1. science
2. social science
3. linguistics
4. translation

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