The Dribbling Dart of Love BACHELOR THESIS

(1)

2010:049

B A C H E L O R T H E S I S

The Dribbling Dart of Love

Sexual Language in Measure for Measure and its Swedish Translation

Elin Ruth

Luleå University of Technology Bachelor thesis

English

Department of Language and Culture

(2)

Abstract

The aim of this essay was to elucidate some of William Shakespeare’s sexual language in Measure for Measure and its Swedish translation. A comparison between the two texts was made, focusing on pregnancy, prostitution and sexual actions. The study intended to clarify how attitudes are reflected through sexual language, and whether there is a connection between use of sexual language and social class. It also concerned change of style in translation and semantics. The analysis showed that the sexual language is varied and creative in both texts.

Negative attitudes are frequently revealed through sexual language, but there is not necessarily a connection to social class: characters of higher social classes are not always linguistically more delicate. Generally, the translator has maintained the style and the semantic features of the sexual references. Although the latter were found to vary, a great number of them had the emphasising of negative aspects in common.

(3)

1. Introduction

1.1 Sexual euphemisms and Shakespeare

Language is constantly changing, but there are certain topics that remain unchanged, in the sense that people are not comfortable talking about them. One of these topics that people may feel reluctant to talk about is human sexuality. However, feelings of shame or disgust have not stopped speakers from discussing sex. Instead, non-offensive ways of talking about this, namely euphemisms, have been developed. A euphemism is “a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing” (ODE 2005). Euphemistic words and expressions will therefore prove to be helpful in situations where, for one reason or another, it is desirable to speak delicately.

Since human sexuality is a most natural part of life, it has been mentioned, discussed and referred to in all kinds of literature. William Shakespeare was one of the writers who dared to write more or less freely, and creatively, about sex: there are masses of sexual references in his plays and poems. This is also the case in modern English, in which there is a

“tremendously high degree of synonymy […] for genitalia and copulation” (Crespo Fernández 2008: 96). Knowing about this multitude makes it highly interesting to study Shakespeare’s seventeenth-century sexual language, in order to clarify his use of it.

1.2 Measure for Measure

As is the case with many works by Shakespeare, it is hard to determine exactly when the comedy Measure for Measure was written, but it is believed to have been written in 1603 or 1604. It is considered one of Shakespeare’s most indecent plays, due to the enormous amount of sexual references throughout the five acts: “Measure for Measure and Othello are Shakespeare’s most sexual, most bawdy plays” (Partridge 1968: 57).

The story takes place in and near Vienna. In the play, the reader encounters people of different social classes: bawds, a brothel-keeper, an executioner and servants, but also lords and gentlemen. Claudio is one of these gentlemen, and he is guilty of having made his fiancée Julietta with child before they were married. For this offence, he is sentenced to death by Lord Angelo, who replaces the Duke of Vienna since the latter claims to have gone abroad.

When Claudio’s friend Lucio learns that Claudio will be executed, he goes to a monastery to see Claudio’s sister Isabella, who is to become a nun, and informs her about her brother’s fate. He persuades her to go to Angelo in order to convince him not to have Claudio executed.

(5)

She does not succeed at first, but eventually, Angelo agrees to spare Claudio’s life on one condition: that Isabella lets him have her virginity. Isabella refuses to submit to this, even though it is the only way of saving her brother’s life. Herein lies a major conflict, and, as one would expect, its sexual nature justifies much of the sexual language in the play.

1.3 Aim

This essay intends to illustrate some of the sexual language in William Shakespeare’s play Measure for Measure. The study is partly conducted from a sociolinguistic point of view, since it deals with issues such as social class and attitudes reflected through language use. In addition, it pays attention to semantics and change of style in translation.

The essay concerns, to great extent, sexual euphemisms. However, since not all sexual language in the play can be considered euphemistic, words and expressions that are not euphemisms, but still refer to sex, are treated as well. The study focuses on references to pregnancy, prostitution and sexual actions.

The English original version and a Swedish translation are used in order to clarify

• how characters belonging to different social classes use sexual language

• how characters’ attitudes are reflected through their use of sexual language and euphemisms

• what the semantic features of the sexual references are, and whether some features are shared

• how the Swedish sexual references differ from those in English as regards style.

1.4 Method and material

The primary sources for this study were the English original version of Measure for Measure and a Swedish translation made in 1993 by Göran O. Eriksson. Naturally, it was sexual references in these two texts that were compared. The author of this essay, being a native speaker of Swedish, has attempted to account for the style of the Swedish words. However, dictionaries were occasionally consulted when analysing English as well as Swedish expressions.

As for characters’ attitudes and use of sexual language, these judgements often had to rely on contextual interpretations. Once again, dictionaries were useful means when analysing utterances.

(6)

2. Background

2.1 Linguistic devices used for discussing sexual actions

Considering speakers’ immense possibilities to use their language, one is not likely to be surprised by the fact that there are several kinds of euphemisms for sex. In addition, there are several different ways of structuring them, but this form of sexual language can frequently be understood in terms of metaphor: “metaphor stands out as a major device in structuring sexual euphemism and dysphemism¹ conceptually” (Crespo Fernández 2008: 96). In other words, speakers appear to have the tendency to “turn to figurative language as a means of coping with the realm of sex” (ibid.). When analysing language, both written and spoken, it will doubtlessly become apparent that this is indeed so: it is a well-known fact within the area of linguistics that most people use figurative speech on a daily basis. To illustrate this, one could refer to speakers’ ways of discussing emotions, which must be regarded as an everyday topic.

Consider, for example, the following three “[m]etaphorical expressions having to do with anger (My blood began to boil, I kept my cool, I blew my top)” (Taylor 2003: 92, italics in original). Since emotions and sexual actions are closely connected, it seems perfectly plausible that figurative language is used when discussing sex as well.

Crespo Fernández (2008: 98) also discusses the possible connection between eating and sex and claims that “the food/eating metaphor for sex is pervasive in our ordinary language and throughout the history of English slang”. Furthermore, Linfoot-Ham (2005: 230) states that “new meanings for words in a particular context, are constantly created in language”.

That is, seemingly ‘ordinary’ words can be used in specific contexts to render new meanings, for instance, sexual ones. As an example of this, and the connection between eating and sex, Crespo Fernández (2008: 99) mentions the expression ‘eating one’s meal’. This expression may be used to refer to, naturally, food, but it may also be used to refer to sex; it is extended to denote a sexual action. Therefore, the expression ‘eating one’s meal’ is ambiguous because of the fact that it means “something different in relation to food from what it means in relation to sex (‘copulate’)” (Crespo Fernández 2008: 105). A non-sexual expression such as ‘eating one’s meal’ may thus be given a sexual interpretation if the context is appropriate. However, not only ‘ordinary’ words can be given sexual meanings in certain contexts, but words that denote sexual actions can also be given non-sexual meanings: “the word ‘fuck’, and its synonym ‘shag’, show the progress of semantic shift in their non-sexual uses” (Linfoot-Ham

1 A dysphemism is the opposite of a euphemism; it is “a derogatory or unpleasant term used instead of a pleasant or neutral one” (ODE 2005).

