Tuesday, 14 July 2015

Fractured Black British Female Identities in Winsome Pinnock’s Talking in Tongues: hybridity and ways of transcendence

by Eleonora Arduini





The play Talking in Tongues by Winsome Pinnock was first performed at the Royal Court Theatre in 1991 under the direction of Hettie McDonald. The play treats the issue of Jamaican black women's search for identity which, according to the author, is seemingly connected to issues of belonging, race, gender and sexuality. The main characters represent in fact black British citizens who, living in England, experience a sense of marginalization and alienation which leaves their identities fractured. This is primarily caused by the sexist and racist notions shared by the British society, which prevents them from finding their own voice in the country they were born and raised. On the background of the play the experience of the Jamaican diaspora represents the journey of thousands of Jamaicans who migrated in order to find better job opportunities and a better life in England. This essay seeks to analyse the topic of the fractured identity focusing on the issues of stereotype, language, homeland and hybrid identity.
As far as the issue of stereotype is concerned, the western perceptions of feminine beauty affect the construction of black female identity in the characters of the play.  Although the female protagonists were both born and raised in England, their black skin and black physical traits as well as their Jamaican origins increase their need for experiencing a sense of belonging towards England. However, the English society, instead of embracing the difference, marginalizes and categorizes these women fracturing and shaping their identities. Being marked by the western stereotypes regarding the white codes of physical beauty, black women have constantly been constructed as the Other in opposition to white British women. The physical attributes, regarding the white conception of beauty, postulate that a woman should have straight and long hair, smalllips and white skin in order to be considered beautiful by men (Cervovsky, 2013, sect.19). Accordingly, as Debbie Weekes maintains “whiteness and its associated outward signifier have been used as a yardstick by which difference has been measured” (Weekes, 1997 cited in Cervovsky, 2013, sect.19). Therefore, Pinnock aims at portraying how these sexist and racist notions of physical beauty lay the foundations for black women's inferiority in opposition to white women's superiority. The play appears to provide several examples of how Leela, Claudette and the other female characters are influenced by perceptions of female beauty as well as how these women attempt to conform to the white prototype in order to assimilate. For instance, Irma, one of the secondary characters, seems to have tried to dye her black her “undergoing one of those torturous hair treatments - […] the kind where they put some foul-smelling cream on your head” (Pinnock, 1995: 194). However, the treatment fails and she is left with a bald head and the impossibility to become a proper white woman. Then, Claudette states that she wants to feel as beautiful as a white woman as well as she admits that “there are two different kinds of woman” (Pinnock, 1995: 217). Moreover, Claudette, as Irma, seems to pay great attention to her hair which embodies the conventional symbol of feminine sensuality and attractiveness. As a consequence of this, she relates an event regarding a white girl she knew when she was younger. Claudette then reports how she “used to pose in front of my mum's dressing-table with a yellow polo-neck on my head. I'd swish it around, practice flicking my hair back like she used to” (ibid). By positioning the mother's yellow shirt on her head, Claudette pretended that her black hair was as blond, straight and attractive as the hair of the white friend she envied. Furthermore, she harshly reproaches black men for dating white women in order to become as white as them and to conform to society's stereotypes (Cervovsky, 2013, sect.19). For instance, Bentley, who is Leela's husband, abandons and betrays his wife falling in love with Fren, a white woman. On the one hand it seems that men, by choosing white women, attempt to assimilate to white citizens assuming that white is superior to black. Men, thereby, as women, attempt to find a sense of belonging to a society which only negates comfort and assistance to blacks. Thus, Claudette articulates her personal disapproval at Bentley's behaviour by asking Leela “Did you see the look in Bentley's eye when he caught sight of the living barbie doll?” (Pinnock, 1995: 202) and then she clarifies to Bentley that “she can't make you white, black boy” (Pinnock, 1995: 203). However, men's tendency to choose white women in order to facilitate their assimilation to society also encourages black women's sense of unbelonging and their fractured identity. This is primarily due to the sense of abandonment that these women experience feeling “at a proverbial bottom objects of undesirability or worse invisible” (Brown-Guillory, 2006: 38). Therefore, the western stereotypes regarding beauty and physical attractiveness affect blacks' sense of uprootedness and the formation of their identity. By appealing to the these fixed ideas, white British citizens exclude black men and women from the society in which they were born and raised and provoke a division in their identity.
In terms of language, Lynette Goddard maintains that English, through the postulation of racist binary constructions of self and other, supports black individuals' marginalization (Goddard, 2007 cited in Cervovsky, 2013, sect.26). As Goddard observes, the terms black, dark and inferior, which represent negative features, are attached to black citizens whereas the terms light, white and superior, which in the English language are regarded as positive, usually refer to white individuals (ibid). Accordingly, the language, through these racist binary constructions of what constitutes the Self and what the Other, affect the formation of the Jamaican women's identities as well as it postulates, through words, the Whites' superiority over the Blacks' inferiority. Although Leela and Claudette's mother tongue is English, they do not seem to feel represented by this language which lays the foundations for their social exclusion. Therefore, these women appear to feel divided between their desire to express themselves in English as well ass through this language feeling a sense of belonging towards their mother country and their rejection of the language system which represses their Jamaican voices preventing them from acquiring a homogeneous British identity (Cervovsky, 2013, sect. 26). As Leela states “if you don't feel you belong to a language then you're half alive because you haven't the words to bring yourself into existence, you might as well be invisible” (Pinnock, 1995: 195). Leela thereby does not appear to consider English her language since it postulates her inferior status in society and it does not provide her with the words to express her true self but it only helps her sense of alienation from the language she is forced to inhabit (Griffin, 2003: 84). Furthermore, when Leela and Claudette discover Bentley's betrayal and confront him Leela does not seem to find the right words to express her disapproval and distress for the husband's immoral behaviour. Claudette supports her with the words she cannot find reproaching Bentley who “wanted the best of both words” (Pinnock, 1995: 201) until Leela informs her that she “can speak for myself” (ibid) but Claudette replies “Why don't you then? Go on, speak” (ibid).
However, even though Leela may feel the English language as oppressive towards the black race, by using another means of communication, she challenges the marginalization asserted by her mother tongue. In the second act, while conversing with Sugar, she experiences bodily convulsions and by manifesting all her repressed anger she starts “talking in tongues” (Pinnock, 1995: 223). Her body releases the tension she has been kept hidden for all those years and Leela seemingly transforms into a new being. By using the expression “talking in tongues” (ibid), Winsome Pinnock does nor probably refer to any specific kind of language. She probably aims to display that since Leela is silenced by a language premised on racist and sexist assumptions, the only means to release her pain and her anger and to denounce her sense of alienation is to find another system of communication which does not marginalizes and categorizes her race. However, Winsome Pinnock does not probably indicate what language or means of communication because every language, by being culturally influenced, probably carries sexist or racist assumptions (Brown-Guillory, 2006: 42-43). This event is foreshadowed by an episode that Sugar narrates in the prologue regarding a woman named Dum-Dum who “never speaks” (Pinnock, 1995: 173). As Sugar notices, she had “never hear say a word in my life”  (ibid) but while other women were singing she suddenly “start to sway and rise up on her toes like there was something inside her, pulling her up” (ibid). She then lifts her “body to the sky” and shouts “loud and loud and saying words very fast in a language you never hear before” (Pinnock, 1995: 174). As Leela, Dum-Dum was probably silenced by a language which postulated the inferiority of women and only encountering another system of communication she can deliver herself from the sexist values which her language conveys.  Therefore, the English language, by defining blacks as dark and inferior and whites as light and superior, portrays black British citizens as Others in comparison to the white population. This dichotomy prevents the black citizens from feeling a sense of belonging to their country and leaves them torn between their desire to be part of British society and the impossibility to find their own voice in this country (Cervovsky, 2013, sect.26).
