Essay On Shakespeare In The Bush

Shakespeare in the Bush 

    This story, by Laura Bohannan, is a perfect example that literature is open to many interpretations.  To many people in our culture the play of Hamlet is well-known, and accepted without many difficulties.  However, in the Tiv culture there are several errors in the plot that the chiefs point out. 

    While visiting the Tiv in Africa, Laura is asked to tell the elders a story from our culture.  It is at this point that she finds her chance to tell about Hamlet because she thinks it is one of the most important pieces of literature in our society.  Laura thinks that the story will be fairly easy to explain because of it is generally understood by everyone.  Also, she thinks that the elders will understand because before starting to tell the story, Laura thought that every culture would understand the plot of the story in the same way our society does.  "I was quiet sure that Hamlet had only one possible interpretation, and that one universally obvious” (Bohannan 24).  Once the story started, it was clear that the Tiv had a completely different way of thinking, and interpreting story’s. 

    The first error that the elders found in the story was the word usage that was used to translate non-existent word in the Tiv vocabulary.  The word "chief" was used in place of king or ruler, which may not seem to make a difference to our understanding.  However, to a culture that relies heavily on chiefs, the story is greatly changed because the word “chief” brings about many responsibilities.  Trying to explain that the “chief” was dead, brought about a lot of confusion. To the Tiv people there is no such thing as a ghost, which means as soon as they found that King Hamlet came back to visit Hamlet, the Tiv thought it to be an omen sent by a witch.  The Tiv rely on interpretations to make sense of stories, and the only way for them to interpret Hamlet is to relate its meanings to their culture. 

    Throughout the story telling by Bohannan it is clear that each society has their own interpretations of stories no matter what culture the story’s come from.  When Bohannan finish’s telling her interpretation of Hamlet the elders tell her that it was a good story, but there are errors that were over looked.  This is the ending scene, where Hamlet and Laertes get into a machete fight, and Hamlet is supposed to die of poisoning.  Most people over look the fact that it was who ever won the fight that drank from the poison cup.  This meant that it wasn’t only Hamlet that would die if he won the fight, if Laertes won then he too would drink from the cup. 

    From this story we find that elders in every society feel that they know what is best.  Bohannan was told several times to check with her elders at home to get the real meaning of Hamlet.  Elders are often listened to because they are thought to have much experience in the ways of life.  Laura came into the Tiv culture thinking that everyone thought alike, but really she found that everything is open to interpretation and experience.  One person is listened to if we believe that their experience is better than our own.



Shakespeare in the Bush

An American anthropologist set out to study the Tiv of West Africa and was taught the true meaning of Hamlet.

By Laura Bohannan

Just before I left Oxford for the Tiv in West Africa, conversation turned to the season at Stratford. “You Americans,” said a friend, “often have difficulty with Shakespeare. He was, after all, a very English poet, and one can easily misinterpret the universal by misunderstanding the particular.”

I protested that human nature is pretty much the same the whole world over; at least the general plot and motivation of the greater tragedies would always be clear—everywhere—although some details of custom might have to be explained and difficulties of translation might produce other slight changes. To end an argument we could not conclude, my friend gave me a copy of Hamlet to study in the African bush: it would, he hoped, lift my mind above its primitive surroundings, and possibly I might, by prolonged meditation, achieve the grace of correct interpretation.

It was my second field trip to that African tribe, and I thought myself ready to live in one of its remote sections—an area difficult to cross even on foot. I eventually settled on the hillock of a very knowledgeable old man, the head of a homestead of some hundred and forty people, all of whom were either his close relatives or their wives and children. Like the other elders of the vicinity, the old man spent most of his time performing ceremonies seldom seen these days in the more accessible parts of the tribe. I was delighted. Soon there would be three months of enforced isolation and leisure, between the harvest that takes place just before the rising of the swamps and the clearing of new farms when the water goes down. Then, I thought, they would have even more time to perform ceremonies and explain them to me.

I was quite mistaken. Most of the ceremonies demanded the presence of elders from several homesteads. As the swamps rose, the old men found it too difficult to walk from one homestead to the next, and the ceremonies gradually ceased. As the swamps rose even higher, all activities but one came to an end. The women brewed beer from maize and millet. Men, women, and children sat on their hillocks and drank it.

People began to drink at dawn. By midmorning the whole homestead was singing, dancing, and drumming. When it rained, people had to sit inside their huts: there they drank and sang or they drank and told stories. In any case, by noon or before, I either had to join the party or retire to my own hut and my books. “One does not discuss serious matters when there is beer. Come, drink with us.” Since I lacked their capacity for the thick native beer, I spent more and more time with Hamlet. Before the end of the second month, grace descended on me. I was quite sure that Hamlet had only one possible interpretation, and that one universally obvious.

Early every morning, in the hope of having some serious talk before the beer party, I used to call on the old man at his reception hut—a circle of posts supporting a thatched roof above a low mud wall to keep out wind and rain. One day I crawled through the low doorway and found most of the men of the homestead sitting huddled in their ragged cloths on stools, low plank beds, and reclining chairs, warming themselves against the chill of the rain around a smoky fire. In the center were three pots of beer. The party had started.

The old man greeted me cordially. “Sit down and drink.” I accepted a large calabash full of beer, poured some into a small drinking gourd, and tossed it down. Then I poured some more into the same gourd for the man second in seniority to my host before I handed my calabash over to a young man for further distribution. Important people shouldn’t ladle beer themselves.

“It is better like this,” the old man said, looking at me approvingly and plucking at the thatch that had caught in my hair. “You should sit and drink with us more often. Your servants tell me that when you are not with us, you sit inside your hut looking at a paper.”

The old man was acquainted with four kinds of “papers”: tax receipts, bride price receipts, court fee receipts, and letters. The messenger who brought him letters from the chief used them mainly as a badge of office, for he always knew what was in them and told the old man. Personal letters for the few who had relatives in the government or mission stations were kept until someone went to a large market where there was a letter writer and reader. Since my arrival, letters were brought to me to be read. A few men also brought me bride price receipts, privately, with requests to change the figures to a higher sum. I found moral arguments were of no avail, since in-laws are fair game, and the technical hazards of forgery difficult to explain to an illiterate people. I did not wish them to think me silly enough to look at any such papers for days on end, and I hastily explained that my “paper” was one of the “things of long ago” of my country.

“Ah,” said the old man. “Tell us.” I protested that I was not a storyteller. Storytelling is a skilled art among them; their standards are high, and the audiences critical—and vocal in their criticism. I protested in vain. This morning they wanted to hear a story while they drank. They threatened to tell me no more stories until I told them one of mine. Finally, the old man promised that no one would criticize my style, “for we know you are struggling with our language.” “But,” put in one of the elders, “you must explain what we do not understand, as we do when we tell you our stories.” Realizing that here was my chance to prove Hamlet universally intelligible, I agreed.

The old man handed me some more beer to help me on with my storytelling. Men filled their long wooden pipes and knocked coals from the fire to place in the pipe bowls; then, puffing contentedly, they sat back to listen. I began in the proper style, “Not yesterday, not yesterday, but long ago, a thing occurred. One night three men were keeping watch outside the homestead of the great chief, when suddenly they saw the former chief approach them.”

“Why was he no longer their chief?”

“He was dead,” I explained. “That is why they were troubled and afraid when they saw him.”

“Impossible,” began one of the elders, handing his pipe on to his neighbor, who interrupted, “Of course it wasn’t the dead chief. It was an omen sent by a witch. Go on.”

Categories: 1

0 Replies to “Essay On Shakespeare In The Bush”

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *