Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies Series Historia et Sociologia, 30, 2020, 1 UDK 009 Annales, Ser. hist. sociol., 30, 2020, 1, pp. 1-176, Koper 2020 ISSN 1408-5348 KOPER 2020 Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies Series Historia et Sociologia, 30, 2020, 1 UDK 009 ISSN 1408-5348 (Print) ISSN 2591-1775 (Online) ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 ISSN 1408-5348 (Tiskana izd.) UDK 009 Letnik 30, leto 2020, številka 1 ISSN 2591-1775 (Spletna izd.) UREDNIŠKI ODBOR/ COMITATO DI REDAZIONE/ BOARD OF EDITORS: Roderick Bailey (UK), Simona Bergoč, Furio Bianco (IT), Alexander Cherkasov (RUS), Lucija Čok, Lovorka Čoralić (HR), Darko Darovec, Goran Filipi (HR), Devan Jagodic (IT), Vesna Mikolič, Luciano Monzali (IT), Aleksej Kalc, Avgust Lešnik, John Martin (USA), Robert Matijašić (HR), Darja Mihelič, Edward Muir (USA), Vojislav Pavlović (SRB), Peter Pirker (AUT), Claudio Povolo (IT), Marijan Premović (ME), Andrej Rahten, Vida Rožac Darovec, Mateja Sedmak, Lenart Škof, Marta Verginella, Špela Verovšek, Tomislav Vignjević, Paolo Wulzer (IT), Salvator Žitko Glavni urednik/Redattore capo/ Editor in chief: Darko Darovec Odgovorni urednik/Redattore responsabile/Responsible Editor: Salvator Žitko Urednika/Redattori/Editors: Urška Lampe, Gorazd Bajc Prevajalci/Traduttori/Translators: Petra Berlot (it.) Oblikovalec/Progetto grafico/ Graphic design: Dušan Podgornik , Darko Darovec Tisk/Stampa/Print: Založništvo PADRE d.o.o. Založnika/Editori/Published by: Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko - Koper / Società storica del Litorale - Capodistria© / Inštitut IRRIS za raziskave, razvoj in strategije družbe, kulture in okolja / Institute IRRIS for Research, Development and Strategies of Society, Culture and Environment / Istituto IRRIS di ricerca, sviluppo e strategie della società, cultura e ambiente© Sedež uredništva/Sede della redazione/ Address of Editorial Board: SI-6000 Koper/Capodistria, Garibaldijeva/Via Garibaldi 18 e-mail: annaleszdjp@gmail.com, internet: https://zdjp.si Redakcija te številke je bila zaključena 30. 3. 2020. Sofinancirajo/Supporto finanziario/ Financially supported by: Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije (ARRS), Mestna občina Koper Annales - Series Historia et Sociologia izhaja štirikrat letno. Maloprodajna cena tega zvezka je 11 EUR. Naklada/Tiratura/Circulation: 300 izvodov/copie/copies Revija Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia je vključena v naslednje podatkovne baze / La rivista Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia è inserita nei seguenti data base / Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in: Clarivate Analytics (USA): Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) in/and Current Contents / Arts & Humanities; IBZ, Internationale Bibliographie der Zeitschriftenliteratur (GER); Sociological Abstracts (USA); Referativnyi Zhurnal Viniti (RUS); European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS); Elsevier B. V.: SCOPUS (NL); Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). To delo je objavljeno pod licenco / Quest'opera è distribuita con Licenza / This work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0. Navodila avtorjem in vsi članki v barvni verziji so prosto dostopni na spletni strani: https://zdjp.si. Le norme redazionali e tutti gli articoli nella versione a colori sono disponibili gratuitamente sul sito: https://zdjp.si/it/. The submission guidelines and all articles are freely available in color via website http://zdjp.si/en/. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 Jožica Čeh Steger: Ljudska pesem Lepa Vida v kontekstu sredozemskih sorodnic in ljudskih pesmi o Kraljeviču Marku ............................ 1 Ballata popolare 'Bella Vida' nel contesto delle parenti mediterranee e canzoni popolari su Principe Marko The Folk Song ‘Fair Vida’ in the Context of its Mediterranean Relatives and the Folk Songs about Prince Marko Michelle Gadpaille & Simon Zupan: Interpreting and Translating Shakespeare’s Heraldic Terminology: 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry VI in Slovene ............................................ 13 Interpretazione e traduzione della terminologia eraldica di Shakespeare: 1 Henry IV e 2 Henry VI nella lingua slovena Tolmačenje in prevajanje Shakespearove heraldične terminologije: 1 Henrik IV in 2 Henrik VI v slovenščini Janko Trupej: Ideological Influences on the Reception of Karl May in Slovenia .................... 35 Influenze ideologiche sulla ricezione di Karl May in Slovenia Ideološki vplivi na recepcijo Karla Maya v Sloveniji Maruša Mugerli Lavrenčič: Trieste as Literary Space: The City and its Surroundings in Works by Anna Hilaria Von Eckhel (Zwischen Wellen und Steinen), Marica Nadlišek (Na obali), and Scipio Slataper (Il mio Carso) .......................... 51 Trieste come luogo letterario: la città e il suo entroterra nelle opere di Anna Hilaria von Eckhel (Zwischen Wellen und Steinen), Marica Nadlišek (Na obali) e Scipio Slataper (Il mio Carso) Trst kot literarni prostor: mesto in njegovo zaledje v delih Anne Hilarie von Eckhel (Zwischen Wellen und Steinen), Marice Nadlišek (Na obali) in Scipia Slataperja (Il mio Carso) Jelena Mrkaić: Reconstructing Culture through Linguistically Coded Gender Stereotypes – the Case of Petar II Petrović Njegoš Phraseology ................................ 65 Ricostruendo la cultura attraverso stereotipi di genere linguisticamente codificati ‒ il caso della fraseologia di Petar II Petrović Njegoš Rekonstrukcija kulture skozi jezikovno kodirane spolne stereotipe – primer frazeologije Petra II. Petrovića Njegoša Andriela Vitić – Ćetković, Ivona Jovanović & Jasna Potočnik Topler: Literary Tourism: the Role of Russian 19th Century Travel Literature in the Positioning of the Smallest European Royal Capital – Cetinje ............. 81 Turismo letterario: il ruolo della letteratura di viaggio Russa del secolo XIX nel posizionamento della più piccola capitale reale Europea – Cettigne Literarni turizem: vloga ruske potopisne književnosti 19. stoletja v umeščanju najmanjše evropske kraljeve prestolnice – Cetinje Giancarlo Bagnod, Gianmarco Chenal, Alessandro Corsi, Marilisa Letey & Simonetta Mazzarino: The "Pergola Valdostana" and Heroic Viticulture in Aosta Valley (Italy): A Case Study on a Traditional Wine-Growing System ....................... 99 La pergola Valdostana e la viticoltura eroica in Valle d’Aosta (Italia): caso di studio relativo a un sistema tradizionale di allevamento della vite Pergola Valdostana in herojsko vinogradništvo v dolini Aoste (Italija): študija primera o tradicionalnem sistemu gojenja vinske trte Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije - Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei - Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies VSEBINA / INDICE GENERALE / CONTENTS UDK 009 Volume 30, Koper 2020, issue 1 ISSN 1408-5348 (Print) ISSN 2591-1775 (Online) ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije - Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei - Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies Jure Vuga: Poskus rekonstrukcije »ciborija Svetega Nazarija« v srednjeveški stolnici Marijinega vnebovzetja v Kopru ................................................................. 113 An attempt of Reconstruction of the Ciborium of Saint Nazarius in the Medieval Cathedral of the Assumption in Koper Tentativo di ricostruzione del »ciborio di San Nazzario« nel duomo medievale dell'assunta di Capodistria Maja Vehar: Vzgoja za starševstvo na Slovenskem v obdobju 1945–1955 .................. 133 L'educazione alla genitorialità in Slovenia nel periodo 1945–1955 Parenthood Education in Slovenia in the period 1945–1955 Aleš Gabrič: Gradin med pripadnostjo Sloveniji in Hrvaški .............................................. 147 Gradena: contesa tra Slovenia e Croazia Gradin between Slovenia and Croatia POLEMIKA / POLEMICA / POLEMIC Opazke k članku Boža Repeta “Vloga Milana Kučana v slovenski zunanji politiki” (Dimitrij Rupel) ...................................... 167 OCENE / RECENSIONI / REVIEWS Alenka Divjak: Sustainable Tourism between Esperanto and English (Jasna Potočnik Topler) ......................................... 169 Vili Ravnjak (ur.): 100 let Slovenskega narodnega gledališča v Mariboru: drama, opera, balet (Franc Križnar) ..................................................... 170 Duška Žitko: El Tartini in piassa / Tartini na trgu (Franc Križnar) ..................................................... 172 Ivo Goldstein: Jasenovac (Federico Tenca Montini) ...................................... 173 Kazalo k slikam na ovitku ..................................... 176 Indice delle foto di copertina ................................. 176 Index to images on the cover ................................. 176 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 13 received: 2017-09-19 DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2020.02 INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN SLOVENE Michelle GADPAILLE University of Maribor, Faculty of Arts, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia e-mail: michelle.gadpaille@um.si Simon ZUPAN University of Maribor, Faculty of Arts, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia e-mail: simon.zupan@um.si ABSTRACT William Shakespeare reflected the Elizabethan fascination with the intricate symbolism of heraldry in his poetry and drama. This paper examines Slovene translations of selected passages from 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry VI that involve heraldic language and pose conundrums even in the original. Because of a scarcity of available vocabulary in the target language, translator Matej Bor struggled to replicate heraldic allusions and puns; nevertheless, he successfully compensated for the lexical gap with other structures. The paper also proposes a new reading of a crucial heraldic allusion from 2 Henry VI. Keywords: Heraldry, William Shakespeare, the Wars of the Roses, translation, Matej Bor INTERPRETAZIONE E TRADUZIONE DELLA TERMINOLOGIA ERALDICA DI SHAKESPEARE: 1 HENRY IV E 2 HENRY VI NELLA LINGUA SLOVENA SINTESI La poesia e i drammi di Wiliam Shakespeare riflettono l’attrazione elisabettiana per l’intricata simbologia araldica. Questo articolo esamina le traduzioni slovene di alcuni brani dei drammi Enrico IV, parte I ed Enrico VI, parte II che, usando il linguaggio araldico, creano situazioni enigmatiche già nell’originale. A causa della scarsità del vocabolario disponibile nella lingua di destinazione, il traduttore Matej Bor ha avuto difficoltà a replicare le allusioni e i giochi di parole, legati all’araldica; nonostante ciò, è riuscito a compensare le lacune lessicali con altre strutture. L’articolo propone anche una nuova interpretazione della cruciale allusione araldica nell’Enrico VI, parte II. Parole chiave: araldica, Wiliam Shakespeare, la Guerra delle due rose, traduzione, Matej Bor ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 14 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 INTRODUCTION: SHAKESPEARE THE HERALD It is common knowledge that Shakespeare sought a coat of arms for his family, having made an applica- tion on behalf of his father John Shakespeare to the College of Arms (Shapiro, 2005, 275–278; Scott-Giles, 1950, 27–30; Cheesman, 2014, 90–95; Holden, 1999, 151–153; Rothery, 1930, 11–14); the design was simple: »Gould. On A Bend Sables, a Speare of the first steeled argent« (Greenblatt, 2004, 78). The image of the slant- wise spear on the shield was a punning reference to the Shakespeare name itself. 1 Heraldry also extended from the dramatist’s personal life to his poetry and stage work, and over the centuries, there have been several scholarly studies of heraldry in Shakespeare’s work (Scott Giles, 1950; Rothery, 1930; Ramsay, 2014; Vickers, 1985). Some references in the plays are straightforward, while others are among the famous interpretive cruxes of his work. There is, for instance, the puzzle of the heraldic term »two of the first« from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, which is discussed in the authors’ essay on the translation of gender masquerade in Shakespeare’s plays (Gadpaille & Zupan, 2016, 102–104). This heraldic pun is witty, bawdy and entirely appropriate to the festive mood of comedy. Nevertheless, for the spectator to get the joke, some familiarity with heraldic terminology would have been required; the question thus concerns the degree of audience familiarity that will suffice. Modern scholars of Elizabethan heraldry stress its communicative aspect, maintaining that even ordinary people in the sixteenth century would have been able to decode basic visual symbols in heraldry (Kuin, 2014, 188; Groves, 2014, 238–239; Will, 2014, 266), while the gentry and aristoc- racy would have been familiar even with the »jargon- rich neo-Latin« (Cheesman, 2014, 79) of the verbal ac- companiments. The greater the spectator’s engagement with the jargon of the heraldry-mad Elizabethan court, 2 the more genuine their guffaws at Helena’s suggestive speech in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and the higher the likelihood of their appreciating the satirical swipe at courtly pretension over newly-granted coats-of arms. 3 Heraldry worked as satire because its visual and verbal elements were personal and identifiable, while 1 This custom of adopting an image that punned on the arms-bearer’s name is called »canting arms« (Oliver & Croton, 2012, 76–77, 192–195, 215; Scott-Giles, 1950, 6, 205). 