Shakespeare in the Bush: Diversity or Universality?

Marion Celli*

Abstract: Taking into account Bohannan's essay “Shakespeare in the Bush” (1966),
this article intends to discuss the intrinsic relationship between language and culture
through the lenses of literary translation. Based on Laraia (2008), Geertz (1973) and
Hall (1994), we aim at showing how Bohannan's anthropological adventure enables us
to elicit some considerations about the influence of ethnocentrism in the dichotomy
between diversity and universality.
Keywords: translation, language, culture.

Bohannan's essay “Shakespeare in the Bush”1 is an interesting material

for us to discuss the relationships between language and culture in the context of literary
translation. Based on the author’s experience of adapting Hamlet to the Tiv people, an
oral community, we intend to discuss, through Laraia (2008), Geertz (1973) and Hall
(1994), some important concepts of culture that are strongly highlighted throughout the
text.
According to Laraia (2008:68), the way we see the world, our moral
values, our social behavior and even the way we use our bodies are culturally inherited.
Besides, culture is never singular – it is always plural. In other words, as Geertz
(1994:12) says, “[c]ulture is public because meaning is”. These are key concepts that we
should take into account in order to understand why Bohannan had so many difficulties
in telling Hamlet to the African tribe.
Before going to Africa, Bohannan “was quite sure that Hamlet had only
one possible interpretation, and that one universally obvious” (p.3). In addition to this,
she believed that “human nature [was] pretty much the same the whole world over; at
least the general plot and motivation of the greater tragedies would always be clear –
everywhere” (p.1).
This idea, however, collapses as soon as she begins to face the experience
of trying to tell Hamlet to them. The “correct interpretation”, as she firstly says, or
rather the notion that there are certain truths and concepts that remain the same
regardless of space and time are then substituted by the idea that what is right and what

*
Graduate student of the Area of Translating, Linguistic and Literary Studies in French at the
University of São Paulo.
1
Bohannan, L. (1966) “Shakespeare in the Bush”. Natural History, Aug/Sept.
is wrong is not universal. As Hall (1994:301) points out, “time and space are also basic
coordinates of all systems of representation”. In this sense, throughout Bohannan's text
we understand that “[h]omens de culturas diferentes usam lentes diversas e, portanto,
têm visões desencontradas das coisas” (Laraia, 2008:67). Culture, then, “condiciona a
visão de mundo do homem” (Laraia, 2008:97) and illustrates diversity around the
world. Such differences thus explain the Tiv's interpretation of Hamlet.
To begin with, we would like to highlight that the Tiv were an oral
community. In this sense, writing had a completely different meaning for them: “[t]he
old man was acquainted with four kinds of 'papers': tax receipts, bride price receipts,
court free receipts, and letters” (p.5). Worried about this different understanding,
Bohannan feels the necessity to explain herself: “I did not wish them to think me silly
enough to look at any such papers for days on end, and I hastily explained that my
'paper' was one of 'the things of long ago' of my country” (p.5). This explanation can be
considered the starting point for her anthropological adventure. Characterized as
storytelling lovers, they ask her to explain to them the kind of thing she was then
“looking at”. Realizing that this was her chance to prove “Hamlet universally
intelligible”, she decides to face the critical indigenous audience and tell them the whole
story.
The way she begins – “One night three men were keeping watch outside
the homestead of the great chief, when suddenly they saw the former chief approach
them” (p.5) – already introduces a complex problem: instead of using words like 'castle'
and 'king', she says 'homestead' and 'great chief'. Therefore, as we are going to see, in
order to make Hamlet comprehensible to them, she transfers the play's world to the
Tiv's one. Consequently, it is not hard to imagine the kinds of difficulties she had to
face.
Her attitude is then a clear example of what Venuti (2002) calls
“domestication” in translation studies. According to him, the translation act “inevitably
domesticates foreign texts, inscribing them with linguistic and cultural values that are
intelligible to specific domestic constituencies” (p. 67). Besides, a particular translation,
“by definition, involves the domestic assimilation of a foreign text” (p.80).
“Shakespeare in the Bush”, however, is an example of a high degree of domestication,
highlighting in a very concrete way the cultural differences between typical and
traditional western ideals and a community located outside such notions.
 These difficulties in accepting Bohannan's story can be explained by
what Geertz (1973) and Laraia (2008) call “coherency”. As the latter explains, “[a]
coerência de um hábito cultural somente pode ser analisada a partir do sistema a que
pertence” (p.08). And this is one of the problems we have in Bohannan's experience: as
we have the translation of habits and values of a particular culture, the Tiv cannot
comprehend some of Hamlet's actions. The passage below, for example, shows an
interesting discussion about the concept of widow:

“The son Hamlet was very sad because his mother had married again so quickly. There
was no need for her to do so, and it is our custom for a widow not to go to her next
husband until she has mourned for two years”
“Two years is too long”, objected the wife who had appeared with the old man's battered
goatskin bag. “Who will hoe your farms for you while you have no husband?” (p.8, our
italics).

This passage is very clear in relation to the differences between both

cultures. Bohannan's explanation that 'it is our custom' is not enough for the old man's
younger wife to be satisfied with the story. As Tiv men are responsible for the farm
work, the wife cannot understand how a widow can survive for so long without a new
husband to help her with the land.
Another interesting cultural conflict is in relation to monogamy vs.
polygamy. The Tiv cannot understand the reason why the 'dead chief' had had only one
wife: “But a chief”, said one of the younger men, “must have many wives! How else
can he brew beer and prepare food for all his guests?” (p.8).
As we can see, the Tiv audience makes many comments about Hamlet's
story. Another interesting point we want to emphasize is the moment in which
Bohannan says that Ophelia went mad and drowned in the river. By the time she says
such words the old man cries:

Have you already forgotten what we told you? One cannot take vengeance on a
madman; Hamlet killed Polonius in his madness. As for the girl, she not only went mad,
she was drowned. Only witches can make people drown. Water itself can't hurt
anything. It is merely something one drinks and bathes in (p.18).

Considering that culture influences social behavior and diversifies

humanity, we could say, in view of the examples above, that each and every culture has
its own logic (Laraia, 2008). Hence, “[t]odo sistema cultural tem a sua própria lógica e
não passa de um ato primário de etnocentrismo tentar transferir a lógica de um sistema
para outro” (Laraia, 2008:87). Therefore, by using the linguistic apparatus of the Tiv's
language, Bohannan tries to clarify Western habits, costumes and ways of thought.
Because of this, the Tiv people discuss a lot every single detail that does
not fit its culture. Highlighting several 'mistakes' in her narrative, the chiefs even tell her
that she should ask the elders of her country about some dubious aspects of the plot.
Little by little, Bohannan gets more and more upset with their constant interferences:
“Hamlet was clearly out of my hands” (p.18).
At the end of the essay, we find an important speech of the old man:

You tell the story well, and we are listening. But it is clear that the elders of your
country have never told you what the story really means. No, don't interrupt! We believe
you when you say your marriage customs are different, or your clothes and weapons.
But people are the same everywhere; therefore, there are always witches and it is we, the
elders, who know how witches work (p.18, our italics).

Through his words, we can understand that the old man sees differences
between his people and Bohannan's, but, just as she formerly believed, he argues that
“people are the same everywhere”. Besides, he wants to tell her 'what the story really
means'. What is more, it is worth quoting here the last paragraph of Bohannan's text, in
which the old man says:

[Y]ou must tell us some more stories of your country. We, who are elders, will instruct
you in their true meaning, so that when you return to your own land your elders will see
that you have not been sitting in the bush, but among those who know things and who
have taught you wisdom (p.21, our italics).

In this passage, the idea of 'true meaning' is again taken into account. If at
first we had Bohannan looking for Hamlet's 'correct interpretation', now we have the
African old man defending its 'correct meaning'. Based on such passages, it is important
to say that:

[o] fato de que o homem vê o mundo através de sua cultura tem como conseqüência a
propensão em considerar o seu modo de vida como o mais correto e o mais natural. Tal
tendência, denominada etnocentrismo, (...) de fato é um fenômeno universal. É comum a
crença de que a própria sociedade é o centro da humanidade, ou mesmo a sua única
expressão (Laraia, 2008:72-73).

This position is then adopted by both the narrator and the audience, but in
two different moments and ways. Just for recalling, at the very beginning of the essay
the author says “human nature is pretty much the same the whole world over; at least
the general plot and motivation of the greater tragedies would always be clear –
everywhere” (p.1). Bohannan’s text can thus be considered an interesting material for us
to discuss the relationships between diversity and universality and how ethnocentrism
influences such dichotomy. Finally, we could conclude that Bohannan’s experience is a
clear example that misunderstandings of cultural aspects are common and must be
always taken into consideration when we talk about language and culture.

Bibliographical references
BOHANNAN, Laura, 1966. “Shakespeare in the Bush”. Natural History, Aug/Sept.
GEERTZ, Clifford, 1973. Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. The Interpretation
of Cultures. New York: Basic Books
HALL, Stuart, 1994. “The question of cultural identity”. Modernity and its futures, Hall, S., Held, D. and
McGrew, Tony (ed). Great Britain: Polity Press, Blackwell and The Open University, p. 273-325.
LARAIA, Roque de Barros, 2008. Cultura: Um conceito antropológico. RJ: Jorge Zahar Editor.
VENUTI, Lawrence, 1998. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London:
Routledge.