Group 2 Articles

Shakespeare in the Bush

While spending time with the elders of a tiny area in west Africa, American anthropologist Laura Bohannon encounters difficulty while attempting to tell the story of Hamlet, as she must navigate through the problems of a limited knowledge of the local language and cultural differences which change the way in which the elders understand the story.  Through the elders’ commentary during her story, Bohannon realizes that although the story was universal enough for those listening to intuit what was about to happen, their way of life caused a difference in their reception and understanding of the story.

‘“No,” pronounced the old man, speaking less to me than to the young men sitting behind the elders. “If your father’s brother has killed your father, you must appeal to your father’s age mates: they may avenge him. No man may use violence against his senior relatives.” Another thought struck him. “But if his father’s brother had indeed been wicked enough to bewitch Hamlet and make him mad that would be a good story indeed, for it would be his fault that Hamlet, being mad, no longer had any sense and thus was ready to kill his father’s brother.”

There was a murmur of applause. Hamlet was again a good story to them, but it no longer seemed quite the same story to me.”

Shakespeare Without His Language

“English-speakers are apt to assume that foreign-language productions necessarily lose an essential element of Shakespeare in the process of linguistic and cultural transfer, and of course this is true.  But it is also true, as I am suggesting, that some foreign performances may have a more direct access to the power of the plays.  In this respect the modernity of translation is crucial… A foreign language, while missing the full value of the verse, can be said to have an advantage of great significance in the theatre.”

“…what is anathema in English is fact of life elsewhere.”

“There is no one conclusion to draw from all of this, except that foreign Shakespeare is more present than ever before, interrogating the idea that Shakespeare can be contained by a single tradition or by a single culture or by a single language.  Perhaps the native familiarity that English-speakers assume for Shakespeare is part of a larger illusion, which might be called the myth of cultural ownership.  In the end Shakespeare doesn’t belong to any nation or anybody: Shakespeare is foreign to us all.”

Group 2 Responses

Shakespeare in the Bush

An anthropologist encounters many difficulties trying to tell the story of Hamlet to a West African tribe due to cultural differences. The Tiv tribe do not understand the concept of a ghost, believing rather in bad omens summoned by witchcraft; they do believe Gertrude’s quick marriage to Claudius is the right thing to do; and they do not believe Hamlet should be held accountable for his actions because his madness clearly could only have been brought upon him by a bad omen, which would not be his fault. Ultimately, the story of Hamlet becomes less about vengeance and honor, and more about making logical decisions, which reflects the audience’s practical culture and lifestyle.

“One can easily misinterpret the universal by misunderstanding the particular” (1).

“We, who are elders, will instruct you in [your stories’] true meaning, so that when you return to your own land your elders will see that you have not been sitting in the bush, but among those who know things and who have taught you wisdom” (10).

Shakespeare Without His Language

Shakespeare’s language is considered an enhancing characteristic of his plays in English, whereas foreign translations of his works modernize the language to make it more accessible. But removing this distinctive quality allows the plays to move beyond timeless universal themes and instead serve as timely social commentary. In the postwar era, individuals such as Jan Kott felt Shakespeare was better suited as a “dramatist of pain” that emphasized cruel fate, while Robert Weimann viewed it as a platform to incite change.

“[W]hat is anathema in English is a fact of life elsewhere” (6).

“Kott … assumes without question that every one of his readers will at some point or other have been woken by the police in the middle of the night” (9).

Group 2 Post

Dennis Kennedy explores the benefits of translating and evolving Shakespeare.

·      “The connections and cultural connotations that derive from playing Shakespeare in his own tongue are simply not applicable in another country and in another language” (3). Therefore, each new, worldly Shakespeare parody relies on only the most basic elements of the original work; these parodies are largely composed of unique and original material.

·      “By drawing analogies to the apocalyptic nightmares of the European absurdists, [Kott] deprived Shakespeare of the comfortable status of a tamed classic (9). He “suggested that evil was an unending, cyclical force” (10).

·      Weimann struggled to balance “the history of a work’s origins in the past and the story of its effects in the present” (11). His style of play was referred to as Brechtian, and “unlike the Kottian method, when tended to suggest the unchanging nature of a cosmos ruled by cruel but invisible forces, Brechtian productions wished to suggest that human beings could control an thus change their own fates” (12).

When Laura Bohannon tells the story of Hamlet to a group of African tribesmen, she realizes how varied certain opinions on the play actually are.

o   Her idea: Hamlet’s mother did wrong in not mourning for two years

VS:  “Two years is too long…Who will hoe your farms for you while you have no husband?”

o   Her idea: Hamlet’s revenge was justified

VS:  “If your father’s brother has killed your father, you must appeal to your father’s age mates: they may avenge him. No man may use violence against his senior relatives.”

o   Her idea: Hamlet did wrong by killing Polonius; Polonius was innocent

VS:   “One cannot take vengeance on a madman; Hamlet killed Polonius in his madness."

Group 2 Articles

Shakespeare Without His Language

"Whereas Shakespeare has been a given in English for some centuries, readers and audiences in linguistically foreign environments have had to find a desire for him."

"'On the one hand, Shakespeare's theatre is irremediably a thing of the past; on the other, his plays have survived the conditions from which they originated and are continually revitalized on the modern stage.'"

While English speakers use Shakespeare to explore the individual, foreign adaptations use Shakespeare as a springboard for social and political commentary.

Shakespeare in the Bush

This article is the account of anthropologist Laura Bohannon's attempt to explain Hamlet to a west African chief and his colleagues. She discovered that although certain parts of Hamlet had no easy translation, it could be interpreted in much the same way through the lens of a different culture. Furthermore, to her surprise, the chief and his colleagues were able to infer pieces of the plot from their own experiences and customs.


"'Sometime,' concluded the old man, gathering his ragged toga about him, 'you must tell us some more stories of your country. We, who are elders, will instruct you in their true meaning, so that when you return to your own land your elders will see that you have not been sitting in the bush, but among those who know things and who have taught you wisdom.'"