2 There is agreement among scholars that there was an explosion of interest in heraldic arms in the early Elizabethan period (Cust, 2014, 197; Will, 2014, 266; Fitzsimons, 333–334). Ailes (2014, 115) gives a list of works dealing with heraldry that Shakespeare might have known (six in his lifetime), and Groves counts »at least forty-six heraldic works published during Elizabeth’s reign« (Groves, 2014, 240). 3 See Kathryn Will for further discussion of the lines from A Midsummer Night’s Dream (Will, 2014, 278). 4 See Will for the suitability of heraldic symbols in satire (Will, 2014, 269); and Clive Cheesman for an instance of heraldic satire by Shake- speare’s contemporary Ben Jonson in 1599 (Cheesman, 2014, 69–70). 5 There is also statistical evidence that the Elizabethan age saw a surge in the popularity of arms, measured by the number of grants or re- grants of arms (Cheesman, 2014, 89–94). Peers at Elizabeth’s court were anxious to establish that their genealogies predated the Norman Conquest and went »back to the Anglo-Saxon monarchy« (Adams, 2014, 5). 6 A good illustration of Shakespeare’s popularity is the existence of six different Slovene translations of Hamlet (see Zlatnar Moe, 2014), which is an exceptional number even for classics in the Slovenian literary setting. Another one is that in the two decades between the World Wars, the two professional theatre companies in Ljubljana and Maribor staged 32 separate productions of Shakespeare’s plays (Slivnik, 2000, 44). simultaneously being generalizable and symbolic, and thus less risky for the writer. 4 In Elizabethan times, however, satire was not always the point of heraldry, since historical drama, a fixture in the repertoire of Shakespeare’s company, served to glorify as well as to interpret the past. 5 It is appropriate, therefore, to begin with Shakespeare’s history plays and their use of heraldic imagery. We will first identify and explain the meaning(s) of the heraldic language in two plays, then highlight interpretive dilemmas, and compare the original with the translation into Slovene. The aim of such comparison is never to criticize the excellent translations by Matej Bor, but to consider the extent to which the multiple meanings conferred by heraldic allu- sion are transferable in-text, or by means of para-textual addenda such as notes. Shakespeare is undoubtedly the best-known English playwright in Slovenia and one of the few whose entire dramatic oeuvre, although extensive, has been trans- lated into Slovene. 6 However, studies about the transla- tions are relatively scarce and fragmentary. Exceptions include essays such as Dušan Moravec’s from the 1960s, in which he traced the first signs of Shakespeare’s pres- ence among Slovenes in the late 18 th century and identi- fied several Slovene translators from the second half of the 19 th century (Moravec, 1973), or several studies by Zlatnar Moe (2004; 2014; 2016) and Grosman (2002), in which the authors analysed the cultural, literary and stylistic implications of several Slovene translations and performances of Hamlet; stylistic features have also been analysed by Stanovnik (1991), Onič (2013), Onič and Marinšek (2015) and Onič, Marinšek and Zupan (2016). By focusing on heraldic language, the present study aims to shed light on one aspect of Slovene trans- lations that to the authors’ knowledge has previously not been addressed. Methodology and Selection of Materials The Shakespeare material was selected in a series of stages. First, all the heraldic terminology in the complete plays was sampled, using search engines and accurate keywords for the heraldic topic, such as arms, blazon, badge, and scutcheon. Such searching captured too ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 15 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 wide a selection, many items of which had nothing to do with heraldry (arms, for instance, sometimes means the upper limbs of the body as in Romeo’s »Eyes, look your last!/Arms, take your last embrace!« in Act V. iii of Romeo and Juliet ). Therefore, the list of passages was subsequently narrowed by careful attention to the context of keywords. The authors also relied on previ- ous studies of Shakespeare’s heraldry (Groves, 2014; Fox-Davies, 1909; Maskew, 2009; Lea & Seaton, 1945; Ramsay, 2014; Rothery, 1930; Scott-Giles, 1950; Will, 2014), to gain the benefit of over a century of scholar- ship on the subject. No comparable studies on heraldry in Shakespeare’s works exist in Slovene. Our pruned search results were therefore checked against the stand- ard heraldic examples from the literature in English, and extra search keywords were generated (e.g. field, which would not at first glance seem to be heraldic, but did prove to be key to some examples, as in references to Jack Cade’s descent: »the field is honourable« (Henry VI pt 2 Act IV sc ii). From the compiled list, it was apparent that, although heraldic references occurred across Shakespeare’s oeuvre, they did tend to be more frequent in the plays dealing with English history. In non-history plays, he- raldic references were frequently metaphorical, as in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (see Gadpaille & Zupan, 2016), functioning as vehicles to convey meaning about other topics, politics or gender, for example. Only in the history plays did heraldry refer directly to historical reality: the existence of a tradition of assigned coats of arms, with a standard symbolism and a clear dynastic significance. For the purpose of this article, we narrowed the field further, to only two history plays, one from each of Shakespeare’s two tetralogies. This gave us two sets of usages, encompassing several years of Shakespeare’s dramatic work, although dealing with the same histori- cal period: the dynastic conflict that would come to be known as the Wars of the Roses. Our selection thus gives us compositional diversity along with historical unity. Selection of the Slovene translations was simplified by the existence of one translation of Henry IV and Henry VI 7 by the same translator, Matej Bor. The cor- responding passages in the Slovene plays were identi- fied, including any accompanying explanatory notes, and clear back-translations were established before any conclusions were drawn about the translatability of heraldic terminology. We also examined Bor’s original handwritten translations of both plays and publish- ers’ proofs, which are kept by the National University Library in Ljubljana (Bor, MS 1956a, 1956b, 1956c) 8 . Different versions of both texts offer a valuable insight in Bor’s creative process. The handwritten version thus includes different versions of individual lines and 7 The 1978 edition of the plays was used in the study of Slovene translations (Shakespeare, 1978); and the New Oxford Shakespeare edition for the original English text (Shakespeare, 1988, 1999, 2002). 8 The authors wish to thank National University Library (NUK) and the copyright holders Manja Pavšič and Matej Pavšič for permission to include pictures of Matej Bor’s manuscripts in the article. Bor’s notes about the parts of text that he considered problematic. The proofs mostly contain typographical corrections such as misspellings or incorrect capitaliza- tions; however, additional comments and justifications of particular translation choices can also be found that are not included in the printed versions. As is known, drama translation represents a special subfield of literary translation (Bassnet, 2014). It differs from the translation of other genres in that dramatic texts typically are not meant to be read but performed on stage (sometimes both). In turn, translation strategies may vary because on stage, the spoken word is also accompanied by movement, gestures, lighting, sound effects and everything else that makes up the theatrical experience (see Windle, 2012). Our analysis also tried to address these aspects. We know that 1 Henry IV was translated for stage in the early 1950s and performed by Slovene National Theater in Ljubljana in the 1955/56 season, directed by the well-known Slovene dramatist and director Bratko Kreft. The show opened on Christ- mas Eve in 1955 and had 28 performances (Sigledal). It became an instant success and won the director the Prešeren Award, Slovenia’s highest award for culture, in 1957. It is particularly notable that the actors praised Bor’s translation for »being so natural and intuitive that it is a pleasure to say these verses or sentences in prose« (qtd. in Moravec, 1973, 453). Slovene National Theater in Ljubljana also performed Part 2 of Henry IV in 1956; however, it was slightly less popular with the theatergo- ers (Moravec, 1973, 454). Bor’s translation of Henry VI, on the other hand, is yet to be performed on Slovene stage. Both book editions with Henry IV and Henry VI came with afterwords. The afterword to Henry IV was written by Bratko Kreft (1957). Kreft’s study presents Shakespeare’s life, historical background of his history plays as well as an analysis of the characters in the play. The afterword for Shakespeare’s drama series that included Henry VI was the work of Dušan Moravec (1973). Moravec wrote an extensive 160-page essay in which he systematically presented the reception of Shakespeare among Slovenians, including performances in various Slovene theaters. He also dedicated much at- tention to translation-related questions, comparing and evaluating the work of different Slovene translators of Shakespeare. He held Bor’s work in high esteem. The Translator: Matej Bor Although the best known translator of Shakespeare into Slovene is Oton Župančič, some of the plays were later translated by Bor: 1 Henry IV in 1957 and 2 Henry VI in 1971. Bor’s life equipped him well to work with ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 16 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 dramatic material about the Wars of the Roses, includ- ing themes of identity, border conflict and war. Matej Bor (1913–1993) was a Slovene writer, critic and literary translator. Between the 1950s and 1970s he translated 19 of Shakespeare’s plays into Slovene. Even though Bor received no formal training in English, he had a talent for foreign languages and spoke several. He also lived in England for a year in the 1950s to »surmise my [Bor’s] way to Shakespeare in ways that go beyond merely his words« (cit. in Glavan & Komelj, 2013, 359). In his Shakespeare translation, Bor received consider- able support from his wife Anuša Sodnik in the capacity of »advisor, researcher, author of notes and forewords, which is why she is listed as co-author in some transla- tions« (Glavan & Komelj, 2013, 157). According to their daughter Manja Pavšič, Bor »consulted Anuša about different versions of the text, they spent hours and hours together trying to find the best one so that it would sound right and turn out the best« (cit. in Glavan & Komelj, 2013, 157). In an interview, Bor pointed out the personal significance of his work on Shakespeare: »If the time that I sacrificed for translations of Shakespeare, as 9 According to historian Peter Saccio, Prince Hal was better prepared for kingship than the legend suggests (Saccio, 2000, 58–59). Shake- speare was following the Tudor historian Raphael Holinshed for the events of the period. However, popular legends about Prince Hal’s mis-spent youth also shaped the character, especially a successful previous play, Famous Victories of Henry V (Bevington, 1980, 550). many as 19 of his works, if I had used this time for my own texts I could have said more. Nevertheless, I do not regret the days and years that I spent with Shakespeare in his world« (Vončina, 1993, 171–172). Bor believed that good translation was »re-creation« of the original work and a »new aesthetic reality« (Jevtić, 1981, 128). His translations are still used for on-stage productions by Slovene theatre companies. HERALDRY IN THE HISTORY PLAYS 1 Henry IV 1 Henry IV makes a good place to begin, since it exhibits a combination of serious and comic uses of heraldic diction. This play dramatizes events during the Wars of the Roses, when Henry Bolingbroke usurps the throne from his cousin Richard II and spends the rest of his reign quelling uprisings against this dynastic coup. Bolingbroke, now Henry IV also faces a domestic uprising, in the form of an »unruly son« Prince Hal, who eventually reforms and proves himself on the battlefield. In 1 Henry IV many of the heraldry references occur in the battlefield scenes, at the Battle of Shrewsbury (fought against the northern rebels in 1403) in acts IV and V of the play. This is the point where the delinquent Prince Hal must finally leave the world of the tavern behind and step out in public as a man and a warrior. 