(7)

2005: 240). As an example, Linfoot-Ham (ibid.) mentions the phrase ‘I fucking know’, which of course is not primarily used for referring to sex. Thus, word meaning depends on context, and it is also important to keep in mind that “the intention of the speaker to be respectful or offensive will be largely responsible for the positive or negative attributes” (Crespo Fernández 2008: 105) that are associated with an expression.

2.2 Shakespeare’s sexual language

There is no denying that Shakespeare significantly affected and influenced the English language; he was quite a pioneer in a number of ways. For example, he expanded the English vocabulary by inventing new words or extending their meanings in new contexts:

“Shakespeare is said to have introduced more words into the language than anyone else, but that might be due to the fact that he is the most studied English author” (van Gelderen 2006:

178). It is a fact that, as Williams (1996: 3) states, “he is caught up in the great expansion of language; and the sexual vocabulary, like other linguistic areas, was absorbing many new terms from a variety of sources”.

This creative use of language was consequently not restricted merely to Shakespeare’s vocabulary in general, but applied to his sexual language as well:

The sexual element in Shakespeare is extensive, varied and, although this is necessarily hard to establish, probably innovative at times. Indeed, in the seventeenth century, his authorial identity was very much bound up with the use of sexual language and treatment of erotic themes. (Williams 1997: 1)

The portrayal of this eroticism could be regarded as one of his strengths as a writer, and actually, somewhat of a character trait, since Shakespeare himself, as Partridge (1968: 5) implies, “was, physically, a pagan; also, he took a lively, very curious interest in sex”. His fascination with human sexuality also became evident in his writings, and what is more, rarely

“did he wish to hide it; he did not even wish to represent it as other than it was” (Partridge 1968: 26). It is hardly surprising then that Partridge (1968) lists more than one hundred euphemisms or sexual expressions that occur in Measure for Measure, some of which are more or less straightforward. When studying the text, however, it becomes obvious that there are more sexual references than those mentioned by Partridge in his glossary, or, that he has omitted the reference to Measure for Measure in some entrances. Still, Partridge has laid a firm foundation to the analysis of sexual language in Shakespeare’s plays: Shakespeare’s Bawdy is an invaluable source for anyone interested in this topic.

(8)

When it comes to the frankness of Shakespeare’s sexual expressions, it has been both proved and implied “that Shakespeare can be coarse, crude, brutal” (Partridge 1968: 46). Still, he uses another, more sophisticated approach as well: “At the opposite extreme is delicacy […] [which] can, on the verbal plane, consort with whores and wenchers and lovers only by throwing up a smoke-screen of euphemism” (Partridge 1968: 47-8).

Therefore, Shakespeare’s sexual language is to great extent adapted to the speaker and the situation: he knows that “[t]he need for euphemism is both social and emotional” (Linfoot- Ham 2005: 228). This need may vary from speaker to speaker, and Shakespeare takes this into consideration. He masters both vulgarity and sensuality, and alters between them when the context requires him to do so: “The word or phrase always suits either the speaker or the scene or the event: usually, it is consonant with all three factors” (Partridge 1968: 47). This is most suitable, considering that “Shakespeare’s vocabulary encompasses words used by noblemen, thieves, lawyers, and soldiers but mostly people from the cities” (van Gelderen 2006: 178). Since Shakespeare portrays practically all kinds of people, it would appear as highly unlikely if different social classes used sexual language in the exact same way:

“[v]ocabulary is an important marker of social class” (van Gelderen 2006: 179), and thus, the upper classes would surely desire to differ linguistically from the lower classes.

Partridge comments further on this use of sexual language between members of different social classes. He comes to the following conclusion:

Sexual dialogue between men is, no less in Shakespeare than in the smoking-room or -compartment, frank and often coarse: between members of the lower classes, both coarse and, often, brutal; between members of the middle class – well, we hear very little of that!;

between aristocrats and other members of the upper and leisured class, it is still frank – it is frequently very frank indeed – but it is also witty. (Partridge 1968: 35)

As an example of a conversation between members of the lower classes, he refers to a dialogue between Pompey (a servant of a brothel-keeper) and Abhorson (an executioner), which can be found in Measure for Measure (ibid.). What one can conclude from this is then that the coarseness of Shakespeare’s sexual language generally has shown to be reserved for members of lower social classes, while delicacy (even though the expressions may be frank) is mostly used to depict noble speakers and people with high social status.

2.3 Translating Shakespeare and his sexual language

Anyone who has attempted to read Shakespeare would probably admit that it is a challenging and rather puzzling task, even if one’s mother tongue should happen to be English. However,

(9)

what is even more challenging is to actually interpret Shakespeare’s language and translate it properly. When translating works by Shakespeare, there are numerous difficulties a translator may encounter. Some of these difficulties are, at least partly, due to the fact that the English language has gone through some changes since the Early Modern English period, and also due to Shakespeare’s inventiveness and creativity in his use of English. Serpieri (2004: 28) comments on the various challenges and quite pessimistically, but perhaps truthfully, claims that “[h]owever hard he [the translator] tries, he is bound to lose”.

Translating Shakespeare involves, among other things, “a deep acquaintance with the works of the entire canon in order to assess, as far as possible, the meanings Shakespeare attached to words and phrases” (Serpieri 2004: 27). Luckily for modern readers, “the context will frequently guide us to the Elizabethan meaning or at least put us on the alert to look for a meaning other than the twentieth-century one” (Hussey 1992: 30-1). However, this can hardly be regarded as adequate or satisfying at all times, and it is still not in any way unproblematic to grasp Shakespeare’s vocabulary: “As many critics have noted, Shakespeare has an extraordinary ability to activate the various different senses of almost every word and have them work together or else set one against the other” (Serpieri 2004: 28). Consequently, any translator is likely to find it difficult to make another language appear similar to Shakespearean English. The translator would, apart from this, also have to pay attention to registers and styles. In Shakespeare, this is actually quite a problem, since he lived and worked during a most dynamic century. There was much development and change during the Elizabethan time, not only in society: “Language itself underwent a sort of radical shake-up, which Shakespeare’s inventiveness took to its extreme, producing hybrid registers and styles”

(Serpieri 2004: 27).

To make things even more complicated, sexual language and euphemisms also have to be dealt with. It goes without saying that euphemisms may be hard to translate idiomatically, due to the unique characters and expressions of each language. When translating Shakespeare’s sexual language, translators have, until recently, had the tendency to censure the sexual references in his plays or at least tone them down: “One of the main characteristics of translations from former decades was to water down, or sometimes to censure, the entire verbal stratum that referred to the body and to bodily functions, notably to sexuality” (Déprats 2004: 76). This has now started changing, and the amount of indecent language in translations seems to be increasing: “Contemporary modernized Shakespearean translation moves towards more concrete and fuller language and, by the same token, towards rougher language” (ibid.).