Nonetheless, Pinnock, through the episode of Dum-Dum, introduces the character of Sugar, aiming at stressing the internal conflict that the protagonist Leela is experiencing in her life. Sugar, in fact, as a secondary character, emerges in the second act of the play and covers the function of the foil according to a narrative perspective. By contrasting with the main character, her function is to highlight particular qualities or conflicts occurring in the protagonist. Therefore, Sugar, by sharing some affinity with Leela points to stress her despair and alienation and her need for an identity. As Leela, Sugar experiences the betrayal of her man who engages in sexual relationships with the female tourists in order to help the economic survival of his country. Firstly with Claudette and then with Kate, he does not pay attention to Sugar's feelings as well as Bentley rudely communicates Leela that he “didn't want things to be like this” (Pinnock, 1995: 201). Moreover, both these women experience discrimination. Sugar seems to be regarded as inferior among white female tourists as Claudette, who does not even think she has the right to claim Mikie's presence in fact “she doesn't own you” (Pinnock, 1995: 205) whereas Leela experiences discrimination in her country due to the colour of her skin as well as when her husband leaves her in order to “fit into the white world” (Pinnock, 1995: 198). However, although their shared similarities, their juxtaposition reveals their contrast: despite Mikie's betrayal, Sugar, thanks to an “assured sense of the self” (Griffin, 2003: 101) and her self confidence coming from belonging angrily claims his boyfriend who belongs to her and she seemingly transforms into a “spitfire” knowing “how to hit a man when it hurt” (Pinnock, 1995: 205). On the contrary, Bentley's betrayal intensifies Leela's “unsettled identity” (Griffin, 2003: 101). Contrarily to Sugar who feels profoundly attached to her land, Leela's sense of displacement appears to increase when she discovers the relationship between Bentley and Fran since she is forced to face rejection not only from society but also from her husband. Accordingly, she does not apparently criticise him as Sugar but remains silent and as the play develops, it seems even more difficult for her encountering a sense of belonging to a place or a person (Griffin, 2003: 101). Therefore, even though these characters share similar experiences,their split or homogeneous identity allow them to manifest opposing reactions towards their lovers' betrayal. Moreover, the comparison with Sugar, emphasises Leela's impending need to belong to a place and find an identity.
Regarding the issue of homeland, the two female protagonists, due to the social exclusion experienced in England, return to Jamaica in order to connect to their roots. Leela and Claudette, who cannot feel a sense of attachment to their mother country since “where you live does not equate with a sense of belonging” (Griffin, 2003: 87), return to Jamaica, where the origins of their families lie, hoping to overcome their sense of alienation. By mimicking the Jamaican diaspora, these women move to this country where people “seem so at ease with themselves and have the confidence that comes from belonging” (Pinnock, 1995: 206). However, sharing the same physical traits and skin colour do not apparently guarantee, the recognition of a unitary black identity as well as coming to terms with the multi-locationality of their identities. On the contrary, the Jamaican inhabitants tend to regard them as mere tourists, as temporary visitors whose whims and caprices should be indulged for the sake of the money they bring to the Jamaican economy (Griffin, 2003: 84). For instance, Claudette, engages in a relationship with Mikie who considers this sexual affair as a simple business transaction in order to entertain the tourists who only care of “sex and cocktails” (Pinnock, 1995: 205). Mikie in fact by participating in this sex tourism aims at persuading visitors who come to Jamaica to return to his poor country in order to support the Jamaican economy. Then, Mikie leaves Claudette without any official explanation and pursues with the white tourist Kate, demonstrating his indifference for both his girlfriend and Claudette's feelings. In addition, Mikie further comments on the black tourists' behaviour who one the one hand behave nicely with the native inhabitants attempting to establish a bond which could provide them with the sense of belonging they are desperately seeking, on the other hand they treat “us like dirt” (Pinnock, 1995: 223). For instance, when Sugar is blamed for Kate's attack and punished with the loss of her job, neither Leela nor Claudette seemingly intervene in order to preserve Sugar's job. As Sugar observes paraphrasing Mikie's thoughts, “he says you all sick, say unno come out here because you broken people...you come here looking for...unno tourist think you belong here. But you come out and you don't know where to put yourself: one minute you talking sisterhood, the next minute you treating us like dirt. You just the same as all the other tourists them” (ibid). Accordingly, the Jamaican inhabitants do not seem even to trust the black tourists whose unstable behaviour appears as unreliable (Griffin, 20013: 87). Therefore, Pinnock questions the simplistic notion of homeland as a place where an individual was born, or where the origins of his family lie suggesting the issue seems far more complex than it appears at a first glance.
As far as the hybrid identity is concerned, Leela overcomes her sense of alienation by transcending both Jamaica and England and embracing an identity shaped by both her Jamaican and English parts.  Leela cannot find her identity neither in England, due to the racial discrimination, nor in Jamaica, where she does not live and is thereby regarded as a mere tourist by the inhabitants of the island. Nonetheless, her origins may be connected to England, the place where she was born whereas Jamaica embodies the land where her grandparents probably lived and determines the colour of her skin as well as of her physical traits. Accordingly, her identity may be defined as hybrid and not fractured since it symbolizes the product of the union of two countries in a single entity and it establishes a relation of complementarity between them (Griffin, 2003: 90). For instance, Leela, by walking through the Jamaican nature, approaches physically and metaphorically to this land and attempts to know the country to which she has a distant relation but in which “she also figures as other” (Griffin, 2003: 84). As a consequence of this, she understands that, despite her English life, she belongs to Jamaica with which she shares her physical attributes and her origins. However, she cannot probably negate that she also party represents an English woman, since she was born and raised in the UK as well as her mother tongue is English. Leela thereby may become a hybrid creature who, transcending both Jamaica and England, finally comes into contact with her true self and overcomes any inner conflict. Furthermore, the author, supports this conception of the hybrid identity by relating her personal story as daughter of two parents who emigrated to Britain in 1958. Although she was born in England three years later in 1961, Winsome Pinnock maintains that “we really did feel torn between the two cultures, although one was a culture that in reality one didn't know much about” (Glaap, 1995 cited in Glaap, 1998: 205). She describes her first trip to Jamaica as a turning-point of her life and the occasion to become reconciled with her identity. After her journey to Jamaica she thereby defined herself as “this new being. One who is a mixture of many different cultures and therefore able to take from all of them” (ibid). Therefore, Pinnock, as Leela, accepts herself as “one speaking with vastly different voices” (ibid), a hybrid creature who recognizes the richness and variety of her background.
In conclusion, the play itself, regarding the quest for identity of two English girls of Jamaican origins, displays similarities with the life of the author herself. Winsome Pinnock, who was born in London as Claudette and Leela, still embraces her Afro-Caribbean heritage as the protagonists of her play. The fractured identity that these characters may experience because of the alienation suffered in England and Jamaica fosters the questions of identity and belonging, even though play ends with a positive message. Pinnock in fact seemingly argue for the necessity and possibility of interracial communication between women. This is primairly embodied both in the scene where Sugar supports Leela while she is “talking in tongues” (Pinnock, 1995: 223) as well as in the final scene when Leela, the black woman, promises Kate, the white, to walk together “next time” (Pinnock, 1995: 225).