9 There are two clusters of heraldic references, one concerning the Prince of Wales, and the other, his father, Henry IV. The first set of references occurs in Sir Richard Ver- non’s speech (IV i) praising Prince Hal, who has gratified onlookers by turning up for the battle and looking the part of the warrior prince. After his scapegrace youth in the tavern, Prince Hal now seems the perfect soldier. The situational irony of the speech arises from its being delivered in front of Hotspur (Henry Percy), the Prince’s rival, in response to his question about the Prince’s whereabouts: VERNON: All furnish'd, all in arms; All plumed like estridges that with the wind Baited like eagles having lately bathed; Glittering in golden coats, like images; As full of spirit as the month of May, And gorgeous as the sun at midsummer; Wanton as youthful goats, wild as young bulls. I saw young Harry, with his beaver on, His cuisses on his thighs, gallantly arm'd . . . . . . (1Henry IV Act IV. 1; emphasis added) The image at the centre of the speech is the »sun at midsummer«, comparing the prince to the prime among the heavenly bodies and a symbol associated Figure 1: Bor’s handwritten translation of Vernon’s speech (Bor, 1956b) (NUK Ljubljana, printed with per- mission of Manja Pavšič and Matej Pavšič). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 17 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 with the royal family (Groves, 2014, 244–245). Other terms from the heraldic vocabulary might be less rec- ognizable, although Vernon uses the simplest heraldic terms: arms, plume[s], coats and beaver. These terms are the ones most closely associated with a knight’s armour. Because of this military association, none of the terms is exclusively heraldic, and it is easy to miss the heraldic connections. Beatrice Groves, however, points out the potential for double and multiple mean- ings in such common heraldic terms Groves (2014, 243). 10 Arms The word arms, in the phrase »all in arms,« includes two senses: first, »wearing his complete armour for fighting« and second, »displaying his heraldic arms.« 11 These two meanings overlapped to a considerable extent in practice, because armour always showed family and liege loyalty. The word cannot simply mean »carrying the necessary defensive and offensive weapons« because that is covered by furnish’d earlier in the line (»all furnish’d, all in arms«). Harry is both furnished practically and in arms symbolically. Vernon’s speech looks different in Bor’s translation: Vernon: Vsi v orožju, vsi v perju kakor noji, prhutaje kot ravnokar okopani orliči, vsi v zlatu kot podobe svetih mož, vsi razigrani kakor mesec maj, svetlí kot sonce sred poletni dni, divji kot bikci, živi kot kozliči. Videl sem Harrya – na glavi šlem, na stegnih golenice; (Bor 252) [Vernon: All of them in arms, all of them in plumes like ostriches, fluttering like lately bathed young eagles, all of them in gold like the images of holy men, all of them full of spirit like the month of May, bright like the sun amidst the summer days, wild like young bulls, lively like young goats. I saw Harry – on his head a helmet, on his thighs shin guards;] (Bor 252) 12 12 In Slovene, »all furnish’d, all in arms« is reduced to one statement (»Vsi v orožju«), indicating that the translator read this parallel line as a poetic redun- dancy, in which each segment has identical semantic content. As a result, any possibility of heraldic allusion or punning is eliminated. The other major difference for Slovene readers is that Vernon is using the plural in Slovene. »Vsi« is the plural of all, meaning »the 10 See also Groves (2014, 254–255), for further discussion of Vernon’s speech. 11 Fox-Davies establishes the several senses of the word arms (Fox-Davies, 1909, 1). 12 For clarity, Bor’s translations have been back-translated; the text in square brackets is the back translation. entire number of, the individual components of, with- out exception« (OED Sense 2). While Shakespeare’s »all« is »the whole extent, substance, or compass of« (OED Sense 1), meaning all of the Prince himself. The speech in Slovene becomes singular only with »Videl sem Harrya« (I saw Harry); up to that point, Vernon’s visual descriptors refer to Harry’s whole company. This limits the possibility for its images to echo the heraldic achievement of the Prince of Wales–even when the translator deals accurately with the sun, the royal em- blem: »svetlí kot sonce sred poletni dni.« The retention of metrical regularity in this line is masterful. »Arms« thus becomes a missed opportunity to set up the he- raldic extended metaphor. »Sun«, being a clear visual image and more obviously symbolic, survives to form the central line in the Slovene version of the speech, though not applied exclusively to the Prince. The line »baited like eagles having lately bathed« is interesting because Bor’s handwritten version includes an asterisk and a note saying »meaning not yet clear« and adding that »several interpretations exist« (Bor, MS 1956b). It is interesting that Bor even assumed that »one verse was missing [in English]« (Bor, MS 1956b). Figure 2: Bor’s corrections of Vernon’s speech in a typewritten manuscript (Bor, 1956b) (NUK Ljubljana, printed with permission of Manja Pavšič and Matej Pavšič). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 18 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 Coats Another double meaning lies in coats, which here indicates the gilt surface of the holy images to which Hal is being compared, but also the cloth surcoat over the metal armour of a knight (Fox-Davies, 1909, 57), always bearing a graphic representation of the bearer’s badge or coat of arms (Scott-Giles, 1950, 205). David Bevington and David Scott Kastan (the Arden edition) both offer explanations of how military surcoats were embroidered with heraldic arms. The translation omits any equivalent for coats, instead incorporating infor- mation about the holy images into the play text. »vsi v zlatu kot podobe svetih mož«. 13 This explicitation bridges text with paratext and may reflect the famili- arity of the Slovene audience with the gilded Gothic or Rococo altars of Slovenia’s many churches. The solution still sidesteps the heraldic pun in the original, which results in a loss of connection with later refer - ences to coats in Act V. Nevertheless, Bor does catch Vernon’s incantatory anaphora with the repetition of Vsi v in three lines and vsi in a fourth. Plumes Another heraldic item referred to is the plumes on the Prince’s crest »all plumed like estridges«. Most edi- tions gloss estridge as ostrich, while Kastan cites the fact that three ostrich feathers made up the emblem of the Prince of Wales. 14 This is the issue at the mo- ment–whether he is worthy to be the heir of Henry IV. However, even had Hal not been the Prince of Wales, he would have been wearing these feathers because the metal crests atop helmets were replaced by ostrich feathers for battle (Fox-Davies, 1909, 464–466; Lea & Seaton, 1945, 321). Vernon is either stressing the battle-readiness of Prince Hal (he’s wearing his fight- ing kit), or indicating the young prince’s complete identification with his role as heir to the kingdom: he is Prince of Wales in truth and is proud to declare this. The Slovene lines dealing with the Prince’s crest opt for ostriches »noji«, while changing from a par - ticiple »plumed« to a prepositional phrase »v perju«; »perju« connotes actual bird feathers (because these are immature eagles, but not eaglets in the nest) rather than feathers converted to »personal adornment« (OED sense 1, but still adequately conveys magnifi- cence of attire: »vsi v perju kakor noji, prhutaje /kot 13 A pun on »coats« is entirely possible in Slovene–see the translation for Douglas’s threat to »murder all his [the King’s] coats«. 14 Fox-Davies explains that the three ostrich feathers formed the badge of the Earldom of Cornwall and were first used by Edward the Black Prince (1909, 458; 464–466). Scott-Giles cautions that the exclusive association with the Prince of Wales only came later (1950, 90) and reminds readers to keep the reference in its Elizabethan context: »When Shakespeare wrote Henry IV there was no Prince of Wales . . . and there had not been a Prince of Wales for nearly ninety years« (Scott-Giles, 1950, 90). 15 See Oliver and Croton for an explanation of styles of European helmets in the Middle Ages (Oliver & Croton, 2012, 80–84). The most detailed description of helmets in heraldry and on the battlefield is in Fox-Davies (1909, 303 ff). 16 »Šlem« is the general term; styles of helmet are distinguished by the addition of an adjective as descriptor: e.g. lončasti šlem = pot helmet). 17 Similarly, in English much of the diction from armory and heraldry is Norman French, with roots in Latin–not Anglo-Saxon. ravnokar okopani orliči«–while incidentally setting up an end-rhyme (orliči/kozliči). The Slovene plumes are made to flutter »prhutaje« in a successful move by the translator to create a strong visual and kinetic image connoting magnificence and virility. Beaver Beaver on (»I saw young Harry with his beaver on«) is glossed by Kastan as the »face mask of helmet closed,« in agreement with Scott-Giles definition of beaver as »the moveable face-guard of a helm« (1950, 204), thus indicating that Hal has lowered his visor and is ready to fight. 15 Since the face mask would be closed in this reading, Vernon would need to have identified the Prince solely by his heraldic trappings (Fox-Davies, 1909, 17–18). In contrast, Bevington reads beaver as a synecdoche for helmet–in accord- ance with the second sense given by Scott-Giles (1950, 204)–thus reading the whole as meaning, wearing his helmet. In this reading, Vernon would probably have been able to see the Prince’s face; so, this interpreta- tion places less stress on the identification function of heraldic devices on the battlefield. Either way, Vernon is stressing that Prince Henry has not turned up to be a mere spectator at Shrewsbury but is fully prepared for combat. The totality of the transformation of playboy prince to valiant warrior forms the gist of Vernon’s message to Hotspur. The translator chose simplicity here, using an ar- chaic general noun–»na glavi šlem« 16 –so the Slovene Harry is wearing a helmet, with no issue of visor up or down. Moreover, in this line the reference is to Harry himself, so the Slovene version has finally focused on the Prince. Part of the difficulty for the translator would have been the paucity of Slovene terms for medieval armour of any kind. Up to the early 20 th century, any aristocratic activities in the territory that is now Slovenia would have occurred primarily among German-speaking people, and have received German terminology, 17 but such wording would have fallen both into disuse and out of favour in the 20 th century. Beaver, however, is an exception because it does have a Slovene equivalent, nabradnik, but this would be recognized only by specialists in the field. On the other hand, cuisses lacks a single-word equivalent in the target language, being typically referred to by de- scriptive phrases such as stegenski oklep or stegenski ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 19 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 ščitnik. These expressions would have been unsuitable to Bor for metrical reasons, even had he been familiar with them. Instead, Bor used the single-word expres- sion golenice, which is problematic because it seman- tically deviates from the original as it corresponds to shin guards instead of cuisses, armor for protecting the front part of thighs (OED). 