The aim of this paper is to investigate diachronically the development of the notion of performability, one of the priorities of the stage dimension of translation, and the notions of time and place, which establish the relationship between a source text and its translation. It is in the dual perspective of the dramatic text as an element of both the literary and theatrical that performability and the notions of time and space acquire relevance in drama translation. Performability is a controversial term whose definition is elusive and changing according to specific historical times, although it subsumes unavoidable questions in drama translation, as many translation theorists have shown over the last thirty years (Bassnett-McGuire 1978, Bassnett 1998; Espasa 2000; Johnston 2004; Che Suh 2001; Espasa 2013). Thus, for Bassnett, performability cannot be “universally applied” (Bassnett1998: 98) as it is culturally determined. For Lefevere, performability is partly determined by what conforms with the theatrical and production systems (1992: 14–15). For Espasa, performability especially means ‘marketability’ (2000: 56). My contention is that, if performability has become an increasingly undefined notion, time and space, on the other hand, have played a crucial role in the reflections brought forward by many recent translation theorists and are the underlying notions of some of the most accomplished systematisations of drama translation. Pavis, in his semiotic approach, shows how time and place inevitably change in drama translation at each step of the translation process. From an intercultural perspective, Aaltonen similarly states that “the choice of a translation strategy… is linked with the spatially and temporally confined codes which through these strategies become represented in the discourse of the completed translations” (Aaltonen 2000: 45). Robert Lepage and Jatinder Verma use theterm ‘tradaptation’ to indicate a new form of re-writing from a non-Western perspective, in which time and place are totally transformed (Cameron 2000: 17). More recently, Perteghella in her descriptive-anthropological model of theatre translation implicitly refers to time and place when she sees some linguistic and performance practices as the ideology guiding the translator, who is influenced by “the historical period and its social and cultural milieu” (2004: 11) (emphasis mine).

The article deals with issues related to translation of texts for theatre in the light of the performative and cultural turn in the modern Humanities. While Cultural Studies scholars have abandoned the categories of directness in text translation in favor of analyzing cultural differences and contexts, they have neglected issues connected with language performativity, especially with regard to the dual function of the dramatic text – as literature and as theatre. Following the steps taken by William Worthen, the paper shows the historic dimension of the concept of a theatre play as literature (poetry) and as performance and proves that we have to look at the language of translation from the performative angle (contrasting “performativity” with “performability” as understood by Susan Bennett), not only in a broad cultural and social context. What has to be taken into account are the circumstances of the practice of reading and understating a play, its form as well as the cognitive frames of both the performance creators and the spectators. The argumentation is illustrated by a comparative analysis of two modern Polish translations of Comedic Theatre by Carlo Goldoni, accomplished by Jolanta Dygul and by the author of the article herself.

Translating drama requires not only knowledge of the elements constituting the play’s world and of the theatrical conventions of the author’s epoch, but it frequently entails also a reconstruction of the original performance. Such is usually the case with classical tragedies and comedies that – created as performances – initially had no textual form. In order to understand, interpret and translate such plays it is necessary to recreate the stage construction and setting, as well as the stage movement and proxemics. Taking as an example a passage from Terence’s Phormio, or the Scheming Parasite, the article presents results of such a reconstruction. The mere fact of understanding the manuscript (stage 1) does not guarantee the right interpretation that might result in a relevant translation. One has to consider also the opinions of editors and commentators (stage 2), psychological realism of the characters (stage 3), and the potential for a convincing staging of the text (stage 4). Only these four aspects considered jointly can ensure a proper translation of the analysed passage.

