Consciousness, Literature and the Arts
Volume 19 Number 2/3 August/December 2018
(Final Issue)
___________________________________________________________________
De Francisci, Enza and Chris Stamatakis, editors. Shakespeare, Italy, and Transnational Exchange: Early Modern to Present. New York: Routledge,2017. 309 pp, ISBN 978-1-138-66891-1 (bound), ISBN 978-1-315-61840-1 (paperback).
Reviewed by
Middle East Technical University
Along with a Forward by Susan Bassnett and an introduction by Chris Stamatakis, the book has been divided into Three Parts to clarify the chronological approach to the study.
Part I deals with the 16th Century moving onto Part II which presents the views on the 18th and 19th Century Shakespeare translations and finally Part III explores the approaches to Shakespeare’s works in the 20th Century and the early 21st Century. Unlike Part I and Part II with 6 Chapters, Part III is composed of 7 Chapters. Part III is followed by an Afterword.
The book which has 309 pages, provides a list of the contributors to give information about the scholars. Then, an index follows. The biblographical information is provided after each section.
Susan Bassnett in her Foreword to highlight “the transnational exchange” focuses on the intriguing field of translation and points out the intense translation examples from Italian into English during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance Period. This rich translation stock allowed Shakespeare to re-create his plots using the available translated Italian works. But when it came to the translation of the works from English into Italian, the French influence could be seen since a lot of the translators relied on the French translations. Bassnett points out that the outstanding feature of Shakespearean interpretations in Italy was the theatricality. Shakespeare was influenced by the Italian sources (through translation). The Italians, in return were fascinated by his works creating a “transnational exchange”.
The 23-page long Introduction by Chris Stamatakis starts with a quotation from The Winter’s Tale to point out the “intertraffique” between Italy and England. Stamatakis gives detailed information on the three major sections of the book elaborating on the contributions of the writers.
PART I. Early Modern Period: Dialogues and Networks
Gilia Harding and Chris Stamatakis in “Shakespeare, Florio, and Love’s Labour’s Lost” point out the play’s main feature of “using and abusing language” along with the language games. They also elaborate on the play’s reflection of Shakespeare’s familiarity with foreign languages and they emphasize the importance of Florio’s presence in England and his Italinate influence on Shakespeare.
In “A Tale of Two Tamings: Reading the Early Modern Shrew debate from a Feminist Transnationalist Perspective” Celia R. Caputi poses the question of why not read John Fletcher’s The Tamer Tamed, or the Woman’s Prize?(1590) instead of Shakespeare’s Shrew and thereby she observes the two plays in detail pointing out the “ideological contrast” between the two plays and the different handling of the “taming” in both plays. Celia Caputi’s chapter has an Introduction followed by two parts and a conclusion.
Robert Henke in “Shakespeare and the Commedia dell’Arte” argues that when the English writers referred to the commedia dell’arte, they dealt with it in a satirical way. Yet, a lot of the playwrights had the opportunity to watch commedia dell’arte artists in performance. Henke also observes that although the Italian players travelled to England between 1573 and 1578, in 1578 these visits stopped. Henke mainly focuses on As You Like It, The Taming of the Shrew, and Two Gentlemen of Verona to trace the presences of commedia dell’arte effects. He also refers to Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night ( even Hamlet while observing Polonius as Dottore), Othello, The Tempest.
Rocco Coronato in “The Unfinished in Michelangelo and Othello” tries to trace the “neoplatonic legacy” in “Shakespeare’s notion of beauty” while elaborating on Othello focusing on Iago who in a way represents the embodiment of Michelangelo’s “no finito” (the unfinished). Rocco Coronato has divided his chapter into four parts.
John Drakakis in “Shakespeare and Italian Republicanism” takes the readers back to E.M.W.Tillyard’s The Elizabethan World Picture to refresh the memories about the available sources such as Aristotle’s Poetics (1598) and Machiavelil’s Discourses (1517) for the Elizabethans which provided information about “the organisation of a society”. Drakakis focusing on Venice and therefore Shakespeare’s Othello and The Merchant of Venice points out the nature of the Italian Republicanism and the place of”other” in such a society as in the case of Othello and the Jew among the established Venetians. Yet, while observing “the Italian Republicanism” and setting the plays in Italian quarters, Shakespeare creates individuals who encounter incidents that uplift them from the Italian setting and drop them into their own personal chaotic dilemmas.
Subha Mukherji in” ‘A kind of conquest’:The Erotics and Aesthetics of Italy in Cymbeline” explores the underlying literary Italian background in the famous Iachimo – Imogen scene.
Mukherji by analysing the Iachimo-Imogen scene highlights the fact that the possible-seduction scene turns into an aesthetic citation of a descriptive poem by Iachimo when he “paints” a picture of the sleeping British Princess Imogen.