18 Glossing Vernon’s Speech Overall, the English editors gloss this speech heav- ily, Davison with 7 notes (Davison, 1968, 382–383, note), Bevington (1980) with 12 notes in all, and Kastan (Shakespeare, 2002) with 14 (reflecting the scholarly mission of the Arden editions). The thick layer of notes indicates that the normative reader is expected to require and deserve help with these arcane passages. Clearly, the lay English-speaking reader will not neces- sarily appreciate the double meaning of coats without help from the editor, but arms has a double meaning that is readily accessible. In translation, therefore, one would ideally hope that the double meaning of arms could be preserved and that coats might receive a footnote to point out the two meanings. Neither of these apply to this Slovene translation, however. In Slovene, the speech thus loses its heraldic con- tent and connotation, starting from the loss of double meaning in arms. Since the first line in English refers to the wearing of both physical armour and heraldic trappings, this constitutes a loss of an important key to the heraldic cues in the rest of the speech. Vernon’s descriptors emerge as sensory rather than symbolic in translation. Moreover, the Slovene translation received almost no annotation, making it unlikely that the Slovene reader/audience will find in this speech any references to the system of heraldic symbols beyond that of the royal sun, which is pluralized here, and thus applies to a company and not exclusively to the Prince. What does not get transferred is the idea that the Prince is now physically, mentally and dynastically fit to be the heir to the throne of England. Heraldry in Battle: 1 Henry IV, Act V When heraldic terminology resurfaces in Act V, we are in the midst of the battle, and the Scots Earl of Douglas has just killed Sir Walter Blount, having mistaken him for King Henry. This is the climax of the play and features wordplay showing that Hotspur has seen through the ruse of disguising soldiers in the royal coat of arms. 19 18 The authors wish to thank Tomaž Lazar from the National Museum of Slovenia for his comments on armory and heraldry. 19 Adrian Ailes discusses the incident, stressing that the wearing of heraldic arms could put the wearer in danger on the medieval battlefield (Ailes, 1993, 5). 20 Other editors also connect this usage of coats with the earlier one in Vernon’s speech (cf. Davison, 1968, 409 note). The king hath many marching in his coats. (1Henry IV Act V. 3; emphasis added) Hotspur’s word play permits the interpretation, »the King has many supporters in this battle,« as well as the related, but less flattering, »the king has allowed soldiers in disguise to impersonate him.« Here is Bor’s translation of the key line: Še dosti jih je v králjevi opravi. (Bor 270) Here, coats has the two meanings previously estab- lished, one of which is heraldic (surcoats painted with coats of arms). Douglas, however, picks up only one of the meanings and plays with it: Now, by my sword, I will kill all his coats; I will murder all his wardrobe, piece by piece, Until I meet the king. Potem opravim, naj me ubije grom, z vso králjevo opravo, kos za kosom, dokler ne najdem njega! (Bor 270) [Then I shall deal, by Jove!, with the king’s outfit, piece by piece, until I have found him!] (Bor 270) In Douglas’s usage, coats is metonymical with the non-heraldic meaning, and when the second line drifts to the associative wardrobe, the whole thing takes on a tone of black humour. This is in keeping with the tone of a battlefield that includes Sir John Falstaff and his burlesque military exploits. The Arden edition gives a lengthy note and a para- phrase of the line (Kastan, 2002, 321). The pun on coats is covered by referring the reader to the earlier speech by Vernon. 20 Moreover, Kastan, locates the line historically, giving the passage from Holinshed with which Shakespeare was working. Notably, Holinshed does not include heraldic terminology or puns, using instead »sute and clothing,« indicating that the inspiration for heraldic punning was purely Shakespeare’s (Kastan, 2002, 321). In Slovene translation, the second meaning is maintained and the black humour preserved with the archaic usage oprava, and the slippage from opravim to opravo. Since the verb means »to deal with, to finish off« it is particularly apt in this battlefield context, while keeping both the physical threat and the comic bluster of the original. Oprava means both outfit (as in complete costume) and company (as in military group), ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 20 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 so the original punning activity is intact. However, the sense of coats as heraldic identification of the king is lost and with it the allusion to Vernon’s earlier speech– this is not a fatal loss of meaning, but it might have merited a full explanatory gloss. Bor has, however, loaded Douglas’s short speech with excellent touches: he swears »By Jove« rather than by his sword, in a very idiomatic usage; he maintains the parallelism in piece by piece (kos za kosom), while keeping the pun because kos oblačila is a common usage for clothing; finally, he adds alliteration and further parallelism in ne najdem njega. This sound effect compensates for the loss of the strong (phonetically and semantically) monosyllable king at the end of the English line. 2 Henry VI Shakespeare’s early trio of plays about Henry VI were collaborative works and include scenes by the dramatist Christopher Marlowe. 21 There is much magnificent language and versification in these plays, including tremendous characterization of historical figures such as Clifford, Warwick and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. Heraldic Identification 2 Henry VI contains several overt references to heral- dry. Some are minor, as with the reference to the emblem of the »lofty pine« (II. iii), referring to the symbol on the badge of Henry IV. There is another brief allusion when Suffolk pleads for his life by asking his assassins to take note of his equestrian badge: Look on my George; I am a gentleman (IV. 1). 22 Tu je moj Jurij, vidiš? Plemič sem. (Bor 655) [Here is my George, see? I am a nobleman.] (Bor 655) 22 The contemporary reader of Shakespeare in English will need a note to understand what a »George« was (the Order of the Garter, founded by Edward III). The Slovene translation also provides an explanatory note (1042). In either language, this is the kind of arcane knowledge that can be conveyed on the stage through gesture–provided that the director has a note to help in decoding the reference. 21 The judgement was made by the editors of the New Oxford Shakespeare (Taylor, Jowett, Bourus & Egan, 2016), where the play is listed as having been authored by William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe and others (Taylor, Jowett, Bourus & Egan, 2016, 255). 22 Scott-Giles conjectures that, since the character Suffolk is in disguise, he could not be displaying his Order of the Garter; the »George« must therefore be the »jewel of the order, the figure of St George in armour and on horseback in the act of slaying the dragon« (Scott-Giles, 1950, 169). 23 In heraldry, the fleur-de-lis was associated with the French royal house, there being several legends about how the association began (Oliver & Croton, 2012, 162; Scott-Giles, 1950, 57; Fox-Davies, 1909, 273–274; Rothery, 1930, 34–35). 24 The Bourbon fleur-de-lis forms part of the coat of arms of the town of Laško near Bor’s home town of Celje. There should, however, be no difficulty in either language with decoding the reference to the fleur-de-lis of France when the Duke of York promises his army that France will be retaken: A sceptre shall it have, have I a sword, / On which I’ll toss the fleur-de-luce of France (V. 1). 23 In v moji tudi bo, če imam kaj duše, / in lilija francoska bo na njem. (Bor 679) [[And in my it will also be, have I any soul, and French lily shall be on it.] (Bor 679) 23 The allusion is explained in an end-note: »Fleur - -de-lis, symbol kraljevske hiše« (1044), even though Bor would have been able to count on wide familia- rity with the fleur-de-lis as a heraldic symbol among Slovene readers. 24 What changes in translation is the tone of martial threat; the sword vanishes, replaced by »duše«, which connotes courage or spirit. The speech is thus milder in Slovene and has a more noble tone of spirituality, in the absence of the rather coarse image of swords irreverently tossing things about. Jack Cade: The Pretender to Arms Further heraldic references emerge from the scenes depicting Jack Cade’s Rebellion (1450), which forms a strong sub-plot in 2 Henry VI. Shakespeare’s Cade is an oafish proletarian, who claims royal descent. He pretends to be a scion of the Mortimers and jokes about his heritage with the Butcher in Act IV scene ii, eliciting this satirical aside from the Butcher: Ay, by my faith, the field is honourable, and there was he born, under a hedge; for his father had never a house but the cage« (IV. 2 48-50) Dick: Ali pa sredi blago-rodnega polja, ki pa tudi ni bilo prida, če je rodilo blago, kakršno si ti. Kar pa se doma tiče: tvoj oče ga ni imel, razen kletke, / v katero so ga vtaknili. (Bor 660) [Or in the middle of the goods-bearing field which but was not worth much if it bore goods like you. Regarding your home: your father had none, except for the cage,/ into which he was put.] (Bor 660) ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 21 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 Cade may not be aristocratic, but he elicits a pun on »field« in its heraldic meaning. The juxtaposition of the formal background of nobility (field, meaning the background colour of the shield before any decoration) 25 with the person of no birth–not even a place of birth, other than a hedge in a literal green field (Groves, 2014, 243)–shows popular awareness of the falsity of Cade’s claim to aristocratic connections. It can also be read as the uneducated man joking about his own lack of education–the Butcher may be confusing–or feigning to confuse–literal field with heraldic field. 26 Bor has made a strong choice here, opting for polje, which can carry the double meaning of field in the En- glish original, 27 while also gaining a pun on blago (adj, gentle and noun goods, material). The Slovene word blagoróden was used as a title, meaning honourable, worshipful; wellborn; of noble birth; of noble blood; or of good family; it is thus perfect for satirical purposes, going past irony into sarcasm. In Slovene, Cade’s absent father is housed in a pri- son or dungeon, rather than a cage, thus altering the bestial implication (with its implied derogation of Cade’s mother’s sexual habits). The speech in Slovene cannot reproduce the heraldic layer to the pun, but Bor has successfully kept the jokes going, making the Slovene Dick eye-rollingly sarcastic about Cade’s aristocratic pretensions. Later, Cade’s nemesis, Alexander Iden, will dignify this reference in his speech over the dead body of the rebel: Sword, I will hallow thee for this thy deed, And hang thee o’er my tomb when I am dead: Ne’er shall this blood be wiped from thy point, But thou shall wear it as a herald’s coat, To emblaze the honour that thy master got. (2 Henry IV, Act IV. 10; emphasis added). Iden appears to be planning a display to be hung over his tomb, 28 the bloody sword by itself, or perhaps 25 See Groves for another example of the punning dramatic use of ‘field’ in both its mundane and heraldic senses (Groves, 2014, 236). 26 Shakespeare’s historical source, Hall’s Chronicles, has none of these heraldic references, mentioning only that »The subtill capitayn Jack Cade . . . appareled hym selfe in [the] rych armure« of the defeated knights Humfrey and William Stafford (Hall 220; quoted in Cairncross, 1988, 169). Therefore, Cade did in a sense appropriate »arms,« which undoubtedly came with heraldic insignia. 27 » Polje«, inter alia, has the following three definitions in the Dictionary of Standard Slovene (SSKJ): 1. zemljišče za gojenje kulturnih, krmnih rastlin [land of plot for growing cultivated, fodder plants] 2. obsežnejši, razmeroma raven svet [wide, mostly plain landscape] 3. enakobarvni del predmeta glede na motive, like drugačne barve na njem; podlaga [monochromatic part of an object regarding the motifs or figures of different color on it; surface]. 28 A footnote in the Arden edition says that »the hanging of arms and armorial insignia on tombs was a feature of the age« (2 Henry IV 138). For the use of swords in heraldry, see Fox-Davies (1909, 286–287). For more on the funereal use of heraldry, see Roger Kuin »Colours of Continuity: The Heraldic Funeral.« 29 The tomb of the Black Prince in Canterbury Cathedral features his helm, shield, sword and mail (Rothery, 1930, 109). The real »achieve- ments« (i.e. the actual armour he wore and sword he carried) have been removed for conservation and replaced by replicas on display (www.canterbury-cathedral.org). 30 » Emblazon« meant »to draw or paint a coat of arms in full colour« (Oliver & Croton, 2012, 215); Fox-Davies distinguishes the verb to blazon, »to describe in words a given coat of arms,« from to emblazon, »to depict in colour« (Fox-Davies, 1909, 99). the sword as an addition to his family arms. It was common for the nobility to re-design, their coats of arms to reflect events in their lives and to have these displayed on or above their tombs (Rothery, 1930, 19, 24, 109–110; Kuin, 2014, 168). 