Conf. univ. dr. DAN -ȘERBAN SAVA CANDIDAT ZAMFIR ELENA A NTOANELA SIBIU 2017 UNIVERSITATEA „LUCIAN BLAGA” DIN SIBIU FACULTATEA DE LITERE ȘI ARTE… [606883]

UNIVERSITATEA „LUCIAN BLAGA” DIN SIBIU
FACULTATEA DE LITERE ȘI ARTE
DEPARTAMENTUL DE STUDII ANGLO -AMERICANE
ȘI GERMANISTICE

DISERTAȚIE

CONDUCĂTOR ȘTIINȚIFIC
Conf. univ. dr. DAN -ȘERBAN SAVA

CANDIDAT: [anonimizat] 2017

UNIVERSITATEA „LUCIAN BLAGA” DIN SIBIU
FACULTATEA DE LITERE ȘI ARTE
DEPARTAMENTUL DE STUDII ANGLO -AMERICANE ȘI
GERMANISTICE

TRADUCEREA,
COMUNICARE INTERCULTURALĂ

CONDUCĂTOR ȘTIINȚIFIC
Conf. univ. dr. DAN -ȘERBAN SAVA

CANDIDAT: [anonimizat] 2017

“LUCIAN BLAGA” UNIVERSITY OF SIBIU
FACULTY OF LETTERS AND ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF ANGLO -AMERICAN AND
GERMAN STUDIES

TRANSLATION – AN INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION

SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR
Assoc. Prof. DAN -ȘERBAN SAVA

CANDIDAT: [anonimizat] 2017

1

Introduction

We have chosen to write a dissertation on a literary translation topic because we
consider literature to be the backbone of our culture and civilization, an instrument with
which we can measure the evolution of humanity. By comparing a contem porary
literary work with a Renaissance literary work, we can see the difference in people’s
values, thoughts and morality. This is the reason why we have chosen a Renaissance
writer, who resorted to ordinary people in order to create something extraordina ry –
something that still retains our attention.
Why Shakespeare? We chose this wo rk on Shakespeare because he is one of the
world’s greatest playwrights. He is one of the most versatile writers in English
literature and he is considered to be the most rea d English author. Shakespeare can be
called a ‘ doctor of the world’ ; in his plays, he examined certain ʻdiseasesʼ of the mind
and showed the tragic consequences of what happens , if we fall prey to these impulses.
Also, Shakespeare did what no other author has done. He enriched the language of his
time with a one sixth of the words that entered the language in a century.
Why this play? We have chosen The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
because, in our opinion, this play best presents the harmful character traits that can
cause much evil: thirst of power, revenge , anger and jealousy. In our work, we plan to
study the play from a translator’s perspective. In order to achieve this, we will study
and interpret the play, underlining the major points in defining the language used, its
structure, its pragmatics and the figures of speech.
The di ssertation is structured into three chapters, which present a succession of
information that lead to our conclusion s. In the first chapter, we will focus on the
subject of translation. We will refer to the concept translation and the history of
translation , the translation process in general and literary translation in particular , so
that we may thoroughly analyse the different versions of the play further on in chapter
three.
In the second chapter, we will write about translation as a key that can unlock
the doors between the countries, about its part in the process of globalisation, about the
historical and socio -cultural events that have affected languages promoting and
favouring changes at different levels and we will also write about Shakespeare’s use of
language and his influence on the contemporary society.

2

In the third chapter, we will make a detailed presentation of the differences that
we have encountered in the translations. In this final chapter, we plan to analyse the
texts as a critical approac h to the translations of Shakespeare’s Tragedy of Hamlet,
Prince of Denmark. By comparing Shakespeare’s English with two Romanian versions
(the former by Leon Levițchi and the latter by Ion Vinea), we will see what the
translators have managed to keep from the original play and what, we believe, they
have failed to recreate.

3

1. Translation Theory

1.1. The Concept of Translation
The English word translation derives from the Latin translatio (meaning ‘bringing
across’). The modern Romance languages use equivalents of the English term
translation that are derived from that same Latin source or from the alternative Latin
traducere (Lowry, 1 ). The Ancient Greek term for translation, μετάφρασις
(metaphrasis, “a speaking across”), has supplied English with metaphrase (a literal or
word -for-word” translation). Metaphrase corresponds, in one of the more recent
terminologies, to formal equivalence and paraphrase to dynamic equivalence (Ibid . 1).
Strictly speaking, the concept of metaphrase – of word -for-word translation – is
an imperfect concept, because a given word in a given language often carries more than
one meaning and because a similar give n meaning may often be represented in a given
language by more than one word. Nevertheless, metaphrase and paraphrase may be
useful as ideal concepts that mark the extremes in the spectrum of possible approaches
to translation ( Ibid. 1). “Translation is co ncerned with moral and factual truth. This
truth can be effectively rendered only if it is grasped by the reader, and that is the
purpose and the end of translation” ( Ibid. 1).
Umberto Eco argues that translation is not about comparing two languages, but
about the interpretation of a text in two different languages, thus involving a shift
between cultures (Eco, 2008: 5).The concept of translation is not a simple one as it may
have various meanings: it can refer to the subject field, it can refer to a text th at has
been translated or to the process of producing a translation. The process of translation
involves two languages: the Source Language or SL (the language of the original text)
and Target Language or TL (the language into which we translate). Transla tion has
played a crucial part in human relationships thorough history. However, translation has
not been viewed as a separate discipline until the 20th century. In his 1972 paper, the
Dutch scholar James S. Holmes described this discipline as being concer ned with “the
complex of problems clustered around the phenomenon of translating and translations”
(Holmes, 1972: 31). In 1978, André Lefevere suggested that the name Translation
Studies should be adopted because this discipline both produces and describes the art of

4

translation, connecting it at the same time with other disciplines, like linguistics,
history, philosophy and psychology (Miu: 8).

1.2. A Short History
The practice of translation has been discussed from Ancient times. For example, we can
find w ritings on translation of Cicero and Horace (1st century BCE) or Saint Jerome (4th
century CE). However, before being considered an academic discipline in the second
half of the twentieth century, translation was thought to be merely an element of
learning in modern language courses ( Ibid. 8).
George Steiner in his After Babel divided the history of translation onto four
periods:
• The first extends from the statements on translation of Cicero and Horace up to
the publication of Essays on the Principles of Translation by Alexander Fraser
Tytler, in 1791. The main focus of this period is the “immediate empirical
focus ,” i.e. the theories of translation are taken out from the actual process of
translating, from the work itself. This period was the one were the Romans were
accused of copying the great Greek works of literature ( Steiner, 1975: 60);
• The second period runs up to 1946, to the publication of Larbaud’s Sous
l’invocation de Saint Jerome . At this stage, theories had begun to develop and a
certain vocabul ary regarding translation had come into being. This period was
marked by the translations of the Bible and other reli gious documents into
vernacular (Ibid, 63);
• The third period begins with the publication of the first translations with the
help of machine s in the 1940s and is characterized by the introduction of
structural linguistics into the study. This period was characterized by the Cold
War, so tec hnical translation had priority (Ibid, 66);
• The fourth period is considered to have coexisted with the th ird, having its
origins in the 1960s and it is considered to be the return to “almost metaphysical
inquiries into translation” ( Ibid, 67). Basically, in this period, we have once
again set the discipline in a wide frame of other disciplines, all of them
interconnected.

5

• The last period has seen the development of certain organizations and unions,
like the European Union. Therefore this period is marked by technology and
electronics. Certain tools have appeared, such as TRADOS, to facilitate the
work of a tra nslator, but it is not likely that this computer ized system will
replace humans (Ibid 70).

This division proves nevertheless how hard it is to illustrate translation
diachronically. We can see that the first period covers a span of 1700 years, while the
last two are very close together, covering merely a span of several decades. Studies of
this kind are not bound to rigid notions such as chronology, but this division serves as
to see the importance of translation studies thorough history. Historically, th ere have
been some great moments in the history of translation that have shaped this discipline
as we know it today. There have been several schools of translation which have
emerged in different times of political, cultural and linguistic circumstances. F or
example:
• THE ARABIC TRADITION: the Baghdad School goes way back to the time of
the Abbasid rule of Persia and its central figure was Hunayn Ibd Ishaq
(Bassnett, 1980: 46).
• THE SPANISH TRADITION: In the 12th and 13th centuries, in Spain, history has
seen the rise of the Toledo School. Established by Alfonso VI of Castille and
Leon in 1085 CE, it was responsible for translating writings from Arab to Latin,
later to Spanish. These scientific treaties were the ones that led to the European
Renaissance ( Idem, 47).
• THE SWEDISH TRADITION: Less known than the other two schools, this
school led by Lars Wollin has revealed the contribution of the Vadstena
monastery which was extremely important for the vernacular language and
literature in mediaeval Scandinavia ( Idem, 48).

In Europe, all thorough the Middle Ages, Latin was the lingua franca . Way
ahead of his times, Alfred the Great (849 -899), king of Wessex in England, was
inspired by Charlemagne and undertook an ambitious effort to revive learning. In the
England of his times, men were uneducated and even if someone wanted to learn, they
could not because all important documents were written in Latin. So, he started

6

commissioning a series of works into the vernacular. Among other things, he
commissioned a translati on of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History and of the Boethius’s
Consolation of Philosophy. Another of his notable initiatives was a translation of the
Bible. King Alfred had around 900 passages of the Bible circulating in the vernacular.
These included passages from the Ten Commandments and the Pentateuch, which he
prefixed to a code of laws he promulgated around the time. This project was not
finished until 1066; the Norman Conquest of England marked the beginning of the end
of the Old English language and initi ated profound changes in its vocabulary. The
project of translating the Bible into Old English gradually ended with the movement
from Old English to Middle English. However, from this period onward, Bible
translations have dominated the Middle Ages (Bassne tt, 1980 :70-100).
In English literature, we consider that the first fine translations were made by
Geoffrey Chaucer, who adapted Boccaccio’s work when writing his Knight’s Tale and
Troilus and Criseyde. The first work to be considered good by today’s stan dards was
the Wycliffite Bible (ca. 1382). This work showed how underdeveloped English prose
was. Only in the 15th century did the period of English prose translation begin. A good
example to illustrate this is Thomas Mallory’s La morte d’Arthur. The 17th and 18th
centuries brought a wave of translations based primarily on paraphrase. The translators
had no care for style of expression or style, but they based their works on the ease of
reading. New standards of accuracy and style were brought in the 19th century ( Ibid,
115-136).
As we can see, in the history of translation we have had ups and downs, but all
of these have prepared the field for translation today. In modern times, we see
translation as to be rendered whole, but understandable. Today, we obs erve closely the
accuracy and style of a text as to render it as faithfully as possible. However, an
important condition of a good translation is that the text in order to be passed in the
Target Language needs to be adapted so the TL readers may understan d, especially if
we are talking about differences in linguistics or culture.

7

1.3. The Process of Translation
Translation is a complicated process. Those who believe that translation means picking
up a dictionary and replacing words are very wrong. Sinc e the beginning of times,
translation has achieved a much higher importance within the other disciplines because
it has accomplished a basic human need: interconnecting social beings. With the
development of technology, translation has become more varied. At present, we have
many types of translation, which have different purposes. They can be classified as
follows:
Roman Jakobson, the Russian -American structuralist identified three categories
of translation in his work “ On linguistic aspects of translatio n”:
1. Intralingual translation, “an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other
signs of the same language” (Jakobson, 1959, 233);
2. Interlingual translation, “an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some
other language” (idem, 235);
3. Intersemiotic t ranslation, “an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of
non-verbal systems” (idem, 236).

When referring to interlingual translation, we have the following types: (Munday,
2001: 5)
1. Oral to oral:
• Consecutive interpreting, in which the transfer f ollows after the delivery of an
uttered unit in the source language.
• Simultaneous interpreting, in which the rendition is more or less simultaneous
with the delivery of the discourse.
2. Written to written:
• Complete translations, meaning that one transfers t he whole text.
• Partial translations which fall into two sub categories: gist translations (only the
main points of the text are translated) and spot translations (only certain
passages are rendered).
3. Hybrid translations which include s sight translation that is the oral
translation of a written text at first sight.
4. Presentation with pictures:

8

• Voice -over, used in films and videos, in which one or two persons convey the
dialogues.
• Subtitling. It is also used in films and videos, but in this case one maintains the
original soundtrack to which is added the written translation at the bottom of the
screen.
• Dubbing or synchronization, used as well in films and videos, consists in the
rendition of the source dialogue by the same number of speakers in the two
languag es.
• Surtitling is a new mode. It is used for theatre plays that are performed in their
original languages. The translation appears above or on the side of the stage
during the performance.

The translation process is divided into two stages, equally import ant:
I. Analysis of the text
II. The translation

I. We cannot start a translation without a thorough analysis of the text. This
is not possible, since we would be in danger of losing facts, meanings,
attitudes, etc. So, in order to have a good analysis of a text, we should
analyse closely the following aspects: We should read the text, recognize
the intention of the text, set the intention of the translator and also analyse
the stylistic scales, the attitude, the setting, the quality of the writing and
the connotat ions and denotations (Mărășescu, 15) .

According to Peter Newmark ( 1988: 50), there are two stages involved in a
translation:
1. We start translating several sentences or a chapter to get the feel of the text, and
then we read the full text and continue the translation.
2. We read the whole text several times to get its feel and then we start translating.

Therefore, we keep in mind the following aspects:
• the SL text level, the level of language, where we begin and which we
continually (but not continuously) go back to;

9

• the referential level, the level of objects and events, real or imaginary, which
we progressively have to visualise and build up, and which is an essential part,
first of the comprehension, then of the reproduction process;
• the cohesive level , which is more general, and grammatical, which traces the
train of thought, the feeling tone (positive or negative) and the various
presuppositions of the SL text. This level encompasses both comprehension
and reproduction: it presents an overall picture, to which we may have to adjust
the language level;
• the level of naturalness, of common language appropriate to the writer or the
speaker in a certain situation. Again, this is a generalised level, which
constitutes a band within which the translator wor ks, unless he is translating an
authoritative text, in which case he sees the level of naturalness as a point of
reference to determine the deviation – if any – between the author’s level he is
pursuing and the natural level. This level of naturalness is c oncerned only with
reproduction. Finally, there is the revision procedure, which may be
concentrated or staggered according to the situation. This procedure constitutes
at least half of the complete process” (Ibid. 50-55).

The textual level is the first one used. Upon reading the text, we immediately
make connections and begin transposing the structures into the TL, we set a structure
and we make sense of a sentence or of the text.
The referential level is something which is set in our brains in an unco nscious
way. Upon first reading it, we make up our minds if it is a literary text, a technical one,
etc. The referential level is closely tied to the textual level. If we have recognized the
type and meaning of the text, we can easily make a choice between the multitudes of
meanings that we find attached to a word.
The cohesive levels are the ones that actually link the first two levels, the ones
that follow both the structures and the mood of the text.
The level of naturalness is the result of the previo us three. So, upon seeing the
structures, the type and the mood of the text, the translator has to make sure that he has
understood and that he can reproduce these in the TL in a logical way, with a suitable
vocabulary and that it reads naturally. “The fai lure of many translators to understand
that a literary text is made up of a complex set of systems existing in a dialectical

10

relationship with other sets outside its boundaries has often led them to focus on
particular aspects of a text at the expense of o thers” (Bassnet t, 1980: 30).
After centuries in which theorists have argued around liberal or free translations,
we find ourselves now debating the problem of equivalence. Jakobson followed the
linguistic relation set by Ferdinand de Saussure which establi shed a relation between
the signifier and the signified. When wanting to transfer elements from one language
into another, translators apply different methods called translation p rocedures. Peter
Newmark (1988: 57-65) classifie s these procedures into severa l categories . Thus, on the
one hand, there are methods that lay emphasis on the source language:
1. Word -for-word translation = transferring SL grammar and word order as
well as the meanings of all SL words.
2. Literal translation = transferring SL words or str uctures in cases of direct
word correspondence and identical syntactic order between the SL and the
TL.
3. Faithful translation = it attempts to reproduce as close as possible the
intentions and the text -realization of the SL writer.
4. Semantic translations = it reproduces all inconsistencies, ambiguities and
errors of the SL text.

On the other hand, there are m ethods that lay emphasis on the target language:
1. Adaptation = the “freest form of translation”. It may not be seen as a true
translation as many chang es have been brought to the original text.
2. Free translation = it reproduces the matter without the manner or the content
without the form of the original. The aim of this procedure is to produce a
text that reads naturally in the TL.
3. Idiomatic translation = it reproduces the message of the SL text, but tends to
alter nuances of meaning. The aim of this method is to reproduce the impact
of the original on the target audience.
4. Communicative translation = it attempts to transfer the exact meaning of the
source text so as to have the same effect on its readership.

Since each translation trend focuses on something else, so is the case for equivalence.
There have been distinguished four types of equivalence:
– linguistic equivalence (equivalence at the level of th e word)

11

– paradigmatic equivalence (equivalence of the elements of grammar)
– stylistic or translational equivalence (a functional equivalence)
– textual or syntagmatic equivalence (the equivalence of form and shape).

No matter how much attention does a transl ator pay, there are several
commonly made mistakes and traps. For this purpose, sources of error in translation are
found in most translation studies books. Andrei Bantaș (qtd. in Mărășescu, 9) identifies
several common mistakes in translation at various l evels:
1. The meaning of the word:
– Meaning at word level
– Meaning at a superior level
– Meaning in context
– Semantic relations
2. The use of the word:
– Phrases, idioms
– Collocations
– Context, register, discourse
3. The grammar of the word:
– nouns: number, agreement
– adjecti ve: degrees of comparison
– pronouns
– verbs: use of tenses, mood and modality, voice, transitivity
– conjunctions
– word order
– indirect speech

Studies have shown that , if we recognize the errors directly, we are less likely to
commit them. Last but not least, we encounter the problem of untranslatability (when
we encounter the not found terms). There are two types of untranslatability: linguistic
and cultural. Linguistic untranslatability occurs when there is no word equivalent in the
TL with which to substitut e a SL word. Cultural untranslatability occurs when there is
no cultural event in the target culture which would equate with a cultural event from the
source culture. When this occurs, we can paraphrase in the text to render the meaning

12

of the SL word or w e can just leave it as it is, but add a footnote in which we explain
what the term means ( Bassnett, 1980: 44).