Works Cited

Brown-Guillory, E. (2006) Middle Passages and the Heritage Place of History Ohio: Thomson- Shore Inc.
Cervovsky, E. M. (2013) The search for Identity in Black British Women's Drama: an Analysis of Jackie Kay's Chiaroscuro and Winsome Pinnock's Talking in Tongues. An Internet Journal for Gender Studies. Retrieved, October, 4 2014 from <www.genderforum.org/issues/special-issue- early-career-researchers-i/detailed-table-of-contents>.
Glaap, A. R. (1998) Speaking in vastly different voices: transcultural communication inWinsome Pinnock's plays in Kloos, W., Across the Lines: Intertextuality and Transcultural Communication in New Literature in English (pp. 205-212). Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V.
Griffin, G. (2003) Contemporary Black and Asian Women Playwrights in Britain Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luckhurst, M. (2010) A Companion to Modern British and Irish Drama 1880-2005 Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Middeke, M., Schnierer, P., Sierz, A.,  (2011) The Metheun Drama Guide to Contemporary British Playwrights London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Pinnock, W. (1995) Talking in Tongues London: Metheun Drama.






Photo: http://thesegalcenter.org/

Sunday, 12 July 2015

Joyce’s Ulysses in Hungarian

by Giorgia Winter



Joyce’s Ulysses was wholly published in Paris in 1922 but earlier it could be read in an American journal, The Little Review, which serialized it in parts from March 1918 to December 1920. The novel divided readers and critics. In Eastern Europe on the basis of ideological reasons Joyce’s novel was alleged to be extremely extravagant, moreover, it was accused of blasphemy and pornography in both Eastern and Western Europe. Before its first Hungarian translation was published, the critique had judged the novel remarkable. But in Hungary from 1930s to 1980s due to the Marxist critique the reaction to Ulysses became negative. Interestingly, a positive, independent critique began to evolve from 1960s. Judgement of Irish culture in Europe and the United States, the international situation of Hungary and the English knowledge of critics and translators were included in the issues of reception. This essay tells the history of the Hungarian translation of Joyce’s Ulysses and examines the quality of two different translations.
The history of the Hungarian translation of Joyce’s Ulysses has some milestones. Mihály Babits wanted to organize a group to translate Ulysses but in issue 16 of Nyugat in 1936 he says that Miklós Szentkuthy is the Hungarian Joyce and he could translate Ulysses. However, Endre Gáspár had translated Joyce’s novel from English into Hungarian in 1947, Miklós Szentkuthy translated it again in 1974, but according to some critics, he rewrote Ulysses. Between releasing the two translations significant studies were published connected to Joyce’s Ulysses in Hungary, namely, in 1959 Tibor Lutter’s monography and in 1967 Péter Egri’s study, James Joyce and Thomas Mann: Decadency and Modernity. In 1986 Szentkuthy’s translation was published again edited by Tibor Bartos. By the time the newest translation was released in 2012, studies about Joyce’s works had been available to the public since 1990s, among them Ákos Farkas’s Will’s Son and Jake’s Peer:Anthony Burgess and Joyce’s relationship, was introduced in 2002. As a significant stage in the translation of Ulysses the Hungarian James Joyce Society has been working since 2002, and its yearly conference is held in Szombathely where Bloom, one of the protagonists of the novel, originated from.
By using the idea of Mihály Babits, as the members of Magyar James Joyce Műhely (MJJM), András Kappanyos, Gábor Zoltán Kiss, Marianna Gula and Dávid Szolláth translated Joyce’s Ulysses from English into Hungarian on the basis of Gabler’s edition[1] and Szentkuthy’s translation. As the essential target, MJJM decided to create a new, clearer interpretation of Joyce’s novel using Szentkuthy’s version to make the new form different to the former ones philologically and structurally. The supplementary materials[2] that are used to new interpretation are Ulysses Annotated[3], New Bloomsday Book[4], Allusions in Ulysses[5], Ulysses: A Reference Guide[6], the advertisements of Titbits[7], the photos of Joyce Images[8] and the Ulysses Concordance site[9]. The verses of the Bible were quoted on the basis of by Károly’s translation version, and the other poems and quotations were translated keeping their original translators’ texts. Consequently, Shakespeare’s works were quoted following János Arany’s work. Utilizing the knowledge about Joyce and his work that had been accumulated since 1974, the methods of this translation differentiated MJJM’s work from Szentkuthy’s.  In accordance with András Kappanyos’s group, Szentkuthy’s version contains a lot of inaccuracies that damage the system of the novel. These inaccuracies were written as the consequence of referential errors, due to cultural misunderstanding, and the consequence of structural inaccuracies, which are lost motifs and parts of narrative. Szentkuthy became accused of exaggeration of translation, and as a result, his virtuosity in writing influences understanding. In excuse of the former Hungarian versions of Ulysses their translators did not have enough information and they could not use equipment of mass communication, which made the translation much easier in the twenty-first century. Therefore they could not keep the inner system of the novel’s references; however, Szentkuthy and Bartos could have used the Gabler’s edition of Ulysses and Gifford’s annotationa in the revised version of Szentkuthy’s first translation. To remove the earlier mentioned mistakes MJJM wanted to integrate Joyce’s life-work into Hungarian culture to provide opportunity to readers to experience the reading of Joyce’s works including Ulysses. Although none of the translations of Ulysses are perfect, to translateOxen of the Sun” episode, which is the most studied episodes, is practically impossible. As a result, this episode contains the most conspicious mistakes and slips in Szentkuthy’s version.  