Translators, as it is argued by translation scholars, often become the first directors of plays. This happens because taking into account the dramatic potential of the translated text results in the translator’s own projections about the possible staging that are inserted in the translated text. In ancient tragedies there were no written stage directions. But it does not mean that there were no stage instructions. Oliver Taplin, who sees the texts of ancient tragedies as a kind of theatre scripts, observes that the majority of information needed to perform any ancient tragedy is implicite included in the text itself. The fact that we do not have any written records of any performances that took place in 5th century BC makes it possible for the translator to imagine a prospective staging. Undoubtedly, the 5th century BC tragedies were the theatre productions influenced by the Athenian theatre of the day – its natural location, architecture, theatre equipment and stage design. So a translation that aims to be both literary and theatrically significant has to include the theatre dimension. Inserting stage directions into the translation is one of the means to do this (and we find them in almost all modern translations of ancient plays). In my paper I discuss three main Polish translations of Aeschylus’s Choeforoe (the second part of the only extant ancient trilogy titled Oresteia), taking into consideration the stage directions inserted by the translators. The versions by Zygmunt Węclewski (published in 1873), Jan Kasprowicz (in 1908) and Stefan Srebrny (in 1952) are examined in view of the question what kind of staging the translators suggested and why.

Adaptation (hon’an) and translation (hon’yaku) of Shakespeare’s plays in Japan in the age of Modernization (the Meiji and Taishō periods, 1868–1912 and 1912–26, respectively) both constitute complex objects of study. A careful analysis of this apparently ambiguous cultural entity offers a glimpse into the wide-ranging interests that the Meiji literati displayed in inheriting and interpreting Shakespeare’s cultural heritage. In their recent review of Shakespeare’s reception and performance in Asia, Kennedy and Young (2010) distinguish the kinds of reception that Shakespearean canon received in Asian countries by means of three main strategies whose cultural significance varies greatly depending on the social and cultural context. These are: nationalist appropriation (specifically referring to China), colonial instigation (India), and intercultural revision. The authors seem to imply that, of these three, intercultural revision – the most innovative, referring to productions that adapt the text to foreign modes of performance – is not associated with any specific geographical space. Using this theoretical framework, aim to demonstrate how the kind of performances originating from this intercultural adaptation, and often giving the most impressive results in terms of visual inventions as well, defy time as well as location, and, in the case of Japan, may be traced back to the time when Shakespeare’s canon was first introduced, i.e. the Meiji Era (1868–1912). This would help to understand the conceptual and cultural basis for the constant efforts of Japanese directors involved in recent production of Shakespeare’s plays in the theatre and as well as films, or other more pop-culture oriented media; efforts, in fact, increasingly appreciated worldwide. In the works of Shakespeare’s first Japanese translators and critics, there is a shift from adaptation of western dramas (including Shakespeare), which was the most popular mode of staging Shakespeare’s works from the 1880s, to verbatim translations of his plays, which had virtually substituted any other means of adaptation by the first two decades of the 20th century. This shift clearly reflects the increasing awareness of Japanese intellectuals of the need to acknowledge the greatness of Shakespeare as a playwright as well as the importance of creating a new concept of modern Japanese drama upon the premise of giving relevance to the text and the author in more general terms. Adapting or translating Shakespeare’s plays in Japanese in the 19th and 20th century is an occasion for Meiji intellectuals to rethink completely the theatrical genre, redefining its borders and the overall value. In this respect a closer examination of critical essays by the renowned translators of Shakespeare, such as Tsubouchi Shōyō (1859–1935) and Mori Ōgai (1862–1922) is a key strategy in order to assess Shakespeare’s pivotal role in the development of Japanese drama. We shall present, therefore, excerpts from diverse essays in order to tackle the fundamental question of the overall significance of Shakespeare’s reception in the cultural context of Modern Japan.

Although Ibsen’s plays are frequently staged in Polish theatres, the performances rarely become successful and Ibsen’s works are watched and read by very few. The fact that in post war Poland Ibsen was translated very rarely seems to be essential for finding the reason why his reception in Poland is so difficult. Ever since the first premiere of Ibsen’s play in Polish most of his works have been translated not from the original language – A Doll’s House was translated directly from Norwegian only in 2006 and Peer Gynt has never been translated from Norwegian. The problem of a small number of translations evokes another difficulty: the fewer texts we have, the quicker they become out-of-date and not playable. The dated language of the texts was a serious problem for Polish theatres already in the interwar time. After the war most of the newly published translations (1956 and 1958) were not from Norwegian, which is why until the late nineteen sixties Krogstad was Günther in Polish and Thorvald was called Robert. In the second part of the 20th century no more translations were produced, so theatres used the versions from the nineteen fifties while cutting the texts heavily to deal with archaic language. Surprisingly enough, after the first premiere based on the new translation of A Doll’s House in 2006, theatres returned to the old version. The most important questions to be asked in such situation are about the quality of the new texts and about the significance of translating in the process of theatre reception.

