated above, this word because it corresponds to the word in the possibly had a strong effect on people at the source text. time of the play, as the bubonic plague was Østerberg on the other hand, lived in a something people were forced to encounter/ different time where there still was no cure hear about every day. for the plague, but the fear was not that great, In Jensen’s translation “en uren, pestbefængt since there was no big outbreak of the plague Ansamling af Dunster” (Jensen, Johannes V, in Østerberg’s time. Østerberg might have 87 88 kept the word “forpestet” [poisoned], to be 10. Conclusion loyal to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. From our analysis we can conclude that Østerberg has focused on a precise source text oriented translation. Østerberg tries to maintain the language of the source text and meaning in his target text. This can be seen as Østerberg mainly has made repetitions. Which in addition means that Østerberg has used most of the formal features from the original Hamlet, in his translation. Another sign of this could be that Østerberg in each metaphor tries to make a translation as equivalent as possible, to maintain the original meaning of Hamlet. Johannes V. Jensen has focused on a target text oriented translation. This means that Jensen has focused on the effect of the readers for the target text. Which in return means that the meaning of the metaphors sometimes 89 90 during the translation, changes from that of can also be concluded that Shakespeare has the original meaning. this happens because known the legend of Amled exceedingly well, Jensen sometimes substitutes or modulates either from reading Gesta Danorum, or from Shakespeare’s figurative language. unknown sources in Stratford-upon-Avon, old During our investigation, we clearly saw viking territory. connections to the Elizabethan Era in the Furthermore it can be concluded, that given metaphors. To mention a few connections: how loyal Shakespeare has been to the story there are various references to the four of Gesta Danorum, the things added to the elements, which were earth, water, fire and play have been important to him. The air. Shakespeare also refers to stars which significance of these are of course open for they in the Elizabethan era thought interpretation. Many of the parallels drawn to determined ones fate. There is also a the time of Shakespeare are mere reference to the soul, which they believed to assumptions, and although some may make live on after the death of the mortal body. sense, they will most likely remain speculations. Much of and about Shakespeare’s thoughts and Hamlet is and will remain guesswork. It seems safe to assume that Shakespeare was been inspired by the events in his life, and that Hamlet is marked by certain events. It 91 92 E. M. Tillyard The Elizabethan World Picture 11. List of references (1973) Chatto & Windus Ltd London Books: ISBN 0-7011-1149-6 Edited by Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor. A.L Rowse. (1977). Shakespeare the (2006). The Arden Shakespeare: Hamlet, Elizabethan. Westerham: Westerham Press London: A & C Black Publishers Limited. Ltd. ISBN: 297-772546 ISBN: 978-1-9042-7133-8 Anne Somerset Elizabeth I (1991) Butler & Edited by Philip Edwards. (2003). Hamlet Tanner Ltd London ISBN: 0-297-81178-9 Prince of Denmark.- (The New Cambridge Emma Smith & Garret A. Sullivan Jr (2010), Shakespeare). Cambridge University Press. English Renaissance Tragedy, Cambridge ISBN O 521-53252-3 Paperback University Press, ISBN: 978-0-521-73464-6 Johannes V. Jensen. (1937). Hamlet. Theodore Spencer, (1961). Shakespeare and Gyldendalske Boghandel: Nordisk Forlag. the Nature of Man, Place of publication: New V. Østerberg. (1946). Shakespeares York Dramatiske Værker ved V. Østerberg - Sean McEvoy. (2000), Shakespeare, the Hamlet. København: J. H. Schultz Forlag. Basics. London & New York: Routledge. Anne Schjoldager with Henrik Gottlieb & Ida ISBN: 0-415-21289-8 Klitgård. (2008). Understanding Translation. Lita Lundquist Oversættelse problemer og Narayana Press, Gylling: Academia. ISBN: strategier, set i tekstlingvistisk og pragmatisk 978-87-7675-510-2 perspektiv (1994) publisher: 93 94 Samfundslitteratur ISBN: 87-593-0478-2 Peter Zeeberg Saxos Danmarks Historie, efter Gesta Danorum af Saxo Grammaticus. (2000) Det Danske Sprog - og litteraturselskab og Gads Forlag ISBN: 87-12-03498-3 Blake Snyder Save The Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need (2005) Publisher Michael Wiese Production ISBN: 1932907009 The holy Bible, the authorized King James version. Oxford University Press. Date and author not available. Simon Blackburn, Think! (1999) Oxford University Press ISBN: 978-0192100245 Internet URLs: http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Dansk_Biogra fisk_Leksikon/Samfund,_jura_og_politik/Spr og/Filolog/V._%C3%98sterberg (visited 14/12-2011 at: 12.30) 95 96