As a side effect, there is also a move towards more fair translations of Shakespeare.

(10)

3. Analysis of Measure for Measure

3.1 Pregnancy

In the beginning of the play, much of the sexual language concerns Julietta’s pregnancy. The first instance referring to her pregnancy occurs when Lucio encounters Mistress Overdone, a brothel-keeper, in a street. She lets him know that Claudio has been sentenced to death “for getting Madam Julietta with child” (Shakespeare 2005: 35). Shortly afterwards, her servant Pompey Bum (Pompey) enters, and Mistress Overdone asks him: “Is there a maid with child by him [Claudio]?”, whereas Pompey replies: “No; but there’s a woman with maid by him”

(Shakespeare 2005: 36). This is uttered in order to clarify that a maid cannot be pregnant:

“Overdone asks whether a ‘maid’ is pregnant by him, but, as ‘maid’ can mean ‘virgin’, and a virgin […] cannot be pregnant, Pompey corrects her” (Watts 2005: 117).

When Lucio arrives at the monastery to tell Isabella that her brother “hath got his friend with child” (Shakespeare 2005: 42), or that, in other words, “her plenteous womb / Expresseth his full tilth and husbandry” (ibid.), Isabella asks: “Some one with child by him?” (ibid.).

Consequently, the most important words in these conversations are ‘with child’, and all of the mentioned instances are translated simply as ‘med barn’,² which is a literal translation.

‘With child’ is used very frequently in the play when talking about pregnancy, which makes it challenging to guess the speakers’ attitudes: a brothel-keeper as well as a young girl in a monastery may use these words. Therefore, it could be considered a neutral expression.

Indeed, both in English and in Swedish, one could use ‘with child’ or ‘med barn’ without revealing one’s attitude. It can surely be used regardless of social class, but, of course, there are more offensive variants that could be used insultingly. Such variants would probably be slang, which, sometimes inaccurately, is associated with lower social classes.

Due to the nature of the expression ‘with child’, one has to read further in order to get an idea of the speakers’ attitudes: not much can be concluded from studying these words in isolation. If paying attention to the context and subsequent utterances, it soon becomes clear that the pregnancy is a misfortune, since Claudio and Julietta are not yet married. This is obvious, for instance, when Lucio sees Claudio before he is taken to jail and asks whether Julietta is with child. Claudio answers: “Unhappily, even so” (Shakespeare 2005: 38), revealing that having sexual intercourse, and thus making Julietta pregnant, was an offence.

2 Swedish translations are given in italics.

(11)

When Lucio meets Isabella in the monastery, the reader is granted another example of the negative attitudes towards the pregnancy. Isabella first refuses to believe what Lucio tells her, but when she eventually accepts the truth of his statement, she declares: “O, let him marry her!” (Shakespeare 2005: 42). This illustrates that Isabella is concerned about the pregnancy;

it is illegitimate since the couple are not married.

In comparison with ‘with child’, the expression ‘her plenteous womb expresseth his full tilth and husbandry’ is somewhat more interesting. It is translated as: “hennes stora mage [bär] / Nu vittne om hans flit som såningsman” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 23). The expression renders a similar and delicate style in Swedish, and using this phrase is much more euphemistic than simply saying that a woman is ‘with child’: her pregnant belly reveals that she has had sexual intercourse with a man. In other words, it tends to focus on the sexual aspect rather than on the pregnancy itself.

In this context, the expression must be said to fit the speaker as well as the situation:

Lucio (‘a gentleman’) utters these words to Isabella, who presumably is a pious woman and deserves to be spoken politely (delicately) to. However, since the expression is only used once, by a single person, one cannot draw any general conclusion about the use of it in relation to social class. On the contrary, it reveals more about Lucio’s attitude concerning Julietta’s pregnancy. The meaning of the word ‘husbandry’ is “the care, cultivation, and breeding of crops and animals” (ODE 2005), and ‘tilth’ as well is associated to farming. It is explained as “cultivation of land; tillage” or “the condition of tilled soil, especially in respect to suitability for sowing seeds” (ODE 2005). Considering the inventiveness of Shakespeare’s language and his extension of word meanings, it is not unlikely to assume that he saw a connection between the words ‘husband’ and ‘husbandry’: Claudio has done what only a husband may do, since he has impregnated Julietta, or, sowed his seed in her soil. That would mean that Lucio implies that Julietta’s womb expresses what one might expect to happen to a man’s wife: it is legitimate only for a married woman to become pregnant by her husband, that is, sexual intercourse is only accepted within marriage. Furthermore, this expression is metaphorical, and obviously based on similarities between earth and women: the earth is fertile, and so are women; the earth can produce crops, while women can produce children, although different seeds are needed.

When using the two expressions ‘with child’ and ‘her plenteous womb expresseth his full tilth and husbandry’, a form of containment is emphasised. When becoming pregnant, which is a synonym of becoming with child, there is an obvious change in a woman’s body: the most characteristic feature of a pregnant woman would have to be something similar to [+BIG

(12)

BELLY].³ The foetus, or, eventually, the child, is growing inside of her, and she is therefore not

‘empty’: she is the opposite of not being pregnant. For this reason, the semantic features must be considered binary: one cannot be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time, and one can definitely not be ‘slightly pregnant’ or ‘almost pregnant’. Thus, there is a clear-cut distinction between [+PREGNANT] and [–PREGNANT]. Being pregnant must, in addition, be regarded as a distinguisher rather than a marker,⁴ since it is not a characteristic feature of females to be pregnant. It is, however, a characteristic feature of females to have the ability of becoming pregnant, but being pregnant is not the definition of being female.

As the play progresses, there is also more variation in the expressions that are used to talk about pregnancy. As an example, there is a scene where Pompey is talking to a Lord about a constable’s wife visiting a brothel. Pompey attempts to speak politely to the Lord, which makes it even clearer that they are of different social classes: “Sir, she came in great with child, and longing (saving / your Honour’s reverence) for stewed prunes” (Shakespeare 2005:

46). Now, as is well-known, it is not unusual for a pregnant woman to have food cravings, but in this specific situation, there is the possibility that the stewed prunes do not refer to the actual food. In the notes on Measure for Measure, the idea of the stewed prunes is further explained: “As ‘stew’ meant ‘brothel’, stewed prunes may have been a brothel-signal as well as a snack supplied there” (Watts 2005: 118). Moreover, Crespo Fernández (2008: 98) argues that “[e]ating and food are common sources for naming sexual organs and sex-related actions”. If taking this into account, one could claim that the pregnant woman did not simply want some stewed prunes to eat, but that she went to the brothel with the intention of having sexual intercourse. If that is the case, to use the words ‘stewed prunes’ may be an attempt to make her visit at the brothel sound slightly less offensive. However, since Pompey, despite his rather frank manners and low social status, apologises to the Lord for mentioning it, it implies that the expression is still considered offensive to some extent.