The possibility of finding general premises for a theory of drama translation has been dismissed long ago (Schultze 2015b). It is, however, still feasible to consider single structural elements (deixis, forms of address) in translational transfer. Reduction and expansion deserve permanent attention, be it as aesthetic devices in source texts or as translational solutions – between gain and loss – in target texts. This article discusses reduction and expansion in two Polish theatre classics of the international repertory: Mrożek’s Tango and Głowacki’s Antygona w Nowym Jorku. The target texts are English, French, German and Russian translations, partly also theatre scripts. The authors argue that theatre translation has a chance to overcome drawbacks of linguistic asymmetries.

The author’s experience of translating the theoretical and theatrical texts of Tadeusz Kantor – among others the “partituras” of his masterpieces The Dead Class and Wielopole, Wielopole – becomes the starting point for a more general reflection about some theoretical and practical aspects of theatre translation and their relationship with literary translation tout court. The metaphor of (theatrical) translator as a medium and that of translation as the evocation of “voices” – stimulated especially by the “spirits” of The Dead Class and the necessity of their “resurrection” in a new language/culture – is a trope aimed at illustrating the strong link between the literary component of theatrical translation and
theatricality of literary translation. In the author’s opinion it is not a simple tautology, but one of the most important aspects of theatrical translation – which is at the same time endo- and interlinguistic, as well as intersemiotic. Theatrical translators appear indeed not only as the media of “other” voices, but to some extent also as actors of their own texts, since the interplay with the proto-texts and their emotive and communicative goals is achieved through a series of performative elements not far removed from those of an actor on stage.

The translation of dialect as a diatopic variety is one of the most difficult problems which the translator has to solve. Dialect, more than the standard language, refers to culture-specific elements. Considering its semantic valence it is necessary to take it into account while translating. On the other hand, translation of theater texts is under special pressure of the cultural context of the target system and the target text has to establish a direct contact with the public. The paper presents different circumstances of using dialect in source texts and different translation strategies applicable in target texts. Then it provides examples of an Italian drama (La carnezzeria by Emma Dante) in which the use of Sicilian dialect has a very specific function. The Polish translator replaces dialect with a distorted version of language based on a colloquial variety, which is one of the possible solutions since there are no general nor precise rules of dialect translation. The case study proves that it is always important to consider the function of dialect in theater text in the contexts of translation.

The article focuses on the stageability of dramatic texts as a potential source of problems in translation. The problem is discussed using the example of Caryl Churchill’s Cloud Nine – a play based on changeability and performability of gender identities. In her play, Churchill uses cross-casting to inscribe the gender of potential actors on the text, which needs to be considered by the translator of the play. In the article, Sophia Totzeva’s concept of theatrical potential is used to identify potential shifts conditioned by the play’s stageability.