Nevertheless, Kappanyos’s group tried to eliminate the mistakes that Szentkuthy had made. By illustrating the elimination of these mistakes with examples, Szentkuthy’s and MJJM’s translation are compared on the basis of the themes of “passion” and “religion.” In Oxen of the Sun” episode Joyce uses chronological order of imitations of English prose style to the narrative of this chapter from Latin prose to contemporary slang. The style of Horace Walpole’s and Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu are also parodied (U 14.1010-37). Within this paragraph, in which two representatives of Gothic are recalled, there is only one useful information with exaggerating the importance of circumstances. As for this information, Mulligan says that he will meet Haines at Westland Row railway station at ten past eleven and the readers of Ulysses know that the two men have parted from each other at Moore’s. This short message is wrapped up in imitation of Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto and Le Fanu’s The House by the Churchyard. When Francisco says to Bernardo, who arrives to relieve him at guarding: “[f]or this relief much thanks” (U 14.1034). This quotation of Hamlet is put to two different contexts in Ulysses. In “Nausicaa” episode Bloom is thinking as a voyeur after a sexual adventure. “Did me good all the same. Off colour after Kiernan’s, Dignam’s. For this relief much thanks. In Hamlet, that is. Lord! It was all things combined. Excitement” (U 13.939). But in “Oxen of the Sun” episode this sentence is the part of the narrative text, in which Mulligan reveals that Haines is guilty. János Arany had translated: “Köszönöm, hogy felváltasz,” which was used by Szentkuthy in the second case when the sentence is occurred again, but he translated “Köszönöm a megkönnyebbülést” (Szentkuthy 476) as Blooms sigh after an erotic experience due to Gerty McDowell. The newest and different version is “Köszönöm, rámfért” (MJJM 357, 393), which is understandable in both situations. Szentkuthy’s translations disturb to recognize the quotation of Hamlet, and their styles are not adequate but MJJM’s translation is clear in terms of both sections.
Also, Laurence Sterne’s style, and his work, A Sentimental Journey, were parodied involving allusions to sexual life, similarly in the former quotation. This paragraph of “Oxen of the Sun” episode mentions dividing the adequate contraceptive device that was banned in Ireland at the turning of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. “Capote” means condom and “umbrella” is slang for a diaphragm, “Le Fécondatour” means “the impregnator” in this episode. Both of them are prepared for the peak of a sexual act. “Tut, tut! cries Le Fécondateur, tripping in, my friend Monsieur Moore, that most accomplished traveler [. . .] is my authority that in Cape Horn, ventre biche, they have a rain that will wet through any, even the stoutest cloak” (U 14.778-82). The metaphor of a sexual act is signalled directly in Szentkuthy’s translation, in which “Phalladia” means “Cape Horn” (Szentkuthy 519). In the new translation “Cape Horn” appears as “Jóreménység foka” (MJJM 387) without any exaggeration. The word of “Phalladia” is not translated but created and “Jóreménység foka” can demonstrate what the base of the metaphor is and it does not destroy Joyce’s original metaphor.
Beside imitation of Gothic style, as a passion, taking drugs is mentioned: “Dope is my only hope” (U 14.1024). Szentkuthy translated it as “[t]ápszerem a kábszer” (528), and the new translation is “[e]gyetlen remény e hűs edény” (MJJM 393). As “dope” can mean a drug taken illegally for recreational purposes, or a drug given to a racehorse or greyhound to inhibit or enhance the performance of animals and a drug taken by athletes to improve their performance. Neither of the translations expresses the original  meaning precisely. Egyetlen reményem a drogos edényem”, “A mámor ápol”, “Bizakodom az italomon” (my translation) could be more exact interpretations. “A mámor ápol” is the most concise but does not express that this is the only hope. “Bizakodom az italomon” refers rather to drinking alcohol than dope, and Egyetlen reményem a drogos edényem” is similar to MJJM’s  translation but expresses using drugs more directly.
The concept of passion in religious context recalls the Passion of Jesus Christ, in Lestrygonians” episode. Paying game. Torry and Alexander last year. Poligamy. His wife will put the stopper on that.Where was that ad some Birmingham firm the luminous crucifix. Our Saviour. Wake up in the dead of night and see him on the wall, hanging. Pepper’s ghost idea. Iron Nails Ran In” (U 8.17-20). At the beginning of this episode Bloom looks at a sweet-shop then a young Y.M.C.A. man gives him a throughaway that announces “Elijah is coming” and the “Blood of the Lamb.” Looking at the throughaway, Bloom starts to associate, and thinks of Jesus. Szentkuthy had translated: “Gyűjtési cirkusz. Tavaly Torry és Alexander. Poligámia. Majd a felesége rendet csinál. Hol van az a hirdetés, valami birminghami cég a világító feszülettel? Megváltónk. Éjfélt üt az óra felriadsz és látod ott lógni a falon. Grandguignol. Vasszögekkel szögelteték” (187). But MJJM’s interpretation is different: “A pénzre mennek. Tavaly Torry és Alexander. Poligámia. Ehhez majd még a feleségének is lesz egy-két szava. Hol volt az a hirdetés, valami birminghami cég a világító feszülettel? Megváltónk. Éjfélt üt az óra, felriadsz és látod ott lógni a falon. A Pepper-féle szellem ötlete. Irgalom Nélkül Rángattak Ide” (149). From Szentkuthy’s translation “Pepper’s ghost idea”is lacking. Gifford explaines:  Padraic Colum in an interview in 1968 recalled this as a circus or stage trick developed by an Englishman named John Pepper in the 1870s. It involved the manipulation of phosphorescent costumes, lighting, and dark curtains to produce the dramatic illusion of ghostly presences on stage” (Gifford 157). Grandguignol means dramatic entertainment featuring the gruesome or horrible originated from Le Grand Guignol, small theater in Montmartre, Paris, which specialized in such performances. The expression that Szentkuthy uses does not signal the original thought and it is too abstract. MJJM translated this sentence word for word. In this passage the other difference between the two translations is the last sentence of the paragraph. Iron Nails Ran In” recalls the acronym of INRI, the abbreviation of Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum represents the Latin inscription which in English reads as Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews.” The inscription has been written on the crucifix hanging on the wall, in Bloom’s room. Looking at the crucifix Bloom’s thought becomes frivolous mixing his mystical and religious ideas. Bloom’s stream of consciousness is metonimical and reminds its readers of epic poetry and realism. [. . .] We always know what Bloom is doing and where he is staying, consequently the connection between what he thinks and does is direct” (Goldmann 127, my translation). Márta Goldmann quotes David Lodge’s statement about metaphorical and metonymical poles after Roman Jakobson’s theory. Szentkuthy’s interpretation, Vasszögekkel szögelteték” renders the original content and MJJM’S translation, “Irgalom Nélkül Rángattak Ide” expresses the form but neither of them have unity between content and form. Igazhitűt Nem Raknak Ide”, Indokolatlanul Nem Raknak Ide”, “Istenhívő Nem Rakatna Ide” or Isten Nem Rakatna Ide”(my translation) could be the other solutions.
In Bloom’s stream of consciousness, Easter appears with the problem of lent and as a reaction Bloom’s first impression is eating and dying of hunger. Increase and multiply. Did you ever hear such an idea? Eat you out of house and home. No families themselves to feed. Living on the fat of the land. Their butteries and larders. I’d like to see them do the black fast Yom Kippur. Crossbuns. One meal and a collation for fear he’d collapse on the altar” (U 8.33-7). “Increase and multiply is quoted from Genesis 1:28 and it is the key of Roman Catholic condemnation of birth control. No families themselves to feed” refers to Roman Catholic priests who are not allowed to have children. Living on the fat of the land” recalls Genesis 45:18 where the generous pharaoh gives the crops of his land to Joseph and his nation. Yom Kippur, which is the key word of the next sentence, is the Day of Atonement for the Jewish people who celebrate this day with fasting and praying. The similar black fast in the Christian tradition means that on the fifth Sunday of the Lent before Easter nothing can be eaten except for water, and the altar in the church is covered with a black veil. By mentioning the name of small cakes, “Crossbuns” Bloom associates the fast of Good Friday and Yom Kippur then the traditional Easter cake as a gift after surviving the Lent. Szentkuthy had translated crossbuns” as “császárzsemle”, which is a different type of cake, namely Kaiser roll, and it does not remind readers of Easter but the Habsburg Monarchy. This Hungarian expression is the odd one out of the text. “Gyarapodjatok és sokasodjatok. Hallottak már ilyet? Zabáljátok föl mindeneteket. Ilyenek nem tudnak gondoskodni magukról. Csak élnek bele a világba. Elvégre kamrájuk. Szeretném látni, hogy koplalják ezek végig Jom Kippur bűnbánati böjtjét. Császárzsemlén. Egyszeri étkezés és egy kis böjti étel, nehogy az ember ott essen össze az oltárnál” (Szentkuthy 187-88). As the original version “Crossbuns” connects everyday life with religion on the basis of the association of hunger but Szentkuthy’s choice, „császárzsemlén” does not allude to religion but “Húsvéti kalács” as MJJM’s version fits in the text precisely. “Gyarapodjatok és sokasodjatok. Hallottak már ilyet? Zabáljátok föl mindeneteket. Nekik persze nincs családjuk, amit etetniük kellene. Övék a földnek legjava. Tele a pince meg a padlás. Szeretném látni, hogy csinálnák végig Jom Kippúr fekete böjtjét. Húsvéti kalács. Egyszeri étkezés és egy kis böjti étel, épp csak hogy össze ne essen az oltárnál” (MJJM 150). From the fourth sentence of this section the two translation differentiate. As mentioned earlier, “Living on the fat of the land” refers to the generous pharaoh, who gives the crops of his land to Joseph and his nation. “Csak élnek bele a világba” does not allude to the Biblical context but “Övék a földnek legjava” does. “Their butteries and larders” is translated as “Elvégre kamrájuk” by Szentkuthy, which surpasses the newest version Tele a pince meg a padlás”, which is more adequate form in Hungarian. MJJM’s version kept the context of the Bible but Szentkuthy associated more generally.
In Telemachus” episode a theological interpretation of Hamlet is mentioned in terms of the Father-Son relationship then Mulligan chants his blasphemous comic ballad of Joking Jesus, which also explores the subject of fraternity and divinity in the form of parody. “I'm the queerest young fellow that ever you heard. / My mother's a jew, my father's a bird. / With Joseph the joiner I cannot agree. / So here's to disciples and Calvary. // If anyone thinks that I amn't divine / He'll get no free drinks when I'm making the wine / But have to drink water and wish it were plain / That I make when the wine becomes water again. // Goodbye, now, goodbye! Write down all I said / And tell Tom, Dick and Harry I rose from the dead. / What's bred in the bone cannot fail me to fly / And Olivet's breezy. . . Goodbye, now, goodbye!(U 1.584-99).  The model of Buck Mulligan, who chants this song, is Joyce’s friend, Oliver St. John Gogarty, physician, writer, poet and the celebrity of his age. Some lines of his work, The Song of the Cheerful (but Slightly Sarcastic) Jesus are quoted as The Ballad of Joking Jesus by Joyce in Ulysses. Gogarty’s poem was circulated in manuscript in Dublin at the beginning of the twentieth century. Originally, Gogarty sent the ballad to Joyce as a gift for Christmas to conclude a peace after their quarrels in 1904. Other personal details of Buck Mulligan, namely his Hellenism, status as a medical student, friendship with George Moore, who became deeply involved in the Irish Literary Revival movement, his full name in the novel, Malachi Roland St. John Mulligan, are parallel to Gogarty's biography.  Later Joyce  abridged and modified The Ballad of Joking Jesus for inclusion in the opening chapter. Szentkuthy rewrote the ballad entirely: “Az anyám zsidó, az apám rigó, / Elsők közt én a felkent strigó. / Szent Jóskát a léccel nem értem én, / Tanítványok pere Krisztus tetemén. // Ki nem hiszi, hogy volnék Jehova, / Potya borra nem jöhet sehova, / Kánai mennyegzőn vedelhet vizet, / Az első csodára Aquinó ráfizet. // No most agyő, agyő, finál! / Uratok feltámadt és a mennybe száll! / Márk, Máté, Lukács és János írjatok, Ki testet adtam Magamnak, a Szentlélek vagyok” (Szentkuthy 25). The atmosphere of the ballad in the Hungarian version is similar to the English one but there are some lines which are controversial. “[M]y father's a bird” alludes to the dove of the Holy Spirit, thus “rigó” cannot inspire readers to think of the Biblical story about Jesus’s origin. And tell Tom, Dick and Harry I rose from the dead” signals average people who need to know about his death and resurrection. Márk, Máté, Lukács és János írjatok” does not refer to average people but the four Evangelists. MJJM’s translation is more direct than Szentkuthy’s but in less congruous style. “Csodásabb figurát láttál-e már / Az anyám zsidó, az apám madár. / József s az ácsszakma nem vonzott soha, Igyunk hát hívek, s Kálvária. // Aki nem hiszi el isteni lényegem, / Vízből lett potyabort nem ihat sohasem, / Érje be azzal, mit akkor teszek, / Ha borból csinálok újra vizet. // No én most elszállok, ti meg csak írjatok / Jancsi, Pista tudja meg, hogy feltámadok! / Az Olajfák hegyén jó most a szél / Tudásom öröklött, légi baj nem ér” (MJJM 24). The earlier debated lines of this satirical song appear word for word in the new translation, which sounds simple keeping the ballad humorous. Szentkuthy’s translation of The Ballad of Joking Jesus is not as fluent and clear as MJJM’s.
Mihály Szegedy-Maszák considers that in Szentkuthy’s translation the Hungarian readers of Ulysses could not understand one part of Scylla and Charybdis” episode (47), in which William Q. Judge is mentioned, who assisted Madame Blavatsky in founding the Theosophical Society in 1875. He was the head of the Aryan Theosophical Society in New York City as well.

Dunlop, Judge, the noblest Roman of them all, A. E., Arval, the Name Ineffable, in heaven hight: K. H., their master, whose identity is no secret to adepts. Brothers of the great white lodge always watching to see if they can help. The Christ with the bridesister, moisture of light, born of an ensouled virgin, repentant Sophia, departed to the plane of buddhi. The life esoteric is not for ordinary person. O. P. must work off bad karma first. Mrs Cooper Oakley once glimpsed our very illustrious sister H. P. B.’s elemental. (U 9.65-71)
In Szentkuthy’s translation Judge is translated as a Bíró”, which is a mysterious character  of the Society or an allusion to a Biblical verse quoted from James 5:9, “Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!” This translation is deceptive but the paragraph depicts the Theosophist Society’s disciplines, which are not connected to only Christian disciplines. Daniel Nicol Dunlop edited The Irish Theosophist and The Path[10]. Arval is “[t]he central ruling body of the Theosophical movement was composed of twelve  members and was called the Esoteric Section or mystically Arval, after a Roman priesthood of twelve members who performed the fertility rites of a somewhat mysterious mother-goddess. Theosophical lore associated this twelve with the twelve disciples (both groups governed by a "master" whose identity was shrouded in mystery)” (Gifford 197). K. H. is Khoot Hoomi, one of Blavatsky’s two masters. “In Ireland Theosophy connected closely to the endeavour of independence and literature, Blavatsky’s disciplines affected Yeats’s poetry” (Szegedy-Maszák 48, my translation). There are only a few differences between Szentkuthy’s and the new translation; however, they are annoying.

Dunlop, a Bíró, mindnyájunk között a legnemesebb római, A. E., Arval, a Kifejezhetetlen Név, egek magasságaiban, K. H., a mesterük, kinek kiléte nem titok a beavatottak előtt. A nagy fehér páholy testvérei mindig tettre készen várják, vajon nem kell-e valakin segíteni. A Krisztus a menyasszonynővérrel, világosság nedvessége, lélekben fogant szűztől nyűlve, bűnbánó Sophia, felemeltetve a buddhák mezejére. Az ezoterikus élet nem közönséges emberek számára való. O. P.-nek előbb expiálnia kell a rossz karmát. Mrs. Cooper Oakley fél szemmel egyszer látta a mi igen kitűnő növérünket. H. P. B.-nek orgánumát. (Szentkuthy 233)
In the next paragraph he exaggerated the translation of the repeated word, “elemental,” as “orgazmusát.” Related to the theme of “religion”, MJJM’s translation is funny, first they translated “elementálját,” then “elejetáját.” The concept of elemental character or nature means instinctive character, consequently “elejetája” is the most proper and may point to Helena Petrovna Blavatsky’s skill, such as levitation. The new translation is more exact. “Dunlop, Judge, a legnemesbik római mindnyája közt, A. E., Arval, a Megnevezhetetlen Név, egek magasságában. [. . .] K. E.-nek előbb le kell dolgoznia a rossz karmát. Mrs. Cooper Oakley egyszer megpillantotta a mi igen kitűnő nővérünk, H. P. B. elementálját” (MJJM 183). An elemental is a being from the works of Paracelsus where he named four elemental categories, gnomes, undines, sylphs and salamanders. “Elemental” can be translated easily because it has a similar form in Hungarian, “elementál”, which recalls the original form that served as a basis for that parody in Ulysses.
Understanding all cultural allusions in this novel, is impossible. There is an example for this phenomenon in Cyclops” episode, where the original text contains Hungarian words. Both Szentkuthy and MJJM used italic letters to emphasize these words; however, it cannot turn out that these words are in Hungarian in Joyce’s novel. Therefore it is impossible to feel the original atmosphere. Moreover, the readers of Ulysses need to be highly cultured to recognize Greek, Latin and Hebrew phrases. The title of the novel points that here is a crossword lacing in the novel, the word of Ulysses is the Latin translation of Odyssey, who is the hero of a Greek epic poem. Moreover, for understanding the text of Ulysses the Irish context is needed to know.
To sum it up, both Hungarian translations of Ulysses have values and mistakes. Generally, MJJM’s translation is more precise because translators could use more supplementary materials and reference literature than Szentkuthy and they could utilize the opportunities of digital culture. Since 2012 when the new translation of Ulysses was released, it has been less difficult to understand the system of the novel, but its readers’ creative cooperation needs to understand Ulysses perfectly because the new translation is not annotated. Annotation could help readers to understand the system of the novel and research Joyce’s life-work. But the cover of Ulysses made by Gábor Gerhes causes its mistakes to be forgotten and signals that this novel is not ordinary.