Pompey’s utterance about the woman is translated as follows: ”Ers nåd, hon kom in och var höggradigt gravid och sa att hon längtade efter – ja, om ers nåd ursäktar så sa hon att hon längtade efter stuvade katrinplommon” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 29). This could be considered a proper translation, since it maintains the speaker’s embarrassment and expresses his need to apologise. It may be possible to translate ‘great with child’ as ‘höggravid’ instead of ‘höggradigt gravid’, but most importantly, the meaning is maintained, and ‘stewed prunes’

3 Semantic features are referred to in square brackets and written in small capital letters.

4 A marker, in this context, would refer to general semantic properties, such as [+HUMAN] or [+MALE]. A distinguisher, on the contrary, is a somewhat more specific feature that adds extra information about an item; it represents the idiosyncrasy in word meaning (Katz & Postal 1964 as cited in Taylor 2003: 31).

(13)

are translated to the corresponding Swedish words (‘stuvade katrinplommon’). However, the Swedish translation of ‘stewed prunes’ would probably not make the reader associate to brothels or sex, but, on the other hand, it is not certain that the English words would facilitate such associations either: not all readers can be expected to be familiar with the connection between food and sex.

The meaning of ‘stewed prunes’ is possibly hard to establish without any background knowledge, but the semantic features of the dish could be helpful when trying to grasp the meaning. Stewed prunes are presumably [+FRUIT], [+SWEET] and possibly [+HOT]. Furthermore, it could be served as a dessert. If assuming, then, a connection between sexual actions and food, while considering the semantic features of stewed prunes, one may come to the conclusion that the stewed prunes refer to sexual temptation in form of the (female) genitalia. This would be in accordance with Crespo Fernández’s (2008: 99) statement about

“[t]he conceptualization of women as appetizing food”: desserts are definitely considered

‘appetising food’. Yet, one would probably have to know about the brothel-reference in order to interpret this utterance correctly. If not knowing, one would perhaps simply assume that the woman really was longing for stewed prunes, but evidently, ‘stewed prunes’ are not used randomly. The intention is most likely not to focus on the pregnant woman’s food cravings, but to make the reader associate to brothels, and possibly, like Crespo Fernández claims, to sex. Lastly, Pompey’s attitude is not really revealed through the use of ‘stewed prunes’, since he simply intends to tell his interlocutor about something that has happened.

The same pregnant woman is later on referred to as being “great-bellied” (Shakespeare 2005: 46), which is translated as “hade stor mage” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 29). ‘Great- bellied’ denotes the most noticeable feature of a pregnant woman, and the translation of this word is fair. The difference is that the adjective ‘great-bellied’ is not an adjective in Swedish anymore. Instead, it is stated that the woman ‘had a great belly’. Naturally, some words have to be changed slightly in translation, since one would not say that the woman was

‘stormagad’, which would be a literal translation. Such a word does exist in the Swedish language, but it would sound very odd if used when referring to a pregnant woman; it may appear either old-fashioned or humorous, and, usually, it denotes an overweight person.

‘Great-bellied’ could also be said to be quite a neutral word: it could most likely be used by anyone, but is this time used by Pompey. It is difficult to say anything about his attitude only by studying this word, but it is plausible that he, being the servant of a brothel-keeper, is not in any position to judge other people as regards their sexual actions. There is simply nothing that indicates that Pompey is trying to patronise the woman.

(14)

Returning to Julietta’s pregnancy, there is a scene where the Duke of Vienna sees her in prison, but is disguised as a friar. He asks her: “Repent you, fair one, of the sin you carry?”

(Shakespeare 2005: 58). Julietta answers: “I do; and bear the shame most patiently” (ibid.). In Swedish, the Duke asks her: ”Ångrar du synden som du bär, mitt barn?” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 42), whereas Julietta replies: ”Det gör jag; och jag bär den undergivet” (ibid.).

When looking at the Swedish translations of the words ‘the sin’ and ‘the shame’ (‘synden’ and

‘den’, respectively), it becomes noticeable that the translator has translated ‘the shame’ as

‘den’ (‘it’), when Julietta is referring to her shame, which of course is the child she is carrying. In other words, instead of translating ‘the shame’ into the proper Swedish word

‘skammen’, the translator has chosen to use ‘sin’ and ‘shame’ as synonyms in the Swedish translation: the Duke asks Julietta whether she repents her sin, and she claims to bear her sin most patiently instead of her shame. Thus, the negative meaning that is associated with the concept of (religious) sin is revealed: a sin is, among other things, [+BAD], [+WRONG] and [+NOT ALLOWED] and has consequences, whether it be in the afterlife or on earth. Moreover, these sentences clearly show the speakers’ attitudes: Julietta naturally regrets her offence, and the Duke also suggests that she should. Since a sin is a sin, regardless of the sinner’s social class, it is not obvious which social class Julietta belongs to, but from this conversation, one gets the impression that she is of a lower class: she is pregnant with an illegitimate child.

However, when mentioning the actors’ names, Claudio is described as a gentleman and Julietta as his fiancée. This implies that they really intended to get married, and could be of a higher social class. Still, they had sex before they were married, which inevitably gives them lower social status, and, one could assume, also makes them appear immoral. One of Angelo’s statements actually supports this assumption: in conversation with Isabella, he talks about “coin[ing] Heaven’s image / In stamps that are forbid” (Shakespeare 2005: 61). He compares the counterfeiting of coins with creating illegitimate children, and the utterance contains a biblical reference: “The phrase ‘Heaven’s image’ may be a censored version of

‘God’s image’, for Genesis 1:26-7 tells how ‘God created the man in his own image’” (Watts 2005: 122). Thus, Angelo clearly shows that it is not accepted for unmarried women to become pregnant.

Moving on to a room in the court of justice, where a Provost asks Angelo: “What shall be done, sir, with the groaning Juliet? / She’s very near her hour” (Shakespeare 2005: 52). From this question, one could conclude that the Provost is not a member of the lower social classes, due to his profession and use of language: at least he has higher social status than a servant of

(15)

a brothel-keeper. Still, he is obviously of a lower class than Angelo, since he addresses him in this respectful way.

The Provost’s words are translated as: “Vad sker med Julia? Värkarna har börjat. / Hon föder när som helst” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 35). Here, ‘She’s very near her hour’ is translated as ‘Hon föder när som helst’, which is quite far from the original expression. This is possibly due to the idiomatic character of the English expression. The translator has, consequently, decided that the literal translation ‘Hon är väldigt nära sin timma’ would not be appropriate. The fact that a literal translation is not made may be explained by the translator’s desire to maintain the rhythm of the text. Although he has chosen to use a different vocabulary to refer to this phrase, the concept of time is kept: ‘very near her hour’ and ‘när som helst’, that is, ‘any time now’, are similar to each other, since they both display lack of time. Thus, the semantic features of the expression would possibly imply that something is [+ENDING], or [+APPROACHING].