PART II. Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries:Translation and Collaboration
Sandra Pietrini in “The Eighteenth-Century Reception of Shakeaspeare: Translations and Adaptations for Italian Audiences” observes the interest in Shakespeare’s works for purposes of translating/adapting them. It is interesting to note that Italians residing in England (as is the case of Antonio Conti) had the opportunity of being exposed to Shakespeare directly rather than receiving an intermediary means of dealing with Shakespeare (i.e through French and German influences). Among the French, Voltaire who had a conflicting interest in Shakespeare through his praises and severe criticisms allowed Shakespeare’s works to be known and even travel in Europe (to countries like Italy). At one point, while Shakespeare received heavy criticism by Voltaire because he did not follow the Neo-Classical rules he was nevertheless resembled to Ariosto thereby securing an international status by means of his Italian admirers. The interesting aspect of this section is that Domenico Valentini produced the first Italian translation of a Shakespeare play (1756) even though he did not know English. Pietrini also draws the reader’s attention to Goldoni’s Play I malcontenti where Shakespeare is parodied in the character of Grisologo. It is understood that although translating Shakespeare into Italian was not regarded as an easy task, the Italian translations continued.
Giovanna Buonanno in “Shakespeare’s Reception in Nineteenth-Century Italy:Giulio Carcano’s Translation of Macbeth”, first gives some information about Shakespeare’s early appearances in Italy dating back to 1668 and although in 17th and 18th Centuries Shakespeare’s place was not firmly established, in the 19th Century due to the increasing number of translated works in Italy Shakespeare starts securing a place even in the Italian literary canon. Then, Buonanno states that she will be focusing on Carcano’s 1848 translation of Macbeth. She has divided this section into three parts giving information about Shakeaspeare’s early translations in Italy. Later, she moves onto Carcano’s translation and finally she elaborates on Carcano’s Macbetto “between page and stage”. Carcano being a politically committed writer and who had to be exiled in Switzerland continued to translate Shakespeare’s works in Switzerland using English texts rather than translations in French. Buonanno presents the three priciples of Carcano’s translations. Carcano had a wholistic approach to the text. One problem was that he was not on his own during the translations since the famous actress Adelaide Ristori demanded a stage adaptation for herself and further alterations (these alterations Carcano refused). Another principle was that he chose “unrhymed hendecasyllables” which allowed more flexibility. Also he refused to mix verse and prose. Buonanno observes the credits to be given to the famous 19th Century theatre people of Italy such as Ristori, Rossi, Salvini since they commissioned Carcano to make stage adaptations and translations of Shakespeare’s works. For Macbetto, Carcano followed the original text but since his translation was not a “stageable translation” he had to recreate his work. Thus the criteria of “speakability” and “performability” manifested themselves being the major concerns of translating theatre texts. This means that Carcano became a text-translator and a stage-translator as well.
In “Verdi’s Shakespeare: Musical Translations and Authenticity” Réne Weis explores the very different way of translating Shakespeare. Verdi as a composer, created numerous operas but he always favoured Shakeaspeare. He had access to the Italian translations of Shakespeare’s texts. Despite the fact that Verdi was not able to read Shakeaspeare in English, he saw King Lear as the most powerful play but he never brought hiself to translating the play into music. Réne Weis explores the similarities between Verdi’s Rigoletto and Shakespeare’s King Lear especially focusing on the father-daughter relationships and the storm scenes. Verdi went on re-creating Macbeth, Otello, Falstaff in music and worked on the compositions meticulously. Réne Weis claims that Verdi was attracted to Shakespeare because of Shakespeare’s “anarchic and creative” approach to human issues.
In “Eleonora Duse as Juliet and Cleopatra” Anna Sica explores Duse’s diverse approaches to Shakespeare parts. Anna Sica, in this section observes “an ageless Juliet” and “a Wagnerian Cleopatra” and finally elaborates on “other Shakespearean roles” to present Eleonora Duse’s method.
In “Representations of Italy in the First Hebrew Translations of Shakespeare” Lily Kahn shows how Jewish translations were actually”domestication” of Shakespearean texts giving them a Jewish character. Mainly Romeo and Juliet, Othello, and The taming of the Shrew get mentioned all these plays taking place in Italy. For the Jews, Italy has always been a host country. Thus, the Jewish translations of the Italian plays have become culturally Jewish texts. So, Shakespeare in Italy was Judaized although the place names were kept as Italian mames in the Jewish translations.
In “Through the Fickle Glass: Re-writing and Re-thinking Shakespeare’s Sonnets in Italy”, Matteo Brera focuses on the Sonnets although he admits that how Shakespeare’s Sonnets reached Italy is not clear. With the rising “Anglomania” in Italy in the 18th century probably some poems of Shakespeare must have reached Italy. Brera elaborates on the Sonnets in two sections namely “The First Translations” and “From Tradition to Contemporaneity”. Through his analysis it is understood that the task of translating the Sonnets into Italian is a kind of “ wrestling with Shakespeare”.