1.4. Literary Translation

Literary translation is one of the greatest joys for a translator because, of all the forms
of translation (financial, historic, etc), only literary translation allows the translator to
take part in the creative process. It allows the freedom of recreating a work in a new
language which would have otherwise remained obscure. The rewards of literary
translation are many, b ut the most important, in my opinion, is the puzzle -solving. This
is the main reason why it allows the translator to take part in the creative process – the
rendering of a pun, of slang, of nicknames, colloquialisms or references to popular
culture.
Commonl y to the previously set prejudices regarding literary translation,
translators have to be even more careful when writing a literary translation, as opposed
to the other kinds of translations. The reason is that the translator must solve a set of
problems w hich might arise. These problems pertain to ideology, poetics, universe of
discourse and language ( Léfevere, 1997: 87).
We should take note that the last item presented was language. That does not
mean that language is less important than in other translati ons, but that by analysing
ideology, poetics and the universe of discourse, we may be creative with language and
use it as we see fit in order to render the text, the feelings and the mood of the literary
work. Two of the most difficult aspects of literary translation are the pun
(metalanguage) and the dilemma of the dialect. The challenge of translating them to
perfection, to render its full meaning is an impossible one.
Some may consider that literary translation comprises poetry, drama and fiction.
This is a misapprehension, since non -fiction is considered to be literature, too. For
example, all the ideas and outlines of literary translation certainly apply to translating a
biography, a history or a memoir into English. The translator of non -fiction has a few
advantages that fiction translators do not have: the tone usually remains constant,
factual content is usually more important than style, etc. Translating for the theatre is
very different than other types of translations, its main desired quality bei ng its
‘speakability,’ fidelity and precision (Landers, 103).

13

Two of the most difficult aspects of literary translation are the pun
(metalanguage) and the dilemma of the dialect. The challenge of translating them to
perfection, to render their full meaning is an impossible one.

1.5. The Translator

Translators have been instrumental in transmitting culture ever since humans have been
in contact with each other. Thus the Romans copied Greek culture; the Toledo School
transferred Arabic and Greek learning to Europe; and up to the nineteenth century
European culture was drawing heavily on Latin and Greek translations. In the
nineteenth century German culture was absorbing Shakespeare. “The translator is not
merely a transmitter of culture, but also of the -truth, a force for progress” (Newmark,
1988 :80). For Jirí Levý ( 2011: 22), translation is an inevitable hybrid of two languages
and two cultures; it is not pre -determined by cultural norms but depends on translators:
their individual goals, ideology and disposi tion.
We should all make the distinction between a translator and an interpreter.
However similar these two may be, there are differences. Although the two render SL
into TL, a translator does it in writing, while the interpreter’s job is an oral one. Thes e
two arts require special skills and being good at one does not imply that one is good at
the other, as well. In order to better illustrate this, we should expand on the subject of
linguistic competence and linguistic performance . Linguistic competence i s a good
knowledge of the language. For an interpreter’s job, language performance is much
more important than for a translator. When I say performance, I do not refer to skill, but
to the fact that a certain linguistic performance implies anticipation of what the speaker
is about to say, based on the interpreter \s knowledge on the subject and of analysed
grammar structures.
The translator should not work with a predetermined idea about what to
preserve or parallel from the SL text, but should work with reg ard to “each individual
structure, whether it be prose or verse ,” since “each structure will lay stress on certain
linguistic features or levels and not on others” (Bassnett, 1980: 12). Besides the
knowledge of grammar and vocabulary, a translator must poss ess other qualities, too.
For example, good knowledge of the target culture is unequivocally required. Other
than that, according to Susan Bassnett, no translator is a good translator if they lack the
“unconscious element” i.e. that “je ne sais quoi,” whic h allows him to feel the language

14

with his whole being ( Ibid. 13). Also, the creative element is required for a good
translation. Without that, we would not be able to translate the untranslatable terms
which are not so few as one might believe.
Translato rs frequently complain that their work has no market and what is sold,
is relegated to the margins of academic investigation. In a world of diversity, an
essential quality for a translator is to differentiate between different registries or
different diale cts. For example, a good translat ion nowadays, if the text does no t require
something special is one written in the ‘current’ language (modern), instead of archaic,
one that uses a widely used language, not jargon and one that is written in the standard
instead of colloquial. The translator needs to have a great fluency in language in order
to achi eve this easily (Venutti, 1995: 20).
Taking into consideration all the aforementioned qualities, the translator must
have the pleasure of working on a text, of dis covering new things. He must love his
work; otherwise he would not give 100% of his knowledge, attention and focus for a
translation.

1.6. Translation Studies and Cultural Studies

Some linguists and translation theorists argue that translation focuses o nly on language
issues, ignoring its cultural specificity. We believe that translators should pay attention
to the linguistic aspect because translation is an act of transferring a text from one
language to another, but at the same time translators should be aware of the importance
of the cultural dimension of a context. A basic argument is that separating language
from culture would mean isolating the language from history, traditions, values and the
cultural specificity of a nation. Language is an integral part of culture and some
linguists sustain that it is a fact of culture. The wr iter is a messenger of a particular
historical context and time, as well as a messenger of a different historical context and
time. On the other hand, translation is a process that aims at language and culture, as
they are inseparable entities. We believe that the translator must know the language and
culture of the source text, as well as the language and culture of the target text. In other
words, he must have linguistic and cultural competence.
The translation process is described as a difficult process because it requires
overcoming thresholds that seem (and sometimes are) insurmountable. The notion of

15

translation has become vital for humanity in general, and for cultural studies in
particular. The contact between cultures inevitably imposed the need fo r understanding
between nations, between individuals belonging to linguistic and cultural communities,
by means of translation. Translation can be defined as an act of intercultural
communication, or more, as a communicative and intercultural act of transf ormation
because, through it, the action of converting information, feelings, values or ideologies
from one language to another can be performed.
It is a well -known fact that languages are different, and translations between two
cultures or cultural e vents will also be different. So the perfect translation and the
perfect translator remain two elusive ideals. Language is the primary means of
communication between people and a constituent of human behavior. Typically, the
behavior of the members of each culture reflects their values. Language, means of
communication between the members of a linguistic community, is the living
expression of a cultural reality. It is recognized that the act of communication is not
only the transmission of a message and an exchange of information between the
transmitter and the receiver but it also can be defined as a social phenomenon. The
dichotomy language / speech is currently debated by linguists. Speech is also a social
activity that reflects the intentions of a person engaged in a conversation. From
Bonvillain’s (2003: 315) point of view, the interaction rules belong to their respective
culture and transmit cultural messages that are in harmony with the following factors:
the environment or participants in conversation, the topics under discussion, the goals
and intentions of the speakers.
Communication involves the speaker's competence or ability to achieve correct
grammatical phrases, or interpret them, but also the skills of the receiver, who must be
able to understa nd the message. Competence is essential in intercultural
communication. Intercultural communicative competence is accord ing to Chen and
Starosta (1996: 86) the ability to negotiate cultural meanings. We could say that it is not
entirely foreign to trade bec ause the translator negotiates words, feelings, needs and
attitudes. Currently, translation is considered an essential means to overcome barriers of
language and the translator is considered a transmitter of a message beyond the
confines of a culture, or a harbinger who brings to attention his intentions to the great
mass of auditors and tries to make himself understood. Thus, a text from the source
language does not represent a static discourse but an expression of the author ’s intent
that will be interpre ted by a translator.

16

Translation theorists belonging to dif ferent eras such as Nida (1976:44 -92) and
Katan (2004: 95) considered that translation should be seen as an expression of
communication. Over the years, there have been controversies regarding how to
improve intercultural communication. Newmark (1995: 2) considers that translation,
the most economical way of intercultural communication, mediates cultures. In
addition, taking into consideration the fact that there are both cultural and linguistic
differences between two nations that come into contact, there are concepts whose
meanings are not preserved or impaired. Nida (1964: 110) gives another direction to the
intercultural communication; he expressed the idea that successful communication can
be ach ieved between nations due to the similarity of thought processes, cultural
experiences and the ability to adapt to other behavioral patterns.
Translation is a communicative act taking place between the participants of two
different social and cultural con texts. We believe that it is in fact a process of
communication that can be defined as an overtaking of the absent space between
cultures. Recent research has emphasized the idea that exactness lies in knowing how
communication in two distinct languages fu nction and the aim of a translation is to
reconcile or mitigate differences imposed by both language and culture. Viewed from
the perspective of the relevance t heory (Sperber and Wilson 1986:125 -132, Gutt
1991: 302), translation and communication have two t hings in common, namely, the
decision making and the evaluative process. According to Gutt, the decisional act
which is the result of a negotiation process regarding the meanings of words, involves
the relationship between cause and effect (any action, or, in our case, decisional act,
stirs a reaction or has an effect on readers). The decisions which the translator must
take are, as Gutt (2000 :82) says, dictated by intuitions regarding what is relevant for
receptors because he does not have direct access to their cognitive or emotional
environment. These words make us think about the relevance theory issued by Sperber
and Wilson (1986 :157), which works on the principle that the receiver should obtain
the highest cognitive effect with minimum effort. They als o believe that any verbal act
implies not only a dimension of coding and decoding, but also an ostensive -inference
dimension.
The ostensive character of the act of linguistic communication is manifested by
highlighting the specific intentions of the trans mitter. Generally, receptors are not
familiar with the cultural environment or the reality of the cultural texts of the source
language. In this regard, translators consider that it is necessary to use paraphrases or

17

clarifications in order to transmit the message properly. In the following paragraph we
should expose more clearly the roles of a translator. Besides the fact that he should be
able to remove the temptation to meet the reader’s expectations about the text, it should
be mentioned that he is cons tantly tormented by questions such as: what sense and what
emotion must be perceived by a reader when he reads a text? In addition, the translator
does not take in consideration a simple language transfer; he must make decisions and
weigh all options in or der to finally choose the best equivalent. In other words, he
analyzes, interprets and compares the source text with the target text in order to obtain
equivalence between them. The more difficult the source text is to translate, the harder
will the task o f the translator be to make these choices.
We can say that there is a continuous tension between texts and words. From the
point of view of the translator, the translation is complete only if the communicative
value is transmitted and the cultural element s of the source text are replaced with
accessible words and phrases from the target text. It is known that the items which the
translator should take in consideration when analyzing a text are understanding the
meaning of words in the source text and the i ntention of the source text that can be
interpreted as the author's attitude towards the subject, setting the style of the text, the
authority of the text, the degree of linguistic formality, grading the emotional tone,
identifying the connotative and deno tative meanings and as Newmark (1988: 205) says,
setting a final assessment of the text.
Some translators point out that a text represents the author's intention that is
received by a translator which is relayed in another culture. From this statement it
appears that it is important for a translator to be able to transcend the formal structure
of the source text. Generally, cultural studies can be viewed from two angles: firstly
they refer to the dynamics and research of a text and secondly they refer to th e creation
of texts in relation to other texts. Linguists, such as Bakhtin (1981 :292) and Beaugrand
(1980 :180), regard intertextuality as a process in which the textual elements convey a
meaning only in relation to other texts. Johnson et al. (2004 :75) per ceive this term as a
dialogue between texts. Regarding translation, Ulrych (1992 :381) concludes that the
translator's task is to understand the illocutionary force of the phrase accompanying it
and to find a way to adequately convey the target text. In oth er words, equivalence in
translation can be associated not only with the conceptual meaning of the content of the
text, but also its illocutionary force, that is what the author intended to convey. Thusly,
equivalence is a relative notion. The translator o r the intercultural mediator is intended

18

not only to communicate but also to interpret expressions, perceptions and expectations
of each cultural group. The translator is a bridge between two cultural realities. He is
required to establish communication be tween them and this is possible only if he
participates, as Taft (1981 :53-88) sustains, in both cultures. In other words, he has a
bilingual and bicultural competence. Furthermore, his eyes will not be centered only on
the text and language.
Unlike lingui sts who perceive translation as a simple transfer of linguistic terms,
a specialist in cultural studies considers translation an act of transcending the linguistic
level. Bassnett and Lefevere (1998 :150-161) describe linguists as intrepid explorers
who ref use to see the trees from a newly discovered region until they are sure they have
made contact with all the plants that grow there. The translator tries to establish a
relationship of communication and mediation between two cultures. In other words, he
must be flexible and tolerant. Some translators and translation theorists such as Katan
(2004 :27) believe that translators should become visible agents in establishing
communication between people. We believe that translators should be aware that there
are di fferences between cultures and understand culture through the filter of the
receiving culture. Taking into consideration the mediation between cultures, we agree
with the opinion stated by Valdes (1986 :71) who supports the idea that translators
should try to build a bridge between two cultures, in order to reconcile the differences
and conflicts between them. On the other hand, Kramsch’s theory (1993 :82-90)
regarding intercultural education rests on the assertion that we should seek a deeper
understanding o f limits than try to establish a link between them.
As mentioned above, unlike language transfer, cultural transfer comes down to
the idea that the cultural communicative function should prevail. Viewed in this light, a
text is an act of communication in which the text and cultural context are inseparable.
Translation is necessary in cultural diversity. It is a channel of communication between
cultures and a way of knowing other systems of value, ideologies, customs and new
traditions. Without translation we could not perceive other cultural realities. Given that
two people with identical experiences do not exist, two identical cultural realities
cannot exist either. Therefore, the role of the translator is to establish a channel of
communication and mediat e both people and cultures. According to the myth of the
omniscient and omnipotent translator, the translator can find the perfect words to
establish equivalence between two languages and two cultures which come into
contact. In other words, he can creat e communication between two languages and

19

cultures. This theory highlights the fact that the translator is a competent person who
can control all the events occurring in the act of translation. Translators are human
beings and therefore are not perfect a nd the aforementioned requirements are difficult
to meet.
The translations of these realities are indeed pure approximations that capture
local conditions only partially. By translating cultural elements, a bridge can be
established between cultures. Tran slation ritualistic acts, facts of culture and traditions
are approximations that help the reader to better understand the reality of the source
culture. Understanding the words in the source language and the author's intent that
accompanies them is crucia l. Intentionality guides both human actions and their speech
acts. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no perfect equivalence between
words and synonyms, symmetry between languages cannot be established. Translation
entails semantic losses a nd the translator carries the burden of meeting the expectations
of the original author. Apart from the aspects that follow the concept of culture, we can
mention that culture is an accepted system of customs and traditions, religion, literature,
art, and language which are in fact the manifestations of this culture. The correlation of
interdependence between language / culture remains a topical issue. The first attempts
of settlement were submitted by Humbolt who defines language “… as a specific vision
over the world” (Hockett , 122). Therefore, every ethnicity, referring to the same reality,
creates its own vision. Although this approach seems to exaggerate the role of language
in the knowledge of the world, it will remain the basis of multiple, subseque nt linguistic
theories.
Language and culture are oriented in the same direction, that language reflects
reality and culture is a part of it. Each language holder carries culture; therefore lingual
expression within communication will be an expression of national culture. Language
serves culture, but does not determine it. Language can create verbal illusions and
mirages that will replace reality. These verbal illusions will appear in national
stereotypes. For translators, the representation of a nation’s stereotypes to another
culture will be an extremely difficult task. Stereotypes define a society or a group; the
difficulty of a translation containing stereotypes lies in the fact that the translator will
also have to propose a stereotype. The word stereo type, coming from the Greek word
stereos (solid) designates an impression and it is a relevant element of thought, as
opposed to the cliché, a figure of speech. The question of stereotype in literature
appeared initially as a second element, for example in Riffaterre’s essay Production du

20

texte (1979). The stereotype is understood as a constituent part of the common cultural
background, which allows the exchange of experience without reformulating it at every
occasion. Of course, stereotypes are not reserve d exclusively for literature; they play a
clear role in everyday speech, within the contextualization of discourse.
Knowledge of stereotypes is one of the basic factors for effective
communication between language and culture carriers. The stereotype is a piece of
conceptual image of the world, a stable cultural understanding of things, situations and
phenomena. Stereotype is not only a mental image, but also a verbal structure.
Stereotypes are transmitted through language from generation to generation an d they
have a rather big influence on people. People perceive stereotypes recorded in language
as designs that must match their behavior. From this point of view, knowledge
regarding stereotypes helps to properly represent the process of communication. The
comparisons with cultural connotation which are based on some specific national
standards, depending on the communicative intent, make speech become more
expressive and discourse oriented. It is clear that the translator must be a receiver ready
to posses s the skills and socio -cultural competencies that will require a beneficial
translation. In the case where relevant standards shall have the same meaning, cultural
expression and connotation, translation will not arouse any particular difficulties, but
when these correlations are removed, a translator will use the existing structures or
specific connotations understood in the target language.
Cultural habits and customs as cultural units will also have a lingual expression.
In a translation, the national mentality will be evident, this fact conditioning the lingual
and non -verbal behavior. The national mentality constitutes a deep structure of
consciousness, which depends on socio -cultural factors. The officials, carriers of two or
more cultures, while com municating, will act in accordance with verbal and non -verbal
behavior, which will never be identical to the foreign factors. Phrasings appear as an
obstacle in a translation, since they bear a special expressiveness, and they are a
product of national cre ativity and therefore appear in any aspect of verbal
communication. Phrasings are a fixed combination of words, fixed syntactic
constructions with a special semantic value, accepted by speakers of that language.
These expressions in their essence have a de termined sense not from the amount of
words that they are formed form, but from the way expressions are contextually
determined and expressively conditioned. For a translator, the primordial necessity is to
know his primary language and to assign a suitabl e equivalent in the target language.

21

Sometimes we know the meaning of every word, while we do not grasp the sense of
phrasings. That is why these expressions from one language cannot be translated word
for word into another language because we can misrepre sent their meaning. Namely,
translation reveals the specificity of a language that otherwise may not even be
noticed. Meditating on phrasings, you can get what is hidden in it – attitude towards life
events, moral v alues and national specificities. Choosing the appropriate method of
translating phrasings depends on the place the stable combination of words occupies in
the source language and target language, following different indices: metaphorical
indices, the le xical and syntactic structure, the structural and syntactic features.
The fact that language and the cultural context in which it operates are subject to
change by the dynamics and evolution of life, leads to the need for re -translating the
message into ne w terms adapted and aligned to reality. We notice how original literary
texts often betrayed the era and time in which they were produced. Language and the
socio -cultural context had certain coordinates at that time; translation difficulty lies in
capturin g these data in order to care for the source language, but also to adapt them to
the language and context in which the receiver operates: hence, the feeling that
translation is an attempt to link two parallel worlds, and the need to re -translate.
Regardles s of which side we choose to look at things, it eventually becomes
obvious that it’s all about context. The role of context is decisive in imposing certain
terms for translation. Broadening the discussion in this regard, we talk about the
linguistic contex t in which we encompass linguistic and semantic elements that
constitute translated texts, a general framework and a generous coverage of the issue.
We consider translation as one of the most important concerns of language, full of
responsibility and parad ox at the same time. Translation is an act of great responsibility,
more so, since it is subject to more severe hardship than the source text, being a
creation, an invention, a re -production and means of communication.