The translator has altered the expression quite radically, and due to this fact, the style is actually affected. The English expression is of a rather more delicate nature, and in this case, the translator fails to render a similar style: the Swedish expression appears to be much more frank and ordinary compared to the English one. It is therefore possible to claim that the original expression is somewhat euphemistic, since there are other, less delicate ways to express the fact that a woman is about to give birth. Still, the translation does not affect the Provost’s attitude: in both versions, it appears as if the Provost is not judging, but simply wishes to inform Angelo about the fact that Julietta’s pregnancy is coming to an end. Lastly, in the original sentence there is nothing that concerns labour pains (värkar), but they are mentioned in the Swedish translation. This is, however, understandable: the translator may have chosen to add this word due to the occurrence of the adjective ‘groaning’, which implies the pain a woman experiences during childbirth.

3.2 Prostitution

Throughout Measure for Measure, there are numerous references to prostitution, partly due to the fact that one of the characters is a brothel-keeper. It is interesting to notice the way in which Lucio refers to her (Mistress Overdone) in the first act: “Behold, behold, where Madam Mitigation comes!” (Shakespeare 2005: 35). The word ‘mitigation’ can be defined as “the action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something: the identification and mitigation of pollution” (ODE 2005). In this sexual context, that is, when referring to the brothel-keeper, its derivation from Latin may be of interest: “Lat. mitigo to tame or soften (i.e.

(16)

penises)” (Williams 1997: 199). If only considering the semantics of the word, one may get the impression that ‘mitigation’ in this case denotes a positive feature, despite the sexual meaning. If reading further, however, one can understand that Lucio uses the name in a patronising way, since he further explains that he has “purchased […] many diseases under her roof” (Shakespeare 2005: 35), naturally referring to sexually transmitted diseases. His attitude can easily be detected in this case: he intends to insult Mistress Overdone, and his statement also gives the reader a reason to regard him as immoral, despite him not being of a very low social class. Indeed, Lucio is not a righteous person, even though he is described as a gentleman in the play. What is more, visiting brothels, which he implies that he has done a number of times, would probably not be considered accepted behaviour among ‘gentlemen’ or members of the upper class. The use of ‘mitigation’ in this context could consequently have been flattering if it was not for the sentence in which he refers to sexually transmitted diseases.

The way in which Lucio uses this name for Mistress Overdone must be considered quite ironical, but it is not as frank and offensive as other words in the play. One would perhaps describe it as offensive in a humorous way: being a brothel-keeper, Mistress Overdone is naturally ‘polluted’, but offers mitigation to her customers through her prostitutes.

Consequently, the semantics of the word ‘mitigation’ implies that the brothel-keeper is some sort of healer, that she can ease pain or frustration: one could think about sex as mitigation, which would be considered a metaphor. Lucio is then indirectly saying that sexual intercourse has healing power and perhaps affects both the body and the soul in an advantageous way.

Also, by adding the title ‘Madam’, Lucio implies that Mistress Overdone is not just any prostitute: she is worthy of being addressed somewhat politely. The use of this title may be due to the fact that she is a former prostitute, who now possesses power over other prostitutes.

Indeed, Partridge (1968: 193) explains the name ‘Madam Mitigation’ as “[a] brothel- proprietress or -keeper”, and Williams (1997: 199) states that a madam is a “bawd”, and refers to Madam Mitigation.

In the Swedish version of the play, the translator has kept the rather humorous tone as regards this name: “Nej men titta, är det inte Lisa Lindring!” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 15).

However, he has changed the title ‘Madam’ to a first name, ‘Lisa’, which perhaps does not seem rational at first sight. But actually, the use of ‘Lisa’ is very clever indeed and could be justified from a semantic point of view: the Swedish word ‘lisa’ is not only a female name, but it is also a noun whose meaning is similar to ‘mitigation’; it is described as “relief of pain or anxiety” (NEO 2009, my translation). Thus, there appears to be good reasons for assuming

(17)

that ‘Lisa’ was not chosen at random. Furthermore, by using that name, the alliteration is maintained, which would appear desirable in this context: ‘Madam Lindring’ would not have the humorous effect that ‘Lisa Lindring’ has, that is, the humour is dependant on the allitteration. By using ‘Lisa’, the translator also emphasises the ‘aspect of relief’ in an inventive way, since both ‘lisa’ and ‘lindring’ share the semantics of ‘mitigation’.

If continuing with studying characters’ names, it is almost impossible not to pay attention to the brothel-keeper’s ‘real’ (and appropriate) name: Mistress Overdone. The name ‘Mistress Overdone’ is hardly flattering or positive in any way, since it, frankly, implies that she has spent too much time on having sexual intercourse. Her servant Pompey at one time states that Mistress Overdone has had as many as nine husbands and was “[o]verdone by the last”

(Shakespeare 2005: 49). He consequently means that Mistress Overdone gained her surname by her most recent marriage, and that her last husband wore her out sexually (Watts 2005:

119).

The word ‘mistress’ can, as is well-known, mean more than just one single thing. It can, for example, refer to a woman who is in charge of something or to a married man’s female lover. Being the brothel-keeper, it is plausible that Mistress Overdone is a mistress in the sense that she is “a woman in a position of authority or control” (ODE 2005). Nevertheless, considering her profession, it is not unlikely to assume that she has also, at some occasion, been the kind of mistress who is “[a] man’s illicit woman” (Partridge 1968: 192). Both of these meanings are appropriate in the context and add some information about the woman in question. The semantic features of her name then denote a person who is [+SEXUALLY WORN OUT], [+AUTHORITATIVE] and [+OLDER]. ‘Older’ in this context would imply that she is now too aged to be considered attractive by men, and, therefore, she cannot work as a prostitute anymore. Considering these semantic features of the words that constitute her name, the assumption that it is not a flattering name is supported. Furthermore, people of different social classes refer to her as Mistress Overdone, so it appears to be generally used, even though it undoubtedly displays a rather negative attitude: being promiscuous was surely not considered a virtue.

Mistress Overdone’s name is translated into Swedish as ‘Fru Alfonsina’, which does not literally correspond to the original, yet, it is a brilliant translation. Translating the word

‘Mistress’ into ‘Fru’ does make sense, but translating the second word ‘Overdone’ to

‘Alfonsina’ may confuse the reader. However, if one is aware of the meaning of the Swedish

(18)

word ‘alfons’, which actually is ‘pimp’,⁵ one realises that the translation is strikingly innovative. If one would still want to criticise the translation, one could possibly refer to the fact that the Swedish name ‘Alfonsina’, unlike ‘Overdone’ in English, does not imply that she is sexually worn out: one can just conclude that the woman is a female pimp. Still, the translation must be said to be a just and creative one: saying that a woman is ‘Övergjord’ (a literal translation of ‘Overdone’) would not render the appropriate, sexual meaning.

