The first translation I would like to discuss is the translation of Shakespeare by Asian theatre makers that happened in the actual production process for staging. They translate the canonical plays of Shakespeare and adapt them into the traditional performance styles of their own country.

Let me take two adaptations to Noh collected in A|S|I|A as examples. Ku N’auka’s 2005 production Othello in Noh Style, directed by Miyagi Satoshi and Niigata City Performing Arts Centre Ryutopia’s King Lear/ His Shadows directed by Kurita Yoshihiro in 2004. In spite of cosmetic similarities as adaptations to Noh, these two productions adopted deeply different strategies in their translation of Shakespeare into a Japanese traditional performance styles.

Even in the earliest examples of Shakespeare’s translation in Japan, the tension between the textual canonicity of Shakespeare as the western classic and the authenticity of the traditional performance styles of Japan was clearly observed. The first translation of Shakespeare by Tsubouchi Shōyō (1859-1935), one the most influential Shakespeare translators in Japan, was in the literary style of Kabuki and Jōruri puppet theatre known as Inpon. Katō Shūichi points out that the treatment was inevitable because “it was beyond their [i.e. Japanese performers and audiences of that period] imagination that there could be other forms of plays than Inpon.” (1991, 443) Tsubouchi himself also acknowledged the “huge difference in the format” between Shakespeare’s blank verses and his Inpon translation but defended his choice by stating; “My priority is on readability and comprehensibility, and I adapted it into Jōruri narrative style when that was practical, and kept the speeches so long as they were comprehensible.” (1884, n/p)^[i] Utterability and performability by the Kabuki actors, who were the only professional actors available for staging Shakespeare during that period, was the first priority.

In the Meiji period, the Japanese government implemented a thorough and extensive national project of westernization of the country. Performing arts were no exception, and the first approach adopted by the Japanese government to modernize its culture was to “reform” Japanese traditional theatre, Kabuki in particular, into more westernized theatrical forms. Theatrical reform was spearheaded by the Engeki Kairyō Kai (Society for Theatre Reform) established in 1886. The movement was aimed at raising the position of theatre in Japanese society from popular culture to high culture, and at persuading the western powers that Japan had a theatre that was comparable to western theatre.

Western plays started to be introduced into Japan in the 1870s to be performed as the reformed Kabuki, and in terms of the translation of western plays in Meiji Japan, the most popular author was Shakespeare. As many as thirty-five translations of Shakespeare were published between 1877 and 1890. (Yamamoto 1992, 40) Although it was to deal with an immediate need of westernisation of theatre, this approach inevitably brought a tension between the textual canonicity of Shakespeare’s plays and the authenticity of the performance styles of Japanese traditional theatre. In other words, such intercultural negotiations can be found from the very beginning of the reception of Shakespeare.

Taking look at the contemporary adaptation of Shakespeare into Japanese traditional performances, the tensions between the canonicity of Shakespeare’s text and the authenticity of the performance style is still a major issue. The solutions, however, take various forms reflecting the interests of the theatre-makers. One possibility is using the plots of Shakespeare’s plays and, in terms of the text, completely re-writing the script to conform to the performance style. In other words, the textual canonicity of Shakespeare is rather compromised and the priority is given to the performative authenticity of Japanese traditional performance.

Ku Na’uka’s, Othello in Noh Style employs this strategy. Director Miyagi Satoshi used a script by Hirakawa Sukehiro^[ii] which has two distinctive features. First, the language used was classical and formal Japanese in the Utai-bon style, the traditional form of the Noh script. The archaism in Noh was reproduced to tell the story of Othello, which gave an authenticity to the production as a Noh performance. Second, Othello in Noh Style adopted an authentic structure of Mugen Noh with the prominent first-person narrative of shite with the opening remarks by waki and ai-kyogen interlude.

On the other hand, Ryutopia’s King Lear/ His Shadows, which was staged on the authentic Noh theatre, adopted a completely different strategy. Director Kurita Yoshihiro used the translation by Matsuoka Kazuko, who is one of the most respected Shakespeare translators in Japan now, in contemporary Japanese. Kurita made some key amendments to the script to furnish the script to be staged on the Noh stage, including the creation of characters called Shadows who work as both waki and jiutai. The performance was bookended with their narrations to frame the entire performance as the recollection of the spirit of Lear, mimicking the basic structure of Mugen Noh. In the main part of the production, they anonymously speak choric speeches, mainly of Kent, Gloucester and Edger. By introducing Shadows, Kurita successfully structured King Lear/ His Shadows as a quasi-Noh performance.

Nevertheless, the actors performed in the conventional manner of Shingeki with its naturalistic acting style, which was appropriate for the contemporary vernacular Japanese translation of Matsuoka. Thus, the overall impression of the productions was more of Shingeki rather than of Noh. This strategy rather highlights the canonicity of Shakespeare’s text in spite of its highly Japanised aesthetics on stage.

Such translation strategies to traditional performance styles may be difficult for those who are not familiar with the respective genres. A|S|I|A provides the data provided by editors and tries to provide annotations to each production. The data is structured in four main categories namely; i) Production, ii) Reception, iii) Art/Forms and iv) Points of Reference.

First two categories are factual data and no interpretation is included. However, the other two categories include a substantial amount of interpretation of the production by the editors, and in Art/Forms data, we provide basic information on the distinctive usage of particular performance styles.

Let’s take a look at actual data of Ryutopia’s King Lear/ His Shadows as an example.

(Productions > Ryutopia King Lear data)

We provide these interpretive data to provide an entry point for the users who are not familiar with the cultures and sociopolitical conditions in this area. We are of course aware that providing such interpretation can be a debatable approach to the practice of archiving, in which the objectivity is usually considered as a principle. Providing our own reading of the production, which can also be paraphrased as our own translation of the production, invites a risk of manipulation of the users’ perceptions of the productions collected, and it is, I would admit, a plausible criticism against our approach.

However, through the data, we can highlight that even if Shakespeare’s texts are adapted into the same traditional performance style, there can be various translation strategies reflecting the directors’ approaches to Shakespeare’s text. In A|S|I|A, various approaches are archived and juxtaposed in an easily comparable manner. Thanks to the extensive range of the collection, the comparison can be made even beyond national borders — among adaptations to Beijing Opera, Korean Changgeuk, Malaysia’s Mak Yong, to name a few. These adaptations demonstrate the tension between Shakespeare’s (read Western) canonicity and Asian traditional performing arts styles, reflecting the history of each country.