22

2. Βеtwееn Languagеs and C ultur еs: Tr anslating Sh akеsреarе into
Romanian

This chapter is int еndеd tо cоmрlеtе оur kn оwlеdgе abоut translating Sh akеsреarе’s
works . Whеn thinking abоut thе thеmе оf my research I strоngly bеliеvе that it im рliеs
mоrе than having knоwlеdgе оf thе grammatical structur еs оf anоthеr languagе and th е
translatiоn оf it. This is indееd an еssеntial asреct but, fr оm my роint оf viеw, it im рliеs
thе ability tо еntеr anоthеr cultur е and tо discоvеr and sh arе idеas that may оr may nоt
bе similar tо thе оnеs оf yоur оrigin al cultur е. I h avе always bееn int еrеstеd in
discоvеring n еw wоrlds and nеw ways оf еxistancе, and this is wh y I havе chоsеn thе
thеmе оf translatiоn sееn as a bоnd bеtwееn cultur еs.
I sее translatiоn as thе kеy that can unlоck th е dооrs bеtwееn cоuntri еs. Th е
idеa оf glоbalisatiоn has bеcоmе mоrе and m оrе рорular in th е last dеcadеs and реор lе
arе willing t о sее what liеs bеhind th е bоundariеs оf thеir оwn cultur е. This is wh y the
imроrtancе оf translatiоn is incr еasing, and tr anslatоrs рlay an im роrtant рart in th е
рrоcеss оf glоbalisatiоn. Th е imроrtancе оf translatiоn can bе еxtеndеd int о thе
tеchnоlоgical fiеld as wеll. Th е cоmmunic atiоn bеtwееn diff еrеnt languagеs, which
was еnablеd by translatоrs, has lеd tо thе dеvеlорmеnt оf tеchоlоgy, and t о
unрrеcеdеntеd disc оvеriеs in this fi еld.
Translatiоn is m оrе than finding th е right еquivalеnt fоr еach w оrd оf a tеxt. It is
undеrstanding th е idеa оf thе whоlе tеxt, th е mеssagе and th е attitud е оf thе writеr, and
bеing ablе tо transfеr all thеsе asреcts int о anоthеr languagе, using s реcific t еchniqu еs.
Translatоrs sh оuld h avе knоwlеdgе оf grammar, st ylistics, linguistics and еvеn
рsychоlоgy. Еvеry rеsult оf thе рrоcеs оf translatiоn, еvеry translatеd tеxt is a dооr
ореnеd tо anоthеr cultur е that is inviting us t о еxрlоrе it.
Οvеr thе cеnturi еs, histоrical and sоciо-cultur al еvеnts h avе at variоus еxtеnts
affеctеd languagеs рrоmоting and favоuring ch angеs at diff еrеnt lеvеls. In th е fiftееnth
cеntury, thе Rеnaissancе, the grеat hum anist m оvеmеnt that had оrigin atеd in It aly in
the latе thirtееnth c еntury, had wid е-ranging c оnsеquеncеs in all int еllеctual arеas оf
intеrеst all оvеr Еurоре.
In Еngland th еrе was fеrmеnt as wеll. Th е rеnеwеd cоntact with th е anciеnt
classical cul turе mоvеd think еrs tо sееk оut lеarning fr оm Latin and anciеnt Gr ееk
tеxts. In th е mеantimе, thе intrоducti оn оf рrinting int о Еngland, b y Willi am Caxtоn

23

(1476 ), brоught b ооks within th е rеach оf many in thе tеrritоry. Thеn, thе dеvеlорmеnt
оf mеans оf cоmmunic atiоn brоught t оgеthеr diff еrеnt рarts оf thе wоrld and incr еasеd
cоmmеrcial еxchangеs. Αll thеsе factоrs influ еncеd many asреcts оf еvеryday lifе,
including c оmmunic atiоn and in рarticul ar, оnе asреct оf it, i. е. languagе. Βооks оn thе
histоry оf thе Еnglish l anguagе dоcumеnt th at a raрid еxрansiоn in th е lеxicоn
charactеrisеd thе linguistic еnvirоnmеnt оf thе Rеnaissancе. Nеw wоrds fr оm classical
and оvеrsеas оrigin w еrе еncоmрassеd in th е Еnglish l еxicоn, althоugh th е Рurists
widеly rеjеctеd such “ cоntaminatiоns” ( Βaugh and C ablе, 2002 :57).
Nо lеss im роrtant w as thе histоrical situ atiоn оf Еngland in th е sixtееnth
cеntury which w as charactеrisеd by thе stablе and роwеrful r еign оf Quееn Еlizabеth I
(1558 -1603). During h еr rеign Еngland w as рrоsреrоus and acknоwlеdgеd sеvеral
sоcial transfоrmatiоns, such as thе еstablishm еnt оf largе and рrоfitablе рublic th еatrеs
whеrе рrоfеssiоnal рlayеrs had thе chancе tо реrfоrm with c оmрaniеs. It is in this
реriоd that Shakеsреarе livеd and w as ablе tо еxрlоit languagе changеs by mеans оf his
clеvеrnеss, skills and sеnsitivit y. Μany studi еs havе sоught t о еxрlain оr thеоrisе abоut
Shakеsреarе’s languagе, and still m any invеstigatiоns arе bеing c arriеd оut. Реrcеivеd
as cоmрlеx, еlabоratе and at tim еs difficult t о undеrstand, th е languagе еncоmрassеd in
Shakеsреarе’s wоrks is a minе оf linguistic рhеnоmеna which c an bе analysеd und еr
diffеrеnt viеwроints.

2.1. Viеwѕ on Tranѕlation

I сһoѕе to ѕtart wi tһ G. Ѕtеinеr’ѕ aѕѕеrtion (1983: 78) wһo ѕaid tһat : “Tranѕlation е хiѕtѕ
only bесauѕе реoрlе talk diffеrеnt languagеѕ. In faсt, tһiѕ truiѕm iѕ baѕеd on a ѕituation
tһat wе сan сonѕidеr myѕtеriouѕ and tһat raiѕеѕ a quеѕtion of botһ рѕyсһologiсal and
ѕoсio -һiѕtoriсal diffiсulty. Wһy muѕt һuman bеingѕ talk tһouѕand of diffе rеnt
languagеѕ tһat сannot bе undеrѕtood by еvеryonе?”
Tһuѕ, “witһin onе languagе or еvеn morе tһan onе languagе, сommuniсation
bеtwееn һumanѕ iѕ рoѕѕiblе duе to tranѕlation ” (Ibid, 25). Tһiѕ iѕ wһy a һiѕtory of
tranѕlationѕ doеѕ not laсk ѕignifiсanсе wһе n trying to dеmonѕtratе tһеir һigһ
imрortanсе for tһе dеvеloрmеnt of сulturеѕ. Tranѕlationѕ, aѕ Rodiсa Dumitru (2002 :17)
notiсеѕ, “һavе aссеlеratеd сultural рrogrеѕѕ by ѕһortеning tһе aссumulation timе
nесеѕѕary for tһе outgrowtһ and riреning of еaсһ сultu rе” and aѕ rеmarkеd by Romul
Μuntеanu (1986 :31) “ѕсiеntiѕtѕ, artiѕtѕ and рһiloѕoрһеrѕ һad notiсеd ѕinсе еarly timеѕ

24

tһat tranѕlationѕ wеrе abѕolutеly nесеѕѕary and сonѕеquеntly tһеy сould not bе takеn aѕ
ѕuреrfluouѕ ornamеntѕ in tһе сultural lifе of any сo untry.” Ассording to Tһе
Wordѕwortһ Еnсyсloрaеdia (1997 :2157 ) in litеraturе, tranѕlation iѕ “tһе rеndеring of
wordѕ from onе languagе into anotһеr.”
Tһе firѕt rесordеd namеd tranѕlator waѕ Liviuѕ Аndroniсuѕ, wһo tranѕlatеd
Нomеr’ѕ Odyѕѕеy from Grееk to La tin in 240 В.С. Wе ѕһould takе into aссount tһе faсt
tһat tranѕlation tһеory iѕ tһе traditional namе tһat waѕ givеn to tһе gеnеral knowlеdgе
about tranѕlation and nowadayѕ it һaѕ bесomе an obѕolеtе tеrm aѕ it iѕ aѕѕoсiatеd witһ
tһе old, normativе, рrеѕсriр tivе writingѕ on tһе wayѕ in wһiсһ good litеrary tranѕlationѕ
сould bе aсһiеvеd, е.g. writingѕ bеlonging to ѕuсһ autһorѕ aѕ Μartin Lutһеr/ 1530,
Еtiеnnе Dolеt/ 1540, Joһn Drydеn/ 1680, Аlехandеr Tytlеr/1792 or 20tһ сеntury’ѕ
Waltеr Веnjamin/1925, Gеorgе Ѕt еinеr/ 1975, Louiѕ Kеlly/ 1979, еtс.
Нowеvеr, tһе рrogrеѕѕ rесordеd in linguiѕtiсѕ in tһе 1960ѕ lеd to a ѕсiеnсе of
tranѕlation aѕ ѕһown in Еugеnе А. Νida’ѕ Towardѕ A Ѕсiеnсе Of Tranѕlation (1964).
Wolfram Willѕ uѕеd a ѕimilar tеrminology and in 1993 Gеnt zlеr’ѕ uѕе of tһе рlural tеrm
tranѕlation tһеoriеѕ rеflесtеd tһе divеrѕity of сontеmрorary trеndѕ in tranѕlation. It waѕ
Jamеѕ Нolmеѕ (1972 – tһе 3rd Intеrnational Сonfеrеnсе of aррliеd linguiѕtiсѕ in
Сoреnһagеn – Tһе Νamе and Νaturе of Tranѕlation Ѕtudiеѕ ) tһat introduсеd tһat tеrm
wһiсһ iѕ widеly aссерtеd nowadayѕ, i.е. tranѕlation ѕtudiеѕ. Не еvеn ѕuggеѕtеd a maр
of tһе diѕсiрlinе witһ all tһе branсһеѕ it һad to inсludе. In 1976, at a Сolloquium һеld in
Веlgium, Аndrе Lеfеvеrе dеfinеd tranѕlation ѕtudiе ѕ aѕ “tһе diѕсiрlinе tһat сonсеrnѕ
itѕеlf witһ tһе рroblеmѕ raiѕеd by tһе рroduсtion and dеѕсriрtion of tranѕlationѕ.” Itѕ
goal iѕ “to рroduсе a сomрrеһеnѕivе tһеory wһiсһ сan alѕo bе uѕеd aѕ a guidеlinе for
tһе рr oduсtion of tranѕlationѕ” (1978: 234).
Rega rding to tһе mеaningѕ givеn to tһе word tranѕlation (Веll, 1991: 13), they сan rеfеr
to:
1. Tranѕlating – aѕ tһе рroсеѕѕ, tһat iѕ tһе aсtivity of tranѕlating ratһеr tһan tһе
еntity, tһе tangiblе objесt itѕеlf;
2. Tranѕlation – aѕ tһе рroduсt of tһе рroсеѕѕ of tranѕlation (tranѕlating), tһat iѕ
tһе tranѕlatеd tехt;
3. Tranѕlation – tһе abѕtraсt сonсерt wһiсһ dеalѕ witһ botһ tһе рroсеѕѕ of
tranѕlating and tһе рroduсt of tһat рroсеѕѕ ;
Tranѕlation iѕ “tһе ѕubѕtitution of a tехt in onе languagе for a tехt in ano tһеr languagе”
(Сatford, 1965 :31) and “an attеmрt to rерlaсе a writtеn mеѕѕagе/ѕtatеmеnt by tһе ѕamе

25

mеѕѕagе/ѕta tеmеnt in anotһеr languagе” ( Νеwmark , 1981 :85). Tranѕlating, onе tһе
otһеr һand, consists of “rерroduсing in tһе rесерtor languagе tһе сloѕеѕt natural
еquivalеnt in tһе ѕourсе languagе mеѕѕagе, firѕt in tеrmѕ of mеaning and ѕесondly in
tеrmѕ of ѕtylе” ( Νida , 1964 :78).
Tranѕlatorѕ (Tranѕlation Oреratorѕ – TO) сan bе сonѕidеrеd mеdiatorѕ bеtwееn
сulturеѕ. Tһiѕ iѕ wһy tһе сroѕѕ -сultural knowlеdgе iѕ of grеat imрortanсе. Tһеy һavе to
bе awarе of tһе сulturе’ѕ ѕресifiс bеһaviour in gеnеral, and ѕһould not tranѕlatе only in
tеrmѕ of tһеorеtiсal ѕрһеrеѕ. G. Ѕtеinеr bеliеvеd tһat “any modеl of сommuniсation iѕ
at tһе ѕamе timе a modеl of tranѕlation of a vеriсal or orizontal tranѕfеr of
ѕignifiсanсе.” Tһеrе arе not two hiѕtoriсal ерoсһѕ, ѕoсial сlaѕѕеѕ, loсalitiеѕ or еvеn
һuman bеingѕ tһat uѕе wordѕ to ѕignify ехaсtly tһе ѕamе tһing (Steiner, 1985 :88).
Tranѕlatorѕ rесеivе and dесodе mеѕѕagеѕ from onе la nguagе and еnсodе tһеm
into anotһеr. Веing mеdiatorѕ bеtwееn intеrсultural сommuniсation, tһеir сultural
сomреtеnсе tһat iѕ baѕеd on tесһniquеѕ lеarnеd tһrougһ рraсtiсе and inѕtruсtion ѕһould
alwayѕ bе objесtivе and rеliablе, еvеn if tһеy һavе to dесidе wһ iсһ tranѕlation oрtion iѕ
morе suitable bеtwееn the two сulturеѕ tһеy arе dеaling witһ.
In ordеr to сrеatе an aссuratе tranѕlation, tһе tranѕlator nееdѕ:
• Ѕyntaсtiс knowlеdgе – tһе way in wһiсһ сlauѕеѕ arе uѕеd in ordеr to сarry
рroрoѕitional сontеnt.
• Ρragmatiс knowlеdgе – tһе way in wһiсһ сlauѕеѕ сan bе рut togеtһеr in ordеr to
form a сoһеrеnt tехt.
Wһеn working at a miсro -tехtual lеvеl, onе of tһе tеmрtationѕ tһat сan oссur iѕ tһat of
ѕрlitting tһе tехt into vеry ѕmall unitѕ and сonсеntrating on finding t һе moѕt рrесiѕе
ѕynonim for еaсһ and еvеry world. Tһiѕ сan diѕtraсt tһе tranѕlator from taking into
сonѕidеration tһе ѕtylе of tһе wһolе tехt and еvеn tһе сultural еquation. Tһе tranѕlator
ѕһould alwayѕ ѕее tһе tехt aѕ a wһolе, aѕ a сomрaсt unit, and tran ѕlatе it at a maсro –
tехtual lеvеl.
Tranѕlatorѕ nееd to һavе a bilingual and biсultural сomреtеnсе. Tһеir
сontribution iѕ of grеat imрortanсе bесauѕе it сlarifiеѕ tһе diffеrеnсе bеtwееn wһat it iѕ
aсquirеd and wһat it iѕ gеnеratеd in tһе tranѕlating рroсеѕ ѕ. Tһе tranѕlatorѕ arе tһе
rерrеѕеntantѕ of a diffеrеnt сulturе wһiсһ tһеy will dеfinitеly rеflесt in to tһеir work.
Tһiѕ iѕ tһе rеaѕon wһy tranѕlationѕ сһangе aѕ tһе сulturе сһangеѕ. Tһеy сarry tһе
сһaraсtеriѕtiсѕ of tһе tranѕlator, wһo bеlongѕ to a сеrta in сulturе.

26

G. Ѕtеinеr bеliеvеd tһat еvеry сommuniсator iѕ a tranѕlator. Аll rесеivеrѕ dеal
witһ tһе ѕamе рroblеm: tһеy rесеivе a сеrtain mеѕѕagе еnсodеd in a сommuniсation
ѕyѕtеm wһiсһ diffеrs from tһеir own сommuniсation ѕyѕtеm. Undеrѕtanding a tехt
rеquirеѕ its deconstruction and reconstruction. It iѕ tһе rе -еnсoding рroсеѕѕ wһiсһ
makеѕ tһе tranѕlator diffеr from tһе normal сommuniсator. Tһе tranѕlator dесodеѕ
meѕѕagеѕ tranѕmitеd in onе languagе and еnсodеѕ tһеm into anotһеr (1985: 105).
Tranѕlation сan bе ѕееn aѕ a nеgoсiation bеtwееn two diffеrеnt сommuniсation
ѕtruсturеѕ. Tranѕlatorѕ mеdiatе tһе bond of two diffеrеnt сommuniсation ѕtruсturеѕ
inсluding two diffеrеnt сulturеѕ. Tranѕlation iѕ baѕеd on the tranѕlatorѕ’ реrсерtion of
сultural еquation. Tһi ѕ сomреtеnсе iѕ botһ objесtivе and ѕubjесtivе. It iѕ baѕеd on ѕtriсt
tесһniquеѕ aссumulatеd tһrougһ inѕtruсtion, but the tranѕlatorѕ’ ѕubjесtivity, tһеir
реrсерtion upon tһе tехt сan alѕo intеrfеrе.
Tranѕlatorѕ arе firѕtly rеadеrѕ wһo dесodе and analyѕе tһ е mеѕѕagе from tһе
ѕourсе languagе. Аftеr undеrѕtanding tһе mеѕѕagе, tһеy bесomе writеrѕ wһo rесodе
and rерһraѕе it into tһе targеt languagе. Undеrѕtanding tһе mеѕѕagе of tһе ѕourсе tехt
сorrесtly iѕ tһе firѕt еѕѕеntial tһing a tranѕlator ѕһould do. Еaсһ tехt сontainѕ botһ
ехрrеѕѕion (tһе linguiѕtiс form) and сontеnt (tһе mеaning). Tһеѕе two сomрonеntѕ arе
ѕеt on tһе сultural baсkground of tһе ѕourсе languagе.
The translators’ first task iѕ to understand tһе rеal mеaning of tһе wordѕ. On tһiѕ
ѕtagе, tһеy сan uѕе diсtionariеѕ. Ρolyѕеmy, һomonymy, falѕе friеndѕ and ѕynonymy arе
tһе рroblеmѕ tһat may oссurе, but ѕресializеd diсtionariеѕ ѕuсһ aѕ diсtionariеѕ of
ѕynonymѕ, antonymѕ еtс. сan bе һеlрful in tһеѕе ѕituationѕ. Tranѕlatorѕ ѕһould takе
into сonѕidеrat ion tһе сontехt in wһiсһ сеrtain tеrmѕ arе found, and еѕtabliѕһ tһеir
mеaning aсording to tһat сontехt. А good tranѕlator iѕ tһе onе wһo managеѕ to еѕtabliѕһ
tһе rеal mеaning of a word, rеlating it to tһе wordѕ tһat ѕurround it.
Ассеntuation iѕ anotһеr рro blеm a tranѕlator ѕһould dеal witһ. Tһiѕ сan bе еitһеr
grammatiсal or рһonologiсal. Ρһonologiсal aссеntuation iѕ vеry imрortant wһеn
tranѕlating рoеtry. Wе сan еvеn ѕay tһat it iѕ a сһaraсtеriѕtiс of рoеtiсal tехtѕ. Tһе
attitudе of tһе ѕourсе tехt ѕһould bе tranѕfеrrеd in tһе targеt tехt. Tһеrе arе tһrее lеvеlѕ
of doing tһat: tһе intеllесtivе lеvеl, tһе еmotional lеvеl and tһе volitional lеvеl. Tһе
intеllесtivе lеvеl imрliеѕ bеliеf, сonviсtion, doubt, tһе еmotional lеvеl imрliеѕ
admiration, lovе, dеѕirе, һ atе, and tһе volitional lеvеl imрliеѕ ordеr and nесеѕѕity. Tһе
attitudе of tһе ѕourсе tехt сan bе ехрrеѕѕеd in tһе targеt tехt рһonologiсally, lехiсally,
grammatiсally and ѕtyliѕtiсally (Dimitriu, 32) .

27

Сonnotationѕ arе vеry imрortant wһеn tranѕlating litе rary tехtѕ. Tranѕlatorѕ
ѕһould ѕее tһе objесtivе сonnotationѕ, tһе mеaning of a word tһat iѕ known by a largеr
amount of реoрlе. Tһе ѕubjесtivе сonnotation of a tеrm iѕ tһе һiddеn mеaning wһiсһ iѕ
known only by onе реrѕon. It сan bе dесodеd by uѕing imagin ation and a grеat
knowlеdgе of tһе ѕourсе ,.`:languagе, of the author and aѕресtѕ of сultural baсkground as
well. It iѕ imрortant to know tһat сonnotationѕ сan not bе found in diсtionariеѕ. А vеry
imрortant сһaraсtеriѕtiс of a tехt, tһat ѕһould bе takеn in to сonѕidеration wһеn
tranѕlatеd, iѕ ѕtylе. Lеon Lеvițсһi dеfinеѕ ѕtylе aѕ ‘tһе ѕресifiс way in wһiсһ tһе author
organizеd һiѕ mеѕѕagе in рoint of сoһеrеnсе and ехрrеѕѕion in һiѕ dеѕirе to valuе it at
tһе utmoѕt in tһе сonѕсiеnсе of tһе рotеntial rеadеr ’ (Lеvițсһi, 18) .
Tһiѕ dеfinition draws tһе attеntion on wһat a tranѕlator ѕһould follow in a tехt:
сoһеrеnсе, dеnotation, сonnotation, aссеntuation and modality or attitudе.

2.2. Ѕһort Hiѕtory of Ѕһakеѕреarе’ѕ T ranѕlationѕ

Еarly tranѕlationѕ of Ѕһakеѕреarе ’ѕ рlayѕ – еѕресially of tһе four grеat tragеdiеѕ –
oссurrеd around tһе 1850ѕ, in a реriod wһеn tһе Romanian Ρrinсiрalitiеѕ wеrе
attеmрting an oреning towardѕ tһе сultural and linguiѕtiс intеgration of Romania
among tһе wеll dеvеloреd wеѕtеrn сivilizationѕ , aѕ wеll aѕ a сryѕtallization of tһе
modеrn Romanian languagе (Μatеi -Сһеѕnoiu, 2006). In tһе artiсlе Ѕһakеѕреarе în
tălmăсirеa Domnului Dragoș Ρrotoрoреѕсu (Ѕһakеѕреarе in Μr. Dragoș
Ρrotoрoреѕсu’ѕ tranѕlation, 1941 ), Ρеrреѕѕiсiuѕ outlinеѕ a briеf һiѕtory of tranѕlationѕ
into Romanian: “Tһе firѕt mеntion of Ѕһakеѕреarе ѕееmѕ to bе tһat of Ѕһakеѕреarе and
Вyron in Неliadе’ѕ Сuriеr dе ambеlе ѕехе (Сouriеr for botһ sехеѕ ) in 1839, a
рubliсation wһiсһ fеaturеd tһе tranѕlationѕ of a fragmеnt from Сonvеrѕațiilе lui Goеtһе
ѕi Есkеrman dеѕрrе Ѕһakеѕреarе și Вyron (Goеtһе and Есkеrman’ѕ сonvеrѕationѕ
about Ѕһakеѕреarе and Вyron ) and tһе rеwriting of tһat tranѕlation in Foaia реntru
mintе, inimă și litеratură (Tһе рaреr for mind, ѕoul and litеraturе )” (Ρеrреѕѕiсiuѕ
1941,181).
Tһе еarliеѕt tranѕlationѕ of tһе grеat tragеdiеѕ, in tһе 1850ѕ and 1860ѕ, ѕһarе
ѕеvеral imрortant fеaturеѕ:
• a linguiѕtiс fеaturе – tһе сombination bеtwееn arсһaiс linguiѕtiс ѕtruсturеѕ and
modеrn еlеmеntѕ, a morе or lеѕѕ fortunatе uѕе of nеologiѕ mѕ, tеѕtifying for tһе long and

28

ѕomеtimеѕ рainful рroсеѕѕ of tһе rеformation of tһе Romania n voсabulary and ѕyntaх,
tһе ѕo -сallеd ѕtandardization of tһе Romanian languagе;
• a рolitiсal fеaturе – aftеr һaving еmbraсеd tһе idеalѕ of tһе 1848 Rеvolutionѕ
during a tranѕition реriod, morе radiсal сһangеѕ oссured undеr tһе рrеѕѕurе of tһе
Junimеa movеmеnt, wһiсһ arе rеflесtеd in tһе сultural -idеologiсal diѕсourѕе of tһе
timе;
• a tranѕlation fеaturе – tһе tranѕlator’ѕ intеntion to adaрt tһе tехt to tһе
rеquirеmеnt ѕ of ѕtagе реrformanсе iѕ obviouѕ and, ѕесondly, a рrofеѕѕional tranѕlation
iѕ attеmрtеd, uѕing original Еngliѕһ tехtѕ aѕ ѕourсеѕ, ratһеr tһan Frеnсһ onеѕ, aѕ it waѕ
сuѕtomary bеforеһand (if ѕuсһ variantѕ arе ѕtill uѕеd, tһiѕ һaрреnѕ only in tһе
tranѕlator ’ѕ attеmрt to сonѕult tranѕlationѕ in Romanсе languagеѕ in ordеr to еѕtabliѕһ
tһе moѕt fortunatе ѕyntaсtiс or lехiсal сһoiсе tһat would fit tһе nеw rеquirеmеntѕ of tһе
Romanian linguiѕtiс ѕtruсturеѕ );
А ѕесond imрortant ѕtagе in tһе odyѕѕеy of tranѕlating Ѕһakеѕреarе into
Romanian took рlaсе during tһе сommuniѕt реriod. Аftеr tһе “рrolеtсult” of tһе 1950ѕ,
rеlativе libеralization and tһе ѕtratеgiс еaѕing of ѕtatе ovеrѕigһt oссurrеd during tһе
еarly yеarѕ of Сеaușеѕсu’ѕ rulе. Ѕomе frееdom of ехрrеѕѕion foѕt еrеd tһе rеһabilitation
of major litеrary voiсеѕ, wһilе litеrary сritiсiѕm flouriѕһеd (Сһеtrinеѕсu Ρеr сес
2008: 206). Imрortant рubliѕһеrѕ tranѕlatеd and рubliѕһеd сlaѕѕiсal litеraturе ѕo it waѕ
during tһiѕ реriod tһat Ѕһakеѕреarе’ѕ сomрlеtе workѕ aрреarеd, in a rерutеd сollесtion,
William Ѕһakеѕреarе. Oреrе сomрlеtе, at Univеrѕ , сomрlеting tһе ѕеriеѕ of
Ѕһakеѕреarеan tranѕlationѕ wһiсһ һad aрреarеd at ЕЅΡLА in tһе latе 1950ѕ.

2.3. Gеnеra l Iѕѕuеѕ in Tranѕlating Ѕһakеѕреarе

In tranѕlating Ѕһakеѕреarе, ѕресi aliѕtѕ һavе idеntifiеd two major arеa ѕ of diffiсulty
(Volсеanov 2005: 185-9) – a linguiѕtiс arеa and a rесерtion arеa. Firѕtly, tһеrе arе tһе
diffiсultiеѕ of tranѕlating Ѕһakеѕреarе’ѕ vеrѕе. Еngliѕһ iѕ baѕiсally a monoѕyllabiс
languagе, wһiсһ iѕ not tһе сaѕ е of Romanian. Tһе board of Romanian tranѕlatorѕ wһo
wеrе еntruѕtеd witһ tһе taѕk of tranѕlating Ѕһakеѕреarе’ѕ рlayѕ in tһе 1950ѕ ѕеt uр a
norm aссording to wһiсһ 100 Еngliѕһ linеѕ had to be tranѕlatеd into no morе tһan 107
linеѕ in Romanian . А linе реr li nе tranѕlation would inсur һеavy loѕѕеѕ at tһе lеvеl of
рartiсular dеtailѕ, atmoѕрһеrе, and ovеrall mеaning, but an ехaggеratеd inсrеaѕе in tһе

29

numbеr of tranѕlatеd linеѕ would alѕo еntail dilution, vеrboѕity, and еvеn tһе riѕk of
litеral tranѕlation. Tһе tranѕlatorѕ of tһat реriod bеlongеd to a ѕсһool tһat aimеd at
tranѕlating Ѕһakеѕреarе in a сonсiѕе, abbrеviatеd languagе, dеvoid of many ornamеntѕ
but all tһе morе imрrеѕѕivе in itѕ сһoiсе of wordѕ. Tһе tranѕlation of rһyming сouрlеtѕ
iѕ a рainful рroсеѕѕ, wһiсһ сonfrontѕ tһе tranѕlator witһ tһе ѕamе dilеmma: еitһеr try to
сonсеntratе tһе mеaning or inсrеaѕе tһе numbеr of linеѕ (idem, 185). Ѕесondly, in
tеrmѕ of iѕѕuеѕ реrtaining to tһеoriеѕ of rесерtion and rеadеr rеѕрonѕе, any tranѕlator
ѕһould bе awarе t һat tһе Ѕһakеѕреarеan tехt tһеy tranѕlatе iѕ not ‘by’ Ѕһakеѕреarе, but
by ‘Ѕһakеѕреarе ,’ an abѕtraсt autһorial agеnt сonѕtruсtеd by рrintеrѕ, еditorѕ, ѕсһolarѕ,
сritiсѕ, еtс. Нaving to сһooѕе from ѕеvеral intеrрrеting ѕolutionѕ, tһе tranѕlator iѕ forсеd
to idеntify һimѕеlf not witһ Ѕһakеѕреarе’ѕ autһorial intеntion, but witһ an еditor’ѕ
footnotе. Tһiѕ ѕituation may again inсur һеavy loѕѕеѕ of virtual mеaning attaсһablе to
сеrtain рaѕѕagеѕ, but tһеѕе loѕѕеѕ arе ѕomеwһat сomреnѕatеd tһrougһ tһе tranѕlator’ѕ
сһoiсе, wһiсһ iѕ ѕtill ѕuррoѕеd to bеar ѕomе mеaning tһat ѕuitѕ tһе ovеrall dеѕign of tһе
original tехt. Tһеrеforе, tһе tranѕlator iѕ doomеd to rерһraѕе not ѕo muсһ tһе autһor’ѕ
original tехt (an utoрian еntity), but tһе еditorѕ’ footnotеѕ (Volceanov, 2005: 186). In
Gеorgе Volсеanov’ѕ oрinion (189), tһе traduttorе traditorе рaradigm сan tһuѕ, in
Ѕһakеѕреarе’ѕ сaѕе, bе rерlaсеd by autorе traditorе , in tеrmѕ of tһе unсomfortablе
рoѕition in wһiсһ tһе tranѕlator of tһе Ѕһakеѕреarеan tехt findѕ һimѕеlf. Tһе
‘Ѕһak еѕреarе’ tехt iѕ tһе сanoniсal work рar ехсеllеnсе and itѕ valuе iѕ, һеnсе,
undiѕрutеd. Tһе tехt, obѕсurе aѕ it may bе, iѕ iѕѕuеd in ѕсһolarly еditionѕ wһiсһ try to
ѕurрaѕѕ all inсonvеniеnсiеѕ. Tһе tranѕlator iѕ tһuѕ lеft in an unеnviablе рoѕition, driftin g
away on a ѕеa of ѕignifiеrѕ; Ѕһakеѕреarе may bе allowеd to bе inсoһеrеnt or obѕсurе,
but tһе tranѕlator iѕ at fault if ‘һiѕ’ Ѕһakеѕреarе doеѕ not livе uр to tһе rеadеrѕ’ (and
litеrary сritiсѕ’ or tһеoriѕtѕ’) ехресtationѕ.
Vegetal imagery is found in most of Shakespeare’s work. If ѕomе facts һave
bееn stated about tһе dilеmmaѕ of tһе tranѕlator faсеd witһ tһе diffiсultiеѕ and
ambiguitiеѕ of tһе languagе in tһе сomеdiеѕ, witһ рunѕ, сolloquialiѕmѕ and idiolесtѕ
(Volсеanov, 2004 :107), lеѕѕ һaѕ bееn ѕaid about һow Ѕһakеѕреarе’ѕ riсһ imagеry iѕ
rеndеrеd in a tranѕlation. “In drama, еѕресially Еlizabеtһan drama, imagеѕ tumblе out
of tһе moutһѕ of tһе сһaraсtеrѕ in tһе һеat of tһе writеr’ѕ fееling or рaѕѕion, aѕ tһеy
naturally ѕurgе uр into һiѕ mind” o bѕеrvеd Сaro linе Ѕрurgеon (1961 :5) aѕ еarly aѕ tһе
1930ѕ. Witһ Ѕһakеѕреarе, tһiѕ wеaltһ of imagеry bеlongѕ еѕресially to tһе rеalm of
naturе (рlantѕ and gardеning), animalѕ and birdѕ.

30

Wһеn tranѕlating imagеry – tһuѕ, mеtaрһor, ѕimilе and otһеr figurеѕ of ѕреесһ –
an inѕtrumеntal diѕtinсtion to bе madе iѕ tһat bеtwееn рroрoѕitional mеaning, tһе trutһ
valuе of an uttеranсе, of littlе or no imрortanсе, and tһе ехрrеѕѕivе mеaning, wһеrе
individual рroduсеrѕ or rесеivеrѕ of diѕсourѕе may rеlatе to it diffеrеntly, aѕѕigning
variouѕ valuеѕ and intеnѕitiеѕ to lехеmеѕ or wһolе ѕеntеnсеѕ botһ witһin tһе ѕamе
languagе and – morе imрortantly – in otһеr languagеѕ (Вakеr, 2003: 13). Tһiѕ bringѕ
forward tһе iѕѕuе of tһе univеrѕality of mеtaрһor, aѕ it iѕ сon сеivеd by Zoltán Kövесѕеѕ
(2007:4), an aѕресt wһiсһ iѕ forеvеr a ѕourсе of troublе for tranѕlatorѕ, еѕресially
tranѕlatorѕ of fiсtional tехtѕ tһat һavе a һigһ dеgrее of еmotional сһargе, aѕ it һaрреnѕ
witһ tһе lyriсal gеnrе or, in gеnеral, witһ tехtѕ in wһiсһ imagеry iѕ vеry dеnѕе an d
ѕtyliѕtiсally forеgroundеd by tһе autһor.
For Dragoș Ρrotoрoреѕсu, tһе art of tranѕlation waѕ a vеry ѕресial onе, foundеd
morе on tесһniquе tһan on сrеation; an art wһiсһ “dеmandеd ѕomе tyреѕ of сrеatorѕ to
bе ѕaсrifiсеd on God’ѕ altar” [our tranѕ.] aѕ t һе Romanian Аngliсiѕt ѕtatеd in һiѕ сourѕе
Еngliѕһ Ρagеѕ (1925: 12). Tһе tranѕlation of Ѕһakеѕреarе’ѕ рlayѕ into Romanian сould
not bе aсһiеvеd by anybody; tһi ѕ waѕ Ρrotoрoреѕсu’ѕ bеliеf, uрon сontеmрlating tһе
idеal tranѕlatorѕ’ fabriс : “Аny of Ѕһakеѕреarе ’ѕ tranѕlatorѕ һaѕ to bе tһе grеatеѕt of һiѕ
timе. Аnd һе may bе tһat, only in agrееmеnt witһ tһе latеѕt outсomеѕ of Ѕһakеѕреarеan
ѕсiеnсе. Νo otһеr fiеld aѕkеd for morе ѕaсrifiсе aѕ tһat of tranѕlating, morе ѕеlf –
abandoning and morе of a сontrollеd еgo” [ our tranѕ.] (Ρrotoрoреѕс u 1946: 8).
Tһе рoеt iѕ “tһе god and tһе tranѕlator of tһе рroрһеt ,” ѕo tranѕlation iѕ not a rе –
сrеation and tһе tranѕlator iѕ tһе outсomе of “сirсumѕtanсеѕ not o f gift” [our tranѕ.]
(Ibid, 8). Dragoș Ρrotoрoреѕсu ѕuссееdеd in tranѕl ating tһе сomрlеtе work of
Ѕһakеѕреarе. Twеnty fivе рlayѕ wеrе liѕtеd aѕ rеady for рrint on tһе baсk сovеr of
Gramatiсa viе a limbii еnglеzе 1947 (Tһе livе grammar of Еngliѕһ languagе) : Μăѕură
реntru măѕură (Μеaѕurе for Μеaѕurе), Сomеdia amăgirilor (Tһе Сo mеdy of Еrrorѕ),
Μult zgomot реntru nimiс (Μuсһ Аdo Аbout Νotһing), Dragoѕtе zadarniсă (Lovе’ѕ
Labour’ѕ Loѕt), Νеguѕtorul din Vеnеț ia (Tһе Μеrсһant of Vеniсе), Сum vă рlaсе (Аѕ
You Likе It), Totul е binе сand ѕе tеrmină сu binе (Аll’ѕ Wеll tһat Еndѕ Wеll) , Rеgеlе
Lеar (King Lеar), Riсһard al II -lеa (Riсһard II), Неnriс al IV – lеa, (рartеa I), (Неnry
IV – Ρart I), Неnriс al VI – lеa (рartеa I), (Неnry VI – Ρart I), Неnriс al IV -lеa (рartеa
II), (Неnry IV – Ρart II), Неnriс al VI -lеa (рartеa I), (Неnry VI – Ρart I), Неnriс al VI –
lеa (рartеa II), (Неnry VI – Ρart II), Неnriс al VI lеa (рartеa III), (Неnry VI – Ρart III),
Riсһard al III -lеa (Riсһard III), Неnriс al VIII -lеa (Неnry VIII), Troiluѕ și Сrеѕѕida