Moreover, the related expression ‘to do a woman’, that is, to have sex with a woman, definitely sounds better in English than in Swedish (‘att göra en kvinna’); it is doubtful whether ‘att göra en kvinna’ exists in Swedish as a way of referring to sexual intercourse.

Mistress Overdone naturally resides in a brothel, and in the text, several different words are used to describe such a place: ‘ill house’, ‘naughty house’ and ‘hot-house’ are just a few.

All of these words clearly highlight the negative aspect of brothels, but the focus will now be on two other words, namely ‘houses of resort’ and ‘houses in the suburbs’. Starting with the latter, there is an instance in the play where Pompey talks to Mistress Overdone and informs her that “[a]ll houses in the suburbs of Vienna must be plucked / down” (Shakespeare 2005:

36). When looking at the translation, one can actually draw some conclusions about the use of

‘houses in the suburbs’. The sentence is translated as: “Alla horhusen i Wiens utkanter ska rivas” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 17). The translation of ‘suburbs’ (‘utkanter’) is acceptable, and in this case, it is reasonable to assume that it is implied that the suburbs are bad areas, which may very well contain brothels: the proper translation of ‘houses in the suburbs’ is not

‘horhus’ (‘whorehouses’), but the meaning of the expression generates this interpretation.

Suburbs are, not infrequently, associated with lower social classes. Considering this background knowledge, one may expect the following semantic features of a ‘house in the suburb’: [+SHABBY], [+DIRTY], and possibly even, indirectly, [+BAD]. Since Pompey is a speaker of a lower social class, he could very well have used a more straightforward word when wanting to refer to a brothel, but he does not. He could also have been more frank to his employer Mistress Overdone, but he chooses to refer to a brothel in a slightly more subtle way. However, there is hardly any reason for being delicate, and, it is possible that Pompey does not even need to specify what kind of house he is talking about: the conversation is between two people who are both familiar with the business of prostitution. Still, a ‘house in the suburbs’ is somewhat euphemistic; it focuses on certain areas in a city rather than on the activities that take place inside the house. This use could express a desire to improve

5 An ‘alfons’ is defined as a “man who lives off the earnings of prostitutes” (NEO 2009, my translation).

(19)

Pompey’s profession as well as his reputation: if one works at a brothel, one would probably not choose to use the rather direct word ‘whorehouse’ to refer to it.

When Pompey has informed Mistress Overdone about what shall be done with all of their houses, she replies: “But shall all our houses of resort in the suburbs be / pulled down?”

(Shakespeare 2005: 36). This is translated as: “Men du menar att alla glädjehusen i utkanterna ska rivas?” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 17). In this case, there is a difference in style, which the translator has taken into account. Compared to a ‘house in the suburbs’, a

‘house of resort’, which denotes a brothel as well, “is generally applied to a better-class one”

(Partridge 1968: 160). Thus, the translation ‘glädjehusen’ (corresponds to English ‘brothels’, but literally means ‘joy houses’), which is becoming old-fashioned in Swedish, is appropriate since it focuses on the fact that the houses can be regarded as places of resort, joy and relaxation (in accordance with the semantics of ‘resort’). This choice of words (‘houses in the suburbs’ and ‘houses of resort’) also shows the speakers’ attitudes: when Pompey says

‘houses in the suburbs’, he probably means lower-class ones. The interesting thing is that Mistress Overdone refers to the same houses as ‘houses of resort’ instead of ‘houses in the suburbs’; her question almost immediately follows Pompey’s announcement about the houses in the suburbs. This may imply that she wishes to see her profession as slightly better and more socially accepted than it actually is. In addition, she also asks: “And what shall become of those in the city?” (Shakespeare 2005: 36). ‘Those’ in this context refer to ‘houses in the suburbs’, and, therefore, according to Mistress Overdone, ‘houses of resort’ and ‘houses in the suburbs’ are very similar to each other. Also, she seems to believe that brothels in the suburbs may have high standard, while brothels in the city may have low standard.

When speaking about prostitution as a business, the word ‘trade’ occurs more than once.

After Pompey has informed Mistress Overdone that their brothels are to be ‘plucked down’, he explains to her: “Though you change your place, you need not change / your trade”

(Shakespeare 2005: 36). Or, in Swedish: “frun behöver ju inte byta / yrke för att frun byter hus” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 17). According to Williams (1997: 312), the word ‘trade’ can refer to either “prostitution” or “engage in sexual business”. However, the word ‘trade’

evokes several associations, some of which are not related to sex. For instance, trade and industry may come to mind. Since this association is close at hand, it gives the impression that prostitution, or ‘the world’s oldest profession’, is a professional business, like any other business, and involves some kind of exchange. A seller (a prostitute) and a buyer (a customer) are needed, that is, at least two people must be involved. Sexual intercourse between prostitutes and their costumers could very well be considered a form of mutual exchange: the

(20)

costumer receives pleasure and the prostitute, presumably, receives some form of payment.

Therefore, if one considers this aspect that is related to business, the semantic features of the word ‘trade’ could be said to be [+PROFESSIONAL], [+MUTUALLY ENGAGING], [+REWARDING]

and [+EXCHANGING].

When Pompey uses the word ‘trade’ to refer to Mistress Overdone’s profession, it appears as if he does not have a negative attitude towards prostitution. Also, he suggests that Mistress Overdone should not have to ‘change her trade’, which confirms that he supports her. One could again suggest that he attempts to assign a higher social status to his profession by referring to it as a trade, like any other trade. The attitude one may notice in his statement is, therefore, that prostitution should be equal to other businesses in society. The translation of

‘trade’ (‘yrke’), which is indeed accurate, furthermore proves that Pompey considers it a ‘real’

profession. Related to this point of view is also the fact that a brothel may be referred to as a

‘house of profession’ (Partridge 1968: 160).

It may seem as if Pompey desires to make the business of prostitution appear slightly less offensive, but when using the word ‘trade’, the purpose is not necessarily euphemistic. The fact that both he and Mistress Overdone are involved in prostitution implies that Pompey would not need to use euphemisms in conversation with her. On the contrary, one may even expect Pompey to use more dysphemisms than he actually does. However, if there are no requirements to speak delicately, the word ‘trade’ may then be used merely in order to try to acknowledge prostitution and everything that is associated with it.

Related to prostitution is also the word ‘bawd’, which is frequently used in the play: it occurs several times in most acts and is applied to different people. The word refers to a person who is engaged in prostitution, but there are several meanings of being a bawd: a bawd could, as an example, be “a woman in charge of a brothel” (ODE 2005). Yet, in the play, it is used to refer to men, and indeed, Williams (1997: 37) describes a bawd as a “procurer” and Partridge (1968: 76) states that a bawd is “[a] procuress; occasionally, a pimp”. Thus, the semantic features of the word ‘bawd’ can be both [+MALE] and [+FEMALE]. Partridge further clarifies that women can be bawds too: “many whores, when they are overdone (worn out), become bawds or procuresses” (1968: 202, italics in original). Consequently, Mistress Overdone is a bawd by profession. However, if one is to point out a common, uniting feature of the word ‘bawd’, such a feature may be [+INDECENT] or [+SEXUALLY AMORAL], considering that the adjective ‘bawdy’ means “[i]mmodest, indelicate, licentious; especially in sexual matters” (Partridge 1968: 77). Knowing about this definition of ‘bawdy’, it becomes clear that the word ‘bawd’ bears negative connotations.

(21)

The word ‘bawd’ is translated as ‘kopplare’, which corresponds very well to the original English word. It is possible to claim that the word ‘bawd’, as well as the Swedish word

‘kopplare’, is somewhat old-fashioned: nowadays, one would perhaps choose to use the word

‘pimp’ or the word ‘hallick’ respectively. Also, the English word ‘pimp’ may be used in Swedish, but is considered slang. Nonetheless, it is the word ‘bawd’ that is used in the play, and its translation is suitable. There are also several examples of how ‘bawd’ is used by people of different social classes: the Duke refers to Pompey as “a bawd, a wicked bawd”

(Shakespeare 2005: 74), and in Swedish he is “[e]n kopplare, en usel kopplare” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 59). Abhorson, who is the executioner, uses the same word when addressing Pompey: “Come on, bawd” (Shakespeare 2005: 86), and in Swedish the command is: “Kom, kopplare” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 72). Finally, Lucio also has some opinions about Pompey: “Bawd is he doubtless, and / of antiquity, too; bawd born” (Shakespeare 2005: 75).

In Swedish, his utterance is as follows: “Kopplare / är han utan tvivel, en riktigt ful gammal kopplare: / född ful” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 61). Here, being ‘bawd born’ or ‘född ful’

implies that a man has been born by a prostitute, which may appear as a suitable beginning of the life of a pimp. However, unlike the original expression, ‘född ful’ (‘born ugly’) does not present an obvious connection to bawds, but these words may be used in order to maintain the rhythm: ‘bawd born’ and ‘född ful’ both consist of two syllables.

3.3 Sexual actions

Choosing only a small number of sexual references in Measure for Measure is certainly not an easy task: there is much variation in expressions that refer to sexual actions, and they are numerous. The expressions to be analysed in this section were chosen due to their semantics and due to the fact that they have more than one possible interpretation. The focus will first be on an expression that refers to sexual intercourse: In the first act, Mistress Overdone asks Pompey what Claudio’s offence is, and learns that it is “[g]roping for trouts in a peculiar river” (Shakespeare 2005: 36). In the Swedish translation, the offence is described as “[a]tt ha fiskat i galet vatten” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 17). As one may notice, the domain of food, or, alternatively, the domain of hunting, is in this situation used to denote a sexual action:

“[f]ishing in a private stream” simply is another way of saying “copulating with a woman”

(Partridge 1968: 150). The act of fishing, therefore, “bears an erotic connotation” (Partridge 1968: 135). Furthermore, Partridge (ibid.) describes a ‘fish’ as “[a] girl or a woman, viewed

(22)

sexually; especially, a prostitute”.⁶ In this context, it is Julietta who is indirectly referred to, and she is not a prostitute. However, the fact that she is pregnant with an illegitimate child could result in people viewing her as one.

When studying Pompey’s utterance, one can draw some important conclusions about the expression by virtue of the words that constitute it. First of all, if a person ‘gropes for trouts’

(‘fishes’) in ‘a peculiar river’, that is, in someone else’s river, it is implied that this person, assumedly a man, is performing an intrusive action. It is also possible that it could mean that the man is being unfaithful to his wife: the wife would be considered the correct and legitimate river to fish in, or, the appropriate ‘trout’ to catch. Secondly, the semantic features of this entire expression, especially those of the adjective ‘peculiar’, confirm that the action is something that is [+NOT ALLOWED]. Also, the fact that people go fishing in order to catch food, that is, fish, supports the metaphor of women being viewed as (appetising) food. If assuming that there are similarities between women and fish, one could claim that the semantic features of the trout in this context would be [+DESIRABLE], [+SLIPPERY], and, consequently [+HARD TO CATCH]. It is plausible that women are ‘hard to catch’, in the sense that they may reject men who are yearning for them. Finally, to explain the sexual reference, one may have to consider that fishing could possibly involve a fishing-rod or a spear. Due to the nature of the expression, it seems reasonable to assume that these two objects, even though they are not mentioned, could symbolise a man’s penis: one may want to regard them as imaginary phallic symbols. Moreover, the verb ‘grope’ implies that the man is looking for the woman, or, that he is touching her (against her will), which would be well suited in a sexual context.

It seems fair to say that the expression is rather innovative, but not very straightforward. It is definitely euphemistic, since Pompey could have simply said that the couple had copulated:

it is once again the case that he could have described the action in a much more offensive way. It is, in other words, not a very coarse expression. This is evidence of the fact that speakers of lower social classes can be delicate as well in their use of sexual language. On the contrary, the expression tends to be perceived as humorous rather than offensive: it focuses on Claudio having been caught doing something he was not supposed to be doing. Thus, Pompey’s intention is not necessarily to criticise Claudio and Julietta. The expression may

6 It is interesting to notice that a woman may be referred to as a fish. In Swedish, the words ‘torsk’ (‘cod’) and

‘ful fisk’ (‘ugly fish’, which basically means ‘ugly customer’) are used almost exclusively to refer to men. The former expression applies to a prostitute’s customer, while the latter often applies to criminals or dishonest men.

(23)

imply that he does not consider Claudio’s offence a very serious one, but still, one cannot totally preclude that he is somewhat malicious.

The Swedish translation of ‘groping for trouts in a peculiar river’ is not a literal one, but it maintains the meaning as well as the humour. ‘Groping for trouts’ may very well be translated as ‘att ha fiskat’ (‘having fished’), even though the kind of fish (trouts) is not mentioned in the translation. It is probably not of major importance what kind of fish one is groping for in this context. The translation of ‘peculiar’ as ‘galet’ is perhaps not completely satisfying, but it could be challenging to find a more suitable word. ‘Peculiar’ is translated into Swedish to render the meaning ‘wrong’ (‘galet’), and this translation is perhaps not the first one that comes to mind (other possible translations are, for example, ‘märkligt’ or ‘underligt’), but, again, this is most suitable from a semantic point of view. The expression would possibly have appeared as slightly clumsy if translated literally, and the expression in Swedish is, on the whole, pithy and satisfying. Furthermore, it might even be an analogy to the expression

‘hoppa i galen tunna’ (‘jump in the wrong barrel’, that is, to ‘do the wrong thing’ or to ‘make a blunder’), since the words ‘galet vatten’ may make the reader associate to the mentioned Swedish expression (while maintaining the reference to fishing). If the intention is to resemble ‘hoppa i galen tunna’, the use of the word ‘galet’ makes sense, since it is a fixed expression in Swedish.