PART III. Twentieth Century to the Present: Originality and Ownership
“Giovanni Grasso: The Other Othello in London” by Enza De Francisci sheds light on the famous Italian actor Giovanni Grasso and his interpretation of Othello in London thereby generating a double “otherness” since in Italy he was an “other” being a Sicilian and in London being a Sicilian-Italian. His Othello adds an admirable dimension to the known interpretations of this famous part.
Enrica Maria Ferrara in “Shakespeare. Vittorini, and the Anti-Fascist Struggle” observes a Sicilian author, Elio Vittorini’s novel Conversazione in Sicilia making use of Shakespeare and creating a kind of political allegory to express his anti-fascist idea, cleverly avoiding the theatrical censorship of 1931. He even somehow does not attrack the attention of the Fascist censors even though he focuses on Macbeth in Macbeth. Through his work he wants to arouse an anti-fascist consience and even to provide “potential” alternatives to fascisim.
Guiseppe Stellardi in “Hamlet’s Ghost: The Rewriting of Shakespeare in C.E.Gadda” elaborates on the intensive admiration Gadda has for Shakespeare’s works. Although Gadda was interested in other famous literary figures, it was Shakespeare that intrigued him most. In a way, while tracing Shakespeare’s influnece in Gadda’s works, Stellardi observes Gadda’s literary features as well. Among all the Shakespearean plays, Hamlet seems to be really becoming the driving force behind Gadda while he is creating his literary works. Thus, Gadda re-writes the Hamlet story and various similarities are traced between Hamlet the play and Gadda’s re-created story. While analysing these similarities, Stellardi observes the nature of Gadda’s literary mastership. What happens is that, Shakespeare becomes the guide to allow the observer to go through “the literary maze” of Gadda without being lost.
In “’The rest which is not silence’: Shakespeare and Eugenio Montale” Camilla Caporici explores the influence of Shakespeare’s works on Eugenio Montale, the famous Italian poet who knew the works of Shakespeare very closely. Yet, when he met an American scholar, Irma Brandeis the couple started writing letters to each other (a kind of Dante-Beatrice relationship) and in his letters to Brandeis, Shakespearen echoes are traced throughout the letter correspondence. So, in his poems and in his letters Shakespeare’s presence becomes unavoidable.
Mace Perlman in”Giorgio Strehler’s Il gioco dei potenti: A Shakespearean Master Finds His Voice” having worked with Giorgio Strehler himself, gives a thorough and detailed analysis of Strehler’s approach to Shakespeare. Strehler who was director-actor-scholar-dramaturg-scenographer all at the same time had his “pre-Brechtian” and “post-Brechtian” phases. The expression “walking a theatrical tight rope” clearly demonstrates what Strehler wanted to do with Shakespeare when he was an interpreter and an adapter which required an overwhelming virtuosity while he was constantly being a highly imaginative over-reacher in his theatrical approaches. This section had 7 Figures to allow the reader to see what Strehler tried to do.
Mariangela Tempera in “Shakespeare behind Italian Bars: The Rebibbia Project, The Tempest, and Caesar Must Die” presents the project results of Shakespeare performances by the prisoners. One such project was put into action in a prison in Tuscany by Armando Punzo who was keen on combining “street theatre” and “circus” while approaching the script intertextually. The narrative could be “revisionary” or “reoriented”. Then, the Rebibbia project followed. In 2003, when Fabio Cavalli from Genoa (a director) took up the task, the company of performers included criminals such as drug dealers, murderers. The Rebibbia Company attracted the attention of the Taviani brothers, the filmmmakers who wanted to film Julius Caesar. Special care was taken to follow the different dialects of the performers. Tempera provides a detailed account of the filming and the incidents that took place during that time in her analysis of “Shakespeare behind the Italian bars”.
Perhaps the most theatrical section of the book is “Shakespeare, tradition, and the Avant-Garde in Chiara Guidi’s Macbeth su Macbeth su Macbeth” since there is an interview conducted by Sonia Massai and while Chiara Guidi is answering the questions she reveals an innovative approach to Shakespeare and especially to his texts (his words, his language). The use of stage effects, sound, music is also highlighted. 6 Figures accompany the text to illustrate scenes from the play directed by Chiara Guidi. While Guidi’s Macbeth opens up new passages to Shakespeare’s play, the production simultaneously opens up new routes to changes in theatre productions. Yet, the traditions are not abandoned or pushed aside when changes occur.
In the “Afteword: Shakespeare, an Infinite Stage” Paolo Puppa in two and a half pages goes over the points raised in the book emphasizing the multi-layers that are provided by Shakespeare’s plays to allow different approaches to his texts on pages and to his plays on stages.