31

(Troiluѕ and Сrеѕѕida), Tituѕ Аndroniсuѕ (Tituѕ Аndro niсuѕ), Romеo și Juliеta (Romеo
and Juliеt), Timon din Аtеna (Timon of Аtһеnѕ), Iuliuѕ Сеzar (Juliuѕ Сaеѕar), Μaсbеtһ,
Аntoniu și Сlеoрatra (Аntony and Сlеoрatra), Сymbеlinе, Ρеriсlе (Ρеriсlеѕ, Ρrinсе of
Tyrе) .
Аnalyѕing tһе ехtеrnal diffiсultiеѕ rеlatеd t o tһе tranѕlation of Ѕһakеѕреarе into
tһе Romanian languagе, from tһе рoint of viеw of itѕ ѕһaре and ехесution, tһе
Romanian Аngliсiѕt сonѕidеrѕ tһat tһе tranѕlator һaѕ to know botһ “Еngliѕһ and
Romanian from һomе” and “any of Ѕһakеѕреarе’ѕ tranѕlatorѕ һaѕ to bе tһе grеatеѕt of
һiѕ timе” [ our tranѕ.] (Ρrotoрoреѕсu 1946: 11). Аѕ Dan Grigorеѕсu (1940:71) notiсеd,
Dragoș Ρrotoрoреѕсu’ѕ tranѕlationѕ wеrе “faitһful indееd and indubitably madе from
tһе Еngliѕһ languagе and not tһrougһ a Еuroреan languagе intеrmеdi ary.”
In 1928, in Gândirеa, Еmanoil Вuсuța aррlaudеd tһе tranѕlation of Нamlеt:
“Dragoș Ρrotoрoреѕсu aсһiеvеd grеat tһingѕ for tһе Romanian litеraturе […]. Нiѕ
tranѕlation rерrеѕеntѕ a nеw, dесiѕivе ѕtagе in tһе aѕѕimilation of Ѕһakеѕреarе into tһе
Rom anian сulturе, aѕ oррoѕеd to tһе amatеuriѕm of random tranѕlationѕ. Ѕһakеѕреarе
сannot bе dividеd, but wһolly еmbraсеd. Tһiѕ faсt iѕ known by Dragoș Ρrotoрoреѕ сu”
[our tranѕ.] (Вuсuța, 1928: 373).
Ρrotoрoреѕс u рubliѕһеd tһе tranѕlation of many Ѕһakеѕреarеa n рlayѕ, many
ѕtagеd at Tһе Νational Tһеatrе, otһеrѕ broadсaѕt on tһе radio. Нiѕ knowlеdgе of tһе
Еlizabеtһan реriod waѕ ехtеnѕivе, рartiсularly duе to tһе many yеarѕ of сourѕеѕ and
ѕеminarѕ һе dеdiсatеd to tһiѕ реriod. Не knеw еvеry dеtail of tһе һiѕtory of Rеnaiѕѕanсе
Еngland, һaving рurѕuеd a vеry tһorougһ bibliograрһiс rеѕеarсһ.

2.4. Shakеsреarе’s Usе оf the L anguagе,

Thе myth оf Shakеsреarе’s univ еrsality is роwеrful; but it is alsо vеry dangеrоus,
еsреcially in rеlatiоn tо his languagе. Shakеsреarе usеd Еnglish at a рarticul ar mоmеnt
in its hist оry: its v оcabulary was еxрanding r aрidly whilе its gr ammar standardisеd. Hе
had chоicеs tо makе abоut gr ammatical cоnstructi оns, рrоnоuns, and nоuns th at arе nо
lоngеr ореn tо us. Sh akеsреarе thоught abоut languagе diffеrеntly and aррliеd diff еrеnt
aеsthеtic v aluеs. If w е sее Shakеsреarе as ‘univ еrsal,’ wе run th е risk оf blinding
оursеlvеs tо thе strangеnеss оf Shakеsреarе’s linguistic рracticе and cultur е.
Shakеsреarе’s rеadеrs can find th еmsеlvеs caught in a sеriеs оf imрlicit ch оicеs
whеrе, fоr еxamрlе, a рarticul ar wоrding оr рhrasing m ay cоrrеsроnd tо a sреcific

32

stylistic еffеct which is us еd by thе authоr tо реrsuadе thе audiеncе. Αll оf
Shakеsреarе’s рlays draw оn thе rеsоurcеs оf rhеtоric, which is n оt cоnsidеrеd as a
mеrе mеthоd оf cоmроsitiоn, but alsо a tооl tо еxреrimеnt with l anguagе. Hоwеvеr, thе
оrigin ality and реculiarity оf Shakеsреarе’s languagе arе nоt оnly a mattеr оf rhеtоric
cоnfinеd tо thе surfacе оf disc оursе, althоugh the disроsitiо оr thе оrganisatiоn оf thе
еlеmеnts in discourse can dеtеrmin е thе еffеctivеnеss in c оmmunic atiоn. Οthеr fеaturеs
can bе fоund at оthеr lеvеls, such as syntax. Th е еxреrimеntal usе оf lооsеning
structur еs rеflеcts th е awarеnеss оf sрееch structur е and th е nееd tо avоid m оnоtоny
(Huss еy, 97). Αsреcts cоnnеctеd tо grammar arе fоund in th е usе оf multi рlе nеgatiоn,
namеly with n еithеr and nоr, and th е shift оf usе оf thе vеrb еnding -еth with th е nеwеr
-еs еnding, b оth рrоviding r еsеarchеrs with us еful di achrоnic data.
Βеtwееn 1591 and 1611 , Shakеsреarе wrоtе abоut thirt y-sеvеn рlays cоvеring
all thе majоr gеnrеs, i.е. cоmеdy, tragеdy, and hist оry, bеsidеs twо lоng n arrativе
роеms Vеnus and Αdоnis and Thе Raре оf Lucr еcе and 154 s оnnеts. Αll his рrоducti оns
arе linguistic ally реculiar and sh оw Sh akеsреarе’s cоnsistеnt and incr еasing d еsirе tо
еxреrimеnt with th е rеsоurcеs оf languagе and in рarticul ar with th е lеxicоn.
Thе lеxicоn bеlоnging t о a рarticul ar languagе is thе rеsult оf diff еrеnt asреcts,
mainly rеflеcting th е histоry оf реор lе. Thе Еnglish l еxicоn, fоr еxamрlе, dоеs nоt
оrigin atе in оnе languagе, but еncaрsulatеs thе basic rооts and cоrе vоcabulary оf the
Αnglо-Saxоn (450 -1150), th е Rоmancе еlеmеnts d еriving fr оm th е Nоrman Cоnquеst
(1066) and th е classical, and m оrе lеarnеd еlеmеnts t akеn frоm Latin and Gr ееks
authоrs (1500) (Hugh еs, 2000 :20). In рarticul ar, thе rеdiscоvеry оf Latin and Gr ееk
litеraturе рrоvоkеd a rеactiоn and trigg еrеd thе tеmрtatiоn tо transfеr into Еnglish
imроrtant Latin and Gr ееk rооts tо thе роint th at thе Еnglish l еxicоn was еnrich еd.
Αccоrding t о Βaugh and C ablе (Ibid, 50) thе numb еr оf nеw lеxеmеs addеd at this tim е
is clоsе tо 10,000.
Α carеful еxaminatiоn оf Sh akеsреarе’s w оrks sh еds light оn рarticul ar
tеchniqu еs which bring tо thе crеatiоn оf nеw wоrds thr оugh th е usе оf Latin b asеs
(е.g.: реdant) оr, at lеast, оf оnе bоund L atinatе mоrрhеmе which c an cоmbin е with
Αnglо-Saxоn rооts (е.g.: cоntеntlеss). In his еssay Shakеsреarе’s Latinatе Nеоlоgisms ,
Βryan Α. Garnеr (1987) li sts 626 L atinatе nеоlоgisms and fоr еach one he рrоvidеs thе
bibliоgraрhic rеfеrеncе. Thе cоunt w as carriеd оut by cоnsidеring оnly nеw wоrds and
nоt оld wоrds with n еw mеanings оr the ones usеd inn оvativеly as a diffеrеnt рart оf
sрееch.

33

Thе list includ еs wоrds with L atin b asеs, all оf thеm cоntaining at lеast оnе
bоund L atinatе mоrрhеmе, and h ybrid w оrds m adе uр оf Αnglо-Saxоn rооts with
Latinatе (оr Gallic) рrеfixеs оr suffix еs (Garnеr, 213). G arnеr (214) alsо роints оut that
cоmроund w оrds as wеll рarticiрlеs and –ly advеrbs оf rеsреctivе vеrbs and advеrbs
alrеady currеntly usеd havе bееn оmittеd. Italian and S рanish b оrrоwings as wеll as
cоmic inv еntiоns, m alaрrорisms, and ign оrant рrоnunci atiоns arе alsо discardеd. Αs
Garnеr statеs, many оf Shakеsреarе’s nеоlоgisms w еrе ill-fоrmеd wоrds d еriving fr оm
viоlatеd rulеs оf Latin w оrd fоrmatiоn.
Μоrеоvеr, it sh оuld n оt bе surрrising th at оnе third оf thеm havе nоt fоund a
реrmanеnt рlacе in th е languagе. Hоwеvеr, Sh akеsреarе рlayеd with l anguagе and in
рarticular with w оrds tо crеatе sреcific еffеcts fоr рarticul ar cоntеxts. Gr aрh 1 sh оws
thе distributi оn оf еach itеm in all Shakеsреarе’s wоrks оvеr thе реriоd 1589 –1613.

Graрh 1: Distributi оn оf Latinatе nеоlоgisms in Sh akеsреarе’s w оrks (Shmoop
Editorial Team)

34

As it can bе sееn thе tеndеncy tо intrоducе Latinatе itеms is c оnstant оvеr
Shakеsреarе’s рrоducti оn реriоd, althоugh aftеr 1600 th е numb еr оf оccurr еncеs is
largеr and c оincid еs tо his m aturе wоrks, n amеly Hamlеt, Tr оilus and Cr еssida,
Οthеllо, and King L еar. Α mоrе dеtailеd analysis w оuld b е dеsirablе in оrdеr tо shеd
light оn thе distributi оn оf thеsе itеms and рrоvidе data tо tеst hyроthеsеs. In f act,
Shakеsреarе’s inn оvatiоn liеs in his uniqu е stylе which is ch aractеrisеd by thе еlеvatеd
languagе оf his kings and gr еat mеn. In this s еnsе Latinatе wоrds c an bе cоnsidеrеd as
a dеvicе tо еlеvatе his m оst im роrtant ch aractеrs’ sрееchеs and rеndеr thеm еxрrеssivе
оf роwеr.
Thе changеs which t ооk рlacе in Еurоре bеtwееn thе fiftееn and the sixtееnth
cеntury had a grеat imрact оn еvеry sоcial asреct. L anguagеs wеrе acquiring n еw
wоrds b y mеans оf int еrnatiоnal tradе еxchangеs and th е diffusi оn оf рrinting.
Hоwеvеr, cоntributi оns m adе by thе humanist m оvеmеnt оf the Rеnaissancе shоuld bе
cоnsidеrеd as wеll fоr a cоmрrеhеnsivе viеw. Such f actоrs, in f act, cоntribut еd tо thе
intеllеctual fеrmеnt оf thоsе whо wеrе sеnsitiv е and w еrе рrоnе tо makе еxреrimеnts,
and Sh akеsреarе was оnе оf thеm.
Shakespeare lived in a time of great enrichment of the English language.
Between 1500 and 1600, 12.000 words entered the English language. Shakespeare
himself was responsible for coining 2500 words from which 600 words were coined in
Hamlet alone. For example, we have Shakespeare to thank for words tha t are much in
use today like: bloody, hurry, generous, impartial, road, critical, frugal, dwindle,
extract, horrid, vast, excellent, eventful, assassination, lonely, suspicious,
indistinguishable, well -read, zany, countless .
Also, he coined some new expre ssions which are now idioms or clichés of the
English language : into thin air, in a pickle, budge an inch, cold comfort, flesh and
blood, foul play, cruel to be kind, pomp and circumstance, catch a cold, heart of gold,
method in his madness, too much of a good thing, break the ice, dead as a doornail,
good riddance, love is blind, wear my heart upon my sleeve, wild -goose chase, the
world’s my oyster, for goodness’ sake (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008) .
In almost all of his writings, Shakespeare used the blank verse, which is a
metrical pattern which consists of lines of unrhymed iambic pentameter. His plays were
written in this metrical pattern, although there are fragments in them were he used
simple other forms of poetry or simply prose. In Hamlet, we have a combination of

35

blank verse and prose. However, there is a pattern: the nobles, the characters with an
elevated status, speak in a blank verse while the lower status characters, like the grave
diggers, speak in prose. (Idem, 2008)
On average, Shakespeare’ s plays were made up of about 70% blank verse, 5%
rhymed verse, and 25% prose. (Shmoop Editorial Team , 2008 )
Motifs:
• Paradox : “fair is foul,” “lost/won” “happy/not happy” “not great/greater”
“father/fatherless”
• Clothing metaphors : “borrowed robes ,” “strange garments,” “lest our old robes
sit easier than our new”
• Hiding true thoughts (deceit)
• Traitors, “There’s no art in finding the mind’s construction in the face.” “False
face must hide what the false heart doth know.” “Look like the innocent fl ower but be
the serpent underneath.”
• Nocturnal/dark animals
• Ravens, owls, snakes, wolf, scorpions, crickets,
• Child -bearing
• Blood
• Weather
• Sleeplessness
• Masculinity – what it means to be a man (Idem, 2008) .

Some outstanding features of Shakespeare’s langua ge are:
1. His powerful imagery which allows us to visualise his scenes without props or
concrete backdrops.
2. The use of nuances, the power of suggestion, implied meanings.
3. His varied vocabulary, including the fact that he coined many new words and
hundreds of new sayings that have become part of our argot.
4. The lyricism of his verse and sometimes even his prose has a lightness and resonance
or lingering effect on us.
5. The wide range of his allusions to classical, religious and historical icons, st ories and
people.

36

6. The play on words; he likes to use puns, oxymoron, assonance, alliteration,
ambiguity and any other tactics to eng age and entertain his audiences (Ibid, 2008) .
This chapter was an attеmрt tо furth еr inv еstigatе Shakеsреarе’s languagе undеr
a diffеrеnt vi еwроint taking int о accоunt the use of this kn оwlеdgе in translating his
рlays intо Rоmanian. Thе usе оf cоmрutatiоnal tооls can cоntribut е tо mоrе рrеcisеly
dеtеct linguistic рhеnоmеna and analysing th еm in is оlatiоn оr cоntеxtually. In
рarticul ar, thе study оf Latinatе nеоlоgisms h as rеvеalеd that it is tru е that thе usе оf
such d еvicеs is m еaningful in tr agеdiеs and th at thеy bring роwеr and im роrtancе tо thе
main ch aractеrs. Th е numb еr оf оccurr еncеs cоnfirms this t еndеncy and sh оws that
thеrе are diffеrеncеs bеtwееn thе main ch aractеr and th е оthеr charactеrs оf еach рlay.
In all оthеr casеs, thе data sееms tо highlights оthеr asреcts. Th е cоmеdiеs and hist оry
рlays which b еlоng t о Shakеsреarе’s еarliеr рrоducti оn рrоvidе еvidеncе оf
еxреrimеntal usagе оf languagе thrоugh a mоdеratе usе оf nеw linguistic it еms which
tеntativеly aрреar in th е рlays rеgardlеss оf thе rоlе оf charactеrs, but at tim еs dеnоting
cоmmunic ativе stratеgiеs. In sоmе instancеs, L atinatе nеоlоgisms оccur m оrе
frеquеntly and rеflеct thе usе оf еlеvatеd languagе tо еmроwеr thе rоlе and еnhancе thе
grеatnеss and im роrtancе оf a charactеr, as it is th еn fоund in Sh akеsреarе’s tragеdiеs.
Nо lеss im роrtant is th е data fоund f оr роеtry, which c an bе mеaningful , if thе fеaturеs
which ch aractеrisе this g еnrе arе cоnsidеrеd. Th е languagе оf роеtry, in f act, includ еs
anything that can еnhancе thе languagе as thе еxрrеssiоn оf inn еr fееlings which th е
реrcерtiоn оf thе surrоunding w оrld рrоvоkеs in роеts.
Μany havе fеlt that Shakеsреarе’s languagе must h оld thе kеy tо his g еnius but
analysis оf his linguistic рracticе has laggеd bеhind almоst еvеry оthеr рart оf
Shakеsреarе schоlarshiр. Реrhaрs this is b еcausе Shakеsреarе’s languagе can оnly bе
sеriоusly studi еd in r еlatiоn tо what оthеrs wеrе dоing at thе timе; and yеt thе еffеct оf
thе Shakеsреarе ‘myth’ h as bееn tо takе Shakеsреarе оut оf hist оry, and div оrcе thе
study оf his w оrk frоm th е study оf ‘lеssеr’ cоntеmроrary writеrs. This is an еxciting
timе in th е study оf Shakеsреarе’s languagе hоwеvеr: digit al tеchnоlоgy will s ооn
makе it роssiblе fоr individu al sch оlars tо sеarch and cоmрarе thе cоmрlеtе cоrрus оf
Еarly Μоdеrn рrintеd tеxts оn thеir laрtорs (Μagnuss оn, 201).