At one time, the Duke talks to a friar in a monastery and then makes the following short statement regarding love: “Believe not that the dribbling dart of love / Can pierce a cómplete bosom” (Shakespeare 2005: 39). It is translated as: “Tro inte att den veka kärlekspilen / Sårar ett bröst som mitt” (Shakespeare 1993/2004: 20). The dart that is referred to is, “[o]stensibly, the arrow shot by sentimental Cupid; ulteriorly there is a reference to the sexual sting of amorous passion” (Partridge 1968: 123). Furthermore, a dart is similar to the male sexual organ as regards shape, which is why this as well could be considered a phallic symbol.

Indeed, “[i]n euphemism, dart of love = penis” (ibid., bold in original). On the other hand,

‘dart of love’ is not necessarily a euphemism for a penis in this context, which may be concluded from the reference to the bosom, or, the stereotypical view of falling in love: Cupid is believed to pierce a person’s heart with his arrows, whereas he or she falls in love.

The Duke’s utterance is quite bombastic, and the fact that he is a nobleman is reflected in his use of this phrase. One gets a rather heroic, naive impression of his character when contemplating these words: they are dramatic as well as romantic. It is probably fair to say that this could be considered a ‘beautiful’ expression, and, once again, the reader can notice the use of figurative speech. However, the Duke’s attitude towards love and sex may be of a

(24)

less ‘beautiful’ nature. When using the expression, it is possible that he implies that he can resist sexual temptations; he is a chaste man who does not wish to fall in love or rejoice in sexual actions. Therefore, it seems as if he actually has a negative, even reprimanding and judging, view on love: he claims not to wish to be pierced by Cupid’s arrow; he wants to stay unwounded. Whether this truly is his wish is not evident from the context, since he at this point speaks to a friar and perhaps wants to put himself in a better light. Still, judging from the expression, the Duke’s attitude is quite a pessimistic one: for some reason, he seems to fear love. He attempts to portray himself as a strong and wilful man who can resist temptations. This could, perhaps, be related to his social status and class, since the upper class, stereotypically, wish to believe that they are more virtuous or morally defined than

‘common’ people.

The Duke’s rather demeaning attitude towards love becomes even more obvious in the Swedish translation of ‘the dribbling dart of love’ (‘den veka kärlekspilen’). A ‘dart of love’ is indeed a ‘kärlekspil’, but furthermore, the Duke suggests that the dart is ‘vek’ (‘weak’). If assuming that the dart of love refers to a man’s penis, the Duke then implies that the male sex is weak in a sexual sense. It would be a reference to men’s performance and limited stamina during the sexual act: there are, naturally, physical limitations, regardless of how eager the man is to perform sexually.

As regards the Swedish translation of the adjective ‘dribbling’, it is not even close to a literal translation: the word ‘vek’ does definitely not render the same meaning as ‘dribbling’.

If something is ‘dribbling’, it means that the object in question is “apt to dribble or drip”

(Partridge 1968: 123), which a penis, due to the possibility to ejaculate, must be said to be.

Therefore, in the Swedish translation, a meaning that is not entirely present in the English version can be clarified through a metaphor: love, or sex, is weakness. Furthermore, the fact that ‘dribbling’ is not translated as ‘droppande’ or ‘drypande’ may be a reason for assuming that it is love in general that is referred to, and not the male sexual organ.

Considering the Duke’s assumed attitude, the semantic features of a ‘dribbling dart of love’ can be suggested to be, obviously, [+DRIBBLING], but also [+SHARP] and [+HARMFUL]. Something that is considered harmful may in addition be [+WEAPON], and in this case, the same item is also [+AMOROUS]. This established connection between weapons and love or sex may be expressed through another metaphor: love, or sex, is danger. Thus, the semantic features of the expression clearly reveal the Duke’s attitude: feelings and actions related to love (especially those of a physical nature) are dangerous and must be avoided.

(25)

In the beginning of the third act, there is an interesting occurrence of the word ‘death’. It is the Duke again who says: “Yet in this life / Lie hid moe thousand deaths; yet death we fear, / That makes these odds all even” (Shakespeare 2005: 67). The translation is as follows: “I detta enda liv / Ryms tusen dödar; ändå skyr vi döden / Som jämnar allt det udda ut”

(Shakespeare 1993/2004: 51). The meaning of the word ‘death’ in this context can be discussed, since there are at least three different interpretations. It could, simply, mean the physical death, but it could also mean a debt or even an orgasm. If starting with the meaning

‘orgasm’, one promptly realises that such a meaning requires that the word ‘death’ is used euphemistically, which would suit the Duke’s social class: that noblemen use euphemisms or speak delicately does make sense. This notion of death being a euphemism for an orgasm is supported by the fact that “sex and death belong to the same cyclical pattern” (Williams 1997:

93). However, Partridge (1968) does not list ‘death’ in his glossary of sexual language, but Williams (1996: 127) states that “death as an image of sexual climax came into vogue in the early 1590s”. Since Measure for Measure was written in the beginning of the seventeenth century, it is possible that Shakespeare used the word ‘death’ when referring to an orgasm.

Due to the words ‘thousand deaths’, there is the possibility to make an interesting comparison, if assuming that a death is a euphemism for an orgasm. The eighteenth-century Swedish poet and composer Carl Michael Bellman is, as is Shakespeare, famous for erotic messages in his poetry. And actually, Bellman as well uses the word ‘death’ in a sexual context in his work Fredman’s Epistles. The following lines occur in epistle 43, in which the birth of a child is depicted: “Deaths in thousands all around thee glower. / Even in this loving hour / Thou must taste of death’s dread power: / Worm in blossom hid foretells the flower is dead” (Bellman 1990/1999: 75). As one can observe, the resemblance to the Duke’s words is striking: the words ‘deaths in thousands’ are very similar to ‘thousand deaths’. In this epistle, the death represents the orgasm, while the worm stands for the penis and the flower stands for the vagina. Thus, when the ‘flower is dead’, the woman has experienced an orgasm.

Considering these similarities, one may be tempted to assume that the Duke as well refers to an orgasm. Furthermore, in Swedish it is quite unusual, but not incorrect, to give the noun

‘död’ the plural form ‘dödar’, which the translator actually has done. Neither can this be very common in English, since ‘death’ is an uncountable noun. This could support the presumption that ‘death’ is used euphemistically by the Duke: if referring to several orgasms while using the word ‘death’, it naturally has to take the plural form.

The semantics of the word ‘death’ may also be used to prove that an orgasm is implied.

The semantic features of a physical death are, for instance, [+IRREVOCABLE], [+FINISHING]

The Dribbling Dart of Love BACHELOR THESIS

B A C H E L O R T H E S I S