29 The subsequent notion of the sword itself as the bearer of arms »thou [i.e. the sword] shalt wear it as a herald’s coat« evo- kes the herald as the announcer of news, in this case the news that Cade’s rebellion is over. The heraldic allusions in this passage can be read both ways: as dignifying the sword itself as a memorial grave em- bellishment; or, as describing the new coat of arms with its charge of a sword with a bloody point. The heraldic meaning of the verb »emblaze« 30 holds the key, since it expresses the hermeneutic power of the visual symbols of heraldry–the red blood signifying a complex of issues around violence, death, heroism and sacrifice/martyrdom. This minor character in the drama is thus given the passage that best expresses the power of heraldry. Bor’s translation keeps the blank verse: O meč, za to te čaka lepa čast; nad mojim grobom boš visel, ko umrem in s tebe te krvi nikdar ne otrem: ne, nosi jo na sebi kot plašč sla, ki oznanja vsem, kaj gospodar velja (Bor 678) [O the sword, for this great honor awaits you: over my tomb you will hang when I die and from you this blood never I shall wipe: no, wear it on yourself like a herald’s coat, that proclaims to everyone thy master’s honor] (Bor 678) The lines also maintain one of the two main indi- cators of heraldry: the »herald’s coat« of the original becomes a »messenger’s coat« (plašč sla), which picks up on one of the original functions of the herald as announcer of news. This conveys Iden’s point that the blood-stained sword will broadcast the news of Cade’s death and the end of the rebellion. On the ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 22 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 Figure 3: The badge of the ragged staff and bear of Warwick (Rothery, 1930, 48). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 23 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 other hand, the strongly signifying verb emblazon has been shorn of its special meaning, replaced by simply »telling/oznanja« or, at most, announcing. The loss here is of the visually communicative aspect of the sword’s function. The York and Warwick Bears This badinage about the identity-function of heraldry culminates in a set of references in Act V I 144-146 2He- nry VI. The emphasis in this scene falls on the symbol of the bear, a common animal charge in heraldry. 31 DUKE OF YORK: I am thy king, and thou a false-heart traitor. Call hither to the stake my two brave bears, That with the very shaking of their chains They may astonish these fell-lurking curs: Bid Salisbury and Warwick come to me. (2Henry VI, Act V. 1; Arden ed.) The word bears is used in the plural by Richard Duke of York to refer to his allies Warwick and Salis- bury, who are imagined as York’s heavy muscle, his protectors. The reference is to bear-baiting as well as to the heraldic device of the bear chained to a stake. Bear-baiting was a blood sport popular in Elizabethan London, and one that dates back to Europe’s Celtic peoples (Gilmour, 1994, 20). Here is Bor’s translation of this key challenge: York: jaz sem tvoj kralj, izdajalec pa si ti. Pokličite sem moja dva medveda, Da preplašite te prežeče pse Že s samim porožljavanjem verig Okrog vratov. Hej, Warwick, Salisbury! (Bor 684) [York: I am your king, the traitor but are you. call hither my two bears, to scare away these lurking dogs by mere clanging of the chains around the necks. Hey, Warwick, Salisbury!] (Bor 684) The main image of bears pitted against dogs sur- vives in translation, but some nuances are sacrificed, in particular the adjectives false-heart and brave. 32 Additionally, the noun stake does not feature in the translation, and the entire bear-pit has vanished. With- 31 Oliver and Croton (2012) list the bear among the »popular« heraldic animals and mention that bears were often depicted upright, holding a tree-trunk and muzzled (142), in agreement with Fox-Davies (1909, 198–199). 32 These omissions may reflect the difference in syllable length between English bears and Slovene medveda. In contrast, the difficult com- pound adjective fell-lurking is exactly conjured by prežeče. 33 Compare both versions with the original image from the source, Hall’s Chronicles, where the Tudor historian uses a rare metaphor: »when the duke of Yorke had fastened his chaine, between these two strong and robustious pillers [his two loyal supporters] […]: (Hall, Chronicles 232; quoted in Cairncross 1988, 175). 34 A bear-baiting dog would have been a »smaller type of Mastiff« bred for strong jaws and tenacity (Gilmour 1994, 20). 35 The Slovene Duke of York does not bid his supporters to come (i.e., give orders), but merely calls them himself with a rather colloquial Hej. out its central stake (to which the bears were chained) this crucial image cannot be conjured up. The bears’ chains in Slovene are evoked with an auditory rather than a kinetic verb: porožljavanjem for shaking 33 . This is perfectly allowable in translation since, as Maskew maintains, the whole point of the comparison is the ease with which »dogs« 34 can be frightened off without physical violence (136). What is maintained for the Slovene reader/spec- tator is the sense of ritualized animal conflict, and of York’s confidence that his side can easily beat the other 35 . After Warwick and Salisbury enter as summoned, Clifford picks up the bear metaphor to taunt York: CLIFFORD: Are these thy bears? We’ll bait thy bears to death, And manacle the bear’ard in their chains, If thou dar’st bring them to the baiting place. (2 Henry VI Act V. 1; Arden ed.) As a rhetorical device, the bear metaphor places York’s enemies in the despised position of the dogs in the bear-baiting pit, as mentioned in the gloss by the Arden editor (2 Henry IV, 145). This violent pastime would have been familiar to Elizabethan spectators. London in Shakespeare’s time did have arenas for bull and bear baiting (Greenblatt, 2004, 177; Picard, 2003, 246–248), one in Southwark, close to where The Globe theatre would later be located; some of the London bears even had names (Greenblatt, 2004, 177; Picard, 2003, 247). Because Shakespeare made references to bears and bear-baiting in his plays (e.g. The Merry Wives of Windsor, A Winter’s Tale), it is sometimes assumed that he attended such spectacles; however, there is no documentary evidence to support this. In contrast, this retort looks different in Bor’s tran- slation: Ta dva sta torej? No, če se že gremo medvedji lov, pritiramo ju v smrt – verige pa bo dobil kak medvedar. (Bor 684) [These two it is then? Well, if this is to be bear hunting, let us drive them up to death – and the chains will go to some bear ward.] (Bor 684) ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 24 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 The allusion to bear-baiting has been replaced by one of bear hunting, medvedji lov (which would not have been likely in context, since there had been no wild bears in England since the Roman period). 36 The explanation behind the choice of bear hunting may be cultural; bear-baiting would have been unfamiliar to the Slovene reader (with a concomitant lack of vocabulary), but bear hunting quite common, in a region that harbours some of Europe’s last wild bears. The image of the chained, dancing bear was familiar from Slovene tales and folk mythology. Bears also feature in Slovene folk iconography and are often depicted on traditional beehive panels, sometimes anthropomorphized, but often raiding beehives. One 19 th -century panel at the ethnographic museum in Ljubljana shows travelling entertainers with a chained, dancing bear led by a bearward in exotic dress (Panjske končnice, n.d.). Bor employs the interesting verb pritiramo (track) to conjure up dogs on the scent of their prey. The meta- phor becomes one of flight and pursuit–more ignomin- ious for York, Salisbury and Warwick than the original bear-baiting, where the bear is stationary, defiant and heroic. 37 The nature of the threat to York is thus slightly changed. Since York in the original metaphor is the keeper of the bears (the bear’ard or bear-ward; bear- 36 Harper (1945, 219). Bears in Shakespeare’s London would have been captive and imported. There were bears in the British Isles during the Late Glacial period, but no record of their existing past the Roman period–certainly not up to Tudor times. See Derek Yalden (1999), The History of British Mammals for more information. 37 Greenblatt affirms that Shakespeare’s opinion of bears was higher than most of his contemporaries. Elizabethans thought of bears (real ones, rather than heraldic ones) as ugly, violent brutes (Greenblatt, 2004, 177), while Shakespeare seems to have admired the courage and doggedness of their baited position (Greenblatt, 2004, 177–78). herd in the New Oxford Shakespeare), he is threatened with being chained up along with or in place of the two bears. Bor, however, did maintain the threat to the lives of Salisbury and Warwick (v smrt= to death), as well as the menacing, contemptuous tone in Clifford’s voice (če se že gremo / medvedji lov). Bor’s handwritten version of the manuscript shows that he originally planned Clifford to make a much stronger threat to York: Ta dva sta torej? No, če se že gremo medvedji lov, ju bomo v smrt dognali – njune verige pa medvedarja. [These two it is then? Well, if this is to be bear hunting, we shall chase them to death – and their chains the bear ward.] (Bor MS 1956a) In contrast to the final printed version of the tran- slation, where Clifford threatens to chain up York, the original line, which Bor crossed out with a pen in the manuscript, said that the bear would be chased to death, its chains in turn killing the bear ward. Clifford’s tone thus would have been much grimmer and more removed from the English text. Given that Bor provides no explanation for the change, it is most likely that he Figure 4: A chained, dancing bear led by a bearward in exotic dress on a beehive panel (Panjske končnice, n.d., printed with permission of Slovene Ethnographic Museum). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 25 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 became aware of a different semantic problem upon one of the subsequent readings. This short speech by Clifford merits a long entry in the notes in many editions (e.g., Bevington, 1980, 625), especially as there is controversy over whether Shakespeare was using his heraldic bears correctly, about which more below. The »two brave bears« claimed by Richard, Duke of York (the heir who never became king but whose son, as Edward IV, became the first Yorkist monarch) can plausibly remain as bear-baiting metaphors, for the lay reader, the theatre-goer or the reader of the translation, but in Slovene translation, the conceit is one of bear hunting. Any heraldic connection is invisible unless the reader turns to the notes. However, when later in the scene Warwick calls upon the Neville crest, bears have crossed definitively 38 A badge could be a simple symbol on the coat of arms, but could also be used separately by servants and retainers »to show their alle- giance« (Oliver & Croton, 2012, 114). Scott-Giles mentions badges as being used to mark property and to denote »partisans of a cause« (Scott-Giles, 1950, 203), while Groves singles out badges as »a particularly ancient and visible branch of heraldry« (Groves, 2014, 249), in agreement with Fox-Davies (1909, 453). 39 2 Henry VI, Act V. 1. »Rampant« in heraldic jargon described the position of the bear: »rearing on the dexter hind foot, the other three being raised and the tail erect« (Scott-Giles, 1950, 213). See also Oliver and Croton »Of a creature, reared up to fight« (2012, 217). The ragged staff, or log to which the bear was chained would have been familiar to Shakespeare’s audience, since popular ballads about the legendary exploits of Warwick included the image (Maskew, 2009, 23–24). into the realm of heraldry because Clifford asks to have Warwick identified by his »housed badge« (V I 202 Arden ed.). 38 To this taunt, Warwick replies with an unmistakably heraldic claim: WARWICK: Now, by my father’s badge, Old Nevil’s crest, The rampant bear chain’d to the ragged staff, This day I’ll wear aloft my burgonet,-- As on a mountain top the cedar shows That keeps his leaves in spite of any storm,-- Even to affright thee with the view thereof. 39 39 The syntax is confusing, since Old Nevil’s crest (line 1) is the object of the verb wear (line 3). The key word aloft is being used as a preposition, not an adverb, as in sense 12b in the OED: »on the top or Figure 5: Bor’s changes to Clifford’s speech in a typewritten manuscript (Bor, 1956b) (NUK Ljubljana, printed with permission of Manja Pavšič and Matej Pavšič). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 26 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 summit of.