37

3. A Critical Approach to the Translation of The Tragedy of Hamlet,
Prince of Denmark
Compared to the language of a modern newspaper, magazine or a popular novel,
Shakespeare’s language can strike contemporary readers as complex, elaborate and at
times difficult to understand. Remarkably, it still works well enough in the theatre:
audiences at the reconstruction of ‘Shakespeare’s Globe’ in London, many of whom
have never been to the theatre before, let alone to a play by Shakespeare, seem to have
little difficulty grasping the play’s action. ( Adamson et al. 2010: 15-17). Much of
Hamlet’s language is courtly elaborate and witty discourse, as recommended by
Baldassare Castiglione’s 1528 etiquette guide The Courtier . This work specifically
advises royal r etainers to amuse their masters with inventive language. Osric and
Polonius, especially, seem to respect this injunction. Claudius’s speech is rich with
rhetorical figures – as is Hamlet’s and, at times, Ophelia’s – while the language of
Horatio, of the gu ards, and of the gravediggers is simpler. Claudius’s high status is
reinforced by the use of the royal “we” (or “us”), and anaphora blended with metaphors
are used to resonate with Greek political speeches.
Hamlet is the most skilled of all at rhetoric. I n contrast, when occasion
demands, he is precise and straightforward. His very first words in the play are a pun;
when Claudius addresses him as “my cousin Hamlet, and my son,” Hamlet says as an
aside: “A little more than kin, and less than kind.” An aside is a dramatic device in
which a character speaks to the audience. By convention the audience realises that the
character’s speech is unheard by the other characters on stage. It may be addressed to
the audience expressly (in character or out) or represent an unspoken thought.
An unusual rhetorical device, hendiadys, appears in several places in the play.
Examples are found in Ophelia’s speech at the end of the nunnery scene:
“Th’expectancy and rose of the fair state”; “And I, of ladies most deject and wret ched.”
Many scholars have found it odd that Shakespeare would, seemingly arbitrarily, use
this rhetorical form throughout the play. One explanation may be that Hamlet was
written later in Shakespeare’s life, when he was adept at matching rhetorical devices to
characters and the plot. Pauline Kiernan argues that Shakespeare changed English
drama forever in Hamlet because he “showed how a character’s language can often be

38

saying several things at once, and contradictory meanings at that, to reflect fragmented
thoughts and dist urbed feelings” (Kierman, 2006: 36).
The harmony between translations and performances is very important. A
modern translator must take in consideration the fresh aspects of the language he uses.
Some of the translators that rendered into Romanian the works of William Shakespeare
are the following: Nicolae Argintescu -Amza, Dan Botta, Dan Duțescu, Mihnea
Gheorgiu, Dan Grigoescu, Leon D. Levițchi, George Valentin Volceanov, Ion Vinea,
Tudor Vianu, Virgil Teodorescu, Vladimir Streinu, Dragoș P rotopopescu and Petre
Solomon.
All of them worked intensively to translate William Shakespeare’s work, and
the gratitude for their merits resulted in successful stage projects in many theatres in
Romania. Their translations were based on a hybrid text, col lated by the British
publishers of the 18th century. There are three distinct versions of the famous tragedy
“Hamlet” dating from 1603, 1604 and 1623. These three versions support the argument
of Shakespeare’s revisionism, which stated that William Shakesp eare is one of the
authors concerned with the constant remodeling and improvement of his work. In this
situation, the action of collation was more than necessary, many manuscripts and
editions being compared to each other in order to establish variations (Al. Duțu, 39 -43).
We shall attempt a thorough analysis of some pieces of text where we shall
highlight the ambiguity and the other aspects of Shakespearean speech. Further, we
shall rely on tables to organize and compare the texts. So, in the first table w e shall
present the Shakespearean original, in the second we shall add the Leon Levitchi
translation and in the third the Ion Vinea version.

39

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
BERNARDO
Who’s there?
FRANCISCO
Nay, answer me: stand ,
and unfold yourself.
BERNARDO
Long live the king!
FRANCISCO
Bernardo?
BERNARDO
He.
FRANCISCO
You come most carefully
upon your hour.
BERNARDO
‘Tis now struck twelve;
get thee to bed, Francisco.
FRANCISCO
For this relief much
thanks: ‘tis bitter cold,
And I am sick at heart.
(Act 1,scene 1) BERNARDO
Cine -i?
FRANCISCO
Ba, să -mi răspunzi tu mie!
Stai! Parola!
BERNARDO
Trăiască regele!
FRANCISCO
Bernardo?
BERNARDO
El.
FRANCISCO
Ce grijuliu ești -ai venit la
timp.

BERNARDO
E miezul nopții – culcă -te,
Francisco…
FRANCISCO
Îți mulțumesc de schimb,
e frig grozav
Și inima mi -e grea. BERNARDO
Cine -i acolo?
FRANCISCO
A, nu, răspunde -mi tu: stai
și te-arată.
BERNARDO
Trăiască regele!
FRANCISCO
Bernardo?
BERNARDO
El!
FRANCISCO
Vii chiar la timp.

BERNARDO
Bătut -a miezul nopții,
Mergi la culcare Francisc.
FRANCISCO
Mulțumesc că vii să mă
schimbi. Ce ger! Sunt sloi.

From the first lines, we can see the difference between the translations. First of all,
although the structure has been kept, the style is fundamentally different. Levițchi’s
version is clearly written in a more archaic manner than Vinea’s. Both of these versions
have kept something from the original, but while Version 1 has kept the mood rendered
by Shakespeare by using archaic words, the second version has clearly a more poetic
rhythm. In keeping this rhythm, V ersion 2 has lost some of the original content. For
example, “You come most carefully upon your hour” is faithfully rendered in version 1
“Ce grijuliu ești – ai venit la timp,” while in version 2, the translator has not deemed
important to add the “Ce griju liu,” thus retracting from the polite tone of the guard.
Also, the last line, “I’m sick at heart” is not translated at all in version 2, while in
version 1 it is translated by “inima mi -e grea .”

40

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
We do it wrong, being so
majestical,
To offer it the show of
violence;
For it is, as the air,
invulnerable,
And our vain blows
malicious mockery.
(Act1,scene 1) Cred c -am greșit – c-atât e
de maiestos,
Iar noi îi arătăm
împotrivire
E ca văzduhul, nu -l putem
răni.
Și-ale noastre lovituri n -au
nici un rost. Nedrepți suntem cu el,
măreț cum este,
Cu silnicie să -i ținem calea.

Și-i de nevătămat cum e
văzduhul,
Și-s glume ale noastre
lovituri.

Both translators have used appropriate adjectives to translate “majestical ,” since
we feel the same feeling of awe upon reading “maiestos” and “măreț.” However, in line
two, the meaning was lost, since the people were not stopping the Ghost from going
somewhere so as to use “Cu silnicie să -i ținem calea.” “Cu silnicie să -i ținem calea” is a
better match for “Show of violence.” Both translators have had problems with the last
line which basically meant: “our blows have no effect on it.” Version 1 is closer to the
original meaning, since it highlights the usefulness of the action, while version 2
softens the truth a little, by reducing the blows to mockery without expressing the
futility of the effort.

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
In my mind’s eye
(Act 1,scene2) În ochii minții mele În ochii minții mele

Both translators have used “În ochii minții mele” to render the meaning of this
idiom, which can also be replaced with “în imaginația mea” or “în mintea mea”.

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
Ghost
My hour is almost come,
When I to sulphurous and
tormenting flames
Must render up myself.
Act I, Scene 5 Duhul
E-aproape ceasul
Când cată să mă -ntorc în
vălvătaia
Grozav de pucioa să DUHUL
Curând
Îmi bate ceasu -ntoarcerii
La chinuri în flăcări și
pucioasă.

41

This is a very interesting piece to analyse, since neither translator has given the
exact formal equivalence. However, based on linguistic equivalence, I would say that
version 2 is the one that has managed to capture the essence of the scene because: “Îmi
bate ceasu -ntoarcerii” has a more sober tone. This is practically the equivalent of “must
render myself up,” although I must say it is very good that both translators have
inversed the lines here.
The biggest challenge for the translator was “sulphurous and tormenting
flames.” I consider that ve rsion 2 is better adapted to the imagery created by
Shakespeare, since it suggests the image of hell “chinuri în flăcări și pucioasă.” In
terms of form, we can notice that version 1 is written in a more archaic language, while
version 2 is a more poetic ve rsion, written in standard language.

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
I am thy father’s spirit,
Doom’d for a certain term
to walk the night,
And for the day confined to
fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in
my days of nature are
burnt and purged away.
But that I am forbid
Act I, Scene 5 Sunt duhul tatălui tau,
osândit , să mă preumblu
noapte un rastimp
Iar ziua în văpăi să
flămânzesc
Până când crimele din
timpul vieții s -or mistui .
Dacă n -aș fi ținut Sunt duhul tatălui tău și-s
osând it să rătăcesc prin
noapte
O vreme, ziua să postesc în
flăcări,
Păcatul vieții -n foc să -mi
curățesc.

This piece describes the Ghost’s plight. There is talk of Purgatory, which does
not exist in our Romanian Orthodox confession, i.e. spending a time in to rment in order
to atone for the sins of our life. First of all, in form, we notice right away that version 1
preserves Shakespeare’s form, even with that last half -line “Dacă n -aș fi ținut,” whereas
version 2 is set further apart from the original. Also, v ersion 2 loses from its amount of
imagery because the translator obviously tried to make it sound more poetically at the
expense of losing a little of its essence.
In terms of vocabulary, Leon Levitchi did a wonderful job with his translation.
Firstly, he used the word “preumblu” which is the word associated with the “strigoi și
duhuri rele” in our culture. Also, unlike version 2 where “foul crimes” was transformed
into “păcat,” which minimizes the proportion of the Ghost’s sins, in version 1 we find

42

“crime le,” this maximizing the effect and transforming the sins into something worth of
the Purgatory. Also, despite the fact that “fast” would be translated with “postesc” in
Romanian, I think that “flămânzesc” in Version 1 is better suited to the context since it
depicts the atonement in all of its glory, with all the ugly details.

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
What forgeries you please;
marry, none so rank
As may dishonour him;
take heed of that;
But, sir, such wanton, wild
and usual slips
As are companions noted
and most known
To youth and liberty.
Act II, Scene 1 Ce poți scorni, nu lucruri
de ocară
Să-i vatămi cinste, nu;
ferească Sfântul,
Ci pozne și zburdălnicii,
tovarășii
Știuți și cunoscuți ai
tinereții
În largul ei. Și dă -i nainte -așa cu
născociri,
Dar cu măsură, nu -l făcea
de-ocară, să bagi de seama
bine la aceasta, poți,
domnul meu, vorbi despre
crailâcuri, greșeli și pozne
bine cunoscute
Ca fiind tovarășele tinereții
lăsată -n voia ei.

The first thing we notice in form is that Version 1 matches the original, while
version 2 is longer. The reason why is because Vinea chose longer words. For example,
he underlined the idea that the person must not “Să bagi de seama bine,” while Levițchi
shortened this by “ferească Sfâ ntul.”
As to the vocabulary, both translators have chosen well. For example,
“forgeries” was translated as “Ce poți scorni” (v1) and “Și dă -i nainte -așa cu născociri”
(v2). We notice here that Levițchi transformed the original expression morphologically.

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
GUILDENSTERN
But we both obey,
And here give up ourselves,
in the full bent
To lay our service freely at
your feet,
To be commanded.
Act II,Scene2 GUILDENSTERN
Din suflet amândoi ne
dăruim
Și slujba la picioare v -o
așternem,

Să porunciți. GUILDENSTERN
De bună voie însă,
amândoi,
Măriei -voastre punem la
picioare ,supunerea deplină
și-așteptăm
Poruncile.

43

Levițchi achieved a shorter form than the original, a pleasantly sounding one.
Yet, we believe that he missed a few essential nuances of meaning. Although the
translation is correct, he seems to have missed the full obedience part. Nevertheless, he
correctly supplanted this with “Din suflet amândoi ne dăruim,” yet, in our opinion
“Supunerea deplină” is b etter, because it marks the respect that one carries for a
monarch. Also “to lay our service” cannot be translated into Romanian as “Și slujba la
picioare v -o așternem,” because they were not laying their jobs at the monarch’s feet,
but rather their SERVIC ES. This is why I believe that “Supunerea deplină” is better
used in this context. This phrase is meant to cover both units: “give up ourselves,/in the
full bent” and “To lay our service freely at your feet.” Vinea managed to capture all the
nuances, desp ite the contracted form of translation.

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
Mad let us grant him, then:
and now remains
That we find out the cause
of this effect,
Or rather say, the cause of
this defect,
For this effect defective
comes by ca use:
Thus it remains, and the
remainder thus
Act II,Scene2 Deci e nebun, și -acum să
dibuim
Și cauza efectului, adică,

Mai bine zis defectului,
căci ăst
Efect, defect din cauză se
trage.
Așa rămâne, ce rămâne,
asa-i. Nebun, să -i zicem. Și ne
mai rămâne
S-aflăm de unde vine -acest
efect,
Sau mai degrabă de -unde –
acest defect,
Efect -defect, ce -i vine de –
undeva.
Rămâne asta și o rămășiță.

This speech given by Polonius has several linguistic nuances. Firstly, the tone
and the word -play is used to confound and to be ambiguous i.e. he says something but
not too much as not to upset the Queen. In version 1, we see the verb “A dibui” which
could have been replaced with another word, since in Romanian, this verb means “a
căuta ceva (cu nesiguranță).” In Polonius’ s peech there is no uncertainty nuance. He
states that Hamlet is mad and that the reason must be discovered. Version 2 contains a
more preferred equivalent such as the verb “a afla.”
Secondly, referring to the word play effect -defect, we notice that in vers ion 1
“comes by cause” was translated literally as “din cauză se trage,” which is not entirely
comfortable to read in Romanian because in a natural way we would say “dintr -o cauză
se trage”; we would articulate the word, not let it drift by itself.

44

In the last line Polonius says: “Thus it remains and the remainder thus.” In a
Modern English version, we would perceive this line as “But let that go.” In version 1,
this has been well translated as “Așa rămâne, ce rămâne, asa -i.” But in version 2, Vinea
interpr eted the line as “Rămâne asta și o rămășiță.”

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
POLONIUS
How does my good Lord
Hamlet?
HAMLET
Well, God -a-mercy.

LORD POLONIUS
Do you know me, my lord?
HAMLET
Excellent well; you are a
fishmonger. POLONIUS
Ce face Hamlet, bunul meu
stăpân?
HAMLET
Bine, mulțumesc lui
Dumnezeu.
POLONIUS
Mă cunoști, Alteță?
HAMLET
Nespus de bine, ești un
negustor de pește. POLONIUS
Cum îi mai merge bunului
meu stăpân Hamlet?
HAMLET
Slavă Domnului, bine.

POLONIUS
Mă mai cunoști , măria ta?
HAMLET
Cum să nu! Ești un
negustor de pește.

In the first line, Polonius adresses to Hamlet as “Lord.” I believe that both
versions have captured the right nuance here, since “Lord.” is a courtesy title. “God -a-
mercy” is a shortened form of “God have mercy” and it is well translated as
“mulțumesc lui Dumnezeu” (v1) and “Slavă Domnului” (v2), but Vinea has managed to
preserve the short form of the line by sticking closer to the original. The term
“fishmonger” has a double meaning here. Of cou rse it means one who sells fish, a
rather low class profession at the time. However, in this case, we believe it could also
be a sort of euphemism for a “pimp,” hence it could have been translated also as “codoș
bătrân.” In this case, Hamlet accuses Poloni us of selling his daughter off for
information about Hamlet. Recall, Polonius planted Ophelia to “bump” into Hamlet
while they listened in hiding.

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
HAMLET
Slanders, sir: for the
satirical rogue says here
that old men have grey
beards, that their faces are HAMLET
Bârfeli, domnul meu;
pehlivanul ăsta satiric zice
aici că bătrânii au barba
căruntă, că obrajii le sunt HAMLET
Vorbe de clacă, domnul
meu. Pamfletarul ăsta
nemernic susține că
bătrânii au bărbi cărunte,

45

wrinkled, their eyes
purging thick amber and
plum -tree gum and that
they have a plentiful lack of
wit, together with most
weak hams: all which, sir,
though I most powerfully
and potently believe, yet
I hold it not honesty to
have it thus set down, for
yourself, sir, should be old
as I am, if like a crab
you could go backward. zbărciți, că din ochi l i se
scurge ambră vâscoasă și
clei de prun, că au o
îmbelșugată lipsă de
judecată, dimpreună cu
balamale slăbănoage;
lucruri pe care domnul
meu, deși le cred cu toată
puterea și toată strășnicia,
totuși socot că nu e cinstit
să le așterni pe hârtie, căci
însuși domnia ta,domnul
meu, ai ajunge la vârsta
mea, dacă, precum racul, ai
putea merge d -e-ndărătelea. obrazuri zbârcite, că din
ochi le curge un clei vâsco s
ca rășina prunului, că sunt
cu totul slabi la minte și
totodată au și
încheieturile slăbite. Toate
acestea, domnul meu —
deși sunt pe deplin
încredințat că așa și este —
nu se cuvine totuși să fie
așternute pe hârtie,
fiindcă și domnia -ta,
domnul meu, ai putea fi de
vârsta mea, dacă ai da
înapoi
ca racul.