Works Cited

Goldmann, Márta. James Joyce kritikai fogadtatása Magyarországon. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2005. Print.
Gula, Marianna. “A rév és a vám: A fordítás során keletkező hozzáadott érték’ jelenségéről.” Alföld, 61.9, (2010): 74-84.  Print.
Gifford, Don, and Robert J. Seidman. Ulysses Annotated. Berkeley and Los Angeles,
California: U of California P, 1989. Print.
Joyce, James. Ulysses. New York: Vintage, 1986. Print.
Joyce, James. Ulysses. Trans. Magyar James Joyce Műhely. Budapest: Európa, 2012. Print.
Joyce, James. Ulysses.  Trans. Miklós Szentkuthy. Budapest: Európa, 1998. Print.
Kappanyos, András. Joyce mint klasszikus auktor és mint magyar invenció.”
Alföld, 61.9, (2010): 52-59. Print.
Szegedy-Maszák, Mihály. “A fordítás hűsége: kísértés vagy ábránd?” Alföld, 61.9, (2010): 45-51. Print.




[1]  Hans Walter Gabler’s corrected edition of Joyce’s Ulysses published in 1984
[2] http://magyarszak.uni-miskolc.hu/joyce.pdf
[3] Gifford, Don, and Robert J. Seidman. Ulysses Annotated. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: U of California P, 1989.
[4] Blamires, Harry. The New Bloomsday Book. New York: Routledge, 1996.
[5] Thornton, Weldon. Allusions in Ulysses: An annotated List. The U of North Carolina P, 1961.
[6] McKenna, Bernard. James Joyce’s Ulysses: A Reference Guide. Westport: Greenwood P, 2002.
[7] A British weekly magazine founded by George Newnes in 1881.
[8] joyceimages.com
[9] www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rac101/concord/texts/ulysses/
[10] Theosophical journals published in London