« 40 To paraphrase, Warwick swears by his badge to wear the crest on top of his helmet, making a clear distinction between two items of heraldic accoutrement. The crest would have been the actual icon (bear, bull or gryphon) and the badge the means of its display on retainers’ clothing. 41 The wearing of badges or crests may even have been a useful costu- ming device on Shakespeare’s stage, allowing instant recognition, especially when actors were doubling roles (Rothery, 1930, 43). The bear and ragged staff (whether or not correctly attributed here) pertained to the Beauchamp Earls of Warwick and would have been familiar to Shakespeare because he was a Warwickshire man (Scott-Giles1950, 21). 42 Helen Maskew reminds us that the bear in this passage has two distinct types of signification: »Shake- speare uses it in two distinct ways: firstly, as an abstract and qualitative reference to Warwick’s bravery and strength; secondly, as a device on the heraldic arms of his comital house« (Maskew, 2009, 133). Moreover, it may have included an implicit stage action, directing the actor playing Warwick to place the crest atop his helm or merely to gesture towards it. This may not all come through in Bor’s translation: Spoznal jo boš po grbu nevilskem – nevaren medved ob steber priklenjen – in na ta grb prisegam: moj šlem bo viden povsod kot cedar vrh goré, ki zeleni navkljub vsem neurjem, in kadar ga boš videl, te bo strah. (Bor 685) [You will recognize it by Nevil’s coat of arms – a dangerous bear to a staff chained – and I swear to this coat of arms: my helmet will be visible everywhere as cedar atop the mountain, which greens despite all storms, and whenever you see it, you will be afraid.] (Bor 685) For the Slovene reader, the badge and crest have col- lapsed into a single heraldic item, the coat of arms (grbu, grb); 43 however, the heraldic allusion is firmly maintained, grb being the word most likely to trigger this association in the Slovene reader. Since the modern reader of the Engli- sh is unlikely to distinguish clearly between badge, crest 40 The OED cites Shakespeare as one example of this prepositional usage. 41 According to Rothery, heraldic crests were »the sign of the fighting gentleman« since a yeoman was not allowed to wear these (Rothery, 1930, 44). Scott-Giles also distinguishes the badge from the crest as each having different functions, the badge’s being non-military (1950, 14). 42 Rothery explains that the bear was originally a separate heraldic image from the ragged staff, both pre-dating the Norman Conquest but joined by the Beauchamps (Rothery, 1930, 48). 43 The modern Slovene term for crest is šlemni okras, although this appears to be a coined descriptor rather than a term surviving from the Middle Ages and has specific, niche usage (http://www.grboslovje.si/dragotina.php). 44 One of the »two brave bears« in the earlier speech. 45 See also Baker for a discussion of the Warwick/Neville pedigree (2014, 130); Scott-Giles (1950, 145ff) and Maskew (2009, 6) for further discussion. See Saccio for a clear genealogical chart of the Nevilles (2000, 250–251), revealing that many persons involved here had Richard as a Christian name. and coat of arms anyway, the conflation in the Slovene does not deprive the lay reader or spectator of crucial information. There is, however, no further explanatory endnote, and the curious Slovene reader will have to rely on the note pertaining to the previous passage. The Slovene bear has a natural descriptor nevaren, dangerous, rather than a heraldic one. Since rampant meant »rearing up in fight« (Oliver & Croton, 2012, 140), and denoted a specific arrangement of body, forelegs and hind legs, it could only be accurately tran- slated by an exact heraldic equivalent (which does not exist in Slovene). What Bor has achieved in Warwick’s speech is the sense of utter confidence proper to a per- sonage who would go on to be known as the Kingma- ker. The confidence shows in the free rearrangement of semantic elements: moving the badge and the swearing two lines further into the speech and showing, with that firm colon (In na ta grb prisegam: moj šlem bo) the determination that the oath will hold. The heraldic riddle surrounding this passage has attracted many footnotes, and needs to be explained properly before we deal in greater detail with the Slo- vene translation. The issue is twofold: 1) is Warwick a Neville? and, the more difficult issue, 2) was there a bear on the Neville crest? We will take the issues in order. Warwick the Kingmaker swears by one armorial item and announces his intention to wear another. Although the two phrases are not in apposition, it can seem so at first glance, thus implying that his father’s badge and the Nevil crest are one and the same. This by itself is unproblematic because the Earl of Warwick is, quite correctly, a Neville by birth, being the son of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury d. 1460; 44 his Warwick earldom came through his wife Bevington (1980, 625). 45 Shakespeare’s main source for this play was Edward Hall’s Chronicle, which specifies that Richard Duke of York »chiefly enterteined two Richardes, and both Nevelles, the one of Salisbury, the other of Warwicke being erle, the first the father, the second the sonne« (Hall, Chronicle 231; quoted in Cairncross, 1988, 175). Therefore, the answer to the first question is yes: Shakespeare was quite correct in making Warwick a member of the Neville family. The issue about the correct family crest is more complicated. Scott-Giles, one of the earliest experts on Shakespearean heraldry, accuses Shakespeare of ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 27 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 Figure 6: Bor’s corrections of the Old Nevil’s crest passage in a typewritten manuscript (Bor, 1956b) (NUK Ljublja- na, printed with permission of Manja Pavšič and Matej Pavšič). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 28 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 having been mistaken: »here his knowledge was faul- ty, for he made the Kingmaker speak of the badge as coming from his father, the Earl of Salisbury, whereas in fact he had it, through his wife, from the former Earls of Warwick« (Scott-Giles 1950, 21). However, Scott- -Giles is not quite correct, since the badge and the crest are not in apposition, i.e. not the identical item. In order to explain this assertion, one must separate the name and title from the badge itself–that is, keep biology separate from heraldry. In glossing Act I of the play, Cairncross explains that Shakespeare »teles- coped »Warwick the Kingmaker with his father-in-law [Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, d. 1439], and merged the two men’s accomplishments« (Cairncross 1988, 10, note to line 114). 46 Similar information is provided in the notes to the Slovene translation (quo- ted below). However, I argue that in this particular passage Shakespeare is not confusing the two men, simply because Beauchamp could never have referred to his father as a Neville; the speaker is thus imagined by Shakespeare as Richard Neville Earl of Warwick. Speaking as a Neville, he correctly claims a Neville for his paternal ancestor, but is incorrect in claiming the bear as the Neville crest. Assuming that Shakespeare imagined the speaker at this moment as Warwick and not his father-in-law, then the relevant question is as follows: If the Neville crest wasn’t a bear, then what was it? Fox-Davies lists the crest of this Sir Richard Neville as a griffin sejant (388), and Scott-Giles confirms this. The demi-griffin sejant as part of the Neville achievement of arms is pictured in Figure 153 (Scott-Giles, 1950, 145). Nevertheless, if one goes back to Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland (Warwick’s grandfather), the family crest is entirely different: »His crest was a bull’s head. This would only be used on his great helm« (Scott Giles, 1950, 95). Another heraldic expert confirms that the early Neville crest involved a pied bull (Fox- -Davies, 1909, 206). Crests could vary through family lines, and the Neville crest was at one time a bull passant and then a griffin–but not a bear. 47 Since the bull is an equally pugnacious emblem (the griffin less so), there would seem to be no symbolic reason for Shakespeare to have exchanged the real bull for 46 A clear explanation is given by Maskew (2009, 79). The overlap of the two historical figures was noted in 19th-century scholarship, as well. Shakespeare did occasionally conflate two historical characters, as with the Mortimers in the Henry IV plays (see Bevington, 1980, 600 note) or the two Beaufort sons who were successively Dukes of Somerset (Saccio, 2000, 93; 104). 47 Fox-Davies asserts that crests were an inheritance separate from the rest of the arms and were transmitted through the female line (1909, 341). See Fox-Davies for a discussion of the Neville bull (1909, 206). Oliver and Croton say that the crest was »not a reliable emblem of identification« (2012, 84). 48 The bull on the Neville crest was »passant«, or in some branches of the family just a bull’s head (CITE). 49 Shakespeare has another character use »brother« for »brother-in-law« earlier in the same play (2 Henry VI I i 193). 50 In the coat-of-arms of the real Duke of Warwick, there were »supporters« on either side: a muzzled, chained bear on one side to refer- ence Warwick (the title claimed through his wife), and on the other, the griffin of Salisbury (claimed through paternal descent) (Scott- Giles, 1950, 147). 51 Even Clifford (John, the 9 th Baron Clifford, d. 1461) had a Neville grandmother and the prolific Ralph Neville for his great-grandfather. 52 Rothery agrees that the claim of connection to the Nevilles is both a claim of ancestral sanction for current action and an effective stage device (Rothery, 1930, 10). the rampant bear 48 –except for the extra dynamism supplied by the reared position of »rampant« (plus its iambic rhythm). The question then is whether this was a conscious choice by Shakespeare, or merely a gene- alogical slip with no other significance. Some editors and historians support the latter position. One scholar explains the »mistake« wholly by reading »father« as »father-in-law,« 49 pointing out that Warwick’s wife Anne was one of the Beauchamp Warwicks (the senior line, dating back to Norman times) and that the bear pertained to Beauchamp (see also Bradbeer 2015, 96; cf. Bevington, 1980, 624 note). Scott-Giles similarly explains the bear as a result of the conflation of father-in-law and son-in-law. A black- -and-white illustration gives the standard of the Earls of Warwick, clearly showing the bear and staff, with separate staves in a line down the pennant (Scott-Giles 1950, 148). Nevertheless, there remains one problem with this explanation: like the Nevilles, Richard Bea- uchamp also had more than one animal icon for his crest; Scott-Giles names a white swan’s head as the Beauchamp crest (145) and provides an illustration (Figure 154). That being the case, Shakespeare must have made a choice of crest animals even in this case, and have chosen the bear over the less warlike swan. 50 It seems that, even granted a genealogical mistake, Shakespeare nonetheless made a conscious choice of that bear, rather than an incidental error. Additionally, there is the awkward fact that so many of the characters on stage in this scene could be called »Nevilles.« A Neville ancestor (Ralph Neville d. 1425) had sixteen children, thus scattering Neville genes across the English nobility (Saccio, 2000, 129). His son and grandson both went on to make significant dynastic marriages–into the Earldom of Salisbury and the Earldom of Warwick, respectively (Saccio, 2000, 129). Since the Duke of York himself had also married a Neville (Cecily d. 1495), they are all Nevilles in one sense or another (Bevington, 1980, 592 note) 51 . Still, the Neville under layer to the aristocracy makes Warwick’s assertion trebly powerful, since it reminds everyone present of this bond to Old Nevil 52 . Genea- logically and heraldically there may be a mistake, but dramatically this is not the case. We must remember ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 29 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 that Shakespeare was creating drama, not writing hi- story, and it is dramatically effective to evoke the bear as a sign of individual identity, family belonging and a stance of indomitable defence of a fixed position. Slovene readers of the Bor translation are given much-needed help in an explanatory note: Pokličite sem moja dva medveda. Richard Beauchamp, grof Warwick (nastopa v »Henriku V.« in »Henriku VI.