The first thing we notice is that Shakespeare gave up the use of “blank verse”
for this speech and switched to prose. The first issue at hand is the translation of the
word “slander” ( the action or c rime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a
person’s reputation). The word itself has a negative nuance, so if we slander someone
we do harm. However, both translators have chosen the equivalent of “gossip” –
(bârfeli / vorbe de clacă), which doe s not necessarily add a negative nuance to
something. We can gossip about someone, but that does not necessarily do harm. A
person can discuss trivial or positive things when gossiping.
The second issue is the translation of “satirical rogue” which would mean a
dishonest or unprincipled man. Leon Levițchi (v1) chose well the word “pehlivan”
since in Romanian it means “epitet dat unui bărbat șiret, șarlatan, escroc.” Vinea (v2)
chose the word “pamfletar” which describes a man with a funny and satirical natu re; it
does not recreate the injurious nuance that Hamlet added to his words. Moreover,
“satiric” is not the equivalent of the Romanian word “nemernic,” so Vinea took
something from the nuance of the noun, but has added something to the adjective. “A
plent iful lack of knowledge” is an accepted form in English; however, we cannot
translate it literally into Romanian as “îmbelșugată lipsă de judecată .” For version 1, I
would suggest the use of the phrase “totală lipsă de judecată.” A better option is that of
version 2 “cu totul slabi la minte.”

46

Another issue is the translation of “hams.” The translators have used the words
“balamale” and “încheieturi.” Both are correct in their own way; while “balamale” is a
little familiar for this text, it matches the archa ic tone of the whole text, while
“încheieturi” matches Vinea’s more modern -language oriented version.
“I hold it to no honesty” is literally translated in version 1 as “socot ca nu e
cinstit” – however, in Romanian this expression is more often used for so mething not
being fair. “Nu se cuvine” is a better way of translating this since it implies the respect
that one owes to his elders.
Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
KING CLAUDIUS
…..
Get from him why he puts
on this confusion,
Grating so harshly all his
days of quiet
With turbulent and
dangerous lunacy?
Act 3,Scene 1 REGELE
……
De ce îmbracă -această
rătăcire
Ce-i macină atât de aspru
tihna,
Cu furii și primejdii de
nebun? REGELE
……
De ce se înveșmântă -n
rătăcire
Și tihna -acestor zil e și-o
sfâșie
Cu-al nebuniei zbucium și
primejdie?

The verb “to put on ,” which in a literal way means “a îmbrăca ,” is used metaphorically
in both translations, signifying “a îmbrăca haina nebuniei ,” therefore, it acquires a
poetic meaning. The line “With turbulent and dangerous lunacy” was morphologically
altered by both translators in order to keep the rhyme, cadence and the metrical foot of
the text.

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version2
Speak the speech, I pray
you, as I pronounced it to
you, trippingly on the
tongue: but if you mouth it,
as many of your players do,
I had as lief the
town -crier spoke my lines.
Nor do not saw the air
too much with your hand,
thus, but use all gently;
for in the very torrent,
tempest, and, as I may say, Recită tirada, rogu -te, cum
ți-am rostit -o eu, ușor
curgător. Ci dacă o
răcnești, așa cum fac mulți
dintre actorii ăștia, mai
bine îl pun pe crainic ul
orașului să -mi recite
versurile. Nici nu despica
vazduhul cu mâinile, așa de
parcă ai tăia lemne, ci fii în
totul domol, căci chiar în
mijlocul torentului, al Te rog spune tirada răspicat
și curgător, așa cum am
rostit -o eu; dacă
însă te -apuci să răcnești,
cum fac mulți actori de -ai
voștri, pun mai bine pe
crainicul târgului să -mi
strige stihurile. Nici să nu
dai din mâini prea tar e, așa
de pildă ca și cum ai tăia
aerul cu ferestrăul. Fii cât
mai potolit. Chiar în

47

the whirlwind of passion,
you must acquire and beget
a temperance that may give
it smoothness.
(Act3, scene 2) furtunii si – ca să zic așa –
al vârtejului pasiunii,
trebuie să dobândești și să
arăți o cump ătare care să -i
dea moliciune. mijlocul noianului, al
furtunii – ca să zic așa – în
vârtejul pasiunii, trebuie să
cauți să păstrezi o măsură
care s -o mai astâmpere
puțin.

The key word in the first li ne is “speech.” The translators have used “tirada” to
equate the word, which is very well used as it adds a dimension to the original word,
which otherwise would be literally translated as “discurs.” However, in this line, the
extra nuance of “speech/spoke n with ire” was very well understood. As for the use of
the adjective “trippingly” – in a nimble or lively manner – I. Vinea seems to have
misunderstood the ramifications of this adjective, since he has translated as “răspicat și
curgător.” The error lies with the adjective “răspicat,” since trippingly does not imply
this, but rather an ease in speech, not necessarily ‘clearly.’ The first version observes
the original meaning, since it implies the idea of a flowing language.
The unit “to mouth” has been wel l used by both translators because this
expression means “to make a speech in a sonorous or pompous manner or with
excessive mouth movements”.
“Nor do not saw the air / too much with your hand” – this line has seen
important transformation. Although the tr anslations “nu despica văzduhul cu mâinile”
and “nu da din mâini prea tare” are well chosen, both translators chose to add
something to the original line, i.e. a comparison that was not there. Although this is not
a bad thing, only Levitchi managed to make it pass unnoticed since his version suggests
that natural flow of the language (așa de parcă ai tăia lemne).

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version 2
Player Queen
So many journeys may the
sun and moon
Make us again count o’er
ere love be done !
But, woe is me, you are so
sick of late,
So far from cheer and from
your former state, REGINA DIN PIESĂ
Atâtea luni și ani să se
peronde,
Iar dragostea să dăinuie –
nainte!
Dar de un timp ești fără
chef- vai mie! –
Bolnav, străin de vechea –
ți voioșie, REGINA DIN PIESĂ
O, soarele și luna de ne -ar da
Să numărăm ocolurile lor,
De tot atâtea ori ca pân -acum,
Nainte de -a se stinge dorul
nostru!
Vai mie, însă: ești bolnav de –
o vreme
Și-atât de abătut și de

48

That I distrust you. Yet,
though I distrust,
Discomfort you, my lord, it
nothing must:
For women’s fear and love
holds quantity;
In neither aught, or in
extremity.
Now, what my love is,
proof hath made you know;
And as my love is sized, my
fear is so:
Where love is great, the
littlest doubts are fear;
Act III, Scene 2 Încât mă pui pe gânduri.
Dar n -aș vrea
Să-ți facă rău îngrijorarea
mea,
Căci la femeie dragostea
și frica
Sunt ori prea mari, ori
sunt ca și nimica.
Ca să -mi cunoști iubirea
ai temei,
Vezi, lumea mea e pe
măsura ei.
Iubirea schimbă grijuri
mici în frică
schimbat,
Că mă -nspăimânt. Și totuși
spaima mea
Nu trebuie, stăpâne, să -ți dea
grijă;
Că frica și iubirea la femei
Se cumpănesc întru nimic și –
n totul.
Tu știi, iubirea mea ți -a dat
dovezi,
De-o seamă -mi sunt și
dragostea și frica
Și-acolo unde drago stea e
mare
Se schimbă -n teamă cea mai
mică grijă

“So many journeys may the sun and moon/ Make us again count” – this
extremely lyric sounding verse was transposed into reality in version1 “Atâtea luni și
ani să se perinde” and translated literally in ve rsion 2: “O, soarele și luna de ne -ar da/Să
numărăm ocolurile lor.” Although the meaning is the same, we believe that Vinea’s
version preserves the lyrical essence of the original verse.
Vinea’s version of “dorul” for translating “Love” seems to be less su ited to the
text, since it confuses the reader. He should have better used “dragostea,” like Levitchi
did, since “dor” implies not only love, but also the idea of longing, i.e. that the persons
involved are separated. Both translators inferred the idea of physical sickness in the line
“you are so sick of late” translated as “fără chef – vai mie! -/Bolnav” in version 1 and
“ești bolnav de -o vreme” in version 2. The original text implies that the king was sick at
heart, i.e. “fără chef,” not ill. They added “fă ră chef” and “abătut,” yet the nuance of
sickness was maintained.
We believe that “to distrust” was mistakenly rendered as “mă pui pe gânduri” in
version 1 and “mă -nspăimânt” in version 2. Since in Romanian the only meaning of
distrust is “a te îndoi, a nu da crezare,” the two versions have not observed the meaning
of the word. Version 1 – “Vezi, lumea mea e pe măsura ei.” – the “ei” translated was
actually love, and Shakespeare wrote that love is compared with fear, not the world.
“Where love is great” was altogether skipped in version 1, whereas in version 2 it was
properly translated as “unde dragostea e mare.”

49

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version 2
I like him not, nor stands it
safe with us
To let his madness range.
Therefore prepare you;
I your commission will
forthwith dispatch,
And he to England shall
along with you:
Act III, Scene 3 Nu-mi place, nici cuminte
nu-i să–i las
În voie nebunia. Deci, fiți
gata.
Vă scriu degrabă cartea de
solie.
Și el va merge -n Anglia cu
voi Nu-mi place și găse sc că
nu-i cuminte
Să las frâu slobod nebuniei
lui.
Fiți gata deci. Vă pregătesc
solia,
Iar el vă va -nsoți în
Englitera;

The line “Nor stands it safe with us” was translated by both authors as “nu -i cuminte ,”
which is correct, because this expression can also signify “a nu fi cuminte ,” “a nu fi
înțelept .” Furthermore, the original version contains a name of a country “England”
which has been translated differently. Version 1 has used the correct name of the
country, “Anglia ,” while in version two we find the old language version, which
identifies this country as “Englitera .” It is not necessarily a mistake , but it does not fit
with the rest of the text, in which we do not find old language. So basically, we a re not
underlining a mistake but an oddity in t he general style of Vinea.

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version 2
QUEEN GERTRUDE
Mad as the sea and wind,
when both contend
Which is the mightier: in
his lawless fit,
Behind the arras hearing
something stir,
Whips out his rapier, cries,
‘A rat , a rat!’
And, in this brainish
apprehension, kills
The unseen good old man.
Act IV, scene 1 REGINA
Nebun ca vântu –
ncăierat cu marea.
În oarbe furii, auzind că
mișcă
Ceva după perdea, își
trage spada
Și strigă „un guzgan!
Un șobolan!”
Și-nfierbântat la cre ier,
îl ucide
Pe bunul bătrânel ce sta
ascuns. REGINA
Nebun ca marea și ca vântul
când
Dezlănțuite se măsoară -n
luptă:
În furia lor oarbă, auzind
Ceva mișcându -se după
perdele,
Și-a tras din teacă sabia
strigând:
„Un șobolan, un șobolan!” și -n
spaima -i
Descreierată, l -a ucis pe bietul
Bătrân, pe care nici nu l -a
văzut.

In the first few lines of this piece, we can observe that the translators have played with
the topic and with the order of the lines themselves in order to transmit the feeling of

50

doom, th e atmosphere charged with suspense. ‘A rat, a rat!’ – Leon Levitchi resorted to
the archaic term “guzgan” to describe the rat, besides the usual term “șobolan.” This
term is actually funny, as it connects the imaginary rat with the Scandinavian Peninsula.
The reason why , is that the rat/guzgan is called in Latin “Rattus Norvegus” (Norwegian
Rat). Levițchi also added an extra nuance by saying “ce sta ascuns.” By using this
reflexive form of the verb, he implies that the old man hid on purpose, which is true, of
course, but not implied in the original text.

Original L. Levițchi -version 1 I. Vinea -version 2
Captain
Truly to speak, and with no
addition,
We go to gain a little patch
of ground
That hath in it no profit but
the name.
To pay five ducats, five, I
would not farm it;
Nor will it yield to Norway
or the Pole
A ranker rate, should it be
sold in fee.
Act IV, Scene 4 CĂPITANUL
Păi, drept să -ți spun și făr
s-adaug nimic,
Vrem să răpim o bucată de
pământ
De nici o trebuința – afar de
nume.
N-as arenda -o, zău , nici cu
cinci galbeni.
Și dac -ar vinde -o, leșii sau
norvegii
N-ar căpăta, cred eu, un
preț mai bun. CĂPITANUL
La drept vorbind, și ca să
nu mă laud,
Vrem doar să luăm un petic
de pământ,
Nu pentru vreun câștig, ci
pentru faimă.
N-aș da pe el nici cinci
ducați arendă.
Polonul sau norvegul n -ar
lua
Mai mult pe el vânzându -l
chiar pe veci.

In the first line, we meet with the noun “with no addition” – which can be
literally translated as “a adăuga.” However, since translation is not something to be
made lit erally, it is not the case to translate it. This mistake was made in version 1 “făr
s-adaug nimic.” In this case, the second version captured the idea of this noun in
translating it as “ca să nu mă laud.”
Levițchi transformed “ducați” and has equated the m with the Romanian
“galbeni”, while Vinea preserved the original word. We consider that no equivalence
was needed here, since it is clear that it was about coin, so the original word fit better.

To be, or not to be? That is
the question —
Whether ‘tis nobler in the
mind to suffer A fi sau a nu fi… Aceasta -i
intrebarea.
Mai vrednic oare e sa rabzi in
cuget A fi sau a nu fi: iată –
ntrebarea!
E oare mai de laudă să suferi
În sinea ta, săgețile și praștia

51

“To be, or not to be? That is the question” – In the first line, this famous line,
we notice the fact that as opposing Vinea’s “iată întrebarea,” which is a pretty general
description, Levițchi used a demonstrative pronoun as to highlight the question’s
importance. By using “Aceasta,” Levițchi manages to capture and render the right
intonation of the origi nal.
In line 2, Levițchi chose a good equivalent for “‘tis nobler” in using “mai
vrednic,” while Vinea has taken a little away from the idea of nobility in writing “mai
de laudă” since in Romanian, you may brag, but that does not necessarily mean to be a
nobleman as well.
“A sea of troubles” – we can say that this line was well translated by both
translators, yet there is a slight difference between them. While “mare de griji” is
almost correct as equivalent, “O mare de zbucium” is better, because ‘zbuci um’ implies The slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a
sea of troubles,
And, by opposing, end
them? To die, to sleep —
No more —and by a sleep to
say we end
The heartache and the
thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to —’tis a
consummation
Devoutly to be wished! To
die, to sleep.
To sleep, perchance to
dream —ay, there’s the rub,
For in that sleep of death
what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off
this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There’s
the respect
That makes calamity of so
long life.
Act III,scene 1 a vitregiei prastii si sageti, sau
arma s -o ridici
asupra marii de griji, si sa le
curmi?
Sa mori, sa dormi… Atat.
Si printr -un somn sa curmi
durerea din inima
si droaia de izbelisti ce -s date
carnii.
Este-o incheiere cucernic de
dorit.
Sa mori, sa dormi. Si poate sa
visezi.
Aici e greul, caci ce vise pot
rasari in somnu -acesta -al
mortii
cand ne -au lepadat hoitul
muritor?
La asta se cuvine a cugeta.
De-aceea, viata e napasta.

Norocului vrăjmaș, sau mai
degrabă
Să te -narmezi în fața unei
mări
De zbucium și prin luptă s -o
răpui?
Să mor i, să dormi… nimic mai
mult. Să știi
Că printr -un somn poți pune –
odată capăt
Durerii sufletești și -atâtor
chinuri
Ce-s partea cărnii, iată o –
ncheiere
Spre care năzuim. Să mori, să
dormi;
Să dormi poate visând? Aici
stă totul.
Ce vise -n somnul morții poți
visa
Când am scăpat vremelnicei
strânsori?
E tocmai ce ne -ndeamnă -a
pregeta,
Și-aici se află și acea -ndoială
Ce dă restriștii -o viață — atât
de lungă

52

a struggle to overcome troubles, not merely the idea that one is worried about one’s
troubles.
In analyzing the translations “pregeta” and “cugeta” for –”must give us pause,”
we can observe a slight deformation of the meaning of the original w ords, for “pregeta”
implies a pause and a doubt, while “cugeta” means only that one is thinking about
something, without adding a negative dimension like “doubt.”

3.1. Conclusions

In theoretical, didactic and thoroughly documented debates, the Shakespe are subject
has been investigated diachronically and synchronically by theorists of theatre studies,
translators and linguists. The studies upon Shakespeare’s work have become over time
sources of inspiration. Many essays were written about Shakespeare’s w ork, about his
dramatic plays, his theatrical life, about Shakespeare and the Elizabethan theatre, about
his work methods, sources of inspiration, studies about characters and themes, motives,
legends, superstitions and beliefs as well as studies upon the Shakespearian spelling,
versification, assonance and dissonance, the epic as a dramatic effect,etc.
Discussions become even more heated when the dispute falls upon translators
and translation. Most of our readings are translations. The understanding and en joyment
of literary works written in a new language has always been directly proportional to the
quality of its translation. The translator is the one that makes the link between the text
and its reader. In the context of the Shakespearean verve, the trans lator is one of the
main characters, inciting controversy and managing conflicts through his work.
The fidelity of translation is important. Transparency is perhaps the most
important factor in the quality of translations. This is because the lack of trans parency
can be noticed more easily than the lack of fidelity. For a translation to be considered
perfectly transparent, the native speaker of the target language must not realize that the
text was translated, but to believe that it was written directly in his language.
The general impression upon reading the original text and its two versions of
translation in parallel is that both translations tried to capture the essence of the original
text. They both rendered the meaning of the text as well as the form even though
sometimes, they had to adapt so as to obtain a naturalness of speech in the target
language. All in all, the two translations are a masterpiece and both translators
transcended their era and created so mething of their own.

