Shakespeare in the Bush: Diversity or Universality? Marion Celli * Abstract: Taking into account Bohannan's essay Shakespeare in the Bush (1966), this article intends to discuss the intrinsic relationship between language and culture through the lenses of literary translation. Based on Laraia (2008), Geertz (1973) and Hall (1994), we aim at showing how Bohannan's anthropological adventure enables us to elicit some considerations about the influence of ethnocentrism in the dichotomy between diversity and universality. Keywords: translation, language, culture. Bohannan's essay Shakespeare in the Bush 1 is an interesting material for us to discuss the relationships between language and culture in the context of literary translation. Based on the author s experience of adapting Hamlet to the Tiv people, an oral community, we intend to discuss, through Laraia (2008), Geertz (1973) and Hall (1994), some important concepts of culture that are strongly highlighted throughout the text. According to Laraia (2008:68), the way we see the world, our moral values, our social behavior and even the way we use our bodies are culturally inherited. Besides, culture is never singular it is always plural. In other words, as Geertz (1994:12) says, [c]ulture is public because meaning is. These are key concepts that we should take into account in order to understand why Bohannan had so many difficulties in telling Hamlet to the African tribe. Before going to Africa, Bohannan was quite sure that Hamlet had only one possible interpretation, and that one universally obvious (p.3). In addition to this, she believed that human nature [was] pretty much the same the whole world over; at least the general plot and motivation of the greater tragedies would always be clear everywhere (p.1). This idea, however, collapses as soon as she begins to face the experience of trying to tell Hamlet to them. The correct interpretation, as she firstly says, or rather the notion that there are certain truths and concepts that remain the same regardless of space and time are then substituted by the idea that what is right and what * Graduate student of the Area of Translating, Linguistic and Literary Studies in French at the University of São Paulo. 1 Bohannan, L. (1966) Shakespeare in the Bush. Natural History, Aug/Sept.
is wrong is not universal. As Hall (1994:301) points out, time and space are also basic coordinates of all systems of representation. In this sense, throughout Bohannan's text we understand that [h]omens de culturas diferentes usam lentes diversas e, portanto, têm visões desencontradas das coisas (Laraia, 2008:67). Culture, then, condiciona a visão de mundo do homem (Laraia, 2008:97) and illustrates diversity around the world. Such differences thus explain the Tiv's interpretation of Hamlet. To begin with, we would like to highlight that the Tiv were an oral community. In this sense, writing had a completely different meaning for them: [t]he old man was acquainted with four kinds of 'papers': tax receipts, bride price receipts, court free receipts, and letters (p.5). Worried about this different understanding, Bohannan feels the necessity to explain herself: I did not wish them to think me silly enough to look at any such papers for days on end, and I hastily explained that my 'paper' was one of 'the things of long ago' of my country (p.5). This explanation can be considered the starting point for her anthropological adventure. Characterized as storytelling lovers, they ask her to explain to them the kind of thing she was then looking at. Realizing that this was her chance to prove Hamlet universally intelligible, she decides to face the critical indigenous audience and tell them the whole story. The way she begins One night three men were keeping watch outside the homestead of the great chief, when suddenly they saw the former chief approach them (p.5) already introduces a complex problem: instead of using words like 'castle' and 'king', she says 'homestead' and 'great chief'. Therefore, as we are going to see, in order to make Hamlet comprehensible to them, she transfers the play's world to the Tiv's one. Consequently, it is not hard to imagine the kinds of difficulties she had to face. Her attitude is then a clear example of what Venuti (2002) calls domestication in translation studies. According to him, the translation act inevitably domesticates foreign texts, inscribing them with linguistic and cultural values that are intelligible to specific domestic constituencies (p. 67). Besides, a particular translation, by definition, involves the domestic assimilation of a foreign text (p.80). Shakespeare in the Bush, however, is an example of a high degree of domestication, highlighting in a very concrete way the cultural differences between typical and traditional western ideals and a community located outside such notions.
These difficulties in accepting Bohannan's story can be explained by what Geertz (1973) and Laraia (2008) call coherency. As the latter explains, [a] coerência de um hábito cultural somente pode ser analisada a partir do sistema a que pertence (p.08). And this is one of the problems we have in Bohannan's experience: as we have the translation of habits and values of a particular culture, the Tiv cannot comprehend some of Hamlet's actions. The passage below, for example, shows an interesting discussion about the concept of widow: The son Hamlet was very sad because his mother had married again so quickly. There was no need for her to do so, and it is our custom for a widow not to go to her next husband until she has mourned for two years Two years is too long, objected the wife who had appeared with the old man's battered goatskin bag. Who will hoe your farms for you while you have no husband? (p.8, our italics). This passage is very clear in relation to the differences between both cultures. Bohannan's explanation that 'it is our custom' is not enough for the old man's younger wife to be satisfied with the story. As Tiv men are responsible for the farm work, the wife cannot understand how a widow can survive for so long without a new husband to help her with the land. Another interesting cultural conflict is in relation to monogamy vs. polygamy. The Tiv cannot understand the reason why the 'dead chief' had had only one wife: But a chief, said one of the younger men, must have many wives! How else can he brew beer and prepare food for all his guests? (p.8). As we can see, the Tiv audience makes many comments about Hamlet's story. Another interesting point we want to emphasize is the moment in which Bohannan says that Ophelia went mad and drowned in the river. By the time she says such words the old man cries: Have you already forgotten what we told you? One cannot take vengeance on a madman; Hamlet killed Polonius in his madness. As for the girl, she not only went mad, she was drowned. Only witches can make people drown. Water itself can't hurt anything. It is merely something one drinks and bathes in (p.18). Considering that culture influences social behavior and diversifies humanity, we could say, in view of the examples above, that each and every culture has its own logic (Laraia, 2008). Hence, [t]odo sistema cultural tem a sua própria lógica e não passa de um ato primário de etnocentrismo tentar transferir a lógica de um sistema
para outro (Laraia, 2008:87). Therefore, by using the linguistic apparatus of the Tiv's language, Bohannan tries to clarify Western habits, costumes and ways of thought. Because of this, the Tiv people discuss a lot every single detail that does not fit its culture. Highlighting several 'mistakes' in her narrative, the chiefs even tell her that she should ask the elders of her country about some dubious aspects of the plot. Little by little, Bohannan gets more and more upset with their constant interferences: Hamlet was clearly out of my hands (p.18). At the end of the essay, we find an important speech of the old man: You tell the story well, and we are listening. But it is clear that the elders of your country have never told you what the story really means. No, don't interrupt! We believe you when you say your marriage customs are different, or your clothes and weapons. But people are the same everywhere; therefore, there are always witches and it is we, the elders, who know how witches work (p.18, our italics). Through his words, we can understand that the old man sees differences between his people and Bohannan's, but, just as she formerly believed, he argues that people are the same everywhere. Besides, he wants to tell her 'what the story really means'. What is more, it is worth quoting here the last paragraph of Bohannan's text, in which the old man says: [Y]ou 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 (p.21, our italics). In this passage, the idea of 'true meaning' is again taken into account. If at first we had Bohannan looking for Hamlet's 'correct interpretation', now we have the African old man defending its 'correct meaning'. Based on such passages, it is important to say that: [o] fato de que o homem vê o mundo através de sua cultura tem como conseqüência a propensão em considerar o seu modo de vida como o mais correto e o mais natural. Tal tendência, denominada etnocentrismo, (...) de fato é um fenômeno universal. É comum a crença de que a própria sociedade é o centro da humanidade, ou mesmo a sua única expressão (Laraia, 2008:72-73). This position is then adopted by both the narrator and the audience, but in two different moments and ways. Just for recalling, at the very beginning of the essay the author says human nature is pretty much the same the whole world over; at least the general plot and motivation of the greater tragedies would always be clear
everywhere (p.1). Bohannan s text can thus be considered an interesting material for us to discuss the relationships between diversity and universality and how ethnocentrism influences such dichotomy. Finally, we could conclude that Bohannan s experience is a clear example that misunderstandings of cultural aspects are common and must be always taken into consideration when we talk about language and culture. Bibliographical references BOHANNAN, Laura, 1966. Shakespeare in the Bush. Natural History, Aug/Sept. GEERTZ, Clifford, 1973. Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books HALL, Stuart, 1994. The question of cultural identity. Modernity and its futures, Hall, S., Held, D. and McGrew, Tony (ed). Great Britain: Polity Press, Blackwell and The Open University, p. 273-325. LARAIA, Roque de Barros, 2008. Cultura: Um conceito antropológico. RJ: Jorge Zahar Editor. VENUTI, Lawrence, 1998. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London: Routledge.