«/I. del), poročen z Izabelo, vnukinjo Edmunda Langleya, grofa Yorka, je imel v grbu medveda. Od njega je grb pode- doval njegov zet Richard Neville, grof Warwick (imenovan king-maker), sin grofa Salisburya. Zeta in tasta je Shakespeare zlil v eno osebo. (Sodnik in Bor 1044) The Slovene annotator tries to explain the reference by the confusion between son-in-law and father-in-law. 53 However, this particular confusion is about the deeds and dates of the two men, and not primarily about coats of arms, as previously established. The brief note to the Slovene edition of the play gives the reader sufficient heraldic information without over-much genealogical detail. Nothing would have been gained by having the editors or annotators delve further into the Neville/ Beauchamp genealogy–which would have warranted, at the very least, a graphic of a family tree. Was Shakespeare simply mistaken in the Neville crest? Or did he make strategic adjustments to the heraldic facts for dramatic convenience? Did he swap father-in law for father in the service of simplicity? Or did he deliberately fudge the reference for particular dramatic purposes? Scott-Giles affirms that »heraldic language had for [Shakespeare] nothing of the sanctity with which the armorists of the day sought to endue it« (18); it is therefore not unlikely that the dramatist might have made the arms fit the character with a purely literary rationale. Theorizing the Rampant Bear At this point we advance a new theory to explain the bear and ragged staff with reference to contempo- rary Elizabethan events and not to either literary con- venience or historical fact. 54 Our argument begins from the premise that Warwick’s rampant bear represents a deliberate choice by Shakespeare and not an incidental mistake–whether genealogical, heraldic or both. Although the bear with the ragged staff may not, as Bradbeer and others point out, be the crest of the Nevil- les, in Elizabethan times they did comprise the crest of 53 The Slovene language is rich in terms for family relationships inflected by gender and generation: zet and tast are extremely concise. 54 See a similar argument in Clare Asquith’s essay on As You Like It, where the powerful Stanley family is connected to the play through heraldry (Asquith, 2013, 42). 55 See Maskew for a survey of the extent to which Warwick had become legendary rather than historical in tales kept alive through widely- circulating ballads (Maskew, 2009, 21–25). Robert Dudley 1 st Earl of Leicester (d. 1588). The Dudleys had been granted several titles, including the Earldom of Warwick (held by two of Robert Dudley’s brothers, successively). This Earldom was an ancient one, reaching back to the Norman conquest. The complicated series of marriages and grants of title that united the Dudley, Warwick and Beauchamp families (and by extension, their heraldic devices) is explained by Simon Adams: John Dudley »claimed the Earldom of Warwick by descent and adopted the Beauchamp device of the bear and ragged staff, which his sons revived flamboyantly in Elizabeth’s reign« (Adams, 2014, 13–14). The Elizabethan Dudley was even in possession of an elaborately illustrated ped- igree (a genealogy), showing his family’s descent from »legendary Anglo-Saxon hero« Guy of Warwick (Adams, 2014, 17; Fig. 1); this pedigree depicts Guy of Warwick clutching an enormous »ragged staff, to which is chained a small muzzled bear« (presumably ‘rampant’, although its hind legs are partly obscured (Adams, 2014, 17; Fig. 1). The same connection that renders the rampant bear appropriate as a reference for Warwick the Kingmaker in Henry VI, makes it suitable as a means of evoking the Elizabethan Robert Dudley. Moreover, Chris Fitter claims that the whole Henry VI trilogy is »thoroughly topical in implication and reference« (Fitter, 2005, 131), showing that the playwright’s main focus was on creating parallels with »political engagement of his contemporary moment« (Fitter, 2005, 133), parallels like the one we propose here. Moreover, since Christopher Marlowe was Shakespeare’s collaborator, this increases the likelihood of the plays making contemporary political references. But why might Shakespeare/Marlowe have wanted to make allusion to Robert Dudley? First, Dudley had been Queen Elizabeth’s favourite (Shapiro, 2005, 57; Holden, 1999, 77; Greenblatt, 2004, 43). In and out of royal favour, he had died in 1588, not very long before Henry VI was written (ca 1590; see Cairncross, 1988, xlv–xlvi; Fitter, 2005, 129). Dudley also served as Deputy to the Earl Marshal of the College of Arms (Adams, 2014, 1) and was thus connected to the official world of heraldry. Dudley had supported the Queen during the panic of the threatened invasion by the Spanish Armada (1588) and long enjoyed a soft spot in her heart; it is therefore conceivable that Shakespeare (or his collaborator) felt that an allusion to Dudley’s crest would create a good impression on the Queen, especially given its associati- on in the play with the manly, warlike Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. Warwick was a legendary favourite in the minds of the English people 55 ; as Hicks summarizes, »no other medieval magnate attracted such acclaim during his life and since« (Hicks, 1998, 2). Warwick had also boosted the Yorkist line to the throne of England, ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 30 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 and the Tudor line was descended equally from York as from Lancaster. As a compliment to the Queen’s memo- ry of Dudley, therefore, we propose that the reference to the rampant bear is entirely justified, no matter the alleged character conflation or confusions about crests. Dudley’s crest also includes the bear and ragged staff. A coloured illustration of the shield and crest of Robert Dudley appears in Figure 2a. (Adams, 2014, 21). The bear and ragged staff are prominent in this 1567 tribute to Dudley. The Dudley rampant bear and staff are also visible on Robert Dudley’s tomb in the Beauchamp Chapel Collegiate Church of St Mary, Warwick. A bear stands on either side of the memorial plaque in Latin, both bears facing inwards, and each chained to the large, upright log. Their chains are gilded and even the bear’s heads are gold. Since Shakespeare hailed from Warwickshire, it is likely that he was aware of the Dudley connection of this rampant bear and even possible that he had seen the image on the tomb in Warwick, which is only about 12 miles from Stratford-on-Avon. The Beauchamp Chapel where Robert Dudley rests beside his wife Lettice Knol- lys forms a veritable primer of heraldry, among whose images, the chained or muzzled bear is everywhere visible. CONCLUSIONS From a close look at these examples of Shakespeare’s heraldic references, together with their Slovene transla- tions, some conclusions can be advanced. First, it is clear that the modern English reader or spectator of these two history plays will not understand all the heraldic references and puns. Even Rothery, writing in 1930 admitted that there was by then only a limited circle of those who could »enter fully into this line of thought« (Rothery, 1930, 9). The simpler puns (e.g. on arms) can be apprehended by modern audien- ces even on stage, but more complex issues will require learned footnotes. In staging the plays, the director and dramaturge have a responsibility to consult the scholarly notes and try to »translate« their import (or as much of it as is deemed relevant) into comprehensible stage terms. Suffolk’s reference to his »George« as a form of identification, for instance, could readily be conveyed with gesture and reaction. Even the Duke of York’s »two brave bears« could be staged as a meaningful reference to bear-baiting with the right stage action. Such a phrase’s reference to heraldry would be more difficult to convey–unless, of course, the scene- 56 Slovene research on heraldry is relatively scarce. The most established scholar in the field is Božo Otorepec, who has produced the only comprehensive historical overview of heraldry of Slovene towns (Otorepec, 1988). Previously, most publications were fragmentary and based on sources in German. Since the official interest in older periods and the history of the nobility, to which heraldry is inextricably connected, declined after the Second World War, knowledge about heraldry and heraldic terminology among the general public has become limited. Recently, an interest in Slovene heraldry has arisen, visible on the internet, on sites such as www.grboslovje.si and www. heraldika.si. Its main driving forces are Franc Valt Jurečič and Aleksander Hribovšek. As a niche interest, however, it is unlikely that its specialist vocabulary has diffused across a wide public. ry and costuming made an all-out effort to reproduce historical heraldry. This seems to be the rationale behind Scott-Giles’s book, which assumes that what people want to know is which authentic heraldic ima- gery to use on stage. That would have been extremely useful for earlier audiences attuned to the meanings of lions, bears, escutcheons and bars sinister. For a mo- dern audience, however–all but heraldry aficionados or historical re-enacters–even the most meticulously researched and painted stage coats of arms will be processed as »scenery«–that is, as décor rather than semantics. We have become heraldically illiterate. For this primary reason, the non-transference of heraldic minutiae into the Slovene translations should cause little concern. The Slovene translators probably faced a scarcity of available heraldic vocabulary in the target language, for reasons that have to do with the history of Slovene within the German-speaking Habs- burg Empire. 56 In this absence, Bor struggled to replicate heraldic allusions and puns, even where these were identified. Nevertheless, he experienced remarkable su- ccess in compensating for this lexical gap, finding puns on oprava, polje and blago. Within Shakespeare’s puns and allusions he identified workable, parallel semantic structures. Other forms of compensation included ar- chaic diction (šlem), parallelism, alliteration, omission of adjectives and the use of concise, informative notes. In a few cases, the choices made by the translator did reflect cultural differences in the target readership (e.g., the choice of bear-hunting over bear-baiting). Overall, the language of the translated version is more formal and genteel, reflecting the qualities of literary Slovene, in which the earthy Anglo-Saxon under layer of Shakespeare’s violence and humour often struggles to survive. This observation needs to be contextualized, however, by the fact that these translations were made in the 20 th century, when »Shakespeare« was a literary classic and an institution. A good way of evaluating Bor’s translations would be to compare them to those made by translators in other languages, particularly those with similar historical and literary tradition; however, such comparison would go beyond the scope of the present paper. Although the translators provided fewer notes for their Slovene readers, this choice need not be criti- cized. Certainly, the notes provided by Anuša Sodnik were well researched. In many of the cases cited above, the lay reader of the Slovene text is adequately served by the translation itself and is not led astray on the semantic level. Though a few double meanings, ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 31 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 historical allusions and archaisms do not survive into the target language, this cannot always be expected of a translator who is at the same time observing rhythm, meter and sometimes even rhyme, while communica- ting to a distinct culture. Moreover, anyone studying Shakespeare would pre- sumably read these plays in English, and access the notes from there. Any remaining concern with the adequacy of the translation would thus apply to a performance text, where a theatre audience must comprehend in the target language without the help of footnotes. A successful Slovene translation, therefore, might NOT be one that most slavishly duplicates heraldic double meanings, but one that renders obscure passages meaningful to a contemporary theatre audience. Finally, it is also necessary to comment on Bor’s ove- rall translation strategy. Our study showed–in addition to heraldry–that Bor’s main concern was how his translati- ons would sound on stage, i.e. what translation scholars refer to as the »speakability« of drama in translation (see Windle, 2012). Indeed, Bor even explicitly pointed out that his first priority was not the readers but theatre audi- ence (qtd. in Moravec, 1973, 453). This may also explain some of the discrepancies regarding heraldry mentioned above. That Bor had a clear translation strategy is also clear from his retort to the critic Branko Rudolf, who reviewed the translation of 1 Henry IV in the Slovene National Theater. Even though Rudolf’s critique was affirmative in general terms, he nevertheless criticized Bor’s rhythm in some of the lines and particularly his choice of individual words, which according to Rudolf were too »modern« because translators of Shakespeare’s texts should be using old expressions (Rudolf, 2016 [1958], 123–124). Bor agreed with some of Rudolf's minor points; however, he refused the suggestion that dated language should have been used. According to Bor, Shakespeare should be translated into modern language because it is rich (Bor in Rudolf, 2016 [1958], 128). Regarding rhythm, he rejected Rudolf’s idea that the quality of translation should be determined on the basis of a comparison of the number of syllables in the two texts; instead, Bor believed that dialogues should sound natural, spontaneous and speakable as much as possible. At the same time, Bor paid particular attention to retaining blank verse in the target text (Bor in Rudolf, 2016 [1958], 129). Although this research has been limited to one aspect of Shakespeare’s history plays, it has revealed that these rich Slovene translations could be seen as having aged, along with a change in the readership for classic drama. The 21 st century might yet warrant fresh translations informed by further scholarship in this area. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 32 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 TOLMAČENJE IN PREVAJANJE SHAKESPEAROVE HERALDIČNE TERMINOLOGIJE: 1 HENRIK IV IN 2 HENRIK VI V SLOVENŠČINI Michelle GADPAILLE Univerza v Mariboru, Filozofska fakulteta, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija e-mail: michelle.gadpaille@um.si Simon ZUPAN Univerza v Mariboru, Filozofska fakulteta, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija e-mail: simon.zupan@um.si POVZETEK William Shakespeare je v svojo poezijo in dramatiko vpletel zapleteno heraldično simboliko, ki je v elizabetinski dobi pritegovala pozornost bralcev in obiskovalcev gledaliških predstav. Elizabetinsko občinstvo je v heraldičnih simbolih prepoznavalo številne družinske in rodbinske vezi. Sodobni bralci te zmožnosti prepoznavanja simbolov v grbih pogosto nimamo več, zato smo odvisni od pojasnil v opombah. Prispevek obravnava usodo heraldičnih simbolov v slovenskih prevodih Shakespearovih zgodovinskih dram. V ospredju so naslednja vprašanja: v kolikšni meri so bile prevajalcu v 20. stoletju na voljo ustreznice simbolnih pomenov, skritih v jeziku, močno zaznamovanem z latinščino, ki je bil nenavaden celo za 16. stoletje? In tudi kadar v ciljnem jeziku obstaja ustrezno besedje, ali to zagotavlja simetrični prenos pomena za sodobnega bralca/obiskovalca gledališke predstave? In slednjič, kakšna je vloga uredniških opomb pri premoščanju vrzeli med heraldičnimi namigi v izvirniku in slovenskem prevodu ter uprizoritvijo na odru? Avtorja v prispevku obravnavata primere zagonetnega heraldičnega jezika v izvirnem besedilu 1 Henrika IV. ter 2 Henrika VI. in njihove slovenske prevode, ki jih je oskrbel Matej Bor. Prispevek ponuja in utemeljuje tudi novo branje heraldičnih aluzij v drami 2 Henrik VI. Ključne besede: heraldika, William Shakespeare, Vojna dveh rož, prevod, Matej Bor ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 33 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, S. (2014): The Heralds and the Elizabethan Court: Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, as Deputy Earl Marshal. In: Ramsay, N. (ed.): Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England. Donington, Lincolnshire, Shaun Tyas, 1–25. Ailes, A. (1993): The Knight, Heraldry and Armour: The Role of Recognition and the Origins of Heraldry. In: Harper-Bill, C. & R. Harvey (eds.): Medieval Knighthood IV. Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, 1–22. Ailes, A. (2014): ’A herald, Kate? O put me in thy books.’ Shakespeare, the Heralds’ Visitations, and a new Visitation Address. In: Ramsay, N. (ed.): Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England. Donington, Lincoln- shire, Shaun Tyas, 105–124. Asquith, C. (2013): As You Like It and the English Catholic Dilemma. In: The Catholic Shakespeare: Port- smouth Institute. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, 34–44. Baker, S. J. (2014): Tudor Pedigree Rolls and Their Uses. In: Ramsay, N. (ed.): Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England. Donington, Lincolnshire, Shaun Tyas, 125–165. Bassnett, S. (2014): Translation Studies. London, Routledge. Bevington, D. (1980): The Complete Works of Shakespeare. 3 rd ed. Glenview, Scott, Foresman. Bor, M. (1956a): MS 1956a, Delovno gradivo k pre- vodom iz angleščine (Kralj Henrik VI 1-3), Mapa 254. Ljubljana, NUK, Rokopisni oddelek. Bor, M. (1956b): MS 1956b, II.4.1. Prevodi iz angleščine. Henrik IV (1), Mapa 228. Ljubljana, NUK, Rokopisni oddelek. Bor, M. (1956c): MS 1956c, II.4.1. Prevodi iz an- gleščine. Ljubljana, NUK, Rokopisni oddelek. Bradbeer, M., & J. Casson (2015): Sir Henry Neville, alias William Shakespeare: Authorship evidence in the history plays. North Carolina, McFarland. Cairncross, A. S. (1988): Introduction. In: King Henry VI part 2. Arden Edition. London & New York, Routledge. Cheesman, C. (2014): Grants and Confirmations of Arms. In: Ramsay, N. (ed.): Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England. Donington, Lincolnshire, Shaun Tyas, 68–104. Cust, R. (2014): Heraldry and the Gentry Community in Shakespeare’s England. In: Ramsay, N. (ed.): Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England. Donington, Lincolnshire, Shaun Tyas, 190–203. Davison, P. H. (1968): Henry IV, part one. In: William Shakespeare: Four Histories. London, Penguin, 223–269. Fitter, C. (2005): Emergent Shakespeare and the Pol- itics of protest: 2 Henry VI in Historical contexts. ELH, 72, 1, 129–158. Fitzsimons. M. A. (1948): Money and the Degrees of Being: A Note on English Heraldry. The Review of Politics. 10, 3, 332–345. Fox-Davies, A. C. (1909): A Complete Guide to Her- aldry, Illustrated by Nine Plates and Nearly 800 Other Designs. London, T. C & E. C. Jack. Gadpaille, M. & S. Zupan (2016): Manifest and Latent Bodies in Selected Shakespeare Texts and Their Slovene Translations. In: Penda, P. (ed.): The Whirlwind of Passion: New critical perspectives on William Shake- speare. Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 94–112. Gilmour, D. (1994): The Complete Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Lydney, Gloucestershire, Ring Press. Glavan, M. & M. Komelj (2013): Stoletni Bor: Matej Bor (1913-1993). Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga. Greenblatt, S. (2004): Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York, London, Norton. Grosman, M. (2002): Kritika književnega prevoda kot kritika v medkulturnemu položaju: k štiristoletnici Hamleta. In: Ožbot, M. (ed.): Prevajanje srednjeveških in renesančnih besedil: 27. prevajalski zbornik. Ljubljana, Društvo slovenskih književnih prevajalcev, 238–250. Groves, B. (2014): Heraldic Language and Identity in Shakespeare’s Plays. In: Ramsay, N. (ed.): Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England. Donington, Lincoln- shire, Shaun Tyas, 236–265. Harper, F. (1945): Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Old World. American Committee for International Wildlife Protection. Hicks, M. (1998): Warwick the Kingmaker. Oxford, UK, Blackwell. Holden, A. (1999): William Shakespeare: His Life and Work. London, Little Brown/Abacus Books. Jevtić, M. (1981): Doba knjige. Gornji Milanovac, Dečije novine, Valjevo, Milić Rakić. Kreft, B. (1957): Spremne besede. In: Shakespeare, W.: Henrik IV. Translated by Matej Bor. Ljubljana, Slov- enska matica v Ljubljani, 253-288. Kuin, R. (2014): Colours of continuity: The Heraldic Funeral. In: Ramsay, N. (ed.): Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England. Donington, Lincolnshire, Shaun Tyas, 166–189. Lea, K. & E. Seaton (1945): I Saw Young Harry. The Review of English Studies, 21, 84, 319–322. Maskew, H. P. (2009): Shakespeare and the Earl of Warwick: The Kingmaker in the Henry VI Trilogy. Doc- toral Thesis, University of Birmingham, Jurn. Moravec, D. (1973): Shakespeare pri Slovencih. In: Shakespeare, W. et al.: Venera in Adonis. Ljubljana, Državna založba Slovenije, 335–497. Oliver, S. & G. Croton (2012): Heraldry: Understand- ing Signs and Symbols. New York, Chartwell Books. Onič, T. & U. Marinšek (2015): Manjšalnice v slov- enskih prevodih angleških dram. In: Stramljič Breznik, I. (ed.): Manjšalnice v slovanskih jezikih: oblika in vloga. Maribor, Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti, Filozofska fakulteta, 479–491. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 30 · 2020 · 1 34 Michelle GADPAILLE & Simon ZUPAN: INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING SHAKESPEARE’S HERALDIC TERMINOLOGY: 1 HENRY IV AND 2 HENRY VI IN ..., 13–34 Onič, T. (2013): Vikanje in tikanje v slovenskih dramskih prevodih iz angleščine na primeru Albeejeve drame Kdo se boji Virginije Woolf? Primerjalna književ- nost, 36, 1, 233–252. Onič, T., Marinšek, U. & S. Zupan (2016): Dimin- utives in Slovene Translations of Selected Plays by William Shakespeare. In: Penda, P. (ed.): The Whirlwind of Passion: New Critical Perspectives on William Shake- speare. Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 196–216. Otorepec, B. (1988): Srednjeveški pečati in grbi mest in trgov na Slovenskem. Ljubljana, Slovenska matica. Panjske končnice (n.d.): Panjske končnice. Slov- enski etnografski muzej. https://www.etno-muzej.si/sl/ digitalne-zbirke/panjske-koncnice/630lju0000116 (last access: 7. 4. 2020). Picard, L. (2003): Elizabeth’s London: Everyday Life in Elizabethan London. London, Phoenix. Ramsay, N. (ed.) (2014): Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England. Donington, Lincolnshire, Shaun Tyas. Rothery, G. C. (1930): The Heraldry of Shakespeare: A Commentary with Annotations. London, The Morland Press. Rudolf, B. (2016 [1958]): Prevajalčeva epistola Branku Rudolfu. In: Stanovnik, M (ed.): Prevajalci o prevodu. Ljubljana, Založba ZRC SAZU, 126–130. Rudolf, B. (2016 [1958]): William Shakespeare, Henrik IV. In: Stanovnik, M (ed.): Prevajalci o prevodu. Ljubljana, Založba ZRC SAZU, 121–125. Saccio, P. (2000 [1977]): Shakespeare’s English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama. Oxford, OUP. Scott-Giles, C. W. (1950): Shakespeare’s Heraldry. London, J. M. Dent and sons. Shakespeare, W. (1978): Zbrane gledališke igre. Druga knjiga. Translated by Oton Župančič and Matej Bor. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga. Shakespeare, W. (1988): King Henry VI, part 2. Cairncross, A. S (ed.). The Arden Shakespeare. London & New York, Routledge. Shakespeare, W. (1999): Henry IV, part 2. Mowat, B. A. & P. Werstine (eds.). The New Folger Library. New York, Washington Square Press. Shakespeare, W. (2002): King Henry IV Part 1. Kastan, D. S. (ed.). The Arden Shakespeare. London, Thomson Learning. Shapiro, J. (2005): 1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare. London, Faber & Faber. Sigledal. (n.d.): William Shakespeare, Historija o Henriku IV., I. del. http://repertoar.sigledal.org/pred- stava/6897 (last access: 10. 4. 2019). Slivnik, F. (2000): Shakespearova dela v slovenskih gledališčih med obema vojnama: 1918–1938. In: Slivnik, F., Žužek, I., Dumas, D. & Š. Vevar (eds.): Shakespeare v gledališčih Srednje Evrope med obema vojnama: 1918–1938. Ljubljana, Slovenski gledališki muzej, 44–45. Stanovnik, M. (1991): Hamlet in grobarja: kraljevič, klovn in kmet. In: Trenc-Frelih, I., Berger, A. & J. Skrušný (eds.): 15. prevajalski zbornik. Ljubljana, Društvo slo- venskih književnih prevajalcev, 7–19. Taylor, G., Jowett, J., Bourus, T. & G. Egan (2016): The New Oxford Shakespeare: William Shakespeare: The Complete Works: Modern Critical Edition. Oxford, OUP. Vickers, N. J. (1985): This Heraldry in Lucrece’ Face. Poetics Today, 6, 1/2, 171–184. Vončina, G. (1994): Matej Bor. Nova Atlantida: gorenjska revija: revija za umetnost in kulturo, 1, 1/2, 165–173. Will, K. (2014): Literary and Dramatic Heraldry. In: Ramsay, N. (ed.): Heralds and Heraldry in Shake- speare’s England. Donington, Lincolnshire, Shaun Tyas, 266–282. Windle, K. (2012): The Translation of Drama. In: Malmkjaer, K. & K. Windle (eds.): The Oxford Hand- book of Translation Studies. Oxford Handbooks Online. Yalden, D. (1999): The History of British Mammals. London, T. & A. D. Poyser. Zlatnar Moe, M (2004): Odstrani, prosim, prste mi z vratu: prevajalske norme v dramskih prevodih 20. stoletja. Vestnik, 38, 1/2, 207–227. Zlatnar Moe, M. (2014): Hamletova pot v središče. In: Miladinović Zalaznik, M. & T. Žigon (eds.): Stiki in sovplivanja med središčem in obrobjem. Ljubljana, Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 211–229. Zlatnar Moe, M. (2016): Koliko Hamletov pravzaprav imamo: primerjava šestih slovenskih prevodov. In: Žele, A. (ed.): Iz jezika v jezik: slovenščina v prevodih / Slovenski slavistični kongres, Ljubljana, 23. september 2016. Ljubljana, Zveza društev Slavistično društvo Slovenije, 21–29.