Life Is a Dream (2013) – a new translation into Polish of La vida es sueño by Pedro Calderón de la Barca, the theatrical masterpiece of the Spanish Golden Age – was commissioned by the Teatr Współczesny in Szczecin for director Wojciech Klemm. The translation and adaptation of Life Is a Dream by the Kraków-based scholar in Iberian studies and poet Marta Eloy Cichocka is the latest in a series of Polish translations of Calderón: the first to be undertaken in the 21st century, and the second to be penned by a woman. In the 19th century the text of La vida es sueño was tackled by Ryszard Berwiński, Edward Dembowski, Wiktoryn Doleżan, Leon Rudkiewicz, Józef Szujski and Adam Tomasz Chłędowski (who entitled his translation Władysław [sic!], królewic polski, czyli Życie snem (1826), i.e. Władysław [sic!], Prince of Poland, or, Life Is a Dream – giving up the Germanic name Segismundo which appears in the original work). A century later the play was translated by Barbara Zan, but Polish readers best know the stylised translation of Edward Boyé and its contemporary rendering by Jarosław Marek Rymkiewicz. Pedro Calderón de la Barca called his play La vida es sueño, meaning simply Life Is a Dream. After lengthy discussions, it is this title which for the translator seemed most appropriate, the closest to the original and the most natural sounding. A new title may signal to the readers that they are dealing with Calderón in a new translation in which the polymetre of the original has been exchanged by a combination of blank verse and prose. Paradoxically, resigning from rhyme one gains access to many meanings which are lost in the process of translating verse, where the stiff corset of rhyme often yokes the translator into restricting the sense of the statement being made. Apart from the aforementioned issues, the article touches upon the problems of the functional fidelity of the translation of theatrical masterpieces, the loyalty of the translator in relation to the author and the director, as well as the oft-problematic decisions concerning adaptability in the context of the Polish reality surrounding theatrical renderings.

The article presents the challenges of dramatic adaptation through a case study: the translation of English surtitles for a Polish production based on Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Macbeth. The play in question, 2008: Macbeth, was a highly stylized, bigbudget adaptation written and directed by Grzegorz Jarzyna. It is set in the modern day and contains text and scenes added by Jarzyna to comment on contemporary politics and military culture. The Polish he uses and that found in Barańczak’s translation that served as the source text for 2008: Macbeth feel more contemporary than Elizabethan English; therefore, the material written by Jarzyna is much closer to Barańczak’s “original” text than to Shakespeare’s. An additional challenge in writing the surtitles was the canonical status of Shakespeare’s Macbeth and the audiences’ familiarity with this text. A translation focused on conveying Jarzyna’s artistic messages could thus alienate viewers who approach 2008: Macbeth as a foreign-language reworking of Shakespeare, rather than an original work. Applying common theoretical concepts, such as adaptation/translation, source/target, and textual/performative, the article examines the process and strategies employed in producing the English supertitles for 2008: Macbeth and the play’s reception in the U.S. and U.K.

The paper describes the results of an experiment in translation carried out during a course attended by a group of Polish and Italian students. The text chosen was a comic sketch A Little Rewrite by Richard Curtis and Ben Elton. The goal was to compare the transfer of a typical gig into two different languages and cultural contexts. It emerged that, while all the students enjoyed the sketch and were amused by it, as soon as they started to translate the dialogue some significant differences arose, both language- and culture-related. In the transfer into Polish, the lack of a recognizable marketing jargon used in the original scene for humorous effect resulted in replacing it with a low register of everyday speech and Polish equivalents were found for a few not immediately comprehensible allusions to British reality. The one distinctive comic feature of the original text, the funny form of addressing Shakespeare as “Bill” was, however, lost in translation due to a different use of such form in Polish. In the Italian translation it was easier to replicate the comic effect of calling Shakespeare “Bill”, thanks to a similar way in which forms of address are used in that language. It appeared, instead, far more difficult, to find a satisfactory equivalent for a low oral register of the original dialogue. Because of the stylistic conventions of standard Italian and also a more rigid attitude towards the rules of translation itself, the final result of the transfer appeared far more polished and toned down linguistically that its Polish counterpart or even its English original.

The article examines the intricacies of theatrical translation with reference to foreignlanguage radio plays. The attempt is to trace the interrelations between elements of translated radio drama on the basis of Samuel Beckett’s Rough for Radio II, its RTÉ Ireland realization (2006) and the Polish translation by Antoni Libera together with his own production of the play for Polish Radio 2 (2009). One of the main aims of this study is to present the potential for analysing a translated work for radio as well as to initiate a discussion on the role of theatrical translation in radio dramatic forms. Firstly, the analysis focuses on the juxtaposition of the English version of Beckett’s play and its Polish translation, which – notably – is based both on the English and French versions. Next, English and Polish radio productions are scrutinized in the light of the script which constitutes their basis. The discussion foregrounds such elements of radio drama as voice, sound effects and the employment of pauses and silences. The final step consists in comparing and contrasting both realizations as overlapping layers of practical instances of theatrical translation originating from Beckett’s text, which as such is also a translation. The analysis reveals intriguing changes and transformations on the way from the original script by Beckett to its rendering in Polish radio. The most visible is Libera’s (translator-director’s) constant wavering in his choices between his own translation and two versions of the Beckett text, which lead to the final radio production becoming a specific manifestation of linguistically and culturally based decisions.

The main purpose of the essay is a critical review of recently published monograph on the presence of Italian literature in Poland Jadwiga Miszalska’s. Miszalska’s achievement is presented against the background of previous reflections on translations of older Italian literature in Poland. Her latest book collects and updates the bibliographies and considerations on “narrative prose”, “theatrical texts and dramas” and poetry. The quotations from original Italian texts and from their translations, acting as a kind of inner anthology, are an unquestionable advantage of the book, while meticulous summaries of literary works and the brevity of philological and historical comments constitute its main drawback.

The article is a detailed review of the book by Monika Woźniak, Katarzyna Biernacka- Licznar and Bogumiła Staniów Przekłady w systemie małych literatur. O włosko–polskich i polsko–włoskich tłumaczeniach dla dzieci i młodzieży [Translation within the System of Small Literatures. On Italian-Polish and Polish-Italian Translations for Children and Young Readers], which examines the import of literature for children and young readers from Italy to Poland and from Poland to Italy. The starting point for the research was the drawing up of bibliographies of Italian translations of Polish literature for children and young readers and of Polish translations of Italian literature for young people, published before 2012. The authors analysed the material according to the polysystem theory, thus they understood the translation as a transfer between two literary systems, took into consideration the wider socio-cultural context and invoked the terms of “center” and “periphery”. The authors presented a thematic network containing numerous concepts around which other research on importing and translating literature for children and young readers can be focalised. They compared the two directions of the translation exchange and pointed out their major asymmetry. By focusing their attention on the translation exchange between two peripheral literatures, the researchers have shown that those literatures deserve more attention. The book includes valuable bibliographies that can be used in further research.

The paper offers a review of Tomasz Swoboda’s 2014 book Powtórzenie i różnica [Repetition and difference] – a collection of nine essays in translation criticism, previously published in Literatura na Świecie monthly, in which the author discusses Polish translations of 20th-century francophone and hispanophone poetry, fiction, and philosophical writing. Swoboda’s collection is one of very few book-length pieces of translation criticism published in Poland, and hence it constitutes an important voice in this rather neglected and underdeveloped area. Apart from offering insightful analyses and compelling interpretations of the particular texts, original and translated, the book also has a meta-level merit: by presenting a particular, highly consistent way of criticizing translated texts, it invites reflection on how (else) translation criticism is, could, and should be practiced. With a focus on the opening piece entitled Mroczny Blanchot [Blanchot the Obscure], and brief references to other essays, the review discusses Swoboda’s critical method and rhetoric. What is found to be especially praiseworthy about the former is the author’s ability to maneuver between the micro- and macro level, combining meticulous linguistic observations with the broader context of literary traditions, canon formation, translation reception etc. One feature of Swoboda’s translation criticism that calls for a polemical stance is his distrust of or disregard for translation theory, openly voiced by the translator-cum-critic also on different occasions, and indeed characteristic of many contributors to Literatura na Świecie. It is argued that this attitude stems from the fact that Swoboda and his colleagues equal theory with academic jargon, rather than with thinking about or problematizing translation. On the other hand, in avoiding theoretical discussions, Swoboda makes his book appeal to readers otherwise concerned with “literature as such” rather than with translation studies, thus making them aware of the complexity of the phenomenon of translation. All in all, one can say without a shadow of a doubt Swoboda’s book is a highly inspiring and much-needed publication.