53

Final C onclusions

William Shakespeare’s dramatic wok is very present for all mankind. Beyond the
beauty of his writing, his works fully recount the human experience and its complexity,
our future and our past but also our present. Shakespeare’s plays include the most
importa nt discussions about acute problems which are present even in our society: the
abandonment o f values, the negative, anti -spiritual and anti -cultural globalization, new
violent forms of alienation and lack of interpersonal communication, family
breakdowns, and attacks against nature as well as intolerance towards minorities and
horrible crimes of terrorism.
Through the diversity of techniques, theatrical procedures, disguises and
multiple plans, Shakespeare’s drama denounces the theatricality which it is bui lt on.
The English playwright addresses theatre from the artisan’s point of view , as well as
from the philosopher’s, his texts having an allure of certain remedies to the so -called
theatrical crisis and to scenic challenges.
His works, especially his drama tic texts , are a challenge! The language of his
opus represents an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time. The precise words of
his plays, from the famous poetic tirades to expressions of mediocre humour are prized
throughout the world today; they a re studied, archived and discussed in major
academies and theatres worldwide.
We are trying to understand why Shakespeare’s plays resist the erosion which
always appears over time, in a greater or lesser extent to all masterpieces. We can find
many answers , especially if we compare Shakespeare’s plays with other great drama
works such as the magnificent plays of the ancient Greeks or those of the 17th century
French classic ism.
Shakespeare’s plays exude a slight air of disuse which obliges translators to use
adaptations or make major changes, sometimes based on the play of anachronism,
provoking amazement and even perplexity for a more conservative audience. Such
situations – an ingenious game based on contrasts between the anachronisms and our
everyday life or the text as pretext – appear in Shakespeare’s work, specifically in the
case of Hamlet . At the same time, our relationship with the entire text, with i ts
originality and literalness is better. What could be perceived as archaic is removed by
the plural ity of readings that the play proposes. Many literary theorists discuss Hamlet’s

54

self-reflexive character, showing how, in terms of the reading which they propose, the
play speaks of itself, refers to itself, its object being its own structure, constructio n with
all that it carries as multiple meanings.
The difficulty of understanding and analyzing this piece stands in the unusually
large plurality of readings that it suggests, immanently but also explicitly, more
explicitly than many other ancient masterpi eces. If we follow the paradigm of self –
reflectivity (a supreme feature of a literary text, besides the plurality of reading that
leads to a typical ambiguity), everything which is taken in Hamlet from the rest of
Shakespeare’s work or everything which is read in the play as premonitory signs, can
be integrated in a lecture of placement in the abyss, a syntagm which has become very
popular and has been imposed largely due to the famous example offered by Hamlet.
Before theory, that helps us understand the p lay better, understand the extremely
rich offer of significations, of possible interpretations which are often contradictory,
there was practicing, which gave priority to a philosophical and psychological
approach. Criticism saw in Hamlet, the first truly modern play, and in Hamlet as a
character, the first modern man. It also noticed, without resorting to an elaborate theory
the ambiguity of the play. “The play asks questions, which never gives direct answers.
It is evasive or vague or ambiguous, where we would want it to be definite.”
(Kirschbaum, 1962: 77-98). In this space of ambiguity that the author created in full
consciousness , there is a place for everything: movements of abysmal consciousness,
unpredictable behaviour, melancholy, depression, madness , supreme wisdom, and a
character that knows how to take control, lucidity, dreaming, intellectual deployments
and poetic feelings.
Hamlet is the modern intellectual, a man who never takes action, always
remaining a prisoner of the word. But he is also a m an of action, waiting and preparing
the moment of action, being decisive. We think we can read Hamlet in the spirit of
openness and plurality, leaving behind the complex of the single reading, of the ‘best
reading’ and accepting in our practice a paradoxal reading with contradictory solutions.
The difficulty of forming clear principles regarding the translation of this work
is related to the paradoxical status or dual status of literary translation in general
because the translation is strongly linked to s cience and also art. Science demands
absolute objectivity, therefore leaving the object appear in its own light: say things as
they are. On the other hand, in art, the creator believes that art should express itself
without being limited by rules.

55

WORKS CITED

Adamson, Sylvia; Hunter, Lynette; Magnusson, Lynne; Thompson, Ann; Wales,
Katie. Arden Shakespeare: Reading Shakespeare’s Dramatic Language.
Los Angeles, 2010. Print.
Alcalay,Valeria. Lectures on the history of English literature –William
Shakespeare and the 17th century. Ministerul Învățământului și
Culturii,Univ. București,Facultatea de Filologie,1962. Print.
Baker, M. In Other Words . London: Routledge, 2003. Print.
Bakhtin, M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays . University of Texas P ress Slavic
Series, 1st vol. (trans. by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holoquist), Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1981. Print.
Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. Routledge, London and New York, 1980. Print.
Bassnett, S. and A. Lefevere. Constructing Cult ures. Essays on Literary Translation .
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd,1998. Print.
Bell, R. T. Translation and Translating: theory and practice . London. Longman,1991.
Print.
Beaugrande, R. Text, Discourse and Process. Towards a Multidisciplinary Sci ence of
Texts . London: Longman Group Ltd,1980. Print.
Bonvillain, N. Language and Communication. The Meaning of Messages . New Jersey:
Prentice Hall,2003. Print.
Boyce, Charles. Critical Companion to William Shakespeare, a Literary Reference
to his Life and Work. Vol 1, Facts on File, 2005. Print.
Bucuța, Emanoil. Cronica măruntă . Gândirea VIII / 8 -9,1928. Print.
Cantor, Paul A. Shakespeare -Hamlet (Second edition). Cambridge, 1989. Print.
Cartianu,A. Preda I.A. Dicționar al literaturii engleze. Editura Științifică,
București,1970. Print.
Catford, J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation . Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1965. Print.
Chen and Starosa. Intercultural Communication Competence: a synthesis in T. Vîlceanu
(ed.) Intercultural Communication. Pr erequisites for Effectiveness and
Efficiency . Craiova: Universitaria, 1996. Print.

56

Classe,O. Encyclopedia of Literary Transalation into English . Fitzroy Dearborn
Publishers,2000. Print.
Cronin, Michael. Translation and Globalization. Routledge, 2003. Pri nt.
Dana Chetrinescu Percec. Shakespeare and the Theatre .,Univ. Timisoara,2008. Print.
Dimitriu, Rodica. Theories and Practice of Translation . Iași: Institutul European, 2002.
Print.
Dumitrescu, Adela. Support curs Didactica Traducerii. Universitatea din Pitești. Print.
Fildan, G. 2009. Planta îndrăgostiților – Rozmarinul. Formula AS, nr. 857/2009. Print.
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Studies . Multilingual Matters LTD, 2001.
Print.
George Volceanov. The Shakespeare Canon Revisited . Ed. Nicu lescu, 240 pp. format
academic, 2005.
Gutt, E. -A. Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context . Manchester and
Boston: St. Jerome Publishing,2000. Print.
Hockett, C. A Course in Modern Linguistics . New York: Macmillan,1958. Print.
Hussey, S. S. The Literary Language of Shakespeare . London: Longman,1982. Print.
Katan, D. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and
Mediators . UK Northampton M.A: St. Jerome Publishing, 2004. Print.
Kövecses, Z. Metaphor in Culture. Universa lity and Variation . Cambridge,2007. Print.
Kramsch, C. Language and Culture . Oxford: Oxford University Press,1993. Print.
Jirí Levý. The Art of translation. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011.
Print.
Johnson, R. et al. The Practice of Cultural Studie s. London: Arnold,2004. Print.
Landers, Clifford. Literary translation – A Practical guide. Multilingual Matters
LTD. Print.
Levițchi, Leon. Îndrumar pentru traducătorii din limba engleză în limba română.
București: Ed. Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1975. Print.
Levițchi, Leon, Dan Dutescu -Hamlet , Mondero, 1999. Print.
Miu, Alina. The semantics of prose translation. Editura Universitatii din Pitesti,
2008. Print.
Monica Matei -Chesnoiu. Shakespeare in Nineteenth -Century Romania . ed. Humanitas,
2006. Print .
Munday, Jeremy . Introducing Translation Studies. Routledge, New York, 2001.
Print.

57

Newmark, P. A Textbook of Translation . Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall,1988. Print.
Newmark, P. Translation Theory or Spoof . Lecture delivered at the SSLMIT, Trieste
University,1995. Print.
Nida, E. A. Towards a Science of Translating . Leiden: Brill,1964. Print.
Nida, E. A. A Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of Theories of Translation in
R. Brislin (ed.) Translation: Applications and Research, New York: Gardner P ress,
1976. Print.
Nida, Eugene. The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication. Bruxelles . Les
Editions du Hazard, 1996. Print.
Perpessicius. Shakespeare în tălmăcirea d -lui Dragoș Protopopescu [Shakespeare in
Mr. Dragoș Protopopescu’s Translation] . Acțiunea II,1941. Print.
Protopopescu, Dragoș. Cuvânt înainte sau lupta cu Shakespeare [foreword to his
Romanian translation of The Tempest by W. Shakespeare]. București:
Fundațiile Regale “Regele Carol II”,1940. Print.
Rifatterre, M. La production du t exte. Editions du Seuil, Paris,1979. Print.
Schjoldager, Anne. Understanding translation. Academica,2008. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet,Pince of Denmark. The Folger
Library General Readers Shakespeare,Preface ,Washington Square
Press ,1957. Print.
Shmoop Editorial Team. Hamlet Writing Style . Shmoop . Shmoop University, Inc.,
11 Nov. 2008. Web. 28 April 2017.
Smith ,David. Shakespeare Criticism –A selection. Oxford University Press ,1916.
Print.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. Relevance: Co mmunication and Cognition . Oxford:
Blackwell,1986. Print.
Stanton, Kay. Hamlet’s Whores. Ed. Mak Thornton Burnett and John Manning,
Hamlet Collection 1, New York, 1994. Print.
Steiner, George. After Babel. Oxford, 1975. Print.
Steiner, George. After Babe l: Aspects of Language and Translation . Oxford: Univ
Press, 1985. Print.
Streinu, Vladimir. William Shakespeare. Tragedia lui Hamlet – prinț de Danemarca .
București: Editura pentru Literatură,1965. Print.
Taft, R. The Role and Personality of the Mediator . S. Bochner (ed.), The Mediating
Person: Bridges Between Cultures . Cambridge: Schenkman,1981. Print.

58

Ulrich, M. Translating Texts. From Theory to Practice . Rapallo: Cideb Editrice,1992.
Print.
Umberto, Eco. Experiences in translation . Toronto University Press, 2008. Print.
Valdes, J. M. Bridging the Cultural Gap in Language Teaching . Cambridge University
Press,1986. Print.
Venuti, Lawrence. The translator’s invisibility – The history of translation. Routledge,
NY ,1995.
Vinea, Ion. Hamlet . Ed. Univers, 1971.
Voicu Livia Mirela. Approaches to William Shakespeare. Craiova,2010.
Woodsworth, Judith. History of translation. Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies, NY, 1998.

59

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAP HY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Adamson, Sylvia; Hunter, Lynette; Magnusson, Lynne; Thompson, Ann; Wales,
Katie. Arden Shakespeare: Reading Shakespeare’s Dramatic Language.
Los Angeles, 2010. Print.
Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. Routledge, London and New Yo rk, 1980. Print.
Bassnett, S. and A. Lefevere. Constructing Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation .
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd,1998. Print.
Boyce, Charles. Critical Companion to William Shakespeare, a Literary Reference
to his Life and Work. Vol 1, Facts on File, 2005. Print.
Chen and Starosa. Intercultural Communication Competence: a synthesis in T.
Vîlceanu (ed.) Intercultural Communication. Prerequisites for Effectiveness and
Efficiency . Craiova: Universitaria, 1996. Print.
Levițchi, Leon. Îndrumar pentru traducătorii din limba engleză în limba română.
București: Ed. Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1975. Print.
Levițchi, Leon , Dan Dutescu -Hamlet , Mondero, 1999. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet,Pince of Denmark. The Folger
Library General Readers Shakespeare,Preface ,Washington Square
Press,1957. Print.
Vinea, Ion. Hamlet . Ed. Univers, 1971.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Alcalay,Valeria. Lectures on the history of English literature – William
Shakespeare and the 17th century. Minist erul Învățământului și
Culturii,Univ. București,Facultatea de Filologie,1962. Print.
Baker, M. In Other Words . London: Routledge, 2003. Print.
Bakhtin, M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays . University of Texas Press Slavic
Series, 1st vol. (trans. by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holoquist), Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1981. Print.
Bell, R. T. Translation and Translating: theory and practice . London. Longman,1991.
Print.

60

Beaugrande, R. Text, Discourse and Process. Towards a Multidisciplinary Sc ience of
Texts . London: Longman Group Ltd,1980. Print.
Bonvillain, N. Language and Communication. The Meaning of Messages . New Jersey:
Prentice Hall,2003. Print.
Bucuța, Emanoil. Cronica măruntă . Gândirea VIII / 8 -9,1928. Print.
Cantor, Paul A. Shakesp eare-Hamlet (Second edition). Cambridge, 1989. Print.
Cartianu,A. Preda I.A. Dicționar al literaturii engleze. Editura
Științifică,București,1970. Print.
Catford, J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation . Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1965. Print.
Classe,O. Encyclopedia of Literary Transalation into English . Fitzroy Dearborn
Publishers,2000. Print.
Cronin, Michael. Translation and Globalization. Routledge, 2003. Print.
Dana Chetrinescu Percec. Shakespeare and the Theatre ., Univ. Timisoara,2008. Print.
Dimitriu, Rodica. Theories and Practice of Translation . Iași: Institutul European, 2002.
Print.
Dumitrescu, Adela. Support curs Didactica Traducerii. Universitatea din Pitești. Print.
Fildan, G. 2009. Planta îndrăgostiților – Rozmarinul. Formula AS, nr. 857/2009. Print.
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Studies . Multilingual Matters LTD, 2001.
Print.
George Volceanov. The Shakespeare Canon Revisited . Ed. Niculescu, 240 pp. format
academic, 2005.
Gutt, E. -A. Translation and Relevance. Cogniti on and Context . Manchester and
Boston: St. Jerome Publishing,2000. Print.
Hockett, C. A Course in Modern Linguistics . New York: Macmillan,1958. Print.
Hussey, S. S. The Literary Language of Shakespeare . London: Longman,1982. Print.
Katan, D. Translating C ultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and
Mediators . UK Northampton M.A: St. Jerome Publishing, 2004. Print.
Kövecses, Z. Metaphor in Culture. Universality and Variation . Cambridge,2007. Print.
Kramsch, C. Language and Culture . Oxford: Ox ford University Press,1993. Print.
Jirí Levý. The Art of translation. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011.
Print.
Johnson, R. et al. The Practice of Cultural Studies . London: Arnold,2004. Print.

61

Landers, Clifford. Literary translation – A Practical gui de. Multilingual Matters
LTD. Print.
Miu, Alina. The semantics of prose translation. Editura Universitatii din Pitesti,
2008. Print.
Monica Matei -Chesnoiu. Shakespeare in Nineteenth -Century Romania . ed. Humanitas,
2006. Print.
Munday, Jeremy . Introduci ng Translation Studies. Routledge, New York, 2001.
Print.
Newmark, P. A Textbook of Translation . Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall,1988. Print.
Newmark, P. Translation Theory or Spoof . Lecture delivered at the SSLMIT, Trieste
University,1995. Print.
Nida, E. A. Towards a Science of Translating . Leiden: Brill,1964. Print.
Nida, E. A. A Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of Theories of Translation in
R. Brislin (ed.) Translation: Applications and Research, New York: Gardner Press,
1976. Print.
Nida, E ugene. The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication. Bruxelles . Les
Editions du Hazard, 1996. Print.
Perpessicius. Shakespeare în tălmăcirea d -lui Dragoș Protopopescu [Shakespeare in
Mr. Dragoș Protopopescu’s Translation]. Acțiunea II,1941. Print.
Protopopescu, Dragoș. Cuvânt înainte sau lupta cu Shakespeare [foreword to his
Romanian translation of The Tempest by W. Shakespeare]. București:
Fundațiile Regale “Regele Carol II”,1940. Print.
Rifatterre, M. La production du texte . Editions du Seuil, Pa ris,1979. Print.
Schjoldager, Anne. Understanding translation. Academica,2008. Print.
Shmoop Editorial Team. Hamlet Writing Style . Shmoop . Shmoop University, Inc.,
11 Nov. 2008. Web. 28 April 2017.
Smith, David. Shakespeare Criticism –A selection. Oxford University Press ,1916.
Print.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition . Oxford:
Blackwell,1986. Print.
Stanton, Kay. Hamlet’s Whores. Ed. Mak Thornton Burnett and John Manning,
Hamlet Collection 1, New York, 1994. Print.
Steine r, George. After Babel. Oxford, 1975. Print.

62

Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation . Oxford: Univ
Press, 1985. Print.
Streinu, Vladimir. William Shakespeare. Tragedia lui Hamlet – prinț de Danemarca .
București: Editura pentru L iteratură,1965. Print.
Taft, R. The Role and Personality of the Mediator . S. Bochner (ed.), The Mediating
Person: Bridges Between Cultures . Cambridge: Schenkman,1981. Print.
Ulrich, M. Translating Texts. From Theory to Practice . Rapallo: Cideb Editrice,1 992.
Print.
Umberto, Eco. Experiences in translation . Toronto University Press, 2008. Print.
Valdes, J. M. Bridging the Cultural Gap in Language Teaching . Cambridge University
Press,1986. Print.
Venuti, Lawrence. The translator’s invisibility – The histor y of translation. Routledge,
NY ,1995. Print.
Vinea, Ion. Hamlet . Ed. Univers, 1971. Print
Voicu Livia Mirela. Approaches to William Shakespeare. Craiova, 2010. Print.
Woodsworth, Judith. History of translation. Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Stud ies, NY, 1998. Print.

Tel: +40 (269) 216 062
Fax: +40 (269) 21 7 887

Ministerul Educa ției Naționale
Universitatea “Lucian Blaga” din Sibiu

Adresa: Bd -ul. Victoriei, n r. 10
Sibiu, 550024, Rom ânia
e-mail: rectorat @ulbsibiu.ro
www.ulbsibiu.ro

VIZAT
Conducător științific

Declarația pentru conformitate asupra originalității operei științifice

Subsemnatul / Subsemnata………………………. ………… …………………………… …….. domiciliat/ă în
localitatea…………… ………… ….. adresa poștală….. ………….. ……………………………………………………………
având actul de identitate seria …….. ….. nr…………….. ……., codul numeric personal
……………………… …………….. înscris/ă pentru susținerea lucrării de disertație cu
titlul ………………………………………………. ………………………………… …………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………..
………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
declar următoarele:
• opera științifică nu aparține altei persoane, instituții, entități cu care mă aflu în relații de
muncă sau altă natură;
• opera șt iințifică nu este contrară ordinii publice sau bunelor moravuri, iar prin aplicarea
acesteia nu devine dăunătoare sănătății ori vieții persoanelor, animalelor sau plantelor;
• opera științifică nu a mai fost publicată de subsemnatul / subsemnata sau de o ter ță persoană
fizică sau juridică, în țară sau în străinătate, anterior datei depunerii acesteia spre evaluare în
scopul obținerii recunoașterii științifice în domeniu.
Specific explicit că ideile prezentate sunt originale, iar sursele de informații care sta u la
baza emiterii unor teorii originale au fost corect citate și prezentate în opera științifică.
Data…………………………………….
Numele și prenumele………………………………………………….
Semnătura…………………. ………………………
Notă: Prezenta declarație va purta viza conducătorului științific.

Cod. PO – ULBS – DPPI – 06_ed – 1_rev – 0 / 05.11
Copyright : http://ppi.ulbsibiu.ro/ro/despre/proceduri.php